[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29440-29831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06809]
[[Page 29439]]
Vol. 89
Monday,
No. 78
April 22, 2024
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 86, 1036, 1037, et al.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles--Phase 3;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 78 / Monday, April 22, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 29440]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 86, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1054, and 1065
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985; FRL-8952-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV50
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles--Phase
3
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating new
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for model year (MY) 2032 and
later heavy-duty highway vehicles that phase in starting as early MY
2027 for certain vehicle categories. The phase in revises certain MY
2027 GHG standards that were established previously under EPA's
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2 rule (``HD GHG Phase 2'').
This document also updates discrete elements of the Averaging Banking
and Trading program, including providing additional flexibilities for
manufacturers to support the implementation of the Phase 3 program
balanced by limiting the availability of certain advanced technology
credits initially established under the HD GHG Phase 2 rule. EPA is
also adding warranty requirements for batteries and other components of
zero-emission vehicles and requiring customer-facing battery state-of-
health monitors for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. In
this action, we are also finalizing additional revisions, including
clarifying and editorial amendments to certain highway heavy-duty
vehicle provisions and certain test procedures for heavy-duty engines.
DATES: This final rule is effective on June 21, 2024. The incorporation
by reference of certain material listed in this rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register beginning June 21, 2024. The
incorporation by reference of certain other material listed in this
rule was previously approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of March 27, 2023.
ADDRESSES:
Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA Docket Center,
EPA/DC, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 3334,
Washington, DC. For further information on EPA Docket Center services
and the current status, please visit us online at www.epa.gov/dockets.
Public Participation: Docket: All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form through the EPA Docket Center at the location
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Nelson, Assessment and Standards
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental
Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105;
telephone number: (734) 214-4278; email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Does this action apply to me?
This action relates to companies that manufacture, sell, or import
into the United States new heavy-duty highway vehicles and engines.
This action also relates to state and local governments. Potentially
affected categories and entities include the following:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.000
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities potentially affected by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR parts 86, 1036, 1037, 1039,
1054, and 1065.\1\ If you have questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 40 CFR 1036.1 through 1036.15 and 1037.1 through
1037.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What action is the agency taking?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating new GHG
standards for model year (MY) 2032 and later heavy-duty highway
vehicles that phase in starting as early MY 2027 for certain vehicle
categories. The phase in revises certain MY 2027 GHG standards that
were established previously under EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles--Phase 2 rule. We believe these ``Phase 3'' standards are
appropriate and feasible considering lead time, costs, and other
factors. EPA also finds that it is appropriate (1) to limit the
availability of certain advanced technology credits initially
established under the HD GHG Phase 2 rule, and (2) to include
additional flexibilities for manufacturers in applying credits from
these incentives in the early model years of this Phase 3 program. EPA
is also adding warranty requirements for batteries and other components
of zero-emission vehicles and requiring customer-facing battery state-
of-health monitors for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. We
are also finalizing
[[Page 29441]]
revisions and clarifying and editorial amendments to certain highway
heavy-duty vehicle provisions of 40 CFR part 1037 and certain test
procedures for heavy-duty engines in 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1065. We
also note that EPA included in this action's notice of proposed
rulemaking (hereafter referred to as the ``HD GHG Phase 3 NPRM'') a
proposal to revise its regulations addressing preemption of state
regulation of new locomotives and new engines used in locomotives;
those revisions were finalized in a separate action on November 8,
2023.2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles--Phase 3. 88 FR 25926, April 27,
2023.
\3\ Final Rulemaking for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines;
Preemption of State and Local Regulations. 88 FR 77004, November 8,
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the agency's authority for taking this action?
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 202(a), 42 U.S.C. 7521(a), requires
that EPA establish emission standards for air pollutants from new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which, in the Administrator's
judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The Administrator has
found that GHG emissions from highway heavy-duty vehicles and engines
cause or contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or
welfare. Therefore, the Administrator is exercising his authority under
CAA section 202(a)(1)-(2) to establish standards for GHG emissions from
highway heavy-duty vehicles. See section I.D of this preamble for more
information on the agency's authority for this action.
Did EPA conduct a peer review before issuing this action?
This regulatory action is supported by influential scientific
information. EPA, therefore, conducted peer review in accordance with
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review. First, we conducted a peer review of the
underlying data and algorithms in MOVES4 that served as the basis for
MOVES4.R3 used to estimate the emissions impacts of the final
standards. In addition, we conducted a peer review of the Heavy-Duty
Technology Resource Use Case Scenario (HD TRUCS) tool used to analyze
HD vehicle energy usage and associated component costs. We also
conducted a peer review of a Heavy-Duty Vehicle Industry
Characterization, Technology Assessment, and Costing Report developed
by FEV Consulting. All peer review was in the form of letter reviews
conducted by a contractor. The peer review reports for each analysis
are in the docket for this action and at EPA's Science Inventory
(https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/).
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
A. Purpose of This Regulatory Action
B. The Opportunity for New Standards Based on Advancements in
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Technologies Which Prevent or Control GHG
Emissions
C. Overview of the Final Regulatory Action
D. Impacts of the Standards
E. Coordination With Federal and State Partners
F. Stakeholder Engagement
I. Statutory Authority for the Final Rule
A. Summary of Key Clean Air Act Provisions
B. Authority To Consider Technologies in Setting Motor Vehicle
GHG Standards
C. Response to Other Comments Raising Legal Issues
II. Final HD Phase 3 GHG Emission Standards
A. Public Health and Welfare Need for GHG Emission Reductions
B. Summary of Comments and the HD GHG Phase 3 Standards and
Updates From Proposal
C. Background on the CO2 Emission Standards in the HD GHG Phase
2 Program
D. Vehicle Technologies and Supporting Infrastructure
E. Technology, Charging Infrastructure, and Operating Costs
F. Final Standards
G. EPA's Basis for Concluding That the Final Standards Are
Feasible and Appropriate Under the Clean Air Act
H. Alternatives Considered
I. Small Businesses
III. Compliance Provisions, Flexibilities, and Test Procedures
A. Revisions to the ABT Program
B. Battery Durability Monitoring and Warranty Requirements
C. Additional Revisions to the Regulations
IV. Program Costs
A. IRA Tax Credits
B. Technology Package Costs
C. Manufacturer Costs
D. Purchaser Costs
E. Social Costs
V. Estimated Emission Impacts From the Final Standards
A. Model Inputs
B. Estimated Emission Impacts From the Final Standards
VI. Climate, Health, Air Quality, Environmental Justice, and
Economic Impacts
A. Climate Change Impacts
B. Health and Environmental Effects Associated With Exposure to
Non-GHG Pollutants
C. Air Quality Impacts of Non-GHG Pollutants
D. Environmental Justice
E. Economic Impacts
F. Oil Imports and Electricity and Hydrogen Consumption
VII. Benefits of the Program
A. Climate Benefits
B. Non-GHG Health Benefits
C. Energy Security
VIII. Comparison of Benefits and Costs
A. Methods
B. Results
IX. Analysis of Alternative CO2 Emission Standards
A. Comparison of Final Standards and Alternative
B. Emission Inventory Comparison of Final Rule and Slower Phase-
In Alternative
C. Program Costs Comparison of the Final Rule and Alternative
D. Benefits
E. How do the final standards and alternative compare in overall
benefits and costs?
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
L. Judicial Review
M. Severability
XI. Statutory Authority and Legal Provisions
Executive Summary
A. Purpose of This Regulatory Action
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing this action
to further reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) air pollution from highway
heavy-duty (hereafter referred to as ``heavy-duty'' or HD) engines and
vehicles across the United States. This final rule establishes new
CO2 emission standards for MY 2032 and later HD vehicles
with more stringent CO2 standards phasing in as early as MY
2027 for certain vehicle categories. We have assessed and demonstrated
that these standards are appropriate and feasible considering cost,
lead time, and other relevant factors, as described throughout this
preamble and supporting materials in the docket for this final rule.
Under the
[[Page 29442]]
Clean Air Act (CAA) ``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 or new motor vehicle engines, . . . which in his judgment
cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' The regulation
``shall take effect after 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.'' Despite the significant emissions reductions
achieved by previous rulemakings, GHG emissions from HD vehicles
continue to adversely impact public health and welfare, and there is a
critical need for further GHG reductions. The transportation sector is
the largest U.S. source of GHG emissions, representing 29 percent of
total GHG emissions,\4\ and within this, heavy-duty vehicles are the
second largest contributor to GHG emissions and are responsible for 25
percent of GHG emissions in the sector.\5\ At the same time, there have
been significant advances in technologies to prevent and control GHG
emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, and we project there will be more
such advances. These final regulations appropriately take advantage of
those projected available and cost-reasonable motor vehicle
technologies to set more stringent GHG standards that will
significantly reduce GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. In
general, the final standards are less stringent than proposed for the
early model years of the program and more stringent or equivalent to
the proposed standards in later model years (expect for heavy-heavy
vocational vehicles which are less stringent in later model years; see
section ES.C.2.ii of this preamble for more details).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA (2023). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2021 (EPA-430-R-23-002, published April 2023).
\5\ EPA (2023). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2021 (EPA-430-R-23-002, published April 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHG emissions have significant adverse impacts on public health and
welfare. In 2009, the Administrator issued an Endangerment Finding
under CAA section 202(a), concluding that GHG emissions from new motor
vehicles and engines, including heavy-duty vehicles and engines, cause
or contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or
welfare.\6\ After making such a finding, EPA is mandated to issue GHG
standards ``to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new
motor vehicles.'' State of Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 533
(2007). Therefore, following the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA
promulgated GHG regulations for heavy-duty vehicles and engines in 2011
and 2016.\7\ We refer to the EPA-specific GHG regulations found within
the ``Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 1'' and ``Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2'' final rulemakings as ``HD GHG Phase 1''
and ``HD GHG Phase 2'' respectively throughout this preamble (i.e., we
are not including any reference to the Department of Transportation
(DOT) fuel efficiency standards in those rulemakings in using these
terms in this preamble). In the HD GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2 programs,
EPA set GHG emission standards that the Agency found appropriate and
feasible at that time, considering cost, lead time, and other relevant
factors, in 2011 and 2016, respectively.\8\ Meanwhile, major scientific
assessments continue to be released that further advance our
understanding of the climate system and the impacts that GHGs have on
public health and welfare both for current and future generations, as
discussed in detail in section II.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009.
\7\ 76 FR 57106, September 15, 2011; 81 FR 73478, October 25,
2016.
\8\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 1036.101(a)(2) (engines, overview of
emission standards); 40 CFR 1036.108 (engine GHG standards, exhaust
emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O); 40 CFR 1037.101(a)(2) (vehicles,
overview of emission standards); 40 CFR 1037.105 and 1037.106
(vehicle GHG standards, exhaust emissions of CO2 for vocational
vehicles and tractors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, manufacturers have continued to find ways to
further reduce and eliminate tailpipe emissions from new motor
vehicles, resulting in a range of technologies with the potential for
further significant reductions of GHG emissions from HD motor vehicles.
These include but are not limited to reductions reflecting increased
use of advanced internal combustion vehicle and engine technologies and
including increased use of hybrid technologies. These also include
technologies with the greatest potential HD vehicle GHG emission
reductions, such as battery electric vehicle technologies (BEV) and
fuel cell electric vehicle technologies (FCEV). These technologies--
which are already being adopted by the HD industry--present an
opportunity for significant reductions in heavy-duty GHG emissions over
the long term. While standards promulgated pursuant to CAA section
202(a)(1)-(2) are based on application of technology, the statute does
not specify a particular technology or technologies that must be used
to set such standards; rather, Congress has authorized and directed EPA
to adapt its standards to ``the development and application of the
requisite technology'' as determined by the Administrator.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ CAA section 202(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major trucking fleets, HD vehicle and engine manufacturers, and
U.S. states have announced plans to increase the use of these
technologies in the coming years. Tens of billions of dollars are being
invested not only in these technologies, but also to increase the
infrastructure necessary for their successful deployment, including
electric charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure, manufacturing
and production of batteries, and domestic sources of critical minerals
and other important elements of the supply chain. The 2021
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (commonly referred to as the
``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law'' or BIL) and the Inflation Reduction
Act of 2022 (``Inflation Reduction Act'' or IRA) accelerate these
ongoing trends by together including many incentives for the
development, production, and sale of a wide range of advanced
technologies (including BEVs, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs),
FCEVs, and others), electric charging infrastructure, and hydrogen,
which are expected to spur significant innovation in the heavy-duty
sector.\10\ Technical assessments and data provided by commenters
during the public comment period for this action's notice of proposed
rulemaking (hereafter referred to as the ``HD GHG Phase 3 NPRM'') as
well as comments on related rules, which proposed strengthening
existing MY 2027 GHG standards for heavy-duty vehicles, support that
significant adoption of technologies with the greatest potential to
reduce GHG emissions and associated infrastructure growth is expected
to occur over the next decade.11 12 13 14 We summarize
[[Page 29443]]
these developments in section B of this Executive Summary, and provide
further detail in section I of the HD GHG Phase 3 NPRM, section II of
this final rule, and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) Chapters 1 and
2.15 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58,
135 Stat. 429 (2021) (``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law'' or ``BIL''),
available at https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf; Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law 117-169,
136 Stat. 1818 (2022) (``Inflation Reduction Act'' or ``IRA''),
available at https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr5376/BILLS-117hr5376enr.pdf.
\11\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Control of Air Pollution
from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards. 87
FR 17414 (March 28, 2022).
\12\ U.S. EPA, ``Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards--Response to
Comments.'' Section 28. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055.
\13\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles--Phase 3. 88 FR 25926, April 27,
2023.
\14\ U.S. EPA. Response to Comments (RTC)--Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3. EPA-420-R-24-
007. March 2024.
\15\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles--Phase 3. 88 FR 25926, April 27,
2023.
\16\ U.S. EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis--Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3. EPA-420-R-24-
006. March 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, technologies for vehicles with ICE, along with a range
of electrification, exist today and continue to evolve to further
reduce and eliminate exhaust emissions from new motor vehicles. For
example, some of these technologies include improvements to the
efficiency of the engine, transmission, drivetrain, aerodynamics, and
tire rolling resistance in HD vehicles that reduce their GHG emissions.
Another example of a technology under development by manufacturers that
reduces vehicle GHG emissions is HD vehicles that use hydrogen-fueled
internal combustion engines (H2-ICE), which have zero engine-out
CO2 emissions. The heavy-duty industry has also been
developing hybrid powertrains, which consist of an ICE as well as an
electric drivetrain and some designs also incorporate plug-in
capability. Hybrid powered vehicles may provide CO2 emission
reductions through the use of downsized engines, recovering energy
through regenerative braking system that is normally lost while
braking, and providing additional engine-off operation during idling
and coasting. Hybrid powertrains are available today in a number of
heavy-duty vocational vehicles including passenger van/shuttle bus,
transit bus, street sweeper, refuse hauler, and delivery truck
applications--and as noted in the preceding paragraph, plug-in hybrid
technologies are included in advanced technology incentives under IRA.
We discuss these technology developments further in section II of this
final rule, and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) Chapters 1 and 2.
With respect to the need for GHG reductions and after consideration
of these and other heavy-duty sector developments, EPA is finalizing in
this action new CO2 emission standards for MY 2032 and later
HD vehicles with more stringent CO2 standards phasing in as
early as MY 2027 for certain vehicle categories (i.e., more stringent
than what was finalized in HD GHG Phase 2). We have assessed and
demonstrated that these standards are appropriate and feasible
considering cost, lead time, and other relevant factors, as described
throughout this preamble and supporting materials in the docket for
this final rule. EPA considers safety, consistent with CAA section
202(a)(4), and may consider other factors such as the impacts of
potential GHG standards on the industry, fuel savings, oil
conservation, energy security, and other relevant considerations. These
standards build on decades of EPA regulation of harmful pollution from
HD vehicles. Pursuant to our section 202(a) authority, EPA first
established standards for the heavy-duty sector in the 1970s. Since
then, the Agency has revised the standards multiple times based upon
updated data and information, the continued need to mitigate air
pollution, and congressional enactments directing EPA to regulate
emissions from the heavy-duty sector more stringently. Since 1985, HD
engine and vehicle manufacturers have been able to comply with
standards using averaging;\17\ EPA also introduced banking and trading
compliance flexibilities in the HD program in 1990;\18\ and EPA
explained that manufacturers could use the Averaging, Banking and
Trading (ABT) flexibilities to meet more stringent standards at lower
cost. EPA's HD GHG standards and regulations have consistently included
an ABT program from the start,\19\ and have relied on averaging as the
basis for standards of greater stringency.\20\ Since the first CAA
section 202(a) HD standards in 1972, subsequent standards have extended
to additional pollutants (e.g., particulate matter and GHGs), have
increased in stringency, and have spurred the development and
deployment of numerous new vehicle and engine technologies to reduce
pollution. For example, the Phase 2 GHG standards for HD vehicles (81
FR 73478, October 25, 2016) were projected to reduce CO2
emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons over the lifetime of
the new vehicles sold under the program (see, e.g., 81 FR 73482), and
the most recent ``criteria-pollutant''\21\ standards are projected to
reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from the in-use HD
fleet by almost 50 percent by 2045 (``Control of Air Pollution from New
Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards'' (hereafter
referred to as ``HD2027 Low NOX final rule,'' 88 FR 4296,
January 24, 2023)). This final rule builds upon EPA's multi-decadal
tradition of regulating heavy-duty vehicles and engines, by applying
the Agency's clear and longstanding statutory authority to consider the
feasibility and costs of reducing harmful pollution using new real-
world data and information, including the effects of recent
congressional action in the BIL and IRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 50 FR 10606, March 15, 1985; see also NRDC v. Thomas, 805
F.2d 410, 425 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (upholding emissions averaging in the
1985 HD final rule).
\18\ 55 FR 30584, July 26, 1990.
\19\ 76 FR 57128, September 15, 2011 (explaining ABT is a
flexibility that provides an opportunity for manufacturers to make
necessary technological improvements while reducing the overall cost
of the program); 81 FR 73495, October 25, 2016 (explaining that ABT
plays an important role in providing manufacturers flexibilities,
including helping reduce costs).
\20\ For example, in promulgating the HD GHG Phase 2 standards,
we explained that the stringency of the HD GHG Phase 2 standards
were derived on a fleet average technology mix basis and that the
emission averaging provisions of ABT meant that the regulations did
not require all vehicles to meet the standards. See, e.g., 81 FR
73715.
\21\ We refer to PM, oxides of nitrogen (NOX),
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), hydrocarbons (HC), carbon
monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), more generally as
``criteria pollutants'' throughout this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are issuing this HD vehicle GHG Phase 3 Final Rulemaking (``HD
GHG Phase 3 final rule'') which finalizes certain revised HD vehicle
carbon dioxide (CO2) standards for MY 2027 and certain new
HD vehicle CO2 standards for MYs 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, and
2032 that will achieve significant GHG reductions for these and later
model years. (Note that the MY 2032 standards will remain in place for
MY 2033 and thereafter unless and until new standards are promulgated.)
The final standards we are promulgating take into account the ongoing
technological innovation in the HD vehicle space and reflect
CO2 emission standards that we have assessed and
demonstrated are appropriate and feasible considering cost, lead time,
and other relevant factors, as described throughout this preamble and
supporting materials in the docket for this final rule.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ We note that EPA also included in the HD GHG Phase 3 NPRM a
proposal to revise its regulations addressing preemption of state
regulation of new locomotives and new engines used in locomotives;
those revisions were finalized in a separate action on November 8,
2023, and therefore are not discussed further in this final rule.
Final Rulemaking for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines; Preemption
of State and Local Regulations. 88 FR 77004, November 8, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this rulemaking, EPA did not reopen (1) the other HD GHG
standards, including nitrous oxide (N2O), methane
[[Page 29444]]
(CH4), and CO2 emission standards that apply to
heavy-duty engines and the hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emission standards
that apply to heavy-duty vehicles, (2) any portion of our heavy-duty
compliance provisions, flexibilities, and testing procedures, including
those in 40 CFR parts 1037, 1036, and 1065, other than those
specifically identified in our proposal (e.g., EPA did not reopen the
general availability of Averaging, Banking, and Trading), and (3) the
existing approach taken in both HD GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2 that
compliance with vehicle emission standards is based on emissions from
the vehicle, including that compliance with vehicle exhaust
CO2 emission standards is based on CO2 emissions
from the vehicle. We further note that we did not reopen anything on
which we did not propose or solicit comment.
B. The Opportunity for New Standards Based on Advancements in Heavy-
Duty Vehicle Technologies Which Prevent or Control GHG Emissions
1. Brief Overview of the Heavy-Duty Industry
Heavy-duty highway vehicles range from commercial pickup trucks; to
vocational vehicles that support local and regional transportation,
construction, refuse collection, and delivery work; to line-haul
tractors (semi-trucks) that move freight cross-country. This diverse
array of vehicles is categorized into weight classes based on gross
vehicle weight ratings (GVWR). These weight classes span Class 2b
pickup trucks and vans from 8,500 to 10,000 pounds GVWR through Class 8
line-haul tractors and other commercial vehicles that exceed 33,000
pounds GVWR. While Class 2b and 3 complete pickups and vans are not
included in this rulemaking, Class 2b and 3 vocational vehicles are
included in this rulemaking (as discussed further in section II.C).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Class 2b and 3 vehicles with GVWR between 8,500 and 14,000
pounds are primarily commercial pickup trucks and vans and are
sometimes referred to as ``medium-duty vehicles''. The vast majority
of Class 2b and 3 vehicles are chassis-certified vehicles, and we
included those vehicles in the proposed combined light-duty and
medium-duty rulemaking action, consistent with E.O. 14037, section
2a. Heavy-duty engines and vehicles are also used in nonroad
applications, such as construction equipment; nonroad heavy-duty
engines, equipment, and vehicles are not within the scope of this
FRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy-duty highway vehicles are powered through an array of
different means. Currently, the HD vehicle fleet is primarily powered
by diesel-fueled, compression-ignition (CI) engines. However, gasoline-
fueled, spark-ignition (SI) engines are common in the lighter weight
classes, and smaller numbers of alternative fuel engines (e.g.,
liquified petroleum gas, compressed natural gas) are found in the
heavy-duty fleet. We refer to the vehicles powered by internal
combustion engines as ICE vehicles (or ICEV) throughout this preamble.
An increasing number of HD vehicles are powered by technologies that do
not have any tailpipe emissions such as battery electric vehicle (BEV)
technologies and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). These
technologies have seen significant growth in recent years, for example,
EPA certified approximately 400 HD BEVs in MY 2020, 1,200 HD BEVs in MY
2021, and 3,400 HD BEVs in MY 2022 across several vehicle categories.
We use the term zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) technologies throughout the
preamble to refer to technologies that result in zero tailpipe
emissions, and vehicles that use these ZEV technologies we refer to
collectively as ZEVs in this preamble.\24\ Hybrid vehicles (including
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles) include energy storage features such
as batteries and also include an ICE.\25\ Further background on the HD
industry can be found in section II.D, RIA Chapter 1, and HD GHG Phase
3 NPRM section I.A.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Throughout the preamble, we use the term ZEV technologies
to refer to technologies that result in zero tailpipe emissions.
Example ZEV technologies include battery electric vehicles and fuel
cell vehicles.
\25\ Furthermore, hydrogen-powered internal combustion engines
(H2-ICE) fueled with neat hydrogen emit zero engine-out
CO2 emissions (as well as zero engine-out HC,
CH4, CO emissions). We recognize that there may be
negligible, but non-zero, CO2 emissions at the tailpipe
of H2-ICE that use selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
aftertreatment systems and are fueled with neat hydrogen due to
contributions from the aftertreatment system from urea
decomposition. As further explained in preamble section III, H2-ICE
are considered to emit near zero CO2 emissions under our
part 1036 regulations and are deemed zero under out part 1037
regulations, consistent with our treatment of CO2
emissions that are attributable to the aftertreatment systems in
compression-ignition ICEs. H2-ICE also emit certain criteria
pollutants. H2-ICE are not included in what we refer to collectively
as ZEVs throughout this final rule. Note, NOX and PM
emission testing is required under existing 40 CFR part 1036 for
engines fueled with neat hydrogen.
\26\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles--Phase 3. 88 FR 25926, April 27,
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The industry that designs and manufactures HD vehicles is composed
of three primary segments: vehicle manufacturers, engine manufacturers
and other major component manufacturers, and secondary manufacturers
(i.e., body builders). Some vehicle manufacturers are vertically
integrated (designing, developing, and testing their engines in-house
for use in their vehicles). Others purchase some or all of their
engines from independent engine suppliers. At the time of this
rulemaking, only one major independent engine manufacturer supports the
HD industry, though some vehicle manufacturers sell their engines or
``incomplete vehicles'' (i.e., a chassis that includes the engine, the
frame, and a transmission) to body builders who design and assemble the
final vehicle. Each of these subindustries is often supported by common
suppliers for subsystems such as transmissions, axles, engine controls,
and emission controls.
In addition to the manufacturers and suppliers responsible for
producing HD vehicles, an extended network of dealerships, repair and
service facilities, and rebuilding facilities contributes to the sale,
maintenance, and extended life of these vehicles and engines. HD
vehicle dealerships offer customers a place to order such vehicles from
a specific manufacturer and often include service facilities for those
vehicles and their engines. Dealership service technicians are
generally trained to perform regular maintenance and make repairs,
which generally include repairs under warranty and in response to
manufacturer recalls. Some trucking fleets, businesses, and large
municipalities hire their own technicians to service their vehicles in
their own facilities. Many refueling centers along major trucking
routes have also expanded their facilities to include roadside
assistance and service stations to diagnose and repair common problems.
The end-users for HD vehicles are as diverse as the applications
for which these vehicles are purchased. Smaller weight class HD
vehicles are commonly purchased by delivery services, contractors, and
municipalities. The middle weight class vehicles tend to be used as
commercial vehicles for business purposes and municipal work that
transport people and goods locally and regionally or provide services
such as utilities. Vehicles in the heaviest weight classes are
generally purchased by businesses with high load demands, such as
construction, towing or refuse collection, or freight delivery fleets
and owner-operators for regional and long-haul goods movement. The
competitive nature of the businesses and owner-operators that purchase
and operate HD vehicles means that any time at which the vehicle is
unable to operate due to maintenance or repair (i.e., downtime) can
lead to a loss in income. The customers' need for reliability drives
much of the vehicle manufacturers' innovation and research efforts.
[[Page 29445]]
2. History of Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines
and Vehicles
EPA has a longstanding practice of regulating GHG emissions from
the HD sector. In 2009, EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation's
(DOT's) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began
working on a coordinated regulatory program to reduce GHG emissions and
fuel consumption from HD vehicles and engines.\27\ The first phase of
the HD GHG and fuel efficiency program was finalized in 2011 (76 FR
57106, September 15, 2011) (``HD GHG Phase 1'').\28\ The HD GHG Phase 1
program set performance-based standards and largely adopted approaches
consistent with recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences.
The HD GHG Phase 1 program, which began in MY 2014 and was phased in
through MY 2018, included separate standards for HD vehicles and HD
engines. The program offered flexibility allowing manufacturers to
attain these standards through any mix of technologies and the option
to participate in an ABT program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty vehicles are
primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), but also include methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and
hydrofluorocarbons (HFC).
\28\ National Research Council; Transportation Research Board.
The National Academies' Committee to Assess Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles; ``Technologies and
Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Vehicles.'' 2010. Available online: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12845/technologies-and-approaches-to-reducing-the-fuel-consumption-of-medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, EPA and NHTSA finalized the HD GHG Phase 2 program.\29\
The HD GHG Phase 2 program included more stringent, performance-based
emission standards for HD vehicles and HD engines that phase in over
the long term, with initial standards for most vehicles and engines
commencing in MY 2021, increasing in stringency in MY 2024, and
culminating in even more stringent MY 2027 standards. HD GHG Phase 2
built upon the Phase 1 program and set standards based not only on
then-currently available technologies, but also on technologies that
were either still under development or not yet widely deployed at the
time of the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule. To ensure adequate time for
technology development, HD GHG Phase 2 provided up to 10 years lead
time to allow for the development and phase-in of these control
technologies. EPA recently finalized technical amendments to the HD GHG
Phase 2 rulemaking (``HD Technical Amendments'') that included changes
to the test procedures for heavy-duty engines and vehicles to improve
accuracy and reduce testing burden.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 81 FR 73478, October 25, 2016.
\30\ 86 FR 34308, June 29, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with the previous HD GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules and light-
duty GHG rules, EPA has coordinated with the DOT and NHTSA during the
development of this final rule. This included coordination prior to and
during the interagency review conducted under E.O. 12866. EPA has also
consulted with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) during the
development of this final rule, as EPA also did during the development
of the HD GHG Phase 1 and 2 and light-duty rules. See section ES.E of
this preamble for additional detail on EPA's coordination with DOT/
NHTSA, additional Federal agencies, and CARB.
3. What has changed since EPA finalized the HD GHG Phase 2 rule?
i. Technology Advancements
When EPA promulgated the HD GHG Phase 2 rule in 2016, the agency
established the CO2 standards on the premise of GHG-reducing
technologies for vehicles with ICE including technologies such as
hybrid powertrains. However, in 2016 we projected that ZEV
technologies, such as BEVs and FCEVs, would become more widely
available in the heavy-duty market over time, but would not be
available and cost-competitive in significant volume in the timeframe
of the Phase 2 program. EPA finalized BEV, PHEV, and FCEV advanced
technology credit multipliers to encourage the development and
availability of these advanced technologies at a faster pace because of
their potential for large GHG emissions reductions.
Several significant developments have occurred since 2016 that
point to ZEV technologies becoming more readily available much sooner
than EPA had previously projected for the HD sector. These developments
are summarized here, but more detail can be found in the section II and
HD GHG NPRM section ES.B or I.C).\31\ These developments support the
feasibility of ZEV technologies and render adoption of ZEV technologies
to reduce GHG emissions more cost-competitive than ever before. First,
the HD market has evolved such that early ZEV models are in use today
for some applications and are expected to expand to many more; costs of
ZEV technologies have gone down and are projected to continue to fall;
and manufacturers have announced and begun to implement plans to
rapidly increase their investments in ZEV technologies over the next
decade. While some HD vehicle manufacturers and firms that purchase HD
fleets cautioned in comments that such announcements may change,
several HD vehicle manufacturers also commented that their MYs 2024-
2027 production plans include ZEVs for their planned compliance with
the previously promulgated Phase 2 standards.\32\ In 2022 and 2023,
there were several manufacturers producing fully electric HD vehicles
for use in a variety of applications, and these volumes are expected to
rise (see RIA Chapter 1.5). The cost to manufacture lithium-ion
batteries (the single most expensive component of a BEV) has dropped
significantly in the past eight years, and that cost is projected to
continue to fall during this decade, all while the performance of the
batteries (in terms of energy density) improves.\33\ \34\ Many of the
manufacturers that produce HD vehicles and major firms that purchase HD
vehicles have announced billions of dollars' worth of investments in
ZEV technologies and significant plans to transition to a zero-carbon
fleet over the next ten to fifteen years.35 36 37 See
section II.D of this preamble, RIA Chapter 1, and HD GHG NPRM section
I.C.1 for further information.\38\ Furthermore, we also have seen
development of technologies such as H2-ICE that also will significantly
reduce CO2 emissions from HD vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles--Phase 3. 88 FR 25926, April 27,
2023.
\32\ See RTC section 10.3.1.
\33\ Mulholland, Eamonn. ``Cost of electric commercial vans and
pickup trucks in the United States through 2040.'' Page 7. January
2022. Available at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/cost-ev-vans-pickups-us-2040-jan22.pdf.
\34\ Sharpe, Ben and Hussein Basma. ``A meta-study of purchase
costs for zero-emission trucks''. The International Council on Clean
Transportation, Working Paper 2022-09 (February 2022). Available
online: https://theicct.org/publication/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22.
\35\ Environmental Defense Fund (2022) September 2022 Electric
Vehicle Market Update: Manufacturer Commitments and Public Policy
Initiatives Supporting Electric Mobility in the U.S. and Worldwide,
available online at: https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/09/ERM-EDF-Electric-Vehicle-Market-Report_September2022.pdf.
\36\ EDF Comments to the HD GHG Phase 3 NPRM. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1644-A1.
\37\ Heavy Duty Trucking Staff, `Autocar, GM to Produce Fuel-
Cell Electric Vocational Trucks,' Trucking Info (December 11, 2023).
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10211875/autocar-and-gm-announce-electric-truck-joint-venture.
\38\ 88 FR 25926, April 27, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, in enacting the 2021 BIL and the 2022 IRA laws, Congress
chose to provide significant and unprecedented
[[Page 29446]]
monetary incentives for the production and purchase of qualified ZEVs
in the HD market, as well as certain key components. These laws also
provide incentives for qualifying electric charging infrastructure and
for clean hydrogen production and refueling infrastructure, which will
further support a rapid increase in market penetration of HD ZEVs. As a
few examples, BIL provisions include $5 billion to fund the replacement
of school buses with clean and zero- or low-emission buses (EPA's
``Clean School Bus Program'') and over $5.5 billion to support the
purchase of zero- or low-emission transit buses and associated
infrastructure, with up to $7.5 billion to help build out a national
network of EV charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure through
DOT's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), some of which can be used
for refueling of heavy-duty vehicles.\39\ The IRA creates a tax credit
available from calendar year (CY) 2023 through CY 2032 of up to $40,000
per vehicle for vehicles over 14,000 pounds (and up to $7,500 per
vehicle for vehicles under 14,000 pounds) for the purchase of qualified
commercial clean vehicles; provides tax credits available from CY 2023
through CY 2032 (phasing down starting in CY 2030) for the production
and sale of battery cells and modules of up to $45 per kilowatt-hour
(kWh); and also provides tax credits for 10 percent of the cost of
producing applicable critical minerals (including those found in
batteries and fuel cells, provided that the minerals meet certain
specifications), when such components or minerals are produced in the
United States. The IRA also modifies an existing tax credit that
applies to alternative fuel refueling property (e.g., electric vehicle
chargers and hydrogen fueling stations) and extends the tax credit
through CY 2032; starting in CY 2023, this provision provides a tax
credit of up to 30 percent of the cost of the qualified alternative
fuel refueling property (e.g., HD BEV charging and hydrogen refueling
equipment) and up to $100,000 per item when located in low-income or
non-urban area census tracts and certain other requirements are met.
Further, the IRA includes the ``Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles'' program,
which includes $400 million to make awards to eligible recipients/
contractors that propose to replace eligible vehicles to serve one or
more communities located in an air quality area designated pursuant to
CAA section 107 as nonattainment for any air pollutant, in fiscal year
(FY) 2022 and available through FY 2031. The IRA also includes the
``Grants to Reduce Air Pollution at Ports'' program, which appropriates
$3 billion ($750 million of which is for projects located in areas of
nonattainment for any air pollutant) in FY 2022 and available through
FY 2027, to reduce air pollution at ports. These are only a few
examples of a wide array of incentives in both laws that will help to
reduce the costs to manufacture, purchase, and operate ZEVs, thereby
bolstering their adoption in the market. See section II.E.4 of this
preamble, RIA Chapter 1, and HD GHG NPRM section I.C.2 for further
information.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ While jurisdictions are not required to build stations
specifically for heavy-duty vehicles, FHWA's guidance encourages
states to consider station designs and power levels that could
support heavy-duty vehicles. U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration. ``National Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Formula Program: Bipartisan Infrastructure Law--
Program Guidance (Update)''. June 2, 2023. Available online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/formula_prog_guid/90d_nevi_formula_program_guidance.pdf.
\40\ 88 FR 25926, April 27, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, there have been multiple actions by states to accelerate the
adoption of HD ZEV technologies. As of February 15, 2023, the State of
California and ten other states have adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks
(ACT) program that includes a manufacturer requirement for zero-
emission truck sales, and CAA section 177 empowers additional states to
adopt California's ACT program if they wish.\41\ \42\ \43\ The ACT
program requires that ``manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or
complete vehicles with combustion engines would be required to sell
zero-emission or near-zero emission such as plug-in hybrid trucks as an
increasing percentage of their annual [state] sales from 2024 to
2035.''\44\ \45\ In addition, 17 states plus the District of Columbia
and Quebec (in Canada) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding
establishing goals to support widespread electrification of the HD
vehicle market.\46\ See RIA Chapter 1 and HD GHG NPRM section I.C.3 for
further information.\47\ While independent of EPA's section 202
standards, these efforts nonetheless indicate the interest at the state
level for increasing electrification of the HD vehicle market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ California Air Resources Board, Final Regulation Order--
Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation. Filed March 15, 2021. Available
at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/fro2.pdf.
\42\ Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts
adopted ACT beginning in MY 2025 while Vermont and New Mexico
adopted ACT beginning in MY 2026, and Colorado, Maryland, and Rhode
Island in MY 2027.
\43\ California Air Resources Board. States that have Adopted
California's Vehicle Regulations. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/states-have-adopted-californias-vehicle-regulations; See also, e.g., Final
Advanced Clean Truck Amendments, 1461 Mass. Reg. 29 (January 21,
2022) (Massachusetts).; Medium- and Heavy-Duty (MHD) Zero Emission
Truck Annual Sales Requirements and Large Entity Reporting, 44 N.Y.
Reg. 8 (January 19, 2022) (New York), available at https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/01/011922.pdf.; Advanced
Clean Trucks Program and Fleet Reporting Requirements, 53 N.J.R.
2148(a) (December 20, 2021) (New Jersey), available at https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adoptions/adopt_20211220a.pdf (pre-publication
version); Clean Trucks Rule 2021, DEQ-17-2021 (November 17, 2021),
available at http://records.sos.state.or.us/ORSOSWebDrawer/Recordhtml/8581405 (Oregon); Low emission vehicles, Wash. Admin.
Code 173-423-070 (2021), available at https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-423-070; 2021 Wash. Reg. 587356 (December 15,
2021); Wash. Reg. 21-24-059 (November 29, 2021) (amending Wash.
Admin. Code 173-423 and 173-400), available at https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsrpdf/2021/24/21-24-059.pdf
(Washington); ``More electric, hydrogen, and hybrid passenger and
commercial vehicles coming to New Mexico starting in 2026'' https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-11-16-COMMS-More-electric-hydrogen-and-hybrid-passenger-and-commercial-vehicles-coming-to-New-Mexico-starting-in-2026-Final.pdf.
\44\ California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Trucks Fact
Sheet (August 20, 2021), available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/advanced-clean-trucks-fact-sheet. See also
California Air Resources Board, Final Regulation Order--Advanced
Clean Trucks Regulation. Filed March 15, 2021. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/fro2.pdf.
\45\ EPA granted the ACT rule waiver requested by California
under CAA section 209(b) on March 30, 2023. 88 FR 20688, April 6,
2023 (signed by the Administrator on March 30, 2023).
\46\ Multi-State MOU (July 2022), available at https://www.nescaum.org/documents/multi-state-medium-and-heavy-duty-zev-action-plan.pdf. States include California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Virginia, and Washington.
\47\ 88 FR 25926, April 27, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Development of a HD GHG Phase 3 Program
Recognizing the need for additional GHG reductions from HD vehicles
and the growth of advanced HD vehicle technologies, including ZEV
technologies, EPA believes this increased application of technologies
in the HD sector that prevent and control GHG emissions from HD
vehicles presents an opportunity to strengthen GHG standards, which can
result in significant reductions in heavy-duty vehicle emissions. Based
on an in-depth analysis of the potential for the development and
application of such technologies in the HD sector, in April 2023 we
proposed in the HD GHG Phase 3 NPRM GHG standards for MYs 2027 through
2032 and later HD vehicles more stringent than the Phase 2 GHG
standards.\48\ The proposed Phase 3
[[Page 29447]]
standards included (1) revised GHG standards for many MY 2027 HD
vehicles, with a subset of standards that we did not propose to change,
and (2) new GHG standards starting in MYs 2028 through 2032, of which
the MY 2032 standards would remain in place for MYs 2033 and later. In
the HD GHG Phase 3 NPRM, EPA requested comment on setting more
stringent GHG standards beyond the MYs proposed for MYs 2033 through
2035. EPA also requested comment on an alternative set of GHG standards
for MYs 2027 through 2032 that were less stringent than those proposed
yet still more stringent than the Phase 2 standards. We also requested
comment, including supporting data and analysis, as to whether there
are certain market segments, such as heavy-haul vocational trucks or
long-haul tractors which may require significant energy content for
their intended use, for which it may be appropriate to set standards
less stringent than the alternative for the specific corresponding
regulatory subcategories in order to provide additional lead time to
develop and introduce ZEV or other low emission HD vehicle technologies
for those specific vehicle applications. In consideration of the
environmental impacts of HD vehicles and the need for significant
emission reductions, we also requested comment on a more stringent set
of GHG standards starting in MYs 2027 through 2032 whose values would
go beyond the proposed standards, such as values that would be
comparable to the stringency levels in California's ACT program, values
in between these proposed standards and those that would be comparable
to stringency levels in ACT, and values beyond those that would be
comparable to stringency levels in ACT, such as stringency levels
comparable to the 50-60 percent ZEV adoption range represented by the
publicly stated goals of several major original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) for 2030.49 50 51 52 53 Finally, after considering
the state of the HD market, new incentives, and comments received on
the HD2027 NPRM regarding Advanced Technology Credit Multipliers
(``credit multipliers'') under the HD GHG Phase 2 program, EPA proposed
to end credit multipliers for BEVs and PHEVs one year earlier than
provided in the existing HD GHG Phase 2 program (i.e., no credit
multipliers for BEVs and PHEVs in MYs 2027 and later).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 88 FR 25926, April 27, 2003.
\49\ California Air Resources Board, Final Regulation Order--
Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation. Filed March 15, 2021. Available
at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/fro2.pdf.
\50\ Scania, `Scania's Electrification Roadmap,' Scania Group,
November 24, 2021, https://www.scania.com/group/en/home/newsroom/news/2021/Scanias-electrification-roadmap.html.
\51\ AB Volvo, `Volvo Trucks Launches Electric Truck with Longer
Range,' Volvo Group, January 14, 2022, https://www.volvogroup.com/en/news-and-media/news/2022/jan/news-4158927.html.
\52\ Deborah Lockridge, `What Does Daimler Truck Spin-off Mean
for North America?,' Trucking Info (November 11, 2021). https://www.truckinginfo.com/10155922/what-does-daimler-truck-spin-off-mean-for-north-america.
\53\ Navistar presentation at the Advanced Clean Transportation
(ACT) Expo, Long Beach, CA (May 9-11, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final standards and requirements we are promulgating in this
action are based on further consideration of the data and analyses
included in the proposed rule, additional supporting data and analyses
we conducted in support of this final rule, and consideration of the
extensive public input EPA received in response to the proposed rule.
These considerations and analyses are described in detail throughout
this preamble, the RIA, and the Response to Comments document (RTC)
accompanying this preamble, found in the docket to this rule (EPA-HQ-
OAR_2022-0985). In the remainder of this section, we summarize the
final program and key changes from the proposal in the section
immediately following, followed by a summary of the impacts of the
standards, EPA's statutory authority, and coordination with partners
and stakeholders.
C. Overview of the Final Regulatory Action
EPA carefully considered input from stakeholders, as discussed
throughout this preamble and in our accompanying RTC. This preamble
section contains an overview of stakeholders' key concerns, an overview
of how EPA has adjusted approaches in the final rule after further
consideration, and an overview of the final standards. More detailed
discussion of the final rule and key comments and EPA's consideration
of them is included in the rest of the preamble, and the RTC contains
detailed comment excerpts, comment summaries and EPA's responses.
1. Overview of Stakeholder Positions on Standards' Stringency
EPA's HD GHG Phase 3 Proposed Rule was signed by Administrator
Michael Regan on April 11, 2023, and published in the Federal Register
on April 27, 2023 (88 FR 25926). EPA held two days of public hearings
on May 2 and 3, 2023, and the public comment period ended on June 16,
2023. EPA received over 172,000 comments in the public docket, of which
over 230 had detailed comments. In addition, 185 people testified over
the two-day public hearing period and EPA held dozens of follow-up
meetings with a broad range of stakeholders including environmental
justice (EJ) stakeholders, labor unions, manufacturers, fleets, truck
dealerships, power sector-related organizations, environmental and
public health non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and states.
Memoranda regarding these meetings are in the rulemaking docket.
We note that very generally, in comments on the NPRM stakeholders
demonstrated strong and opposing views on major issues, including:
stringency of the standards, the rate of increasing stringency of the
standards year over year from early model years to later model years,
availability and readiness of future ZEV infrastructure, availability
of minerals critical to battery production and assurance of supply
chain readiness for those materials, impact of the IRA tax credits, and
key elements of EPA's analysis such as technical feasibility, costs of
ZEV technologies, and other elements. For example, many commenters
representing environmental NGOs, public health NGOs, environmental
justice organizations, front-line communities and some state and local
governments supported standards that would be more stringent than our
proposed standards in terms of both stringency level and year-over-year
pacing of increased stringency, with many supporting standards
comparable with stringency levels used in California's ACT program, and
some supporting even higher levels (e.g., 100 percent ZEVs by 2035). A
number of these commenters provided EPA with technical analyses and
data to support their view that infrastructure necessary to support
ZEVs is projected to be ready within the rule time frame, and that
there would be sufficient critical minerals as well, such that
standards more stringent than those EPA proposed are feasible.
Generally, many of these commenters included various technical
submissions on how EPA purportedly underestimated ZEV feasibility and
adoption, underestimated the impacts of the BIL and IRA in contributing
to the further development of the ZEV market, and overestimated ZEV-
related costs--which, they argue when accounted for, would have led EPA
to consider standards that are more stringent than those proposed.
Citing the public health and environmental needs for pollutant
reductions that can be achieved with ZEV technology, especially in
places such as fence-line and overburdened
[[Page 29448]]
communities, many of these commenters also suggested more stringent or
faster pacing of standards for specific subcategories of vehicles such
as tractors, school/transit buses, etc. These commenters generally
supported EPA's proposed elimination of credit multipliers for BEVs and
PHEVs one year earlier than provided in the existing HD GHG Phase 2
program and some asked EPA to finalize even further limitations of the
credit multipliers. EPA requested comment on what, if any, additional
information and data EPA should consider collecting and monitoring
during the implementation of the Phase 3 standards, including with
respect to the important issues of refueling and charging
infrastructure for ZEVs; on this topic, this general set of commenters
expressed strong opposition to any action EPA would take to create a
regulatory self-adjusting link between such monitoring and amending
standards to decrease their stringency.
In stark contrast, commenters representing many truck
manufacturers, owners, fleets, and dealers, along with some labor
groups and some states, voiced support for standards less stringent
than even the lowest levels of stringency on which we requested comment
in the proposal, i.e., considerably less stringent than the alternative
presented in the HD GHG Phase 3 NPRM. A few commenters representing
certain truck manufacturers supported the proposed MY 2032 standards
but were concerned about the stringency of the early model year
standards. Many commenters representing truck manufacturers, owners,
fleets, and dealers opposed any revision to the model year 2027
standards and, even at lower overall stringency levels, voiced support
for a much more gradual pace of increasing stringency of the
standards--with some suggesting standards not commencing until model
years 2030 and 2033. Part of their argument is that Phase 2 established
GHG vehicle and engine standards for MY 2027 which are challenging, and
manufacturers have made compliance plans to meet those standards. In
their view, amending those MY 2027 standards cuts against these plans.
These commenters also state that, although manufacturers intend to
introduce ZEVs in larger numbers over time (and have invested billions
of dollars already to do so),\54\ there is too much uncertainty
regarding availability of supporting electrification (or hydrogen)
infrastructure, critical minerals, and supply chains to increase the
stringency of the MY 2027 standards. Some of these commenters further
asserted that the CAA mandates four years of lead time and three years
of standard stability for revisions of heavy-duty vehicle and engine
emissions standards for any pollutant, including GHGs, citing CAA
section 202(a)(3)(B) and (C). A number of these commenters provided EPA
with technical analyses and data to support their view that ZEV
infrastructure would fall far short of what would be needed to support
ZEV adoption levels presented in the potential compliance pathway on
which the proposed standards were predicated, and that critical
minerals would remain a limitation to ZEV growth in the HD sector.
Generally, many of these commenters included various technical
submissions on how EPA purportedly overestimated ZEV adoption,
overestimated the impacts of the BIL and IRA in contributing to the
further development of the ZEV market, and underestimated ZEV-related
costs. Citing the concerns that unexpectedly slow infrastructure
development could impact manufacturers' ability to comply with Phase 3,
a number of these commenters called for EPA to conduct extensive
monitoring of post-rule infrastructure buildout and further suggested
that EPA establish mechanisms for the standards to self-adjust to
become less stringent if the infrastructure deployment was found to be
insufficient. These commenters generally opposed EPA's proposed
elimination of credit multipliers for BEVs and PHEVs one year earlier
than provided in the existing HD GHG Phase 2 program and some asked for
an extension of certain technology credit multipliers beyond MY 2027.
The commenters representing certain truck manufacturers who supported
the proposed MY 2032 standards but expressed concern with early model
year standards more specifically cited the early MY standards as being
too stringent and progressing in stringency at too steep of an increase
given uncertainties associated with sufficiency of supportive
electrical infrastructure in the program's initial years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See, for example, comments from the Truck and Engine
Manufactures (EMA), EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters from the petroleum industry and others challenged EPA's
authority to issue the proposed standards at all.\55\ Terming the
proposal a ``ZEV mandate,'' they asserted that the question of whether
EPA has authority to issue standards reflecting performance of
different vehicle powertrains under the CAA implicates the Major
Questions Doctrine, and assert that CAA section 202(a) does not contain
the correspondingly requisite clear statement authorizing EPA to do so.
These commenters also assert that EPA predicating the proposed
standards on averaging under the ABT program, such that vehicles with
zero tailpipe emissions purportedly must be averaged with emitting
vehicles for manufacturers to be able to meet the standards, is beyond
EPA's authority. These commenters stated they were asserting this lack
of authority both because, in their view, such averaging implicates the
Major Questions Doctrine and EPA lacks a clear statement of
authorization from Congress to do so, and because, in their view,
averaging and the ABT program are inconsistent with CAA statutory
provisions for certification, warranty, and civil penalties, all of
which they state contemplate individualized determinations, not
determinations on average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See, for example, comments from American Free Enterprise
Chamber of Commerce, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA heard from some representatives from the heavy-duty vehicle
manufacturing industry both optimism regarding the heavy-duty
industry's ability to produce ZEV applications in future years at high
volume, but also concern that a slow deployment of electrification
infrastructure (magnitude of potential upgrades to the electrical
distribution system necessary to support depot charging, and public
charging infrastructure) could slow the growth of heavy-duty ZEV
adoption, and that this may present challenges for vehicle
manufacturers' ability to comply with EPA HD GHG Phase 3 standards.
Concerns about uncertainties relating to supporting infrastructure
included: limited nature of today's HD charging infrastructure, the
magnitude of buildout of electrical distribution systems necessary to
support (BEVs especially in the early model years of the program), the
cost and length of time needed for infrastructure buildout, a chicken-
egg dynamic whereby prospective BEV purchasers will not act until
assured of adequate supporting infrastructure, and utilities will not
build out the infrastructure without assurance of demand, and the lack
of availability of hydrogen infrastructure. Some commenters further
noted that fleets and owners will be reluctant to buy, or may cancel
orders for, ZEVs, if/when ZEV infrastructure is a barrier. Commenters
raised these concerns on top of those voiced by some
[[Page 29449]]
manufacturers that more lead time is needed for product development,
especially given uncertainty regarding purchasers' decisions, noting
customer reluctance to utilize an unfamiliar technology, and asserted
barriers associated with limited range and cargo penalty due to need
for large batteries. These comments are discussed in more detail in
section II and in Chapters 6, 7, and 8 of the RTC.
2. Overview of Consideration of Key Concerns From Stakeholders and the
Final Standards
i. Improvements to EPA's Technical and Infrastructure Analyses
EPA considered the wide-ranging perspectives, data and analyses
submitted in support of stakeholder positions, as well as new studies
and data that became available after the proposal. As a consequence,
EPA believes that the technical analyses supporting the final rule are
improved and more robust. For example, in our technology analysis tool
(HD TRUCS, see section II of this preamble) we have adjusted our
battery and other component cost assumptions, revised vehicle
efficiency values, refined the battery sizing determination, added
public charging, increased depot charging costs and diesel prices,
added Federal excise tax (FET) and state tax, increased charging
equipment installation costs, included more charger sharing, and
increased hydrogen fuel costs. Based on consideration of feedback from
commenters, in HD TRUCS we also adjusted the technology payback
schedule using a publicly-available model. After consideration of
comment (and as EPA signaled at proposal), we also have adjusted our
analytical baseline by increasing the amount of ZEV adoption in our
``no-action'' scenario (i.e., without this rule) to reflect ZEV
adoption required by California's ACT program, as well as further ZEV
adoption in other states. These and many more updates described
throughout this preamble and the RIA strengthen the analyses supporting
the final standards.
We also improved our analysis of infrastructure readiness and cost
by including projected needed upgrades to the electricity distribution
system under our potential compliance pathway in our analysis. As
described in section II of this preamble, our improved analysis of
charging infrastructure needs and costs supports the feasibility of the
future growth of ZEV technology of the magnitude EPA is projecting in
this final rule's potential compliance pathway's technology packages.
EPA further notes that we recognize that charging and refueling
infrastructure for BEVs and FCEVs is necessary for success in the
increasing development and adoption of those vehicle technologies
(further discussed in section II and RIA Chapters 1 and 2). There are
significant efforts already underway to develop and expand heavy-duty
vehicle electric charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure. The
U.S. government is making large investments through the BIL and the
IRA, as discussed in more detail in RIA Chapter 1.3 (e.g., this
includes a tax credit for charging or hydrogen refueling infrastructure
as well as billions of additional dollars for programs that could help
fund charging infrastructure if purchased alongside an electric
vehicle).56 57 Private investments will also play a critical
role in meeting future infrastructure needs, as discussed in more
detail in RIA Chapter 1.6. We expect many BEV or fleet owners to invest
in depot-based charging infrastructure (see RIA Chapter 2.6 for
information on our analysis of charging needs and costs).
Manufacturers, charging network providers, energy companies and others
are also investing in high-power public or other stations that will
support public charging. For example, Daimler Truck North America is
partnering with electric power generation company NextEra Energy
Resources and BlackRock Renewable Power to collectively invest $650
million to create a nationwide U.S. charging network for commercial
vehicles with a later phase of the project also supporting hydrogen
fueling stations.\58\ Volvo Group and Pilot announced their intent to
offer public charging for medium- and heavy-duty BEVs at priority
locations throughout the network of 750 Pilot and Flying J North
American truck stops and travel plazas.\59\ A recent assessment by
Atlas Public Policy estimated that $30 billion in public and private
investments had been committed as of the end of 2023 specifically for
charging infrastructure for medium- and heavy-duty BEVs.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Inflation Reduction Act, Public Law 117-169 (2022).
\57\ Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat.
429 (2021).
\58\ NextEra Energy. News Release: ``Daimler Truck North
America, NextEra Energy Resources and BlackRock Renewable Power
Announce Plans to Accelerate Public Charging Infrastructure for
Commercial Vehicles Across The U.S.'' January 31, 2022. Available
online: https://newsroom.nexteraenergy.com/news-releases?item=123840.
\59\ Adler, Alan. ``Pilot and Volvo Group add to public electric
charging projects.'' FreightWaves. November 16, 2022. Available
online: https://www.freightwaves.com/news/pilot-and-volvo-group-add-to-public-electric-charging-projects.
\60\ Lepre, Nicole. ``Estimated $30 Billion Committed to Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Charging Infrastructure in the United States.'' Atlas
Public Policy. EV Hub. January 26, 2024. Available online:https://www.atlasevhub.com/data_story/estimated-30-billion-committed-to-medium-and-heavy-duty-charging-infrastructure-in-the-united-states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic manufacturing capacity is also increasing. Department of
Energy (DOE) estimates over $500 million in announced investments have
been made to support the domestic manufacturing of BEV charging
equipment, with companies planning to produce more than one million BEV
chargers in the U.S. each year.61 62 Workforce development
is on the rise. For example, the Siemens Foundation announced they will
invest $30 million over ten years focused on the EV charging
sector.\63\ As of early 2023, about 20,000 people had been certified
through a national Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training
Program.64 65 These important early actions and market
indicators suggest strong growth in charging and refueling ZEV
infrastructure in the coming years. See RIA Chapters 1.3 and 1.6 for
more information on public and private investments in charging
infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ DOE, ``Building America's Clean Energy Future''. 2024.
Available online: https://www.energy.gov/invest.
\62\ U.S. Department of Energy, Vehicle Technologies Office.
``FOTW #1314, October 30, 2023: Manufacturers Have Announced
Investments of Over $500 million in More Than 40 American-Made
Electric Vehicle Charger Plants''. October 30, 2023. Available
online:https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1314-october-30-2023-manufacturers-have-announced-investments-over-500.
\63\ Lienert, Paul. ``Siemens to invest $30 million to train
U.S. EV charger technicians''. Reuters. September 6, 2023. Available
online: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/siemens-invest-30-million-train-us-ev-charger-technicians-2023-09-06.
\64\ IBEW. ``IBEW Members Answer Call for National Electric
Vehicle Program''. April 2023. Available online:https://www.ibew.org/articles/23ElectricalWorker/EW2304/Politics.0423.html.
\65\ The White House. ``FACT SHEET: Biden Harris Administration
Announces New Standards and Major Progress for a Made-in-America
National Network of EV Chargers.'' February 15, 2023. Available
online:https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/02/15/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-standards-and-major-progress-for-a-made-in-america-national-network-of-electric-vehicle-chargers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Summary of Final Standards
Our improved analyses for the final rule continue to show that it
is appropriate and feasible to revise the MY 2027 standards promulgated
under the HD GHG Phase 2 program for most vehicles, and to set new
standards for MYs 2028 through 2032 with year-over-
[[Page 29450]]
year increases in stringency. In consideration of the opposing concerns
raised by commenters, EPA believes it is critical to balance the public
health and welfare need for GHG emissions reductions over the long term
with the time needed for product development and manufacturing as well
as infrastructure development in the near term. After further
consideration of the lead times necessary to support both the vehicle
technologies' development and deployment and the infrastructure needed,
as applicable, under the potential compliance pathway's technology
packages described in section ES.C.2.iii, EPA is finalizing GHG
emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles that, compared to the
proposed standards, include less stringent standards for all vehicle
categories in MYs 2027, 2028, 2029, and 2030. The final standards
increase in stringency at a slower pace through MYs 2027 to 2030
compared to the proposal, and day cab tractor standards start in MY
2028 and heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles start in MY 2029 (we
proposed Phase 3 standards for day cabs and heavy heavy-duty vocational
vehicles starting in MY 2027). As proposed, the final standards for
sleeper cabs start in MY 2030 but are less stringent than proposed in
that year and in MY 2031, and equivalent in stringency to the proposed
standards in MY 2032. Our updated analyses for the final rule show that
model years 2031 and 2032 GHG standards in the range of those we
requested comment on in the HD GHG Phase 3 NPRM are feasible and
appropriate considering feasibility, lead time, cost, and other
relevant factors as described throughout this preamble and particularly
section II. Specifically, we are finalizing MY 2031 standards that are
on par with the proposal for light and medium heavy-duty vocational
vehicles and day cab tractors. Heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicle
final standards are less stringent than proposed for all model years,
including 2031 and 2032. For MY 2032, we are finalizing more stringent
standards than proposed for light and medium heavy-duty vocational
vehicles and day cab tractors. Our assessment is that setting this
level of standards starting in MY 2032 achieves meaningful GHG emission
reductions at reasonable cost, and that heavy-duty vehicle
technologies, charging and refueling infrastructure, and critical
minerals and related supply chains will be available to support this
level of stringency (as many commenters agreed with and provided
technical information to support). Our assessment of the final program
as a whole is that it takes a balanced and measured approach while
still applying meaningful requirements in MY 2027 and later to reducing
GHG emissions from the HD sector.
A summary of the final standards can be found in this Executive
Summary, with more details on the standards themselves and our
supporting analysis found in section II and Chapter 2 of the RIA. The
standards for MY 2027 through 2032 and later are presented in Table ES-
1 and Table ES-2 with additional tables showing the final custom
chassis and heavy-haul tractor standards in section II.F.\66\ When
compared to the existing Phase 2 standards, the Phase 3 standards begin
in MY 2027 with a 13 percent increase in the stringency of the medium
heavy-duty vocational vehicle standards and a 17 percent increase in
the light heavy-duty vocational vehicle standards, the Phase 3 day cab
tractor standards begin in MY 2028 with an 8 percent increase in
stringency over the Phase 2 standards, the heavy heavy-duty vocational
standards begin in MY 2029 with a 13 percent increase over Phase 2, and
the sleeper cab tractor standards begin in MY 2030 with a 6 percent
increase over Phase 2. Each vehicle category then increases in
stringency each year, through MY 2032, at which time compared to the
Phase 2 program the light heavy-duty vocational standards are a 60
percent increase in stringency of the CO2 standard, the
medium heavy-duty vocational vehicle standards are a 40 percent
increase, the day cab standards are a 40 percent increase, the heavy
heavy-duty vocational standards are a 30 percent increase, and the
sleeper cab standards are a 25 percent increase in the stringency of
the standards. As described in section II of this preamble, our
analysis shows that the final Phase 3 standards, including revisions to
HD GHG Phase 2 CO2 standards for MY 2027 and the new,
progressively more stringent numeric values of the CO2
standards starting in MYs 2028 through 2032, are feasible and
appropriate considering feasibility, lead time, costs, and other
relevant factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See regulations 40 CFR 1037.105 and 1037.106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table ES-1 MY 2027 through 2032 and Later Vocational Vehicle
CO2 Emission Standards (grams/ton-mile) by Regulatory
Subcategory (with Phase 2 2024 through 2026 Standards for Reference)
[[Page 29451]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.002
[[Page 29452]]
iii. Updated Technology Packages for Example Potential Compliance
Pathways
The standards do not mandate the use of a specific technology, and
EPA anticipates that a compliant fleet under the standards would
include a diverse range of HD motor vehicle technologies (e.g.,
transmission technologies, aerodynamic improvements, engine
technologies, hybrid technologies, battery electric powertrains,
hydrogen fuel cell powertrains, etc.). The technologies that have
played (and that the Phase 2 rule projected would play) a fundamental
role in meeting the Phase 2 GHG standards will continue to play an
important role going forward, as they remain key to reducing the GHG
emissions of HD vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. In our
assessment that supports the appropriateness and feasibility of these
final standards, we developed projected technology packages for
potential compliance pathways that could be used to meet each of the
final standards.\67\ Because our standards are technology neutral and
there are flexibilities built into the ABT program, there are many
variations in the exact mix of technologies manufacturers can use to
meet the standards, and this mix can include technologies that EPA has
not envisioned. We have projected a few compliance pathways with
technology packages that are purposely different. One example potential
compliance pathway's projected technology package includes a mix of HD
motor vehicle technologies that prevent and control GHG emissions,
including technologies for vehicles with ICE and ZEV technologies
(Table ES-3). In Table ES-4, we present another example compliance
pathway's technology package that does not include ZEVs but does
include a suite of GHG-reducing technologies for vehicles with ICE
ranging from: ICE improvements in engine, transmission, drivetrain,
aerodynamics, and tire rolling resistance; the use of lower carbon
fuels (Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)/Liquified Natural Gas (LNG));
hybrid powertrains (Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV) and Plug-in Hybrid
Electric Vehicles (PHEV)); and hydrogen-fueled ICE (H2-ICE). Except for
H2-ICE, these technologies exist today and continue to evolve to
improve their CO2 emissions reductions. To demonstrate
feasibility and project emissions impacts, costs, benefits, etc. in
this final rule, we present a detailed analysis of the compliance
pathway represented by the technology packages shown in Table ES-3,
which we believe is one reasonable pathway. Details on several
additional example potential technology compliance pathways we
considered can be found in section II.F.4 and RIA Chapter 2.11, and
details on our projected technology mix in a ``reference'' scenario
that represents the United States without the final standards can be
found in section V and RIA Chapter 4. EPA emphasizes that its standards
are performance-based, and manufacturers are not required to use
particular technologies to meet the standards. Tables ES-3 and ES-4 are
just two examples of potential technology compliance pathways and do
not reflect a requirement of how manufacturers will ultimately meet the
standards finalized in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ As further explained in sections I and II (including II.G),
EPA is required by law to assess feasibility and compliance costs of
standards issued pursuant to CAA section 202(a), and thus
practically must demonstrate a potential means of complying with the
standards in order to do so (e.g., a potential compliance pathway's
projected technology packages that manufacturers may, but are not
required, to utilize). Long-standing case law regarding EPA's CAA
section 202(a) authority supports the necessity of this approach.
See NRDC v. EPA, 655 F. 2d 321, 332 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (indicating
that EPA is to state the engineering basis underlying a section 202
standard (i.e., the technology package which could be utilized to
meet a standard), indicate potential impediments to that technology
package's feasibility, and plausibly explain how those impediments
could be resolved within the lead time afforded).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.003
[[Page 29453]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.004
iv. Revisions to Advanced Technology Vehicle Credit Multipliers
Along with retaining EPA's historical approach to setting
performance-based standards and providing manufacturers flexibility in
meeting the standards by allowing them to choose their own mix of
vehicle technologies, we are retaining and did not reopen the general
structure of the Averaging, Banking and Trading (ABT) program, which
allows manufacturers further flexibility in meeting standards using
averaging provisions. In other words, consistent with EPA's practice
for over fifty years of setting emissions standards for HD vehicles, we
are retaining the existing regulatory scheme that does not require each
vehicle to meet the standards individually and instead allows
manufacturers to meet the standards on average within each weight class
of their fleet.\68\ As described in section III.A of this preamble, we
are finalizing updates to the advanced technology incentives in the ABT
program for HD GHG Phase 2 for PHEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs. As further
explained in section III, after consideration of comments, we are
retaining the advanced technology vehicle credit multipliers for PHEV,
BEV, and FCEV technologies through MY 2027, consistent with the
previously promulgated HD GHG Phase 2 program. In order to ensure
meaningful vehicle GHG emission reductions under the Phase 3 program,
we are limiting the period over which manufacturers can use the
multiplier portion of credits earned from advanced technologies.
However, in recognition that the final HD GHG Phase 3 standards will
require meaningful investments from manufacturers to reduce GHG
emissions from HD vehicles, we requested comment on and are finalizing
certain additional transitional flexibilities to assist manufacturers
in the implementation of Phase 3. See section III of this preamble for
further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ As further described in section III, as has been the case
since the ABT program was first promulgated, although manufacturers
choosing to use ABT as a compliance strategy must assure that their
vehicle families comply with the standard on average, each
individual vehicle is certified to an individual limit (called a
Family Emission Limit) as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Commitment to Engagement and Monitoring Elements of Phase 3
Compliance and Supporting Technology and Infrastructure Development
As we noted in the HD GHG Phase 3 NPRM, EPA has a vested interest
in monitoring industry's performance in complying with mobile source
emission standards, including the highway heavy-duty industry. In fact,
EPA already monitors and reports out industry's performance through a
range of approaches, including publishing industry compliance reports
(such as has been done during the heavy-duty GHG Phase 1 program).\69\
After consideration of the divergent comments received on the topic of
collecting and monitoring ZEV infrastructure during the implementation
of the Phase 3 standards, as further described in section II, we are
committing in this final rule to actively engage and monitor both
manufacturer compliance and the major elements of heavy-duty technology
and supporting infrastructure development. EPA, in consultation with
other Federal agencies, will issue periodic reports reflecting
collected information. These reports will track HD electric charging
and hydrogen refueling infrastructure buildout throughout Phase 3
implementation as well as an evaluation of zero and low GHG-emitting HD
vehicle production and the evolution of the HD battery production and
material supply, including supply of critical minerals. Based on these
reports, as appropriate and consistent with CAA section 202(a)
authority, EPA may decide to issue guidance documents, initiate a
rulemaking to consider modifications to the Phase 3 rule, or make no
changes to the Phase 3 rule program. We are not finalizing any
mechanisms for including a self-adjusting linkage between the
standards' stringency and ZEV infrastructure as requested by some
industry stakeholders. Further details on EPA's Phase 3 rule
implementation engagement, data collection and monitoring and reporting
commitments can be found in section II.B.2 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See EPA Reports EPA-420-R-21-001B covering Model Years
2014-2018, and EPA report EPA-420-R-22-028B covering Model Years
2014--2020, available online at https://www.epa.gov/compliance-and-fuel-economy-data/epa-heavy-duty-vehicle-and-engine-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Impacts of the Standards
Our estimated emission impacts, average per-vehicle costs,
monetized program costs, and monetized benefits of the final program
are summarized in this section and detailed in sections IV through VIII
of the preamble and Chapters 3 through 8 of the RIA. EPA notes that,
consistent with CAA section 202(a)(1) and (2), in evaluating potential
GHG standards, we carefully weigh the statutory factors, including GHG
emissions impacts of the GHG standards, and the feasibility of the
standards (including cost of compliance and available lead time).
We monetize benefits of the GHG standards and evaluate costs in
part to
[[Page 29454]]
better enable a comparison of costs and benefits pursuant to E.O.
12866, but we recognize that there are benefits that we are currently
unable to fully quantify and monetize. EPA's consistent practice has
been to set standards to achieve improved air quality consistent with
CAA section 202(a), and not to rely on cost-benefit calculations, with
their uncertainties and limitations, in identifying the appropriate
standards. Nonetheless, our conclusion that the estimated benefits
exceed the estimated costs of the final program reinforces our view
that the GHG standards represent an appropriate weighing of the
statutory factors and other relevant considerations.
Our analysis of emissions impacts accounts for downstream
emissions, i.e., from emission processes such as engine combustion,
engine crankcase exhaust, vehicle evaporative emissions, vehicle
refueling emissions, and brake and tire wear. Vehicle technologies
would also affect emissions from upstream sources, i.e., emissions that
are attributable to a vehicle's operation but not the vehicle itself,
for example, electricity generation and the refining and distribution
of fuel. Our analyses include emissions impacts from electrical
generating units (EGUs) and refinery emission impacts.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ We are continuing and are not reopening the existing
approach taken in both HD GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2, that compliance
with the vehicle exhaust CO2 emission standards is based
solely on CO2 emissions from the vehicle. Indeed, all of
our vehicle emission standards are based on vehicle emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated impacts summarized in this section are based on our
projection of a scenario that represents the United States with the
final standards in place, relative to our projection of a ``reference''
scenario that represents the United States without the final standards.
For a similar estimate for the alternative standards, please see
preamble section IX. As suggested by many commenters, and as EPA
suggested at proposal (88 FR 25989), we updated our reference scenario
between the proposal and this final rule to include California's ACT
program implementation in California and in the states that have
adopted the ACT rule under CAA section 177, thus increasing the amount
of ZEV technology in our projection of the United States without the
final standards in place.\71\ Further, we improved our projections of
the rate of expected ZEV adoption across vehicle categories for the
reference scenario, the result of which in the modeled compliance
pathway was increased projected adoption in the light heavy-duty
vocational vehicle subcategory and decreased adoption in other
subcategories compared to the reference scenario in the proposal. These
updates to the reference scenario resulted in changes to the estimated
numeric values of emissions and costs as shown but reflect the same
general expected impacts of the standards as we projected at the time
of proposal, i.e., significant reductions in downstream GHG emissions,
reductions in GHGs from lower demand for onroad fuels and therefore
reduced emissions from fuel refineries, and increases in GHG emissions
from EGUs (which we expect to decline over time as the electricity grid
becomes cleaner). This same trend is expected for non-GHG pollutants as
well, which are affected to the extent that zero- or lower-non-GHG
emitting technologies are used to meet the GHG standards, i.e., we
project significant reductions in downstream emissions of non-GHG
pollutants, reductions in non-GHG pollutants resulting from lower
demand for onroad fuels and therefore reduced emissions from fuel
refineries, and increases in non-GHG pollutant emissions from EGUs
(which we expect to decrease over time as previously noted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ EPA granted California's waiver request on March 30, 2023,
which left EPA insufficient time to develop an alternative reference
case for the proposal. 88 FR 25989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As seen in Table ES-5, through 2055 the program will result in
significant downstream GHG emission reductions--approximately 1.4
billion metric tons in reduced CO2-equivalent emissions.\72\
From calendar years 2027 through 2055, we project a cumulative increase
of approximately 0.39 billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent
emissions from EGUs as a result of the increased demand for electricity
associated with the rule. We also project reductions in CO2-
equivalent emissions from refineries on the order of 0.013 billion
metric tons during this time period. Considering both downstream and
upstream cumulative emissions from calendar years 2027 through 2055 (a
year when most of the regulated fleet will consist of HD vehicles
subject to the Phase 3 standards due to fleet turnover), the standards
will achieve approximately 1 billion metric tons in net CO2-
equivalant emission reductions (see section V of this preamble and
Chapter 4 of the RIA for more detail). Following improvements to our
technical analysis as described in more detail in sections II and V of
this preamble, we remodeled the GHG emission reductions from the
proposed standards, and the results show the reductions from the final
rule are close to but greater than projected reductions from the
proposed standards (e.g., net reductions are 998 million metric ton for
the proposed standards). As summarized in section C2.ii of the
Executive Summary and detailed in section II of this preamble, the
final standards are less stringent and increase in stringency at a
slower pace compared to the proposal in the early model years of the
program, but the later model year final standards are more stringent
than proposed for light and medium heavy-duty vocational vehicles and
day cab tractors. This final rule's GHG emission reductions will make
an important contribution to efforts to limit climate change and its
anticipated impacts. These GHG reductions will benefit all U.S.
residents, including populations such as people of color, low-income
populations, indigenous peoples, and/or children that may be especially
vulnerable to various forms of damages associated with climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Note that these reductions are lower in the final rule than
the proposal primarily due to the increased number of ZEVs
considered in the reference case, see section V of this preamble for
details.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.005
[[Page 29455]]
In our modeled potential compliance pathway, we project that the
GHG emission standards will lead to an increase in HD ZEVs relative to
our reference case (i.e., without the rule), which will also result in
downstream reductions of vehicle emissions of non-GHG pollutants that
contribute to ambient concentrations of ozone, particulate matter
(PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, and air
toxics. Exposure to these non-GHG pollutants is linked to adverse human
health impacts such as premature death as well as other adverse public
health and environmental effects (see section VI). As shown in Table
ES-6, in 2055, we estimate a decrease in emissions from all criteria
pollutants modeled (i.e., NOX, PM2.5, VOC, and
SO2) from downstream sources. The reductions in non-GHG
emissions from vehicles will reduce air pollution near roads. As
described in section VI of this preamble, there is substantial evidence
that people who live or attend school near major roadways are more
likely to be of a non-White race, Hispanic ethnicity, and/or low
socioeconomic status. In addition, emissions from HD vehicles and
engines can significantly and adversely affect individuals living near
truck freight routes. Based on a study EPA conducted of people living
near truck routes, an estimated 72 million people live within 200
meters of a truck freight route.\73\ Relative to the rest of the
population, people of color and those with lower incomes are more
likely to live near truck routes.\74\ In addition, children who attend
school near major roads are disproportionately more highly represented
by children of color and children from low-income households.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ U.S. EPA (2021). Estimation of Population Size and
Demographic Characteristics among People Living Near Truck Routes in
the Conterminous United States. Memorandum to the Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055.
\74\ See section VI.D of this preamble for additional discussion
on our analysis of environmental justice impacts of this final rule.
\75\ Kingsley, S., Eliot, M., Carlson, L. et al. Proximity of
U.S. schools to major roadways: a nationwide assessment. J Expo Sci
Environ Epidemiol 24, 253-259 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2014.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table ES-6 also shows impacts on EGU and refinery emissions.
Similar to GHG emissions, we project that non-GHG emissions from EGUs
will increase in the near term as a result of the increased demand for
electricity associated with the rule, and we expect those projected
impacts to decrease over time as the electricity grid becomes cleaner.
We project reductions in non-GHG emissions from refineries.\76\ We
project net reductions in NOX, VOC, and SO2
emissions in 2055. Although there is a small net increase in direct
PM2.5 emissions in 2055, ambient PM2.5 is formed
from emissions of direct PM2.5 as well as emissions of other
precursors such as NOx and SO2. We project overall
PM2.5-related benefits based on the contribution of
emissions from each of these pollutants (see Table ES-8). See section V
of this preamble and RIA Chapter 4 for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ We note here that there is uncertainty surrounding how
refinery activity would change in response to lower domestic demand
for liquid transportation fuels and in response to comments received
on the proposal, the estimates in Table ES-6 reflect the assumption
that half of the projected drop in domestic fuel demand would be
offset by an increase in exports.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.006
EPA believes the non-GHG emissions reductions of this rule provide
important health benefits to the 72 million people living near truck
routes and even more broadly over the longer term. We note that the
agency has broad authority to regulate emissions from the power sector
(e.g., the mercury and air toxics standards, and new source performance
standards), as do the States and EPA through cooperative federalism
programs (e.g., in response to PM National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) implementation requirements, interstate transport,
emission guidelines, and regional haze),\77\ and that EPA reasonably
may address air pollution incrementally across multiple rulemakings,
particularly across multiple industry sectors. For example, EPA has
separately proposed new source performance standards and emission
guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired power
plants, which would also reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants
such as PM2.5 and SO2 (88 FR 33240, May 23,
2023).\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See also CAA section 116.
\78\ New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired
Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions From Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units;
and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule. 88 FR 33240, May 23,
2023. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/23/2023-10141/new-source-performance-standards-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-new-modified-and-reconstructed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the final rule cost analysis methodology mirrors the
approach we took for the proposal, but with a number of important
updates to our modeling approach and the data used in our modeling
projections. More details on specific updates after consideration of
comments and new data can be found in sections II and IV of this
preamble, but we note here that our final rule analysis was conducted
using the latest dollar value, 2022 dollars (2022$), which represents
an update from the 2021 dollars used in the NPRM analysis. We also note
that updates to our reference scenario have lowered the overall costs
and benefits of the final standards, as described briefly in this
Executive Summary and in more detail in sections IV through VIII of
this preamble. The decrease is attributable to the increase in the
number of ZEVs in the reference case.
We estimate that for calendar years 2027 through 2055 and at an
annualized 2 percent discount rate, costs to manufacturers will result
in a cost savings of $0.19 billion dollars before considering the IRA
battery tax credits. With those battery tax credits, which we estimate
to be $0.063 billion, the cost to manufacturers of compliance with the
[[Page 29456]]
program will result in a cost savings of $0.25 billion. The
manufacturer cost of compliance with the rule on a per-vehicle basis
are shown in Table ES-7. We estimate that the MY 2032 fleet average
per-vehicle cost to manufacturers by regulatory group will range from a
cost savings of between $700 and $3,000 per vehicle for vocational
vehicles to costs of between $3,200 and $10,800 per tractor. EPA notes
the projected fleet-average costs per-vehicle for this rule are less
than the fleet average per-vehicle costs projected for the HD GHG Phase
2 MY 2027 standards which EPA found to be reasonable under our
statutory authority, where the tractor standards were projected to cost
between $12,750 and $17,125 (2022$) per vehicle and the vocational
vehicle standards were projected to cost between $1,860 and $7,090
(2022$) per vehicle.\79\ For this action, EPA finds that the expected
additional vehicle costs are reasonable considering the related GHG
emissions reductions.\80\ EPA emphasizes again that manufacturers will
choose their pathway for compliance and the pathway modeled here is
just one of many potential compliance pathways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ The Phase 2 tractor MY 2027 standard cost increments were
projected to be between $10,200 and $13,700 per vehicle in 2013$ (81
FR 73621). The Phase 2 vocational vehicle MY 2027 standards were
projected to cost between $1,486 and $5,670 per vehicle in 2013$ (81
FR 73718).
\80\ For illustrative purposes, these average costs range
between an approximate 0.03 percent decrease for light-heavy
vocational vehicles up to a 6 percent increase for long-haul
tractors based on a minimum vehicle price of $100,000 for vocational
vehicles and $190,000 for long-haul tractors (see section II.G.2 of
this preamble). We also note that these average upfront costs are
taken across the HD vehicle fleet and are not meant as an indicator
of average price increase.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.007
The GHG standards will reduce adverse impacts associated with
climate change and exposure to non-GHG pollutants and thus will yield
significant benefits, including those we can monetize and those we are
unable to quantify. Table ES-8 summarizes EPA's estimates of total
monetized discounted costs, operational savings, and benefits. In our
proposal, EPA used interim Social Cost of GHGs (SC-GHG) values
developed for use in benefit-cost analyses until updated estimates of
the impacts of climate change could be developed based on the best
available science and economics. In response to recent advances in the
scientific literature on climate change and its economic impacts,
incorporating recommendations made by the National Academies of
Science, Engineering, and Medicine \81\ (National Academies, 2017), and
to address public comments on this topic, for this final rule we are
using updated SC-GHG values. EPA presented these updated values in a
sensitivity analysis in the December 2022 Oil and Gas Rule RIA which
underwent public comment on the methodology and use of these estimates
as well as external peer review.\82\ After consideration of public
comment and peer review, EPA issued a technical report signed by the
EPA Administrator on December 2, 2023, updating the estimates of SC-GHG
in light of recent information and advances.\83\ This is discussed
further in preamble section VII and RIA Chapter 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
2017. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social
Cost of Carbon Dioxide. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24651.
\82\ Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and
Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil
and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review. 87 FR 74702.
\83\ Supplementary Material for the Regulatory Impact Analysis
for the Supplemental Proposed Rulemaking, ``Standards of Performance
for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate
Review'' EPA, 2022. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317. Available
at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/eo12866_oil-and-gas-nsps-eg-climate-review-2060-av16-ria-20231130.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results presented in Table ES-8 project the monetized
environmental and economic impacts associated with the program during
each calendar year through 2055. EPA estimates that the annualized
value of monetized net benefits to society at a 2 percent discount rate
will be approximately $13 billion through the year 2055, roughly 12
times the cost in vehicle technology and associated electric vehicle
supply equipment (EVSE) combined. Regarding social costs, EPA estimates
that the cost of vehicle technology (not including the vehicle or
battery tax credits) and EVSE at depots \84\ will be approximately $1.1
billion. The HD industry will save approximately $3.5 billion in
operating costs (e.g., savings that come from less liquid fuel used,
lower maintenance and repair costs for ZEV technologies as compared to
ICE technologies, etc.). The program will result in significant social
benefits including $10 billion in climate benefits (with the average
SC-GHG at a 2 percent near-term Ramsey discount rate) and $0.3 billion
in estimated benefits attributable to changes in emissions of
PM2.5 precursors. Finally, the benefits due to reductions in
energy security externalities caused by U.S.
[[Page 29457]]
petroleum consumption and imports will be approximately $0.45 billion
under the program. A more detailed description and breakdown of these
benefits can be found in section VIII of the preamble and Chapters 7
and 8 of the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ EVSE costs include hardware and installation costs for
electric vehicle supply equipment at depots. Costs for upgrades to
the distribution system are incorporated in the operating costs
(specifically within $/kWh charging costs). We also estimate
infrastructure costs for vehicles we project to use public charging.
See RIA 2.4.4 and 2.6 for more information.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.008
Regarding the costs to purchasers as shown in Table ES-9, for the
final program we estimated the average upfront incremental cost to
purchase a new MY 2032 HD ZEV relative to a comparable ICE vehicle
meeting the Phase 2 MY 2027 standards for a vocational ZEV and EVSE, a
short-haul tractor ZEV and EVSE, and a long-haul tractor ZEV. These
incremental costs account for the IRA tax credits, specifically battery
and vehicle tax credits and tax credits applicable to EVSE installation
and infrastructure, as discussed in section II.E.4 and RIA Chapter 2.
We also estimated the operational savings each year (i.e., savings that
come from the lower costs to operate, maintain, and repair ZEV
technologies) and payback period (i.e., the year the initial cost
increase would pay back). Table ES-9 shows that for the vocational
vehicle ZEVs, short-haul tractor ZEVs, and long-haul tractor ZEVs the
incremental upfront costs (after the tax credits) are recovered through
operational savings such that payback occurs between two and four years
on average for vocational vehicles, after two years for short-haul
tractors and after five years on average for long-haul tractors. We
discuss this in more detail in sections II and IV of this preamble and
RIA Chapters 2 and 3.
[[Page 29458]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.009
E. Coordination With Federal and State Partners
EPA has coordinated and consulted with DOT/NHTSA, both on a
bilateral level during the development of this program as well as
through the interagency review of the action led by the Office of
Management and Budget. EPA has set some previous heavy-duty vehicle GHG
emission standards in joint rulemakings where NHTSA also established
heavy-duty fuel efficiency standards. EPA notes that there is no
statutory requirement for joint rulemaking, that the agencies have
different statutory mandates and that their respective programs have
always reflected those differences. As the Supreme Court has noted,
``EPA has been charged with protecting the public's `health' and
`welfare,' a statutory obligation wholly independent of DOT's mandate
to promote energy efficiency.'' \85\ Although there is no statutory
requirement for EPA to consult with NHTSA, EPA has consulted with NHTSA
in the development of this program. For example, staff of the two
agencies met frequently to discuss various technical issues and to
share technical information. While assessing safety implications of
this rule for the NPRM, EPA consulted with NHTSA. EPA further
coordinated with NHTSA regarding safety implications of this rule,
including EPA's response to safety related comments and identifying
updates, for the final rule.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 532.
\86\ Landgraf, Michael. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985. Summary of NHTSA Safety Communication. February 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also has consulted with other Federal agencies in developing
this rule and the light-duty vehicles GHG rulemaking, including the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Joint Office for
Energy and Transportation, the Department of Energy and several
National Labs. EPA consulted with FERC on this rulemaking regarding
potential impacts of these rulemakings on bulk power system reliability
and related issues.\87\ EPA collaborated with DOE and Argonne National
Laboratory on battery cost analyses and critical minerals forecasting.
EPA, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and DOE collaborated
on forecasting the development of a national charging infrastructure
and projecting regional charging demand for input into EPA's power
sector modeling. EPA also coordinated with the Joint Office of Energy
and Transportation on charging infrastructure. EPA and the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory collaborated on issues of consumer
acceptance of plug-in electric vehicles. EPA and the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory collaborated on energy security issues. EPA also
participated in the Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries led by
DOE and the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. EPA and DOE also
have entered into a Joint Memorandum of Understanding to provide a
framework for interagency cooperation and consultation on electric
sector resource adequacy and operational reliability.\88\ EPA consulted
with the Department of Labor (DOL) and DOE on labor and employment
initiatives involving the battery and vehicle electrification spaces,
and DOL provided a memorandum to EPA containing an overview of numerous
Federal Government initiatives focused on these areas.\89\ EPA also
consulted with NHTSA on potential safety issues and NHTSA provided a
number of studies to us concerning electric vehicle safety. In
addition, EPA consulted with the Department of State on the Federal
Government's initiatives concerning supply chains for critical
minerals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Although not a Federal agency, EPA also consulted with the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). NERC is the
Electric Reliability Organization for North America, subject to
oversight by FERC.
\88\ Joint Memorandum on Interagency Communication and
Consultation on Electric Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 8, 2023.
\89\ See Memorandum from Employment and Training Administration
(ETA), Office of Assistant Secretary for Policy (OASP), Office of
the Solicitor (SOL) at the U.S. Department of Labor to EPA re Labor/
Employment Initiatives in the Battery/Vehicle Electrification Space
(February 2024), which is available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has also engaged with the California Air Resources Board on
technical issues in developing this program. EPA has considered certain
aspects of the CARB ACT rule, as
[[Page 29459]]
discussed elsewhere in this document. We also have engaged with other
states, including members of the National Association of Clean Air
Agencies, the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, the
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, and the Ozone
Transport Commission.
F. Stakeholder Engagement
EPA conducted extensive engagement with a diverse range of
interested stakeholders in developing this final rule, including labor
unions, states, industry, environmental justice organizations and
public health experts. In addition, we have engaged with environmental
NGOs, vehicle manufacturers, technology suppliers, dealers, utilities,
charging providers, tribal governments, and other organizations. For
example, in April-May 2022, EPA held a series of engagement sessions
with organizations representing all of these stakeholder groups so that
EPA could hear early input in developing its proposal. EPA has
continued engagement with stakeholders throughout the development of
this rule, throughout the public comment period and into the
development of this final rule.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Miller, Neil. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985.
Summary of Stakeholder Meetings. March 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Statutory Authority for the Final Rule
This section summarizes the statutory authority for the final rule.
Statutory authority for the GHG standards EPA is finalizing is found in
CAA section 202(a)(1)-(2), 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1)-(2), which requires EPA
to establish standards applicable to emissions of air pollutants from
new motor vehicles and engines which in the Administrator's judgment
cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Additional statutory
authority for the action is found in CAA sections 202-209, 216, and
301, 42 U.S.C. 7521-7543, 7550, and 7601.
Section I.A overviews the text of the relevant statutory provisions
read in their context. We discuss the statutory definition of ``motor
vehicles'' in section 216 of the Act, EPA's authority to establish
emission standards for such motor vehicles in section 202, and
authorities related to compliance and testing in sections 203, 206, and
207.
Section I.B addresses comments regarding our legal authority to
consider a wide range of technologies, including electrified
technologies that completely prevent vehicle tailpipe emissions. EPA's
standard-setting authority under section 202 is not limited to any
specific type of emissions control technology, such as technologies
applicable only to ICE vehicles; rather, the Agency must consider all
technologies that reduce emissions from motor vehicles--including zero-
emissions vehicle (ZEV) technologies that allow for complete prevention
of emissions such as battery electric vehicle (BEV) and fuel-cell
electric vehicle (FCEV) technologies--in light of the lead time
provided and the costs of compliance. Many commenters, including the
main trade group representing regulated entities under this rule,
supported EPA's legal authority to consider such technologies. At the
same time, the final standards do not require the manufacturers to
adopt any specific technological pathway and can be achieved through
the use of a variety of technologies, including without producing
additional ZEVs to comply with this rule.
Section I.C summarizes our responses to certain other comments
relating to our legal authority, including whether this rule implicates
the major questions doctrine, whether EPA has authority for its
Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT) program, whether EPA properly
considered ZEVs as part of the class of vehicles for GHG regulation,
and whether the 4-year lead time and 3-year stability requirements in
CAA section 202(a)(3)(C) apply to this rule. We discuss our legal
authority and rationale for battery durability and warranty separately
in section III.B of the preamble. Additional discussion of legal
authority for the entire rule is found in Chapters 2 and 10 of the RTC,
and additional background on authority to regulate GHGs from heavy-duty
motor vehicles and engines can be found in the HD GHG Phase 1 final
rule.\91\ EPA's assessment of the statutory and other factors in
selecting the final GHG standards is found in section II.G of this
preamble, and further discussion of our statutory authority in support
of all the revised compliance provisions is found throughout section
III of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ 76 FR 57129-57130, September 15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Summary of Key Clean Air Act Provisions
Title II of the Clean Air Act provides for comprehensive regulation
of emissions from mobile sources, authorizing EPA to regulate emissions
of air pollutants from all mobile source categories, including motor
vehicles under CAA section 202(a). To understand the scope of
permissible regulation, we first must understand the scope of the
regulated sources. CAA section 216(2) defines ``motor vehicle'' as
``any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or
property on a street or highway.'' \92\ Congress has intentionally and
consistently used the broad term ``any self-propelled vehicle'' since
the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965 to include vehicles
propelled by various fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, or hydrogen), or
systems of propulsion, whether they be ICE engine, hybrid, or electric
motor powertrains.\93\ The subjects of this rulemaking all fit that
definition: they are self-propelled, via a number of different
powertrains, and they are designed for transporting persons or property
on a street or highway. The Act's focus is on reducing emissions from
classes of motor vehicles and the ``requisite technologies'' that could
feasibly reduce those emissions, giving appropriate consideration to
cost of compliance and lead time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ EPA subsequently interpreted this provision through a 1974
rulemaking. 39 FR 32611 (September 10, 1974), codified at 40 CFR
85.1703. The regulatory provisions establish more detailed criteria
for what qualifies as a motor vehicle, including criteria related to
speed, safety, and practicality for use on streets and ways. The
regulation, however, does not draw any distinctions based on whether
the vehicle emits pollutants or its powertrain.
\93\ The Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Act of 1965 defines ``motor
vehicle'' as ``any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting
persons or property on a street or highway.'' Public Lae 89-272, 79
Stat. 992, 995 (October 20, 1965). See also, e.g., 116 S. Cong. Rec.
at 42382 (December 18, 1970) (Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970--
Conference Report) (``The urgency of the problems require that the
industry consider, not only the improvement of existing technology,
but also alternatives to the internal combustion engine and new
forms of transportation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress delegated to the Administrator the authority to identify
available control technologies, and it did not place any restrictions
on the types of emission reduction technologies EPA could consider,
including different powertrain technologies. By contrast, other parts
of the Act explicitly limit EPA's authority by powertrain type,\94\ so
Congress's conscious decision not to do so when defining ``motor
vehicle'' in section 216 further highlights the breadth of EPA's
standard-setting authority for such vehicles. As we explain further
below, Congress did place some limitations on
[[Page 29460]]
EPA's standard-setting under CAA section 202(a),\95\ but these
limitations generally did not restrict EPA's authority to broadly
regulate motor vehicles to any particular vehicle type or emissions
control technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ See CAA section 213 (authorizing EPA to regulate ``non-
road'' engines''), 216(10) (defining non-road engine to ``mean[ ] an
internal combustion engine''). Elsewhere in the Act, Congress also
specified specific technological controls, further suggesting its
decision to not to limit the technological controls EPA could
consider in section 202(a)(1)-(2) was intentional. See, e.g., CAA
section 407(d) (``Units subject to subsection (b)(1) for which an
alternative emission limitation is established shall not be required
to install any additional control technology beyond low
NOX burners.'').
\95\ See, e.g., CAA section 202(a)(4)(A) (``no emission control
device, system, or element of design shall be used in a new motor
vehicle or new motor vehicle engine for purposes of complying with
requirements prescribed under this subchapter if such device,
system, or element of design will cause or contribute to an
unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety in its
operation or function''). In addition, Congress established
particular limitations for discrete exercises of CAA section
202(a)(1) authority which are not at issue in this rulemaking. See,
e.g., CAA section 202(a)(3)(A)(i) (articulating specific parameters
for standards for heavy-duty vehicles applicable to emissions of
certain criteria pollutants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We turn now to section 202(a)(1)-(2), which provides the statutory
authority for the final GHG standards in this action. Section 202(a)(1)
directs the Administrator to set ``standards applicable to the emission
of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or
new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute
to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare.'' This core directive has remained the same,
with only minor edits, since Congress first enacted it in the Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control Act of 1965.\96\ Thus the first step when EPA
regulates emissions from motor vehicles is a finding (the
``endangerment finding''), either as part of the initial standard
setting or prior to it, that the emission of an air pollutant from a
class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor engines causes or
contributes to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Public Law 89-272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statute directs EPA to define the class or classes of new motor
vehicles for which the Administrator is making the endangerment
finding.\97\ EPA for decades has defined ``classes'' subject to
regulation according to their weight and function. This is consistent
with both Congress's functional definition of a ``motor vehicle,'' as
discussed previously in this section, and Congress's explicit
contemplation of functional classes or categories. See CAA section
202(b)(3)(C) (defining ``heavy-duty vehicle'' with reference to
function and weight), 202(a)(3)(A)(ii) (``the Administrator may base
such classes or categories on gross vehicle weight, horsepower, type of
fuel used, or other appropriate factors.'').\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See CAA section 202(a)(1) (``The Administrator shall by
regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of
any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or
new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or
contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.'' (emphasis added)),
202(a)(3)(A)(ii) (``the Administrator may base such classes or
categories on gross vehicle weight, horsepower, type of fuel used,
or other appropriate factors'' (emphasis added)).
\98\ Section 202(a)(3)(A)(ii) applies to standards established
under section 202(a)(3), not to standards otherwise established
under section 202(a)(1). However, we think it nonetheless provides
guidance on what kinds of classifications and categorizations
Congress generally thought were appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, EPA made an endangerment finding for GHG and explicitly
stated that ``[t]he new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines .
. . addressed are: Passenger cars, light-duty trucks, motorcycles,
buses, and medium and heavy-duty trucks.'' 74 FR 66496, 66537 (December
15 2009).99 100 Then EPA reviewed the GHG emissions data
from ``new motor vehicles'' and determined that these classes of
vehicles do contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. The endangerment
finding was made with regard to pollutants--in this case, GHGs--emitted
from ``any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines.'' This approach--of identifying a class or classes of vehicles
that contribute to endangerment--is how EPA has always implemented the
statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ EPA considered this list to be a comprehensive list of the
new motor vehicle classes. See id. (``This contribution finding is
for all of the CAA section 202(a) source categories.''); id. at
66544 (``the Administrator is making this finding for all classes of
new motor vehicles under CAA section 202(a)''). By contrast, in
making an endangerment finding for GHG emissions from aircraft, EPA
limited the endangerment finding to engines used in specific classes
of aircraft (such as civilian subsonic jet aircraft with maximum
take off mass greater than 5,700 kilograms). 81 FR 54421, August 15,
2016.
\100\ EPA is not reopening the 2009 or any other prior
endangerment finding in this action. Rather, we are discussing the
2009 endangerment finding to provide the reader with helpful
background information relating to this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of establishing GHG emissions standards, EPA has
regarded new heavy-duty trucks (also known as heavy-duty vehicles) as
its own class and has then made further sub-categorizations based on
weight and functionality in promulgating standards for the air
pollutant, as further elaborated in section II of this preamble.\101\
EPA's class and categorization framework allows the Agency to recognize
real-world variations in the lead time and costs of emissions control
technology for different vehicle types. It also ensures that consumers
can continue to access a wide variety of vehicles to meet their
mobility needs, while enabling continued emissions reductions for all
vehicle types, including to the point of completely preventing
emissions where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ See NRDC v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 338 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (the
Court held that ``the adoption of a single particulate standard for
light-duty diesel vehicles was within EPA's regulatory
discretion.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In setting standards, CAA section 202(a)(1) requires that any
standards promulgated thereunder ``shall be applicable to such vehicles
and engines for their useful life (as determined under [CAA section
202(d)], relating to useful life of vehicles for purposes of
certification), whether such vehicle and engines are designed as
complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or control such
pollution.'' \102\ In other words, Congress specifically determined
that EPA's standards could be based on a wide array of technologies,
including technologies for the engine and for the other (non-engine)
parts of the vehicle, technologies that ``incorporate devices'' on top
of an existing motor vehicle system as well as technologies that are
``complete systems'' and that may involve a complete redesign of the
vehicle. Congress also determined that EPA could base its standards on
both technologies that ``prevent'' the pollution from occurring in the
first place--such as the zero emissions technologies considered in this
rule--as well as technologies that ``control'' or reduce the pollution
once produced.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ See also Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt.
Dist., 541 U.S. 246, 252-53 (2004) (As stated by the Supreme Court,
a standard is defined as that which ``is established by authority,
custom, or general consent, as a model or example; criterion; test .
. . . This interpretation is consistent with the use of `standard'
throughout Title II of the CAA . . . . to denote requirements such
as numerical emission levels with which vehicles or engines must
comply . . . , or emission-control technology with which they must
be equipped.'').
\103\ Pollution prevention is a cornerstone of the Clean Air
Act. The title of 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85 is ``Air Pollution Prevention
and Control''; see also CAA section 101(a)(3), (c). One of the very
earliest vehicle pollution control technologies (one which is still
in use by some vehicles) was exhaust gas recirculation, which
reduces in-cylinder temperature and oxygen concentration, and, as a
result, engine-out NOX emissions from the vehicles. More
recent examples of pollution prevention technologies include
cylinder deactivation, and electrification technologies such as idle
start-stop or ZEVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While emission standards set by the EPA under CAA section 202(a)(1)
generally do not mandate use of particular technologies, they are
technology-based, as the levels chosen must be premised on a finding of
technological feasibility. EPA must therefore necessarily identify
potential control technologies, evaluate the rate each technology could
be introduced,
[[Page 29461]]
and its cost. Standards promulgated under CAA section 202(a) are to
take effect only ``after 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.'' \104\ This reference to ``cost of compliance''
means that EPA must consider costs to those entities which are directly
subject to the standards,\105\ but ``does not mandate consideration of
costs to other entities not directly subject to the standards.'' \106\
Given the prospective nature of standard-setting and the inherent
uncertainties in predicting the future development of technology,
Congress entrusted to EPA the authority to assess issues of technical
feasibility and availability of lead time to implement new technology.
Such determinations are ``subject to the restraints of reasonableness''
but ``EPA is not obliged to provide detailed solutions to every
engineering problem posed in the perfection of [a particular device].
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.'' \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ CAA section 202(a)(2); see also NRDC v. EPA, 655 F. 2d
318, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
\105\ Motor & Equipment Mfrs. Ass'n Inc. v. EPA, 627 F. 2d 1095,
1118 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
\106\ Coal. for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 120, 128
(D.C. Cir. 2012).
\107\ NRDC, 655 F. 2d at 328, 333-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although standards under CAA section 202(a)(1) are technology-
based, they are not based exclusively on technological capability.
Pursuant to the broad grant of authority in section 202, when setting
GHG emission standards for HD vehicles, EPA must consider certain
factors and may also consider other relevant factors and has done so
previously when setting such standards. For instance, in HD GHG Phase 1
and Phase 2, EPA explained that when acting under this authority EPA
has considered such issues as technology effectiveness, ability of the
vehicle to perform its work for vehicle purchasers, its cost (including
for manufacturers and for purchasers), the lead time necessary to
implement the technology, and, based on this, the feasibility of
potential standards; the impacts of potential standards on emissions
reductions; the impacts of standards on oil conservation and energy
security; the impacts of standards on fuel savings by vehicle
operators; the impacts of standards on the heavy-duty vehicle industry;
as well as other relevant factors such as impacts on safety.\108\ EPA
has considered these factors in this rulemaking as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ 81 FR 73512, October 25, 2016; 76 FR 57129-30, September
15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than specifying levels of stringency in section 202(a)(1)-
(2), Congress directed EPA to determine the appropriate level of
stringency for the standards taking into consideration the statutory
factors therein. EPA has clear authority to set standards under CAA
section 202(a)(1)-(2) that are technology forcing when EPA considers
that to be appropriate,\109\ but is not required to do so. Section
202(a)(2) requires the Agency to give appropriate consideration to cost
and lead time necessary to allow for the development and application of
such technology. The breadth of this delegated authority is
particularly clear when contrasted with section 202(b), (g), (h), which
identifies specific levels of emissions reductions on specific
timetables for past model years.\110\ In determining the level of the
standards, CAA section 202(a) does not specify the degree of weight to
apply to each factor such that the Agency has authority to choose an
appropriate balance among factors and may decide how to balance
stringency and technology considerations with cost and lead
time.111 112
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has repeatedly cited NRDC v. EPA,
which construes section 202(a)(1), as support for EPA's actions when
EPA acted pursuant to other provisions of section 202 or Title II
that are explicitly technology forcing. See, e.g., NRDC v. Thomas,
805 F. 2d 410, 431-34 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (section 202 (a)(3)(B), 202
(a)(3)(A)); Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F. 3d 195, 201 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
(section 213(a)(3)); Nat'l Petroleum and Refiners Ass'n v. EPA, 287
F. 3d 1130, 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (section 202(a)(3)).
\110\ See also CAA 202(a)(3)(A).
\111\ See Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F.3d 374, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
(even where a provision is technology-forcing, the provision ``does
not resolve how the Administrator should weigh all [the statutory]
factors''); Nat'l Petrochemical and Refiners Ass'n v. EPA, 287 F.3d
1130, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (EPA decisions, under CAA provision
authorizing technology-forcing standards, based on complex
scientific or technical analysis are accorded particularly great
deference); see also Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F. 3d 195, 200 (D.C.
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); Hercules Inc. v. EPA, 598 F. 2d 91, 106 (D.C. Cir.
1978) (``In reviewing a numerical standard we must ask whether the
agency's numbers are within a zone of reasonableness, not whether
its numbers are precisely right.'').
\112\ Additionally, with respect to regulation of vehicular GHG
emissions, EPA is not ``required to treat NHTSA's . . . regulations
as establishing the baseline for the [section 202(a) standards].''
Coal. for Responsible Regulation, 684 F.3d at 127 (noting that the
section 202(a) standards provide ``benefits above and beyond those
resulting from NHTSA's fuel-economy standards'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now turn from section 202(a) to overview several other sections
of the Act relevant to this action. CAA section 202(d) directs EPA to
prescribe regulations under which the ``useful life'' of vehicles and
engines shall be determined for the purpose of setting standards under
CAA section 202(a)(1). For HD highway vehicles and engines, CAA section
202(d) establishes ``useful life'' minimum values of 10 years or
100,000 miles, whichever occurs first, unless EPA determines that
greater values are appropriate.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ In 1983, EPA adopted useful life periods to apply for HD
engines criteria pollutant standards (48 FR 52170, November 16,
1983). The useful life mileage for heavy HD engines criteria
pollutant standards was subsequently increased for 2004 and later
model years (62 FR 54694, October 21, 1997). In the GHG Phase 2 rule
(81 FR 73496, October 25, 2016), EPA set the same useful life
periods to apply for HD engines and vehicles greenhouse gas emission
standards, except that the spark-ignition HD engine standards and
the standards for model year 2021 and later light HD engines apply
over a useful life of 15 years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes
first. In the Heavy Duty (HD) 2027 Low NOX final rule
(HD2027 rule) (88 FR 4359, January 24, 2023), EPA lengthened useful
life periods for all 2027 and later model year HD engines criteria
pollutant standards. See also 40 CFR 1036.104(e), 1036.108(d),
1037.105(e), and 1037.106(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional sections of the Act provide authorities relating to
compliance, including certification, testing, and warranty. Under
section 203 of the CAA, sales of vehicles are prohibited unless the
vehicle is covered by a certificate of conformity, and EPA issues
certificates of conformity pursuant to section 206 of the CAA.
Compliance with standards is required not only at certification but
throughout a vehicle's useful life, so that testing requirements may
continue post-certification. To assure each engine and vehicle complies
during its useful life, EPA may apply an adjustment factor to account
for vehicle emission control deterioration or variability in use. EPA
also establishes the test procedures through which compliance with the
CAA emissions standards is measured. The regulatory provisions for
demonstrating compliance with emissions standards have been
successfully implemented for decades, including through our Averaging,
Banking, and Trading (ABT) program.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ EPA's consideration of averaging in standard-setting dates
back to 1985. 50 FR 1060, March 15, 1985 (``Emissions averaging, of
both particulate and oxides of nitrogen emissions from heavy-duty
engines, is allowed beginning with the 1991 model year. Averaging of
NO, emissions from light-duty trucks is allowed beginning in
1988.''). The availability of averaging as a compliance flexibility
has an even earlier pedigree. See 48 FR 33456, July 21, 1983 (EPA's
first averaging program for mobile sources); 45 FR 79382, November
28, 1980 (advance notice of proposed rulemaking investigating
averaging for mobile sources). We have included banking and trading
in our rules dating back to 1990. 55 FR 30584, July 26, 1990 (``This
final rule announces new programs for banking and trading of
particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen emission credits for
gasoline-, diesel- and methanol-powered heavy-duty engines.''). See
section III.A of this preamble and RTC 10.2 for further background
on the structure and history of our ABT program's regulations,
including consistency with CAA section 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29462]]
Under CAA section 207, manufacturers are required to provide
emission-related warranties. The emission-related warranty period for
HD engines and vehicles under CAA section 207(i) is ``the period
established by the Administrator by regulation (promulgated prior to
November 15, 1990) for such purposes unless the Administrator
subsequently modifies such regulation.'' For HD vehicles, part 1037
currently specifies that the emission-related warranty for Light HD
vehicles is 5 years or 50,000 miles and for Medium HD and Heavy HD
vehicles is 5 years or 100,000 miles, and specifies the components
covered for such vehicles.\115\ Section 207 of the CAA also grants EPA
broad authority to require manufacturers to remedy nonconformity if EPA
determines there are a substantial number of noncomplying vehicles.
These warranty and remedy provisions have also been applied for decades
under our regulations, including where compliance occurs through use of
ABT provisions. Further discussion of these sections of the Act,
including as they relate to the compliance provisions we are
finalizing, is found in section III of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ See 40 CFR 1037.120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Authority To Consider Technologies in Setting Motor Vehicle GHG
Standards
Having provided an overview of the key statutory authorities for
this action, we now elaborate on the specific issue of the types of
control technology that are to be considered in setting standards under
section 202(a)(1)-(2). EPA's position on this issue is consistent with
our position in the HD Phase 1 and Phase 2 GHG rules, and with the
historical exercise of the Agency's section 202(a)(1)-(2) authority
over the last five decades. That is, EPA's standard-setting authority
under section 202(a)(1)-(2) is not a priori limited to consideration of
specific types of emissions control technology; rather, in determining
the level of the standards, the agency must account for emissions
control technologies that are available or will become available for
the relevant model year.\116\ In this rulemaking, EPA has accounted for
a wide range of emissions control technologies, including advanced ICE
engine and vehicle technologies (e.g., engine, transmission,
drivetrain, aerodynamics, tire rolling resistance improvements, the use
of low carbon fuels like CNG and LNG, and H2-ICE), hybrid technologies
(e.g., HEV and PHEV), and ZEV technologies (e.g., BEV and FCEV).\117\
These include technologies applied to motor vehicles with ICE
(including hybrid powertrains) and without ICE, and a range of
electrification across the technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ For example, in 1998, EPA published regulations for the
voluntary National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program that allowed
LD motor vehicle manufacturers to comply with tailpipe standards for
cars and light-duty trucks more stringent than that required by EPA
in exchange for credits for such low emission and zero emission
vehicles. 63 FR 926, January 7, 1998. In 2000, EPA promulgated LD
Tier 2 emission standards which built upon ``the recent technology
improvements resulting from the successful [NLEV] program.'' 65 FR
6698, February 10, 2000.
\117\ ZEV technologies include BEV and FCEV. Both rely on an
electric powertrain to achieve zero tailpipe emissions. FCEVs run on
hydrogen fuel, while BEVs are plugged in for charging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the proposed rulemaking, the agency received
numerous comments on this issue, specifically on our consideration of
BEV and FCEV technologies. Regulated entities generally offered support
for the agency's legal authority to consider such technologies, noting
that they themselves were also considering varying levels of these
technologies in their own product plans. Their comments relating to
these technologies, and those of most stakeholders, were more technical
and policy in nature, for example, relating to the pace at which
manufacturers could adopt and deploy such technologies in the real
world or the pace at which enabling infrastructure could be deployed.
We address these comments in detail in section II of this preamble and
have revised the standards from those proposed after consideration of
comments.
A few commenters, however, alleged that the agency lacked statutory
authority altogether to consider BEV and FCEV technologies because they
believed the Act limited EPA to considering only technologies
applicable to ICE vehicles or to technologies that reduce, rather than
altogether prevent, pollution. EPA disagrees. The constraints they
would impose have no foundation in the statutory text, are contrary to
the statutory purpose, are undermined by a substantial body of
statutory and legislative history, and are inconsistent with how the
agency has applied the statute in numerous rulemakings over five
decades. The following discussion elaborates our position on this
issue; further discussion is found in Chapter 2.1 of the RTC.
The text of the Act directly addresses this issue and provides
unambiguous authority for EPA to consider all motor vehicle
technologies, including a range of electrified technologies such as
fully-electrified vehicle technologies without an ICE that achieve zero
vehicle tailpipe emissions (e.g., BEVs), fuel cell electric vehicle
technologies that run on hydrogen and achieve zero tailpipe emissions
(e.g., FCEVs), plug-in hybrid partially electrified technologies, and
other ICE vehicles across a range of electrification. As described
earlier in this section, the Act directs EPA to prescribe emission
standards for ``motor vehicles,'' which are defined broadly in CAA
section 216(2) and do not exclude any forms of vehicle propulsion. The
Act then directs EPA to promulgate emission standards for such
vehicles, ``whether such vehicles and engines are designed as complete
systems or incorporate devices to prevent or control such pollution,''
based on the ``development and application of the requisite
technology.'' There is no question that electrified technologies,
including various ICE, hybrid, BEV, and FCEV technologies, meet all of
these specific statutory criteria. They apply to ``motor vehicles'',
are systems and incorporate devices that ``prevent'' and ``control''
emissions,\118\ and qualify as ``technology.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ The statute emphasizes that the agency must consider
emission reductions technologies regardless of ``whether such
vehicles and engines are designed as complete systems or incorporate
devices to prevent or control such pollution.'' CAA section
202(a)(1); see also CAA section 202(a)(4)(B) (describing conditions
for ``any device, system, or element of design'' used for compliance
with the standards); Truck Trailer Manufacturers Ass'n, Inc v. EPA,
17 F.4th 1198, 1202 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (the statute ``created two
categories of complete motor vehicles. Category one: motor vehicles
with built-in pollution control. Category two: motor vehicles with
add-in devices for pollution control.''). While the statute does not
define ``system,'' section 202 does use the word expansively, to
include ``vapor recovery system[s]'' (CAA section 202(a)(5)(A)),
``new power sources or propulsion systems'' (CAA section 202(e)),
and onboard diagnostics systems (CAA section 202(m)(1)(D)). In any
event, the intentional use of the phrase ``complete systems'' shows
that Congress expressly contemplated as methods of pollution control
not only add-on devices (like catalysts that control emissions after
they are produced by the engine), but wholesale redesigns of the
motor vehicle and the motor vehicle engine to prevent and reduce
pollution. Many technologies that reduce vehicle GHG emissions today
can be characterized as systems that reduce or prevent GHG
emissions, including advanced engine designs in ICE and hybrid
vehicles; integration of electric drive units in hybrids, PHEVs, BEV
and FCEV designs; high voltage batteries and controls; redesigned
climate control systems improvements, and more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29463]]
While the statute also imposes certain specific limitations on
EPA's consideration of technology, none of these statutory limitations
preclude the consideration of electrified technologies, a subset of
electrified technologies, or any other technologies that achieve zero
vehicle tailpipe emissions. Specifically, the statute states that the
following technologies cannot serve as the basis for the standards:
first, technologies which cannot be developed and applied within the
relevant time period, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance; and second, technologies that ``cause or contribute to an
unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety in its operation
or function.'' CAA section 202(a)(2), (4).\119\ The statute does not
contain any other exclusions or limitations relevant to the Phase 3
model years. EPA has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the
statutory factors, further discussed in section II of the preamble and
throughout the RIA and the RTC, and has found that the CAA plainly
authorizes the consideration of these technologies, including BEV and
FCEV technologies, at the levels that support the modeled potential
compliance pathway to achieve the final standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ In addition, under section 202(a)(3)(A), EPA must
promulgate under section 202(a)(1) certain criteria pollutant
standards for ``classes or categories'' of heavy-duty vehicles that
``reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable
through the application of technology which the Administrator
determines will be available . . . giving appropriate consideration
to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the application
of such technology.'' EPA thus lacks discretion to base such
standards on a technological pathway that reflects less than the
greatest degree of emission reduction achievable for the class
(giving consideration to cost, energy, and safety). In other words,
where EPA has identified available control technologies that can
completely prevent pollution and otherwise comport with the statute,
the agency lacks the discretion to rely on less effective control
technologies to set weaker standards that achieve fewer emissions
reductions. And while section 202(a)(3)(A) does not govern any GHG
standards, which are established only under section 202(a)(1)-(2),
we think it is also informative as to the breadth of EPA's authority
under those provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having discussed what the statutory text does say, we note what the
statutory text does not say. Nothing in section 202(a)(1)-(2)
distinguishes technologies that prevent vehicle tailpipe emissions from
other technologies as being suitable for consideration in establishing
the standards. Moreover, nothing in the statute suggests that certain
kinds of electrified technologies are appropriate for consideration
while other kinds of electrified technologies are not. While some
commenters suggest that battery electric vehicles or fuel cell vehicles
represent a difference in kind from all other emissions control
technologies, that is simply untrue. As we explain in section II and
RIA Chapter 1, electrified technologies comprise a large range of motor
vehicle technologies. In fact, all new motor vehicles manufactured in
the United States today have some degree of electrification and rely on
electrified technology to control emissions.
ICE vehicles are equipped with alternators that generate
electricity and batteries that store such electricity. The electricity
in turn is used for numerous purposes, such as starting the ICE and
powering various vehicle electronics and accessories. More
specifically, electrified technology is a vital part of controlling
emissions on all new motor vehicles produced today: motor vehicles rely
on electronic control modules (ECM) for controlling and monitoring
their operation, including the fuel mixture (whether gasoline fuel,
diesel fuel, natural gas fuel, etc.), ignition timing, transmission,
and emissions control system. In enacting the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990, Congress itself recognized the great importance of this
particular electrified technology for emissions control in certain
vehicles.\120\ It would be impossible to drive any ICE vehicle produced
today or to control the emissions of such a vehicle without such
electrified technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ See CAA 207(i)(2) (for light-duty vehicles, statutorily
designating ``specified major emission control components'' subject
to extended warranty provisions as including ``an electronic
emissions control unit''). Congress also designated by statute
``onboard emissions diagnostic devices'' as ``specified major
emission control components''; OBD devices also rely on electrified
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, many of the extensive suite of technologies that
manufacturers have devised for controlling emissions rely on
electrified technology and do so in a host of different ways. These
include technologies that improve the efficiency of the engine and
system of propulsion, such as the ECMs, electronically-controlled fuel
injection (for all manners of fuel, including but not limited to
gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane, and hydrogen), and automatic
transmission; technologies that reduce the amount of ICE engine use
such as engine stop-start technology and other idle reduction
technologies; add-on technologies to control pollution after it has
been generated by the engine, such as gasoline three-way catalysts, and
diesel selective catalytic reduction and particulate filters that rely
on electrified technology to control and monitor their performance;
non-engine technologies that that rely on electrified systems to
improve vehicle aerodynamics; technologies related to vehicle
electricity production, such as high efficiency alternators; and engine
accessory technologies that increase the efficiency of the vehicle,
such as electric coolant pumps, electric steering pumps, and electric
air conditioning compressors. Because electrified technologies reduce
emissions, EPA has long considered them relevant for regulatory
purposes under Title II. For example, EPA has relied on various such
technologies to justify the feasibility of the standards promulgated
under section 202(a),\121\ promulgated requirements and guidance
related to testing involving such technologies under section 206,\122\
required manufacturers to provide warranties for them under section
207,\123\ and prohibited their tampering under section 203.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ See, e.g., LD 2010 rule, 88 FR 25324, May 7, 2010; HD GHG
Phase 2 rule, 81 FR 73478, October 25, 2016.
\122\ See, e.g., HD GHG Phase 1 rule, 76 FR 57106, September 15,
2011.
\123\ See, e.g., HD GHG Phase 1 rule, 76 FR 57106, September 15,
2011.
\124\ See, e.g., HD GHG Phase 1 rule, 76 FR 57106, September 15,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain vehicles rely to a greater extent on electrification as an
emissions control strategy. These include (1) hybrid vehicles, which
rely principally on an ICE to power the wheels, but also derive
propulsion from an on-board electric motor, which can charge batteries
through regenerative braking, and feature a range of larger batteries
than non-hybrid ICE vehicles;\125\ (2) plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV),
which have an even larger battery that can also be charged by plugging
it into an outlet and can rely principally on electricity for
propulsion, along with an ICE; (3) hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles (FCEV),
which are fueled by hydrogen to produce electricity to power the wheels
and have a range of larger battery sizes; \126\ and (4) battery
electric vehicles (BEV), which rely entirely on plug-in charging and
the battery to provide the energy for propulsion. Manufacturers may
also choose to sell different models of the same vehicle with different
levels of electrification. In many but not all
[[Page 29464]]
cases,\127\ electrified technologies are systems which ``prevent''
(partially or completely) the emission of pollution from the motor
vehicle engine.\128\ Nothing in the statute indicates that EPA is
limited from considering any of these technologies. For instance,
nothing in the statute says that EPA may only consider emissions
control technologies with a certain kind or level of electrification,
e.g., where the battery is smaller than a certain size, where the
energy derived from the battery is less than a certain percentage of
total vehicle energy, where certain energy can be recharged by plugging
the vehicle into an outlet as opposed to running the internal
combustion engine, etc. The statute does not differentiate in terms of
such details, but simply commands EPA to adopt emissions standards
based on the ``development and application of the requisite technology,
giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ Hybrid vehicles include both mild hybrids, which have a
relatively smaller battery and can use the electric motor to
supplement the propulsion provided by the ICE, as well as strong
hybrids, which have a relatively larger battery and can drive for
limited distances entirely on battery power.
\126\ As explained in section II.D.3.ii, the instantaneous power
required to move a FCEV can come from either the fuel cell, the
battery, or a combination of both. Interactions between the fuel
cells and batteries of a FCEV can be complex and may vary based on
application.
\127\ For example, some vehicles also use electrified technology
to preheat the catalyst and improve catalyst efficiency especially
when starting in cold temperatures.
\128\ CAA section 202(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's interpretation also accords the primary purpose and operation
of section 202(a), which is to reduce emissions of air pollutants from
motor vehicles that are anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare.\129\ This statutory purpose compels EPA to consider available
technologies that reduce emissions of air pollutants most effectively,
including vehicle technologies that result in no vehicle tailpipe
emissions of GHGs and completely ``prevent'' such emissions.\130\ And,
given Congress's directive to reduce air pollution, it would make
little sense for Congress to have authorized EPA to consider
technologies that achieve 99 percent pollution reduction (for example,
as some PM filter technologies do to control criteria pollutants), but
not 100 percent pollution reduction. At minimum, the statute allows EPA
to consider such technologies. Today, many of the available
technologies that can achieve the greatest emissions control are those
that rely on greater levels of electrification, with ZEV technologies
capable of completely preventing vehicle tailpipe emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ See also Coal. for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA,
684 F.3d 102, 122 (D.C. Cir. 2012), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub
nom. Util. Air Regulation. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014), and
amended sub nom. Coal. for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 606
F. App'x 6 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (the purpose of section 202(a) is
``utilizing emission standards to prevent reasonably anticipated
endangerment from maturing into concrete harm'').
\130\ CAA section 202(a)(1); see also CAA section 202(a)(4)(B)
directing EPA to consider whether a technology ``eliminates the
emission of unregulated pollutants'' in assessing its safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The surrounding statutory context further highlights that Congress
intended section 202 to lead to reductions to the point of complete
pollution prevention. Consistent with section 202(a)(1), section
101(c), of the Act states), ``A primary goal of this chapter is to
encourage or otherwise promote reasonable Federal, State, and local
governmental actions, consistent with the provisions of this chapter,
for pollution prevention.'' \131\ Section 101(a)(3) further explains
the term ``air pollution prevention'' (as contrasted with ``air
pollution control'') to mean ``the reduction or elimination, through
any measures, of the amount of pollutants produced or created at the
source.'' That is to say, EPA is not limited to requiring small
reductions, but instead has authority to consider technologies that may
entirely prevent the pollution from occurring in the first place.
Congress also repeatedly amended the Act to itself impose extremely
large reductions in motor vehicle pollution.\132\ Similarly, Congress
prescribed EPA to set standards achieving specific, numeric levels of
emissions reductions (which in many instances cumulatively amount to
multiple orders of magnitude),\133\ while explicitly stating that EPA's
202(a) authority allowed the agency to go still further.\134\
Consistent with these statutory authorities, prior rulemakings have
also required very large emissions reductions, including to the point
of completely preventing certain types of emissions.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ Clean Air Act Amendments, 104 Stat. 2399, 2468, November
15, 1990; see also 42 U.S.C. chapter 85 (``AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION
AND CONTROL'').
\132\ See, e.g., CAA section 202(a)(3)(A)(i) (directed EPA to
promulgate standards that ``reflect the greatest decree of emission
reduction achievable'' for certain pollutants).
\133\ CAA section 202(a), (g)-(h), (j).
\134\ See, e.g., CAA section 202(b)(1)(C) (``The Administrator
may promulgate regulations under subsection (a)(1) revising any
standard prescribed or previously revised under this subsection . .
. . Any revised standard shall require a reduction of emissions from
the standard that was previously applicable.''), (i)(3)(B)(iii)
(``Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit the Administrator from
exercising the Administrator's authority under subsection (a) to
promulgate more stringent standards for light-duty vehicles and
light-duty . . . at any other time thereafter in accordance with
subsection (a).'').
\135\ See, e.g., 31 FR 5171, March 30, 1966 (``No crankcase
emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any
new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine subject to this
subpart.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This reading of the statute accords with the practical reality of
administering an effective emissions control program, a matter in which
the Agency has developed considerable expertise over the last five
decades. Such a program is necessarily predicated on the continuous
development of increasingly effective emissions control technologies.
In determining the standards, EPA appropriately considers updated data
and analysis on pollution control technologies, without a priori
limiting its consideration to a particular set of technologies. Given
the continuous development of pollution control technologies since the
early days of the CAA, this approach means that EPA has routinely
considered new and projected technologies developed or refined since
the time of the CAA's enactment, including for instance,
electrification technologies.\136\ The innumerable technologies on
which EPA's standards have been premised, or which EPA has otherwise
incentivized, are presented in summary form later in this section and
then in full in section 2 of the RTC. This approach is inherent in the
statutory text of section 202(a)(2): in requiring EPA to consider lead
time for the development and application of technology before standards
may take effect, Congress directed EPA to consider future technological
advancements and innovation rather than limiting the Agency to only
those technologies in place at the time the statute was enacted. In the
report accompanying the Senate bill for the 1965 legislation
establishing section 202(a), the Senate Committee wrote that it
``believes that exact standards need not be written legislatively but
that the Secretary should adjust to changing technology.'' \137\ This
forward-looking regulatory approach keeps pace with real-world
technological developments that have the potential to reduce emissions
and comports with congressional intent and precedent.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ For example, when EPA issued its Tier 2 standards for
light-duty and medium-duty vehicles in 2000, the Agency established
``bins'' of standards in addition to a fleet average requirement. 65
FR 6698, 6734-6735, February 10, 2000. One ``bin'' was used to
certify electric vehicles that have zero criteria pollutant
emissions. Id. Under the Tier 2 program, a manufacturer could
designate which bins their different models fit into, and the
weighted average across bins was required to meet the fleet average
standard. Id. at 6746.
\137\ S. Rep. No. 89-192, at 4 (1965). Likewise, the report
accompanying the House bill stated that ``the objective of achieving
fully effective control of motor vehicle pollution will not be
accomplished overnight. [T]he techniques now available provide only
a partial reduction in motor vehicle emissions. For the future,
better methods of control will clearly be needed; the committee
expects that [the agency] will accelerate its efforts in this
area.'' H.R. Rep. No. 89-899, at 4 (1965).
\138\ See also NRDC, 655 F.2d at 328 (EPA is ``to project future
advances in pollution control capability. It was `expected to press
for the development and application of improved technology rather
than be limited by that which exists today.' ;'' To do otherwise
would thwart congressional intent and leave EPA ``unable to set
pollutant levels until the necessary technology is already
available.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29465]]
For all these reasons, EPA's consideration of electrified
technologies and technologies that prevent vehicle tailpipe emissions
in establishing the standards is unambiguously permitted by the Act;
indeed, given the Act's purpose to use technology to prevent air
pollution from motor vehicles, and the agency's factual finding based
on voluminous record evidence that BEV and FCEV technologies are the
most effective and available technologies for doing so, the Agency's
consideration of such technologies is compelled by the statute. Because
the statutory text in its context is plain, we could end our
interpretive inquiry here. However, we have taken the additional step
of reviewing the extensive statutory and legislative history regarding
the kinds of technology, including electric vehicle technology, that
Congress expected EPA to consider in exercising its section 202(a)
authority. Over six decades of congressional enactments and statements
provide overwhelming support for EPA's consideration of electrified
technologies and technologies that prevent vehicle tailpipe emissions
in establishing the final standards.
As explained, section 202 does not specify or expect any particular
type of motor vehicle propulsion system to remain prevalent, and it was
clear to Congress as early as the 1960s that ICE vehicles might be
inadequate to achieve the country's air quality goals. In 1967, the
Senate Committees on Commerce and Public Works held five days of
hearings on ``electric vehicles and other alternatives to the internal
combustion engine,'' which Chairman Magnuson opened by saying ``The
electric [car] will help alleviate air pollution and urban congestion.
The consumer will benefit from instant starting, reduced maintenance,
long life, and the economy of electricity as a fuel. . . . The electric
car does not mean a new way of life, but rather it is a new technology
to help solve the new problems of our age.'' \139\ In a 1970 message to
Congress seeking a stronger CAA, President Nixon stated he was
initiating a program to develop ``an unconventionally powered,
virtually pollution free automobile'' because of the possibility that
``the sheer number of cars in densely populated areas will begin
outrunning the technological limits of our capacity to reduce pollution
from the internal combustion engine.'' \140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ Electric Vehicles and Other Alternatives to the Internal
Combustion Engine: Joint Hearings before the Comm. On Commerce and
the Subcomm. On Air and Water Pollution of the Comm. On Pub. Works,
90th Cong. (1967).
\140\ Richard Nixon, Special Message to the Congress on
Environmental Quality (February 10, 1970), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress-environmental-quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the earliest days of the CAA, Congress has also emphasized
that the goal of section 202 is to address air quality hazards from
motor vehicles, not to simply reduce emissions from internal combustion
engines to the extent feasible. In the Senate Report accompanying the
1970 CAA Amendments, Congress made clear the EPA ``is expected to press
for the development and application of improved technology rather than
be limited by that which exists'' and identified several
``unconventional'' technologies that could successfully meet air
quality-based emissions targets for motor vehicles.\141\ In the 1970
amendments, Congress further demonstrated its recognition that
developing new technology to ensure that pollution control keeps pace
with economic development is not merely a matter of refining the ICE,
but requires considering new types of motor vehicle propulsion.\142\
Congress provided EPA with authority to fund the development of ``low
emission alternatives to the present internal combustion engine'' as
well as a program to encourage Federal purchases of ``low-emission
vehicles.'' See CAA section 104(a)(2) (previously codified as CAA
section 212).\143\ Congress also adopted section 202(e) expressly to
grant the Administrator discretion under certain conditions regarding
the certification of vehicles and engines based on ``new power sources
or propulsion system[s],'' that is to say, power sources and propulsion
systems beyond the existing internal combustion engine and fuels
available at the time of the statute's enactment. As the D.C. Circuit
stated in 1975, ``We may also note that it is the belief of many
experts--both in and out of the automobile industry--that air pollution
cannot be effectively checked until the industry finds a substitute for
the conventional automotive power plant--the reciprocating internal
combustion (i.e., `piston') engine. . . . It is clear from the
legislative history that Congress expected the Clean Air Amendments to
force the industry to broaden the scope of its research--to study new
types of engines and new control systems.'' \144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ S. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 24-27 (1970).
\142\ In the lead up to enactment of the CAA of 1970, Senator
Edmund Muskie, Chair of the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution
of the Committee on Public Works (now the Committee on Environment
and Public Works), stated that ``[t]he urgency of the problems
required that the industry consider, not only the improvement of
existing technology, but also alternatives to the internal
combustion engine and new forms of transportation.'' 116 Cong. Rec.
42382, December 18, 1970.
\143\ A Senate report on the Federal Low-Emission Vehicle
Procurement Act of 1970, the standalone legislation that ultimately
became the low-emission vehicle procurement provisions of the 1970
CAA, stated that the purpose of the bill was to direct Federal
procurement to ``stimulate the development, production and
distribution of motor vehicle propulsion systems which emit few or
no pollutants'' and explained that ``the best long range method of
solving the vehicular air pollution problem is to substitute for
present propulsion systems a new system which, during its life,
produces few pollutants and performs as well or better than the
present powerplant.'' S. Rep. No. 91-745, at 1, 4 (March 20, 1970).
\144\ Int'l Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615, 634-35
(D.C. Cir. 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, Congress believed that the motor vehicle emissions
program could achieve enormous emissions reductions, not merely modest
ones, through the application and development of ever-improving
emissions control technologies. For example, the Clean Air Act of 1970
required a 90 percent reduction in emissions, which was to be achieved
with less lead time than this rule provides for its final
standards.\145\ Ultimately, although the industry was able to meet the
standard using ICE technologies, the standard drove development of
entirely new engine and emission control technologies such as exhaust
gas recirculation and catalytic converters, which in turn required a
switch to unleaded fuel and the development of massive new
infrastructure (not present at the time the standard was finalized) to
support the distribution of this fuel.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ See Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, Public Law 91-604,
at sec. 6, 84 Stat. 1676, 1690, December 31, 1970 (amending section
202 of the CAA and directing EPA to issue regulations to reduce
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons from LD vehicles and engines by 90
percent in MY 1975 compared to MY 1970 and directing EPA to issue
regulations to reduce NOX emissions from LD vehicles and
engines by 90 percent in MY 1976 when compared with MY 1971).
\146\ Since the new vehicle technology required on all model
year 1975-76 vehicles would be poisoned by the lead in the existing
gasoline, it required the rollout of an entirely new fuel to the
marketplace with new refining technology needed to produce it. It
was not possible for refiners to make the change that quickly to all
of the nation's gasoline production, so this in turn required
installation of a new parallel fuel distribution infrastructure to
distribute and new retail infrastructure to dispense unleaded
gasoline to the customers with MY1975 and later vehicles while still
supplying leaded gasoline to the existing fleet. In order to ensure
availability of unleaded gasoline across the nation, all refueling
stations with sales greater than 200,000 gallons per year were
required to dispense the new unleaded gasoline. In 1974, less than
10 percent of all gasoline sold was unleaded gasoline, but by 1980
nearly 50 percent was unleaded. See generally Richard G. Newell and
Kristian Rogers, The U.S. Experience with the Phasedown of Lead in
Gasoline, Resources for the Future (June 2003), available at https://web.mit.edu/ckolstad/www/Newell.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29466]]
Since that time, Congress has continued to emphasize the importance
of technology development to achieving the goals of the CAA.\147\ In
the 1990 amendments, Congress determined that evolving technologies
could support further order of magnitude reductions in emissions. For
example, the statutory Tier I light-duty standards required (on top of
the existing standards) a further 30 percent reduction in nonmethane
hydrocarbons, 60 percent reduction in NOX, and 80 percent
reduction in PM for diesel vehicles. The Tier 2 light-duty standards in
turn required passenger vehicles to be 77 to 95 percent cleaner.\148\
Congress instituted a clean fuel vehicles program to promote further
progress in emissions reductions, which also applied to motor vehicles
as defined under section 216, see CAA section 241(1), and explicitly
defined motor vehicles qualifying under the program as including
vehicles running on an alternative fuel or ``power source (including
electricity),'' CAA section 241(2).\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ For example, in the lead up to the CAA Amendments of 1990,
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce reported that ``[t]he
Committee wants to encourage a broad range of vehicles using
electricity, improved gasoline, natural gas, alcohols, clean diesel
fuel, propane, and other fuels.'' H. Rep. No. 101-490, at 283 (May
17, 1990).
\148\ See 65 FR 28, February 10, 2000).
\149\ See also CAA section 246(f)(4) (under the clean fuels
program, directing the Administrator to issue standards ``for Ultra-
Low Emission Vehicles (ULEV's) and Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV's)''
and to conform certain such standards ``as closely as possible to
standards which are established by the State of California for ULEV
and ZEV vehicles in the same class.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress also directed EPA to phase-in certain section 202(a)
standards in CAA section 202(g)-(j).\150\ In doing so, Congress
recognized that certain technologies, while extremely potent at
achieving lower emissions, would be difficult for the entire industry
to adopt all at once. Rather, it would be more appropriate for the
industry to gradually implement the standards over a longer period of
time. This is directly analogous to EPA's assessment in this final
rule, which finds that industry will gradually shift to more effective
emissions control technologies over a period of time. Generally
speaking, phase-ins, fleet averages, and ABT all are means of
addressing the question, recognized by Congress in section 202, of how
to achieve emissions reductions to protect public health when it may be
difficult (or less preferable for manufacturers) to implement a
stringency increase across the entire fleet simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ CAA section 202(g) required a phase in for LD trucks up to
6,000 lbs GVWR and LD vehicles beginning with MY 1994 for emissions
of nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and particular matter (PM). These standards
phased in over several years. Similarly, CAA section 202(h) required
standards to be phased in beginning with MY 1995 for LD trucks of
more than 6,000 lbs GVWR for the same pollutants. CAA section 202(i)
required EPA to study whether further emission reductions should be
required with respect to MYs after January 1, 2003 for certain
vehicles. CAA section 202(j) required EPA to promulgate regulations
applicable to CO emissions from LD vehicles and LD trucks when
operated under ``cold start'' conditions i.e., when the vehicle is
operated at 20 degrees Fahrenheit. Congress directed EPA to phase in
these regulations beginning with MY 1994 under Phase I, and to study
the need for further reductions of CO and the maximum reductions
achievable for MY 2001 and later LD vehicles and LD trucks when
operated in cold start conditions. In addition, Congress specified
that any ``revision under this subchapter may provide for a phase-in
of the standard.'' CAA 202(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to EPA's ABT program, these statutory phase-in provisions
also evaluated compliance with respect to a manufacturers' fleet of
vehicles over the model year. More specifically, CAA section 202(g)-(j)
each required a specified percentage of a manufacturer's fleet to meet
a specified standard for each model year (e.g., 40 percent of a
manufacturer's sales volume must meet certain standards by MY 1994).
This made the level of a manufacturer's production over a model year a
core element of the standard. In other words, the form of the standard
mandated by Congress in these sections recognized that pre-production
certification would be based on a projection of production for the
upcoming model year, with actual compliance with the required
percentages not demonstrated until after the end of the model year.
Compliance was evaluated not only with respect to individual vehicles,
but with respect to the fleet as a whole. EPA's ABT provisions use this
same approach, adopting a similar, flexible form, that also makes the
level of a manufacturer's production a core element of the standard and
evaluates compliance at the fleet level, in addition to at the
individual vehicle level.
In enacting the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
Congress also recognized the possibility that fleet-average standards
also recognized the possibility of fleet-average standards. The statute
barred Federal agencies from acquiring ``a light duty motor vehicle or
medium duty passenger vehicle that is not a low greenhouse gas emitting
vehicle.'' \151\ It directed the Administrator to promulgate guidance
on such ``low greenhouse gas emitting vehicles,'' but explicitly
prohibited vehicles from so qualifying ``if the vehicle emits
greenhouse gases at a higher rate than such standards allow for the
manufacturer's fleet average grams per mile of carbon dioxide-
equivalent emissions for that class of vehicle, taking into account any
emissions allowances and adjustment factors such standards provide.''
\152\ Congress thus explicitly contemplated the possibility of motor
vehicle GHG standards with a fleet average form.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ 42 U.S.C. 13212(f)(2)(A).
\152\ 42 U.S.C. 13212(f)(3)(C) (emphasis added).
\153\ 42 U.S.C. 13212 does not specifically refer back to CAA
section 202(a). However, we think it is plain that Congress intended
for EPA in implementing section 13212 to consider relevant CAA
section 202(a) standards as well as standards issued by the State of
California. See 42 U.S.C. 13212(f)(3)(B) (``In identifying vehicles
under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall take into account
the most stringent standards for vehicle greenhouse gas emissions
applicable to and enforceable against motor vehicle manufacturers
for vehicles sold anywhere in the United States.''). As explained in
the text, EPA has historically set fleet average standards under CAA
section 202(a) for certain emissions from motor vehicles. Under
section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, EPA may also authorize the
State of California to adopt and enforce its own motor vehicle
emissions standards subject the statutory criteria. California has
also adopted certain fleet average motor vehicle emissions
standards. No other Federal agency or State government has authority
to establish emissions standards for new motor vehicles, although
certain States may choose to adopt standards identical to
California's pursuant to CAA section 177.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recently-enacted IRA\154\ demonstrates Congress's continued
resolve to drive down emissions from motor vehicles through the
application of the entire range of available technologies, and
specifically highlights the importance of ZEV technologies. The IRA
``reinforces the longstanding authority and responsibility of [EPA] to
regulate GHGs as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act,'' \155\ and
``the IRA clearly and deliberately instructs EPA to use'' this
authority by ``combin[ing] economic incentives to reduce climate
pollution with regulatory drivers to spur greater reductions under
EPA's CAA authorities.'' \156\ To assist with this, as described in
section II and RIA Chapter 1, the IRA provides a number of economic
incentives for HD ZEVs and the infrastructure necessary to support
them, and specifically affirms Congress's previously articulated
statements that non-ICE technologies
[[Page 29467]]
will be a key component of achieving emissions reductions from the
mobile source sector, including the HD sector.\157\ The legislative
history reflects that ``Congress recognizes EPA's longstanding
authority under CAA section 202 to adopt standards that rely on zero
emission technologies, and Congress expects that future EPA regulations
will increasingly rely on and incentivize zero-emission vehicles as
appropriate.'' \158\ These developments further confirm that the focus
of CAA section 202 is on application of innovative technologies to
reduce vehicular emissions, and not on the means by which vehicles are
powered. This statutory and legislative history, beginning with the
1960s and through the recently enacted IRA, demonstrate Congress's
historical and contemporary commitment to reducing motor vehicle
emissions through the application of increasingly advanced
technologies. Consistent with Congress's intent and this legislative
history, EPA's rulemakings have taken the same approach, basing
standards on ever-evolving technologies that have allowed for enormous
emissions reductions. As required by the Act, EPA has consistently
considered the lead time and costs of control technologies in
determining whether and how they should be included in the
technological packages for the standards, along with other factors that
affect the real-world adoption or impacts of the technologies as
appropriate. Over time, EPA's motor vehicle emission standards have
been based on and stimulated the development of a broad set of advanced
technologies--such as electronic fuel injection systems, gasoline
catalytic convertors, diesel particulate filters, diesel NOX
reduction catalysts, gasoline direct injection fuel systems, and
advanced transmission technologies--which have been the building blocks
of heavy-duty vehicle designs and have yielded not only lower pollutant
emissions, but improved vehicle performance, reliability, and
durability. Many of these technologies did not exist when Congress
first granted EPA's section 202(a) authority in 1965, but these
technologies nonetheless have been successfully adopted and reduced
emissions by multiple orders of magnitude.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Inflation Reduction Act, Public Law 117-169, 136 Stat.
1818, (2022), available at https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr5376/BILLS-117hr5376enr.pdf.
\155\ 168 Cong. Rec. E868-02 (daily ed. August 12, 2022)
(statement of Rep. Pallone, Chairman of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee).
\156\ 168 Cong. Rec. E879-02, at 880 (daily ed. August 26, 2022)
(statement of Rep. Pallone).
\157\ See Inflation Reduction Act, Public Law 117-169, at
Sec. Sec. 13204, 13403, 13404, 13501, 13502, 50142-50145, 50151-
50153, 60101-60104, 70002 136 Stat. 1818, (2022), available at
https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr5376/BILLS-117hr5376enr.pdf.
\158\ 168 Cong. Rec. E879-02, at 880 (daily ed. August 26, 2022)
(statement of Rep. Pallone).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously discussed, beginning in 2011, EPA has set HD vehicle
and engine standards under section 202(a)(1)-(2) for GHGs.\159\
Manufacturers have responded to these standards over the past decade by
continuing to develop and deploy a wide range of technologies,
including more efficient engine designs, transmissions, aerodynamics,
tires, and air conditioning systems that contribute to lower GHG
emissions, as well as vehicles based on methods of propulsion beyond
diesel- and gasoline-fueled ICE vehicles, including ICE running on
alternative fuels, as well as various levels of electrified vehicle
technologies from mild hybrids, to strong hybrids, and up through
battery electric vehicles and fuel-cell vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ 76 FR 57106, September 15, 2011 (establishing first ever
GHG standards for heavy-duty vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has long established performance-based emission standards that
anticipate the use of new and emerging technologies.\160\ In both the
HD Phase 1\161\ and Phase 2 standards,\162\ as in this rule, EPA
specifically considered the availability of electrified technologies,
including ZEV technologies. At the time of the HD Phase 1 and 2 rules,
EPA determined based on the record before it that certain technologies,
namely more electrified technologies like PHEV and BEV as well as FCEV,
should not be part of the technology packages to support the
feasibility of the standards given that they were not expected to be
sufficiently available during the model years for those rules, giving
consideration to lead time and costs of compliance. Instead,
recognizing the possible future use of those technologies and their
potential to achieve very large emissions reductions, EPA incentivized
their development and deployment through advanced technology credit
multipliers, which give manufacturers additional ABT credits for
producing such vehicles. In this rule, EPA continues to consider these
technologies, and based on the updated record, finds that such
technologies will be available at a reasonable cost during the
timeframe for this rule, and therefore has included them in the
technology packages to support the level of the standards under the
modeled potential compliance pathway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ For example, in EPA's 2016 HD Phase 2 regulations, the
Agency explained that the emission standards were ``predicated on
use of both off-the-shelf technologies and emerging technologies
that are not yet in widespread use'' and which we projected would
``require manufacturers to make extensive use of these
technologies.'' 81 FR 73478, October 25, 2016. See also, e.g., NRDC
v. Thomas, 805 F. 2d 410, 431 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (upholding EPA rule
where EPA identified trap oxidizers technology as the basis for
compliance with numerical PM standard); Nat'l Petroleum and Refiners
Ass'n v. EPA, 287 F. 3d 1130, 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (NOX
absorbers and catalyzed particulate filters as basis for complying
with numerical NOs and PM standards.).
\161\ The Phase 1 GHG program set standards for MY 2014 through
2018 and later. See 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).
\162\ The Phase 2 GHG program set standards for MY 2021 through
2027 and later for combination tractors, vocational vehicles, HD
pickup trucks and vans, and engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis of the statutory text, purpose and history, as well as
EPA's history of implementing the statute, demonstrate that the agency
must, or at a minimum may, appropriately consider available electrified
technologies that completely prevent emissions in determining the final
standards. In this rulemaking, EPA has done so. The agency has made the
necessary predictive judgments as to potential technological
developments that can support the feasibility of the final standards
and also as to the availability of supporting charging and refueling
infrastructure and critical minerals necessary to support those
technological developments, as applicable. In making these judgments,
EPA has adhered to the long-standing approach established by the D.C.
Circuit, identifying a reasonable sequence of future developments,
noting potential difficulties, and explaining how they may be obviated
within the lead time afforded for compliance. EPA has also consulted
with other organizations with relevant expertise such as the
Departments of Energy and Transportation, including through careful
consideration of their reports and related analytic work reflected in
the administrative record for this rulemaking.
Although the standards are supported by the Administrator's
predictive judgments regarding pollution control technologies and the
modeled potential compliance pathway, we emphasize that the final
standards are not a mandate for a specific type of technology. They do
not legally or de facto require a manufacturer to follow a specific
technological pathway to comply. Consistent with our historical
practice, EPA is finalizing performance-based standards that provide
compliance flexibility to manufacturers. While EPA projects that
manufacturers may comply with the standards through the use of certain
technologies, including a mix of advanced ICE vehicles, BEVs, and
FCEVs, manufacturers may select any technology or mix of technologies
that would enable them to meet the final standards.
These choices are real and valuable to manufacturers, as attested
to by the
[[Page 29468]]
historical record. The real-world results of our prior rulemakings make
clear that industry sometimes chooses to comply with our standards in
ways that the Agency did not anticipate, presumably because it is more
cost-effective for them to do so. In other words, while EPA sets
standards that are feasible based on our modeling of potential
compliance pathways, manufacturers may find what they consider to be
better pathways to meet the standards and may opt to follow those
pathways instead.
For example, in promulgating the 2010 LD GHG rule, EPA modeled a
technology pathway for compliance with the MY 2016 standards. In
actuality, manufacturers diverged from EPA's projections across a wide
range of technologies, instead choosing their own technology pathways
best suited for their fleets.163 164 For example, EPA
projected greater penetration of dual-clutch transmissions than
ultimately occurred in the MY 2016 fleet; by contrast, use of 6-speed
automatic transmissions was twice what EPA had predicted. Both
transmission technologies represented substantial improvements over the
existing transmission technologies, with the manufacturers choosing
which specific technology was best suited for their products and
customers. Looking specifically at electrification technologies, start-
stop systems were projected at 45 percent and were used in 10 percent
of vehicles, while strong hybrids were projected to be 6.5 percent of
the MY 2016 fleet and were actually only 2 percent.\165\
Notwithstanding these differences between EPA's projections and actual
manufacturer decisions, the industry as a whole was not only able to
comply with the standards during the period of those standards (2012-
2016), but to generate substantial additional credits for
overcompliance.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ See EPA Memorandum to the docket for this rulemaking,
``Comparison of EPA CO2 Reducing Technology Projections between 2010
Light-duty Vehicle Rulemaking and Actual Technology Production for
Model Year 2016''.
\164\ Similarly, in our 2001 final rule promulgating heavy-duty
nitrogen oxide (NOX) and particulate matter (PM)
standards, for example, we predicted that manufacturers would comply
with the new nitrogen oxide (NOX) standards through the
addition of NOX absorbers or ``traps.'' 66 FR 5002, 5036
(January 18, 2001) (``[T]he new NOX standard is projected
to require the addition of a highly efficient NOX
emission control system to diesel engines.''). We stated that we
were not basing the feasibility of the standards on selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) noting that SCR ``was first developed for
stationary applications and is currently being refined for the
transient operation found in mobile applications.'' Id. at 5053.
However, industry's approach to complying with the 2001 standards
ultimately included the use of SCR for diesel engines. We also
projected that manufacturers would comply with the final PM
standards through the addition of PM traps to diesel engines;
however, industry was able to meet the PM standards without the use
of PM traps or any other PM aftertreatment systems.
\165\ Although in 2010, EPA overestimated technology
penetrations for strong hybrids, in 2012, we underestimated
technology penetrations for PEVs, projecting on 1 percent
penetration by MY 2021, while actual sales exceeded 4 percent.
Compare 2012 Rule RIA, Table 3.5-22 with 2022 Automotive Trends
Report, Table 4.1.
\166\ See 2022 Automotive Trends Report, Fig. ES-8 (industry
generated credits each year from 2012-2015 and generated net credits
for the years 2012-2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of the final standards, EPA has also performed
additional modeling demonstrating that the standards can be met in
multiple ways. As discussed in section II.F.4 of the final rule
preamble, while our modeled potential compliance pathway includes a mix
of ICE vehicles, BEV, and FCEV technologies, we also evaluated
additional examples of potential technology packages and potential
compliance pathways that include only additional vehicles with ICE
across a range of electrification. These additional examples of
technology pathways also support the feasibility of the final standards
and show that the final standards may be met without producing
additional ZEVs to comply with this rule.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ We stress, however, that these additional pathways are not
necessary to justify this rulemaking; the statute requires EPA to
demonstrate that the standards can be met by the development and
application of technology, but it does not require the agency to
identify multiple technological solutions to the pollution control
problem before mandating more stringent standards. That EPA has done
so in this rulemaking, identifying a wide array of technologies
capable of further reducing emissions, only highlights the
feasibility of the standards and the significant practical
flexibilities manufacturers have to attain compliance. We observe
that some past standards have been premised on the application of a
single known technology at the time, such as the catalytic
converter. See Int'l Harvester v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615, 625
(D.C. Cir. 1973) (in setting standards for light duty vehicles, the
Court upheld EPA's reliance on a single kind of technology); see
also 36 FR 12657 (1971) (promulgating regulations for light duty
vehicles based on the catalytic converter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Response to Other Comments Raising Legal Issues
In this section, EPA summarizes our responses to certain other
comments relating to our legal authority. These include three comments
relating to our legal authority to consider certain technologies
discussed in section I.B: whether this rule implicates the major
questions doctrine, whether EPA has authority for its Averaging,
Banking, and Trading (ABT) program, and whether EPA erred in
considering heavy-duty ZEVs as part of the same class as other heavy-
duty vehicles for GHG regulation. These comments were raised only by
entities not regulated by this rule. This section also addresses a
comment regarding whether the 4-year lead time and 3-year stability
requirements in CAA section 202(a)(3)(C) apply to this rule. We
separately discuss our legal authority and rationale for battery
durability and warranty in section III.B of the preamble.
Major questions doctrine. While many commenters recognized EPA's
legal authority to adopt the final GHG standards, certain commenters
claimed that this rule asserts a novel and transformative exercise of
regulatory power that implicates the major questions doctrine and
exceeds EPA's legal authority. These arguments were intertwined with
arguments challenging EPA's consideration of electrified technologies.
Some commenters claimed that the agency's decision to do so and the
resulting GHG standards would mandate a large increase in electric
vehicles. According to these commenters, this in turn would cause
indirect impacts, including relating to issues allegedly outside EPA's
traditional areas of expertise, such as to the petroleum refining
industry, electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure,
grid reliability, and US national security.
EPA does not agree that this rule implicates the major questions
doctrine as that doctrine has been elucidated by the Supreme Court in
West Virginia v. EPA and related cases.\168\ The Court has made clear
that the doctrine is reserved for extraordinary cases involving
assertions of highly consequential power beyond what Congress could
reasonably be understood to have granted. This is not such an
extraordinary case in which congressional intent is unclear. Here, EPA
is acting within the heartland of its statutory authority and
faithfully implementing Congress's precise direction and intent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ W. Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2605, 2610 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, as we explain in section I.A-B of the preamble, the statute
provides clear congressional authorization for EPA to consider updated
data on pollution control technologies--including BEV and FCEV
technologies--and to determine the emission standards accordingly. In
section 202(a), Congress made the major policy decision to regulate air
pollution from motor vehicles. Congress also prescribed that EPA should
accomplish this mandate through a technology-based approach,
[[Page 29469]]
and it plainly entrusted to the Administrator's judgment the evaluation
of pollution control technologies that are or will become available
given the available lead-time and the consequent determination of the
emission standards. In the final rule, the Administrator determined
that a wide variety of technologies exist to further control GHGs from
HD vehicles--including various ICE, hybrid, and ZEV technologies such
as BEVs and FCEVs--and that such technologies could be applied at a
reasonable cost to achieve significant reductions of GHG emissions that
contribute to the ongoing climate crisis. These subsidiary technical
and policy judgments were clearly within the Administrator's delegated
authority.
Second, the agency is not invoking a novel authority. As described
previously in this section, EPA has been regulating emissions from
motor vehicles based upon the availability of feasible technologies to
reduce vehicle emissions for over five decades. EPA has specifically
regulated GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles since 2011. Our rules,
including this rule and the HD Phase 1 and HD Phase 2 rules, have
consistently considered available technology to reduce or prevent
emissions of the relevant pollutant, including technologies to reduce
or completely prevent GHGs. Our consideration of ZEV technologies
specifically has a long pedigree, beginning with the 1998 National Low
Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program. Further, the administrative record
here indicates the industry will likely choose to deploy an increasing
number of vehicles with emissions control technologies such as BEV and
FCEV, in light of new technological advances, the IRA and other
government programs, as well as this rule. That the industry will
continue to apply the latest technologies to reduce pollution is no
different than how the industry has responded to EPA's rules for half a
century. The agency's factual findings and resulting determination of
the degree of stringency do not represent the exercise of a newfound
power. Iterative increases to the stringency of an existing program
based on new factual developments hardly reflect an unprecedented
expansion of agency authority.
Not only does this rule not invoke any new authority, it also falls
well within EPA's traditionally delegated powers. Through five decades
of regulating vehicle emissions under the CAA, EPA has developed great
expertise in the regulation of motor vehicle emissions, including
specifically GHG emissions (see RIA Chapter 2.1). The agency's
expertise is reflected in the comprehensive analyses present in the
administrative record. The courts have recognized the agency's
authority in this area.\169\ The agency's analysis includes our
assessment of available pollution control technologies; the design and
application of a quantitative model (HD TRUCS) for assessing feasible
rates of technology adoption; the economic costs of developing,
applying, and using pollution control technologies; the context for
deploying such technologies (e.g., the supply of raw materials and
components, and the availability of supporting charging and refueling
infrastructure); the impacts of using pollution control technologies on
emissions, and consequent impacts on public health, welfare, and the
economy. While each rule necessarily deals with different facts, such
as advances in new pollution control technologies at the time of that
rule, the above factors are among the kinds of considerations that EPA
regularly evaluates in its motor vehicle rules, including all our prior
GHG rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ See, e.g., Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007)
(``Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's
capacious definition of ``air pollutant,'' we hold that EPA has the
statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new
motor vehicles.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, this rule does not involve decisions of vast economic and
political importance exceeding EPA's delegated authority. To begin
with, commenters err in characterizing this rule as an ``EV mandate.''
That is false as a legal matter and a practical matter. As a legal
matter, this rule does not mandate that any manufacturer use any
specific technology to meet the standards in this rule. And as a
practical matter, as explained in section II.F.3 of the preamble and
Chapter 1.4 of the RIA, manufacturers can adopt a wide array of
technologies, including various ICE, hybrid, electric, and fuel-cell
technologies, to comply with this rule. Specifically, EPA has
identified several additional potential compliance pathways, including
pathways without producing additional ZEVs to comply with this rule,
that can be achieved in the lead-time provided and at a reasonable
cost. Moreover, the adoption of additional control technologies,
including ZEVs, are complementary to what the manufacturers are already
doing regardless of this rule. As major HD vehicle manufacturers told
EPA in their comments, they have already made considerable investments
and shifted future product plans to focus on ZEV technologies,
including in response to the significant incentives for ZEVs that
Congress provided in the IRA, and they support EPA establishing the
standards based on the increasing availability of ZEV technologies.
Looking to the future under the No Action scenario, as shown in RIA
Table 4-8, we project that by 2032 ZEVs will account for between 4.7
percent (long-haul tractors) and 30.1 percent (LHD vocational) of new
HD vehicles, depending on regulatory group. The final rule builds on
these industry trends. It will likely cause some heavy-duty
manufacturers to adopt control technologies more rapidly than they
otherwise would, and this will result in significant pollution
reductions and large public health and welfare benefits. However, that
is the entire point of section 202(a); that EPA and the regulated
industry may be successful in achieving Congress's purposes does not
mean the agency has exceeded its delegated authority.
The regulatory burdens of this rule are also reasonable and not
different in kind from prior exercises of EPA's authority under section
202. The regulated community of heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers in
this rule was also regulated by the earlier Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules.
In terms of costs of compliance for regulated entities, EPA anticipates
that the rule will result in aggregate cost savings for manufacturers,
both in light of technological advances in ZEV technologies and the
significant incentives provided by the IRA. When we assess the fleet
average costs of compliance per HD vehicle during the year in which the
program is fully phased-in, we also find relatively lower costs
compared to Phase 2.\170\ These costs, moreover, are a small fraction
of the costs of new HD vehicles and small relative to what Congress
itself accepted in enacting section 202.\171\ The rule also does not
create any other excessive regulatory burdens on regulated entities;
for example, the rule does not require any manufacturer to shut down,
or to curtail or delay production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ We further discuss costs in preamble sections IV and II.G,
and we provide numerical comparisons of costs to the Phase 1 and 2
rules in section 2 of the RTC.
\171\ See Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d
1095, 1118 (DC Cir. 1979) (``Congress wanted to avoid undue economic
disruption in the automotive manufacturing industry and also sought
to avoid doubling or tripling the cost of motor vehicles to
purchasers.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While section 202 does not require EPA to consider consumer costs,
the agency recognizes that such costs, and consumer acceptance of new
pollution control technologies more broadly, can affect the application
of such technologies. As such, EPA carefully evaluated these issues.
For purchasers of HD vehicles, we project a range of
[[Page 29470]]
upfront costs, including savings for certain vehicle types. For all
vehicle types, we expect that the final standards will be economically
beneficial for purchasers because the lower operating costs during the
operational life of the vehicle will offset the increase in upfront
vehicle technology costs within the usual period of first ownership of
the vehicle. Furthermore, purchasers will benefit from annual operating
cost savings for each year after the payback occurs. EPA also carefully
designed the final rule to avoid any other kinds of disruptions to
purchasers. For example, we recognize that HD vehicles represent a
diverse array of vehicles and use cases, and we carefully tailored the
standards for each regulatory subcategory to ensure that purchasers
could obtain the kinds of HD vehicles they need. We also recognized
that HD vehicles require supporting infrastructure (e.g., fueling and
charging stations) to operate, and we accounted for sufficient lead-
time for the development of that infrastructure, including private
depot charging, public charging, and hydrogen refueling infrastructure.
We also identified numerous industry standards and safety protocols to
ensure the safety of HD vehicles, including BEVs and FCEVs.
We acknowledge the rule may have other impacts beyond those on
regulated entities and their customers (for purposes of discussion
here, referred to as ``indirect impacts''). But indirect impacts are
inherent in section 202 rulemakings, including past rulemakings going
back half a century. As the DC Circuit has observed, in the specific
context of EPA's Clean Air Act Title II authority to regulate motor
vehicles, ``[e]very effort at pollution control exacts social costs.
Congress . . . made the decision to accept those costs.'' \172\ In
EPA's long experience of promulgating environmental regulations, the
presence of indirect impacts does not reflect the extraordinary nature
of agency action, but rather the ordinary state of the highly
interconnected and global supply chain for motor vehicles. In any
event, EPA has considerable expertise in evaluating the broader social
impacts of the agency's regulations, for example on public health and
welfare, safety, energy, employment, and national security. Congress
has recognized the agency's expertise in many of these areas,\173\ and
EPA has regularly considered such indirect impacts in our prior rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095,
1118 (DC Cir. 1979); see also id. (``There is no indication that
Congress intended section 202's cost of compliance consideration to
embody social costs of the type petitioners advance,'' and holding
that the statute does not require EPA to consider antitrust
concerns); Coal. for Responsible Regul. Inc. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102,
128 (DC Cir. 2012) (holding that the statute ``does not mandate
consideration of costs to other entities not directly subject to the
proposed standards''); Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 534
(2007) (impacts on ``foreign affairs'' are not sufficient reason for
EPA to decline making the endangerment finding under section
202(a)(1)).
\173\ See, e.g., CAA section 202(a)(1) (requiring EPA
Administrator to promulgate standards for emissions from motor
vehicles ``which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare''), 202(a)(3)(A) (requiring the agency to
promulgate certain motor vehicle emission standards ``giving
appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors
associated with the application of such technology''), 203(b)(1)
(authorizing the Administrator to ``exempt any new motor vehicle or
new motor vehicle engine'' from certain statutory requirements
``upon such terms and conditions as he may find necessary . . . for
reasons of national security''), 312(a) (directing EPA to conduct a
``comprehensive analysis of the impact of this chapter on the public
health, economy, and environment of the United States'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA carefully analyzed indirect impacts and coordinated with
numerous Federal and other partners with relevant expertise, as
described in sections ES.E and II of the preamble.\174\ The
consideration of many indirect impacts is included in our assessment of
the rule's costs and-benefits. We estimate annualized net benefits of
$13 billion through the year 2055 when assessed at a 2 percent discount
rate (2022$). This number is actually smaller than the net benefits of
the Phase 2 rule; it is also a small fraction when compared to the size
of the heavy-duty industry itself, which is rapidly expanding.\175\ and
a tiny fraction of the size of the US economy.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ For example, we consulted with the following Federal
agencies and workgroups on their relevant areas of expertise:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at the
Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Energy (DOE)
including several national laboratories (Argonne National Laboratory
(ANL), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL)), United States Geological Survey (USGS)
at the Department of Interior (DOI), Joint Office of Energy and
Transportation (JOET), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC),
Department of Commerce (DOC), Department of Defense (DOD),
Department of State, Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries
(FCAB), and Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We also consulted
with State and regional agencies, and we engaged extensively with a
diverse set of stakeholders, including vehicle manufacturers, labor
unions, technology suppliers, dealers, utilities, charging
providers, environmental justice organizations, environmental
organizations, public health experts, tribal governments, and other
organizations.
\175\ See Precedence Research, Heavy Duty Trucks Market, https://www.precedenceresearch.com/heavy-duty-trucks-market (``The U.S.
heavy duty trucks market size was valued at USD 52.23 billion in
2023 and is expected to reach USD 105.29 billion by 2032, growing at
a CAGR of 8.10% from 2023 to 2032.'').
\176\ US GDP reached $25.46 trillion dollars in 2022. See Bureau
of Economic Analysis, Gross Domestic Product, Fourth Quarter and
Year 2022 (Second Estimate) (February 23, 2023), available at
https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/gross-domestic-product-fourth-quarter-and-year-2022-third-estimate-gdp-industry-and.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also carefully evaluated many indirect impacts outside of the
net benefits assessment, and we identified no significant indirect
harms and the potential for indirect benefits. Based on our analysis,
EPA projects that this rulemaking will not cause significant adverse
impacts on electric grid reliability or resource adequacy, that there
will be sufficient battery production and critical minerals available
to support increasing ZEV production including due to large anticipated
increases in domestic battery and critical mineral production, that
there will be sufficient lead-time to develop charging and hydrogen
refueling infrastructure, and that the rule will have significant
positive national security benefits. We also identified significant
initiatives by the Federal government (such as the BIL and IRA), State
and local government, and private firms, that complement EPA's final
rule, including initiatives to reduce the costs to purchase ZEVs;
support the development of domestic critical mineral, battery, and ZEV
production; improve the electric grid; and accelerate the establishment
of charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure.
These and other kinds of indirect impacts, moreover, are similar in
kind to the impacts of past EPA motor vehicle rules. For example, this
rule may reduce the demand for gasoline and diesel for HD vehicles
domestically and affect the petroleum refining industry, but that has
been the case for all of EPA's past GHG vehicle rules, which also
reduced demand for liquid fuels through advances in ICE engine and
vehicle technologies and corresponding fuel efficiency. And while
production of ZEVs does rely on a global supply chain, that is true for
all motor vehicles, which rely extensively on imports, from raw
materials like aluminum to components like semiconductors; addressing
supply chain vulnerabilities is a key component of managing any
significant manufacturing operation in today's global world. Further,
while ZEVs may require supporting infrastructure to operate, the same
is true for ICE vehicles; indeed, supporting infrastructure for ICE
vehicles has changed considerably over time in response to
environmental regulation,
[[Page 29471]]
for example, with the elimination of lead from gasoline, the
provisioning of diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) at truck stops to support
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technologies, and the introduction
of low sulfur diesel fuel to support diesel particulate filter (DPF)
technologies.
As with prior GHG vehicle rules, many indirect impacts are
positive: \177\ foremost, the significant benefits of mitigating
climate change, which poses catastrophic risks for human health and the
environment, water supply and quality, storm surge and flooding,
electricity infrastructure, agricultural disruptions and crop failures,
human rights, international trade, and national security. Other
positive indirect impacts include reduced dependence on foreign oil and
increased energy security and independence; increased regulatory
certainty for domestic production of pollution control technologies and
their components (including ZEVs, batteries, fuels cells, battery
components, and critical minerals) and for the development of electric
charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure, with attendant benefits
for employment and US global competitiveness in these sectors; and
increased use of electric charging and potential for vehicle-to-grid
technologies that can benefit electric grid reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ As noted, our use of ``indirect impacts'' in this section
refers to impacts beyond those on regulated entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, many of the indirect impacts find close analogs in the
impacts Congress itself recognized and accepted. For instance, in 1970
Congress debated whether to adopt standards that would depend heavily
on platinum-based catalysts in light of a world-wide shortage of
platinum,\178\ and in the leadup to the 1977 and 1990 Amendments,
Congress recognized that increasing use of three-way catalysts to
control motor vehicle pollution risked relying on foreign sources of
the critical mineral rhodium.\179\ In each case, Congress nonetheless
enacted statutory standards premised on this technology. Similarly,
Congress recognized and accepted the potential for employment impacts
caused by the Clean Air Act; it then chose to address such impacts not
by limiting EPA's authority to promulgate motor vehicle rules, but by
other measures, such as funding training and employment services for
affected workers.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ See, e.g., Environmental Policy Division of the
Congressional Research Service Volume 1, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., A
Legislative History of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 at 307
(Comm. Print 1974) (Senator Griffin opposed the vehicle emissions
standards because the vehicle that had been shown capable of meeting
the standards used platinum-based catalytic converters and ``[a]side
from the very high cost of the platinum in the exhaust system, the
fact is that there is now a worldwide shortage of platinum and it is
totally impractical to contemplate use in production line cars of
large quantities of this precious material. . . .'').
\179\ See, e.g., 136 Cong. Rec. 5102-04 (1990) and 123 Cong.
Rec. 18173-74 (1977) (In debate over both the 1977 and 1990
amendments to the Clean Air Act, some members of Congress supported
relaxing NOX controls from motor vehicles due to concerns
over foreign control of rhodium supplies); see also EPA, Tier 2
Report to Congress, EPA420-R-98-008, July 1998, p. E-13 (describing
concerns about potential shortages in palladium that could result
from the Tier 2 standards).
\180\ Public Law 101-549, at sec. 1101, amending the Job
Training Partnership Act, 29 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. (since repealed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the final rule is a continuation of what the Administrator
has been doing for over fifty years: evaluate updated data on pollution
control technologies and set emissions standards accordingly. The rule
maintains the fundamental regulatory structure of the existing program
and iteratively strengthens the GHG standards from its predecessor
Phase 2 rule. The consequences of the rule are not different in kind,
and in many key aspects, are smaller than those of Phase 2. And while
the rule is associated with indirect impacts, EPA comprehensively
assessed such impacts and found that the final rule does not cause
significant indirect harms as alleged by commenters and on balance
creates net benefits for society. We further discuss our response to
the major questions doctrine comments in section 2.1 of the RTC.
ABT. Some commenters claim that the ABT program, or fleetwide
averaging, or both, exceed EPA's statutory authority. As further
explained in section III.A of the preamble, EPA has long employed
fleetwide averaging and ABT compliance provisions. In upholding the
first HD final rule that included an averaging provision, the D.C.
Circuit rejected a petitioner's challenge to EPA's statutory authority
for averaging. NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410, 425 (D.C. Cir. 1986).\181\
In the subsequent 1990 amendments, Congress, noting NRDC v. Thomas and
EPA's ABT program, ``chose not to amend the Clean Air Act to
specifically prohibit averaging, banking and trading authority.'' \182\
``The intention was to retain the status quo,'' i.e., EPA's existing
authority to allow ABT and establish fleet average standards.\183\
Since then, the agency has routinely used ABT in its motor vehicle
programs, including in all of our motor vehicle GHG rules, and
repeatedly considered the availability of ABT in determining the level
of stringency of fleet average standards. Manufacturers have come to
rely on ABT in developing their compliance plans. The agency did not
reopen the ABT regulations in this rulemaking, except to make certain
discrete changes discussed in section III.A of the preamble. Comments
challenging the agency's authority for ABT regulations and use of fleet
averaging are therefore beyond the scope of the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ The court explained that ``[l]acking any clear
congressional prohibition of averaging, the EPA's argument that
averaging will allow manufacturers more flexibility in cost
allocation while ensuring that a manufacturer's overall fleet still
meets the emissions reduction standards makes sense.'' NRDC v.
Thomas, 805 F.2d at 425.
\182\ 136 Cong. Rec. 35,367, 1990 WL 1222469, at *1.
\183\ 136 Cong. Rec. 35,367, 1990 WL 1222469, at *1; see also
136 Cong. Rec. 36,713, 1990 WL 1222468 at *1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any event, the CAA authorizes EPA to establish an ABT program
and fleet average standards.\184\ Section 202(a)(1) directs EPA to set
standards ``applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any
class or classes of new motor vehicles'' that cause or contribute to
harmful air pollution. The term ``class or classes'' refers expressly
to groups of vehicles, indicating that EPA may set standards based on
the emissions performance of the class as a whole, which is precisely
what ABT enables. Moreover, as we detail in section II.G.2 of the
preamble, consideration of ABT in standard setting relates directly to
considerations of technical feasibility, cost, and lead time, the
factors EPA is required to consider under CAA section 202(a)(2) in
setting standards. For decades, EPA has found that considering ABT,
particularly the averaging provisions, is consistent with the statute
and affords regulated entities more flexibility in phasing in
technologies in a way that is economically efficient, promotes the
goals of the Act, supports vehicle redesign cycles, and responds to
market fluctuations, allowing for successful deployment of new
technologies and achieving emissions reductions at lower cost and with
less lead time.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ As we explain in section II.G of this preamble, EPA relied
on averaging, but not banking or trading, in supporting the
feasibility of the standards.
\185\ Beyond the statute's general provisions regarding cost and
lead time, Congress has also repeatedly endorsed the specific
concept of phase-in of advanced emissions control technologies
throughout section 202, which is analogous to ABT in that it
considers a manufacturer's production volume and the performance of
vehicles across the fleet in determining compliance. See discussion
in section I.A of this preamble citing provisions including section
202(g)-(j), 202(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABT and fleet average standards are also consistent with other
provisions in Title II, including those related to compliance and
enforcement in CAA
[[Page 29472]]
sections 203, 206, and 207. Commenters who alleged inconsistency with
the compliance and enforcement provisions fundamentally misapprehend
the nature of EPA's HD GHG program and its ABT regulations, where
compliance and enforcement do in fact apply to individual vehicles
consistent with the statute. It is true that ABT allows manufacturers
to meet emissions standards by offsetting emissions credits and debits
for individual vehicles. However, individual vehicles must also
continue to themselves comply with their own emissions limit, known as
the Family Emission Limit (FEL).\186\ Both the emission standard and
FEL are specified in each vehicle's individual certificate of
conformity, and apply both at certification and throughout that
vehicle's useful life. As appropriate, EPA can suspend, revoke, or void
certificates for individual vehicles. Manufacturers' warranties apply
to individual vehicles. EPA and manufacturers perform testing on
individual vehicles, and recalls can be implemented based on evidence
of non-conformance by a substantial number of individual vehicles
within the class. We further discuss our response to this comment,
including detailed exposition of each of the relevant statutory
provisions, in RTC 10.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ See 40 CFR 1037.801 (adoption of FEL); 1037.105, 1037.106
(FEL appears on certificate of compliance). See generally RTC
10.2.1.d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZEVs as part of the regulated class. We now address related
comments that EPA cannot consider averaging, especially of ZEVs, in
supporting the feasibility of the standards. Some commenters allege
that because ZEVs, in theory, do not emit GHGs, they cannot be part of
the ``class'' of vehicles regulated by EPA under section 202(a)(1), and
therefore EPA should not establish standards that consider
manufacturers' ability to produce them. We disagree with these
commenters' reading of the statute, and moreover, as we explain further
below, their underlying factual premise--that ZEVs do not emit GHGs--is
incorrect.
As discussed in section I.A of the preamble, Congress required EPA
to prescribe 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 endangers public health
and welfare. Congress defined ``motor vehicles'' by their function:
``any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or
property on a street or highway.'' \187\ Likewise, with regard to
classes, Congress explicitly contemplated functional categories: ``the
Administrator may base such classes or categories on gross vehicle
weight, horsepower, type of fuel used, or other appropriate factors.''
\188\ It is indisputable that ZEVs are ``new motor vehicles'' as
defined by the statute and that they fall into the weight-based
``classes'' that EPA established with Congress's explicit support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ CAA section 216(2).
\188\ CAA section 202(a)(3)(A)(ii). This section applies to
standards established under section 202(a)(3), not to standards
otherwise established under section 202(a)(1). But it nonetheless
provides guidance on what kinds of classifications and
categorizations Congress thought were appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In making the GHG Endangerment Finding in 2009, EPA defined the
``classes'' of motor vehicles and engines as ``Passenger cars, light-
duty trucks, motorcycles, buses, and medium and heavy-duty trucks.''
\189\ Heavy-duty ZEVs fall within the class of heavy-duty trucks. EPA
did not reopen the 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding in this rulemaking,
and therefore comments on whether ZEVs are part of the ``class''
subject to GHG regulation are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ 74 FR 66496, 66537, December 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters contend that ZEVs fall outside of EPA's regulatory
reach under this provision because they do not cause, or contribute to,
air pollution which endangers human health and welfare. That misreads
the statutory text. As we explained previously in regard to ABT,
section 202(a)(1)'s focus on regulating emissions from ``class or
classes'' indicates that Congress was concerned with the air pollution
generated by a class of vehicles, as opposed to from individual
vehicles. Accordingly, Congress authorized EPA to regulate classes of
vehicles, and EPA has concluded that the class of heavy-duty vehicles,
as a whole causes or contributes to dangerous pollution. As noted, the
class of heavy-duty vehicles includes ZEVs, along with ICE and hybrid
vehicles. EPA has consistently viewed heavy-duty motor vehicles as a
class of motor vehicles for regulatory purposes, including in the HD
GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules. As discussed in section I.A of the
preamble, EPA has reasonably further subcategorized vehicles within the
class based on weight and functionality to recognize real-world
variations in emission control technology, ensure consumer access to a
wide variety of vehicles to meet their mobility needs, and secure
continued emissions reductions for all vehicle types.
These commenters also misunderstand the broader statutory scheme.
Congress directed EPA to apply the standards to vehicles whether they
are designed as complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or
control pollution. Thus, Congress understood that the standards may be
premised on and lead to technologies that prevent pollution in the
first place. It would be perverse to conclude that in a scheme intended
to control the emissions of dangerous pollution, Congress would have
prohibited EPA from premising its standards on controls that completely
prevent pollution, while also permitting the agency to premise them on
a technology that reduces 99 percent of pollution. Such a nonsensical
reading of the statute would mean that the availability of technology
that can reduce 99 percent of pollution could serve as the basis for
highly protective standards, while the availability of a technology
that completely prevents the pollution could not be relied on to set
emission standards at all. Such a reading would also create a perverse
safe harbor allowing polluting vehicles to be perpetually produced,
resulting in harmful emissions and adverse impacts on public health,
even where available technology permits the complete prevention of such
emissions and adverse impacts at a reasonable cost. That result cannot
be squared with section 202(a)(1)'s purpose to reduce emissions that
``cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,'' \190\ or with the
statutory directive to not only ``control'' but also ``prevent''
pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ See also Coal. for Responsible Regul., 684 F. 3d at 122
(explaining that the statutory purpose is to ``prevent reasonably
anticipated endangerment from maturing into concrete harm'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters' suggestion that EPA define the class to exclude ZEVs
would also be unreasonable and unworkable. Ex ante, EPA does not know
which vehicles a manufacturer may produce and, without technological
controls including add-on devices and complete systems, all of the
vehicles have the potential to emit dangerous pollution.\191\
Therefore, EPA establishes standards for the entire class of vehicles,
based upon its consideration of all available technologies. It is only
after the manufacturers have applied those technologies to vehicles in
actual production that the pollution is prevented or controlled. To put
it differently, even hypothetically assuming EPA could not set
standards
[[Page 29473]]
for vehicles that manufacturers intend to build as electric vehicles--a
proposition which we do not agree with--EPA could still regulate
vehicles manufacturers intend not to build as electric vehicles and
that would emit dangerous pollution in the absence of EPA
regulation.\192\ When regulating those vehicles, Congress explicitly
authorized EPA to premise its standards for those vehicles on a
``complete system'' technology that prevents pollution entirely, like
ZEV technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ As noted, manufacturers in some cases choose to offer
different models of the same vehicle with different levels of
electrification. And it is the manufacturer who decides whether a
given vehicle will be manufactured to produce no emissions, low
emissions, or higher aggregate emissions controlled by add-on
technology.
\192\ In other words, the additional ZEVs EPA projects in the
modeled potential compliance pathway exist in the baseline case as
pollutant-emitting vehicles with ICE. We further note that it would
be odd for EPA to have authority to regulate a given class of motor
vehicles--in this case heavy-duty motor vehicles--so long as those
vehicles emit air pollution at the tailpipe, but to lose its
authority to regulate those very same vehicles should they install
emission control devices to limit such pollution or be designed to
prevent the endangering pollution in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the commenters' argument is factually flawed. All
vehicles, including ZEVs,\193\ do in fact produce vehicle emissions.
For example, all ZEVs produce emissions from brake and tire wear, as
discussed in RIA Chapter 4. Furthermore, ZEVs have air conditioning
units, which may produce GHG emissions from leakages, and these
emissions are subject to regulation under the Act. Thus, even under the
commenter's reading of the statute, ZEVs would be part of the class for
GHG regulation.\194\ We further address this issue in RTC 10.2.1.f,
where we also discuss the related contention that ZEVs cannot be part
of the same class because electric and ICE powertrains are
fundamentally different.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ As discussed in the Executive Summary, we use the term
ZEVs to refer to vehicles that result in zero tailpipe emissions,
such as battery electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles.
While vehicles equipped with H2-ICE engines emit zero engine-out
CO2 emissions, H2-ICE vehicles emit criteria pollutants
and are therefore not included in our references to ZEVs.
\194\ Moreover, as already explained, manufacturers do not have
to produce ZEVs to comply with the final standards. EPA's modeling
of the alternate compliance pathway in section II.F.3 demonstrates
that manufacturers could meet the standard using solely advanced
technologies with ICEs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
202(a)(3)(B) and 202(a)(3)(C) lead time and stability. Finally, we
address the comments regarding the applicability of the 4-year lead
time and 3-year stability provisions in CAA section 202(a)(3)(C). As we
noted in the HD Phase 1 final rule, the provision is not applicable
here.\195\ Section 202(a)(3)(C) only applies to emission standards for
heavy-duty vehicles for the listed pollutants in section 202(a)(3)(A)
or to revisions of such standards under 202(a)(3)(B). Section 202(a)(3)
applies only to standards for enumerated pollutants, none of which are
GHGs, namely, ``hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and
particulate matter.'' Because this rule does not establish standards
for any pollutant listed in section 202(a)(3)(A), that section clearly
does not apply. Neither does section 202(a)(3)(B), which is limited to
revisions of heavy-duty standards ``promulgated under, or before the
date of, the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.'' EPA's
heavy-duty GHG standards, however, have consistently been promulgated
under sections 202(a)(1)-(2), statutory provisions which were not
enacted or revised by the 1990 amendments. Nor does the final rule
revise any standard promulgated ``before'' the enactment of the 1990
amendments. Consequently, the four year lead time and three year
stability requirements of section 202(a)(3)(C) are inapplicable. We
further address this issue in RTC 2.3.3 and 2.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles EPA
Response to Comments Document for Joint Rulemaking, at 5-19 (``Phase
1 RTC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Final HD Phase 3 GHG Emission Standards
Under our CAA section 202(a)(1) and (2) authority, we are
finalizing new Phase 3 GHG standards for MYs 2027 through 2032 and
later HD vehicles. In this section II, we describe our assessment that
the new Phase 3 GHG standards are appropriate and feasible considering
lead time, costs, and other relevant factors. These final Phase 3
standards include (1) revised GHG standards for many MY 2027 HD
vehicles, and (2) new GHG standards starting in MYs 2028 through 2032.
Our development of the final standards considered all of the
substantive comments received, including those that advocated
stringency levels ranging from less stringent than the lower stringency
alternative presented in the NPRM to values that would be comparable
with stringency levels in the California Advanced Clean Truck (ACT)
rule such as stringency levels comparable to 50- to 60-percent
utilization of ZEV technologies range and beyond.
The final standards' feasibility is supported through our analysis
reflecting one modeled potential compliance pathway, but the final
standards do not mandate the use of any specific technology. EPA
anticipates that a compliant fleet under the final standards will
include a diverse range of technologies, including ZEV and ICE vehicle
technologies, and we have also included additional example potential
compliance pathways that meet and support the feasibility of the final
standards including without producing additional ZEVs to comply with
this rule. In developing the modeled potential compliance pathway on
which the feasibility of the final standards is supported, EPA has
considered the key issues associated with growth in penetration of
zero-emission vehicles, including charging and refueling infrastructure
and critical mineral availability. In this section, we describe our
assessment of the appropriateness and feasibility of these final
standards and support that assessment with a potential technology
pathway for achieving each of those standards through increased
utilization of ZEV and vehicles with ICE technologies, as well as
additional technology pathways to meet the final standards using
technologies for vehicles with ICE. In this section, we also present an
alternative set of standards (``the alternative'') that we additionally
developed and analyzed but are not adopting, that reflects an even more
gradual phase-in and lower final stringency level than the final
standards. Furthermore, we also developed but did not analyze
alternative standards reflecting levels of stringency more stringent
than the final standards that would be achieved from extrapolating the
California ACT rule to the national level, that we are also not
adopting.
In the beginning of this section, we first describe the public
health and welfare need for GHG emission reductions (section II.A). In
section II.B, we provide an overview of the comments the Agency
received on the NPRM regarding the proposed Phase 3 GHG emission
standards, an overview of the final standards, and updates to the
analyses that support these standards. In section II.C, we provide a
brief overview of the existing CO2 emission standards that
we promulgated in HD GHG Phase 2. Section II.D contains our technology
assessment for the projected potential compliance pathway that supports
the feasibility of the standards and section II.E includes our
assessment of technology costs, EVSE costs, operating costs, and
payback for that modeled potential compliance pathway. Section II.F
sets out the final standards and the analysis demonstrating their
feasibility, including additional example potential compliance pathways
that meet and support the feasibility of the final including without
producing additional ZEVs to comply with this rule. Section II.G
discusses the appropriateness of the
[[Page 29474]]
final emission standards under the Clean Air Act. Section II.H presents
the alternative set of standards to the final standards that we
considered but are not adopting. Finally, section II.I summarizes our
consideration of small businesses.
The HD Phase 3 GHG standards are CO2 vehicle exhaust
standards; other GHG standards under the existing regulations for HD
engines and vehicles remain applicable. As we explained in the
proposal, we did not reopen and are not amending the other GHG
standards, including nitrous oxide (N2O), methane
(CH4), and CO2 emission standards that apply to
heavy-duty engines and the HFC emission standards that apply to heavy-
duty vehicles, or the general compliance structure of existing 40 CFR
part 1037 except for some revisions described in sections II and
III.\196\ As also explained in the proposal, we did not reopen and are
continuing the existing approach taken in both HD GHG Phase 1 and Phase
2, that compliance with the vehicle exhaust CO2 emission
standards is based on CO2 emissions from the vehicle.
Indeed, all of our vehicle emission standards are based on vehicle
emissions. See 76 FR 57123 (September 15, 2011); see also 77 FR 51705
(August 24, 2012), 77 FR 51500 (August 27, 2012), and 81 FR 75300
(October 25, 2016). We respond to the comments we received on life
cycle emissions in relation to standard setting in RTC section 17.1.
Additionally, as proposed in the combined light-duty and medium-duty
rulemaking, in a separate rulemaking we intend to finalize more
stringent standards for complete and incomplete vehicles at or below
14,000 pounds GVWR that are certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
This Phase 3 final rule does not alter manufacturers of incomplete
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR continuing to have the option
of either meeting the greenhouse gas standards under 40 CFR parts 1036
and 1037, or instead meeting the greenhouse gas standards with chassis-
based measurement procedures under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ See the HD GHG Phase 2 rule (81 FR 73478, October 25,
2016), the Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Technical Amendment rule
(86 FR 34308, June 29, 2021), and the HD2027 rule (88 FR 4296,
January 24, 2023). In this rulemaking, EPA did not reopen any
portion of our heavy-duty compliance provisions, flexibilities, and
testing procedures, including those in 40 CFR parts 1037, 1036, and
1065, other than those specifically identified in our proposal. For
example, while EPA is revising discrete elements of the HD ABT
program, EPA did not reopen the general availability of ABT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Public Health and Welfare Need for GHG Emission Reductions
The transportation sector is the largest U.S. source of GHG
emissions, representing 29 percent of total GHG emissions and, within
the transportation sector, heavy-duty vehicles are the second largest
contributor at 25 percent.\197\ GHG emissions have significant impacts
on public health and welfare as set forth in EPA's 2009 Endangerment
and Cause or Contribute Findings under CAA section 202(a) and as
evidenced by the well-documented scientific record.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ EPA (2023). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2021 (EPA-430-R-23-002, published April 2023).
\198\ See 74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009; see also EPA's Denial
of Petitions Relating to the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air
Act, available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/decision_document.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elevated concentrations of GHGs have been warming the planet,
leading to changes in the Earth's climate including changes in the
frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation, and extreme
weather events; rising seas; and retreating snow and ice. The changes
taking place in the atmosphere as a result of the well-documented
buildup of GHGs due to human activities are altering the climate at a
pace and in a way that threatens human health, society, and the natural
environment. While EPA is not making any new scientific or factual
findings with regard to the well-documented impact of GHG emissions on
public health and welfare in support of this rule, EPA is providing
some scientific background on climate change to offer additional
context for this rulemaking and to increase the public's understanding
of the environmental impacts of GHGs.
Extensive additional information on climate change is available in
the scientific assessments and the EPA documents that are briefly
described in this section, as well as in the technical and scientific
information supporting them. One of those documents is EPA's 2009
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases
Under section 202(a) of the CAA (74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009). In
the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found under section
202(a) of the CAA that elevated atmospheric concentrations of six key
well-mixed GHGs--CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons
(PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--``may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare of current and
future generations'' (74 FR 66523). The 2009 Endangerment Finding,
together with the extensive scientific and technical evidence in the
supporting record, documented that climate change caused by human
emissions of GHGs (including HFCs) threatens the public health of the
U.S. population. It explained that by raising average temperatures,
climate change increases the likelihood of heat waves, which are
associated with increased deaths and illnesses (74 FR 66497). While
climate change also increases the likelihood of reductions in cold-
related mortality, evidence indicates that the increases in heat
mortality will be larger than the decreases in cold mortality in the
United States (74 FR 66525). The 2009 Endangerment Finding further
explained that compared with a future without climate change, climate
change is expected to increase tropospheric ozone pollution over broad
areas of the United States., including in the largest metropolitan
areas with the worst tropospheric ozone problems, and thereby increase
the risk of adverse effects on public health (74 FR 66525). Climate
change is also expected to cause more intense hurricanes and more
frequent and intense storms of other types and heavy precipitation,
with impacts on other areas of public health, such as the potential for
increased deaths, injuries, infectious and waterborne diseases, and
stress-related disorders (74 FR 66525). Children, the elderly, and the
poor are among the most vulnerable to these climate-related health
effects (74 FR 66498).
The 2009 Endangerment Finding also documented, together with the
extensive scientific and technical evidence in the supporting record,
that climate change touches nearly every aspect of public welfare \199\
in the United States., including the following: changes in water supply
and quality due to changes in drought and extreme rainfall events;
increased risk of storm surge and flooding in coastal areas and land
loss due to inundation; increases in peak electricity demand and risks
to electricity infrastructure; and the potential for significant
agricultural disruptions and crop failures (though offset to a lesser
extent by carbon fertilization). These impacts are also
[[Page 29475]]
global and may exacerbate problems outside the United States that raise
humanitarian, trade, and national security issues for the U.S. (74 FR
66530).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ The CAA states in section 302(h) that ``[a]ll language
referring to effects on welfare includes, but is not limited to,
effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials,
animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and
deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as
effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-being,
whether caused by transformation, conversion, or combination with
other air pollutants.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most recent information demonstrates that the climate is
continuing to change in response to the human-induced buildup of GHGs
in the atmosphere. Recent scientific assessments show that atmospheric
concentrations of GHGs have risen to a level that has no precedent in
human history and that they continue to climb, primarily because of
both historic and current anthropogenic emissions, and that these
elevated concentrations endanger our health by affecting our food and
water sources, the air we breathe, the weather we experience, and our
interactions with the natural and built environments.
Global average temperature has increased by about 1.1 degrees
Celsius ([deg]C) (2.0 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) in the 2011-2020
decade relative to 1850-1900. The IPCC determined with medium
confidence that this past decade was warmer than any multi-century
period in at least the past 100,000 years. Global average sea level has
risen by about 8 inches (about 21 centimeters (cm)) from 1901 to 2018,
with the rate from 2006 to 2018 (0.15 inches/year or 3.7 millimeters
(mm)/year) almost twice the rate over the 1971 to 2006 period, and
three times the rate of the 1901 to 2018 period. The rate of sea level
rise during the 20th Century was higher than in any other century in at
least the last 2,800 years. The CO2 being absorbed by the
ocean has resulted in changes in ocean chemistry due to acidification
of a magnitude not seen in 65 million years \200\ putting many marine
species--particularly calcifying species--at risk. Human-induced
climate change has led to heatwaves and heavy precipitation becoming
more frequent and more intense, along with increases in agricultural
and ecological droughts \201\ in many regions.\202\ The 4th National
Climate Assessment (NCA4) found that it is very likely (greater than 90
percent likelihood) that by mid-century, the Arctic Ocean will be
almost entirely free of sea ice by late summer for the first time in
about 2 million years.\203\ Coral reefs will be at risk for almost
complete (99 percent) losses with 1[thinsp][deg]C (1.8[thinsp][deg]F)
of additional warming from today (2[thinsp][deg]C or 3.6[thinsp][deg]F
since preindustrial). At this temperature, between 8 and 18 percent of
animal, plant, and insect species could lose over half of the
geographic area with suitable climate for their survival, and 7 to 10
percent of rangeland livestock would be projected to be lost. The IPCC
similarly found that climate change has caused substantial damages and
increasingly irreversible losses in terrestrial, freshwater, and
coastal and open ocean marine ecosystems.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ IPCC (2018): Global Warming of 1.5 [deg]C. An IPCC Special
Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 [deg]C above pre-
industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission
pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the
threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to
eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Portner, D.
Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C.
Pe[acute]an, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X.
Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T.
Waterfield (eds.)].
\201\ These are drought measures based on soil moisture.
\202\ IPCC (2021): Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change
2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L.
Connors, C. Pe[acute]an, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb,
M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K.
Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelek[ccedil]i, R. Yu and B. Zhou
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press.
\203\ USGCRP (2018): Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the
United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II
[Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M.
Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change
Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. doi: 10.7930/
NCA4.2018.
\204\ IPCC (2022): Summary for Policymakers [H.-O. P[ouml]rtner,
D.C. Roberts, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A.
Alegr[iacute]a, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. L[ouml]schke, V.
M[ouml]ller, A. Okem (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to
the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [H.-O. P[ouml]rtner, DC Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S.
Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegr[iacute]a, M. Craig, S.
Langsdorf, S. L[ouml]schke, V. M[ouml]ller, A. Okem, B. Rama
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,
USA, pp. 3-33, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, the Administrator issued a similar finding for GHG
emissions from aircraft under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA.\205\ In
the 2016 Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found that the body of
scientific evidence amassed in the record for the 2009 Endangerment
Finding compellingly supported a similar endangerment finding under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A), and also found that the science assessments
released between the 2009 and 2016 Findings ``strengthen and further
support the judgment that GHGs in the atmosphere may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare of current and
future generations'' (81 FR 54424). Pursuant to the 2009 Endangerment
Finding, CAA section 202(a) requires EPA to issue standards applicable
to emissions of those pollutants from new motor vehicles. See Coalition
for Responsible Regulation, 684 F.3d at 116-125, 126-27; Massachusetts,
549 U.S. at 533. See also Coalition for Responsible Regulation, 684
F.3d at 127-29 (upholding EPA's light-duty GHG emission standards for
MYs 2012-2016 in their entirety).\206\ Since the 2016 Endangerment
Finding, the climate has continued to change, with new observational
records being set for several climate indicators such as global average
surface temperatures, GHG concentrations, and sea level rise.
Additionally, major scientific assessments continue to be released that
further advance our understanding of the climate system and the impacts
that GHGs have on public health and welfare both for current and future
generations. These updated observations and projections document the
rapid rate of current and future climate change both globally and in
the United States.207 208 209 210
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ ``Finding that Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aircraft
Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be
Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and Welfare.'' 81 FR 54422,
August 15, 2016. (``2016 Endangerment Finding'').
\206\ See also EPA's Denial of Petitions Relating to the
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases
Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (April 2022), available at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/decision_document.pdf.
\207\ USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United
States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller,
D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K.
Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov.
\208\ Roy, J., P. Tschakert, H. Waisman, S. Abdul Halim, P.
Antwi-Agyei, P. Dasgupta, B. Hayward, M. Kanninen, D. Liverman, C.
Okereke, P.F. Pinho, K. Riahi, and A.G. Suarez Rodriguez, 2018:
Sustainable Development, Poverty Eradication and Reducing
Inequalities. In: Global Warming of 1.5 [deg]C. An IPCC Special
Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 [deg]C above pre-
industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission
pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the
threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to
eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. P[ouml]rtner,
D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C.
P[eacute]an, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X.
Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T.
Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/Chapter/Chapter-5.
\209\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
2019. Climate Change and Ecosystems. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25504.
\210\ NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, State
of the Climate: Global Climate Report for Annual 2020, published
online January 2021, retrieved on February 10, 2021, from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Summary of Comments and the HD GHG Phase 3 Standards and Updates
From Proposal
EPA proposed this third phase of GHG standards for heavy-duty
vehicles
[[Page 29476]]
and supported the feasibility of those proposed standards based on our
assessment of a projected compliance pathway using ZEV technologies and
ICE vehicle technologies. As described further in the NPRM, the
proposed standards commenced in MY 2027 for most of the HDV
subcategories, and in MY 2030 for sleeper cab (long-haul) tractors. The
proposed standards would increase in stringency through MY 2032, after
which they would remain in place unless and until EPA set new standards
(e.g., Phase 4 standards).
The proposed vehicle standards were performance-based standards and
did not specify or require use of any particular technology. The
technology packages developed to support the feasibility of the
proposed HD GHG Phase 3 vehicle standards included those improvements
to ICE vehicle performance reflected in the HD GHG Phase 2 standards'
technology packages. EPA did not reopen and did not propose any
revisions to the HD Phase 2 engine GHG standards.
1. Summary of Comments
There were many comments on EPA's proposal. Certain commenters
supported the proposed stringency levels and the proposed MY
implementation schedule. Regarding the proposed implementation
schedule, for example, one commenter supported EPA's proposal to amend
many of the MY 2027 Phase 2 vehicle standards on the grounds advanced
by EPA at proposal: facts have changed from 2016 when the agency
promulgated its Phase 2 rule. Specifically, ZEVs are being actively
deployed, there are plans to increase their adoption rate, and massive
Federal and state efforts are underway to provide financial incentives
and otherwise encourage heavy-duty ZEV implementation. The bulk of
comments, however, supported standards of either greater or lesser
stringency than proposed.
This preamble section summarizes these comments at a high level and
highlights certain changes we have made in the final standards from
those proposed after consideration of these comments. Detailed
summaries and responses are found in section 2 of the RTC.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ For the complete set of comments, please see U.S. EPA,
``Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles--Phase
3- Response to Comments.'' RTC sections 2 and 3. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Comments Urging Standards More Stringent Than Proposed
A number of commenters maintained that the proposed standards were
insufficiently stringent. Many of these commenters centered their
arguments on general legal and policy grounds, maintaining that the
overriding public health and welfare protection goals of the Act and of
section 202(a)(1) should be reflected in standard stringency. They
pointed to the on-going climate crisis and indicated that emission
reduction levels should be commensurate with the degree of harm posed
by that endangerment. A number of these commenters also stressed the
need for reductions in criteria pollutant emissions including via
further improvements to ICE vehicles (both through vehicle and engine
standards), stressing especially the benefits to disadvantaged
communities that would be afforded by more stringent standards.
This group of commenters recommended standards at least as
stringent as those in the California ACT rules. Other commenters
suggested standards stricter still, including a standard of zero
emission by MY 2035, basing the standard on the combined stringencies
of the California ACT and Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) programs (citing
the record developed by California in support of each of these
programs), and including the ACT sales mandates as part of a Federal
standard. One commenter indicated that the baseline should account for
both California programs, these programs' adoption by the CAA section
177 states, their presumed adoption by the NESCAUM MOU states, effects
of the IRA and BIL, state and local initiatives, and manufacturer and
fleet commitments.
As further support for more stringent standards, commenters cited a
number of factors, including asserting the following, which we
summarize and respond to in RTC section 2.4 or elsewhere as noted:
Introduction into the market of HD ZEVs, numerous both in
volume and types of applications. More specifically, CARB staff found
(in the administrative record for the California ACF program) that ZEVs
are available in every weight class of trucks, and each weight class
includes a wide range of vehicle applications and configurations. CARB
staff also found that there are currently 148 models in North American
where manufacturers are accepting orders or pre-orders, and there are
135 models that are actively being supported and delivered. These
commenters pointed to manufacturer sales announcements and publicly
announced production plans as corroboration.
Adoption of ACT by other states, plus commitments of other
states to do so, indicates standards reflecting that level of ZEV
acceptance can be replicated on a national basis.
Massive Federal, state and local financial incentives in
the BIL, IRA and elsewhere. See also RTC section 2.7.
Federal standards themselves will provide needed certainty
for investment in both ZEVs, including metals and minerals critical to
battery production, and charging infrastructure.
Tens of billions of dollars of announced investments from
the private sector and utilities into charging infrastructure for
heavy-duty ZEVs, as well as supporting state and local actions designed
to ensure that the rate, scale, and distribution of infrastructure
buildout supports rapid and diverse adoption of heavy-duty ZEVs.
Another commenter (to which we respond in RTC section 2.4) asserted
a number of points, for which they provided empirical support, related
to cost of BEVs in relation to comparable ICE-powered HDVs:
Powertrain costs of most BEVs will be at par or cheaper
than diesel ICE vehicles due to the battery tax credits under the IRA.
The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of BEVs is significantly
lower than diesel ICE vehicles across all segments. The payback period
is less than three years for all vehicles.
The cargo capacity of most BEVs will be at par with ICEVs
due to a posited increase in battery energy density.
15 minutes of enroute charging from a megawatt charging
system can add more than 80 percent of the full range of battery
electric tractors, enabling them to meet the requirements of more
demanding use cases.
BEVs have a lower TCO per mile, even assuming significant
public charging. With 30 percent of all charging required conducted en
route (recharging 20-80 percent of a full charge on half of the
operating days), the payback period of all HDVs is still less than five
years.
A number of commenters urged adoption of more stringent standards
predicated on further improvements to engine and vehicle GHG
performance of ICE vehicles. The thrust of these comments is that there
are various available technologies which either have not been utilized,
or are underutilized, in the HDV fleet, and that significant
incremental improvements in GHG performance are therefore available,
and at reasonable cost. According to these commenters, these
technologies include lightweighting, advanced aerodynamics, tire
improvements, idle reduction including stop-start systems, hybrid
technologies
[[Page 29477]]
of all types, and predictive cruise control. Commenters stated that
some of these technologies would even improve ZEV performance by
increasing vehicle efficiency thereby enabling longer range for a given
battery size. We summarize and address comments relating to vehicles
with ICE technologies in section 9 of the RTC to this rule.
With regard to specific applications, proponents of more stringent
standards stated that:
Tesla alone intends to produce 50,000 BEV Class 8 day cabs
for MY 2024, which on its own would exceed the percentage of ZEVs in
the technology package on which EPA supported the proposed MY 2027
standard;
The proposed standard for tractors could be at ACT levels
if predicated on reduced battery size and opportunity (public)
charging;
There are many programs that support zero emission urban
and school buses, which should be reflected in the standards;
Drayage trucks should be subject to a more stringent
standard, given their suitability for ZEV technologies (limited range,
overnight charging in depots) plus the environmental benefits of
reducing emissions given their use in heavily polluted areas like ports
and railway yards.
We respond to these comments throughout section II of this preamble
and in sections 2 and 3 of the RTC.
ii. Comments Urging Standards Less Stringent Than Proposed
Many commenters opposed the proposed standards as being too
stringent. Some urged the agency to simply leave the MY 2027 Phase 2
standards in place, maintaining on general grounds that further
technological improvements are too nascent to form the basis for more
stringent standards. Other comments were more specific on the subject
of implausibility. One commenter stated that the number of BEV buses
would need to increase by a factor of 12, and that thousands of BEV
drayage, day-cab tractors, sleeper tractors, and step vans would need
to be sold to achieve the proposed standards. Another commenter
asserted that the proposal was predicated on a ZEV sale growth rate of
63,000 percent from 2021-2032. One commenter stated that a predicated
introduction of more than two orders of magnitude for some
subcategories (0.2 percent to approximately 40 percent) in a few model
years was inherently implausible.
Two vehicle manufacturer commenters, on the other hand, supported
the MY 2032 standards but found the early model year standards
inappropriate, citing among other things the large increase in
stringency between MYs 2026 and 2027 and the uncertainties associated
with sufficiency of supportive recharging infrastructure in the
program's initial years.
A number of commenters opposed to the proposed standards offered
alternative perspectives to some of the points made by commenters
supporting more stringent standards. With regard to a nationalized
version of the California ACT standards, these commenters asserted that
certain assumptions and circumstances reflected in the ACT program
would not be replicated nationally, including assumptions of high
diesel prices, high ACT vehicle availability, and high demand from
California's ACF program, plus local climate conditions which did not
require BEVs designed for more extreme weather conditions. A commenter
further asserted that not all states that have adopted California's ACT
provisions have the same supporting regulations and therefore it is not
clear how many ZEVs will be sold as a result of ACT. Others stated that
manufacturers' aspirational goals did not translate to actual
production, especially given uncertainties regarding supporting
electric charging infrastructure, customer reactions to a new,
unfamiliar product, and potential critical material shortages.
With respect to further improvements to ICE vehicles and engines
suggested by commenters supporting more stringent standards, some
manufacturer commenters asserted that some of the technologies on which
the Phase 2 rule was predicated had proved unmarketable, others (like
the Rankine engine and certain advanced aerodynamic features) had never
been commercialized, and some had proved less efficient than projected,
and as a result, some manufacturers had included ZEVs within their
production plans as a Phase 2 compliance strategy. These commenters
stated that non-utilization of various engine and vehicle technologies
thus should not be viewed as either showing opportunity for further
ICEV improvements, or as demand for BEV vehicles.
Uncertainties relating to key elements of the program which
commenters stated are out of the control of the regulated entities
formed the basis of many of the comments questioning the feasibility of
the proposed program. These include:
The availability of distribution electrical infrastructure
necessary to support BEVs. Commenters cited the chicken-egg dynamic of
ZEV purchasers needing assurance of supporting infrastructure before
committing to purchases, but electric utilities needing (and, in many
cases, legally requiring) assurance of demand before building out.
These difficulties are compounded by issues of timing: it can take 40
weeks for utilities to acquire transformer parts, and 70 to acquire
switchgear parts. Installation delays can be 1-3 years for smaller
installations (cable, conductor systems), 3-5 years for medium (feeders
and substation capacity), and 4-6 for large installations
(subtransmission requiring licensing). Moreover, infrastructure
buildout schedules rarely correlate with purchasers' resale schedules,
or with BIL/IRA subsidy timings. These comments are summarized in more
detail and addressed in section II.D.2.iii of this preamble and in RTC
section 7 (Distribution).
Uncertainty regarding availability of critical minerals
and associated supply chain issues. These comments are summarized in
more detail and addressed in section II.D.2.ii and in RTC section 17.2.
Uncertainty regarding purchasers' decisions, noting
customer reluctance to utilize an unfamiliar technology and
unsuitability given limited range and cargo penalty due to need for
large batteries. These comments are summarized in more detail and
addressed in section II.F.1 of this preamble and in RTC sections 4.2
and 19.5.
Assertions that estimating availability of hydrogen
infrastructure is nearly futile at present because this technology is
barely commercialized; commenters suggested that EPA has also
mistakenly assumed availability of clean hydrogen, failed to consider
costs of hydrogen infrastructure, ignored potential issues of
permitting and interfaces with electric utilities with regard to
hydrogen infrastructure, and failed to discuss physical requirements of
hydrogen charging stations; and that EPA also did not consider issues
relating to hydrogen handling or high initial costs of hydrogen
infrastructure. These comments are summarized in more detail and
addressed in section II.D.3.v and RTC section 8.
Regarding availability of Federal and state funding, these
commenters made the following points:
These subsidies may not be available in many instances,
due to insufficient taxable revenue to qualify, or lack of domestic
production required to be eligible for the tax subsidy;
[[Page 29478]]
Purchase incentives for tractors are being offset, almost
to the dollar, by Federal excise taxes;
States are using National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
Formula program funds almost exclusively for light duty infrastructure,
which will not be suitable for HDVs;
Given all of these uncertainties and issues, this group of
commenters questioned the disproportionate weight EPA gave to payback
in developing a ZEV-based compliance pathway. One commenter indicated
that EPA should accord equal analytical weight to purchase price,
limited range, excess weight, lack of electrification infrastructure,
durability concerns, and unpromising state support. Commenters also
noted the reality of the energy efficiency gap noted by EPA, whereby
purchasers refrain from making seemingly economically rational
decisions for various reasons.
EPA's proposed approach to quantifying when payback periods of
given duration would support utilization of ZEV technologies as a
potential compliance option was criticized by these commenters (and
also by commenters urging standards of greater stringency). With regard
to the payback metric generally, a number of commenters maintained that
payback is not a guarantee of technology adoption, pointing to various
technologies with rapid payback (like drive wheel fairings) which
nonetheless proved unmarketable. These commenters also maintain that
TCO is the proper, or superior, metric, better reflecting how purchase
decisions are actually made. In any case, these commenters said that a
2-year payback period is more appropriate for HDVs, since initial
purchasers typically have a 3- to 5-year resale schedule.
One commenter noted that the projected results based on the
modified equation were highly conservative, and inconsistent with the
technical literature. Other commenters suggested EPA utilize instead
other of the methodologies discussed in the Draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis (DRIA) that were not based on a proprietary equation, notably
the TEMPO equation and methodology.
One commenter submitted an attachment from ACT Research (who
developed the proprietary payback equation EPA had modified in the
proposed approach) maintaining that EPA had misapplied the equation.
EPA addresses this issue and summarizes in more detail and addresses
these comments in section II.F.1 and RTC section 2.4.
With regard to standard stringency, one commenter submitted
detailed comments urging that EPA adopt standards roughly 50 percent
less stringent than proposed for each subcategory, commencing in MY
2030, with standards for HHD vocational vehicle and sleeper cab tractor
applications commencing in MY 2033. Their recommended standards would
also include three initial years of stability. This commenter derived
these standards using EPA's HD TRUCS tool with different inputs.
Reasons supplied by the commenter for the different inputs included
omitted costs, underestimated costs, certain errors regarding various
of the 101 models included in HD TRUCS, misapplication of the ACT
Research payback algorithm, and the following purportedly unrealistic
assumptions:
Timing of infrastructure availability (including issues
associated with supply chains for distribution infrastructure
equipment, especially in light of overlapping demands from the LDV
sector);
Need to get pro-active involvement of electric utilities,
and EPA's seeming lack of effort in encouraging such actions;
Fuel cell efficiency;
Lack of consideration of resale value;
Assumption of domestic battery production, given the
absence of any domestic lithium mining;
The sheer magnitude of infrastructure buildout needed to
support the levels of BEVs on which the proposal was predicated
(estimated as a need for 15,000 new chargers each week for the next 8
years);
Unrealistic estimates of cost of hydrogen infrastructure;
Lack of accounting for land availability; and
A cargo penalty of 30 percent is a significant deterrent.
This commenter further maintained that its suggested standards be
adjusted automatically downwards if any of the assumptions on which a
standard is predicated prove unfounded. They specifically suggest that
these triggers include a linkage to infrastructure availability, with
the standard being automatically reduced based on the percentage of
infrastructure less than predicted. This commenter further suggested
this linkage trigger could be based on infrastructure buildout in
counties known to be freight corridors. In subsequent meetings with the
agency, this commenter suggested a further trigger based on monitoring
ZEV sales both within states which have adopted the California ACT
program, and within states which have not done so.\212\ These comments
are summarized in more detail and addressed in section II.B.2.iii and
RTC section 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ Miller, Neil. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985.
Summary of Stakeholder Meetings. March 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters opposed amendment of the Phase 2 MY 2027 GHG
vehicle standards. Some commenters alleged equitability arguments
opposing amending the Phase 2 standards. They noted that the Phase 2
standards exhibited a rare consensus, reflecting a common understanding
that the standard would remain unaltered through its final model year
of phase-in (MY 2027). Some commenters stated that manufacturers have
relied on those standards in devising compliance strategies. Moreover,
some commenters stated that early adoption of ZEVs is part of the
manufacturers' Phase 2 compliance strategies and is not a valid
harbinger for a Phase 3 rule. That is, rather than adopt a number of
technologies on which the Phase 2 rule was predicated (such as high
adoption rates for advanced aerodynamics, stop start, electric steering
accessories and others), these commenters stated that some companies
instead have introduced ZEVs. These commenters stated that if the MY
2027 standards are amended, these companies are effectively punished
for their adoption of an innovative technology, because they will need
to seek unanticipated reductions from other vehicles. Some manufacturer
commenters stated that if EPA is considering changed circumstances as a
basis for amending MY 2027 standards, there are changed circumstances
that cut in the other direction: under-utilization of GHG-reducing
technologies in ICE vehicles, pandemic altered supply chains,
inflationary prices, fewer qualified technicians, and parts shortages.
iii. Other Comments Related to the Standards
A final group of commenters urged EPA to predicate standards based
on use of biofuels or other alternative fuels. They noted that such
fuels, including varying degrees of biodiesel, not only provide
emission reduction benefits, but can do so immediately, can do so at
less cost, and are the subject of various Federal incentive programs,
including those administered by the Department of Agriculture. These
comments are summarized in more detail and addressed in section II.D.1
and in RTC section 9.1.
[[Page 29479]]
2. Summary of the Final Rule Standards and Updates From Proposal
This section briefly summarizes the Phase 3 final rule standards
and includes discussion of key changes and updates from the proposed
standards. This final rule updates the proposal in a number of ways,
reflecting consideration of additional data received in comments, other
new research that became available since the proposal, and
considerations voiced in the public comments. This preamble subsection
highlights many of these changes, while the following subsections
provide additional detail of the changes.
i. Final Standards
As further described in the following subsections, the final Phase
3 GHG standards include new CO2 emission standards for MY
2032 and later HD vehicles with more stringent CO2 standards
phasing in as early as MY 2027 for certain vehicle categories. The
final standards for the vocational vehicles are shown in Table II-1 and
for tractors in Table II-2. The final standards are discussed in detail
in section II.F. Compared to the proposed Phase 3 standards, in
general, after further consideration of the lead times necessary for
the standards (including both the vehicle development and the projected
infrastructure needed to support the modeled potential compliance
pathway that demonstrates the feasibility of the standards), we are
finalizing CO2 emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles
that, compared to the proposed standards, include less stringent
standards for all vehicle categories in MYs 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030.
The final standards increase in stringency at a slower pace through MYs
2027 to 2030 compared to the proposal, and day cab tractor standards
start in MY 2028 and heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles start in MY
2029 (we proposed Phase 3 standards for day cabs and heavy-heavy
vocational vehicles starting in MY 2027). As proposed, the final
standards for sleeper cabs start in MY 2030 but are less stringent than
proposed in that year and in MY 2031, and equivalent to the proposed
standards in MY 2032. Our updated analyses for the final rule show that
model years 2031 and 2032 GHG standards in the range of those we
requested comment on in the HD GHG Phase 3 NPRM are feasible and
appropriate considering feasibility, lead time, cost, and other
relevant factors as described throughout this section. Specifically, we
are finalizing MY 2031 standards that are on par with the proposal for
light- and medium-duty vocational vehicles and day cab tractors. Heavy
heavy-duty vocational vehicle final standards are less stringent than
proposed for all model years, including 2031 and 2032. For MY 2032, we
are finalizing more stringent standards than proposed for light and
medium heavy-duty vocational vehicles and day cab tractors. EPA also
revised various of the optional custom chassis standards from those
proposed. Our assessment of the final program as a whole is that it
takes a balanced and measured approach while still applying meaningful
requirements in MY 2027 and later to reducing GHG emissions from the HD
sector.
EPA emphasizes that its standards are performance-based, such that
manufacturers are not required to use particular technologies to meet
the standards. In this rulemaking, EPA has accounted for a wide range
of emissions control technologies, including advanced ICE vehicle
technologies (e.g., engine, transmission, drivetrain, aerodynamics,
tire rolling resistance improvements, the use of low carbon fuels like
CNG and LNG, and H2-ICE), hybrid technologies (e.g., HEV and PHEV), and
ZEV technologies (e.g., BEV and FCEV). These include technologies
applied to motor vehicles with ICE (including hybrid powertrains) and
without ICE. Electrification across the technologies ranges from fully
electrified vehicle technologies without an ICE that achieve zero
vehicle tailpipe emissions (e.g., BEVs), fuel cell electric vehicle
technologies that run on hydrogen and achieve zero tailpipe emissions
(e.g., FCEVs), as well as plug-in hybrid partially electrified
technologies and ICEs with electrified accessories. There are many
potential pathways to compliance with the final standards manufacturers
may choose that involve different mixtures of HD vehicle technologies.
Our potential compliance pathway that includes a projected mix across
the range of HD vehicle technologies, including certain vehicle with
ICE, BEV, and FCEV technologies, supports the feasibility of the final
standards and was used in our modeling for rulemaking purposes
(``modeled potential compliance pathway''). In addition, for the final
rule, to further assess the feasibility of the standards under
different potential scenarios and to further illustrate that there are
many potential pathways to compliance with the final standards that
include a wide range of potential technology mixes, we evaluated
additional examples of other potential compliance pathway's technology
packages that also support the feasibility of the final standards
(``additional example potential compliance pathways''). These
additional example potential compliance pathways only include vehicles
with ICE technologies and include examples without producing additional
ZEVs to comply with this rule.
[[Page 29480]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.011
We also are finalizing updates to and new flexibilities that
support these final standards, as discussed in section III; however, we
did not rely on those other aspects in justifying the feasibility of
the final standards.
ii. Updates to Analyses
We have made a number of updates to our analyses from proposal,
especially related to inputs to HD TRUCS, as detailed in section
II.D.5, after consideration of comments submitted in response to our
proposal and requests for comment in the NPRM. Some of the key updates
in our analyses include updates to our assessment of BEV and FCEV
component costs, efficiencies, and sizing; consideration of certain
additional costs to purchasers, including taxes and insurance; refined
dwell times for charging infrastructure sizing; EVSE costs;
consideration of public charging (and associated costs) for certain
BEVs; and a more detailed evaluation of the impact of HD charging on
the U.S. electricity system.
iii. Commitment to Post-Rule Engagement and Monitoring
Some representatives from the heavy-duty vehicle manufacturing
industry have expressed not only optimism regarding the heavy-duty
industry's ability to produce ZEV technologies in future years at high
volume, but also concern that a slow growth in ZEV charging and
refueling infrastructure could slow the growth of heavy-duty
[[Page 29481]]
ZEV adoption.\213\ On the other hand, some representatives from state
and local air pollution control agencies point to ongoing and planned
activities as evidence that infrastructure for heavy-duty ZEVs can and
will be built out at the pace, scale, and locations needed to support
such technologies used to meet strong EPA GHG standards for heavy-duty
vehicles.\214\ Comments from advocacy organizations point to analyses
from the International Council on Clean Transportation,\215\ as well as
announced investments in charging infrastructure from truck
manufacturers, fleet owners, retailers, other private companies, and
utilities as additional evidence to support this point.\216\ Lack of
such infrastructure may present challenges for vehicle manufacturers'
ability to comply with future EPA GHG standards for manufacturers who
pursues a ZEV-focused compliance pathway similar to the example
projected potential compliance pathway EPA analyzed in this final rule,
while good availability of such infrastructure would support the sale
of HD ZEVs and support such a manufacturer's compliance strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ See, e.g., Comments of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668.
\214\ See, e.g., Comment submitted by the National Association
of Clean Air Agencies. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499.
\215\ Ragon, P.-L., et al. (2023). Near-term infrastructure
deployment to support zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
in the United States. International Council on Clean Transportation.
\216\ See, e.g., Comment submitted by International Council on
Clean Transportation. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1423.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has a vested interest in monitoring industry's performance in
complying with mobile source emission standards, including the highway
heavy-duty industry. EPA currently monitors industry's performance
through a range of approaches, including regular meetings with
individual companies, regulatory requirements for data submission as
part of the annual certification process, and performance under various
EPA grant and rebate programs. EPA also provides transparency to the
public through actions such as publishing industry compliance reports
(such as has been done during the HD GHG Phase 1 program \217\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ See EPA Reports EPA-420-R-21-001B covering Model Years
2014-2018, and EPA report EPA-420-R-22-028B covering Model Years
2014-2020, available online at https://www.epa.gov/compliance-and-fuel-economy-data/epa-heavy-duty-vehicle-and-engine-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We requested comment on the pace of ZEV infrastructure development,
and potential implications for compliance with the Phase 3 standards in
the NPRM. 88 FR 25934. In comments, manufacturers suggest that we
establish mechanisms for the CO2 standards to self-adjust
(become less stringent) if infrastructure deployment falls short of the
amount necessary to support the rule. We heard similar comments from
some Senators suggesting that the compliance deadline be delayed if the
infrastructure is not there by a certain date. However, many other
stakeholders opposed EPA including in the final rule a self-adjusting
linkage between the standards and ZEV infrastructure. Many stakeholders
also argued that heavy-duty ZEV infrastructure will be sufficient
during the regulatory timeframe to support stronger GHG standards than
those proposed by EPA in the NPRM.
We have carefully assessed infrastructure needed for the modeled
potential compliance pathway as described in section II.F that supports
the feasibility of the final standards, and as described in section
II.G we conclude that the Phase 3 standards are feasible and
appropriate within the meaning of section 202(a) of the Act. However,
EPA also commits in this final rule to actively engage with
stakeholders and monitor both OEM compliance and the major elements
relating to heavy-duty ZEV infrastructure. EPA, in consultation with
other agencies, will issue periodic reports reflecting this collected
information throughout the lead up to the Phase 3 standards in MYs 2027
through 2032. These periodic status reports would begin as early as
calendar year 2026 with a review of MY 2024 HD vehicle certification
data and HD infrastructure growth that occurs over the next two years.
As discussed below, these reports will be informed by comprehensive
information collected by EPA as part of its certification and
compliance programs. The Phase 3 standards are performance-based
standards and the projected potential compliance pathway is not the
only way that manufacturers may comply with the standards, and thus
these reports will include but not be limited to assessing HD ZEV
infrastructure. Based on these reports, as appropriate and consistent
with CAA section 202(a) authority, EPA may decide to issue guidance
documents, initiate a future rulemaking to consider modifications to
the Phase 3 rule (including giving appropriate consideration to lead
time as required by section 202(a)), or make no changes to the Phase 3
rule program.
EPA has taken similar actions in past rulemakings. For example, in
2000, EPA finalized stringent highway heavy-duty engine emission
standards as well as national ultra-low diesel fuel sulfur standards,
with implementation beginning in 2006 (for the fuel) and 2007 for the
heavy-duty engines. These standards were premised on significant
investments in both diesel fuel sulfur removal technology and heavy-
duty engine and vehicle emission control technologies. Because of the
significant scope of the regulations and the importance to public
health and welfare, EPA published two major progress reports prior to
the implementation dates of the standards, with one report published in
2002, and a second report in 2004.218 219 These public
reports allowed EPA to communicate what challenges and progress was
being made by the regulated industry and other stakeholders in
achieving the goals of the 2000 final rule. EPA believes this previous
process for highway heavy-duty emission standards and ultra-low fuel
sulfur standards can serve as a broad template for ensuring on-going
engagement and monitoring of the Heavy-Duty Phase 3 GHG final standards
(though we note for the 2000 rule, EPA established standards for the
engine emission requirements and the highway diesel fuel sulfur levels,
whereas in this rule EPA is establishing emission standard for heavy-
duty vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ ``Highway Diesel Progress Review'' EPA Report 420-R-02-
016, June 2002. See Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985.
\219\ ``Highway Diesel Progress Review Report 2,'' EPA-420-R-04-
004. March 2004. See Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-77806.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the Agency's on-going certification and compliance
program, EPA receives data from every OEM to ensure compliance with
heavy-duty emission standards, including the existing Phase 2 GHG
standards (and, in the future, Phase 3 GHG standards as well). EPA will
monitor the on-going implementation of the Phase 2 program as well as
the Phase 3 program, to understand how each OEM's compliance with the
GHG standards is occurring, including by vehicle class, and to
understand the use of the CO2 emissions averaging, banking,
and trading program. This will include evaluating manufacturers' use of
Phase 2 advanced technology multipliers, quantifying any banked credits
generated from the use of multipliers, and considering the potential
for those credits to undermine the overall goals of the Phase 3 program
in the MY 2027 and later time frame.
[[Page 29482]]
This includes GHG-reducing technologies on HD ICEVs, BEVs, FCEVs, plug-
in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), hybrid electric vehicles, and
vehicles with H2-ICE. Also consistent with commenters' suggestions, EPA
intends to monitor data on HDV sales in California and other states
that have adopted ACT. Such sales provide an early indication of ZEV
technology adoption.
EPA agrees with commenters that information on battery production,
and the related issue of availability of materials critical to that
production (including viability of supply chains), is important to
gauging pace and success of implementation of the Phase 3 standards.
EPA intends to discuss any issues with HD vehicle manufacturers and
consult other sources of information regarding these issues, including
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and DOE's tracking of
critical minerals.
EPA will monitor the deployment of heavy-duty vehicle charging and
hydrogen refueling infrastructure. EPA will begin to collect data in CY
2025 in coordination with DOE and DOT, to monitor the implementation of
electric vehicle charging infrastructure designed to serve HD vehicles
potentially including but not limited to the following:
Depot charging infrastructure--number of EVSE ports, size,
location, growth rate
Public charging infrastructure--number of EVSE ports,
size, location, growth rate
EVSE sales--number, size, location, growth rate
A sample of charging station installation timelines and
distribution system upgrades (e.g., covering small, mid-size, and large
depots and public stations.) Samples could be selected to reflect
different regions and utility types, among other factors.
Additionally, relevant data from each organization's relevant
infrastructure funding programs will be assessed.
EPA will also collect data, in coordination with DOE and DOT, on
the implementation of hydrogen fueling infrastructure, including data
such as the number, capacity, location, and type of hydrogen production
plants and hydrogen refueling stations available for HD vehicles.
During the development of the reports reflecting this information,
EPA will consult with a wide range of stakeholders regarding the
implementation of HD vehicle infrastructure on an on-going basis, to
learn from their experiences and to gather relevant information and
data from them. The stakeholders would likely include at a minimum
trucking fleets and trucking trade associations; heavy-duty vehicle
owner-operators; HD vehicle manufacturers; utilities including investor
owned, publicly owned, and cooperatives; infrastructure providers and
installers; state & local governments, EJ communities; and NGOs. As
noted, we will also be in regular contact with DOE and DOT.
C. Background on the CO2 Emission Standards in the HD GHG Phase 2
Program
In the HD GHG Phase 2 rule, we finalized GHG emission standards
tailored to three regulatory categories of HD vehicles--heavy-duty
pickups and vans, vocational vehicles, and combination tractors.\220\
In addition, we set separate standards for the engines that power
combination tractors and for the engines that power vocational
vehicles. The heavy-duty vehicle CO2 emission standards are
in grams per ton-mile, which represents the grams of CO2
emitted to move one ton of payload a distance of one mile. In addition,
the Phase 2 program established certain subcategories of vehicles
(i.e., custom chassis vocational vehicles and heavy-haul tractors) that
were specifically designed to recognize the limitations of certain
vehicle applications to adopt some technologies due to specialized
operating characteristics or generally low sales volumes with
prohibitively long payback periods. The vehicles certified to the
custom chassis vocational vehicle standards are not permitted to bank
or trade credits and some have limited averaging provisions under the
HD GHG Phase 2 ABT program.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ We also set standards for certain types of trailers used
in combination with tractors (see 81 FR 73639, October 25, 2016). As
described in section III of this preamble, in this final rule we
removed the regulatory provisions related to trailers in 40 CFR part
1037 to carry out the mandate of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit, which vacated the portions of the HD GHG Phase 2 final
rule that apply to trailers. Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
v. EPA, 17 F.4th 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
\221\ See 40 CFR 1037.105(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Vocational Vehicles
Vocational vehicles include a wide variety of vehicle types,
spanning Class 2b-8, and serve a wide range of functions. The
regulations define vocational vehicles as all heavy-duty vehicles
greater than 8,500 pounds GVWR that are not certified under 40 CFR part
86, subpart S, or a combination tractor under 40 CFR 1037.106.\222\
Some examples of vocational vehicles include urban delivery trucks,
refuse haulers, utility service trucks, dump trucks, concrete mixers,
transit buses, shuttle buses, school buses, emergency vehicles, motor
homes, and tow trucks. The HD GHG Phase 2 vocational vehicle program
also includes a special regulatory subcategory called vocational
tractors, which covers vehicles that are technically tractors but
generally operate more like vocational vehicles than line-haul
tractors. These vocational tractors include those designed to operate
off-road and in certain intra-city delivery routes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ See 40 CFR 1037.105(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The existing HD GHG Phase 2 CO2 standards for vocational
vehicles are based on the performance of a wide array of control
technologies. In particular, the HD GHG Phase 2 vocational vehicle
standards recognize detailed characteristics of vehicle powertrains and
drivelines. Driveline improvements present a significant opportunity
for reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from
vocational vehicles. However, there is no single package of driveline
technologies that will be equally suitable for all vocational vehicles,
because there is an extremely broad range of driveline configurations
available in the market. This is due in part to the variety of final
vehicle build configurations, ranging from a purpose-built custom
chassis to a commercial chassis that may be intended as a multi-purpose
stock vehicle. Furthermore, the wide range of applications and driving
patterns of these vocational vehicles leads manufacturers to offer a
variety of drivelines, as each performs differently in use.
In the final HD GHG Phase 2 rule, we recognized the diversity of
vocational vehicle applications by setting unique vehicle
CO2 emission standards evaluated over composite drive cycles
for 23 different regulatory subcategories. The program includes
vocational vehicle standards that allow the technologies that perform
best at highway speeds and those that perform best in urban driving to
each be properly recognized over appropriate drive cycles, while
avoiding potential unintended results of forcing vocational vehicles
that are designed to serve in different applications to be measured
against a single drive cycle. The vehicle CO2 emissions are
evaluated using EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) over three
drive cycles, where the composite weightings vary by subcategory, with
the intent of balancing the competing pressures to recognize the
varying performance of technologies, serve the wide range of customer
needs, and maintain a
[[Page 29483]]
workable regulatory program.\223\ The HD GHG Phase 2 primary vocational
standards, therefore, contain subcategories for Regional, Multi-
purpose, and Urban drive cycles in each of the three weight classes
(Light Heavy-Duty (Class 2b-5), Medium Heavy-Duty (Class 6-7) and Heavy
Heavy-Duty (Class 8)), for a total of nine unique subcategories.\224\
These nine subcategories apply for compression-ignition (CI) vehicles.
We separately, but similarly, established six subcategories of spark-
ignition (SI) vehicles. In other words, there are 15 separate numerical
performance-based emission standards for each model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ GEM is an EPA vehicle simulation tool used to certify HD
vehicles. A detailed description of GEM can be found in the Phase 2
Regulatory Impacts Analysis or at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/greenhouse-gas-emissions-model-gem-medium-and-heavy-duty.
\224\ See 40 CFR 1037.140(g) and (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also established optional custom chassis categories in the
Phase 2 rule in recognition of the unique technical characteristics of
these applications. These categories also recognize that many
manufacturers of these custom chassis are not full-line heavy-duty
vehicle companies and thus do not have the same flexibilities as other
firms in the use of the Phase 2 program emissions averaging program
which could lead to challenges in meeting the standards EPA established
for the overall vocational vehicle and combination tractor program. We
therefore established optional custom chassis CO2 emission
standards for Motorhomes, Refuse Haulers, Coach Buses, School Buses,
Transit Buses, Concrete Mixers, Mixed Use Vehicles, and Emergency
Vehicles.\225\ In total, EPA set CO2 emission standards for
15 subcategories of vocational vehicles and eight subcategories of
specialty vehicle types for a total of 23 vocational vehicle
subcategories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ The numeric values of the optional custom chassis
standards are not directly comparable to the primary vocational
vehicle standards. As explained in the HD GHG Phase 2 rule, there
are simplifications in GEM that produce higher or lower
CO2 emissions. 81 FR 73686-73688, October 25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HD GHG Phase 2 standards phase in over a period of seven years,
beginning with MY 2021. The HD GHG Phase 2 program progresses in three-
year stages with an intermediate set of standards in MY 2024 and final
standards in MY 2027 and later. In the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule, we
identified a potential technology path for complying with each of the
three increasingly stringent stages of the HD GHG Phase 2 program
standards. These standards' feasibility are demonstrated through a
potential technology path that is based on the performance of more
efficient engines, workday idle reduction technologies, improved
transmissions including mild hybrid powertrains, axle technologies,
weight reduction, electrified accessories, tire pressure systems, and
tire rolling resistance improvements. We developed the Phase 2
vocational vehicle standards using the methodology where we applied
fleet average technology mixes to fleet average baseline vehicle
configurations, and each average baseline and technology mix was unique
for each vehicle subcategory.\226\ When the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule
was promulgated in 2016, we established CO2 standards on the
premise that electrification of the heavy-duty market would occur in
the future but was unlikely to occur at significant sales volumes of
electric vehicles in the timeframe of the program. As a result, the
Phase 2 vocational vehicle CO2 standards were not premised
on the application of ZEV technologies, though such technologies could
be used by manufacturers to comply with the standards. We finalized
BEV, PHEV, and FCEV advanced technology credit multipliers within the
HD GHG ABT program to incentivize increased application of these
technologies that had the potential for large GHG emission reductions
(see section III of this preamble for further discussion on this
program and the targeted ways we are amending it). Details regarding
the HD GHG Phase 2 standards can be found in the HD GHG Phase 2 final
rule preamble and record, and the HD GHG Phase 2 vocational vehicle
standards are codified at 40 CFR part 1037.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ 81 FR 73715, October 25, 2016.
\227\ 81 FR 73677-73725, October 25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Combination Tractors
The tractor regulatory structure is attribute-based in terms of
dividing the tractor category into ten subcategories based on the
tractor's weight rating, cab configuration, and roof height. The
tractors are subdivided into three weight ratings--Class 7 with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 26,001 to 35,000 pounds; Class 8 with a
GVWR over 33,000 pounds; and Heavy-haul with a gross combined weight
rating of greater than or equal to 120,000 pounds.\228\ The Class 7 and
8 tractor cab configurations are either day cab or sleeper cab. Day cab
tractors are typically used for shorter haul operations, whereas
sleeper cabs are often used in long haul operations. EPA set
CO2 emission standards for 10 tractor subcategories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\228\ See 40 CFR 1037.801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the vocational program, implementation of the HD GHG
Phase 2 tractor standards began in MY 2021 and will be fully phased in
for MY 2027. In the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule, EPA analyzed the
feasibility of achieving the CO2 standards and identified
technology pathways for achieving the standards. The existing HD GHG
Phase 2 CO2 emission standards for combination tractors
reflect reductions that can be achieved through improvements in the
tractor's powertrain, aerodynamics, tires, idle reduction, and other
vehicle systems as demonstrated using GEM. As we did for vocational
vehicles, we developed a potential technology package for each of the
tractor subcategories that represented a fleet average application of a
mix of technologies to demonstrate the feasibility of the standard for
each MY.\229\ EPA did not premise the HD GHG Phase 2 CO2
tractor emission standards on application of hybrid powertrains or ZEV
technologies. However, we predicted some limited use of these
technologies in MY 2021 and beyond and we finalized BEV, PHEV, and FCEV
advanced technology credit multipliers within the HD GHG ABT program to
incentivize a transition to these technologies (see section III of this
preamble for further discussion on this program and the targeted ways
we are amending it). More details can be found in the HD GHG Phase 2
final rule preamble, and the HD GHG Phase 2 tractor standards are
codified at 40 CFR part 1037.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\229\ 81 FR 73602-73611, October 25, 2016.
\230\ 81 FR 73571, October 25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Heavy-Duty Engines
In HD GHG Phase 1, we developed a regulatory structure for
CO2, nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane
(CH4) emission standards that apply to the engine, separate
from the HD vocational vehicle and tractor. The regulatory structure
includes separate standards for spark-ignition engines (such as
gasoline engines) and compression-ignition engines (such as diesel
engines), and for heavy heavy-duty (HHD), medium heavy-duty (MHD) and
light heavy-duty (LHD) engines, that also apply to alternative fuel
engines. We also used this regulatory structure for HD engines in HD
GHG Phase 2. More details can be found in the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule
preamble, and the HD GHG Phase 2 engine standards are codified at 40
CFR part 1036.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\231\ 81 FR 73553-73571, October 25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29484]]
4. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program
Beginning with the HD GHG Phase 1 for HD GHG standards, EPA adopted
an ABT program for CO2 emission credits that allows ABT
within a vehicle weight class, meaning that the regulations did not
require all vehicles to meet the standard.\232\ In promulgating the
Phase 2 standards, we explained that the stringency of the Phase 2
standards was derived on a fleet average technology mix basis. For
example, we projected that diversified manufacturers would continue to
use the averaging provisions in the ABT program to meet the standards
on average for each of their vehicle families. For the HD GHG Phase 2
ABT program, we created three weight class-based credit averaging sets
for HD vehicles: LHD Vehicles, MHD Vehicles, and HHD Vehicles. This
approach allowed ABT between all vehicles in the same weight class,
including CI-powered vehicles, SI-powered vehicles, BEVs, FCEVs, and
hybrid vehicles, which have the same regulatory useful life. Although
the vocational vehicle emission standards are subdivided by Urban,
Multi-purpose, and Regional regulatory subcategories, credit exchanges
are currently allowed between them within the same weight class.
However, these averaging sets currently exclude vehicles certified to
the separate optional custom chassis standards. Finally, the ABT
program currently allows credits to exchange between vocational
vehicles and tractors within a weight class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\232\ 40 CFR 1037.701 through 1037.750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABT is commonly used by vehicle manufacturers to comply with the
standards of the HD GHG Phase 2 program. In MY 2022, 93 percent of the
certified vehicle families (256 out of 276 families) used ABT.\233\
Similarly, 29 out of 40 manufacturers in MY 2022 used ABT to certify
some or all of their vehicle families. Most of the manufacturers that
did not use ABT produced vehicles that were certified to the optional
custom chassis standards where the banking and trading components of
ABT are not allowed, and averaging is limited.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\233\ U.S. EPA Heavy-Duty Vehicle Certification Data. Last
accessed on January 25, 2023, at https://www.epa.gov/compliance-and-fuel-economy-data/annual-certification-data-vehicles-engines-and-equipment.
\234\ See 40 CFR 1037.105(h)(2) for details. See also 40 CFR
1037.241(a) providing for individual certification of heavy-duty
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Vehicle Technologies and Supporting Infrastructure
For this final rule, as we did for HD Phase 1 and Phase 2, we are
finalizing more stringent CO2 emissions standards for many
of the regulatory subcategories and demonstrating the feasibility of
those final standards based on the performance of a potential
compliance pathway comprising of a package of technologies that reduce
CO2 emissions. And in this rule, we developed technology
packages that include both vehicles with ICE and ZEV technologies. In
determining which technologies to model, EPA initially considered the
entire suite of technologies that we expected would be technologically
feasible and commercially available to achieve significant emissions
reductions, including the GHG-reducing technologies considered in the
Phase 2 standards--including BEVs, FCEVs, H2-ICE vehicles, hybrid
powertrains, plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs), and alternative fueled-
ICEVs. Because the statute requires EPA to consider lead time and costs
in establishing standards, and because manufacturers (and purchasers)
of HD vehicles are profit-generating enterprises that are seeking to
reduce costs, EPA then identified the technologies that the record
showed would be most effective at reducing CO2 emissions and
are cost-effective at doing so in the MYs 2027-2032 time frame, as
discussed in this section II.D. As a result, EPA chose to model certain
ICE vehicle technologies, BEV technologies, and FCEV technologies to
support the feasibility of the final standards and for analyses for
regulatory purposes, not because we have an a priori interest in
promoting certain HD vehicle technologies over other technologies, but
rather because our analysis of lead time and costs showed these are
effective technologies at reducing CO2 emissions and are
cost-effective. The record also shows that the modeled potential
compliance pathway is the lowest cost one that we assessed for
manufacturers overall and would be beneficial for purchasers because
the lower operating costs during the operational life of the vehicle
will offset the increase in vehicle technology costs within the usual
period of first ownership of the vehicle. At the same time, EPA modeled
other technologies (examples of other potential compliance pathways
with different mixes of technologies, as discussed in section II.F.6)
recognizing that manufacturers can choose many different ways to
achieve CO2 emissions reductions to comply with the final
performance-based standards. These additional example potential
compliance pathways also support the feasibility of the final
standards.
More specifically, as explained in section II.B.2, this final rule
establishes new CO2 emission standards for MY 2032 and later
HD vehicles with more stringent CO2 emission standards
phasing in as early as MY 2027 for certain vehicle categories. We found
that these final Phase 3 vehicle standards are appropriate and
feasible, including consideration of cost of compliance and other
factors, for their respective MYs and vehicle subcategories through
technology improvements in several areas. To support the feasibility
and appropriateness of the final standards, we evaluated each
technology and estimated potential technology adoption rates of a mix
of projected available technologies in each vehicle subcategory per MY
(our technology packages) that EPA projects are achievable based on
nationwide production volumes, considering lead time, technical
feasibility, cost, and other factors. At the same time, the final
standards are performance-based and do not mandate any specific
technology for any manufacturer or any vehicle subcategory. In
identifying the CO2 standards and demonstrating the
technological feasibility of such standards, we considered the
statutory purpose of reducing emissions and the need for such emissions
reductions, technological feasibility, costs, lead time and related
factors (including safety). To evaluate and balance these statutory
factors and other relevant considerations, EPA must necessarily
estimate a means of compliance: what technologies can be used, what do
they cost, what is appropriate lead time for their deployment, and the
like. Thus, to support the feasibility of the final standards, EPA
identified a modeled potential compliance pathway. Having identified
one means of compliance, EPA's task is to ``answe[r] any theoretical
objections'' to that means of compliance, ``identif[y] the major steps
necessary,'' and to ``offe[r] plausible reasons for believing that each
of those steps can be completed in the time available.'' NRDC v. EPA,
655 F. 2d at 332. That is what EPA has done here in this final rule,
and indeed what it has done in all the motor vehicle emission standard
rules implementing section 202(a) of the Act. As we stated earlier in
this preamble, manufacturers remain free to comply by any means they
choose, including through strategies that may resemble the additional
example potential compliance pathways. Based on our experience to date,
it is the norm that manufacturers devise means other than those
projected by EPA as a
[[Page 29485]]
potential technology path in support of the feasibility of the
standards to achieve compliance.
For each regulatory subcategory, we modeled various ICE vehicles
with CO2-reducing technologies to represent the average MY
2027 vehicle that meets the MY 2027 Phase 2 standards. These vehicles
are used as baselines from which to evaluate costs and effectiveness of
additional technologies for each of these vehicle types and ultimately
for each regulatory subcategory. The following subsections describe the
GHG emission-reducing technologies for HD vehicles which EPA considered
in this final rulemaking, including those for HD vehicles with ICE
(section II.D.1), HD BEVs (section II.D.2), and HD FCEVs (section
II.D.3), as well as a summary of the technology assessment that
supports the feasibility of the final Phase 3 standards (section
II.D.4) and the primary inputs we used in our technology assessment
tool, Heavy-Duty Technology Resource Use Case Scenario (HD TRUCS), that
we developed to evaluate the design features needed to meet the power
and energy demands of various HD vehicles when using ZEV technologies,
as well as costs related to manufacturing, purchasing and operating ICE
vehicle and ZEV technologies used under the modeled potential
compliance pathway (section II.D.5).
As previously noted, we did not propose and are not adopting
changes to the existing Phase 2 GHG emission standards for HD engines.
As noted in the following section and RIA Chapter 1.4, there are
technologies available that can reduce GHG emissions from HD engines,
and we anticipate that many of them will be used to meet the MY 2024
and MY 2027 and later Phase 2 CO2 engine emission standards,
while developments are underway to meet the new low NOX
standards for MY 2027.\235\ This final rule remains focused on GHG
reductions through more stringent vehicle-level CO2 emission
standards, which will continue to account for engine CO2
emissions, instead of also finalizing new CO2 emission
standards that apply to heavy-duty engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ 40 CFR 1036.104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Technologies To Reduce GHG Emissions From HD ICE Vehicles
The CO2 emissions of HD vehicles vary depending on the
configuration of the vehicle. Many aspects of the vehicle impact its
emissions performance, including the engine, transmission, drive axle,
aerodynamics, and rolling resistance.
The technologies we considered for tractors include technologies
that we analyzed in Phase 2 such as improved aerodynamics; low rolling
resistance tires; tire inflation systems; efficient engines, engines
fueled with natural gas, transmissions, drivetrains, and accessories;
and extended idle reduction for sleeper cabs. We analyzed the overall
effectiveness of the technology packages using EPA's Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Model (GEM), which was used for analyzing the technology
packages that support the Phase 2 vehicle CO2 emission
standards and is used by manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with
the Phase 2 standards. EPA's GEM model simulates road load power
requirements over various duty cycles to estimate the energy required
per mile for HD vehicles. The inputs for the individual technologies
that make up the fleet average technology package that meets the Phase
2 MY 2027 CO2 tractor emission standards are shown in Table
II-3.\236\ The comparable table for vocational vehicles is shown in
Table II-4.\237\ The technology package for vocational vehicles include
technologies such as low rolling resistance tires; tire inflation
systems; efficient engines, transmissions, and drivetrains; weight
reduction; and idle reduction technologies. Note that the HD GHG Phase
2 standards (like the Phase 1 and 3 standards) are performance-based;
EPA does not require this specific technology mix, rather the
technologies shown in Table II-3 and Table II-4 are potential pathways
for compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ 81 FR 73616, October 25, 2016.
\237\ 81 FR 73714, October 25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29486]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.012
[[Page 29487]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.013
Technologies exist today and continue to evolve to improve the
efficiency of the engine, transmission, drivetrain, aerodynamics, and
tire rolling resistance in HD vehicles and therefore reduce their
CO2 emissions. As discussed in the preamble to the HD GHG
Phase 2 program and shown here in Table II-3 and Table II-4, there are
a variety of such technologies. In developing the Phase 2
CO2 emission standards, we developed technology packages
that were premised on a mix of projected technologies and potential
technology adoption rates of less than 100 percent. As discussed in
section II.F.4 under the additional example potential compliance
pathways, there is an opportunity for further improvements and
increased adoption through MY 2032 for many of these technologies.
Furthermore, as discussed in section II.F.4 under the additional
example potential compliance pathways, we also considered additional
technologies than those in the Phase 2 MY 2027 technology packages such
as H2-ICE, hybrids, and natural gas engines. Each of these technologies
is discussed in this section and RIA Chapter 1.4.
i. Aerodynamics
For example, we evaluated the potential for additional GHG
performance gains from aerodynamic improvements. Up to 25 percent of
the fuel consumed by a sleeper cab tractor traveling at highway speeds
is used to overcome aerodynamic drag forces, making aerodynamic drag a
significant contributor to a Class 7 or 8 tractor's GHG emissions and
fuel consumption.\238\ Because aerodynamic drag varies by the square of
the vehicle speed, small changes in the tractor aerodynamics can have a
large impact on the GHG emissions of a tractor. With much of their
driving at highway speed, the GHG emission reductions of reduced
aerodynamic drag for Class 7 or 8 tractors can be significant.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\238\ Assumes travel on level road at 65 miles per hour. (21st
Century Truck Partnership Roadmap and Technical White Papers,
December 2006. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Program. 21CTP-003. p.36.
\239\ Reducing Heavy-Duty Long Haul Combination Truck Fuel
Consumption and CO2 Emissions, ICCT, October 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving the vehicle shape may include revising the fore
components of the vehicle such as rearward canting/raking or smoothing/
rounding the edges of the front-end components (e.g., bumper,
headlights, windshield, hood, cab, mirrors) or integrating the
components at key interfaces (e.g., windshield/glass to sheet metal) to
alleviate fore vehicle drag. Finally, improvements may include
redirecting the air to prevent areas of low pressure and slow-moving
air (thus, eliminating areas where air builds creating turbulent
vortices and increasing drag). Techniques such as blocking gaps in the
sheet metal, ducting of components, shaping or extending sheet metal to
reduce flow separation and turbulence are methods being considered by
manufacturers to direct air from areas of high drag (e.g., underbody
and tractor-trailer gap).
As discussed in the Phase 2 RIA, the National Research Council of
Canada performed an assessment of the aerodynamic drag effect of
various tractor components.\240\ Based on the results, there is the
potential to improve tractor aerodynamics by 0.206 wind averaged
coefficient of drag area (CdA) with the addition of wheel covers, drive
[[Page 29488]]
axle wrap around splash guards, and roof fairing rear edge filler. Up
to 0.460 CdA improvement is possible if the side and fender mirrors are
replaced with a camera system, as suggested by the study, and combined
with the wheel covers, drive axle wrap around splash guards, and roof
fairing rear edge filler. In our Phase 2 analysis, considering the wind
average drag performance of heavy-duty tractors at the time, this study
demonstrated the possibility to improve tractors an additional ~1
percent with some simple changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\240\ Jason Leuschen and Kevin R. Cooper (National Research
Council of Canada), Society of Automotive Engineer. (SAE) Paper
#2006-01-3456: ``Full-Scale Wind Tunnel Tests of Production and
Prototype, Second-Generation Aerodynamic Drag-Reducing Devices for
Tractor-Trailers.'' November 2, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Phase 2, the tractor aerodynamic performance was evaluated using
the wind averaged coefficient of drag area results measured during
aerodynamic testing as prescribed in 40 CFR 1037.525. The results of
the aerodynamic testing are used to determine the aerodynamic bin and
CdA input value for GEM, as prescribed in 40 CFR 1037.520 and shown in
Table II-5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.014
EPA conducted aerodynamic testing for the Phase 2 final rule.\241\
As shown in Phase 2 RIA Chapter 3.2.1.2, the most aerodynamic high roof
sleeper cabs tested had a CdA of approximately 5.4 m\2\, which is a Bin
IV tractor. Therefore, we concluded that prior to 2016 manufacturers
were producing high roof sleeper cabs that range in aerodynamic
performance between Bins I and IV. Bin V is achievable through the
addition of aerodynamic features that improve the aerodynamics on the
best pre-2016 sleeper cabs tested by at least 0.3 m\2\ CdA. The
features that could be added include technologies such as wheel covers,
drive axle wrap around splash guards, and roof fairing rear edge
filler, and active grill shutters. In addition, manufacturers continue
to improve the aerodynamic designs of the front bumper, grill, hood,
and windshield.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\241\ U.S. EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2. Chapter 3. EPA-420-R-16-900. August
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our analysis of high roof day cabs is similar to our assessment of
high roof sleeper cabs. Also, as shown in Phase 2 RIA Chapter 3.2.1.2,
the most aerodynamic high roof day cab tested by EPA achieved Bin IV.
Our assessment is that the same types of additional technologies that
could be applied to high roof sleeper cabs could also be applied to
high roof day cabs to achieve Bin V aerodynamic performance. Finally,
because the manufacturers have the ability to determine the aerodynamic
bin of low and mid roof tractors from the equivalent high roof tractor,
this assessment also applies to low and mid roof tractors.
For our modeled potential compliance pathway in Phase 3 tractors'
technology packages, the vehicles with ICE portion of the technology
package for the MY 2027 high roof sleeper cab tractor includes 20
percent Bin III, 30 percent Bin IV, and 50 percent Bin V reflecting our
assessment of the fraction of high roof sleeper cab tractors. We
continue to project, as we projected in the Phase 2 rulemaking, that
manufacturers could successfully apply these aerodynamic packages by MY
2027. The weighted average for tractors of this set of adoption rates
is equivalent to a tractor aerodynamic performance near the border
between Bin IV and Bin V.
The Phase 2 standards for vocational vehicles were not projected to
be met with the use of aerodynamic improvements.
ii. Tire Rolling Resistance
Energy loss associated with tires is mainly due to deformation of
the tires under the load of the vehicle, known as hysteresis, but
smaller losses result from aerodynamic drag, and other friction forces
between the tire and road surface and the tire and wheel rim.
Collectively the forces that result in energy loss from the tires are
referred to as rolling resistance. Tires with higher rolling resistance
lose more energy, thus using more fuel and producing more
CO2 emissions in operation, while tires with lower rolling
resistance lose less energy, and use less fuel, producing less
CO2 emissions in operation.
A tire's rolling resistance is a factor considered in the design of
the tire and is affected by the tread and casing compound materials,
the architecture of the casing, tread design, and the tire
manufacturing process. It is estimated that 35 to 50 percent of a
tire's rolling resistance is from the tread and the other 50 to 65
percent is from the casing.\242\ Tire inflation can also impact rolling
resistance in that under-inflated tires can result in increased
deformation and contact with the road surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\242\ ``Tires & Truck Fuel Economy,'' A New Perspective.
Bridgestone Firestone, North American Tire, LLC, Special Edition
Four, 2008. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0373.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Phase 2, we developed four levels of tire rolling resistance, as
shown in Table II-6. The levels included the baseline (average) from
2010, Level I and Level 2 from Phase 1, and Level 3 that achieves an
additional 25 percent improvement over Level 2. The Level 2 threshold
represents an incremental step for improvements beyond today's SmartWay
level and represents the best in class rolling resistance of the tires
we tested for Phase 1.\243\ The Level 3 values represented the long-
term rolling resistance value that EPA projected could be achieved in
the MY 2025 timeframe. Given the multiple year phase-in of the Phase 2
standards, EPA
[[Page 29489]]
expected that tire manufacturers will continue to respond to demand for
more efficient tires and will offer increasing numbers of tire models
with rolling resistance values significantly better than the typical
low rolling resistance tires offered in 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ U.S. EPA. SmartWay Verified Low Rolling Resistance Tires
Performance Requirements. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-02/documents/420f12024.pdf.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.015
In the modeled compliance pathway for the Phase 3 tractors'
technology packages, the vehicles with ICE portion of the technology
package for the MY 2027 included steer and drive tires that on average
performed at a Level 2 rolling resistance. We continue to project, as
we projected in the Phase 2 rulemaking, that manufacturers could
successfully apply tires that on average perform at this level by MY
2027.
iii. Natural Gas Engines
Natural-gas powered heavy-duty vehicles are very similar to
gasoline and diesel fueled ICE-powered vehicles. The engine functions
the same as a gasoline or diesel fueled ICE. Two key differences are
the fuel storage and delivery systems. The fuel delivery system
delivers high-pressure natural gas from the fuel tank to the fuel
injectors located on the engine. Similar to gasoline or diesel fuel,
natural gas is stored in a fuel tank, or cylinder, but requires the
ability to store the fuel under high pressure.
There are different ways that heavy-duty engines can be configured
to use natural gas as a fuel. The first is a spark-ignition natural gas
engine. An Otto cycle SI heavy-duty engine uses a spark plug for
ignition and burns the fuel stoichiometrically. Due to this, the
engine-out emissions require use of a three-way catalyst to control
criteria pollutant emissions. The second is a direct injection natural
gas that utilizes a compression-ignition (CI) cycle. The CI engine uses
a small quantity of diesel fuel (pilot injection) as an ignition source
along with a high compression ratio engine design. The engine operates
lean of stoichiometric operation, which leads to engine-out emissions
that require aftertreatment systems similar to diesel ICEs, such as
diesel oxidation catalysts, selective catalytic reduction systems, and
diesel particulate filters. The CNG CI engine is more costly than a
diesel CI engine because of the special natural gas/diesel fuel
injection system. The NG SI engine and aftertreatment system is less
costly than a NG CI engine and aftertreatment system but is less fuel
efficient than a NG CI engine because of the lower compression ratio.
In addition to differences in engine architecture, the natural gas
fuel can be stored two ways--compressed (CNG) or liquified (LNG). A CNG
tank stores pressurized gaseous natural gas and the system includes a
pressure regulator. An LNG tank stores liquified natural gas that is
cryogenically cooled but stored at a lower pressure than CNG. The LNG
tanks often are double walled to help maintain the temperature of the
fuel, and include a gasification system to turn the fuel from a liquid
to a gas before injecting the fuel into the engine. An important
advantage of LNG is the increased energy density compared to CNG.
Because of its higher energy density, LNG can be more suitable for
applications such as long-haul applications.
Natural gas engines are a mature technology. Cummins manufactures
natural gas engines that cover the complete range of heavy-duty vehicle
applications, with engine displacements ranging from 6.7L to 12L.
Heavy-duty CNG and LNG vehicles are available today in the fleet. EIA
estimates that approximately 4,400 CNG and LNG heavy-duty vehicles were
sold in 2022 and approximately 50,000 CNG and LNG vehicles are in the
U.S. heavy-duty fleet.\244\ Manufacturers are producing CNG and LNG
vehicles in all of the vocational and tractor categories, especially
buses, refuse hauler, street sweeper, and tractor applications, as
discussed further in RIA Chapter 1.4.1.2.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\244\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2023. Table 49. Available
Online: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=58-AEO2023&cases=ref2023&sourcekey=0.
\245\ Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center.
Available Online: https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/search/results?manufacturer_id=67,205,117,394,415,201,113,5,408,481,9,13,11,458,81,435,474,57,416,141,197,417,121,475,53,397,418,85,414,17,21,143,476,492,23,484,398,27,477,399,31,207,396,489,107,465,487,193,460,35,459,115,37,147,480,199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Hydrogen-Fueled Internal Combustion Engines
Currently, hydrogen fueled internal combustion engines (H2-ICE) are
in the demonstration stage. H2-ICE is a technology that provides nearly
zero tailpipe emissions for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and carbon
dioxide. H2-ICE require less exhaust aftertreatment. These systems may
not require the diesel particulate filter (DPF). However,
NOX emissions are still formed during the H2-ICE combustion
process and therefore a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system
would be required, as well a diesel oxidation catalyst, though it may
be smaller in size than that used in a comparable diesel-fueled ICE.
The use of lean air-
[[Page 29490]]
fuel ratios, and not exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), is the most
effective way to control NOX in a H2-ICE, as EGR is less
effective with H2 due to the absence of CO2 in the exhaust
gas.
H2-ICE can be developed using an OEM's existing tooling,
manufacturing processes, and engine design expertise. H2-ICE engines
are very similar to existing ICEs and can leverage the extensive
technical expertise manufacturers have developed with existing
products. Similarly, H2-ICE products can be built on the same assembly
lines as other ICE vehicles, by the same workers and with many of the
same component suppliers.
H2-ICE incorporate several differences from their diesel baseline.
Components such as the cylinder head, valves, seals, piston, and piston
rings would be unique to the H2-ICE to control H2 leakage during engine
operation. Another difference between a diesel-fueled ICE and a H2-ICE
is the fuel storage tanks. The hydrogen storage tanks are more
expensive than today's diesel fuel tanks. The fuel tanks likely to be
used by H2-ICE are identical to those used by a fuel cell electric
vehicle (FCEV) and they may utilize either compressed storage (350 or
700 Bar pressure) or cryogenic storage (temperatures as low as -253
Celsius). Please refer to Chapter 1.7.2 of this document for the
discussion regarding H2 fuel storage tanks.
H2-ICE may hasten the development of hydrogen infrastructure
because they do not require as pure of hydrogen as FCEVs. Hydrogen
infrastructure exists in limited quantities in some parts of the
country for applications such as forklifts, buses, and LDVs and HDVs at
ports. Federal funds are being used to support the development of
additional hubs and other hydrogen related infrastructure items through
the BIL and IRA, as described in more detail in Chapter 1.8.
Since neat hydrogen fuel does not contain any carbon, H2-ICE fueled
with neat hydrogen produce zero HC, CH4, CO, and
CO2 engine-out emissions.\246\ However, as explained in
section III.C.2.xviii, we recognize that, like CI ICE, there may be
negligible, but non-zero, CO2 exhaust emissions of H2-ICE
that use SCR and are fueled with neat hydrogen due to contributions
from the aftertreatment system from urea decomposition. Thus, for
purposes of compliance with engine CO2 exhaust emission
standards under 40 CFR part 1036, we are finalizing an engine testing
default CO2 emission value (3 g/hp-hr) option (though
manufacturers may instead conduct testing to demonstrate that the
CO2 emissions for their engine is below 3 g/hp-hr). Under
our existing fuel-mapping test procedures that may be used as part of
demonstrating compliance with vehicle CO2 exhaust emission
standards, the results are fuel consumption values and therefore the
CO2 emissions from urea decomposition are not included in
the results.247 248 Under this final rule, consistent with
existing treatment of such contributions from the aftertreatment system
from urea decomposition (e.g., for diesel ICE vehicles) for compliance
with vehicle CO2 exhaust emission standards, we are not
including such contributions in determining compliance with vehicle
CO2 exhaust emission standards for H2-ICE vehicles. Thus,
H2-ICE technologies that run on neat hydrogen, as defined in 40 CFR
1037.150(f) and discussed in section III.C.3.ii of the preamble, have
HD vehicle CO2 emissions that are deemed to be zero for
purposes of compliance with vehicle emission standards under 40 CFR
part 1037. Therefore, the technology effectiveness (in other words
CO2 emission reduction) for the vehicles that are powered by
this technology is 100 percent for compliance with vehicle
CO2 exhaust emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\246\ Note, NOX and PM emission testing is required
under existing 40 CFR part 1036 for engines fueled with neat
hydrogen.
\247\ See 81 FR 73552 (October 25, 2016), for the explanation on
why CO2 from urea decomposition is included when showing
compliance with the engine standards and it is not included when
showing compliance with the vehicle CO2 standards.
\248\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 1037.501 (including reference to 40 CFR
1036.535, 1036.540, and 1036.545).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Hybrid and Plug-In Hybrid Powertrains
The heavy-duty industry has also been developing hybrid
powertrains, as described in RIA Chapter 1.4.1.1. Hybrid powertrains
consist of an ICE as well as an electric drivetrain. The ICE uses a
consumable fuel (e.g., diesel) to produce power which can either propel
the vehicle directly or charge the traction battery from which the
electric motor draws its energy. These two sources of power can be used
in combination to do work and move the vehicle, or they may operate
individually, switching between the two sources. Plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles (PHEVs) are a combination of ICE and electric
vehicles, so they have an ICE and a battery, an electric motor, and a
fuel tank, and plug-in to the electric grid to recharge the battery.
PHEVs use both gasoline or diesel and electricity as fuel sources.
Hybrid powered vehicles can provide CO2 emission
reductions from splitting or blending of ICE and electric operation.
Hybrid vehicles reduce CO2 emissions through four primary
mechanisms:
In a series hybrid powertrain, the ICE operates as a
generator to create electricity for the battery. Series hybrids can be
optimized through downsizing, modifying the operating cycle, or other
control techniques to operate at or near its most efficient engine
speed-load conditions more often than is possible with a conventional
engine-transmission driveline. Power loss due to engine downsizing can
be mitigated by employing power assist from the secondary, electric
driveline.
Hybrid vehicles typically include regenerative braking
systems that capture some of the energy normally lost while braking and
store it in the traction battery for later use. That stored energy is
typically used to provide additional torque upon initial acceleration
from stop or additional power for moving the vehicle up a steep
incline.
Hybrid powertrains allow the engine to be turned off when
it is not needed, such as when the vehicle is coasting or when the
vehicle is stopped. Furthermore, some vehicle systems such as cabin
comfort and power steering can be electrified if a 48V or higher
battery system is incorporated into the vehicle. The electrical systems
are more efficient than their conventional counterparts which utilize
an accessory drive belt on a running engine. When the engine is stopped
these accessory loads are supported by the traction battery.
Plug-in hybrid vehicles can further reduce CO2
emissions by increasing the battery storage capacity and adding the
ability to connect to the electrical power grid to fully charge the
battery when the vehicle is not in service, which can significantly
expand the amount of all-electric operation.
Hybrid vehicles can utilize a combination of some or all of these
mechanisms to reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. The
magnitude of the CO2 reduction achieved depends on the
utilization/optimization of the previously listed mechanisms and the
powertrain design decisions made by the manufacturer.
Hybrid technology is well established in the U.S. light-duty
market, where some manufacturers have been producing light-duty hybrid
models for several decades and others are looking to develop hybrid
models in the future. Hybrid powertrains are available today in a
number of heavy-duty vocational vehicles including passenger van/
[[Page 29491]]
shuttle bus, transit bus, street sweeper, refuse hauler, and delivery
truck applications. Hybrid transit buses have been purchased for use in
cities including Philadelphia, PA, and Toronto, Canada. Heavy-duty
hybrid vehicles may include a power takeoff (PTO) system that is used
to operate auxiliary equipment, such as the boom/bucket on a utility
truck or the water pump on a fire truck. Utility trucks with electric
PTOs where the electricity to power the auxiliary equipment can be
provided by the battery have been sold.
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles run on both electricity and fuel.
Many PHEV models are available today in the light-duty market.\249\
Today there is a limited number of PHEV heavy-duty models. Light-duty
manufacturers that also produce heavy-duty vehicle could bring PHEVs to
market in the LHD and MHD segments in less time than for the HHD and
tractor segments. The utility factor is the fraction of miles the
vehicle travels in electric mode relative to the total miles traveled.
The percent CO2 emission reduction is directly related to
the utility factor. The greater the utility factor, the lower the
tailpipe CO2 emissions from the vehicle. The utility factor
depends on the size of the battery and the operator's driving habits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ US Department of Energy. Fueleconomy.gov. Available
online: https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=alts&path=3&year=2024&vtype=Plug-in+Hybrid&srchtyp=yearAfv&rowLimit=50&pageno=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vi. ICE Vehicle Technologies in the Modeled Potential Compliance
Pathway
We received a number of comments on technologies to reduce
CO2 emissions from ICE vehicles. One commenter indicated
that vehicle improvements to ICE vehicles would be cost-effective and
could lead to appreciable further reductions from ICE vehicles.
Specifically, the commenter pointed to improvements of nearly 7 percent
for vehicle improvements to high-roof sleeper cabs (aerodynamic
improvements, tires, intelligent controls, weight reduction, axle
efficiency, reduced accessory load); nearly 10 percent for vehicle
improvements for multi-purpose vocational vehicles (stop-start, weight
reduction, tires, axle efficiency, aerodynamic improvements, reduced
accessory load); improvements from 6-12 percent from vehicle
improvements to Class 7 and 8 tractors; and from 15-20 percent for
vehicle improvements for vocational vehicles (all percentages
reflecting incremental improvements beyond the MY 2027 Phase 2
standard). Further improvements are posited by the commenter if engine
improvements are considered. Another commenter echoed those comments,
urging that the standards reflect further improvements for ICE
vehicles. Acknowledging that these improvements could be viewed as a
different compliance pathway to meet the proposed standards (which is
consistent with the proposal and final rule explaining the Phase 3
standards are performance-based standards), the commenter urged that
these improvements be incremental to any improvements predicated on a
ZEV technology package. A third commenter also supported the first
commenter's assessment of engine and vehicle technologies and further
cited a separate comment submitted to EPA that cylinder deactivation
used as active thermal management also improves efficiency.
On the other hand, several HD vehicle manufacturers noted that some
ICE vehicle technologies have lagged behind projections made by EPA to
support the Phase 2 rule. These technologies include automatic tire
inflation systems, electric accessories, and tamper proof idle
reduction for vocational vehicles, stop-start technologies, and
advanced transmission shifting strategies. Some of the reasons include
lack of technology availability (e.g., engine stop-start), technology
costs (e.g., auto tire inflation, electric accessories), customer
adoption willingness (e.g., one-minute idle shutdown timers), and high
compliance costs (e.g., powertrain testing).
For the final rule analysis, we evaluated the manufacturers'
compliance with the MY 2021 standards (the first year of Phase 2).
While the manufacturers note in comments that they are not seeing the
adoption of certain engine and vehicle technologies at the rates shown
in EPA's technology package to support the Phase 2 rule, this does not
mean that the technologies EPA expected are not available; it just
means manufacturers have found different ways to comply. In addition,
we are still several years away from the MY 2027 vehicle production so
there continues to be time for increased adoption of these
technologies. Furthermore, EPA's emission standards are performance-
based and manufacturers will use a number of different technologies to
comply. These include all those listed in the Phase 2 package for MY
2027 because they are being installed on vehicles today, hybrids
including PHEVs, and alternative fueled vehicles such as natural gas,
as suggested by commenters. We are thus not convinced that these
technologies are not available for Phase 3 consistent with the
potential compliance pathway we projected in Phase 2 and currently
project.
For the ICE vehicle technologies part of the analysis that supports
the feasibility of the Phase 3 standards, our assessment is that
technology packages developed for the Phase 2 rule are still
appropriate for use in this final rule and thus the technology packages
for the potential compliance pathway include a mix of ICE vehicle
technologies and adoption rates of those technologies at the levels
included in the Phase 2 MY 2027 technology packages. We also developed
other additional potential compliance pathways, with different
technology packages, to support the feasibility of the Phase 3 final
standards that are based on vehicles with ICE technologies. See section
II.F.4 of this preamble. These example compliance pathways include
consideration of potential different pathways to compliance through the
use of such ICE vehicle technologies beyond those included in the Phase
2 MY 2027 technology packages, plus technologies such as H2-ICE, plug-
in hybrids, and natural gas engines. Additional discussion can be found
in section 9.2 of the RTC.
2. HD Battery Electric Vehicle Technology and Infrastructure
In addition to assessing ICE technologies, EPA also assessed BEV
technologies, which we anticipate will be widely available for many HD
vehicle applications during the timeframe for this rule and which have
the potential to achieve very large CO2 emissions
reductions. Our assessment of feasibility of the Phase 3 standards
includes not only an assessment of the performance of projected
potential emissions control technologies, but also the availability of
this technology within the rule's timeframe. Our assessment of
technology availability includes evaluating the availability of
critical minerals for such technologies (including issues associated
with supply chain readiness) and the readiness of sufficient supporting
electrical infrastructure. The following subsections address each of
these elements.
The HD BEV market has been growing significantly since MY 2018. RIA
Chapter 1.5 includes BEV vehicle information on over 160 models
produced by over 60 manufacturers that cover a broad range of
applications, including school buses, transit buses, straight trucks,
refuse haulers, vans, tractors, utility trucks, and others, available
to the public through MY 2024. Others project significant growth
[[Page 29492]]
of ZEV sales to continue into the future, achieving 50 percent by
2035.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ Truckinginfo.com ``ACT: Half of Class 4-8 Sales to be BEV
by 2035.'' February 2022. Available online: https://www.truckinginfo.com/10161524/act-half-of-class-4-8-sales-to-be-bev-by-2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Batteries Design Parameters
The battery electric propulsion system includes a battery pack that
provides the energy to the motor that moves the vehicle. In this
section, and in RIA Chapter 1.5.1 and 2.4, we discuss battery
technology that can be found in both BEVs and FCEVs.
Battery design involves considerations related to cost \251\ and
performance including specific energy\252\ and energy density,\253\
temperature impact, durability, and safety. These parameters typically
vary based on the cathode and anode materials, and on the conductive
electrolyte medium at the cell level. Different battery chemistries
have different intrinsic values. Here we provide a brief overview of
the different energy and power parameters of batteries and battery
chemistries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ Cost here is associated with cost of the battery design.
This cost may be associated with using more expensive minerals
(e.g., nickel and cobalt instead of iron phosphate). Alternatively,
some battery cell components may be more expensive for the same
chemistry. For example, power battery cells are more expensive to
manufacture than energy battery cells because these cells require
thinner electrodes which are more complex to produce.
\252\ Battery specific energy (also referred to as gravimetric
energy density) is a measure of battery energy per unit of mass.
\253\ Volumetric energy density (also called energy density) is
a measure of battery energy per unit of volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Battery Energy and Power Parameters
Specific energy and power and energy density are a function of how
much energy or power can be stored per unit mass (in Watt-hour per
kilogram (Wh/kg) or Watt per kilogram (W/kg)) or volume (in Watt-hour
per liter (Wh/L)). Therefore, for a given battery weight or mass, the
energy (in kilowatt-hour or kWh) can be calculated. For example, a
battery with high specific energy and a lower weight may yield the same
amount of energy as a chemistry with a lower specific energy and more
weight.
Battery packs have a ``nested'' design where a group of cells are
combined to make a battery module and a group of modules are combined
to make a battery pack. Therefore, the battery systems can be described
on the pack, module, and cell levels. Common battery chemistries today
include lithium-ion based cathode chemistries, such as nickel-
manganese-cobalt (NMC), nickel-cobalt-aluminum (NCA), and iron-
phosphate (LFP). Nickel-based chemistries typically have higher
gravimetric and volumetric energy densities than iron phosphate-based
chemistries. Since energy or power is only housed at the chemistry
level, any additional mass such as the cell, module, and pack casings
will only add to the weight of the battery without increasing the
energy of the overall system. Therefore, some pack producers have
eliminated the module in favor of a ``cell-to-pack'' design in recent
years.\254\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\254\ BYD ``blade'' cells are an example of cell-to-pack
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
External factors, especially temperature, can have a strong
influence on the performance of the battery. Like all BEVs, heavy-duty
BEVs today include thermal management systems to keep the battery
operating within a desired temperature range, which is commonly
referred to as conditioning of the battery. Therefore, while operating
a vehicle in cold temperatures, some of the battery energy is used to
heat both the battery packs and the vehicle interior.\255\ Cold
temperatures, in particular, can result in reduced mobility of the
lithium ions in the liquid electrolyte inside the battery; for the
driver, this may mean lower range. Battery thermal management is also
used during hot ambient temperatures to keep the battery from
overheating. We consider and account for the energy required for
battery thermal management in our analysis, as discussed in section
II.D.5.ii.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\255\ https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/AAR/files/AAA-Electric-Vehicle-Range-Testing-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Battery Durability
Another important battery design consideration is the durability of
the battery. Durability is frequently associated with cycle life, where
cycle life is the number of times a battery can fully charge and
discharge before the battery capacity falls below the minimum design
capacity.\256\ In 2015 the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UN ECE) began studying the need for a Global Technical
Regulation (GTR) governing battery durability in light-duty vehicles.
In 2021 it finalized United Nations Global Technical Regulation No. 22,
``In-Vehicle Battery Durability for Electrified Vehicles,'' \257\ or
GTR No. 22, which provides a regulatory structure for contracting
parties to set standards for battery durability in light-duty BEVs and
PHEVs. Likewise, although not finalized, the UN ECE GTR working group
began drafting language for HD BEVs and hybrid electric vehicles. Loss
of electric range can lead to a loss of utility, meaning electric
vehicles can be driven less and therefore displace less distance
travelled than might otherwise be driven in ICE vehicles. Furthermore,
a loss in utility can dampen purchaser sentiment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ The minimum design capacity is typically defined as the
point where the usable battery energy (UBE) is less than 70 or 80
percent of the UBE of a new battery.
\257\ United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Addendum
22: United Nations Global Technical Regulation No. 22, United
Nations Global Technical Regulation on In-vehicle Battery Durability
for Electrified Vehicles, April 14, 2022. Available at: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/202204/ECE_TRANS_180a22e.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For batteries that are used in HD BEVs, the state of health (SOH)
is an important design factor. The performance of electrified vehicles
may be affected by excess degradation of the battery system over time,
thus reducing the range of the vehicle. However, the durability of a
battery is not limited to the cycling of a battery; there are many
phenomena that can impact the duration of usability of a battery. As a
battery goes through charge and discharge cycles, the SOH of the
battery decreases. Capacity fade, increase in internal resistance, and
voltage loss, for example, are other common metrics to measure the SOH
of a battery. These parameters together help better understand and
define the longevity or durability of the battery. The SOH and, in
turn, the cycle life of the battery are determined by both the
chemistry of the battery and external factors including temperature.
The rate at which the battery is discharged as well as the rate at
which it is charged will also impact the SOH of the battery. Lastly,
calendar aging, or degradation of the battery while not in use, can
also contribute to the deterioration of the battery.
There are several ways to improve and prolong the battery life in a
vehicle. In our assessment, we account for maintaining the battery
temperature while driving by applying additional energy required for
conditioning the battery. See section II.D.5 of this preamble.
c. HD BEV Safety Assessment
HD BEV systems must be designed to always maintain safe operation.
As with any on-road vehicle, BEVs must be robust while operating in
temperature extremes as well as in rain and snow. The BEV systems must
be designed for reasonable levels of immersion, including immersion in
salt water or brackish water. BEV systems must also be designed to be
crashworthy and limit damage that compromises safety. If the structure
is compromised by a severe
[[Page 29493]]
impact, the systems must provide first responders with a way to safely
conduct their work at an accident scene. The HD BEV systems must be
designed to ensure the safety of users, occupants, and the general
public in their vicinity.
In RIA Chapter 1.5.2, we discuss the industry codes and standards
used by manufacturers that guide safe design and development of heavy-
duty BEVs, including those for developing battery systems and charging
systems that protect people and the equipment. These standards have
already been developed by the industry and are in place for
manufacturers to use to develop current and future products. The
standards guide the design of BEV batteries to allow them to safely
accept and deliver power for the life of the vehicle. The standards
provide guidance to design batteries that also handle vibration,
temperature extremes, temperature cycling, water, and mechanical impact
from items such as road debris. For HD BEVs to uphold battery/
electrical safety during and after a crash, they are designed to
maintain high voltage isolation, prevent leakage of electrolyte and
volatile gases, maintain internal battery integrity, and withstand
external fire that can come from the BEV or other vehicle(s) involved
in a crash. NHTSA continues work on battery safety requirements in
FMVSS No. 305 to extend its applicability to HD vehicles, aligning it
with the existing Global Technical Regulation (GTR) No. 20, and
including safety requirements during normal operation, charging, and
post-crash.
We requested comment on our assessment at proposal that HD BEV
systems must be, and are, designed ``to always maintain safe
operation.'' 88 FR 25962. Some commenters supported our assessment that
there are industry codes and standards for the safe design and
operation of HD BEVs. In addition, some commenters highlighted that HD
BEVs are subject to, and necessarily comply with, the same Federal
safety standards and the same safety testing as ICE heavy-duty
vehicles. Commenters challenging the safety of HD BEVs failed to
address the existence of these protocols and Federal standards. While
considering safety for the NPRM, EPA obtained NHTSA input. EPA obtained
additional NHTSA safety input regarding comments and updates for the
final rulemaking.\258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ Landgraf, Michael. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985. Summary of NHTSA Safety Communication. February 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, empirical evidence from the light-duty sector (where BEVs
have been on the road in greater numbers and for a longer period),
shows that BEVs ``are at least as safe'' as combustion vehicles in
terms of crashworthiness test performance, and ``injury claims are
substantially less frequent'' for BEVs than for combustion
vehicles.\259\ A DOE study found that on some safety metrics, BEVs
perform substantially better than ICE vehicles. Due to their battery
architecture, for example, BEVs typically have a lower center of
gravity than combustion vehicles, which increases stability and reduces
the risk of rollovers (the cause of up to 35 percent of accident
deaths).\260\ Most vehicle weight classes do not change. The
distribution of HD vehicle weights may shift higher with BEV adoption
but the maximum allowed weight for a given weight class does not
change. The one exception is for BEV Class 8 that are allowed to
increase their GCWR from 80,000 lbs to 82,000, a 2.5 percent
increase.\261\ We coordinated with NHTSA to assess the safety concerns
due to vehicle weight. NHTSA is not aware of differences in crash
outcomes between electric and non-electric vehicles. See RTC section
4.8. NHTSA is monitoring this topic closely and is conducting extensive
research on the potential differences between ICE and electric
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, ``With More
Electric Vehicles Comes More Proof of Safety'' (April 22, 2021),
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/with-more-electric-vehicles-comes-more-proof-of-safety.
\260\ U.S. Department of Energy, ``Maintenance and Safety of
Electric Vehicles'', https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_maintenance.html (October 23, 2023).
\261\ 23 U.S.C. 127(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire risk, emergency response, and maintenance can also be managed
effectively. There is evidence (discussed more fully in RTC section
4.8) that BEVs are less likely to catch fire than internal combustion
engine vehicles. Although BEVs can behave differently in fires from ICE
vehicles, emergency responders have been gaining experience in BEV fire
response as the number of BEVs on the road has grown, and there are
protocols and guidance at the Federal and private levels in support of
first responders. Similar protocols and guidance exist to mitigate
shock risk to mechanics during maintenance and repair.
In sum, the public and private sectors have been working diligently
to address BEV safety considerations. While current standards are
appropriate, optimization efforts will continue as the HD BEV industry
matures. Heavy-duty BEVs can be and are designed and operated safely,
and EPA therefore did not treat safety as a constraining factor in this
rulemaking.
ii. Assessment of Battery Materials and Production
ICE vehicles and BEVs both require manufacturing inputs in the form
of materials such as structural metals, plastics, electrical
conductors, electronics and computer chips, and many other materials,
minerals, and components that are produced both domestically and
globally. These inputs rely to varying degrees on a highly
interconnected global supply chain that includes mining and recycling
operations, processing of mined or reclaimed materials into pure metals
or chemical products, manufacture of vehicle components, and final
assembly of vehicles.
Compared to ICE vehicles, the electrified powertrain of BEVs
commonly contains a greater proportion of conductive metals such as
copper as well as specialized minerals and mineral products that are
used in the high-voltage battery. Accordingly, many of the public
comments we received were related to the need to secure sources of
these inputs to support increased manufacture of BEVs for the U.S.
market.\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\262\ FCEVs use smaller batteries than BEVs, but those batteries
would require use of the same minerals. The text in this section is
written in terms of BEVs but is relevant to FCEV batteries as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, it is important to view this issue from a perspective that
includes the inputs currently required by ICE vehicles, where
comparable issues have arisen and have been successfully surmounted.
Compared to BEVs, ICE vehicles rely to a greater degree on certain
inputs, most notably refined crude oil products such as gasoline or
diesel, and critical minerals (for example, platinum group metals) used
in emission control catalysts. Historically, supply and price
fluctuations of crude oil products have periodically created
significant risks, costs, and uncertainties for the U.S. economy and
for national security, and continue to pose them today. The critical
minerals used in emission control catalysts of ICE products, such as
cerium, palladium, platinum, and rhodium, historically have posed
particular uncertainty and risk regarding their reliable supply.
Although manufacturers have engineered emission control systems to
reduce the amount of these minerals that are needed, they continue to
be scarce and costly today, and continue to be largely sourced from
other countries. For example, South Africa and Russia
[[Page 29494]]
continue to be dominant suppliers of these metals as they were in the
1970s, and U.S. relations with both countries have periodically been
strained. In this sense, the need for a secure supply chain for the
inputs required for BEV production is not unlike that which continues
to be important for ICE vehicle production.
The BEV supply chain is characterized as consisting of several
activity stages including upstream, midstream, and downstream, which
includes end-of-life. Upstream refers to extraction of raw materials
from mining activities. Midstream refers to additional processing of
raw materials into battery-grade materials, production of electrode
active materials (EAM), production of other battery components (i.e.,
electrolyte, foils, and separators), and electrode and cell
manufacturing. Downstream refers to production of battery modules and
packs from battery cells, and end-of-life refers to recovery and
processing of used batteries for reuse or recycling. Global demand for
zero-emission vehicles has already led to rapidly growing demand for
capacity in each of these areas and subsequent buildout of this
capacity across the world. We discuss each of these activity stages in
the following sections of this preamble.
The value of developing a robust and secure supply chain that
includes these activities and the products they create has accordingly
received broad attention in the industry and is a key theme of comments
we have received. The primary considerations here are (a) the
capability of global and domestic supply chains to support U.S.
manufacturing of batteries and other ZEV components, (b) the
availability of critical minerals as manufacturing inputs, and (c) the
possibility that sourcing of these items from other countries, to the
extent it occurs, might pose a threat to national security. In
addition, there is the further question of the adequacy of the battery
supply chain to meet potential demand resulting from a Phase 3 rule. In
this section, EPA considers how these factors relate to the feasibility
of producing the BEVs that manufacturers may choose to produce to
comply with the standards.
In the proposal, we highlighted several key reasons that led us to
conclude that the proposed standards were appropriate with respect to
minerals availability, the battery supply chain, and minerals security
as it relates to national security. 88 FR 28962-969. First we noted
that minerals, battery components, and batteries themselves are largely
sourced from outside of the U.S., not because the products cannot be
produced in the U.S., but because other countries have already invested
in developing this supply chain, while the U.S. largely has begun
developing a domestic battery supply chain more recently. The rapid
growth in domestic demand for automotive lithium-ion batteries that is
already taking place is driving the development of a supply chain for
these products that includes development of domestic sources, as well
as rapid buildout of production capacity in countries with which the
U.S. has friendly relations, including countries with free trade
agreements (FTAs) and long-established trade allies. For example (as
described later in this section), U.S. manufacturers are increasingly
seeking out secure, reliable and geographically proximate supplies of
batteries, cells, components, and the minerals and materials needed to
build them; this is also necessary to remain competitive in the global
automotive market where electrification is proceeding rapidly. As a
result, a large number of new domestic battery, cell, and component
manufacturing facilities have recently been announced or are already
under construction.\263\ Many automakers, suppliers, startups, and
related industries have already recognized the need for increased
domestic and ``friendshored'' production capacity as a business
opportunity and are investing in building out various aspects of the
supply chain domestically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\263\ See section II.D.2.c..ii.b of this preamble for further
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, we noted that Congress and the Administration have taken
significant steps to accelerate this activity by funding, facilitating,
and otherwise promoting the rapid growth of U.S. and allied supply
chains for these products through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA),
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA), and numerous Executive Branch initiatives.
Recent and ongoing announcements of investment and construction
activity stimulated by these measures indicate that they are having a
strong impact on development of the domestic supply chain, as
illustrated by recent analysis from Argonne National Lab and U.S.
DOE.\264\ Finally, while minerals may be imported to the U.S. for
domestic vehicle or battery production in the U.S., minerals, in
contrast to liquid fuels, have the potential to be reclaimed through
recycling, reducing the need for new materials from either domestic or
foreign sources over the long term. In this updated analysis for the
final rule, we examine these themes again in light of the public
comments and additional data that has become available since the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\264\ Argonne National Laboratories, ``Quantification of
Commercially Planned Battery Component Supply in North America
through 2035'' (ANL-24/14) (March 2024) (``Planned Battery
Supply'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received many comments on our analysis of critical minerals,
battery and mineral production capacity, and critical mineral security.
Some common themes were: that the proposal did not adequately address
critical minerals or battery manufacturing; that the proposal did not
adequately address the risk associated with uncertain availability of
critical minerals in the future; and that the timeline and/or degree of
BEV penetration anticipated by the proposal cannot be supported by
available minerals and/or growth in domestic supplies or battery
manufacturing. Many of the concerns stated by commenters about the
supply chain, critical minerals, and mineral security were stated as
part of a broader argument that the proposed standards were too
stringent; that is, that the commenter believed that the standards
should be weakened (or withdrawn entirely) because the supply chain or
the availability of critical minerals could not support the amount of
vehicle electrification that would result from the standards, or it
would create a reliance on imported products that would threaten
national security.
For this final rule we considered the public comments carefully. We
have provided detailed responses to comments relating to critical
minerals, the supply chain, and mineral security in this preamble and
in section 17.2 of the Response to Comments. We also continued our
ongoing consultation with industry and government agency sources
(including the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Labs, the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), and several analysis firms) to collect
information on production capacity forecasts, price forecasts, global
mineral markets, and related topics. We also coordinated with DOE in
their assessment of the outlook for supply chain development and
critical mineral availability. DOE is well qualified for such research,
as it routinely studies issues related to electric vehicles,
development of the supply chain, and broad-scale issues relating to
energy use and infrastructure, through its network of National
Laboratories. DOE worked together with Argonne National Laboratory
(ANL) beginning in 2022 to assess global critical minerals availability
and North American battery components manufacturing, and coordinated
with EPA to share the
[[Page 29495]]
results of these analyses during much of 2023 and early 2024. In this
subsection we review the main findings of this work, along with the
additional information we have collected since the proposal. As in the
proposal, we have considered the totality of information in the public
record in reaching our conclusions regarding the influence of future
manufacturing capacity, critical minerals and related supply chain
availability, and mineral security on the feasibility of the final
standards.
As will be discussed in the following sections, our updated
assessment supports our conclusion that the standards are technically
feasible taking into consideration issues of critical mineral and
supply chain availability, adequacy of battery production, and critical
mineral security. Our assessment of the evidence likewise continues to
support the conclusion that the likely rate of development of the
domestic and global supply chain and forecast availability of critical
minerals or materials on the global market are consistent with the
final standards being met at a reasonable cost (assuming compliance in
the same or similar manner set out in the technology packages in the
modeled potential compliance pathway). Further, based on DOE and ANL's
analyses which analyze the current and future state of the global and
domestic supply chains, along with other sources as described in this
preamble, we find no evidence that compliance with the standards will
adversely impact national security by creating a long-term dependence
on imports of critical minerals or components from adversarial
countries or associated suppliers. Moreover, we expect that the
standards will provide increased regulatory certainty for domestic
production of batteries and critical minerals, and for creating
domestic supply chains, which in turn has the potential to strengthen
the U.S.'s global competitiveness in these areas.
As explained in the following sections, these results indicate that
in the near- and medium-term, the currently identified capacity for
lithium, cobalt, and nickel in the U.S. and Free Trade Agreement and
Mineral Security Partnership countries is significantly greater than
U.S. demand under representative domestic demand scenarios. Sufficient
supply of graphite is likewise available considering secure
international trade partnerships, and taking into account supply of
synthetic and recycled graphite if needed. In particular, the U.S. is
poised to become a key global producer of lithium, and, along with
supply from Free Trade Agreement partners, is positioned well for
lithium through 2035. We note that an accounting of known mineral
reserves in democratic countries across the world indicates that the
reserves surpass projected global needs through 2030 for the five
minerals assessed by ANL, under a demand scenario that limits global
temperature rise to 1.5 [deg]C.\265\ `Reserves' here refers to
``measured and indicated deposits that have been deemed economically
viable'' \266\ and so is not measuring mere presence of a resource.
While this statistic does not demonstrate that these reserves will be
extracted in any specific time frame, it demonstrates their presence
and potential availability. As demand increases, particularly for
secure supplies, further exploration and development of existing
resources in these countries is likely to further increase these
reserves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\265\ Allan, B. et al., ``Friendshoring Critical Minerals: What
Could the U.S. and Its Partners Produce?'', Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, May 3, 2023. At https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/05/03/friendshoring-critical-minerals-what-could-u.s.-and-its-partners-produce-pub-89659.
\266\ Similarly, the USGS defines reserves as ``that part of the
reserve base which could be economically extracted or produced at
the time of determination. The term reserves need not signify that
extraction facilities are in place and operative.'' U.S. Bureau of
Mines and the U.S. Geological Survey, ``Principles of a Resource/
Reserve Classification For Minerals,'' Geological Survey Circular
831, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that no analysis of future outcomes with regard to supply
chain viability, critical minerals availability, or mineral security
can be absolutely certain. The presence of uncertainty is inherent in
any forward-looking analysis and is typically approached as a matter of
risk assessment, including sensitivity analysis conducted around costs,
compliance paths, or other key factors. We also again note that
compliance with the final standards is possible under a broad range of
reasonable scenarios, including a pathway without additional production
of ZEVs to comply with the final standards. Demand for battery
production and critical minerals would be significantly reduced under
such potential alternative pathways to compliance.
Section II.D.2.c. ii.a of this preamble examines the issues
surrounding availability of critical mineral inputs. Section
II.D.2.ii.b examines issues relating to adequacy of battery production.
Section II.D.2.c.ii.c discusses the security implications of increased
demand for critical minerals and other materials used to manufacture
electrified vehicles. Additional details on these aspects of the
analysis may be found in RIA Chapter 1.5.1.
a. Battery Critical Minerals Availability
The Energy Act of 2020 defines a ``critical mineral'' as a non-fuel
mineral or mineral material essential to the economic or national
security of the United States and which has a supply chain vulnerable
to disruption.\267\ The U.S. Geological Survey lists 50 minerals as
``critical to the U.S. economy and national security.''
268 269 Risks to mineral availability may stem from
geological scarcity, geopolitics, trade policy, or similar
factors.\270\ Critical minerals range from relatively plentiful
materials that are constrained primarily by production capacity and
refining, such as aluminum, to those that are both relatively difficult
to source and costly to process, such as the rare-earth metals that are
used in magnets for permanent-magnet synchronous motors, which are used
as the electric motors to power heavy-duty ZEVs and some semiconductor
products. Extraction, processing, and recycling of minerals are key
parts of the supply chain that affect the availability minerals. For
the purposes of this rule, we focus on a key set of minerals (lithium,
cobalt, nickel, manganese, and graphite) commonly used in BEVs; their
general availability impacts the production of battery cells and
battery components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\267\ See 2021 Draft List of Critical Minerals (86 FR 62199-
62203).
\268\ U.S. Geological Survey, ``U.S. Geological Survey Releases
2022 List of Critical Minerals,'' February 22, 2022. Available at:
https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/us-geological-survey-releases-2022-list-critical-minerals.
\269\ The full list includes: Aluminum, antimony, arsenic,
barite, beryllium, bismuth, cerium, cesium, chromium, cobalt,
dysprosium, erbium, europium, fluorspar, gadolinium, gallium,
germanium, graphite, hafnium, holmium, indium, iridium, lanthanum,
lithium, lutetium, magnesium, manganese, neodymium, nickel, niobium,
palladium, platinum, praseodymium, rhodium, rubidium, ruthenium,
samarium, scandium, tantalum, tellurium, terbium, thulium, tin,
titanium, tungsten, vanadium, ytterbium, yttrium, zinc, and
zirconium. Note that the Department of Energy (DOE) does not
classify manganese as a critical mineral.
\270\ International Energy Agency, ``The Role of Critical
Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions,'' World Energy Outlook Special
Report, Revised version. March 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand for these minerals is increasing, largely driven by the
transportation and energy storage sectors, as the world seeks to reduce
carbon emissions and as the electrified vehicles and renewable energy
markets grow. As with any emerging technology, a transition period must
take place in which robust supply chains develop to support production
and distribution. At present, minerals used in BEV batteries are
commonly sourced from global suppliers and do not rely on a fully
[[Page 29496]]
developed domestic supply chain.\271\ As demand for these materials
increases due to projected increasing production of BEVs, production of
critical minerals is expected to grow. As noted previously in this
section, the need for a secure supply chain for the inputs required for
BEV production is not unlike that which continues to be important for
ICE vehicle production, given the presence of minerals in ICE vehicles,
and given difficulties and challenges posed by sourcing liquid fuels
for ICE vehicles described throughout this document. The focus on
lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, and graphite, stems from the fact
that their increased use is unique to BEVs compared with ICE vehicles.
Electrified vehicles at present utilize lithium-ion batteries, though
alternative battery types are in development or are already being
deployed in some limited applications. In the near-term, there is not a
viable alternative to lithium in BEV batteries. As noted previously,
common cathode chemistries today for lithium-ion batteries include
nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC), nickel-cobalt-aluminum (NCA), and iron-
phosphate (LFP). While lithium is used in all lithium-ion batteries,
cathode chemistry is somewhat flexible, which can help adapt to both
supply-based factors and end-use needs. For example, LFP batteries have
been increasing in use given the constraints of cobalt and nickel
sourcing. LFP batteries may also be better suited for vehicles without
extended ranges, as they are less energy dense. Put more broadly,
cathode chemistry varies, and as such can adjust the demand for certain
minerals, or can eliminate the demand for certain minerals entirely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\271\ As mentioned in preamble section I.C.2.i and in RIA
1.3.2.2, there are tax credit incentives in the IRA for the
production and sale of battery cells and modules of up to $45 per
kWh, which includes up to 10 percent of the cost of producing
applicable critical minerals that meet certain specifications when
such components or minerals are produced in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anode chemistry can also accommodate alternative chemistries. Most
commonly, BEVs use a graphite anode, supply constraints for which are
described further below; however, silicon can replace graphite in an
anode, and graphite anodes containing a portion of silicon now make up
around 30 percent of anodes according to the IEA as of 2023.\272\ It is
also possible to use alternative forms of carbon in the anode, and
unlike other minerals used for BEVs, graphite can be produced
synthetically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/trends-in-batteries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the possibilities for substitution for other minerals, EPA
focused its own analysis on lithium availability as a potential
limiting factor on the rate of growth of ZEV production, and thus the
most appropriate basis for establishing a modeling constraint on the
rate of ZEV penetration into the fleet over the time frame of this
rule. At proposal, EPA found that the lithium market was responding
robustly to demand, and that global supply would be adequate at least
through 2035. 88 FR 25965 and sources there cited. We further found
that notwithstanding short-term price fluctuations in price, the price
of lithium ``is expected to stabilize at or near its historical levels
by the mid- to late-2020s.'' 88 FR 25966 and sources there cited. At
proposal, we concluded that the scale and pace of demand growth and
investment in lithium supply means that it is well positioned to meet
anticipated demand as demand increases and supply grows. See RIA
Chapter 1.5.1.3 for further explanation of focus on lithium as the most
important of the critical minerals as a potential constraint.
More recent information is corroborative and expands the scope of
analysis to include the five minerals listed previously in this
section. ANL has performed a review of international and domestic
critical minerals availability as of February 2024, which EPA considers
to be both thorough and up to date.\273\ The analysis finds that while
the U.S. will need imports to bolster supply for most key minerals,
these imports can come from friendly nations, and be bolstered by
growing domestic supply, especially for lithium. The analysis also
finds that, with the appropriate policies and enabling approaches in
place, the U.S. can secure the minerals it needs by relying on domestic
production as well as on trade relationships with allies and partners
(Figure II-1). USGS is engaged in activities that, while not yet
quantifiable, are enabling the U.S. to expand a secure supply chain for
critical minerals among U.S. allies and partner nations. There are
substantial efforts to scale mining supply domestically and in partner
countries underway, further described in this section II.D.2.c.ii.c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\273\ Argonne National Laboratory, ``Securing Critical Materials
for the U.S. Electric Vehicle Industry '' (March, 2024) (ANL-24/06)
(``ANL'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29497]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.016
The updated ANL critical minerals study finds that the U.S. is
poised to become a key global producer of lithium by 2030, and could
become one of the world's largest producers of lithium by 2035. In the
near term (the next few years), manufacturers will need to import
lithium, and ample capacity exists to source lithium from countries
with whom the United States has free trade agreements (FTA).\274\ As
detailed in the ANL study, numerous lithium extraction projects are in
various stages of development many of which were also cited in public
comments, including Fort Cady, Thacker Pass, Rhyolite Ridge, and Kings
Mountain.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\274\ ANL at 36, 38 (Australia and Chile), 53. The Minerals
Security Partnership (MSP) is a transnational association whose
members seek to secure a stable supply of raw materials for their
economies. As of September 16, 2023, the MSP was composed of:
Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, India, Japan, South
Korea, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, the United States, and
the European Union.
\275\ ANL at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ANL study continues to confirm a trend of rapidly growing
identification of U.S. lithium resources and extraction development.
The identification of these resources, some of which were publicly
announced within the last year, exemplifies the dynamic nature of the
industry and the likely conservative aspect of existing assessments.
[[Page 29498]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.017
This update to DOE's lithium resource compilation continues to
confirm the trend of growing U.S. mineral development. As depicted in
Figure II-2, DOE and ANL assessed announced domestic lithium extraction
projects to project domestic lithium supply through 2035, along with
domestic lithium recycling potential, and compared these to estimated
demand. The projects included in the updated analysis represent a
significant increase over the domestic lithium supply considered for
the proposal, exemplifying the dynamic nature of the industry.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.018
Regarding global lithium production, we have also supplemented our
lithium analysis from the proposal with newly available research and
information. The outlook for lithium production has evolved rapidly,
with new projects
[[Page 29499]]
regularly identified and contributing to higher projections of resource
availability and production. Benchmark Minerals Intelligence (BMI)
conducted a comprehensive analysis of global and domestic lithium
supply and demand in June 2023 that indicates that lithium supply is
likely to keep pace with growing demand during the time frame of the
rule.\276\ In the Figure II-3 below, the vertical bars (at full height)
represent estimated global demand, including U.S. demand. The top
segment of each bar represents BMI's estimate of added U.S. demand
under the proposed light and medium duty vehicle rule, and the proposed
HD Phase 3 rule. The lower line represents BMI's projection of global
lithium supply (including U.S.) in GWh equivalent, weighted by current
development status of each project. The next line represents global
supply where the U.S. portion is unweighted (i.e., all included
projects reach full expected production). These two lines together
represent a potential range for future global supply bounded by a
standard weighted scenario and a maximum scenario applied to U.S.
production only. In both cases, projected global lithium supply meets
or surpasses projected global demand through 2029. Past 2029, global
demand is either generally met or within 10 percent of projected demand
through 2032. For reference, the top line is a high supply scenario in
which global supply is also unweighted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ Benchmark Mineral Intelligence (BMI), ``Lithium Mining
Projects--Supply Projections (June 2023). See also Supplemental
Comment Letter re BMI Analysis from Natural Resources Defense
Council (January 2024).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.019
EPA notes that BMI based its estimate of U.S. demand on electrified
vehicle penetrations under the proposed standards, which projected
higher electrified vehicle penetrations than in the final standards.
This means that the top segment of each bar would be shorter under the
final standards, making the depicted results more conservative.
EPA also notes that although BMI states that it is aware of 330
lithium mining projects ranging from announced projects to fully
operating projects and stages in between, the supply projections shown
here are limited to only 153 projects that are already in production or
have publicly identified production estimates as of December 2022 (more
than one year ago). Excluded from both the weighted and unweighted
supply projections are 177 projects for which no information on likely
production level was available. It is standard practice to weight
projects that have production estimates according to their stage of
development, and BMI has followed this practice with the 153 projects.
However, complete exclusion of the potential production of 177 projects
(more than half of the total) suggests that the projections shown may
be extremely conservative. If even a very conservative estimate of
ultimate production from these 177 projects by 2030 were to be added to
the chart, projected supply would increase and perhaps meet or surpass
demand. At this time of rising mineral demand coupled with active
private investment and U.S. government activities to promote mineral
resource development, exclusion of potential production from these
resources is not likely to reflect their future contribution to U.S.
supply.
In mid-2023, some analysts began speaking of the possibility of a
future tightness in global lithium supply.\277\ Opinions varied,
however, about its potential development and timing, with the most
bearish opinions suggesting as early as 2025 with others suggesting
2028 or 2030. However, the projections from BMI and ANL discussed
previously in this section suggest only a mild gap developing in global
supply and demand in 2030 and only if the 177
[[Page 29500]]
projects that were not quantified do not contribute (BMI), or no
significant gap in U.S. lithium supply and demand during the time frame
of the rule (ANL). Further, the analysts quoted as predicting a future
tightness stop well short of identifying an unavoidable hard constraint
on lithium availability that would reasonably lead EPA to conclude that
the standards cannot be met. Forecasts of potential supply and demand,
including those that purport to identify a supply shortfall, typically
are also accompanied by descriptions of burgeoning activity and
investment oriented toward supplying demand, rather than a paucity of
activity and investment that would be more indicative of a critical
shortage. EPA also notes that since the time of the referenced article,
demand for lithium has increasingly been depicted as having
underperformed peak expectations. The final standards also project a
lower ZEV penetration than in the proposal, which would lead to lower
demand from the standards than the proposal would have suggested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ Shan, Lee Ying, ``A worldwide lithium shortage could come
as soon as 2025'' (August 2023) at www.cnbc.com/2023/08/29/a-worldwide-lithium-shortage-could-come-as-soon-as-2025.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding concerns about lithium price fluctuations addressed by
commenters, recent unexpected drops in lithium prices beginning in
early 2023 \278\ and persisting to the present are believed to have
been the result of robust growth in lithium supply from developments
similar to these. This supports EPA's expectation that mineral prices
will not continually rise as some commenters have suggested but will
find an equilibrium within a reasonable range of prices as the rapidly
growing supply chain continues to mature. Despite recent short-term
fluctuations in price, the price of lithium is expected to stabilize at
or near its historical levels by the mid-2020s, according to outside
analysis.279 280 This perspective is also supported by
proprietary battery price forecasts by Wood Mackenzie that include the
predicted effect of temporarily elevated mineral prices and show
battery costs falling again past 2024.281 282 This is also
consistent with the BNEF's newly released 2023 Battery Price Survey
which shows that pack prices have resumed their downward trend, and
predicts that average pack prices across all automotive and stationary
uses will fall to $113 per kWh in 2025 and $80 per kWh in 2030.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ New York Times, ``Falling Lithium Prices Are Making
Electric Cars More Affordable,'' March 20, 2023. Accessed on March
23, 2023 at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/business/lithium-prices-falling-electric-vehicles.html. See also The Economist,
January 6, 2024 at 54: ``[m]ined supply of lithium and nickel is
also booming; that of cobalt, a by-product of copper and nickel
production, remains robust, dampening green-metal prices.''
\279\ Sun et al., ``Surging lithium price will not impede the
electric vehicle boom,'' https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435122003026.
\280\ Green Car Congress, ``Tsinghua researchers conclude
surging lithium price will not impede EV boom,'' July 29, 2022.
\281\ Wood Mackenzie, ``Battery & raw materials--Investment
horizon outlook to 2032,''September 2022 (filename: brms-q3-2022-
iho.pdf). Available to subscribers.
\282\ Wood Mackenzie, ``Battery & raw materials--Investment
horizon outlook to 2032,''accompanying data set, September 2022
(filename: brms-data-q3-2022.xlsx). Available to subscribers.
\283\ BloombergNEF, ``Lithium-Ion Battery Pack Prices Hit Record
Low of $139/kWh,'' November 27, 2023. Accessed on December 6, 2023
at https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-hit-record-low-of-139-kwh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to lithium, EPA carefully considered the availability
of nickel, cobalt, manganese, and graphite at proposal and for this
final rule. At proposal, we noted the global sources of these
materials, and global refining sources. We further explained how United
States domestic production of these materials lagged global production
notwithstanding domestic reserves of nickel, cobalt, and lithium;
however, the developing supply chain domestically and abroad can meet
domestic demand over the next decade. 88 FR 25963.
More recent information from ANL confirms these initial findings
and supports that supply and supply chains for these minerals will be
adequate to meet domestic demand in the Phase 3 rule's timeframe. Below
are summaries of the ANL report's findings.
While the U.S. nickel production industry is expanding, in the
near- and medium-term, there is sufficient capacity in countries with
which the U.S. has long-standing or emerging trade partnerships to meet
demand for nickel. Some nickel will come from countries with free trade
agreements (FTA) and in the Minerals Security Partnership (MSP), a
multilateral effort to responsibly secure critical mineral supply
chains (Canada, Australia, Finland, Norway), though likely much of it
will come from other trade partners (Indonesia, Philippines and
others).\284\ The U.S. is engaged in several initiatives with these
countries to expand and diversify nickel supply (detailed further in
section II.D.2.ii.c of this preamble), and some domestic nickel
production is also in development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ ANL at 44. We discuss availability of nickel refining
capacity below in considering mineral security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are initial efforts to scale up cobalt production in FTA
countries, but the bulk of supply will continue to come from the
Democratic Republic of Congo, with Australia (which has an FTA with the
U.S. and is a member of the MSP) and Indonesia being secondary sources,
plus some domestic production from the six \285\ prospective cobalt
projects that have potential to come online before 2035.\286\ This
supply is projected to be sufficient to meet demand. BloombergNEF now
similarly projects that cobalt and nickel reserves ``are now enough to
supply both our Economic Transition and Net Zero scenarios,'' the
latter of which is an aggressive global decarbonization scenario.\287\
It is also significant that the U.S. cobalt spot price dropped by
nearly 42 percent in the past year (2023-2024), indicating ample
current supply.\288\ U.S. efforts to secure the global cobalt supply
chain are discussed further in section II.D.2.ii.c of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ ANL at 48.
\286\ We discuss availability of cobalt refining capacity below
in our discussion of issues relating to mineral security.
\287\ BloombergNEF, ``Electric Vehicle Outlook 2023,'' Executive
Summary, p. 5.
\288\ https://ycharts.com/indicators/
us_cobalt_spot_price#:~:text=US%20Cobalt%20Spot%20Price%20is,22.79%25
%20from%20one%20year%20ago (last accessed March 19, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manganese is not considered to be a ``critical'' mineral as defined
by USGS or by DOE; however, it is an important mineral for BEV
batteries.\289\ Capacity from FTA and MSP partners is projected to be
sufficient to meet domestic demand in both the near and medium term, as
significant reserves are located in Australia, Canada, and India.\290\
In addition, recycling may prove to be a growing source of supply
starting in the early 2030s.\291\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\289\ DOE Critical Materials Report--2023 (www.energy.gov).
\290\ ANL at 63.
\291\ ANL at 62-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the near-term, graphite demand is unlikely to be met through
domestic sources or through trade with FTA countries or directly from
MSP countries.\292\ However, scaling domestic synthetic graphite
production and continued innovation can mitigate this risk. In the
medium term, supply sources of natural graphite are expected to become
more diverse with new planned capacity in both FTA (Canada and
Australia) and other economic partners (Tanzania and Mozambique) and
others supported by the MSP. Although the U.S. has significant deposits
of natural graphite, graphite has not been produced in the U.S. since
the 1950s and significant known resources remain largely
undeveloped.\293\ ANL notes that China dominates natural graphite
production and has been a major source of U.S
[[Page 29501]]
imports; however, China has recently moved to curb exports of graphite,
imposing an export permit requirement on graphite in 2023, which will
temporarily reduce graphite exports due to a 45-day application period
for permits. This suggests that graphite exports from China may be
controlled in the future. However, at this time it is not clear that
this requirement will meaningfully impact exports over the long term,
as similar permit requirements have existed on other exports, including
those necessary in ICE vehicle production.\294\ Wood Mackenzie reports
that a change to material flows is unlikely, and that a graphite supply
chain outside of China is rapidly developing.\295\ In fact, this export
restriction is expected to be a catalyst for swiftly expanding the
domestic graphite supply from conventional and non-conventional
sources.\296\ ANL also indicates that synthetic graphite scaling has
potential to mitigate graphite risk in the medium term.\297\ Already,
about 58 percent of the world's graphite is synthetic.\298\ Innovation
can also help curb pressure on the graphite supply chain, with
silicon's use in battery anodes expected to expand tenfold by 2035
according to SNE research, displacing the need for some graphite.\299\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\292\ ANL at 52, 57
\293\ U.S. Geological Survey, ``USGS Updates Mineral Database
with Graphite Deposits in the United States,'' February 28, 2022.
\294\ Rare earths, necessary for catalytic converters and magnet
motors are presently subject to Chinese export license restrictions
for example. https://www.fastmarkets.com/insights/chinas-commerce-ministry-to-add-rare-earths-to-export-report-directory.
\295\ Wood Mackenzie, ``How will China's graphite export
controls impact electric vehicle supply chain?'' subscriber material
presentation, November 2, 2023.
\296\ See China's Graphite Curbs Will Accelerate Plans Around
Alternatives (usnews.com).
\297\ ANL at 56; see also Reuters, ``China's graphite curbs will
accelerate plans around alternatives,'' October 23, 2023. Accessed
on December 16, 2023 at https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/chinas-graphite-curbs-will-accelerate-plans-around-alternatives-2023-10-20, and Korea Economic Daily, ``EV battery
makers' silicon anode demand set for take-off'' (February 2024) at
https://www.kedglobal.com/batteries/newsView/ked202402230020.
\298\ ANL at 52.
\299\ EV battery makers' silicon anode demand set for take-off--
KED Global https://www.kedglobal.com/batteries/newsView/ked202402230020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The national security implications for all the mineral supply
chains discussed previously in this section are examined further in
section II.D.2.c.ii.c of this preamble. EPA posits that, if critical
material availability were the type of profound constraint voiced by
some commenters, one would expect there would be signs of trepidation
in the amount of invested capital. However, we see the opposite, as
demonstrated by ANL and outside analysis. At proposal, we cited one
analysis indicating that 37 of the world's automakers are planning to
invest a total of almost $1.2 trillion by 2030 toward electrification,
a large portion of which will be used for construction of manufacturing
facilities for vehicles, battery cells and packs, and materials,
supporting up to 5.8 terawatt-hours of battery production and 54
million electric vehicles per year globally.\300\ Similarly, an
analysis by the Center for Automotive Research showed that a
significant shift in North American investment is occurring toward
electrification technologies, with $36 billion of about $38 billion in
total automaker manufacturing facility investments announced in 2021
being slated for electrification-related manufacturing in North
America, with a similar proportion and amount on track for 2022.\301\
The State of California, in its public comments, documented that as of
March 2023, ``at least $45 billion in private-sector investment has
been announced across the U.S. clean vehicle and battery supply
chain.'' \302\ Companies have announced over 1,300 GWh/year in battery
production in North America by 2030.\303\ Over $100 billion of
investment in domestic battery production has been announced in the
past two years.\304\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\300\ Reuters, ``A Reuters analysis of 37 global automakers
found that they plan to invest nearly $1.2 trillion in electric
vehicles and batteries through 2030,'' October 21, 2022. Accessed on
November 4, 2022, at https://graphics.reuters.com/AUTOS-INVESTMENT/ELECTRIC/akpeqgzqypr.
\301\ Center for Automotive Research, ``Automakers Invest
Billions in North American EV and Battery Manufacturing
Facilities,'' July 21, 2022. Retrieved on November 10, 2022 at
https://www.cargroup.org/automakers-invest-billions-in-north-american-ev-and-battery-manufacturing-facilities.
\302\ Comments of State of California at 30, citing U.S.
Department of the Treasury, Treasury Releases Proposed Guidance on
New Clean Vehicle Credit to Lower Costs for Consumers, Build U.S.
Industrial Base, Strengthen Supply Chains (March 31, 2023), https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1379.
\303\ Planned Battery Supply Fig. 10.
\304\ Planned Battery Supply at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robust growth in the domestic battery supply chain, including
mineral production, is spurred growth is furthered by the BIL and IRA.
The IRA offers sizeable incentives and other support for further
development of domestic and North American manufacture of electrified
vehicles and components, and the BIL provides direct funding to achieve
this same end. These two policies have already been transformative for
the North American battery supply chain, as evidenced in Figure II-4:
More recent information indicates that approximately 67 percent of
private investments in North American battery manufacturing--including
extraction of raw materials necessary for battery production,
processing of these ores into battery-grade materials, manufacturing of
midstream battery precursors, and production of battery cells and
packs--has occurred in the past two years: as just noted, approximately
$100 billion of the $150 billion invested since 2000.\305\ Furthermore,
there is a sizeable amount of funding from both BIL and IRA that still
has not been allocated, with the expectation that the domestic battery
supply chain will continue to grow as those funds are rolled out.
Additional investments are likely upon the finalization of policies
pertaining to the battery supply chain at the Department of Energy and
the Department of the Treasury. Specifically, the BIL and IRA have
introduced several incentives to scale domestic processing and
recycling of critical minerals including the $3 billion Battery
Manufacturing and Recycling Grant Program, and tax credits including
45X and 48C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\305\ Planned Battery Supply at 4. ANL has continued tracking
investments in battery and electric vehicle manufacturing to
estimate growth of battery production in North America, based on
press releases, financial disclosures, and news articles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29502]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.020
Beyond BIL and IRA, a number of actions underscore the extent of
U.S. efforts to grow the domestic minerals supply chain, including
extraction, processing, and recycling (detailed more extensively in the
ANL critical minerals study). For example, critical minerals projects
were recently made eligible for a streamlined permitting process under
the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FAST-41) EXIM is
supporting critical minerals projects in the U.S. and abroad through
various financing products. The USGS Earth Mapping Resources Initiative
(Earth MRI) is improving mapping and exploration of domestic resources
across the country. USGS, DOD, and DOE are collaborating on a series of
``hackathons'' to leverage AI and machine learning to domestic critical
minerals resource assessment. Efforts to secure global critical
minerals supply chains are detailed further in section II.D.2.ii.c of
this preamble. In addition to the efforts described previously in this
section, the U.S. can increase minerals availability and minerals
security by increasing domestic recycling and pursuing materials
innovation and substitution.
Substantial funding to scale and improve recycling, as well as to
develop advanced batteries using less or more readily abundant
materials, is ongoing and will continue given the high importance of
securing the minerals in question. Recycling is an important part of
the solution to issues of mineral security and critical mineral
availability. 88 FR 25969 and RTC section 4.7. Over the long term,
battery recycling can effectively serve as a domestically produced
mineral source that reduces overall reliance on foreign-sourced
products. While growth in the return of end-of-life ZEV batteries will
lag the market penetration of ZEVs due to the long lifespan of EV
batteries, we consider the ongoing development of a battery recycling
supply chain during the time frame of the rule and beyond.
Battery recycling is an active area of research. The Department of
Energy coordinates much research in this area through the ReCell
Center, described as ``a national collaboration of industry, academia
and national laboratories working together to advance recycling
technologies along the entire battery lifecycle for current and future
battery chemistries.'' \306\ The ReCell Center is developing
alternative, more efficient recycling methods that, if realized and
scaled, can more efficiently expand recycled materials availability.
These methods include direct recycling, in which materials can be
recycled for direct use in cell production without destroying their
chemical structure, and advanced resource recovery, which uses chemical
conversion to recover raw minerals for processing into new
constituents.\307\ Battery recycling is the subject of several
provisions of the BIL. It includes a Battery Processing and
Manufacturing program, which grants significant funds to promote U.S.
processing and manufacturing of batteries for electric vehicle and
electric grid use, by awarding grants for demonstration projects, new
construction, retooling and retrofitting, and facility expansion. It
will provide a total of $3 billion for battery material processing, $3
billion for battery manufacturing and recycling, $10 million for a
lithium-ion battery recycling prize competition, $60 million for
research and development activities in battery recycling, an additional
$50 million for state and local programs, and $15 million to develop a
collection system for used batteries. In addition, the Electric Drive
Vehicle Battery Recycling and Second-Life Application Program will
provide $200 million in funds for research, development, and
demonstration of battery recycling and second-life applications.\308\
The DOE has announced the availability of $37 million in funding to
improve the economics and industrial ecosystem for battery recycling,
and another $30 million to enable a circular economy for EV batteries,
to be awarded in 2024.\309\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\306\ ReCell Center. https://recellcenter.org/about.
\307\ Department of Energy, ``The ReCell Center for Advanced
Battery Recycling FY22 Q4 Report,'' October 20, 2022. Available at:
https://recellcenter.org/2022/12/15/recell-advanced-battery-recycling-center-fourth-quarter-progress-report-2022.
\308\ Environmental Defense Fund and ERM, ``Electric Vehicle
Market Update: Manufacturer Commitments and Public Policy
Initiatives Supporting Electric Mobility in the U.S. and
Worldwide,'' September 2022.
\309\ Department of Energy, Grants Notice: Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL) FY23 BIL Electric Drive Vehicle Battery
Recycling and Second Life Applications. Available online:
grants.gov/search-results-detail/351544; See also: https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news-and-media/press-releases/us-department-energy-announces-30-million-develop-technologies-enable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battery recycling is also a focus of private investment as a
growing number of private companies are entering the battery recycling
market. For example, Panasonic has contracted with Redwood Materials
Inc. to supply domestically processed cathode material, much of which
will be sourced from recycled batteries.\310\ Ford and Volvo have also
partnered with Redwood to collect end-of-life batteries for recycling
and promote a circular, closed-loop supply chain utilizing recycled
materials.\311\ Redwood has also announced a battery active materials
plant in South Carolina with capacity to supply materials for
[[Page 29503]]
100 GWh per year of battery production, and is likely to provide these
materials to many of the ``battery belt'' factories that are developing
in a corridor between Michigan and Georgia.\312\ General Motors and LG
Energy Solution have partnered with Li-Cycle to recycle GM's Ultium
cells.313 314 Aqua Metals has developed a hydrometallurgical
closed loop process capable of recovering all critical minerals with
fewer associated emissions than pyrometallurgical processes.\315\
Estimates vary for projections of recycling's ability to meet demand
for minerals. According to one estimate, by 2050, battery recycling
could be capable of meeting 25 to 50 percent of total lithium demand
for battery production.316 317
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\310\ Randall, T., ``The Battery Supply Chain Is Finally Coming
to America,'' Bloomberg, November 15, 2022.
\311\ Automotive News Europe, ``Ford, Volvo join Redwood in EV
battery recycling push in California,'' February 17, 2022. https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/ford-volvo-join-redwood-ev-battery-recycling-push-california.
\312\ Wards Auto, ``Battery Recycler Redwood Plans $3.5 Billion
South Carolina Plant,'' December 27, 2022. https://www.wardsauto.com/print/388968.
\313\ General Motors, ``Ultium Cells LLC and Li-Cycle
Collaborate to Expand Recycling in North America,'' Press Release,
May 11, 2021. https://news.gm.com/newsroom.detail.html/Pages/news/us/en/2021/may/0511-ultium.html.
\314\ Other companies engaged in recycling of lithium ion
batteries and other critical minerals include (and are not limited
to) Umicore, Battery Solutions, RecycLi Battery Materials, American
Battery Technology, and Glencore International.
\315\ Aqua Metals. Available online: https://aquametals.com.
\316\ Sun et al., ``Surging lithium price will not impede the
electric vehicle boom,'' Joule, doi:10.1016/j.joule. 2022.06.028
(https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2022.06.028).
\317\ Ziemann et al., ``Modeling the potential impact of lithium
recycling from EV batteries on lithium demand: a dynamic MFA
approach,'' Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 133, pp. 76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec. 2018.01.031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Production Capacity for Batteries and Battery Components
As described in the previous section, battery manufacturing
consists of several distinct stages. This section examines the outlook
for the ``midstream'' of the lithium-ion battery supply chain, which
includes materials processing, component manufacturing, and cell
fabrication, in light of anticipated demand as a result of the final
standards. While other battery chemistries exist or are under
development, this section focuses on supply chains for lithium-ion
batteries given their wide use and lack of near-term alternatives.
In the proposal, we examined the outlook for U.S. and global
battery manufacturing capacity for vehicle lithium-ion batteries and
compared it to our projection of U.S. battery demand under the proposed
standards, considering demand of both the proposed HDV and LMDV
proposed rules. 88 FR 25967. We collected and reviewed a number of
independent studies and forecasts,\318\ including numerous studies by
analyst firms and various stakeholders, as well as a study of announced
North American cell and battery manufacturing facilities compiled by
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and assessments by the Department of
Energy. Our review of these studies included consideration of
uncertainties of the sort that are common to any forward-looking
analysis but did not identify any constraint that indicated that global
or domestic battery manufacturing capacity would be insufficient to
support battery demand under the proposed standards. The review
indicated that the industry was already showing a rapidly growing and
robust response to meet current and anticipated demand, that this
activity was widely expected to continue, and that the level of U.S.
manufacturing capacity that had been announced to date was largely
sufficient to meet the demand projected under the proposed standards by
2030. 88 FR 25968. We assessed that battery manufacturing capacity was
not likely to pose a limitation on the ability of manufacturers to meet
the standards as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\318\ U.S. Electric Vehicle Battery Manufacturing on Track to
Meet Demand. EDF. December 2023. Available Online: https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/2023-12/EDF%20Analysis%20on%20US%20Battery%20Capacity%2012.13.23%20final%20v3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has carefully considered the substantive and detailed comments
offered by the various commenters. In light of additional information
that EPA has collected through continued research and the public
comments, the evidence continues to support our previous assessment
that domestic and global battery manufacturing is well positioned to
deliver sufficient battery production to allow manufacturers to meet
the standards.
The additional information EPA has collected addresses many of the
points raised by the commenters. In particular, ANL has performed an
updated assessment of North American battery components and cell
manufacturing capacity that further reinforces our assessment that
capacity is rapidly growing. EPA considers ANL's assessment through
December 2023 to be thorough and up to date.
[[Page 29504]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.021
Based on announced investments in battery cell production,
companies have announced over 1,300 GWh/year in battery production in
North America by 2030 (Figure II-5). This is already a significant
increase over the estimates discussed in the proposal of 1,000 GWh/year
commencing in 2030. 88 FR 25967. EPA estimates that 11 GWh will be
required for HDV BEVs in 2027 and 58 GWh in 2032 under the modeled
potential compliance pathway. See RIA Chapter 2.10.2. Consequently,
although most of this announced capacity is currently intended for
light duty vehicles (and some for stationary sources),\319\ EPA finds
that there is sufficient North American battery production capacity for
HDVs within the rule's timeframe, and ANL projects at least 45 GWh of
announced cell production will be dedicated to HDV BEVs by 2030 (Figure
II-6). Moreover, end use for some battery cell manufacturing facilities
has not been announced, and it is likely that North American capacity
can service HDV applications in greater than announced amounts.
Importantly, in addition to the 13 new domestic battery plants we
projected to become operational in the four years from proposal, 88 FR
25986, the new work performed by ANL indicates that even more battery
production capacity has been announced since the release of those
previous reports (Figure II-7). In addition, capacity from trade allies
is another source of supply: the sum of announced battery cell
production capacity in MSP countries (outside North America) exceeds
the sum in North America, with both reaching 1,300 GWh/year by
2030.\320\ See Figure II-9 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\319\ Planned Battery Supply at 22, 23.
\320\ Planned Battery Supply Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29505]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.023
A number of comments expressed concerns regarding ramp-up time. The
latest ANL projections estimate the period from announcement to
beginning of production for each individual plant based on numerous
factors, and uses a baseline estimate of 3 years from beginning of
production to full scale operation, based on historical cell
manufacturing data.\321\ ANL describes this as ``a modestly
conservative estimate,'' acknowledging that plants could reach nominal
capacity more quickly or more slowly. This estimate is consistent with
the projections of significant increases in domestic production by the
commencement of the Phase 3 program shown in the immediately preceding
figures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\321\ Planned Battery Supply at 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also continue to see evidence that global lithium-ion battery
cell production is growing rapidly\322\ and is likely to keep pace with
increasing global demand. In the proposal we noted a 2021 report from
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL)\323\ that examined the state of the
global supply chain for electrified vehicles and included a comparison
of recent projections of future global battery
[[Page 29506]]
manufacturing capacity and projections of future global battery demand
from various analysis firms out to 2030, as seen in Figure II-
8.\324,325\ The three most recent projections of capacity (from BNEF,
Roland Berger, and S&P Global in 2020-2021) that were collected by ANL
at that time exceeded the corresponding projections of demand by a
significant margin in every year for which they were projected,
suggesting that global battery manufacturing capacity is responding
strongly to increasing demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\322\ ``Lithium-ion battery manufacturing capacity, 2022-2030''.
International Energy Agency. Last updated May 22, 2023. Available
Online: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/lithium-ion-battery-manufacturing-capacity-2022-2030.
\323\ Argonne National Laboratory, ``Lithium-Ion Battery Supply
Chain for E-Drive Vehicles in the United States: 2010-2020,'' ANL/
ESD-21/3, March 2021.
\324\ Argonne National Laboratory, ``Lithium-Ion Battery Supply
Chain for E-Drive Vehicles in the United States: 2010-2020,'' ANL/
ESD-21/3, March 2021.
\325\ Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries, ``National
Blueprint for Lithium Batteries 2021-2030,'' June 2021 (Figure 2).
Available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/FCAB%20National%20Blueprint%20Lithium%20Batteries%200621_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The updated ANL supports the continuation of this trend. Figure II-
9 shows projected battery cell production in MSP countries through
2035: as noted previously in this section, the sum of announced battery
cell production capacity in MSP countries (outside North America)
exceeds the sum in North America, with both reaching 1,300 GWh/year by
2030.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.024
[[Page 29507]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.025
In addition to battery cell manufacturing, we also consider
manufacturing of battery components. In order to meet their projected
operating capacities, the North American battery plants will need to
manufacture or purchase these materials. Battery components include
electrode active material (cathode active material CAM and anode active
material AAM), electrolyte, foils, separators, and precursor materials,
which include lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide, nickel sulfate,
cobalt sulfate, and manganese sulfate.
Figure II-10 repeats the chart that was shown in the proposal,
showing preliminary projections of global cathode supply versus global
cathode demand, prepared by Li-Bridge for DOE,\326\ and presented to
the Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries (FCAB) \327\ in November
2022. These projections were largely derived by DOE from projections by
BMI and indicate that global supplies of cathode active material (CAM)
are expected to be sufficient through 2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\326\ Slides 6 and 7 of presentation by Li-Bridge to Federal
Consortium for Advanced Batteries (FCAB), November 17, 2022.
\327\ https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/federal-consortium-advanced-batteries-fcab.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29508]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.026
Following the proposal, ANL analyzed North American production
capacity for battery components and precursor materials. ANL does
project that some domestic demand will need to be satisfied through
imports. Allies and partners outside of North America are likely to be
integral in meeting U.S. battery component demand, though this does not
indicate a deterrence to securing adequate battery components and
precursor materials to meet domestic demand. Allies Japan and the
Republic of Korea, for example, are the world's second and third
largest producers of CAM and AAM.\328\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\328\ https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/4eb8c252-76b1-4710-8f5e-867e751c8dda/GlobalSupplyChainsofEVBatteries.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, based on assessed announcements, ANL projects North
American CAM production will reach 570 GWh by 2032, and that this will
fall short of North American cell production by 2028.\329\ Anode active
material (AAM) is likewise projected to be primarily import dependent,
with North American production capacity reaching 585 GWh in 2032; this
would satisfy approximately 43 percent of forecast end demand in 2030
and remaining steady thereafter, with the remainder supplied from
elsewhere.\330\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\329\ Planned Battery Supply at 33-34.
\330\ Planned Battery Supply at 30-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANL emphasizes that its production projections are conservative and
may understate domestic capacity, because the analysis does not include
plant announcements not formally announced, and because cell production
or other facilities may be vertically integrated without this fact
being disclosed.\331\ In fact, planned or considered but not formally
announced plants for AAM would add enough capacity to meet projected
cell production.\332\ Another reason any projected shortfall can be
remedied is that CAM and AAM production have a one- to- three year
timeframe from initial announcement and opening, faster than cell
production plants. Thus, ``[b]ecause of their shorter construction and
permitting time, most battery components can be responsive to the
demand arising from battery cell plants'' and can delay announcement
building commitment while waiting for certainty in cell
production.\333\ Gaps in supply may also be satisfied by imports.\334\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\331\ Planned Battery Supply at 6 n.3, 31, 34.
\332\ The report identifies an additional 590 GWh/year in
nominal anode active material North American production capacity by
the end of this decade which is planned or considered, but not
formally announced. Planned Battery Supply at 31.
\333\ Planned Battery Supply at 34, 31.
\334\ Planned Battery Supply at 31, 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This outlook is informed by efforts to build a secure, and largely
domestic, supply chain for battery components and batteries by the U.S.
government and industry. The IRA and BIL have already provided and
continue to provide significant support to accelerate these efforts to
build out a U.S. supply chain for batteries, and, as demonstrated in
section II.D.2.c.ii.a of this preamble, uptake from industry has been
considerable. As described in some detail earlier, the IRA offers
sizeable incentives and other support for further development of
domestic and North American manufacture of electrified vehicles and
components, and BIL offers significant grant funding for batter
component and cell manufacturing. The 45X tax credit offers up to $35/
kWh for battery cell production, up to $10/kWh for battery pack
production, and up to 10 percent of incurred costs for battery
component production through 2032. The 48C tax credit offers up to $10
billion in products that could include battery component and cell
manufacturing and recycling. The DOE Loan Programs Office (LPO) is
supported battery component and cell manufacturing projects through the
Advanced Technologies Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) and Title 17
programs.\335\ (Some examples of recent projects are outlined in RIA
Chapter 1.5.1.3.) Together, these provisions are continuing to motivate
manufacturers to invest in the continued development of a North
American supply chain, and already appear to have proven influential on
the plans of manufacturers to procure domestic or North American
mineral and
[[Page 29509]]
component sources and to construct domestic manufacturing facilities to
claim the benefits of the act. Manufacturers are investing in lithium-
ion battery cell production, both independently and through joint
ventures with battery companies. Tesla, Ford, Volkswagen, GM,
Stellantis, Honda, and Hyundai have all announced battery supply chain
investments in North America.\336\ See also preamble section II.E.4 for
further discussion and examples. Importantly, while the effects of BIL
and IRA on the battery supply chain are well documented throughout this
preamble, funds from these laws are still being disbursed, with
billions of dollars available for the battery supply chain remaining
(see Table II-8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\335\ Planned Battery Supply at 8.
\336\ Planned Battery Supply at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.027
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
In consideration of this updated information on battery component
and cell manufacturing, it continues to be our assessment that the
industry is well positioned to support the battery demand that is
projected under the Phase 3 standards including taking into
consideration uncertainties that generally accompany forward-looking
projections, and therefore EPA concludes that there will be adequate
supply of battery cells and battery components to support the
feasibility of the final standards under the modeled potential
compliance pathway.
c. Critical Mineral Security
As stated at the beginning of this section II.D, it is our
assessment that increased deployment of BEVs that could result from
this final rule does not constitute a vulnerability to national
security, for several reasons supported by the discussion in this
preamble and in RIA 1.5.1.2.
Mineral security refers to potential national security risks posed
by vulnerabilities in the mineral supply chain, and in particular
reliance on sourcing of critical minerals from countries with which the
U.S. has fragile trade relations or significant policy differences.
This section examines the outlook for mineral security as it relates to
demand for
[[Page 29510]]
critical minerals resulting from increased BEV production under the
final standards. We note that this section focuses on mineral security,
and not on energy security, which relates to security of energy
consumed by transportation and other needs. Energy security is
discussed separately in section VII.C of this preamble.
Concern for U.S. mineral security relates to the global
distribution of established supply chains for critical minerals and the
fact that, at present, not all domestic demand can be supplied by
domestic production. Currently, despite a wide distribution of mineral
resources globally, mineral production is not evenly distributed across
the world. At present, production is concentrated in a few countries
due to several factors, including where the resources are found in
nature, the level of investment that has occurred to develop the
resources, economic factors such as infrastructure, and the presence or
absence of government policy relating to their exploitation. While the
U.S. is not a leading producer of minerals used in BEV batteries at
present, substantial investment has already gone towards expanding
domestic mineral supply, largely due to funding and incentives from BIL
and IRA. This is described in greater detail in section II.D.2.ii.a of
this preamble.
In the proposal, EPA analyzed the primary issues surrounding
mineral security as it relates to critical mineral needs for BEV
production. 88 FR 25968. We collected and reviewed information relating
to the present geographical distribution of developed and known
critical mineral resources and products, including information from the
U.S. Geological Survey, analyst firms and various stakeholders. In
considering these sources we highlighted and examined the potential for
the U.S. supply chain to reduce dependence on critical minerals that at
present are largely sourced from other countries. Our assessment of the
available evidence indicated that the increase in BEV production
projected to result from the proposed standards could be accommodated
without causing harm to national security.
EPA has carefully considered the substantive and detailed comments
offered by the various commenters. Much of the information provided by
adverse commenters builds upon the evidence that EPA already presented
in the proposal concerning the risks and uncertainties associated with
the future impact of mineral demand on mineral security. Much of the
information provided by supportive commenters also builds on the
evidence EPA presented in the proposal about the pace of activity and
overall outlook for buildout of the critical mineral supply chain.
While contributing to the record, the information provided by the
commenters largely serves to support the trends that were already
identified and considered by EPA in the proposal, and do not identify
new, specific aspects of mineral security that were not already
acknowledged. Taken together, the totality of information in the public
record continues to indicate that development of the critical mineral
supply chains is proceeding both domestically and globally in a manner
that supports the industry's compliance with the final standards under
the modeled potential compliance pathway. In light of this information
provided in the public comments and additional information that EPA has
collected through continued research, it continues to be our assessment
that the increase in ZEV production projected under the modeled
potential compliance pathway for the standards is not expected to
adversely impact national security, and in fact may result in national
security benefits by reducing the need for imported petroleum (as
discussed separately in section VII.C of this preamble) and providing
regulatory and market certainty for the continued development of a
domestic supply chain for critical minerals.
Regarding the adequacy of the supply chain in supporting the
standards, EPA notes that it is a misconception to assume that the U.S.
must establish a fully independent domestic supply chain for critical
minerals or other inputs to BEV production in order to contemplate
standards that may result in increased manufacture of BEVs. The supply
chain that supports production of consumer products, including ICE
vehicles, is highly interconnected across the world, and it has long
been the norm that global supply chains are involved in providing many
of the products that are commonly available in the U.S. market and that
are used on a daily basis. As with almost any other product, the
relevant standard is not complete domestic self-sufficiency, but rather
a diversified supply chain that includes not only domestic production
where possible and appropriate but also includes trade with allies and
partners with whom the U.S. has good trade relations. As discussed
below, bilateral and multilateral trade agreements and other
arrangements (such as defense agreements and various development and
investment partnerships), either long-standing or more recently
established, already exist which greatly expands opportunities to
develop a secure supply chain that reaches well beyond the borders of
U.S.
As discussed previously in this section in connection with critical
mineral availability, since the proposal, Argonne National Laboratory
has conducted additional analysis on the outlook for U.S. production of
nickel, cobalt, graphite, manganese and lithium and we have updated our
analysis to reflect this work. For the minerals examined, there are
prospects for growth among secure sources of supply, and the report
details ongoing efforts to build and strengthen partnerships with
friendly countries to fill any supply gaps that cannot be met
domestically.
The United States is actively pursuing a whole-of-government
strategy to secure materials that cannot be sufficiently produced
domestically. This involves diversifying sourcing strategies through
strengthening current trade agreements and actively building new
economic, technology, and regional security alliances. The United
States has international initiatives in place to secure nickel, cobalt,
and graphite, the critical battery minerals for which imports from non-
FTA, non-MSP countries are projected in the short, medium, and/or long
term. These initiatives and agreements serve to secure supply chains,
and to balance and counteract influence of potential threats to those
supply chains, including potential threats posed by Foreign Entities of
Concern, such as the concentration of mineral processing in China. We
discuss below some specific examples of bilateral and multilateral
efforts to secure minerals supply from non-U.S. sources.
Indonesia, for example, is a major source of nickel supply and
refining capacity, and also has significant reserves of cobalt. The
U.S. has been making concerted efforts to forge a strong partnership
with Indonesia, culminating in the U.S. entering into a Comprehensive
Strategic Partnership with Indonesia in 2023, with the intention of
creating a clean nickel supply chain. Another avenue for building
partnership with Indonesia is through the Indo-Pacific Framework for
Prosperity (IPEF), an agreement between the U.S. and countries across
the Indo-Pacific region to advance resilience, sustainability,
inclusiveness, economic growth, fairness, and competitiveness for our
economies.\337\ IPEF recently announced a critical minerals dialogue,
and the IPEF Supply Chain Agreement
[[Page 29511]]
entered into force in February 2024.\338\ Another avenue is through
DOI's International Technical Assistance Program (DOI[hyphen]ITAP),
which builds capacity in other countries by drawing from the diverse
expertise of DOI employees, lending assistance and expertise to
projects, including mining.\339\ DOI and USAID partnered to advise
Indonesia's Ministry of Mines on mining governance. The State
Department also entered a memorandum of understanding with Indonesia's
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources to cooperate on responsible
mining and minerals processing.\340\ The U.S. also supports the Just
Energy Transition Partnership, which supports clean electricity
development in Indonesia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\337\ https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/agreements-under-negotiation/indo-pacific-economic-framework-prosperity-ipef.
\338\ https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2024/01/us-department-commerce-announces-upcoming-entry-force-ipef-supply-chain.
\339\ https://www.doi.gov/intl/itap.
\340\ ANL at 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is the world's largest
source of cobalt, with 70 percent of current world production and 48
percent of reserves.\341\ The U.S. is partnering with DRC to secure
cobalt supply to close the gap between projected domestic demand and
projected domestic supply. Through PGI, the United States is supporting
the development of the Lobito Corridor, which connects the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and Zambia with global markets through Angola,
with an initial investment of $250 million in a rail expansion that
intends to reduce transport time and lower costs for metals exports
from the region.\342\ Child and forced labor has been a particular
concern for DRC, given the known presence of child workers at artisanal
mines across the region, despite these mines making up a minority of
cobalt mining operations. The U.S. and allies are partnering with the
DRC to combat child and forced labor in the cobalt supply chain. A
notable example is the Department of Labor (DOL)-funded Combatting
Child Labor in the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Cobalt Industry
(COTECCO) project.\343\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\341\ ANL at 46.
\342\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/05/20/fact-sheet-partnership-for-global-infrastructure-and-investment-at-the-g7-summit.
\343\ https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/comply-chain; https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/combatting-child-labor-democratic-republic-congos-cobalt-industry-cotecco. See also the further
discussion in RTC section 17.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elsewhere in Africa, the United States International Development
Finance Corporation (DFC) has invested to expand graphite mining and
processing in Mozambique.\344\ The United States is working closely
with its FTA partner Australia to develop graphite mining projects in
Tanzania and other countries.\345\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\344\ ANL at 57.
\345\ ANL at 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, the U.S. is a member of the Minerals Security Partnership,
which a collaboration of 13 countries and the EU to invest in a
responsible, secure critical minerals supply chains globally.\346\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\346\ https://www.state.gov/minerals-security-partnership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The selected examples explore U.S. engagements with some of the
most important international players in critical mineral supply chains,
but they are by no means exhaustive. Below is a graphic overview of
U.S. initiatives to secure electric vehicle battery minerals across the
world (Figure II-11).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.028
In addition, as we noted at proposal, it merits mention that
utilization of critical minerals is different from the utilization of
foreign oil, in that oil is consumed as a fuel while minerals become a
constituent of manufactured vehicles. 88 FR 25968. That is, mineral
security is not a perfect analogy to energy security. Supply
disruptions and
[[Page 29512]]
fluctuating prices are relevant to critical minerals as well, but the
impacts of such disruptions are felt differently and by different
parties. Disruptions in oil supply or gasoline price have an immediate
impact on consumers through higher fuel prices and thus constrains the
ability to travel. In contrast, supply disruptions or price
fluctuations of minerals affect only the production and price of new
vehicles. In practice, short-term price fluctuations do not always
translate to higher production cost as most manufacturers purchase
minerals via long-term contracts that insulate them to a degree from
changes in spot prices. Moreover, critical minerals are not a single
commodity but a number of distinct commodities, each having its own
supply and demand dynamics, with many being capable of substitution by
other minerals.\347\ Importantly, while oil is consumed as a fuel and
thus requires continuous supply, minerals become part of the vehicle
and have the potential to be recovered and recycled. Thus, even when
minerals are imported from other countries, their acquisition adds to
the domestic mineral stock that is available for domestic recycling in
the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\347\ For example, manganese can be subsituted by aluminum in
the case of nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) and nickel-cobalt-
aluminum (NCA) batteries. Likewise, an LFP battery uses iron
phosphate chemistry without nickel, manganese, cobalt or aluminum.
Research has also been conducted to study the replacement of lithium
with sodium ions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We thus reiterate our conclusion from proposal that there are
short-term, medium-term, and long-term means of successfully dealing
with issues of mineral security--both mineral availability and supply
chains for the acquisition of minerals. Lithium supply in the mid- and
long-term will largely be satisfied domestically, with supply gaps
being filled by countries with which the U.S. has strong relations.
Although we do not anticipate domestic supply to meet a large share of
demand for cobalt, nickel, and graphite, we have indicated pathways by
which a diversified and secure global supply chain for each may be
achieved, describing a portfolio of bilateral and multilateral
development efforts underway as of February 2024 to secure critical
minerals from friendly countries, as described in the DOE Argonne
Laboratory report on critical minerals availability. We anticipate
these minerals security efforts to continue to expand subsequent to
this final rulemaking. We consequently regard the Phase 3 standards as
feasible in light of concerns regarding mineral security.
iii. Assessment of Heavy-Duty BEV Charging Infrastructure
As BEV adoption grows, more charging infrastructure will be needed
to support the HD BEV fleet.\348\ We received many comments on this
topic. Vehicle manufacturers, dealers, fleet owners, and
representatives of the fuels industry among others raised concerns that
charging and supporting infrastructure, both front-of-the-meter
(electricity generation, distribution, and transmission) and back-of-
the-meter (such as EVSE installations), is inadequate today and that
the pace of deployment is not on track to meet levels projected if the
proposed standards are finalized. Commenters noted that fleets will not
buy, or may cancel orders, if charging infrastructure is a barrier. A
particular concern raised by commenters is that although back-of-the-
meter issues (e.g., how many EVSE ports to purchase, where to install
EVSE, etc.) are largely in the control of the vehicle purchaser, front-
of-the-meter issues are not. Commenters noted that if infrastructure is
needed to support the EVSE hardware--generally termed distribution grid
buildout--liaison with a utility is necessary. In this regard, many
commenters spoke of a conundrum whereby owners will not purchase a BEV
without assurance of adequate supporting infrastructure, but utilities
will not build out without advance assurance of demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\348\ Infrastructure includes both charging infrastructure,
which includes the EVSE on the customer side of the meter, and grid
infrastructure, that is the power generation, transmission, and
distribution on the utility side of the meter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also received comments from non-governmental organizations,
electrification groups, electric vehicle manufacturers, and utilities
indicating that there could be adequate supporting infrastructure,
including distribution grid buildout, within the proposed Phase 3
rule's timeframe. They pointed out that buildout need not occur
nationwide, nor all at once. Rather, they noted that initial buildout
could be concentrated in a relatively few high-volume freight
corridors. They also highlighted the many public and private
investments in charging infrastructure that have been announced or are
underway. Commenters flagged innovative charging solutions such as
charging-as-a-service and mobile charging that can help meet the needs
of fleets that experience delays installing EVSE or for which there are
other barriers to depot charging. Some noted that public charging needs
will be geographically concentrated in early years, allowing a phased
approach for public infrastructure deployment. Finally, commenters
noted that EPA finalizing stringent standards would provide certainty
to OEMs, EVSE providers and utilities and spur further investments in
charging infrastructure.
One point on which we received many comments was that there would
need to be public charging to support the Phase 3 standards under the
modeled potential compliance pathway. In this regard, the first group
of commenters raised issues about the adequacy and availability of
public charging networks. They noted that HD BEVs have different
charging needs from LD vehicles, and that the power levels and site
designs of public charging stations available today may not be able to
serve HD vehicles. While some of these commenters noted the importance
of public investments in charging infrastructure, they expressed
concern that programs such as the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure (NEVI) program established under the BIL will primarily
support infrastructure designed for LD vehicles. The second group of
commenters were optimistic that a sufficient public charging network
was feasible within the 2027-2032 time frame, and some of these
commenters provided quantified information as to potential network
extent and cost in support.
We note at the outset that we agree with the commenters regarding
the need to assess and cost public charging corresponding to the
modeled potential compliance pathway supporting feasibility of the
final standards. EPA's potential compliance pathway at proposal posited
that all HDV charging needs could be met with depot charging, and EPA's
cost estimates consequently reflected depot charging only. DRIA at 195.
EPA acknowledged at proposal that public charging would ultimately be
necessary, DRIA at 195-96, and now agrees with commenters that the need
is nearer-term and that analysis of public charging should be included
as part of the modeled potential compliance pathway that supports the
feasibility of the final standards. Accordingly, the analysis for the
final rule reflects incorporation of public charging for certain HDV
subcategories starting in MY 2030. We have made the appropriate
modifications to our cost estimates, and to HD TRUCS, to reflect public
charging needs in the modeled potential compliance pathway. Further
details are in sections II.D.5.iv, II.E.2, and II.E.5.ii.
[[Page 29513]]
a. Depot Charging
(1) Behind-the-Meter Infrastructure
In both the NPRM and here in the final rule, we expect that much of
the infrastructure development may be purchased by individual BEV or
fleet owners for depot charging or be subject to third-party contracts
to provide charging as a service.\349\ Manufacturers are working
closely with their customers to support this type of EVSE
infrastructure, many making recent announcements since the NPRM was
issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\349\ ``EV charging as a service''. IRENA--International
Renewable Energy Agency. Accessed February 23, 2024. Available
online: https://www.irena.org/Innovation-landscape-for-smart-electrification/Power-to-mobility/31-EV-charging-as-a-service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, PACCAR sells a range of EVSEs to customers
directly.\350\ Mack Trucks partnered with two charging solution
companies so that they can offer customers the ability to acquire EVSE
solutions directly from their dealers.\351\ DTNA also announced a
partnership to provide their customers with EVSE solutions.\352\
Similarly, Navistar partnered with Quanta Services, Inc. to provide BEV
infrastructure solutions, that include support in the design,
construction, and maintenance of EVSE at depots.\353\ Nikola has
partnered with ChargePoint to provide fleet customers with a suite of
options for charging infrastructure and software (e.g., for charge
management).\354\ AMPLY Power, which was acquired by BP in 2021,
provides charging equipment and services for a variety of fleets,
including van, truck, and bus fleets.\355\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\350\ PACCAR. ``Electric Vehicle Chargers.'' Accessed on
November 1, 2023. Available online: https://www.paccarparts.com/technology/ev-chargers.
\351\ Volvo Group Press Release. ``Mack Trucks Enters
Partnerships with Heliox, Gilbarco to Increase Charging
Accessibility.'' February 14, 2023. Available online: https://www.volvogroup.com/en/news-and-media/news/2023/feb/mack-trucks-enters-partnerships-with-heliox-gilbarco-to-increase-charging-accessibility.html.
\352\ Daimler Trucks North America Press Release. ``Electrada,
Daimler partner for electric charging.'' October 3, 2023. Available
online: https://www.truckpartsandservice.com/alternative-power/battery-electric/article/15635568/electrada-daimler-partner-for-chargers.
\353\ Navistar Press Release. ``Navistar Partners With
Infrastructure Solutions Provider Quanta Services.'' May 3, 2023.
Available online: https://news.navistar.com/2023-05-03-Navistar-Partners-With-Infrastructure-Solutions-Provider-Quanta-Services.
\354\ Nikola. ``Nikola and ChargePoint Partner to Accelerate
Charging Infrastructure Solutions.'' November 8, 2022. Available
online: https://nikolamotor.com/press_releases/nikola-and-chargepoint-partner-to-accelerate-charging-infrastructure-solutions-212.
\355\ BP. Press Release: ``bp takes first major step into
electrification in the US by acquiring EV fleet charging provider
AMPLY Power''. December 7, 2021. Available online: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bp-takes-first-major-step-into-electrification-in-us-by-acquiring-ev-fleet-charging-provider-amply-power.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some companies are starting with mobile charging units while they
test or pilot vehicles.\356\ For example, PACCAR has partnered with
Heliox to offer 40 kW and 50 kW mobile charging units to its dealers
and customers of the Kenworth and Peterbilt brands,\357\ and Sysco,
which plans to deploy 800 Class 8 BEV tractors in the next few years,
plans to use mobile charging units to begin their truck deployments
while 14 charging stations are being installed.\358\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\356\ Mobile charging units are EVSE that can move to different
locations to charge vehicles. Depending on the unit's specifications
and site, mobile charging units may be able to utilize a facility's
existing infrastructure (e.g., 240 V wall outlets) to recharge.
Mobile charging units may have wheels for easy transport.
\357\ Hampel, Carrie. ``Heliox to be global charging partner for
Paccar''. Electrive.com. September 24, 2022. Available online:
https://www.electrive.com/2022/09/24/heliox-to-be-global-charging-partner-for-paccar/.
\358\ Morgan, Jason. ``How Sysco Corp. plans to deploy 800
battery electric Class 8 trucks (and that's just the beginning)''.
Fleet Equipment. November 14, 2022. Available online: https://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/sysco-battery-electric-trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we agree with commenters that dedicated HD charging
infrastructure may be limited today, we expect both depot and public
charging to expand significantly over the next decade. The U.S.
government is making large investments in charging infrastructure
through the BIL\359\ and the IRA,\360\ as discussed in RIA Chapter
1.3.2. For example, the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure
Discretionary Grant Program (CFI Program) recently announced the first-
year grant recipients under the program.\361\ In total, over $600
million in grants will support the deployment of charging and
alternative fueling infrastructure in communities and along corridors
in 22 states (see RTC 6.1 for a summary of grants that will
specifically support HD charging infrastructure). The IRA extends and
modifies the ``Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit'' tax credit
under section 30C of title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code (``30C'')
that could cover up to 30 percent of the costs for procuring and
installing charging infrastructure (subject to a $100,000 per item cap)
in eligible census tracts through 2032. Based on its assessment of the
share of heavy-duty charging stations that may be located in qualifying
areas (and other 30C provisions), DOE projects an average value of this
tax credit of 18 percent of the installed EVSE costs at depots and up
to 27 percent\362\ at public charging stations.363 364 In
addition, there are billions of dollars in funding programs that could
support HD charging infrastructure either on its own or alongside the
purchase of a HD BEV. As detailed in the following sections, private
investments will also play an important role in meeting future
infrastructure needs. We also agree with commenters that the existence
of the final standards themselves provides regulatory certainty that
will spur further infrastructure investments--both by HD vehicle
purchasers installing EVSE at depots and by manufacturers, utilities,
EVSE providers, and others installing public charging stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\359\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58,
135 Stat. 429 (2021). Available online: https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf.
\360\ Inflation Reduction Act, Public Law 117-169, 136 Stat.
1818 (2022). Available online: https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ169/PLAW-117publ169.pdf.
\361\ JOET, ``Biden-Harris Administration Bolsters Electric
Vehicle Future with More than $600 Million in New Funding,'' January
11, 2024, https://driveelectric.gov/news/new-cfi-funding.
\362\ The average value of 27 percent for public charging
infrastructure is for EVSE under 1 MW; for 1 MW and higher, DOE
estimates an average tax credit value of 19 percent.
\363\ U.S. DOE, ``Estimating Federal Tax Incentives for Heavy
Duty Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and for Acquiring Electric
Vehicles Weighing Less than 14,000 Pounds.'' Memorandum, March 2024.
\364\ See preamble section II.E.2 and RIA Chapter 2.6.2.1 for a
discussion of how we accounted for this tax credit in our analysis
of depot EVSE costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVSE for HD BEVs is available today for purchase. However, EPA
recognizes that it takes time for individual or fleet owners to develop
charging site plans for their facility, obtain permits, purchase the
EVSE, and have it installed. For the depots that may be charging a
greater number of vehicles or with high-power DCFC ports, an upgrade to
the electricity distribution system may be required adding to the
installation timeline. As described in RIA Chapter 2.10.3, we estimated
the total number of EVSE ports that will be required to support the
depot-charged BEVs in the potential compliance pathway's technology
packages developed to support the MYs 2027-2032 standards. We estimated
about 520,000 EVSE ports will be needed across all six model years, but
only about half of those will be required to support the MY 2027
through MY 2030 vehicles. The majority (88 percent) of EVSE ports (for
MY2027-2032) are Level 2 ports, which are less likely to require
lengthy upgrades to the distribution system as described in
[[Page 29514]]
section II.E.2. See also RTC section 7 (Distribution). In conclusion,
there is time to install EVSE at depots to support projected
utilization of BEV technologies beginning in MY 2027.
(2) Front-of-the-Meter Infrastructure/Distribution Grid Buildout
EPA has carefully considered the many comments concerning the need
for, timing of, and cost for distribution grid buildout.\365\ This
issue relates to the infrastructure linking transmission lines to an
electricity user. A typical grid infrastructure diagram shows a
transmission line feeding into a distribution substation which serves
several feeders to distribute power. From the feeders that serve
thousands of customers, the service transformers step down the voltage
to customer utilization levels. Of these three elements of distribution
grid infrastructure, the substation is by far the costliest and most
time-intensive to construct (though less so to upgrade an existing
substation), feeders are the next most resource intensive, and service
transformers the least. Table II-9, based on information in RIA Chapter
1.6.5, shows timing estimates for each of these
elements.366 367
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\365\ See, RTC section 7 (Distribution) for a full discussion of
the issues discussed in this preamble section; see also RIA Chapter
1.6.
\366\ Borlaug, B., Muratori, M., Gilleran, M. et al. ``Heavy-
duty truck electrification and the impacts of depot charging on
electricity distribution systems''. Nat Energy 6, 673-682 (2021).
Available online: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00855-0.
\367\ EPRI. ``EVs2Scale2030TM Grid Primer''. August 29, 2023.
Available online: https://www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002028010.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.029
New substation costs can vary, depending on location (urban/
suburban/rural) and Megavolts ampere with estimates showing $4 to $35
million.\368\ Feeders can cost from $100 to approximately $872 per
foot, variables being above or below ground installation, and voltage
(typically $1 million for 0 kV-25 kV and $1.5 million for 26kV-
35kV)).\369\ The estimated cost of a non-DCFC service transformer is
$20,000.\370\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\368\ Borlaug, B., Muratori, M., Gilleran, M. et al. ``Heavy-
duty truck electrification and the impacts of depot charging on
electricity distribution systems''. Nat Energy 6, 673-682 (2021).
Available online: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00855-0.
\369\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Kevala Inc., and U.S. Department of Energy.
``Multi-State Transportation Electrification Impact Study: Preparing
the Grid for Light-, Medium-, and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles''.
DOE/EE-2818. U.S. Department of Energy. March 2024. At 64-65
(``TEIS'').
\370\ TEIS at 96. Median cost of DCFC service transformers in
the Study was $50,000. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has assessed the question of how much buildout might be needed
(under the modeled potential compliance pathway supporting the
feasibility of the standards) at the national level, at the regional
level, and at the parcel level.\371\ Assessment was conducted with EPA
internal tools\372\ as well as with a first of its kind ground up
analysis from DOE. We find that electricity demand attributable to the
Phase 3 standards under the modeled potential compliance pathway is
minimal for any and all of these perspectives, and especially so in the
initial years of the program when the lead time needed for distribution
grid buildout installation could potentially otherwise be constraining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\371\ A ``parcel'', as used in the TEIS, means ``a real estate
property or land and any associated structures that are the property
of a person with identification for taxation purposes.'' TEIS at 2
n. 15.
\372\ See discussion of IPM modeling for the interim control
case described in RIA Chapter 4.2.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2027, the Phase 3 rule is projected to increase transportation
sector electricity demand by a modest 0.67 percent; that is, of the
national demand for electricity posed by the transportation sector,
less than 1 percent is attributable to the Phase 3 rule in 2027. In
2032, this rule is projected to increase transportation sector
electricity demand to 9.27 percent.\373\ We note that the modeling
associated with these estimates uses the final rule adoption rate
scenario, which corresponds to the modeled potential compliance pathway
for the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\373\ Murray, Evan ``Calculations of the Impacts of the Final
Standards at Various Geographic Scales'' (February 29, 2024).
(National Demand tab).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, since this demand is only that attributable to the
transportation sector, the demand as a percentage of total demand on a
utility would be less, since it would be a fraction of all other
sources of demand. Thus, in 2030 and 2035 (the years we modeled for
this analysis), increases in the demand for the modeled compliance
pathway are only 0.41 percent and 2.59 percent.\374\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\374\ Murray, Evan ``Calculations of the Impacts of the Final
Standards at Various Geographic Scales'' (February 29, 2024).
(Generation National Demand tab).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, as commenters noted (see RTC sections 6.1 and 7
(Distribution)), charging infrastructure needed to meet this demand in
the time frame of the rule is likely to be centered in a sub-set of
states and counties where freight activity is concentrated and
supportive ZEV polices exist. ICCT found that likely areas of high
concentration include Texas (Harris, Dallas, and Bexar counties);
southern California (Los Angeles, San Bernadino, San Diego and
Riverside counties); New York State (Bronx, New York, Queens, Kings,
and Richmond counties); Massachusetts (Suffolk county); Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia county); New Jersey (Hudson county); and Florida (Miami-
Dade county).\375\ These areas are projected to experience either
higher aggregate demand or higher energy demand per unit area
attributable to HD BEV adoption. In the critical initial year of the
Phase 3 standards, when there is the least lead time, EPA's projected
increases in electricity demand are very modest, ranging from 0.002
percent (Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim) to 0.88 percent (Phoenix-Mesa-
Scottsdale).\376\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\375\ Comments of ICCT, July 2023 at 11. These comments reflect
Ragon, Kelly, et al., 2023 (``ICCT May 2023 White Paper'').
\376\ Murray, Evan ``Calculations of the Impacts of the Final
Standards at Various Geographic Scales'' (February 29, 2024). (MSA
Demand tab).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These estimates are conservative. The projected increases represent
increased electricity demand attributable to both
[[Page 29515]]
the heavy-duty Phase 3 rule and demand from the light-duty sector
absent the final rule. The portion of electricity demand attributable
to the Phase 3 rule would be less.
We estimate that electricity demand in these high traffic freight
corridors attributable to the transportation sector would increase in
2032, corresponding to need under the modeled potential compliance
pathway to meet increased standard stringency (including standards for
sleeper cab tractors and heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles which
commence after MY 2027, ranging from 0.014 percent (San Diego-Carlsbad)
to 12.58 percent (San Antonio-New Braunfels).\377\ EPA regards these
projected increases as modest. The projected increases in 2027, when
there is the shortest lead time for buildout, are small. As expected,
demand is projected to increase in 2032 but there is considerably more
available lead time in which buildout can be accommodated. Moreover,
these increases are modest compared to total electricity demand on
utilities within the states in these freight corridors. See RTC section
7 (Distribution).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\377\ Murray, Evan ``Calculations of the Impacts of the Final
Standards at Various Geographic Scales'' (February 29, 2024). (MSA
Demand tab).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Energy study, ``Multi-State Transportation
Electrification Impact Study'' (``TEIS'') supports this conclusion at a
more granular level.\378\ This is the first study of this scale to be
bottom up, comparing parcel level light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicle
demand to parcel supply by PV (photovoltaic) and grid capacity at each
examined parcel. The study focuses on 5 states (California, New York,
Illinois, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania) selected to capture diversity in
population density (urban and rural areas), freight demand, BEV demand,
state EV policies, utility type (i.e., investor owned, municipality, or
cooperative) and distribution grid composition. The TEIS used these
states to extrapolate a national demand for where and when upgrades
will be needed to the electricity distribution system--including
substations, feeders, and service transformers--due to BEV load under
the approximated combination of the EPA's combined light-duty and
medium-duty rulemaking action (LMDV)\379\ and HD Phase 3 rules and
under a no action case. The research team also assessed the potential
impact of managed EV charging at homes and depots to reduce the peak
power needs and associated cost and timing of distribution upgrades. In
the unmanaged case, the study assumes that EVs are charged immediately
when the vehicle returns to a charger. In contrast, the managed
charging case has vehicles arriving at charging locations and
intentionally minimizing charging power such that the session is
completed just prior to the vehicle's departure from that location\380\
The study also incorporates public charging such that the corresponding
high power needs are reflected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\378\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Kevala Inc., and U.S. Department of Energy.
``Multi-State Transportation Electrification Impact Study: Preparing
the Grid for Light-, Medium-, and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles''.
DOE/EE-2818. U.S. Department of Energy. March 2024. (``TEIS'').
\379\ EPA's combined light-duty and medium-duty rulemaking
action ``Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027
and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles'' Docket ID: EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0829. We refer to this action both as the Light- and
Medium-Duty (LMDV) rule and/or LD rule for short in this preamble.
\380\ TEIS at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The study estimates overload at the substation level (100 percent
criteria), feeder level (100 percent criteria), and at the residential
service transformer per feeder level (125 percent) criteria.\381\
Scenarios examined are for 2027 ``no action'' (i.e., baseline without
the LMDV or HD Phase 3 emission standards under the two rulemakings)
with and without mitigation (i.e., the EV charging management just
described), and the action case with EPA's LMDV and HD Phase 3 rules,
again both with and without mitigation. The action case uses the same
case EPA used for its national and regional estimates presented
previously in this section, which include higher electricity demand
than corresponds to the HD Phase 3 final standards under the modeled
potential compliance pathway. The study examines the same scenarios for
2032.\382\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\381\ TEIS at 47 (substation), 47 (feeder), and 49
(transformer).
\382\ TEIS at 2-3. The No Action case includes current state and
Federal policies and regulations as of April 2023. Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the national demand and high freight corridor
regional demand estimates, the TEIS projects minimal demand (energy
consumption) and minimal peak demand for both 2027 and 2032, even
without considering any mitigation. In 2032, that incremental increase
ranged from 1.6 percent to 2.7 percent.\383\ Incremental impact on peak
demand, again from the unmanaged case, was 0.1-0.2 percent in 2027 and
0.6-3.0 percent in 2032.\384\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\383\ TEIS at 56.
\384\ TEIS at 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If BEV users engage in simple management strategies--shifting
charging times as described previously in this section \385\--not only
do these z2estimates of energy consumption and peak demand impacts
decrease, but in some instances, peak demand is projected to decrease
in absolute terms, that is, to be less than in the no action unmanaged
case. Thus, for 2027, incremental peak demand decreases in four of the
five states, and remains identical in the fifth.\386\ For 2032,
incremental peak demand is positive in two of the states but the
increase is only 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent, and reduced in the other
states by 0.5-1.8 percent potentially obviating the need for any
buildout at all.\387\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\385\ TEIS at 4.
\386\ TEIS at 62.
\387\ TEIS at 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These minor increases reflect low numbers of transformers, feeders,
and substations estimated to be needed (again, for the five states at
issue, and for both LMDV and HD Phase 3 rules together). In 2027, only
1 additional substation is projected to be needed, and none in the
managed case.\388\ In 2032, the TEIS projects that only 8 substations
would be needed in the unmanaged case, 4 if conservative mitigative
measures are utilized.\389\ Projections for feeders are 9 in 2027 (5 in
the managed case), and 125 in 2032 (75 if managed). In 2027, the TEIS
projects 2,800 transformers (2,400 if managed), and 30,000 in 2032
(21,000 in the managed case).\390\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\388\ TEIS at Table ES-2.
\389\ TEIS at Table ES-2.
\390\ TEIS at Table ES-2. Compare this with the estimated 50
million transformers in use presently. See RTC section 7
(Distribution).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although new substations are a significant undertaking that can
take multiple years as shown in Table II-9, as noted, the TEIS finds
that only a small number are projected to be needed. We note further
that the estimates in the TEIS Study of the amount of distribution
buildout needed are conservative with respect to the HD Phase 3 rule.
First, the TEIS Study considered both the light/medium duty standards
and the HD Phase 3 emission standards together and did not disaggregate
the results. Second, as just noted, the action scenario considered
included higher electricity demand than corresponds to the Phase 3
final standards under the modeled potential compliance pathway. Third,
the ``unmanaged'' scenario presented considers no mitigation efforts at
all. If minimal mitigation efforts, characterized in the TEIS as ``a
conservative estimate of the benefits of managed charging'',\391\ are
considered
[[Page 29516]]
estimated impacts decrease sharply. The action managed case is
projected to reduce peak loads in all 5 States in 2027, and to reduce
peak loads in 3 of the 5 States in 2032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\391\ TEIS at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We further have modeled a potential compliance pathway whereby
almost all of the HD BEVs utilize Level 2 or DC-50 kW chargers for
depot EVSE, rather than higher rated chargers.\392\ These lower rated
chargers will not pose the types of electricity demand potentially
requiring distribution buildout upgrades as the higher-rated chargers
posited by some of the commenters.\393\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\392\ RIA chapter 2 at Table 2-73. The only exceptions are for
four tractors projected to utilize DC-150kW chargers (HD TRUCS
vehicles 30, 31, 83, and 101), and one additional tractor and one
transit bus projected to utilize DC-350kW chargers (HD TRUCS
vehicles 80 and 87).
\393\ The ICCT White Paper likewise finds that ``trucks with
smaller batteries can charge overnight with 50 kW CCS chargers or 19
kW Level 2 chargers in some cases.'' ICCT White Paper at p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA recognizes that from the standpoint of timing, it is important
to consider not only incremental increases in demand attributable to
the HD Phase 3 emission standards but also other demand from the light-
duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty transportation sector that might
occasion the need for distribution grid buildout. For example, buildout
potentially could be needed with respect to HD BEVs in the EPA
reference case. We continue to find that this overall demand can be
accommodated within the timeframe of the rule, for the following
reasons.
As discussed previously in this section, buildout need not occur
everywhere and all at once. In the rule's time frame, as shown in
particular in the ICCT 2023 White Paper, it can be centered in a
discrete number of high freight corridors.
In the early model years of the program, when lead time is the
shortest, projected demand remains low.\394\ When accounting for the
increase from all vehicles (light-duty and heavy-duty), we find the
portion of demand attributable to the entire heavy-duty vehicle sector
(including ACT) increases by only 2.6 percent between 2024 and
2027.\395\ That is, the increase in demand attributable specifically to
electric heavy-duty vehicles (including ACT), and therefore the
infrastructure buildout necessary to support those vehicles, is small
compared to other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\394\ TEIS at 75 showing national distribution costs in 2027
(reflecting both light- and heavy-duty sectors).
\395\ Murray, Evan, ``Calculations of the Impacts of the Final
Standards at Various Geographic Scales'' (February 29, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We further project that a substantial majority of these ACT-
compliant ZEVs would be light and medium heavy vocational vehicles
which utilize EVSE types least likely to occasion demand triggering
need for buildout. RIA Chapter 4.2.2. For example, the TEIS projects no
need for new and upgraded substations in 2027 nationally, and need for
only approximately 24-48 (managed and unmanaged cases) nationally in
2032.\396\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\396\ TEIS at 65 and using the TEIS analysis showing that the 5
states analyzed account for approximately one third of national
costs (TEIS at 66).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the demand comes from the states which have adopted
ACT.\397\ EPA notes that these states that have adopted the program
have undertaken and have on-going efforts to achieve it. See RTC
section 7 (Distribution) describing such on-going efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\397\ Murray, Evan ``Calculations of the Impacts of the Final
Standards at Various Geographic Scales'' (February 29, 2024).
(Demand by State tab).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to non-ACT states, most of the demand in these states
is attributable to the HD Phase 3 rule itself. See RIA Chapter 4.2.2.
As discussed in RTC section 7 (Distribution) with respect to high
freight corridors in non-ACT states (including Pennsylvania, Texas,
Arizona, and Illinois), that incremental demand is low, especially in
the initial year of the program. State-by state results show similar
small percentages of increased demand.\398\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\398\ Murray, Evan ``Calculations of the Impacts of the Final
Standards at Various Geographic Scales'' (February 29, 2024) (Demand
by State tab).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA agrees with this assessment from the Energy Strategy Coalition
(speaking for some of the nation's largest investor-owned electric and
gas utilities, public power authorities and generators of electricity):
``[d]emand for electricity will increase under both the HDV Proposal
and recently-proposed multi-pollutant standards for light-duty and
medium-duty vehicles . . . . but the electricity grid is capable of
planning for and accommodating such demand growth and has previously
experienced periods of significant and sustained growth.'' \399\ We
further note the comments of the Edison Electric Institute (trade
association of the nation's investor-owned utilities) (``EEI'') that
the degree of anticipated buildout is similar to increases experienced
historically by the utility industry, and can be accommodated within
the HD Phase 3 rule's timeframe. EEI Comments at 7, 8. The Analysis
Group reached a similar conclusion.\400\ Some commenters were concerned
that interactions with utilities and their regulatory commissions vary
state-by-state, and that this regime adds to grid buildout deployment
timing difficulties.\401\ Other commenters, however, persuasively
maintained that this localized system is actually a plus, because each
potential buildout is a localized decision, best handled by the local
utility and grid operator.\402\ As discussed further below, there are
also many mitigative measures which BEV users can utilize to reduce
demand, and the localized process could provide a means of developing
local site optimized mitigative measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\399\ Comments of Energy Strategy Coalition, at pp. 1-2.
\400\ Hibbard et al., ``Heavy Duty Vehicle Electrification''
(June 2023) at 27 (``Adding significant new distribution system
infrastructure is not a new experience for states, public utility
commissions, or electric companies, and there are long-standing
policies and practices in place to ensure timely planning for and
development of the infrastructure needed to endure system,
reliability. And for most states and electric companies in the
country. The magnitude and pace of system demand growth associated
with the rollout of the EPA's proposed phase 3 rule neither
different from past periods of economically-driven demand growth,
nor unusual with respect of the processes of forecasting, planning
and development required.'').
\401\ Comments of DTNA at 47; see also Comments of Environmental
Defense Fund at 67.
\402\ Comments of State of California at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we expect that the HD Phase 3 rule itself will serve as a
strong signal to the utility industry to make proactive investments and
otherwise proactively analyze and plan for potential buildout
needs.\403\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\403\ See Comments of CATF at 48; Comments of EDF at 75;
Comments of ICCT at 10; Comments of Moving Forward Network at 114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters pointed out that ``at the distribution system level it
is not sufficient to simply compare potential charging station demand
growth to system capacities.'' \404\ Numerous commenters also pointed
to a chicken-egg conundrum, whereby potential fleet purchasers
contemplating BEVs will not purchase without an assurance of adequate
electrical supply, but utilities cannot build out without having
assurance of demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\404\ Analysis Group Heavy Duty Vehicle Electrification at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that there are potential solutions to these issues.
First, as demonstrated previously in this section, we have projected a
potential compliance pathway to meet the final standards whereby there
will be limited need for grid distribution buildouts. Those buildouts
that we project largely involve transformers or feeders, and (in 2032)
a handful of expanded substations. We emphasize again that this
analysis is conservative in that we did not include ameliorative
measures available to utilities to apportion demand (discussed below).
[[Page 29517]]
Second, utilities can and are acting proactively to provide added
capacity when needed. As stated by EEI, ``EPA's assessment that `there
is sufficient time for the infrastructure, especially for depot
charging, to gradually increase over the remainder of this decade to
levels that support the stringency of the proposed standards for the
timeframe they would apply' is accurate. . . . . As described
previously in this section, EEI members actively are planning for and
deploying infrastructure today''. EEI Comments at 14. EEI documents
that a number of large utilities are finding ways to move away from a
business model requiring demonstration of concrete demand so as to
provide infrastructure readiness in advance of individual applications.
EEI comments at 12-14 (actions of California and New York State
investor-owned utilities, and their respective regulatory bodies); see
RTC section 7 (Distribution) for additional examples. And as noted by
the Energy Strategy Coalition (speaking for some of the nation's
largest investor-owned electric and gas utilities, public power
authorities and generators of electricity): ``[d]emand for electricity
will increase under both the HDV Proposal and recently-proposed multi-
pollutant standards for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles . . . . but
the electricity grid is capable of planning for and accommodating such
demand growth and has previously experienced periods of significant and
sustained growth.'' \405\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\405\ Comments of Energy Strategy Coalition, at pp. 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilities, of course, are motivated to continue investment in the
distribution system for reasons other than demand from the
transportation sector, and so could be building out in some cases for
their own purposes.\406\ In addition, utilities themselves are pursuing
innovative solutions to address the issue of needed buildout. One
approach is for utilities to make non-firm capacity available
immediately as they construct distribution system upgrades. See RTC 7
(Distribution) discussing Southern California Edison's two-year
Automated Load Control Management Systems pilot program which would
limit new customers' consumption during periods when the system is
constrained while the utility completes needed upgrades providing those
customers access to the distribution system sooner than would otherwise
be possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\406\ TEIS at 99-100, noting the need to replace aging assets,
and for scheduled maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plans like Southern California Edison's to use load management
systems to connect new EV loads faster in constrained sections of the
grid will be bolstered by standards for load control technologies. UL,
an organization that develops standards for the electronics industry,
drafted the UL 3141 Outline of Investigation (OOI) for Power Control
Systems (PCS). Manufacturers can use this standard for developing
devices that utilities can use to limit the energy consumption of BEVs.
With this standard in place and manufacturer completion of conforming
products, utilities will have a clear technological framework available
to use in load control programs that accelerate charging infrastructure
deployment for their customers.\407\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\407\ UL LLC. January 11, 2024. ``UL 3141: Outline for
Investigation of Power Control Systems.'' Available online: https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL3141_1_O_20240111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, there are means for utilities to ameliorate demand which do
not require regulatory approval. Utilities can engage in short-term
load rebalancing by optimizing use of existing distribution
infrastructure. This can accommodate new HDV demand while maintaining
overall system reliability.\408\ In addition, because depot charging
often occurs over nighttime hours corresponding to reduced system
demand, utilities have the flexibility to use otherwise extra grid
capacity for those hours (excess capacity being inherent in
constructing to nameplate capacity).\409\ Utilities also can reduce
needed demand by incorporating so-called smart charging into feeder
ratings and load forecasting whereby the utility need not provide
capacity based on annual peak load, but can differentiate by daily and
seasonal times.\410\ An available variant of this practice is use of
flexible interconnections, whereby customers agree to limit their peak
load to a specified level below the cumulative nameplate capacity of
their equipment (in this case, their EVSEs) until associated grid
upgrades can be completed, in order to begin operating any new needed
charging infrastructure more quickly.\411\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\408\ ICCT White Paper at 18-19.
\409\ ICCT White Paper at 19.
\410\ ICCT Comment at 12.
\411\ Comments of EDF at 69; Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI), ``Understanding Flexible Interconnection'' (September 2018)
(describing flexible interconnection generally, and detailing its
possibilities for reducing demands on time--and location-dependent
hosting capacity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many utilities also provide hosting capacity maps. Utilities,
developers, and other stakeholders can use these maps to better plan
and site energy infrastructure. Hosting capacity maps provide greater
transparency about where new loads such as EV chargers, can be readily
connected without triggering a need for significant grid upgrades.
Specifically, hosting capacity maps identify where power exists and at
what level, where distributed energy resources (DERs) can alleviate
grid constraints, or where an upgrade may be required. For example, EV
companies can use the maps to identify new areas to expand their
charging station networks more quickly and cost-effectively. While the
information in hosting capacity maps does not address all the
interconnection questions for individual sites, they can indicate
relative levels of investment needed.
Fourth, there are many mitigative measures open to fleet owners
utilizing depots. Readily available practices include use of managed
charging software, energy efficiency measures, and onsite battery
storage and solar generation.\412\ Hardware solutions include bi-
directional charging and V2G (vehicle to grid) whereby vehicles can
return electricity to the grid during peak hours while drawing at low
demand times.\413\ Solar DER allows on site electricity generation that
reduces the energy demand on the grid. Battery-integrated charging can
simplify and accelerate EVSE deployment and potentially lower costs by
avoiding the need for grid upgrades and reducing demand charges. These
charging stations are easier for electric utilities to serve on
relatively constrained portions of the distribution system. These
charging stations use integrated batteries to provide high-powered
charging to customers and recharge by drawing power from the grid at
much lower rates throughout the day. ANL's study on battery-integrated
charging shows that these systems can be deployed cost effectively for
Class 1-3 BEV needs.\414\ The use for LD BEV will at times eliminate
the need for grid buildout, making that hardware available for HD BEV
or other users that must have grid upgrades. While not a HD BEV
analysis, the process can be applied to HD BEV to determine when this
architecture provides value. Battery-integrated charging is
commercially available and, for example, is being deployed across
[[Page 29518]]
multiple states.415 416 All of these can reduce demand below
what would otherwise be nameplate capacity. See the comment summaries
in RTC section 7 discussion of distribution costs. Other innovative
charging solutions can also accelerate EV charging deployment. Mobile
chargers can be deployed immediately because they do not require an on-
site grid connection. They can be used as a temporary solution to bring
additional charging infrastructure to locations before a stationary,
grid-connected charger can be deployed. Additional innovative charging
solutions can further accelerate charging deployment by optimizing the
use of chargers that have already been installed. One company, EVMatch,
developed a software platform for sharing, reserving, and renting EV
charging stations, which can allow owners of charging stations to earn
additional revenue while making their chargers available to more EV
drivers to maximize the benefit of each deployed charger.\417\ This
scenario could allow HD BEV depots to earn revenue off of their
chargers while the HD BEV are on the road doing work. Innovative
charging models like these can be efficient ways to increase charging
access for EVs with a smaller amount of physical infrastructure. We
note that EPA's cost estimates do not include consideration of these
mitigative measures, since we project a compliance pathway without
needing them. However, these are all available measures to reduce
demand and need for distribution buildout, and consequently form part
of our basis for determining that there are reasonable means of
providing needed distribution buildout in the rule's timeframe when
there is a need to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\412\ Comments of EDF at 69.
\413\ Comments of Advanced Energy United, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1652-A2 at 4; Comments of Clean Air Task Force, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1640-A1 at 54; Analysis Group Heavy Duty Vehicle
Electrification at 33-4.
\414\ Poudel, Sajag, Jeffrey Wang, Krishna Reddi, Amgad
Elgowainy, Joann Zhou. 2024. Innovative Charging Solutions for
Deploying the National Charging Network: Technoeconomic Analysis.
Argonne National Laboratory.
\415\ Blink. ``Blink Charging Commissions First Battery Storage
Energized DC Fast Charger in Pennsylvania Providing Off-Grid
Charging Capabilities''. May 16, 2023. Available online: https://blinkcharging.com/news/blink-charging-commissions-first-battery-storage-energized-dc-fast-charger-in-pennsylvania-providing-off-grid-charging-capabilities.
\416\ Lewis, Michelle. ``Texas trailblazes with DC fast chargers
with integrated battery storage''. Electrek. February 12, 2024.
Available online: https://electrek.co/2024/02/12/texas-dc-fast-chargers-integrated-battery-storage-xcharge-north-ameri.
\417\ EVmatch. Available online: https://evmatch.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A variety of solutions are being offered for, or explored by,
fleets. For example, WattEV is planning a network of public charging
depots connecting ports to warehouses and distribution centers as part
of its ``Truck-as-a-Service'' model, in which customers pay a per mile
rate for use of, and charging for, a HD electric truck.\418\ The first
station under construction in Bakersfield, CA,\419\ is planned to have
integrated solar and eventually be capable of charging 200 trucks each
day; additional stations are under development in San Bernardino and
near the Port of Long Beach. Zeem Solutions also offers charging to
fleets along with a lease for one of its medium- or heavy-duty BEVs
(via its ``Transportation-as-a-Service'' model). Zeem's first depot
station opened last year in the Los Angeles area and will support the
charging of vans, trucks, airport shuttles, and tour buses (among other
vehicles) with its 77 DCFC ports and 53 L2 ports.\420\ As many
commenters noted, the question of availability of supporting
electrification infrastructure is not fully in the control of the
regulated entity (here, the manufacturer), nor is it fully in the
direct control of prospective vehicle purchasers. As all agree, this
necessitates some measure of coordination between a range of
stakeholders and utilities. Utilities have a strong business incentive
to coordinate to meet increased demand and many such means of
coordination are described in the comments by utility associations like
EEI,\421\ and the transportation industry coalition ZETA.\422\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\418\ WattEV. ``WattEV Orders 50 Volvo VNR Electric Trucks''.
May 23, 2022. Available online: https://www.wattev.com/post/wattev-orders-50-volvo-vnr-electric-trucks.
\419\ WattEV. ``WattEV Breaks Ground on 21st Century Truck
Stop''. December 16, 2021. Available online: https://www.wattev.com/post/wattev-breaks-ground-on-21st-century-truck-stop.
\420\ Business Wire. ``Zeem Solutions Launches First Electric
Vehicle Transportation-As-A-Service Depot.'' March 30, 2022.
Available online: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220330005269/en/Zeem-Solutions-Launches-First-Electric-Vehicle-Transportation-As-A-Service-Depot.
\421\ Comments of EEI pp. 10-16.
\422\ Comments of ZETA pp. 32-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, we believe that distribution systems to meet the potential
increase in charging station demand associated with depot charging
under the HD Phase 3 rule will be available in the rule's timeframe.
Quantified demand attributable to the rule is relatively modest, and,
where buildout might be needed, can be met for the most part with the
least time-intensive infrastructure buildout. We have also considered
further potential issues, including the chicken-egg paradigm, and
described means that are reasonably available to resolve them in the
lead time provided by the rule. Utilities and fleets are already
engaging in these practices. That the trade association of the
investor-owned utility industry agrees provides further support for our
finding. Comments of Edison Electric Institute at 14. See also preamble
section II.E.5.ii.
b. Public Charging
As noted earlier in this section, EPA has revised its projected
potential compliance pathway from proposal such that sleeper cab
tractors and certain day cab tractors are projected to utilize public
charging networks \423\ rather than depot charging. See generally,
preamble section II.D.5. We find here that there will be adequate lead
time for development of supporting public charging infrastructure for
these tractors under the modeled potential compliance pathway for the
final standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\423\ En-route charging could occur at public or private
charging stations though, for simplicity, we often refer to en-route
charging as occurring at public stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, as documented in the ICCT 2023 White Paper, there is no need
to build out all at once.\424\ It is reasonable to project that
activity will center on the busiest long-haul freight routes and
corridors. The White Paper further finds that in 2030, up to 85 percent
of charging infrastructure needs for long-haul trucks could be met by
building stations on discrete corridors of the National Highway Freight
Network where energy demand is concentrated. ICCT White Paper at 14.
Assuming an average of 50 miles between stops, this would mean a need
for 844 public charging stations. Id. In a supplemental analysis
assuming 100-mile intervals between stations, ICCT refined that
estimate to needing between 100-210 electrified truck stops, assuming a
given level of BEV long-haul tractors.\425\ We note that the ICCT
estimates in both the White Paper and the Supplemental comment assume
more long-haul BEV adoption than in EPA's projected compliance pathway
for 2030, and so, from that standpoint, can be considered to be
conservative bounding estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\424\ Ragon, et. al. ``White Paper: Near-Term Infrastructure
Deployment to Support Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles
in the United States''. The International Council on Clean
Transportation. May 2023. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23.pdf.
\425\ ICCT. ``Supplemental comments of the International Council
on Clean Transportation on the EPA Phase 3 GHG proposal''. January
3, 2024. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2024, the U.S. released a National Zero-Emission Freight
Corridor Strategy \426\ that, ``sets an actionable
[[Page 29519]]
vision and comprehensive approach to accelerating the deployment of a
world-class, zero-emission freight network across the United States by
2040. The strategy focuses on advancing the deployment of zero-emission
medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (ZE-MHDV) fueling infrastructure by
targeting public investment to amplify private sector momentum, focus
utility and regulatory energy planning, align industry activity, and
mobilize communities for clean transportation.'' \427\ The strategy has
four phases. The first phase, from 2024-2027, focuses on establishing
freight hubs defined ``as a 100-mile to a 150-mile radius zone or
geographic area centered around a point with a significant
concentration of freight volume (e.g., ports, intermodal facilities,
and truck parking), that supports a broader ecosystem of freight
activity throughout that zone.'' \428\ The second phase, from 2027-
2030, will connect key ZEV hubs, building out infrastructure along
several major highways. The third phase, from 2030-2045, will expand
the corridors, ``including access to charging and fueling to all
coastal ports and their surrounding freight ecosystems for short-haul
and regional operations.'' \429\ The fourth phase, from 2035-2040, will
complete the freight corridor network. This corridor strategy provides
support for the development of HD ZEV infrastructure that corresponds
to the modeled potential compliance pathway for meeting the final
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\426\ Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. ``National
Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy'' DOE/EE-2816 2024. March
2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf.
\427\ Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. ``Biden-Harris
Administration, Joint Office of Energy and Transportation Release
Strategy to Accelerate Zero-Emission Freight Infrastructure
Deployment.'' March 12, 2024. Available online: https://driveelectric.gov/news/decarbonize-freight.
\428\ Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. ``National
Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy'' DOE/EE-2816 2024. March
2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf. See page 3.
\429\ Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. ``National
Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy'' DOE/EE-2816 2024. March
2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf. See page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This level of public charging is achievable. As described in RIA
Chapter 1.3, the U.S. government is making large investments in
charging infrastructure through the BIL and the IRA. For example, in
the past year, over $160 million in grants under the Charging and Fuel
Infrastructure program were announced in the States of California, New
Mexico, New York, and Washington for projects that will explicitly
support HD charging.\430\ (See RTC section 6.1.) As described in RIA
Chapter 1.6, heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers, charging network
providers, energy companies and others are also investing in public or
other stations that could support public charging. For example, Daimler
Truck North America is involved in an initiative in the U.S. with
electric power generation company NextEra Energy Resources and
BlackRock Renewable Power to collectively invest $650 million create a
nationwide charging network for commercial electric vehicles.\431\ They
plan to start network construction in 2023 and by 2026 cover key routes
on the East and West Coast and in Texas with a later stage of the
project also supporting hydrogen fueling stations. DTNA is also working
with the State of Michigan and DTE to develop a prototype truck stop
charging station in Michigan that could serve as a model for broader
truck stop deployment.\432\ Volvo Group and Pilot recently announced
their intent to offer public charging for medium- and heavy-duty BEVs
at priority locations throughout the network of 750 Pilot and Flying J
North American truck stops and travel plazas.\433\ Tesla is developing
charging equipment for their semi-trucks that will recharge up to 70
percent of the Tesla semi-truck's 500-mile range in 30 minutes.\434\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\430\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration. ``Federal Highway Administrations' Charging and
Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grants Program: FY 2022-FY 2023
Grant Selections''. Available online: https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/CFI%20Grant%20Awards%20Project%20Descriptions%20FY22-23.pdf.
\431\ NextEra Energy. News Release: ``Daimler Truck North
America, NextEra Energy Resources and BlackRock Renewable Power
Announce Plans to Accelerate Public Charging Infrastructure for
Commercial Vehicles Across The U.S.'' January 31, 2022. Accessible
online: https://newsroom.nexteraenergy.com/news-releases?item=123840.
\432\ Daimler Trucks North America Press Release. ``State of
Michigan partners with Daimler Truck North America and DTE Energy to
build Michigan's `truck stop of the future.' '' June 29, 2023.
Available online: https://northamerica.daimlertruck.com/pressdetail/state-of-michigan-partners-with-daimler-2023-06-29.
\433\ Adler, Alan. ``Pilot and Volvo Group add to public
electric charging projects''. FreightWaves. November 16, 2022.
Available online: https://www.freightwaves.com/news/pilot-and-volvo-group-add-to-public-electric-charging-projects.
\434\ Tesla. ``Semi: The Future of Trucking is Electric.''
Available online: https://www.tesla.com/semi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other investments will support regional or local travel needs. For
example, Forum Mobility announced a $400 million investment for 1,000
or more DCFCs for BEV trucks that are planned for operation at the San
Pedro and Oakland ports.435 436 Logistics and supply chain
corporation NFI Industries is partnering with Electrify America to
install 34 DCFC ports (150 kW and 350kW) to support their BEV drayage
\437\ fleet that will service the ports of LA and Long Beach.\438\ With
funding from California, Volvo is partnering with Shell Recharge
Solutions and others to deploy five publicly accessible charging
stations by 2023 that will serve medium- and heavy-duty BEVs in
southern California between ports and industrial centers.\439\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\435\ As noted by the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation
in a summary of recent private sector investments in charging
infrastructure.
\436\ Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. ``Private
Sector Continues to Play Key Part in Accelerating Buildout of EV
Charging Networks.'' February 15, 2023. Available online: https://driveelectric.gov/news/private-innvestment.
\437\ Drayage trucks typically transport containers or goods a
short distance from ports to distribution centers, rail facilities,
or other nearby locations.
\438\ Electrify America. ``Electrify America and NFI Industries
Collaborate on Nation's Largest Heavy-Duty Electric Truck Charging
Infrastructure Project.'' August 31, 2021. Available online: https://media.electrifyamerica.com/en-us/releases/156.
\439\ Borras, Jo. ``Volvo Trucks Building an Electric Semi
Charging Corridor''. CleanTechnica. July 16, 2022. Available online:
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/16/volvo-trucks-building-an-electric-semi-charging-corridor/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States and utilities are also engaged. Seventeen states plus the
District of Columbia (and the Canadian province Quebec) developed a
``Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Action
Plan,'' which includes recommendations for planning for, and deploying,
charging infrastructure.\440\ California is investing $1.9 billion in
state funding through 2027 in BEV charging and hydrogen fueling
infrastructure (and related projects), including about one billion
specific to infrastructure for trucks and buses.\441\ The Edison
Electric Institute estimates that electric companies are investing
about $4 billion to advance charging infrastructure and fleets.\442\
The National Electric Highway Coalition, a group that includes more
than 60 electric companies and cooperatives that serve customers in 48
states and DC,\443\ aims to provide fast
[[Page 29520]]
charging along major highways in their service areas. Other utilities,
like the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA), are supporting
infrastructure through commercial electrification rebates. JEA is
offering rebates of up to $30,000 for DCFC stations and up to $5,200
for Level 2 stations.\444\ In the west, Nevada Energy was supporting
fleets by offering rebates for up to 75 percent of the project costs
for Level 2 ports and up to 50 percent of the project costs for DCFC
stations (subject to caps and restrictions).445 446 See
generally RIA Chapter 1.6.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\440\ ZEV Task Force. ``Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-
Emission Vehicle Action Plan: A Policy Framework to Eliminate
Harmful Truck and Bus Emissions''. July 2022. Available online:
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/multi-state-medium-and-heavy-duty-zev-action-plan-dual-page.pdf.
\441\ California Energy Commission. ``CEC Approves $1.9 Billion
Plan to Expand Zero-Emission Transportation Infrastructure''.
February 14, 2024. Available online: https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2024-02/cec-approves-19-billion-plan-expand-zero-emission-transportation-infrastructure.
\442\ Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. ``Private
Sector Continues to Play Key Part in Accelerating Buildout of EV
Charging Networks.'' February 15, 2023. Available online: https://driveelectric.gov/news/private-innvestment.
\443\ Edison Electric Institute. Issues & Policy: National
Electric Highway Coalition. Available online: https://www.eei.org/en/issues-and-policy/national-electric-highway-coalition.
\444\ U.S. Department of Energy. Alternative Fuels Data Center.
``Florida Laws and Incentives.'' See Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
0290.
\445\ Level 2 rebates are applicable to fleets with between 2
and 10 ports, and subject to a $5,000/port cap. DCFC rebates are
limited to 5 stations and are capped to the lesser of $400/kW or
$40,000 per station.
\446\ U.S. Department of Energy. Alternative Fuels Data Center.
``Commercial Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Station Rebates--Nevada
Energy (NV Energy).'' (Note: the program ended in June 2023.)
Available online: https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/12118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, given the relatively low demand, ability to prioritize
initial public charging deployment in discrete freight corridors, the
extra lead time afforded for HDV applications projected to utilize
public charging under the modeled potential compliance pathway, and the
amount of public and private investment, EPA projects that the
necessary public charging corresponding to the potential compliance
pathway will be available within the lead time afforded by the HD Phase
3 final standards. We note further that we will continue to monitor the
development of the HDV public charging infrastructure, as discussed in
preamble section II.B.2.iii.
c. Associated Costs
The TEIS documents low overall financial impact associated with
grid buildout. For 2027, the TEIS shows incremental distribution grid
capital investment of $195 million for the unmanaged action scenario.
When managed, that $195 million drops to $82 million.\447\ For 2032,
the TEIS shows incremental distribution grid capital investment of $2.3
billion for the unmanaged action scenario. When managed, the $2.3
billion drops to $1.6 billion.\448\ The savings is driven by the
reduction in peak incremental load achieved by the basic load
management applied in this study. More effective load management is
expected to be utilized in practice.\449\ Incremental distribution grid
investment to enable plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) charging ($2.3
billion across five states over 6 years assuming unmanaged charging)
was found to be approximately 3 percent of existing utility
distribution system investments (2027-2032).\450\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\447\ TEIS at Table ES-2.
\448\ TEIS at Table ES-2.
\449\ As noted in the previous section, the 5 state peak
incremental load is increased 0.6% to 3.0% (Oklahoma and Illinois
respectively) when unmanaged while the same increase is only 0.4% to
1.4% (same states) when managed. The total load is consistent across
unmanaged and managed as the managed simply adjusts when the load is
applied. The total incremental load is increased 1.6% to 2.7%
(Oklahoma and California) as a result of the action case.
\450\ TEIS at 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We think this increase in distribution investment is modest and
reasonable. Moreover, this value is conservative as it is inclusive of
effects for both the light- and medium-duty vehicle standards and the
heavy-duty Phase 3 rule and so overstates the amount of grid investment
associated with the final rule, and as it does not reflect managed
charging. The study finds that ``[m]anaged charging techniques can
decrease incremental distribution grid investment needs by 30 percent,
illustrating the potential for significant cost savings by optimizing
PEV charging and other loads at the local level.'' \451\ The managed
charging practices analyzed in the TEIS are minimal and are
characterized in the TEIS as ``a conservative estimate of the benefits
of managed charging.'' \452\ Given the very significant economic
benefits of managed charging, we expect the market to adopt managed
charging particularly under the influence of additional ZEV adoption
associated with the modeled potential compliance pathway of the final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\451\ TEIS at 76. PEV refers to Plug-in electric vehicles. Since
the TEIS is considering effects of both rules, it includes plug-in
hybrid vehicles as part of its analysis.
\452\ TEIS at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also estimated the impact on retail electricity prices based on
the TEIS. The TEIS results were extrapolated to all IPM regions in
order to estimate impacts on electricity rates using the Retail Price
Model (see RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2). We modeled retail electricity rates in
the no action case with unmanaged charging compared to the action case
with managed charging. We think this is a reasonable approach for the
reason just noted: \453\ given the considerable economic benefits of
managed charging, particularly in light of the increased PEV adoption
associated with the modeled potential compliance pathway of the final
rule, there is an extremely strong economic incentive for market actors
to adopt managed charging practices. Our analysis projects that there
is no difference in retail electricity prices in 2030 and the
difference in 2055 is only 2.5 percent.\454\ We estimate that the 2.5
percent difference is primarily due to distribution-level costs. Note
also that this is comparable to the 3 percent increase in distribution-
level investments estimated for the 5 states within the TEIS.\455\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\453\ Electricity demand in the action case was based on the
interim control case described in RIA Chapter 4.2.4 for heavy-duty
ZEVs and on Alternative 3 from the proposed ``Multipollutant
Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty Vehicles'' for light- and medium-duty vehicles. This
scenario was used in our modeling of charging costs in HD TRUCS, as
described in RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2. The no action case described here
is presented for comparative purposes, but was not utilized in our
HD TRUCS modeling.
\454\ We note that had we compared an unmanaged action scenario
with an unmanaged no-action scenario, or a managed action scenario
with a managed no-action scenario, we would expect only marginally
different electricity rates, given that distribution costs are a
very small part of total electricity costs.
\455\ TEIS at 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A -3 percent increase in distribution system build out correlates
to a small increase in manufacturing output so concerns regarding
supply chain timing and cost are minimal. The total costs are modest
both in and of themselves, as a percentage of grid investment even
without considering mitigation strategies, and in terms of effect on
electricity rates for users. EPA thus believes that the costs
associated with distribution grid buildout attributable to the Phase 3
rule are reasonable. See further discussion in preamble section
II.E.5.ii as to how we account for these costs in our analysis, and
note further that the TEIS cost estimates are reflected in that
analysis. See RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2. For a discussion of how we accounted
for distribution upgrade costs in our final rule analysis, see preamble
section II.E.5.ii and RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2.
d. Electricity Generation and, Transmission Reliability
As vehicle electrification load increases, alongside other new
loads from data centers, industry, and building electrification, the
grid will need to accommodate higher loads on generation and
transmission (in addition to distribution buildout, which is already
discussed). Our examination of the record, informed by our
consultations with DOE, FERC, and other power sector stakeholders, is
that the final standards of this rule, whether considered separately or
in combination with the light and medium duty vehicle standards and
upcoming power sector rules, are unlikely to adversely affect the
[[Page 29521]]
reliability of the electric grid, and that widespread adoption of HD
BEVs could have significant benefits for the electric power system.
In the balance of this section, we first provide an overview of the
electric power system and grid reliability. We then discuss the impacts
of this rule on generation. We find that the final rule, together with
the light and medium duty rule, are associated with modest increases in
electricity demand. We also conducted an analysis of resource adequacy,
which is an important metric in North American Electric Reliability
Corporation's (NERC) long-term reliability assessments. We find that
the final rule, together with the light and medium duty rule as well as
other EPA rules that regulate the EGU sector, are unlikely to adversely
affect resource adequacy. We then discuss transmission and find that
the need for new transmission lines associated with this rule and the
light and medium duty rule between now and 2050 is projected to be very
small, approximately one percent or less of transmission, and that
nearly all of the additional buildout overlaps with existing
transmission line right of ways. We find that this increase can
reasonably be managed by the utility sector and project that
transmission capacity will not constrain the increased demand for
electricity associated with the final rule.
Our electric power system can be broken down into three subsystems:
the electricity power generation, the electricity transmission network,
and the electricity distribution grid. This review covers each of these
subsystems in turn, beginning with generation. Electricity generation
is currently reliable, with ample resource adequacy, and the power
sector analysis conducted in support of this rule indicates that
resource adequacy will continue to remain unaffected. In the NPRM, we
modeled changes to power generation due to the increased electricity
demand anticipated in the proposal as part of our upstream analysis. In
the proposal, we concluded that grid reliability is not expected to be
adversely affected by the modest increase in electricity demand
associated with projected HD ZEV. 88 FR 25983. Several commenters
stated that EPA had failed to account for the combined impact of
various EPA rules when assessing the issue of grid reliability. These
rules cited by commenters (many of which were proposed rules) include
not only the proposed rule concerning emission standards for LDVs and
MDVs, but also the proposed rule for CO2 emissions from
electricity generating units, the cross-state air pollution rule, the
proposed rule for discharge to navigable waters for steam electric
units (under the Clean Water Act), and the proposed rule to control
leakage and other releases from of historic surface impoundments used
to manage waste from coal combustion (under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act). Other commenters agreed that the anticipated power
needed for the HD Phase 3 rule is a relatively small share of the
national electricity demand and that power generating capacity will not
be a constraint. These comments came from the electric utility sector,
from regulated entities themselves, from NGOs, and from affected
states.
The electric power system in the U.S. has historically been a very
reliable system,\456\ with utilities, system planners, and reliability
coordinators working together to ensure an efficient and reliable grid
with adequate resources for supply to meet demand at all times, and we
anticipate that this will continue in the future under these standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\456\ NREL, ``Explained: Reliability of the Current Power
Grid'', NREL/FS-6A40-87297, January 2024 (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/87297.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power interruptions caused by extreme weather are the most-commonly
reported, naturally-occurring factors affecting grid reliability, with
the frequency of these severe weather events increasing significantly
over the past twenty years due to climate change.\457\ Conversely,
decreasing emissions of greenhouse gases can be expected to help reduce
future extreme weather events, which would serve to reduce the risks
for electric power sector reliability. Extreme weather events include
snowstorms, hurricanes, and wildfires. These power interruptions have
significant impact on economic activity, with associated costs in the
U.S. estimated to be $44 billion annually.\458\ By requiring
significant reductions in GHGs from new motor vehicles, this rule
mitigates the harmful impacts of climate change, including the
increased incidence of extreme weather events that affect grid
reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\457\ DOE, Electric Disturbance Events (OE-417) Annual Summaries
for 2000 to 2023, https://www.oe.netl.doe.gov/OE417_annual_summary.aspx.
\458\ LaCommare, K.H., Eto, J.H., & Caswell, H.C. (2018, June).
Distinguishing Among the Sources of Electric Service Interruptions.
In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Probabilistic Methods
Applied to Power Systems (PMAPS) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average duration of annual electric power interruptions in the
U.S., approximately two hours, decreased slightly from 2013 to 2021,
when extreme weather events associated with climate change are excluded
from reliability statistics. When extreme weather events associated
with climate change are not excluded from reliability statistics, the
national average length of annual electric power interruptions
increased to about seven hours.\459\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\459\ EIA, U.S. electricity customers averaged seven hours of
power interruptions in 2021, 2022, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=54639#.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Around 93 percent of all power interruptions in the U.S. occur at
the distribution-level, with the remaining fraction of interruptions
occurring at the transmission- and generation-
levels.460 461As new light-duty PEV models continue to enter
the U.S. market, they are demonstrating increasing capability for use
as distributed grid energy resources. As of January 2024, manufacturers
have introduced, or plan to introduce, 24 MYs 2024-2025 PEVs with
bidirectional charging capable of supporting two to three days of
residential electricity consumption. These PEVs have capability to
discharge power on the order of 10 kW to residential loads or limited
commercial loads. As more HD BEVs enter the market, BEVs with larger
batteries and more power available will be available for bidirectional
charging. Such a capability could be used to provide limited backup
power to service stations providing petroleum fuels to emergency
vehicles in response to a local disruption in electrical service.\462\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\460\ Eto, Joseph H, Kristina Hamachi LaCommare, Heidemarie C
Caswell, and David Till. ``Distribution system versus bulk power
system: identifying the source of electric service interruptions in
the US.'' IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution 13.5 (2019)
717-723.
\461\ Larsen, P.H., LaCommare, K.H., Eto, J.H., & Sweeney, J.L.
(2015). Assessing changes in the reliability of the US electric
power system.
\462\ Mulfati, Justin. dcBel, ``New year, new bidirectional
cars: 2024 edition'' January 15, 2024. Accessed March 10, 2024.
Available at: https://www.dcbel.energy/blog/2024/01/15/new-year-new-bidirectional-cars-2024-edition/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now turn to the impacts of this rule on generation and resource
adequacy. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the RIA and as part of our
upstream analysis, we used MOVES to model changes to power generation
due to the increased electricity demand anticipated under the final
standards. Bulk generation and transmission system impacts are felt on
a larger scale, and thus tend to reflect smoother load growth and be
more predictable in nature. For a no action case, we project that
generation will increase by 4.2 percent between 2028 and 2030 and by 36
percent between 2030 and 2050. Further, we project the additional
generation needed to meet the projected demand of HD ZEVs from the
final rule combined with our estimate of the light-
[[Page 29522]]
and medium-duty PEVs under the light and medium duty multipollutant
rule, to be relatively modest compared to a no action case, ranging
from 0.93 percent in 2030 to approximately 12 percent in 2050 for both
actions combined. Of that increased generation, approximately 16
percent in 2030 and approximately 34 percent in 2050 is due to heavy-
duty ZEVs. Electric vehicle charging associated with the Action case
(light- and medium-duty combined with heavy-duty) is expected to
require 4 percent of the total electricity generated in 2030, which is
slightly more than the increase in total U.S. electricity end-use
consumption between 2021 and 2022.\463\ This is also roughly equal to
the combined latest U.S. annual electricity consumption estimates for
data centers \464\ and cryptocurrency mining operations,\465\ both
industries which have grown significantly in recent years and whose
electricity demand the utility sector has capably managed.\466\ EPA's
assessment is that national power generation will continue to be
sufficient as demand increases from electric vehicles associated with
both the HD Phase 3 Rule and the light and medium duty rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\463\ U.S. Energy Information Agency, Use of Electricity,
December 18, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php.
\464\ U.S. DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Data Centers and Servers (https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/data-centers-and-servers).
\465\ U.S. Energy Information Agency, Tracking Electricity
Consumption From U.S. Cryptocurrency Mining Operations, February 1,
2024, (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61364).
\466\ As we noted at proposal, and as several commenters agreed,
U.S. electric power utilities routinely upgrade the nation's
electric power system to improve grid reliability and to meet new
electric power demands. For example, when confronted with rapid
adoption of air conditioners in the 1960s and 1970s, U.S. electric
power utilities maintained reliability and met the new demand for
electricity by planning and building upgrades to the electric power
distribution system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the additional electricity demand associated with increasing
adoption of electric vehicles, some commenters raised concerns that the
additional demand associated with the rule could impact the reliability
of the power grid.\467\ To further assess the impacts of this rule on
grid reliability and resource adequacy, we conducted an additional grid
reliability assessment of the impacts of the rule and how projected
outcomes under the rule compare with projected baseline outcomes in the
presence of the IRA. Because we recognize that this rule is being
developed contemporaneously with the multipollutant emissions standards
for light-duty passenger cars and light trucks and for Class 2b and 3
vehicles, which also is anticipated to increase demand for electricity,
we analyzed the impacts of these two rules (the ``Vehicle Rules'') on
the grid together. EPA also considered several recently proposed rules
related to the grid that may directly impact the EGU sector (which we
refer to as ``Power Sector Rules'' \468\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\467\ EPA notes that manufacturers have a wide array of
compliance options, as discussed in section II.F.4 of the preamble.
For example, manufacturers could produce significantly fewer ZEVs
than in the central case, or even no ZEVs beyond the no action
baseline. Were manufacturers to choose these compliance pathways,
the increasing in electricity demand associated with the rule would
be smaller.
\468\ The recently proposed rules that we considered because
they may impact the EGU sector (which we refer to as ``Power Sector
Rules'') include: the proposed Existing and Proposed Supplemental
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric
Power Generation Point Source Category (88 FR 18824) (``ELG Rule''),
New Source Performance Standards for GHG Emissions from New,
Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired EGUs; Emission
Guidelines for GHG emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired EGUs
(88 FR 33240) (``111 EGU Rule''); and National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal-and Oil-Fired Electric Utility
Steam Generating units Review of the Residual Risk and Technology
Review (88 FR 24854) (``MATS RTR Rule''); EPA also considered all
final rules affecting the EGU sector in the modeling for the Vehicle
Rules. EPA also considered the impact of the proposed rule Hazardous
and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion
Residuals From Electric Utilities (88 FR 31982 (May 18, 2023)). See
RTC 7.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, we considered whether the Vehicles Rules alone and
combined with the Power Sector Rules would result in anticipated power
grid changes such that they (1) respect and remain within the confines
of key National Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
assumptions,\469\ (2) are consistent with historical trends and
empirical data, and (3) are consistent with goals, planning efforts and
Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) of industry itself.\470\ We
demonstrate that the effects of EPA's vehicle and power sector rules do
not preclude the industry from meeting NERC resource adequacy criteria
or otherwise adversely affect resource adequacy. This demonstration
includes explicit modeling of the impacts of the Vehicle Rules, an
additional quantitative analysis of the cumulative impacts of the
Vehicles Rules and the Power Sector Rules, as well as a review of the
existing institutions that maintain grid reliability and resource
adequacy in the United States. We conclude that the Vehicles Rules,
whether alone or combined with the Power Sector Rules, satisfy these
criteria and are unlikely to adversely affect the power sector's
ability to maintain resource adequacy or grid reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\469\ NERC was designated by FERC as the Electric Reliability
Organization (ERO) in 2005 and, therefore, is responsible for
establishing and enforcing mandatory reliability standards for the
North American bulk power system. Resource Adequacy Primer for State
Regulators, 2021, National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners (https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/752088A2-1866-DAAC-99FB-6EB5FEA73042).
\470\ Although this final rule was developed generally
contemporaneously with the LMDV rule, the two rulemakings are
separate and distinct. Since the LMDV rule was not complete as of
the date of our analysis, we have been required to make certain
assumptions for the purposes of this analysis to represent the
results of that rule. Our analysis of the proposed Power Sector
Rules is based on the modeling conducted for proposals. We believe
this analysis is a reasonable way of accounting for the cumulative
impacts of our rules affecting the EGU sector, including the
proposed Power Sector Rules, at this time. Our cumulative analysis
of the Vehicles and Power Sector Rules supports this final rule, and
it does not reopen any of the Power Sector Rules, which are the
subject of separate agency proceedings. Consistent with past
practice, as subsequent rules are finalized, EPA will perform
additional power sector modeling that accounts for the cumulative
impacts of the rule being finalized together with existing final
rules at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning with EPA's modeling of the Vehicle Rules, we used EPA's
Integrated Planning Model (IPM), a model with built-in NERC resource
adequacy constraints, to explicitly model the expected electric power
sector impacts associated with the two vehicle rules. IPM is a state-
of-the-art, peer-reviewed, multi-regional, dynamic, deterministic
linear programming model of the contiguous U.S. electric power sector.
It provides forecasts of least cost capacity expansion, electricity
dispatch, and emissions control strategies while meeting energy demand
and environmental, transmission, dispatch, and resource adequacy
constraints. IPM modeling we conducted for the Vehicle Rules includes
in the baseline all final rules that may directly impact the power
sector, including the final Good Neighbor Plan for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 88 FR 36654.
EPA has used IPM for over two decades, including for prior
successfully implemented rulemakings, to better understand power sector
behavior under future business-as-usual conditions and to evaluate the
economic and emissions impacts of prospective environmental policies.
The model is designed to reflect electricity markets as accurately as
possible. EPA uses the best available information from utilities,
industry experts, gas and coal market experts, financial institutions,
and government statistics as the basis for the detailed power sector
modeling in IPM. The model documentation provides additional
information on the assumptions discussed here as well as all other
model assumptions and inputs. EPA relied on the same model platform
[[Page 29523]]
at final as it did at proposal, but made substantial updates to reflect
public comments. Of particular relevance, the model framework relies on
resource adequacy-related constraints that come directly from NERC.
This includes NERC target reserve margins for each region, NERC
Electricity Supply & Demand load factors, and the availability of each
generator to serve load across a given year as reported by the NERC
Generating Availability Data System. Note that unit-level availability
constraints in IPM are informed by the average planned/unplanned outage
hours for NERC Generating Availability Data System.
Therefore, the model projections for the Vehicle Rules are showing
compliance pathways respecting these NERC resource adequacy criteria.
These NERC resource adequacy criteria are standards by which FERC, NERC
and the power sector industry judge that the grid is capable of meeting
demand. Thus, we find that modeling results demonstrating that the grid
will continue to operate within those resource adequacy criteria
supports the conclusion that the rules will not have an adverse impact
on resource adequacy, which is an essential element of grid
reliability.
EPA also considered the cumulative impacts of the Vehicle Rules
together with the Power Sector Rules, which, as noted, are several
recent proposed rules regulating the EGU sector. In a given rulemaking,
EPA does not generally analyze the impacts of other proposed
rulemakings, because those rules are, by definition, not final and do
not bind any regulated entities, and because the agency does not want
to prejudge separate and ongoing rulemaking processes. However, some
commenters on this rule expressed concern regarding the cumulative
impacts of these rules when finalized, claiming that the agency's
failure to analyze the cumulative impacts of the Vehicle Rules and its
EGU-sector related rules rendered this rule arbitrary and capricious.
In particular, commenters argued that renewable energy could not come
online quickly enough to make up for generation lost due to fossil
sources that may retire, and that this together the increasing demand
associated with the Vehicle Rules would adversely affect resource
adequacy and grid reliability. EPA conducted additional analysis of
these cumulative impacts in response to these comments. Our analysis
finds that the cumulative impacts of the Vehicle Rules and Power Sector
Rules is associated with changes to the electric grid that are well
within the range of fleet conditions that respect resource adequacy, as
projected by multiple, highly respected peer-reviewed models. In other
words, taking into consideration a wide range of potential impacts on
the power sector as a result of the IRA and Power Sector Rules
(including the potential for much higher variable renewable
generation), as well the potential for increased demand for electricity
from both this rule and the light and medium duty rule, EPA found that
the Vehicle Rules and proposed Power Sector Rules are not expected to
adversely affect resource adequacy and that EPA's rules will not
inhibit the industry from its responsibility to maintain a grid capable
of meeting demand without disruption.
Finally, we note the numerous existing and well-established
institutional guardrails at the Federal- and state-level, as well as
non-governmental organizations, which we expect to continue to maintain
resource adequacy and grid reliability. These well-established
institutions--including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), state Public Service Commissions (PSC), Public Utility
Commissions (PUC), and state energy offices, as well as NERC and
Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) and Independent System
Operator (ISO)--have been in place for decades, during which time they
have ensured the resource adequacy and reliability of the electric
power sector. As such, we expect these institutions will continue to
ensure that the electric power sector is safe and reliable, and that
utilities will proactively plan for electric load growth associated
with all future electricity demand, including those increases due to
our final rule. We also expect that utilities will continue to
collaborate with EGU owners to ensure that any EGU retirements will
occur in an orderly and coordinated manner. We also note that EPA's
proposed Power Sector rules include built-in flexibilities that
accommodate a variety of compliance pathways and timing pathways, all
of which helps to ensure the resource adequacy and grid reliability of
the electric power system.\471\ In sum, the power sector analysis
conducted in support of this rule indicates that the Vehicle Rules,
whether alone or combined with the Power Sector Rules, are unlikely to
affect the power sector's ability to maintain resource adequacy and
grid reliability.\472\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\471\ As noted, EPA is not prejudging the outcome of any of the
Power Sector Rules.
\472\ See ``Resource Adequacy Analysis Final Rule Technical
Memorandum for Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years
2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles, and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles--Phase 3,''
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has studied the issue of grid reliability carefully and
consulted with staff of DOE, FERC and the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) in reaching conclusions regarding bulk power system
reliability and related issues. EPA's assessment is that national power
generation will continue to be sufficient as demand increases from HD
ZEVs as well as LD PEVs to the levels projected in the potential
compliance pathways that support the feasibility of both final rules'
standards while considering relevant electricity generation policy.
EPA's assessment is supported by the quantified estimates from the
utility industry, regulated entities, NGOs, and expert commenters, all
of which corroborate EPA's conclusion and provide quantified estimates
of minimal demand, which are quite similar to EPA's.\473\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\473\ Hibbard, Paul. ``Heavy Duty Vehicle Electrification
Planning for and Development of Needed Power System
Infrastructure''. Analysis Group for EDF. June 2023. Available
Online: https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files/Analysis-Group-HDV-Charging-Impacts-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A smaller number of commenters maintained that there could be
shortages of electricity transmission capacity. We disagree. See RTC
section 7.1. As described in that response, with respect to new
transmission, the need for new transmission lines associated with the
LMDV and HDP3 rules between now and 2050 is projected to be very small,
approximately one percent or less of transmission. Nearly all of the
projected new transmission builds appear to overlap with pre-existing
transmission line right of ways (ROW), which makes the permitting
process simpler. Approximately 41-percent of the potential new
transmission line builds projected by IPM have already been
independently publicly proposed by developers. The approximate regional
distribution of the potential new transmission line builds are:
24 percent in the West (excluding Southern California),
which are largely Federal lands, that are more-easily permittable for
new transmission builds;
21 percent in the desert Southwest, which are largely
Federal lands, that are more-easily permittable for new transmission
builds;
14 percent in the Midwest;
9 percent for each of the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and
Southeast and Mid-Atlantic regions; and
[[Page 29524]]
5 percent for each for Southern California and New York
State/City regions.\474\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\474\ See Multi-Pollutant Emission Standards for Model Years
2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Regulatory Impact Analysis
at 5-22 (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters pointed to recent regulatory actions approving
several large-scale regional transmission expansions, plus actions by
this Administration to expedite such expansions. DOE recently announced
several programs and projects aimed at helping to alleviate the
interconnection queue backlog,475 476 including the Grid
Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) program, with $10.5
billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding to develop and deploy
Grid Enhancing Technologies (GET).477 478 479 FERC has
issued various orders to address interconnection queue backlogs,
improve certainty, and prevent undue discrimination for new
technologies.480 481 482 FERC Order 2023, for example,
requires grid operators to adopt certain interconnection practices with
the goal of reducing interconnection delays. These practices include a
first-ready, first-served interconnection process that requires new
generators to demonstrate commercial readiness to proceed, and a
cluster study interconnection process that studies many new generators
together.\483\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\475\ DOE Interconnection Innovation e-Xchange (i2X), https://www.energy.gov/eere/i2x/interconnection-innovation-e-xchange.
\476\ Abboud, A.W., Gentle, J.P., Bukowski, E.E., Culler, M.J.,
Meng, J.P., & Morash, S. (2022). A Guide to Case Studies of Grid
Enhancing Technologies (No. INL/MIS-22-69711-Rev000). Idaho National
Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States).
\477\ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Implementation of
Dynamic Line Ratings, Docket No. AD22-5-000 (87 FR 10349, February
24, 2022), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/24/2022-03911/implementation-of-dynamic-line-ratings.
\478\ DOE, Dynamic Line Rating, 2019, https://www.energy.gov/oe/articles/dynamic-line-rating-report-congress-june-2019.
\479\ DOE, Advanced Transmission Technologies, 2020, https://www.energy.gov/oe/articles/advanced-transmission-technologies-report.
\480\ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Improvements to
Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements, Docket No.
RM22-14-000; Order No. 2023 (July 28, 2023), https://www.ferc.gov/media/e-1-order-2023-rm22-14-000.
\481\ https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/staff-presentation-improvements-generator-interconnection-procedures-and.
\482\ FERC regulates interstate regional transmission planning
and is currently finalizing a major rule to improve transmission
planning. The rule would require that transmission operators do long
term planning and would require transmission providers to work with
states to develop a cost allocation formula, among other changes.
\483\ See generally FERC Order 1023, 184 FERC 61,054 (July 28,
2023) (Docket No. RM22-14-000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy storage projects can also be used to help to reduce
transmission line congestion and are seen as alternatives to
transmission line construction in some cases.484 485 These
projects, known as Storage As Transmission Asset (SATA),\486\ can help
to reduce transmission line congestion, have smaller footprints, have
shorter development, permitting, and construction times, and can be
added incrementally, as required. Examples of SATA projects include the
ERCOT Presidio Project,\487\ a 4 MW battery system that improves power
quality and reducing momentary outages due to voltage fluctuations, the
APS Punkin Center,\488\ a 2 MW, 8 MWh battery system deployed in place
of upgrading 20 miles of transmission and distribution lines, the
National Grid Nantucket Project,\489\ a 6 MW, 48 MWh battery system
installed on Nantucket Island, MA, as a contingency to undersea
electric supply cables, and the Oakland Clean Energy Initiative
Projects,\490\ a 43.25 MW, 173 MWh energy storage project to replace
fossil generation in the Bay area. Through such efforts, the
interconnection queues can be reduced in length, transmission capacity
on existing transmission lines can be increased, additional generation
assets can be brought online, and electricity generated by existing
assets will be curtailed less often. These factors help to improve
overall grid reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\484\ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Managing
Transmission Line Ratings, Docket No. RM20-16-000; Order No. 881
(December 16, 2021), https://www.ferc.gov/media/e-1-rm20-16-000.
\485\ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Staff Presentation
Final Order Regarding Managing Transmission Line Ratings FERC Order
881 (December 16, 2021), https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/staff-presentation-final-order-regarding-managing-transmission-line-ratings.
\486\ Nguyen, T.A., & Byrne, R.H. (2020). Evaluation of Energy
Storage As A Transmission Asset (No. SAND2020-9928C). Sandia
National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States).
\487\ http://www.ettexas.com/Content/documents/NaSBatteryOverview.pdf.
\488\ Arizona Public Service Company, 2023 Integrated Resource
Plan, https://www.aps.com/-/media/APS/APSCOM-PDFs/About/Our-Company/Doing-business-with-us/Resource-Planning-and-Management/APS_IRP_2023_PUBLIC.ashx.
\489\ Balducci, P.J., et al. (2019). Nantucket island energy
storage system assessment (No. PNNL-28941). Pacific Northwest
National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States), https://energystorage.pnnl.gov/pdf/PNNL-28941.pdf.
\490\ https://www.pgecurrents.com/articles/2799-pg-e-proposes-two-energy-storage-projects-oakland-clean-energy-initiative-cpuc.
_____________________________________-
The previous sections cover grid reliability in the sense of
adequacy and primarily address if the electricity generation and
transmission subsystems can deliver the required power to the
distribution subsystem. The ability of the distribution system to
develop in a timely and cost effective manner and support what may be
required for the HD Phase 3 and LMDV rules, is covered in section
II.D.2.iii.a and iii.b of this preamble. Here, the issue of grid
reliability and resilience assumes the required hardware is in place
and assesses if that hardware will continue to deliver electricity with
a high probability of success. Comments showed concern that the grid
may not have adequate reliability due to severe storms, wildfires, and
similar challenges. Commenters emphasized that without electricity
supply, many HD BEV would not be able to deliver the work required.
We first note that most of these comments were general, posing
potential issues of grid reliability unrelated to potential demand
resulting from the HD Phase 3 standards. As noted, that demand is low
and encompassable within the HD Phase 3 rule's time frame. In response
to these general comments, we note that the U.S. electricity grid
continues to be very reliable. Power interruptions caused by extreme
weather are the most-commonly reported, naturally- occurring factors
affecting grid reliability,\491\ with the frequency of these severe
weather events increasing significantly over the past twenty years due
to climate change.\492\ Conversely, decreasing emissions of greenhouse
gases can be expected to avoid future extreme weather events, which
would serve to increase electric power sector reliability. Extreme
weather events include snowstorms, hurricanes, and wildfires. These
power interruptions have significant impact on economic activity, with
associated costs in the U.S. estimated to be $44 billion annually.\493\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\491\ DOE, Electric Disturbance Events (OE-417) Annual Summaries
2023, https://www.oe.netl.doe.gov/OE417_annual_summary.aspx.
\492\ DOE, Electric Disturbance Events (OE-417) Annual Summaries
for 2000 to 2023, https://www.oe.netl.doe.gov/OE417_annual_summary.aspx.
\493\ LaCommare, K.H., Eto, J.H., & Caswell, H.C. (2018, June).
Distinguishing Among the Sources of Electric Service Interruptions.
In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Probabilistic Methods
Applied to Power Systems (PMAPS) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average duration of annual electric power interruptions in the
U.S., approximately two hours, decreased slightly from 2013 to 2021,
when extreme weather events associated with climate change are excluded
from reliability statistics. When extreme weather events associated
with climate change are not excluded from reliability statistics, the
national average length of
[[Page 29525]]
annual electric power interruptions increased to about seven
hours.\494\ Around 93 percent of all power interruptions in the U.S.
occur at the distribution-level, with the remaining fraction of
interruptions occurring at the generation- and transmission-
levels.495 496 We do not project the HD Phase 3 rule as
having a significant effect on any of these trends given the low demand
on the grid posed by the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\494\ EIA, U.S. electricity customers averaged seven hours of
power interruptions in 2021, 2022, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=54639#.
\495\ Eto, Joseph H, Kristina Hamachi LaCommare, Heidemarie C
Caswell, and David Till. ``Distribution system versus bulk power
system: identifying the source of electric service interruptions in
the US.'' IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution 13.5 (2019)
717-723.
\496\ Larsen, P.H., LaCommare, K.H., Eto, J.H., & Sweeney, J.L.
(2015). Assessing changes in the reliability of the U.S. electric
power system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. HD Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Technology and Supporting
Infrastructure
Fuel cell technologies that run on hydrogen have been in existence
for decades, though they are just starting to enter the heavy-duty
transportation market. Hydrogen FCEVs are similar to BEVs in that they
have batteries and use an electric motor instead of an internal
combustion engine to power the wheels. Unlike BEVs that need to be
plugged in to recharge, FCEVs have fuel cell stacks that use a chemical
reaction involving hydrogen to generate electricity. Fuel cells with
electric motors are more efficient than ICEs that run on gasoline or
diesel, requiring less energy to fuel.\497\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\497\ U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center.
``Hydrogen Basics''. Available online: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_basics.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy-duty FCEVs are considered in the modeled potential compliance
pathway due to several considerations. They do not emit air pollution
at the tailpipe--only heat and pure water.\498\ With current and near-
future technologies, energy can be stored more densely onboard a
vehicle as gaseous or liquid hydrogen than it can as electrons in a
battery, which enables longer ranges. HD FCEVs can package more energy
onboard with less weight than batteries in today's BEVs, which allows
for their potential use in heavy-duty sectors that are difficult for
BEV technologies due to payload impacts. HD FCEVs also have rapid
refueling times.\499\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\498\ U.S. Department of Energy, Fuel Cell Technologies Office.
``Fuel Cells''. November 2015. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/11/f27/fcto_fuel_cells_fact_sheet.pdf.
\499\ U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies Office. ``The #H2IQ Hour: Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Decarbonization''. September 21, 2023. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/h2iqhour-09212023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the following sections, and in RIA Chapter 1.7, we discuss key
technology components unique to HD FCEVs.
i. Fuel Cell System
A fuel cell stack is a module that may contain hundreds of fuel
cell units that generate electricity, typically combined in
series.\500\ A heavy-duty FCEV may have several fuel cell stacks to
meet the power needs of a comparable ICE vehicle. A fuel cell system
includes the fuel cell stacks and ``balance of plant'' (BOP) components
(e.g., pumps, sensors, compressors, humidifiers) that support fuel cell
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\500\ U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies Office. ``Fuel Cell Systems''. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cell-systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though there are many types of fuel cell technologies, polymer
electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells are typically used in
transportation applications because they offer high power density and
therefore have low weight and volume. They can operate at relatively
low temperatures, which allows them to start quickly.\501\ PEM fuel
cells are built using membrane electrode assemblies (MEA) and
supportive hardware. The MEA includes the PEM electrolyte material,
catalyst layers (anode and cathode), and gas diffusion layers.\502\
Hydrogen fuel and oxygen enter the MEA and chemically react to generate
electricity, which is either used to propel the vehicle or stored in a
battery to meet future power needs. The process creates excess water
vapor and heat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\501\ U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies Office. ``Types of Fuel Cells''. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/types-fuel-cells.
\502\ U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies Office. ``Parts of a Fuel Cell''. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/parts-fuel-cell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key BOP components include the air supply system that provides
oxygen, the hydrogen supply system, and the thermal management system.
With the help of compressors and sensors, these components monitor and
regulate the pressure and flow of the gases supplied to the fuel cell
along with relative humidity and temperature. Similar to ICEs and
batteries, PEM fuel cells require thermal management systems to control
the operating temperatures. It is necessary to control operating
temperatures to maintain stack voltage and the efficiency and
performance of the system. There are different strategies to mitigate
excess heat that comes from operating a fuel cell. For example, a HD
vehicle may include a cooling system that circulates cooling fluid
through the stack.\503\ As the fuel cell ages and becomes less
efficient, more waste heat will be generated that requires removal. A
cooling system may be designed to accommodate end-of-life needs, which
can be up to two times greater than they are at the beginning of
life.\504\ Waste heat recovery solutions are emerging.\505\ The excess
heat also can in turn be used to heat the cabin, similar to ICE
vehicles. Power consumed to operate BOP components can also impact the
fuel cell system's overall efficiency.506 507
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\503\ Hyfindr. ``Fuel Cell Stack''. Available online: https://hyfindr.com/fuel-cell-stack/.
\504\ Pardhi, Shantanu, et. al. ``A Review of Fuel Cell
Powertrains for Long-Haul Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Technology, Hydrogen,
Energy and Thermal Management Systems''. Energies 15(24). December
2022. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/24/9557.
\505\ Baroutaji, Ahmad, et. al. ``Advancements and prospects of
thermal management and waste heat recovery of PEMFC''. Interational
Journal of Thermofluids: Volume 9. February 2021. Available online:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666202721000021.
\506\ Hoeflinger, Johannes and Peter Hofmann. ``Air mass flow
and pressure optimization of a PEM fuel cell range extender
system''. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Volume 45:53.
October 30, 2020. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319920327841.
\507\ Pardhi, Shantanu, et. al. ``A Review of Fuel Cell
Powertrains for Long-Haul Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Technology, Hydrogen,
Energy and Thermal Management Systems''. Energies 15(24). December
2022. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/24/9557.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To improve fuel cell performance, the air and hydrogen fuel that
enter the system may be compressed, humidified, and/or filtered.\508\ A
fuel cell operates best when the air and the hydrogen are free of
contaminants, since contaminants can poison and damage the catalyst.
PEM fuel cells require hydrogen that is over 99 percent pure, which can
add to the fuel production cost.509 510 Hydrogen produced
from natural gas tends to have more impurities initially (e.g., carbon
monoxide and ammonia, associated with the reforming of hydrocarbons)
than hydrogen produced from water through electrolysis.\511\ There are
[[Page 29526]]
standards such as ISO 14687 that include hydrogen fuel quality
specifications for use in vehicles to minimize impurities.\512\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\508\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Assessment of Fuel
Cell Technologies at Ports''. Prepared for EPA by Eastern Research
Group, Inc. EPA-420-R-22-013. July 2022. Available online: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1015AQX.pdf.
\509\ Hyfindr. ``Hydrogen PEM Fuel Cell''. Available online:
https://hyfindr.com/pem-fuel-cell/.
\510\ U.S. DRIVE Partnership. ``Hydrogen Production Tech Team
Roadmap''. U.S. Department of Energy. November 2017. Available
online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/us-drive-hydrogen-production-technical-team-roadmap.
\511\ Nhuyen, Huu Linh, et. al. ``Review of the Durability of
Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell in Long-Term Operation: Main
Influencing Parameters and Testing Protocols''. Energies 14(13).
July 2021. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/13/4048.
\512\ International Organization for Standardization. ``ISO
14687: 2019, Hydrogen fuel quality--Product specification''.
November 2019. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/69539.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel cell durability is important in heavy-duty applications, given
that vehicle owners and operators often have high expectations for
drivetrain lifetimes in terms of years, hours, and miles. Fuel cells
can be designed to meet durability needs (i.e., the ability of the
stack to maintain its performance over time). Considerations must be
included in the design to accommodate operations in less-than-optimized
conditions. For example, prolonged operation at high voltage (low
power) or when there are multiple transitions between high and low
voltage can stress the system. As a fuel cell system ages, a fuel
cell's MEA materials can degrade, and performance and maximum power
output can decline. The fuel cell can become less efficient, which can
cause it to generate more excess heat and consume more fuel.\513\ DOE's
ultimate long-term technology target for Class 8 HD trucks is a fuel
cell lifetime of 30,000 hours, corresponding to an expected vehicle
lifetime of 1.2 million miles.\514\ A voltage degradation of 10 percent
at rated power (i.e., the power level the cell is designed for) by end-
of-life is considered by DOE when evaluating targets.\515\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\513\ Nhuyen, Huu Linh, et. al. ``Review of the Durability of
Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell in Long-Term Operation: Main
Influencing Parameters and Testing Protocols''. Energies 14(13).
July 2021. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/13/4048.
\514\ Marcinkoski, Jason et. al. ``Hydrogen Class 8 Long Haul
Truck Targets''. U.S. Department of Energy. October 31, 2019.
Available online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/19006_hydrogen_class8_long_haul_truck_targets.pdf.
\515\ Marcinkoski, Jason et. al. ``Hydrogen Class 8 Long Haul
Truck Targets''. U.S. Department of Energy. October 31, 2019.
Available online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/19006_hydrogen_class8_long_haul_truck_targets.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the fuel cell stack is the most expensive component of a
fuel cell system,\516\ which is the most expensive part of a heavy-duty
FCEV, primarily due to the technological requirements of manufacturing
rather than raw material costs.\517\ Larger production volumes are
anticipated as global demand increases for fuel cell systems for HD
vehicles, which could improve economies of scale.\518\ Durability
improvements are anticipated to also result in decreased operating
costs, as they could extend the life of fuel cells and reduce the need
for parts replacement.\519\ Fuel cells contain PEM catalysts that
typically are made using precious metals from the platinum group, which
are expensive but efficient and can withstand conditions in a cell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\516\ Papageorgopoulos, Dimitrios. ``Fuel Cell Technologies
Overview''. U.S. Department of Energy. June 6, 2023. Available
online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/review23/fc000_papageorgopoulos_2023_o.pdf.
\517\ Deloitte China and Ballard. ``Fueling the Future of
Mobility: Hydrogen and fuel cell solutions for transportation,
Volume 1''. 2020. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cn/Documents/finance/deloitte-cn-fueling-the-future-of-mobility-en-200101.pdf.
\518\ Deloitte China and Ballard. ``Fueling the Future of
Mobility: Hydrogen and fuel cell solutions for transportation,
Volume 1''. 2020. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cn/Documents/finance/deloitte-cn-fueling-the-future-of-mobility-en-200101.pdf.
\519\ Deloitte China and Ballard. ``Fueling the Future of
Mobility: Hydrogen and fuel cell solutions for transportation,
Volume 1''. 2020. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cn/Documents/finance/deloitte-cn-fueling-the-future-of-mobility-en-200101.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Geological Survey's 2022 list of critical minerals
includes platinum (as one of several platinum group metals, or PGMs),
as used in catalytic converters. Critical minerals are defined in the
Energy Act of 2020 as being essential to the economic or national
security of the U.S. and vulnerable to supply chain disruption.\520\
DOE's 2023 Critical Materials Assessment, performed independently from
a global perspective and focused on the importance of materials to
clean energy technologies in future years, identifies PGMs used in
hydrogen electrolyzers such as platinum and iridium as critical. They
screened out PGMs used in catalytic converters, such as rhodium and
palladium. This distinction was made due to the increased focus on
hydrogen technologies, including long-distance HD trucks, to achieve
carbon emissions reductions, and an anticipated decrease in the
importance of catalytic converters in the medium term (i.e., the 2025
to 2035 timeframe).\521\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\520\ 87 FR 10381. ``2022 Final List of Critical Minerals''.
U.S. Geological Survey. February 24, 2022. Available online: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/24/2022-04027/2022-final-list-of-critical-minerals.
\521\ U.S. Department of Energy. ``Critical Materials
Assessment''. July 2023. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/doe-critical-material-assessment_07312023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efforts are underway to minimize or eliminate the use of platinum
in catalysts.\522\ DOE issued a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA)
in 2023 in anticipation of growth in hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies and systems. A portion of the FOA is designed to enable
improvements in recovery and recycling, and applicants are encouraged
to find ways to reduce or eliminate PGMs from catalysts in both PEM
fuel cells and electrolyzers to reduce reliance on virgin
feedstocks.\523\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\522\ Berkeley Lab. ``Strategies for Reducing Platinum Waste in
Fuel Cells. November 2021. Available online: https://als.lbl.gov/strategies-for-reducing-platinum-waste-in-fuel-cells/.
\523\ U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies Office. ``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Clean Hydrogen
Electrolysis, Manufacturing, and Recycling: Funding Opportunity
Announcement Number DE-FOA-0002922''. March 15, 2023 (Last Updated:
March 31, 2023). Available online: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaIda9a89bda-618a-4f13-83f4-9b9b418c04dc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Fuel Cell and Battery Interaction
The instantaneous power required to move a FCEV can come from
either the fuel cell, the battery, or a combination of both.
Interactions between the fuel cells and batteries of a FCEV can be
complex and may vary based on application. Each manufacturer likely
will employ a unique strategy to optimize the durability of these
components and manage costs. The strategy selected will impact the size
of the fuel cell and the size of the battery.
The fuel cell can be used to charge the battery that in turn powers
the wheels (i.e., series hybrid or range-extending), or it can work
with the battery to provide power (i.e., parallel hybrid or primary
power) to the wheels. In the emerging HD FCEV market, when used to
extend range, the fuel cell tends to have a lower peak power potential
and may be sized to match the average power needed during a typical use
cycle, including steady highway driving. At idle, the fuel cell may run
at minimal power or turn off based on state of charge of the battery.
The battery is used during prolonged high-power operations such as
grade climbing and is typically in charge-sustaining mode, which means
the average state of charge is maintained above a certain level while
driving. When providing primary power, the fuel cell tends to have a
larger peak power potential, sized to match all power needs of a
typical duty cycle and to meet instantaneous power needs. The battery
is mainly used to capture energy from regenerative braking and to help
with acceleration and other transient power demands.\524\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\524\ Islam, Ehsan Sabri, Ram Vijayagopal, Aymeric Rousseau. ``A
Comprehensive Simulation Study to Evaluate Future Vehicle Energy and
Cost Reduction Potential'', Report to the U.S. Department of Energy,
Contract ANL/ESD-22/6. October 2022. See Full report. Available
online: https://anl.app.box.com/s/an4nx0v2xpudxtpsnkhd5peimzu4j1hk/file/1406494585829.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29527]]
Based on how the fuel cells and batteries are managed,
manufacturers may use different types of batteries in HD FCEVs. Energy
battery cells are typically used to store energy for applications with
distance needs. Power battery cells are typically used to provide
additional high power for applications with high power needs.\525\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\525\ Sharpe, Ben and Hussein Basma. ``A Meta-Study of Purchase
Costs for Zero-Emission Trucks''. International Council on Clean
Transportation. February 2022. Available online: https://theicct.org/publication/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Onboard Hydrogen Storage Tanks
Fuel cell vehicles carry hydrogen fuel onboard using multiple large
tanks. Hydrogen has high gravimetric density (amount of energy stored
per unit of mass) but extremely low volumetric density (amount of
energy stored per volume), so it must be compressed or liquified for
use. There are various techniques for storing hydrogen onboard a
vehicle, depending on how much fuel is needed to meet range
requirements. Most transportation applications today use Type IV
tanks,\526\ which typically include a plastic liner wrapped with a
composite material such as carbon fiber that can withstand high
pressures with minimal weight.527 528 High-strength carbon
fiber accounts for over 50 percent of the cost of a Type IV onboard
storage system at production volumes of over 100,000 systems per
year.\529\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\526\ Type I-III tanks are not typically used in transportation
for reasons related to low hydrogen density, metal embrittlement,
weight, or cost.
\527\ Langmi, Henrietta et. al. ``Hydrogen storage''.
Electrochemical Power Sources: Fundamentals, Systems, and
Applications. 2022. Portion available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/compressed-hydrogen-storage.
\528\ U.S. Department of Energy, Fuel Cell Technologies Office.
``Hydrogen Storage''. March 2017. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/fcto-h2-storage-fact-sheet.pdf.
\529\ Houchins, Cassidy and Brian D. James. ``2019 DOE Hydrogen
and Fuel Cell Program Review: Hydrogen Storage Cost Analysis''.
Strategic Analysis. May 2019. Available online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review19/st100_james_2019_o.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some existing fuel cell buses use compressed hydrogen gas at 350
bar (~5,000 pounds per square inch, or psi) of pressure, but other
applications are using tanks with increased compressed hydrogen gas
pressure at 700 bar (~10,000 psi) for extended driving range.\530\ A
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Industry Group was formed in 2019 to standardize 700
bar high-flow fueling hardware components globally that meet fueling
speed requirements (i.e., so that fill times are similar to comparable
HD ICE vehicles, as identified in DOE technical targets for Class 8
long-haul tractor-trailers).\531\ High-flow refueling rates for heavy-
duty vehicles of 60 to 80 kg hydrogen in under 10 minutes were recently
demonstrated in a DOE lab setting.532 533 534
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\530\ Basma, Hussein and Felipe Rodriquez. ``Fuel cell electric
tractor-trailers: Technology overview and fuel economy''. Working
Paper 2022-23. International Council on Clean Transportation. July
2022. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/fuel-cell-tractor-trailer-tech-fuel-jul22.pdf.
\531\ NextEnergy. ``Hydrogen Heavy Duty Vehicle Industry Group
to Standardize Hydrogen Refueling, Bringing Hydrogen Closer to Wide
Scale Adoption''. October 8, 2021. Available online: https://nextenergy.org/hydrogen-heavy-duty-vehicle-industry-group-partners-to-standardize-hydrogen-refueling/.
\532\ DOE suggests that 60 kg of H2 will be required to achieve
a 750-mile range in a Class 8 tractor-trailer truck, assuming a fuel
economy of 12.4 miles per kilogram. In the DOE lab, one fill (61.5
kg) was demonstrated from the fueling station into seven type-IV
tanks of a HD vehicle simulator, and the second fill (75.9 kg) was
demonstrated from the station into nine tanks.
\533\ Marcinkoski, Jason et. al. ``Hydrogen Class 8 Long Haul
Truck Targets''. U.S. Department of Energy. October 31, 2019.
Available online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/19006_hydrogen_class8_long_haul_truck_targets.pdf.
\534\ Martineau, Rebecca. ``Fast Flow Future for Heavy-Duty
Hydrogen Trucks: Expanded Capabilities at NREL Demonstration High-
Flow-Rate Hydrogen Fueling for Heavy-Duty Applications''. National
Renewable Energy Lab. June 2022. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2022/fast-flow-future-heavy-duty-hydrogen-trucks.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we stated in the NPRM, geometry and packaging challenges may
constrain the amount of gaseous hydrogen that can be stored onboard
and, thus, the maximum range of trucks that travel longer distances
without a stop for fuel.\535\ Liquid hydrogen is emerging as a cost-
effective onboard storage option for long-haul operations; however, the
technology readiness of liquid storage and refueling technologies is
relatively low compared to compressed gas
technologies.536 537 Therefore, given our assessment of
technology readiness, liquid storage tanks were not included in the
potential compliance pathway that supports the feasibility and
appropriateness of our standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\535\ Basma, Hussein and Felipe Rodriquez. ``Fuel cell electric
tractor-trailers: Technology overview and fuel economy''. Working
Paper 2022-23. The International Council on Clean Transportation.
July 2022. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/fuel-cell-tractor-trailer-tech-fuel-jul22.pdf.
\536\ Basma, Hussein and Felipe Rodriquez. ``Fuel cell electric
tractor-trailers: Technology overview and fuel economy''. Working
Paper 2022-23. International Council on Clean Transportation. July
2022. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/fuel-cell-tractor-trailer-tech-fuel-jul22.pdf.
\537\ Gomez, Julian A. and Diogo M.F. Santos. ``The Status of
On-Board Hydrogen Storage in Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles''. Designs
2023: 7(4). Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2411-9660/7/4/97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM, we requested comment and data related to packaging
space availability associated with FCEVs and projections for the
development and application of liquid hydrogen in the HD transportation
sector over the next decade. 88 FR 25972. Only one comment was received
on this issue, from a vehicle manufacturer, who stated that they
believe liquid hydrogen is required to meet the packaging requirement
for vehicles with a 500-mile range, consistent with our assessment at
the proposal. The same commenter also included 90th percentile daily
VMT estimates of 484 miles for Class 8 day cabs and 724 miles for
sleeper cab tractors, based on an 18-day snapshot of telematics data,
because they said they believe EPA is overestimating ZEV application
suitability.
For the final rule, we contracted FEV Group to independently
conduct a packaging analysis for Class 8 long-haul FCEVs that store
700-bar gaseous hydrogen onboard to see if space would be sufficient to
accommodate hydrogen fuel for longer-range travel.\538\ EPA conducted
an external peer review of the final FEV report. FEV found ways to
package six hydrogen tanks to deliver up to a 500-mile range with a
sleeper cab using a 265-inch wheelbase. All tanks could be at the back
of the cab in a zig-zag arrangement and the batteries mounted inside of
the frame rails, or four of the tanks could be behind the cab with two
tanks mounted to the outside of the frame rails under the cab and the
batteries inside of the frame rails. This would allow a long-haul
tractor to meet a daily operational VMT requirement of 420 miles. If a
HD FCEV refuels once en route, then it could cover a 90th percentile
VMT requirement of as far as 724 miles in a day (essentially matching
the 90th percentile VMT noted by the commenter). A refueling event
during the day should not be an unreasonable burden, given that
refueling times are as short as 20 minutes or less (comparable to a
diesel) and so are considered a key benefit of HD FCEVs.\539\ See RTC
section 5.3 for additional discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\538\ FEV Consulting. ``Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles Class 4
to 8: Technology and Cost Evaluation for Electrified Powertrains--
Final Report''. Prepared for EPA. March 2024.
\539\ U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies Office. ``The #H2IQ Hour. Today's Topic: Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Decarbonization''. September 21, 2023. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/h2iqhour-09212023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of the literature for the NPRM and after
consideration of the comments received and additional information, our
assessment is that most HD vehicles have sufficient physical
[[Page 29528]]
space to package gaseous hydrogen storage tanks onboard.\540\ This
remains the case for long-haul sleeper cabs if they refuel en route.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\540\ Kast, James et. al. ``Designing hydrogen fuel cell
electric trucks in a diverse medium and heavy duty market''.
Research in Transportation Economics: Volume 70. October 2018.
Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0739885916301639.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. HD FCEV Safety Assessment
FCEVs have two potential risk factors that can be mitigated through
proper design, process, and training: hydrogen and electricity.
Electricity risks are identical to those of BEVs and, thus, are
discussed in section II.D.2 and RIA Chapter 1.5.2. Hydrogen risks can
occur throughout the process of fueling a vehicle. FCEVs must be
designed so that hydrogen can be safely delivered to a vehicle and then
transferred into a vehicle's onboard storage tanks and fuel cell
stacks. Hydrogen has been handled, used, stored, and moved in
industrial settings for more than 50 years, and there are many
established methods for doing so safely.\541\ There is also Federal
oversight and regulation throughout the hydrogen supply chain
system.\542\ Safety training and education are key for maintaining
reasonable risk while handling and using hydrogen. For example,
hydrogen-related fuel cell vehicle risks can be mitigated by following
various SAE and OSHA standards, as discussed in RIA Chapter 1.7.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\541\ Hydrogen Tools. ``Best Practices Overview''. Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory. Accessed on February 2, 2023.
Available online: https://h2tools.org/bestpractices/best-practices-overview.
\542\ Baird, Austin R. et. al. ``Federal Oversight of Hydrogen
Systems''. Sandia National Laboratories. SAND2021-2955. March 2021.
Available online: https://energy.sandia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/H2-Regulatory-Map-Report_SAND2021-2955.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We requested comment on our assessment that HD FCEVs can be
designed to maintain safety. Two comments were received that questioned
the safety of FCEV. One vehicle manufacturer commenter agreed that
FCEVs will be designed to maintain safety. EPA's assessment at proposal
was that HD FCEV systems must be, and are, designed to always maintain
safe operation. EPA reiterates that conclusion here. As EPA explained
at proposal, and as noted by the vehicle manufacturer commenter, there
are industry codes and standards for the safe design and operation of
HD FCEVs. The Hydrogen Industry Panel on Codes, International Code
Council, and National Fire Protection Association work together to
develop stringent standards for hydrogen systems and fuel cells. The
FCEV codes and standards extend to service as well as emergency
response. In addition, HD FCEVs are subject to, and necessarily comply
with, the same Federal safety standards and the same safety testing as
ICE heavy-duty vehicles. Commenters challenging the safety of HD FCEVs
failed to address the existence of these protocols and Federal
standards. EPA considers the multiple binding Federal safety standards
and industry protocols to be effective and supports the conclusion that
HD FCEV can be utilized safely. While considering safety for the NPRM,
EPA coordinated with NHTSA. EPA additionally coordinated with NHTSA on
safety regarding comments and updates for the final rulemaking.\543\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\543\ Landgraf, Michael. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985. Summary of NHTSA Safety Communication. February 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most if not all fuels, due to their nature of transporting energy,
can do harm or be unsafe if not handled properly. Although hydrogen
incidents (not with FCEVs) were provided in the comments, it is
important to note that there has not been a FCEV accident due to
leaking hydrogen. When compared to other fuels, hydrogen is nontoxic
and lighter than air, so it quickly disperses upwards unlike gas vapors
that stay at ground level and has a lower radiant heat so surrounding
material is less likely to ignite. One commenter questioned FCEV safety
in tunnels based on a modeling study. DOE is working with other
authorities to evaluate safety in tunnels as discussed in RIA chapter
1.7.4. Additionally, FCEVs including their storage systems, like ICE
vehicles, are required to meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) for crash safety so that the systems will maintain
their integrity after the specified crash conditions. Additional FCEV
safety information is available in RIA Chapter 1.7.4 and RTC section
4.9.
v. Assessment of Heavy-Duty Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure
As FCEV adoption grows, more hydrogen refueling infrastructure will
be needed to support the HD FCEV fleet. Infrastructure is required
during the production, distribution, storage, and dispensing of
hydrogen fuel.
Currently, DOE's Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) lists 65
public retail hydrogen fueling stations in the United States, primarily
for light-duty vehicles in California.\544\ When including private,
planned, and temporarily unavailable stations in a search, there are 99
refueling station locations nationwide.545 546 547 There are
also several nationally designated corridor-ready or corridor-pending
Alternative Fueling Corridors for hydrogen.\548\ Corridor-ready
designations have a sufficient number of fueling stations to allow for
corridor travel. The designation requires that public hydrogen stations
be no greater than 150 miles apart and no greater than five miles off
the highway.\549\ Corridor-pending designations may have public
stations separated by more than 150 miles, but stations cannot be
greater than five miles off the highway.\550\ The purpose of the
Alternative Fuel Corridors program is to support the needed changes in
the transportation sector that assists in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and improves the mobility of vehicles that employ alternative
fuel technologies across the U.S.\551\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\544\ U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center.
``Hydrogen Fueling Station Locations''. See Advanced Filters, Fuel,
``Hydrogen'' checked (not ``include non-retail stations''). Accessed
February 15, 2024. Available online: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html#/analyze?fuel=HY.
\545\ U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center.
See Advanced Filters, Station, all ``Access'' and ``Status'' options
checked. Accessed February 15, 2024. Available online: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html#/analyze?fuel=HY.
\546\ When including non-retail stations, there are 132. Non-
retail stations involve special permissions from the original
equipment manufacturers to fuel along with pre-authorization from
the station provider.
\547\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies Office. ``Fact of the Month #18-01, January 29''. 2018.
Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fact-month-18-01-january-29-there-are-39-publicly-available-hydrogen-fueling.
\548\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration. HEPGIS. ``Hydrogen (AFC Rounds 1-7)''. Accessed
January 2024. Available online: https://hepgis-usdot.hub.arcgis.com/apps/e1552ac704284d30ba8e504e3649699a/explore.
\549\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration. ``Memorandum, INFORMATION: Request for Nominations--
Alternative Fuel Corridor (Round 7/2023)''. May 18, 2023. Available
online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/alternative_fuel_corridors/nominations/2023_request_for_nominations_r7.pdf.
\550\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration. ``Alternative Fuel Corridors: Frequently Asked
Questions FAST Act Section 1413--Alternative Fuel Corridor
Designations Updated December 2020 to Support Round 5''. Available
online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/alternative_fuel_corridors/resources/faq/.
\551\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration. ``Alternative Fuel Corridors''. Available online:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/alternative_fuel_corridors/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though few hydrogen refueling stations exist for HD FCEVs today,
EPA has seen progress on the implementation of BIL and IRA funding and
other provisions to incentivize the establishment of clean hydrogen
supply chain infrastructure. In June 2021, DOE
[[Page 29529]]
launched a Hydrogen Shot goal to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen
production by 80 percent to $1 per kilogram in one decade.\552\ In
March 2023, DOE released a Pathways to Commercial Liftoff Report on
``Clean Hydrogen'' to catalyze more rapid and coordinated action across
the full technology value chain. Since the NPRM, the Federal Government
has continued to implement BIL and IRA commitments. In June 2023, the
U.S. National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap was finalized,
informed by extensive industry and stakeholder feedback, setting forth
an all-of-government approach for achieving large-scale production and
use of hydrogen. It includes an assessment of the opportunity for
hydrogen to contribute to national decarbonization goals across sectors
over the next 30 years.\553\ Also in June 2023, DOE updated Clean
Hydrogen Production Standard (CHPS) guidance that establishes a target
for lifecycle (defined as ``well-to-gate'') GHG emissions associated
with hydrogen production, accounting for multiple requirements within
the BIL provisions.\554\ In October 2023, DOE announced the selection
of seven Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs (H2Hubs) in different regions of
the country that will receive a total of $7 billion to kickstart a
national network of hydrogen producers, consumers, and connective
infrastructure while supporting the production, storage, delivery, and
end-use of hydrogen. The investment will be matched by recipients to
leverage a total of nearly $50 billion for the hubs, which are expected
to reduce 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year
from end uses ranging from industrial steel to HD transportation.\555\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\552\ Satyapal, Sunita. ``2022 AMR Plenary Session''. U.S.
Department of Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office.
June 6, 2022. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/hfto-amr-plenary-satyapal-2022-1.pdf.
\553\ U.S. Department of Energy. ``U.S. National Clean Hydrogen
Strategy and Roadmap''. June 2023. Available online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/library/roadmaps-vision/clean-hydrogen-strategy-roadmap, https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/us-national-clean-hydrogen-strategy-roadmap.pdf.
\554\ U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen Program. ``Clean
Hydrogen Production Standard Guidance''. June 2023. Available
online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/library/policies-acts/clean-hydrogen-production-standard, https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/clean-hydrogen-production-standard-guidance.pdf.
\555\ U.S. Department of Energy. ``Biden-Harris Administration
Announces $7 Billion For America's First Clean Hydrogen Hubs,
Driving Clean Manufacturing and Delivering New Economic
Opportunities Nationwide''. October 13, 2023. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-7-billion-americas-first-clean-hydrogen-hubs-driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several programs initiated by BIL and IRA are under ongoing
development. In March 2023, DOE announced $750 million for research,
development, and demonstration efforts to reduce the cost of clean
hydrogen. This is the first phase of $1.5 billion in BIL funding
dedicated to advancing electrolysis technologies and improving
manufacturing and recycling capabilities. In July 2023, DOE released a
Notice of Intent to invest up to $1 billion in a demand-side initiative
(to offer ``demand pull'') to support the H2Hubs.\556\ In January 2024,
they selected a consortium to design and implement the program.\557\ In
December 2023, the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service
proposed regulations to offer income tax credit of up to $3 per kg for
the production of qualified clean hydrogen at a qualified clean
hydrogen facility (often referred to as the production tax credit, PTC,
or 45V), as established in the IRA.\558\ Final program designs are
expected after this rule is finalized. See section 8.1 of the RTC and
Chapter 1.8 of the RIA for additional detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\556\ U.S. Department of Energy. ``Biden-Harris Administration
to Jumpstart Clean Hydrogen Economy with New Initiative to Provide
Market Certainty and Unlock Private Investment''. July 5, 2023.
Available online: https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-jumpstart-clean-hydrogen-economy-new-initiative-provide-market.
\557\ U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy
Demonstrations. ``DOE Selects Consortium to Bridge Early Demand for
Clean Hydrogen, Providing Market Certainty and Unlocking Private
Sector Investment''. January 14, 2024. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/oced/articles/doe-selects-consortium-bridge-early-demand-clean-hydrogen-providing-market-certainty.
\558\ 88 FR 89220. Section 45V Credit for Production of Clean
Hydrogen; Section 48(a)(15) Election To Treat Clean Hydrogen
Production Facilities as Energy Property. December 26, 2023.
Available online: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/26/2023-28359/section-45v-credit-for-production-of-clean-hydrogen-section-48a15-election-to-treat-clean-hydrogen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received several comments on the topic of hydrogen
infrastructure. Some commenters were optimistic and provided support
for their view. One commenter acknowledged that producing HD FCEV
trucks would incentivize the building of fueling stations. Another
noted that DOE programs such as the 21st Century Truck Partnership are
engaged in fuel cell and hydrogen work to reduce emissions from HD
trucks.\559\ At least two commenters recognized that Federal investment
is expected to heavily influence the market. One commenter highlighted
BIL and IRA incentives in addition to those referenced that will hasten
buildout of HD FCEV refueling infrastructure, including $2.3 billion
for a Port Infrastructure Development Program over five years (2022 to
2026).\560\ The IRA also provided EPA with $3 billion to fund zero-
emission port equipment and infrastructure and $1 billion to fund clean
heavy-duty vehicles and supportive infrastructure, including hydrogen
refueling infrastructure.561 562 One commenter said they
expect to see synergies between H2Hubs and FCEVs that can launch the
market even before 2030. Others suggested that infrastructure may be
more of a near-term challenge, or that uncertainty could diminish over
time as ZEV technologies become increasingly affordable and ubiquitous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\559\ U.S. Department of Energy. ``U.S. National Clean Hydrogen
Strategy and Roadmap''. June 2023. Available online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/library/roadmaps-vision/clean-hydrogen-strategy-roadmap, https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/us-national-clean-hydrogen-strategy-roadmap.pdf.
\560\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime
Administration. ``Port Infrastructure Development Program''.
Available online: https://www.maritime.dot.gov/PIDPgrants.
\561\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Clean Ports
Program''. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ports-initiative/cleanports.
\562\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Clean Heavy-Duty
Program''. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/clean-heavy-duty-vehicle-program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least two commenters agreed there is sufficient lead time.
California, a state experienced in hydrogen refueling infrastructure,
shared that LD stations take around two years to build on average. They
expect similar construction times for HD stations, given that a
hydrogen station for HD vehicles near the Port of Oakland is expected
to move from approval to commissioning in just over two years, despite
permitting challenges. They cited numerous entities developing mobile
refueling solutions that could provide a fueling option ``bridge''
during the construction of permanent stations.
Other commenters were more cautious about the readiness and
availability of hydrogen infrastructure. Several indicated there are
few existing hydrogen refueling stations for HD FCEVs--mostly in
California--and stated that it is overly optimistic and a massive
undertaking to expect buildout of a national network by 2030. One
commenter noted that hydrogen fueling infrastructure is still nascent
compared to BEV charging infrastructure, and several identified
challenges that still need to be addressed. Challenges raised by the
commenter ranged from upstream emissions and energy required to produce
hydrogen, to the cost-effectiveness of distributing and
[[Page 29530]]
delivering hydrogen (e.g., using gaseous or liquid technologies), to
the inherent uncertainties associated with projecting emerging station
needs in step with HD FCEV adoption timelines. At least one commenter
suggested that we did not identify current private investment plans in
the NPRM. In general, there was a sentiment from these commenters that
more support for commercial facilities is necessary, and commenters
urged Federal agencies to align resources and goals to ensure that
buildout happens in a coordinated fashion and at a necessary pace.
Industry commenters anticipated lead time issues beyond their
control. Several manufacturers suggested adjusting the standards in the
case of unexpectedly slow infrastructure development, and there were
calls to regularly evaluate infrastructure deployment and establish
annual benchmarks for assessing progress.
In response to comments, we re-evaluated our assumptions about the
retail price of hydrogen, in consultation with DOE, along with FCEV
technology-related costs (see RIA Chapter 2.5). Our revised projections
for HD FCEV adoption are based on relatively low production volumes in
the MY 2030 to 2032 timeframe, indicative of an early market technology
rollout. As a result, our hydrogen consumption estimates in the NPRM of
about 830,000 metric tons of hydrogen per year in 2032 dropped in the
final rule to about 130,000 metric tons of hydrogen per year by 2032,
or 1.3 percent of current production. Our assessment is that early
market buildout of a hydrogen refueling station network to support
modest FCEV adoption levels in the modeled potential compliance pathway
is feasible in the 2030 to 2032 timeframe. We are not suggesting that a
full national hydrogen infrastructure network needs to be in place by
2030 or 2032, as implied by a few commenters, and specifically note
that a full national hydrogen infrastructure network is not necessary
to accommodate the demand that we posit for HD FCEVs in our modeled
potential compliance pathway. This is further explained in RTC section
8.1.
In addition to the billions of dollars in Federal investment
already referenced, RIA Chapter 1.7.5 includes information about known
private investments in HD FCEVs and hydrogen infrastructure. According
to Cipher's Clean Technology Tracker, as of September 2023, there is
$45.752 billion in total clean hydrogen production project investment
in the United States,\563\ with 1 percent in projects that are in
operation (close to $500,000), 7 percent ($3.2 million) under
construction, and a majority still classified as announced.\564\ DOE is
tracking private sector announcements of domestic electrolyzers and
fuel cell manufacturing facilities. So far, over $1.8 billion in new
investments has been announced for over 10 new or expanded facilities
with the capacity to manufacture approximately 10 GW of electrolyzers
per year.\565\ BIL and IRA programs are under ongoing development, but
we anticipate that investment strategies (e.g., that connect producers
of hydrogen with end users of fuel) will amplify and become clearer in
the near term. We also expect this rule will provide greater certainty
to the market to support timely development of hydrogen refueling
stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\563\ According to the Clean Technology Tracker, clean hydrogen
production refers to the production of hydrogen fuel with proton
exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzers and solid oxide electrolyzer
cells (SOEC) or through other methods such as methane pyrolysis and
natural gas with carbon capture.
\564\ Cipher News. ``Tracking a new era of climate solutions:
Cleantech growth across the U.S.'' Accessed February 2024. Available
online: https://ciphernews.com/cleantech-tracker/#definitions.
\565\ U.S. Department of Energy. ``Building America's Clean
Energy Future--Hydrogen: Electrolyzers and Fuel Cells''. Accessed
February 2024. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/invest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that hydrogen refueling infrastructure for HD FCEVs is
developing, we also reviewed literature that assesses hydrogen
infrastructure needs for the HD transportation sector, as discussed
further in RIA Chapter 1.8.3.5. The authors used differing analytical
approaches and a large range of assumptions about the production,
distribution and storage, and dispensing of hydrogen fuel to estimate
hydrogen demand for HD FCEVs and the number of refueling stations
required to meet that demand. Several papers examined infrastructure
costs in the 2030 timeframe, as discussed further in Chapter 2.5.3.1.
In general, the authors concluded that economies of scale are important
to reduce costs throughout the supply chain. Most researchers of papers
that we reviewed agree that it is not necessary to build a national
infrastructure network for HD FCEVs all at once. Station financial
prospects can vary by region and tend to be more favorable in areas
with higher demand (i.e., high energy needs from HD traffic flows),
while station costs are anticipated to drop with growth in demand and
related economies of scale. Similar to BEVs, as explained in RTC
section 7.1, the infrastructure needed to meet this initial demand may
be centered in a discrete sub-set of states and counties where freight
activity is concentrated. Thus, the select vehicle applications for
which we project FCEV adoption could start traveling within or between
regional hubs in this timeframe where hydrogen development is
prioritized initially.
Along these lines, in March 2024, the U.S. released a National
Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy\566\ that ``sets an actionable
vision and comprehensive approach to accelerating the deployment of a
world-class, zero-emission freight network across the United States by
2040. The strategy focuses on advancing the deployment of zero-emission
medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (ZE-MHDV) fueling infrastructure by
targeting public investment to amplify private sector momentum, focus
utility and regulatory energy planning, align industry activity, and
mobilize communities for clean transportation.'' \567\ The strategy has
four phases. The first phase, from 2024-2027, focuses on establishing
freight hubs defined ``as a 100-mile to a 150-mile radius zone or
geographic area centered around a point with a significant
concentration of freight volume (e.g., ports, intermodal facilities,
and truck parking), that supports a broader ecosystem of freight
activity throughout that zone.'' \568\ The second phase, from 2027-
2030, will connect key ZEV hubs, building out infrastructure along
several major highways. The third phase, from 2030-2045, will expand
the corridors, ``including access to charging and fueling to all
coastal ports and their surrounding freight ecosystems for short-haul
and regional operations.'' \569\ The fourth phase, from 2035-2040, will
complete the freight corridor network. This corridor strategy provides
further support for the development of HD ZEV infrastructure that
corresponds to the
[[Page 29531]]
modeled potential compliance pathway for meeting the final standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\566\ Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. ``National
Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy'' DOE/EE-2816 2024. March
2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf.
\567\ Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. ``Biden-Harris
Administration, Joint Office of Energy and Transportation Release
Strategy to Accelerate Zero-Emission Freight Infrastructure
Deployment.'' March 12, 2024. Available online: https://driveelectric.gov/news/decarbonize-freight.
\568\ Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. ``National
Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy'' DOE/EE-2816 2024. March
2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf. See page 3.
\569\ Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. ``National
Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy'' DOE/EE-2816 2024. March
2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf. See page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The literature also further supports that there is sufficient lead
time. Fulton et. al. noted that heavy-duty refueling station funding,
design, and planning should start one to two years before
deployment.\570\ The Coordinating Research Council noted that full
station development (i.e., design, permitting, construction, and
commissioning) takes about two years, assuming no major hurdles.\571\
The California Energy Commission has evaluated hydrogen refueling
station development in California since 2010. Their planned network of
200 stations is mainly for light-duty vehicles but has at least 13
stations with the capability to serve HD FCEVs.\572\ Station
development times have generally decreased over time, from a median or
typical time spent of around 1,500 days in 2010 to about 500 days in
2019 (i.e., about two years if considering business days) for projects
that have completed all phases of development.\573\ They expect some
increase in median development times as projects delayed by the COVID-
19 pandemic are completed but regularly monitor progress and work to
improve the deployment process.\574\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\570\ Fulton, et. al. ``California Hydrogen Analysis Project:
The Future Role of Hydrogen in a Carbon-Neutral California--Final
Synthesis Modeling Report''. UC Davis Institute of Transportation
Studies. April 19, 2023. Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/27m7g841.
\571\ Coordinating Research Council, Inc. ``Assess the Battery-
Recharging and Hydrogen-Refueling Infrastructure Needs, Costs, and
Timelines Required to Support Regulatory Requirements for Light-,
Medium-, and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicles: Final Report''.
Prepared by ICF. CRC Report No. SM-CR-9. September 2023. Available
online: https://crcao.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/CRC_Infrastructure_Assessment_Report_ICF_09282023_Final-Report.pdf.
\572\ The CEC has invested nearly $40 million in medium- and
heavy-duty hydrogen infrastructure.
\573\ Berner, et al. ``Joint Agency Staff Report on Assembly
Bill 8: 2022 Annual Assessment of Time and Cost Needed to Attain 100
Hydrogen Refueling Stations in California''. California Energy
Commission & California Air Resources Board. December 2022.
Available online: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/CEC-600-2022-064.pdf.
\574\ Berner, et al. ``Joint Agency Staff Report on Assembly
Bill 8: 2022 Annual Assessment of Time and Cost Needed to Attain 100
Hydrogen Refueling Stations in California''. California Energy
Commission & California Air Resources Board. December 2022.
Available online: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/CEC-600-2022-064.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognize that these plans will require sustained support to
come to fruition, and our assessment, in consultation with relevant
Federal agencies, is that our projections are supported and correspond
to our measured approach in our modeled compliance pathway for FCEVs.
There are many complex factors at play, and we have taken a close look
at how the ramp-up period over the next decade is critical. In our
modeled potential compliance pathway, we evaluated the existing and
projected future hydrogen refueling infrastructure and considered FCEVs
only in the MY 2030 and later timeframe to better ensure that our
compliance pathway provides adequate time for early market
infrastructure development. We conclude that a phased and targeted
approach can offer sufficient lead time to meet the projected refueling
needs that correspond to the technology packages for the final rule's
modeled potential compliance pathway, as further discussed in RIA
Chapter 2.1. Additionally, EPA is committed to ensuring the Phase 3
program is successfully implemented, and as described in preamble
section II.B.2.iii, in consideration of concerns raised regarding
inherent uncertainties about the future, we are including a commitment
to monitor progress on hydrogen refueling infrastructure development in
the final rule.
4. Summary of Technology Assessment
In prior HD GHG rulemakings, EPA promulgated standards that could
feasibly be met through technological improvements in many areas of the
vehicle. For example, as discussed in section II.C, the HD GHG Phase 2
CO2 emission standards were premised on technologies such as
engine improvements, advanced transmissions, advanced aerodynamics and,
in some cases, hybrid powertrains. We evaluated each technology's
effectiveness as demonstrated over the regulatory duty cycles using
EPA's GEM and estimated the appropriate projected adoption rate of each
technology.\575\ We then developed a technology package for each of the
regulatory subcategories, which represented a potential compliance
pathway to support the feasibility of the Phase 2 standards. We are
following a similar approach in this Phase 3 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\575\ GEM is an EPA vehicle simulation tool used to certify HD
vehicles. A detailed description of GEM can be found in the RIA for
the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking, available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100P7NS.PDF?Dockey=P100P7NS.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule, we included ZEV technologies in
our assessment of the suite of technologies for HD vocational vehicles
and tractors. However, in 2016, when the HD GHG Phase 2 rule was being
developed, we stated that ``adoption rates for these advanced
technologies in heavy-duty vehicles are essentially non-existent today
and seem unlikely to grow significantly within the next decade without
additional incentives.'' \576\ Thus, at that time, instead of including
ZEV technologies in the technology packages for setting the Phase 2
standards, we provided advanced technology credit multipliers to help
incentivize the development of such technologies, as well as PHEVs,
because they had the potential for very large GHG emission reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\576\ 81 FR 73498 (October 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the 2016 promulgation of the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule, as
discussed in section I.C of this preamble, several important factors
have contributed to changes in the HD landscape. Therefore, as detailed
in this section II and RIA Chapter 2, our assessment concludes that ICE
technologies, BEV technologies and FCEV technologies will be
technically feasible for HD motor vehicles, as assessed by vehicle type
and each Phase 3 MY. Similar to Phase 1 and Phase 2, the technology
packages used to support the feasibility of the standards in this final
rule include a mix of technologies applied to HD motor vehicles, and
development of those technology packages included an assessment of the
projected feasibility of the development and application of BEV, FCEV,
and other technologies that reduce GHG emissions from HD ICE vehicles.
While our analysis in this section II.D focuses on certain technologies
in the technology packages as a potential compliance pathway to support
the feasibility of the final HD vehicle GHG emission standards, there
are other technologies that can reduce CO2 emissions and
other example potential compliance pathways to meet the standards as
discussed in RIA Chapters 1 and 2.11 and section II.F.4. Under the
final rule, manufacturers may choose to utilize the technologies that
work best for their business case and for the operator's needs in
meeting the final standards. We reiterate that the standards are
performance-based and do not mandate any specific technology for any
manufacturer or any vehicle subcategory.
The range of GHG emission-reducing technologies for HD vehicles
considered in this final rulemaking include those for HD vehicles with
ICE (section II.D.1), HD BEVs (section II.D.2), and HD FCEVs (section
II.D.3). For evaluating the BEV and FCEV technologies portion of the
range for this analysis, for this rulemaking EPA developed a bottom-up
approach to estimate the operational characteristics and costs of such
technologies. As explained in the NPRM, we developed a new technology
[[Page 29532]]
assessment tool, Heavy-Duty Technology Resource Use Case Scenario (HD
TRUCS), to evaluate the design features needed to meet the energy and
power demands of HD vehicle types when using different technologies,
and comparing resulting manufacturing, operating and purchasing costs.
In this rulemaking, we used HD TRUCS to assess the design features to
meet the power and energy demands of various HD vehicles when using ZEV
technologies, as well as costs related to manufacturing, purchasing and
operating ICE vehicle and ZEV technologies. We chose to analyze the
comparison with ZEV technologies for the modeled potential compliance
pathway as the technology capable of achieving the greatest vehicle GHG
emission reductions. Furthermore, we made a number of updates to HD
TRUCS for the final rulemaking to reflect consideration of new
information, including that received in comments. HD TRUCS is described
in more detail in section II.D.5 and RIA Chapter 2, but we briefly
summarize the approach here.
To use HD TRUCS as part of building the technology packages to
support the feasibility of the standards, we created 101 representative
HD vehicles that cover the full range of weight classes within the
scope of this rulemaking (Class 2b through 8 vocational vehicles and
tractors). The representative vehicles cover many aspects of work
performed by HDVs. This work was translated into energy and power
demands per vehicle type based on everyday use of HD vehicles, ranging
from moving goods and people to mixing cement. We then identified the
technical properties required for a BEV or FCEV to meet the operational
needs of a comparable ICE vehicle.\577\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\577\ Heavy-duty vehicles are typically powered by a diesel-
fueled compression-ignition (CI) engine, though the heavy-duty
market includes vehicles powered by gasoline-fueled spark-ignition
(SI) engines and alternative-fueled ICEs. We selected diesel-powered
ICE vehicles as the baseline vehicle for the assessment in HD TRUCS
in our analysis because a diesel-fueled CI engine is broadly
available for all of the 101 vehicle types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since batteries can add weight and volume to a vehicle,\578\ we
evaluated battery mass and physical volume required to package a
battery pack. If the performance needs of a BEV resulted in a battery
that was too large or heavy, then we did not consider the BEV for that
application in our technology package because of, for example, the
impact on payload and, thus, potential work accomplished relative to a
comparable ICE vehicle.\579\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\578\ Smith, David et. al. ``Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Electrification: An Assessment of Technology and Knowledge Gaps''.
U.S. Department of Energy: Oak Ridge National Laboratory and
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. December 2019. Available
online: https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub136575.pdf.
\579\ This does not necessarily mean that a BEV with a large
battery weight and volume would not be technically feasible for a
given HD vehicle use, but rather this is an acknowledgement that we
considered impacts of increased battery size on feasibility
considerations like payload capacity as well as cost and payback
within the selection of HD vehicle technologies for the technology
packages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate costs for these technologies, including costs of
compliance for manufacturers using this compliance pathway as well as
user costs related to purchasing and operating ZEVs, we sized vehicle
components that are unique to ZEVs to meet the work demands of each
representative vehicle. We applied cost estimates to each vehicle
component based on sizing to assess the difference in total powertrain
costs between the ICE and ZEV powertrains. We accounted for the IRA
battery tax credit and vehicle tax credit, as discussed in section
II.E.4. We also compared operating costs due to fuel consumption,
vehicle maintenance and repair, and insurance. We also included the
upfront cost to procure and install depot charging infrastructure for
certain BEVs. Costs of the needed distribution grid buildout
infrastructure are reflected in the per kilowatt hour price of
electricity used for both depot and public charging. For the BEVs where
we project their charging needs will be met by public charging, instead
of including the charging infrastructure costs upfront, we included
these amortized costs in the charging cost in addition to the cost of
electricity, demand charges, and EVSE maintenance costs. We took a
similar approach for FCEVs, where we embedded the hydrogen
infrastructure costs into the cost of hydrogen fuel. This approach is
consistent with our assessment of fueling costs associated with ICE
vehicles where the fuel station infrastructure costs are included in
the per gallon price of fuel.
We relied on research and findings discussed in RIA Chapters 1 and
2 to conduct this analysis. For MYs 2027 through 2029, for the BEV and
FCEV technologies portions of the analysis, we focused primarily on BEV
technology using depot charging. Consistent with our analysis, research
shows that some BEV technologies can become cost-competitive in terms
of total cost of ownership for many HD vehicles by the late 2020s, but
it will take longer for FCEVs.580 581 582 Given that there
are more BEV models available today compared to FCEV models (see, e.g.,
RIA Chapters 1.7.5 and 1.7.6), we project in our technology packages
that BEV technology adoption is likely to happen sooner than the
adoption of FCEV technology. Also, as discussed in RIA Chapter 1.6, we
project that depot charging will occur at a faster rate than the
development of a HD public charging network. Therefore, the modeled
potential compliance pathway focuses on these types of BEVs in the
initial Phase 3 MYs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\580\ Ledna et. al. ``Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road
Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis''. U.S. Department of
Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. March 2022. Available
online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
\581\ Hall, Dale and Nic Lutsey. ``Estimating the Infrastructure
Needs and Costs for the Launch of Zero-Emission Trucks''. White
Paper: The International Council on Clean Transportation. August
2019. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ICCT_EV_HDVs_Infrastructure_20190809.pdf.
\582\ Robo, Ellen and Dave Seamonds. Technical Memo to
Environmental Defense Fund: Investment Reduction Act Supplemental
Assessment: Analysis of Alternative Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-
Emission Vehicle Business-As-Usual Scenarios. ERM. August 19, 2022.
Available online: https://www.erm.com/contentassets/154d08e0d0674752925cd82c66b3e2b1/edf-zev-baseline-technical-memo-addendum.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting in MY 2030, we also considered FCEV technology using
public refueling infrastructure and BEVs using public charging for
select applications in our modeled compliance pathway and H2-ICE using
public refueling infrastructure in our additional example potential
compliance pathways. BEV technology is more energy efficient than FCEV
technology but may not be suitable for all applications during the
model years at issue in this rulemaking, such as when the performance
needs result in additional battery mass that prohibitively affects
payload. In cases like this, the pathway considered either BEVs with
smaller batteries, that may require enroute charging and the consequent
use of public charging away from the depot, or FCEVs, which may have
shorter refueling times than BEVs with large
batteries.583 584 We considered FCEVs and BEVs using public
charging in the technology packages for applications that travel longer
distances and/or carry heavier loads (i.e., for those that may be
sensitive to refueling times
[[Page 29533]]
or payload impacts). These included some coach buses and tractors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\583\ A technology is more energy efficient if it uses less
energy to do the same amount of work. Energy can be lost as it moves
through the vehicle's components due to heat and friction.
\584\ Cunanan, Carlo et. al. ``A Review of Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Powertrain Technologies: Diesel Engine Vehicles, Battery Electric
Vehicles, and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles''. Clean Technol.
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/3/2/28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering operational characteristics and costs in 2022$,
for the BEV and FCEV technologies portions of the analysis, we
determined the payback period, which is the number of years it would
take to offset any incremental cost increase of a ZEV over a comparable
ICE vehicle. Next, the inclusion of BEV and FCEV technologies in the
technology packages as a potential compliance pathway that support the
feasibility of the final standards was determined after considering the
payback period for BEVs or FCEVs.
Lastly, the modeled potential compliance pathway that supports the
final standards is a combination of the ICE vehicle technologies
described in section II.D.1 along with BEV and FCEV technologies. As
stated in section II.D.1 of this preamble, for the ICE vehicle
technologies part of the analysis that supports the feasibility of the
Phase 3 standards, our assessment is that the technology packages for
the modeled potential compliance pathway include a mix of ICE vehicle
technologies and adoption rates of those technologies at the levels
included in the Phase 2 MY 2027 technology packages. Additionally, for
the additional example potential compliance pathways that support the
feasibility of the Phase 3 standards, our assessment is that those
technology packages include a mix of vehicles with ICE technologies
described in section II.D.1 and further discussed in section II.F.4 and
adoption rates of those technologies at the levels described in section
II.F.4.
5. EPA's HD TRUCS Analysis Tool
For the final rule, EPA further refined HD TRUCS, which (as just
noted) was developed by EPA to evaluate the design features needed to
meet the energy and power demands of various HD vehicle types when
using ZEV technologies. We did this by sizing the BEV and FCEV
components such that they could meet the driving demands based (in most
instances) on the 90th percentile daily VMT for each application, while
also accounting for the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) and battery thermal conditioning load requirements in hot and
cold weather and any PTO demands for the vehicle. Furthermore, we
accounted for the fact that the usable battery capacity is less than
100 percent and that batteries deteriorate over time. We also sized the
ZEV powertrains to ensure that the vehicles would meet an acceptable
level of acceleration from a stop and be able to maintain a cruise
speed while going up a hill at six-percent grade. In this subsection,
we discuss the primary inputs used in HD TRUCS along with the revisions
made for the tool used in this final rulemaking. Additional details on
HD TRUCS can be found in RIA Chapter 2. We received numerous comments
on our approach to HD TRUCS; some key topic themes include, but are not
limited to, vehicle sales distribution, battery sizing method,
component efficiencies and costs, additional operating costs, EVSE
costs and dwell time, payback curve, alternative sources for inputs and
the feasibility of ZEVs. We also addressed the minor errors in inputs
for a few of the 101 vehicles noted by one commenter.
i. Vehicles Analyzed
The version of HD TRUCS supporting this final rule continues to
analyze 101 vehicle types. However, we refined certain inputs based on
consideration of comments received. The 101 vehicle types encompass 22
different applications in the HD vehicle market, as shown in Table II-
10. These vehicles applications are further differentiated by weight
class, duty cycle, and daily VMT for each of these vehicle applications
into 101 vehicle types. These 101 vehicle types cover all 33 of the
heavy-duty regulatory subcategories, as shown in RIA Chapter 2.8.3.1.
As explained at proposal, 88 FR 25974, the initial list of HD TRUCS
vehicles contained 87 vehicle types and was based on work the Truck and
Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and CARB conducted for CARB's
ACT rule.\585\ For the NPRM, we consolidated the list; eliminated some
of the more unique vehicles with small populations like mobile
laboratories; and assigned operational characteristics for vocational
vehicles that correspond to the Urban, Multi-Purpose, and Regional duty
cycles used in GEM. We also added additional vehicle types to reflect
vehicle applications that were represented in EPA's certification data.
Chapter 2.1 of the RIA summarizes the 101 unique vehicle types
represented in HD TRUCS and each with a vehicle identifier, along with
their corresponding regulatory subcategory, vehicle application,
vehicle weight class, MOVES SourceTypeID and RegClassID,\586\ and GEM
duty cycle category. After considering comments, we revised several HD
vehicles to increase the number of day cab vehicle types and sleeper
cab vehicle types within the final rule version of HD TRUCS to include
four day cabs vehicle types and three sleeper cabs vehicle types that
are modeled in our analysis to use public charging, starting in MY
2030. In addition, of the tractors vehicle types that were designed for
public charging one day cab and one sleeper cab were updated to reflect
a more aerodynamic tractor design than the average tractor aerodynamics
used in the technology assessment to support the Phase 2 standards. See
RIA 2.2.2.1 for additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\585\ California Air Resources Board, Appendix E: Zero Emission
Truck Market Assessment (2019), available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/appe.pdf (last
accessed on September 26, 2022).
\586\ MOVES homepage: https://www.epa.gov/moves (last accessed
October 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29534]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.030
Heavy-duty vehicles are typically powered by a diesel-fueled CI
engine, though the heavy-duty market also includes vehicles powered by
gasoline-fueled SI engines and alternative-fueled ICE. We selected
diesel-powered ICE vehicles as the baseline vehicle for the assessment
in HD TRUCS in our analysis because a diesel-fueled CI engine is
broadly available for all of the 101 vehicle types and is more
efficient than an SI engine. Chapter 2.2 of the RIA includes the
details we developed for each of the baseline vehicles, including the
size of the engine and the transmission type. This information was used
to determine the weight and the cost of the ICE powertrains.
As noted, in the ZEV technologies portion of our analysis for our
projected technology packages, for MYs 2027 through 2029, we primarily
considered BEV technologies using depot charging. Starting in MY 2030,
we also considered FCEV technologies for select applications that
travel longer distances and/or carry heavier loads. This included coach
buses, sleeper cab tractors, and day cab tractors that are designed to
travel longer distances. For the final rule, we agree with commenters
who maintained that public charging would be needed for certain BEV
applications with high VMT. In our analysis, we are now projecting (and
including costs for) these applications to utilize public charging,
starting in MY 2030. We also updated one day cab tractor and one
sleeper cab tractor that utilize public charging to reflect a more
aerodynamic design than the average tractor aerodynamics used in the
technology assessment to support the Phase 2 standards. This was done
to reflect the reality that a newly designed HD BEV that is currently
available on the market has a more aerodynamic design than tractors
used in setting the Phase 2 standards. For more discussion on the
specifics of the aerodynamic tractors, see RIA Chapter 2.2.2.1.
ii. Vehicle Energy Demand
Energy is necessary to perform the work required of the vehicle.
This work includes driving, idling, and providing heating and cooling;
in addition, some vehicles require energy to operate equipment.
Vehicles with regenerative braking systems have the opportunity to
recover some of the kinetic energy that would otherwise be lost during
braking. There are a wide variety of energy demands across the heavy-
duty sector, depending on the vehicle's application. For example, some
vehicles, such as long-haul tractors, spend the vast majority of the
time driving, a fraction of the time idling, and require heating and
cooling of the cabin, but do not require operation of additional
equipment. A transit bus typically operates at low speeds, so it
requires less energy for driving than a long-haul tractor, but requires
more energy for heating or cooling due to its large amount of interior
cabin volume. Unlike ICE vehicles where the cabin heating is often
provided by excess heat from the main ICE, BEVs do not have excess heat
from an ICE to utilize in this manner and thus require more energy than
ICE vehicles to heat the cabin and additional energy to manage the
temperature of the batteries. As another example of the wide variety of
energy demands for HD vehicles, a utility truck, also known as a bucket
truck, may only drive a few miles to a worksite while idling for the
majority of the day and using energy to move the bucket up and down.
The power to run the separate equipment on ICE vehicles is typically
provided by a PTO from the main engine.
In HD TRUCS, we determined the daily energy demand for each of the
101 vehicle types by estimating both the baseline energy demands that
are similar regardless of the powertrain configuration and the energy
demands that vary by powertrain. The baseline energy includes energy at
the axle to move the vehicle, energy recovered from regenerative
braking energy, and PTO energy. Powertrain-specific energy includes
energy required to condition the battery and heat or cool the cabin
using HVAC system. We discuss each of these in the following
subsections.
a. Baseline Energy
For each HD TRUCS vehicle type, we determined the baseline energy
consumption requirement that is needed for each of the HD TRUCS
applications for ZEVs. The amount of energy needed at the axle to move
the vehicle down the road is determined by a combination of the type of
drive cycle (such as urban or freeway driving) and the number of miles
traveled over a period of time. To do this, we used the drive cycles
and cycle weightings adopted for HD GHG Phase 2 for our assessment of
the energy required per mile for each vehicle type. EPA's GEM model
simulates road load power requirements for various duty cycles to
estimate the energy required per mile for HD vehicles. To understand
[[Page 29535]]
the existing heavy-duty industry, we performed an analysis on current
heavy-duty vehicles in the market in order to determine typical power
requirements and rates of energy consumption at the axle. These values
represent the energy required to propel a vehicle of a given weight,
frontal area, and tire rolling resistance to complete the specified
duty cycle on a per-mile basis, independent of the powertrain. In RIA
Chapter 2.2.2, we describe the GEM inputs and results used to estimate
the propulsion energy and power requirements at the axle for ICE
vehicles on a per-mile basis. We also used these inputs, along with
some simple electric vehicle assumptions, to develop a model to
calculate weighted percent of energy recovery due to regenerative
braking. Additional detail can be found in RIA Chapter 2.2.2.1.3.
We requested data on our propulsion and regenerative braking energy
assessment in the proposal. We received comment that dump trucks, for
example, haul loads greater than the payload evaluated in GEM to
determine the propulsion power. It is worth noting that the payload
used in GEM to determine power requirements represents an average
payload with the expectation that vocational vehicles, like dump
trucks, would deliver a load and then return with an empty vehicle.
Therefore, the payload evaluated for Class 8 dump trucks is essentially
30,000 pounds on one leg of the trip and zero pounds for the other leg
of the trip. Furthermore, as discussed in section II.F, we reduced the
stringency of the final standards for heavy heavy-duty vocational
vehicles from the values proposed to reflect challenging applications,
such as this one.
As noted, some vocational vehicles have attachments that perform
work, typically by powering a hydraulic pump, which are powered by
PTOs. Information on in-use PTO energy demand cycles is limited. NREL
published two papers describing investigative work into PTO usage and
fuel consumption.\587 588\ These studies, however, were limited to
electric utility vehicles, such as bucket trucks and material handlers.
To account for PTO usage in HD TRUCS, we chose to rely on a table
described in California's Diesel Tax Fuel Regulations, specifically in
Regulation 1432, ``Other Nontaxable Uses of Diesel Fuel in a Motor
Vehicle,'' \589\ that covers a wider range of vehicles beyond the
electric utility vehicles in the referenced NREL studies. This table
contains ``safe-harbor'' percentages that are presumed amounts of
diesel fuel used for ``auxiliary equipment'' operated from the same
fuel tank as the motor vehicle. We used this source to estimate PTO
energy use as a function of total fuel consumed by vehicle type, as
discussed in RIA Chapter 2.2.2.1.4. We requested data for PTO loads in
the NPRM and received some comments on our approach for analyzing PTO
demands. Specifically, we received data for cement mixers and cement
pumpers suggesting that our PTO loads used for these vehicles in the
NPRM were too low. After investigation, we agree, and have increased
the PTO demand for cement mixers and pumpers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\587\ NREL, Characterization of PTO and Idle Behavior for
Utility Vehicles, Sept 2017. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/66747.pdf.
\588\ NREL, Fuel and Emissions Reduction in Electric Power Take-
Off Equipped Utility Vehicles, June 2016. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/66737.pdf.
\589\ See 18 CCR section 1432, ``Other Nontaxable Uses of Diesel
Fuel in a Motor Vehicle,'' available at https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol3/dftr/dftr-reg1432.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within HD TRUCS, we calculated the total energy needed daily based
on a daily VMT for each vehicle type. We used multiple sources to
develop the VMT for each vehicle including the NREL FleetDNA database,
a University of California-Riverside (UCR) database, the 2002 Vehicle
Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS), the CARB Large Entity Report, or an
independent source specific to an application, as discussed in RIA
Chapter 2.2.1.2.\590\ EPA assigned each vehicle type a 50th percentile
average daily VMT\591\ (``operational VMT'') that was used to estimate
operational costs, such as average annual fuel, hydrogen, or
electricity costs, and maintenance and repair costs (see RIA Chapters
2.3.4, 2.4.4, and 2.5.3). We also account for the change in use of the
vehicle over the course of its ownership and operation in HD TRUCS by
applying a VMT ratio based on vehicle age to the 50th percentile VMT.
The cost of fuel consumption for a particular calendar year is
determined by the VMT traveled for that year and the fuel price in that
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\590\ NREL and EPA. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Activity for EPA MOVES.
Available at https://data.nrel.gov/submissions/168, last accessed on
October 15, 2022, which includes an assessment of both the NREL and
UC-Riverside databases; U.S. Census Bureau. 2002 Vehicle Inventory
and Use Survey. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2002/econ/census/vehicle-inventory-and-use-survey.html, last accessed on
October 15, 2022. CARB. Large Entity Reporting. Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks/large-entity-reporting.
\591\ We used the 50th percentile as a proxy for average VMT
from the NREL FleetDNA database and the UC-Riverside database. The
NREL and UC-Riverside databases each contained a selection of
vehicles that we used to calculate 50th and 90th percentile daily
VMT. When each database had a VMT value, the values were averaged to
get VMT for a specific market segment. See RIA Chapter 2.2.1.2 for
further details. See text addressing comments that these mileage
estimates are not representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the proposal, we also developed a 90th percentile daily VMT
(``sizing VMT'') and used it in HD TRUCS to size ZEV components such as
batteries and to estimate the size requirements for EVSE. We selected
the 90th percentile daily VMT data because we project that
manufacturers will design their BEVs to meet most daily VMT needs, but
not to meet the most extreme operations. BEVs designed to meet the
longest daily VMT of all operators would be unnecessarily heavy and
expensive for most operations, which would limit their appeal.
Commenters challenged EPA's choices for both sizing and operational
VMT, as well as the combination of 90th percentile sizing VMT with 50th
percentile operational VMT. The first question is the mileage to which
a percentile is applied. EPA based its mileage estimate on the NREL's
FleetDNA and the UC Riverside's databases, which provide nationwide
estimates covering the widest range of HDVs.\592\ Two commenters
recommended lower VMT using different sources of telematics data
(including 2002 VIUS data, and data used by CARB in support of its ACT
rule). Another commenter, on the other hand, claimed that EPA's
estimate was low and supported its claim with recent (May 2023)
telematics data from its own fleet operations which had a 90th
percentile VMT considerably higher than that in the NREL FleetDNA data
base. See RIA Chapter 2.2.1.2.2 for additional discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\592\ NREL and EPA. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Activity for EPA MOVES.
Available at https://data.nrel.gov/submissions/168, last accessed on
October 15, 2022, which includes an assessment of both the NREL and
UC-Riverside databases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrespective of mileage, one commenter maintained that the
combination of a 90th percentile sizing VMT and 50th percentile
operational VMT was inherently overconservative. Sizing a battery at
the 90th percentile, in their view, is the equivalent of foisting
unneeded capacity on a purchaser when operational VMT is at the 50th
percentile. There is no reason, in that commenter's view, for the
analysis to posit purchasers buying more battery capacity than they
need, and for the analysis to assume that extra battery cost. In
addition, the commenter asserted that 50th percentile VMT skews EPA's
payback analysis toward longer payback periods, since it results in
longer time in the analysis for
[[Page 29536]]
operational and maintenance savings to be realized. In addition, some
commenters were skeptical that a 90th percentile sizing VMT properly
reflects the existing market where vehicles typically select different
sized batteries for different range requirements.
Other commenters challenged the sizing VMT as too low. They
question whether purchasers would buy a vehicle unsuitable for a
portion of their operations (at least 10 percent, accepting EPA's
mileage estimate). In their view, fleets would only purchase 90th
percentile trucks if they had exceptionally high confidence that their
vehicle will see predictable routes and weights that fall within that
90th percentile operating window. As noted, one commenter also
submitted data challenging the mileage estimate itself.
Other comments were less specific, alleging more generally that
heavy-duty vehicles travel more miles than reflected in EPA's analysis.
These comments expressed concerns about the range of current BEVs and
how the range of current BEV applications fail to match the range of
corresponding ICE vehicles. For example, one commenter raised a concern
that range for one EV was reported at 150 miles when compared to a
comparable diesel vehicle with a range of 1,000 miles. Another
commenter questioned the purchasers' willingness to accept vehicles
with low range, such as the vehicles EPA included in the NPRM which had
ranges with less than 100 miles. Another commenter was concerned about
the availability of different models with 200 miles of range. Two other
commenters were concerned about additional trips or more work required
due to limited battery range and long charging times which can be
affected by ambient temperature and road grade, among other factors.
They also stated that these factors contribute to reduced efficiency in
the trucking industry requiring additional trucks, drivers, and trips
to deliver the same amount of freight.
EPA appreciates the comments that raised concern about the range of
BEVs. We used 101 vehicles to represent the HD industry and our list of
vehicles covers the vast majority of vehicle applications, but we
recognize it is not all-encompassing. Our technology packages project
that significant volumes of ICE vehicles will be sold in the timeframe
of this rule and that those vehicles will be used in applications that
see extremes, whether they be extreme daily VMT or extreme ambient
temperatures, or niche applications. Hence the assumption of 90th
percentile sizing VMT because battery sizes to meet longer daily VMTs
would be unnecessarily large for most applications. For vehicles using
depot charging, one of the base assumptions for the battery sizing
analysis was to complete one day's worth of work on a single charge.
Therefore, our basic premise was to size ZEVs and ZEV batteries so that
they could perform the majority of work that ICE vehicles are capable
of and to analyze the payback based on the average fleet daily VMT.
This ensures that the vehicles specified in HD TRUCS are capable of
doing the work performed by ICE vehicles. At the same time, an
operational VMT at the 50th percentile is a conservative but reasonable
means of evaluating payback. By using the 50th percentile, we are
saying there will be days where the vehicle is used less and days when
it's used more, but on average this value would be representative of
the typical day. Consequently, we do not agree with the commenters'
assertion that the combination of sizing and operational VMTs in HD
TRUCS is arbitrary.
For the final rule, we are continuing to size our vehicles
batteries for depot charging BEVs to the 90th percentile as this
percentile would cover the majority of fleet operations. Sizing vehicle
batteries to the 50th percentile, as suggested by some commenters,
would decrease the number of years it would take for the BEV technology
to pay back, but it would also mean that these ZEVs would be
unavailable for major market segments in our analysis. EPA disagrees
that such an analytic approach would be a reasoned one, given that ZEV
applications are suitable (and in some instances, available now) for
these broader market segments. Disallowing them analytically, i.e., a
priori via a 50th percentile battery sizing assumption, consequently,
is not reasonable. We take these commenters' point, however, that some
HD vehicles--even tractors--do not need batteries sized as large as in
the proposal's approach due to lower daily VMT. We have accordingly
revised the sleeper cab and day cab tractors in HD TRUCS to account for
a wide variety of operations including short- and long-range tractors.
The sales distribution of these vehicles was informed by California's
Large Entity Survey, which we also used in the NPRM and includes the
percentage of trips by mileage for day cabs and for sleeper cabs.\593\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\593\ California Air Resources Board. ``Large Entity
Reporting.'' Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks/large-entity-reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the final rule, our modeled compliance pathway includes BEVs
that would utilize enroute charging, instead of depending on only
charging at their depot. In the applications where enroute charging is
utilized, manufacturers would not need to assume the extra battery
capacity required to meet the longest VMT days, and therefore will
instead match the battery size to the typical operational needs. To
determine the appropriate size of the battery for these vehicles, we
concluded that the vehicles would not require the same battery sizing
approach we used in the NPRM for depot-charged vehicles. Instead, we
sized the batteries for enroute-charged BEVs to meet the 50th
percentile daily VMT needs. For the longest range day cabs and sleeper
cabs, on days when these vehicles are required to travel longer
distances, we find that less than 30 minutes of mid-day charging at 1
MW is sufficient to meet the HD TRUCS 90th percentile VMT assuming
vehicles start the day with a full battery. Details regarding enroute
charging can be found in RIA Chapters 2.2.1.2 and 2.6.3. Please see RIA
Chapter 2.2.1.2 Table 2-3 for the complete list of VMT for each of the
101 vehicle types.
We continue to base the majority of our sizing VMT on the same
sources we used in the NPRM. We understand that there are many
different datasets available and that the 90th percentile VMT will be
different in each dataset. However, the NREL FleetDNA and MOVES
databases use data from many different sources across the country
giving a homogenized representation of the HD fleet nationwide rather
than data from a single source, even if that data was collected on a
nationwide basis. Thus, after consideration of comments, our assessment
is that the sources we use are better suited for the purposes of this
final rule and that our use of them is reasonable.
b. Powertrain-Specific Energy
HVAC requirements vary by vehicle type, location, and duty cycle.
The HVAC energy required to heat and cool interior cabins is considered
separately from the baseline energy in HD TRUCS, since these energy
loads are not required year-round or in all regions of the country.
Nearly all commercial vehicles are equipped with heat and basic
ventilation and most vehicles are equipped with air conditioning (A/C).
In ICE vehicles, traditional cabin heating uses excess thermal energy
produced by the main ICE. This is the only source of cabin heating for
many vehicle types. Additionally, on ICE vehicles, cabin A/C uses a
mechanical refrigerant compressor that is engine belt-driven.
For BEVs, the energy required for thermal management is different
than
[[Page 29537]]
for ICE vehicles. First, the loads for HVAC are different because the
vehicle is not able to be heated from excess heat from the engine. In
this analysis, we considered that HD BEVs may be equipped with either a
positive temperature coefficient (PTC) electric resistance heater with
traditional A/C, or a full heat pump system, as described in RIA
Chapter 1. The vehicle's battery is used to power either system, but
heat pumps are many times more efficient than PTC heaters. Given the
success and increasing adoption of heat pumps in light-duty EVs, we
believe that heat pumps will be the more commonly used technology and
thus project the use of heat pumps in our HD TRUCS analysis.
To estimate HVAC energy consumption of BEVs in HD TRUCS, we
performed a literature and market review. Even though there are limited
real-world studies, we agreed with the HVAC modeling-based approach
described in Basma et. al.\594\ This physics-based cabin thermal model
considers four vehicle characteristics: the cabin interior, walls,
materials, and number of passengers. The authors modeled a Class 8
electric transit bus with an HVAC system consisting of two 20-kW
reversible heat pumps, an air circulation system, and a battery thermal
management system. We used their estimated HVAC power demand values as
a function of temperature, resembling a parabolic curve, where hotter
and colder temperatures require more power with the lowest power demand
between 59 to 77 [deg]F, as shown in RIA Chapter 2.4.1.1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\594\ Basma, Hussein, Charbel Mansour, Marc Haddad, Maroun
Nemer, Pascal Stabat. ``Comprehensive energy modeling methodology
for battery electric buses''. Energy: Volume 207, 15 September 2020,
118241. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544220313487.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the NPRM, the power required for HVAC in HD TRUCS
is based on a Basma et. al study that determined the HVAC power demand
across a range of ambient temperatures.\595\ However, for the final
rule analysis, we made an adjustment to HD TRUCS to reflect a wider
range of cooling temperatures (as compared to the proposed greater than
80 [deg]F). In the final rule analysis, we created three separate
ambient temperature bins: one for heating (less than 55 [deg]F), one
for cooling (greater than 75 [deg]F), and one for a temperature range
that requires only ventilation (55-75 [deg]F). In HD TRUCS, we already
accounted for the energy loads due to ventilation in the baseline
energy demand, so no additional energy consumption is applied here for
the ventilation-only operation. We then weighted the power demands by
the percent HD VMT traveled at a specific temperature range. The
results of the VMT-weighted HVAC power demand for a Class 8 Transit Bus
are shown in Table II-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\595\ It should be noted that Basma model has discrete values in
Celsius and MOVES data has discrete values in Fahrenheit. The Basma
discrete values in the Basma model is fitted to a parabolic curve
and converted into Fahrenheit to best fit the VMT distribution that
is available in MOVES.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.031
Lastly, HVAC load is dependent on cabin size--the larger the size
of the cabin, the greater the HVAC demand. The values for HVAC power
demand shown in Table II-11 represent the power demand to heat or cool
the interior of a Class 8 Transit bus. However, HD vehicles have a
range of cabin sizes; therefore, we developed scaling ratios relative
to the cabin size of a Class 8 bus. Each vehicle's scaling factor is
based on the surface area of the vehicle compared to the surface area
of the Class 8 bus. Cabin sizes for most HD vehicle types have a
similar cabin to a mid-size light-duty vehicle and therefore, an
average scaling factor of 0.2 was applied to all of those vehicle
types.\596\ The buses and sleeper cab tractors have cabin sizes similar
to the transit bus or scaled down to reflect its relative cabin size.
For example, a Class 4-5 shuttle bus has a cabin size ratio of 0.6. For
additional information see RIA Chapter 2.4.1.1.1. In response to our
request for data on HVAC loads for BEVs, we did receive additional
modeling data from one commenter that included HVAC loads for European
long-haul tractors. We found the new data to be corroborative with our
HVAC loads and the sleeper cab scaling factor; therefore, we did not
adjust our HVAC loads from proposal in HD TRUCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\596\ The interior cabin where the driver and passengers sit are
heated while where the cargo is stored is not heated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel cell stacks produce excess heat during the conversion of
hydrogen to electricity, similar to an ICE during combustion. This
excess heat can be used to heat the interior cabin of the vehicle. In
HD TRUCS, we already accounted for the energy loads due to ventilation
in the axle loads, so no additional energy consumption is applied to
FCEV for heating operation. Therefore, for FCEV energy consumption in
HD TRUCS, we only include additional energy requirements for air
conditioning (i.e., not for heating).\597\ As described in RIA Chapter
2.4.1.1.1, we assigned a power demand of 2.01 kW for powering the air
conditioner on a Class 8 bus. The A/C loads are then scaled by the
cabin volume for other vehicle applications in HD TRUCS and applied to
the VMT fraction that requires cooling, just as we did for BEVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\597\ FCEVs use waste heat from the fuel cell for heating, and
that ventilation operates the same as it does for an ICE vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEVs have thermal management systems to maintain battery core
temperatures within an optimal range of approximately 68 to 95 degrees
Fahrenheit (F).\598\ In HD TRUCS, we accounted for the battery thermal
management energy demands as a function of ambient temperature based on
a Basma et. al study.\599\ As described in RIA Chapter 2.4.1.1.3, we
determined the amount of energy consumed to heat the battery with cabin
air when it is cold outside (less than 55 [deg]F) and energy consumed
to cool the battery when it is hot outside (greater than 75 [deg]F)
with refrigerant cooling. Note, as similarly described in the HVAC
discussion in this subsection and as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.4.1.1,
we extended the temperature range for cooling from greater than 80
[deg]F to greater than 75 [deg]F for the final rule. For the ambient
temperatures between these two regimes, we agreed with Basma, et. al
that only ambient air cooling is required for the batteries, which
requires no additional load. We first determined a single VMT-weighted
power consumption value for battery heating and a value for battery
cooling based on the MOVES HD VMT distribution and based on the same
method used for HVAC. Then, we determined the energy
[[Page 29538]]
required for battery conditioning required for eight hours of daily
operation and expressed it in terms of percent of total battery size.
Table II-12 shows the energy consumption for battery conditioning for
both hot and cold ambient temperatures, expressed as a percentage of
battery capacity, used in HD TRUCS. The battery cooling energy
consumption percentage reflects an updated value for the final rule
that includes the battery cooling loads down to 75 [deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\598\ Basma, Hussein, Charbel Mansour, Marc Haddad, Maroun
Nemer, Pascal Stabat. ``Comprehensive energy modeling methodology
for battery electric buses''. Energy: Volume 207, 15 September 2020,
118241. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544220313487.
\599\ Basma, Hussein, Charbel Mansour, Marc Haddad, Maroun
Nemer, Pascal Stabat. ``Comprehensive energy modeling methodology
for battery electric buses''. Energy: Volume 207, 15 September 2020,
118241. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544220313487.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.032
iii. BEV Component Sizing and Weight
We used HD TRUCS to determine the size of two of the major
components in a BEV: the battery and the motor. The size of these
components is determined by the energy needs of the specific vehicle to
meet its daily operating requirements. In this subsection, we also
discuss our method to evaluate the payload and packaging impact of the
battery.
a. Battery
First, in HD TRUCS, we based the size of the battery on the daily
demands on the vehicle to perform a day's work, as explained in section
II.D.5.ii.a. As described in the Vehicle Energy Demand subsection,
section II.D.5.ii, this daily energy consumption is a function of miles
the vehicle is driven and the energy it consumes because of: (1) moving
the vehicle per unit mile, including the impact of regenerative braking
and PTO energy requirements, and (2) battery conditioning and HVAC
energy requirements. Then we also accounted for the battery efficiency,
depth of discharge, and deterioration in sizing of the batteries for
BEVs.
The daily energy consumption of each BEV in HD TRUCS is determined
by applying efficiency losses to energy consumption at the axle. These
losses for the inverter, gearbox, and e-motor are calculated using loss
maps of each component of production components for a Class 5 and a
Class 8 vehicle, as described in RIA Chapter 2.4.1.1. Next, we
oversized the battery to account separately for the typical usable
amount of battery and, if necessary, for battery deterioration over
time. For the NPRM, we sized the battery by limiting it to a maximum
depth of discharge of 80 percent, recognizing that manufacturers and
users likely would not allow the battery capacity to be depleted beyond
80 percent of original capacity. We also accounted for deterioration of
the battery capacity over time by oversizing the battery by 20 percent,
assuming only 80 percent of the battery storage is available throughout
its life. We requested comment and data on heavy-duty battery depth of
discharge and deterioration. 88 FR 25977.
We received numerous comments about limiting depth of discharge to
80 percent as well as 20 percent extra battery capacity to account for
battery deterioration over time. Some of these commenters said we
should reduce or remove the additional 20 percent of extra battery
capacity for degradation and the 80 percent depth of discharge. Others
pointed out that batteries degrade over time and will reduce in
capacity, up to 3 percent annual capacity loss.
One commenter cited a February 2022 Roush report on the
electrification of tractors where Roush had set the depth of discharge
to 90 percent and a 10 percent battery degradation value and suggested
using those values. They also pointed out that the decrease in VMT over
time used in the proposal's version of HD TRUCS for calculating
operating costs meets or exceeds the 20 percent reduction in battery
capacity over that same time. They argued that the decrease in VMT
already accounts for 20 percent battery deterioration and that it
should not be included, or that EPA should adopt the 10 percent value
that Roush used in their report. Another commenter questioned the
source for a 20 percent battery capacity fade. They agreed that
batteries will degrade over time but stated that data is scarce for HD
applications and that recent developments in battery technology have
resulted in prolonged battery life with long-distance BEVs reaching
over 900,000 miles. Another commenter stated that the additional 20
percent battery sizing for deterioration was an overly conservative
estimate and that fleets would adjust the mileage and routes used for a
vehicle over time as they currently do with ICE vehicles from the
secondary market. They stated that fleets would not pay for the
additional unused battery capacity. This commenter also raised concerns
about using an 80 percent depth of discharge value, saying that it
would be more appropriate to model battery usage and mileage based on
capacity fade and citing a demonstration by Yang et al. and Dunn et al.
Another commenter stated that oversizing the battery biases downward
the projected rate of BEV adoption due to increased costs attributable
to the extra battery capacity. Relatedly, a few commenters raised
concerns about the cost of replacing a vehicle battery. They stated
that is a very large cost that should be accounted for.
After considering these comments, and further supported by the
state of charge window value used in the 2022 Autonomie tool from
Argonne National Laboratory, we revised the battery depth of discharge
window to 90 percent in HD TRUCS.\600\ This is further discussed in RIA
Chapter 2.4.1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\600\ Argonne National Laboratory. VTO HFTO Analysis Reports--
2022. ``ANL--ESD-2206 Report--MD HD Truck--Autonomie
Assumptions.xlsx''. Available online: https://anl.app.box.com/s/an4nx0v2xpudxtpsnkhd5peimzu4j1hk/folder/242640145714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also re-evaluated the blanket application of 20 percent
deterioration value used for all vehicles in the proposal based on
consideration of comments received. We agreed with certain commenters
regarding existing data supports that HD VMT decreases as vehicles get
older, and thus an older HD BEV would not need to have as much range as
it needed when it was new to be comparable to a comparable ICE vehicle.
Consequently, in the final rule, we determined the battery
deterioration factor for each of the 101 vehicle applications based on
the number of charging cycles the battery would require during its
first ten years of operation. See RIA Chapter 2.4.1.1.3.
In the final rule, we are considering the costs of battery
replacement and ICE rebuilds in our analysis of the costs to
purchasers, as discussed in section IV. We are not considering battery
replacement cost in our 10-year ownership calculation costs in HD
TRUCS. Similarly, we do not consider engine rebuilding costs for ICE
vehicles in our parallel 10-year ownership calculation of costs. The
reason is the same in both instances: we do not
[[Page 29539]]
expect failure of either the battery pack or the engine during the
vehicles' first ten years of ownership, which is the period we focused
on in our HD TRUCS analysis.
We have made certain conforming adjustments within HD TRUCS
reflecting these considerations. In the final rule, instead of applying
a constant deterioration factor, we determined the battery
deterioration factor for each of the 101 vehicle applications based on
the number of charging cycles the battery would require during its
first ten years of operation. The ten years represents the longest
payback period we consider for the technologies in our technology
package. A cycle is defined as a single full charge and discharge
cycle. The number of cycles is determined based on the annual operating
VMT of the vehicle over the 10-year timeframe.
We selected 2,000 cycles as our number of cycles target at 10 years
of age while recognizing this value depends on a number of internal and
external parameters including battery chemistry, the discharge window
while cycling, power output of the battery, and how the battery is
managed while in and not in use. A study shows LFP batteries can
maintain 80 to 95 percent state of charge after 3,000 cycles and
nickel-based lithium-ion batteries are shown to retain 80 percent state
of charge after 2,000 cycles under some test conditions.\601\ Our use
of a 2,000-cycle limitation is consequently conservative. We increased
the battery size as necessary for vehicles such that the battery would
not exceed 2,000 cycles at the end of the 10-year period--the number of
cycles reflecting 10-year VMT, as just noted. We note that only eight
vehicles in HD TRUCS require a 15 percent increase in battery size and
meet the 2,000 cycle limit over a ten year period. Most of the 101
vehicle types would experience less than 1,500 cycles over the ten-year
period. The battery sizing is described in greater detail in RIA
Chapters 2.4.1.1 and 2.8.5.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\601\ Preger, Yuliya, et. al. ``Degradation of Commercial
Lithium-Ion Cells as a Function of Chemistry and Cycling
Conditions.'' Journal of the Electrochemical Society. September
2020. Available at: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1149/1945-7111/abae37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Motor
We determined the size of the motor for each vocational and day cab
tractor BEV based on the maximum power demand of the transient cycle
and highway cruise cycles, the vehicle's ability to meet minimum
performance targets in terms of acceleration rate of the vehicle, and
the ability of the vehicle to maintain speed going up a hill. For
sleeper cabs, the motor size was determined to be 400 KW based on the
comparable ICE sleeper cab tractor engine power and the continuous
motor power of existing HD BEV tractors.\602\ For heavy haul tractors,
the BEV motor power is set at 450 kW to reflect the maximum engine
power of heavy heavy-duty engines.\603\ As described in RIA Chapter
2.4.1.2, we estimated a BEV motor's peak power needs to size the e-
motor, after considering the peak power required during the ARB
transient cycle\604\ and performance targets included in ANL's
Autonomie model \605\ and in Islam et al.,\606\ as indicated in Table
II-13. We assigned the target maximum time to accelerate a vehicle from
stop to 30 mph and 60 mph based on weight class of each vehicle. We
also used the criteria that the vehicle must be able to maintain a
specified cruise speed while traveling up a road with a 6 percent
grade, as shown in Table II-13. In the case of cruising at 6 percent
grade, the road load calculation is set at a constant speed for each
weight class bin on a hill with a 6 percent incline. We determined the
required power rating of the motor as the greatest power required to
drive the vehicle over the ARB transient test cycle, at 55 mph and 65
mph constant cruise speeds, or at constant speed at 6 percent grade,
and then applied losses from the e-motor. We requested comment on our
approach using these performance targets in the NPRM but did not
receive any comments on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\602\ Peterbilt. 579EV. Available online: https://www.peterbilt.com/trucks/electric/579EV.
\603\ Detroit Diesel Engines. Available online: https://www.demanddetroit.com/engines/dd16/.
\604\ EPA uses three representative duty cycles for calculating
CO2 emissions in GEM: a transient cycle and two highway
cruise cycles. The transient duty cycle was developed by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and includes no grade--just
stops and starts. The highway cruise duty cycles represent 55-mph
and 65-mph vehicle speeds on a representative highway. They use the
same road load profile but at different vehicle speeds, along with a
percent grade ranging from -5 percent to 5 percent.
\605\ Islam, Ehsan Sabri. Ram Vijayagopal, Ayman Moawad, Namdoo
Kim, Benjamin Dupont, Daniela Nieto Prada, Aymeric Rousseau, ``A
Detailed Vehicle Modeling & Simulation Study Quantifying Energy
Consumption and Cost Reduction of Advanced Vehicle Technologies
Through 2050,'' Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract
ANL/ESD-21/10, October 2021. See previous reports and analysis:
2021. Available online: https://vms.taps.anl.gov/research-highlights/u-s-doe-vto-hfto-r-d-benefits/.
\606\ Islam, Ehsan Sabri, Ram Vijayagopal, Aymeric Rousseau. ``A
Comprehensive Simulation Study to Evaluate Future Vehicle Energy and
Cost Reduction Potential'', Report to the U.S. Department of Energy,
Contract ANL/ESD-22/6, October 2022. Available online: https://vms.taps.anl.gov/research-highlights/u-s-doe-vto-hfto-r-d-benefits/.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.033
c. Battery Weight and Volume
Performance needs of a BEV could result in a battery that is so
large or heavy that it impacts payload and, thus, potential work
accomplished relative to a comparable ICE vehicle. We determined the
battery weight and physical volume for each vehicle application in HD
TRUCS using the specific energy and energy density of the battery for
each battery capacity.
As described in RIA Chapter 2.4.2, to determine the weight impact,
we used battery specific energy, which measures battery energy per unit
of mass. In the NPRM, we used specific energy values for the battery
pack that ranged between 199 Wh/kg in MY 2027 and 233 Wh/kg in MY 2032.
88 FR 25978. We received comments from two commenters on improvements
in battery specific energy higher than the values used in the proposal.
EPA recognizes there have been significant development in the
[[Page 29540]]
areas of battery chemistry, battery cell and battery pack design. These
commenters provided examples and values for battery specific energy as
well as energy density. However, as explained in RIA Chapter 2.4.2,
there is a difference between battery cell properties and battery pack
properties.\607\ For a complete discussion of information provided by
commenters on battery specific energy, see RTC section 3.2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\607\ Energy within the battery is stored in the battery cell,
or more specifically in the active anode and the active cathode, or
more simply referred to as the active materials (for example nickel
manganese cobalt). The specific energy is a measure of how much
energy can be stored per unit weight. For a given amount (weight) of
active materials, it has the ability to store some amount of energy.
However, active material weight within the battery is very low;
instead most of the battery cell weight is comprised of housing.
Since batteries typically do not exist as just active material, the
specific energy is reported in terms of amount of energy (in Wh)
stored in the active material and the weight of all the components
that go into the battery cell. Furthermore, for transportation
batteries, a battery pack consists of many (hundreds or thousands)
cells, the weight of the battery is further increased from the
additional mass that is added to make the pack level structure. This
therefore lowers the specific energy of the battery pack (Wh remains
constant since the energy is stored in the active materials and
weight increases from more mass added from the pack). There is
frequent reporting that conflates cell level specific energy with
pack level specific energy, or the values are unspecified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For HD TRUCS, one metric for feasibility is to determine the weight
of the BEV powertrain system which includes the battery pack weight as
well as the motor weight (and gear box when required). Since battery
packs consist of a group of cells (or modules), additional mass from
packaging, cooling system and battery management system (BMS) add
additional mass without providing additional energy. For the final
rule, instead of solely relying on the 2021 version of Autonomie as we
did at proposal, we also analyzed the battery specific energy values
provided in the comments received on the proposal, ANL BEAN values,
values from DOE as provided by a 2024 ANL study,\608\ and values in the
FEV study.\609\ For our weight assessment in the final rule, we
utilized the battery pack specific energy values from the 2024 ANL
study because it contains the most comprehensive and most recent
assessment of the battery industry. As with battery cost, we used a 50/
50 mix of NiMn and LFP batteries to determine the average specific
energy for batteries. The NiMn batteries have a specific energy of 226
Wh/kg and LFP at 170 Wh/kg, the resulting value, used in our analysis,
is 198 Wh/kg. For further details on battery specific energy see RIA
Chapter 2.4.2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\608\ Kevin Knehr, Joseph Kubal, Shabbir Ahmed, ``Cost Analysis
and Projections for U.S.-Manufactured Automotive Lithium-ion
Batteries'', Argonne National Laboratory report ANL/CSE-24/1 for US
Department of Energy. January 2024. Available online: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2280913.
\609\ FEV Consulting. ``Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles Class 4
to 8: Technology and Cost Evaluation for Electrified Powertrains--
Final Report''. Prepared for EPA. March 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognize that although there likely will be improvements made
between 2027 and 2032, it is difficult to determine if the degree of
improvements during that time frame, especially considering that
manufacturers will have to balance the cost of additional weight
reduction and overall costs of the BEV. Therefore, for the final rule
we reasonably, and conservatively, held the battery specific energy
constant for MYs 2027 through 2032.
To evaluate battery volume and determine the packaging space
required for each HD vehicle type, we used battery energy density.
Battery energy density (also referred to as volumetric energy density)
measures battery energy per unit of volume. To calculate battery energy
density, we multiplied the battery specific energy by a factor. For the
NPRM, we used pack level energy densities that ranged from 496 Wh/L in
MY 2027 to 557 Wh/L in MY 2032. These values corresponded to
multiplying the battery pack specific energy by 2.5. We requested
comment and data in the NPRM to inform these values for the final rule.
88 FR 25978.
In response to our request for data in the NPRM, one commenter
provided data from a study that included battery properties of specific
energy and energy density. For more details on the comment and our
response, see RTC section 3.2.3. The average energy density calculated
from the data provided was 2.2. For the final rule, we used a ratio of
2.0 as a conservative estimate because the properties cited by the
initial commenter discussed on a cell level, not a pack level. Based on
our update to battery pack specific energy, we used an energy density
value of 396 Wh/L for MYs 2027 through 2032 in HD TRUCS.
Heavy-duty vehicles are used to perform work, such as moving cargo
or carrying passengers. Consequently, heavy-duty vehicles are sensitive
to increases in vehicle weight and carrying volume. To take this into
account, we also evaluated BEVs in terms of the overall impact on
payload-carrying ability and battery packaging space. The results of
this analysis can be found in RIA Chapters 2.4.2 and 2.9.
At proposal, EPA included a 30 percent reduction in the payload
used to evaluate compliance in GEM as a metric to determine specific
vehicle applications. Specifically, EPA did not include BEVs in a
projected technology package if this payload capacity was reduced by
over 30 percent. 88 FR 25978. We note that the payload used to
demonstrate compliance in GEM is less than the full payload capability
of the vehicle. For vehicles like dump trucks and tractors, that are
seen as fully loaded during delivery and empty upon return, the maximum
payload was much greater than the GEM payload. Therefore, the 30
percent threshold used in the NPRM analysis did not represent a 30
percent loss in total payload and its impact on total payload is less
than 30 percent. For the proposal, EPA also evaluated payload volume by
calculating the width of the physical battery using the volume,
wheelbase, and 110 percent of the frame rail height. If the battery
width was less than 8.5 feet, we determined the battery would package
on the specific vehicle.
Many commenters raised concerns about the reduction in payload due
to increased curb weight of ZEVs. The principal concern raised is that
battery size and weight constrain payload so much as to render BEVs
uneconomic. With respect to our analysis of battery width, commenters
asserted that EPA had failed to consider a number of consequential
things, including space for tires and the width of each frame rail.
There were also several comments on the specific value of payload loss
of 30 percent used in HD TRUCS for the NPRM. Three commenters believed
the payload penalty limit for BEVs is too high; for some, even a 5 to
10 percent loss is too much to perform their mission. One of these
commenters claimed that approximately 20 percent of intermodal loads
already max out due to weight under the current diesel truck equipment
configuration. Neither of the other two commenters provided any
additional information on any acceptable payload capacity loss. One
commenter recommended adjustment to the payload cut off, particularly
for vocational vehicles such as concrete mixers, dump trucks, and
tanker trucks.
At proposal, EPA justified the cargo penalty metric based on a
report of the North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE)
which the agency characterized as stating that vehicles weigh out
before cubing out.\610\ DRIA p. 234. Two commenters stated that EPA
misunderstood the NACFE report. One commenter maintained that the NACFE
report references a ``per run'' load instead of a ``per truck'' vehicle
load. As
[[Page 29541]]
load of the truck is unpredictable, any additional reduction in payload
capacity reduces the flexibility and use of the vehicle. Another
commenter not only concurred but also stated that the NACFE report only
refers to regional trucks which makes it inappropriate to apply to all
101 vehicles in HD TRUCS. Lastly, one commenter asserted that since the
NACFE report is from 2010 and the industry has gone through significant
changes since then as a result of e-commerce as well as shipping
practices, the assumed 30 percent weight penalty used at proposal
should be included in the cost of the vehicle as fleets would account
for the additional cost of making up for the lost payload through
additional trips or vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\610\ EPA ``Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Phase 3.'' April 2023. Page 234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering these comments, we are not using a 30 percent
payload reduction as a metric for determining BEV suitability and are
no longer estimating battery width based on frame rail height and
wheelbase. Instead, for the final rule we conducted a more robust
analysis where we assessed each vehicle in HD TRUCS on an individual
basis and determine the suitability of each application, as described
in this section and in RIA 2.9.1. EPA conducted two separate
individualized types of determinations: one for battery payload weight,
the other for battery volume. See RIA Chapter 2.9.1.1 and 2.9.1.2. We
note further that this delineation responds to those comments relating
to weighing out and cubing out, since we are conducting separate
analyses for each of these situations. Furthermore, after consideration
of comments, we are no longer using the NACFE report in this analysis
to inform a single weight penalty cutoff for all types of vehicles.
With respect to weight, we compared the respective weights of the
BEV powertrain with the comparable ICE powertrain. We determined the
percentage difference in weight using the maximum payload available to
each vehicle type, not the default GEM payload. For example, for the
Class 8 dump trucks, the payload difference (loss) was modest: 2.6
percent; with the NiMn battery chemistry specific energy (226 Wh/kg)
\611\ the payload loss is 1.3 percent. The tanker payload loss was 2
percent of maximum payload. EPA does not view these differences as
sufficient to preclude utilization of BEV technology at the rates
projected in EPA's modeled compliance pathway. See RIA Chapter 2.9.1.1
for detailed weight comparisons by vehicle, and more detailed
discussion of specific applications. On the other hand, for concrete
mixers and pumpers, EPA determined that battery size, energy demand,
and corresponding costs were all significantly higher than EPA had
projected at proposal and accordingly determined that EPA's optional
custom chassis standards for Concrete Mixers/Pumpers and Mixed-Use
Vehicles will remain unchanged from the Phase 2 MY 2027+ CO2
emission standards.\612\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\611\ Battery chemistry impacts the battery pack specific energy
and battery technology continues to evolve suggesting that battery
pack weight may decrease and payload increase. To assess the
sensitivity of payload to higher specific energy, EPA reviewed two
additional scenarios (1) use of NiMn batteries (HD TRUCS uses a
value that represents a 50/50 mix of NiMn and LFP to align with
battery cost assumptions) and (2) possible NiMn battery pack
specific energy improvements through 2030.
\612\ See also section II.F.1 discussing optional custom chassis
standards, including those for concrete mixers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For tractors, EPA did the same type of weight comparison, and found
the weight increase to be reasonable for most of the tractors in HD
TRUCS. See RIA 2.9.1.1 for vehicle by vehicle difference in weight and
a more detail discussion of specific applications. EPA further examined
when tractors are utilized at maximum load \613\ and found that many
commodities do not require transport at maximum load, for further
discussion on our analysis of tractor loading based on commodities, see
Chapter 2.9.1 of the RIA. Our ultimate conclusion is that our modeled
compliance pathway projects a majority of these vehicles remain ICE
vehicles, that ICE vehicles therefore would be available to accommodate
those commodities for which maximum loads are needed, and that BEVs
remain viable for those other commodities that do not require transport
at maximum load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\613\ DOE. Vehicle Technologies Office. Fact of the Week #1293.
``In 2019, More Heavy Trucks Operated at 34,000 to 36,000 Pounds
than Any Other Weight Category''. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1293-june-5-2023-2019-more-heavy-trucks-operated-34000-36000-pounds-any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our analysis respecting volume is somewhat different. We make the
reasonable assumption that if a current BEV (either tractor or
vocational vehicle) exists, its volumetric capacity is suitable. Thus,
if the HD TRUCS version of that BEV has the same or similar battery
size as an existing BEV, we did not constrain the adoption of that BEV
type due to volume loss. In some instances, we examined further whether
wheelbase adjustments could accommodate larger battery sizes so as not
to constrain available volume. See RIA 2.9.1.2 for a vehicle-by-vehicle
discussion and more detail on specific vehicle applications.
In assessing the packaging of a FCEV powertrain, we contracted with
FEV to assess how FCEVs can store and package hydrogen. The FEV study
shows that six tanks could fit on a sleeper cab tractor with a
wheelbase of 265''.\614\ A vehicle class where we determined that
battery size, or fuel cell and hydrogen tank size, would reduce storage
volume for some applications was coach buses, and therefore we did not
finalize more stringent optional custom chassis standards for coach
buses, as discussed in section II.F.1.\615\ Our individualized
determinations for all of these vehicles are found in RIA 2.9.1.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\614\ FEV Consulting. ``Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles Class 4
to 8: Technology and Cost Evaluation for Electrified Powertrains--
Final Report''. Prepared for EPA. March 2024.
\615\ See also II.F.1 discussing optional custom chassis
standards, including those for coach buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Charging Infrastructure for BEVs
Charging infrastructure represents a key element required for HD
BEV operation. More charging infrastructure will be needed to support
the projected growing fleet of HD BEVs. This will likely consist of a
combination of (1) depot charging--with infrastructure installed in
parking depots, warehouses, and other private locations where vehicles
are parked off-shift (when not in use), and (2) public charging,\616\
which provides additional electricity for vehicles during their
operating hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\616\ En-route charging could occur at public or private
charging stations though, for simplicity, we often refer to en-route
charging as occurring at public stations in the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In RIA Chapters 2.6 and 2.8.7 we describe how we accounted for
charging infrastructure in our analysis of HD BEV technologies for our
technology packages to support the feasibility of the standards and
extent of use of HD BEV technologies in the potential compliance
pathway for MYs 2027-2032. We explain there in detail the updates made
after consideration of comments and newly available supporting data
from NREL. For the NPRM analysis, we estimated infrastructure costs
exclusively associated with depot charging to fulfill each BEV's daily
charging needs off-shift with the appropriately sized electrical
vehicle supply equipment. This approach reflected our expectation that
many heavy-duty BEV owners would opt to purchase and install EVSE at
depots, and accordingly, we accounted for all of these costs upfront.
We received many comments on this approach. While multiple commenters
agreed that depot charging would be the primary source of charging
across many vehicle applications, especially in the early years of the
Phase 3 program, some
[[Page 29542]]
commenters noted the importance of also accounting for public charging
in our analysis. Commenters asserted that long-haul vehicles and other
fleet vehicles that either do not regularly return to a depot, or for
which installing depot charging would be difficult, may utilize public
charging including during the initial model years (through 2032)
covered by the Phase 3 program.
For our final rule analysis, after consideration of these comments,
we have updated our HD TRUCS model to incorporate costs associated with
public charging for certain vehicle types starting with MY 2030, the
year when we project there will be sufficient public charging
infrastructure for HD vehicles for the projected utilization of such
technologies. See RIA Chapter 1.6. Specifically, in HD TRUCS we assume
that all BEV sleeper cab tractors and coach buses will use public
charging rather than depot charging, as will four of the ten day cab
tractors--those with longer ranges--that we model. In HD TRUCS we
assume public charging needs will be met with a mix of megawatt-level
EVSE and 150 kW EVSE, consistent with a recent ICCT analysis.\617\ In
our analysis for the final rule, capital costs associated with public
charging equipment are passed through to BEV owners through a higher
charging cost. See RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\617\ Hussein Basma, Claire Buysee, Yuanrong Zhou, and Felipe
Rodriguez, ``Total Cost of Ownership of Alternative Powertrain
Technologies for Class 8 Long-haul Trucks in the United States,''
April 2023. Available at: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/tco-alt-powertrain-long-haul-trucks-us-apr23.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For other day cab tractors and vocational vehicles, in HD TRUCS we
continue to assume that daily charging needs can be met with
appropriately sized depot EVSE. A range of depot charging equipment is
available including AC or DC charging, different power levels, as well
as options for different number of ports and connectors per charging
unit, connector type(s), communications protocols, and additional
features such as vehicle-to-grid capability (which allows the vehicle
to supply energy back to the grid). Many of these selections will
impact EVSE hardware and installation costs, with power level as one of
the most significant drivers of cost. While specific cost estimates
vary across the literature, higher-power charging equipment is
typically more expensive than lower-power units. For this reason, in HD
TRUCS for the final rule we continued our proposed approach to consider
four different charging types--AC Level 2 (19.2 kW) and 50 kW, 150 kW,
and 350 kW DC fast charging (DCFC)--though we have made updates to cost
assumptions and other key inputs that impact our depot charging
analysis, as described in section II.E.2 of this document.
We acknowledge that even vehicles which predominantly rely on depot
charging may utilize some public charging, for example on high travel
days. In addition, some fleet owners may opt not to install depot
charging, and instead either rely on public charging or make
alternative arrangements such as using charging-as-a-service or other
business arrangements to meet charging needs. See RIA Chapter 2.6 for a
more complete description of this topic.
v. FCEV Component Sizing
To compare HD FCEV technology costs and performance to a comparable
ICE vehicle in HD TRUCS, this section explains how we define HD FCEVs
based on the performance and use criteria in RIA Chapter 2.2 (that we
also used for HD BEVs, as explained in section II.D.5.ii). We
determined the e-motor, fuel cell system, and battery pack sizes to
meet the power requirements for each of the FCEVs represented in HD
TRUCS. We also estimated the size of the onboard fuel tank needed to
store the energy, in the form of gaseous hydrogen, required to meet
typical range and duty cycle needs. See RIA Chapter 2.5 for further
details.
a. E-Motor
As discussed in RIA Chapter 2.4.1.2, the e-motor is part of the
electric drive system that converts the electric power from the battery
and/or fuel cell into mechanical power to move the wheels of the
vehicle. In HD TRUCS, the e-motor was sized for a FCEV like it was
sized for a BEV--to meet peak power needs of a vehicle, which is the
maximum power to drive the ARB transient cycle, meet the maximum time
to accelerate from 0 to 30 mph, meet the maximum time to accelerate
from 0 to 60 mph, and maintain a set speed up a six-percent grade.
b. Fuel Cell System
Vehicle power in a FCEV comes from a combination of the fuel cell
(FC) stack and the battery pack. The fuel cell behaves like the
internal combustion engine of a hybrid vehicle, converting chemical
energy stored in the hydrogen fuel into electrical energy. The battery
is charged by power derived from regenerative braking, as well as
excess power from the fuel cell. Some HD FCEVs are designed to rely on
the fuel cell stack to produce the necessary power, with the battery
primarily used to capture energy from regenerative braking. This is the
type of HD FCEV that we modeled in HD TRUCS for the MY 2030 to 2032
timeframe in order to meet the longer distance requirements of select
vehicle applications.618 619 620
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\618\ Islam, Ehsan Sabri, Ram Vijayagopal, Aymeric Rousseau. ``A
Comprehensive Simulation Study to Evaluate Future Vehicle Energy and
Cost Reduction Potential'', Report to the U.S. Department of Energy,
Contract ANL/ESD-22.6. October 2022. See Full report. Available
online: https://anl.app.box.com/s/an4nx0v2xpudxtpsnkhd5peimzu4j1hk/file/1406494585829.
\619\ Note that ANL's analysis defines a fuel cell hybrid EV
(FCHEV) as a battery-dominant vehicle with a large energy battery
pack and a small fuel cell, and a fuel cell EV (FCEV) as a fuel
cell-dominant vehicle with a large fuel cell and a smaller power
battery. Ours is a slightly different approach because we consider a
fuel cell-dominant vehicle with a battery with energy cells. The
approach we took is intended to cover a wide range of vehicle
application however it results in a conservative design, as it
relies on a large fuel cell and a larger energy battery. As
manufacturers design FCEV for specific HD applications, they will
likely end up with a more optimized lower cost designs. Battery-
dominant FCHEVs and fuel cell-dominant technologies with power
batteries may also be feasible in this timeframe but were not
evaluated for the FRM.
\620\ FEV Consulting. ``Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles Class 4
to 8: Technology and Cost Evaluation for Electrified Powertrains--
Final Report''. Prepared for EPA. March 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While much of FCEV design is dependent on the use case of the
vehicle, manufacturers also balance the cost of components such as the
fuel cell, the battery, and the hydrogen fuel storage tanks. For the
purposes of this HD TRUCS analysis, we focused on PEM fuel cells that
use energy battery cells, where the fuel cell and the battery were
sized based on the demands of the vehicle. In HD TRUCS, the fuel cell
system (i.e., the fuel cell stacks plus balance of plant, or BOP) was
sized at either the 90th percentile of power required for driving the
ARB transient cycle or to maintain a constant highway speed of 75 mph
with 80,000-pound gross combined vehicle weight (GCVW). The 90th
percentile power requirement was used to size the fuel cells of
vocational vehicles and day cab tractors, and the 75-mph power
requirement was used to size the fuel cells of sleeper cab
tractors.\621\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\621\ In the NPRM version of HD TRUCS, we inadvertently used the
90th percentile of the ARB transient cycle to size the sleeper and
day cab tractors and the power required to drive at 75 mph to size
the vocational vehicles. This error is corrected in the final
version of HD TRUCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received comments suggesting that the NPRM did not accurately
reflect how a fuel cell operates because we relied on peak fuel cell
efficiency rather than average operating efficiency. One commenter
noted that FCEVs would benefit from BEV component efficiency gains and
observed that we did not
[[Page 29543]]
utilize the DOE targets for peak fuel cell efficiency in HD TRUCS,
implying that fuel cells could be more efficient than we assumed in the
NPRM because a more efficient stack would require less cooling, which
could lead to compounded gains over time. Three commenters suggested
that the fuel cell efficiency values used in the NPRM were too high.
One commenter pointed out that we considered peak efficiency estimates
rather than average operating efficiencies. The same commenter and
another offered ranges for operating efficiency at power levels typical
for commercial vehicles and suggested that we revise our fuel cell
efficiency estimates. One of the same commenters noted that fuel cell
performance degrades over time, generally due to impurities in hydrogen
fuel that cause efficiencies to drop significantly from beginning of
life to end of life. We evaluated these comments and find them
persuasive. Accordingly, we have revised our sizing methodology for the
fuel cell system (to meet power demands of a vehicle) and onboard
hydrogen storage tanks (to meet energy demands of a vehicle, as
described in section II.D.5.d) in the final rule version of HD TRUCS.
RIA Chapter 2.5.1.1.2 explains that to avoid undersizing the fuel
cell system, we oversized the fuel cell stack by an additional 25
percent to allow for occasional scenarios where the vehicle requires
more power (e.g., to accelerate when the battery state of charge is
low, to meet unusually long grade requirements, or to meet other
infrequent extended high loads like a strong headwind) and so the fuel
cell can operate within an efficient region. This size increase we
included in the final rule version of HD TRUCS can also improve fuel
cell stack durability and ensure the fuel cell stack can meet the power
needs throughout the useful life. This is the systems' net peak power,
or the amount available to power the wheels.\622\ The fuel cell stack
generates power, but some power is consumed to operate the fuel cell
system before it gets to the e-motor. Therefore, we increased the size
of the system by an additional 20 percent \623\ to account for
operation of balance of plant (BOP) components that ensure that gases
entering the system are at the appropriate temperature, pressure, and
humidity and remove heat generated by the stack. This is the fuel cell
stack gross power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\622\ Net system power is the gross stack power minus balance of
plant losses. This value can be called the rated power.
\623\ Huya-Kouadio, Jennie and Brian D. James. ``Fuel Cell Cost
and Performance Analysis: Presentation for the DOE Hydrogen Program;
2023 Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting''. Strategic
Analysis. June 6, 2023. Available online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/review23/fc353_james_2023_o-pdf.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The larger fuel cell can allow the system to operate more
efficiently based on its daily needs, which results in less wasted
energy and lower fuel consumption. This additional size also adds
durability, which is important for commercial vehicles, by allowing for
some degradation over time. We determined that with this upsizing,
there is no need for a fuel cell system replacement within the 10-year
period at issue in the HD TRUCS analysis.
c. Battery Pack
As described in RIA Chapter 2.5.1.1.3, in HD TRUCS, the battery
power accounts for the difference between the peak power of the e-motor
and the continuous power output of the fuel cell system. We sized the
battery to meet these power needs in excess of the fuel cell's
capability only when the fuel cell cannot provide sufficient power. In
our analysis, the remaining power needs are sustained for a duration of
10 minutes (e.g., to assist with a climb up a steep hill).
Since a FCEV operates like a hybrid vehicle, where power comes from
a combination of the fuel cell stack and the battery, the battery is
sized smaller than a battery in a BEV, which can result in more cycling
of the FCEV battery. Thus, we reduced the FCEV battery's depth of
discharge from 80 percent in the NPRM to 60 percent in the final rule
version of HD TRUCS to reflect the usage of a hybrid battery more
accurately. This means the battery is oversized in HD TRUCS to account
for potential battery degradation over time.
d. Onboard Hydrogen Storage Tank
A FCEV is re-fueled like a gasoline or diesel-fueled ICE vehicle.
We determined the capacity of the onboard hydrogen energy storage
system using an approach like the BEV methodology for battery pack
sizing in RIA Chapter 2.4.1.1, but we based the amount of hydrogen
needed on the daily energy consumption needs of a FCEV.
Hydrogen fuel in the tank enters the fuel cell stack, where an
electrochemical reaction converts hydrogen to electricity. During the
conversion process, some energy from the hydrogen fuel is lost as heat
or otherwise does not go towards producing electricity. The remaining
energy is used to operate the fuel cell system. Based on consideration
of comments, we agree the fuel cell system efficiency values used in
the NPRM were too high and should not be based on peak performance at
low power, since fuel cells typically do not operate for long in that
range. We therefore reduced them by eight percent to reflect an average
operating efficiency instead of peak efficiency (see RIA Chapter
2.5.1.2.1). This was based on a review of DOE's 2019 Class 8 Fuel Cell
Targets. DOE has an ultimate target for peak efficiency of 72 percent,
which corresponds to an ultimate fuel cell drive cycle efficiency of 66
percent. This equates to an 8 percent difference between peak
efficiency and drive cycle efficiency at a more typical operating
power. Therefore, to reflect system efficiency more accurately at a
typical operating power, we applied the 8 percent difference to the
peak efficiency estimate in the NPRM. For the final rule, the
operational efficiency of the fuel cell system (i.e., represented by
drive cycle efficiency) is about 61 percent.
For the final rule, we combined the revised fuel cell system
efficiency with the BEV powertrain efficiency (i.e., the combined
inverter, gearbox, and e-motor efficiencies) as a total FCEV efficiency
to account for losses that take place before the remaining energy
arrives at the axle. The final FCEV powertrain efficiencies, ranging
from 51 percent to 57 percent, were used to size the hydrogen storage
tanks and to determine the hydrogen usage and related costs.
As described in RIA Chapter 2.5.1.2.2, we included additional
energy requirements for air conditioning.\624\ For battery
conditioning, since the batteries in FCEVs have the same
characteristics as batteries for BEVs, we employed the same methodology
used for BEVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\624\ FCEVs use waste heat from the fuel cell for heating, and
that ventilation operates the same as it does for an ICE vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in RIA Chapter 2.5.1.2.1, we converted FCEV energy
consumption (kWh) into hydrogen weight using an energy content of 33.33
kWh per kg of hydrogen. In our analysis, 95 percent of the hydrogen in
the tank (``usable H2'') can be accessed. This is based on targets for
light-duty vehicles, where a 700-bar hydrogen fuel tank with a capacity
of 5.9 kg has 5.6 kg of usable hydrogen.\625\ Furthermore, we added 10
percent to the tank size in HD TRUCS to avoid complete depletion of
hydrogen from the tank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\625\ U.S. DRIVE Partnership. ``Target Explanation Document:
Onboard Hydrogen Storage for Light-Duty Fuel Cell Vehicles''. U.S.
Department of Energy. 2017. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/05/f34/fcto_targets_onboard_hydro_storage_explanation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29544]]
E. Technology, Charging Infrastructure, and Operating Costs
As discussed in section II.D.1, we considered ICE vehicles with
GHG-reducing technologies. For the modeled potential compliance
pathway, we did not include additional technologies on ICE vehicles
beyond those technologies we analyzed to support the Phase 2 MY 2027
standards. Therefore, there are not any incremental cost increases for
the Phase 3 standards associated with the ICE vehicles in this
potential compliance pathway. Thus, this subsection focuses on the
costs associated with BEV and FCEV technologies and infrastructure. In
the following subsections, we first discuss BEV technology (section
II.E.1) and associated EVSE technology costs (section II.E.2) and FCEV
technology costs (section II.E.3). RIA Chapter 2.4.3 (for BEVs) and RIA
Chapter 2.5.2 (for FCEVs) includes the cost estimates for each of the
101 applications. We then discuss the IRA tax credits we quantified in
our analysis for BEV and FCEV technologies in section II.E.4. Our
assessment of operating costs for ICE vehicle, BEV and FCEV
technologies including the fuel or electricity costs, along with the
maintenance and repair costs, insurance, and taxes are presented in
section II.E.5. This subsection concludes with the overall payback
analysis for BEV and FCEV technologies in section II.E.6. RIA Chapter
2.8.2 includes the vehicle technologies costs, EVSE costs, operating
costs, and payback results for each of the 101 HD applications for BEV
and FCEV technologies. The technology costs for BEV and FCEV
technologies aggregated into MOVES categories are also described in
detail in RIA Chapter 3.1.
As we have noted several times throughout this preamble, there are
other examples of possible compliance pathways for meeting the final
standards that do not involve the widespread adoption of BEV and FCEV
technologies. In section II.F.4, we provide examples of additional
potential compliance pathways, including the associated technology and
operating costs of those technologies.
1. BEV Technology Costs
The incremental cost of a BEV powertrain system is calculated as
the cost difference from the comparable vehicle powertrain with an ICE,
where the ICE vehicle powertrain cost is a sum of the costs of the
engine (including the projected cost of the HD2027 standards),
alternator, gearbox (transmission), starter, torque converter, and
final drive system. Heavy-duty BEV powertrain costs consist of the
battery, electric motor, inverter, converter, onboard charger, power
electronics controller, transmission or gearbox, final drive, and
electrical accessories. RIA Chapter 2.4.3 contains additional detail on
our cost projections for each of these components.
Battery costs are widely discussed in the literature because they
are a key driver of the cost of a HD electric vehicle. The per unit
cost of the battery, in terms of $/kWh, is the most common metric in
determining the cost of the battery as the final size of the battery
may vary significantly between different applications. The total
battery pack cost is a function of the per unit kWh cost and the size
(in terms of kWh) of the pack.
There are numerous projections for battery costs and battery
pricing in the literature that cover a range of estimates. Sources do
not always clearly define what is included in their cost or price
projections, nor whether the projections reflect direct manufacturing
costs incurred by the manufacturer or the prices seen by the end-
consumer. Except as noted in the NPRM, the values in the literature we
used to develop the battery pack costs used in the NPRM were developed
prior to enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act. In the NPRM, we
requested battery cost data for heavy-duty vehicles. 88 FR 25981.
We received a significant number of comments regarding the values
we used for the battery costs, as well as comments regarding
application of a learning curve to battery costs. Commenters suggested
values both higher and lower than the values used in the proposal.
Justifications from commenters for higher than proposal values included
volatility in the minerals market, adjustment to rate of learning,
inability to capture some or all of BIL and IRA incentives, as well as
general uncertainty within the sector. Justifications from commenters
for lower than proposal values included incentives from BIL and IRA,
rapid development in the EV sector including the light-duty market,
cheaper chemistries including LFP and sodium ion batteries, and (more)
recent stabilization within the lithium market.
One commenter recommended that EPA use a figure roughly 26 percent
greater than estimated at proposal; for example, they believe the MY
2027 battery pack costs should be $183/kWh. Two other commenters echoed
that commenter's recommended battery costs. Another commenter shared
four CBI battery pack costs for MY 2029 under four scenarios. These
scenarios included smaller and larger battery packs, and with low and
high lithium raw material costs. Another commenter questioned EPA's
reliance on the ICCT value for battery pack cost given ICCT's caution
about uncertainty within the market for this sector. The commenter
further maintained that the ICCT White Paper did not adequately explain
or cite empirical support for averaging of the values, and that upper
and lower bounds should be adopted instead for HD TRUCS battery cost
inputs.
Although some commenters believe the battery costs used for the
NPRM are too low, others believe the battery costs used were too high.
One commenter referenced a Roush report of HDV battery costs of $98/kWh
in MY 2030 and $88/kWh in MY 2032 without an IRA adjustment. Another
commenter believes the battery used for HDVs will be less conservative
than the one modeled by EPA in terms of both specific energy and energy
density, and that this conservativeness is then reflected in EPA's
estimates of battery costs. This commenter's cited BloombergNEF, where
battery costs are projected to decline to $100/kWh by 2026 as a result
of mineral price stabilization. Another commenter referenced an ICCT
report where batteries would reach a cost of $120/kWh at the pack level
by 2030 but did not put forward a battery pack cost estimate of their
own.
Another point of disagreement from commenters is the methodology
used for assessing the effects of learning by doing\626\ on battery
pack costs between 2027 and 2032. One commenter suggests that faster
learning curves may be appropriate for BEVs due to novel battery
chemistries that can disrupt markets and increase competition; faster-
than-expected moderation of pandemic-induced supply chain disruption;
battery pack economies of scale; and the tendency of battery outlooks
to underestimate future learning curves. Another commenter believes
learning for BEVs should start in 2022 rather than in 2027 which was
used in the NPRM analysis, the logic being that learning commences as
production commences. Applying EPA's learning curve starting in 2022
would have the effect of reducing cost reductions attributable to
learning in the years of the Phase 3 rule. Another commenter agrees
with this commenter as to when learning commences, but
[[Page 29545]]
maintained that the learning curve for ZEVs should be less sharp than
for ICE because ZEVs have fewer moving parts. The commenter also
believes some components have not achieved the economies of scale that
is required for the cost inputs used in HD TRUCS. Lastly, this
commenter stated that the learning curve for LD was inapplicable to HD
vehicles given the difference in duty cycles, durability, and the
resulting difference in battery sizes. Another commenter took a
different view on learning from the LD market, stating that learning
should have already started in the light-duty industry and this means
any further learning in HD will be smaller than what EPA estimated in
the proposed rule. More detailed discussion of learning used for ZEVs
can be found RIA Chapter 3.2.1 and the comments received on learning
and responses can be found in RTC section 12.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\626\ Manufacturing learning is the process by which costs for
items are reduced as manufacturing practices become more efficient
through improvements in manufacturing methods. This is represented
as a factor applied to a base year and applied year over year to
reflect a drop in cost for year over year manufacturing
improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the final rule, we re-evaluated our values used for battery
cost in MY 2027 based on comments provided by stakeholders, as well as
on additional studies provided by the FEV and the Department of Energy
BatPaC model.\627 628\ We considered a wide range of MY 2027 battery
pack costs ranging from the $183/kWh cited by manufacturers in comments
to $101/kWh projected by ANL that reflects an average of the nickel-
manganese containing layered oxides (Ni/Mn) and the lithium iron
phosphate (LFP) HD battery costs.\629\ ANL conducted this study to
estimate the cost of U.S-produced battery packs for light and heavy-
duty vehicles using their BatPaC tool. We also contracted FEV to
conduct a cost analysis to inform the final rule analysis. The FEV
study projected costs for HD battery packs in MY 2027 to range from
$128 to $143/kWh. As described in RIA Chapter 2.4.3, for MY 2027, we
project a battery cost value of $120/kWh (2022$) based on a weighted
average of the battery cost values from DOE's study, values received
from commenters, and the FEV cost study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\627\ FEV Consulting. ``Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles Class 4
to 8: Technology and Cost Evaluation for Electrified Powertrains--
Final Report''. Prepared for EPA. March 2024.
\628\ DOE BatPac Study.
\629\ Argonne National Laboratory. ``Cost Analysis and
Projections for U.S.-Manufactured Automotive Lithium-ion
Batteries.'' February 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have traditionally applied learning impacts using learning
factors applied to a given cost estimate as a means of reflecting
learning-by-doing effects on future costs. \630\ We are continuing to
do so in this rulemaking. We agree with some parts of the comments
regarding the NPRM's assessment of learning for ZEV components. In the
final rule, we adjusted the learning to reflect a less steep portion of
the learning curve in MY 2027 and beyond compared to the learning we
used in the NPRM analysis. The learning curve we used for the final
rule aligns closely with the learning applied by ANL in their BatPac
modeling to develop battery costs for heavy-duty BEVs in MYs 2027
through 2032.\631\ We calculated the MYs 2028-2032 battery costs using
learning scalars as shown in RIA Chapter 3.2.1, resulting in the values
shown in Table II-14 represent the direct manufacturing pack-level
battery costs in HD TRUCS using 2022$. These values are used for
battery costs in both BEVs and FCEVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\630\ See the 2010 light-duty greenhouse gas rule (75 FR 25324,
May 7, 2010); the 2012 light-duty greenhouse gas rule (77 FR 62624,
October 15, 2012); the 2011 heavy-duty greenhouse gas rule (76 FR
57106, September 15, 2011); the 2016 heavy-duty greenhouse gas rule
(81 FR 73478, October 25, 2016); the 2014 light-duty Tier 3 rule (79
FR 23414, April 28, 2014); the heavy-duty NOx rule (88 FR 4296,
January 24, 2023).
\631\ Argonne National Laboratory. ``Cost Analysis and
Projections for U.S.-Manufactured Automotive Lithium-ion
Batteries.'' Figure 4, page 16. February 2024.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.034
As noted, batteries are the most significant cost component for
BEVs, and the IRA section 13502, ``Advanced Manufacturing Production
Credit,'' has the potential to significantly reduce the cost of BEVs
whose batteries are produced in the United States. As discussed in
section II.E.4, the IRA Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit
provides up to $45 per kWh tax credits (with specified phase-out in CYs
2030-2033) for the production and sale of battery cells and modules,
and additional tax credits for producing critical minerals such as
those found in batteries, when such components or minerals are produced
in the United States and other criteria are met. Our approach to
accounting for the IRA Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit in our
analysis is explained in section II.E.4.
An electric drive (e-drive)--another major component of an electric
vehicle--includes the electric motor, an inverter, a converter, and
optionally, a transmission system or gearbox. The electric energy in
the form of direct current (DC) is provided from the battery; an
inverter is used to change the DC into alternating current (AC) for use
by the motor. The motor then converts the electric power into
mechanical or motive power to move the vehicle. Conversely, the motor
also receives AC from the regenerative braking, whereby the inverter
changes it to DC to be stored in the battery. The transmission reduces
the speed of the motor through a set of gears to an appropriate speed
at the axle. An emerging trend is to replace the transmission and
driveline with an e-axle, which is an electric motor integrated into
the axle, e-axles are not explicitly covered in our cost analysis.\632\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\632\ E-axles are an emerging technology that have potential to
realize efficiency gains because they have fewer moving parts.
Though we did not quantify their impact explicitly due to a lack of
data and information at the time of our analysis and to remain
technology-neutral, the technology can be used to comply with this
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few commenters disagreed with the cost used by EPA at proposal
for the electric motor, providing values that were lower and higher
than the proposal. One commenter references Roush reports of $8/kW for
2030 and 2032, much lower than EPA's value. Another commenter provided
CBI values of e-axle costs. Another commenter cited an ICCT report that
projected cost reductions of 60 percent by 2030 and that further
projected that the price of electric powertrain systems, including the
transmission, motor, and inverter, would reach $23/kW. Another
commenter is concerned that the market will demand different ZEV
architectures depending on the application (direct drive, e-axle, and
portal axle) and that each of these technologies will have a different
$/kW value due to differences in component costs and their respective
manufacturing process.
For the final rule, we continue to include the direct manufacturing
cost for e-drive in HD TRUCS. Similar to the battery cost, there is a
range of electric drive cost projections available in the literature
and per stakeholder
[[Page 29546]]
comments. One reason for the disparity across the literature is what is
included in each for the ``electric drive''; some cost estimates
include only the electric motor and others present a more integrated
model of e-motor/inverter/gearbox combination. Another reason for the
disparity is described by one of the commenters: the demand for e-drive
will be different for different applications. As described in detail in
RIA Chapter 2.4.3.2.1, EPA's MY 2027 e-motor cost, shown in Table II-
15, comes from ANL's 2022 BEAN too and is a linear interpolation of the
average of the high- and low-tech scenarios for 2025 and 2030, adjusted
to 2022$.\633\ We then calculated MY 2028-2032 per-unit cost from the
power of the motor (RIA Chapter 2.4.1.2) and $/kW of the e-motor shown
in Table II-15, and using an EPA estimate of market learning shown in
RIA Chapter 3.2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\633\ Argonne National Laboratory. VTO HFTO Analysis Reports--
2022. ``ANL--ESD-2206 Report--BEAN Tool--MD HD Vehicle Techno-
Economic Analysis.xlsm''. Available online: https://anl.app.box.com/s/an4nx0v2xpudxtpsnkhd5peimzu4j1hk/folder/242640145714.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.035
Gearbox and final drive units are used to reduce the speed of the
motor and transmit torque to the axle of the vehicle. In HD TRUCS for
the proposal, we set the MY 2027 final drive DMC at $1,500/unit, based
on ANL's 2022 BEAN model for vocational vehicles.\634\ For tractors,
the final drive cost is doubled the cost of vocational vehicles because
in general they have additional drive axles. We did not receive any
data to support different values, therefore, we adjusted the values
used in the proposal to 2022$ and applied the ICE learning effects
shown in RIA Chapter 3.2.1 for MY 2028 through MY 2032.\635\ Final
drive costs for BEVs are shown in RIA Chapter 2.4.3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\634\ Argonne National Laboratory. VTO HFTO Analysis Reports--
2022. ``ANL--ESD-2206 Report--BEAN Tool--MD HD Vehicle Techno-
Economic Analysis.xlsm''. Available online: https://anl.app.box.com/s/an4nx0v2xpudxtpsnkhd5peimzu4j1hk/folder/242640145714.
\635\ For the final rule, we updated the learning curve for BEV
(and FCEV) final drive costs to be consistent with the ICE learning
curve since we are basing final drive costs on a component that is
similar to an ICE vehicle final drive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost of the gearbox varies depends on the vehicle weight class
and duty cycle. In our assessment, all light heavy-duty BEVs are direct
drive and have no transmission and no cost, consistent with ANL's 2022
BEAN model. We determined the gearbox costs for medium heavy-duty and
heavy heavy-duty BEVs in HD TRUCS from ANL's BEAN tool.\636\ BEV
Gearbox costs are shown are in RIA Chapter 2.4.3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\636\ Argonne National Laboratory. VTO HFTO Analysis Reports--
2022. ``ANL--ESD-2206 Report--BEAN Tool--MD HD Vehicle Techno-
Economic Analysis.xlsm''. Available online: https://anl.app.box.com/s/an4nx0v2xpudxtpsnkhd5peimzu4j1hk/folder/242640145714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs of a power converter and electric accessories in HD TRUCS
for both the proposal and final rule came from ANL's 2022 BEAN
tool.\637\ For the final rulemaking version of HD TRUCS, we updated the
term Power Electronics to Power Converter, which represents the cost of
a DC-DC converter ($1500 in 2020$).\638\ DC-DC converters transfer
energy (i.e., they ``step up'' or ``step down'' voltage) between
higher- and lower-voltage systems, such as from a high-voltage battery
to a common 12V level for auxiliary uses.\639\ We identified an
additional cost in BEAN that we added as Auxiliary Converter.\640\ We
also revised the Electric Accessories costs to include both the
electric accessories costs ($4500 in 2020$) and the vehicle propulsion
architecture (VPA) costs ($186 in 2020$) from ANL's 2022 BEAN. These
values were converted to 2022$ and include the BEV learning effects
included in RIA Chapter 3.2 and are shown in RIA Chapter 2.4.3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\637\ Argonne National Laboratory. VTO HFTO Analysis Reports--
2022. ``ANL--ESD-2206 Report--BEAN Tool--MD HD Vehicle Techno-
Economic Analysis.xlsm''. Available online: https://anl.app.box.com/s/an4nx0v2xpudxtpsnkhd5peimzu4j1hk/folder/242640145714.
\638\ In the 2022 version of BEAN, the ``BEAN results'' tab,
this is also represented as ``pc2 DC/DC booster''.
\639\ https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub136575.pdf.
\640\ In the 2022 version of BEAN, the ``Cost & LCOD & CCM''
tab, this is called a ``pc1 DC/DC ESS''. In the ``Autonomie Out''
tab, this is linked to a DC/DC buck converter cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When using a Level 2 charging plug, an on-board charger converts AC
power from the grid to usable DC power via an AC-DC converter. When
using a D fast charger (DCFC), any AC-DC converter is bypassed, and the
high-voltage battery is charged directly. The costs we used in the NPRM
were based on ANL's BEAN model, which was $38 in MY 2027.\641\ In the
peer review of HD TRUCS, one reviewer noted that the value used in the
NPRM was unrepresentative of the actual costs and suggested a cost of
$600.\642\ In light of this critique, EPA has increased the on-board
charger costs to $600 in MY 2027, as further discussed in RIA Chapter
2.4.3.3. We then calculated the MY 2028-2032 costs using the learning
curve shown in RIA Chapter 3.2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\641\ Argonne National Lab, Vehicle & Mobility Systems Group,
TechScape, found at: https://vms.taps.anl.gov/tools/techscape/
(accessed December 2023).
\642\ U.S. EPA. EPA Responses to HD TRUCS Peer Review Comments.
February 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total upfront BEV direct manufacturing cost is the summation of
the per-unit cost of the battery, motor, power electronics, on-board
charger, gearbox, final drive, and accessories. The total direct
manufacturing technology costs for BEVs for each of the 101 vehicle
types in HD TRUCS can be found in RIA Chapter 2.4.3.5 for MY 2027, MY
2030, and MY 2032.
2. EVSE Costs
As described section II.D.5.iv, we used a mix of depot and public
charging in our final rule analysis of HD BEV technologies for our
technology packages to support the feasibility of the standards. In
that analysis, most vocational vehicles and some lower travel, return-
to-base day cab tractors rely on depot charging while long-haul
vehicles (sleeper cab and longer-range day cab tractors) and coach
buses utilize public charging starting with MY 2030. In HD TRUCS we
evaluated BEVs for 97 of the 101 vehicle types. Of those, we assign
depot charging costs to 89 vehicle types starting in MY 2027 and public
charging costs to eight vehicle types starting in MY 2030.
In our analysis of depot charging infrastructure costs, we account
for the cost to purchasers to procure both EVSE (which we refer to as
the hardware costs) as well as costs to install the equipment. These
installation costs typically include labor and supplies, permitting,
taxes, and any upgrades or modifications to the on-site electrical
service. We developed our EVSE cost estimates for the NPRM from
available literature, looking at a range of costs (low to high) for
each of the four EVSE types. As discussed in RIA Chapter 1.3.2, the IRA
extends and modifies a Federal tax credit under section 30C of
[[Page 29547]]
the Internal Revenue Code that could cover up to 30 percent of the
costs for businesses to procure and install EVSE on properties located
in low-income or non-urban census tracts if prevailing wage and
apprenticeship requirements are met.\643\ To reflect our expectation
that this tax credit--as well as grants, rebates, or other funding
available through the IRA--could significantly reduce the overall
infrastructure costs paid by BEV and fleet owners for depot charging,
we used the low end of our EVSE cost ranges in the NPRM infrastructure
cost analysis. These values are summarized in Table II-16. We requested
comment, including data, on our approach and assessment of current and
future costs for charging equipment and installation. 88 FR 25982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\643\ IRA section 13404, ``Alternative Fuel Refueling Property
Credit'' under section 26 U.S.C. 30C, referred to as 30C in this
document A $100,000 per item cap applies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.036
We received multiple comments about these costs. One industry
commenter suggested that EPA should use the midpoint rather than the
low end of our EVSE cost ranges. While one manufacturer commenter
suggested our assumed EVSE installation costs were too high, other
manufacturer commenters said that we underestimated costs for high-
power EVSE. Another commenter suggested we should directly account for
the savings from the 30C tax credit.
As described in RIA Chapter 2.6.2.1, we made several changes in how
we estimate the EVSE costs incurred for depot charging in the final
rule analysis. For the NPRM analysis, we developed the DCFC costs from
a 2021 study (Borlaug et al. 2021) specific to heavy-duty
electrification at charging depots. After reviewing new information on
EVSE costs provided in comments as well as literature released since
the publication of the NPRM, we determined it was appropriate to
increase the underlying hardware and installation cost ranges we
considered for DCFC-150 kW and DCFC-350 kW based on a new NREL study
issued in 2023 to reflect the most up-to-date information
available.\644\ After further consideration, including consideration of
comments on this issue and availability of a new DOE analysis \645\ of
the average value of the 30C tax credit for HD charging infrastructure,
we have updated the depot EVSE costs in our final rule analysis to
reflect a quantitative assessment of average savings from the tax
credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\644\ Wood, Eric et al. ``The 2030 National Charging Network:
Estimating U.S. Light-Duty Demand for Electric Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure,'' 2023. Available at: https://driveelectric.gov/files/2030-charging-network.pdf.
\645\ U.S. DOE. ``Estimating Federal Tax Incentives for Heavy
Duty Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and for Acquiring Electric
Vehicles Weighting Less Than 14,000 Pounds.'' Memorandum, March
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, the 30C tax credit could cover up to 30 percent of the
costs for fleets or other businesses to procure and install EVSE on
properties located in low-income or non-urban census tracts if
prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements are met. DOE projects
that businesses will meet prevailing wage and apprenticeship
requirements in order to qualify for the full 30 percent tax
credit,\646\ and estimates that 60 percent \647\ of depots will be
located in qualifying census tracts based on its assessment of where HD
vehicles are currently registered, the location of warehouses and other
transportation facilities that may serve as depots, and the share of
the population living in eligible census tracts.\648\ Taken together,
DOE estimates an average value of this tax credit of 18 percent of the
installed EVSE costs at depots. We apply this 18 percent average
reduction to the EVSE costs used in HD TRUCS for the final rulemaking
(FRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\646\ As noted in DOE's assessment, the ``good faith effort''
clause applicable to the apprenticeship requirement suggests that it
is unlikely that businesses will not be able to meet it and take
advantage of the full 30 percent tax credit (if otherwise eligible).
\647\ This estimate may be conservative as DOE notes that its
analysis did not factor in that fleets may choose to site depots at
charging facilities in eligible census tracts to take further
advantage of the tax credit. In addition, we note that DOE estimated
68 percent of heavy-duty vehicles are registered in qualifying
census tracts suggesting the share of EVSE installations at depots
that are eligible for the 30C tax credit could be higher.
\648\ U.S. DOE. ``Estimating Federal Tax Incentives for Heavy
Duty Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and for Acquiring Electric
Vehicles Weighting Less Than 14,000 Pounds.'' Memorandum, March
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, for the NPRM, we had used the low end of our EVSE cost
ranges to reflect our expectation that the tax credit would
significantly reduce EVSE costs to purchasers (i.e., we used the low
end to reflect typical EVSE hardware and installation costs less
savings from the tax credit). Since we explicitly model the tax credit
reductions for the FRM analysis, we determined it was appropriate to
switch from using the low to the midpoint of EVSE cost ranges for all
EVSE types to better reflect typical hardware and installation costs
before accounting for the tax credit savings. The resulting hardware
and installation costs for EVSE are shown in Table II-17 before and
after applying the tax credit. We use values in the right column in our
depot charging analysis.
[[Page 29548]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.037
Both hardware and installation costs could vary over time. For
example, hardware costs could decrease due to manufacturing learning
and economies of scale. Recent studies by ICCT assumed a 3 percent
reduction in hardware costs for EVSE per year to 2030.\649 650\ By
contrast, installation costs could increase due to growth in labor or
material costs. Installation costs are also highly dependent on the
specifics of the site including whether sufficient electric capacity
exists to add charging infrastructure and how much trenching or other
construction is required. If fleet owners choose to install charging
stations at easier, and therefore, lower cost sites first, then
installation costs could rise over time as stations are developed at
more challenging sites. One of the ICCT studies found that these and
other countervailing factors could result in the average cost of a 150
kW EVSE port in 2030 being similar (~3 percent lower) to that in
2021.\651\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\649\ Minjares, Ray, Felipe Rodriguez, Arijit Sen, and Caleb
Braun. ``Infrastructure to support a 100% zero-emission tractor-
trailer fleet in the United States by 2040''. Working Paper 2021-33.
The International Council on Clean Transportation. September 2021.
Available online: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ze-tractor-trailer-fleet-us-hdvs-sept21.pdf.
\650\ Bauer, Gordon, Chih-Wei Hsu, Mike Nicholas, and Nic
Lutsey. ``Charging Up America: Assessing the Growing Need for U.S.
Charging Infrastructure Through 2030''. The International Council on
Clean Transportation, July 2021. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/charging-up-america-jul2021.pdf.
\651\ Bauer, Gordon, Chih-Wei Hsu, Mike Nicholas, and Nic
Lutsey. ``Charging Up America: Assessing the Growing Need for U.S.
Charging Infrastructure Through 2030''. The International Council on
Clean Transportation, July 2021. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/charging-up-america-jul2021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering the uncertainty on how costs may change over
time, we kept the combined hardware and installation costs per EVSE
port constant for the NPRM analysis. We received only a few comments on
this topic. Several commenters noted that EVSE equipment costs would
likely decrease over time and one suggested we incorporate reductions
to account for learning rates. However, the other commenters agreed
with us that while hardware costs may decline in the future,
installation costs could rise, and therefore they supported our
approach to keep combined hardware and installation costs constant. For
the final rule analysis we continued our proposed approach of not
varying costs over time on the same bases included in the NPRM and it
retains a conservative approach to EVSE costs.
How long a vehicle is off-shift and parked at a depot, warehouse,
or other home base each day is a key factor in determining what type of
charging infrastructure could meet its needs. We refer to this as depot
dwell time. This depot dwell time depends on a vehicle's duty cycle.
For example, a school bus or refuse truck may be parked at a depot in
the afternoon or early evening and remain there until the following
morning whereas a transit bus may continue to operate throughout the
evening. Even for a specific vehicle, off-shift depot dwell times may
vary between weekends and weekdays, by season, or due to other factors
that impact its operation.
The vehicles in our depot charging analysis span a wide range of
vehicle types and duty cycles, and we expect their dwell times to vary
accordingly. In the NPRM, we used a dwell time of 12 hours for every
type of HD vehicle informed by our examination of start and idle
activity data\652\ for 564 commercial vehicles.\653\ In order to better
understand how depot dwell times might vary by vehicle application and
class for our final rule analysis, we worked with NREL through an
interagency agreement between EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy.
NREL analyzed several data sets for this effort: General Transit Feed
Specification (GTFS) data for about 21,700 transit buses,\654\
operating data for nearly 300 school buses from NREL's FleetDNA
database, and a set of fleet telematics data from Geotab's Altitude
platform covering about 13,600 medium- and heavy-duty trucks in seven
geographic zones\655\ selected to be nationally representative.\656\
The truck dataset includes a variety of classes and vocations. As
described in Bruchon et al. 2024,\657\ NREL separately analyzed data
for four class combinations (2b-3, 4-5, 6-7, and 8) and four vocations
defined by vehicles' travel patterns (door to door, hub and spoke,
local, and regional). This results in sixteen unique freight vehicle
categories.\658\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\652\ Zhang, Chen; Kotz, Andrew; Kelly, Kenneth ``Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Activity for EPA MOVES.'' National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. 2021. Available online: https://data.nrel.gov/submissions/168.
\653\ The dataset had been analyzed as a joint effort between
EPA and NREL to inform EPA's MOVES model.
\654\ Both GTFS schedule and real-time data were utilized along
with information from the National Transit Database.
\655\ The seven zones are: San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA;
Pittsburgh, PA; Evansville, IN-KY; Lafayette, LA; Janesville-Beloit,
WI; Southern ID non-Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA); Eastern GA
non-MSAs. Data used was collected between September 7 and September
30, 2022. See Bruchon et al. 2024 for details on variables used to
select the seven representative zones.
\656\ Bruchon, Matthew, Brennan Borlaug, Bo Liu, Tim Jonas,
Jiayun Sun, Nhat Le, Eric Wood. ``Depot-Based Vehicle Data for
National Analysis of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicle
Charging''. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-
88241. February 2024. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88241.pdf.
\657\ Bruchon, Matthew, Brennan Borlaug, Bo Liu, Tim Jonas,
Jiayun Sun, Nhat Le, Eric Wood. ``Depot-Based Vehicle Data for
National Analysis of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicle
Charging''. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-
88241. February 2024. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88241.pdf.
\658\ NREL's report also includes information on a long-distance
vocation. However, we have excluded these from our depot charging
analysis because, as noted in Bruchon et al. 2024, the long-distance
trucks in the sample are less likely to meet the criteria for depot-
based travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Across all vehicle categories, NREL provided national dwell time
distributions that describe the number of hours vehicles spend at their
primary domicile (or depot). For each of the sixteen freight categories
as well as for school buses, these dwell durations reflect the total
daily hours vehicles spent at their depots on operational weekday or
weekend days regardless of whether the vehicles were parked for one
continuous period or across multiple stops throughout the day. For
transit buses, NREL estimated the typical time buses spent when parked
at their depot overnight, i.e., the time between the end of the last
shift of the day and the first shift the following
[[Page 29549]]
service day with separate estimates for weekdays, Saturdays, and
Sundays. Days on which vehicles were not operated were excluded from
the samples.\659\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\659\ In addition, total dwell durations for school buses were
only considered during the school year and stops at the depot less
than one hour were excluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in RIA Chapter 2.6.2.1.4, we mapped the depot dwell
durations from the 18 unique combinations of vocations and class types
(i.e., the 16 freight vehicle categories plus transit and school buses)
in NREL's analysis to the applicable vehicle types in our HD TRUCS
model. As shown in Table 2-78 of the RIA, dwell times in HD TRUCS range
from 7.4 hours to 14.5 hours, reflecting the wide range of vehicle
types considered in our analysis. (See RIA Chapter 2.6.2.1.4 for a more
detailed discussion of this analysis.)
For the NPRM, we assumed that each vehicle using Level 2 charging
would have its own EVSE port, while up to two vehicles could share DCFC
if charging needs could be met within the assumed dwell time. While one
commenter asserted that it is unreasonable to assume two vehicles could
share a DCFC port, and another supported our NPRM approach, we received
several other comments that the constraints on EVSE sharing in our NPRM
analysis were too limiting. In our final rule analysis, we updated our
approach and project that up to two vocational vehicles can share one
EVSE port. For tractors, which tend to be part of larger fleets, we
project that up to four vehicles can share one EVSE port. However, in
both cases, we only model vehicles as sharing EVSE ports if there is
sufficient dwell time for each vehicle to meet its charging needs. We
note that for some of the vehicle types we evaluated, higher numbers of
vehicles could share EVSE ports and still meet their daily electricity
consumption needs. However, in our final rule HD TRUCS analysis we
limit sharing to two vocational vehicles and four tractors per port as
a conservative approach for calculating EVSE costs per vehicle.
As discussed in section II.D.2.iii.c, EPA acknowledged at proposal
that there could be additional infrastructure needs beyond those
associated with the charging equipment itself. 88 FR 25982. Commenters
emphatically agreed and focused on three areas of concern, electrical
power generation, transmission, and distribution. Our consideration of
comments and final rule analysis took a close look at power generation
and transmission. Our analysis shows that systems and processes exist
to handle the rule's impact on power generation and transmission,
including when considered in combination with projections of other
impacts on power generation and transmission based on our assessments
at the time of this final rule. See RTC section 7.1; see also RIA
Chapter 1.6. We also considered comments and took a close look at
electrical grid distribution systems. A first of its kind Multi-State
Transportation Electrification Impact Study (TEIS) was conducted by DOE
to evaluate the potential that some geographic areas and some users
will require grid distribution buildout updates, and to assess
associated time and cost in recognition that, depending on the type of
buildout needed, significant implementation time and cost could
exist.\660\ In the NPRM, we assumed that utilities would cover the
electrical power, transmission, and distribution upgrade costs. DRIA
2.6.5.1. For our final rule analysis, we identify distribution buildout
costs with the TEIS, power generation and transmission costs with the
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) and Retail Price Model (RPM) run by ICF
and account for these costs within the charging costs, as discussed in
section II.E.5.ii. See generally section II.D.2.iii.c and RTC section 7
(Distribution).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\660\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Kevala Inc., and U.S. Department of Energy.
``Multi-State Transportation Electrification Impact Study: Preparing
the Grid for Light-, Medium-, and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles''.
DOE/EE-2818. U.S. Department of Energy. March 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. FCEV Technology Costs
FCEVs and BEVs include many of the same components such as a
battery pack, e-motor, power electronics, gearbox unit, final drive,
and electrical accessories. Therefore, we used the same costs for these
components across vehicles for the same applications; for detailed
descriptions of these components, see RIA Chapter 2.4.3. In this
subsection and RIA Chapter 2.5.2, we present the costs for components
for FCEVs that are different from a BEV. These components include the
fuel cell system and onboard hydrogen fuel tank. The same energy cell
battery $/kWh costs used for BEVs are used for fuel cell vehicles, but
the battery size of a comparable FCEV is smaller.
i. Fuel Cell System Costs
The fuel cell stack is the most expensive component of a fuel cell
system,\661\ which is the most expensive part of a heavy-duty FCEV,
primarily due to the technological requirements of manufacturing rather
than material costs.\662\ Fuel cells for the heavy-duty sector are
expected to be more expensive than fuel cells for the light-duty sector
because they operate at higher average continuous power over their
lifespan, which requires a larger fuel cell stack size, and because
they have more stringent durability requirements (i.e., to travel more
hours and go longer distances).\663\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\661\ Papageorgopoulos, Dimitrios. ``Fuel Cell Technologies
Overview''. U.S. Department of Energy. June 6, 2023. Available
online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/review23/fc000_papageorgopoulos_2023_o.pdf.
\662\ Deloitte China and Ballard. ``Fueling the Future of
Mobility: Hydrogen and fuel cell solutions for transportation,
Volume 1''. 2020. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cn/Documents/finance/deloitte-cn-fueling-the-future-of-mobility-en-200101.pdf.
\663\ Marcinkoski, Jason et. al. ``Hydrogen Class 8 Long Haul
Truck Targets''. U.S. Department of Energy. October 31, 2019.
Available online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/19006_hydrogen_class8_long_haul_truck_targets.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected costs vary widely in the literature. They are expected to
decrease as manufacturing matures. Larger production volumes are
anticipated as global demand increases for fuel cell systems for HD
vehicles, which could improve economies of scale.\664\ Costs are also
anticipated to decline as durability improves.\665\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\664\ Deloitte China and Ballard. ``Fueling the Future of
Mobility: Hydrogen and fuel cell solutions for transportation,
Volume 1''. 2020. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cn/Documents/finance/deloitte-cn-fueling-the-future-of-mobility-en-200101.pdf.
\665\ Deloitte China and Ballard. ``Fueling the Future of
Mobility: Hydrogen and fuel cell solutions for transportation,
Volume 1''. 2020. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cn/Documents/finance/deloitte-cn-fueling-the-future-of-mobility-en-200101.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the NPRM, we relied on an average of costs from an ICCT meta-
study that found a wide variation in fuel cell costs in the
literature.\666\ The costs we used in the NPRM ranged from $200 per kW
in MY 2030 to $185 per kW in MY 2032. We requested comment on our cost
data projections in the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\666\ Sharpe, Ben and Hussein Basma. ``A meta-study of purchase
costs for zero-emission trucks''. International Council on Clean
Transportation, Working Paper 2022-09. February 2022. Available
online: https://theicct.org/publication/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters addressed EPA's estimates for fuel cell costs.
CARB agreed with EPA's estimates, noting they used similar estimated
values in their Advanced Clean Fleets rule proceeding. One commenter
thought the NPRM fuel cell cost estimates were too high, particularly
if they represent the fuel cell stack alone, based on targets published
by the European Joint
[[Page 29550]]
Undertaking. Another commenter stated that fuel stack technology is too
nascent to make any type of realistic cost estimate. They noted that
existing component technologies still need to be adapted for the HD
market and that fuel cell stacks are not being produced at scale now,
and they stated that they do not believe accurate HD FCEV technology
costs can be predicted now. Several commenters said that EPA's
estimates were too low and referred to fuel cell costs from a more
recent (2023) ICCT White Paper\667\ that updated the ICCT meta-study
referenced in the NPRM.\668\ See RTC section 3.4.3 for additional
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\667\ Xie, et. al. ``Purchase costs of zero-emission trucks in
the United States to meet future Phase 3 GHG standards''.
International Council of Clean Transportation, Working Paper 2023-
10. March 2023. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/cost-zero-emission-trucks-us-phase-3-mar23.pdf.
\668\ Sharpe, Ben and Hussein Basma. ``A meta-study of purchase
costs for zero-emission trucks''. International Council on Clean
Transportation, Working Paper 2022-09. February 2022. Available
online: https://theicct.org/publication/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We reviewed the ICCT paper that several commenters referenced.
Also, due to the wide range of projected costs in the literature, EPA
contracted with FEV\669\ to independently evaluate direct manufacturing
costs of heavy-duty vehicles with alternative powertrain technologies
and EPA conducted an external peer review of the final FEV report.\670\
In the report, FEV estimated costs associated with a Class 8 FCEV-
dominated long-haul tractor with graphite fuel cell stacks, which are
more durable than stainless steel stacks typically used in light-duty
vehicle applications. FEV leveraged a benchmark study of a commercial
vehicle fuel cell stack from a supplier that serves the Class 8 market.
They also built prototype vehicles in-house and relied on existing
expertise to validate their sizing of tanks and stacks.\671\ Please see
RTC Chapter 3.4.3 for additional detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\669\ FEV Consulting. ``Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles Class 4
to 8: Technology and Cost Evaluation for Electrified Powertrains--
Final Report''. Prepared for EPA. March 2024.
\670\ ICF. ``Peer Review of HD Vehicles, Industry
Characterization, Technology Assessment and Costing Report''.
September 15, 2023.
\671\ FEV Consulting. ``Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles Class 4
to 8: Technology and Cost Evaluation for Electrified Powertrains--
Final Report''. Prepared for EPA. March 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the final rule, as described in RIA Chapter 2.5.2.1, we
established MY 2032 fuel cell system DMCs using cost projections from
FEV and ICCT. We weighted FEV's work twice as much as ICCT's because it
was primary research and because some of the volumes associated with
the costs in ICCT's analysis were not transparent. We note that this
method of weighting primary research more heavily than secondary
research is generally appropriate for assessing predictive studies of
this nature; indeed, it is consistent with what ICCT itself did. For
FEV's work, we selected costs that align with the HD FCEV production
volume that we project in our modeled potential compliance pathway's
technology packages developed for this final rule, which is roughly
10,000 units per year in MY 2032, for a DMC of $89 per kW. For ICCT's
work, we used the 2030 value of $301 per kW for MY 2032, since 2030 was
the latest year of values referenced by ICCT from literature. Our
weighted average yielded a MY 2032 fuel cell system DMC of $160 per kW.
In order to project DMCs for earlier MYs from MY 2032, we used our
learning rates shown in RIA Chapter 3.2.1. This yielded the MYs 2030
and 2031 DMCs shown in Table II-18.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.038
ii. Onboard Hydrogen Fuel Tank Costs
Onboard hydrogen storage cost projections also vary widely in the
literature. For the NPRM, we relied on an average of costs from the
same ICCT meta-study that we used for fuel cell costs.\672\ The values
we used in the NPRM analysis ranged between $660/kg in MY 2030 and
$612/kg in MY 2032. We requested cost data projections in the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\672\ Sharpe, Ben and Hussein Basma. ``A meta-study of purchase
costs for zero-emission trucks''. International Council on Clean
Transportation, Working Paper 2022-09. February 2022. Available
online: https://theicct.org/publication/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were few comments on hydrogen fuel tank costs. Two commenters
referred to ICCT's revised meta-study.\673\ One commenter suggested
that onboard liquid hydrogen will be required for long-distance ranges
of over 500 miles in the longer-term and suggested that it is too soon
to offer cost estimates for liquid tanks. See RTC section 3.4.3 for
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\673\ Xie, et. al. ``Purchase costs of zero-emission trucks in
the United States to meet future Phase 3 GHG standards''.
International Council of Clean Transportation, Working Paper 2023-
10. March 2023. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/cost-zero-emission-trucks-us-phase-3-mar23.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given our assessment of technology readiness for the NPRM, onboard
liquid hydrogen storage tanks were not included in the potential
compliance pathway that supports the feasibility and appropriateness of
the standards.
Like fuel cell costs, onboard gaseous hydrogen tank costs are
dependent on manufacturing volume. We reviewed the ICCT paper that
several commenters referenced and contracted FEV \674\ to independently
evaluate onboard hydrogen storage tank costs for MY 2027 (2022$) based
on manufacturing volume, and EPA conducted an external peer review of
the final FEV report.\675\ Please see RTC Chapter 3.4.3 for additional
detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\674\ FEV Consulting. ``Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles Class 4
to 8: Technology and Cost Evaluation for Electrified Powertrains--
Final Report''. Prepared for EPA. March 2024.
\675\ ICF. ``Peer Review of HD Vehicles, Industry
Characterization, Technology Assessment and Costing Report''.
September 15, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the same approach taken for fuel cell system costs, as
described in RIA Chapter 2.5.2.2, we established MY 2032 onboard
storage tank DMCs using cost projections from FEV and ICCT. We weighted
FEV's work twice as much as ICCT's because it was primary research and
because some of the volumes associated with the costs in ICCT's
analysis were not transparent. We note that this method of weighting
primary research more heavily than secondary research is generally
appropriate for assessing predictive studies of this nature; indeed, it
is consistent with what ICCT itself did. For FEV's work, we selected
costs for roughly 10,000 units per year in MY 2032, for a DMC of $504
per kg. For ICCT's work, we used the 2030 value of $844 per kW for MY
2032, since 2030 was the latest year of values referenced by ICCT from
literature. Our weighted average yielded a MY 2032 fuel cell system DMC
of $617 per kW. In order to project DMCs from MY 2032 for earlier MYs,
we used our learning rates shown in shown in RIA Chapter 3.2.1. This
yielded the MYs
[[Page 29551]]
2030 and 2031 DMCs shown in Table II-19.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.039
4. Inflation Reduction Act Tax Credits for HD Battery Electric Vehicles
The IRA,\676\ which was signed into law on August 16, 2022,
includes a number of provisions relevant to vehicle electrification.
There are three provisions of the IRA we included within our
quantitative analysis in HD TRUCS related to the manufacturing and
purchase of HD BEVs and FCEVs. First, section 13502, ``Advanced
Manufacturing Production Credit,'' provides up to $45 per kWh tax
credits under section 45X of the Internal Revenue Code (``45X'') for
the production and sale of battery cells and modules when the cells and
modules are produced in the United States and other qualifications are
met. Second, section 13403, ``Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicles,''
provides for a vehicle tax credit under section 45W applicable to HD
vehicles if certain qualifications are met. Third, after further
consideration, including consideration of comments on this issue, we
have quantitatively analyzed section 13404, ``Alternative Fuel
Refueling Property Credit,'' tax credit under 30C for EVSE costs for
the final rule. See section II.E.2 of this preamble, and IRA sections
13403, 13502, and 13404. Beyond these three tax credits, there are
numerous provisions in the IRA and the BIL \677\ that may impact HD
vehicles and increase adoption of HD ZEV technologies. These range from
tax credits across the supply chain, to grants which may help direct
ZEVs to communities most burdened by air pollution, to funding for
programs to build out electric vehicle charging infrastructure, as
described in section I of this preamble and RIA Chapter 1.3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\676\ Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Pub. L. 117-169, 136
Stat. 1818 (2022) (``Inflation Reduction Act'' or ``IRA''),
available at https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr5376/BILLS-117hr5376enr.pdf.
\677\ United States, Congress. Public Law 117-58. Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. Congress.gov, www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text. 117th Congress, House
Resolution 3684, passed 15 November 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the first of the provisions, IRA section 13502,
``Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit,'' provides up to $45 per
kWh tax credits under 45X for the production and sale of battery cells
(up to $35 per kWh) and modules or packs\678\ (up to $10 per kWh) and
10 percent of the cost of producing critical minerals such as those
found in batteries, when such components or minerals are produced in
the United States and other qualifications are met as described in RIA
Chapter 1.3.2.2. These credits begin in CY 2023 and phase down starting
in CY 2030, ending after CY 2032. As further discussed in RIA Chapter
2.4.3.1, we recognize that there are currently few manufacturing plants
specifically for HD vehicle batteries in the United States. We expect
that the industry will respond to this tax credit incentive by building
more domestic battery manufacturing capacity in the coming years, in
part due to the BIL and IRA. For example, Daimler Trucks, Cummins, and
PACCAR recently announced a new joint venture for a 21 GWh factory to
be built in the U.S. to manufacture cells and packs initially focusing
on LFP batteries for heavy-duty and industrial applications.\679\ Tesla
is expanding its facilities in Nevada to produce its Semi BEV tractor
and battery cells\680\ and Cummins has entered into an agreement with
Arizona-based Sion Power to design and supply battery cells for
commercial electric vehicle applications.\681\ See the additional
discussion in section II.D.2.ii of this preamble, and RTC section 17.2
(battery production) for further discussion and examples. Additionally,
the DOE has conducted an analysis of public announcements that shows
that in 2027-2032, there will be sufficient domestic battery
manufacturing capacity for the HD industry to produce cells and modules
that meet the requirements of the 45X tax credit and to supply the
volumes we project in this final rulemaking.\682\ Furthermore, DOE is
funding through the BIL battery materials processing and manufacturing
projects to ``support new and expanded commercial-scale domestic
facilities to process lithium, graphite and other battery materials,
manufacture components, and demonstrate new approaches, including
manufacturing components from recycled materials.'' \683\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\678\ Packs would be eligible for the credit under the proposed
interpretation. See 88 FR 86851.
\679\ Daimler Trucks North America. ``Accelera by Cummins,
Daimler Truck and PACCAR form a joint venture to advance battery
cell production in the United States.'' September 6, 2023. Available
online: https://media.daimlertruck.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/Accelera-by-Cummins-Daimler-Truck-and-PACCAR-form-a-joint-venture-to-advance-battery-cell-production-in-the-United-States.xhtml?oid=52385590 (last accessed October 23, 2023).
\680\ Sriram, Akash, Aditya Soni, and Hyunjoo Jin. ``Tesla plans
$3.6 bln Nevada expansion to make Semi truck, battery cells.''
Reuters. January 25, 2023. Last accessed on March 31, 2023 at
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/tesla-invest-over-36-bln-nevada-build-two-new-factories-2023-01-24/.
\681\ Sion Power. ``Cummins Invests in Sion Power to Develop
Licerion[supreg] Lithium Metal Battery Technology for Commercial
Electric Vehicle Applications''. November 30, 2021. Available
online: https://sionpower.com/2021/cummins-invests-in-sion-power-to-develop-licerion-lithium-metal-battery-technology-for-commercial-electric-vehicle-applications/.
\682\ Kevin Knehr, Joseph Kubal, Shabbir Ahmed, ``Cost Analysis
and Projections for U.S.-Manufactured Automotive Lithium-ion
Batteries'', Argonne National Laboratory report ANL/CSE-24/1 for US
Department of Energy. January 2024. Available online: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2280913.
\683\ U.S. Department of Energy. ``Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law: Battery Materials Processing and Battery Manufacturing &
Recycling Funding Opportunity Announcement--Factsheets''. October
19, 2022. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/DOE%20BIL%20Battery%20FOA-2678%20Selectee%20Fact%20Sheets%20-%201_2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM, we projected that the tax credit earned by battery
cell and module manufacturers is passed through to the purchaser
because market competition would drive manufacturers to minimize their
prices. We received comment on this projection from three commenters,
questioning how much of the credit will be passed down from battery
cell and module manufacturers through the supply chain to the ultimate
purchaser because of the large upfront investments required to build
manufacturing plants. In an interview with Axios following Daimler
Trucks, Cummins, and PACCAR's recently announced battery factory,\684\
Cummins noted that the 45X tax credit ``is expected to benefit
customers by
[[Page 29552]]
lowering the price of batteries.'' \685\ After consideration of these
comments and the literature and announcements described in the previous
paragraph, we are continuing to include the tax credits in our
assessment of purchaser costs. We maintain our modeling approach for
this tax credit in HD TRUCS such that HD BEV and FCEV manufacturers
fully utilize the battery module tax credit and gradually increase
their utilization of the cell tax credit for MYs 2027-2029 until MY
2030 and beyond, when they earn 100 percent of the available cell and
module tax credits. The battery pack costs and battery tax credits used
in our analysis are shown in Table II-20. Further discussion of these
assumptions can be found in RTC section 2.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\684\ Daimler Trucks North America. ``Accelera by Cummins,
Daimler Truck and PACCAR form a joint venture to advance battery
cell production in the United States.'' September 6, 2023. Available
online: https://media.daimlertruck.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/Accelera-by-Cummins-Daimler-Truck-and-PACCAR-form-a-joint-venture-to-advance-battery-cell-production-in-the-United-States.xhtml?oid=52385590 (last accessed October 23, 2023).
\685\ Geman, Ben. ``How Biden's climate law is fueling the U.S.
battery boom.'' Axios. September 7, 2023. Last accessed on November
2, 2023 at: https://www.axios.com/2023/09/07/battery-boom-daimler-blackrock.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.040
Similar to our approach in using indirect cost multipliers to
calculate retail price equivalents, in which we do not attempt to
mirror, predict, or otherwise approximate individual companies'
marketing strategies in estimating costs for the modeled potential
compliance pathway (see section IV of this preamble), we do not attempt
to predict specifically how manufacturers will use the 45X tax credit
to alter their products' prices. Instead, we estimate the costs we
expect to be incurred by manufacturers for the modeled potential
compliance pathway--including direct manufacturing costs, indirect
costs, and tax credits--and calculate the resulting retail price
equivalents that would allow manufacturers to fully recover their costs
of compliance. Regarding the second of the provisions, IRA section
13403 creates a tax credit under 45W of the Internal Revenue Code
applicable to each purchase of a qualified commercial clean vehicle.
These vehicles must be on-road vehicles (or mobile machinery) that are
propelled to a significant extent by a battery-powered electric motor.
The battery must have a capacity of at least 15 kWh (or 7 kWh if it is
Class 3 or below) and must be rechargeable from an external source of
electricity. This limits the qualified vehicles to BEVs and PHEVs.
Additionally, FCEVs are eligible. The credit is available from CY 2023
through 2032, which overlaps with the model years for which we are
finalizing standards (MYs 2027 through 2032), so we included the tax
credit in our calculations for each of those years in HD TRUCS.
For BEVs and FCEVs, the tax credit is equal to the lesser of: (A)
30 percent of the BEV or FCEV cost, or (B) the incremental cost of a
BEV or FCEV when compared to a comparable ICE vehicle. The limit of
this tax credit is $40,000 for Class 4-8 commercial vehicles and $7,500
for commercial vehicles Class 3 and below. For example, if a BEV costs
$350,000 and a comparable ICE vehicle costs $150,000,\686\ the tax
credit would be the lesser of: (A) 0.30 x $350,000 = $105,000 or (B)
$350,000--$150,000 = $200,000. In this example, (A) is less than (B),
but (A) exceeds the limit of $40,000, so the tax credit would be
$40,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\686\ Sharpe, B., Basma, H. ``A meta-study of purchase costs for
zero-emission trucks''. International Council on Clean
Transportation. February 17, 2022. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received numerous comments on this 45W tax credit. Many
commenters noted the potential for this tax credit to help reduce costs
of ZEVs for the purchaser, with commenters differing in their
assessment of how competitive the costs of ZEVs would be compared to
prices of ICE vehicles after earning the tax credit. For example, one
commenter stated that IRA incentives, including the 45W tax credit,
would bring total cost of ownership of electric trucks lower than
diesel trucks approximately five years sooner than without the law. In
contrast, other commenters asserted that the tax credit could easily be
offset by Federal excise and state taxes, let alone the increased cost
of the ZEV without considering taxes. Additionally, one commenter
questioned whether purchasers with limited tax liabilities would be
able to leverage the tax credit.
Regarding this last concern that limited tax liabilities would
reduce purchaser's ability to leverage the tax credit, we note that the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has stated that a 45W credit can be
carried over as a general business credit and that unused general
business credits may be carried back one year and carried forward to
each of the 20 tax years after the year of the credit to help offset
prior and future tax liabilities.687 688 Additionally, for
applicable entities who can use elective pay, including tax-exempt
organizations, States, and political subdivisions such as local
governments, Indian tribal governments, Alaska Native Corporations, the
Tennessee Valley Authority, rural electric co-operatives, U.S.
territories and their political subdivisions, and agencies and
instrumentalities of state, local, tribal, and U.S. territorial
governments, the value of the credit can be paid by the IRS to the
applicable entity.689 690 Our inclusion of the Federal
excise tax (which imposes a Federal tax liability associated with the
purchase of a ZEV), the long credit life as a general business credit,
and the elective pay provisions support our application of the credit
to all eligible vehicle sales in our analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\687\ Internal Revenue Service. ``Commercial Clean Vehicle
Credit.'' February 16, 2024. Last accessed on March 18, 2024.
Available at: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/commercial-clean-vehicle-credit.
\688\ Internal Revenue Service. ``Instructions for Form 3800
(2022).'' February 8, 2024. Last accessed on March 18, 2024.
Available at: https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i3800.
\689\ Internal Revenue Service. ``Elective pay and
transferability.'' March 5, 2024. Last accessed on March 18, 2024.
Available at: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/elective-pay-and-transferability.
\690\ Internal Revenue Service. ``Elective Pay and
Transferability Frequently Asked Questions: Elective Pay.'' March
11, 2024. Last accessed on March 18, 2024. Available at: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/elective-pay-and-transferability-
frequently-asked-questions-elective-pay#eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We maintain our NPRM approach to modeling this tax credit. We
included this tax credit in HD TRUCS by decreasing the incremental
upfront cost a vehicle purchaser must pay for a ZEV compared to a
comparable ICE vehicle following the process explained in the previous
two paragraphs. The calculation for this tax credit was done
[[Page 29553]]
after applying a retail price equivalent to our direct manufacturing
costs. We did not calculate the full cost of vehicles in our analysis;
instead, we determined that all Class 4-8 ZEVs could be eligible for
the full $40,000 (or $7,500 for ZEVs Class 3 and below) if the
incremental cost calculated compared to a comparable ICE vehicle was
greater than that amount. In order for this determination to be true,
all Class 4-8 ZEVs must cost more than $133,333 such that 30 percent of
the cost is at least $40,000 (or $25,000 and $7,500, respectively, for
ZEVs Class 3 and below), which seems reasonable based on our assessment
of the literature.691 692 As in the calculation described in
the previous paragraph, both (A) and (B) are greater than the tax
credit limit and the vehicle purchaser may receive the full tax credit.
The incremental cost of a ZEV taking into account the tax credits for
each vehicle segment in MY 2027 and MY 2032 are included in RIA Chapter
2.9.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\691\ Burnham, A., Gohlke, D., Rush, L., Stephens, T., Zhou, Y.,
Delucchi, M. A., Birky, A., Hunter, C., Lin, Z., Ou, S., Xie, F.,
Proctor, C., Wiryadinata, S., Liu, N., Boloor, M. ``Comprehensive
Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with Different
Size Classes and Powertrains''. Argonne National Laboratory. April
1, 2021. Available at https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2021/05/167399.pdf.
\692\ The Department of Energy published an ``Incremental
Purchase Cost Methodology and Results for Clean Vehicles'' that
estimates representative vehicle costs for broad vehicle types
relevant to this rulemaking: Class 4-6, Class 7, and Class 8 ICE
vehicles, BEVs, PHEVs, and FCEVs. The report indicates that Class 7
and 8 ZEVs cost more than $133,333, while Class 4-6 ZEVs cost less
than $133,333. While this assessment conflicts with our simplifying
assumption for Class 4-6 ZEVs, we note that our Class 4-6 ZEVs' 45W
tax credits, as shown in RIA Chapter 2.9.2, are mostly projected to
be limited by a wide margin by the incremental costs and not the
$40,000 limit affected by this assumption. The exceptions to this
are the recreational vehicles, which we do not project as having
significant ZEV adoption due to their lengthy payback periods, even
with the full $40,000 tax credit. Department of Energy,
``Incremental Purchase Cost Methodology and Results for Clean
Vehicles''. December 2023. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/2023.12.18%20Incremental%20Purchase%20Cost%20Methodology%20and%20Results%20for%20Clean%20Vehicles%20pub%2012-2022%20amd%2012-2023%20Final_2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Purchaser Costs
Operating costs for HD vehicles encompass a variety of costs, such
as labor, insurance, registration fees, fueling, maintenance and repair
(M&R), and other costs. For this HD TRUCS analysis, we are primarily
interested in costs that are different for a comparable diesel-powered
ICE vehicle and for a ZEV.\693\ These operational cost differences are
used to calculate an estimated payback period in HD TRUCS. We expect
fueling costs and M&R costs to be different for ZEVs than for
comparable diesel-fueled ICE vehicles and included these costs in our
analysis to support the NPRM. Some commenters pointed out that we
should also include insurance cost. For the final rule HD TRUCS
analysis, operating costs are calculated each year as a summation of
the annual fuel cost, maintenance and repair costs, insurance cost, and
additional ZEV registration fee. In addition, for the final rule we
considered the cost impact of the Federal excise tax and state sales
tax to the operator at the time of purchase after consideration of the
comments we received. Each of the following subsections include the
costs for ICE vehicles, BEVs, and FCEVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\693\ For diesel-fueled ICE vehicles, we also estimated the cost
of the diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) required for the selective
catalytic reduction aftertreatment system. See RIA Chapter 2.3.4.1
for DEF costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Maintenance and Repair (M&R) Costs
M&R costs contribute to the overall operating costs for HD
vehicles. Data on real-world M&R costs for HD ZEVs is limited due to
limited HD ZEV technology adoption today. We expect the overall
maintenance costs to be lower for ZEVs compared to a comparable ICE
vehicle for several reasons. First, an electric powertrain has fewer
moving parts that accrue wear or need regular adjustments. Second, ZEVs
do not require fluids such as engine oil or diesel exhaust fluid (DEF),
nor do they require exhaust filters to reduce particulate matter or
other pollutants. Third, the per-mile rate of brake wear is expected to
be lower for ZEVs due to regenerative braking systems. Several
literature sources propose applying a scaling factor to diesel vehicle
maintenance costs to estimate ZEV maintenance
costs.694 695 696
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\694\ Burnham, A., Gohlke, D., Rush, L., Stephens, T., Zhou, Y.,
Delucchi, M. A., Birky, A., Hunter, C., Lin, Z., Ou, S., Xie, F.,
Proctor, C., Wiryadinata, S., Liu, N., Boloor, M. ``Comprehensive
Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with Different
Size Classes and Powertrains''. Argonne National Laboratory. April
1, 2021. Available online: https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2021/05/167399.pdf.
\695\ Hunter, Chad, Michael Penev, Evan Reznicek, Jason
Lustbader, Alicia Birkby, and Chen Zhang. ``Spatial and Temporal
Analysis of the Total Cost of Ownership for Class 8 Tractors and
Class 4 Parcel Delivery Trucks''. National Renewable Energy Lab.
September 2021. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/71796.pdf.
\696\ Burke, Andrew, Marshall Miller, Anish Sinha, et. al.
``Evaluation of the Economics of Battery-Electric and Fuel Cell
Trucks and Buses: Methods, Issues, and Results''. August 1, 2022.
Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1g89p8dn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA indicated at proposal that HD ZEVs would experience significant
maintenance and repair savings vis-a-vis their ICE counterparts. This
finding was based on these vehicles' simpler design, notably absence of
pistons and valves, and fewer moving parts in general.\697\ Multiple
commenters agreed that ZEV purchasers would experience cost savings due
to lower maintenance and repair costs. Other commenters questioned
EPA's finding. These commenters maintained that it would take two
technicians rather than one to service an HD BEV. In addition, they
stated that mechanics will require safety training for ZEV maintenance
and repair, and that EPA had failed to account for the associated
costs. Another question raised in these comments is whether there are
sufficient technicians qualified to service HD ZEVs. Other commenters
said that maintenance facility upgrades will be needed in order to
service ZEVs and that such upgrades are a cost of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\697\ 88 FR 25986-87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several of these commenters went on to challenge the empirical
basis for EPA's estimates. In HD TRUCS, ZEV maintenance and repair
costs are estimated by first calculating the baseline diesel
maintenance and repair costs and then by applying BEV and FCEV downward
scaling factors based on Wang, et al.\698\ so that cost savings are the
product of the diesel maintenance and repair costs times the scaling
factor. Several commenters criticized EPA for (purportedly) relying on
a single source for the ZEV scaling factors, and further, that the
source itself quotes a large range of potential values for those
factors. One commenter also noted a multi-year study of light-duty
electric vehicles which showed maintenance costs averaging 2.3 times
that of ICE vehicles due to the longer maintenance time and lack of
qualified technicians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\698\ Wang, Guihua et al. ``Estimating Maintenance and Repair
Costs for Battery Electric and Fuel Cell Heavy Duty Trucks''.
Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/36c08395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZEV vehicles have fewer moving parts than their ICEV counterparts,
which is typically indicative of fewer serviceable parts and fewer
potential failures. EPA reiterates that this will result in reduced
costs for maintenance and repair for their users. This conclusion has
ample support. Multiple cost assessment papers and the California
Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation Appendix G: Total Cost of Ownership
\699\ use cost reduction factors for ZEV maintenance
[[Page 29554]]
compared to internal combustion engine maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\699\ https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/appg.pdf. See section 4, pages G-21--G-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, there are considerations of when those savings will
accrue. EPA agrees with commenters that there is some uncertainty in
predicting cost reductions for maintenance and repair of ZEV heavy-duty
vehicles before production and usage become more common. A further
uncertainty involves a potential need to retrain technicians to work on
ZEVs.
EPA has adjusted its cost estimates to reflect consideration of
these uncertainties. We agree that there may be a transition period
during which costs for maintaining and repairing ZEVs will not be at
their full savings potential due to the need to train more of the
workforce to maintain and repair ZEVs. To account for this period, in
this final rule HD TRUCS analysis EPA has phased in the ZEV scaling
factors for maintenance and repair. Specifically, instead of applying a
single scaling factor for every year commencing in 2027 (for BEVs) or
2030 (for FCEVs) as at proposal, EPA is starting with a higher scaling
factor and gradually decreasing it (i.e., gradually increasing the
projected cost savings) over a 5-year period. The initial higher
scaling factor comes from Wang et al. and reflects estimates for 2022.
EPA's approach of applying this factor commencing in 2027 or 2030 is
consequently conservative given that technicians in those later years
will be more experienced than they were in 2022.
The criticism that EPA used a single source to derive the scaling
factors does not paint a full picture of EPA's selection of these
values. EPA examined multiple papers with proposed scaling
factors.\700\ We selected the values in the Wang et al. paper because
its methodology was supported by a ground-up assessment of the
differences in BEV, FCEV and diesel components, and the cost reduction
(scaling factor) values in the paper fall within the range of other
suggested scaling factor values in the literature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\700\ See EPA's Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3. EPA-420-D-23-004. April
2023. Page 265 and sources cited in endnotes 93, 94, and 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this final rule HD TRUCS analysis, EPA has made a further change
involving cost estimates for ICE vehicle maintenance and repair costs--
the baseline to which the scaling factors are applied for cost
estimation purposes--a change not requested in comments but one we
think is warranted. In the NPRM analysis, we developed the ICE vehicle
M&R costs based on two different equations--one for sleeper cab
tractors which travel longer distances and one for vocational vehicles
and day cab tractors. The value used for vocational vehicles in the
NPRM includes a higher cents per mile value than the one used for
sleeper cab tractors. For the final rule analysis, we used the lower
cents per mile M&R value for sleeper cabs for all HD vehicles. This
change reduced the overall maintenance cost estimates for diesel
vehicles, which in turn reduces the overall estimated savings from ZEV
M&R for users under the potential compliance pathway that supports the
feasibility of the final standards, since the savings values are
estimated as a cost reduction from the diesel maintenance and repair
values. An explanation for the basis for this change is set out in RTC
section 3.6. Lowering the diesel maintenance and repair costs, along
with phasing in the ZEV scaling factors, together resulted in a
substantial reduction in estimated ZEV maintenance and repair savings
in the final rule compared to the NPRM.
The article cited by one commenter from Kelly Blue Book\701\ refers
to an analysis of light-duty, not heavy-duty, vehicles.\702\ While this
article says that a predictive analytics firm, We Predict, found that
EVs ``cost more to repair than their gasoline engine counterparts'',
that article also states that that ``EVs cost less in maintenance
because they have fewer regular maintenance procedures.'' The reason it
finds that EVs are more expensive is because technicians are spending
more time working on EVs than they are on gasoline cars, and that those
technicians cost more per hour. As noted, EPA understands that costs
for servicing ZEVs may be more expensive in the very near term than
they will be once technicians are retrained and have gained some
experience; EPA expects the service technician workforce to transition
to a workforce that has the skills and experience needed to service
ZEVs. The Kelly Blue Book article supports EPA's expectation: the
article states that We Predict ``believes that EVs may prove less
expensive in the long run.'' The article goes on to quote the We
Predict CEO, James Davies, ``The cost of keeping the vehicle in service
for the EV, even as the EV gets older, becomes smaller and smaller and
actually less than keeping an ICE [internal combustion engine] vehicle
on the road. . .That's not just maintenance costs, but all service
costs.'' \703\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\701\ https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-evs-cost-more-to-repair-less-to-maintain/.
\702\ Heavy-duty ICE vehicle maintenance and repair may have
some correlation with light-duty maintenance and repair, but the
comparison does not consider the maintenance and repair costs of
diesel engine and exhaust aftertreatment systems which are greater
than the costs associated with light-duty vehicles.
\703\ https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-evs-cost-more-to-repair-less-to-maintain/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The M&R BEV scaling factors used to support the final rule analysis
are shown in Table II-21.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.041
EPA agrees that when new products are introduced dealers may
encounter new costs, such as technician training to repair ZEVs. EPA
therefore accounts for these costs in the RPE multipliers. EPA's heavy-
duty retail price equivalent (RPE) mark-up includes a 6 percent markup
over manufacturing cost for Dealer new vehicle selling costs. See
section IV.B.2 of this preamble for further discussion.
ii. Fuel, Charging, and Hydrogen Costs
The annual fuel cost for operating a diesel-fueled ICE vehicle is a
function of its yearly fuel consumption and the cost of diesel fuel.
The yearly fuel consumption is described in RIA Chapter 2.3.4.3. As we
did in the NPRM, we used the DOE Energy Information Administration's
(EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) transportation sector reference case
projection for diesel fuel for on-road use for diesel prices.\704\ For
[[Page 29555]]
the final rule analysis, we updated to the latest version of AEO 2023.
These fuel prices include Federal and State taxes but exclude county
and local taxes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\704\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy
Outlook 2023. Table 57 Components of Selected Petroleum Product
Prices. Diesel Fuel End User Price. Last accessed on 12/2/2023 at
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=70-AEO2023&cases=ref2023&sourcekey=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note at the outset HD BEV related power generation and
transmission actions and their costs are insignificant when compared to
historical levels of total power generation. See section II.D.2.iii of
this preamble and RTC section 7 (Distribution). Some commenters agreed
that the projected power and transmission needs for HD BEVs is
achievable, especially when the gradual increase is recognized. Some
other commenters applied different analysis to generate significant
power level increases. As discussed in section V, we model changes to
power generation due to the increased electricity demand anticipated
under the potential compliance pathway in the final rule as part of our
upstream analysis. We project the additional generation needed to meet
the demand of the heavy-duty BEVs in the final rule to be relatively
modest (as shown in RIA Chapter 6.5); the final rule is estimated to
increase electric power end use by heavy-duty electric vehicles by 0.1
percent in 2027 and increasing to 2.8 percent in 2055. This is
consistent with estimates from the utility industry itself,\705\ and
from manufacturers.\706\ As a comparison, the U.S. electricity end use
between the years 1992 and 2021, a similar number of years included in
our analysis, increased by around 25 percent \707\ without any adverse
effects on electric grid reliability or electricity generation capacity
shortages. See also RTC section 7.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\705\ Comments of Edison Electric Institute, additionally
summarized and discussed in RTC section 7 (Distribution) and 7.1.
\706\ See, e.g., Comments of DTNA, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985, pp. 52-
53.
\707\ Annual Energy Outlook 2022, U.S. Energy Information
Administration, March 3, 2022 (https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/narrative/introduction/sub-topic-01.php.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do agree that there can be costs associated with distribution
grid buildout, and with public charging networks associated with BEV
HDV charging. EPA agrees with commenters that these costs should be
included in our analysis and we have done so in the final rule
analysis. We agree with commenters that suggested these costs could be
reflected in the cost of fuel i.e., in the charging cost--rather than
as capital (upfront) costs. Although there is considerable uncertainty
associated with future distribution system upgrades and costs, our
final rulemaking analysis, which incorporates findings from TEIS,
suggests that the cost, when spread over the appropriate timeframe and
user base, is modest.\708\ Utilities will have various mechanisms to
recoup their expenditures on grid distribution infrastructure. The
process chosen by any given utility may depend on the size and
financial resources of the utility or it may be driven by regulatory
rules and direction. For the analysis in this final rule, we are
including grid infrastructure as recouped through charging costs.
Details on electricity distribution system costs and resulting charging
costs are provided in this section and in RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\708\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Kevala Inc., and U.S. Department of Energy.
``Multi-State Transportation Electrification Impact Study: Preparing
the Grid for Light-, Medium-, and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles''.
DOE/EE-2818. U.S. Department of Energy. March 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annual charging cost for operating a HD electric vehicle is a
function of the electricity price, daily energy consumption of the
vehicle, and number of operating days in a year. For the NPRM we used
the DOE EIA AEO 2022 reference case commercial electricity end-use rate
projection for our electricity price.\709\ We received comments that
this approach may underestimate charging costs experienced by BEV
owners. One commenter noted that we should account for the impact of
increased BEV demand on future electricity prices. Several commenters
discussed the impact of high demand charges on electricity price. Other
commenters noted that there are additional costs that could increase
the effective cost to charge including EVSE maintenance costs. Some
commenters noted that vehicles using public charging could likely incur
higher costs to charge than those at depots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\709\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2023, Table 8: Electricity
Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions. Last accessed on 10/30/
2023. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=8-AEO2023&cases=ref2023&sourcekey=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA agrees that our approach in the NPRM underestimated charging
costs and we have increased the electricity prices used in HD TRUCS for
the final rule analysis. We also agree with commenters that EVSE
maintenance costs and distribution upgrade costs due to increased BEV
demand should be taken into account, and that incorporating these into
the charging costs is a reasonable approach; we have done so in HD
TRUCS for the final rule analysis.
For the final rule, in HD TRUCS we differentiate between depot
charging and public charging when assigning charging costs. As
explained, we have also expanded the scope of what is covered in these
costs to better reflect the cost of charging. The charging costs we use
for both charging types include the cost of electricity as charged by
the utility ($/kWh) as well as additional costs for EVSE maintenance
and distribution upgrades (expressed in $/kWh) when those upgrades are
needed. Our public charging price additionally includes amortized cost
of public charging equipment and land costs for the station;\710\ and
we project that third parties may install and operate these stations
and pass costs onto BEV owners via charging costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\710\ As discussed in section II.E.2, capital costs for EVSE
used in depot charging are accounted for separately. We make the
simplifying assumption that fleets will utilize existing parking
depots when installing EVSE and therefore will not incur additional
costs for purchasing or leasing land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate charging costs, we start by modeling future electricity
prices, as charged by utilities, that account for the costs of BEV
charging demand and the associated distribution system upgrade costs.
We do this in three steps: (1) we model future power generation using
the Integrated Planning Model (IPM), (2) we estimate the cost of
distribution system upgrades associated with charging demand through
the DOE Multi-State Transportation Electrification Impact Study
(TEIS),\711\ and (3) we use the Retail Price Model to project
electricity prices accounting for both (1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\711\ See preamble section II.D.2.c.iii and RTC section 7
(Distribution) for a fuller description of the TEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in RIA Chapter 4.2, IPM models the power sector,
including changes to power generation based on future demand scenarios.
In order to capture the potential future impacts on the power sector
from zero-emission vehicles, we ran IPM for a scenario that combined
electricity demand from an interim version of the final standards case
and EPA's proposed rulemaking ``Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for
Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles.'' \712\
The same demand scenario was used as the action case for the TEIS.\713\
The TEIS
[[Page 29556]]
research team modeled how many new or upgraded substations, feeders,
and transformers would be needed to meet projected electricity demand,
including demand from residential workplace, depot, and public charging
to support projected light-, medium-, and heavy-duty plug-in electric
vehicles. For all public and workplace charging, vehicles were assumed
to charge upon arrival at full power. At homes and depot charging
stations--where vehicles have longer dwell times--a managed charging
scenario was developed to spread out charging and reduce peak power.
(See RIA Chapter 1.6.5 and RTC section 7 (Distribution) for a
discussion of the potential benefits of managed charging to fleet
owners.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\712\ Electricity demand for heavy-duty ZEVs was based on the
interim control case described in RIA Chapter 4.2.4 and for light-
and medium-duty vehicles was based on Alternative 3 from EPA's
proposed ``Multipollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027
and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles'' (88 FR 29184 et
seq.). See the TEIS report for more information on the modeled
(`Action') scenario with managed charging, and how demand was
allocated by region and time of day.
\713\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Kevala Inc., and U.S. Department of Energy.
``Multi-State Transportation Electrification Impact Study: Preparing
the Grid for Light-, Medium-, and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles''.
DOE/EE-2818. U.S. Department of Energy. March 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The changes to power generation in our modeled IPM scenario and the
distribution cost estimates from TEIS were then input to the Retail
Price Model (RPM).\714\ The RPM developed by ICF generates estimates
for average electricity prices across consumer classes accounting for
the regional distribution of electricity demand. The resulting national
average retail prices, which include distribution upgrade costs, were
used as a basis for the charging costs in HD TRUCS.\715\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\714\ ICF. ``Documentation of the Retail Price Model. Draft.''
2019. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/documents/rpm_documentation_june2019.pdf.
\715\ IPM and the RPM were run for select years. We used linear
interpolation for electricity prices between model run years from
2028-2050. We kept electricity prices constant for 2050+ and assumed
the 2027 price was the same as 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For depot charging, we add 0.52 cents/kWh to the RPM results to
account for EVSE maintenance costs. These values are from a recent ICCT
study,\716\ which was suggested in public comments (see RTC Chapter
6).\717\ For public charging, we project an electricity price of 19.6
cents/kWh for 2027 and adjust it for future years according to the
results of the IPM Retail Price Model discussed. The initial value from
the same ICCT study \718\ reflects costs for public charging at
stations designed for long-haul vehicles. Stations are assumed to have
seventeen 1 MW EVSE ports and twenty 150 kW EVSE ports for a total peak
power capacity of 20 MW. The 19.6 cent/kWh price includes the amortized
cost of this charging equipment, land costs, both electricity prices
(cents/kWh) and demand charges (cents/kW) associated with high peak
power, distribution upgrade costs for substations, feeders, and
transformers associated with these public charging stations, and EVSE
maintenance costs. We apply public electricity prices to long-haul
vehicles, some longer-range day cab tractors and coach buses (see
section II.D.5.i of this preamble). Overall, our charging costs used in
the final rule analysis are higher than those used in the NPRM
analysis, particularly since those costs now reflect maintenance, grid
distribution upgrades, and public charging costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\716\ Hussein Basma, Claire Buysee, Yuanrong Zhou, and Felipe
Rodriguez. ``Total Cost of Ownership of Alternative Powertrain
Technologies for Class 8 Long-haul Trucks in the United States.''
International Council on Clean Transportation. April 2023. Available
at: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/tco-alt-powertrain-long-haul-trucks-us-apr23.pdf.
\717\ See Comments of EMA at 28.
\718\ Hussein Basma, Claire Buysee, Yuanrong Zhou, and Felipe
Rodriguez. ``Total Cost of Ownership of Alternative Powertrain
Technologies for Class 8 Long-haul Trucks in the United States.''
International Council on Clean Transportation. April 2023. Available
at: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/tco-alt-powertrain-long-haul-trucks-us-apr23.pdf.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.042
For the HD TRUCS analysis, rather than focusing on depot hydrogen
fueling infrastructure costs that would be incurred upfront, we
included infrastructure costs in our per-kilogram retail price of
hydrogen. The retail price of hydrogen is the total price of hydrogen
when it becomes available to the end user, including the costs of
production, distribution, storage, and dispensing at a fueling station.
This price per kilogram of hydrogen includes the amortization of the
station capital costs. This approach is consistent with the method we
use in HD TRUCS for ICE vehicles, where the equivalent diesel fuel
costs are included in the diesel fuel price instead of accounting for
the costs of fuel stations separately, as well as for BEVS with public
charging, as explained previously in this section.
We acknowledge that this market is still emerging and that hydrogen
fuel providers will likely pursue a diverse range of business models.
For example, some businesses may sell hydrogen to fleets through a
negotiated contract rather than at a flat market rate on a given day.
Others may offer to absorb
[[Page 29557]]
the infrastructure development risk for the consumer, in exchange for
the ability to sell excess hydrogen to other customers and more quickly
amortize the cost of building a fueling station. FCEV manufacturers may
offer a ``turnkey'' solution to fleets, where they provide a vehicle
with fuel as a package deal. This level of granularity is not reflected
in our hydrogen price estimates presented in the RIA.
As discussed in section II.D.3.iv, large Federal incentives are in
place that could impact the price of hydrogen. In June 2021, DOE
launched a Hydrogen Shot goal to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen
production by 80 percent to $1 per kilogram in one decade.\719\ The BIL
and IRA included funding for several hydrogen programs to accelerate
progress towards the Hydrogen Shot and jumpstart the hydrogen market in
the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\719\ U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies Office. ``Hydrogen Shot''. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-shot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the NPRM analysis, we included a hydrogen price based on
analysis from ANL using BEAN. 88 FR 25988. One commenter highlighted
several reports that indicate large potential for the hydrogen price to
rapidly drop, particularly on the production side. Several commenters
expressed concern about the hydrogen price assumption in the NPRM or
said that prices cannot be predicted at this time and urged that EPA's
projection be regularly evaluated as the market develops. Some
commenters referred to an ICCT analysis of hydrogen pricing that
indicated a lack of cost-competitiveness for hydrogen-fueled trucks
before 2035. Another commenter noted that the price of $4 to $5 per kg
(that EPA referenced) is described by DOE as a ``willingness to pay''
that reflects the total price at which hydrogen must be available to
the HD vehicle end user for uptake to occur, or the point at which
FCEVs could reach cost parity with diesel vehicles. They stated that it
cannot represent the real market and offered a bottom-up analysis to
understand what fleet owners would pay at the hydrogen refueling
stations. See RTC section 8.2 for the comments submitted on this issue
and RIA Chapter 2.5.3.1 for a detailed response and additional
discussion about hydrogen price.
For the final rule HD TRUCS analysis, in consideration of the
comments, we re-evaluated our assumption about the retail price of
hydrogen, in consultation with DOE. We determined the hydrogen price
based on several 2030 cost scenarios for hydrogen from the Pathways to
Commercial Liftoff report \720\ that are in line with estimates from a
previous DOE analysis of market uptake of FCEVs.\721\ Several cost
trajectories in the report identified paths for around $6 per kg in
2030, depending on the method of hydrogen production and cost of the
station. For 2030, we looked at the average of the sums of low and high
pathway estimates for hydrogen produced using steam methane reforming
(SMR) with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and water
electrolysis is just under $6 per kg in 2030, considering varying
incentives from the IRA hydrogen production tax credit (PTC).
Distribution, storage, and dispensing costs are based on DOE estimates
if advances in distribution and storage technology are commercialized
and at scale. Our scenario selections presume that in the near-term,
delivery of hydrogen in liquid form is likely, due to the limited
capacity of gaseous trailers and limited availability of
pipelines.\722\ Cost reductions to $4 per kg are considered feasible by
2035 with next generation fuel dispensing technologies, reductions in
the cost of hydrogen production due to IRA incentives, and possibly the
use of pipelines for hydrogen delivery.\723\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\720\ U.S. Department of Energy. ``Pathways to Commercial
Liftoff: Clean Hydrogen''. March 2023. Available online: https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/20230523-Pathways-to-Commercial-Liftoff-Clean-Hydrogen.pdf. See Figure 10.
\721\ Ledna, et. al. ``Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-
Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis''. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. March 2022. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
\722\ U.S. Department of Energy. ``Pathways to Commercial
Liftoff: Clean Hydrogen''. March 2023. Available online: https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/20230523-Pathways-to-Commercial-Liftoff-Clean-Hydrogen.pdf. See Figure 10.
\723\ Ledna, et. al. ``Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-
Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis''. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. March 2022. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate these estimates further, and in response to comments,
the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) conducted a bottom-up analysis
that explores the potential range of levelized costs of dispensed
hydrogen (LCOH) \724\ from hydrogen refueling stations for HD FCEVs in
2030. Bracci et. al \725\ evaluates breakeven costs along the full
supply chain from hydrogen production to dispensing, including station
costs by technology component and delivery costs by distance delivered.
The authors vary hydrogen delivery distances, station sizes, station
utilization rates, and economies of scale. They assume that hydrogen is
dispensed in pressurized gaseous form at 700 bars of pressure and is
either delivered via liquid tanker trucks or produced onsite in gaseous
form. The assumed production cost of $1.50 per kg is based on costs of
production today using steam methane reforming (SMR), though the paper
acknowledges that many factors are at play that could impact the cost
and method of hydrogen production in 2030 such as the rate of economies
of scale; the impacts of policy incentives (e.g., the 45V tax credit);
\726\ and the success of research, development, and deployment efforts.
Most capital and operating costs are derived from Argonne National
Laboratory's Hydrogen Delivery Scenario Analysis Model (HDSAM) Version
4.5.\727\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\724\ LCOH is described as the total annualized capital costs
plus annual feedstock, variable, and fixed operating costs, divided
by the annual hydrogen flow through the supply chain.
\725\ Bracci, Justin, Mariya Koleva, and Mark Chung. ``Levelized
Cost of Dispensed Hydrogen for Heavy-Duty Vehicles''. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-88818. March 2024.
Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88818.pdf.
\726\ The authors indicate that relevant incentives include but
are not limited to the Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit
(30C), the Credit of Production of Clean Hydrogen (45V), the
Qualified Advanced Energy Project Credit (48C), and the Credit for
Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicles (45W).
\727\ Bracci, Justin, Mariya Koleva, and Mark Chung. ``Levelized
Cost of Dispensed Hydrogen for Heavy-Duty Vehicles''. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-88818. March 2024.
Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88818.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authors conclude that the overall system LCOH in 2030 is
estimated to range from about $3.80 per kg-H2 to $12.60 per
kg-H2, depending on the size of stations and method of
hydrogen supply.\728\ This cost range is not the same as a retail
price, but we assume that any retail markup at the station is
minimal.729 730 Importantly, it does not consider any tax
incentives or other state or Federal incentive policies that may
further reduce the retail price that consumers see at a fueling station
in
[[Page 29558]]
2030.731 732 Therefore, we conclude that our retail price of
hydrogen of $6 per kg in 2030, dropping to $4 per kg by 2035, is within
a reasonable range of anticipated values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\728\ Bracci, Justin, Mariya Koleva, and Mark Chung. ``Levelized
Cost of Dispensed Hydrogen for Heavy-Duty Vehicles''. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-88818. March 2024.
Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88818.pdf.
\729\ West Virginia Oil Marketers and Grocers Association. ``How
Much Money Do Businesses Make on Fuel Purchases?'' Available online:
https://www.omegawv.com/faq/140-how-much-money-do-businesses-make-on-fuel-purchases.html.
\730\ Kinnier, Alex. ``I've analyzed the profit margins of
30,000 gas stations. Here's the proof fuel retailers are not to
blame for high gas prices''. Fortune. August 9, 2022. Available
online: https://fortune.com/2022/08/09/energy-profit-margins-gas-stations-proof-fuel-retailers-high-gas-prices-alex-kinnier/.
\731\ The authors indicate that relevant incentives include but
are not limited to the Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit
(30C), the Credit of Production of Clean Hydrogen (45V), the
Qualified Advanced Energy Project Credit (48C), and the Credit for
Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicles (45W).
\732\ U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies Office. ``Financial Incentives for Hydrogen and Fuel
Cell Projects''. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/financial-incentives-hydrogen-and-fuel-cell-projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
See RIA Chapter 2.5.3.1 for additional detail about our assessment.
After consideration of comments and this assessment, we project the
retail price of hydrogen in 2030 will be $6 per kg and fall to $4 per
kg in 2035 and beyond, as shown in Table II-23.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.043
iii. Insurance
In the NPRM analysis, we did not take into account the cost of
insurance on the ZEV purchaser. A few commenters suggested we should
consider the addition of insurance cost because the incremental cost of
insurance for the ZEVs will be higher than for ICE vehicles. We agree
that insurance costs may differ between these vehicle types and that
this is a cost that will be seen by the operator. Therefore, for the
final rule analysis in HD TRUCS, we included the incremental insurance
costs of a ZEV relative to an ICEV by incorporating an annual insurance
cost equal to 3 percent of initial upfront vehicle technology RPE
cost.\733\ This annual cost was applied for each operating year of the
vehicle. For further discussion on insurance cost see RIA Chapter
2.5.3.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\733\ Hussein Basma, Claire Buysee, Yuanrong Zhou, and Felipe
Rodriguez, ``Total Cost of Ownership of Alternative Powertrain
Technologies for Class 8 Long-haul Trucks in the United States,''
April 2023. Page 17. Available at: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/tco-alt-powertrain-long-haul-trucks-us-apr23.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Taxes
In the NPRM analysis, we did not account for the upfront taxes paid
by the purchaser of the vehicle. Commenters pointed out the additional
costs from the Federal excise tax and state sales tax which should be
included. For the final rule, we added FET and state sales tax as a
part of the upfront cost calculation for purchaser in HD TRUCS. A FET
of 12 percent was applied to the upfront powertrain technology retail
price equivalent of Class 8 heavy-duty vehicles and all tractors in HD
TRUCS (i.e., where the FET is applicable). Similarly, our analysis in
HD TRUCS now includes a state sales tax of 5.02 percent, the average
sales tax in the U.S. for heavy-duty vehicles. We applied this increase
to the upfront powertrain technology retail price equivalent for all
vehicles in HD TRUCS.
v. ZEV Registration Fee
In the NPRM analysis, we did not account for ZEV registration fees
paid by the purchaser. Commenters have pointed out that some states
have adopted state ZEV registration fees. Though 18 states do not have
an additional registration fee for ZEVS, for those that do, the
registration fees are generally between $50 and $225 per year. While
EPA cannot predict whether and to what extent other states will enact
ZEV registration fees, we have nonetheless conservatively added an
annual registration fee of $100 to all ZEV vehicles in our final HD
TRUCS analysis (see RIA Chapter 2.4.4).
6. Payback
After assessing the suitability of the technology and costs
associated with ZEVs, EPA performed a payback calculation on each of
the 101 HD TRUCS vehicles for the BEV technology and FCEV technology
that we considered for the technology packages to support the
feasibility of the final standards in the MY 2027-2032 timeframe. The
payback period was calculated by determining the number of years that
it would take for the annual operational savings of a ZEV to offset the
incremental upfront purchase price of a BEV or FCEV (after accounting
for the IRA section 13502 battery tax credit and IRA section 13403
vehicle tax credit as described in RIA Chapters 2.4.3.1 and 2.4.3.5,
respectively, Federal excise and state sales taxes and charging
infrastructure costs (for BEVs, after accounting for the IRA section
13404 Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit) when compared to
purchasing a comparable ICE vehicle. The ICE vehicle and ZEV costs
calculated include the RPE multiplier of 1.42 to include both direct
and indirect manufacturing costs, as discussed further in RIA Chapter
3. The operating costs include the diesel, hydrogen or electricity
costs, DEF costs, the maintenance and repair costs, insurance costs,
and ZEV registration fee. The payback results for BEVs and FCEVs are
shown in RIA Chapter 2.9.2.
In our payback analysis in HD TRUCS, we did not account for
potential diesel engine rebuild costs for ICE vehicles, potential
replacement battery costs for BEVs or EVSE replacement costs for depot-
charged BEVs, or potential replacement fuel cell stack costs for FCEVs
because our payback analysis covers a shorter period of time than the
expected life of these components. However, we did account for these
costs in our program costs, as discussed in RIA Chapter 3.4, because
they will occur over the lifetime of the vehicles.
According to a 2013 study conducted by McKay and Co. the average
out frame rebuilds for internal combustion engines in Class 4 through 8
vehicles range from 10 to 16 years.\734\ In addition, in the HD2027 low
NOx rule, EPA increased emissions warranties for MY 2027 and later HD
engines beyond what is required today.\735\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\734\ MacKay & Company ``Industry Characterization of Heavy-Duty
Diesel Engine Rebuilds'', September 2013. EPA Contract No. EP-C-12-
011 Work Assignment No. 1-06.
\735\ HD2027 rule (88 FR 4296, January 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical battery warranties being offered by HD BEV manufacturers
range between 8 and 15 years today and we are finalizing an emissions
warranty requirement for HD BEV (see preamble section III.B).\736\ A
BEV battery replacement may be practically necessary over the
operational life of a vehicle if the battery deteriorates to a point
where the vehicle range no longer meets the vehicle's operational
needs. As explained in section II.D.5, we sized the battery in BEVs in
HD TRUCS to meet a 10 year and 2,000 cycle
[[Page 29559]]
threshold to better ensure a battery replacement would not be needed
during the payback period assessed in HD TRUCS. Furthermore, we believe
that proper vehicle and battery maintenance and management can extend
battery life. For example, manufacturers will utilize battery
management system to maintain the temperature of the battery \737\ as
well active battery balancing to extend the life of the
battery.738 739 Likewise, pre-conditioning has also shown to
extend the life of the battery.\740\ In addition, research suggests
that battery life is expected to improve with new batteries over time
as battery chemistry and battery charging strategies improve, such that
newer MY BEVs will have longer battery life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\736\ Type C BEV school bus battery warranty range five to
fifteen years according to https://www.nyapt.org/resources/Documents/WRI_ESB-Buyers-Guide_US-Market_2022.pdf. The Freightliner
electric walk-in van includes an eight-year battery warranty
according to https://www.electricwalkinvan.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/MT50e-specifications-2022.pdf.
\737\ Basma, Hussein, Charbel Mansour, Marc Haddad, Maroun
Nemer, Pascal Stabat. ``Comprehensive energy modeling methodology
for battery electric buses''. Energy: Volume 207, 15 September 2020,
118241. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544220313487.
\738\ Bae, SH., Park, J.W., Lee, S.H. ``Optimal SOC Reference
Based Active Cell Balancing on a Common Energy Bus of Battery''
Available online: http://koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO201709641401357.pdf.
\739\ Azad, F.S., Ahasan Habib, A.K.M., Rahman, A., Ahmed I.
``Active cell balancing of Li-Ion batteries using single capacitor
and single LC series resonant circuit.'' https://beei.org/index.php/EEI/article/viewFile/1944/1491.
\740\ ``How to Improve EV Battery Performance in Cold Weather''
Accessed on March 31, 2023. https://www.worktruckonline.com/10176367/how-to-improve-ev-battery-performance-in-cold-weather.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the approach we took for sizing the battery in BEVs, we
oversized the fuel stack system to extend the durability of the system,
as discussed in section II.D.5.v.
F. Final Standards
The final standards are shown in Table II-24 and Table II-25 for
vocational vehicles and in Table II-26 and Table II-27 for tractors. We
are finalizing CO2 emission standards for heavy-duty
vehicles that, compared to the proposed standards, include less
stringent standards for all vehicle categories in MYs 2027, 2028, 2029
and 2030. The final standards increase in stringency at a slower pace
through MYs 2027 to 2030 compared to the proposal, and day cab tractor
standards start in MY 2028 and heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles
start in MY 2029 (we proposed Phase 3 standards for day cabs and heavy-
heavy vocational vehicles starting in MY 2027). As proposed, the final
standards for sleeper cabs start in MY 2030 but are less stringent than
proposed in that year and in MY 2031, and equivalent to the proposed
standards in MY 2032. We are finalizing MY 2031 standards that are on
par with the proposal for light- and medium-duty vocational vehicles
and day cab tractors. Heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicle final
standards are less stringent than proposed for all model years,
including 2031 and 2032. For MY 2032, we are finalizing more stringent
standards than proposed for light and medium heavy-duty vocational
vehicles and day cab tractors.
As further explained in section II.G, and consistent with our HD
GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2 rulemakings, in this Phase 3 final rule we
considered the following factors: the impacts of potential standards on
emissions reductions of GHG emissions; technical feasibility and
technology effectiveness; the lead time necessary to implement the
technologies; costs to manufacturers; costs to purchasers including
operating savings; the impacts of standards on oil conservation and
energy security; impacts of standards on the truck industry; other
energy impacts; as well as other relevant factors such as impacts on
safety.\741\ In this rulemaking, EPA has accounted for a wide range of
emissions control technologies, including advanced ICE engine and
vehicle technologies (e.g., engine, transmission, drivetrain,
aerodynamics, tire rolling resistance improvements, the use of low
carbon fuels like CNG and LNG, and H2-ICE), hybrid technologies (e.g.,
HEV and PHEV), and ZEV technologies (e.g., BEV and FCEV). These include
technologies applied to motor vehicles with ICE (including hybrid
powertrains) and without ICE, and a range of electrification across the
technologies (from fully-electrified vehicle technologies without an
ICE that achieve zero vehicle tailpipe emissions (e.g., BEVs), fuel
cell electric vehicle technologies that run on hydrogen and achieve
zero tailpipe emissions (e.g., FCEVs), as well as plug-in hybrid
partially electrified technologies and ICEs with electrified
accessories). As noted, under these performance-based emissions
standards, manufacturers remain free to utilize any compliance choices
they wish so long as they meet the CO2 emissions standards.
See section II.G.5 of this preamble for further discussion of how we
balanced the factors we considered for the final Phase 3 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\741\ 76 FR 57129, September 15, 2011 and 81 FR 73512, October
25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29560]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.045
[[Page 29561]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.047
Similar to the approach we used to support the feasibility of
previous HD rulemakings, including both of the HD GHG rules, to support
the feasibility of the final Phase 3 standards we developed projected
technology packages for a potential compliance pathway that, on
average, will meet each of the final Phase 3 standards for each
regulatory subcategory of vocational vehicles and tractors after
considering the various factors described in this section, including
technology costs for manufacturers and costs to purchasers and
operators. The final Phase 3 GHG vehicle standards apply to nationwide
production volumes, which we took into account in these technology
packages and the potential compliance pathway to support the
feasibility of the final Phase 3 GHG vehicle standards. Consistent with
EPA's prior approach for HD GHG vehicle emission standards, the
technology packages utilize the averaging portion of the longstanding
ABT program,\742\ and our projected potential compliance pathway
includes manufacturers producing a mix of HD vehicles that utilize ICE-
powered vehicle technologies and ZEV technologies, with specific
adoption rates for each regulatory subcategory of vocational vehicles
and tractors for each MY based on the analyses described in this
section II and RIA Chapter 2. Note that we have analyzed a modeled
potential technology compliance pathway to support the feasibility and
appropriateness of the level of stringency for each of the final
standards and as part of the rulemaking process. EPA's analysis and
modeling provides information about one potential compliance pathway
manufacturers could use to comply with the standards. EPA's analysis
projects that both within the product lines of individual manufacturers
and for different manufacturers across the industry, manufacturers will
make use of a diverse range of technologies, including a projected mix
of ICE vehicle, BEV, and FCEV technologies. EPA recognizes that,
although it has modeled this potential compliance pathway to support
the feasibility of the final rule and as part of the rulemaking
process, manufacturers will make their own assessment of the vehicle
market and their own decisions about which technologies to apply to
which vehicles for any given model year to comply. The standards are
performance-based and while EPA finds modeling useful in evaluating the
feasibility of the standards, it is manufacturers who will decide the
ultimate mix of vehicle technologies to offer. Although EPA cannot
analyze every possible compliance scenario, for the analysis for the
final standards, we also have evaluated additional example compliance
scenarios (i.e., additional
[[Page 29562]]
example potential compliance pathways) with only ICE and ICE vehicle
technologies, as described in section II.F.3. For example, EPA finds
that it would be technologically feasible in the lead time provided and
taking into consideration costs to manufacturers and purchasers to meet
these final standards without producing additional ZEVs to comply with
this rule. The fact that such a fleet is possible underscores both the
feasibility and the flexibility of the performance-based standards, and
confirms that manufacturers are likely to continue to offer vehicles
with a diverse range of technologies, including advanced vehicle with
ICE technologies as well as ZEVs for the duration of these standards
and beyond. All of these compliance pathways are technically feasible,
but in our analysis, the modeled potential compliance pathway is the
lowest cost one overall and is the one modeled because EPA assumes that
manufacturers are commercial entities that seek to minimize costs and
maximize profits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\742\ Note that our modeled potential compliance pathway does
not include direct consideration of certain additional flexibilities
afforded within the ABT program generally or certain flexibilities
specifically updated in this final rule, including carryover of
credits generated through Phase 2 multipliers for advanced
technologies (see section III.A.2 of this preamble) and an interim
transitional effective expansion of averaging sets for credits
generated as specified in section III.A.3 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We phased in the final standards gradually between MYs 2027 and
2032 to address potential lead time concerns associated with
feasibility for manufacturers to deploy technologies, including ZEV
technologies, to meet the standards. Concerns include consideration of
time necessary to ramp up battery production, increase the availability
of critical raw minerals and assure sufficiently resilient supply
chains, as discussed in section II.D.2.c.ii. The concerns also include
recognition that it will take time for installation of EVSE and
necessary supporting electrical infrastructure by the BEV purchasers
and associated electrical utility, as discussed in RTC section 7
(Distribution). They also include consideration of time to design,
develop, and manufacture FCEV models and hydrogen infrastructure as
discussed in RTC section 8.1, and willingness to purchase a relatively
new technology. We project BEV technology adoption in the potential
compliance pathway as early as MY 2027 for certain applications where
we focused on depot charging, and we project adoption of BEV technology
in applications that will depend on public charging and FCEV technology
in the technology packages for the potential compliance pathway
starting in MY 2030 for select applications that travel longer
distances (i.e., coach buses, sleeper cab tractors and day cab
tractors). There has been only limited development of FCEVs for the HD
market to date; therefore, our assessment is that it is appropriate to
provide manufacturers with additional lead time to design, develop, and
manufacture FCEV models, but that it is feasible to do so by MY 2030,
as discussed in section II.D.3. With substantial Federal investment in
low-GHG hydrogen production (see RIA Chapter 1.8.2), we anticipate that
hydrogen supply will be sufficient and the price of hydrogen fuel will
fall in the 2030 to 2035 timeframe to make HD FCEVs cost-competitive
with comparable ICE vehicles for some duty cycles, as discussed in
section II.E.5.ii. We also note that the hydrogen infrastructure is
expected to need additional time to further develop compared to BEV
depot charging infrastructure, as discussed in greater detail in RIA
Chapter 1.8, but our assessment is that refueling needs can be met by
MY 2030. We also recognize the positive impact regulations can have on
technology and recharging/refueling infrastructure development and
deployment.
EPA granted the California ACT waiver request on March 30, 2023.
The approach we used to support the feasibility of the final standards,
described in this section II, was to develop technology packages on a
nationwide basis and including nationwide production volumes, including
vehicles sold to meet the ACT requirement in California and other
states that have adopted or may adopt it under CAA section 177. With
the granting of the California ACT waiver, we also considered how
vehicles sold to meet the ACT requirement in California and other
states that have adopted or may adopt it under CAA section 177 would
impact our reference case (that is, the baseline from which we model
projected effects of the final rule). For the final rule, to reflect
the ZEV levels projected from ACT in California and other states, we
included these projected ZEV sales volumes in the reference case.\743\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\743\ Because it would have been improper to prejudge the
outcome of EPA's disposition of California's request for a
preemption waiver for its ACT program, EPA did not include the full
effects of that program as an enforceable program in the reference
case (baseline) used at proposal, although we did make certain
estimates of ZEV sales in California and other states that had
adopted ACT under CAA section 177. 88 FR 25989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have finalized the new Phase 3 CO2 emission standards
using the regulatory subcategories we adopted in HD GHG Phase 2, as
discussed in section II.C. As we discuss later in this subsection, the
technology packages vary across the 101 HD TRUCS vehicle types and thus
across the regulatory subcategories. Our technology packages that
support the feasibility of the final rule standards--i.e., our modeled
potential compliance pathway--include a projected mix of ICE vehicle,
BEV, and FCEV technologies that are discussed in section II.F.1.
Sections II.F.2 and II.F.3 include the costs and lead times associated
with these technologies that we considered. In addition, for the final
rule, to further illustrate that there are many potential pathways to
compliance for the final standards with a wide range of potential
technology mixes, we evaluated additional examples of other potential
compliance pathway's technology packages that also support the
feasibility of the final standards, and which only include vehicles
with ICE technologies (``additional example potential compliance
pathways'') in section II.F.4.
We intend for the standards for each individual year are severable
from standards for each of the other years, including that the earlier
MYs (MY 2027 through MY 2029) are severable from the later MYs (MYs
2030 and later). More specifically, our analysis supports that the
standards for each of the later years are feasible and appropriate even
absent standards for each of the earlier years, and vice versa. For
example, EPA's revisions to certain MY 2027 standards are severable
from the new MY 2028 and later standards because our analysis supports
that the standards for each of the later years are feasible and
appropriate even absent the revised MY 2027 standards. Additionally, we
intend that the standards for each category of vocational vehicles and
tractors for each individual model year are severable, including from
the standards for all other categories for that model year, and from
the standards for different model years. Thus, we intend each of the
Phase 3 emission standards finalized in this rule to be entirely
separate from each of the other Phase 3 emission standards and other
varied components of this rule, and severable from each other. EPA has
considered and adopted the Phase 3 emission standards and the remaining
portions of the final rule independently, and each is severable should
there be judicial review. For example, EPA notes that our judgments
regarding feasibility of the Phase 3 standards for earlier years
largely reflect anticipated changes in the heavy-duty vehicle market
(which are driven by other factors, such as the IRA and manufacturers'
plans), while our judgment regarding feasibility of the standards in
later years reflects those trends plus the additional lead time for
further adoption of control technologies. Thus, the standards for the
later years
[[Page 29563]]
are feasible even absent standards for the earlier years, and vice
versa.
Additionally, our judgments regarding the standards for each
separate vehicle category are likewise independent and do not rely on
one another. For another example, EPA notes that our judgments
regarding feasibility of the standards for vocational vehicles reflects
our judgment regarding the general availability of depot-charging
infrastructure in MY 2027 and for each later model year under the
modeled potential compliance pathway, and that judgment is independent
of our judgment regarding standards for tractors that reflects our
judgment regarding more reliance on publicly available charging
infrastructure and hydrogen refueling infrastructure in the MY 2030 and
for each later model year under the modeled potential compliance
pathway. Similarly, within the standards for vocational vehicles, our
judgments regarding the feasibility of each model year of the standards
for each category of vocational vehicles (LHD, MHD, and HHD) and for
tractors (day cab and sleeper cab) reflects our judgments regarding the
design requirements and payback analysis for each of the individual 101
vehicle types analyzed in HD TRUCS and then aggregated to the
individual vehicle category, independent of those same kinds of
judgments for the other vehicle categories and independent from prior
MYs standards, under the modeled potential compliance pathway. See
further discussion in RTC Chapter 2.10, regarding how EPA's analysis
for the modeled potential compliance pathway supports the feasibility
for each MY of the Phase 3 final standards for each vehicle category,
including phase-in factors up to MY 2032 and later that EPA used for a
given Phase 3 MY and are independent of the prior Phase 3 MY(s)
standards.
If a court were to invalidate any one of these elements of the
final rule, we intend the remainder of this action to remain effective.
Importantly, we have designed these different elements of the program
to function sensibly and independently, the supporting basis for each
of these elements of the final rule reflects that they are
independently justified and appropriate, and find each portion
appropriate even if one or more other parts of the rule has been set
aside. For example, if a reviewing court were to invalidate the MY 2027
standards for LHD vocational vehicles, the other components of the
rule, including the other Phase 3 GHG standards, remain fully operable
as the remaining components for the rule would remain appropriate and
feasible.
1. Technology Packages To Support the Feasibility of the Final
Standards
We support the feasibility of the final standards through
technology packages that include both ICE vehicle and ZEV technologies.
In our analysis, the ICE vehicles include a suite of technologies that
represent a vehicle that meets the existing MY 2027 Phase 2
CO2 emission standards. These technologies exist today and
continue to evolve to improve the efficiency of the engine,
transmission, drivetrain, aerodynamics, and tire rolling resistance in
HD vehicles and therefore reduce their CO2 emissions.
Further adoption of these Phase 2 ICE technologies beyond the adoption
rates used in the HD GHG Phase 2 rule may be utilized as part of other
example potential compliance pathways to meet the final standards, as
discussed in section II.F.4. In addition, the heavy-duty industry
continues to develop CO2-reducing technologies such as
hybrid powertrains and H2-ICE powered vehicles, also discussed in
section II.F.4 as part of other example potential compliance pathways
to meet the final standards. These further technology improvements are
not part of the technology packages for the modeled potential
compliance pathway supporting the feasibility of the final standards
but are included as specified in section II.F.4 in the additional
example potential compliance pathways supporting the feasibility of the
final standards. They are available to any manufacturer determining its
own compliance pathway, and further support that the final Phase 3
standards are feasible and appropriate performance-based standards.
In the transportation sector, new technology adoption rates often
follow an S-shape. As discussed in the preamble to the HD GHG Phase 2
final rule, the adoption rates for a specific technology are initially
slow, followed by a rapid adoption period, then leveling off as the
market saturates, and not always at 100 percent.\744\ Two commenters
agreed that technology adoption follows an S-shape, as we stated in the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\744\ 81 FR 73558, Oct 25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the proposal, we developed a method to project utilization of
BEV and FCEV technologies in the HD vehicle technology packages after
considering methods in the literature. There is limited existing data
to support estimations of adoption rates of HD ZEV technologies. The
methods considered and explored in the formulation of the method used
in the proposal was developed by EPA after considering methods in the
literature to estimate the relationship between payback period and
technology adoption in the HD vehicle market. We noted at proposal that
we had explored the following methods: (1) the methods described in ACT
Research's ChargeForward report,\745\ (2) NREL's Transportation
Technology Total Cost of Ownership (T3CO) tool,\746\ (3) Oak Ridge
National Laboratory's Market Acceptance of Advanced Automotive
Technologies (MA3T) model,\747\ (4) Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory's Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM),\748\ (5) ERM's market
growth analysis done on behalf of EDF,\749\ (6) Energy Innovation's
United States Energy Policy Simulator used in a January 2023 analysis
by ICCT and Energy Innovation,\750\ and (7) CALSTART's Drive to Zero
Market Projection Model.\751\ DRIA at 231. Of these methods explored
for the proposal, only ACT Research's work directly related payback
period to technology adoption rates. We stated in the proposal that,
based on our experience, payback is the most relevant metric to the HD
vehicle industry. Thus, for the proposal, we considered the ACT
Research method most relevant to assess willingness to purchase and
modified their method, including to account for the effects of our
proposed regulation, as described in DRIA Chapter 2.7.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\745\ Mitchell, George. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985. ACT Research Co. LLC. ``Charging Forward'' 2020-2040 BEV &
FCEV Forecast & Analysis, updated December 2021.
\746\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory. T3CO: Transportation
Technology Total Cost of Ownership. Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/t3co.html.
\747\ Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ``MA3T-TruckChoice.'' June
2021. Available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-07/van021_lin_2021_o_5-28_1126pm_LR_FINAL_ML.pdf.
\748\ Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. GCAM: Global Change
Analysis Model. https://gcims.pnnl.gov/modeling/gcam-global-change-analysis-model.
\749\ Robo, Ellen and Dave Seamonds. Technical Memo to
Environmental Defense Fund: Analysis of Alternative Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Business-As-Usual Scenarios. ERM.
August 19, 2022. Available online: https://www.erm.com/contentassets/154d08e0d0674752925cd82c66b3e2b1/edf-zev-baseline-technical-memo-16may2022.pdf.
\750\ ICCT and Energy Innovation. ``Analyzing the Impact of the
Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake in the United
States''. January 2023. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23-2.pdf.
\751\ Al-Alawi, Baha M., Owen MacDonnell, Cristiano Facanha.
``Global Sales Targets for Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles--Methods and Application''. February 2022. Available
online: https://globaldrivetozero.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/CALSTART_Global-Sales_White-Paper.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were many comments regarding EPA's use of a payback metric at
[[Page 29564]]
proposal as a means of developing a potential compliance pathway that
included the use of ZEVs. Two commenters said, considered alone,
payback is an incomplete metric. Other factors to consider are
reluctance to utilize a new technology, effects of inflation, vehicle
suitability, resale value, end of the IRA and other price incentives,
critical mineral availability, and availability of supportive charging
infrastructure. One of these commenters cited ACT Research's own
evaluation that EPA should not have increased the adoption rates for
payback periods greater than four years for MY 2032 and that our
analysis should not have included payback-based adoption rates for
payback periods beyond ten years, because this is beyond the payback
period that would be acceptable. In addition, ACT Research did not
agree with EPA using two different adoption schedules corresponding to
MY 2027 and MY 2032. Another commenter stated that our use of the
payback period table showing fleets purchasing BEVs and FCEVs at
payback periods of up to 15 years in MY 2027, and beyond 15 years in MY
2032 are ``unrealistic'' because fleet owners look for payback periods
of two years or less. Another commenter stated that EPA should adopt a
more conservative payback schedule and suggested one in their comments.
Some commenters advocated for more stringent standards (see section
II.B.1.i of this preamble). One of these commenters spoke to the length
of a payback period, noting that payback periods well within a
vehicle's lifetime should be sufficient, noting especially that
vocational vehicles have long ownership periods. They also questioned
the purportedly relatively low percentages of projected ZEVs where EPA
had estimated payback periods of 1-2 years. Another commenter noted
that EPA's projected compliance path showed less ZEV utilization than
many estimates in the literature, citing BloombergNEF, as well as
various of the ICCT White Papers and the levels required in
California's Advanced Clean Fleet program. Another commenter noted
generally that total cost of ownership of BEVs would necessarily be
less than for ICE vehicles due to their simpler drivetrains, which
would occasion less maintenance costs.
As further detailed in RTC sections 2.4 and 3.12.2, some of these
commenters criticized EPA's use at proposal of the data from ACT
Research's payback equation. The critique from these commenters was
both for lack of transparency--stating that the equation was
proprietary and so did not appear in the DRIA making comment difficult
without getting access--and one commenter obtained the equation and
asserted that they found no substantive basis for it. As just noted, in
one commenter's submitted comment, ACT Research itself reviewed the
NPRM and stated that EPA had misapplied the equation by leaving out
various factors, including a consideration of total cost of ownership
in addition to payback period. Some commenters believed the total cost
of ownership approach used in NREL's Transportation Energy & Mobility
Pathway Options (TEMPO) Model (Muratori et al., 2021) was a better way
to assess the shape of the payback curve. One of these commenters
stated that the NREL model ``overcomes key deficiencies of the ACT
Research-based curve by being based on validated empirical data,
subject to peer-review, and freely available to the public.'' \752\ One
commenter also provided an alternate distribution of adoption rate
based on payback period developed from their assessment of the inputs
from a NREL study using the TEMPO Model.\753\ This commenter also
suggested standards of significantly increased stringency using the
data from the TEMPO model. The other commenter provided an alternate
curve based on payback period developed from their assessment of the
inputs and results from a NREL study using the TEMPO Model. Another
commenter preferred an alternative method for assessing a ZEV-based
acceptance. Their model uses a logit function less sensitive to price,
developed by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, and also uses a 15
percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\752\ ICCT Comments to the HD GHG Phase 3 NPRM. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1553-A1, p. 2.
\753\ EDF Comments to Docket. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p.
58-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We agree with the assessment asserted in comment that the approach
developed by NREL for use in the TEMPO model is more transparent.\754\
Furthermore, for the final rule, we further evaluated and found NREL's
TEMPO model and approach to be robust. The NREL TEMPO model is peer-
reviewed and applicable to our use because it specifically evaluated HD
ICE vehicles, BEVs, and FCEVs. We evaluated NREL's approach to
determining technology choices modeled in TEMPO using a discrete choice
logit formulation.\755\ We also evaluated the work conducted by one
commenter in development of their suggested alternative curve, which
was derived from the TEMPO outputs. Our purpose was to assess the
reasonableness of utilizing the TEMPO results for adoption rates and
payback period relationships. We found the approach to be robust, and
we were able to reproduce similar adoption rates for each payback
period bin relative to those provided by the commenter. Therefore,
based on our assessment that NREL's TEMPO model is robust and the
adoption rates to payback period relationship is reproducible, for the
final rule, we are continuing to use the same payback period method we
used in the proposal, but have revised the adoption rates that
correspond to the payback period bins based on data from NREL's TEMPO
model instead of the use of the ACT Research-based model. See RIA
Chapter 2.7 for additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\754\ See also RIA Chapter 2.7 and RTC section 3.11.2 for
additional discussion on the comments received.
\755\ NREL describes ``TEMPO is a transportation demand model
that covers the entire U.S. transportation sector'' including the HD
market. Furthermore, they express ``TEMPO finds pathways to achieve
energy/emissions goals and estimates implications of different
scenarios and decisions.'' A part of this decision process includes
inputs such as vehicle cost and performance, fuel costs, charging
and refueling availability, and travel behavior. The model receives
this information and applies a technology adoption to various inputs
and provides technology based on market segment as a part of the
outputs for TEMPO. The method they used is based on a logit
formulation to describe a relationship between consumer adoption and
aforementioned inputs, cost coefficients and financial horizon. One
commenter worked with NREL to provide the relationship between
adoption rate and payback period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the proposal, we applied an additional constraint (which at
times we refer to as a ``cap'') within HD TRUCS that limited the
maximum penetration (i.e., adoption percentage) of the BEV and FCEV
technologies to 80 percent for any given vehicle type. This limit was
developed after consideration of the actual needs of the purchasers
related to two primary areas of our analysis. Our first consideration
was that this volume limit takes into account that we sized the
batteries, power electronics, e-motors, and infrastructure for each
vehicle type based on the 90th percentile of the average VMT. As
explained in section II.D.5, we utilized this technical assessment
approach because we do not expect heavy-duty OEMs to design ZEV models
for the 100th percentile VMT daily use case for vehicle applications,
as this could significantly increase the ZEV powertrain size, weight,
and costs for a ZEV application for all users, when only a relatively
small part of the market will need such specifications. Therefore, the
ZEVs we analyzed and have included in the technology packages and cost
projections for the proposal and this
[[Page 29565]]
final rule in the timeframe at issue are likely not appropriate for 100
percent of the vehicle applications in the real-world. Our second
consideration for including a limit for BEVs and FCEVs is that we
recognize there is a wide variety of real-world operation even for the
same type of vehicle. For example, some owners may not have the ability
to install charging infrastructure at their facility, or some vehicles
may need to be operational 24 hours a day. Under the technology pathway
projected to support the feasibility for these final standards, ICE
vehicle technologies continue to be included and available in volumes
to address these specific vehicle applications.
The TEMPO model, as shown in RIA Chapter 2.7.1, would attribute 100
percent adoption to vehicles that have an immediate payback (payback
less than or equal to 0 year). A number of commenters questioned the 80
percent limit in the HD TRUCS analysis. Two commenters found some merit
to EPA's premise that a cap reflected that ZEVs would not be suitable
for all applications, but both of these commenters maintained that this
would be less and less over time. Consequently, these commenters
thought EPA's methodology should at the least increase the cap in the
standards' out years. One of these commenters also submitted an
analysis without a cap (i.e., with a 100 percent cap) where their model
showed immediate payback. Under this alternative methodology, the
commenter projected higher ZEV penetration for many of the vehicle
Class 2-4 and 6-7 trucks, refuse trucks, and almost all bus segments.
This commenter also noted these estimates did not consider the effects
of the IRA. Both of these commenters also maintained that 80 percent
was too conservative even for MY 2027, especially when coupled with the
90th percentile sizing VMT for the battery. Another commenter supported
a cap of 90 percent.
Another commenter challenged the 80 percent cap as inconsistent
with that commenter's purportedly extensive telematics data that showed
the 90th percentile VMTs we used in the NPRM for day cab and sleeper
cab tractors were too low, and suggested that Class 4-7 ZEVs with
payback rates of <0 years would have an adoption rate of 73 percent,
and Class 8 ZEVs with payback rates of <0 years would have an adoption
rate of 36 percent, noting that these rates are consistent with CARB's
2019 initial market assessment for the ACT rule. This commenter also
questioned why EPA's cap for those categories can be higher, that is,
less restrictive, than the applicable levels considered in ACT. Another
commenter stated that the results from EPA's HD TRUCS would need to be
further discounted to reflect that the charging and H2 fueling
infrastructure would not be in place to meet the proposed MY 2027
through 2032 standards.
After consideration of comments, including concerns raised by
manufacturers, we re-evaluated the maximum penetration constraints and
``caps'' in HD TRUCS for the final rule. The constraints discussed in
the proposal, such as the methodology to size the batteries and the
recognition of the variety of real-world applications of heavy-duty
trucks, still apply to the final rule analysis. Furthermore, we are
taking a phased-in approach to the constraints to recognize that the
development of the ZEV market will take time to develop. We broadly
considered the lead time necessary to increase heavy-duty battery
production (as discussed in preamble section II.D.2.ii), including
growth in the planned battery production capacity from now through 2032
and other issues including availability of critical minerals and
related supply chains, and time for manufacturers to design, develop,
and manufacture ZEVs (as discussed in preamble section II.F.3). We also
have generally accounted for the time required to deploy infrastructure
(as discussed in preamble section II.F.3), including the potential need
for distribution grid buildout through 2032 as informed by our analysis
and by the DOE's TEIS (as discussed in preamble section II.D.2.iii). We
see a similar trend in the growth of the infrastructure to support H2
refueling for FCEVs (as discussed in preamble section II.D.3.v).
In recognition of these considerations, for the final rule we
applied more conservative maximum penetration constraints within HD
TRUCS than were used in the proposal and which are consistent with a
balanced and measured approach generally, which in our assessment are
appropriate and also address concerns raised by manufacturers. We
limited the maximum penetration of the ZEV technologies in HD TRUCS to
20 percent in MY 2027, 37 percent in MY 2030 and 70 percent in MY 2032
for any given vehicle type. These caps are based upon an exercise of
technical judgment after reviewing the entire record and reflect
consideration of and address concerns about infrastructure readiness,
willingness to purchase, and critical mineral and supply chain
availability, reflecting that infrastructure, technology familiarity,
and material availability will have more limitations in MY 2027 (and
thus taking a conservative approach to the levels of the caps in those
earlier model years) but will be further developed by MY 2032, while
also capping each vehicle type in HD TRUCS below the proposed value of
80 percent utilization of ZEV technologies including in MY 2032.
Put another way, depending on the MY, these caps in HD TRUCS
reflect a balanced and measured approach to consideration of a
combination of extreme use situations (including extremes of daily
VMT), extreme usages such as continuous operation, and ensuring
adequate lead time for the various considerations just explained. These
real world constraints are not reflected in the TEMPO model used to
develop payback; rather, the caps are part of EPA's appropriate
consideration of these issues. Regarding additional responses to
comments summarized here, please see RTC sections 2.4, 3.3.1 and
3.11.2, and see also RIA Chapter 2.7.
The payback schedule used in HD TRUCS for the final rule is shown
in Table II-28. The schedule utilizes lower rates of technology
acceptance than those used in the proposal for payback periods greater
than four years. The schedule shows that when the payback is immediate,
we project that up to 20 percent of that type of vehicle could use BEV
technology in MY 2027 for the reasons just discussed, with diminishing
adoption as the payback period increases to more than 4 years.\756\
After consideration of comments from stakeholders, we also set the
adoption rates to zero for payback bins that were greater than 10
years. The length of ownership of new tractors varies. One study found
that first ownership is customarily four to seven years for For-Hire
companies and seven to 12 years for private fleets.\757\ Another survey
found that the average trade-in cycle for tractors was 8.7 years.\758\
Whereas, EMA and NADA stated that tractors typically have three to five
year trade cycles.\759\
[[Page 29566]]
As we discussed in the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking, vocational vehicles
generally accumulate far fewer annual miles than tractors and will lead
owners of these vehicles to keep them for longer periods of time.\760\
To the extent vocational vehicle owners may be similar to owners of
tractors in terms of business profiles, they are more likely to
resemble private fleets or owner-operators than for-hire fleets. See 81
FR 73719 (``the usual period of ownership for a vocational vehicle
reflects a lengthy trade cycle that may often exceed seven years''). In
addition, EMA and NADA stated that heavy-duty trucks typically have
trade cycles of seven to ten years for most operations.\761\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\756\ See RIA Chapter 2.7.9 for additional information on the
development of the adoption rate schedule for HD TRUCS for the final
rule.
\757\ Roeth, Mike, et al. ``Barriers to Increased Adoption of
Fuel Efficiency Technologies in Freight Trucking,'' Page 24. July
2013. International Council for Clean Transportation. Available at
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT-NACFE-CSS_Barriers_Report_Final_20130722.pdf.
\758\ American Transportation Research Institute. ``An Analysis
of the Operational Costs of Trucking: 2021 Update.'' November 2021.
Page 14.
\759\ See NADA's comments at Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-20220-0985-
1592-A1 at pp. 7-8 and EMA's comments at Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-20220-
0985-2668-A1 at p.48.
\760\ 81 FR 73678 and 73719, October 25, 2016.
\761\ See NADA's comments at Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-20220-0985-
1592-A1 at pp. 7-8 and EMA's comments at Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-20220-
0985-2668-A1 at p.48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The issues raised by commenters were thus considered, and issues
raised by manufacturers were thus addressed, in our final rule's
approach to HD TRUCS and the projected technology packages: by applying
the MY 2027, MY 2030 and MY 2032 caps, as discussed, and through lower
ZEV adoption in the technology packages for payback periods that are
longer than 4 years (including setting adoption to zero for payback
bins greater than ten years) and higher (than longer payback periods)
ZEV adoption when payback is 4 years or sooner. The relationship
between adoption and payback period that was created from TEMPO outputs
differ from the ACT payback schedule used in the proposal and is
reflective of a more typical S-curve, where adoption starts slow and
then speeds up. Note, the 70 percent constraint we imposed and
explained in this subsection limits the adoption of the shortest
payback bins for MY 2032.
The schedule shown in Table II-28 was used in HD TRUCS to evaluate
the use of BEV or FCEV technologies for each of the 101 HD TRUCS
vehicle types based on its payback period for MYs 2027, 2030, and 2032.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.048
After the technology assessment, as described in section II.D and
RIA Chapter 2, and technology cost and payback analysis, as described
in section II.E and RIA Chapter 2.7.2, EPA determined the technology
mix of ICE vehicle and ZEV for each regulatory subcategory in the
technology packages for the potential compliance pathway. We first
determined the ZEVs that are appropriate based on their payback for
each of the 101 vehicle types for MYs 2027, 2030, and 2032, which can
be found in RIA Chapter 2.8.3.1. We then aggregated the projected ZEVs
for the specific vehicle types into their respective regulatory
subcategories relative to the vehicle's sales weighting, as described
in RIA Chapter 2.10.1. The resulting projected ZEVs (shown in Table II-
29) and projected ICE vehicles that achieve a level of CO2
emissions performance equal to the existing MY 2027 emission standards
(shown in Table II-30) were built into our technology packages for the
potential compliance pathway.
[[Page 29567]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.050
As shown in Table II-30, under the modeled potential compliance
pathway the majority of sales of new HD vehicles in MYs 2027 through
2032 are projected to be ICE vehicles with GHG-reducing technologies.
These values represent the total national HD ZEV and ICE vehicle sales,
including those accounted for in the reference case as described in
section V.A. The portion of the overall HD sales in MY 2027 that are
ZEVs included in the reference case is 7 percent, compared to 11
percent of sales being ZEVs across the nation due to the final rule
under our modeled potential compliance pathway, as shown in Table II-
31. Similarly, in the MY 2032 reference case, 20 percent of the HD
sales are projected to be ZEVs, versus 45 percent ZEVs in the HD
national fleet with the potential compliance pathway modeled for the
final rule, respectively.
[[Page 29568]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.051
The composition of the overall HD on-road fleet in future years
with the final rule under our modeled potential compliance pathway and
accounting for ZEVs in the reference case, is projected to include the
following:
In 2027: 1 percent of the on-road fleet are ZEVs.
In 2032: 7 percent of the on-road fleet are ZEVs.
In 2040: 22 percent of the on-road fleet are ZEVs.
For the final standards, EPA did not revise (i.e., is not
finalizing the proposed revision to) the MY 2027 or 2028 CO2
emission standards for the HHD vocational vehicles but have set new
CO2 emission standards for HHD vocational vehicles beginning
in MYs 2029 through 2032. Similarly, we are not revising the MY 2027
day cab tractor standards, but have set new standards beginning in MY
2028. Our reference case modeling does include some HHD vocational and
day cab tractor ZEVs in MY 2027 and HHD vocational ZEVs in MY 2028.
This is our best estimate of ZEV technology penetration for the
reference case. Nonetheless, we recognize the significant uncertainties
associated with the commercializing of these technologies in the HHD
space, which are still in their infancy today. We also recognize that
vehicle manufacturers may have different technology pathway plans to
demonstrate compliance with ACT, and we acknowledge that certain
vehicle manufacturer comments stated that they do not expect to produce
a significant number of HHD ZEVs by MY 2028 because the HHD vocational
vehicles will be one of the most challenging groups in which to utilize
such technologies. Our revised analysis for the final rule projects
lower levels of HHD ZEVs in the compliance pathways for MYs 2027-2032
than the proposal. It also delays the start of the Phase 3 standards
for day cabs by one year, beginning in MY 2028. We recognize that the
manufacturers' resources will require them to make practical business
decisions to first develop products that will have a better business
case. Our assessment of the final program as a whole is that it takes a
balanced approach while still applying meaningful requirements in MY
2027 to reducing GHG emissions from the HD sector. In light of these
challenges and uncertainties, including those associated with utilizing
such technologies in the nearest term for HHD vocational vehicles, the
potential disparities between manufacturers in the need for lead time
and their corresponding compliance strategies, and the overall
strengthening of the program in MY 2027 under Phase 3, we think it is
reasonable to not revise the HHD vocational vehicle emission standards
for MY 2027 or 2028. In addition, we are not revising the day cab
tractor emission standards for MY 2027 for similar reasons.
The HD GHG Phase 2 program includes optional custom chassis
emission standards for eight specific vehicle types. Those vehicle
types may either meet the primary vocational vehicle program standards
or, at the vehicle manufacturer's option, may comply with these
optional standards. The existing optional custom chassis standards are
numerically less stringent than the primary HD GHG Phase 2 vocational
vehicle standards, but the ABT program is more restrictive for vehicles
certified to these optional standards. Banking and trading of credits
is not permitted, with the exception that small businesses may use
traded credits to comply with the optional custom-chassis standards.
Averaging is only allowed within each specific custom chassis
regulatory subcategory for vehicles certified to these optional
standards. If a manufacturer wishes to make use of the full ABT
program, from the production of some or all of their custom-chassis
vehicles in a given model year, they may certify them to the primary
vocational vehicle standards.
In this final action, as presented previously in this section, we
are adopting more stringent standards for some, but not all, of these
optional custom chassis subcategories. We are revising MY 2027 emission
standards and establishing new MY 2028 through MY 2032 and later
emission standards for the school bus optional custom chassis
regulatory subcategory. We are also establishing new MY 2028 through MY
2032 and later emission standards for refuse hauler optional custom
chassis subcategory and new MY 2029 through MY 2032 and later emission
standards for the other bus optional custom chassis subcategory.\762\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\762\ See 40 CFR 1037.105(h)(1) for the final standards that
apply for custom chassis vehicles. See existing 40 CFR
1037.105(h)(2) for restrictions on averaging, banking, and trading
for vehicles optionally certified to the custom chassis standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are finalizing the approach we proposed for several other
optional custom chassis categories. We are finalizing our proposed
approach to not set Phase 3 standards for motor homes certified to the
optional custom chassis regulatory subcategory after consideration of
projected technologies for motor homes, including the projected impact
of the weight of batteries in BEVs in the MYs 2027-2032, as described
in RIA Chapter 2.8.1. This approach was supported by two commenters.
The existing Phase 2 optional custom chassis standards for this
subcategory will continue to apply. Furthermore, we also are not
finalizing Phase 3 standards for emergency vehicles certified to the
optional custom chassis regulatory subcategory due to our assessment
that these vehicles have unpredictable operational requirements and
after considering suitability of projected technologies, including that
emergency vehicles may have limited access to recharging facilities
while handling emergency situations in the MYs 2027-2032 timeframe.
Finally, we are not adopting new standards for mixed-use vehicle
optional custom chassis regulatory subcategory because of our
assessment that these vehicles (such as hazardous material equipment or
off-road drill equipment) are designed to work inherently in an off-
road environment or are designed to operate at low speeds such as to be
unsuitable for normal highway operation and, after consideration of
suitability of projected technologies, including that they therefore
may have limited access to on-site depot or public charging facilities
in the MYs 2027-2032 timeframe.\763\ The existing Phase 2 optional
custom chassis standards for this subcategory will continue to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\763\ Mixed-use vehicles must meet the criteria as described in
40 CFR 1037.105(h)(1), 1037.631(a)(1), and 1037.631(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also are not finalizing Phase 3 standards for two other optional
custom chassis categories. Several stakeholders raised significant
concerns related to the ability of coach buses to perform their
[[Page 29569]]
mission (transporting people and their cargo) using battery electric
technology. Furthermore, commenters raised concerns regarding the
infrastructure needs for electrified motorcoaches because these
vehicles would need to rely on public enroute charging. As noted in RIA
Chapter 1.5.5, there are currently two manufacturers of coach buses
that produce BEV versions of the vehicles. We note that there are a
variety of different applications of a coach bus. In some instances, it
may be used for a day trip or for commuting and require minimal
underfloor luggage space and may not require a restroom. Another common
use is for trips with longer distances such that passengers travel with
luggage or sports equipment that requires underfloor storage. EPA
contracted FEV to conduct analysis of the packaging feasibility of a
FCEV powertrain on a coach bus to inform the final rule. FEV found that
a FCEV powertrain would require the loss of 2-4 seats and 30 percent of
the luggage volume.\764\ The capacity loss was driven by the space
needed for the hydrogen tanks, fuel cell with BOP, and/or batteries.
Our assessment is that the weight and volume required for packaging a
BEV powertrain would be greater than the requirements for a FCEV
powertrain, and therefore result in even greater capacity losses. After
further consideration of suitability of projected technologies,
including EPA re-analyzing the packaging space available for battery
electric and fuel cell powertrains on coach buses, EPA now agrees with
the commenters that feasibility demonstrations for new Phase 3 optional
custom chassis standards for coach buses during the timeframe of the
final rule should not include application of BEV or FCEV technology due
to the packaging space required to meet commercial range requirements
while also having adequate luggage space. Therefore, EPA's optional
custom chassis standards for Coach Buses will remain unchanged from the
existing Phase 2 MY 2027+ CO2 emission standards. However,
as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.9.1.2, we project that there will be some
applications of coach buses that will be appropriate as ZEVs and we
therefore have considered these types of vehicles in the technology
package that supports the modeled potential compliance pathway for the
primary vocational vehicle standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\764\ FEV Consulting. ``Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles Class 4
to 8: Technology and Cost Evaluation for Electrified Powertrains--
Final Report''. Prepared for EPA. March 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several manufacturers and associations raised concerns regarding
the ability of concrete mixers and pumpers to electrify. They point to
issues related to higher PTO usage, traveling at loads higher than
those used in EPA's HD TRUCS analysis, and weight sensitivity. One
commenter maintains that energy used by concrete mixers is
significantly higher than what is represented in GEM and suggests the
underestimated load requirements (and therefore energy requirements)
result in smaller battery sizes and lower costs in HD TRUCS than what
that commenter expects. The commenter states that, as a result,
concrete mixers should have unique standards from other vocational
vehicles based on lower adoption rates. On the other hand, another
commenter provided links to several electrified concrete mixer and
pumpers where prototypes have been supplied to customers in Europe.
Additionally, another commenter stated that EPA should set more
stringent standards for concrete mixers based on their emissions impact
on overburdened communities. For the final rule, EPA increased the PTO
loads required for concrete mixers and pumpers in our HD TRUCS analysis
based on consideration of information provided by another commenter,
and therefore these vehicles have larger power demands and battery
sizes in the final rule HD TRUCS analysis than the vehicles had in the
NPRM analysis. In recognition of the uncertainty related to the payload
weight and PTO demands of these vehicles, EPA determined that the
optional custom chassis standards for Concrete Mixers/Pumpers and
Mixed-Use Vehicles will remain unchanged from the existing Phase 2
custom chassis emission standards. See RIA Chapter 2.9.1.1. However,
because there are prototypes for some electrified concrete mixers and
pumpers, we continued to include several of these vehicle types within
HD TRUCS where they are modeled as part of the compliance pathway for
HHD vocational vehicles. See RIA Chapter 2.9.1.1.
We note that we do not have concerns that manufacturers of any of
the custom chassis types of vehicles could inappropriately circumvent
the final vocational vehicle standards or the final optional custom
chassis standards. This is because vocational vehicles are built to
serve a purpose which is readily identifiable. For example, a
manufacturer cannot certify a box truck to the emergency vehicle custom
chassis standards.
2. Summary of Costs Assessment To Meet the Final Emission Standards
We supported the feasibility of the final standards through a
potential compliance pathway's projected technology packages that
include both ICE vehicle and ZEV technologies. To assess the projected
costs of the final Phase 3 emission standards, we thus assess the costs
of the potential compliance pathway's projected technology packages. In
our analysis, the ICE vehicles include a suite of technologies that
represent a vehicle that meets the existing MY 2027 Phase 2
CO2 emission standards and HD 2027 NOx emission standards.
We accounted for these technology costs as part of the HD GHG Phase 2
final rule and the HD 2027 NOx rule. Therefore, our technology costs
for the ICE vehicles in our analysis are considered to be $0 because we
did not add additional CO2-reducing technologies to the ICE
vehicles in the technology packages for this final rule beyond those
already required under the existing regulations. The incremental cost
of a heavy-duty ZEV in our analysis is the marginal cost of ZEV
powertrain components compared to ICE powertrain components on a
comparable ICE vehicle. This includes the removal of the associated
costs of ICE-specific components from the baseline vehicle and the
addition of the ZEV components and associated costs. RIA Chapter 2.3.2
and 2.4.3 includes the ICE powertrain and BEV powertrain cost estimates
for each of the 101 HD vehicle types that are included in our
technology packages to support the compliance pathway. RIA Chapter
2.5.2 includes the FCEV powertrain cost projections for the applicable
vehicles.
i. Manufacturer Costs
Table II-32 and Table II-33 show the ZEV technology costs for
manufacturers relative to the reference case described in section
V.A.1, including the direct manufacturing costs that reflect learning
effects, the indirect costs, and the IRA section 13502 Advanced
Manufacturing Production Credit, on average aggregated by regulatory
group for MYs 2027 and 2032, respectively.\765\ The incremental ZEV
adoption rate in our modeled potential compliance pathway technology
package reflects the difference between the ZEV adoption rates in the
technology packages that support the feasibility of our final standards
and the reference case. As shown in Table II-32 through Table II-34, we
project that some vocational
[[Page 29570]]
BEVs will cost less to produce than comparable ICE vehicle types by MY
2032 or earlier. Our analysis is consistent with other studies. For
example, an EDF/Roush study found that by MY 2027, BEV transit buses,
school buses, delivery vans, and refuse haulers would each cost less
upfront than a comparable ICE vehicle.\766\ ICCT similarly found that
``although zero-emission trucks are more expensive in the near-term
than their diesel equivalents, electric trucks will be less expensive
than diesel in the 2025-2030 time frame, due to declining costs of
batteries and electric motors as well as increasing diesel truck costs
due to emission standards compliance.'' \767\ These studies were
developed prior to passage of the IRA, and therefore we would expect
the cost comparisons to be even more favorable after considering the
IRA provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\765\ Indirect costs are described in detail in section IV.B.2.
\766\ Nair, Vishnu; Sawyer Stone; Gary Rogers; Sajit Pillai;
Roush Industries, Inc. ``Technical Review: Medium and Heavy Duty
Electrification Costs for MY 2027-2030.'' February 2022. Page 18.
Last accessed on February 9, 2023 at https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/02/EDF-MDHD-Electrification-v1.6_20220209.pd.
\767\ Hall, Dale and Nic Lutsey. ``Estimating the Infrastructure
Needs and Costs for the Launch of Zero-Emission Trucks.'' February
2019. Page 4. Last accessed on February 9, 2023 at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ICCT_EV_HDVs_Infrastructure_20190809.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.053
[[Page 29571]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.054
ii. Purchaser Costs
We also evaluated the costs of the final standards for purchasers
on average by regulatory group, as shown in Table II-35 through Table
II-37. Our assessment of the upfront purchaser costs includes the
incremental cost of a ZEV relative to a comparable ICE vehicle after
accounting for the two IRA tax credits (IRA section 13502, ``Advanced
Manufacturing Production Credit,'' and IRA section 13403, ``Qualified
Commercial Clean Vehicles'') including the applicable FET and sales
tax, and the associated EVSE costs (including IRA section 13404,
``Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit''), if applicable. We also
assessed the incremental annual operating costs of a ZEV relative to a
comparable ICE vehicle, which include the refueling/charging costs,
maintenance and repair costs, and insurance costs. The operating costs
for BEVs include charging costs that reflect either depot charging or
public charging, depending on the vehicle type. The payback periods
shown reflect the number of years it is projected to take for the
annual operating savings to offset the increase in total upfront costs
for the purchaser for the sales-weighted average within a regulatory
group.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.055
[[Page 29572]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.057
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
As shown in Table II-37, we estimate that the average upfront cost
per vehicle to purchase a new MY 2032 vocational ZEV and associated
EVSE compared to a comparable ICE vehicle (after accounting for two IRA
tax credits, IRA section 13502, ``Advanced Manufacturing Production
Credit,'' and IRA section 13403, ``Qualified Commercial Clean
Vehicles''), will be offset by operational costs (i.e., savings that
come from the lower costs to operate, maintain, and repair ZEV
technologies), such that we expect the upfront cost increase will be
recouped due to operating savings in two to four years on average for
vocational vehicles, two years on average for day cab tractors, and
five years on average for sleeper cab tractors. We discuss this in more
detail and provide the payback period for each of the HD TRUCS vehicle
types in RIA Chapter 2.7.
The average per-vehicle purchaser costs shown in Table II-35 for MY
2027 are higher than the MY 2032 per-vehicle costs. The reduction in
costs over time are reflective of technology learning, as discussed in
section IV.B. It is worth noting that though the upfront costs of a BEV
MHD vocational vehicle, for example, are higher when one considers both
the vehicle and the EVSE, purchasers will still recoup these upfront
costs within three years of ownership on average. This is within the
period of first ownership, as explained in the previous subsection.
Also of note, our MY 2027 technology package for this final rule has a
significantly lower adoption rate for these MHD vocational vehicles in
MY 2027 than in MY 2032, reflecting the higher cost in MY 2027 than in
MY 2032. Purchasers considering a ZEV also will have the option to
consider alternatives to purchasing an EVSE at the time of purchasing a
vehicle. For example, depending on the location of the vehicle, heavy-
duty public charging may be a better solution than depot charging.
Instead of spending upfront for EVSE, the purchaser could instead
spread the cost over time through public charging where the EVSE costs
would be built into the electricity cost or
[[Page 29573]]
through the use of Charging as a Service. Purchasers of course could
choose an ICE vehicle as well if that best suits their needs.
3. Lead Time Assessment
Two of the significant aspects of the IRA are the tax credit
available for the manufacturing of batteries and the tax credit
available for the purchase of HD ZEVs, where the IRA provisions'
qualifications are met. The tax credits significantly reduce, and in
many cases erase, the incremental cost of purchasing a HD ZEV when
compared to the cost of purchasing a comparable ICE vehicle. Therefore,
as explained in our payback analysis, we expect the IRA will
incentivize the demand and willingness to purchase for HD ZEVs.
However, demand and willingness to purchase are only two of the factors
we considered when evaluating the feasibility and suitability of HD ZEV
technologies in the MY 2027 through MY 2032 timeframe, for inclusion in
the potential compliance pathway's technology packages to support the
feasibility of the Phase 3 standards in that timeframe. We also
considered the lead time required for manufacturers to design, develop,
and produce the ZEV and ICE vehicle technologies in the projected
technology packages, in addition to lead time considerations relating
to availability of charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure, and
availability of critical minerals and resiliency of related supply
chains.
As noted in the proposal for this rule, heavy-duty manufacturers
have indicated it could take two to four or more years to design,
develop, and prove the safety and reliability of a new HD vehicle. 88
FR 25998. A typical design process includes the design and building of
prototype or demonstration vehicles that are evaluated over several
months or years in real world operation. The manufacturers need to
accumulate miles and experience a wide variety of environmental
conditions on these prototype vehicles to demonstrate the product's
durability and reliability. Then manufacturers would work to
commercialize the vehicle and in turn build it in mass production. We
also considered that manufacturers are likely limited in terms of the
financial resources, human resources, and testing facilities to
redesign all of their vehicles at the same time and, instead, focus on
the applications with the best business case because these would be
where the customers would be most willing to purchase. Manufacturers
reiterated the need for lead time in their comments on the proposed
rule. See RTC section 2.3.3.
The final Phase 3 standards phase in over time from MY 2027 through
MY 2032. For HD BEVs in the potential compliance pathway, we considered
that BEV technology has been demonstrated to be technically feasible in
heavy-duty transportation and that manufacturers will learn from the
research and development work that has gone into developing the
significant number of LD and HD electric vehicle models that are on the
road today, as noted in section II.D.2 and RIA Chapter 1.5.5. The
feasibility of our final standards is supported by technology packages
with increasing BEV adoption rates beginning in MY 2027 (see also our
discussion in this section II.D.2.iii regarding our consideration of
adequate time for infrastructure development for HD BEVs). For HD
FCEVS, as discussed in section II.D.3 and II.D.4, along with RIA
Chapter 1.7.5, fuel cell technology in other sectors has been in
existence for decades, it has been demonstrated to be technically
feasible in heavy-duty transportation, and there are a number of HD
FCEV models that are commercially available today with more expected to
become available by 2024. However, we included this technology as part
of potential compliance pathway's technology packages supporting the
feasibility of our final standards starting in MY 2030 in part to take
into consideration lead time to allow manufacturers to design, develop,
and manufacture HD FCEV models (see also our discussion in this
subsection regarding our consideration of adequate time for
infrastructure development for HD FCEVs).
We discuss in sections II.D.1 and II.F.1 the need for ICE vehicles
to continue to install CO2-reducing technologies, such as
advanced aerodynamics, advanced transmissions, efficient powertrains,
and lower rolling resistance tires to meet the previously promulgated
MY 2027 Phase 2 standards. In our technology assessment for this final
rule and the potential compliance pathway's technology packages to
support the feasibility of the Phase 3 standards, we included ICE
vehicle technologies for a portion of each of the technology packages,
and those ICE vehicle technologies mirrored the technology packages we
considered in setting the previously promulgated Phase 2 MY 2027
CO2 emission standards. Each of these technologies exists
today and continues to be developed by manufacturers. As noted in 2016
when we issued the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule, at that time we provided
over ten years of lead time to the manufacturers to continue the
development and deployment of these technologies. Our current
assessment is that these ICE vehicle technologies continue to have
adequate lead time and be feasible in the MY 2027 and later timeframe,
as discussed in section II.D.1.
As a new vehicle is being designed and developed, our projected
technology packages include consideration that manufacturers will also
need time to significantly increase HD ZEV production volumes from
today's volumes. In particular, our analysis for the potential
compliance pathway considers that manufacturers will need to build new
powertrains or to modify existing manufacturing production lines to
assemble the new products that include ZEV powertrains. Our analysis
for our potential compliance pathway also considered that manufacturers
will require time to source new components, such as heavy-duty battery
packs, motors, fuel cell stacks, and other ZEV components, including
the sourcing of the critical minerals, as discussed in section
II.D.2.ii. As described in section II.D.5, our potential compliance
pathway's technology packages project that manufacturers will not
develop vehicles utilizing ZEV technologies to cover all types of HD
vehicles at once but will focus on those with the most favorable
business case first, increase the adoption of those vehicles over time,
and then develop other applications. We also note that we have added
temporary compliance flexibilities to the rule, including the ability
to average, bank, and trade credits across averaging sets for certain
HD vehicles as described in section III.A, and have done so to
facilitate compliance flexibility (although, as noted in section
II.G.2, these flexibilities are not necessary to EPA's determination
that the final standards are feasible, provide sufficient lead time,
and are appropriate within the meaning of CAA section 202(a)(1)).
Several of the Phase 3 standards commence in MY 2027, but certain
standards do not; namely, the Phase 3 standards for HHD vocational
vehicles commence in MY 2029, the day cab tractors commence in MY 2028,
and the standards for sleeper cab tractors commence in MY 2030. We
believe our approach described in section II.D.5 demonstrates the
feasibility of the final standards through our potential compliance
pathway's technology packages, including through the technology
packages reflecting the ZEV adoption rates for the applications we have
determined are achievable in the MY 2027 and later timeframe.
[[Page 29574]]
Purchasers of BEVs will also need to consider how they will charge
their vehicles. Our assessment of EVSE technology and costs associated
with charging is included in sections II.E.2, II.E.5, and II.F.4 of
this preamble, RIA Chapter 1, and RIA Chapter 2. We anticipate that
many first-time BEV owners may opt to purchase and install EVSE at or
near the time of vehicle purchase for charging at their depot, and we
therefore account for these capital costs upfront. As noted in RIA
Chapter 1, we expect significant increases in HD charging
infrastructure due to a combination of public and private investments.
This includes Federal funding available through the BIL \768\ and the
IRA.\769\ As discussed in section II.D.2.iii and RTC section 7
(Distribution), OEMs, utilities, EVSE providers and others are also
investing in and supporting the deployment of charging infrastructure.
We also there discuss demand on the grid posed by the transportation
sector (both light-duty and heavy-duty) on a national level, both in
the areas of the high-volume freight corridors that are the most likely
targets for deployment of heavy-duty BEVs during the rule's time frame
and on a parcel level in particular states and nationally. Our
conclusions, as there discussed, are that there is adequate lead time
for deployment of distribution grid buildout for both depot and public
charging, and we include consideration of costs in our analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\768\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-
58. 135 Stat. 429 (2021), available at https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf.
\769\ Inflation Reduction Act, Pub. L. 117-169, 136 Stat. 1818
(2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the anticipated build out of charging infrastructure
and electric distribution grids which we analyzed, innovative charging
solutions can further reduce lead times to deploying HD BEVs. As
discussed in section II.D.2.iii of this preamble, one approach is for
utilities to make non-firm capacity available immediately as they
construct distribution system upgrades. In California, Southern
California Edison (SCE) proposed a two-year Automated Load Control
Management Systems (LCMS) Pilot.\770\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\770\ The program would use third-party owned LCMS equipment
approved by SCE to accelerate the connection of new loads, including
new EVSE, while ``SCE completes necessary upgrades in areas with
capacity constraints.'' SCE would use the LCMS to require new
customers to limit consumption during periods when the system is
more constrained, while providing those customers access to the
distribution system sooner than would otherwise be possible. Once
SCE completes required grid upgrades, the LCMS limits will be
removed, and participating customers will gain unrestricted
distribution service. SCE hopes to evaluate the extent to which LCMS
can be used to ``support distribution reliability and safety, reduce
grid upgrade costs, and reduce delays to customers obtaining
interconnection and utility power service.'' SCE states that prior
CPUC decisions have expressed clear support for this technology and
SCE is commencing the LCMS Pilot immediately Southern California
Edison. ``Establishment of Southern California Edison Company's
Customer-Side, Third Party Owned, Automated Load Control Management
Systems Pilot''. November 2023. Available online: https://edisonintl.sharepoint.com/teams/Public/TM2/Shared%20Documents/Public/Regulatory/Filings-Advice%20Letters/Pending/Electric/ELECTRIC_5138-E.pdf?CT=1704322883028&OR=ItemsView.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plans like SCE's to use LCMS to connect new EV loads faster in
constrained sections of the grid will be bolstered by standards for
load control technologies. UL, an organization that develops standards
for the electronics industry, drafted the UL 3141 Outline of
Investigation (OOI) for Power Control Systems (PCS). Once finalized,
manufacturers will be able to use this standard for developing devices
that utilities can use to limit the energy consumption of BEVs. The OOI
identifies five potential functions for PCS. One of these functions is
to serve as a Power Import Limit (PIL) or Power Export Limit (PEL). In
these use cases, the PCS controls the flow of power between a local
electric power system (local EPS, most often the building wiring on a
single premises) and a broader area electric power system (area EPS,
most often the utility's system). Critically, the standardized PIL
function will enable the interconnection of new BEV charging stations
faster by leveraging the flexibility of BEVs to charge in coordination
with other loads at the premise. With this standard in place and
manufacturer completion of conforming products, utilities will have a
clear technological framework available to use in load control programs
that accelerate charging infrastructure deployment for their
customers.\771\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\771\ UL LLC. January 11, 2024. ``UL 3141: Outline for
Investigation of Power Control Systems.'' Available online: https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL3141_1_O_20240111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that it regards our analysis of adequacy and timeliness
of distribution grid buildout as conservative, since it (intentionally)
does not account for these innovative measures undertaken by some
utilities; nor does it consider other than basic mitigative measures
that BEV purchasers can undertake to reduce demand. Even with this
conservative approach, we found that the rule affords adequate lead
time for such buildout. We note that our analysis was informed
significantly by studies from, and discussions with, the Department of
Energy.
We have also carefully considered the adequacy of lead time to
procure minerals critical to battery production, for supply chains
respecting those minerals to be resilient enough to support battery
production, and for sufficiency of battery production. We have found
that there is sufficient lead time within the rule's timeframe
respecting all of these. See section II.D.2.c.ii of this preamble, and
RTC section 17.2. Our findings here are likewise supported by DOE
studies, and by our consultation with the DOE.
Purchasers of FCEVs will need to consider how they will obtain
hydrogen to refuel the vehicles. Our assessment of hydrogen
infrastructure and costs associated with refueling are in sections
II.D.3.v, II.E.5.ii, and II.F.4 of this preamble, RIA Chapter 1, and
RIA Chapter 2. We expect significant private investment as a result of
public investment through BIL and IRA in the coming years. In the final
rule, we project that hydrogen consumption from FCEVs would be a small
proportion (less than 1 percent) of total hydrogen expected to be
produced through 2030 in the United States, as discussed in RIA Chapter
1.8.3.4. After evaluating the existing and projected future hydrogen
refueling infrastructure,\772\ we considered FCEV technologies only in
the MY 2030 and later timeframe to better ensure we have provided
adequate time for early market infrastructure development and because
we expect that projected refueling needs in the technology packages can
be met by MY 2030, as discussed also in RIA Chapter 2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\772\ U.S. Department of Energy. ``Pathways to Commercial
Liftoff: Clean Hydrogen''. March 2023. Available online: https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/20230320-Liftoff-Clean-H2-vPUB.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giving consideration to these factors, our analysis for the
potential compliance pathway supports that there is sufficient lead
time to meet the final standards, which manufacturers may comply with
through application of BEV technologies, FCEV technologies, or further
improvements to ICE vehicles (which can include additional technologies
like PHEV technologies or other potential advanced technologies like
H2-ICE powered vehicles) to their fleets. As just discussed, we also
believe that there will be sufficient corresponding infrastructure to
support technologies under our modeled potential compliance pathway,
and that availability of critical minerals and supply chains will not
be a constraining factor. To further demonstrate the
[[Page 29575]]
performance-based nature of the final Phase 3 standards, we also
included additional examples of compliance pathway's technology
packages in section II.F.4 that support the feasibility of the final
standards. In this final rule, we also considered but did not adopt
alternative standards that would have been supported by technology
packages with a slower phase-in of CO2 emission-reducing
technologies, including a slower phase in of HD ZEV technologies in the
projected technology packages, as described and for the reasons
discussed in section II.H.
Additionally, while we believe there is sufficient time for the
charging and refueling infrastructure to develop for the reasons
explained in this section, EPA recognizes that under the potential
compliance pathway in this final rule such infrastructure for BEVs and
FCEVs is important for the success of the increasing development and
adoption of these technologies. EPA carefully considered that there are
significant efforts already underway to develop and expand heavy-duty
electric charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure both at the
local, state and Federal government level as well as from private
industry, as discussed in RIA Chapters 1 and 2 and this section II.
Those are important early actions that will support the increase in ZEV
charging and refueling infrastructure needed for the future growth of
ZEV technology of the magnitude EPA is projecting in this rule's
technology packages. As discussed in section II.B.2.iii, EPA has a
vested interest in monitoring industry's performance in complying with
mobile source emission standards, including the highway heavy-duty
industry, and is committing to do so for Phase 3. Monitoring the
availability of supporting infrastructure is a critical element of that
post-promulgation effort by EPA.
4. Additional Example Compliance Pathway Technology Packages To Support
the Final Standards
While the potential compliance pathway's technology packages that
include both vehicles with ICE and ZEV technologies discussed in
section II.F.1 and RIA Chapter 2.10 support the feasibility of the
final standards and was modeled for rulemaking purposes, there are many
other examples of possible compliance pathways for meeting the final
standards that do not involve the widespread adoption of BEV and FCEV
technologies. In this section, and RIA Chapter 2.11, we provide further
support for the feasibility of the final standards by describing
examples of additional potential compliance pathways that are based on
nationwide production volumes, including compliance pathways that
involve only technologies for vehicles with ICE across a range of
electrification (i.e., without producing additional ZEVs to comply with
this rule).
In this section, we discuss our analysis for the technologies
included in the additional example compliance pathways of the impacts
on reductions of GHG emissions; the technical feasibility and
technology effectiveness; the lead time necessary to implement the
technologies; costs to manufacturers; and willingness to purchase
(including purchaser costs and payback). In short, EPA finds that, even
without manufacturers producing additional ZEVs to comply with this
rule, it would be technologically feasible to meet the final standards
in the lead time provided and taking into consideration compliance
costs. Regarding reductions of GHG emissions, these additional example
potential compliance pathways meet the final Phase 3 MY 2027 through MY
2032 and later CO2 emission standards, and therefore achieve
the same level of vehicle CO2 emission reductions and
downstream CO2 emission reductions as presented in preamble
section V and RIA Chapter 4. Regarding technical feasibility and lead
time, depending on the technology, we determined that either no further
development of the technology is required (only further application) or
that the technology is technically feasible and being actively
developed by manufacturers to be commercially available for MY 2027 and
later, and that there is sufficient lead time to deploy it. Similar to
the approach we considered for BEVs and FCEVs in this preamble section
II, for relevant technologies we also included a phased approach to
provide lead time to meet the corresponding charging and refueling
infrastructure needs under the final rule's additional example
potential compliance pathways. Regarding costs of compliance,
consistent with our Phase 2 assessment, we conclude that the estimated
costs for all model years are reasonable for one of the additional
example potential compliance pathways, for example based on our
estimate that the MY 2032 fleet average per-vehicle cost to
manufacturers by regulatory group will be $3,800 for LHD; $7,600 for
MHD vocational vehicles; and $7,700 for HHD vocational vehicles, and
range between $10,300 for day cab tractors and $10,400 for sleeper cab
tractors. For another additional example potential compliance pathway,
which we developed and assessed because manufacturers may choose to
offer technologies (such as PHEVs) that have a higher projected upfront
cost but also have a shorter payback period, we estimated higher costs
of compliance (e.g., approximately 18 percent of the price of a new
tractor for MY 2032) and conclude these costs are also reasonable here
given consideration of the corresponding business case for
manufacturers to successfully deploy these technologies when
considering willingness to purchase, including the payback period of
these technologies and the IRA purchaser tax credits for PHEVs.
Regarding our assessment of impacts on purchasers and willingness to
purchase, the technologies we assessed generally pay back within 10
years or less. As we explain elsewhere in this preamble section II,
businesses that operate HD vehicles are under competitive pressure to
reduce operating costs, which should encourage purchasers to identify
and adopt vehicle technologies that provide a reasonable payback
period. For H2-ICE tractors, our assessment is that the operating costs
exceed the operating costs of ICE tractors, but there may be other
reasons that purchasers would consider this technology such as that the
vehicles emit nearly zero CO2 emissions at the tailpipe, the
low engine-out exhaust emissions from H2-ICE vehicles provide the
opportunity for efficient and durable after-treatment systems, and the
efficiency of H2-ICE vehicles may continue to improve with time.
Overall, the fact that such a fleet as the examples assessed in this
section are possible underscores both the feasibility and the
flexibility of the performance-based standards, and confirms that
manufacturers are likely to continue to offer vehicles with a diverse
range of technologies, including advanced vehicle with ICE technologies
as well as ZEVs for the duration of these standards and beyond.
The vehicles considered in these additional pathways include a
suite of technologies ranging from improvements in aerodynamics and
tire rolling resistance in ICE tractors, to the use of lower carbon
fuels like CNG and LNG, to hybrid powertrains (HEV and PHEV) and H2-
ICE. As described in this section, these technologies either exist
today or are actively being developed by manufacturers to be
commercially available for MY 2027 and later.
This section presents our analysis of the effectiveness of reducing
CO2 emissions, the associated lead time, and the technology
package costs for the technologies considered in these additional
possible pathways in preamble sections II.F.4.i and II.F.4.ii
[[Page 29576]]
(we discuss the technologies themselves in preamble section II.D.1). We
then created technology packages based on adoption rates of aggregated
individual technologies into three scenarios for MYs 2027, 2030, and
2032 that represent additional example potential compliance pathways
that further support the feasibility of the final standards in preamble
section II.F.4.iii. The technology packages and adoption rates include
a mix of vehicles with ICE technologies. For example, the additional
example potential compliance pathways include some vocational vehicles
with the technology package that supported the Phase 2 MY 2027
CO2 vocational vehicle emission standards (shown in Table
II-4 in preamble section II.D.1, and that include technologies such as
low rolling resistance tires; tire inflation systems; efficient
engines, transmissions, and drivetrains; weight reduction; and idle
reduction technologies) as well as additional natural gas engine, H2-
ICE vehicle, hybrid powertrain, and PHEV technologies for vocational
vehicles. For another example, the additional example potential
compliance pathways include tractors with further aerodynamic and tire
improvements in addition to the technology package that supported the
Phase 2 MY 2027 CO2 tractor emission standards (shown in
Table II-3 in preamble section II.D.1, and that include technologies
such as improved aerodynamics; low rolling resistance tires; tire
inflation systems; efficient engines, transmissions, drivetrains, and
accessories; and extended idle reduction for sleeper cabs) as well as
additional natural gas engine, H2-ICE vehicle, hybrid powertrain, and
PHEV technologies for tractors. The technology packages also include
our projected reference case (see RIA Chapter 4) ZEV adoption rates.
Scenario 1 meets the MY 2032 standards with higher adoption of vehicles
with H2-ICE technology. Scenario 2 meets the MY 2032 standards with
higher adoption of PHEV technology. Finally, we assessed the
manufacturer costs under these additional example potential compliance
pathways, in preamble section II.F.4.iv, and purchaser costs and
payback in preamble section II.F.4.v.\773\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\773\ We also developed another set of technology packages that
do not include our projected reference case ZEV adoption rates
(i.e., they are potential compliance pathways that support the
feasibility of the standards with only technologies for vehicles
with ICE, with zero nationwide adoption of ZEV technologies) which
is presented in RIA Chapter 2.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vehicle manufacturers that certified to EPA standards for MY
2022 and/or MY 2023 are those listed in Table II-38.\774\ Manufacturers
used a wide variety of technologies to meet the standards. The
manufacturer names with `*' indicate that they have EPA certifications
for vehicles that use natural gas. The manufacturer names with `-'
indicate they have EPA certifications for vehicles with hybrid
powertrains. Since the public certification data for these MYs doesn't
identify which vehicles are certified with hybrid powertrains, we
relied on information identified in Chapter 1.4 of the RIA. As for
hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines, no manufacturers have
certified to EPA standards for MY 2022 with the technology, however a
number of manufacturers have indicated that they are developing an
engine that can run on hydrogen.\775\ Finally, there are a number of
manufacturers that have certified ICE vehicles that have projected
CO2 FEL that are lower than the Phase 2 MY 2027 standards.
The manufacturer names with `#' indicate that they have one or more
vehicles families that currently meet the Phase 2 MY 2027 standards,
and which we thus project will have CO2 FEL that are lower
than the Phase 2 MY 2027 standards in MY 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\774\ U.S. EPA. ``Heavy-Duty Highway Gasoline and Diesel
Certification Data (Model Years: 2015--Present'' February 2024.
Available online: www.epa.gov/compliance-and-fuel-economy-data/annual-certification-data-vehicles-engines-and-equipment.
\775\ Cummins. ``Cummins to Reveal Zero-Carbon H2-ICE Concept
Truck at IAA Expo Powered by the B6.7H Hydrogen Engine''. September
13, 2022. Available Online: https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2022/09/13/cummins-reveal-zero-carbon-h2-ice-concept-truck-iaa-expo-powered-b67h.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.058
[[Page 29577]]
i. Technology Effectiveness and Lead Time
We evaluated the potential for lower CO2 emissions from
further aerodynamic and tire improvements to ICE tractors as well as
natural gas engine, H2-ICE vehicle, hybrid powertrain, and PHEV
technologies for both vocational vehicles and tractors, as discussed in
section II.D.1 of this preamble. See section II.D.1 for further
discussion of EPA's assessment that these technologies are technically
feasible.
a. Aerodynamic and Tire Improvements for Tractors
In these additional technology pathways, for further aerodynamic
and tire improvements to the technology packages that supported the
Phase 2 MY 2027 CO2 emission standards we evaluated
technologies to reduce CO2 emissions from ICE tractors.
Tractors with ICEs have the potential to have lower CO2
emissions than required by the Phase 2 MY 2027 CO2 emission
standards by further reducing the aerodynamic drag of the tractor and
by reducing the tire rolling resistance. These technologies are already
being used by manufacturers to certify their tractors to the Phase 2
standards. Therefore, EPA assessed this potential technology package
applicable to tractors through a combination of aerodynamic
improvements and lower rolling resistant tires.
For this Phase 3 analysis, consistent with our approach in Phase 2
for evaluating technology effectiveness, we evaluated the technologies
to reduce aerodynamic drag, as discussed in preamble section II.D.1.i.
The aerodynamic drag performance is determined through aerodynamic
testing. The results of the test determine the aerodynamic bin (Bin I
through VII) and therefore input to GEM that is used to determine a
vehicle's CO2 emissions. The aerodynamic Bin I level
represents tractor bodies which prioritize appearance or special duty
capabilities over aerodynamics. These Bin I tractors incorporate few,
if any, aerodynamic features and may have several features which
detract from aerodynamics, such as bug deflectors, custom sunshades, B-
pillar exhaust stacks, and others. Bin V represents the most
aerodynamic MY 2022 tractors.
The aerodynamic technology already existed for the tractors to
achieve Bin IV and Bin V performance in MY 2021, therefore, our
assessment is that there is sufficient lead time for tractor
manufacturers to increase application of these aerodynamic designs by
MY 2027 and to produce more low and mid roof tractors at a Bin IV level
of performance and more high roof tractors at a Bin V performance.
Because no further development of aerodynamic technology is required,
only further application of the technologies, under the additional
example potential compliance pathways our assessment is that there is
sufficient lead time to include in those technology packages the entire
tractor aerodynamic performance to these levels.
For this Phase 3 analysis, we also evaluated technologies to reduce
tire rolling resistance on tractors, as discussed in section II.D.1.ii
of this preamble. In Phase 2, we developed four levels of tire rolling
resistance. The baseline tire rolling resistance level represents the
average tire rolling resistance on tractors in 2010. Levels 1, 2, and 3
are lower rolling resistance tires, with each level representing
approximately 15 percent lower rolling resistance than the previous
level. In the MY 2021 certification data, we found that the average
rolling resistance of the steer tires installed on the day cab and
sleeper cab tractors was approximately Level 2. The average rolling
resistance of the drive tires installed on day cab and sleeper cab
tractors was between Level 1 and Level 2 performance. The exception was
for high roof sleeper cabs where the average drive tire rolling
resistance was at Level 2. The lowest rolling resistance tires used on
each of the day cab and sleeper cab configurations was 4.7 N/kN and 4.8
N/kN ton rolling resistance of the steer and drive tires, respectively,
which is better than the Level 3 performance. Our assessment for the
additional example potential compliance pathways is that tractor tire
rolling resistance can shift to a 50/50 split of Level 2 and Level 3
tire rolling resistance for both the steer and drive tires in MY 2027
We used the technology effectiveness inputs and technology adoption
rates discussed in this section of the preamble for aerodynamics and
tire rolling resistance, along with the other vehicle technologies used
in the Phase 2 MY 2027 technology package to demonstrate compliance
with the Phase 2 MY 2027 tractor standards to develop the GEM inputs
for each subcategory of Class 7 and 8 tractors. The set of GEM inputs
are shown in Table II-39. Note that we have analyzed one technology
pathway for each level of stringency, but tractor manufacturers are
free to use any combination of technologies that meet the standards on
average.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 29578]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.059
The results from GEM for this technology package are shown in Table
II-40. As shown, this technology package within the additional example
potential compliance pathway achieves 4 percent lower CO2
emissions than the Phase 2 MY 2027 tractor standards.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.060
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
In conclusion, under the additional example compliance pathways we
project that improvements in ICE vehicle technologies above and beyond
the improvements needed to meet the Phase 2 MY 2027 standards will be
available for manufacturers to use for tractors and estimate use of
those improvements would result in an additional emissions reduction of
4 percent.
We note that in these additional pathways, like in our modeled
compliance pathway, the ICE vocational vehicles portion of the pathway
emit at the Phase 2 MY 2027 level. Therefore, we did not add any
additional technologies or costs associated with the vocational ICE
vehicles with Phase 2 MY 2027 technologies. We also note
[[Page 29579]]
that the Phase 2 standards for vocational vehicles did not include the
use of aerodynamic technologies and were projected to be met with the
use of improvements in tire rolling resistance and other technologies.
Thus, the corresponding ICE vehicle technology package used within the
additional example compliance pathway analysis for a portion of the
vocational vehicles encompasses the same set of technologies used to
demonstrate compliance with the Phase 2 MY 2027 standards, as described
in section II.D.1.
b. Natural Gas Fueled Internal Combustion Engines
To estimate the technology effectiveness of natural gas-fueled
engines compared to diesel fueled engines in the Phase 3 additional
example potential compliance pathways, we used the publicly available
MY 2023 heavy-duty engine certification data for CO2
emissions.\776\ We compared GHG certification data between three
engines of similar displacement, power ratings, and intended model
application fueled on CNG and conventional diesel. Family Certification
CO2 Levels for the transient Federal Test Procedure (FTP)
and Supplemental Emission Test (SET) duty cycles were compared to
determine the CO2 reductions possible by applying natural
gas engine technology, as shown in Table II-41. The comparison shows
that natural gas engine technology could achieve CO2
reductions up to 7 percent for vocational vehicles and 6 percent for
tractors compared to a similar diesel fueled ICE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\776\ U.S. EPA. ``Annual Certification Data for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles''. January 2023. Available Online: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-01/heavy-duty-gas-and-diesel-engines-2015-present.xlsx.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.061
We also considered the availability of the natural gas fueling
stations. According to the U.S. Department of Energy there are 1,464
compressed natural gas and liquified natural gas filling stations in
the United States.\777\ Of these stations, approximately 90 percent of
them are CNG stations and 10 percent are LNG stations. These stations
are a combination of publicly accessible (783) and privately operated
(681). Of the publicly accessible fueling stations, all will
accommodate Class 3 through 5 HD vehicles and 1,246 will accommodate HD
Class 5 through 8 vehicles. After evaluating the existing, and taking
into account potential future, natural gas refueling infrastructure,
similar to the approach we considered for BEVs and FCEVs in this
preamble section II to ensure adequate lead time for corresponding
infrastructure,, we determined that there was adequate lead time for 5
percent adoption of natural gas vehicles in the additional example
potential compliance pathways based on our balancing that these
technologies are currently available and used as well as the additional
consideration of the corresponding infrastructure needed for the level
of adoption under these pathways by MY 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\777\ Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, Alternative Fuel Station
Locator. February 2024. Available online: https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/#/find/nearest?fuel=CNG&country=US.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Hydrogen-Fueled Internal Combustion Engines
Since neat hydrogen fuel does not contain any carbon, H2-ICE fueled
with neat hydrogen produce zero HC, CH4, CO, and
CO2 engine-out emissions.\778\ However, as explained in
section III.C.2.xviii, we recognize that, like CI ICE, there may be
negligible, but non-zero, CO2 emissions at the tailpipe of
H2-ICE that use SCR and are fueled with neat hydrogen due to
contributions from the aftertreatment system from urea decomposition;
thus, for purposes of 40 CFR part 1036 we are finalizing an engine
testing default CO2 emission value (3 g/hp-hr) option
(though manufacturers may instead conduct testing to demonstrate that
the CO2 emissions for their engine is below 3 g/hp-hr).
Under this final rule, consistent with treatments of such contributions
from the aftertreatment system from urea decomposition for diesel ICE
vehicles, we are not including such contributions as vehicle emissions
for H2-ICE vehicles.\779\ Thus, H2-ICE technologies that run on neat
hydrogen, as defined in 40 CFR 1037.150(f) and discussed in section
III.C.3.ii of the preamble, have HD vehicle CO2 emissions
that are deemed to be zero for purposes of 40 CFR part 1037. Therefore,
the technology effectiveness (in other words CO2 emission
reduction) for the vehicles that are powered by this technology is 100
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\778\ Note, NOx and PM emission testing is required under
existing 40 CFR part 1036 for engines fueled with neat hydrogen.
\779\ The results from the fuel mapping test procedures
prescribed in 40 CFR 1036.535 are fuel consumption values, therefore
the CO2 emissions from urea decomposition is not included
in the results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lead time consideration for H2-ICE vehicles consists of two
parts. The first part is the engine technology design and development,
along with the integration of the engine, aftertreatment, and fuel
storage integration into the vehicle. The second part is the hydrogen
refueling infrastructure availability.
An H2-ICE is very similar to existing ICEs and engine manufacturers
can leverage the extensive technical expertise they have developed with
existing products. Many H2-ICE engine components can be produced using
an engine manufacturer's existing tooling and manufacturing processes.
Similarly, H2-ICE vehicles can be built on the same assembly lines as
other ICE vehicles, by the same workers and with many of the same
component suppliers. For example, Cummins has announced the launch of a
fuel-agnostic combustion engine X10 for MY 2026 that can run on
hydrogen fuel.\780\ Many design aspects of the integration of a H2-ICE
into a vehicle can be done in parallel with the H2-ICE ramp up to the
production launch of an engine. However, there may be final validation
vehicle development steps that will require the final H2-ICE and
therefore may take an
[[Page 29580]]
additional year after the launch of an H2-ICE. Therefore, from the
technology development perspective, we project H2-ICE technology will
be available in MYs 2027 and later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\780\ Cummins. ``Cummins Announces New X10 Engine, Next in The
Fuel-Agnostic Series, Launching in North America in 2026.'' February
2023. Available Online: https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2023/02/13/cummins-announces-new-x10-engine-next-fuel-agnostic-series-launching-north.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion in RIA Chapter 1.8.3 details our assessment of
hydrogen refueling infrastructure. After evaluating the existing and
projected future hydrogen refueling infrastructure and similar to the
approach we considered for publicly-charged BEVs and FCEVs in this
preamble section II, we considered H2-ICE vehicle technology only in
the MY 2030 and later timeframe for the additional example potential
compliance pathways, to better ensure that our additional example
potential compliance pathways provide adequate time for early hydrogen
market infrastructure development. We included the H2-ICE technology in
the additional compliance pathway relative to the reference case in MY
2031 and later, which provides nearly seven years of lead time for the
H2 refueling infrastructure buildout to phase in.
d. Hybrid and Plug-in Hybrid Powertrains
As discussed in section II.D.1.v, hybrid powertrains have lower
CO2 emissions than ICE powertrains due to a combination of
regenerative braking and the ability to optimize the ICE operation
within the hybrid powertrain system. For this Phase 3 analysis we used
the approach described in Chapter 2.2.2.1.3 of the RIA to determine the
effectiveness of hybrids based on the amount of braking energy
recovered from regenerative braking. In summary, to calculate percent
energy recovery available, we estimated the braking energy and divided
by the total tractive energy (i.e., the energy required to move the
vehicle) for each drive cycle and then weighted the results using the
respective GEM test cycle weighting factors. We then multiplied these
values by the weighted energy consumption per mile to get energy
recovered per mile from regenerative braking. The average regeneration
energy as a percentage of total tractive energy was 10 percent and 5
percent, for vocational vehicles and tractors, respectively. For both
tractors and vocational vehicles, we project that hybrid technology can
achieve an additional 5 percent of effectiveness by optimizing how the
engine is operated. For example, the engine could be operated in the
minimum brake-specific fuel consumption region of the engine more often
in a hybrid powertrain. In addition, the electric motor could be used
to limit engine transient operation, or the engine could be downsized.
This leads to an overall CO2 emission reduction of 15
percent for vocational vehicle hybrids and 10 percent for tractor
hybrids.
For hybrid electric vehicles, the projected effectiveness is
further supported by powertrain testing that was conducted by Eaton at
Argonne National Laboratory. The testing was performed with a Cummins
X15 engine and three transmissions. The transmissions were an Eaton P2/
P3 hybrid, Eaton Endurant, and an Allison 4500 RDS. For each of the
three powertrain configurations, the test procedures prescribed in 40
CFR 1036.545 were followed to generate powertrain fuel maps. Each of
these fuel maps were input into GEM Version 3.5.1 to determined
gCO2/ton-mile emissions from a number of representative
vehicle configurations. For the heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles,
the average CO2 emission reductions were 22, 8, and 25
percent for multi-purpose, regional, and urban regulatory subcategories
respectively. The average CO2 reductions for day cab and
sleeper cab tractors was 9 percent. The data from the powertrain tests
supports the estimated CO2 emission reduction of 15 percent
for vocational vehicle hybrids, as it is expected that vocational
vehicle hybrids will be certified as multi-purpose or urban. The data
from the powertrain tests also supports the estimated CO2
emission reduction of 10 percent for tractor hybrids, since many of the
individual tractors had greater than 10 percent CO2 emission
reduction, with the average at 9 percent.
In addition, other studies have also shown CO2 emission
reductions from heavy-duty hybrid vehicles. For example, a New Flyer
hybrid transit bus achieves 10-29 percent reduction, depending on
route.\781\ Similarly, a NovaBus hybrid transit bus found up to 30
percent reduction in CO2 emissions at speeds ranging between
9-18 mph.\782\ A NREL report of a reduction of 75 percent
CO2 in idle emissions during PTO use \783\ where idle
operation is over 30 percent of vehicle operating time and uses 10
percent of the fuel.\784\ A study with a Pierce Manufacturing hybrid
fire truck showed 1,500 gallons of diesel saved in one month which also
leads to a reduction in CO2 emissions.\785\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\781\ New Flyer. ``Hybrid-electric mobility.'' Available online:
https://www.newflyer.com/bus/xcelsior-hybrid/.
\782\ NovaBus. ``Nova LFS HEV''. Available online: https://novabus.com/blog/bus/lfs_hev/.
\783\ Ragatz, Adam, Jonathan Burton, Eric Miller, and Matthew
Thornton. ``Investigation of Emissions Impacts from Hybrid
Powertrains'' National Renewable Energy Lab. January 2020. Available
online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75782.pdf.
\784\ Konan, Arnaud, Adam Duran, Kenneth Kelly, Eric Miller, and
Robert Prohaska. ``Characterization of PTO and Idle Behavior for
Utility Vehicles''. National Renewable Energy Lab. Available online:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/66747.pdf.
\785\ Pierce. ``Pierce Volterra Platform of Electric Vehicles''.
Available online: https://www.piercemfg.com/electric-fire-trucks/pierce-volterra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hybrid technology is currently being used on heavy-duty vehicles.
RIA Chapter 1.4.5 details the HD truck and bus models that are
currently offered as hybrid vehicles. As shown, both Allison and BAE
offer heavy-duty hybrid systems for use in vehicles. Our assessment,
based on currently available hybrid technology that is being produced
in vehicles today, is that there is adequate lead time for
manufacturers to increase the adoption of the technology for LHD and
MHD vocational vehicles in MY 2027 and for HHD vocational vehicles and
tractors in MY 2030 to the adoption levels included in the additional
pathways.
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles run on both electricity and fuel.
The utility factor is the fraction of miles the vehicle travels in
electric mode relative to the total miles traveled. The percent
CO2 emission reduction is directly related to the utility
factor. The greater the utility factor, the lower the tailpipe
CO2 emissions from the vehicle. The utility factor depends
on the size of the battery and the operator's driving habits. For
PHEVs, we project that for MY 2027 and MY 2032 tractors, a
CO2 emission reduction (effectiveness) of 30 percent is
achievable by adding a high-voltage battery that could achieve a
utility factor of 22 percent. For MY 2027 vocational vehicles, we
project an effectiveness of 30 percent could be achieved by adding a
high-voltage battery with a utility factor of 18 percent. For MY 2030
vocational vehicles, we project an effectiveness of 50 percent could be
achieved by adding a high-voltage battery with a utility factor of 41
percent. With utility factors between 18 to 41 percent, a significantly
smaller battery would be needed for a PHEV in comparison to the battery
needed for a corresponding battery electric vehicle.
For heavy-duty PHEVs, the projected effectiveness is further
supported by powertrain testing that was conducted by Eaton at Argonne
National Laboratory. To evaluate the emissions reductions of a plug-in
hybrid powertrain, Eaton used a combination of GEM simulations and
powertrain test results. The results of the analysis showed that a
vocational vehicle with a
[[Page 29581]]
plug-in hybrid powertrain could reduce CO2 emission by 52
percent.\786\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\786\ Sanchez, James. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985.
``Eaton Hybrid Powertrain Results'' February 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our lead time assessment for PHEVs, we believe it will take
longer for vehicle manufacturers to integrate this technology into
vehicles than it will for hybrid technologies. We determined that
approximately 3-4 years would be necessary to develop this technology.
Therefore, we conservatively included PHEVs in limited applications
(HHD vocational vehicle and day cab tractors) beginning in MY 2030 and
included a scenario in MY 2032 with and without PHEVs in the technology
packages that also include our projected reference case ZEV adoption
rates. PHEVs, like BEVs, require an external charging source to provide
electricity to the vehicle. However, the recharging demand for a PHEV
is much lower than a comparable BEV. Therefore, most heavy-duty PHEVs
could use Level 1 charging by plugging it into a standard 240 V outlet.
Truck operators would have access to these outlets at depots and other
businesses without having to require special installation of EVSE
equipment. Operators would need to create access to such an outlet, but
this would not be a constraining factor for lead time and such costs
would be low for purchasers. Similar to the approach we considered for
BEVs and FCEVs in this preamble section II, we determined there is
adequate lead time to meet the projected charging infrastructure needs
that correspond to the technology packages for the final rule's
additional example potential compliance pathways. Furthermore, because
the recharging demand for PHEVs will be lower than the levels for BEVs
in our modeled potential compliance pathway, the demand on the grid
would be less than assessed with our modeled potential compliance
pathway discussed in preamble section II.D.2.iii.
e. Summary of the Technology Effectiveness
Table II-42 shows the summary of the technology effectiveness
(percent CO2 emission reduction) of each of the technologies
discussed in this subsection relative to the Phase 2 MY 2027 standards.
Table II-42 Effectiveness of Technologies of Vehicles with ICE
Relative to the MY 2027 Phase 2 Standards
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.062
ii. Technology Package Costs
In this section, we present the incremental technology package
costs for each technology relative to the comparable baseline vehicles
that meet the Phase 2 MY 2027 emission standards.\787\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\787\ The costs presented in this section do not include the
learning effects after MY 2027, and therefore are higher than they
would be if they included learning (i.e., are conservative in the
overestimating sense).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. ICE Vehicle Improvements
The costs for the additional aerodynamic and low rolling resistance
tire technologies were developed based on the cost assessment in the
Phase 2 final rule.\788\ These technology costs developed for the Phase
2 analysis remain appropriate because the technologies are the same and
the costs including learning through MY 2027. As discussed in RIA
Chapter 2.11.2.1, the incremental technology package cost of increased
application of aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance
tires is $1,978 for sleeper cab tractors and $1,715 for day cab
tractors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\788\ U.S. EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2. Chapter 2. EPA-420-R-16-900. August
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Natural Gas Fueled Internal Combustion Engines
EPA contracted FEV to conduct a technology and cost study for a
variety of powertrains applicable to Class 4, 5, 7, and 8 heavy-duty
vehicles.\789\ FEV also costed three (15L for Class 8, 10L for Class 7,
and 6.6L for Class \4/5\) diesel ICE powertrains that would meet the
emission standards as required by the Low NOx Rule and the Phase 2
CO2 emission standards in MY 2027. These were used to
calculate the incremental cost of the alternative powertrain to the
comparable diesel ICE powertrain baseline, as described in RIA Chapter
2.11.2.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\789\ FEV Consulting. ``Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles Class 4
to 8: Technology and Cost Evaluation for Electrified Powertrains--
Final Report''. Prepared for EPA. March 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs presented in Table II-43 include both the direct and
indirect costs of compliance for manufacturers and represent a market
stable scenario where the technologies are mature, which is appropriate
because natural gas technologies have been used in the heavy-duty
marketplace for decades. The costs represent the incremental costs of a
spark-ignited (SI) CNG engine because that is the predominant
technology being offered today in the heavy-duty market.\790\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\790\ Cummins. Natural Gas Engine Portfolio. Available online:
https://mart.cummins.com/imagelibrary/data/assetfiles/0063969.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One difference in costs between a CNG powertrain and the baseline
diesel powertrain is the fuel `tank.' A CNG vehicle requires
pressurized fuel tanks typically made with carbon fiber in order to
hold the fuel at required pressures of 250 bar. These tank types are
much higher in cost than a tank to hold diesel fuel which does not
require the capability to store fuel under pressure. The larger the
vehicle and/or the longer the distance traveled per day dictates the
number and size of the tanks required. Cost of tanks for the CNG Class
8 day cab and sleeper cab
[[Page 29582]]
tractor powertrains were estimated to be $10,000-$16,500.\791\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\791\ Caffrey, Cheryl. Memorandum to the docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985. ``Alternative Powertrain Costs'' February 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another area of difference is in the aftertreatment required on CNG
powertrains compared to a diesel. The current diesel powertrain
contains a DOC, DPF, SCR and associated urea injection/mixing system.
Spark-ignited CNG engines run stoichiometric combustion and therefore
only require a three-way catalyst to reduce HC, CO and NOx, similar to
gasoline-fueled ICE vehicles. Engine-out PM from SI-CNG fueled vehicles
meet the exhaust emission standards without additional aftertreatment.
Therefore, spark-ignited CNG vehicles do not require a DPF, DOC, SCR or
the DEF and urea mixing system and a significant cost reduction
compared to the diesel powertrain baseline is realized. Another cost
reduction comes from the fuel injection system. The diesel system has a
fuel injection system used to atomize the diesel fuel as it goes into
the combustion chamber. These components are not needed on a gaseous
fuel as it is already in combustible form.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.063
c. Hydrogen-Fueled Internal Combustion Engines
We used the same FEV cost study to develop the incremental
technology costs for H2-ICE vehicles, as shown in Table II-44.\792\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\792\ Caffrey, Cheryl. Memorandum to the docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985. ``Alternative Powertrain Costs'' February 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with CNG, a major difference between H2-ICE powertrains and the
baseline diesel powertrain is the fuel `tank.' The H2-ICE requires
pressurized fuel tanks typically made with carbon fiber and many other
considerations in order to hold the fuel at required pressures. The H2
tanks used in the FEV cost study are designed to store H2 at 700 bar so
that they can hold sufficient hydrogen. These tank types are much
higher in cost than a tank to hold diesel fuel because the fuel is
pressurized. The cost of the tanks on the Class 8 sleeper cab tractors
can add on $30,000 in low volumes to the H2-ICE powertrain costs.
Also similar to CNG, a significant cost decrease compared to the
baseline powertrain is due to the difference in the aftertreatment
required on H2-ICE fueled powertrains compared to the baseline diesel
powertrain. The baseline diesel powertrain contains a DOC, DPF, SCR and
an associated urea mixing/dosing system. These aftertreatment
components work to reduce hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, particulate
matter and NOx, respectively. Only SCR and DOC aftertreatment is
required on a H2-ICE fueled with neat H2 in order to reduce NOx. In
developing the aftertreatment cost for the H2-ICE, an exhaust gas
heater was also included in order to reduce NOx at idle and during low
power operation. Another cost decrease compared to the baseline
powertrain comes from the fuel injection system. The baseline diesel
system has a number of components to atomize the diesel fuel as it goes
into the combustion chamber. These components are not needed on a H2-
ICE because the H2 is a gaseous fuel in combustible form.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.064
d. Hybrids and Plug-In Hybrid Powertrains
To determine the hybrid powertrain costs, we relied on the
Autonomie study results published with the 2023 DOE VTO/HFTO
Transportation Decarbonization Analysis.\793\ The results include
vehicle costs for conventional vehicles and parallel hybrid vehicles
for each vehicle class. RIA Chapter 2.11.2.4 describes the process for
determining the incremental powertrain costs for each hybrid
powertrain. The summary of the hybrid vehicle costs are in Table II-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\793\ US Department of Energy. Available online: https://anl.box.com/s/hv4kufocq3leoijt6v0wht2uddjuiff4and https://anl.box.com/s/oy04bje3ltc21rz5py4bq1ed4s4bn0vo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29583]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.065
The PHEV technology combines an ICE powertrain with a BEV
powertrain. Therefore, we calculated the incremental costs of the PHEV
technology using a similar approach as we did for BEVs and ICEVs in HD
TRUCS for each of the 101 vehicle types, as detailed in RIA Chapter
2.3.2 and 2.4.3. We used the same component costs for the ICE
powertrain, except replaced the ICE accessory costs with the
electrified accessory component costs used in BEVs. For the electrified
portion of the PHEV, we also included the electric motor, onboard
charger, and power converter costs for a similar BEV. The key
difference between the BEV and PHEV powertrain costs is due to the size
of the battery. We reduced the size of the battery for the PHEV
relative to a BEV to reflect a utility factor of 41 percent for
vocational vehicles and 22 percent for tractors and we conservatively
estimated that the depth of discharge of a PHEV battery would be only
60 percent compared to the BEV battery depth of discharge of 90
percent. The incremental component costs for each of the HD TRUCS 101
vehicle types are shown in RIA Chapter 2.11.2.4, including direct
manufacturing costs and the battery tax credit as applicable.
The individual vehicles were aggregated into the corresponding
regulatory class.\794\ We then included the indirect manufacturing
costs as well; the incremental additional retail price equivalent (RPE)
for PHEVs by regulatory group using the 1.42 multiplier for MY 2030 are
shown in Table II-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\794\ The sleeper cab tractor costs were calculated using
Vehicles 32, 78, and 79.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.066
e. Summary of Technology Costs
A summary of the per vehicle incremental technology costs for each
of the technologies is shown in Table II-47.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.067
iii. Technology Adoption Rates in the Additional Potential Compliance
Pathways
As we did for the modeled potential compliance pathway, for this
additional example potential compliance pathway we determined the
technology mix of technologies for vehicles with ICE across a range of
electrification, which for this additional pathway consists of a mix of
adoption of natural gas vehicles, hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrid
vehicles, H2-ICE vehicles, and aerodynamic and tire rolling resistant
improvements for tractors for MYs 2027, 2030 and 2032, and including
those ZEVs from our projected reference case ZEV adoption rates as
described in RIA Chapter 4. These values represent the total national
HD vehicle sales, including those accounted for in the reference case.
However, for this additional example compliance pathway, the portion of
the overall HD sales that are projected to be ZEVs in the reference
case are the same portion projected to be ZEVs under the final rule
(i.e., no additional ZEVs are included to meet the final Phase 3
standards). Thus, this additional example compliance pathway supports
the feasibility of the Phase 3 standards relative to the ``no action''
projection of ZEV adoption nationwide. We considered two scenarios for
the adoption rates in MY 2032. The
[[Page 29584]]
adoption rates for this pathway are shown in Table II-48 through Table
II-50.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.070
iv. Additional Example Potential Compliance Pathways--Manufacturer
Costs To Meet the Final Standards
The fleet average per-vehicle technology costs of the additional
example potential compliance pathway relative to the reference case
(that includes ZEV adoption in the reference case, at the adoption
rates of our ``no action'' reference case in RIA Chapter 4) are shown
in Table II-51 for MYs 2027, 2030 and 2032.
[[Page 29585]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.071
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
We developed two scenarios for MY 2032. Scenario 1 includes H2-ICE
vehicles without any PHEVs. Scenario 2 predominately includes PHEVs
with only limited adoption of H2-ICE technology in day cab tractor
applications. We estimate in Scenario 1 that the MY 2032 fleet average
per-vehicle cost to manufacturers by regulatory group will be $3,800
for LHD; $7,600 for MHD vocational vehicles; and $7,700 for HHD
vocational vehicles. The MY 2032 fleet average per-vehicle costs to
manufacturers in Scenario 1 will range between $10,300 for day cab
tractors and $10,400 per sleeper cab tractors. The Phase 2 MY 2027
tractor standard incremental fleet average per-vehicle costs were
projected to be between $12,750 and $17,125 (2022$) per vehicle and the
vocational vehicle standards were projected to cost between up $7,090
(2022$) per vehicle.\795\ EPA notes the projected costs per vehicle for
this final rule under Scenario 1 are similar to the fleet average per-
vehicle costs projected for the HD Phase 2 rule that we considered to
be reasonable.\796\ EPA's assessment here is similarly that these
estimated costs are reasonable for all model years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\795\ The Phase 2 tractor MY 2027 standard cost increments were
projected to be between $10,200 and $13,700 per vehicle in 2013$ (81
FR 73621). The Phase 2 vocational vehicle MY 2027 standards were
projected to cost between $1,486 and $5,670 per vehicle in 2013$ (81
FR 73718).
\796\ 81 FR 73621-622 (tractors) and 73718-19 (vocational
vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The projected manufacturer fleet average per-vehicle technology
costs in Scenario 2 for MY 2032 are higher than Scenario 1. We
developed this scenario because manufacturers may choose to offer
technologies, such as PHEVs, that have a higher projected upfront cost,
but also have a shorter payback period and therefore potentially a
better business case and purchasers may demonstrate more willingness to
buy. The costs to tractor manufacturers in the PHEV-focused scenario
represent approximately 18 percent of the price of a new tractor
(conservatively estimated to be $140,000 for day cab tractors and
$190,000 for sleeper cab tractors in 2023).\797\ We believe this is
reasonable here for all model years given consideration of the
corresponding business case for manufacturers to successfully deploy
these technologies when considering the payback period of these
technologies, including the IRA purchaser tax credits for PHEVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\797\ Memo to Docket. ``Sample Heavy-Duty Truck Prices in
2023.'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Additional Example Potential Compliance Pathways--Purchaser Cost
Considerations
In this section, we discuss items associated with the purchaser
costs for each of the technologies considered. Under this approach for
vehicles with ICE technologies, our evaluation of payback focuses on
whether the technology pays back within the period of first ownership.
Consistent with our Phase 2 approach to vehicles with ICE technologies,
if the vehicle with ICE technology pays back within this period, then
we consider that technology within the additional example potential
compliance pathways. We also evaluate payback period, consistent with
our approach to consideration of payback in Phase 2 for vehicles with
ICE technologies.\798\ See also our discussion of first ownership in
section II.F.1 of this preamble. We also evaluated and included vehicle
with ICE technologies if we assessed there may be other reasons that
purchasers would consider such technologies, such as that the vehicles
emit nearly zero CO2 emissions at the tailpipe, low engine-
out exhaust emissions provide the opportunity for efficient and durable
after-treatment systems, and the potential for future efficiency
improvements within the lead time provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\798\ See 81 FR 73621-622 (tractors) and 73718-19 (vocational
vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. ICE Vehicles
Reducing the energy required to move a tractor down the road
through aerodynamic improvements and reductions in tire rolling
resistance will lead to reduction in operating costs. Our technology
packages that include additional improvements to ICE vehicles reduced
the CO2 emissions, and therefore energy consumption, by 4
percent. The cost savings related to the reduction in fuel and DEF
consumed depends on the number of miles driven, among other factors.
The average DEF and diesel fuel costs for each of the baseline diesel-
fueled ICE vehicle applications in HD TRUCS were developed as discussed
in RIA Chapter 2.3.4. As shown in RIA Chapter 2.11.5.1, the average
operating cost savings varies depending on the vehicle ID, ranging from
approximately $280 to $1,800 per year. The average annual operating
savings for a day cab tractor is $700 and is $1,600 for a sleeper cab
tractor. Based on the technology package costs shown in section
II.F.4.ii.a for additional ICE vehicle improvements, the payback period
for the technology improvements would be less than three years for day
cab tractors and less than two years for sleeper cab tractors.
b. Natural Gas Fueled Vehicles
The operating savings of NG vehicles come from both the elimination
of the DEF costs because these vehicles use three-way catalysts and
from the reduced fueling costs. When comparing fuel efficiency between
diesel and SI natural gas powered HD vehicles, dependent on vehicle and
duty cycle, natural gas returns 7 percent to 12 percent less fuel
economy.\799\ Therefore, we calculated the natural gas consumption
using a conversion factor of 139.3 standard cubic feet (scf) to diesel
gallon equivalent and applying a 10 percent fuel economy penalty to the
diesel fuel consumption.\800\ The average diesel fuel consumption,
diesel fuel costs, and DEF costs for each of the
[[Page 29586]]
baseline diesel-fueled ICE vehicle applications in HD TRUCS were
developed as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.3.4. We then calculated the
average annual natural gas fuel costs for each of the HD TRUCS
applications by vehicle ID using $18.23/thousand cubic feet price, as
shown in RIA Chapter 2.11.5.2.\801\ The natural gas powered vehicles
have immediate paybacks for some vehicle categories and payback periods
of less than one year for all applications when the operating savings
are compared to the upfront incremental costs of the NG vehicles, as
shown in section II.F.4.ii.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\799\ Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Alternative Fuel Data Center, Vehicle and Infrastructure
Cash-Flow Evaluation Tool (VICE), https://afdc.energy.gov/vice_model/, accessed February 17, 2024.
\800\ U.S. DOE. Available online: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/equivalency_methodology.html.
\801\ U.S. DOE/Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy
Outlook 2023. Reference Case. Table 13. Transportation Natural Gas
Spot Price for 2022. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=13-AEO2023&cases=ref2023&sourcekey=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. H2-ICE Vehicles
The operating costs of H2-ICE vehicles include H2 consumption to
power the engine and DEF consumption to control the NOx emissions.
These costs are compared to the operating DEF and diesel fuel costs for
each of the baseline diesel-fueled ICE vehicle applications in HD
TRUCS, as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.3.4.
H2-ICE vehicles operate on H2 gas instead of diesel fuel. We
calculated the H2-ICE hydrogen fuel costs relative to our assessment of
the hydrogen costs for FCEVs for each of the vehicle applications in HD
TRUCS, as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.5.3.1.When comparing efficiencies
between FCEV and H2-ICE vehicles, the FCEVs have an average efficiency
of 53 percent, as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.5.1.2.1, while H2-ICEV has
an efficiency of 42 percent.\802\ Therefore, we calculated the H2
fueling costs for H2-ICE relative to the FCEV fueling costs by applying
a ratio of 0.53/0.42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\802\ FEV, ``Hydrogen ICE'', The Aachen Colloquium Sustainable
Mobility, October 5th-7th, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The H2-ICE vehicles also require a SCR system to control NOx, but
the system will be smaller than a comparable diesel ICE vehicle because
the engine-out NOx emissions are lower. We calculated the annual DEF
costs for H2-ICE vehicles as 10 percent of the DEF costs for a
comparable baseline diesel ICE vehicle.\803\ The average DEF costs for
each of the baseline diesel-fueled ICE vehicle applications in HD TRUCS
were developed as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.3.4. The net annual
operating savings for each of the HD TRUCS vehicle applications by
vehicle ID is shown in RIA Chapter 2.11.5.3. The upfront H2-ICE
powertrain technology costs, as shown in section II.F.4.ii.c, on
average would pay back in 2 years for LHD vocational vehicles, 6 years
for MHD vocational vehicles, 9 years for HHD vocational vehicles. The
operating costs for H2-ICE tractors exceed the operating costs of ICE
tractors, but there may be other reasons that purchasers would consider
this technology such as the vehicles emit nearly zero CO2
emissions at the tailpipe, the low engine-out exhaust emissions from
H2-ICE vehicles provide the opportunity for efficient and durable
after-treatment systems, and the efficiency of H2-ICE vehicles may
continue to improve with time.\804\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\803\ Srna, Ales. Sandia National Laboratory. ``The future of H2
internal combustion engines in California?'' Slide 4. December 2023.
Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/231128sandiapres.pdf.
\804\ As we explain in RTC 2.1, the statute does not require
that pollution control technologies pay back in the form of
operational savings, or even require EPA to consider costs to
consumers. While payback is relevant to ascertaining willingness to
purchase, EPA notes that many pollution control technologies do not
pay back. Notwithstanding the lack of payback, such technologies
have played a critical role in achieving the public health and
welfare goals of section 202(a) and have been widely adopted by
manufacturers and purchasers. These include technologies Congress
itself contemplated in enacting the Clean Air Act section 202(a),
such as catalytic converters, as well as other technologies that are
the foundation for modern pollution control on HD motor vehicles,
such as particulate matter filters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Hybrid and Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles
Hybrid vehicles, similar to other ICE vehicle improvements, will
have lower operating costs than a comparable ICE vehicle due to reduced
diesel fuel consumption and DEF consumption. These HEV costs are
compared to the operating DEF and diesel fuel costs for each of the
baseline diesel-fueled ICE vehicle applications in HD TRUCS, as
discussed in RIA Chapter 2.3.4. As discussed, we used an effectiveness
level for vocational vehicle hybrid powertrains of 15 percent and for
tractor hybrid powertrains of 10 percent.
The annual operating savings for HEVs was calculated for each of
the HD TRUCS vehicle applications, as shown in RIA Chapter 2.11.5.4 by
reducing the diesel ICE DEF and fuel costs by 15 percent for vocational
vehicles and 10 percent for tractors. The annual operating savings were
then compared to the upfront technology costs, as shown in section
II.F.4.ii.d. The hybrid powertrain technology will pay back in 10-11
years for vocational vehicles, but in a shorter period of time for some
applications such as refuse haulers, step vans, and transit buses. The
average payback period for this technology in day cab tractors is 7.5
years and 4 years in sleeper cab tractors.
Similar to our discussion for ZEVs under the modeled potential
compliance pathways, the IRA provides powerful incentives in reducing
the cost to manufacture and purchase PHEVs, as well as reducing the
cost of charging infrastructure as applicable (see further discussion
in this section), that facilitates market penetration of PHEV
technology in the time frame considered in this rulemaking. The upfront
costs to purchasers of PHEVs would be less than the cost to
manufacturers due to the IRA purchaser tax credit. IRA section 13403,
``Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicles,'' creates a tax credit of up to
$40,000 per Class 4 through 8 HD vehicle (up to $7,500 per Class 2b or
3 vehicle) for the purchase or lease of a qualified commercial clean
vehicle. This tax credit is available from CY 2023 through CY 2032 and
is based on the lesser of the incremental cost of the clean vehicle
over a comparable ICE vehicle or the specified percentage of the basis
of the clean vehicle, up to the maximum $40,000 limitation. Among other
specifications, these vehicles must be on-road vehicles (or mobile
machinery) that are propelled to a significant extent by a battery-
powered electric motor or are qualified fuel cell motor vehicles. For
the former, the battery must have a capacity of at least 15 kWh (or 7
kWh if it has a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 14,000 pounds
(Class 3 or below)) and must be rechargeable from an external source of
electricity. For PHEVs, the per-vehicle tax credit cap limitation is 15
percent of the vehicle cost, which is the limiting factor for many of
the applications. Since this tax credit overlaps with the model years
for which we are finalizing standards (MYs 2027 through 2032), we
included it in our calculations for each of those years in our
analysis, as shown in Table II-52.
[[Page 29587]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.072
The purchaser of a HD PHEV would need to consider the recharging
needs of the vehicle. Because the battery sizes in HD PHEVs are
significantly smaller than a comparable BEV and only discharge 60
percent of their battery in-use, the recharging demand is also lower
than a comparable BEV. Therefore, for this analysis, the vehicles use
depot charging and recharge with a 240 V/50 amp outlet that we project
are available at no additional upfront infrastructure cost. There may
be situations where the operator would need to create access to such an
outlet, but those costs would be low. Furthermore, as discussed in RIA
Chapter 1.3.2, the IRA can also help reduce the costs for deploying
EVSE infrastructure if the operator desires faster recharging times.
The IRA extends the Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Tax Credit
(section 13404) through 2032, with modifications. Under the new
provisions, businesses would be eligible for up to 30 percent of the
costs associated with purchasing and installing charging equipment in
these areas (subject to a $100,000 cap per item) if prevailing wage and
apprenticeship requirements are met.
Plug-in hybrid vehicle operating costs consist of a combination of
ICE operation and battery electric operation. These PHEV costs are
calculated relative to the operating costs for each of the baseline
diesel-fueled ICE vehicle applications in HD TRUCS, as discussed in RIA
Chapter 2.3.4 and the comparable BEV operating costs, as discussed in
RIA Chapter 2.4.4. As discussed, we used a utility factor for
vocational vehicle PHEV powertrains of 41 percent and for tractor PHEV
powertrains of 22 percent in MY 2030 and later. The annual operating
savings was evaluated for each of the HD TRUCS vehicle applications
compared to the comparable baseline diesel ICE vehicle, as shown in RIA
Chapter 2.11.5.4. The incremental cost of the PHEV powertrain
technology after accounting for the IRA tax credit as shown in Table
II-52 for vocational vehicles will be offset by the operating savings
with a payback period of 3 years. The day cab and sleeper cab tractor
upfront costs would be offset with operational savings over an 8-and 9-
year period, respectively.
G. EPA's Basis for Concluding That the Final Standards Are Feasible and
Appropriate Under the Clean Air Act
1. Overview
Section 202(a)(1) directs the Administrator to promulgate
``standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any
class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines,
which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' See
also Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F. 3d at 122
(``the job Congress gave [EPA] in Sec. 202(a)'' is ``utilizing
emission standards to prevent reasonably anticipated endangerment from
maturing into concrete harm''). As discussed in section II.A of this
preamble, there is a critical need for further GHG reductions to
address the adverse impacts of air pollution from HD motor vehicles on
public health and welfare. Heavy-duty vehicles are significant
contributors to the U.S. GHG emissions inventories, and additional
reductions in GHGs from vehicles are needed to avoid the worst
consequences of climate change as discussed in section II.A. With
continued advances in internal combustion engine and vehicle emissions
controls and ZEV technologies coming into the mainstream as key vehicle
emissions controls, EPA's assessment is that substantial further GHG
emissions reductions are feasible and appropriate under Clean Air Act
section 202(a)(1).
To this end, as in the HD GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2 rulemakings, in
this Phase 3 final rule we considered the following factors in setting
final Phase 3 GHG standards: the impacts of potential standards on
reductions of GHG emissions; technical feasibility and technology
effectiveness; the lead time necessary to implement the technologies;
costs to manufacturers; costs to purchasers including operating
savings; reduction of non-GHG emissions; the impacts of standards on
oil conservation and energy security; the impacts of standards on the
truck industry; other energy impacts; as well as other relevant factors
such as impacts on safety.\805\ To evaluate and balance these statutory
factors and other relevant considerations, EPA must necessarily
estimate a means of compliance: what technologies are projected to be
available to be used, what do they cost, and what is appropriate lead
time for their deployment. Thus, to support the feasibility of the
final standards, EPA identified a potential compliance pathway. Having
identified one means of compliance, EPA's task is to ``answe[r] any
theoretical objections'' to that means of compliance, ``identif[y] the
major steps necessary,'' and to ``offe[r] plausible reasons for
believing that each of those steps can be completed in the time
available.'' NRDC
[[Page 29588]]
v. EPA, 655 F. 2d at 332. That is what EPA has done here in this final
rule, and indeed what it has done in all of the motor vehicle emission
standard rules implementing section 202(a) of the Act for half a
century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\805\ 76 FR 57129, September 15, 2011, and 81 FR 73512 October
25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In assessing the means of compliance, EPA considers updated data
available at the time of this rulemaking, including real-world
technological and corresponding cost developments related to emissions-
reducing technologies for HD vehicles. The statute directs EPA to
assess the ``development and application of the requisite technology,
giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within'' the
relevant timeframe, and specifically compels EPA to consider relevant
emissions-reduction technologies on vehicles and engines regardless of
``whether such vehicles and engines are designed as complete systems or
incorporate devices to prevent or control such pollution.'' CAA section
202(a)(1), (2). The statute does not prescribe particular technologies,
but rather entrusts to the EPA Administrator the authority and
obligation to identify a range of available technologies that have the
potential to significantly control or prevent emissions of the relevant
pollutant, here GHGs, and to establish standards based on his
consideration of the lead-time and costs for such technologies, along
with other factors. At the same time, the statute does specifically
identify criteria for technologies that cannot serve as the basis for
the standards: first, technologies which cannot be developed and
applied within the relevant time period, giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance; and second, technologies that
``cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health,
welfare, or safety in its operation or function.'' CAA section
202(a)(2), (4). The statute does not contain or imply any other
exclusions. Given the statute's primary purpose and function to reduce
emissions of air pollutants which are contributing to endangering air
pollution, the statute therefore compels EPA to consider technologies
that reduce emissions of air pollutants most effectively, including
vehicle technologies that result in no vehicle tailpipe emissions and
completely ``prevent'' GHG emissions. CAA section 202(a)(1). At
minimum, the statute allows EPA to consider such technologies. Pursuant
to the statutory mandate and as explained throughout this preamble, EPA
has considered the full range of vehicle technologies that meet these
criteria and that we anticipate will be available in the MY 2027-32
timeframe, including numerous advanced vehicles with ICE (e.g.,
hybrid), BEV, and FCEV technologies which include a range of
electrification (including within ICE engine and vehicle technologies).
Another part of EPA's consideration of updated data is to evaluate
changes in government and regulatory incentives, which can have real
and significant impacts on the development and application of vehicle
technologies. Accordingly, an important element of this rule's
assessment is consideration of the large potential impact that recent
congressional action, including the BIL and the IRA, will have on the
cost and feasibility of HD motor vehicle CO2 emission-
reducing technologies, including facilitating production and adoption
of ZEV technologies for HD motor vehicles. EPA's consideration of all
these factors demonstrates that very large GHG emissions reductions are
feasible for HD vehicles in the MY 2027-32 timeframe and that such
reductions can be achieved using a combination of advanced ICE vehicle,
BEV, and FCEV technologies at reasonable cost. As noted, manufacturers
remain free to choose how to comply with the final standards (and,
indeed, manufacturers have at times chosen different means from those
projected as a potential compliance pathway in previous rulemakings to
comply with the respective standards). EPA's analysis in preamble
section II.F.4 further supports the feasibility of the final standards
by showing that such GHG emission reductions can be achieved using
different mixes of vehicles with ICE technologies, including without
producing additional ZEVs to comply with this rule as described in the
additional example potential compliance pathway.
The balance of this section summarizes the key factors found in the
administrative record (including the entire preamble, RIA, and RTC)
that form the basis for the Administrator's determination that the
final standards are feasible and appropriate under our Clean Air Act
section 202(a)(1)-(2) authority. Section II.G.2 discusses the statutory
factors of technological feasibility, compliance costs, and lead time,
and it explains that the final standards are predicated upon
technologies that are feasible and of reasonable cost during the
timeframe for this rule. Section II.G.3 evaluates emissions of GHGs,
and it finds that the final standards would achieve significant GHG
reductions that make an important contribution to climate change
mitigation. Section II.G.4 evaluates other relevant factors that are
important to evaluating the real-world feasibility of the standards as
well as their impact, including impacts on purchasers, non-GHG
emissions, energy, safety, and other factors. It concludes that the
final standards will result in considerable benefits for purchasers and
operators of HD vehicles, result in public health and welfare benefits
from non-GHGs, create positive energy security benefits for the United
States, and not create an unreasonable risk to safety. Section II.G.5
explains how the Administrator exercised the authority Congress
provided to the agency in balancing the various factors we considered.
It articulates the key factors that were dispositive to the
Administrator's decision in selecting the final standards, including
feasibility, compliance costs, lead time, GHG emissions reductions, and
cost to purchasers; as well as other factors, such as non-GHG
emissions, energy, and safety, that were not used to select the
standards but that nonetheless provide further support for the
Administrator's decision. On balance, this section II.G, together with
the rest of the administrative record, demonstrates that the final
standards are supported by voluminous evidence, the product of the
agency's well-considered technical judgment and the Administrator's
careful weighing of the relevant factors, and that these standards
faithfully implement the important directive contained in section
202(a)(1)-(2) of the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of air
pollutants from motor vehicles which cause or contribute to air
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare.
2. Consideration of Technological Feasibility, Compliance Costs and
Lead Time
The technological readiness of the heavy-duty industry to meet the
final standards for model years 2027-2032 and beyond is best understood
in the context of over a decade of heavy-duty vehicle emissions
reduction programs in which the HD industry has introduced emissions
reducing technologies in a wide lineup of ever more efficient and cost-
competitive vehicle applications. Electrification technologies beyond
the range included in vehicles with ICE have seen particularly rapid
development and an expansion in the range of electrification over the
last several years, such that early HD ZEV models are in use today for
some applications and are expected to expand to many more applications,
as discussed in RIA Chapters 1.5 and 2. The IRA
[[Page 29589]]
provides powerful incentives in reducing the cost to manufacture and
purchase ZEVs, as well as promoting the build-out and reducing the cost
of charging infrastructure, that EPA projects will facilitate increased
market penetration of ZEV technology in the time frame considered in
this rulemaking. As a result, the number of ZEVs projected in the
potential compliance pathway's technology packages we modeled to
support the feasibility of the final standards is higher than in the
technology packages on which the Phase 1 and 2 HD GHG standards are
predicated.
As discussed in RIA Chapter 1.5.5 and section II.D, the modeled
example potential compliance pathway to support the feasibility of the
final standards includes only technologies that have already been
developed and deployed. Additionally, manufacturers have announced
plans to rapidly increase their investments in ZEV technologies over
the next decade, and have already expended billions of dollars to do
so. In addition, as noted, the IRA and the BIL provide many monetary
incentives for the production and purchase of ZEVs in the heavy-duty
market, as well as incentives for electric vehicle charging
infrastructure. Furthermore, there have been multiple actions by states
to accelerate the adoption of heavy-duty ZEV technologies, such as (1)
a multi-state Memorandum of Understanding for the support of heavy-duty
ZEV adoption \806\ and (2) the State of California's ACT program, which
has also been adopted by other states under CAA section 177 and
includes a manufacturer requirement for zero-emission truck sales.\807\
Together with the range of ICE technologies that have been already
demonstrated over the past decade, BEVs and FCEVs with no tailpipe
emissions (and 0 g CO2/ton-mile certification values) are
capable of supporting rates of annual stringency increases that are
much greater than were available in earlier GHG rulemakings. Hence, EPA
supports the feasibility of the final standards through a modeled
potential compliance pathway reflecting the utilization of a mix of HD
vehicle technologies, including the technologies most successful at
reducing GHG emissions. The modeled potential compliance pathway is not
a command, but one demonstration of a means of meeting the standards,
not foreclosing other means. EPA's analysis of additional vehicles with
ICE technology packages and the technical feasibility, technical
effectiveness, lead time, and cost of compliance of corresponding
additional example potential compliance pathways in preamble section
II.F.4 further supports the feasibility of the final standards by
showing that such GHG emission reductions can be achieved using
different mixes of vehicles with ICE technologies, including without
producing additional ZEVs to comply with this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\806\ NESCAUM MOU, available at https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-20220329.pdf.
\807\ EPA granted the ACT rule waiver requested by California
under CAA section 209(b) on March 30, 2023. The ACT had been adopted
by seven states under CAA section 177: Oregon, Washington, New York,
New Jersey, and Massachusetts adopted ACT beginning in MY 2025 while
Vermont adopted ACT beginning in MY 2026 and Colorado in MY2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In setting GHG standards for a future model year, EPA considers the
extent deployment of advanced existing and future technologies,
including the technologies most effective at reducing GHG emissions,
would be available and warranted in light of the benefits to public
health and welfare in GHG emission reductions, and potential
constraints, such as cost of compliance, lead time, raw material
availability and component supplies (including availability of minerals
critical to battery manufacture and resiliency of associated supply
chains), redesign cycles, charging and refueling infrastructure
availability and cost, and purchasers' willingness to purchase
(including payback). In the modeled potential compliance pathway
supporting the feasibility of the final standards, EPA assessed these
considerations. The extent of these potential constraints for the
potential compliance pathway has diminished significantly in light of
increased and further projected investment by manufacturers, increased
and further projected acceptance by purchasers, and significant support
from Congress to address such areas as upfront purchase price, charging
infrastructure, critical mineral supplies, and domestic supply chain
manufacturing. In response to the increased stringency of the final
standards, in the potential compliance pathway we project that
manufacturers will adopt advanced technologies, such as increased
electrification, at an increasing pace across more of their vehicles.
To evaluate the feasibility of BEVs and FCEVs in our modeled potential
compliance pathway's technology packages that support the feasibility
of the final standards, EPA developed, and for the final rule refined,
a tool called HD TRUCS, to evaluate the design features needed to meet
the energy and power demands of various HD vehicle types when using
BEV, FCEV, and PHEV technologies. The overarching design and
functionality of HD TRUCS is premised on assessing whether, for each of
the 101 vehicle types analyzed, BEV, FCEV, and PHEV technologies could
perform the same work as a comparable ICE vehicle counterpart. Within
the HD TRUCS modeling that EPA conducted to support this final rule, we
have imposed constraints to reflect the rate at which a manufacturer
can deploy BEV technologies that include consideration of time
necessary to ramp up battery production, including the need to increase
the availability of critical raw minerals and develop more robust
supply chains, and expand battery production facilities, as discussed
in section II.D.2.c.ii. Furthermore, we have also imposed constraints
to reflect the development and deployment of FCEVs, as discussed in
section II.D.3.
Constraints on the technology adoption limits in HD TRUCS and
correspondingly our modeled potential compliance pathway, as well as
other aspects of our lead time assessment, are described in section
II.F. Overall, given the measured approach we have taken to phase in
the rate of deployment for new HD vehicles, our assessment shows that
there is sufficient lead time for the industry to more broadly deploy
existing technologies and successfully comply with the final standards
should they pursue this or similar compliance pathways. Should
manufacturers pursue other compliance pathways like the examples
outlined in section II.F.4, there also is sufficient lead time given
that the technologies have already been developed, most of the
technologies have already been deployed and some are already in
widespread use, and there are generally fewer concerns regarding
availability of supporting infrastructure and critical minerals
availability.
Our modeled potential compliance pathway's technology packages to
support feasibility of the final standards project that, for the
industry overall, nearly 50 percent of new vocational vehicle sales and
25 to 40 percent of new tractor sales in MY 2032 will be ZEVs. As noted
in section II.F.1, this represents approximately 1 percent of the HD
on-road fleet in 2027 growing to 7 percent of the on-road fleet in
2032. EPA believes that this is an achievable level based on our
technical assessment for this final rule that includes consideration of
the feasibility and lead time required for ZEVs and appropriate
consideration of the cost of compliance for manufacturers. Our
assessment of the appropriateness of the level of ZEVs in our analysis
is also informed by
[[Page 29590]]
consideration of comments as well as by substantial investments by
manufacturers, as described in RIA Chapter 1. More detail about our
technical assessment, and our assessment of the production feasibility
of ZEVs is provided in section II.D and II.E of this preamble and
Chapters 1 and 2 of the RIA.
At the same time, we again note that the final standards are
performance-based and do not mandate any specific technology for any
manufacturer or any vehicles. The modeled potential compliance pathway
is one of many possible compliance pathways that manufacturers could
choose to take to meet the performance-based standards. That is, we do
not expect, and the standards do not require, that all manufacturers
follow a similar pathway. Instead, individual manufacturers can choose
to apply a mix of technologies that best suits the company's particular
product mix and market position as well as its strategies for
investment and technology development. For example, manufacturers that
choose to increase their sales of hybrid vehicle technologies or apply
more or increase sales of advanced technologies for non-hybrid ICE
vehicles would require a smaller number of ZEVs (including no ZEVs
relative to the reference case) than we have projected in our
assessment to support the feasibility of the final standards, as
described in section II.F. In addition, while EPA has identified
numerous technologies, available today, for meeting the standards,
manufacturers and their suppliers are highly innovative and may develop
novel technologies for achieving the requisite emissions reductions.
For example, when EPA implemented certain statutory standards following
the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments, manufacturers met those standards
through three-way catalysts, a theretofore unproven technology. More
recently, manufacturers responded to EPA's 2001 heavy-duty rule by
applying selective catalytic reduction technologies, even though EPA
had not anticipated such technology would be utilized for
compliance.\808\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\808\ 66 FR 5002, 5036 (January 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the feasibility of the final standards, EPA also
considers the available compliance flexibilities on manufacturers'
compliance options and the approach EPA takes in setting HD GHG vehicle
standards that consider the averaging provisions within the program's
established ABT provisions. The final performance-based standards with
ABT provisions give manufacturers a degree of flexibility in the design
of specific vehicles and their fleet offerings, while allowing industry
overall to meet the standards and thus achieve the health and
environmental benefits projected for this rulemaking at a lower cost.
EPA has considered ABT in the feasibility assessments for many previous
rulemakings since EPA first began incorporating ABT credits provisions
in mobile source rulemakings in the 1980s. In particular, consistent
with our approach in Phase 2, EPA considered averaging in the standard
setting process of the Phase 3 GHG standards, and our assessment is
premised upon the availability of averaging in supporting the
feasibility of the final standards. While we also considered the
existence of other aspects of the ABT program as supportive of the
feasibility of the Phase 3 GHG standards, we did not rely on those
other aspects in justifying the feasibility of the standards. In other
words, the existing ABT program will continue to help provide
additional flexibility in compliance for manufacturers to make
necessary technological improvements and reduce the overall cost of the
program, without compromising overall environmental objectives;
however, the other aspects of the ABT program that are not the
availability of averaging, including credit carryover, deficits,
banking, and trading, were not considered in setting the numeric levels
of the Phase 3 standards. Likewise, the final transitional ABT
provisions in this rule for credits from multipliers and credit
transfers across averaging sets, described in preamble section III.A,
that allow flexibility in compliance options for manufacturers were not
considered in setting the numeric levels of the Phase 3 standards and
we did not rely on those flexibilities in justifying the feasibility of
the standards.
Manufacturers widely utilize ABT, which provide a variety of
flexible paths to plan compliance. We have discussed this dynamic in
past rules, and we anticipate that this same dynamic will support
compliance with this rulemaking in the lead time afforded. The GHG
credit program was designed to recognize that manufacturers typically
have a multi-year redesign cycle and not every vehicle will be
redesigned every year to add emissions-reducing technology. Moreover,
when technology is added, it will generally not achieve emissions
reductions corresponding exactly to a single year-over-year change in
stringency of the standards. Instead, in any given model year, some
vehicles will be ``credit generators,'' over-performing compared to
their respective CO2 emission standards in that model year,
while other vehicles will be ``debit generators'' and under-performing
against their standards. As the final standards reach increasingly
lower numerical levels, some vehicle designs that had generated credits
against their CO2 emission standard in earlier model years
may instead generate debits in later model years. In MY 2032 when the
final standards reach the lowest level, it is possible that only BEVs,
FCEVs, PHEVs, and H2-ICE vehicles are generating positive credits, and
other ICE vehicles generate varying levels of deficits. A greater
application of ICE vehicle technologies (e.g., hybrids) can enable
compliance with fewer ZEVs than if less ICE technology was adopted,
including a compliance strategy that does not include ZEVs, and
therefore enable the tailoring of a compliance strategy to the
manufacturer's specific market and product offerings. Together, a
manufacturer's mix of credit-generating and debit-generating vehicles
contribute to its sales-weighted average performance, compared to its
standard, for that year.
Just as the averaging approach in the HD vehicle GHG program allows
manufacturers to design a compliance strategy relying on the sale of
both credit-generating vehicles and debit-generating vehicles in a
single year, the credit banking and trading provisions of the program
allow manufacturers to design a compliance strategy relying on
overcompliance and undercompliance in different years, or even by
different manufacturers. Credit banking allows credits to carry-over
for up to five years and allows manufacturers up to three years to
address any credit deficits. Credit trading is a compliance flexibility
provision that allows one vehicle manufacturer to purchase credits from
another.
The final performance-based standards with ABT provisions give
manufacturers a degree of flexibility in the design of specific
vehicles and their fleet offerings, while allowing industry overall to
meet the standards and thus achieve the health and environmental
benefits projected for this rulemaking. EPA has considered the
averaging portion of the ABT program in the feasibility assessments for
previous rulemakings and continues that practice here.
We also note the other provisions in ABT that provide manufacturers
additional flexibility in complying with the standards.\809\ By
averaging across
[[Page 29591]]
vehicles in the vehicle averaging sets and by allowing for credit
banking across years, manufacturers have the flexibility to adopt
emissions-reducing technologies in the manner that best suits their
particular market and business circumstances. We note further that we
have added additional flexibilities to the ABT program as part of the
Phase 3 final rule, which are aimed at providing flexibilities in the
transitional MYs of the final Phase 3 standards as detailed in section
III. EPA's annual Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Compliance Report illustrates how different manufacturers
have chosen to make use of the GHG program's various credit
features.\810\ It is clear that manufacturers are widely utilizing
several of the credit programs available, and we expect that
manufacturers will continue to take advantage of the compliance
flexibilities and crediting programs to their fullest extent, thereby
providing them with additional tools in finding the lowest cost
compliance solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\809\ As noted, these additional flexibilities (other than
averaging under the existing ABT program) are not necessary to EPA's
determination that the final standards are feasible and appropriate.
These additional flexibilities, however, do provide further support
for the reasonableness of the final standards as they allow
manufacturers to comply with the final standards using a greater
variety of compliance pathways, including beyond those examples
modeled or identified by EPA, and at lower costs, including below
the costs set forth in the administrative record.
\810\ U.S. EPA. ``EPA Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Compliance Report.'' Available online: https://www.epa.gov/compliance-and-fuel-economy-data/epa-heavy-duty-vehicle-and-engine-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to technological feasibility and lead time, EPA has
considered the cost for heavy-duty manufacturers to comply with the
final standards. See section II.F.2 of this preamble and Chapter 2 of
the RIA for our analysis of compliance costs for manufacturers. For
some regulatory groups, we estimate that the rule will result in
incremental cost savings for some vehicle types and fleet average per-
vehicle costs for others. We estimate that the MY 2032 fleet average
per-vehicle cost savings to manufacturers are $2,900 for LHD vocational
vehicles, $1,000 for MHD vocational vehicles and $700 for HHD
vocational vehicles. The MY 2032 fleet average per-vehicle costs to
tractor manufacturers will range between $3,200 for day cab tractors
and $10,800 per sleeper cab tractor. EPA notes the projected costs per
vehicle for this final rule are lower than the fleet average per-
vehicle costs projected for the HD GHG Phase 2 rule that we considered
to be reasonable. 81 FR 73621 (tractors) and 73718 (vocational
vehicles). The Phase 2 MY 2027 tractor standard cost increments were
projected to be between $12,750 and $17,125 (2022$) per vehicle and the
vocational vehicle standards were projected to cost between $1,860 and
$7,090 (2022$) per vehicle.\811\ Furthermore, the estimated MY 2032
costs to tractor manufacturers represent less than about six percent of
the average price of a new heavy-duty tractor today (conservatively
estimated to be $140,000 for day cab tractors and $190,000 for sleeper
cab tractors in 2023).\812\ This is likewise within the margin that EPA
considered reasonable in Phase 2.\813\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\811\ The Phase 2 tractor MY 2027 standard cost increments were
projected to be between $10,200 and $13,700 per vehicle in 2013$ (81
FR 73621). The Phase 2 vocational vehicle MY 2027 standards were
projected to cost between $1,486 and $5,670 per vehicle in 2013$ (81
FR 73718).
\812\ Memo to Docket. ``Sample Heavy-Duty Truck Prices in
2023.'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0945.
\813\ 81 FR 73621 and 73719.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Consideration of Emissions of GHGs
An essential factor that EPA considered in determining the
appropriate level of the final standards is the projected reductions in
GHG emissions and associated public health and welfare impacts.\814\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\814\ As further explained in section II.G.4, we note that our
modeled potential compliance pathway supporting the feasibility of
the final standards projects increased use of ZEV technologies in
the HD vehicle fleet, which would reduce not just GHG emissions but
also result in reductions of vehicle emissions of non-GHG pollutants
that contribute to ambient concentrations of ozone, particulate
matter (PM2.5), NO2, CO, and air toxics. EPA
did not select the final GHG emission standards based on non-GHG
reductions of vehicle emissions; nonetheless, the projected GHG and
non-GHG reductions of vehicle emissions of the final program
reinforce our view that the final standards represent an appropriate
weighing of the statutory factors and other relevant considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final GHG standards are projected to achieve significant
reductions in GHG emissions. The final standards will achieve nearly 1
billion metric tons in net CO2 cumulative emission
reductions from calendar years 2027 through 2055 (see section V of this
preamble and Chapter 4 of the RIA). As discussed in section VI of this
preamble, these GHG emission reductions will make an important
contribution to efforts to limit climate change and its anticipated
impacts. See Coal. For Resp. Reg., 684 F. 3d at 128 (removal of 960
million metric tons of CO2e over the life of the GHG vehicle
emission standards rule was found by EPA to be ``meaningful
mitigation'' of GHG emissions).
The final CO2 emission standards will reduce adverse
impacts associated with climate change discussed in section II.A and
will yield significant benefits, including those we can monetize and
those we are unable to fully monetize due to data and modeling
limitations. The GHG emission reductions resulting from compliance with
this final rule will significantly reduce the volume of GHG emissions
from this sector. Section VI.D.2 of this preamble discusses impacts of
GHG emissions on individuals living in socially and economically
vulnerable communities. The program will result in significant social
benefits including $10 billion in climate benefits (with the average
SC-GHGs under a 2 percent near-term Ramsey discount rate). These
estimates are a partial accounting of climate change impacts and will
therefore tend to be underestimates of the marginal benefits of
abatement. A more detailed description and breakdown of these benefits
can be found in section VII of the preamble and Chapter 7 of the RIA.
As discussed in section VII, we monetize benefits of the final
CO2 standards and evaluate other costs in part to better
enable a comparison of costs and benefits pursuant to E.O. 12866, but
we recognize that there are benefits we are unable to fully quantify.
EPA's consistent practice has been to set standards to achieve improved
air quality consistent with CAA section 202 and not to rely on cost-
benefit calculations, with their uncertainties and limitations, in
identifying the appropriate standards. Nonetheless, our estimated
benefits, which exceed the estimated costs of the final program,
reinforce our view that the final standards represent an appropriate
weighing of the statutory factors and other relevant considerations.
More specifically, for this rule our assessment that the rule has
positive net monetized benefits, regardless of the magnitude of those
positive net benefits, supports our view that the final standards
represent an appropriate weighing of the statutory factors and other
relevant considerations. Thus, regardless of the method used in
quantifying the monetized benefits of GHG reductions for purposes of
this rulemaking, EPA would still find the emissions reductions, in
light of the cost of compliance, available lead time and other relevant
factors EPA considered, would justify adoption of these standards.
4. Consideration of Impacts on Purchasers, Non-GHG Emissions, Energy,
Safety, and Other Factors
As noted in section II.G.2, the IRA provides powerful incentives in
reducing the cost to manufacture and purchase ZEVs, as well as reducing
the cost of charging infrastructure, that we project will facilitate
increased market
[[Page 29592]]
penetration of ZEV technology in the time frame considered in this
rulemaking. Businesses that operate HD vehicles are under competitive
pressure to reduce operating costs, which should encourage purchasers
to identify and rapidly adopt vehicle technologies that provide a
reasonable payback period. Outlays for labor and fuel generally
constitute the two largest shares of HD vehicle operating costs,
depending on the price of fuel, distance traveled, type of HD vehicle,
and commodity transported (if any), so businesses that operate HDVs
face strong incentives to reduce these costs.815 816
However, as noted in RIA Chapter 6.2, there are a number of other
considerations that may impact a purchaser's willingness to adopt new
technologies. Regarding payback, within HD TRUCS we considered the
impact on purchasers through our evaluation of payback periods. The
payback period is the number of years that it will take for the annual
operational savings of a ZEV to offset the incremental upfront purchase
price of a BEV or FCEV (after accounting for the IRA section 13502
battery tax credit and IRA section 13403 vehicle tax credit) and
upfront charging infrastructure costs for depot-charged BEVs (including
IRA section 13404, ``Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit'') when
compared to purchasing a comparable ICE vehicle. The modeled compliance
pathway's average per-vehicle costs to a purchaser by regulatory group
for a MY 2032 heavy-duty vehicle, including associated EVSE and after
considering the IRA battery-manufacturer and vehicle-purchaser tax
credits, are projected to range between $1,500 and $34,000 for
vocational vehicles and $4,300 and $22,000 for tractors. As explained
in section II.F.2.ii, EPA concludes that the final standards will be
beneficial for purchasers because the lower operating costs during the
operational life of the vehicle will offset the increase in vehicle
technology costs within the usual period of first ownership of the
vehicle, which can be 7 years or longer. For example, purchasers of MY
2032 vocational vehicles on average by regulatory group will recoup the
upfront costs through operating savings within the first two to four
years of ownership. Purchasers of MY 2032 tractors on average will
recoup the upfront costs through operating savings within the first two
years for day cabs and first five years for sleeper cabs. Furthermore,
the purchasers will benefit from annual operating cost savings for each
year after the payback occurs. EPA finds that these projected average
costs to purchasers are reasonable considering the operating savings
which more than offsets these costs, as was also the case with the HD
GHG Phase 2 rule. See 81 FR 73482, 73621(tractors), 73719 (vocational
vehicles). Regarding practicability, as discussed in detail in this
section II, within HD TRUCS we also considered the impact on purchasers
through our evaluation of the practicability and suitability. For
example, we applied an additional constraint within HD TRUCS that
limited the maximum ZEV adoption rate to 70 percent for any given
vehicle type in MY 2032, 37 percent in MY 2030, and 20 percent in MY
2027. This conservative limit was developed after consideration of the
needs of the purchasers, as discussed in section II.F.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\815\ American Transportation Research Institute, An Analysis of
the Operational Costs of Trucking, September 2013. Docket ID: EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0512.
\816\ Transport Canada, Operating Cost of Trucks, 2005. Docket
ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the final rule, we also conducted a complementary assessment of
total cost of ownership (TCO) of BEVs and FCEVs from a purchaser's
perspective, as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.12. In addition to the cost
elements considered in our payback analysis, our TCO analysis also
includes the costs of financing the vehicles and the impact of residual
value. As the results show in RIA Chapter 2.12, we find that the costs
for owning and operating a ZEV will be lower than a comparable ICE
vehicle for all MY 2032 BEVs and FCEVs in our technology packages to
support the modeled compliance pathway when evaluated over a five-year
time horizon. In fact, all vehicles show several thousands of dollars
in net TCO savings at the five-year point. We find that this TCO
analysis further supports our assessment.
Within our analysis, to support the final standards we also
considered the lead time necessary for the development of
infrastructure associated with operating the vehicles, including
consideration of the projected lead time necessary under the potential
compliance pathway to install depot charging and supporting
electrification infrastructure and to develop hydrogen infrastructure
that will be required for the projected use of these technologies. As
further explained in RIA Chapter 1.6 and sections II.E.2 and II.F.3,
and RTC section 6, our assessment indicates that depot charging can be
installed in time for the purchase and use of the volume of MY 2027 and
later BEVs we project could be used to comply with the final standards,
and we considered such purchaser costs in our analysis as previously
explained. We likewise find that there is adequate lead time for the
infrastructure to support depot and public charging for the use of BEVs
we project could be used to comply with the final standards, and
included such costs in our manufacturer or purchaser cost analyses as
appropriate. Section II.D.2.iii. With respect to hydrogen
infrastructure, as further explained in RIA Chapter 1.8 and section
II.F.3, we recognize that this may take longer to develop, and
therefore we included a constraint for FCEVs such that we did not
incorporate FCEVs into technology packages to support new standards for
long-haul vehicles until MY 2030, when we expect refueling needs can be
met for the volume of FCEVs we project could be used to comply with the
final standards. We discuss issues relating to availability of critical
minerals, resiliency of associated supply chains, and critical mineral
security in section II.D.2.ii and in RTC section 17.2. As there
discussed, we do not consider these to be insurmountable, including for
the projections to comply with the final Phase 3 standards, and we thus
do not consider them to be a constraining consideration.
We also assessed the impact of future HD BEVs on the grid, as
discussed in section II.D.2.iii. Our analysis for the final rule shows
that systems and processes exist to handle the impact on the power
generation and transmission of this final rule, including when
considered in combination with projections of other impacts on power
generation and transmission based on our assessments at the time of
this final rule. See RTC section 7.1; see also RIA Chapter 1.6.
Therefore, we found that grid reliability is not expected to be
adversely affected by the modest increase in electricity demand
associated with HD BEV charging and thus was not considered to be a
constraining consideration.
EPA considers our analysis of the impact of the final
CO2 emission standards on vehicle and upstream emissions for
non-GHG pollutants as supportive of the final standards. The final
standards will decrease vehicle emissions of non-GHG pollutants, and we
expect those decreased emissions will contribute to reductions in
ambient concentrations of ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5),
NO2, CO, and air toxics. Similarly, we also project
reductions in emissions of non-GHG pollutants from refineries (i.e.,
NOX, PM2.5, VOC, and SO2). We project
that non-GHG emissions from EGUs will increase as a result of the
increased demand for electricity associated with the rule, but the
magnitude of emissions increases
[[Page 29593]]
diminishes over time due to EGU regulations and changes in the future
power generation mix, including impacts of the IRA. By 2055 there are
net decreases in emissions from all pollutants except PM2.5;
when the net changes in emissions of PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors (e.g., VOC, NOX, SO2)
are considered together, there are positive PM2.5 health
benefits beginning in 2040 and, overall, a positive present value and
annualized value of PM2.5 health benefits when using a 2
percent and 3 percent discount rate. (See sections V and VII of this
preamble and Chapters 4 and 7 of the RIA for more detail). EPA believes
the non-GHG emissions reductions of this rule provide important health
benefits to the 72 million people living near truck routes and even
more broadly over the longer term. We note that the agency has broad
authority to regulate emissions from the power sector (e.g., the
mercury and air toxics standards, and new source performance
standards), as do the States and EPA through cooperative federalism
programs (e.g., in response to PM NAAQS implementation requirements,
interstate transport, emission guidelines, and regional haze),\817\ and
that EPA reasonably may address air pollution incrementally across
multiple rulemakings, particularly across multiple industry sectors.
For example, EPA has separately proposed new source performance
standards and emission guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions from
fossil fuel-fired power plants, which would also reduce emissions of
criteria air pollutants such as PM2.5 and SO2 (88
FR 33240, May 23, 2023).\818\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\817\ See also CAA 116.
\818\ https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/nsps-ghg-emissions-new-modified-and-reconstructed-electric-utility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As also explained in section II.G.3, and as discussed in section
VII, we monetize benefits of the final standards and evaluate other
costs in part to better enable a comparison of costs and benefits
pursuant to E.O. 12866, but we recognize that there are benefits we are
unable to fully quantify. As noted, EPA's consistent practice has been
to set standards to achieve improved air quality consistent with CAA
section 202(a), and not to rely on cost-benefit calculations, with
their uncertainties and limitations, in identifying the appropriate
standards. Such analysis, however, can be corroborative of a standard's
reasonableness, as is the case here and as is explained further in this
section.
EPA also evaluated the impacts of the final HD GHG standards on
energy, in terms of oil conservation and energy security through
reductions in fuel consumption. This final rule is projected to reduce
U.S. oil imports by 3 billion barrels through 2055 (see RIA Chapter
6.5). EPA considered the impacts of this projected reduction in fuel
consumption on energy security, specifically the avoided costs of
macroeconomic disruption. Promoting energy independence and security
through reducing demand for refined petroleum use by motor vehicles has
long been a goal of both Congress and the Executive Branch because of
both the economic and national security benefits of reduced dependence
on imported oil, and was an important reason for amendments to the
Clean Air Act in 1990, 2005, and 2007.\819\ A reduction of U.S. net
petroleum imports reduces both financial and strategic risks caused by
potential sudden disruptions in the supply of petroleum to the U.S.,
thus increasing U.S. energy security. EPA finds this rule to have
significant benefits from an energy security perspective. We estimate
the benefits due to reductions in energy security externalities caused
by U.S. petroleum consumption and imports will be approximately $0.45
billion under the final program. EPA considers this final rule to be
beneficial from an energy security perspective and thus this factor was
considered to be a supportive and not constraining consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\819\ See e.g., 136 Cong. Rec. 11989 (May 23, 1990) (Rep. Waxman
stating that clean fuel vehicles program is ``tremendously
significant as well for our national security. We are overly
dependent on oil as a monopoly; we need to run our cars on
alternative fuels.''); Remarks by President George W. Bush upon
signing Energy Policy Act of 2005, 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. S19, 2005 WL
3693179 (``It's an economic bill, but as [Sen. Pete Domenici]
mentioned, it's also a national security bill.-. . . Energy
conservation is more than a private virtue; it's a public virtue'');
Energy Independence and Security Act, Public Law 110-140, section
806 (finding ``the production of transportation fuels from renewable
energy would help the United States meet rapidly growing domestic
and global energy demands, reduce the dependence of the United
States on energy imported from volatile regions of the world that
are politically unstable, stabilize the cost and availability of
energy, and safeguard the economy and security of the United
States''); Statement by George W. Bush upon signing, 2007
U.S.C.C.A.N. S25, 2007 WL 4984165 (``One of the most serious long-
term challenges facing our country is dependence on oil--especially
oil from foreign lands. It's a serious challenge. . . . Because this
dependence harms us economically through high and volatile prices at
the gas pump; dependence creates pollution and contributes to
greenhouse gas admissions [sic]. It threatens our national security
by making us vulnerable to hostile regimes in unstable regions of
the world. It makes us vulnerable to terrorists who might attack oil
infrastructure.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA estimates that the annualized value of monetized net benefits
to society at a 2 percent discount rate will be approximately $13
billion through the year 2055, roughly 12 times the projected cost in
vehicle technology and associated electric vehicle supply equipment
(EVSE) combined under the potential compliance pathway. Regarding
social costs, EPA estimates that the projected cost of vehicle
technology (not including the vehicle or battery tax credits) and EVSE
under the potential compliance pathway will be approximately $1.1
billion, and that the HD industry will save approximately $3.5 billion
in operating costs (e.g., savings that come from less liquid fuel used,
lower maintenance and repair costs for ZEV technologies as compared to
ICE technologies, etc.). In other words, the social costs of the rule
result in net savings to society due largely to the operating savings
expected from electrification technologies. The program will result in
significant social benefits including $10 billion in climate benefits
(with the average SC-GHGs under a 2 percent near-term Ramsey discount
rate) and $0.3 billion of the estimated total benefits through 2055 are
attributable to reduced emissions of non-GHG pollutants. Finally, the
benefits due to reductions in energy security externalities caused by
U.S. petroleum consumption and imports will be approximately $0.45
billion under the final program. A more detailed description and
breakdown of these benefits can be found in section VIII of the
preamble and Chapter 7 of the RIA.
As explained in preamble sections I and II, when section 202(a)
requires EPA to consider costs, it is referring to costs to
manufacturers, not total social costs. The Administrator identified the
standards that he finds appropriate taking into account emissions
reductions, costs to manufacturers, feasibility and other required and
discretionary factors. As discussed in section VII, we monetize
benefits of the final CO2 emission standards and evaluate
other costs in part to better enable a comparison of costs and benefits
pursuant to E.O. 12866, but we recognize that there are benefits we are
unable to fully quantify. EPA's consistent practice has been to set
standards to achieve improved air quality consistent with CAA section
202 and not to rely on cost-benefit calculations, with their
uncertainties and limitations, in identifying the appropriate
standards. Nonetheless, our estimated benefits, which exceed the
estimated costs of the final program, reinforce our view that the final
standards represent an appropriate
[[Page 29594]]
weighing of the statutory factors and other relevant considerations.
More specifically, for this rule our assessment that the rule has
positive net monetized benefits supports our view that the final
standards represent an appropriate weighing of the statutory factors
and other relevant considerations. Positive monetized net benefits do
not depend on which of the final rule's discounted stream of
PM2.5 health benefits is used, or as explained in this
preamble section II.G whether the final rule's SC-GHG estimates or the
IWG SC-GHG estimates are used (see the Appendix to Chapter 8 of the RIA
for the latter in the final rule); EPA finds the emissions reductions,
in light of the cost of compliance, available lead time and other
factors, justify adoption of these standards. Section 202(a)(4)(A) of
the CAA specifically prohibits the use of an emission control device,
system or element of design that will cause or contribute to an
unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety. EPA has a long
history of considering the safety implications of its emission
standards, from 1980 regulations establishing criteria pollutant
standards \820\ up to and including the HD Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules.
We highlight the numerous industry standards and safety protocols that
exist today for heavy-duty BEVs and FCEVs that provide guidance on the
safe design of these vehicles in section II.D and RIA Chapter 1 and
thus this factor was considered to be a supportive and not constraining
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\820\ See, e.g., 45 FR 14503 (March 5, 1980) (``EPA would not
require a particulate control technology that was known to involve
serious safety problems.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Selection of Final Standards Under CAA 202(a)(1)-(2)
Under section 202(a)(1)-(2), EPA has a statutory obligation to set
standards to reduce emissions of air pollutants from classes of motor
vehicles that the Administrator has found contribute to air pollution
that may be expected to endanger public health and welfare. In setting
such standards, the Administrator must provide adequate lead time for
the development and application of technology to meet the standards,
taking into consideration the cost of compliance. EPA's final standards
properly implement this statutory provision, as discussed in this
section II.G. In setting standards for a future model year, EPA
considers the extent deployment of advanced technologies, including
those with the largest potential emission reductions, would be
available and warranted in light of the benefits to public health and
welfare in GHG emission reductions, and potential constraints, such as
cost of compliance, lead time, raw material availability and component
supplies (including availability of minerals critical to lithium-ion
battery manufacture and resiliency of associated supply chains),
redesign cycles, charging and refueling infrastructure availability and
cost, and purchasers' willingness to purchase (including payback). The
extent of these potential constraints for the potential compliance
pathway demonstrating the feasibility of the final standards has
diminished significantly in light of increased and further projected
investment by manufacturers, increased and further projected acceptance
by purchasers, and significant support from Congress to address such
areas as upfront purchase price, charging infrastructure, critical
mineral supplies, and domestic supply chain manufacturing. However, as
discussed through this preamble section II and RIA Chapter 2, EPA has
also given consideration to expressed concerns and uncertainties
regarding several aspects of our analysis and undertaken a conservative
approach in several of those specific instances, leading to a moderate,
balanced approach overall. Examples include analyzing availability and
timing of distribution grid buildout without considering measures by
which users can mitigate the need for electrification support (see RTC
section 7 (Distribution)), selecting 2,000 cycles as our maximum number
of cycles for 10 years of battery age (see RIA Chapter 2.4.1.1.3), and
use of maintenance and repair scaling factors commencing in MY 2027 and
MY 2030 (see preamble section II.E.5). The final standards will achieve
significant and important reductions in GHG emissions that endanger
public health and welfare. Furthermore, as discussed throughout this
preamble, the emission reduction technologies needed to meet the final
standards have already been developed and are feasible and available
for manufacturers to utilize in their fleets at reasonable cost in the
timeframe of these final standards, even after considering key elements
including battery manufacturing capacity, critical minerals
availability, and timely availability of supporting infrastructure for
charging and refueling.
As discussed throughout this preamble, the emission reduction
technologies needed to meet the final standards are feasible and
available for manufacturers to utilize in HD vehicles in the timeframe
of these final standards. The final emission standards are based on one
potential compliance pathway (represented in multiple projected
technology packages for the various HD vehicle regulatory subcategories
per MY) that includes adoption rates for both certain vehicles with ICE
technologies and zero-emission vehicle technologies that EPA regards as
feasible and appropriate under CAA section 202(a) for the reasons given
in this section II.G, and as further discussed throughout section II
and RIA Chapter 2. For the reasons described in that analysis, EPA
believes these technologies can be developed and applied in HD vehicles
and adopted at the projected rates for these final standards within the
lead time provided, as discussed in section II.F and in RIA Chapter 2.
EPA's analysis in preamble section II.F.4 further supports the
feasibility of the final standards by showing that such GHG emission
reductions can be achieved using different mixes of vehicles with ICE
technologies, including without producing additional ZEVs to comply
with this rule as described in the additional example potential
compliance pathway.
EPA also gave appropriate consideration of cost of compliance in
the selection of the final standards as described in this section II.G,
and as further discussed in section II.F and RIA Chapter 2. The final
MY 2027 through MY 2031 emission standards are less stringent than
those proposed for those MYs and the final MY 2032 standards;
correspondingly, the modeled potential compliance pathway supporting
the feasibility of these final standards includes less aggressive
application rates and, therefore, is projected to have lower technology
package costs than the proposed MY 2027 through MY 2031 emissions
standards and the final MY 2032 standards. Additionally, as described
in this section II.G and as further discussed in section II.F and RIA
Chapter 2, we considered impacts on vehicle purchasers and willingness
to purchase (including payback and costs to vehicle purchasers) in
applying constraints in our analysis and selecting the final
standards.\821\ For example, in
[[Page 29595]]
MY 2032, we estimated that the incremental cost to purchase a ZEV will
be recovered in the form of operational savings during the first one to
four years of ownership, on average by regulatory group, for the
vocational vehicles; approximately two years, on average by regulatory
group, for short-haul tractors; and four years, on average by
regulatory group, for long-haul tractors, as shown in the payback
analysis included in section II.F.1. We find the technologies will pay
for themselves on average by regulatory group within the ownership
timeframe for both tractors and vocational vehicles, as described in
section II.F.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\821\ EPA has considered purchaser response in appropriately
exercising our authority under the statute, and based on the record
before us, the agency views purchaser response as a material aspect
of the real-world feasibility of the final standards. EPA has a
vested interest in real-world feasibility of the final standards as,
for example, if the vehicles with advanced technologies are not
purchased, the projected emission benefits of the final standards
may not occur. Although certain commenters chastised EPA for
considering purchaser response, noting that it is not explicitly
enumerated in the statute, EPA believes it is properly considered in
this rulemaking as an aspect of both cost (including costs to
manufacturers of having stranded assets) and feasibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, averaging and the additional flexibilities beyond
averaging already available under EPA's existing regulations, including
banking and trading provisions in the ABT program--which, for example,
in effect enable manufacturers to spread the compliance requirement for
any particular model year across multiple model years--further support
EPA's conclusion that the final standards provide sufficient time for
the development and application of technology, giving appropriate
consideration to cost.
Congress directed the Administrator to weigh various factors under
CAA section 202, and, as with the HD GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules, the
Administrator notes that the primary purpose of adopting standards
under that provision of the Clean Air Act is to address air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and
welfare and that reducing air pollution has traditionally been the
focus of such standards. Taking into consideration the importance of
reducing GHG emissions and the primary purpose of CAA section 202 to
reduce the threat posed to human health and the environment by air
pollution which endangers, the Administrator finds it is appropriate to
finalize standards that, when implemented, will result in meaningful
reductions of HD vehicle GHG emissions both near term and over the
longer term, and to select such standards taking into consideration the
enumerated statutory factors of technological feasibility and cost of
compliance within the available lead time, as well as the relevant
discretionary factor of impacts on purchasers and willingness to
purchase. In identifying the final standards, EPA's goal was to balance
the emissions reductions given our assessment of technological
feasibility and accounting for cost of compliance, lead time, and
purchaser costs and willingness to purchase, and the constraining
uncertainties related to each of these elements.
There have been very significant developments in the utilization of
ZEV technologies since EPA promulgated the HD GHG Phase 2 rule. One of
the most significant developments for U.S. heavy-duty manufacturers and
purchasers is the adoption of the IRA, which takes a comprehensive
approach to addressing many of the potential barriers to wider adoption
of heavy-duty ZEVs in the United States. As noted in RIA Chapter 2, the
IRA provides tens of billions of dollars in tax credits and direct
Federal funding to reduce the upfront cost of purchasing ZEVs, to
increase the number of charging stations across the country, to reduce
the cost of manufacturing batteries, and to promote domestic source of
critical minerals and other important elements of the ZEV supply chain.
By addressing all of these potential obstacles to wider ZEV adoption in
a coordinated, well-financed, strategy, Congress significantly advanced
the potential for ZEV adoption in the near term, thus supporting
standards supported by a potential compliance pathway which includes
ZEV technologies.
In developing the modeled potential compliance pathway, EPA
considered a variety of constraints which have to date limited
utilization of ZEV technologies and/or could limit it in the future,
including the following: cost to manufacturers and purchasers;
availability of critical minerals; adequacy of battery production and
necessary supply chain elements; adequate electricity supply and
distribution infrastructure in support of depot and public charging;
and availability of hydrogen and supporting infrastructure for its
deployment in FCEVs. While EPA acknowledges that there are some factual
uncertainties regarding future projections on these constraints, as
detailed through the preamble and the accompanying RIA, our analysis
recognizes these uncertainties and identifies the considerations the
agency found persuasive. Our analysis was informed by extensive
consultation with analysts from other agencies, including the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE, DOT, and the Joint Office of Energy
and Transportation. We have extensively reviewed published literature
and other data. As discussed in this preamble and the accompanying RIA,
we have incorporated limitations into our modeling to address these
potential constraints, as we have assessed are appropriate.
As discussed in section II.G.4, there are additional considerations
that support, but were not used to select, the final standards. These
include the non-GHG emission and energy impacts, energy security,
safety, and net benefits. EPA estimates that the annualized value of
monetized net benefits to society at a 2 percent discount rate will be
approximately $13 billion through the year 2055, more than 11 times the
cost in vehicle technology and associated electric vehicle supply
equipment (EVSE) combined (see preamble section VII and Chapter 8 of
the RIA). We recognize these estimates do not reflect unquantified
benefits, which would be greater still, and the Administrator has not
relied on these estimates in identifying the appropriate standards
under CAA section 202(a)(1)-(2). Nonetheless, our conclusion that the
estimated benefits exceed the estimated costs of the final program
reinforces our view that the final standards represent an appropriate
weighing of the statutory factors and other relevant considerations.
As we explained in the HD Phase 3 NPRM, we also considered, but did
not analyze, and requested comment on a more stringent alternative with
emission standards similar to those required by the CA ACT program. We
received a number of comments supporting more stringent standards, as
discussed in section II.B. We are not adopting such standards. First,
at this time and for similar reasons to those explained in this section
II regarding changes made in the final standards from the proposed
standards' level of stringency, we consider the final standards'
stringency as the appropriate balancing of the factors. Second, the
Phase 3 standards demonstrably achieve reductions of GHG emissions
beyond those attributable to a ``no action'' scenario (including the
ACT standards), and include significant reductions in non-ACT states.
See preamble section V and RTC section 2.4 and sources there cited. We
thus do not accept the comment that standards more stringent than those
proposed are necessary to achieve reductions beyond those which would
occur in the absence of Federal standards. Third, our modeled potential
compliance pathway supporting feasibility of the final standards
appropriately reflects that ICE vehicles will continue to be needed for
certain applications, and for certain usage and weather conditions. The
caps on ZEV adoption in our HD TRUCS analysis for the modeled potential
compliance pathway properly reflect these
[[Page 29596]]
considerations. We do not agree with commenters advocating for more
stringent standards reflecting further improvements to ICE vehicles and
engines beyond the Phase 2 MY 2027 improvements in our modeled
compliance pathway, as our assessment is that manufacturers do not have
the resources to use all the different technology improvement
strategies together within the lead time provided by the Phase 3
program (e.g., the modeled potential compliance pathway technologies
plus technologies in an additional example potential compliance pathway
discussed in preamble section II.F.4). See RTC section 2.4.
Fourth, consideration of availability and timing of distribution
grid buildout infrastructure, availability of critical minerals and
associated issues, and willingness to purchase all warrant a balanced
and measured approach in determining the stringency of these standards.
Thus, the standards are carefully phased in so that the standards for
the initial years of the Phase 3 standards are less stringent, Phase 3
standards for certain vocational vehicles and tractors commence in
post-2027 model years, and the standards provide longer lead time where
public charging is part of the modeled potential compliance pathway. We
believe that these decisions reflect reasoned consideration of
feasibility and lead time, appropriately giving these considerations
more weight than these commenters would. See RTC section 2.4 for
additional responses. In addition to our final standards, we also
considered an alternative less stringent than our final standards, as
specified and discussed in sections II.H and IX. We considered an
alternative with a slower phase-in and with less stringent
CO2 emission standards; however, we did not select this
level for the final standards because our assessment in this final rule
is that feasible and appropriate standards are available that provide
for greater GHG emission reductions than would be provided by this
slower phase-in alternative.
We acknowledge that both those stakeholders pressing for more and
less rapid increases in stringency have submitted considerable
technical studies in support of their positions, including analyses
purportedly demonstrating that a more or less rapid adoption of
emissions reduction technologies, including zero-emissions
technologies, is feasible. These studies account for the vast range of
economic, technology, regulatory, and other factors described
throughout this preamble; draw different assumptions about key
variables; and reach very different conclusions. We have carefully
reviewed all these studies and further discuss them in the RIA and the
RTC. The agency's final standards are premised upon our own extensive
technical assessment, which in turn is based on a wide review of the
literature and test data, extensive expertise with the industry and
with implementation of past standards, peer review, and our modeling
analyses. The data and resulting modeling demonstrate a balanced and
measured rate of adoption of emission reduction technologies, at rates
bounded between the higher and lower rates in studies provided by
commenters.
On balance, we think the various comments and studies pressing for
faster or slower increases in stringency than the final rule each have
their strengths and weaknesses, and we recognize the inherent
uncertainties associated with predicting the future of the highly
dynamic vehicle and related industries up to eight years from today
through MY 2032. This uncertainty pervades both scenarios with lesser
and greater increases in stringency than the final standards. For
example, slower increases in stringency would be more certainly
feasible and less costly for manufacturers, but they would also risk
giving up emissions reductions and consequent benefits to public health
and welfare that are actually achievable. By contrast, faster increases
in stringency would aim to achieve greater emissions reductions and
consequent benefits for public health and welfare, but they would also
run the risk of incurring greater costs of compliance and potentially
being infeasible in light of the lead time provided. The final
standards reflect our technical expertise in discerning a reasoned path
among the varying sources of data, analyses, and other evidence we have
considered, as well as the Administrator's policy judgment as to the
appropriate level of emissions reductions that can be achieved at a
reasonable cost in the available lead time.
While the final standards are more stringent than the Phase 2
standards, EPA applied numerous conservative approaches throughout our
analysis (as identified throughout this section II and in RIA Chapter
2) and the final standards additionally are less stringent than those
proposed for the first several years of implementation leading to MY
2032. As explained throughout this document, EPA has assessed the
appropriateness and feasibility of these standards taking into
consideration the potential benefits to public health and welfare,
existing market trends and financial incentives for ZEV adoption, and
constraints which could shape technology adoption in the future,
including: cost to manufacturers and purchasers; lead time for
manufacturers to develop new products to meet a diverse set of HD
applications; availability of raw materials, batteries, and other
necessary supply chain elements; and adequate charging and refueling
infrastructure, electricity supply and distribution. As a result of re-
evaluating data and analyses in light of public comments, we have
revised both our cost estimates and our assessment of the feasibility
of more stringent standards, particularly for the early years of the
program. For the years the agency is setting standards, we find it is
important for the standards to provide a degree of certainty and send
appropriate market signals to facilitate the anticipated investments,
not only in technology adoption but also in complementary areas such as
supply chains and charging and refueling infrastructure. The
Administrator concludes that this balanced and measured approach is
within the authority Congress provided under and is consistent with the
text and purpose of CAA section 202(a)(1)-(2).
In summary, after consideration of the very significant reductions
in GHG emissions, given the technical feasibility of the final
standards and the moderate costs per vehicle in the available lead
time, and taking into account a number of other factors such as the
savings to purchasers in operating costs over the lifetime of the
vehicle, safety, the benefits for energy security, and the
significantly greater quantified benefits compared to quantified costs,
EPA believes that the final standards are appropriate under EPA's
section 202(a)(1)-(2) authority.
H. Alternatives Considered
Our analysis for the final rule of relevant existing information,
public comments, and new information that became available between the
proposal and final rule supports a slower implementation than included
in the proposed standards; our assessment in this final rule, as
described in this section II, is that the final standards provide the
appropriate speed of implementation, including adequate lead time. In
developing this final rule, we also developed and considered an
alternative set of less stringent standards and a more gradual phase-in
than the final standards in section II.F. The results of the analysis
of this alternative are included in section IX of the preamble. In
addition, we considered a set of more stringent standards
[[Page 29597]]
reflecting levels of stringency that would be achieved from
extrapolating the California ACT rule to the national level.
As discussed in section II.F, we considered while developing the
final standards that manufacturers choosing a compliance strategy that
utilizes ZEV technologies will need time to ramp up ZEV production from
the numbers of ZEVs produced today to the higher adoption rates we
project may be used to comply with the final standards that begin
between three and eight model years from now. Manufacturers will need
to conduct research and develop electrified configurations for a
diverse set of applications. They will also need time to conduct
durability assessments because downtime is very critical in the heavy-
duty market. Furthermore, manufacturers will require time to make new
capital investments for the manufacturing of heavy-duty battery cells
and packs, motors, and other EV components, along with changing over
the vehicle assembly lines to incorporate an electrified powertrain. In
addition, the purchasers of HD BEVs will need time to design and
install charging infrastructure at their facilities or determine their
hydrogen refueling logistics for FCEVs. Therefore, we developed and
considered an alternative that reflects a more gradual phase-in of
utilization of such technologies to provide even longer lead time to
address such considerations. The alternative CO2 emission
standards shown in Table II-53 and Table II-54. We are not adopting
this alternative set of standards in this final rule because, as
already described, our assessment is that feasible and appropriate
standards are available that provide for greater emission reductions
than provided under this alternative, do so at reasonable cost, and
provide sufficient lead time.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.073
[[Page 29598]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.074
In the final rule analysis, we also considered standards consistent
with levels of stringency that would be achieved from the California
ACT rule extrapolated to the national level. The more stringent
alternative standards considered are shown in Table II-55 and Table II-
56. We are not adopting standards consistent with this more stringent
alternative because we consider the final standards' stringency as the
appropriate balancing of the factors, as discussed in section II.G.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.075
[[Page 29599]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.076
I. Small Businesses
As proposed, qualifying small manufacturers will remain subject to
the previously promulgated Phase 2 MY 2027 and later GHG vehicle
emission standards, and are not subject to the Phase 3 standards unless
they voluntarily decide to opt into the Phase 3 program, as discussed
in this section (see 40 CFR 1037.105(b) and (h) and 1037.106(b)).\822\
We note that this approach avoids any potential undue burden on these
small entities. See 88 FR 26008. EPA may consider new GHG emission
standards to apply for vehicles produced by small business vehicle
manufacturers as part of a future regulatory action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\822\ See section III.C of this preamble for a description of
the final revisions to the provisions for small manufacturers in 40
CFR 1037.105(b) and (h), 1037.106(b), and 1037.150(c) and (w).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in RIA Chapter 9, we have identified a small number of
heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers that would qualify as small
manufacturers under the heavy-duty vehicle manufacturer category. Most
of these small businesses currently only produce ZEVs, while one
company currently produces ICE vehicles.\823\ We thus estimate that
there would only be a small emissions benefit from applying the final
standards to the relatively low production volume of ICE vehicles
produced by small businesses and maintaining the previously promulgated
HD vehicle CO2 standards for these companies at this time
would have a negligible impact on the overall GHG emission reductions
that the program would otherwise achieve. We received no comments on
our proposal to retain the MY 2027 and later standards for qualifying
manufacturers or revise the definition of small manufacturer. The Phase
2 standards will continue to apply and any applicable small
manufacturer flexibilities established under the Phase 2 program will
continue to be available to small manufacturers for MY 2027 and later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\823\ See section XI.C of this preamble for our regulatory
flexibility assessment of the potential burden on small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the Phase 2 standards are also based on a fleet average,
small manufacturers can continue to average within their averaging sets
to achieve the applicable standards. However, we proposed to restrict
banking, trading, and the use of advanced technology credit multipliers
for credits generated against the Phase 2 standards for qualifying
manufacturers that utilize this small business interim provision. Under
this final rule, and as explained in the proposal, qualifying small
manufacturers may voluntarily certify their vehicles to the Phase 3
standards without ABT participation restrictions if they certify all
their vehicle families within a given averaging set to the Phase 3
standards for the given MY. In other words, small manufacturers that
opt into the Phase 3 program for a given MY for all their vehicle
families within a given averaging set would be eligible for the full
ABT program, including the expanded flexibilities finalized in this
rule as described in section III.A.
While the new Phase 3 standards do not apply for vehicles produced
by qualifying small manufacturers, we proposed and are finalizing that
small manufacturers that are certifying BEVs or FCEVs would be subject
to the battery durability monitor and warranty provisions described in
section III.B.
III. Compliance Provisions, Flexibilities, and Test Procedures
In this rule, we are retaining the general compliance structure of
existing 40 CFR part 1037 with some revisions described in this
section. Vehicle manufacturers will continue to demonstrate that they
meet emission standards using emission modeling and EPA's Greenhouse
gas Emissions Model (GEM) and will use fuel-mapping or powertrain test
information from procedures established and revised in previous
rulemakings.\824\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\824\ See the HD GHG Phase 2 rule (81 FR 73478, October 25,
2016), the Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Technical Amendment rule
(86 FR 34308, June 29, 2021), and the HD2027 rule (88 FR 4296,
January 24, 2023). As also explained in the proposal for this
rulemaking, in this rulemaking EPA did not reopen any portion of our
heavy-duty compliance provisions, flexibilities, and testing
procedures, including those in 40 CFR parts 1037, 1036, and 1065,
other than those specifically identified in the proposal as the
subject of our proposal or a solicitation for comment. For example,
while EPA is finalizing revisions to discrete elements of the HD ABT
program, EPA did not reopen the general availability of ABT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section III.A, we describe the general ABT program, discrete
revisions to it which we are finalizing, and how we expect
manufacturers to utilize ABT to meet the final standards. In section
III.A.1, we describe a revision to the
[[Page 29600]]
definition of ``U.S.-directed production volume'' that clarifies
consideration in this rulemaking of nationwide production volumes,
including those that may be certified to different state emission
standards.\825\ This revised definition addresses the interaction that
would otherwise result between the previous definition of U.S.-directed
production volume and the California Advanced Clean Truck (ACT)
regulation for HD vehicles.\826\ Section III.A.2 includes updates to
advanced technology credit provisions after considering comments
received on the HD2027 NPRM (87 FR 17592, March 28, 2022) and the
proposal for this rulemaking (88 FR 25926, April 27, 2023). In section
III.A.3, we describe other revised flexibilities available to heavy-
duty vehicle manufacturers, including an interim transitional
flexibility regarding how credits could be used across averaging sets.
In section III.B, we describe new durability monitoring requirements
for BEVs and PHEVs, clarify existing warranty requirements for PHEVs,
and describe new warranty requirements for BEVs and FCEVs. Finally,
section III.C includes additional clarifying and editorial amendments
we are finalizing related to the HD highway engine provisions of 40 CFR
part 1036, the HD vehicle provisions of 40 CFR part 1037, the test
procedures for HD engines in 40 CFR part 1065, and provisions that span
multiple sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\825\ The definition update includes conforming amendments
throughout the HD engine and vehicle regulations of 40 CFR parts
1036 and 1037, respectively.
\826\ EPA granted the ACT rule waiver requested by California
under CAA section 209(b) on March 30, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Revisions to the ABT Program
The existing HD GHG Phase 2 program provides flexibilities,
primarily through the HD GHG ABT program, that facilitate compliance
with the emission standards. In the HD space, our use of averaging
dates back to our 1985 emissions standards for highway HD engines. 50
FR 10606 (March 15, 1985) (``Emissions averaging, of both particulate
and oxides of nitrogen emissions from heavy-duty engines, is allowed
beginning with the 1991 model year. Averaging of NO, emissions from
light-duty trucks is allowed beginning in 1988.''). Similarly, we have
included banking and trading for highway HD engines in our rules dating
back to 1990. 55 FR 30584 (July 26, 1990) (``This final rule announces
new programs for banking and trading of particulate matter and oxides
of nitrogen emission credits for gasoline-, diesel- and methanol-
powered heavy-duty engines.''). See section I of this preamble for a
summary of EPA's authority and implementation of ABT in previous
rulemakings, and a more detailed description in response to comments on
our authority in RTC section 10.2.1.
EPA considered averaging and the existence of the general ABT
program as part of the Phase 2 standard setting process (see, e.g., 81
FR 73495 (October 25, 2016)). As explained in section II, we likewise
considered averaging in the standard setting process of the Phase 3 GHG
standards, and our assessment is premised upon the availability of
averaging in supporting the feasibility of the final standards. While
we also considered the existence of other aspects of the ABT program as
supportive of the feasibility of the Phase 3 GHG standards, we did not
rely on those other aspects in justifying the feasibility of the
standards. In other words, the existing ABT program will continue to
help provide additional flexibility in compliance for manufacturers to
make necessary technological improvements and reduce the overall cost
of the program, without compromising overall environmental objectives;
however, the other aspects of the ABT program that are not the
availability of averaging, including credit carryover, deficits,
banking, and trading, were not considered in setting the numeric levels
of the Phase 3 standards. Accordingly, these other aspects of ABT are
severable from the Phase 3 standards.
The current HD GHG Phase 2 program also includes specific credit
provisions for ``advanced technologies'' as identified in the Phase 2
rule (i.e., PHEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs) and separate provisions for other
innovative technologies that are not reflected in GEM. As described in
section II of this preamble, the revisions to the existing MY 2027
Phase 2 GHG emission standards and new standards for MYs 2028 through
2032 are supported by a modeled potential compliance pathway premised
on utilization of a variety of technologies, including technologies
that are considered advanced technologies in the existing HD GHG Phase
2 ABT program.\827\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\827\ As stated in the proposal, we are retaining and did not
reopen the existing off-cycle provisions of 40 CFR 1037.610 that
allow manufacturers to request approval for other ``innovative''
technologies. 88 FR 26013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are generally retaining and did not reopen the existing HD GHG
Phase 2 ABT program that allows for emission credits to be averaged,
banked, or traded within each of the averaging sets specified in
existing 40 CFR 1037.740(a). We provide the following description of
the existing ABT program for background and informational purposes
only.\828\ In brief, under the existing program, manufacturers may
choose to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standard
by using the regulatory provisions for averaging, banking, and
trading.\829\ They do so by dividing their vehicles into ``families''
or ``subfamilies''. For each family or subfamily, the manufacturer must
designate a ``Family Emission Limit'', which is an ``emission level . .
. to serve in place of the otherwise applicable emission standard'' for
each family or subfamily.\830\ The designated FEL applies to every
vehicle within a family or sub-family and must be complied with
throughout the vehicle's useful life. Manufacturers choosing to
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standards using the
ABT program must show compliance based on (among other things)
production levels and emissions level of FELs. See 40 CFR 1037.705(b).
Each family or subfamily has a designated FEL, and credits are
generated if the FEL is lower than the applicable standard, and debits
are generated if the FEL is higher than the applicable standard.\831\
The manufacturer can use those credits to offset higher emission levels
from vehicles in the same averaging set such that the averaging set
meets the standards on ``average'', ``bank'' the credits for later use,
or ``trade'' the credits to another manufacturer. In other words, under
the existing ABT program, a manufacturer has two obligations--(1) all
vehicles are certified to and must comply throughout their useful life
with the FEL applicable to that vehicle's family or subfamily, and (2)
the manufacturer's vehicles must comply with the applicable emission
standard as a group, e.g., using a production-weighted average of the
various FELs across the applicable averaging set. All vehicle families
across an averaging set must show a net zero or positive credit balance
as detailed in the existing regulation.\832\ To incentivize the
[[Page 29601]]
research and development of new technologies with great emission
reduction potential, the existing HD vehicle ABT program also includes
credit multipliers for certain advanced technologies, which we discuss
further in III.A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\828\ See also an expanded description of EPA's ABT program
provided as background in the HD GHG Phase 1 rule (76 FR 57238-
57243).
\829\ 40 CFR 1037.241(a)(2).
\830\ 40 CFR 1037.801 (definition of ``Family emission limit'').
\831\ ``[F]or each family or subfamily . . . positive credits
[are generated] for a family or subfamily that has an FEL below the
standard.'' 40 CFR 1037.705(b).
\832\ Manufacturers must show ``that [the manufacturer's] net
balance of emission credits from all [the manufacturer's]
participating vehicle families in each averaging set is not
negative''. 40 CFR 1037.730(c)(1), and 40 CFR 1037.241(a)(2)
(``vehicle families within an averaging set are considered in
compliance with the CO2 emissions standards, if the sum
of positive and negative credits for all vehicle configurations in
those vehicles lead to a zero balance or a positive balance of
credits'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section III.A, we describe changes we are finalizing for
three aspects of the ABT program: the applicable production volume for
use in calculating ABT credits, how manufacturers can use credit
multipliers for advanced technologies, and credit transfers across
averaging sets. We intend for the limitations placed on credits
generated from Phase 2 advanced technology credit multipliers and the
transitional allowance of credit transfers across averaging sets that
are finalized in this rule to be entirely separate from the Phase 3
emissions standards and other varied components of this rule, and
severable from each other. Each of these two issues has been considered
and adopted independently of the level of the standards, and indeed of
each other. EPA's overall vehicle program continues to be fully
implementable even in the absence of any one or both of these elements.
All the emissions standards in the rule are feasible even without these
specific flexibilities. While credits from multipliers and credit
transfers across averaging sets allow flexibility in compliance options
for manufacturers, they are not necessary for manufacturers to meet the
emissions standards and we did not rely on them in justifying the
feasibility of the standards. See preamble sections II.F and II.G and
RIA Chapter 2. EPA has also considered and adopted these transitional
ABT flexibilities and requirements and the remaining portions of the
final rule independently, and each is severable should there be
judicial review. If a court were to invalidate any one of these
elements of the final rule, we intend the remainder of this action to
remain effective, as we have designed the program to function even if
one part of the rule is set aside. For example, if a reviewing court
were to invalidate the transitional allowance of credit transfers
across averaging sets, the other components of the rule, including the
Phase 3 GHG standards (which are not predicated on these transitional
flexibilities), remain fully operable. We did not propose or otherwise
reopen, and we are not adopting any revisions to the allowance that
provides manufacturers three years to resolve credit deficits, as
detailed in 40 CFR 1037.745. We did not reopen and are generally
retaining the existing credit life of five years, as described in 40
CFR 1037.740(c), with discrete revisions beginning in MY 2027 to the
availability of credits earned from advanced technology multipliers as
described in section III.A.2. Similarly, we are retaining the existing
ABT restrictions for vehicles certified to the custom chassis standards
in 40 CFR 1037.105(h)(2). Manufacturers of custom chassis vehicles that
wish to make use of the expanded flexibilities we are finalizing in
this rule and describing in this section III.A, must certify the
vehicles under the main program in the applicable regulatory
subcategory.
1. U.S.-Directed Production Volume
As described in section II.D and II.F, the Phase 3 GHG vehicle
standards include consideration of nationwide production volumes.
Correspondingly, we proposed and are finalizing that the GHG ABT
program for compliance with those standards be applicable to the same
production volumes considered in setting the standards. 88 FR 26009.
The existing HD GHG Phase 2 vehicle program has certain provisions
(based off the regulatory definition of ``U.S.-directed production
volume'') that would exclude production volumes that are certified to
different state emission standards, including exclusion from
participation in ABT. To address the interaction between the existing
definition of U.S.-directed production volume and the California
Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) regulation for HD vehicles, we proposed and
are finalizing a revision to the definition of ``U.S.-directed
production volume'' in 40 CFR 1037.801. The revision removes the final
sentence of that definition, which presently states that the definition
``does not include vehicles certified to state emission standards that
are different than the emissions standards in this part'', and thereby
amends it to remove any exclusions from the definition. In this section
III.A.1, we summarize the approach used to setting the Phase 3
standards and the uncertainties that led us to revise the definition
such that, within the Phase 3 standards and within the ABT GHG vehicle
program, we consider nationwide production volumes that include
vehicles that may be certified to state emission standards that are
different than the emission standards in 40 CFR part 1037, including
vehicles subject to the ACT standards.
The term U.S.-directed production volume is key in how the
regulations direct manufacturers to calculate credits in the HD vehicle
ABT GHG program in 40 CFR part 1037, subpart H. As noted, prior to this
final rule, the existing definition of ``U.S.-directed production
volume'' for HD vehicles explicitly excludes vehicles certified to
state emission standards that differed from Federal standards.\833\
Consequently, vehicle production volumes excluded from that term's
definition could not generate credits or deficits for purposes of the
Federal program. As described in the proposal (88 FR 26009), the
previous exclusion of engines and vehicles certified to different state
standards did not impact the HD GHG program under parts 1036 and 1037
to-date because California adopted GHG emission standards for HD
engines and vehicles that aligned with the Federal HD GHG Phase 1 and
Phase 2 standards.834 835 As also noted in the proposal, the
revised definition would align with the approach in the LD GHG program
(88 FR 26010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\833\ Previously, 40 CFR 1037.801 defined U.S.-directed
production volume as meaning ``the number of vehicle units, subject
to the requirements of this part, produced by a manufacturer for
which the manufacturer has a reasonable assurance that sale was or
will be made to ultimate purchasers in the United States. This does
not include vehicles certified to state emission standards that are
different than the emission standards in this part.'' An equivalent
definition of U.S-directed production volume previously applied for
HD engines under 40 CFR 1036.801.
\834\ California Air Resources Board. ``Final Regulation Order
for Phase 1 Greenhouse Gas Regulations.'' December 5, 2014,
available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2013/hdghg2013/hdghgfrot13.pdf.
\835\ California Air Resources Board. ``Final Regulation Order
for Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Regulations and Tractor-Trailer GHG
Regulations.'' April 1, 2019, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2018/phase2/finalatta.pdf?_ga=2.122416523.1825165293.1663635303-1124543041.1635770745.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Chapter 1 of the RIA, the ACT regulation requires
manufacturers to produce and sell increasing numbers of zero-emission
medium- and heavy-duty highway vehicles. Given the distinct difference
between what would be required under the ACT regulation compared to the
existing Phase 2 and proposed Phase 3 vehicle standards, we proposed
that the new definition would start with MY 2024 to provide consistent
treatment of any production volumes certified to ACT. We requested
comment on whether we should consider other options to transition to
the new definition.
In comments, vehicle manufacturers generally supported the proposed
[[Page 29602]]
revision to the definition and the effective date of MY 2024, with some
indicating that manufacturers would need to include vehicles intended
for ACT states in order to meet the Phase 3 standards and that some
manufacturers have adopted ZEV technologies as a Phase 2 compliance
strategy. Environmental and health NGOs generally opposed the proposed
revision noting that, combined with the multipliers available for
advanced technology credits in that period, the new definition would
erode the Phase 3 standard stringency and result in no improvements
beyond what would occur in the absence of the rule. Some of the
commenters further suggested that these credits could even dilute the
stringency of the Phase 2 standards, without justification, by making
the revised definition effective in MY 2024. Consequently, the
commenters urged that if EPA amends the definition as proposed, it
either commence the change in MY 2027 rather than MY 2024 or that EPA
make a corresponding adjustment in stringency of the Phase 3 national
standard to include nationwide adoption rates similar to ACT.
We are adopting an amended definition of the term U.S.-directed
production volume. We disagree with commenters maintaining that EPA
should not change the definition because any credits generated by
vehicles in ACT states would be windfalls for the Phase 3 program.
First, it is not clear that ZEV sales in ACT states are automatically
attributable to the ACT requirements. Manufacturers have already
introduced ZEVs into the market and, given that EPA granted the waiver
for ACT earlier this year, some may have done so as a Phase 2
compliance strategy.\836\ Additionally, it is currently unclear if
manufacturers' existing compliance plans to meet the Phase 2 standards
in a given model year include use of all or a portion of their advanced
technology credits (and associated credit multipliers) generated from
nationwide production volumes. Credits generated as a result of
legitimate Phase 2 compliance strategies are not windfalls and we do
not have a way to accurately project or account for the balance of
credits that may be available for use in MYs 2027 and later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\836\ See, e.g., comments of DTNA (EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555)
and Volvo (EPA-HQ-OAR-0985-1606) asserting that OEMs have not been
adopting certain technologies on which EPA predicated the Phase 2
rule and consequently have looked to other means of compliance,
including utilizing ZEV technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the final standards reflect nationwide production
volumes. As explained in section II.F of this preamble, for the modeled
potential compliance pathway supporting the feasibility of the final
standards, HD TRUCS uses nationwide production volumes to project the
utilization of the ZEV technologies portion of the technology
packages.\837\ So commenters were mistaken in maintaining that the
change in the definition would necessarily dilute the Phase 3 standard
stringency, as the final Phase 3 standards' stringency are premised
upon nationwide production volumes, consistent with the amended
definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\837\ Specifically, the projected ZEV adoption rates in our
modeled potential compliance pathway are sales-weighted by
subcategory. See RIA Chapter 2 for a more detailed description of HD
TRUCS and its use of MOVES 4.0 data, as well as the potential
compliance pathway's technology packages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to commenters suggesting EPA adjust the stringency of
Phase 3 to include nationwide adoption rates similar to ACT, we note
that we developed the final rule stringency through a balanced and
measured approach, based on consideration and balancing of the
statutory and other relevant factors, including technical feasibility,
costs, and lead time, as described in section II.G of this preamble and
RTC section 2.4.
We note an additional concern with EPA adopting suggestions from
commenters asking EPA to take a different Phase 3 standard setting
approach and implement the Federal program with the previous
definition. Even under the previous definition, manufacturers should be
eligible to generate credits under the Federal program for production
and sales in excess of those required by ACT in states where ACT is
applicable, as otherwise our Federal program could unintentionally
create a disincentive for such excess production and sales in states
where ACT applies.838 839 If the ACT program simply mandated
``each manufacturer shall produce x number of vehicles of each type'',
it would be straightforward to segregate production volumes and sales
destined for ACT states and exclude such volumes from standard setting
and compliance. But the ACT program is not structured that simply and
also provides various compliance flexibilities for manufacturers. For
example, it uses a credit generating approach with similarities to the
Federal ABT program, but with consequential differences as well,
including weighted amounts of credits per vehicle class, banking and
trading across all vehicle classes, the ability to generate partial
credits for certain vehicles, and the potential for carrying deficits
into future model years. See RIA Chapter 1.3.3 for further detail on
the California ACT regulation. Thus, there would be meaningful
uncertainties related to segregating manufacturers' production volumes
and credit balances to comply with the ACT regulation. While we project
a reference case (as explained in section V of this preamble and RIA
chapter 4.3.1) that includes an increase in the production of ZEVs in
part reflecting compliance with ACT in states where applicable, given
the flexibilities in ACT, the production volumes projected in the
reference case may not match what manufacturers actually do. It is also
unclear how EPA could appropriately distinguish which credits should be
treated as excess and part of compliance with the Phase 3 program, and
the complexity involved in such a scheme raises verification concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\838\ See comments from Navistar, Inc. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1318, p. 6) submitted to EPA for the HD2027 NPRM (87 FR 17592).
\839\ We also considered that exclusion of production volumes
and sales of states that adopted ACT from the Federal ABT program
could unintentionally complicate or even disincentivize other
state's decision making in whether to adopt ACT under CAA section
177.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we do not think it would be appropriate under CAA section
202(a)(1) to support the standards through a feasibility demonstration
under the modeled potential compliance pathway projecting that
manufacturers will sell volumes of ZEVs nationally (including in ACT
states), but then prohibit manufacturers from generating and using
credits based on such sales for compliance purposes. This would result
in a disconnect between how EPA developed and implemented the
standards, as the standard stringency reflects nationwide production
volumes but implementation would exclude portions of nationwide sales.
In addition, we want to minimize the impact of the uncertainty
surrounding the number of states that may adopt the ACT program on
manufacturer compliance planning both in the years leading up to MY
2027 and during the years of the Phase 3 program. That is, we think it
is important to provide manufacturers with regulatory certainty on the
impact of their products on their compliance with the Phase 3 program,
and believe that it would be inappropriate for such impacts to change
significantly every time a new State decided to adopt (or withdraw
from) the ACT program. Furthermore, manufacturers may be motivated to
produce vehicles with advanced CO2 control or prevention
technologies by Phase 3 and in response to other initiatives, and we
want to support any U.S. adoption of these technologies by
[[Page 29603]]
allowing manufacturers to account for their nationwide production
volumes to comply with the standards of this rule. For these reasons,
EPA believes the change to the definition is warranted.
In response to commenters urging that any change not occur until MY
2027, we disagree that this new definition would dilute the Phase 2
program. The Phase 2 standards were promulgated as a national program
and we expect manufacturers developed their Phase 2 compliance
strategies relying on the availability of credits, and in some case
credit multipliers, from nationwide production. As noted, there are
comments to this effect from manufacturers. While there are now new
state standards and the previous definition would exclude production
intended for sale in states adopting those standards, the timing of the
ACT waiver approval relative to the manufacturer compliance plans would
cause timing concerns in the near term if those production volumes were
excluded from Phase 2 compliance.
Also, as just noted, uncertainties relating to other states
adopting the ACT regulation and the timing of such adoption can cut
across manufacturers' compliance plans, and this concern is especially
sensitive in the near term, when manufacturers are least able to alter
compliance strategies. For example, with respect to MY 2024, EPA
expects that manufacturers have been planning and developing a
compliant fleet for years based on the nationwide applicability of the
Phase 2 program, including ABT provisions, and the lead time necessary
to develop and produce heavy-duty vehicles. EPA granted the CAA section
209 waiver of preemption for the California ACT program on March 30,
2023, which is during MY 2024, and which under the prior definition of
U.S.-Directed Production Volume would have caused manufacturers to not
be able to generate credits for vehicles sold in states that had
adopted ACT.\840\ To suddenly deprive manufacturers of the ability to
generate credits for vehicles sold in ACT states for MY 2024 during
that model year would likely undermine manufacturers' long-extant
compliance strategies, and given the lead time necessary for developing
and producing vehicles, would not likely cause manufacturers to
significantly change their product line in MY 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\840\ We note again that prior to the adoption of ACT and EPA
granting the waiver for ACT, the EPA and California programs were
aligned. Thus, as a practical matter, manufacturers could generate
credits based on nationwide production volumes, notwithstanding the
then-existing definition of ``U.S.-directed production volume.''
From this perspective, EPA's amendment of the definition
appropriately preserves the status quo whereby credits may be
generated nationwide for compliance through the EPA ABT program. See
Response to Comments section 10.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, we are finalizing a revision to the definition of ``U.S.-
directed production volume'' in 40 CFR 1037.801 such that it represents
the total nationwide production volumes, and we are making that change
effective in MY 2024 to minimize the uncertainties related to how ACT
will be implemented. We explain in the following section III.A.2 that
the final rule includes provisions aimed at minimizing emissions
impacts of credits from PHEV, BEV, and FCEV production volumes.
Finally, we note that in addition to this revision to the
definition of ``U.S.-directed production volume'', we are finalizing
additional conforming amendments throughout 40 CFR part 1037 to
streamline references to the revised definition; see section III.C.3 of
this preamble for further discussion on one of those revisions.\841\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\841\ As discussed in section III.C.3, we are also finalizing a
similar update to the heavy-duty highway engine definition of
``U.S.-directed production volume'' in 40 CFR 1036.801, with
additional updates where it is necessary to continue to exclude
production volumes intended for sale in states with different
emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Advanced Technology Credit Multipliers for CO2 Emissions
For the HD GHG Phase 2 rule, EPA adopted credit multipliers through
MY 2027 for vehicles that qualified as ``advanced technology'' based on
the administrative record at that time (i.e., PHEV, BEV, and FCEV). In
the proposal for this rule (88 FR 26010), we described the HD GHG Phase
2 advanced technology credit multipliers as representing a tradeoff
between incentivizing new advanced technologies that could have
significant emissions benefits and providing credits that could allow
higher emissions from credit-using engines and vehicles. At the time we
finalized the HD GHG Phase 2 program in 2016, we estimated that there
would be very little market penetration of PHEV, BEV, and FCEV in the
heavy-duty market in the MY 2021 to MY 2027 timeframe when the advanced
technology credit multipliers would be in effect. Additionally, the
technology packages in our technical basis of the feasibility of the HD
GHG Phase 2 standards did not include any of these advanced
technologies.
In our assessment conducted during the development of HD GHG Phase
2, we found only one manufacturer had certified HD BEVs through MY
2016, and we projected ``limited adoption of all-electric vehicles into
the market'' for MYs 2021 through 2027.\842\ At low adoption levels,
the benefits of encouraging additional utilization of these
technologies outweighed negative emissions impacts of multipliers.
However, as discussed in section II, manufacturers are now actively
increasing their use of PHEV, BEV, and FCEV HD technologies with
further support through the IRA and other actions, and we expect this
growth to continue through the remaining timeframe for the HD GHG Phase
2 program and into the timeframe for this Phase 3 program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\842\ 81 FR 73818 (October 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we did anticipate that some growth in development of these
technologies would occur due to the credit incentives in the HD GHG
Phase 2 final rule, we did not expect the level of innovation observed
since we finalized the rule, the IRA or BIL incentives, or that
California would adopt the ACT rule at the same time these advanced
technology multipliers were in effect. We therefore proposed phasing
out multipliers for PHEV and BEV technologies one year earlier than
provided in the Phase 2 rule. After considering comments and the
potential disruption to manufacturers' compliance plans for Phase 2, we
are retaining the existing Phase 2 flexibility that allows
manufacturers to continue to earn advanced technology credit
multipliers for PHEV and BEV technologies through model year 2027. To
address the concern of reduced Phase 3 stringency raised in comments,
we are finalizing a provision that places certain restrictions on and
specifies the circumstances when credits from multipliers may be used
in model years 2027 through 2029 and eliminates the availability of
credit multipliers for use in model years 2030 and later. In this
section III.A.2, we present background on advanced technologies,
summarize the comments that informed our final approach for credit
multipliers, and describe the revisions we are finalizing related to
advanced technology credits.
i. Background on Phase 1 and Phase 2 GHG Advanced Technology Credits
In the prior HD GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules, EPA adopted advanced
technology credits to incentivize the long-term development of
technologies that had the potential to achieve very large GHG
reductions. Specifically, in HD GHG Phase 1, we provided advanced
technology credits for hybrid powertrains, Rankine cycle waste heat
recovery systems on engines, all-electric vehicles, and fuel cell
electric vehicles
[[Page 29604]]
to promote the implementation of advanced technologies that were not
included in our technical basis of the feasibility of the Phase 1
emission standards (see 40 CFR 86.1819-14(k)(7), 1036.150(h), and
1037.150(p)). The HD GHG Phase 2 CO2 emission standards that
followed Phase 1 were premised on the use of mild hybrid powertrains in
vocational vehicles and waste heat recovery systems in a subset of the
engines and tractors, and we removed mild hybrid powertrains and waste
heat recovery systems as options for advanced technology credits. At
the time of the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule in 2016, we believed the HD
GHG Phase 2 standards themselves provided sufficient incentive to
develop those specific technologies. However, none of the HD GHG Phase
2 standards were based on projected utilization of the other, even
more-advanced Phase 1 advanced credit technologies (e.g., plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles, all-electric vehicles, and fuel cell electric
vehicles). For HD GHG Phase 2, EPA promulgated advanced technology
credit multipliers through MY 2027, as shown in Table III-1 (see also
40 CFR 1037.150(p)).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.077
As stated in the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking, our intention with
these multipliers was to create a meaningful incentive for those
manufacturers considering developing and applying these qualifying
advanced technologies into their vehicles. The multipliers under the
existing program are consistent with values recommended by CARB in
their HD GHG Phase 2 comments.\843\ CARB's values were based on a cost
analysis that compared the costs of these advanced technologies to
costs of other GHG-reducing technologies. CARB's cost analysis showed
that multipliers in the range we ultimately promulgated as part of the
HD GHG Phase 2 final rule would make these advanced technologies more
competitive with the other GHG-reducing technologies and could allow
manufacturers to more easily generate a viable business case to develop
these advanced technologies for HD vehicles and bring them to market at
a competitive price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\843\ Letter from Michael Carter, CARB, to Gina McCarthy,
Administrator, EPA and Mark Rosekind, Administrator, NHTSA, June 16,
2016. EPA Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827_attachment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In establishing the multipliers in the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule,
we also considered the tendency of the HD sector to lag behind the
light-duty sector in the adoption of several advanced technologies.
There are many possible reasons for this, such as:
HD vehicles are more expensive than light-duty vehicles,
which makes it a greater monetary risk for purchasers to invest in new
technologies.
These vehicles are primarily work vehicles, which makes
predictable functionality and versatility important.
Sales volumes are much lower for HD vehicles, especially
for specialized vehicles.
At the time of the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking, after considering
these factors, combined with virtually non-existent adoption of the
aforementioned advanced technologies in HD vehicles as of 2016, we
concluded that it was unlikely that market adoption of these low GHG
advanced technologies would grow significantly within the next decade
without additional incentives.
As we stated in the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule preamble, our
determination that it was appropriate to provide large multipliers for
these advanced technologies, at least in the short term, was because
these advanced technologies have the potential to lead to very large
reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption and promote technology
development substantially in the long term. 81 FR 73818. However,
because the credit multipliers are so large, we also stated that they
should not necessarily be made available indefinitely. Therefore, they
were included in the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule as an interim program
continuing only through MY 2027. 40 CFR 1037.615(a).
The HD GHG Phase 2 CO2 emission credits for HD vehicles
are calculated according to the existing regulations at 40 CFR
1037.705(b). For BEVs and FCEVs, the family emission level (FEL) value
for CO2 emissions is deemed to be 0 grams per ton-mile.\844\
Under those existing regulations, the CO2 emission credits
for HD BEVs built between MY 2021 and MY 2027 would be multiplied by
4.5 (or the values shown in Table III-1 for the other technologies)
and, for discussion purposes, can be visualized as split into two
shares.\845\ The first share of credits would come from the reduction
in CO2 emissions realized by the environment from a BEV that
is not emitting from the tailpipe, represented by the first 1.0 portion
of the multiplier. Therefore, each BEV or FCEV produced receives base
emission credits equivalent to the level of the standard, even before
considering the effect of a multiplier. The second share of credits
does not represent CO2 emission reductions realized in the
real world but rather, as just explained, was established by EPA to
help incentivize a nascent market: in this example, the emission
credits for BEVs built between MY 2021 and 2027 receive an advanced
technology credit multiplier of 4.5, i.e., an additional 3.5 multiple
of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\844\ 40 CFR 1037.150(f).
\845\ See 40 CFR 1037.150(p) and 1037.705(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Revisions to the Advanced Technology Credit Multipliers
We proposed to amend the existing Phase 2 rule to provide for an
earlier phase out of multipliers for PHEVs and BEVs. In general,
commenters' support for the proposed approach for phasing out advanced
technology credit multipliers varied (see section 10.3.1 of the RTC
document for this rulemaking). Some commenters supported the proposal.
Others commented that EPA should retain the multipliers through MY 2027
as finalized in the Phase 2 program, noting that manufacturers are
relying on the availability of the multipliers for their compliance
plans and so would need more lead time to revise their plans. Some
commenters suggested that our statements in the proposal that there is
sufficient incentive available for advanced technologies indicated that
EPA should eliminate some or all multipliers before MY 2026. Others
noted the need for continued support for manufacturers to develop these
technologies, and recommended EPA extend the availability of some or
all multipliers beyond MY 2027.
At proposal (88 FR 26010), we noted that revisions to credit
multipliers should carefully balance several
[[Page 29605]]
considerations. In terms of potential emissions impact, we acknowledged
that a portion of the credits that result from an advanced technology
multiplier do not represent CO2 emission reductions realized
in the real world and those excess credits could allow for backsliding
of emission reductions expected from ICE vehicles. Relating to the need
for continued incentives, we noted that increasing manufacturer
production levels, the availability of IRA or BIL incentives, and
targets set as part of California's ACT rule all indicate PHEV and BEV
HD vehicles will be utilized increasingly in the near-term, reducing
the need for the extra incentives provided by the advanced technology
multipliers.
In the proposal, we also recognized, however, that some
manufacturers' long-term product plans for PHEV or BEV technologies may
have extended to model years closer to MY 2027, and we did not propose
to immediately eliminate PHEV and BEV credit multipliers. 88 FR 26012.
Instead, we proposed a MY 2026 phase-out for PHEV and BEV credit
multipliers, one year earlier than adopted in Phase 2, in part, to
limit the impact on current manufacturer product plans for the HD GHG
Phase 2 standards and to provide some flexibility as manufacturers plan
for the more stringent Phase 3 standards. We did not propose any
changes to the advanced technology multiplier for fuel cell electric
vehicles, which applies through MY 2027, noting that it was still
appropriate to incentivize the development of fuel cell technology,
because it has been slower to develop in the HD market, as discussed in
section II (88 FR 26012). We note that the proposal regarding Phase 2's
credit multipliers was limited to evaluating approaches to phase out
their availability for use and we did not propose or request comment on
extending credit multipliers to apply for other technologies.
In this final rule, commenters expanded on the proposed
considerations. Some commenters noted that we are amending the
definition of U.S. Directed Production Volume, as discussed in the
section III.A.1, such that vehicle production volumes sold in
California or section 177 states that adopt ACT would be included in
the ABT credit calculations. These commenters indicated that continuing
to allow multipliers for PHEVs and BEVs could expand banks of credits
well past the point EPA contemplated when adopting the Phase 2 rule.
Some of these commenters asserted that, given the Phase 2 flexibilities
and the ACT requirements, manufacturers will necessarily comply with
the Phase 3 standards by virtue of complying with ACT. In contrast,
several manufacturers commented that both their near-term Phase 2 and
long-term compliance plans relied on the availability of credit
multipliers (including use of credits generated from credit multipliers
for Phase 2 compliance) and some even requested EPA extend the
availability through MY 2030 to continue to incentivize the
technologies. One manufacturer indicated that California's ACT program
targets manufacturer sales, but that those sales only occur if
customers purchase the products. This commenter noted that, while
supporting regulations exist in some states, there are no nationwide
initiatives to ensure sales, so it is unclear how many ZEVs will be
sold as a result of ACT.
After considering the comments received on the proposal for this
rule, we are not taking final action on the proposal to revise the
Phase 2 rule to provide for an earlier phase out (one year early) of
multipliers for PHEVs and BEVs. As such, manufacturers may continue to
generate credits that include credit multipliers for PHEV, BEV, and
FCEV technologies through MY 2027 as was adopted in Phase 2.\846\ We
note that our analysis of the feasibility of the Phase 3 standards did
not rely on the availability of carried over credits from Phase 2 or
Phase 2 credit multipliers; our assessment is that such credits will
provide appropriate flexibilities for manufacturers in the transition
into the early years of the Phase 3 program, as manufacturers make
practical business decisions on where to apply their resources to first
develop products. We also note that retaining the existing Phase 2 ABT
provisions on credit multipliers should address potential concerns or
uncertainties raised by manufacturers regarding their compliance plans
relying on the credits generated under the existing Phase 2 credit
multiplier provisions. However, as explained in the remainder of this
preamble section, we are finalizing provisions to limit the potential
use of credits generated from this flexibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\846\ We are revising 40 CFR 1037.150(p) to clarify the
applicable standards for calculating credits. We are finalizing
parallel edits to existing 40 CFR 1037.615(a) and 1037.740(b) to
clarify when the advanced technology credit calculations would
apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with those commenters that assert manufacturers will
necessarily comply with the Phase 3 standards by virtue of complying
with ACT. These comments assume a given volume of Phase 2 credits will
be generated and carried over into Phase 3, and thus presuppose
manufacturers' compliance strategies with both the Federal performance-
based Phase 2 and 3 standards and the California ACT program. Our final
rule reference case modeling is our best estimate of ZEV technology
production volumes in the absence of the Phase 3 rulemaking, as
supported by our analysis in preamble section V. Sales volumes could
prove to be lower, however.\847\ We also recognize that manufacturers
may have different approaches and technology pathway plans to
demonstrate compliance with Phase 2 as well as with ACT, as asserted by
certain commenters and summarized previously in this section, and thus
manufacturers may undertake different approaches than those asserted as
the basis of commenters' concerns with multiplier credit volumes. EPA
considered all of these comments in weighing potential limitations on
ABT flexibilities for credits generated by the existing Phase 2 credit
multipliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\847\ We also note that, in RIA Chapter 4.10, we conducted a
reference case sensitivity analysis with lower ZEV adoption than we
project will occur through compliance with CARB's ACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After balancing consideration of the concerns of disrupting on-
going Phase 2 compliance strategies and the potential for multiplier
credits to erode the emission benefits of the Phase 3 program, we are
placing restrictions on how credits from multipliers can be used to
meet the Phase 3 standards, and are additionally limiting their use to
the initial model years of the Phase 3 program. As described in the
remainder of this section III.A.2.ii, we are finalizing provisions that
will limit when manufacturers can use credits generated from credit
multipliers in MY 2027 through 2029 and eliminate the availability of
those credits for use in MY 2030 and later.
As noted previously, advanced technology credits can be thought of
as two portions: a base credit calculated using the equation in 40 CFR
1037.705(b) and a multiplier portion calculated using multipliers
specified in 40 CFR 1037.150(p) for a given advanced technology. Our
final provisions will continue to allow manufacturers to apply the base
credits from advanced technologies through the 5-year credit life;
however, to ensure meaningful vehicle GHG emission reductions under the
Phase 3 program, we are finalizing restrictions for how manufacturers
can use the multiplier portion of advanced technology credits toward
Phase 3 compliance.
In MYs 2027 through 2029, manufacturers can continue to use
multiplier credits to meet the Phase 3 standards; however, multiplier
credits
[[Page 29606]]
can only be applied toward Phase 3 compliance after available base
credits are used. In a given model year within the timeframe this
limitation applies, manufacturers quantify the credits available from
advanced technologies, including from credits that were banked in
previous years, and account for the base and multiplier portions of the
credits. Then, for each family, they would calculate credits without
consideration of credit multipliers (i.e., credits and deficits from
ICE vehicles, and base credits from vehicles with advanced
technologies) and sum the credit quantities over all vehicle families
in the averaging set.\848\ If the credit quantity is positive, any
surplus credits, including the multiplier credits, can be banked for
future use. If the credit quantity for the given averaging set is
negative, manufacturers must use available base credits before applying
multiplier credits. Specifically, a manufacturer would apply credits in
the following order of priority, while the credit quantity for the
averaging set is negative:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\848\ This first step is generally consistent with our
historical approach to credits, which allows use of credits
generated within the same model year but also first applies all such
available credits through averaging to resolve credit balances for
that model year before applying banked or traded credits. This
approach prevents potential gaming of credit life and trading
limitations. To further clarify this in the regulations, we are also
adding an amendment in 40 CFR 1037.701(f) consistent with this
description.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Base credits banked or traded within the same averaging set.
2. Base credits earned in the same model year from other averaging
sets (see section III.A.3 of this preamble).
3. Base credits banked or traded in other averaging sets and used
across averaging sets as described in section III.A.3.
4. Multiplier credits within the same averaging set for the same
model year.
5. Multiplier credits banked or traded within the same averaging
set.
6. Multiplier credits earned in the same model year from other
averaging sets.
7. Multiplier credits banked or traded in other averaging sets.
This limitation to using credits from multipliers for MYs 2027
through 2029 is intended to balance the competing concerns discussed in
this section. Manufacturers would continue to have access to the full
amount of credits from multipliers if needed in the early years of the
Phase 3 program.\849\ By prioritizing the use of base credits, we are
reducing the potential for multiplier credits to erode the emission
benefits of the Phase 3 program, in particular in MYs beyond 2029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\849\ See Brakora, Jessica. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985. ``Additional Considerations of ABT Provisions for HD GHG
Phase 3 Final Rule''. March 2024 for examples of how these
provisions could apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We emphasize that this limitation to using credits from multipliers
for MYs 2027 through 2029 is intended to apply for Phase 3 compliance.
We want to preserve manufacturers' ability to implement their existing
plans for complying with the Phase 2 program. Some manufacturers stated
in their comments that they have included PHEV and BEV technologies in
their plans to comply with Phase 2 standards and that those plans also
rely on the credit multipliers for the remaining model years of the
Phase 2 program. Others have indicated that credit multipliers are a
critical incentive for FCEV development in the near term. To minimize
the impact on manufacturers' Phase 2 compliance plans, we continue to
allow full advanced technology credits, including any multiplier
credits, to be used for Phase 2 compliance as currently allowed in the
Phase 2 ABT program. That is, in MYs 2026 and earlier, averaged,
banked, and traded Phase 2 advanced technology credits, including
applicable multipliers, can be used to comply with the CO2
standards in those years. In MY 2027, manufacturers will continue to
have the option to earn advanced technology credits with multipliers
relative to the Phase 3 standards. All multiplier credits can be used
in full toward any Phase 2 deficits through MY 2029 (i.e., the end of
the 3-year window when manufacturers must remedy any MY 2026 Phase 2
deficits).
In MY 2030, we are phasing out the multiplier portion of any
remaining advanced technology credits. Credits from Phase 2 advanced
technologies will continue to be available, including those credits
generated from their applicable multiplier, through MY 2029 as
described previously in this section. In MY 2030 and later,
manufacturers would retain any base credits previously earned from
PHEV, BEV, or FCEV advanced technologies that are still within their
credit life of 5 years, but manufacturers could no longer use
multiplier credits for certifying model year 2030 and later vehicles.
Any unused multiplier credits would expire in MY 2030.
Since some portion of the advanced technology credits have
restricted or expiring use, we expect to track base credits separate
from multiplier credits in evaluating compliance and will work with
manufacturers to prioritize which credits are applied for a given model
year consistent with the final restrictions and provisions. Finally, we
note that in section II.B of this preamble we describe part of EPA's
commitment to monitor the on-going implementation of the HD vehicle GHG
programs as assessing manufacturers' use of the CO2
emissions ABT program. This will include evaluating manufacturers' use
of advanced technology multipliers, quantifying any banked credits
generated from the use of multipliers, and considering the potential
for those credits to undermine the overall goals of the Phase 3 program
in the MY 2027 and later time frame. If we identify a significant
volume of banked credits from credit multipliers that we determine is
undermining the goals of the Phase 3 program, we may consider further
restrictions in a future action.
3. Transitional Flexibility Allowing Credit Exchange Across Averaging
Sets
In recognition that the final HD GHG Phase 3 standards will require
meaningful investments from manufacturers to reduce GHG emissions from
HD vehicles, we are finalizing additional flexibilities to assist
manufacturers in the implementation of Phase 3. Specifically, we
requested comment on and are finalizing an interim (i.e., temporary)
flexibility for manufacturers to use certain credits across averaging
sets, with limitations outlined in this section. We are retaining our
current averaging set definitions and our approach that limits
averaging, banking, or trading within an averaging set for credits or
deficits generated from heavy-duty vehicles outside the range of model
years over which this transitional allowance applies.\850\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\850\ 40 CFR 1037.140(g) and 1037.740(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In HD GHG Phase 1, we adopted an approach to allow advanced
technology credits to earn a multiplier of 1.5 and be applied to any
heavy-duty engine or vehicle averaging set, subject to a cap.\851\ In
HD GHG Phase 2, we discontinued the allowance to reduce the risk of
market distortions if we allowed the use of the credits across
averaging sets combined with the larger credit multipliers.\852\ As
discussed in section III.A.2, manufacturers will continue to have the
flexibility to generate advanced technology credit multipliers through
model year 2027 but those credits generated from multipliers would only
be available for use through model year 2029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\851\ 40 CFR 1036.740(c) and 1037.740(b).
\852\ 81 FR 73498, October 25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We requested comment on the flexibility for credits generated from
PHEV, BEV, and FCEV to be used across certain averaging sets, including
for HD
[[Page 29607]]
vehicles subject to 40 CFR part 1037, HD engines subject to 40 CFR part
1036, or heavy-duty vehicles subject to 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, and
any limitations we should consider. 88 FR 26013. In comments, many
vehicle manufacturers expressed concern over the level of the proposed
standards and, for those considering a compliance pathway similar to
the potential pathway EPA modeled, the uncertainties in their ability
to produce enough BEV or FCEV or otherwise to meet the standards.
Commenters expressing support for using credits across averaging sets
generally noted that the flexibility would help manufacturers implement
advanced technologies in the vehicle segments with the greatest demand
or cost effectiveness. Some of these supportive commenters suggested
EPA expand the flexibility beyond the examples provided in the requests
for comment. Commenters opposed to allowing credit transfers across
averaging sets generally expressed concern over market distortions and
reduced effectiveness of the rule.
After considering comments and further evaluation of the example
flexibilities included as requests for comment in the proposal, the
final provision, available as an interim, transitional flexibility
during model years 2027 through 2032, will allow manufacturers some
flexibility to use credits generated from heavy-duty vehicles across
averaging sets. In this section III.A.3, we describe how the allowance
applies for heavy-duty vehicles under 40 CFR part 1037 and heavy-duty
vehicles under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. We also explain our decision
not to extend this flexibility to allow heavy-duty vehicle credits for
use in the heavy-duty engine averaging sets under 40 CFR part 1036. See
also section 10.3.2 of the response to comments document for this rule.
i. Applicability of the Transitional Flexibility Allowing Credit
Exchange Across Averaging Sets
The current rules provide three averaging sets for HD vehicles:
Light HDV, Medium HDV, and Heavy HDV (see 40 CFR 1037.740(a)). Credits
generated by vehicles may only be averaged, banked, or traded within
each averaging set. Id. EPA sought comment on revising this limitation
during the initial phase-in years of the Phase 3 program for credits
generated from Phase 2's designated advanced technologies. 88 FR 26013.
EPA's request for comment also included the possibility of credits
generated by chassis-certified Class 2b/3 vehicles certified under 40
CFR part 86, subpart S, being allowed to be used within the HD vehicle
ABT program and credits from HD vehicles being allowed to be used
within the HD engine ABT program. Id.
The provision that limits credit exchanges to within averaging sets
is unique to the heavy-duty rules--on the light-duty vehicle side,
credits can flow freely among all vehicle types. EPA implemented the
limitation because heavy-duty vehicles comprise so many applications
that calculations across averaging sets of, for example, operating life
and load cycles could prove problematic. 76 FR 57240 (September 11,
2011). EPA has also noted manufacturer equity concerns (see, e.g., 55
FR 30586 (July 26, 1990)), whereby manufacturers with broader product
lines might have an unfair advantage because of greater opportunities
to average. EPA further indicated, however, that we could reassess
these limitations after gaining experience administering the program.
76 FR 57240. In this rulemaking, commenters did not voice these
concerns, and HD manufacturers commented that averaging across the HDV
averaging sets would no longer afford competitors an unfair
advantage.\853\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\853\ See, for example, comments from Volvo Group (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1606, p 20-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering comments, we are finalizing an interim provision
allowing credits to be used across HD vehicle averaging sets during the
MY 2027 through MY 2032 period. More specifically, during model years
2027 through 2032, manufacturers can transfer credits generated from
heavy-duty vehicles in MYs 2027-2032 between all heavy-duty vehicle
averaging sets in 40 CFR part 1037. Thus, credits can transfer from
Light HDV to Medium HDV or Heavy HDV, from Medium HDV to Light HDV or
Heavy HDV, and from Heavy HDV to Light HDV or Medium HDV. We note that
we are finalizing this interim provision to include credits generated
by all heavy-duty vehicles, including those using ICE-based vehicle
technologies and not limited to Phase 2 advanced technologies. The
broad applicability of this interim provision ensures that we continue
to incentivize future vehicle technology that may generate credits
against the Phase 3 standards by including it within this interim
flexibility.
We also requested comment on the possibility of allowing
manufacturers certifying under 40 CFR part 1037 to access credits
generated by Class 2b and 3 pickup trucks and vans \854\ (see 88 FR
26013). One manufacturer of medium-duty vehicles commented in support
of that potential allowance, indicating that there is a two-year delay
in adapting light-duty vehicle technology for the heavy-duty vehicle
market. No other affected manufacturers commented on the issue. After
considering comments, we are finalizing provisions allowing
manufacturers to access credits generated by model year 2027 through
2032 medium-duty vehicles to certify heavy-duty vehicles, with some
limitations as described in the following section III.A.3.ii.
Specifically, we are finalizing an interim allowance for one-way credit
transfers from averaging sets for medium-duty vehicles certified to 40
CFR part 86, subpart S, to averaging sets for heavy-duty vehicles
certified to 40 CFR part 1037.\855\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\854\ The recent Light- and Medium-duty final rule now
classifies these vehicles as ``Medium Duty Vehicles''. See Final
Rule: Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and
Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles. Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0829. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-multi-pollutant-emissions-standards-model.
\855\ See 40 CFR 86.1819-14 and 40 CFR 1037.150(z).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously explained, Phase 2 credits may be banked for use in
the Phase 3 program and manufacturers can continue to apply all
available Phase 2 credits within the applicable averaging sets
consistent with the existing ABT program. In section III.A.3.ii, we
describe some limitations on the use of banked credits under this
transitional flexibility.
We have calculated the range of credits that would be eligible for
transfer across averaging sets and estimated the relative impact of
these newly available credits, and project that use of this flexibility
will have a limited impact on the stringency of the Phase 3
standards.\856\ While we anticipate no significant negative emissions
impact, we are finalizing the transitional flexibility as an interim
provision, available until model year 2032, because we do not expect a
continued need for such a flexibility once the Phase 3 program is fully
implemented. We may consider extending the flexibility in a future
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\856\ See Brakora, Jessica. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985. ``Additional Considerations of ABT Provisions for HD GHG
Phase 3 Final Rule''. March 2024 for illustrations of how these
provisions could operate in tandem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Limitations of the Transitional Flexibility Allowing Credit
Exchange Across Averaging Sets
As noted in section III.A.2, we have taken steps to reduce the
potential for
[[Page 29608]]
Phase 2 advance technology multiplier credits to dilute the effective
stringency of the Phase 3 standards by restricting the use of credits
generated from multipliers to MYs 2027 through 2029 and phasing out
their availability in MY 2030. These multiplier credit restrictions
also limit potential impacts from allowing credits to exchange across
averaging sets as the restrictions apply within the range of model
years over which this transitional flexibility applies. In this section
III.A.3.ii, we describe other specific limitations we are adopting for
heavy-duty vehicles under 40 CFR part 1037 and heavy-duty vehicles
under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, to further reduce potential impacts of
credit exchanges across the applicable averaging sets.
As noted previously, manufacturers may bank credits generated
before MY 2027 for use in Phase 3. However, for this transitional
flexibility allowing credits to exchange across averaging sets, a
manufacturer may only use credits from MY 2026 and earlier vehicles if
the credits were generated from vehicles certified as advanced
technologies under 40 CFR part 1037.\857\ We are extending the interim
cross-averaging set flexibility to include these credits given that
increased utilization of advanced technologies prior to the
commencement of the Phase 3 program has the potential to lead to very
large reductions in GHG emissions (as we recognized in the Phase 2
rulemaking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\857\ This allowance includes any credits generated from
multipliers under 40 CFR part 1037 that are available for use in MYs
2027-2029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule includes several limitations on the flexibility to
use credits to demonstrate compliance with Phase 3 standards. First, we
are not extending the interim flexibility to include credits generated
from MY 2026 and earlier vehicles certified to 40 CFR part 86, subpart
S. Those earlier vehicles are subject to less stringent standards,
which also include the allowance to generate multiplier credits for
advanced technologies. Allowing heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers to
access credits from these earlier medium-duty vehicles would risk
substantially delaying the benefits of the Phase 3 standards. Second,
we are limiting the use of credits from 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, to a
one-way transfer to 40 CFR part 1037 in recognition that there is
greater availability of advanced technologies in pickup trucks and vans
and less need to offer a flexibility for vehicles in that market
relative to the larger vehicle classes. Third, medium-duty credits may
be used for demonstrating compliance only for Light HDV or Medium HDV
averaging sets; this is consistent with the request for comment in the
proposed rule.
Regarding credits from vehicles certified to 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S, we make two additional clarifications. First, any credits
transferred under this flexibility would no longer be available for the
part 86 ABT program to aid in manufacturers meeting the requirements
for medium-duty vehicles. Second, vehicles defined as Medium-duty
Passenger Vehicles in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, are over 8,500 pounds
GVWR but are subject to the standards that apply for light trucks and
are therefore not eligible to generate credits for this transitional
flexibility.
Some commenters expressed concern with the Phase 2 ABT provisions
allowing credits from vocational vehicles to be used for tractors in
the same weight class. They argued that a manufacturer may use
vocational vehicle ZEV credits to offset tractors, thereby limiting
adoption of ZEV technology in tractors. Were manufacturers to do so,
this would be consistent with the original intent of the ABT program,
which is to provide manufacturers the flexibility to identify which
vehicle categories to apply new technologies for their specific product
line to meet the standards, generally allowing them to meet standards
at lower cost. As we describe later in this response, we project a
limited impact on emissions from this new (and temporary) flexibility.
We also requested comment on the possibility of allowing a one-way
transfer of CO2 credits from heavy-duty vehicle averaging
sets to heavy-duty engine averaging sets (see 88 FR 26013 seeking
comment on this potential flexibility). While some commenters expressed
general support for this allowance, we expect we would need to apply
restrictions on the engine averaging sets where vehicle credits can be
applied to limit potential disproportionate adverse emission impact on
certain engine categories and FEL caps to avoid backsliding on the
engine standards. At this time, we are not finalizing such a
flexibility as we believe the complexity would limit the use of this
flexibility relative to the other flexibilities we are finalizing in
this rule.
Finally, we requested comment on capping the volume of credits that
can be transferred across the HD vehicle averaging sets. 88 FR 26013.
We are not including a cap on credits transferred between averaging
sets in the final interim flexibility. A cap would be justified in
cases where vehicles with zero or near-zero tailpipe CO2
emissions are able to offset a significant number of vehicles in any
given averaging set under this flexibility. Our assessment of the
effect of those vehicles does not indicate a such an offset.
Furthermore, we do not want manufacturers to limit production of
technologies with the potential for very large GHG emission reductions
in order to be within a cap; in particular we do not want to
disincentivize manufacturers from producing additional vehicles with
technologies that can achieve very large GHG emissions reductions.
B. Battery Durability Monitoring and Warranty Requirements
This section describes the battery durability monitoring
requirements that we are finalizing for BEVs and PHEVs and how warranty
applies for several advanced technologies. As we explained in the
proposal, BEVs, PHEVs, and FCEVs are playing an increasing role in
vehicle manufacturers' compliance strategies to control GHG emissions
from HD vehicles. The battery durability and warranty requirements
support BEV, PHEV, and FCEV battery durability and thus support
achieving the GHG emissions reductions projected by this program.
Further, these requirements support the integrity of the GHG emissions
credit calculations under the ABT program as these calculations are
based on mileage over a vehicle's full useful life.\858\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\858\ These two rationales are separate and independent
justifications for the requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the outset we note that, in comments, the Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA) challenged EPA's authority to adopt durability and
warranty requirements for these powertrains and their components.
Before describing the final rule provisions relating to durability and
warranty, we first address this threshold issue. EMA agrees that EPA
has authority ``to set lower emission standards as advancements in
technology allow, even down to zero,'' but maintains that authority to
establish useful life, durability, and warranty requirements related to
such standards differs because these provisions are applicable only to
``emission related'' components, and BEV and FCEV powertrain components
do not emit: ``EPA's authority to prescribe useful life requirements
under CAA section 202(d) is directly tied to the purpose of extending
the time span of emission standards that limit the rate, quantity or
concentration of emissions of air pollutants from new motor vehicles .
. . . Since ZEV powertrains, including ZEV batteries, do not and cannot
emit
[[Page 29609]]
any air pollutants in any quantity into the ambient air . . ., EPA does
not have the authority to set emissions-related useful life
requirements for BEV and FCEV powertrains or their various non-emitting
components.'' With regard to warranty and durability, EMA further
states that ``CAA section 207(a)(1) makes it clear that the scope of
authorized warranties is to ensure that vehicles and engines `are
designed, built and equipped so as to conform at the time of sale with
the applicable regulations [i.e., emission standards] established under
section . . . [section 202(a)(1)].' '' \859\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\859\ The comment did not address durability requirements
related to PHEV components (see RTC section 11.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's authority to set and enforce durability requirements for
emission-related components like batteries is an integral part of its
title II authority. Durability requirements ensure that vehicle
manufacturers and the vehicles they produce will continue to comply
with emissions standards set under 202(a) over the course of those
vehicles' useful lives. Such authority arises both out of section
202(a)(1) and 202(d) (relating to a vehicle's useful life) and section
206(a)(1) and 206(b)(1) (relating to certification requirements for
compliance).
EPA accounts for durability at certification by requiring, as part
of the compliance demonstration for meeting GHG emission standards, a
demonstration that emission controls will not deteriorate during useful
life, such as for a battery in a hybrid or plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle. 40 CFR 1036.241(c) and 1037.241(c). Durability of a ZEV
battery is covered by this same provision and principle. EPA has
exercised its authority to set emission durability requirements across
a variety of emission-related components for decades, including
electrified technology like electronic control modules (ECM). See,
e.g., 40 CFR 1065.915(d) (permitting ECM signals in place of Portable
Emissions Measurement System (PEMS) instrument measurements); 40 CFR
1037.605 (requiring ECM programming where vehicle is speed limited to
45 mph as part of alternate standards certification).
EPA has separate authority to set warranty requirements for
batteries in ZEVs and PHEVs. CAA section 207(a)(1). Providing a
warranty for emission-related components like batteries precisely
accomplishes the congressional purpose of assuring purchasers that
vehicles will conform to applicable emission standards at time of sale
and in use. Previously, EPA has already set warranty requirements for
batteries in hybrids and PHEVs. See 88 FR 4363 (discussing 40 CFR
1036.120). EPA has also previously provided warranties for other
electrified technologies, such as ECMs. Indeed, Congress explicitly
provided that ECMs are ``specified major emissions control
component[s]'' for warranty purposes per section 207(i)(2).
In general, ZEV batteries, just like batteries in PHEVs and other
hybrid vehicles, are emission-related components for two reasons, thus
providing EPA authority to set durability and warranty requirements
applicable to them. First, they are emission-related by their nature.
Durability and warranty requirements for batteries are not like
requiring durability and warranty for a vehicle component like a
vehicle's ``windshield'' or ``brake pedals'' that have no relevance to
a vehicle's emissions. Integrity of a battery in a vehicle with these
powertrains is vital to the vehicle's emission performance; integrity
of its ``brake pedals'' '' is not. It is wrong to say that a component
that allows a vehicle to operate entirely without emissions is not
emission-related. See 40 CFR 1037.120(c) (``The emission-related
warranty also covers other added emission-related components to the
extent they are included in your application for certification, and any
other components whose failure would increase a vehicle's
CO2 emissions.'').\860\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\860\ The listed components in 40 CFR 1037.120(c)--'' tires,
automatic tire inflation systems, tire pressure monitoring systems,
vehicle speed limiters, idle reduction systems, devices added to
improve aerodynamic performance (not including standard components
such as hoods or mirrors), fuel cell stacks, and RESS with hybrid
systems, battery electric vehicles, and fuel cell electric vehicles
``--are evidently all related to vehicular emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, for warranty and durability purposes, EPA has consistently
considered a component to be ``emission related'' if it relates to a
manufacturer's ability to comply with emissions standards, regardless
of the form of those standards.\861\ For standards to be meaningfully
applicable across a vehicle's useful life, EPA's assessment of
compliance with such standards necessarily includes an evaluation of
the performance of the emissions control systems, which for BEVs,
FCEVs, and PHEVs includes the battery system both when the vehicle is
new and across its useful life. This is particularly true given the
averaging form of standards that EPA uses for GHG emissions (and which
EMA continues to support) and which most manufacturers choose for
demonstrating compliance. Given the fleet average nature of the
standards, the Agency needs to have confidence that the emissions
reductions--and thus credits generated--by each BEV, FCEV, and PHEV
introduced into the fleet are reflective of the real world. This is
particularly important because one of the elements of the credit
generating formula is useful life of the vehicle in miles travelled,
see 40 CFR 1037.705(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\861\ See 88 FR 4296, January 24, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring that ZEVs and PHEVs contain durable batteries is thus
essential to assuring the integrity of the averaging process: assuring
that vehicles will need to perform in fact for the useful life mileage
reflected in any credits they may generate. Put another way, durable
batteries are a significant factor in vindicating the averaging form of
the standard: that the standard is met per vehicle, and on average per
fleet, throughout the vehicles' useful life. The battery durability and
warranty provisions finalized in this rulemaking allow for greater
confidence that the batteries installed by vehicle manufacturers are
durable and thus support the standards. Specifically, the durability
regulatory provisions for batteries work to assure the integrity of the
standards throughout a vehicle's useful life, precisely in accord with
the requirements of section 202(a)(1) and 202(d), and batteries are
clearly emissions-related components for which warranty requirements
may be set under 207(a)(1). EPA therefore disagrees with EMA that it
lacks authority to adopt such standards. EMA's assertion that these
provisions are unrelated to the emission standards is consequently
completely misplaced.
In addition to EPA's general authority to promulgate durability
requirements under sections 202 and 206, EPA has additional separate
and specific authority to require on-board monitoring systems capable
of ``accurately identifying for the vehicle's useful life as
established under [section 202], emission-related systems deterioration
or malfunction.'' Section 202(m)(1)(A).\862\ As we discuss at length in
this section, EV batteries are ``emission-related systems,'' and thus
EPA has the authority to set durability monitoring requirements for
such
[[Page 29610]]
systems over the course of a vehicle's useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\862\ Section 202(m)(1)(A) specifically applies to light duty
vehicles and light duty trucks, but section 202(m)(1) allows EPA to
``promulgate regulations requiring manufacturers to install such
onboard diagnostic systems on heavy-duty vehicles and engines,''
which provides concurrent authority for the battery monitoring
requirements discussed in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMA suggests that EPA does not have authority to set durability or
warranty requirements because ZEV batteries are not emission-related
for several reasons. First, EMA argues that because ZEVs do not
themselves emit, they and their powertrain components are ``not within
the scope of any specific emission standards,'' and therefore they
cannot be subject to ``emissions-related'' durability and warranty
requirements. But EPA does have the authority to set standards for ZEVs
as they are part of the ``class'' of regulated vehicles. In addition,
all vehicles, including ZEVs, are subject to an applicable Family
Emission Limit (FEL) throughout their useful life to demonstrate
compliance with EPA's GHG emissions standards.\863\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\863\ See preamble section I.C and Response to Comments section
10.2.1 for further description of EPA's authority to set standards
under section 202(a) using an averaging form, and to include ZEVs
and PHEVs within a fleet average-based standard. For a more detailed
description of the ABT process for HDVs, see section III.A of this
preamble and section 10.2.1.d of the RTC document. EPA replies to
the commenter's assertions regarding authority to establish
standards for a vehicle's useful life as part of that same response
to comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMA argues secondly that a component only counts as emission-
related if its failure would allow the vehicle to continue operating,
but with higher emissions. But nothing in the statute imposes such a
limitation. Moreover, while it is true that the failure of a battery
would cause the vehicle to stop operating, the same is true for some
other vehicle components that have also historically been subject to
durability requirements. For instance, EPA has set durability
requirements for diesel engines (see 40 CFR 86.1823-08(c)), failure of
which could cause the vehicle to stop operating. Similarly, Congress
explicitly provided that electronic control modules (ECMs) (described
in the statute as ``electronic emissions control units'') are
``specified major emissions control component[s]'' for warranty
purposes per section 207(i)(2); failure of ECMs can also cause the
vehicle to stop operating, and not necessarily increase the emissions
of the vehicle.
EMA is also mistaken in suggesting that there is no way to warrant
at time of sale that a vehicle that lacks tailpipe emissions is
``designed, built, and equipped so as to conform, at time of sale with
applicable regulations under [section 202(a)(1). . . . and . . . for
its useful life, as determined by [section 202(d)].'' Section
207(a)(1). In fact, automakers warrant at the time of sale that each
new vehicle is designed to comply with all applicable emission
standards and will be free from defects that may cause noncompliance.
They do so with respect to all emission-related components in the
manufacturer's application for certification, as noted, and which
explicitly include batteries (also known as Rechargeable Energy Storage
System (RESS)). See 40 CFR 1037.120(c). These provisions are readily
implementable at time of sale and thereafter by reference to the
applicable certified FEL and comport entirely with section 207 of the
Act.
We intend for the battery durability and warranty requirements
finalized in this rule to be entirely separate and severable from the
revised emissions standards and other varied components of this rule,
and also severable from each other. EPA has considered and adopted
battery durability requirements, battery warranty requirements, and the
remaining portions of the final rule independently, and each is
severable should there be judicial review. If a court were to
invalidate any one of these elements of the final rule, we intend the
remainder of this action to remain effective, as we have designed the
program to function even if one part of the rule is set aside. For
example, if a reviewing court were to invalidate the battery durability
requirements, we intend the other components of the rule, including the
GHG standards, to remain effective.
As we explain previously in this section, for manufacturers who
choose to produce BEVs, FCEVs, or PHEVs, durable batteries are
important to ensuring that the manufacturer's overall compliance with
fleet emissions standards would continue throughout the useful life of
the vehicle. The battery durability and warranty provisions EPA is
finalizing help assure this outcome. At the same time, we expect that,
even if not strictly required, the majority of vehicle manufacturers
would still produce vehicles containing durable batteries given their
effect on vehicle performance and the competitive nature of the
industry. Available data indicates that manufacturers are already
providing warranty coverage similar to what is required by the final
durability and warranty requirements for ZEVs and PHEVs of various
sizes.864 865 866 867 868 Given the competitive nature of
the ZEV and PHEV market, we anticipate that manufacturers will continue
to do so, regardless of EPA's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\864\ United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Informal
Working Group on Electric Vehicles and the Environment (UN ECE EVE),
``Battery Durability: Review of EVE 34 discussion,'' May 19, 2020,
p. 12. Available at https://wiki.unece.org/download/attachments/101555222/EVE-35-03e.pdf?api=v2.
\865\ UK Department of Transport, ``Commercial electric vehicle
battery warranty analysis,'' April 25, 2023. Available at https://wiki.unece.org/download/attachments/192840855/EVE-61-08e%20-%20UK%20warranty%20analysis.pdf?api=v2.
\866\ CarEdge.com, ``The Best Electric Vehicle Battery
Warranties in 2024,'' January 9, 2024. Accessed on February 16, 2024
at https://caredge.com/guides/ev-battery-warranties.
\867\ California Air Resources Board, ``Cars and Light-Trucks
are Going Zero--Frequently Asked Questions.'' Accessed on February
16, 2024 at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cars-and-light-trucks-are-going-zero-frequently-asked-questions.
\868\ Forbes, ``By The Numbers: Comparing Electric Car
Warranties,'' October 31, 2022. Accessed on February 16, 2024 at
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2022/10/31/by-the-numbers-comparing-electric-car-warranties/?sh=2ed7a5243fd7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover generally, the battery durability and warranty
requirements resemble many other compliance provisions that facilitate
manufacturers' ability to comply with the standards, as well as EPA's
ability to assure and enforce that compliance. Were a reviewing court
to invalidate any compliance provision, that would preclude the agency
from applying that particular provision to assure compliance, but it
would not mean that the entire regulatory framework should fall with
it. Specifically, were a reviewing court to invalidate the final
durability and warranty requirements, EPA would continue to have
numerous tools at its disposal to assure and enforce compliance of the
final standards, including the entire panoply of certification
requirements, in-use testing requirements, administrative and judicial
enforcement, and so forth, so as to achieve significant emissions
reductions. Therefore, EPA is adopting and is capable of implementing
final standards entirely separate from the battery durability and
warranty requirements. The contrapositive is also true: EPA is adopting
and capable of implementing the battery durability and warranty
requirements entirely separate from the standards. For example, even
without the final standards, we believe the enhanced battery durability
and warranty requirements would serve to facilitate compliance with the
existing GHG standards.
1. BEV and PHEV Durability Monitoring Requirements
EPA's HD vehicle GHG emission standards apply for the regulatory
useful life of the HD vehicle, consistent with CAA section 202(a)(1)
(``Such standards shall be applicable to such vehicles and engines for
their useful life''). Section
[[Page 29611]]
202(d) commands EPA to prescribe regulations establishing useful life
for purposes of section 202(a)(1) standards. Accordingly, EPA has
historically required manufacturers to demonstrate the durability of
their emission control systems on vehicles, implementing these
authorities as well as EPA's authority to prescribe ``appropriate
testing'' for purposes of vehicle certification under section 206(a).
See, e.g., 40 CFR 1037.205(l) (requiring applicants for certification
to identify the vehicle family's deterioration factors and how the
manufacturer derived those factors) and 1037.241(b) \869\ (EPA may
require engineering analysis showing that performance of emission
controls will not deteriorate in use as part of certification process).
Without durability demonstration requirements, EPA would not be able to
assess whether vehicles originally manufactured in compliance with
relevant emissions standards (including the subfamily specific Family
Emission Limit (FEL) to which each vehicle is certified, for
manufacturers complying using the ABT compliance alternative; see
section III.A of this preamble and RTC chapter 10.2.1, section d) would
remain compliant over the course of their useful life. Recognizing that
BEV, PHEV, and FCEV are playing an increasing role in manufacturers'
compliance strategies, and that emission credit calculations are based
in part on mileage over a vehicle's useful life, the same logic applies
to BEV, PHEV, and FCEV battery and powertrain durability. Under 40 CFR
part 1037, subpart H, credits are calculated by determining the FEL
each vehicle subfamily achieves beyond the standard and multiplying
that by the production volume and a useful life mileage attributed to
each vehicle subfamily.\870\ Having a useful life mileage value for
each vehicle subfamily is integral to calculating the credits
attributable to that vehicle, whether those credits are used for
calculating compliance through averaging, or for banking or trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\869\ In this final action we are moving 40 CFR 1037.241(c) to
40 CFR 1037.241(b).
\870\ More specifically, vehicle families and subfamilies are
certified to the applicable standard and FEL. Conditions are placed
on the certificates to ensure compliance with the fleet average
after the year's production is completed. The production-weighted
sum of the families and their FELs within each averaging set must be
equal to or less than the applicable emission standard. The useful
life values for the HD vehicle standards are located in 40 CFR
1037.105(e) and 1037.106(e). 40 CFR 1037.705(b) specifies that
useful life of the vehicle, in miles, is part of the formula used to
determine credit generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because vehicle manufacturers can use such emissions control
technologies to comply with EPA standards, we proposed and are
finalizing requirements to ensure that such vehicles certifying to EPA
standards are durable and capable of providing the anticipated
emissions reductions to which they are certified. Specifically, we are
finalizing a requirement that manufacturers provide a customer-facing
battery state-of-health (SOH) monitor for all heavy-duty BEVs and
PHEVs. The new 40 CFR 1037.115(f) requires manufacturers to install a
customer-accessible SOH monitor which estimates, monitors, and
communicates the vehicle's state of certified energy (SOCE) as it is
defined in 40 CFR 1037.115(f). Specifically, manufacturers would
implement onboard algorithms to estimate the current state of health of
the battery, in terms of the state of its usable battery energy (UBE)
expressed as a percentage of the original UBE when the vehicle was new.
EPA may perform in-use testing ``of any vehicle subject to the
standards.'' 40 CFR 1037.401(a). This in-use testing is compared to the
FEL to which the vehicle is certified. See 40 CFR 1037.241(a)(2)
(``Note that the FEL is considered to be the applicable emissions
standard for an individual configuration''). If manufacturers are
complying with the standard by averaging credits, emission credits
would be calculated assuming the battery sufficiently maintains its
performance for the full useful life of the vehicle. Without battery-
specific durability requirements applicable to such vehicles, we are
mindful that there would not be a guarantee that a manufacturer's
overall compliance with emission standards would continue throughout
that useful life. We are finalizing new battery durability monitoring
to apply for MY 2030 and later HD BEVs and PHEVs as a key step in
assuring the emission reductions projected for this program will be
achieved in use.
As implemented by light-duty vehicle manufacturers in current BEVs
and PHEVs, lithium-ion battery technology has been shown to be
effective and durable for use and we expect that this will also be the
case for heavy-duty vehicles.\871\ We recognize that the energy
capacity of a battery will naturally degrade to some degree with time
and usage, which can result in a reduction in driving range as the
vehicle ages. See RIA Chapter 2.4.1.1.3. Excessive battery degradation
in a PHEV could lead to higher fuel consumption and increased criteria
pollutant tailpipe emissions, while a degraded battery in a BEV could
impact its ability to deliver the lifetime mileage expected. This
effectively becomes an issue of durability if it reduces the utility of
the vehicle or its useful life, and EPA will closely track developments
in this area and propose modifications as they become necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\871\ See RIA Chapter 2.4.1.1.4, for how we accounted for
battery deterioration in our analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle and engine manufacturers are currently required to account
for potential battery degradation that could result in an increase in
CO2 and criteria pollutant emissions when certifying hybrid
or plug-in hybrid vehicles (see, e.g., existing 40 CFR 1037.241(b) and
1036.241(c)).\872\ In addition, engine manufacturers are required to
demonstrate compliance with criteria pollutant standards using fully
aged emission control components that represent expected degradation
during useful life (see, e.g., 40 CFR 1036.235(a)(2) and 1036.240). We
considered these well-established approaches, as well as comments
received, for the final battery durability monitoring requirements for
HD BEVs and PHEVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\872\ We are removing current 40 CFR 1037.241(b) and
redesignating 40 CFR 1037.241(c) to 40 CFR 1037.241(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of battery durability in the context of zero- and
near-zero emission vehicles, such as BEVs and PHEVs, has been cited by
several authorities in recent years. In their 2021 Phase 3 report,\873\
the National Academies of Science (NAS) identified battery durability
as an important issue with the rise of electrification.\874\ Several
rulemaking bodies have also recognized the importance of battery
durability in a world with rapidly increasing numbers of zero-emission
vehicles. In 2015 the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN
ECE) began studying the need for a Global Technical Regulation (GTR)
governing battery durability. In April 2022 it published United Nations
Global Technical Regulation No. 22, ``In-
[[Page 29612]]
Vehicle Battery Durability for Electrified Vehicles,'' \875\ or GTR No.
22, which provides a regulatory structure for contracting parties to
set standards for battery durability in BEVs and PHEVs.\876\ The
European Commission and other contracting parties have also recognized
the importance of durability provisions and are working to adopt the
GTR standards in their local regulatory structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\873\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
2021. ``Assessment of Technologies for Improving Light-Duty Vehicle
Fuel Economy 2025-2035''. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26092.
\874\ Among the findings outlined in that report, NAS noted
that: ``battery capacity degradation is considered a barrier for
market penetration of BEVs,'' (p. 5-114), and that ``[knowledge of]
real-world battery lifetime could have implications on R&D
priorities, warranty provision, consumer confidence and acceptance,
and role of electrification in fuel economy policy.'' (p. 5-115).
NAS also noted that ``life prediction guides battery sizing,
warranty, and resale value [and repurposing and recycling]'' (p. 5-
115), and discussed at length the complexities of SOH estimation,
life-cycle prediction, and testing for battery degradation (p. 5-113
to 5-115).
\875\ United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Addendum
22: United Nations Global Technical Regulation No. 22, United
Nations Global Technical Regulation on In-vehicle Battery Durability
for Electrified Vehicles, April 14, 2022. Available at: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/ECE_TRANS_180a22e.pdf.
\876\ EPA representatives chaired the informal working group
that developed this GTR and worked closely with global regulatory
agencies and industry partners to complete its development in a form
that could be adopted in various regions of the world, including
potentially the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA concurs with the emerging consensus that battery durability is
an important issue. The ability of a zero-emission vehicle to achieve
the expected emission reductions during its lifetime depends in part on
the ability of the battery to maintain sufficient driving range,
capacity, power, and general operability for a period of use comparable
to that expected of a conventional vehicle. Durable and reliable
electrified vehicles are therefore critical to ensuring that projected
emissions reductions are achieved by this program. The durability
monitoring regulations will require manufacturers of BEVs and PHEVs to
develop and implement an on-board state-of-certified-energy (SOCE)
monitor that can be read by the vehicle user. These requirements are
similar to the battery durability monitor regulation framework
developed by the UN ECE and adopted in 2022 as GTR No. 22. We did not
propose and are not finalizing durability monitoring requirements for
FCEV manufacturers at this time because the technology is currently
still emerging in heavy-duty vehicle applications, and we are still
learning what the appropriate metric might be for quantifying FCEV
performance.
The Administrator has determined that GTR No. 22, which was
developed with extensive input from EPA, provides an appropriate
framework and set of requirements for ensuring battery durability and
should be integrated into the context of this rulemaking for this
purpose. The requirements and general framework of the battery
durability program under this rule are therefore largely identical to
those outlined in GTR No. 22 and broadly parallel the GTR in terms of
the hardware, monitoring and compliance requirements, the associated
statistical methods and metrics that apply to determination of
compliance, and criteria for establishing battery durability and
monitor families.
For BEV, we requested comment as to the desirability of EPA
defining a standard procedure for determining UBE. 88 FR 26015. We
received comments both supporting and objecting to EPA defining such a
standard test procedure. We are not finalizing a specific procedure at
this time due to the range of HD BEV architectures and the limited test
facilities for conducting powertrain testing of BEV with e-axles. In
addition, we are not requiring pack level testing for the determination
of UBE, as allowing for vehicle level testing would enable easier
verification of UBE with in-use vehicles. The final rule instead
requires manufacturers to develop and get EPA approval of their own
test procedure for determining UBE that meets the criteria that is
described in this section. With the SOCE being a relative measure of
battery health and not absolute UBE, we believe that leaving the test
procedure up to the manufacturer will still provide a meaningful
measure of the health of the battery. We also believe that requiring
the SOH to be customer-accessible will provide assurance that the SOH
monitor is relatively accurate.
For PHEV, manufacturers will use the existing powertrain test
procedures defined in 40 CFR 1036.545 to determine UBE, or a
manufacturer-specific alternative test procedure.\877\ The regulatory
powertrain test procedures require that PHEVs be tested in charge
depleting and charge sustaining modes using a range of vehicle
configurations. Under the final procedure, PHEV manufacturers would
select the most representative vehicle configuration to determine UBE
for the powertrain family. In addition to this test procedure, the
final rule allows manufacturers to develop and get EPA approval of
their own test procedures for determining UBE for PHEV. We are
finalizing this option since some manufacturers may use the same
battery pack for their BEV and PHEV products, and using the same
procedure will reduce testing burden and variability in the
determination of UBE.\878\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\877\ We are moving the existing powertrain procedure from its
current location in 40 CFR 1037.550 to the heavy-duty highway engine
provisions as a new 40 CFR 1036.545. See section III.C.3 of this
preamble for more information.
\878\ This flexibility is in response to a comment that we
received from Cummins, that is summarized in RTC section 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Along with these provisions allowing manufacturers to develop their
own test procedure for determining UBE for BEV or for PHEV, we are
finalizing specific criteria for such a test procedure to ensure it
produces accurate results that are representative of in-use operation.
These provisions bound the parameters of each manufacturer-specific
test procedure. The first requirement is that the test procedure must
measure UBE by discharging the battery at a constant power that is
representative of the vehicle cruising on the highway. For many HD
vehicles the power to cruise on the highway would result in a C-rate
between C/6 and C/2.\879\ The second requirement is that the test is
complete when the battery is not able to maintain the target power. The
third requirement is that the battery energy measurements must meet the
requirements defined in 40 CFR 1036.545(a)(10). The final requirement
is that the SOH monitor must be able to determine the UBE within +/- 5
percent of the result of the test procedure. The finalized accuracy
requirement for the SOH monitor is supported by GTR No. 22 and by
comments to the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\879\ C-rate is a measure of the rate at which a battery is
discharged or charged relative to its maximum capacity and has units
of inverse hours. At a 2C discharge rate, it would take 0.5 hours to
fully discharge a battery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We requested comment on finalizing a state-of-certified-range
(SOCR) monitor. 88 FR 26015. In response, we received one comment
supporting EPA finalizing an SOCR monitor and many comments in
opposition. As stated by some commenters, the range of a HD BEV is
highly dependent on the duty cycle and payload of the vehicle. Since an
SOCR monitor is not likely to provide useful information to the driver,
we are not finalizing a requirement for an SOCR monitor at this time. A
complete list of the comments and our response can be found in section
11 of the response to comments document.
We believe that the new requirement to have an SOH monitor,
buttressed by the manufacturer-specific test for determining UBE, will
assure that these vehicles meet standards throughout their useful life,
per sections 202(a)(1) and 202(d) of the CAA. In addition, the SOH
monitor should provide consumers with assurance of durability, and an
ability to monitor it.
In addition, under the EPA GHG program, BEV and PHEV generate
credits that can be traded among manufacturers and used to offset
deficits generated by vehicles using other technologies that do not
themselves meet the standards, as well as used to offset debits
generated by the
[[Page 29613]]
manufacturer's own fleet (i.e., vehicle families across each averaging
set). Part of the credit-generating calculation is the useful life of
the vehicle, as specified in 40 CFR 1037.105(e) and 1037.106(e). See 40
CFR 1037.705(b) (formula). If credits generated by vehicles using these
powertrains are used to offset debits created by other vehicles on an
equivalent basis, it is important that the vehicles achieve this
specified useful life mileage--mileage equivalent to what is expected
for an ICE vehicle. For BEV and PHEV, this depends, in substantial
part, on the life of the battery. The durability provisions in this
final rule, plus the warranty provisions described in the following
preamble section, provide additional assurance that the battery will
perform over this useful life mileage. Again, the durability provisions
in this rule help provide a safeguard.
2. Battery and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Component Warranty
Recognizing that BEV, PHEV, and FCEV are playing an increasing role
in manufacturers' compliance strategies we proposed new warranty
requirements for BEV and FCEV batteries and associated emission-related
components (e.g., fuel-cell stack, electric motors, and inverters) and
proposed to clarify how existing warranty requirements apply for PHEVs.
In response to this proposal, we received many comments supporting the
proposed warranty requirements. We also received comments encouraging
EPA to define which components are covered and what failures are
covered under the warranty. A complete list of the comments and our
responses is included in section 11.2 of the response to comments
document.
In consideration of the comments and that BEV, PHEV, and FCEV are
playing an increasing role in manufacturers' compliance strategies, we
are identifying the high-voltage battery, and the powertrain components
that depend on it (including fuel-cell stack, electric motors, and
inverters), as ``emission-related components'' in HD vehicles under 40
CFR 1037.120(c) (components covered by warranty), as they play a
critical role in reducing the vehicles' emissions and allowing BEV and
FCEV to have zero tailpipe emissions in-use, see section I.B of this
preamble. As EMA notes in its comments, ``[t]raditional emission-
related warranty requirements serve the useful purpose of motivating a
trucking company to keep the emissions control systems functioning
properly throughout each vehicle's useful life.''
As such, we are finalizing new warranty requirements for MY 2027
and later BEV and FCEV batteries and associated emission-related
electric powertrain components (e.g., fuel-cell stack, electric motors,
and inverters) under the authority of CAA section 207(a)(1) and
clarifying how existing warranty requirements apply for PHEVs.\880\ The
battery warranty requirements we describe in this section build on
existing emissions warranty provisions for other emission-related
components by establishing specific new requirements tailored to the
emission control-related role of the high-voltage battery and fuel-cell
stack in durability and performance of BEVs and FCEV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\880\ See section I.D. of this preamble and in this section
III.B for further discussion of EPA's authority under CAA section
207(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that this practice of ensuring a minimum level of
warranty protection for emissions-related components on ICE vehicles,
including hybrid vehicles, should be extended to the high-voltage
battery and other electric powertrain components of BEVs and FCEVs for
multiple reasons. Recognizing that BEVs and FCEVs are playing an
increasing role in manufacturers' compliance strategies, the high-
voltage battery and the powertrain components that depend on it are
emission control devices critical to the operation and emission
performance of BEVs and FCEVs, as they play a critical role in allowing
BEVs and FCEVs to operate with zero tailpipe emissions. Further, EPA
anticipates that compliance with the program is likely to be achieved
with larger penetrations of BEVs and FCEVs than under the previous
program. Although the projected emissions reductions are based on a
spectrum of control technologies, in light of the cost-effective
reductions achieved, especially by BEV and FCEVs s, EPA anticipates
most if not all manufacturers will include credits generated by BEVs
and FCEVs as part of their compliance strategies, even if those credits
are obtained from other manufacturers; thus this is a particular
concern given that the calculation of credits for averaging (as well as
banking and trading) depend on the battery and emission performance
being maintained for the full useful life of the vehicle. Additionally,
warranty provisions are a strong complement to the battery durability
requirements described in the previous section. We believe that a
component under warranty is more likely to be properly maintained and
repaired or replaced if it fails, which would help ensure that credits
granted for BEV and FCEVs sales represent real emission reductions
achieved over the life of the vehicle.
We did not propose new battery warranty requirements for PHEVs. As
``hybrid system components'' they already have warranty requirements
under the existing regulations in 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037. In the
HD2027 low NOX rule, we finalized a provision stating that
when a manufacturer's certified configuration includes hybrid system
components (e.g., batteries, electric motors, and inverters), those
components are considered emission-related components, which would be
covered under the warranty requirements (see, e.g., 88 FR 4363, January
24, 2023, and 40 CFR 1036.120).
We are revising 40 CFR 1036.120(c) to clarify that the warranty
requirements of 40 CFR part 1036 apply to hybrid system components for
any hybrid manufacturers certifying to the part 1036 engine standards.
In 40 CFR 1037.120(c), we are also finalizing our proposal to remove
the sentence stating that the emission-related warranty does not need
to cover components whose failure would not increase a vehicle's
emissions of any regulated pollutant, and replacing this sentence with
``and any other components whose failure would increase a vehicle's
CO2 emissions'' to the existing sentence that states the
emission-related warranty covers components included in the application
for certification.
In response to the comments stating that EPA should define which
components are covered and what failures are covered under the
emissions warranty, we have made the following changes. First, we are
clarifying that the RESS (also known as the high-voltage battery) and
associated electric powertrain components in the vehicle's application
for certification are covered under the emission-related warranty.
Second, we are finalizing text in 40 CFR 1037.205(b) stating that ``For
any vehicle using RESS (such as hybrid vehicles, FCEV, and BEV),
describe in detail all components needed to charge the system, store
energy, and transmit power to move the vehicle.'' \881\ By making these
two changes we believe that we have defined which components are
covered, while leaving the requirements general enough to cover
technologies that are not currently in the market. As for the comments
on defining what failures are covered under the emissions warranty, we
are not
[[Page 29614]]
finalizing any changes, as the current warranty requirements already
provide the framework for manufacturers to define the specific failures
that are covered under warranty, as they have done for many years. We
also received comment that only the high-voltage battery and fuel cell
should be covered by the emissions warranty. Although we agree that the
high-voltage battery and fuel cell should be covered, these are not the
only components that enable ZEV to have a zero CO2 grams per
mile from the tailpipe. These reductions are also dependent on the
components that allow charging the system, storing energy, and
transmitting power to move the vehicle, and as such we are requiring
manufacturers to include these components in the vehicle's application
for certification and cover them with the emissions warranty. We are
finalizing as proposed that those components be covered by the existing
regulations' emissions warranty periods of 5 years or 50,000 miles for
Light HDV and 5 years or 100,000 miles for Medium HDV and Heavy HDV
(see revisions to 40 CFR 1037.120).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\881\ Rechargeable Energy Storage System (RESS) means engine or
equipment components that store recovered energy for later use to
propel the vehicle or accomplish a different primary function.
Examples of RESS include the battery system or a hydraulic
accumulator in a hybrid vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The warranty provisions are a strong complement to the proposed
battery durability monitoring requirements. As explained, EPA
anticipates that most if not all manufacturers would include the
averaging of credits generated by BEVs and FCEVs as part of their
compliance strategies for the final standards. Thus, as noted in the
previous section on durability, emission credits would be calculated
assuming the battery sufficiently maintains its performance for the
full useful life of the vehicle. 40 CFR 1037.705(b) (formula). We
believe a component under warranty is more likely to be properly
maintained and repaired or replaced if it fails, which could help
ensure that credits granted for BEV and FCEV production volumes
represent real emission reductions achieved over the life of the
vehicle. Finally, we expect many manufacturers will provide warranties
beyond the existing 40 CFR 1037.120 levels for the BEV and FCEV they
produce, and the new requirements to require those warranty periods and
document them in the owner's manual would provide additional assurance
for owners that all BEV and FCEV have the same minimum warranty
period.\882\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\882\ For example, the Freightliner eCascadia includes a
powertrain warranty of 5 year/150,000 or 300,000 miles (depending on
battery pack size). Available at: https://dtnacontent-dtna.prd.freightliner.com/content/dam/enterprise/documents/DDCTEC%2016046%20-%20eCascadia%20Spec%20Sheet_6.0.pdf (last accessed
October 30, 2023). In addition, Type C BEV school bus battery
warranty range five to fifteen years according to https://www.nyapt.org/resources/Documents/WRI_ESB-Buyers-Guide_US-Market_2022.pdf. Lastly, the Freightliner electric walk-in van
includes an eight-year battery warranty according to https://www.electricwalkinvan.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/MT50e-specifications-2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Additional Revisions to the Regulations
In this subsection, we discuss revisions to 40 CFR parts 1036,
1037, and 1065. After consideration of comments,\883\ many of the
updates described in this section I.C.5 we are finalizing as proposed,
however in some cases we have updated the final revisions from those
proposed and are finalizing additional clarifications and editorial
corrections. We intend for the changes to testing and other
certification procedures finalized in this rule to be entirely separate
from the Phase 3 emissions standards and other varied components of
this rule, and severable from each other. These are changes EPA is
making related to implementation of standards generally (i.e.,
independent of the numeric stringency of the standards set in this
final rule). EPA has considered and adopted changes to testing and
other certification procedures and the remaining portions of the final
rule independently, and each is severable should there be judicial
review. If a court were to invalidate any one of these elements of the
final rule, the remainder of this action remains fully operable, as we
have designed the program to function even if one part of the rule is
set aside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\883\ EPA participates in on-going Emissions Measurement &
Testing Committee meetings and notes that certain clarifying and
editorial revisions included in the final rule described in this
section III.C were supported by the engine and vehicle manufacturers
and other industry stakeholders participating in those meetings. See
memo to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985: Laroo, Christopher. ``Test
Procedure Meetings with the Engine Manufacturers Association''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Updates for Cross-Sector Issues
This section includes updates that make the same or similar changes
in related portions of the CFR or across multiple standard-setting
parts for individual industry sectors.
i. LLC Cycle Smoothing and Accessory Load
We finalized a new LLC duty-cycle in the HD2027 rule that included
a test procedure for smoothing the nonidle nonmotoring points
immediately before and after idle segments within the duty-cycle.\884\
It was brought to our attention that the smoothing procedure in 40 CFR
1036.514(c)(3) allows smoothing based on the idle accessory torque but
says nothing about how to address the contribution of curb idle
transmission torque (CITT), while 40 CFR 1065.610(d)(3)(v) through
(viii) requires smoothing based on CITT and says nothing about how to
address idle accessory torque. This could create confusion and
difficulties for common cases where CITT is required in addition to the
40 CFR 1036.514 idle accessory torques. 40 CFR 1036.514(c)(3), as
currently written, would only apply if the transmission was in neutral,
because it only allows you to account for the accessory load and not
CITT, which was not EPA's intent. To illustrate the concern, for
example, a MHD engine could have an LLC idle accessory load of 23.5
foot-pounds, which is 19 percent of a typical automatic transmission
CITT of 124 foot-pounds. To resolve this potential issue, we are
removing the smoothing instructions in 40 CFR 1036.514 and
incorporating them into 40 CFR 1065.610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\884\ 88 FR 4296 (January 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original intent of the 40 CFR 1065.610 duty-cycle generation
procedure was to avoid discontinuities in the reference torque values.
It was written with the assumption that idle load in neutral was zero,
meaning the vehicle or machine idle accessory load was zero. When we
introduced the required LLC idle accessory load in 40 CFR 1036.514, we
failed to realize that amendments would be needed to 40 CFR
1065.610(d)(3) to clarify how to handle the accessory load in the
denormalization process. The engine mapping section 40 CFR 1065.510 is
another area of concern as it does not address the possibility of droop
in the idle governor, which would result in different idle speeds when
the transmission is in drive versus neutral. This results in an
additional complication as the required idle accessory torque will be
different in drive versus neutral to keep the accessory power at the
level specified in table 1 to 40 CFR 1036.514(c)(4).
Paragraph (d)(4) of 40 CFR 1065.610 is a related paragraph that
allows a different deviation for an optional declared minimum torque
that applies to variable- and constant-speed engines and both idle and
nonidle nonmotoring points in the duty-cycle. Its scope of application
is wider than 40 CFR 1065.610(d)(3). Paragraph (d)(4) of 40 CFR
1065.610 applies to all nonidle nonmotoring points in the duty-cycle,
not just the ones immediately preceding or following an idle segment
and using it instead of paragraph (d)(3) would not get the intended
constant idle accessory power loads or the intended smoothing.
There is also an existing historical conflict between 40 CFR
1065.510(f)(4)
[[Page 29615]]
and 1065.610(d)(4). Paragraph (f)(4) of 40 CFR 1065.510 requires that
manufacturers declare non-zero idle, or minimum torques, but 40 CFR
1065.610(d)(4), permissible deviations, make their use within the duty-
cycle generation optional. This results in an inconsistency between the
two sections as 40 CFR 1065.510(f)(4) requires these parameters to be
declared, but 40 CFR 1065.610(d)(4) does not require them to be used.
Additionally, there is a historical conflict in 40 CFR
1065.610(d)(3)(v). This paragraph, as written, includes zero percent
speed and, if the paragraph is executed in the order listed, it would
include idle points that were changed to neutral in the previous step
for neutral while stationary transmissions. This conflict would change
the torque values of those idle-in-neutral points back to the warm-
idle-in-drive torque and the speed would be left unaltered at the idle-
in-neutral speed. This was clearly not the intent of this paragraph,
yet we note that this conflict existed already for regulations that
applied to model year 1990 engines.
The smoothing of idle points also raises the need for smoothing of
the few occurances of non-idle points in the duty cycle where the
vehicle may be moving, the torque converter may not be stalled, and the
warm-idle-in-drive torque may not be appropriate. This would result in
the smoothing of consecutive points around nonidle nonmotoring points
with normalized speed at or below zero percent and reference torque
from zero to the warm-idle-in-drive torque value where the reference
torque is set to the warm-idle-in-drive torque value.
To address these concerns, we are revising 40 CFR 1065.510,
1065.512, and 1065.610. Note, other changes to these subsections not
specifically mentioned here are edits to fix citations to relocated or
new paragraphs and to improve the clarity of the test procedures. The
changes to 40 CFR 1065.610 include basing the smoothing of points
preceding an idle segment and following an idle segment on the warm-
idle-in-drive torque value (sum of CITT and idle accessory torque).
Exceptions to this are for manual transmissions and for the first 24
seconds of initial idle segments for automatic transmissions. Here the
warm-idle-in-neutral torque value (idle accessory torque) is used. We
are including manual transmissions in the required deviations for
reference torque determination for variable-speed engines in 40 CFR
1065.610(d)(3) for completeness. The amendments to 40 CFR
1065.610(d)(3) include the option to skip these deviations for a manual
transmission where optional declared idle torque and the optional
declared power are not declared (idle torque is zero). This provides
labs that have not yet implemented these required deviations the option
to not implement them if they only need to run tests with manual
transmissions with zero idle torque. We also add manual transmissions
to 40 CFR 1065.512(b)(2) where these required deviations in 40 CFR
1065.610 are cited.
We are also revising 40 CFR 1065.510(b) and (f) to address the
effect of droop in the idle governor and how to determine idle speed
when idle torque is a function of idle speed (where a component is
specified as power or CITT is specified as a function of speed and the
idle speeds need to be determined for each setpoint of the idle
governor). We are also adding an option to declare the warm idle
speed(s) equal to the idle speed setpoint for electronically governed
variable-speed engines with an isochronous low-speed governor. Recent
updates to the mapping test procedure in 40 CFR 1065.510 assumed that
one could declare the warm idle speed(s) equal to the idle speed
setpoint for electronically governed variable-speed engines when
running the map at the minimum user-adjustable idle speed setpoint and
using the map for any test.\885\ We are finalizing the proposed changes
to make it clear that this option is allowed, which would help simplify
the mapping process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\885\ 88 FR 4296 (January 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To resolve the conflict between 40 CFR 1065.510(f)(4) and
1065.610(d)(4), we are moving the requirement to declare torques to 40
CFR 1065.510(f)(5), which would clarify it is optional and consistent
with 40 CFR 1065.610(d)(4).
To resolve the conflict in 40 CFR 1065.610(c)(3)(v), which we are
redesignating as 40 CFR 1065.610(c)(3)(vii), we are revising the
applicability of the paragraph from ``all points'' to limit it to apply
to ``all nonidle nonmotoring points.'' To address the smoothing of
consecutive nonidle nonmotoring points that immediately follow and
precede any smoothed idle points we are changing the reference torques
to the warm-idle-in-drive torque value by adding a new 40 CFR
1065.610(c)(3)(xi).
We are also reorganizing 40 CFR 1036.514 and revising the section
to clarify the process for cycle denormalization of speed and torque
where accessory load is included and to add more specific transmission
shift points for greater than 200 seconds idle segments for LLC engine
and hybrid powertrain testing. Shifting the transmission to neutral
during very long idle segments is more representative of in-use
operation than leaving it in drive, so we proposed and are finalizing
more specific shift points instead of a range to reduce lab-to-lab
variability. The new shift points include setting the reference speed
and torque values to the warm-idle-in-drive values for the first three
seconds and the last three seconds of the idle segment for an engine
test, keeping the transmission in drive for the first 3 seconds of the
idle segment, shifting the transmission from drive to park or neutral
immediately after the third second in the idle segment, and shifting
the transmission into drive again three seconds before the end of the
idle segment.
ii. Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emission Rates
We are revising 40 CFR 1036.550(b)(2) and 1054.501(b)(7) to clarify
that when determining the test fuel's carbon mass fraction,
WC, the fuel properties that must be measured are [alpha]
(hydrogen) and b (oxygen). These paragraphs, as currently written,
imply that you cannot use the default fuel properties in 40 CFR
1065.655 for a, b, g (sulfur), and d (nitrogen). The fuel property
determination in 40 CFR 1065.655(e) makes it clear that if
manufacturers measure fuel properties and the default g and d values
for their fuel type are zero in Table 2 to 40 CFR 1065.655,
manufacturers do not need to measure those properties. The sulfur (g)
and nitrogen (d) content of these highly refined gasoline and diesel
fuels are not enough to affect the WC determination and the
original intent was to not require their measurement. We expect the
revisions to reduce confusion on the fuel properties requirement. We
are also adding a reference to 40 CFR 1065.655(e) in 40 CFR
1036.550(b)(2) and 1054.501(b)(7) so that they point to the default
fuel property table whose number had been previously changed and we did
not make the corresponding update in 40 CFR 1036.550(b)(2) and
1054.501(b)(7).
iii. ABT Reporting
We are finalizing a proposed allowance for manufacturers to correct
previously submitted vehicle and engine GHG ABT reports, where a
mathematical or other error in the GEM-based or fleet calculations used
for compliance was discovered after the September 30 deadline for
submitting the final report. In the Phase 1 program, EPA chose the
deadline for submitting a final GHG ABT report to coincide with
[[Page 29616]]
existing criteria pollutant report requirements that manufacturers
follow for heavy-duty engines.\886\ The deadline was based on our
interest in manufacturers maintaining good quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) processes in generating ABT reports. We continue to
believe that aligning the ABT report deadlines for criteria and GHG
pollutants can provide consistency within a manufacturer's
certification and compliance processes, but further consideration of
the inherent differences and complexities in how credits are calculated
and accounted for in the two programs led us to consider a time window
beyond 270 days for allowing corrections to the GHG report. Certifying
an engine or vehicle fleet with attribute-based features (Phase 1) or
GEM (Phase 2) involves a greater risk of error compared to EPA's engine
or vehicle test-based programs for criteria pollutants, where direct
measurement of criteria pollutant emissions at time of certification is
well established. Whether an indirect, physics-based model for
quantifying GHG emissions such as GEM, or a unique technology-,
attribute-, or engine production volume-based credit accounting system,
unintentional errors, if not detected prior to submitting the final GHG
ABT report and not realized until the accounting process for the
following model year was initiated, could negatively affect a
manufacturer's credit balance. For example, the loss of these credits
could result in a manufacturer purchasing credits or making unplanned
investments in additional technologies to make up for the credits lost
due to the report error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\886\ See the HD GHG Phase 1 rule (76 FR 57284, September 15,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the revisions to 40 CFR 1036.730(f) and 1037.730(f), EPA
would consider requests to correct previously submitted MY 2021 or
later ABT reports only when notified of the error within 24 months from
the September 30 final report deadline. For requests to correct reports
for MY 2020 or earlier, we have set an interim deadline of October 1,
2024 (see new 40 CFR 1036.150(aa) and 1037.150(y)). We believe that
corrections to ABT reports, where justified, will have no impact on
emissions compliance as the actual performance of a manufacturer's
fleet was better than what was reported in error, and correcting the
report simply adjusts the credit balance for the model year in question
to the appropriate value, such that those credits can then be used in
future model years.
This narrowly focused allowance for correcting accounting,
typographical, or GEM-based errors after a manufacturer submits the
270-day final report (see revisions in 40 CFR 1037.730) is intended to
address the disproportionate and adverse financial impact of an
unintentional error in the complex modeling and accounting processes
that manufacturers use to determine compliance and credit balances for
a given model year. We proposed and are finalizing a 10 percent
discount to these credit corrections to the final report, which will
reduce the value of the credits that are restored upon approval of the
request. The 10 percent discount is intended to balance the goal of
encouraging accuracy in ABT reports and use of robust QA/QC processes
against the considerations for allowing manufacturers the ability to
correct unforeseen errors.
iv. Migration of 40 CFR 1037.550 to 40 CFR 1036.545
We are migrating the powertrain test procedure from the heavy-duty
motor vehicle regulations in 40 CFR part 1037 to the heavy-duty highway
engine regulations in 40 CFR part 1036. Specifically, we are migrating
the procedure from 40 CFR 1037.550 to 40 CFR 1036.545. Over the course
of the development of this test procedure, its use expanded to include
certification of engines to the criteria pollutant standards in 40 CFR
part 1036 (including test procedures in 40 CFR 1036.510, 1036.512, and
1036.514) and the procedure can be used in place of the engine GHG
testing procedures (40 CFR 1036.535 and 1036.540) for hybrid engines
and hybrid powertrains. We are migrating the test procedure to 40 CFR
1036.545 as-is, with the following exceptions:
We are adding a new figure that provides an overview of the steps
involved in carrying out testing under this section.
We are clarifying the use of the GEM HIL model contained within GEM
Phase 2, Version 4.0 if it is used to simulate a vehicle's automatic
transmission. If the engine is intended for vehicles with automatic
transmissions, the manufacturer must use the cycle configuration file
in GEM to change the transmission state (either in-gear or idle) as a
function of time as defined by the duty cycles in 40 CFR part 1036.
We are clarifying the recommended means to control and apply the
electrical accessory loads for powertrains tested over the LLC duty
cycle.
We are clarifying that if the test setup has multiple locations
where torque is measured and speed is controlled, the manufacturer is
required to sum the measured torque and validate that the speed control
meets the requirements defined in 40 CFR 1036.545(m). Positive cycle
work, W[cycle], would then be determined by integrating the
sum of the power measured at each location in 40 CFR 1036.545(o)(7).
We are also clarifying that manufacturers may test the powertrain
with a chassis dynamometer as long as they measure speed and torque at
the powertrain's output shaft or wheel hubs.
We are replacing all references to 40 CFR 1037.550 throughout 40
CFR parts 1036 and 1037 with new references to 40 CFR 1036.545. We are
clarifying that when creating GEM inputs, if speed and torque are
measured at more than one location, determine W[cycle] by
integrating the sum of the power calculated from speed and torque
measurements at each location.
Finally, we received comment from multiple stakeholders that
improvements are needed to reduce the test burden of the hybrid
powertrain test procedure. As discussed in RTC section 24.1.4, many of
these suggested changes are out of scope for this rule. However, EPA is
constantly reviewing its test procedures and in the future EPA intends
to work with manufacturers and stakeholders to further streamline
hybrid certification.
v. Median Calculation for Test Fuel Properties in 40 CFR 1036.550
The regulation at 40 CFR 1036.550 currently requires the use of the
median value of measurements from multiple labs for the emission test
fuel's carbon-mass-specific net energy content and carbon mass fraction
for manufacturers to determine the corrected CO2 emission
rate using equation 1036.550-1 in 40 CFR 1036.550. The current
procedure does not provide a method for determining the median value.
We proposed to add a new calculation for the median value in the
statistics calculation procedures of 40 CFR 1065.602 as a new paragraph
(m) to ensure that labs are using the same method to calculate the
median value. We also proposed to reference the new paragraph (m) in 40
CFR 1036.550(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i) for carbon-mass-specific net energy
content and carbon mass fraction, respectively. We are finalizing the
new median calculation procedure as proposed.
2. Updates to 40 CFR Part 1036 Heavy-Duty Highway Engine Provisions
i. Manufacturer Run Heavy-Duty In-Use Testing
We are adding a clarification to 40 CFR 1036.405(d) regarding the
starting
[[Page 29617]]
point for the 18-month window manufacturers have to complete an in-use
test order. Under the current provision, the clock for the 18-month
window starts after EPA has received the manufacturer's proposed plan
for recruiting, screening, and selecting vehicles. There is concern
that manufacturers could delay testing by unnecessarily prolonging the
selection process. To alleviate this concern and keep the testing
timeline within the originally intended 18-month window, we are
revising the 18-month window to start when EPA issues the order for the
manufacturer to test a particular engine family.
In the HD2027 final rule, we adopted a new 40 CFR 1036.420 that
includes the pass criteria for individual engines tested under the
manufacturer run in-use testing program. Table 1 to 40 CFR 1036.420
contains the accuracy margins for each criteria pollutant. We are
correcting an inadvertent error in the final rule's amendatory text for
the regulations that effects the accuracy margin for carbon monoxide
(CO), which is listed in Table 1 as 0.025 g/hp-hr. The HD2027 preamble
is clear that the CO accuracy margin that we finalized was intended to
be 0.25 g/hp-hr and we are correcting Table 1 to reflect the value in
that rule's preamble.\887\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\887\ See HD2027 final rule preamble (88 FR 4353, January 24,
2023) (``PEMS measurement allowance values in 40 CFR 86.1912 are
0.01 g/hp-hr for HC, 0.25 g/hp-hr for CO, 0.15 g/hp-hr for
NOX, and 0.006 g/hp-hr for PM. We are maintaining the
same values for HC, CO, and PM in this rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Low Load Cycle (LLC)--Cycle Statistics
We are updating 40 CFR 1036.514 to address the ability of gaseous
fueled non-hybrid engines with single point fuel injection to pass
cycle statistics to validate the LLC duty cycle. In 40 CFR 1036.514(e),
we referenced, in error, the alternate cycle statistics for gaseous
fueled engines with single point fuel injection in the cycle average
fuel map section in 40 CFR 1036.540(d)(3) instead of adding LLC
specific cycle statistics in 40 CFR 1036.514(e). We are adding a new
table 2 in 40 CFR 1036.514(b) to provide cycle statistics that are
identical to those used by the California Air Resources Board for the
LLC and to remove the reference to 40 CFR 1036.540(d)(3) in 40 CFR
1036.514(e).
iii. Low Load Cycle (LLC)--Background Sampling
We are removing the provision in 40 CFR 1036.514(d) that allows
periodic background sampling into the bag over the course of multiple
test intervals during the LLC because the allowance to do this is
convered in 40 CFR 1065.140(b)(2). The LLC consists of a very long test
interval and the intent of the provision was to address emission bag
sampling systems that do not have enough dynamic range to sample
background constantly over the entire duration of the LLC. Paragraph
(b)(2) of 40 CFR 1065.140 affords many flexibilities regarding the
measurement of background concentrations, including sampling over
multiple test intervals as long as it does not affect manufacturers'
ability to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission
standards. The final revisions to 40 CFR 1036.514(d) include additional
edits for clarification and consistency with other final revisions.
iv. Determining Vehicle C Speed Values for Powertrain Testing
We are finalizing changes to 40 CFR 1036.520 to make the procedure
more robust at determining a representative vehicle C speed. For
powertrains where there is no power interrupt as the transmission
shifts through gears, the test procedure can result in an
unrepresentatively high vehicle C speed. This is because the test
procedure assumes maximum powertrain power as a function of speed for
each gear will start low, and then reach the peak power before dropping
again. If the powertrain does not have multiple speeds where the power
is equal to 98 percent of peak power, the vehicle C speed is the
highest speed in top gear. The finalized changes to the procedure in 40
CFR 1036.520(j)(1) address this by using the lowest vehicle speed in
top gear in place of the minimum vehicle speed where power is greater
than 98 percent of peak power. We are also adding a new 40 CFR
1036.520(j)(3) to allow manufacturers to use a declared vehicle C speed
instead of the measured value if the declared value is within (97.5 to
102.5) percent of the corresponding measured value.
For series hybrids the powertrain may have only one, two or three
gears in the transmission or e-axle so the average of the minimum and
maximum speeds where power is greater than 98 percent of peak power in
top gear, may result in an unrepresentatively low vehicle C speed. To
address this issue, we are finalizing a new 40 CFR 1036.520(j)(4),
which directs a manufacturer to request EPA approval for a
representative vehicle C speed if the procedure results in a vehicle C
speed that is lower than the cruise speed of the powertrain.
v. U.S.-Directed Production Volume
In the recent HD2027 rule, we amended the heavy-duty highway engine
provision in 40 CFR 1036.205 and several other sections to replace
``U.S.-directed production volume'' with the more general term
``nationwide'' where we intended manufacturers report total nationwide
production volumes, including production volumes that meet different
state standards.
In this rule, for the reasons explained in section I.A.1, we are
finalizing a broader change to the definition in 40 CFR 1037.801 such
that the phrase ``U.S.-directed production volume'' no longer excludes
production volumes for vehicles certified to different state standards.
We are similarly updating the definition of ``U.S.-directed production
volume'' for engines in 40 CFR 1036.801 to maintain consistency between
the engine and vehicle regulatory definitions. We are also reinstating,
as proposed, the term ``U.S.-directed production volume'' where we
previously used ``nationwide'' in 40 CFR part 1036 to avoid having two
terms with the same meaning.\888\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\888\ We proposed and are finalizing revisions in 40 CFR
1036.205(v), 1036.250(a), 1036.405(a), 1036.605(e), 1036.725(b), and
1036.730(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the proposal, the NOX ABT program for HD
engines in part 1036 excludes production volumes certified to different
state standards in its credit calculations, and we proposed clarifying
updates throughout 40 CFR part 1036 to ensure no change to those
existing exclusions in tandem with the proposed change to the
definition of the term ``U.S.-directed production volume.'' Most
notably, we proposed a new 40 CFR 1036.705(c)(4) as the location where
we exclude engines certified to different state emission standards from
being used to calculate emission credits in the HD engine program.\889\
Two commenters suggested revisions to the proposed 40 CFR
1036.705(c)(4), indicating manufacturers may certify their engines to
both California and Federal standards to ensure that engines can be
sold nationwide. Under the proposed definition, manufacturers would not
be allowed to include engines certified to the California standards in
their credit calculations, even if the engine was never sold in
California (or in a state that adopted California standards). After
considering these comments and noting that we never intended to
discourage manufacturers from certifying a
[[Page 29618]]
complete engine family to California-level standards, we are further
revising the proposed provision to exclude engines if they are
certified to different state standards and intended for sale in a state
that adopted those different emission standards.\890\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\889\ We are finalizing as proposed the revision to move the
statement to keep records relating to those production volumes from
its current location in 40 CFR 1036.705(c) to 40 CFR 1036.735 with
the other ABT recordkeeping requirements.
\890\ We are finalizing as proposed revisions that replace
several instances of ``U.S.-directed production volume'' with a more
general ``production volume'' where the text clearly is connected to
ABT or add a more specific reference to the production volume
specified in 40 CFR 1036.705(c). See revisions in 40 CFR 1036.150(d)
and (k), 1036.725(b), and 1036.730(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vi. Correction to NOX ABT FEL Cap
We are finalizing an amendment to 40 CFR 1036.104 to remove
paragraph (c)(2)(iii) which corresponds to a FEL cap of 70 mg/hp-hr for
MY 2031 and later Heavy HDE that we proposed in HD2027 but did not
intend to include in the final amendatory text. In the final rule for
the HD2027 rule, we did not intend to include in the final amendatory
text paragraph (c)(2)(iii) alongside the final FEL cap of 50 mg/hp-hr
for MY 2031 and later which applies to all HD engine service classes
including Heavy HDE in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) described by EPA in the
preamble and supporting rule record. We are finalizing the correction
of this error and removing paragraph (c)(2)(iii). This correction will
not impact the stringency of the final NOX standards because
even without correction paragraph (c)(2)(ii) controls.\891\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\891\ As EPA explained in the NPRM and elsewhere in this final
rule, EPA did not reopen the final HD2027 standards, or any other
portion of that rule besides those specifically identified in the
NPRM as subject to new revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vii. Rated Power and Continuous Rated Power Coefficient of Variance in
40 CFR 1036.520
We are finalizing the correction of an error and a revision to a
provision we intended to include in HD2027, regarding determining power
and vehicle speed values for powertrain testing. In 40 CFR 1036.520,
paragraphs (h) and (i) describe how to determine rated power and
continuous rated power, respectively, from the 5 Hz data in paragraph
(g) averaged from the 100 Hz data collected during the test. We
inadvertently left out the coefficient of variance (COV) limits of 2
percent that are needed for making the rated and continuous rated power
determinations in the HD2027 final 40 CFR 1036.520(h) and (i), which
were intended to be based on the COVs calculated in 40 CFR 1036.520(g)
and we correctly included in the HD2027 final 40 CFR 1036.520(g). We
are adding the 2 percent COV limit in 40 CFR 1036.520(h) and (i). We
are also finalizing the correction of a paragraph reference error in 40
CFR 1036.520(h). The paragraph references the data collected in
paragraph (f)(2) of the section. The data collection takes place in
paragraph (d)(2) of the section.
viii. Selection of Drive Axle Ratio and Tire Radius for Hybrid Engine
and Hybrid Powertrain Testing
We are finalizing changes to the drive axle ratio and tire radius
selection paragraphs in 40 CFR 1036.510(b)(2)(vii) and (viii), that
includes combining the selection process into a single paragraph
(b)(2)(vii). When testing hybrid engines and hybrid powertrains a
series of vehicle parameters must be selected. The paragraphs for
selecting drive axle ratio and tire radius are separate from each
other, however the selection of the drive axle ratio must be done in
conjunction with the tire radius as not all tire sizes are offered with
a given drive axle ratio. We are finalizing the combination of these
paragraphs into one to eliminate any possible confusion on the
selection of these two parameters.
The maximum vehicle speed for SET testing of hybrid engines and
powertrains is determined based on the vehicle parameters and maximum
achievable speed for the configuration in 40 CFR 1036.510. This is not
the case for the FTP vehicle speed which reaches a maximum of 60 miles
per hour. It has been brought to our attention that there are some
vehicle configurations that cannot achieve the FTP maximum speed of 60
mile per hour. To resolve this, we are finalizing changes to 40 CFR
1036.510(b)(2)(vii) that instruct the manufacturer to select a
representative combination of drive axle ratio and tire size that
ensure a vehicle speed of no less than 60 miles per hour. We are also
finalizing the inclusion, as a reminder, that manufacturers may request
approval for selected drive axle ratio and tire radius consistent with
the provisions of 40 CFR 1036.210. We are also finalizing the addition
of a provision for manufacturers to follow 40 CFR 1066.425(b)(5) if the
hybrid powertrain or hybrid engine is used exclusively in vehicles
which are not capable of reaching 60 mi/hr. This allows the
manufacturer to seek approval of an alternate test cycle and cycle-
validation criteria for powertrains where the representative tire
radius and axle ratio do not allow the vehicle to achieve the maximum
speeds of the specified test cycle.
ix. Determining Power and Vehicle Speed Values for Powertrain Testing
We are finalizing revisions to 40 CFR 1036.520(d)(2) to address the
possibility of clutch slip when performing the full load acceleration
with maximum driver demand at 6.0 percent road grade where the initial
vehicle speed is 0 mi/hr. The revision allows hybrid engines and hybrid
powertrains to increase the initial speed from 0 miles per hour to 5
miles per hour to mitigate clutch slip. This change in initial speed
will reduce the extreme force on the clutch when accelerating at 6.0
percent grade. We are not finalizing the second option proposed that
allowed modification of the road grade during the first 30 seconds of
the full load acceleration, as the option to start at a higher initial
speed will do a better job at reducing the effects of the low-end
torque, which is the cause of clutch slip.
We are finalizing a revision to 40 CFR 1036.520(d)(3) to address
situations where the powertrain does not reach maximum power in the
highest gear 30 seconds after the grade setpoint has reached 0.0
percent. To address this we are replacing the 30 second time limit with
a speed change stability limit of 0.02 m/s\2\ which will trigger the
end of the test.
x. Determining Vehicle Mass in 40 CFR 1036.510
We requested comment on updating equation 1036.510-1 of 40 CFR
1036.510 to better reflect the relationship of vehicle mass and rated
power. It was brought to EPA's attention that with the increase in
rated power of heavy-duty engines, equation 1036.510-1 of 40 CFR
1036.510 might need updating to better reflect the relationship of
vehicle mass and rated power. We are not making any changes to equation
1036.510-1 of 40 CFR 1036.510 at this time because we still consider it
to be representative. Further, we requested comment on this issue and
received no comments suggesting changes.
xi. Test Procedure for Engines Recovering Kinetic Energy for Electric
Heaters
We are finalizing a clarification in the existing definition for
hybrid in 40 CFR 1036.801 to add a sentence stating that systems
recovering kinetic energy to power an electric heater for the
aftertreatment do not qualify as a hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain.
Under the existing hybrid definition, systems that recover kinetic
energy, such as regenerative braking, are be considered ``hybrid
components'' and
[[Page 29619]]
manufacturers were required to use the powertrain test procedures to
account for the electric heater or use the engine test procedures and
forfeit the emission reductions from heating the aftertreatment system.
With this clarification to the hybrid definition, engines that use
regenerative braking only to power an electric heater for
aftertreatment devices are not considered hybrid engines and,
therefore, are not required to use the powertrain test procedures;
instead, those engines can use the test procedures for engines without
hybrid components.
We are finalizing a supplement to the new definitions with
direction for testing these systems in 40 CFR 1036.501. In the new 40
CFR 1036.501(g), we are clarifying that an electric heater for
aftertreatment can be installed and functioning when creating fuel maps
using 40 CFR 1036.505(b) and measuring emissions over the duty cycles
specified in 40 CFR 1036.510(b), 1036.512(b), and 1036.514(b). This
allowance is limited to hybrid engines where the system recovers less
than 10 percent of the total positive work over each applicable
transient cycle and the recovered energy is exclusively used to power
an electric heater in the aftertreatment. Since the small amount of
recovered energy is stored thermally and can't be used to move the
vehicle, we believe that the engine test procedures are just as
representative of real-world operation as the powertrain test
procedures. The limit of 10 percent is based on the amount of negative
work versus positive work typical of conventional engines over the
transient cycle. After evaluating a range of HDE, we have observed that
the negative work from the transient FTP cycle during engine motoring
is less than 10 percent of the positive work of the transient FTP
cycle.\892\ In the same paragraph (g), we are finalizing an option for
manufacturers to use the powertrain test procedures for these systems,
which does not have the same restrictions we are finalizing for the
amount of recovered energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\892\ Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985: ``Analysis of
Motoring and Positive Cycle Work for Current Heavy-Duty Engines''.
James Sanchez. April 4, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are finalizing changes to the proposed 40 CFR 1036.501(g), to
clarify that for these hybrid engines, the choice to run the powertrain
test procedure or the engine test procedure can be made separately for
measuring emissions and fuel mapping. The allowance to choose which
test procedure to use doesn't allow for a unique decision to be made
for each of the applicable duty cycles in 40 CFR part 1036. For
example, you cannot run the powertrain test procedure for the FTP and
run the engine test procedure for the SET. In addition, the same test
procedure must be used for all pollutants. For example, you may not run
the powertrain test procedure for CO2 and the engine test
procedure for NOX.
xii. Updates to 40 CFR Part 1036 Definitions
We are finalizing new and updated definitions in 40 CFR 1036.801 in
support of several requirements we are finalizing in section II or this
section III. We added a reference to two new definitions we are
finalizing in 40 CFR part 1065: ``Carbon-containing fuel'' and
``neat''. The definition of carbon-containing fuel will help identify
the applicable test procedures for engines using fuels that do not
contain carbon and would not produce CO2. The definition of
``neat'' indicates that a fuel is not mixed or diluted with other
fuels, which helps distinguish between fuels that contain no carbon,
such as hydrogen, and fuels that contain carbon through mixing, such as
hydrogen where a diesel pilot is used for combustion. We are also
updating the definition for ``U.S.-directed production volume'' of
engines to be equivalent to nationwide production, consistent with the
updated definition for vehicles in part 1037.
We are consolidating the definitions of hybrid, hybrid engine, and
hybrid powertrain into a single definition of ``hybrid'' with
subparagraphs distinguishing hybrid engines and powertrains. The
definition of hybrid retains most of the existing definition, except
that we have removed the unnecessary ``electrical'' qualifier from
batteries and added a statement relating to recovering energy to power
an electric heater in the aftertreatment (see section I.C.2.xi of this
preamble). The revised definitions for hybrid engines and powertrains,
which are being finalized as subparagraphs under ``hybrid'', are more
complementary of each other with less redundancy. As noted in section
I.C.2.xi, we are finalizing updated definitions of hybrid engine and
hybrid powertrain to exclude systems recovering kinetic energy for
electric heaters.
We are finalizing several editorial revisions to definitions as
well. We are updating the definition of mild hybrid such that it is
relating to a hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain. We are revising the
existing definition of small manufacturer to clarify that the employee
and revenue limits include the totals from all affiliated companies and
added a reference to the definition of affiliated companies in 40 CFR
1068.30.
xiii. Miscellaneous Corrections and Clarifications in 40 CFR Part 1036
We are finalizing as proposed an update to 40 CFR 1036.150(j) to
clarify that the alternate standards apply for model year 2023 and
earlier loose engines, which is consistent with existing 40 CFR
86.1819-14(k)(8).
We are finalizing an update to the provision describing how to
determine deterioration factors for exhaust emission standards in 40
CFR 1036.245 to clarify that it also applies for hybrid powertrains.
xiv. Off-Cycle Test Procedure for Engines That Use Fuels Other Than
Carbon-Containing Fuel
We are finalizing a new 40 CFR 1036.530(j) for engines that use
fuels other than carbon-containing fuel. The off-cycle test procedures
in 40 CFR 1036.530 use CO2 as a surrogate for engine power.
This approach works for engines that are fueled with carbon-containing
fuel, since power correlates to fuel mass rate and for carbon-
containing fuels, fuel mass rate is proportional to the CO2
mass rate of the exhaust. For fuels other than carbon-containing fuels,
the fuel mass rate is not proportional to the CO2 mass rate
of the exhaust. To address this issue, we are finalizing that for fuels
other than carbon-containing fuels, to use engine power directly
instead of relying on CO2 mass rate to determine engine
power. For field testing where engine torque and speed are not directly
measured, engine broadcasted speed and torque can be used as described
in 40 CFR 1065.915(d)(5).
xv. Onboard Diagnostic and Inducement Amendments
EPA is amending specific aspects of 40 CFR 1036.110 and 1036.111 to
add clarifications and correct minor errors in the OBD and inducement
provisions adopted in the HD2027 final rule.\893\ Specifically, EPA is
adopting the following amendments, without change from the proposed
rule except as noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\893\ As EPA explained in the NPRM and elsewhere in this final
rule, EPA did not reopen any aspect of our OBD and inducement
provisions other than those clarifications and corrections
specifically identified in the NPRM for this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 1036.110(b)(6): Correcting a reference to the CARB
regulation to be consistent with our intent as described in the
preamble of the final rule (see 88 FR 4372) to not require under our
regulations manufacturer self-testing
[[Page 29620]]
and reporting requirements as referenced in 13 CCR 1971.1(l)(4).
40 CFR 1036.110(b)(9): Clarifying that the list of data
parameters readable by a generic scan tool is limited to components
that are subject to existing OBD monitoring requirements (e.g., through
comprehensive component requirements in 13 CCR 1971.1(g)(3)). For
example, if parking brake status was not included in an engine's OBD
certificate, it would not be a required data parameter. The RTC
describes a minor change from the proposed rule to clarify that OBD
monitoring is relevant both for monitoring specific components, and for
monitoring parameters related to those components.
40 CFR 1036.110(b)(11): Adding a reference to 13 CCR
1971.5. The final rule referenced 13 CCR 1971.1 to point to OBD testing
deadlines; however, there are additional OBD testing deadlines
specified in 1971.5.
40 CFR 1036.110(c)(1) and 1036.125(h)(8)(iii): Correcting
terminology within these provisions by referring to inducements related
to ``DEF level'' instead of ``DEF quantity,'' to make the intent
clearer that the system must use the level of DEF in the DEF tank for
purposes of evaluating the specified inducement triggering condition.
We separately refer to the quantity of DEF injection for managing the
functioning of the SCR catalyst, which is unrelated to the level of DEF
in the DEF tank.
40 CFR 1036.111: Editing for clarity to eliminate
confusion with onboard diagnostic terminology. More specifically, the
final rule includes edits to adjust inducement-related terminology to
refer to ``inducement triggering conditions'' instead of ``fault
conditions.'' Inducement algorithms are executed through OBD
algorithms, but the inducement triggers are separate from OBD fault
conditions related to the malfunction indicator light.
40 CFR 1036.111(a)(2): Clarifying how to determine the
inducement speed category when the vehicle has less than 30 hours of
accumulated data. The regulation as adopted sets the inducement
schedule based on average vehicle speed over the preceding 30 hours of
non-idle operation. That instruction will cover most circumstances;
however, there is no specific instruction for an inducement triggering
condition that occurs before the vehicle accumulates 30 hours of non-
idle operation. As described in the final rule, we depend on 30 hours
of non-idle operation to establish which inducement schedule is
appropriate for a vehicle. We are also aware that a newly purchased
vehicle would have accumulated several hours of very low-speed
operation before being placed into service. We are therefore amending
the regulation to specify that engines should not be designed to assess
the speed category for inducement triggering conditions until the
vehicle has accumulated 30 hours of non-idle operation. Manufacturers
should instead program engines with a setting categorizing them as
high-speed vehicles until they accumulate 30 hours of non-idle
operation to avoid applying an inappropriate speed schedule.
40 CFR 1036.111(d)(1), table 2: Correcting a typographical
error for the middle set of columns to read ``Medium-speed'' instead of
repeating ``Low-speed.'' The table was correctly published in the
preamble to the final rule but was incorrectly transcribed in the Code
of Federal Regulations (see 88 FR 4378). We are also adding an
inadvertently omitted notation in the table to identify the placement
of a footnote to the table.
40 CFR 1036.111(a)(1): After consideration of a comment
received, we are correcting the omission of an alternative DEF level
triggering condition. More specifically, this final rule includes a
provision allowing for DEF supply falling to 2.5 percent of DEF tank
capacity as an acceptable triggering condition for a DEF level
inducement. EPA SCR certification guidance documents included a DEF
level triggering condition of 2.5 percent DEF tank capacity in 2009,
and manufacturers have used this strategy since that time.\894\ In the
HD2027 NPRM and final rule, we described our intention to finalize an
inducement program similar to the approach described in our existing
guidance. Some manufacturers may prefer to rely on percent of DEF tank
capacity instead of estimating a fill level that corresponds to the
time remaining before the tank is empty because there is less need to
make assumptions about the vehicle's operating characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\894\ ``Inducement-Related Guidance Documents, and Workshop
Presentation,'' EPA docket memo number EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0778,
October 2021. See Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-78383.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
xvi. Engine Data and Information To Support Vehicle Certification
We are finalizing an update 40 CFR 1036.505 to clarify that when
certifying vehicles with GEM, for any fuel type not identified in table
1 to paragraph (b)(4) of 40 CFR 1036.550, the manufacturer identifies
the fuel type as diesel fuel for engines subject to compression-
ignition standards, and identifies the fuel type as gasoline for
engines subject to spark-ignition standards. This change to 40 CFR
1036.505, is intended to clarify what was originally intended for fuels
that are not specified in table 1 to paragraph (b)(4) of 40 CFR
1036.550. This clarification addresses the potential situation where,
if a fuel is input into GEM other than the fuel types identified in
table 1 to paragraph (b)(4) of 40 CFR 1036.550, GEM will output an
error.
xvii. Charge-Depleting Criteria Pollutant Test Sequence--40 CFR
1065.510 Figure 1 and 40 CFR 1065.512 Figure 1
We are finalizing updates to the charge-depleting criteria
pollutant test sequence figures in 40 CFR 1065.510 for the SET duty-
cycle and 40 CFR 1065.512 for the FTP duty-cycle. These updates are not
substantive and are intended to provide better visualization of the
charge-depleting and charge-sustaining portions of the test sequences
as well as which test intervals are relevant for criteria pollutant
determination.
xviii. Testing Exemption for Engines Fueled With Hydrogen
As discussed in section II.D.1, hydrogen-fueled internal combustion
engines (ICE) are a newer technology under development, and since neat
hydrogen fuel does not contain any carbon, H2 ICE fueled with neat
hydrogen produce zero HC, CH4, CO, and CO2
engine-out emissions. We recognize that there may be negligible, but
non-zero, CO2 emissions at the tailpipe of H2 ICE that use
SCR and are fueled with neat hydrogen due to contributions from the
aftertreatment system from urea decomposition. Similarly,
CO2 emissions are attributable to the aftertreatment systems
in compression-ignition ICEs. However, the contribution of
CO2 emission due to decomposition of the urea portion of DEF
used in the aftertreatment system of diesel fueled ICE is less than 1
percent of the total.\895\ Since hydrogen-fueled internal combustion
engines must meet the same tailpipe NOX standards in 40 CFR
1036.104 as diesel fueled engines, we expect that engine out
NOX will be at the same level or lower than diesel fueled
engines, which would result in the same or lower DEF usage and tailpipe
CO2 emissions. We are therefore finalizing that tailpipe
CO2 emissions from engines fueled with neat hydrogen are
deemed to be 3 g/hp-hr, and tailpipe
[[Page 29621]]
CH4, HC, and CO emissions are deemed to comply with the
applicable standards.\896\ We are finalizing 3 g/hp-hr as the default
CO2 emission value, since 0.5 percent of the CO2
emissions of a Phase 2 compliant compression-ignition engine is less
than 3 g/hp-hr. The use of the default CO2 emission value of
3 g/hp-hr is optional and manufacturers may instead conduct testing to
demonstrate that the CO2 emissions for their engine is below
3 g/hp-hr. Note, NOx and PM emission testing is required under existing
40 CFR part 1036 for engines fueled with neat hydrogen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\895\ See 81 FR 73553. ``. . . urea typically contributes 0.2 to
0.5 percent of the total CO2 emissions measured from the
engine, and up to 1 percent at certain map points.''.
\896\ See 40 CFR 1036.150(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
xix. Emergency Vehicle Provisions
We are adding several provisions to 40 CFR part 1036 to restore
what was originally adopted in 40 CFR part 86. The effort to migrate
emission standards and certification requirements improperly omitted
several provisions related to the allowance for manufacturers to design
their engines with AECDs that override a derate condition for
qualifying emergency vehicles. Specifically, we are revising 40 CFR
1036.115(h)(4) to clarify that emissions standards do not apply when
AECDs for emergency vehicles are active. We are adding text to 40 CFR
1036.501(e) to allow manufacturers to disable such approved AECDs for
emergency vehicles during testing. We are also adding text to 40 CFR
1036.580(d) to instruct manufacturers to disregard approved AECDs for
emergency vehicles when they determine Infrequent Regeneration
Adjustment Factors. Finally, we are revising the definition of
``emergency vehicle'' in 40 CFR 1036.801 to allow for qualifying as an
emergency vehicle if it has characteristics that support an expectation
that it will be used in emergency situations such that malfunctions
would cause a significant risk to human life.
We are also amending 40 CFR 1036.601 to clarify that engines for
emergency vehicles may need to include design features that don't full
comply with the OBD requirements in 40 CFR 1036.110. For example, the
regulation requires in-cab displays with derate information for the
driver, but the cab display should not include information about the
schedule for pending derates an approved AECD will prevent that derate
from occurring.
3. Updates to 40 CFR Part 1037 Heavy-Duty Motor Vehicle Provisions
i. Standards for Qualifying Small Businesses
As noted in section II.I, we are finalizing that qualifying small
manufacturers will continue to be subject to the existing MY 2027 and
later standards. We proposed revisions to 40 CFR 1037.150(c) that
clarified the standards and proposed restrictions on participation in
the ABT program for MYs 2027 and later for qualifying small
manufacturers that utilize the interim provision. In the final rule, we
have revised 40 CFR 1037.105(b) and (h) and 1037.106(b) to include the
MY 2027 and later standards that apply for small manufacturers. The
interim provisions of 40 CFR 1037.150(c) and (w) specify the
flexibilities that continue to be available for small manufacturers. We
are also finalizing as proposed the revised definition for ``small
manufacturer'' in 40 CFR 1037.801.\897\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\897\ The revision removes criteria for trailers and revenue
that do not apply for the heavy-duty truck manufacturing category
covered by this rule and adds a clarifying reference to what
qualifies as an affiliated company for applying the specified number
of employee limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Vehicles With Engines Using Fuels Other Than Carbon-Containing
Fuels
In the HD2027 final rule, we adopted revisions to 40 CFR
1037.150(f) to include fuel cell electric vehicles, in addition to
battery electric vehicles, in the provision that deems tailpipe
emissions of regulated GHG pollutants as zero and as such does not
require CO2-related emission testing. As discussed in
section II.D.1, hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines are a newer
technology under development, and since hydrogen has no carbon, H2 ICEs
fueled with neat hydrogen produce zero HC, CH4, CO, and
CO2 engine-out emissions. We recognize that there may be
negligible, but non-zero, CO2 emissions at the tailpipe of
H2 ICE vehicles fueled with neat hydrogen that utilize SCR due to the
aftertreatment system contribution from urea decomposition. Similarly,
CO2 emissions are attributable to the aftertreatment systems
in ICE. These aftertreatment-based CO2 emissions from HD CI
engines today are treated differently in the engine and vehicle
compliance programs. In the engine program, the CO2
emissions from the aftertreatment are included in the measurements to
demonstrate compliance with the engine CO2 standards in 40
CFR part 1036. In the vehicle program, the CO2 emissions
from the aftertreatment are excluded from the fuel maps developed to
demonstrate compliance with the vehicle CO2 emission
standards in 40 CFR part 1037. We are finalizing an approach to
maintain common measurement of emissions from ICE regardless of the
fuel used to power them. Therefore, we are finalizing as proposed to
include vehicles using engines fueled with neat hydrogen in 40 CFR
1037.150(f) so that their CO2 tailpipe emissions are deemed
to be zero and manufacturers are not required to perform any engine
testing for demonstrating compliance with the vehicle CO2
emission standards. This final revision does not change the
requirements for H2 ICE engines, including those fueled with neat
hydrogen, to meet the N2O GHG standards and the criteria
pollutant emission standards in 40 CFR part 1036. Additionally, we are
revising as proposed 40 CFR 1037.150(f) to replace ``electric
vehicles'' with ``battery electric vehicles'', and ``hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles'' with ``fuel cell electric vehicles'', consistent with final
revisions to those definitions (see section I.C.3.xiii of this
preamble).
iii. ABT Calculations
We proposed revisions to the definitions of two variables of the
emission credit calculation for ABT in 40 CFR 1037.705. As noted in
section II.C, we are not finalizing the proposed update to the emission
standard variable (variable ``Std'') to establish a common reference
emission standard when calculating ABT emission credits for vocational
vehicles with tailpipe CO2 emissions deemed to be. However,
we are finalizing as proposed a revision to the ``Volume'' variable.
With the final revision to paragraph (c), we intend for 40 CFR
1037.705(c) to replace ``U.S.-directed production volume'' as the
primary reference for the appropriate production volume to apply with
respect to the ABT program and propose to generally replace throughout
part 1037.
iv. U.S.-Directed Production Volume
The existing 40 CFR 1037.205, which describes requirements for the
application for certification, uses the term U.S.-directed production
volume. As described in section I.A.1, we are finalizing a change to
the definition of ``U.S.-directed production volume'', such that the
term equates to nationwide production volumes that include any
production volumes certified to different state standards. The revised
definition does not require a change to 40 CFR 1037.205 to ensure
[[Page 29622]]
manufacturers report nationwide production volumes.
We are finalizing as proposed revisions to the introductory
paragraph of 40 CFR 1037.705(c), consistent with the final revisions to
the corresponding HD engine provisions, to establish this paragraph as
the reference for which engines are excluded from the production volume
used to calculate emission credits for HD highway (see section I.C.2.v
of this preamble). Similarly, final revisions include replacing several
instances of ``U.S.-directed production volume'' with a more general
``production volume'' where the text clearly is connected to ABT or a
more specific reference to the production volume specified in 40 CFR
1037.705(c).\898\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\898\ See revisions in 40 CFR 1037.150(c) and 1037.730(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Revisions to Hybrid Powertrain Testing and Axle Efficiency Testing
We are finalizing the addition of a new figure to 40 CFR 1036.545
to give an overview on how to carry out hybrid powertrain testing in
that section. We are finalizing in the axle efficiency test in 40 CFR
1037.560(e)(2) the use of an alternate lower gear oil temperature range
on a test point by test point basis in addition to the current
alternate that requires the use of the same lower temperature range for
all test points within the test matrix. This provides more
representative test results as not all test points within a matrix for
a given axle test will result in gear oil temperatures within the same
range. We are also finalizing a change to 40 CFR 1037.560(h)(1) to
require that testing must be done using the same temperature range for
each setpoint for all axle assemblies when developing analytically
derive axle power loss maps for untested configurations within an axle
family.
vi. Removal of Trailer Provisions
As part of the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking, we set standards for
certain types of trailers used in combination with tractors (see 81 FR
73639, October 25, 2016). We are finalizing the removal of the
regulatory provisions related to trailers in 40 CFR part 1037 to carry
out a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which
vacated the portions of the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule that apply to
trailers.\899\ These revisions include removal of specific sections and
paragraphs describing trailer provisions and related references
throughout the part. Additionally, we are finalizing new regulatory
text for an existing test procedure that currently refers to a trailer
test procedure. The existing 40 CFR 1037.527 describes a procedure for
manufacturers to measure aerodynamic performance of their vocational
vehicles by referring to the A to B testing methodology for trailers in
40 CFR 1037.525. We have removed the regulatory text describing A to B
testing from the trailer procedure and moved it into 40 CFR 1037.527
(such that it replaces the cross-referencing regulatory text).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\899\ Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 17 F.4th
1198 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vii. Removal of 40 CFR 1037.205(q)
We have corrected an inadvertent error and have removed the
existing 40 CFR 1037.205(q). This paragraph contained requirements we
proposed in HD2027 but did not finalize and thus did not intend to
include in the final rule's amendatory instructions, regarding
information for battery electric vehicles and fuel cell electric
vehicles to show they meet the standards of 40 CFR part 1037.
viii. Adding Full Cylinder Deactivation to 40 CFR 1037.520(j)(1)
We are finalizing as proposed to credit vehicles with engines that
include full cylinder deactivation during coasting at 1.5 percent. We
believe this is appropriate since the same 1.5 percent credit is
currently provided for tractors and vocational vehicles with neutral
coasting, and both technologies reduce CO2 emissions by
reducing the engine braking during vehicle coasting.\900\ Cylinder
deactivation can reduce engine braking by closing both the intake and
exhaust valves when there is no operator demand to reduce the pumping
losses of the engine when motoring. Because of this, only vehicles with
engines where both exhaust and intake valves are closed when the
vehicle is coasting qualify for the 1.5 percent credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\900\ See the HD GHG Phase 2 rule (81 FR 73598, October 25,
2016), for more information on how 1.5 percent was determined for
neutral coasting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ix. Removal of Chassis Testing Option Under 40 CFR 1037.510 and
Reference Update
We are removing the chassis dynamometer testing option for testing
over the duty cycles as described in 40 CFR 1037.510(a). The chassis
dynamometer test was available as an option for Phase 1 testing in 40
CFR 1037.615. We are removing it to avoid confusion as the chassis
dynamometer testing option is only allowed when performing off-cycle
testing following 40 CFR 1037.610 and is not allowed for creating the
cycle average fuel map for input into GEM. Note that manufacturers may
continue to test vehicles on a chassis dynamometer to quantify off-
cycle credits under 40 CFR 1037.610.
We are also correcting paragraph reference errors in 40 CFR
1037.510(a)(2)(iii) and (iv). These paragraphs reference the warmup
procedure in 40 CFR 1036.520(c)(1). The warmup procedure is located in
40 CFR 1036.520(d).
x. Utility Factor Clarification for Testing Engines With a Hybrid Power
Takeoff Shaft
We are clarifying the variable description for the utility factor
fraction UFRCD in 40 CFR 1037.540(f)(3)(ii). The current
description references the use of an ``approved utility factor curve''.
The original intent was to use the power take off utility factors that
reside in Appendix E to 40 CFR part 1036 to generate a utility factor
curve to determine UFRCD. We are clarifying this by
replacing ``approved utility factor curve'' with a reference to the
utility factors in Appendix E.
xi. Heavy-Duty Vehicles at or Below 14,000 Pounds GVWR
The final standards in this rule apply for all heavy-duty vehicles
above 14,000 pounds GVWR, except as noted in existing 40 CFR
1037.150(l). We are not changing the option for manufacturers to
voluntarily certify incomplete vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR
to 40 CFR part 1037 instead of certifying under 40 CFR part 86, subpart
S; the final standards in this rule would also apply for those
incomplete heavy-duty vehicles. We are removing 40 CFR 1037.104 as
proposed and refer manufacturers to 40 CFR 1037.5 for excluded
vehicles.\901\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\901\ This change includes removing the reference to 40 CFR
1037.104 in 40 CFR 1037.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a parallel rulemaking to set new emission standards for light-
duty and medium-duty vehicles under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, we
proposed a requirement for complete and incomplete vehicles at or below
14,000 pounds GVWR with Gross Combined Weight Rating above 22,000
pounds to have installed engines that have been certified to the
engine-based criteria emission standards in 40 CFR part 1036. Those
vehicles would continue to meet GHG standards under 40 CFR 86.1819
instead of meeting the engine-based GHG standards in 40 CFR part 1036
and the vehicle-based GHG standards in 40 CFR part 1037, with one
exception. The exception would be to allow an option
[[Page 29623]]
for manufacturers of such incomplete vehicles to meet the greenhouse
gas standards under 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037 instead of meeting the
chassis-based greenhouse gas standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
In that parallel rulemaking, the final rule allows manufacturers the
option to certify those engines to the engine-based criteria emission
standards under 40 CFR part 1036 instead of certifying to chassis-based
standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. For manufacturers that
select that option, the greenhouse gas standards apply as we just
described for the proposed rule.
xii. Updates to Optional Standards for Tractors at or Above 120,000
Pounds
In HD GHG Phase 2 and in a subsequent rulemaking, we adopted
optional heavy Class 8 tractor CO2 emission standards for
tractors with a GCWR above 120,000 pounds (see 40 CFR 1037.670).\902\
We did this because most manufacturers tend to rely on U.S.
certificates as their evidence of conformity for products sold into
Canada to reduce compliance burden. Therefore, in Phase 2 we adopted
provisions that allow the manufacturers the option to meet standards
that reflect the appropriate technology improvements, along with the
powertrain requirements that go along with higher GCWR. While these
heavy Class 8 tractor standards are optional for tractors sold into the
U.S. market, Canada adopted these as mandatory requirements as part of
their regulatory development and consultation process. As proposed, we
are adopting provisions to sunset the optional standards after MY
2026.\903\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\902\ 81 FR 73582 (October 25, 2016) and 86 FR 34338 (June 29,
2021).
\903\ We removed the standards listed in the rightmost column of
existing table 1 of paragraph (a) of Sec. 1037.670; we note that
the column was intended for model years 2027 and later standards but
was mistakenly labeled ``Model years 2026 and later''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
xiii. Updates to 40 CFR Part 1037 Definitions
We are finalizing several updates to the definitions in 40 CFR
1037.801. As noted in section I.C.3.vi, we are removing the trailer
provisions, which include removing the following definitions: Box van,
container chassis, flatbed trailer, standard tractor, and tank trailer.
We also are revising several definitions to remove references to
trailers or trailer-specific sections, including definitions for:
Class, heavy-duty vehicle, low rolling resistance tire, manufacturer,
model year, Phase 1, Phase 2, preliminary approval, small manufacturer,
standard payload, tire rolling resistance, trailer, and vehicle.
We are finalizing new and updated definitions in support of several
requirements in section II or this section III. We are finalizing
replacement of the existing definition of ``electric vehicle'' with
more specific definitions for the different vehicle technologies and
energy sources that could be used to power these vehicles.
Specifically, we are finalizing new definitions for battery electric
vehicle, fuel cell electric vehicle, and plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle. We are also finalizing the replacement of the existing
definition of ``hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain'' with a definition
of ``hybrid'' that refers to a revised definition in 40 CFR part
1036.\904\ We are also updating the definition of U.S.-directed
production volume to be equivalent to nationwide production as
described section III.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\904\ See section I.C.2.xiii of this preamble for a description
of the updated definition of hybrid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are finalizing several editorial revisions to definitions as
well. We are finalizing a revision to the definition of vehicle to
remove the text of existing paragraph (2)(iii) and move the main phrase
of that removed paragraph (i.e., ``when it is first sold as a
vehicle'') to the description of ``complete vehicle'' to further
clarify that aspect of the existing definition. We are finalizing as
proposed a revision to the existing definition of small manufacturer,
in addition to the revisions removing reference to trailers, to clarify
that the employee and revenue limits include the totals from all
affiliated companies and added a reference to the definition of
affiliated companies in 40 CFR 1068.30.
We are finalizing revisions to the definitions of ``light-duty
truck'' and ``light-duty vehicle'', by having the definitions reference
the definitions in 40 CFR 86.1803-1.
xiv. Miscellaneous Corrections and Clarifications in 40 CFR Part 1037
We are finalizing revisions to several references to 40 CFR part 86
revisions. Throughout 40 CFR part 1037, we are replacing references to
40 CFR 86.1816 or 86.1819 with a more general reference to the
standards of part 86, subpart S. These revisions reduce the need to
update references to specific part 86 sections if new standards are
added to a different section in a future rule. We are not revising any
references to specific part 86 paragraphs (e.g., 40 CFR 86.1819-14(j)).
We are removing the duplicative statements in 40 CFR 1037.105(c)
and 1037.106(c) regarding CH4 and N2O standards
from their current locations and moving it to 40 CFR 1037.101(a)(2)(i)
where we currently describe the standards that apply in part 1037. We
are also updating 40 CFR 1037.101(a)(2)(i) to more accurately state
that only CO2 standards are described in 40 CFR 1037.105 and
1037.106, by removing reference to CH4 and N2O in
that sentence. We are updating the section title for 40 CFR 1037.102 to
include the term ``Criteria'' and the list of components (i.e.,
NOX, HC, PM, and CO) covered by the section to be consistent
with the naming convention used in 40 CFR part 1036.
xv. Finalized Changes for In-Use Tractor Testing in 40 CFR 1037.665
The in-use tractor testing requirements were adopted to apply only
to Phase 1 and Phase 2 tractors. We proposed to extend that to Phase 3
tractors as well, but received comments describing the significant test
burden and limited value in performing this testing. Based on those
comments and our own evaluation of the merits of further testing, we
are not taking final action on the proposed change to extend testing
requirements to Phase 3 tractors.
xvi. Finalized Changes to Constraints for Vocational Regulatory
Subcategories in 40 CFR 1037.150(v)
In this action we are finalizing clarifications to 40 CFR
1037.150(z).\905\ As pointed out in comments to this rule, 40 CFR
1037.150(z) included provisions that were duplicative, potentially
confusing, or not needed. To address these concerns, we are deleting
the former paragraph (z)(1), which contains a requirement to select the
Regional regulatory subcategory if the engine is only tested with the
Supplemental Emission Test. This scenario, however, is not allowed, as
40 CFR 1036.108(a)(1) requires that vocational engines measure
CO2 emissions over the FTP duty cycle. We are also deleting
the reference to former paragraphs (z)(1) and (3) in the former
paragraph (z)(5), as we are removing paragraphs (z)(1) and the former
paragraph (z)(3) provides restrictions for defining vehicles as Urban
and is not applicable to defining vehicles to the Multi-purpose
regulatory subcategory. Finally, we are deleting former paragraph
(z)(6), as it is identical to former paragraph (z)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\905\ Note that 40 CFR 1037.150(z) is being moved to 40 CFR
1037.150(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Updates to 40 CFR Part 1039 Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines
The final rule includes an amendment to 40 CFR 1039.705(b) to
correct a
[[Page 29624]]
publishing error in the equation to calculate emission credits for
nonroad compression-ignition engines.
5. Updates to 40 CFR Part 1065 Engine Testing Procedures
i. Engine Testing and Certification With Fuels Other Than Carbon-
Containing Fuels
Alternative fuels and fuels other than carbon-containing fuels are
part of the fuel pathway for sustainable biofuel, e-fuel, and clean
hydrogen development under the U.S. National Blueprint for
Transportation Decarbonization.\906\ This blueprint anticipates a mix
of battery electric, sustainable fuel, and hydrogen use to achieve a
net zero carbon emissions level by 2050 for the heavy-duty sector. EPA
is updating 40 CFR part 1065 to facilitate certification of engines
using fuels other than carbon-containing fuels for all sectors that use
engine testing to show compliance with the standards. This includes a
new definition of ``carbon-containing fuel'' in 40 CFR 1065.1001, the
addition of a new paragraph (f) in 40 CFR 1065.520 that requires the
selection of the chemical balance method prior to emission testing, and
the addition of a new chemical balance procedure in section 40 CFR
1065.656 that is used in place of the carbon-based chemical balance
procedure in 40 CFR 1065.655 when an engine is certified for operation
using fuels other than carbon-containing fuels (e.g., hydrogen or
ammonia).\907\ Since these fuels do not contain carbon, the current
carbon-based chemical balance cannot be used as it is designed based on
comparisons of the amount of carbon in the fuel to the amount measured
post combustion in the exhaust. The chemical balance for fuels other
than carbon-containing fuels looks at the amount of hydrogen in the
fuel versus what is measured in the exhaust. The amendments also
facilitate certification of an engine on a mix of carbon-containing
fuels and fuels other than carbon-containing fuels. The update to 40
CFR 1065.520(f) also requires the decision on which chemical balance to
use to be based on the hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the fuel mixture. If
it is less or equal to 6, the chemical balance in 40 CFR 1065.655 must
be used. The regulation at 40 CFR 1065.695, Data Requirements, was also
updated with the addition of a new paragraph (c)(9)(v) to add a
requirement to in the section that describes the emission calculations
used, including listing the chemical balance method used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\906\ The U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation
Decarbonization: A Joint Strategy to Transform Transportation. DOE/
EE-2674. January 2023. Available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/the-us-national-blueprint-for-transportation-decarbonization.pdf.
\907\ We are also finalizing a definition for ``carbon-
containing fuel'' in 40 CFR 1036.801 that references the proposed
new 40 CFR part 1065 definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The addition of the certification option for fuels other than
carbon-containing fuels relies on inputs requiring hydrogen, ammonia,
and water concentration measurement from the exhaust. We are finalizing
the addition of new sections in 40 CFR part 1065 and revisions to some
existing sections to support the procedure in 40 CFR 1065.656. We are
finalizing a new 40 CFR 1065.255 to provide specifications for hydrogen
measurement devices, a new 40 CFR 1065.257 to provide specifications
for water measurement using a Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)
analyzer, and a new 40 CFR 1065.277 to provide specifications for
ammonia measurement devices. These additions also require a new 40 CFR
1065.357 to address CO2 interference when measuring water
using an FTIR analyzer, a new 40 CFR 1065.377 to address H2O
interference and any other interference species as deemed by the
instrument manufacturer or using good engineering judgment when
measuring NH3 using an FTIR or laser infrared analyzers, and
the addition of calibration gases for these new analyzer types to 40
CFR 1065.750. We are also adding drift check requirements to 40 CFR
1065.550(b) to address drift correction of the H2,
O2, H2O, and NH3 measurements needed
in the 40 CFR 1065.656 procedure. We are not finalizing the addition of
drift check requirements for H2, O2,
H2O, and NH3 measurements in 40 CFR
1065.935(g)(5)(ii) for testing with PEMS. These exhaust gas
constituents are not regulated and are used in the chemical balance to
facilitate dilution ratio determination for background correction and
dry to wet correction. If there is any significant drift with these
species, the impact will be included in the drift check verification of
the regulated pollutants. We are also adding a new 40 CFR
1065.750(a)(6) to address the uncertainty of the water concentrations
generated to perform the linearity verification of the water FTIR
analyzer in 40 CFR 1065.257. We are finalizing two options to generate
a humid gas stream. The first is via a heated bubbler where dry gas is
passed through the bubbler at a controlled water temperature to
generate a gas with the desired water content. The second is a device
that injects heated liquid water into a gas stream. The linearity
verification requirement for the humidity generator is once a year to
an uncertainty of 3 percent; \908\ however, we are not
requiring that the calibration of the humidity generator be NIST
traceable. We are finalizing a leak check requirement after the
humidity generator is assembled, as these devices are typically
disassembled and stored when not in use and subsequent assembly prior
to use could lead to leaks in the system. We are including calculations
to determine the uncertainty of the humidity generator from
measurements of dewpoint and absolute pressure. We are finalizing a new
definition for ``carbon-containing fuel'' and ``lean-burn'' in 40 CFR
1065.1001 to further support the addition of the certification option
for engines using fuels other than carbon-containing fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\908\ The verification schedule in 40 CFR 1065.750(a)(6) says:
``Calibrate the humidity generator upon initial installation, within
370 days before verifying the H2O measurement of the
FTIR, and after major maintenance.''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not adding any specifications for alternative test fuels,
like methanol, and fuels other than carbon-containing fuels like
hydrogen and ammonia, to 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H. Manufacturers
certifying engines with alternative test fuels must use the provision
in 40 CFR 1065.701(c) which allows the use of test fuels that we do not
specify in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H, with our approval.
ii. Engine Speed Derate for Exhaust Flow Limitation
We are finalizing a change to 40 CFR 1065.512(b)(1) to address the
appearance of three options for generating new reference duty-cycle
points for the engine to follow. The option in the existing 40 CFR
1065.512(b)(1)(i) is not an actual option; instead, it gives direction
on how to operate the dynamometer (torque control mode). This sentence
has been moved into 40 CFR 1065.512(b)(1). The two remaining options in
the current 40 CFR 1065.512(b)(1)(ii) and (iii) have been redesignated
as 40 CFR 1065.512(b)(1)(i) and (ii).
We are not finalizing the change we proposed to 40 CFR
1065.512(b)(1) to address cycle validation issues where an engine with
power derate intended to limit exhaust mass flowrate might include
controls that reduce engine speed under cold-start conditions,
resulting in reduced exhaust flow that assists other aftertreatment
thermal management technologies (e.g., electric heater). Upon further
investigation of the test procedure, we determined that 40 CFR part
1065 already contains
[[Page 29625]]
options to address this. If the engine has the power derate feature
described previously in this section, when this feature is active, the
following scenarios would be applicable to enable engine testing:
1. For idle points:
a. For engines with an idle governor, have the dynamometer control
torque and set the operator demand to minimum (same as what is
currently done for most engine tests).
b. For engines without an idle governor (i.e., no possibility of
and enhanced or decreased idle governor speed), the test lab can decide
whether to control speed or torque with the dyno and operator demand.
2. For non-idle-non-motoring points, have the dynamometer control
torque and the operator demand control speed.
3. For motoring points, have the dynamometer control speed and set
operator demand to minimum (same as what is currently done for most
engine tests).
If a test lab tested an engine with power derate and took this
approach and the power derate feature activates, we would expect the
following to occur:
For idle points under option 1a of the list, this feature
could lower the idle governor setpoint and the dynamometer would
continue to apply the reference idle torque. Presumably, any fueling
limit at idle would be sufficient to keep the engine from stalling in-
use and it would not stall in the test cell under this idle condition.
For idle points under option 1b of the list, on engines
without and idle governor (if this case is even practical for this
technology), the fueling limit still cannot be set so low as to cause
the engine to stall under idle load conditions.
For non-idle-non-motoring points (option 2 of the list),
the throttle is expected to saturate at maximum and the dynamometer
will continue to try to apply the reference torque. This operation has
the possibility of stalling the engine if the fueling limit is
insufficient to produce the reference torque at a reduced speed and
might require a stall countermeasure in the test cell controls.
For motoring points (option 3 of the list), it is assumed
the engine is already at minimum fueling (because the operator demand
is at minimum) and power derate feature will have no impact on these
points.
iii. Accelerated Aftertreatment Aging
We recently finalized a new accelerated aftertreatment aging
procedure for use in deterioration factor determination in 40 CFR
1065.1131 through 1065.1145. We requested comment on the need for
potential changes to the procedure based on experience that
manufacturers and test labs have gained since the procedure was
finalized.
We are finalizing changes to 40 CFR 1065.1135, 1065.1137,
1065.1139, 1065.1141, and 1065.1145. These changes are based on EPA's
consideration of comments submitted to EMA's Emission Measurement and
Testing Committee (EMTC). The comments consisted of a series of updates
to the affected sections listed. These updates were based on additional
testing and accelerated aging model validation performed by Southwest
Research Institute as part of the Diesel Aftertreatment Accelerated
Aging Cycle (DAAAC) Validation Steering Committee that consists of
government (EPA) and industry (EMA) representatives who were part of
the original DAAAC validation study that procedures in 40 CFR 1065.1131
through 1065.1145 were based on.
Explanation of the changes to the sections listed are as follows:
We are finalizing an editorial change to 40 CFR 1065.1135
that is the simple insertion of a comma.
We are finalizing non-substantive wording changes to 40
CFR 1065.1137.
We are finalizing a change to 40 CFR 1065.1137(b)(1) where
we are adding ``storage capacity of the more active site'' as an
additional recommended metric for determining the thermal reactivity
coefficient for use in the Arrhenius rate law function to model
cumulative thermal degradation due to catalyst heat exposure for
copper-based zeolite SCR catalysts. This metric has been shown to be an
effective metric for tracking thermal aging in addition to the already
allowed ratio between the storage capacity of the two different storage
sites.
We are finalizing a change to 40 CFR 1065.1137(b)(2) where
we are removing the 250 [deg]C temperature target for the single
storage site thermal aging metric for iron-based zeolite SCR catalysts.
Advancements in this catalyst technology have led to the need for a
technology formulation specific temperature as opposed to the use of a
prescribed default temperature, which we are adding as part of this
change.
We are finalizing a change to 40 CFR 1065.1137(b)(3) where
we are removing the use of NOX conversion at 250 [deg]C
temperature target for the single storage site thermal aging metric for
vanadium SCR catalysts. Advancements in this catalyst technology have
led to the need for a different approach for tracking aging to achieve
sufficient resolution. We are updating the key aging metric to
Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) theory for determination of surface area.
We are also allowing the use of total ammonia storage capacity as a
surrogate for BET measurements of surface area as the key aging metric,
using a single storage site model.
We are finalizing the addition of a new 40 CFR
1065.1137(b)(4) to add total ammonia storage capacity as a recommended
key aging metric for zone-coated copper- and iron-based zeolite SCR,
similar to paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of the section. There was no
option given previously for determining the key aging metric for this
technology and the new addition remedies this.
We are finalizing a change to the redesignated 40 CFR
1065.1137(b)(5) to the key aging metric NO to NO2 conversion
rate and HC reduction efficiency temperatures to a value less than or
equal to 200 [deg]C determined using good engineering judgement. This
change resolves the inconsistencies throughout 40 CFR part 1037
regarding the temperature rate at which the conversion rate should be
determined.
We are finalizing an update to 40 CFR 1065.1137(c)(1) to
change the recommended maximum time to observe changes in the aging
metric from 50 hours to 64 hours as 64 hours is more in line with the
pattern of increasing evenly spaced time intervals (2, 4, 8, 16, and 32
hours) given in 40 CFR 1065.1137(c)(2).
We are finalizing the addition of new paragraphs (c)(2)(i)
and (ii) to 40 CFR 1065.1137 to add processes for determining ammonia
storage capacity for SCR catalysts as well as for determining oxidation
conversion efficiency of NO to NO2 for diesel oxidation
catalysts (DOC) to assess the aging metric. These are the standard
methodologies for assessing the aging metric and will provide a level
playing field for test facilities carrying out accelerated aging
testing.
We are finalizing updates to 40 CFR 1065.1137,
specifically new paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) to replace the use of a
generalized deactivation equation for determination of catalyst
deactivation rate constant, kD, and thermal reactivity
coefficient, Ea,D. The generalized equation was replaced
with more specific processes for copper-based zeolite SCR (40 CFR
1065.1137(d)(1)), iron-based zeolite and vanadium SCR (40 CFR
1065.1137(d)(2)), zone-coated zeolite SCR (40 CFR 1065.1137(d)(3)), and
diesel oxidation catalysts (40 CFR 1065.1137(d)(4)). These updates stem
from the need for more detail and specificity on how to model the
thermal reactivity coefficient to provide
[[Page 29626]]
consistency and a level playing field. For example, it provides a means
to use the temperature programmed desorption (TPD) data used to
generate the ammonia storage capacity values to model catalyst
deactivation.
40 CFR 1065.1137(d)(1) for copper-based zeolite SCR
requires the processing of all ammonia TPD data for each aging
condition using an algorithm to fit the ammonia desorption data. We
recommend using a Temkin adsorption model to quantify the ammonia TPD
at each site to determine the desorption peaks of individual storage
sites. We allow either the general power law expression (GPLE) or
Arrhenius modeling approaches to derive the thermal reactivity
coefficient, Ea,D. We recommend that both models are used to
fit the data and that the resulting Ea,D values for the two
methods are within 3 percent of each other as a quality assurance
check. These updates stem from the need for more detail and specificity
on how to model the thermal reactivity coefficient to provide
consistency and a level playing field.
40 CFR 1065.1137(d)(2) for iron-based zeolite of vanadium
SCR requires the processing of all ammonia TPD data (or BET surface
area data) for each aging condition using GLPE to fit the ammonia
desorption data. Global fitting is used to solve for Ea,D
and the pre-exponential factor, AD, by applying a
generalized reduced gradient (GRG) nonlinear minimization algorithm.
These updates stem from the need for more detail and specificity on how
to model the thermal reactivity coefficient to provide consistency and
a level playing field.
40 CFR 1065.1137(d)(3) for zone-coated zeolite SCR
requires derivation of the thermal reactivity coefficient,
Ea,D, for each zone of the SCR, based on 40 CFR
1065.1137(d)(1) and (2). The zone that yields the lowest
Ea,D is used for calculating the target cumulative thermal
load, as outlined in 40 CFR 1065.1139. These updates stem from the need
for more detail and specificity on how to model the thermal reactivity
coefficient to provide consistency and a level playing field.
40 CFR 1065.1137(d)(4) for diesel oxidation catalysts
models the catalyst monolith as a plug flow reactor with first order
reaction rate. The pre-exponential term, A, in the Arrhenius rate law
function is proportional to the number of active sites and is the
desired aging metric. The NO to NO2 oxidation reverse light
off data for each aging condition is processed by determining the
average oxidation conversion efficiency at a temperature of less than
or equal to 200 [deg]C determined using good engineering judgement and
this is used to calculate the aging metric. This temperature limit
change resolves the inconsistencies throughout 40 CFR part 1037
regarding the temperature rate at which the conversion rate should be
determined. GPLE is used to fit the NO to NO2 conversion
data at each aging temperature. Global fitting is used to solve for
Ea,D and the pre-exponential factor, AD, by
applying a generalized reduced gradient (GRG) nonlinear minimization
algorithm. These updates stem from the need for more detail and
specificity on how to model the thermal reactivity coefficient to
provide consistency and a level playing field.
We are finalizing the addition of new paragraphs 40 CFR
1065.1139(e)(6)(v) for heat load calculation and tuning for systems
that have regeneration events and 40 CFR 1065.1139(f)(3) for heat load
calculation and tuning for systems that do not have regeneration
events. These additions allows a reduction in the acceleration factor
from 10 to a lower number if the target cumulative deactivation for the
field data, Dt,field, is not achievable without exceeding
the catalyst temperature limits. This would be applicable, for example,
for a vanadium catalyst where you might not be able to age at the
target temperature because it might cause vanadium sublimation, thus
you would use a lower target temperature and then increase the test
time to arrive at equivalent aging. The same lower acceleration factor
for thermal aging must also then be used in the chemical exposure
calculations, instead of 10.
We are finalizing the addition of a new 40 CFR
1065.1141(b)(2) to add an additional method recommendation on
modification of the engine to increase oil consumption to levels
required for accelerated aging in a manner such that the oil
consumption is still generally representative of oil passing the piston
rings into the cylinder. This method uses iterative modification of the
oil control rings in one or more cylinders to reduce the spring tension
on the oil control ring and provides a robust means to increase engine
oil consumption.
We are finalizing an update to 40 CFR 1065.1141(f) to
recommend incorporation of a method of continuous oil consumption
monitoring during accelerated aging, including validation of the
monitoring method with periodic draining and weighing of the engine
oil. This is to ensure that oil consumption rates are representative
over the course of the accelerated aging test.
We are finalizing an update to 40 CFR 1065.1145(d) to
recommended that if the aging cycle is paused for any reason, you
resume testing at the same point in the cycle where it stopped to
ensure consistent thermal and chemical exposure of the aftertreatment
system.
We are finalizing an update to 40 CFR 1065.1145(e)(2)(i)
to remove the requirement to operate the engine for at least 4 hours
after an oil change with the exhaust bypassing the aftertreatment
system to stabilize the new oil. The Southwest Research Institute
Diesel Aftertreatment Accelerated Aging Cycle (DAAAC) Validation test
program did not stabilize new oil after an oil change and the
validation program results to date indicate that there is no adverse
effect on accelerated aging. Therefore we are removing the break in
requirement to reduce test burden.
iv. Nonmethane Cutter Water Interference Correction
We recently finalized options and requirements for gaseous fueled
engines to allow a correction for the effect of water on the nonmethane
cutter (NMC) performance, as gaseous fueled engines produce much higher
water content in the exhaust than gasoline or diesel fuels, impacting
the final measured emission result.\909\ The correction is done by
adjusting the methane and ethane response factors used for the Total
Hydrocarbon (THC) Flame Ionization Detector (FID) and the combine
methane response factor and penetration fraction and combined ethane
response factor and penetration fraction of the NMC FID. These response
factors and penetration fractions are then used to determine NMHC and
methane concentrations based on the molar water concentration in the
raw or diluted exhaust. EPA is aware that test labs that have attempted
to implement this correction have reported that this new option is
lacking clarity with respect to the implementation of these corrections
from both a procedural and emission calculation perspective. Test labs
and manufacturers have also requested the option to use the water
correction for all fuels, not just gaseous fuels. Test labs and
manufacturers have also stated that in their view, as written, 40 CFR
1065.360(d)(12) indicates that the water correction for the methane
response factor on the THC FID is required; we note that was not our
intent and are finalizing updates to this section to clarify that
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\909\ 86 FR 34543, June 29, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to general edits that improve the consistency of
terminology and the rearrangement of some paragraphs to improve the
flow of the procedure, we are making the following
[[Page 29627]]
changes to 40 CFR 1065.360, 1065.365, and 1065.660 to address the
concerns raised regarding implementation and use of the NMC performance
corrections. In 40 CFR 1065.360 and 1065.365, we are allowing the
optional use of the water correction for the applicable response
factors and penetration fractions for engines operated on any fuel, as
the use of the correction improves the quality of the emission
measurement even though the effect is less pronounced for liquid fuels.
In 40 CFR 1065.360, we are finalizing revisions to clarify that
determination of the FID methane response factor as a function of molar
water concentration is optional for all fuels. In 40 CFR 1065.365, we
are removing the recommendation of a methane penetration fraction of
greater than 0.85 for the NMC FID because the procedure will account
for the effect of the penetration fraction regardless of the level of
NMC methane penetration. We are also finalizing a corresponding change
in relation to another change in this rule, such that the requirements
for linearity performance of the humidity generator must meet the
uncertainty requirements in 40 CFR 1065.750(a)(6) that we have added to
address the accuracy of humidity generators used in the calibration of
the FTIRs used for water measurement. In 40 CFR 1065.660, we are
modifying equations 1065.660-2 and 1065.660-9 by adding the variable
for the methane response factor and penetration fraction for the NMC
FID back into the equations, which we previously removed for
simplification because the value was set to a constant of one. This
modification has no effect on the outcome of the calculations if the
effect of water on the NMC performance is not being accounted for
because the procedure directs that the methane response factor and
penetration fraction for the NMC FID are set to one. If the effect of
water is being accounted for, these modified equations make it easier
to understand the requirements of the procedure.
v. ISO 8178 Exceptions in 40 CFR 1065.601
Paragraph (c)(1) of 40 CFR 1065.601 allows the use of ISO 8178
mass-based emission calculations instead of the calculations specified
in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart G, with two exceptions. We are updating
the section reference to the exception in 40 CFR 1065.601(c)(1)(i) for
NOX humidity and temperature correction from ISO 8178-1
Section 14.4 to ISO 8178-4 Section 9.1.6 to address updates made to ISO
8178 over the last 20 years that changed the location of this
correction. We are also removing the exception for the use of the
particulate correction factor for humidity in ISO 8178-1 Section 15.1
because this correction factor no longer exists in ISO 8178.
vi. Work System Boundary in 40 CFR 1065.210
Figure 1 to paragraph (a) of 40 CFR 1065.210 provides diagrams for
the work inputs, outputs, and system boundaries for engines. We are
updating the diagram for liquid cooled engines in figure 1 to paragraph
(a) of 40 CFR 1065.210 to include electric heaters that use work from
an external power source. We are also updating 40 CFR 1065.210(a) to
include an example of an engine exhaust electrical heater and direction
on how to simulate the efficiency of the electrical generator, to
account for the work of the electrical heater. We are finalizing an
efficiency of 67 percent, as this is the value used in 40 CFR 86.1869-
12(b)(4)(xiii) as the baseline alternator efficiency when determining
off-cycle improvements of high efficiency alternators.
vii. Fuel and Diesel Exhaust Fluid Composition in 40 CFR 1065.655
We are finalizing updates to the elemental mass fraction variables
in 40 CFR 1065.655(e) to clarify that these are measured values that
are used to calculate the elemental ratios in the fuel mixture. Not the
default values from table 2 of 40 CFR 1065.655. We are also finalizing
updates to the variable description for carbon mass fraction for
equation 1065.655-25 in 40 CFR 1065.655(f)(3). This update clarifies
that the carbon mass fraction used in the equation is the one
determined in 40 CFR 1065.655(d).
viii. NO2-to-NO Converter Conversion Verification in 40 CFR
1065.378
We are finalizing an update to the NOX converter
efficiency check in 40 CFR 1065.378, adding an exception as a new
paragraph (e)(3) to address instances where the peak total
NO2 concentration expected during the emission test will be
high and the ozonator used in the converter efficiency check cannot
generate enough NO2 to approximate this level. With this
change, a lab may request EPA approval to use an NO2 gas in
lieu of generating NO2 from NO gas using an ozonator.
High peak total NO2 emission concentrations could occur
when performing OBD system certification where, for example, a
manufacturer could be testing failed components that result in high
NO2 to NOX ratio with high total NOX
(around 2000 ppm) or when measuring NOX from raw exhaust
where a high NO2 spike might occur. Ozonators in
chemiluminescent analyzers are generally not designed to generate that
high of an NO2 concentration during the NOX
efficiency test (the step in Sec. 1065.378(d)(3)(iv)). The update to
40 CFR part 1065 to allow the use of a high concentration
NO2 gas will alleviate these concerns.
ix. Formaldehyde Gas Blend Accuracy in 40 CFR 1065.750
We are finalizing the removal of formaldehyde from the gas mixture
in 40 CFR 1065.750(a)(3)(xiii). There is no standard for formaldehyde
from NIST and the preference is to gravimetrically blend it under the
``other similar standards'' provision in 40 CFR 1065.750(a)(4).
Removing formaldehyde here increases the allowable blend tolerance from
1 percent to 3 percent of the NIST accepted
value in addition to allowing the use of ``other similar standards'',
as this gas standard now must meet the requirements of 40 CFR
1065.750(a)(4). Formaldehyde did not appear on its own in 40 CFR
1065.750(a)(3), but rather as part of a gas mixture of 11 gasses in 40
CFR 1065.750(a)(3)(xiii). The gas blend in 40 CFR 1065.750(a)(3)(xiii)
is for calibration of an FTIR when the FTIR additive method is used for
determination of NMHC from gaseous fueled engines. Formaldehyde in an
individual gas blend is already covered by 40 CFR 1065.750(a)(4). The
removal of formaldehyde from the gas blend in 40 CFR
1065.750(a)(3)(xiii) now allows it to be blended based on the
provisions in 40 CFR 1065.750(a)(4) and it can still be included in the
gas mixture in 40 CFR 1065.750(a)(3)(xiii) for calibration of the FTIR.
x. Drift Validation of Emissions in 40 CFR 1065.672
We are finalizing an update to 40 CFR 1065.672(c) to delete
occurances of ``brake-specific'' as it relates to emission calculations
for drift validation. Paragraph (c) currently references brake-specific
emission calculations in 40 CFR 1065.650. 40 CFR 1065.650 includes
calculations of mass emissions in addition to brake-specific emissions.
Off-cycle emission testing requires calculation Bin 1 emissions rates
that are in mass per unit time. This change will make the use of 40 CFR
1065.672 more universal and apply to mass emission rates and not just
brake-specific emission rates.
IV. Program Costs
In this section, we present the costs we estimate will be incurred
by manufacturers and purchasers of HD
[[Page 29628]]
vehicles impacted by the final standards. We also present the social
costs of the final standards. Our analyses characterize the costs of
the potential compliance pathway's technology packages described in
section II.F of the preamble; however, as we note there, manufacturers
may elect to comply using a different combination of HD vehicle and
engine technologies than what we have modeled. We present these costs
not only in terms of the upfront incremental technology cost
differences between an HD BEV or FCEV powertrain and a comparable HD
ICE powertrain,\910\ but also how those costs will change in years
following implementation due to learning-by-doing effects. These
technology costs are presented in terms of direct manufacturing costs
(DMC) and associated indirect costs. These direct and indirect costs
when summed and multiplied by vehicle sales are referred to as
``technology package costs'' in this section, and when estimated
relative to the reference case \911\ represent the estimated costs
incurred by manufacturers (i.e., regulated entities) to comply with the
final standards should a manufacturer choose to comply using the
compliance pathway EPA modeled as one means of showing the standards'
feasibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\910\ Baseline vehicles are ICE vehicles meeting the previous MY
2027 Phase 2 standards discussed in RIA Chapter 2.2.2 and the HD2027
Low NOX standards discussed in RIA Chapter 2.3.2.
\911\ As discussed in RIA Chapter 4.2.2, the reference case or
scenario is a no-action scenario that represents emissions in the
U.S. without the final rulemaking. Note, reference case cost
estimates also include costs associated with replacing a comparable
ICE powertrain baseline vehicle with a BEV or FCEV powertrain for
ZEV adoption rates in the reference case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, we break the costs into the following categories
and subcategories:
1. Technology Package Costs, which are the sum of DMC and indirect
costs. This may also be called the package retail price equivalent
(package RPE). This includes:
a. DMC, which include the costs of materials and labor to produce a
product or piece of technology.
b. Indirect costs, which include research and development (R&D),
warranty, corporate operations (such as salaries, pensions, health care
costs, dealer support, and marketing), and profits.\912\ We estimate
indirect costs using RPE markups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\912\ Technology costs represent costs that manufacturers are
expected to attempt to recapture via new vehicle sales. As such,
profits are included in the indirect cost calculation. Clearly,
profits are not a ``cost'' of compliance--EPA is not imposing new
regulations to force manufacturers to make a profit. However,
profits are necessary for manufacturers in the heavy-duty industry,
a competitive for-profit industry, to sustain their operations. As
such, manufacturers are expected to make a profit on the compliant
vehicles they sell, and we therefore include those profits in
estimating technology costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Manufacturer Costs, or ``manufacturer RPE,'' which is the
package RPE less any applicable battery tax credits. This includes:
a. Package RPE. Traditionally, the package RPE is the manufacturer
RPE in EPA cost analyses for HD standards.
b. Battery tax credit from IRA section 13502, ``Advanced
Manufacturing Production Credit,'' which serves to reduce manufacturer
costs. The battery tax credit is described further in sections ES and
II of this preamble and Chapters 1 and 2 of the RIA.
3. Purchaser Costs, which are the sum of purchaser (1) upfront
costs (which include the upfront vehicle costs (manufacturer (also
referred to as purchaser) RPE plus applicable Federal excise and state
sales taxes less any applicable vehicle tax credit) plus applicable
EVSE costs), and (2) operating costs. This includes:
a. Manufacturer RPE. In other words, the purchaser incurs the
manufacturer's package costs less any applicable battery tax credits.
We refer to this as the ``manufacturer RPE'' in relation to the
manufacturer and, at times, the ``purchaser RPE'' in relation to the
purchaser. These two terms are equivalent in this analysis.
b. Vehicle tax credit from IRA section 13403, ``Qualified
Commercial Clean Vehicles,'' which serve to reduce purchaser costs. The
vehicle tax credit is described further in sections I and II of this
preamble and Chapters 1 and 2 of the RIA.
c. Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) costs, which are the
costs associated with charging equipment installed at depots. Our EVSE
cost estimates include indirect costs so are sometimes referred to as
``EVSE RPE.''
d. EVSE tax credit from IRA section 13404, ``Alternative Fuel
Refueling Property Credit,'' which serve to reduce purchaser costs. The
EVSE tax credit is described further in sections I and II of this
preamble and Chapters 1 and 2 of the RIA.
e. Federal excise tax and state sales tax, which are upfront costs
incurred for select vehicles for excise tax and for all heavy-duty
vehicles for sales tax.
f. Purchaser upfront vehicle costs, which include the manufacturer
(also referred to as purchaser) RPE plus EVSE costs plus applicable
Federal excise and state sales taxes less any applicable vehicle tax
credits.
g. Operating costs, which include fuel costs (including costs for
diesel, gasoline, CNG, electricity [which varies depending on whether
the vehicle is charged at a depot or at a public charging facility],
and hydrogen), costs for diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), maintenance and
repair costs, insurance, battery replacement costs, ICE vehicle engine
rebuild costs, and EVSE replacement costs.
4. Social Costs, which are the sum of package RPE, EVSE RPE, and
operating costs and computed on at a fleet level on an annual basis.
Note that fuel taxes, Federal excise tax, state sales tax and battery,
vehicle and EVSE tax credits are not included in the social costs.
Taxes, registration fees, and tax credits are transfers as opposed to
social costs. Social costs includes:
a. Package RPE (which excludes applicable tax credits).
b. EVSE RPE (which excludes applicable tax credits).
c. Operating costs which include pre-tax fuel costs, electricity
costs (including those associated with electrification infrastructure
and a public charging network), DEF costs, insurance, maintenance and
repair costs, battery replacement costs, ICE vehicle engine rebuild
costs, and EVSE replacement costs.
We describe these costs and present our cost estimates in the text
that follows, after we discuss the relevant IRA tax credits and how we
have considered them in our estimates. All costs are presented in 2022
dollars (2022$), unless noted otherwise. For both the reference and
final standards scenarios, we used the MOVES outputs discussed in RIA
Chapter 4 \913\ to compute technology costs and operating costs as well
as social costs on an annual basis. The costs and tax credits are
estimated on a per vehicle basis and do not change between the
reference and final standards cases, but the estimated vehicle
populations of the ICE vehicles, BEVs or FCEVs do change between the
reference and final standards cases. The modeled potential compliance
pathway's technology packages project an increase in BEV and FCEV sales
and a decrease in ICE vehicle sales in the final standards case
compared to the reference case and these changes in vehicle populations
are the determining factor for total cost differences between the
reference and final standards cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\913\ As discussed in RIA Chapter 4.2.2, the final standards
scenario or case represents emissions in the U.S. with the final HD
GHG Phase 3 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the final rule cost analysis methodology mirrors the
approach we
[[Page 29629]]
took for the proposal, with some updates to our modeling. Our final
rule analysis was conducted using the latest dollar value, 2022$, which
represents an update from the 2021$ used in the NPRM analysis. Many of
our direct manufacturing costs of technologies have been revised based
on consideration of comments and data received, as discussed in more
detail in preamble section II. Similarly, the operating costs including
fuel prices, electricity prices (now for both depot and public
charging), and hydrogen prices have been updated, including to reflect
the latest projections, as described in RIA Chapter 2. The purchaser
costs for the final rule reflect the Move to first inclusion of
insurance costs, sales tax, and the Federal excise tax as applicable,
also described in that Chapter 2. The maintenance and repair costs for
vocational ICE vehicles have been reduced, after consideration of
comments. This change led to a decrease in the M&R costs of the BEVs
and FCEVs accordingly,\914\ but in addition we applied higher M&R costs
for BEVs and FCEVs in the early years of the Phase 3 program. These
changes are explained in more detail in RIA Chapter 2. Finally, battery
replacement, ICE vehicle engine rebuilds, and EVSE replacements are
additional operating costs in the final rule that were not included in
the NPRM. It is worth noting that, as described in preamble section V,
the overall cost savings of the final program are lower than the
proposal due to the increased number of ZEVs considered in the
reference case (reflecting manufacturers' compliance with the ACT
program in California and in the seven other states and a lower, non-
zero level of ZEV adoption in the other 42 states as discussed in
preamble section V.A) and a slower phase in of final standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\914\ As described in the NPRM and in this section IV, our
methodology to estimate BEV and FCEV maintenance costs involves
multiplying diesel vehicle maintenance costs by a factor based on
cited research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the analysis that follows sometimes presents undiscounted
costs and sometimes presents discounted costs. We discount future costs
and benefits to properly characterize their value in the present or, as
directed by the Office of Management and Budget in the currently
applicable Circular A-4 (2003), in the year costs and benefits begin.
Also, in that same guidance, OMB directs use of both 3 and 7 percent
discount rates as we have done with some exceptions.\915\ While we were
conducting the analysis for this rule, OMB finalized an update to
Circular A-4 (2023),\916\ in which it recommended the general
application of a 2-percent discount rate to costs and benefits. The
January 1, 2025, effective date of the updated Circular A-4 means that
the updated Circular A-4 does not apply to this rulemaking, we have
also included 2 percent discount rates in our analysis. Present and
annualized values are abbreviated as PV and AV throughout the document
tables in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\915\ See Advisory Circular A-4, Office of Management and
Budget, September 17, 2003.
\916\ See updated Advisory Circular A-4, Office of Management
and Budget, November 9, 2023. The effective date of the updated
Circular is March 1, 2024, for regulatory analyses received by OMB
in support of proposed rules, interim final rules, and direct final
rules, and January 1, 2025, for regulatory analyses received by OMB
in support of other final rules. In other words, the updated
Circular applies to the regulatory analyses for draft proposed rules
that are formally submitted to OIRA after February 29, 2024, and for
draft final rules that are formally submitted to OIRA after December
31, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received various costs-related comments for vehicle costs, EVSE
costs, state sales tax, Federal excise tax, maintenance and repair,
insurance, fuel and charging costs, as well as comments regarding the
implications of the IRA and BIL. Many of these comments are summarized
and responded to in preamble section II, and the detailed comments and
our responses are in RTC sections 2 and 3. Any applicable changes to
costs discussed in those sections and RIA Chapter 2 are reflected in
the rest of this preamble section and in RIA Chapter 3.
In addition, we received comments on learning and RPE, and those
comments are addressed in this section and in RTC section 12. Briefly,
for RPE, commenters argued that EPA used too low of a factor and based
the RPE on dated information, but commenters did not provide better,
more recent, or additional data. We therefore continue to consider our
NPRM approach to be appropriate and provide more recent supporting data
in section 14.2 of the RTC. For the learning curve used in the NPRM,
there was generally agreement across commenters on this issue that some
accounting for savings reflecting learning was appropriate. However,
some commenters acknowledged savings over time attributed to learning
by doing but maintained that the learning process has commenced already
since heavy-duty BEVs are already being produced and sold. After
consideration of comments that BEV learning has begun, for the final
rule, we shifted the battery learning onto the flatter portion of the
learning curve used in the proposal as shown in Figure IV-1. Details of
this adjustment are in Chapter 2.4 of the RIA.
[[Page 29630]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.078
We also received comment about inclusion of dealer costs and we
estimate them as a portion of RPE in the indirect manufacturing costs
of technology package costs in the final rule, as discussed in section
IV.B.2 and in Chapter 3 of the RIA.
A. IRA Tax Credits
Our cost analysis quantitatively includes consideration of three
IRA tax credits, specifically the ``Advanced Manufacturing Production
Credit,'', ``Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicles,'', and ``Alternative
Fuel Refueling Property Credit'' applied to battery cost, vehicle
purchase cost, and EVSE purchase cost respectively (sections II.E.1,
II.E.2, II.E.3, and II.E.4 of the preamble and Chapters 1.3.2 and 2.4.3
of the RIA). We note that a detailed discussion of how these tax
credits were considered in our analysis of costs in our technology
packages may be found in section II.E of the preamble and Chapter 2.4.3
of the RIA. The battery tax credit is expected to reduce manufacturer
costs, and in turn purchaser costs, as discussed in section IV.C. The
vehicle tax credit and EVSE tax credit are also expected to reduce
purchaser costs, as discussed in section IV.D.2. For the cost analysis
discussed in this section IV, the battery tax credit, vehicle tax
credit and EVSE tax credit were estimated for MYs 2027 through 2032 and
then aggregated for each MOVES source type and regulatory class.
B. Technology Package Costs
Technology package costs include estimated technology costs
associated with compliance with the final MY 2027 and later
CO2 emission standards (see Chapter 3 of the RIA) based on
the projected technology packages modeled for the potential compliance
pathway. Individual technology piece costs are presented in Chapters 2
of the RIA. In general, for the first MY of each final emission
standard, the per vehicle individual technology piece costs consist of
the DMC estimated for each vehicle in the model year of the final
standards and are used as a starting point in estimating both the
technology package costs and the total incremental costs. Following
each year of when costs are first incurred, we have applied a learning
effect to represent the cost reductions expected to occur via the
``learning by doing'' phenomenon.\917\ However, for the final rule, we
started the BEV learning scale in MY 2026, rather than MY 2027 after
consideration of comments received that BEV learning may begin before
MY 2027. This was implemented by recalculating the BEV learning
scalars, such that MY 2027 is equal to a learning value of 1 but
retaining the growth rate as if the scalar started in MY 2026. See RIA
Chapter 3.2.1 for a more detailed description of how this was
implemented. The ``learning by doing'' phenomenon is the process by
which doing something over and over results in learning how to do that
thing more efficiently which, in turn, leads to reduced resource usage,
i.e., cost savings. The DMC as modified year-by-year by a learning
factor provides a year-over-year cost for each technology as applied to
new vehicle production, which EPA then used to calculate total
technology package costs of the final standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\917\ ``Cost Reduction through Learning in Manufacturing
Industries and in the Manufacture of Mobile Sources, Final Report
and Peer Review Report,'' EPA-420-R-16-018, November 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This technology package cost calculation approach presumes that the
projected technologies (i.e., those in the particular technology
package developed by EPA as a potential compliance pathway to support
the feasibility of the final standards) will be purchased by the
vehicle original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) from their suppliers.
So, while the DMC estimates for the OEM in section IV.B.1 include the
indirect costs and profits incurred by the supplier, the indirect cost
markups we apply in section IV.B.2 cover the indirect costs incurred by
OEMs to incorporate the new technologies into their vehicles and the
profit margins for the OEM typical of the heavy-duty vehicle industry.
To address these OEM indirect costs, we then applied industry standard
RPE markup factors to the DMC to estimate indirect costs associated
with the new technology. These factors represent an average price, or
RPE, for products assuming all products recapture costs in the same
way. We recognize that this is rarely the actual case since
manufacturers typically have different pricing strategies for different
products. For that reason, the RPE should not be considered the price
for each individual technology package but instead should be considered
more like the average price needed to recapture both costs and profits
to support ongoing business
[[Page 29631]]
operations. Both the learning effects applied to direct costs and the
application of markup factors to estimate indirect costs are consistent
with the cost estimation approaches used in EPA's past HD GHG
regulatory programs.\918\ The sum of the DMC and indirect costs
represents our estimate of technology ``package costs'' or ``package
RPE'' per vehicle year-over-year. These per vehicle technology package
costs are multiplied by estimated sales for the final standards and
reference scenarios. Then the total technology package-related costs
for manufacturers (total package costs or total package RPE) associated
with the final HD GHG Phase 3 standards is the difference between the
final standards and reference scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\918\ See the Phase 1 heavy-duty greenhouse gas rule (76 FR
beginning at 57319, September 15, 2011); the Phase 2 heavy-duty
greenhouse gas rule (81 FR 73863, October 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Direct Manufacturing Costs
To produce a unit of output, manufacturers incur direct and
indirect manufacturing costs. DMC include cost of materials and labor
costs. Indirect manufacturing costs are discussed in the following
section, IV.B.2. The DMCs presented here include the incremental
technology piece costs associated with compliance with the final
standards as compared to the technology piece costs associated with the
comparable baseline vehicle.\919\ Our modeled potential compliance
pathway to meet the final standards are technology packages that
include both ICE vehicle and ZEV technologies. In our analysis, the ICE
vehicles include a suite of technologies that represent a vehicle that
meets the previous MY 2027 Phase 2 CO2 emission standards.
Therefore, our direct manufacturing costs for the ICE vehicles are
considered to be $0 because our projected technology package did not
add additional CO2-reducing technologies to the ICE vehicles
beyond those in the baseline vehicle (we note that even though such
improvements were not included in the modeled potential compliance
pathway, additional improvements and technologies for vehicles with ICE
are feasible and manufacturers could utilize such technologies to meet
the final standards; see preamble section II.F for examples of
additional potential compliance pathways that include technologies for
vehicles with ICE with such improvements). The DMC of the BEVs or FCEVs
could be thought of as the technology piece costs of replacing a
comparable ICE powertrain baseline vehicle with a BEV or FCEV
powertrain. Note, reference case costs estimates also include costs
associated with replacing a comparable ICE powertrain baseline vehicle
with a BEV or FCEV powertrain for ZEV adoption rates in the reference
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\919\ Baseline vehicles are ICE vehicles meeting the previous MY
2027 Phase 2 standards discussed in RIA Chapter 2.2.2 and the HD2027
Low NOX standards discussed in RIA Chapter 2.3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have estimated the DMC by estimating the cost of removing the
cost of the ICE powertrain, and adding the cost of a BEV or FCEV
powertrain, as presented in Chapter 2 and 3 of the RIA. In other words,
net incremental costs reflect adding the total costs of components
added to the powertrain to make it a BEV or FCEV, as well as removing
the total costs of components removed from a comparable ICE baseline
vehicle to make it a BEV or FCEV.
Chapter 4 of the RIA contains a description of the MOVES vehicle
source types and regulatory classes. In short, we estimate costs in
MOVES for vehicle source types that have both regulatory class
populations and associated emission inventories. Also, throughout this
section, LHD refers to light heavy-duty vehicles, MHD refers to medium
heavy-duty vehicles, and HHD refers to heavy heavy-duty vehicles.\920\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\920\ As explained in preamble section V, MOVES vehicle
definitions encompass the regulatory subcategories of the final
standards but are not identical to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The direct costs are then adjusted to account for learning effects
on BEV, FCEV and ICE vehicle powertrains on an annual basis going
forward beginning with the first year of the analysis, e.g., MY 2027,
for the final standards and reference scenarios. Overall, under the
modeled potential compliance pathway we anticipate the number of ICE
powertrains (including engines and transmissions) manufactured each
year will decrease as more ZEVs enter the market. Due to decreasing
production of ICE powertrains, this scenario may lead to slower cost
reductions going forward than would typically occur from learning-by-
doing in the context of component costs for ICE powertrains. On the
other hand, with the inclusion of new hardware costs projected in our
HD2027 final rule's modeled potential compliance pathway to meet the
HD2027 emission standards, we expect learning effects will reduce the
incremental cost of these technologies. Chapter 2 and 3 of the RIA
includes a detailed description of the approach used to apply learning
effects in this analysis and reflects consideration of the comments
received on our approach to learning. The resultant DMC per vehicle and
how those costs decrease over time on a fleet level are presented in
section IV.E.1 of this preamble.
2. Indirect Manufacturing Costs
Indirect manufacturing costs are all the costs associated with
producing the unit of output that are not direct manufacturing costs--
for example, they may be related to research and development (R&D),
warranty, corporate operations (such as salaries, pensions, health care
costs, dealer support, and marketing) and profits. An example of a R&D
cost for these final standards includes the engineering resources
required to develop a battery state of health monitor as described in
preamble section III.B.1. An example of a warranty cost is the future
cost covered by the manufacturer to repair defective BEV or FCEV
components and meet the warranty requirements discussed in section
III.B.2. Indirect costs are generally recovered by allocating a share
of the indirect costs to each unit of goods sold. Although direct costs
can be allocated to each unit of goods sold, it is more challenging to
account for indirect costs allocated to a unit of goods sold. To ensure
that regulatory analyses capture the changes in indirect costs, markup
factors (which relate total indirect costs to total direct costs) have
been developed and used by EPA and other stakeholders. These factors
are often referred to as RPE multipliers and are typically applied to
direct costs to estimate indirect costs. RPE multipliers provide, at an
aggregate level, the proportionate share of revenues relative shares of
revenue where:
Revenue = Direct Costs + Indirect Costs
Revenue/Direct Costs = 1 + Indirect Costs/Direct Costs = RPE multiplier
Resulting in:
Indirect Costs = Direct Costs x (RPE-1)
If the relationship between revenues and direct costs (i.e., RPE
multiplier) can be shown to equal an average value over time, then an
estimate of direct costs can be multiplied by that average value to
estimate revenues, or total costs. Further, that difference between
estimated revenues, or total costs, and estimated direct costs can be
taken as the indirect costs. Cost analysts and regulatory agencies have
frequently used these multipliers to predict the resultant impact on
costs associated with manufacturers' responses to regulatory
requirements and we are using that approach in this analysis.
The final cost analysis estimates indirect costs by applying the
RPE markup factor used in past EPA rulemakings (such as those setting
GHG standards for heavy-duty vehicles and
[[Page 29632]]
engines).\921\ The markup factors are based on company filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for several engine and engine/
vehicle manufacturers in the heavy-duty industry.\922\ The RPE factors
for the HD vehicle industry as a whole are shown in Table IV-1. Also
shown in Table IV-1 are the RPE factors for light-duty vehicle
manufacturers.\923\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\921\ 76 FR 57322; 81 FR 73863.
\922\ Heavy Duty Truck Retail Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost
Multipliers, Draft Report, July 2010.
\923\ Rogozhin,A., et al., Using indirect cost multipliers to
estimate the total cost of adding new technology in the automobile
industry. International Journal of Production Economics (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.11.031.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.079
For this analysis, EPA based indirect cost estimates for diesel and
compressed natural gas (CNG) regulatory classes on the HD Truck
Industry RPE value shown in Table IV-1. We are using an RPE of 1.42 to
compute the indirect costs associated with the replacement of a diesel-
fueled or CNG-fueled powertrain with a BEV or FCEV powertrain. For this
analysis, EPA based indirect cost estimates for gasoline regulatory
classes on the LD Vehicle RPE value shown in Table IV-1 because the
engines and vehicles more closely match those built by LD vehicle
manufacturers. We are using an RPE of 1.5 to compute the indirect costs
associated with the replacement of a gasoline-fueled powertrain with a
BEV or FCEV powertrain. The heavy-duty vehicle industry is becoming
more vertically integrated and the direct and indirect manufacturing
costs we are analyzing are those that reflect the technology packages
costs OEMs would try to recover at the end purchaser, or retail, level.
For that reason, we believe the two respective vehicle industry RPE
values represent the most appropriate factors for this analysis. EPA
received comments on RPE and commenters argued that EPA used too low of
a factor and based the RPE on dated information. After consideration of
the comment, EPA has clarified that the RPE accounts for dealer costs,
as described in this section. Including this clarification, EPA finds
that the multiplier we used is appropriate and based on robust data and
analysis. Moreover, commenters did not provide better, more recent, or
additional data to update values for RPE, and EPA is not aware of any
such data. Therefore, we continue with the approach used in the NPRM.
EPA received comment that dealers may encounter new costs when new
products are introduced (which we refer to in this rulemaking as
``dealer new vehicle selling costs''), such as technician training to
repair ZEVs. After consideration of comment, EPA is clarifying that we
accounted for these costs in the RPE multipliers.\924\ The heavy-duty
RPE in Table IV-1 is based on values from the report, ``Heavy Duty
Truck Retail Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multipliers,'' \925\
which contains detailed cost contributor subcategories, including costs
associated with dealer support. Within the dealer support costs, the
contribution of new dealer selling costs in the RPE mark-up includes a
6 percent markup over manufacturing cost for dealer new vehicle selling
costs, from the ``Other'' cost contributor shown in Table IV-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\924\ See also preamble section II.E.5 explaining that our cost
savings estimates for maintenance and repair reflect a later start
date for BEVs and FCEVs to account for the need for initial
technician training.
\925\ Heavy Duty Truck Retail Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost
Multipliers, Draft Report, July 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dealer new vehicle selling costs for CY 2027 through 2032 are shown
in Table IV-2. We calculated the dealer new vehicle selling costs as 6
percent of the total direct cost calculated for the final standards.
Table IV-2 also shows the undiscounted sum of dealer new vehicle
selling costs from CY 2027 to 2032.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.080
[[Page 29633]]
3. Vehicle Technology Package RPE
Table IV-3 presents the total fleet-wide incremental technology
costs estimated for the final standards relative to the reference case
for the projected adoption of ZEVs in our technology package on an
annual basis. As previously explained in this section, the costs shown
in Table IV-3 reflect marginal direct and indirect manufacturing costs
of the technology package for the final standards as compared to the
baseline vehicle.
It is important to note that these are costs and not prices. As we
explained previously in this section, we do not attempt to estimate how
manufacturers will price their products in the technology package
costs. Manufacturers may pass costs along to purchasers via price
increases that reflect actual incremental costs to manufacture a ZEV
when compared to a comparable ICE vehicle. However, manufacturers may
also price products higher or lower than what would be necessary to
account for the incremental cost difference. EPA is not attempting to
mirror, predict, or otherwise approximate individual companies'
marketing strategies in estimating costs for the modeled potential
compliance pathway.\926\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\926\ We have likewise noted that our modeled potential
compliance pathway is just one potential means manufacturers may use
to meet the final standards. By law, EPA must consider the
compliance costs of standards, and to do so, must develop a
potential compliance pathway for such standards in order to estimate
those costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 29634]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.081
C. Manufacturer Costs
1. Relationship to Technology Package RPE
The manufacturer costs in EPA's past HD GHG rulemaking cost
analyses on an average-per-vehicle basis was only the average-per-
vehicle technology package RPE described in section II.F. However, in
the cost analysis for this final rule, we are also taking into account
the IRA battery tax credit in our estimates of manufacturer costs (also
referred to in this section as manufacturer's RPE), as we expect the
battery tax credit to reduce manufacturer costs, and in turn purchaser
costs. The DMCs without the battery tax credit are included in section
IV.E.1.
2. Battery Tax Credit
Table IV-4 shows the annual estimated fleet-wide battery tax
credits from IRA section 13502, ``Advanced Manufacturing Production
Credit,'' for the final standards relative to the reference case in
2022$ under the potential compliance pathway. These estimates were
based on the detailed discussion in RIA Chapter 2 of how we considered
battery tax credits. Both BEVs and FCEVs include a battery in the
powertrain system that may meet the IRA battery tax credit requirements
if the applicable criteria are met. The battery tax credits begin to
phase down starting in CY 2030 and expire after CY 2032.
[[Page 29635]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.082
3. Manufacturer RPE
The manufacturer RPE for BEVs is calculated by subtracting the
battery tax credit in Table IV-4 from the corresponding technology
package RPE from Table IV-3 and the resultant manufacturer RPE is shown
in Table IV-5. Table IV-5 reflects learning effects on vehicle package
RPE and battery tax credits from CY 2027 through 2055. The sum of the
vehicle package RPE and battery tax credits for each year is shown in
the manufacturer RPE column. The difference in manufacturer RPE under
the potential compliance pathway between the final standards and
reference case is presented in Table IV-5.
[[Page 29636]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.083
D. Purchaser Costs
1. Purchaser RPE
The purchaser RPE is the estimated upfront vehicle cost paid by the
purchaser prior to considering the IRA vehicle tax credits. Note, as
explained in section IV.C, we do consider the IRA battery tax credit in
estimating the manufacturer RPE, which in this analysis we then
consider to be equivalent to the purchaser RPE because we assume full
pass-through of the IRA battery tax credit from the manufacturer to the
purchaser. In other words, in this analysis, the manufacturer RPE and
purchaser RPE are equivalent terms. The purchaser RPEs reflect the same
values as the corresponding manufacturer RPEs presented in section
IV.C.3.
2. Vehicle Purchase Tax Credit
Table IV-6 shows the annual estimated vehicle tax credit for BEVs
and FCEVs from IRA section 13403, ``Qualified Commercial Clean
Vehicles,'' for the final standards relative to the reference case, in
2022$ under the potential compliance pathway. These estimates were
based on the detailed discussion in RIA Chapter 2 of how we considered
vehicle tax credits. The vehicle tax credits carry through to MY 2032
with the value diminishing over time as vehicle costs decrease due to
the learning effect as shown in RIA Chapter 2. Beginning in CY 2033,
the tax credit program expires.
[[Page 29637]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.084
3. Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Costs
As we included in the analysis for the NPRM, we accounted for the
EVSE hardware and associated installation costs for equipment installed
at depots, as described in Chapter 2.6 of the RIA. For the final rule,
we have also included BEVs that would solely depend on public charging
in the technology package to support the final standards. The
purchasers of these vehicles would not incur an upfront cost to
purchase and install EVSE. As discussed in RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2 for
public charging and in Chapter 2.5.3 for FCEVs, we included the
respective infrastructure cost in our retail electricity prices per kwh
and retail prices per kg of hydrogen in our operating costs. These end
user costs include the production, distribution, storage, and
dispensing at a public charging or fueling station. This approach is
consistent with the method we use in HD TRUCS for comparable ICE
vehicles, where the equivalent diesel fuel costs are included in the
diesel fuel price instead of accounting for the costs of fuel stations
separately.
The depot EVSE cost estimates include both direct and indirect
costs and are sometimes referred to in these final standards as EVSE
RPE costs. As discussed in RIA Chapter 2.6.2, we increased the depot
EVSE costs for the final rule to reflect consideration of the cost data
we received in comments. For these EVSE cost estimates, we project that
up to two vehicles can share one DCFC port if there is sufficient dwell
time for both vehicles to meet their daily charging needs for
vocational vehicles and up to four for tractors.\927\ While fleet
owners may also choose to share Level 2 chargers across vehicles, we
are conservatively assigning one Level 2 charger per vehicle. As
discussed in the RIA, we assume that EVSE costs are incurred by
purchasers, i.e., heavy-duty vehicle purchasers/owners. We analyzed
EVSE costs in 2022$ on a fleet-wide basis under the potential
compliance pathway for this analysis. The annual costs associated with
EVSE in the final standards relative to the reference case are shown in
Table IV-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\927\ We note that for some of the vehicle types we evaluated,
more than two vehicles could share a DCFC port and still meet their
daily electricity consumption needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29638]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.085
4. EVSE Tax Credit
Table IV-8 shows the annual estimated EVSE tax credit from IRA
section 13404, ``Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit,'' for the
final standards relative to the reference case, in 2022$ under the
potential compliance pathway. These estimates were based on the
detailed discussion in RIA Chapter 2 of how we considered EVSE tax
credits. The EVSE tax credits carry through to MY 2032. Beginning in CY
2033, the tax credit program expires.
[[Page 29639]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.086
5. Federal Excise Tax, State Sales Tax
As discussed in preamble section II.E.5, in the NPRM we did not
account for the upfront taxes paid by the purchaser of the vehicle.
Several commenters raised concerns about additional costs that were not
included in HD TRUCS for the proposal. The concern raised by the
greatest number of commenters was the additional cost from Federal
excise tax and state sales tax because of higher BEV and FCEV upfront
vehicle cost under the potential compliance pathway. We agree with the
commenters that the cost analysis should include the impact of the FET
and State Sales Tax on purchasers. For the final rule, we added FET and
state sale tax as a part of the purchaser upfront vehicle cost
calculation. A FET of 12 percent was applied to the upfront powertrain
technology retail price equivalent for Class 8 heavy-duty vehicles and
all tractors, as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.4.3.2. Similarly, a state
tax of 5.02 percent, the average sales tax in the U.S. for heavy-duty
vehicles discussed in RIA Chapter 2.4.3.1, was applied to the upfront
powertrain technology retail price equivalent and was added to all
vehicles for the final rule analysis. Table IV-9 shows the estimated
state sales tax and Federal excise tax by calendar year for the final
standards relative to the reference case.
[[Page 29640]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.087
6. Purchaser Upfront Costs
The expected upfront incremental costs to the purchaser include the
purchaser upfront vehicle costs plus the purchaser upfront EVSE costs
as applicable, after tax credits and including FET and sales state tax,
under the potential compliance pathway. In other words, the estimated
purchaser upfront incremental costs include the purchaser RPE discussed
in section IV.D.1 less the vehicle tax credit discussed in section
IV.D.2 plus the EVSE RPE in IV.D.3 less the EVSE tax credit in section
IV.D.4 and plus the Federal excise tax and state sales tax in section
IV.D.5. Table IV-10 shows the estimated incremental upfront purchaser
costs for BEVs and FCEVs by calendar year for the final standards
relative to the reference case. Note that EVSE costs are associated
only with BEVs using depot charging; FCEVs and BEVs solely using public
charging do not have any associated upfront EVSE costs because those
costs are reflected in the public hydrogen refueling and charging
electricity costs.
[[Page 29641]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.088
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
7. Operating Costs
We have estimated six types of operating costs associated with the
final HD GHG Phase 3 emission standards and our potential compliance
pathway's projected technology packages that includes ICE, BEV and FCEV
powertrains. These six types of operating costs include changes in fuel
costs of BEVs and FCEVs compared to comparable ICE vehicles, avoided
diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) consumption by BEVs and FCEVs compared to
comparable diesel-fueled ICE vehicles, reduced maintenance and repair
costs of BEVs and FCEVs as compared to comparable ICE vehicles, changes
to insurance costs of BEVs and FCEVs as compared to comparable ICE
vehicles, battery replacement and ICE engine rebuild costs and EVSE
replacement costs. To estimate fuel, DEF and maintenance and repair
costs of ICE vehicles, EPA used the results of MOVES runs, as discussed
in RIA
[[Page 29642]]
Chapter 4, to estimate costs associated with fuel consumption, DEF
consumption, and VMT. Similarly, the electricity, hydrogen fuel, and
maintenance and repair costs of BEVs and FCEVs were calculated based on
the MOVES outputs for fuel/electricity consumption and VMT. EPA added
insurance costs for all vehicle types for the final rule analysis based
on the incremental upfront cost (purchaser RPE) of the vehicle and
calculated for each year a vehicle is operating. For the final rule
cost analysis in this section of the preamble, we also accounted for
the costs to rebuild diesel engines and battery replacement costs and
EVSE replacement costs. We have estimated the net effect on fuel costs,
DEF costs, maintenance and repair costs, insurance, battery
replacements, engine rebuilds, and EVSE replacements. We describe our
approach in this section (IV.D.7).
Additional details on our methodology and estimates of operating
costs per mile impacts are included in RIA Chapter 3.4 as well as
insurance, ICE engine rebuilds, BEV battery replacement, and EVSE
replacement costs. Chapter 4 of the RIA contains a description of the
MOVES vehicle source types and regulatory classes. In short, we
estimate costs based on MOVES vehicle source types that have both
regulatory class populations and associated emission inventories.
i. Costs Associated With Fuel Usage
Costs associated with fuel usage are presented in two ways: on an
annual basis for aggregate costs of all vehicles and on a per mile
basis for a specific model year in each MOVES source type and
regulatory class. The annual costs are presented in section IV.E.3 to
show the overall fuel costs of the policy case compared to the
reference case for pre-tax fuel. The costs on a per mile basis are
given as an example what a specific MY vehicle in a given MOVES source
type and regulatory class could estimate to pay on a per mile basis
based on the VMT and total cost of all fuel at retail prices used from
the first year the vehicle is in operation until CY 2055.
To determine the total costs associated with fuel usage for MY 2032
vehicles, the fuel usage for each MOVES source type and regulatory
class was multiplied by the fuel price from the AEO 2023 reference case
for diesel, gasoline, and CNG prices over from CY 2032 to CY 2055.\928\
Fuel costs per gallon and kWh are discussed in RIA Chapter 2. We used
retail fuel prices since we expect that retail fuel prices are the
prices paid by owners of these ICE vehicles. For electric vehicle
costs, the electricity prices used estimates of the cost per kWh of
charging at depot and public charge points along with estimates of the
share of charging by each source type at those respective charge
points. The development of the costs per kWh is presented in RIA
Chapter 2.4.4.2 and the values used to estimate program costs are shown
in Table IV-11. For hydrogen vehicle fuel costs, we used the hydrogen
prices presented in RIA Chapter 2.5.3.1 and presented in RIA Chapter 3
and shown in Table IV-12. To calculate the average cost per mile of
fuel usage for each scenario, MOVES source type and regulatory class,
EPA divided the fuel cost by the VMT for each of the MY 2032 vehicles
starting in CY 2032 until CY 2055. The estimates of fuel cost per mile
for MY 2032 vehicles under the final rule are shown in Table IV-13,
Table IV-14, and Table IV-15 for 2 percent, 3 percent and 7 percent
discounting, respectively. Values shown as a dash (``-'') in Table IV-
13, Table IV-14, and Table IV-15 represent cases where a given MOVES
source type and regulatory class did not use a specific fuel type for
MY 2032 vehicles.\929\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\928\ Reference Case Projection Tables, U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2023.
\929\ For example, there were no vehicles in our MOVES runs for
the transit bus source type in the LHD45 regulatory class that were
diesel-fueled, so the value in the table is represented as a dash
(``-'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of ICE vehicles decrease and ZEV increase in the final
standards case compared to the reference case therefore the fuel costs
for all vehicles are less in final standards case when computed on an
annual basis as shown in section IV.E.3 for pre-tax fuel.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 29643]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.090
[[Page 29644]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.092
[[Page 29645]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.093
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
ii. Costs Associated With Diesel Exhaust Fluid
DEF consumption costs in heavy-duty vehicles were estimated in the
HD2027 final rule.\930\ We are applying the same methodology in this
analysis to estimate the total costs of DEF under the final HD GHG
Phase 3 standards. Costs associated with DEF are presented in two ways
in a similar manner for fuel costs: on an annual basis for aggregate
costs of all vehicles and on a per mile basis for a specific model year
in each MOVES source type and regulatory class. The annual costs are
presented in section IV.E.3 to show the overall DEF costs of the policy
case compared to the reference case. The costs on a per mile basis
presented here are given as an example what a specific MY vehicle in a
given MOVES source type and regulatory class could estimate to pay on a
per mile basis based on the VMT and total cost of all DEF used from the
first year the vehicle is in operation until CY 2055. Note that the DEF
consumption rates do not change between the policy and reference
scenarios, but the total number of miles traveled by vehicles consuming
DEF does change between scenarios. Therefore, the DEF costs per mile
are intended to allow a vehicle user an estimate typical costs related
to DEF usage and the aggregate annual costs show the impacts of the
final standards compared and reference case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\930\ 88 FR 4296, January 24, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An example of cost estimates of DEF on a per mile basis for MY 2032
vehicles is provided in Table IV-16, Table IV-17, and Table IV-18 for 2
percent, 3 percent, and 7 percent discounting, respectively. DEF costs
per mile were estimated by first the totaling DEF costs for MY 2032
vehicles by taking the DEF usage for each MOVES source type and
regulatory class and multiplying by the DEF price from CY 2032 to CY
2055.\931\ Then to calculate the average cost of DEF per mile, the
total DEF cost was divided by the total VMT for each MOVES Source Type
and regulatory class of MY 2032 vehicles from CY 2032 to CY 2055. The
DEF cost was computed for the final standards case under the potential
compliance pathway for each fuel type. Several source types and
regulatory classes contain no diesel-fueled ICE vehicles and therefore
no DEF consumption costs. Values shown as a dash ``-'' in Table IV-16,
Table IV-17, and Table IV-18 represent cases where a given MOVES source
type and regulatory class did not use a specific fuel type. Table IV-
16, Table IV-17, and Table IV-18 have values of 0 for gasoline,
electricity, CNG and hydrogen as those vehicles do not consume any DEF
and therefore do not incur any cost per mile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\931\ This analysis uses the DEF prices presented in the NCP
Technical Support Document (see ``Nonconformance Penalties for On-
highway Heavy-duty Diesel Engines: Technical Support Document,''
EPA-420-R-12-014) with growth beyond 2042 projected at the same 1.3
percent rate as noted in the NCP TSD. Note that the DEF prices used
update the NCP TSD's 2011 prices to 2022$.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of diesel vehicles decrease in the final standards case
compared to the reference case therefore the total DEF costs for all
vehicles are less in final standards case when computed on an annual
basis as shown in section IV.E.3.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 29646]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.094
[[Page 29647]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.096
[[Page 29648]]
iii. Costs Associated With Maintenance and Repair
We assessed the estimated maintenance and repair costs of HD ICE
vehicles, BEVs and FCEVs for the reference case and the final standards
case under the potential compliance pathway. After consideration of
comments, we have reduced the maintenance and repair costs for
vocational ICE vehicles in the final rule. This change led to a
decrease in the M&R costs of the BEVs and FCEVs accordingly. We made
further changes to M&R costs for BEVs and FCEVs in the early years of
the Phase 3 program such that the M&R savings do not accrue as quickly
as they did in our NPRM analysis. The results of our analysis show that
maintenance and repair costs associated with HD BEVs and FCEVs are
estimated to be lower than maintenance and repair costs associated with
comparable ICE vehicles. The methodology for how we calculated
maintenance and repair costs were estimated is discussed in RIA Chapter
2.3.4.2, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3.2 and Chapter 3 of the RIA.
Maintenance and repair cost in cents per mile were computed in a
similar manner as fuel and DEF costs. The cost of maintenance and
repairs in cents per mile for MY 2032 vehicles in each MOVES source
type and regulatory class by fuel type for the final standards are
shown in Table IV-19, Table IV-20, and Table IV-21 for 2-percent, 3-
percent and 7-percent discount rates, respectively. Table IV-19, Table
IV-20, and Table IV-21 demonstrate higher costs per mile of ICE
vehicles compared to ZEV. The number of ICE vehicles decrease and ZEV
increase in the final standards case compared to the reference case
therefore the total maintenance and repair costs for all vehicles are
less in final standards case when computed on an annual basis as shown
in section IV.E.3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.097
[[Page 29649]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.098
[[Page 29650]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.099
iv. Costs Associated With Insurance
As discussed in preamble section II.E.5, we did not take into
account the cost of insurance on the user in the NPRM. A few commenters
suggested we should consider the addition of insurance cost because the
incremental cost of insurance for the ZEVs will be higher than for ICE
vehicles. We agree that insurance costs may differ between vehicles,
and this is a cost that will be seen by the operator. Therefore, for
the final rule analysis, we included the incremental insurance costs of
a ZEV relative to a comparable ICE vehicle under the potential
compliance pathway by incorporating an annual insurance cost equal to 3
percent of initial upfront vehicle technology RPE cost, as described in
section II.E.5 of the preamble. This annual cost was applied for each
operating year of the vehicle.
To calculate the year over year insurance costs, 3 percent of the
initial vehicle technology package RPE was multiplied by estimated
sales for the final standards and reference case and were computed each
year a vehicle was operational. Then the difference between the final
standards case and reference case insurance costs are shown on an
annual basis in Table IV-22.
[[Page 29651]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.100
v. Costs Associated With State Registration Fees on ZEVs
As discussed in preamble section II.E.5, we did not take into
account the cost of state registration fees on ZEVs in the NPRM.
Commenters suggested we should consider the addition of state
registration fees on ZEVs because some states have adopted state ZEV
registration fees in some cases to replace gasoline and diesel road tax
revenue. Currently, many states do not have any additional registration
fee for EVs. For the states that do, the registration fees are
generally between $50 and $225 per year. While EPA cannot predict
whether and to what extent other states will enact EV registration
fees, we have nonetheless conservatively added an annual additional
registration fee to all ZEV vehicles of $100 in our cost analysis. This
annual cost was applied for each operating year of the vehicle. Then
the difference between the final standards case and reference case for
state registration fees on BEVs costs are shown on an annual basis in
Table IV-23.
[[Page 29652]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.101
vi. Costs Associated With Battery Replacement and Engine Rebuild
As discussed in preamble section II.E.6, we did not take into
account the cost of battery replacement and engine rebuild on the user
in the NPRM. In the final rule, after consideration of comment, we
added battery replacement and engine rebuild costs. Table IV-24 shows
the annual estimated battery replacement and engine rebuild costs on an
annual basis relative to the reference case under the potential
compliance pathway. Battery replacement and engine rebuild frequency
and costs depend on MOVES vehicle source type and regulatory class.
Details about the year of replacement or rebuild and associated costs
are discussed in RIA 3.\932\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\932\ Sanchez, James. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985.
``Estimating Battery Replacement and Engine Rebuild Costs''.
February 23, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29653]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.102
vii. Costs Associated With EVSE Replacement
As discussed in preamble section II.E.6, we did not take into
account the cost of EVSE replacement on the user in the NPRM. In the
final rule, after consideration of comment, we added EVSE replacement.
There is limited data on the expected lifespan of charging
infrastructure. We make the simplifying assumption that all depot EVSE
ports have a 15-year equipment lifetime.\933\ After that, we assume
they must be replaced at full cost. This assumption likely
overestimates costs as some EVSE providers may opt to upgrade existing
equipment rather than incur the cost of a full replacement. Some
installation costs such as trenching or electrical upgrades may also
not be needed for the replacement. Table IV-25 shows the annual
estimated EVSE replacement costs on annual basis relative to the
reference case under the potential compliance pathway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\933\ Borlaug, B., Salisbury, S., Gerdes, M., and Muratori, M.
``Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles in the United
States,'' 2020. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435120302312?via%3Dihub.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29654]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.103
E. Social Costs
To compute the social costs of the final rulemaking, we added the
estimated total vehicle technology package RPE from section IV.B.3,
total operating costs from section IV.D.7, and total EVSE RPE from
section IV.D.3. We note that the fuel costs in this subsection's social
cost analysis are estimated pre-tax rather than what the purchaser will
pay (i.e., the retail fuel price). All of the costs are computed for
the MOVES reference and final standards cases and cost impacts are
presented as the difference between the final standards and reference
case. Additionally, the battery tax credit, vehicle tax credit, EVSE
tax credit, excise taxes, sales taxes, and state registration fees on
ZEVs are not included in the social costs analysis discussed in this
subsection.
1. Total Vehicle Technology Package RPE
Table IV-26 reflects learning effects on DMC and indirect costs
from 2027 through 2055. The sum of the DMC and indirect manufacturing
cost for each year is shown in the ``Total Technology Package Costs''
column and reflects the difference in total cost between the final
standards and reference case in the specific calendar year.
[[Page 29655]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.104
2. Total EVSE RPE
Building on the analysis presented in section IV.D.3 that discusses
EVSE RPE cost per vehicle for depot charging, the annual EVSE RPE was
estimated by multiplying EVSE RPE on a per vehicle basis by the modeled
number of BEV sales in MOVES. Table IV-27 shows the undiscounted annual
EVSE RPE cost for the final standards relative to the reference case.
The number of EVSE are expected to increase over time for the final
standards relative to the reference case. This is due to the expected
increase in BEVs requiring EVSE in our modeled potential compliance
pathway's technology packages. Thus, our modeled compliance pathway for
the final standards shows increased EVSE cost over time.
[[Page 29656]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.105
3. Total Operating Costs
EPA computed annual fuel costs across the national fleet for each
fuel type for the final standards and reference cases by multiplying
the amount of fuel consumed for each vehicle modeled in MOVES by the
cost of each fuel type. Table IV-28 shows the undiscounted annual fuel
savings for the final standards relative to the reference case for each
fuel type. Using projected fuel prices from AEO 2023 and the estimated
electricity and hydrogen prices as discussed in section IV.D.7.i, the
total, national fleet-wide costs of electricity and hydrogen
consumption increase over time while the costs for diesel, gasoline,
and CNG consumption decrease over time, as shown on an annual basis in
Table IV-28. This is due to the expected increase in BEVs and FCEVs in
our modeled potential compliance pathway resulting in fewer diesel,
gasoline, and CNG vehicles in the final standards case compared to the
reference case. The net effect of the final standards shows increased
operating cost savings over time.
[[Page 29657]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.106
Annual DEF costs for diesel vehicles were computed for the final
standards and reference cases by multiplying the modeled amount of DEF
consumed by the cost DEF. Table IV-29 shows the annual savings
associated with less DEF consumption in the final standards relative to
the reference case; note that non-diesel vehicles are shown for
completeness with no savings since those vehicles do not consume DEF.
[[Page 29658]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.107
EPA computed annual maintenance and repair costs on an annual basis
for all vehicles modeled in MOVES based on the total annual VMT,
vehicle type and vehicle age as discussed in preamble section V and RIA
Chapters 2 and 3. Table IV-30 presents the maintenance and repair costs
associated with the final rulemaking. The maintenance and repair costs
are attributable to changes in new BEV, FCEV, and ICE vehicle sales and
populations. EPA has not projected any changes to the maintenance and
repair costs on a per mile basis for each vehicle powertrain type
between the final standards and reference case, but as more HD ZEVs
enter the HD fleet in our modeled potential compliance pathway, the
total maintenance and repair costs for the fleet of those vehicles
correspondingly increases. The opposite is true for diesel, gasoline,
and CNG vehicles in that potential compliance pathway as there become
fewer of these vehicles in the fleet, such that their total maintenance
and repair costs decrease.
[[Page 29659]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.108
Annual insurance costs were computed by EPA on an annual basis for
all vehicles modeled in MOVES based on the purchaser RPE, as discussed
RIA Chapter 2 and 3. Table IV-31 presents the insurance costs
associated with the final rulemaking. The insurance costs are
attributable to changes in new BEV, FCEV, and ICE vehicle sales and
populations in our modeled potential compliance pathway. EPA has not
projected any changes to the insurance for each vehicle powertrain type
between the final standards and reference case, but as more HD ZEVs
enter the HD fleet, the total insurance costs for the fleet of those
vehicles correspondingly increases. The opposite is true for diesel,
gasoline, and CNG vehicles in our modeled potential compliance pathway
as there become fewer of these vehicles in the fleet, such that the
total insurance costs for the fleet of those vehicles decreases.
[[Page 29660]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.109
Battery replacement and engine rebuild costs were computed on an
annual basis for select BEV vehicles modeled in MOVES in the year a
BEV/FCEV reaches its replacement age, as discussed in RIA Chapter 2 and
3. The battery replacement costs are attributable to changes in BEV age
and populations under the modeled potential compliance pathway. EPA has
not projected any changes to the battery replacement costs for each
vehicle powertrain type between the final standards and reference case,
but as more HD ZEVs enter the HD fleet, the total battery replacement
costs for the fleet of those vehicles correspondingly increases.
Similarly, ICE engine rebuild costs are applied to ICE vehicles once
the vehicle reaches its replacement age. Table IV-32 presents the
battery replacement and engine rebuild costs associated with the final
rulemaking.
[[Page 29661]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.110
EVSE replacement costs were computed on an annual basis for all BEV
modeled in MOVES in the year an EVSE reaches its replacement age, as
discussed in RIA Chapter 2 and 3. The EVSE replacement costs are
attributable to changes in BEV populations under the modeled potential
compliance pathway. EPA has not projected any changes to a single EVSE
replacement cost between the final standards and reference case, but as
more HD ZEVs enter the HD fleet, the total number of EVSE increases.
For this reason, there will be more EVSE to replace in the final
standards compared to the reference case. Table IV-33 presents the EVSE
replacement costs associated with the final rulemaking.
[[Page 29662]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.111
4. Total Social Costs
Adding together the cost elements outlined in sections IV.E.1,
IV.E.2, and IV.E.3, we estimated the total social costs associated with
the final CO2 standards which reflect our modeled potential
compliance pathway; these total social costs associated with the final
standards relative to the reference case are shown in Table IV-34.
Table IV-34 presents costs in 2022$ in undiscounted annual values along
with net present values at 2-percent, 3-percent and 7-percent discount
rates with values discounted to the 2027 calendar year. In addition,
the battery tax credit, vehicle tax credit, EVSE tax credit, sales
taxes, Federal excise tax and state registration fees for ZEVs are not
included in the social costs analysis discussed in this subsection
because taxes, registration fees, and tax credits are transfers and not
social costs.
As shown in Table IV-34, starting in 2035, our analysis
demonstrates that total program costs under the final standards
scenario are lower than the total program costs under the reference
case.
[[Page 29663]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.112
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
V. Estimated Emission Impacts From the Final Standards
We project that the final CO2 standards will result in
downstream emission reductions of GHGs\934\ from heavy-duty vehicles.
Downstream emission processes are those that come directly from a
vehicle, such as tailpipe exhaust, crankcase exhaust, evaporative
emissions, and refueling emissions. While the final standards do not
directly address criteria pollutants or air toxics, we project that
they will also result in reductions of downstream emissions of both
criteria pollutants and air toxics. We project that these anticipated
emission reductions will be achieved through increased adoption of HD
vehicle and engine technologies to reduce GHG emissions. Examples of
these GHG-reducing technologies that manufacturers may choose to adopt
include ICE vehicle technologies, heavy-duty battery electric vehicle
(BEV) technologies and fuel cell vehicle (FCEV) technologies. We
projected the emission reductions from the modeled potential compliance
pathway's technology packages described in section II. As we note
there, manufacturers may elect to comply using a different combination
of HD vehicle and engine technologies than we modeled. In fact, we
developed additional example potential compliance pathways that meet
the final Phase 3 MY 2027 through MY 2032 and later CO2
emission standards (see preamble section II.F.3). These pathways would
achieve the same level of vehicle CO2 emission reductions
and downstream CO2 emission reductions discussed in this
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\934\ Although the final standards do not directly address non-
CO2 GHGs, we anticipate that the final standards will
result in reductions of downstream emissions of non-CO2
GHGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the modeled increase in adoption of GHG reducing technologies,
[[Page 29664]]
including heavy-duty BEVs and FCEVs (together referred to as ZEVs), the
final standards will also impact upstream emissions of GHGs and other
pollutants. Upstream emissions sources are those that do not come from
the vehicle itself but are attributable to a vehicle, such as from
electricity generation for charging BEVs, the production of hydrogen
used to fuel FCEVs, and emissions generated during petroleum-based fuel
production and distribution. We estimated the impacts of the final
standards on emissions from electricity generation units (EGUs) and on
emissions from fuel refineries.
In general, the final rule emissions inventory analysis methodology
mirrors the approach we took for the proposal, with some updates to our
modeling and assumptions. First, we utilized the most recent version of
EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model. Second, we
updated the reference case\935\ in several ways, including accounting
for EPA granting California the preemption waiver for its ACT rule
under CAA section 209(b).\936\ Third, we performed new Integrated
Planning Model (IPM) runs to evaluate power sector emission impacts.
Fourth, we changed our assumptions about refinery throughput to better
account for U.S. exports of gasoline and diesel. These changes are
explained in more detail in section V.A and RIA Chapter 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\935\ The reference case is a baseline scenario that represents
the U.S. without the final rule.
\936\ 88 FR 20688, April 6, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate the downstream emission reductions from the final
standards, we used MOVES4.R3, which was created based on the latest
major public version of MOVES, MOVES4.0.0, and contains various updates
including updates to the adoption rate and energy consumption of heavy-
duty electric vehicles. These model updates are summarized in Chapter
4.2 of the RIA, and MOVES4.0.0 data and algorithms are described in
detail in the technical reports that are available online and in the
docket for this rulemaking.937 938
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\937\ See https://www.epa.gov/moves/moves-onroad-technical-reports#moves4.
\938\ Murray, Evan. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985.
``MOVES4.0.0 Technical Reports''. February 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate upstream EGU emission impacts from the final standards,
we used the 2022 post-IRA version of the Integrated Planning Model
(IPM), which is a linear programming model that forecasts EGU operation
and emissions by calculating the most cost-effective way for the
electricity generation and transmission system to meet its total
demand. IPM accounts for many variables that impact the operation and
emissions of EGUs, including total energy demand (including reserve
requirements and peak load demand), planned EGU retirements, final
rules that impact EGU operation, fuel prices, and infrastructure
buildout costs, and congressional action like the Inflation Reduction
Act. More details on IPM and the inputs and post-processing used to
evaluate the impact of the final standards on EGU emissions can be
found in the Chapter 4.2.4 of the RIA.
To estimate upstream refinery impacts from the final standards, we
adjusted an existing refinery inventory from the emissions modeling
platform\939\ to reflect updated onroad fuel demand from heavy-duty
vehicles. The refinery inventory adjustments were developed using MOVES
projections of liquid fuel demand for both the reference case and the
final standards. More details on the refinery impacts methodology can
be found in Chapter 4.2.5 of the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\939\ The emissions modeling platform is a product of the
National Emissions Inventory Collaborative consistent of more than
245 employees of state and regional air agencies, EPA, and Federal
Land Management agencies. It includes a full suite of base year
(2016) and projection year (2023 and 2028) emission inventories
modeled using EPA's full suite of emissions modeling tools,
including MOVES, SMOKE, and CMAQ. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2016v3-platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received several comments on the scope of upstream emissions to
be considered and estimated by EPA. The modeling for the final rule
includes the three most significant sectors in terms of understanding
the impact of the standards on overall emissions (downstream, EGUs and
refineries). We did not estimate impacts on emissions from other
sectors with comparatively smaller potential impacts, like those
related to the extraction or transportation of fuels for either EGUs or
refineries.\940\ Detailed discussion of the comments we received on
upstream modeling and our responses can be found in Chapter 13 of the
RTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\940\ We included upstream emissions from FCEVs in our EGU
emissions modeling, as is discussed in Chapter 4 of the RIA and
later in section V.A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Model Inputs
1. MOVES Inputs
We used MOVES to evaluate the downstream emissions impact of the
final standards relative to a reference case. MOVES defines vehicles
using a combination of source type and regulatory class, where source
type roughly defines a vehicle's vocation or usage pattern, and
regulatory class roughly defines a vehicle's gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) or weight class. Table V-1 defines MOVES heavy-duty
source types and Table V-2 defines MOVES heavy-duty regulatory
classes.941 942 943
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\941\ MOVES vehicle definitions encompass the regulatory
subcategories of the final standards but are not identical to them.
The technology evaluation in HD TRUCS uses 101 vehicle types which
can be mapped to MOVES source types and regulatory classes, but no
single vehicle type in HD TRUCS corresponds to any single source
type or regulatory class. In relation to the final standards, we
synonymize combination short-haul tractors (MOVES source type 61)
with day cabs and combination long-haul tractors (MOVES source type
62) with sleeper cabs.
\942\ 40 CFR 86.091-2. Available online: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-1998-title40-vol12/pdf/CFR-1998-title40-vol12-sec86-091-2.pdf.
\943\ U.S. EPA. ``Frequently Asked Questions about Heavy-Duty
`Glider Vehicles' and `Glider Kits'. July 2015. Available online:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100MUVI.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29665]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.114
In modeling heavy-duty ZEV populations in the reference case, a
scenario that represents the United States without the final standards,
we considered several different factors related to purchaser acceptance
of new technologies as discussed in RIA Chapter 2, along with three
factors described in this section and in greater detail in RIA Chapter
1.
First, the market has evolved such that early HD ZEV models are in
use today for some applications and HD ZEVs are expected to expand to
many more applications, as discussed in RIA Chapters 1.1, 1.5, and 1.7.
Additionally, manufacturers have already made substantial investments
in ZEV technologies and have announced plans to rapidly increase those
investments over the next decade. Second, the IRA and the BIL provide
many monetary incentives for the production and purchase of ZEVs in the
heavy-duty market, as well as incentives for electric vehicle charging
infrastructure. Third, there have been actions by states to accelerate
the adoption of heavy-duty ZEVs. Notably, absent the final standards,
the State of California's Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) program imposes
minimum ZEV sales requirements beginning in model year 2024 in
California and states that have adopted the program under CAA section
177. EPA granted the waiver of preemption for California's ACT rule
waiver under CAA section 209(b) on March 30, 2023.\944\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\944\ 88 FR 20688, April 6, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our reference case for this final rulemaking shows increased ZEV
adoption for all heavy-duty vehicle types compared to our reference
case for the NPRM. First, the reference case includes the ACT program,
as suggested by many commenters and as EPA indicated would be likely at
proposal.\945\ The reference case for this final rule thus reflects
manufacturers' compliance with the ACT program in California and in the
seven other states that have finalized adoption of ACT.\946\ As
explained further in this section, it also includes a lower, non-zero
level of ZEV adoption in the other 42 states. The national reference
case HD ZEV adoption rates, based on a sales-weighting of state-
specific adoption rates, are presented in Table V-3.
[[Page 29666]]
Further discussion of the reference case ZEV adoption we modeled in
MOVES can be found in RIA Chapter 4.2.21 and breakdowns of ZEV adoption
rates by model year, source type, regulatory class, and location can be
found in RIA Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\945\ EPA granted California's waiver request on March 30, 2023,
which left EPA insufficient time to develop an updated reference
case for inclusion in the proposal. See 88 FR 25989.
\946\ At the time we performed the inventory modeling analysis,
seven states had adopted ACT in addition to California. Oregon,
Washington, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts adopted ACT
beginning in MY 2025 while Vermont adopted ACT beginning in MY 2026
and Colorado in MY 2027. Three other states, New Mexico, Maryland,
and Rhode Island adopted ACT (beginning in MY 2027) in November and
December of 2023, but there was not sufficient time for us to
incorporate them as ACT states in our modeling.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.115
Several commenters noted that our reference case should
quantitatively reflect not only the anticipated ZEV sales from the ACT
rule in California and other states which have adopted it, but also ZEV
adoption resulting from numerous other factors. The commenters
specifically suggested to include (1) state policies such as
California's Advanced Clean Fleets\947\ and Innovative Clean Transit
rules and the NESCAUM MHD ZEV MOU;\948\ (2) manufacturer, fleet, and
government commitments for producing and procuring ZEVs; (3) adoption
for vehicles that reach cost parity with conventional vehicles; and (4)
the billions of dollars of programs to support HD ZEV deployment in the
BIL and the IRA. Our revised reference case for this final rulemaking
includes greater HD ZEV adoption than the reference case in the NPRM
for the reasons cited in the preceding paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\947\ EPA received a waiver request under CAA section 209(b) and
209(e) from California for the ACF rule on November 15, 2023 (see
https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-emissions-california-waivers-and-authorizations#current). EPA is
currently reviewing the waiver request for the CA ACF rule. Because
EPA action on California's waiver request is pending, we did not
include the full effects of ACF in the reference case.
\948\ NESCAUM MOU, available at https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-20220329.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We reviewed the literature to evaluate future HD ZEV projections in
the absence of a Phase 3 regulation. We found that the literature had
varied projections. For instance, the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) conducted an analysis in early 2022, prior to the
IRA, that projected 42 percent HD ZEV sales by 2030 and 98 percent
sales by 2040, along with 100 percent of bus sales being ZEVs by
2030.\949\ This analysis assumed economics alone drive adoption (i.e.,
total cost of ownership), and therefore they did not consider non-
financial factors such ZEV product research and development timelines,
ZEV manufacturing timelines, the availability of ZEV models,
manufacturing or infrastructure constraints, driver preferences, and
other factors. ACT Research also conducted an analysis prior to IRA and
projected HD ZEV sales of 24 percent in 2024, 26 percent in 2030, and
34 percent in 2031.\950\ The International Council for Clean
Transportation (ICCT) published a pair of analyses in early 2023 and
projected a variety of scenarios.951 952 Specifically, they
projected that in 2030, HD ZEV sales would reach 10 to 51 percent for
Class 4-8 trucks, 2 to 34 percent for buses, 16 to 44 percent for
short-haul tractors, and 0 to 16 percent for long-haul tractors, with
adoption rates generally increasing in future years. The range in their
values results from two scenarios. The lower adoption rates represent
inclusion of only the regulatory baseline, including the ACT rule and
Innovative Clean Transit rule. The higher adoption rates represent
their aforementioned regulatory baseline as well as additional market
growth driven primarily by the market's response to incentives in the
IRA. EDF and ERM conducted a follow-up analysis of their HD ZEV sales
projections after the IRA passed in 2022.\953\ They project several
scenarios
[[Page 29667]]
which range between 11 and 42 percent HD ZEV sales in 2029 when
including long-haul tractors. The EDF/ERM analysis found that IRA will
help accelerate ZEV adoption due to the purchasing incentives, which
drives HD ZEVs to reach upfront vehicle cost parity at least five years
sooner than without the IRA incentives. The ACT Research, ICCT, and
EDF/ERM projections, similar to the 2022 NREL study, also did not
consider several important real-world factors noted, which would in
general be expected to slow down or reduce ZEV sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\949\ Ledna, Catherine, et.al. ``Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-
Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis.'' March
2022. Slide 25. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
\950\ Lockridge, Deborah. ``ACT: Third of Class 4-8 Vehicles to
be Battery-Electric in 10 Years.'' June 2021. Available online:
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10144947/act-third-of-class-4-8-vehicles-to-be-battery-electric-in-10-years.
\951\ Ragon, Pierre-Louis, Buysse, Claire, Sen, Arijit, Meyer,
Michelle, Benoit, Jonathan, Miller, Josh, Rodriguez, Felipe.
``Potential Benefits of the U.S. Phase 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Regulation for Heavy-Duty Vehicles.'' International Council on Clean
Transportation. April 2023. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23.pdf.
\952\ Slowik, Peter et al. ``Analyzing the Impact of the
Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake in the United
States.'' International Council on Clean Transportation and Energy
Innovation Policy & Technology LLC. January 2023. Available online:
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23.pdf.
\953\ Robo, Ellen and Dave Seamonds. Technical Memo to
Environmental Defense Fund: Investment Reduction Act Supplemental
Assessment: Analysis of Alternative Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-
Emission Vehicle Business-As-Usual Scenarios. ERM. August 19, 2022.
Page 9. Available online: https://www.erm.com/contentassets/154d08e0d0674752925cd82c66b3e2b1/edf-zev-baseline-technical-memo-addendum.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that our reference case projection of ZEV adoption in this
final rulemaking includes less aggressive ZEV adoption than urged by a
number of commenters or when compared to the studies from NREL, ACT
Research, ICCT, and EDF/ERM because we consider real-world factors
submitted to the record by other commenters, such as the considerations
we described that NREL did not consider in their projections.
Therefore, while we think our reference case projection appropriately
weighs the relevant real-world factors compared to the more limited set
of factors considered in these studies and comments, we may be
projecting emission reductions due to the final standards that are
greater than could be expected using a reference case that reflects
higher levels of ZEV adoption in the HD market absent our rule. At the
same time, our use of this reference case would also overestimate the
costs of compliance of this final rule if the market would achieve
higher levels of ZEV adoption than we project in the absence of our
final standards.\954\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\954\ We also received comment questioning how many ZEVs will be
sold nationwide as a result of ACT (see RTC section 2.4). Given the
comments on variability in HD ZEV adoption projections absent the
final standards, and the corresponding potential uncertainty in the
reference case, we also performed a sensitivity analysis using a
reference case that has lower HD ZEV adoption compared to the final
rule reference case presented here, as we expected such a scenario
may result in a greater magnitude of costs. We present this
sensitivity analysis in RIA Chapter 4.10, where we demonstrate that
program costs are reasonable when compared to a reference case that
has lower HD ZEV adoption than presented here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In modeling the control case (i.e., the effect of the final
standards), we analyze the impact of the final CO2 emission
standards on a heavy-duty fleet that is projected in our potential
compliance pathway to include both ICE vehicles and an increase in ZEV
adoption consistent with our technology packages described in preamble
section II. Our modeling of the ICE vehicle portions of the technology
packages reflect CO2 emission improvements projected in
previously promulgated standards, notably HD GHG Phase 2; thus, we do
not model an increase in ICE vehicle efficiency resulting from the
final standards. Future HD ZEV populations in MOVES for the final
standards scenario were estimated at the national level using HD TRUCS
based on the technology assessment for BEVs and FCEVs discussed in
section II of this preamble and in RIA Chapter 2. We calculated ZEV
adoption by assuming that a) in no combination of MY, source type,
regulatory class, and location (i.e., states that have or have not
adopted ACT) would ZEV adoption in the control case be lower than in
the reference case, and b) HD ZEV sales would first meet the
requirements of the ACT rule in California and the states which have
adopted the ACT rule under CAA section 177, and then sales would
increase further in all other states consistent with our projections of
national ZEV adoption in our principal modelled compliance pathway
(described in section II and RIA Chapter 2).
Table V-4 shows the ZEV adoption rates used in modeling the final
standards in MOVES from 2027 through 2032. We calculated ZEV adoption
rates for the alternative using a similar methodology and those rates
are discussed in section IX. Further discussion of the ZEV adoption
rates we modeled can be found in RIA Chapter 4.2.3 and breakdowns of
ZEV adoption rates by technology, model year, source type, regulatory
class, and location can be found in RIA Appendix B.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.116
2. Upstream Modeling
We used the 2022 post-IRA version of IPM to estimate the EGU
emissions associated with the additional energy demand from increased
HD ZEV adoption. Relative to the NPRM, we performed new IPM runs for
updated reference and control cases that all account for the IRA.
Because of the lead times necessary to complete our IPM modeling for
the final rulemaking analysis, we developed IPM inputs for draft
interim reference and control scenarios which do not directly
correspond to the ZEV adoption rates and energy demand for the
reference and control cases described in section V.A.1.
The differences between the draft interim and final scenarios are
small compared to the difference between IPM
[[Page 29668]]
defaults and the final scenarios. Therefore, we evaluated that we could
use the draft interim IPM results to calculate adjusted inventories
that provide a good approximation of the EGU emissions impact of the
final standards. The details of this methodology can be found in
Chapter 4.2.4 of the RIA.
To account for upstream emissions from the production of hydrogen
used to fuel FCEVs, we made a simplifying assumption in modeling the
final standards that all hydrogen used for FCEVs would be produced via
electrolysis of water using electricity from the grid and can therefore
be entirely represented as additional demand to EGUs and modeled using
IPM. We developed a scaling factor to account for the mass of hydrogen
that would need to be produced to meet the FCEV energy demand
calculated by MOVES.
We received comments noting that hydrogen in the U.S. today is
primarily produced via steam methane reforming (SMR), largely as part
of petroleum refining and ammonia production. Given the BIL and IRA
provisions that meaningfully incentivize reducing the emissions and
carbon intensity of hydrogen production, as well as new transportation
and other demand drivers and potential future regulation, we anticipate
more hydrogen will be produced by electrolysis in the future. However,
to evaluate the upstream impacts of FCEVs more fully under different
scenarios, for the final rule analysis, we also performed a comparative
analysis of upstream emissions under different hydrogen production
pathways. The comparative analysis offers a qualitative range for the
upstream emissions that are projected from increased FCEV adoption in
the potential compliance pathway's technology package demonstrating the
feasibility of the final standards. More details on our upstream
analysis of emissions from FCEVs, including the derivation of the
scaling factors for hydrogen produced by electrolysis and the emission
factors for hydrogen produced via SMR, are documented in Chapter 4.2.4
of the RIA.
The emission impacts presented in this section are based on the
electrolysis scenario, but emission comparisons between the
electrolysis and SMR scenarios can be found in Chapter 4.8 of the RIA.
The comparative analysis shows that the relative emissions of producing
hydrogen via SMR versus electrolysis change over time. Compared to
grid-based electrolysis, we estimate SMR to have lower emissions in
earlier years and higher emissions in later years.
To estimate refinery emission impacts from the final standards, we
adjusted an existing refinery inventory from the emissions modeling
platform to reflect updated onroad fuel demand from heavy-duty
vehicles. The refinery inventory adjustments were developed using MOVES
projections of liquid fuel demand for both the reference case and the
final standards. Our refinery emission methodology is discussed in
detail in Chapter 4.2.5 of the RIA.
In the NPRM analysis we assumed that 93 percent of the drop in
domestic demand would be reflected in reduced refinery activity. We
received several comments noting that, in response to lower domestic
demand, U.S. refineries would increase exports and continue refining
similar volumes of liquid fuels. After consideration of these comments,
for the final rule, we projected that 50 percent of the drop in
domestic demand would be reflected in reduced refinery activity. There
remains large uncertainty about how the U.S. refining sector will
respond to greater electrification in the onroad sector, and Chapter
4.9 of the RIA includes a sensitivity analysis that assumes that 20
percent of the drop in domestic demand would be reflected in reduced
refinery activity.
B. Estimated Emission Impacts From the Final Standards
This final rule includes CO2 emission standards for MYs
2027 through 2032 and beyond. Our modeled potential compliance pathway
to demonstrate the feasibility of these final standards includes both
ICE vehicles and an increase in ZEV adoption consistent with our
technology packages described in preamble section II. Because ZEVs do
not produce any tailpipe emissions, we expect reductions in downstream
GHG emissions as well as reductions in downstream emissions of criteria
pollutants and air toxics. In our analysis, operation of HD ZEVs
increases emissions from EGUs but leads to reduced emissions from
refineries.
We present downstream emission reductions in section V.B.1 and
upstream emission impacts in section V.B.2. Section V.B.3 presents the
net emission impacts of the final standards. The impact of the final
standards on cumulative GHG emissions are presented in section V.B.4.
The downstream and upstream impacts of the alternative are discussed in
section IX.
Because all our modeling is done for a full national domain,
emissions impacts cover the full national inventory. Emissions impacts
in other domains, such as particular regions or localities in the
United States, are likely to differ from the impacts presented here.
1. Estimated Impacts on Downstream Emissions
Our estimates of the downstream emission reductions of GHGs that
will result from the final standards relative to the reference case are
presented in Table V-5 for calendar years 2035, 2045, and 2055. Total
GHG emissions, or CO2 equivalent (CO2e), are
calculated by summing all GHG emissions multiplied by their 100-year
global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP values used in Table V-5 are
consistent with the 2014 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).\955\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\955\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core
Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Available
online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29669]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.117
In 2055, we estimate that the final standards will reduce
downstream emissions of CO2 from heavy-duty vehicles by 20
percent, methane by 12 percent, and nitrous oxide by 20 percent,
resulting in a reduction of 20 percent for total CO2
equivalent emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. Table V-5 also shows
that most of the GHG emission reductions are from CO2, which
represents approximately 96 percent of all heavy-duty GHG emission
reductions from the final standards.
We note that these reductions are lower in the final rule than the
proposal. We modeled the proposed standards with our updated FRM
methodologies and reference case. The results are presented in RIA
Chapter 4.11 and demonstrate that the emission impact differences are
primarily due to the increased number of ZEVs considered in the
reference case (as discussed earlier in this preamble section V.A) and
do not indicate that the final standards are meaningfully less
stringent than the proposed standards.
We expect the final CO2 emission standards will also
result in reductions of non-GHG pollutants. Table V-6 presents our
estimates of the downstream emission reductions of criteria pollutants
and air toxics from heavy-duty vehicles that will result from the final
standards in calendar years 2035, 2045, and 2055 relative to the
reference case.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.118
In 2055, we estimate the final standards will reduce heavy-duty
vehicle emissions of NOX by 20 percent,\956\
PM2.5 by 5 percent, VOC by 20 percent, and SO2 by
20 percent. Reductions in air toxics in 2055 range from 15 percent for
formaldehyde to 27 percent for 1,3-butadiene. Again, it is worth noting
that these reductions are similarly lower in the final rule than the
proposal primarily due to the increased number of ZEVs considered in
the reference case. Our increased reference case ZEV adoption is
greatest for light and medium heavy-duty vehicles, which means LHD and
MHD gasoline vehicles make up a much smaller portion of the HD fleet in
the final reference case than in our NPRM reference case. Therefore,
emissions reductions for pollutants which are driven by emissions from
gasoline vehicles, most notably PM2.5 and VOCs, are much
smaller in our final analysis than our NPRM analysis. This is discussed
in more detail in RIA Chapter 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\956\ The version of MOVES used to model the final standards
includes the HD2027 Low NOX standards (88 FR 4296, March
27, 2023), so it is accounted for in the reference case.
NOX reductions presented here are incremental to the
impacts from that final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 4.3 of the RIA contains more details on downstream emission
reductions by vehicle type, fuel type, and emission process, as well as
year-over-year impacts from 2027 through 2055.
2. Estimated Impacts on Upstream Emissions
The final standards are projected to increase emissions from EGUs.
Our estimates of the additional GHG emissions from EGUs due to the
final standards, relative to the reference case, are presented in Table
V-7 for calendar years 2035, 2045, and 2055, in million metric tons
(MMT). Our estimates for additional criteria pollutant emissions are
presented in Table V-8.
[[Page 29670]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.120
In 2055, we estimate the final standards will increase EGU
emissions of CO2 by 12.9 million metric tons, compared to
29.3 million metric tons in 2035. There are similar trends for all
other pollutants. EGU impacts decrease over time because of changes in
the projected power generation mix as electricity generation uses less
fossil fuels. Chapter 4.4 of the RIA contains more details and
discussion of the impacts of the final CO2 emission
standards on EGU emissions, including year-over-year impacts from 2027
through 2055.
We expect the final standards to lead to a decrease in refinery
emissions. Table V-9 presents the estimated impact of the final
standards on GHG emissions from refineries (in metric tons) and Table
V-10 presents the estimated impact on criteria pollutant emissions (in
U.S. tons) from refineries, both relative to the reference case.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.122
Like downstream emissions, we expect refinery emission reductions
to increase over time as HD ZEV adoption increases, thus reducing
demand for refined fossil fuels and the crude oil from which they are
produced. For example, we expect refinery emissions of carbon dioxide
to decrease by 331 thousand metric tons in 2035 and 690 thousand metric
tons in 2055.
3. Estimated Impacts on Combined Downstream and Upstream Emissions
While we present a net emissions impact of the final CO2
emission standards, it is important to note that some upstream emission
sources are not included in the estimates. This is discussed in detail
in Chapter 4 of the RIA.
Table V-11 shows a summary of our modeled downstream, upstream, and
net GHG emission impacts of the final standards relative to the
reference case (i.e., the emissions inventory in the absence of the
final standards), in million metric tons, for calendar years 2035,
2045, and 2055. Table V-12contains a summary of the modeled net impacts
of the final standards on criteria pollutant emissions. As discussed in
section II.G, EPA's assessment is that these net impacts are supportive
of the final standards.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 29671]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.124
In 2055, we estimate the final standards will result in a net
decrease of 61 million metric tons of GHG emissions. We also estimate
net decreases in emissions of NOx, VOC, and SO2
in 2055. However, we estimate a net increase in PM2.5
emissions.
In general, net emission impacts are determined by the interaction
of two effects. First, HD ZEV adoption increases over time, thus
reducing downstream and refinery emissions. Second, the increase in EGU
emissions declines over time as the electricity grid becomes cleaner
due to EGU regulations and the future power generation mix changes, in
part driven by the IRA. These effects can balance differently for
different pollutants.
Downstream emissions are a more significant source of GHG,
NOX, and VOC emissions, so net reductions grow over time.
However, EGUs are a more significant source of SO2 emissions
(largely driven by coal combustion) and PM2.5 emissions
(largely driven by coal and natural gas combustion). We estimate a net
increase in SO2 emissions in 2035 and 2045 but a net
decrease in 2055 as coal is phased out of the electricity sector.
Natural gas remains an important fuel for electricity generation, which
is why we estimate a net increase in PM2.5 in all years.
However, consistent with the trends for other pollutants, the magnitude
of the PM2.5 emission increases diminish over time.
4. Cumulative GHG Emission Impacts
The warming impacts of GHGs are cumulative. Table V-13, Table V-14,
and Table V-15 present the cumulative GHG impacts that we model will
result from the final standards between 2027 through 2055 for
downstream emissions, EGU emissions, and refinery emissions,
respectively, relative to the reference case.
[[Page 29672]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.127
Overall, we estimate the final standards will reduce net GHG
emissions by just over 1 billion metric tons between 2027 and 2055,
relative to the reference case, as is presented in Table V-16.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.128
VI. Climate, Health, Air Quality, Environmental Justice, and Economic
Impacts
In this section, we discuss the impacts of the final rule on
climate change, health and environmental effects, environmental
justice, and oil and electricity and hydrogen consumption. We also
discuss our approaches to analyzing the impact of this rule on the
heavy-duty vehicle market and employment.
A. Climate Change Impacts
Elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have been
warming the planet, leading to changes in the Earth's climate that are
occurring at a pace and in a way that threatens human health, society,
and the natural environment. While EPA is not making any new scientific
or factual findings with regard to the well-documented impact of GHG
emissions on public health and welfare in support of this rule, EPA is
providing in this section a brief scientific background on climate
change to offer additional context for this rulemaking and to help the
public understand the environmental impacts of GHGs.
Extensive information on climate change is available in the
scientific assessments and the EPA documents that are briefly described
in this section, as well as in the technical and scientific information
supporting them. One of those documents is EPA's 2009 Endangerment and
Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under section 202(a)
of the CAA (74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009) (``2009 Endangerment
Finding''). In the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found
under section 202(a) of the CAA that elevated atmospheric
concentrations of six key well-mixed GHGs--CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs,
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--
``may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and
welfare of current and future generations'' (74 FR 66523). The 2009
Endangerment Finding, together with the extensive scientific and
technical evidence in the supporting record, documented that climate
change caused by human emissions of GHGs threatens the public health of
the U.S. population. It explained that by raising average temperatures,
climate change increases the likelihood of heat waves, which are
associated with increased deaths and illnesses (74 FR 66497). While
climate change also increases the likelihood of reductions in cold-
related mortality, evidence indicates that the increases in heat
mortality will be larger than the decreases in cold mortality in the
U.S. (74 FR 66525). The 2009 Endangerment Finding further explained
that compared with a future without climate change, climate change is
expected to increase tropospheric ozone pollution over broad areas of
the U.S., including
[[Page 29673]]
in the largest metropolitan areas with the worst tropospheric ozone
problems, and thereby increase the risk of adverse effects on public
health (74 FR 66525). Climate change is also expected to cause more
intense hurricanes and more frequent and intense storms of other types
and heavy precipitation, with impacts on other areas of public health,
such as the potential for increased deaths, injuries, infectious and
waterborne diseases, and stress-related disorders (74 FR 66525).
Children, the elderly, and the poor are among the most vulnerable to
these climate-related health effects (74 FR 66498).
The 2009 Endangerment Finding also documented, together with the
extensive scientific and technical evidence in the supporting record,
that climate change touches nearly every aspect of public welfare \957\
in the U.S., including: Changes in water supply and quality due to
changes in drought and extreme rainfall events; increased risk of storm
surge and flooding in coastal areas and land loss due to inundation;
increases in peak electricity demand and risks to electricity
infrastructure; and the potential for significant agricultural
disruptions and crop failures (though offset to some extent by carbon
fertilization). These impacts are also global and may exacerbate
problems outside the U.S. that raise humanitarian, trade, and national
security issues for the U.S. (74 FR 66530).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\957\ The CAA states in section 302(h) that ``[a]ll language
referring to effects on welfare includes, but is not limited to,
effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials,
animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and
deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as
effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-being,
whether caused by transformation, conversion, or combination with
other air pollutants.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, the Administrator issued a similar finding for GHG
emissions from aircraft under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA.\958\ In
the 2016 Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found that the body of
scientific evidence amassed in the record for the 2009 Endangerment
Finding compellingly supported a similar endangerment finding under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A), and also found that the science assessments
released between the 2009 and the 2016 Findings ``strengthen and
further support the judgment that GHGs in the atmosphere may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare of current and
future generations'' (81 FR 54424).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\958\ ``Finding that Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft
Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be
Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and Welfare.'' 81 FR 54422,
August 15, 2016. (``2016 Endangerment Finding'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the 2016 Endangerment Finding, the climate has continued to
change, with new observational records being set for several climate
indicators such as global average surface temperatures, GHG
concentrations, and sea level rise. Additionally, major scientific
assessments continue to be released that further advance our
understanding of the climate system and the impacts that GHGs have on
public health and welfare both for current and future generations.
These updated observations and projections document the rapid rate of
current and future climate change both globally and in the U.S.\959\
\960\ \961\ \962\ \963\ \964\ \965\ \966\ \967\ \968\ \969\ \970\ \971\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\959\ USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth
National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey,
K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)].
U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp,
doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6.
\960\ USGCRP, 2016: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human
Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, A.,
J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, C.B. Beard, J.E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J.
Eisen, N. Fann, M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D.M.
Mills, S. Saha, M.C.
\961\ USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United
States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller,
D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K.
Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. doi:10.7930/NCA4.2018.
\962\ IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5[deg]C. An IPCC Special
Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5[deg]C above pre-
industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission
pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the
threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to
eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. P[ouml]rtner,
D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C.
P[eacute]an, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X.
Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T.
Waterfield (eds.)].
\963\ IPCC, 2019: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special
report on climate change, desertification, land degradation,
sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas
fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo
Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. P[ouml]rtner, D. C. Roberts, P.
Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S.
Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas,
E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)].
\964\ IPCC, 2019: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and
Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [H.-O. P[ouml]rtner, DC Roberts, V.
Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck,
A. Alegria, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer
(eds.)].
\965\ IPCC, 2023: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change
2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III
to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)].
IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 1-34, doi:10.59327/IPCC/AR6-
9789291691647.001.
\966\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
2016. Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of
Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://dio.org/10.17226/21852.
\967\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
2017. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social
Cost of Carbon Dioxide. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24651.
\968\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
2019. Climate Change and Ecosystems. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25504.
\969\ Blunden, J., T. Boyer, and E. Bartow-Gillies, Eds., 2023:
``State of the Climate in 2022''. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 104 (9),
Si-S501 https://doi.org/10.1175/2023BAMSStateoftheClimate.
\970\ EPA. 2021. Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the
United States: A Focus on Six Impacts. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA 430-R-21-003.
\971\ Jay, A.K., A.R. Crimmins, C.W. Avery, T.A. Dahl, R.S.
Dodder, B.D. Hamlington, A. Lustig, K. Marvel, P.A. M[eacute]ndez-
Lazaro, M.S. Osler, A. Terando, E.S. Weeks, and A. Zycherman, 2023:
Ch. 1. Overview: Understanding risks, impacts, and responses. In:
Fifth National Climate Assessment. Crimmins, A.R., C.W. Avery, D.R.
Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock, Eds. U.S.
Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most recent information demonstrates that the climate is
continuing to change in response to the human-induced buildup of GHGs
in the atmosphere. These recent assessments show that atmospheric
concentrations of GHGs have risen to a level that has no precedent in
human history and that they continue to climb, primarily because of
both historical and current anthropogenic emissions, and that these
elevated concentrations endanger our health by affecting our food and
water sources, the air we breathe, the weather we experience, and our
interactions with the natural and built environments. For example,
atmospheric concentrations of one of these GHGs, CO2,
measured at Mauna Loa in Hawaii and at other sites around the world
reached 419 parts per million (ppm) in 2022 (nearly 50 percent higher
than preindustrial levels) \972\ and have continued to rise at a rapid
rate. Global average temperature has increased by about 1.1 [deg]C (2.0
[deg]F) in the 2011-2020 decade relative to 1850-1900.\973\ The years
2015-2022 were the warmest 8 years in the 1880-2022 record.\974\ The
IPCC determined (with medium
[[Page 29674]]
confidence) that this past decade was warmer than any multi-century
period in at least the past 100,000 years.\975\ Global average sea
level has risen by about 8 inches (about 21 centimeters (cm)) from 1901
to 2018, with the rate from 2006 to 2018 (0.15 inches/year or 3.7
millimeters (mm)/year) almost twice the rate over the 1971 to 2006
period, and three times the rate of the 1901 to 2018 period.\976\ The
rate of sea level rise over the 20th century was higher than in any
other century in at least the last 2,800 years.\977\ Higher
CO2 concentrations have led to acidification of the surface
ocean in recent decades to an extent unusual in the past 65 million
years, with negative impacts on marine organisms that use calcium
carbonate to build shells or skeletons.\978\ Arctic sea ice extent
continues to decline in all months of the year; the most rapid
reductions occur in September (very likely almost a 13 percent decrease
per decade between 1979 and 2018) and are unprecedented in at least
1,000 years.\979\ Human-induced climate change has led to heatwaves and
heavy precipitation becoming more frequent and more intense, along with
increases in agricultural and ecological droughts \980\ in many
regions.\981\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\972\ https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt.
\973\ IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change
2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L.
Connors, C. P[eacute]an, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb,
M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K.
Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelek[ccedil]i, R. Yu, and B. Zhou
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA, pp. 3-32, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.001.
\974\ Blunden, et al. 2023.
\975\ IPCC, 2021.
\976\ IPCC, 2021.
\977\ USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United
States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller,
D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K.
Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. doi:10.7930/NCA4.2018.
\978\ IPCC, 2018.
\979\ IPCC, 2021.
\980\ These are drought measures based on soil moisture.
\981\ IPCC, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assessment literature demonstrates that modest additional
amounts of warming may lead to a climate different from anything humans
have ever experienced. The 2022 CO2 concentration of 419 ppm
is already higher than at any time in the last 2 million years.\982\ If
concentrations exceed 450 ppm, they would likely be higher than any
time in the past 23 million years: \983\ at the current rate of
increase of more than 2 ppm a year, this would occur in about 15 years.
While GHGs are not the only factor that controls climate, it is
illustrative that 3 million years ago (the last time CO2
concentrations were above 400 ppm) Greenland was not yet completely
covered by ice and still supported forests, while 23 million years ago
(the last time concentrations were above 450 ppm) the West Antarctic
ice sheet was not yet developed, indicating the possibility that high
GHG concentrations could lead to a world that looks very different from
today and from the conditions in which human civilization has
developed. If the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were to melt
substantially, sea levels would rise dramatically--the IPCC estimated
that over the next 2,000 years, sea level will rise by 7 to 10 feet
even if warming is limited to 1.5 [deg]C (2.7 [deg]F), from 7 to 20
feet if limited to 2 [deg]C (3.6 [deg]F), and by 60 to 70 feet if
warming is allowed to reach 5 [deg]C (9 [deg]F) above preindustrial
levels.\984\ For context, almost all of the city of Miami is less than
25 feet above sea level, and the 4th National Climate Assessment (NCA4)
stated that 13 million Americans would be at risk of migration due to 6
feet of sea level rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\982\ Annual Mauna Loa CO2 concentration data from
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt,
accessed September 9, 2023.
\983\ IPCC, 2013.
\984\ IPCC, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCA4 found that it is very likely (greater than 90 percent
likelihood) that by mid-century, the Arctic Ocean will be almost
entirely free of sea ice by late summer for the first time in about 2
million years.\985\ Coral reefs will be at risk for almost complete (99
percent) losses with 1 [deg]C (1.8 [deg]F) of additional warming from
today (2 [deg]C or 3.6 [deg]F since preindustrial). At this
temperature, between 8 and 18 percent of animal, plant, and insect
species could lose over half of the geographic area with suitable
climate for their survival, and 7 to 10 percent of rangeland livestock
would be projected to be lost.\986\ The IPCC similarly found that
climate change has caused substantial damages and increasingly
irreversible losses in terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal and open
ocean marine ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\985\ USGCRP, 2018.
\986\ IPCC, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every additional increment of temperature comes with consequences.
For example, the half degree of warming from 1.5 to 2 [deg]C (0.9
[deg]F of warming from 2.7 [deg]F to 3.6 [deg]F) above preindustrial
temperatures is projected on a global scale to expose 420 million more
people to extreme heatwaves at least once every five years, and 62
million more people to exceptional heatwaves at least once every five
years (where heatwaves are defined based on a heat wave magnitude index
which takes into account duration and intensity--using this index, the
2003 French heat wave that led to almost 15,000 deaths would be
classified as an ``extreme heatwave'' and the 2010 Russian heatwave
which led to thousands of deaths and extensive wildfires would be
classified as ``exceptional''). It would increase the frequency of sea-
ice-free Arctic summers from once in 100 years to once in a decade. It
could lead to 4 inches of additional sea level rise by the end of the
century, exposing an additional 10 million people to risks of
inundation as well as increasing the probability of triggering
instabilities in either the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets. Between
half a million and a million additional square miles of permafrost
would thaw over several centuries. Risks to food security would
increase from medium to high for several lower-income regions in the
Sahel, southern Africa, the Mediterranean, central Europe, and the
Amazon. In addition to food security issues, this temperature increase
would have implications for human health in terms of increasing ozone
concentrations, heatwaves, and vector-borne diseases (for example,
expanding the range of the mosquitoes which carry dengue fever,
chikungunya, yellow fever, and the Zika virus, or the ticks which carry
Lyme, babesiosis, or Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever).\987\ Moreover,
every additional increment in warming leads to larger changes in
extremes, including the potential for events unprecedented in the
observational record. Every additional degree will intensify extreme
precipitation events by about 7 percent. The peak winds of the most
intense tropical cyclones (hurricanes) are projected to increase with
warming. In addition to a higher intensity, the IPCC found that
precipitation and frequency of rapid intensification of these storms
has already increased, the movement speed has decreased, and elevated
sea levels have increased coastal flooding, all of which make these
tropical cyclones more damaging.\988\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\987\ IPCC, 2018.
\988\ IPCC, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCA4 also evaluated a number of impacts specific to the U.S.
Severe drought and outbreaks of insects like the mountain pine beetle
have killed hundreds of millions of trees in the western U.S. Wildfires
have burned more than 3.7 million acres in 14 of the 17 years between
2000 and 2016, and Federal wildfire suppression costs were about a
billion dollars annually.\989\ The National Interagency Fire Center has
documented U.S. wildfires since 1983, and the 10 years with the largest
acreage burned have all occurred since 2004.\990\ Wildfire smoke
degrades air quality, increasing health risks, and more
[[Page 29675]]
frequent and severe wildfires due to climate change would further
diminish air quality, increase incidences of respiratory illness,
impair visibility, and disrupt outdoor activities, sometimes thousands
of miles from the location of the fire. Meanwhile, sea level rise has
amplified coastal flooding and erosion impacts, requiring the
installation of costly pump stations, flooding streets, and increasing
storm surge damages. Tens of billions of dollars of U.S. real estate
could be below sea level by 2050 under some scenarios. Increased
frequency and duration of drought will reduce agricultural productivity
in some regions, accelerate depletion of water supplies for irrigation,
and expand the distribution and incidence of pests and diseases for
crops and livestock. The NCA4 also recognized that climate change can
increase risks to national security, both through direct impacts on
military infrastructure and by affecting factors such as food and water
availability that can exacerbate conflict outside U.S. borders.
Droughts, floods, storm surges, wildfires, and other extreme events
stress nations and people through loss of life, displacement of
populations, and impacts on livelihoods.\991\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\989\ USGCRP, 2018.
\990\ NIFC (National Interagency Fire Center). 2021. Total
wildland fires and acres (1983-2020). Accessed August 2021.
www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html.
\991\ USGCRP, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA modeling efforts can further illustrate how these impacts from
climate change may be experienced across the U.S. EPA's Framework for
Evaluating Damages and Impacts (FrEDI) \992\ uses information from over
30 peer-reviewed climate change impact studies to project the physical
and economic impacts of climate change to the U.S. resulting from
future temperature changes. These impacts are projected for specific
regions within the U.S. and for more than 20 impact categories, which
span a large number of sectors of the U.S. economy.\993\ Using this
framework, the EPA estimates that global emission projections, with no
additional mitigation, will result in significant climate-related
damages to the U.S.\994\ These damages to the U.S. would mainly be from
increases in lives lost due to increases in temperatures, as well as
impacts to human health from increases in climate-driven changes in air
quality, dust and wildfire smoke exposure, and incidence of suicide.
Additional major climate-related damages would occur to U.S.
infrastructure such as roads and rail, as well as transportation
impacts and coastal flooding from sea level rise, increases in property
damage from tropical cyclones, and reductions in labor hours worked in
outdoor settings and buildings without air conditioning. These impacts
are also projected to vary from region to region with the Southeast,
for example, projected to see some of the largest damages from sea
level rise, the West Coast projected to experience damages from
wildfire smoke more than other parts of the country, and the Northern
Plains states projected to see a higher proportion of damages to rail
and road infrastructure. While information on the distribution of
climate impacts helps to better understand the ways in which climate
change may impact the U.S., recent analyses are still only a partial
assessment of climate impacts relevant to U.S. interests and do not
reflect increased damages that occur due to interactions between
different sectors impacted by climate change or all the ways in which
physical impacts of climate change occurring abroad have spillover
effects in different regions of the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\992\ (1) Hartin, C., et al. (2023). Advancing the estimation of
future climate impacts within the United States. Earth Syst. Dynam.,
14, 1015-1037, https://dio.org/10.5194/esd-14-1015-2023. (2)
Supplementary Material for the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Supplemental Proposed Rulemaking, ``Standards of Performance for
New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines
for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review,''
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317, September 2022, (3) The Long-
Term Strategy of the United States: Pathways to Net-Zero Greenhouse
Gas Emissions by 2050. Published by the U.S. Department of State and
the U.S. Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC. November
2021, (4) Climate Risk Exposure: An Assessment of the Federal
Government's Financial Risks to Climate Change, White Paper, Office
of Management and Budget, April 2022.
\993\ EPA (2021). Technical Documentation on the Framework for
Evaluating Damages and Impacts (FrEDI). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-21-004, available at https://www.epa.gov/cira/fredi. Documentation has been subject to both a
public review comment period and an independent expert peer review,
following EPA peer-review guidelines.
\994\ Compared to a world with no additional warming after the
model baseline (1986-2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some GHGs also have impacts beyond those mediated through climate
change. For example, elevated concentrations of CO2
stimulate plant growth (which can be positive in the case of beneficial
species, but negative in terms of weeds and invasive species, and can
also lead to a reduction in plant micronutrients \995\) and cause ocean
acidification. Nitrous oxide depletes the levels of protective
stratospheric ozone.\996\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\995\ Ziska, L., A. Crimmins, A. Auclair, S. DeGrasse, J.F.
Garofalo, A.S. Khan, I. Loladze, A.A. P[eacute]rez de Le[oacute]n,
A. Showler, J. Thurston, and I. Walls, 2016: Ch. 7: Food Safety,
Nutrition, and Distribution. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human
Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. U.S. Global
Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 189-216. https://health2016.globalchange.gov/low/ClimateHealth2016_07_Food_small.pdf.
\996\ WMO (World Meteorological Organization), Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research and
Monitoring Project--Report No. 58, 588 pp., Geneva, Switzerland,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation is the largest U.S. source of GHG emissions,
representing 29 percent of total GHG emissions.\997\ Within the
transportation sector, heavy-duty vehicles are the second largest
contributor to GHG emissions and are responsible for 25 percent of GHG
emissions in the sector.\998\ The GHG emission reductions resulting
from compliance with this final rule will significantly reduce the
volume of GHG emissions from this sector. Section VI.D.2 of this
preamble discusses impacts of GHG emissions on individuals living in
socially and economically vulnerable communities. While EPA did not
conduct modeling to specifically quantify changes in climate impacts
resulting from this rule in terms of avoided temperature change or sea-
level rise, we did quantify climate benefits by monetizing the emission
reductions through the application of estimates of the social cost of
greenhouse gases (SC-GHGs), as described in section VII.A of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\997\ EPA (2023). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2021 (EPA-430-R-23-002, published April 2023).
\998\ EPA (2023). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2021 (EPA-430-R-23-002, published April 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These scientific assessments, the EPA analyses, and documented
observed changes in the climate of the planet and of the U.S. present
clear support regarding the current and future dangers of climate
change and the importance of GHG emissions mitigation.
B. Health and Environmental Effects Associated With Exposure to Non-GHG
Pollutants
The non-GHG emissions that will be impacted by this rule
contribute, directly or via secondary formation, to concentrations of
pollutants in the air which affect human and environmental health.
These pollutants include particulate matter, ozone,, sulfur oxides,
carbon monoxide and air toxics.
1. Background on Criteria and Air Toxics Pollutants Impacted by This
Rule
i. Particulate Matter
Particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of solid particles and
liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which
interact with solid and liquid phases. Particles in the atmosphere
range in size from less than 0.01 to more than 10 micrometers
([micro]m)
[[Page 29676]]
in diameter.\999\ Atmospheric particles can be grouped into several
classes according to their aerodynamic diameter and physical sizes.
Generally, the three broad classes of particles include ultrafine
particles (UFPs, generally considered as particles with a diameter less
than or equal to 0.1 [micro]m [typically based on physical size,
thermal diffusivity, or electrical mobility]), ``fine'' particles
(PM2.5; particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to 2.5 [micro]m), and ``thoracic'' particles
(PM10; particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to 10 [micro]m). Particles that fall within the size
range between PM2.5 and PM10, are referred to as
``thoracic coarse particles'' (PM10-2.5, particles with a
nominal mean aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 [micro]m and less
than or equal to 10 [micro]m). EPA currently has NAAQS for
PM2.5 and PM10.\1000\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\999\ U.S. EPA. Policy Assessment (PA) for the Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (Final
Report, 2020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/452/R-20/002, 2020.
\1000\ Regulatory definitions of PM size fractions, and
information on reference and equivalent methods for measuring PM in
ambient air, are provided in 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. With
regard to NAAQS which provide protection against health and welfare
effects, the 24-hour PM10 standard provides protection
against effects associated with short-term exposure to thoracic
coarse particles (i.e., PM10-2.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most particles are found in the lower troposphere, where they can
have residence times ranging from a few hours to weeks. Particles are
removed from the atmosphere by wet deposition, such as when they are
carried by rain or snow, or by dry deposition, when particles settle
out of suspension due to gravity. Atmospheric lifetimes are generally
longest for PM2.5, which often remains in the atmosphere for
days to weeks before being removed by wet or dry deposition.\1001\ In
contrast, atmospheric lifetimes for UFP and PM10-2.5 are
shorter. Within hours, UFP can undergo coagulation and condensation
that lead to formation of larger particles in the accumulation mode or
can be removed from the atmosphere by evaporation, deposition, or
reactions with other atmospheric components. PM10-2.5 are
also generally removed from the atmosphere within hours through wet or
dry deposition.\1002\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1001\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019. Table 2-
1.
\1002\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019. Table 2-
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter consists of both primary and secondary
particles. Primary particles are emitted directly from sources, such as
combustion-related activities (e.g., industrial activities, motor
vehicle operation, biomass burning), while secondary particles are
formed through atmospheric chemical reactions of gaseous precursors
(e.g., sulfur oxides (SOX), oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)).
ii. Ozone
Ground-level ozone pollution forms in areas with high
concentrations of ambient NOX and VOCs when solar radiation
is strong. Major U.S. sources of NOX are highway and nonroad
motor vehicles, engines, power plants and other industrial sources;
natural sources, such as soil, vegetation, and lightning, are smaller
sources. Vegetation is the dominant source of VOCs in the United
States. Volatile consumer and commercial products, such as propellants
and solvents, highway and nonroad vehicles, engines, fires, and
industrial sources also contribute to the atmospheric burden of VOCs at
ground-level.
The processes underlying ozone formation, transport, and
accumulation are complex. Ground-level ozone is produced and destroyed
by an interwoven network of free radical reactions involving the
hydroxyl radical (OH), NO, NO2, and complex reaction
intermediates derived from VOCs. Many of these reactions are sensitive
to temperature and available sunlight. High ozone events most often
occur when ambient temperatures and sunlight intensities remain high
for several days under stagnant conditions. Ozone and its precursors
can also be transported hundreds of miles downwind, which can lead to
elevated ozone levels in areas with otherwise low VOC or NOX
emissions. As an air mass moves and is exposed to changing ambient
concentrations of NOX and VOCs, the ozone photochemical
regime (relative sensitivity of ozone formation to NOX and
VOC emissions) can change.
When ambient VOC concentrations are high, comparatively small
amounts of NOX catalyze rapid ozone formation. Without
available NOX, ground-level ozone production is severely
limited, and VOC reductions would have little impact on ozone
concentrations. Photochemistry under these conditions is said to be
``NOX-limited.'' When NOX levels are sufficiently
high, faster NO2 oxidation consumes more radicals, dampening
ozone production. Under these ``VOC-limited'' conditions (also referred
to as ``NOX-saturated'' conditions), VOC reductions are
effective in reducing ozone, and NOX can react directly with
ozone, resulting in suppressed ozone concentrations near NOX
emission sources. Under these NOX-saturated conditions,
NOX reductions can increase local ozone under certain
circumstances, but overall ozone production (considering downwind
formation) decreases and, even in VOC-limited areas, NOX
reductions are not expected to increase ozone levels if the
NOX reductions are sufficiently large--large enough for
photochemistry to become NOX-limited.
iii.
Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) refers to nitric oxide (NO) and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Most NO2 is formed in the
air through the oxidation of NO emitted when fuel is burned at a high
temperature. NO2 is a criteria pollutant, regulated for its
adverse effects on public health and the environment, and highway
vehicles are an important contributor to NO2 emissions.
NOX, along with VOCs, are the two major precursors of ozone,
and NOX is also a major contributor to secondary
PM2.5 formation.
iv. Sulfur Oxides
Sulfur dioxide (SO2), a member of the sulfur oxide
(SOX) family of gases, is formed from burning fuels
containing sulfur (e.g., coal or oil), extracting gasoline from oil, or
extracting metals from ore. SO2 and its gas phase oxidation
products can dissolve in water droplets and further oxidize to form
sulfuric acid which reacts with ammonia to form sulfates, which are
important components of ambient PM.
v. Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas formed by
incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels and by photochemical
reactions in the atmosphere. Nationally, particularly in urban areas,
the majority of CO emissions to ambient air come from mobile
sources.\1003\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1003\ U.S. EPA, (2010). Integrated Science Assessment for
Carbon Monoxide (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/019F, 2010.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686. See
section 2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vi. Diesel Exhaust
Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture composed of particulate matter,
carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen compounds, sulfur compounds and numerous low-molecular-weight
hydrocarbons. A number of these gaseous hydrocarbon
[[Page 29677]]
components are individually known to be toxic, including aldehydes,
benzene and 1,3-butadiene. The diesel particulate matter present in
diesel exhaust consists mostly of fine particles (less than 2.5
[micro]m), of which a significant fraction is ultrafine particles (less
than 0.1 [micro]m). These particles have a large surface area which
makes them an excellent medium for adsorbing organics, and their small
size makes them highly respirable. Many of the organic compounds
present in the gases and on the particles, such as polycyclic organic
matter, are individually known to have mutagenic and carcinogenic
properties.
Diesel exhaust varies significantly in chemical composition and
particle sizes between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty),
engine operating conditions (idle, acceleration, deceleration), and
fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel). Also, there are emissions
differences between on-road and nonroad engines because the nonroad
engines are generally of older technology. After being emitted in the
engine exhaust, diesel exhaust undergoes dilution as well as chemical
and physical changes in the atmosphere. The lifetimes of the components
present in diesel exhaust range from seconds to months.
vii. Air Toxics
The most recent available data indicate that millions of Americans
live in areas where air toxics pose potential health
concerns.1004 1005 The levels of air toxics to which people
are exposed vary depending on where people live and work and the kinds
of activities in which they engage, as discussed in detail in EPA's
2007 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule.\1006\ According to EPA's 2017
National Emissions Inventory (NEI), mobile sources were responsible for
39 percent of outdoor anthropogenic toxic emissions. Further, mobile
sources were the largest contributor to national average risk of cancer
and immunological and respiratory health effects from directly emitted
pollutants, according to EPA's Air Toxics Screening Assessment
(AirToxScreen) for 2019.1007 1008 Mobile sources are also
significant contributors to precursor emissions which react to form air
toxics.\1009\ Formaldehyde is the largest contributor to cancer risk of
all 72 pollutants quantitatively assessed in the 2019 AirToxScreen.
Mobile sources were responsible for 26 percent of primary anthropogenic
emissions of this pollutant in the 2017 NEI and are significant
contributors to formaldehyde precursor emissions. Benzene is also a
large contributor to cancer risk, and mobile sources account for about
60 percent of average exposure to ambient concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1004\ Air toxics are pollutants known to cause or suspected of
causing cancer or other serious health effects. Air toxics are also
known as toxic air pollutants or hazardous air pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/AirToxScreen/airtoxscreen-glossary-terms#air-toxics.
\1005\ U.S. EPA (2022) Technical Support Document EPA Air Toxics
Screening Assessment. 2018 AirToxScreen TSD. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-02/AirToxScreen_2018%20TSD.pdf.
\1006\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Control of
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR
8434, February 26, 2007.
\1007\ U.S. EPA. (2022) 2019 AirToxScreen: Assessment Results.
https://www.epa.gov/AirToxScreen/2019-airtoxscreen-assessment-results.
\1008\ AirToxScreen also includes estimates of risk attributable
to background concentrations, which includes contributions from
long-range transport, persistent air toxics, and natural sources; as
well as secondary concentrations, where toxics are formed via
secondary formation. Mobile sources substantially contribute to
long-range transport and secondarily formed air toxics.
\1009\ Rich Cook, Sharon Phillips, Madeleine Strum, Alison Eyth
& James Thurman (2020): Contribution of mobile sources to secondary
formation of carbonyl compounds, Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association, DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2020.1813839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Health Effects Associated With Exposure to Non-GHG Pollutants
Heavy-duty vehicles emit non-GHG pollutants that contribute to
ambient concentrations of ozone, PM, NO2, SO2,
CO, and air toxics. This section of the preamble discusses the health
effects associated with exposure to these pollutants. Although the
discussion which follows largely deals with the effects of these
pollutants on the general population, we note at the outset that
certain populations are especially vulnerable and susceptible to
effects from exposure to these pollutants. Children are one such
population, and they are especially vulnerable because they generally
breathe more relative to their size than adults; consequently, they may
be exposed to relatively higher amounts of air pollution.\1010\
Children also tend to breathe through their mouths more than adults,
and their nasal passages are less effective at removing pollutants,
which leads to greater lung deposition of some pollutants such as
PM.1011 1012 Furthermore, air pollutants may pose health
risks specific to children because children's bodies are still
developing.\1013\ For example, during periods of rapid growth such as
fetal development, infancy and puberty, their developing systems and
organs may be more easily harmed.1014 1015 See EPA's Report
``America's Children and the Environment,'' which presents national
trends on air pollution and other contaminants and environmental health
of children.\1016\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1010\ EPA (2009) Metabolically-derived ventilation rates: A
revised approach based upon oxygen consumption rates. Washington,
DC: Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-06/129F. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=202543.
\1011\ U.S. EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate
Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019. Chapter 4 ``Overall
Conclusions'' p. 4-1.
\1012\ Foos, B.; Marty, M.; Schwartz, J.; Bennet, W.; Moya, J.;
Jarabek, A.M.; Salmon, A.G. (2008) Focusing on children's inhalation
dosimetry and health effects for risk assessment: An introduction. J
Toxicol Environ Health 71A: 149-165.
\1013\ Children's environmental health includes conception,
infancy, early childhood and through adolescence until 21 years of
age as described in the EPA Memorandum: Issuance of EPA's 2021
Policy on Children's Health. October 5, 2021. Available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/2021-policy-on-childrens-health.pdf.
\1014\ EPA (2006) A Framework for Assessing Health Risks of
Environmental Exposures to Children. EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-
05/093F, 2006.
\1015\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005).
Supplemental guidance for assessing susceptibility from early-life
exposure to carcinogens. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/
630/R-03/003F. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
\1016\ U.S. EPA. America's Children and the Environment.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/americaschildrenenvironment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Particulate Matter
Scientific evidence spanning animal toxicological, controlled human
exposure, and epidemiologic studies shows that exposure to ambient PM
is associated with a broad range of health effects. These health
effects are discussed in detail in the Integrated Science Assessment
for Particulate Matter, which was finalized in December 2019 (2019 p.m.
ISA), with a more targeted evaluation of studies published since the
literature cutoff date of the 2019 p.m. ISA in the Supplement to the
Integrated Science Assessment for PM (Supplement).1017 1018
The PM ISA characterizes the causal nature of relationships between PM
exposure and broad health categories (e.g., cardiovascular effects,
respiratory effects, etc.) using a weight-of-evidence approach.\1019\
Within this
[[Page 29678]]
characterization, the PM ISA summarizes the health effects evidence for
short-term (i.e., hours up to one month) and long-term (i.e., one month
to years) exposures to PM2.5, PM10-2.5, and
ultrafine particles and concludes that exposures to ambient
PM2.5 are associated with a number of adverse health
effects. The discussion in this section VI.B.2.i highlights the PM
ISA's conclusions and summarizes additional information from the
Supplement where appropriate, pertaining to the health effects evidence
for both short- and long-term PM exposures. Further discussion of PM-
related health effects can also be found in the 2022 Policy Assessment
for the review of the PM NAAQS.\1020\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1017\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
\1018\ U.S. EPA. Supplement to the 2019 Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2022). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/635/R-22/028,
2022.
\1019\ The causal framework draws upon the assessment and
integration of evidence from across scientific disciplines, spanning
atmospheric chemistry, exposure, dosimetry and health effects
studies (i.e., epidemiologic, controlled human exposure, and animal
toxicological studies), and assess the related uncertainties and
limitations that ultimately influence our understanding of the
evidence. This framework employs a five-level hierarchy that
classifies the overall weight-of-evidence with respect to the causal
nature of relationships between criteria pollutant exposures and
health and welfare effects using the following categorizations:
causal relationship; likely to be causal relationship; suggestive
of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship; inadequate
to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship; and not
likely to be a causal relationship (U.S. EPA) (2019). Integrated
Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188,
Section P. 3.2.3).
\1020\ U.S. EPA. Policy Assessment (PA) for the Reconsideration
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter
(Final Report, 2022). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA-452/R-22-004, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has concluded that recent evidence in combination with evidence
evaluated in the 2009 p.m. ISA supports a ``causal relationship''
between both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and
premature mortality and cardiovascular effects and a ``likely to be
causal relationship'' between long- and short-term PM2.5
exposures and respiratory effects.\1021\ Additionally, recent
experimental and epidemiologic studies provide evidence supporting a
``likely to be causal relationship'' between long-term PM2.5
exposure and nervous system effects and between long-term
PM2.5 exposure and cancer. Because of remaining
uncertainties and limitations in the evidence base, EPA determined a
``suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship''
for long-term PM2.5 exposure and reproductive and
developmental effects (i.e., male/female reproduction and fertility;
pregnancy and birth outcomes), long- and short-term exposures and
metabolic effects, and short-term exposure and nervous system effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1021\ U.S. EPA (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed extensively in the 2019 p.m. ISA and the Supplement,
recent studies continue to support a ``causal relationship'' between
short- and long-term PM2.5 exposures and
mortality.1022 1023 For short-term PM2.5
exposure, multi-city studies, in combination with single- and multi-
city studies evaluated in the 2009 p.m. ISA, provide evidence of
consistent, positive associations across studies conducted in different
geographic locations, populations with different demographic
characteristics, and studies using different exposure assignment
techniques. Additionally, the consistent and coherent evidence across
scientific disciplines for cardiovascular morbidity, including
exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and
asthma, provide biological plausibility for cause-specific mortality
and ultimately total mortality. Recent epidemiologic studies evaluated
in the Supplement, including studies that employed alternative methods
for confounder control, provide additional support to the evidence base
that contributed to the 2019 p.m. ISA conclusion for short-term
PM2.5 exposure and mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1022\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
\1023\ U.S. EPA. Supplement to the 2019 Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2022). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/635/R-22/028,
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2019 p.m. ISA concluded a ``causal relationship'' between long-
term PM2.5 exposure and mortality. In addition to reanalyzes
and extensions of the American Cancer Society (ACS) and Harvard Six
Cities (HSC) cohorts, multiple new cohort studies conducted in the
United States and Canada consisting of people employed in a specific
job (e.g., teacher, nurse), and that apply different exposure
assignment techniques, provide evidence of positive associations
between long-term PM2.5 exposure and mortality. Biological
plausibility for mortality due to long-term PM2.5 exposure
is provided by the coherence of effects across scientific disciplines
for cardiovascular morbidity, particularly for coronary heart disease,
stroke, and atherosclerosis, and for respiratory morbidity,
particularly for the development of COPD. Additionally, recent studies
provide evidence indicating that as long-term PM2.5
concentrations decrease there is an increase in life expectancy. Recent
cohort studies evaluated in the Supplement, as well as epidemiologic
studies that conducted accountability analyses or employed alternative
methods for confounder controls, support and extend the evidence base
that contributed to the 2019 p.m. ISA conclusion for long-term
PM2.5 exposure and mortality.
A large body of studies examining both short- and long-term
PM2.5 exposure and cardiovascular effects supports and
extends the evidence base evaluated in the 2009 p.m. ISA. The strongest
evidence for cardiovascular effects in response to short-term
PM2.5 exposures is for ischemic heart disease and heart
failure. The evidence for short-term PM2.5 exposure and
cardiovascular effects is coherent across scientific disciplines and
supports a continuum of effects ranging from subtle changes in
indicators of cardiovascular health to serious clinical events, such as
increased emergency department visits and hospital admissions due to
cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular mortality. For long-term
PM2.5 exposure, there is strong and consistent epidemiologic
evidence of a relationship with cardiovascular mortality. This evidence
is supported by epidemiologic and animal toxicological studies
demonstrating a range of cardiovascular effects including coronary
heart disease, stroke, impaired heart function, and subclinical markers
(e.g., coronary artery calcification, atherosclerotic plaque
progression), which collectively provide coherence and biological
plausibility. Recent epidemiologic studies evaluated in the Supplement,
as well as studies that conducted accountability analyses or employed
alternative methods for confounder control, support and extend the
evidence base that contributed to the 2019 p.m. ISA conclusion for both
short- and long-term PM2.5 exposure and cardiovascular
effects.
Studies evaluated in the 2019 PM ISA continue to provide evidence
of a ``likely to be causal relationship'' between both short- and long-
term PM2.5 exposure and respiratory effects. Epidemiologic
studies provide consistent evidence of a relationship between short-
term PM2.5 exposure and asthma exacerbation in children and
COPD exacerbation in adults as indicated by increases in emergency
department visits and hospital admissions, which is supported by animal
toxicological studies indicating worsening allergic airways disease and
subclinical effects related to COPD. Epidemiologic studies also provide
evidence of a relationship between short-term PM2.5 exposure
and respiratory mortality. However, there is
[[Page 29679]]
inconsistent evidence of respiratory effects, specifically lung
function declines and pulmonary inflammation, in controlled human
exposure studies. With respect to long term PM2.5 exposure,
epidemiologic studies conducted in the United States and abroad provide
evidence of a relationship with respiratory effects, including
consistent changes in lung function and lung function growth rate,
increased asthma incidence, asthma prevalence, and wheeze in children;
acceleration of lung function decline in adults; and respiratory
mortality. The epidemiologic evidence is supported by animal
toxicological studies, which provide coherence and biological
plausibility for a range of effects including impaired lung
development, decrements in lung function growth, and asthma
development.
Since the 2009 PM ISA, a growing body of scientific evidence
examined the relationship between long-term PM2.5 exposure
and nervous system effects, resulting for the first time in a causality
determination for this health effects category of a ``likely to be
causal relationship.'' The strongest evidence for effects on the
nervous system comes from epidemiologic studies that consistently
report cognitive decrements and reductions in brain volume in adults.
The effects observed in epidemiologic studies in adults are supported
by animal toxicological studies demonstrating effects on the brain of
adult animals including inflammation, morphologic changes, and
neurodegeneration of specific regions of the brain. There is more
limited evidence for neurodevelopmental effects in children, with some
studies reporting positive associations with autism spectrum disorder
and others providing limited evidence of an association with cognitive
function. While there is some evidence from animal toxicological
studies indicating effects on the brain (i.e., inflammatory and
morphological changes) to support a biologically plausible pathway for
neurodevelopmental effects, epidemiologic studies are limited due to
their lack of control for potential confounding by copollutants, the
small number of studies conducted, and uncertainty regarding critical
exposure windows.
Building off the decades of research demonstrating mutagenicity,
DNA damage, and other endpoints related to genotoxicity due to whole PM
exposures, recent experimental and epidemiologic studies focusing
specifically on PM2.5 provide evidence of a relationship
between long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer. Epidemiologic
studies examining long-term PM2.5 exposure and lung cancer
incidence and mortality provide evidence of generally positive
associations in cohort studies spanning different populations,
locations, and exposure assignment techniques. Additionally, there is
evidence of positive associations with lung cancer incidence and
mortality in analyses limited to never smokers. The epidemiologic
evidence is supported by both experimental and epidemiologic evidence
of genotoxicity, epigenetic effects, carcinogenic potential, and that
PM2.5 exhibits several characteristics of carcinogens, which
collectively provides biological plausibility for cancer development
and resulted in the conclusion of a ``likely to be causal
relationship.''
For the additional health effects categories evaluated for
PM2.5 in the 2019 PM ISA, experimental and epidemiologic
studies provide limited and/or inconsistent evidence of a relationship
with PM2.5 exposure. As a result, the 2019 PM ISA concluded
that the evidence is ``suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer a
causal relationship'' for short-term PM2.5 exposure and
metabolic effects and nervous system effects and for long-term
PM2.5 exposures and metabolic effects as well as
reproductive and developmental effects.
In addition to evaluating the health effects attributed to short-
and long-term exposure to PM2.5, the 2019 PM ISA also
conducted an extensive evaluation as to whether specific components or
sources of PM2.5 are more strongly related with health
effects than PM2.5 mass. An evaluation of those studies
resulted in the 2019 PM ISA concluding that ``many PM2.5
components and sources are associated with many health effects, and the
evidence does not indicate that any one source or component is
consistently more strongly related to health effects than
PM2.5 mass.'' \1024\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1024\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For both PM10-2.5 and UFPs, for all health effects
categories evaluated, the 2019 PM ISA concluded that the evidence was
``suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship''
or ``inadequate to determine the presence or absence of a causal
relationship.'' For PM10-2.5, although a Federal Reference
Method was instituted in 2011 to measure PM10-2.5
concentrations nationally, the causality determinations reflect that
the same uncertainty identified in the 2009 PM ISA with respect to the
method used to estimate PM10-2.5 concentrations in
epidemiologic studies persists. Specifically, across epidemiologic
studies, different approaches are used to estimate PM10-2.5
concentrations (e.g., direct measurement of PM10-2.5,
difference between PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations), and it remains unclear how well correlated
PM10-2.5 concentrations are both spatially and temporally
across the different methods used.
For UFPs, which have often been defined as particles less than 0.1
[micro]m, the uncertainty in the evidence for the health effect
categories evaluated across experimental and epidemiologic studies
reflects the inconsistency in the exposure metric used (i.e., particle
number concentration, surface area concentration, mass concentration)
as well as the size fractions examined. In epidemiologic studies the
size fraction examined can vary depending on the monitor used and
exposure metric, with some studies examining number count over the
entire particle size range, while experimental studies that use a
particle concentrator often examine particles up to 0.3 [micro]m.
Additionally, due to the lack of a monitoring network, there is limited
information on the spatial and temporal variability of UFPs within the
U.S., as well as population exposures to UFPs, which adds uncertainty
to epidemiologic study results.
The 2019 PM ISA cites extensive evidence indicating that ``both the
general population as well as specific populations and life stages are
at risk for PM2.5-related health effects.'' \1025\ For
example, in support of its ``causal'' and ``likely to be causal''
determinations, the ISA cites substantial evidence for (1) PM-related
mortality and cardiovascular effects in older adults; (2) PM-related
cardiovascular effects in people with pre-existing cardiovascular
disease; (3) PM-related respiratory effects in people with pre-existing
respiratory disease, particularly asthma exacerbations in children; and
(4) PM-related impairments in lung function growth and asthma
development in children. The ISA additionally notes that stratified
analyses (i.e., analyses that directly compare PM-related health
effects across groups) provide strong evidence for racial and ethnic
differences in PM2.5 exposures and in the risk of
PM2.5-related health effects, specifically within Hispanic
and non-
[[Page 29680]]
Hispanic Black populations, with some evidence of increased risk for
populations of low socioeconomic status. Recent studies evaluated in
the Supplement support the conclusion of the 2019 PM ISA with respect
to disparities in both PM2.5 exposure and health risk by
race and ethnicity and provide additional support for disparities for
populations of lower socioeconomic status.\1026\ Additionally, evidence
spanning epidemiologic studies that conducted stratified analyses,
experimental studies focusing on animal models of disease or
individuals with pre-existing disease, dosimetry studies, as well as
studies focusing on differential exposure suggest that populations with
pre-existing cardiovascular or respiratory disease, populations that
are overweight or obese, populations that have particular genetic
variants, and current/former smokers could be at increased risk for
adverse PM2.5-related health effects. The 2022 Policy
Assessment for the review of the PM NAAQS also highlights that factors
that may contribute to increased risk of PM2.5-related
health effects include life stage (children and older adults), pre-
existing diseases (cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease),
race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.\1027\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1025\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
\1026\ U.S. EPA. Supplement to the 2019 Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2022). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/635/R-22/028,
2022.
\1027\ U.S. EPA. Policy Assessment (PA) for the Reconsideration
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter
(Final Report, 2022). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA-452/R-22-004, 2022, p. 3-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Ozone
This section provides a summary of the health effects associated
with exposure to ambient concentrations of ozone.\1028\ The information
in this section is based on the information and conclusions in the
April 2020 Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone (Ozone ISA).\1029\
The Ozone ISA concludes that human exposures to ambient concentrations
of ozone are associated with a number of adverse health effects and
characterizes the weight of evidence for these health effects.\1030\
The discussion in this section VI.B.2.ii highlights the Ozone ISA's
conclusions pertaining to health effects associated with both short-
term and long-term periods of exposure to ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1028\ Human exposure to ozone varies over time due to changes
in ambient ozone concentration and because people move between
locations which have notably different ozone concentrations. Also,
the amount of ozone delivered to the lung is influenced not only by
the ambient concentrations but also by the breathing route and rate.
\1029\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/012,
2020.
\1030\ The ISA evaluates evidence and draws conclusions on the
causal relationship between relevant pollutant exposures and health
effects, assigning one of five ``weight of evidence''
determinations: causal relationship, likely to be a causal
relationship, suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate to
infer a causal relationship, and not likely to be a causal
relationship. For more information on these levels of evidence,
please refer to Table II in the Preamble of the ISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For short-term exposure to ozone, the Ozone ISA concludes that
respiratory effects, including lung function decrements, pulmonary
inflammation, exacerbation of asthma, respiratory-related hospital
admissions, and mortality, are causally associated with ozone exposure.
It also concludes that metabolic effects, including metabolic syndrome
(i.e., changes in insulin or glucose levels, cholesterol levels,
obesity, and blood pressure) and complications due to diabetes are
likely to be causally associated with short-term exposure to ozone and
that evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between
cardiovascular effects, central nervous system effects and total
mortality and short-term exposure to ozone.
For long-term exposure to ozone, the Ozone ISA concludes that
respiratory effects, including new onset asthma, pulmonary
inflammation, and injury, are likely to be causally related with ozone
exposure. The Ozone ISA characterizes the evidence as suggestive of a
causal relationship for associations between long-term ozone exposure
and cardiovascular effects, metabolic effects, reproductive and
developmental effects, central nervous system effects and total
mortality. The evidence is inadequate to infer a causal relationship
between chronic ozone exposure and increased risk of cancer.
Finally, interindividual variation in human responses to ozone
exposure can result in some groups being at increased risk for
detrimental effects in response to exposure. In addition, some groups
are at increased risk of exposure due to their activities, such as
outdoor workers and children. The Ozone ISA identified several groups
that are at increased risk for ozone-related health effects. These
groups are people with asthma, children and older adults, individuals
with reduced intake of certain nutrients (i.e., Vitamins C and E),
outdoor workers, and individuals having certain genetic variants
related to oxidative metabolism or inflammation. Ozone exposure during
childhood can have lasting effects through adulthood. Such effects
include altered function of the respiratory and immune systems.
Children absorb higher doses (normalized to lung surface area) of
ambient ozone, compared to adults, due to their increased time spent
outdoors, higher ventilation rates relative to body size, and a
tendency to breathe a greater fraction of air through the mouth.\1031\
Children also have a higher asthma prevalence compared to adults.
Recent epidemiologic studies provide generally consistent evidence that
long-term ozone exposure is associated with the development of asthma
in children. Studies comparing age groups reported higher magnitude
associations for short-term ozone exposure and respiratory hospital
admissions and emergency room visits among children than among adults.
Panel studies also provide support for experimental studies with
consistent associations between short-term ozone exposure and lung
function and pulmonary inflammation in healthy children. Additional
children's vulnerability and susceptibility factors are listed in
section XI.B.2 of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1031\ Children are more susceptible than adults to many air
pollutants because of differences in physiology, higher per body
weight breathing rates and consumption, rapid development of the
brain and bodily systems, and behaviors that increase chances for
exposure. Even before birth, the developing fetus may be exposed to
air pollutants through the mother that affect development and
permanently harm the individual. Infants and children breathe at
much higher rates per body weight than adults, with infants under
one year of age having a breathing rate up to five times that of
adults. In addition, children breathe through their mouths more than
adults and their nasal passages are less effective at removing
pollutants, which leads to a higher deposition fraction in their
lungs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii.
The most recent review of the health effects of oxides of nitrogen
completed by EPA can be found in the 2016 Integrated Science Assessment
for Oxides of Nitrogen--Health Criteria (Oxides of Nitrogen ISA).\1032\
The primary source of NO2 is motor vehicle emissions, and
ambient NO2 concentrations tend to be highly correlated with
other traffic-related pollutants. Thus, a key issue in characterizing
the causality of NO2-health effect relationships was
evaluating the extent to which studies supported an effect of
NO2 that is independent of other traffic-related pollutants.
EPA concluded that the findings for asthma exacerbation integrated from
epidemiologic and
[[Page 29681]]
controlled human exposure studies provided evidence that is sufficient
to infer a causal relationship between respiratory effects and short-
term NO2 exposure. The strongest evidence supporting an
independent effect of NO2 exposure comes from controlled
human exposure studies demonstrating increased airway responsiveness in
individuals with asthma following ambient-relevant NO2
exposures. The coherence of this evidence with epidemiologic findings
for asthma hospital admissions and emergency department visits as well
as lung function decrements and increased pulmonary inflammation in
children with asthma describe a plausible pathway by which
NO2 exposure can cause an asthma exacerbation. The 2016 ISA
for Oxides of Nitrogen also concluded that there is likely to be a
causal relationship between long-term NO2 exposure and
respiratory effects. This conclusion is based on new epidemiologic
evidence for associations of NO2 with asthma development in
children combined with biological plausibility from experimental
studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1032\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of
Nitrogen--Health Criteria (2016 Final Report). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-15/068, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating a broader range of health effects, the 2016 ISA for
Oxides of Nitrogen concluded that evidence is ``suggestive of, but not
sufficient to infer, a causal relationship'' between short-term
NO2 exposure and cardiovascular effects and mortality and
between long-term NO2 exposure and cardiovascular effects
and diabetes, birth outcomes, and cancer. In addition, the scientific
evidence is inadequate (insufficient consistency of epidemiologic and
toxicological evidence) to infer a causal relationship for long-term
NO2 exposure with fertility, reproduction, and pregnancy, as
well as with postnatal development. A key uncertainty in understanding
the relationship between these non-respiratory health effects and
short- or long-term exposure to NO2 is co-pollutant
confounding, particularly by other roadway pollutants. The available
evidence for non-respiratory health effects does not adequately address
whether NO2 has an independent effect or whether it
primarily represents effects related to other or a mixture of traffic-
related pollutants.
The 2016 ISA for Oxides of Nitrogen concluded that people with
asthma, children, and older adults are at increased risk for
NO2-related health effects. In these groups and lifestages,
NO2 is consistently related to larger effects on outcomes
related to asthma exacerbation, for which there is confidence in the
relationship with NO2 exposure.
iv. Sulfur Oxides
This section provides an overview of the health effects associated
with SO2. Additional information on the health effects of
SO2 can be found in the 2017 Integrated Science Assessment
for Sulfur Oxides--Health Criteria (SOX ISA).\1033\
Following an extensive evaluation of health evidence from animal
toxicological, controlled human exposure, and epidemiologic studies,
the EPA has concluded that there is a causal relationship between
respiratory health effects and short-term exposure to SO2.
The immediate effect of SO2 on the respiratory system in
humans is bronchoconstriction. People with asthma are more sensitive to
the effects of SO2, likely resulting from preexisting
inflammation associated with this disease. In addition to those with
asthma (both children and adults), there is suggestive evidence that
all children and older adults may be at increased risk of
SO2-related health effects. In free-breathing laboratory
studies involving controlled human exposures to SO2,
respiratory effects have consistently been observed following 5-10 min
exposures at SO2 concentrations >=400 ppb in people with
asthma engaged in moderate to heavy levels of exercise, with
respiratory effects occurring at concentrations as low as 200 ppb in
some individuals with asthma. A clear concentration-response
relationship has been demonstrated in these studies following exposures
to SO2 at concentrations between 200 and 1000 ppb, both in
terms of increasing severity of respiratory symptoms and decrements in
lung function, as well as the percentage of individuals with asthma
adversely affected. Epidemiologic studies have reported positive
associations between short-term ambient SO2 concentrations
and hospital admissions and emergency department visits for asthma and
for all respiratory causes, particularly among children and older
adults (>=65 years). The studies provide supportive evidence for the
causal relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1033\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Sulfur
Oxides--Health Criteria (Final Report, Dec 2017). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-17/451, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For long-term SO2 exposure and respiratory effects, the
EPA has concluded that the evidence is suggestive of a causal
relationship. This conclusion is based on new epidemiologic evidence
for positive associations between long-term SO2 exposure and
increases in asthma incidence among children, together with animal
toxicological evidence that provides a pathophysiologic basis for the
development of asthma. However, uncertainty remains regarding the
influence of other pollutants on the observed associations with
SO2 because these epidemiologic studies have not examined
the potential for co-pollutant confounding.
Consistent associations between short-term exposure to
SO2 and mortality have been observed in epidemiologic
studies with larger effect estimates reported for respiratory mortality
than for cardiovascular mortality. While this finding is consistent
with the demonstrated effects of SO2 on respiratory
morbidity, uncertainty remains with respect to the interpretation of
these observed mortality associations due to potential confounding by
various copollutants. Therefore, the EPA has concluded that the overall
evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term
exposure to SO2 and mortality.
v. Carbon Monoxide
Information on the health effects of carbon monoxide (CO) can be
found in the January 2010 Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon
Monoxide (CO ISA).\1034\ The CO ISA presents conclusions regarding the
presence of causal relationships between CO exposure and categories of
adverse health effects.\1035\ This section provides a summary of the
health effects associated with exposure to ambient concentrations of
CO, along with the CO ISA conclusions.\1036\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1034\ U.S. EPA (2010). Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon
Monoxide (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/019F, 2010.
\1035\ The ISA evaluates the health evidence associated with
different health effects, assigning one of five ``weight of
evidence'' determinations: causal relationship, likely to be a
causal relationship, suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate
to infer a causal relationship, and not likely to be a causal
relationship. For definitions of these levels of evidence, please
refer to section 1.6 of the ISA.
\1036\ Personal exposure includes contributions from many
sources, and in many different environments. Total personal exposure
to CO includes both ambient and non-ambient components; and both
components may contribute to adverse health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controlled human exposure studies of subjects with coronary artery
disease show a decrease in the time to onset of exercise-induced angina
(chest pain) and electrocardiogram changes following CO exposure. In
addition, epidemiologic studies presented in the CO ISA observed
associations between short-term CO exposure and cardiovascular
morbidity, particularly increased emergency room visits and hospital
admissions for coronary heart disease (including ischemic heart
[[Page 29682]]
disease, myocardial infarction, and angina). Some epidemiologic
evidence is also available for increased hospital admissions and
emergency room visits for congestive heart failure and cardiovascular
diseases as a whole. The CO ISA concludes that a causal relationship is
likely to exist between short-term exposures to CO and cardiovascular
morbidity. It also concludes that available data are inadequate to
conclude that a causal relationship exists between long-term exposures
to CO and cardiovascular morbidity.
Animal studies show various neurological effects with in-utero CO
exposure. Controlled human exposure studies report central nervous
system and behavioral effects following low-level CO exposures,
although the findings have not been consistent across all studies. The
CO ISA concludes that the evidence is suggestive of a causal
relationship with both short- and long-term exposure to CO and central
nervous system effects.
A number of studies cited in the CO ISA have evaluated the role of
CO exposure in birth outcomes such as preterm birth or cardiac birth
defects. There is limited epidemiologic evidence of a CO-induced effect
on preterm births and birth defects, with weak evidence for a decrease
in birth weight. Animal toxicological studies have found perinatal CO
exposure to affect birth weight, as well as other developmental
outcomes. The CO ISA concludes that the evidence is suggestive of a
causal relationship between long-term exposures to CO and developmental
effects and birth outcomes.
Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of associations between
short-term CO concentrations and respiratory morbidity such as changes
in pulmonary function, respiratory symptoms, and hospital admissions. A
limited number of epidemiologic studies considered copollutants such as
ozone, SO2, and PM in two-pollutant models and found that CO
risk estimates were generally robust, although this limited evidence
makes it difficult to disentangle effects attributed to CO itself from
those of the larger complex air pollution mixture. Controlled human
exposure studies have not extensively evaluated the effect of CO on
respiratory morbidity. Animal studies at levels of 50-100 ppm CO show
preliminary evidence of altered pulmonary vascular remodeling and
oxidative injury. The CO ISA concludes that the evidence is suggestive
of a causal relationship between short-term CO exposure and respiratory
morbidity, and inadequate to conclude that a causal relationship exists
between long-term exposure and respiratory morbidity.
Finally, the CO ISA concludes that the epidemiologic evidence is
suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term concentrations
of CO and mortality. Epidemiologic evidence suggests an association
exists between short-term exposure to CO and mortality, but limited
evidence is available to evaluate cause-specific mortality outcomes
associated with CO exposure. In addition, the attenuation of CO risk
estimates which was often observed in co-pollutant models contributes
to the uncertainty as to whether CO is acting alone or as an indicator
for other combustion-related pollutants. The CO ISA also concludes that
there is not likely to be a causal relationship between relevant long-
term exposures to CO and mortality.
vi. Diesel Exhaust
In EPA's 2002 Diesel Health Assessment Document (Diesel HAD),
exposure to diesel exhaust was classified as likely to be carcinogenic
to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures, in accordance
with the revised draft 1996/1999 EPA cancer
guidelines.1037 1038 A number of other agencies (National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the International Agency
for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization, California EPA,
and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) made similar
hazard classifications prior to 2002. EPA also concluded in the 2002
Diesel HAD that it was not possible to calculate a cancer unit risk for
diesel exhaust due to limitations in the exposure data for the
occupational groups or the absence of a dose-response relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1037\ U.S. EPA. (1999). Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment. Review Draft. NCEA-F-0644, July. Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=54932.
\1038\ U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel
Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of research and
Development, Washington DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009, from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. pp. 1-1 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of a cancer unit risk, the Diesel HAD sought to
provide additional insight into the significance of the diesel exhaust
cancer hazard by estimating possible ranges of risk that might be
present in the population. An exploratory analysis was used to
characterize a range of possible lung cancer risk. The outcome was that
environmental risks of cancer from long-term diesel exhaust exposures
could plausibly range from as low as 10-5 to as high as
10-3. Because of uncertainties, the analysis acknowledged
that the risks could be lower than 10-5, and a zero risk
from diesel exhaust exposure could not be ruled out.
Noncancer health effects of acute and chronic exposure to diesel
exhaust emissions are also of concern to EPA. EPA derived a diesel
exhaust reference concentration (RfC) from consideration of four well-
conducted chronic rat inhalation studies showing adverse pulmonary
effects. The RfC is 5 [micro]g/m\3\ for diesel exhaust measured as
diesel particulate matter. This RfC does not consider allergenic
effects such as those associated with asthma or immunologic or the
potential for cardiac effects. There was emerging evidence in 2002,
discussed in the Diesel HAD, that exposure to diesel exhaust can
exacerbate these effects, but the exposure-response data were lacking
at that time to derive an RfC based on these then-emerging
considerations. The Diesel HAD states, ``With [diesel particulate
matter] being a ubiquitous component of ambient PM, there is an
uncertainty about the adequacy of the existing [diesel exhaust]
noncancer database to identify all of the pertinent [diesel exhaust]-
caused noncancer health hazards.'' The Diesel HAD also notes ``that
acute exposure to [diesel exhaust] has been associated with irritation
of the eye, nose, and throat, respiratory symptoms (cough and phlegm),
and neurophysiological symptoms such as headache, lightheadedness,
nausea, vomiting, and numbness or tingling of the extremities.'' The
Diesel HAD notes that the cancer and noncancer hazard conclusions
applied to the general use of diesel engines then on the market and as
cleaner engines replace a substantial number of existing ones, the
applicability of the conclusions would need to be reevaluated.
It is important to note that the Diesel HAD also briefly summarizes
health effects associated with ambient PM and discusses EPA's then-
annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [micro]g/m\3\. In 2012, EPA revised
the level of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 [micro]g/m\3\ and
in 2024 EPA revised the level of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS to
9.0 [micro]g/m\3\.\1039\ There is a large and extensive body of human
data showing a wide spectrum of adverse health effects associated with
exposure to ambient PM, of which diesel exhaust is an important
component. The PM2.5 NAAQS provides protection from the
health effects attributed to exposure to PM2.5. The
contribution of diesel PM to
[[Page 29683]]
total ambient PM varies in different regions of the country and also
within a region from one area to another. The contribution can be high
in near-roadway environments, for example, or in other locations where
diesel engine use is concentrated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1039\ https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-pm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2002, several new studies have been published which continue
to report increased lung cancer risk associated with occupational
exposure to diesel exhaust from older engines. Of particular note since
2011 are three new epidemiology studies which have examined lung cancer
in occupational populations, including truck drivers, underground
nonmetal miners, and other diesel motor-related occupations. These
studies reported increased risk of lung cancer related to exposure to
diesel exhaust, with evidence of positive exposure-response
relationships to varying degrees.1040 1041 1042 These newer
studies (along with others that have appeared in the scientific
literature) add to the evidence EPA evaluated in the 2002 Diesel HAD
and further reinforce the concern that diesel exhaust exposure likely
poses a lung cancer hazard. The findings from these newer studies do
not necessarily apply to newer technology diesel engines (i.e., heavy-
duty highway engines from 2007 and later model years) since the newer
engines have large reductions in the emission constituents compared to
older technology diesel engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1040\ Garshick, Eric, Francine Laden, Jaime E. Hart, Mary E.
Davis, Ellen A. Eisen, and Thomas J. Smith. 2012. Lung cancer and
elemental carbon exposure in trucking industry workers.
Environmental Health Perspectives 120(9): 1301-1306.
\1041\ Silverman, D.T., Samanic, C.M., Lubin, J.H., Blair, A.E.,
Stewart, P.A., Vermeulen, R., & Attfield, M.D. (2012). The diesel
exhaust in miners study: a nested case-control study of lung cancer
and diesel exhaust. Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
\1042\ Olsson, Ann C., et al. ``Exposure to diesel motor exhaust
and lung cancer risk in a pooled analysis from case-control studies
in Europe and Canada.'' American journal of respiratory and critical
care medicine 183.7 (2011): 941-948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the growing body of scientific literature evaluating
the health effects of exposure to diesel exhaust, in June 2012 the
World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC), a recognized international authority on the carcinogenic
potential of chemicals and other agents, evaluated the full range of
cancer-related health effects data for diesel engine exhaust. IARC
concluded that diesel exhaust should be regarded as ``carcinogenic to
humans.'' \1043\ This designation was an update from its 1988
evaluation that considered the evidence to be indicative of a
``probable human carcinogen.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1043\ IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer].
(2013). Diesel and gasoline engine exhausts and some nitroarenes.
IARC Monographs Volume 105. Online at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol105/index.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vii. Air Toxics
Heavy-duty engine emissions contribute to ambient levels of air
toxics that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens or that
have noncancer health effects. These compounds include, but are not
limited to, acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and
naphthalene. These compounds were all identified as national cancer
risk drivers or contributors in the 2019 Air Toxics Screening
Assessment (AirToxScreen).1044 1045
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1044\ U.S. EPA (2022) Technical Support Document EPA's Air
Toxics Screening Assessment. 2018 AirToxScreen TSD. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-02/AirToxScreen_2018%20TSD.pdf.
\1045\ U.S. EPA (2023) 2019 AirToxScreen Risk Drivers. https://www.epa.gov/AirToxScreen/airtoxscreen-risk-drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde is classified in EPA's IRIS database as a probable
human carcinogen, based on nasal tumors in rats, and is considered
toxic by the inhalation, oral, and intravenous routes.\1046\ The
inhalation unit risk estimate (URE) in IRIS for acetaldehyde is 2.2 x
10-6 per [micro]g/m\3\.\1047\ Acetaldehyde is reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen by the NTP in the 14th Report on
Carcinogens and is classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group
2B) by the IARC.1048 1049
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1046\ U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File
of Acetaldehyde. Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=290.
\1047\ U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File
of Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=290.
\1048\ NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2016. Report on
Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition.; Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc14.
\1049\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(1999). Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine, and
hydrogen peroxide. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic
Risk of Chemical to Humans, Vol 71. Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary noncancer effects of exposure to acetaldehyde vapors
include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.\1050\ In
short-term (4 week) rat studies, degeneration of olfactory epithelium
was observed at various concentration levels of acetaldehyde
exposure.\1051\ Data from these studies were used by EPA to develop an
inhalation reference concentration of 9 [micro]g/m\3\. Some asthmatics
have been shown to be a sensitive subpopulation to decrements in
functional expiratory volume (FEV1 test) and bronchoconstriction upon
acetaldehyde inhalation.\1052\ Children, especially those with
diagnosed asthma, may be more likely to show impaired pulmonary
function and symptoms of asthma than are adults following exposure to
acetaldehyde.\1053\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1050\ U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File
of Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=290.
\1051\ Appleman, L.M., R.A. Woutersen, and V.J. Feron. (1982).
Inhalation toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. I. Acute and subacute
studies. Toxicology. 23: 293-297.
\1052\ Myou, S.; Fujimura, M.; Nishi K.; Ohka, T.; and Matsuda,
T. (1993). Aerosolized acetaldehyde induces histamine-mediated
bronchoconstriction in asthmatics. Am. Rev. Respir.Dis.148(4 Pt 1):
940-943.
\1053\ California OEHHA, 2014. TSD for Noncancer RELs: Appendix
D. Individual, Acute, 8-Hour, and Chronic Reference Exposure Level
Summaries. December 2008 (updated July 2014). https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/appendixd1final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Benzene
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database lists
benzene as a known human carcinogen (causing leukemia) by all routes of
exposure and concludes that exposure is associated with additional
health effects, including genetic changes in both humans and animals
and increased proliferation of bone marrow cells in
mice.1054 1055 1056 EPA states in its IRIS database that
data indicate a causal relationship between benzene exposure and acute
lymphocytic leukemia and suggest a relationship between benzene
exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic
leukemia. EPA's IRIS documentation for benzene also lists a range of
2.2 x 10-6 to 7.8 x 10-6 per [micro]g/m\3\ as the
unit risk estimate (URE) for benzene.1057 1058 The
[[Page 29684]]
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that
benzene is a human carcinogen, and the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) has characterized benzene as a known human
carcinogen.1059 1060
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1054\ U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information System File
for Benzene. This material is available electronically at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=276.
\1055\ International Agency for Research on Cancer. (1982). IARC
monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to
humans, Volume 29, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs,
International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health
Organization, Lyon, France 1982.
\1056\ Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.; Henry,
V.A. (1992). Synergistic action of the benzene metabolite
hydroquinone on myelopoietic stimulating activity of granulocyte/
macrophage colony-stimulating factor in vitro, Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. 89:3691-3695.
\1057\ A unit risk estimate is defined as the increase in the
lifetime risk of cancer of an individual who is exposed for a
lifetime to 1 [micro]g/m3 benzene in air.
\1058\ U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information System File
for Benzene. This material is available electronically at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=276.
\1059\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 2018.
Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, volume
120. World Health Organization--Lyon, France. http://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Monographs-On-The-Identification-Of-Carcinogenic-Hazards-To-Humans/Benzene-2018.
\1060\ NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2016. Report on
Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition.; Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of adverse noncancer health effects, including blood
disorders such as preleukemia and aplastic anemia, have also been
associated with long-term exposure to benzene.1061 1062 The
most sensitive noncancer effect observed in humans, based on current
data, is the depression of the absolute lymphocyte count in
blood.1063 1064 EPA's inhalation reference concentration
(RfC) for benzene is 30 [micro]g/m\3\. The RfC is based on suppressed
absolute lymphocyte counts seen in humans under occupational exposure
conditions. In addition, studies sponsored by the Health Effects
Institute (HEI) provide evidence that biochemical responses occur at
lower levels of benzene exposure than previously
known.1065 1066 1067 1068 EPA's IRIS program has not yet
evaluated these new data. EPA does not currently have an acute
reference concentration for benzene. The Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk Level (MRL) for acute
inhalation exposure to benzene is 29 [micro]g/m\3\ for 1-14 days
exposure.1069 1070
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1061\ Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and carcinogenicity of
benzene. Environ. Health Perspect. 82: 193-197. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0135.
\1062\ Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity. Occupational
medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 541-554.
\1063\ Rothman, N., G.L. Li, M. Dosemeci, W.E. Bechtold, G.E.
Marti, Y.Z. Wang, M. Linet, L.Q. Xi, W. Lu, M.T. Smith, N. Titenko-
Holland, L.P. Zhang, W. Blot, S.N. Yin, and R.B. Hayes. (1996).
Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily exposed to benzene. Am.
J. Ind. Med. 29: 236-246.
\1064\ U.S. EPA (2002). Toxicological Review of Benzene
(Noncancer Effects). Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington DC. This material is
available electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/0276tr.pdf.
\1065\ Qu, O.; Shore, R.; Li, G.; Jin, X.; Chen, C.L.; Cohen,
B.; Melikian, A.; Eastmond, D.; Rappaport, S.; Li, H.; Rupa, D.;
Suramaya, R.; Songnian, W.; Huifant, Y.; Meng, M.; Winnik, M.; Kwok,
E.; Li, Y.; Mu, R.; Xu, B.; Zhang, X.; Li, K. (2003). HEI Report
115, Validation & Evaluation of Biomarkers in Workers Exposed to
Benzene in China.
\1066\ Qu, Q., R. Shore, G. Li, X. Jin, L.C. Chen, B. Cohen, et
al. (2002). Hematological changes among Chinese workers with a broad
range of benzene exposures. Am. J. Industr. Med. 42: 275-285.
\1067\ Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et al.
(2004). Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to Low Levels of Benzene.
Science 306: 1774-1776.
\1068\ Turtletaub, K.W. and Mani, C. (2003). Benzene metabolism
in rodents at doses relevant to human exposure from Urban Air.
Research Reports Health Effect Inst. Report No.113.
\1069\ U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR). (2007). Toxicological profile for benzene. Atlanta, GA:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp3.pdf.
\1070\ A minimal risk level (MRL) is defined as an estimate of
the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to
be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over
a specified duration of exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is limited information from two studies regarding an
increased risk of adverse effects to children whose parents have been
occupationally more e to benzene.1071 1072 Data from animal
studies have shown benzene exposures result in damage to the
hematopoietic (blood cell formation) system during
development.1073 1074 1075 Also, key changes related to the
development of childhood leukemia occur in the developing fetus.\1076\
Several studies have reported that genetic changes related to eventual
leukemia development occur before birth. For example, there is one
study of genetic changes in twins who developed T cell leukemia at nine
years of age.\1077\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1071\ Corti, M; Snyder, CA. (1996) Influences of gender,
development, pregnancy and ethanol consumption on the hematotoxicity
of inhaled 10 ppm benzene. Arch Toxicol 70:209-217.
\1072\ McKinney P.A.; Alexander, F.E.; Cartwright, R.A.; et al.
(1991) Parental occupations of children with leukemia in west
Cumbria, north Humberside, and Gateshead, Br Med J 302:681-686.
\1073\ Keller, KA; Snyder, CA. (1986) Mice exposed in utero to
low concentrations of benzene exhibit enduring changes in their
colony forming hematopoietic cells. Toxicology 42:171-181.
\1074\ Keller, KA; Snyder, CA. (1988) Mice exposed in utero to
20 ppm benzene exhibit altered numbers of recognizable hematopoietic
cells up to seven weeks after exposure. Fundam Appl Toxicol 10:224-
232.
\1075\ Corti, M; Snyder, CA. (1996) Influences of gender,
development, pregnancy and ethanol consumption on the hematotoxicity
of inhaled 10 ppm benzene. Arch Toxicol 70:209-217.
\1076\ U. S. EPA. (2002). Toxicological Review of Benzene
(Noncancer Effects). National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. Report No. EPA/635/R-02/001F. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/0276tr.pdf.
\1077\ Ford, AM; Pombo-de-Oliveira, MS; McCarthy, KP; MacLean,
JM; Carrico, KC; Vincent, RF; Greaves, M. (1997) Monoclonal origin
of concordant T-cell malignancy in identical twins. Blood 89:281-
285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. 1,3-Butadiene
EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene as carcinogenic to humans by
inhalation.1078 1079 The IARC has determined that 1,3-
butadiene is a human carcinogen, and the U.S. DHHS has characterized
1,3-butadiene as a known human
carcinogen.1080 1081 1082 1083 There are numerous studies
consistently demonstrating that 1,3-butadiene is metabolized into
genotoxic metabolites by experimental animals and humans. The specific
mechanisms of 1,3-butadiene-induced carcinogenesis are unknown;
however, the scientific evidence strongly suggests that the
carcinogenic effects are mediated by genotoxic metabolites. Animal data
suggest that females may be more sensitive than males for cancer
effects associated with 1,3-butadiene exposure; there are insufficient
data in humans from which to draw conclusions about sensitive
subpopulations. The URE for 1,3-butadiene is 3 x 10-5 per
[micro]g/m\3\.\1084\ 1,3-butadiene also causes a variety of
reproductive and developmental effects in mice; no human data on these
effects are available. The most sensitive effect was ovarian atrophy
observed in a lifetime bioassay of female mice.\1085\
[[Page 29685]]
Based on this critical effect and the benchmark concentration
methodology, an RfC for chronic health effects was calculated at 0.9
ppb (approximately 2 [micro]g/m\3\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1078\ U.S. EPA. (2002). Health Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene.
Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report
No. EPA600-P-98-001F. This document is available electronically at
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=54499.
\1079\ U.S. EPA. (2002) ``Full IRIS Summary for 1,3-butadiene
(CASRN 106-99-0)'' Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=139.
\1080\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(1999). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of
chemicals to humans, Volume 71, Re-evaluation of some organic
chemicals, hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide, World Health
Organization, Lyon, France.
\1081\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(2008). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of
chemicals to humans, 1,3-Butadiene, Ethylene Oxide and Vinyl Halides
(Vinyl Fluoride, Vinyl Chloride and Vinyl Bromide) Volume 97, World
Health Organization, Lyon, France.
\1082\ NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2016. Report on
Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition.; Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc14.
\1083\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(2012). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of
chemicals to humans, Volume 100F chemical agents and related
occupations, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
\1084\ U.S. EPA. (2002). ``Full IRIS Summary for 1,3-butadiene
(CASRN 106-99-0)'' Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=139.
\1085\ Bevan, C.; Stadler, J.C.; Elliot, G.S.; et al. (1996).
Subchronic toxicity of 4-vinylcyclohexene in rats and mice by
inhalation. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 32:1-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Formaldehyde
In 1991, EPA concluded that formaldehyde is a Class B1 probable
human carcinogen based on limited evidence in humans and sufficient
evidence in animals.\1086\ An inhalation URE for cancer and a reference
dose for oral noncancer effects were developed by EPA and posted on the
IRIS database. Since that time, the NTP and IARC have concluded that
formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen.1087 1088 1089
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1086\ EPA. Integrated Risk Information System. Formaldehyde
(CASRN 50-00-0) https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=419.
\1087\ NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2016. Report on
Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition.; Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc14.
\1088\ IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks
to Humans Volume 88 (2006): Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-
tert-Butoxypropan-2-ol.
\1089\ IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks
to Humans Volume 100F (2012): Formaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conclusions by IARC and NTP reflect the results of
epidemiologic research published since 1991 in combination with
previous and more recent animal, human and mechanistic evidence.
Research conducted by the National Cancer Institute reported an
increased risk of nasopharyngeal cancer and specific
lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers exposed to
formaldehyde.1090 1091 1092 A National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health study of garment workers also reported
increased risk of death due to leukemia among workers exposed to
formaldehyde.\1093\ Extended follow-up of a cohort of British chemical
workers did not report evidence of an increase in nasopharyngeal or
lymphohematopoietic cancers, but a continuing statistically significant
excess in lung cancers was reported.\1094\ Finally, a study of
embalmers reported formaldehyde exposures to be associated with an
increased risk of myeloid leukemia but not brain cancer.\1095\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1090\ Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.; Hayes, R.B.;
Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from lymphohematopoetic malignancies among
workers in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National Cancer
Institute 95: 1615-1623.
\1091\ Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.; Hayes, R.B.;
Blair, A. 2004. Mortality from solid cancers among workers in
formaldehyde industries. American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 1117-
1130.
\1092\ Beane Freeman, L.E.; Blair, A.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart,
P.A.; Hayes, R.B.; Hoover, R.N.; Hauptmann, M. 2009. Mortality from
lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde
industries: The National Cancer Institute cohort. J. National Cancer
Inst. 101: 751-761.
\1093\ Pinkerton, L.E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort of garment
workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61:
193-200.
\1094\ Coggon, D, EC Harris, J Poole, KT Palmer. 2003. Extended
follow-up of a cohort of British chemical workers exposed to
formaldehyde. J National Cancer Inst. 95:1608-1615.
\1095\ Hauptmann, M.; Stewart P.A.; Lubin J.H.; Beane Freeman,
L.E.; Hornung, R.W.; Herrick, R.F.; Hoover, R.N.; Fraumeni, J.F.;
Hayes, R.B. 2009. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies
and brain cancer among embalmers exposed to formaldehyde. Journal of
the National Cancer Institute 101:1696-1708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health effects of formaldehyde in addition to cancer were reviewed
by the Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry in 1999,
supplemented in 2010, and by the World Health
Organization.1096 1097 1098 These organizations reviewed the
scientific literature concerning health effects linked to formaldehyde
exposure to evaluate hazards and dose response relationships and
defined exposure concentrations for minimal risk levels (MRLs). The
health endpoints reviewed included sensory irritation of eyes and
respiratory tract, reduced pulmonary function, nasal histopathology,
and immune system effects. In addition, research on reproductive and
developmental effects and neurological effects was discussed along with
several studies that suggest that formaldehyde may increase the risk of
asthma--particularly in the young.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1096\ ATSDR. 1999. Toxicological Profile for Formaldehyde, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), July 1999.
\1097\ ATSDR. 2010. Addendum to the Toxicological Profile for
Formaldehyde. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
October 2010.
\1098\ IPCS. 2002. Concise International Chemical Assessment
Document 40. Formaldehyde. World Health Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2010, EPA released a draft Toxicological Review of
Formaldehyde--Inhalation Assessment through the IRIS program for peer
review by the National Research Council (NRC) and public comment.\1099\
That draft assessment reviewed more recent research from animal and
human studies on cancer and other health effects. The NRC released
their review report in April 2011.\1100\ EPA addressed the NRC (2011)
recommendations and applied systematic review methods to the evaluation
of the available noncancer and cancer health effects evidence and
released a new draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde--
Inhalation in April 2022.\1101\ In this draft, updates to the 1991 IRIS
finding include a stronger determination of the carcinogenicity of
formaldehyde inhalation to humans, as well as characterization of its
noncancer effects to propose an overall reference concentration for
inhalation exposure. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine released their review of EPA's 2022 Draft Formaldehyde
Assessment in August 2023, concluding that EPA's ``findings on
formaldehyde hazard and quantitative risk are supported by the evidence
identified.'' \1102\ EPA is currently revising the draft IRIS
assessment in response to comments received.\1103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1099\ EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010.
Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde (CAS No. 50-00-0)--Inhalation
Assessment: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). External Review Draft. EPA/635/R-10/002A.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC [online].
Available: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=223614.
\1100\ NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Review of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Draft IRIS Assessment of
Formaldehyde. Washington DC: National Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13142.
\1101\ U.S. EPA. 2022. IRIS Toxicological Review of
Formaldehyde-Inhalation (External Review Draft, 2022). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/635/R-22/039.
\1102\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine. 2023. Review of EPA's 2022 Draft Formaldehyde Assessment.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27153.
\1103\ For more information, see https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=248150#.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Naphthalene
Naphthalene is found in small quantities in gasoline and diesel
fuels. Naphthalene emissions have been measured in larger quantities in
both gasoline and diesel exhaust compared with evaporative emissions
from mobile sources, indicating it is primarily a product of
combustion.
Acute (short-term) exposure of humans to naphthalene by inhalation,
ingestion, or dermal contact is associated with hemolytic anemia and
damage to the liver and the nervous system.\1104\ Chronic (long term)
exposure of workers and rodents to naphthalene has been reported to
cause cataracts and retinal damage.\1105\
[[Page 29686]]
Children, especially neonates, appear to be more susceptible to acute
naphthalene poisoning based on the number of reports of lethal cases in
children and infants (hypothesized to be due to immature naphthalene
detoxification pathways).\1106\ EPA released an external review draft
of a reassessment of the inhalation carcinogenicity of naphthalene
based on a number of recent animal carcinogenicity studies.\1107\ The
draft reassessment completed external peer review.\1108\ Based on
external peer review comments received, EPA is developing a revised
draft assessment that considers inhalation and oral routes of exposure,
as well as cancer and noncancer effects.\1109\ The external review
draft does not represent official agency opinion and was released
solely for the purposes of external peer review and public comment. The
NTP listed naphthalene as ``reasonably anticipated to be a human
carcinogen'' in 2004 on the basis of bioassays reporting clear evidence
of carcinogenicity in rats and some evidence of carcinogenicity in
mice.\1110\ California EPA has released a new risk assessment for
naphthalene, and the IARC has reevaluated naphthalene and re-classified
it as Group 2B: possibly carcinogenic to humans.\1111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1104\ U.S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of Naphthalene
(Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56434.
\1105\ U.S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of Naphthalene
(Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56434.
\1106\ U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene
(Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56434.
\1107\ U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene
(Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56434.
\1108\ Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. (2004).
External Peer Review for the IRIS Reassessment of the Inhalation
Carcinogenicity of Naphthalene. August 2004. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=84403.
\1109\ U.S. EPA. (2018) See: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=436.
\1110\ NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2016. Report on
Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition.; Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc14.
\1111\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(2002). Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of
Chemicals for Humans. Vol. 82. Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naphthalene also causes a number of non-cancer effects in animals
following chronic and less-than-chronic exposure, including abnormal
cell changes and growth in respiratory and nasal tissues.\1112\ The
current EPA IRIS assessment includes noncancer data on hyperplasia and
metaplasia in nasal tissue that form the basis of the inhalation RfC of
3 [mu]g/m\3\.\1113\ The ATSDR MRL for acute and intermediate duration
oral exposure to naphthalene is 0.6 mg/kg/day based on maternal
toxicity in a developmental toxicology study in rats.\1114\ ATSDR also
derived an ad hoc reference value of 6 x 10-\2\ mg/m\3\ for
acute (<=24-hour) inhalation exposure to naphthalene in a Letter Health
Consultation dated March 24, 2014 to address a potential exposure
concern in Illinois.\1115\ The ATSDR acute inhalation reference value
was based on a qualitative identification of an exposure level
interpreted not to cause pulmonary lesions in mice. More recently, EPA
developed acute RfCs for 1-, 8-, and 24-hour exposure scenarios; the
<=24-hour reference value is 2 x 10-\2\ mg/m\3\.\1116\ EPA's
acute RfCs are based on a systematic review of the literature,
benchmark dose modeling of naphthalene-induced nasal lesions in rats,
and application of a PBPK (physiologically based pharmacokinetic)
model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1112\ U. S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene,
Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System,
Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56434.
\1113\ U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene.
Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS), Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56434.
\1114\ ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Naphthalene, 1-
Methylnaphthalene, and 2-Methylnaphthalene (2005). https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp67-p.pdf.
\1115\ ATSDR. Letter Health Consultation, Radiac Abrasives,
Inc., Chicago, Illinois (2014). https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/RadiacAbrasives/Radiac%20Abrasives,%20Inc.%20_%20LHC%20(Final)%20_%2003-24-
2014%20(2)_508.pdf.
\1116\ U. S. EPA. Derivation of an acute reference concentration
for inhalation exposure to naphthalene. Report No. EPA/600/R-21/292.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=355035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
viii. Exposure and Health Effects Associated With Traffic
Locations near major roadways generally have elevated
concentrations of many air pollutants emitted from motor vehicles.
Hundreds of studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals,
concluding that concentrations of CO, CO2, NO,
NO2, benzene, aldehydes, particulate matter, black carbon,
and many other compounds are elevated in ambient air within
approximately 300-600 meters (about 1,000-2,000 feet) of major
roadways. The highest concentrations of most pollutants emitted
directly by motor vehicles are found within 50 meters (about 165 feet)
of the edge of a roadway's traffic lanes.
A large-scale review of air quality measurements in the vicinity of
major roadways between 1978 and 2008 concluded that the pollutants with
the steepest concentration gradients in vicinities of roadways were CO,
ultrafine particles, metals, elemental carbon (EC), NO, NOX,
and several VOCs.\1117\ These pollutants showed a large reduction in
concentrations within 100 meters downwind of the roadway. Pollutants
that showed more gradual reductions with distance from roadways
included benzene, NO2, PM2.5, and
PM10. In reviewing the literature, Karner et al. (2010)
reported that results varied based on the method of statistical
analysis used to determine the gradient in pollutant concentration.
More recent studies of traffic-related air pollutants continue to
report sharp gradients around roadways, particularly within
[[Page 29687]]
several hundred meters. \1118\ \1119\ \1120\ \1121\ \1122\ \1123\
\1124\ \1125\ There is evidence that EPA's regulations for vehicles
have lowered the near-road concentrations and gradients.\1126\ Starting
in 2010, EPA required through the NAAQS process that air quality
monitors be placed near high-traffic roadways for determining
concentrations of CO, NO2, and PM2.5. The
monitoring data for NO2 and CO indicate that in urban areas,
monitors near roadways often report the highest
concentrations.1127 1128
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1117\ Karner, A.A.; Eisinger, D.S.; Niemeier, D.A. (2010).
Near-roadway air quality: synthesizing the findings from real-world
data. Environ Sci Technol 44: 5334-5344.
\1118\ McDonald, B.C.; McBride, Z.C.; Martin, E.W.; Harley, R.A.
(2014) High-resolution mapping of motor vehicle carbon dioxide
emissions. J. Geophys. Res.Atmos.,119, 5283-5298, doi:10.1002/
2013JD021219.
\1119\ Kimbrough, S.; Baldauf, R.W.; Hagler, G.S.W.; Shores,
R.C.; Mitchell, W.; Whitaker, D.A.; Croghan, C.W.; Vallero, D.A.
(2013) Long-term continuous measurement of near-road air pollution
in Las Vegas: seasonal variability in traffic emissions impact on
air quality. Air Qual Atmos Health 6: 295-305. DOI 10.1007/s11869-
012-0171-x.
\1120\ Kimbrough, S.; Palma, T.; Baldauf, R.W. (2014) Analysis
of mobile source air toxics (MSATs)--Near-road VOC and carbonyl
concentrations. Journal of the Air &Waste Management Association,
64:3, 349-359, DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2013.863814.
\1121\ Kimbrough, S.; Owen, R.C.; Snyder, M.; Richmond-Bryant,
J. (2017) NO to NO2 Conversion Rate Analysis and
Implications for Dispersion Model Chemistry Methods using Las Vegas,
Nevada Near-Road Field Measurements. Atmos Environ 165: 23-24.
\1122\ Apte, J.S.; Messier, K.P.; Gani, S.; Brauer, M.;
Kirchstetter, T.W.; Lunden, M.M.; Marshall, J.D.; Portier, C.J.;
Vermeulen, R.C.H.; Hamburg, S.P. (2017) High-Resolution Air
Pollution Mapping with Google Street View Cars: Exploiting Big Data.
Environ Sci Technol 51: 6999-7008. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00891.
\1123\ Gu, P.; Li, H.Z.; Ye, Q.; et al. (2018) Intercity
variability of particulate matter is driven by carbonaceous sources
and correlated with land-use variables. Environ Sci Technol 52: 52:
11545-11554. [Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03833].
\1124\ Hilker, N.; Wang, J.W.; Jong, C-H.; Healy, R.M.;
Sofowote, U.; Debosz, J.; Su, Y.; Noble, M.; Munoz, A.; Doerkson,
G.; White, L.; Audette, C.; Herod, D.; Brook, J.R.; Evans, G.J.
(2019) Traffic-related air pollution near roadways: discerning local
impacts from background. Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 5247-5261. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5247-2019.
\1125\ Dabek-Zlotorzynska, E., V. Celo, L. Ding, D. Herod, C-H.
Jeong, G. Evans, and N. Hilker. 2019. ``Characteristics and sources
of PM2.5 and reactive gases near roadways in two
metropolitan areas in Canada.'' Atmos Environ 218: 116980.
\1126\ Sarnat, J.A.; Russell, A.; Liang, D.; Moutinho, J.L;
Golan, R.; Weber, R.; Gao, D.; Sarnat, S.; Chang, H.H.; Greenwald,
R.; Yu, T. (2018) Developing Multipollutant Exposure Indicators of
Traffic Pollution: The Dorm Room Inhalation to Vehicle Emissions
(DRIVE) Study. Health Effects Institute Research Report Number 196.
[Online at: https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/developing-multipollutant-exposure-indicators-traffic-pollution-dorm-room-inhalation].
\1127\ Gantt, B; Owen, R.C.; Watkins, N. (2021) Characterizing
nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter near major highways in
the United States using the National Near-road Monitoring Network.
Environ Sci Technol 55: 2831-2838. [Online at https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05851].
\1128\ Lal, R.M.; Ramaswani, A.; Russell, A.G. (2020) Assessment
of the near-road (monitoring) network including comparison with
nearby monitors within U.S. cities. Environ Res Letters 15: 114026.
[Online at https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8156].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For pollutants with relatively high background concentrations
relative to near-road concentrations, detecting concentration gradients
can be difficult. For example, many carbonyls have high background
concentrations because of photochemical breakdown of precursors from
many different organic compounds. However, several studies have
measured carbonyls in multiple weather conditions and found higher
concentrations of many carbonyls downwind of
roadways.1129 1130 These findings suggest a substantial
roadway source of these carbonyls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1129\ Liu, W.; Zhang, J.; Kwon, J.l; et l. (2006).
Concentrations and source characteristics of airborne carbonyl
compounds measured outside urban residences. J Air Waste Manage
Assoc 56: 1196-1204.
\1130\ Cahill, T.M.; Charles, M.J.; Seaman, V.Y. (2010).
Development and application of a sensitive method to determine
concentrations of acrolein and other carbonyls in ambient air.
Health Effects Institute Research Report 149. Available at https://www.healtheffects.org/system/files/Cahill149.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past 30 years, many studies have been published with results
reporting that populations who live, work, or go to school near high-
traffic roadways experience higher rates of numerous adverse health
effects, compared to populations far away from major roads.\1131\ In
addition, numerous studies have found adverse health effects associated
with spending time in traffic, such as commuting or walking along high-
traffic roadways, including studies among
children.1132 1133 1134 1135
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1131\ In the widely used PubMed database of health
publications, between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2021, 1,979
publications contained the keywords ``traffic, pollution,
epidemiology,'' with approximately half the studies published after
2015.
\1132\ Laden, F.; Hart, J.E.; Smith, T.J.; Davis, M.E.;
Garshick, E. (2007) Cause-specific mortality in the unionized U.S.
trucking industry. Environmental Health Perspect 115:1192-1196.
\1133\ Peters, A.; von Klot, S.; Heier, M.; Trentinaglia, I.;
H[ouml]rmann, A.; Wichmann, H.E.; L[ouml]wel, H. (2004) Exposure to
traffic and the onset of myocardial infarction. New England J Med
351: 1721-1730.
\1134\ Zanobetti, A.; Stone, P.H.; Spelzer, F.E.; Schwartz,
J.D.; Coull, B.A.; Suh, H.H.; Nearling, B.D.; Mittleman, M.A.;
Verrier, R.L.; Gold, D.R. (2009) T-wave alternans, air pollution and
traffic in high-risk subjects. Am J Cardiol 104: 665-670.
\1135\ Adar, S.; Adamkiewicz, G.; Gold, D.R.; Schwartz, J.;
Coull, B.A.; Suh, H. (2007) Ambient and microenvironmental particles
and exhaled nitric oxide before and after a group bus trip. Environ
Health Perspect 115: 507-512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous reviews of this body of health literature have been
published. In a 2022 final report, an expert panel of the Health
Effects Institute (HEI) employed a systematic review focusing on
selected health endpoints related to exposure to traffic-related air
pollution.\1136\ The HEI panel concluded that there was a high level of
confidence in evidence between long-term exposure to traffic-related
air pollution and health effects in adults, including all-cause,
circulatory, and ischemic heart disease mortality.\1137\ The panel also
found that there is a moderate-to-high level of confidence in evidence
of associations with asthma onset and acute respiratory infections in
children and lung cancer and asthma onset in adults. The panel
concluded that there was a moderate level of evidence of associations
with small for gestational age births, but low-to-moderate confidence
for other birth outcomes (term birth weight and preterm birth). This
report follows on an earlier expert review published by HEI in 2010,
where it found strongest evidence for asthma-related traffic impacts.
Other literature reviews have been published with conclusions generally
similar to the HEI panels'.1138 1139 1140 1141 Additionally,
in 2014, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) published a systematic review and meta-analysis of
studies evaluating the risk of childhood leukemia associated with
traffic exposure and reported positive associations between postnatal
proximity to traffic and leukemia risks, but no such association for
prenatal exposures.\1142\ The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services' National Toxicology Program published a monograph including a
systematic review of traffic-related air pollution and its impacts on
hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. The National Toxicology Program
concluded that exposure to traffic-related air pollution is ``presumed
to be a hazard to pregnant women'' for developing hypertensive
disorders of pregnancy.\1143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1136\ HEI Panel on the Health Effects of Long-Term Exposure to
Traffic-Related Air Pollution (2022) Systematic review and meta-
analysis of selected health effects of long-term exposure to
traffic-related air pollution. Health Effects Institute Special
Report 23. [Online at https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-selected-health-effects-long-term-exposure-traffic] This more recent review focused on health
outcomes related to birth effects, respiratory effects,
cardiometabolic effects, and mortality.
\1137\ Boogaard, H.; Patton, A.P.; Atkinson, R.W.; Brook, J.R.;
Chang, H.H.; Crouse, D.L.; Fussell, J.C.; Hoek, G.; Hoffmann, B.;
Kappeler, R.; Kutlar Joss, M.; Ondras, M.; Sagiv, S.K.; Samoli, E.;
Shaikh, R.; Smargiassi, A.; Szpiro, A.A.; Van Vliet, E.D.S.;
Vienneau, D.; Weuve, J.; Lurmann, F.W.; Forastiere, F. (2022) Long-
term exposure to traffic-related air pollution and selected health
outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Internatl
164: 107262. [Online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107262].
\1138\ Boothe, V.L.; Shendell, D.G. (2008). Potential health
effects associated with residential proximity to freeways and
primary roads: review of scientific literature, 1999-2006. J Environ
Health 70: 33-41.
\1139\ Salam, M.T.; Islam, T.; Gilliland, F.D. (2008). Recent
evidence for adverse effects of residential proximity to traffic
sources on asthma. Curr Opin Pulm Med 14: 3-8.
\1140\ Sun, X.; Zhang, S.; Ma, X. (2014) No association between
traffic density and risk of childhood leukemia: a meta-analysis.
Asia Pac J Cancer Prev 15: 5229-5232.
\1141\ Raaschou-Nielsen, O.; Reynolds, P. (2006). Air pollution
and childhood cancer: a review of the epidemiological literature.
Int J Cancer 118: 2920-9.
\1142\ Boothe, VL.; Boehmer, T.K.; Wendel, A.M.; Yip, F.Y.
(2014) Residential traffic exposure and childhood leukemia: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med 46: 413-422.
\1143\ National Toxicology Program (2019) NTP Monograph on the
Systematic Review of Traffic-related Air Pollution and Hypertensive
Disorders of Pregnancy. NTP Monograph 7. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/trap/mgraph/trap_final_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For several other health outcomes there are publications to suggest
the possibility of an association with traffic-related air pollution,
but insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions. Among these
outcomes are neurological and cognitive impacts (e.g., autism and
reduced cognitive function, academic performance, and executive
function) and reproductive outcomes (e.g., preterm birth, low birth
weight).1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1144\ Volk, H.E.; Hertz-Picciotto, I.; Delwiche, L.; et al.
(2011). Residential proximity to freeways and autism in the CHARGE
study. Environ Health Perspect 119: 873-877.
\1145\ Franco-Suglia, S.; Gryparis, A.; Wright, R.O.; et al.
(2007). Association of black carbon with cognition among children in
a prospective birth cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. doi: 10.1093/aje/
kwm308. [Online at http://dx.doi.org].
\1146\ Power, M.C.; Weisskopf, M.G.; Alexeef, SE; et al. (2011).
Traffic-related air pollution and cognitive function in a cohort of
older men. Environ Health Perspect 2011: 682-687.
\1147\ Wu, J.; Wilhelm, M.; Chung, J.; Ritz, B. (2011).
Comparing exposure assessment methods for traffic-related air
pollution in an adverse pregnancy outcome study. Environ Res 111:
685-692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2011.03.008.
\1148\ Stenson, C.; Wheeler, A.J.; Carver, A.; et al. (2021) The
impact of traffic-related air pollution on child and adolescent
academic performance: a systematic review. Environ Intl 155: 106696
[Online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106696].
\1149\ Gartland, N.; Aljofi, H.E.; Dienes, K.; et al. (2022) The
effects of traffic air pollution in and around schools on executive
function and academic performance in children: a rapid review. Int J
Environ Res Public Health 19: 749. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020749.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29688]]
Numerous studies have also investigated potential mechanisms by
which traffic-related air pollution affects health, particularly for
cardiopulmonary outcomes. For example, some research indicates that
near-roadway exposures may increase systemic inflammation, affecting
organ systems, including blood vessels and
lungs.1150 1151 1152 1153 Additionally, long-term exposures
in near-road environments have been associated with inflammation-
associated conditions, such as atherosclerosis and
asthma.1154 1155 1156
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1150\ Riediker, M. (2007). Cardiovascular effects of fine
particulate matter components in highway patrol officers. Inhal
Toxicol 19: 99-105. doi: 10.1080/08958370701495238.
\1151\ Alexeef, SE; Coull, B.A.; Gryparis, A.; et al. (2011).
Medium-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution and markers of
inflammation and endothelial function. Environ Health Perspect 119:
481-486. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002560.
\1152\ Eckel. S.P.; Berhane, K.; Salam, M.T.; et al. (2011).
Residential Traffic-related pollution exposure and exhaled nitric
oxide in the Children's Health Study. Environ Health Perspect.
doi:10.1289/ehp.1103516.
\1153\ Zhang, J.; McCreanor, J.E.; Cullinan, P.; et al. (2009).
Health effects of real-world exposure diesel exhaust in persons with
asthma. Res Rep Health Effects Inst 138. [Online at http://www.healtheffects.org].
\1154\ Adar, S.D.; Klein, R.; Klein, E.K.; et al. (2010). Air
pollution and the microvasculature: a cross-sectional assessment of
in vivo retinal images in the population-based Multi-Ethnic Study of
Atherosclerosis. PLoS Med 7(11): E1000372. doi:10.1371/
journal.pmed.1000372.
\1155\ Kan, H.; Heiss, G.; Rose, K.M.; et al. (2008).
Prospective analysis of traffic exposure as a risk factor for
incident coronary heart disease: The Atherosclerosis Risk in
Communities (ARIC) study. Environ Health Perspect 116: 1463-1468.
doi:10.1289/ehp.11290.
\1156\ McConnell, R.; Islam, T.; Shankardass, K.; et al. (2010).
Childhood incident asthma and traffic-related air pollution at home
and school. Environ Health Perspect 1021-1026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in section VI.D.3, people who live or attend school
near major roadways are more likely to be people of color and/or have a
low SES. Additionally, people with low SES often live in neighborhoods
with multiple stressors and health risk factors, including reduced
health insurance coverage rates, higher smoking and drug use rates,
limited access to fresh food, visible neighborhood violence, and
elevated rates of obesity and some diseases such as asthma, diabetes,
and ischemic heart disease. Although questions remain, several studies
find stronger associations between air pollution and health in
locations with such chronic neighborhood stress, suggesting that
populations in these areas may be more susceptible to the effects of
air pollution.1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1157\ Islam, T.; Urban, R.; Gauderman, W.J.; et al. (2011).
Parental stress increases the detrimental effect of traffic exposure
on children's lung function. Am J Respir Crit Care Med.
\1158\ Clougherty, J.E.; Kubzansky, L.D. (2009) A framework for
examining social stress and susceptibility to air pollution in
respiratory health. Environ Health Perspect 117: 1351-1358.
Doi:10.1289/ehp.0900612.
\1159\ Clougherty, J.E.; Levy, J.I.; Kubzansky, L.D.; Ryan,
P.B.; Franco Suglia, S.; Jacobson Canner, M.; Wright, R.J. (2007)
Synergistic effects of traffic-related air pollution and exposure to
violence on urban asthma etiology. Environ Health Perspect 115:
1140-1146. doi:10.1289/ehp.9863.
\1160\ Finkelstein, M.M.; Jerrett, M.; DeLuca, P.; Finkelstein,
N.; Verma, D.K.; Chapman, K.; Sears, M.R. (2003) Relation between
income, air pollution and mortality: a cohort study. Canadian Med
Assn J 169: 397-402.
\1161\ Shankardass, K.; McConnell, R.; Jerrett, M.; Milam, J.;
Richardson, J.; Berhane, K. (2009) Parental stress increases the
effect of traffic-related air pollution on childhood asthma
incidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106: 12406-12411. doi:10.1073/
pnas.0812910106.
\1162\ Chen, E.; Schrier, H.M.; Strunk, R.C.; et al. (2008).
Chronic traffic-related air pollution and stress interact to predict
biologic and clinical outcomes in asthma. Environ Health Perspect
116: 970-5.
\1163\ Currie, J. and R. Walker (2011) Traffic Congestion and
Infant Health: Evidence from E-ZPass. American Economic Journal:
Applied Economics, 3 (1): 65-90. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.3.1.65.
\1164\ Knittel, C.R.; Miller, D.L.; Sanders N.J. (2016) Caution,
Drivers! Children Present: Traffic, Pollution, and Infant Health.
The Review of Economics and Statistics, 98 (2): 350-366. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00548.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The risks associated with residence, workplace, or school near
major roads are of potentially high public health significance due to
the large population in such locations. We analyzed several data sets
to estimate the size of populations living or attending school near
major roads. Our evaluation of environmental justice concerns in these
studies is presented in section VI.D.3 of this preamble.
Every two years from 1997 to 2009 and in 2011 and 2013, the U.S.
Census Bureau's American Housing Survey (AHS) conducted a survey that
includes whether housing units are within 300 feet of an ``airport,
railroad, or highway with four or more lanes.'' \1165\ The 2013 AHS
reports that 17.3 million housing units, or 13 percent of all housing
units in the United States, were in such areas. Assuming that
populations and housing units are in the same locations, this
corresponds to a population of more than 41 million U.S. residents near
high-traffic roadways or other transportation sources. \1166\ According
to the Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook, based on data
collected between 2012-2022, the United States had 6,586,610 km of
roadways, 293,564 km of railways, and 13,513 airports.\1167\ As such,
highways represent the overwhelming majority of transportation
facilities described by this factor in the AHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1165\ The variable was known as ``ETRANS'' in the questions
about the neighborhood.
\1166\ The analysis of population living near major roads based
on the Freight Analysis Framework, version 4 is intended to provide
comparable estimates as the AHS analyses for the conterminous United
States (i.e., ``the lower 48''). Population estimates for the two
methods result in very good agreement--41 million people living
within 300 feet/100 meters using the AHS 2009 dataset, and 41
million people living within 100 meters of a road in the FAF4
network using the data in that analysis.
\1167\ Central Intelligence Agenda. World Factbook: United
States. [Online at https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/united-states/#transportation].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In examining schools near major roadways, we used the Common Core
of Data from the U.S. Department of Education, which includes
information on all public elementary and secondary schools and school
districts nationwide.\1168\ To determine school proximities to major
roadways, we used a geographic information system (GIS) to map each
school and roadway based on the U.S. Census's TIGER roadway file.\1169\
We estimated that about 10 million students attend public schools
within 200 meters of major roads, about 20 percent of the total number
of public school students in the U.S.1170 1171 1172
[[Page 29689]]
About 800,000 students attend public schools within 200 meters of
primary roads, or about 2 percent of the total.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1168\ http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.
\1169\ Pedde, M.; Bailey, C. (2011) Identification of Schools
within 200 Meters of U.S. Primary and Secondary Roads. Memorandum to
the docket.
\1170\ Pedde, M.; Bailey, C. (2011) Identification of Schools
within 200 Meters of U.S. Primary and Secondary Roads. Memorandum to
the docket.
\1171\ Here, ``major roads'' refer to those TIGER classifies as
either ``Primary'' or ``Secondary''. The Census Bureau describes
primary roads as ``generally divided limited-access highways within
the Federal interstate system or under state management''. Secondary
roads are ``main arteries, usually in the U.S. highway, state
highway, or county highway system''.
\1172\ For this analysis we analyzed a 200-meter distance based
on the understanding that roadways generally influence air quality
within a few hundred meters from the vicinity of heavily traveled
roadways or along corridors with significant trucking traffic. See
U.S. EPA, 2014. Near Roadway Air Pollution and Health: Frequently
Asked Questions. EPA-420-F-14-044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also conducted a study to estimate the number of people living
near truck freight routes in the United States, which includes many
large highways and other routes where light- and medium-duty vehicles
operate.\1173\ Based on a population analysis using the U.S. Department
of Transportation's (USDOT) Freight Analysis Framework 4 (FAF4) and
population data from the 2010 decennial census, an estimated 72 million
people live within 200 meters of these FAF4 roads, which are used by
all types of vehicles.\1174\ The FAF4 analysis includes the population
living within 200 meters of major roads, while the AHS uses a 100-meter
distance; the larger distance and other methodological differences
explain the difference in the two estimates for populations living near
major roads.\1175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1173\ U.S. EPA (2021). Estimation of Population Size and
Demographic Characteristics among People Living Near Truck Routes in
the Conterminous United States. Memorandum to the Docket.
\1174\ FAF4 is a model from the USDOT's Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which
provides data associated with freight movement in the U.S. It
includes data from the 2012 Commodity Flow Survey (CFS), the Census
Bureau on international trade, as well as data associated with
construction, agriculture, utilities, warehouses, and other
industries. FAF4 estimates the modal choices for moving goods by
trucks, trains, boats, and other types of freight modes. It includes
traffic assignments, including truck flows on a network of truck
routes. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/.
\1175\ The same analysis estimated the population living within
100 meters of a FAF4 truck route is 41 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's Exposure Factor Handbook also indicates that, on average,
Americans spend more than an hour traveling each day, bringing nearly
all residents into a high-exposure microenvironment for part of the
day.1176 1177 While near-roadway studies focus on residents
near roads or others spending considerable time near major roads, the
duration of commuting results in another important contributor to
overall exposure to traffic-related air pollution. Studies of health
that address time spent in transit have found evidence of elevated risk
of cardiac impacts.1178 1179 1180 Studies have also found
that school bus emissions can increase student exposures to diesel-
related air pollutants, and that programs that reduce school bus
emissions may improve health and reduce school
absenteeism.1181 1182 1183 1184
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1176\ EPA. (2011) Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition.
Chapter 16. Online at https://www.epa.gov/expobox/about-exposure-factors-handbook.
\1177\ It is not yet possible to estimate the long-term impact
of growth in telework associated with the COVID-19 pandemic on
travel behavior. There were notable changes during the pandemic. For
example, according to the 2021 American Time Use Survey, a greater
fraction of workers did at least part of their work at home (38%) as
compared with the 2019 survey (24%). [Online at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm].
\1178\ Riediker, M.; Cascio, W.E.; Griggs, T.R.; et al. (2004)
Particulate matter exposure in cars is associated with
cardiovascular effects in healthy young men. Am J Respir Crit Care
Med 169. [Online at https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200310-1463OC].
\1179\ Peters, A.; von Klot, S.; Heier, M.; et al. (2004)
Exposure to traffic and the onset of myocardial infarction. New Engl
J Med 1721-1730. [Online athttps://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa040203].
\1180\ Adar, S.D.; Gold, D.R.; Coull, B.A.; (2007) Focused
exposure to airborne traffic particles and heart rate variability in
the elderly. Epidemiology 18: 95-103 [Online at 351: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000249409.81050.46].
\1181\ Sabin, L.; Behrentz, E.; Winer, A.M.; et al.
Characterizing the range of children's air pollutant exposure during
school bus commutes. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 15: 377-387.
[Online at https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500414].
\1182\ Li, C.; N, Q.; Ryan, P.H.; School bus pollution and
changes in the air quality at schools: a case study. J Environ Monit
11: 1037-1042. [https://doi.org/10.1039/b819458k].
\1183\ Austin, W.; Heutel, G.; Kreisman, D. (2019) School bus
emissions, student health and academic performance. Econ Edu Rev 70:
108-12.
\1184\ Adar, S.D.; D.Souza, J.; Sheppard, L.; et al. (2015)
Adopting clean fuels and technologies on school buses. Pollution and
health impacts in children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 191. [Online
at http://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201410-1924OC].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Welfare Effects Associated With Exposure to Non-GHG Pollutants
This section discusses the environmental effects associated with
non-GHG pollutants affected by this rule, specifically particulate
matter, ozone, NOX, SOX, and air toxics.
i. Visibility
Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is
transparent to visible light.\1185\ Visibility impairment is caused by
light scattering and absorption by suspended particles and gases. It is
dominated by contributions from suspended particles except under
pristine conditions. Visibility is important because it has direct
significance to people's enjoyment of daily activities in all parts of
the country. Individuals value good visibility for the well-being it
provides them directly, where they live and work, and in places where
they enjoy recreational opportunities. Visibility is also highly valued
in significant natural areas, such as national parks and wilderness
areas, and special emphasis is given to protecting visibility in these
areas. For more information on visibility see the final 2019 PM
ISA.\1186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1185\ National Research Council, (1993). Protecting Visibility
in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National Academy of Sciences
Committee on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC. This book can be viewed on the
National Academy Press website at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/2097/protecting-visibility-in-national-parks-and-wilderness-areas.
\1186\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is working to address visibility impairment. Reductions in air
pollution from implementation of various programs associated with the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 provisions have resulted in
substantial improvements in visibility and will continue to do so in
the future. Nationally, because trends in haze are closely associated
with trends in particulate sulfate and nitrate due to the relationship
between their concentration and light extinction, visibility trends
have improved as emissions of SO2 and NOX have
decreased over time due to air pollution regulations such as the Acid
Rain Program.\1187\ However, in the western part of the country,
changes in total light extinction were smaller, and the contribution of
particulate organic matter to atmospheric light extinction was
increasing due to increasing wildfire emissions.\1188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1187\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
\1188\ Hand, JL; Prenni, AJ; Copeland, S; Schichtel, BA; Malm,
WC. (2020). Thirty years of the Clean Air Act Amendments: Impacts on
haze in remote regions of the United States (1990-2018). Atmos
Environ 243: 117865.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Congress recognized
visibility's value to society by establishing a national goal to
protect national parks and wilderness areas from visibility impairment
caused by manmade pollution.\1189\ In 1999, EPA finalized the regional
haze program to protect the visibility in Mandatory Class I Federal
areas.\1190\ There are 156 national parks, forests and wilderness areas
categorized as Mandatory Class I Federal areas.\1191\ These areas are
defined in CAA section 162 as those national parks exceeding 6,000
acres, wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and
all international parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1189\ See CAA section 169(a).
\1190\ 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999.
\1191\ 62 FR 38680-38681, July 18, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has also concluded that PM2.5 causes adverse effects
on visibility in other areas that are not targeted by the Regional Haze
Rule, such as urban areas, depending on PM2.5 concentrations
and other factors such as dry chemical composition and relative
[[Page 29690]]
humidity (i.e., an indicator of the water composition of the
particles). The secondary (welfare-based) PM NAAQS provide protection
against visibility effects. In recent PM NAAQS reviews, EPA evaluated a
target level of protection for visibility impairment that is expected
to be met through attainment of the existing secondary PM standards.
ii. Ozone Effects on Ecosystems
The welfare effects of ozone include effects on ecosystems, which
can be observed across a variety of scales, i.e., subcellular,
cellular, leaf, whole plant, population and ecosystem. Ozone effects
that begin at small spatial scales, such as the leaf of an individual
plant, when they occur at sufficient magnitudes (or to a sufficient
degree) can result in effects being propagated to higher and higher
levels of biological organization. For example, effects at the
individual plant level, such as altered rates of leaf gas exchange,
growth and reproduction, can, when widespread, result in broad changes
in ecosystems, such as productivity, carbon storage, water cycling,
nutrient cycling, and community composition.
Ozone can produce both acute and chronic injury in sensitive plant
species depending on the concentration level and the duration of the
exposure.\1192\ In those sensitive species,\1193\ effects from repeated
exposure to ozone throughout the growing season of the plant can tend
to accumulate, so even relatively low concentrations experienced for a
longer duration have the potential to create chronic stress on
vegetation.1194 1195 Ozone damage to sensitive plant species
includes impaired photosynthesis and visible injury to leaves. The
impairment of photosynthesis, the process by which the plant makes
carbohydrates (its source of energy and food), can lead to reduced crop
yields, timber production, and plant productivity and growth. Impaired
photosynthesis can also lead to a reduction in root growth and
carbohydrate storage below ground, resulting in other, more subtle
plant and ecosystems impacts.\1196\ These latter impacts include
increased susceptibility of plants to insect attack, disease, harsh
weather, interspecies competition and overall decreased plant vigor.
The adverse effects of ozone on areas with sensitive species could
potentially lead to species shifts and loss from the affected
ecosystems,\1197\ resulting in a loss or reduction in associated
ecosystem goods and services. Additionally, visible ozone injury to
leaves can result in a loss of aesthetic value in areas of special
scenic significance like national parks and wilderness areas and
reduced use of sensitive ornamentals in landscaping.\1198\ In addition
to ozone effects on vegetation, newer evidence suggests that ozone
affects interactions between plants and insects by altering chemical
signals (e.g., floral scents) that plants use to communicate to other
community members, such as attraction of pollinators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1192\ 73 FR 16486, March 27, 2008.
\1193\ Only a small percentage of all the plant species growing
within the U.S. (over 43,000 species have been catalogued in the
USDA PLANTS database) have been studied with respect to ozone
sensitivity.
\1194\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/012,
2020.
\1195\ The concentration at which ozone levels overwhelm a
plant's ability to detoxify or compensate for oxidant exposure
varies. Thus, whether a plant is classified as sensitive or tolerant
depends in part on the exposure levels being considered.
\1196\ 73 FR 16492, March 27, 2008.
\1197\ 73 FR 16493-16494, March 27, 2008. Ozone impacts could be
occurring in areas where plant species sensitive to ozone have not
yet been studied or identified.
\1198\ 73 FR 16490-16497, March 27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ozone ISA presents more detailed information on how ozone
affects vegetation and ecosystems.\1199\ The Ozone ISA reports causal
and likely causal relationships between ozone exposure and a number of
welfare effects and characterizes the weight of evidence for different
effects associated with ozone.\1200\ The Ozone ISA concludes that
visible foliar injury effects on vegetation, reduced vegetation growth,
reduced plant reproduction, reduced productivity in terrestrial
ecosystems, reduced yield and quality of agricultural crops, alteration
of below-ground biogeochemical cycles, and altered terrestrial
community composition are causally associated with exposure to ozone.
It also concludes that increased tree mortality, altered herbivore
growth and reproduction, altered plant-insect signaling, reduced carbon
sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems, and alteration of terrestrial
ecosystem water cycling are likely to be causally associated with
exposure to ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1199\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/012,
2020.
\1200\ The Ozone ISA evaluates the evidence associated with
different ozone related health and welfare effects, assigning one of
five ``weight of evidence'' determinations: causal relationship,
likely to be a causal relationship, suggestive of a causal
relationship, inadequate to infer a causal relationship, and not
likely to be a causal relationship. For more information on these
levels of evidence, please refer to Table II of the ISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Deposition
The Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of
Sulfur, and Particulate Matter--Ecological Criteria documents the
ecological effects of the deposition of these criteria air
pollutants.\1201\ It is clear from the body of evidence that oxides of
nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and particulate matter contribute to total
nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S) deposition. In turn, N and S deposition
cause either nutrient enrichment or acidification depending on the
sensitivity of the landscape or the species in question. Both
enrichment and acidification are characterized by an alteration of the
biogeochemistry and the physiology of organisms, resulting in
ecologically harmful declines in biodiversity in terrestrial,
freshwater, wetland, and estuarine ecosystems in the U.S. Decreases in
biodiversity mean that some species become relatively less abundant and
may be locally extirpated. In addition to the potential loss of unique
living species, the decline in total biodiversity can be harmful
because biodiversity is an important determinant of the stability of
ecosystems and their ability to provide socially valuable ecosystem
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1201\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides
of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur and Particulate Matter Ecological
Criteria (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/278, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrestrial, wetland, freshwater, and estuarine ecosystems in the
U.S. are affected by nitrogen enrichment/eutrophication caused by
nitrogen deposition. These effects, though improving recently as
emissions and deposition decline, have been consistently documented
across the United States for hundreds of species and have likely been
occurring for decades. In terrestrial systems nitrogen loading can lead
to loss of nitrogen-sensitive plant and lichen species, decreased
biodiversity of grasslands, meadows and other sensitive habitats, and
increased potential for invasive species and potentially for wildfire.
In aquatic systems nitrogen loading can alter species assemblages and
cause eutrophication.
The sensitivity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to
acidification from nitrogen and sulfur deposition is predominantly
governed by the intersection of geology and deposition. Prolonged
exposure to excess nitrogen and sulfur deposition in sensitive areas
acidifies lakes, rivers, and soils. Increased acidity in surface waters
creates inhospitable conditions for biota
[[Page 29691]]
and affects the abundance and biodiversity of fishes, zooplankton and
macroinvertebrates and ecosystem function. Over time, acidifying
deposition also removes essential nutrients from forest soils,
depleting the capacity of soils to neutralize future acid loadings and
negatively affecting forest sustainability. Major effects in forests
include a decline in sensitive tree species, such as red spruce (Picea
rubens) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum).
Building materials including metals, stones, cements, and paints
undergo natural weathering processes from exposure to environmental
elements (e.g., wind, moisture, temperature fluctuations, sunlight,
etc.). Pollution can worsen and accelerate these effects. Deposition of
PM is associated with both physical damage (materials damage effects)
and impaired aesthetic qualities (soiling effects). Wet and dry
deposition of PM can physically affect materials, adding to the effects
of natural weathering processes, by potentially promoting or
accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints and by
deteriorating building materials such as stone, concrete and
marble.\1202\ The effects of PM are exacerbated by the presence of
acidic gases and can be additive or synergistic due to the complex
mixture of pollutants in the air and surface characteristics of the
material. Acidic deposition has been shown to have an effect on
materials including zinc/galvanized steel and other metal, carbonate
stone (as monuments and building facings), and surface coatings
(paints).\1203\ The effects on historic buildings and outdoor works of
art are of particular concern because of the uniqueness and
irreplaceability of many of these objects. In addition to aesthetic and
functional effects on metals, stone and glass, altered energy
efficiency of photovoltaic panels by PM deposition is also an emerging
consideration for impacts of air pollutants on materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1202\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
\1203\ Irving, P.M., e.d. 1991. Acid Deposition: State of
Science and Technology, Volume III, Terrestrial, Materials, Health,
and Visibility Effects, The U.S. National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program, Chapter 24, page 24-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Welfare Effects Associated With Air Toxics
Emissions from producing, transporting, and combusting fuel
contribute to ambient levels of pollutants that contribute to adverse
effects on vegetation. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), some of which
are considered air toxics, have long been suspected to play a role in
vegetation damage.\1204\ In laboratory experiments, a wide range of
tolerance to VOCs has been observed.\1205\ Decreases in harvested seed
pod weight have been reported for the more sensitive plants, and some
studies have reported effects on seed germination, flowering, and fruit
ripening. Effects of individual VOCs or their role in conjunction with
other stressors (e.g., acidification, drought, temperature extremes)
have not been well studied. In a recent study of a mixture of VOCs
including ethanol and toluene on herbaceous plants, significant effects
on seed production, leaf water content, and photosynthetic efficiency
were reported for some plant species.\1206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1204\ U.S. EPA. (1991). Effects of organic chemicals in the
atmosphere on terrestrial plants. EPA/600/3-91/001.
\1205\ Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M Donkin, M
Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD Sharpe. (2003). Effects of VOCs on
herbaceous plants in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ.
Pollut. 124:341-343.
\1206\ Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M Donkin, M
Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD Sharpe. (2003). Effects of VOCs on
herbaceous plants in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ.
Pollut. 124:341-343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research suggests an adverse impact of vehicle exhaust on plants,
which has in some cases been attributed to aromatic compounds and in
other cases to.1207 1208 1209 The impacts of VOCs on plant
reproduction may have long-term implications for biodiversity and
survival of native species near major roadways. Most of the studies of
the impacts of VOCs on vegetation have focused on short-term exposure,
and few studies have focused on long-term effects of VOCs on vegetation
and the potential for metabolites of these compounds to affect
herbivores or insects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1207\ Viskari E-L. (2000). Epicuticular wax of Norway spruce
needles as indicator of traffic pollutant deposition. Water, Air,
and Soil Pollut. 121:327-337.
\1208\ Ugrekhelidze D, F Korte, G Kvesitadze. (1997). Uptake and
transformation of benzene and toluene by plant leaves. Ecotox.
Environ. Safety 37:24-29.
\1209\ Kammerbauer H, H Selinger, R Rommelt, A Ziegler-Jons, D
Knoppik, B Hock. (1987). Toxic components of motor vehicle emissions
for the spruce Picea abies. Environ. Pollut. 48:235-243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Air Quality Impacts of Non-GHG Pollutants
Section V of this preamble presents projections of the changes in
criteria pollutant and air toxics emissions due to the final rule. We
did not conduct air quality modeling for this rule, and making
predictions based solely on emissions changes is extremely difficult;
the atmospheric chemistry related to ambient concentrations of
PM2.5, ozone and air toxics is very complex, and the
emissions changes are spatially variable. Nevertheless, we do expect
that in areas in close proximity to roadways (i.e., within 300-600
meters of the roadway), the reductions in vehicle emissions will
decrease ambient levels of PM2.5, NO2, and other
traffic-related pollutants described in section VI.B. Across broader
geographic areas, we also expect the decrease in vehicle emissions to
contribute to lower ambient concentrations of ozone and
PM2.5, which are secondarily formed in the atmosphere.
Section V of this preamble also describes projected potential emission
reductions downwind from refineries, which would improve air quality in
those locations. Increased emissions from EGUs may increase ambient
concentrations of some pollutants in downwind areas, although those
impacts will lessen over time as the power sector becomes cleaner.
D. Environmental Justice
1. Overview
Communities with environmental justice concerns, which can include
a range of communities and populations, face relatively greater
cumulative impacts associated with environmental exposures of multiple
types, as well as impacts from non-chemical
stressors.1210 1211 1212 1213 As described in section
VI.B.2, there is some literature to suggest that different
sociodemographic factors may increase susceptibility to the effects of
traffic-associated air pollution. In addition, compared to non-Hispanic
Whites, some other racial groups experience greater levels of health
problems during some life stages. For example, in 2018-2020, about 12
percent of non-Hispanic Black; 9 percent of non-Hispanic American
Indian/Alaska Native; and 7 percent of Hispanic children were estimated
to currently have asthma, compared with 6 percent of non-Hispanic White
[[Page 29692]]
children.\1214\ Nationally, on average, non-Hispanic Black and non-
Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native people also have lower than
average life expectancy based on 2019 data.\1215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1210\ Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the near-roadway
population: public health and environmental justice considerations.
Trans Res D 25: 59-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.08.003.
\1211\ Marshall, J.D. (2000) Environmental inequality: Air
pollution exposures in California's South Coast Air Basin. Atmos
Environ 21: 5499-5503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.02.005.
\1212\ Marshall, J.D. (2008) Environmental inequality: air
pollution exposures in California's South Coast Air Basin. Atmos
Environ 21: 5499-5503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.02.005.
\1213\ Mohai, P.; Pellow, D.; Roberts Timmons, J. (2009)
Environmental justice. Annual Reviews 34: 405-430. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ082508-094348.
\1214\ Current Asthma Prevalence by Race and Ethnicity (2018-
2020). [Online at https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/most_recent_national_asthma_data.htm].
\1215\ Arias, E. Xu, J. (2022) United States Life Tables, 2019.
National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 70, Number 19. [Online at
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-19.pdf].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice
in Regulatory Analysis'' provides recommendations on conducting the
highest quality analysis feasible of environmental justice (EJ) issues
associated with a given regulatory decision, though it is not
prescriptive, recognizing that data limitations, time and resource
constraints, and analytic challenges will vary by media and regulatory
context.\1216\ Where applicable and practicable, the Agency endeavors
to conduct such an EJ analysis. There is evidence that communities with
EJ concerns are disproportionately and adversely impacted by heavy-duty
vehicle emissions.\1217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1216\ USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the
United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II
[Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M.
Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change
Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. doi:10.7930/
NCA4.2018.
\1217\ Demetillo, M.A.; Harkins, C.; McDonald, B.C.; et al.
(2021) Space-based observational constraints on NO2 air
pollution inequality from diesel traffic in major US cities. Geophys
Res Lett 48, e2021GL094333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section VI.D.2, we discuss the EJ impacts of this final rule's
GHG emission standards from the anticipated reduction of GHGs. We also
discuss in section VI.D.3 the potential additional EJ impacts from the
non-GHG (criteria pollutant and air toxic) emissions changes we
estimate would result from compliance with the CO2 emission
standards, including impacts near roadways and from upstream sources.
EPA did not consider potential adverse disproportionate impacts of
vehicle emissions in selecting the CO2 emission standards,
but we provide information about adverse impacts of vehicle emissions
for the public's understanding of this rulemaking, which addresses the
need to protect public health consistent with CAA section 202(a)(1)-
(2). When assessing the potential for disproportionate and adverse
health or environmental impacts of regulatory actions on populations
with potential EJ concerns, EPA strives to answer the following three
broad questions, for purposes of the EJ analysis: (1) Is there evidence
of potential EJ concerns in the baseline (the state of the world absent
the regulatory action)? Assessing the baseline will allow EPA to
determine whether pre-existing disparities are associated with the
pollutant(s) under consideration (e.g., if the effects of the
pollutant(s) are more concentrated in some population groups); (2) Is
there evidence of potential EJ concerns for the regulatory option(s)
under consideration? Specifically, how are the pollutant(s) and its
effects distributed for the regulatory options under consideration?;
and (3) Do the regulatory option(s) under consideration exacerbate or
mitigate EJ concerns relative to the baseline? It is not always
possible to provide quantitative answers to these questions.
EPA received several comments related to the environmental justice
impacts of heavy-duty vehicles in general and the impacts of the
proposal specifically. We summarize and respond to those comments in
section 18 of the Response to Comments document that accompanies this
rulemaking. After consideration of comments, EPA updated our review of
the literature, while maintaining our general approach to the
environmental justice analysis. We note that analyses in this section
are based on data that was the most appropriate recent data at the time
we undertook the analyses. We intend to continue analyzing data
concerning disproportionate impacts of pollution in the future, using
the latest available data.
2. GHG Impacts on Environmental Justice and Vulnerable or Overburdened
Populations
In the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the Administrator considered how
climate change threatens the health and welfare of the U.S. population.
As part of that consideration, she also considered risks to people of
color and low-income individuals and communities, finding that certain
parts of the U.S. population may be especially vulnerable based on
their characteristics or circumstances. These groups include
economically and socially disadvantaged communities; individuals at
vulnerable life stages, such as the elderly, the very young, and
pregnant or nursing women; those already in poor health or with
comorbidities; the disabled; those experiencing homelessness, mental
illness, or substance abuse; and Indigenous or other populations
dependent on one or limited resources for subsistence due to factors
including but not limited to geography, access, and mobility.
Scientific assessment reports produced over the past decade by the
USGCRP,1218,1219 the IPCC,1220 1221 1222 1223 the
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and
[[Page 29693]]
Medicine,1224 1225 and the EPA \1226\ add more evidence that
the impacts of climate change raise potential EJ concerns. These
reports conclude that less-affluent, traditionally marginalized and
predominantly non-White communities can be especially vulnerable to
climate change impacts because they tend to have limited resources for
adaptation, are more dependent on climate-sensitive resources such as
local water and food supplies or have less access to social and
information resources. Some communities of color, specifically
populations defined jointly by ethnic/racial characteristics and
geographic location (e.g., African-American, Black, and Hispanic/Latino
communities; Native Americans, particularly those living on tribal
lands and Alaska Natives), may be uniquely vulnerable to climate change
health impacts in the U.S., as discussed in this section. In
particular, the 2016 scientific assessment on the Impacts of Climate
Change on Human Health \1227\ found with high confidence that
vulnerabilities are place- and time-specific, lifestages and ages are
linked to immediate and future health impacts, and social determinants
of health are linked to greater extent and severity of climate change-
related health impacts. The GHG emission reductions from this final
rule would contribute to efforts to reduce the probability of severe
impacts related to climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1218\ USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the
United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II
[Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M.
Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change
Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. doi:10.7930/
NCA4.2018.
\1219\ USGCRP, 2016: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human
Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, A.,
J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, C.B. Beard, J.E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J.
Eisen, N. Fann, M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D.M.
Mills, S. Saha, M.C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, Eds. U.S.
Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 312 pp. https://health2016.globalchange.gov/.
\1220\ Oppenheimer, M., M. Campos, R. Warren, J. Birkmann, G.
Luber, B. O'Neill, and K. Takahashi, 2014: Emergent risks and key
vulnerabilities. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros,
D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee,
K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N.
Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA, pp. 1039-1099.
\1221\ Porter, J.R., L. Xie, A.J. Challinor, K. Cochrane, S.M.
Howden, M.M. Iqbal, D.B. Lobell, and M.I. Travasso, 2014: Food
security and food production systems. In: Climate Change 2014:
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral
Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field,
C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E.
Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma,
E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.
White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA, pp. 485-533.
\1222\ Smith, K.R., A. Woodward, D. Campbell-Lendrum, D.D.
Chadee, Y. Honda, Q. Liu, J.M. Olwoch, B. Revich, and R. Sauerborn,
2014: Human health: impacts, adaptation, and co-benefits. In:
Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A:
Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D.
Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C.
Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R.
Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 709-754.
\1223\ IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5[deg]C. An IPCC Special
Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5[deg]C above pre-
industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission
pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the
threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to
eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. P[ouml]rtner,
D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C.
P[eacute]an, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X.
Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T.
Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.
\1224\ National Research Council. 2011. America's Climate
Choices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12781.
\1225\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine. 2017. Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24624.
\1226\ EPA. 2021. Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the
United States: A Focus on Six Impacts. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA 430-R-21-003.
\1227\ USGCRP, 2016: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human
Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Effects on Specific Communities and Populations
Per the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), ``Climate change
affects human health by altering exposures to heat waves, floods,
droughts, and other extreme events; vector-, food- and waterborne
infectious diseases; changes in the quality and safety of air, food,
and water; and stresses to mental health and well-being.'' \1228\ Many
health conditions such as cardiopulmonary or respiratory illness and
other health impacts are associated with and exacerbated by an increase
in GHGs and climate change outcomes, which is problematic as these
diseases occur at higher rates within vulnerable communities.
Importantly, negative public health outcomes include those that are
physical in nature, as well as mental, emotional, social, and economic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1228\ Ebi, K.L., J.M. Balbus, G. Luber, A. Bole, A. Crimmins,
G. Glass, S. Saha, M.M. Shimamoto, J. Trtanj, and J.L. White-
Newsome, 2018: Human Health. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in
the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II
[Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M.
Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change
Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 539-571. doi: 10.7930/
NCA4.2018.CH14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scientific assessment literature, including the aforementioned
reports, demonstrates that there are myriad ways in which particular
communities and populations may be affected at the individual and
community levels. Individuals face differential exposure to criteria
pollutants, in part due to the proximities of highways, trains,
factories, and other major sources of pollutant-emitting sources to
less-affluent residential areas. Outdoor workers, such as construction
or utility crews and agricultural laborers, who frequently are
comprised of already at-risk groups, are exposed to poor air quality
and extreme temperatures without relief. Furthermore, people in
communities with EJ concerns face greater housing, clean water, and
food insecurity and bear disproportionate and adverse economic impacts
and health burdens associated with climate change effects. They have
less or limited access to healthcare and affordable, adequate health or
homeowner insurance.\1229\ Finally, resiliency and adaptation are more
difficult for economically vulnerable communities; these communities
have less liquidity, individually and collectively, to move or to make
the types of infrastructure or policy changes to limit or reduce the
hazards they face. They frequently are less able to self-advocate for
resources that would otherwise aid in building resilience and hazard
reduction and mitigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1229\ USGCRP, 2016: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human
Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assessment literature cited in EPA's 2009 and 2016 Endangerment
and Cause or Contribute Findings, as well as Impacts of Climate Change
on Human Health, also concluded that certain populations and life
stages, including children, are most vulnerable to climate-related
health effects.\1230\ The assessment literature produced from 2016 to
the present strengthens these conclusions by providing more detailed
findings regarding related vulnerabilities and the projected impacts
youth may experience. These assessments--including the NCA4 and The
Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States (2016)--
describe how children's unique physiological and developmental factors
contribute to making them particularly vulnerable to climate change.
Impacts to children are expected from heat waves, air pollution,
infectious and waterborne illnesses, and mental health effects
resulting from extreme weather events. In addition, children are among
those especially susceptible to allergens, as well as health effects
associated with heat waves, storms, and floods. Additional health
concerns may arise in low-income households, especially those with
children, if climate change reduces food availability and increases
prices, leading to food insecurity within households. More generally,
these reports note that extreme weather and flooding can cause or
exacerbate poor health outcomes by affecting mental health because of
stress; contributing to or worsening existing conditions, again due to
stress or also as a consequence of exposures to water and air
pollutants; or by impacting hospital and emergency services
operations.\1231\ Further, in urban areas in particular, flooding can
have significant economic consequences due to effects on
infrastructure, pollutant exposures, and drowning dangers. The ability
to withstand and recover from flooding is dependent in part on the
social vulnerability of the affected population and individuals
experiencing an event.\1232\ In addition, children are among those
especially susceptible to allergens, as well as health effects
associated with heat waves, storms, and floods. Additional health
concerns may arise in low-income households, especially those with
children, if climate change reduces food availability and increases
prices, leading to food insecurity within households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1230\ 74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009; 81 FR 54422, August 15,
2016.
\1231\ Ebi, K.L., J.M. Balbus, G. Luber, A. Bole, A. Crimmins,
G. Glass, S. Saha, M.M. Shimamoto, J. Trtanj, and J.L. White-
Newsome, 2018: Human Health. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in
the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II
[Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M.
Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change
Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 539-571. doi:10.7930/
NCA4.2018.CH14.
\1232\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
2019. Framing the Challenge of Urban Flooding in the United States.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25381.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29694]]
The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health \1233\ also found
that some communities of color, low-income groups, people with limited
English proficiency, and certain immigrant groups (especially those who
are undocumented) are subject to many factors that contribute to
vulnerability to the health impacts of climate change. While difficult
to isolate from related socioeconomic factors, race appears to be an
important factor in vulnerability to climate-related stress, with
elevated risks for mortality from high temperatures reported for Black
or African American individuals compared to White individuals after
controlling for factors such as air conditioning use. Moreover, people
of color are disproportionately more exposed to air pollution based on
where they live, and disproportionately vulnerable due to higher
baseline prevalence of underlying diseases such as asthma. As explained
earlier, climate change can exacerbate local air pollution conditions
so this increase in air pollution is expected to have disproportionate
and adverse effects on these communities. Locations with greater health
threats include urban areas (due to, among other factors, the ``heat
island'' effect where built infrastructure and lack of green spaces
increases local temperatures), areas where airborne allergens and other
air pollutants already occur at higher levels, and communities
experienced depleted water supplies or vulnerable energy and
transportation infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1233\ USGCRP, 2016: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human
Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, A.,
J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, C.B. Beard, J.E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J.
Eisen, N. Fann, M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D.M.
Mills, S. Saha, M.C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, Eds. U.S.
Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 312 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0R49NQX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recent EPA report on climate change and social vulnerability
\1234\ examined four socially vulnerable groups (individuals who are
low income, minority, without high school diplomas, and/or 65 years and
older) and their exposure to several different climate impacts (air
quality, coastal flooding, extreme temperatures, and inland flooding).
This report found that Black and African-American individuals were 40
percent more likely to currently live in areas with the highest
projected increases in mortality rates due to climate-driven changes in
extreme temperatures, and 34 percent more likely to live in areas with
the highest projected increases in childhood asthma diagnoses due to
climate-driven changes in particulate air pollution. The report found
that Hispanic and Latino individuals are 43 percent more likely to live
in areas with the highest projected labor hour losses in weather-
exposed industries due to climate-driven warming, and 50 percent more
likely to live in coastal areas with the highest projected increases in
traffic delays due to increases in high-tide flooding. The report found
that American Indian and Alaska Native individuals are 48 percent more
likely to live in areas where the highest percentage of land is
projected to be inundated due to sea level rise, and 37 percent more
likely to live in areas with high projected labor hour losses. Asian
individuals were found to be 23 percent more likely to live in coastal
areas with projected increases in traffic delays from high-tide
flooding. Persons with low income or no high school diploma are about
25 percent more likely to live in areas with high projected losses of
labor hours, and 15 percent more likely to live in areas with the
highest projected increases in asthma due to climate-driven increases
in particulate air pollution, and in areas with high projected
inundation due to sea level rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1234\ EPA. 2021. Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the
United States: A Focus on Six Impacts. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA 430-R-21-003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a more recent 2023 report, Climate Change Impacts on Children's
Health and Well-Being in the U.S., the EPA considered the degree to
which children's health and well-being may be impacted by five climate-
related environmental hazards--extreme heat, poor air quality, changes
in seasonality, flooding, and different types of infectious
diseases.\1235\ The report found that children's academic achievement
is projected to be reduced by 4-7 percent per child, as a result of
moderate and higher levels of warming, impacting future income levels.
The report also projects increases in the numbers of annual emergency
department visits associated with asthma, and that the number of new
asthma diagnoses increases by 4-11 percent due to climate-driven
increases in air pollution relative to current levels. In addition,
more than 1 million children in coastal regions are projected to be
temporarily displaced from their homes annually due to climate-driven
flooding, and infectious disease rates are similarly anticipated to
rise, with the number of new Lyme disease cases in children living in
22 states in the eastern and midwestern U.S. increasing by
approximately 3,000-23,000 per year compared to current levels.
Overall, the report confirmed findings of broader climate science
assessments that children are uniquely vulnerable to climate-related
impacts and that in many situations, children in the U.S. who identify
as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, are limited English-
speaking, do not have health insurance, or live in low-income
communities may be disproportionately more exposed to the most severe
adverse impacts of climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1235\ EPA. 2023. Climate Change Impacts on Children's Health
and Well-Being in the U.S., EPA-430-R-23-001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribes and Indigenous communities face disproportionate and adverse
risks from the impacts of climate change, particularly those
communities impacted by degradation of natural and cultural resources
within established reservation boundaries and threats to traditional
subsistence lifestyles. Indigenous communities whose health, economic
well-being, and cultural traditions depend upon the natural environment
will likely be affected by the degradation of ecosystem goods and
services associated with climate change. The IPCC indicates that losses
of customs and historical knowledge may cause communities to be less
resilient or adaptable.\1236\ The NCA4 noted that while Tribes and
Indigenous Peoples are diverse and will be impacted by the climate
changes universal to all Americans, there are several ways in which
climate change uniquely threatens Tribes and Indigenous Peoples'
livelihoods and economies.\1237\ In addition, as noted in the following
paragraph, there can be institutional barriers (including policy-based
limitations and restrictions) to their management of water, land, and
other natural resources that could impede adaptive measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1236\ Porter, et al., 2014: Food security and food production
systems.
\1237\ Jantarasami, L.C., R. Novak, R. Delgado, E. Marino, S.
McNeeley, C. Narducci, J. Raymond-Yakoubian, L. Singletary, and K.
Powys Whyte, 2018: Tribes and Indigenous Peoples. In Impacts, Risks,
and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate
Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R.
Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C.
Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington,
DC, USA, pp. 572-603. doi:10.7930/NCA4. 2018. CH15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, Indigenous agriculture in the Southwest is already
being adversely affected by changing patterns of flooding, drought,
dust storms, and rising temperatures leading to increased soil erosion,
irrigation water demand, and decreased crop quality and herd sizes. The
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation in the Northwest
have identified climate risks to salmon, elk, deer, roots, and
[[Page 29695]]
huckleberry habitat. Housing and sanitary water supply infrastructure
are vulnerable to disruption from extreme precipitation events.
Additionally, NCA4 noted that Tribes and Indigenous Peoples generally
experience poor infrastructure, diminished access to quality
healthcare, and greater risk of exposure to pollutants. Consequently,
Native Americans often have disproportionately higher rates of asthma,
cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, and obesity.
These health conditions and related effects (disorientation, heightened
exposure to PM2.5, etc.) can all contribute to increased
vulnerability to climate-driven extreme heat and air pollution events,
which also may be exacerbated by stressful situations, such as extreme
weather events, wildfires, and other circumstances.
NCA4 and IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report\1238\ also highlighted
several impacts specific to Alaskan Indigenous Peoples. Coastal erosion
and permafrost thaw will lead to more coastal erosion, rendering winter
travel riskier and exacerbating damage to buildings, roads, and other
infrastructure--impacts on archaeological sites, structures, and
objects that will lead to a loss of cultural heritage for Alaska's
Indigenous people. In terms of food security, the NCA4 discussed
reductions in suitable ice conditions for hunting, warmer temperatures
impairing the use of traditional ice cellars for food storage, and
declining shellfish populations due to warming and acidification. While
the NCA4 also noted that climate change provided more opportunity to
hunt from boats later in the fall season or earlier in the spring, the
assessment found that the net impact was an overall decrease in food
security. In addition, the U.S. Pacific Islands and the Indigenous
communities that live there are also uniquely vulnerable to the effects
of climate change due to their remote location and geographic
isolation. They rely on the land, ocean, and natural resources for
their livelihoods, but they face challenges in obtaining energy and
food supplies that need to be shipped in at high costs. As a result,
they face higher energy costs than the rest of the nation and depend on
imported fossil fuels for electricity generation and diesel. These
challenges exacerbate the climate impacts that the Pacific Islands are
experiencing. NCA4 notes that Tribes and Indigenous Peoples of the
Pacific are threatened by rising sea levels, diminishing freshwater
availability, and negative effects to ecosystem services that threaten
these individuals' health and well-being.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1238\ Porter, et al., 2014: Food security and food production
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Non-GHG Impacts
In section V.B., in addition to GHG emissions impacts, we also
discuss potential additional emission changes of non-GHGs (i.e.,
criteria and air toxic pollutants) that we project from compliance with
the final GHG emission standards. This section VI.D.3 describes
evidence that communities with EJ concerns are disproportionately and
adversely impacted by relevant non-GHG emissions. We discuss the
potential impact of non-GHG emissions for two specific contexts: near-
roadway (section VI.D.3.i) and upstream sources (section VI.D.3.ii).
i. Near-Roadway Analysis
As described in section VI.B.2.viii of this preamble,
concentrations of many air pollutants are elevated near high-traffic
roadways. We recently conducted an analysis of the populations within
the CONUS living in close proximity to truck freight routes as
identified in USDOT's FAF4.\1239\ FAF4 is a model from the USDOT's
Bureau of Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway Administration,
which provides data associated with freight movement in the United
States.\1240\ Relative to the rest of the population, people living
near FAF4 truck routes are more likely to be people of color and have
lower incomes than the general population. People living near FAF4
truck routes are also more likely to live in metropolitan areas. Even
controlling for region of the country, county characteristics,
population density, and household structure, race, ethnicity, and
income are significant determinants of whether someone lives near a
FAF4 truck route.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1239\ U.S. EPA (2021). Estimation of Population Size and
Demographic Characteristics among People Living Near Truck Routes in
the Conterminous United States. Memorandum to the Docket.
\1240\ FAF4 includes data from the 2012 Commodity Flow Survey
(CFS), the Census Bureau on international trade, as well as data
associated with construction, agriculture, utilities, warehouses,
and other industries. FAF4 estimates the modal choices for moving
goods by trucks, trains, boats, and other types of freight modes. It
includes traffic assignments, including truck flows on a network of
truck routes. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We additionally analyzed other national databases that allowed us
to evaluate whether homes and schools were located near a major road
and whether disparities in exposure may be occurring in these
environments. Until 2009, the U.S. Census Bureau's American Housing
Survey (AHS) included descriptive statistics of over 70,000 housing
units across the nation and asked about transportation infrastructure
near respondents' homes every two years.1241 1242 We also
analyzed the U.S. Department of Education's Common Core of Data, which
includes enrollment and location information for schools across the
United States.\1243\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1241\ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, & U.S.
Census Bureau. (n.d.). Age of other residential buildings within 300
feet. In American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009 (pp. A-
1). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2009/ahs-2009-summary-tables0/h150-09.html.
\1242\ The 2013 AHS again included the ``etrans'' question about
highways, airports, and railroads within half a block of the housing
unit but has not maintained the question since then.
\1243\ http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In analyzing the 2009 AHS, we focused on whether a housing unit was
located within 300 feet of a ``4-or-more lane highway, railroad, or
airport'' (this distance was used in the AHS analysis).\1244\ We
analyzed whether there were differences between households in such
locations compared with those in locations farther from these
transportation facilities.\1245\ We included other variables, such as
land use category, region of country, and housing type. We found that
homes with a non-White householder were 22-34 percent more likely to be
located within 300 feet of these large transportation facilities than
homes with White householders. Homes with a Hispanic householder were
17-33 percent more likely to be located within 300 feet of these large
transportation facilities than homes with non-Hispanic householders.
Households near large transportation facilities were, on average, lower
in income and educational attainment and more likely to be a rental
property and located in an urban area compared with households more
distant from transportation facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1244\ This variable primarily represents roadway proximity.
According to the Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook, in
2010, the United States had 6,506,204 km of roadways, 224,792 km of
railways, and 15,079 airports. Highways thus represent the
overwhelming majority of transportation facilities described by this
factor in the AHS.
\1245\ Bailey, C. (2011) Demographic and Social Patterns in
Housing Units Near Large Highways and other Transportation Sources.
Memorandum to docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In examining schools near major roadways, we used the Common Core
of Data from the U.S. Department of Education, which includes
information on all public elementary and secondary schools and school
districts nationwide.\1246\ To determine school
[[Page 29696]]
proximities to major roadways, we used a geographic information system
to map each school and roadways based on the U.S. Census's TIGER
roadway file.\1247\ We estimated that about 10 million students attend
schools within 200 meters of major roads, about 20 percent of the total
number of public school students in the United States.\1248\ About
800,000 students attend public schools within 200 meters of primary
roads, or about 2 percent of the total. We found that students of color
were overrepresented at schools within 200 meters of primary roadways,
and schools within 200 meters of primary roadways had a
disproportionately greater population of students eligible for free or
reduced-price lunches.\1249\ Black students represent 22 percent of
students at schools located within 200 meters of a primary road,
compared to 17 percent of students in all U.S. schools. Hispanic
students represent 30 percent of students at schools located within 200
meters of a primary road, compared to 22 percent of students in all
U.S. schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1246\ http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.
\1247\ Pedde, M.; Bailey, C. (2011) Identification of Schools
within 200 Meters of U.S. Primary and Secondary Roads. Memorandum to
the docket.
\1248\ Here, ``major roads'' refer to those TIGER classifies as
either ``Primary'' or ``Secondary''. The Census Bureau describes
primary roads as ``generally divided limited-access highways within
the Federal interstate system or under state management''. Secondary
roads are ``main arteries, usually in the U.S. highway, state
highway, or county highway system''.
\1249\ For this analysis we analyzed a 200-meter distance based
on the understanding that roadways generally influence air quality
within a few hundred meters from the vicinity of heavily traveled
roadways or along corridors with significant trucking traffic. See
U.S. EPA, 2014. Near Roadway Air Pollution and Health: Frequently
Asked Questions. EPA-420-F-14-044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also reviewed existing scholarly literature examining the
potential for disproportionately high exposure to these pollutants
among people of color and people with low socioeconomic status (SES).
Numerous studies evaluating the demographics and socioeconomic status
of populations or schools near roadways have found that they include a
greater percentage of residents of color, as well as lower SES
populations (as indicated by variables such as median household
income). Locations in these studies include Los Angeles, CA; Seattle,
WA; Wayne County, MI; Orange County, FL; Tampa, FL; the State of
California; the State of Texas; and nationally. \1250\ \1251\ \1252\
\1253\ \1254\ \1255\ \1256\ \1257\ \1258\ \1259\ \1260\ \1261\. Such
disparities may be due to multiple factors, such as historic
segregation, redlining, residential mobility, and daily mobility.\1262\
\1263\ \1264\ \1265\ \1266\ \1267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1250\ Marshall, J.D. (2008) Environmental inequality: air
pollution exposures in California's South Coast Air Basin. Atmos
Environ 42: 5499-5503. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.02.00.
\1251\ Su, J.G.; Larson, T.; Gould, T.; Cohen, M.; Buzzelli, M.
(2010) Transboundary air pollution and environmental justice:
Vancouver and Seattle compared. GeoJournal 57: 595-608. doi:10.1007/
s10708-009-9269-6.
\1252\ Chakraborty, J.; Zandbergen, P.A. (2007) Children at
risk: measuring racial/ethnic disparities in potential exposure to
air pollution at school and home. J Epidemiol Community Health 61:
1074-1079. doi:10.1136/jech.2006.054130.
\1253\ Green, R.S.; Smorodinsky, S.; Kim, J.J.; McLaughlin, R.;
Ostro, B. (2004) Proximity of California public schools to busy
roads. Environ Health Perspect 112: 61-66. doi:10.1289/ehp.6566.
\1254\ Wu, Y; Batterman, S.A. (2006) Proximity of schools in
Detroit, Michigan to automobile and truck traffic. J Exposure Sci &
Environ Epidemiol. doi:10.1038/sj.jes.7500484.
\1255\ Su, J.G.; Jerrett, M.; de Nazelle, A.; Wolch, J. (2011)
Does exposure to air pollution in urban parks have socioeconomic,
racial, or ethnic gradients? Environ Res 111: 319-328.
\1256\ Jones, M.R.; Diez-Roux, A.; Hajat, A.; et al. (2014)
Race/ethnicity, residential segregation, and exposure to ambient air
pollution: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Am J
Public Health 104: 2130-2137. [Online at: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302135.].
\1257\ Stuart A.L., Zeager M. (2011) An inequality study of
ambient nitrogen dioxide and traffic levels near elementary schools
in the Tampa area. Journal of Environmental Management. 92(8): 1923-
1930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.003.
\1258\ Stuart A.L., Mudhasakul S., Sriwatanapongse W. (2009) The
Social Distribution of Neighborhood-Scale Air Pollution and
Monitoring Protection. Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association. 59(5): 591-602. https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.59.5.591.
\1259\ Willis M.D., Hill E.L., Kile M.L., Carozza S., Hystad P.
(2020) Assessing the effectiveness of vehicle emission regulations
on improving perinatal health: a population-based accountability
study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 49(6): 1781-1791.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaa137.
\1260\ Collins, T.W., Grineski, SE, Nadybal, S. (2019) Social
disparities in exposure to noise at public schools in the contiguous
United States. Environ. Res. 175, 257-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.05.024.
\1261\ Kingsley S., Eliot M., Carlson L., Finn J., MacIntosh
D.L., Suh H.H., Wellenius G.A. (2014) Proximity of US schools to
major roadways: a nationwide assessment. J Expo Sci Environ
Epidemiol. 24: 253-259. https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2014.5.
\1262\ Depro, B.; Timmins, C. (2008) Mobility and environmental
equity: do housing choices determine exposure to air pollution? Duke
University Working Paper.
\1263\ Rothstein, R. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of
How Our Government Segregated America. New York: Liveright, 2018.
\1264\ Lane, H.J.; Morello-Frosch, R.; Marshall, J.D.; Apte,
J.S. (2022) Historical redlining is associated with present-day air
pollution disparities in US Cities. Environ Sci & Technol Letters 9:
345-350. DOI: [Online at: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c01012].
\1265\ Ware, L. (2021) Plessy's legacy: the government's role in
the development and perpetuation of segregated neighborhoods. RSF:
The Russel Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 7:92-109.
DOI: 10.7758/RSF.2021.7.1.06.
\1266\ Archer, D.N. (2020) ``White Men's Roads through Black
Men's Homes'': advancing racial equity through highway
reconstruction. Vanderbilt Law Rev 73: 1259.
\1267\ Park, Y.M.; Kwan, M.P. (2020) Understanding Racial
Disparities in Exposure to Traffic-Related Air Pollution:
Considering the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Population Distribution.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 17 (3): 908. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030908.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several publications report nationwide analyses that compare the
demographic patterns of people who do or do not live near major
roadways.\1268\ \1269\ \1270\ \1271\ \1272\ \1273\ Three of these
studies found that people living near major roadways are more likely to
be people of color or of low SES.1274 1275 1276 They also
found that the outcomes of their analyses varied between regions within
the United States. However, only one such study looked at whether such
conclusions were confounded by living in a location with higher
population density and looked at how demographics differ between
locations nationwide.\1277\ That study generally found that higher
density areas have higher proportions of low-income residents and
people of color. In other publications assessing a city, county, or
state, the results are similar.1278 1279 1280
[[Page 29697]]
Furthermore, students of lower-income families and students with
disabilities are more likely to travel to school by bus or public
transit than are other students.1281 1282 1283
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1268\ Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the U.S. near-roadway
population: public health and environmental justice considerations.
Transportation Research Part D; 59-67.
\1269\ Tian, N.; Xue, J.; Barzyk. T.M. (2013) Evaluating
socioeconomic and racial differences in traffic-related metrics in
the United States using a GIS approach. J Exposure Sci Environ
Epidemiol 23: 215-222.
\1270\ CDC (2013) Residential proximity to major highways--
United States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 62(3):
46-50.
\1271\ Clark, L.P.; Millet, D.B., Marshall, J.D. (2017) Changes
in transportation-related air pollution exposures by race-ethnicity
and socioeconomic status: outdoor nitrogen dioxide in the United
States in 2000 and 2010. Environ Health Perspect https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP959.
\1272\ Mikati, I.; Benson, A.F.; Luben, T.J.; Sacks, J.D.;
Richmond-Bryant, J. (2018) Disparities in distribution of
particulate matter emission sources by race and poverty status. Am J
Pub Health https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304297?journalCode=ajph.
\1273\ Alotaibi, R.; Bechle, M.; Marshall, J.D.; Ramani, T.;
Zietsman, J.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Khreis, H. (2019) Traffic
related air pollution and the burden of childhood asthma in the
continuous United States in 2000 and 2010. Environ International
127: 858-867. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018325388.
\1274\ Tian, N.; Xue, J.; Barzyk. T.M. (2013) Evaluating
socioeconomic and racial differences in traffic-related metrics in
the United States using a GIS approach. J Exposure Sci Environ
Epidemiol 23: 215-222.
\1275\ Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the U.S. near-roadway
population: public health and environmental justice considerations.
Transportation Research Part D; 59-67.
\1276\ CDC (2013) Residential proximity to major highways--
United States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 62(3):
46-50.
\1277\ Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the U.S. near-roadway
population: public health and environmental justice considerations.
Transportation Research Part D; 59-67.
\1278\ Pratt, G.C.; Vadali, M.L.; Kvale, D.L.; Ellickson, K.M.
(2015) Traffic, air pollution, minority, and socio-economic status:
addressing inequities in exposure and risk. Int J Environ Res Public
Health 12: 5355-5372. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120505355.
\1279\ Sohrabi, S.; Zietsman, J.; Khreis, H. (2020) Burden of
disease assessment of ambient air pollution and premature mortality
in urban areas: the role of socioeconomic status and transportation.
Int J Env Res Public Health doi:10.3390/ijerph17041166.
\1280\ Aizer A., Currie J. (2019) Lead and Juvenile Delinquency:
New Evidence from Linked Birth, School, and Juvenile Detention
Records. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 101 (4): 575-587.
https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00814.
\1281\ Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2021) The Longer
Route to School. [Online at https://www.bts.gov/topics/passenger-travel/back-school-2019].
\1282\ Wheeler, K.; Yang, Y.; Xiang, H. (2009) Transportation
use patterns of U.S. children and teenagers with disabilities.
Disability and Health J 2: 158-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2009.03.003.
\1283\ Park, K.; Esfahani, H.N.; Novack, V.L.; et al. (2022)
Impacts of disability on daily travel behaviour: A systematic
review. Transport Reviews 43: 178-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2022.2060371.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two recent studies provide strong evidence that reducing emissions
from heavy-duty vehicles is likely to reduce the disparity in exposures
to traffic-related air pollutants. Both use NO2 observations
from the recently launched TROPospheric Ozone Monitoring Instrument
satellite sensor as a measure of air quality, which provides high-
resolution observations that heretofore were unavailable from any
satellite.\1284\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1284\ TROPospheric Ozone Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) is
part of the Copernicus Sentinel-5 Precursor satellite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One study evaluated NO2 concentrations during the COVID-
19 lockdowns in 2020 and compared them to NO2 concentrations
from the same dates in 2019.\1285\ That study found that average
NO2 concentrations were highest in areas with the lowest
percentage of White populations, and that the areas with the greatest
percentages of non-White or Hispanic populations experienced the
greatest declines in NO2 concentrations during the lockdown.
These NO2 reductions were associated with the density of
highways in the local area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1285\ Kerr, G.H.; Goldberg, D.L.; Anenberg, S.C. (2021) COVID-
19 pandemic reveals persistent disparities in nitrogen dioxide
pollution. PNAS 118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022409118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the second study, NO2 measured from 2018-2020 was
averaged by racial groups and income levels in 52 large U.S. cities.
Using census tract-level NO2, the study reported average
population-weighted NO2 levels to be 28 percent higher for
low-income non-White people compared with high-income White people. The
study also used weekday-weekend differences and bottom-up emission
estimates to estimate that diesel traffic is the dominant source of
NO2 disparities in the studied cities.
Overall, there is substantial evidence that people who live or
attend school near major roadways are more likely to be of a non-White
race, Hispanic, and/or have a low SES. As described in section
VI.B.2.viii, traffic-related air pollution may have disproportionate
and adverse impacts on health across racial and sociodemographic
groups. We expect communities near roads will benefit from the reduced
vehicle emissions of PM, NOX, SO2, VOC, CO, and
mobile source air toxics projected to result from this final rule.
Although we were not able to conduct air quality modeling of the
estimated emission reductions, we believe it a fair inference that
because vehicular emissions affect communities with environmental
justice concerns disproportionately and adversely due to roadway
proximity, and because we project this rule will result in significant
reductions in vehicular emissions, these communities' exposures to non-
GHG air pollutants will be reduced. EPA is considering how to better
estimate the near-roadway air quality impacts of its regulatory actions
and how those impacts are distributed across populations.
ii. Upstream Source Impacts
As described in Chapter 4.5, we expect some non-GHG emissions
reductions from sources related to refining petroleum fuels and
increases in emissions from EGUs, both of which would lead to changes
in exposure for people living in communities near these facilities. The
EGU emissions increases become smaller over time because of changes in
the projected power generation mix as electricity generation uses less
fossil fuels.
Analyses of communities in close proximity to EGUs have found that
a higher percentage of communities of color and low-income communities
live near these sources when compared to national averages.\1286\ EPA
compared the percentages of people of color and low-income populations
living within three miles of fossil fuel-fired power plants regulated
under EPA's Acid Rain Program and/or EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule to the national average and found that there is a greater
percentage of people of color and low-income individuals living near
these power plants than in the rest of the country on average.\1287\
According to 2020 Census data, on average, the U.S. population is
comprised of 40 percent people of color and 30 percent low-income
individuals. In contrast, the population living near fossil fuel-fired
power plants is comprised of 53 percent people of color and 34 percent
low-income individuals.\1288\ Historically redlined neighborhoods are
more likely to be downwind of fossil fuel power plants and to
experience higher levels of exposure to relevant emissions than non-
redlined neighborhoods.\1289\ Analysis of populations near refineries
and oil and gas wells indicates there may be potential disparities in
pollution-related health risk from these
sources.1290 1291 1292 1293 See also section V.B of this
preamble, discussing issues pertaining to lifecycle emissions more
generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1286\ See 80 FR 64662, 64915-64916 (October 23, 2015).
\1287\ U.S. EPA (2023) 2021 Power Sector Programs--Progress
Report. https://www3.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/reports/.
\1288\ U.S. EPA (2023) 2021 Power Sector Programs--Progress
Report. https://www3.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/reports/.
\1289\ Cushing L.J., Li S., Steiger B.B., Casey J.A. (2023)
Historical red-lining is associated with fossil fuel power plant
siting and present-day inequalities in air pollutant emissions.
Nature Energy. 8: 52-61. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01162-y.
\1290\ U.S. EPA (2014). Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of
Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Petroleum
Refineries. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. January.
\1291\ Carpenter, A., and M. Wagner. Environmental justice in
the oil refinery industry: A panel analysis across United States
counties. J. Ecol. Econ. V. 159 (2019).
\1292\ Gonzalez, J.X., et al. Historic redlining and the siting
of oil and gas wells in the United States. J. Exp. Sci. & Env. Epi.
V. 33. (2023). p. 76-83.
\1293\ In comparison to the national population, the EPA
publication reports higher proportions of the following population
groups in block groups with higher cancer risk associated with
emissions from refineries: ``minority'', ``African American'',
``Other and Multiracial'', ``Hispanic or Latino'', ``Ages 0-17'',
``Ages 18-64'', ``Below the Poverty Level'', ``Over 25 years old
without a HS diploma'', and ``Linguistic isolations''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Economic Impacts
1. Impacts on Vehicle Sales, Fleet Turnover, Mode Shift, Class Shift
and Domestic Production
In this section, we discuss the impacts this regulation may have on
HD vehicle sales, including the potential for pre-buy and low-buy
decisions, decisions regarding the mode of transportation used to move
goods, shifting of purchases between HD vehicle classes, and effects on
domestic production of HD vehicles, under the modeled potential
compliance pathway. Pre-buy occurs when a purchaser pulls ahead a
planned future purchase to make the purchase before implementation of
an EPA regulation in anticipation that a
[[Page 29698]]
future vehicle may have a higher upfront or operational cost, or have
reduced reliability. Low-buy occurs when a vehicle that would have been
purchased after the implementation of a regulation is either not
purchased at all, or the purchase is delayed. Low-buy may occur
directly as a function of pre-buy (where a vehicle was instead
purchased prior to implementation of the new regulation), or due to a
vehicle purchaser delaying the purchase of a vehicle due to cost or
uncertainty. Pre- and low-buy are short-term effects, with research
indicating that effects are seen for one year or less before and after
a regulation is implemented.\1294\ Pre-buy and low-buy impact fleet
turnover, which can result in a level of emission reduction
attributable to the new emission standards that is different from the
level of emission reduction EPA estimated. Mode shift occurs if goods
that would normally be shipped by HD vehicle are instead shipped by
another method (e.g., rail, boat, air) as a result of this action.
Class shift occurs when a vehicle purchaser decides to purchase a
different class of vehicle than originally intended due to the new
regulation. For example, a purchaser may buy a Class 8 vehicle instead
of the Class 7 vehicle they may have purchased in the absence of a
regulation. Domestic production could be affected if the regulation
creates incentives for manufacturers to shift between domestic and
foreign production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1294\ See the EPA report ``Analysis of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Sales
Impacts Due to New Regulation'' at https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_pra_view.cfm?dirEntryID=349838&Lab=OTAQ for a literature
review and EPA analysis of pre-buy and low-buy due to HD
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our analysis of the comments and available data, as well
as our technical expertise in implementing the HD GHG and other vehicle
emissions programs, EPA finds that the above-described impacts are
unlikely to occur in a significant manner. Specifically, we expect that
they will either not occur at all, or if they do, occur in a limited
way that will not significantly affect the GHG emissions reductions
projected by this rule or that would unduly disrupt the HD vehicle
market. Notably, while some commenters speculated about the possibility
of these impacts, no commenter presented, and EPA is not aware of,
actual data and analysis demonstrating that these impacts would occur
in a significant way in response to this regulation. While there is
some analysis on these phenomena more generally--for example on low-buy
and pre-buy in response to earlier HD regulations or in the light-duty
(LD) sector--EPA finds that such analyses are not directly relevant to
this regulation given relevant differences between the economic impacts
of HD GHG and earlier HD criteria pollutant regulation, HD ICE and HD
ZEV vehicles, and the HD and LD sectors. As such, extrapolation of
these studies to this HD GHG regulation would not be technically sound.
Moreover, as we explain in this section, salient features of our
analysis of the modeled potential compliance pathway for this
regulation--including the significant expected operating savings as
well as the continuing availability of ICE vehicles in all HD vehicle
segments--provide strong, qualitative evidence that these impacts are
unlikely to be significant as a result of the final standards.
i. Vehicle Sales and Fleet Turnover
The final emission standards may lead to a change in the timing of
planned vehicle purchases, phenomena known as ``pre-buy'' and ``low-
buy.'' Pre-buy occurs when purchasers of HD vehicles pull their planned
future vehicle purchase forward to the months before a regulation is
implemented compared to when they otherwise would have purchased a new
vehicle in the absence of the regulation. Pre-buy may occur due to
expected cost increases of post-regulation vehicles, or in order to
avoid perceived cost, quality, or other changes associated with new
emission standards. Another reason pre-buy might occur is due to
purchaser beliefs about the availability of their vehicle type of
choice in the post-regulation market. For example, if purchasers think
that they might not be able to get the HD ICE vehicle they want after
the regulation is promulgated, they may pre-buy an ICE vehicle.\1295\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1295\ We note that the HD TRUCS model used in this rulemaking
to analyze ZEV technologies matched performance capabilities of ZEVs
to an existing ICE vehicle for each use case where the ZEV vehicle
technologies are technologically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our assessment, with respect to ZEV technologies included in our
potential compliance pathway, is that the Federal vehicle and battery
tax credits, and EVSE tax credits for those purchasers eligible for
them, will mitigate possible pre-buy by reducing the perceived purchase
price or lifetime operational cost difference of a new, post-rule ZEV
compared to a new pre- or post-rule comparable ICE vehicle. We also
expect that the final rule's more gradual phase-in of more stringent
standards compared to the proposal will mitigate possible pre-buy. In
addition, as noted in section D of the Executive Summary, the estimated
fleet-average costs to manufacturers per-vehicle for this rule are less
than those estimated for the HD GHG Phase 2 rule, which EPA found to be
reasonable, and we do not have data (and no commenter presented data)
showing a significant level of pre-buy in anticipation of Phase 2. As
also noted in section D of the Executive Summary, HD ZEV purchasers'
incremental upfront costs (after the tax credits) are recovered through
operational savings such that payback occurs between two and four years
on average for vocational vehicles, after two years for short-haul
tractors, and after five years on average for long-haul tractors. These
operational cost savings, and therefore the payback of the higher
upfront costs, will also mitigate pre-buy to the extent they are
considered in the purchase decision. With respect to possible purchaser
anxiety over being unable to purchase an ICE vehicle after promulgation
of the regulation, we note that these final standards do not mandate
the production or purchase of any particular vehicle, or the use of any
particular technology in such vehicles. As described in section C of
the Executive Summary and preamble section II, we model a potential
compliance pathway to meet the standards with a diverse mix of ICE
vehicle and ZEV technologies, as well as additional example potential
compliance pathways to meet the standards that do not include
increasing utilization of ZEV technologies. In addition, the phasing-in
of the standards will allow ample time for purchasers to make decisions
about their vehicle of choice, and the potential compliance pathway
modeled for this rule reflects that the majority of vehicles will
remain ICE vehicles, even in MY 2032.
While uncertainty about a new technology may trigger pre-buy as
well, this could be mitigated by purchasers being educated on the new
technology or increasing exposure to the new technology. For example,
education on the benefits of ZEV ownership and operational
characteristics (for example, reduced operational costs, decreased
exposure to exhaust emissions and engine noise and smoother
acceleration) and on charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure
technology and availability may lead to less uncertainty about each of
these technologies.\1296\ Our final standards may increase purchaser
exposure to ZEV
[[Page 29699]]
technologies, as well as incentivize manufacturers and dealers to
educate HD vehicle purchasers on ZEVs, including the benefits of ZEVs,
thus accelerating the reduction of purchaser risk aversion. We also
expect recent congressional actions to support ZEV infrastructure and
supply chain, including the CHIPS Act, BIL and IRA, will reduce
uncertainty surrounding ZEV ownership.\1297\ We note again that the
standards do not mandate the use of a specific technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1296\ For more information on purchaser acceptance of HD ZEVs,
see RIA Chapter 6.2. For more information on the charging and
hydrogen refueling infrastructure analysis in this rule, see RIA
Chapter 2.6.
\1297\ The CHIPS Act is the Creating Helpful Incentives to
Produce Semiconductors and Science Act and was signed into law on
August 9, 2022. It is designed to strengthen supply chains, domestic
manufacturing and national security. More information on how all of
these Acts are expected to support opportunities for growth along
the supply chain can be found in the January 2023 White House
publication ``Building a Clean Energy Economy: A Guidebook to the
Inflation Reduction Act's Investments in Clean Energy and Climate
Action.'' found online at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Inflation-Reduction-Act-Guidebook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to pre-buy, there is the possibility of ``low-buy''
occurring in response to new regulation.\1298\ In a low-buy scenario,
sales of HD vehicles decrease in the months after a regulation becomes
effective, compared to what would have happened in the absence of a
regulation, due to purchasers either pre-buying or delaying a planned
purchase. Low-buy may be directly attributable to pre-buy, where
purchases originally planned for the months following the effective
date of new emission standards are instead purchased in the months
preceding the effective date of the new emission standards. Low-buy may
also be attributable to purchasers delaying the planned purchase of a
new vehicle due to the new emission standards, and may occur for
reasons such as increased costs or uncertainty about the new vehicles.
We expect low-buy, to the extent that it might occur, to be mitigated
under the same circumstances described in this section for pre-buy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1298\ In comments, commenters referred to ``no-buy'' as opposed
to low-buy, however the concept is the same: the potential that
vehicles that would have been purchased after the new rule becomes
effective will not be purchased for a length of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in section 19.4 of the RTC for this rule, some commenters
on the proposed rule highlight the potential for this rule to lead to
pre-buy, with one commenter asserting that EPA should finalize more
incremental measures than those proposed in order to avoid dramatic
increases in up-front vehicle costs and associated pre-buy. Another
commenter stated that the cost of complying with the proposal will lead
to a pre-buy, and an increase in demand for the previous model year,
leading to an increase in the cost of that earlier model year. Some
commenters also stated that EPA's approach of not estimating sales
effects is inconsistent with both EPA's light-duty rules, and the
recently finalized HD2027 rule.
In response to the comment regarding more incremental measures than
those proposed, we point to preamble section II.F, where we explain
that the standards for MYs 2027-2031 in the final rule are not as
stringent as those proposed as they include a slower phase-in. While we
made this change for the reasons stated in section II of the preamble
and not due to any concerns with pre-buy or low-buy, this nonetheless
is responsive to the commenters' request for a slower phase-in. In
addition, in response to this commenter and the commenter on costs, the
costs of complying with the rule are lower on average than those
estimated in the proposed rule. Also, the estimated pathways of
compliance with the rule are associated with reduced fueling costs for
both the vehicles with ICE technologies, and with ZEVs. ZEVs are also
expected to have lower maintenance and repair costs than comparable ICE
vehicles. These cost savings will reduce the payback period of such
technologies that may be used by manufacturers to comply with the rule.
We expect that these cost savings will work toward mitigating possible
pre-buy and increased demand for previous model year vehicles.
In response to commenters stating that the qualitative discussion
in the proposed rule is inconsistent with our approach to sales effects
in light-duty rules, as well as with the recently finalized HD2027 Low
NOx final rule \1299\ (HD2027 rule), we believe this rule is
significantly different from those rules such that we cannot apply the
same kinds of quantitative analyses. First, with respect to light-duty,
the light-duty market is a very different market than the HD vehicle
market, and purchase decisions are made differently. LD consumer
behavior includes different considerations than a HD vehicle owner who
purchases a vehicle to perform work (such as transport passengers,
deliver concrete, or move freight). Therefore, the method of analyses
for estimating sales effects in the LD market are not the same as those
that should be used for effects in the HD market. Second, the costs of
GHG-reducing technologies are more than offset through operating
savings, unlike the technologies associated with the HD2027 rule. Thus,
we would expect sales effects of this rule to be significantly
different from those associated with the HD2027 rule or other rules
establishing standards to reduce criteria pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1299\ ``Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles:
Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards'' 88 FR 4296, January 24,
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At proposal, we discussed the analysis of EPA regulations on four
recent HD regulations, which suggested that the range of possible pre-
buy and low-buy due to those rules includes no pre-buy or low-buy due
to EPA rules.\1300\ We also made it clear that, while it is instructive
that the ERG report found little to no pre-buy or low-buy effects due
to our HD rules, the approach to estimate a change in the sales of HD
vehicles before and after the promulgation of a rule due to the cost of
that rule (as was done in the ERG report) should not be used to
estimate sales effects from this final rule because: (1) most of the
statistically significant sales effects in the report were estimated
using data from criteria pollutant rules, which are not appropriate for
use in estimating effects from HD GHG rules because differences in how
costs are incurred and benefits are accrued as a result of HD vehicle
criteria pollutant regulations versus HD GHG regulations may lead to
differences in how HD vehicle buyers react to a particular regulation;
\1301\ (2) there was relatively more uncertainty in the net estimated
price change from the 2014 GHG rule than in the criteria pollutant
rules because the performance-based GHG standards had many different
compliance pathways which led to both capital cost increases as well as
reductions in operating costs through fuel savings. As such, the cost
of the regulation could vary greatly across firms and may have led to
net cost savings. This likely variation in net costs of the rule led to
greater uncertainty in the results of the report; (3) the approach
outlined in the report was estimated only using HD ICE vehicle data
(e.g., cost of compliance due to adding HD ICE engine technologies to a
HD ICE engine) because that was all that was available at the time of
promulgation of the rules.
[[Page 29700]]
The modeled potential compliance pathway for this rule includes ZEV
technologies, which associated EVSE infrastructure, and the possible
impacts of such are not represented in the results of the report. For
these reasons, we are not using the method in the ERG report to
estimate sales effects due to this rule. For more discussion on
comments, and our response to comments, related to sales effect of this
rule, see RTC section 19.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1300\ ``Analysis of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Sales Impacts Due to New
Regulation.'' At https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_pra_view.cfm?dirEntryID=349838&Lab=OTAQ.
\1301\ For example, the 2014 rule (`Final Rule for Phase 1
Greenhouse House Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles' found at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-phase-1-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards) led to reductions in GHG
emissions and had lower associated technology costs compared to the
criteria pollutant rules, and compliance with the GHG regulation was
associated with fuel savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rulemaking is expected to lead to reductions in emissions
across the HD vehicle fleet (see section V of this preamble), though
such reductions are expected to happen gradually as the HD fleet turns
over. This is because the fraction of the total HD vehicle fleet that
are new, compliant vehicles will initially be a small portion of the
entire HD market. As more vehicles compliant with this rule are sold,
and as older HD vehicles are retired, greater emission reductions are
expected to accumulate. The emission reductions attributable to each HD
segment that will be affected by this rule will depend on many factors,
including the rate of purchase of compliant vehicles in each market
segment over time and the proportion of those vehicles that utilize
each of the mix of technologies under the compliance pathways
manufacturers choose. In addition, if pre-buy or low-buy occurs as a
result of this rulemaking, emission reductions will be smaller than
anticipated. Under pre-buy conditions, fleets would, on average, be
comprised of newer model year vehicles. Though these new vehicles are
expected to have lower emissions than the vehicles they are replacing,
emission reductions could still be lower than we estimate will be
achieved as a result of the final emission standards. Under low-buy, we
expect older, more polluting, HD vehicles to remain in use longer than
they otherwise would in the absence of new regulation. If pre-buy is
smaller than low-buy, to the extent both might occur, this would lead
to a slower fleet turnover, at least in the short term.\1302\
Conversely, if pre-buy is larger than low-buy, short-term fleet
turnover would increase and fleets would, on average, be comprised of
newer model year vehicles, and though emission reductions would be
expected to be larger than under a scenario where low-buy exceeds pre-
buy, emission reductions would still be lower than we estimate will be
achieved as a result of the final emission standards. Under a situation
where low-buy matches pre-buy, we would also expect lower emission
reductions than estimated, and emission reductions would likely be
somewhere between the two relative pre-buy/low-buy scenarios discussed
in this paragraph. For more information on sales impacts, see Chapter
6.1.1 of the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1302\ Fleet turnover refers to the pace at which new vehicles
are purchased and older vehicles are retired. A slower fleet
turnover means older vehicles are kept on the road longer, and the
fleet is older on average. A faster fleet turnover means that the
fleet is younger, on average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although, as commenters mentioned, the increased purchase price due
to this rule could potentially lead to pre-buy and/or low-buy, pre- or
low-buy is unlikely to occur in a significant manner. Specifically, we
expect that they will either not occur at all, or if they do, occur in
a limited way that will not significantly affect the GHG emissions
reductions projected by this rule or that would unduly disrupt the HD
vehicle market. This is due, in part, to the operating cost savings we
estimate will be achieved in complying with this rule. For the modeled
compliance pathway for this rule, that cost savings are expected to
wholly offset the increased upfront purchase cost for ZEVs, which leads
to payback periods of between two and five years. This is also
supported by the analyses of previously promulgated EPA HD emission
standards, which indicate that where pre-buy or low-buy has been seen,
the magnitude of these phenomena has been small.\1303\ Lastly, it
should be noted that many studies estimating how large or expensive
purchases are made, including that of HD vehicles, indicate purchase
decisions are heavily influenced by macroeconomic factors unrelated to
regulations, such as interest rates, economic activity, and the general
state of the economy.\1304\ For example, according to the Economic
Research Division of the Federal Reserve, retail sales of heavy weight
trucks sales fell dramatically between September of 2019 and May of
2020 (about 46 percent fewer sales), likely in great part due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, and they rebounded through May of 2021 to be only
about 13 percent lower than in September of the previous year.\1305\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1303\ For example, Lam and Bausell (2007), Rittenhouse and
Zaragoza-Watkins (2018), and an unpublished report by Harrison and
LeBel (2008). For EPA's summary on these studies, see the EPA peer
review report ``Analysis of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Sales Impacts Due to
New Regulation.'' at https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_pra_view.cfm?dirEntryID=349838&Lab=OTAQ, in the docket for
this rule.
\1304\ See the literature review found in the ERG report
mentioned earlier in this section, ``Analysis of Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Sales Impacts Due to New Regulation.'' Found at https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_pra_view.cfm?dirEntryID=349838&Lab=OTAQ
for more information.
\1305\ The graph of monthly, seasonally adjusted heavy weight
truck sales from the Bureau of Economic Analysis can be found at:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HTRUCKSSAAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Mode Shift
Mode shift would occur if goods normally shipped by HD vehicle are
instead shipped by another method (e.g., rail, boat, air) as a result
of this action. Whether shippers switch to a different mode of
transportation for freight depends not only on the cost per mile of the
shipment (i.e., freight rate), but also the value of the shipment, the
speed of transport needed for shipment (for example, for non-durable
goods), and the availability of supporting infrastructure (e.g., rail
lines, highways, waterways). Shifting from HD vehicles to other modes
of transportation may occur if the cost of shipping goods by HD
vehicles increases relative to other modes of transport in cases where
there is another mode of transport available that can meet the required
timing. Though we are unable to estimate what effect this rule might
have on shipping costs, in part because we are not able to estimate how
a change in upfront vehicle costs affects shipping rates, or how much
of a change in operational costs is passed through to the shipping
rates, we do estimate that, under the potential compliance pathway
projected for this rule, average net upfront costs are paid back in
five years or less for the vehicle groups affected by this rule, and
these vehicles are expected to experience reduced operational costs.
Chapter 3.3 of the RIA and section IV.D of this preamble discuss the
estimated decrease in operational costs of this rule, mainly due to the
increase in the share of ZEVs in the on-road HD fleet under the modeled
potential compliance pathway. But the same is true for ICE vehicles
that meet the Phase 3 emission standards, using other potential
compliance pathways. The vehicles that comply with this rule are
expected to have positive total costs of ownership over both five- and
ten-year time horizons and thus we do not expect a significant increase
in shipping rates and therefore we do not project mode shifts as a
likely outcome of this regulation.\1306\ Furthermore, no commenter
suggested that mode shift was a reasonable outcome of our proposed
standards.\1307\ For more
[[Page 29701]]
information on mode shift, see Chapter 6.1.2 of the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1306\ If manufacturers comply by adding technology to ICE
vehicles, we also expect to see reduced operational costs through
reduced fuel consumption.
\1307\ We note that a study published by Argonne National
Laboratory in 2017 indicates that if mode shift were to occur as a
result of this rule, it would likely result in further decreasing
transportation GHG emissions and upstream energy usage. https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2017/08/137467.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Class Shift
Class shift would occur if purchasers shift their vehicle purchase
from one class of vehicle to another class of vehicle due to impacts of
the rule on vehicle attributes, including performance and relative
costs, among vehicle types that could practically be switched. Heavy-
duty vehicles are typically configured and purchased to perform a
function. For example, a concrete mixer truck is purchased to transport
concrete, a combination tractor is purchased to move freight with the
use of a trailer, and a Class 4 box truck could be purchased to make
deliveries. The purchaser makes decisions based on many attributes of
the vehicle, including the gross vehicle weight rating, which in part
determines the amount of freight or equipment that can be carried. If
the Phase 3 standards impact either the performance or cost of a
vehicle relative to the other vehicle classes, then purchasers may
choose to purchase a different vehicle, resulting in the unintended
consequence of increased fuel consumption or GHG emissions in-use.
A purchaser in need of a specific vocational vehicle, such as a
bus, box truck or street sweeper, would not be able to shift the
purchase to a vehicle with a less stringent emission standard (such as
the optional custom chassis standards for emergency vehicles,
recreational vehicles, or mixed use (nonroad) type vehicles) and still
meet their needs. The purchaser makes decisions based on many
attributes of the vehicle, including the gross vehicle weight rating or
gross combined weight rating of the vehicle, which in part determines
the amount of freight or equipment that can be carried. Due to this, it
is not likely feasible for purchasers to switch to other vehicle
classes simply due to the emission standards.
In the proposed rule, we requested comment on data or methods to
estimate the effect the emission standards might have on class
shifting. Though we did not receive comment on data or methods, we did
receive comment on possible class shifting, due to the differences
between an ICE vehicle and its corresponding ZEV counterpart. EMA
commented that ZEVs will require increased axle-capacity directly due
to increased vehicle weight, or to ensure consistent payload under
increased vehicle weight due to the weight of a battery. EMA commented
that this may lead to driver shortages if vehicles shifted from Class 6
to Class 7, for example due to increased driver requirements, and will
lead to increased costs, for example due to increased driver pay or the
need to pay excise taxes if a vehicle shifts from Class 7 to Class 8.
As described in section II.D.3 of the preamble, we account for
differences in vehicle uses and payload capacity in HD TRUCS, a tool we
developed to for this rule to evaluate ZEV technologies. Our HD TRUCS
analysis was then incorporated in in our consideration of possible
compliance pathways to support the feasibility of the final standards.
In the modeled potential compliance pathway, we estimate the new
vehicles produced and sold compliant with the rule, including ZEVs, are
able to perform the same function as vehicles produced without the rule
in place. For example, BEV technologies were not included within the
potential compliance pathway in situations where the performance needs
of a BEV would result in a battery that was too large or heavy due to
the impact on payload and potential work accomplished relative to a
comparable ICE vehicle. We assess the incremental weight increase or
decrease of ZEVs compared to ICE vehicles in RIA Chapter 2.9.1. Also,
it should be noted that for this final rule, we projected multiple
pathways to compliance, including pathways that did not project an
increase in ZEV penetration. Furthermore, although there are possible
pathways that include reduced ZEV penetration compared to the modeled
potential compliance pathway estimated in the analysis for this rule,
there may also be greater ZEV penetration in one or more vehicle
classes than we estimate in the modeled potential compliance pathway.
Class shift could also occur if one class of vehicle becomes
significantly more expensive relative to another class of vehicle due
to the technology and operating costs associated with the new emission
standards. We expect class shifting, if it does occur, to be very
limited because this rule applies new emission standards to all HD
vehicle classes, as described in preamble section II. Furthermore,
typically the purchase cost of heavy-duty vehicles increases with the
class of the vehicle. In other words, a light heavy-duty box truck
typically costs less to purchase and operate than a heavy heavy-duty
box truck. The projected incremental upfront and operating costs to
purchasers in the modeled compliance pathway for this final rule do not
lead to situations where the cost to purchase a heavier class of
vehicle becomes lower than the cost to purchase a lighter class.\1308\
In addition, the average payback period for the technologies in the
modeled potential compliance pathway for all of the classes of vehicles
are within the first ownership period, and our analysis shows a
positive total cost of ownership over a five year time horizon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1308\ See preamble section II.F.2.ii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, we expect very little class shifting, if any, to occur.
However, if a limited amount of shifting were to occur, we expect
negligible emission impacts (compared to those emission reductions
estimated to occur as a result of the emission standards).
iv. Domestic Production
These emission standards are not expected to provide incentives for
manufacturers to shift between domestic and foreign production. This is
because the emission standards apply to vehicles sold in the United
States regardless of where such vehicles are produced. If foreign
manufacturers already have increased expertise in satisfying the
requirements of the emission standards, there may be some initial
incentive for foreign production. However, given increasing global
interest in reducing vehicle emissions, specifically through the use of
ZEV technologies, as domestic manufacturers produce vehicles with
reduced emissions, including ZEVs, the opportunity for domestic
manufacturers to sell in other markets might increase. To the extent
that the emission standards might lead to application and use of
technologies that other countries may seek now or in the future,
developing this capacity for domestic producers now may provide some
additional ability to serve those markets. In addition, this rule and
Federal actions including the IRA and BIL support the U.S. in our
efforts to remain competitive on a global scale by encouraging and
supporting the expansion of and investment in domestic manufacturing of
ZEV technologies, supply chains, charging infrastructure and other
industries related to green transportation technology.
As discussed in section B of the Executive Summary and RIA Chapter
1, the IRA contains tax credit incentives. The tax credit for the
production and sale of battery cells and modules \1309\ is
[[Page 29702]]
conditioned on such components or minerals being produced in the United
States and, thus, is designed to encourage such domestic
production.\1310\ Our cost analysis reflects that in our modeled
potential compliance pathway we project an increasing percentage of the
batteries used in HD BEVs will be eligible for the up to $45/kwh tax
credit beginning in MY 2027 through MY 2032, in addition to
consideration of the other tax incentives that apply to vehicle and
EVSE purchasers, as described in section IV and RIA Chapter 3. For more
information on comments received on possible impacts to domestic
production of HD vehicles or components, and our responses, see the RTC
section 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1309\ The tax credit (45X) is for up to $45 per kilowatt-hour
(kWh), and for 10 percent of the cost of producing applicable
critical minerals (including those found in batteries and fuel
cells, provided that the minerals meet certain specifications).
\1310\ Note that the 30C charger credit has a requirement that
eligible chargers must be installed in certain census tracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Purchaser Acceptance
In the modeled potential compliance pathway for the final rule, we
project an increase in the adoption of HD BEVs and FCEVs for most of
the HD vehicle types for MYs 2027 and beyond (see preamble section II
or the RIA Chapter 2 for details).\1311\ As explained in section IV and
Chapter 3 of the RIA, though we estimate this rule will be associated
with higher upfront vehicle costs for some vehicles, these costs are
expected to be mitigated by operating costs savings. As explained in
preamble section II and RIA Chapter 2, under the modeled potential
compliance pathway, although some HD ZEVs produced and sold in response
to this rule have higher incremental upfront purchaser vehicle cost
difference between a ZEV and a comparable ICE vehicle (or higher
incremental upfront purchaser cost difference when including
consideration of EVSE, as applicable), our cost analysis shows that
this incremental upfront purchaser cost difference will be partially or
fully offset by a combination of the Federal vehicle tax credit and
battery tax credit (and EVSE tax credit, as applicable) for HD ZEVs
that are available through MY 2032, and further offset over time
through operational savings.\1312\ Our analysis shows that, in our
modeled compliance pathway, the vehicle types for which we project ZEV
adoption for MY 2032 have an average payback period of between two and
five years, depending on the regulatory group, when compared to a
comparable ICE vehicle, even after considering the upfront purchaser
and operating costs of the associated EVSE. See sections II and IV of
this preamble and Chapters 2 and 3 of the RIA for more information on
the estimated costs of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1311\ We again note that manufacturers may choose any
compliance pathway that meets the final standards, including
pathways that do not use ZEV technologies, and thus we note that
ZEVs may not be purchased at the rates estimated in the modeled
potential compliance pathway analyzed for this rule.
\1312\ For more information on the Federal tax credits, see
section ES.B of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Businesses that operate HD vehicles are under competitive pressure
to reduce operating costs, which should encourage purchasers to
identify and rapidly adopt new vehicle technologies that reduce
operating costs. As outlays for labor and fuel generally constitute the
two largest shares of HD vehicle operating costs, depending on the
price of fuel, distance traveled, type of HD vehicle, and commodity
transported (if any), businesses that operate HD vehicles face strong
incentives to reduce these costs.1313 1314 Potential savings
in operating costs appear to offer strong incentives for HD vehicle
buyers to pay higher upfront costs for vehicles that reduce operating
costs, such as HD ZEVs. Economic theory suggests that a normally
functioning competitive market would lead HD vehicle buyers to want to
purchase, and HD vehicle manufacturers to incorporate, technologies
that contribute to lower net costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1313\ American Transportation Research Institute, An Analysis
of the Operational Costs of Trucking, September 2013. Docket ID:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0512.
\1314\ Transport Canada, Operating Cost of Trucks, 2005. Docket
ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In RIA Chapter 6.2, we discuss the possibility that an ``energy
efficiency gap'' or ``energy paradox'' has existed, where available
technologies that would reduce the total cost of ownership for the
vehicle (when evaluated over their expected lifetimes using
conventional discount rates) have not been widely adopted, or the
adoption is relatively slow, despite their potential to repay buyers'
initial investments rapidly. The energy efficiency gap may exist due to
constraints on access to capital for investment, imperfect or
asymmetrical information about the new technology, uncertainty about
supporting infrastructure, uncertainty about the resale market, and
first-mover disadvantages for manufacturers. For example, purchasers
may not consider the full, or even a portion of, the value of
operational cost savings, due to uncertainty, such as uncertainty about
future fuel prices, or purchaser uncertainty about the technology
itself. Another example of when this may occur is if a principal-agent
problem exists, causing split incentives.\1315\ In this section we
discuss these potential issues that may impact the adoption of
technologies like HD ZEVs, as well as factors (like this final rule)
that may mitigate them. We expect these final Phase 3 standards as well
as other factors we discuss will help overcome such barriers by
incentivizing the development of technologies and supporting
infrastructure that reduce operating costs and total cost of ownership,
like ZEV technologies, and reduce uncertainties for HD vehicle
purchasers on such technologies' benefits and other potential concerns.
Additionally, the final rule also sends a signal to electric utilities
of demand under the potential compliance pathway, and thus provides
support justifying buildout of electrification infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1315\ A principal-agent problem happens when there is a
conflict in priorities (split incentives) between a ``principal,''
or the owner of an asset, and an ``agent,'' or the person to whom
control of the asset has been delegated, such as a manager or HD
vehicle operator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The availability of existing incentives, including the Federal
purchaser (vehicle and EVSE) and battery manufacturing tax credits in
the IRA, is expected to lead to lower upfront costs for purchasers of
HD ZEVs than would otherwise occur.\1316\ We expect this will impact
ZEV adoption rates by purchasers taking advantage of existing
incentives to lower the upfront costs of purchasing HD ZEVs (including
depot EVSE), which would result in higher ZEV adoption rates than would
otherwise exist absent such incentives, and so counteract the energy
efficiency gap for purchasers under the modeled potential compliance
pathway for manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1316\ Note that the incentives exist in the reference scenario
and under the scenario analyzed with our final standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as purchasers consider more of the operational cost
savings of, for example, a ZEV over a comparable ICE vehicle in their
purchase decision, the smaller the impact the higher upfront costs for
purchasers have on that decision, and purchasers are more likely to
purchase (in this example, a ZEV). However, for this example,
uncertainty about ZEV technology, charging infrastructure technology
and availability for BEVs, hydrogen refueling infrastructure for FCEVs,
or uncertainty about future fuel and electricity prices may affect
purchaser consideration of operational cost savings of ZEVs.\1317\
Other areas of
[[Page 29703]]
uncertainty include purchasers' impressions of BEV charging and FCEV
fueling infrastructure support and availability, perceptions of the
comparisons of quality and durability of different BEV powertrains, and
resale value of the vehicle. We acknowledge that uncertainties,
including those regarding infrastructure, could affect manufacturer
compliance strategies, and could lead to compliance strategy decisions
involving fewer ZEVs than we project in our modeled potential
compliance pathway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1317\ We provide an assessment of charging infrastructure and
the electric generation, transmission and distribution in preamble
section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in detail in RIA Chapter 2.6 and 2.10.3, EPA has
carefully analyzed the infrastructure needs and costs to support the
modeled potential compliance pathway's technology packages that support
the MY 2027-2032 standards. Additionally, as purchasers learn more
about ZEV technologies, and as the penetration of the technologies and
supporting infrastructure in the market increases, the exposure to ZEV
technologies in the real world will reduce uncertainty related to
viability or durability of the vehicles and the availability of
supporting infrastructure. And though increasing penetration of HD ZEVs
is projected to continue to happen regardless of the standards, as
explained in our reference case, these standards are expected to help
accelerate the process, incentivizing manufacturers to educate
purchasers on the benefits of their compliance strategy technologies,
like HD ZEVs. We note that, as explained in preamble section
II.B.2.iii, EPA, in consultation with other agencies, has committed to
engage with stakeholders to monitor compliance and major elements
related to HD ZEV infrastructure, and to issue periodic reports
reflecting this collected information in the lead up to these
standards. These actions will also increase purchaser awareness and
reduce uncertainty.
A principal-agent problem could exist if truck operators (agents)
and truck purchasers who are not also operators (principals) value
characteristics of the trucks under purchase consideration differently
(split incentives) which could lead to differences in purchase
decisions between truck operators and truck purchasers. Characteristics
may include physical characteristics (for example noise, vibration or
acceleration), cost characteristics (for example operational costs,
purchase prices, or cost of EVSE installation), or other
characteristics (for example availability of EVSE infrastructure). Such
potential split incentives, or market failures, could, for example,
impact HD ZEV adoption rates if agents weigh characteristics more
associated with ICE vehicles greater than those associated with ZEV
vehicles in a manner different than represented in the analysis of the
modeled compliance pathway for this rule. The possibility of a
principal-agent problem could be mitigated through measures that cause
an alignment of interests between the principal and the agent, for
example, measures that lead to sharing of the benefits and/or costs
that may cause the issue. While this is a theoretical issue, EPA is not
aware of any data or analysis persuasively demonstrating if the
principal-agent problem significantly affects HD vehicle purchases
generally, or specifically with respect to HD ZEV purchases. However,
we note that, given the commercial nature of how HD vehicles are used
and the need to minimize costs in competitive business environments, we
think it is reasonable, absent empirical evidence to the contrary, to
conclude that truck purchasers are very unlikely to ignore the
significant operational cost savings associated with HD ZEVs.
EPA recognizes that there is uncertainty related to technologies
that manufacturers may adopt in their compliance strategies for this
final rule, like ZEVs, that may impact the adoption of new technology
even though it reduces operating costs. Markets for both new and used
HD vehicles may face these problems, although it is difficult to assess
empirically the degree to which they do. We expect these final Phase 3
standards will help overcome such barriers by incentivizing the
development and deployment of technologies that reduced HD vehicle
emissions, including ZEV technologies, and the development of
supporting infrastructure, as well as the education of HD vehicle
purchasers on the benefits of reduced emission technology and about ZEV
infrastructure.
In the proposed rule, we requested comment and data on acceptance
of HD ZEVs. Though we did not receive any data, we did receive many
comments on ZEV acceptance and adoption, including assertions that the
proposed rule would lead to reduced choice at the dealership because
there will be fewer ICE vehicle models available to choose from, and
that total ownership cost and return on investment for HD ZEVs is
difficult to predict, in part because ZEVs are so new. Other commenters
were in support of greater ZEV adoption, stating that the benefits of
ZEVs, including their overall cost, driver appreciation, and
sustainability, are drivers for adoption. Further detail regarding
these comments and our responses is in RTC section 19.5.
In our modeled potential compliance pathway that supports the
feasibility of the standards, we account for and consider willingness
to purchase considerations in several ways (and, correspondingly,
impacts on HD ZEV adoption included in the modeled potential compliance
pathway). This includes considering uncertainty about vehicle weight,
component (e.g., battery) sizing, infrastructure availability, upfront
purchaser costs, and payback for purchasers, as well as including
limitations in our analysis to phase in the final standards to provide
additional time and a slower pace of adjustment in early model years.
For example, our HD TRUCS analysis applies oversize factors for
batteries to account for temperature effects, potential battery
degradation and more; we sized most batteries for the 90th percentile
of estimated VMT; \1318\ and we sized EVSE such that vehicles'
batteries could be fully recharged during the dwell time available to
specific vehicle applications. In addition, in our HD TRUCS analysis we
cap the ZEV adoption rate for each vehicle type to be no more than 70
percent for MY 2032 and no more than 20 percent in MY 2027. For more
detail on the constraints we considered and included, see preamble
sections II.D, II.E, and II.F. In the HD TRUCS analysis, we developed a
method to include consideration of payback in assessing adoption rates
of BEVs and FCEVs for the modeled potential compliance pathway after
considering methods in the literature.\1319\ Our payback curve, and
methods considered and explored in the formulation of the method used
in this rule, are described in RIA Chapter 2.7. As stated there, given
information currently available, and our experience with the HD vehicle
industry, payback period is the most relevant metric to the HD vehicle
industry.\1320\ The payback schedule caps used in our model are lower
in MY 2027 compared to MY 2032 to recognize additional time for the
[[Page 29704]]
ZEV technology and infrastructure to mature. Fleet owners and drivers
will have had more exposure to ZEV technology in 2032 compared to 2027,
which may work to alleviate concerns related to ZEVs (for example,
concerns of reliability) and result in a lower impression of risk of
these newer technologies. In addition, infrastructure to support ZEV
technologies will have had more time to expand and mature, further
supporting increased HD ZEV adoption rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1318\ For the final rule, we sized batteries in BEVs that we
expect to be charged en-route using public charging starting in MY
2030 at the 50th percentile daily VMT. For the longest range day
cabs and sleeper cabs, on days when these vehicles are required to
travel longer distances, we find that less than 30 minutes of mid-
day charging at 1 MW is sufficient to meet the HD TRUCS 90th
percentile VMT assuming vehicles start the day with a full battery.
\1319\ Adoption rates estimated in HD TRUCS are one of several
factors considered in determining the appropriate level of the
standards. These estimated adoption rates in HD TRUCS demonstrate
that the adoption rates in our modeled potential compliance pathway
are all feasible.
\1320\ Our assessment of total cost of ownership, shown in RIA
Chapter 2.12, further supports our assessment of payback periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, EPA recognizes that businesses that operate HD vehicles
are under competitive pressure to reduce operating costs, which should
encourage HD vehicle buyers to identify and rapidly adopt cost-
effective technologies that reduce operating costs and the total cost
of ownership. Outlays for labor and fuel generally constitute the two
largest shares of HD vehicle operating costs, depending on the price of
fuel, distance traveled, type of HD vehicle, and commodity transported
(if any), so businesses that operate HD vehicles face strong incentives
to reduce these costs. However, EPA also recognizes that there is
uncertainty related to technologies that manufacturers may adopt in
their compliance strategies for this final rule, like ZEVs, that may
impact the adoption of these technologies even though they reduce
operating costs. Markets for both new and used HD vehicles may face
these problems, although it is difficult to assess empirically the
degree to which they do. As explained in this section and RIA Chapter
6.2, we expect these final Phase 3 standards as well as other factors
we discussed will help overcome such barriers by incentivizing the
development of technologies and supporting infrastructure that reduce
operating costs and total cost of ownership, like ZEV technologies, and
reduce uncertainties for HD vehicle purchasers on such technologies'
benefits and other potential concerns.
As explained in section II of the preamble, under the modeled
potential compliance pathway the majority of new vehicles are projected
to be ICE vehicles. Additionally, in this final rule, we emphasize that
manufacturers have flexibility to choose among various compliance
pathways to meet the standards that can include a mix of HD vehicle
technologies; we analyzed a modeled potential compliance pathway to
support the feasibility of the final standards, and we also provided
additional example potential compliance pathways that utilizes only
vehicles with ICE technologies relative to the reference case. Because
there are multiple ways to comply with this rule, and even under the
modeled potential compliance pathway the majority of new vehicles are
projected to be ICE vehicles, we expect that fleets and purchasers will
be able to purchase the vehicle that works best for them given their
circumstances. For fleets and purchasers, purchase decisions may
include choosing a vehicle to comply with state or local policies as
well as this rule, or choosing a vehicle that improves driver retention
due to its characteristics. As noted, the final rule also sends a
signal to electric utilities of demand under the modeled potential
compliance pathway, and thus provides support justifying buildout of
electrification infrastructure. As explained in section VI.E.1, the
ability for manufacturers to comply through various compliance pathways
is also expected to reduce the likelihood of pre- or low-buy that could
potentially be associated with this rule.
3. VMT Rebound
Historically, the ``rebound effect'' has been interpreted as more
intensive vehicle use, resulting in an increase in liquid fuel in
response to increased ICE vehicle fuel efficiency. Although much of
this possible vehicle use increase is likely to take the form of an
increase in the number of miles vehicles are driven, it can also take
the form of an increase in the loaded operating weight of a vehicle or
altering routes and schedules in response to improved fuel efficiency.
More intensive use of those HD ICE vehicles consumes fuel and generates
emissions, which reduces the fuel savings and avoided emissions that
would otherwise be expected to result from increasing fuel efficiency
of HD ICE vehicles.
Unlike the LD vehicle rebound effect, there is little published
literature on the HD vehicle rebound effect, and all of it focuses on
the rebound effect due to increased ICE fuel efficiency. Winebrake et
al. (2012) suggest that vocational trucks and tractor trailers have a
rebound effect of essentially zero.\1321\ Leard et al. (2015) estimate
that tractor trailers have a rebound effect of 30 percent, while
vocational vehicles have a 10 percent rebound rate.\1322\ Patwary et
al. (2021) estimated that the average rebound effect of the U.S. road
freight sector is between about 7 to 9 percent, although their study
indicated that rebound has increased over time.\1323\ This is slightly
smaller than the value found by Leard et al. (2015) for the similar
sector of tractors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1321\ Winebrake, J.J., Green, E.H., Comer, B., Corbett, J.J.,
Froman, S., 2012. Estimating the direct rebound effect for on-road
freight transportation. Energy Policy 48, 252-259.
\1322\ Leard, B., Linn, J., McConnell, V., and Raich, W. (2015).
Fuel Costs, Economic Activity, and the Rebound Effect for Heavy-Duty
Trucks. Resources For the Future Discussion Paper, 14-43.
\1323\ Patwary, A.L., Yu, T.E., English, B.C., Hughes, D.W., and
Cho, S.H. (2021). Estimating the rebound effect of the US road
freight transport. Transportation Research Record, 2675(6), 165-174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to ZEVs specifically, we do not have data that
operational cost savings of switching from an ICE vehicle to a ZEV will
affect the VMT driven of that vehicle, nor do we have data on how
changing fuel prices might affect VMT of ZEVs over time. Given the
increasing penetration of ZEVs in the HD fleet even in the reference
case, as explained in preamble section V, as well as the wide range of
effects discussed in the literature, we do not believe the rebound
estimates in literature cited here are appropriate for use in our
analysis. In addition, the majority of research on VMT rebound has been
performed in the light-duty vehicle context. The factors influencing
light-duty and heavy-duty VMT are generally different. For example,
light-duty VMT is generally related to personal considerations,
including costs and benefits associated with driving, while HD VMT is
more a function of profits or impacts on labor. It is also important to
note that even if there is an increase in VMT in new vehicles, this may
be offset by a decrease in VMT on older vehicles. This may occur if
operational cost savings on newer vehicles due to this rule lead
operators to shift VMT to these newer, more efficient vehicles.
If rebound rates are positive, we would assume that higher rebound
rates are associated with larger responses to a change in the cost per
mile of travel, which could result in some increase in non-GHG
emissions and in brake and tire wear, but also an increase in benefits
associated with increased vehicle use (for example, increased economic
activity associated with the services provided by those vehicles), as
well as positive impacts on employment. However, lower rebound rates
may happen if owner/operators use those cost savings in other ways, for
example, to reduce their payback period. Also, as noted in the
Winebrake at al. (2012) study, possible rebound impacts are likely
reduced by adjustments in other operational costs such as labor, and
the nature of the freight industry as an input to a larger supply chain
system. As in the proposal, we are not estimating any VMT rebound due
to this rule (88 FR 26072). Comments received on this issue, and our
response to them, can be found in RTC section 19.2.
[[Page 29705]]
4. Employment Impacts
Economic theories of labor demand indicate that employers affected
by environmental regulation may change their demand for different types
of labor in different ways, increasing demand for some types,
decreasing demand for other types, or not changing it at all for still
other types. A variety of conditions can affect employment impacts of
environmental regulation, including baseline labor market conditions
and employer and worker characteristics such as industry and region. A
growing body of literature has examined employment effects of
environmental regulation. Morgenstern et al. decompose the labor
consequences in a regulated industry facing increased abatement
costs.\1324\ This study identifies three separate components of labor
demand effects. First, there is a demand effect caused by higher
production costs, which in turn, results in increased market prices.
Increased market prices reduce consumption (and production), thereby
reducing demand for labor within the regulated industry. Second, there
is a cost effect. As production costs increase, manufacturing plants
use more of all inputs, including labor, to produce the same level of
output. Third, there is a factor-shift effect, which occurs when post-
regulation production technologies may have different labor intensities
than pre-regulation production technologies.\1325\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1324\ Morgenstern, R.D.; Pizer, W.A.; and Shih, J.-S. ``Jobs
Versus the Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective.'' Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 43: 412-436. 2002.
\1325\ Additional literature using similar frameworks include
Berman and Bui (2001) and Desch[ecirc]nes (2018). For more
information on this literature, see the Chapter 10 of the RIA for
the HD2027 rule, found at Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to a lack of data, we are not able to estimate employment
effects from this rule. The overall effect of the rule on employment in
the heavy-duty vehicle manufacturing sector depends on the relative
magnitude of factor-shift, cost, and demand effects, as well as
possible differences in employment related to HD ICE and ZEV
manufacturing under the potential compliance pathway. A market shift to
HD ZEVs will lead to a shift in employment needs as well. In Chapter
6.4.2 of the RIA, we show that the amount of labor per million dollars
in sales in motor vehicle manufacturing sectors has generally declined
over the last fifteen years, indicating that fewer people have been
needed to produce the same value of goods. For example, in 2008, motor
vehicle body and trailer manufacturing employed about 4.8 employees per
million dollars in sales, falling to just under 3.7 employees per
million dollars in sales in 2022. In the electrical equipment
manufacturing sector, which is involved in the production of components
that go in to BEVs and the battery electric portion of PHEVS,
employment has increased over the last fifteen years, rising from about
3.3 employees per million dollars in sales in 2007 to about 4.1
employees per million dollars in sales in 2022.
The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) has stated that re-
training programs will be needed to support auto workers in a market
with an increasing share of electric vehicles in order to prepare
workers that might be displaced by the shift to the new
technology.\1326\ In comments on the proposed rule, the UAW stated
support for emission reductions, though they also indicated a slower
phase in of ZEVs into the market than that projected in the proposal
would better support employees in auto manufacturing and supporting
industries. Volkswagen has stated that labor requirements for ICE
vehicles are about 70 percent higher than their electric counterpart,
but these changes in employment intensities in the manufacturing of the
vehicles can be offset by shifting to the production of new components,
for example batteries or battery cells.\1327\ Climate Nexus has
indicated that increasing penetrations of electric vehicles will lead
to a net increase in jobs, a claim that is partially supported by the
rising investment in batteries, vehicle manufacturing and charging
stations.\1328\ Though most of these statements are specifically
referring to light-duty vehicles, they hold true for the HD market as
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1326\ More information on UAW's comments can be found in the
white paper ``Making EVs work for American workers'' found at
https://uaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/190416-EV-White-Paper-REVISED-January-2020-Final.pdf.
\1327\ Herrmann, F., Beinhauer, W., Borrmann, D., Hertwig, M.,
Mack, J., Potinecke, T., Praeg, C., Rally, P. 2020. Effects of
Electric Mobility and Digitalisation on the Quality and Quantity of
Employment at Volkswagen. Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial
Engineering IAO. Study on behalf of the Sustainability Council of
the Volkswagen Group. https://www.volkswagenag.com/presence/stories/2020/12/frauenhofer-studie/6095_EMDI_VW_Summary_um.pdf.
\1328\ See the report from Climate Nexus at https://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/energy/ev-job-impacts/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The expected investment mentioned by Climate Nexus is also
supported by recent Federal investment which will allow for increased
investment along the vehicle supply chain, including domestic battery
manufacturing, charging infrastructure, and vehicle manufacturing, both
in the LD and HD markets.\1329\ This investment includes the BIL, the
CHIPS Act,\1330\ and the IRA, which are expected to create domestic
employment opportunities along the full automotive sector supply chain,
from components and equipment manufacturing and processing to final
assembly, as well as incentivize the development of reliable EV battery
supply chains, both for BEVs and PHEVs.\1331\ For example, the IRA is
expected to impact domestic employment through conditions on
eligibility for purchase incentives and battery manufacturing
incentives. These conditions include contingencies for domestic
assembly, domestic critical minerals production, and domestic battery
manufacturing. As an example, a new joint venture between Daimler
Trucks, Cummins, and PACCAR recently announced a new battery factory to
be built in the U.S. to manufacture cells and packs initially focusing
on heavy-duty and industrial applications was announced in September
2023.\1332\ The BlueGreen Alliance and the Political Economy Research
Institute estimate that IRA will create over 9 million jobs over the
next decade, with about 400,000 of those jobs being attributed directly
to the battery and fuel cell vehicle provisions in the act.\1333\ As
discussed in RTC section
[[Page 29706]]
19.6, there are many existing and planned projects focused on training
new and existing employees in fields related to green jobs, and
specifically green jobs associated with electric vehicle production,
maintenance and repair and the associated charging infrastructure. This
includes work by the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, created
by the BIL, which supports efforts related to deploying infrastructure,
chargers and zero emission transit and school buses. In addition, the
IRA is expected to lead to increased demand in ZEVs through tax credits
for purchasers of ZEVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1329\ See preamble section I for information on the BIL and IRA
provisions relevant to vehicle electrification, and the associated
infrastructure.
\1330\ The CHIPS Act is the Creating Helpful Incentives to
Produce Semiconductors and Science Act and was signed into lay on
August 9, 2022. It is designed to strengthen supply chains, domestic
manufacturing and national security. More information can be found
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/09/fact-sheet-chips-and-science-act-will-lower-costs-create-jobs-strengthen-supply-chains-and-counter-china/.
\1331\ More information on how these acts are expected to aid
employment growth and create opportunities for growth along the
supply chain can be found in the January, 2023 White House
publication ``Building a Clean Energy Economy: A Guidebook to the
Inflation Reduction Act's Investments in Clean Energy and Climate
Action.'' found online at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Inflation-Reduction-Act-Guidebook.pdf.
\1332\ Daimler Trucks North America. ``Accelera by Cummins,
Daimler Truck and PACCAR form a joint venture to advance battery
cell production in the United States.'' September 6, 2023. Available
online: https://media.daimlertruck.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/Accelera-by-Cummins-Daimler-Truck-and-PACCAR-form-a-joint-venture-to-advance-battery-cell-production-in-the-United-States.xhtml?oid=52385590 (last accessed October 23, 2023).
\1333\ Note that these are not all net new employment and
reflects where workers may be hired away from other jobs. As the
labor market gets tighter and the economy is closer to full
employment, there will be a greater number of employees shifting
from one job to another. More information can be found in: Political
Economy Research Institute. (2022). Job Creation Estimates Through
Proposed Inflation Reduction Act. University of Massachusetts
Amherst. Retrieved from https://www.bluegreenalliance.org/site/9-million-good-jobs-from-climate-action-the-inflation-reduction-act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The factor-shift effect on employment reflects potential employment
changes due to changes in labor intensity of production resulting from
compliance activities. The final standards do not mandate the use of a
specific technology, and EPA anticipates that a compliant fleet under
the standards will include a diverse range of technologies including
ICE vehicle and ZEV technologies. ZEVs and ICE vehicles require
different inputs and have different costs of powertrain production,
though there are many common parts as well. There is little research on
the relative labor intensity needs of producing a HD ICE vehicle versus
producing a comparable HD ZEV. Though there are some news articles and
research from the light-duty motor vehicle market, they do not provide
a clear indication of the relationship between employment needs for
ZEVs and ICE vehicles. Some studies find that LD BEVs are less complex,
requiring fewer person-hours to assemble than a comparable ICE
vehicle.\1334\ Others find that there is not a significant difference
in the employment needed to produce ICE vehicles when compared to
ZEVs.\1335\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1334\ Barret, J. and Bivens, J. (2021). The stakes for workers
in how policymakers manage the coming shift to all-electric
vehicles. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/ev-policy-workers.
\1335\ Kupper, D., Kuhlmann, K., Tominaga, K., Arora, A.,
Schlageter, J. (2020). Shifting Gears in Auto Manufacturing. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/transformative-impact-of-electric-vehicles-on-auto-manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA worked with a research group to produce a peer-reviewed tear-
down study of a light-duty BEV (Volkswagen ID.4) to its comparable ICE
vehicle counterpart (Volkswagen Tiguan).\1336\ Included in this study
are estimates of labor intensity needed to produce each vehicle under
three different assumptions of vertical integration of manufacturing
scenarios ranging from a scenario where most of the assemblies and
components are sourced from outside suppliers to a scenario where most
of the assemblies and components are assembled in house. Under the low
and moderate levels of vertical integration, results indicate that
assembly of the BEV at the plant is reduced compared to assembly of the
ICE vehicle. Under a scenario of high vertical integration, which
includes the BEV battery assembly, results show an increase in time
needed to assemble the BEV. When powertrain systems are ignored
(battery, drive units, transmission and engine assembly), the BEV
requires more time to assemble under all three vertical integration
scenarios. The results indicate that the largest difference in assembly
comes from the building of the battery pack assembly. When the battery
cells are built in-house, the BEV will require more hours to build.
What is not discussed in this research is that battery cells must be
built, regardless of where that occurs. Battery plants are being built
and announced in the US, with support from the IRA, BIL and CHIPs, as
discussed in section II.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1336\ FEV Consulting Inc., ``Cost and Technology Evaluation,
Conventional Powertrain Vehicle Compared to an Electrified
Powertrain Vehicle, Same Vehicle Class and OEM,'' prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Contract No. 68HERC19D00008,
February 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though we have more information today on differences in the time it
takes to build an ICE vehicle and a comparable BEV or PHEV, we do not
have enough information to estimate an effect of our rule based on this
information. We do not know how OEMs will be (and are) manufacturing
their vehicles, nor do we know what this will look like in several
years as the MY 2027 and later standards become effective and there is
projected to be an increase in the share of BEVs being produced and
sold. We can say, generally, that this study indicates that if
production of EVs and their power supplies are done in the US at the
same rates as ICE vehicles, we do not expect employment to fall, and it
may likely increase. In addition, data on the labor intensity of PHEV
production compared to ICE vehicle production is also very sparse.
PHEVs share features with both ICE vehicles (including engines and
exhaust assemblies) and BEVs (including motors and batteries). If labor
is a factor of the number of components, PHEVs might have a higher
labor intensity of production compared to both BEV and ICE vehicles. We
do not have data on employment differences in traditional ICE vehicle
manufacturing sectors and ZEV manufacturing sectors, especially for
expected effects in the future, nor do we have data on the employment
needed for the level of battery production we anticipate will be
required to meet future HD ZEV demand projected in our potential
compliance pathway.
The demand effect reflects potential employment changes due to
changes in new HD vehicle sales. If HD ICE vehicle sales decrease,
fewer people would be needed to assemble trucks and the components used
to manufacture them. On the other hand, if HD ZEV sales increase, more
people would be needed to assemble HD ZEVs and their components,
including batteries. If HD ICE vehicle sales decrease while HD ZEV
sales increase, the net change in employment will depend on the
relative employment needs for each vehicle type. Additional, short-
term, effects might be seen if pre-buy or low-buy were to occur. If
pre-buy occurs, HD vehicle sales may increase temporarily, leading to
temporary increases in employment in the related manufacturing sectors.
If low-buy occurs, there may be temporary decreases in employment in
the manufacturing sectors related to HD vehicles. However, as noted,
EPA does not expect significant pre-buy or low-buy resulting from this
rule. In addition, as noted in preamble section E.1, we do not
anticipate much mode or class shift in HD market affected by this rule,
which also supports a minimal demand effect on employment.
The cost effect reflects the potential impact on employment due to
increased costs from adopting technologies needed for vehicles to meet
the new emission standards. In the HD ICE vehicle manufacturing sector,
if firms invest in lower emitting HD ICE vehicles, we would expect
labor to be used to implement those technologies. For firms producing
ZEVs, we do not expect the rule to require additional compliance
activities, as ZEVs, by definition, emit zero tailpipe emissions.\1337\
In addition, the standards do not mandate the use of a specific
technology, and EPA anticipates that a compliant fleet under the
standards will include a diverse range of technologies including ICE
and ZEV technologies.
[[Page 29707]]
Under the additional compliance pathways projected for this final rule
that include only technology adoption in ICE vehicles, we expect there
could be some increase in employment related to implementing these ICE
technologies. However, the level of employment due to implementing new
ICE technology as result of this rule will depend on the relative rate
of the adoption of the technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1337\ We note that there may be indirect impacts, for example
through battery durability monitoring or warranty requirements. See
preamble section III.B for more information on these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the proposed rule, we requested comment on data and methods that
could be used to estimate the potential effects of this action on
employment in HD vehicle manufacturing sectors, and on how increasing
electrification in the HD market in general might impact employment in
HD manufacturing sectors, both for ICE powertrains as well as
electrified powertrains. We also requested comment on data and methods
to estimate possible effects of the emission standards on employment in
the HD ICE and ZEVs manufacturing markets.\1338\ Comments received
mainly stated that the regulation might negatively impact job quality,
as well as that there will be geographically localized effects, even if
national level net impacts are minimal. We acknowledge the possibility
of geographically localized effects, and that there may be job quality
impacts associated with this rule, especially in the short term. We do
not, however, have data to estimate current or future job quality. As
described throughout section 19.6 of the RTC, we note that there are
ongoing actions by the Departments of Energy (DOE) and Labor (DOL), as
well as others, supporting green jobs, including the Office of Energy
Jobs, which is particularly focused on jobs with high standards and the
right to collective bargaining. In addition, we are unable to determine
the future location of vehicle manufacturing and supporting industries
beyond the public announcements made as of the publication of this
rule. Also, we point out that even though vehicle manufacturing and
battery manufacturing may create more localized employment effects,
infrastructure work is, and will continue to be, a nation-wide effort.
For more on the comments we received on the labor impacts of the
proposed rule, and our responses, see section 19.6 of the RTC document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1338\ 88 FR 26074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the share of ZEVs in the HD market increases, there may also be
effects on employment in associated ZEV industries, including battery
production and BEV charging infrastructure industries as well as
hydrogen refueling infrastructure industries. These impacts may occur
in several ways, including through greater demand for batteries and
therefore increased employment needs. In addition, increased demand for
charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure to support more ZEVs may
lead to more private and public charging and fueling facilities being
constructed, or to greater use of existing facilities, which can lead
to increased maintenance needs for those facilities. For example, as
described in RIA Chapter 2.10.3, we estimated the total number of EVSE
ports that will be required to support the depot-charged BEVs in the
technology packages developed to support the MY 2027-2032 standards. We
find just under 500,000 EVSE ports will be needed across all six model
years. This increased demand in EVSE will increase employment in this
sector.
In the proposed rule, we requested comment on data and methods that
could be used to estimate the effect of this action on the HD BEV
vehicle charging infrastructure industry. We received comments stating
that there will be shortage of qualified BEV technicians, as well as
technicians qualified to repair and maintain infrastructure. We also
received comments stating that there has already been significant job
creation in response to demand for battery production, with the
expectation that battery and charging infrastructure will create many
more jobs. We note first that the vehicle market is moving toward
increasing ZEV market share, with or without this rule. We also note
that there are many potential pathways to comply with this rule, and
regardless of the outcome, we project that ICE vehicles will remain a
significant share of new vehicle sales through MY 2032, as well as
remain the majority share of the fleet for many years after. The pace
of ZEV uptake should provide ample opportunity for training programs to
be implemented, especially if there is demand, or lack of supply, for
qualified technicians. In addition, there are many labor and employment
initiatives happening related to electric vehicles, including those
related to battery production and supply chain, vehicle manufacturing
and deployment, refueling infrastructure, maintenance and repair of
electric vehicles and more.\1339\ These programs include initiatives to
promote production and availability and also to train, and retrain,
workers in support of increasing high quality employment related to
green energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1339\ See the memo from the U.S. Department of Labor to
Elizabeth Miller on Labor/Employment Initiatives in the Battery/
Vehicle Electrification Space, located in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the diversity of the HD vehicle market, we expect that
entities from a wide range of transportation sectors will purchase
vehicles subject to the emission standards. HD vehicles are typically
commercial in nature, and typically provide an ``intermediate good,''
meaning that such vehicles are used to provide a commercial service
(transporting goods, municipal service vehicles, etc.), rather than
serving as final consumer goods themselves (as most light-duty vehicles
do). As a result, the purchase price of a new HD vehicle likely impacts
the price of the services provided by that vehicle. Operating costs and
purchase incentives may also impact the price of services provided. If
a change in upfront cost and/or operating costs, including purchase
incentives (as might be available for a new ZEV), results in higher
prices for the services provided by these vehicles compared to the same
services provided by a pre-regulation vehicle, it may reduce demand for
the services such vehicles provide. In turn, there may be less
employment in the sectors providing such services. On the other hand,
if there are savings that are passed on to consumers through lower
prices for services provided, it may lead to an increase in demand for
those services, and therefore may lead to an increase in employment in
those sectors providing those services. We estimate that there are
savings over the life of operating a ZEV relative to an ICE vehicle
that may decrease downstream prices. We expect that the actual effects
on demand for the services provided by these vehicles and related
employment will depend on cost pass-through, as well as responsiveness
of demand to changes in transportation cost, should such changes
occur.\1340\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1340\ Cost pass-through refers to the amount of increase in up-
front cost incurred by the HD vehicle owner that is then passed on
to their customers in the form of higher prices for services
provided by the HD vehicle owner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action may also produce employment effects in other sectors,
for example, in firms providing liquid fuel. While reduced liquid fuel
consumption represents cost savings for purchasers of liquid fuel, it
could also represent a loss in value of output for the petroleum
refining industry, which could result in reduced employment in that
sector. These impacts may also pass up the supply chain to, for
example, pipeline construction, operation and maintenance, and domestic
oil production. In this final rule, we estimate that the reduction in
fuel consumption will be met by increasing net exports by half of the
amount of
[[Page 29708]]
reduced domestic demand for refined product, with the other half being
met by reductions in U.S. refinery output. Though the reduced domestic
output may lead to future closures or conversions of individual
refineries, we are unable to estimate the future decisions of
refineries to keep operating, shut down or convert away from fossil
fuels because they depend on the economics of individual refineries,
economic conditions of parent companies, long-term strategies for each
company, and on the larger macro-economic conditions of both the U.S.
and the global refinery market, and therefore we are unable to estimate
the possible effect this rule will have on employment in the petroleum
refining sector. However, because the petroleum refining industry is
material-intensive and not labor intensive, and we estimate that only
part of the reduction in liquid fuel consumption will be met by reduced
refinery production in the U.S., see RIA Chapter 6.5, we expect that
any employment effect due to reduced petroleum demand will be small.
Commenters stated concerns that employment in the petroleum refining
industry will fall because plants will close, while others more
generally stated that oil worker jobs will be devastated. For our
response to these comments, see section 19.6 of the RTC document.
This action could also provide some positive impacts on driver
employment in the heavy-duty trucking industry. As discussed in section
IV of this preamble, the reduction in fuel costs from purchasing a ZEV
instead of an ICE vehicle will be expected to not only reduce
operational costs for ZEV owners and operators compared to an ICE
vehicle, but may also provide additional incentives to purchase a HD
ZEV over a HD ICE vehicle. For example, the Clean Air Task Force and
ZETA submitted comments stating the HD ZEVs are associated with
increased driver satisfaction due to quieter operations, better
visibility, a smoother ride, faster acceleration, less odor, and a
smoother and safer experience when driving in high traffic or urban
environments. The commenters state that these positive attributes have
the possibility of decreasing truck driver shortages and increasing
driver retention.
An additional factor to consider for employment impacts across all
industries that might be affected by this rule under the potential
compliance pathway, or by the increase in the share of HD ZEVs in the
market, is that though more ZEVs are being introduced to the market
regardless of this rule, the vehicles on the road will still continue
to be dominated by HD ICE vehicles, and many HD ICE vehicles will
continue to be sold. This gradual shift avoids abrupt changes and will
reduce impacts in acceptance, infrastructure availability, employment,
supply chain, and more.
F. Oil Imports and Electricity and Hydrogen Consumption
We project that the final standards will reduce not only GHG
emissions but also liquid fuel consumption (i.e., oil consumption)
while simultaneously increasing electricity and hydrogen consumption.
Reducing liquid fuel consumption is a significant means of reducing GHG
emissions from the transportation sector. As discussed in section V and
RIA Chapter 4, we used an updated version of EPA's MOVES model to
estimate the impact of the final standards on heavy-duty vehicle
emissions, fuel consumption, electricity consumption, and hydrogen
consumption. In Chapter 6.5 of the RIA, we present fossil fuel--diesel,
gasoline, CNG--consumption impacts. Table 6-1 in Chapter 6 of the RIA
shows the estimated reduction in U.S. oil imports under the final
standards relative to the reference case scenario. This final rule is
projected to reduce U.S. oil imports by 3 billion barrels through 2055
(see Table 6-2 of the RIA). The oil import reductions are the result of
reduced consumption (i.e., reduced liquid fuel demand) of both diesel
fuel and gasoline and our estimate that 94.8 percent of reduced liquid
fuel demand results in reduced imports.\1341\ RIA Table 6-2 also
includes the projected increase in electricity and hydrogen consumption
due to the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1341\ The 94.8 percent import reduction factor is based upon
revised throughput assumptions for U.S. refineries in response to a
decline in product demand as a result of this final rule. See
Chapter 7.3.4 of the RIA for how the 94.8 percent is calculated
assuming the refiners maintain refinery throughput at 50 percent of
the decline in product demand as a result of this rule by exporting
refined products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Benefits of the Program
In this section, we describe three sets of monetized benefits for
the program and the methodology we use to calculate those benefits:
climate benefits related to GHG emissions reductions calculated using
the social cost of GHGs, the health benefits related to reductions in
non-GHG pollutant emissions, and energy security benefits.
EPA monetizes the benefits of the standards in part to better
enable a comparison of costs and benefits pursuant to E.O. 12866, but
we recognize that there are benefits that we are currently unable to
fully quantify. EPA's consistent practice has been to set standards to
achieve improved air quality consistent with Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 202 and not to rely on cost-benefit calculations, with their
uncertainties and limitations, in identifying the appropriate
standards. Nonetheless, as explained in section VIII of this preamble,
our conclusion that the estimated benefits exceed the estimated costs
of the program reinforces our view that the final standards represent
an appropriate weighing of the statutory factors and other relevant
considerations.
A. Climate Benefits
EPA estimates the climate benefits of GHG emissions reductions
expected from the final rule using estimates of the social cost of
greenhouse gases (SC-GHG) that reflect recent advances in the
scientific literature on climate change and its economic impacts and
incorporate recommendations made by the National Academies of Science,
Engineering, and Medicine.\1342\ EPA published and used these estimates
in the RIA for Final Oil and Gas NSPS/EG Rulemaking, ``Standards of
Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate
Review'', which was signed by the EPA Administrator on December 2,
2023.\1343\ EPA solicited public comment on the methodology and use of
these estimates in the RIA for the agency's December 2022 Oil and Gas
NSPS/EG Supplemental Proposal and has conducted an external peer review
of these estimates, as described further in this section. Section 7.1
of the RIA lays out the details of the updated SC-GHG used within this
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1342\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
(National Academies). 2017. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating
Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide. National Academies
Press.
\1343\ U.S. EPA. (2023f). Supplementary Material for the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rulemaking, ``Standards of
Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and
Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas
Sector Climate Review'': EPA Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SC-GHG is the monetary value of the net harm to society
associated with a marginal increase in GHG emissions in a given year,
or the net benefit of avoiding that increase. In principle, SC-GHG
includes the value of all climate change impacts (both negative and
positive), including (but not limited to) changes in net agricultural
productivity, human health effects, property damage from increased
flood risk and natural
[[Page 29709]]
disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict,
environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. The SC-
GHG, therefore, reflects the societal value of reducing emissions of
the gas in question by one metric ton and is the theoretically
appropriate value to use in conducting benefit-cost analyses of
policies that affect GHG emissions. In practice, data and modeling
limitations restrain the ability of SC-GHG estimates to include all
physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change,
implicitly assigning a value of zero to the omitted climate damages.
The estimates are, therefore, a partial accounting of climate change
impacts and likely underestimate the marginal benefits of abatement.
Since 2008, the EPA has used estimates of the social cost of
various greenhouse gases (i.e., SC-CO2, SC-CH4,
and SC-N2O), collectively referred to as the ``social cost
of greenhouse gases'' (SC-GHG), in analyses of actions that affect GHG
emissions. The values used by the EPA from 2009 to 2016, and since
2021--including in the proposal for this rulemaking--have been
consistent with those developed and recommended by the IWG on the SC-
GHG; and the values used from 2017 to 2020 were consistent with those
required by Executive Order (E.O.) 13783, which disbanded the IWG.
During 2015-2017, the National Academies conducted a comprehensive
review of the SC-CO2 and issued a final report in 2017
recommending specific criteria for future updates to the SC-
CO2 estimates, a modeling framework to satisfy the specified
criteria, and both near-term updates and longer-term research needs
pertaining to various components of the estimation process.\1344\ The
IWG was reconstituted in 2021 and E.O. 13990 directed it to develop a
comprehensive update of its SC-GHG estimates, recommendations regarding
areas of decision-making to which SC-GHG should be applied, and a
standardized review and updating process to ensure that the recommended
estimates continue to be based on the best available economics and
science going forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1344\ U.S. EPA. (2023f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is a member of the IWG and is participating in the IWG's work
under E.O. 13990. As noted in previous EPA RIAs--including in the
proposal RIA for this rulemaking, while that process continues, the EPA
is continuously reviewing developments in the scientific literature on
the SC-GHG, including more robust methodologies for estimating damages
from emissions, and looking for opportunities to further improve SC-GHG
estimation.\1345\ In the December 2022 Oil and Gas Supplemental
Proposal RIA,\1346\ the Agency included a sensitivity analysis of the
climate benefits of that rule using a new set of SC-GHG estimates that
incorporates recent research addressing recommendations of the National
Academies \1347\ in addition to using the interim SC-GHG estimates
presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon,
Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order
13990 \1348\ that the IWG recommended for use until updated estimates
that address the National Academies' recommendations are available. The
EPA solicited public comment on the sensitivity analysis and the
accompanying draft technical report, External Review Draft of Report on
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent
Scientific Advances, which explains the methodology underlying the new
set of estimates and was included as supplementary material to the RIA
for the December 2022 Supplemental Oil and Gas Proposal.\1349\ The
response to comments document can be found in the docket for that
action.\1350\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1345\ EPA strives to base its analyses on the best available
science and economics, consistent with its responsibilities, for
example, under the Information Quality Act.
\1346\ U.S. EPA. (2023). Supplementary Material for the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rulemaking, ``Standards of
Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and
Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas
Sector Climate Review'': EPA Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
\1347\ U.S. EPA. (2023).
\1348\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (IWG).
2021 (February). Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon,
Methane, and Nitrous Oxide: Interim Estimates under Executive Order
13990. United States Government.
\1349\ https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/scghg-tsd-peer-review.
\1350\ Supplementary Material for the Regulatory Impact Analysis
for the Final Rulemaking, ``Standards of Performance for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for
Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review'', EPA
Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates
Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0317, November 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that the methodological updates adopted in the technical
report are consistent with economic theory and reflect the latest
science, the EPA also initiated an external peer review panel to
conduct a high-quality review of the technical report (see 88 FR 29372
noting this peer review process was ongoing at the time of our
proposal), completed in May 2023. The peer reviewers commended the
agency on its development of the draft update, calling it a much-needed
improvement in estimating the SC-GHG and a significant step towards
addressing the National Academies' recommendations with defensible
modeling choices based on current science. The peer reviewers provided
numerous recommendations for refining the presentation and for future
modeling improvements, especially with respect to climate change
impacts and associated damages that are not currently included in the
analysis. Additional discussion of omitted impacts and other updates
were incorporated in the technical report to address peer reviewer
recommendations. Complete information about the external peer review,
including the peer reviewer selection process, the final report with
individual recommendations from peer reviewers, and the EPA's response
to each recommendation is available on EPA's website.\1351\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1351\ https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/scghg-tsd-peer-review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 7.1 within the RIA provides an overview of the
methodological updates incorporated into the SC-GHG estimates used in
this final rule. A more detailed explanation of each input and the
modeling process is provided in the final technical report, EPA Report
on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent
Scientific Advances.\1352\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1352\ Supplementary Material for the Regulatory Impact Analysis
for the Final Rulemaking, ``Standards of Performance for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for
Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review'', EPA
Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates
Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0317, November 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters on our HD GHG Phase 3 NPRM brought up issues regarding
baseline scenarios, climate modeling (e.g., equilibrium climate
sensitivity) and IAMS, claiming that they all used outdated
assumptions. Other commenters suggested that EPA use lower discount
rates as well as utilize the latest research and values from the
December 2022 Supplemental Oil and Gas Proposal. EPA's decision to use
the updated SC-GHG values from U.S. EPA (2023f) \1353\ addresses
several of the concerns voiced within the comments. See RTC section 20
for further detail on the comments received and EPA's responses. For a
detailed description of
[[Page 29710]]
the updated modeling, please see RIA section 7 for our final rule as
well as the U.S. EPA (2023f). An appendix to Chapter 7 provides the
climate benefits of the rule using the interim SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1353\ EPA. 2023f. ``Supplementary Material for the Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the Final Rulemaking: Standards of Performance
for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate
Review.'' EPA Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases:
Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances, Washington, DC.
doi: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VII-1 presents the annual, undiscounted monetized climate
benefits of the net GHG emissions reductions (comprised of GHG
emissions reductions from vehicles and refineries, and increased GHG
emissions from EGUs; see preamble section V) associated with the final
rule using the SC-GHG estimates presented in EPA (2023f) for the stream
of years beginning with the first year of rule implementation, 2027,
through 2055. Also shown are the present values (PV) and equivalent
annualized values (AV) associated with each of the three SC-GHG values.
For a thorough discussion of the SC-GHG methodology, limitations and
uncertainties, see Chapter 7 of the RIA.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.129
B. Non-GHG Health Benefits
This section discusses the economic benefits from reductions in
adverse health impacts resulting from non-GHG emission reductions that
can be expected to occur as a result of the final CO2
emission standards. GHG emissions are predominantly the byproduct of
fossil fuel combustion processes that also produce criteria and
hazardous air pollutant emissions. The heavy-duty vehicles that are
subject to the final CO2 emission standards are also
significant sources of mobile source air pollution such as directly-
emitted PM, NOX, VOCs, CO, SO2 and air toxics.
Our projected emission reductions, monetized here, reflect the
projected potential compliance pathway presented in preamble section
II. However, as noted elsewhere, there are other means of achieving the
standards, including pathways not utilizing ZEV technologies. Resulting
emission
[[Page 29711]]
reductions would differ from those presented here in such cases (EPA
expects that different manufacturers will choose different compliance
pathways). Under the modeled potential compliance pathway, zero-
emission technologies will also affect emissions from upstream sources
that occur during, for example, electricity generation and from the
refining and distribution of liquid fuel (see section V of this
preamble). This final rule's benefits analysis includes added emissions
due to increased electricity generation and emissions reductions from
reduced petroleum refining.
Changes in ambient concentrations of ozone, PM2.5, and
air toxics that will result from the final CO2 emission
standards under the modeled pathway are expected to affect human health
by reducing premature deaths and other serious human health effects,
and they are also expected to result in other important improvements in
public health and welfare (see section VI of this preamble). Children,
especially, benefit from reduced exposures to criteria and toxic
pollutants because they tend to be more sensitive to the effects of
these respiratory pollutants. Ozone and particulate matter have been
associated with increased incidence of asthma and other respiratory
effects in children, and particulate matter has been associated with a
decrease in lung maturation.
When feasible, EPA conducts full-scale photochemical air quality
modeling to demonstrate how its national mobile source regulatory
actions affect ambient concentrations of regional pollutants throughout
the United States. The estimation of the human health impacts of a
regulatory action requires national-scale photochemical air quality
modeling to conduct a full-scale assessment of PM2.5- and
ozone-related health benefits. Air quality modeling and associated
analyses are not available for this rule.
For the analysis of the final CO2 emission standards
(and the analysis of the alternative in section IX), we instead use a
reduced-form ``benefit-per-ton'' (BPT) approach to estimate the
monetized PM2.5-related health benefits of this final rule.
The BPT approach estimates the monetized economic value of
PM2.5-related emission impacts (such as direct PM,
NOX, and SO2) due to implementation of the final
program. Similar to the SC-GHG approach for monetizing reductions in
GHGs, the BPT approach estimates monetized health benefits of avoiding
one ton of PM2.5-related emissions from a particular source
sector. The value of health benefits from reductions or increases in
PM2.5 emissions associated with this final rule was
estimated by multiplying PM2.5-related BPT values by the
corresponding annual reduction in tons of directly-emitted
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions
(NOX and SO2). As explained in Chapter 7.2 in the
RIA, the PM2.5 BPT values represent the monetized value of
human health benefits, including reductions in both premature mortality
and nonfatal illnesses.
The mobile sector BPT estimates used in this final rule were
published in 2019 but have been updated to be consistent with the
health benefits Technical Support Document (Benefits TSD) that
accompanied the 2023 p.m. NAAQS Proposal.1354 1355 1356 1357
The Benefits TSD details the approach used to estimate the
PM2.5-related benefits reflected in these BPTs. The EGU and
Refinery BPT estimates used in this final rule were also recently
updated to be consistent with the Benefits TSD.\1358\ For more detailed
information about the benefits analysis conducted for this final rule,
including the BPT unit values used in this analysis, please refer to
Chapter 7 of the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1354\ Wolfe, P.; Davidson, K.; Fulcher, C.; Fann, N.; Zawacki,
M.; Baker, K. R. 2019. Monetized Health Benefits Attributable to
Mobile Source Emission Reductions across the United States in 2025.
Sci. Total Environ. 650, 2490-2498. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.09.273.
\1355\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2023. PM
NAAQS Reconsideration Proposal RIA. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0587.
\1356\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2023.
Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-Attributable Health Benefits.
Technical Support Document (TSD) for the PM NAAQS Reconsideration
Proposal RIA. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0587.
\1357\ Note that the Final PM NAAQS Reconsideration RIA,
released in February 2024, based its benefits analysis on the same
Benefits TSD that accompanied the PM NAAQS Reconsideration proposal.
\1358\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2023.
Technical Support Document: Estimating the Benefit per Ton of
Reducing Directly-Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5
Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A chief limitation to using PM2.5-related BPT values is
that they do not reflect the health benefits associated with reducing
ambient concentrations of ozone. The PM2.5-related BPT
values also do not capture the health benefits associated with
reductions in direct exposure to NO2 and mobile source air
toxics, nor do they account for improved ecosystem effects or
visibility. The estimated benefits of this final rule would be larger
if we were able to monetize these unquantified benefits at this time.
Table VII-2 presents the annual, undiscounted PM2.5-
related health benefits estimated for the stream of years beginning
with the first year of rule implementation, 2027, through calendar year
2055 for the final standards. Benefits are presented by source: Onroad
heavy-duty vehicles and upstream sources (EGUs and refineries
combined). Because premature mortality typically constitutes the vast
majority of monetized benefits in a PM2.5 benefits
assessment, we present benefits based on risk estimates reported from
two different long-term exposure studies using different cohorts to
account for uncertainty in the benefits associated with avoiding PM-
related premature deaths.1359 1360 Although annual benefits
presented in the table are not discounted for the purposes of present
value or annualized value calculations, annual benefits do reflect the
use of 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates to account for avoided
health outcomes that are expected to accrue over more than a single
year (the ``cessation lag'' between the change in PM exposures and the
total realization of changes in health effects). Table VII-2 also
displays the present and annualized values of estimated benefits that
occur from 2027 to 2055, discounted using both 3-percent and 7-percent
discount rates and reported in 2022$. We estimate that the annualized
value of the benefits of the final program is $120 to $220 million at a
3-percent discount rate and -$9.1 to -$32 million at a 7-percent
discount rate (2022$). Depending on the discount rate used, the
annualized value of the stream of PM2.5 health benefits may
either be positive or negative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1359\ Wu, X, Braun, D, Schwartz, J, Kioumourtzoglou, M and
Dominici, F (2020). Evaluating the impact of long-term exposure to
fine particulate matter on mortality among the elderly. Science
advances 6(29): eaba5692.
\1360\ Pope III, CA, Lefler, JS, Ezzati, M, Higbee, JD,
Marshall, JD, Kim, S-Y, Bechle, M, Gilliat, KS, Vernon, SE and
Robinson, AL (2019). Mortality risk and fine particulate air
pollution in a large, representative cohort of US adults.
Environmental health perspectives 127(7): 077007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 29712]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.130
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
We use a constant 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate to
calculate present and annualized values in Table VII-2, consistent with
current applicable OMB Circular No. A-4 guidance. For the purposes of
presenting total net benefits (see preamble section VIII), we also use
a constant 2-percent discount rate to
[[Page 29713]]
calculate present and annualized values. We note that we do not
currently have BPT estimates that use a 2-percent discount rate to
account for cessation lag. If we apply a constant 2-percent discount
rate to the stream of annual benefits based on the 3-percent cessation
lag BPT, the annualized value of total PM2.5-related
benefits would be $160 to $300 million.
We believe the non-GHG pollutant benefits presented here are our
best estimate of benefits absent air quality modeling, and we have
confidence that the BPT approach provides a reasonable estimate of the
monetized PM2.5-related health benefits associated with this
rulemaking. Please refer to RIA Chapter 7 for more information on the
uncertainty associated with the benefits presented here.
C. Energy Security
The final CO2 emission standards are designed to require
reductions in GHG emissions from HD vehicles in the MYs 2027-2032 and
beyond timeframe and, thereby, are expected to reduce oil consumption.
Our modeled potential compliance pathway projects a mix of ZEV
technologies and ICE vehicle technologies in compliant fleets. Our
analysis is based on this modeled potential compliance pathway but, as
noted, many other potential pathways to compliance exist, and analytic
results would differ from those presented here in such cases. Under our
modeled compliance pathway, the standards will be met through a
combination of zero-emission and ICE vehicle technologies, which will,
in turn, reduce the demand for oil and enable the U.S. to reduce its
petroleum imports. A reduction of U.S. petroleum imports reduces both
financial and strategic risks caused by potential sudden disruptions in
the supply of imported petroleum to the United States, thus increasing
U.S. energy security.
Energy security is broadly defined as the uninterrupted
availability of energy sources at affordable prices.\1361\ Energy
independence and energy security are distinct but related concepts. The
goal of U.S. energy independence is the elimination of all U.S. imports
of petroleum and other foreign sources of energy, but more broadly, it
is the elimination of the U.S.'s sensitivity to variations in the price
and supply of foreign sources of energy.\1362\ See Chapter 7 of the RIA
for a more detailed assessment of energy security and energy
independence impacts of this final rule and section II.D.2 for a
discussion on battery critical minerals and supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1361\ International Energy Agency. ``Energy security: Ensuring
the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable
price''. Last updated December 2, 2019.
\1362\ Greene, D. 2010. Measuring energy security: Can the
United States achieve oil independence? Energy Policy 38, pp. 1614-
1621.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to understand the energy security implications of reducing
U.S. net oil imports, EPA has worked with Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL), which has developed approaches for evaluating the social costs
and energy security implications of oil use. When conducting this
analysis, ORNL estimates the risk of reductions in U.S. economic output
and disruption to the U.S. economy caused by sudden disruptions in
world oil supply and associated price shocks (i.e., labeled the avoided
macroeconomic disruption/adjustment costs). These risks are quantified
as ``macroeconomic oil security premiums,'' i.e., the extra costs of
oil use besides its market price.
Two commenters claimed that the proposed rule would improve the
U.S.'s energy security position by increasing the wider use of electric
HD vehicles. We agree with these commenters that the final rule will
lower the risks to the U.S. economy of oil supply disruptions; our
projected potential compliance pathway for the final standards supports
that U.S. oil consumption and U.S. oil imports are reduced (e.g., with
the utilization of HD vehicle technologies including ZEV technologies)
as a result of this final rule. On the other hand, several commenters
suggested that EPA is undermining U.S. energy security by promoting
electric HD vehicles in this proposed rule. Mandating a specific
technology such as electric vehicles stifles innovation and progress,
according to these commenters. We respond to these comments in detail
in section 22 of the RTC but note here that the commenters'
characterization of the rule as mandating ZEV technology is not
correct. While the potential compliance pathway that supports the
feasibility of the final standards includes ZEV technologies in its mix
of HD vehicle technologies, manufacturers can choose any compliance
pathway most suitable to them and alternative compliance pathways
exist, including those not involving ZEV technologies (see section
II.F.6 of this preamble for one example). EPA thus believes that the
final rule maintains the flexible structure created and followed in the
previous HD vehicle GHG emission standards rules, which is effectively
designed to reflect the diverse nature of the heavy-duty vehicle
industry.
One commenter asserted that the proposed rule does not address the
U.S. energy security impacts of the greater use of natural gas in the
U.S. electricity sector stemming from the wider use of electric HD
vehicles as a result of this rule. We do not agree that this final rule
will result in energy security issues stemming from the wider use of
natural gas. We respond to this comment in section 22 of the RTC
document.
One commenter suggested that the energy security methodology
developed by ORNL used in the proposed rule is outdated and no longer
applicable to the current structure of global oil markets. EPA and ORNL
have worked together to revise the macroeconomic oil security premiums
based upon the recent energy security literature. Also, for this final
rule, EPA is using macroeconomic oil security premiums estimated using
ORNL's methodology which incorporates updated oil price projections and
energy market and economic trends from the U.S. Department of Energy's
Energy Information Administration's (EIA) most recent Annual Energy
Outlook (AEO) 2023. Therefore, EPA believes that the macroeconomic oil
security premiums used in this final rulemaking are reasonable. See
section 22 of the RTC document for more discussion on this topic. We do
not consider military cost impacts as a result of reductions in U.S.
oil imports from this final rule due to methodological issues in
quantifying these impacts.
To calculate the oil security benefits of this final rule, EPA is
using the ORNL macroeconomic oil security premium methodology with (1)
estimated oil savings calculated by EPA, and (2) an oil import
reduction factor of 94.8 percent, which estimates how much U.S. oil net
imports are reduced from projected changes in U.S. oil consumption.
Estimated oil savings are discussed in detail in RIA Chapter 6.5. The
oil import reduction factor is based on AEO data and is discussed in
detail in RIA Chapter 7.3. Based upon consideration of comments EPA
received on the proposal, EPA is updating the oil import reduction
factor to be consistent with revised estimates that U.S. refineries
will operate at higher production levels than EPA estimated in the
proposed rule. See Chapter 4 of the RIA and section 13 of the RTC
document for more discussion of how EPA is updating its refinery
throughput assumptions and, in turn, air quality impacts from refinery
emissions, as a result of this rule. See Chapter 7 of the RIA and
section 22 of the RTC document for EPA's discussion of how EPA is
updating the oil import reduction factor to be consistent with new
estimates of refinery throughput for this final rule. In Table VII-3,
EPA
[[Page 29714]]
presents the macroeconomic oil security premiums and the energy
security benefits for the final HD GHG Phase 3 vehicle standards for
the years from 2027-2055.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.131
Two commenters claimed that since the proposed rule promotes the
wider use of electric vehicles, it limits the potential for renewable
fuels (i.e., biofuels) to create energy security benefits. One
commenter suggested that proposed rule would make it more difficult to
meet the renewable fuel mandates of EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
program. EPA agrees with the commenters that the increased use of
renewable fuels in the U.S. transportation sector will improve the
U.S.'s energy security and energy independence position but disagrees
that this rule is at odds with the RFS program. On June 21st, 2023, EPA
announced a final rule (RFS Set Rule) to establish renewable fuel
volume requirements and associated percentage standards for cellulosic
biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuels, and total renewable
fuel for the
[[Page 29715]]
2023-2025 timeframe.\1363\ The recently finalized RFS Set Rule and this
final rule are complementary in achieving GHG reductions in the U.S.
transportation sector. We respond to these comments in more detail in
section 22 of the RTC document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1363\ Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: Standards for
2023-2025 and Other Changes. 88 FR 44468, July 12, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous commenters suggested that EPA ignored the impacts on
U.S.'s energy and national security in the proposed rule of an
unfavorable transition from reliable, abundant, domestically-sourced
fuels to a complex supply chain reliant on foreign-sourced critical
minerals. For this final rule, EPA distinguishes between energy
security, mineral/metal security and security issues associated with
the importation of critical minerals, ZEV batteries and component parts
(i.e., ZEV supply chain issues). We address energy security issues
involving U.S. oil consumption and oil imports associated with this
final rule in Chapter 7 of the RIA and section 22 of the RTC. Comments
associated with projected wider use of HD ZEV technologies' impacts on
the U.S.'s mineral/metal security and security issues associated with
the importation of HD ZEV batteries and their component parts (i.e.,
ZEV technologies supply chain issues) are addressed in section II.D.2
of this preamble and in section 17 of the RTC document.
VIII. Comparison of Benefits and Costs
This section compares the estimated range of benefits associated
with reductions of GHGs, monetized health benefits from reductions in
PM2.5, energy security benefits, fuel savings, and vehicle-
related operating savings to total costs associated with the modeled
compliance pathway for the final rule and for the alternative.
Estimated costs are detailed and presented in section IV of this
preamble. Those costs include costs for both the new technology in our
modeled potential compliance pathway's technology packages and the
operating costs associated with that new technology. Importantly, as
detailed in section IV of this preamble, the vehicle costs presented
here exclude the IRA battery tax credit, the vehicle tax credit and the
EVSE tax credit while the fuel savings exclude fuel taxes. As such, as
presented in this section, these costs, along with other operating
costs, represent the social costs and/or savings associated with the
final standards. Benefits from the reduction of GHG emissions and
criteria pollutant emissions, and energy security benefits associated
with reductions of imported oil, are presented in section VII.
A. Methods
EPA presents three different benefit-cost comparisons for the final
rule and for the alternative:
1. A future-year snapshot comparison of annual benefits and costs
in the year 2055, chosen to approximate the annual costs and benefits
that will occur in a year when most of the regulated fleet will consist
of HD vehicles subject to the HD GHG Phase 3 standards due to fleet
turnover. Benefits, costs, and net benefits are presented in year 2022
dollars and are not discounted.
2. The present value (PV) of the stream of benefits, costs, and net
benefits calculated for the analytical time horizon of 2027 through
2055, discounted back to the first year of implementation of the final
rule (2027) using 2-percent, 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates,
and presented in year 2022 dollars.\1364\ Note that year-over-year
costs are presented in preamble section IV and year-over-year benefits
may be found in preamble section VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1364\ Monetized climate benefits are presented under a 2
percent near-term Ramsey discount rate, consistent with EPA's
updated estimates of the SC-GHG. The 2003 version of OMB's Circular
A-4 had generally recommended 3 percent and 7 percent as default
discount rates for costs and benefits, though as part of the
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases,
OMB had also long recognized that climate effects should be
discounted only at appropriate consumption-based discount rates.
While we were conducting the analysis for this rule, OMB finalized
an update to Circular A-4, in which it recommended the general
application of a 2 percent discount rate to costs and benefits
(subject to regular updates), as well as the consideration of the
shadow price of capital when costs or benefits are likely to accrue
to capital (OMB 2023). Because the SC-GHG estimates reflect net
climate change damages in terms of reduced consumption (or monetary
consumption equivalents), the use of the social rate of return on
capital (7 percent under OMB Circular A-4 (2003)) to discount
damages estimated in terms of reduced consumption would
inappropriately underestimate the impacts of climate change for the
purposes of estimating the SC-GHG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The equivalent annualized value (AV) of benefits, costs, and net
benefits representing a flow of constant annual values that, had they
occurred in each year from 2027 through 2055, will yield an equivalent
present value to those estimated in method 2 (using a 2-percent, 3-
percent or 7-percent discount rate). Each AV represents a typical
benefit, cost, or net benefit for each year of the analysis and is
presented in year 2022 dollars.
B. Results
Table VIII-1 shows the undiscounted annual monetized vehicle-
related projected technology packages RPE costs of the final rule and
the alternative in calendar year 2055. The table also shows the PV and
AV of those costs for the calendar years 2027 through 2055 using 2-
percent, 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates. The table includes an
estimate of the projected vehicle technology packages RPE costs and
corresponding costs associated with EVSE.
Note that all costs, savings, and benefits estimates presented in
the tables that follow are rounded to two significant figures; numbers
may not sum due to independent rounding.
[[Page 29716]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.133
Table VIII-2 and Table VIII-3 show the undiscounted annual
monetized vehicle-related operating savings of the final rule and the
alternative, respectively, in calendar year 2055. The table also shows
the PV and AV of those savings for calendar years 2027 through 2055
using 2-percent, 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates. The savings in
diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) consumption arise in the modeled potential
compliance pathway's technology packages from the decrease in diesel
engine-equipped vehicles which require DEF to maintain compliance with
NOx emission standards. The maintenance and repair savings are due
again to the HD vehicle technologies utilized in the modeled potential
compliance pathway; BEVs and FCEVs are projected to ultimately require
71 percent and 75 percent, respectively, of the maintenance and repair
costs required of HD vehicles equipped with internal combustion
engines, as discussed in section II.
[[Page 29717]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.134
Table VIII-4 shows the undiscounted annual monetized energy
security benefits of the final rule and the alternative in calendar
year 2055. The table also shows the PV and AV of those benefits for
calendar years 2027 through 2055 using 2-percent, 3-percent and 7-
percent discount rates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.135
Table VIII-5 shows the climate benefits of reduced GHG emissions,
using the SC-GHG estimates presented in the EPA Report on the Social
Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific
Advances (EPA 2023).\1365\ The details are discussed in RIA Chapter 7.
These climate benefits include benefits associated with changes to HD
vehicle GHGs and both EGU and refinery GHG emissions, but do not
include any impacts associated with the extraction or transportation of
fuels for either EGUs or refineries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1365\ For more information about the development of these
estimates, see www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/scghg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VIII-6 shows the undiscounted annual monetized
PM2.5-related health benefits of the final rule and the
alternative in calendar year 2055. The table also shows the PV and AV
of those benefits for calendar years 2027 through 2055 using a 2-
percent, 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. The benefits in
Table VIII-6 reflect the two premature mortality estimates derived
from the Medicare study (Wu et al., 2020) and the NHIS study (Pope et
al., 2019).1366 1367 The monetized criteria pollutant health
benefits include reductions in PM2.5-related emissions from
HD vehicles. Monetized upstream health impacts associated with the
standards also include benefits associated with reduced
PM2.5-related emissions from refineries and health
disbenefits associated with increased PM2.5-related
emissions from EGUs. Negative monetized values are associated with
health disbenefits related to increases in estimated emissions from
EGUs. Depending on the discount rate used, the present and annualized
value of the stream of PM2.5-related benefits may either be
positive or negative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1366\ Wu, X, Braun, D, Schwartz, J, Kioumourtzoglou, M and
Dominici, F (2020). Evaluating the impact of long-term exposure to
fine particulate matter on mortality among the elderly. Science
advances 6(29): eaba5692.
\1367\ Pope III, CA, Lefler, JS, Ezzati, M, Higbee, JD,
Marshall, JD, Kim, S-Y, Bechle, M, Gilliat, KS, Vernon, SE and
Robinson, AL (2019). Mortality risk and fine particulate air
pollution in a large, representative cohort of US adults.
Environmental health perspectives 127(7): 077007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29718]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.137
Table VIII-7 shows the undiscounted annual total benefits of the
final rule and the alternative in calendar year 2055, as well as the PV
and AV of the total benefits for calendar years 2027 through 2055.
Total benefits are the sum of climate benefits, criteria pollutant
benefits and energy security benefits. The present and annualized
values of energy security benefits and PM2.5 health impacts
are discounted using either a 2-percent, 3-percent, or 7-percent
constant discount rate (see Table VIII-4 and Table VIII-6,
respectively). Climate benefits are based on reductions in GHG
emissions and are calculated using three different SC-GHG estimates
that assume either a 1.5-percent, 2.0-percent, or 2.5-percent near-term
Ramsey discount rate (see Table VIII-5). For presentational purposes in
Table VIII-7, we use the climate benefits associated with the SC-GHG
estimates at the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate for the total
benefits calculation. The benefits include those associated with
changes to HD vehicle GHGs and both EGU and refinery GHG emissions, but
do not include any impacts associated with the extraction or
transportation of fuels for either EGUs or refineries. This likely
underestimates the refinery-related emission reductions projected in
the rule but likely also underestimates EGU-related emission increases
in the rule.
[[Page 29719]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.138
We summarize the vehicle costs, operational savings, and benefits
of the final rule, as shown in Table VIII-8. Table VIII-8 presents the
final rule's costs from Table VIII-1, operating savings from Table
VIII-2, and total benefits from Table VIII-7 (comprised of benefits
presented in Tables VIII-4 through VIII-6) in a single table. We
summarize the vehicle costs, operational savings, and benefits of the
alternative in Table VIII-9. We remind readers that, in the NPRM, we
used the interim SC-GHG values, while in this final rule we are using
the updated SC-GHG values (see section VII.A of this preamble and
Chapter 7.1 of the final RIA). We include the 2 percent discount rate
here for consistency with the 2 percent near-term Ramsey discount rate
used in the updated SC-GHG values.
[[Page 29720]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.139
[[Page 29721]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.140
We have also estimated the total transfers associated with the
final standards and the alternative, as shown in Table VIII-10 and
Table VIII-11, respectively. The transfers consist of the IRA battery
tax credit, vehicle tax credit, EVSE tax credit, fuel taxes, Federal
excise taxes and state sales taxes, and annual vehicle registration
fees on all ZEVs. None of these are included in the prior tables (i.e.,
Table VIII-1 through Table VIII-9) in this section's comparison of
benefits and costs. Note that the transfers are presented from the
perspective of purchasers, so positive values represent transfers to
purchasers.
[[Page 29722]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.142
IX. Analysis of Alternative CO[bdi2] Emission Standards
As discussed throughout this preamble, in developing this final
rule, EPA considered a regulatory alternative that would establish less
stringent CO2 emission standards and, thus, would result in
fewer GHG emission reductions than the CO2 emission
standards we are finalizing. This section presents estimates of
technology costs, CO2 emission reductions, fuel savings, and
other impacts associated with the alternative.
A. Comparison of Final Standards and Alternative
The alternative represents a slower phase-in option for program
implementation, which represents differences in timing, costs, and
benefits of a HD vehicle CO2 emissions program.
Specifically, the alternative has both a less aggressive phase-in of
CO2 emissions standards from MYs 2027 through 2031 and a
less stringent standard for MYs 2032 and beyond. The alternative was
modeled using the same methodologies used to model the final rule, as
described in Chapters 2 and 4 of the RIA.
EPA developed and considered an alternative with a more gradual
phase-in of CO2 emission standards for MYs 2027 through MY
2031 and a less stringent final standard in MY 2032, as discussed in
section II.H. The slower phase-in alternative standards, presented in
Table IX-1 and Table IX-2, are calculated using the same method as the
final standards, as described in preamble section II.F. The ZEV
technologies adoption rates in the potential technology packages that
would comply with these levels of stringency for MYs 2027 through 2032
under the slower phase-in alternative are shown in Table IX-1. The ZEV
technologies adoption rates in the potential technology packages that
would comply with the slower phase-in alternative standards by
regulatory subcategory and by MY are shown in RIA Chapter 2.9.5.
[[Page 29723]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.144
Based on our current analysis for each of the vocational vehicle
and tractor subcategories, our assessment is that feasible and
appropriate emission standards that provide for greater CO2
emission reductions than through the slower phase-in alternative and at
reasonable cost are available. As explained in preamble section II.H,
we are not adopting this alternative set of standards in this final
rule because, as already described, our assessment is that feasible and
appropriate standards are available that provide for greater emission
reductions than provided under this alternative, do so at reasonable
cost, and provide sufficient lead time.
B. Emission Inventory Comparison of Final Rule and Slower Phase-In
Alternative
Both the final standards and the alternative were modeled by EPA in
an updated version of EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES)
model, MOVES4.R3 by increasing ZEV adoption in HD vehicles, which means
we model the alternative's possible compliance pathway as utilizing
more HD ICE vehicles \1368\ than those modeled for the final standards'
potential compliance pathway. In general, this means the alternative
has both lower downstream emission reductions, lower
[[Page 29724]]
refinery emissions reductions, and lower upstream EGU emission
increases when compared to the final standards. Chapter 4.7 of the RIA
contains more discussion on the emission impacts of the alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1368\ In this scenario, HD ICE emission rates reflect
CO2 emission improvements projected in previously
promulgated standards, notably HD GHG Phase 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Downstream Emission Comparison
Our estimates of the downstream emission reductions of GHGs that
would result from the alternative relative to the reference case are
presented in Table IX-3 for calendar years 2035, 2045, and 2055. Total
GHG emissions, or CO2 equivalent (CO2e), are
calculated by summing all GHG emissions multiplied by their 100-year
Global Warming Potentials (GWP).\1369\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1369\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core
Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Available
online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.145
Our estimated GHG emission reductions for the alternative are lower
than for the final standards (see section V of this preamble). In 2055,
we estimate that the alternative would reduce emissions of
CO2 by 6 percent (the final standards estimate is 20
percent), methane by 3 percent (the final standards estimate is 12
percent), and N2O by 6 percent (the final standards estimate
is 20 percent). The resulting total GHG reduction, in CO2e,
is 6 percent for the alternative versus 20 percent for the final
standards.
For both the final standards and the alternative, we modeled
potential compliance pathways based on an increase in the use of zero-
emission vehicle technologies. Therefore, we also project that
downstream emission reductions of criteria pollutants and air toxics
would result from the alternative, relative to the reference case, as
presented in Table IX-4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.146
Once again, the emission reductions in criteria pollutants and air
toxics that would result from the alternative are smaller than those
estimated to result from the final standards. For example, in 2055, we
estimate the alternative would reduce NOX emissions by 7
percent, PM2.5 emissions by 1 percent, and VOC emissions by
4 percent. This is compared to the final standards reductions of
NOX by 20 percent, PM2.5 by 5 percent, and VOC by
20 percent for the final standards. Reductions in emissions for air
toxics from the alternative range from 1 percent for benzene (the final
standards estimate is 25 percent) to 3 percent for formaldehyde (the
final standards estimate is 15 percent).
2. Upstream Emission Comparison
Our estimates of the additional GHG emissions from EGUs due to the
alternative, relative to the reference case, are presented in Table IX-
5 for calendar years 2035, 2045, and 2055, in million metric tons
(MMT). Our estimates for additional criteria pollutant emissions are
presented in Table IX-6.
[[Page 29725]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.148
Because the potential compliance pathway for the alternative
assumes lower ZEV adoption rates, we project smaller increases in
emissions from EGUs than the final standards. In 2055, we estimate the
alternative would increase EGU emissions of CO2 by 4.4
million metric tons (compared to 12.9 million metric tons from the
final standards), with similar trends for all other pollutants. The EGU
impacts for all pollutants decrease over time because of projected
changes in the power generation mix.
Table IX-7 presents the estimated impact of the alternative on GHG
emissions from refineries and Table IX-8 presents the estimated impact
of the alternative on criteria pollutant emissions from refineries,
both relative to the reference case.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.150
We project smaller reductions in refinery emissions for the
alternative than for the final standards (see section V of this
preamble), consistent with our projected impacts for downstream
emissions. We project a reduction of 147,787 metric tons of
CO2 for the alternative versus 690,477 metric tons for the
final standards.
3. Comparison of Net Emissions Impacts
Table IX-9 shows a summary of our modeled downstream, upstream, and
net GHG emission impacts of the alternative relative to the reference
case (i.e., the emissions inventory without the final standards), in
million metric tons, for calendar years 2035, 2045, and 2055. Table IX-
10 contains a summary of the modeled net impacts of the alternative on
criteria pollutant emissions.
[[Page 29726]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.152
In 2055, we estimate the alternative would result in a net decrease
of 17 million metric tons of GHG emissions, compared to 61 million
metric tons for the final standards. Like the final standards, we
project net decreases in emissions of NOx, VOC, and SO2 in
2055 but a net increase in PM2.5 emissions. Consistent with
other emissions impacts trends discussed for the alternative, the
magnitude of these net impacts is smaller for the alternative than for
the final standards.
4. Comparison of Cumulative GHG Impacts
The warming impacts of GHGs are cumulative. Table V-13, Table V-14,
and Table V-15 present the cumulative GHG impacts that we model would
result from both the final standards and the alternative from 2027
through 2055 for downstream emissions, EGU emissions, and refinery
emissions, respectively, relative to the reference case.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.153
[[Page 29727]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.155
Overall, we estimate the alternative would reduce net GHG emissions
by 321 million metric tons between 2027 and 2055, relative to the
reference case, as is presented in Table V-16. This is less than one
third the total reduction from the final standards, which is more than
1 billion metric tons.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.156
C. Program Costs Comparison of the Final Rule and Alternative
Using the cost elements outlined in sections IV.B, IV.C, and IV.D,
we have estimated the costs associated with the final rule and
alternative relative to the reference case, as shown in Table IX-15.
Costs are presented in more detail in Chapter 3 of the RIA. As noted
earlier, costs are presented in 2022$ in undiscounted annual values
along with net present values and annualized values at 2, 3, and 7
percent discount rates with values discounted to the 2027 calendar
year.
As shown in Table IX-15, our analysis demonstrates that the final
standards will have the lowest cost compared to the alternative and
reference cases for all net present and annualized values at all three
discount rates.
[[Page 29728]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.157
D. Benefits
1. Climate Benefits
Our estimates of the climate benefits from the GHG emissions
reductions associated with the alternative are similar to those
discussed for the final rule in section VII of this preamble. Table IX-
16 presents the annual, undiscounted monetized climate benefits of
reduced GHG emissions using social cost of GHG (SC-GHG) values
presented in the EPA Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases:
Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances \1370\ for the years
beginning with the first year of rule implementation, 2027, through
2055 for the alternative and final standards. Also shown are the
present values and equivalent annualized values associated with each of
the SC-GHG values. For
[[Page 29729]]
more detailed information about the climate benefits analysis conducted
for the final standards and alternative, please refer to section 7.1 of
the RIA. See sections V and IX.B of this preamble for our analysis of
GHG emission impacts of the final standards and alternative,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1370\ EPA Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases:
Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.158
2. Criteria Pollutant Reductions
Table IX-17 presents the total annual, undiscounted
PM2.5-related health benefits estimated for the stream of
years beginning with the first year of rule implementation, 2027,
through calendar year 2055 for the final CO2 emission
standards and alternative. The range of benefits in Table IX-17
reflects the range of premature mortality estimates based on risk
estimates reported from two different long-term exposure studies using
different cohorts to account for uncertainty in the benefits associated
with avoiding PM-related premature deaths.1371 1372 Although
annual benefits presented in the table are not discounted for the
purposes of present value or annualized value calculations, annual
benefits do reflect the use of 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates
to account for avoided health outcomes that are expected to accrue over
more than a single year (the ``cessation lag'' between the change in PM
exposures and the total realization of changes in health effects). The
table also displays the present and annualized value of estimated
benefits that occur from 2027 to 2055, discounted using both 3 percent
and 7 percent discount rates and reported in 2022$.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1371\ Wu, X, Braun, D, Schwartz, J, Kioumourtzoglou, M and
Dominici, F (2020). Evaluating the impact of long-term exposure to
fine particulate matter on mortality among the elderly. Science
advances 6(29): eaba5692.
\1372\ Pope III, CA, Lefler, JS, Ezzati, M, Higbee, JD,
Marshall, JD, Kim, S-Y, Bechle, M, Gilliat, KS, Vernon, SE and
Robinson, AL (2019). Mortality risk and fine particulate air
pollution in a large, representative cohort of US adults.
Environmental health perspectives 127(7): 077007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PM2.5-related health benefits of a less stringent
alternative program are -$3.0 to $2.1 million assuming a 3 percent
discount rate and -$77 to -$36 million assuming a 7 percent discount
rate (2022$). We use a constant 3 percent and 7-pecent discount rate to
calculate present and annualized values in Table IX-17, consistent with
current
[[Page 29730]]
applicable OMB Circular No. A-4 guidance (2003). For the purposes of
presenting total net benefits (see preamble section VIII), we also use
a constant 2 percent discount rate to calculate present and annualized
values. We note that we do not currently have BPT estimates that use a
2-percent discount rate to account for cessation lag. If we apply a
constant 2 percent discount rate to the stream of annual benefits based
on the 3 percent cessation lag BPT, annualized benefits would be $15 to
$22 million. Depending on the discount rate used, the present and
annualized value of the stream of PM2.5 health benefits may
either be positive or negative.
For more detailed information about the benefits analysis conducted
for the final standards and alternative, please refer to Chapter 7 of
the RIA.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 29731]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.159
3. Energy Security
In Table IX-18, EPA presents the macroeconomic oil security
premiums and the energy security benefits for the final standards and
alternative for the years 2027 through 2055. The oil security premiums
and the energy security benefits for the final CO2 emission
standards are further discussed in section VII.
[[Page 29732]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.160
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
E. How do the final standards and alternative compare in overall
benefits and costs?
Table IX-19 shows the estimated net benefits for the final
standards and alternative relative to the reference case, at 2, 3 and 7
percent discount rates, respectively. Preamble section VIII and Chapter
8 of the RIA presents more detailed results. These estimated net
benefits are the sum of benefits and operating savings minus vehicle
costs.
As noted in preamble section VIII's discussion of costs and
benefits for the final standards, EPA's consistent practice has been to
set standards to achieve improved air quality consistent with CAA
section 202 and not to rely on cost-benefit calculations, with their
uncertainties and limitations, in identifying the appropriate
standards. Nonetheless, the significantly greater benefits for the
final standards relative to the alternative provide reinforcing support
for EPA's decision to adopt the final standards in lieu of the
alternative. For example, in 2055, the final rule would result in net
benefits of $32 billion dollars (2022$), which is significantly greater
than the alternative's net benefits of $8.3 billion.
[[Page 29733]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.161
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is a ``significant regulatory action,'' as defined
under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive
Order 14094. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review.
Documentation of any changes made in response to the Executive Order
12866 review is available in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis
of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This
analysis, the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis--Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3--Final Rulemaking,'' is
available in the docket.\1373\ The analyses contained in the RIA
document are also summarized in sections II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and
IX of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1373\ U.S. EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis--Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3. EPA-420-R-24-
006. March 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR Number 2734.02. You can find a copy
of the Supporting Statement in the docket for this rule, and it is
briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are
not enforceable until OMB approves them.
This rulemaking consists of targeted updates and new GHG emission
standards for heavy-duty vehicles beginning with MY 2027. While there
will be changes to the EV-CIS data system to reflect new standards,
this will not affect manufacturer reporting. In addition, While EPA has
committed to post-rule monitoring of the implementation of the heavy-
duty vehicle GHG programs, that monitoring is expected to rely on
manufacturer-submitted certification data and will not impose
additional reporting requirements. As part of this monitoring program,
EPA will continue to evaluate the data collection needs and will create
a new ICR if we determine additional data is needed. Finally, the
information collection activities for EPA's Phase 2 GHG program do not
change as a result of this rule. While manufacturers are expected to
experience a cost associated with reviewing the new requirements, they
already submit the data that would be required for certification to the
standards to EPA's certification system (under programmatic ICRs).
There would be a change only to the specific data reported, not its
reporting.
Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers of heavy-duty
onroad vehicles.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Regulated entities
must respond to this collection if they wish to sell their products in
the United States, as prescribed by CAA section 203(a). Participation
in some programs is voluntary; but once a manufacturer has elected to
participate, it must submit the required information.
Estimated number of respondents: Approximately 77 heavy-
duty vehicle manufacturers.
Frequency of response: One-time burden associated with
reviewing the new requirements for all manufacturers; for EV
manufacturers, one-time burden associated with new battery health
monitor provisions, warranty reporting requirements, and associated
revisions to owners' manuals.
Total estimated burden: 7,411 hours. Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
Total estimated cost: $1.622 million; includes an
estimated $936,500 in maintenance and operational costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce
that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment
to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved
information collection activities contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. As
explained in this
[[Page 29734]]
preamble, EPA is exempting small entities from the revisions to EPA's
Phase 2 GHG standards for MY 2027 and the new GHG standards for MYs
2028 through 2032 and later. Small EV manufacturers are subject to new
battery health monitor provisions and warranty provisions, which
include making associated revisions to owners' manuals. There are 10
small companies that are affected by the requirements. The estimated
burden is not expected to exceed 3 percent of annual revenue for any
small entity, and is expected to be between 1 and 3 percent of annual
revenue for only one company. We therefore conclude that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities within the regulated industries. More information
concerning the small entities and our conclusion is presented in
Chapter 9 of the RIA.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action contains no unfunded Federal mandate for State, local,
or Tribal governments as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and
does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This
action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal
government. This action contains Federal mandates under UMRA that may
result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more for the private
sector. Accordingly, the costs and benefits associated with this action
are discussed in sections IV, VII, and VIII of this preamble and in the
RIA, which is in the docket for this rule.
This action is not subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The action we are finalizing for HD Phase 3 CO2 emission
standards and related regulations does not have federalism
implications. The final HD Phase 3 CO2 emission standards
and related regulations will not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the National Government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action. This action does not have substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
However, EPA has engaged with Tribal stakeholders in the development of
this rulemaking by holding a Tribal workshop, offering information
sessions to Tribal organizations, and offering government-to-government
consultation upon request.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is a
significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order
12866, and EPA believes that the environmental health risks or safety
risks of the pollutants addressed by this action may have a
disproportionate effect on children. The 2021 Policy on Children's
Health also applies to this action.\1374\ Accordingly, we have
evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of air pollutants
affected by the final rule on children. The results of this evaluation
are described in section VI of the preamble and Chapter 5 of the RIA.
The protection offered by these standards may be especially important
for children because childhood represents a life stage associated with
increased susceptibility to air pollutant-related health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1374\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2021). 2021 Policy
on Children's Health. Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/2021-policy-on-childrens-health.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHG emissions contribute to climate change and the GHG emissions
reductions described in section V of this preamble resulting from this
rule will contribute to mitigation of climate change. The assessment
literature cited in EPA's 2009 and 2016 Endangerment Findings concluded
that certain populations and life stages, including children, the
elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to climate-related health
effects. The assessment literature since 2016 strengthens these
conclusions by providing more detailed findings regarding these groups'
vulnerabilities and the projected impacts they may experience. These
assessments describe how children's unique physiological and
developmental factors contribute to making them particularly vulnerable
to climate change. Impacts to children are expected from heat waves,
air pollution, infectious and waterborne illnesses, and mental health
effects resulting from extreme weather events. In addition, children
are among those especially susceptible to most allergic diseases, as
well as health effects associated with heat waves, storms, and floods.
Additional health concerns may arise in low-income households,
especially those with children, if climate change reduces food
availability and increases prices, leading to food insecurity within
households. More detailed information on the impacts of climate change
to human health and welfare is provided in section VI.A of this
preamble.
Children make up a substantial fraction of the U.S. population, and
often have unique factors that contribute to their increased risk of
experiencing a health effect from exposures to ambient air pollutants
because of their continuous growth and development. Children are more
susceptible than adults to many air pollutants because they have (1) a
developing respiratory system, (2) increased ventilation rates relative
to body mass compared with adults, (3) an increased proportion of oral
breathing, particularly in boys, relative to adults, and (4) behaviors
that increase chances for exposure. Even before birth, the developing
fetus may be exposed to air pollutants through the mother that affect
development and permanently harm the individual when the mother is
exposed.
In addition to reducing GHGs, this final rule will also reduce
onroad emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxics. Section V of
this preamble presents the estimated onroad emissions reductions from
the rule. Certain motor vehicle emissions present greater risks to
children. Early lifestages (e.g., children) are thought to be more
susceptible to tumor development than adults when exposed to
carcinogenic chemicals that act through a mutagenic mode of
action.\1375\ Exposure at a young age to these carcinogens could lead
to a higher risk of developing cancer later in life. Chapter 5.2.8 of
the RIA describes a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that reported a
positive association between proximity to traffic and the risk of
leukemia in children. Also, section VI.B of this preamble and Chapter 5
of the RIA discuss a number of childhood health outcomes associated
with proximity to roadways, including
[[Page 29735]]
evidence for exacerbation of asthma symptoms and suggestive evidence
for new onset asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1375\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005). Supplemental
guidance for assessing susceptibility from early-life exposure to
carcinogens. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-03/
003F. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to reduced onroad emissions of criteria pollutants and
air toxics, we expect the rule will also lead to reductions in refinery
emissions and increases in pollutant emissions from EGUs (see preamble
section V). As described in section VI.B of this preamble and Chapter 5
of the RIA, the Integrated Science Assessments for a number of
pollutants affected by this rule, including those for SO2,
NO2, PM, ozone, and CO, describe children as a group with
greater susceptibility.
There is substantial evidence that people who live or attend school
near major roadways are more likely to be people of color, Hispanic
ethnicity, and/or low socioeconomic status. Analyses of communities in
close proximity to sources such as EGUs and refineries have also found
that a higher percentage of communities of color and low-income
communities live near these sources when compared to national averages.
Within these highly exposed groups, children's exposure and
susceptibility to health effects is greater than adults due to school-
related and seasonal activities, behavior, and physiological factors.
Children are not expected to experience greater ambient
concentrations of air pollutants compared to the general population.
However, because of their greater susceptibility to air pollution,
including the impacts of a changing climate, and their increased time
spent outdoors, it is likely that the GHG emissions reductions
associated with the standards will have particular benefits for
children's health.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. EPA has outlined the energy effects in
section VI of this preamble and Chapter 5 of the RIA, which is
available in the docket for this action and is briefly summarized here.
This action will reduce CO2 emissions from heavy-duty
vehicles under revised GHG standards, which will result in significant
reductions in the consumption of petroleum, increase electricity
consumption, achieve energy security benefits (described in section
VII.C of this preamble), and have no adverse energy effects. As shown
in Table 6-1 in the RIA, EPA projects that through 2055 these standards
will result in a reduction of 135 billion gallons of diesel and
gasoline consumption and an increase of 2,300 TWh of electricity
consumption (RIA 6.5). As discussed in preamble section II.D.2.iii.d,
we do not expect the increased electricity consumption under this rule
to have significant adverse impacts on the electric grid.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
part 51
This action involves technical standards. Except for the standards
discussed in this section, the standards included in the regulatory
text as incorporated by reference were all previously approved for IBR
and no change is included in this action.
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are
incorporating by reference the use of test methods and standards from
ASTM International (ASTM). The referenced standards and test methods
may be obtained through the ASTM website (www.astm.org) or by calling
(610) 832-9585. We are incorporating by reference the following ASTM
standards:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.162
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are
incorporating by reference the use of test methods and standards from
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The referenced
standards and test methods may be obtained through the NIST website
(www.nist.gov) or by calling (301) 975-6478. We are incorporating by
reference the following NIST standards:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.163
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are
incorporating by reference the use of EPA's Greenhouse gas Emissions
Model (GEM) Phase 2, Version 4.0. The referenced model may be obtained
through the EPA website (www.epa.gov) or by emailing
[email protected]. As described in section III.C.1.iv of this
preamble, we are moving the powertrain testing provisions of 40 CFR
1037.550 to 40 CFR 1036.545, including references to U.S. EPA's
Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM). We are therefore removing GEM
references in 40 CFR
[[Page 29736]]
1037.550, with the change noted in 40 CFR 1037.810(d)(4). We are
accordingly incorporating by reference GEM as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.164
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions that
exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to result in
disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects on
communities with environmental justice concerns. EPA provides a summary
of the evidence for potentially disproportionate and adverse effects
among people of color and low-income populations in section VI.D of the
preamble for this rule.
EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on many communities with
environmental justice concerns.
Section VI.D.1 discusses the environmental justice issues
associated with climate change. People of color, low-income populations
and/or indigenous peoples may be especially vulnerable to the impacts
of climate change. The GHG emission reductions from this action will
contribute to efforts to reduce the probability of severe impacts
related to climate change.
In addition to reducing GHGs, we project that this action will also
reduce onroad emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxics. Section
V of this preamble presents the estimated impacts from this action on
onroad, refinery and EGU emissions. These non-GHG emission reductions
from vehicles will improve air quality for the people who reside in
close proximity to major roadways and who are disproportionately
represented by people of color and people with low income, as described
in section VI.D.3 of this preamble. We expect that localized increases
in criteria and toxic pollutant emissions from EGUs and reductions in
petroleum-sector emissions could lead to changes in exposure to these
pollutants for people living in the communities near these facilities.
Analyses of communities in close proximity to these sources (such as
EGUs and refineries) have found that a higher percentage of communities
of color and low-income communities live near these sources when
compared to national averages.
EPA is additionally identifying and addressing environmental
justice concerns by providing just treatment and meaningful involvement
with environment justice groups in soliciting input, considering
comments, and developing this final rulemaking.
The information supporting this impacts review is contained in
section VI.D of the preamble for this rule, and all supporting
documents have been placed in the public docket for this action.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
L. Judicial Review
This final action is ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning
of CAA section 307(b)(1) because it is expressly listed in the section
(i.e., ``any standard under section [202] of this title''). Under
section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date this final action is
published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not
affect the finality of the action for the purposes of judicial review,
nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review
must be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.
M. Severability
This final rule includes new and revised requirements for numerous
provisions under various aspects of the highway on-road emission
control program, including certain revised GHG standards for MY 2027
and new GHG standards for MYs 2028 through 2032 and later for HD
vehicles, updates to discrete elements of the ABT program, emission-
related warranty, and other requirements. Therefore, this final rule is
a multifaceted rule that addresses many separate things for independent
reasons, as detailed in each respective portion of this preamble. We
intend each portion of this rule to be severable from each other,
though we took the approach of including all the parts in one
rulemaking rather than promulgating multiple rules to ensure the
changes are consistently implemented, even though the changes are not
inter-dependent. We have noted the independence of various pieces of
this package both in the proposal and in earlier sections of the
preamble but we reiterate it here for clarity.
For example, EPA notes that our judgments regarding feasibility of
the Phase 3 standards for earlier years largely reflect anticipated
changes in the heavy-duty vehicle market (which are driven by other
factors, such as the IRA and manufacturers' plans), while our judgments
regarding feasibility of the standards in later years reflect those
trends plus the additional lead time for further adoption of control
technologies. Thus, the standards for the later years are feasible and
appropriate even absent standards for the earlier years, and vice
versa. Accordingly, EPA finds that the standards for each individual
year are severable from standards for each of the other years, and that
at minimum the earlier MYs (MY 2027 through MY 2029) are severable from
the later MYs (MYs 2030 and later). Furthermore, EPA's revisions to
certain MY 2027 standards are severable from the new MY 2028 and later
standards because our analysis supports that the standards for each of
the later years are feasible
[[Page 29737]]
and appropriate even absent the revised MY 2027 standards.
Additionally, our judgments regarding the standards for each
separate vehicle category are likewise independent and do not rely on
one another. For example, EPA notes that our judgments regarding
feasibility of the standards for vocational vehicles reflect our
judgment regarding the general availability of depot-charging
infrastructure in MY 2027 and for each later model year under the
modeled potential compliance pathway, and that judgment is independent
of our judgment regarding standards for tractors that reflects our
judgment regarding more reliance on publicly available charging
infrastructure and hydrogen refueling infrastructure in MY 2030 and for
each later model year under the modeled potential compliance pathway.
Similarly, within the standards for vocational vehicles, our judgments
regarding the feasibility of each model year of the standards for each
category of vocational vehicles (LHD, MHD, and HHD) and for tractors
(day cab and sleeper cab) reflect our judgments regarding the design
requirements and payback analysis for each of the individual 101
vehicle types analyzed in HD TRUCS and then aggregated to the
individual vehicle category, independent of those same kinds of
judgments for the other vehicle categories and independent from prior
MYs standards, under the modeled potential compliance pathway.
Accordingly, EPA finds that the standards for each category of
vocational vehicles and tractors for each individual model year are
severable, including from the standards for all other categories for
that model year, and from the standards for different model years.
Finally, EPA notes that there are changes EPA is making related to
implementation of standards generally (i.e., independent of the numeric
stringency of the standards set in this final rule). For example, EPA
is making changes to testing and other certification procedures, as
well as establishing battery durability and battery warranty
provisions. For another example, EPA is making changes to discrete
elements of the existing ABT program, including to use of credits
generated from Phase 2 credit multipliers for advanced technologies and
credit transfers across averaging sets. Each of these issues has been
considered and adopted independently of the level of the standards, and
indeed of each other. EPA's overall vehicle program continues to be
fully implementable even in the absence of any one or more of these
elements. For instance, while the battery durability and warranty
provisions support the implementation of the standards, EPA adopted the
standards independent of those provisions, and the standards can
function absent them. Likewise, while credits from multipliers and
credit transfers across averaging sets allow flexibility in compliance
options for manufacturers, they are not necessary for manufacturers to
meet the emissions standards and we did not rely on them in justifying
the feasibility of the standards.
Thus, EPA has independently considered and adopted each of these
portions of the final rule (including but not limited to the Phase 3
GHG standards for HD vehicles; updates to discrete elements of the ABT
program, including temporary transitional flexibilities; compliance
testing and certification procedures; battery durability monitoring;
and battery warranty) and each is severable should there be judicial
review. If a court were to invalidate any one of these elements of the
final rule, we intend the remainder of this action to remain effective.
Importantly, we have designed these different elements of the program
to function sensibly and independently, the supporting basis for each
of these elements of the final rule reflects that they are
independently justified and appropriate, and find each portion
appropriate even if one or more other parts of the rule has been set
aside. For example, if a reviewing court were to invalidate any of the
Phase 3 GHG standards, the other regulatory amendments, including not
only the other Phase 3 GHG standards but also the changes to discrete
elements of the ABT program, certification procedures, and battery
durability and warranty, remain fully operable. Moreover, this list is
not intended to be exhaustive, and should not be viewed as an intention
by EPA to consider other parts of the rule not explicitly listed here
as not severable from other parts of the rule.
XI. Statutory Authority and Legal Provisions
Statutory authority for this action is found in the Clean Air Act
at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7675, including Clean Air Act sections 202-208, 213,
216, and 301 (42 U.S.C. 7521-7542, 7547, 7550, and 7601). Statutory
authority for the GHG standards is found in CAA section 202(a)(1)-(2)
(42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1)-(2)), which requires EPA to establish standards
applicable to emissions of air pollutants from new motor vehicles and
new motor vehicle engines which cause or contribute to air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. The statutory authorities for specific elements of this action
are further described in the corresponding preamble sections.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Greenhouse gases, Labeling, Motor
vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1036
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Greenhouse
gases, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1037
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Incorporation
by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1039
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Labeling,
Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1054
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1065
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Research.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending title 40,
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.
[[Page 29738]]
PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES
0
1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
2. Amend Sec. 86.1819-14 by revising paragraph (d)(2)(i) and adding
paragraph (d)(2)(iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1819-14 Greenhouse gas emission standards for heavy-duty
vehicles.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section,
credits you generate under this section may be used only to offset
credit deficits under this section. You may bank credits for use in a
future model year in which your average CO2 level exceeds
the standard. You may trade credits to another manufacturer according
to Sec. 86.1865-12(k)(8). Before you bank or trade credits, you must
apply any available credits to offset a deficit if the deadline to
offset that credit deficit has not yet passed.
* * * * *
(iv) Credits generated under this section may be used to
demonstrate to compliance with the CO2 emission standards
for vehicles certified under 40 CFR part 1037 as described in 40 CFR
1037.150(z).
* * * * *
PART 1036--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HEAVY-DUTY
HIGHWAY ENGINES
0
3. The authority citation for part 1036 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
4. Revise Sec. 1036.101 to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.101 Overview of exhaust emission standards.
(a) You must show that engines meet the following exhaust emission
standards:
(1) Criteria pollutant standards for NOX, HC, PM, and CO
apply as described in Sec. 1036.104. These pollutants are sometimes
described collectively as ``criteria pollutants'' because they are
either criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act or precursors to the
criteria pollutants ozone and PM.
(2) This part contains standards and other regulations applicable
to the emission of the air pollutant defined as the aggregate group of
six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for CO2, CH4, and
N2O apply as described in Sec. 1036.108.
(b) You may optionally demonstrate compliance with the emission
standards of this part by testing hybrid powertrains, rather than
testing the engine alone. Except as specified, provisions of this part
that reference engines apply equally to hybrid powertrains.
Sec. 1036.104 [Amended]
0
5. Amend Sec. 1036.104 by removing paragraph (c)(2)(iii).
0
6. Amend Sec. 1036.108 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (e) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1036.108 Greenhouse gas emission standards--CO2, CH4, and N2O.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) CO2 emission standards in this paragraph (a)(1)
apply based on testing as specified in subpart F of this part. The
applicable test cycle for measuring CO2 emissions differs
depending on the engine family's primary intended service class and the
extent to which the engines will be (or were designed to be) used in
tractors. For Medium HDE and Heavy HDE certified as tractor engines,
measure CO2 emissions using the SET steady-state duty cycle
specified in Sec. 1036.510. This testing with the SET duty cycle is
intended for engines designed to be used primarily in tractors and
other line-haul applications. Note that the use of some SET-certified
tractor engines in vocational applications does not affect your
certification obligation under this paragraph (a)(1); see other
provisions of this part and 40 CFR part 1037 for limits on using
engines certified to only one cycle. For Medium HDE and Heavy HDE
certified as both tractor and vocational engines, measure
CO2 emissions using the SET duty cycle specified in Sec.
1036.510 and the FTP transient duty cycle specified in Sec. 1036.512.
Testing with both SET and FTP duty cycles is intended for engines that
are designed for use in both tractor and vocational applications. For
all other engines (including Spark-ignition HDE), measure
CO2 emissions using the FTP transient duty cycle specified
in Sec. 1036.512.
(i) Spark-ignition standards. The CO2 standard for all
spark-ignition engines is 627 g/hp[middot]hr for model years 2016
through 2020.This standard continues to apply in later model years for
all spark-ignition engines that are not Heavy HDE. Spark-ignition
engines that qualify as Heavy HDE under Sec. 1036.140(b)(2) for model
years 2021 and later are subject to the compression-ignition engine
standards for Heavy HDE-Vocational or Heavy HDE-Tractor, as applicable.
You may certify spark-ignition engines to the compression-ignition
standards for the appropriate model year under this paragraph (a). If
you do this, those engines are treated as compression-ignition engines
for all provisions of this part.
(ii) Compression-ignition standards. The following CO2
standards apply for compression-ignition engines and model year 2021
and later spark-ignition engines that qualify as Heavy HDE:
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of Sec. 1036.108--Compression-Ignition CO2 Standards
[g/hp[middot]hr]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium HDE- Heavy HDE- Medium HDE- Heavy HDE-
Phase Model years Light HDE vocational vocational tractor tractor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................... 2014-2016........................ 600 600 567 502 475
2017-2020........................ 576 576 555 487 460
2........................................... 2021-2023........................ 563 545 513 473 447
2024-2026........................ 555 538 506 461 436
2027 and later................... 552 535 503 457 432
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) Applicability for testing. The emission standards in this
subpart apply as specified in this paragraph (e) to all duty-cycle
testing (according to the
[[Page 29739]]
applicable test cycles) of testable configurations, including
certification, selective enforcement audits, and in-use testing. The
CO2 FCLs serve as the CO2 emission standards for
the engine family with respect to certification and confirmatory
testing instead of the standards specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section. The FELs serve as the emission standards for the engine family
with respect to all other duty-cycle testing. See Sec. Sec. 1036.235
and 1036.241 to determine which engine configurations within the engine
family are subject to testing. Note that engine fuel maps and
powertrain test results also serve as standards as described in
Sec. Sec. 1036.535, 1036.540, 1036.545, and 1036.630.
0
7. Amend Sec. 1036.110 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text,
(b)(6), (b)(9) introductory text, (b)(11)(ii), and (c)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1036.110 Diagnostic controls.
* * * * *
(b) Engines must comply with the 2019 heavy-duty OBD requirements
adopted for California as described in this paragraph (b). California's
2019 heavy-duty OBD requirements are part of 13 CCR 1968.2, 1968.5,
1971.1, and 1971.5 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1036.810). We
may approve your request to certify an OBD system meeting alternative
specifications if you submit information as needed to demonstrate that
it meets the intent of this section. For example, we may approve your
request for a system that meets a later version of California's OBD
requirements if you demonstrate that it meets the intent of this
section; the demonstration must include identification of any approved
deficiencies and your plans to resolve such deficiencies. To
demonstrate that your engine meets the intent of this section, the OBD
system meeting alternative specifications must address all the
provisions described in this paragraph (b) and in paragraph (c) of this
section. The following clarifications and exceptions apply for engines
certified under this part:
* * * * *
(6) The provisions related to verification of in-use compliance in
13 CCR 1971.1(l)(4) do not apply. The provisions related to
manufacturer self-testing in 13 CCR 1971.5(c) also do not apply.
* * * * *
(9) Design compression-ignition engines to make the following
additional data-stream signals available on demand with a generic scan
tool according to 13 CCR 1971.1(h)(4.2), if the engine is so equipped
with the relevant components and OBD monitoring is required for those
components (or modeling is required for some parameter related to those
components):
* * * * *
(11) * * *
(ii) Send us results from any testing you performed for certifying
engine families (including equivalent engine families) with the
California Air Resources Board, including the results of any testing
performed under 13 CCR 1971.1(l) for verification of in-use compliance
and 13 CCR 1971.5(c) for manufacturer self-testing within the deadlines
set out in 13 CCR 1971.1 and 1971.5.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) For inducements specified in Sec. 1036.111 and any other AECD
that derates engine output related to SCR or DPF systems, indicate the
fault code for the detected problem, a description of the fault code,
and the current speed restriction. For inducement faults under Sec.
1036.111, identify whether the fault condition is for DEF level, DEF
quality, or tampering; for other faults, identify whether the fault
condition is related to SCR or DPF systems. If there are additional
derate stages, also indicate the next speed restriction and the time
remaining until starting the next restriction. If the derate involves
something other than restricting vehicle speed, such as a torque
derate, adjust the information to correctly identify any current and
pending restrictions.
* * * * *
0
8. Revise and republish Sec. 1036.111 to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.111 Inducements related to SCR.
Engines using SCR to control emissions depend on a constant supply
of diesel exhaust fluid (DEF). This section describes how manufacturers
must design their engines to derate power output to induce operators to
take appropriate actions to ensure the SCR system is working properly.
The requirements of this section apply equally for engines installed in
heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 lbs GVWR. The requirements of
this section apply starting in model year 2027, though you may comply
with the requirements of this section in earlier model years.
(a) General provisions. The following terms and general provisions
apply under this section:
(1) As described in Sec. 1036.110, this section relies on terms
and requirements specified for OBD systems by California ARB in 13 CCR
1968.2 and 1971.1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1036.810).
(2) The provisions of this section apply differently based on an
individual vehicle's speed history. A vehicle's speed category is based
on the OBD system's recorded value for average speed for the preceding
30 hours of non-idle engine operation. The vehicle speed category
applies at the point that the engine first detects an inducement
triggering condition identified under paragraph (b) of this section and
continues to apply until the inducement triggering condition is fully
resolved as specified in paragraph (e) of this section. Non-idle engine
operation includes all operating conditions except those that qualify
as idle based on OBD system controls as specified in 13 CCR
1971.1(h)(5.4.10). Apply speed derates based on the following
categories:
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1036.111--Vehicle Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle category \a\ Average speed (mi/hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-speed................................. speed <15.
Medium-speed.............................. 15 <= speed <25.
High-speed................................ speed >=25.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A vehicle is presumed to be a high-speed vehicle if it has not yet
logged 30 hours of non-idle operation.
(3) Where engines derate power output as specified in this section,
the derate must decrease vehicle speed by 1 mi/hr for every five
minutes of engine operation until reaching the specified derate speed.
This paragraph (a)(3) applies at the onset of an inducement, at any
transition to a different step of inducement, and for any derate that
recurs under paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(b) Inducement triggering conditions. Create derate strategies that
monitor for and trigger an inducement based on the following
conditions:
(1) DEF supply falling to 2.5 percent of DEF tank capacity or a
level corresponding to three hours of engine operation, based on
available information on DEF consumption rates.
(2) DEF quality failing to meet your concentration specifications.
(3) Any signal indicating that a catalyst is missing.
(4) Open circuit faults related to the following: DEF tank level
sensor, DEF pump, DEF quality sensor, SCR wiring harness,
NOX sensors, DEF dosing valve, DEF tank heater, DEF tank
temperature sensor, and aftertreatment control module.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Derate schedule. Engines must follow the derate schedule
described in
[[Page 29740]]
this paragraph (d) if the engine detects an inducement triggering
condition identified in paragraph (b) of this section. The derate takes
the form of a maximum drive speed for the vehicle. This maximum drive
speed decreases over time based on hours of non-idle engine operation
without regard to engine starting.
(1) Apply speed-limiting derates according to the following
schedule:
Table 2 to Paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 1036.111--Derate Schedule for Detected Inducement Triggering Conditions
\a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-speed vehicles Medium-speed vehicles Low-speed vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hours of non-idle Maximum speed (mi/ Hours of non-idle Maximum speed (mi/ Hours of non-idle Maximum speed (mi/
engine operation hr) engine operation hr) engine operation hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 65 0 55 0 45
6 60 6 50 5 40
12 55 12 45 10 35
20 50 45 40 30 25
86 45 70 35 ................. .................
119 40 90 25 ................. .................
144 35 ................. ................. ................. .................
164 25 ................. ................. ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Hours start counting when the engine detects an inducement triggering condition specified in paragraph (b)
of this section. For DEF supply, you may program the engine to reset the timer to three hours when the engine
detects an empty DEF tank.
(2) You may design and produce engines that will be installed in
motorcoaches with an alternative derate schedule that starts with a 65
mi/hr derate when an inducement triggering condition is first detected,
steps down to 50 mi/hr after 80 hours, and concludes with a final
derate speed of 25 mi/hr after 180 hours of non-idle operation.
(e) Deactivating derates. Program the engine to deactivate derates
as follows:
(1) Evaluate whether the detected inducement triggering condition
continues to apply. Deactivate derates if the engine confirms that the
detected inducement triggering condition is resolved.
(2) Allow a generic scan tool to deactivate inducement triggering
codes while the vehicle is not in motion.
(3) Treat any detected inducement triggering condition that recurs
within 40 hours of engine operation as the same detected inducement
triggering condition, which would restart the derate at the same point
in the derate schedule that the system last deactivated the derate.
0
9. Amend Sec. 1036.115 by revising paragraph (h)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1036.115 Other requirements.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(4) The AECD applies only for engines that will be installed in
emergency vehicles, and the need is justified in terms of preventing
the engine from losing speed, torque, or power due abnormal conditions
of the emission control system, or in terms of preventing such abnormal
conditions from occurring, during operation related to emergency
response. Examples of such abnormal conditions may include excessive
exhaust backpressure from an overloaded particulate trap, and running
out of diesel exhaust fluid for engines that rely on urea-based
selective catalytic reduction. The emission standards do not apply when
any AECDs approved under this paragraph (h)(4) are active.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 1036.120 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.120 Emission-related warranty requirements.
* * * * *
(c) Components covered. The emission-related warranty covers all
components listed in 40 CFR part 1068, appendix A, and components from
any other system you develop to control emissions. Note that this
includes hybrid system components that you specify in a certified
configuration. The emission-related warranty covers any components,
regardless of the company that produced them, that are the original
components or the same design as components from the certified
configuration.
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec. 1036.125 by revising paragraph (h)(8)(iii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1036.125 Maintenance instructions and allowable maintenance.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(8) * * *
(iii) A description of the three types of SCR-related derates (DEF
level, DEF quality and tampering) and that further information on the
inducement cause (e.g., trouble codes) is available using the OBD
system.
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 1036.150 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (d);
0
b. Adding paragraph (f);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (j), (k) introductory text, (q), and (v); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (aa).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1036.150 Interim provisions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Engines must meet a NOX standard when tested over
the Low Load Cycle as described in Sec. 1036.514. Engines must also
meet an off-cycle NOX standard as specified in Sec.
1036.104(a)(3). Calculate the NOX family emission limits for
the Low Load Cycle and for off-cycle testing as described in Sec.
1036.104(c)(3) with StdFTPNOx set to 35 mg/hp[middot]hr and
Std[cycle]NOx set to the values specified in Sec.
1036.104(a)(1) or (3), respectively. No standard applies for HC, PM,
and CO emissions for the Low Load Cycle or for off-cycle testing, but
you must record measured values for those pollutants and include those
measured values where you report NOX emission results.
* * * * *
(d) Small manufacturers. The greenhouse gas standards of this part
apply on a delayed schedule for manufacturers meeting the small
business criteria specified in 13 CFR 121.201. Apply the small business
criteria for NAICS code 336310 for engine manufacturers with respect to
[[Page 29741]]
gasoline-fueled engines and 333618 for engine manufacturers with
respect to other engines; the employee limits apply to the total number
employees together for affiliated companies. Qualifying small
manufacturers are not subject to the greenhouse gas emission standards
in Sec. 1036.108 for engines with a date of manufacture on or after
November 14, 2011, but before January 1, 2022. In addition, qualifying
small manufacturers producing engines that run on any fuel other than
gasoline, E85, or diesel fuel may delay complying with every later
greenhouse gas standard under this part by one model year; however,
small manufacturers may generate emission credits only by certifying
all their engine families within a given averaging set to standards
that apply for the current model year. Note that engines not yet
subject to standards must nevertheless supply fuel maps to vehicle
manufacturers as described in paragraph (n) of this section. Note also
that engines produced by small manufacturers are subject to criteria
pollutant standards.
* * * * *
(f) Testing exemption for hydrogen engines. Tailpipe CO2
emissions from engines fueled with neat hydrogen are deemed to be 3 g/
hp[middot]hr and tailpipe CH4, HC, and CO emissions are
deemed to comply with the applicable standard. Fuel mapping and testing
for CO2, CH4, HC, or CO is optional under this
part for these engines.
* * * * *
(j) Alternate standards under 40 CFR part 86. This paragraph (j)
describes alternate emission standards that apply for model year 2023
and earlier loose engines certified under 40 CFR 86.1819-14(k)(8). The
standards of Sec. 1036.108 do not apply for these engines. The
standards in this paragraph (j) apply for emissions measured with the
engine installed in a complete vehicle consistent with the provisions
of 40 CFR 86.1819-14(k)(8)(vi). The only requirements of this part that
apply to these engines are those in this paragraph (j) and Sec. Sec.
1036.115 through 1036.135, 1036.535, and 1036.540.
(k) Limited production volume allowance under ABT. You may produce
a limited number of Heavy HDE that continue to meet the standards that
applied under 40 CFR 86.007-11 in model years 2027 through 2029. The
maximum number of engines you may produce under this limited production
allowance is 5 percent of the annual average of your actual production
volume of Heavy HDE in model years 2023-2025 for calculating emission
credits under Sec. 1036.705. Engine certification under this paragraph
(k) is subject to the following conditions and requirements:
* * * * *
(q) Confirmatory and in-use testing of fuel maps defined in Sec.
1036.505(b). For model years 2021 and later, where the results from Eq.
1036.235-1 for a confirmatory or in-use test are at or below 2.0%, we
will not replace the manufacturer's fuel maps.
* * * * *
(v) OBD communication protocol. We may approve the alternative
communication protocol specified in SAE J1979-2 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 1036.810) if the protocol is approved by the
California Air Resources Board. The alternative protocol would apply
instead of SAE J1939 and SAE J1979 as specified in 40 CFR 86.010-
18(k)(1). Engines designed to comply with SAE J1979-2 must meet the
freeze-frame requirements in Sec. 1036.110(b)(8) and in 13 CCR
1971.1(h)(4.3.2) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1036.810). This
paragraph (v) also applies for model year 2026 and earlier engines.
* * * * *
(aa) Correcting credit calculations. If you notify us by October 1,
2024, that errors mistakenly decreased your balance of GHG emission
credits for 2020 or any earlier model years, you may correct the errors
and recalculate the balance of emission credits after applying a 10
percent discount to the credit correction.
0
13. Amend Sec. 1036.205 by revising paragraph (v) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.205 Requirements for an application for certification.
* * * * *
(v) Include good-faith estimates of U.S.-directed production
volumes. Include a justification for the estimated production volumes
if they are substantially different than actual production volumes in
earlier years for similar models.
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec. 1036.230 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.230 Selecting engine families.
* * * * *
(e) Engine configurations certified as hybrid powertrains may not
be included in an engine family with engines that have nonhybrid
powertrains. Note that this does not prevent you from including engines
in a nonhybrid family if they are used in hybrid vehicles, as long as
you certify them based on engine testing.
* * * * *
0
15. Amend Sec. 1036.240 by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1036.240 Demonstrating compliance with criteria pollutant
emission standards.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Sawtooth and other nonlinear deterioration patterns. The
deterioration factors described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section assume that the highest useful life emissions occur either at
the end of useful life or at the low-hour test point. The provisions of
this paragraph (c)(3) apply where good engineering judgment indicates
that the highest useful life emissions will occur between these two
points. For example, emissions may increase with service accumulation
until a certain maintenance step is performed, then return to the low-
hour emission levels and begin increasing again. Such a pattern may
occur with battery-based hybrid powertrains. Base deterioration factors
for engines with such emission patterns on the difference between (or
ratio of) the point at which the highest emissions occur and the low-
hour test point. Note that this paragraph (c)(3) applies for
maintenance-related deterioration only where we allow such critical
emission-related maintenance.
* * * * *
0
16. Amend Sec. 1036.241 by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1036.241 Demonstrating compliance with greenhouse gas emission
standards.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Sawtooth and other nonlinear deterioration patterns. The
deterioration factors described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section assume that the highest useful life emissions occur either at
the end of useful life or at the low-hour test point. The provisions of
this paragraph (c)(3) apply where good engineering judgment indicates
that the highest useful life emissions will occur between these two
points. For example, emissions may increase with service accumulation
until a certain maintenance step is performed, then return to the low-
hour emission levels and begin increasing again. Such a pattern may
occur with battery-based hybrid powertrains. Base deterioration factors
for engines with such emission patterns on the difference between (or
ratio of) the point at which the highest emissions occur and the low-
hour test point. Note that this paragraph (c)(3) applies for
maintenance-related deterioration only where we allow such critical
emission-related maintenance.
* * * * *
[[Page 29742]]
0
17. Amend Sec. 1036.245 by revising paragraphs (c)(3) introductory
text and (c)(3)(ii) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.245 Deterioration factors for exhaust emission standards.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Perform service accumulation in the laboratory by operating the
engine or hybrid powertrain repeatedly over one of the following test
sequences, or a different test sequence that we approve in advance:
* * * * *
(ii) Duty-cycle sequence 2 is based on operating over the LLC and
the vehicle-based duty cycles from 40 CFR part 1037. Select the vehicle
subcategory and vehicle configuration from Sec. 1036.540 or Sec.
1036.545 with the highest reference cycle work for each vehicle-based
duty cycle. Operate the engine as follows for duty-cycle sequence 2:
* * * * *
0
18. Amend Sec. 1036.250 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.250 Reporting and recordkeeping for certification.
(a) By September 30 following the end of the model year, send the
Designated Compliance Officer a report including the total U.S.-
directed production volume of engines you produced in each engine
family during the model year (based on information available at the
time of the report). Report the production by serial number and engine
configuration. You may combine this report with reports required under
subpart H of this part. We may waive the reporting requirements of this
paragraph (a) for small manufacturers.
* * * * *
0
19. Amend Sec. 1036.301 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.301 Measurements related to GEM inputs in a selective
enforcement audit.
* * * * *
(c) If your certification includes powertrain testing as specified
in Sec. 1036.630, these selective enforcement audit provisions apply
with respect to powertrain test results as specified in Sec. 1036.545
and 40 CFR part 1037, subpart D. We may allow manufacturers to instead
perform the engine-based testing to simulate the powertrain test as
specified in 40 CFR 1037.551.
* * * * *
0
20. Amend Sec. 1036.405 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1036.405 Overview of the manufacturer-run field-testing program.
(a) You must test in-use engines from the families we select. We
may select the following number of engine families for testing, except
as specified in paragraph (b) of this section:
(1) We may select up to 25 percent of your engine families in any
calendar year, calculated by dividing the number of engine families you
certified in the model year corresponding to the calendar year by four
and rounding to the nearest whole number. We will consider only engine
families with annual U.S.-directed production volumes above 1,500 units
in calculating the number of engine families subject to testing each
calendar year under the annual 25 percent engine family limit. If you
have only three or fewer families that each exceed an annual U.S.-
directed production volume of 1,500 units, we may select one engine
family per calendar year for testing.
(2) Over any four-year period, we will not select more than the
average number of engine families that you have certified over that
four-year period (the model year when the selection is made and the
preceding three model years), based on rounding the average value to
the nearest whole number.
(3) We will not select engine families for testing under this
subpart from a given model year if your total U.S.-directed production
volume was less than 100 engines.
* * * * *
(d) You must complete all the required testing and reporting under
this subpart (for all ten test engines, if applicable), within 18
months after we direct you to test a particular engine family. We will
typically select engine families for testing and notify you in writing
by June 30 of the applicable calendar year. If you request it, we may
allow additional time to send us this information.
* * * * *
0
21. Amend Sec. 1036.415 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1036.415 Preparing and testing engines.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) You may use any diesel fuel that meets the specifications for
S15 in ASTM D975 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1036.810). You
may use any commercially available biodiesel fuel blend that meets the
specifications for ASTM D975 or ASTM D7467 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 1036.810) that is either expressly allowed or not otherwise
indicated as an unacceptable fuel in the vehicle's owner or operator
manual or in the engine manufacturer's published fuel recommendations.
You may use any gasoline fuel that meets the specifications in ASTM
D4814 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1036.810). For other fuel
types, you may use any commercially available fuel.
* * * * *
0
22. Amend Sec. 1036.420 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.420 Pass criteria for individual engines.
* * * * *
(a) Determine the emission standard for each regulated pollutant
for each bin by adding the following accuracy margins for PEMS to the
off-cycle standards in Sec. 1036.104(a)(3):
Table 1 to Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1036.420--Accuracy Margins for In-Use Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX HC PM CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 1.......................... 0.4 g/hr.........
Bin 2.......................... 5 mg/hp[middot]hr 10 mg/ 6 mg/hp[middot]hr 0.25 g/hp[middot]hr.
hp[middot]hr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
23. Amend Sec. 1036.501 by revising paragraphs (e) and (f) and adding
paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.501 General testing provisions.
* * * * *
(e) You may disable any AECDs that have been approved solely for
emergency equipment applications under Sec. 1036.115(h)(4). Note that
the emission standards do not apply when any of these AECDs are active.
(f) You may use special or alternate procedures to the extent we
allow them under 40 CFR 1065.10.
(g) This subpart is addressed to you as a manufacturer, but it
applies equally to anyone who does testing for you, and to us when we
perform testing to
[[Page 29743]]
determine if your engines meet emission standards.
(h) For testing engines that use regenerative braking through the
crankshaft only to power an electric heater for aftertreatment devices,
you may use the nonhybrid engine testing procedures in Sec. Sec.
1036.510, 1036.512, and 1036.514 and you may also or instead use the
fuel mapping procedure in Sec. 1036.505(b)(1) or (2). You may use this
allowance only if the recovered energy is less than 10 percent of the
total positive work for each applicable test interval. Otherwise, use
powertrain testing procedures specified for hybrid powertrains to
measure emissions and create fuel maps. For engines that power an
electric heater with a battery, you must meet the requirements related
to charge-sustaining operation as described in 40 CFR 1066.501(a)(3).
0
24. Amend Sec. 1036.505 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1036.505 Engine data and information to support vehicle
certification.
* * * * *
(a) Identify engine make, model, fuel type, combustion type, engine
family name, calibration identification, and engine displacement. Also
identify whether the engines meet CO2 standards for
tractors, vocational vehicles, or both. When certifying vehicles with
GEM, for any fuel type not identified in table 1 to paragraph (b)(4) of
Sec. 1036.550, identify the fuel type as diesel fuel for engines
subject to compression-ignition standards, and as gasoline for engines
subject to spark-ignition standards.
(b) This paragraph (b) describes four different methods to generate
engine fuel maps. For engines without hybrid components and for mild
hybrid engines where you do not include hybrid components in the test,
generate fuel maps using either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this
section. For other hybrid engines, generate fuel maps using paragraph
(b)(3) of this section. For hybrid powertrains and nonhybrid
powertrains and for vehicles where the transmission is not automatic,
automated manual, manual, or dual-clutch, generate fuel maps using
paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(1) Determine steady-state engine fuel maps as described in Sec.
1036.535(b). Determine fuel consumption at idle as described in Sec.
1036.535(c). Determine cycle-average engine fuel maps as described in
Sec. 1036.540, excluding cycle-average fuel maps for highway cruise
cycles.
(2) Determine steady-state fuel maps as described in either Sec.
1036.535(b) or (d). Determine fuel consumption at idle as described in
Sec. 1036.535(c). Determine cycle-average engine fuel maps as
described in Sec. 1036.540, including cycle-average engine fuel maps
for highway cruise cycles. We may do confirmatory testing by creating
cycle-average fuel maps from steady-state fuel maps created in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section for highway cruise cycles. In Sec.
1036.540 we define the vehicle configurations for testing; we may add
more vehicle configurations to better represent your engine's operation
for the range of vehicles in which your engines will be installed (see
40 CFR 1065.10(c)(1)).
(3) Determine fuel consumption at idle as described in Sec.
1036.535(c) and (d) and determine cycle-average engine fuel maps as
described in Sec. 1036.545, including cycle-average engine fuel maps
for highway cruise cycles. Set up the test to apply accessory load for
all operation by primary intended service class as described in the
following table:
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(3) of Sec. 1036.505--Accessory Load
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power representing
Primary intended service class accessory load (kW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light HDV......................................... 1.5
Medium HDV........................................ 2.5
Heavy HDV......................................... 3.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Generate powertrain fuel maps as described in Sec. 1036.545
instead of fuel mapping under Sec. 1036.535 or Sec. 1036.540. Note
that the option in Sec. 1036.545(b)(2) is allowed only for hybrid
engine testing. Disable stop-start systems and automatic engine
shutdown systems when conducting powertrain fuel map testing using
Sec. 1036.545.
* * * * *
0
25. Amend Sec. 1036.510 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(2) introductory text,
and (b)(2)(vii) and (viii);
0
b. Removing paragraph (b)(2)(ix); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(2) introductory text, (c)(2)(i) introductory
text, and (d) through (g).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1036.510 Supplemental Emission Test.
* * * * *
(b) Procedures apply differently for testing certain kinds of
engines and powertrains as follows:
* * * * *
(2) Test hybrid powertrains as described in Sec. 1036.545, except
as specified in this paragraph (b)(2). Do not compensate the duty cycle
for the distance driven as described in Sec. 1036.545(g)(4). For
hybrid engines, select the transmission from Sec. 1036.540(c)(2),
substituting ``engine'' for ``vehicle'' and ``highway cruise cycle''
for ``SET''. Disregard duty cycles in Sec. 1036.545(j). For cycles
that begin with idle, leave the transmission in neutral or park for the
full initial idle segment. Place the transmission into drive no earlier
than 5 seconds before the first nonzero vehicle speed setpoint. For SET
testing only, place the transmission into park or neutral when the
cycle reaches the final idle segment. Use the following vehicle
parameters instead of those in Sec. 1036.545 to define the vehicle
model in Sec. 1036.545(a)(3):
* * * * *
(vii) Select a combination of drive axle ratio, ka, and
a tire radius, r, that represents the worst-case combination of top
gear ratio, drive axle ratio, and tire size for CO2 expected
for vehicles in which the hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain will be
installed. This is typically the highest axle ratio and smallest tire
radius. Disregard configurations or settings corresponding to a maximum
vehicle speed below 60 mi/hr in selecting a drive axle ratio and tire
radius, unless you can demonstrate that in-use vehicles will not exceed
that speed. You may request preliminary approval for selected drive
axle ratio and tire radius consistent with the provisions of Sec.
1036.210. If the hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain is used exclusively
in vehicles not capable of reaching 60 mi/hr, you may request that we
approve an alternate test cycle and cycle-validation criteria as
described in 40 CFR 1066.425(b)(5). Note that hybrid engines rely on a
specified transmission that is different for each duty cycle; the
transmission's top gear ratio therefore depends on the duty cycle,
which will in turn change the selection of the drive axle ratio and
tire size. For example, Sec. 1036.520 prescribes a different top gear
ratio than this paragraph (b)(2).
(viii) If you are certifying a hybrid engine, use a default
transmission efficiency of 0.95 and create the vehicle model along with
its default transmission shift strategy as described in Sec.
1036.545(a)(3)(ii). Use the transmission parameters defined in Sec.
1036.540(c)(2) to determine transmission type and gear ratio. For Light
HDV and Medium HDV, use the Light HDV and Medium HDV parameters for
FTP, LLC, and SET duty cycles. For Tractors and Heavy HDVs, use the
Tractor and Heavy HDV transient cycle parameters for the FTP and LLC
duty cycles and the Tractor and Heavy HDV highway cruise cycle
parameters for the SET duty cycle.
(c) * * *
[[Page 29744]]
(2) The duty cycle for testing hybrid powertrains involves a
schedule of vehicle speeds and road grade as follows:
(i) Determine road grade at each point based on the continuous
rated power of the hybrid powertrain, Pcontrated, in kW
determined in Sec. 1036.520, the vehicle speed (A, B, or C) in mi/hr
for a given SET mode, vref[speed], and the specified road-
grade coefficients using the following equation:
* * * * *
(d) Determine criteria pollutant emissions for plug-in hybrid
powertrains as follows:
(1) Carry out a charge-sustaining test as described in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(2) Carry out a charge-depleting test as described in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, except as follows:
(i) Fully charge the RESS after preconditioning.
(ii) Operate the engine or powertrain continuously over repeated
SET duty cycles until you reach the end-of-test criterion defined in 40
CFR 1066.501(a)(3).
(iii) Calculate emission results for each SET duty cycle. Figure 1
to paragraph (d)(4) of this section provides an example of a charge-
depleting test sequence where there are two test intervals that contain
engine operation.
(3) Report the highest emission result for each criteria pollutant
from all tests in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, even if
those individual results come from different test intervals.
(4) The following figure illustrates an example of an SET charge-
depleting test sequence:
Figure 1 to Paragraph (d)(4) of Sec. 1036.510--SET Charge-Depleting
Criteria Pollutant Test Sequence.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.165
(e) Determine greenhouse gas pollutant emissions for plug-in hybrid
powertrains using the emissions results for all the SET test intervals
for both charge-depleting and charge-sustaining operation from
paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Calculate the utility factor-weighted
composite mass of emissions from the charge-depleting and charge-
sustaining test results, eUF[emission]comp, using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.166
Eq. 1036.510-10
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents one test interval.
N = total number of charge-depleting test intervals.
e[emission][int]CDi = total mass of emissions in the
charge-depleting portion of the test for each test interval, i,
starting from i = 1, including the test interval(s) from the
transition phase.
UFDCDi = utility factor fraction at distance
DCDi from Eq. 1036.510-11, as determined by interpolating
the approved utility factor curve for each test interval, i,
starting from i = 1. Let UFDCD0 = 0.
j = an indexing variable that represents one test interval.
M = total number of charge-sustaining test intervals.
e[emission][int]CSj = total mass of emissions in the
charge-sustaining portion of the test for each test interval, j,
starting from j = 1.
UFRCD = utility factor fraction at the full charge-
depleting distance, RCD, as determined by interpolating
the approved utility factor curve. RCD is the cumulative
distance driven over N charge-depleting test intervals.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.167
Eq. 1036.510-11
Where:
k = an indexing variable that represents one recorded velocity
value.
Q = total number of measurements over the test interval.
v = vehicle velocity at each time step, k, starting from k = 1. For
tests completed under this section, v is the vehicle velocity from
the vehicle model in
[[Page 29745]]
Sec. 1036.545. Note that this should include charge-depleting test
intervals that start when the engine is not yet operating.
[Delta]t = 1/frecord
frecord = the record rate.
Example using the charge-depletion test in figure 1 to paragraph
(d)(4) of this section for the SET for CO2 emission
determination:
Q = 24000
v1 = 0 mi/hr
v2 = 0.8 mi/hr
v3 = 1.1 mi/hr
frecord = 10 Hz
[Delta]t = 1/10 Hz = 0.1 s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.168
DCD1 = 30.1 mi
DCD2 = 30.0 mi
DCD3 = 30.1 mi
DCD4 = 30.2 mi
DCD5 = 30.1 mi
N = 5
UFDCD1 = 0.11
UFDCD2 = 0.23
UFDCD3 = 0.34
UFDCD4 = 0.45
UFDCD5 = 0.53
eCO2SETCD1 = 0 g/hp[middot]hr
eCO2SETCD2 = 0 g/hp[middot]hr
eCO2SETCD3 = 0 g/hp[middot]hr
eCO2SETCD4 = 0 g/hp[middot]hr
eCO2SETCD5 = 174.4 g/hp[middot]hr
M = 1
eCO2SETCS = 428.1 g/hp[middot]hr
UFRCD = 0.53
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.169
(f) Calculate and evaluate cycle-validation criteria as specified
in 40 CFR 1065.514 for nonhybrid engines and Sec. 1036.545 for hybrid
powertrains.
(g) Calculate the total emission mass of each constituent, m, over
the test interval as described in 40 CFR 1065.650. Calculate the total
work, W, over the test interval as described in 40 CFR 1065.650(d). For
hybrid powertrains, calculate W using system power, Psys as
described in Sec. 1036.520(f).
0
26. Revise and republish Sec. 1036.512 to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.512 Federal Test Procedure.
(a) Measure emissions using the transient Federal Test Procedure
(FTP) as described in this section to determine whether engines meet
the emission standards in subpart B of this part. Operate the engine or
hybrid powertrain over one of the following transient duty cycles:
(1) For engines subject to spark-ignition standards, use the
transient test interval described in paragraph (b) of appendix B to
this part.
(2) For engines subject to compression-ignition standards, use the
transient test interval described in paragraph (c) of appendix B to
this part.
(b) Procedures apply differently for testing certain kinds of
engines and powertrains as follows:
(1) The transient test intervals for nonhybrid engine testing are
based on normalized speed and torque values. Denormalize speed as
described in 40 CFR 1065.512. Denormalize torque as described in 40 CFR
1065.610(d).
(2) Test hybrid powertrains as described in Sec. 1036.510(b)(2),
with the following exceptions:
(i) Replace Pcontrated with Prated, which is
the peak rated power determined in Sec. 1036.520.
(ii) Keep the transmission in drive for all idle segments after the
initial idle segment.
(iii) For hybrid engines, you may request to change the engine-
commanded torque at idle to better represent curb idle transmission
torque (CITT).
(iv) For plug-in hybrid powertrains, test over the FTP in both
charge-sustaining and charge-depleting operation for both criteria and
greenhouse gas pollutant determination.
(c) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section for plug-
in hybrid powertrains, the FTP duty cycle consists of an initial run
through the test interval from a cold start as described in 40 CFR part
1065, subpart F, followed by a (20 1) minute hot soak with
no engine operation, and then a final hot start run through the same
transient test interval. Engine starting is part of both the cold-start
and hot-start test intervals. Calculate the total emission mass of each
constituent, m, over each test interval as described in 40 CFR
1065.650. Calculate the total work, W, over the test interval as
described in 40 CFR 1065.650(d). For hybrid powertrains, calculate W
using system power, Psys as described in Sec. 1036.520(f).
Determine Psys using Sec. 1036.520(f). For powertrains with
automatic transmissions, account for and include the work produced by
the engine from the CITT load. Calculate the official transient
emission result from the cold-start and hot-start test intervals using
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.170
Eq. 1036.512-1
(d) Determine criteria pollutant emissions for plug-in hybrid
powertrains as follows:
(1) Carry out a charge-sustaining test as described in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(2) Carry out a charge-depleting test as described in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, except as follows:
[[Page 29746]]
(i) Fully charge the battery after preconditioning.
(ii) Operate the engine or powertrain over one FTP duty cycle
followed by alternating repeats of a 20-minute soak and a hot start
test interval until you reach the end-of-test criteria defined in 40
CFR 1066.501(a)(3).
(iii) Calculate emission results for each successive pair of test
intervals. Calculate the emission result by treating the first of the
two test intervals as a cold-start test. Figure 1 to paragraph (d)(4)
of this section provides an example of a charge-depleting test sequence
where there are three test intervals with engine operation for two
overlapping FTP duty cycles.
(3) Report the highest emission result for each criteria pollutant
from all tests in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, even if
those individual results come from different test intervals.
(4) The following figure illustrates an example of an FTP charge-
depleting test sequence:
Figure 1 to Paragraph (d)(4) of Sec. 1036.512--FTP Charge-Depleting
Criteria Pollutant Test Sequence
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.171
(e) Determine greenhouse gas pollutant emissions for plug-in hybrid
engines and powertrains using the emissions results for all the
transient duty cycle test intervals described in either paragraph (b)
or (c) of appendix B to this part for both charge-depleting and charge-
sustaining operation from paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Calculate
the utility factor weighted composite mass of emissions from the
charge-depleting and charge-sustaining test results,
eUF[emission]comp, as described in Sec. 1036.510(e),
replacing occurances of ``SET'' with ``transient test interval''. Note
this results in composite FTP GHG emission results for plug-in hybrid
engines and powertrains without the use of the cold-start and hot-start
test interval weighting factors in Eq. 1036.512-1.
(f) Calculate and evaluate cycle-validation criteria as specified
in 40 CFR 1065.514 for nonhybrid engines and Sec. 1036.545 for hybrid
powertrains.
0
27. Revise Sec. 1036.514 to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.514 Low Load Cycle.
Measure emissions using the transient Low Load Cycle (LLC) as
described in this section to determine whether engines meet the LLC
emission standards in Sec. 1036.104. The LLC duty cycle is described
in paragraph (d) of appendix B to this part. Procedures apply
differently for testing certain kinds of engines and powertrains as
follows:
(a) Test nonhybrid engines using the following procedures:
(1) Use the normalized speed and torque values for engine testing
in the LLC duty cycle. Denormalize speed and torque values as described
in 40 CFR 1065.512 and 1065.610 with the following additional
requirements for testing at idle:
(i) Apply the accessory load at idle in paragraph (c) of this
section using declared idle power as described in 40 CFR
1065.510(f)(6). Declared idle torque must be zero.
(ii) Apply CITT in addition to accessory load as described in this
paragraph (a)(1)(ii). Set reference speed and torque values as
described in 40 CFR 1065.610(d)(3)(vi) for all idle segments that are
200 s or shorter to represent the transmission operating in drive. For
longer idle segments, set the reference speed and torque values to the
warm-idle-in-drive values for the first three seconds and the last
three seconds of the idle segment. For the points in between, set the
reference speed and torque values to the warm-idle-in-neutral values to
represent the transmission being manually shifted from drive to neutral
shortly after the extended idle starts and back to drive shortly before
it ends.
(2) Calculate and evaluate cycle-validation criteria as described
in 40 CFR 1065.514, except as specified in paragraph (e) of this
section.
(b) Test hybrid powertrains as described in Sec. 1036.510(b)(2),
with the following exceptions:
(1) Replace Pcontrated with Prated, which is
the peak rated power determined in Sec. 1036.520.
(2) Keep the transmission in drive for all idle segments 200
seconds or less. For idle segments more than 200 seconds, leave the
transmission in drive for the first 3 seconds of the idle segment, then
immediately place the transmission in park or neutral, and shift the
transmission into drive again 3 seconds before the end of the idle
segment. The end of the idle segment occurs at the first nonzero
vehicle speed setpoint.
(3) For hybrid engines, you may request to change the GEM-generated
[[Page 29747]]
engine reference torque at idle to better represent curb idle
transmission torque (CITT).
(4) Adjust procedures in this section as described in Sec.
1036.510(d) and (e) for plug-in hybrid powertrains to determine
criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, replacing ``SET'' with
``LLC''. Note that the LLC is therefore the preconditioning duty cycle
for plug-in hybrid powertrains.
(5) Calculate and evaluate cycle-validation criteria as specified
in Sec. 1036.545.
(c) Include vehicle accessory loading as follows:
(1) Apply a vehicle accessory load for each idle point in the cycle
using the power values in the following table:
Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(1) of Sec. 1036.514--Accessory Load at Idle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power representing
Primary intended service class accessory load (kW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light HDE......................................... 1.5
Medium HDE........................................ 2.5
Heavy HDE......................................... 3.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) For nonhybrid engine testing, apply vehicle accessory loads in
addition to any applicable CITT.
(3) Additional provisions related to vehicle accessory load apply
for engines with stop-start technology and hybrid powertrains where the
accessory load is applied to the engine shaft. Account for the loss of
mechanical work due to the lack of any idle accessory load during
engine-off conditions by determining the total loss of mechanical work
from idle accessory load during all engine-off intervals over the
entire test interval and distributing that work over the engine-on
portion of the entire test interval based on a calculated average
power. You may determine the engine-off time by running practice cycles
or through engineering analysis.
(d) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section for
plug-in hybrid powertrains, the test sequence consists of
preconditioning the engine by running one or two FTPs with each FTP
followed by (20 1) minutes with no engine operation and a
hot start run through the LLC. You may start any preconditioning FTP
with a hot engine. Perform testing as described in 40 CFR 1065.530 for
a test interval that includes engine starting. Calculate the total
emission mass of each constituent, m, over the test interval as
described in 40 CFR 1065.650. For nonhybrid engines, calculate the
total work, W, over the test interval as described in 40 CFR
1065.650(d). For hybrid powertrains, calculate total positive work over
the test interval using system power, Psys. Determine
Psys using Sec. 1036.520(f). For powertrains with automatic
transmissions, account for and include the work produced by the engine
from the CITT load.
(e) For testing spark-ignition gaseous-fueled engines with fuel
delivery at a single point in the intake manifold, you may apply the
alternative cycle-validation criteria for the LLC in the following
table:
Table 2 to Paragraph (e) of Sec. 1036.514--Alternative LLC Cycle Validation Criteria for Spark-Ignition
Gaseous-Fueled Engines \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Speed Torque Power
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slope, a1............................ ....................... 0.800 <= a1 <= 1.030... 0.800 <= a1 <= 1.030.
Absolute value of intercept,
[verbar]a0[verbar].
Standard error of the estimate, SEE.. ....................... ....................... <=15% of maximum mapped
power.
Coefficient of determination, r \2\.. ....................... >=0.650................ >=0.650.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Cycle-validation criteria apply as specified in 40 CFR 1065.514 unless otherwise specified.
0
28. Amend Sec. 1036.520 by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (b) introductory text, (d), and (h) through (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1036.520 Determining power and vehicle speed values for
powertrain testing.
This section describes how to determine the system peak power and
continuous rated power of hybrid and nonhybrid powertrain systems and
the vehicle speed for carrying out duty-cycle testing under this part
and Sec. 1036.545.
* * * * *
(b) Set up the powertrain test according to Sec. 1036.545, with
the following exceptions:
* * * * *
(d) Carry out the test as described in this paragraph (d). Warm up
the powertrain by operating it. We recommend operating the powertrain
at any vehicle speed and road grade that achieves approximately 75% of
its expected maximum power. Continue the warm-up until the engine
coolant, block, lubricating oil, or head absolute temperature is within
2% of its mean value for at least 2 min or until the engine
thermostat controls engine temperature. Within 90 seconds after
concluding the warm-up, operate the powertrain over a continuous trace
meeting the following specifications:
(1) Bring the vehicle speed to 0 mi/hr and let the powertrain idle
at 0 mi/hr for 50 seconds.
(2) Set maximum driver demand for a full load acceleration at 6.0%
road grade with an initial vehicle speed of 0 mi/hr, continuing for 268
seconds. You may increase initial vehicle speed up to 5 mi/hr to
minimize clutch slip.
(3) Linearly ramp the grade from 6.0% down to 0.0% over 300
seconds. Stop the test after the acceleration is less than 0.02 m/s\2\.
* * * * *
(h) Determine rated power, Prated, as the maximum
measured power from the data collected in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section where the COV determined in paragraph (g) of this section is
less than 2%.
(i) Determine continuous rated power, Pcontrated, as
follows:
(1) For nonhybrid powertrains, Pcontrated equals
Prated.
(2) For hybrid powertrains, Pcontrated is the maximum
measured power from the data collected in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section where the COV determined in paragraph (g) of this section is
less than 2%.
(j) Determine vehicle C speed, vrefC, as follows:
(1) If the maximum Psys(t) in the highest gear during
the maneuver in paragraph (d)(3) of this section is greater
[[Page 29748]]
than 0.98[middot]Pcontrated, vrefC is the average
of the minimum and maximum vehicle speeds where Psys(t) is
equal to 0.98[middot]Pcontrated during the maneuver in
paragraph (d)(3) where the transmission is in the highest gear, using
linear interpolation, as appropriate. If Psys(t) at the
lowest vehicle speed where the transmission is in the highest gear is
greater than 0.98[middot]Pcontrated, use the lowest vehicle
speed where the transmission is in the highest gear as the minimum
vehicle speed input for calculating vrefC.
(2) Otherwise, vrefC is the maximum vehicle speed during
the maneuver in paragraph (d)(3) of this section where the transmission
is in the highest gear.
(3) You may use a declared vrefC instead of measured
vrefC if the declared vrefC is within (97.5 to
102.5)% of the corresponding measured value.
(4) Manufacturers may request approval to use an alternative
vehicle C speed in place of the measured vehicle C speed determined in
this paragraph (j) for series hybrid applications. Approval will be
contingent upon justification that the measured vehicle C speed is not
representative of the expected real-world cruise speed.
* * * * *
0
29. Amend Sec. 1036.525 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 1036.525 Clean Idle test.
Measure emissions using the procedures described in this section to
determine whether engines and hybrid powertrains meet the clean idle
emission standards in Sec. 1036.104(b). For plug-in hybrid
powertrains, perform the test with the hybrid function disabled.
* * * * *
0
30. Amend Sec. 1036.530 by revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2)(ii)
and adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.530 Test procedures for off-cycle testing.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Spark-ignition. For engines subject to spark-ignition
standards, the off-cycle emission quantity,
e[emission],offcycle, is the value for CO2-
specific emission mass for a given pollutant over the test interval
representing the shift-day converted to a brake-specific value, as
calculated for each measured pollutant using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.172
Eq. 1036.530-3
Where:
m[emission] = total emission mass for a given pollutant
over the test interval as determined in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section.
mCO2 = total CO2 emission mass over the test
interval as determined in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
eCO2FTPFCL = the engine's FCL for CO2 over the
FTP duty cycle.
Example:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.173
(2) * * *
(ii) Off-cycle emissions quantity for bin 2. The off-cycle emission
quantity for bin 2, e[emission],offcycle,bin2, is the value
for CO2-specific emission mass for a given pollutant of all
the 300 second test intervals in bin 2 combined and converted to a
brake-specific value, as calculated for each measured pollutant using
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.174
Eq. 1036.530-5
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents one 300 second test
interval.
N = total number of 300 second test intervals in bin 2.
m[emission],testinterval,i = total emission mass for a
given pollutant over the test interval i in bin 2 as determined in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
mCO2,testinterval,i = total CO2 emission mass
over the test interval i in bin 2 as determined in paragraph (d)(2)
of this section.
eCO2,FTP,FCL = the engine's FCL for CO2 over
the FTP duty cycle.
Example:
N = 15439
mNOx1 = 0.546 g
mNOx2 = 0.549 g
mNOx3 = 0.556 g
mCO2,1 = 10950.2 g
mCO2,2 = 10961.3 g
mCO2,3 = 10965.3 g
eCO2,FTP,FCL = 428.1 g/hp[middot]hr
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.175
[[Page 29749]]
* * * * *
(j) Fuel other than carbon-containing. The following procedures
apply for testing engines using at least one fuel that is not a carbon-
containing fuel:
(1) Use the following equation to determine the normalized
equivalent CO2 emission mass over each 300 second test
interval instead of Eq. 1036.530-2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.176
Eq. 1036.530-6
Where:
Wtestinterval = total positive work over the test
interval from both the engine and hybrid components, if applicable,
as determined in 40 CFR 1065.650.
Pmax = the highest value of rated power for all the
configurations included in the engine family.
ttestinterval = duration of the test interval. Note that
the nominal value is 300 seconds.
Example:
Wtestinterval = 8.95 hp[middot]hr
Pmax = 406.5 hp
ttestinterval = 300.01 s = 0.08 hr
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.177
(2) Determine off-cycle emissions quantities as follows:
(i) For engines subject to spark-ignition standards, use the
following equation to determine the off-cycle emission quantity instead
of Eq. 1036.530-3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.178
Eq. 1036.530-7
Where:
m[emission] = total emission mass for a given
pollutant over the test interval as determined in paragraph (d)(2)
of this section.
Wtestinterval = total positive work over the test
interval as determined in 40 CFR 1065.650.
Example:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.179
(ii) For engines subject to compression-ignition standards, use Eq.
1036.530-4 to determine the off-cycle emission quantity for bin 1.
(iii) For engines subject to compression-ignition standards, use
the following equation to determine the off-cycle emission quantity for
bin 2 instead of Eq. 1036.530-5:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.180
Eq. 1036.530-8
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents one 300 second test
interval.
N = total number of 300 second test intervals in bin 2.
m[emission],testinterval,i = total emission
mass for a given pollutant over the test interval i in bin 2 as
determined in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
Wtestinterval,i = total positive work over the
test interval i in bin 2 as determined in 40 CFR 1065.650.
Example:
N = 15439
mNOx1 = 0.546 g
mNOx2 = 0.549 g
mNOx3 = 0.556 g
Wtestinterval1 = 8.91 hp[middot]hr
Wtestinterval2 = 8.94 hp[middot]hr
Wtestinterval3 = 8.89 hp[middot]hr
[[Page 29750]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.181
0
31. Amend Sec. 1036.535 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (iii),
(b)(8) and (10), and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.535 Determining steady-state engine fuel maps and fuel
consumption at idle.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Select the following required torque setpoints at each of the
selected speed setpoints: zero (T = 0), maximum mapped torque,
Tmax mapped, and eight (or more) equally spaced points
between T = 0 and Tmax mapped. Select the maximum torque
setpoint at each speed to conform to the torque map as follows:
(A) Calculate 5 percent of Tmax mapped. Subtract this
result from the mapped torque at each speed setpoint, Tmax.
(B) Select Tmax at each speed setpoint as a single
torque value to represent all the required torque setpoints above the
value determined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. All the
other default torque setpoints less than Tmax at a given
speed setpoint are required torque setpoints.
(iii) You may select any additional speed and torque setpoints
consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, you may need to
select additional points if the engine's fuel consumption is nonlinear
across the torque map. Avoid creating a problem with interpolation
between narrowly spaced speed and torque setpoints near
Tmax. For each additional speed setpoint, we recommend
including a torque setpoint of Tmax; however, you may select
torque setpoints that properly represent in-use operation. Increments
for torque setpoints between these minimum and maximum values at an
additional speed setpoint must be no more than one-ninth of
Tmax,mapped. Note that if the test points were added for the
child rating, they should still be reported in the parent fuel map. We
will test with at least as many points as you. If you add test points
to meet testing requirements for child ratings, include those same test
points as reported values for the parent fuel map. For our testing, we
will use the same normalized speed and torque test points you use, and
we may select additional test points.
* * * * *
(8) If you determine fuel-consumption rates using emission
measurements from the raw or diluted exhaust, calculate the mean fuel
mass flow rate, mifuel, for each point in the fuel map using
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.182
Eq. 1036.535-1
Where:
mi = mean fuel mass flow rate for a given fuel map setpoint,
expressed to at least the nearest 0.001 g/s.
MC = molar mass of carbon.
WCmeas = carbon mass fraction of fuel (or mixture of
test fuels) as determined in 40 CFR 1065.655(d), except that you may
not use the default properties in 40 CFR 1065.655(e)(5) to determine
[alpha], [beta], and wC. You may not account for the
contribution to [alpha], [beta], [gamma], and [delta] of diesel
exhaust fluid or other non-fuel fluids injected into the exhaust.
ni = the mean exhaust molar flow rate from which you measured
emissions according to 40 CFR 1065.655.
xCcombdry = the mean concentration of carbon from
fuel and any injected fluids in the exhaust per mole of dry exhaust
as determined in 40 CFR 1065.655(c).
xOexhdry = the mean concentration of H2O
in exhaust per mole of dry exhaust as determined in 40 CFR
1065.655(c).
miCO2DEF = the mean CO2 mass emission rate
resulting from diesel exhaust fluid decomposition as determined in
paragraph (b)(9) of this section. If your engine does not use diesel
exhaust fluid, or if you choose not to perform this correction, set
equal to 0.
MCO2 = molar mass of carbon dioxide.
Example:
MC = 12.0107 g/mol
wCmeas = 0.869
ni = 25.534 mol/s
xCcombdry = 0.002805 mol/mol
xH2Oexhdry = 0.0353 mol/mol
miCO2DEF = 0.0726 g/s
MCO2 = 44.0095 g/mol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.183
* * * * *
(10) Correct the measured or calculated mean fuel mass flow rate,
at each of the operating points to account for mass-specific net energy
content as described in paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) Correction for net energy content. Correct the measured or
calculated mean fuel mass flow rate, mifuel, for each test
interval to a mass-specific net energy content of a reference fuel
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.184
Eq. 1036.535-4
Where:
Emfuelmeas = the mass-specific net energy content of
the test fuel as determined in Sec. 1036.550(b)(1). Note that
dividing this value by wCref (as is done in this
equation) equates to a carbon-specific net energy content having the
same units as EmfuelCref.
EmfuelCref = the reference value of carbon-mass-
specific net energy content for the appropriate fuel. Use the values
shown in table 1 to paragraph (b)(4) of Sec. 1036.550 for the
designated fuel types, or values we approve for other fuel types.
WCref = the reference value of carbon mass fraction
for the test fuel as shown in table 1 to paragraph (b)(4) of Sec.
1036.550 for the designated fuels. For any fuel not identified in
the table, use the reference carbon mass
[[Page 29751]]
fraction of diesel fuel for engines subject to compression-ignition
standards, and use the reference carbon mass fraction of gasoline
for engines subject to spark-ignition standards.
Example:
= 0.933 g/s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.185
* * * * *
0
32. Amend Sec. 1036.540 by revising paragraph (b), table 1 to
paragraph (c)(2), and paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(3), and
(d)(12)(i)(A) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.540 Determining cycle-average engine fuel maps.
* * * * *
(b) General test provisions. The following provisions apply for
testing under this section:
(1) Measure NOX emissions for each specified sampling
period in grams. You may perform these measurements using a
NOX emission-measurement system that meets the requirements
of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J. Include these measured NOX
values any time you report to us your fuel-consumption values from
testing under this section. If a system malfunction prevents you from
measuring NOX emissions during a test under this section but
the test otherwise gives valid results, you may consider this a valid
test and omit the NOX emission measurements; however, we may
require you to repeat the test if we determine that you inappropriately
voided the test with respect to NOX emission measurement.
(2) The provisions related to carbon balance error verification in
Sec. 1036.543 apply for all testing in this section. These procedures
are optional, but we will perform carbon balance error verification for
all testing under this section.
(3) Correct fuel mass to a mass-specific net energy content of a
reference fuel as described in paragraph (d)(13) of this section.
(4) This section uses engine parameters and variables that are
consistent with 40 CFR part 1065.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(2) of Sec. 1036.540--GEM Input for Gear Ratio
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark-ignition HDE,
Gear No. light HDE, and medium Heavy HDE-- transient Heavy HDE-- cruise and
HDE-- all duty cycles and ftp duty cycles set duty cycles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................... 3.10 3.51 12.8
2.................................... 1.81 1.91 9.25
3.................................... 1.41 1.43 6.76
4.................................... 1.00 1.00 4.90
5.................................... 0.71 0.74 3.58
6.................................... 0.61 0.64 2.61
7.................................... -- -- 1.89
8.................................... -- -- 1.38
9.................................... -- -- 1.00
10................................... -- -- 0.73
Lockup Gear.......................... 3 3 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(d) Test the engine with GEM cycles. Test the engine over each of
the engine duty cycles generated in paragraph (c) of this section as
follows:
* * * * *
(3) Control speed and torque to meet the cycle validation criteria
in 40 CFR 1065.514 for each interval, except that the standard error of
the estimate in 40 CFR 1065.514(f)(3) is the only speed criterion that
applies if the range of reference speeds is less than 10 percent of the
mean reference speed. For spark-ignition gaseous-fueled engines with
fuel delivery at a single point in the intake manifold, you may apply
the alternative cycle-validation criteria in table 5 to this paragraph
(c)(3) for transient testing. Note that 40 CFR part 1065 does not allow
reducing cycle precision to a lower frequency than the 10 Hz reference
cycle generated by GEM.
Table 5 to Paragraph (c)(3) of Sec. 1036.540-- Alternative Fuel-Mapping Cycle-Validation Criteria for Spark-
Ignition Gaseous-Fueled Engines \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Speed Torque Power
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slope, a1
Absolute value of intercept, ....................... <=3% of maximum mapped .......................
[verbarlm]a0[verbarlm]. torque.
Standard error of the estimate, SEE.. ....................... <=15% of maximum mapped <=15% of maximum mapped
torque. power.
Coefficient of determination, r\2\... ....................... >=0.700................ >=0.750.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Cycle-validation criteria apply as specified in 40 CFR 1065.514 unless otherwise specified.
* * * * *
(12) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) For calculations that use continuous measurement of emissions
and continuous CO2 from urea, calculate
mfuel[cycle] using the following equation:
[[Page 29752]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.186
Eq. 1036.540-3
Where:
MC = molar mass of carbon.
wCmeas = carbon mass fraction of fuel (or mixture of
fuels) as determined in 40 CFR 1065.655(d), except that you may not
use the default properties in 40 CFR 1065.655(e)(5) to determine
[alpha], [beta], and wC. You may not account for the
contribution to [alpha], [beta], [gamma], and [delta] of diesel
exhaust fluid or other non-fuel fluids injected into the exhaust.
i = an indexing variable that represents one recorded emission
value.
N = total number of measurements over the duty cycle.
n1 = exhaust molar flow rate from which you measured emissions
according to 40 CFR 1065.655.
xCcombdryi = amount of carbon from fuel and any injected
fluids in the exhaust per mole of dry exhaust as determined in 40
CFR 1065.655(c).
xH2Oexhdryi = amount of H2O in exhaust per
mole of exhaust as determined in 40 CFR 1065.655(c).
[Delta]t = 1/frecord
MCO2 = molar mass of carbon dioxide.
mCO2DEFi = mass emission rate of CO2 resulting
from diesel exhaust fluid decomposition over the duty cycle as
determined from Sec. 1036.535(b)(9). If your engine does not
utilize diesel exhaust fluid for emission control, or if you choose
not to perform this correction, set mCO2DEFi equal to 0.
Example:
MC = 12.0107 g/mol
wCmeas = 0.867
N = 6680
n1 = 2.876 mol/s
n2 = 2.224 mol/s
xCcombdryi1 = 2.61[middot]10-3 mol/mol
xCcombdryi2 = 1.91[middot]10-3 mol/mol
xH2Oexh1 = 3.53[middot]10-2 mol/mol
xH2Oexh2 = 3.13[middot]10-2 mol/mol
frecord = 10 Hz
[Delta]t = 1/10 = 0.1 s
MCO2 = 44.0095 g/mol
mCO2DEF1 = 0.0726 g/s
mCO2DEF2= 0.0751 g/s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.187
* * * * *
0
33. Revise Sec. 1036.543 to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.543 Carbon balance error verification.
The optional carbon balance error verification in 40 CFR 1065.543
compares independent assessments of the flow of carbon through the
system (engine plus aftertreatment). This procedure applies for each
individual interval in Sec. Sec. 1036.535(b), (c), and (d), 1036.540,
and 1036.545.
0
34. Add Sec. 1036.545 to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.545 Powertrain testing.
This section describes the procedure to measure fuel consumption
and create engine fuel maps by testing a powertrain that includes an
engine coupled with a transmission, drive axle, and hybrid components
or any assembly with one or more of those hardware elements. Engine
fuel maps are part of demonstrating compliance with Phase 2 and Phase 3
vehicle standards under 40 CFR part 1037; the powertrain test procedure
in this section is one option for generating this fuel-mapping
information as described in Sec. 1036.505. Additionally, this
powertrain test procedure is one option for certifying hybrid
powertrains to the engine standards in Sec. Sec. 1036.104 and
1036.108.
(a) General test provisions. The following provisions apply broadly
for testing under this section:
(1) Measure NOX emissions as described in paragraph (k)
of this section. Include these measured NOX values any time
you report to us your greenhouse gas emissions or fuel consumption
values from testing under this section.
(2) The procedures of 40 CFR part 1065 apply for testing in this
section except as specified. This section uses engine parameters and
variables that are consistent with 40 CFR part 1065.
(3) Powertrain testing depends on models to calculate certain
parameters. You can use the detailed equations in this section to
create your own models, or use the GEM HIL model contained within GEM
Phase 2, Version 4.0 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1036.810) to
simulate vehicle hardware elements as follows:
(i) Create driveline and vehicle models that calculate the angular
speed setpoint for the test cell dynamometer, fnref,dyno,
based on the torque measurement location. Use the detailed equations in
paragraph (f) of this section, the GEM HIL model's driveline and
vehicle submodels, or a combination of the equations and the submodels.
You may use the GEM HIL model's transmission submodel in paragraph (f)
to simulate a transmission only if testing hybrid engines. If the
engine is intended for vehicles with automatic transmissions, use the
cycle configuration file in GEM to change the transmission state (in-
gear or idle) as a function of time as defined by the duty cycles in
this part.
(ii) Create a driver model or use the GEM HIL model's driver
submodel to simulate a human driver modulating the throttle and brake
pedals to follow the test cycle as closely as possible.
[[Page 29753]]
(iii) Create a cycle-interpolation model or use the GEM HIL model's
cycle submodel to interpolate the duty-cycles and feed the driver model
the duty-cycle reference vehicle speed for each point in the duty-
cycle.
(4) The powertrain test procedure in this section is designed to
simulate operation of different vehicle configurations over specific
duty cycles. See paragraphs (h) and (j) of this section.
(5) For each test run, record engine speed and torque as defined in
40 CFR 1065.915(d)(5) with a minimum sampling frequency of 1 Hz. These
engine speed and torque values represent a duty cycle that can be used
for separate testing with an engine mounted on an engine dynamometer
under 40 CFR 1037.551, such as for a selective enforcement audit as
described in 40 CFR 1037.301.
(6) For hybrid powertrains with no plug-in capability, correct for
the net energy change of the energy storage device as described in 40
CFR 1066.501(a)(3). For plug-in hybrid electric powertrains, follow 40
CFR 1066.501(a)(3) to determine End-of-Test for charge-depleting
operation. You must get our approval in advance for your utility factor
curve; we will approve it if you can show that you created it, using
good engineering judgment, from sufficient in-use data of vehicles in
the same application as the vehicles in which the plug-in hybrid
electric powertrain will be installed. You may use methodologies
described in SAE J2841 to develop the utility factor curve.
(7) The provisions related to carbon balance error verification in
Sec. 1036.543 apply for all testing in this section. These procedures
are optional if you are only performing direct or indirect fuel-flow
measurement, but we will perform carbon balance error verification for
all testing under this section.
(8) Do not apply accessory loads when conducting a powertrain test
to generate inputs to GEM if torque is measured at the axle input shaft
or wheel hubs.
(9) If you test a powertrain over the Low Load Cycle specified in
Sec. 1036.514, control and apply the electrical accessory loads. We
recommend using a load bank connected directly to the powertrain's
electrical system. You may instead use an alternator with dynamic
electrical load control. Use good engineering judgment to account for
the efficiency of the alternator or the efficiency of the powertrain to
convert the mechanical energy to electrical energy.
(10) The following instruments are required with plug-in hybrid
systems to determine required voltages and currents during testing and
must be installed on the powertrain to measure these values during
testing:
(i) Measure the voltage and current of the battery pack directly
with a DC wideband power analyzer to determine power. Measure all
current entering and leaving the battery pack. Do not measure voltage
upstream of this measurement point. The maximum integration period for
determining amp-hours is 0.05 seconds. The power analyzer must have an
accuracy for measuring current and voltage of 1% of point or 0.3% of
maximum, whichever is greater. The power analyzer must not be
susceptible to offset errors while measuring current.
(ii) If safety considerations do not allow for measuring voltage,
you may determine the voltage directly from the powertrain ECM.
(11) The following figure provides an overview of testing under
this section:
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Figure 1 to Paragraph (a)(11) of Sec. 1036.545--Overview of Powertrain
Testing.
[[Page 29754]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.188
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
(b) Test configuration. Select a powertrain for testing as
described in Sec. 1036.235 or 40 CFR 1037.235 as applicable. Set up
the engine according to 40 CFR 1065.110 and 1065.405(b). Set the
engine's idle speed to idle speed defined in 40 CFR 1037.520(h)(1).
[[Page 29755]]
(1) The default test configuration consists of a powertrain with
all components upstream of the axle. This involves connecting the
powertrain's output shaft directly to the dynamometer or to a gear box
with a fixed gear ratio and measuring torque at the axle input shaft.
You may instead set up the dynamometer to connect at the wheel hubs and
measure torque at that location. The preceding sentence may apply if
your powertrain configuration requires it, such as for hybrid
powertrains or if you want to represent the axle performance with
powertrain test results. You may alternatively test the powertrain with
a chassis dynamometer if you measure speed and torque at the
powertrain's output shaft or wheel hubs.
(2) For testing hybrid engines, connect the engine's crankshaft
directly to the dynamometer and measure torque at that location.
(c) Powertrain temperatures during testing. Cool the powertrain
during testing so temperatures for oil, coolant, block, head,
transmission, battery, and power electronics are within the
manufacturer's expected ranges for normal operation. You may use
electronic control module outputs to comply with this paragraph (c).
You may use auxiliary coolers and fans.
(d) Engine break in. Break in the engine according to 40 CFR
1065.405(c), the axle assembly according to 40 CFR 1037.560, and the
transmission according to 40 CFR 1037.565. You may instead break in the
powertrain as a complete system using the engine break in procedure in
40 CFR 1065.405(c).
(e) Dynamometer setup. Set the dynamometer to operate in speed-
control mode (or torque-control mode for hybrid engine testing at idle,
including idle portions of transient duty cycles). Record data as
described in 40 CFR 1065.202. Command and control the dynamometer speed
at a minimum of 5 Hz, or 10 Hz for testing hybrid engines. Run the
vehicle model to calculate the dynamometer setpoints at a rate of at
least 100 Hz. If the dynamometer's command frequency is less than the
vehicle model dynamometer setpoint frequency, subsample the calculated
setpoints for commanding the dynamometer setpoints.
(f) Driveline and vehicle model. Use the GEM HIL model's driveline
and vehicle submodels or the equations in this paragraph (f) to
calculate the dynamometer speed setpoint, fnref,dyno, based
on the torque measurement location. For all powertrains, configure GEM
with the accessory load set to zero. For hybrid engines, configure GEM
with the applicable accessory load as specified in Sec. Sec. 1036.505,
1036.514, and 1036.525. For all powertrains and hybrid engines,
configure GEM with the tire slip model disabled.
(1) Driveline model with a transmission in hardware. For testing
with torque measurement at the axle input shaft or wheel hubs,
calculate, fnref,dyno, using the GEM HIL model's driveline
submodel or the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.189
Eq. 1036.545-1
Where:
ka[speed] = drive axle ratio as determined in paragraph
(h) of this section. Set ka[speed] equal to 1.0 if torque
is measured at the wheel hubs.
vrefi = simulated vehicle reference speed as calculated
in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
r[speed] = tire radius as determined in paragraph (h) of
this section.
(2) Driveline model with a simulated transmission. For testing with
the torque measurement at the engine's crankshaft,
fnref,dyno is the dynamometer target speed from the GEM HIL
model's transmission submodel. You may request our approval to change
the transmission submodel, as long as the changes do not affect the
gear selection logic. Before testing, initialize the transmission model
with the engine's measured torque curve and the applicable steady-state
fuel map from the GEM HIL model. You may request our approval to input
your own steady-state fuel map. For example, this request for approval
could include using a fuel map that represents the combined performance
of the engine and hybrid components. Configure the torque converter to
simulate neutral idle when using this procedure to generate engine fuel
maps in Sec. 1036.505 or to perform the Supplemental Emission Test
(SET) testing under Sec. 1036.510. You may change engine commanded
torque at idle to better represent CITT for transient testing under
Sec. 1036.512. You may change the simulated engine inertia to match
the inertia of the engine under test. We will evaluate your requests
under this paragraph (f)(2) based on your demonstration that the
adjusted testing better represents in-use operation.
(i) The transmission submodel needs the following model inputs:
(A) Torque measured at the engine's crankshaft.
(B) Engine estimated torque determined from the electronic control
module or by converting the instantaneous operator demand to an
instantaneous torque in N[middot]m.
(C) Dynamometer mode when idling (speed-control or torque-control).
(D) Measured engine speed when idling.
(E) Transmission output angular speed, fni,transmission,
calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.190
Eq. 1036.545-2
Where:
ka[speed] = drive axle ratio as determined in paragraph
(h) of this section.
vrefi = simulated vehicle reference speed as calculated
in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
r[speed] = tire radius as determined in paragraph (h) of
this section.
(ii) The transmission submodel generates the following model
outputs:
(A) Dynamometer target speed.
(B) Dynamometer idle load.
(C) Transmission engine load limit.
(D) Engine speed target.
(3) Vehicle model. Calculate the simulated vehicle reference speed,
[nu]refi, using the GEM HIL model's vehicle submodel or the
equations in this paragraph (f)(3):
Eq. 1036.545-3
Where:
i = a time-based counter corresponding to each measurement during
the sampling period.
Let vref1 = 0; start calculations at i = 2. A 10-minute
sampling period will generally involve 60,000 measurements.
T = instantaneous measured torque at the axle input, measured at the
wheel hubs, or simulated by the GEM HIL model's transmission
submodel. For configurations with multiple torque measurements, such
as when measuring torque at the wheel hubs, T is the sum of all
torque measurements.
Effaxle = axle efficiency. Use Effaxle = 0.955
for T >= 0, and use Effaxle = 1/0.955 for T < 0.
[[Page 29756]]
Use Effaxle = 1.0 if torque is measured at the wheel
hubs.
M = vehicle mass for a vehicle class as determined in paragraph (h)
of this section.
g = gravitational constant = 9.80665 m/s\2\.
Crr = coefficient of rolling resistance for a vehicle
class as determined in paragraph (h) of this section.
Gi-1 = the percent grade interpolated at distance,
Di-1, from the duty cycle in 40 CFR part 1037, appendix
D, corresponding to measurement (i-1).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.192
Eq. 1036.545-4
[rho] = air density at reference conditions. Use [rho] = 1.1845 kg/
m\3\.
CdA = drag area for a vehicle class as determined in paragraph (h)
of this section.
Fbrake,i-1 = instantaneous braking force
applied by the driver model.
Fgrade,i-1=M [middot] g [middot]
sin(atan(Gi-1))
Eq. 1036.545-5
[Delta]t = the time interval between measurements. For example, at
100 Hz, [Delta]t = 0.0100 seconds.
Mrotating = inertial mass of rotating components. Let
Mrotating = 340 kg for vocational Light HDV or vocational
Medium HDV. See paragraph (h) of this section for tractors and for
vocational Heavy HDV.
(4) Example. The following example illustrates a calculation of
fnref,dyno using paragraph (f)(1) of this section where
torque is measured at the axle input shaft. This example is for a
vocational Light HDV or vocational Medium HDV with 6 speed automatic
transmission at B speed (test 4 in table 1 to paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of
this section).
kaB = 4.0
rB = 0.399 m
T999 = 500.0 N[middot]m
Crr = 7.7 N/kN = 7.7[middot]10-3 N/N
M = 11408 kg
CdA = 5.4 m\2\
G999 = 0.39% = 0.0039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.193
Fbrake,999 = 0 N
vref,999 = 20.0 m/s
Fgrade,999 = 11408 [middot] 9.81 [middot]
sin(atan(0.0039)) = 436.5 N
[Delta]t = 0.0100 s
Mrotating = 340 kg
vref1000 =
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.194
(g) Driver model. Use the GEM HIL model's driver submodel or design
a driver model to simulate a human driver modulating the throttle and
brake pedals. In either case, tune the model to follow the test cycle
as closely as possible meeting the following specifications:
(1) The driver model must meet the following speed requirements:
(i) For operation over the highway cruise cycles, the speed
requirements described in 40 CFR 1066.425(b) and (c).
(ii) For operation over the Heavy-Duty Transient Test Cycle
specified in 40 CFR part 1037, appendix A, the SET as defined Sec.
1036.510, the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) as defined in Sec.
1036.512, and the Low Load Cycle (LLC) as defined in Sec. 1036.514,
the speed requirements described in 40 CFR 1066.425(b) and (c).
(iii) The exceptions in 40 CFR 1066.425(b)(4) apply to the highway
cruise cycles, the Heavy-Duty Transient Test Cycle specified in 40 CFR
part 1037, appendix A, SET, FTP, and LLC.
(iv) If the speeds do not conform to these criteria, the test is
not valid and must be repeated.
(2) Send a brake signal when operator demand is zero and vehicle
speed is greater than the reference vehicle speed from the test cycle.
Include a delay before changing the brake signal to prevent dithering,
consistent with good engineering judgment.
(3) Allow braking only if operator demand is zero.
(4) Compensate for the distance driven over the duty cycle over the
course of the test. Use the following equation to perform the
compensation in real time to determine your time in the cycle:
[[Page 29757]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.195
Eq. 1036.545-6
Where:
vvehicle = measured vehicle speed.
vcycle = reference speed from the test cycle. If
vcycle,i-1 < 1.0 m/s, set
vcycle,i-1 =
vvehicle,i-1.
(h) Vehicle configurations to evaluate for generating fuel maps as
defined in Sec. 1036.505. Configure the driveline and vehicle models
from paragraph (f) of this section in the test cell to test the
powertrain. Simulate multiple vehicle configurations that represent the
range of intended vehicle applications using one of the following
options:
(1) For known vehicle configurations, use at least three equally
spaced axle ratios or tire sizes and three different road loads (nine
configurations), or at least four equally spaced axle ratios or tire
sizes and two different road loads (eight configurations). Select axle
ratios to represent the full range of expected vehicle installations.
Select axle ratios and tire sizes such that the ratio of engine speed
to vehicle speed covers the range of ratios of minimum and maximum
engine speed to vehicle speed when the transmission is in top gear for
the vehicles in which the powertrain will be installed. Note that you
do not have to use the same axle ratios and tire sizes for each GEM
regulatory subcategory. You may determine appropriate Crr,
CdA, and mass values to cover the range of intended vehicle
applications or you may use the Crr, CdA, and
mass values specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
(2) If vehicle configurations are not known, determine the vehicle
model inputs for a set of vehicle configurations as described in Sec.
1036.540(c)(3) with the following exceptions:
(i) In the equations of Sec. 1036.540(c)(3)(i),
ktopgear is the actual top gear ratio of the powertrain
instead of the transmission gear ratio in the highest available gear
given in table 1 to paragraph (c)(2) of Sec. 1036.540.
(ii) Test at least eight different vehicle configurations for
powertrains that will be installed in Spark-ignition HDE, vocational
Light HDV, and vocational Medium HDV using the following table instead
of table 2 to paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of Sec. 1036.540:
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (h)(2)(ii) OF Sec. 1036.545--VEHICLE
CONFIGURATIONS FOR TESTING SPARK-IGNITION HDE, AND MEDIUM HDE
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.196
(iii) Select and test vehicle configurations as described in Sec.
1036.540(c)(3)(iii) for powertrains that will be installed in
vocational Heavy HDV and tractors using the following tables instead of
tables 3 and 4 to paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of Sec. 1036.540:
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (h)(2)(iii) OF Sec. 1036.545--VEHICLE
CONFIGURATIONS FOR TESTING GENERAL PURPOSE TRACTORS AND VOCATIONAL
HEAVY HDV
[[Page 29758]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.197
TABLE 3 TO PARAGRAPH (h)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1036.545--VEHICLE
CONFIGURATIONS FOR TESTING HEAVY HDE INSTALLED IN HEAVY-HAUL TRACTORS
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.198
(3) For hybrid powertrain systems where the transmission will be
simulated, use the transmission parameters defined in Sec.
1036.540(c)(2) to determine transmission type and gear ratio. Use a
fixed transmission efficiency of 0.95. The GEM HIL transmission model
uses a transmission parameter file for each test that includes the
transmission type, gear ratios, lockup gear, torque limit per gear from
Sec. 1036.540(c)(2), and the values from Sec. 1036.505(b)(4) and (c).
(i) [Reserved]
(j) Duty cycles to evaluate. Operate the powertrain over each of
the duty cycles specified in 40 CFR 1037.510(a)(2), and for each
applicable vehicle configuration from paragraph (h) of this section.
Determine cycle-average powertrain fuel maps by testing the powertrain
using the procedures in Sec. 1036.540(d) with the following
exceptions:
(1) Understand ``engine'' to mean ``powertrain''.
(2) Warm up the powertrain as described in Sec. 1036.520(d).
(3) Within 90 seconds after concluding the warm-up, start the
transition to the preconditioning cycle as described in paragraph
(j)(5) of this section.
(4) For plug-in hybrid engines, precondition the battery and then
complete all back-to-back tests for each vehicle configuration
according to 40 CFR 1066.501(a)(3) before moving to the next vehicle
configuration. The
[[Page 29759]]
following figure illustrates a charge-depleting test sequence with
engine operation during two duty cycles, which are used for criteria
pollutant determination:
Figure 2 to Paragraph (j)(4) of Sec. 1036.545--Generic Charge-
Depleting Test Sequence
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.199
(5) If the preceding duty cycle does not end at 0 mi/hr, transition
between duty cycles by decelerating at a rate of 2 mi/hr/s at 0% grade
until the vehicle reaches zero speed. Shut off the powertrain. Prepare
the powertrain and test cell for the next duty-cycle.
(6) Start the next duty-cycle within 60 to 180 seconds after
shutting off the powertrain.
(i) To start the next duty-cycle, for hybrid powertrains, key on
the vehicle and then start the duty-cycle. For conventional powertrains
key on the vehicle, start the engine, wait for the engine to stabilize
at idle speed, and then start the duty-cycle.
(ii) If the duty-cycle does not start at 0 mi/hr, transition to the
next duty cycle by accelerating at a target rate of 1 mi/hr/s at 0%
grade. Stabilize for 10 seconds at the initial duty cycle conditions
and start the duty-cycle.
(7) Calculate cycle work using GEM or the speed and torque from the
driveline and vehicle models from paragraph (f) of this section to
determine the sequence of duty cycles.
(8) Calculate the mass of fuel consumed for idle duty cycles as
described in paragraph (n) of this section.
(k) Measuring NOX emissions. Measure NOX
emissions for each sampling period in grams. You may perform these
measurements using a NOX emission-measurement system that
meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J. If a system
malfunction prevents you from measuring NOX emissions during
a test under this section but the test otherwise gives valid results,
you may consider this a valid test and omit the NOX emission
measurements; however, we may require you to repeat the test if we
determine that you inappropriately voided the test with respect to
NOX emission measurement.
(l) [Reserved]
(m) Measured output speed validation. For each test point, validate
the measured output speed with the corresponding reference values. If
speed is measured at more than one location, the measurements at each
location must meet validation requirements. If the range of reference
speed is less than 10 percent of the mean reference speed, you need to
meet only the standard error of the estimate in table 4 to this
paragraph (m). You may delete points when the vehicle is stopped. If
your speed measurement is not at the location of [fnof]nref,
correct your measured speed using the constant speed ratio between the
two locations. Apply cycle-validation criteria for each separate
transient or highway cruise cycle based on the following parameters:
Table 4 to Paragraph (m) of Sec. 1036.545--Cycle-Validation Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter \a\ Speed control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slope, a1.............................. 0.990 <= a1 <= 1.010.
Absolute value of intercept, <=2.0% of maximum [fnof]nref
[verbar]a0[verbar]. speed.
Standard error of the estimate, SEE.... <=2.0% of maximum [fnof]nref
speed.
Coefficient of determination, r\2\..... >=0.990.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Determine values for specified parameters as described in 40 CFR
1065.514(e) by comparing measured and reference values for
[fnof]nref,dyno.
(n) Fuel consumption at idle. Record measurements using direct and/
or indirect measurement of fuel flow. Determine the fuel-consumption
rates at idle for the applicable duty cycles described in 40 CFR
1037.510(a)(2) as follows:
(1) Direct fuel flow measurement. Determine the corresponding mean
values for mean idle fuel mass flow rate, mifuelidle, for
each duty cycle, as applicable. Use of redundant direct fuel-flow
measurements require our advance approval.
(2) Indirect fuel flow measurement. Record speed and torque and
measure emissions and other inputs needed to run the chemical balance
in 40 CFR 1065.655(c). Determine the corresponding mean values for each
duty cycle. Use of redundant indirect fuel-flow measurements require
our
[[Page 29760]]
advance approval. Measure background concentration as described in
Sec. 1036.535(b)(4)(ii). We recommend setting the CVS flow rate as low
as possible to minimize background, but without introducing errors
related to insufficient mixing or other operational considerations.
Note that for this testing 40 CFR 1065.140(e) does not apply, including
the minimum dilution ratio of 2:1 in the primary dilution stage.
Calculate the idle fuel mass flow rate for each duty cycle,
mifuelidle, for each set of vehicle settings, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.200
Eq. 1036.545-7
Where:
MC = molar mass of carbon.
wCmeas = carbon mass fraction of fuel (or mixture of test
fuels) as determined in 40 CFR 1065.655(d), except that you may not
use the default properties in 40 CFR 1065.655(e)(5) to determine
[alpha], [beta], and wC for liquid fuels.
niexh = the mean raw exhaust molar flow rate from which
you measured emissions according to 40 CFR 1065.655.
[chi]Ccombdry = the mean concentration of carbon from
fuel and any injected fluids in the exhaust per mole of dry exhaust.
[chi]H2Oexhdry = the mean concentration of H2O
in exhaust per mole of dry exhaust.
miCO2DEF = the mean CO2 mass emission rate
resulting from diesel exhaust fluid decomposition over the duty
cycle as determined in Sec. 1036.535(b)(9). If your engine does not
use diesel exhaust fluid, or if you choose not to perform this
correction, set equal to 0.
MCO2 = molar mass of carbon dioxide.
Example:
MC = 12.0107 g/mol
wCmeas = 0.867
niexh = 25.534 mol/s
[chi]Ccombdry = 2.805[middot]10-3 mol/mol
[chi]H2Oexhdry = 3.53[middot]10-2 mol/mol
miCO2DEF = 0.0726 g/s
MCO2 = 44.0095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.201
(o) Create GEM inputs. Use the results of powertrain testing to
determine GEM inputs for the different simulated vehicle configurations
as follows:
(1) Correct the measured or calculated fuel masses,
mfuel[cycle], and mean idle fuel mass flow rates,
mifuelidle, if applicable, for each test result to a mass-
specific net energy content of a reference fuel as described in Sec.
1036.535(e), replacing mifuel with mfuel[cycle]
where applicable in Eq. 1036.535-4.
(2) Declare fuel masses, mfuel[cycle] and
mifuelidle. Determine mfuel[cycle] using the
calculated fuel mass consumption values described in Sec.
1036.540(d)(12). In addition, declare mean fuel mass flow rate for each
applicable idle duty cycle, mifuelidle. These declared
values may not be lower than any corresponding measured values
determined in this section. If you use both direct and indirect
measurement of fuel flow, determine the corresponding declared values
as described in Sec. 1036.535(g)(2) and (3). These declared values,
which serve as emission standards, collectively represent the
powertrain fuel map for certification.
(3) For engines designed for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the
mass of fuel for each cycle, mfuel[cycle], is the utility
factor-weighted fuel mass, mfuelUF[cycle]. This is
determined by calculating mfuel for the full charge-
depleting and charge-sustaining portions of the test and weighting the
results, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.202
Eq. 1036.545-8
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents one test interval.
N = total number of charge-depleting test intervals.
mfuel[cycle]CDi = total mass of fuel in the charge-
depleting portion of the test for each test interval, i, starting
from i = 1, including the test interval(s) from the transition
phase.
UFDCDi = utility factor fraction at distance
DCDi from Eq. 1036.510-11 as determined by interpolating
the approved utility factor curve for each test interval, i,
starting from i = 1. Let UFDCD0 = 0
j = an indexing variable that represents one test interval.
M = total number of charge-sustaining test intervals.
mfuel[cycle]CSj = total mass of fuel over the charge-
sustaining portion of the test for each test interval, j, starting
from j = 1.
UFRCD = utility factor fraction at the full charge-
depleting distance, RCD, as determined by interpolating
the approved utility factor curve. RCD is the cumulative
distance driven over N charge-depleting test intervals.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.203
Eq. 1036.545-9
Where:
k = an indexing variable that represents one recorded velocity
value.
Q = total number of measurements over the test interval.
v = vehicle velocity at each time step, k, starting from k = 1. For
tests completed under this section, v is the vehicle velocity as
determined by Eq. 1036.545-1. Note that this should include charge-
[[Page 29761]]
depleting test intervals that start when the engine is not yet
operating.
[Delta]t = 1/[fnof]record
[fnof]record = the record rate.
Example for the 55 mi/hr cruise cycle:
Q = 8790
y1 = 55.0 mi/hr
y2 = 55.0 mi/hr
y3 = 55.1 mi/hr
[fnof]record = 10 Hz
[Delta]t = 1/10 Hz = 0.1 s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.204
(4) For the transient cycle specified in 40 CFR 1037.510(a)(2)(i),
calculate powertrain output speed per unit of vehicle speed using one
of the following methods:
(i) For testing with torque measurement at the axle input shaft:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.205
Eq. 1036.545-10
Example:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.206
(ii) For testing with torque measurement at the wheel hubs, use Eq.
1036.545-8 setting ka equal to 1.
(iii) For testing with torque measurement at the engine's
crankshaft:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.207
Eq. 1036.545-11
Where:
[fnof]nengine = average engine speed when vehicle speed
is at or above 0.100 m/s.
yref = average simulated vehicle speed at or above 0.100
m/s.
Example:
[[Page 29762]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.208
(5) Calculate engine idle speed, by taking the average engine speed
measured during the transient cycle test while the vehicle speed is
below 0.100 m/s. (Note: Use all the charge-sustaining test intervals
when determining engine idle speed for plug-in hybrid
powertrains.)[fnof]
(6) For the cruise cycles specified in 40 CFR 1037.510(a)(2)(ii),
calculate the average powertrain output speed,
[fnof]npowertrain, and the average powertrain output torque
(positive torque only), Tpowertrain, at vehicle speed at or
above 0.100 m/s. (Note: Use all the charge-sustaining and charge-
depleting test intervals when determining [fnof]npowertrain
and Tpowertrain for plug-in hybrid powertrains.)
(7) Calculate positive work, W[cycle], as the work over
the duty cycle at the axle input shaft, wheel hubs, or the engine's
crankshaft, as applicable, when vehicle speed is at or above 0.100 m/s.
For plug-in hybrid powertrains, calculate W[cycle] by
calculating the positive work over each of the charge-sustaining and
charge-depleting test intervals and then averaging them together. If
speed and torque are measured at more than one location, determine
W[cycle] by integrating the sum of the power calculated from
measured speed and torque measurements at each location.
(8) The following tables illustrate the GEM data inputs
corresponding to the different vehicle configurations for a given duty
cycle:
(i) For the transient cycle:
Table 5 to Paragraph (o)(8)(i) of Sec. 1036.545--Example of Output
Matrix for Transient Cycle Vehicle Configurations
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.209
(ii) For the cruise cycles:
Table 6 to Paragraph ((o)(8)(ii) of Sec. 1036.545--Generic Example of
Output Matrix for Cruise Cycle Vehicle Configurations
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.210
(p) Determine usable battery energy. Determine usable battery
energy (UBE) for plug-in hybrid powertrains using one of the following
procedures:
(1) Select a representative vehicle configuration from paragraph
(h) of this section. Measure DC discharge energy, EDCD, in
DC watt-hours and measure DC discharge current per hour, CD,
for the charge-depleting test intervals of the Heavy-Duty Transient
Test Cycle in 40 CFR part 1037, appendix A. The measurement period must
include all the current flowing into and out of the battery pack during
the charge-depleting test intervals, including current associated with
regenerative braking. Eq. 1036.545-12 shows how to calculate
EDCD, but the power analyzer specified in paragraph
(a)(10)(i) of this section will typically perform this calculation
internally. Battery voltage measurements made by the powertrain's on-
board sensors (such as those available with a diagnostic port) may be
used for calculating EDCD if they are equivalent to those
from the power analyzer.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.804
Eq. 1036.545-12
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents one individual measurement.
N = total number of measurements.
V = battery DC bus voltage.
[[Page 29763]]
I = battery current.
[Delta]t = 1/[fnof]record
[fnof]record = the data recording frequency.
Example:
N = 13360
V1 = 454.0
V2 = 454.0
I1 = 0
I2 = 0
[fnof]record = 20 Hz
[Delta]t = 1/20 = 0.05 s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.211
(2) Determine a declared UBE that is at or below the corresponding
value determined in paragraph (p)(1) of this section, including those
from redundant measurements. This declared UBE serves as
UBEcertified determined under 40 CFR 1037.115(f).
0
35. Amend Sec. 1036.550 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); and
0
b. Revising the entry for wCmeas in paragraph (b)(4) after
the ``Example''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1036.550 Calculating greenhouse gas emission rates.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Determine your test fuel's mass-specific net energy content,
Emfuelmeas, also known as lower heating value, in MJ/kg,
expressed to at least three decimal places. Determine
Emfuelmeas as follows:
(i) For liquid fuels, determine Emfuelmeas according to
ASTM D4809 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1036.810). Have the
sample analyzed by at least three different labs and determine the
final value of your test fuel's Emfuelmeas as the median of
all the lab test results as described in 40 CFR 1065.602(m). If you
have results from three different labs, we recommend you screen them to
determine if additional observations are needed. To perform this
screening, determine the absolute value of the difference between each
lab result and the average of the other two lab results. If the largest
of these three resulting absolute value differences is greater than
0.297 MJ/kg, we recommend you obtain additional results prior to
determining the final value of Emfuelmeas.
(ii) For gaseous fuels, determine Emfuelmeas according
to ASTM D3588 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1036.810).
(2) Determine your test fuel's carbon mass fraction, wC,
as described in 40 CFR 1065.655(d), expressed to at least three decimal
places; however, you must measure fuel properties for [alpha] and
[beta] rather than using the default values specified in 40 CFR
1065.655(e).
(i) For liquid fuels, have the sample analyzed by at least three
different labs, determine wC for each result as described in
40 CFR 1065.655(d), and determine the final value of your test fuel's
wC as the median (as described in 40 CFR 1065.602(m)) of all
the wC values. If you have results from three different
labs, we recommend you screen them to determine if additional
observations are needed. To perform this screening, determine the
absolute value of the difference between each wC value and
the average of the other two wC values. If the largest of
these three resulting absolute value differences is greater than 1.56
percent carbon, we recommend you obtain additional results prior to
determining the final value of wC.
(ii) For gaseous fuels, have the sample analyzed by a single lab
and use that result as your test fuel's wC.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
wCmeas = 0.870 kgC/kg
* * * * *
0
36. Amend Sec. 1036.580 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.580 Infrequently regenerating aftertreatment devices.
* * * * *
(d) If your engine family includes engines with one or more
emergency AECDs approved under Sec. 1036.115(h)(4), do not consider
additional regenerations resulting from those AECDs when developing
adjustments to measured values under paragraph (a) or (b) of this
section.
0
37. Amend Sec. 1036.601 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.601 Overview of compliance provisions.
* * * * *
(c) The emergency vehicle field modification provisions of 40 CFR
85.1716 apply with respect to the standards of this part. Emergency
vehicle field modifications under 40 CFR 85.1716 may include
corresponding changes to diagnostic systems relative to the
requirements in Sec. Sec. 1036.110 and 1036.111. For example, the cab
display required under Sec. 1036.110(c)(1) identifying a fault
condition may omit information about the timing or extent of a pending
derate if an AECD will override the derate.
* * * * *
0
38. Amend Sec. 1036.605 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.605 Alternate emission standards for engines used in
specialty vehicles.
* * * * *
(e) In a separate application for a certificate of conformity,
identify the corresponding nonroad engine family, describe the label
required under section, state that you meet applicable diagnostic
requirements under 40 CFR part 1039 or 1048, and identify your
projected U.S.-directed production volume.
* * * * *
0
39. Amend Sec. 1036.615 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.615 Engines with Rankine cycle waste heat recovery and
hybrid powertrains.
* * * * *
(a) Pre-transmission hybrid powertrains. Test pre-transmission
hybrid powertrains with the hybrid engine procedures of 40 CFR part
1065 or with the post-transmission procedures in Sec. 1036.545. Pre-
transmission hybrid powertrains are those engine systems that include
features to recover and store energy during engine motoring operation
but not from the vehicle's wheels. Engines certified with pre-
transmission hybrid powertrains must be certified to meet the
diagnostic requirements as specified in Sec. 1036.110 with respect to
powertrain components and systems; if different manufacturers produce
the engine and the hybrid powertrain, the hybrid powertrain
manufacturer may separately certify its powertrain relative to
diagnostic requirements.
* * * * *
0
40. Amend Sec. 1036.630 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
[[Page 29764]]
Sec. 1036.630 Certification of engine greenhouse gas emissions for
powertrain testing.
* * * * *
(b) If you choose to certify only fuel map emissions for an engine
family and to not certify emissions over powertrain cycles under Sec.
1036.545, we will not presume you are responsible for emissions over
the powertrain cycles. However, where we determine that you are
responsible in whole or in part for the emission exceedance in such
cases, we may require that you participate in any recall of the
affected vehicles (Note: this does not apply if you also hold the
certificate of conformity for the vehicle).
* * * * *
0
41. Amend Sec. 1036.705 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.705 Generating and calculating emission credits.
* * * * *
(c) Compliance with the requirements of this subpart is determined
at the end of the model year by calculating emission credits based on
actual production volumes, excluding the following engines:
(1) Engines that you do not certify to the CO2 standards
of this part because they are permanently exempted under subpart G of
this part or under 40 CFR part 1068.
(2) Exported engines.
(3) Engines not subject to the requirements of this part, such as
those excluded under Sec. 1036.5. For example, do not include engines
used in vehicles certified to the greenhouse gas standards of 40 CFR
86.1819.
(4) Engines certified to state emission standards that are
different than the emission standards referenced in this section, and
intended for sale in a state that has adopted those emission standards.
(5) Any other engines if we indicate elsewhere in this part that
they are not to be included in the calculations of this subpart.
* * * * *
0
42. Amend Sec. 1036.725 by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1036.725 Required information for certification.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Calculations of projected emission credits (positive or
negative) based on projected production volumes as described in Sec.
1036.705(c). We may require you to include similar calculations from
your other engine families to project your net credit balances for the
model year. If you project negative emission credits for a family,
state the source of positive emission credits you expect to use to
offset the negative emission credits.
0
43. Amend Sec. 1036.730 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (f)(1) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1036.730 ABT reports.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) The projected and actual production volumes for calculating
emission credits for the model year. If you changed an FEL/FCL during
the model year, identify the actual production volume associated with
each FEL/FCL.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) If you notify us by the deadline for submitting the final
report that errors mistakenly decreased your balance of emission
credits, you may correct the errors and recalculate the balance of
emission credits. If you notify us that errors mistakenly decreased
your balance of GHG emission credits after the deadline for submitting
the final report, you may correct the errors and recalculate the
balance of emission credits after applying a 10 percent discount to the
credit correction, but only if you notify us within 24 months after the
deadline for submitting the final report. If you report a negative
balance of emission credits, we may disallow corrections under this
paragraph (f)(1).
* * * * *
0
44. Amend Sec. 1036.735 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.735 Recordkeeping.
* * * * *
(d) Keep appropriate records to document production volumes of
engines that generate or use emission credits under the ABT program.
For example, keep available records of the engine identification number
(usually the serial number) for each engine you produce that generates
or uses emission credits. You may identify these numbers as a range. If
you change the FEL/FCL after the start of production, identify the date
you started using each FEL/FCL and the range of engine identification
numbers associated with each FEL/FCL. You must also identify the
purchaser and destination for each engine you produce to the extent
this information is available.
* * * * *
0
45. Amend Sec. 1036.801 by:
0
a. Adding a definition of ``Carbon-containing fuel'' in alphabetical
order;
0
b. Removing the definition of ``Criteria pollutants'';
0
c. Revising the definition of ``Emergency vehicle'';
0
d. Removing the definition of ``Greenhouse gas'';
0
e. Revising the definition of ``Hybrid'';
0
f. Removing the definitions of ``Hybrid engine'' and ``Hybrid
powertrain'';
0
g. Revising the definition of ``Mild hybrid'';
0
h. Adding a definition of ``Neat'' in alphabetical order;
0
i. Revising the definition of ``Small manufacturer'';
0
j. Adding a definition of ``State of certified energy (SOCE)'' in
alphabetical order; and
0
k. Revising the definition of ``U.S.-directed production volume''.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1036.801 Definitions.
* * * * *
Carbon-containing fuel has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
* * * * *
Emergency vehicle means a vehicle that meets one of the following
criteria:
(1) It is an ambulance or a fire truck.
(2) It is a vehicle that we have determined will likely be used in
emergency situations where emission control function or malfunction may
cause a significant risk to human life. For example, we would consider
a truck that is certain to be retrofitted with a slip-on firefighting
module to become an emergency vehicle, even though it was not initially
designed to be a fire truck. Also, a mobile command center that is
unable to manually regenerate its DPF while on duty could be an
emergency vehicle. In making this determination, we may consider any
factor that has an effect on the totality of the actual risk to human
life. For example, we may consider how frequently a vehicle will be
used in emergency situations or how likely it is that the emission
controls will cause a significant risk to human life when the vehicle
is used in emergency situations. We would not consider the truck in the
example above to be an emergency vehicle if there is merely a
possibility (rather than a certainty) that it will be retrofitted with
a slip-on firefighting module.
* * * * *
Hybrid means relating to an engine or powertrain that includes a
Rechargeable Energy Storage System. Hybrid engines store and recover
energy in a way that is integral to the engine or otherwise upstream of
the vehicle's transmission. Examples of hybrid engines include
[[Page 29765]]
engines with hybrid components connected to the front end of the engine
(P0), connected to the crankshaft before the clutch (P1), or connected
between the clutch and the transmission where the clutch upstream of
the hybrid feature is in addition to the transmission clutch or
clutches (P2). Engine-based systems that recover kinetic energy to
power an electric heater in the aftertreatment are themselves not
sufficient to qualify as a hybrid engine. The provisions in this part
that apply for hybrid powertrains apply equally for hybrid engines,
except as specified. Note that certain provisions in this part treat
hybrid powertrains intended for vehicles that include regenerative
braking different than those intended for vehicles that do not include
regenerative braking. The definition of hybrid includes plug-in hybrid
electric powertrains.
* * * * *
Mild hybrid means relating to a hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain
with regenerative braking capability where the system recovers less
than 20 percent of the total braking energy over the transient cycle
defined in 40 CFR part 1037, appendix A.
* * * * *
Neat has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
* * * * *
Small manufacturer means a manufacturer meeting the criteria
specified in 13 CFR 121.201. The employee and revenue limits apply to
the total number of employees and total revenue together for all
affiliated companies (as defined in 40 CFR 1068.30). Note that
manufacturers with low production volumes may or may not be ``small
manufacturers''.
* * * * *
State of certified energy (SOCE) means a value representing the
amount of usable battery energy available at a specific point in time
relative to the certified value for a new battery, expressed as a
percentage of the certified usable battery energy.
* * * * *
U.S.-directed production volume means the number of engines,
subject to the requirements of this part, produced by a manufacturer
for which the manufacturer has a reasonable assurance that sale was or
will be made to ultimate purchasers in the United States.
* * * * *
0
46. Amend Sec. 1036.805 by revising the introductory text and adding
entries for ``DPF'' and ``GCWR'' in alphabetical order to table 5 to
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.805 Symbols, abbreviations, and acronyms.
The procedures in this part generally follow either the
International System of Units (SI) or the United States customary
units, as detailed in NIST Special Publication 811 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 1036.810). See 40 CFR 1065.20 for specific
provisions related to these conventions. This section summarizes the
way we use symbols, units of measure, and other abbreviations.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
Table 5 to Paragraph (e) of Sec. 1036.805--Other Acronyms and
Abbreviations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronym Meaning
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
DPF....................................... diesel particulate filter.
* * * * *
GCWR...................................... gross combined weight
rating.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
47. Amend Sec. 1036.810 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.810 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(e) U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105; www.epa.gov; [email protected].
(1) Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) Phase 2, Version 4.0,
April 2022 (``GEM Phase 2, Version 4.0''); IBR approved for Sec.
1036.545(a).
(2) [Reserved]
0
48. Amend Sec. 1036.815 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.815 Confidential information.
* * * * *
(b) Emission data or information that is publicly available cannot
be treated as confidential business information as described in 40 CFR
1068.11. Data that vehicle manufacturers need for demonstrating
compliance with greenhouse gas emission standards, including fuel-
consumption data as described in Sec. Sec. 1036.535 and 1036.545, also
qualify as emission data for purposes of confidentiality
determinations.
PART 1037--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW HEAVY-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES
0
49. The authority citation for part 1037 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
50. Amend Sec. 1037.1 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.1 Applicability.
(a) The regulations in this part apply for all new heavy-duty
vehicles, except as provided in Sec. 1037.5. This includes battery
electric vehicles, fuel cell electric vehicles, and vehicles fueled by
conventional and alternative fuels.
* * * * *
0
51. Amend Sec. 1037.5 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (e);
0
b. Removing paragraphs (g) and (h); and
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (i) as paragraph (g).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 1037.5 Excluded vehicles.
* * * * *
(e) Vehicles subject to emission standards under 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S.
* * * * *
0
52. Revise and republish Sec. 1037.101 to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.101 Overview of emission standards.
(a) You must show that vehicles meet the following emission
standards:
(1) Exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants. Criteria pollutant
standards for NOX, HC, PM, and CO apply as described in
Sec. 1037.102. These pollutants are sometimes described collectively
as ``criteria pollutants'' because they are either criteria pollutants
under the Clean Air Act or precursors to the criteria pollutants ozone
and PM.
(2) Exhaust emissions of greenhouse gases. This part contains
standards and other regulations applicable to the emission of the air
pollutant defined as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases:
carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Emission standards apply as
follows for greenhouse gas emissions:
(i) CO2 emission standards apply as described in
Sec. Sec. 1037.105 and 1037.106. No CH4 or N2O
standards apply under this part. See 40 CFR part 1036 for
CH4 or N2O standards that apply to engines used
in these vehicles.
(ii) Hydrofluorocarbon standards apply as described in Sec.
1037.115(e). These pollutants are also ``greenhouse
[[Page 29766]]
gas pollutants'' but are treated separately from exhaust greenhouse gas
pollutants listed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(3) Fuel evaporative and refueling emissions. Requirements related
to fuel evaporative and refueling emissions are described in Sec.
1037.103.
(b) The regulated heavy-duty vehicles are addressed in different
groups as follows:
(1) For criteria pollutants, vehicles are regulated based on gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR), whether they are considered ``spark-
ignition'' or ``compression-ignition,'' and whether they are first sold
as complete or incomplete vehicles.
(2) Greenhouse gas standards apply differently for vocational
vehicles and tractors. Greenhouse gas standards also apply differently
depending on the vehicle service class as described in Sec. 1037.140.
In addition, standards apply differently for vehicles with spark-
ignition and compression-ignition engines. References in this part to
``spark-ignition'' or ``compression-ignition'' generally relate to the
application of standards under 40 CFR 1036.140. For example, a vehicle
with an engine certified to spark-ignition standards under 40 CFR part
1036 is generally subject to requirements under this part that apply
for spark-ignition vehicles. However, note that emission standards for
Heavy HDE are considered to be compression-ignition standards for
purposes of applying vehicle emission standards under this part. Also,
for spark-ignition engines voluntarily certified as compression-
ignition engines under 40 CFR part 1036, you must choose at
certification whether your vehicles are subject to spark-ignition
standards or compression-ignition standards. Heavy-duty vehicles with
no installed propulsion engine, such as battery electric vehicles, are
subject to compression-ignition emission standards under Sec. Sec.
1037.105 and 1037.106 for the purpose of calculating emission credits.
(3) For evaporative and refueling emissions, vehicles are regulated
based on the type of fuel they use. Vehicles fueled with volatile
liquid fuels or gaseous fuels are subject to evaporative and refueling
emission standards.
0
53. Amend Sec. 1037.102 by revising the section heading and paragraph
(b) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.102 Criteria exhaust emission standards--NOX, HC, PM, and
CO.
* * * * *
(b) Heavy-duty vehicles with no installed propulsion engine, such
as battery electric vehicles, are subject to criteria pollutant
standards under this part. The emission standards that apply are the
same as the standards that apply for compression-ignition engines under
40 CFR 86.007-11 or 1036.104 for a given model year.
* * * * *
0
54. Amend Sec. 1037.103 by revising paragraph (e) introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 1037.103 Evaporative and refueling emission standards.
* * * * *
(e) LNG refueling requirement. Fuel tanks for liquefied natural gas
vehicles must meet the hold-time requirements in Section 4.2 of SAE
J2343 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1037.810), as modified by
this paragraph (e). All pressures noted are gauge pressure. Vehicles
with tanks meeting the requirements in this paragraph (e) are deemed to
comply with evaporative and refueling emission standards. The
provisions of this paragraph (e) are optional for vehicles produced
before January 1, 2020. The hold-time requirements of SAE J2343 apply,
with the following clarifications and additions:
* * * * *
Sec. 1037.104 [Removed]
0
55. Remove Sec. 1037.104.
0
56. Revise and republish Sec. 1037.105 to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.105 CO2 emission standards for vocational vehicles.
(a) The standards of this section apply for the following vehicles:
(1) Heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that are not
subject to the greenhouse gas standards in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S,
or that use engines certified under Sec. 1037.150(m).
(2) Vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR and at or below 26,000 pounds
GVWR, but not certified to the vehicle greenhouse gas standards in 40
CFR part 86, subpart S.
(3) Vehicles above 26,000 pounds GVWR that are not tractors.
(4) Vocational tractors.
(b) CO2 standards in this paragraph (b) apply based on
modeling and testing as specified in subpart F of this part. The
provisions of Sec. 1037.241 specify how to comply with the standards
in this paragraph (b). Standards differ based on engine cycle, vehicle
size, and intended vehicle duty cycle. See Sec. 1037.510(c) to
determine which duty cycle applies. Note that Sec. 1037.230 describes
how to divide vehicles into subcategories.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, model
year 2027 and later vehicles are subject to Phase 3 CO2
standards corresponding to the selected subcategories as shown in the
following table:
Table 1 of Paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 1037.105--Phase 3 CO2 Standards for Model Year 2027 and Later Vocational
Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 standard by regulatory subcategory (g/ton[middot]mile)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Roof height Class 7 all Class 8 day Class 8
cab styles cab sleeper cab Heavy-haul
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.......................... Low Roof........ 96.2 73.4 64.1 48.3
Mid Roof........ 103.4 78.0 69.6
High Roof....... 100.0 75.7 64.3
2028.......................... Low Roof........ 88.5 67.5 64.1 48.3
Mid Roof........ 95.1 71.8 69.6
High Roof....... 92.0 69.6 64.3
2029.......................... Low Roof........ 84.7 64.6 64.1 47.8
Mid Roof........ 91.0 68.6 69.6
High Roof....... 88.0 66.6 64.3
2030.......................... Low Roof........ 80.8 61.7 60.3 47.8
Mid Roof........ 86.9 65.5 65.4
High Roof....... 84.0 63.6 60.4
2031.......................... Low Roof........ 69.3 52.8 56.4 46.9
[[Page 29767]]
Mid Roof........ 74.4 56.2 61.2
High Roof....... 72.0 54.5 56.6
2032 and Later................ Low Roof........ 57.7 44.0 48.1 45.9
Mid Roof........ 62.0 46.8 52.2
High Roof....... 60.0 45.4 48.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Qualifying small manufacturers of model year 2027 and later
vehicles may continue to meet Phase 2 CO2 standards in this
paragraph (b)(2) instead of the standards specified in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section. If you certify to these Phase 2 CO2
standards, you may use the averaging provisions of subpart H of this
part to demonstrate compliance. You may use other credit provisions of
this part only by certifying all vehicle families within a given
averaging set to the Phase 3 standards that apply in that model year.
Table 2 of Paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 1037.105--Small Manufacturer Phase 2 CO2 Standards for Model Year 2027 and
Later Vocational Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 standard by regulatory subcategory (g/
ton[middot]mile)
Engine cycle Vehicle service class -----------------------------------------------
Multi-purpose Regional Urban
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compression-ignition.................. Light HDV............... 330 291 367
Compression-ignition.................. Medium HDV.............. 235 218 258
Compression-ignition.................. Heavy HDV............... 230 189 269
Spark-ignition........................ Light HDV............... 372 319 413
Spark-ignition........................ Medium HDV.............. 268 247 297
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Model year 2024 through 2026 vehicles are subject to Phase 2
CO2 standards corresponding to the selected subcategories as
shown in the following table:
Table 3 of Paragraph (b)(3) of Sec. 1037.105--Phase 2 CO2 Standards for Model Year 2024 Through 2026
Vocational Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 standard by regulatory subcategory (g/
ton[middot]mile)
Engine cycle Vehicle service class -----------------------------------------------
Multi-purpose Regional Urban
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compression-ignition.................. Light HDV............... 344 296 385
Compression-ignition.................. Medium HDV.............. 246 221 271
Compression-ignition.................. Heavy HDV............... 242 194 283
Spark-ignition........................ Light HDV............... 385 324 432
Spark-ignition........................ Medium HDV.............. 279 251 310
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Model year 2021 through 2023 vehicles are subject to Phase 2
CO2 standards corresponding to the selected subcategories as
shown in the following table:
Table 4 of Paragraph (b)(4) of Sec. 1037.105--Phase 2 CO2 Standards for Model Year 2021 Through 2023
Vocational Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 standard by regulatory subcategory (g/
ton[middot]mile)
Engine cycle Vehicle service class -----------------------------------------------
Multi-purpose Regional Urban
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compression-ignition.................. Light HDV............... 373 311 424
Compression-ignition.................. Medium HDV.............. 265 234 296
Compression-ignition.................. Heavy HDV............... 261 205 308
Spark-ignition........................ Light HDV............... 407 335 461
[[Page 29768]]
Spark-ignition........................ Medium HDV.............. 293 261 328
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Model year 2014 through 2020 vehicles are subject to Phase 1
CO2 standards as shown in the following table:
Table 5 of Paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1037.105--Phase 1 CO2 Standards for Model Year 2014 Through 2020
Vocational Vehicles
[g/ton-mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 standard for model CO2 standard for model
Vehicle size years 2014-2016 year 2017-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light HDV................................................... 388 373
Medium HDV.................................................. 234 225
Heavy HDV................................................... 226 222
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) [Reserved]
(d) You may generate or use emission credits for averaging,
banking, and trading to demonstrate compliance with the standards in
paragraph (b) of this section as described in subpart H of this part.
This requires that you specify a Family Emission Limit (FEL) for
CO2 for each vehicle subfamily. The FEL may not be less than
the result of emission modeling from Sec. 1037.520. These FELs serve
as the emission standards for the vehicle subfamily instead of the
standards specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) The exhaust emission standards of this section apply for the
full useful life, expressed in service miles or calendar years,
whichever comes first. The following useful life values apply for the
standards of this section:
(1) 150,000 miles or 15 years, whichever comes first, for Light
HDV.
(2) 185,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for Medium
HDV.
(3) 435,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for Heavy
HDV.
(f) See Sec. 1037.631 for provisions that exempt certain vehicles
used in off-road operation from the standards of this section.
(g) You may optionally certify a vocational vehicle to the
standards and useful life applicable to a heavier vehicle service class
(such as Medium HDV instead of Light HDV). Provisions related to
generating emission credits apply as follows:
(1) If you certify all your vehicles from a given vehicle service
class in a given model year to the standards and useful life that
applies for a heavier vehicle service class, you may generate credits
as appropriate for the heavier service class.
(2) Class 8 hybrid vehicles with Light HDE or Medium HDE may be
certified to compression-ignition standards for the Heavy HDV service
class. You may generate and use credits as allowed for the Heavy HDV
service class.
(3) Except as specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this
section, you may not generate credits with the vehicle. If you include
lighter vehicles in a subfamily of heavier vehicles with an FEL below
the standard, exclude the production volume of lighter vehicles from
the credit calculation. Conversely, if you include lighter vehicles in
a subfamily with an FEL above the standard, you must include the
production volume of lighter vehicles in the credit calculation.
(h) You may optionally certify certain vocational vehicles to
alternative standards as specified in this paragraph (h) instead of the
standards specified in paragraph (b) of this section. You may apply the
provisions in this paragraph (h) to any qualifying vehicles even though
these standards were established for custom-chassis vehicles. For
example, large, diversified vehicle manufacturers may certify vehicles
to the refuse hauler standards of this section as long as the
manufacturer ensures that those vehicles qualify as refuse haulers when
placed into service. GEM simulates vehicle operation for each type of
vehicle based on an assigned vehicle service class, independent of the
vehicle's actual characteristics, as specified in Sec. 1037.140(g)(7);
however, standards apply for the vehicle's useful life based on its
actual characteristics as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
Vehicles certified to the standards in this paragraph (h) must include
the following statement on the emission control label: ``THIS VEHICLE
WAS CERTIFIED AS A [identify vehicle type as identified in this
section] UNDER 40 CFR 1037.105(h)].'' These custom-chassis provisions
apply as follows:
(1) The following alternative emission standards apply by vehicle
type and model year as follows:
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section,
CO2 standards apply for model year 2021 and later custom-
chassis vehicles as shown in the following tables:
[[Page 29769]]
Table 6 of Paragraph (h)(1)(i) of Sec. 1037.105--Custom-Chassis Standards School Buses, Other Buses, and
Refuse Haulers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 standard by custom-chassis vehicle type (g/
ton[middot]mile)
Phase Model year -----------------------------------------------
School bus Other bus Refuse hauler
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2..................................... 2021-2026............... 291 300 313
3..................................... 2027.................... 236 286 298
2028.................... 228 286 283
2029.................... 220 249 268
2030.................... 211 243 253
2031.................... 187 220 250
2032 and later.......... 163 200 250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 of Paragraph (h)(1)(i) of Sec. 1037.105--Custom-Chassis Standards for Motor Homes, Coach Buses, Concrete Mixers, Mixed-Use Vehicles, and
Emergency Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 standard by custom-chassis vehicle type (g/ton[middot]mile)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase Model year Mixed-use Emergency
Motor home Coach bus Concrete mixer vehicle vehicle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2......................................... 2021-2026................... 228 210 319 319 324
3......................................... 2027 and later.............. 226 205 316 316 319
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) For qualifying small manufacturers, Phase 2 CO2
standards apply for model year 2027 and later custom-chassis vehicles
instead of the standards specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this
section.
Table 8 of Paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of Sec. 1037.105-- Small Manufacturer
Phase 2 CO2 Standards for Model Year 2027 and Later Custom-Chassis
Vocational Vehicles
[g/ton-mile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 standard
Vehicle type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School bus.............................................. 271
Motor home.............................................. 226
Coach bus............................................... 205
Other bus............................................... 286
Refuse hauler........................................... 298
Concrete mixer.......................................... 316
Mixed-use vehicle....................................... 316
Emergency vehicle....................................... 319
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Vehicle types identified in this paragraph (h)(1) are
generally defined in Sec. 1037.801. ``Other bus'' includes any bus
that is not a school bus or a coach bus. A ``mixed-use vehicle'' is one
that meets at least one of the criteria specified in Sec.
1037.631(a)(1) or (2).
(2) You may generate or use emission credits for averaging to
demonstrate compliance with the alternative standards as described in
subpart H of this part. This requires that you specify a Family
Emission Limit (FEL) for CO2 for each vehicle subfamily. The
FEL may not be less than the result of emission modeling as described
in Sec. 1037.520. These FELs serve as the emission standards for the
vehicle subfamily instead of the standards specified in this paragraph
(h). Calculate credits using the equation in Sec. 1037.705(b) with the
standard payload for the assigned vehicle service class and the useful
life identified in paragraph (e) of this section. Each separate vehicle
type identified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section (or group of
vehicle types identified in a single row) represents a separate
averaging set. You may not use averaging for vehicles meeting standards
under paragraphs (h)(5) through (7) of this section, and you may not
bank or trade emission credits from any vehicles certified under this
paragraph (h).
(3) [Reserved]
(4) For purposes of emission modeling under Sec. 1037.520,
consider motor homes and coach buses to be subject to the Regional duty
cycle, and consider all other vehicles to be subject to the Urban duty
cycle.
(5) Emergency vehicles are deemed to comply with the standards of
this paragraph (h) if they use tires with TRRL at or below 8.4 N/kN
(8.7 N/kN for model years 2021 through 2026).
(6) Concrete mixers and mixed-use vehicles are deemed to comply
with the standards of this paragraph (h) if they use tires with TRRL at
or below 7.1 N/kN (7.6 N/kN for model years 2021 through 2026).
(7) Motor homes are deemed to comply with the standards of this
paragraph (h) if they have tires with TRRL at or below 6.0 N/kN (6.7 N/
kN for model years 2021 through 2026) and automatic tire inflation
systems or tire pressure monitoring systems with wheels on all axles.
(8) Vehicles certified to standards under this paragraph (h) must
use engines certified under 40 CFR part 1036 for the appropriate model
year, except that motor homes and emergency
[[Page 29770]]
vehicles may use engines certified with the loose-engine provisions of
Sec. 1037.150(m). This paragraph (h)(8) also applies for vehicles
meeting standards under paragraphs (h)(5) through (7) of this section.
0
57. Amend Sec. 1037.106 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraph (b);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (c); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (f)(2).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1037.106 CO2 emission standards for tractors above 26,000 pounds
GVWR.
* * * * *
(b) CO2 standards in this paragraph (b) apply based on
modeling and testing as described in subpart F of this part. The
provisions of Sec. 1037.241 specify how to comply with the standards
in this paragraph (b). Note that Sec. 1037.230 describes how to divide
vehicles into subcategories.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, model
year 2027 and later tractors are subject to Phase 3 CO2
standards corresponding to the selected subcategories as shown in the
following table:
Table 1 of Paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 1037.106--Phase 3 CO2 Standards for Model Year 2027 and Later Tractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 standard by regulatory subcategory (g/ton[middot]mile)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Roof height Class 7 all Class 8 day Class 8
cab styles cab sleeper cab Heavy-haul
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.......................... Low Roof........ 96.2 73.4 64.1 48.3
Mid Roof........ 103.4 78.0 69.6
High Roof....... 100.0 75.7 64.3
2028.......................... Low Roof........ 88.5 67.5 64.1 48.3
Mid Roof........ 95.1 71.8 69.6
High Roof....... 92.0 69.6 64.3
2029.......................... Low Roof........ 84.7 64.6 64.1 47.8
Mid Roof........ 91.0 68.6 69.6
High Roof....... 88.0 66.6 64.3
2030.......................... Low Roof........ 80.8 61.7 60.3 47.8
Mid Roof........ 86.9 65.5 65.4
High Roof....... 84.0 63.6 60.4
2031.......................... Low Roof........ 69.3 52.8 56.4 46.9
Mid Roof........ 74.4 56.2 61.2
High Roof....... 72.0 54.5 56.6
2032 and Later................ Low Roof........ 57.7 44.0 48.1 45.9
Mid Roof........ 62.0 46.8 52.2
High Roof....... 60.0 45.4 48.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Qualifying small manufacturers of model year 2027 and later
vehicles may continue to meet Phase 2 CO2 standards in this
paragraph (b)(2) instead of the standards specified in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section. If you certify to these Phase 2 CO2
standards, you may use the averaging provisions of subpart H of this
part to demonstrate compliance. You may use other credit provisions of
this part only by certifying all vehicle families within a given
averaging set to the Phase 3 standards that apply in that model year.
Table 2 of Paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 1037.106--Small Manufacturer CO2
Standards for Model Year 2027 and Later Tractors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 2 CO2
Subcategory standards (g/
ton[middot]mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 7 Low-Roof (all cab styles)..................... 96.2
Class 7 Mid-Roof (all cab styles)..................... 103.4
Class 7 High-Roof (all cab styles).................... 100.0
Class 8 Low-Roof Day Cab.............................. 73.4
Class 8 Low-Roof Sleeper Cab.......................... 64.1
Class 8 Mid-Roof Day Cab.............................. 78.0
Class 8 Mid-Roof Sleeper Cab.......................... 69.6
Class 8 High-Roof Day Cab............................. 75.7
Class 8 High-Roof Sleeper Cab......................... 64.3
Heavy-Haul Tractors................................... 48.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Model year 2026 and earlier tractors are subject to
CO2 standards corresponding to the selected subcategory as
shown in the following table:
[[Page 29771]]
Table 3 of Paragraph (b)(3) of Sec. 1037.106--CO2 Standards for Model Year 2026 and Earlier Tractors
[g/ton-mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 2
standards for standards for standards for standards for
Subcategory model years model years model years model years
2014-2016 2017-2020 2021-2023 2024-2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 7 Low-Roof (all cab styles)........... 107 104 105.5 99.8
Class 7 Mid-Roof (all cab styles)........... 119 115 113.2 107.1
Class 7 High-Roof (all cab styles).......... 124 120 113.5 106.6
Class 8 Low-Roof Day Cab.................... 81 80 80.5 76.2
Class 8 Low-Roof Sleeper Cab................ 68 66 72.3 68.0
Class 8 Mid-Roof Day Cab.................... 88 86 85.4 80.9
Class 8 Mid-Roof Sleeper Cab................ 76 73 78.0 73.5
Class 8 High-Roof Day Cab................... 92 89 85.6 80.4
Class 8 High-Roof Sleeper Cab............... 75 72 75.7 70.7
Heavy-Haul Tractors......................... ............... ............... 52.4 50.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) You may optionally certify Class 7 tractors not covered by
paragraph (f)(1) of this section to the standards and useful life for
Class 8 tractors. This paragraph (f)(2) applies equally for hybrid
vehicles, battery electric vehicles, and fuel cell electric vehicles.
Credit provisions apply as follows:
(i) If you certify all your Class 7 tractors to Class 8 standards,
you may use these Heavy HDV credits without restriction.
(ii) This paragraph (f)(2)(ii) applies if you certify some Class 7
tractors to Class 8 standards under this paragraph (f)(2) but not all
of them. If you include Class 7 tractors in a subfamily of Class 8
tractors with an FEL below the standard, exclude the production volume
of Class 7 tractors from the credit calculation. Conversely, if you
include Class 7 tractors in a subfamily of Class 8 tractors with an FEL
above the standard, you must include the production volume of Class 7
tractors in the credit calculation.
* * * * *
Sec. 1037.107 [Removed]
0
58. Remove Sec. 1037.107.
0
59. Amend Sec. 1037.115 by revising paragraphs (a) and (e)(1) and
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.115 Other requirements.
* * * * *
(a) Adjustable parameters. Vehicles that have adjustable parameters
must meet all the requirements of this part for any adjustment in the
practically adjustable range. We may require that you set adjustable
parameters to any specification within the practically adjustable range
during any testing. See 40 CFR 1068.50 for general provisions related
to adjustable parameters. You must ensure safe vehicle operation
throughout the practically adjustable range of each adjustable
parameter, including consideration of production tolerances. Note that
adjustable roof fairings are deemed not to be adjustable parameters.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) This paragraph (e) is intended to address air conditioning
systems for which the primary purpose is to cool the driver
compartment. This would generally include all cab-complete pickups and
vans. Similarly, it does not apply for self-contained air conditioning
used to cool passengers or refrigeration units used to cool cargo on
vocational vehicles. For purposes of this paragraph (e), a self-
contained system is an enclosed unit with its own evaporator and
condenser even if it draws power from the engine.
* * * * *
(f) Battery durability monitor. Model year 2030 and later battery
electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles must meet the
following requirements to estimate and monitor usable battery energy
for batteries serving as Rechargeable Energy Storage Systems:
(1) Create a customer-accessible system that monitors and displays
the vehicle's State of Certified Energy (SOCE) with an accuracy of
5%. Display the SOCE from paragraph (f)(2) of this section
as a percentage expressed to the nearest whole number. Update the
display as needed to reflect the current value of SOCE.
(2) Determine SOCE using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.212
Eq. 1037.115-1
Where:
UBE = usable battery energy as determined in paragraph (f)(3) or (4)
of this section, where certified refers to the value established for
certification and aged refers to the current value as the battery
ages.
V = battery voltage.
t = the time for the test, running from time zero to the end point
when the battery is not able to maintain the target power.
I = battery current.
(3) For battery electric vehicles, ask us to approve a procedure
you develop to determine UBE that meets the following requirements:
(i) Measure UBE by discharging the battery at a constant power that
is representative of the vehicle cruising on the highway. For many HDV,
the power to cruise on the highway would result in a C-rate between \1/
6\ C and \1/2\ C. Where C-rate is a measure of the rate at which a
battery is discharged or charged relative to its maximum capacity and
has units of inverse hours. For example, at a 2 C discharge rate, it
would take 0.5 hours to fully discharge a battery. For
[[Page 29772]]
test procedures that involve driving a vehicle, you may discharge the
battery at variable rates until the last portion of the test,
consistent with good engineering judgment.
(ii) The test is complete when the battery is not able to maintain
the target power.
(iii) Use the same procedure for measuring certified and aged UBE.
(iv) Measurements to determine power must meet the requirements in
40 CFR 1036.545(a)(10).
(4) For plug-hybrid electric vehicles, determine UBE as described
in 40 CFR 1036.545(p), or you may use a procedure that meets the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
0
60. Amend Sec. 1037.120 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.120 Emission-related warranty requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Warranty period. (1) Your emission-related warranty must be
valid for at least:
(i) 5 years or 50,000 miles for Light HDV (except tires).
(ii) 5 years or 100,000 miles for Medium HDV and Heavy HDV (except
tires).
(iii) 2 years or 24,000 miles for tires.
(2) You may offer an emission-related warranty more generous than
we require. The emission-related warranty for the vehicle may not be
shorter than any basic mechanical warranty you provide to that owner
without charge for the vehicle. Similarly, the emission-related
warranty for any component may not be shorter than any warranty you
provide to that owner without charge for that component. This means
that your warranty for a given vehicle may not treat emission-related
and nonemission-related defects differently for any component. The
warranty period begins when the vehicle is placed into service.
(c) Components covered. The emission-related warranty covers tires,
automatic tire inflation systems, tire pressure monitoring systems,
vehicle speed limiters, idle-reduction systems, devices added to the
vehicle to improve aerodynamic performance (not including standard
components such as hoods or mirrors even if they have been optimized
for aerodynamics) to the extent such emission-related components are
included in your application for certification. The emission-related
warranty similarly covers fuel cell stacks, RESS, and other components
used with hybrid systems, battery electric vehicles, and fuel cell
electric vehicles. The emission-related warranty also covers other
added emission-related components to the extent they are included in
your application for certification, and any other components whose
failure would increase a vehicle's CO2 emissions. The
emission-related warranty covers all components whose failure would
increase a vehicle's emissions of air conditioning refrigerants (for
vehicles subject to air conditioning leakage standards), and it covers
all components whose failure would increase a vehicle's evaporative and
refueling emissions (for vehicles subject to evaporative and refueling
emission standards). The emission-related warranty covers components
that are part of your certified configuration even if another company
produces the component.
* * * * *
0
61. Amend Sec. 1037.130 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.130 Assembly instructions for secondary vehicle
manufacturers.
(a) If you sell a certified incomplete vehicle to a secondary
vehicle manufacturer, give the secondary vehicle manufacturer
instructions for completing vehicle assembly consistent with the
requirements of this part. Include all information necessary to ensure
that the final vehicle assembly (including the engine) will be in its
certified configuration.
* * * * *
0
62. Amend Sec. 1037.135 by revising paragraph (c)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.135 Labeling.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(6) For Phase 1 vehicles, identify the emission control system. Use
terms and abbreviations as described in appendix C to this part or
other applicable conventions.
* * * * *
0
63. Amend Sec. 1037.140 by revising paragraphs (c) and (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.140 Classifying vehicles and determining vehicle
parameters.
* * * * *
(c) Base a standard trailer's length on the outer dimensions of the
load-carrying structure. Do not include aerodynamic devices or HVAC
units.
* * * * *
(g) The standards and other provisions of this part apply to
specific vehicle service classes as follows:
(1) Tractors are divided based on GVWR into Class 7 tractors and
Class 8 tractors. Where provisions of this part apply to both tractors
and vocational vehicles, Class 7 tractors are considered ``Medium HDV''
and Class 8 tractors are considered ``Heavy HDV''. This paragraph
(g)(1) applies for hybrid and non-hybrid vehicles.
(2) Phase 1 vocational vehicles are divided based on GVWR. ``Light
HDV'' includes Class 2b through Class 5 vehicles; ``Medium HDV''
includes Class 6 and Class 7 vehicles; and ``Heavy HDV'' includes Class
8 vehicles.
(3) Phase 2 and later vocational vehicles propelled by engines
subject to the spark-ignition standards of 40 CFR part 1036 are divided
as follows:
(i) Class 2b through Class 5 vehicles are considered ``Light HDV''.
(ii) Class 6 through Class 8 vehicles are considered ``Medium
HDV''.
(4) Phase 2 and later vocational vehicles propelled by engines
subject to the compression-ignition standards in 40 CFR part 1036 are
divided as follows:
(i) Class 2b through Class 5 vehicles are considered ``Light HDV''.
(ii) Class 6 through 8 vehicles are considered ``Heavy HDV'' if the
installed engine's primary intended service class is Heavy HDE (see 40
CFR 1036.140), except that Class 8 hybrid vehicles are considered
``Heavy HDV'' regardless of the engine's primary intended service
class.
(iii) All other Class 6 through Class 8 vehicles are considered
``Medium HDV''.
(5) Heavy-duty vehicles with no installed propulsion engine, such
as battery electric vehicles, are divided as follows:
(i) Class 2b through Class 5 vehicles are considered ``Light HDV''.
(ii) Class 6 and 7 vehicles are considered ``Medium HDV''.
(iii) Class 8 vehicles are considered ``Heavy HDV''.
(6) In certain circumstances, you may certify vehicles to standards
that apply for a different vehicle service class. For example, see
Sec. Sec. 1037.105(g) and 1037.106(f). If you optionally certify
vehicles to different standards, those vehicles are subject to all the
regulatory requirements as if the standards were mandatory.
(7) Vehicles meeting the custom-chassis standards of Sec.
1037.105(h)(1) are subject to the following vehicle service classes
instead of the other provisions in this section:
(i) School buses and motor homes are considered ``Medium HDV''.
(ii) All other custom-chassis are considered ``Heavy HDV''.
* * * * *
0
64. Revise and republish Sec. 1037.150 to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.150 Interim provisions.
The provisions in this section apply instead of other provisions in
this part.
[[Page 29773]]
(a) Incentives for early introduction. The provisions of this
paragraph (a) apply with respect to vehicles produced in model years
before 2014. Manufacturers may voluntarily certify in model year 2013
(or earlier model years for electric vehicles) to the greenhouse gas
standards of this part.
(1) This paragraph (a)(1) applies for regulatory subcategories
subject to the standards of Sec. 1037.105 or Sec. 1037.106. Except as
specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, to generate early
credits under this paragraph (a)(1) for any vehicles other than
electric vehicles, you must certify your entire U.S.-directed
production volume within the regulatory subcategory to the standards of
Sec. 1037.105 or Sec. 1037.106. Except as specified in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section, if some vehicle families within a regulatory
subcategory are certified after the start of the model year, you may
generate credits only for production that occurs after all families are
certified. For example, if you produce three vehicle families in an
averaging set and you receive your certificates for those families on
January 4, 2013, March 15, 2013, and April 24, 2013, you may not
generate credits for model year 2013 production in any of the families
that occurs before April 24, 2013. Calculate credits relative to the
standard that would apply in model year 2014 using the equations in
subpart H of this part. You may bank credits equal to the surplus
credits you generate under this paragraph (a) multiplied by 1.50. For
example, if you have 1.0 Mg of surplus credits for model year 2013, you
may bank 1.5 Mg of credits. Credit deficits for an averaging set prior
to model year 2014 do not carry over to model year 2014. These credits
may be used to show compliance with the standards of this part for 2014
and later model years. We recommend that you notify EPA of your intent
to use this paragraph (a)(1) before submitting your applications.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) You may generate emission credits for the number of additional
SmartWay designated tractors (relative to your 2012 production),
provided you do not generate credits for those vehicles under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section. Calculate credits for each regulatory
subcategory relative to the standard that would apply in model year
2014 using the equations in subpart H of this part. Use a production
volume equal to the number of designated model year 2013 SmartWay
tractors minus the number of designated model year 2012 SmartWay
tractors. You may bank credits equal to the surplus credits you
generate under this paragraph (a)(3) multiplied by 1.50. Your 2012 and
2013 model years must be equivalent in length.
(4) This paragraph (a)(4) applies where you do not receive your
final certificate in a regulatory subcategory within 30 days of
submitting your final application for that subcategory. Calculate your
credits for all production that occurs 30 days or more after you submit
your final application for the subcategory.
(b) Phase 1 coastdown procedures. For tractors subject to Phase 1
standards under Sec. 1037.106, the default method for measuring drag
area (CdA) is the coastdown procedure specified in 40 CFR
part 1066, subpart D. This includes preparing the tractor and the
standard trailer with wheels meeting specifications of Sec.
1037.528(b) and submitting information related to your coastdown
testing under Sec. 1037.528(h).
(c) Small manufacturers. The following provisions apply for
qualifying small manufacturers:
(1) The greenhouse gas standards of Sec. Sec. 1037.105 and
1037.106 are optional for small manufacturers producing vehicles with a
date of manufacture before January 1, 2022. In addition, small
manufacturers producing vehicles that run on any fuel other than
gasoline, E85, or diesel fuel may delay complying with every later
standard under this part by one model year.
(2) Qualifying manufacturers must notify the Designated Compliance
Officer each model year before introducing excluded vehicles into U.S.
commerce. This notification must include a description of the
manufacturer's qualification as a small business under 13 CFR 121.201.
Manufacturers must label excluded vehicles with the following
statement: ``THIS VEHICLE IS EXCLUDED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.150(c).''
(3) Small manufacturers may meet Phase 1 standards instead of Phase
2 standards in the first year Phase 2 standards apply to them if they
voluntarily comply with the Phase 1 standards for the full preceding
year. Specifically, small manufacturers may certify their model year
2022 vehicles to the Phase 1 greenhouse gas standards of Sec. Sec.
1037.105 and 1037.106 if they certify all the vehicles from their
annual production volume included in emission credit calculations for
the Phase 1 standards starting on or before January 1, 2021.
(4) See paragraphs (r), (t), (u), and (w) of this section for
additional allowances for small manufacturers.
(d) Air conditioning leakage for vocational vehicles. The air
conditioning leakage standard of Sec. 1037.115 does not apply for
model year 2020 and earlier vocational vehicles.
(e) Delegated assembly. The delegated-assembly provisions of Sec.
1037.621 do not apply before January 1, 2018.
(f) Testing exemption for qualifying vehicles. Tailpipe
CO2 emissions from battery electric vehicles, fuel cell
electric vehicles, and vehicles with engines fueled with neat hydrogen
are deemed to be zero. No CO2-related testing is required
under this part for these vehicles.
(g) Compliance date. Compliance with the standards of this part was
optional prior to January 1, 2014. This means that if your 2014 model
year begins before January 1, 2014, you may certify for a partial model
year that begins on January 1, 2014, and ends on the day your model
year would normally end. You must label model year 2014 vehicles
excluded under this paragraph (g) with the following statement: ``THIS
VEHICLE IS EXCLUDED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.150(g).''
(h) Off-road vehicle exemption. (1) Vocational vehicles with a date
of manufacture before January 1, 2021, automatically qualify for an
exemption under Sec. 1037.631 if the tires installed on the vehicle
have a maximum speed rating at or below 55 miles per hour.
(2) In unusual circumstances, vehicle manufacturers may ask us to
exempt vehicles under Sec. 1037.631 based on other criteria that are
equivalent to those specified in Sec. 1037.631(a); however, we will
normally not grant relief in cases where the vehicle manufacturer has
credits or can otherwise comply with applicable standards. Request
approval for an exemption under this paragraph (h) before you produce
the subject vehicles. Send your request with supporting information to
the Designated Compliance Officer; we will coordinate with NHTSA in
making a determination under Sec. 1037.210. If you introduce into U.S.
commerce vehicles that depend on our approval under this paragraph (h)
before we inform you of our approval, those vehicles violate 40 CFR
1068.101(a)(1).
(i) Limited carryover from Phase 1 to Phase 2. The provisions for
carryover data in Sec. 1037.235(d) do not allow you to use aerodynamic
test results from Phase 1 to support a compliance demonstration for
Phase 2 certification.
(j) Limited prohibition related to early model year engines. The
provisions of this paragraph (j) apply only for vehicles that have a
date of manufacture before January 1, 2018. See Sec. 1037.635 for
related provisions that apply in later model years. The prohibition in
Sec. 1037.601 against introducing into U.S.
[[Page 29774]]
commerce a vehicle containing an engine not certified to the standards
applicable for the calendar year of installation does not apply for
vehicles using model year 2014 or 2015 spark-ignition engines, or any
model year 2013 or earlier engines.
(k) Verifying drag areas from in-use tractors. This paragraph (k)
applies for tractors instead of Sec. 1037.401(b) through model year
2020. We may measure the drag area of your vehicles after they have
been placed into service. To account for measurement variability, your
vehicle is deemed to conform to the regulations of this part with
respect to aerodynamic performance if we measure its drag area to be at
or below the maximum drag area allowed for the bin above the bin to
which you certified (for example, Bin II if you certified the vehicle
to Bin III), unless we determine that you knowingly produced the
vehicle to have a higher drag area than is allowed for the bin to which
it was certified.
(l) Optional certification to GHG standards under 40 CFR part 86.
The greenhouse gas standards in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, may apply
instead of the standards of Sec. 1037.105 as follows:
(1) Complete or cab-complete vehicles may optionally meet
alternative standards as described in 40 CFR 86.1819-14(j).
(2) Complete high-GCWR vehicles must meet the greenhouse gas
standards of 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, as described in 40 CFR
1036.635.
(3) Incomplete high-GCWR vehicles may meet the greenhouse gas
standards of 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, as described in 40 CFR
1036.635.
(m) Loose engine sales. Manufacturers may certify certain spark-
ignition engines along with chassis-certified heavy-duty vehicles where
they are identical to engines used in those vehicles as described in 40
CFR 86.1819-14(k)(8). Vehicles in which those engines are installed are
subject to standards under this part as specified in Sec. 1037.105.
(n) Transition to engine-based model years. The following
provisions apply for production and ABT reports during the transition
to engine-based model year determinations for vehicles in 2020 and
2021:
(1) If you install model year 2020 or earlier engines in your
vehicles in calendar year 2020, include all those Phase 1 vehicles in
your production and ABT reports related to model year 2020 compliance,
although we may require you identify these separately from vehicles
produced in calendar year 2019.
(2) If you install model year 2020 engines in your vehicles in
calendar year 2021, submit production and ABT reports for those Phase 1
vehicles separate from the reports you submit for Phase 2 vehicles with
model year 2021 engines.
(o) Interim useful life for light heavy-duty vocational vehicles.
Class 2b through Class 5 vocational vehicles certified to Phase 1
standards are subject to a useful life of 110,000 miles or 10 years,
whichever comes first, instead of the useful life specified in Sec.
1037.105. For emission credits generated from these Phase 1 vehicles,
multiply any banked credits that you carry forward to demonstrate
compliance with Phase 2 standards by 1.36.
(p) Credit multiplier for advanced technology. The following
provisions describe how you may generate and use credits from vehicles
certified with advanced technology:
(1) You may calculate credits you generate from vehicles certified
with advanced technology as follows:
(i) For Phase 1 vehicles, multiply the credits by 1.50, except that
you may not apply this multiplier in addition to the early-credit
multiplier of paragraph (a) of this section.
(ii) For model year 2026 and earlier Phase 2 vehicles, apply
multipliers of 3.5 for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, 4.5 for
battery electric vehicles, and 5.5 for fuel cell electric vehicles.
Calculate credits relative to the Phase 2 standard.
(iii) For Phase 3 vehicles, the advanced-technology multipliers
described in paragraph (p)(1)(ii) of this section apply only in model
year 2027. Calculate credits relative to the Phase 3 standard.
(2) You may use credit quantities described in paragraphs (p)(1)(i)
and (ii) of this section through model year 2026. The following
provisions apply for advanced technology credits starting in model year
2027:
(i) Quantify accumulated credit balances in each model year that
result from multiplier credit values. For example, if BEV earns 100 Mg
of CO2 credits that become 450 Mg of credits when
multiplied, the base credit value is 100 Mg and the multiplier credit
value is 350 Mg. Provide a detailed accounting of base and multiplier
credits in your annual ABT reports for the relevant model years.
(ii) For each vehicle family, calculate a credit quantity with no
consideration of credit multipliers. Sum these credit quantities for
every family within a given averaging set.
(iii) Apply available credits in the following priority order as
long as the summed credit quantity is negative.
(A) Base credits banked or traded within the same averaging set.
(B) Base credits earned in the same model year from other averaging
sets as specified in paragraph (z) of this section.
(C) Base credits from other averaging sets as specified in
paragraph (z) of this section that are banked or traded.
(D) Multiplier credits within the same averaging set for the same
model year.
(E) Multiplier credits banked or traded within the same averaging
set.
(F) Multiplier credits earned in the same model year from other
averaging sets as specified in paragraph (z) of this section.
(G) Multiplier credits from other averaging sets as specified in
paragraph (z) of this section that are banked or traded.
(iv) You may no longer use multiplier credits for certifying model
year 2030 and later vehicles.
(v) Credit provisions not addressed in this paragraph (p)(2), such
as limitations on credit life and credit trading, continue to apply as
specified. Note the following:
(A) Unlike multiplier credits, the life of base credits is not
limited under this paragraph (p)(2).
(B) You may apply multiplier credits without the restrictions
described in this paragraph (p)(2) to resolve a deficit that remains
from complying with Phase 2 standards in model years 2026 and earlier.
(q) Vehicle families for advanced and off-cycle technologies. Apply
the following provisions for grouping vehicles into families if you use
off-cycle technologies under Sec. 1037.610 or advanced technologies
under Sec. 1037.615:
(1) For Phase 1 vehicles, create separate vehicle families for
vehicles that contain advanced or off-cycle technologies; group those
vehicles together in a vehicle family if they use the same advanced or
off-cycle technologies.
(2) For Phase 2 and Phase 3 vehicles, create separate vehicle
subfamilies for vehicles that contain advanced or off-cycle
technologies; group those vehicles together in a vehicle subfamily if
they use the same advanced or off-cycle technologies.
(r) Conversion to mid- roof and high-roof configurations. Secondary
vehicle manufacturers that qualify as small manufacturers may convert
low- and mid-roof tractors to mid- and high-roof configurations without
recertification for the purpose of building a custom sleeper tractor or
converting it to run on natural gas, as follows:
[[Page 29775]]
(1) The original low- or mid-roof tractor must be covered by a
valid certificate of conformity.
(2) The modifications may not increase the frontal area of the
tractor beyond the frontal area of the equivalent mid- or high-roof
tractor with the corresponding standard trailer. Note that these
dimensions have a tolerance of 2 inches. Use good
engineering judgment to achieve aerodynamic performance similar to or
better than the certifying manufacturer's corresponding mid- or high-
roof tractor.
(3) Add a permanent supplemental label to the vehicle near the
original manufacturer's emission control information label. On the
label identify your full corporate name and include the following
statement: ``THIS VEHICLE WAS MODIFIED AS ALLOWED UNDER 40 CFR
1037.150.''
(4) We may require that you submit annual production reports as
described in Sec. 1037.250.
(5) Modifications made under this paragraph (r) do not violate 40
CFR 1068.101(b)(1).
(s) Confirmatory testing for Falt-aero. If we conduct
coastdown testing to verify your Falt-aero value for Phase 2
and later tractors, we will make our determination using the principles
of SEA testing in Sec. 1037.305. We will not replace your
Falt-aero value if the tractor passes. If your tractor
fails, we will generate a replacement value of Falt-aero
based on at least one CdA value and corresponding effective
yaw angle, [psi]eff, from a minimum of 100 valid runs using
the procedures of Sec. 1037.528(h). Note that we intend to minimize
the differences between our test conditions and those of the
manufacturer by testing at similar times of the year where possible and
the same location where possible and when appropriate.
(t) Glider kits and glider vehicles. (1) Glider vehicles conforming
to the requirements in this paragraph (t)(1) are exempt from the Phase
1 emission standards of this part 1037 prior to January 1, 2021.
Engines in such vehicles (including vehicles produced after January 1,
2021) remain subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 86 applicable
for the engines' original model year, but not subject to the Phase 1 or
Phase 2 standards of 40 CFR part 1036 unless they were originally
manufactured in model year 2014 or later.
(i) You are eligible for the exemption in this paragraph (t)(1) if
you are a small manufacturer and you sold one or more glider vehicles
in 2014 under the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section. You do
not qualify if you only produced glider vehicles for your own use. You
must notify us of your plans to use this exemption before you introduce
exempt vehicles into U.S. commerce. In your notification, you must
identify your annual U.S.-directed production volume (and sales, if
different) of such vehicles for calendar years 2010 through 2014.
Vehicles you produce before notifying us are not exempt under this
section.
(ii) In a given calendar year, you may produce up to 300 exempt
vehicles under this section, or up to the highest annual production
volume you identify in this paragraph (t)(1), whichever is less.
(iii) Identify the number of exempt vehicles you produced under
this exemption for the preceding calendar year in your annual report
under Sec. 1037.250.
(iv) Include the appropriate statement on the label required under
Sec. 1037.135, as follows:
(A) For Phase 1 vehicles, ``THIS VEHICLE AND ITS ENGINE ARE EXEMPT
UNDER 40 CFR 1037.150(t)(1).''
(B) For Phase 2 vehicles, ``THE ENGINE IN THIS VEHICLE IS EXEMPT
UNDER 40 CFR 1037.150(t)(1).''
(v) If you produce your glider vehicle by installing remanufactured
or previously used components in a glider kit produced by another
manufacturer, you must provide the following to the glider kit
manufacturer prior to obtaining the glider kit:
(A) Your name, the name of your company, and contact information.
(B) A signed statement that you are a qualifying small manufacturer
and that your production will not exceed the production limits of this
paragraph (t)(1). This statement is deemed to be a submission to EPA,
and we may require the glider kit manufacturer to provide a copy to us
at any time.
(vi) The exemption in this paragraph (t)(1) is valid for a given
vehicle and engine only if you meet all the requirements and conditions
of this paragraph (t)(1) that apply with respect to that vehicle and
engine. Introducing such a vehicle into U.S. commerce without meeting
all applicable requirements and conditions violates 40 CFR
1068.101(a)(1).
(vii) Companies that are not small manufacturers may sell
uncertified incomplete vehicles without engines to small manufacturers
for the purpose of producing exempt vehicles under this paragraph
(t)(1), subject to the provisions of Sec. 1037.622. However, such
companies must take reasonable steps to ensure that their incomplete
vehicles will be used in conformance with the requirements of this
part.
(2) Glider vehicles produced using engines certified to model year
2010 or later standards for all pollutants are subject to the same
provisions that apply to vehicles using engines within their useful
life in Sec. 1037.635.
(3) For calendar year 2017, you may produce a limited number of
glider kits and/or glider vehicles subject to the requirements
applicable to model year 2016 glider vehicles, instead of the
requirements of Sec. 1037.635. The limit applies to your combined 2017
production of glider kits and glider vehicles and is equal to your
highest annual production of glider kits and glider vehicles for any
year from 2010 to 2014. Any glider kits or glider vehicles produced
beyond this cap are subject to the provisions of Sec. 1037.635. Count
any glider kits and glider vehicles you produce under paragraph (t)(1)
of this section as part of your production with respect to this
paragraph (t)(3).
(u) Transition to Phase 2 standards. The following provisions allow
for enhanced generation and use of emission credits from Phase 1
vehicles for meeting the Phase 2 standards:
(1) For vocational Light HDV and vocational Medium HDV, emission
credits you generate in model years 2018 through 2021 may be used
through model year 2027, instead of being limited to a five-year credit
life as specified in Sec. 1037.740(c). For Class 8 vocational vehicles
with Medium HDE, we will approve your request to generate these credits
in and use these credits for the Medium HDV averaging set if you show
that these vehicles would qualify as Medium HDV under the Phase 2
program as described in Sec. 1037.140(g)(4).
(2) You may use the off-cycle provisions of Sec. 1037.610 to apply
technologies to Phase 1 vehicles as follows:
(i) You may apply an improvement factor of 0.988 for vehicles with
automatic tire inflation systems on all axles.
(ii) For vocational vehicles with automatic engine shutdown systems
that conform with Sec. 1037.660, you may apply an improvement factor
of 0.95.
(iii) For vocational vehicles with stop-start systems that conform
with Sec. 1037.660, you may apply an improvement factor of 0.92.
(iv) For vocational vehicles with neutral-idle systems conforming
with Sec. 1037.660, you may apply an improvement factor of 0.98. You
may adjust this improvement factor if we approve a partial reduction
under Sec. 1037.660(a)(2); for example, if your design reduces fuel
consumption by half
[[Page 29776]]
as much as shifting to neutral, you may apply an improvement factor of
0.99.
(3) Small manufacturers may generate emission credits for natural
gas-fueled vocational vehicles as follows:
(i) Small manufacturers may certify their vehicles instead of
relying on the exemption of paragraph (c) of this section. The
provisions of this part apply for such vehicles, except as specified in
this paragraph (u)(3).
(ii) Use GEM version 2.0.1 to determine a CO2 emission
level for your vehicle, then multiply this value by the engine's Family
Certification Level for CO2 and divide by the engine's
applicable CO2 emission standard.
(4) Phase 1 vocational vehicle credits that small manufacturers
generate may be used through model year 2027.
(v) Constraints for vocational regulatory subcategories. The
following provisions apply to determinations of vocational regulatory
subcategories as described in Sec. 1037.140:
(1) Select the Regional regulatory subcategory for coach buses and
motor homes you certify under Sec. 1037.105(b).
(2) You may not select the Urban regulatory subcategory for any
vehicle with a manual or single-clutch automated manual transmission.
(3) Starting in model year 2024, you must select the Regional
regulatory subcategory for any vehicle with a manual transmission.
(4) You may select the Multi-purpose regulatory subcategory for any
vocational vehicle, except as specified in paragraph (v)(1) of this
section.
(5) You may select the Urban regulatory subcategory for a hybrid
vehicle equipped with regenerative braking, unless it is equipped with
a manual transmission.
(6) You may select the Urban regulatory subcategory for any vehicle
with a hydrokinetic torque converter paired with an automatic
transmission, or a continuously variable automatic transmission, or a
dual-clutch transmission with no more than two consecutive forward
gears between which it is normal for both clutches to be momentarily
disengaged.
(w) Custom-chassis standards for small manufacturers. The following
provisions apply uniquely to qualifying small manufacturers under the
custom-chassis standards of Sec. 1037.105(h):
(1) You may use emission credits generated under Sec. 1037.105(d),
including banked or traded credits from any averaging set. Such credits
remain subject to other limitations that apply under subpart H of this
part.
(2) You may produce up to 200 drayage tractors in a given model
year to the standards described in Sec. 1037.105(h) for ``other
buses''. The limit in this paragraph (w)(2) applies with respect to
vehicles produced by you and your affiliated companies. Treat these
drayage tractors as being in their own averaging set.
(x) Transition to updated GEM. (1) Vehicle manufacturers may
demonstrate compliance with Phase 2 greenhouse gas standards in model
years 2021 through 2023 using GEM Phase 2, Version 3.0, Version 3.5.1,
or Version 4.0 (all incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1037.810).
Manufacturers may change to a different version of GEM for model years
2022 and 2023 for a given vehicle family after initially submitting an
application for certification; such a change must be documented as an
amendment under Sec. 1037.225. Manufacturers may submit an end-of-year
report for model year 2021 using any of the three regulatory versions
of GEM, but only for demonstrating compliance with the custom-chassis
standards in Sec. 1037.105(h); such a change must be documented in the
report submitted under Sec. 1037.730. Once a manufacturer certifies a
vehicle family based on GEM Version 4.0, it may not revert back to
using GEM Phase 2, Version 3.0 or Version 3.5.1 for that vehicle family
in any model year.
(2) Vehicle manufacturers may certify for model years 2021 through
2023 based on fuel maps from engines or powertrains that were created
using GEM Phase 2, Version 3.0, Version 3.5.1, or Version 4.0 (all
incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1037.810). Vehicle manufacturers
may alternatively certify in those years based on fuel maps from
powertrains that were created using GEM Phase 2, Version 3.0, GEM HIL
model 3.8, or GEM Phase 2, Version 4.0 (all incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 1037.810). Vehicle manufacturers may continue to certify
vehicles in later model years using fuel maps generated with earlier
versions of GEM for model year 2024 and later vehicle families that
qualify for using carryover provisions in Sec. 1037.235(d).
(y) Correcting credit calculations. If you notify us by October 1,
2024, that errors mistakenly decreased your balance of emission credits
for 2020 or any earlier model years, you may correct the errors and
recalculate the balance of emission credits after applying a 10 percent
discount to the credit correction.
(z) Credit exchanges across averaging sets for certain vehicles.
The provisions of this paragraph (z) apply for credits generated from
model year 2026 and earlier vehicles certified with advanced technology
under this part. The provisions of this paragraph (z) also apply for
credits generated from model year 2027 through 2032 vehicles, as
follows:
(1) Credits generated under this part may be used through model
year 2032 for any of the averaging sets identified in Sec.
1037.740(a).
(2) Credits generated from vehicles certified to the standards in
40 CFR 86.1819-14 may be used through model year 2032 to demonstrate
compliance with the CO2 emission standards for Light HDV or
Medium HDV in this part.
(3) The following provisions apply for redesignating credits for
use in different averaging sets:
(i) The restrictions that apply for trading credits under Sec.
1037.720 also apply for redesignating credits.
(ii) Send us a report by June 30 after model year to describe how
you are redesignating credits. Identify the averaging set and number of
credits generated from each vehicle family. Also identify the number of
redesignated emission credits you intend to apply for each averaging
set.
(4) You may trade redesignated credits as allowed under the
standard setting part. Credit provisions not addressed in this
paragraph (z), such as limitations on credit life and credit
multipliers for advanced technology, continue to apply as specified.
(aa) Warranty for advanced technologies. The emission-related
warranty requirements in Sec. 1037.120 are optional for fuel cell
stacks, RESS, and other components used with battery electric vehicles
and fuel cell electric vehicles before model year 2027.
0
65. Amend Sec. 1037.205 by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, (b)(6), (e), (o), and (q) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1037.205 What must I include in my application?
This section specifies the information that must be in your
application, unless we ask you to include less information under Sec.
1037.201(c). We may require you to provide additional information to
evaluate your application. References to testing and emission-data
vehicles refer to testing vehicles or components to measure any
quantity that serves as an input value for modeling emission rates
under Sec. 1037.520.
(a) Describe the vehicle family's specifications and other basic
parameters of the vehicle's design and emission controls. List the fuel
type on which your vehicles are designed to operate (for example,
ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel).
(b) Explain how the emission control system operates. As
applicable, describe in detail all system components for
[[Page 29777]]
controlling greenhouse gas emissions, including all auxiliary emission
control devices (AECDs) and all fuel-system components you will install
on any production vehicle. For any vehicle using RESS (such as hybrid
vehicles, fuel cell electric vehicles, and battery electric vehicles),
describe in detail all components needed to charge the system, store
energy, and transmit power to move the vehicle. Identify the part
number of each component you describe. For this paragraph (b), treat as
separate AECDs any devices that modulate or activate differently from
each other. Also describe your modeling inputs as described in Sec.
1037.520, with the following additional information if it applies for
your vehicles:
* * * * *
(6) If you perform powertrain testing under 40 CFR 1036.545, report
both CO2 and NOX emission levels corresponding to
each test run.
* * * * *
(e) Describe any test equipment and procedures that you used,
including any special or alternate test procedures you used (see Sec.
1037.501). Include information describing the procedures you used to
determine CdA values as specified in Sec. Sec. 1037.525 and
1037.527. Describe which type of data you are using for engine fuel
maps (see 40 CFR 1036.505).
* * * * *
(o) Report calculated and modeled emission results for ten
configurations. Include modeling inputs and detailed descriptions of
how they were derived. Unless we specify otherwise, include the
configuration with the highest modeling result, the lowest modeling
result, and the configurations with the highest projected sales.
* * * * *
(q) For battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles, describe the recharging procedures and methods for
determining battery performance, such as state of charge and charging
capacity. Also include the certified usable battery energy for each
battery durability subfamily.
* * * * *
Sec. 1037.211 [Removed]
0
66. Remove Sec. 1037.211.
0
67. Amend Sec. 1037.230 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
0
b. Removing paragraph (a)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(2) introductory text; and
0
d. Removing paragraph (d)(3).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1037.230 Vehicle families, sub-families, and configurations.
(a) * * *
(1) Apply subcategories for vocational vehicles and vocational
tractors as shown in table 1 of this section. This involves 15 separate
subcategories for Phase 2 and later vehicles to account for engine
characteristics, GVWR, and the selection of duty cycle for vocational
vehicles as specified in Sec. 1037.510; vehicles may additionally fall
into one of the subcategories defined by the custom-chassis standards
in Sec. 1037.105(h). Divide Phase 1 vehicles into three GVWR-based
vehicle service classes as shown in table 1 of this section,
disregarding additional specified characteristics. Table 1 follows:
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) For a Phase 2 or later vehicle model that includes a range of
GVWR values that straddle weight classes, you may include all the
vehicles in the same vehicle family if you certify the vehicle family
to the numerically lower CO2 emission standard from the
affected service classes. Vehicles that are optionally certified to a
more stringent standard under this paragraph (d)(2) are subject to
useful-life and all other provisions corresponding to the weight class
with the numerically lower CO2 emission standard. For a
Phase 2 or later tractor model that includes a range of roof heights
that straddle subcategories, you may include all the vehicles in the
same vehicle family if you certify the vehicle family to the
appropriate subcategory as follows:
* * * * *
0
68. Amend Sec. 1037.231 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.231 Powertrain families.
(a) If you choose to perform powertrain testing as specified in 40
CFR 1036.545, use good engineering judgment to divide your product line
into powertrain families that are expected to have similar fuel
consumptions and CO2 emission characteristics throughout the
useful life. Your powertrain family is limited to a single model year.
* * * * *
0
69. Amend Sec. 1037.235 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a) and (c)(3); and
0
b. Removing paragraph (g)(3).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1037.235 Testing requirements for certification.
This section describes the emission testing you must perform to
show compliance with respect to the greenhouse gas standards in subpart
B of this part, and to determine any input values from Sec. 1037.520
that involve measured quantities.
(a) Select emission-data vehicles that represent production
vehicles and components for the vehicle family consistent with the
specifications in Sec. Sec. 1037.205(o) and 1037.520. Where the test
results will represent multiple vehicles or components with different
emission performance, use good engineering judgment to select worst-
case emission data vehicles or components. In the case of powertrain
testing under 40 CFR 1036.545, select a test engine, test hybrid
components, test axle and test transmission as applicable, by
considering the whole range of vehicle models covered by the powertrain
family and the mix of duty cycles specified in Sec. 1037.510. If the
powertrain has more than one transmission calibration, for example
economy vs. performance, you may weight the results from the powertrain
testing in 40 CFR 1036.545 by the percentage of vehicles in the family
by prior model year for each configuration. This can be done, for
example, through the use of survey data or based on the previous model
year's sales volume. Weight the results of Mfuel[cycle],
fnpowertrain/vpowertrain, and W[cycle]
from table 5 to paragraph (o)(8)(i) of 40 CFR 1036.545 according to the
percentage of vehicles in the family that use each transmission
calibration.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Before we test one of your vehicles or components, we may set
its adjustable parameters to any point within the practically
adjustable ranges, if applicable.
* * * * *
0
70. Revise Sec. 1037.241 to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.241 Demonstrating compliance with exhaust emission
standards for greenhouse gas pollutants.
(a) Compliance determinations for purposes of certification depend
on whether or not you participate in the ABT program in subpart H of
this part.
(1) If none of your vehicle families generate or use emission
credits in a given model year, each of your vehicle families is
considered in compliance with the CO2 emission standards in
Sec. Sec. 1037.105 and 1037.106 if all vehicle configurations in the
family have modeled CO2 emission rates from Sec. 1037.520
that are at or below the applicable standards. A vehicle family is
deemed not to comply if any vehicle
[[Page 29778]]
configuration in the family has a modeled CO2 emission rate
that is above the applicable standard.
(2) If you generate or use emission credits with one or more
vehicle families in a given model year, your vehicle families within an
averaging set are considered in compliance with the CO2
emission standards in Sec. Sec. 1037.105 and 1037.106 if the sum of
positive and negative credits for all vehicle configurations in those
vehicle families lead to a zero balance or a positive balance of
credits, except as allowed by Sec. 1037.745. Note that the FEL is
considered to be the applicable emission standard for an individual
configuration.
(b) We may require you to provide an engineering analysis showing
that the performance of your emission controls will not deteriorate
during the useful life with proper maintenance. If we determine that
your emission controls are likely to deteriorate during the useful
life, we may require you to develop and apply deterioration factors
consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, you may need to
apply a deterioration factor to address deterioration of battery
performance for a hybrid vehicle. Where the highest useful life
emissions occur between the end of useful life and at the low-hour test
point, base deterioration factors for the vehicles on the difference
between (or ratio of) the point at which the highest emissions occur
and the low-hour test point.
Sec. 1037.310 [Removed]
0
71. Remove Sec. 1037.310.
0
72. Amend Sec. 1037.315 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.315 Audit procedures related to powertrain testing.
(a) For vehicles certified based on powertrain testing as specified
in 40 CFR 1036.545, we may apply the selective enforcement audit
requirements to the powertrain. If engine manufacturers perform the
powertrain testing and include those results in their certification
under 40 CFR part 1036, they are responsible for selective enforcement
audits related to those results. Otherwise, the certificate holder for
the vehicle is responsible for the selective enforcement audit.
* * * * *
0
73. Amend Sec. 1037.401 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.401 General provisions.
* * * * *
(b) We may measure the drag area of a vehicle you produced after it
has been placed into service. We may use any of the procedures as
specified in Sec. Sec. 1037.525 and 1037.527 for measuring drag area.
Your vehicle conforms to the regulations of this part with respect to
aerodynamic performance if we measure its drag area to be at or below
the maximum drag area allowed for the bin to which that configuration
was certified.
0
74. Amend Sec. 1037.501 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (g)(1)(v), and (h); and
0
b. Removing paragraph (i).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1037.501 General testing and modeling provisions.
* * * * *
(a) Except as specified in subpart B of this part, you must
demonstrate that you meet emission standards using emission modeling as
described in Sec. 1037.520. This modeling depends on several measured
values as described in this subpart. You may use fuel-mapping
information from the engine manufacturer as described in 40 CFR
1036.535 and 1036.540, or you may use powertrain testing as described
in 40 CFR 1036.545.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) For the Phase 2 or later standards, include side skirts meeting
the specifications of this paragraph (g)(1)(v). The side skirts must be
mounted flush with both sides of the trailer. The skirts must be an
isosceles trapezoidal shape. Each skirt must have a height of 362 inches. The top edge of the skirt must be straight with a
length of 3412 inches. The bottom edge of the skirt must be
straight with a length of 2682 inches and have a ground
clearance of 82 inches through that full length. The sides
of the skirts must be straight. The rearmost point of the skirts must
be mounted 322 inches in front of the centerline of the
trailer tandem axle assembly. We may approve your request to use a
skirt with different dimensions if these specified values are
impractical or inappropriate for your test trailer, and you propose
alternative dimensions that provide an equivalent or comparable degree
of aerodynamic drag for your test configuration.
* * * * *
(h) Note that declared GEM inputs for fuel maps and aerodynamic
drag area typically includes compliance margins to account for testing
variability; for other measured GEM inputs, the declared values are
typically the measured values without adjustment.
0
75. Revise and republish Sec. 1037.510 to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.510 Duty-cycle exhaust testing.
This section applies for powertrain testing, cycle-average engine
fuel mapping, certain off-cycle testing under Sec. 1037.610, and the
advanced-technology provisions of Sec. 1037.615.
(a) Measure emissions by testing the powertrain on a powertrain
dynamometer with the applicable duty cycles. Each duty cycle consists
of a series of speed commands over time--variable speeds for the
transient test and constant speeds for the highway cruise tests. None
of these cycles include vehicle starting or warmup.
(1) Perform testing for Phase 1 vehicles as follows to generate
credits or adjustment factors for off-cycle or advanced technologies:
(i) Transient cycle. The transient cycle is specified in appendix A
to this part. Warm up the vehicle. Start the duty cycle within 30
seconds after concluding the preconditioning procedure. Start sampling
emissions at the start of the duty cycle.
(ii) Cruise cycle. For the 55 mi/hr and 65 mi/hr highway cruise
cycles, warm up the vehicle at the test speed, then sample emissions
for 300 seconds while maintaining vehicle speed within 1.0
mi/hr of the speed setpoint; this speed tolerance applies instead of
the approach specified in 40 CFR 1066.425(b)(1) and (2).
(2) Perform cycle-average engine fuel mapping for Phase 2 and later
vehicles as described in 40 CFR 1036.540. For powertrain testing under
40 CFR 1036.545 or Sec. 1037.555, perform testing as described in this
paragraph (a)(2) to generate GEM inputs for each simulated vehicle
configuration, and test runs representing different idle conditions.
Perform testing as follows:
(i) Transient cycle. The transient cycle is specified in appendix A
to this part.
(ii) Highway cruise cycles. The grade portion of the route
corresponding to the 55 mi/hr and 65 mi/hr highway cruise cycles is
specified in appendix D to this part. Maintain vehicle speed between -
1.0 mi/hr and 3.0 mi/hr of the speed setpoint; this speed tolerance
applies instead of the approach specified in 40 CFR 1066.425(b)(1) and
(2).
(iii) Drive idle. Perform testing at a loaded idle condition for
Phase 2 vocational vehicles. For engines with an adjustable warm idle
speed setpoint, test at the minimum warm idle speed and the maximum
warm idle speed; otherwise simply test at the engine's warm idle speed.
Warm up the powertrain as described in 40 CFR 1036.520(d). Within 60
seconds after concluding the warm-up, linearly ramp the powertrain down
to zero vehicle
[[Page 29779]]
speed over 20 seconds. Apply the brake and keep the transmission in
drive (or clutch depressed for manual transmission). Stabilize the
powertrain for (601) seconds and then sample emissions for
(301) seconds.
(iv) Parked idle. Perform testing at a no-load idle condition for
Phase 2 vocational vehicles. For engines with an adjustable warm idle
speed setpoint, test at the minimum warm idle speed and the maximum
warm idle speed; otherwise simply test at the engine's warm idle speed.
Warm up the powertrain as described in 40 CFR 1036.520(d). Within 60
seconds after concluding the warm-up, linearly ramp the powertrain down
to zero vehicle speed in 20 seconds. Put the transmission in park (or
neutral for manual transmissions and apply the parking brake if
applicable). Stabilize the powertrain for (1801) seconds
and then sample emissions for (6001) seconds.
(3) Where applicable, perform testing on a chassis dynamometer as
follows:
(i) Transient cycle. The transient cycle is specified in appendix A
to this part. Warm up the vehicle by operating over one transient
cycle. Within 60 seconds after concluding the warm up cycle, start
emission sampling and operate the vehicle over the duty cycle.
(ii) Highway cruise cycle. The grade portion of the route
corresponding to the 55 mi/hr and 65 mi/hr highway cruise cycles is
specified in appendix D to this part. Warm up the vehicle by operating
it at the appropriate speed setpoint over the duty cycle. Within 60
seconds after concluding the preconditioning cycle, start emission
sampling and operate the vehicle over the duty cycle, maintaining
vehicle speed within 1.0 mi/hr of the speed setpoint; this
speed tolerance applies instead of the approach specified in 40 CFR
1066.425(b)(1) and (2).
(b) Calculate the official emission result from the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.213
Eq. 1037.510-1
Where:
eCO2comp = total composite mass of CO2
emissions in g/ton-mile, rounded to the nearest whole number for
vocational vehicles and to the first decimal place for tractors.
PL = the standard payload, in tons, as specified in Sec. 1037.705.
vmoving = mean composite weighted driven vehicle speed,
excluding idle operation, as shown in table 1 to paragraph (c)(3) of
this section for Phase 2 vocational vehicles. For other vehicles,
let vmoving = 1.
w[cycle] = weighting factor for the appropriate test
cycle, as shown in table 1 to paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
m[cycle] = CO2 mass emissions over each test
cycle (other than idle).
D[cycle] = the total driving distance for the indicated
duty cycle. Use 2.842 miles for the transient cycle, and use 13.429
miles for both of the highway cruise cycles.
mi[cycle]-idle = CO2 emission rate at idle.
Example: Class 7 vocational vehicle meeting the Phase 2 standards
based on the Regional duty cycle.
PL = 5.6 tons
vmoving = 38.41 mi/hr
wtransient = 20% = 0.20
wdrive-idle = 0% = 0
wparked-idle = 25% = 0.25
w55 = 24% = 0.24
w65 = 56% = 0.56
mtransient = 4083 g
m55 = 13834 g
m65 = 17018 g
Dtransient = 2.8449 miles
D55 = 13.429 miles
D65 = 13.429 miles
midrive-idle = 4188 g/hr
miparked-idle = 3709 g/hr
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.214
(c) Weighting factors apply for each type of vehicle and for each
duty cycle as follows:
(1) GEM applies weighting factors for specific types of tractors as
shown in table 1 to paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(2) GEM applies weighting factors for vocational vehicles as shown
in table 1 to paragraph (c)(3) of this section. Modeling for Phase 2
vocational vehicles depends on characterizing vehicles by duty cycle to
apply proper weighting factors and average speed values. Select either
Urban, Regional, or Multi-Purpose as the most appropriate duty cycle
for modeling emission results with each vehicle configuration, as
specified in Sec. Sec. 1037.140 and 1037.150.
(3) Table 1 to this paragraph (c)(3) follows:
[[Page 29780]]
Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(3) of Sec. 1037.510--Weighting Factors for Duty Cycles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance-weighted Time-weighted \a\ Average speed
------------------------------------------------------------------------ during non-idle
Transient 55 mi/hr 65 mi/hr Drive idle Parked Non-idle cycles (mi/hr)
(%) cruise (%) cruise (%) (%) idle (%) (%) \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Cabs....................................................... 19 17 64 .......... .......... .......... ...............
Sleeper Cabs................................................... 5 9 86 .......... .......... .......... ...............
Heavy-haul Tractors............................................ 19 17 64 .......... .......... .......... ...............
Vocational--Regional........................................... 20 24 56 0 25 75 38.41
Vocational--Multi-Purpose (2b-7)............................... 54 29 17 17 25 58 23.18
Vocational--Multi-Purpose (8).................................. 54 23 23 17 25 58 23.27
Vocational--Urban (2b-7)....................................... 92 8 0 15 25 60 16.25
Vocational--Urban (8).......................................... 90 10 0 15 25 60 16.51
Vocational with conventional powertrain (Phase 1 only)......... 42 21 37 .......... .......... .......... ...............
Vocational Hybrid Vehicles (Phase 1 only)...................... 75 9 16 .......... .......... .......... ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Note that these drive idle and non-idle weighting factors do not reflect additional drive idle that occurs during the transient cycle. The transient
cycle does not include any parked idle.
\b\ These values apply even for vehicles not following the specified speed traces.
(d) For highway cruise and transient testing, compare actual
second-by-second vehicle speed with the speed specified in the test
cycle and ensure any differences are consistent with the criteria as
specified in 40 CFR 1036.545(g)(1). If the speeds are not consistent
with the criteria as specified in 40 CFR 1036.545(g)(1), the test is
not valid and must be repeated.
(e) Run test cycles as specified in 40 CFR part 1066. For testing
vehicles equipped with cruise control over the highway cruise cycles,
you may use the vehicle's cruise control to control the vehicle speed.
For vehicles equipped with adjustable vehicle speed limiters, test the
vehicle with the vehicle speed limiter at its highest setting.
(f) For Phase 1, test the vehicle using its adjusted loaded vehicle
weight, unless we determine this would be unrepresentative of in-use
operation as specified in 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(1).
(g) For hybrid vehicles, correct for the net energy change of the
energy storage device as described in 40 CFR 1066.501(a)(3).
Sec. 1037.515 [Removed]
0
76. Remove Sec. 1037.515.
0
77. Amend Sec. 1037.520 by revising the section heading, introductory
text, and paragraphs (a)(2) introductory text, (b)(3), (c)(1) and (2),
(e)(1) and (3), (g)(4), (j)(1), and (j)(2)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.520 Modeling CO2 emissions to show that vehicles comply
with standards.
This section describes how to use the Greenhouse gas Emissions
Model (GEM) to show compliance with the CO2 standards of
Sec. Sec. 1037.105 and 1037.106. Use GEM version 2.0.1 to demonstrate
compliance with Phase 1 standards; use GEM Phase 2, Version 4.0 to
demonstrate compliance with Phase 2 and Phase 3 standards (both
incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1037.810). Use good engineering
judgment when demonstrating compliance using GEM.
(a) * * *
(2) For Phase 2 and later vehicles, the GEM inputs described in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (v) of this section continue to apply.
Note that the provisions in this part related to vehicle speed limiters
and automatic engine shutdown systems are available for Phase 2 and
later vocational vehicles. The rest of this section describes
additional GEM inputs for demonstrating compliance with Phase 2 and
later standards. Simplified versions of GEM apply for limited
circumstances as follows:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) For Phase 2 and later tractors other than heavy-haul tractors,
determine bin levels and CdA inputs as follows:
(i) Determine bin levels for high-roof tractors based on
aerodynamic test results as specified in Sec. 1037.525 and summarized
in the following table:
Table 3 to Paragraph (b)(3)(i) of Sec. 1037.520--Bin Determinations for Phase 2 and Later High-Roof Tractors
Based on Aerodynamic Test Results
[CdA in m\2\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tractor type Bin I Bin II Bin III Bin IV Bin V Bin VI Bin VII
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Cabs.................... >=7.2 6.6-7.1 6.0-6.5 5.5-5.9 5.0-5.4 4.5-4.9 <=4.4
Sleeper Cabs................ >=6.9 6.3-6.8 5.7-6.2 5.2-5.6 4.7-5.1 4.2-4.6 <=4.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) For low- and mid-roof tractors, you may either use the same
bin level that applies for an equivalent high-roof tractor as shown in
table 3 to paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, or you may determine
your bin level based on aerodynamic test results as described in table
4 to this paragraph (b)(3)(ii).
[[Page 29781]]
Table 4 to Paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of Sec. 1037.520--Bin Determinations for Phase 2 and Later Low-Roof and Mid-
Roof Tractors Based on Aerodynamic Test Results
[CdA in m\2\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tractor type Bin I Bin II Bin III Bin IV Bin V Bin VI Bin VII
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Roof Cabs............... >=5.4 4.9-5.3 4.5-4.8 4.1-4.4 3.8-4.0 3.5-3.7 <=3.4
Mid-Roof Cabs............... >=5.9 5.5-5.8 5.1-5.4 4.7-5.0 4.4-4.6 4.1-4.3 <=4.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Determine the CdA input according to the tractor's
bin level as described in the following table:
Table 5 to Paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of Sec. 1037.520--Phase 2 and Later CdA Tractor Inputs Based on Bin Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tractor type Bin I Bin II Bin III Bin IV Bin V Bin VI Bin VII
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Roof Day Cabs.......... 7.45 6.85 6.25 5.70 5.20 4.70 4.20
High-Roof Sleeper Cabs...... 7.15 6.55 5.95 5.40 4.90 4.40 3.90
Low-Roof Cabs............... 6.00 5.60 5.15 4.75 4.40 4.10 3.80
Mid-Roof Cabs............... 7.00 6.65 6.25 5.85 5.50 5.20 4.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Use good engineering judgment to determine a tire's revolutions
per mile to the nearest whole number as specified in SAE J1025
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1037.810). Note that for tire
sizes that you do not test, we will treat your analytically derived
revolutions per mile the same as test results, and we may perform our
own testing to verify your values. We may require you to test a sample
of additional tire sizes that we select.
(2) Measure tire rolling resistance in newton per kilonewton as
specified in ISO 28580 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1037.810),
except as specified in this paragraph (c). Use good engineering
judgment to ensure that your test results are not biased low. You may
ask us to identify a reference test laboratory to which you may
correlate your test results. Prior to beginning the test procedure in
Section 7 of ISO 28580 for a new bias-ply tire, perform a break-in
procedure by running the tire at the specified test speed, load, and
pressure for (602) minutes.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Vehicle weight reduction inputs for wheels are specified
relative to dual-wide tires with conventional steel wheels. For
purposes of this paragraph (e)(1), an aluminum alloy qualifies as
light-weight if a dual-wide drive wheel made from this material weighs
at least 21 pounds less than a comparable conventional steel wheel. The
inputs are listed in table 6 to this paragraph (e)(1). For example, a
tractor or vocational vehicle with aluminum steer wheels and eight
(4x2) dual-wide aluminum drive wheels would have an input of 210 pounds
(2x21 + 8x21).
Table 6 to Paragraph (e)(1) of Sec. 1037.520--Wheel-Related Weight Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight reduction--
Weight reduction-- Phase 2 and
Tire type Material Phase 1 (pounds later (pounds per
per wheel) wheel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wide-Base Single Drive Tire with . . .\a\.. Steel Wheel.................. 84 84
Aluminum Wheel............... 139 147
Light-Weight Aluminum Alloy 147 147
Wheel.
Steer Tire or Dual-wide Drive Tire with . . High-Strength Steel Wheel.... 8 8
..
Aluminum Wheel............... 21 25
Light-Weight Aluminum Alloy 30 25
Wheel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The weight reduction for wide-base tires accounts for reduced tire weight relative to dual-wide tires.
* * * * *
(3) Weight-reduction inputs for vocational-vehicle components other
than wheels are specified in the following table:
Table 8 to Paragraph (e)(3) of Sec. 1037.520--Nonwheel-Related Weight Reductions From Alternative Materials
for Phase 2 and Later Vocational Vehicles
[Pounds] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle type
Component Material -----------------------------------------------
Light HDV Medium HDV \b\ Heavy HDV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Axle Hubs--Non-Drive.................. Aluminum................ 40 40
[[Page 29782]]
Axle Hubs--Non-Drive.................. High Strength Steel..... 5 5
Axle--Non-Drive....................... Aluminum................ 60 60
Axle--Non-Drive....................... High Strength Steel..... 15 15
Brake Drums--Non-Drive................ Aluminum................ 60 60
Brake Drums--Non-Drive................ High Strength Steel..... 42 42
Axle Hubs--Drive...................... Aluminum................ 40 80
Axle Hubs--Drive...................... High Strength Steel..... 10 20
Brake Drums--Drive.................... Aluminum................ 70 140
Brake Drums--Drive.................... High Strength Steel..... 37 74
Suspension Brackets, Hangers.......... Aluminum................ 67 100
Suspension Brackets, Hangers.......... High Strength Steel..... 20 30
-----------------------------------------------
Crossmember--Cab...................... Aluminum................ 10 15 15
Crossmember--Cab...................... High Strength Steel..... 2 5 5
Crossmember--Non-Suspension........... Aluminum................ 15 15 15
Crossmember--Non-Suspension........... High Strength Steel..... 5 5 5
Crossmember--Suspension............... Aluminum................ 15 25 25
Crossmember--Suspension............... High Strength Steel..... 6 6 6
Driveshaft............................ Aluminum................ 12 40 50
Driveshaft............................ High Strength Steel..... 5 10 12
Frame Rails........................... Aluminum................ 120 300 440
Frame Rails........................... High Strength Steel..... 40 40 87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Weight-reduction values apply per vehicle unless otherwise noted.
\b\ For Medium HDV with 6x4 or 6x2 axle configurations, use the values for Heavy HDV.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(4) GEM inputs associated with powertrain testing include
powertrain family, transmission calibration identifier, test data from
40 CFR 1036.545, and the powertrain test configuration (dynamometer
connected to transmission output or wheel hub). You do not need to
identify or provide inputs for transmission gear ratios, fuel map data,
or engine torque curves, which would otherwise be required under
paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) Intelligent controls. Enter 2 for tractors with predictive
cruise control. This includes any cruise control system that
incorporates satellite-based global-positioning data for controlling
operator demand. For tractors without predictive cruise control and for
all vocational vehicles, enter 1.5 if they have neutral coasting or the
installed engine deactivates all cylinders closing all intake and
exhaust valves when operator demand is zero while the vehicle is in
motion, unless good engineering judgment indicates that a lower
percentage should apply.
(2) * * *
(iii) If vehicles have a high-efficiency air conditioning
compressor, enter 0.5 for tractors, 0.5 for vocational Heavy HDV, and 1
for other vocational vehicles. This includes all electrically powered
compressors. It also include mechanically powered compressors if the
coefficient of performance improves by 10 percent or greater over the
baseline design, consistent with the provisions for improved
evaporators and condensers in 40 CFR 86.1868-12(h)(5).
* * * * *
0
78. Amend Sec. 1037.525 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text,
(b), (c)(1) introductory text, (c)(2) introductory text, and (c)(3)(v)
to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.525 Aerodynamic measurements for tractors.
* * * * *
(a) General provisions. The GEM input for a tractor's aerodynamic
performance is a Cd value for Phase 1 and a CdA
value for Phase 2 and later. The input value is measured or calculated
for a tractor in a specific test configuration with a trailer, such as
a high-roof tractor with a box van meeting the requirements for the
standard trailer.
* * * * *
(b) Adjustments to correlate with coastdown testing. Adjust
aerodynamic drag values from alternate methods to be equivalent to the
corresponding values from coastdown measurements as follows:
(1) Determine the functional relationship between your alternate
method and coastdown testing. Specify this functional relationship as
Falt-aero for a given alternate drag measurement method. The
effective yaw angle, Ceff, is assumed to be zero degrees for
Phase 1. For Phase 2 and later, determine Ceff from
coastdown test results using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.215
Eq. 1037.525-1
Where:
CdAcoastdown(Ceff) = the average
drag area measured during coastdown at an effective yaw angle,
Ceff.
CdAalt(Ceff) = the average drag
area calculated from an alternate drag measurement method at an
effective yaw angle, Ceff.
(2) Unless good engineering judgment dictates otherwise, assume
that coastdown drag is proportional to drag measured using alternate
methods and apply a constant adjustment factor, Falt-aero,
for a given alternate drag measurement method of similar vehicles.
(3) Determine Falt-aero by performing coastdown testing
and applying your alternate method on the same vehicles. Consider all
applicable test data including data collected during selective
enforcement audits. Unless we approve another vehicle, one vehicle must
be a Class 8 high-roof sleeper cab with a full aerodynamics package
pulling a standard trailer. Where you
[[Page 29783]]
have more than one tractor model meeting these criteria, use the
tractor model with the highest projected sales. If you do not have such
a tractor model, you may use your most comparable tractor model with
our prior approval. In the case of alternate methods other than those
specified in this subpart, good engineering judgment may require you to
determine your adjustment factor based on results from more than the
specified minimum number of vehicles.
(4) Measure the drag area using your alternate method for a Phase 2
and later tractor used to determine Falt-aero with testing
at yaw angles of 0[deg], 1[deg], 3[deg], 4.5[deg], 6[deg], and 9[deg] (you may
include additional angles), using direction conventions described in
Figure 2 of SAE J1252 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1037.810).
Also, determine the drag area at the coastdown effective yaw angle,
CdAalt(Ceff), by taking the average
drag area at Ceff and-Ceff for your vehicle using
the same alternate method.
(5) For Phase 2 and later testing, determine separate values of
Falt-aero for at least one high-roof day cab and one high-
roof sleeper cab for model year 2021, at least two high-roof day cabs
and two high-roof sleeper cabs for model year 2024, and at least three
high-roof day cabs and three high-roof sleeper cabs for model year
2027. These test requirements are cumulative; for example, you may meet
these requirements by testing two vehicles to support model year 2021
certification and four additional vehicles to support model year 2023
certification. For any untested tractor models, apply the value of
Falt-aero from the tested tractor model that best represents
the aerodynamic characteristics of the untested tractor model,
consistent with good engineering judgment. Testing under this paragraph
(b)(5) continues to be valid for later model years until you change the
tractor model in a way that causes the test results to no longer
represent production vehicles. You must also determine unique values of
Falt-aero for low-roof and mid-roof tractors if you
determine CdA values based on low or mid-roof tractor
testing as shown in Sec. 1037.520(b)(3)(ii). For Phase 1 testing, if
good engineering judgment allows it, you may calculate a single,
constant value of Falt-aero for your whole product line by
dividing the coastdown drag area, CdAcoastdown,
by drag area from your alternate method, CdAalt.
(6) Determine Falt-aero to at least three decimal
places. For example, if your coastdown testing results in a drag area
of 6.430, but your wind tunnel method results in a drag area of 6.200,
Falt-aero would be 1.037 (or a higher value you declare).
(7) If a tractor and trailer cannot be configured to meet the gap
requirements specified in Sec. 1037.501(g)(1)(ii), test with the
trailer positioned as close as possible to the specified gap dimension
and use good engineering judgment to correct the results to be
equivalent to a test configuration meeting the specified gap dimension.
For example, we may allow you to correct your test output using an
approved alternate method or substitute a test vehicle that is capable
of meeting the required specifications and is otherwise aerodynamically
equivalent. The allowance in this paragraph (b)(7) applies for
certification, confirmatory testing, SEA, and all other testing to
demonstrate compliance with standards.
(8) You may ask us for preliminary approval of your coastdown
testing under Sec. 1037.210. We may witness the testing.
(c) * * *
(1) Apply the following method for all Phase 2 and later testing
with an alternate method:
* * * * *
(2) Apply the following method for Phase 2 and later coastdown
testing other than coastdown testing used to establish
Falt-aero:
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(v) As an alternative, you may calculate the wind-averaged drag
area according to SAE J1252 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
1037.810) and substitute this value into Eq. 1037.525-4 for the 6[deg] drag area.
* * * * *
Sec. 1037.526 [Removed]
0
79. Remove Sec. 1037.526.
0
80. Revise Sec. 1037.527 to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.527 Aerodynamic measurements for vocational vehicles.
This section describes an optional methodology for determining
improved aerodynamic drag area, CdA, for vocational
vehicles, as described in Sec. 1037.520(m), rather than using the
assigned values. A vocational vehicle's aerodynamic performance is
based on a DCdA value relative to a baseline vehicle.
Determine a DdA value by performing A to B testing as
follows:
(a) Use any of the procedures described in this subpart, with
appropriate adjustments, for calculating drag area.
(b) Determine a baseline CdA value for a vehicle
representing a production configuration without the aerodynamic
improvement. Repeat this testing and measure CdA for a
vehicle with the improved aerodynamic design.
(c) Use good engineering judgment to perform paired tests that
accurately demonstrate the reduction in aerodynamic drag associated
with the improved design.
(d) Measure CdA in m\2\ to two decimal places. Calculate
DdA by subtracting the drag area for the test vehicle from
the drag area for the baseline vehicle.
0
81. Amend Sec. 1037.528 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text and paragraphs (b) introductory text,
(h)(5) introductory text, (h)(5)(iv), and (h)(6) introductory text;
0
b. Removing paragraph (h)(7);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(8) through (12) as paragraphs (h)(7)
through (11), respectively; and
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(10).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1037.528 Coastdown procedures for calculating drag area (CdA).
This section describes the reference method for calculating drag
area, CdA, for tractors using coastdown testing. Follow the
provisions of Sections 1 through 9 of SAE J2263 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 1037.810), with the clarifications and exceptions
described in this section. Several of the exceptions in this section
are from SAE J1263 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1037.810). The
coastdown procedures in 40 CFR 1066.310 apply instead of the provisions
of this section for Phase 1 tractors.
* * * * *
(b) To determine CdA values for a, perform coastdown
testing with a tractor-trailer combination using the manufacturer's
tractor and a standard trailer. Prepare the tractor-trailer combination
for testing as follows:
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(5) Calculate the drive-axle spin loss force at high and low
speeds, Fspin[speed], and determine DFspin as
follows:
* * * * *
(iv) Calculate DFspin using the following equation:
DFspin = Fspinhi-Fspinlo
Eq. 1037.528-10
Example:
DFspin = 129.7-52.7
DFspin = 77.0 N
(6) Calculate the tire rolling resistance force at high and low
speeds for steer, drive, and trailer axle positions,
FTRR[speed,axle], and determine DFTRR, the
rolling resistance difference between 65
[[Page 29784]]
mi/hr and 15 mi/hr, for each tire as follows:
* * * * *
(10) Calculate drag area, CdA, in m\2\ for each high-
speed segment using the following equation, expressed to at least three
decimal places:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.216
Eq. 1037.528-16
Where:
Fhi = road load force at high speed determined from Eq.
1037.528-7.
Flo,pair = the average of Flo values for a
pair of opposite direction runs calculated as described in paragraph
(h)(8) of this section.
DFspin = the difference in drive-axle spin loss force
between high-speed and low-speed coastdown segments as described in
paragraph (h)(5) of this section.
DFTRR = the difference in tire rolling resistance force
between high-speed and low-speed coastdown segments as described in
paragraph (h)(6) of this section.
v2air,lo,pair = the average of
v2air,lo values for a pair of opposite
direction runs calculated as described in paragraph (h)(8) of this
section.
R = specific gas constant = 287.058 J/(kg[middot]K).
T = mean air temperature expressed to at least one decimal Place.
Pact = mean absolute air pressure expressed to at least
one decimal place.
Example:
Fhi = 4645.5 N
Flo,pair = 1005.0 N
[Delta]Fspin = 77.0 N
[Delta]FTRR = 187.4 N
v2air,hi = 933.4 m\2\/s\2\
v2air,lo,pair = 43.12 m\2\/s\2\
R = 287.058 J/(kg[middot]K)
T = 285.97 K
Ract = 101.727 kPa = 101727 Pa
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.217
* * * * *
0
82. Revise and republish Sec. 1037.530 to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.530 Wind tunnel procedures for calculating drag area (CdA).
This section describes an alternate method for calculating drag
area, CdA, for tractors using wind tunnel testing.
(a) You may measure drag areas consistent with published SAE
procedures as described in this section using any wind tunnel
recognized by the Subsonic Aerodynamic Testing Association, subject to
the provisions of Sec. 1037.525. If your wind tunnel does not meet the
specifications described in this section, you may ask us to approve it
as an alternate method under Sec. 1037.525(d). All wind tunnels and
wind tunnel tests must meet the specifications described in SAE J1252
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1037.810), with the following
exceptions and additional provisions:
(1) The Overall Vehicle Reynolds number, Rew, must be at least
1.0[middot]10\6\. Tests for Reynolds effects described in Section 7.1
of SAE J1252 are not required.
(2) For full-scale wind tunnel testing, use good engineering
judgment to select a trailer that is a reasonable representation of the
trailer used for reference coastdown testing. For example, where your
wind tunnel is not long enough to test the tractor with a standard 53
foot box van, it may be appropriate to use a shorter box van. In such a
case, the correlation developed using the shorter trailer would only be
valid for testing with the shorter trailer.
(3) For reduced-scale wind tunnel testing, use a one-eighth or
larger scale model of a tractor and trailer that is sufficient to
simulate airflow through the radiator inlet grill and across an engine
geometry that represents engines commonly used in your test vehicle.
(b) Open-throat wind tunnels must also meet the specifications of
SAE J2071 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1037.810).
(c) To determine CdA values, perform wind tunnel testing
with a tractor-trailer combination using the manufacturer's tractor and
a standard trailer. Use a moving/rolling floor if the facility has one.
For Phase 1 tractors, conduct the wind tunnel tests at a zero yaw
angle. For Phase 2 and later vehicles, conduct the wind tunnel tests by
measuring the drag area at yaw angles of +4.5[deg] and -4.5[deg] and
calculating the average of those two values.
(d) In your request to use wind tunnel testing, describe how you
meet all the specifications that apply under this section, using
terminology consistent with SAE J1594 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 1037.810). If you request our approval to use wind tunnel testing
even though you do not meet all the specifications of this section,
describe how your method nevertheless qualifies as an alternate method
under Sec. 1037.525(d) and include all the following information:
(1) Identify the name and location of the test facility for your
wind tunnel method.
(2) Background and history of the wind tunnel.
(3) The wind tunnel's layout (with diagram), type, and construction
(structural and material).
(4) The wind tunnel's design details: the type and material for
corner turning vanes, air settling specification, mesh screen
specification, air straightening method, tunnel volume, surface area,
average duct area, and circuit length.
(5) Specifications related to the wind tunnel's flow quality:
temperature control and uniformity, airflow quality, minimum airflow
velocity, flow uniformity, angularity and stability, static pressure
variation, turbulence intensity, airflow acceleration and deceleration
times, test duration flow quality, and overall airflow quality
achievement.
(6) Test/working section information: test section type (e.g.,
open, closed, adaptive wall) and shape (e.g., circular, square, oval),
length, contraction ratio, maximum air velocity, maximum dynamic
pressure, nozzle width and height, plenum dimensions and net volume,
maximum allowed model scale, maximum model height above road,
[[Page 29785]]
strut movement rate (if applicable), model support, primary boundary
layer slot, boundary layer elimination method, and photos and diagrams
of the test section.
(7) Fan section description: fan type, diameter, power, maximum
angular speed, maximum speed, support type, mechanical drive, and
sectional total weight.
(8) Data acquisition and control (where applicable): acquisition
type, motor control, tunnel control, model balance, model pressure
measurement, wheel drag balances, wing/body panel balances, and model
exhaust simulation.
(9) Moving ground plane or rolling road (if applicable):
construction and material, yaw table and range, moving ground length
and width, belt type, maximum belt speed, belt suction mechanism,
platen instrumentation, temperature control, and steering.
(10) Facility correction factors and purpose.
0
83. Amend Sec. 1037.532 by revising the section heading, introductory
text, and paragraphs (a) introductory text, (b), and (c) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.532 Using computational fluid dynamics for calculating drag
area (CdA).
This section describes an alternate method for calculating drag
area, CdA, for tractors using commercially available
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software.
(a) For Phase 2 and later vehicles, use SAE J2966 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 1037.810), with the following clarifications and
exceptions:
* * * * *
(b) For Phase 1 tractors, apply the procedures as specified in
paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section. Paragraphs (c) through (f)
apply for Phase 2 and later vehicles only as specified in paragraph (a)
of this section.
(c) To determine CdA values, perform CFD modeling based
on a tractor-trailer combination using the manufacturer's tractor and a
standard trailer. Perform all CFD modeling as follows:
* * * * *
0
84. Amend Sec. 1037.534 by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (c) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.534 Constant-speed procedure for calculating drag area
(CdA).
This section describes an alternate method for calculating drag
area, CdA, for tractors using constant-speed aerodynamic
drag testing.
* * * * *
(c) Vehicle preparation. Perform testing with a tractor-trailer
combination using the manufacturer's tractor and a standard trailer.
Prepare the tractor-trailer combination for testing as described in
Sec. 1037.528(b). Install measurement instruments meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C, that have been calibrated
as described in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart D, as follows:
* * * * *
0
85. Amend Sec. 1037.540 by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (c), (d)(4), and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.540 Special procedures for testing vehicles with hybrid
power take-off.
This section describes optional procedures for quantifying the
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for vehicles as a result of
running power take-off (PTO) devices with a hybrid energy delivery
system. See 40 CFR 1036.545 for powertrain testing requirements that
apply for drivetrain hybrid systems. The procedures are written to test
the PTO by ensuring that the engine produces all of the energy with no
net change in stored energy (charge-sustaining), and for plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles, also allowing for drawing down the stored energy
(charge-depleting). The full charge-sustaining test for the hybrid
vehicle is from a fully charged rechargeable energy storage system
(RESS) to a depleted RESS and then back to a fully charged RESS. You
must include all hardware for the PTO system. You may ask us to modify
the provisions of this section to allow testing hybrid vehicles that
use a technology other than batteries for storing energy, consistent
with good engineering judgment. For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,
use a utility factor to properly weight charge-sustaining and charge-
depleting operation as described in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) Measure PTO emissions from the fully warmed-up hybrid vehicle
as follows:
(1) Perform the steps in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(2) Prepare the vehicle for testing by operating it as needed to
stabilize the RESS at a full state of charge (or equivalent for
vehicles that use a technology other than batteries for storing
energy).
(i) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, we recommend charging the
battery with an external electrical source.
(ii) For other vehicles, we recommend running back-to-back PTO
tests until engine operation is initiated to charge the RESS. The RESS
should be fully charged once engine operation stops. The ignition
should remain in the ``on'' position.
(3) Turn the vehicle and PTO system off while the sampling system
is being prepared.
(4) Turn the vehicle and PTO system on such that the PTO system is
functional, whether it draws power from the engine or a battery.
(5) Operate the vehicle over one or both of the denormalized PTO
duty cycles without turning the vehicle off, until the engine starts
and then shuts down. This may require running multiple repeats of the
PTO duty cycles. For non-PHEV systems that are not plug-in hybrid
systems, the test cycle is completed once the engine shuts down. For
plug-in hybrid systems, continue running until the PTO hybrid is
running in a charge-sustaining mode such that the ``End of Test''
requirements defined in 40 CFR 1066.501(a)(3) are met. Measure
emissions as described in paragraph (b)(7) of this section. Use good
engineering judgment to minimize the variability in testing between the
two types of vehicles.
(6) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, follow 40 CFR
1066.501(a)(3) to divide the test into charge-depleting and charge-
sustaining operation.
(7) Apply cycle-validation criteria as described in paragraph
(b)(8) of this section to both charge-sustaining and charge-depleting
operation.
(d) * * *
(4) Divide the total PTO operating time from paragraph (d)(3) of
this section by a conversion factor of 0.0144 hr/mi for Phase 1 and
0.0217 hr/mi for Phase 2 and later to determine the equivalent distance
driven. The conversion factors are based on estimates of average
vehicle speed and PTO operating time as a percentage of total engine
operating time; the Phase 2 and later conversion factor is calculated
from an average speed of 27.1 mi/hr and PTO operation 37% of engine
operating time, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.218
[[Page 29786]]
Eq. 1037.540-2a
* * * * *
(f) For Phase 2 and later, calculate the delta PTO fuel results for
input into GEM during vehicle certification as follows:
(1) Determine fuel consumption by calculating the mass of fuel for
each test in grams, mfuelPTO, without rounding, as described
in 40 CFR 1036.540(d)(12) for both the conventional vehicle and the
charge-sustaining and charge-depleting portions of the test for the
hybrid vehicle as applicable.
(2) Divide the fuel mass by the applicable distance determined in
paragraph (d)(4) of this section and the appropriate standard payload
as defined in Sec. 1037.801 to determine the fuel-consumption rate in
g/ton-mile.
(3) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles calculate the utility
factor weighted fuel-consumption rate in g/ton-mile, as follows:
(i) Determine the utility factor fraction for the PTO system from
the table in appendix E of this part using interpolation based on the
total time of the charge-depleting portion of the test as determined in
paragraphs (c)(6) and (d)(3) of this section.
(ii) Weight the emissions from the charge-sustaining and charge-
depleting portions of the test to determine the utility factor-weighted
fuel mass, mfuelUF[cycle]plug-in, using the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.219
Eq. 1037.540-3
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents one test interval.
N = total number of charge-depleting test intervals.
mfuelPTOCD = total mass of fuel per ton-mile in the
charge-depleting portion of the test for each test interval, i,
starting from i = 1.
UFDCDi = utility factor fraction at time
tCDi as determined in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of
this section for each test interval, i, starting from i = 1.
j = an indexing variable that represents one test interval.
M = total number of charge-sustaining test intervals.
mfuelPTOCS = total mass of fuel per ton-mile in the
charge-sustaining portion of the test for each test interval, j,
starting from j = 1.
UFRCD = utility factor fraction at the full charge-
depleting time, tCD, as determined by interpolating the
utility factor curve in appendix E to this part. tCD is
the sum of the time over N charge-depleting test intervals.
(4) Calculate the difference between the conventional PTO emissions
result and the hybrid PTO emissions result for input into GEM.
* * * * *
Sec. 1037.550 [Removed]
0
86. Remove Sec. 1037.550.
0
87. Revise Sec. 1037.551 to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.551 Engine-based simulation of powertrain testing.
The regulations in 40 CFR 1036.545 describe how to measure fuel
consumption over specific duty cycles with an engine coupled to a
transmission; 40 CFR 1036.545(a)(5) describes how to create equivalent
duty cycles for repeating those same measurements with just the engine.
This section describes how to perform this engine testing to simulate
the powertrain test. These engine-based measurements may be used for
selective enforcement audits as described in Sec. 1037.301, as long as
the test engine's operation represents the engine operation observed in
the powertrain test. If we use this approach for confirmatory testing,
when making compliance determinations, we will consider the uncertainty
associated with this approach relative to full powertrain testing. Use
of this approach for engine SEAs is optional for engine manufacturers.
(a) Use the procedures of 40 CFR part 1065 to set up the engine,
measure emissions, and record data. Measure individual parameters and
emission constituents as described in this section. Measure
NOX emissions for each sampling period in grams. You may
perform these measurements using a NOX emission-measurement
system that meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J.
Include these measured NOX values any time you report to us
your greenhouse gas emissions or fuel consumption values from testing
under this section. If a system malfunction prevents you from measuring
NOX emissions during a test under this section but the test
otherwise gives valid results, you may consider this a valid test and
omit the NOX emission measurements; however, we may require
you to repeat the test if we determine that you inappropriately voided
the test with respect to NOX emission measurement. For
hybrid powertrains, correct for the net energy change of the energy
storage device as described in 40 CFR 1066.501(a)(3).
(b) Operate the engine over the applicable engine duty cycles
corresponding to the vehicle cycles specified in Sec. 1037.510(a)(2)
for powertrain testing over the applicable vehicle simulations
described in 40 CFR 1036.545(j). Warm up the engine to prepare for the
transient test or one of the highway cruise cycles by operating it one
time over one of the simulations of the corresponding duty cycle. Warm
up the engine to prepare for the idle test by operating it over a
simulation of the 65-mi/hr highway cruise cycle for 600 seconds. Within
60 seconds after concluding the warm up cycle, start emission sampling
while the engine operates over the duty cycle. You may perform any
number of test runs directly in succession once the engine is warmed
up. Perform cycle validation as described in 40 CFR 1065.514 for engine
speed, torque, and power.
(c) Calculate the mass of fuel consumed as described in 40 CFR
1036.545(n) and (o). Correct each measured value for the test fuel's
mass-specific net energy content as described in 40 CFR 1036.550. Use
these corrected values to determine whether the engine's emission
levels conform to the declared fuel-consumption rates from the
powertrain test.
0
88. Amend Sec. 1037.555 by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.555 Special procedures for testing Phase 1 hybrid systems.
This section describes a powertrain testing procedure for
simulating a chassis test with a pre-transmission or post-transmission
hybrid system to perform A to B testing of Phase 1 vehicles. These
procedures may also be used to perform A to B testing with non-hybrid
systems. See 40 CFR 1036.545 for Phase 2 and later hybrid systems.
* * * * *
(h) Correct for the net energy change of the energy storage device
as described in 40 CFR 1066.501(a)(3).
* * * * *
[[Page 29787]]
0
89. Amend Sec. 1037.560 by revising paragraphs (e)(2) and (h)(1) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1037.560 Axle efficiency test.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Maintain gear oil temperature at (81 to 83) [deg]C. You may
alternatively specify a lower range by shifting both temperatures down
by the same amount for any or all test points. We will test your axle
assembly using the same temperature range(s) you specify for your
testing. If you use interpolation for mapping, use the same temperature
range for all test points used in the interpolation. You may use an
external gear oil conditioning system, as long as it does not affect
measured values.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) Test at least three axle assemblies within the same family
representing at least the smallest axle ratio, the largest axle ratio,
and an axle ratio closest to the arithmetic mean from the two other
tested axle assemblies. Test each axle assembly as described in this
section at the same speed and torque setpoints. Test all axle
assemblies using the same gear oil temperature range for each setpoint
as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
0
90. Amend Sec. 1037.601 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.601 General compliance provisions.
* * * * *
(b) Vehicles exempted from the applicable standards of 40 CFR part
86 or 1036 other than glider vehicles are exempt from the standards of
this part without request. Similarly, vehicles other than glider
vehicles are exempt without request if the installed engine is exempted
from the applicable standards in 40 CFR part 86 or 1036.
* * * * *
0
91. Amend Sec. 1037.610 by revising paragraph (f)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.610 Vehicles with off-cycle technologies.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) For model years 2021 and later, you may not rely on an approval
for model years before 2021. You must separately request our approval
before applying an improvement factor or credit under this section for
Phase 2 and later vehicles, even if we approved an improvement factor
or credit for similar vehicle models before model year 2021. Note that
Phase 2 and later approval may carry over for multiple years.
* * * * *
0
92. Revise and republish Sec. 1037.615 to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.615 Advanced technologies.
(a) This section describes how to calculate emission credits for
advanced technologies. You may calculate Phase 1 advanced technology
credits through model year 2020 for hybrid vehicles with regenerative
braking, vehicles equipped with Rankine-cycle engines, battery electric
vehicles, and fuel cell electric vehicles. You may calculate Phase 2
advanced technology credits through model year 2026 for plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, and fuel cell electric
vehicles. You may calculate Phase 3 advanced technology credits for
model year 2027 for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric
vehicles, and fuel cell electric vehicles. You may not generate credits
for Phase 1 engine technologies for which the engines generate
CO2 credits under 40 CFR part 1036.
(b) Generate Phase 1 advanced-technology credits for vehicles other
than battery electric vehicles as follows:
(1) Measure the effectiveness of the advanced system by chassis-
testing a vehicle equipped with the advanced system and an equivalent
conventional vehicle, or by testing the hybrid systems and the
equivalent non-hybrid systems as described in Sec. 1037.555. Test the
vehicles as specified in subpart F of this part. For purposes of this
paragraph (b), a conventional vehicle is considered to be equivalent if
it has the same footprint (as defined in 40 CFR 86.1803), vehicle
service class, aerodynamic drag, and other relevant factors not
directly related to the hybrid powertrain. If you use Sec. 1037.540 to
quantify the benefits of a hybrid system for PTO operation, the
conventional vehicle must have the same number of PTO circuits and have
equivalent PTO power. If you do not produce an equivalent vehicle, you
may create and test a prototype equivalent vehicle. The conventional
vehicle is considered Vehicle A and the advanced vehicle is considered
Vehicle B. We may specify an alternate cycle if your vehicle includes a
power take-off.
(2) Calculate an improvement factor and g/ton-mile benefit using
the following equations and parameters:
(i) Improvement Factor = [(Emission Rate A)-(Emission Rate B)]/
(Emission Rate A).
(ii) g/ton-mile benefit = Improvement Factor x (GEM Result B).
(iii) Emission Rates A and B are the g/ton-mile CO2
emission rates of the conventional and advanced vehicles, respectively,
as measured under the test procedures specified in this section. GEM
Result B is the g/ton-mile CO2 emission rate resulting from
emission modeling of the advanced vehicle as specified in Sec.
1037.520.
(3) If you apply an improvement factor to multiple vehicle
configurations using the same advanced technology, use the vehicle
configuration with the smallest potential reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions resulting from the hybrid capability.
(4) Use the equation in Sec. 1037.705 to convert the g/ton-mile
benefit to emission credits (in Mg). Use the g/ton-mile benefit in
place of the (Std-FEL) term.
(c) See Sec. 1037.540 for special testing provisions related to
Phase 1 vehicles equipped with hybrid power take-off units.
(d) For Phase 2 and Phase 3 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and
for fuel cells powered by any fuel other than hydrogen, calculate
CO2 credits using an FEL based on emission measurements from
powertrain testing. Phase 2 and Phase 3 advanced technology credits do
not apply for hybrid vehicles that have no plug-in capability.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) For battery electric vehicles and for fuel cell electric
vehicles, calculate CO2 credits using an FEL of 0 g/ton-
mile. Note that these vehicles are subject to compression-ignition
standards for CO2.
(g) As specified in subpart H of this part, advanced-technology
credits generated from Phase 1 vehicles under this section may be used
under this part outside of the averaging set in which they were
generated, or they may be used under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, or 40
CFR part 1036. Advanced-technology credits generated from Phase 2 and
later vehicles are subject to the averaging-set restrictions that apply
to other emission credits.
(h) You may certify using both provisions of this section and the
off-cycle technology provisions of Sec. 1037.610, provided you do not
double count emission benefits.
Sec. 1037.620 [Amended]
0
93. Amend Sec. 1037.620 by removing paragraph (c) and redesignating
paragraphs (d) through (f) as paragraphs (c) through (e), respectively.
0
94. Amend Sec. 1037.622 by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.622 Shipment of partially complete vehicles to secondary
vehicle manufacturers.
This section specifies how manufacturers may introduce partially
complete vehicles into U.S. commerce (or in the case of certain custom
vehicles, introduce complete vehicles
[[Page 29788]]
into U.S. commerce for modification by a small manufacturer). The
provisions of this section are intended to accommodate normal business
practices without compromising the effectiveness of certified emission
controls. You may not use the provisions of this section to circumvent
the intent of this part. For vehicles subject to both exhaust
greenhouse gas and evaporative standards, the provisions of this part
apply separately for each certificate.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) The provisions of this paragraph (d) may apply separately for
vehicle greenhouse gas, evaporative, and refueling emission standards.
* * * * *
0
95. Amend Sec. 1037.630 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1037.630 Special purpose tractors.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Model year 2020 and earlier tractors with a gross combination
weight rating (GCWR) at or above 120,000 pounds. Note that Phase 2 and
later tractors meeting the definition of heavy-haul tractor in Sec.
1037.801 must be certified to the heavy-haul standards in Sec.
1037.106 or Sec. 1037.670.
* * * * *
(c) Production limit. No manufacturer may produce more than 21,000
Phase 1 vehicles under this section in any consecutive three model year
period. This means you may not exceed 6,000 in a given model year if
the combined total for the previous two years was 15,000. The
production limit applies with respect to all Class 7 and Class 8 Phase
1 tractors certified or exempted as vocational tractors. No production
limit applies for tractors subject to Phase 2 and later standards.
* * * * *
0
96. Amend Sec. 1037.631 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 1037.631 Exemption for vocational vehicles intended for off-road
use.
* * * * *
(a) Qualifying criteria. Vocational vehicles intended for off-road
use are exempt without request, subject to the provisions of this
section, if they are primarily designed to perform work off-road (such
as in oil fields, mining, forests, or construction sites), and they
meet at least one of the criteria of paragraph (a)(1) of this section
and at least one of the criteria of paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
See Sec. 1037.105(h) for alternate Phase 2 and Phase 3 standards that
apply for vehicles meeting only one of these sets of criteria.
* * * * *
0
97. Amend Sec. 1037.635 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.635 Glider kits and glider vehicles.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The engine must meet the greenhouse gas standards of 40 CFR
part 1036 that apply for the engine model year corresponding to the
vehicle's date of manufacture. For example, for a vehicle with a 2024
date of manufacture, the engine must meet the greenhouse gas standards
that apply for model year 2024.
* * * * *
0
98. Amend Sec. 1037.640 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.640 Variable vehicle speed limiters.
This section specifies provisions that apply for vehicle speed
limiters (VSLs) that you model under Sec. 1037.520. This section is
written to apply for tractors; however, you may use good engineering
judgment to apply equivalent adjustments for Phase 2 and later
vocational vehicles with vehicle speed limiters.
* * * * *
0
99. Amend Sec. 1037.660 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.660 Idle-reduction technologies.
* * * * *
(a) Minimum requirements. Idle-reduction technologies must meet all
the following requirements to be modeled under Sec. 1037.520 except as
specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section:
(1) Automatic engine shutdown (AES) systems. The system must shut
down the engine within a threshold inactivity period of 60 seconds or
less for vocational vehicles and 300 seconds or less for tractors when
all the following conditions are met:
(i) The transmission is set to park, or the transmission is in
neutral with the parking brake engaged. This is ``parked idle.''
(ii) The operator has not reset the system timer within the
specified threshold inactivity period by changing the position of the
accelerator, brake, or clutch pedal; or by resetting the system timer
with some other mechanism we approve.
(iii) You may identify systems as ``tamper-resistant'' if you make
no provision for vehicle owners, dealers, or other service outlets to
adjust the threshold inactivity period.
(iv) For Phase 2 and later tractors, you may identify AES systems
as ``adjustable'' if, before delivering to the ultimate purchaser, you
enable authorized dealers to modify the vehicle in a way that disables
the AES system or makes the threshold inactivity period longer than 300
seconds. However, the vehicle may not be delivered to the ultimate
purchaser with the AES system disabled or the threshold inactivity
period set longer than 300 seconds. You may allow dealers or repair
facilities to make such modifications; this might involve password
protection for electronic controls, or special tools that only you
provide. Any dealers making any modifications before delivery to the
ultimate purchaser must notify you, and you must account for such
modifications in your production and ABT reports after the end of the
model year. Dealers failing to provide prompt notification are in
violation of the tampering prohibition of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1). Dealer
notifications are deemed to be submissions to EPA. Note that these
adjustments may not be made if the AES system was not ``adjustable''
when first delivered to the ultimate purchaser.
(v) For vocational vehicles, you may use the provisions of Sec.
1037.610 to apply for an appropriate partial emission reduction for AES
systems you identify as ``adjustable.''
(2) Neutral idle. Phase 2 and later vehicles with hydrokinetic
torque converters paired with automatic transmissions qualify for
neutral-idle credit in GEM modeling if the transmission reduces torque
equivalent to shifting into neutral throughout the interval during
which the vehicle's brake pedal is depressed and the vehicle is at a
zero-speed condition (beginning within five seconds of the vehicle
reaching zero speed with the brake depressed). If a vehicle reduces
torque partially but not enough to be equivalent to shifting to
neutral, you may use the provisions of Sec. 1037.610(g) to apply for
an appropriate partial emission reduction; this may involve A to B
testing with the powertrain test procedure in 40 CFR 1036.545 or the
spin-loss portion of the transmission efficiency test in Sec.
1037.565.
(3) Stop-start. Phase 2 and later vocational vehicles qualify for
stop-start reduction in GEM modeling if the engine shuts down no more
than 5 seconds after the vehicle's brake pedal is depressed when the
vehicle is at a zero-speed condition.
* * * * *
0
100. Revise and republish Sec. 1037.665 to read as follows:
[[Page 29789]]
Sec. 1037.665 Production and in-use tractor testing.
We may require manufacturers with annual U.S.-directed production
volumes of greater than 20,000 tractors to perform testing as described
in this section. Tractors may be new or used.
(a) Test model year 2021 and later tractors as follows:
(1) Each calendar year, we may require you to select for testing
three sleeper cabs and two day cabs certified to Phase 1 or Phase 2
standards. If we do not identify certain vehicle configurations for
your testing, select models that you project to be among your 12
highest-selling vehicle configurations for the given year.
(2) Set up the tractors on a chassis dynamometer and operate them
over all applicable duty cycles from Sec. 1037.510(a)(3). You may use
emission-measurement systems meeting the specifications of 40 CFR part
1065, subpart J. Calculate coefficients for the road-load force
equation as described in Section 10 of SAE J1263 or Section 11 of SAE
J2263 (both incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1037.810). Use
standard payload. Measure emissions of NOX, PM, CO, NMHC,
CO2, CH4, and N2O. Determine emission
levels in g/ton-mile.
(b) Send us an annual report with your test results for each duty
cycle and the corresponding GEM results. Send the report by the next
October 1 after the year we select the vehicles for testing, or a later
date that we approve. We may make your test data publicly available.
(c) We may approve your request to perform alternative testing that
will provide equivalent or better information compared to the specified
testing. For example, we may allow you to provide CO2 data
from in-use operation or from manufacturer-run on-road testing as long
as it allows for reasonable year-to-year comparisons and includes
testing from production vehicles. We may also direct you to do less
testing than we specify in this section.
(d) Greenhouse gas standards do not apply with respect to testing
under this section. Note however that NTE standards apply for any
qualifying operation that occurs during the testing in the same way
that it would during any other in-use testing.
0
101. Amend Sec. 1037.670 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.670 Optional CO2 emission standards for tractors at or
above 120,000 pounds GCWR.
(a) You may certify model year 2026 and earlier tractors at or
above 120,000 pounds GCWR to the following CO2 standards
instead of the Phase 2 CO2 standards of Sec. 1037.106:
Table 1 of Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1037.670--Optional CO2 Standards for
Tractors Above 120,000 Pounds GCWR
[g/ton-mile] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model years Model years
Subcategory 2021-2023 2024-2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy Class 8 Low-Roof Day Cab.......... 53.5 50.8
Heavy Class 8 Low-Roof Sleeper Cab...... 47.1 44.5
Heavy Class 8 Mid-Roof Day Cab.......... 55.6 52.8
Heavy Class 8 Mid-Roof Sleeper Cab...... 49.6 46.9
Heavy Class 8 High-Roof Day Cab......... 54.5 51.4
Heavy Class 8 High-Roof Sleeper Cab..... 47.1 44.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Note that these standards are not directly comparable to the
standards for Heavy-Haul Tractors in Sec. 1037.106 because GEM
handles aerodynamic performance differently for the two sets of
standards.
* * * * *
0
102. Amend Sec. 1037.701 by revising paragraphs (a), (f), and (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1037.701 General provisions.
(a) You may average, bank, and trade emission credits for purposes
of certification as described in this subpart and in subpart B of this
part to show compliance with the standards of Sec. Sec. 1037.105 and
1037.106. Note that Sec. 1037.105(h) specifies standards involving
limited or no use of emission credits under this subpart. Participation
in this program is voluntary.
* * * * *
(f) Emission credits may be used in the model year they are
generated. Where we allow it, surplus emission credits may be banked
for future model years. Surplus emission credits may sometimes be used
for past model years, as described in Sec. 1037.745. You may not apply
banked or traded credits in a given model year until you have used all
available credits through averaging to resolve credit balances for that
model year.
* * * * *
(h) See Sec. 1037.740 for special credit provisions that apply for
credits generated under 40 CFR 86.1819-14(k)(7) or 1036.615 or Sec.
1037.615.
* * * * *
0
103. Revise and republish Sec. 1037.705 to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.705 Generating and calculating CO2 emission credits.
(a) The provisions of this section apply separately for calculating
CO2 emission credits for each pollutant.
(b) For each participating family or subfamily, calculate positive
or negative emission credits relative to the otherwise applicable
emission standard. Calculate positive emission credits for a family or
subfamily that has an FEL below the standard. Calculate negative
emission credits for a family or subfamily that has an FEL above the
standard. Sum your positive and negative credits for the model year
before rounding. Round the sum of emission credits to the nearest
megagram (Mg), using consistent units with the following equation:
Emission credits (Mg) = (Std-FEL) [middot] PL [middot] Volume [middot]
UL [middot] 10-\6\
Eq. 1037.705-1
Where:
Std = the emission standard associated with the specific regulatory
subcategory (g/ton-mile).
FEL = the family emission limit for the vehicle subfamily (g/ton-
mile).
PL = standard payload, in tons.
Volume = U.S.-directed production volume of the vehicle subfamily,
subject to the exclusions described in paragraph (c) of this
section. For example, if you produce three configurations with the
same FEL, the subfamily production volume would be the sum of the
production volumes for these three configurations.
UL = useful life of the vehicle, in miles, as described in
Sec. Sec. 1037.105 and 1037.106.
(c) Compliance with the requirements of this subpart is determined
at the end of the model year by calculating emission credits based on
actual
[[Page 29790]]
production volumes, excluding any of the following vehicles:
(1) Vehicles that you do not certify to the CO2
standards of this part because they are permanently exempted under
subpart G of this part or under 40 CFR part 1068.
(2) Exported vehicles even if they are certified under this part
and labeled accordingly.
(3) Vehicles not subject to the requirements of this part, such as
those excluded under Sec. 1037.5.
(4) Any other vehicles, where we indicate elsewhere in this part
that they are not to be included in the calculations of this subpart.
0
104. Amend Sec. 1037.710 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.710 Averaging.
* * * * *
(c) If you certify a vehicle family to an FEL that exceeds the
otherwise applicable standard, you must obtain enough emission credits
to offset the vehicle family's deficit by the due date for the final
report required in Sec. 1037.730. The emission credits used to address
the deficit may come from your other vehicle families that generate
emission credits in the same model year (or from later model years as
specified in Sec. 1037.745), from emission credits you have banked
from previous model years, or from emission credits generated in the
same or previous model years that you obtained through trading.
0
105. Amend Sec. 1037.715 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.715 Banking.
(a) Banking is the retention of surplus emission credits by the
manufacturer generating the emission credits for use in future model
years for averaging or trading.
* * * * *
0
106. Amend Sec. 1037.720 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.720 Trading.
(a) Trading is the exchange of emission credits between
manufacturers, or the transfer of credits to another party to retire
them. You may use traded emission credits for averaging, banking, or
further trading transactions. Traded emission credits remain subject to
the averaging-set restrictions based on the averaging set in which they
were generated.
* * * * *
0
107. Amend Sec. 1037.730 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (f)(1) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1037.730 ABT reports.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) The projected and actual production volumes for the model year
for calculating emission credits. If you changed an FEL during the
model year, identify the actual production volume associated with each
FEL.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) If you notify us by the deadline for submitting the final
report that errors mistakenly decreased your balance of emission
credits, you may correct the errors and recalculate the balance of
emission credits. If you notify us that errors mistakenly decreased
your balance of emission credits after the deadline for submitting the
final report, you may correct the errors and recalculate the balance of
emission credits after applying a 10 percent discount to the credit
correction, but only if you notify us within 24 months after the
deadline for submitting the final report. If you report a negative
balance of emission credits, we may disallow corrections under this
paragraph (f)(1).
* * * * *
0
108. Amend Sec. 1037.740 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1)
introductory text, and (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.740 Restrictions for using emission credits.
* * * * *
(a) Averaging sets. Except as specified in Sec. 1037.105(h) and
paragraph (b) of this section, emission credits may be exchanged only
within an averaging set. The following principal averaging sets apply
for vehicles certified to the standards of this part involving emission
credits as described in this subpart:
(1) Light HDV.
(2) Medium HDV.
(3) Heavy HDV.
(4) Note that other separate averaging sets also apply for emission
credits not related to this part. For example, vehicles certified to
the greenhouse gas standards of 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, comprise a
single averaging set. Separate averaging sets also apply for engines
under 40 CFR part 1036, including engines used in vehicles subject to
this subpart.
(b) * * *
(1) Credits generated from Phase 1 vehicles may be used for any of
the averaging sets identified in paragraph (a) of this section; you may
also use those credits to demonstrate compliance with the
CO2 emission standards in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, and 40
CFR part 1036. Similarly, you may use Phase 1 advanced-technology
credits generated under 40 CFR 86.1819-14(k)(7) or 1036.615 to
demonstrate compliance with the CO2 standards in this part.
The maximum amount of advanced-technology credits generated from Phase
1 vehicles that you may bring into each of the following service class
groups is 60,000 Mg per model year:
* * * * *
(2) Credits generated from Phase 2 and later vehicles are subject
to the averaging-set restrictions that apply to other emission credits.
* * * * *
0
109. Amend Sec. 1037.745 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.745 End-of-year CO2 credit deficits.
* * * * *
(a) Your certificate for a vehicle family for which you do not have
sufficient CO2 credits will not be void if you remedy the
deficit with surplus credits within three model years. For example, if
you have a credit deficit of 500 Mg for a vehicle family at the end of
model year 2015, you must generate (or otherwise obtain) a surplus of
at least 500 Mg in that same averaging set by the end of model year
2018.
* * * * *
0
110. Amend Sec. 1037.801 by:
0
a. Adding a definition of ``Battery electric vehicle'' in alphabetical
order;
0
b. Removing the definition of ``Box van'';
0
c. Revising the definition of ``Class'';
0
d. Removing the definitions of ``Container chassis'', ``Electric
vehicle'', and ``Flatbed trailer'';
0
e. Adding a definition of ``Fuel cell electric vehicle'' in
alphabetical order;
0
f. Revising the definitions of ``Greenhouse gas Emissions Model
(GEM)'', ``Heavy-duty vehicle'', and ``Heavy-haul tractor'';
0
g. Adding a definition of ``Hybrid'' in alphabetical order;
0
h. Removing the definitions of ``Hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain''
and ``Hybrid vehicle'';
0
i. Revising the definitions of ``Light-duty truck'', ``Light-duty
vehicle'', ``Low rolling resistance tire'', ``Manufacturer'', and
``Model year'';
0
j. Adding a definition of ``Neat'' in alphabetical order;
0
k. Revising the definitions of ``Neutral coasting'', ``Phase 1'', and
``Phase 2'';
0
l. Adding definitions of ``Phase 3'' and ``Plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle'' in alphabetical order;
0
m. Revising the definitions of ``Preliminary approval'', ``Small
manufacturer'', and ``Standard payload'';
0
n. Removing the definition of ``Standard tractor'';
[[Page 29791]]
0
o. Adding a definition of ``State of certified energy (SOCE)'' in
alphabetical order;
0
p. Removing the definitions of ``Tank trailer'' and ``Tonne'';
0
q. Adding a definition of ``Ton'' in alphabetical order;
0
r. Revising the definitions of ``Trailer'' and ``U.S.-directed
production volume'';
0
s. Adding a definition of ``Usable battery energy (UBE)'' in
alphabetical order; and
0
t. Revising the definition of ``Vehicle''.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1037.801 Definitions.
* * * * *
Battery electric vehicle means a motor vehicle powered solely by an
electric motor where energy for the motor is supplied by one or more
batteries that receive power from an external source of electricity.
Note that this definition does not include hybrid vehicles or plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles.
* * * * *
Class means relating to GVWR classes, as follows:
(1) Class 2b means relating to heavy-duty motor vehicles at or
below 10,000 pounds GVWR.
(2) Class 3 means relating to heavy-duty motor vehicles above
10,000 pounds GVWR but at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR.
(3) Class 4 means relating to heavy-duty motor vehicles above
14,000 pounds GVWR but at or below 16,000 pounds GVWR.
(4) Class 5 means relating to heavy-duty motor vehicles above
16,000 pounds GVWR but at or below 19,500 pounds GVWR.
(5) Class 6 means relating to heavy-duty motor vehicles above
19,500 pounds GVWR but at or below 26,000 pounds GVWR.
(6) Class 7 means relating to heavy-duty motor vehicles above
26,000 pounds GVWR but at or below 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(7) Class 8 means relating to heavy-duty motor vehicles above
33,000 pounds GVWR.
* * * * *
Fuel cell electric vehicle means a motor vehicle powered solely by
an electric motor where energy for the motor is supplied by hydrogen
fuel cells. Fuel cell electric vehicles may include energy storage from
the fuel cells or from regenerative braking in a battery.
* * * * *
Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) means the GEM simulation tool
described in Sec. 1037.520 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
1037.810).
* * * * *
Heavy-duty vehicle means any motor vehicle that has a GVWR above
8,500 pounds. An incomplete vehicle is also a heavy-duty vehicle if it
has a curb weight above 6,000 pounds or a basic vehicle frontal area
greater than 45 square feet.
Heavy-haul tractor means a tractor with GCWR greater than or equal
to 120,000 pounds. A heavy-haul tractor is not a vocational tractor in
Phase 2 and later.
* * * * *
Hybrid has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1036.801. Note that a hybrid
vehicle is a vehicle with a hybrid engine or other hybrid powertrain.
This includes plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
* * * * *
Light-duty truck has the meaning given in 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
Light-duty vehicle has the meaning given in 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
* * * * *
Low rolling resistance tire means a tire on a vocational vehicle
with a TRRL at or below of 7.7 N/kN, a steer tire on a tractor with a
TRRL at or below 7.7 N/kN, a drive tire on a tractor with a TRRL at or
below 8.1 N/kN.
* * * * *
Manufacturer has the meaning given in section 216(1) of the Act. In
general, this term includes any person who manufactures or assembles a
vehicle (including an incomplete vehicle) for sale in the United States
or otherwise introduces a new motor vehicle into commerce in the United
States. This includes importers who import vehicles for resale,
entities that manufacture glider kits, and entities that assemble
glider vehicles.
* * * * *
Model year means one of the following for compliance with this
part. Note that manufacturers may have other model year designations
for the same vehicle for compliance with other requirements or for
other purposes:
(1) For vehicles with a date of manufacture on or after January 1,
2021, model year means the manufacturer's annual new model production
period based on the vehicle's date of manufacture, where the model year
is the calendar year corresponding to the date of manufacture, except
as follows:
(i) The vehicle's model year may be designated as the year before
the calendar year corresponding to the date of manufacture if the
engine's model year is also from an earlier year. You may ask us to
extend your prior model year certificate to include such vehicles. Note
that Sec. 1037.601(a)(2) limits the extent to which vehicle
manufacturers may install engines built in earlier calendar years.
(ii) The vehicle's model year may be designated as the year after
the calendar year corresponding to the vehicle's date of manufacture.
For example, a manufacturer may produce a new vehicle by installing the
engine in December 2023 and designating it as a model year 2024
vehicle.
(2) For Phase 1 vehicles with a date of manufacture before January
1, 2021, model year means the manufacturer's annual new model
production period, except as restricted under this definition and 40
CFR part 85, subpart X. It must include January 1 of the calendar year
for which the model year is named, may not begin before January 2 of
the previous calendar year, and it must end by December 31 of the named
calendar year. The model year may be set to match the calendar year
corresponding to the date of manufacture.
(i) The manufacturer who holds the certificate of conformity for
the vehicle must assign the model year based on the date when its
manufacturing operations are completed relative to its annual model
year period. In unusual circumstances where completion of your assembly
is delayed, we may allow you to assign a model year one year earlier,
provided it does not affect which regulatory requirements will apply.
(ii) Unless a vehicle is being shipped to a secondary vehicle
manufacturer that will hold the certificate of conformity, the model
year must be assigned prior to introduction of the vehicle into U.S.
commerce. The certifying manufacturer must redesignate the model year
if it does not complete its manufacturing operations within the
originally identified model year. A vehicle introduced into U.S.
commerce without a model year is deemed to have a model year equal to
the calendar year of its introduction into U.S. commerce unless the
certifying manufacturer assigns a later date.
* * * * *
Neat has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Neutral coasting means a vehicle technology that automatically puts
the transmission in neutral when the when operator demand is zero while
the vehicle is in motion, such as driving downhill.
* * * * *
Phase 1 means relating to the Phase 1 standards specified in
Sec. Sec. 1037.105 and
[[Page 29792]]
1037.106. For example, a vehicle subject to the Phase 1 standards is a
Phase 1 vehicle.
Phase 2 means relating to the Phase 2 standards specified in
Sec. Sec. 1037.105 and 1037.106.
Phase 3 means relating to the Phase 3 standards specified in
Sec. Sec. 1037.105 and 1037.106.
* * * * *
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle means a hybrid vehicle that has the
capability to charge one or more batteries from an external source of
electricity while the vehicle is parked.
* * * * *
Preliminary approval means approval granted by an authorized EPA
representative prior to submission of an application for certification,
consistent with the provisions of Sec. 1037.210.
* * * * *
Small manufacturer means a manufacturer meeting the small business
criteria specified in 13 CFR 121.201 for heavy-duty truck manufacturing
(NAICS code 336120). The employee limit applies to the total number
employees for all affiliated companies (as defined in 40 CFR 1068.30).
* * * * *
Standard payload means the payload assumed for each vehicle, in
tons, for modeling and calculating emission credits, as follows:
(1) For vocational vehicles:
(i) 2.85 tons for Light HDV.
(ii) 5.6 tons for Medium HDV.
(iii) 7.5 tons for Heavy HDV.
(2) For tractors:
(i) 12.5 tons for Class 7.
(ii) 19 tons for Class 8, other than heavy-haul tractors.
(iii) 43 tons for heavy-haul tractors.
* * * * *
State of certified energy (SOCE) means the measured or onboard UBE
performance at a specific point in its lifetime, expressed as a
percentage of the certified usable battery energy.
* * * * *
Ton means a short ton, which is exactly 2000 pounds.
* * * * *
Trailer means a piece of equipment designed for carrying cargo and
for being drawn by a tractor when coupled to the tractor's fifth wheel.
* * * * *
U.S.-directed production volume means the number of vehicle units,
subject to the requirements of this part, produced by a manufacturer
for which the manufacturer has a reasonable assurance that sale was or
will be made to ultimate purchasers in the United States.
Usable battery energy (UBE) means the energy the battery supplies
from the start of the certification test procedure until the applicable
break-off criterion. This part depends on certified and aged values of
UBE to set battery monitoring requirements as described in Sec.
1037.115(f).
* * * * *
Vehicle means equipment intended for use on highways that meets at
least one of the criteria of paragraph (1) of this definition, as
follows:
(1) The following equipment are vehicles:
(i) A piece of equipment that is intended for self-propelled use on
highways becomes a vehicle when it includes at least an engine, a
transmission, and a frame. (Note: For purposes of this definition, any
electrical, mechanical, and/or hydraulic devices attached to engines
for the purpose of powering wheels are considered to be transmissions.)
(ii) A piece of equipment that is intended for self-propelled use
on highways becomes a vehicle when it includes a passenger compartment
attached to a frame with one or more axles.
(2) Vehicles may be complete or incomplete vehicles as follows:
(i) A complete vehicle is a functioning vehicle that has the
primary load carrying device or container (or equivalent equipment)
attached when it is first sold as a vehicle. Examples of equivalent
equipment would include fifth wheel trailer hitches, firefighting
equipment, and utility booms.
(ii) An incomplete vehicle is a vehicle that is not a complete
vehicle. Incomplete vehicles may also be cab-complete vehicles. This
may include vehicles sold to secondary vehicle manufacturers.
(iii) You may ask us to allow you to certify a vehicle as
incomplete if you manufacture the engines and sell the unassembled
chassis components, as long as you do not produce and sell the body
components necessary to complete the vehicle.
* * * * *
0
111. Amend Sec. 1037.805 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text; and
0
b. In table 5 to paragraph (e), removing the entries for ``ECM'',
``FE'', ``FTP'', ``LLC'', ``PHEV'', and ``SET''.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 1037.805 Symbols, abbreviations, and acronyms.
The procedures in this part generally follow either the
International System of Units (SI) or the United States customary
units, as detailed in NIST Special Publication 811 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 1037.810). See 40 CFR 1065.20 for specific
provisions related to these conventions. This section summarizes the
way we use symbols, units of measure, and other abbreviations.
* * * * *
0
112. Amend Sec. 1037.810 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(2);
0
b. Removing paragraph (c)(9);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (c)(10) as paragraph (c)(9); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (d).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1037.810 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) SAE J1252 JUL2012, SAE Wind Tunnel Test Procedure for Trucks
and Buses, Revised July 2012, (``SAE J1252''); IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 1037.525(b) and (c); 1037.530(a).
* * * * *
(d) U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105; www.epa.gov; [email protected].
(1) Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM), Version 2.0.1, September
2012 (``GEM version 2.0.1''); IBR approved for Sec. 1037.520.
(2) Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) Phase 2, Version 3.0, July
2016 (``GEM Phase 2, Version 3.0''); IBR approved for Sec.
1037.150(x).
(3) Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) Phase 2, Version 3.5.1,
November 2020 (``GEM Phase 2, Version 3.5.1''); IBR approved for Sec.
1037.150(x).
(4) Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) Phase 2, Version 4.0,
April 2022 (``GEM Phase 2, Version 4.0''); IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
1037.150(x); 1037.520.
(5) GEM's MATLAB/Simulink Hardware-in-Loop model, Version 3.8,
December 2020 (``GEM HIL model 3.8''); IBR approved for Sec.
1037.150(x).
0
113. Revise appendix C to part 1037 to read as follows:
Appendix C to Part 1037--Emission Control Identifiers
This appendix identifies abbreviations for emission control
information labels, as required under Sec. 1037.135.
Vehicle Speed Limiters
--VSL--Vehicle speed limiter
--VSLS--``Soft-top'' vehicle speed limiter
--VSLE--Expiring vehicle speed limiter
--VSLD--Vehicle speed limiter with both ``soft-top'' and expiration
Idle Reduction Technology
--IRT5--Engine shutoff after 5 minutes or less of idling
--IRTE--Expiring engine shutoff
[[Page 29793]]
Tires
--LRRA--Low rolling resistance tires (all)
--LRRD--Low rolling resistance tires (drive)
--LRRS--Low rolling resistance tires (steer)
Aerodynamic Components
--ATS--Aerodynamic side skirt and/or fuel tank fairing
--ARF--Aerodynamic roof fairing
--ARFR--Adjustable height aerodynamic roof fairing
--TGR--Gap reducing tractor fairing (tractor to trailer gap)
Other Components
--ADVH--Vehicle includes advanced hybrid technology components
--ADVO--Vehicle includes other advanced-technology components (i.e.,
non-hybrid system)
--INV--Vehicle includes innovative (off-cycle) technology components
--ATI--Automatic tire inflation system
--TPMS--Tire pressure monitoring system
0
114. Revise appendix D to part 1037 to read as follows:
Appendix D to Part 1037--Heavy-Duty Grade Profile for Steady-State Test
Cycles
The following table identifies a grade profile for operating
vehicles over the highway cruise cycles specified in subpart F of
this part. Determine intermediate values by linear interpolation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance (m) Grade (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 0
402..................................................... 0
804..................................................... 0.5
1206.................................................... 0
1210.................................................... 0
1222.................................................... -0.10
1234.................................................... 0
1244.................................................... 0
1294.................................................... 0.36
1344.................................................... 0
1354.................................................... 0
1408.................................................... -0.28
1504.................................................... -1.04
1600.................................................... -0.28
1654.................................................... 0
1666.................................................... 0
1792.................................................... 0.39
1860.................................................... 0.66
1936.................................................... 1.15
2098.................................................... 2.44
2260.................................................... 1.15
2336.................................................... 0.66
2404.................................................... 0.39
2530.................................................... 0
2548.................................................... 0
2732.................................................... -0.46
2800.................................................... -0.69
2880.................................................... -1.08
2948.................................................... -1.53
3100.................................................... -2.75
3252.................................................... -1.53
3320.................................................... -1.08
3400.................................................... -0.69
3468.................................................... -0.46
3652.................................................... 0
3666.................................................... 0
3742.................................................... 0.35
3818.................................................... 0.90
3904.................................................... 1.59
3990.................................................... 0.90
4066.................................................... 0.35
4142.................................................... 0
4158.................................................... 0
4224.................................................... -0.10
4496.................................................... -0.69
4578.................................................... -0.97
4664.................................................... -1.36
4732.................................................... -1.78
4916.................................................... -3.23
5100.................................................... -1.78
5168.................................................... -1.36
5254.................................................... -0.97
5336.................................................... -0.69
5608.................................................... -0.10
5674.................................................... 0
5724.................................................... 0
5808.................................................... 0.10
5900.................................................... 0.17
6122.................................................... 0.38
6314.................................................... 0.58
6454.................................................... 0.77
6628.................................................... 1.09
6714.................................................... 1.29
6838.................................................... 1.66
6964.................................................... 2.14
7040.................................................... 2.57
7112.................................................... 3.00
7164.................................................... 3.27
7202.................................................... 3.69
7292.................................................... 5.01
7382.................................................... 3.69
7420.................................................... 3.27
7472.................................................... 3.00
7544.................................................... 2.57
7620.................................................... 2.14
7746.................................................... 1.66
7870.................................................... 1.29
7956.................................................... 1.09
8130.................................................... 0.77
8270.................................................... 0.58
8462.................................................... 0.38
8684.................................................... 0.17
8776.................................................... 0.10
8860.................................................... 0
8904.................................................... 0
9010.................................................... -0.38
9070.................................................... -0.69
9254.................................................... -2.13
9438.................................................... -0.69
9498.................................................... -0.38
9604.................................................... 0
9616.................................................... 0
9664.................................................... 0.26
9718.................................................... 0.70
9772.................................................... 0.26
9820.................................................... 0
9830.................................................... 0
9898.................................................... -0.34
10024................................................... -1.33
10150................................................... -0.34
10218................................................... 0
10228................................................... 0
10316................................................... 0.37
10370................................................... 0.70
10514................................................... 1.85
10658................................................... 0.70
10712................................................... 0.37
10800................................................... 0
10812................................................... 0
10900................................................... -0.37
10954................................................... -0.7
11098................................................... -1.85
11242................................................... -0.70
11296................................................... -0.37
11384................................................... 0
11394................................................... 0
11462................................................... 0.34
11588................................................... 1.33
11714................................................... 0.34
11782................................................... 0
11792................................................... 0
11840................................................... -0.26
11894................................................... -0.70
11948................................................... -0.26
11996................................................... 0
12008................................................... 0
12114................................................... 0.38
12174................................................... 0.69
12358................................................... 2.13
12542................................................... 0.69
12602................................................... 0.38
12708................................................... 0
12752................................................... 0
12836................................................... -0.10
12928................................................... -0.17
13150................................................... -0.38
13342................................................... -0.58
13482................................................... -0.77
13656................................................... -1.09
13742................................................... -1.29
13866................................................... -1.66
13992................................................... -2.14
14068................................................... -2.57
14140................................................... -3.00
14192................................................... -3.27
14230................................................... -3.69
14320................................................... -5.01
14410................................................... -3.69
14448................................................... -3.27
14500................................................... -3.00
14572................................................... -2.57
14648................................................... -2.14
14774................................................... -1.66
14898................................................... -1.29
14984................................................... -1.09
15158................................................... -0.77
15298................................................... -0.58
15490................................................... -0.38
15712................................................... -0.17
15804................................................... -0.10
15888................................................... 0
15938................................................... 0
16004................................................... 0.10
16276................................................... 0.69
16358................................................... 0.97
16444................................................... 1.36
16512................................................... 1.78
16696................................................... 3.23
16880................................................... 1.78
16948................................................... 1.36
17034................................................... 0.97
17116................................................... 0.69
17388................................................... 0.10
17454................................................... 0
17470................................................... 0
17546................................................... -0.35
17622................................................... -0.90
17708................................................... -1.59
17794................................................... -0.90
17870................................................... -0.35
17946................................................... 0
17960................................................... 0
[[Page 29794]]
18144................................................... 0.46
18212................................................... 0.69
18292................................................... 1.08
18360................................................... 1.53
18512................................................... 2.75
18664................................................... 1.53
18732................................................... 1.08
18812................................................... 0.69
18880................................................... 0.46
19064................................................... 0
19082................................................... 0
19208................................................... -0.39
19276................................................... -0.66
19352................................................... -1.15
19514................................................... -2.44
19676................................................... -1.15
19752................................................... -0.66
19820................................................... -0.39
19946................................................... 0
19958................................................... 0
20012................................................... 0.28
20108................................................... 1.04
20204................................................... 0.28
20258................................................... 0
20268................................................... 0
20318................................................... -0.36
20368................................................... 0
20378................................................... 0
20390................................................... 0.10
20402................................................... 0
20406................................................... 0
20808................................................... -0.50
21210................................................... 0
21612................................................... 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 1039--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE NONROAD
COMPRESSION-IGNITION ENGINES
0
115. The authority citation for part 1039 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
116. Amend Sec. 1039.705 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1039.705 How do I generate and calculate emission credits?
* * * * *
(b) For each participating family, calculate positive or negative
emission credits relative to the otherwise applicable emission
standard. Calculate positive emission credits for a family that has an
FEL below the standard. Calculate negative emission credits for a
family that has an FEL above the standard. Sum your positive and
negative credits for the model year before rounding. Round the sum of
emission credits to the nearest kilogram (kg), using consistent units
throughout the following equation:
Emission credits (kg) = (Std-FEL) [middot] Volume [middot] AvgPR
[middot] UL [middot] 10-\3\
Eq. 1039.705-1
Where:
Std = the emission standard, in grams per kilowatt-hour, that
applies under subpart B of this part for engines not participating
in the ABT program of this subpart (the ``otherwise applicable
standard'').
FEL = the family emission limit for the engine family, in grams per
kilowatt-hour.
Volume = the number of engines eligible to participate in the
averaging, banking, and trading program within the given engine
family during the model year, as described in paragraph (c) of this
section.
AvgPR = the average value of maximum engine power values for the
engine configurations within an engine family, calculated on a
sales-weighted basis, in kilowatts.
UL = the useful life for the given engine family, in hours.
* * * * *
PART 1054--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW, SMALL NONROAD SPARK-
IGNITION ENGINES AND EQUIPMENT
0
117. The authority citation for part 1054 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
118. Amend Sec. 1054.501 by revising paragraph (b)(7) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1054.501 How do I run a valid emission test?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) Determine your test fuel's carbon mass fraction, wc,
using a calculation based on fuel properties as described in 40 CFR
1065.655(d); however, you must measure fuel properties for [alpha] and
[beta] rather than using the default values specified in 40 CFR
1065.655(e).
* * * * *
PART 1065--ENGINE-TESTING PROCEDURES
0
119. The authority citation for part 1065 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
120. Amend Sec. 1065.12 by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.12 Approval of alternate procedures.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Theoretical basis. Give a brief technical description
explaining why you believe the proposed alternate procedure should
result in emission measurements equivalent to those using the specified
procedure. You may include equations, figures, and references. You
should consider the full range of parameters that may affect
equivalence. For example, for a request to use a different
NOX measurement procedure, you should theoretically relate
the alternate detection principle to the specified detection principle
over the expected concentration ranges for NO, NO2, and
interference species. For a request to use a different PM measurement
procedure, you should explain the principles by which the alternate
procedure quantifies particulate mass similarly to the specified
procedures.
* * * * *
0
121. Amend Sec. 1065.170 by revising paragraph (c)(1)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.170 Batch sampling for gaseous and PM constituents.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) If you expect that a filter's total surface concentration of PM
will exceed 400 [micro]g, assuming a 38 mm diameter filter stain area,
for a given test interval, you may use filter media with a minimum
initial collection efficiency of 98%; otherwise you must use a filter
media with a minimum initial collection efficiency of 99.7%. Collection
efficiency must be measured as described in ASTM D2986 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 1065.1010), though you may rely on the sample-
media manufacturer's measurements reflected in their product ratings to
show that you meet the requirement in this paragraph (c)(1)(i).
* * * * *
0
122. Amend Sec. 1065.190 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.190 PM-stabilization and weighing environments for
gravimetric analysis.
* * * * *
(b) We recommend that you keep both the stabilization and the
weighing environments free of ambient contaminants, such as dust,
aerosols, or semi-volatile material that could contaminate PM samples.
We recommend that these environments conform with an ``as-built'' Class
Six clean room specification according to ISO 14644-1 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 1065.1010); however, we also recommend that you
deviate from ISO 14644-1 as necessary to minimize air motion that might
affect weighing. We recommend maximum air-supply and air-return
velocities of 0.05 m/s in the weighing environment.
* * * * *
0
123. Amend Sec. 1065.210 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.210 Work input and output sensors.
(a) Application. Use instruments as specified in this section to
measure work inputs and outputs during engine
[[Page 29795]]
operation. We recommend that you use sensors, transducers, and meters
that meet the specifications in Sec. 1065.205. Note that your overall
systems for measuring work inputs and outputs must meet the linearity
verifications in Sec. 1065.307. In all cases, ensure that you are able
to accurately demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards in
this chapter. The following additional provisions apply related to work
inputs and outputs:
(1) We recommend that you measure work inputs and outputs where
they cross the system boundary as shown in figure 1 to paragraph (a)(5)
of this section. The system boundary is different for air-cooled
engines than for liquid-cooled engines.
(2) For measurements involving work conversion relative to a system
boundary use good engineering judgment to estimate any work-conversion
losses in a way that avoids overestimation of total work. For example,
if it is impractical to instrument the shaft of an exhaust turbine
generating electrical work, you may decide to measure its converted
electrical work. As another example, you may decide to measure the
tractive (i.e., electrical output) power of a locomotive, rather than
the brake power of the locomotive engine. For measuring tractive power
based on electrical output, divide the electrical work by accurate
values of electrical generator efficiency ([eta] <1), or assume an
efficiency of 1 ([eta] =1), which would over-estimate brake-specific
emissions. For the example of using locomotive tractive power with a
generator efficiency of 1 ([eta] =1), this means using the tractive
power as the brake power in emission calculations.
(3) If your engine includes an externally powered electrical heater
to heat engine exhaust, assume an electrical generator efficiency of
0.67 ([eta] =0.67) to account for the work needed to run the heater.
(4) Do not underestimate any work conversion efficiencies for any
components outside the system boundary that do not return work into the
system boundary. And do not overestimate any work conversion
efficiencies for components outside the system boundary that return
work into the system boundary.
(5) Figure 1 to this paragraph (a)(5) follows:
Figure 1 to paragraph (a)(5) of Sec. 1065.210: Work Inputs, Outputs,
and System Boundaries
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.221
* * * * *
0
124. Revise the undesignated center heading preceding Sec. 1065.250 to
read as follows:
Hydrocarbon, H2, and H2O Measurements
0
125. Add Sec. Sec. 1065.255 and 1065.257 under newly revised
undesignated center heading ``Hydrocarbon, H2, and
H2O Measurements'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.255 H2 measurement devices.
(a) Component requirements. We recommend that you use an analyzer
that meets the specifications in Sec. 1065.205. Note that your system
must meet the linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307.
(b) Instrument types. You may use any of the following analyzers to
measure H2:
(1) Magnetic sector mass spectrometer.
(2) Raman spectrometer.
(c) Interference verification. Certain compounds can positively
interfere with magnetic sector mass spectroscopy and raman spectroscopy
by causing a response similar to H2. Use good engineering
judgment to determine interference species when performing interference
verification. In the case of raman spectroscopy, determine interference
species that are appropriate for each H2 infrared absorption
band, or
[[Page 29796]]
you may identify the interference species based on the instrument
manufacturer's recommendations.
Sec. 1065.257 H2O measurement devices.
(a) Component requirements. We recommend that you use an analyzer
that meets the specifications in Sec. 1065.205. Note that your system
must meet the linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307 with a humidity
generator meeting the requirements of Sec. 1065.750(a)(6).
(b) Measurement principles. Use appropriate analytical procedures
for interpretation of infrared spectra. For example, EPA Test Method
320 (see Sec. 1065.266(b)) and ASTM D6348 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 1065.1010) are considered valid methods for spectral
interpretation. You must use heated analyzers that maintain all
surfaces that are exposed to emissions at a temperature of (110 to 202)
[deg]C.
(c) Instrument types. You may use any of the following analyzers to
measure H2O:
(1) Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analyzer.
(2) Laser infrared analyzer. Examples of laser infrared analyzers
are pulsed-mode high-resolution narrow band mid-infrared analyzers and
modulated continuous wave high-resolution narrow band near or mid-
infrared analyzers.
(d) Interference verification. Certain compounds can interfere with
FTIR and laser infrared analyzers by causing a response similar to
water. Perform interference verification for the following interference
species:
(1) Perform CO2 interference verification for FTIR
analyzers using the procedures of Sec. 1065.357. Use good engineering
judgment to determine other interference species for FTIR analyzers
when performing interference verification. Consider at least CO, NO,
C2H4, and C7H8. Perform
interference verifications using the procedures of Sec. 1065.357,
replacing occurances of CO2 with each targeted interference
species. Determine interference species under this paragraph (d)(1)
that are appropriate for each H2O infrared absorption band,
or you may identify the interference species based on the instrument
manufacturer's recommendations.
(2) Perform interference verification for laser infrared analyzers
using the procedures of Sec. 1065.375. Use good engineering judgment
to determine interference species for laser infrared analyzers. Note
that interference species are dependent on the H2O infrared
absorption band chosen by the instrument manufacturer. For each
analyzer determine the H2O infrared absorption band.
Determine interference species under this paragraph (d)(2) that are
appropriate for each H2O infrared absorption band, or you
may identify the interference species based on the instrument
manufacturer's recommendations.
0
126. Revise Sec. 1065.266 to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.266 Fourier transform infrared analyzer.
(a) Application. For engines that run only on natural gas, you may
use a Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analyzer to measure nonmethane
hydrocarbon (NMHC) and nonmethane nonethane hydrocarbon (NMNEHC) for
continuous sampling. You may use an FTIR analyzer with any gaseous-
fueled engine, including dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines, to
measure CH4 and C2H6, for either batch
or continuous sampling (for subtraction from THC).
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use an FTIR
analyzer that meets the specifications in Sec. 1065.205.
(c) Measurement principles. Note that your FTIR-based system must
meet the linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307. Use appropriate
analytical procedures for interpretation of infrared spectra. For
example, EPA Test Method 320 in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, and ASTM
D6348 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1065.1010) are considered
valid methods for spectral interpretation. You must use heated FTIR
analyzers that maintain all surfaces that are exposed to emissions at a
temperature of (110 to 202) [deg]C.
(d) Hydrocarbon species for NMHC and NMNEHC additive determination.
To determine NMNEHC, measure ethene, ethyne, propane, propene, butane,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, formic acid, and methanol. To determine
NMHC, measure ethane in addition to those same hydrocarbon species.
Determine NMHC and NMNEHC as described in Sec. 1065.660(b)(4) and
(c)(3).
(e) NMHC and NMNEHC determination from subtraction of
CH4 and C2H6 from THC. Determine NMHC
from subtraction of CH4 from THC as described in Sec.
1065.660(b)(3) and NMNEHC from subtraction of CH4 and
C2H6 as described Sec. 1065.660(c)(2). Determine
CH4 as described in Sec. 1065.660(d)(2) and
C2H6 as described Sec. 1065.660(e).
(f) Interference verification. Perform interference verification
for FTIR analyzers using the procedures of Sec. 1065.366. Certain
species can interfere with FTIR analyzers by causing a response similar
to the hydrocarbon species of interest. When running the interference
verification for these analyzers, use interference species as follows:
(1) The interference species for CH4 are CO2,
H2O, and C2H6.
(2) The interference species for C2H6 are
CO2, H2O, and CH4.
(3) The interference species for other measured hydrocarbon species
are CO2, H2O, CH4, and
C2H6.
0
127. Amend Sec. 1065.267 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.267 Gas chromatograph with a flame ionization detector.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a GC-FID that
meets the specifications in Sec. 1065.205 and that the measurement be
done according to SAE J1151 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
1065.1010). The GC-FID must meet the linearity verification in Sec.
1065.307.
0
128. Revise the undesignated center heading preceding Sec. 1065.270 to
read as follows:
NOX, N2O, and NH3 Measurements
0
129. Amend Sec. 1065.270 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.270 Chemiluminescent NOX analyzer.
* * * * *
0
130. Amend Sec. 1065.272 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.272 Nondispersive ultraviolet NOX analyzer.
* * * * *
0
131. Amend Sec. 1065.275 by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (c) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1065.275 N2O measurement devices.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analyzer. Use appropriate
analytical procedures for interpretation of infrared spectra. For
example, EPA Test Method 320 in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, and ASTM
D6348 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1065.1010) are considered
valid methods for spectral interpretation.
* * * * *
(c) Interference verification. Certain compounds can positively
interfere with NDIR, FTIR, laser infrared analyzers, and photoacoustic
analyzers by causing a response similar to N2O. Perform
interference verification for NDIR, FTIR, laser infrared analyzers, and
photoacoustic analyzers using the
[[Page 29797]]
procedures of Sec. 1065.375. Interference verification is not required
for GC-ECD. Perform interference verification for the following
interference species:
(1) The interference species for NDIR analyzers are CO,
CO2, H2O, CH4, and SO2.
Note that interference species, with the exception of H2O,
are dependent on the N2O infrared absorption band chosen by
the instrument manufacturer. For each analyzer determine the
N2O infrared absorption band. For each N2O
infrared absorption band, use good engineering judgment to determine
which interference species to evaluate for interference verification.
(2) Use good engineering judgment to determine interference species
for FTIR and laser infrared analyzers. Note that interference species,
with the exception of H2O, are dependent on the
N2O infrared absorption band chosen by the instrument
manufacturer. For each analyzer determine the N2O infrared
absorption band. Determine interference species under this paragraph
(c)(2) that are appropriate for each N2O infrared absorption
band, or you may identify the interference species based on the
instrument manufacturer's recommendations.
(3) The interference species for photoacoustic analyzers are CO,
CO2, and H2O.
0
132. Add Sec. 1065.277 under newly revised undesignated center heading
``NOX, N2O, AND NH3 MEASUREMENTS'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 1065.277 NH3 measurement devices.
(a) General component requirements. We recommend that you use an
analyzer that meets the specifications in Sec. 1065.205. Note that
your system must meet the linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307.
(b) Instrument types. You may use any of the following analyzers to
measure NH3:
(1) Nondispersive ultraviolet (NDUV) analyzer.
(2) Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analyzer. Use appropriate
analytical procedures for interpretation of infrared spectra. For
example, EPA Test Method 320 (see Sec. 1065.266(c)) and ASTM D6348
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1065.1010) are considered valid
methods for spectral interpretation.
(3) Laser infrared analyzer. Examples of laser infrared analyzers
are pulsed-mode high-resolution narrow-band mid-infrared analyzers,
modulated continuous wave high-resolution narrow band near and mid-
infrared analyzers, and modulated continuous-wave high-resolution near-
infrared analyzers. A quantum cascade laser, for example, can emit
coherent light in the mid-infrared region where NH3 and
other nitrogen compounds can effectively absorb the laser's energy.
(c) Sampling system. Minimize NH3 losses and sampling
artifacts related to NH3 adsorbing to surfaces by using
sampling system components (sample lines, prefilters and valves) made
of stainless steel or PTFE heated to (110 to 202) [deg]C. If surface
temperatures exceed >=130 [deg]C, take steps to prevent any DEF in the
sample gas from thermally decomposing and hydrolyzing to form
NH3. Use a sample line that is as short as practical.
(d) Interference verification. Certain species can positively
interfere with NDUV, FTIR, and laser infrared analyzers by causing a
response similar to NH3. Perform interference verification
as follows:
(1) Perform SO2 and H2O interference
verification for NDUV analyzers using the procedures of Sec. 1065.372,
replacing occurances of NOX with NH3. NDUV
analyzers must have combined interference that is within (0.0 2.0) [micro]mol/mol.
(2) Perform interference verification for FTIR and laser infrared
analyzers using the procedures of Sec. 1065.377. Use good engineering
judgment to determine interference species. Note that interference
species, with the exception of H2O, are dependent on the
NH3 infrared absorption band chosen by the instrument
manufacturer. Determine interference species under this paragraph
(d)(2) that are appropriate for each NH3 infrared absorption
band, or you may identify the interference species based on the
instrument manufacturer's recommendations.
0
133. Revise the undesignated center heading preceding Sec. 1065.280 to
read as follows:
O2 And Air-to-Fuel Ratio Measurements
0
134. Amend Sec. 1065.280 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.280 Paramagnetic and magnetopneumatic O2
detection analyzers.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a PMD or MPD
analyzer that meets the specifications in Sec. 1065.205. Note that it
must meet the linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307.
0
135. Remove the undesignated center heading ``Air-to-Fuel Ratio
Measurements'' preceding Sec. 1065.284.
0
136. Amend Sec. 1065.284 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.284 Zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) air-fuel ratio and
O2 analyzer.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a
ZrO2 analyzer that meets the specifications in Sec.
1065.205. Note that your ZrO2-based system must meet the
linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307.
0
137. Amend Sec. 1065.315 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1065.315 Pressure, temperature, and dewpoint calibration.
(a) * * *
(2) Temperature. We recommend digital dry-block or stirred-liquid
temperature calibrators, with data logging capabilities to minimize
transcription errors. We recommend using calibration reference
quantities for absolute temperature that are NIST-traceable within
0.5% uncertainty. You may perform linearity verification
for temperature measurement systems with thermocouples, RTDs, and
thermistors by removing the sensor from the system and using a
simulator in its place. Use a NIST-traceable simulator that is
independently calibrated and, as appropriate, cold-junction
compensated. The simulator uncertainty scaled to absolute temperature
must be less than 0.5% of Tmax. If you use this option, you
must use sensors that the supplier states are accurate to better than
0.5% of Tmax compared with their standard calibration curve.
(3) Dewpoint. We recommend a minimum of three different
temperature-equilibrated and temperature-monitored calibration salt
solutions in containers that seal completely around the dewpoint
sensor. We recommend using calibration reference quantities for
absolute dewpoint temperature that are NIST-traceable within 0.5% uncertainty.
* * * * *
0
138. Amend Sec. 1065.341 by revising paragraph (c) introductory text
to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.341 CVS and PFD flow verification (propane check).
* * * * *
(c) If you performed the vacuum-side leak verification of the HC
sampling system as described in paragraph (b)(8) of this section, you
may use the HC contamination procedure in Sec. 1065.520(g) to verify
HC contamination. Otherwise, zero, span, and verify contamination of
the HC sampling system, as follows:
* * * * *
0
139. Amend Sec. 1065.350 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Removing the undesignated paragraph following paragraph (b);
[[Page 29798]]
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(7); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (d)(8).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 1065.350 H2O interference verification for
CO2 NDIR analyzers.
* * * * *
(b) Measurement principles. H2O can interfere with an
NDIR analyzer's response to CO2. If the NDIR analyzer uses
compensation algorithms that utilize measurements of other gases to
meet this interference verification, a correct result depends on
simultaneously conducting these other measurements to test the
compensation algorithms during the analyzer interference verification.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) Operate the analyzer to get a reading for CO2
concentration and record results for 30 seconds. Calculate the
arithmetic mean of this data.
(8) The analyzer meets the interference verification if the result
of paragraph (d)(7) of this section meets the tolerance in paragraph
(c) of this section.
* * * * *
0
140. Amend Sec. 1065.355 by revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(7) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1065.355 H2O and CO2 interference
verification for CO NDIR analyzers.
* * * * *
(b) Measurement principles. H2O and CO2 can
positively interfere with an NDIR analyzer by causing a response
similar to CO. If the NDIR analyzer uses compensation algorithms that
utilize measurements of other gases to meet this interference
verification, a correct result depends on simultaneously conducting
these other measurements to test the compensation algorithms during the
analyzer interference verification.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) Operate the analyzer to get a reading for CO concentration and
record results for 30 seconds. Calculate the arithmetic mean of this
data.
* * * * *
0
141. Add an undesignated center heading and Sec. 1065.357 after Sec.
1065.355 to read as follows:
H2O Measurements
Sec. 1065.357 CO2 interference verification for
H2O FTIR analyzers.
(a) Scope and frequency. If you measure H2O using an
FTIR analyzer, verify the amount of CO2 interference after
initial analyzer installation and after major maintenance.
(b) Measurement principles. CO2 can interfere with an
FTIR analyzer's response to H2O. If the FTIR analyzer uses
compensation algorithms that utilize measurements of other gases to
meet this interference verification, a correct result depends on
simultaneously conducting these other measurements to test the
compensation algorithms during the analyzer interference verification.
(c) System requirements. An H2O FTIR analyzer must have
a CO2 interference that is within (0.0 0.4)
mmol/mol, though we strongly recommend a lower interference that is
within (0.0 0.2) mmol/mol.
(d) Procedure. Perform the interference verification as follows:
(1) Start, operate, zero, and span the H2O FTIR analyzer
as you would before an emission test.
(2) Use a CO2 span gas that meets the specifications of
Sec. 1065.750 and a concentration that is approximately the maximum
CO2 concentration expected during emission testing.
(3) Introduce the CO2 test gas into the sample system.
(4) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabilize.
Stabilization time may include time to purge the transfer line and to
account for analyzer response.
(5) Operate the analyzer to get a reading for H2O
concentration and record results for 30 seconds. Calculate the
arithmetic mean of these data.
(6) The analyzer meets the interference verification if the result
of paragraph (d)(5) of this section meets the tolerance in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(e) Exceptions. The following exceptions apply:
(1) You may omit this verification for CO2 for engines
operating on fuels other than carbon-containing fuels.
(2) You may omit this verification if you can show by engineering
analysis that for your H2O sampling system and your
emission-calculation procedures, the CO2 interference for
your H2O FTIR analyzer always affects your brake-specific
emission results within 0.5% of each of the applicable
standards in this chapter. This specification also applies for vehicle
testing, except that it relates to emission results in g/mile or g/
kilometer.
(3) You may use an H2O FTIR analyzer that you determine
does not meet this verification, as long as you try to correct the
problem and the measurement deficiency does not adversely affect your
ability to show that engines comply with all applicable emission
standards.
0
142. Amend Sec. 1065.360 by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (b), (c), (d)
introductory text, and (d)(12) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.360 FID optimization and verification.
(a) * * *
(4) You may determine the methane (CH4) and ethane
(C2H6) response factors as a function of the
molar water concentration in the raw or diluted exhaust. If you choose
the option in this paragraph (a)(4), generate and verify the humidity
level (or fraction) as described in Sec. 1065.365(g).
(b) Calibration. Use good engineering judgment to develop a
calibration procedure, such as one based on the FID-analyzer
manufacturer's instructions and recommended frequency for calibrating
the FID. Alternately, you may remove system components for off-site
calibration. For a FID that measures THC, calibrate using
C3H8 calibration gases that meet the
specifications of Sec. 1065.750. For a FID that measures
CH4, calibrate using CH4 calibration gases that
meet the specifications of Sec. 1065.750. We recommend FID analyzer
zero and span gases that contain approximately the flow-weighted mean
concentration of O2 expected during testing. If you use a
FID to measure CH4 downstream of a nonmethane cutter (NMC),
you may calibrate that FID using CH4 calibration gases with
the NMC. Regardless of the calibration gas composition, calibrate on a
carbon number basis of one (C1). For example, if you use a
C3H8 span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol,
span the FID to respond with a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol. As another
example, if you use a CH4 span gas with a concentration of
200 [mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with a value of 200 [mu]mol/
mol.
(c) THC FID response optimization. This procedure is only for FID
analyzers that measure THC. Use good engineering judgment for initial
instrument start-up and basic operating adjustment using FID fuel and
zero air. Heated FIDs must be within their required operating
temperature ranges. Optimize FID response at the most common analyzer
range expected during emission testing. Optimization involves adjusting
flows and pressures of FID fuel, burner air, and sample to minimize
response variations to various hydrocarbon species in the exhaust. Use
good engineering judgment to trade off peak FID response to propane
calibration gases to achieve minimal response variations to different
hydrocarbon species. For an example of trading off response to propane
for relative responses to other hydrocarbon
[[Page 29799]]
species, see SAE 770141 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
1065.1010). Determine the optimum flow rates and/or pressures for FID
fuel, burner air, and sample and record them for future reference.
(d) THC FID CH4 response factor determination. This procedure is
only for FID analyzers that measure THC. Since FID analyzers generally
have a different response to CH4 versus
C3H8, determine the THC-FID analyzer's
CH4 response factor, RFCH4[THC-FID], after FID
optimization. Use the most recent RFCH4[THC-FID] measured
according to this section in the calculations for HC determination
described in Sec. 1065.660 to compensate for CH4 response.
Determine RFCH4[THC-FID] as follows, noting that you do not
determine RFCH4[THC-FID] for FIDs that are calibrated and
spanned using CH4 with an NMC:
* * * * *
(12) You may determine the response factor as a function of molar
water concentration using the following procedures and use this
response factor to account for the CH4 response for NMHC
determination described in Sec. 1065.660(b)(2)(iii):
(i) Humidify the CH4 span gas as described in Sec.
1065.365(g) and repeat the steps in paragraphs (d)(7) through (9) of
this section until measurements are complete for each setpoint in the
selected range.
(ii) Divide each mean measured CH4 concentration by the
recorded span concentration of the CH4 calibration gas,
adjusted for water content, to determine the FID analyzer's
CH4 response factor, RFCH4[THC-FID].
(iii) Use the CH4 response factors at the different
setpoints to create a functional relationship between response factor
and molar water concentration, downstream of the last sample dryer if
any sample dryers are present.
(iv) Use this functional relationship to determine the response
factor during an emission test.
* * * * *
0
143. Revise Sec. 1065.365 to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.365 Nonmethane cutter penetration fractions and NMC FID
response factors.
(a) Scope and frequency. If you use a FID analyzer and an NMC to
measure methane (CH4), verify that the catalytic activity of
the NMC has not deteriorated as described in this section. Determine
the NMC's penetration fractions (PF) of CH4 and ethane
(C2H6) and, if applicable, the FID analyzer
response factors using the appropriate procedures of paragraph (d),
(e), or (f) of this section. As detailed in this section, these
penetration fractions may be determined as a combination of NMC
penetration fractions and FID analyzer response factors, depending on
your particular NMC and FID analyzer configuration. Perform this
verification after installing the NMC and repeat this verification
within 185 days of testing. Note that because NMCs can deteriorate
rapidly and without warning if they are operated outside of certain
ranges of gas concentrations and outside of certain temperature ranges,
good engineering judgment may dictate that you determine an NMC's
penetration fractions more frequently. Use the most recently determined
penetration fraction from this section to calculate HC emissions
according to Sec. 1065.660 as applicable.
(b) Measurement principles. An NMC is a heated catalyst that
removes nonmethane hydrocarbons from an exhaust sample stream before
the FID analyzer measures the remaining hydrocarbon concentration. An
ideal NMC would have a CH4 penetration fraction,
PFCH4, of 1.000, and the penetration fraction for all other
nonmethane hydrocarbons would be 0.000, as represented by
PFC2H6. The emission calculations in Sec. 1065.660 use the
measured values from this verification to account for less than ideal
NMC performance.
(c) System requirements. We do not require that you limit NMC
penetration fractions to a certain range. However, we recommend that
you optimize an NMC by adjusting its temperature to achieve a
PFC2H6 <0.02, as determined by paragraph (d), (e), or (f) of
this section, as applicable, using dry gases. If adjusting NMC
temperature does not result in achieving the recommended
PFC2H6 level, we recommend that you replace the catalyst
material. Note that, if we use an NMC for testing, we will optimize it
to achieve a PFC2H6 <0.02.
(d) Procedure for a FID calibrated with the NMC. The following
procedure describes the recommended method for verifying NMC
performance and the required method for any gaseous-fueled engine,
including dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines.
(1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical
gas mixtures and ensure that both mixtures meet the specifications of
Sec. 1065.750. Select a CH4 concentration that you would
use for spanning the FID during emission testing and select a
C2H6 concentration that is typical of the peak
NMHC concentration expected at the hydrocarbon standard or equal to the
THC analyzer's span value. For CH4 analyzers with multiple
ranges, perform this procedure on the highest range used for emission
testing.
(2) Start, operate, and optimize the NMC according to the
manufacturer's instructions, including any temperature optimization.
(3) Confirm that the FID analyzer meets all the specifications of
Sec. 1065.360.
(4) Start and operate the FID analyzer according to the
manufacturer's instructions.
(5) Zero and span the FID with the NMC as you would during emission
testing. Span the FID through the NMC by using CH4 span gas.
(6) Introduce the C2H6 analytical gas mixture
upstream of the NMC. Use good engineering judgment to address the
effect of hydrocarbon contamination if your point of introduction is
vastly different from the point of zero/span gas introduction.
(7) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabilize.
Stabilization time may include time to purge the NMC and to account for
the analyzer's response.
(8) While the analyzer measures a stable concentration, record 30
seconds of sampled data. Calculate the arithmetic mean of the
analytical gas mixture.
(9) Calculate a reference concentration of
C2H6, by converting C2H6 to
a C1 basis and adjusted for water content, if necessary.
Calculate the combined C2H6 response factor and
penetration fraction, RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID], by dividing the
mean C2H6 concentration from paragraph (d)(8) of
this section by the reference concentration of
C2H6. For any gaseous-fueled engine, including
dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines, you must determine
RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID] as a function of the molar water
concentration in the raw or diluted exhaust using paragraph (g) of this
section. Use RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID] at the different setpoints to
create a functional relationship between RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID]
and molar water concentration, downstream of the last sample dryer if
any sample dryers are present. Use this functional relationship to
determine the combined response factor and penetration fraction during
the emission test. For any other engine you may use the same procedure
or you may determine RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID] at zero molar water
concentration.
(10) For any gaseous-fueled engine, including dual-fuel and
flexible-fuel engines, repeat the steps in paragraphs (d)(6) through
(9) of this section, but with the CH4 analytical gas mixture
instead of C2H6 and determine
RFPFCH4[NMC-FID] as a function of the molar water
concentration in the raw or diluted exhaust using paragraph (g) of
[[Page 29800]]
this section. Note that RFPFCH4[NMC-FID] is set equal to 1.0
only for zero molar water concentration. For any other engine you may
use the same procedure, or you may set RFPFCH4[NMC-FID]
equal to 1.0.
(11) Use RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID] and
RFPFCH4[NMC-FID] in emission calculations according to Sec.
1065.660(b)(2)(i) and (d)(1)(i).
(e) Procedure for a FID calibrated with propane, bypassing the NMC.
If you use a single FID for THC and CH4 determination with
an NMC that is calibrated with propane, C3H8, by
bypassing the NMC, determine its penetration fractions,
PFC2H6[NMC-FID] and PFCH4[NMC-FID], as follows:
(1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical
gas mixtures and ensure that both mixtures meet the specifications of
Sec. 1065.750. Select a CH4 concentration that you would
use for spanning the FID during emission testing and select a
C2H6 concentration that is typical of the peak
NMHC concentration expected at the hydrocarbon standard and the
C2H6 concentration typical of the peak total
hydrocarbon (THC) concentration expected at the hydrocarbon standard or
equal to the THC analyzer's span value. For CH4 analyzers
with multiple ranges, perform this procedure on the highest range used
for emission testing.
(2) Start and operate the NMC according to the manufacturer's
instructions, including any temperature optimization.
(3) Confirm that the FID analyzer meets all the specifications of
Sec. 1065.360.
(4) Start and operate the FID analyzer according to the
manufacturer's instructions.
(5) Zero and span the FID as you would during emission testing.
Span the FID by bypassing the NMC and by using
C3H8 span gas. Note that you must span the FID on
a C1 basis. For example, if your span gas has a propane
reference value of 100 [mu]mol/mol, the correct FID response to that
span gas is 300 [mu]mol/mol because there are three carbon atoms per
C3H8 molecule.
(6) Introduce the C2H6 analytical gas mixture
upstream of the NMC. Use good engineering judgment to address the
effect of hydrocarbon contamination if your point of introduction is
vastly different from the point of zero/span gas introduction.
(7) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabilize.
Stabilization time may include time to purge the NMC and to account for
the analyzer's response.
(8) While the analyzer measures a stable concentration, record 30
seconds of sampled data. Calculate the arithmetic mean of the
analytical gas mixture.
(9) Reroute the flow path to bypass the NMC, introduce the
C2H6 analytical gas mixture, and repeat the steps
in paragraphs (e)(7) and (8) of this section.
(10) Divide the mean C2H6 concentration
measured through the NMC by the mean C2H6
concentration measured after bypassing the NMC. The result is the
C2H6 penetration fraction,
PFC2H6[NMC-FID]. Use this penetration fraction according to
Sec. 1065.660(b)(2)(ii) and (d)(1)(ii).
(11) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (e)(6) through (10) of this
section, but with the CH4 analytical gas mixture instead of
C2H6. The result will be the CH4
penetration fraction, PFCH4[NMC-FID]. Use this penetration
fraction according to Sec. 1065.660(b)(2)(ii) or Sec. 1065.665, as
applicable.
(f) Procedure for a FID calibrated with CH4, bypassing the NMC. If
you use a FID with an NMC that is calibrated with CH4 by
bypassing the NMC, determine its combined C2H6
response factor and penetration fraction, RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID],
as well as its CH4 penetration fraction,
PFCH4[NMC-FID], as follows:
(1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical
gas mixtures and ensure that both mixtures meet the specifications of
Sec. 1065.750. Select a CH4 concentration that you would
use for spanning the FID during emission testing and select a
C2H6 concentration that is typical of the peak
NMHC concentration expected at the hydrocarbon standard or equal to the
THC analyzer's span value. For CH4 analyzers with multiple
ranges, perform this procedure on the highest range used for emission
testing.
(2) Start and operate the NMC according to the manufacturer's
instructions, including any temperature optimization.
(3) Confirm that the FID analyzer meets all the specifications of
Sec. 1065.360.
(4) Start and operate the FID analyzer according to the
manufacturer's instructions.
(5) Zero and span the FID as you would during emission testing.
Span the FID by bypassing the NMC and by using CH4 span gas.
(6) Introduce the C2H6 analytical gas mixture
upstream of the NMC. Use good engineering judgment to address the
effect of hydrocarbon contamination if your point of introduction is
vastly different from the point of zero/span gas introduction.
(7) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabilize.
Stabilization time may include time to purge the NMC and to account for
the analyzer's response.
(8) While the analyzer measures a stable concentration, record 30
seconds of sampled data. Calculate the arithmetic mean of the
analytical gas mixture.
(9) Divide the mean C2H6 concentration by the
reference concentration of C2H6, converted to a
C1 basis. The result is the combined
C2H6 response factor and
C2H6 penetration fraction,
RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID]. Use this combined
C2H6 response factor and penetration fraction
according to Sec. 1065.660(b)(2)(iii) and (d)(1)(iii).
(10) Introduce the CH4 analytical gas mixture upstream
of the NMC. Use good engineering judgment to address the effect of
hydrocarbon contamination if your point of introduction is vastly
different from the point of zero/span gas introduction.
(11) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabilize.
Stabilization time may include time to purge the NMC and to account for
the analyzer's response.
(12) While the analyzer measures a stable concentration, record 30
seconds of sampled data. Calculate the arithmetic mean of these data
points.
(13) Reroute the flow path to bypass the NMC, introduce the
CH4 analytical gas mixture, and repeat the steps in
paragraphs (e)(11) and (12) of this section.
(14) Divide the mean CH4 concentration measured through
the NMC by the mean CH4 concentration measured after
bypassing the NMC. The result is the CH4 penetration
fraction, PFCH4[NMC-FID]. Use this CH4
penetration fraction according to Sec. 1065.660(b)(2)(iii) and
(d)(1)(iii).
(g) Test gas humidification. If you are generating gas mixtures as
a function of the molar water concentration in the raw or diluted
exhaust according to paragraph (d) of this section, create a humidified
test gas by bubbling the analytical gas mixture that meets the
specifications in Sec. 1065.750 through distilled H2O in a
sealed vessel or use a device that introduces distilled H2O
as vapor into a controlled gas flow. Determine the mole fraction of
H2O in the humidified calibration gas, xH2Oref,
as an average value over intervals of at least 30 seconds. We recommend
that you design your system to maintain temperatures at least 5 [deg]C
above the local calibration gas dewpoint in any transfer lines,
fittings, and valves between the point at which you determine
xH2Oref and the analyzer. Verify the humidity generator's
uncertainty upon initial installation, within 370 days before verifying
response factors and penetration fractions, and after major
maintenance. Use the uncertainties from the
[[Page 29801]]
calibration of the humidity generator's measurements and follow NIST
Technical Note 1297 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1065.1010) to
verify that the amount of H2O in xH2Oref is
determined within 3% uncertainty, UxH2O, for one
of the options described in Sec. 1065.750(a)(6). If the humidity
generator requires assembly before use, after assembly follow the
instrument manufacturer's instructions to check for leaks.
(1) If the sample does not pass through a dryer during emission
testing, generate at least five different H2O concentrations
that cover the range from less than the minimum expected to greater
than the maximum expected water concentration during testing. Use good
engineering judgment to determine the target concentrations.
(2) If the sample passes through a dryer during emission testing,
humidify your test gas to an H2O level at or above the level
determined in Sec. 1065.145(e)(2) for that dryer and determine a
single wet analyzer response to the dehumidified sample.
0
144. Amend Sec. 1065.366 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.366 Interference verification for FTIR analyzers.
* * * * *
(b) Measurement principles. Certain species can interfere with
analyzers by causing a response similar to the target analyte. If the
analyzer uses compensation algorithms that utilize measurements of
other gases to meet this interference verification, a correct result
depends on simultaneously conducting these other measurements to test
the compensation algorithms during the analyzer interference
verification.
* * * * *
0
145. Amend Sec. 1065.369 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.369 H2O, CO, and CO2 interference verification for
photoacoustic alcohol analyzers.
* * * * *
(b) Measurement principles. H2O, CO, and CO2
can positively interfere with a photoacoustic analyzer by causing a
response similar to ethanol or methanol. If the photoacoustic analyzer
uses compensation algorithms that utilize measurements of other gases
to meet this interference verification, a correct result depends on
simultaneously conducting these other measurements to test the
compensation algorithms during the analyzer interference verification.
* * * * *
0
146. Amend Sec. 1065.372 by revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(7) and
adding paragraphs (d)(8) and (e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.372 NDUV analyzer HC and H2O interference verification.
* * * * *
(b) Measurement principles. Hydrocarbons and H2O can
positively interfere with an NDUV analyzer by causing a response
similar to NOX. If the NDUV analyzer uses compensation
algorithms that utilize measurements of other gases to meet this
interference verification, a correct result depends on simultaneously
conducting such measurements to test the algorithms during the analyzer
interference verification.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) Multiply this difference by the ratio of the flow-weighted mean
HC concentration expected at the standard to the HC concentration
measured during the verification.
(8) The analyzer meets the interference verification of this
section if the result of paragraph (d)(7) of this section meets the
tolerance in paragraph (c) of this section.
(e) * * *
(2) You may use a NOX NDUV analyzer that you determine
does not meet this verification, as long as you try to correct the
problem and the measurement deficiency does not adversely affect your
ability to show that engines comply with all applicable emission
standards.
0
147. Amend Sec. 1065.375 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d)(3)
and (9) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.375 Interference verification for N2O analyzers.
(a) Scope and frequency. This section describes how to perform
interference verification for certain analyzers as described in Sec.
1065.275. Perform interference verification after initial analyzer
installation and after major maintenance.
(b) Measurement principles. Certain species can positively
interfere with analyzers by causing a response similar to
N2O. If the analyzer uses compensation algorithms that
utilize measurements of other gases to meet this interference
verification, a correct result depends on simultaneously conducting
these other measurements to test the compensation algorithms during the
analyzer interference verification.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) Introduce the humidified interference test gas into the sample
system upstream or downstream of any sample dryer, if one is used
during testing.
* * * * *
(9) You may also run interference procedures separately for
individual interference species. If the concentrations of the
interference species used are higher than the maximum levels expected
during testing, you may scale down each observed interference value
(the arithmetic mean of 30 second data described in paragraph (d)(7) of
this section) by multiplying the observed interference by the ratio of
the maximum expected concentration value to the actual value used
during this procedure. You may run separate interference concentrations
of H2O (down to 0.025 mol/mol H2O content) that
are lower than the maximum levels expected during testing, but you must
scale up the observed H2O interference by multiplying the
observed interference by the ratio of the maximum expected
H2O concentration value to the actual value used during this
procedure. The sum of the scaled interference values must meet the
tolerance for combined interference as specified in paragraph (c) of
this section.
0
148. Add Sec. 1065.377 to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.377 Interference verification for NH3 analyzers.
(a) Scope and frequency. This section describes how to perform
interference verification for certain analyzers as described in Sec.
1065.277. Perform interference verification after initial analyzer
installation and after major maintenance.
(b) Measurement principles. Certain compounds can positively
interfere with analyzers by causing a response similar to
NH3. If the analyzer uses compensation algorithms that
utilize measurements of other gases to meet this interference
verification, a correct result depends on simultaneously conducting
these other measurements to test the compensation algorithms during the
analyzer interference verification.
(c) System requirements. Analyzers must have combined interference
that is within (0.0 2.0) [micro]mol/mol.
(d) Procedure. Perform the interference verification as follows:
(1) Start, operate, zero, and span the NH3 analyzer as
you would before an emission test. If the sample is passed through a
dryer during emission testing, you may run this verification test with
the dryer if it meets the requirements of Sec. 1065.342. Operate the
dryer at the same conditions as you will for an emission test. You may
also run this
[[Page 29802]]
verification test without the sample dryer.
(2) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(9) of this section, select
a multi-component span gas meeting the specification of Sec. 1065.750
that incorporates the all the appropriate interference species. Use a
humidity generator that meets the requirements in Sec. 1065.750(a)(6)
to humidify the span gas. If the sample does not pass through a dryer
during emission testing, humidify your test gas to an H2O
level at or above the maximum expected during emission testing. If the
sample passes through a dryer during emission testing, humidify your
test gas to an H2O level at or above the level determined in
Sec. 1065.145(e)(2) for that dryer. Use interference span gas
concentrations that are at least as high as the maximum expected during
testing.
(3) Introduce the humidified interference test gas into the sample
system upstream or downstream of any sample dryer, if one is used
during testing.
(4) If the sample does not pass through a dryer during this
verification test, measure the H2O mole fraction,
xH2O, of the humidified interference test gas as close as
possible to the analyzer inlet. You may measure dewpoint,
Tdew, and absolute pressure, ptotal, to calculate
xH2O. Verify that the H2O content meets the
requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. If the sample passes
through a dryer during this verification test, either measure dewpoint,
Tdew, and absolute pressure, ptotal, to calculate
xH2O or use good engineering judgment to estimate the value
of xH2O based on the vessel pressure and temperature. For
example, you may use previous direct measurements of H2O
content at certain vessel pressures and temperatures to estimate
xH2O.
(5) If the verification procedure does not include a sample dryer,
use good engineering judgment to prevent condensation in the transfer
lines, fittings, or valves between the point of xH2O
measurement and the analyzer. We recommend that you design your system
so that the wall temperatures in those transfer lines, fittings, and
valves are at least 5 [deg]C above the local sample gas dewpoint.
(6) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabilize.
Stabilization time may include time to purge the transfer line and to
account for analyzer response.
(7) Operate the analyzer to measures the sample's NH3
concentration and record results for 30 seconds. Calculate the
arithmetic mean of these data to determine the interference value. When
performed with all the interference species simultaneously, this is the
combined interference.
(8) The analyzer meets the interference verification if the result
of paragraph (d)(7) of this section meets the tolerance in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(9) You may instead perform interference verification procedures
separately for individual interference species. The interference
verification specified in paragraph (c) of this section applies based
on the sum of the interference values from separate interference
species. If the concentration of any interference species used is
higher than the maximum levels expected during testing, you may scale
down each observed interference value by multiplying the observed
interference value by the ratio of the maximum expected concentration
value to the concentration in the span gas. You may run separate
H2O interference concentrations (down to 0.025 mol/mol
H2O content) that are lower than the maximum levels expected
during testing, but you must scale up the observed H2O
interference value by multiplying the observed interference value by
the ratio of the maximum expected H2O concentration value to
the concentration in the span gas. The sum of the scaled interference
values must meet the tolerance for combined interference as specified
in paragraph (c) of this section.
0
149. Amend Sec. 1065.378 by adding paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1065.378 NO2-to-NO converter conversion verification.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) You may use a converter that you determine does not meet this
verification, as long as you try to correct the problem and the
measurement deficiency does not adversely affect your ability to show
that engines comply with all applicable emission standards.
(3) You may request to verify converter conversion efficiency using
an NO2 concentration whose value is representative of the
peak total NO2 concentration expected during testing, in
place of the procedure in paragraph (d) of this section, with our
approval.
0
150. Amend Sec. 1065.510 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text,
(b), (d)(5)(i) and (iii), and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.510 Engine mapping.
(a) Applicability, scope, and frequency. An engine map is a data
set that consists of a series of paired data points that represent the
maximum brake torque versus engine speed, measured at the engine's
primary output shaft. Map your engine if the standard-setting part
requires engine mapping to generate a duty cycle for your engine
configuration. Map your engine while it is connected to a dynamometer
or other device that can absorb work output from the engine's primary
output shaft according to Sec. 1065.110. Configure any auxiliary work
inputs and outputs such as hybrid, turbo-compounding, or thermoelectric
systems to represent their in-use configurations and use the same
configuration for emission testing. See figure 1 to paragraph (a)(5) of
Sec. 1065.210. This may involve configuring initial states of charge
and rates and times of auxiliary-work inputs and outputs. We recommend
that you contact the EPA Program Officer before testing to determine
how you should configure any auxiliary-work inputs and outputs. If your
engine has an auxiliary emission control device to reduce torque output
that may activate during engine mapping, turn it off before mapping.
Use the most recent engine map to transform a normalized duty cycle
from the standard-setting part to a reference duty cycle specific to
your engine. Normalized duty cycles are specified in the standard-
setting part. You may update an engine map at any time by repeating the
engine-mapping procedure. You must map or re-map an engine before a
test if any of the following apply:
* * * * *
(b) Mapping variable-speed engines. Map variable-speed engines
using the procedure in this paragraph (b). Note that under Sec.
1065.10(c) we may allow or require you to use ``other procedures'' if
the specified procedure results in unrepresentative testing or if your
engine cannot be tested using the specified procedure. If the engine
has a user-adjustable idle speed setpoint, you may set it to its
minimum adjustable value for this mapping procedure and the resulting
map may be used for any test, regardless of where it is set for running
each test except that the warm idle speed(s) must be determined based
on where it is set for running each test.
(1) Record the atmospheric pressure.
(2) Warm up the engine by operating it. We recommend operating the
engine at any speed and at approximately 75% of its expected maximum
power. Continue the warm-up until the engine coolant, block,
lubricating oil, or head absolute temperature is within 2%
of its mean value for at least 2 min or until the engine thermostat
controls engine temperature.
[[Page 29803]]
(3) Operate the engine at its warm idle speed as follows:
(i) For engines with a low-speed governor, set the operator demand
to minimum, use the dynamometer or other loading device to target a
torque of zero or the lowest idle load that you will use for cycle
generation on the engine's primary output shaft, and allow the engine
to govern the speed. If the idle load is a function of engine speeds
(e.g., the optional declared power from paragraph (f)(6) of this
section), calculate the target torque in real time. Measure this warm
idle speed; we recommend recording at least 30 values of speed and
using the mean of those values. If you identify multiple warm idle
loads under paragraph (f)(4), (f)(5)(iii), or (f)(6) of this section,
measure the warm idle speed at the lowest torque level for this
paragraph (b)(3). Measure the other warm idle speeds as described in
paragraph (b)(7) of this section.
(ii) For engines without a low-speed governor, operate the engine
at warm idle speed from paragraph (f)(2) of this section and zero
torque or the lowest warm idle torque that you will use for cycle
generation on the engine's primary output shaft. You may use the
dynamometer to control either torque or speed and manipulate the
operator demand to control the other parameter.
(4) Operate the engine at the minimum mapped speed. A minimum
mapped speed equal to (95 1)% of its warm idle speed
determined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section may be used for any
engine or test. A higher minimum mapped speed may be used if all the
duty cycles that the engine is subject to have a minimum reference
speed higher than the warm idle speed determined in paragraph (b)(3) of
this section. In this case you may use a minimum mapped speed equal to
(95 1)% of the lowest minimum reference speed in all the
duty cycles the engine is subject to. Set operator demand to maximum
and control engine speed at this minimum mapped speed for at least 15
seconds. Set operator demand to maximum and control engine speed at (95
1)% of its warm idle speed determined in paragraph
(b)(3)(i) of this section for at least 15 seconds.
(5) Perform a continuous or discrete engine map as described in
paragraph (b)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section. A continuous engine map
may be used for any engine. A discrete engine map may be used for
engines subject only to steady-state duty cycles. Use linear
interpolation between the series of points generated by either of these
maps to determine intermediate torque values. Use the series of points
generated by either of these maps to generate the power map as
described in paragraph (e) of this section.
(i) For continuous engine mapping, begin recording mean feedback
speed and torque at 1 Hz or more frequently and increase speed at a
constant rate such that it takes (4 to 6) min to sweep from the minimum
mapped speed described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section to the check
point speed described in paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of this section. Use
good engineering judgment to determine when to stop recording data to
ensure that the sweep is complete. In most cases, this means that you
can stop the sweep at any point after the power falls to 50% of the
maximum value.
(ii) For discrete engine mapping, select at least 20 evenly spaced
setpoints from the minimum mapped speed described in paragraph (b)(4)
of this section to the check point speed described in paragraph
(b)(5)(iii) of this section. At each setpoint, stabilize speed and
allow torque to stabilize. We recommend that you stabilize an engine
for at least 15 seconds at each setpoint and record the mean feedback
speed and torque of the last (4 to 6) seconds. Record the mean speed
and torque at each setpoint.
(iii) The check point speed of the map is the highest speed above
maximum power at which 50% of maximum power occurs. If this speed is
unsafe or unachievable (e.g., for ungoverned engines or engines that do
not operate at that point), use good engineering judgment to map up to
the maximum safe speed or maximum achievable speed. For discrete
mapping, if the engine cannot be mapped to the check point speed, make
sure the map includes at least 20 points from 95% of warm idle to the
maximum mapped speed. For continuous mapping, if the engine cannot be
mapped to the check point speed, verify that the sweep time from 95% of
warm idle to the maximum mapped speed is (4 to 6) min.
(iv) Note that under Sec. 1065.10(c)(1) we may allow you to
disregard portions of the map when selecting maximum test speed if the
specified procedure would result in a duty cycle that does not
represent in-use operation.
(6) Determine warm high-idle speed for engines with a high-speed
governor. You may skip this if the engine is not subject to transient
testing with a duty cycle that includes reference speed values above
100%. You may use a manufacturer-declared warm high-idle speed if the
engine is electronically governed. For engines with a high-speed
governor that regulates speed by disabling and enabling fuel or
ignition at two manufacturer-specified speeds, declare the middle of
this specified speed range as the warm high-idle speed. You may
alternatively measure warm high-idle speed using the following
procedure:
(i) Run an operating point targeting zero torque.
(A) Set operator demand to maximum and use the dynamometer to
target zero torque on the engine's primary output shaft.
(B) Wait for the engine governor and dynamometer to stabilize. We
recommend that you stabilize for at least 15 seconds.
(C) Record 1 Hz means of the feedback speed and torque for at least
30 seconds. You may record means at a higher frequency as long as there
are no gaps in the recorded data. For engines with a high-speed
governor that regulates speed by disabling and enabling fuel or
ignition, you may need to extend this stabilization period to include
at least one disabling event at the higher speed and one enabling event
at the lower speed.
(D) Determine if the feedback speed is stable over the recording
period. The feedback speed is considered stable if all the recorded 1
Hz means are within 2% of the mean feedback speed over the
recording period. If the feedback speed is not stable because of the
dynamometer, void the results and repeat measurements after making any
necessary corrections. You may void and repeat the entire map sequence,
or you may void and replace only the results for establishing warm
high-idle speed; use good engineering judgment to warm-up the engine
before repeating measurements.
(E) If the feedback speed is stable, use the mean feedback speed
over the recording period as the measured speed for this operating
point.
(F) If the feedback speed is not stable because of the engine,
determine the mean as the value representing the midpoint between the
observed maximum and minimum recorded feedback speed.
(G) If the mean feedback torque over the recording period is within
(0 1)% of Tmaxmapped, use the measured speed
for this operating point as the warm high-idle speed. Otherwise,
continue testing as described in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section.
(ii) Run a second operating point targeting a positive torque.
Follow the same procedure in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A) through (F) of
this section, except that the dynamometer is set to target a torque
equal to the mean feedback torque over the recording
[[Page 29804]]
period from the previous operating point plus 20% of
Tmax mapped.
(iii) Use the mean feedback speed and torque values from paragraphs
(b)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section to determine the warm high-idle
speed. If the two recorded speed values are the same, use that value as
the warm high-idle-speed. Otherwise, use a linear equation passing
through these two speed-torque points and extrapolate to solve for the
speed at zero torque and use this speed intercept value as the warm
high-idle speed.
(iv) You may use a manufacturer-declared Tmax instead of
the measured Tmax mapped. If you do this, you may also
measure the warm high-idle speed as described in this paragraph (b)(6)
before running the operating point and speed sweeps specified in
paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of this section.
(7) This paragraph (b)(7) describes how to collect additional data
to determine warm idle speed(s) for cycle generation if your engine has
a low-speed governor. You may omit this paragraph (b)(7) if you use the
option to declare a warm idle speed in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this
section, or if you identify only one idle load and one user-adjustable
idle speed setpoint under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section. Collect
additional data to determine warm idle speed(s) using one of the
following options:
(i) For each idle load (e.g., idle with the transmission in neutral
and drive) you identify under paragraph (f)(4), (f)(5)(iii), or (f)(6)
of this section, operate the engine at each idle load and measure the
warm idle speed at each idle load as described in paragraph (b)(3)(i)
of this section. The warm idle operating point run in paragraph
(b)(3)(i) of this section may be skipped and the measured warm idle
speed from paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section may be used for cycle
generation for cycles where the user-adjustable idle speed setpoint is
the same. Note that this option requires you to know all the idle loads
in all the cycles that will be generated with this map at the time the
map is run.
(ii) You may map the idle governor at multiple torque levels and
use this map to determine the warm idle speed(s) at any idle load
within the range of this map. For cases where the idle torque is a
function of engine speeds (e.g., if CITT is specified as a function of
speed or if the optional declared power in paragraph (f)(6) of this
section applies) we recommend that the warm idle speed be determined
using a closed form solution assuming speed and torque vary linearly
between points in this map. If an iterative method is used, continue to
iterate until the value is within 0.0001% of the previous
value.
(8) This paragraph (b)(8) describes how to collect additional data
to determine warm idle speed(s) for cycle generation if your engine has
a low-speed governor and a user-adjustable idle speed setpoint and you
need to generate cycles for tests with a different setpoint from the
setpoint used in this mapping procedure. You may omit this paragraph
(b)(8) if you use the option to declare a warm idle speed in paragraph
(f)(3)(iv) of this section. Collect additional data using paragraph
(b)(7) of this section to determine the warm idle speed for each
setpoint for use in generating cycles. Record the warm idle speed and
torque for each setpoint.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) For constant-speed engines subject only to steady-state
testing, you may perform an engine map by using a series of discrete
torques. Select at least five evenly spaced torque setpoints from no-
load to 80% of the manufacturer-declared test torque or to a torque
derived from your published maximum power level if the declared test
torque is unavailable. Starting at the 80% torque point, select
setpoints in 2.5% or smaller intervals, stopping at the endpoint
torque. The endpoint torque is defined as the first discrete mapped
torque value greater than the torque at maximum observed power where
the engine outputs 90% of the maximum observed power; or the torque
when engine stall has been determined using good engineering judgment
(i.e., sudden deceleration of engine speed while adding torque). You
may continue mapping at higher torque setpoints. At each setpoint,
allow torque and speed to stabilize. Record the mean feedback speed and
torque at each setpoint. From this series of mean feedback speed and
torque values, use linear interpolation to determine intermediate
values. Use this series of mean feedback speeds and torques to generate
the power map as described in paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
(iii) For any isochronous governed (no speed droop) constant-speed
engine, you may map the engine with two points as described in this
paragraph (d)(5)(iii). After stabilizing at the no-load, or minimum
achievable load, governed speed in paragraph (d)(4) of this section,
record the mean feedback speed and torque. Continue to operate the
engine with the governor or simulated governor controlling engine speed
using operator demand and control the dynamometer to target a speed of
99.5% of the recorded mean no-load governed speed. Allow speed and
torque to stabilize. Record the mean feedback speed and torque. Record
the target speed. The absolute value of the speed error (the mean
feedback speed minus the target speed) must be no greater than 0.1% of
the recorded mean no-load governed speed. From this series of two mean
feedback speed and torque values, use linear interpolation to determine
intermediate values. Use this series of two mean feedback speeds and
torques to generate a power map as described in paragraph (e) of this
section. Note that the measured maximum test torque as determined in
Sec. 1065.610(b)(1) will be the mean feedback torque recorded on the
second point.
* * * * *
(f) Measured and declared speeds, torques, and power. You must
select speeds, torques, and power for engine mapping and for cycle
generation as required in this paragraph (f). ``Measured'' values are
either directly measured during the engine mapping process or they are
determined from the engine map. ``Declared'' values are specified by
the manufacturer. When both measured and declared values are available,
you may use declared test speeds and torques instead of measured speeds
and torques if they meet the criteria in this paragraph (f). Otherwise,
you must use measured speeds and torques derived from the engine map.
(1) Measured speeds and torques. Determine the applicable speeds
and torques for the duty cycles you will run:
(i) Measured maximum test speed for variable-speed engines
according to Sec. 1065.610.
(ii) Measured maximum test torque for constant-speed engines
according to Sec. 1065.610.
(iii) Measured ``A'', ``B'', and ``C'' speeds for variable-speed
engines according to Sec. 1065.610.
(iv) Measured intermediate speed for variable-speed engines
according to Sec. 1065.610.
(v) For variable-speed engines with a low-speed governor, measure
warm idle speed(s) according to paragraph (b) of this section and use
this (these) speed(s) for cycle generation in Sec. 1065.512. For
engines with no low-speed governor, instead use the manufacturer-
declared warm idle speed from paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(2) Required declared speeds. You must declare the lowest engine
speed possible with minimum load (i.e., manufacturer-declared warm idle
speed). This is applicable only to
[[Page 29805]]
variable-speed engines with no low-speed governor. For engines with no
low-speed governor, the declared warm idle speed is used for cycle
generation in Sec. 1065.512. Declare this speed in a way that is
representative of in-use operation. For example, if your engine is
typically connected to an automatic transmission or a hydrostatic
transmission, declare this speed at the idle speed at which your engine
operates when the transmission is engaged.
(3) Optional declared speeds. You may use declared speed instead of
measured speed as follows:
(i) You may use a declared value for maximum test speed for
variable-speed engines if it is within (97.5 to 102.5)% of the
corresponding measured value. You may use a higher declared speed if
the length of the ``vector'' at the declared speed is within 2% of the
length of the ``vector'' at the measured value. The term vector refers
to the square root of the sum of normalized engine speed squared and
the normalized full-load power (at that speed) squared, consistent with
the calculations in Sec. 1065.610.
(ii) You may use a declared value for intermediate, ``A'', ``B'',
or ``C'' speeds for steady-state tests if the declared value is within
(97.5 to 102.5)% of the corresponding measured value.
(iii) For electronically governed variable-speed engines, you may
use a declared warm high-idle speed for calculating the alternate
maximum test speed as specified in Sec. 1065.610.
(iv) For electronically governed variable-speed engines with an
isochronous low-speed governor (i.e., no speed droop), you may declare
that the warm idle speed is equal to the idle speed setpoint and use it
for cycle generation instead of warm idle speed(s) determined from the
data collected during the engine mapping procedure in paragraph (b) of
this section. When generating cycles with multiple idle torque values,
you may use this idle speed setpoint for all idle points. If the idle
torque is a function of speed (e.g., CITT is specified as a function of
speed or if the optional declared power in paragraph (f)(6) of this
section applies) use the setpoint to calculate the idle torque(s) for
cycle generation. If the engine has a user-adjustable idle speed
setpoint, generate the cycle using the idle speed setpoint that will be
set when the engine is run for that cycle.
(4) Required declared torque. For variable-speed engines intended
primarily for propulsion of a vehicle with an automatic transmission
where that engine is subject to a transient duty cycle with idle
operation, you must declare a Curb-Idle Transmission Torque (CITT). We
recommend that you specify CITT as a function of idle speed for engines
with adjustable warm idle or enhanced-idle. You may specify a CITT
based on typical applications at the mean of the range of idle speeds
you specify at stabilized temperature conditions. See the required
deviations for cycle generation in Sec. 1065.610(d)(3) for how the
required declared CITT and the optional declared torque in paragraph
(f)(5)(iii) of this section and the optional declared power in
paragraph (f)(6) of this section are used in cycle generation.
(5) Optional declared torques. You may use declared torque instead
of measured torque as follows:
(i) For variable-speed engines you may declare a maximum torque
over the engine operating range. You may use the declared value for
measuring warm high-idle speed as specified in this section.
(ii) For constant-speed engines you may declare a maximum test
torque. You may use the declared value for cycle generation if it is
within (95 to 100)% of the measured value. (iii) For variable-speed
engines, you may declare a nonzero torque for idle operation that
represents in-use operation. For example, if your engine is connected
to a hydrostatic transmission with a minimum torque even when all the
driven hydraulic actuators and motors are stationary and the engine is
at idle, you may use this minimum torque as the declared value. As
another example, if your engine is connected to a vehicle or machine
with accessories, you may use a declared torque corresponding to
operation with those accessories. You may specify a combination of
torque and power as described in paragraph (f)(6) of this section. Use
this option when the idle loads (e.g., vehicle accessory loads) are
best represented as a constant torque on the primary output shaft. You
may use multiple warm idle loads and associated idle speeds in cycle
generation for representative testing. As an example, see the required
deviations for cycle generation in Sec. 1065.610(d)(3) for improved
simulation of idle points for engines intended primarily for propulsion
of a vehicle with an automatic or manual transmission where that engine
is subject to a transient duty cycle with idle operation.
(iv) For constant-speed engines, you may declare a warm minimum
torque that represents in-use operation. For example, if your engine is
typically connected to a machine that does not operate below a certain
minimum torque, you may use this minimum torque as the declared value
and use it for cycle generation.
(6) Optional declared power. For variable-speed engines, you may
declare a nonzero power for idle operation that represents in-use
operation. If you specify a torque in paragraph (f)(5)(iii) of this
section and a power in this paragraph (f)(6), the combination of
declared values must represent in-use operation and you must use the
combination for cycle generation. Use the combination of declared
values when the idle loads (i.e., vehicle accessory loads) are best
represented as a constant power.
* * * * *
0
151. Amend Sec. 1065.512 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1065.512 Duty cycle generation.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Engine speed for variable-speed engines. For variable-speed
engines, normalized speed may be expressed as a percentage between warm
idle speed, [fnof]nidle, and maximum test speed,
[fnof]ntest, or speed may be expressed by referring to a
defined speed by name, such as ``warm idle,'' ``intermediate speed,''
or ``A,'' ``B,'' or ``C'' speed. Section 1065.610 describes how to
transform these normalized values into a sequence of reference speeds,
[fnof]nref. Running duty cycles with negative or small
normalized speed values near warm idle speed may cause low-speed idle
governors to activate and the engine torque to exceed the reference
torque even though the operator demand is at a minimum. In such cases,
we recommend controlling the dynamometer so it gives priority to follow
the reference torque instead of the reference speed and let the engine
govern the speed. Note that the cycle-validation criteria in Sec.
1065.514 allow an engine to govern itself. This allowance permits you
to test engines with enhanced-idle devices and to simulate the effects
of transmissions such as automatic transmissions. For example, an
enhanced-idle device might be an idle speed value that is normally
commanded only under cold-start conditions to quickly warm up the
engine and aftertreatment devices. In this case, negative and very low
normalized speeds will generate reference speeds below this higher
enhanced-idle speed. You may do any of the following when using
enhanced-idle devices:
(i) While running an engine where the ECM broadcasts an enhanced-
idle speed that is above the denormalized speed,
[[Page 29806]]
use the broadcast speed as the reference speed. Use these new reference
points for duty-cycle validation. This does not affect how you
determine denormalized reference torque in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(ii) If an ECM broadcast signal is not available, perform one or
more practice cycles to determine the enhanced-idle speed as a function
of cycle time. Generate the reference cycle as you normally would but
replace any reference speed that is lower than the enhanced-idle speed
with the enhanced-idle speed. This does not affect how you determine
denormalized reference torque in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) Engine torque for variable-speed engines. For variable-speed
engines, normalized torque is expressed as a percentage of the mapped
torque at the corresponding reference speed. Section 1065.610 describes
how to transform normalized torques into a sequence of reference
torques, Tref. Section 1065.610 also describes special
requirements for modifying transient duty cycles for variable-speed
engines intended primarily for propulsion of a vehicle with an
automatic or manual transmission. Section 1065.610 also describes under
what conditions you may command Tref greater than the
reference torque you calculated from a normalized duty cycle, which
permits you to command Tref values that are limited by a
declared minimum torque. For any negative torque commands, command
minimum operator demand and use the dynamometer to control engine speed
to the reference speed, but if reference speed is so low that the idle
governor activates, we recommend using the dynamometer to control
torque to zero, CITT, or a declared minimum torque as appropriate. Note
that you may omit power and torque points during motoring from the
cycle-validation criteria in Sec. 1065.514. Also, use the maximum
mapped torque at the minimum mapped speed as the maximum torque for any
reference speed at or below the minimum mapped speed.
* * * * *
0
152. Amend Sec. 1065.520 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (g);
0
b. Adding new paragraph (f); and
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (g) introductory text and
(g)(7)(iii).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1065.520 Pre-test verification procedures and pre-test data
collection.
* * * * *
(f) If your testing requires a chemical balance, then before the
start of emissions testing select the chemical balance method and the
gaseous emission measurement equipment required for testing. Select the
chemical balance method depending on the fuels used during testing:
(1) When using only carbon-containing fuels, use the carbon-based
chemical balance procedure in Sec. 1065.655.
(2) When using only fuels other than carbon-containing fuels, use
the hydrogen-based chemical balance procedure in Sec. 1065.656.
(3) When using constant mixtures of carbon-containing fuels and
fuels other than carbon- containing fuels, use the following chemical
balance methods and gaseous emission measurement equipment:
(i) If the hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, a, of the fuel mixture is less
than or equal to 6, then use the carbon-based chemical balance
procedure in Sec. 1065.655.
(ii) Otherwise, use the hydrogen-based chemical balance procedure
in Sec. 1065.656.
(4) When using variable mixtures of carbon-containing fuels and
fuels other than carbon-containing fuels, if the mean hydrogen-to-
carbon ratio of the fuel mixture, a, is expected to be greater than 6
for a test interval, you must use the hydrogen-based chemical balance
procedure in Sec. 1065.656 for that test interval. Otherwise, you may
use the carbon-based chemical balance procedure in Sec. 1065.655.
(g) If your testing requires measuring hydrocarbon emissions,
verify the amount of nonmethane hydrocarbon contamination in the
exhaust and background HC sampling systems within 8 hours before the
start of the first test interval of each duty-cycle sequence for
laboratory tests. You may verify the contamination of a background HC
sampling system by reading the last bag fill and purge using zero gas.
For any NMHC measurement system that involves separately measuring
CH4 and subtracting it from a THC measurement or for any
CH4 measurement system that uses an NMC, verify the amount
of THC contamination using only the THC analyzer response. There is no
need to operate any separate CH4 analyzer for this
verification; however, you may measure and correct for THC
contamination in the CH4 sample path for the cases where
NMHC is determined by subtracting CH4 from THC or, where
CH4 is determined, using an NMC as configured in Sec.
1065.365(d), (e), and (f); and using the calculations in Sec.
1065.660(b)(2). Perform this verification as follows:
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(iii) Use mean analyzer values from paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) and
(g)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section to correct the initial THC
concentration recorded in paragraph (g)(6) of this section for drift,
as described in Sec. 1065.550.
* * * * *
0
153. Amend Sec. 1065.530 by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii),
(a)(2)(iii)(A), and (b)(4), (9), and (11) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.530 Emission test sequence.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) For hot-start duty cycles, first operate the engine at any
speed above peak-torque speed and at (65 to 85)% of maximum mapped
power until either the engine coolant, block, lubricating oil, or head
absolute temperature is within 2% of its mean value for at
least 2 min or until the engine thermostat controls engine temperature.
Shut down the engine. Start the duty cycle within 20 min of engine
shutdown.
(iii) * * *
(A) Engine coolant, block, lubricating oil, or head absolute
temperatures for water-cooled engines.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Pre-heat or pre-cool heat exchangers in the sampling system to
within their operating temperature tolerances for a test interval.
* * * * *
(9) Select gas analyzer ranges. You may automatically or manually
switch gas analyzer ranges during a test interval only if switching is
performed by changing the span over which the digital resolution of the
instrument is applied. During a test interval you may not switch the
gains of an analyzer's analog operational amplifier(s).
* * * * *
(11) We recommend that you verify gas analyzer responses after
zeroing and spanning by sampling a calibration gas that has a
concentration near one-half of the span gas concentration. Based on the
results and good engineering judgment, you may decide whether or not to
re-zero, re-span, or re-calibrate a gas analyzer before starting a test
interval.
* * * * *
0
154. Amend Sec. 1065.550 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text
and (b)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.550 Gas analyzer range verification and drift verification.
* * * * *
[[Page 29807]]
(b) Drift verification. Gas analyzer drift verification is required
for all gaseous exhaust constituents for which an emission standard
applies. It is also required for CO2, H2,
O2, H2O, and NH3, if required by the
applicable chemical balance, even if there are no emission standards.
It is not required for other gaseous exhaust constituents for which
only a reporting requirement applies (such as CH4 and
N2O).
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Where no emission standard applies for CO2,
H2, O2, H2O, and NH3, you
must satisfy one of the following:
(A) For each test interval of the duty cycle, the difference
between the uncorrected and the corrected brake-specific
CO2, H2, O2, H2O, or
NH3 values must be within 4% of the uncorrected
value; or the difference between the uncorrected and the corrected
CO2, H2, O2, H2O, or
NH3 mass (or mass rate) values must be within 4%
of the uncorrected value.
(B) For the entire duty cycle, the difference between the
uncorrected and the corrected composite brake-specific CO2,
H2, O2, H2O, or NH3 values
must be within 4% of the uncorrected value.
* * * * *
0
155. Amend Sec. 1065.601 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.601 Overview.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Mass-based emission calculations prescribed by the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), according to ISO
8178, except the following:
(i) ISO 8178-4 Section 9.1.6, NOX Correction for
Humidity and Temperature. See Sec. 1065.670 for approved methods for
humidity corrections.
(ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
156. Amend Sec. 1065.602 by adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.602 Statistics.
* * * * *
(m) Median. Determine median, M, as described in this paragraph
(m). Arrange the data points in the data set in increasing order where
the smallest value is ranked 1, the second-smallest value is ranked 2,
etc.
(1) For even numbers of data points:
(i) Determine the rank of the data point whose value is used to
determine the median as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.222
Eq. 1065.602-18
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents the rank of the data point
whose value is used to determine the median.
N = the number of data points in the set.
Example:
N = 4
y1 = 41.515
y2 = 41.780
y3 = 41.861
y4 = 41.902
i = 2
i = 2
(ii) Determine the median as the average of the data point i and
the data point i + 1 as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.224
Eq. 1065.602-19
(2) For odd numbers of data points, determine the rank of the data
point whose value is the median and the corresponding median value as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.225
Eq. 1065.602-20
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents the rank of the data point
whose value is the median.
N = the number of data points in the set.
Example:
N = 3
y1 = 41.515
y2 = 41.780
y3 = 41.861
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.226
0
157. Amend Sec. 1065.610 by revising paragraph (d)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.610 Duty cycle generation.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) Required deviations. We require the following deviations for
variable-speed engines intended primarily for propulsion of a vehicle
with an automatic or manual transmission where that engine is subject
to a transient duty cycle that specifies points with normalized
reference speed of 0% and normalized reference torque of 0% (i.e., idle
points). These deviations are intended to produce a more representative
transient duty cycle for these applications. For steady-state duty
cycles or transient duty cycles with no idle operation, the
requirements in this paragraph (d)(3) do not apply. Idle points for
steady-state duty cycles of such engines are to be run at conditions
simulating neutral or park on the transmission. For manual
transmissions, set CITT to zero, which results in warm-idle-in-drive
speed and torque values being the same as warm-idle-in-neutral values.
For the case of a manual transmission where the optional declared idle
torque in Sec. 1065.510(f)(5)(iii) and the optional declared power in
Sec. 1065.510(f)(6) are not declared (i.e., idle torque is zero), the
required deviations in this paragraph (d)(3) have no impact and may be
skipped.
(i) Determine the warm-idle-in-drive speed and torque values with
the transmission in drive from the data collected during the engine
mapping procedure in Sec. 1065.510. The warm-idle-in-drive torque is
the sum of CITT and the torques representing loads from vehicle
accessories. For example, the sum of the required declared CITT in
Sec. 1065.510(f)(4), any optional declared torque in Sec.
1065.510(f)(5)(iii), and the torque on the primary output shaft from
any optional declared power in Sec. 1065.510(f)(6).
(ii) Determine the warm-idle-in-neutral speed and torque values
with the transmission in neutral from the data collected during the
engine mapping procedure in Sec. 1065.510. The warm-idle-in-neutral
torque is the sum of any optional declared torque in Sec.
1065.510(f)(5)(iii) and the torque on the primary output shaft from any
optional declared power in Sec. 1065.510(f)(6) (i.e., the sum of the
torques representing loads from vehicle accessories).
(iii) Zero-percent speed for denormalization of non-idle points is
the warm-idle-in-drive speed.
(iv) For motoring points, make no changes.
(v) If the cycle begins with an idle segment (i.e., a set of one or
more contiguous idle points), set the reference speed and torque values
to the warm-idle-in-neutral values for this initial segment. This is to
represent idle operation with the transmission in neutral or park at
the start of the
[[Page 29808]]
transient duty cycle, after the engine is started. If the initial idle
segment is longer than 24 seconds, change the reference speed and
torque values for the remaining idle points in the initial idle segment
to the warm-idle-in-drive values (i.e., change idle points
corresponding to 25 seconds to the end of the initial idle segment to
warm-idle-in-drive). This is to represent manually shifting the
transmission to drive.
(vi) For all other idle segments, set the reference speed and
torque values to the warm-idle-in-drive values. This is to represent
the transmission operating in drive.
(vii) If the engine is intended primarily for automatic
transmissions with a Neutral-When-Stationary feature that automatically
shifts the transmission to neutral after the vehicle is stopped for a
designated time and automatically shifts back to drive when the
operator increases demand (i.e., pushes the accelerator pedal),
reprocess all idle segments. Change reference speed and torque values
from the warm-idle-in-drive values to the warm-idle-in-neutral values
for idle points in drive after the designated time.
(viii) For all nonidle nonmotoring points with normalized speed at
or below zero percent and reference torque from zero to the warm-idle-
in-drive torque value, set the reference torque to the warm-idle-in-
drive torque value. This is to represent the transmission operating in
drive.
(ix) For consecutive nonidle nonmotoring points that immediately
follow and precede idle segments, with reference torque values from
zero to the warm-idle-in-drive torque value, change their reference
torques to the warm-idle-in-drive torque value. This is to represent
the transmission operating in drive.
(x) For consecutive nonidle nonmotoring points that immediately
follow and precede any point(s) that were modified in paragraph
(d)(3)(viii) of this section, with reference torque values from zero to
the warm-idle-in-drive torque value, change their reference torques to
the warm-idle-in-drive torque value. This is to provide smooth torque
transition around these points.
* * * * *
0
158. Revise Sec. 1065.644 to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.644 Vacuum-decay leak rate.
This section describes how to calculate the leak rate of a vacuum-
decay leak verification, which is described in Sec. 1065.345(e). Use
the following equation to calculate the leak rate, , and compare it to
the criterion specified in Sec. 1065.345(e):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.227
Eq. 1065.644-1
Where:
Vvac = geometric volume of the vacuum-side of the
sampling system.
R = molar gas constant.
p2 = vacuum-side absolute pressure at time t2.
T2 = vacuum-side absolute temperature at time
t2.
p1 = vacuum-side absolute pressure at time t1.
T1 = vacuum-side absolute temperature at time
t1.
t2 = time at completion of vacuum-decay leak verification
test.
t1 = time at start of vacuum-decay leak verification
test.
Example:
Vvac = 2.0000 L = 0.00200 m\3\
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[middot]K) = 8.314472 (m\2\[middot]kg)/
(s\2\[middot]mol[middot]K)
p2 = 50.600 kPa = 50600 Pa = 50600 kg/(m[middot]s\2\)
T2 = 293.15 K
p1 = 25.300 kPa = 25300 Pa = 25300 kg/(m[middot]s\2\)
T1 = 293.15 K
t2 = 10:57:35 a.m.
t1 = 10:56:25 a.m.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.228
0
159. Amend Sec. 1065.650 by revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.650 Emission calculations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Correct all gaseous emission analyzer concentration readings,
including continuous readings, sample bag readings, and dilution air
background readings, for drift as described in Sec. 1065.672. Note
that you must omit this step where brake-specific emissions are
calculated without the drift correction for performing the drift
validation according to Sec. 1065.550(b). When applying the initial
THC and CH4 contamination readings according to Sec.
1065.520(g), use the same values for both sets of calculations. You may
also use as-measured values in the initial set of calculations and
corrected values in the drift-corrected set of calculations as
described in Sec. 1065.520(g)(7).
* * * * *
0
160. Amend Sec. 1065.655 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraphs (a), (b)(4), and (e)(1)
and (4);
0
b. Removing the first paragraph (f)(3); and
0
c. Revising the second paragraph (f)(3).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1065.655 Carbon-based chemical balances of fuel, DEF, intake
air, and exhaust.
(a) General. Chemical balances of fuel, intake air, and exhaust may
be used to calculate flows, the amount of water in their flows, and the
wet concentration of constituents in their flows. See Sec. 1065.520(f)
for information about when to use this carbon-based chemical balance
procedure. With one flow rate of either fuel, intake air, or exhaust,
you may use chemical balances to determine the flows of the other two.
For example, you may use chemical balances along with either intake air
or fuel flow to determine raw exhaust flow. Note that chemical balance
calculations allow measured values for the flow rate of diesel exhaust
fluid for engines with urea-based selective catalytic reduction.
(b) * * *
(4) The amount of water in a raw or diluted exhaust flow,
xH2Oexh, when you do not measure the amount of water to
correct for the amount of water removed by a sampling system. Note that
you may not use the water measurement
[[Page 29809]]
methods in Sec. 1065.257 to determine xH2Oexh. Correct for
removed water according to Sec. 1065.659.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) For liquid fuels, use the default values for [alpha], [beta],
[gamma], and [delta] in table 2 of this section or determine mass
fractions of liquid fuels for calculation of [alpha], [beta], [gamma],
and [delta] as follows:
(i) Determine the carbon and hydrogen mass fractions according to
ASTM D5291 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1065.1010). When using
ASTM D5291 to determine carbon and hydrogen mass fractions of gasoline
(with or without blended ethanol), use good engineering judgment to
adapt the method as appropriate. This may include consulting with the
instrument manufacturer on how to test high-volatility fuels. Allow the
weight of volatile fuel samples to stabilize for 20 minutes before
starting the analysis; if the weight still drifts after 20 minutes,
prepare a new sample). Retest the sample if the carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen mass fractions do not add up to a total
mass of 100 0.5%; you may assume oxygen has a zero mass
contribution for this specification for diesel fuel and neat (E0)
gasoline. You may also assume that sulfur and nitrogen have a zero mass
contribution for this specification for all fuels except residual fuel
blends.
(ii) Determine oxygen mass fraction of gasoline (with or without
blended ethanol) according to ASTM D5599 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 1065.1010). For all other liquid fuels, determine the oxygen
mass fraction using good engineering judgment.
(iii) Determine the nitrogen mass fraction according to ASTM D4629
or ASTM D5762 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1065.1010) for all
liquid fuels. Select the correct method based on the expected nitrogen
content.
(iv) Determine the sulfur mass fraction according to subpart H of
this part.
* * * * *
(4) Calculate [alpha], [beta], [gamma], and [delta] as described in
this paragraph (e)(4). If your fuel mixture contains fuels other than
carbon-containing fuels, then calculate those fuels' mass fractions
wC, wH, wO , wS, and
wN as described in Sec. 1065.656(d). Calculate [alpha],
[beta], [gamma], and [delta] using the following equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.229
Eq. 1065.655-20
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.230
Eq. 1065.655-21
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.231
Eq. 1065.655-22
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.232
Eq. 1065.655-23
Where:
N = total number of fuels and injected fluids over the duty cycle.
j = an indexing variable that represents one fuel or injected fluid,
starting with j = 1.
mj = the mass flow rate of the fuel or any injected fluid
j. For applications using a single fuel and no DEF fluid, set this
value to 1. For batch measurements, divide the total mass of fuel
over the test interval duration to determine a mass rate.
wHmeasj = hydrogen mass fraction of fuel or any injected
fluid j.
wCmeasj = carbon mass fraction of fuel or any injected
fluid j.
wOmeasj = oxygen mass fraction of fuel or any injected
fluid j.
wSmeasj = sulfur mass fraction of fuel or any injected
fluid j.
wNmeasj = nitrogen mass fraction of fuel or any injected
fluid j.
Example:
N = 1
j = 1
m1 = 1
wHmeas1 = 0.1239
wCmeas1 = 0.8206
wOmeas1 = 0.0547
wSmeas1 = 0.00066
wNmeas1 = 0.000095
MC = 12.0107 g/mol
MH = 1.00794 g/mol
MO = 15.9994 g/mol
MS = 32.065 g/mol
MN = 14.0067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.233
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) Fluid mass flow rate calculation. This calculation may be used
only for steady-state laboratory testing. You may not use this
calculation if the standard-setting part requires carbon balance error
verification as described in Sec. 1065.543. See Sec.
1065.915(d)(5)(iv) for application to field testing. Calculate based on
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.234
Eq. 1065.655-25
Where:
nexh = raw exhaust molar flow rate from which you
measured emissions.
j = an indexing variable that represents one fuel or injected fluid,
starting with j = 1.
N = total number of fuels and injected fluids over the duty cycle.
mj = the mass flow rate of the fuel or any injected fluid j.
wCj = carbon mass fraction of the fuel and any injected
fluid j, as determined in paragraph (d) of this section.
Example:
N = 1
j = 1
m1 = 7.559 g/s
wC1 = 0.869 g/g
MC = 12.0107 g/mol
xCcombdry1 = 99.87 mmol/mol = 0.09987 mol/mol
xH20exhdry1 = 107.64 mmol/mol = 0.10764 mol/mol
[[Page 29810]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.235
* * * * *
0
161. Add Sec. 1065.656 to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.656 Hydrogen-based chemical balances of fuel, DEF, intake
air, and exhaust.
(a) General. Chemical balances of fuel, DEF, intake air, and
exhaust may be used to calculate flows, the amount of water in their
flows, and the wet concentration of constituents in their flows. See
Sec. 1065.520(f) for information about when to use this hydrogen-based
chemical balance procedure. With one flow rate of either fuel, intake
air, or exhaust, you may use chemical balances to determine the flows
of the other two. For example, you may use chemical balances along with
either intake air or fuel flow to determine raw exhaust flow. Note that
chemical balance calculations allow measured values for the flow rate
of diesel exhaust fluid for engines with urea-based selective catalytic
reduction.
(b) Procedures that require chemical balances. We require chemical
balances when you determine the following:
(1) A value proportional to total work, when you choose to
determine brake-specific emissions as described in Sec. 1065.650(f).
(2) Raw exhaust molar flow rate either from measured intake air
molar flow rate or from fuel mass flow rate as described in paragraph
(f) of this section.
(3) Raw exhaust molar flow rate from measured intake air molar flow
rate and dilute exhaust molar flow rate as described in paragraph (g)
of this section.
(4) The amount of water in a raw or diluted exhaust flow,
xH2Oexh, when you do not measure the amount of water to
correct for the amount of water removed by a sampling system. Correct
for removed water according to Sec. 1065.659.
(5) The calculated total dilution air flow when you do not measure
dilution air flow to correct for background emissions as described in
Sec. 1065.667(c) and (d).
(c) Chemical balance procedure. The calculations for a chemical
balance involve a system of equations that require iteration. We
recommend using a computer to solve this system of equations. You must
guess the initial values of two of the following quantities: the amount
of hydrogen in the measured flow, xH2exhdry, the fraction of
dilution air in diluted exhaust, xdil/exhdry, and the amount
of intake air required to produce actual combustion products per mole
of dry exhaust, xint/exhdry. You may use time-weighted mean
values of intake air humidity and dilution air humidity in the chemical
balance; as long as your intake air and dilution air humidities remain
within tolerances of 0.0025 mol/mol of their respective
mean values over the test interval. For each emission concentration, x,
and amount of water, xH2Oexh, you must determine their
completely dry concentrations, xdry and
xH2Oexhdry. You must also use your fuel mixture's carbon
mass fraction, wC, hydrogen mass fraction, wH,
oxygen mass fraction, wO, sulfur mass fraction,
wS, and nitrogen mass fraction, wN; you may
optionally account for diesel exhaust fluid (or other fluids injected
into the exhaust), if applicable. Calculate wC,
wH, wO, wS, and wN as
described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. You may
alternatively use any combination of default values and measured values
as described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. Use the
following steps to complete a chemical balance:
(1) Convert your measured concentrations such as
xH2meas, xNH3meas, xCO2meas,
xCOmeas, xTHCmeas, xO2meas,
xH2meas, xNOmeas, xNO2meas, and
xH2Oint, to dry concentrations by dividing them by one minus
the amount of water present during their respective measurements; for
example: xH2Omeas, xH2OxO2meas,
xH2OxNOmeas, and xH2Oint. If the amount of water
present during a ``wet'' measurement is the same as an unknown amount
of water in the exhaust flow, xH2Oexh, iteratively solve for
that value in the system of equations. If you measure only total
NOX and not NO and NO2 separately, use good
engineering judgment to estimate a split in your total NOX
concentration between NO and NO2 for the chemical balances.
For example, if you measure emissions from a stoichiometric combustion
engine, you may assume all NOX is NO. For a lean-burn
combustion engine, you may assume that your molar concentration of
NOX, xNOx, is 75% NO and 25% NO2. For
NO2 storage aftertreatment systems, you may assume
xNOx is 25% NO and 75% NO2. Note that for
calculating the mass of NOX emissions, you must use the
molar mass of NO2 for the effective molar mass of all
NOX species, regardless of the actual NO2
fraction of NOX.
(2) Enter the equations in paragraph (c)(5) of this section into a
computer program to iteratively solve for xH2exhdry,
xdil/exhdry, and xint/exhdry. Use good
engineering judgment to guess initial values for xH2exhdry,
xdil/exhdry, and xint/exhdry. We recommend
guessing an initial amount of hydrogen of 0 mol/mol. We recommend
guessing an initial xint/exhdry of 1 mol/mol. We also
recommend guessing an initial xdil/exhdry of 0.8 mol/mol.
Iterate values in the system of equations until the most recently
updated guesses are all within 1% or 1
[micro]mol/mol, whichever is larger, of their respective most recently
calculated values.
(3) Use the following symbols and subscripts in the equations for
performing the chemical balance calculations in this paragraph (c):
Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(3) of Sec. 1065.656--Symbols and Subscripts
for Chemical Balance Equations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount of measured emission in
x[emission]meas the sample at the respective gas
analyzer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x[emission]exh....................... Amount of emission per dry mole
of exhaust.
x[emission]exhdry.................... Amount of emission per dry mole
of dry exhaust.
xH2O[emission]meas................... Amount of H2O in sample at
emission-detection location;
measure or estimate these values
according to Sec.
1065.145(e)(2).
xCcombdry............................ Amount of carbon from fuel and
any injected fluids in the
exhaust per mole of dry exhaust.
xHcombdry............................ Amount of hydrogen from fuel and
any injected fluids in the
exhaust per mole of dry exhaust.
xdil/exh............................. Amount of dilution gas or excess
air per mole of exhaust.
xdil/exhdry.......................... amount of dilution gas and/or
excess air per mole of dry
exhaust.
xHcombdry............................ Amount of hydrogen from fuel and
any injected fluids in the
exhaust per mole of dry exhaust.
[[Page 29811]]
xint/exhdry.......................... Amount of intake air required to
produce actual combustion
products per mole of dry (raw or
diluted) exhaust.
xraw/exhdry.......................... Amount of undiluted exhaust,
without excess air, per mole of
dry (raw or diluted) exhaust.
xCO2int.............................. Amount of intake air CO2 per mole
of intake air.
xCO2intdry........................... amount of intake air CO2 per mole
of dry intake air; you may use
xCO2intdry = 375 [micro]mol/mol,
but we recommend measuring the
actual concentration in the
intake air.
xH2Oint.............................. Amount of H2O in the intake air,
based on a humidity measurement
of intake air.
xH2Ointdry........................... Amount of intake air H2O per mole
of dry intake air.
xO2int............................... Amount of intake air O2 per mole
of intake air.
xCO2dil.............................. Amount of dilution gas CO2 per
mole of dilution gas.
xCO2dildry........................... Amount of dilution gas CO2 per
mole of dry dilution gas; if you
use air as diluent, you may use
xCO2dildry = 375 [micro]mol/mol,
but we recommend measuring the
actual concentration in the
dilution gas.
xH2Odil.............................. Amount of dilution gas H2O per
mole of dilution gas.
xH2Odildry........................... Amount of dilution gas H2O per
mole of dry dilution gas.
[tau]................................ Effective carbon content of the
fuel and any injected fluids.
[chi]................................ Effective hydrogen content of the
fuel and any injected fluids.
[phiv]............................... Effective oxygen content of the
fuel and any injected fluids.
[xi]................................. Effective sulfur content of the
fuel and any injected fluids.
[omega].............................. Effective nitrogen content of the
fuel and any injected fluids.
wC................................... Carbon mass fraction of the fuel
(or mixture of test fuels) and
any injected fluids.
wH................................... Hydrogen mass fraction of the
fuel (or mixture of test fuels)
and any injected fluids.
wO................................... Oxygen mass fraction of the fuel
(or mixture of test fuels) and
any injected fluids.
wS................................... Sulfur mass fraction of the fuel
(or mixture of test fuels) and
any injected fluids.
wN................................... Nitrogen mass fraction of the
fuel (or mixture of test fuels)
and any injected fluids.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Use the equations specified in this section to iteratively
solve for xint/exhdry, xdil/exhdry, and
xH2exhdry. The following exceptions apply:
(i) For xH2exhdry multiple equations are provided, see
table 2 to paragraph (c)(6) of this section to determine for which
cases the equations apply.
(ii) The calculation of xO2exhdry is only required when
xO2meas is measured.
(iii) The calculation of xNH3exhdry is only required for
engines that use ammonia as fuel and engines that are subject to
NH3 measurement under the standard setting part, for all
other engines xNH3exhdry may be set to zero.
(iv) The calculation of xCO2exhdry is only required for
engines that use carbon-containing fuels or fluids, either as single
fuel or as part of the fuel mixture, and for engines that are subject
to CO2 measurement under the standard setting part, for all
other engines xCO2exhdry may be set to a value that yields
for xCcombdry a value of zero. (v) The calculation of
xCOexhdry and xTHCexhdry is only required for
engines that use carbon-containing fuels and for engines that are
subject to CO and THC measurement under the standard setting part, for
all other engines xCOexhdry and xTHCexhdry may be
set to zero. (vi) The calculation of xN2Oexhdry is only
required for engines that are subject to N2O measurement
under the standard setting part, for all other engines
xN2Oexhdry may be set to zero.
(5) The chemical balance equations are as follows:
xCcombdry = xco2exhdry + xcoexhdry +
xTHCexhdry - xco2dil [middot]
xdil/exhdry - xco2int [middot]
xint/exhdry
Eq. 1065.656-1
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.236
Eq. 1065.656-2
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.237
Eq. 1065.656-3
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.238
Eq. 1065.656-4
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.239
Eq. 1065.656-5
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.240
Eq. 1065.656-6 (see table 2 of this section)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.241
Eq. 1065.656-7 (see table 2 of this section)
[[Page 29812]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.242
Eq. 1065.656-8
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.243
Eq. 1065.656-9
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.244
Eq. 1065.656-10
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.245
Eq. 1065.656-11
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.246
Eq. 1065.656-12
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.247
Eq. 1065.656-13
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.248
Eq. 1065.656-14
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.249
Eq. 1065.656-15
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.250
Eq. 1065.656-16 (see table 2 of this section)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.251
Eq. 1065.656-17
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.252
Eq. 1065.656-18
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.253
Eq. 1065.656-19
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.254
Eq. 1065.656-20
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.255
Eq. 1065.656-21
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.256
[[Page 29813]]
Eq. 1065.656-22
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.257
Eq. 1065.656-23
(6) Depending on your measurements, use the equations and guess the
quantities specified in the following table:
Table 2 to Paragraph (c)(6) of Sec. 1065.656--Chemical Balance
Equations for Different Measurements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When measuring Guess . . . Calculate . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) xO2meas................... xint/exhdry and (A) xH2exhdry using
xH2exhdry. Eq. 1065.656-7.
(B) xO2exhdry using
Eq. 1065.656-16.
(ii) xH2meas.................. xint/exhdry and (A) xH2exhdry using
xdil/exhdry. Eq. 1065.656-6.
(B) [Reserved].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) The following example is a solution for xint/exhdry,
xdil/exhdry, and xHOexhdry using the equations in
paragraph (c)(5) of this section:
[[Page 29814]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.259
[[Page 29815]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.260
(d) Mass fractions of fuel. (1) For fuels other than carbon-
containing fuels determine the mass fractions of fuel WC,
WH, WO, WS, and WN, based
on the fuel properties as determined in paragraph (e) of this section.
Calculate WC, WH, WO, WS,
and WN using the following equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.261
Eq. 1065.656-24
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.262
Eq. 1065.656-25
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.263
Eq. 1065.656-26
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.264
Eq. 1065.656-27
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.265
[[Page 29816]]
Eq. 1065.656-28
Where:
wC = carbon mass fraction of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
wH = hydrogen mass fraction of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
wO = oxygen mass fraction of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
wS = sulfur mass fraction of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
wN = nitrogen mass fraction of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
[tau] = effective carbon content of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
MC = molar mass of carbon.
[chi] = effective hydrogen content of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
MH = molar mass of hydrogen.
[phiv] = effective oxygen content of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
MO = molar mass of oxygen.
[xi] = effective sulfur content of the fuel and any injected fluids.
MS = molar mass of nitrogen.
[omega] = effective nitrogen content of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
MN = molar mass of nitrogen.
Example for NH3 fuel:
[tau] = 0
[chi] = 3
[phiv] = 0
[xi] = 0
[omega] = 1
MC = 12.0107 g/mol
MH = 1.00794 g/mol
MO = 15.9994 g/mol
MS = 32.065 g/mol
MN = 14.0067 g/mol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.266
wC = 0 g/g
wH = 0.1775530 g/g
wO = 0 g/g
wS = 0 g/g
wN = 0.8224470 g/g
(2) For carbon-containing fuels and diesel exhaust fluid determine
the mass fractions of fuel, WC, WH,
WO, WS, and WN, based on properties
determined according to Sec. 1065.655(d). Calculate WC,
WH, WO, WS, and WN using
the following equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.267
Eq. 1065.656-29
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.268
Eq. 1065.656-30
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.269
Eq. 1065.656-31
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.270
[[Page 29817]]
Eq. 1065.656-32
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.271
Eq. 1065.656-33
Where:
wC = carbon mass fraction of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
wH = hydrogen mass fraction of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
wO = oxygen mass fraction of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
wS = sulfur mass fraction of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
wN = nitrogen mass fraction of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
MC = molar mass of carbon.
[alpha] = atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the fuel and any
injected fluids.
MH = molar mass of hydrogen.
[beta] = atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
MO = molar mass of oxygen.
[gamma] = atomic sulfur-to-carbon ratio of the fuel and any injected
fluids.
MS = molar mass of sulfur.
[delta] = atomic nitrogen-to-carbon ratio of the fuel and any
injected fluids.
MN = molar mass of nitrogen.
Example:
[alpha] = 1.8
[beta] = 0.05
[gamma] = 0.0003
[delta] = 0.0001
MC = 12.0107
MH = 1.00794
MO = 15.9994
MS = 32.065
MN = 14.0067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.272
(3) For nonconstant fuel mixtures, you must account for the varying
proportions of the different fuels. This paragraph (d)(3) generally
applies for dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines, but optionally it may
also be applied if diesel exhaust fluid or other fluids injected into
the exhaust are injected in a way that is not strictly proportional to
fuel flow. Account for these varying concentrations either with a batch
measurement that provides averaged values to represent the test
interval, or by analyzing data from continuous mass rate measurements.
Application of average values from a batch measurement generally
applies to situations where one fluid is a minor component of the total
fuel mixture; consistent with good engineering judgment. Calculate
WC, WH, WO, WS, and
WN of the fuel mixture using the following equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.273
Eq. 1065.656-34
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.274
Eq. 1065.656-35
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.275
Eq. 1065.656-36
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.276
Eq. 1065.656-37
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.277
Eq. 1065.656-38
Where:
wC = carbon mass fraction of the mixture of test fuels
and any injected fluids.
wH = hydrogen mass fraction of the mixture of test fuels
and any injected fluids.
wO = oxygen mass fraction of the mixture of test fuels
and any injected fluids.
wS = sulfur mass fraction of the mixture of test fuels
and any injected fluids.
[[Page 29818]]
wN = nitrogen mass fraction of the mixture of test fuels
and any injected fluids.
N = total number of fuels and injected fluids over the duty cycle.
j = an indexing variable that represents one fuel or injected fluid,
starting with j = 1.
mj = the mass flow rate of the fuel or any injected fluid j. For
batch measurements, divide the total mass of fuel over the test
interval duration to determine a mass rate.
wCmeasj = carbon mass fraction of fuel or any injected
fluid j.
wHmeasj = hydrogen mass fraction of fuel or any injected
fluid j.
wOmeasj = oxygen mass fraction of fuel or any injected
fluid j.
wSmeasj = sulfur mass fraction of fuel or any injected
fluid j.
wNmeasj = nitrogen mass fraction of fuel or any injected
fluid j.
Example for a mixture of diesel and NH3 fuel where
diesel represents 15% of energy:
N = 2
m1= 0.5352 g/s
m2= 7.024 g/s
wCmeas1 = 0.820628 g/g
wHmeas1 = 0.123961 g/g
wOmeas1 = 0.0546578 g/g
wSmeas1 = 0.00065725 g/g
wNmeas1 = 0.0000957004 g/g
wCmeas2 = 0 g/g
wHmeas2 = 0.177553 g/g
wOmeas2 = 0 g/g
wSmeas2 = 0 g/g
wNmeas2 = 0.822447 g/g
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.279
wC = 0.0581014 g/g
wH = 0.1737586 g/g
wO = 0.00386983 g/g
wS = 0.0000465341 g/g
wN = 0.76422359 g/g
(e) Fuel and diesel exhaust fluid composition. (1) For carbon-
containing fuels and diesel exhaust fluid determine the composition
represented by [alpha], [beta], [gamma], and [delta], as described in
Sec. 1065.655(e).
(2) For fuels other than carbon-containing fuels use the default
values for [tau], [chi], [phiv], [xi], and [omega] in table 3 to this
section, or use good engineering judgment to determine those values
based on measurement. If you determine compositions based on measured
values and the default value listed in table 3 to this section is zero,
you may set [tau], [phiv], [xi], and [omega] to zero; otherwise
determine [tau], [phiv], [xi], and [omega] (along with [chi]) based on
measured values.
(3) If your fuel mixture contains carbon-containing fuels and your
testing requires fuel composition values referencing carbon, calculate
[alpha], [beta], [gamma], and [delta] for the fuel mixture as described
in Sec. 1065.655(e)(4).
(4) Table 3 to this paragraph (e)(4) follows:
Table 3 to Paragraph (e)(4) of Sec. 1065.656--Default Values of [tau], [chi], [phiv], [xi], and [omega]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atomic carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen-to-hydrogen ratios C[tau] H>[chi]
Fuel O[phiv] S[xi] N[omega]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrogen............................... C0H2O0S0N0.
Ammonia................................ C0H3O0S0N1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Calculated raw exhaust molar flow rate from measured intake air
molar flow rate or fuel mass flow rate. You may calculate the raw
exhaust molar flow rate from which you sampled emissions, , based on
the measured intake air molar flow rate, , or the measured fuel mass
flow rate, , and the values calculated using the chemical balance in
paragraph (c) of this section. The chemical balance must be based on
raw exhaust gas concentrations. Solve for the chemical balance in
paragraph (c) of this section at the same frequency that you update and
record or . For laboratory tests, calculating raw exhaust molar flow
rate using measured fuel mass flow rate is valid only for steady-state
testing. See Sec. 1065.915(d)(5)(iv) for application to field testing.
(1) Crankcase flow rate. If engines are not subject to crankcase
controls under the standard-setting part, you may calculate raw exhaust
flow based on or using one of the following:
(i) You may measure flow rate through the crankcase vent and
subtract it from the calculated exhaust flow.
(ii) You may estimate flow rate through the crankcase vent by
engineering analysis as long as the uncertainty in your calculation
does not adversely affect your ability to show that your engines comply
with applicable emission standards.
(iii) You may assume your crankcase vent flow rate is zero.
[[Page 29819]]
(2) Intake air molar flow rate calculation. Calculate n based on
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.281
Eq. 1065.656-39
Where:
nexh = raw exhaust molar flow rate from which you
measured emissions.
nint = intake air molar flow rate including humidity in
intake air.
Example:
nint = 3.780 mol/s
xint/exhdry = 0.69021 mol/mol
xraw/exhdry = 1.10764 mol/mol
xH20exhdry = 107.64 mmol/mol = 0.10764 mol/mol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.282
(3) Fluid mass flow rate calculation. This calculation may be used
only for steady-state laboratory testing. See Sec. 1065.915(d)(5)(iv)
for application to field testing. Calculate based on using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.283
Eq. 1065.656-40
Where:
nexh = raw exhaust molar flow rate from which you
measured emissions.
j = an indexing variable that represents one fuel or injected fluid,
starting with j = 1.
N = total number of fuels and injected fluids over the duty cycle.
mj = the mass flow rate of the fuel or any injected fluid
j.
wCj = carbon mass fraction of the fuel (or mixture of
test fuels) and any injected fluid j.
wHj = hydrogen mass fraction of the fuel (or mixture of
test fuels) and any injected fluid j.
Example:
xH20exhdry1 = 312.013 mmol/mol = 0.10764 mol/mol
MC = 12.0107 g/mol
MH = 1.00794 g/mol
xCcombdry1 = 6.45541 mmol/mol = 0.00645541 mol/mol
xHcombdry1 = 641.384 mmol/mol = 0.641384 mol/mol
m1 = 0.167974 g/s
m2 = 7.39103 g/s
wC1 = 0.820628 g/g
wC2 = 0 g/g
wH1 = 0.123961 g/g
wH2 = 0.177553 g/g
N = 2
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.284
(g) Calculated raw exhaust molar flow rate from measured intake air
molar flow rate, dilute exhaust molar flow rate, and dilute chemical
balance. You may calculate the raw exhaust molar flow rate,
nexh, based on the measured intake air molar flow rate,
nint, the measured dilute exhaust molar flow rate,
ndexh, and the values calculated using the chemical balance
in paragraph (c) of this section. Note that the chemical balance must
be based on dilute exhaust gas concentrations. For continuous-flow
calculations, solve for the chemical balance in paragraph (c) of this
section at the same frequency that you update and record
nint and ndexh. This calculated ndexh
may be used for the PM dilution ratio verification in Sec. 1065.546;
the calculation of dilution air molar flow rate in the background
correction in Sec. 1065.667; and the calculation of mass of emissions
in Sec. 1065.650(c) for species that are measured in the raw exhaust.
(1) Crankcase flow rate. If engines are not subject to crankcase
controls under the standard-setting part, calculate raw exhaust flow as
described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(2) Dilute exhaust and intake air molar flow rate calculation.
Calculate as follows:
nexh = (xraw/exhdry - xint/exhdry)
[middot] (1 - xH20exh) [middot] ndexh +
nint
Eq. 1065.656-41
Example:
nint = 7.930 mol/s
xraw/exhdry = 0.1544 mol/mol
xint/exhdry = 0.1451 mol/mol
xH20exhdry = 32.46 mmol/mol = 0.03246 mol/mol
ndexh = 49.02 mol/s
nexh = (0.1544 - 0.1451) [middot] (1 - 0.03246) [middot]
49.02 + 7.930 = 0.4411 + 7.930 = 8.371 mol/s
0
162. Revise and republish Sec. 1065.660 to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.660 THC, NMHC, NMNEHC, CH4, and
C2H6 determination.
(a) THC determination and initial THC/CH4 contamination
corrections. (1) If we require you to determine THC emissions,
calculate xTHC[THC-FID]cor using the initial THC
contamination concentration xTHC[THC-FID]init from Sec.
1065.520 as follows:
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = xTHC[THC-FID]uncor -
xTHC[THC-FID]init
Eq. 1065.660-1
Example:
xTHCuncor = 150.3 [micro]mol/mol
[[Page 29820]]
xTHCinit = 1.1 [micro]mol/mol
xTHCcor = 150.3--1.1
xTHCcor = 149.2 [micro]mol/mol
(2) For the NMHC determination described in paragraph (b) of this
section, correct xTHC[THC-FID] for initial THC contamination
using Eq. 1065.660-1. You may correct xTHC[NMC-FID] for
initial contamination of the CH4 sample train using Eq.
1065.660-1, substituting in CH4 concentrations for THC.
(3) For the NMNEHC determination described in paragraph (c) of this
section, correct xTHC[THC-FID] for initial THC contamination
using Eq. 1065.660-1. You may correct xTHC[NMC-FID] for
initial contamination of the CH4 sample train using Eq.
1065.660-1, substituting in CH4 concentrations for THC.
(4) For the CH4 determination described in paragraph (d)
of this section, you may correct xTHC[NMC-FID] for initial
THC contamination of the CH4 sample train using Eq.
1065.660-1, substituting in CH4 concentrations for THC.
(5) You may calculate THC as the sum of NMHC and CH4 if
you determine CH4 with an FTIR as described in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section and NMHC with an FTIR using the additive method
from paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(6) You may calculate THC as the sum of NMNEHC,
C2H6, and CH4 if you determine
CH4 with an FTIR as described in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section, C2H6 with an FTIR as described in
paragraph (e) of this section, and NMNEHC with an FTIR using the
additive method from paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(b) NMHC determination. Use one of the following to determine NMHC
concentration, xNMHC:
(1) If you do not measure CH4, you may omit the
calculation of NMHC concentrations and calculate the mass of NMHC as
described in Sec. 1065.650(c)(5).
(2) For an NMC, calculate xNMHC using the NMC's
penetration fractions, response factors, and/or combined penetration
fractions and response factors as described in Sec. 1065.365, the THC
FID's CH4 response factor, RFCH4[THC-FID], from
Sec. 1065.360, the initial THC contamination and dry-to-wet corrected
THC concentration, xTHC[THC-FID]cor, as determined in
paragraph (a) of this section, and the dry-to-wet corrected
CH4 concentration, xTHC[NMC-FID]cor, optionally
corrected for initial THC contamination as determined in paragraph (a)
of this section.
(i) Use the following equation for an NMC configured as described
in Sec. 1065.365(d):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.285
Eq. 1065.660-2
Where:
xNMHC = concentration of NMHC.
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = concentration of THC, initial THC
contamination and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the THC FID
during sampling while bypassing the NMC.
xTHC[NMC-FID]cor = concentration of THC, initial THC
contamination (optional) and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by
the NMC FID during sampling through the NMC.
RFCH4[THC-FID] = response factor of THC FID to
CH4, according to Sec. 1065.360(d).
RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID] = NMC combined
C2H6 response factor and penetration fraction,
according to Sec. 1065.365(d).
RFPFCH4[NMC-FID] = NMC combined CH4 response
factor and penetration fraction, according to Sec. 1065.365(d).
Example:
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = 150.3 [micro]mol/mol
xTHC[NMC-FID]cor = 20.5 [micro]mol/mol
RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID] = 0.019
RFPFCH4[NMC-FID] = 1.000
RFCH4[THC-FID] = 1.05
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.286
(ii) Use the following equation for penetration fractions
determined using an NMC configuration as outlined in Sec. 1065.365(e):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.287
Eq. 1065.660-3
Where:
xNMHC = concentration of NMHC.
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = concentration of THC, initial THC
contamination and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the THC FID
during sampling while bypassing the NMC.
PFCH4[NMC-FID] = NMC CH4 penetration fraction,
according to Sec. 1065.365(e).
xTHC[NMC-FID]cor = concentration of THC, initial THC
contamination (optional) and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by
the THC FID during sampling through the NMC.
PFC2H6[NMC-FID] = NMC C2H6
penetration fraction, according to Sec. 1065.365(e).
Example:
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = 150.3 [micro]mol/mol
PFCH4[NMC-FID] = 0.990
xTHC[NMC-FID]cor = 20.5 [micro]mol/mol
PFC2H6[NMC-FID] = 0.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.288
(iii) Use the following equation for an NMC configured as described
in Sec. 1065.365(f):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.289
Eq. 1065.660-4
Where:
xNMHC = concentration of NMHC.
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = concentration of THC, initial THC
contamination and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the THC FID
during sampling while bypassing the NMC.
PFCH4[NMC-FID] = NMC CH4 penetration fraction,
according to Sec. 1065.365(f).
[[Page 29821]]
xTHC[NMC-FID]cor = concentration of THC, initial THC
contamination (optional) and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by
the THC FID during sampling through the NMC.
RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID] = NMC combined
C2H6 response factor and penetration fraction,
according to Sec. 1065.365(f).
RFCH4[THC-FID] = response factor of THC FID to
CH4, according to Sec. 1065.360(d).
Example:
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = 150.3 [micro]mol/mol
PFCH4[NMC-FID] = 0.990
xTHC[NMC-FID]cor = 20.5 [micro]mol/mol
RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID] = 0.019
RFCH4[THC-FID] = 0.980
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.290
(3) For a GC-FID or FTIR, calculate xNMHC using the THC
analyzer's CH4 response factor, RFCH4[THC-FID],
from Sec. 1065.360, and the initial THC contamination and dry-to-wet
corrected THC concentration, xTHC[THC-FID]cor, as determined
in paragraph (a) of this section as follows:
[chi]NMHC = [chi]THC[THC-FID]cor -
RFCH4[THC-FID] [middot] [chi]CH4
Eq. 1065.660-5
Where:
xNMHC = concentration of NMHC.
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = concentration of THC, initial THC
contamination and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the THC FID.
RFCH4[THC-FID] = response factor of THC-FID to
CH4.
xCH4 = concentration of CH4, dry-to-wet
corrected, as measured by the GC-FID or FTIR.
Example:
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = 145.6 [micro]mol/mol
RFCH4[THC-FID] = 0.970
xCH4 = 18.9 [micro]mol/mol
xNMHC = 145.6--0.970 [middot] 18.9
xNMHC = 127.3 [micro]mol/mol
(4) For an FTIR, calculate xNMHC by summing the
hydrocarbon species listed in Sec. 1065.266(c) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.291
Eq. 1065.660-6
Where:
xNMHC = concentration of NMHC.
xHCi = the C1-equivalent concentration of
hydrocarbon species i as measured by the FTIR, not corrected for
initial contamination.
xHCi-init = the C1-equivalent concentration of
the initial system contamination (optional) of hydrocarbon species
i, dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the FTIR.
Example:
xC2H6 = 4.9 [micro]mol/mol
xC2H4 = 0.9 [micro]mol/mol
xC2H2 = 0.8 [micro]mol/mol
xC3H8 = 0.4 [micro]mol/mol
xC3H6 = 0.5 [micro]mol/mol
xC4H10 = 0.3 [micro]mol/mol
xCH2O = 0.8 [micro]mol/mol
xC2H4O = 0.3 [micro]mol/mol
xCH2O2 = 0.1 [micro]mol/mol
xCH4O = 0.1 [micro]mol/mol
xNMHC = 4.9 + 0.9 + 0.8 + 0.4 + 0.5 + 0.3 + 0.8 + 0.3 + 0.1
+ 0.1
xNMHC = 9.1 [micro]mol/mol
(c) NMNEHC determination. Use one of the following methods to
determine NMNEHC concentration, xNMNEHC:
(1) Calculate xNMNEHC based on the test fuel's ethane
content as follows:
(i) If the content of your test fuel contains less than 0.010 mol/
mol of ethane, you may omit the calculation of NMNEHC concentration and
calculate the mass of NMNEHC as described in Sec. 1065.650(c)(6)(i).
(ii) If the content of your fuel test contains at least 0.010 mol/
mol of C2H6, you may omit the calculation of
NMNEHC concentration and calculate the mass of NMNEHC as described in
Sec. 1065.650(c)(6)(ii).
(2) For a GC-FID, NMC FID, or FTIR, calculate xNMNEHC
using the THC analyzer's CH4 response factor,
RFCH4[THC-FID], and C2H6 response
factor, RFC2H6[THC-FID], from Sec. 1065.360, the initial
contamination and dry-to-wet corrected THC concentration,
xTHC[THC-FID]cor, as determined in paragraph (a) of this
section, the dry-to-wet corrected CH4 concentration,
xCH4, as determined in paragraph (d) of this section, and
the dry-to-wet corrected C2H6 concentration,
xC2H6, as determined in paragraph (e) of this section as
follows:
xNMNEHC = xTHC[THC-FID{time} cor -
RFCH4{THC-FID{time} . xCH4 -
RFC2H6{THC-FID] . xC2H6
Eq. 1065.660-7
Where:
xNMNEHC = concentration of NMNEHC.
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = concentration of THC, initial THC
contamination and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the THC FID.
RFCH4[THC-FID] = response factor of THC-FID to
CH4.
xCH4 = concentration of CH4, dry-to-wet
corrected, as measured by the GC-FID, NMC FID, or FTIR.
RFC2H6[THC-FID] = response factor of THC-FID to
C2H6.
xC2H6 = the C1-equivalent concentration of
C2H6, dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the
GC-FID or FTIR.
Example:
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = 145.6 [micro]mol/mol
RFCH4[THC-FID] = 0.970
xCH4 = 18.9 [micro]mol/mol
RFC2H6[THC-FID] = 1.02
xC2H6 = 10.6 [micro]mol/mol
xNMNEHC = 145.6 - 0.970 [middot] 18.9 - 1.02 [middot] 10.6
xNMNEHC = 116.5 [micro]mol/mol
(3) For an FTIR, calculate xNMNEHC by summing the
hydrocarbon species listed in Sec. 1065.266(c) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.292
Eq. 1065.660-8
Where:
xNMNEHC = concentration of NMNEHC.
xHCi = the C1-equivalent concentration of
hydrocarbon species i as measured by the FTIR, not corrected for
initial contamination.
xHCi-init = the C1-equivalent
concentration of the initial system contamination (optional) of
hydrocarbon species i, dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the
FTIR.
Example:
xC2H4 = 0.9 [micro]mol/mol
xC2H2 = 0.8 [micro]mol/mol
xC3H8 = 0.4 [micro]mol/mol
xC3H6 = 0.5 [micro]mol/mol
xC4H10 = 0.3 [micro]mol/mol
xCH2O = 0.8 [micro]mol/mol
xC2H4O = 0.3 [micro]mol/mol
xCH2O2 = 0.1 [micro]mol/mol
xCH4O = 0.1 [micro]mol/mol
xNMNEHC = 0.9 + 0.8 + 0.4 + 0.5 + 0.3 + 0.8 + 0.3 + 0.1 +
0.1
xNMNEHC = 4.2 [micro]mol/mol
(d) CH4 determination. Use one of the following methods
to determine methane (CH4) concentration, xCH4:
(1) For an NMC, calculate xCH4 using the NMC's
penetration fractions, response factors, and/or combined penetration
fractions and response factors as described in Sec. 1065.365, the THC
FID's CH4 response factor, RFCH4[THC-FID], from
Sec. 1065.360, the
[[Page 29822]]
initial THC contamination and dry-to-wet corrected THC concentration,
xTHC[THC-FID]cor, as determined in paragraph (a) of this
section, and the dry-to-wet corrected CH4 concentration,
xTHC[NMC-FID]cor, optionally corrected for initial THC
contamination as determined in paragraph (a) of this section.
(i) Use the following equation for an NMC configured as described
in Sec. 1065.365(d):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.293
Eq. 1065.660-9
Where:
xCH4 = concentration of CH4.
xTHC[NMC-FID]cor = concentration of THC, initial THC
contamination (optional) and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by
the NMC FID during sampling through the NMC.
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = concentration of THC, initial THC
contamination and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the THC FID
during sampling while bypassing the NMC.
RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID] = NMC combined
C2H6 response factor and penetration fraction,
according to Sec. 1065.365(d).
RFCH4[THC-FID] = response factor of THC FID to
CH4, according to Sec. 1065.360(d).
RFPFCH4[NMC-FID] = NMC combined CH4 response
factor and penetration fraction, according to Sec. 1065.365(d).
Example:
xTHC[NMC-FID]cor = 10.4 [micro]mol/mol
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = 150.3 [micro]mol/mol
RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID] = 0.019
RFPFCH4[NMC-FID] = 1.000
RFCH4[THC-FID] = 1.05
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.294
(ii) Use the following equation for an NMC configured as described
in Sec. 1065.365(e):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.295
Eq. 1065.660-10
Where:
xCH4 = concentration of CH4.
xTHC[NMC-FID]cor = concentration of THC, initial THC
contamination (optional) and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by
the NMC FID during sampling through the NMC.
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = concentration of THC, initial THC
contamination and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the THC FID
during sampling while bypassing the NMC.
PFC2H6[NMC-FID] = NMC C2H6
penetration fraction, according to Sec. 1065.365(e).
RFCH4[THC-FID] = response factor of THC FID to
CH4, according to Sec. 1065.360(d).
PFCH4[NMC-FID] = NMC CH4 penetration fraction,
according to Sec. 1065.365(e).
Example:
xTHC[NMC-FID]cor = 10.4 [micro]mol/mol
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = 150.3 [micro]mol/mol
PFC2H6[NMC-FID] = 0.020
RFCH4[THC-FID] = 1.05
PFCH4[NMC-FID] = 0.990
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.296
(iii) Use the following equation for an NMC configured as described
in Sec. 1065.365(f):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.297
Eq. 1065.660-11
Where:
xCH4 = concentration of CH4.
xTHC[NMC-FID]cor = concentration of THC, initial THC
contamination (optional) and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by
the NMC FID during sampling through the NMC.
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = concentration of THC, initial THC
contamination and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the THC FID
during sampling while bypassing the NMC.
RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID] = the combined
C2H6 response factor and penetration fraction
of the NMC, according to Sec. 1065.365(f).
PFCH4[NMC-FID] = NMC CH4 penetration fraction,
according to Sec. 1065.365(f).
RFCH4[THC-FID] = response factor of THC FID to
CH4, according to Sec. 1065.360(d).
Example:
xTHC[NMC-FID]cor = 10.4 [micro]mol/mol
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = 150.3 [micro]mol/mol
RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID] = 0.019
PFCH4[NMC-FID] = 0.990
RFCH4[THC-FID] = 1.05
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.298
(2) For a GC-FID or FTIR, xCH4 is the actual dry-to-wet
corrected CH4 concentration as measured by the analyzer.
(e) C2H6 determination. For a GC-FID or FTIR,
xC2H6 is the C1-equivalent, dry-to-wet corrected
C2H6 concentration as measured by the analyzer.
[[Page 29823]]
0
163. Amend Sec. 1065.670 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text
and (b) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.670 NOX intake-air humidity and temperature corrections.
* * * * *
(a) For compression-ignition engines operating on carbon-containing
fuels and lean-burn combustion engines operating on fuels other than
carbon-containing fuels, correct for intake-air humidity using the
following equation:
* * * * *
(b) For spark-ignition engines operating on carbon-containing fuels
and stoichiometric combustion engines operating on fuels other than
carbon-containing fuels, correct for intake-air humidity using the
following equation:
* * * * *
0
164. Amend Sec. 1065.672 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.672 Drift correction.
* * * * *
(c) Drift validation. After applying all the other corrections--
except drift correction--to all the gas analyzer signals, calculate
emissions according to Sec. 1065.650. Then correct all gas analyzer
signals for drift according to this section. Recalculate emissions
using all of the drift-corrected gas analyzer signals. Validate and
report the emission results before and after drift correction according
to Sec. 1065.550.
* * * * *
0
165. Amend Sec. 1065.695 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(9)(v) through (vii) as paragraphs
(c)(9)(vi) through (viii); and
0
b. Adding new paragraph (c)(9)(v).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 1065.695 Data requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(9) * * *
(v) Chemical balance method--carbon-based or hydrogen-based
chemical balance method.
* * * * *
0
166. Amend Sec. 1065.705 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.705 Residual and intermediate residual fuel.
* * * * *
(b) The fuel must be free of used lubricating oil. Demonstrate this
by showing that the fuel meets at least one of the following
specifications.
(1) Zinc is at or below 15 mg per kg of fuel based on the
procedures specified in IP--470, IP--501, or ISO 8217 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 1065.1010).
(2) Phosphorus is at or below 15 mg per kg of fuel based on the
procedures specified in IP--500, IP--501, or ISO 8217 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 1065.1010).
(3) Calcium is at or below 30 mg per kg of fuel based on the
procedures specified in IP--470, IP--501, or ISO 8217 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 1065.1010).
* * * * *
0
167. Amend Sec. 1065.715 in paragraph (a), table 1, by revising
footnote ``a'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.715 Natural gas.
(a) * * *
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.715--Test Fuel Specifications for Natural Gas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property Value \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Demonstrate compliance with fuel specifications based on the
reference procedures in ASTM D1945 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 1065.1010), or on other measurement procedures using good
engineering judgment.
* * * * *
0
168. Amend Sec. 1065.750 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(i),
(a)(3) introductory text, and (a)(3)(xiii) and adding paragraph (a)(6)
to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.750 Analytical gases.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Contamination as specified in the following table:
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of Sec. 1065.750-General Specifications for Purified Gases \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituent Purified Air Purified N2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THC (C1-equivalent)..................... <= 0.05 [mu]mol/mol............ <= 0.05 [mu]mol/mol
CO...................................... <= 1 [mu]mol/mol............... <= 1 [mu]mol/mol
CO2..................................... <= 10 [mu]mol/mol.............. <= 10 [mu]mol/mol
O2...................................... 0.205 to 0.215 mol/mol......... <= 2 [mu]mol/mol
NOX..................................... <= 0.02 [mu]mol/mol............ <= 0.02 [mu]mol/mol
N2O \b\................................. <= 0.02 [mu]mol/mol............ <= 0.02 [mu]mol/mol
H2 \c\.................................. <= 1 [mu]mol/mol............... <= 1 [mu]mol/mol
NH3 \d\................................. <= 1 [mu]mol/mol............... <= 1 [mu]mol/mol
H2O \e\................................. <= 5 [mu]mol/mol............... <= 5 [mu]mol/mol
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ We do not require these levels of purity to be NIST-traceable.
\b\ The N2O limit applies only if the standard-setting part requires you to report N2O or certify to an N2O
standard.
\c\ The H2 limit only applies for testing with H2 fuel.
\d\ The NH3 limit only applies for testing with NH3 fuel.
\e\ The H2O limit only applies for water measurement according to Sec. 1065.257.
(2) * * *
(i) FID fuel. Use FID fuel with a stated H2
concentration of (0.39 to 0.41) mol/mol, balance He or N2,
and a stated total hydrocarbon concentration of 0.05 [mu]mol/mol or
less. For GC-FIDs that measure methane (CH4) using a FID
fuel that is balance N2, perform the CH4
measurement as described in SAE J1151 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 1065.1010).
* * * * *
(3) Use the following gas mixtures, with gases traceable within
1% of the NIST-accepted gas standard value or other gas
standards we approve:
* * * * *
(xiii) CH4, CH2O2,
C2H2, C2H4,
C2H4O, C2H6,
C3H8, C3H6,
CH4O, and C4H10. You may omit
individual gas constituents from this gas mixture. If your gas mixture
contains oxygenated hydrocarbons, your gas mixture must be in balance
purified N2, otherwise you may use balance purified air.
* * * * *
(6) If you measure H2O using an FTIR analyzer, generate
H2O calibration gases with a humidity generator using one of
the options in this paragraph (a)(6). Use good engineering judgment to
prevent
[[Page 29824]]
condensation in the transfer lines, fittings, or valves from the
humidity generator to the FTIR analyzer. Design your system so the wall
temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves from the point
where the mole fraction of H2O in the humidified calibration
gas, xH2Oref, is measured to the analyzer are at a
temperature of (110 to 202) [deg]C. Calibrate the humidity generator
upon initial installation, within 370 days before verifying the
H2O measurement of the FTIR, and after major maintenance.
Use the uncertainties from the calibration of the humidity generator's
measurements and follow NIST Technical Note 1297 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 1065.1010) to verify that the amount of
H2O in the calibration gas, xH2Oref, is
determined within 3% uncertainty, UxH2O. If the
humidity generator requires assembly before use, after assembly follow
the instrument manufacturer's instructions to check for leaks. You may
generate the H2O calibration gas using one of the following
options:
(i) Bubble gas that meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of
this section through distilled H2O in a sealed vessel.
Adjust the amount of H2O in the calibration gas by changing
the temperature of the H2O in the sealed vessel. Determine
absolute pressure, pabs, and dewpoint, Tdew, of
the humidified gas leaving the sealed vessel. Calculate the amount of
H2O in the calibration gas as described in Sec. 1065.645(a)
and (b). Calculate the uncertainty of the amount of H2O in
the calibration gas, UxH2O, using the following equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.299
Eq. 1065.750-1
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.300
Eq. 1065.750-2
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.301
Eq. 1065.750-3
Where:
Tdew = saturation temperature of water at measured
conditions.
UTdew = expanded uncertainty (k = 2) of the measured
saturation temperature of water at measured conditions.
pabs = wet static absolute pressure at the location of
the dewpoint measurement.
UPabs = expanded uncertainty (k = 2) of the wet static
absolute pressure at the location of the dewpoint measurement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.302
Example:
Tdew = 39.5 [deg]C = 312.65 K
UTdew = 0.390292 K
pabs = 99.980 kPa
UPabs = 1.15340 kPa
Using Eq. 1065.645-1,
xH2O = 0.0718436 mol/mol
[[Page 29825]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.305
(ii) Use a device that introduces a measured flow of distilled
H2O as vapor into a measured flow of gas that meets the
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Determine the molar
flows of gas and H2O that are mixed to generate the
calibration gas.
(A) Calculate the amount of H2O in the calibration gas
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.306
Eq. 1065.750-4
(B) Calculate the uncertainty of the amount of H2O in
the generated calibration gas, UxH2O, using the following
equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.307
Eq. 1065.750-5
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.308
Eq. 1065.750-6
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.309
Eq. 1065.750-7
Where:
ngas = molar flow of gas entering the humidity generator.
Ungas = expanded uncertainty (k=2) of the molar flow of
gas entering the humidity generator.
nH2O = molar flow of H2O entering the humidity
generator, mol/s.
UnH2O = expanded uncertainty (k=2) of the molar flow of
H2O entering the humidity generator.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.310
[[Page 29826]]
xH2O = amount of H2O in the calibration gas.
UxH2O = expanded uncertainty (k=2) of the amount of
H2O in the generated calibration gas.
(C) The following example is a solution for using the equations in
paragraph (a)(6)(ii)(B) of this section:
nH2O = 0.00138771 mol/s
Ungas = 0.000226137 mol/s
ngas = 0.0148680 mol/s
UnH2O = 0.0000207436 mol/s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.310
* * * * *
0
169. Amend Sec. 1065.805 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.805 Sampling system.
* * * * *
(f) You may sample alcohols or carbonyls using ``California Non-
Methane Organic Gas Test Procedures'' (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 1065.1010). If you use this method, follow its calculations to
determine the mass of the alcohol/carbonyl in the exhaust sample, but
follow subpart G of this part for all other calculations (40 CFR part
1066, subpart G, for vehicle testing).
* * * * *
0
170. Amend Sec. 1065.935 by revising paragraph (g)(5)(ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.935 Emission test sequence for field testing.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) Invalidate any data for periods in which the CO and
CO2 gas analyzers do not meet the drift criterion in Sec.
1065.550. For HC, invalidate data if the difference between the
uncorrected and the corrected brake-specific HC emission values are not
within 10% of the uncorrected results or the applicable
standard, whichever is greater. For data that do meet the drift
criterion, correct the data for drift according to Sec. 1065.672 and
use the drift-corrected results in emissions calculations.
* * * * *
0
171. Amend Sec. 1065.1001 by:
0
a. Adding a definition of ``Carbon-containing fuel'' in alphabetical
order;
0
b. Revising the definition for ``HEPA filter'';
0
c. Adding definitions of ``Lean-burn engine'' and ``Neat'' in
alphabetical order; and
0
b. Revising the definitions of ``NIST-traceable'' and ``Rechargeable
Energy Storage System (RESS)''.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1065.1001 Definitions.
* * * * *
Carbon-containing fuel means an engine fuel that is characterized
by compounds containing carbon. For example, gasoline, diesel, alcohol,
liquefied petroleum gas, and natural gas are carbon-containing fuels.
* * * * *
HEPA filter means high-efficiency particulate air filters that are
rated to achieve a minimum initial particle-removal efficiency of
99.97% using ASTM F1471 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
1065.1010).
* * * * *
Lean-burn engine means an engine with a nominal air fuel ratio
substantially leaner than stoichiometric. For example, diesel-fueled
engines are typically lean-burn engines, and gasoline-fueled engines
are lean-burn engines if they have an air-to-fuel mass ratio above
14.7:1.
* * * * *
Neat means fuel that is free from mixture or dilution with other
fuels. For example, hydrogen or natural gas fuel used without diesel
pilot fuel are neat.
* * * * *
NIST-traceable means relating to a standard value that can be
related to NIST-stated references through an unbroken chain of
comparisons, all having stated uncertainties, as specified in NIST
Technical Note 1297 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1065.1010).
Allowable uncertainty limits specified for NIST-traceability refer to
the propagated uncertainty specified by NIST.
* * * * *
Rechargeable Energy Storage System (RESS) means engine or equipment
components that store recovered energy for later use to propel the
vehicle or accomplish a different primary function. Examples of RESS
include the battery system or a hydraulic accumulator in a hybrid
vehicle.
* * * * *
0
172. Amend Sec. 1065.1010 by revising paragraphs (a)(40) and (e)(2) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1065.1010 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(40) ASTM D6348-12\[epsiv]1\, Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, approved February 1,
2012 (``ASTM D6348''), IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 1065.257(b),
1065.266(c), 1065.275(b), and 1065.277(b).
* * * * *
[[Page 29827]]
(e) * * *
(2) NIST Technical Note 1297, 1994 Edition, Guidelines for
Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results,
IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 1065.365(g), 1065.750(a), and 1065.1001.
* * * * *
0
173. Revise Sec. 1065.1137 to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.1137 Determination of thermal reactivity coefficient.
This section describes the method for determining the thermal
reactivity coefficient(s) used for thermal heat load calculation in the
accelerated aging protocol.
(a) The calculations for thermal degradation are based on the use
of an Arrhenius rate law function to model cumulative thermal
degradation due to heat exposure. Under this model, the thermal aging
rate constant, k, is an exponential function of temperature which takes
the form shown in the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.313
Eq. 1065.1137-1
Where:
A = frequency factor or pre-exponential factor.
Ea = thermal reactivity coefficient.
R = molar gas constant.
T = catalyst temperature.
(b) The process of determining Ea begins with
determining what catalyst characteristic will be tracked as the basis
for measuring thermal deactivation. This metric varies for each type of
catalyst and may be determined from the experimental data using good
engineering judgment. We recommend the following metrics; however, you
may also use a different metric based on good engineering judgment:
(1) Copper-based zeolite SCR. Total ammonia (NH3)
storage capacity is a key aging metric for copper-zeolite SCR
catalysts, and they typically contain multiple types of storage sites.
It is typical to model these catalysts using two different storage
sites, one of which is more active for NOX reduction, as
this has been shown to be an effective metric for tracking thermal
aging. In this case, there are two recommended aging metrics:
(i) The ratio between the storage capacity of the two sites, with
more active site being in the denominator.
(ii) Storage capacity of the more active site.
(2) Iron-based zeolite SCR. Total NH3 storage capacity
is a key aging metric for iron-zeolite SCR catalysts. Using a single
storage site is the recommended metric for tracking thermal aging.
(3) Vanadium SCR. Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) theory for
determination of surface area is a key aging metric for vanadium-based
SCR catalysts. Total NH3 storage capacity may also be used
as a surrogate to probe the surface area. If you use NH3
storage to probe surface area, using a single storage site is the
recommended metric for tracking thermal aging. You may also use low
temperature NOX conversion as a metric. If you choose this
option, you may be limited in your choice of temperatures for the
experiment described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section due to
vanadium volatility. In that case, it is possible that you may need to
run a longer experimental duration than the recommended 64 hours to
reach reliably measurable changes in NOX conversion.
(4) Zone-coated zeolite SCR. This type of catalyst is zone coated
with both copper- and iron-based zeolite. As noted in paragraphs (b)(1)
and (2) of this section, total NH3 storage capacity is a key
aging metric, and each zone must be evaluated separately.
(5) Diesel oxidation catalysts. The key aging metric for tracking
thermal aging for DOCs which are used to optimize exhaust
characteristics for a downstream SCR system is the conversion rate of
NO to NO2. Select a conversion rate temperature less than or
equal to 200 [deg]C using good engineering judgement. The key aging
metric for DOCs, which are part of a system that does not contain an
SCR catalyst for NOX reduction, is the HC reduction
efficiency (as measured using ethylene). Select a conversion rate
temperature less than or equal to 200 [deg]C using good engineering
judgement. This same guidance applies to an oxidation catalyst coated
onto the surface of a DPF, if there is no other DOC in the system.
(c)(1) Use good engineering judgment to select at least three
different temperatures to complete the degradation experiments. We
recommend selecting these temperatures to accelerate thermal
deactivation such that measurable changes in the aging metric can be
observed at multiple time points over the course of no more than 64
hours. Avoid temperatures that are too high to prevent rapid catalyst
failure by a mechanism that does not represent normal aging. An example
of temperatures to run the degradation experiment at for a small-pore
copper zeolite SCR catalyst is 600 [deg]C, 650 [deg]C, and 725 [deg]C.
(2) For each aging temperature selected, perform testing to assess
the aging metric at different times. These time intervals do not need
to be evenly spaced and it is typical to complete these experiments
using increasing time intervals (e.g., after 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32
hours). Use good engineering judgment to stop each temperature
experiment after sufficient data has been generated to characterize the
shape of the deactivation behavior at a given temperature.
(i) For SCR-based NH3 storage capacity testing, perform
a Temperature Programmed Desorption (TPD) following NH3
saturation of the catalyst (i.e., ramping gas temperature from 200 to
550 [deg]C) to quantify total NH3 released during the TPD.
(ii) For DOC formulations, conduct an NO Reverse Light Off (RLO) to
quantify oxidation conversion efficiency of NO to NO2 (i.e.,
ramping gas temperature from 500 to 150 [deg]C).
(d) Generate a fit of the deactivation data generated in paragraph
(b) of this section at each temperature.
(1) Copper-based zeolite SCR. Process all NH3 TPD data
from each aging condition using an algorithm to fit the NH3
desorption data.
(i) We recommend that you use the Temkin adsorption model to
quantify the NH3 TPD at each site to determine the
desorption peaks of individual storage sites. The adsorption model is
adapted from ``Adsorption of Nitrogen and the Mechanism of Ammonia
Decomposition Over Iron Catalysts'' (Brunauer, S. et al, Journal of the
American Chemical Society, 1942, 64 (4), 751-758) and ``On Kinetic
Modeling of Change in Active Sites upon Hydrothermal Aging of Cu-SSZ-
13'' (Daya, R. et al, Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 2020, 263,
118368-118380). It is generalized using the following equation
(assuming a two-site model):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.314
Eq. 1065.1137-2
Where:
k = e-Ea(1-[alpha][theta])/RT
Ea = thermal reactivity coefficient of ammonia
desorption.
[alpha] = Temkin constant.
[theta] = fraction of adsorption sites currently occupied (initial
[theta] is assumed to be 1).
R = molar gas constant.
T = aging temperature.
(A) Use Eq. 1065.1137-2 to express the NH3 storage site
desorption peaks as follows:
[[Page 29828]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.315
Eq. 1065.1137-3
Where:
N1 = moles of NH3 desorbed from Site 1.
A1 = pre-exponential factor associated with Site 1.
Ea,T1 = thermal reactivity coefficient of ammonia
desorption for Site 1.
N2 = moles of NH3 desorbed from Site 2.
A2 = pre-exponential factor associated with Site 2.
Ea,T2 = thermal reactivity coefficient of ammonia
desorption for Site 2.
(B) Optimize Ea,T1, [alpha]1, A1,
Ea,T2, [alpha]2, and A2 to fit each
NH3 TPD peak to give the best fit. The moles of
NH3 (N1 and N2) may vary for each
individual TPD data set.
(ii) Use one of the following modeling approaches to derive the
thermal reactivity coefficient, Ea,D. We recommend that you
use both models to fit the data and check that the resulting
Ea,D values for the two methods are within 3% of each other.
(A) General Power Law Expression (GPLE). Generate a fit of the
deactivation data from paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section for each
aging temperature using the following expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.316
Eq. 1065.1137-4
Where:
kD = the thermal aging rate constant.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.317
Eq. 1065.1137-5
A = pre-exponential factor.
Ea,D = thermal reactivity coefficient.
R = molar gas constant.
T = aging temperature.
[Omega] = N2/N1 or = N2
(normalizing [Omega] to the degreened [Omega] value for each new
catalyst component prior to aging is recommended (i.e., [Omega] = 1
at t = 0 for each aging temperature).
[Omega]eq = aging metric at equilibrium (set = 0 unless
there is a known activity minimum).
m = model order (assumed to be 2 for copper-based zeolite SCR).
(1) Solve Eq. 1065.1137-4 for [Omega] to yield the following
expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.318
Eq. 1065.1137-6
Where:
[Omega]0 = 1 (assumes that N2/N1 or
= N2 values were normalized to the degreened value for
each aging temperature).
A = pre-exponential factor.
Ea,D = thermal reactivity coefficient.
R = molar gas constant.
T = aging temperature.
t = aging time.
(2) Use a global fitting approach to solve for Ea,D and
AD by applying a generalized reduced gradient (GRG)
nonlinear minimization algorithm, or equivalent. For the global fitting
approach, optimize the model by minimizing the Global Sum of Square
Errors (SSEGlobal) between the experimental [Omega] and
model [Omega] while only allowing Ea,D and AD to
vary. Global SSE is defined as the summed total SSE for all aging
temperatures evaluated.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.319
Eq. 1065.1137-7
Where:
n = total number of aging temperatures.
i = an indexing variable that represents one aging temperature.
SEET = sum of square errors (SSE) for a single aging
temperature, T, (see Eq. 1065.1137-8).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.320
Eq. 1065.1137-8
Where:
n = total number of aging intervals for a single aging temperature.
i = an indexing variable that represents one aging interval for a
single aging temperature.
[Omega]Exp = experimentally derived aging metric for
aging temperature, T.
[Omega]model = aging metric calculated from Eq.
1065.1137-6 for aging temperature, T.
(B) Arrhenius approach. In the Arrhenius approach, the deactivation
rate constant, kD, of the aging metric, [Omega], is
calculated at each aging temperature.
(1) Generate a fit of the deactivation data in paragraph (d)(1)(i)
of this section at each aging temperature using the following linear
expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.321
Eq. 1065.1137-9
Where:
[Omega] = N2/N1 or = N2 ([Omega] is
to be normalized to the degreened [Omega] value for each new
catalyst component prior to aging, i.e., [Omega] = 1 at t = 0 for
each aging temperature).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.322
(Eq. 1065.1137-5)
A = pre-exponential factor.
Ea,D = thermal reactivity coefficient.
R = molar gas constant.
T = aging temperature.
(2) Generate a plot of 1/[Omega] versus t for each aging
temperature evaluated in paragraph (c)(1) in this section. The slope of
each line is equal to the thermal aging rate, kD, at a given
aging temperature. Using the data pairs of aging temperature and
thermal aging rate constant, kD, determine the thermal
reactivity coefficient, Ea, by performing a regression
analysis of the natural log of kD versus the inverse of
temperature, T, in Kelvin. Determine Ea,D from the slope of
the resulting regression line, mdeactivation, using the
following equation:
Ea,D = -mdeactivation [middot] R
Eq. 1065.1137-10
Where:
mdeactivation = the slope of the regression line of
ln(kD) versus 1/T.
R = molar gas constant.
(2) Iron-based zeolite or vanadium SCR. Process all NH3
TPD data from each aging condition using a GPLE to fit the
NH3 desorption data (or BTE surface area data for vanadium
SCR). Note that this expression is different from the one used in
paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section because the model order m is
allowed to vary. This general expression takes the following form:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.323
Eq. 1065.1137-11
Where:
[Omega] = total NH3 (or BET surface area) normalized to
the degreened value for each new catalyst component prior to aging
(i.e., [Omega] = 1 at t = 0 for each aging temperature).
[[Page 29829]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.324
(Eq. 1065.1137-5)
A = pre-exponential factor.
Ea,D = thermal reactivity coefficient.
R = molar gas constant.
T = aging temperature.
t = time.
[Omega]eq = aging metric at equilibrium (set to 0 unless
there is a known activity minimum).
m = model order.
(i) Solve Eq. 1065.1137-10 for [Omega] to yield the following
expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.325
Eq. 1065.1137-12
Where:
[Omega]0 = 1 (assumes total NH3 storage, or
BET surface area, was normalized to the degreened value for each
aging temperature).
A = pre-exponential factor.
Ea,D = thermal reactivity coefficient.
R = molar gas constant.
T = aging temperature.
t = aging time.
m = model order (to be varied from 1 to 8 using whole numbers).
(ii) Global fitting is to be used to solve for Ea,D and
AD by applying a GRG nonlinear minimization algorithm, as
described in paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. Minimize the
SSEGlobal for each model order, m, while only allowing
Ea,D and AD to vary. The optimal solution is
determined by selecting the model order, m, that yields the lowest
global fit SSE. If you have a range of model order solutions where the
SSEGlobal does not vary substantially, use good engineering
judgement to choose the lowest m for this range.
(3) Zone-coated zeolite SCR. Derive the thermal reactivity
coefficient, Ea,D, for each zone of the SCR, based on the
guidance provided in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. The
zone that yields the lowest Ea,D shall be used for
calculating the target cumulative thermal load, as outlined in Sec.
1065.1139.
(4) Diesel oxidation catalyst. (i) The catalyst monolith is modeled
as a plug flow reactor with first order reaction rate:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.326
Eq. 1065.1137-13
Where:
v = velocity.
X = conversion (NO to NO2) in %/100.
V = volume of reactor.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.327
Eq. 1065.1137-14
AD = pre-exponential factor.
Ea,D = thermal reactivity coefficient.
R = molar gas constant.
T = aging temperature.
(ii) For a diesel oxidation catalyst, the preexponential term
AD is proportional to the number of active sites and is the
desired aging metric. Solving Eq. 1065.1137-13 for kD,
substituting it for kD in Eq. 1065.1137-5, and then solving
for AD yields Eq. 1065.1137-15:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.328
Eq. 1065.1137-15
Where:
SV = space velocity used during RLO testing.
X= conversion (NO to NO2).
Ea,D = thermal reactivity coefficient.
T = temperature where X was measured.
R = molar gas constant.
(iii) Process all NO to NO2 oxidation RLO data for each
aging condition by determining the average oxidation conversion
efficiency, X, at the temperature determined in paragraph (b)(5) of
this section. We recommend maintaining the target oxidation conversion
temperature to 5 [deg]C. For each aging condition (aging
temperature, T and aging time, t), calculate the aging metric, [Omega],
by normalizing AD to the degreened AD value for
each new catalyst component prior to aging (i.e., [Omega] = 1 at t = 0
for each aging temperature).
(A) Use the GPLE to fit the NO to NO2 conversion data,
X, at each aging temperature. The GPLE takes the following form:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.329
Eq. 1065.1137-16
Where:
[Omega] = aging metric for diesel oxidation catalysts.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.330
(Eq. 1065.1137-14)
R = molar gas constant.
T = aging temperature.
t = aging time.
[Omega]eq = aging metric at equilibrium (set to 0 unless
there is a known activity minimum).
m = model order.
(B) Solve Eq. 1065.1137-12 for to yield the following expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.331
Eq. 1065.1137-17
Where:
[Omega]eq = 1 (assumes the oxidation efficiency, X, was
normalized to the degreened value for each aging temperature).
A = pre-exponential factor.
Ea,D = thermal reactivity coefficient.
R = molar gas constant.
T = aging temperature.
t = aging time.
m = model order (to be varied from 1 to 8 using whole numbers)
(iv) Use global fitting to solve for Ea,D and A by
applying a GRG nonlinear minimization algorithm, as described in
paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. Minimize the
SSEGlobal for each model order, m, while only allowing
Ea,D and A to vary. The optimal solution is determined by
selecting the model order, m, that yields the lowest global fit SSE. If
you have a range of model order solutions where the
SSEGlobal does not vary substantially, use good engineering
judgement to choose the lowest m for this range.
0
174. Amend Sec. 1065.1139 by adding paragraphs (e)(6)(v) and (f)(3)
and revising paragraphs (g)(1) introductory text and (h) to read as
follows:
[[Page 29830]]
Sec. 1065.1139 Aging cycle generation.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(6) * * *
(v) If you are not able to achieve the target Dt,field
using the steps in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section
without exceeding catalyst temperature limits, use good engineering
judgement to reduce the acceleration factor from 10 to a lower number.
If you reduce the acceleration factor you must re-calculate the number
of hours determine in paragraph (a) of this section and re-run the
process in this paragraph (e). Note that if you reduce the acceleration
factor you must use the same lower acceleration factor in the chemical
exposure calculations in paragraph (h) of this section, instead of 10.
(f) * * *
(3) If you are not able to achieve the target Dt,field
using the steps in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section without
exceeding catalyst temperature limits, use good engineering judgement
to reduce the acceleration factor from 10 to a lower number. If you
reduce the acceleration factor you must re-calculate the number of
hours determine in paragraph (a) of this section and re-run the process
in this paragraph (f). Note that if you reduce the acceleration factor
you must use the same lower acceleration factor in the chemical
exposure calculations in paragraph (h) of this section, instead of 10.
(g) * * *
(1) Cycle assembly with infrequent regenerations. For systems that
use infrequent regenerations, the number of cycle repeats is equal to
the number of regeneration events that happen over full useful life.
The total cycle duration of the aging cycle is calculated as the total
aging duration in hours divided by the number of infrequent
regeneration events. In the case of systems with multiple types of
infrequent regenerations, use the regeneration with the lowest
frequency to calculate the cycle duration.
* * * * *
(h) Chemical exposure targets. Determine targets for accelerated
oil and fuel sulfur exposure as follows:
(1) Oil exposure targets. The target oil exposure rate during
accelerated aging is 10 times the field average oil consumption rate
determined in Sec. 1065.1133(a)(2). You must achieve this target
exposure rate on a cycle average basis during aging. Use good
engineering judgment to determine the oil exposure rates for individual
operating modes that will achieve this cycle average target. For
engine-based aging stands you will likely have different oil
consumption rates for different modes depending on the speed and load
conditions you set. For burner-based aging stands, you may find that
you have to limit oil exposure rates at low exhaust flow or low
temperature modes to ensure good atomization of injected oil. On a
cycle average basis, the portion of oil exposure from the volatile
introduction pathway (i.e., oil doped in the burner or engine fuel)
must be between (10 to 30) % of the total. The remainder of oil
exposure must be introduced through bulk pathway.
(2) Fuel sulfur exposure targets. The target sulfur exposure rate
for fuel-related sulfur is determined by utilizing the field mean fuel
rate data for the engine determined in Sec. 1065.1133(a)(3). Calculate
the total sulfur exposure mass using this mean fuel rate, the total
number of non-accelerated hours to reach full useful life, and a fuel
sulfur level of 10 ppmw.
(i) For an engine-based aging stand, if you perform accelerated
sulfur exposure by additizing engine fuel to a higher sulfur level,
determine the accelerated aging target additized fuel sulfur mass
fraction, wS, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.332
Eq. 1065.1139-9
Where:
mifuel,field = field mean fuel flow rate.
mifuel,cycle = accelerated aging cylce mean fuel low
rate.
mSfuel,ref = reference mass of sulfur per mass of fuel =
0.00001 kg/kg.
Sacc,rate = sulfur acceleration rate = 10.
Example:
mifuel,field= 54.3 kg/hr
mifuel,cycle = 34.1 kg/hr
mSfuel,ref = 0.00001 kg/kg.
Sacc,rate = 10
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.333
(ii) If you use gaseous SO2 to perform accelerated
sulfur exposure, such as on a burner-based stand, calculate the target
SO2 concentration to be introduced, xSO2,target,
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.334
Eq. 1065.1139-10
Where:
mifuel,field = field mean fuel flow rate.
miexhaust,cycle = mean exhaust flow rate during the
burner aging cycle.
xSfuel,ref = reference mol fraction of sulfur in fuel =
10 [micro]mol/mol.
Sacc,rate = sulfur acceleration rate = 10.
Mexh = molar mass of exhaust = molar mass of air.
MS = molar mass of sulfur.
Example:
mifuel,field= 54.3 kg/hr
miexhaust,cycle= 1000.8 kg/hr
xSfuel,ref = 10 [micro]mol/mol
Sacc,rate = 10
Mexh = 28.96559 g/mol
MS = 32.065 g/mol
[[Page 29831]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP24.335
(iii) You may choose to turn off gaseous sulfur injection during
infrequent regeneration modes, but if you do you must increase the
target SO2 concentration by the ratio of total aging time to
total normal (non-regeneration) aging time.
0
175. Amend Sec. 1065.1141 by revising paragraphs (b) and (f) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1065.1141 Facility requirements for engine-based aging stands.
* * * * *
(b) Use good engineering judgment to modify the engine to increase
oil consumption rates to levels required for accelerated aging. These
increased oil consumption levels must be sufficient to reach the bulk
pathway exposure targets determined in Sec. 1065.1139(h). A
combination of engine modifications and careful operating mode
selection will be used to reach the final bulk pathway oil exposure
target on a cycle average. You must modify the engine in a fashion that
will increase oil consumption in a manner such that the oil consumption
is still generally representative of oil passing the piston rings into
the cylinder. Use good engineering judgment to break in the modified
engine to stabilize oil consumption rates. We recommend the following
methods of modification (in order of preference):
(1) Install the second compression ring inverted (upside down) on
one or more of the cylinders of the bench aging engine. This is most
effective on rings that feature a sloped design to promote oil control
when normally installed.
(2) If the approach in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is
insufficient to reach the targets, modify the oil control rings in one
or more cylinders to reduce the spring tension on the oil control ring.
It should be noted that this is likely to be an iterative process until
the correct modification has been determined.
(3) If the approach in paragraph (b)(2) of this section is
insufficient to reach the targets, modify the oil control rings in one
or more cylinders to create small notches or gaps (usually no more than
2 per cylinder) in the top portion of the oil control rings that
contact the cylinder liner (care must be taken to avoid compromising
the structural integrity of the ring itself).
* * * * *
(f) Use good engineering judgment to incorporate a means of
monitoring oil consumption on a periodic basis. You may use a periodic
drain and weigh approach to quantify oil consumption. We recommend that
you incorporate a method of continuous oil consumption monitoring, but
you must validate that method with periodic draining and weighing of
the engine oil. You must validate that the aging stand reaches oil
consumption targets prior to the start of aging. You must verify oil
consumption during aging prior to each emission testing point, and at
each oil change interval. Validate or verify oil consumption over a
running period of at least 72 hours to obtain a valid measurement. If
you do not include the constant volume oil system recommended in
paragraph (c) of this section, you must account for all oil additions.
* * * * *
0
176. Amend Sec. 1065.1145 by revising paragraphs (d) and (e)(2)(i) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1065.1145 Execution of accelerated aging, cycle tracking, and
cycle validation criteria.
* * * * *
(d) Accelerated aging. Following zero-hour emission testing and any
engine dynamometer aging, perform accelerated aging using the cycle
validated in either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section. Repeat the
cycle the number of times required to reach full useful life equivalent
aging. Interrupt the aging cycle as needed to conduct any scheduled
intermediate emission tests, clean the DPF of accumulated ash, and for
any facility-related reasons. We recommended you interrupt aging at the
end of a given aging cycle, following the completion of any scheduled
infrequent regeneration event. If an aging cycle is paused for any
reason, we recommended that you resume the aging cycle at the same
point in the cycle where it stopped to ensure consistent thermal and
chemical exposure of the aftertreatment system.
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Changing engine oil. For an engine-based platform, periodically
change engine oil to maintain stable oil consumption rates and maintain
the health of the aging engine. Interrupt aging as needed to perform
oil changes. Perform a drain-and-weigh measurement. If you see a sudden
change in oil consumption it may be necessary to stop aging and either
change oil or correct an issue with the accelerated oil consumption. If
the aging engine requires repairs to correct an oil consumption issue
in the middle of aging, you must re-validate the oil consumption rate
for 72 hours before you continue aging. The engine exhaust should be
left bypassing the aftertreatment system until the repaired engine has
been validated.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-06809 Filed 4-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P