5002 Federal Registert'Vol. as, No. 12/ Thursday, January 18, 2001! Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 69, 80, and 86 FIIN 2060?Al69 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. AGNON: Final rule. SUMMAHV: The pollution emitted by diesel engines contributes greatly to our nation?s continuing air quality problems. Even with more stringent heavy-duty highway engine standards set to take effect in 2004, these engines will continue to emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, both of which contribute to serious public health problems in the United States. These problems include premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease. aggravation of existing asthma, acute respiratory chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function. Numerous studies also link diesel exhaust to increased incidence of lung cancer. We believe that diesel exhaust is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation and that this cancer hazard exists for occupational and environmental levels of exposure. We are establishing a comprehensive national control program that will regulate the heavy-duty vehicle and its fuel as a single system. As part of this program, new emission standards will begin to take effect in model year 200?, and will apply to heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles. These standards are based on the use of high-ef?ciency catalytic exhaust emission control devices or comparably effective advanced technologies. Because these devices are damaged by sulfur, we are also reducing the level of sulfur in highway diesel fuel significantly by mid-2006. The program provides substantial ?exibility for re?ners, especially small refiners, and for manufacturers of engines and vehicles. These options will ensure that there is widespread availability and supply of the lovtT sulfur diesel fuel from the very beginning of the program, and will provide engine manufacturers with the lead time needed to ef?ciently phase-in the exhaust emission control technology that will he used to achieve the emissions benefits of the new standards. We estimate that heavy-duty trucks and buses today account for about one third of nitrogen oxides emissions and one-quarter of particulate matter emissions from mobile sources. In some urban areas, the contribution is even greater. This program will reduce particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen emissions from heavy duty engines by 90 percent and 95 percent below current standard levels, respectively. In order to meet these more stringent standards for diesel engines, the program calls for a 97 percent reduction in the sulfur content of diesel fuel. As a result, diesel vehicles will achieve gasoline?like exhaust emission levels. We are also finalizing more stringent standards for heavy-duty gasoline Vehicles, based in part on the use of the low sulfur gasoline that will be available when the standards go into effect. The clean air impact of this program will be dramatic when fully implemented. By 2030, this program will reduce annual emissions of nitrogen oxides. nonmethane hydrocarbons, and particulate matter by a projected 2.0 million, 115.000 and 109,000 tons, respectively. We project that these reductions and the resulting significant environmental benefits of this program will come at an average cost increase of about $2,000 to $3,200 per new vehicle in the near term and about $1,200 to 31,000 per new vehicle in the long term, depending on the vehicle size. In comparison, new vehicle prices today can range well over $100,000 for larger heavy-duty vehicles. We estimate that when fully implemented the sulfur reduction requirement will increase the cost of producing and distributing diesel fuel by about ?ve cents per gallon. DATES: This rule will become effective March 19, 2001. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Office of Federal Register as of March 19, 2001. ADDRESSES: Comments: All comments and materials relevant to today?s action have been placed in Public Docket No. at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air Docket [6102], Room 1500, 401 Street, SW, Washington, DC 20400 [on the ground floor in Waterside Mall] from 0:00 am. to 5:30 Monday through Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Air Docket by telephone at (202} 260? ?540 and by facsimile at (202} 260? 4400. We may charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR part 2. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ODNTACT: Margaret Borushlto, U.S. EPA. National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor Mi 43105: Telephone [734] 214?4334, FAX (734] 214?4816, E-mail borushko.margaret@epa.gov SUPPLEMENTARY Regulated Entities This action will affect you ifyou produce or import new heavy?duty engines which are intended for use in highvvay vehicles such as trucks and buses. or produce or import such highway vehicles, or convert heavy-duty vehicles or heavy-duty engines used in highway vehicles to use alternative fuels, or produce or import light-duty highway diesel vehicles. It will also affect you if you produce, import, distribute. or sell highway diesel fuel, or sell nonroad diesel fuel. The following table gives some examples of entities that may have to fol low the regulations. But because these are only examples, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR parts 09, 30, and BB. Ifyou have questions, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER CONTACT section ofthis preamble: Sic Exam ies of etentiall ta elated enti- Category Codess Codesh i ties 9 Industry 336112 I Engine and Truck Manufacturers 336120 industry . . . . 811112 T533 Commercial Importers of Vehicles and 311190 7649 Vehicle Components Industry 324110 2911 Petroleum Retiners Industry 422710 I 5171 Diesel Fuel Marketers and Distributors 422720 5172 434220 4212 Diesel Fuel Carriers industry Federal Register/?Vol. 66, No. 12." Thursday, January 18, 2001fRules and Regulations 5805 D. Intergovernmental Relations 1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 2. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act F. Executive Order 13045: Children 's Health Protection G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism H. Congressional Review Act XI. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority I. Overview This rule covers the second of two phases in a comprehensive nationwide program for controlling emissions from heavy-duty engines and vehicles. It builds upon the phase 1 program we recently finalized [65 FR 59096, October 6, 2000}. That action af?rmed the 50 percent reduction in emissions of oxides of nitrogen from zoos model year highway diesel engines, set in 199'? [62 FR 54693, October 21, 199?]. and set new emission standards for heavy-duty gasoline- fueled engines and vehicles for 2005. This second phase of the program looks beyond 2004, based on the use of high-ef?ciency exhaust emission control devices and the consideration of the vehicle and its fuel as a single system. In developing this rule, we took into consideration comments received in response to the advance notice of proposed rulernalcing [64 FR 26142, May 13, 1999] and the notice of proposed rulemaking [65 FR 35430, June 2, 2000], including comments provided at five public hearings last June. This program will result in particulate matter and NDX emission levels that are 90 percent and 95 percent below the standard levels in effect today, respectively. In order to meet these more stringent standards for diesel engines, the rule mandates a 97 percent reduction in the sulfur content of diesel fuel. The heavy-duty engine standards will be effective starting in the 2007 model year and the low sulfur diesel fuel needed to facilitate the standards will be widely available in September 2006. As a result, diesel vehicles will achieve gasoline-like exhaust emission levels, in addition to their inherent advantages over gasoline vehicles with respect to fuel economy, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and lower evaporative hydrocarbon emissions. The rule also includes more stringent standards for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles. In addition to its impact on heavy-duty vehicle emissions, this rule will make clean diesel fuel available in time for implementation of the light- dut Tier 2 standards. The standards will result in substantial benefits to public health and welfare and the environment through significant reductions in emissions of PM, nonmethane hydrocarbons carbon monoxide sulfur oxides (50x). and air toxics. We project that by 2030, this phase 2 program will reduce annual emissions of NMHC, and PM by 2.6 million, 115,000 and 109,000 tons, respectively. These emission reductions will prevent 3,300 premature deaths, over 9,500 hospitalizations, and 1.5 million work days lost. All told the benefits of this rule equal $70.3 billion. A sizeable part of the bene?ts in the early years of this program come from large reductions in the amount of direct and secondary PM caused by the existing ?eet of heavy? duty vehicles. These reductions are due to the use of the higher quality diesel fuel in these vehicles. A. What Requirements Are Being Set? There are into basic parts to this program: New exhaust emission standards for heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles, and new quality standards for highway diesel fuel. The systems approach of combining the engine and fuel standards into a single program is critical to the success of our overall efforts to reduce emissions, because the emission standards will not be feasible without the fuel change. The feasibility of the emission standards is based on the use of high-ef?ciency exhaust emission control devices that would be damaged by sulfur in the fuel. This rule, by providing extremely low sulfur diesel fuel, will also enable cleaner diesel passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. This is because the same pool of highway diesel fuel also services these light?duty diesel vehicles, and these vehicles can employ technologies similar to the high-efficiency heavy- duty exhaust emission control technologies that will be enabled by the fuel change. We believe these technologies are needed for diesel vehicles to comply with our Tier 2 emissions standards for highway vehicles [65 FR 6696, February 10, 2000}. We believe that this systems approach is a comprehensive way to enable effective new technologies for clean diesel, affecting all sizes of highway diesel engines, and may translate to future reductions from diesel engines used in nonroad applications too. The fuel change, in addition to enabling new technologies. will also produce emissions and maintenance benefits in the existing ?eet of highway diesel vehicles. These benefits will include reduced sulfate PM and sulfur oxides emissions, reduced engine wear and less frequent oil changes, and longer-lasting exhaust gas recirculation components on engines equipped with EGR. Heavy-duty gasoline vehicles will also be expected to have much lower emissions due to the transfer of recent technology developments for light-duty applications, and the recent action taken to reduce sulfur in gasoline as part of the Tier 2 rule. The basic elements of the rule are outlined below. Detailed provisions and justifications for our rule are discussed in subsequent sections. 1. Heavy-Duty Emission Standards We are finalizing a PM emissions standard for new heavy-duty engines of 0.01 grams per hrake-horsepower?hour to take full effect for diesels in the 2007 model year.I We are also finalizing standards for and NMHC of0.20 and 0.14 gibhp-hr. respectively. These and NMHC standards will be phased in together between 2007 and 2010, for diesel engines. The phase-in will be on a percent~of-sales basis: 50 percent from 2007ir to 2009 and 100 percent in 2010. This phase-in schedule differs somewhat from the proposed schedule for reasons explained in Section Gasoline engines will be subject to these standards based on a phase?in requiring 50 percent compliance in the 2008 model year and 100 percent compliance in the 2009 model year. This phase-in schedule also differs from that proposed for reasons explained in Section 111. In addition, We are ?nalizing our proposal to include turbocharged diesels in the existing crankcase emissions prohibition, effective in 200?. Standards for complete HDVs will be implemented on the same schedule as for gasoline engine standards. For certification of complete vehicles betWeen 6500 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating the standards are 0.2 grams per mile (glmi) for 0.02 gimi for PM. 0.195 gi?mi for and 0.032 gfmi for formaldehyde.2 For vehicles between 1 Note that throughout this preamble we refer to diesel and gasoline vehicles and engines. We tend to use those terms given the preponderance of vehicles using diesel fuel or gasoline fuel in the LLS. hearty-duty highway market. However, when we refer to a diesal engine, we generally mean any engine using the diesel Cycle. When we refer to a gasoline engine or vehicle. we generally mean any Otto-cycle vehicle or engine. Therefore, the emission standards discussed throughout this preamble apply equally to engines and vehicles fueled by alternative fuels, unless othenvise speci?ed in the regulatory text accompanying today's rule. 2 Vehicle weight ratings in this rule refer to GVWR {the curb weight of the vehicle plus its maximum recommended load of passengers and cargo] unless noted otherwise. 5006 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 12fThursday, January 13, 2001/Rules and Regulations 10,000 and 14,000 pounds. the standards are 0.4 gimi for NDX, 0.02 3! mi for PM, 0.230 gfmi for NMHC, and 0.040 gimi for formaldehyde. These standards levels are roughly comparable to the engine-based standards in these size ranges. Note that these standards will not apply to vehicles above 3500 pounds that we classify as medium-duty passenger vehicles as part of our Tier 2 program. Finally. we are adopting new evaporative emissions standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles. effective on the same schedule as the gasoline engine and vehicle exhaust emission standards. The new standards for 3500 to 14,000 pound vehicles are 1.4 and 1.?5 grams per test for the 3-day diurnal and supplemental 2-day diurnal tests, respectively. Standards levels of 1.9 and 2.3 grams per test will apply for vehicles over 14,000 pounds. These standards represent more than a 50 percent reduction in the numerical standards as they exist today. The program includes ?exibility provisions to facilitate the transition to the new standards and to encourage the early introduction of clean technologies, and adjustments to Various testing and compliance requirements to address differences between the new technologies and existing engine-based technologies. These provisions are describe in Sections and VI. 2. Fuel Quality Standards This rule specifies that, beginning June 1, 2006, re?ners must begin producing highway diesel fuel that meets a maximum sulfur standard of 15 parts per million {ppm}. All 200? and later model year diesel-fueled vehicles must be refueled with this new low sulfur diesel fuel. This sulfur standard is based on our assessment of the impact of sulfur on advanced exhaust emission control technologies, and a corresponding assessment of the feasibility of low sulfur fuel production and distribution. Today?s program includes a combination of ?exibilities available to refiners to ensure a smooth transition to low sulfur highway diesel fuel. First, re?ners can take advantage of a temporary compliance option, including an averaging, banking and trading component, beginning in June 2005 and lasting through 2009, with credit given for early compliance before lune 2006. Under this temporary compliance option, up to 20 percent of highway diesel fuel may continue to be produced at the existing 500 sulfur maximum standard. Highway diesel fuel marketed as complying with the 500 sulfur standard must be segregated from 15 fuel in the distribution system, and may only be used in pre- 200? model year heavy-duty vehicles. Second, we are providing additional hardship provisions for small refiners to minimize their economic burden in complying with the 15 sulfur standard. Third, we are providing additional ?exibility to re?ners subject to the Geographic Phase-in Area provisions of the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program, which will allow them the option of staggering their gasoline and diesel investments. Finally, we are adopting a general hardship provision for which any re?ner may apply on a case-by-case basis under certain conditions. These hardship provisions, coupled with the temporary compliance option. will provide a ?safety valve? allowing up to 25 percent of highway diesel fuel produced to remain at 500 for these transitional years to minimize any potential for highway diesel fuel supply problems. In addition. today?s program includes unique provisions for implementing the low sulfur diesel fuel program in the State of Alaska, given that it is exempt from the current 500 standard. Certain U.S. territories are excluded from both the new engine standards and highway diesel fuel standards. The compliance provisions for ensuring diesel fuel quality are essentially consistent with those that have been in effect since 1993 under the existing 500 sulfur standard [55 FR 34120, August 21. 1990}. Additional compliance provisions have been established primarily during the transition years of the program to verify re?ners? compliance with the temporary compliance option to ensure the two grades of highWay diesel fuel remain segregated. and to discourage misfueling of model year 200? and later diesel vehicles. B. Why is EPA Taking This Action? 1. Heavy-Duty Vehicles Contribute to Serious Air Pollution Problems As discussed in detail in Section II, emissions h'om heavy-duty Vehicles contribute greatly to a number of serious air pollution problems, and would have continued to do so into the future absent further controls to reduce these emissions. First, heavy-duty vehicles contribute to the health and welfare effects of ozone, PM, NClx, 30x, and volatile organic compounds including toxic compounds such as formaldehyde. These adverse effects include premature mortality. aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease [as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, school absences, work less days, and restricted activity days], changes in lung function and increased respiratory changes to lung tissues and structures, altered respiratory defense mechanisms, chronic bronchitis. and decreased lung function. Ozone also causes crop and forestry losses, and PM causes damage to materials and soiling of commonly used building materials and culturally important items such as statues and works of art. Second. Mon, 50;: and PM contribute to substantial visibility impairment in many parts of the U.S. Third. emissions from heavy-duty trucks contribute to the acidification, nitri?cation and eutrophication of water bodies. Fourth, the Agency has concluded, and the Clean Air Scienti?c Advisory Committee has approved in public session, that diesel exhaust is likel to be carcinogenic to humans. M1 lions of Amerlcans live in areas with unhealthful air quality that currently endangers public health and welfare. Without emission reductions from the standards for heavy-duty Vehicles, there is a signi?cant risk that an appreciable number of45 areas with 123 million people across the country will violate the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) during the period when these standards will take effect. Furthermore, our analysis shows that PM 10 concentrations in 10 areas with a population of 28 million people face a significant risk of exceeding the NAAQS without significant additional controls between 2007 and 2030. Under the mandates and authorities in the Clean Air Act, Federal, state, and local governments are working to bring ozone and particulate levels into compliance with the 1-hour ozone and PM ,9 NAAQS through State Implementation Plan (SIP) attainment and maintenance plans, and to ensure that future air quality reaches and continues to achieve these health- based standards. The reductions in this rulemaking will play a critical part in these important efforts to attain and maintain the NAAQS. In addition, reductions from this action will also reduce public health and welfare effects associated with ozone and fine PM at concentrations that do not constitute a violation of the 1-hour ozone and PM 10 NAAQS Emissions from heavy-duty vehicles account for substantial portions of the country?s ambient PM and levels. NOX is a key precursor to ozone formation}. By 200?, we estimate that heavy-duty vehicles will account for 28 percent of mobile source emissions and 20 percent of mobile source PM emissions. These proportions are even Newsroom News Releases By Date EPA GIVES THE GREEN LIGHT ON DIESEL-SULFUR RULE Search this collection of releases or search all news releases Get news releases by email Release Date: 02/28/2001 Contact Information: View selected historical press releases from 1970 to 1998 in the EPA History website. FOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2001 EPA GIVES THE GREEN LIGHT ON DIESEL-SULFUR RULE Cathy Milbourn 202-564-7824 EPA Administrator Christie Whitman today directed that EPA move forward on schedule with its rule to make heavy-duty trucks and buses run cleaner. These vehicles, which will be ready by model year 2007, will cut harmful pollution by 95 percent. Sulfur in diesel fuel must be lowered to enable modern pollution-control technology to be effective on these trucks and buses. The Agency will require a 97 percent reduction in the sulfur content of highway diesel fuel from its current level of 500 parts per million to 15 parts per million. In announcing this decision, Administrator Whitman said, “The Bush Administration determined that this action not be delayed in order to protect public health and the environment. I look forward to working with state and local governments to meet their air quality goals as well as with citizens and businesses to ensure that diesel trucks and buses remain a viable and important part of the nation=s economy.” Once this action is fully implemented, 2.6 million tons of smog-causing nitrogen oxide emissions will be reduced each year. Soot or particulate matter will be reduced by 110,000 tons a year. An estimated 8,300 premature deaths, 5,500 cases of chronic bronchitis and 17,600 cases of acute bronchitis in children will also be prevented annually. It is also estimated to help avoid more than 360,000 asthma attacks and 386,000 cases of respiratory symptoms in asthmatic children every year. In addition, 1.5 million lost work days, 7,100 hospital visits and 2,400 emergency room visits for asthma will be prevented. Significant lead time is provided in the rule for the introduction of new cleaner fuel into the marketplace. Engine manufacturers will have flexibility to meet the new standards through a phase-in approach between 2007 and 2010. The fuel provision will go into effect in June 2006 and will be phased-in through 2009. The program also includes various flexible approaches, including additional time for some refiners and special provisions for small refiners. The final rule and related documents are available at: www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm. R-30 # # # Receive our News Releases Automatically by Email Recent additions 12/23/2014 EPA Announces Availability of $2.7 Million in Environmental Education Local Grants 12/23/2014 EPA, Coast Guard Extend Pollution Control Agreement with Royal Caribbean: New advanced technologies allow industry to comply with emission standards, reduce costs 12/23/2014 EPA to Hold Public Hearings in California, Texas and D.C. on Proposed Smog Standards 12/23/2014 Nominations for EPA New England’s Annual Environmental Merit AwardsDeadline is January 30, 2015 12/22/2014 XTO Energy, Inc. to Restore Areas Damaged by Natural Gas Extraction Activities Frequently Asked Questions Frequently Asked Questions about Heavy-Duty “Glider Vehicles” and “Glider Kits” B rief answers to common questions about potential changes to how EPA and NHTSA regulate glider vehicles. What are heavy-duty “glider vehicles” and “glider kits”? The term “glider kit” is used in the heavy-duty vehicle industry to describe a chassis and cab assembly that is generally produced by a vehicle manufacturer without a new engine, transmission, or rear axle. A third party then typically installs a used engine, transmission, and/or rear axle to complete assembly of the vehicle. The terms “glider vehicle” or “glider” are typically used for the completed vehicles. Historically, gliders have been used as a means to salvage valuable components, such as used engines, transmissions, and axles, from vehicles that were badly damaged in collisions. Gliders have been most popular for salvaging the components of the larg­ est and most expensive class of heavy-duty vehicles (i.e. “Class 8”). More recently the agencies have observed a sharp increase in glider sales, which suggests that gliders are being used more and more as a loophole to avoid purchasing engines that meet 2010 EPA emission standards, and potentially to avoid NHTSA safety regulations. As discussed below, because of different regulatory frameworks for safety and emis­ sions, NHTSA and EPA have subtle but important differences in their regulatory definitions of glider kits. NHTSA defines a “glider kit” as motor vehicle equipment that primarily includes the chassis and cab, but generally does not include the engine or rear axles. NHTSA is considering new regulations that would focus only on the completed glider vehicles. EPA defines “glider kits” to include both the complete and incomplete vehicles and applies its regulations to both. (See 40 CFR 1037.801 of EPA’s proposed regulatory text.) Are emissions from gliders a significant problem? Most gliders manufactured today use remanufactured model year 2001 or older engines. Typically these engines have NOx and particulate matter (PM) emissions EPA-420-F-15-904 July 2015 This increase in glider kit sales is a growing environmental concern. To give a sense of scale, annual glider sales now represent roughly 2% of the Class 8 vehicles manufactured annually, and yet may account for as much as one-half of total NOx and PM emissions from all new Class 8 vehicles. Put another way, at current production rates, the contribution of NOx and PM emissions from gliders alone would nearly double the emissions of these pollutants from the entire Class 8 fleet. The figure below illustrates in a relative sense how the NOx and PM emissions from gliders have increased and how they compare to the rest of Class 8 sales. This figure is based on esti­ mated current and historic glider production rates. The first bar represents the NOx and PM emissions that would result from 500 “pre-emission” gliders, which was a typical annual sales volume before model year 2007. It shows that 500 gliders emitting 40 times the NOx and PM would have the same total NOx and PM emissions as 20,000 fully compliant vehicles. The second bar represents the NOx and PM emissions from 5,000 model year 2014 “pre-emission” gliders. This second bar shows that just 5,000 of these gliders could emit as much NOx and PM as 200,000 fully compliant 2014 Class 8 tractors. For comparison, the third bar shows the NOx and PM emissions of 250,000 fully compliant model year 2014 Class 8 vehicles, which repre­ sents the typical annual production of fully compliant new Class 8 vehicles. 250,000 Equivalent Number of Vehicles Frequently Asked Questions 20 to 40 times higher than today’s clean diesel engines. Since 2010 when EPA’s current NOx and PM standards for heavy duty engines took effect, glider sales have increased nearly 10-fold as compared to the 2004-2006 time frame.1 EPA believes this increase reflects an attempt to avoid using engines that comply with EPA’s 2010 standards, and is an attempt to circumvent the Clean Air Act’s purpose to protect human health and the environment. 200,000 20,000 Historic Glider Production Current Glider Production Other MY2014 Class 8 Vehicles Figure 1 Growing Environmental Significance of Gliders 1 Based on the following report that has been placed into the public docket for this rulemaking: “Industry Characterization of Heavy Duty Glider Kits”, MacKay & Company, September 30, 2013. 2 Does EPA consider glider kits to be new motor vehicles? Yes. The Clean Air Act definition of “new motor vehicle” is not based on the condition of the parts assembled to create the vehicle but rather encompasses the entire vehicle. Thus, newly created gliders are “new motor vehicles” under the Clean Air Act, even if they incorporate some previously used components. Under this framework, glider kits are regulated by EPA the same as other incomplete new heavy-duty vehicles. Frequently Asked Questions Some glider manufacturers and customers may attempt to circumvent this definition by retain­ ing the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of the donor vehicle from which the used engine was obtained. However, this technicality does not mean that the new glider is actually the old vehicle. When does NHTSA consider glider vehicles to be new motor vehicles? NHTSA also determines whether or not a motor vehicle is “new” based on criteria other than its retention of a pre-existing VIN. NHTSA considers all completed glider vehicles to be new unless they have a transmission, engine, and drive axle that are not new, and at least two of those components are from the same “donor vehicle.” While NHTSA considers completed gliders to be motor vehicles, it does not consider glider kits (as it defines the term) to be motor vehicles. Rather, it considers glider kits to be “motor vehicle equipment.” Are EPA and NHTSA proposing to ban gliders? No, neither EPA nor NHTSA are proposing to ban gliders. EPA is clarifying which existing standards apply already to gliders, and is proposing new emissions requirements for certain glid­ ers. NHTSA is considering setting similar standards for complete glider vehicles, but not for glider kits. What is EPA proposing for gliders in this rulemaking? In general, EPA is proposing three things: a. Clarifications to the existing HD Phase 1 EPA requirements for gliders. b. New requirements for most gliders to have engines installed that meet the same require ments as new emissions-compliant engines. c. Exceptions to the proposed new requirements for small businesses. Each of these general areas is discussed further in related questions below. a. What are the existing EPA requirements for gliders, and how are these being clarified? EPA is clarifying that gliders, because they are “new vehicles” under the Clean Air Act, are subject to EPA’s current HD Phase 1 GHG emission standards for new vehicles in 40 CFR part 1037, with some exemptions for small businesses. This means that glider vehicles not produced by small businesses are already required to comply with the HD Phase 1 vehicle standards. 3 Frequently Asked Questions The current regulations (which are being revised) have not prohibited the use of older model engines, such as those that have been rebuilt or remanufactured for additional use. However, these engines have always had to comply with emissions standards applicable to their own model year of manufacture. In other words, EPA’s regulations have allowed older engines to be installed into new glider kits, as long as they remained in their originally certified configuration. b. What new EPA requirements are being proposed in the HD Phase 2 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking? EPA is proposing new requirements beginning January 1, 2018 that would generally require engines installed in new gliders to meet the same requirements as new emissionscompliant engines – both for GHGs and for other harmful pollutants such as NOx and PM. For example, if a glider was produced in 2020, it could use any engine that met the standards for model year 2020 engines. This could be an earlier model year engine that was originally subject to the same requirements, such as a model year 2018 engine. Beginning in model year 2021, Phase 2 standards for heavy duty vehicles would also apply to gliders. c. What are the exemptions for small businesses that manufacture gliders for model years 2018 and beyond? The HD Phase 1 regulations currently include an exemption for small businesses from all of the HD Phase 1 requirements of 40 CFR part 1037. This exemption, which was included in the Phase 1 rulemaking as an interim provision, also covers glider manufacturers. We are proposing to end this blanket exemption on January 1, 2018. In place of the blanket exemption, EPA is proposing limited grandfathering of exising small businesses that currently install the used engines and other used parts into gliders. Under these special provisions, existing small businesses would be allowed to continue their production up to 300 assembled gliders per year under the same type of exemption that covered them in HD Phase 1. Any additional gliders an existing small business would produce (beyond their existing production rates or beyond 300 per year, as appli­ cable) would need to meet the new proposed requirements for both engines and vehicles. These grandfathering provisions for existing small businesses should allow this industry to produce enough gliders to address legitimate purposes (e.g., salvaging engines and other parts from damaged vehicles). However, manufacturers that have significantly ramped up glider production in recent years to avoid EPA’s 2010 NOx and PM engine standards and other requirements, may need to alter their business practices. How did EPA develop this small business exemption? Prior to issuing the proposal, EPA convened a formal panel with the Small Business Administra­ tion (SBA) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to consider ways to minimize impacts on small businesses. As a central part of this process, EPA invited potentially affected small businesses to serve as Small Entity Representatives (SERs) that would help the panel to identify and address adverse impacts on small businesses. One of the SERs was a small 4 manufacturer that assembled gliders. This manufacturer helped the panel to understand how this rule would impact small businesses that assemble gliders. Based in large part on this input, the panel recommended the exemption being proposed. The official Panel Report has been placed into the public docket for this rulemaking. Frequently Asked Questions What are the existing NHTSA requirements for gliders, and is NHTSA considering adopting new provisions? NHTSA does not currently consider glider kits or completed glider vehicles to be covered under NHTSA’s HD Phase 1 standards. For completed glider vehicles, NHTSA is considering adopt­ ing requirements similar to EPA’s proposed regulations. NHTSA would also consider special provisions for small business manufacturers consistent with the initial regulatory flexibility analysis that accompanies the rulemaking. NHTSA is not considering standards for glider kits (as NHTSA defines them). Are EPA and NHTSA considering other options, and how can I provide new infor­ mation to the agencies? EPA is requesting comment on all of these proposed changes, and we may revise these provi­ sions to offer more or less flexibility in the Final Rule. NHTSA is requesting comment on its consideration of similarly regulating completed glider vehicles, but not glider kits. Both agen­ cies encourage commenters to provide data that would allow us to improve our proposal. See the notice for instructions on providing comments at: www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-heavy-duty.htm or www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy 5 F:\M14\BLACK\BLACK_035.XML AMENDMENT TO OFFERED MRS. BLACK BY H.R. 2822, AS OF REPORTED TENNESSEE At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: 1 SEC. ll. None of the funds made available by this 2 Act may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency 3 to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce section 4 1037.601(a)(1) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, 5 as proposed to be revised under the proposed rule entitled 6 ‘‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Stand7 ards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles 8 - Phase 2’’ signed by the Administrator of the Environ9 mental Protection Agency on June 19, 2015 (Docket No. 10 EPA–HQ–OAR–2014-0827), or any rule of the same sub11 stance, with respect to glider kits and glider vehicles (as 12 defined in section 1037.801 of title 40, Code of Federal 13 Regulations, as proposed to be revised under such pro14 posed rule). ◊ f:\VHLC\070615\070615.163.xml July 6, 2015 (3:24 p.m.) VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:24 Jul 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 (607614 4) PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 C:\USERS\AEBELL\APPDATA\ROAMING\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\7.0\GEN\C\BLACK_~1.XML Black Fights to Stop EPA from Regulating Tennessee Trucking Industry Out of Business Congressman Diane Black  About Contact Issues Media Services Resources Search  Home » Media » Press Releases Black Fights to Stop EPA from Regulating Tennessee Trucking Industry Out of Business July 8, 2015 Press Release To watch a video of Congressman Black’s remarks, click HERE or the image above  Washington, DC– Today Congressman Diane Black (R-TN-06), introduced and successfully passed H. Amdt. 630, an amendment to the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act  that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from applying its proposed “Phase 2” rules on greenhouse gas emissions standards for medium and heavy duty trucks to glider kits. A glider kit is typically made up of a used engine installed into a new truck frame. Glider kits are manufactured in middle Tennessee by companies like Fitzgerald Glider Kits, which has locations in Byrdstown, Crossville, and Jamestown. Since purchasing a glider kit is cheaper than buying a completely new vehicle, many companies – like Charles Bailey Trucking in Sparta, B & M Trucking in Gallatin, and Cooper Recycling in Livingston, Sparta, and Monroe – will use glider kits as a cost-saving measure. By failing to offer an exemption for glider kits under its proposed Phase 2 regulations, the EPA will remove any incentive for businesses to https://black.house.gov/media/press-releases/black-fights-stop-epa-regulating-tennessee-trucking-industry-out-business[1/25/2018 9:36:18 PM] Media Press Releases In the News Video Gallery Black Fights to Stop EPA from Regulating Tennessee Trucking Industry Out of Business Congressman Diane Black purchase or manufacture glider kits, effectively shutting down the glider kit industry altogether and destroying Tennessee jobs in the process. Importantly, Congressman Black’s amendment would not stop implementation of the proposed Phase 2 rule as a whole, but would simply prohibit the EPA from extending the rule to glider kits. Congressman Black and State Representative Kelly Keisling toured Fitzgerald Glider Kits in Jamestown earlier this year and heard firsthand how the proposed rule would impact their business and similar businesses in Tennessee. Congressman Black’s amendment passed the House by a voice vote. To watch a video of her remarks in support of her amendment, click here. A transcript of her remarks as prepared for delivery is provided below: Mister Speaker, I rise today to offer an amendment to protect Tennessee workers and small manufacturing businesses from the EPA’s latest overreach. Last month, the EPA released its “Phase 2” fuel-efficiency and emissions standards for new medium- and heavy-duty trucks. While many in the trucking industry are not opposed to this rule as a whole, one section in the proposal wrongly applies these new standards to what are known as glider kits. I recently toured a business in my district that manufactures these kits so for those who don’t know, a glider kit is a group of truck parts that can include a brand new frame, cab, or axles, but does not include an engine or transmission. Since a glider kit is less expensive than buying a new truck, and can extend the working life of a truck, businesses and drivers with a damaged or older vehicle may choose to purchase one of these kits instead of buying a completely new vehicle. Unfortunately, the EPA is proposing to apply the new Phase 2 standards to glider kits, even though gliders are not really new vehicles Mister Speaker, this directly impacts my district where we have glider kits being manufactured and purchased by companies in places like Byrdstown, Sparta, and Jamestown – communities that are already struggling with above-average unemployment and would see job opportunities put further out of reach if this misguided rule goes into effect. It is also unclear whether the EPA even has the authority to regulate replacement parts like gliders in the first place. What’s more, while the EPA’s stated goal with Phase 2 is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the agency has not studied the emissions impact of remanufactured engines and gliders compared to new vehicles. Mister Speaker, if the EPA is going to promulgate rules that raise costs and hurt jobs in districts like mine the least they could do is have a few facts prepared to back them up. Under this ill-advised rule, businesses and drivers that wish to use glider kits would be effectively forced to buy a completely new vehicle instead. Reducing glider sales would also end up limiting consumer choice in the marketplace That is why my amendment protects businesses, jobs, and consumers by  prohibiting the EPA from moving forward with these Phase 2 standards on glider kits. To be clear, this amendment would not bar the EPA from implementing the whole Phase 2 rule for medium and heavy-duty trucks. It would simply clarify that glider kits and glider vehicles are not new trucks as the EPA wrongly claims https://black.house.gov/media/press-releases/black-fights-stop-epa-regulating-tennessee-trucking-industry-out-business[1/25/2018 9:36:18 PM] Black Fights to Stop EPA from Regulating Tennessee Trucking Industry Out of Business Congressman Diane Black I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense amendment to help support American manufacturing and stop the EPA from attempting to shut down the glider industry, and I reserve the balance of my time. Click HERE for a high resolution photo of Congressman Black’s May 28, 2015 visit to Fitzgerald Glider Kits in Jamestown with State Representative Kelly Keisling ### Congressman Diane Black represents Tennessee’s 6th Congressional District. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees     Copyright Privacy House.gov Washington, DC Office Cookeville Office Gallatin Office Washington, DC Office 1131 Longworth HOB Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-4231 Fax: (202) 225-6887 Cookeville Office 321 East Spring Street Suite 301 Cookeville, TN 38501 Phone: (931) 854-0069 Fax: (615)-206-8980 Gallatin Office 355 North Belvedere Drive Suite 308 Gallatin, TN 37066 Phone: (615) 206-8204 Fax: (615)-206-8980 https://black.house.gov/media/press-releases/black-fights-stop-epa-regulating-tennessee-trucking-industry-out-business[1/25/2018 9:36:18 PM] Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles Phase 2 Response to Comments for Joint Rulemaking Benefits of Controlling Emissions from Glider Vehicles Reducing the number of glider vehicles produced using older engines will yield substantial improvements in public health. For example, using incidence-per-ton estimates, the number of PM2.5related premature mortalities caused by glider vehicles can be estimated from the lifetime reductions in both NOX (which forms nitrate PM in secondary reactions) and directly emitted PM2.5. Using benefitper-ton values (described in Section IX.H of the FRM Preamble), the present value of total monetized PM2.5-related benefits associated with these lifetime emission reductions can also be calculated. These health-related benefits are presented in the table below. Cases of premature mortality avoided are presented as a range based on results derived from two studies (the American Cancer Society cohort study - Krewski et al., 2009, and the Harvard Six-cities study - Lepeule et al., 2012). Monetized benefits are presented as net present values in 2013$, assuming a 30-year vehicle lifetime and a 3% and 7% discount rate. Both premature mortalities and benefits are shown for model year 2017 glider vehicles based on the increase in lifetime emissions over a fully compliant model year 2017 vehicle. Note, as discussed below, there would be additional benefits that have not been quantified. Table A-4: Lifetime NOx and PM Emissions Increases (tons) For Model Year 2017 Glider Vehicles and Associated Benefits Increased Lifetime NOx Emissions per 1,000 Glider Vehicles Increased Lifetime PM2.5 Emissions per 1,000 Glider Vehicles Premature Mortalities per 1,000 Glider Vehicles Monetized PM2.5-related Benefits Associated with Reducing Glider Production by 1,000 Vehicles 41,500 Tons 680 Tons 70-160 Persons $0.3-1.1 Billion As noted above, the restriction on 2017 production that is being adopted is projected to prevent the use of high polluting pre 2002-engines in 5,000 to 10,000 glider vehicles, and would prevent the emission of 207,500-415,000 tons of NOx and 3,400-6,800 tons of PM over the lifetime of those vehicles and engines. This is estimated to prevent 350 to 1,600 premature mortalities (and achieve $1.5 to 11.0 billion in monetized PM2.5-related benefits). Several commenters argued that EPA is precluded from adopting any controls on installation of high polluting engines in glider vehicles until MY 2021. This could mean the production of 30,000 to 40,000 additional glider vehicles using the older high polluting engines. Using the same assumptions as above, these three additional model years of production are estimated to result in an additional 2,100 to 6,400 premature mortalities, incremental to the premature mortalities. As described above, this sensitivity analysis uses estimates of the benefits from reducing the incidence of PM2.5-related health impacts. These estimates, which are expressed per ton of PM2.5-related emissions eliminated by adopting glider vehicle controls, represent the total monetized value of quantified human health benefits (including reduction in both premature mortality and premature morbidity) from reducing each ton of directly emitted PM2.5, or its precursors (e.g., NOX ), from on-road mobile sources. Ideally, the human health benefits would be estimated based on changes in ambient PM2.5 as determined by full-scale air quality modeling. However, the length of time needed to prepare the necessary emissions inventories, in addition to the processing time associated with the modeling itself, has precluded us from performing air quality modeling for this analysis. Page 1965 of 2127 The benefit per-ton technique has been used in previous analyses, including EPA’s 2017-2025 LightDuty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Rule,256 the Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine rules,257,258 and the Residential Wood Heaters NSPS.259 The table below shows the quantified PM2.5-related benefits captured in the per-ton estimates, as well as unquantified PM2.5 effects the per-ton estimates are unable to capture. Table A-5: Human Health and Welfare Effects of PM2.5 POLLUTANT PM2.5 QUANTIFIED AND MONETIZED IN PRIMARY ESTIMATES Adult premature mortality Acute bronchitis Hospital admissions: respiratory and cardiovascular Emergency room visits for asthma Nonfatal heart attacks (myocardial infarction) Lower and upper respiratory illness Minor restricted-activity days Work loss days Asthma exacerbations (asthmatic population) Infant mortality UNQUANTIFIED EFFECTS CHANGES IN: Cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity effects Chronic and subchronic bronchitis cases Strokes and cerebrovascular disease Low birth weight Pulmonary function Chronic respiratory diseases other than chronic bronchitis Non-asthma respiratory emergency room visits Visibility Household soiling This sensitivity analysis uses per ton benefits estimates taken from the "Technical Support Document Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors from 17 Sectors,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle.260 The procedure for calculating benefit per ton coefficients follows three steps, shown graphically in Figure A-4 below: 256 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2012). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-R-12-016, August 2012. Available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r12016.pdf. 257 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2013). Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration of the Existing Stationary Compression Ignition (CI) Engines NESHAP, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. January. EPA-452/R-13-001. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/RICE_NESHAPreconsideration_Compression_Ignition_Engines_RIA _final2013_EPA.pdf. 258 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2013). Regulatory Impact Analysis for Reconsideration of Existing Stationary Spark Ignition (SI) RICE NESHAP, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. January. EPA-452/R-13-002. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/NESHAP_RICE_Spark_Ignition_RIA_finalreconsideration2013_EPA. pdf. 259 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2015). Regulatory Impact Analysis for Residential Wood Heaters NSPS Revision. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. February. EPA-452/R-15-001. Available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/20150204residential-wood-heaters-ria.pdf. 260 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/documents/sourceapportionmentbpttsd.pdf. Page 1966 of 2127 m: 1:361th tin-mt {311: tantrum. Wreasurmu rt, DC 29311": 1501 (3021223 3744 ornate gov marl genius artists 121 tam an not one. 211) Warren Sim-t1 libs. Mr. as, IA titling-H16 - .. sit, White ma ceasiss a. GRASSLEY in ?Int redress, RE. Lat-?- 13 WASHINGTON. DC it race Crane: Haifa)?, IA error tot April 1 1 2017 :3191 ass ?En? Honorable John Koskinen Commissioner of Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20224 Dear Commissioner KoskinenHERA. than WV. are Smart IA 5136? ?12-44 Wants Bun-5w: $33 Compare-mt 12am IA {mot-949? 1319) nearer . i but Wis: are. Stars: Sun: 720 iA 7 15851322 4331 31H Worm: Boats-Mr 11 Boom 6m Sweet Calla": Briers, IA 51503 Jim 121 3122- 7103 We are writing about a growing concern in the. trucking industry concerning the application of the heavy truck excise tax in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section complaints from a number of companies across several states that 4051. We have heard he Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has retroactively changed the applicability of the heavy truck exeise tax to tractors refurbished using glider kits. As a result, several companies have been assessed millions of dollars in ?unpaid excise taxes. The size of the tax assessments, combined with the retroactive effect, endangers the continued Operations of the attested companies and the livelihood of their employees. For decades, companies have relied on the 75~percent safe harbor to to determine whether a tractor is refurbished, rather than manufacture st in Revenue Ruling 91-27 d, and thus not subject to the excise taxi? Speci?cally, the ruling states that the restoration of a used tractor where one ?uses a glider kit to repair the vehicle" will not give rise to at retailers excise tax ?so long as the cost of the repair does not exceed 75 percent of theprice of a comparable new vehicle.?i?] In 1997, Congress codified this safe harbor and eXpand-ed its applicability in IRC section In February of 2013, the IRS Of?ce of Chief Counsel released guidance favorable to taxpayers using glider hits to refurbish tractors. However, in January 2014, the released a revised memorandum contradicting previous advice, as we IRS changed course and II as the applicability of the safe harbor rule for trucks refurbished using glider kits. Without anychange in the statute or new rules published by the IRS, several companies now owe substantial sums in excise taxes for tractors refurbished in the same manner the IRS has previously examined and approved. In December 2016, the IRS published additional guidance in the form of Notice 2016-81, which was soon replaced by the substantially similar Notice 2017?5. In. these documents, for the ?rst time, the IRS defined the term ?chassis? for purposes of the heavy true excise tax. It also provided guidance on the applicability of the 7Supercent safe harbor rule in section 4052(1). The notices purport to be prospective with an effective date of. January 9, 2017. Committee Assignments: CHAIRMAN, AGRICULTURE BUDGET Di! RECYCI it) i?n?ti?Ht NARCDTICS CONTROL CAUCUS The companies contacting our of?ces however, all have had adverse actions taken against them gig; to the release of either notice. Moreover, those actions appear to involve the issues discussed in Notice 2016-81 and Notice 2017-5. This raises concerns about fundamental fairness and whether adequate notice was provided to taxpayers. To help us better understand the actions, we would appreciate a response to the following questions: 1) What prompted the IRS to issue Notice 2016-81 and Notice 20176? Please proyicle any relevant supporting documents, as well as a timeline for the issuance of Notice 2016-81 andultirnately Notice 2017-5. 2) Was Notice 2016?81 and/or Notice 2017?5 in any way issued in response to ongoing litigation or to provide the IRS support for those actions? 3) Has the IRS utilized Notice 2017~5 to retroactively support its arguments in actions- begun prior to its issuance and/or its January 9, 2017 effective. date? .If so, what is the justi?cation for its retroactive application? We appreciate your attention to this issue and look forward to your response. Sincerely, le 1 Bob Corker tor United States Senator Joni K. Ernst Diane Black United States Senator United States Representative ?Rev. Rul. 91-27, Heavy Vehicles; Restoration, April 15, 1991 id. Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, PL. 105-34 at section 1434 United States Department of Transportation Previous Next If the vehicle registration for a commercial motor vehicle reflect a model year of 2000 or newer, but the engine plate or documentation from the manufacturer indicates that the engine is older than model year 2000, is the vehicle exempt from the ELD rule? Yes. While an ELD may voluntarily be used in vehicles that are model year 1999 or older, use of an ELD is not required in these vehicles; likewise, vehicles with engines predating model year 2000 are to be treated as exempt, even if the VIN number reported on the registration indicates that the CMV is a later model year. When a vehicle is registered, the model year should follow the criteria established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). There may be instances where the model year reflected on the vehicle registration is not the same as the engine model year, most commonly when a vehicle is rebuilt using a "glider kit." In this circumstance, an inspector/investigator should use the model year on the engine to determine if the driver is exempt from the ELD requirements. If the engine model year is older than 2000, the driver is not subject to the ELD rule. While the driver is not required to possess documentation that confirms the vehicle engine model year, 49 CFR Part 379 Appendix A requires motor carriers to maintain all documentation on motor and engine changes at the principle place of business. If a determination cannot be made at the roadside, safety official should refer the case for further investigation. Did this answer your question? If not, please email ELD@dot.gov or call 1-800-832-5660 for more information. Last Updated : December 18, 2017 Related Links: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - ELD Rule FMCSA Information Line 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590 United States ELD@dot.gov Phone: Submit Feedback > 42 Appendix A cont'd Externally Funded Projects by College/Department/Center, Investigator(s), Project Title, Funding Agency and Funding Amount Civil and Environmental Engineering cont'd PI - Daniel Badoe ?Development of Tennessee Travel Demand Model Users' Group University of Tennessee-Knoxville (via Tennessee Dept. of Transportation) $10,900.00 Center: Energy PI - L. K. Crouch ?Developing a TDOT Class S-LH (Lower Heat) PCC Mixture Specification Tennessee Department of Transportation $5,000.00 Center: Energy PI - Alfred Kalyanapu ?Development of integrated DHSVM-Flood2D-GPU modeling framework for regional-scale modeling Oak Ridge National Laboratory $60,019.00 Co-PI(s): Sheikh Ghafoor, Computer Science Center: Water ?Increasing the Resilience of Agricultural Production in the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins through More Efficient Water Resource Use University of Tennessee (via USDA) $52,685.00 Center: Water PI - Benjamin Mohr ?Environmental & Economic Study of Glider Kit Assemblers Fitzgerald Glider Kits $70,056.00 ?Linking Diversity of Polyphosphate Accumulating Organisms to Improved Functional Stability of the Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal Process National Science Foundation $45,996.00 Co-PI(s): Tania Datta, Grace McMillan, Civil and Environmental Engineering Center: Water PI - Daniel VandenBerge ?Phase 1 with Luna Innovations: real-time distributed sensing of subsurface in situ stress Luna Innovations $20,207.00 Center: Energy Grants Awarded Report From: 9/1/16 to 9/30/16 Project Title: The Origin, Host and Geographic Range of Snake Fungal Disease with an Emphasis on Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Tennessee Agency: Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Activation Amount: $6,200.00 Personnel: PI - Donald Walker Abstract: Project Title: Environmental & Economic Study of Glider Kit Assemblers Agency: Fitzgerald Glider Kits Activation Amount: $12,500.00 Personnel: PI - Benjamin Mohr Abstract: This research will address the environmental and economic impact of Glider Kit Assemblers in the United States marketplace and current challenges that EPA Standards/Laws plan to impose on new OEM and/or Re-manufactured Light Heavy Duty Trucks (Glider Kits) assemblers. The three key areas of research include: 1) glider kit compliance with existing and proposed EPA regulation challenges while establishing a matrix of re-manufactured components and emissions of comparable engine choices; 2) high level environmental footprint and economic study of OEM manufacturing versus assembly of re-manufactured components; and 3) industry optimization plan to address future environmental regulations including but not limited to production vehicles, component assembly, and facility compliance. Project Title: Fulbright-Hays: Implementation of the Clinical Immersion at Disciplinary Interfaces Course Agency: U.S. Department of State Activation Amount: $67,650.00 Personnel: PI - Melissa Geist Co-PI - Robby Sanders Abstract: Faculty from Chemical Engineering and Nursing at Tennessee Technological University (TTU) created a course for interdisciplinary clinical immersion in health care settings. The course design challenges interdisciplinary teams to identify problems in health care facilities, generate solutions in a reiterative process, build prototypes, and develop a plan for tech transfer and commercialization. The course has received funding from VentureWell and the Lemelson Foundation and from TTU's Creative Inquiry Grant Progam. The goal of this grant proposal would be to collaborate with faculty from CUJAE to offer a similar interdisciplinary and cross-cultural course aimed at improving the lives of citizens in both countries. ... Time 2:00 PM - 2:30 PM Subj ect Briefing re: M eeting with Tommy Fitzgerald Location Administrator's Office Show Time As Busy Handling: Ryan Jackson Attendees ... Name Attend ance (b )(6) Pruitt Cal Acct .(b )(6) Pruitt Ca l Acct Organizer Brown, Byron Required Time 2:15 PM - 2:45 PM Subject Meeting with Tommy Fitzgerald Location Adminsitrator's office Show Time As Busy Topic: GHG phase 2 sale and assembly of Glider Kits; goes into effect in Jan of next year and will put out h undreds of jobs Attendees: Tommy C. Fitzgerald, Tommy A. Fitzgerald (Jr.), Joe DePew , Don Shandy POC (b)(6) T ommy C Fitzgerald email Attendance (b)(6) Pruitt Cal Acct o(b )(6) Pruitt Cal Acct Organizer Jackson, Ryan Required Brown, Byron Required Eric Vance (Vance.Eric@epa.gov) Required .. Time 2:45 PM - 3:0Q PM Subject Depart Office for White House Show Time As Busy o Time (b) (5) OPP Subject 33'4 PVERSIGHT EPA-17-0074-A-000267 ^^ E(;.: July 10, 2017 2011 JUL I I AM 10 : 01 Scott Pruitt, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Re: h..._. , .. ^ 0^ TN (- Petition for Reconsideration of Application of the Final Rule Entitled "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2 Final Rule" to Gliders Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) and 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B), Fitzgerald Glider Kits, LLC ("Fitzgerald"), Harrison Truck Centers, Inc. ("Harrison"), and Indiana Phoenix, Inc. ("Indiana Phoenix") (collectively, "Petitioners"), on behalf of the glider industry, hereby request that the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") reconsider the application of the final rule entitled "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and HeavyDuty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2 Final Rule," 81 Fed. Reg. 73,478 (Oct. 25, 2016) ("Phase 2 Rule"), to "gliders." ' Backlzround "Gliders" are medium- and heavy-duty trucks that are assembled by combining certain new truck parts (that together constitute a"glider kit") with the refurbished powertrain—the engine, the transmission, and typically the rear axle--of an older truck. The glider kit generally includes the tractor chassis with frame, front axle, cab, and brakes. 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,512. A glider is manufactured by combining the powertrain from the used vehicle with the parts in the glider kit. Gliders are approximately 25% less expensive than new trucks, a significant cost savings for small businesses and owner-operators. Envtl. Prot. Agency & Dep't of Transp., Response to Comments for Joint Rulemaking ("RTC"), at 1846 (Aug. 2016) (comment of GATR Truck Center). Businesses and drivers that cannot afford a new truck often purchase gliders as an alternative to continuing to drive their older vehicle. Id. at 1825 (comment of Clarke Power Services). Glider kits can also extend the working life of a damaged vehicle. Id. Gliders also require less maintenance, yielding less downtime, and have modern safety features and amenities. Id. Overall, they offer a more economical option for smaller fleets and owneroperators to maintain the reliability of their commercial trucking operations. In the Phase 2 Rule published October 25, 2016, EPA for the first time mandated that glider kits, glider vehicles, and rebuilt engines installed in gliders (hereinafter "gliders") satisfy ' The Phase 2 Rule was jointly promulgated by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), an agency within the Department of Transportation ("DOT"). Because Petitioners request reconsideration of only certain elements of the Phase 2 Rule that were promulgated pursuant to EPA's Clean Air Act authority, this Petition is directed to EPA, and not NHTSA or DOT. I emissions standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines. The regulations accomplish this by ignoring the age of the engine and other powertrain elements installed in gliders and applying instead emissions standards based on the "calendar year in which assembly of the glider is completed." 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,943; see 40 C.F.R. § 1037.635. In other words, if a glider assembler installs a reclaimed engine in a glider in 2017, that engine must be certified to comply with all emissions standards applicable to new engines from model year 2017, regardless of the actual model year of the engine. "This requirement applies to all pollutants, and thus encompasses criteria pollutant standards as well as the separate [greenhouse gas ("GHG")] standards." 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,943; see 40 C.F.R. § 1037.635. Recognizing that the new standards applied to gliders in the Phase 2 Rule were both sudden and onerous, the Phase 2 Rule purports to provide some "transitional flexibilities," 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,942, but these provisions are not enough to prevent a devastating impact on the glider industry when the standards become almost fully applicable to gliders on January 1, 2018. In 2017, glider assemblers are permitted to produce a limited number of gliders exempt from the regulations. The number of gliders exempted in 2017 for any particular company is equivalent to the "highest annual production of glider kits and glider vehicles for any year from 2010 to 2014" by the company. 40 C.F.R. § 1037.150(t)(3). Because of the growth of their business since 2014, this provision has forced Fitzgerald, Harrison, and Indiana Phoenix to scale back production in 2017 to a certain degree, but it has allowed for continued operation. Beginning January 1, 2018, however, the 2017 regime is replaced with an allowance to buiid only 300 gliders per year that are exempt from the regulations. Id. § 1037.105(t)(1)(ii). This stringent production cap would effectively destroy the glider industry.2 Despite EPA's stated goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, EPA did not perform any actual testing to analyze the environmental impact of remanufactured engines and gliders compared to new Original Equipment Manufacturer ("OEM") vehicles. Instead, it relied on unsubstantiated assumptions about the number of older engines used in gliders and the emissions from engines used in gliders. If left in place, the Phase 2 Rule would significantly curtail American nianufacturing and effectively shut down the glider industry and the nearly 20,000 jobs it supports across the nation. For example, Fitzgerald, which is based out of Tennessee and Kentucky, is currently responsible for 1,600 direct and indirect jobs in those two states alone and several thousand more associated with suppliers across the country. Yet, if this regulation goes into full effect, by the end of the year, the company will be forced to cut production and its workforce by 90%. Harrison, based in Iowa, employs approximately 450 people, and its suppliers account for many more glider-related jobs. Indiana Phoenix, based in Indiana, directly employs over a 100 people in Avilla, Indiana. The Phase 2 Rule, if it takes effect, would put more job opportunities out of reach for economically challenged areas already struggling with unemployment. Additionally, it would force small businesses to buy more expensive new vehicles instead of growing their business and creating jobs. There are additional exceptions from the general requirement for engines from more recent model years or with relatively few miles of engine operation. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1037.150(t)(2); 1037.635(c). These carve outs do not apply to the vast majority of the gliders assembled by companies like Fitzgerald and Narrison, which tend to use engines from earlier model years and that have been subjected to normal use. 2 2 Bases for Reconsideration EPA should reconsider the application of the Phase 2 Ru1e to glider kits, glider vehicles, and rebuilt engines installed in gliders for three reasons: (1) Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to regulate gliders; (2) EPA's prior decision to regulate gliders was based on unsupported assumptions rather than data; and (3) reconsideration is warranted under Executive Order 13783. 1. Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act Does Not Authorize EPA to Regulate Gliders The Phase 2 Rule relied on EPA's authority under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions from "new motor vehicles" and "new motor vehicle engines." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). Because glider vehicles are not "new motor vehicles" and glider engines are not "new motor vehicle engines," EPA lacked authority under this provision to apply the Phase 2 Rule to gliders. A glider is not a"new motor vehicle" because the most significant parts of the vehicle— the engine, transmission, and typically the rear axle—are not new. A vehicle is a"new motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Clean Air Aet only if "equitable or legal title" to the vehicle has "never been transferred to an ultimate purchaser." 42 U.S.C. § 7550(3). For gliders, the "legal or equitable" title to the main components of the vehicle had previously "been transferred to an ultimate purchaser"—the owner of the donor truck. Simply adding new parts to a used truck does not make it a"new motor vehicle." The Phase 2 Rule's consideration of this issue was arbitrary and capricious and eontrary to 1aw. The Rule indicated first that EPA's authority could not be challenged because EPA had implicitly found gliders to be new vehicles in its Phase 1 Rule, which granted an interim exemption for gliders. 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,513-14. EPA, however, had an obligation to determine in the Phase 2 Rule that it had authority to act. See Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986) ("[A]n agency literally has no power to act ... unless and until Congress confers power upon it."); Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1880 (2013) (same). The Phase 2 Rule also erroneously based its interpretation of the Clean Air Act on marketing materials from the Fitzgerald web site. 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,514. EPA's legal authority does not turn on how a glider is described in marketing materials. EPA should reconsider this issue and conclude that because the principal parts of a glider are used, a glider is not a"new motor vehicle." Such a conclusion would be consistent with the treatment of this issue by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"). NHTSA's regulations make clear that a truck is not considered to be "newly manufactured" if the "engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of [an] assembled vehicle are not new" and at least two of those three components come from the same donor vehicle. 49 C.F.R. § 571.7(e). Gliders do not fall within this definition. EPA failed adequately to expiain its departure from NHTSA's approach. Moreover, "glider kits" do not even fall within the Clean Air Act's definition of "motor vehicle." Under the Act, a"motor vehicle" must be "self-propelled." 42 U.S.C. § 7550(2). But a glider kit lacks an engine, transmission, and often a rear ax1e. A collection of parts lacking these key components obviously is not "self-propelled." The Phase 2 Rule relies on particular 3 provisions authorizing regulation of specific vehicle components. 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,514; see 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(5)(A) (fueling systems); id. § 7521(a)(6) (onboard vapor recovery systems). But there is no provision authorizing regulation of the parts that make up a glider kit. The fact that the Clean Air Act allows EPA to regulate certain specified vehicle components, but not the components in a glider kit, undermines the Phase 2 Rule's application to giider kits. Congress understood how to grant EPA authority to regulate vehicle components but declined to authorize regulation of glider kits. See TRW, Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 28-29 (2001) (applying expressio unius canon of construction). Under the interpretation set forth in the Phase 2 Rule, there would be no limit on EPA's authority to regulate parts of vehicles. The Phase 2 Rule also states that EPA has authority to regulate "incomplete vehicles" and "vehicle components" under Section 202(a). See 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,514. It first points to language from Section 202(a)(1) stating that EPA has authority "whether such [new motor] vehicles ... are designed as complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or control ... pollution." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). This portion of section 202(a)(1), however, merely provides that emissions standards are limited to the useful life of a vehicle or engine. See id. It does not purport to expand EPA's authority in the first sentence of that section. See id. ("The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles ...." (emphasis added)).3 Finally, the Phase 2 Rule erred in concluding that glider engines are "new motor vehicle engines" under the Act. A"new motor vehicle engine" is defined as either (1) "an engine in a new motor vehicle," or (2) a"motor vehicle engine the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to the ultimate purchaser." 42 U.S.C. § 7550(3). Because a glider is not a new motor vehicle, a glider engine is not "an engine in a new motor vehicie." Id. And because a glider engine has previously been owned, title in the engine has previously been "transferred to an ultimate purchaser." Id. For all of these reasons, Petitioners respectfully suggest that EPA reconsider its authority to regulate gliders under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. 2. EPA's Prior Decision To Regulate Gliders Was Based on Unsupported Assumptions Rather than Data The Phase 2 Rule relied upon unsupported assumptions to arrive at the conclusion that immediate regulation of glider vehicles was warranted and necessary. First, the Phase 2 Rule assumed that all glider engines would be older engines from before 2002. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 3 The Phase 2 Rule also indicated that EPA's authority to regulate "defeat devices" "support[ed] the actions EPA is taking [under section 202] with respect to ... glider kits." 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,518. There is no basis for this contention. Under the Act, a defeat device is "any part or component intended for use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine, where a principal effect of the part or component is to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative any device or element of design instalted on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with [Clean Air Act] regulations." 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B) (emphasis added). But the "principal effect" of a glider kit is not to "bypass, defeat, or render inoperative" some "device" or "element of design" in a vehicle. The Rule never explained what device or element of design it thought was being defeated. !I 73,943 ("The modeling also assumed that these gliders emit at the level equivalent to the engines meeting the MY 1998-2001 standards ...."); RTC 1960-1961. EPA indicated that it believed "most glider vehicles currently being produced use remanufactured engines of this vintage," id. (emphasis added), but it made no effort to quantify what percentage of glider engines in fact would fall within this category and instead assumed that all of them would. In fact, the model year of the engines used in glider vehicles varies depending on the donor vehicle or owner and includes engines from after 2002. EPA also assumed that the nitrogen oxide ("NOX") and particulate matter ("PM") emissions of glider vehicles using pre-2007 engines would be at least ten times higher than emissions from equivalent vehicles being produced with brand new engines. See id. at 73,942. But EPA relied on no actual data to support this conclusion; it simply relied on the pre-2007 standards. Id. A recent study by Tennessee Technological University ("Tennessee Tech") analyzing the NOx, PM, and carbon monoxide ("CO") emissions from both remanufactured and OEM engines reached a contrary conclusion. See Exhibit 1(Letter to the Hon. Diane Black from Philip B. Oldham, President, Tennessee Technological University, and Thomas Brewer, Associate Vice President, Center for Intelligent Mobility (June 15, 2017)). The results showed that remanufactured engines from model years between 2002 and 2007 performed roughly on par with OEM "certified" engines, and in some instances even out-performed the OEM engines. See id. at 1. Tennessee Tech's research also "showed that remanufactured and OEM engines experience parallel decline in emissions efficiency with increased mileage." Id. at 2. Tennessee Tech also estimated that glider vehicles would emit less than 12% of the total NOX and PM emissions for all Class 8 heavy duty vehicles, see id., not 33% as the Phase 2 Rule suggests, see 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,943. Tennessee Tech's findings constitute new information, developed since the Phase 2 Rule was promulgated, and provide a basis for EPA to reconsider the existing rule pursuant to Section 307 of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B); see S. Rep. No. 911196, at 41-42 (1970) ("[N]ew information ... may dictate a revision or modification of any promulgated standard or regulation established under the [Clean Air] act."); Oljato Chapter of the Navajo Tribe v. Train, 515 F.2d 654, 660 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (same). EPA also did not account for its own low-sulfur diesel rule. Starting in 2006, EPA required that diesel fuel refiners produce diesel fuels with a 97% lower sulfur content. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 80.500, 80.520. This reduction of sulfur significantly reduced the amount of NOt, PM, and other pollutants emitted from diesel engines, including gliders and other heavy-duty truck tractors. This reduction was not taken into account in the development of the Phase 2 Rule for gliders. The Phase 2 Rule also erroneously assumed that the only explanation for the growth of the glider vehicle market was that glider assemblers sought to avoid the increasingly restrictive emission standards for engines in new OEM tractors. 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,943. The reality is that glider vehicles do not directly compete with new OEM tractors. For most individuals or companies that purchase gliders, the choice is not between a glider or a new tractor. The choice is between a glider and continuing to run their old tractor. Further, glider vehicle assemblers often take the lead on forward-thinking research and development that benefits the entire industry, including innovative research on fuel additives, emission devices, and tire and wheel combinations in small production runs. See Exhibit 1, at 2. Glider assemblers are currently testing components, light weight drive systems, alternative fuel mixtures, autonomous drive systems, light weight body materials, and intelligent transportation systems. Id. In short, the glider assemblers are a complementary part of the medium- and heavy-duty truck industry, not direct competitors to OEMs. Finally, the Phase 2 Rule failed to consider the significant environmental benefats that glider vehicles create. Glider vehicle GHG emissions are less than those of OEM vehicles due to gliders' greater fuel effieiency, and the carbon footprint of gliders is further reduced by the savings created by recyeling materials. Gliders are 20% more fuel efficient than OEM vehicles. See id. Moreover, gliders reuse engines and other components, instead of casting new parts. Glider assemblers reuse approximately 4,000 pounds of cast steel in the remanufacturing process, including 3,000 pounds for the engine assembly alone. Id. Reusing these components avoids the environmental impact of casting steel, including the significant associated NOx emissions. See, e.g., National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing, 68 Fed. Reg. 27,646 (May 20, 2003); Envtl. Prot. Agency, Alternative Control Techniques Document — NOx Emissions From Iron and Steel Mills, EPA-453/R-94-065 (Sept. 1994); see also Exhibit 1, at 2. Given their better fuel efficiency and reuse of cast steel, gliders have a lower carbon footprint than OEM vehicles, a fact not considered in the development of the Phase 2 Rule. In light of the new information developed by Tennessee Tech and the unsupported assumptions that form the basis for the Phase 2 Rule as it applies to gliders, EPA should reconsider the rule. 3. Reconsideration Is Warranted under Executive Order 13783 The March 28, 2017 Executive Order, "Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth," further highlights why EPA should reconsider the Phase 2 Rule as it applies to gliders. Exec. Order No. 13,783 (Mar. 28, 2017). The Executive Order rescinds (among other things) the June 2013 report from the Executive Office of the President, titled "The President's Climate Action Plan," and instructs EPA and all other federal agencies to "identify existing agency actions related to or arising from" the now-rescinded plan and to "suspend, revise, or rescind, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding any such actions, as appropriate and consistent with law and with the policies set forth in section 1 of th[e] order." Ia' §§ 3(b), (d). The Phase 2 Rule is a direct product of the Climate Action Plan. 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,480. And reconsideration of the application of the Phase 2 Rule to gliders is consistent with the Exeeutive Order's stated purpose of avoiding environmental regulation that "constrain[s] economic growth" and "prevent[s] job creation" and ensuring that "environmental regulations comply with the law, are of greater benefit than cost, and are developed through transparent processes that employ the best available peer-reviewed science and economics." Exee. Order No. 13,783 §§ 1(a), (e). Because the Phase 2 Rule is related to the rescinded Climate Action Plan, and because the portion of the Rule that applies to gliders conflicts with the policies set forth in Section 1 of the Order, EPA should reconsider the rule. Based on that reconsideration, EPA should "suspend, revise, or rescind" the Rule as applied to gliders, including, as necessary, by promulgating new regulations. See id. § 3(d). m Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request EPA to reconsider application of the Phase 2 Rule to gliders. Given the impending January l, 2018 compliance date, which will effectively eliminate the industry, Petitioners request that EPA complete this reconsideration as soon as possible. Respectfully, Fitzg rald Glider Kit , LC Tommy C. Fitzgerald, President Harrison Truck Centers, Inc. Dustin Petersen, Shareholder Indiana Phoenix, Inc. Dane Keener, General Manager 7 ^. ^ Office of the President TENNESSEE TECH June 15, 2017 The Honorable Diane Black 1131 Longworth HOB Washington, DC 20515 Reference: Tennessee Tech University — Summary of Heavy Duty Truck Study and Evaluation of the Phase II Heavy Duty Truck Rule Congressman Black: From September 2016 — November 2016, the Tennessee Technological University Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering ("Tennessee Tech") conducted the first phase of its research on the environmental and economic impact of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles — Phase 2 rule ("Phase 2 Rule") published October 25, 2016. The key areas of research were to (1) Compare Glider Kit compliance with the Phase 2 Rule; (2) Perform high level environmental footprint and economic study of OEM manufacturing vs. assembly of remanufactured components (Glider Kits); and (3) Evaluate industry optimization plans to address future environmental regulations including but not limited to production vehicles, component assembly, and facility compliance. To carry out the environmental footprint component of the research, Tennessee Tech tested thirteen heavy-duty trucks on a common chassis dynamometer at a common site; eight trucks were remanufactured engines and five were OEM "certified" engines, all with low mileage (NOTE: These Base Line Setting Phase I results were completed by testing only one Glider Kit manufacturer's product and one OEM's product). Each vehicle was evaluated for fuel efficiency, carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM) emissions and nitrogen oxide (NOX). The results of the emissions test were compared with the 2010 EPA emissions standards for HDVs. Our research showed that optimized and remanufactured 2002-2007 engines and OEM "certified" engines performed equally as well and in some instances out-performed the OEM engines. (see also Appendix A for more detailed test results). Summary Chart of Phase 1 Test Results Emission Standard CO All vehicles met the standard PM All vehicles met the standard NOX None of the vehicles met the standard Result Tennessee Tech / Box 5007 Cookeville,TN 38505 / 931-372-3241 / F: 931-372-6332 / www.tntech.edu/president Congressman Black June 15, 2017 While none of the vehicles met the NO,; standard, a glider remanufactured engine achieved the best result of any engine tested (see Appendix A). Further, our research showed that remanufactured and OEM engines experience parallel decline in emissions efficiency with increased mileage. Contrary to the assertion in the Phase 2 Rule, it is our estimate that the glider kit HDVs would emit less than 12% of the total NO,t and PM emissions, not 50%, for all Class 8 HDVs. Should the Phase 2 glider cap be fully implemented on January l, 2018, there is little doubt that consumers utilizing glider vehicles, due to economic considerations, will delay purchasing new equipment and consequently, slow the reduetion of engine emissions nationwide. In this regard, the Phase 2 rule is counter-productive to its stated intent. In addition to equal or lower emissions, glider kits have a smailer carbon footprint than OEM vehicles due to fuel effieiency and recycling of materials. Comparisons between 2016 glider kit vehicles and new EPA compliant vehicles for fuei efficiency reflect that giider kits are 20% more efficient on fuel consumption. Glider vehicles also reuse engines and other components in the remanufacturing process, resulting in the reuse of approximately 4,000 pounds of cast steel. The engine assembly alone accounts for approximately 3,000 pounds of recycled cast steel. Thus, the well-documented environmental impact of casting steel, including the significant NOx emissions, is avoided by reusing cast steel components in glider vehicles. Consequently, given the superior fuel efficiency and the reuse of cast steel, glider vehicles have a lower carbon footprint than OEMs. None of these facts were considered in the development of the Phase 2 rule. From an economic standpoint, Tennessee Tech examined the impact of the Phase 2 Rule sales cap of 300 units for glider kits would have on the State of Tennessee. The 300 unit sales cap represents 9% of Fitzgerald's current sales. It is estimated that a 91 % reduction in output by Fitzgerald would resuit in a direct loss of approximately 947 jobs and a loss of approximately $512 million of economic output in the State of Tennessee alone. This impact takes into account the direct and indirect economic impact, including expenditures on labor, operations and maintenance as well as changes in the supply chain throughout the state. Additionaily, on a broader scale, the economic impact of the Phase 2 Rule could easily exceed $1 billion nationwide due to thousands of permanent job losses and supply chain interruption and reduction. The Phase 2 Rule failed to sufficiently evaluate and consider these impacts. Finally, this phase of the research shows that trucking companies that utilize giider kit HDVs in their fleets are vigilant in maintenance and elect to optimize their fleets to maximum efficiency throughout the life span of the vehicle. Further, glider kit assemblers facilitate research and development for OEM's by conducting innovative research for fuel additives, emission devices, tire and wheel combinations in small production runs and are currently testing components, light weight drive systems, alternative fuel mixtures, autonomous drive systems, light weight body materials, and intelligent transportation systems. As a general statement, our observation is glider assemblers are in tune with industry needs and cutting edge innovation. 2 Congressman Black June 15, 2017 Tennessee Tech will continue to evaluate HDV engines during Phase II of the research in 2017. Such effort will be conducted in conjunction with the Oak Ridge National Lab - Fuel Engines & Emissions Research Center. The goals of the next phase include development of engineering and manufacturing solutions that exceed EPA emission standards, a focused research, development, and testing plan for NO, emissions, and to continue testing to demonstrate continuous improvement of emissions from remanufactured heavy-duty engines. Sincerely, C*551 Philip B. Oldham President ^ Thomas Brewer Associate Vice President Center for Intelligent Mobility *BTD=bclow t6rumbo ddnteodonpoiru **N0, (g/HP*BP)(20lOmtandmd~U.2);AUteatedcngioeownrchixhec\bonthoomodmdandrun&cdfromulo*o[0.44 tnaNgho[6.45. The lowest tcsu:dY40x*nmuFitzgcruld—Keman DetroitDiese DD 15 uxiogprop6etoryFdzgcru)d coginudou\8nundoutup.lhatnomecoQ>noa\xoteutedutthe0.2V0Coratc. 4 EPA Intends to Roll Back Job Killing Regulation Hurting Small Business Owners Congressman Diane Black  About Contact Issues Media Services Resources Search  Home » Media » Press Releases EPA Intends to Roll Back Job Killing Regulation Hurting Small Business Owners August 17, 2017 Press Release Move will Save Thousands of Jobs Nationwide Washington, D.C. – Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it will change a crippling Obama-era regulation that threatens to shut down the U.S. glider kit industry. Without immediate action, the rule will devastate these small and medium-sized manufacturers, costing thousands of jobs in Tennessee alone. Glider kits are used to refurbish wrecked or unsafe highway tractors, and are often far more cost effective for the fleets of small business owners who are unable to buy all new vehicles. Known as the "Phase 2 Rule," the Obama-era regulation would cap a manufacturer’s production at 300 glider kits per year by January 2019, a small fraction of the current production level. Ending the production of these high quality, safe and efficient vehicles will result in a direct loss of approximately 20,000 jobs nationwide. On a broader scale, an independent study found that the economic impact of this rule could exceed a conservative estimate of $1 billion nationwide. Congressman Diane Black (R-TN-06) released the following statement: "The Obama administration's rule not only ignores the benefits of gliders, it destroys an entire industry. To say that I am grateful for the hard work of Administrator Pruitt and his team is an understatement. Tennesseans deeply value the work ethic that those in this industry exemplify, and it is with great pride that we can count this as a victory for communities across our state. I applaud the Administrator for recognizing the harmful effects this overreaching regulation would have on thousands of families dependent on this trade as a way of life.” Following the announcement, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said, “EPA is committed to revisiting rules that may not fall under the Agency’s jurisdiction and have negative impacts on businesses across the country. By revisiting these https://black.house.gov/media/press-releases/epa-intends-roll-back-job-killing-regulation-hurting-small-business-owners[1/25/2018 9:32:45 PM] Media Press Releases In the News Video Gallery EPA Intends to Roll Back Job Killing Regulation Hurting Small Business Owners Congressman Diane Black provisions, we are allowing all stakeholders to share their concerns and the Agency to explore the full impact of these rules.” Glider kit manufacturers such as Fitzgerald Glider Kits, Harrison Truck Centers and Indiana Phoenix, have argued that despite the previous Administration’s stated goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA did not perform any actual testing to analyze the environmental impact of remanufactured engines and gliders compared to new, or Original Equipment Manufacturer (“OEM”), vehicles. Instead, it relied on unsubstantiated assumptions about the number of older engines used in gliders and their emissions. This argument was confirmed in a 2016 study by Tennessee Tech University. The study tested emissions from thirteen vehicles and concluded that remanufactured engines performed equally as well as the OEM engines when compared with the 2010 EPA emissions standards. “This study demonstrates that the so-called data the EPA relied upon was based on unsupported assumptions rather than true science,” said Congressman Black. Impact on Glider Kit Manufacturers In Tennessee, Fitzgerald Glider Kits was founded in 1989 by Tommy Fitzgerald Sr. and his brother, Ricky, beginning in a single bay facility located in Pall Mall. Thirty years later, the company has expanded to six counties in Tennessee, with facilities covering roughly 750,000 square feet and 500 employees in Tennessee alone. “On behalf of my family and the terrific employees at Fitzgerald Glider Kits, I want to thank Congressman Black and Administrator Pruitt for their leadership on this issue and genuinely caring for the concerns of small businesses like ours," said Tommy Fitzgerald Sr. "There is a way to strike a rational balance between environmental concerns and jobs, but this rule is not it.  The EPA’s announcement should inspire small businesses everywhere.” “The Fitzgerald family is very grateful for Congressman Black’s dedication and leadership on the glider issue dating back to 2015. The Congressman’s recognition of the potentially adverse impact of a misinformed rule on thousands of jobs in rural areas of the Upper Cumberland Region and the tens of thousands of jobs nationally demonstrates her commitment to helping preserve and create American jobs,” said Fitzgerald Sr. The EPA’s announcement today follows voiced concerns by stakeholders and business owners, like Fitzgerald, regarding the impact these regulations would have on their industries. Congressman Black has worked alongside Fitzgerald Trucking since 2015 to ensure that the restrictions are not enforced. "The Fitzgerald's have the ability to bring businesses and jobs to the small, rural areas of Tennessee and have changed the lives of countless families," said Congressman Black. "It is my hope that this action by Administrator Pruitt will continue that legacy. To the Fitzgerald's, this business is far more than making a dollar – it's about giving back, and I am proud to stand next to them as they build on their vision." Background: Trucking operators rely on glider kits for the construction of affordable and reliable vehicles which in turn promote economic growth and job stability. A well assembled kit gives small business owners the ability to minimize maintenance downtime and provides their drivers with important safety features as they drive https://black.house.gov/media/press-releases/epa-intends-roll-back-job-killing-regulation-hurting-small-business-owners[1/25/2018 9:32:45 PM] EPA Intends to Roll Back Job Killing Regulation Hurting Small Business Owners Congressman Diane Black across the country. The gliders lower the cost of truck ownership compared to a factory-produced vehicle, allowing small business owners to continue operating efficiently with the highest quality trucks, without the added cost of purchasing a new vehicle. Fitzgerald Glider Kits is North America's largest Glider Kit assembler and specializes in installing re-manufactured main components of trucks into a new cab. These cabs are reliable and fuel efficient, and provide trucking businesses with a more cost-effective way of doing business. In some cases, the gliders can save 25% off the sticker price of a new truck and possess better fuel economy. The company is based in central Tennessee and produces more than 3,500 trucks per year, offering various models of household name brands. Still owned and operated by Robert Fitzgerald, Tommy Fitzgerald Jr. and associate Nick Bresaw, Fitzgerald Glider Kits has facilities in six locations across the Upper Cumberland region. In July 2015, Congressman Black introduced and successfully passed H. Amdt. 630, an amendment to the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act that would prohibit the EPA from applying its proposed “Phase 2 rules” on greenhouse gas emissions standard for medium and heavy duty trucks to glider kits. H. Amdt. 630 would prohibit the EPA from extending the rule to glider kits as they were wrongly labeled as “new vehicles.” The amendment passed the House by voice vote. Click HERE to view the EPA's press release. ### Congressman Diane Black represents Tennessee’s 6th Congressional District. A nurse for more than 40 years, she serves as Chairman of the House Budget Committee and a member of the Ways and Means Committee. Issues: Economy and Jobs     Copyright Privacy House.gov Washington, DC Office Washington, DC Office Cookeville Office 1131 Longworth HOB Washington, DC 20515 Gallatin Office Phone: (202) 225-4231 Fax: (202) 225-6887 Cookeville Office 321 East Spring Street Suite 301 Cookeville, TN 38501 Phone: (931) 854-0069 Fax: (615)-206-8980 https://black.house.gov/media/press-releases/epa-intends-roll-back-job-killing-regulation-hurting-small-business-owners[1/25/2018 9:32:45 PM] We've made some changes to EPA.gov. If the information you are looking for is not here, you may be able to find it on the EPA Web Archive or the January 19, 2017 Web Snapshot. 08/17/2017 Contact Information: (press@epa.gov) WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today its intent to revisit provisions of the Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines following concerns raised by stakeholders in the trailer and glider industry. “In light of the significant issues raised, the agency has decided to revisit the Phase 2 trailer and glider provisions,” said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. “We intend to initiate a rulemaking process that incorporates the latest technical data and is wholly consistent with our authority under the Clean Air Act.” Background: In September 2011, EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles for model year 2014-2018 (“Phase 1”). These standards applied to newly manufactured engines, tractors, vocational vehicles, large pickups, and vans. In October 2016, EPA and NHTSA updated the standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles MY 2021-2027 (“Phase 2”), and regulated trailers and gliders – for the first time under the GHG program – with compliance deadlines beginning in 2018. E. SCOTT PRUITT � ADMINISTRATOR August 17, 2017 Mr. Tommy C. Fitzgerald President Fitzgerald Glider Kits 1225 Livingston Highway Birdstown, Tennessee 38549 Dear Mr. Fitzgerald: Thank you for your letter of July JO, 2017, requesting that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reconsider the requirements for gliders under the final rule titled Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efjiciency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 (81 FR 73478, October 25, 2016) (Phase 2 Rule). Your letter raises significant questions regarding the EPA ·s authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate gliders as well as the soundness of the EPA's technical analysis used to support the requirements. More specifically, your letter states that the EPA lacks authority over glider vehicles because they are not "new'' motor vehicles and glider kits because they do not fall within the Clean Air Act's definition of ''motor vehicle." In addition, it also raises concerns that the EPA relied upon "unsupported assumptions rather than data" with regard to the emission impacts of glider vehicles. In light of these issues, the EPA has decided to revisit the provisions in the Phase 2 Rule that relate to gliders. We intend to develop and issue a Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking on this matter. consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. If you have any questions regarding this response, you may contact Bill Charmley in the Office of Transportation and Air Quality at (734) 214-4466. Respectfully yours, E. Scott Pruitt l200 PENNSYLVANIA f':} AvE. NW • MAIi. CODE 1101A • WASHINGTON, : DC 20460 • (202) 564-4700 • FAX: (202) 50 l-l-kiO This paper is printed with vegetable-oil-based inks and is 100-percent postconsumer recycled material, chlorine-free-processed and recyclable. 1E0 5T4 q?goumw is" A 62 :5 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 169? NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY 2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498 OFFICE OF MEMORANDUM AIR AND RADIATION To: William Charmley From: Charles Moulis Date: November 15, 2017 Re: Summary of Glider Production Data As you know, we recently received glider kit production data from Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA) and PACCAR the primary suppliers of glider kits. This memorandum summarizes the data which are attached. Please note that both DINA and PACCAR identi?ed the data as con?dential business information (CB1) under 40 CFR part 2. As you can see from Figure 1, prior to 2010, estimated glider kit production volumes are less than 1,000 vehicles per year.1 Figure I - Summary ()fDllIll Annual GIIder Prodcctior? "Jo?umes 4.. The data also show that glider production increased steadily from 2010 until reaching a peak of signi?cantly over 10,000 gliders in 2015 an order of magnitude change from 2010. Glider production dropped in 2016, coinciding with overall drop in the production and sale of all Class 8 trucks that year. CBI-Redacted Because the 2017 production year is not yet complete, we projected the annual volume to be equal to the 2014 volume, which is the maximum amount allowed by the regulations. Actual production volume may be less than this. However, the incomplete data provided indicate any such difference will be small. Both DTNA and PACCAR provided additional information along with their overall glider kit production volumes. Some of this information is shown in Tables 1 through 3. EPA also received production information from small glider assemblers in their requests for exemption under 40 CFR 1037.150. Table 4 shows the production and sales data provided to EPA for the largest independent glider assembler. Taken together, these data support the following observations: 0 The vast majority of glider vehicles being produced currently are tractors. 0 Prior to 2010, no independent glider assembler produced 300 or more glider vehicles per year. 0 Nearly all engines for recent glider production are 1998-2002 pre-EGR engines. There are a small but signi?cant number of 2004-2006 engines used, but very few 2007 and later engines. 0 A majority of glider vehicles are being produced by a small number of companies. 0 In 2016, there were hundreds more assemblers that produced 10 or fewer gliders per year. It appears that most of these assemblers qualify as small businesses. However, it is not clear what fraction of these assemblers produce gliders for resale rather than their own use. Thus. we cannot precisely quantify how many post-2002 engines are used in gliders or how many companies will be impacted by the 300 cap. However, both DTNA and PACCAR have seen the observations noted above, and neither objected to them as being inconsistent with their understanding of the market. BI -Redacted (BI-Redacted (?BI-Redacted LD-1 Disclosure Form Clerk of the House of Representatives Legislative Resource Center B-106 Cannon Building Washington, DC 20515 http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov Secretary of the Senate Office of Public Records 232 Hart Building Washington, DC 20510 http://www.senate.gov/lobby LOBBYING REGISTRATION Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 4) New Registrant Check One: ✔ New Client for Existing Registrant Amendment 1. Effective Date of Registration 2. House Identification REGISTRANT 3. Registrant Address City  43786 ✔ Organization Organization/Lobbying Firm  401104591 Self Employed Individual FITZGERALD PETERBILT 33392 Lee Hwy Address2 Glade Spring 4. Principal place of business (if different than line 3) City     State VA Zip 24340 Country USA State   Zip   Country   5. Contact name and telephone number Contact 9/29/2017 Senate Identification International Number  Mr. Jon Toomey Telephone  2029998880 E-mail  jtoomey@fitzgeraldtrucksales.com 6. General description of registrant’s business or activities  Manufacturing CLIENT A Lobbying Firm is required to file a separate registration for each client. Organizations employing in-house lobbyists should check the box labeled “Self” and proceed to line 10. ✔ Self 7. Client name  FITZGERALD PETERBILT Address   City   8. Principal place of business (if different than line 7) City   State   Zip   Country  USA State   Zip   Country   9. General description of client’s business or activities   LOBBYISTS 10. Name of each individual who has acted or is expected to act as a lobbyist for the client identified on line 7. If any person listed in this section has served as a “covered executive branch official” or “covered legislative branch official” within twenty years of first acting as a lobbyist for the client, state the executive and/or legislative position(s) in which the person served. Name   First Last Suffix  Jon  Toomey   Covered Official Position (if applicable)   LOBBYING ISSUES 11. General lobbying issue areas (Select all applicable codes).  TAX  TRD  BUD  TRA  TRU  CAW       https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=3AB43CBA-1182-460A-AEE3-E0512EB04DF8&filingTypeID=1[1/25/2018 10:03:49 PM] LD-1 Disclosure Form 12. Specific lobbying issues (current and anticipated) 26 U.S.C. 4051 excise taxes and exemption 4052(f)(1), Senate FSGG report language clarifying 4052(f)(1), technical barriers to trade issue affecting importation of gliders into Canada, clean air act and its inclusion of glider kits AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS 13. Is there an entity other than the client that contributes more than $5,000 to the lobbying activities of the registrant in a quarterly period and either actively participates in and/or in whole or in major part supervises, plans, or controls the registrant’s lobbying activities? ✔ Yes --> Complete the rest of this section for each entity matching the criteria above, then proceed to line 14. No --> Go to line 14. Internet Address:   Name Address Principal Place of Business Street City State/Province Zip Code Country FOREIGN ENTITIES 14. Is there any foreign entity a) holds at least 20% equitable ownership in the client or any organization identified on line 13; or b) directly or indirectly, in whole or in major part, plans, supervises, controls, directs, finances or subsidizes activities of the client or any organization identified on line 13; or c) is an affiliate of the client or any organization identified on line 13 and has a direct interest in the outcome of the lobbying activity? ✔ Yes --> Complete the rest of this section for each entity matching the criteria above, then sign the registration. No --> Sign and date the registration. Address Name Street City Signature State/Province Country Digitally Signed By: Jon Toomey Ownership Principal place of business Amount of contribution (city and state or country) for lobbying activities Date 10/13/2017 1:48:39 PM https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=3AB43CBA-1182-460A-AEE3-E0512EB04DF8&filingTypeID=1[1/25/2018 10:03:49 PM] Contributions from Accounts Tied to Fitzgerald Gilder, Related Companies and Family Members Amount Date Election Year Recipient Name Contributor Name $4,000.00 10/2/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD GLIDER KITS LLC $4,000.00 10/2/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD GLIDER KITS LLC $11,800.00 10/2/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD INDUSTRIES PAC $11,700.00 10/2/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD INDUSTRIES PAC $4,000.00 11/1/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD PETERBILT I LLC $4,000.00 11/1/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD PETERBILT I LLC $4,000.00 11/1/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD PETERBILT II LLC $4,000.00 11/1/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD PETERBILT II LLC $4,000.00 11/1/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD PETERBILT III LLC $4,000.00 11/1/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD PETERBILT III LLC $4,000.00 11/1/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD PETERBILT IV LLC $4,000.00 11/1/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD PETERBILT IV LLC $11,800.00 10/2/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD PETERBILT PAC $11,700.00 10/2/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD PETERBILT PAC $4,000.00 11/1/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD PETERBILT V LLC $4,000.00 11/1/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD PETERBILT V LLC $4,000.00 10/2/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD PROPERTIES $4,000.00 10/2/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD PROPERTIES $4,000.00 11/1/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD TRAILER SALES LLC $4,000.00 11/1/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD TRAILER SALES LLC $4,000.00 10/2/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD TRUCK PARTS & SALES LLC $4,000.00 10/2/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD TRUCK PARTS & SALES LLC $4,000.00 10/2/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD TRUCK PARTS ONLINE LLC $4,000.00 10/2/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD TRUCK PARTS ONLINE LLC $4,000.00 11/14/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD, AMANDA $4,000.00 11/14/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD, AMANDA $4,000.00 11/14/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD, JAMES ADAM $4,000.00 11/14/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD, JAMES ADAM $4,000.00 11/1/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD, JESSICA L $4,000.00 11/1/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD, JESSICA L $4,000.00 11/14/2017 2018 BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD, RICKY $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 11/14/2017 11/1/2017 11/1/2017 10/2/2017 10/2/2017 10/2/2017 10/2/2017 11/14/2017 11/14/2017 10/31/2017 11/14/2017 11/14/2017 11/14/2017 11/14/2017 10/2/2017 10/2/2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 BLACK, DIANE BLACK, DIANE BLACK, DIANE BLACK, DIANE BLACK, DIANE BLACK, DIANE BLACK, DIANE BLACK, DIANE BLACK, DIANE BLACK, DIANE BLACK, DIANE BLACK, DIANE BLACK, DIANE BLACK, DIANE BLACK, DIANE BLACK, DIANE FITZGERALD, RICKY FITZGERALD, TOMMY A FITZGERALD, TOMMY A FITZGERALD, TOMMY C FITZGERALD, TOMMY C FSR SERVICE LLC FSR SERVICE LLC GUNTER, CARRIE L GUNTER, CARRIE L BOURKE, JIM BRESAW, KATHERINE BRESAW, NICK DEPEW, JENNIFER DEPEW, JENNIFER DEPEW, JOSEPH M DEPEW, JOSEPH M Federal Registeerol. 82, No. 220lThursday, November 16, 201?lProposed Rules States Coast Guard. and local or state law enforcement vessels, are prohibited from entering the restricted area without permission from the USAF 01st Security Forces Anti-Terrorism Of?ce, KAFB or its authorized representative. The restricted area is in effect twenty?four hours per day and seven days a week (3) Should warranted access into the restricted navigation area be needed, all entities are required to contact the USAF 3131 Security Forces Antl- Terrorism Office. KAFB, Biloxi, Mississippi, or its authorized representative. Enforcement. The regulation in this section shall be enforced by the USAF Security Forces Anti- Terrorism Of?ce. KAFB and.Ir or such agencies or persons as that office may designate. Dated: November 0. 2017. Thomas P. Smith, Chie? Operations and Regulatory Division, Directorate of Civil Works. Doc. 2017?24sez Filed 11-15?1r: ans am] alums cons area-5H ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY do CFH Parts 103? and 1063 4?0827; FR RIN END-AWE Repeal of Emission Requirements for GIIder Vehicles, Glider Engines, and Glider Kits AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to repeal the emission standards and other requirements for heavy-duty glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits based on a proposed interpretation of the Clean Air Act under which glider vehicles would be found not to constitute "new motor vehicles? within the meaning of (3AA section 216(3). glider engines would be found not to constitute ?new motor vehicle engines? within the meaning of CAA section 215(3), and glider kits would not be treated as ?incomplete? new motor vehicles. Under this proposed interpretation, EPA would lack authority to regulate glider vehicles, glider engines. and glider kits under section DATES: Comments: Comments on all aspects of this proposal must be received on or before January 5, 2013. Public Hearing: EPA will hold a public hearing on Monday, December 4, 201?. The hearing will be held at Washington, DC campus located at 1201 Constitution Avenue Niall" Washington, DC. The hearing will start at 10:00 am. local time and continue until everyone has had a chance to speak. More details concerning the hearing can be found at commercial-trucks. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identi?ed by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- oan?2oie-oszv, at hops! weavmegulotionsgov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulationsgov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to he Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider conunents or comment contents located outside of the primary submission on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system}. For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about or multimedia submissions. and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit hltp:?mmvepogovfdockets/ commenting-epo-o'ockets. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed on the unvwreguletionsgov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, con?dential business information 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. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through or in hard copy at the following location: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center. EPA Docket Center, EPAIDC, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 ant. to 4:30 Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is [202] 556?1 Ma, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is [202] 505-1?42. FOR FURTHER CONTACT: Iulia. MacAllister, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive. Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: email address: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Does this action apply to me? This action relates to a previously promulgated final rule that affects companies that manufacture, sell, or import into the United States glider vehicles. Proposed categories and entities that might be affected include the following: Category 336120. 441310. NAICS code a series Dealers. Note: ?4lo American Industry Classi?cation System This table is not intended to be exhaustive. but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely covered by these rules. This table lists the types of entities that we are aware may be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your activities are regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in the referenced regulations. You may direct Examples of potentially affected entities 336110. 336111. 336112. 333618, Motor 1vehicle Manufacturers. Engine Manufacturers. Engine Parts Manufacturers, Truck Manufacturers. Automotive Parts and Acces- questions regarding the applicability of this action to the persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Federal Registeri?ifol. 82, No. 220iThursday, November 16, Z?liiProposed Rules 53443 I. Introduction The basis for the proposed repeal of those provisions of the ?nal rule entitled Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Ef?ciency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles? Phase 2 [the Phase 2 rule] 1 that apply to glider vehicles, glider engines. and glider kits is proposed interpretation of (3AA section and sections 216(2} and 216[3], which is discussed below. Under this proposed interpretation: Glider vehicles would not be treated as ?new motor vehicles,? glider engines would not he treated as ?new motor vehicle engines," and glider kits would not be treated as ?incomplete? new motor vehicles. Based on this proposed interpretation, EPA would lack authority to regulate glider vehicles. glider engines, and glider kits under section 202(allfl). This proposed interpretation is a departure from the position taken by EPA in the Phase 2 rule. There, EPA interpreted the statutory definitions of "new motor vehicle? and ?new motor vehicle engines? in CAA section 216(3) as including glider vehicles and glider engines, respectively. The proposed interpretation also departs from position in the Phase 2 rule that can section 202(all?ll authorizes the Agency to treat glider hits as ?incomplete? new motor vehicles. It is settled law that EPA has inherent authority to reconsider, revise, or repeal past decisions to the extent permitted by law so long as the Agency provides a reasoned explanation. This authority exists in part because interpretations of the statutes it administers ?are not carved in stone." Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NHDC, Inc. 46? U.S. 83?, 863 (11984]. If an agency is to ?engage in informed rulemaking.? it ?must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis.? Id. at 853?64. This is true when. as is the case here. review is undertaken ?in response to . . . a change in administration.? Notional Cable 5' Telecommunications Ass?n v. Brand Internet Services. 545 US. 965', 931 [2005). A ?change in administration brought about by the people casting their votes is a perfectly reasonable basis for an executive agency?s reappraisal of the costs and benefits of its programs and regulations.? and so long as an agency ?remains within the bounds established by Congress.? the agency ?is entitled to assess administrative records and evaluate priorities in light of the philosophy of the administration.? Motor Vehicle 1 51 FR 734:?3 (October 25. 2016]. Manufacturers Ass?n. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co, 463 US. 29, 59 (1933) [RehnquisL L, concurring in part and dissenting in part]. After reconsidering the statutory language, EPA proposes to adopt a reading of the relevant provisions of the can under which the Agency would lack authority under 6AA section to impose requirements on glider vehicles. glider engines. and inder kits and therefore proposes to remove the relevant rule provisions. At the same time. under CAA section 202[a}[3}[Dl. EPA is authorized to ?prescribe requirements to control" the ?practice of rebuilding heavy-duty engines,? including ?standards applicable to emissions from any rebuilt heavy-duty engines.? 42 U.S.C. If the interpretation being proposed here were to be finalized, authority to address heavy-duty engine rebuilding practices under BAA section 202lo](3](Dl would not be affected. II. Background A. Factual Contest A glider vehicle [sometimes referred to simply as a ?glider?] is a truck that utilizes a previously owned powertrain (including the engine. the transmission, and usually the rear axle] but which has new body parts. When these new body parts [which generally include the tractor chassis with frame, front axle, brakes, and cab} are put together to form the "shell? of a truck, the assemblage of parts is referred to collectively as a ?glider kit.? The final manufacturer of the glider vehicle, the entity that takes the assembled glider kit and combines it with the used powertrain salvaged from a ?donor? truck, is typically a different manufacturer than the original manufacturer of the glider kit. See 31 FR {October 25, 2016]. B. Statutory andr Regulatory Content Section 2U2[a}[1} of the BAA directs that EPA ?shall by regulation prescribe,? in ?accordance with the provisions? of section 202, ?standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any . . . new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines.? 42 U.S.C. CAA section 215(2) de?nes ?motor vehicle? to mean ?any self-propelled vehicle designed for 2EPA has adopted regulations that address engine rebuilding practices. See. eg. CFR is not proposing in this action to adopt additional regulatory requirements pursuant to 42 U.S.C. that would apply to rebuilt engines installed in glider vehicles. transporting persons or property on a street or highway." 42 U.S.C. 7550(2). .A ?new motor vehicle? is defined in can section 216(3] to mean. as is relevant here, a "motor vehicle the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to an ultimate purchaser.? 42 U.S.C. 7550(3} {emphasis added]. A ?new motor vehicle engine? is similarly defined as an ?engine in a new motor vehicle? or a ?motor vehicle engine the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to the ultimate purchaser.? id. 3 Comments submitted to EPA during the Phase 2 rulemaking stated that gliders are approximately 25% less expensive than new trucks,it which makes them popular with small businesses and ownersoperators.5 In contrast to an older vehicle. a glider requires less maintenance and yields less downtime.? A glider has the same braking, lane drift devices, dynamic cruise control, and blind spot detection devices that are found on current model year heavy-duty trucks. making it a safer vehicle to operate. compared to the older truck that it is replacing? Some commenters questioned EPA's authority to regulate glider vehicles as ?new motor vehicles,? to treat glider engines as ?new motor vehicle engines." or to impose requirements on glider kits. Commenters also pointed out what they described as the overall environmental benefits of gliders. For instance. one commenter stated that ?rebuilding an engine and transmission uses 35% less energy than manufacturing them new.? 3 Another commenter noted that the use of glider vehicles "improves utilization and reduces the number of trucks required to haul the same tonnage of freight." 9' This same commenter further asserted that glider vehicles utilizing ?newly rebuilt engines? produce less ?particulate. N?x. and GHG emissions 3 The de?nitions of both ?new motor vehicle" and "new motor vehicle engine" are contained in the same paragraph re?ecting the fact that ?Ewlhenever the statute refers to ?new motor vehicle? the phrase is followed by ?or new motor vehicle angina.? See Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Ass?n v. EPA. 62? F.2d 1095. 1102 11.5 inc. Cir. 1979]. As Title currently reads. the term ?new motor vehicle? appears some 32 times. and in all but two instances. the term is accompanied by ?new motor vehicle engine," indicating that. at the inception ofTitlo ll. Congress understood that the regulation of engines was essential to control emissions from ?motor vehicles.? ?1 Response to Comments for Joint Rulemakhtg. [August 2'015] at 1896. 5EPa-HQ?UAR-on-oazr-ises. HPa-Hq?uasq eta?osrr?ioos. 7? id. 5 [ll 44327-1954. HEPA?HQ?oasams?oszr?ioos. 53444 Federal Registeerol. 82, No. 220! Thursday, November 16, 2011?;? Proposed Rules . . comgared to were oil burning engine ich is beyond its useful life.? 1? In the Phase 2 rule, EPA found that it was ?reasonable" to consider glider vehicles to be ?new meter vehicles? under the definition in CAA section 215(3). See 31 FR 23514 [October 25, 201 Likewise, EPA found that the previously owned engines utilized by glider vehicles should be considered to be "new motor vehicle engines" Within the statutory definition. Based on these interpretations, EPA determined that it had authority under CAA section 202(a] to subject glider vehicles and glider engines to the requirements of the Phase 2 rule. As for glider l-zits, EPA found that if glider vehicles are new motor vehicles. then the Agency was authorized to regulate glider kits as ?incomplete? new motor vehicles. Id. C. Petition for Reconsideration Following promulgation of the Phase 2 rule, EPA received from representatives of the glider industry a joint petition requesting that the Agency reconsider the application of the Phase 2 rule to glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider hits.11 The petitioners made three principal arguments in support of their petition. First, they argued that EPA is not authorized by CAA section 202[a}[1] to regulate glider kits, glider vehicles, or glider engines. Petition at 3?4. Second. the petitioners contended that in the Phase 2 rule EPA ?relied upon unsupported assumptions to arrive at the conclusion that immediate regulation of glider vehicles was warranted and necessary." Id. at 4. Third, the petitioners asserted that reconsideration was warranted under Executive Order 13 783. Id. at 6. The petitioners took particular issue with what they characterized as having "assumed that the nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions of glider vehicles using pre- 200?? engines? would be ?at least ten times higher than emissions from equivalent vehicles being produced with brand new engines." Petition at 5. citing 31 FR 73942. According to the petitioners, EPA had ?relied on no actual data to support this conclusion," but had ?simply relied on the pro-200? mId. 1? See Petition for Reconsideration of Application of the Final Rule Entitled "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Ef?ciency Standards for Mediumu and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles? Phase 2 Final Rule? to Gliders. from Fitzgerald Glider Kits, Harrison Truck Centers, Inc.: and Indiana Phoenix, Inc. [Iuly 2017'] {Petition}. Available in the rulemaking docket, EPA-HQ- and at productioni?fiiesfa?oi ?tzgeroid-reconsvpetitien 1301 7-07-10.pdf. standards.? Id. In support, the petitioners included as an exhibit to their petition a letter from the President of the Tennessee Technological University (?Tennessee Tech"), which described a study recently conducted by Tennessee Tech. This study, according to the petitioners, had "analyz[ed] the NOX, PM, and carbon monoxide . . . emissions from both remanufactured and OEM engines," and ?reached a contrary conclusion? regarding glider vehicle emissions. Petition at 5. The petitioners maintained that the results of the study ?showed that remanufactured engines from model years between 2002 and 200? performed roughly on par with DEM ?certi?ed? engines," and ?in some instances even out?performed the DEM engines.? Id. The petitioners further claimed that the Tennessee Tech research ?showed that remanufactured and OEM engines experience parallel decline in emissions efficiency with increased mileage.? Id. quoting Tennessee Tech letter at 2. Based on the Tennessee Tech study, the petitioners asserted that ?glider vehicles would emit less than 12% of the total ND), and PM emissions for all Class 3 heavy duty vehicles . . . not 33% as the Phase 2 Rule suggests.? Id., citing 81 FR 73943. Further, the petitioners complained that the Phase 2 rule had ?failed to consider the significant environmental benefits that glider vehicles create.? Petition at [emphasis in original). ?Glider vehicle GHG emissions are less than those of OEM vehicles,? the petitioners contended, ?due to gliders? greater fuel efficiency,? and the ?carbon footprint of gliders is further reduced by the savings created by recycling materials." Id. The petitioners represented that ?[g]lider assemblers reuse approximately 4,000 pounds of cast steel in the remanufacturing process,? including ?3,000 pounds for the engine assembly alone." Id. The petitioners pointed out that ?lrleusing these components avoids the environmental impact of casting steel. including the significant associated emissions.? Id. This ?fact," the petitioners argued, is something that EPA should have been considered but was ?not considered in the development of the Phase 2 rule.? Id. EPA responded to the glider industry representatives? joint petition by separate letters on August 2017. stating that the petition had ?raiseldl signi?cant questions regarding the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate gliders."12 EPA further 13 Sea, Letter from E. Scott Pruitt. EPA Administrator, to Tammy C. Fitzgerald, President, indicated that it had ?decided to revisit the provisions in the Phase 2 Role that relate to gliders,? and that the Agency "intends to develop and issue a Federal Register notice of proposed rulernaking on this matter, consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.? 13 Basis for the Proposed Repeal A. Statutory Analysis EPA is proposing that the statutory interpretations on which the Phase 2 rule predicated its regulation of glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits were incorrect. EPA proposes an interpretation of the relevant language of the CAA under which glider vehicles are excluded from the statutory term ?new motor vehicles? and glider engines are excluded from the statutory term ?new motor vehicle engines,? as both terms are defined in CAA section 215(3). Consistent with this interpretation of the scope of ?new motor vehicle,? EPA is further proposing that it has no authority to treat glider kits as ?incomplete" new motor vehicles under section 202[a][1]. As was noted, a ?new motor vehicle? is de?ned by CAA section 216[3] to mean, in relevant part, a ?motor vehicle the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to an ultimate purchaser." 42 U.S.C. 2550(3). In basic terms, a glider vehicle consists of the new components that make up a glider kit, into which a previously owned powertrain has been installed. Prior to the time a completed glider vehicle is sold, it can be said that the vehicle?s ?equitable or legal title? has yet to be ?transferred to an ultimate purchaser.? It is on this basis that the Phase 2 rule found that a glider vehicle fits within the definition of ?new motor vehicle.? 31 FR 73514 (October 25, 2015]. rationale for applying this reading of the statutory language was that [gllider vehicles are typically marketed and sold as ?brand new' trucks.? 81 FR 173514 [October 25, 2016]. EPA took note of one glider kit manufacturer?s own advertising materials that represented that the company had ?mastered the process of taking the 'Glider Kit' and installing the components to work seamlessly with the new truck.? Id. (emphasis added in original}. EPA stated that the ?purchaser of a ?new truck? necessarily takes initial title to that truck.? Id. [citing statements Fitzgerald Glider Kits (Aug. 2017]. Available in the rulemaking docket, and at 2o: es-izpdf. ?3 Id. Federal Register 1' Vol. 32, No. 229lThursday, November 15, 29117lProposed Rules 53445 on the glider kit manufacturer?s Web site). EPA rejected arguments raised in comments that ?this ?new truck? terminology is a mere marketing ploy.? Id. Rather. EPA stated, "it obviously re?ects reality." Id. In proposing a new interpretation of the relevant statutory language. EPA now believes that its prior reading was not the best reading, and that the Agency failed to consider adequately the most important threshold consideration: whether or not Congress, in de?ning ?new motor vehicle? for purposes of Title II, had a specific intent to include within the statutory de?nition such a thing as a glider vehicle?a vehicle comprised both of new and previously owned components. See Chevron, 457 U.S. at 343 11.9 [Where the ?traditional tools of statutory construction" allow one to ?ascertain[] that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue,? that ?intention is the law and must be given effect?). Where ?Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue,? and the "statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue." it is left to the agency charged with implementing the statute to provide an "answer based on a permissible construction of the statute.? Id. at 943. Focusing solely on that portion of the statutory definition that provides that a motor vehicle is considered ?new? prior to the time its ?equitable or legal title? has been ?transferred to an ultimate purchaser," a glider vehicle would appear to qualify as ?new.? As the Supreme Court has repeatedly counseled, however, that is just the beginning of a proper interpretive analysis. The ?definition of words in isolation,? the Court has noted, ?is not necessarily controlling in statutory construction.? See Dolor: v. United States Postal Service, 545 U.S. 486 [2996]. Rather, the ?interpretation of a word or phrase depends upon reading the whole statutory text, considering the purpose and context of the statute," and ?consulting any precedents or authorities that inform the analysis.? ld. Similarly, in seeking to ?determine congressional intent, using traditional tools of statutory construction," the ?starting point is the language of the statute.? See Dole v. United Steelworkers of America. 494 U.S. 26, 35 [1999] [emphasis added] [internal citation omitted]. At the same time, ?in expounding a statute,? one is not to be ?guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence.? but is to ?look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.? Id. [internal citations omitted). Assessed in light of these principles, it is clear that reading of the statutory de?nition of ?new motor vehicle? in the Phase 2 rule fell short. First, that reading failed to account for the fact that, at the time this de?nition of ?new motor vehicle? was enacted, it is likely that Congress did not have in mind that the definition would be construed as applying to a vehicle comprised of new body parts and a previously owned powertrain. The manufacture of glider vehicles to salvage the usable powertrains of trucks Wrecked in accidents goes back a number of years.? But only more recently?after the enactment of Title II?have glider vehicles been produced in any great number. Furthermore, the concept of deeming a motor vehicle to be "new? based on its "equitable or legal title? not having been transferred to an ?ultimate purchaser" appears to have originated with an otherwise unrelated federal statute that predated Title II by a few years?i.e., the Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1953, Public Law 85? 506 [Disclosure The history of Title 11?s initial enactment and subsequent development indicates that. in adopting a definition of ?new motor vehicle? for purposes of the Clean Air Act, Congress drew on the approach it had taken originally with the Disclosure Act. Among other things. the Disclosure Act requires that a label be affixed to the windshield or side window of new automobiles, with the label providing such information as the Manufacturer?s Suggested Retail Price. See 15 U.S.C. 1232 {?Every manufacturer of new automobiles distributed in commerce shall, prior to the delivery of any new automobile to any dealer. or at or prior to the introduction date of new models delivered to a dealer prior to such introduction date, securely affix to the windshield. or side window of such automobile a label . . . [emphases added]. The Disclosure Act de?nes the term ?automobile? to ?include[] any passenger car or station wagon,? and defines the term ?new automobile? to mean ?an automobile the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to an ultimate purchaser.? See 15 U.S.C. 1231[c]. In 1955, Congress amended the then- existing Clean Air Act, and for the first time enacted provisions directed at the control of air pollution from motor vehicles. See Clean Air Act 1" 954. 15 "l'he provisions of the Disclosure Act are not forth at 15 ESE, 1231?1233 Amendments of 1955, Public Law 39? 222 [1995 Included in the 1965 CAA was a brand new Title II, the ?Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act,? the structure and language of which largely mirrored key provisions of Title II as it exists today. Section 292(a] of the 1995 CAA provided that the ?Secretary [of what was then the Department of Health, Education and Welfare] shall by regulation, giving appropriate consideration to technological feasibility and economic costs, prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any kind of substance, from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause or contribute to, or are likely to cause or to contribute to, air pollution which endangers the health or welfare of any persons . . . Public Law 39- 222, T9 Stat. 992 [emphasis added]. Section 293 of the 1955 CAA de?ned ?motor vehicle" in terms identical to those in the CAA today: ?any self- propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway." Public Law 89?272, T9 Stat. 995. The 1955 CAA defined ?new motor vehicle? and ?new motor vehicle engine? to mean, as relevant here, ?a motor vehicle the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to an ultimate purchaser; and the term 'new motor vehicle cngine? to mean ?an engine in a new motor vehicle or a motor vehicle engine the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to the ultimate purchaser." id. Again, in relevant part, the 1955 CAA de?nitions of these terms were identical to those that currently appear in CAA section 215(3). While the legislative history of the 1985 CAA does not expressly indicate that Congress based its de?nition of ?new motor vehicle? on the definition of ?new automobile? first adopted by the Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958, it seems clear that such was the case. The statutory language of the two provisions is identical in all pertinent respects,? and there appears to be no other federal statute, in existence prior to enactment of the 1955 ?5 Further. the 1995 CAA's de?nition of ?ultimate purchaser." as set forth in section Z??lti], for the most part tracks the Disclosure Act's earlier-enacted de?nition: ?The term ?ultimate purchaser' means, with respect to any new automobile, the ?rst person. other than a dealer purchasing in his capacity as a dealer, who in good faith purchases such new automobile for purposes other than resale." Compare 1955 CAA section 208(5). Public Law Bil-2?; Til Stat. 995 with '15 U313. 1231(3]. Such is this uni-Put Inn, with respect. In the 1965 CAA's de?nition of ?manufacturer." Compare 1955 can section roan]. Public Law 39?272. re Stat. 994-995 Willi 15 USE. 123ml]. 53446 Federal Registerf?v'cl. 82, No. 220! Thursday, November 16. 201Wr Proposed Rules BAA, from which Congress could have derived that terminology. Subsequently, the statutory language from the 1965 CAA, de?ning the terms ?motor vehicle.? "new motor vehicle,? ?new motor vehicle engine." ?ultimate purchaser." and ?manufacturer? was incorporated verbatim in the Air Quality Act of 196? [196? See Public Law 143, 81 Stat. 503. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 19m [19?0 did not change those definitions, exce t?to add the language regarding ?vehicles or engines imported or offered for importation? that currently appears in CAA section 216(3). See Public Law etu- 604, 34 Stat. 1594, 1703.17 The fact that Congress, in first devising the CAA's definition of ?new motor vehicle? for purposes of Title Ii, drew on the pro-existing definition of ?new automobile? in the Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1953 serves to illuminate congressional intent. As with the Disclosure Act, Congress in the 1955 (3AA selected the point of first transfer of ?equitable or legal title? to serve as a bright line?119., to distinguish between those ?new" vehicles [and engines]I that would be subject to emission standards adopted pursuant to CAA section 202(all?l] and those existing vehicles that would not be subject. Insofar as the 1965 CAA de?nition of ?new motor vehicle" was based on the Disclosure Act definition of ?new automobile,? it would seem clear that Congress intended, for purposes of Title II, that a ?new motor vehicle? would be understood to mean something equivalent to a ?new a true "showroom new? vehicle. It is implausible that Congress would have had in mind that a "new motor vehicle? might also include a vehicle comprised of new body parts and a previously owned powertrain. Given this, EPA does not believe that congressional intent as to the meaning of the term ?new motor vehicle" can be clearly ascertained on the basis of an isolated reading of a few words in the statutory definition. where that reading is divorced from the structure and history of the CAA as a whole. Based on that structure and history. it seems likely that Congress understood a ?new motor vehicle.? as defined in ?216[3}, to be a vehicle comprised entirely of new parts and certainly not a vehicle with a used engine. At a ?The legislative history ofboth the 196? AQA and 19?? is silent with respect to the origin of Title H's definitions of ?new motor vehicle.? "new motor vehicle engine." ?ultimate purchaser." and ?manufacturer,? which further underscores that Congress had originally derived those de?nitions from the Disclosure Act. minimum, ambiguity exists. This leaves EPA with the task of providing an ?answer based on a permissible construction of the statute.? Chevron, 467 US. at 843. 1. Glider Vehicles EPA is proposing to interpret ?new motor vehicle,? as defined in CAA as not including glider vehicles. This is a reasonable interpretation??and commonsense would agree?insofar as it takes account of the reality that significant elements of a glider vehicle the powertrain elements, including the engine and the transmission] are previously owned components. Under the Phase 2 rule?s interpretation, in contrast, the act of installing a previously owned powortrain into a glider something that, as is explained further below, is not a ?motor vehicle? as defined by the [BAA?results in the creation of a new ?motor vehicle.? EPA believes that Congress, in adopting a definition of ?new motor vehicle? for purposes of Title II, never had in mind that the statutory language would admit of such a counterintuitive result. In other words, EPA now believes that, in defining ?new motor vehicle,? Congress did not intend that a vehicle comprised of a new outer shell conjoined to a previously owned powertrain should be treated as a ?new? vehicle, based solely on the fact that the vehicle may have been assigned a new title following assembly. In this regard, insofar as Title 11?s regulatory regime was at its inception directed at the emissions produced by new vehicle engines,? it is not at all clear that Congress intended that Titie It's reach should extend to a vehicle whose outer parts may be ?new? but whose engine was previously owned. 2. Glide-r Engines EPA proposes to find that, since a glider vehicle does not meet the statutory de?nition of a ?new motor vehicle," it necessarily follows that a glider engine is not a "new motor vehicle engine? within the meaning of CAA section 216(3). Under that provision. a motor vehicle engine is deemed to be ?new" in either of two circumstances: The engine is ?in a new motor vehicle,? or the ?equitable or legal title" to the engine has ?never been transferred to the ultimate purchaser." The second of these circumstances can never apply to a glider engine, which is invariably an engine that has been previously owned. 1? See footnote 3, supra. As to the first circumstance, a glider engine is installed in a glider kit, which in itself is not a ?motor vehicle.? A glider kit becomes a ?motor vehicle? only after an engine (and the balance of the powertrain} has been installed. But while adding a previously owned engine to a glider kit may result in the creation of a "motor vehicle," the assertion that the previously owned engine thereby becomes a ?new motor vehicle engine" within the meaning of CAA section due to the engine's now being in a ?new motor vehicle.? re?ects circular thinking. It presupposes that the installation of a [previously owned} engine in a glider kit creates not just a ?motor vehicle? but a ?new motor vehicle.? EPA is proposing to interpret the relevant statutory language in a manner that rejects the Agency?s prior reliance on the view that installing a previously owned engine in a glider kit transforms the glider kit into a ?new motor vehicle," and that, thereafter. the subsequent presence of that previously owned engine in the supposed ?new motor vehicle" transforms that engine into a "new motor vehicle engine" within the meaning of CAA section 216l3]. 3. Glider Kits Under EPA's proposed interpretation, EPA would have no authority to regulate glider kits under CAA section If glider vehicles are not ?new motor vehicles," which is the interpretation of CAA section 216[3} that EPA is proposing here, then the Agency lacks authority to regulate glider kits as "incomplete? new motor vehicles. Further, given that a glider kit lacks a powertrain, a glider kit does not explicitly meet the definition of ?motor vehicle," which, in relevant part. is de?ned to mean ?any self-propelled vehicle." 42 U.S.C. (emphasis added). It is not obvious that a vehicle without a motor could constitute a ?motor vehicle.? Issues for Which EPA Seeks Comment EPA believes that its proposed interpretation is the most reasonable reading of the relevant statutory language, and that its proposed determination, based on this interpretation, that regulation of glider vehicles, glider engines. and glider kits is not authorized by CAA section 202(c)(1) is also reasonable. EPA seeks comment on this inter rotation. Comments submitte in the Phase 2 rulemaking docket lead EPA to believe that a glider vehicle is often a suitable option for those small businesses and independent operators who cannot afford to purchase a new vehicle, but Federal Register)I Vol. 82, No. 220iThursday, November 16, 2015'1'Proposed Rules 5344'? who wish to replace an older vehicle with a vehicle that is equipped with up- to-date safety features. EPA solicits comment and further information as to this issue. EPA also solicits comment and information on whether limiting the availability of glider vehicles could result in older, less safe, more-polluting trucks remaining on the road that much longer. EPA particularly seeks information and analysis addressing the question whether glider vehicles produce significantly fewer emissions overall compared to the older trucks the would replace. A also seeks comment on the matter of the anticipated purchasing behavior on the part of the smaller trucking operations and independent drivers if the regulatory provisions at issue were to repealed. Further, EPA seeks comment on the relative expected emissions impacts if the regulatory requirements at issue here were to be repealed or were to be left in place. Finally, EPA seeks comment on whether, if the Agency were to determine not to adopt the interpretation of CAA sections and 2116(3) being proposed here, EPA should nevertheless revise the ?interim provisions? of Phase 2 rule. 40 CFR to increase the exemption available for small manufacturers above the current limit of 300 glider vehicles per year. EPA seeks input on how large an increase would be reasonable, were the Agency to increase the limit in taking final action. Further, EPA seeks comment on whether, if the Agency were to determine not to adopt the statutory interpretation being proposed here, EPA should nevertheless extend by some period of time the date for compliance for glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits set forth in 40 CFR 1037.635. EPA seeks comment on what would be a reasonable extension of the compliance date. 3. Con cfusion EPA has a fundamental obligation to ensure that the regulatory actions it takes are authorized by Congress, and that the standards and requirements that it would impose on the regulatory community have a sound and reasonable basis in law. EPA is now proposing to find that the most reasonable reading of the relevant provisions of the BAA, including CAA sections 202[a][1], 216[2], and 215[3} is that glider vehicles should not be regulated as ?new motor vehicles,? that glider engines should not be regulated as ?new motor vehicle engines," and that glider kits should not be regulated as ?incomplete? new motor vehicles. Based on this proposed interpretation, EPA is proposing to repeal those provisions of the Phase 2 rule applicable to glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits. IV. Public Participation We request comment by January 5, 2013 on all aspects of this proposal. This section describes how you can participate in this process. Materials related to the Heavy-Duty Phase 2 rulemaking are available in the public docket noted above and at: commercial-trucks. 1. How do i prepare and submit in fonnoti on? Direct your submittais to Docket ID No. policy is that all submittais received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at wrwv.mguiorions.gov, including any personal information provided. unless the submittal includes information claimed to be Con?dential Business Information or other infonnation whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information to the docket that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through muturegulationsgov. The mvwmeguiotions. gov Web site is an ?anonymous access? system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your submittal. If you submit an electronic submittal, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your submittal and with any disk or you submit. Electronic ?les should avoid the use of special characters, any form of and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at EPA will hold a public hearing on the date and at the location stated in the DATES Section. To attend the hearing, individuais will need to show appropriate ID to enter the building. The hearing will start at 10:00 am. local time and continue until everyone has had a chance to speak. More details concerning the hearing can be found at htips:I/mvwepcgov/reguiotions- 2. Submitting CBI Do not submit this information to EPA through or email. Cleariy mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CHI. For CB1 information in a disk or RUM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside ofthe disk or as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or the specific information that is claimed as in addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CHI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CB1 must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 3. Tips for Preparing Your Comments When submitting comments, remember to: 0 Identify the action by docket number and other identifying information [subject heading, Federal Register date and page number]. 0 Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. 0 Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information andrf or data that you used. I If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in suf?cient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. - Provide speci?c examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. I Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. - Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the DATES section above. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews (1) Executive Order 1.2866: Heguintory Planning and Review and Executitre Order 13563: Improving Heguintion and Heguiotory Review This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. Executive Order 131771: Reducing Regulations and Regulatory Costs This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. This proposed rule is expected 53448 to provide meaningful burden reduction by eliminating regulatory requirements for glider manufacturers. l3] Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information collection activities. It would only eliminate regulatory requirements for glider manufacturers. Regulatory Flexibility Act I certify that this action will not have a signi?cant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the EPA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a signi?cant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. Small glider manufacturers would be allowed to produce glider vehicles without meeting new motor vehicle emission standards. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no adverse regulatory impact for any directly regulated small entities. (5) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531?1533, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments. Executive Order 1 31 32: Fed emlism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. {17} Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as speci?ed in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule will be implemented at the Federal level and affects glider manufacturers. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. (3) Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12366. However, the Emission Requirements for Glider TIiehicles, Glider Engines, and Glider Kits was anticipated to lower ambient concentrations of and some of the bene?ts of reducing these pollutants may have accrued to children. Our evaluation of the environmental health or safety effects of these risks on children is presented in Section XIVH. of the HD Phase 2 Rule.? Some of the benefits for children?s health as described in that analysis would be lost as a result of this action. in general, current expectations about future emissions of pollution from these trucks is difficult to forecast given uncertainties in future technologies, fuel prices, and the demand for trucking. Furthermore, the proposed action does not affect the level of public health and environmental protection already being provided by existing NAAQS and other mechanisms in the CAA. This proposed action does not affect applicable local, state, or federal permitting or air quality management programs that will continue to address areas with degraded air quality and maintain the air quality in areas meeting current standards. Areas that need to reduce criteria air pollution to meet the NAAQS will still need to rely on control strategies to reduce emissions. To the extent that states use other mechanisms in order to comply with the NAAQS, and still achieve the criteria pollution reductions that would have occurred under the EFF, this proposed rescission will not have a disproportionate adverse effect on children's health. Executive Order 1321' i 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 signi?cant adverse effect on the supply. distribution, or use of energy. {to} National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 1931 FR ft34?i?? [October 25, 2016]. Federal Registeri?tlol. 82, No. 220i Thursday, November 16, 201W Proposed Rules (1 i Executive Order 12893: Federal Actions To Address Environmental lustice in Minority Populations, and Low-income Populations Pursuant to Executive Order 12893 [59 FR 17629, February 15, 1994}, EPA considered environmental justice concerns of the ?nal Phase 2 rule. evaluation of human health and environmental effects on minority, low- income or indigenous populations for the ?nal HD Phase 2 rule is presented in the Preamble, Section and [at FR 73344?7, October 25. 2016). We have not evaluated the impacts on minority, low-income or indigenous populations that may occur as a result of the proposed action to rescind emissions requirements for heavy-duty glider vehicles and engines. EPA likewise has not considered the economic and employment impacts of this rule specifically as they relate to or might impact minority, low-income and indigenous populations. List of Subjects in 41] CFR Parts 1037 and 1053 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Con?dential business information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties. Dated: November 9, 201?. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title so, chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as set forth below. PAFIT OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW HEAVY-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES I 1. The authority for part 1037' continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 74e1?rsr1q. Subpert B?[Amendod] 2. Section 1037.150 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph as follows: ?103?.150 Interim provisions. it it i {Reserved} 1? i Subpan (tn?[Amended] 510557.635 [Removed] I 3. Section 1031635 is removed. Federal Registera?Vol. 82, No. 220! Thursday, November 16, 2317/ Proposed Rules 53449 Suhparl l?[Amended] 4. Section 1037.801 is amended by removing the de?nitions ?glider kit? and ?glider vehicle? and revising the de?nitions of ?manufacturer? and ?new motor vehicle" to read as follows: 1031801 De?nitions. at: it it Manufacturer has the meaning given in section 215(1) of the Act. In general, this term includes any person who manufactures or assembles a vehicle [including a trailer or another 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. it 2* it 1' it New motor vehicie has the meaning given in the Act. It generally means a motor vehicle meeting the criteria of either paragraph or of this definition. New motor vehicles may be com lete or incomplete. [1 A motor vehicle for which the ultimate purchaser has never received the equitable or legal title is a new motor vehicle. This kind of vehicle might commonly be thought of as ?brand new? although a new motor vehicle may include previously used parts. Under this definition, the vehicle is new from the time it is produced until the ultimate purchaser receives the title or places it into service, whichever comes first. An imported heavy-duty motor vehicle originally produced after the 1959 model year is a new motor vehicle. at PART COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS FOH HIGHWAY, STATIONARY, AND NONROAD PROGRAMS I 5. The authority for part 1066 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 27401?76719 Subpart B?{Amended} I 6. Section 1063.120 is amended by revising paragraph to read as follows: 5 1 068.1 Hequlremente for engines. it :t i (Hi-14* The standard-setting part may apply further restrictions to situations invoiving installation of used engines to repewer equipment. i' 9: 'k Doc. 2017~24834 Filed 11-15-13?; 5:45 am] BILLING CODE 8MP Chassis Dynamometer Testing of Two Recent Model Year Heavy-Duty On-Highway Diesel Glider Vehicles November 20, 2017 National Vehicle & Fuel Emissions Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ann Arbor, Michigan 1 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 3 2. Test Program ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 3. Glider Vehicle Descriptions ............................................................................................. 4 2.1.1 Glider #1 Vehicle Description .................................................................................. 4 2.1.2 Glider #2 Vehicle Description .................................................................................. 5 2.2 Road Load Coefficients .................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Test Fuel ........................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Test Cycles ....................................................................................................................... 6 2.5 Vehicle Test Site and Emission Measurements ............................................................. 11 Emissions Results .................................................................................................................. 13 3.1 Criteria Pollutants........................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Particulate Matter (PM) .................................................................................................. 14 3.3 Conversion of Distance Specific Emissions to Engine Work Specific Emissions ........ 16 3.4 Simulated HD Federal Test Procedure and Supplemental Emission Test Results ........ 18 4. Comparison to other HD Vehicle Emission Performance ..................................................... 20 5. Appendix A............................................................................................................................ 28 6. Appendix B ............................................................................................................................ 33 7. Appendix C ............................................................................................................................ 36 2 1. Executive Summary This report summarizes the results from emissions testing of a 2016 model year (MY) Peterbilt 389 sleeper cab tractor and a 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 sleeper cab tractor that were produced as glider vehicles (i.e., a vehicle with a new chassis and a used powertrain). In addition, these glider test results are compared to equivalent tests of conventionally manufactured 2014 and 2015 MY tractors. The glider vehicles tested include one of the more popular engine and vehicle configurations currently being produced as glider vehicles. These results are useful in evaluating the emission impacts of glider vehicles, and the observations made in this report are consistent with the expected emissions performance of heavy-duty highway diesel engines manufactured in the 1998-2002 timeframe. The criteria pollutant emissions (NOx, PM, HC, CO) from the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 and 2017 Peterbilt 579 glider vehicles were consistently higher than those of the conventionally manufactured 2014 and 2015 tractors. The extent to which this occurred depended on the pollutant and the test cycle. • Under highway cruise conditions, NOx emissions from the Peterbilt 389 and Peterbilt 579 glider vehicles were approximately 43 times as high, and PM emissions were approximately 55 times as high as the conventionally manufactured 2014 and 2015 MY tractors. • Under transient operations, absolute NOx and PM emissions were higher for the Peterbilt 389 and Peterbilt 579 glider vehicles on all duty cycles. On a relative basis, the glider vehicle NOx emissions were 4-5 times higher, and PM emissions were 50450 times higher than the conventionally manufactured 2014 and 2015 MY tractors. • HC and CO emissions for the Peterbilt 389 and Peterbilt 579 glider vehicles were also significantly higher than the conventionally manufactured 2014 and 2015 MY tractors on a relative basis. However, on an absolute basis, they appear to be less of a concern than the NOx and PM emissions. • CO2 emissions from the Peterbilt 389 and Peterbilt 579 glider vehicles were lower than the conventionally manufactured vehicles when measured on the chassis dynamometer without taking into account the differences in the aerodynamic drag between the vehicles. 3 2. Test Program All testing was conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in October and November 2017 at the National Vehicle Fuel and Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL). Two glider vehicles were tested on a heavy-duty chassis dynamometer to measure the emissions in a controlled environment. The following subsections describe the elements of the test program. The testing was conducted using the same test cycles and test procedures that EPA has previously used to measure emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles, which allows us to put glider vehicle emission results into context. Comparisons to these other highway heavy-duty vehicles are discussed in Section 4. 2.1 Glider Vehicle Descriptions Two newer model year glider vehicles with remanufactured pre-2002 MY engines were emissions tested in this program. 2.1.1 Glider #1 Vehicle Description The first glider vehicle tested (Glider #1) was a 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider-Sleeper with a Fitzgerald-rebuilt 12.7 L Detroit Diesel Series 60 engine with 500 horsepower, an Eaton 13 speed manual transmission, and 3.55 rear axle ratio. The Peterbilt 389 exterior has a traditional design that has a squarer front rather than a more aerodynamic design that is more common for model year 2016 and later model vehicles. The engine did not include an emission label, but is believed to have been remanufactured from an engine originally certified in a model year between 1998 and 2002. It included electronically-controlled fuel injection, but not exhaust gas recirculation or any exhaust aftertreatment. The odometer read 179,273 miles at the start of testing. The malfunction indicator light (MIL), also known as the check engine light, was illuminated when Glider #1 was received. Upon inspection it was determined that the engine fault code was “Engine Oil Pressure> Fault Mode ID:0-DATA VALID BUT ABOVE NORMAL OPERATIONAL RANGE.” EPA tested the as-received condition because it is representative of how the vehicle was driving in the real world. Upon completion of the first set of testing, diagnostics were performed to fix the issue. CAN bus data recorded during testing was reviewed and it was determined that in addition to the oil pressure signal, temperature readings from the fuel, oil and intake air sensor were all dropping low simultaneously. The sensor wiring harness was removed from the vehicle because the MIL was intermittent and identified an error with the oil pressure. The harness was inspected visually and evaluated for electrical continuity. During inspection it was determined that there was oil in the connector of the oil temperature sensor as well as fluid in the connector for the coolant sensor. These connectors were cleaned and the harness was reinstalled. Glider #1 was then driven and it was concluded that the repair was successful. The On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) system did not 4 detect an issue for the remainder of testing. The emissions tests were then repeated to evaluate the emissions of a properly performing vehicle. 2.1.2 Glider #2 Vehicle Description The second glider vehicle tested (Glider #2) was a 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider-Sleeper cab tractor with a Fitzgerald-rebuilt 12.7 L Detroit Diesel Series 60 engine with 500 horsepower and an Eaton RTX-16710B 10 speed manual transmission. The body of the Peterbilt 579 tractor was more aerodynamic than the Peterbilt 389. Similar to Glider #1, the engine in this vehicle did not include an emission label, but is believed to have been remanufactured from an engine originally certified in a model year between 1998 and 2002. It included electronically-controlled fuel injection, but not exhaust gas recirculation or any exhaust aftertreatment. The vehicle had approximately 30,600 miles at the start of testing. Unlike Glider #1, Glider #2 did not have any check engine light warnings during the testing. 2.2 Road Load Coefficients Chassis dynamometer testing requires a simulation of the road load impacts, such as aerodynamics and losses associated with the driveline. These parameters simulate the amount of resistance (i.e., load) that the vehicle is under at different vehicle speeds. The actual road load impact varies significantly in-use because it is dependent on variables such as an actual trailer being pulled and the weight of the vehicle. Road load coefficients are frequently determined by conducting coastdown testing prior to chassis dynamometer testing. In this instance, EPA did not conduct coastdown testing to determine the road load coefficients of the vehicles due to the limited amount of time the glider vehicles were on loan to EPA. Rather, we tested the vehicles each with two sets of road load coefficients covering a range of typical operation. The first set of road load coefficients represents a 60,000 pound combined weight of the tractor, trailer, and payload. The second set of road load coefficients represents a less aerodynamic vehicle with 80,000 pound combined weight of the tractor, trailer, and payload. The target and actual road load coefficients used in the testing are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Road Load Coefficients Configuration Glider #1, 60k Test Weight Glider #1, 80k test weight Glider #2, 60k Test Weight Glider #2, 80k test weight Target Coefficients A B C (lbf) (lbf/mph) (lbf/mph2) A (lbf) Set Coefficients B C (lbf/mph) (lbf/mph2) 345.090 0.0000 0.15380 235.350 -2.1042 0.143390 446.350 7.76060 0.14780 336.690 5.5976 0.137120 345.090 0.0000 0.15380 204.530 -1.4243 0.145510 446.350 7.76060 0.14780 314.620 5.9516 0.145980 5 2.3 Test Fuel The test fuel used in this program met the EPA highway certification diesel fuel specifications in 40 CFR part 1065. The fuel properties can be found in Table 2. The glider vehicles went through a triple drain and flush procedure as shown in Table 3 to ensure the engine was operating on the test fuel. Table 2: Certification Diesel Fuel Specifications FTAG Fuel Name ALPHA BETA Cetane Net Heating Value (BTU/lb) Carbon Weight Fraction Sulfur (ppm) Specific Gravity 26758 Federal Cert Diesel 7-15 ppm Sulfur 1.78 0 44.3 18406 0.8699 8.4 0.8536 Table 3: Fuel change procedure Step Description 1 With the ignition key in OFF position, drain vehicle fuel completely via installed fuel drain or the fuel rail. 2 Fill fuel tank to 10% with Diesel Fuel, NVFEL FTAG 26758. 3 Operate the vehicle at idle for 10-15 minutes to allow the fuel system to purge and stabilize. 4 Repeat Steps 1-3. (If repeated steps 1-3, move to Step 5) 5 Repeat Steps 1-3, but fill the fuel tank to 100% with NVFEL Diesel Fuel, FTAG 26758. 6 Run vehicle road load derivations. 2.4 Test Cycles The emission tests for both gliders were conducted on a chassis dynamometer using three different sets of heavy-duty drive cycles representing a variety of operation. A cold start HeavyDuty Vehicle Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) sequence, a World Harmonized Vehicle Cycle (WHVC) sequence, and a Super Cycle. 6 The cold start sequence consisted of the UDDS cycle, a twenty-minute soak period followed by another UDDS, another twenty-minute soak period, a third UDDS cycle and finishing with forty-five minutes of idling. The UDDS sequence is shown in Figure 1. The World Harmonized Vehicle Cycle (WHVC) was first run as a warmup cycle without emission measurement followed by a second WHVC where emissions were measured. The WHVC cycle is shown in Figure 2. The Super Cycle followed the WHVC sequence. If more than twenty minutes elapsed between the cycles, then another warm-up WHVC was run without emission measurement to ensure the Super Cycle included a hot start test. The Super Cycle consists of five California Air Resources Board (ARB) Heavy-Duty Transient Cycles (HDT), a ten-minute idle period, and 55 mph and 65 mph cruise cycles with 0.5 mph/sec acceleration/deceleration rates. The Super Cycle trace is shown in Figure 3. Figure 1: EPA UDDS test cycle speed vs. time profile 7 Figure 2: World Harmonized Vehicle Cycle speed vs. time profile Figure 3: Super Cycle speed vs. time profile Chassis testing of Glider #2 was also conducted to simulate the engine-based Supplemental Emission Test (SET) defined in 40 CFR 86.1360. Duty cycles were created that matched the defined engine speeds of the SET cycle by driving the vehicle at a constant speed and matched engine torque at the 100%, 75%, 50% and 25% load points at each speed by varying simulated road grade. The first step of the SET cycle development was to obtain the engine torque curve. This was done by having the dynamometer linearly ramp the vehicle speed from approximately 16 to 68 mph over 315 seconds with the pedal position at 100%. Since the dynamometer was controlling speed for this test instead of torque, the engine power was determined by using the 8 measured power from the dynamometer corrected for the tire and driveline losses by taking the difference of the losses of target and set coefficients and an assumed axle efficiency of 94%. The resulting torque curve from the test is shown in Figure 4. Using the torque curve, the intermediate test speeds “A”, “B”, and “C” were calculated according to 40 CFR 1065.610. Finally, three vehicle duty-cycles were created to simulate the engine-based SET on the chassis dynamometer, one for each intermediate speed as shown in Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7. This duty cycle is similar to running the SET as a discrete mode test where the engine is stabilized at each speed and torque setpoint before sampling emissions and the transitions from mode-to-mode are not sampled. The duty cycles were created in this manner because running a Ramped Modal Cycle (RMC) on a chassis dynamometer would be difficult and would not allow for the transmission to be kept in direct drive. Figure 4 also shows the engine speed and torque where the engine operated for each SET setpoint during the testing. One observation from this figure is that the test speed for the C100 point was slightly lower than the setpoint. This was because the engine was not able to maintain vehicle speed at the defined road grade of the cycle, but since the shift in speed was slight the results were still meaningful for the purpose of this testing. Figure 4: Glider #2 torque curve and SET test points 9 Figure 5: SET Intermediate Speed “A” Cycle speed, grade and phase vs. time Figure 6: SET Intermediate Speed “B” Cycle speed, grade and phase vs. time 10 Figure 7: SET Intermediate Speed “C” Cycle speed, grade and phase vs. time 2.5 Vehicle Test Site and Emission Measurements The chassis dynamometer used for this study is located at the EPA’s National Vehicle & Fuels Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The test site features are shown in Figure 8. Table 4 provides information on the test site equipment. The emissions measured include total hydrocarbons (THC), methane (CH4), nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and particulate matter (PM as PM10). 1 The emission measurement system for both gaseous and PM based pollutants is based on the Horiba MEXAONE platform and is compliant with the requirements in 40 CFR part 1066. The particulate matter weighroom is compliant with 40 CFR 1065.190, including temperature and dewpoint control. The PM weighroom was designed to be compliant as a Class 6 cleanroom or better and meets all of the ambient requirements described in 40 CFR part 1065. The Mettler-Toledo microbalance is compliant with the requirements in 40 CFR 1065.290. The microbalance calibration is NIST traceable as required in 40 CFR part 1065. The weighroom and microbalance provide the ability to accurately measure PM mass gain down to the 1 ug level. The system as a whole can measure PM mass emission rates as low 0.001 g/hp-hr and as high as 2 g/hp-hr. EPA also utilized an AVL Model 483 MicroSoot Sensor to collect continuous soot data on Glider #2 for a subset of the testing. That data is not presented in this test report. 1 No attempt was made to measure crankcase emissions from the glider vehicles. However, the distinctive odor of blowby exhaust in the test cell during testing of both glider vehicles (compared to testing other vehicles) indicates that that crankcase emissions could be high. 11 jun -: If}: Figure 8: Chassis Dynamometer Overview Table 4: Test site equipment Features and Specifications Type: AIP-ECDM 72H-4WD Operating Speed Range: 0 100 (0 160 kmfh) Max Axle Weight of the testvehicle: 44,000 lb (20000 kg) tag) Fuel Diesel, Electric, Gasoline Ethanol Blends Continuous Gaseous: Raw and Diluted simultaneous Sampling Batch: Gaseous Bag MEXA-ONE platform, Continuous: 002, 02, Emission Analyzers THC, CH4, 094095102? Heated 12 inch {30.5cm) and 18 inch {45.7cm) diameter tunnel, 4 Critical Flow Venturis allow ?ow combinations from 19.8 to 116.1 m3imin {700 to 4100 scfm). Active tailpipe 4WD Chassis Dynamometer Dilution Tunnel Road Speed Fan 70? 70? road speed modulated vehicle cooling fan Particulate Up to 4 phases sampled in triplicate with secondary dilution available, mass determined with Mettler-Toledo microbalance. On road heavy-duty and medium-duty vehicles above 20,000 pounds GVWR 40 CFR Part 86 1066 de?ne the heavy-duty vehicle test procedures. Research Focus CFR scope There were several verification and maintenance activities conducted in the test site to maintain quality assurance. All analyzer checks were performed according to 40 CFR part 1066 specifications. The activities included, but were not limited to, the following: • Daily: Cell preparation checks ran included bag leak checks, sample line leak checks and analyzer zero and span checks. • Weekly: Dynamometer coastdowns at 20,000 lb and 80,000 lb for MAHA 4WD dynamometer, Dynamometer Parasitic Losses Verification, Gravimetric Propane Injection for THC, Sample Analysis Correlations for bag checks on CO, CO2, CH4, NOx emissions. • Every 35 days: CH4 Gas Chromatography column efficiency check, NOx converter check, chemiluminescent detector CO2 + H2O Quench Check, and gas analyzer linearity checks per 40 CFR part 1066. • Typically, annually: Flame ionization detector (FID) O2 inference check, FID response factor check, nondispersive infrared (NDIR) analyzer interference checks, and emissions sampling unit (ESU) leak check. 3. Emissions Results 3.1 Criteria Pollutants The average emission results of the individual vehicles tested over the UDDS, WHVC, and Super Cycle are found in the following tables for NOx, NMHC, and CO. The other gaseous emissions such as THC, CH4, and CO2 are found in Appendices A, B and C. The UDDS cycle began with a cold start. The testing sequence included an initial cold start UDDS, then a 20-minute soak followed by another UDDS, a 20-minute soak and UDDS followed by 45 minutes of idle. The emission results for testing at 60,000 pounds and 80,000 pounds for both glider vehicles are shown in Table 5. Glider #1, a 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 sleeper cab tractor, values only include the results from the tests after the check engine light issue was fixed. The results represent an average emissions of the tests performed for a given vehicle and configuration. See Appendix A for additional emissions results, including the results from the individual tests and the results from Glider #1 with the check engine light on. Table 5: UDDS Results from the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 UDDS Vehicle Test Weight (lbs) 60,000 80,000 Vehicle Glider #1 Glider #2 Glider #1 Glider #2 NOx Cold UDDS (g/mi) 27.80 32.42 36.18 40.26 Inter. UDDS (g/mi) 20.24 25.01 27.66 33.50 Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC) Hot UDDS (g/mi) 20.02 23.55 27.04 32.01 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) 0.427 0.437 0.613 0.388 0.429 0.426 0.241 0.063 Hot UDDS (g/mi) 0.454 0.397 0.436 0.073 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) 13.59 10.91 11.16 12.32 17.50 15.78 15.47 15.13 Hot UDDS (g/mi) 10.76 10.85 14.86 15.16 13 For the WHVC, the first cycle was a warmup and emissions were not measured. The average results for the hot start cycle are shown in Table 6. See Appendix B for additional emission results. Table 6: WHVC Results from the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 World Harmonized Vehicle Cycle Vehicle Test Weight (lbs) 60,000 80,000 Vehicle Glider #1 Glider #2 Glider #1 Glider #2 NOx NMHC CO WHVC (g/mi) 16.81 20.15 23.43 26.73 WHVC (g/mi) 0.386 0.290 0.343 0.308 WHVC (g/mi) 9.24 8.96 13.92 11.86 The Super Cycle provided information across more driving conditions as it contains five ARB Heavy Duty Transient Cycles (HHDDT), a ten-minute idle period followed by 55 mph and 65 mph cruise periods with 0.5 mph/sec acceleration and deceleration rates. The results are shown in Table 7 for 60,000 lb and 80,000 lb loads respectively for both glider vehicles. See Appendix C for additional emission results. Table 7: Super Cycle Results from the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 Super Cycle Vehicle Test Weight (lbs) 60,000 80,000 Vehicle Glider #1 Glider #2 Glider #1 Glider #2 NOx Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC) Carbon Monoxide (CO) ARB Transient ARB Transient ARB ARB ARB ARB 1 2 55/65 Cruise Transient 1 Transient 2 55/65 Cruise Transient 1 Transient 2 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) 22.26 22.28 13.55 0.705 0.759 0.209 16.68 16.25 1.55 24.94 24.92 16.64 0.603 0.620 0.157 15.61 15.48 1.41 29.14 28.68 25.22 0.715 0.710 0.202 21.79 21.10 2.64 32.57 32.69 28.62 0.563 0.607 0.180 18.07 18.57 2.42 3.2 Particulate Matter (PM) Particulate matter emissions were measured in triplicate to provide replicate samples for analysis. The glider vehicles emitted significantly more particulate matter than the typical heavy-duty diesel vehicles tested in the laboratory. Therefore, using our typical dilution rates and filter face velocity settings, the filters were overloaded with particulate matter during our initial testing with Glider #1. This caused a PM equipment alarm during phase 2 of the Super Cycle and therefore phases 3 and 4 were not sampled. A picture of the filters is show in Figure 9. Several iterations were performed with different filter face velocity and dilution ratio settings to address 14 the issue. In the end, the filter face velocity was decreased from 100 cm/s to 65 cm/s and a secondary dilution flow was added at 4:1. Figure 9: PM Filters from Glider #1 testing over the Super Cycle Test 2 The PM results for each of the test cycles at both test weights for both glider vehicles are shown in Table 8 through Table 10. Each value in the tables reflects the average of all tests for a given vehicle and configuration. The values for Glider #1 only include the emission values for the tests with the check engine light issue fixed. See Appendix A, B, and C for the results from the individual tests, including the Glider #1 tests before the check engine light issue was resolved. Table 8: UDDS PM Emissions from the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 UDDS Vehicle Test Weight (lbs) 60,000 80,000 Vehicle Glider #1 Glider #2 Glider #1 Glider #2 Particulate Matter Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS (mg/mi) (mg/mi) 500 567 349 371 742 778 451 445 Hot UDDS (mg/mi) 602 370 737 434 2 A1: Phase 1, hot start ARB Transient cycle; A2: Phase 2, four hot running ARB Transient cycles; A3: 10 minutes of measured idle; A4: 55/65 mph cruise. The PM sampling equipment shut down at phase 2 so filters A3 and A4 were not collecting PM. 15 Table 9: WHVC PM Emissions from the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 World Harmonized Particulate Vehicle Cycle Matter Vehicle Test Weight (lbs) 60,000 80,000 Vehicle Glider #1 Glider #2 Glider #1 Glider #2 WHVC (mg/mi) 560 349 745 426 Table 10: Super Cycle PM Emissions from the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 Super Cycle Vehicle Test Weight (lbs) 60,000 80,000 Vehicle Glider #1 Glider #2 Glider #1 Glider #2 Particulate Matter ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 55/65 Cruise (mg/mi) (mg/mi) (mg/mi) 1028 997 177 653 677 78 1340 1288 169 701 705 90 3.3 Conversion of Distance Specific Emissions to Engine Work Specific Emissions NOx, PM, CO, and HC emissions from highway heavy-duty diesel vehicles are controlled through EPA emission standards based on engine dynamometer testing using engine test cycles. There are various ways to estimate engine work from vehicle testing. The most common is to use engine reported speed and torque to calculate power. This methodology works well for modern engines where the engine’s reference torque is known. Since the reference torque was not known for this engine, the engine work was estimated by using the chassis dynamometer target coefficients and the simulated vehicle mass, along with estimates for driveline efficiency. To calculate the axle power, a modified version of Equation 1 in 40 CFR 1066.210 was used as shown in Equation A below. 3 This equation was modified in two ways. The first was multiplying the equation by vehicle speed to calculated power instead of force. The second 3 See https://ecfr.io/Title-40/se40.37.1066_1210 for the description of the equation and units. 16 modification was removing the road grade terms from the equation since none of the cycles tested included road grade.  v −v  Pwheel,i =  A + B ⋅ vi + C ⋅ vi2 + M e ⋅ i i-1  ⋅ vi , Eq. A ti − ti-1   Equation B was to used calculate engine power from wheel power. For this equation the axle and transmission efficiencies were estimated to be 94 percent. These values were based on the 2018 baseline data from the Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Efficiency Standards Phase 2 rule. Pengine,i = Pwheel,i 0.942 , Eq. B All of the points where engine power was below zero were set to zero before the power was integrated to calculate work. This was done to be consistent with how work specific emissions are calculated in 40 CFR part 1065. Finally, all the tests and phases where the vehicle, configuration, and vehicle speed trace were the same, were averaged together. This was done because the only source of variation for this analysis is the slight changes in driven vehicle speed from test to test. The coefficient of variation was typically below 2 percent for the tests, which is below other sources of error that could influence this analysis to calculate engine work from chassis dynamometer tests. Table 11 contains a summary of the conversion rates for the glider vehicles. Table 11: Summary of vehicle miles per engine horsepower-hour Glider Test WHVC HD UDDS Super Cycle Super Cycle Vehicle Weight Phase 1 Phase 1, 2 and 3 Phase 1 and 2 Phase 4 (pounds) miles / (hp-hr) #1 0.321 0.293 0.271 0.362 60,000 #1 0.224 0.201 0.189 0.228 80,000 #2 0.320 0.286 0.266 0.362 60,000 #2 0.219 0.198 0.188 0.229 80,000 This analysis estimates the engine work from chassis dynamometer testing and does not take into account a number of additional sources of load on the engine. Two of these sources are the engine accessory load and the additional power from when the engine is idling at a higher speed during warm-up. 17 3.4 Simulated HD Federal Test Procedure and Supplemental Emission Test Results The on-highway heavy-duty engine emission standards are in grams per horsepower-hour based on engine test cycles. The current exhaust emissions standards for heavy-duty engines are 0.2 g/hp-hr for NOx, 0.01 g/hp-hr for PM, 15.5 g/hp-hr for CO, and 0.14 g/hp-hr for NMHC. 4 The emission standards are evaluated over a transient cycle, the Heavy-Duty Federal Test Procedure (HD Engine FTP) cycle, and a steady-state cycle. To conduct a rough comparison of the emissions over a transient cycle to the engine emissions standards, we calculated the estimated NOx, PM, CO, and NMHC emissions in grams per horsepower-hour using the conversion rates shown in Table 11. The comparison was limited to the chassis test results from the UDDS cycle because this is the vehicle cycle that was used originally to create the HD Engine FTP cycle. As shown in Table 12 and Table 13, the estimated NOx and PM emissions results are significantly higher than the model year 2010 and later onhighway heavy-duty diesel emission standards, and are more typical of the emission results expected from an on-highway heavy-duty diesel engine built between model years 1998 and 2002. Table 12: Estimated Grams of NOx and NMHC per Horsepower-Hour Results over the UDDS Cycle for 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 UDDS Vehicle Test Weight (lbs) 60,000 80,000 Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC) NOx Vehicle Glider #1 Glider #2 Glider #1 Glider #2 Cold UDDS (g/hp-hr) 8.15 9.27 7.27 7.97 Inter. UDDS (g/hp-hr) 5.93 7.15 5.56 6.63 Hot UDDS (g/hp-hr) 5.87 6.74 5.44 6.34 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) 0.125 0.128 0.175 0.111 0.086 0.086 0.048 0.013 Hot UDDS (g/hp-hr) 0.133 0.114 0.088 0.015 4 See 40 CFR 86.007-11 for emission standards and supplemental requirements for 2007 and later model year diesel heavy-duty engines and vehicles. 18 Table 13: Estimated Grams of CO and PM per Horsepower-Hour Results over the UDDS Cycle for 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 UDDS Vehicle Test Weight (lbs) 60,000 80,000 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Vehicle Glider #1 Glider #2 Glider #1 Glider #2 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) 3.98 3.20 3.52 3.19 3.52 3.17 3.06 3.00 Hot UDDS (g/hp-hr) 3.15 3.10 2.99 3.00 Particulate Matter Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) 0.146 0.166 0.100 0.106 0.217 0.228 0.089 0.088 Hot UDDS (g/hp-hr) 0.176 0.106 0.216 0.086 Chassis testing of Glider #2 was also conducted to simulate the engine-based steady state cycle, the Supplemental Emission Test (SET), as discussed in Section 2.4. The simulation was conducted by running a series of steady-state cycles with varying grade using the mass and road load coefficients of the 80,000 pound vehicle. The engine power for each SET test point was determined using the method defined in Section 3.3 and the corresponding speed and torque values are shown in Table 14. Table 14: Engine Speed and Torque at SET Test Points Engine Engine Test Point Torque Speed (rpm) (Nm) A100 1262 2302 A75 1262 1783 A50 1263 1251 A25 1262 716 B100 1440 2371 B75 1440 1831 B50 1440 1289 B25 1440 732 C100 1610 2255 C75 1648 1764 C50 1648 1249 C25 1648 722 Idle 600 0 The overall emission test results from the SET are shown in Table 15. For the “idle” test point of the SET, the idle results from the 3rd phase of the Super Cycle were used. The NOx emissions are consistent with the results of the UDDS but the CO and PM emissions are measurably lower. This is not surprising since the transient CO and PM emissions are likely a result of poor air fuel ratio control and mixing during transient operation when compared to the steady-state operation that the SET captures. 19 Table 15: Glider #2 Simulated SET Results Test Point A100 A75 A50 A25 B100 B75 B50 B25 C100 C75 C50 C25 Idle* Weighted 40 CFR 86.1362 THC (g/hp-hr) 0.0382 0.0343 0.0320 0.0578 0.0375 0.0359 0.0333 0.0569 0.0361 0.0394 0.0405 0.0635 5.002 CO (g/hphr) 1.3560 0.8307 0.5130 0.3805 0.7036 0.4510 0.3316 0.3850 0.3926 0.2950 0.2648 0.3939 23.72 NOx (g/hphr) 6.817 6.540 6.369 6.001 6.996 7.379 6.880 5.733 6.020 7.236 6.594 5.997 113.5 N2O (g/hphr) 0.00166 0.00177 0.00205 0.00285 0.00180 0.00193 0.00215 0.00296 0.00211 0.00226 0.00254 0.00340 0.0690 CH4 (g/hphr) 0 0.00030 0 0 0 0.0002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.018 NMHC (g/hphr) 0.0399 0.0355 0.0338 0.0607 0.0395 0.0380 0.0351 0.0599 0.0385 0.0420 0.0427 0.0666 5.0127 PM (g/hphr) 0.028 0.016 0.017 0.019 0.027 0.017 0.015 0.024 0.040 0.028 0.024 0.031 0.175 0.0446 0.6182 6.73 0.00219 7.53E-05 0.0467 0.025 *Idle emissions are in (grams/hr) 4. Comparison to other HD Vehicle Emission Performance The emission results from the glider vehicles were compared to two other recent model year tractors. The vehicle specifics of these two other tractors are listed below. • • The day cab tractor tested was a 2015 MY International Day Cab with over 10,000 miles. The vehicle contained a 2015 MY Cummins ISX 600 HP engine, an Eaton 13 speed automated manual transmission, and a 3.55 rear axle ratio. The sleeper cab tractor tested was a 2014 MY Freightliner Cascadia with 362,652 miles. The vehicle contained a 2014 MY Detroit Diesel DD-15 505 HP engine, an Eaton 10 speed manual transmission, and a 3.55 rear axle ratio. A principle difference between these vehicles and the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 glider vehicles are the engines. The glider vehicles use a rebuilt engine that was originally manufactured in the 1998-2002 timeframe, while the two comparison vehicles have engines certified to the 2014 MY and 2015 MY EPA emissions standards and utilize cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), diesel particulate filters, and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems. 20 All of the tractors were tested in the same HD chassis dynamometer cell as the glider vehicles. The target road load coefficients for the International day cab matched the glider vehicles when tested at 60,000 pounds. The target road loads of the Freightliner sleeper cab matched the glider vehicles when tested at 80,000 pounds. This means that the comparisons reflect differences observed for the drivetrain (engine, transmission, and axle) of the vehicles, but do not account for differences associated with the vehicles’ aerodynamics or tire performance. The road load coefficients for both of these vehicles are show in Table 16. Table 16: Road Load Coefficients Configuration 2015 MY International Day Cab, 60k Test Weight 2014 MY Freightliner Sleeper Cab, 80k Test Weight A (lbf) Target Coefficients B C (lbf/mph) (lbf/mph2) A (lbf) Set Coefficients B C (lbf/mph) (lbf/mph2) 345.090 0.0000 0.15380 75.100 -0.7408 0.143200 446.350 7.76060 0.14780 294.170 6.0668 0.139900 As shown in the following figures, we compared the emission rates from the gliders to that of the comparable tractor configuration. The glider results in the figures represent the average of all of the tests for a given vehicle configuration, excluding the tests with the MIL on for Glider #1. 5 Figure 10 through Figure 13 compare the 2016 MY and 2017 MY Peterbilt Gliders at 60,000 pound test weight to the 2015 MY International Day Cab at the same test weight and road load coefficients over the Super Cycle. Figure 14 through Figure 17 show the emission rate differences between the 2016 MY and 2017 MY Peterbilt Gliders at 80,000 pound test weight to the 2014 MY Freightliner Sleeper Cab at the same test weight and road load coefficients over the ARB Transient Cycle. The NOx, CO, THC, and PM emissions from the glider vehicles were significantly higher than the newer model year tractors over all cycles. 5 See Appendix A, B, and C for the emission rates before and after the repair. 21 Glider vs. Conventional Vehicle Comparison NOx Hot Start Super Cycle at 60,000lbs 30.0 25.0 NOx (g/mi) 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 ARB Transient 1 (g/mi) 2016 Peterbilt Glider ARB Transient 2 (g/mi) 2017 Peterbilt Glider 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) 2015 International Tractor Figure 10: NOx Emissions Comparison of 2015 MY Day Cab to the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 over the Super Cycle Glider vs. Conventional Vehicle Comparison Total Hydrocarbon Hot Start Super Cycle at 60,000lbs 0.8 0.7 Total Hydrocarbon (g/mi) 0.6 0.5 0.4 2015 Tractor 0.000117 g/mi 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 ARB Transient 1 (g/mi) 2016 Peterbilt Glider ARB Transient 2 (g/mi) 2017 Peterbilt Glider 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) 2015 International Tractor Figure 11: THC Emissions Comparison of 2015 MY International Tractor to the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 over the Super Cycle 22 Glider vs. Conventional Vehicle Comparison Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hot Start Super Cycle at 60,000lbs 18.0 16.0 CO (g/mi) 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2015 Tractor 0.035 g/mi 2015 Tractor 0.194 g/mi ARB Transient 1 (g/mi) ARB Transient 2 (g/mi) 2016 Peterbilt Glider 2017 Peterbilt Glider 2015 Tractor 0.010 g/mi 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) 2015 International Tractor Figure 12: CO Emissions Comparison of 2015 MY Day Cab to the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 over the Super Cycle Glider vs. Conventional Tractor Comparison Particulate Matter Hot Start Super Cycle at 60,000lbs 1200 1000 PM (mg/mi) 800 600 400 2015 Tractor 1.8 mg/mile 2015 Tractor 16.3 mg/mile 2015 Tractor 2.3 mg/mile 200 0 ARB Transient 1 2016 Peterbilt Glider ARB Transient 2 2017 Peterbilt Glider 55/65 Cruise 2015 International Tractor Figure 13: PM Emissions Comparison of 2015 MY Day Cab to the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 over the Super Cycle 23 Glider vs. Conventional Tractor NOx ARB Transient Cycle at 80,000lbs 35.0 30.0 NOx (g/mi) 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 ARB Transient 1 (g/mi) 2016 Peterbilt Glider 2017 Peterbilt Glider 2014 Freightliner Tractor Figure 14: NOx Emissions Comparison of 2014 MY Freightliner to the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 over the ARB Transient Cycle Glider vs. Conventional Tractor Total HC ARB Transient Cycle at 80,000lbs 0.9 0.8 Total Hydrocarbon (g/mi) 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 ARB Transient 1 (g/mi) 2016 Peterbilt Glider 2017 Peterbilt Glider 2014 Freightliner Tractor Figure 15: HC Emissions Comparison of 2014 MY Freightliner to the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 over the ARB Transient Cycle 24 Glider vs. Conventional Tractor CO ARB Transient Cycle at 80,000lbs 25.0 Carbon Monoxide (g/mi) 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 ARB Transient 1 (g/mi) 2016 Peterbilt Glider 2017 Peterbilt Glider 2014 Freightliner Tractor Figure 16: CO Emissions Comparison of 2014 MY Freightliner to the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 over the ARB Transient Cycle Glider vs. Conventional Tractor Particulate Matter ARB Transient Cycle at 80,000lbs 1600 1400 1200 PM (mg/mi) 1000 800 600 400 2014 Freightliner 4.7 mg/mile 200 0 ARB Transient 1 (mg/mi) 2016 Peterbilt Glider 2017 Peterbilt Glider 2014 Freightliner Tractor Figure 17: PM Emissions Comparison of 2014 MY Freightliner to the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 over the ARB Transient Cycle 25 We also compared the CO2 emissions of the Peterbilt 389 and Peterbilt 579 glider vehicles to the International and Freightliner conventional tractors. CO2 emissions are directly proportional to the road load of the vehicle. Because we did not measure the actual road load of the vehicles, we used the same target road load coefficients in the two sets of comparisons (at 60,000 and 80,000 pounds). Therefore, this comparison only evaluates the performance of the powertrain and may not be representative of the difference in CO2 emission that these vehicles would experience in-use. Figure 18 and Figure 19 show comparisons of the powertrain performance. In all cases, the CO2 emissions were lower in the glider powertrains. This is not unexpected given the known trade-off between NOx and CO2 emissions with respect to injection timing and similar engine calibration techniques and the relatively higher NOx emissions for the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 glider vehicles shown in the previous tables and figures. Glider vs. Conventional Vehicle Comparison CO2 Hot Start Super Cycle at 60,000lbs 3000 2500 CO 2 (g/mi) 2000 1500 1000 500 0 ARB Transient 1 (g/mi) 2016 Peterbilt Glider ARB Transient 2 (g/mi) 2017 Peterbilt Glider 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) 2015 International Tractor Figure 18: CO2 Emissions Comparison of 2015 MY International to the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 over the Super Cycle 26 Glider vs. Conventional Vehicle Comparison CO2 ARB Transient Cycle at 80,000lbs 4000 3500 3000 CO 2 (g/mi) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 ARB Transient 1 (g/mi) 2016 Peterbilt Glider 2017 Peterbilt Glider 2014 Freightliner Tractor Figure 19: CO2 Emissions Comparison of 2014 MY Freightliner to the 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Glider #1 and 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Glider #2 over the ARB Transient Cycle 27 Glider #1 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Test Type Cold Start UDDS Cold Start UDDS Test Type Cold Start UDDS Cold Start UDDS Vehicle Number Test Test Weight (lbs) Number 1 Glider #1 2 60,000 lb Test 3* Wt. 4* Glider #1 80,000 lb Test Wt. 10/6 10/10 10/16 10/17 0.630 0.551 0.402 0.443 0.664 0.608 0.417 0.447 NMHC Glider #1 Glider #1 Glider #1 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) 0.487 0.501 0.415 0.481 0.561 0.476 0.407 0.447 0.606 0.590 0.422 0.452 0.491 0.508 0.421 0.488 1 10/12 0.569 0.527 0.427 2 10/13 0.399 0.411 0.379 3* 10/18 0.437 0.431 0.414 4* 10/19 0.400 0.413 0.438 * Check Engine Light issue resolved prior to this test 0.545 0.407 0.445 0.407 0.509 0.421 0.439 0.420 0.435 0.389 0.424 0.448 Vehicle Number Test Test Weight (lbs) Number 1 Glider #1 2 60,000 lb Test 3* Wt. 4* Glider #1 80,000 lb Test Wt. Date Total HC Glider #1 Glider #1 Glider #1 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) Date 10/6 10/10 10/16 10/17 CH4 Glider #1 Glider #1 Glider #1 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) 0.051 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.022 0.000 0.000 CO Glider #1 Glider #1 Glider #1 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 36.4 36.0 13.9 13.3 28.5 23.8 11.1 10.7 16.2 14.2 10.3 11.2 1 10/12 0.034 0.028 0.000 2 10/13 0.002 0.000 0.000 3* 10/18 0.000 0.000 0.000 4* 10/19 0.000 0.000 0.000 * Check Engine Light issue resolved prior to this test 31.1 19.7 16.1 18.9 30.6 16.1 15.2 16.3 16.7 17.4 15.4 14.4 29 Test Type Cold Start UDDS Cold Start UDDS Test Type Cold Start UDDS Cold Start UDDS Vehicle Number Test Test Weight (lbs) Number 1 Glider #1 2 60,000 lb Test 3* Wt. 4* Glider #1 80,000 lb Test Wt. 10/6 10/10 10/16 10/17 33.4 32.3 28.4 27.2 31.6 31.5 20.0 20.5 1 10/12 42.5 35.1 2 10/13 36.5 28.3 3* 10/18 36.2 27.7 4* 10/19 36.2 27.7 * Check Engine Light issue resolved prior to this test Vehicle Number Test Test Weight (lbs) Number 1 Glider #1 2 60,000 lb Test 3* Wt. 4* Glider #1 80,000 lb Test Wt. Date NOx Glider #1 Glider #1 Glider #1 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) Date 10/6 10/10 10/16 10/17 24.2 20.6 20.3 19.8 0.016 0.016 0.019 0.018 0.014 0.014 0.017 0.016 0.014 0.013 0.014 0.015 28.1 28.2 27.2 26.9 0.020 0.017 0.020 0.019 0.021 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.018 0.015 0.017 0.016 CO2 Glider #1 Glider #1 Glider #1 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) 2002 2066 1990 1991 1838 1881 1818 1804 1 10/12 2595 2493 2 10/13 2664 2425 3* 10/18 2602 2465 4* 10/19 2677 2478 * Check Engine Light issue resolved prior to this test N2O Glider #1 Glider #1 Glider #1 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) Fuel Economy Glider #1 Glider #1 Glider #1 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (mpg) (mpg) (mpg) 1807 1854 1779 1816 4.94 4.79 5.05 5.05 5.40 5.30 5.54 5.58 5.55 5.42 5.67 5.54 2447 2413 2449 2432 3.85 3.77 3.87 3.76 4.00 4.15 4.09 4.06 4.11 4.17 4.11 4.14 30 Glider #2 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Test Type Cold Start UDDS Cold Start UDDS Test Type Cold Start UDDS Cold Start UDDS Test Type Cold Start UDDS Cold Start UDDS Test Type Cold Start UDDS Cold Start UDDS Vehicle Number Test Test Weight (lbs) Number Glider #2 1 60,000 lb Test 2 Glider #2 1 80,000 lb Test Vehicle Number Test Test Weight (lbs) Number Glider #2 1 60,000 lb Test 2 Glider #2 1 80,000 lb Test Vehicle Number Test Test Weight (lbs) Number Glider #2 1 60,000 lb Test 2 Glider #2 80,000 lb Test 1 Vehicle Number Test Test Weight (lbs) Number Glider #2 1 60,000 lb Test 2 Glider #2 80,000 lb Test 1 Date Total HC Glider #2 Glider #2 Glider #2 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) NMHC Glider #2 Glider #2 Glider #2 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) 11/3 11/6 0.603 0.621 0.363 0.401 0.377 0.405 0.605 0.621 0.370 0.406 0.384 0.411 11/7 0.236 0.056 0.064 0.241 0.063 0.073 Date CH4 Glider #2 Glider #2 Glider #2 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) CO Glider #2 Glider #2 Glider #2 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) 11/3 11/6 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.4 13.2 11.1 11.2 9.4 12.3 11/7 0.006 0.000 0.000 15.5 15.1 15.2 Date NOx Glider #2 Glider #2 Glider #2 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) N2O Glider #2 Glider #2 Glider #2 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) 11/3 11/6 32.8 32.0 25.3 24.7 23.5 23.6 0.018 0.014 0.022 0.010 0.013 0.010 11/7 40.3 33.5 32.0 0.013 0.010 0.010 Date CO2 Glider #2 Glider #2 Glider #2 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) Fuel Economy Glider #2 Glider #2 Glider #2 Cold UDDS Inter. UDDS Hot UDDS (mpg) (mpg) (mpg) 11/3 11/6 1962 2035 1868 1855 1801 1856 5.13 4.95 5.39 5.43 5.60 5.42 11/7 2640 2493 2460 3.82 4.04 4.10 31 PM Results The values in the table represent an average of the PM collected on three filters. The PM emission data was not collected for all tests due to power issues in the laboratory during the time of testing which affected the PM sampler. Those tests for which the PM sample system was not operating are indicated with a “N/A”. Vehicle Test Weight Test (lbs) Number Test Type 1 2 Glider #1 60,000 lb 3* Cold Start 4* UDDS 1 2 Glider #2 3 60,000 lb Cold Start UDDS PM Date 10/6 10/10 10/16 10/17 11/3 11/6 11/14 Cold UDDS (mg/mi) 1472 N/A 479 521 323 375 N/A Inter. UDDS (mg/mi) 1491 N/A 580 554 363 379 N/A Hot UDDS (mg/mi) 813 N/A 542 662 310 431 N/A Glider#1 80,000 lb 1 2* 3* 4* 10/12 10/13 10/18 10/19 1419 706 N/A 778 1622 706 N/A 849 916 674 N/A 800 Glider #2 80,000 lb 1 2 3 11/7 11/8 11/13 490 413 450 473 433 427 466 402 432 * Check Engine Light issue resolved prior to these tests 32 Glider #1 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Test Type Hot Start WHVC Hot Start WHVC Vehicle Number Test Test Weight (lbs) Number 1 Glider #1 2 60,000 lb Test 3 Wt. 4* 5* Glider #1 80,000 lb Test 1 2* Total HC (g/mi) NMOG (g/mi) NMHC (g/mi) CH4 (g/mi) CO (g/mi) Nox (g/mi) N2O (g/mi) CO2 (g/mi) Fuel Economy (mpg) 10/5 10/6 10/10 10/16 10/17 0.431 0.391 0.410 0.373 0.392 0.435 0.397 0.397 0.377 0.395 0.435 0.397 0.397 0.377 0.395 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 8.65 10.21 16.82 8.94 9.55 17.3 16.9 25.4 16.8 16.8 0.0123 0.0109 0.0099 0.0128 0.0130 1505 1561 1506 1560 1577 6.69 6.45 6.63 6.46 6.38 10/11 10/13 0.332 0.347 0.336 0.350 0.336 0.350 0.000 0.000 13.14 14.70 24.2 22.7 0.0128 0.0145 2105 2132 4.78 4.72 Total HC (g/mi) NMOG (g/mi) NMHC (g/mi) CH4 (g/mi) CO (g/mi) Nox (g/mi) N2O (g/mi) CO2 (g/mi) Fuel Economy (mpg) 11/3 11/6 0.285 0.289 0.288 0.291 0.288 0.291 0.000 0.000 8.79 9.12 20.0 20.2 0.0068 0.0076 1553 1552 6.49 6.49 11/7 11/8 0.298 0.313 0.300 0.316 0.300 0.316 0.000 0.000 12.85 10.87 26.4 27.1 0.0082 0.0101 2157 2152 4.67 4.69 Date Glider #2 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Test Type Hot Start WHVC Hot Start WHVC Vehicle Number Test Test Weight (lbs) Number Glider #2 1 2 60,000 lb Test Glider #2 80,000 lb Test 1 2 Date 34 PM Results The values in the table represent an average of the PM collected on three filters. The PM emission data was not collected for all tests due to power issues in the laboratory during the time of testing which affected the PM sampler. Those tests for which the PM sample system was not operating are indicated with a “N/A”. Vehicle Test Weight Test (lbs) Number Test Type 1 2 Glider #1 3 60,000 lb 4* Hot Start 5* WHVC 1 2 Glider #2 60,000 lb Hot Start WHVC Glider #1 80,000 lb 1 PM Date 10/5 10/6 10/10 10/16 10/17 11/3 11/6 WHVC (mg/mi) 543 622 N/A 530 591 367 331 10/11 627 2* 10/13 745 1 11/7 433 Hot Start Glider #2 2 11/8 419 WHVC 80,000 lb * Check Engine Light issue resolved prior to these tests 35 Glider #1 2016 MY Peterbilt 389 Total HC Test Type Hot Start SC Hot Start SC Vehicle Number Test Weight Test Number (lbs) 1 Glider #1 2 60,000 lb Test 3 Wt. 4* 5* Glider #1 80,000 lb Test Wt. Date 10/5 10/6 10/10 10/16 10/17 Glider #1 Glider #1 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) 0.822 0.611 0.794 0.683 0.727 0.753 0.723 0.740 0.753 0.758 NMHC Glider #1 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) Glider #1 Glider #1 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) 0.207 0.201 0.201 0.197 0.207 0.823 0.611 0.765 0.682 0.727 0.756 0.726 0.742 0.757 0.762 0.214 0.208 0.208 0.204 0.214 1 10/11 0.608 0.648 0.168 2 10/13 0.629 0.701 0.185 3* 10/18 0.798 0.706 0.199 * Check Engine Light issue resolved prior to this test 0.609 0.631 0.799 0.653 0.707 0.713 0.178 0.195 0.209 CH4 Test Type Hot Start SC Hot Start SC Vehicle Number Test Weight Test (lbs) Number 1 Glider #1 2 60,000 lb Test 3 Wt. 4* 5* Glider #1 80,000 lb Test Wt. Date 10/5 10/6 10/10 10/16 10/17 Glider #1 Glider #1 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.003 1 10/11 0.000 0.000 2 10/13 0.000 0.000 3* 10/18 0.000 0.000 * Check Engine Light issue resolved prior to this test CO Glider #1 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) Glider #1 Glider #1 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) Hot Start SC Hot Start SC Vehicle Number Test Weight Test (lbs) Number 1 Glider #1 2 60,000 lb Test 3 Wt. 4* 5* Glider #1 80,000 lb Test Wt. Date 10/5 10/6 10/10 10/16 10/17 Glider #1 Glider #1 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) 24.4 23.2 35.5 22.0 22.5 23.8 23.3 26.6 22.4 22.2 1 10/11 29.6 30.1 2 10/13 29.2 28.8 3* 10/18 29.1 28.6 * Check Engine Light issue resolved prior to this test Glider #1 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.20 20.12 38.94 16.13 17.23 18.45 21.34 20.84 15.01 17.49 1.69 1.76 1.86 1.50 1.61 0.000 0.001 0.002 22.84 22.43 21.15 24.34 22.15 20.05 2.99 2.70 2.58 N2O NOx Test Type Glider #1 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) Glider #1 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) Glider #1 Glider #1 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) Glider #1 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) 13.3 13.4 13.4 13.6 13.5 0.016 0.015 0.020 0.020 0.021 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.020 0.019 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.008 0.008 25.3 25.2 25.2 0.022 0.023 0.023 0.020 0.023 0.021 0.009 0.010 0.010 37 CO2 Test Type Hot Start SC Hot Start SC Vehicle Number Test Weight Test Number (lbs) 1 Glider #1 2 60,000 lb Test 3 Wt. 4* 5* Glider #1 80,000 lb Test Wt. Date 10/5 10/6 10/10 10/16 10/17 Glider #1 Glider #1 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) 2188 2158 2172 2138 2200 2181 2172 2104 2110 2146 1 10/11 2814 2827 2 10/13 2843 2817 3* 10/18 2863 2783 * Check Engine Light issue resolved prior to this test Fuel Economy Glider #1 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) Glider #1 Glider #1 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) Glider #1 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) 1121 1141 1139 1132 1134 4.59 4.64 4.55 4.70 4.57 4.60 4.61 4.76 4.76 4.68 9.05 8.90 8.90 8.97 8.95 1750 1757 1749 3.57 3.53 3.51 3.55 3.57 3.61 5.80 5.77 5.80 38 Glider #2 2017 MY Peterbilt 579 Total HC Test Type Hot Start SC Hot Start SC Vehicle Number Test Weight Test (lbs) Number Glider #2 1 60,000 lb Test 2 Glider #2 80,000 lb Test 1 2 Date Glider #2 Glider #2 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) NMHC Glider #2 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) Glider #2 Glider #2 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) 11/3 11/6 0.611 0.596 0.610 0.626 0.164 0.137 0.611 0.595 0.612 0.628 0.171 0.143 11/7 11/8 0.544 0.578 0.596 0.601 0.162 0.180 0.547 0.579 0.605 0.609 0.170 0.189 Date Glider #2 Glider #2 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) CH4 Test Type Hot Start SC Hot Start SC Vehicle Number Test Test Weight Number (lbs) Glider #2 1 2 60,000 lb Test Glider #2 80,000 lb Test 1 2 CO Glider #2 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) Glider #2 Glider #2 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) Test Type Hot Start SC Hot Start SC Glider #2 80,000 lb Test 1 2 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 15.32 15.90 16.00 14.96 1.49 1.34 11/7 11/8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.003 17.41 18.73 18.31 18.84 2.70 2.14 N2O Date Glider #2 Glider #2 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) Glider #2 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) Glider #2 Glider #2 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) Test Type Hot Start SC Hot Start SC Glider #2 80,000 lb Test 1 2 Glider #2 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) 11/3 11/6 25.0 24.9 25.0 24.8 16.4 16.9 0.014 0.012 0.013 0.014 0.005 0.004 11/7 11/8 32.1 33.0 32.7 32.7 28.6 28.6 0.015 0.017 0.013 0.016 0.005 0.007 CO2 Vehicle Number Test Weight Test (lbs) Number Glider #2 1 60,000 lb Test 2 Glider #2 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) 11/3 11/6 NOx Vehicle Number Test Weight Test (lbs) Number Glider #2 1 2 60,000 lb Test Glider #2 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) Date Glider #2 Glider #2 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) Fuel Economy Glider #2 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) Glider #2 Glider #2 ARB ARB Transient 1 Transient 2 (g/mi) (g/mi) Glider #2 55/65 Cruise (g/mi) 11/3 11/6 2177 2106 2117 2105 1171 1146 4.62 4.77 4.75 4.78 8.67 8.86 11/7 11/8 2755 2861 2760 2796 1765 1777 3.66 3.52 3.65 3.60 5.75 5.71 39 PM Results The values in the table represent an average of the PM collected on three filters. The PM emission data was not collected for all tests due to power issues in the laboratory during the time of testing which affected the PM sampler. Those tests for which the PM sample system was not operating are indicated with a “N/A”. Test Type Hot Start SC* Hot Start SC* Vehicle Test Weight Test (lbs) Number 1 2 Glider #1 3 60,000 lb 4* 5* 1 2 Glider #2 60,000 lb Glider #1 80,000 lb Glider #2 80,000 lb 1 2* 3* 1 2 PM Date 10/5 10/6 10/10 10/16 10/17 11/3 11/6 10/11 10/13 10/18 11/7 11/8 ARB Transient 1 ARB Transient 2 (mg/mi) (mg/mi) 1005 839 1112 1127 N/A N/A 961 905 1094 1089 682 706 623 648 N/A 1340 N/A 652 749 N/A 1288 N/A 668 743 55/65 Cruise (mg/mi) 187 187 N/A 167 186 88 69 N/A 169 N/A 83 98 * Check Engine Light issue resolved prior to these tests 40 Mitchell, George From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Charmley, William Friday, December 01, 2017 3:56 PM Brewer, Tom Cullen, Angela; Nelson, Brian; Mitchell, George RE: TTU Follow-Up 11-28-2017 Responses to Tenn Tech 11_28_2017 email.pdf Dear Tom, Attached you will find responses to all of the questions you sent earlier this week. Please let us know if you would like to schedule a call to discuss any of these topics. My staff continues to assess the more detailed emissions data that you provided in the excel spreadsheet on November 17. We will let you know if we have any follow-up questions on that data. I have included two of my managers on this email – Angela Cullen and Brian Nelson, as well as one of the staff engineers who worked on the EPA testing, George Michell. Both Angela and George were on the November call with you. Brian is the manager for the Heavy-duty Onroad and Nonroad Center. Any of us would be happy to follow up with you or your team. Best regards, Bill Bill Charmley Director Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48105 desk ph. 734-214-4466 cell ph. 734-545-0333 e-mail: charmley.william@epa.gov From: Brewer, Tom [mailto:TBrewer@tntech.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:40 PM To: Charmley, William Subject: TTU Follow-Up 11-28-2017 1 Bill …. The Tennessee Tech Emissions Testing Team has reviewed the EPA document ‘ Chassis Dynamometer Testing of Two Recent Model Heavy – Duty On – Highway Diesel Glider Vehicles ‘ dated November 20, 2017 and would like to ask some detailed follow up / clarification questions that might help us better understand your methods / choices and be useful in completing our Phase II and III testing.  The tested Gliders 2016 & 2017 were ‘loaned’ vehicles, with 179,273 and 30,600 miles respectively. Why were these Gliders chosen to test instead of a newly refurbished / remanufactured glider engine from a rebuilder? It is our understanding of how the EPA tests OEM Heavy Duty Engines for the EPA Certification process.  Who loaned the two Glider vehicles ?  Our understanding is that Fitzgerald and other glider assemblers sell many options to customers, including KIT ONLY, customer supplied engines, and factory remanufactured engines from Cummins and Detroit Diesel. Can you please provide the VIN #s to allow us to determine the engine set-up ?  Did you verify that the ECM’s were set to the engine rebuilder’s specifications ? … or did you verify that the ECMs had not been modified, altered, or tampered with prior to testing ?  Did you leak test the cylinders, verify boost, or verify the fuel maps for the test ?  Were the gliders and the ‘other recent model trucks’ tested on the same day ? … or was the comparison data pulled from existing test outcomes for the ‘other trucks ‘ ?  Did all four test vehicles have the exact same operating fluids ( fuel / oil / coolant etc ) ? If different, please provide the operating fluid information for all four vehicles.  Why were the Glider Kits emissions compared to ‘ other recent model trucks’ instead of the 2010 EPA Clean Air Act Emissions Standards ?  Why is the Particulate Matter reflected in milligrams per mile instead of the standard g/bhp-hr ? … and why are the others reflected in per mile increments ?  What was the fuel economy on the ‘other recent model trucks ‘ ?  Can you provide the equivalents to Tables 12-13-14 for the ‘other recent model trucks’ ?  While repairing Glider #1 and testing it ‘as-is’ may be representative of the real world performance, have any OEM trucks been tested in similar conditions ? If so, what were the results ?  Given the condition of Glider #1, is it fair to say the glider vehicles were pulled off the road and tested ‘as-is’ ? Were the two OEM s used for comparison also pulled off the road and tested ‘as-is’ ?  The test fuel used in this program met EPA Highway Certification diesel fuel specifications in 40 CFR part 1065 as stated in Table 2. Further the gliders went through a triple drain and flush procedure shown in Table 3 to ensure the engines were performing on the Test Fuel. Can you provide the fuel properties for the two comparison vehicles and the original test dates for those vehicles ? A response this week would be greatly appreciated and thank you so much for your continued cooperation. Thomas Brewer Associate Vice President Executive Director TCIM – Tennessee Center for Intelligent Mobility 2 The Tennessee Tech University (TTU) Emissions Testing Team reviewed the EPA document “Chassis Dynamometer Testing of Two Recent Model Year Heavy-Duty On-Highway Diesel Glider Vehicles” dated November 20, 2017 and emailed the following questions to EPA on November 28, 2017. EPA responses to their questions are below. TTU Question 1: The tested Gliders 2016 & 2017 were ‘loaned’ vehicles, with 179,273 and 30,600 miles respectively. Why were these Gliders chosen to test instead of a newly refurbished /remanufactured glider engine from a rebuilder? It is our understanding of how the EPA tests OEM Heavy Duty Engines for the EPA Certification process. EPA Response:    The purpose of the EPA glider emission testing was not to evaluate whether the remanufactured engines meet the EPA engine-based emission standards. This research was conducted primarily for EPA to update our assessment of the emissions inventory impacts for air pollutants from commercial vehicles due to the recent large increase in sales of glider vehicles, and also to estimate the emissions impact if EPA’s current standards for glider tractors are repealed. The best way to develop such emission inventory impacts is to measure the emission from in-use vehicles, not by performing the engine-based tests that would be needed to compare rebuilt glider engines to EPA’s engine-based emission standards. The two vehicles EPA tested represent a range of mileage, though we would have preferred to test at least one vehicle with mileage closer to the EPA regulatory useful life (435,000 miles) or beyond. EPA standards and regulations require a certification process which includes tests of new engines and with deteriorated parts to quantify the emissions at the end of the regulatory useful life to ensure compliance with EPA standards. EPA’s regulations require engines to meet these standards throughout their regulatory useful life. EPA’s compliance process includes both EPA testing of in-use vehicles, as well as mandatory Manufacturer-run In-use Vehicle testing of a subset of engines within their useful life to demonstrate compliance with the EPA emission standards, including the Not to Exceed (NTE) standards. TTU Question 2: Who loaned the two Glider vehicles? EPA Response:  The vehicles were provided to EPA by a truck dealership for the purpose of the testing. TTU Question 3: Our understanding is that Fitzgerald and other glider assemblers sell many options to customers, including KIT ONLY, customer supplied engines, and factory 1 remanufactured engines from Cummins and Detroit Diesel. Can you please provide the VIN #s to allow us to determine the engine set-up? EPA Response:   Both glider vehicles were equipped with engines tagged with serialized Fitzgerald placards, as well as warning placards advising to contact Fitzgerald prior to any mechanical work to be performed. We treat the VIN and engine serial number of borrowed vehicles used in research as Personal Identifiable Information and do not release them. TTU Question 4: Did you verify that the ECM’s were set to the engine rebuilder’s specifications? … or did you verify that the ECMs had not been modified, altered, or tampered with prior to testing? EPA Response:  Beyond the existence of the Malfunction Indicator Light illumination (MIL), which could indicate modification or tampering, EPA did not verify that the ECM as installed had not been modified, altered, or tampered with prior to testing. As discussed in response to Question 1, the purpose of this test program is to understand how these vehicles are emitting in the real world. We would note that, based on the EPA testing as documented in the EPA test report, these vehicles exhibited test results consistent with engines of their particular vintage, that is, highway heavy-duty diesel engines produced between model years 1998 and 2002, and the emission performance is also consistent with the emission performance in general of a 10-15 liter diesel engine which does not include modern emission-control technology such as exhaust gas recirculation, diesel particulate filer, or a SCR-based NOx reduction catalyst. TTU Question 5: Did you leak test the cylinders, verify boost, or verify the fuel maps for the test? EPA Response:  EPA does not routinely do these verifications on test articles within their regulatory useful life unless there is a MIL illuminated or we have other reasons to suspect issues. Also, as discussed in response to Question 1, the purpose of this testing is to understand how these vehicles are emitting in the real world. TTU Question 6: Were the gliders and the ‘other recent model trucks’ tested on the same day? … or was the comparison data pulled from existing test outcomes for the ‘other trucks ‘? 2 EPA Response:  All of the tractors were tested in the same heavy-duty chassis dynamometer test cell as the glider vehicles according to the protocols included in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1066 to ensure the repeatability and quality of the data. This includes control of the test cell ambient conditions. Each of the vehicles were tested on different days. The comparison data for the two other tractors documented in the EPA test report come from existing test data collected by EPA using the same test cell, test equipment, and test procedures. TTU Question 7: Did all four test vehicles have the exact same operating fluids (fuel / oil / coolant, etc.)? If different, please provide the operating fluid information for all four vehicles. EPA Response:  All four test vehicles were tested with the same fuel, which met the EPA highway certification diesel fuel specifications. The coolant and oil were as-received. For the International Day cab tractor, this was the factory-fill. For the other three vehicles, they were as maintained by the owner. TTU Question 8: Why were the Glider Kits emissions compared to ‘other recent model trucks’ instead of the 2010 EPA Clean Air Act Emissions Standards? EPA Response:  As discussed in the response to Question 1, a principal goal of the glider tractor testing was to measure the emissions performance in an actual vehicle under representative driving cycles and to compare those to newly built engines/tractors, in order to provide EPA with the data on which we can estimate the overall real-world emissions impact of glider vehicles. We are not trying to compare the glider vehicles to EPA’s 2010 and later engine-based standards. EPA staff already were aware that glider engines derived from engines which were originally designed and built to comply with EPA’s standards in the 1998-2002 timeframe will not meet EPA’s 2010 and later standards. EPA’s standards and test procedures have changed significantly in the past 20 years. Today’s newly built engines must meet EPA standards for a regulatory useful life of 435,000 miles, while the 1998-2002 standards only applied for a regulatory useful life of 290,000 miles. EPA’s standards today require a mandatory Manufacturer-run In-use, on-the-road, testing of vehicles acquired and driven by actual users – this program did not exist and does not apply to the 1998-2002 model year engines. Today’s EPA standards include mandatory On-Board Diagnostics requirements, which did not exist and did not apply for the 19982002 model year engines. In addition, EPA’s emission standards for NOx and PM for current model year engines are significantly lower than the standards that applied in 1998-2002, and OEMs have nearly universally utilized significant degrees of advanced technology to achieve the 2010 and later standards, including but not limited to 3 electronic fuel injection systems at a level of manufacturing quality and design limits which did not exist in the 1998-2002 time frame, turbocharger technology at a level of manufacturing quality and design limits which were not utilized in the 1998-2002 time frame, cooled exhaust gas recirculation technology, diesel particulate filter technology, and SCR-based NOx catalysts. TTU Question 9: Why is the Particulate Matter reflected in milligrams per mile instead of the standard g/bhp-hr? … and why are the others reflected in per mile increments? EPA Response:  We use different metrics depending on the purpose of the testing or the comparison we are making. Three of the common metrics are discussed below. 1) Work-based metrics (like grams per brake-horsepower hour) are used for certification and compliance based on engine testing using the EPA regulatory certification cycles for the EPA engine-based emission standards. To develop an estimated comparison to the standards, we reported PM, CO, NOx, and NMHC in g/bhp-hr over the UDDS and SET Intermediate speed test cycles on pages 18-20 of the November 20 glider test report. The comparison was done with the chassis test results from the UDDS cycle because this vehicle cycle was created using the same methodologies and in-use data as was used for the Heavy-duty Engine Federal Test Procedure (FTP) cycle. For the other drive cycles included in the November 20 report, Table 11 can be used to convert g/mile results to estimated g/hp-hr. 2) The test results for each drive cycle from our HD chassis test site are reported in grams per mile (or in the case of particulate matter, milligrams per mile). This is typical of chassis testing and is a metric that many stakeholders and researchers are familiar with. It is also representative of how emissions are emitted in the real-world. 3) We also evaluate emissions in grams per second to develop emission rates (factors) in EPA’s vehicle emissions inventory projection model – the EPA MOVES model. The MOVES model relies on data from on-road testing or chassis testing. Emission rates are developed in terms of grams per second for a given operating mode, which is dependent on vehicle speed and power. TTU Question 10: What was the fuel economy on the ‘other recent model trucks ‘? EPA Response:  CO2 emissions are directly proportional to the road load of the vehicle. Because we did not measure the actual road load of the vehicles, we used the same target road load coefficients in the two sets of comparisons (at 60,000 and 80,000 miles). Therefore, the comparison only evaluates the performance of the powertrain and may not be 4  representative of the difference in CO2 emissions that these vehicles would experience in-use. In all cases, the CO2 emissions were lower in the glider powertrains. This is not unexpected given the known trade-off between NOx and CO2 emissions with respect to injection timing and similar engine calibration techniques and the relatively higher NOx emissions for the glider vehicles. The CO2 results shown in Figures 18 and 19 can be converted to mpg using the conversion factor of 10,180 grams of CO2 per gallon of diesel fuel. TTU Question 11: Can you provide the equivalents to Tables 12-13-14 for the ‘other recent model trucks’? EPA Response:   We do not have equivalent test data for the other recent model year trucks for the information presented in Tables 12-14 of the November 20 test report. We developed the chassis-based Supplemental Emission Test (SET) test procedure during the testing of the second glide to represent the steady-state operation of the engine-based SET cycle. This was done for two reasons. First, it provides steady-state results to complement the transient UDDS results. Second, following our conversation with TTU in early November where we learned that TTU had done testing at several steady-state operating conditions, we believe this SET testing would provide a useful comparison when considering the steady-state data gathered by Tennessee Tech. TTU Question 12: While repairing Glider #1 and testing it ‘as-is’ may be representative of the real world performance, have any OEM trucks been tested in similar conditions? If so, what were the results? EPA Response:   All vehicles used in this type of in-use testing are tested “as-is” after inspection to determine whether they are in proper working order and when necessary, at a mileage less than full useful life. Glider #1 is the only vehicle that we have tested that has had a check engine light on. Testing a heavy-duty vehicle with a check engine light on is useful for EPA. We took advantage of the opportunity to test Glider #1 as-received and after the repair. The HD exhaust emission rates in MOVES are comprised of emission rates of normal operating vehicles plus an impact due to tampering and/or malmaintenance of the vehicle. The emission rates post-repair would be compared against the emission rates currently in MOVES representing normal operating vehicles. TTU Question 13: Given the condition of Glider #1, is it fair to say the glider vehicles were pulled off the road and tested ‘as-is’? Were the two OEM s used for comparison also pulled off the road and tested ‘as-is’? 5 EPA Response:   Yes, the glider vehicles were tested as-is after a visual inspection – please also the responses to Questions 1 and 2. This is typical of the procedures we use to develop emission factors for our MOVES emissions model, which represents emissions from a full range of in-use vehicles. We obtain a significant amount of engine data in the “new” condition at certification and manufacturers provide some in-use emissions data of wellmaintained vehicles to demonstrate compliance with the EPA Not-to-Exceed emission standards. The data that is more difficult to obtain are the emissions from in-use vehicles, which is represented by the “as-is” condition. The Freightliner sleeper cab discussed in the November 20 glider test report was an inuse vehicle pulled in for testing after over 360,000 miles of use and was tested “as-is” after a visual inspection. The International day cab discussed in the November 20 glider test report was purchased new and was tested after approximately 10,000 miles of mileage accumulation. TTU Question 14: The test fuel used in this program met EPA Highway Certification diesel fuel specifications in 40 CFR part 1065 as stated in Table 2. Further the gliders went through a triple drain and flush procedure shown in Table 3 to ensure the engines were performing on the Test Fuel. Can you provide the fuel properties for the two comparison vehicles and the original test dates for those vehicles? EPA Response:   All of the vehicles were tested using the same certification diesel fuel. The International day cab tractor and Freightliner sleeper cab were tested between April 28 and May 9, 2017. 6 -DQXDU\ 9,$ (/(&7521,& 68%0,66,21 7KH +RQRUDEOH 6FRWW 3UXLWW $GPLQLVWUDWRU 8 6 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF\ 3HQQV\OYDQLD $YH 1 : :DVKLQJWRQ '& $WWQ (3$ +4 2$5 5( &RPPHQWV RI (QYLURQPHQWDO 'HIHQVH )XQG WKH (QYLURQPHQWDO /DZ 3ROLF\ &HQWHU DQG :HVW +DUOHP (QYLURQPHQWDO $FWLRQ :( $&7 IRU (QYLURQPHQWDO -XVWLFH RQ WKH (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF\¶V 3URSRVHG 5XOH 5HSHDO RI (PLVVLRQ 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU *OLGHU 9HKLFOHV *OLGHU (QJLQHV DQG *OLGHU .LWV )HG 5HJ 1RYHPEHU 7KH (QYLURQPHQWDO 'HIHQVH )XQG ³(')´ (QYLURQPHQWDO /DZ 3ROLF\ &HQWHU ³(/3&´ DQG :( $&7 IRU (QYLURQPHQWDO -XVWLFH ³:( $&7´ UHVSHFWIXOO\ VXEPLW WKHVH FRPPHQWV RQ WKH (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF\ ³(3$´ ¶V 3URSRVHG 5XOH Repeal of Emission Requirements for Glider Vehicles, Glider Engines, and Glider Kits )HG 5HJ 1RYHPEHU ³3URSRVHG 5XOH´ DGGUHVVLQJ SURYLVLRQV FRQWDLQHG LQ WKH DJHQF\¶V ILQDO UXOH Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2 )HG 5HJ 2FWREHU ³3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV´ (') LV D QDWLRQDO QRQSURILW RUJDQL]DWLRQ UHSUHVHQWLQJ RYHU WZR PLOOLRQ PHPEHUV DQG VXSSRUWHUV 6LQFH (') KDV OLQNHG VFLHQFH HFRQRPLFV DQG ODZ WR FUHDWH LQQRYDWLYH HTXLWDEOH DQG FRVW HIIHFWLYH VROXWLRQV WR XUJHQW HQYLURQPHQWDO SUREOHPV (/3& LV WKH 0LGZHVW¶V OHDGLQJ SXEOLF LQWHUHVW HQYLURQPHQWDO OHJDO DGYRFDF\ DQG HFR EXVLQHVV LQQRYDWLRQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ ZRUNLQJ WR LPSURYH HQYLURQPHQWDO TXDOLW\ DQG SURWHFW RXU QDWXUDO UHVRXUFHV (/3&¶V VHSDUDWH FRPPHQWV VXEPLWWHG LQWR WKH GRFNHW GHWDLO KRZ HPLVVLRQV IURP WUXFNV ZLOO SDUWLFXODUO\ DIIHFW SHRSOH LQ WKH 0LGZHVW ZKLFK H[SHULHQFHV VRPH RI WKH PRVW LQWHQVH IUHLJKW WUXFN WUDIILF LQ WKH FRXQWU\ :( $&7 PRELOL]HV ORZ LQFRPH FRPPXQLWLHV RI FRORU WR PDNH HQYLURQPHQWDO FKDQJH WKURXJK DGYRFDF\ SODQQLQJ DQG UHVHDUFK :( $&7¶V PLVVLRQ LV WR EXLOG KHDOWK\ FRPPXQLWLHV E\ HQVXULQJ WKDW SHRSOH RI FRORU DQG ORZ LQFRPH UHVLGHQWV SDUWLFLSDWH PHDQLQJIXOO\ LQ WKH FUHDWLRQ RI VRXQG DQG IDLU HQYLURQPHQWDO KHDOWK DQG SURWHFWLRQ SROLFLHV DQG SUDFWLFHV (') (/3& DQG :( $&7 MRLQ WKH SXEOLF KHDOWK DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO FRPPXQLW\ DV ZHOO DV PDMRU LQGXVWU\ YRLFHV LQ VWURQJO\ RSSRVLQJ (3$¶V SURSRVHG UHSHDO RI WKHVH YLWDO KHDOWK VDIHJXDUGV 7KH FRPPHQWV EHORZ OD\ RXW WKH NH\ IDFWXDO LVVXHV UHODWHG WR WKH SURSRVDO DQG WKHQ DUWLFXODWH WKH QXPHURXV UHDVRQV ZK\ WKLV SURSRVHG UXOH LV XQODZIXO ,Q SDUWLFXODU WKHVH FRPPHQWV GHPRQVWUDWH WKDW x 7KH SURSRVHG UHSHDO ZRXOG XQGHUPLQH RYHUZKHOPLQJO\ EHQHILFLDO IUHLJKW WUXFN SROOXWLRQ VWDQGDUGV UHVXOWLQJ LQ WKRXVDQGV RI SUHPDWXUH GHDWKV IURP HQWLUHO\ DYRLGDEOH H[SRVXUH WR JOLGHU YHKLFOH SROOXWLRQ 1HZ PRGHOLQJ GHWDLOHG LQ WKHVH FRPPHQWV LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKH 3URSRVHG 5XOH FRXOG OHDG WR DV PDQ\ DV SUHPDWXUH GHDWKV LQ DORQH x $GRSWLQJ DQ LQGHIHQVLEOH UHDGLQJ RI WKH VWDWXWH WKH 3URSRVHG 5XOH IDLOV WR DGGUHVV WKH VHYHUH SXEOLF KHDOWK LPSDFWV IURP LQFUHDVHG SROOXWLRQ IURP JOLGHU YHKLFOHV WKH GLVSURSRUWLRQDWH ULVNV WR HQYLURQPHQWDO MXVWLFH FRPPXQLWLHV DQG WKH DGGHG EXUGHQ VWDWHV ZLOO IDFH LQ DFKLHYLQJ DLU TXDOLW\ VWDQGDUGV LQ OLJKW RI LQFUHDVHG SROOXWLRQ IURP JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DPRQJ QXPHURXV RWKHU XQH[SORUHG SHUQLFLRXV LPSOLFDWLRQV x 7KH SURSRVDO ZRXOG DGYDQWDJH D QDUURZ VOLFH RI WKH IUHLJKW WUXFN PDQXIDFWXULQJ LQGXVWU\ E\ H[HPSWLQJ WKHP IURP YLWDO VDIHJXDUGV²DW WKH H[SHQVH RI SXEOLF KHDOWK LQ FRPPXQLWLHV DFURVV WKH FRXQWU\ DV ZHOO DV IUHLJKW WUXFN LQGXVWU\ PHPEHUV WKDW KDYH UHVSRQVLEO\ LQYHVWHG LQ SROOXWLRQ FRQWUROV x 7KH SURSRVDO XQODZIXOO\ YLRODWHV ERWK WKH DJHQF\¶V VXEVWDQWLYH GXWLHV XQGHU WKH &OHDQ $LU $FW ³&$$´ RU WKH ³$FW´ DQG PLQLPXP SURFHGXUDO UHTXLUHPHQWV 7KH FRPPHQWV EHORZ OD\ RXW WKH NH\ IDFWXDO LVVXHV UHODWHG WR WKH SURSRVDO DQG WKHQ DUWLFXODWH WKH QXPHURXV UHDVRQV ZK\ WKLV SURSRVHG UXOH LV XQODZIXO ,Q SDUWLFXODU WKHVH FRPPHQWV GHPRQVWUDWH WKDW 7DEOH RI &RQWHQWV , (3$¶V 3URSRVHG 5XOH :LOO +DYH 6HYHUH 3XEOLF +HDOWK ,PSDFWV D 7KH 3URSRVHG 5XOH DOORZV IRU DQ XQOLPLWHG LQFUHDVH LQ KLJK SROOXWLQJ XQFRQWUROOHG JOLGHU YHKLFOHV E 8QWUHDWHG HPLVVLRQV IURP GLHVHO HQJLQHV VHULRXVO\ KDUP SXEOLF KHDOWK DQG WKH HQYLURQPHQW F ,Q LWV )LQDO 5XOH (3$ IRXQG WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOHV HPLW H[WUHPHO\ KLJK DPRXQWV RI 12[ 30 DQG GLHVHO SDUWLFXODWH PDWWHU SXWWLQJ SXEOLF KHDOWK DW ULVN G (3$¶V ODWHVW WHVWLQJ GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOH HPLVVLRQV DUH HYHQ JUHDWHU WKDQ SUHYLRXVO\ HVWLPDWHG H (3$ LVVXHG LWV SURSRVDO EHIRUH LWV QHZ WHVWLQJ ZDV HYHQ FRPSOHWH I 7KH 778 VWXG\ WKDW (3$ LQYRNHV LV XQVXSSRUWHG DQG IODZHG L 7KH 778 VWXG\ IDLOV WR IROORZ ZHOO HVWDEOLVKHG (3$ HPLVVLRQ PHDVXUHPHQW DQG WHVWLQJ SURWRFROV LL 7KH 778 6WXG\¶V &RQFOXVLRQV DUH 1RW 6XSSRUWHG E\ ,WV 2ZQ 7HVW 5HVXOWV LLL (3$¶V 2ZQ 0HPRUDQGXP DQG 6WXG\ )XUWKHU &RQWUDGLFW 778¶V &RQFOXVLRQV LY 778¶V UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK )LW]JHUDOG *OLGHU .LWV UDLVHV IXUWKHU FRQFHUQV DERXW WKH REMHFWLYLW\ RI WKH 778 VWXG\ Errata: EDF J (') PRGHOLQJ XVLQJ UHYLVHG HPLVVLRQ IDFWRUV EDVHG RQ (3$¶V UHFHQWO\ SXEOLVKHG GDWD LQGLFDWHV 12[ DQG 30 HPLVVLRQV IURP JOLGHU YHKLFOHV FRXOG H[FHHG WKH HPLVVLRQ LQYHQWRU\ IRU modeling DOO RWKHU KHDY\ GXW\ YHKLFOHV LQ based on revised sales K *OLGHU YHKLFOHV DUH QRW FRPSDUDEOH WR ROGHU KLJKHU HPLWWLQJ YHKLFOHV estimates, not L 5HFRUG HYLGHQFH GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOH VDOHV DUH DW OHDVW SHU \HDU LI QRW revised KLJKHU ZLWK SRWHQWLDO IRU IXUWKHU JURZWK emission ,, 7KH EHQHILWV RI IUHLJKW WUXFN SROOXWLRQ VWDQGDUGV VXEVWDQWLDOO\ H[FHHG WKH FRVWV factors ,,, 7KH 3URSRVDO KDV SDUWLFXODUO\ KDUPIXO LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FRPPXQLWLHV DOUHDG\ RYHUEXUGHQHG E\ GLHVHO WUXFN SROOXWLRQ D (QYLURQPHQWDO MXVWLFH FRPPXQLWLHV IDFH EDUULHUV WR SXEOLF SDUWLFLSDWLRQ E 7KH 3URSRVDO ZLOO GLVSURSRUWLRQDWHO\ LPSDFW HQYLURQPHQWDO MXVWLFH FRPPXQLWLHV DQG FKLOGUHQ ,9 7KH 3URSRVHG 5XOH ZLOO LPSDFW RWKHU FOHDQ DLU SURJUDPV LQFOXGLQJ VWDWHV¶ DELOLW\ WR FRPSO\ ZLWK WKH 1DWLRQDO $PELHQW $LU 4XDOLW\ 6WDQGDUGV 9 (3$ KDV &OHDU /HJDO $XWKRULW\ XQGHU WKH &$$ WR 5HJXODWH *OLGHU 9HKLFOHV D (3$ &OHDUO\ +DV $XWKRULW\ WR 5HJXODWH *OLGHU 9HKLFOHV DV 1HZ 0RWRU 9HKLFOHV L *OLGHU 9HKLFOHV DUH ³1HZ 0RWRU 9HKLFOHV´ XQGHU WKH 8QDPELJXRXV 7HUPV RI WKH 6WDWXWH E 7KH 3URSRVHG 5XOH¶V QHZ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI VHFWLRQ D LV XQUHDVRQDEOH DQG LPSHUPLVVLEOH L (3$¶V QHZ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV DW RGGV ZLWK WKH VWDWXWRU\ GHILQLWLRQ RI ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH´ LL (3$¶V 3URSRVHG 1HZ ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV ,PSHUPLVVLEO\ DW 2GGV ZLWK WKH 6WDWXWRU\ 3XUSRVH DQG 6WUXFWXUH LLL (3$¶V SURSRVHG LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI VHFWLRQ D ZRXOG KDYH GUDVWLF DGYHUVH FRQVHTXHQFHV IRU WKH ZKROH PRELOH VRXUFH SURJUDP D FRQVHTXHQFH WKDW (3$ KDV QRW H[DPLQHG LY 7KH 3URSRVDO¶V $FFRXQW RI &RQJUHVV¶V ,QWHQW LV D 6SHFXODWLYH ,QYHQWLRQ DQG ,JQRUHV WKH 6WUXFWXUH DQG 3XUSRVHV RI WKH &$$ Y (3$¶V 5HOLDQFH RQ $,'$ LV 8QDYDLOLQJ F (3$ KDV H[SOLFLW DXWKRULW\ WR UHJXODWH HPLVVLRQV IURP UHEXLOW KHDY\ GXW\ HQJLQHV L 7KH $JHQF\ KDV QRW DWWHPSWHG WR DQG FDQQRW MXVWLI\ UHYRFDWLRQ RI LWV H[HUFLVH RI UHEXLOG DXWKRULW\ 9, (3$ KDV FOHDU DXWKRULW\ WR UHJXODWH JOLGHU NLWV 9,, (3$¶V 3URSRVHG 5HSHDO LV 3URFHGXUDOO\ 'HILFLHQW DQG $UELWUDU\ DQG &DSULFLRXV D $JHQFLHV PXVW MXVWLI\ UHYHUVLQJ WKH FRXUVH RI SROLF\ E\ DGGUHVVLQJ WKH H[LVWLQJ UHFRUG E (3$ KDV XWWHUO\ IDLOHG WR DGGUHVV WKH H[LVWLQJ UHFRUG IRU WKH JOLGHU SURYLVLRQV IDLOLQJ WR SURSHUO\ MXVWLI\ WKH 3URSRVHG 5HSHDO F (3$ KDV IDLOHG WR MXVWLI\ WKH 3URSRVHG 5HSHDO LQ OLJKW RI WKH KHDY\ GXW\ LQGXVWU\¶V UHOLDQFH LQWHUHVWV LQ PDLQWDLQLQJ WKH 3KDVH JOLGHU SURYLVLRQV G (3$ KDV IDLOHG WR SURYLGH DGHTXDWH QRWLFH RI NH\ LVVXHV H 7KH 3URSRVDO )DLOV WR &RQVLGHU /HW $ORQH 5HDVRQDEO\ $GGUHVV DQ $UUD\ RI WKH )DFWRUV 5HOHYDQW WR (3$¶V 'HFLVLRQ 9,,, (3$¶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¶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¶V 3URSRVHG 5XOH :LOO +DYH 6HYHUH 3XEOLF +HDOWK ,PSDFWV (3$¶V SURSRVDO WR UROO EDFN WKH JOLGHU SURYLVLRQV RI WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV IDLOV WR FRQVLGHU WKH SXEOLF KHDOWK LPSDFWV RI WKHVH KLJKO\ SROOXWLQJ YHKLFOHV :LWKRXW FRPPRQ VHQVH SURYLVLRQV HQVXULQJ WKDW JOLGHU WUXFNV DFKLHYH WKH VDPH SROOXWLRQ VWDQGDUGV WKDW DOO RWKHU QHZ IUHLJKW WUXFNV PXVW DFKLHYH WKHVH YHKLFOHV FDQ XVH WKH ³ROGHVW GLUWLHVW DQG GHDGOLHVW´ HQJLQHV 7KH 3URSRVHG 5XOH IDLOV WR PHQWLRQ OHW DORQH FRQVLGHU WKH VXEVWDQWLDO YROXPH RI FULWHULD SROOXWDQW HPLVVLRQV IURP XQUHJXODWHG JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DQG IDLOV WR FRQVLGHU WKH VHYHUH LPSDFWV WR SXEOLF KHDOWK LQFOXGLQJ WKRXVDQGV RI SUHPDWXUH GHDWKV ZKLFK ZRXOG UHVXOW ZHUH WKH SURSRVDO DGRSWHG ,QGHHG WKH SURSRVDO ZDV SXEOLVKHG EHIRUH (3$ FRXOG ILQLVK LWV RZQ XSGDWHG HPLVVLRQV WHVWLQJ WKDW QRZ IXUWKHU FRQILUPV WKH SROOXWLRQ EXUGHQ SRVHG E\ WKHVH YHKLFOHV a. The Proposed Rule allows for an unlimited increase in high-polluting, uncontrolled glider vehicles. *OLGHU YHKLFOHV DUH GLHVHO IUHLJKW WUXFNV PDQXIDFWXUHG E\ DGGLQJ D GRQRU HQJLQH DQG SRZHUWUDLQ WR D QHZ WUXFN FKDVVLV $ JOLGHU NLW LV WKH FKDVVLV IURQW D[OH DQG ERG\ RI WKH WUXFN EHIRUH WKH HQJLQH DQG GULYHWUDLQ DUH LQVWDOOHG (3$¶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± LQFOXGLQJ H[KDXVW DIWHUWUHDWPHQW GHYLFHV VXFK DV VHOHFWLYH FDWDO\WLF UHGXFWLRQ DQG SDUWLFOH WUDSV $V (3$ QRWHG DW WKH WLPH WKHVH QHZ SROOXWLRQ UHGXFWLRQ WHFKQRORJLHV ³DOORZ>HG@ D PDMRU DGYDQFHPHQW LQ GLHVHO HPLVVLRQV 6WDWHPHQW E\ WKH +RQ -DPLH 5DVNLQ ' 0G (3$ SXEOLF KHDULQJ RQ 3URSRVHG 5XOH 'HF KWWSV UDVNLQ KRXVH JRY PHGLD SUHVV UHOHDVHV UHS UDVNLQ V UHPDUNV HSD SXEOLF KHDULQJ $V QRWHG LQ 6HFWLRQ 9,, EHORZ (3$¶V IDLOXUH WR FRQVLGHU WKH SXEOLF KHDOWK DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO LPSDFWV RI WKH SURSRVDO UHQGHU WKH SURSRVDO ERWK VXEVWDQWLYHO\ DQG SURFHGXUDOO\ XQODZIXO :LWK FHUWDLQ WDLORUHG SURYLVLRQV DQG IOH[LELOLWLHV DV GLVFXVVHG LQ JUHDWHU GHWDLO LQ 6HFWLRQ ;, 6HH JHQHUDOO\ *UHHQKRXVH *DV (PLVVLRQV DQG )XHO (IILFLHQF\ 6WDQGDUGV IRU 0HGLXP DQG +HDY\ 'XW\ (QJLQHV DQG 9HKLFOHV²3KDVH )LQDO 5XOH )HG 5HJ 2FWREHU >+HUHLQDIWHU ³+'3 5XOH´ RU ³3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV´@ See id DW 2FW &RQWURO RI $LU 3ROOXWLRQ )URP 1HZ 0RWRU 9HKLFOHV +HDY\ 'XW\ (QJLQH DQG 9HKLFOH 6WDQGDUGV DQG +LJKZD\ 'LHVHO )XHO 6XOIXU &RQWURO 5HTXLUHPHQWV )LQDO 5XOH )HG 5HJ -DQ ³7KLV SURJUDP ZLOO UHGXFH SDUWLFXODWH PDWWHU DQG R[LGHV RI QLWURJHQ HPLVVLRQV IURP KHDY\ GXW\ HQJLQHV E\ SHUFHQW DQG SHUFHQW EHORZ FXUUHQW VWDQGDUG OHYHOV UHVSHFWLYHO\ ´ See )HG 5HJ DW -DQ FRQWURO RI D PDJQLWXGH FRPSDUDEOH WR WKDW XVKHUHG LQ E\ WKH DXWRPRWLYH FDWDO\WLF FRQYHUWHU LQ WKH ¶V ´ *OLGHU YHKLFOH SURGXFWLRQ LQFUHDVHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ EHJLQQLQJ LQ ZLWK JOLGHU YHKLFOHV W\SLFDOO\ XVLQJ HQJLQHV PDQXIDFWXUHG LQ DQG HDUOLHU WDNLQJ DGYDQWDJH RI D ORRSKROH WKDW GHWHUPLQHG DSSOLFDEOH HPLVVLRQ VWDQGDUGV EDVHG RQ WKH \HDU WKH engine ZDV PDQXIDFWXUHG UDWKHU WKDQ WKH YHKLFOH DOORZLQJ QHZ JOLGHU YHKLFOHV WR EH VROG WKDW IDLOHG WR PHHW WKH FXUUHQW KHDOWK SURWHFWLYH VWDQGDUGV *OLGHU YHKLFOH SURGXFWLRQ VRDUHG IURP D IHZ KXQGUHG D \HDU SULRU WR WR DQ HVWLPDWHG RYHU LQ &XUUHQW JOLGHU YHKLFOH SURGXFWLRQ UDWHV DSSHDU WR EH HYHQ JUHDWHU *OLGHU YHKLFOHV VROG ZLWK HQJLQHV PDQXIDFWXUHG SULRU WR (3$¶V PRUH SURWHFWLYH HPLVVLRQ VWDQGDUGV DUH GUDPDWLFDOO\ PRUH SROOXWLQJ WKDQ QHZ WUXFNV ZLWK PRGHUQ HQJLQHV ZLWK VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU HPLVVLRQV RI GLHVHO SDUWLFXODWH PDWWHU 30 DQG R]RQH IRUPLQJ 12[ (3$ DGGUHVVHG WKLV ORRSKROH LQ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV E\ PDNLQJ IUHLJKW WUXFN SROOXWLRQ VWDQGDUGV HTXDOO\ DSSOLFDEOH WR DOO IUHLJKW WUXFNV EDVHG RQ WKH \HDU WKH QHZ IUHLJKW WUXFN LV PDQXIDFWXUHG UHJDUGOHVV RI WKH HQJLQH \HDU (3$ QRZ SURSRVHV WR UHSHDO WKHVH SURYLVLRQV b. Untreated emissions from diesel engines seriously harm public health and the environment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d. DW +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW Q Id. DW 7HVWLPRQ\ E\ 1XVV 0RWRUV (3$ SXEOLF KHDULQJ RQ JOLGHU SURSRVDO 'HFHPEHU 6HH GHWDLOHG GLVFXVVLRQ LQ 6HFWLRQ , L EHORZ +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW :LWK FHUWDLQ WDLORUHG SURYLVLRQV DQG IOH[LELOLWLHV DV GLVFXVVHG LQ JUHDWHU GHWDLO LQ 6HFWLRQ ;, 8 6 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF\ +HDOWK $VVHVVPHQW 'RFXPHQW )RU 'LHVHO (QJLQH ([KDXVW 0D\ 1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU (QYLURQPHQWDO $VVHVVPHQW 2IILFH RI 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW :DVKLQJWRQ '& (3$ ) FLWLQJ VRXUFHV DQG WKH :RUOG +HDOWK 2UJDQL]DWLRQ FODVVLI\ GLHVHO H[KDXVW DV D NQRZQ KXPDQ FDUFLQRJHQ E ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKHVH DVVHVVPHQWV RI WKH FDUFLQRJHQLF QDWXUH RI GLHVHO H[KDXVW DV D PL[WXUH RI SROOXWDQWV PDQ\ RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO FRPSRQHQWV RI GLHVHO H[KDXVW KDYH DOVR EHHQ OLQNHG WR FDQFHU IRU H[DPSOH GLHVHO FRQVWLWXHQWV EHQ]HQH DQG EXWDGLHQH DUH ZHOO FKDUDFWHUL]HG KXPDQ FDUFLQRJHQV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQFUHDVHG ULVN RI OHXNHPLD DQG O\PSKRPD 7KH $PHULFDQ &DQFHU 6RFLHW\ FRKRUW VWXG\ KDV LGHQWLILHG DQ DVVRFLDWLRQ EHWZHHQ H[SRVXUH WR ILQH SDUWLFOHV VXOIDWHV DQG OXQJ FDQFHU 6HYHUDO FKHPLFDOV SUHVHQW LQ GLHVHO H[KDXVW DUH NQRZQ RU VXVSHFWHG WR LQFUHDVH EUHDVW FDQFHU ULVN SDUWLFXODUO\ SRO\F\FOLF DURPDWLF K\GURFDUERQV 3$+V F 'LHVHO DLU SROOXWLRQ DGGV WR FDQFHU ULVN DOO DURXQG WKH FRXQWU\ ,Q PDQ\ FRXQWLHV DFURVV WKH FRXQWU\ GLHVHO HPLVVLRQV DUH WKH DLU WR[LF ZLWK WKH KLJKHVW FRQWULEXWLRQ WR FDQFHU ULVN )RU H[DPSOH D DVVHVVPHQW LQ WKH 6HDWWOH DUHD IRXQG WKDW GLHVHO VRRW D FRPSRQHQW RI GLHVHO SDUWLFXODWH PDWWHU RU 30 DFFRXQWV IRU VRPHZKHUH EHWZHHQ SHUFHQW RI WKH WRWDO FDQFHU ULVN IURP DOO DLU WR[LFV $QG LQ WKH 6RXWK &RDVW $LU %DVLQ ZKLFK LQFOXGHV /RV $QJHOHV GLHVHO H[KDXVW KDV DFFRXQWHG IRU DERXW SHUFHQW RI WKH FDQFHU ULVN IURP DLU WR[LFV DFFRUGLQJ WR D VWXG\ ,Q 1HZ -HUVH\ UDQNHG GLHVHO H[KDXVW SDUWLFXODWH PDWWHU DV KDYLQJ WKH JUHDWHVW UHODWLYH FDQFHU ULVN VWDWHZLGH DPRQJ DLU WR[LFV ,Q &DOLIRUQLD¶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available at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²SDUWLFXODUO\ R[LGHV RI QLWURJHQ RU 12[²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± $PHULFDQ /XQJ $VVRFLDWLRQ 3DUWLFOH 3ROOXWLRQ KWWS ZZZ OXQJ RUJ RXU LQLWLDWLYHV KHDOWK\ DLU RXWGRRU DLU SROOXWLRQ SDUWLFOH SROOXWLRQ KWPO ODVW DFFHVVHG -DQ KWWS ZZZ OXQJXVD RUJ VLWH SS DVS"F GY/8. 2 ( E 8 6 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF\ $LU (PLVVLRQ 6RXUFHV -XQ KWWSV ZZZ HSD JRY DLU HPLVVLRQV LQYHQWRULHV DLU HPLVVLRQV VRXUFHV DFFHVVHG 'HF 8 6 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF\ $LU (PLVVLRQ 6RXUFHV 1DWLRQDO 6XPPDU\ RI 1LWURJHQ 2[LGHV (PLVVLRQV )HE KWWSV ZZZ HSD JRY FJL ELQ EURNHU"SROFKRLFH 12; BGHEXJ BVHUYLFH GDWD BSURJUDP GDWDSURJ QDWLRQDOB VDV DFFHVVHG 'HF %HOO 0/ 3HQJ 5' 'RPLQLFL ) 7KH H[SRVXUH UHVSRQVH FXUYH IRU R]RQH DQG ULVN RI PRUWDOLW\ DQG WKH DGHTXDF\ RI FXUUHQW R]RQH UHJXODWLRQV (QYLURQ +HDOWK 3HUVSHFW %HOO 0/ 0F'HUPRWW $ =HJHU 6/ 6DPHW -0 'RPLQLFL ) 2]RQH DQG VKRUW WHUP PRUWDOLW\ LQ 86 XUEDQ FRPPXQLWLHV -$0$ /HY\ -, &KHPHU\QVNL 60 6DUQDW -$ 2]RQH H[SRVXUH DQG PRUWDOLW\ DQ HPSLULF ED\HV PHWDUHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VLV ´ (SLGHPLRO See, e.g. +\VORS 1LFROH 3DXO\ ,PSDLUHG YLVLELOLW\ WKH DLU SROOXWLRQ SHRSOH VHH $WPRVSKHULF (QYLURQPHQW 1DWLRQDO 3DUN 6HUYLFH )UHTXHQWO\ $VNHG 4XHVWLRQV KWWSV ZZZ QSV JRY DERXWXV IDTV KWP ODVW DFFHVVHG -DQ HFRV\VWHPV LQFOXGLQJ WKRVH LQ WKH $GLURQGDFN 0RXQWDLQV VRXWKHUQ $SSDODFKLDQV DQG KLJK HOHYDWLRQ HFRV\VWHPV LQ WKH ZHVWHUQ 8QLWHG 6WDWHV F In its 2016 Final Rule, EPA found that glider vehicles emit extremely high amounts of NOx, PM2.5, and diesel particulate matter, putting public health at risk. 0XOWLSOH SUHVLGHQWLDO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQV KDYH UHSHDWHGO\ XSGDWHG DQG DGYDQFHG KHDY\ GXW\ WUXFN HPLVVLRQ VWDQGDUGV D UHIOHFWLRQ RI WKH XUJHQW QHHG IRU WKHVH VWDQGDUGV DQG RYHUZKHOPLQJ HYLGHQFH RI WKHLU VLJQLILFDQW SXEOLF KHDOWK EHQHILWV 7RGD\¶V QHZ KHDY\ GXW\ WUXFNV DUH DW OHDVW SHUFHQW FOHDQHU WKDQ WKRVH PDQXIDFWXUHG MXVW D GHFDGH DJR WKDQNV WR PRUH SURWHFWLYH HPLVVLRQV VWDQGDUGV DGRSWHG E\ (3$ LQ DQG SKDVHG LQ IURP WR 7KHVH LPSURYHPHQWV KDYH KDG GUDPDWLF EHQHILWV IRU DLU TXDOLW\ $FFRUGLQJ WR H[SHUWV IURP WKH ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &RXQFLO RQ &OHDQ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ ,Q MXVW WKH SDVW \HDUV (3$¶V DFWLRQV KDYH OHG WR D JUHDWHU WKDQ GURS LQ 30 DQG 12[ HPLVVLRQV IURP WKH FRXQWU\¶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ee, e.g. &RQWURO RI (PLVVLRQV RI +D]DUGRXV $LU 3ROOXWDQWV IURP 0RELOH 6RXUFHV )HG 5HJ $XJ &RQWURO RI (PLVVLRQV RI +D]DUGRXV $LU 3ROOXWDQWV )URP 0RELOH 6RXUFHV )HG 5HJ -DQ &RQWURO RI +D]DUGRXV $LU 3ROOXWDQWV )URP 0RELOH 6RXUFHV )HG 5HJ )HE +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ 2FW &RQWURO RI $LU 3ROOXWLRQ )URP 1HZ 0RWRU 9HKLFOHV +HDY\ 'XW\ (QJLQH DQG 9HKLFOH 6WDQGDUGV DQG +LJKZD\ 'LHVHO )XHO 6XOIXU &RQWURO 5HTXLUHPHQWV )LQDO 5XOH )HG 5HJ -DQ see also +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW 2FW 5DFKHO 0XQFULHI DQG -RVK 0LOOHU 6FRWW 3UXLWW¶V (3$ ZDQWV WR UHVXUUHFW WKH GLUW\ GLHVHO ,&&7 %ORJ 'HF KWWSV ZZZ WKHLFFW RUJ EORJ VWDII JOLGHU SURSRVDO PHDQV UHVXUUHFWLQJ GLUW\ GLHVHO )LW]JHUDOG *OLGHU .LWV About Fitzgerald KWWSV ZZZ ILW]JHUDOGJOLGHUNLWV FRP DERXW ILW]JHUDOG ODVW DFFHVVHG 'HF 7RP %HUJ The Return of the Glider 7UXFNLQJLQIR $SU KWWS ZZZ WUXFNLQJLQIR FRP FKDQQHO HTXLSPHQW DUWLFOH VWRU\ WKH UHWXUQ RI WKH JOLGHU DVS[ 6HH H J 7RP %HUJ 7KH 5HWXUQ RI WKH *OLGHU 7UXFNLQJ,QIR FRP $SU KWWS ZZZ WUXFNLQJLQIR FRP DUWLFOH VWRU\ WKH UHWXUQ RI WKH JOLGHU DVS[ GHVFULELQJ WKH HQJLQHV XVHG E\ )LW]JHUDOG DV 'HWURLW¶V OLWHU 6HULHV IURP WKH WR HUD DV ZHOO DV ³SUH (*5 OLWHU &XPPLQV DQG OLWHU &DWHUSLOODU GLHVHOV ´ )LQDO 5XOH PRUH UHFHQWO\ LW VLPLODUO\ FRQFOXGHG LQ D 1RYHPEHU PHPR LQ WKH UHFRUG WKDW ³>Q@HDUO\ DOO HQJLQHV IRU UHFHQW JOLGHU SURGXFWLRQ DUH SUH (*5 HQJLQHV ´ $V D UHVXOW (3$ HVWLPDWHG LQ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOHV FDQ KDYH 12[ DQG 30 HPLVVLRQV ± WLPHV KLJKHU WKDQ FXUUHQW HQJLQHV (3$ DOVR HVWLPDWHG LQ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV WKDW LI OHIW XQUHJXODWHG E\ JOLGHU YHKLFOHV ZRXOG HPLW QHDUO\ WRQV RI 12[ DQG QHDUO\ WRQV RI 30 DQQXDOO\ $VVXPLQJ XQFRQWUROOHG JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DUH VROG DQQXDOO\ EHWZHHQ DQG JOLGHU YHKLFOHV ZRXOG FRPSULVH RQO\ RI WKH KHDY\ WUXFNV RQ WKH URDG EXW ZRXOG DFFRXQW IRU RQH WKLUG RI DOO 12[ DQG 30 HPLVVLRQV IURP WKH KHDY\ WUXFN IOHHW 7KH DGGLWLRQDO SROOXWLRQ WKDW (3$¶V SURSRVHG UHVFLVVLRQ RI JOLGHU SURWHFWLRQV ZRXOG HQDEOH LV VXEVWDQWLDO )RU FRPSDULVRQ EDVHG RQ (3$¶V HVWLPDWHV WKH DPRXQW RI 12[ SROOXWLRQ HPLWWHG RYHU WKH OLIH RI MXVW RQH \HDU RI VDOHV RI JOLGHU YHKLFOHV LV WHQ WLPHV JUHDWHU WKDQ DOO RI WKH 12[ HPLWWHG E\ DOO WKH ³GHIHDW GHYLFH´ 9RONVZDJHQ YHKLFOHV LQ WKH 8 6 FRPELQHG 2QH RI WKH PRVW VLJQLILFDQW UHFHQW SURJUDPV WR DGGUHVV 12[ HPLVVLRQV WKH &URVV 6WDWH $LU 3ROOXWLRQ 5XOH 8SGDWH LV H[SHFWHG WR UHGXFH WRQV RI 12[ HYHU\ \HDU (3$ HVWLPDWHG WKDW ZLWKRXW JOLGHU YHKLFOH SROOXWLRQ VWDQGDUGV JOLGHU 12[ HPLVVLRQV LQ ZRXOG EH IRXU WLPHV WKDW DPRXQW 7KHVH PDVVLYH TXDQWLWLHV RI 12[ HPLVVLRQV WUDQVODWH WR PRUH IUHTXHQW DQG PRUH VHULRXV VPRJ LQFLGHQFHV DURXQG WKH FRXQWU\²DJJUDYDWLQJ DVWKPD DQG RWKHU VHULRXV UHVSLUDWRU\ FRQGLWLRQV 7DEOH ;; VKRZV (3$¶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q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ီ %DVHG RQ LWV HVWLPDWHV (3$ SHUIRUPHG D ULVN DQDO\VLV WKDW IRXQG WKDW HDFK PRGHO \HDU RI JOLGHU YHKLFOH VDOHV ZRXOG EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK XS WR SUHPDWXUH PRUWDOLWLHV RYHU WKH OLIHWLPH RI WKH YHKLFOHV (3$ UHFRJQL]HG WKDW WKH DVVHVVPHQW ZDV FRQVHUYDWLYH EHFDXVH LW FRQVLGHUHG RQO\ WKH KHDOWK LPSDFWV RI ILQH SDUWLFXODWH HPLVVLRQV ² QRW WKH FDUFLQRJHQLF GLHVHO SDUWLFXODWH ± DQG GRHV QRW FRQVLGHU KHDOWK HIIHFWV RI R]RQH IRUPDWLRQ DWWULEXWDEOH WR WKHVH YHKLFOHV¶ KLJK 12[ +'3 5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQWV 6HFWLRQ $SSHQGL[ $ HPLVVLRQV ,W DOVR DVVXPHV SURGXFWLRQ RI JOLGHU YHKLFOHV SHU \HDU EXW VWDWHV WKDW WKLV QXPEHU LV SUREDEO\ ORZ EDVHG RQ SXEOLF FRPPHQWV WR (3$ d. EPA’s latest testing demonstrates that glider vehicle emissions are even greater than previously estimated. (3$ UHFHQWO\ XQGHUWRRN PRUH HPLVVLRQ WHVWLQJ DW (3$¶V 1DWLRQDO 9HKLFOH )XHO DQG (PLVVLRQV /DERUDWRU\ 19)(/ WR UHILQH LWV GDWD RQ JOLGHU HPLVVLRQV (3$¶V QHZO\ UHOHDVHG XSGDWHG WHVWLQJ GDWD ZKLFK WKH 3URSRVHG 5XOH IDLOV WR DFNQRZOHGJH LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH WKUHDW WR KXPDQ KHDOWK SRVHG E\ JOLGHU WUXFNV LV HYHQ PRUH VHULRXV WKDQ (3$ IRXQG LQ LWV )LQDO 5XOH 7KH WHVW SURJUDP ZDV FRPSUHKHQVLYHO\ GRFXPHQWHG LQ D 1RYHPEHU SDJH WHVW UHSRUW WKDW LQFOXGHG GHWDLOHG LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG GDWD RQ WKH WHVW YHKLFOHV WHVW F\FOHV HPLVVLRQ PHDVXUHPHQW SURFHGXUHV WHVW IXHOV WHVW FRQGLWLRQV TXDOLW\ FRQWURO DQG DVVXUDQFH PHDVXUHV DQG HPLVVLRQ WHVW UHVXOWV 7KH UHVXOWV RI (3$¶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ource: EPA. One visible indication of the pollution burden associated with glider vehicles: the PM filters used to measure emissions from one of the glider vehicles that EPA tested show filters +'3 5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQWV DW *OLGHU WUXFN DQQXDO VDOHV ILJXUHV DUH GLVFXVVHG LQ JUHDWHU GHWDLO LQ 6HFWLRQ L EHORZ 8 6 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF\ &KDVVLV '\QDPRPHWHU 7HVWLQJ RI 7ZR 5HFHQW 0RGHO 778@ SURYLGHG LQ WKH H[FHO VSUHDGVKHHW RQ 1RYHPEHU ´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¶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¶ SHWLWLRQ IRU UHFRQVLGHUDWLRQ RU LQ (3$¶V 3URSRVHG 5XOH )LQDOO\ D FRPSDULVRQ ZLWK WKH $JHQF\¶V RZQ VWXGLHV FRQWUDGLFWV 778¶V ILQGLQJV IXUWKHU XQGHUPLQLQJ LWV FUHGLELOLW\ :H GLVFXVV WKHVH FRQFHUQV LQ PRUH GHWDLO EHORZ 0HPRUDQGXP (3$ 7HOHFRQIHUHQFH ZLWK 7HQQHVVHH 7HFK 8QLYHUVLW\ 5HJDUGLQJ *OLGHU 7HVW 5HSRUW 6XPPDUL]HG LQ -XQH /HWWHU 7HQQHVVHH 7HFK 8QLYHUVLW\ ± 6XPPDU\ RI +HDY\ 'XW\ 7UXFN 6WXG\ DQG (YDOXDWLRQ RI WKH 3KDVH ,, +HDY\ 'XW\ 7UXFN 5XOH 1RY 'RFNHW 1R (3$ +4 2$5 available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 KHUHLQDIWHU ³(3$ 778 0HPR´ Id. DW 2Q 1RYHPEHU (') VXEPLWWHG D )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ $FW UHTXHVW WR (3$ IRU UHFRUGV UHODWHG WR WKH 778 WHVWLQJ GDWD DQG RWKHU HPLVVLRQV WHVWLQJ RI JOLGHU YHKLFOHV (3$ +4 2XU UHTXHVW IRU H[SHGLWHG SURFHVVLQJ ZDV GHQLHG 2Q 'HFHPEHU (') DSSHDOHG WKH GHQLDO :H KDYH QRW \HW UHFHLYHG D GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RQ RXU DSSHDO (3$ KDV QRW \HW SURGXFHG DQ\ UHFRUGV UHVSRQVLYH WR WKH UHTXHVW (') KDV DOVR SDUWQHUHG ZLWK WKH 6RXWKHUQ (QYLURQPHQWDO /DZ &HQWHU ³6(/&´ WR VHHN UHOHYDQW WHVWLQJ GDWD IURP 778 6(/& VXEPLWWHG D SXEOLF UHFRUGV UHTXHVW SXUVXDQW WR WKH 7HQQHVVHH 3XEOLF 5HFRUGV $FW 7HQQ &RGH $QQ † RQ 'HFHPEHU 778 GHQLHG WKH UHTXHVW RQ WKH JURXQGV WKDW GLVFORVXUH RI WKH UHTXHVWHG UHFRUGV ZDV SURKLELWHG XQGHU D VWDWH ODZ WKDW SURYLGHV WKDW VSRQVRUHG UHVHDUFK VKDOO QRW EH RSHQ IRU SXEOLF LQVSHFWLRQ XQOHVV UHOHDVHG E\ WKH VSRQVRU 7HQQ &RGH $QQ † E (PDLO IURP :LOOLDP &KDUPOH\ WR 7RP %UHZHU 'RF ,' (3$ +4 2$5 DYDLODEOH DW KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV $SSHQGL[ $ WR 6HFWLRQ RI WKH 5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQWV IRU -RLQW 5XOHPDNLQJ 3JV See Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of (QJLQHHUV ) G G &LU LQYDOLGDWLQJ DQ (,6 IRU ³EDG IDLWK´ UHOLDQFH RQ IDXOW\ GDWD L 7KH 778 VWXG\ IDLOV WR IROORZ ZHOO HVWDEOLVKHG (3$ HPLVVLRQ PHDVXUHPHQW DQG WHVWLQJ SURWRFROV 778 FODLPHG LQ D SDJH VXPPDU\ WHVW UHSRUW WKDW LW WHVWHG ³WKLUWHHQ KHDY\ GXW\ WUXFNV RQ D FRPPRQ FKDVVLV G\QDPRPHWHU DW D FRPPRQ VLWH HLJKW WUXFNV ZHUH UHPDQXIDFWXUHG HQJLQHV DQG ILYH ZHUH 2(0 µFHUWLILHG¶ HQJLQHV DOO ZLWK ORZ PLOHDJH ´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¶V FRQFOXVLRQV EDVHG RQ WKH GHILFLHQW DQG LQFRPSOHWH LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW LV SXEOLFO\ DYDLODEOH ZRXOG EH DUELWUDU\ DQG FDSULFLRXV D@OO YHKLFOHV PHW WKH VWDQGDUG´ IRU 30 LV VLPSO\ QRW VXSSRUWHG E\ 778¶V WHVWLQJ EHFDXVH 778 FRQFHGHG RQO\ DIWHU IROORZ XS LQTXLU\ WKDW LW GLG QRW HYHQ PHDVXUH 30 HPLVVLRQ OHYHOV IRU DQ\ RI WKH WHVW YHKLFOHV 5HFRQVLGHUDWLRQ 3HWLWLRQ ([KLELW $SSHQGL[ $ Id. DW ([KLELW SJ FRQFOXGLQJ WKDW ³JOLGHU NLW +'9V ZRXOG HPLW OHVV WKDQ RI WKH WRWDO 12[ DQG 30 HPLVVLRQV QRW IRU DOO &ODVV +'9V ´ ZLWKRXW SURYLGLQJ DQ\ XQGHUO\LQJ DQDO\VLV Id. DW SJ TXRWLQJ WKH 778 ILQGLQJ RQ 12[ DQG 30 Id. DW ([KLELW $SSHQGL[ $ (3$ 778 0HPR DW ³778 VWDWHG WKDW QR SDUWLFXODWH PDWWHU VDPSOHV ZHUH FROOHFWHG GXULQJ WHVWLQJ 7KH VDPSOH SUREH ILOWHU XVHG ZLWK WKH (QHUDF 0 ZDV YLVLEO\ LQVSHFWHG IRU SDUWLFXODWH PDWWHU 3DUWLFXODWH TXDQWLILFDWLRQ ZDV VXEMHFWLYH LQ WKDW LW ZDV YLVXDO RQO\ 778 VWDWHG WKDW WKH\ SHUIRUPHG D VPRNH WHVW EXW GLG QRW HODERUDWH ´ ,G 5HFRQVLGHUDWLRQ 3HWLWLRQ DW ([KLELW SJ )LQDOO\ WKH 778 OHWWHU LQGLFDWHG WKDW IRU 12[ ³DOO WHVWHG HQJLQHV ZHUH KLJKHU WKDQ WKH VWDQGDUG DQG UDQJHG IURP D ORZ RI WR D KLJK RI ´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³QRQH RI WKH YHKLFOHV PHW WKH VWDQGDUGV´ FDQQRW EH LQGHSHQGHQWO\ YHULILHG DQG WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK DQ\ WHVWHG HPLVVLRQV H[FHHGHG WKH VWDQGDUGV FDQQRW EH FDOFXODWHG IURP WKH ZKROO\ LQDGHTXDWH LQIRUPDWLRQ LW KDV SURYLGHG LL 7KH 778 6WXG\¶V &RQFOXVLRQV DUH 1RW 6XSSRUWHG E\ ,WV 2ZQ 7HVW 5HVXOWV 778 UHDFKHG WKH IROORZLQJ FRQFOXVLRQV ³RSWLPL]HG DQG UHPDQXIDFWXUHG HQJLQHV DQG 2(0 µFHUWLILHG¶ HQJLQHV SHUIRUPHG HTXDOO\ DV ZHOO DQG LQ VRPH LQVWDQFHV RXW SHUIRUPHG WKH 2(0 HQJLQHV ´ ³D JOLGHU UHPDQXIDFWXUHG HQJLQH DFKLHYHG WKH EHVW UHVXOW RI DQ\ HQJLQH WHVWHG VHH $SSHQGL[ $ ´ DQG ³ UHPDQXIDFWXUHG DQG 2(0 HQJLQHV H[SHULHQFH SDUDOOHO GHFOLQH LQ HPLVVLRQV HIILFLHQF\ ZLWK LQFUHDVHG PLOHDJH ´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² WKH RQHV FUHDWLQJ WKH PDQLIHVW SXEOLF KHDOWK KD]DUG ² DUH 12[ DQG 30 7KXV 778¶V SURIIHUHG FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW D JOLGHU YHKLFOH DFKLHYHG ³WKH EHVW UHVXOW´²LI EDVHG RQ WKH &2 HPLVVLRQ UHVXOWV ZKLFK LV QHYHU FODULILHG²LV HQWLUHO\ PLVOHDGLQJ 6HFRQG WKH LPSOLFDWLRQ RI FRQFOXVLRQ DERYH LV WKDW WKH 0< JOLGHU YHKLFOHV KDYH WKH VDPH 12[ DQG 30 HPLVVLRQV DV ODWH PRGHO IXOO\ FRPSOLDQW YHKLFOHV 7KH SXEOLFO\ Id. DW ([KLELW $SSHQGL[ $ Id Id. DW Id. DW ([KLELW $SS $ (3$ 778 0HPR $OO RI WKH 2(0 WUXFNV OLVWHG LQ $SSHQGL[ $ RI 778¶V PHPR DUH HTXLSSHG ZLWK 'HWURLW 'LHVHO¶V '' HQJLQH Id. 6LQFH WKLV HQJLQH ZDV ILUVW LQWURGXFHG LQ see 'HWURLW 'LHVHO &RUSRUDWLRQ World-Class in Every Respect: Detroit Diesel DD15 Debuts 2FW available at KWWSV GHPDQGGHWURLW FRP RXU FRPSDQ\ PHGLD SUHVV UHOHDVHV GHWURLW GLHVHO FRUSRUDWLRQ GGF WR PDQXIDFWXUH DOO RI WKHVH WUXFNV VKRXOG EH LQVWDOOHG LQ SRVW 0< WUXFNV (VVHQWLDOO\ DOO WUXFNV DIWHU 0< DUH HTXLSSHG ZLWK SDUWLFXODWH WUDSV ZKLFK UHGXFH 30 HPLVVLRQV E\ PRUH WKDQ FRPSDUHG WR SUH WUXFNV See 8 6 (3$ 0HPRUDQGXP LQ 5HSRQVH WR DYDLODEOH LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLGHV QR HYLGHQFH WR VXEVWDQWLDWH WKLV FODLP $V GHVFULEHG DERYH 778 GLG QRW PHDVXUH 30 HPLVVLRQ OHYHOV IURP DQ\ RI WKH WUXFNV DQG FRQFHGHG WKDW DQ\ LQVSHFWLRQ ZDV ³VXEMHFWLYH´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³2(0´ YHKLFOHV ³GHFOLQH LQ HPLVVLRQ HIILFLHQF\´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¶V VWXG\ SURYLGHV QR LQGLFDWLRQ WKDW 778 SHUIRUPHG WKLV W\SH RI WHVWLQJ 7KH UHFRUG WKXV GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW WKH 778 VWXG\ GRHV QRW VXSSRUW DQ\ FRQFOXVLRQV UHODWHG WR WKH 12[ DQG 30 HPLVVLRQ LPSDFWV RI JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DQG HQJLQHV ,WV VXPPDU\ RI WKH WHVWLQJ GRHV QRW SURYLGH D VXIILFLHQW OHYHO RI GHWDLO WR DOORZ DQ LQGHSHQGHQW UHYLHZ DQG YDOLGDWLRQ RI 778¶V 3HWLWLRQ IRU 5XOHPDNLQJ WR $GRSW 8OWUD /RZ 12[ 6WDQGDUGV IRU 2Q +LJKZD\ +HDY\ 'XW\ 7UXFNV DQG (QJLQHV DW 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ HSD JRY VLWHV SURGXFWLRQ ILOHV GRFXPHQWV QR[ PHPRUDQGXP QR[ SHWLWLRQ UHVSRQVH SGI 6LPLODUO\ 0< DQG ODWHU WUXFNV DUH HTXLSSHG ZLWK 12[ DIWHUWUHDWPHQW ZKLFK UHGXFHV 12[ HPLVVLRQV E\ RU PRUH FRPSDUHG WR SUH WUXFNV Id. See &)5 SDUW &)5 SDUW &)5 SDUW See also (3$ 9HKLFOH DQG )XHO (PLVVLRQV 7HVWLQJ '\QDPRPHWHU 'ULYH 6FKHGXOHV KWWSV ZZZ HSD JRY YHKLFOH DQG IXHO HPLVVLRQV WHVWLQJ G\QDPRPHWHU GULYH VFKHGXOHV ODVW YLVLWHG -DQ (3$ 778 PHPR DW DQG $WWDFKPHQW % Id. DW S DQG $WWDFKPHQW % FRQFOXVLRQV 7KH HYLGHQFH LQ WKH UHFRUG GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW 778¶V WHVW SURJUDP GLG QRW FRQIRUP WR ZHOO HVWDEOLVKHG DQG VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVWLQJ SURWRFROV DQG PHWKRGV 778 GLG QRW PHDVXUH 30 HPLVVLRQV DQG WKH FRQFOXVLRQV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG LQ DQ LQDSSURSULDWH PDQQHU $V GLVFXVVHG LQ 6HFWLRQ I LLL EHORZ VXEVHTXHQW IROORZ XS ZLWK 778 GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW WKH )LW]JHUDOG WHVW IDFLOLW\ LV QRW SURSHUO\ FRQILJXUHG WR HQDEOH FRPSOLDQFH ZLWK RIILFLDO (3$ KHDY\ GXW\ WHVW SURFHGXUHV $OVR WKH IDFW WKDW 778¶V VWXG\ ZDV IXQGHG E\ D JOLGHU PDQXIDFWXUHU )LW]JHUDOG *OLGHU .LWV DQG 778 XVHG D )LW]JHUDOG WHVW IDFLOLW\ UDLVHV D FOHDU DSSHDUDQFH RI FRQIOLFW RI LQWHUHVW DV GLVFXVVHG IXUWKHU EHORZ LQ 6HFWLRQ I LY )RU WKHVH UHDVRQV LW ZRXOG EH DUELWUDU\ DQG FDSULFLRXV IRU WKH $JHQF\ WR UHO\ RQ WKH 778 UHSRUW WR VXSSRUW LWV 3URSRVHG 5XOH RU DQ\ IXWXUH GHOLEHUDWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DQG HQJLQHV LLL (3$¶V 2ZQ 0HPRUDQGXP DQG 6WXG\ )XUWKHU &RQWUDGLFW 778¶V &RQFOXVLRQV (3$ LQFOXGHG LQ WKH GRFNHW D PHPR IURP DJHQF\ VWDII ZKLFK GHVFULEHG D WHOHSKRQH PHHWLQJ ZLWK UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV IURP 778 WR GLVFXVV WKH 778 WHVW SURJUDP 7KH PHPR LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKH WHVWLQJ ZDV FRQGXFWHG DW D )LW]JHUDOG IDFLOLW\ ORFDWHG LQ 5LFNPDQ 7HQQHVVHH DQG SHUIRUPHG E\ 778 VWDII DQG VWXGHQWV %DVHG RQ )LW]JHUDOG¶V ZHEVLWH WKLV IDFLOLW\ LV D ³FROOLVLRQ DQG UHSDLU IDFLOLW\ ´ %DVHG RQ SXEOLFO\ DYDLODEOH LQIRUPDWLRQ WKLV IDFLOLW\ GRHV QRW DSSHDU WR EH HTXLSSHG WR FRQGXFW WHVWLQJ LQ FRQIRUPLW\ ZLWK (3$ HVWDEOLVKHG DQG VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVW PHWKRGV DQG SURFHGXUHV IRU HPLVVLRQ WHVWLQJ KHDY\ GXW\ WUXFNV ZKLFK ZHUH GHYHORSHG WR PLUURU WUXH LQ XVH RSHUDWLRQ (3$¶V PHPR LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKH IDFLOLW\ WHVW HTXLSPHQW DQG WHVW SURFHGXUHV XVHG E\ 778 ZHUH QRW FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK ZKDW ZRXOG EH UHTXLUHG WR FRPSO\ ZLWK (3$¶V ZHOO HVWDEOLVKHG FHUWLILFDWLRQ TXDOLW\ HPLVVLRQ WHVWLQJ SURWRFROV ZKLFK DUH LQ ZLGHVSUHDG XVH LQ WKH HPLVVLRQ FKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQ WHVWLQJ DQG HYDOXDWLRQ ILHOG )RU H[DPSOH WKH KDQGKHOG HPLVVLRQ DQDO\]HU (QHUDF XVHG E\ 778 WR PHDVXUH HPLVVLRQV LV QRW DQ DSSURYHG DQDO\WLFDO WHFKQLTXH XQGHU (3$¶V UHJXODWLRQV DQG WKH UHVROXWLRQ DQG DFFXUDF\ VSHFLILFDWLRQV OLVWHG LQ WKH (QHUDF¶V RZQ GRFXPHQWDWLRQ GRHV QRW PHHW WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV DV VSHFLILHG LQ (3$¶V WHVWLQJ UHJXODWLRQV 7KH (3$ VWDII PHPR IXUWKHU FRQILUPV WKDW 778 GLG QRW HYHQ PHDVXUH RQH RI WKH FULWLFDO SROOXWDQWV LQ TXHVWLRQ SDUWLFXODWH PDWWHU 7KH (3$ PHPR SURYLGHV DGGLWLRQDO HYLGHQFH WKDW WKH 778 ZRUN LV LQDGHTXDWH DQG KLJKOLJKWV VRPH RI WKH DERYH GHVFULEHG GHILFLHQFLHV RI WKH 778 VWXG\ $V GHVFULEHG DERYH (3$ DOVR LQFOXGHG LQ WKH GRFNHW D VWDII WHFKQLFDO UHSRUW WKDW VXPPDUL]HG LQ GHWDLO WKH UHVXOWV IURP (3$¶V RZQ HPLVVLRQ WHVWLQJ RI WZR JOLGHU YHKLFOHV HTXLSSHG ZLWK UHPDQXIDFWXUHG GLHVHO HQJLQHV RULJLQDOO\ FHUWLILHG LQ PRGHO \HDUV WR ,Q FRQWUDVW WR (3$ 778 0HPR KWWSV ILW]JHUDOGFROOLVLRQ FRP IUHLJKWOLQHU IDFLOLW\ See &)5 SDUW &)5 SDUW &)5 SDUW See also (3$ 9HKLFOH DQG )XHO (PLVVLRQV 7HVWLQJ '\QDPRPHWHU 'ULYH 6FKHGXOHV KWWSV ZZZ HSD JRY YHKLFOH DQG IXHO HPLVVLRQV WHVWLQJ G\QDPRPHWHU GULYH VFKHGXOHV ODVW YLVLWHG -DQ 1DWLRQDO 5HQHZDEOH (QHUJ\ /DERUDWRU\ 'ULYH &\FOH $QDO\VLV 7RRO ± 'ULYH&$7 KWWSV ZZZ QUHO JRY WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ GULYH F\FOH WRRO ODVW YLVLWHG -DQ 6HH &)5 SDUW &)5 SDUW 6HH &)5 SDUW (3$ 778 PHPR $WWDFKPHQW RQ (QHUDF 8 6 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF\ &KDVVLV '\QDPRPHWHU 7HVWLQJ RI 7ZR 5HFHQW 0RGHO (3$ UHSHDOV WKH JOLGHU SURYLVLRQV@ RXU ORVW VDOHV WR *OLGHU .LWV HDFK 0RQWK FRXOG JURZ IURP WKH LW LV WRGD\ WR ZKDW FRXOG EH ´ See, e.g. 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 0LFKDHO 3 0F0DKRQ 0F0DKRQ 7UXFN &HQWHUV 'RFNHW ,' 1R (3$ +4 2$5 'HF DYDLODEOH DW KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 ³:H HVWLPDWH ORVLQJ DSSUR[LPDWHO\ RI RXU DQQXDO 1HZ 7UXFN UHWDLO YROXPH WR *OLGHU .LWV ´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¶V²XQGHUVFRULQJ WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOHV FRXOG FRQWLQXH WR LQFUHDVH DV D IUDFWLRQ RI WKH RQ URDG IOHHW IRU GHFDGHV 7KH JUDSK EHORZ VKRZV WKHVH WZR VDOHV VFHQDULRV FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKH SURMHFWLRQ XVHG E\ (3$ *OLGHU 3URGXFWLRQ 3URMHFWLRQV $EVHQW (3$ *OLGHU 3URYLVLRQV 8QLWV 0RGHO (3$ UHSHDOV WKH JOLGHU SURYLVLRQV@ RXU ORVW VDOHV WR *OLGHU .LWV HDFK 0RQWK FRXOG JURZ IURP WKH LW LV WRGD\ WR ZKDW FRXOG EH ´ 6HH GLVFXVVLRQ LQ 6HFWLRQ 9,, )HG 5HJ DW 2FWREHU 3URSRVHG +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ -XO\ (3$ )LQDO 5XOH (PLVVLRQV &RQWURO $LU 3ROOXWLRQ )URP DQG /DWHU 0RGHO D@ JRRG UHJXODWRU\ DQDO\VLV LV GHVLJQHG WR LQIRUP WKH SXEOLF DQG RWKHU SDUWV RI WKH *RYHUQPHQW DV ZHOO DV WKH DJHQF\ FRQGXFWLQJ WKH DQDO\VLV RI WKH HIIHFWV RI DOWHUQDWLYH DFWLRQV ´ $V H[SODLQHG LQ (3$ WHFKQLFDO JXLGDQFH DW PLQLPXP D VXIILFLHQW HQYLURQPHQWDO MXVWLFH DVVHVVPHQW IURP (3$ ZRXOG DVN DQG DGGUHVV ³$UH WKHUH SRWHQWLDO (- FRQFHUQV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK HQYLURQPHQWDO VWUHVVRUV DIIHFWHG E\ WKH UHJXODWRU\ DFWLRQ IRU SRSXODWLRQ JURXSV RI FRQFHUQ LQ WKH EDVHOLQH"´ ³$UH WKHUH SRWHQWLDO (- FRQFHUQV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK HQYLURQPHQWDO VWUHVVRUV DIIHFWHG E\ WKH UHJXODWRU\ DFWLRQ IRU SRSXODWLRQ JURXSV RI FRQFHUQ IRU WKH UHJXODWRU\ RSWLRQ V XQGHU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ"´ DQG ³)RU WKH UHJXODWRU\ RSWLRQ V XQGHU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ DUH SRWHQWLDO (- FRQFHUQV FUHDWHG RU PLWLJDWHG FRPSDUHG WR WKH EDVHOLQH"´ 7KH 3URSRVDO 5XOH FRQFHGHV WKDW (3$ KDV QRW HYDOXDWHG WKLV W\SH RI FOHDUO\ UHOHYDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ (QYLURQPHQWDO MXVWLFH FRPPXQLWLHV DOUHDG\ IDFH DGGLWLRQDO EDUULHUV WR SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ DJHQF\ UXOHPDNLQJ SURFHVVHV²VXFK DV IDFLQJ ODQJXDJH DQG FXOWXUDO GLIIHUHQFHV ODFNLQJ QRWLFH DERXW WKHLU UROH DV VWDNHKROGHUV LQ DJHQF\ DFWLRQV DQG ODFNLQJ WHFKQLFDO NQRZOHGJH DQG DVVLVWDQFH WR SDUWLFLSDWH HIIHFWLYHO\²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¶V DFWLRQV LV PLVVLQJ 7KLV RPLVVLRQ KDPSHUV WKH IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH JRDOV RI WKH SXEOLF FRPPHQW SHULRG DV ZHOO DV DWWDLQPHQW RI WKH HQYLURQPHQWDO MXVWLFH JRDO RI PHDQLQJIXO LQYROYHPHQW RI DOO SHRSOH ZKLFK (3$ KDV H[SODLQHG PHDQV ³3HRSOH KDYH DQ RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ GHFLVLRQV DERXW DFWLYLWLHV WKDW PD\ DIIHFW WKHLU HQYLURQPHQW DQG RU KHDOWK ´ ³>W@KH SXEOLF¶V FRQWULEXWLRQ FDQ LQIOXHQFH WKH UHJXODWRU\ DJHQF\¶V GHFLVLRQ ´ ³>F@RPPXQLW\ FRQFHUQV ZLOO EH FRQVLGHUHG LQ WKH GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ SURFHVV ´ DQG ³>G@HFLVLRQ PDNHUV ZLOO VHHN RXW DQG IDFLOLWDWH WKH LQYROYHPHQW RI WKRVH SRWHQWLDOO\ DIIHFWHG ´ 7KHVH EDUULHUV WR SDUWLFLSDWLRQ DUH H[DFHUEDWHG E\ WKH OLPLWHG ZLQGRZ WKDW WKH DJHQF\ KDV SURYLGHG IRU SXEOLF LQSXW RQ WKLV SURSRVDO 6HH 6HFWLRQ 9,,, b. The Proposal will disproportionately impact environmental justice communities and children. 20% &LUFXODU $ 6HSW (3$ Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Actions DW KWWSV ZZZ HSD JRY VLWHV SURGXFWLRQ ILOHV GRFXPHQWV HMWJB B B BY SGI See, 1(-$& Model Guidelines for Public Participation DW KWWSV ZZZ HSD JRY VLWHV SURGXFWLRQ ILOHV GRFXPHQWV UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV PRGHO JXLGH SS SGI (3$ Learn About Environmental Justice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³KRPHV ZLWK D QRQZKLWH KRXVHKROGHU ZHUH ± SHUFHQW PRUH OLNHO\ WR EH ORFDWHG ZLWKLQ IHHW RI WKHVH ODUJH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ IDFLOLWLHV WKDQ KRPHV ZLWK ZKLWH KRXVHKROGHUV ´ ³>K@RPHV ZLWK D +LVSDQLF KRXVHKROGHU ZHUH ± SHUFHQW PRUH OLNHO\ WR EH ORFDWHG ZLWKLQ IHHW RI WKHVH ODUJH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ IDFLOLWLHV WKDQ KRPHV ZLWK QRQ +LVSDQLF KRXVHKROGHUV ´ DQG DGGLWLRQDOO\ ³>K@RXVHKROGV QHDU ODUJH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ IDFLOLWLHV ZHUH RQ DYHUDJH ORZHU LQ LQFRPH DQG HGXFDWLRQDO DWWDLQPHQW ´ 7KLV SURSRVDO DOVR VHULRXVO\ LPSDFWV VFKRRO FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GLVSURSRUWLRQDWH DGYHUVH LPSDFWV WR ORZ LQFRPH VWXGHQWV DQG VWXGHQWV RI FRORU 2XW RI D WRWDO RI DERXW PLOOLRQ VWXGHQWV DWWHQGLQJ . VFKRRO PLOOLRQ VWXGHQWV DWWHQG VFKRRO ZLWKLQ PHWHUV RI D SULPDU\ RU VHFRQGDU\ URDGZD\ DQG QHDUO\ PLOOLRQ VWXGHQWV DWWHQG VFKRRO ZLWKLQ PHWHUV RI D SULPDU\ URDGZD\ (3$ KDV IRXQG WKDW ³PLQRULW\ VWXGHQWV ZHUH RYHUUHSUHVHQWHG DW VFKRROV ZLWKLQ PHWHUV RI WKH ODUJHVW URDGZD\V DQG WKDW VFKRROV ZLWKLQ PHWHUV RI WKH ODUJHVW URDGZD\V DOVR KDG KLJKHU WKDQ H[SHFWHG QXPEHUV RI VWXGHQWV HOLJLEOH IRU IUHH RU UHGXFHG SULFH OXQFKHV ´ (3$ FRQFOXGHG LQ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV WKDW ³WKHUH LV VXEVWDQWLDO HYLGHQFH WKDW SHRSOH ZKR OLYH RU DWWHQG VFKRRO QHDU PDMRU URDGZD\V DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR EH RI D PLQRULW\ UDFH +LVSDQLF HWKQLFLW\ DQG RU ORZ 6(6 >VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV@ 7KH HPLVVLRQ UHGXFWLRQV IURP WKHVH ILQDO UXOHV ZLOO OLNHO\ UHVXOW LQ ZLGHVSUHDG DLU TXDOLW\ LPSURYHPHQWV EXW WKH LPSDFW RQ SROOXWLRQ OHYHOV LQ FORVH SUR[LPLW\ WR URDGZD\V ZLOO EH PRVW GLUHFW 7KXV WKHVH ILQDO UXOHV ZLOO OLNHO\ KHOS LQ PLWLJDWLQJ WKH GLVSDULW\ LQ UDFLDO HWKQLF DQG HFRQRPLFDOO\ EDVHG H[SRVXUHV ´ 7KLV ODQJXDJH VXSSRUWV WKH QRWLRQ WKDW WKH SURSRVDO WR UHSHDO WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU JOLGHU YHKLFOHV ZLOO FRQWULEXWH WR WKH GLVSDULWLHV WKDW WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV ZRXOG KDYH DOOHYLDWHG LI OHIW LQWDFW /RZ LQFRPH FRPPXQLWLHV DQG FRPPXQLWLHV RI FRORU VLWHG QHDU URDGZD\V DQG SRUWV DUH WKXV GLVSURSRUWLRQDWHO\ H[SRVHG WR KDUPIXO GLHVHO SROOXWDQWV IRU ZKLFK WKLV SURSRVDO ZLOO XQGR SURWHFWLRQV 3HRSOH ZKR OLYH ZRUN RU DWWHQG VFKRRO QHDU KLJK WUDIILF URDGZD\V DUH PRUH (3$ Draft Environmental Justice Primer for Ports DW KWWSV QHSLV HSD JRY ([H =\3') FJL"'RFNH\ 3 2<*% SGI (3$ National Air Toxics Program: The Second Integrated Urban Air Toxics Report to Congress DW ³2YHU WZHQW\ PLOOLRQ 8 6 KRPHV DUH QHDU ODUJH URDGV UDLOURDGV DQG DLUSRUWV 3RSXODWLRQV LQ FORVH SUR[LPLW\ WR PDMRU URDGV DUH KLJKHU LQ PLQRULW\ DQG ORZ LQFRPH FRPSRVLWLRQ ´ +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW (3$ ³6FKRROV 1HDU 5RDGV $QDO\VLV IRU WKH 7LHU 1350 'RFNHW ´ 'RFNHW ,' 1R (3$ +4 2$5 see also $OH[DQGUD 6 $SSDWRYD HW DO Proximal exposure of public schools and students to major roadways: a nationwide US survey - (QYWO 3ODQ 0JPW S +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW 156 Id. VXVFHSWLEOH WR DGYHUVH KHDOWK HIIHFWV WKDQ SHRSOH ZKR GR QRW VSHQG VLJQLILFDQW DPRXQWV RI WLPH DURXQG PDMRU URDGV $FFRUGLQJ WR (3$¶V 8UEDQ $LU 7R[LFV 5HSRUW WR &RQJUHVV ³FRQFHQWUDWLRQV RI EHQ]HQH DOGHK\GHV 30 DQG PDQ\ RWKHU FRPSRXQGV DUH HOHYDWHG LQ DPELHQW DLU ZLWKLQ DSSUR[LPDWHO\ ဨ PHWHUV DERXW ဨ IHHW RI PDMRU URDGZD\V´ GXH WR PRWRU YHKLFOH HPLVVLRQV 7KH KHDOWK LPSDFWV IURP DLU SROOXWLRQ LQ SRUW FRPPXQLWLHV LQFOXGH ³ DJJUDYDWLRQ RI UHVSLUDWRU\ DQG FDUGLRYDVFXODU GLVHDVH GHFUHDVHG OXQJ IXQFWLRQ LQFUHDVHG IUHTXHQF\ DQG VHYHULW\ RI UHVSLUDWRU\ V\PSWRPV VXFK DV GLIILFXOW\ EUHDWKLQJ DQG FKURQLF FRXJKLQJ LQFUHDVHG VXVFHSWLELOLW\ WR UHVSLUDWRU\ LQIHFWLRQV HIIHFWV RQ WKH QHUYRXV V\VWHP LQFOXGLQJ WKH EUDLQ VXFK DV ,4 ORVV DQG LPSDFWV RQ OHDUQLQJ PHPRU\ DQG EHKDYLRU FDQFHU DQG SUHPDWXUH GHDWK ´ ([SRVXUH WR SROOXWLRQ IURP KHDY\ GXW\ YHKLFOHV KDV EHHQ OLQNHG E\ QXPHURXV VWXGLHV WR UHVSLUDWRU\ FRQGLWLRQV KHDUW DWWDFNV FDQFHU DGYHUVH SUHJQDQF\ DQG ELUWK RXWFRPHV SUHPDWXUH PRUWDOLW\ DQG UHGXFHG FRJQLWLYH IXQFWLRQ 2QH VWXG\ IRXQG ³VLJQLILFDQW HYLGHQFH RI DGYHUVH HIIHFWV UHODWHG WR H[SRVXUH WR 30 DQG R]RQH DW FRQFHQWUDWLRQV EHORZ FXUUHQW &RQWURO RI $LU 3ROOXWLRQ )URP 0RWRU 9HKLFOHV 7LHU 0RWRU 9HKLFOH (PLVVLRQ DQG )XHO 6WDQGDUGV 3URSRVHG 5XOH )HG 5HJ 0D\ (3$ National Air Toxics Program: The Second Integrated Urban Air Toxics Report to Congress DW (3$ Draft Environmental Justice Primer for Ports DW KWWSV QHSLV HSD JRY ([H =\3') FJL"'RFNH\ 3 2<*% SGI *DXGHUPDQ : - 9RUD + 0F&RQQHOO 5 %HUKDQH . *LOOLODQG ) 7KRPDV ' /XUPDQQ ) $YRO ( .XQ]OL 1 0 -HUUHWW HW DO (IIHFW RI H[SRVXUH WR WUDIILF RQ OXQJ GHYHORSPHQW IURP WR \HDUV RI DJH D FRKRUW VWXG\ /DQFHW 0F&RQQHOO 5 %HUKDQH . +HDY\ +HDY\ 'XW\ 'LHVHO 9HKLFOHV@ KDYH EHHQ UHGXFHG GUDPDWLFDOO\ DQG WKDW H[KDXVW IURP D FRPSOLDQW HQJLQH SURGXFHG QR WXPRUV RU SUHFDQFHURXV HIIHFWV LQ UDWV H[SRVHG RYHU WKHLU OLIHWLPH ´ 1RW RQO\ DUH ORZ LQFRPH SRSXODWLRQV DQG SRSXODWLRQV RI FRORU PRUH H[SRVHG WR WKHVH WR[LF DLU SROOXWDQWV EXW WKHVH H[SRVXUHV SRVH JUHDWHU KHDOWK ULVNV WR WKHP DV ZHOO :LWK UHJDUG WR SDUWLFXODWH PDWWHU IRU H[DPSOH ORZ LQFRPH SRSXODWLRQV ³KDYH EHHQ JHQHUDOO\ IRXQG WR KDYH D KLJKHU SUHYDOHQFH RI SUH H[LVWLQJ GLVHDVHV OLPLWHG DFFHVV WR PHGLFDO WUHDWPHQW DQG LQFUHDVHG QXWULWLRQDO GHILFLHQFLHV ZKLFK FDQ LQFUHDVH WKHLU ULVN RI SDUWLFOH SROOXWLRQ UHODWHG HIIHFWV ´ 7KH LPSDFW RI WKHVH FXPXODWLYH ULVNV PXVW EH WDNHQ LQWR DFFRXQW WR IXOO\ DSSUHFLDWH WKH LPSDFW RI WKLV SURSRVDO RQ HQYLURQPHQWDO MXVWLFH FRPPXQLWLHV 7DNH IRU LQVWDQFH MXVW WZR HQYLURQPHQWDO MXVWLFH FRPPXQLWLHV WKDW DUH EXUGHQHG E\ IUHLJKW WUXFN SROOXWLRQ IRU ZKLFK WKH 3URSRVHG 5HSHDO ZRXOG KDYH VLJQLILFDQW DGYHUVH KHDOWK LPSDFWV South Bronx, New York 7KH 6RXWK %URQ[ H[SHULHQFHV VLJQLILFDQW DPRXQWV RI IUHLJKW WUXFN WUDIILF IURP PXOWLSOH H[SUHVVZD\V FXWWLQJ WKURXJK WKH DUHD PRUH WKDQ D GR]HQ ZDVWH WUDQVIHU VWDWLRQV D VHZDJH WUHDWPHQW SODQW DQG DV WKH VLWH RI WKH +XQWV 3RLQW )RRG 0DUNHW ZKLFK VXSSOLHV RI 1HZ ORZ VRFLRHFRQRPLF@ SRSXODWLRQV LQ WKHVH DUHDV PD\ EH PRUH VXVFHSWLEOH WR WKH HIIHFWV RI DLU SROOXWLRQ´ &LW\ RI 1HZ JOLGHUV@ FRXOG ULYDO WKH HQWLUH 12[ EXGJHW IRU IRVVLO IXHO SRZHU SODQWV LQ VWDWHV FRYHUHG E\ WKH &URVV 6WDWH $LU 3ROOXWLRQ 5XOH 8SGDWH ´ 7DEOH ;; SURYLGHV D FRPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ WKH HPLVVLRQV UHGXFHG E\ WKH 3KDVH JOLGHU SURYLVLRQV DQG (3$¶V 7LHU PRWRU YHKLFOHV HPLVVLRQV VWDQGDUGV DV ZHOO DV DQ DSSUR[LPDWLRQ RI WKH FRVW RI FRPSOLDQFH SHU WRQ WR UHGXFH 12[ HPLVVLRQV IURP JOLGHU YHKLFOHV ZLWK WKH FRVW SHU WRQ WR UHGXFH WKHVH HPLVVLRQV XQGHU (3$¶V 7LHU VWDQGDUGV 7DEOH ;; &RPSDULVRQ 3KDVH *OLGHU 3URYLVLRQV DQG 7LHU 0RWRU 9HKLFOH (PLVVLRQ 6WDQGDUGV )/((7:,'( */,'(5 9(+,&/( (0,66,216 $%29( &21752/ /(9(/6 30 12[ (0,66,216 (0,66,216 5('8&7,216 5('8&7,216 >73<@ >73<@ 7216 ,1 7216 ,1 7216 ,1 7216 ,1 (67,0$7(' &2676 > 3(5 721@ 721 12; 10+& See 6HFWLRQ , See 6HFWLRQ , L 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 0LOHV .HRJK RQ EHKDOI RI WKH 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &OHDQ $LU $JHQFLHV 'RFNHW ,' 1R (3$ +4 2$5 'HF available at KWWS ZZZ FOHDQDLU RUJ VLWHV GHIDXOW ILOHV 'RFXPHQWV 1$&$$B7HVWLPRQ\ (3$B*OLGHUVB1350 SGI see also 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 3DXO )DUUHOO RQ EHKDOI RI &RQQHFWLFXW 'HSDUWPHQW RI (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ 'RFNHW ,' 1R (3$ +4 2$5 'HF ³DOORZLQJ WKLV UHSHDO ZLOO IUXVWUDWH &RQQHFWLFXW V DELOLW\ WR PHHW IHGHUDO DLU TXDOLW\ VWDQGDUGV´ available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 and 7HVWLPRQ\ RI :D\QH 1DVWUL RQ EHKDOI RI WKH 6RXWK &RDVW $LU 4XDOLW\ 0DQDJHPHQW 'LVWULFW 'RFNHW ,' 1R (3$ +4 2$5 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 ³UHSHDOLQJ WKH 3KDVH UXOH IRU JOLGHUV ZLOO VLJQLILFDQWO\ KDPSHU RXU DELOLW\ WR FOHDQ XS WKH DLU DQG DWWDLQ QDWLRQDO DPELHQW DLU TXDOLW\ VWDQGDUGV´ 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 6WHYH &OLII RQ EHKDOI RI WKH &DOLIRUQLD $LU 5HVRXUFHV %RDUG 'RFNHW ,' 1R (3$ +4 2$5 'HF available at KWWSV ZZ DUE FD JRY WHVWLPRQ\ RSSRVLQJ HSDV SURSRVHG UHSHDO HPLVVLRQ UHTXLUHPHQWV JOLGHU YHKLFOHV JOLGHU HQJLQHV DQG 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 0DWW 6RORPRQ RQ EHKDOI RI WKH 1RUWKHDVW 6WDWHV IRU &RRUGLQDWHG $LU 8VH 0DQDJHPHQW 'RFNHW ,' 1R (3$ +4 2$5 'HF available at KWWS ZZZ QHVFDXP RUJ LWHPV RI LQWHUHVW (3$ 7,(5 02725 9(+,&/( (0,66,21 $1' )8(/ 67$1'$5'6 7216 ,1 7216 ,1 7216 ,1 7216 ,1 721 12; ,1 721 12; ,1 7$%/( 127(6 (3$ *UHHQKRXVH *DV (PLVVLRQV DQG )XHO (IILFLHQF\ 6WDQGDUGV IRU 0HGLXP DQG +HDY\ 'XW\ (QJLQHV DQG 9HKLFOHV 3KDVH 5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQWV IRU -RLQW 5XOHPDNLQJ $XJ $SSHQGL[ $ S /RQJ WHUP GLVFRXQWHG OLIHWLPH FRVW HIIHFWLYHQHVV SHU WRQ IRU +HDY\ +'9 HQJLQH FRQWURO WHFKQRORJ\ IRU 0< See )HG 5HJ -DQXDU\ 7DEOH 9 ( DQG (3$ 5,$ +HDY\ 'XW\ (QJLQH DQG 9HKLFOH 6WDQGDUGV DQG +LJKZD\ 'LHVHO )XHO 6XOIXU &RQWURO 5HTXLUHPHQWV 'HFHPEHU S 9, (3$ &RQWURO RI $LU 3ROOXWLRQ IURP 0RWRU 9HKLFOHV 7LHU 0RWRU 9HKLFOH (PLVVLRQ DQG )XHO 6WDQGDUGV )LQDO 5XOH 5,$ (3$ 5 0DUFK S (6 (3$ &RQWURO RI $LU 3ROOXWLRQ IURP 0RWRU 9HKLFOHV 7LHU 0RWRU 9HKLFOH (PLVVLRQ DQG )XHO 6WDQGDUGV )LQDO 5XOH 5,$ 0DUFK S 7KH DJHQF\¶V VXJJHVWLRQ WKDW WKH SURSRVDO ZLOO QRW MHRSDUGL]H FKLOGUHQ¶V KHDOWK EHFDXVH WKH 1$$46 VWLOO DSSO\ IDLOV WR FRQVLGHU WKDW XQUHVWULFWHG JOLGHU YHKLFOH HPLVVLRQV ZLOO VHULRXVO\ XQGHUPLQH WKH DELOLW\ RI 6WDWHV WR DWWDLQ DQG PDLQWDLQ WKH 1$$46 PRUHRYHU (3$ KDV QR EDVLV IRU VXFK D FRQFOXVLRQ EHFDXVH LW QRW DQDO\]HG RU HYDOXDWHG WKLV LPSDFW ,W DOVR IDLOV WR UHIOHFW WKDW WKHUH DUH QR 1$$46 IRU WKH WR[LF DLU SROOXWDQWV WKDW FRPSULVH GLHVHO H[KDXVW RU IRU GLHVHO H[KDXVW LWVHOI²DQG WKXV WKH 1$$46 DUH LQKHUHQWO\ LQFDSDEOH RI SURWHFWLQJ DJDLQVW WKH IXOO VODWH RI KHDOWK ULVNV SRVHG E\ GLHVHO HPLVVLRQV ,Q DQ\ FDVH 7LWOH VWDQGV DV HYLGHQFH WKDW &RQJUHVV GLG QRW UHJDUG WKH 1$$46 DV DQ H[FXVH QRW WR FXUE GDQJHURXV YHKLFXODU HPLVVLRQV EXW VDZ FRQWURO RI PRWRU YHKLFOH SROOXWLRQ DV D FULWLFDO HOHPHQW RI DQ RYHUDOO SURJUDP WR DGGUHVV KDUPIXO DLU SROOXWLRQ 6WDWH DLU TXDOLW\ RIILFLDOV ZLOO IDFH DGGLWLRQDO SROOXWLRQ IURP (3$¶V 3URSRVHG 5XOH WKDW ZLOO PDNH LW PRUH FKDOOHQJLQJ IRU VWDWHV WR PHHW KHDOWK EDVHG R]RQH DQG 30 VWDQGDUGV DQG PRUH FRVWO\ (3$ KDV IDLOHG WR FRQVLGHU PDQ\ LPSRUWDQW LVVXHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK 1$$46 FRPSOLDQFH PXFK OHVV DGGUHVV WKHP LQ D PHDQLQJIXO ZD\ UHQGHULQJ WKH SURSRVDO ERWK VXEVWDQWLYHO\ DQG SURFHGXUDOO\ XQODZIXO 3URSRVHG 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW See supra 6HFWLRQ ,,, See, e.g. 6 5HS 1R DW ³7KH FRPPLWWHH EHOLHYHV WKDW WKLV OHJLVODWLRQ LV HVVHQWLDO LI ZH DUH WR VXFFHVVIXOO\ FRPEDW WKH DLU SROOXWLRQ SUREOHPV SUHVHQW DW WKLV WLPH DQG WKRVH ZKLFK LQHYLWDEO\ RFFXU XQOHVV HDUO\ FRUUHFWLYH DFWLRQ LV WDNHQ $XWRPRWLYH H[KDXVWV DUH QRW WKH RQO\ VRXUFH RI DLU SROOXWLRQ EXW WKH\ DUH D PDMRU SUREOHP DQG WKH\ DUH LQFUHDVLQJ UDSLGO\ ´ 6HH 6HFWLRQV 9 DQG 9,, 9 (3$ KDV &OHDU /HJDO $XWKRULW\ XQGHU WKH &$$ WR 5HJXODWH *OLGHU 9HKLFOHV (3$¶V SURSRVDO UHVWV HQWLUHO\ RQ WKH GHHSO\ PLVWDNHQ OHJDO DUJXPHQW WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DUH QRW ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOHV´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¶V DVVHVVPHQW RI LWV VWDWXWRU\ DXWKRULWLHV DEDQGRQV UHDVRQHG VWDWXWRU\ FRQVWUXFWLRQ DQG LJQRUHV WKH KHDOWK SURWHFWLYH SXUSRVH RI WKH &$$ a. EPA Clearly Has Authority to Regulate Glider Vehicles as New Motor Vehicles. 7KH 3URSRVHG 5XOH GHVSLWH REYLRXVO\ VLJQLILFDQW SXEOLF KHDOWK DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO LPSDFWV LV JURXQGHG QRW RQ DQ DQDO\VLV RI JOLGHU YHKLFOH HPLVVLRQV EXW LQVWHDG LV EDVHG VROHO\ RQ D QHZ OHJDO LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH VWDWXWH FRQFOXGLQJ WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DUH QRW ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOHV´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³1HZ 0RWRU 9HKLFOHV´ XQGHU WKH 8QDPELJXRXV 7HUPV RI WKH 6WDWXWH 7KH RQO\ UHDVRQDEOH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI 6HFWLRQ D RI WKH &$$ LV WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DUH ³QHZ´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³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH´ DV ³D PRWRU YHKLFOH WKH HTXLWDEOH RU OHJDO WLWOH WR ZKLFK KDV QHYHU EHHQ WUDQVIHUUHG WR DQ XOWLPDWH SXUFKDVHU ´ $ JOLGHU YHKLFOH FOHDUO\ PHHWV WKLV GHILQLWLRQ DV (3$ FRQFOXGHG LQ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV LW LV D PRWRU YHKLFOH WKH SXUFKDVHU WDNHV LQLWLDO WLWOH JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DUH H[SOLFLWO\ DGYHUWLVHG DV ³EUDQG QHZ´ WUXFNV 8 6 & † D 8 6 & † WRJHWKHU ZLWK FRPSOHPHQWDU\ IHDWXUHV OLNH ZDUUDQWLHV ,Q WKH 3URSRVHG 5XOH WKH DJHQF\ RIIHUV QR VXEVWDQWLDWLRQ WR UHEXW DQ\ RI WKH DJHQF\¶V SULRU IDFWXDO ILQGLQJV DQG DFFRUGLQJO\ IDLOV WR MXVWLI\ LWV QHZ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ 6HFWLRQ DOVR GHILQHV ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH HQJLQH´ DV ³an engine in a new motor vehicle RU D PRWRU YHKLFOH HQJLQH WKH HTXLWDEOH RU OHJDO WLWOH WR ZKLFK KDV QHYHU EHHQ WUDQVIHUUHG WR WKH XOWLPDWH SXUFKDVHU ´ 7KH GHILQLWLRQ LV FOHDU WKDW D QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH PD\ LQFOXGH D XVHG HQJLQH 6HFWLRQ DOVR PDNHV FOHDU WKDW WKH GHILQLWLRQV RI ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH´ DQG ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH HQJLQH´ FRYHU DOO LPSRUWHG YHKLFOHV DQG HQJLQHV ZLWKRXW GLVWLQJXLVKLQJ EHWZHHQ QHZ DQG XVHG YHKLFOHV DQG DFFRUGLQJO\ FOHDUO\ LQFOXGHV XVHG YHKLFOHV 2Q LWV IDFH WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH LV FRQVHTXHQWO\ QRW OLPLWHG WR YHKLFOHV WKDW KDYH RQO\ QHZ FRPSRQHQWV DQG QR XVHG FRPSRQHQWV 7KLV VWUDLJKWIRUZDUG DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH GHILQLWLRQV RI QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH DQG QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH HQJLQH WR JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DQG JOLGHU YHKLFOH HQJLQHV LV WKH RQO\ FRUUHFW LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ 1RWKLQJ LQ 6HFWLRQ ¶V FULWHULRQ UHJDUGLQJ SDVVDJH RI WLWOH WR WKH XOWLPDWH FRQVXPHU PDNHV DQ\ UHIHUHQFH WR ZKHWKHU WKH FRPSRQHQWV RI WKH YHKLFOH DUH QHZ RU XVHG 7KH FULWHULRQ LV VLPSO\ SDVVDJH RI WLWOH ZLWK QR RWKHU OLPLWDWLRQ RQ WKH KLVWRU\ RI WKH FRPSRQHQWV SULRU WR SDVVDJH RI WLWOH :KHUH QR XOWLPDWH FRQVXPHU KDV HYHU KDG WLWOH WR WKH YHKLFOH²DV LV WKH FDVH IRU JOLGHU YHKLFOHV²WKH YHKLFOH LV D ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH´ XQGHU WKH FOHDU WHUPV RI WKH &OHDQ $LU $FW ,Q LWV 3URSRVHG 5XOH (3$ LWVHOI DGPLWV WKDW WKH SODLQ ODQJXDJH RI WKH VWDWXWH VXSSRUWV UHJXODWLRQ RI JOLGHUV DV QHZ YHKLFOHV 7KLV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ DFFRUGV ZLWK FRPPHUFLDO UHDOLW\ *OLGHU YHKLFOHV DUH PDUNHWHG DV ³EUDQG QHZ WUXFNV ´ &RPSDUDEOH ZDUUDQWLHV DQG SULFHV DUH RIIHUHG IRU JOLGHU YHKLFOHV 7KH\ DUH WLWOHG DV QHZ YHKLFOHV DQG FRPH ZLWK QHZ YHKLFOH ,' QXPEHUV 7KH\ DUH DGYHUWLVHG XQGHU WKH QDPH RI WKH NLW EXLOGHU ² DQG VR EHDU WKH QHZ WUXFN QDPH 6HH VHFWLRQ K DERYH 0RUHRYHU WKLV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI VHFWLRQ D ¶V DSSOLFDWLRQ WR JOLGHU YHKLFOHV FOHDUO\ SURPRWHV WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKH &OHDQ $LU $FW DQG LWV 7LWOH SURYLVLRQV 7KH &OHDQ $LU $FW¶V SXUSRVH LV WKH ³UHGXFWLRQ RU HOLPLQDWLRQ´ RI SROOXWDQWV DW WKH VRXUFH 8QGHU 7LWOH &RQJUHVV DXWKRUL]HG (3$ WR HVWDEOLVK D QDWLRQDO PRWRU YHKLFOH FRQWURO SURJUDP WR SURWHFW WKH SXEOLF IURP WKH VHULRXV DQG ZLGHVSUHDG SUREOHPV RI PRWRU YHKLFOH DLU SROOXWLRQ &RQJUHVV UHFRJQL]HG PRWRU YHKLFOHV DV PDMRU FRQWULEXWRUV WR WKH 1DWLRQ¶V DLU SROOXWLRQ SUREOHPV DQG SURYLGHG EURDG IOH[LEOH DQG FRPSUHKHQVLYH DXWKRULWLHV WR (3$ WR GHYHORS D QDWLRQDO SURJUDP WR DGGUHVV DLU +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW DQG Q see also 6HFWLRQ K Cf. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. 8 6 :KHQ DQ DJHQF\¶V ³QHZ SROLF\ UHVWV XSRQ IDFWXDO ILQGLQJV WKDW FRQWUDGLFW WKRVH ZKLFK XQGHUOD\ LWV SULRU SROLF\ ´ WKH DJHQF\ PXVW ³SURYLGH D PRUH GHWDLOHG MXVWLILFDWLRQ WKDQ ZKDW ZRXOG VXIILFH IRU D QHZ SROLF\ FUHDWHG RQ D EODQN VODWH ´ 8 6 & † HPSKDVLV DGGHG (3$¶V FXUUHQW DUJXPHQWV WR WKH FRQWUDU\ DUWLFXODWHG LQ WKH 3URSRVHG 5XOH DUH ZLWKRXW PHULW DV GLVFXVVHG EHORZ LQ 6HFWLRQ 9 E )HG 5HJ DW ³)RFXVLQJ VROHO\ RQ WKH VWDWXWRU\ GHILQLWLRQ D JOLGHU YHKLFOH ZRXOG DSSHDU WR TXDOLW\ DV µQHZ ¶´ 8 6 & † D 8 6 & † D SROOXWLRQ IURP YHKLFOHV 6HFWLRQ D PDQGDWHV WKDW WKH (3$ $GPLQLVWUDWRU ³VKDOO´ SURPXOJDWH VWDQGDUGV DSSOLFDEOH WR WKH HPLVVLRQ RI ³any DLU SROOXWDQW´ IURP QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOHV DQG HQJLQHV ZKLFK ³FDXVH or contribute to´ DLU SROOXWLRQ ZKLFK ³may reasonably be anticipated WR HQGDQJHU SXEOLF KHDOWK RU ZHOIDUH ´ 7KH WH[W RI WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH UHIOHFWV WKH EURDG VFRSH RI YHKLFOHV VXEMHFW WR (3$ VWDQGDUG VHWWLQJ DQG WKH VWDQGDUG VHWWLQJ SURYLVLRQV RI VHFWLRQ UHIOHFW WKH IOH[LELOLW\ SURYLGHG WR (3$ WR GHYHORS DSSURSULDWH VROXWLRQV WR WKLV GLYHUVH DQG PXOWL IDFHWHG VRXUFH RI DLU SROOXWLRQ (3$¶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¶ FOHDU LQWHQWLRQ DQG IXUWKHUV WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKH $FW 7KHUHIRUH (3$ KDV D GXW\ WR HVWDEOLVK SROOXWLRQ FRQWURO OLPLWV IRU JOLGHU YHKLFOHV XQGHU VHFWLRQ D RI WKH $FW b. The Proposed Rule’s new interpretation of section 202(a)(1) is unreasonable and impermissible. (YHQ LI WKH VWDWXWRU\ WH[W GLG QRW FRPSOHWHO\ UHVROYH WKH LVVXH (3$¶V SURSRVHG LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV XQUHDVRQDEOH DQG LPSHUPLVVLEOH 7KH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ IOLHV LQ WKH IDFH RI FOHDU VWDWXWRU\ WH[W VWUXFWXUH DQG SXUSRVH DWWHPSWV WR PDQXIDFWXUH DPELJXLW\ ZKHUH WKHUH LV QRQH DQG LV XQODZIXO (3$¶V QHZ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH VWDWXWRU\ WH[W²WKDW JOLGHU NLWV GR QRW TXDOLI\ DV ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOHV´² LV IXQGDPHQWDOO\ DW RGGV ZLWK WKH FOHDU WH[W RI SHUWLQHQW SURYLVLRQV DQG ZLWK WKH SXUSRVH RI WKH VWDWXWH DV ZHOO DV WKH &OHDQ $LU $FW¶V SXUSRVHV DQG VWUXFWXUH :KLOH GLVUHJDUGLQJ WKH VWDWXWH¶V SXUSRVH DQG VWUXFWXUH (3$ UHOLHV RQ XQIRXQGHG DQG LOORJLFDO VWDWXWRU\ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ DUJXPHQWV DWWHPSWLQJ WR MXVWLI\ WKH 3URSRVHG 5XOH ZLWK WZR WKHRULHV &RQJUHVV LQ GHILQLQJ ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH´ IRU SXUSRVHV RI 7LWOH GLG QRW KDYH ³D VSHFLILF LQWHQW WR LQFOXGH ZLWKLQ WKH VWDWXWRU\ GHILQLWLRQ VXFK D WKLQJ DV D JOLGHU YHKLFOH´ DQG LQ DGRSWLQJ D GHILQLWLRQ RI ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH´ IRU SXUSRVHV RI WKH &OHDQ $LU $FW &RQJUHVV GUHZ RQ WKH DSSURDFK LW KDG WDNHQ ZLWK WKH $XWRPRELOH ,QIRUPDWLRQ 'LVFORVXUH $FW RI ³$,'$´ VXJJHVWLQJ &RQJUHVV LQWHQGHG IRU SXUSRVHV RI 7LWOH WKDW ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH´ ZRXOG PHDQ RQO\ D ³VKRZURRP QHZ´ 8 6 & † D see also Coal. for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency ) G ' & &LU ³,I (3$ PDNHV D ILQGLQJ RI HQGDQJHUPHQW WKH &OHDQ $LU $FW UHTXLUHV WKH >D@JHQF\ WR UHJXODWH HPLVVLRQV RI WKH GHOHWHULRXV SROOXWDQW IURP QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOHV ´ TXRWLQJ Mass. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency 8 6 See, e.g., Council for Urological Interests v. Burwell ) G ' & &LU ³:H EHJLQ DV DOZD\V ZLWK WKH SODLQ ODQJXDJH RI WKH VWDWXWH LQ TXHVWLRQ ´ NRDC v. Browner ) G ' & &LU ³:KHUH WKH WHUPV RI D VWDWXWH DUH XQDPELJXRXV IXUWKHU MXGLFLDO LQTXLU\ LQWR WKH LQWHQW RI WKH GUDIWHUV LV JHQHUDOO\ XQQHFHVVDU\ ´ 3URSRVHG 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW YHKLFOH 7KHVH QRWLRQV DUH XQVXEVWDQWLDWHG DQG IDLO WR UDWLRQDOL]H (3$¶V LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI 6HFWLRQ D WR H[FOXGH JOLGHU YHKLFOHV L (3$¶V QHZ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV DW RGGV ZLWK WKH VWDWXWRU\ GHILQLWLRQ RI ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH´ 7KH 3URSRVHG 5XOH FRQFOXGHV WKDW WKH SKUDVH ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH´ DV DSSOLHG XQGHU VHFWLRQ D GRHV QRW LQFOXGH JOLGHU YHKLFOHV EHFDXVH LW FRQWDLQV DQ HQJLQH DQG SRZHU WUDLQ WKDW DUH SUHYLRXVO\ RZQHG DQG WKDW D JOLGHU HQJLQH LV QRW D ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH HQJLQH´ EHFDXVH LW LV LQVWDOOHG LQ D JOLGHU NLW WR IRUP WKH JOLGHU YHKLFOH ZKLFK LV QRW D ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH ´ %XW WKLV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV QRW UHDVRQDEOH 7KLV ORJLF PHUHO\ UHLWHUDWHV WKH DJHQF\¶V a priori EHOLHI WKDW D JOLGHU YHKLFOH FDQQRW EH QHZ DQG VXIIHUV IURP WKH YHU\ FLUFXODU WKLQNLQJ LW DFFXVHV WKH SULRU DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI DGRSWLQJ LQ SURPXOJDWLQJ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV¶ JOLGHU SURYLVLRQV 7KH GHILQLWLRQ RI ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH HQJLQH´ LV FOHDU XQGHU WKH WHUPV RI 6HFWLRQ D QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH HQJLQH FDQ EH DQ HQJLQH ZKRVH WLWOH KDV DOUHDG\ EHHQ WUDQVIHUUHG WR WKH XOWLPDWH SXUFKDVHU 7KH SURSRVDO LQGHHG FRQFHGHV WKLV YHU\ SRLQW ² DV LW PXVW²DIILUPLQJ WKDW ³>S@ULRU WR WKH WLPH D FRPSOHWHG JOLGHU YHKLFOH LV VROG LW FDQ EH VDLG WKDW WKH YHKLFOH¶V µHTXLWDEOH RU OHJDO WLWOH¶ KDV \HW WR EH µWUDQVIHUUHG WR DQ XOWLPDWH SXUFKDVHU ¶´ 7KH DJHQF\ QRQHWKHOHVV DVVHUWV WKDW VLQFH D JOLGHU YHKLFOH FDQQRW EH D ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH´ D XVHG HQJLQH LQVWDOOHG LQ LW FDQQRW PDNH D XVHG HQJLQH D QHZ RQH GLVPLVVLQJ WKH FRQWUDU\ SRVLWLRQ DV ³FLUFXODU WKLQNLQJ´ (3$¶V SRVLWLRQ LV XQUHDVRQDEOH IRU WKH DGGLWLRQDO UHDVRQ WKDW LI WKH 3URSRVHG 5XOH¶V LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ WKDW D YHKLFOH ZLWK D SUHYLRXVO\ XVHG HQJLQH FDQQRW EH D QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH ZHUH FRUUHFW LW ZRXOG UHQGHU SDUW RI WKH VWDWXWRU\ GHILQLWLRQ RI ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH HQJLQH´ VXSHUIOXRXV²FRQWUDU\ WR FDQRQV RI VWDWXWRU\ FRQVWUXFWLRQ 7KH 3URSRVHG 5XOH¶V LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV SUHPLVHG LQ SDUW RQ WKH FODLP WKDW D YHKLFOH ZLWK D SUHYLRXVO\ XVHG HQJLQH FDQQRW EH D QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH 7KH VWDWXWH GHILQHV D ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH HQJLQH´ DV ³DQ HQJLQH LQ D QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH RU D PRWRU YHKLFOH HQJLQH WKH HTXLWDEOH RU OHJDO WLWOH WR ZKLFK KDV QHYHU EHHQ WUDQVIHUUHG WR WKH XOWLPDWH SXUFKDVHU ´ %XW (3$ SURSRVHV WR LQWHUSUHW WKH VWDWXWH WR PHDQ WKDW D YHKLFOH ZLWK D XVHG HQJLQH FDQQRW EH D ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH ´ ,I WKDW ZHUH VR WKHQ WKH ILUVW SURQJ LQ WKH 3URSRVHG 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW Id See 8 6 & † DQG +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW 3URSRVHG 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW Id DW See, e.g. TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 8 6 UHIXVLQJ WR DGRSW LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI D VWDWXWH WKDW ZRXOG UHQGHU VRPH VWDWXWRU\ WH[W ³LQVLJQLILFDQW LI QRW ZKROO\ VXSHUIOXRXV´ ´ TXRWDWLRQ PDUNV RPLWWHG see also Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems ,QF 8 6 Duncan v. Walker, 8 6 Bailey v. United States, 8 6 ³:H DVVXPH WKDW &RQJUHVV XVHG WZR WHUPV EHFDXVH LW LQWHQGHG HDFK WHUP WR KDYH D SDUWLFXODU QRQVXSHUIOXRXV PHDQLQJ ´ See )HG 5HJ DW ³%DVHG RQ WKDW VWUXFWXUH DQG KLVWRU\ LW VHHPV OLNHO\ WKDW &RQJUHVV XQGHUVWRRG D µQHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH ¶ DV GHILQHG LQ &$$ † WR EH D YHKLFOH FRPSULVHG HQWLUHO\ RI QHZ SDUWV and certainly not a vehicle with a used engine ´ 8 6 & † 202 GLVMXQFWLYH GHILQLWLRQ RI ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH HQJLQH´ ZRXOG EH VXSHUIOXRXV ,I every ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH´ PXVW KDYH D ³QHYHU WLWOHG QHZ´ HQJLQH WKHQ HYHU\ HQJLQH TXDOLI\LQJ DV QHZ XQGHU WKH ILUVW SURQJ RI VHFWLRQ ZRXOG OLNHZLVH TXDOLI\ DV QHZ XQGHU WKH VHFRQG SURQJ UHQGHULQJ WKH ILUVW SURQJ VXSHUIOXRXV 7KLV UHDGLQJ LV XQUHDVRQDEOH DQG LPSHUPLVVLEOH 7KH SKUDVH ³DQ HQJLQH LQ D QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH ´ DQG LWV MX[WDSRVLWLRQ ZLWK WKH SKUDVH ³HTXLWDEOH DQG OHJDO WLWOH >WR HQJLQH@ KDV QRW SDVVHG ´ PDNH FOHDU WKDW &RQJUHVV XQGHUVWRRG VRPH QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOHV WKDW ZRXOG KDYH HQJLQHV WKDW ZRXOG QRW LQGHSHQGHQWO\ PHHW WKH ³HTXLWDEOH RU OHJDO WLWOH QHYHU SDVVHG´ GHILQLWLRQ $QG WKHVH WH[WXDO IHDWXUHV LQGLFDWH WKDW (3$ QRZ EDGO\ PLVXQGHUVWDQGV WKH VWDWXWH ZKHQ LW SURSRVHV WR GHVFULEH D ³QHYHU WLWOHG QHZ HQJLQH´ DV D sine qua non RI D QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH 7R GLVPLVV WKH ILUVW SURQJ RI WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH HQJLQH ³DQ HQJLQH LQ D QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH ´ (3$ UHOLHV ipse dixit RQ LWV RZQ DVVHUWLRQ WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DUH QRW QHZ ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV (3$ KDV GHFLGHG WKDW D JOLGHU YHKLFOH HQJLQH FDQQRW EH D ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH HQJLQH´ EHFDXVH LW LV QRW LQ D QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH DQG WKDW WKH PRWRU YHKLFOH LW LV LQ LV QRW D QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH RQO\ EHFDXVH WKH PRWRU YHKLFOH KDV D XVHG HQJLQH LQ LW ,W LV WKH SURSRVDO¶V DQDO\VLV ZKLFK LV FLUFXODU LL (3$¶V 3URSRVHG 1HZ ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV ,PSHUPLVVLEO\ DW 2GGV ZLWK WKH 6WDWXWRU\ 3XUSRVH DQG 6WUXFWXUH 7KLV SURSRVDO QRW RQO\ IDLOV WR WDNH LQWR FRQVLGHUDWLRQ WKH VWDWXWRU\ WH[W DQG FRPPHUFLDO UHDOLW\ LW DOVR IDLOV WR UHIOHFW ± DQG VHYHUHO\ XQGHUPLQHV ± &RQJUHVV¶V FRUH SXUSRVH LQ &OHDQ $LU $FW 6HFWLRQ WR UHGXFH HPLVVLRQV RI DLU SROOXWLRQ WKDW HQGDQJHU SXEOLF KHDOWK DQG ZHOIDUH )LUVW (3$¶V FRQVWUXFWLRQ H[HPSWV H[WUHPHO\ KLJK HPLWWLQJ YHKLFOHV ZKRVH HPLVVLRQV ZRXOG VHULRXVO\ KDUP SXEOLF KHDOWK 6HH 6HFWLRQ 6HFRQG E\ SURYLGLQJ D FRPSHWLWLYH DGYDQWDJH IRU KLJK HPLWWLQJ YHKLFOHV (3$¶V FRQVWUXFWLRQ ZRXOG VHULRXVO\ XQGHUPLQH WKH HIILFDF\ RI SROOXWLRQ VWDQGDUGV IRU RWKHU QHZ IUHLJKW WUXFNV 6HH 6HFWLRQ ;, 7KH IDFW WKDW (3$ KDV QRW H[DPLQHG WKH KDUPV LWV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ ZRXOG FDXVH WR SXEOLF KHDOWK DQG WR WKH RYHUDOO LQWHJULW\ RI DQ HQWLUH YLWDO VWDWXWRU\ SROOXWLRQ FRQWURO UHJLPH PHDQV WKDW (3$ KDV DFWHG DUELWUDULO\ DQG FDSULFLRXVO\ XQGHU 8 6 & G $ DQG State Farm DQG SURJHQ\ EXW WKH IDFW WKDW (3$ KDV QRW H[SODLQHG DQG FDQQRW UDWLRQDOO\ H[SODLQ KRZ LWV FLUFXODU LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ PDNHV VHQVH JLYHQ WKH VHULRXV 1HHG FLWH WR 3URSRVHG 5XOH See UC Health v. NLRB, ) G ' & &LU KROGLQJ WKDW DQ DJHQF\ FRQVWUXFWLRQ PXVW EH ³UHDVRQDEOH DQG FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH VWDWXWH¶V SXUSRVH´ Coal Employment Project v. Dole ) G ' & &LU VWDWLQJ WKDW WR EH UHDVRQDEOH DQ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ PXVW EH ³FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH VWDWXWRU\ SXUSRVH´ Abbott Laboratories v. Young ) G ' & &LU ³7KH µUHDVRQDEOHQHVV¶ RI DQ DJHQF\¶V FRQVWUXFWLRQ GHSHQGV RQ WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ¶V µILW¶ ZLWK WKH VWDWXWRU\ ODQJXDJH DV ZHOO DV LWV FRQIRUPLW\ WR VWDWXWRU\ SXUSRVHV ´ Cont’l Air Lines, Inc. v. DOT, ) G ' & &LU H[SODLQLQJ WKDW Chevron VWHS WZR LV GHWHUPLQHG ³E\ UHIHUHQFH ERWK WR WKH DJHQF\¶V WH[WXDO DQDO\VLV EURDGO\ GHILQHG LQFOXGLQJ ZKHUH DSSURSULDWH UHVRUW WR OHJLVODWLYH KLVWRU\ DQG WR WKH FRPSDWLELOLW\ RI WKDW LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ ZLWK WKH &RQJUHVVLRQDO SXUSRVHV LQIRUPLQJ WKH PHDVXUH´ Bozwich v. Mathews ) G WK &LU UHMHFWLQJ DV XQUHDVRQDEOH DQ DJHQF\¶V UHDGLQJ RI VWDWXWH EHFDXVH LW ³FRQIOLFWV ZLWK WKH FOHDU OHJLVODWLYH SXUSRVH´ see also United States v. Gordon ) G ± VW &LU UHMHFWLQJ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ WKDW ³FRQIOLFWV ZLWK WKH FOHDU FRQJUHVVLRQDO SXUSRVH DQLPDWLQJ WK>H@ VWDWXWH´ GDPDJH LW ZRXOG FDXVH WR FRUH VWDWXWRU\ REMHFWLYHV DQG PHFKDQLFV UHQGHUV WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LPSHUPLVVLEOH DV DQ H[HUFLVH LQ VWDWXWRU\ FRQVWUXFWLRQ DV ZHOO 7KH 3URSRVHG 5XOH PDLQWDLQV WKDW WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV ³SHUPLVVLEOH´ VLQFH ³>D@W D PLQLPXP DPELJXLW\ H[LVWV´ LQ WKH VWDWXWH $V H[SODLQHG DERYH WKHUH LV QR DPELJXLW\ ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH UHOHYDQW TXHVWLRQ DQG WKH VWDWXWH SODLQO\ FRQWHPSODWHV WKDW QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOHV FDQ LQFOXGH XVHG FRPSRQHQWV LQFOXGLQJ QRQ QHZ HQJLQHV %XW HYHQ DVVXPLQJ WKDW WKLV VWDWXWRU\ ODQJXDJH LQ LVRODWLRQ GRHV QRW FRPSHO (3$¶V UHDGLQJ LQ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV WKH 3URSRVHG 5XOH IDLOV WR MXVWLI\ WKDW WKH UHLQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV ³SHUPLVVLEOH´ LQ WHUPV RI WKH VWDWXWH¶V VWUXFWXUH RU SXUSRVHV 7LWOH RI WKH $FW FUHDWHV D PDQGDWH WR FRQWURO GDQJHURXV YHKLFXODU HPLVVLRQV ZLWK VSHFLDO HPSKDVLV RQ FRQWUROOLQJ HPLVVLRQV IURP KHDY\ GXW\ GLHVHO HQJLQHV ,W SURYLGHV D GXDO ³HQJLQH´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´ ³7KXV DQ DJHQF\ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ WKDW LV LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH GHVLJQ DQG VWUXFWXUH RI WKH VWDWXWH DV D ZKROH GRHV QRW PHULW GHIHUHQFH ´ 7KH IDFW WKDW &RQJUHVV LQ 6HFWLRQ WDUJHWHG SROOXWLRQ WKDW HQGDQJHUV ³:KHWKHU D VWDWXWH LV XQUHDVRQDEO\ LQWHUSUHWHG LV FORVH DQDO\WLFDOO\ WR WKH LVVXH ZKHWKHU DQ DJHQF\¶V DFWLRQV XQGHU D VWDWXWH DUH XQUHDVRQDEOH ´ Gen. Instrument Corp. v. Fed. Commc’ns ) G ' & &LU see also Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees v. Nicholson ) G ± ' & &LU H[SODLQLQJ WKDW WKH &RXUW¶V LQTXLU\ XQGHU WKH VHFRQG VWHS RI &KHYURQ ³RYHUODSV ZLWK >WKH &RXUW¶V@ LQTXLU\ XQGHU WKH DUELWUDU\ DQG FDSULFLRXV VWDQGDUG´ 3URSRVHG 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW See infra 6HFWLRQ 9 F See, e.g. Council for Urological Interests ) G ' & &LU VWDWLQJ WKDW DQ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV SHUPLVVLEOH XQGHU Chevron VWHS LI ³LW LV D UHDVRQDEOH H[SODQDWLRQ RI KRZ DQ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ VHUYHV WKH VWDWXWH¶V REMHFWLYHV´ Northpoint Tech Ltd. v. FCC ) G ' & &LU Northpoint Tech., Ltd. v. FCC ) G ³$ µUHDVRQDEOH¶ H[SODQDWLRQ RI KRZ DQ DJHQF\ V LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ VHUYHV WKH VWDWXWH¶V REMHFWLYHV LV WKH VWXII RI ZKLFK D µSHUPLVVLEOH¶ FRQVWUXFWLRQ LV PDGH DQ H[SODQDWLRQ WKDW LV µDUELWUDU\ FDSULFLRXV RU PDQLIHVWO\ FRQWUDU\ WR WKH VWDWXWH ¶ KRZHYHU LV QRW ´ FLWLQJ Chevron 8 6 DW see also Humane Society of U.S. v. Zinke ) G ' & &LU ³$FFRUGLQJO\ WKLV FRXUW PXVW GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU WKH >DJHQF\@ µKDV DGYDQFHG D UHDVRQDEOH H[SODQDWLRQ IRU LWV FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW WKH UHJXODWLRQV VHUYH >WKH $FW V$FW¶V@ REMHFWLYHV ¶ Chevron 8 6 DW DQG ZKHWKHU WKDW µLQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV DW OHDVW UHDVRQDEOH LQ OLJKW RI DQ\ DPELJXLWLHV LQ WKH VWDWXWH´ ¶´ Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA 6 &W Id SXEOLF KHDOWK DQG ZHOIDUH HPSOR\HG D EURDG GHILQLWLRQ RI ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOHV ´ DQG DOVR SURYLGHG IRU UHJXODWLRQ RI HPLVVLRQV IURP UHEXLOW HQJLQHV VKRZV WKDW &RQJUHVV GLG QRW LQWHQG (3$ WR FUHDWH VXFK D KHDOWK GDPDJLQJ PDUNHW VNHZLQJ UHJXODWRU\ ORRSKROH (3$¶V SURSRVHG LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV IODWO\ LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH VWDWXWHV ³GHVLJQ DQG VWUXFWXUH´ DQG LV XQUHDVRQDEOH LLL (3$¶V SURSRVHG LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI VHFWLRQ D ZRXOG KDYH GUDVWLF DGYHUVH FRQVHTXHQFHV IRU WKH ZKROH PRELOH VRXUFH SURJUDP D FRQVHTXHQFH WKDW (3$ KDV QRW H[DPLQHG )XUWKHU (3$¶V SURSRVDO LJQRUHV WKH EURDGHU DGYHUVH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI LWV SURSRVHG UHLQWHUSUHWDWLRQ ,I D ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH´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¶V LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV PDQLIHVWO\ LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH VWDWXWRU\ WH[W VWUXFWXUH DQG SXUSRVH DUELWUDULO\ LJQRUHV QHJDWLYH LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU (3$¶V KHDY\ GXW\ SURJUDP DV D ZKROH DQG LQYLWHV DEVXUG UHVXOWV LY 7KH 3URSRVDO¶V $FFRXQW RI &RQJUHVV¶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³WKH SXUSRVH DQG FRQWH[W RI WKH VWDWXWH´ DV ZHOO DV WKH ³REMHFW DQG SROLF\´ RI WKH ODZ (3$ DVNV RQO\ ZKHWKHU DW WKH WLPH RI HQDFWPHQW &RQJUHVV VSHFLILFDOO\ KDG JOLGHU NLWV DQG YHKLFOHV LQ PLQG ZKHQ LW DGRSWHG WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH See United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., Inc. ) G WK &LU UHMHFWLQJ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ WKDW ³ZRXOG RSHQ DQ HQRUPRXV DQG FOHDUO\ XQLQWHQGHG ORRSKROH LQ WKH VWDWXWRU\ VFKHPH´ $PRQJ RWKHUV WKH (QJLQH 0DQXIDFWXUHUV $VVRFLDWLRQ QRWHG WKLV GUDVWLF FRQVHTXHQFH RI WKH SURSRVDO LQ LWV 'HFHPEHU SXEOLF KHDULQJ WHVWLPRQ\ RSSRVLQJ WKH SURSRVDO See 7HVWLPRQ\ RI (QJLQH 0DQXIDFWXUHUV $VVRFLDWLRQ DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 3URSRVHG 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW See )HG 5HJ DW DVNLQJ ³ZKHWKHU RU QRW &RQJUHVV LQ GHILQLQJ µQHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH¶ IRU SXUSRVHV RI 7LWOH KDG D VSHFLILF LQWHQW WR LQFOXGH ZLWKLQ WKH VWDWXWRU\ GHILQLWLRQ VXFK D WKLQJ DV D JOLGHU YHKLFOH´ DQG VWDWLQJ WKDW LW LV ³OLNHO\ WKDW &RQJUHVV GLG QRW KDYH LQ PLQG WKDW WKH GHILQLWLRQ ZRXOG EH FRQVWUXHG DV DSSO\LQJ WR D YHKLFOH FRPSULVHG RI QHZ ERG\ SDUWV DQG D SUHYLRXVO\ RZQHG SRZHUWUDLQ´ id. DW ³>,@W LV LPSODXVLEOH WKDW &RQJUHVV ZRXOG KDYH KDG LQ PLQG WKDW D µQHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH¶ PLJKW DOVR LQFOXGH D YHKLFOH FRPSULVHG RI QHZ ERG\ SDUWV DQG D SUHYLRXVO\ RZQHG SRZHUWUDLQ´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¶V SXUSRVHV VWUXFWXUH DQG KLVWRU\ 7KH DSSURSULDWH TXHVWLRQ LV ZKHWKHU &RQJUHVV H[SUHVVHG D FOHDU LQWHQWLRQ RQ WKH EURDGHU LVVXH RI ZKHWKHU D QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH FRXOG LQFOXGH XVHG FRPSRQHQWV 7KH VWDWXWH LQGLFDWHV FOHDUO\ ± H[SOLFLWO\ WKDW &RQJUHVV VSHFLILFDOO\ LQWHQGHG WKDW QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOHV FRXOG LQFOXGH XVHG FRPSRQHQWV $V GLVFXVVHG DERYH WKH FULWHULRQ RI ILUVW WUDQVIHU RI WLWOH GUDZV QR GLVWLQFWLRQ ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH NLQGV RI components LQ WKH YHKLFOH WKH GHILQLWLRQ H[SUHVVO\ VWDWHV WKDW XVHG HQJLQHV FDQ EH LQ D QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH DQG XVHG LPSRUWHG YHKLFOHV DUH QRW GLVWLQJXLVKHG IURP QHZ (3$¶V HIIRUW WR GHIHDW WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI D VWDWXWH ZKRVH SODLQ ODQJXDJH UHDGLO\ FRYHUV D JLYHQ VHW RI FLUFXPVWDQFHV EDVHG XSRQ (3$¶V WKRURXJKO\ VSHFXODWLYH FODLP WKDW &RQJUHVV GLG QRW VSHFLILFDOO\ FRQWHPSODWH DSSOLFDWLRQ WR WKRVH FLUFXPVWDQFHV LV SDWHQWO\ XQIDLWKIXO WR WKH &OHDQ $LU $FW¶V LQWHQGHG PLVVLRQ WR SURWHFW WKH SXEOLF KHDOWK DQG ZHOIDUH IURP H[LVWLQJ DQG \HW WR PDQLIHVW DLU SROOXWLRQ KD]DUGV 7KH &OHDQ $LU $FW ZDV GUDIWHG LQ EURDG WHUPV WR DOORZ (3$ WR GHDO ZLWK QHZ KD]DUGV HPHUJLQJ IURP FKDQJLQJ HFRQRPLF DFWLYLWLHV HFRORJLFDO FRQGLWLRQV DQG VFLHQWLILF LQIRUPDWLRQ (3$¶V DSSURDFK KHUH LJQRUHV DOO WKDW JUDWXLWRXVO\ FUHDWLQJ ORRSKROHV LQ WKH $FW¶V FRPSUHKHQVLYH VFKHPH $V WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW SXW LW LQ D GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH VDPH &OHDQ $LU $FW VHFWLRQ LQ Massachusetts :KLOH WKH &RQJUHVVHV WKDW GUDIWHG † D PLJKW QRW KDYH DSSUHFLDWHG WKH SRVVLELOLW\ WKDW EXUQLQJ IRVVLO IXHOV FRXOG OHDG WR JOREDO ZDUPLQJ WKH\ GLG XQGHUVWDQG WKDW ZLWKRXW UHJXODWRU\ IOH[LELOLW\ FKDQJLQJ FLUFXPVWDQFHV DQG VFLHQWLILF GHYHORSPHQWV ZRXOG VRRQ UHQGHU WKH &OHDQ $LU $FW REVROHWH 7KH EURDG ODQJXDJH RI † D UHIOHFWV DQ LQWHQWLRQDO HIIRUW WR FRQIHU WKH IOH[LELOLW\ QHFHVVDU\ WR IRUHVWDOO VXFK REVROHVFHQFH 6HH Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 8 6 ³>7@KH IDFW WKDW D VWDWXWH FDQ EH DSSOLHG LQ VLWXDWLRQV QRW H[SUHVVO\ DQWLFLSDWHG E\ &RQJUHVV GRHV QRW GHPRQVWUDWH DPELJXLW\ ,W GHPRQVWUDWHV EUHDGWK´ LQWHUQDO TXRWDWLRQ PDUNV RPLWWHG %HFDXVH JUHHQKRXVH JDVHV ILW ZHOO ZLWKLQ WKH &OHDQ $LU $FW V FDSDFLRXV GHILQLWLRQ RI ³DLU SROOXWDQW ´ ZH ,QGHHG WKH ZD\ WKH GHILQLWLRQ ZDV ZULWWHQ DFWXDOO\ LQGLFDWHV VSHFLILF &RQJUHVVLRQDO LQWHQW WKDW D QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH DV GHILQHG E\ WKH VWDWXWH ZLWK D XVHG HQJLQH ZRXOG IDOO XQGHU WKH UHJXODWRU\ DXWKRULW\ 6HH 6HFWLRQ 9 D DQG E 7KH &OHDQ $LU $FW¶V FHQWUDO SXUSRVH ZDV WR ³HVWDEOLVK WKDW WKH DLU LV D SXEOLF UHVRXUFH´ DQG WR SURYLGH DQ ³LQWHQVLYH DQG FRPSUHKHQVLYH DWWDFN RQ DLU SROOXWLRQ´ 6 5HSW DW see also 8 6 & † E Union Elec. Co. v. EPA 8 6 $FW ZDV ³D GUDVWLF UHPHG\ WR ZKDW ZDV SHUFHLYHG DV D VHULRXV DQG RWKHUZLVH XQFKHFNDEOH SUREOHP RI DLU SROOXWLRQ ´ Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc. 8 6 KROG WKDW (3$ KDV WKH VWDWXWRU\ DXWKRULW\ WR UHJXODWH WKH HPLVVLRQ RI VXFK JDVHV IURP QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOHV 8 6 7KH GHILQLWLRQ RI QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH UHIOHFWV VLPLODU IOH[LELOLW\ DQG EUHDGWK 7KH FODLP WKDW &RQJUHVV QHHGV WR KDYH VSHFLILFDOO\ FRQWHPSODWHG UHJXODWLRQ RI JOLGHU YHKLFOHV LV XQWHQDEOH PDQ\ FDVHV EHVLGHV Massachusetts KDYH FRQILUPHG WKDW WKH &$$ LV FUDIWHG LQ EURDG WHUPV WR FDSWXUH FKDQJLQJ WHFKQRORJLHV DQG QHZ SROOXWLRQ SUREOHPV (3$ QRWDEO\ IDLOV WR H[SODLQ why D &RQJUHVV VR PDQLIHVWO\ DQG FRQVLVWHQWO\ FRQFHUQHG DERXW GDQJHUV WR KHDOWK DQG ZHOIDUH ZRXOG KDYH ZDQWHG WR OHDYH WKHVH WKH VLJQLILFDQW SROOXWLRQ IURP WKHVH YHKLFOHV XQDGGUHVVHG )XUWKHUPRUH (3$ UHDFKHV LWV FRQFOXVLRQ ZLWKRXW DQ\ UHIHUHQFH WR RU UHOLDQFH RQ OHJLVODWLYH KLVWRU\ RWKHU WKDQ VWDWXWRU\ SURYLVLRQV RU WKH &OHDQ $LU $FW¶V VWDWXWRU\ SXUSRVHV²ZKLFK HDFK FDOO IRU D GLIIHUHQW PHDQLQJ ([FOXGLQJ JOLGHU YHKLFOHV ZRXOG SURGXFH WKH YHU\ KDUPV WKDW &RQJUHVV OHJLVODWHG DJDLQVW LQ 6HFWLRQ &RQJUHVV FRXOG KDYH EXW GLG QRW LPSRVH WKH VRUW RI OLPLWDWLRQV (3$ VHHNV WR LPSRVH RQ LW $QG SXWWLQJ WKH EURDG ODQJXDJH FRQFHUQLQJ QHZ YHKLFOHV WRJHWKHU ZLWK WKH SURYLVLRQV RQ UHEXLOGLQJ DXWKRULW\ LW LV PDQLIHVW WKDW &RQJUHVV GLG QRW LQWHQG WR See Cablevision Systems Corp. v. F.C.C ) G ' & &LU ³:KHQ &RQJUHVV GHOHJDWHV EURDG DXWKRULW\ WR DQ DJHQF\ WR DFKLHYH D SDUWLFXODU REMHFWLYH DJHQF\ DFWLRQ SXUVXDQW WR WKDW GHOHJDWHG DXWKRULW\ PD\ H[WHQG EH\RQG WKH VSHFLILF PDQLIHVWDWLRQV RI WKH SUREOHP WKDW SURPSWHG &RQJUHVV WR OHJLVODWH LQ WKH ILUVW SODFH See Consumer Elecs. Ass'n v. FCC, ) G ± ' & &LU UHMHFWLQJ D Chevron VWHS RQH FKDOOHQJH FRQWHQGLQJ WKDW WKH &RPPLVVLRQ V VWDWXWRU\ DXWKRULW\ ZDV OLPLWHG WR RQO\ WKH LPPHGLDWH FRQFHUQ &RQJUHVV HPSRZHUHG WKH &RPPLVVLRQ WR DGGUHVV DQG LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKH XVH RI ³EURDG ODQJXDJH´ WR VROYH D UHODWLYHO\ VSHFLILF SUREOHP ³PLOLWDWHV VWURQJO\ LQ IDYRU RI JLYLQJ >WKH VWDWXWH@ EURDG DSSOLFDWLRQ´ ,I WKH DJHQF\ LV VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW LW ODFNV DXWKRULW\ RYHU JOLGHU YHKLFOHV XQOHVV &RQJUHVV VSHFLILFDOO\ VWDWHV WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DUH WR EH UHJXODWHG WKDW DSSURDFK LV SDOSDEO\ ZURQJ Chevron LWVHOI UHMHFWV WKH QRWLRQ WKDW &RQJUHVV PXVW HYLQFH D VSHFLILF LQWHQW LQ RUGHU IRU LW WR GHOHJDWH DXWKRULW\ VLQFH WKH &RXUW LQ WKDW FDVH IRXQG WKDW &RQJUHVV KDG H[SUHVVHG QR LQWHQW DV WR ZKHWKHU WKH µEXEEOH FRQFHSW¶ DW LVVXH DQG XOWLPDWHO\ VXVWDLQHG E\ WKH &RXUW ZDV DXWKRUL]HG E\ WKH $FW See 8 6 DW ³2QFH LW GHWHUPLQHG DIWHU LWV RZQ H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH OHJLVODWLRQ WKDW &RQJUHVV GLG QRW DFWXDOO\ KDYH DQ LQWHQW UHJDUGLQJ WKH DSSOLFDELOLW\ RI WKH EXEEOH FRQFHSW WR WKH SHUPLW SURJUDP WKH TXHVWLRQ EHIRUH LW ZDV QRW ZKHWKHU LQ LWV YLHZ WKH FRQFHSW LV µLQDSSURSULDWH¶ LQ WKH JHQHUDO FRQWH[W RI D SURJUDP GHVLJQHG WR LPSURYH DLU TXDOLW\ EXW ZKHWKHU WKH $GPLQLVWUDWRU V YLHZ WKDW LW LV DSSURSULDWH LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKLV SDUWLFXODU SURJUDP LV D UHDVRQDEOH RQH ´ See Northpoint Tech., Ltd. v. FCC ) G ' & &LU ³$ µUHDVRQDEOH¶ H[SODQDWLRQ RI KRZ DQ DJHQF\¶V LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ VHUYHV WKH VWDWXWH¶V REMHFWLYHV LV WKH VWXII RI ZKLFK D µSHUPLVVLEOH¶ FRQVWUXFWLRQ LV PDGH ´ FLWLQJ Chevron 8 6 DW ³>$@Q H[SODQDWLRQ WKDW LV µDUELWUDU\ FDSULFLRXV RU PDQLIHVWO\ FRQWUDU\ WR WKH VWDWXWH ¶ KRZHYHU LV QRW ´ Id. TXRWLQJ Chevron, 8 6 DW see also Humane Society of United States v. Zinke ) G ' & &LU ³$FFRUGLQJO\ WKLV FRXUW PXVW GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU WKH 6HUYLFH µKDV DGYDQFHG D UHDVRQDEOH H[SODQDWLRQ IRU LWV FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW WKH UHJXODWLRQV VHUYH >WKH $FW¶V@ REMHFWLYHV ¶ Chevron 8 6 DW DQG ZKHWKHU WKDW µLQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV DW OHDVW UHDVRQDEOH LQ OLJKW RI DQ\ DPELJXLWLHV LQ WKH VWDWXWH ´ See UC Health v. NLRB, ) G ' & &LU DQ DJHQF\ FRQVWUXFWLRQ PXVW EH ³UHDVRQDEOH DQG FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH VWDWXWH¶V SXUSRVH´ Coal Employment Project v. Dole ) G ' & &LU WR EH UHDVRQDEOH DQ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ PXVW EH ³FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH VWDWXWRU\ SXUSRVH´ Abbott Laboratories v. Young ) G ' & &LU ³7KH µUHDVRQDEOHQHVV¶ RI DQ DJHQF\ V FRQVWUXFWLRQ GHSHQGV RQ WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ V µILW¶ ZLWK WKH VWDWXWRU\ ODQJXDJH DV ZHOO DV LWV FRQIRUPLW\ WR VWDWXWRU\ SXUSRVHV ´ 1RWDEO\ LQ WKH SUHDPEOH WR WKH SURSRVHG UXOH LQ GHVFULELQJ WKH ³6WDWXWRU\ DQG 5HJXODWRU\ &RQWH[W ´ )HG 5HJ DW (3$ OHDYHV RXW ODQJXDJH WKDW LQGLFDWHV WKH SURWHFWLYH SXUSRVH RI WKH SURYLVLRQ WR FRQWURO ³DLU SROOXWLRQ ZKLFK PD\ UHDVRQDEO\ EH DQWLFLSDWHG WR HQGDQJHU SXEOLF KHDOWK RU ZHOIDUH ´ 8 6 & † D FUHDWH WKH NLQG RI SHUYHUVH UHJXODWRU\ JDS LQ WKH VWDWXWH¶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ee Boise National Leasing, Inc. v. United States ) G WK &LU ,I DQ\WKLQJ WKLV LQGLFDWHV WKDW FRQWUDU\ WR (3$¶V VXSSRVLWLRQ LQ WKH SURSRVDO &RQJUHVV FRQVLGHUHG JOLGHU YHKLFOHV WR EH QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOHV ZKHQ LW HQDFWHG WKH &$$¶V GHILQLWLRQV Y (3$¶V 5HOLDQFH RQ $,'$ LV 8QDYDLOLQJ &RPSRXQGLQJ WKLV PLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJ (3$ QH[W DUJXHV WKDW VLPLODULW\ LQ WKH GHILQLWLRQV XVHG LQ WKH &$$ DQG WKH $XWRPRELOH ,QIRUPDWLRQ 'LVFORVXUH $FW RI $,'$ VKRZV WKDW ³&RQJUHVV LQWHQGHG « WKDW D µQHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH¶ ZRXOG EH XQGHUVWRRG WR PHDQ VRPHWKLQJ HTXLYDOHQW WR D µQHZ DXWRPRELOH¶²L H D WUXH µVKRZURRP QHZ¶ YHKLFOH ´ (3$¶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¶V QDUURZ DQG OLPLWHG DSSURDFK DQG LQVWHDG DGRSWHG D EURDGHU PRUH H[SDQVLYH OHJLVODWLYH VROXWLRQ &RQFHGLQJ WKDW WKH OHJLVODWLYH KLVWRU\ ODFNV DQ\ HYLGHQFH WR VXSSRUW LWV QHZ WKHRU\ (3$ DVVHUWV WKDW &RQJUHVV GUHZ IURP $,'$¶V GHILQLWLRQ RI ³QHZ DXWRPRELOH´ LQ GHILQLQJ ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH´ IRU 7LWOH RI WKH &$$ $,'$ GHILQHV ³QHZ DXWRPRELOH´ DV ³DQ DXWRPRELOH WKH HTXLWDEOH RU OHJDO WLWOH WR ZKLFK KDV QHYHU EHHQ WUDQVIHUUHG E\ D PDQXIDFWXUHU GLVWULEXWRU RU GHDOHU WR DQ XOWLPDWH SXUFKDVHU ´ &LWLQJ WKLV GHILQLWLRQ (3$ DVVHUWV WKDW &RQJUHVV LQWHQGHG See Boise National Leasing, Inc. v. United States ) G WK &LU 7KH ,QWHUQDO 5HYHQXH 6HUYLFH LPSRVHG DQ H[FLVH WD[ RQ PDQXIDFWXUHUV RI QHZ WUXFNV PDGH IURP JOLGHU NLWV 7KLV WD[ DSSOLHG ZKHQ D ³WD[SD\HU SXUFKDVHG « LQ SDFNDJHG RU JOLGHU NLW IRUP DOO WKH QHFHVVDU\ QHZ HOHPHQWV LQFOXGLQJ IUDPH FDE EUDNH V\VWHP HWF « DQG WKHQ KDG WKH VWUXFWXULQJ DQG DVVHPEOLQJ SURFHVVHV GRQH E\ D WKLUG SDUW\ ´ 7KH JOLGHU NLW SURFHVV UHVXOWHG LQ D ³QHZ WUXFN HQWLW\ KDYLQJ EHHQ SURGXFHG DQG QRW D UHSDLULQJ RU UHFRQGLWLRQLQJ RI WKH ROG WUXFN ´ DQG WKH PDQXIDFWXUHU RI WKH QHZ WUXFN HQWLW\ ZDV VXEMHFW WR WKH H[FLVH WD[ 8 6 & † HW VHT 3URSRVHG 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW ³µ7KH WHQGHQF\ WR DVVXPH WKDW D ZRUG WKDW DSSHDUV LQ WZR RU PRUH OHJDO UXOHV DQG VR LQ FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK PRUH WKDQ RQH SXUSRVH KDV DQG VKRXOG KDYH SUHFLVHO\ WKH VDPH VFRSH LQ DOO RI WKHP UXQV WKURXJK OHJDO GLVFXVVLRQV ,W KDV DOO WKH WHQDFLW\ RI RULJLQDO VLQ DQG PXVW EH FRQVWDQWO\ JXDUGHG DJDLQVW ¶´ General Dynamics Land Systems v. Cline 8 6 Q TXRWLQJ &RRN ³6XEVWDQFH´ DQG ³3URFHGXUH´ LQ WKH &RQIOLFW RI /DZV 7@KH OHJLVODWLYH KLVWRU\ RI WKLV $FW 8 6 & &RQJUHVVLRQDO DQG $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 1HZV WK &RQJUHVV S LQ VSHDNLQJ RI WKH SXUSRVH RI WKH ELOO DQG WKH QHHG IRU WKH OHJLVODWLRQ VHWV RXW SS µ7KH SULPDU\ SXUSRVH RI WKH ELOO LV WR GLVFORVH WKH PDQXIDFWXUHU¶V VXJJHVWHG UHWDLO SULFH RI WKH QHZ DXWRPRELOH SDVVHQJHU FDU RU VWDWLRQ ZDJRQ VR WKDW WKH EX\HU ZLOO NQRZ ZKDW LW LV 7KLV LQIRUPDWLRQ LV QRW DYDLODEOH QRZ ¶´ ³(YHU\ PDQXIDFWXUHU RI QHZ DXWRPRELOHV GLVWULEXWHG LQ FRPPHUFH VKDOO SULRU WR WKH GHOLYHU\ RI DQ\ QHZ DXWRPRELOH WR DQ\ GHDOHU RU DW RU SULRU WR WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ GDWH RI QHZ PRGHOV GHOLYHUHG WR D GHDOHU SULRU WR VXFK LQWURGXFWLRQ GDWH VHFXUHO\ DIIL[ WR WKH ZLQGVKLHOG RU VLGH ZLQGRZ RI VXFK DXWRPRELOH D ODEHO RQ ZKLFK VXFK PDQXIDFWXUHU VKDOO HQGRUVH FOHDUO\ GLVWLQFWO\ DQG OHJLEO\ WUXH DQG FRUUHFW HQWULHV GLVFORVLQJ WKH IROORZLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQFHUQLQJ VXFK DXWRPRELOH´ HPSKDVLV VXSSOLHG 8 6 & † 7KH HQIRUFHPHQW IRU WKLV ODEHOLQJ UHTXLUHPHQW LV DGGUHVVHG LQ 8 6 & † 8 6 & † 1HHG FLWH ±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³VKRZURRP QHZ´ YHKLFOHV VKRZQ E\ QHZ SDVVHQJHU FDU GHDOHUV ,W LV $,'$¶V PDQXIDFWXUHU UHTXLUHPHQW WKDW IRFXVHV $,'$ RQ QHZ FDU GHDOHUV¶ VKRZURRPV QRW $,'$¶V GHILQLWLRQ RI QHZ DXWRPRELOH 7KH SDUDOOHO PDQXIDFWXUHU SURYLVLRQ LQ WKH &$$ VHFWLRQ D UHTXLUHV WKDW D PDQXIDFWXUHU REWDLQ DQ (3$ FHUWLILFDWH RI FRQIRUPLW\ EHIRUH VHOOLQJ RIIHULQJ IRU VDOH LQWURGXFLQJ LQWR FRPPHUFH RU GHOLYHULQJ D QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH IRU LQWURGXFWLRQ LQWR FRPPHUFH 1RWKLQJ QDUURZV WKLV SURKLELWLRQ RU VRPHKRZ OLPLWV 7LWOH WR YHKLFOHV GHOLYHUHG WR D GHDOHU IRU SUHVHQWDWLRQ LQ ³VKRZURRP QHZ´ FRQGLWLRQ LQ WKHLU VKRZURRP 7KH &$$ SURKLELWLRQ LV PXFK EURDGHU LQ VFRSH WKDQ WKH ODEHOLQJ UHTXLUHPHQW LQ $,'$ SURSHUO\ UHIOHFWLQJ WKH EURDGHU VFRSH RI WKH LQGXVWULHV LQYROYHG DQG WKH DLU SROOXWLRQ SUREOHP &RQJUHVV ZDV WU\LQJ WR VROYH 7KXV HYHQ DVVXPLQJ ZLWKRXW HYLGHQFH WKDW &RQJUHVV ZDV LQIRUPHG E\ $,'$ LW LV FOHDU WKDW &RQJUHVV UHMHFWHG WKH QDUURZ $,'$ DSSURDFK DQG LQVWHDG FKRVH D EURDGHU DQG PRUH H[SDQVLYH DSSURDFK IRU WKH &$$ (3$¶V JUDVSLQJ DW $,'$ LQ WKH SURSRVDO LV GLVFRQQHFWHG IURP WKH SXUSRVH DQG VWUXFWXUH RI WKH &$$ LWVHOI ,Q DQ\ FDVH WKHUH LV QR MXVWLILFDWLRQ IRU (3$¶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¶V SURSRVHG LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ GRHV WKH RSSRVLWH ± LW ZRXOG UHTXLUH (3$ WR LJQRUH D YHU\ ODUJH DQG JURZLQJ VRXUFH RI KDUPIXO DLU SROOXWLRQ IURP PRWRU YHKLFOHV DQG ZRXOG HOLPLQDWH (3$¶V DELOLW\ WR SURWHFW WKH SXEOLF IURP WKLV SROOXWLRQ :KHWKHU RU QRW RQH DJUHHV ZLWK WKH VSHFLILF FRQWUROV DGRSWHG E\ (3$ LQ WKH 5XOH LV QRW WKH LVVXH 7KH LVVXH LV ZKHWKHU WKH SXUSRVHV RI VHFWLRQ D RI WKH $FW DUH SURPRWHG E\ WRWDOO\ SUHFOXGLQJ (3$ IURP DGGUHVVLQJ LQ DQ\ IDVKLRQ D PDMRU DQG JURZLQJ VRXUFH RI PRWRU YHKLFOH DLU SROOXWLRQ ZKHUH WKH YHKLFOHV FOHDUO\ PHHW WKH WHUPV RI WKH GHILQLWLRQ DGRSWHG E\ &RQJUHVV (3$¶V 3KDVH 8 6 & † Id 8 6 & † See, e.g. &$$ †† D D $ % D ' 6WDQGDUGV SURSHUO\ SURPRWHG WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKH $FW EXW WKH $JHQF\¶V SURSRVHG LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ GRHV MXVW WKH RSSRVLWH c. EPA has explicit authority to regulate emissions from rebuilt heavy-duty engines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« ZKLFK LQ WKH $GPLQLVWUDWRU¶V MXGJPHQW FDXVH RU FRQWULEXWH WR DLU SROOXWLRQ ZKLFK PD\ UHDVRQDEO\ EH DQWLFLSDWHG WR HQGDQJHU SXEOLF KHDOWK RU ZHOIDUH WDNLQJ FRVWV LQWR DFFRXQW ´ (3$ PXVW JLYH ³DSSURSULDWH FRQVLGHUDWLRQ WR WKH FRVW RI FRPSOLDQFH ZLWKLQ WKH SHULRG DQG HQHUJ\ DQG VDIHW\ IDFWRUV ´ $V (3$ QRWHV LQ WKH 3URSRVHG 5XOH WKH $JHQF\ KDV SUHYLRXVO\ DGRSWHG FRQWUROV XQGHU VHFWLRQ D ' ,Q (3$ DJDLQ SURSHUO\ H[HUFLVHG LWV DXWKRULW\ XQGHU WKH UHEXLOG DXWKRULW\ (3$ KDV VWXGLHG WKH HPLVVLRQV LPSDFW RI UHEXLOW HQJLQHV DQG RI WKH JOLGHU YHKLFOHV LQ ZKLFK WKH\ DUH SODFHG DQG LQ SURPXOJDWLQJ UHJXODWLRQV LPSOHPHQWLQJ WKH DXWKRULW\ DFWHG RQ ³RWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ DYDLODEOH WR WKH $GPLQLVWUDWRU´ LQ WKH IRUP RI PDQ\ GHFDGHV RI UHVHDUFK FRQILUPLQJ 8 6 & † See +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW OLVWLQJ † D ' DV DPRQJ WKH ³PXOWLSOH DXWKRULWLHV´ VXSSRUWLQJ WKH UXOH See, e.g. )HG 5HJ Q +'3 5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQWV DW see also )LW]JHUDOG *OLGHU .LWV $ERXW )LW]JHUDOG KWWSV ZZZ ILW]JHUDOGJOLGHUNLWV FRP DERXW ILW]JHUDOG ³)LW]JHUDOG *OLGHU .LWV VSHFLDOL]HV LQ LQVWDOOLQJ WKH UHPDQXIDFWXUHG PDLQ FRPSRQHQWV HQJLQH WUDQVPLVVLRQ DQG RU UHDU HQGV IURP D GRQRU WUXFN WKDW ZDV HLWKHU ZUHFNHG RU XQVDIH IRU WKH URDG LQWR D QHZ FDE DQG FKDVVLV EXLOW E\ WKH 2(0 ´ ODVW DFFHVVHG -DQ See, e.g., )HG 5HJ Q ³7KH HQJLQH UHEXLOGLQJ DXWKRULW\ RI VHFWLRQ D ' LQFOXGHV UHPRYDO RI DQ HQJLQH IURP WKH GRQRU YHKLFOH >DQG@ (3$ LQWHUSUHWV WKLV ODQJXDJH DV LQFOXGLQJ LQVWDOODWLRQ RI WKH UHPRYHG HQJLQH LQWR D JOLGHU NLW WKHUHE\ DVVHPEOLQJ D JOLGHU YHKLFOH ´ id. DW id. DW Q ³(3$ KDV EURDG DXWKRULW\ WR FRQWURO DOO SROOXWDQW HPLVVLRQV IURP µDQ\¶ UHEXLOW KHDY\ GXW\ HQJLQHV LQFOXGLQJ HQJLQHV EH\RQG WKHLU VWDWXWRU\ XVHIXO OLIH ´ FLWLQJ † D ' +'3 5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQWV DW 8 6 & † 3URSRVHG 5XOH )HG 5HJ DQG Q FLWLQJ &)5 † see also &)5 †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¶V ³DXWKRULW\ WR DGGUHVV KHDY\ GXW\ HQJLQH UHEXLOGLQJ SUDFWLFHV XQGHU &$$ VHFWLRQ D ' ´ 7KH 3URSRVHG 5XOH¶V IDLOXUH WR H[SODLQ ZK\ LQ OLJKW RI DOO WKH UHOHYDQW IDFWRUV LW FKRRVHV QRW WR H[HUFLVH WKLV FRQFHGHG DXWKRULW\² LQGHHG WKH DJHQF\¶V IDLOXUH WR HYHQ DUWLFXODWH WKDW LW KDV FKRVHQ QRW WR H[HUFLVH WKLV DXWKRULW\² UHQGHUV WKLV UXOHPDNLQJ XQODZIXO L 7KH $JHQF\ KDV QRW DWWHPSWHG WR DQG FDQQRW MXVWLI\ UHYRFDWLRQ RI LWV H[HUFLVH RI UHEXLOG DXWKRULW\ 7KH SURSRVDO LJQRUHV WKDW (3$ H[HUFLVHG LWV UHEXLOG DXWKRULW\ DV D VHSDUDWH EDVLV IRU WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV RQ JOLGHU YHKLFOH HQJLQHV :KLOH WKH UHDVRQ IRU WKLV RPLVVLRQ LV RSDTXH WKH DJHQF\ LV ZURQJ WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW LW FRQVLGHUV LWV DUJXPHQWV DJDLQVW (3$¶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ee Sierra Club v. EPA ) G ' & &LU See, e.g ., &RQWURO RI $LU 3ROOXWLRQ )URP 1HZ 0RWRU 9HKLFOHV DQG 1HZ 0RWRU 9HKLFOH (QJLQHV 5HJXODWLRQV 5HTXLULQJ 2QERDUG 'LDJQRVWLF 6\VWHPV RQ DQG /DWHU +HDY\ 'XW\ (QJLQHV 8VHG LQ +LJKZD\ $SSOLFDWLRQV 2YHU 3RXQGV 5HYLVLRQV WR 2QERDUG 'LDJQRVWLF 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU 'LHVHO +LJKZD\ +HDY\ 'XW\ 9HKLFOHV 8QGHU 3RXQGV )HG 5HJ -DQ KWWSV ZZZ JSR JRY IGV\V SNJ )5 SGI SGI see also Nat’l Petrochemical and Refiners Assn v. EPA ) G ' & &LU see also )HG 5HJ -XO\ (3$ KDV ORQJ VLQFH MXVWLILHG WKH VWDQGDUGV IRU FRQWURO RI FULWHULD SROOXWDQW HPLVVLRQV IURP KHDY\ GXW\ GLHVHO HQJLQHV See +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ JOLGHU YHKLFOHV ZLOO DFFRXQW IRU RI WKH 12[ KHDY\ GXW\ LQYHQWRU\ LI FXUUHQW SURGXFWLRQ UDWHV FRQWLQXH VHYHUDO PRUH PRGHO \HDUV HYHQ WKRXJK RQO\ RI WUXFNV ZRXOG EH JOLGHU YHKLFOHV See, e.g ., +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW DQQXDO PRQHWL]HG EHQHILW RI FRQWURO IURP ELOOLRQ IRU 30 FRQWURO DORQH )HG 5HJ -XO\ ORZ FRPSOLDQFH FRVWV DQG +'3 5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQWV DW (3$ QRWHV WKDW )LW]JHUDOG *OLGHU .LWV WKH OHDGLQJ PDQXIDFWXUHU VWDWHV SXEOLFO\ WKDW LW FDQ EH SURILWDEOH DW JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DQQXDOO\ See, e.g . )HG 5HJ +'3 5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQWV DW See )HG 5HJ -XO\ See, e.g. )HG 5HJ DQG +'3 5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQW DW HQJLQHV FHUWLILHG WR FXUUHQW HQJLQH PRGHO \HDU DUH DYDLODEOH WR JOLGHU YHKLFOH DVVHPEOHUV DW DQ\ WLPH 3URSRVHG 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW See e.g. )5 Q 5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQW %DFNJURXQG 'RFXPHQW ³57&´ S GHILFLHQF\ 7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV ³IUHTXHQWO\ UHLWHUDWHG WKDW DQ DJHQF\ PXVW FRJHQWO\ H[SODLQ ZK\ LW KDV H[HUFLVHG LWV GLVFUHWLRQ LQ D JLYHQ PDQQHU ´ (3$¶V IDLOXUH WR UHYRNH LWV DXWKRULW\ UHQGHUV WKLV SURSRVDO XQODZIXO²EXW HYHQ LI WKH DJHQF\ KDG DWWHPSWHG WR UHYRNH LWV H[HUFLVH RI WKH DXWKRULW\ QR UHDVRQHG H[SODQDWLRQ IRU GRLQJ VR H[LVWV $V GLVFXVVHG LQ 6HFWLRQ DERYH WKH WKUHDWV SRVHG WR SXEOLF KHDOWK RI WKHVH HQJLQHV¶ XQUHJXODWHG HPLVVLRQV ZDV VXEVWDQWLDO HYHQ RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKH ULVN HVWLPDWHV LQ WKH ILQDO UXOH DQG PRUH UHFHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKRVH WKUHDWV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ XQGHUHVWLPDWHG 7KH 3URSRVHG 5XOH UHIHUHQFHV HDUOLHU H[HUFLVHV RI WKH UHEXLOG DXWKRULW\ ± WKRXJK RPLWV VRPH VLJQLILFDQW H[DPSOHV ² DQG DVVHUWV WKDW ³>L@I WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ EHLQJ SURSRVHG KHUH ZHUH WR EH ILQDOL]HG (3$¶V DXWKRULW\ WR DGGUHVV KHDY\ GXW\ HQJLQH UHEXLOGLQJ SUDFWLFHV XQGHU &$$ VHFWLRQ D ' ZRXOG QRW EH DIIHFWHG ´ 7KH DJHQF\ KDV QHLWKHU DFNQRZOHGJHG WKDW LW LV FKDQJLQJ SRVLWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ LWV H[HUFLVH RI DXWKRULW\ XQGHU WKH HQJLQH UHEXLOGLQJ SURYLVLRQ ² LQGHHG LW RXWULJKW PLVVWDWHV WKH LVVXH DW )HG 5HJ ² DQGKDV QRW RIIHUHG DQ\ H[SODQDWLRQ IRU LWV XQDFNQRZOHGJHG DQG XQMXVWLILDEOH FKDQJH (3$ LQGHSHQGHQWO\ VXSSRUWHG WKH JOLGHUV SURYLVLRQV LQ LWV 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV ZLWK D FRPSHOOLQJ MXVWLILFDWLRQ XQGHU VHFWLRQ D ' (3$ KDV QRW UHYRNHG WKLV VHSDUDWH VWDQG DORQH DXWKRULW\ IRU WKH JOLGHU SURYLVLRQV DQG WKHUH LV QR EDVLV IRU (3$ WR UHYRNH WKLV H[HUFLVH RI DXWKRULW\ RYHU WKH GDQJHURXV DQG GLVSURSRUWLRQDWH SROOXWLRQ IURP UHEXLOW GLHVHO HQJLQHV LQ JOLGHU YHKLFOHV (3$¶V IDLOXUH WR FRQVLGHU WKLV LVVXH QHFHVVLWDWHV D UHSURSRVDO VKRXOG WKH DJHQF\ VWLOO VHHN WR DPHQG DQ\ IHDWXUH RI WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV WR DOWHU WKHLU VXEVWDQWLYH WHUPV 9, (3$ KDV FOHDU DXWKRULW\ WR UHJXODWH JOLGHU NLWV ,Q WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV (3$ SURYLGHG WKDW JOLGHU NLW PDQXIDFWXUHUV DUH ³LQFRPSOHWH YHKLFOH PDQXIDFWXUHUV ´ DQG WKXV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU FRPSO\LQJ ZLWK WKH HPLVVLRQ VWDQGDUGV HVWDEOLVKHG IRU JOLGHU YHKLFOHV (3$ SURSRVHV WR HOLPLQDWH WKH SURYLVLRQV UHJDUGLQJ JOLGHU NLWV RIIHULQJ WZR JURXQGV LI JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DUH QRW QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOHV WKHQ WKH JOLGHU NLWV FDQQRW EH UHJXODWHG DV LQFRPSOHWH QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOHV DQG D JOLGHU NLW PD\ QRW LWVHOI PHHW WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI ³PRWRU YHKLFOH´ See State Farm 8 6 DW ³>$@Q DJHQF\ FKDQJLQJ FRXUVH PXVW VXSSO\ D UHDVRQHG H[SODQDWLRQ IRU WKH FKDQJH EH\RQG WKDW ZKLFK PD\ EH UHTXLUHG ZKHQ DQ DJHQF\ GRHV QRW DFW LQ WKH ILUVW LQVWDQFH´ id. DW VWDWLQJ WKDW DQ DJHQF\ DFWV DUELWUDULO\ ZKHQ LW ³HQWLUHO\ IDLOHG WR FRQVLGHU DQ LPSRUWDQW DVSHFW RI WKH SUREOHP´ State Farm 8 6 DW (3$ KDV UHJXODWHG WKH HPLVVLRQV IURP UHPDQXIDFWXUHG HQJLQHV LQ ORFRPRWLYHV DQG PDULQH YHVVHOV DV QHZ HQJLQHV See &)5 3DUW VXESDUW , PDULQH HQJLQHV DQG &)5 † D 7KHVH UXOHV DUH EDVHG RQ WKH VWDWXWRU\ SURYLVLRQ WKDW ³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH HQJLQHV´ FDQ LQFOXGH D XVHG HQJLQH See )HG 5HJ $SULO DSSO\LQJ WKDW GHILQLWLRQ WR QRQ URDG HQJLQHV E\ DQDORJ\ &)5 † GHILQLWLRQ RI ³QHZ ORFRPRWLYH HQJLQH´ 3URSRVHG 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW See Encino Motorcars LLC v. Navarro 6 &W VWDWLQJ WKDW ZKHQ DQ DJHQF\ FKDQJHV SRVLWLRQ LW PXVW DW D PLQLPXP DFNQRZOHGJH WKH FKDQJH DQG RIIHU D UHDVRQHG H[SODQDWLRQ IRU LW See +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW OLVWLQJ † D ' DV DPRQJ WKH ³PXOWLSOH DXWKRULWLHV´ VXSSRUWLQJ WKH UXOH EHFDXVH ODFNLQJ D SRZHUWUDLQ LW LV QRW VHOI SURSHOOHG 7KH 3URSRVDO PLVDSSUHKHQGV WKH WUDGLWLRQDO UHJXODWRU\ SROLF\ RI GHOHJDWHG DVVHPEO\ ZKLFK DOORZV WKDW ZKHQ D PRWRU YHKLFOH KDV PXOWLSOH PDQXIDFWXUHUV WKHVH PDQXIDFWXUHUV PD\ DJUHH DPRQJ WKHPVHOYHV ZKLFK LV WR FHUWLI\ FRPSOLDQFH 7KH 3URSRVDO¶V QHZ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI JOLGHU NLWV DV QRW PHHWLQJ WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI ³PRWRU YHKLFOH´ LV LQ LUUHFRQFLODEOH WHQVLRQ ZLWK WKH $JHQF\¶V ZHOO HVWDEOLVKHG H[HUFLVH RI DXWKRULW\ RYHU HPLVVLRQV IURP KHDY\ GXW\ YHKLFOHV ZKLFK W\SLFDOO\ KDYH PXOWLSOH PDQXIDFWXUHUV ,Q DGGUHVVLQJ LWV DXWKRULW\ RYHU JOLGHU NLWV LQ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV (3$ H[SODLQHG WKDW LW ³KDV WKH DXWKRULW\ WR UHJXODWH LQFRPSOHWH PRWRU YHKLFOHV DQG PDQXIDFWXUHUV WKHUHRI LQFOXGLQJ XQPRWRUL]HG FKDVVLV ´ DQG ³FRQVLGHUV JOLGHU NLWV WR EH LQFRPSOHWH PRWRU YHKLFOHV DQG HQWLWLHV PDQXIDFWXULQJ JOLGHUV WR EH PDQXIDFWXUHUV RI WKRVH YHKLFOHV ´ (3$ FRUUHFWO\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW IRU SXUSRVHV RI 7LWOH RI WKH &$$ D JOLGHU NLW PDQXIDFWXUHU ZKLFK FRQWUROV WKH YHKLFOH¶V FKDVVLV FDE WLUHV ERG\ DQG EUDNHV LV D ³PDQXIDFWXUHU RI D PRWRU YHKLFOH ´ $QG LQGHHG LW PDNHV SUDFWLFDO VHQVH IRU WKH JOLGHU NLW PDQXIDFWXUHU WR EH LQFOXGHG ³DV DQ HQWLW\ UHVSRQVLEOH IRU DVVXULQJ WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOHV PHHW WKH 3KDVH YHKLFOH HPLVVLRQ VWDQGDUGV´ EHFDXVH WKH JOLGHU NLW PDQXIDFWXUHU ³FRQWURO>V@ FULWLFDO HOHPHQWV RI WKH XOWLPDWH YHKLFOH¶V JUHHQKRXVH JDV HPLVVLRQV LQ SDUWLFXODU DOO DHURG\QDPLF IHDWXUHV DQG DOO HPLVVLRQV UHODWHG WR VWHHU WLUH W\SH ´ ,Q WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV (3$ GLG QRW VHW VHSDUDWH HPLVVLRQ VWDQGDUGV IRU JOLGHU NLWV EXW LQGLFDWHG WKDW HLWKHU WKH JOLGHU NLW PDQXIDFWXUHU RU WKH JOLGHU YHKLFOH PDQXIDFWXUHU FRXOG FHUWLI\ FRPSOLDQFH ZLWK WKH JUHHQKRXVH JDV YHKLFOH VWDQGDUGV (3$ LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKLV ZDV D URXWLQH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH µGHOHJDWHG DVVHPEO\¶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d DW DQG UHIHUULQJ WR WKH UHJXODWLRQV DW &)5 SDUW WKURXJK see also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³QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH « SDUWV RU FRPSRQHQWV´ LQFOXGLQJ DXWKRULW\ WR ³SHUIRUP WHVWV ZKHUH VXFK WHVWLQJ LV QRW RWKHUZLVH UHDVRQDEO\ DYDLODEOH XQGHU WKLV SDUW´ 7KLV SURYLVLRQ SURYLGHV DGGLWLRQDO DXWKRULW\ WR UHTXLUH JOLGHU NLW PDQXIDFWXUHUV WR JHQHUDWH HQJLQH PDSV DQG FRQGXFW DHURG\QDPLF DQG WLUH WHVWLQJ )XUWKHU &$$ 6HFWLRQ D % SURKLELWV WKH XVH RI ³GHIHDW´ GHYLFHV DQG WKHUHIRUH UHTXLUHV WKH UHJXODWLRQ RI JOLGHU NLWV XQGHU WKH $FW 7LWOH ,, RI WKH &$$ GHILQHV ³GHIHDW´ GHYLFHV WR LQFOXGH ³DQ\ SDUW RU FRPSRQHQW LQWHQGHG IRU XVH ZLWK RU DV SDUW RI DQ\ PRWRU YHKLFOH ZKHUH D SULQFLSDO HIIHFW RI WKH SDUW RU FRPSRQHQW LV WR GHIHDW DQ\ HOHPHQW RI GHVLJQ LQVWDOOHG LQ D PRWRU YHKLFOH« LQ FRPSOLDQFH ZLWK UHJXODWLRQV XQGHU WKLV VXEFKDSWHU ´ $V (3$ H[SODLQHG LQ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV ³D JOLGHU NLW PDQXIDFWXUHU IXUQLVKLQJ D JOLGHU NLW LQ D FRQILJXUDWLRQ WKDW ZRXOG QRW PHHW WKH tractor VWDQGDUG ZKHQ WKH VSHFLILHG HQJLQH WUDQVPLVVLRQ DQG D[OH DUH LQVWDOOHG ZRXOG OLNHZLVH cause a violation of the tractor emission standard ´ (3$ WKHUHIRUH FRQFOXGHG WKDW ³WKH JOLGHU NLW ZRXOG EH D GHIHDW GHYLFH ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH WUDFWRU YHKLFOH VWDQGDUG QRW WKH VHSDUDWH HQJLQH VWDQGDUG $ QRQ FRQIRUPLQJ JOLGHU NLW ZRXOG DGYHUVHO\ DIIHFW FRPSOLDQFH ZLWK WKH YHKLFOH VWDQGDUG ´ 7KLV ORJLF VWLOO KROGV $ JOLGHU YHKLFOH LV DVVHPEOHG ZLWK GHIHDW GHYLFH ³FRPSRQHQWV´ IRU ZKLFK D ³SULQFLSDO HIIHFW´ LV WR GXFN FRPSOLDQFH ZLWK (3$ UHJXODWLRQV IRU QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOHV 6HH )HG 5HJ DW H[SODLQLQJ WKDW WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI PDQXIDFWXUHU LQ VHFWLRQ FRQWHPSODWHV PXOWLSOH HQWLWLHV VLQFH LW LQFOXGHV HQWLWLHV HQJDJHG LQ HLWKHU PDQXIDFWXULQJ RU DVVHPEOLQJ D QHZ PRWRU YHKLFOH Id DW See SURYLVLRQV UHODWLQJ WR GHOHJDWHG DVVHPEO\ LQ VHFWLRQV )HG 5HJ 8 6 & † D % Id † D % )HG 5HJ DW HPSKDVLV DGGHG Id. DW ,Q VKRUW WKH SURSRVDO PLVLGHQWLILHV WKH LVVXH FRPSURPLVHV ORQJ VWDQGLQJ DQG XVHIXO GHOHJDWHG DVVHPEO\ UHJXODWRU\ SURYLVLRQV DQG LV LQ DQ\ FDVH ZLWKRXW PHULW 9,, (3$¶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³UDWLRQDO FRQQHFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH IDFWV IRXQG DQG WKH FKRLFH PDGH ´ (3$ KDV IDLOHG WR SURYLGH D UHDVRQHG H[SODQDWLRQ IRU WKH SURSRVHG UHSHDO DQG KDV IDLOHG WR DGHTXDWHO\ H[SODLQ WKH DJHQF\¶V FKDQJH LQ SRVLWLRQ PDNLQJ WKH SURSRVHG DFWLRQ SURFHGXUDOO\ GHILFLHQW DQG TXLQWHVVHQWLDOO\ DUELWUDU\ DQG FDSULFLRXV (3$¶V EOLQNHUHG DQDO\VLV LV D FOHDU YLRODWLRQ RI WKH DJHQF\¶V GXW\ WR H[SODLQ LWV GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ DV DUWLFXODWHG LQ State Farm DQG VXEVHTXHQW FDVH ODZ a. Agencies must justify reversing the course of policy by addressing the existing record. $V WKH EDVLV IRU UHYHUVLQJ FRXUVH WKH DJHQFLHV PD\ QRW RIIHU D MXVWLILFDWLRQ ³WKDW UXQV FRXQWHU WR WKH HYLGHQFH EHIRUH WKH DJHQF\ RU LV VR LPSODXVLEOH WKDW LW FRXOG QRW EH DVFULEHG WR D GLIIHUHQFH LQ YLHZ RU WKH SURGXFW RI DJHQF\ H[SHUWLVH ´ :KHUH (3$ PDNHV IDFWXDO ILQGLQJV WR VXSSRUW D QHZ SROLF\ DQG WKRVH ILQGLQJV FRQWUDGLFW WKH SULRU UHFRUG LW PXVW DOVR SURYLGH ³D PRUH GHWDLOHG MXVWLILFDWLRQ´ LQ GHPRQVWUDWLQJ WKDW WKH FKDQJH LV UHDVRQHG $Q DJHQF\ PD\ QRW ³GLVUHJDUG FRQWUDU\ RU LQFRQYHQLHQW IDFWXDO GHWHUPLQDWLRQV WKDW LW PDGH LQ WKH SDVW DQ\ PRUH WKDQ LW FDQ LJQRUH LQFRQYHQLHQW IDFWV ZKHQ LW ZULWHV RQ D EODQN VODWH ´ ,Q SDUWLFXODU PRUH GHWDLOHG H[SODQDWLRQV ZRXOG EH QHFHVVDU\ KHUH LI D QHZ ILQDO GHWHUPLQDWLRQ UHOLHV RQ ³IDFWXDO ILQGLQJV WKDW FRQWUDGLFW WKRVH ZKLFK XQGHUOD\ SULRU SROLF\ ´ 1R MXGLFLDO GHIHUHQFH LV SURYLGHG WR DQ DJHQF\¶V SXUSRUWHG H[HUFLVH RI LWV WHFKQLFDO H[SHUWLVH ZKHQ WKDW H[SODQDWLRQ ODFNV FRKHUHQFH See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 6 State Farm 8 6 DW FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. 8 6 See also State Farm 8 6 State Farm 8 6 DW FLWDWLRQ RPLWWHG See id. DW Id DW FCC 8 6 DW :KHQ DQ DJHQF\¶V ³QHZ SROLF\ UHVWV XSRQ IDFWXDO ILQGLQJV WKDW FRQWUDGLFW WKRVH ZKLFK XQGHUOD\ LWV SULRU SROLF\ ´ WKH DJHQF\ PXVW ³SURYLGH D PRUH GHWDLOHG MXVWLILFDWLRQ WKDQ ZKDW ZRXOG VXIILFH IRU D QHZ SROLF\ FUHDWHG RQ D EODQN VODWH ´ Id DW .HQQHG\ - FRQFXUULQJ Id. DW Tripoli Rocketry Ass’n v. BATFE, ) G ' & &LU ³7KH SUREOHP LQ WKLV FDVH LV WKDW $7)(¶V H[SODQDWLRQ IRU LWV GHWHUPLQDWLRQ WKDW $3&3 GHIODJUDWHV ODFNV DQ\ FRKHUHQFH :H WKHUHIRUH RZH QR GHIHUHQFH WR $7)(¶V SXUSRUWHG H[SHUWLVH EHFDXVH ZH FDQQRW GLVFHUQ LW ´ Coburn v. McHugh ) G ' & &LU ³%HFDXVH WKH $%&05¶V GHFLVLRQV DUH ODUJHO\ LQFRPSUHKHQVLEOH RQ WKHVH SRLQWV WKH\ DUH XQZRUWK\ RI DQ\ ,Q SDUWLFXODU WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV HPSKDVL]HG WKDW PRUH GHWDLOHG H[SODQDWLRQV PD\ EH QHFHVVDU\ LQ WKH FDVH RI UXOHV WKDW LQYROYH ³VHULRXV UHOLDQFH LQWHUHVWV ´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³D PRUH GHWDLOHG MXVWLILFDWLRQ´ WKDQ ZKDW LV UHTXLUHG IRU D QHZ UHJXODWLRQ FUHDWHG RQ D EODQN VODWH 5XOHPDNLQJ XQGHU WKH &OHDQ $LU $FW LV VXEMHFW WR WKH JHQHUDO UHTXLUHPHQWV RI VWDWXWRU\ FRQIRUPLW\ DQG UHDVRQHG GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ GHULYHG IURP WKH $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 3URFHGXUH $FW DQG EDVLF SULQFLSOHV RI DGPLQLVWUDWLYH ODZ $PRQJ RWKHU UHTXLUHPHQWV &OHDQ $LU $FW UXOHV FDQQRW EH ³DUELWUDU\ FDSULFLRXV DQ DEXVH RI GLVFUHWLRQ RU RWKHUZLVH QRW LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK ODZ ´ ³LQ H[FHVV RI VWDWXWRU\ MXULVGLFWLRQ DXWKRULW\ RU OLPLWDWLRQV RU VKRUW RI VWDWXWRU\ ULJKW ´ RU ³ZLWKRXW REVHUYDQFH RI SURFHGXUH UHTXLUHG E\ ODZ ´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± ZLWK WKH SDUWLFXODU EXUGHQ RI MXVWLILFDWLRQ GHSHQGLQJ XSRQ WKH FLUFXPVWDQFHV $PRQJ RWKHU WKLQJV DQ DJHQF\ VHHNLQJ WR UHSHDO H[LVWLQJ SROLF\ PXVW GHIHUHQFH ´ see also Haselwander v. McHugh ) G ' & &LU Global Tel*Link v. FCC, ) G ' & &LU FCC 8 6 DW see also Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro 6 &W See, e.g. 7HVWLPRQ\ RI *OHQ .HG]LH $PHULFDQ 7UXFNLQJ $VVRFLDWLRQV (3$ SXEOLF KHDULQJ RQ 3URSRVHG 5XOH 'HFHPEHU ³$7$ PHPEHUV EX\ D WUHPHQGRXV DPRXQW RI QHZ HTXLSPHQW DQG SD\ D SUHPLXP SULFH LQYHVWLQJ LQ FOHDQ HQJLQH WHFKQRORJLHV ´ See, e.g 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 6WHYH &OLII 'HSXW\ ([HFXWLYH 2IILFHU &DOLIRUQLD $LU 5HVRXUFHV %RDUG (3$ SXEOLF KHDULQJ RQ 3URSRVHG 5XOH 'HFHPEHU ³*OLGHUV DUH VR PXFK KLJKHU HPLWWLQJ WKDQ PRGHUQ WUXFNV WKDW HYHQ LI RQO\ D VPDOO QXPEHU RI WKHP RSHUDWH LQ &DOLIRUQLD &DOLIRUQLD¶V RYHUDOO DLU TXDOLW\ SURJUHVV ZLOO EH LPSHGHG ´ FCC 8 6 DW 6HH 8 6 & G VHH also 8 6 & Catawba County v. EPA ) G ' & &LU GLVFXVVLQJ &$$ DQG $3$ UHYLHZ VWDQGDUGV 8 6 & G $ & ' 6HH FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. 8 6 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 8 6 see Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA ) G ' & &LU $FNQRZOHGJH WKH FKDQJH LQ SROLF\ 3URYLGH D ³UHDVRQHG H[SODQDWLRQ´ IRU FKDQJLQJ FRXUVH 'HPRQVWUDWH WKDW WKH QHZ SROLF\ LV LWVHOI FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH JRYHUQLQJ VWDWXWH (QVXUH WKDW WKH QHZ SROLF\ LV LWVHOI VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH UHFRUG ³EDVHG RQ FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH UHOHYDQW IDFWRUV ´ DQG VXSSRUWHG ZLWK ³UDWLRQDO FRQQHFWLRQ>V@ EHWZHHQ WKH IDFWV IRXQG DQG WKH FKRLFH PDGH´ ([SODLQ ZK\ WKH DJHQF\ LV UHMHFWLQJ SROLF\ MXGJPHQWV RU IDFWXDO GHWHUPLQDWLRQV XQGHUO\LQJ WKH SULRU UXOH &RQVLGHU UHOHYDQW DOWHUQDWLYHV UHIOHFWHG LQ WKH SULRU UXOH¶V UHFRUG DQG H[SODLQ ZK\ DJHQF\ LV QRW DGRSWLQJ WKHP LQ WKH QHZ UXOH $GGUHVV ³VHULRXV UHOLDQFH LQWHUHVWV´ JURXQGHG RQ WKH SULRU SROLF\ :KHQ FKDQJLQJ UHJXODWLRQV E\ DPHQGPHQW DJHQFLHV PXVW SURYLGH D ³UHDVRQHG H[SODQDWLRQ IRU WKH FKDQJH ´ 7KH\ PXVW ³RI FRXUVH VKRZ WKDW WKHUH DUH JRRG UHDVRQV IRU WKH QHZ SROLF\ ´ DQG WKH\ PXVW DFNQRZOHGJH DQG DGGUHVV ZD\V LQ ZKLFK WKH ³QHZ SROLF\ UHVWV XSRQ IDFWXDO 6HH FCC 8 6 DW WR FKDQJH FRXUVH DQ DJHQF\ PXVW ³GLVSOD\ DZDUHQHVV WKDW LW LV FKDQJLQJ SRVLWLRQ ´ DQG ³VKRZ WKDW WKHUH DUH JRRG UHDVRQV IRU WKH QHZ SROLF\´ SHH Verizon v. FCC ) G ' & &LU DJHQF\ PXVW ³DFNQRZOHGJH´ DQG ³H[SODLQ WKH UHDVRQV IRU D FKDQJHG LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ´ State Farm 8 6 DW 6HH DOVR AMB Onsite Services-West v. NLRB ) G ' & &LU ³,W LV ZHOO VHWWOHG WKDW 15/% FDQQRW µWXUQ>@ LWV EDFN RQ LWV RZQ SUHFHGHQW DQG SROLF\ ZLWKRXW UHDVRQHG H[SODQDWLRQ ¶´ TXRWLQJ Dupuy v. NLRB ) G ' & &LU see Public Citizen v. Steed ) G ' & &LU see also Verizon v. FCC ) G ' & &LU 6HH FCC 8 6 DW QHZ SROLF\ PXVW EH ³SHUPLVVLEOH XQGHU WKH VWDWXWH´ see also Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs. 8 6 Chevron USA v. NRDC 8 6 see Public Citizen v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin ) G ' & &LU 6HH State Farm 8 6 DW DJHQF\ GHFLVLRQ PXVW EH ³µEDVHG RQ D FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH UHOHYDQW IDFWRUV´ DQG DJHQF\ FDQQRW KDYH ³UHOLHG RQ IDFWRUV ZKLFK &RQJUHVV KDV QRW LQWHQGHG LW WR FRQVLGHU´ TXRWLQJ Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 8 6 Pub. Citizen v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin ) G ' & &LU 8 6 & G FCC 8 6 DW ³ZKHQ >D@ QHZ SROLF\ UHVWV XSRQ IDFWXDO ILQGLQJV WKDW FRQWUDGLFW WKRVH ZKLFK XQGHUOD\ LWV SULRU SROLF\´ DJHQF\ PXVW SURYLGH ³D PRUH GHWDLOHG MXVWLILFDWLRQ WKDQ ZKDW ZRXOG VXIILFH IRU D QHZ SROLF\ FUHDWHG RQ D EODQN VODWH´ DJHQF\ PXVW VXSSO\ DGHTXDWH JURXQGV ³IRU GLVUHJDUGLQJ IDFWV DQG FLUFXPVWDQFHV WKDW XQGHUOD\ RU ZHUH HQJHQGHUHG E\´ SULRU UXOH Pub. Citizen ) G DW DJHQF\ PXVW ³µFRJHQWO\ H[SODLQ¶´ EDVLV IRU VXVSHQGLQJ UXOH TXRWLQJ State Farm 8 6 DW Organized Village of Kake v. U.S. Dep’t off Agric., ) G WK &LU AMB Onsite Services-West v. NLRB ) G ' & &LU see also, Humane Soc’y v. Locke ) G WK &LU State Farm 8 6 DW ILQGLQJ WKDW 1+76$ KDG DUELWUDULO\ IDLOHG WR H[SODLQ LWV UHMHFWLRQ RI RSWLRQ RI UHTXLULQJ DLUEDJV GHVSLWH LWV SULRU ILQGLQJ ³WKDW DLUEDJV DUH DQ HIIHFWLYH DQG FRVW EHQHILFLDO OLIH VDYLQJ WHFKQRORJ\´ Pub.Citizen v. Steed ) G ' & &LU VHWWLQJ DVLGH VXVSHQVLRQ RI UXOH EHFDXVH 1+76$ ³IDLOHG WR H[SODLQ ZK\ DOWHUQDWLYHV ZKLFK WKH UXOHPDNLQJ UHFRUG LQGLFDWHV ZHUH DYDLODEOH WR WKH DJHQF\ FRXOG QRW FRUUHFW´ SUREOHP DJHQF\ UHOLHG RQ DV EDVLV IRU VXVSHQGLQJ UXOH Int’l Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union v. Donovan ) G ' & &LU DJHQF\ LPSHUPLVVLEO\ IDLOHG WR FRQVLGHU DOWHUQDWLYHV WR UHSHDO ³UDLVHG LQ >WKH@ RULJLQDO QRWLFH DQG WKH FRPPHQWV´ See, e.g. Encino Motorcars v. Navarro 6 &W TXRWLQJ FCC, 8 6 , DW see also Smiley v. Citibank South Dakota 8 6 U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC ) G ' & &LU Encino Motorcars v. Navarro 6 &W DW FLWLQJ Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Assn. v. Brand X Internet Serv. 8 6 ± DQG NRDC v. Chevron 8 6 ± ILQGLQJV WKDW FRQWUDGLFW WKRVH ZKLFK XQGHUOD\ LWV SULRU SROLF\ ´ $V State Farm H[SODLQV DQ DJHQF\ SURSRVLQJ WR FKDQJH SROLF\ PXVW VTXDUHO\ DGGUHVV WKH OHJDO DQG UHFRUG EDVHV RI WKH SROLF\ LW SURSRVHV WR UHSHDO DQG PXVW H[SODLQ ZK\ LW LV FKDQJLQJ FRXUVH $Q DJHQF\ SURSRVLQJ D UHJXODWRU\ FKDQJH PXVW RSHQO\ DGGUHVV DQG DQDO\]H WKH substance RI WKH ROG DQG QHZ SROLFLHV LQFOXGLQJ ERWK WKHLU HYLGHQWLDU\ EDVHV DQG WKH UHODWLRQ WR WKH UHOHYDQW VWDWXWH ,W PXVW DOVR SURYLGH D UHDVRQHG H[SODQDWLRQ IRU UHMHFWLQJ RU GLVFRXQWLQJ WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI IDFWV WKDW LW KDG SUHYLRXVO\ UHOLHG XSRQ b. EPA has utterly failed to address the existing record for the glider provisions, failing to properly justify the Proposed Repeal. (3$¶V IDLOXUH WR FRQVLGHU DQ\ RI WKH P\ULDG IDFWXDO DQG SROLF\ LVVXHV LPSOLFDWHG E\ UHYRNLQJ WKH JOLGHU WUXFN SROOXWLRQ OLPLWV YLRODWHV EHGURFN SULQFLSOHV RI UHDVRQHG GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ 7KHVH SULQFLSOHV UHTXLUH WKDW DJHQFLHV FRQVLGHU DOO UHOHYDQW IDFWRUV SURYLGH D UDWLRQDO H[SODQDWLRQ IRU WKHLU SROLF\ FKRLFHV DGGUHVV UHOHYDQW IDFWXDO LVVXHV DQG UHVSRQG WR VLJQLILFDQW LVVXHV DQG FRQFHUQV UDLVHG LQ WKH SXEOLF FRPPHQWV (3$¶V SURSRVDO WR H[HPSW JOLGHU YHKLFOHV IURP SROOXWLRQ OLPLWV GLVUHJDUGV WKHVH FRQVWUDLQWV $V LQ State Farm WKH DJHQF\¶V FDVXDO DSSURDFK WR GHUHJXODWLRQ KDV LQFOXGHG VFDQW FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH XUJHQW SXEOLF KD]DUG LWV SURSRVDO ZRXOG FUHDWH (3$ LV SURSRVLQJ WR H[FXVH JOLGHU WUXFNV HQWLUHO\ IURP DQ\ PRGHUQ SROOXWLRQ OLPLWV VR WKDW WKHUH ZLOO EH QR IHGHUDO SURWHFWLRQV LQ SODFH DJDLQVW WKH GDQJHURXV SROOXWDQWV IURP WKLV JURZLQJ VRXUFH 7KDW ODFN RI SURWHFWLRQ LV LQ GLUHFW FRQIOLFW ZLWK (3$¶V ILQGLQJV FRQFHUQLQJ WKH JURZLQJ SROOXWLRQ EXUGHQ IURP JOLGHU WUXFNV DQG (3$¶V RZQ VWDWXWRU\ REOLJDWLRQ WR DGGUHVV WKHVH SROOXWDQWV DQG SURWHFW SXEOLF KHDOWK ,I (3$ LV WR ILQDOL]H WKH 3URSRVHG 5XOH WKH DJHQF\ KDV DQ REOLJDWLRQ WR H[SODLQ ZK\ LW LV GHSDUWLQJ IURP WKH ZHOO GRFXPHQWHG GHWHUPLQDWLRQV PDGH LQ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV ODQJXDJH´²³>L@W PXVW EULQJ LWV H[SHULHQFH DQG H[SHUWLVH WR EHDU LQ OLJKW RI FRPSHWLQJ LQWHUHVWV DW VWDNH ¶ ´ ´ TXRWLQJ PDK, ) G DW ± FLWLQJ Chevron v. NRDC, 8 6 ± Prill v. NLRB ) G ± ' & &LU DJHQF\ FRPPLWV UHYHUVLEOH HUURU ZKHQ DJHQF\ HUURQHRXVO\ FRQFOXGHV WKDW SDUWLFXODU UHJXODWRU\ DFWLRQ LV PDQGDWHG E\ VWDWXWH UDWKHU WKDQ EDVHG RQ LWV ³RZQ MXGJPHQW´ )HG 5HJ DW )HG 5HJ DW 6HH Mexichem Flour v. EPA, ) G ' & &LU ³WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW (3$ V SULRU DSSURDFK KDG µHQJHQGHUHG VHULRXV UHOLDQFH LQWHUHVWV ¶ (3$ ZRXOG QHHG WR SURYLGH D µPRUH GHWDLOHG MXVWLILFDWLRQ¶ IRU LWV FKDQJH´ TXRWLQJ´ FCC v. Fox Television Stations 8 6 PDQXIDFWXUHUV ODUJH IOHHW RSHUDWRUV DQG WUXFN GHDOHUV² WUDYHOOHG WR WKH 'HFHPEHU SXEOLF KHDULQJ WR XQGHUVFRUH WKDW WKLV SURSRVDO ZLOO XQGHUFXW WR WKHLU VHWWOHG H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG LQYHVWPHQW LQ PRGHUQ SROOXWLRQ FRQWURO RI KHDY\ GXW\ WUXFNV (3$¶V IDLOXUH WR DGGUHVV WKLV LVVXH LV LWVHOI IDWDO OHJDO HUURU d. EPA has failed to provide adequate notice of key issues. (3$ IDLOV WR SURYLGH DGHTXDWH QRWLFH RI DQ\ RI WKH NH\ LVVXHV LQYROYHG PXFK OHVV KRZ WKH DJHQF\ HYDOXDWHV DQG LQWHQGV WR DGGUHVV WKRVH LVVXHV 7KH FULWLFDO LVVXHV RQ ZKLFK WKH DJHQF\ KDV IDLOHG WR SURYLGH QRWLFH DUH PDQ\ $PRQJ WKHVH DUH DQ\ GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH SURSRVDO¶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²RU HYHQ ZKHWKHU²KDYLQJ H[HUFLVHG LWV VHFWLRQ D ' DXWKRULW\ RYHU UHEXLOW GLHVHO HQJLQHV LQ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV (3$ QRZ LV FKRRVLQJ WR UHYRNH LWV H[HUFLVH RI WKDW DXWKRULW\ DQG PRVW IXQGDPHQWDOO\ DQ\ GLVFXVVLRQ RI KRZ WKH SURSRVDO LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH JRDOV DQG REMHFWLYHV RI WKH &OHDQ $LU $FW 7R SURYLGH DGHTXDWH QRWLFH DQ DJHQF\ PXVW ³PDNH LWV YLHZV NQRZQ WR WKH SXEOLF LQ D FRQFUHWH DQG IRFXVHG IRUP VR DV WR PDNH FULWLFLVP RU IRUPXODWLRQ RI DOWHUQDWLYHV SRVVLEOH´ 7KLV LV LPSRVVLEOH KHUH JLYHQ WKH DJHQF\¶V IDLOXUH HYHQ WR PHQWLRQ PXFK OHVV UDWLRQDOO\ GLVFXVV WKH KRVW RI LVVXHV HVVHQWLDO WR WKH TXHVWLRQ RI ZKHWKHU XQUHJXODWHG RSHUDWLRQ RI WKH KLJK SROOXWLQJ JOLGHU YHKLFOHV VKRXOG EH DOORZHG 0RUHRYHU WKH REOLJDWLRQ WR SURYLGH DGHTXDWH QRWLFH ³LV HVSHFLDOO\ LPSRUWDQW LQ OLJKW RI &RQJUHVV¶ LQWHQW H[SUHVVHG LQ 6HFWLRQ G >RI WKH &$$@ WKDW (3$ SURYLGH D GHWDLOHG SURSRVDO IRU LQWHUHVWHG SDUWLHV WR IRFXV WKHLU FRPPHQWV RQ ´ 6HFWLRQ G RI WKH $FW UHTXLUHV WKDW (3$ SURYLGH QRWLFH LQ WKH SURSRVHG UXOH RI ³WKH IDFWXDO GDWD RQ ZKLFK WKH SURSRVHG UXOH LV EDVHG´ ³WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ XVHG LQ REWDLQLQJ WKH GDWD DQG LQ DQDO\]LQJ WKH GDWD´ DQG WKH ³PDMRU « SROLF\ FRQVLGHUDWLRQV XQGHUO\LQJ WKH SURSRVHG UXOH ´ $OO WKHVH GDWD DQG GRFXPHQWV DUH WR EH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH GRFNHW RQ WKH GDWH RI SURSRVDO 6HFWLRQ G SURYLGHV WKDW D UHJXODWLRQ ³PD\ QRW EH EDVHG LQ SDUW RU ZKROH RQ DQ\ LQIRUPDWLRQ RU GDWD ZKLFK KDV QRW EHHQ SODFHG LQ WKH GRFNHW DV RI WKH GDWH RI SURPXOJDWLRQ ´ (3$ KDV IDLOHG WR FRPSO\ ZLWK WKHVH 6HH 6HFWLRQ 9 DERYH Home Box Office v. FCC ) G ' & &LU Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA ) G ' & &LU 8 6 & † See also Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force ) G ³7KH ILQDO UXOH PXVW EH EDVHG HQWLUHO\ RQ PDWHULDO WKDW KDV µEHHQ SODFHG LQ WKH GRFNHW DV RI WKH GDWH RI SURPXOJDWLRQ¶´ UHTXLUHPHQWV (3$ LQYRNHV WKH 7HQQHVVHH 7HFKQLFDO 8QLYHUVLW\ OHWWHU RQ JOLGHU YHKLFOH HPLVVLRQV ZLWKRXW GLVFORVLQJ DQ\ UHOHYDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ VXFK DV WKH VWXG\¶V WHVW FRQGLWLRQV DQG PHWKRGRORJ\ RU WKH GLVFXVVLRQ EHWZHHQ (3$ WHFKQLFDO VWDII DQG 778 GLVFXVVHG DERYH 1RU KDV (3$ PDGH DYDLODEOH WKH HPLVVLRQV GDWD VXSSRUWLQJ WKH 778 VWXG\ FRQFOXVLRQV LW UHIHUHQFHV LQ WKH SURSRVDO XQGHUPLQLQJ WKH SXEOLF¶V DELOLW\ WR PHDQLQJIXOO\ FRPPHQW XSRQ LW 7KH SURSRVDO DOVR IDLOV WR GLVFORVH WKDW WKH DJHQF\ KDG FRQGXFWHG LWV RZQ HPLVVLRQ WHVWV LQ ZKLFK QRW RQO\ FRQILUP WKH PDJQLWXGH RI JOLGHU YHKLFOH HPLVVLRQV EXW LQGLFDWH WKDW WKRVH HPLVVLRQV DUH HYHQ KLJKHU WKDQ LQLWLDOO\ HVWLPDWHG 'RFXPHQWDWLRQ RI (3$¶V RZQ HPLVVLRQV WHVWLQJ DQG RI (3$¶V WHOHFRQIHUHQFH ZLWK 778 RQ 778¶V WHVWLQJ PHWKRGRORJ\ ZDV QRW SRVWHG WR WKH UXOH GRFNHW XQWLO 1RYHPEHU VHYHUDO GD\V DIWHU SXEOLFDWLRQ RI WKH SURSRVDO OLPLWLQJ VWDNHKROGHUV¶ DELOLW\ WR DVVHVV DQG FRPPHQW RQ LW 7KH SURSRVDO DOVR PDNHV QR PHQWLRQ RI WKH PHHWLQJ EHWZHHQ )LW]JHUDOG DQG $GPLQLVWUDWRU 3UXLWW ZKLFK OLNHO\ LQIOXHQFHG WKH UHRSHQLQJ RI WKH ILQDO UXOH DQG KHQFH LV ³LQIRUPDWLRQ « RQ ZKLFK WKH SURSRVHG UXOH UHOLHV´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¶V IDLOXUH WR SURYLGH QRWLFH RI DQ\ QXPEHU RI NH\ IDFWV XSRQ ZKLFK WKH SURSRVHG UHSHDO LV See 6HFWLRQ , DERYH See (PDLO IURP :LOOLDP &KDUPOH\ WR 7RP %UHZHU 'RF ,' (3$ +4 2$5 DYDLODEOH DW KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 Kennecott Corp. v. EPA ) G ' & &LU GRFXPHQWV ZKLFK ³IRUP D EDVLV IRU WKH UHJXODWLRQV VKRXOG SURSHUO\ KDYH EHHQ LQFOXGHG LQ WKH GRFNHW´ DQG ³(3$ V IDLOXUH WR LQFOXGH VXFK GRFXPHQWV FRQVWLWXWHV UHYHUVLEOH HUURU´ ³,QWHJUDO WR DQ DJHQF\ V QRWLFH UHTXLUHPHQW LV LWV GXW\ WR ³LGHQWLI\ DQG PDNH DYDLODEOH WHFKQLFDO VWXGLHV DQG GDWD WKDW LW KDV HPSOR\HG LQ UHDFKLQJ WKH GHFLVLRQV WR SURSRVH SDUWLFXODU UXOHV Kern Cty. Farm Bureau v. Allen ) G WK &LU ³$Q DJHQF\ FRPPLWV VHULRXV SURFHGXUDO HUURU ZKHQ LW IDLOV WR UHYHDO SRUWLRQV RI WKH WHFKQLFDO EDVLV IRU D SURSRVHG UXOH LQ WLPH WR DOORZ IRU PHDQLQJIXO FRPPHQWDU\ ¶´ TXRWLQJ 6ROLWH &RUS Y (3$ ) G ' & &LU 7KH GDWH WKDW WKH PHPR ZDV SRVWHG WR WKH GRFNHW LV LQGLFDWHG DW KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 6HH 6HFWLRQ 9,,, 8 6 & † see 6HFWLRQ ,; EHORZ Sierra Club v. Costle ) G ' & &LU ³,I GRFXPHQWV RI FHQWUDO LPSRUWDQFH XSRQ ZKLFK (3$ LQWHQGHG WR UHO\ KDG EHHQ HQWHUHG RQ WKH GRFNHW WRR ODWH IRU DQ\ PHDQLQJIXO SXEOLF FRPPHQW SULRU WR SURPXOJDWLRQ WKHQ ERWK WKH VWUXFWXUH DQG VSLULW RI VHFWLRQ ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ YLRODWHG ´ See, e.g. + 5 5HS DW /HJ +LVW 8 6 &RGH &RQJ $G 1HZV DW WKH QHZ SURFHGXUHV ZLOO ³LQVXUH DQ HIIHFWLYH RSSRUWXQLW\ IRU SXEOLF SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKH UXOHPDNLQJ SURFHVV´ &RQJ 5HF /HJ +LVW VWDWHPHQW RI 5HS %UR\KLOO WKH QHZ SURFHGXUHV ³ZLOO DVVXUH WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ IRU PRUH H[WHQVLYH SXEOLF SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKH UXOHPDNLQJ SURFHVV´ Ne. Maryland Waste Disposal Auth. v. EPA ) G ' & &LU ³:LWKRXW D UHDGLO\ DFFHVVLEOH VWDWHPHQW RI WKH DJHQF\ V UDWLRQDOH LQWHUHVWHG SDUWLHV FDQQRW FRPPHQW PHDQLQJIXOO\ GXULQJ WKH UXOHPDNLQJ SURFHVV ´ EDVHG RU RI PDMRU OHJDO LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV XQGHUO\LQJ WKH SURSRVHG UXOH (3$ PXVW LVVXH D UHSURSRVDO VKRXOG WKH DJHQF\ VWLOO VHHN WR VXEVWDQWLYHO\ DPHQG DQ\ IHDWXUH RI WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV 1RW RQO\ PXVW (3$ UHO\ RQ GRFNHWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ SURPXOJDWLQJ D UXOHPDNLQJ WKH DJHQF\ LV UHTXLUHG XQGHU VHFWLRQ G % WR UHVSRQG WR VLJQLILFDQW FRPPHQWV )DLOXUH WR GR VR FRQVWLWXWHV D SURFHGXUDO IDLOXUH e. The Proposal Fails to Consider, Let Alone Reasonably Address, an Array of the Factors Relevant to EPA’s Decision. $Q DJHQF\ DFWV DUELWUDULO\ ZKHQ LW ³HQWLUHO\ IDLOHG WR FRQVLGHU DQ LPSRUWDQW DVSHFW RI WKH SUREOHP ´ 7KH SURSRVDO IDLOV WR FRQVLGHU D KRVW RI FULWLFDO LVVXHV ² Any consideration of environmental consequences. (3$ HVWLPDWHG LQ WKH )LQDO 5XOH WKDW HDFK PRGHO \HDU RI JOLGHU YHKLFOH SURGXFWLRQ DW DQ HVWLPDWHG YHKLFOHV SHU \HDU ZRXOG UHVXOW LQ IURP SUHPDWXUH PRUWDOLWLHV 7KLV HVWLPDWH LV IRU H[SRVXUH WR 30 DORQH DQG GRHV QRW DFFRXQW IRU FDQFHUV FDXVHG E\ H[SRVXUH WR WKH XQILOWHUHG GLHVHO H[KDXVW RU IURP H[SRVXUH WR R]RQH ,W QRZ DSSHDUV WKDW WKHVH HVWLPDWHV DUH WRR ORZ ² PHDVXUHG 30 HPLVVLRQV IURP D )LW]JHUDOG JOLGHU WUXFN ZHUH XS WR WLPHV KLJKHU WKDQ (3$ HVWLPDWHG LQ LWV ULVN DVVHVVPHQW (')¶V RZQ PRGHOLQJ LQGLFDWHV WKDW ZLWK WKH OLNHO\ LQFUHDVH LQ JOLGHU YHKLFOH VDOHV SROOXWLRQ EXUGHQV IURP WKLV 3URSRVHG 5XOH PD\ EH HYHQ PRUH VLJQLILFDQW WKDQ (3$¶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† Id Kennecott Corp. v. EPA ) G ± ' & &LU ZKHUH GDWD RI FHQWUDO UHOHYDQFH WR WKH UXOHPDNLQJ ZDV QRW SODFHG LQ WKH GRFNHW XQWLO VKRUWO\ EHIRUH SURPXOJDWLRQ ³(3$ V UHIXVDO WR FRQYHQH D QHZ URXQG RI SXEOLF FRPPHQW SURFHHGLQJV FRQVWLWXWH>HG@ UHYHUVLEOH HUURU XQGHU V G ´ 8QLRQ 2LO &R RI &DOLIRUQLD Y 8 6 ( 3 $ ) G ' & &LU 7KH ³GRFNHW PXVW SURYLGH WKH HQWLUH EDVLV IRU WKH ILQDO UXOH IDLOXUH WR GRFNHW GDWD DQG DQDO\VLV UHOLHG XSRQ LQ IRUPXODWLQJ D ILQDO UXOH YLRODWHV † G & RI WKH &OHDQ $LU $FW´ 8 6 & † 1H 0DU\ODQG :DVWH 'LVSRVDO $XWK Y (3$ ) G ' & &LU State Farm 8 6 DW See +'3 5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQWV DW 8 6 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF\ &KDVVLV '\QDPRPHWHU 7HVWLQJ RI 7ZR 5HFHQW 0RGHO D@OO GDWD >DQG@ LQIRUPDWLRQ « RQ ZKLFK WKH SURSRVHG UXOH UHOLHV VKDOO EH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH GRFNHW RQ WKH GDWH RI SXEOLFDWLRQ RI WKH SURSRVHG UXOH´ HTXLSPHQW %DVHG XSRQ ZKDW LV NQRZQ WKRVH WHVWV GHSDUWHG HJUHJLRXVO\ IURP SURSHU WHVWLQJ SURWRFROV DQG VLPSO\ GR QRW VXSSRUW WKH FRQFOXVLRQ VHH SS ,QIUD %XW (3$ KDV DOVR IDLOHG WR UHOHDVH EDVLF LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH WHVW HYHQ WKRXJK (3$ LQYRNHG LW LQ WKH SURSRVDO DV RVWHQVLEO\ KDYLQJ FDOOHG LQWR TXHVWLRQ (3$¶V H[WHQVLYH SULRU ILQGLQJ WKDW KDUPIXO HPLVVLRQV IURP JOLGHU YHKLFOHV LQFOXGLQJ HPLVVLRQV RI 12[ DQG 30 DUH H[WUHPHO\ KLJK DQG PDQ\ WLPHV WKH UDWH RI HPLVVLRQV IURP QHZ WUXFNV PHHWLQJ FXUUHQW HPLVVLRQV VWDQGDUGV 7KLV IDLOXUH WR SURGXFH DOO LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQFHUQLQJ WKH 7HQQHVVHH 7HFK VWXG\ DQG (3$¶V DQDO\VHV RI LW LV XQODZIXO DQG SUHFOXGHV WKH SXEOLF IURP KDYLQJ D IXOO DQG IDLU RSSRUWXQLW\ WR FRPPHQW RQ WKH SURSRVHG UHSHDO $W WKH VDPH WLPH (3$¶V 19)(/ ODERUDWRU\ LWVHOI KDV WHVWHG WZR RI )LW]JHUDOG¶V JOLGHU YHKLFOHV 7KH WHVW UHVXOWV LQGLFDWH WKDW (3$¶V LQLWLDO HVWLPDWHV RI HPLVVLRQV ² WKDW HPLVVLRQV RI JOLGHU YHKLFOHV ZRXOG WLPHV JUHDWHU WKDQ IUHLJKW WUXFNV ZLWK QHZ HQJLQHV ² LQ IDFW XQGHUHVWLPDWHG JOLGHU HPLVVLRQV %DVHG RQ WKH WHVWLQJ PHDVXUHG 30 HPLVVLRQV ZHUH DV PXFK DV WLPHV KLJKHU WKDQ WKRVH RI FXUUHQW HQJLQHV W@R WKH H[WHQW JOLGHU HQJLQHV PD\ KDYH D IXHO HIILFLHQF\ DGYDQWDJH RYHU FXUUHQW QHZO\ PDQXIDFWXUHG HQJLQHV DQ\ VXFK DGYDQWDJH IRU JOLGHU YHKLFOHV LV OLNHO\ WR GHFUHDVH LQ WKH IXWXUH ´ (3$ DOVR SURSHUO\ UHMHFWHG WKHVH DVVHUWLRQV LQ WKH 3KDVH UXOHPDNLQJ (3$ FRQFOXGHG WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DUH OLNHO\ OHVV IXHO HIILFLHQW DV FRPSDUHG WR WUXFNV ZLWK HQJLQHV PHHWLQJ WKH 3KDVH 0< HQJLQH VWDQGDUG DQG IUHLJKW WUXFNV ZKLFK ZLOO PHHW WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV LQ ZLOO QHFHVVDULO\ SURYLGH HYHQ JUHDWHU IXHO HIILFLHQF\ DGYDQWDJHV 0RUH UHFHQWO\ (3$¶V QHZ WHVW UHVXOWV IRXQG WKDW WKH WZR JOLGHU YHKLFOHV KDG PDUJLQDOO\ ORZHU &2 HPLVVLRQV DV 6HH N.C. Growers, Inc. v. United Farm Workers ) G [[[ WK &LU :LONLQVRQ - FRQFXUULQJ ³&KDQJHV LQ FRXUVH « FDQQRW EH VROHO\ D PDWWHU RI SROLWLFDO ZLQGV DQG FXUUHQWV « 2WKHUZLVH JRYHUQPHQW EHFRPHV D PDWWHU RI ZKLP DQG FDSULFH RI WKH EXUHDXFUDF\ DQG UHJXODWHG HQWLWLHV ZLOO KDYH QR DVVXUDQFHV WKDW EXVLQHVV SODQQLQJ RQ WRGD\¶V UXOHV ZLOO QRW EH DUELWUDULO\ XSVHW WRPRUURZ ´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¶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²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³GLG QRW SURYLGH DQ DQDO\VLV IRU (3$ WR HYDOXDWH´ WR VXEVWDQWLDWH JHQHUDO FODLPV WKDW UHPDQXIDFWXULQJ UHTXLUHG OHVV HQHUJ\ DV FRPSDUHG WR QHZ IUHLJKW WUXFN PDQXIDFWXULQJ LQ LWV QHZ SURSRVDO (3$ QRZ LQFOXGHV D VLPLODUO\ XQVXEVWDQWLDWHG FODLP WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOHV UHXVH DSSUR[LPDWHO\ SRXQGV RI FDVW VWHHO ZKLFK PD\ DYRLG 12[ HPLVVLRQV 1HLWKHU WKH DJHQF\ QRU WKH SHWLWLRQ IRU UHFRQVLGHUDWLRQ (3$ ³&KDVVLV '\QDPRPHWHU 7HVWLQJ RI 7ZR 5HFHQW 0RGHO Q@R '() RU (*5 ´ $QRWKHU DGYHUWLVHV WKDW LWV JOLGHU YHKLFOHV FRQWDLQ ³(3$ HQJLQHV RQO\ ´ PHDQLQJ WKDW WKH HQJLQHV ODFN WKH PRVW FXUUHQW SROOXWLRQ FRQWURO WHFKQRORJ\ $ WUDGH SUHVV DUWLFOH GHVFULEHV VRPH RI WKH DGYDQWDJHV RI D JOLGHU YHKLFOH DV IROORZV 7KH WUDFWRU¶V 'HWURLW 5HOLDELOW 6HULHV GLHVHO GRHVQ¶W KDYH H[KDXVW JDV UHFLUFXODWLRQ EHFDXVH WKH HQJLQH PXVW PHHW (3$ HPLVVLRQV OLPLWV IRU WKH SHULRG LW ZDV RULJLQDOO\ EXLOW QRW WKH ¶ ¶ UHJXODWLRQV ZKHUH (*5 EHJDQ $QG LWV H[KDXVW V\VWHP GRHVQ¶W QHHG D EXON\ GLHVHO SDUWLFXODWH ILOWHU RU WKH GLHVHO H[KDXVW IOXLG UHTXLUHG ZLWK VHOHFWLYH FDWDO\WLF UHGXFWLRQ ZKLFK GHEXWHG LQ DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ $Q\ FODLPV WKDW XQFRQWUROOHG JOLGHU YHKLFOHV SURYLGH ORZHU PDLQWHQDQFH FRVWV DUH VSHFXODWLYH DQG QRW VXEVWDQWLDWHG LQ WKH UHFRUG (3$ QRWHG LQ LWV HFRQRPLF DQDO\VLV RI WKH 3URSRVHG 5XOH WKDW ³(3$ KDV QRW YHULILHG WKHVH FODLPV´ DQG IXUWKHU WKDW ³WR WKH H[WHQW HQJLQH PDQXIDFWXUHUV ZLOO LW QHJDWLYHO\ LPSDFWV P\ EXVLQHVV $V DQ H[DPSOH LQ WKH 7XOVD DUHD ZH KDYH D IOHHW UXQQLQJ QDWLRQZLGH WKDW LV FXUUHQWO\ RSHUDWLQJ HLJKW JOLGHU NLW WUXFNV ZLWK HQJLQHV WKDW GRQ W PHHW FXUUHQW HPLVVLRQV VWDQGDUGV 2XU QHZ WUXFNV ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG IRU SXUFKDVH E\ FRPSDQ\ RZQHUVKLS EXW ZH XOWLPDWHO\ ORVW WKH VDOHV GXH WR WKH DERYH UHIHUHQFHG QHJDWLYH IDFWRUV ´ 7HVWLPRQ\ RI -XVWLQ .HFN *UDQGH 7UXFN &HQWHU (3$ +4 2$5 -DQ DYDLODEOH DW KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 &LWLQJ D FXVWRPHU ZKR KDG SXUFKDVHG WUXFNV RYHU WKH SDVW \HDUV EXW SODQV WR VZLWFK WR EX\LQJ JOLGHUV DV ORQJ DV (3$ UHJXODWLRQV DOORZ LW 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 0DWWKHZ ( 1LHEDXHU /HJDF\ 7UXFN &HQWHUV ,QF (3$ +4 2$5 -DQ DYDLODEOH DW KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 ³:H KDYH QXPHURXV FXVWRPHUV WKDW KDG SUHYLRXVO\ SXUFKDVHG QHZ WUXFNV IURP XV EXW KDYH VZLWFKHG WR EX\LQJ µ*OLGHU NLWV¶ LQ UHFHQW \HDUV IRU WKH VROH SXUSRVH RI DYRLGLQJ FXUUHQW HPLVVLRQV WHFKQRORJ\ See ,QW¶O &RXQFLO RQ &OHDQ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPHQW RQ +'3 3URSRVHG 5XOH DW 2FW available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 )/((72:1(5 Schneider offers glider kit trucks for sale 2FW KWWS ZZZ IOHHWRZQHU FRP HTXLSPHQW VFKQHLGHU RIIHUV JOLGHU NLW WUXFNV VDOH )LW]JHUDOG *OLGHU .LWV What is a Glider Kit? KWWSV ZZZ ILW]JHUDOGJOLGHUNLWV FRP ZKDW LV D JOLGHU NLW ODVW DFFHVVHG -DQ '() LV GLHVHO H[KDXVW IOXLG ZKLFK LV XVHG LQ FRQWURO WHFKQRORJ\ WKDW UHPRYHV KDUPIXO 12[ HPLVVLRQV IURP GLHVHO HQJLQHV DQG LV UHTXLUHG E\ HPLVVLRQV VWDQGDUGV DQG H[KDXVW JDV UHFLUFXODWLRQ ³(*5´ LV DQRWKHU 12[ UHGXFWLRQ WHFKQRORJ\ See 'LVFRYHU '() What is DEF? KWWS ZZZ GLVFRYHUGHI FRP GHI RYHUYLHZ ODVW DFFHVVHG -DQ +DUULVRQ 7UXFN &HQWHUV *OLGHU .LWV KWWS ZZZ KWFWUXFNV FRP LQGH[ SKS VDOHV KDUULVRQ WUXFN FHQWHUV JOLGHU NLWV ODVW DFFHVVHG -DQ 7RP %HUJ Test Drive: Clarke-APG Dual-Fuel Glider 7UXFNLQJLQIR $SU KWWS ZZZ WUXFNLQJLQIR FRP DUWLFOH VWRU\ WHVW GULYH FODUNH DSJ GXDO IXHO JOLGHU DVS[ FRQWLQXH WR LPSURYH WKH UHOLDELOLW\«RI WKHLU HQJLQHV DV PLJKW EH H[SHFWHG DQ\ RSHUDWLQJ FRVW DGYDQWDJH IRU JOLGHU YHKLFOHV ZRXOG OLNHO\ GHFUHDVH LQ WKH IXWXUH ´ 6HSDUDWHO\ WKH UHFRUG LQGLFDWHV WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOH EX\HUV LQ VRPH FDVHV DYRLG D IHGHUDO H[FLVH WD[ ZKLFK LV XVHG WR IXQG WKH PDLQWHQDQFH RI RXU QDWLRQDO KLJKZD\ V\VWHP LL ([SDQGLQJ VDOHV RI JOLGHU YHKLFOHV KHLJKWHQV WKH SXEOLF KHDOWK WKUHDW SRVHG E\ WKLV SURSRVDO 5HFRUG HYLGHQFH VXSSRUWV WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW JOLGHU VDOHV DUH HDWLQJ LQWR VDOHV RI IXOO\ FRPSOLDQW IUHLJKW WUXFNV WKDW PHHW PRGHUQ SROOXWLRQ VWDQGDUGV²LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW HYHQ PRUH VHULRXV SROOXWLRQ EXUGHQV FRXOG VWHP IURP ILQDOL]LQJ WKLV SURSRVDO 2QH IUHLJKW WUXFN GHDOHUVKLS JURXS²FRQVLVWLQJ RI VHYHQ ORFDWLRQV DFURVV ILYH VWDWHV²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hy are commercial truck glider kits popular? -XQH KWWS ZZZ DOOVWDWHSHWHUELOW FRP EORJ ZK\ DUH FRPPHUFLDO WUXFN JOLGHU NLWV SRSXODU see 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 0LFKDHO 0F0DKRQ 0F0DKRQ 7UXFN &HQWHUV DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 H[SODLQLQJ WKDW ³>W@KH WRSLF RI )(7 >IHGHUDO H[FLVH WD[@ RQ *OLGHU .LWV LV PXUN\ DW EHVW $V *OLGHU .LWV UHSODFH 1HZ 7UXFN VDOHV WKDW¶V DOO WKH OHVV LQFRPH JRLQJ WRZDUG WKH UHSDLU RI RXU DJLQJ 86 KLJKZD\ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH ´ 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 0LFKDHO 0F0DKRQ 0F0DKRQ 7UXFN &HQWHUV DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 7HVWLPRQ\ RI -RKQ &DOYLQ 'RXE 70, 7UXFN (TXLSPHQW DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 Id. JOLGHU NLWV WRGD\ EXW ZH MXVW ZDQW WR OHYHO WKH SOD\LQJ ILHOG VR WKDW ZH FDQ IDLUO\ FRPSHWH *OLGHU YHKLFOH VDOHV KDYH DOUHDG\ EHHQ VWUHWFKHG EH\RQG WKHLU RULJLQDO HQJLQH VDOYDJH LQWHQW DQG ZLWK WKLV SURSRVDO WKH\ KDYH WKH SRWHQWLDO WR LQFUHDVLQJO\ RYHUWDNH WKH PDUNHW²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²LQFOXGLQJ RI FRXUVH SROOXWLRQ FRQWURO WHFKQRORJ\ VXSHULRU IXHO HIILFLHQF\ WHFKQRORJ\ DV ZHOO DV DGYDQFHG VDIHW\ IHDWXUHV²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ee 7HVWLPRQ\ RI -RKQ &DOYLQ 'RXE 70, 7UXFN (TXLSPHQW DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF H[SODLQLQJ WKDW QHZ WUXFN WHFKQLFLDQV DUH EHLQJ KXUW E\ WKH JOLGHU EXVLQHVV EHFDXVH ³JOLGHU NLWV DUH VR EHKLQG WKH WLPHV WKDW LW LV FKHDS DQG HDV\ WR IL[ WKHP´ KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 &RPPHQW RI 5REHUW 1XVV 1XVV 7UXFN (TXLSPHQW RQ (3$ 3URSRVHG 5XOH 5HSHDO RI (PLVVLRQV 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU *OLGHU 9HKLFOHV 2FW KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 0LFKDHO 0F0DKRQ 0F0DKRQ 7UXFN &HQWHUV DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 ³+LJKO\ VNLOOHG KLJKO\ WUDLQHG SRVLWLRQV OLNH WKHVH DUH JRRG LQ ERWK JRRG DQG EDG HFRQRPLHV ,Q DQ XSWXUQ WKHVH WHFKV ZRXOG FRPPDQG KLJKHU ZDJHV ,Q D GRZQWXUQ WKHLU KLJK OHYHO RI WUDLQLQJ PD\ WUDQVODWH DFURVV LQGXVWULHV LI QHHGHG ´ See &RPPHQW RI 5REHUW 1XVV 1XVV 7UXFN (TXLSPHQW RQ (3$ 3URSRVHG 5XOH 5HSHDO RI (PLVVLRQV 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU *OLGHU 9HKLFOHV 2FW KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 VHH DOVR +'3 5XOH 57& S ZKHUH (3$ IRXQG WKDW ³MREV LQ WKH JOLGHU LQGXVWU\ FRPH DW WKH H[SHQVH RI RWKHU MREV LQ WKH KHDY\ GXW\ LQGXVWU\ ´ &RPPHQW RI 0DQXIDFWXUHUV RI (PLVVLRQ &RQWUROV $VVRFLDWLRQ RQ (3$ 3URSRVHG 5XOH 5HSHDO RI (PLVVLRQV 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU *OLGHU 9HKLFOHV 6HSW DYDLODEOH DW KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 7KH SURSRVHG UXOH DW LVVXH KHUH LV DOVR SUREOHPDWLF IRU WUXFN DQG HQJLQH PDQXIDFWXUHUV DQG IOHHWV EHFDXVH LW FUHDWHV LQVWDELOLW\ DQG XQFHUWDLQW\ ,QGXVWU\ OHDGHUV DUH FRQFHUQHG WKDW UHSHDOLQJ WKH JOLGHU SURYLVLRQ DQG UHRSHQLQJ WKH ORRSKROH ³FRXOG OHDG WR DQ LQFRQVLVWHQW SDWFKZRUN RI IHGHUDO DQG VWDWH UHTXLUHPHQWV ´ 6XFK LQVWDELOLW\ PDNHV LW FKDOOHQJLQJ IRU FRPSDQLHV LQ WKH WUXFN LQGXVWU\ WR PDNH LQYHVWPHQW GHFLVLRQV &ODLPV WKDW RYHUDOO QHJDWLYH HFRQRPLF LPSDFWV ZLOO RFFXU LI WKH 3KDVH JOLGHUV SURYLVLRQ JR LQWR HIIHFW DUH XQVXEVWDQWLDWHG 7KH PLQLPDO HFRQRPLF DVVHVVPHQW WKDW (3$ VXEPLWWHG LQWR WKH UHFRUG UHDFKHG QR FRQFOXVLRQ RQ WKLV WRSLF QRWLQJ RQO\ WKDW ³(3$ DJUHHV WKDW HLWKHU VWUHQJWKHQLQJ RU ZHDNHQLQJ WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU JOLGHU YHKLFOHV FRXOG SRWHQWLDOO\ LPSDFW WKH FRPSHWLWLYH EDODQFH LQ WKH KHDY\ GXW\ WUXFN PDUNHW ERWK DGYDQWDJLQJ DQG GLVDGYDQWDJLQJ FHUWDLQ VPDOO EXVLQHVVHV ´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³7KH PDUNHW DYDLODELOLW\ RI WKHVH QRQFRPSOLDQW HQJLQHV DQG YHKLFOHV SRVHV DQ XQIDLU FRPSHWLWLYH GLVDGYDQWDJH WR PDQXIDFWXUHUV WKDW KDYH XQGHUWDNHQ WKH HQRUPRXV HIIRUW DQG LQYHVWPHQW QHFHVVDU\ WR FRPSO\ ZLWK DOO DSSOLFDEOH HPLVVLRQV IXHO HIILFLHQF\ DQG VDIHW\ VWDQGDUGV DQG OLNHZLVH DQ XQIDLU FRPSHWLWLYH DGYDQWDJH WR WKH GHDOHU QHWZRUN UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKRVH 2(0¶V ´ 1XVV 7UXFN DQG (TXLSPHQW VLPLODUO\ QRWHG WKDW ³7KH RULJLQDO LQWHQW RI VHOOLQJ JLOGHU NLWV KDV PRYHG IURP D UHEXLOGLQJ PHFKDQLVP WR QRZ PDLQO\ HYDGLQJ GLHVHO HPLVVLRQV (3$ PDQGDWHV ´ 1DYLVWDU D WUXFN PDQXIDFWXUHU H[SUHVVHG LWV VXSSRUW IRU WKH JOLGHUV SURYLVLRQ RI WKH UXOH DQG HYHQ VXJJHVWHG WKDW ³WKH DOORZDQFH LV WRR KLJK DQG WKDW JOLGHUV VKRXOG HLWKHU EH OLPLWHG WR SHU \HDU RU HOLPLQDWHG FRPSOHWHO\ ´ 7KH IUHLJKW WUXFN LQGXVWU\ HQJDJHG ZLWK (3$ WKURXJKRXW 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 3DW 4XLQQ +HDY\ 'XW\ /HDGHUVKLS *URXS DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 8 6 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF\ 0HPRUDQGXP $VVHVVPHQW RI (FRQRPLF )DFWRUV $VVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH 3URSRVHG 5HSHDO RI (PLVVLRQ 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU *OLGHU 9HKLFOHV *OLGHU (QJLQHV DQG *OLGHU .LWV DW 1RY (3$ +4 2$5 +'3 5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQWV DW *$75 7UXFN &HQWHU &RPPHQW RQ +'3 3URSRVHG 5XOH 6HSW available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 1XVV 7UXFN (TXLSPHQW &RPPHQW RQ +'3 3URSRVHG 5XOH $XJ DYDLODEOH DW KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 +'3 5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQWV DW 1DYLVWDU ,QF &RPPHQW RQ +'3 3URSRVHG 5XOH 2FW available at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b. EPA carefully considered the impact to the glider industry and small businesses in the Phase 2 Standards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² VWDQGDUGV UHIOHFWLQJ ³WKH JUHDWHVW GHJUHH RI HPLVVLRQ UHGXFWLRQ DFKLHYDEOH´ WKURXJK WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI DYDLODEOH FRVW HIIHFWLYH WHFKQRORJ\² See, e.g. 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 3DW 4XLQQ +HDY\ 'XW\ /HDGHUVKLS *URXS DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 ³7KH /HDGHUVKLS *URXS¶V PHPEHUV ZRUNHG YHU\ FORVHO\ ZLWK (3$ LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH 3KDVH 5XOH SURYLGLQJ WHFKQLFDO LQSXW ZKLFK ZH EHOLHYH KHOSHG WR FUDIW D VRXQG UXOH ZKLFK WKH *URXS VWURQJO\ HQGRUVHG LQ LWV ILQDO IRUP ´ see also $SSHQGL[ $ OLVWLQJ VXSSRUWLYH FRPPHQWV VSHFLILF WR WKH JOLGHUV SURYLVLRQV (QYLURQPHQWDO 'HIHQVH )XQG %URDG 6XSSRUW $FURVV $PHULFD 3KDVH ,, *UHHQKRXVH *DV DQG )XHO (FRQRP\ 6WDQGDUGV IRU )UHLJKW 7UXFNV DQG %XVHV OLVWLQJ VXSSRUWLYH FRPPHQWV UHODWHG WR WKH 3KDVH VWDQGDUGV LQ JHQHUDO ODVW DFFHVVHG 'HF DYDLODEOH DW KWWSV ZZZ HGI RUJ VLWHV GHIDXOW ILOHV FRQWHQW SRVLWLYHBTXRWHVBRQBILQDOBKGBSKDVHB BUXOHPDNLQJB BILQDO SG I 7HVWLPRQ\ RI .HG]LH *OHQ $PHULFDQ 7UXFNLQJ $VVRFLDWLRQ DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 7HVWLPRQ\ RI -HG 0DQGHO 7UXFN DQG (QJLQH 0DQXIDFWXUHUV $VVRFLDWLRQ DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 0LFKDHO *HOOHU 0DQXIDFWXUHUV RI (PLVVLRQ &RQWUROV $VVRFLDWLRQ DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 3DW 4XLQQ +HDY\ 'XW\ )XHO (IILFLHQF\ /HDGHUVKLS *URXS DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 6XVDQ $OW 9ROYR *URXS 1RUWK $PHULFD DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW +'3 5XOH 5HJXODWRU\ ,PSDFW $QDO\VLV &KDSWHU (3$ +4 2$5 +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW ZLWK FHUWDLQ OLPLWHG H[FHSWLRQV DQG IOH[LELOLWLHV 7KH DJHQF\¶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³WUDQVLWLRQ WR D ORQJ WHUP SURJUDP LQ ZKLFK PDQXIDFWXUH RI JOLGHU YHKLFOHV EHWWHU UHIOHFWV WKH RULJLQDO UHDVRQ PDQXIDFWXUHUV EHJDQ WR RIIHU WKHVH YHKLFOHV²WR DOORZ WKH UHXVH RI UHODWLYHO\ QHZ SRZHUWUDLQV IURP GDPDJHG YHKLFOHV ´ 7KH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV EXLOW LQ D QXPEHU RI IOH[LELOLWLHV IRU JOLGHU YHKLFOH PDQXIDFWXUHUV ZLWK D SDUWLFXODU IRFXV RQ DFFRPPRGDWLQJ VPDOO EXVLQHVVHV )RU WKH \HDU WKH UXOH DOORZHG VPDOO EXVLQHVVHV WR SURGXFH JOLGHU YHKLFOHV XS WR D SURGXFWLRQ OLPLW VHW DW ³WKH PDQXIDFWXUHU¶V KLJKHVW DQQXDO SURGXFWLRQ RI JOLGHU NLWV DQG JOLGHU YHKLFOHV IRU DQ\ \HDU IURP WR ´ 7KH ORQJ WHUP SURJUDP EHJLQV RQ -DQXDU\ DQG FRQWDLQV PXOWLSOH ³WUDQVLWLRQDO IOH[LELOLWLHV ´ 6PDOO EXVLQHVVHV PD\ SURGXFH XS WR JOLGHU YHKLFOHV²RU DUH FDSSHG DW WKHLU KLJKHVW DQQXDO SURGXFWLRQ IURP WR LI WKDW DPRXQW LV OHVV WKDQ ²WKDW DUH QRW LQ FRPSOLDQFH ZLWK WKH HQJLQH DQG YHKLFOH VWDQGDUGV 0RGHO \HDU DQG ODWHU HQJLQHV LQVWDOOHG LQ JOLGHU YHKLFOHV GR QRW KDYH WR VDWLVI\ WKH 3KDVH *+* HQJLQH VWDQGDUGV )LQDOO\ DV PHQWLRQHG SUHYLRXVO\ UHEXLOW HQJLQHV PD\ EH LQVWDOOHG ZLWKRXW PHHWLQJ WKH VWDQGDUGV IRU WKH \HDU RI JOLGHU YHKLFOH DVVHPEO\ LI WKH HQJLQHV DUH ³ZLWKLQ WKHLU UHJXODWRU\ XVHIXO OLIH ´ 7KHVH PRGLILFDWLRQV DQG IOH[LELOLWLHV ZHUH UHVSRQVLYH WR DQG UHIOHFWHG WKH LQSXW WKH DJHQF\ UHFHLYHG WKURXJK LWV VPDOO EXVLQHVV SDQHO DQG UHJXODWRU\ IOH[LELOLW\ DQDO\VLV &$$ † D $ See +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW 7RP %HUJ The Return of the Glider 758&.,1*,1)2 $SU KWWS ZZZ WUXFNLQJLQIR FRP FKDQQHO HTXLSPHQW DUWLFOH VWRU\ WKH UHWXUQ RI WKH JOLGHU DVS[ ³*URZWK LQ JOLGHUV LQ UHFHQW \HDUV ZDV GXH WR WKH )(7 DYRLGDQFH SRRU IXHO HFRQRP\ ZLWK (3$ VSHF HQJLQHV DQG WKHQ WKH KLJK FRVW RI (3$ HPLVVLRQV UHTXLUHPHQWV +DPHV VD\V ´ +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW See 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 6XVDQ $OW 9ROYR DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 -LP 3DUN Is There A Glider Kit in Your Future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³VHW XS WR PDNH D SURILW DW >JOLGHU YHKLFOHV@ D \HDU ´ $V (3$ H[SODLQHG ³,W LV LPSRUWDQW WR HPSKDVL]H WKDW (3$ LV QRW EDQQLQJ JOLGHUV 5DWKHU DV GHVFULEHG EHORZ (3$ LV UHTXLULQJ WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOHV PHHW WKH VWDQGDUGV WKDW DOO RWKHU QHZ WUXFNV DUH UHTXLUHG WR PHHW XQOHVV HOLJLEOH IRU FHUWDLQ OLPLWHG H[HPSWLRQV WKDW SURYLGH IOH[LELOLW\ IRU VPDOO EXVLQHVVHV DQG IRU FHUWDLQ RWKHU VSHFLILF DSSOLFDWLRQV ´ 7KH UXOH UHVWRUHV JOLGHU SURGXFWLRQ VWDQGDUGV DQG YROXPH WR OHYHOV ³FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH RULJLQDO SXUSRVH RI JOLGHU NLWV DQG YHKLFOHV ´ 0RUHRYHU DV (3$ QRWHG LQ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV PDQ\ WUXFN GHDOHUV DQG PDQXIDFWXUHUV VXEPLWWHG FRPPHQWV WR WKH DJHQF\ WR VWDWH WKHLU VXSSRUW IRU WKH JOLGHU SURYLVLRQV 0HDQZKLOH (3$ SHUIRUPHG QR VPDOO EXVLQHVV UHJXODWRU\ IOH[LELOLW\ DQDO\VLV DQG FRQYHQHG QR VPDOO EXVLQHVV SDQHO ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH LPSDFW RI WKLV 3URSRVHG 5XOH DQRWKHU DEVHQFH WKDW UHQGHUV WKLV UXOHPDNLQJ DUELWUDU\ DQG FDSULFLRXV ,Q IDFW LWV SURSRVDO GLG QRW LQFOXGH DQ\ GLVFXVVLRQ RU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ UHODWHG WR WKLV UXOHPDNLQJ¶V QHJDWLYH SRWHQWLDO LPSDFWV IRU VPDOO EXVLQHVVHV OLNH IUHLJKW WUXFN GHDOHUVKLSV WKDW KDYH SURSHUO\ LQYHVWHG LQ HPLVVLRQ FRQWUROOLQJ IUHLJKW WUXFN VDOHV DQG PDLQWHQDQFH ;,, (3$ 6KRXOG 1RW 2WKHUZLVH :HDNHQ WKH *OLGHU 3URYLVLRQV $V GLVFXVVHG LQ GHWDLO DERYH WKH XVH RI HDFK JOLGHU YHKLFOH ZLWK D QRQFRPSOLDQW XQFRQWUROOHG HQJLQH WKUHDWHQV SXEOLF KHDOWK $FFRUGLQJO\ (3$¶V UHTXHVW IRU FRPPHQW RQ RSWLRQV WR ZHDNHQ WKH 3KDVH JOLGHU SURYLVLRQV LV ZURQJKHDGHG WKH DJHQF\ VKRXOG UHMHFW DQ\ LQFUHDVH LQ WKH FDS RQ VDOH RI XQFRQWUROOHG JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DV ZHOO DV DQ\ GHOD\ LQ LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKHVH SURWHFWLRQV $V ZH GHVFULEH EHORZ QHLWKHU RSWLRQ FDQ EH MXVWLILHG LQ OLJKW RI (3$¶V GXW\ WR SURWHFW WKH SXEOLF DQG WKH H[WHQVLYH UHFRUG RI KHDOWK KDUPV IURP XQFRQWUROOHG JOLGHU YHKLFOHV )XUWKHUPRUH (3$ FDQQRW PRYH DKHDG ZLWK ILQDOL]LQJ DQ\ VXFK DFWLRQ ZLWKRXW ILUVW LVVXLQJ D QHZ SURSRVDO WKDW ZRXOG OD\ RXW DQ\ UHDVRQLQJ DQG DQDO\VLV XVHG WR MXVWLI\ DQ\ VXFK DFWLRQ (3$ KDV D GXW\ XQGHU WKH ODZ WR SURYLGH QRWLFH WR WKH SXEOLF DQG RSSRUWXQLW\ WR FRPPHQW RQ WKH UHDVRQLQJ 7RP %HUJ The Return of the Glider 758&.,1*,1)2 $SULO$SU KWWS ZZZ WUXFNLQJLQIR FRP FKDQQHO HTXLSPHQW DUWLFOH VWRU\ WKH UHWXUQ RI WKH JOLGHU DVS[ +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW See +'3 5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQWV DW VXPPDUL]LQJ FRPPHQWV RI &XPPLQV 1DYLVWDU 1XVV see also $SSHQGL[ $ VXPPDUL]LQJ IUHLJKW LQGXVWU\ FRPPHQWV )HG 5HJ DW See 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 5REHUW 1XVV 1XVV 7UXFN (TXLSPHQW DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 7HVWLPRQ\ RI 0LFKDHO 0F0DKRQ 0F0DKRQ 7UXFN &HQWHUV DW (3$ +HDULQJ 'HF available at KWWSV ZZZ UHJXODWLRQV JRY GRFXPHQW"' (3$ +4 2$5 DQG EDVLV IRU D UXOHPDNLQJ (3$¶V FXUUHQW 3URSRVHG 5XOH PHQWLRQV WKH RSWLRQV IRU ZHDNHQLQJ WKH JOLGHU SURYLVLRQV LQ IRXU VSDUVH VHQWHQFHV ZLWKRXW DQ\ MXVWLILFDWLRQ UHDVRQLQJ RU DQDO\VLV WR VXSSRUW HLWKHU RSWLRQ (3$¶V 3URSRVHG 5XOH GRHV QRW SURYLGH VXIILFLHQW QRWLFH VXFK WKDW DQ\ HIIRUW WR ILQDOL]H HLWKHU DFWLRQ ZLWKRXW D QHZ SURSRVDO ZRXOG EH XQODZIXO a. EPA Must Maintain the Current Compliance Date for Glider Vehicles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²KHUH IOHHWV DQG LQGHSHQGHQW GULYHUV²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³SUH EX\V DUH D NQRZQ FRQVHTXHQFH RI QHZ UHJXODWRU\ UHTXLUHPHQWV (3$ QHHG QRW H[DFHUEDWH WKHP E\ SURYLGLQJ D ZLQGRZ IRU WKH XQIHWWHUHG PDQXIDFWXUH RI QRQ FRPSOLDQW YHKLFOHV ´ 7KH FRPSDQ\ IXUWKHU XUJHG (3$ WR ³DGRSW DGGLWLRQDO VWULQJHQW PHDVXUHV WR SUHYHQW WKH VWRFNSLOLQJ RI JOLGHU YHKLFOHV DIWHU QHZ VWDQGDUGV WDNH HIIHFW ´ (3$ DGGUHVVHG WKHVH FRQFHUQV LQ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV E\ LQLWLDOO\ SURGXFWLRQ RI XQFRQWUROOHG JOLGHU YHKLFOHV EHJLQQLQJ RQ -DQXDU\ ZLWK ORQJHU WHUP OLPLWV EHFRPLQJ HIIHFWLYH -DQXDU\ 7KH DJHQF\ VWDWHG ³WKDW E\ ILQDOL]LQJ UHVWULFWLRQV IRU LQ WKLV UXOH ZH ULVN FDXVLQJ D SUH EX\ VFHQDULR ZKHUH SURGXFWLRQ VXUJHV IXUWKHU LQ 7KLV ZRXOG EH ERWK YHU\ KDUPIXO WR WKH HQYLURQPHQW DQG GLVUXSWLYH WR WKH PDUNHW 7R DYRLG WKHVH SUREOHPV ZH DUH 6HH 6HFWLRQ 9,, G 3URSRVHG 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW (3$ 57& 6HFWLRQ $SSHQGL[ $ SJ See .DWKHULQH 5LWWHQKRXVH 0DWWKHZ =DUDJR]D :DWNLQV ³$QWLFLSDWLRQ DQG (QYLURQPHQWDO 5HJXODWLRQ ´ 0,7 &HQWHU IRU (QHUJ\ DQG (QYLURQPHQWDO 3ROLF\ 5HVHDUFK :RUNLQJ 3DSHU &((35 :3 DW )HEUXDU\ available at KWWS FHHSU PLW HGX ILOHV SDSHUV SGI +'3 57& DW +'3 57& DW ILQDOL]LQJ D JOLGHU NLW DQG JOLGHU YHKLFOH SURGXFWLRQ OLPLW IRU FDOHQGDU \HDU IRU JOLGHU YHKLFOHV XVLQJ KLJK SROOXWLQJ HQJLQHV ´ 5HFRJQL]LQJ WKH QHHG WR DYRLG SUH EX\V RI VXSHU SROOXWLQJ JOLGHU YHKLFOHV (3$ WRRN UHVSRQVLEOH DFWLRQ E\ PRYLQJ XS WKH FRPSOLDQFH GHDGOLQH ZKLFK EHQHILWV WKH LQGXVWU\ DV D ZKROH 7KHUH LV QR MXVWLILFDWLRQ IRU WKH DJHQF\ WR EDFN DZD\ IURP WKLV GHFLVLRQ QRZ WKH UHFRUG VKRZV WKDW WKH SXEOLF KHDOWK FRQVHTXHQFHV ZRXOG EH HYHQ PRUH VHYHUH b. If Any Changes Are Made, EPA Should Lower the Glider Vehicle Production Limit (3$ VKRXOG QRW LQFUHDVH WKH JOLGHU YHKLFOH SURGXFWLRQ FDS IRU VPDOO EXVLQHVVHV WKDW ZDV LPSOHPHQWHG LQ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV 7KDW UXOH ZKLFK JHQHUDOO\ UHTXLUHV DOO JOLGHU YHKLFOHV WR FRPSO\ ZLWK WKH VDPH SROOXWLRQ SURWHFWLRQV DV RWKHU QHZ KHDY\ GXW\ YHKLFOHV FRQWDLQV D SURYLVLRQ DOORZLQJ HDFK JOLGHU PDQXIDFWXUHU WR SURGXFH D OLPLWHG QXPEHU RI JOLGHUV² RU WKHLU KLJKHVW DQQXDO SURGXFWLRQ YROXPH ZKLFKHYHU LV VPDOOHU²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³WUDQVLWLRQ WR D ORQJ WHUP SURJUDP LQ ZKLFK PDQXIDFWXUH RI JOLGHU YHKLFOHV EHWWHU UHIOHFWV WKH RULJLQDO UHDVRQ PDQXIDFWXUHUV EHJDQ WR RIIHU WKHVH YHKLFOHV²WR DOORZ WKH UHXVH RI UHODWLYHO\ QHZ SRZHUWUDLQV IURP GDPDJHG YHKLFOHV ´ 7KXV WKH UXOH LV WDUJHWHG WR OLPLW H[SORLWDWLRQ RI D ORRSKROH WR DYRLG LQVWDOOLQJ KHDOWK VDYLQJ WHFKQRORJ\ RQ QHZ IUHLJKW WUXFNV $Q LQFUHDVH LQ WKH FDS RQ SURGXFWLRQ RI XQFRQWUROOHG JOLGHU YHKLFOHV ZRXOG EH GHHSO\ GDPDJLQJ IRU SXEOLF KHDOWK ,Q WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV (3$ OLPLWHG WKH QXPEHU RI JOLGHU YHKLFOHV WKDW FDQ EH SURGXFHG ZLWK WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKDW DQ HQRUPRXV DPRXQW RI SROOXWLRQ FRXOG EH DYRLGHG E\ OLPLWLQJ ³HYHQ D IUDFWLRQ RI WKHVH JOLGHU YHKLFOHV ´ (3$ HVWLPDWHG LQ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV WKDW JOLGHU YHKLFOHV ³KDYH 12[ DQG 30 HPLVVLRQV ± WLPHV KLJKHU WKDQ FXUUHQW HQJLQHV ´ UHVXOWLQJ LQ ³VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU LQ XVH HPLVVLRQV RI DLU SROOXWDQWV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK D KRVW RI DGYHUVH KXPDQ KHDOWK HIIHFWV LQFOXGLQJ SUHPDWXUH PRUWDOLW\ ´ 7KH UHVXOWV RI (3$¶V PRUH +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW See +'3 57& DW ³>$@ RQH \HDU GHOD\ WKDW DOORZHG DGGLWLRQDO JOLGHU YHKLFOHV WR EH SURGXFHG ZLWK KLJK SROOXWLQJ HQJLQHV ZRXOG UHVXOW LQ WKH IROORZLQJ LPSDFWV WRQV RI DGGLWLRQ 12[ HPLVVLRQV WRQV RI DGGLWLRQDO 30 HPLVVLRQV WR SUHPDWXUH GHDWKV WR ELOOLRQ LQ 30 UHODWHG PRQHWL]HG GLVEHQHILWV ´ +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW ³>,@W LV FOHDU WKDW UHPRYLQJ HYHQ D IUDFWLRQ RI JOLGHU NLW YHKLFOHV IURP WKH URDG ZLOO \LHOG VXEVWDQWLDO KHDOWK UHODWHG EHQHILWV ´ +'3 5XOH )HG 5HJ DW UHFHQW DQDO\VLV²D VWXG\ FRQGXFWHG LQ ²VKRZ WKDW LQ IDFW (3$ underestimated WKH FULWHULD SROOXWDQW HPLVVLRQV IURP JOLGHU YHKLFOHV LQ WKH 3KDVH 6WDQGDUGV 0RVW JOLGHU SURGXFHUV ZHUH DOUHDG\ RSHUDWLQJ ZLWKLQ WKH UDQJH RI WKH FDS VR WKHLU EXVLQHVVHV ZLOO QRW EH DGYHUVHO\ DIIHFWHG DQG WKH SXEOLF KHDOWK EHQHILWV RI NHHSLQJ DV PDQ\ JOLGHU YHKLFOHV RII WKH URDG DV SRVVLEOH DUH LPPHQVH (3$ KDV QRW DQG FDQQRW MXVWLI\ DQ LQFUHDVH LQ WKH FDS RQ SURGXFWLRQ RI XQFRQWUROOHG JOLGHU YHKLFOHV *LYHQ WKH H[WHQVLYH HYLGHQFH RI SXEOLF KHDOWK ULVNV IURP XQFRQWUROOHG YHKLFOHV LI WKH DJHQF\ FRQVLGHUV DQ\ FKDQJH WR WKH FDS LW VKRXOG FRQVLGHU ORZHULQJ WKH PD[LPXP QXPEHU RI XQFRQWUROOHG YHKLFOHV DOORZHG ;,,, &RQFOXVLRQ (3$ LV SURSRVLQJ WR UHYRNH LPSRUWDQW VDIHJXDUGV DJDLQVW JOLGHU WUXFN SROOXWLRQ EDVHG RQ DQ LPSHUPLVVLEOH UHDGLQJ RI WKH VWDWXWH ZLWKRXW SURSHUO\ FRQVLGHULQJ DQ\ RI WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW DQG DODUPLQJ FRQVHTXHQFHV RI WKLV UHJXODWRU\ FKDQJH IRU SXEOLF KHDOWK RU D KRVW RI RWKHU YLWDO FRQVLGHUDWLRQV )RU WKH IRUHJRLQJ UHDVRQV (') UHVSHFWIXOO\ XUJHV WKDW (3$ ZLWKGUDZ WKH 3URSRVHG 5XOH 5HVSHFWIXOO\ VXEPLWWHG $OLFH +HQGHUVRQ &KHW )UDQFH +LODU\ 6LQQDPRQ (ULQ 0XUSK\ 0DUWKD 5REHUWV 3HWHU =DO]DO 5DFKHO )XOOPHU 6XUEKL 6DUDQJ )RU (') +RZDUG /HDUQHU $QQ 0HVQLNRII )RU (3/& 3HJJ\ 0 6KHSDUG )RU :( $&7 &KDVVLV '\QDPRPHWHU 7HVWLQJ (3$ ³&KDVVLV '\QDPRPHWHU 7HVWLQJ RI 7ZR 5HFHQW 0RGHO Cc: Cullen, Angela Nelson, Brian Carpenter, Kae Soni, Bharat Wray, Lee Subject: RE: Tennessee Tech University - Follow Up Bill Thank you for your email. The document you reference is part of a Sponsored Research project. Consequently, Tennessee Tech University does not have the authority to grant permission to publish it. Thomas Brewer Associate Vice President Executive Director TCIM Tennessee Center for Intelligent Mobility I Tennesse TECH From: Charmley, William [mailtg:charmley.williamQ egg gov] $ent: Friday. December 08, 2017 3:22 PM ?To: Brewer, Tom Cc: Cullen, Angela Nelson, Brian Subject: RE: Tennessee Tech University - Follow Up Dear Tom, I have attached to this email the spreadsheet that you provided at my request in mid-November which includes the additional and CO data the team collected during your testing of several reman and OEM tractors. My staff and I would like to place this data into the public docket for our current rulemaking, that is, the proposal EPA issues last month to repeal the current EPA standards that apply to glider tractors. This would make the test data for the additional test modes available for stakeholders to review. Can you please let us know if that is acceptable to Please not that next week, December 11-15, [will not be in the office. If you have any questions you can respond to this mail, and Angela or Brian can follow up with you. Best regards, Bill Charmley Director Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48105 desk ph. 734?214-4466 cell ph. 734-545?0333 e?mail: charmley.william@epa.gov From: Brewer, Tom Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 11:25 AM To: Charmley, William Cc: Cullen, Angela Nelson, Brian Carpenter, Kae Soni, Bharat Wray, Lee Subject: RE: Tennessee Tech University - Follow Up Bill Thank you for your email. The document you reference is part of a Sponsored Research project. Consequently, Tennessee Tech University does not have the authority to grant permission to publish it. Thomas Brewer Associate Vice President Executive Director TCIM Tennessee Center for Intelligent Mobility Tennessee TECH Wee WW Heavy Duty Vehicle Emissions Testing Cycle Results - Nitrogen Oxide Purpose Gather Field Test Emissions Data to compare Glider Kits nemanutactured Engines versus OEM 'Certified' Engines 1101: (ngP'hr) Vehicle Engine Test Date Mileage Type Model Yr 509'. 25% Denali Bless! Series 5012 7 Uler 09119115 52 ReMan 916 20:33 Calm! Diesel Sena 6012 7 Liter 0911 9115 655,419 Hern Fm zoos Delmll Diesel Series 60 12 7 Liter 09:2216 52 Benton Fla 2003 Delroll Diesel Sm?es 60 12 7 Liter [195221 6 FleNhn Fre 2003 Delrall Diesel Series 6012 Liter 6 a new Pre 2003 Delroa Diesel Saris 5012 7 Uler 101'1 7115 63 FlethrI Pie 2005 Detroit Diesel 131315 11n9r1 6 63 Flelvhn 2007 Caterpilla'CTia 11109f16 57958 FleMan Pre 2003 REDACTED Detroit Diesel DD15 11129116 375 OEM 2017 [0 Detroit Diesel DD15 1 1529M 5 375 OEM 2917 11 Canon Diesel 01315 112911 6 384 OEM 2017 12 Daron Bleed DD15 11291'16 378 OEM 2017 13 Delroil Diesel 0:115 11.2911 5 356 OEM 2017 14 Valm 013 0927117 OEM 2014 15 Volvo D13 10? 5117 250121 OEM 2017 Notes Field Tested (15) Heavy Duty Classa Vehicles for NOxl co I Particulate Matter Flerranui?actured 51ng 115(7) OEM 'Certi?ed' Engines Vehicles #1 a 3 Same Truck l1 In'th Small Turbocharger? 3 mini Larg Turbocharger Prepared By: Vehicle 1 4 recorded unusable data except for 1m Low Test Cycle Thomas Brewer the Lot' Representative Vehicle Sailplelecwa High Mileage Executive Director All Vehicles Field Tested on Chassis Dynamometer con-man Location TN Center to: lnulbgont "chili? Uncontrolled Variable: - Air Density! Aniaient Tempardure I Hun-I'dityl Fuel Mixture 5 Estate Rating I Oil Type Tennessee Ted: Unwm Utilized EPAAD Field th Procedures and (FEMS) PorHtle Enisa'ons Memement System Dated :11115 12111 Vehicle Engine Show tmck.smaller turbo Detroit Diesel Series 60 12 7 Liter ad1772 Detroit Diesel Sales 60 127 Liter 39251 ECU 2 Detroit Diesel Series 60 12 7 Liter 39252 ECU 1 Detroit Diesel Series 60 12 7 Liter 432833.00 Detroit Diesel D015 Post 2007 new 1 Detroit Diesd 0015 Post 200? new 2 Detroit Diesel DD15 DACTE PO61: 2007 new 3 Detroit Diesel D015 Post 200? new 4 Detroit Diael 0015 Post 2007 new 5 Detroit Diesel Slim truck. Large turbo Detroit Diesel Series 60 12 7 Liter 498201-00 Cat CT13 Volvo VNL 300 D13 The purpose of this test was to gather preliminary data as to how close to certi?ed vehicles glider kits are and to gather data to investigate how to improve their emissions. Cells marked 0 are below detection threshold of 1 part per million mass is mailed when the EPA documentation says for a rating HP is measured horsepower. An SAE recommended 85% mechanical erteciency is assumed Data for 920384 was unusable except for full load All data for it is at in! load While the preliminary tests were as controlled as possible without disrup?ng daily activities. the folowing variables can change the resulting emmissions: Air tem perature Air density Hum idity Wear Fuel is 'as driven' Fuel Temperature Oil type Pmbient emissims Mechanical Elfeciency intake irregtdarities Exhaust irregularities 2/13/2018 Mail - Klykins@tntech.edu FW: Tennessee Tech Univ Follow Up Brewer, Tom Mon 2/12/2018 3:19 PM ithykins, Karen ?ll 1 attachments ('lil KB) TCIM DV Emissions Test Procedure July 2016_clocx; Thomas Brewer Associate Vice President Executive Director TCIM - Tennessee Center for Intelligent Mobility Tennessee From: Brewer, Torn Sent: Tuesday, November 07. 2017 4:46 PM To: Charmley, William Subject: Tennessee Tech Univ - Follow Up Hey Bill enjoyed our conversation today don't hesitate contacting me if you need anything else. See attached file that documents our Test Procedures and the links below for both the Chassis Dyno and Combustion Analyzer. Thomas Brewer Associate Vice President lgltecutive Director j'ClM Tennessee Center for Intelligent Mobility ?outlook .of?ce .com/owa/C?rcal 2/13/2018 Mail - tnlech .edu e-maiI: WW From: Brewer, Tom [mailtozl?requ tntecnedu] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 5:46 PM To: Charmley, William Subject: Tennessee Tech Univ - Follow Up Hey Bill enjoyed our conversation today don't hesitate contacting me if you need anything else. See attached file that documents our Test Procedures and the links below for both the Chassis Dyno and Combustion Analyzer. Thomas Brewer Associate Vice President Executive Director TCIM - Tennessee Center for Intelligent Mobility Tennessee 5? TECH utlook .of?ce .com/owa/?Ireal 3/3 2113/2018 Mail - TN Tennessee Tech University - Follow Up Brewer, Torn Mon 2/12/2018 3:40 PM Karen 2 attachments [862 Redacted 11-17?17 Email from Tom Brewer with Follow-Uppdf; See attached Thomas Brewer Associate Vice President Executive Director Tennessee Center for Intelligent Mobility Tennessee TECH From: Brewer, Tom Sent: Thursday, January 04. 2018 6:32 PM To: Joe DePew . ubject: Fwd: Tennessee Tech University - Follow Up FYI I will send Joe's email address as the Research Sponsor contact to Bill Charmley. Further, what does a redacted version' mean Thanks Tom Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "Charmley. William" To: "Brewer, Tom" Cc: Cullen, Angela Nelson, Brian Carpenter. Kae Subject: RE: Tennessee Tech University - Follow Up Dear Tom, Thank you for this response below regarding the additional test data. I was out of the office last week and I'm still catching up. Is it possible I could ask the sponsor of the research program if the test data can be made available to the public? Please let me know your thoughts on this. Have a peaceful holiday. Bill 214 2113/2018 Mail - KLykins?tntechcdu Bill Charmley Director Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US. Environmental Protection Agency National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48105 desk ph. 734-214-4466 cell ph. 734-545-0333 e-mail: e. a 0 From: Brewer. Tom Sent: Tuesday, December 12. 2017 11:25 AM To: Charmley, William Cc: Cullen. Angela i Wray, Lee Cc: Cullen, Angela Nelson, Brian mew Subject: RE: Tennessee Tech University - Follow Up Dear Tom, I have attached to this email the spreadsheet that you provided at my request in mid-November which includes the additional NOX and 00 data the TTU team collected during your testing of several reman and OEM tractors. My staff and I would like to place this data into the public docket for our current rulemaking, that is. the proposal EPA issues last month to repeal the current EPA standards that apply to glider tractors. This would make the TTU test data for the additional test modes available for stakeholders to review. Can you please let us know if that is acceptable to 3/4 2/l3/20l 8 Mail - Please not that next week, December 11-15, I will not be in the office. If you have any questions you can respond to this mail, and Angela or Brian can follow up with you. Best regards, Bill Bill Charmley Director Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US. Environmental Protection Agency National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48105 desk ph. 734-214?4466 cell ph. 734-545-0333 e-mail: charmleymlliam@egagov From: Brewer Tom Sent: Friday. November 17, 2017 3 .43 PM TO: Charmiey. William <9hatmimm9913199a391> Subject: Tennessee Tech University- Follow Up Bill Per your request for the TTU Heavy Duty Truck Emissions Field Testing results please see the attached details of the data for the 15 vehicles. And to follow up from our Conference Call, the minutes you sent for us to review are accurate Lastly. TTU is requesting two pieces of information from the EPA 0 Specifications Cetane Rating etc for the Fuel used in Emissions Testing at the EPA Ann Abor Lab (2) How many I What Make and Model of Glider Kits are you currently testing Thank you so much and don?t hesitate contacting me for further information. Thomas Brewer Associate Vice President Executive Director TCIM Tennessee Center for Intelligent Mobility 414 From: Charmley, William Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 3:22 PM To: Brewer, Tom <18rewer@tntech.gdg> Cc: Cullen, Angela Nelson, Brian Subject: RE: Tennessee Tech University - Follow Up Dear Tom, i have attached to this email the spreadsheet that you provided at my request in mid-November which includes the additional and CO data the TTU team collected during your testing of several reman and OEM tractors. My staff and I would like to place this data into the public docket for our current rulemaking, that is, the proposal EPA issues last month to repeal the current EPA standards that apply to glider tractors. This would make the test data for the additional test modes available for stakeholders to review. Can you please let us know if that is acceptable to Please not that next week, December 11-15, I will not be in the of?ce. If you have any questions you can respond to this mail, and Angela or Brian can follow up with you. Best regards, Bill Bill Charmley Director Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US. Environmental Protection Agency National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, Ml 48105 desk ph. 734-214?4466 cell ph. 734-545?0333 e-mail: charrnleyLWilliam(UL-(Emmy From: Brewer, Tom Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 11:25 AM To: Charmley, William Cc: Cullen, Angela Nelson, Brian Carpenter, Kae Sonl, Bharat Wray, Lee Subject: RE: Tennessee Tech University - Follow Up Bill Thank you for your email. The document you reference is part of a Sponsored Research project. Consequently, Tennessee Tech University does not have the authority to grant permission to publish it. Thomas Brewer Associate Vice President Executive Director TCIM - Tennessee Center for Intelligent Mobility Tennessee 5? TECH euee- Cea?x {rm Heavy Duty Vehicle Emissions Testing Cycle Results - Nitrogen Oxide Purpose Gather Field Test Emissions Datato compare Glider Kits Hernanul'actured Engines versus OEM 'Cerlified' Engines um Vehicle Engine Test Date I?lsage Type Model Yr I . $09- . 25% Delroil Gael Series 50 127 Liter 0911 9?16 52 HEW Pre 2113 Deiroil Diesel Series. 60 117 Liter 09119115 5515911 9 HeMan Pre 2003 Damn Diesel Series 50 127 Liter 09122.05 52 FieMan Pre 2003 Devai?i Diaei Sena 60 12 7 Uler 09122116 53 Ram Pre 2033 DelraIY Gael Sena 60 12 7 Liler 10? 1?16 53 RENEE PIE 200:1 Detroit Diesel Series 60 127 Liler 10/1706 53 HeMan Pre 2003 63 Deiroil Diesel 0015 11.0916 Helia'an 2007 cmaacm 11.0916 67.9513 Fla-Nan Prezcoa REDAC I ED Devon Diesei 0015 11129116 375 OEM 2017 1a Diesel 0015 111291116 375 OEM 2017 11 Delmil Diesel 0015 11.29116 384 OEM 2617 12 Dalruii Diesei 0015 11/291 5 378 OEM 2017 1:1 Deh'ca'l Diesel 0015 102916 355 OEM 2017 14 Voiuu D13 09127.0? 700.000 OEM 2014 15 Volvo D13 1011611? 250 721 OEM 2011' Notes 2: Field Tested (15) Heavy Duty Class 5 Vehicles lor I Particulate Matter Hemanu?factured Engines va 7 OEM 'Certified' Engines Vehicles 11 1 5 3 Same Truck 1 with Small Turbochargerl?a with Large Turbocharger Prepared By: Vehide ll 4 recorded unusable me: except lar 100% Lou Test Cyde Thomas Braver the Lot' Representative Vehicle Samlee I Low 8: High Mileage Eteol?ive Director 2 All Vehicles Field Tested on common Chassis Dynamometer ennui-ion Location TN Center for Intelligent Mobility Uncontrolled Variables - Air Densily! Ambient Temperature I Humidity I Fuel ?inure 691319 Rating Tme Tennessee Tedi University Utilized BIA 40 1055 Field Test Pracedires and (FEMS) Portable Emisions Measurenem System Dated :11 [15(2017 I ?m .M Vehicle Engine Test Date Show truck?smailer turbo Detroit Diced Series 63 127 Liter ad1772 Detroit Diesel Series 60 127 Liter 33251 ECU 2 Detroit Diesel Series 6012 7 Liter 39252 ECU 1 Detroit Diesel Series 60127Uta 432833.00 Detroit (Jase 1303:3307 new 1 Daroit Diesel D015 Post 2007 new 2 Damn Diesel 0015 Post 2007 new 3 Detroit Diael 0015 Post 2007 new 4 Detroit Diesel 0015 Pam 2007 new 5 Detroit Diesel 0015 Show truck. Large turbo DetroitDiasel SeriesSOiZTLiter 498201.00 Cat CT13 Volvo VNL 300 2(Vaivo D13 The purpose ofthis test was to gather preliminary data as to how close to certi?ed vehicles glider kits are and to gather data to investigate how to improve their emissions Cells marked 0 are below detection threshold of1 part per million mass, is marked when the EPA docwnerrtah'm says for a rating is measured horsepower An SAE recommended 85% mechanical elfeciency is assumed unuswlemacepttortislloao Alidatalor itisatlul load While the prelminary tests were as controled as possible without disrupting daily activities. the following variables can change the resulting ernmissions: A-r lemperamre Air density Humidity Wear Fuel is 'as driven' Fuel Temperature Oil type Ambient emissions Mechanical Effeciency htake irregularities Exhaust irregularities ?anitul 0%tatts gamma WASHINGTON, DC 20510 March 12, 2018 The Honorable Scott Pruitt Administrator Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1200 Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 Dear Administrator Pruitt: We write to request information about November 16, 2017 proposal to repeal air emission standards for some of the dirtiest heavy-duty trucks on the road.1 Glider trucks, also known as ?zombie trucks,?2 look like new trucks on the outside?and are advertised and sold as new?but are equipped with old, high-polluting diesel engines on the inside. According to internal agency research not released until after EPA published this proposal, a new 2017 glider truck can emit up to 450 times the particulate matter (PM) pollution, and up to 43 times the nitrous oxide (N O.) pollution, of model year 2014 and 2015 trucks.3 Other EPA analyses concluded that, if left unregulated, glider vehicle emissions could prematurely kill thousands of people, and increase instances of lung cancer, chronic lung disease, heart disease, and severe asthma attacks.4 We are also deeply troubled that this proposal, which appears to largely bene?t a single company, was in?uenced by an industry-funded ?study? that is currently the subject of an of?cial investigation into research misconduct for failing to adhere to basic scienti?c standards.5 We urge you to withdraw this dangerous, legally questionable proposal immediately. EPA and the National Highway Traf?c Safety Administration (NHTSA) have worked closely with states, vehicle manufactures, environmental groups, and other interested stakeholders to develop federal standards that reduce vehicle pollution and improve fuel-economy. An important focus of these regulations has been medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, which, despite constituting only 5% of the domestic vehicle ?eet, produce 20% of all transportation-sector emissions. EPA and NHTSA ?nalized an initial round of greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for these vehicles in 2011, avoiding 270 million tons of C02 emissions and saving consumers $50 billion at the pump.6 In 2016, the agencies completed the second round of regulations (?Phase setting standards for these highly-polluting vehicles out to model year 2027. These carefully crafted rulemakings were the result of ?more than 400 meetings with 82 Fed. Reg. 53,442 (Nov. 16,2017). 2 See Rachel Muncrief& Josh Miller, ?Scott Pruitt?s EPA wants to resurrect the dirty diesel,? INTL. COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSP., Dec. 1, 2017, 3 EPA NATL. VEHICLE FUEL EMISSIONS LAB., ?Chassis Dynamometer Testing of Two Recent Model Year Heavy- Duty On-l-lighway Diesel Glider Vehicles? (Nov. 20, 2017) at 3 [hereinafter Study?], Response to Comments at 1877, 5 8/02/2 6 76 Fed. Reg. 57,106 (Sept. 15, 2011). manufacturers, suppliers, trucking ?eets, dealerships, state air quality agencies, non- governmental organizations . . . and other stakeholders,? as well as feedback received from over 200,000 public comments, including in two public hearings.7 In contrast, proposal, which exempts some of the worst-polluting trucks from being subject to air pollution limits, was reportedly developed at the behest of politically well-connected representatives of glider manufacturers.8 Glider trucks used to be a niche industry, with less than a thousand vehicles produced each year?primarily for engine-salvage purposes when relatively new trucks got in collisions. By 2015, however, ?signi?cantly over 10,000? glider vehicles were being sold, and almost every engine used to complete a glider truck is a rebuilt diesel engine originally manufactured between 1998 and 2002.9 These engines are so dirty that, during EPA testing conducted in late 2017, the black soot belching from glider trucks clogged the ?lters of testing equipment, triggering a equipment alarm? that pre?Vented your technical staff from proceeding under normal testing conditions.'0 EPA soon realized that, if left unregulated, by 2025 glider vehicles would create one-third of all and PM emissions from heavy-duty trucks, even though they would only comprise 5% of the heavy-duty tractor ?eet. In its 2016 ?Phase 2? medium and heavy-duty rule, after taking two rounds of public comment on whether and how to address glider vehicles, EPA ?nalized regulations that ensured the emissions ?om glider trucks would be reduced while minimizing disruption to the few companies that manufacture glider kits and vehicles. 1? Although no one from the glider industry challenged the ?nal glider provisions in court, on May 8, 2017, you personally met with representatives of Fitzgerald Glider Kits, LLC (Fitzgerald),12 the self-proclaimed, ?largest glider kit dealer in the country?13 and a political supporter of President Trump.l4 Two months after meeting with you, on July 10, 2017, Fitzgerald and two other glider kit dealers sent you a petition seeking reconsideration of the glider requirements. '5 You also spoke later that month with Congresswoman Diane Black, who has vocally supported the Fitzgerald Petition.l6 7 81 Fed. Reg. 73,478, 73,481 (Oct. 25, 2016). 8 See, Eric Lipton, ?How $225,000 Can Help Secure a Pollution Loophole at Trump?s NY. TIMES, Feb. 15, 201 8, 8/02/ 9 See EPA memorandum from Charles Moulis to William Charrnley, ?Summary of Glider Production Data? (Nov. 15, 2017) at 1-3, OTAQ Study, supra note 3, at 14?15. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,941?46. '2 Administrator Scott Pruitt? schedule, ??om April 3, 2017 to Sept. 8,2017,? WASH. POST, Sept. 22,2017, washingtonpost. 3-2017- to-sept-8-20 I 7/2241/. ?3 See ?About Fitzgerald, FITZGERALD GLIDER KITS, ?4 See, Eric Lipton, ?How $225,000 Can Help Secure a Pollution Loophole at Trump?s NY. TIMES, Feb. 15, 2018, ?5 Fitzgerald Glider Kits, LLC, et al., ?Petition for Reconsideration? July 10,2017 [hereina?er ?Fitzgerald Petition?], 2017-07-10.pdf. '6 ?black. house. owners. The Fitzgerald Petition lists three reasons why the glider truck industry should be exempt from modern pollution controls, most signi?cantly that (1) EPA lacks statutory authority to regulate them,- and that (2) a ?recent study by Tennessee Technological University,? as well as other factors, demonstrate that EPA based its conclusions about glider vehicle emissions on ?unsupported assumptions,? because glider vehicles actually performed as well or better from an emissions perspective than trucks with newer engines. '7 On, August 17, 2017, you sent letters to Fitzgerald and the other petitioners, saying that the petition raised ?signi?cant questions? about legal authority ?as well as the soundness of the technical analysis? regarding glider emissions. You told the petitioners that EPA had, for bOth legal and technical reasons, ?decided to revisit? the glider rules.18 On November 9, 2017, you signed the proposal to repeal emission standards for glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits, and it was published on November 16, 2017. The EPA proposal states that the basis for repeal would be a legal reinterpretation of Clean Air Act (CAA) de?nitions, even though yOu appeared to acknowledge that your reinterpretation would be contrary to the plain language.19 As support for this strained interpretation of the law (which con?icts with Supreme Court precedent?), EPA cites no legislative history or judicial precedent discussing congressional intent under the Clean Air Act. Instead, legal case rests entirely on the Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 195 8, a sixty-year-old law regulating the placement of stickers on automobile windows, which has nothing to do with either air pollution or heavy-duty trucks.21 Moreover, since EPA issued the proposal, serious questions have been raised about the Tennessee Tech study that had caused you to question ?the soundness of the technical analysis? and thus decide to revisit the glider rules.22 Whereas the technical information underlying the 2016 rule that EPA proposes to partially repeal was ?based on a vast body of existing peer-reviewed work,? the only ?science? cited by proposal is the Tennessee Tech study, which claims that glider vehicles perform just as well?if not better than?vehicles with newer engines. '7 Fitzgerald Petition, supra note 15, at 3?4. ?8 1 7-08- l7.pdf. '9 82 Fed. Reg. at 53,444?45 (citing CAA section 216(3)) (?Focusing solely on that portion of the statutory de?nition that provides that a motor vehicle is considered? new? prior to the time its ?equitable or legal title? has been ?transferred to an ultimate purchaser,? a glider vehicle would appear to qualify as ?new. 2? See, e. g, Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U. S. 497, 532 (2007) (rejecting narrow interpretation of ?pollutant? because Congress used broad de?nitional language an ?intentional effort to confer the ?exibility necessary to forestall obsolescence,? so that EPA could apply overarching congressional intent to ?changing circumstances and scienti?c developments,? including those Congress ?might not have appreciated? speci?cally at the time). 2' 82 Fed. Reg. at 53 ,445?46. 22 epa. ?tzgerald-gliders-ltr-ZO17-08- 17. pdf. On February 16, 2018, the interim dean of the College of Engineering at Tennessee Tech lambasted the study?s conclusions as ?farfetched? and ?scienti?cally implausible,?23 and faculty called for an investigation into research misconduct.24 It has since come to light that the study was not subject to peer review and was paid for by Fitzgerald Glider Kits.25 Tennessee Tech has suspended its relationship with Fitzgerald, has launched an of?cial investigation into research misconduct, and has asked you to disregard the study pending the outcome of that investigation. There are ample reasons why EPA should suspect that the Tennessee Tech research was not conducted appropriately. The study was advertised as a product of Tennessee Tech?s ?Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,?26 despite the fact that it was apparently not overseen, written, reviewed, or veri?ed by any ?quali?ed, credentialed engineering faculty member. ?27 And although the university president wrote a letter saying that all glider trucks ?met the standard? for particulate matter,28 study participants spoke by phone with EPA technical staff on November 7, 2017 and admitted they had taken no numerical measurements of PM emissions?in fact, they had not collected PM samples at all.29 The College of Engineering?s interim dean also highlighted a ?devastating? critique of the study by the Environmental Defense Fund,30 which noted among other things that the research was conducted at a Fitzgerald-owned facility that does not appear to even have emissions-testing equipment that meets standard EPA testing procedures.31 Absent from proposal is any mention of the agency estimates that every 10,000 glider trucks can lead to the premature deaths of 1,600 people.32 Absent is the fact that a single year of glider vehicle sales produces more than 10 times the emissions of Volkswagen?s entire criminal defeat-device scheme.33 Absent is a November 2017 study by EPA technical staff, which found that glider trucks with Fitzgerald-rebuilt engines emitted up to 450 times the PM 23 Memorandum from Darrel I-on, Interim Dean, College of Engineering (Feb. 16, 2018) at 2 [hereinafter ?Hoy Memorandum?], available at 7/a40577 6. 2" TENN. TECH. FACULTY SENATE, ?Faculty Senate Resolution on Fitzgerald Research Study? (Jan. 30, 2018), 2018.pdf. 25 Kate Cook, investigating Fitzgerald study,? HERALD-CITIZEN, Feb. 11, 2018, http://herald- 2? Letter from Phillip B. Oldham, President, Tenn. Tech. Univ., to Scott Pruitt, EPA Admin?r (Feb. 19, 2018) at l. 27 Hoy Memorandum, supra note 23, at 1?2. 28 Letter from Phillip B. Oldham, supra'note 26, at l. 29 Memorandum from George Mitchell, Mechanical Eng?r, Assessments Standards Div., EPA Of?ce of Transp. Air Quality, Teleconference with Tennessee Tech University Regarding Glider Test Report Summarized in June 2017 Letter; Tennessee Tech University Summary of Heavy Duty Truck Study and Evaluation of the Phase 11 Heavy Duty Truck Rule,? Nov. 13, 2017 at 2?3, available at HQ- -OAR-2014- 0827-2416. 3? Hoy Memorandum, supra note 23, at 2. 3' See generally Comments of EDF, ELPC, and WE ACT (Jan. 5, 2018) at 17?24, edf. [hereina?er Comment?]. 32 Response to Comments at 1877, 33 Muncrief Miller, supra note 2. pollution and 43 times the pollution of modern trucks.34 Absent is the fact that, by 2025, proposal would undo?four times over?the interstate reductions achieved by power plants under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.? Absent are the economic costs that unres3t6ricted glider vehicles impose on society, which EPA estimates at $6 to $14 billion every year. In light of the severe adverse health effects of this rule, as well as the fact that decision- making relied on a study that was withdrawn pending the outcome of an of?cial investigation into research misconduct, we ask that you immediately announce plans to withdraw this proposal. We additionally request that you please provide us with responses to the following questions and requests for'information: 1. Please provide us with non-redacted copies of all documents (including but not limited to emails, memos, meeting notes andcorrespondence) regarding the November 16, 2017 proposed repeal of emission standards and other requirements for heavy-duty glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits. This request includes, but is not limited to: a. all documents concerning any and all EPA scienti?c analysis conducted in relation to the proposed repeal; b. all documents concerning any and all EPA legal analysis conducted in relation to the proposed repeal; and c. any documents submitted by EPA to OMB in 2017 that describe the costs and bene?ts associated with the proposed repeal. 2. Please provide us with non-redacted copies of all documents (including but not limited to emails, memos, meeting notes and correspondence) between EPA representatives and representatives of Fitzgerald Glider Kits, LLC, Harrison Truck Centers, Inc., and/or Indiana Phoenix, Inc. since January 20, 2017. For the May 8, 2017 meeting with Administrator Pruitt and representatives of Fitzgerald Glider Kits, please provide me with a list of all people who attended that meeting (including by telephone) and with copies of any materials sent in advance or left behind with EPA personnel. 3. Please provide us with non-redacted copies of all documents written or received by EPA (including but not limited to emails, memos, meeting notes and correspondence) that relate to the Tennessee Tech?s study on glider vehicle emissions, including, but not limited to, documents received from persons outside of any underlying data from the study;37 and any concerns about the study raised by EPA technical staff. 3? OTAQ Study, supra note 3, at 14?15. 35 EDF Comment, supra note 31, at 1] n.41. 3? 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,943. 37 See, Email from William Charmley to Tom Brewer, ?Re: TTU Follow-Up 11-28-2017,? Dec. 1, 2017 (indicating possession of ?more detailed emissions data? from Tennessee Tech, and ongoing EPA analyses), available at 4. Please provide us with non-redacted records of all meetings that EPA political appointees have taken with all individuals and corporations regarding the glider provisions of the Phase 2 Rule since January 20, 2017. 5. In October and November of 2017, EPA technical staff in the Of?ce of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) were conducting emissions testing on heavy-duty glider vehicles containing engines rebuilt by Fitzgerald.38 The ultimate results of that research showed extraordinary levels of PM and pollution from those vehicles?directly contradicting the purported results of the Tennessee Tech study. Your proposal mentions the Tennessee Tech study, but makes no mention of the EPA technical study contradicting it. Your proposal was also published on November 16, 2017?four days before the OTAQ study was purportedly ?nalized (November 20), and six days before it was released to the public (November 22). Did you or any other political appointees know that OTAQ was conducting this study before it was ?nalized? If so, when were those political appointees aware of any ?nal or preliminary results of the study? 6. Your August 17, 2017 letter to Fitzgerald Glider Kits states that Fitzgerald?s petition ?raises concerns that the EPA relied upon ?unsupported assumptions rather than data? with regard to the emission impacts of glider vehicles? and that, ?In light of these issues, the EPA has decided to revisit the provisions in the Phase 2 Rule that relate to gliders.? On what date on or before August 17, 2017, had EPA ?decided to revisit? those provisions, and on what speci?c bases were those decisions made? 7. EPA concluded in 2016 that, if left unrestricted, emissions from heavy-duty glider tractors would represent ?about one third of all and PM emissions from heavy-duty tractors in 2025.? Those excess emissions impose $6 to $14 billion in annual costs to society, and ?removing even a fraction of these glider vehicles with high polluting engines from the road will yield substantial health bene?ts.?39 Do you have any reason to doubt the veracity of these ?gures? If you do, please explain the reason(s) why, and provide supporting documentation. 8. Clean Air Act section 216(3) de?nes ?new motor vehicle? as ?a motor vehicle the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to an ultimate purchaser.? a. As an initial matter, are glider vehicles motor vehicles? If no, please explain your answer and cite any provisions of the CAA upon which your answer relies. b. If a glider vehicle has not been sold to any ultimate purchaser, has the equitable or legal title of that unsold glider vehicle been transferred to an ultimate purchaser?40 If yes, please explain your answer and cite any provisions of the CAA upon which your answer relies. 3" See OTAQ Study, supra note 3, at 4. 39 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,493. 4? By ?ultimate purchaser,? we refer to the de?nition in CAA section 216(5), 42 U.S.C. 7550(5). 9. Hypothetically, imagine that a new Volvo dealer sells a brand new Volvo VNL heavy- duty truck41 to the vehicle?s first ultimate purchaser. The Volvo VNL is straight off the assembly line, including with a brand new powertrain. a. Would that Volvo VNL be a ?new motor vehicle? under CAA section 216(3)? If your answer is anything other than ?yes,? please explain your answer and cite any provisions of the CAA upon which your answer relies. b. Would the same Volvo VNL be a ?new motor vehicle.? under CAA section 216(3) if all characteristics from the hypothetical vehicle were the same, except that at the time of the sale the truck had i) pre-owned, refurbished tires salvaged from an older truck, or ii) a pre-owned, refurbished windshield installed? 10. Does the Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958, Pub. L. 85~506, contain any requirements applicable in any way to either air pollution or to heavy-duty commercial trucks? If yes, please provide a citation to those provisions. 1 1. Are the degree of emissions from glider trucks relevant in determining whether Congress intended to allow EPA to regulate emissions from new glider vehicles, glider kits, or rebuilt glider engines under the Clean Air Act? If yes, explain how emissions data in?uenced the proposal. 12. Are the human health consequences of glider truck emissions at all relevant in determining whether Congress intended to allow EPA to regulate emissions from new glider vehicles, glider kits, or rebuilt glider engines under the Clean Air Act? If yes, explain how human health considerations in?uenced the proposal. Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter. Please provide your response no later than April 2, 2018. If you or members of your staff have further questions, please feel free to ask them to contact Michal Freedhoff at the Committee on Environment and Public Works at (202) 224-8832, or Jonathan Black with Senator Udall?s of?ce at (202) 224-6621. Sincerely, Senator Tom CarperV Senator Tom Udall Ranking Member Ranking Member US. Senate Committee on US. Senate Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies See ?New VNL Volvo Trucks VOLVO, tinitrd ~rates ~cnatc WASHI NGTO N, DC 20510 March 16, 2018 The Honorable Scott Pruitt Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Administrator 1101 A 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20460 Dear Administrator Pruitt: We write regarding the agency's ongoing efforts to streamline environmental regulations and ease the regulatory burden in the United States. While we welcome these necessary efforts, we maintain concerns with the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule for repeal of emission requirements for glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits. We believe that repealing those requirements will undermine the significant investments by American manufacturers, trucking fleets, and job creators. We agree that regulations issued under the Clean Air Act (CAA) must not exceed the authority of Congress. However, we believe that repeal of these glider requirements will undermine the significant investments made by domestic manufacturers and the logistics industry. This view is shared by numerous stakeholders, including the manufacturers of the overwhelming majority of medium and heavy-duty vehicles, engines and emission control technologies sold throughout the United States. Changing decades of consistent regulation erodes the bipartisan progress made under previous administrations and removes the regulatory certainty provided to the industry which has produced the next generation of cleaner, more efficient vehicles. Our states are home to a strong industrial base that rely upon this regulatory certainty to successfully operate and invest billions each year in research and development. We urge you to consider the adverse impact on the economy if the authority to implement reasonable regulation of gliders is repealed and the regulatory certainty maintained through prior administrations is removed. Thank you for your attention to this important matter and your continued dedication to protect American jobs and streamline burdensome environmental regulation. Sincerely, Moore Capito United States Senator -e:::::;,;e Thom Tillis United States Senator United States Senator cf the ?niteh gatatw ?01 March 27, 2018 The Honorable Scott Pruitt Administrator Environmental Protection Agency Of?ce of the Administrator 1 101A 1200 Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator Pruitt: We stand with you and welcome your continued efforts to streamline environmental regulations and repeal onerous and overreaching rules that the previous administration pushed through which hurt American industry. However, we write to raise concerns with the proposed rule for repeal of emission requirements for glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits. We believe that repealing those requirements will undermine the signi?cant investments made by United States job creators and manufacturers. We have seen what happens when overreaching and even illegal regulations are issued that go against the intent of the Clean Air Act. Regulations issued under the Clean Air Act must not exceed the authority Congress has provided. We believe that EPA still has the ability to work within this authority of the Clean Air Act to implement clear, concise, and straightforward rules regarding emissions from gliders. Eliminating this rule also runs the risk that a court would impose requirements beyond what the previous administration negotiated with industry, which could undermine the remanufacturing and rebuilding industries resulting in the loss of countless jobs across the United States. We respectfully ask that you care?illy consider the negative impacts if thexauthority to implement reasonable regulation of gliders is now repealed. Sincerely, Mark Sanfor Evan Je Member of Congress Member Congress Larry cshon, MD. Susan W. Brooks Member of Congress Member of Congress PRINTED 0N RECYCLED PAPER 011mger Hi the ?nite?! gtatw E01 211515 ELQ- Rows? 0Q David Rouzer David Valadao em er of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Civil and Environmental TENNESSEE Engineering TECH TO: Dr. Philip Oldham, Prnsident FROM: Dr. Benjamin Mohr. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering DATE: January 25. 2018 SUB.Jf.:CT: Withdrawal as Principal Investigator Effective immediately. I withdraw as the Principal Investigator of the current n:scarch project funded by Fitzgerald, along with any implicit support of statements that have been publicly released by the university. While my role has been largely administrative, I can no longer be associated in any way with this research project. I had no role in (nor prior knowledge ot) the dissemination of results via lcl1erby yourself and Mr. Torn Brewer, and subsequently included in an EPA petition. I have verbally expressed my displeasure regarding the matter to Mr. Brewer and the conflict of interest this has created. l indicated that this would likely lead to "bad press" and is not consistent with the typical release of information for industry-sponsored projects. All this time, r have been reassured that the university was working on a plan lo combat the negative publicity and feedback. However, I can no longer sit back ai1dwait for a response, which I may or may not agree with. In addition, a graduate student has be.en caught in the middle of this dilemma. In early January. I (along with another member of the graduate student's committee) met with Mr. Brewer and stated that we do not support the student writing a thesis . A change from a thesis to non-thesis was largely due to our concerns over placing our names on what would ultimately become a public document. As such, concerns over the handling of data and the subsequent release have been made known over the past few months. -----~B~a_ck...llLtbe...beginuing \ hl!aJ agreed-as PLin...sig11ing-1:l1e...prujecLprop1lsaL(..wl1k.l:i..j__re\l.iewed, bu1---dw--1wt--wr.i-tc h-it-Wa.sm1 - -----understanding, that the intent of the project was to perform rel li\'.1>~adiation (/(j{t) ator, Office of~ 11 FROM: Cynthia Giles Assistant Adm1msO'a1:0 ice f Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Under the Area Source Boiler 6 Fed. Reg. 15,554 (March 21 , 2011), owners and/or operators of certain types of boilers are required to complete biennial tune-ups of those boilers. 1 For existing boilers of these types, the Area Source Boiler Rule requires that the initial tune-up be completed by March 21, 20 12. 40 C.F.R. ? 63.l 1196(a)(l). The Area Source Boiler Rule also requires that sources subject to the initial tune-up requirement, and not required to conduct a performance stack test, must submit a Notification of Compliance Status regarding the initial tune-up by 120 days after the compliance date of March 21 , 2012. 40 C.F.R. 63. l 1225(a)(4). This means that sources must submit such a Notification by July 19, 2012. The Notification must include, among other information, a certification that states: "This facility complies with the requirements in ? 63 .11214 to conduct an initial tune-up of the boiler." On March 13, 2012, the EPA issued a no action assurance to all owners and/or operators of existing industrial boilers and commercial and institutional boilers at area sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions stating that EPA would not enforce the requirement to conduct an initial tune-up by March 21 , 2012. Letter from Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator, to Kate Williams et al. (March 13, 2012) ("No Action Assurance") (see copy attached to this letter). As discussed more fully in that document, the No Action Assurance was primarily based upon EPA's concern that sources were reporting a shortage of qualified individuals to prepare boilers for tune-ups and then conduct those tune-ups by the regulatory 1 40 C.F.R. ? 63 .11 20 I(b) (requiring compliance with the work practice or management practice standards specified in Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJJ of Part 63 of the C.F.R.); 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart JJJJJJ, Table 2 (listing requirements by boiler subcategory). ()-CJ2:l -n '00 Recycled/Recyclable P!lni.d willl Soy/C&nole Ink on ~ thll containe o l8asl 75% rocyded ri1>er deadline, as well as upon the uncertainty in the regulated community resulting from the pending reconsideration of the Area Source Boiler Rule. The No Action Assurance states that it remains in effect until either (1) 11 :59 PM EDT, October 1, 2012, or (2) the effective date of a final rule addressing the proposed reconsideration of the Area Source Boiler Rule, whichever occurs earlier. To date, a final rule addressing the proposed reconsideration of the Area Source Boiler Rule has not been issued, and thus the No Action Assurance continues to remain in effect. Nothing that EPA has learned since the issuance of the original No Action Assurance letter has led EPA to question its original concerns about the feasibility of all sources timely completing an initial tune-up. Sources that did not complete a tune-up cannot now certify that they conducted one. Thus, we are now extending the No Action Assurance for sources required to complete an initial tune-up by March 21, 2012, to also include the deadline for submitting the Notification of Compliance Status regarding the initial tune-up. This extension of the March 13, 2012, No Action Assurance is being issued in response to your request. This extension of the No Action Assurance applies only to the requirement to submit a Notification of Compliance Status regarding the initial tune-up by July 19, 2012, and does not affect or apply to any other provisions in the Area Source Boiler Rule. This exercise of discretion is subject to the following conditions: o This extension of the March 13, 2012, No Action Assurance is to remain in effect until either ( 1) 11 :59 PM EST, December 31 , 2012, or (2) the effective date of a final rule addressing the proposed reconsideration of the Area Source Boiler Rule, whichever occurs earlier. The EPA has proposed new deadlines for initial tune-ups, and thus for the Notification of Compliance Status, in its proposed reconsideration of the Area Source Boiler Rule, and, if the Agency takes final action to adopt those proposed deadlines, they will control. o The EPA reserves the right to revoke or modify this extension of the March 13, 2012 No Action Assurance. In addition, given that no final rule addressing the proposed reconsideration of the Area Source Boiler Rule has been issued to date, but EPA still expects to issue such a final rule, the pending reconsideration continues to create uncertainty in the regulated community. Thus, this letter also amends the expiration date of the March 13, 2012, No Action Assurance, such that the No Action Assurance will remain in effect until either (1) 11:59 PM EST, December 31 , 2012, or (2) the effective date of a final rule addressing the proposed reconsideration of the Area Source Boiler Rule, whichever occurs earlier. The conditions of the earlier March 13, 2012, No Action Assurance are otherwise unaffected. As discussed in the March 13, 2012, No Action Assurance, the issuance of this amendment and extension of the No Action Assurance is in the public interest and is consistent with the protections afforded under the proposed reconsideration of the Area Source Boiler Rule. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Sara Froikin of my staff at (202) 564-3187 or froikin.sara@epa.gov. Attachments: March 13, 2012, No Action Assurance 2 Cc: Steve Page, US EPA Peter Tsirigotis, US EPA Robert Wayland, US EPA Kate Williams, Alaska Oil and Gas Association Randy Rawson, American Boiler Manufacturer's Association Leslie Hulse, American Chemistry Council David Darling, American Coatings Association Tim Hunt, American Forest & Paper Association Bill Perdue, American Home Furnisher's Association Pete Pagano, American fron and Steel Institute Matt Todd and John Wagner, American Petroleum Institute Debra Jezouit, Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group Robert Bessette, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners Felix Mestey, Department of Defense Grif Bond, Environmental Health & Safety Communications Panel David Buff, Florida Sugar Industry Dan Bosch, National Federation of Independent Business Jennifer Youngblood, National Tribal Air Association Renee Lesjak Bashel, National Steering Committee, Small Business Ombudsman I Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs Daniel Moss, Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates 3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 NOV 2 12012 Jed Mandel, President Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association 333 West Wacker Drive Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60606 ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT ANO COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE Dear Sir: This letter is in response to concerns raised by the manufacturers of nonroad spark-ignition engines rated at 25 horsepower or greater (LSI engines) regarding the lack of availability of fuel lines meeting the Category 1 permeation limits in the 2004 version of Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Publication 12260(SAE12260: 2004) for use in equipment powered by LSI engines. For the reasons set forth below, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will exercise its discretion not to pursue enforcement under 40 C.F.R. ? 1068.1 Ol(a) where a manufacturer uses fuel lines meeting the 1996 version of SAE Publication 12260 (SAE 12260: 1996) and meets the conditions specified below. This No Action Assurance is effective immediately and will continue until the date the rule change described below becomes effective, or until November 30, 2013, whichever is earlier. The EPA adopted evaporative emission requirements for LSI engines on November 8, 2002. 67 Fed. Reg. 68242. These requirements, codified in 40 C.F.R. Part 1048, required LSI engine manufacturers to meet certain evaporative emission requirements by using or specifying the use (to equipment manufacturers installing LSI engines) of fuel lines meeting the Category 1 limits for permeation in SAE 12260: 1996. The regulations were updated on December 8, 2008, to require fuel lines meeting the Category 1 limits for permeation contained in SAE 12260: 2004 instead of SAE 12260: 1996. When writing the original regulations in 2002, EPA believed that adopting the Category l standard in SAE 12260: 1996 would allow the use of fuel lines already in common use in the automotive industry (designed to meet stricter automotive evaporative emission requirements), and that LSI engine manufacturers could find "off-the-shelf' automotive-grade products for the LSI engines and equipment containing LSI engines. The adoption of the Category 1 standard in SAE J2260: 1996 had the added advantage of aligning EPA requirements with those of the State of California. In 2008, EPA revised this requirement by changing the regulation to reference SAE 12260: 2004, as part of a broader effort to update all provisions that were incorporated by reference into the regulations. As noted in the proposed rule, while EPA knew that SAE 12260: 2004 uses different test procedures, EPA believed that the stringency of the evaporative emission requirements would not change. EPA's overall expectation was that fuel lines meeting SAE J2260: 1996 would also meet SAE 12260: 2004. Further, EPA never intended to require LSI manufacturers to meet a different standard for equipment sold in states outside of California than they are required to meet in California. Since that time, several LSI engine manufacturers and equipment manufacturers have demonstrated to EPA' s satisfaction that fuel lines meeting the SAE 12260: 2004 are not readily available to LSI engine manufacturers or equipment manufacturers. This lack of availability is related to a lack of testing data rather than data indicating that fuel lines meeting the SAE 12260: 1996 will not meet the permeation limits contained in SAE 12260: 2004. Certain companies have indjcated that eqwpment manufacturers may soon be idling assembly lines due to lack of supply of fuel lines that have been verified to comply with SAE J2260: 2004. The EPA intends to address the lack of availability of LSI fuel lines meeting the required specification in a future rulemaking. Once adopted, a new provision will allow the use of LSI fuel lines meeting the requirements of either SAE J2260: 1996 or SAE J2260: 2004. The EPA believes this allowance will provide the intended level of emissions control while, at the same time, allowing manufacturers to produce compliant equipment meeting a common EPA and California LSI fuel line standard. Pending the completion of this rule change and effective immediately, the EPA will exercise its enforcement discretion (through this No Action Assurance) not to pursue enforcement action for failure to meet the evaporative emission requirements related to fuel lines installed on LSI engines where LSI engine or equipment manufacturers meet the following conditions: 1. Install fuel lines meeting SAE 12260: 1996; and 2. Comply with all State, local, or Federal laws pertaining to these engines and equipment. This No Action Assurance is to remain in effect until the earlier of (1) 11:59 PM EST, November 30, 2013, or (2) the effective date of a final rule allowing the use of fuel line meeting SAE J2260: 1996 on equipment containing LSI engines. The issuance of this No Action Assurance is in the public interest. I believe that this action will not result in increased emissions. The EPA reserves the right to revoke or modify this No Action Assurance at any time. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may call Anne Wick, Vehicle and Engines Team Leader, at (202) 564-2063. ~ynthia Giles UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 DEC 19 2012 Ms. Tracy Heinzman Wiley, Rein & Fielding, L.L.P. 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLI ANCE ASSURANCE Re: No Action Assurance Regarding the Production of Methyl Bromide for 2013 Critical Uses Dear Ms. Heinzman: I am writing in response to your November 16, 2012, letter to the United States Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of the Methyl Bromide Industry Panel representing producers and importers, in which you request that the EPA not enforce restrictions on methyl bromide production and import found at 40 CFR ? 82.4 until such time as the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation issues a final rule that authorizes the production and import of methyl bromide for critical uses in 2013. In your letter, you explain that methyl bromide production and import is essential to ensure pest control in some vital agricultural sectors, including controlling infestations in domestic plantings and food supply operations. EPA recently signed for publication a notice of proposed rulemaking authorizing critical use of methyl bromide for 2013. EPA intends to finalize the rule as quickly as feasible, after considering public comment. I understand that without the production or importation of critical use methyl bromide in early 2013, critical users will have difficulty meeting their needs for early spring applications. The EPA recognizes, however, that the current regulations only authorize the production, importation or use of critical use methyl bromide through December 31, 2012. Thus, there is no current regulatory authorization to produce, import or use methyl bromide for critical uses in 2013. For the reasons outlined in your letter, the EPA will exercise its enforcement discretion not to pursue enforcement for violations of 40 CFR ? 82.4 against companies identified in the proposed 2013 critical use exemption rule as holders of critical use allowances for 2013, to produce, import or sell critical use methyl bromide for the proposed critical uses for 2013, in amounts not to exceed 340,831 kg. EPA will also exercise its enforcement discretion not to pursue enforcement for violations of 40 CFR ? 82.4 against persons identified in the proposed rule as approved critical users who purchase or use critical use methyl bromide produced or imported by such companies for locations and uses identified as approved critical uses in the proposed 2013 critical use exemption rule. This exercise of discretion will begin on January 1, 2013, and is subject to the following conditions: o Companies must continue to report 2012 and 2013 production and importation of methyl bromide to the EPA as required under the critical use regulations at 40 CFR ? 82.13; o Any critical use methyl bromide produced or imported in 2013 prior to the effective date of the final rule shall still count towards the company's 2013 allocation and, once the rule is effective, Internet Address (URL) o http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable o Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper require the expenditure of 2013 vintage critical use allowances for all methyl bromide used during calendar year 2013; o The allowance allocations are based on each company's proportionate share of allowances in the proposed rule, as follows: o Chemtura: Preplant 196, 114 kg; Post Harvest: 11,008 kg o Albemarle: Preplant 80,647 kg; Post Harvest: 4,527 kg o ICL-IP: Preplant 44,567 kg; Post Harvest: 2,502 kg o TriCal: Preplant 1,388 kg; Post Harvest: 78 kg o Companies and critical users identified in the proposed rule must comply with all requirements of 40 CFR ? 82.4 and the proposed rule; o This exercise of discretion terminates upon the effective date of the final rule for 2013 or 11 :59 E.D.T., July 31 , 2013, whichever occurs earlier; and o The EPA reserves the right to revoke or modify this no action assurance. The issuance of a no action assurance for this short period of time is in the public interest as it will prevent disruptions in critical pest control activities. I believe that this action will not increase environmental harm, as no additional allowances are or will be allocated based on this action. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Charles Garlow, (202) 564-1088. ynthia Giles l\.ssistant Administrator cc: Gina McCarthy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 JAN 0? 2013 HCFC Importers and Producers (see attached list) OFFICE OF ENFORCE MENT AND COM PLIANCE ASSURANCE Re: Extension of No Action Assurance Regarding the Production and Import of HCFCs Dear Sir/Madam: Today, the EPA is revising and extending the no action assurance (No Action Assurance) issued on January 20, 2012 (attached), to the attached list of producers and importers of HCFC-22 and HCFC142b- two types of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) regulated under 40 C.F.R. Part 82. This revised and extended No Action Assurance is being issued in response to a request set fort h in the memorandum to me dated December 20, 2012, from Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Gina McCarthy (McCarthy Memorandum). As explained more fully below, this No Action Assurance establishes that the EPA will exercise its enforcement discretion not to pursue enforcement for violations of the prohibitions at 40 C.F.R. ? 82.15 on consumption, production and importation of HCFC-22 and HCFCl 42b without allowances if producers and importers do not exceed the amounts specified below. EPA's regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 82 prohibit the production and importation of HCFCs without possessing an allowance allocated by EPA for each kilogram of HCFC. The allowances allocated for the time period between 2004 and 2009 were established by the EPA in a 2003 rule (68 Fed. Reg. 2819), and the allowances allocated for the 2010-2014 period were set forth in a subsequent rule promulgated in December 2009 (the 2009 Rule). Each year, EPA also issues a letter to the producers and importers notifying them of their respective annual allocation of allowances based on these regulations. Aspects of the 2009 Rule that relate to the allocations of HCFC-22 and HCFC- l 42b allowances for the 2010-2014 time period were challenged in the D.C. Circuit. On August 27, 2010, the Court issued a decision vacating the 2009 Rule in part. The other aspects of the 2009 Rule, including allocations of HCFC- 123, HCFC-124, HCFC-225ca and HCFC-225cb allowances, were not challenged, and are not affected by thi s No Action Assurance. On January 4, 20 12, the EPA published a proposed rule to address the Court's vacatur of the 2009 Rule (77 Fed. Reg. 237) and to allocate calendar-year allowances for production and consumption. This rule is not yet final. The percentages listed in the proposed regulatory text, Section 82. l 6(a)( l ), provided the following allowance amounts for 2012: A company with an HCFC-l 42b baseline would be allowed to produce or consume up to 4.9% of its baseline allowances listed at 40 CFR 82.17 and 82.19; A company with an HCFC-22 baseline would be allowed to produce or consume up to 17.7% of its baseline allowances listed at 40 CFR 82.17 and 82.19. Recycled/Recyclableo Printed with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on 100'Yo Recycled Paper (40''!0 Postconsurner) For calendar year 2013, the proposed regulation identifies options for calculation of the amounts of allowances. The McCarthy Memorandum identifies the lowest amount of allowances a company would receive under any of the options identified in the proposed regulation.' Those minimum amounts are as follows: HCFC-22 Production: Excluding Arkema, a company with an HCFC-22 production baseline would be allowed to produce up to 11. 9% of its baseline allowances listed at 40 CFR 82.17; Arkema would be allowed to produce up to 14. 7% of its baseline allowances listed at 82.17; HCFC-22 Consumption: Excluding Arkema and Solvay Fluorides, a company with an HCFC-22 consumption baseline would be allowed to consume up to 11.4% of its baseline allowances listed at 40 CFR 82.19; Arkema and Solvay Fluorides would be allowed to consume up to 14. 7% of their baseline allowances listed at 82.19; HCFC-142b Production: Excluding Arkema, a company with an HCFC-l 42b production baseline would be allowed to produce up to 4. 9% of its baseline allowances listed at 40 CFR 82.17; Arkema would be allowed to produce 0% of its baseline allowances listed at 82.17; HCFC-142b Consumption: Excluding Arkema and Solvay Solexis, a company with an HCFC-142b consumption baseline would be allowed to consume up to 4.9% of its baseline allowances listed at 40 CFR 82.19; Arkema and Solvay Solexis would be allowed to consume up to 0.4% of their baseline allowances listed at 82.19. Only consumption, production and importation of HCFC-22 and HCFC- l 42b in amounts less than or equal to the amounts set forth above will be treated as included within the scope of this No Action Assurance. This exercise of discretion is subject to the following conditions: o Companies must continue to comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 40 C.F .R. ? 82.24, including quarterly production and import reports. o Any HCFCs produced or imported in 2012 or 2013 pursuant to this No Action Assurance shall still count towards the company's 2012 or 2013 allocation and shall require the expenditure of allowances for the relevant control period. o This exercise of discretion terminates 11 :59 P.M., EST, December 31 , 2013 or on the effective date of the EPA final rule governing HCFC allowances for calendar years 2012 and 2013, whichever occurs earlier. o The EPA reserves the right to revoke or modify this No Action Assurance. The issuance of a No Action Assurance for this period of time is in the public interest as it will prevent ? disruptions in the supply of HCFCs for refrigeration purposes. I believe this action will not increase environmental harm, as no additional allowances are or will be allocated based on this action. 1 This minimum amounts are calculated based upon the use ofrecoupment options 3 and 4 discussed in the proposed rule. Those options are more fully discussed in the Recoupment Options Memorandum included in the docket for the pending rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0354-0006). 2 If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Charlie Garlow of my staff at (202) 564-1088 or garlow.charlie@ epa.gov. Enclosure Cc: Gina McCarthy Sarah Dunham Drusilla Hufford 3 Producers and Importers of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b Companies with baseline allowances at 40 CFR ??82.17 and 82.19 ABCO Refrigeration Supply Altair Partners Arkema Carrier Corporation Coolgas Investment Property DuPont H.G. Refrigeration Supply Honeywell Mexichem Fluor Inc Kivlan & Company MDA Manufacturing Mondy Global National Refrigerants Refricenter of Miami Refricentro R-Lines Saez Distributors Solvay Fluorides Solvay Solexis USA Refrigerants 4 Attachment 1 UNITED STA TES ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 SEP 2 7 2013 ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT ANO COMPLJAlllCE ASSURANCE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: ' No Action Assurance for the NPDES Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Activit' s ? FROM: Cynthia Giles ~ TO: This memorandum is to inform you of the pending lack of a Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP) and to alert you to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA or Agency} current position on our civil enforcement response to this situation. The current MSGP under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program will expire at midnight on September 29, 2013. The affected EPA Regions have signed a Federal Register notice announcing the proposed reissuance of the MSGP; however, the permit will not be finalized until approximately six months after the expiration of the 2008 MSGP. While facilities with coverage under the 2008 MSGP (available at http://www.cpn.g0\ /npdes/pubs/msgp2008 finalpenniLpdf) \\rill automatically be granted an adminh:trarive continuance of permit coverage and are required to continue to comply with the 2008 MSGP after its expiration, any new facilities that begin discharging stormwater associated witn .o!ldustrial activity after September 29, 2013 in those areas where EPA is the NPDES penmtting authority will not be able to obtain general permit coverage until a new permit is issued. Because a new general permit bas not yet been promulgated that will cover such new facilities during the period after expiration of the 2008 MSGP and the effective date of the new MSGP, l have determined that it is appropriate to exercise my enforcement discretion and issue this "no action assurance'' to address this gap in coverage. Specifically, the Agency will not pursue administrative or civ il judicial enforcement actions for lack of permit coverage against new facilities that begin discharging stormwater associated with industrial activity after September 29, 2013, provided that these newly-discharging facilities meet the following requirements: 1. ~ligibility . ~he ') for coverage under this no action assurance, any new facility must meet 2008 MSGP eligibility criteria. Prior Notification. Prior to the discharge of stormwater associated Ytith industrial activity after September 29, 2013 by a new facility, such facility must notify the Internet Addreu (URL) o http:/Jwww.epa.gov Reeycled/Recyclllble o Prin111d with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlonne Free Recycled Paper appropriate EPA NPDES permitting authority of both their operator status and intention to operate in accordance with the 2008 MSGP. 3. Compliance. Any new facility must comply with all obligations of the 2008 MSGP. These obligations include but are not limited to (a) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) development and implementation, (b) proper installation and maintenance of best management practices, (c) stormwater discharge monitoring, (d) site inspections, (e) implementation of corrective action measures, and (f) any additional sector-specific requirements outlined in Part 8 of the 2008 MSGP. Any new facility must also submit the reports required pursuant to Part 7 of the 2008 MSGP directly to the appropriate EPA NPDES permitting authority. This no action assurance does not apply to criminal violations or to situations where egregious circumstances exist which may cause serious harm or which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or the environment, or where no best management practices are in place to protect public health or the environment. The Agency also reserves the right, at any time, to exercise its discretion to address a specific discharge should circumstances warrant. This no action assurance approach for new facilities that begin discharging stonnwater associated with industrial activity after September 29, 2013 will terminate on March 30, 2014, or 30 days after the issuance of a new general permit, whichever comes first. EPA also reserves the right tc withdraw or revise this no action assurance at any time. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Mark Pollins, Director of the Water Enforcement Division, at (202) 564-4(101. 2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 JAN 2 2 2014 ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE Has Shah American Chemistry Council 700 2nd Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Christopher Cathcart, President Consumer Specialty Products Association 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Susan Ferenc, President Council of Producers and Distributors of Agrotechnology 1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW, Suite 812 Washington, DC 20036 Aaron Hobbs, President Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment 1156 15th Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Jay J. Vroom, President CropLife America 1156 15th Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Re: No Action Assurance Regarding Pesticide Export Labeling Dear Sir/Madam: I am writing to address concerns raised about an implementation issue involving the final rule, "Labeling of Pesticide Products and Devices for Export; Clarification of Requirements" (Export Labeling Rule). See 78 Fed. Reg. 4073 (Jan. 18, 2013). Industry stakeholders recently brought to the EPA' s attention their concern that, as a result of this final rule, provisions for "supplemental labeling" no longer appear in the regulations. The omission of the supplemental labeling provisions in the final rule was inadvertent, and on December 19, 2013, the EPA publically announced its intent to expeditiously correct this problem through a revision to the current rule (see attached letter from Jay Ellenberger, Deputy Director, Field and External Affairs Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to Has Shah, Senior Director, American Chemistry Council). However, a rulemaking to correct this error is not expected to be final until after the compliance date in the Export Labeling Rule, which is January 21, 2014. Therefore, as provided in this letter, I am exercising my discretion to provide that the EPA will not pursue enforcement for violations of the pesticide export labeling requirements found in 40 C.F.R. Part 168, Subpart D subject to the conditions and limitations outlined in this letter. Specifically, this no action assurance (NAA) is in response to a request from the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and to concerns raised by industry stakeholders that the inability to use supplemental labeling caused by this inadvertent omission could create trade barriers, increase costs, and hamper other nations' ability to Internet Address (URL) o http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclableo Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper properly place their own labels on these products. Implementation of the rule as it currently exists would also create an undue hardship on the pesticides industry by severely hampering their ability to export into international commerce and could result in significant and avoidable economic injury. The EPA agrees with these concerns and intends to expeditiously amend this regulation through a direct final rule. In the corrected rule EPA intends to (1) revise existing 40 C.F.R. ?168.66 to remove the requirement to comply with the labeling requirements found in 40 C.F.R. ?156.10(a)(4), and (2) include regulatory text that more closely resembles the language the Agency included in 40 C.F.R. ?168.66 of the Export Labeling Rule as originally proposed. See 76 Fed. Reg. 18,995 (April 6, 2011). When final (which is anticipated to be in July 2014), the corrected rule would allow companies to use collateral labeling on the outside of shipping containers. However, there will be a "gap" between the compliance date of the Export Labeling Rule and the direct final rule the EPA intends to promulgate to correct the error for labeling requirements. Accordingly, this NAA is intended to bridge this temporary gap and to avoid the hardships caused by the Export Labeling Rule which the EPA intends to correct through a direct final rule. Pursuant to this NAA, EPA will not enforce for violations of the pesticide export labeling requirements found in 40 C.F.R. Part 168, Subpart D solely for pesticides exported on or after January 21, 2014, subject to the following conditions and limitations: ? o All pesticide products for export are labeled in a manner consistent with the "supplemental labeling" requirements of 40 C.F.R. ? 168.66 as originally proposed. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 18,999-19,000 (April 6, 2011). o Entities exporting pesticide product must comply with all other requirements of the Export Labeling Rule. o This NAA is to remain in effect for the above-listed pesticide export labeling provisions until either (1) 11 :59 PM EDT, July 31, 2014, or (2) the effective date of a final rule addressing the omission of the supplemental labeling provisions in the Export Labeling Rule as described above, whichever occurs earlier. o The EPA reserves the right to revoke or modify this NAA at any time. OCSPP does not anticipate that this NAA for the limited period of time specified above will result in any new adverse environmental or safety risks. These shipments are for export only and will not be distributed in the U.S. for use by the public. In addition, the necessary safety and precautionary instructions as required by the Export Labeling Rule will accompany exports to ensure adequate safety for those handling products during the transportation of the goods. Nothing in this No Action Assurance affects any other provisions in the Export Labeling Rule, other than those explicitly listed above, or any other legal requirement applicable to these products and the export of pesticides. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Tom Charlton of my staff at (202) 5646960 or charlton.tom@epa.gov. Sin rely, Attachment cc: Jim Jones Steve Bradbury UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASH INGTON, D.C. 20460 FEB 2 1 2014 OFFIC E OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE Ms. Tracy Heinzman Wiley, Rein & Fielding, L.L.P. 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20006 Re: No Action Assurance Regarding the Production of Methyl Bromide for 2014 Critical Uses Dear Ms. Heinzman: I am writing in response to your November 14, 2013, letter to the United States Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of the Methyl Bromide Industry Panel representing producers and importers, in which you request that the EPA not enforce restrictions on methyl bromide production and import found at 40 CFR ? 82.4 until such time as the EPA' s Office of Air and Radiation issues a final rule that authorizes the production and import of methyl bromide for critical uses in 2014. EPA recently signed for publication a notice of proposed rulemaking authorizing critical use of methyl bromide for 2014. EPA intends to finalize the rule as quickly as feasible, after considering public comment. The EPA recognizes, however, that the current regulations only authorize the production, importation or use of critical use methyl bromide through December 31, 2013. Thus, there is no current regulatory authorization to produce, import or use methyl bromide for critical uses in 2014. For the reasons outlined in your letter, the EPA will exercise its enforcement discretion not to pursue enforcement for violations of 40 CFR ? 82.4 against companies identified in the proposed 2014 and 2015 critical use exemption rule as holders of critical use allowances for 2014, to produce, import or sell critical use methyl bromide for the proposed critical uses for 2014, in amounts not to exceed 410,984 kg. EPA will also exercise its enforcement discretion not to pursue enforcement for violations of 40 CFR ? 82.4 against persons identified in the proposed rule as approved 2014 critical users who purchase or use critical use methyl bromide produced or imported by such companies for locations and uses identified as approved critical uses in the proposed rule. This exercise of discretion will begin immediately, and is subject to the following conditions: o Companies must continue to report 2014 production and importation of methyl bromide to the EPA as required under the critical use regulations at 40 CFR ? 82.13; o Any critical use methyl bromide produced or imported in 2014 prior to the effective date of the final rule shall still count towards the company's 2014 allocation and, once the rule is effective, require the expenditure of 2014 vintage critical use allowances for all methyl bromide used during calendar year 2014; o The allowance allocations are based on each company' s proportionate share of allowances in the proposed rule, as follows: Internet Address (URL) ? http'flwwwepa.gov Recycled/Recyclable o Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper o o o o Chemtura: Preplant 234,358 kg; Post Harvest: 15,397 kg Albemarle: Preplant 96,373 kg; Post Harvest: 6,332 kg ICL-IP: Preplant 53,258 kg; Post Harvest: 3,499 kg TriCal: Preplant 1,658 kg; Post Harvest 109 kg o Companies and critical users identified in the proposed rule must comply with all requirements of 40 CFR ? 82.4 and the proposed rule; o This exercise of discretion terminates upon the effective date of the final rule for 2014 or 11 :59 E.D.T. , July 31 , 2014, whichever occurs earlier; and o The EPA reserves the right to revoke or modify this no action assurance. The issuance of a no action assurance for this short period of time is in the public interest as it will prevent disruptions in critical pest control activities. I believe that this action will not increase environmental harm, as no additional allowances are or will be allocated based on this action. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Charles Garlow, 202-564-1088. cc: Janet McCabe Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation Atta chment 2 UNITED STATES Ei&IVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 MAR 2 7 2014 OFFICE OF WATER MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Request to Extend the No Action Assurance for New Industrial Facilities Needing Stormwater Permit Coverage ' Nancy Stoner Acting Assistant Administrator Office of Water (OW) 1;t.Jr-(~ ~ FROM: TO: Cynthia Gi les Assistant Administrator Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) The purpose of this memorandum is to request that the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) extend the No Action Assurance (NAA) issued on September 27, 2013 (copy attached). This NAA addressed new industrial facilities needing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit coverage for their stormwater discharges in areas where EPA is the permitting authority after the expiration of the 2008 Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP). The NAA was intended to "bridge" the period between the expiration of the 2008 MSGP and the issuance of the new MSGP. The NAA is scheduled to expire on March 30, 2014 or upon the issuance of the new MSGP, whichever is earlier. However, for the reasons outlined below, events, many of which were unanticipated and unpreventable, have served to delay the final MSGP. Accordingly, I am requesting that OECA extend the September 27, 2013 NAA to continue the bridge to the final permit, which we now expect to issue by September 30, 2014. Background The 2008 MSGP expired at midnight on September 29, 2013. The Federal Register notice announcing the proposed re issuance of the MSGP was published on September 27, 2013. Because of this timing, the final MSGP could not be finalized for several months after the expiration of the 2008 MSGP. Facilities that obtained coverage under the 2008 MSGP prior to its expiration were automatically granted an administrative continuance of permit coverage; the administrative continuance will remain in effect until a new permit is issued. Therefore, facilities already covered under the 2008 MSGP are not required to submit a new Notice of Intent (NOI) for permit coverage until the new MSGP is issued, and these facilities must continue to comply with all of the requirements in the 2008 permit, including requirements for monitoring and reporting. Until the new MSGP is issued, however, "new" facilities (i.e. , those facilities not covered under the 2008 MSGP) that begin discharging industrial stormwater after September 29, 2013 are unable to file an NO! for general permit coverage. The Internet Address (URL) o http://www.epa.gov Reeycled/Recyclllble oPrinted with Vegetible 011 Saaed Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 50% Posticonaumer content) 2 September 27, 2013 NAA covered these newly-discharging facilities, provided that these facilities: (1) meet the 2008 MSGP eligibility criteria; (2) notify the appropriate EPA permitting authority of their operator status and their intention to operate in accordance with the 2008 MSGP~ and (3) comply with all requirements of the 2008 MSGP, including, but not limited to, stonnwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) development and implementation and proper installation and maintenance of best management practices. Basis and Need for an Extension The reissuance of the MSGP is behind schedule for several reasons, many of which were beyond the Agency's control. The government shutdown occurred immediately after the pennit was proposed, which prevented progress on various tasks required to reissue the permit, including consultations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the development of the electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) system. Additionally, at the request of commenters and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the original 60-day public comment period was extended an additional 30 days, and did not close until December 26, 20 I 3. Seventy-six comment letters were received which raised 550 separate issues that need to be addressed prior to options selection and final agency review (FAR). Several issues raised by commenters (e.g.. comments on new requirements for discharges to Federal CERCLA sites, comments on the incorporation of the new aircraft deicing Effluent Limitation Guideline, comments from the mining industry) are particularly challenging to address, and are requiring a significant expenditure of additional staff resources. The breadth and scope of many of the issues raised in the comments was unanticipated. Consequently, the Office of Water (OW) anticipates that it will take approximately six additional months to issue the final MSGP. The required steps to finalize the permit include approximately two months to address all of the comment issues and to make final changes to the pennit, approximately one month to complete the options selection and FAR processes, and 90 days of OMB review. During this timeframe, OW will continue to be engaged in consultations under the ESA and the NHPA, will complete an Environmental Assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act and will work with your staff to complete the new eNOl system. During the period of time that the MSGP expired in September 2013 and before it is rei ssued later this year, OW anticipates that approximately 40 new industrial facilities will need NPDES general pennit coverage for their stonnwater discharges in areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. Because these new facilities will not have the ability to obtain coverage under a general permit, OW requests that OECA extend the September 27, 2013 NAA. As provided under the current NAA. we are requesting that to be covered under an extended NAA facilities must continue to: (1) meet the 2008 MSGP eligibility criteria; (2) notify the appropriate EPA permitting authority of their operator status and their intention to operate in accordance with the 2008 MSGP; and, (3) comply with all requirements of the 2008 MSGP, including, but not limited to, SWPPP development and implementation and proper installation and maintenance of best management practices. Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you have questions or require additional information please contact me or Connie Bosma of my staff at 564-6773. Attachment UNITED ST ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 MAR 27 2014 ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: FROM: TO: Extension of No Action Assurance for the NPDES Stonnwater Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities f~ynthia ruier-l-.i <;;(:._J.Qj Assis~~trator - f Regional Administrators, Regions 1 - 10 This memorandum is to infonn you of the continued lack of a final Multi-Sector General Pennit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP) and to remind you of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA or Agency) position on our civil enforcement response to this situation. The current MSGP under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program expired at midnight on September 29, 2013. The Federal Register notice announcing the proposed reissuance of the MSGP was published on September 27, 2013. While facilities with coverage under the 2008 MSGP were automatically granted an administrative continuance of permit coverage and are required to continue to comply with the 2008 MSGP after its expiration, any new facilities that begin discharging stonnwater associated with industrial activity after September 29, 2013 in those areas where EPA is the NPDES pennitting authority are not able to obtain general permit coverage until a new permit is issued. To address this gap in coverage, on September 27, 2013, I exercised my enforcement discretion to cover these newly-discharging facilities, provided that these facilities: (1) meet the 2008 MSGP eligibility criteria; (2) notify the appropriate EPA permitting authority of their operator status and their intention to operate in accordance with the 2008 MSGP; and (3) comply with all requirements of the 2008 MSGP, including, but not limited to, stonnwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) development and implementation and proper installation and maintenance of best management practices (Attachment l ). That exercise of discretion was to be effective until March 30, 2014, or upon the issuance of a new MSGP, whichever came first. However, as detailed in a March 2014, memorandum from Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water (Attachment 2), for reasons outside the Agency's control the new MSGP will not be finalized until the end of September, 2014, approximately twelve months after the expiration of the 2008 MSGP. Internet Address (UAL) o http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable o Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper Because a new general permit has not yet been promulgated that will cover such new facilities during the period after expiration of the 2008 MSGP and the effective date of the new MSGP, I have determined that it is appropriate to exercise my enforcement discretion to extend the September 27, 2013, "no action assurance" to address this continuing gap in coverage. Specifically, the Agency will not pursue administrative or civil judicial enforcement actions for lack of permit coverage against new facilities that begin discharging stormwater associated with industrial activity after September 29, 2013, provided that these newly-discharging facilities meet the following requirements: 1. Eligibility. For coverage under this no action assurance, any new facility must meet the 2008 MSGP eligibility criteria. 2. Prior Notification. Prior to the discharge of stormwater associated with industrial activity after September 29, 2013 by a new facility, such facility must notify the appropriate EPA NPDES permitting authority of both its operator status and intention to operate in accordance with the 2008 MSGP. 3. Compliance. Any new facility must comply with all obligations of the 2008 MSGP. These obligations include but are not limited to (a) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) development and implementation, (b) proper installation and maintenance of best management practices, (c) stormwater discharge monitoring, (d) site inspections, (e) implementation of corrective action measures, and (f) any additional sector-specific requirements outlined in Part 8 of the 2008 MSGP. Any new facility must also submit the reports required pursuant to Part 7 of the 2008 MSGP directly to the appropriate EPA NPDES permitting authority. This no action assurance does not apply to criminal violations or to situations where egregious circumstances exist which may cause serious harm or which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or the environment, or where no best management practices are in place to protect public health or the environment. The Agency also reserves the right, at any time, to exercise its discretion to address a specific discharge should circumstances warrant. This no action assurance approach for new facilities that begin discharging stormwater associated with industrial activity after September 29, 2013 will terminate on September 30, 2014, or 30 days after the issuance of a new general permit, whichever comes first. EPA also reserves the right to withdraw or revise this no action assurance at any time. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Mark Pollins, Director of the Water Enforcement Division, at (202) 564-400 I. 2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHI NGTON, D.C. 20460 ?JUL 3 O2014 -ff CE F Er.FCRC~MEr~T Mil ' oMPL Ati(;E ,. :>Sl.Jf Ar: E Has Shah Christopher Cathcart. Pn::sident Consumer Specia lty Products Assoc iation 1667 K Street. NW. Suite JOO Wash ington. DC 20006 American Chcmistr\ Council 700 2"J Street. E o Washingt<)n, DC 20002 "iusan Fcrenc. President Council of Producers and Aaron I k)bbs. President Distribut or~ lll" Agrotechnolog) 1156 15 111 Street. NW. Suite -WO Washingto n. DC 20005 Responsible Industry for a Sound Env ironment 1730 Rhode Island A\t~ - - NW. Suite 812 Washington. DC 20036 Jay J. Vroom. President CropLilc America I 156 151" Street. . V.. _Suite 400 \\"ashing.ton. DC R(': :woos No Ac tion Assurance Regarding Pesticide Ex port Labeling Extension Dear Sir/Madam: I am \Hiting to respond to concerns raised about the upcoming expiration o f the No Action Assurance that I issued on January 22. 20 14. As provided in this letter. I am again exercising 111) discretion to provide that the EPA will not rursue enforcement for violations of the pesticide ex port labeling req uirements fou nd in 40 C.F.R. Part 168. Subpart D subject to the conditions and limitati ons outl ined in this letter. On Janua~ :!2. 2014. I issued a o Action Assura nce (NAA) to address an implementation issue concerni ng the tinal rul e. ??Labeling of Pesticide Products and Devices fo r Export: Clarification of Requirements" (Export Labe ling Rule). See 78 Fed. Reg. 4073 (Jan. 18. 201 3 ). T he Agency issued the NAA (attache