State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking,

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Response

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

TO THE HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION 

MEASURE

Public Hearing Date: December 17, 2010

Agenda Item No.: 10-11-3

I. GENERAL

The Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking (Staff 

Report), entitled "Proposed Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation, the 

Drayage Truck Regulation and the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation," 

released October 28, 2010, is incorporated by reference herein. 

In this rulemaking, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) approved the adoption of 

amendments to title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), sections 95300 through 

95312. The amendments will provide affected fleets additional flexibility to meet the 

requirements of the regulation, and will improve the ability of fleets to periodically adjust 

their compliance plans and in some cases reduce compliance costs, while only 

minimally impacting the greenhouse gas (GHG) benefits from the original Tractor-Trailer 

GHG regulation. 

On October 28, 2010, ARB published a notice for a December 17, 2010 public hearing 

to consider the proposed regulatory action. The Staff Report was also made available 

for public review and comment beginning October 28, 2010. The Staff Report provides 

the rationale for the proposed amendments. The text of the proposed regulatory 

amendments to title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), sections 95300 through 

95312 was included as an Appendix to the Staff Report. These documents were also 

posted on ARB’s Internet website for the rulemaking at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/truckbus10/truckbus10.htm

On December 17, 2010, the Board conducted a public hearing and received oral 

and written comments. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board adopted 

Resolution 10-46 that covered the amendments as initially proposed by staff and that 

were covered by the Notice of Public Hearing (45-Day Public Notice) and Staff Report. 

In accordance with section 11346.8 of the Government Code, Resolution 10-46 directed 

the Executive Officer to adopt the amendments initially proposed by staff, and to 

determine if additional modifications to the originally proposed amendments were 

appropriate, and if the Executive Officer so determined, to make the modified regulatory 
- 2 -

language available for public comment for a period of at least 15 days prior to taking 

final action to adopt the amendments. The Executive Officer was also directed to 

consider such written comments that were submitted during the public comment period, 

to make such modifications as may be appropriate in light of the comments received, or 

to present the regulations to the Board for further consideration if warranted in light of 

the comments. 

Resolution 10-46 further directed the Executive Officer to prepare and approve written 

responses to comments received, including comments raising significant environmental 

issues, as required by Government Code section 11346.9, Public Resources Code

section 21080.5(d)(2)(D), and title 17, CCR, section 60007, to determine whether there 

are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce or 

eliminate any potential adverse environmental impacts, while at the same time 

addressing the serious economic recession and its impact on industry and residents of 

the State. Resolution 10-46 also directed the Executive Officer to make findings as 

required by Public Resources Code section 21081 if the proposed amendments would 

result in one or more significant adverse environmental effects, and to take final action 

to adopt the proposed amendments to the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation, as modified 

in the publicly noticed 15-day changes.

Subsequent to the hearing, staff proposed modifications to the regulatory text that 

largely clarify the regulation’s provisions and provide regulated entities additional 

flexibility to comply with the regulation. The most significant of these post-hearing 

modifications were: (1) with Executive Officer approval, allow owners or operators to 

modify United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) SmartWay certified 

tractors provided they demonstrate that the modification is needed for the tractor to 

perform its designed job function, that there is no reasonable alternative to the 

modification that would involve or require a lesser degree of modification to the tractor, 

(2) deleting the previously proposed exemptions for empty local-haul and storage 

trailers and replacing those exemptions with a new provision that would now exempt all 

empty trailers (including local-haul and storage trailers) subject to the regulation, as well 

as the heavy-duty (HD) tractors pulling such trailers, and (3) extend the maximum 

applicable time period of a relocation pass for trailers, transfer of ownership pass for 

trailers, and non-compliant tractor pass from three to five consecutive days. 

The text of all the modifications to the originally proposed amendments was made 

available for a supplemental 15-day comment period by issuance of a “Notice of Public 

Availability of Modified Text.” This Notice and the one attachment thereto was 

mailed on August 4, 2011 to all stakeholders, interested parties, and to other persons 

generally interested in ARB’s rulemaking requirements applicable to 53-foot or longer 

box-type trailers and the tractors that pull such trailers on California highways. The 

“Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text” listed the ARB Internet site from which 

interested parties could obtain the complete text of the regulation that would be affected 

by the modifications to the original proposal, with all of the modifications clearly 

indicated. These documents were also published on ARB’s Internet web page for this 
- 3 -

rulemaking http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/truckbus10/truckbus10.htm. Three

written comments were received during this 15-day comment period.

After considering the comments received during the 15-day comment period, the 

Executive Officer issued Executive Order R-11-015, adopting the amendments to 

title 17, CCR, sections 95301 to 95309, 95311 and 95312.

This Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) updates the Staff Report by identifying and 

providing the rationale for the modifications made to the originally proposed 

regulatory text, including non-substantial modifications and clarifications made after 

the close of the 15-day comment period. This FSOR also contains a summary of the 

comments received by the Board on the proposed amendments and the 

modifications and ARB’s responses to those comments.

Fiscal Impacts of Proposed Changes. Most of the proposed amendments to the 

Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation are intended to provide additional flexibility to fleets, 

but are not expected to have a major impact on the average cost of the regulation. 

However, fleets that elect to utilize the proposed provision to delay compliance with 

the low rolling resistance tire requirements would not realize the cost savings 

benefits resulting from the existing regulation. Nevertheless, most of the fleets are 

expected to utilize fuel efficient tires prior to the proposed compliance date as the 

existing tire casings are retreaded several times and reach the end of their life cycle 

and the tires get replaced with new ones. Thus, the proposed compliance delay with 

the low rolling resistance tires is expected to not have a significant impact on the 

overall cost savings and estimated costs of the existing program.

Pursuant to Government Code sections 11346.5(a)(5) and 11346.5(a)(6), the 

Executive Officer has determined that the proposed regulatory action will not create 

costs or savings to any state agency or in federal funding to the state; costs or 

mandate to any local agency or school district whether or not reimbursable by the 

state pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with section 17500), division 4, title 2 of the 

Government Code; or any other nondiscretionary cost or savings to local agencies.

Consideration of Alternatives. The regulatory language proposed in this rulemaking 

was the result of extensive discussions and meetings involving staff, motor carriers, 

equipment manufacturers, associations, and other interested parties. The only 

alternative considered by staff was to not amend the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation. 

This alternative was rejected in part because it would not provide any additional 

flexibility to fleets that either missed the optional large fleet compliance phase-in 

registration date or needed to amend their compliance plans. In addition, not amending 

the regulation would not provide trailer fleets with guidance regarding which 

aerodynamic equipment modifications would or would not comply with the 

Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation. Finally, making no changes to the regulation could 

result in a significant financial burden on the owners of specific types of trailers, (e.g. 

storage trailers and local-haul trailers) without any corresponding GHG emission 

benefits.
- 4 -

For the reasons set forth in the Staff Report, in staff’s comments and responses at the 

hearing and in this FSOR, the Board has determined that no alternative considered by 

the agency or brought to the attention of the agency would be more effective in carrying 

out the purpose for which the regulatory action was proposed or would be as effective 

and less burdensome to affected private persons than the action taken by the Board.

II. MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL

A. MODIFICATIONS APPROVED AT THE BOARD HEARING AND 

PROVIDED FOR IN THE 15-DAY COMMENT PERIOD

As previously discussed, at the December 17, 2010, public hearing the Board adopted 

Resolution 10-46 that directed the Executive Officer to adopt the amendments initially 

proposed by staff, and to determine if additional modifications to the originally proposed 

amendments were appropriate, and if the Executive Officer so determined, to make the 

modified regulatory language available for public comment for a period of at least 

15 days prior to taking final action to adopt the amendments.

Subsequent to the hearing, staff proposed modifications to the regulatory text that would 

(1) with Executive Officer approval, primarily allow owners or operators to modify 

U.S. EPA SmartWay certified tractors provided they demonstrate that the modification is 

needed for the tractor to perform its designed job function, that there is no reasonable 

alternative to the modification that would involve or require a lesser degree of 

modification to the tractor; (2) delete the previously proposed exemptions for empty 

local-haul and storage trailers and replace those exemptions with a new provision that 

would now exempt all empty trailers (including local-haul and storage trailers) subject to 

the regulation, as well as the heavy-duty tractors pulling such trailers; and (3) extend the 

maximum applicable time period of a relocation pass for trailers, transfer of ownership 

pass for trailers, and non-compliant tractor pass, from three to five consecutive days. 

These modifications were explained in detail in the Notice of Public Availability of 

Modified Text that was issued for a 15-day public comment period that began on 

August 4, 2011, and ended on August 19, 2011. In order to provide a complete FSOR 

for this rulemaking, the most significant modifications and clarifications are summarized 

below:

Applicability (Section 95301)

Staff amended the proposed exemption for “storage trailers” to also include “the tractors 

pulling storage trailers” in order to make that exemption consistent with the proposed 

modification to section 95305(e)(5). This amendment clarifies that a heavy-duty (HD) 

tractor that pulls a storage trailer is exempt from the requirements of section 95303(a). 

(95301(c)(5)). 
- 5 -

Staff added “empty 53-foot and longer box-type trailers pulled by HD tractors” to the list 

of exempted trailer types to make the regulation consistent with proposed modifications 

in section 95305(l), Tractor-Trailer Exemption for Tractors Pulling Empty Trailers. 

(95301(c)(6)). 

Definitions (Section 95302)

The definition of “Cab side extender” has been modified to clarify that such a device 

refers to an air flow control device placed on the rear side of a tractor. (95302(a)(4)). 

The definition of “Dispatch driver” has been deleted since the term is no longer found in 

this regulation. 

The definition of “Register” has been added to specify the meaning of the adjective 

“registered” when used to describe a local-haul trailer, local-haul tractor, and local-haul 

base in section 95305(f), Relocation Pass for Local-Haul Trailers and Storage Trailers. 

(95302(a)(49)).

The definition of “Relocation Pass” has been modified by removing the previously 

proposed language applicable to out-of-state trailers relocating to a local-haul base or 

storage location while hauling freight. That language is no longer needed because the 

proposed amendments to section 95305(f), Relocation Pass for Local-Haul Trailers and 

Storage Trailers now limit the issuance of a relocation pass to local-haul or storage 

trailers. (95302(a)(49)). 

The definition of “Storage location” has been added because that term is used in section 

95305(f), Relocation Pass for Local-Haul Trailers and Storage Trailers. (95302(a)(54)). 

The definitions of “U.S. EPA SmartWay Certified Tractor” and “U.S EPA SmartWay 

Certified Trailer” have been modified, respectively, to mean a tractor or trailer that has 

been certified, “or designated”, by the U.S. EPA to meet the requirements of the 

SmartWay Program. The term “or designated” has been added to reflect the U.S. 

EPA’s recent change in nomenclature when describing SmartWay certified tractors and 

trailers. The U.S. EPA SmartWay Program now refers to these tractors and trailers as 

U.S. EPA SmartWay designated tractors and trailers. (95302(a)(61), 95302(a)(62)). 

Requirements and Compliance Deadlines (Section 95303)

Section 95303(a)(1)(B) has been added to allow owners or operators to modify, with 

Executive Officer approval, U.S. EPA SmartWay certified tractors, provided they 

demonstrate that the modification is necessary for the tractor to perform its designed job 

function, there is no reasonable alternative to the modification that would involve or 

require a lesser degree of modification to the tractor. An applicant requesting this 

exemption must submit information describing the modification, the need therefor, and 

the lack of reasonable alternatives to the modification that would involve or require a 

lesser degree of modifications to the tractor to the Executive Officer. Such information 
- 6 -

would include, without limitation, engineering drawings, blueprints, schematics, scientific 

or technical articles, contract specifications, etc. The Executive Officer would base his 

or her approval or disapproval on information submitted by an applicant and upon good 

engineering judgment. 

This section has been added because it was brought to staff’s attention that certain 

tractor-trailer combinations subject to the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation are required to 

carry explosive ordnance when contracted to do so by the U.S. military. The explosive 

ordnance must be carried in a reinforced box mounted on the rear of the tractor. In 

order to access the box for loading and unloading explosive ordnance, one of the 

tractor’s rear side extender fairings must be cut or removed, with the box occupying the 

space once occupied by the modified or removed fairing. Under the new proposed 

section 95303(a)(1)(B), this type of modification may be approved by the Executive 

Officer since it is necessary for the tractor to perform its designed job function and there 

is no reasonable alternative. On the other hand, modifying that same fairing to provide 

access to a spare tire carrier would not be considered for approval by the Executive 

Officer since the tire can be mounted elsewhere, requiring no modification to the 

tractor’s fairings, and the location of the spare tire mount is not critical to the tractor’s 

designed job function.

Section 95303(c), Requirements for Drivers, specifies requirements for the drivers of 

HD tractors subject to this regulation. Section 95303(c)(3) has been modified to require 

a driver of a HD tractor pulling an empty 53-foot or longer box-type trailer that is 

exempted pursuant to new section 95305(l) to allow authorized enforcement personnel 

to directly view the inside of the trailer. HD tractor drivers are currently required to 

provide such access when pulling an empty local-haul trailer beyond 100 miles from its 

local-haul base or when pulling an empty storage trailer. This modification is necessary 

to make the driver’s requirements consistent with proposed modifications in section 

95305(l), Tractor-Trailer Exemption for Tractors Pulling Empty Trailers, which broadens 

the applicability of the empty trailer exemption to all trailers subject to this regulation. 

Exemptions (Section 95305)

Staff proposes to delete previously proposed sections 95305(c)(1)(B), 95305(c)(2)(B), 

and 95305(e)(1)(A); and modify previously proposed sections 95305(c)(6), and 

95305(e)(5) because those sections are no longer necessary with the addition of 

proposed section 95305(l), Tractor-Trailer Exemption for Tractors Pulling Empty 

Trailers, which broadens the applicability of the empty trailer exemption to all trailers 

subject to this regulation, not just to local-haul and storage trailers. 

Sections 95305(c)(6) and (e)(5) have been modified to clarify the requirements that HD 

tractors are exempted from when they pull local-haul and storage trailers, respectively. 

Section 95305(c)(6) now exempts a 2011 or subsequent model year sleeper cab HD 

tractor from meeting the requirement to be SmartWay certified when it is pulling a

local-haul trailer. The tractor would still be required to meet the low-rolling resistance 

tire requirements, as does the local-haul trailer. Section 95305(e)(5) now exempts a HD 
- 7 -

tractor from all aerodynamic technology and low-rolling resistance tire requirements 

when it is pulling a storage trailer. 

Sections 95305(f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(8), 95305(g)(3)(H), 95305(h)(1) and 95305(h)(2) have 

been modified to extend the maximum applicable time period of a relocation pass for 

trailers, transfer of ownership pass for trailers, and non-compliant tractor pass, from 

three to five consecutive days. There are a number of variables, including inclement 

weather, traffic congestion, road construction, and limitations on driver work hours that 

can lengthen the time it takes to complete a planned trip. In addition, a nationwide 

trailer leasing company has provided ARB staff with comments suggesting that the 

three day period to relocate trailers is too short of a time period. The coordinating 

logistics between a motor carrier and shipper make the three day window to complete 

the trip impractical to utilize. As a result, staff is proposing to extend the previously 

proposed three day time periods to five day time periods. ARB staff believes the two 

additional days should provide an owner moving a trailer under a pass enough flexibility 

to deal with unexpected delays and circumstances.

Sections 95305(f)(1)(A) and (B) have been modified, removing the phrases, “where it 

will operate as an exempt local-haul trailer” and “where it will operate as an exempt 

storage trailer,” respectively. Section 95305(f)(3) has been modified by removing the 

phrase, “operate as a local-haul trailer or storage trailer for 30 consecutive days after 

arrival.” Requiring such trailers to operate as local-haul or storage trailers after they are 

relocated is unnecessarily restrictive. The owners of such trailers may wish to retrofit 

them after arrival and operate them as long-haul trailers, or move them empty to a new 

location under the provisions of Section 95305(l), Tractor-Trailer Exemption for Tractors 

Pulling Empty Trailers. 

Previously proposed sections 95305(f)(2) and (3) allowed for the movement of a loaded 

non-compliant trailer that was not a registered local-haul or storage trailer to a local-haul 

base or storage location provided the trailer owner registers the trailer within 

48 hours of arrival. The “within 48 hours” registration requirement and the requirement 

that the trailer be en route to a local-haul base or storage location have been deleted. 

The requirements in section 95305(f)(2) have been modified to require a non-compliant 

trailer that has been issued a relocation pass to meet specified requirements before it 

may be used to haul freight after the pass expires. Specifically, after the relocation pass

for a non-compliant trailer expires, the trailer must either be registered and operated in 

accordance with sections 95305(c) or (e) prior to hauling freight, or comply with the 

equipment requirements of section 95303(b) prior to hauling freight. Eliminating the 

requirement to register within a 48 hour period and replacing it with the option to either 

register or comply with the equipment requirements prior to hauling freight, provides 

needed flexibility for trailer leasing companies to utilize relocation passes when 

receiving non-compliant leased trailers. Since trailer leasing companies lease or rent 

their trailers to third parties that ultimately control how the trailer is used, most would 

prefer that the lessee be considered the owner of the trailer for purposes of the 

regulation, and as a result, be the party responsible for registration and compliance. By 

eliminating the 48-hour registration requirement, trailer leasing companies can store 
- 8 -

non-compliant trailers being brought into California under relocation passes for an 

unspecified amount of time. By eliminating the requirement to be en route to a 

local- haul base or storage location, trailer leasing companies can receive trailers 

traveling under a pass at their facilities. These changes are important because they 

allow for the regulated movement of loaded non-compliant trailers into California that 

will be made compliant through registration as local-haul or storage trailers. In the 

absence of these modifications, many leased non-compliant trailers earmarked for 

local-haul or storage use would be brought into California empty, or equipped with 

aerodynamic technologies and low-rolling resistance tires that provide little or no benefit 

based on their usage. 

Section 95305(f)(3) has been modified to require owners relocating a registered 

local-haul trailer under a relocation pass to register the local-haul base of destination as 

the trailer’s local-haul base prior to beginning travel under the relocation pass. This 

change was made to ensure the registration of the trailer’s new local-haul base would 

occur in a timely manner.

New section 95305(f)(4)(C) has been added, requiring the owner requesting a 

relocation pass to provide the local-haul or storage trailer’s street address where travel 

under the relocation pass will begin. This information will enable ARB staff to better 

understand where and how issued relocation passes are being used. 

Previous sections 95305(f)(4)(C) and (D), which require the reporting of a new localhaul base or new storage trailer location, respectively, have been replaced with a new 

section 95305(f)(4)(D), which requires the location where travel under the relocation 

pass will end be reported. Both the former and later requirements provided the street 

address of where travel under a relocation pass will end, but the latter provides the 

flexibility to provide a location that is neither a local-haul base nor storage location, 

which is necessary in light of the changes to section 95305(f)(3). 

Sections 95305(f)(4)(E) and (f)(8)(A) have been modified to provide the owner more 

flexibility in reporting the date relocation travel is to begin. Specifically, to apply for a 

relocation pass, the owner now must provide the “anticipated” date that the trailer will 

begin relocation travel, rather than the date trailer will begin travel. (95305(f)(4)(E)). If 

the relocation pass is approved, the owner must now confirm the date of travel prior to 

the Executive Officer issuing the relocation pass. (95305(f)(8)(A)). Confirmation may 

occur through electronic medium (e.g., TRUCRS, e-mail). These modifications will 

allow owners to obtain relocation pass approval well in advance of travel, and still afford 

them the flexibility to adjust the effective dates of the pass due to unforeseen delays 

and circumstances. 

Section 95305(f)(5) has been modified to clarify that regardless of ownership, no trailer

will be issued more than four relocation passes per year, in accordance with section 

95305(f). This clarifies staff’s original intent that only four passes will be issued per 

trailer per year, even if the trailer has multiple owners throughout the year. 
- 9 -

New section 95305(f)(6) has been added to clarify that a registered local haul or storage 

trailer that has been issued a relocation pass in accordance with section 95305(f)(1) 

may not be issued a subsequent pass until 30 days have passed from the date the 

current relocation pass was issued. This will prevent an owner from abusing the 

relocation pass provision by repeatedly applying for consecutive passes for a single 

trailer to transport freight with a non-compliant trailer. 

New section 95305(f)(7) has been added to clarify that a non-compliant trailer that is 

issued a relocation pass in accordance with section 95305(f)(2) may not be issued a 

subsequent pass until 30 days from the date the trailer is registered as either a 

local-haul trailer or storage trailer. Like the modification described in the immediately 

preceding paragraph, this will prevent an owner from abusing the relocation pass 

provision, but unlike the previous modification, it ties the issuance of another relocation 

pass to the date the trailer is registered as a local-haul or storage trailer. This ensures 

these trailers operate as local-haul or storage trailers prior to the issuance of another 

relocation pass.

New section 95305(l), Tractor-Trailer Exemption for Tractors Pulling Empty Trailers, has 

been added. This new section specifies that a HD tractor and the 53-foot or longer 

box-type trailer it is pulling are exempt from the aerodynamic technology and low-rolling 

resistance tire requirements if the trailer is empty and the driver, upon request, allows 

authorized enforcement personnel to directly view inside the trailer to verify it is empty. 

The regulation currently allows owners to relocate empty local-haul and storage trailers 

to a new local-haul base or storage location (95305(c)(1)(B), 95305(c)(2)(B), 

95305(e)(1)(A)). Nationwide trailer leasing companies supported such exemptions as 

the exemptions accommodate their general business practice of delivering empty 

trailers to local-haul bases and storage locations. However, in order to obtain such 

exemptions, owners currently need to satisfy registration and de-registration 

requirements that can be resource intensive for both large leasing companies and ARB 

staff that process these requests. In order to streamline the issuance and tracking of 

these exemptions, the newly proposed requirements in section 95305(l) remove the 

registration requirements for empty local-haul and storage trailers that are relocated to 

new local-haul bases or storage locations, so trailer leasing companies can deliver their 

trailers to their customers without needing to register them. Once these trailers are 

delivered, the lessee would be required to register the trailer as a local-haul or storage 

trailer via TRUCRS, and would also be responsible for de-registration before the trailer 

is returned to the lessor. Allowing the movement of non-compliant empty trailers also 

allows leasing companies to move empty trailers between their bases as demand 

dictates, which is common practice. Other than leasing companies, ARB staff does not 

believe many trailer owners will utilize this exemption, since their businesses are based 

on the efficient movement of freight. Trailer manufacturers often deliver their trailers 

loaded with freight, but they may utilize this exemption for local trailer deliveries. 
- 10 -

Short-Haul Tractor, Local-Haul Tractor, Local-Haul Trailer, and Storage Trailer 

Registration Requirements (Section 95306)

Section 95306(d)(11) has been modified to require an applicant to submit the colonia 

(Mexico only) and the country of the tractor’s local-haul base, since the local-haul base 

may be located in Mexico. 

Section 95306(e)(8) has been modified to delete the registration types specified: 

“(state, IRP, Temporary, Seasonal, Monthly or Other)” as those registration types apply 

to tractor registration and not trailer registration. 

Optional Trailer Fleet Compliance Schedules (Section 95307)

Section 95307(d)(2)(N)8. has been modified to delete the registration types specified

as: “state, IRP, Temporary, Seasonal, Monthly or Other” because these registration 

types apply to tractor registration and not trailer registration. 

In section 95307(g)(17)(B), “trailer fleet list” was replaced with “compliance plan base 

list” to reflect the original intent of the section which was to identify those trailers 

phased-in over the applicable compliance schedule. 

Section 95307(g)(21) has been modified by changing the compliance date from 

December 31, 2012, to January 1, 2013. January 1, 2013, is the compliance date the 

trailers in the compliance plan base list would have been required to meet had they not 

been participating in a trailer fleet compliance schedule and therefore subject to the 

requirements of section 95303(b)(3)(B) or (C). This section has also been modified by 

adding “from the compliance plan base list” to clarify what trailers the trailer owner must 

bring into compliance by January 1, 2013. 

B. OTHER MINOR CHANGES 

Staff also made minor, non-substantive modifications throughout the regulation to

provide additional clarity. Other non-substantive changes include correcting formatting 

and grammatical errors, and minor administrative changes and corrections. These 

modifications were included in the double strikeout/underline version of the regulatory 

text that was provided for public comment with the 15-day Notice.

C. MODIFICATIONS MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE 15-DAY PUBLIC 

COMMENT PERIOD

Subsequent to the 15-day public comment period, staff identified the following 

additional non-substantive changes to the regulation:

1. 95303 (a)(1)(B) 3.a., “...absence of” should be “...absence or”
- 11 -

2. 95303(b)(1)(B)2.b, space should be inserted between “.a,” and “but”

3. 95305(a)(6), “sections 95306(d)” should read “section 95306(d)”

Each of the above modifications constitutes a non-substantial change to the regulatory 

text because each modification only clarifies the requirements or conditions as set forth 

in the original text (or in the original text as modified in the Notice of Public Availability of 

Modified Text) and does not materially alter those requirements or conditions.

III. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS MADE DURING THE 45-DAY COMMENT 

PERIOD AND AT THE BOARD HEARING; AND AGENCY RESPONSES

Written comments were received during the 45-day comment period in response to 

the October 28, 2010, public hearing notice, and written and oral comments were 

presented at the Board Hearing. It should be noted that this rulemaking was 

presented to the Board jointly with several other heavy-duty vehicle regulations, 

including the Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of 

Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants from In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Vehicles 

(Truck and Bus regulation) and the Regulation to Control Emissions from In-Use 

On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks at Ports and Intermodal Rail 

Yard Facilities (Drayage Truck regulation). Written and oral comments provided for 

each of these rulemakings were carefully examined to determine whether they 

related to this rulemaking only, the Truck and Bus regulation only, the Drayage 

Truck regulation only, or any combination of the three. This FSOR only addresses 

the relevant comments related to the Tractor-Trailer GHG rulemaking.

Listed below are the organizations and individuals that provided comments during 

the 45-day comment period. 

Comments Received During 45-Day Comment Period

Commenter Affiliation Abbreviation

Ayala, Ruben None Ayala

Babich, Henry None Babich

Ballesteros, John None Ballesteros

Bengston, Wayne None Bengston

Broadbent, Jack Bay Area Air Quality Management 

District

BAAQMD

Browne, Kelly None Browne

Coots, Victoria None Coots

Dietrich, Robert None Dietrich

Earnshaw, KC None Earnshaw

Findley, Myrtle None Findley

Griffith, Jim None Griffith

Hall, Steve None Hall

Hill, Gary None Hill
- 12 -

Additional written comments were received on the day of the public hearing by 

the following commenters.

Written Comments Received During Board Hearing 

Commenter Affiliation Abbreviation

Brown, Skip Delta Construction Delta

Edgar, Sean Clean Fleets Coalition CFC1

Schrap, Matt California Trucking Association CTA1

Oral comments were also received during the public hearing by the following 

commenters.

Oral Comments Received During Board Hearing

Commenter Affiliation Abbreviation

Bautista, Nidia Coalition for Clean Air CCA

Blevins, James Mountain Valley Express MVE

Brown, Kevin Clean Diesel Technologies CDT

Carmichael, Tim Natural Gas Coalition NGC

Edgar, Sean Clean Fleets Coalition CFC2

Norberg, Tracey Rubber Manufacturers Association RMA

Schrap, Matt California Trucking Association CTA2

Seivright, Susan None Seivright

Tunnell, Mike American Trucking Associations ATA2

Turner, Kathy Enterprise Holdings Enterprise

Hulz, Brian None Hulz

Jerome, Donald None Jerome

K., Erik None Erik K.

Kellogg, Alan None Kellogg

Laman, Ann None Laman

Lynes, Steve None Lynes

Marin, Rudy None Marin

McTigue, Martin J. XTRA Lease LLC XTRA

Napier, Heidi None Napier

Quilter, John None Quilter

Randall, Christy None Randall

Ritchie, Cheryl None Ritchie

Samardich, Barbara None Samardich

Shapiro, Claire Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 

Association, Inc.

OOIDA

Skinner, Warren None Skinner

Stalzer, MD, Susan None Stalzer

Tunnell, Mike American Trucking Associations ATA1

Wright, Tracey None Wright

Yandell, John Yandell Truckaway Yandell1
- 13 -

Weitekamp, Steve California Moving and Storage 

Association

CMSA

Yandell, John Yandell Truckaway Yandell2

Set forth below is a summary of each comment regarding the regulatory action 

as well as the agency response, including an explanation of how the regulation 

was changed to accommodate the comment or the reasons for making no 

change to the regulation. Comments not involving objections or 

recommendations specifically directed toward this rulemaking or to the 

procedures followed by ARB in this rulemaking are not included.

The comments summarized below are divided into 9 sections: (A) General 

Comments, (B) Scope of Regulation, (C) Standards and Procedures, (D) 

Economic Analysis, (E) AB 32, (F) Financial Assistance/Incentives, (G) Outreach,

(H) Exemptions and Temporary Passes, and (I) Technology.

A. General Comments

1. Comment: These regulations are generally bad for the economy, 

businesses, jobs and the trucking industry. 

Please dump the strict regulations. They will kill my small business. (Findley, 

Dietrich)

Regarding the adverse effects of the regulation to industry, business, and 

jobs here in California, this regulation definitely will eliminate a fair amount of 

jobs here in California. (MVE)

Please do not impose the new diesel regulations! Our state economy needs 

help, not another increase in the cost of doing business and, therefore, living 

here. And honestly, if it keeps getting more and more expensive to live in the 

state, we will have to leave. (Randall)

I am against any further pollution regulation at this time. As long as 

businesses are leaving in droves and unemployment is so high, we need to 

stop increasing costs on businesses. (Bengston)

I believe the legislators in California have gone mad. The majority of people 

out here are barely making it and you would enforce insane regulations that 

are only going to burden the poor and middle class! The people are going to 

be outraged when the effects of this measure take hold and prices rise even 

further. You are forcing the working people and businesses out of this state. 

What will you do then? I have lived here my entire life but we are in the 

process of trying to get out of this insane state. (Browne)
- 14 -

The global warming and air quality crusaders are a fraud, and are killing our 

economy in California and nationally. Disband CARB, and restore our 

economic stability. (Coots)

Abolish CARB. Everything they have done is wrong. And it appears 

everything they will do in the future will be wrong. Before they destroy 

countless jobs, and price us out of existence. Abolish CARB before it is too 

late. (Griffith)

Stop your plans to impose further regulations on diesel engines. These new 

regs will cost us all money and devastate the trucking industries. (Napier, 

Stalzer)

Why make more regulations to choke business and by direct relation cost 

jobs? It is not government’s place to instruct us how to live our lives. (Hall)

You and other regulatory agencies have already “protected” us from 

ourselves by destroying the business activities that make an economy work 

and provide for a tax base to support the government. (Delta)

Just another Californian against the restrictive regulations you are trying to 

push through, which will force small trucking companies out of business and 

also drive up the costs of ALL goods statewide. AB 32 needs to be repealed 

– at least until our state can get on its economic feet again. Until then, diesel 

regulations like the ones you’re trying to force on California will continue to 

drive business elsewhere and will keep our state under the water. (Erik K., 

Lynes)

Everything that you can see, hear, feel, touch, taste or smell came here by 

truck. If you impact the cost of trucking, you will impact the cost of everything! 

Right now, California needs jobs more than a little cleaner air. (Hill)

My entire life’s monetary worth is tied up in my trucks and business. If the 

new laws take effect it would shut our small business. Please consider the 

small businesses struggling to survive in this miserable economy. 

(Earnshaw)

I'm a one truck owner operator that the new regulations could probably put 

me out of business, so I'm hoping for a change or postponement on the rules, 

and like me there's thousands of small fleets owner operators that will be out 

of business. (Marin)

During the last energy crisis you put many independent truckers out of 

business – now you want to destroy: jobs, the trucking industry, the farm 

industry, highway construction firms. We cannot do this until our economy is 

back to normal. (Skinner)
- 15 -

California is in decline because it is over taxed and over regulated. Businesses 

are fleeing the state so they can do business without all of this. Putting more 

stringent fuel standards on trucks, buses, etc. will just cause all products we 

depend on to rise in cost and some will not be available. There have been too 

many of these quick fixes that do not accomplish what they were intended but 

have far too many unintended consequences. In this financial climate – stop! 

(Laman)

Please do not enact further restrictions on the diesel fuel. The enforcement of 

these new proposals will affect the weak job sector, and we cannot afford any 

more taxes. (Ritchie)

I respectfully request the Board to reject any amendment that jeopardizes the 

ability to retain transportation jobs within the state. While I understand the 

intent of the environmental special interest groups, I believe their tenets are 

extreme and not business nor job friendly, thus reducing the number of 

potential employers to other states and thereby losing potential tax revenues 

to the general fund. (Ballesteros)

I am against any new regulations on the diesel transportation industry. In this 

time of economic crisis, any new regulations are just not warranted. (Kellogg, 

Wright)

We have had reports from our distributors already that when the proposals 

came out for these rule changes that fleets immediately stopped making 

purchases. And that’s further destabilizing the marketplace that we have to 

operate in. (CDT)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to these comments. 

Similar comments were addressed to the original Tractor-Trailer GHG 

regulation rulemaking, to which ARB responded that the California Global 

Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) was enacted to address the 

immediate need to mitigate climate change and its harmful effects. 

Unmitigated, climate change is expected to have significant societal and 

ecological impacts including, but not limited to, increased health care, 

firefighting, and flood prevention costs, increased public exposure to toxic air 

contaminants, and the destruction of existing environmental resources. 

Therefore, it is critical that we act now in order to avoid more serious 

consequences that we would otherwise encounter in the future due to our 

inaction. Many measures will be adopted pursuant to AB 32, but this 

regulation in particular is one that was designated as a discrete early action 

item, which means it must set forth requirements that were enforceable 

starting January 1, 2010. Because of this statutory mandate and the urgent 

need to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions, this regulation could not 

and cannot be delayed. That said, while the primary goal of this regulation is 
- 16 -

to combat climate change and its harmful effects by reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions, the measure is also expected to reduce energy costs and 

stimulate the economy. By requiring tractors and trailers to become more 

efficient, this regulation is expected to reduce long-term costs for the freight 

transportation industry. The cost of fuel is a significant expenditure in this 

industry and even a modest efficiency improvement will result in very 

substantial fuel savings. ARB realizes the capital costs needed for

compliance may be difficult for many fleets in the current economic climate. 

As such, to help ease these costs, the regulation provides gradual 

compliance phase-in options for 2010 and older model year trailers, the group 

of vehicles expected to require the largest capital investment to bring into 

compliance. Moreover, the amendments proposed in this rulemaking provide 

additional flexibility for fleets, by offering an additional phase-in option for

2010 and older model year trailers, as well as a delay in the compliance date 

for low rolling resistance tires on 2010 and older model year trailers and 

tractors. Thus, ARB has made every effort to provide as much economic 

relief to fleets as possible while still adhering to the mandates of AB 32. 

2. Comment: Your overbearing proposed regulations on diesel engines will 

drive consumer costs up and up and drive viable businesses from the state 

little by little. It is time to back off and allow existing federal air quality rules to 

achieve their goals. (Quilter) 

Your policies are going to cost California dearly and I would hope that you 

take a closer look at what you are trying to do. (Hulz)

Agency Response: See Agency Response to Comment 1. Also, as ARB 

explained in the Final Statement of Reasons for the original Tractor-Trailer 

GHG regulation, AB 32 required ARB to adopt and enforce the original 

Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation by January 1, 2010. Therefore, ARB cannot 

follow the commenter’s suggestion to “back off” and defer to federal 

regulations. Moreover, there are no current federal regulations that would 

accomplish all the goals of AB 32 or of the current regulation to which we 

could defer. 

3. Comment: What you guys want to do is change the standards, making our 

current fleet noncompliant. This forces us to spend money on our existing 

fleet to comply, or buy new equipment to replace a unit that is a productive 

part of our business. I do not have to explain that these are tough economic 

times, and these standards will force people out of business. (Ayala)

Agency Response: See Agency Response to Comment 1. As ARB stated 

in response to similar comments made during the original rulemaking, for 

2010 and older model year tractors, the regulation only requires the use of 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) SmartWay 

(SmartWay) verified low rolling resistance tires starting January 1, 2013 (prior 
- 17 -

to the proposed amendments this deadline was one year earlier: January 1, 

2012). ARB believes this requirement provides sufficient lead time for most 

fleets to exhaust the usefulness of their existing tires before having to switch 

to SmartWay verified models. Therefore, ARB expects the incremental cost 

of this requirement to be small and primarily attributed to the cost difference 

between a SmartWay verified tire and a standard tire. Staff consulted with 

many fleets during the initial development of the regulation, and based on 

responses of those that had experience with SmartWay verified tires, the 

incremental cost of purchasing such tires ranged between $0 and $50 per 

tire. However, despite the additional cost of SmartWay verified tire models, 

the consensus was that the investment was worthwhile due to the fuel 

savings that were realized.

For 2010 and older model year box-type trailers, the regulation requires the 

retrofit of such trailers with SmartWay verified aerodynamic devices before 

January 1, 2013, or in accordance with one of the optional trailer fleet 

compliance schedules. This is because 1) SmartWay verified aerodynamic 

retrofits are available for trailers at reasonable cost and 2) box-type trailers 

can be used for many years without being replaced, so natural turnover of 

these trailers cannot be relied upon to obtain the greenhouse gas reductions 

needed to fulfill the goals of AB 32. Although retrofitting such trailers will 

require a substantial capital investment from affected fleets, ARB expects the 

technologies required by this regulation to pay for themselves over time 

through fuel savings. And since the optional trailer fleet compliance 

schedules allow fleets to gradually phase in compliance over several years, 

participating fleets will be able to reinvest the money they save from early 

retrofits into retrofits for trailers that are scheduled for later compliance years. 

The proposed amendments also delay the low rolling resistance tire 

requirements for all 2010 and older model year trailers to January 1, 2017, 

which should provide enough time for natural turnover of trailer tires and 

further ease the financial burden on affected fleets during these financially 

challenging times. 

4. Comment: While I fundamentally agree with the green concept, I truly 

believe that slowing the implementation to a rate that is more in line with the 

rest of the United States will benefit all Californians. If you push ahead with 

all the plans you have, you could see the whole [sic] fail because CARB acted 

too quickly. (Hulz)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment, 

which extends beyond the scope of this rulemaking action. See Agency 

Response to Comment 2. ARB often leads the nation in developing 

regulations to curtail air pollution and protect the health and welfare of the 

people of California. AB 32 established requirements for a comprehensive 

program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, 

and cost-effective reductions of GHG emissions and gave ARB responsibility 
- 18 -

for monitoring and reducing GHG emissions. It requires ARB and other state 

agencies to adopt regulations and other requirements that would reduce, by 

2020, statewide GHG emission levels to the equivalent of 1990 levels, 

representing a reduction of about 25 percent. Further, by Executive Order,

the Governor directed that GHG emission levels be reduced to 80 percent 

below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2020 goal establishes an aggressive, but 

achievable, mid-term target, and the 2050 goal represents the level scientists 

believe is necessary to reach in order to stabilize the climate. If California 

were to wait until the federal government establishes similar standards, we 

would not be able to meet the requirements of AB 32. 

5. Comment: The letter you sent us about this law is a joke. It said simply 

“pass the cost onto your customers.” I don’t have enough customers to make 

this happen. (Lynes)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. 

Similar comments were addressed during the original Tractor-Trailer GHG 

regulation rulemaking, which stated that the cost analysis for this regulation 

was computed based upon an 11-year equipment lifespan, from 2010 to 

2020. Over that time span, ARB estimates a net savings of $8.6 billion to 

affected stakeholders in 2008 dollar values. The net savings will be realized 

by truck operators because of improved fuel economy. Ultimately, the 

substantial operating cost savings seen by the truck haulers should result in 

lower costs to ship goods and result in lower cost for consumers. ARB 

calculated the savings based upon the projected retail price per gallon of 

ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel of $3.14 in 2010 to $3.69 in 2020.

Also as stated in the original rulemaking, businesses that own only trailers 

and no tractors may not be able to recover the cost of retrofitting their trailers 

through fuel savings. Since this regulation applies to all long-haul tractors 

and trailers that operate in California, regardless of where the vehicles are 

registered, ARB believes the upfront investment cost to comply will be 

recovered by haulers by passing it on to their customers, who will in turn 

increase the cost of their merchandise to the consumer. However, ARB 

estimates that the average cost to retrofit a trailer, amortized over the 11-year 

time span, would only be $30 per month1

, which is negligible when divided 

among all the merchandise transported in an average trailer over the course 

of one month.

6. Comment: I don’t think amendments should be made to the regulation at this 

point in time because companies that have already made the move to 

become compliant are the ones that will suffer. The companies that have 

dragged their feet will be rewarded by these amendments. The economy is 

already showing signs of improvement and by the time these new 

 1 Estimate based on an average price to retrofit a trailer with aerodynamic equipment and low rolling 

resistance tires of $2900, and a 6% interest rate.
- 19 -

amendments go into effect the economy will be well on its way to normal 

productivity so we need to keep the regulation in place as is. If you amend 

the regulation you will only be hurting companies that have already moved to 

become compliant and at this point put them at a disadvantage to the 

companies that have not made a move to become compliant by allowing 

these noncompliant companies to run their junk at reduced operating cost due 

to the fact they have minimal operating costs versus a company that has 

retrofitted or replaced their units to become compliant and proactive, and by 

doing so increased their operating cost which they will need to recover in the 

form of higher rates making them less competitive with their competitors that 

are noncompliant and putting them at a disadvantage. (Babich)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. ARB 

does not agree that the proposed amendments will put companies that have 

already begun to comply at a competitive disadvantage, for the following 

reasons: 1) early compliance with the regulation will help fleets save money on 

fuel so that early adopters will in fact gain benefits not achieved by those who 

chose to delay compliance; 2) the proposed amendments generally add flexibility 

for all fleets, even those who chose to comply early; and 3) although the added 

reporting flexibility for large fleets of trailers proposed in option 2 gives large 

fleets an additional opportunity to phase-in compliance of their trailers over 

several years, it was designed to preserve the advantage given to those fleets 

who already registered for the option 1 phase-in, by requiring that the option 2 

phase-in be steeper than that required for option 1 participants – this was 

designed to maintain a “level playing field.”

7. Comment: The return on investment for us to invest at this time in 

aerodynamics with two rules at this time is just not economically feasible. 

(Yandell2)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. 

Similar comments were addressed during the original Tractor-Trailer GHG 

regulation rulemaking, which stated that ARB recognizes that some carriers 

will be impacted by multiple rules promulgated by ARB. For that reason the 

regulation provides optional compliance phase-in opportunities. Specifically, 

rather than bring their entire trailer fleet into compliance on January 1, 2013, 

fleets may opt for the large fleet compliance phase-in or the small fleet 

compliance phase-in, both of which provide additional time to bring fleets into 

compliance. Further, for fleets with refrigerated-van trailers with model years 

2003 through 2009 transport refrigeration units (TRUs), additional time to 

comply is provided due to the impact of the Airborne Toxic Control Measure 

(ATCM) for TRU and TRU generator sets. In addition, the proposed 

amendments provide even more flexibility for fleets, by further delaying the 

deadlines for retrofitting tractors and trailers with low rolling resistance tires. 

Specifically, the proposed amendments would provide fleets with an 

additional year before they would need to install SmartWay verified low rolling 
- 20 -

resistance tires on their pre-2011 model year tractors and four additional 

years before they would need to install the tires on their pre-2011 model year 

trailers. Also, compliance with this regulation will result in cost savings as a 

result of improved fuel economy.

B. Scope of Regulation

8. Comment: ARB lacks authority to regulate trailers under the Heavy-Duty 

Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measure (Tractor-Trailer GHG 

regulation)

“OOIDA also questions CARB’s authority to regulate trailers in addition to 

tractors. Trailers are neither motor vehicles nor motor vehicle engines, the 

only two permissible mobile sources of emissions that CARB is allowed to 

regulate with a specific waiver under the Clean Air Act issued by EPA. See

42 U.S.C. § 7543. Indeed, trailers are not even a ‘mobile source,’ since they 

have no independent means of propulsion and do not by themselves 

generate any emissions of greenhouse gases.” (OOIDA)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment, which 

extends beyond the scope of this rulemaking action. ARB’s authority to regulate 

53-foot and longer box-type trailers in the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation is 

primarily derived from AB 32 that creates a comprehensive, multi-year program 

to reduce GHG emissions in California (Nunez, 2002). This legislation calls for 

the reduction of GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, a reduction of 

about 25 percent. In addition, Governor Schwarzenegger issued an Executive 

Order directing state agencies to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below

1990 levels by 2050. 

To swiftly address GHG reductions in the near-term, one requirement of AB 32

directed ARB to identify a list of early action measures that could be adopted by 

the Board by January 1, 2011. In 2007, the Board identified 44 such early action 

measures, including potential regulations affecting motor vehicles, fuels, 

refrigerant in cars, and many other sources, including nine “discrete” early action 

measures, which would be adopted and enforceable by January 1, 2010 (Health 

and Safety Code sections 38560.5(a) through (d)). The current Tractor-Trailer 

GHG regulation is one of these discrete early action measures. ARB explained 

in the Staff Report accompanying the rulemaking record for the current TractorTrailer GHG regulation that it included 53 foot and longer box type trailers in that 

regulation because it determined that such trailers, in conjunction with the longhaul on-road tractors that pull such trailers, are sources of GHG emissions that it 

is authorized to regulate under the authority of AB 32.

ARB has not yet conclusively determined whether the Tractor-Trailer GHG 

regulation’s requirements constitute standards relating to the control of emissions 
- 21 -

from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which requires issuance 

of a waiver from section 209(a) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). However, to 

the extent it is necessary, ARB will request a waiver for those requirements 

pursuant to section 209(b) of the CAA. In addition, this comment misstates the 

preemption and waiver provisions of the CAA. Section 209(a) preempts states 

and political subdivisions thereof from adopting or enforcing “any standard 

relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle 

engines,” and section 209(b) states the Administrator of EPA must waive the 

preemption of section 209(a) for California’s standards2 relating to new motor 

vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, unless she makes specific findings. 

These sections therefore establish requirements that are only applicable to 

California regulations that establish “any standard relating to the control of 

emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines”; they do not, 

as the commenter asserts, limit California’s authority to regulate mobile sources 

of emissions to only motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines. See e.g., section 

209(e)(2) of the CAA, which directs the Administrator to grant California an 

authorization for standards and requirements for nonroad engines (other than 

new engines less than 175 horsepower used in farm and construction equipment 

and vehicles and new engines used in new locomotives and locomotive engines) 

if certain criteria are met. 

9. Comment: ARB should defer to Federal efforts.

“Although California initially began the process of targeting heavy-duty trucks 

for greenhouse gas regulation, the federal government is now engaged. 

Because of the complexity of freight movement in the United States, and the 

nationwide scope and nature of the problem these emissions create, this 

effort properly should reside in Washington, D.C., not Sacramento.

Accordingly, at the President’s direction, EPA and the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) are taking coordinated steps to enable the 

production of a new generation of clean vehicles with better fuel efficiency and 

reduced greenhouse gas emissions. More specifically, EPA and NHTSA have 

formally announced a joint rulemaking that will culminate with the adoption of 

comprehensive federal regulations governing greenhouse gas emissions from 

heavy-duty engines and vehicles. See 75 Fed. Reg. 74152 (Nov. 30, 2010). 

Under the EPA/NHTSA proposal, regulated entities will begin to comply by model 

year 2014, and fuel consumption standards would become mandatory by model 

year 2016. Id. Since the federal rulemaking, in many respects, covers the same 

subjects as CARB’s GHG regulation, OOIDA believes CARB should defer or 

 2 CAA section 209(b) provides for granting a waiver to “any State that has adopted standards (other than crankcase 

emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to 

March 30, 1966.” California is the only State that meets this eligibility criterion for granting waivers. See, e.g., S. 

Rep. No. 90-403, at 632 (1967) and Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association v. EPA (MEMA I) (D.C. Cir. 

1979) 627 F.2d 1095, 1101 fn. 1.

2 See MEMA I, supra, 627 F.2d. at 1111, 1113.
- 22 -

sunset the relevant parts of its GHG regulation that overlap with federal efforts.” 

(OOIDA)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment, which 

extends beyond the scope of this rulemaking action. As ARB explained in the 

Final Statement of Reasons for the original Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation,

AB 32 required ARB to adopt and to enforce the original Tractor-Trailer GHG 

regulation by January 1, 2010. Therefore, ARB cannot follow the commenter’s 

suggestion to defer or sunset any portion of the current regulation. That being 

said, ARB is aware of the EPA and NHTSA joint proposal, and is collaborating 

with those agencies as they proceed with that proposed rulemaking. 

10.Comment: Preemption under the Federal Aviation Administration 

Authorization Act

“CARB’s attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emission [sic] are also limited by 

the preemption provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act 

[FAAAA], 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), which prohibits states from adopting any law or 

regulation related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier with respect to 

the transportation of property. Although the FAAAA’s pre-emptive effect on the 

GHG Regulation is not addressed in these comments, it is worth noting that 

barriers to interstate operations, such as those created by the GHG Regulation in 

both its current and proposed form, might also run afoul of the FAAAA because 

they will raise the costs of long-haul operations and could accordingly cause 

motor carriers to raise their prices or alter routes for services provided to and 

from California.” (Emphasis supplied). (OOIDA)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. This 

comment appears to be generally directed towards the original Tractor-Trailer 

GHG regulation rulemaking, and therefore extends beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking action because it does not raise any objections or recommendations 

directed to the proposed amendments. Nevertheless, ARB disagrees that its 

authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases generated from the tractors 

and trailers that are the subject of the instant rulemaking action is preempted by 

the provisions of 49 U.S.C. section 14501(c). 

As previously noted in Agency Response to Comment 8, ARB has not yet 

determined whether the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation requirements are subject 

to the provisions of sections 209(a) and 209(b) of the federal Clean Air Act 

(CAA). However, for the purpose of responding to this comment, ARB is 

assuming these requirements are subject to those sections, and notes that 

although courts have not yet directly addressed whether the provisions of the 

FAAAA and the federal Clean Air Act conflict, under well-established principles of 

statutory interpretation, a court will not presume that two federal statutes conflict 

unless one statute expressly contradicts another statute or unless it finds a 

repeal is absolutely necessary. Here, the FAAAA does not contain language 
- 23 -

expressly contradicting sections 209(a) or 209(b) of the CAA, and furthermore, 

interpreting the FAAAA as preempting section 209(b) of the CAA is unnecessary, 

because it is possible to construe both statutes in a manner that furthers their 

respective purposes, while also harmonizing them. 

11.Comment: The regulation violates the Commerce Clause of the United 

States Constitution. 

“California’s right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, through CARB, must be 

exercised consistent with constitutional limitations, including the Interstate 

Commerce Clause.” “[T]his precludes both regulations that unduly burden 

interstate commerce or that discriminates against out-of-state interests via 

provisions that either expressly or in practice favor in-state interests.” (OOIDA)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment, which 

extends beyond the scope of this rulemaking action. As demonstrated in greater 

detail below, ARB believes that the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation does not 

violate Article I, § 8, clause 3 of the United States Constitution. 

12.Comment: The Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation discriminates against out-ofstate motor carriers. 

“CARB has taken great pains, in crafting the original GHG Regulation and in the 

proposed modifications, to minimize the burden imposed on California-based 

entities. Short-haul, as well as drayage and local-haul equipment, is exempted 

from many compliance requirements. Raymond Motor v. Rice, supra. In this 

proceeding, CARB has even proposed expanding the exemptions for local 

interests. Storage trailers are exempted for the first time. [§ 95305(e)]. Further, 

owners can obtain up to four three-day relocation passes for exempt local-haul 

and storage trailers. Id. at § 95305(f)(5). Such relocation passes are not even 

required for empty local-haul trailers to be moved more than 100 miles from the 

local base. Id. at § 95305(c)(1)(B). 

Because of its focus on regulation of long-haul truckers, CARB did not provide 

any meaningful exemptions from the regulation for long-haul out-of-state 

truckers, even those who drive relatively few miles in California and, accordingly, 

do not individually make a meaningful contribution to the greenhouse gas 

emissions problem in the state. In fact, the current regulation has no 

exemptions that directly address the needs of those out-of-state motor carriers. 

CARB has gone through the motions of attempting in this proceeding to reduce 

the in-state/out-of-state inequity through the creation of a ‘Non-compliant Tractor 

Pass’ exemption (id. at § 95305(h)), but this exemption will not be usable by most 

out-of-state truckers. Under the proposal, a truck owner is entitled to only one 

such pass per year, whether he owns a single tractor or a fleet. The pass will not 

be good for more than three consecutive days, and CARB has 15 days from the 
- 24 -

date of application to notify the owner whether the pass was issued. Id. at §§ 

95305(h)(2),(4),& (5).

A long-haul trucker with non-compliant equipment, whether he owns one or a 

fleet of trucks and trailers, cannot hold himself out as providing service to 

California on any basis if he can only expect to get one pass per year. Moreover, 

goods movement is a dynamic business, where truckers usually do not know 

their next freight offering until shortly before or on the exact day when it is 

tendered for pick-up with delivery expected in mere days. Thus, the proposed 

’15 days’ allowed for a response from the Executive Officer would by itself make 

usage of this exemption unworkable for the vast majority of out-of-state truckers 

attempting to utilize this exemption.” (OOIDA)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. ARB 

disagrees that the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation discriminates against out-ofstate motor carriers. The regulation provides a “level playing field,” requiring all 

motor carriers involved in the long-haul transport of freight in 53 foot or longer 

box-type trailers to comply with the regulation’s equipment requirements when 

traveling on California highways – whether they are based in California or out-ofstate. That being said, ARB also recognizes that there are some fleets that may 

not be aware of the regulation’s existence because they infrequently transport 

goods in California. To address this issue, ARB has proposed a limited-time 

exemption for long-haul tractor-trailer combinations. 

Initially, the proposed amendments to the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation added

a “Non-compliant Tractor Pass” provision in subsection 95305(h) that would allow 

both in-state and out-of-state tractor owners to request and obtain a temporary 

exemption (pass) from the regulation, not to exceed three consecutive days. 

Subsequently in the 15-day proposed changes, this provision was modified to 

allow the pass to be valid for five consecutive days. Only one pass would be 

issued to an owner per year. Furthermore, only one tractor per fleet, sharing a 

U.S. Department of Transportation, motor carrier, or International Registration 

Plan number, would be granted one pass per year. In other words, if a fleet is 

made up of multiple owners, only one pass could be issued to a tractor in that 

fleet, regardless of the number of owners in that fleet. The reason only one pass 

would be issued per fleet is because this exemption was intended to provide 

temporary and limited assistance to fleets during the first few years of the 

regulation until fleets that do not typically operate in California become aware of 

this regulation. Thus, staff proposes to sunset this provision on January 1, 2015. 

The regulation requires the Executive Officer to respond to a request for a pass 

within 15 days of receiving the request. ARB recognizes that in many instances 

motor carriers will need an approved pass as quickly as possible after requesting 

the pass. Therefore, ARB will provide an electronic pass submittal and approval 

system that will facilitate the approval of passes electronically within hours after 

receipt via email correspondence or the TRUCRS website.
- 25 -

13.Comment: “Limiting the pass to a maximum three-day timeframe is also 

problematic. There are significant seasonal fluctuations in freight availability, 

mostly driven by agricultural and import availability. If goods are not available for 

pick-up immediately after a delivery (in industry parlance – a quick turnaround) a 

motor carrier utilizing a three-day pass runs the very real risk of having to leave 

the state empty in order not to exceed the arbitrary time allotted by the pass.” 

(OOIDA)

Agency Response: ARB agrees with the commenter and has modified the 

regulation in response to this comment. The modified regulatory language, 

discussed in the following paragraphs, has been made available for public 

comment for a period of 15 days with no further comments received. 

Sections 95305(f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(8), 95305(g)(3)(H), 95305(h)(1) and 95305(h)(2) 

have been modified to extend the maximum applicable time period of a relocation 

pass for trailers, transfer of ownership pass for trailers, and non-compliant tractor 

pass, from three to five consecutive days. There are a number of variables, 

including inclement weather, traffic congestion, road construction, and limitations 

on driver work hours that can lengthen the time it takes to complete a planned 

trip. In addition, a nationwide trailer leasing company has provided ARB with 

comments suggesting that the three day period to relocate trailers is too short a 

time period. The coordinating logistics between a motor carrier and shipper 

make the three day window to complete the trip impractical. As a result, staff is 

proposing to extend the previously proposed three day time periods to five day 

time periods. ARB staff believes the two additional days should provide an 

owner moving a trailer under a pass enough flexibility to deal with unexpected 

delays and circumstances.

14.Comment: “The lack of any meaningful opportunity for a long-haul interstate 

trucker to come into California without first complying with the GHG Regulation 

raises the costs for out-of-state motor carriers who want to do business in the 

state, while many in-state motor carriers are exempted from the Regulation’s 

requirements. Cf. Hughes v. Oklahoma, supra; Hunt v. Washington State, supra. 

Whether the discrimination is express or simply the effect of the numerous useful 

exemptions for in-state interests without any corresponding exemptions for outof-state motor carriers, it is clearly discriminatory. As such, it violates the 

Interstate Commerce Clause. (OOIDA)

Agency Response: As a threshold matter, ARB notes that to the extent that this 

comment raises issues concerning the constitutionality of the original TractorTrailer GHG regulation, it extends beyond the scope of this rulemaking action 

because it does not raise any objections or recommendations directed to the 

proposed amendments. However, for the reasons set forth below, ARB believes 

that neither the original regulation nor the proposed amendments are 

inconsistent with the provisions of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 
- 26 -

Article I, §8, cl. 3 of the United States Constitution states that Congress has the 

power “[t]o regulate Commerce ...among the several States.” Courts have long 

recognized that this affirmative grant of power also includes an implicit or

“dormant” limitation on the authority of states to affect interstate commerce. 

United Haulers Ass’n., Inc. v. Onedia-Herkimer Solid Waste Management 

Authority (2007) 550 U.S. 330, 338. In determining whether a state law violates 

the Commerce Clause, a court first determines if the law discriminates against 

interstate commerce, either on its face or in practical effect (Hughes v. Oklahoma 

(1979) 441 U.S. 322, 336) ), i.e., if the law accords differential treatment of instate and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens 

the latter. Such laws are virtually per se invalid. United Haulers Ass’n at 338, 

and will only survive if they “advance[s] a legitimate local purpose that cannot be 

adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives.” Oregon Waste 

Systems Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of State of Oregon (1994) 

511 U.S. 93, 100-101. 

Neither the Original Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation Nor the Proposed 

Amendments Expressly Discriminate Against Interstate Commerce

Neither the current Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation nor the proposed 

amendments facially discriminate or discriminate in practice against interstate 

commerce, as they do not establish requirements for interstate commerce that 

are qualitatively or quantitatively different than the requirements for intrastate 

commerce. 

United Hauler’s Ass’n (2007) 550 U.S. 330 involved a challenge to a “flow 

control” ordinance that required all solid waste in affected counties to be 

delivered to a state-created, public benefit corporation, and that further required 

private waste haulers to obtain permits to collect waste in those affected 

counties. The U.S. Supreme Court noted that the ordinance benefitted a public 

facility “while treating all private companies exactly the same,” id at 342, and 

therefore held that the ordinance did not discriminate against interstate 

commerce. Id. at 345. The United Haulers Ass’n Court then proceeded to 

analyze the constitutionality of the ordinance under the Pike v. Bruce Church, 

Inc. test described below in Agency Response to Comment 19. 

The Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation does not facially discriminate against 

interstate commerce because its requirements are applicable to all 53 foot and 

longer box type trailers and the long-haul on-road tractors that haul such trailers 

that operate in California, without distinguishing whether such tractors and 

trailers are based inside or outside of California. The commenter maintains that 

the regulation’s exemptions for short-haul, drayage and local-haul equipment, 

and storage trailers evidences the regulation’s facial discrimination against outof-state long-haul carriers, citing Raymond Motor Trans., Inc. v. Rice (1978) 434 
- 27 -

U.S. 429, but that case is inapposite. In Raymond Motor, the U.S. Supreme 

Court held that Wisconsin regulations limiting the length of trucks operated in that 

state violated the Commerce Clause. Significantly, the Court did not find that the 

regulations facially discriminated against interstate commerce, but instead held 

that the regulations were unconstitutional under the Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.

balancing test described below in Agency Response to Comment 19. The

Raymond Motor Court held that the challenged regulations unconstitutionally 

burdened interstate commerce under that test, because Wisconsin had produced 

virtually no evidence to demonstrate that its regulations contributed to highway 

safety and because appellants had demonstrated the regulations imposed a 

substantial burden on interstate commerce. The Court stated that although state 

safety regulations are generally afforded a strong presumption of validity, the 

existence of numerous exemptions in the regulations undermined Wisconsin’s 

assertion that the regulations were enacted to ensure highway safety. The Court 

also noted that at least one of the exceptions facially discriminated in favor of 

Wisconsin industries and against out-of-state industries, id. at 446, but explained 

that such exemptions merely served to weaken the presumption that the state 

law was valid, and importantly, expressed that this consideration was not 

decisive to its ultimate holding. Id. at 446. The Court further stated it was 

unnecessary to decide in that case whether the appellants would be entitled to 

relief based solely on the discrimination embodied in that exemption. Id. at 447.

Unlike the Wisconsin regulations at issue in the Raymond Motor case, the 

proposed exemptions for storage trailers [§ 95305(e)], relocation passes [§ 

95305(f)(5)], and non-compliant tractors [§ 95305(h)] are facially neutral, and 

were not enacted to benefit California businesses. Instead, the Board adopted 

such amendments to provide compliance flexibility for owners and operators of 

affected tractors and trailers in circumstances involving limited operations at 

highway speeds and/or their limited overall annual mileage, and those 

exemptions are equally available to both in-state and out-of-state fleets. The 

Board’s rationale is therefore entirely consistent with its determinations in the 

original rulemaking that the maximum reductions in GHG emissions result from 

trucks operated at highway speeds. See Agency Response to Comment 30 and, 

as stated in that Agency Response, this rationale did not consider the in-state 

versus out-of-state proportion of short- and local-haul tractors and trailers. 

Neither the Original Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation Nor the Proposed

Amendments Discriminates In Practice Against Interstate Commerce

Neither the current Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation nor the proposed 

amendments discriminates in practice against interstate commerce, because 

they do not establish requirements for interstate commerce that are qualitatively 

or quantitatively different than the requirements for intrastate commerce. The 

commenter claims that the Board’s adoption of the “numerous useful exemptions 

for in-state interests without any corresponding exemptions for out-of-state motor 

carriers ... is clearly discriminatory,” citing Hughes v. Oklahoma (1979) 441 U.S. 
- 28 -

322 and Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n (1977) 432 U.S. 

333.

Hunt (1977) 432 U.S. 333 involved a challenge to a statute that prohibited closed 

containers of apples sold in North Carolina from being labeled with any State 

graded quality standards. The Hunt court held that although this statute was 

facially neutral, it violated the Commerce Clause because it discriminated in 

effect against Washington state apple growers. The statute increased the costs 

for Washington apple growers, but not for in-state apple growers, because it 

forced the out-of-state growers to alter their existing marketing practices, and 

also effectively removed the benefits of Washington’s superior apple-grading 

system from the out-of-state growers that benefitted the in-state growers. Id. at 

350-352. 

Hughes (1979) 441 U.S. 322 involved an Oklahoma statute that prohibited the 

sale or transport of minnows outside that state that were caught inside 

Oklahoma. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated that statute because it facially 

discriminated against interstate commerce. The Court noted the statute did not 

limit the numbers of minnows that licensed minnow dealers could take, or limit 

how such minnows could be used in the State, and therefore characterized the 

statute as “a choice of the most discriminatory means even though 

nondiscriminatory alternatives would seem likely to fulfill the State's purported 

legitimate local purpose more effectively.” Id. at 338.

The Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation and the proposed amendments are 

distinguishable from these cases. First, unlike the statute in Hughes, the TractorTrailer GHG regulation does not facially discriminate against out-of-state trucks, 

but rather establishes requirements that are uniformly applicable to affected 

tractors and trailers that operate in California, whether they are based within or 

beyond this state. Second, unlike Hunt, the amendments do not remove any 

preexisting advantage that out-of-state owners or operators enjoy over Californiabased owners or operators, or vice versa.

The commenter’s assertion that the exemptions for short-haul, local-haul, storage 

trailers [§ 95305(e)], relocation passes [§ 95305(f)(5)], and non-compliant 

tractors [§ 95305(h)] discriminate in effect against out-of-state owners or 

operators by effectively exempting in-state businesses, but not out-of-state 

businesses from the requirements lacks merit. Each of the above exemptions is 

available to both in-state and out-of-state entities that meet the specific eligibility 

criteria, and therefore do not benefit in-state businesses at the expense of out-ofstate businesses. Indeed, it is apparent that the commenter is essentially 

requesting the Board to broaden the exemptions to provide additional flexibility 

for long-haul tractors and trailers. However, as stated in the Agency Response 

to Comment 30, the Board adopted these exemptions to provide flexibility in 

circumstances where tractors and trailers are not likely to travel at the highway 

speeds where emissions of GHGs are most efficiently reduced. Thus, unlike the 
- 29 -

exemptions that the Raymond Motor Court held undermined the asserted safety 

basis of Wisconsin’s truck length rules, these exemptions serve to strengthen the 

Board’s health and welfare basis of the amendments – that the Board enacted 

these amendments to protect the health and welfare of California’s residents. 

Therefore, the presence of these neutral exemptions does not evidence any 

improper discrimination against interstate commerce. Raymond Motor at 447 

(“Neither do we intimate that nondiscriminatory exceptions to general length, 

width, or weight limits are inherently suspect.” Internal citations omitted.) 

15.Comment: “When in-state versus out-of-state discrimination is demonstrated, 

the burden falls on the involved state to justify it both in terms of the local benefits 

flowing from the regulation and the unavailability of nondiscriminatory alternatives 

adequate to preserve the local interests at stake. Hunt [v. Washington State 

Apple Advertising Comm’n (1977) 432 U.S. 333] at 353. (OOIDA)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. As 

demonstrated in the Agency Response to Comment 14, ARB believes that 

neither the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation nor the proposed amendments 

facially discriminate or discriminate in practice against interstate commerce, as 

they do not establish requirements for interstate commerce that are qualitatively 

or quantitatively different than the requirements for intrastate commerce. 

Nevertheless, ARB will address the commenter’s specific concerns below.

16.Comment: ARB “could both reduce the burden on interstate commerce and 

equalize the discriminatory treatment of in-state and out-of-state truckers in two 

different ways.”

“First, CARB could refocus the short-haul exemption exclusively on miles 

operated in California, since this is the only factor that truly affects greenhouse 

emissions originating in California. Since the Regulation allows qualifying motor 

carriers to operate up to 50,000 miles in the state without being subjected to its 

strictures, there is no logical reason why out-of-state long-haul truckers should 

not be allowed to do the same.” (OOIDA)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. ARB 

disagrees that the regulation and/or the short-haul exemption discriminate in any 

manner against either in-state or out-of-state truckers. Furthermore, as the 

Board explained in the FSOR for the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation 

(Agency Response to Comment 32), because aerodynamic equipment functions 

most optimally at highway speeds, it enacted provisions to exempt trucks that 

generally do not operate at those speeds, and would only marginally benefit from 

the aerodynamic equipment requirements; namely, trucks that operate primarily 

within a local area with mostly urban driving, or for trucks with low annual 

mileage. This rationale does not extend to out-of-state long-haul trucks that on 

average travel at high enough speeds to realize significant fuel efficiency savings 

from using aerodynamic devices.
- 30 -

ARB also wishes to point out that the proposed amendments now clarify the

definition of a short-haul tractor as a heavy-duty tractor that travels less than 

50,000 miles per year, including mileage accumulated both inside and outside of

California. Title 17, Code of California Regulations, section 95302(a)(29). The 

original definition did not explicitly specify the annual mileage limit to be mileage

accrued both inside and outside of California. 

As explained in the Agency Response to Comment 17, short-haul tractors are 

exempted from the requirements, not because they travel fewer miles and as a 

result produce less GHG emissions than long-haul tractors, but because, at the 

speeds they are operated, the aerodynamic devices installed on these vehicles 

provide minimal or zero GHG emission benefits. Moreover, the proposal to base 

the short-haul exemption’s availability solely on miles traveled in California would 

not establish a nondiscriminatory alternative to the proposed amendments, but 

would instead effectively discriminate in favor of out-of-state truckers at the 

expense of California based truckers. Specifically, California based long-haul 

trucks will likely be operated in California only a fraction of the time compared to 

their out-of-state counterparts, and would consequently be precluded from 

utilizing this exemption as compared to out-of-state long-haul trucks. 

17.Comment: “Alternatively, CARB could keep the short-haul exemption as it is 

now and instead make the non-compliant tractor pass exemption more readily 

available. OOIDA would suggest that it be made applicable to multiple single 

vehicles in a fleet as are the local and short-haul exemptions, instead of being 

the only exemption that is available and limited to one vehicle in a fleet. In 

addition, since relocation passes are available for a single trailer up to four times 

a year, non-compliant tractor passes should similarly be available up to four 

times per year for single vehicles.

While either of these suggested modifications to the currently-proposed 

exemptions would allow non-compliant out-of-state vehicles to operate more 

miles in California than would be allowed by the proposed once yearly three-day 

pass exemption, the trucks making use of the exemption would not contribute 

any more greenhouse gas emissions than local and short-haul vehicles already 

exempted from coverage.” (OOIDA)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. 

Relocation passes provide fleets that operate local-haul trailers the flexibility to 

relocate their trailers loaded with freight to a new local-haul base. Note that 

fleets do not need relocation passes to relocate trailers to a new local-haul base 

if the trailers are pulled empty. However, hauling empty trailers reduces freight 

transportation efficiency. Thus, to reduce the inefficiency that may result from 

moving empty trailers, ARB has provided a limited number of relocation passes 

per year per trailer to enable fleets to relocate trailers loaded with freight to a new 

local-haul base. The non-compliant tractor pass, on the other hand, although not 
- 31 -

limited to out-of-state fleets only, was created mainly for out-of-state fleets that 

infrequently operate in California to enable them to operate a non-compliant 

tractor and trailer without being in violation of the regulation. ARB limited this 

provision to only one tractor pass per year per fleet because allowing multiple 

passes per tractor per fleet would go counter to the goals of the regulation of 

significantly reducing GHG emissions. 

Short-haul tractors are exempted from the requirements, not because they travel 

fewer miles and as a result produce less GHG emissions than long-haul tractors, 

but because, at the speeds they are operated, the aerodynamic devices installed 

on these vehicles provide minimal or zero GHG emission benefits. On the other 

hand, long-haul out-of-state tractors would benefit from installing the low rolling 

resistance tires and aerodynamic devices since most of the vehicle miles 

traveled both inside and outside of California are accrued at highway speeds. As 

a result, long-haul out-of-state tractors are required to comply with the low rolling 

resistance tire and aerodynamic requirements of the regulation.

Also, as stated in the Agency Response to Comment 14, ARB does not believe 

that the regulation or the non-compliant tractor pass discriminates in any manner 

against either in-state or out-of-state truckers, because they do not establish 

requirements for interstate commerce that are qualitatively or quantitatively 

different than the requirements for intrastate commerce. 

18.Comment: Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the Tractor-Trailer GHG 

regulation improperly regulates transportation that is provided totally out-of-the 

state by motor carriers. 

[A] state and its various agencies may only regulate conduct within their own 

state’s boundaries. Laws or regulations that impose liability on or otherwise 

regulate conduct occurring wholly outside of the state go beyond the inherent 

limits on the state’s authority and may not be allowed to stand. Healy v. Beer 

Inst. Inc., 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989); Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 642-643 

(1982). This is so regardless of whether or not the extraterritorial reach was 

intended. Id.

The OOIDA Foundation surveys OOIDA membership and those results indicate 

our members who are primarily long-haul truckers average 108,072 miles per 

year. Thus, as CARB intended, they do not qualify for either the short or localhaul exemptions. This means that they will have to equip the tractors and trailers 

they use with the requisite aerodynamic equipment and low-rolling resistance 

tires for the miles operated outside of California transporting freight for shippers 

and receivers also located outside of California. They are forced to comply with 

this regulation if they want to hold themselves out to provide even intermittent 

and irregular transportation services in California with the same equipment. 

California’s regulatory regime is therefore improperly being projected into other 
- 32 -

states. See Healy v. Beer Inst., supra; 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989); Edgar v. MITE, 

supra. (OOIDA)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. To the 

extent that this comment raises issues concerning the constitutionality of the 

original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation, it extends beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking action because it does not raise any objections or recommendations 

directed to the proposed amendments. Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth 

below, ARB believes that neither the original regulation nor the proposed 

amendments are inconsistent with the provisions of the Commerce Clause of the 

U.S. Constitution. 

As the commenter notes, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in certain situations 

that a state law that directly regulates commerce outside of that state’s 

boundaries violates the Commerce Clause. This principle has been referred to 

as the extraterritoriality branch of the dormant Commerce Clause. In Healy v. 

Beer Institute (1989) 491 U.S. 324, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a 

Connecticut price affirmation statute for beer violated the Commerce Clause 

because it regulated out-of-state commerce by controlling prices and marketing 

practices in other states. Specifically, that statute effectively required interstate 

beer sellers to forego available promotional and volume discounts in other states, 

which deprived those sellers of any competitive advantages that might exist in 

bordering States. The Healy Court also found that the statute facially 

discriminated against interstate commerce. Healy (1989) 491 U.S. 324, 340. 

In Edgar v. MITE Corp., (1982) 457 U.S. 624, a plurality of the U.S. Supreme 

Court would have invalidated a statute regulating corporate takeovers on 

extraterritoriality grounds. The plurality found the statute would allow Illinois to 

regulate out-of-state transactions that had no significant connections to Illinois 

(i.e., the statute could be applied to regulate tender offers that would not affect a 

single Illinois shareholder). However, a majority of the Court ultimately 

invalidated the statute under the Pike balancing test discussed below at Agency 

Response to Comment 19. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has not held, however, that the extraterritoriality 

doctrine per se invalidates state regulations that incidentally or indirectly regulate 

out-of-state commerce, but has upheld a state’s ability to regulate extraterritorial 

commerce that has a direct nexus to that state and that substantially impacts that 

state. In CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America (1987) 481 U.S. 69, the Court 

upheld an Indiana corporate takeover statute against a Commerce Clause 

challenge. The Court distinguished that statute from the Illinois statute in MITE in 

that the Indiana statute only applied to corporations with substantial numbers of 

shareholders in Indiana and would therefore affect a substantial number of 

Indiana residents. Id. at 93. The Court notably did not hold that the statute was 

invalid simply because it could also possibly regulate out-of-state transactions 

(i.e., non-Indiana corporations seeking to purchase shares from non-Indiana 
- 33 -

shareholders). Federal Courts of Appeal have similarly rejected assertions that 

state regulations that only incidentally affect out-of-state transactions are per se 

invalidated by the extraterritorial doctrine. Alliant Energy Corp v. Bie (7th Cir. 

2003) 336 F.3d 545. 

Neither the current Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation nor the proposed 

amendments raise the same issues that concerned the Healy and the MITE

Courts. Unlike the price affirmation statute in Healy, the Tractor-Trailer GHG 

regulation does not practically regulate commercial activity beyond California’s 

borders; because the regulation only applies to tractors and trailers that operate 

on California highways, it does not and cannot dictate tire or equipment 

requirements for out-of-state tractors and trailers. Unlike the MITE statute, the 

regulation was specifically developed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 

the tractors and trailers that travel on California’s highways – emissions which 

directly affect California’s economic well-being, public health, natural resources, 

and environment. The Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation is therefore more akin to 

the statute in CTS in that it affects a substantial source of GHG emissions that 

California has an indisputable interest in reducing, and is therefore consistent 

with the extraterritoriality doctrine.

Pike balancing test comments

19.Comment: The regulation unduly burdens interstate commerce. New Energy v. 

Limbach, supra; United Haulers Ass’n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer, supra. “The 

burden is undue when a balancing of national and local interests reveals that the 

costs of complying are disproportionate (i.e., clearly excessive) when compared 

to the demonstrable local benefits that cannot otherwise be obtained by the state. 

United Haulers Ass’n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt Auth., 550 U.S. 

330,339 (2007); Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970). 

‘Motor carriers operating in interstate commerce must either avoid California 

altogether or expend substantial funds to purchase new compliant equipment or 

retrofit old equipment.FN That expense is difficult to justify for those motor 

carriers who only occasionally make trips into California. As shown in the table 

of IRP data on page 8 above, once vehicles from states near California are 

eliminated, the average mileage in California is quite low and gets lower as the 

base state gets further away.’

[* Footnote] - The expenditure is not insignificant in spite of CARB’s contention 

that there will be a financial payback to the truck owner from fuel savings. First, 

CARB has ignored the difficulty that financially stressed small-business motor 

carriers will have in coming up with thousands of dollars in the upfront capital for 

the required technologies. Second, OOIDA would argue that many smallbusiness motor carriers are acutely aware of their fuel mileage and, since, fuel 

represents their single largest cost, they are already operating their equipment as 

efficiently as practicable. Indeed, many have made large investments in anti-idle 
- 34 -

technology. Thus, the hypothesized payback for the capital investment required

under by [sic] this Regulation may well be illusory and overstated in CARB 

justifications.

Accordingly, the expenditures for the equipment required by the GHG Regulation 

cannot be justified based upon the mileage traveled in the state. More distant 

motor carriers are likely to avoid California altogether. On the other hand, the 

benefit to California in terms of reduced greenhouse gas emissions will be 

minimal if the Regulation keeps out only those truck operators who are not likely 

to drive many miles or consume much fuel in the state. Thus, as with the various 

transportation cases invalidating state laws banning certain trucks on safety 

grounds, the ban here on certain tractors and trailers places a burden on 

interstate commerce that outweighs any demonstrable local benefits Cf. 

Raymond Motor v. Rice, supra; Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways, supra.” [¶] 

Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, 359 U.S. 520 (1959) (invalidating state law 

requiring mudflaps that could not be used in adjacent states); Southern Pacific 

Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 (1945) (invalidating state law restricting length of 

trains). (OOIDA)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. To the 

extent this comment raises issues concerning the constitutionality of the original 

Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation, it extends beyond the scope of this rulemaking 

action because it does not raise any objections or recommendations directed to 

the proposed amendments. However, for the reasons set forth below, ARB 

believes that neither the original regulation nor the proposed amendments are 

inconsistent with the provisions of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

As a threshold matter, ARB notes that the commenter’s concerns regarding the 

anticipated economic impact of the regulation have been previously addressed in 

the Final Statement of Reasons for the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation. 

* See Agency Response to Comments 1 through 3 in the original FSOR (pp. 19-

23) in response to the comment that small business motor carriers may have 

difficulty in obtaining capital for compliance costs. 

* See Agency Responses to Comment 81 (p, 66) and to Comment 123 (pp. 91-

93) in the original FSOR, in response to the comment that the anticipated 

payback period is overstated because it overlooks the fact that operators are 

already operating their equipment in a fuel efficient manner or have invested in 

anti-idle technology. As ARB stated in the Agency Response to Comment 123, 

“Thus, ARB’s use of fuel efficiency improvements of 10 percent for a 

SmartWay certified tractor and trailer with side skirts and front trailer 

fairings, and the use of low rolling resistance tires on both the tractor and 

the trailer is not simplistic addition but based on tests, modeling, and input 

from the industry. Therefore, the fuel savings in the Staff Report are not 
- 35 -

overestimated for the tractor and trailer. Furthermore, it should be noted 

that unlike many regulations that do not have a cost savings, this

regulation will result in fuel savings such that an owner can recover his/her

initial costs.”

In addition, the comment incorrectly asserts that ARB overlooked the fact or 

contribution of other fuel reduction measures that may already be present on 

tractors or trailers, such as idle-reduction measures. The GHG reductions 

resulting from the regulation were calculated solely from the minimum 

aerodynamic and tire rolling resistance performance required by the regulation. 

See Appendix C to Initial Staff Report for the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation. 

Therefore, those GHG reductions (and any associated fuel reductions) are not 

dependent upon nor affected by any other fuel reduction measures. 

* See also Agency Responses to Comments 103 – 152 in the original FSOR (pp. 

79 -109) responding to economic-related issues raised in the original TractorTrailer GHG regulation. 

With regards to the comment’s constitutional concerns, if a court determines that 

a state law does not discriminate against interstate commerce or directly regulate 

commerce outside of the state’s boundaries, it then balances the law’s local 

benefits against its burdens on interstate commerce to determine if the law 

violates the federal Commerce Clause. Pike v. Bruce Church (1970) 397 U.S. 

137, 142. The Supreme Court has stated that state regulations frequently pass 

muster under the Pike test. Department of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis (2008) 533 

U.S. 328, 339. Under this test the state law will be upheld unless it imposes a 

burden on interstate commerce that is clearly excessive in relation to the putative 

local benefits. “If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes 

one of degree. And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course 

depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and on whether it could be 

promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities.” Ibid. 

Furthermore, courts will accord a greater presumption of validity to a state’s laws 

in the field of safety. Pike 397 U.S. 137, 143. 

Courts recognize that preventing air pollution is and has been a traditional local 

safety concern. Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit (1960) 362 U.S. 440, 445-

446. This recognition is also expressed in the federal Clean Air Act section 

101(a)(3), where the U.S. Congress declared that states and local governments 

are primarily responsible for preventing air pollution, and in California Health and 

Safety Code sections 39000 and 39001, where the California legislature declared 

a strong public interest in controlling air pollution to protect the “health, safety, 

welfare, and sense of well-being” of Californians. 

Moreover, the California legislature has declared in the California Global 

Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) that global warming “poses a serious 

threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the 
- 36 -

environment of California”, and has accordingly directed ARB to monitor and 

regulate sources of GHG emissions. As documented in the rulemaking record 

for the original Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation, 53-foot and longer box-type 

trailers, and the tractors that haul such trailers on California highways are 

significant sources of GHG emissions in California, and this regulation is 

therefore an important component of ARB’s strategy to reduce such emissions. 

These considerations establish that this regulation serves the legitimate public 

purpose of protecting the health and welfare of California’s residents, which 

purpose “clearly falls within the exercise of even the most traditional concept of 

what is compendiously known as the police power.” Huron Portland Cement Co.

(1960) 362 U.S. 440, 442. 

If a court determines that the justifications for a state safety based regulation are 

not illusory, as it would likely find in this case, it will accord the regulation 

significant deference. Raymond Motor Transportation v. Rice (1978) 434 U.S. 

429, 449 (Blackmun, J., concurrence). The court will then assess the 

regulation’s burden on interstate commerce. This regulation does not unduly 

burden interstate commerce. First, the regulation spreads the total cost of 

compliance for fleets over several years, which helps mitigate any financial 

impact on fleet owners. Tractor aerodynamic requirements apply only to new 

2011 and later model year tractors beginning in 2010 and low-rolling resistance 

tires are required on older tractors three years later. Trailer aerodynamic and tire 

requirements begin in 2010 only for new 2011 and later model trailers. Trailer 

owners have the flexibility to comply with the 2010 and older trailer requirements 

over a period of six years. In addition, the amendments will provide additional 

compliance flexibility by providing additional exemptions for storage trailers, 

local-haul trailers, fleets that infrequently travel in California, trailers involved in a 

transfer of ownership, and for open shoulder drive tires; by providing compliance 

delays for trailers with no currently available SmartWay verified technologies, for 

2009 model year refrigerated van trailers, and for trailers that are configured

differently than dry van trailers; and by extending the compliance dates for low 

rolling resistance tires (pre-2011 model year tractors would have one more year 

to comply, and pre-2011 model year trailers would have up to four additional 

years to comply). 

Second, the regulation will ultimately result in a fuel savings from compliant 

trucks. An average of 7 to 10 percent fuel savings is expected on a compliant 

tractor-trailer combination, which translates to approximately $4,000 to $5,700 

per year on a truck with average long-haul mileage (see the Initial Staff Report 

for the Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation, page ES6). Depending on the ratio of 

tractors to trailers, the owner may be able to recover the initial cost in less than 

1.5 years to several years. Thereafter, the owner will actually save money in fuel 

when operating the compliant tractor trailer, compared to a noncompliant tractor 

trailer. Third, some financial assistance and grant programs are available to 

assist tractor and trailer owners, such as the ARB Providing Loan Assistance for 

California Equipment Program and the U.S. EPA SmartWay Clean Diesel Fuel 
- 37 -

Finance Program. Fourth, the rulemaking record for both the original regulation 

and the proposed amendments amply demonstrate that the initial compliance 

costs for the equipment required by the GHG regulation can be justified by the 

miles that both California and non-California based tractors and trailers travel in 

the state. In fact, ARB has estimated that in 2020, non-California based tractors 

will contribute 65.5 percent of the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on California 

highways. See Appendix C to Staff Report to the original Tractor-Trailer 

Greenhouse Gas Regulation. Fifth, the comment presumes that every out-ofstate affected tractor or trailer in the nation’s fleet must install low-rolling 

resistance tires or aerodynamic equipment if they want to provide transportation 

services in California, which disregards the fact that trucking fleets utilize 

advanced technologies, such as global positioning systems, to track the locations 

of individual trucks on a real-time basis. Trucking fleets are therefore aware of 

the location of each of their vehicles, and can easily direct only compliant trucks 

into California. Furthermore, many trucks may never enter California because

of its geographic location. 

These considerations demonstrate that this regulation does not impose a burden 

on interstate commerce that clearly exceeds its benefits of protecting the health 

and welfare of California’s residents from global warming, and would likely be 

held not to unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce under the Pike

balancing test. This conclusion also necessarily follows because a state law 

violates the Pike balancing test only if it imposes a burden on interstate 

commerce that is “qualitatively or quantitatively different from that imposed on 

intrastate commerce.” National Elec. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell (2001) 272 F.3d 104, 

109, National Solid Waste Management Ass’n v. Pine Belt Regional Solid Waste 

Management Authority (2004) 389 F.3d 491, 502. The Tractor-Trailer GHG 

Regulation does neither – it establishes requirements that are equally applicable 

to both California-based and non-California based trucks and trailers operating in 

the state. 

The comment attempts to create a distinction in regulatory burdens by stating 

that the regulation imposes the same compliance costs on “[interstate] motor 

carriers who only occasionally make trips into California,” as compared to 

California based motor carriers (which the comment implies operate substantially 

more miles in the State). This argument is erroneous because it assumes that 

GHG emissions from out-of-state trucks and trailers are much less than the GHG 

emissions from California- based trucks and trailers, which is flatly contradicted 

by ARB’s data. In fact, as previously discussed, ARB has estimated that in 2020, 

non-California based tractors will contribute 65.5 percent of the total vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) on California highways. See Appendix C to Staff Report to the 

original Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation. Furthermore, the regulation 

will likely impose greater initial compliance costs on California based tractors and 

trailers than on out-of-state tractors and trailers because the California based 

long-haul trucks will likely be operated in California only a fraction of the time 

compared to their out-of-state counterparts. Accordingly, because the regulation 
- 38 -

does not impose larger burden on interstate commerce than it does on interstate 

commerce, it will not violate the Pike balancing test. 

The commenter attempts to analogize this regulation to the cases of Raymond 

Motor Trans., Inc. v. Rice (1978) 434 U.S. 429, Kassel v. Consolidated 

Freightways Corp., (1981) 450 U.S. 662, Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines (1959)

359 U.S. 520, and Southern Pacific Co. v. State of Arizona (1945), 325 U.S. 761 

(1945), but those cases are distinguishable. As discussed above in the Agency 

Response to Comment 14, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Raymond Motor that 

Wisconsin regulations limiting the length of trucks operated in that state violated 

the Commerce Clause under the Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. balancing test 

because the record in that case contained virtually no evidence to demonstrate 

that its regulations contributed to highway safety, and because appellants had 

demonstrated the regulations imposed a substantial burden on interstate 

commerce. Raymond Motor at 444. 

Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. involved a challenge to Iowa’s law that 

prohibited trucks longer than 60 feet from operating on that state’s highways. 

The Kassel Court found that law unconstitutional under the Pike v. Bruce Church, 

Inc. balancing test for essentially the same reasons the Raymond Motor Court 

struck down the Wisconsin regulations – Iowa did not present persuasive 

evidence that its law increased highway safety, and the motor carrier 

demonstrated that the law substantially burdened interstate commerce, by 

requiring trucking companies to either route trucks around the state, detach 

trailers and ship them separately, or use shorter tractor-trailer combinations. The 

Court also noted the Iowa law could result in decreased highway safety (by 

increasing the number of trucks traveling through the state), and also contained 

exemptions that evidenced Iowa’s intent in passing the law was not to enhance 

highway safety, but rather to discourage interstate traffic. 

In Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, supra, the Court invalidated an Illinois law that 

required trucks to use contour mud flaps. At least 45 other states allowed trucks 

to use conventional flat mud flaps, and Arkansas required trucks to use flat mud 

flaps. The Court noted that Illinois had not presented evidence that the contour 

flaps would offer any safety advantages over conventional flat flaps, and that the 

evidence actually indicated that safety would be compromised. The Court also 

found that the Illinois law significantly burdened interstate commerce especially 

since it conflicted with Arkansas’ law, so trucks that operated in both Arkansas 

and Illinois would need to interchange mud flaps to comply with both laws.

In Southern Pacific Co. v. State of Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 (1945), the U.S. 

Supreme Court held that an Arizona law limiting the number of railroad cars in 

trains within the state violated the Commerce Clause. The Court found that the 

law would increase the number of train-related accidents as well as substantially 

burden interstate commerce by requiring trains to break up or reassemble 

railroad cars before entering and after leaving the State.
- 39 -

All of these cases are distinguishable. First, as discussed above in the Agency 

response to Comment 19, the record for the original rulemaking and the 

proposed amendments establishes that California enacted this regulation under 

its police powers to protect the economic well-being, public health, natural 

resources, and the environment of California from the harms resulting from 

emissions of GHGs. Second, unlike the laws at issue in Kassel, Raymond Motor, 

Bibb and Southern Pacific Co., which were found to have substantially burdened 

interstate commerce, the Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation will ultimately benefit

affected owners and operators by generating fuel savings from compliant trucks. 

An average of 7 to 10 percent fuel savings is expected on a compliant tractortrailer combination, which translates to approximately $4,000 to $5,700 per year 

on a truck with average long-haul mileage (see the Initial Staff Report for the 

Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation, page ES6). Depending on the ratio of tractors to 

trailers, the owner may be able to recover the initial cost in less than 1.5 years to 

several years. A court would therefore not likely find that the regulation 

substantially burdens interstate commerce. Fourth, as discussed in the Agency 

Response to Comment 14, the exemptions contained in the regulation serve to 

strengthen ARB’s basis in enacting the regulation. Each and every one of the 

exemptions is based on circumstances where tractors and trailers are not likely 

to travel at highway speeds (where GHG emissions are most efficiently reduced), 

and each and every one of the exemptions is equally available to both California 

and non-California based trucks. The fact that California-based trucks will likely 

incur higher initial compliance costs than non-California based trucks further 

evidences that neither the regulation nor the proposed amendments was enacted 

to impermissibly discriminate against interstate commerce. Finally, unlike the 

mud flap law at issue in Bibb, neither the present Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation 

nor the proposed amendments establish requirements that are violative of the 

laws of any other state.

Finally, New Energy Co. of Indiana v. Limbach (1988) 486 U.S. 269 or United 

Haulers Ass’n., Inc. v. Onedia-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority

(2007) 550 U.S. 330 do not support the commenter’s proposition that the TractorTrailer GHG regulation unduly burdens interstate commerce. The New Energy

Court invalidated an Indiana tax subsidy that facially discriminated against 

interstate commerce, and the United Hauler’s Ass’n Court sustained a “flow 

control” ordinance that established uniform requirements for private waste 

haulers. Neither the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation nor the proposed 

amendments discriminate against interstate commerce, and are therefore 

distinguishable from the New Energy Co. case. Instead, as fully highlighted 

above, the regulation and proposed amendments establish uniform requirements 

that are applicable to all affected tractors and trailers operating in the California, 

and under the reasoning of the United Hauler’s Ass’n Court, are consistent with 

the provisions of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- 40 -

C. Standards and Procedures

20.Comment: We believe it’s critical that the regulatory standards be fixed and 

predictable so our purchasing and re-selling decisions can be made with 

some degree of certainty. We support the proposed revisions, and we 

commit to working with you in any manner possible to fully integrate our 

company’s practices with your clean air and the greenhouse gas reduction 

rules. (Enterprise)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. The 

proposed amendments to the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation would not 

substantially change the requirements of the regulation, but rather have been

proposed to provide additional flexibility to fleets so that they may better comply 

with its requirements during these difficult economic times.

D. Economic Analysis

21.Comment: ARB’s cost effectiveness analysis is not credible.

ARB staff’s cost-effectiveness calculations have not reflected the reality of the 

costs that regulated entities are likely to face. Staff has offered an 

oversimplified analysis that distorts the economics of its proposal. The staff 

analysis posits that the average regulatee is a tractor and trailer that will travel 

100,000 miles per year, achieve 8% to 11% in fuel savings and recover costs 

in less than two years. This analysis, however, ignores important facts.

• The ratio of trailers to tractors is, according to ARB, at least 2.5 to 1. 

Thus, a tractor that travels 100,000 miles will average only 40,000 

miles per trailer per year. However, ARB data developed for the 

private fleet rule shows that the average California registered Class 8 

tractor travels less than 40,000 miles per year. This means that the 

typical California registered trailer will travel no more than 16,000 miles 

per year. (CTA1)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this 

comment. The commenter submitted an identical comment, to which 

ARB fully responded during the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation 

rulemaking. (See Comment 157 and Agency Response thereto in the 

original FSOR). Thus, this comment extends beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking action because it does not raise any objections or 

recommendations directed to the proposed amendments.

• The rule will put California registered trucking companies at a 

competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis out-of-state trucking companies 

because it will take the lower mileage California companies 

significantly longer to recover their costs. The cost effectiveness 
- 41 -

analysis must include an estimate of the number of California 

registered companies that will be forced out of business by the rule as 

well as the impact of that loss to the state. (CTA1)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this 

comment. ARB first notes that the commenter submitted an identical 

comment, and that it fully responded to that comment during the 

original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation rulemaking. (See Comment 

132 and Agency Response thereto in the original FSOR). To the 

extent that the comment asserts that the proposed amendments will 

competitively disadvantage California registered trucking companies, 

ARB disagrees, since the amendments will provide affected fleets with 

additional compliance flexibility from the current regulation, and the 

amendments are uniformly available to all fleets regardless if they are 

registered within or without California.

• Companies that own trailers but no or few tractors will have no way of 

recovering their costs since any savings will only accrue to the tractor 

owner. Moreover, the actual presence and amount of savings will 

depend upon factors, such as speed at which a trailer is hauled, that 

are beyond a trailer owner’s ability to use to base charges for the use 

of their equipment. (CTA1)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this 

comment. The commenter submitted an identical comment to which 

ARB fully responded during the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation 

rulemaking, and this comment therefore extends beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking action because it does not raise any objections or 

recommendations directed to the proposed amendments. ARB notes 

that it responded to this comment in the Final Statement of Reasons 

for the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation (see Comment 133 and 

Agency Response thereto).

• The certified savings associated with SmartWay aerodynamic 

technologies assume a speed of 62.5 mph. However, Caltrans data 

for I-5, the main north-south truck route, show that the average speed 

for four and five axle truck and trailer combinations is less than 60 mph 

and the median speed is about 55 mph. Moreover, many tractors are 

governed to go no more than 55 mph, the posted speed limit for trucks. 

There is nothing in ARBs calculations that takes these facts into 

consideration. Instead, ARB staff dismisses trucking companies’ 

claims that they observe the posted limits. (CTA1)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this 

comment. The commenter submitted a similar comment to which ARB

fully responded during the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation 
- 42 -

rulemaking, and this comment therefore extends beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking action because it does not raise any objections or 

recommendations directed to the proposed amendments. ARB notes 

that it responded to this comment in the Final Statement of Reasons 

for the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation (see Comments 155 and

158 and Agency Responses thereto).

• There is no test evidence from SmartWay that the individual 

aerodynamic benefits of SmartWay technologies can be simply added 

together. Thus, there is no scientific basis for ARB staff’s projected 

savings percentages. (CTA1)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this 

comment. The commenter submitted a similar comment to which ARB

fully responded during the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation 

rulemaking, and this comment therefore extends beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking action because it does not raise any objections or 

recommendations directed to the proposed amendments. ARB notes 

that it responded to this comment in the Final Statement of Reasons 

for the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation (see Comments 123 and

134 and Agency Responses thereto).

• There is no analysis of the costs and loss of efficiencies that will be 

borne by companies who would have to create and dispatch a 

separate fleet of compliant trailers for their California business. (CTA1)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this 

comment. The commenter submitted an identical comment to which 

ARB fully responded during the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation 

rulemaking and this comment therefore extends beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking action because it does not raise any objections or 

recommendations directed to the proposed amendments. However, 

ARB notes that it responded to similar comments in the Final 

Statement of Reasons for the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation 

(see Comment 131 and Agency Response thereto).

• SmartWay does not test for or certify safety. ARB staff has not 

signaled any recognition of the potential safety problem from side skirts 

that can fall off a truck and pose a significant danger to highway traffic 

and life and limb; or tires that may cause additional safety hazards due 

to softer compounds used for low rolling resistance technology. The 

insurance costs associated with having to install equipment that has no 

safety certification need to be taken into account. ARB must also 

factor in the public safety consequences of requiring the mounting of 

equipment whose safety has not been certified. (CTA1)
- 43 -

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. 

The provisions requiring trailers to be equipped with SmartWay approved 

aerodynamic equipment such as trailer side skirts were established in the 

rulemaking for the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation, and this 

comment therefore extends beyond the scope of this rulemaking action 

because it does not raise any objections or recommendations directed to 

the proposed amendments. However, ARB notes that it responded to 

similar comments in the Final Statement of Reasons for the original 

Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation (see Comments 51, 98-102, and Agency 

Responses thereto). In addition, large fleets have already begun 

complying with the originally adopted Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation for 

almost two years. No concerns regarding the safety of trailer skirts have 

been reported to ARB to date from fleets, the California Trucking 

Association or any other association.

The provisions requiring tractors and trailers to be equipped with 

SmartWay approved low rolling resistance tires were also established in 

the rulemaking for the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation, and this 

comment therefore extends beyond the scope of this rulemaking action 

because it does not raise any objections or recommendations directed to 

the proposed amendments. However, as ARB stated in its response to 

comment 97 in the Final Statement of Reasons for the original TractorTrailer GHG regulation, low rolling resistance tires have been researched 

and developed over several decades, tire manufacturers have improved 

both SmartWay verified tire casings and tread designs over the years, and 

current low rolling resistance tires may perform and last as long as 

conventional tires such that stopping distances and handling impacts are 

not any different from conventional tires. In fact, low rolling resistance tire 

casings, by design, are subjected to less heat and fatigue, thereby 

improving the likelihood that the casings of SmartWay tires will be good 

candidates for multiple retreading and thus may have a longer overall life 

than conventional tires. 

• Despite a pledge to assess the cumulative impacts of other ARB 

programs that are or will affect the trucking industry, ARB staff has not 

included the cost impacts that will be attributable to the low-carbon fuel 

standard rule or including transportation under the proposed cap-andtrade program. The costs of these other ARB programs and 

regulations must be included in any cumulative impact analysis. 

(CTA1)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. 

The commenter submitted a similar comment to which ARB fully 

responded during the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation rulemaking, 

and this comment therefore extends beyond the scope of this rulemaking 

action because it does not raise any objections or recommendations 
- 44 -

directed to the proposed amendments. Moreover, the programs to which 

the commenter refers were not adopted at the time of the original 

rulemaking’s adoption. The current amendments do not add any new 

requirements but provide additional compliance flexibility to fleets.

Additionally, although the low carbon fuel standard and the cap and trade 

regulation may raise the cost of fuel at the pump, compliance with this 

regulation would help fleets save money on fuel. 

E. AB 32

22.Comment: What these heavy-duty rules don’t accomplish is they don’t 

reduce our dependence on petroleum. And they don’t really do much for 

reducing greenhouse gases. Starting now with every regulation that this staff 

brings to you, including amendments to regulations that you’ve already 

adopted, not only should they report on the economic impacts, not only 

should they report on the health/SIP/criteria pollutant impacts, but also be 

reporting to you on what are the greenhouse gas impacts of these changes or 

this new regulation, as well as how does this play into our petroleum 

reduction goals that we’ve adopted as a state. (NGC)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment, 

which extends beyond the scope of this rulemaking action. Staff disagrees 

that this regulation does not contribute to reducing GHG emissions and our 

dependence on petroleum. As reported in the October 2010 Staff Report,

staff estimates the GHG benefits from implementing the Tractor-Trailer GHG 

regulation would be approximately 0.7 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent 

(MMT CO2e) in California by 2020, and approximately 4.8 MMT CO2e 

cumulatively statewide between 2010 and 2020. These GHG benefits would 

translate into potential cumulative diesel fuel savings between 2010 and 2020 

of 500 million gallons in California (and 3 billion gallons nationwide).

23.Comment: AB 32 needs to be repealed – at least until our state can get on 

its economic feet again. (Erik K.)

Just give you a few more years to “regulate” the abhorrent carbon dioxide 

emissions that will most undoubtedly result in our complete demise all by 

itself without your valuable regulation. (Delta)

AB 32: If this is enacted with all of the new regulations regarding diesel 

fueled farm equipment and trucks, will the last person leaving this state 

please turn out the lights. Where has common sense gone? (Samardich)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to these comments, 

which are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, the proposed 

amendments were designed to help fleets comply with the regulation and 
- 45 -

reduce the costs of compliance (see Agency Responses to Comments 1, 3, 5, 

and 7)

F. Financial Assistance/Incentives

24.Comment: The Air District is requesting that the ARB consider the following 

recommendations, should the Board decide to proceed with the proposed 

amendments to the regulations.

• Implementation of the recommendations from the advisory committee 

headed by ARB Board member, Sandra Berg, by streamlining State 

grants programs that would make it possible to mitigate any increased 

emissions that may occur based on the proposed rule amendments in 

the event of improved economic activity. This would allow the Air 

District to continue to address its health risk concerns via a simplified 

and less cumbersome State grant processes. This new streamlined 

process would retrofit and replace on- and off-road vehicles during the 

period before the proposed start dates of regulatory mandates.

• Support air districts in efforts to seek streamlined legislation and 

extension of State grants programs, through the year 2024. This 

would allow air districts to continue to achieve emissions reductions 

over and above what is required by the proposed amendments to the 

regulations.

• Allow increased participation by medium sized fleets in State grants 

programs to address reducing the emissions from on-road fleets in the 

3 to 20 vehicle size range.

• Providing additional funding and larger percentages to loan guarantee 

programs associated with equipment replacement to increase grant 

program participation. The economic downturn has had a severe 

impact on the ability of those affected by the proposed regulations to 

obtain credit or loans to replace equipment. (BAAQMD)

Agency Response: These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking

action because they do not raise any objections or recommendations directed to 

the proposed amendments. Moreover, staff believes the majority of these 

comments pertain more to the Truck and Bus regulation and the Drayage 

regulation. That being said, specific changes to ARB funding programs are 

considered separately from the regulatory process. As described in Chapter VII, 

Section D of the October 2010 Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for 

Proposed Rulemaking, funding program changes were planned to occur after 

Board action and direction on the regulatory changes. For example, the most 

recent modifications to the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program and 

Carl Moyer Program incorporate changes resulting from the regulatory 

amendments. These changes were implemented after funding workshops in 

January and Incentive Program Advisory Group meetings to ensure that public 

comments were considered. In general, the extended compliance deadlines for 
- 46 -

many trucks enable greater potential funding opportunities by allowing more time 

for applicants to apply for funding before regulatory compliance dates. In 

addition, February 2011 modifications to ARB’s Providing Loan Assistance for 

California Equipment (PLACE) program, which is implemented through the 

California Capital Access Program (CalCAP), expanded eligibility criteria to allow 

more trucking fleets to participate in the program. 

As noted in comments above, the Incentive Program Advisory Group, led by ARB 

Board Member Sandra Berg, provides a forum for discussing policy level issues 

relating to the development and ongoing implementation of the ARB incentive 

programs. In recent years, California’s portfolio of incentive programs has 

expanded beyond the Carl Moyer Program and Lower-Emission School Bus 

Program to include the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program, the AB 

118 programs, the PLACE program, and other locally run air district programs, 

among others. We anticipate that the group will continue to provide a useful 

venue for policy level coordination among agencies and programs. All interested 

stakeholders are invited and encouraged to participate. ARB’s funding program 

staff will continue to work together to implement near term and long term 

solutions identified by the Incentive Program Advisory Group, the California Air 

Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Grants Committee, and other 

stakeholders.

25.Comment: I’d like to request that your staff dedicate ample time to reevaluate the effectiveness of the Cal Cap Program, which provides a 

tremendous amount of relief to fleets that are affected by these rules as well 

that may have already missed their window to qualify for grant programs. 

(Seivright)

Agency Response: These comments are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking action because they do not raise any objections or 

recommendations directed to the proposed amendments. However, ARB 

offers the Providing Loan Assistance for California Equipment (PLACE) 

program for new, used and retrofitted aerodynamic equipment that has been 

SmartWay certified or verified. The program targets borrowers that do not fit 

within conventional loan standards and are “nearly bankable,” meaning they 

fall just outside lenders’ standard loan criteria or are unable to obtain a loan 

due to today’s more conservative credit climate. The funding is available 

through California Capital Access Program (CALCAP) participating lenders 

located statewide. Qualified borrowers must be small businesses (less than 

100 employees, less than $10 million annual revenues), have no more than 

20 heavy-duty tractors, and the company must have their primary economic 

effect in California (51% or more of their total annual mileage generated in 

California). Additional information about the PLACE program is available 

through the ARB website http://www.arb.ca.gov/ba/loan/on-road/on-road.htm. 

In addition, ARB staff continues to evaluate the effectiveness of all programs 

that provide financial opportunities to fleets. As regulations are developed, 

amended, and implemented, ARB staff develops guidelines for each of the 
- 47 -

funding programs and evaluates programs continually. If necessary, ARB 

staff makes recommended changes to program guidelines.

G. Outreach

26.Comment: I’d like to request that your staff continue endeavors to implement 

outreach as diligently as they have done for the modifications. (Seivright)

I also want to acknowledge the work of TRAC and the outreach that ARB has 

committed itself to do on diesel rules. I think these efforts want to continue to 

support those and ensure they continue. (CCA)

Agency Response: ARB is committed to providing outreach to stakeholders 

within the trucking industry. Prior to the Board Hearing, numerous workshops 

and meetings were held to provide information and solicit comments from 

affected stakeholders regarding the proposed amendments. An overview of 

all these outreach efforts is provided in section I of the Staff Report for this 

rulemaking. Since the time of the Board Hearing, outreach efforts including 

meetings, presentations, training sessions, fact sheets, post cards, posters 

and the Truck Stop web-based portal have been conducted or developed to 

inform stakeholders about the regulation and the proposed regulatory 

amendments and solicit their comments. Part of the outreach effort has also 

included conducting the Truck Regulations Advisory Committee (TRAC) 

meetings, which include a Greenhouse Gas Subcommittee dedicated to 

addressing issues concerning the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas regulation

(GHG subcommittee). The GHG subcommittee is comprised of ARB staff 

and representative stakeholders (associations, large fleets, small fleets, trailer 

manufacturers, tractor manufacturers, aerodynamic technology 

manufacturers, low rolling resistance tire manufacturers, leasing companies, 

shippers, and staff with the U.S. EPA SmartWay Program); the subcommittee 

has reviewed and commented on outreach materials and strategies, provided

feedback on regulatory issues and technical issues.

H. Exemptions and Temporary Passes

Short-Haul and Local-Haul Exemptions

27.Comment: I would ask that the Board change the radius for 53 foot trailers 

and greater that is proposed in the GHG regulation. I would ask this change 

parallel the DOT standard that is a 150 mile radius and not as stated a 100 

mile radius. Many carriers have excess trailing equipment meaning they have 

three trailers for one power unit. These “mobile” warehouse trailers 

sometimes move only two or three times a month. For a short haul/regional 
- 48 -

carrier, there is little or no payback on the aerodynamic devices. Please give 

this serious consideration. (Yandell1)

Agency Response: No change to the defined operating radius for local-haul 

trailers was made in response to this comment since the comment extends 

beyond the scope of the amendments that the Board approved on December 

17, 2010. The comment is substantially similar to issues that ARB 

extensively addressed in the Final Statement of Reasons for the 2008 

rulemaking (see Agency Responses to Comments 22, 23, and 24 in the 2008 

FSOR). The Board also considered and extensively addressed concerns to 

expand the operating radius to 150 miles during the December 2010 public 

hearing when it considered the adoption of the proposed amendments to the 

regulation. Further, the local-haul exemption radius of 100 miles is consistent 

with industry practice. For example, some insurance companies use 100 

miles as the local-haul operating radius when setting insurance premiums for 

commercial trucks. Based on these considerations, ARB does not believe 

that expanding the operating radius from 100 miles to 150 miles is warranted. 

Regarding trailers that operate as “mobile warehouses”, ARB suggests the 

commenter consider applying for a storage trailer exemption. These trailers 

are exempt from the aerodynamic technology and low-rolling resistance tire 

requirements. However, as registered storage trailers they are not allowed to 

haul freight on California highways. They are permitted to be moved empty 

from storage location to storage location. In addition, on the occasion that a 

loaded storage trailer must be moved to another storage location, the owner 

can apply for a relocation pass. Up to four relocation passes may be granted 

per storage trailer per year. The commenter might also consider registering 

one or more of the tractors that pull these trailers as short-haul tractors. 

Registered short-haul tractors and the trailers they pull are exempt from both 

the aerodynamic technology and low-rolling resistance tire requirements. 

However, a registered short-haul tractor may not travel more than 50,000 

miles per year. 

28.Comment: Expanding the local-haul exemption to a 150 mile radius would 

help to address situations where the use of aerodynamic technologies is not 

cost effective. As stated in the FSOR, the primary purpose of allowing a 

short-haul or local-haul exemption is to exempt vehicles that will only 

marginally benefit from aerodynamic equipment, where the use of them will 

not be cost effective. According to a recent study published by the 

Transportation Research Board, 

“Caution is necessary in the use of these fuel consumption estimates 

since they apply to a 60 to 65 mph average speed. If these trucks are 

used principally in a pickup/delivery duty where average speed is 

about 40 mph, the fuel consumption benefit of the aerodynamic 
- 49 -

component will shrink by 70 percent. At speeds below 40 mph, the 

benefit becomes insignificant.”

Using Bakersfield as a base location, trucks traveling to Los Angeles will 

reach the most congested areas just beyond the limits of the current localhaul exemption. Trucks traveling beyond this limit will need to be equipped 

with aerodynamic technologies even though the benefits will be insignificant. 

There are also trucking companies throughout the State that operate primarily 

at lower speeds on non-interstate highways and other roadways that will only 

accrue marginal benefits from the current aerodynamic requirements. (ATA1, 

ATA2)

The mileage restrictions for the local-haul exemption should be less 

restrictive. For example, the trip between Los Angeles and Bakersfield is 115 

miles, but features only 25 miles at freeway speeds since trucks can only go 

35 miles per hour over the Grapevine before descending into or emerging 

from congested Los Angeles traffic. A 100 mile radius would close off 

Bakersfield to all but side skirt-equipped trucks despite the fact that only a 

small proportion of travel would occur at freeway speeds. (CTA1, CTA2)

Agency Response: No change to the defined operating radius for local-haul 

trailers was made in response to these comments. The comments are

substantially similar to issues that the Board extensively addressed in the 

Final Statement of Reasons for the 2008 rulemaking (see Agency Responses 

to Comments 22 and 45 through 50). The Board also considered and 

extensively addressed requests to expand the operating radius to 150 miles

during the December 2010 public hearing when it considered the adoption of 

the proposed amendments to the regulation. Based on these considerations, 

ARB staff does not believe that the suggested expansion of the operating 

radius for local-haul trailers from 100 miles to 150 miles is warranted, and 

furthermore, the comment extends beyond the scope of the amendments that 

the Board approved on December 17, 2010. 

29.Comment: Proposed mileage and territory exemption standards under the 

GHG regulation should be less restrictive. 

The mileage restrictions appear to be based upon an assumption that trucks 

and trailers work five, ten hour days. In fact, trucks and trailers commonly 

work seven-day weeks with service hours reaching up to 20 hours per day,

when multiple drivers are used. For example, grocery trucks regularly total 

150,000 miles per year within a 150 mile radius.

An extremely common truck trip is between Los Angeles and Bakersfield, a 

115 mile trip that features only 25 miles at freeway speeds since trucks can 

only go 35 mph over the Grapevine before descending into or emerging from 

congested Los Angeles traffic. A 100 mile radius would close off Bakersfield 
- 50 -

to all but sideskirt-equipped trucks despite the fact that only a small proportion 

of travel would occur at freeway speeds. For example, a truck making a 

round trip to Bakersfield only once each day of the year would accrue over 

80,000 annual miles, but spend less than 25 percent of its mileage at freeway 

speeds.

It is not clear that staff conducted any interviews with California based carriers 

who typically engage in “short-haul” with 53 foot or greater trailers. Many 

California fleets have speed data that clearly indicates average speeds are 

well below 50 mph. In fact many fleets have governed tractors where optimal 

62 mph will never be achieved. (CTA1, CTA2)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. 

The commenter submitted similar comments to which ARB fully responded 

during the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation rulemaking, and these

comments therefore extend beyond the scope of this rulemaking action 

because they do not raise any objections or recommendations directed to the 

proposed amendments. ARB notes that it responded to these comments in 

the Final Statement of Reasons for the original Tractor-Trailer GHG 

Regulation (see Comments 22, 23, 24, and 153 and Agency Responses

thereto).

30.Comment: CARB’s justification for the local- and short-haul exemptions in 

the Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation is fundamentally flawed. 

“CARB has simply ignored the fact that the tens of thousands of in-state heavyduty trucks being exempted from the Regulation, like their long-haul 

counterparts, for the most part also are not using the technologies that improve 

fuel efficiency. Further, a study performed for CARB placed accountability for 

only 30 percent of annual heavy-duty vehicle miles traveled in California on outof-state trucks. See Assessment of Out-of State Heavy Duty Truck Activity 

Trends in California, UC Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies (2008). 

Obviously, any model justifying this Regulation must account for the in-state 

vehicles that are responsible for the bulk of the annual vehicle miles traveled 

inside California.” [OOIDA]

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. The 

provisions exempting local and short-haul tractors and trailers were established 

in the rulemaking action for the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation, and this 

comment therefore extends beyond the scope of this rulemaking action because 

it does not raise any objections or recommendations directed to the proposed 

amendments. Nevertheless, ARB wishes to clarify that it clearly set forth its 

rationale for excluding local and short-haul tractors and trailers in the rulemaking 

record accompanying the original regulation. In the Agency Response to 

Comment 22, Final Statement of Reasons for Adoption of the Regulation to 

Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles, ARB explained 
- 51 -

that “[s]ince aerodynamic equipment functions optimally at highway speeds, the 

regulation contains exemptions for trucks that operate primarily within a local 

area with mostly urban driving, or for trucks with low annual mileage. These 

exempted trucks, defined as local-haul or short-haul trucks, must operate 

exclusively within a 100 mile radius from their local haul base or drive less than 

50,000 miles per year, respectively.” ARB therefore exempted local- and shorthaul tractors and trailers because it determined that such vehicles would not 

achieve similar reductions in GHG as those resulting from long-haul tractors and 

trailers equipped with the required aerodynamic technologies – this rationale did 

not consider the in-state versus out-of-state proportion of short and local haul 

tractors and trailers. 

31.Comment: CARB bases the local and short-haul exemptions on its assumptions 

that such trucks “do not operate a sufficient amount of time at highway speeds to 

justify being required to meet the same stringent requirements placed on motor 

carriers operating in interstate commerce. Staff Report: Initial Statement of 

Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking. Proposed Amendments to the Truck and 

Bus Regulation, the Drayage Truck Regulation, and the Tractor-Trailer 

Greenhouse Gas Regulation (Oct, 2010) (“SOR”), Appendix F, at p.1. While it is 

true that ‘the technologies required by the regulation are most effective at 

highway speeds. . .,’ there is no concrete evidence, as CARB contends, that the 

exempted tractors and trailers have ‘limited operation at highway speeds. . .’ Id. 

So far as OOIDA is aware, CARB did not conduct any studies to demonstrate 

that local or short-haul tractors are not operating at highway speeds. That 

assumption was based upon pure conjecture about the nature of goods 

movement within California. But California has many highways with truck-only 55 

mile-per-hour speed limits, located in urban, suburban, and rural areas. There is 

no logical reason to believe that these highways are not used on a regular basis 

by those same motor carriers operating heavy-duty vehicles driving less than 

50,000 miles per year who qualify for the short-haul exemption as well as those 

going short distances from their urban local bases. [OOIDA]

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. The 

Agency Responses to Comments 27 through 30 above are incorporated by 

reference herein. The provisions exempting local- and short-haul tractors and 

trailers were established in the rulemaking action for the original Tractor-Trailer 

GHG regulation, and this comment therefore extends beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking action because it does not raise any objections or recommendations 

directed to the proposed amendments. 

32.Comment: Finally, to the extent that the short and local-haul exemptions are 

also justified by their “limited overall annual mileage” (see ISOR, Appendix F, at 

p.1), the California highway mileage accrued by exempt trucks will be higher for 

these exempted operations than for interstate long-haul motor carriers who put 

on relatively few miles in California. A cursory examination of that IRP data for 

28 geographically scattered states shows that, with the exception of vehicles 
- 52 -

from states that border or are close to California, the average mileage in 

California is quite low and gets lower as the base state gets further away.

For all these reasons, the stated justifications for focusing nearly exclusively on 

long-haul motor carriers, while exempting many in-state motor carriers, simply do 

not support CARB’s actions. (OOIDA)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. The 

Agency Response to Comment 31 is incorporated by reference herein. The 

provisions exempting local and short-haul tractors and trailers were established 

in the rulemaking action for the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation, and this 

comment therefore extends beyond the scope of this rulemaking action because 

it does not raise any objections or recommendations directed to the proposed 

amendments. 

Relocation Pass

33.Comment: While XTRA is pleased the Board has decided to propose the 

relocation pass concept, XTRA believes the three day effective period of the 

relocation pass should be modified. As currently drafted, the three day period 

will in many circumstances make it logistically impossible to coordinate the 

movement of freight on relocated trailers. Given the logistical difficulty of 

coordinating freight transportation in such a limited window, we believe that in 

many cases fleet owners will have no choice but to relocate empty trailers into 

and out of California. This is an unintended inefficiency which is contrary to 

the stated goal of the Regulation. 

As a solution, we suggest that the Board modify the amended Regulation to 

permit a fleet owner to specify a broader range of days during which a 

relocation trip might occur. We suggest that at the time the fleet owner 

applies for a relocation pass, the Board permit the fleet owner to designate a 

period of 30 days during which the relocation trip could occur. This would 

give the fleet owner more flexibility to coordinate the freight and transportation 

logistics associated with the relocation. The Board could then issue the 

relocation pass, contingent on the fleet owner providing the Board with formal 

notice of the initiation of the relocation trip within the 30 day period via e-mail, 

the Board’s website, or otherwise. Upon providing such notice, the fleet 
- 53 -

owner would then have a certain number of days to complete the relocation 

trip. 

We also suggest that the time period for completing a relocation trip be 

lengthened to a period of at least five days from the commencement of the 

relocation trip. For the reasons specified above, in most cases a fleet owner 

will not be able to predict the three day window in which a relocation trip can 

be completed. The multiple variables that can affect the timing of an 

individual trip, not the least of which are concerns over coordinating logistics 

between a motor carrier and shipper, make the three day window impractical. 

A five day window would give the fleet owner more flexibility to deal with 

unanticipated delays and circumstances. (XTRA)

Agency Response: ARB agrees with the commenter that more flexibility 

should be afforded relocation pass applicants when establishing the date

when relocation travel is to begin. In response, ARB has modified the 

regulatory language as reflected in the 15-day Notice. 

Sections 95305(f)(4) and (f)(8)(A) have been modified to provide the owner 

more flexibility in reporting the date relocation travel would begin. 

Specifically, to apply for a relocation pass, the owner would now provide the 

“anticipated” date the trailer will begin relocation travel, rather than the date 

on which the trailer actually begins travel. (95305(f)(4)(E)). If the relocation 

pass is approved, the owner would now “confirm” the date of travel prior to 

the Executive Officer issuing the relocation pass. (95305(f)(8)(A)). 

Confirmation may occur electronically via email or the TRUCRS database. 

These modifications would allow owners to obtain relocation pass approval 

well in advance of travel, and still afford them the flexibility to adjust the 

effective dates of the pass due to unforeseen delays and circumstances. 

ARB believes these changes have an advantage over the suggestion 

proposed by the commenter in that the confirmed travel date is not limited to 

a 30-day window. 

Sections 95305(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(8) have been modified to extend the 

maximum applicable time period of a relocation pass for trailers from three to 

five consecutive days. 

34.Comment: XTRA is concerned that the current amendments do not take into 

account the need for relocating non-compliant trailers or the need of 

equipment lessors to utilize the relocation pass exemption. Trailer lessors are 

not generally deemed owners of trailers regulated under the Regulation, so 

long as they properly notify their lessees of the requirements of the 

Regulation. In doing so, the Regulation takes into account the unique 

position held by equipment lessors in the marketplace and the need to 

provide clarity as to the lessee operator’s ultimate responsibility for operating 

leased equipment in compliance with the Regulation. In order to utilize the 
- 54 -

relocation pass exemption, trailer lessors would be required to register a 

portion of their fleet as a storage fleet or their facilities as local haul bases. 

As drafted, the relocation pass exemption will require a lessor to make 

multiple periodic registrations of facilities and equipment that do not ultimately 

help the Board achieve its regulatory goals. We believe that granting the 

Executive Officer authority similar to that granted in the non-compliant tractor 

context to address the need for relocation by lessors of 53-foot trailers that do 

not comply with the regulation is warranted. We suggest that the Board 

include a non-compliant trailer relocation pass provision, similar to the noncompliant tractor pass provision, which will also provide flexibility for lessors 

to relocate non-compliant trailers. This exemption should be permanent, so 

as to allow lessors to have the ability to add or remove trailers to their 

California inventory of local haul or storage use trailers following full 

implementation of the Regulation. (XTRA) 

Agency Response: ARB agrees with the commenter that more flexibility 

should be afforded trailer lessors to allow the relocation of non-compliant 

trailers. In response, ARB has modified the regulatory language as reflected 

in the 15-day Notice.

The commenter suggests creating a non-compliant trailer relocation pass 

provision, similar to the non-compliant tractor pass provision, which 

would provide flexibility for lessors to relocate non-compliant trailers. ARB 

believes such an approach is too limited in its scope and applicability and 

therefore proposes to add a new section 95305(l), Tractor-Trailer Exemption 

for Tractors Pulling Empty Trailers. This new section would specify that a HD 

tractor and the 53-foot or longer box-type trailer it is pulling are exempt from 

the aerodynamic technology and low-rolling resistance tire requirements if the 

trailer is empty and the driver, upon request, allows authorized enforcement 

personnel to directly view inside the trailer to verify it is empty. 

The regulation currently allows owners to relocate empty local-haul and 

storage trailers to a new local-haul base or storage location (95305(c)(1)(B), 

95305(c)(2)(B), 95305(e)(1)(A)). Nationwide trailer leasing companies 

supported such exemptions since the exemptions accommodate their general 

business practice of delivering empty trailers to local-haul bases and storage 

locations. However, as the commenter stated, in order to obtain such 

exemptions, owners currently need to satisfy registration and de-registration 

requirements that can be resource intensive for both large leasing companies 

and ARB staff that process these requests. In order to streamline the 

issuance and tracking of these exemptions, the proposed requirements in 

section 95305(l) would remove the registration requirements for empty localhaul and storage trailers that are relocated to new local-haul bases or storage 

locations, so that trailer leasing companies can deliver their trailers that meet 

the local-haul or short haul exemption requirements to their customers without 

the requirement to register them. Once these trailers are delivered, the 
- 55 -

lessee would be required to register the trailer as a local-haul or storage 

trailer via TRUCRS, and would also be responsible for de-registration before 

the trailer is returned to the lessor. ARB believes allowing the movement of 

non-compliant empty trailers also allows leasing companies to move empty 

trailers between their bases as demand dictates, which is common practice. 

Other than leasing companies, ARB staff does not believe many trailer 

owners will utilize this exemption, since their businesses are based on the 

efficient movement of freight. Trailer manufacturers often deliver their trailers 

loaded with freight, but they may utilize this exemption for local trailer 

deliveries. 

Non-compliant Trailer Pass

35.Comment: XTRA also recommends that the non-compliant trailer pass 

exemption provide the EO with a tool to address other unique circumstances 

that may arise with respect to regulated trailers that warrant a specific and 

limited exemption but do not otherwise neatly fit in the exemptions already 

included in the regulation. By empowering the EO with general authority to 

grant a Non-compliant Trailer Pass exemption in those circumstances that the 

EO deems appropriate to warrant a tailored exemption, the Board would 

avoid having to modify the existing regulation to address unintended 

consequences for very specific scenarios that can and should not be dealt 

with in the broader context of the regulation. We believe it advisable for the 

EO to have general authority to make decisions, without having to seek new 

Board approval, to provide exemptions from the regulations based on 

investigation and an understanding of particular circumstances by the EO. 

(XTRA)

Agency Response: ARB agrees with the commenter that more flexibility 

should be afforded relocation pass applicants when establishing the date 

relocation travel is to begin. In response, ARB has modified the regulatory 

language as reflected in the 15-day Notice, as follows. 

Sections 95305(f)(4) and (f)(8)(A) have been modified to provide the owner 

more flexibility in reporting the date when relocation travel is to begin. 

Specifically, to apply for a relocation pass, the owner would now provide the 

“anticipated” date the trailer will begin relocation travel, rather than the date 

on which the trailer actually begins travel. (95305(f)(4)(E)). If the relocation 

pass is approved, the owner would now “confirm” the date of travel prior to 

the Executive Officer issuing the relocation pass. (95305(f)(8)(A)). 

Confirmation may occur electronically via email or the TRUCRS database. 

These modifications would allow owners to obtain relocation pass approval 

well in advance of travel, and still afford them the flexibility to adjust the 

effective dates of the pass due to unforeseen delays and circumstances. 

ARB believes these changes have an advantage over the suggestion 
- 56 -

proposed by the commenter in that the confirmed travel date is not limited to 

a 30-day window. 

Sections 95305(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(8) have been modified to extend the 

maximum applicable time period of a relocation pass for trailers from three to

five consecutive days. 

Although ARB agrees that providing the Executive Officer broad authority to 

issue non-compliant trailer pass exemptions based on circumstances that are 

not expressly specified in either the current regulation or the proposed 

amendments would be beneficial, it believes that the Office of Administrative 

Law would likely determine such a provision violates the consistency standard 

of California Government Code section 11349.1(a). Specifically, allowing the 

Executive Officer to issue an exemption “for another purpose which the 

Executive Officer deems appropriate prior to granting the Noncompliant 

Trailer Relocation Pass,” would likely not pass OAL’s muster, as it fails to 

sufficiently specify the criteria the Executive Officer will rely upon to approve 

or disapprove the exemption. In this regard, note that the proposed criteria 

are even less specific than allowing the Executive Officer to base his 

decisions upon the criteria “good engineering or scientific judgment”, which 

OAL disapproved in the Board’s adoption of the Small Containers of 

Automotive Refrigerant regulation, 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/hfc09/oal%20disapproval.pdf . 

I. Technology

Tires

36.Comment: We would like to ensure that fleets do not have to prematurely 

change out tractor tires in order to comply with the greenhouse gas 

regulation. Due to the fact that SmartWay verified fuel efficient retreads are 

not currently available and SmartWay verified open shoulder tires have 

limited availability, fleets are not able to purchase the compliant technologies 

they need. Ideally, the situation changes sometime next year, but this will still 

leave fleets with slightly more than a year to wear out noncompliant tires. 

This is not enough time, so we ask that you extend the deadline to 2014 for 

pre-2011 tractors and for those needing open shoulder tires. At the very 

least, we ask that you monitor the status of these technologies and ensure 

they’re available well ahead of the tire deadlines. (ATA1, ATA2)

Agency Response: See Agency Responses to Comments 38 and 39 below.

37.Comment: With SmartWay, the retread program is still under development. 

We ask that staff continue to be involved and in touch as this proceeds, 
- 57 -

because, while we are all optimistic, as with other multi-stakeholder programs 

one never knows. (RMA)

Agency Response: ARB appreciates the Rubber Manufacturers 

Association’s willingness to work with ARB staff, U.S. EPA and other 

stakeholders toward the development of a SmartWay verified retread. ARB 

staff continues to participate and stay in contact with the tire working group

responsible for the development of SmartWay verified retread tire 

specifications.

38.Comment: Under the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas regulation, pre-2011 

tractors must use SmartWay verified tires beginning January 1, 2012. CARB 

staff is proposing to extend this start date by one year to allow time for: (1) 

non-SmartWay tires to wear out and be replaced and (2) the development of 

SmartWay verified retreads. ATA believes an additional two years, rather 

than one, is needed to ensure that fleets will not have to prematurely change 

out and dispose of their non-SmartWay tractor tires and retreads. 

CARB staff has indicated that under the proposed deadline, fleets will still 

have the leeway to move non-compliant tires or retreads from tractors to 

trailers. Moving a tire or retread that is well into its useful life is not cost 

effective nor does it provide environmental benefits. In many instances, the 

remaining life would not justify the cost of a short-term move; forcing fleets to 

either prematurely retread these tires or, if the casing is worn, add them to the 

scrap tire population. (ATA1, ATA2)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. 

ARB staff believes that the proposed one year extension of the tire 

compliance deadline for pre-2011 tractors from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 

2013 would provide sufficient time for non-SmartWay tires to wear out, 

thereby avoiding premature replacement. Moreover, SmartWay retread tire 

specifications are currently being developed by the U.S. EPA in cooperation 

with retread tire manufacturers, and are expected to be finalized within this 

calendar year. Thus, ARB believes that SmartWay verified retread tires will 

become available before the January 1, 2013 deadline and extending the 

compliance deadline an additional year to comply with the low rolling 

resistance tire requirements is not necessary.

39.Comment: Open shoulder tires are used by fleets for added traction. They 

tend to be used in regional haul situations where roads may be more 

challenging or where adverse conditions are more common. An exemption 

for the use of open shoulder tires on 2011 and subsequent model year 

tractors is currently proposed until January 1, 2013. ATA believes an 

additional year is warranted to allow manufacturers time to verify additional 

open shoulder tires through the SmartWay program. As noted in the Staff 

Report, only three open shoulder drive tire models are currently verified under 
- 58 -

the SmartWay program. Of these, one is manufactured in Europe with limited 

availability in the United States while another has only recently gone through 

the verification process. In addition, two of these tires may no longer qualify 

for future verification due to changes in the SmartWay verification procedure. 

(ATA1)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. As, 

noted in the Staff Report (ISOR, Appendix F, page F-6), ARB is currently 

aware of at least three open shoulder drive tire models that are SmartWay 

verified. ARB believes that more open shoulder drive tire models will be 

verified by the January 1, 2013 deadline and therefore it is not necessary to 

extend the deadline for using open shoulder drive tires that are not SmartWay 

verified. Nevertheless, ARB will continue to monitor the status of the 

development and SmartWay verification of retread and open shoulder drive 

tire models to ensure that they become available for fleets to use before the 

applicable regulatory deadlines. 

Belly Boxes:

40.Comment: Belly box trailers commonly used in the moving and household 

goods storage industry already provide significant increased aerodynamic 

advantages and present the same challenges as drop-frame trailers (which 

are exempt from the regulation) to modify to make them more aerodynamic. 

Consider exempting belly box trailers from the regulation. (CFC1, CFC2)

Request that the greenhouse gas regulation exempt trailers with belly boxes. 

(CMSA)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to this comment. 

Drop-frame trailers were exempted from the regulation because SmartWay 

designated aerodynamic technologies and low-rolling resistance tire models 

are not designed for the low-deck height, smaller diameter wheels, and larger 

rear doors of drop-frame trailers. Belly box trailers are standard dry van 

trailers with belly boxes attached to their undersides. As such, belly box 

trailers are compatible with all verified rear trailer fairing technologies 

designed for standard dry-van trailers with swing doors. In addition, since 

belly boxes can vary greatly in size, the impact on the aerodynamic efficiency 

of the trailer is highly variable. Wind tunnel test data submitted to ARB staff 

of a typical tractor-trailer combination using a SmartWay designated tractor 

and trailer with a large belly box has shown that the belly box provides some 

aerodynamic benefit over the standard dry-van, but the benefit is less than 

the 5% benefit in fuel savings required by the regulation. Staff assumes that 

a smaller belly box would provide an even smaller fuel economy benefit. 

Owners of trailers with belly boxes have the following options for compliance 

with the regulation. First, a trailer owner can install a modified SmartWay 
- 59 -

designated aerodynamic technology that has been modified to accommodate 

the belly box, provided the modification does not significantly increase the 

aerodynamic drag of the technology, and the owner has prior approval by the 

Executive Officer before installation. (95303(b)(1)(B)2.b, 95303(b)(2)(B)2.b, 

and 95303(b)(3)(C)2.b). 

The second option for compliance is the owner can apply for a trailer 

aerodynamic equipment delay (section 95305(i)), which would provide the 

owner with a limited term exemption from the aerodynamic technology 

requirements of the regulation for trailers that are configured such that none 

of the SmartWay designated aerodynamic technologies can be effectively 

installed on them. The exemption requires Executive Officer approval, and 

must be renewed annually. 

IV. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS MADE DURING THE 15-DAY COMMENT 

PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES

Written comments were received during the 15-day comment period in response to 

the August 4, 2011 notice of public availability of modified text and availability of 

additional documents. Listed below are the organizations and individuals that 

provided comments pertinent to the changes proposed during the 15-day comment 

period.

Written Comments Received During the 15-day Period

Commenter Affiliation Abbreviation

Lund, Kenneth Allen Lund Company Lund

Shimoda, Chris California Trucking Association CTA3

Yandell, John Yandell Truckaway Yandell3

Set forth below is a summary of each comment regarding the regulatory action as 

well as the agency response, including the reasons for not making a change to the 

regulation. Comments not involving objections or recommendations relevant to the 

modified regulatory text in this rulemaking are not included.

1. Comment: I would again ask that the Board consider increasing the Short Haul

Exemption to mirror the DOT to 150 mile radius versus the 100 mile radius as stated 

and/or consider that trailers hauled by tractors that return to their local haul base 

within a 24 hour period are exempt from the rule. As a short haul/regional with 

excess trailing equipment (3 trailers for every 1 tractor), there is no return on 

investment or fuel savings due to the limited miles hauled. Our tracking devices will 

support that our average miles per hour per day are approximately 45 mph. 

(Yandell3)
- 60 -

Agency Response: No change to the defined operating radius for local-haul trailers 

was made in response to this comment. This comment extends beyond the scope 

of this rulemaking action because it does not raise any objections or 

recommendations directed to the proposed amendments. Staff is assuming that this 

comment applies to the local-haul exemption, not the short-haul exemption, since 

the local-haul exemption establishes an operating radius of 100 miles while the 

short-haul exemption establishes an annual miles traveled limit of 50,000 miles.

Regarding the request to increase the local-haul tractor or local-haul trailer operating 

radius from 100 to 150 miles, see Agency Responses to Comments 27 and 28 in the 

summary of comments made during the 45-day period.

Regarding the request to define a local-haul tractor or trailer as one that returns to its 

registered local-haul base within a 24 hour period, ARB does not believe this to be 

an appropriate criterion upon which to define local operation. For example, a tractortrailer combination located in Bakersfield, California could travel from Bakersfield to 

Sacramento and back in a 10 hour period, traveling in excess of 560 miles round trip

(280 miles each way), most of that travel driven at highway speeds at which benefits 

would be gained from use of aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance 

tires.

The comment that there is no return on investment because of excess trailing 

equipment was addressed in the FSOR for the original Tractor-Trailer GHG 

regulation (see Agency Response to Comment 118). As stated in the earlier FSOR, 

assuming a trailer-to-tractor ratio of 2.5 to one, a tractor-trailer owner would be able 

to recover the initial costs of compliance in less than 1.5 years, while an owner who 

had more trailers relative to tractors would require additional time for the payback of 

the initial capital costs. The FSOR for the original Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation 

also addressed the comment that there is no return on investment because the 

commenter’s tractors travel an average speed of 45 miles per hour per day (See 

Agency Response to Comment 48). As stated, tractor-trailers that travel a lower 

percentage of their time at highway speeds will realize a return on their investment, 

but it will take longer to recoup their costs.

2. Comment: This GHG rule for the 53' trailers coupled with simultaneously complying 

with the Truck Bus Rule is impossible in today's economic climate. Your amending 

this regulation is imperative for our continued operation. (Yandell3)

Agency Response: See Agency Response to Comment 7 in the summary of 

comments made during the 45-day period. 

3. Comment: The provisions to extend the parties, beyond trucking 

companies/carriers, which are fined when a 53 foot trailer is not in compliance with 

SmartWay is unfair, unworkable, and will certainly result in increased transportation 

costs. Under the new proposal anyone involved in the transaction including the 

carrier, the driver, the shipper, the receiver, the transportation broker, and the 
- 61 -

warehouse will be fined up to $1000 each. These provisions cannot be extended to 

parties other than the trucking company or carrier. (Lund)

Agency Response: These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking 

action because they do not raise any objections or recommendations directed to the 

proposed amendments. However, as was explained in the Staff Report for the initial 

2008 rulemaking, since California-based shippers and brokers are not typically 

responsible for the tractors and trailers they use, they would not initially be held 

liable for tractors and trailers found in violation. However, enforcement action could 

be taken on a California based shipper or broker in situations meeting the following 

criteria:

• The shipper or broker is involved in a shipment where the tractor or trailer is 

found operating in violation of the proposed regulation, and

• The motor carrier, tractor owner, or trailer owner involved in the shipment has 

an unsettled NOV that was issued for a previous shipment in which the 

shipper or broker was also involved, and

• The shipper or broker has received a notification from ARB regarding the

delinquent status of the motor carrier, tractor owner, or trailer owner.

4. Comment: “Short and local haul exemptions should not capture regional trucks and 

trailers. The standards used in the Environmental Protection Agency/National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration joint fuel efficiency rulemakings further 

demonstrate how CARB staff has missed the mark in identifying regional haul trucks 

and trailers:

• “Truck tractors operating as regional-haul trucks are tractor trailer 

combination vehicles used for routes less than 500 miles, and tend to travel at 

lower average speeds than long-haul trucks.”

• “Long-haul combination tractors typically travel at least 1,000 miles along a 

trip route. Long-haul operation occurs primarily on highways and accounts for 

60 to 70 percent of the fuel used by Class 7 and 8 combination tractors.”

• Class 8 long-haul combination tractors are typically sold after the first three to 

five years of ownership and operation by large fleets... these newest trucks 

travel between 150,000 – 200,000 miles per year, and 50 percent of the 

trucks in this Class 8 segment use 80 percent of the fuel.”

Source: Final Rulemaking to Establish Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty 

Engines and Vehicle, Joint EPA/NHTSA Rulemaking
- 62 -

The table below compares the two rules.

Comparison Between Rulemaking Regional/Long Haul Distinctions

EPA/NHTSA GHG CARB GHG

Annual Miles 150,000-200,000 50,000

Distance Traveled 1000 miles per trip Travels within 100 mile 

radius

(CTA3)

Agency Response: No change was made in response to these comments, which 

extend beyond the scope of this rulemaking action. ARB’s regulation provides 

definitions only for local-haul and short haul vehicles since these vehicles mainly 

operate in urban congested areas at relatively lower speeds and require a special 

consideration in the rulemaking. The regulation did not provide definitions for 

regional haul or even long-haul vehicles because such vehicles did not require any 

special consideration in the rulemaking. ARB believes that tractor-trailer 

combinations that frequently travel more than 100 miles from their home base, 

irrespective of their classification as regional or long-haul accrue the majority of their 

VMT at highway speeds and therefore benefit from installing low rolling resistance 

tires and aerodynamic devices. Furthermore, the long-haul and regional-haul 

definitions in the Joint U.S. EPA/NHTSA rulemaking document are provided for the 

purposes of characterizing the trucking industry (for example to distinguish trucks 

that may or may not be equipped with sleeper berths) and not for characterizing 

trucks that may or may not benefit from installing aerodynamic technologies. In fact, 

the Joint U.S.EPA/NHTSA GHG rulemaking considers aerodynamic technology 

improvements as enabling technologies to meet the GHG standards for Class 7 and 

8 day-cab and sleeper-cab tractors, which includes vehicles that are considered 

outside the U.S. EPA definition of long-haul tractors.

5. Comment: Cost effectiveness estimates should reflect reality or rule should be 

amended to reflect estimates. The original staff Economic Impact Analysis 

calculated average fuel savings resulting from this rule where “84 percent of the 

vehicle miles traveled at highway speed that benefit fully from the aerodynamic 

devices” and tractors travel 125,000 miles annually. We have forwarded two letters 

to Board which have highlighted the following:

• There is no evidentiary support for the estimate of 84 percent vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) at highway speeds.

• Despite claims made by staff that “speed distribution data for the fleet that is 

impacted by the proposed regulation were not available” (source: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/ghghdv08/ghgisor.pdf), we have provided 

a source for this data to Board Staff.

• Inaccurate estimate of VMT done at highway speeds could swing cost of 

$11.2 billion regulation by $4-6 billion. (CTA3)

Agency Response: These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking 

action because they do not raise any objections or recommendations directed to the 
- 63 -

proposed amendments. In general, the overall VMT and the percentage of VMT at 

highway speeds used in ARB’s Economic Impact Analysis are industry average 

estimates from both out-of-state and California tractor-trailers. ARB understands 

that different fleets will realize different benefits depending on the aerodynamic 

technologies used, and how and where the fleet operates (e.g., typical vehicle 

speed, annual miles per year, road conditions, weather conditions, and area of 

operation). While aerodynamic technologies provide the greatest fuel consumption 

savings at highway speeds, data show that some fuel savings will also be achieved 

at lower speeds. Thus, vehicles that accrue less VMT and spend less time at 

highway speeds will still benefit from aerodynamic improvements but will need a 

relatively longer time to recover their initial installation costs of the aerodynamic 

technologies. For those fleets that operate locally or infrequently, they will not likely 

benefit from the aerodynamic technologies, but the regulation provides exemptions 

for these applications.