*** E.O. 12866 Review – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

NHTSA and EPA Responses to Interagency Line Item 

Comments on HDV Phase 2 NPRM Preamble Received on 

June 5, 2015

NHTSA and EPA Reponse: The agencies will incorporate all suggested edits, except as noted 

for the two items below.

Preamble pages 46 and 47 with OIRA comment and NHTSA and EPA Response:

Another important consideration is the possibility of disrupting the market, such as might 

happen if we were to adopt standards that manufacturers respond to by applying a new 

technology too suddenly. Several of the heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers, fleets, and 

commercial truck dealerships informed EPA that for fleet purchases that are planned more than a 

year in advance, expectations of reduced reliability, increased operating costs, reduced residual 

value, or of large increases in purchase prices can lead the fleets to pull-ahead by several months 

planned future vehicle purchases by pre-buying vehicles without the newer technology. In the 

context of the Class 8 tractor market, where a relatively small number of large fleets typically

purchase very large volumes of tractors, such actions by a small number of firms can result in 

large swings in sales volumes. Such market impacts would be followed by some period of 

reduced purchases that can lead to temporary layoffs at the factories producing the engines and 

vehicles, as well as at supplier factories, and disruptions at dealerships. Such market impacts

also can reduce the overall environmental and fuel consumption benefits of the standards by

delaying the rate at which the fleet turns over. See International Harvester v. EPA, 478 F. 2d 

615, 634 (D.C. Cir. 1973). A number of industry stakeholders have informed EPA that the 2007 

EPA heavy-duty engine criteria pollutant standard resulted in this pull-ahead phenomenon for the 

Class 8 tractor market. The agencies understand the potential impact that a pull-ahead can have 

on American manufacturing and labor, dealerships, truck purchasers, and on the program’s 

environmental and fuel savings goals, and have taken steps in the design of the proposed 

program to avoid such disruption. These steps include the following:

 Providing considerable lead time

 The standards will result in significantly lower operating costs for vehicle owners 

(unlike the 2007 standard, which increased operating costs)

 Phasing in the standards

 Structuring the program so the industry will have a significant range of 

technology choices to be considered for compliance, rather than the one or two 

new technologies the OEMs pursued in 2007

 Allowing manufacturers to use emissions averaging, banking and trading to phase 

in the technology even further
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Preamble pages 213 and 214 with OIRA comment and NHTSA and EPA Response:

e. Consistency of the Proposed Tractor Standards with the Agencies’ Legal Authority 

The proposed HD Phase 2 standards are based on adoption rates for technologies that the 

agencies regard, subject to consideration of public comment, as the maximum feasible for 

purposes of EISA Section 32902 (k) and appropriate under CAA Section 202 (a) for the reasons 

given in Section III.D.2(b) through (d) above; see also draft RIA Chapter 2.4. The agencies 

believe these technologies can be adopted at the estimated rates for these standards within the 

lead time provided, as discussed in draft RIA Chapter 2. The 2021 and 2024 MY standards are 

phase-in standards on the path to the 2027 MY standards and were developed using less 

aggressive application rates and therefore have lower technology package costs than the 2027 

MY standards. Moreover, we project the cost of these technologies would be rapidly recovered 

by operators due to the associated fuel savings, as shown in the payback analysis included in 

Section IX below. The cost per tractor to meet the proposed 2027 MY standards is projected to 

range between $10,000 and $13,000 (much or all of this would be mitigated by the fuel savings 

during the first two years of ownership). The agencies note that while the projected costs are 

significantly greater than the costs projected for Phase 1, we still consider that cost to be 

reasonable, especially given the relatively short payback period. In this regard the agencies note 

that the estimated payback period for tractors of less than two years1is itself shorter than the 

estimated payback period for light duty trucks in the 2017-2025 light duty greenhouse gas 

standards. That period was slightly over three years, see 77 FR 62926-27, which EPA found to 

be a highly reasonable given the usual period of ownership of light trucks is typically five years.2 

The same is true here. Ownership of new tractors is customarily four to six years, meaning that 

the greenhouse gas and fuel consumption technologies pay for themselves early on and the 

purchaser sees overall savings in succeeding years – while still owning the vehicle.3 The 

agencies note further that the costs for each subcategory are relatively proportionate; that is, 

costs of any single tractor subcategory are not disproportionately higher (or lower) than any 

other. Although the proposal is technology-forcing (especially with respect to aerodynamic and 

tire rolling resistance improvements), the agencies believe that manufacturers retain leeway to 

develop alternative compliance paths, increasing the likelihood of the standards’ successful 

implementation. The agencies also regard these reductions as cost-effective, even without 

considering payback period. The agencies estimate the cost per metric ton of CO2eq reduction 

without considering fuel savings to be $20 in 2030, which compares favorably with the cost per 

 

1

See Draft RIA Chapter 7.1.3.

2 Auto Remarketing. Length of Ownership Returning to More Normal Levels; New Registrations Continue Slow 

Climb. April 1, 2013. Last accessed on February 26, 2015 at http://www.autoremarketing.com/trends/lengthownership-returning-more-normal-levels-new-registrations-continue-slow-climb

3 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. Barriers to Increased Adoption of Fuel Efficiency Technologies in 

Freight Trucking. July 2013. Page 24.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

ton of $142 per ton (in 2030) the agencies found to be reasonable for light duty trucks.4 See 77 

FR 62922. The proposed phase-in 2021 and 2024 MY standards are less stringent and less costly

than the proposed 2027 MY standards. For these reasons, and because the agencies have 

carefully considered lead time, EPA believes they are also reasonable under Section 202(a) of 

the CAA. Given that the agencies believe the proposed standards are technically feasible, are 

highly cost effective, and highly cost effective when accounting for the fuel savings, and have no 

apparent adverse potential impacts (e.g., there are no projected negative impacts on safety or 

vehicle utility), the proposed standards appear to represent a reasonable choice under Section 

202(a) of the CAA and the maximum feasible under NHTSA’s EISA authority at 49 U.S.C. 

32902(k)(2). 

 

4

See Draft RIA Chapter 7.1.4.