January 31, 2011

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA) Docket Management Facility (M-30) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) West Building, Rm. W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air Docket EPA Docket Center (MC 6102T) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

Re: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency St andards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; 49 CFR Parts 523-5; and 40 CFR Parts 85-6, 1036-7, 1065-6, and 1 068; Doc. Nos. NHTSA-2010-0079 and EPA-HQ-OAR-210-0162

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) represents over 17,000

franchised dealers who sell new and used vehicles a nd engage in service, repair, and parts sales, including 1,900 American Truck Dealers Division (AT D) members who sell new and used commercial trucks and tractors. Together they empl oy approximately 1,000,000 people nationwide, over 100,000 by ATD dealers alone. The majority are small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration.

I. INTRODUCTION

Last year, NHTSA and EPA requested comment on a nat ional proposal for new mediumand heavy-duty engine and truck fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards. 75 Fed. Reg. 74152, et seq. (November 30, 2010). Commercial motor vehicles cur rently account for some 20% of all U.S. transportation fuel used, but only 7% of all man-made GHGs.

The jointly proposed standards are authorized by Se ction 102 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). 49 U SC ' 32902(k). In addition, EPA points to Title II of the Clean Air Act as general authority for its proposed GHG rules. On November 15, 2010, Mr. Kyle Treadway, ATD Chairman, testified on the proposal at a public hearing in Chicago. The following comments and suggestions su pplement Mr. Treadway’s testimony.National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA)

Docket Management Facility (M-30) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) January 31, 2011 Page 2

II. SECTION 102 OF EISA

NADA/ATD actively supported the enactment of Sec tion 102 of EISA, which established a detailed Congressionally-mandated national progra m for the first-time-ever regulation of commercial vehicle fuel efficiency. EISA required that:

1. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) conduct and publish a study of potential commercial vehicle fuel efficiency improvement stra tegies, and 2. NHTSA, in consultation with the Secretary of En ergy (DOE) and EPA, examine the fuel efficiency of commercial medium- and heavy-dut y on-highway vehicles and work

trucks and determine:

(A) the appropriate test procedures and methodologi es for measuring the fuel efficiency of such vehicles; (B) the appropriate metric for measuring and expres sing fuel efficiency performance, taking into consideration, among other things, the work performed by such vehicles and the types of operations in whi ch they are used; (C) the range of factors, including, without limita tion, design, functionality, use, duty cycle, infrastructure, and total overall energ y consumption and operating costs that affect the fuel efficiency of such vehic les; and (D) such other factors and conditions that could ha ve an impact on a program to improve the fuel efficiency of such vehicles.

3. Not later than 24 months after completion of th e NAS study, NHTSA consult with DOE and EPA and determine by rulemaking how to impl ement a commercial mediumand heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fu el efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvemen t, and adopt and implement appropriate test methods, measurement metrics, fuel economy standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols appropriate, cost-effecti ve, and technologically feasible for such vehicles, prescribing as appropriate separate standards for different classes of vehicles. Such rules were to provide for not less than 4 full model years of regulatory lead-time and 3 full model years of regulatory stab ility.

The NAS completed its study in March 2010. Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (TRB, NAS March 2010). Despite EISA’s allowance of up to two years after issuance of the NAS study (until April 2012) for regulatory development, NHTSA and EPA have indicate d that they intend to publish a final rule by September 2011. 1 The proposal indicates that EPA would require com pliance beginning in MY 2014, aggressively cutting by half the Congressi onally-directed four years of lead-time. In an apparent attempt to pay some deference to Congre ss’ explicit instructions, the proposal also purports to make NHTSA’s mandates “voluntary” until MY 2016. The proposal seems also to suggest that EISA’s requirement for regulatory “sta bility” is to be satisfied by the “certainty” of

1 http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pu bId=201010&RIN=2060-AP61National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA)

Docket Management Facility (M-30) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) January 31, 2011 Page 3

a MY 2014-2017/2018 phase-in period. However, any “certainty” and “predictability” associated with the proposed phase-in periods by no means equates to the statute’s requirement for at least three model years of regulatory stabil ity. To the contrary, it is generally understood that the proposal, if finalized, will be followed b y an even more stringent set of standards designed to take effect immediately following the p hase-in timeframe.

The proposal ignores Congress’ clear intent that N HTSA take the lead with respect to developing and implementing the standards at issue, while consulting with EPA and DOE as appropriate. Putting aside the efficacy of ignorin g Congressional intent, the proposal poses several untoward, unintended, and unnecessary outco mes for dealerships that directly result from EPA’s taking the lead instead. These potential out comes are discussed in detail below.

Section 102 of EISA provided for several other con straints on the regulatory process which protect truck dealership interests, including a requirement that any new fuel efficiency rules be “appropriate, cost-effective and technolog ically feasible.” These criteria are critical since federal fuel-economy (and emissions) mandates only apply to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and engines, not to their purchase . That is, such mandates attempt to push new designs and technologies into the new vehicle marke tplace without commensurate requirements or incentives for their purchase. Thus, unless fue l efficiency rules are “appropriate, costeffective and technologically feasible,” prospectiv e customers will avoid purchasing new vehicles and engines, electing instead to hold onto existing ones longer or to turn to the used marketplace, either way leaving dealerships with ex pensive unsold inventory and undermining the livelihood of dealership employees.

When Congress vested NHTSA with the exclusive auth ority to regulate commercial vehicle and engine fuel efficiency, it did so recog nizing that it was amending the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which contains a clear -cut prohibition against the adoption or enforcement of state laws related to fuel economy. 49 USC ' 32919. Avoiding a patchwork of state laws related to fuel economy is critical to t he dealerships that sell new vehicles and engines to the for-hire carriers, private companies, public fleets, and individuals who operate trucks and tractors in every state in the nation. NADA/ATD ur ges NHTSA and EPA to clearly acknowledge in the final rule the need to avoid dup licative and non-identical state rules that would impose untenable burdens on dealerships, on n ew truck and engine manufacturers, and on prospective purchasers. Above all else, the rule must result in only one national fuel econ omyrelated program applicable to new commercial vehicl es.

Of course, NADA/ATD supports and commends the effo rts of states like California and others aimed at improving the efficient movement of trucks over our nation’s roads. In fact, such efforts will prove ever more important over time as the number of trucks and truck-miles inevitably increase. In addition, to the extent st ates like California and others have expertise and insights to offer on federal regulatory programs go verning fuel economy or efficiency, they are free to offer such through comments, testimony and otherwise. Federal law only prohibits state regulations related to fuel economy standards such as the inst ant proposal.National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA)

Docket Management Facility (M-30) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) January 31, 2011 Page 4

Lastly, while Congress required NHTSA to consult w ith DOE and EPA, it did not specifically authorize DOE or EPA to regulate concu rrently, let alone redundantly. Thus, NADA/ATD objects to provisions in the proposal that would create enforceable, redundant EPA mandates. Of course, this position in no way lesse ns ATD’s support for the excellent work EPA and DOE have done and continue to do to promote and incentivize efficient freight operations through programs such as Smartway and SuperTruck , nor does it lessen ATD’s support for the appropriate consultative application of EPA and DOE ’s expertise and experience.

III. NEW TRUCK AND ENGINE STANDARDS MUST BE AFFORDA BLE AND MUST

NOT COMPROMISE PERFORMANCE

Even in years when freight demand is high, and tru ckers and businesses are flush with cash, only a few hundred thousand potentially regul ated trucks and engines are built for sale nationwide. This number pales in comparison to the 10-17 million new light-duty vehicles sold nationwide each year. Moreover, while light-duty c ustomers often do not place a high value on fuel efficiency, fuel cost is the number one variab le cost for the trucking industry. In fact, the overwhelming majority of new commercial vehicle cus tomers focus on fuel efficiency once they’ve determined which vehicle and drivetrain fea tures are essential to meet their specific needs. Consequently, the final rule must leverage, not resist, the fact that an acceptable return on

investment is critical to commercial motor vehicle purchasers.

While fuel efficiency may never rank first on the list of purchase decision criteria for commercial truck customers, it will always rank nea r the top. First and foremost are the customers’ practical needs; the vehicle and drivetr ain features necessary to meet expected use conditions. Every vehicle potentially covered by t he proposal has a work purpose that must be met through the design, specification, ordering, an d manufacture process. Every customer’s needs are different. To its credit, the proposal ta kes pains to recognize this fact by applying several attribute-based categories to combination t ractors, and by limiting cross-cutting mandates for vocational trucks. However, several other aspe cts of the proposal fail to truly recognize the degree to which inappropriate mandates could unduly limit customer choice by reducing vehicle performance or by increasing vehicle cost.

Cost is always a concern. The fact that some of t he nation’s largest fleets can afford to be “early adopters” and to experiment with new fuels a nd high-cost technologies is commendable, but it is by no means representative. The vast maj ority of prospective new truck buyers are businesspersons who must carefully consider the up- front cost of vehicle features, especially during times when credit is tight and/or freight ra tes and profit margins are low. To be effective, commercial fuel economy mandates must pass economic muster. Prospective customers almost always have the option to keep existing vehicles on the road longer, opting for enhanced maintenance and repair strategies that may even inc lude engine and/or vehicle re-building. Alternatively, customers may meet their needs with a used truck or tractor, often at a cost significantly lower than that of a new federally-co mpliant vehicle. Again, fuel efficiency/GHG mandates must be affordable and cost justifiable up front to be successful in the marketplace.National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA)

Docket Management Facility (M-30) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) January 31, 2011 Page 5

New mandates must not compromise or even appear to compromise vehicle performance, a lesson taught by the disruptive introduction of n ew commercial vehicle emissions mandates for 2007 and 2010. Commercial customers will only expe nd the substantial investments necessary to purchase new vehicles when they are assured that they’ll face little or no risk of performance compromises, such as reduced freight hauling capabi lity or increased downtime. Especially when it comes to engines and other drivetrain compo nents, improving one feature such as fuel efficiency must not diminish other critical perform ance features.

The proposed rule must not put dealerships in the position of having to take delivery of vehicles they may be forced to sell at a loss. Sin ce prospective truck customers are very specific when it comes to meeting their needs, they often wi ll wait to get the exact truck they need rather than purchase a less than suitable one from stock. Experience with the implementation of last

three EPA truck emissions standards rules and with downturns in the economy has taught dealerships that unpopular trucks and tractors can sit on lots for months and even years, all the while incurring expensive inventory costs such as f loorplan interest and becoming less desirable. It can be burdensome for light-duty dealerships whe n vehicles sit unpurchased on their lots, but when floorplan curtailments of ten percent or more are incurred on vehicles costing upwards of $150,000, it literally can put small truck dealersh ips out of business.

Under the proposed rule, here’s an example of how dealerships could be impacted by unsold inventory. At the beginning of a year/model year, truck OEMs tend to follow an annual plan, in part based on the rule’s regulatory mandat es. First they establish pricing and production schedules for “work ready” trucks. Dealers and som e larger customers buy trucks; with customers putting them to work and dealers offering them for sale. As the year progresses, OEMs make changes to their production mix to adjust for compliance with their fuel efficiency and GHG targets. As a practical matter, the only w ay to “mix shift” is to sell more of something and less of something else. OEMs typically accompl ish this by offering financial and other concessions on the vehicles they must sell, so that they become attractive enough to dealerships and prospective customers who otherwise would not o rder them.

This complex scenario is made even more complex by the fact that newly ordered and delivered units may have a concession (or concessio ns) that similar trucks already in dealer stock

don’t, as OEMs sometimes fail to re-invoice dealers for stock vehicles at the new concession level. Consequently, inventory becomes older and m ore difficult to sell and, if the higher prices or lower performance attributes of those vehicles a re the result of fuel economy/GHG mandates, the rule’s public policy goals also take a hit.

IV. THE PROPOSED STANDARDS

NADA/ATD generally support a national program desi gned to roll out appropriate, costeffective, and technologically feasible commercial vehicle fuel efficiency strategies. The proposal clearly reflects an effort to account for the wide variety of vehicle and engine OEM products and capabilities, to recognize the broad r ange of potentially regulated vehicle classes, and to provide for considerable compliance flexibil ity.National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA)

Docket Management Facility (M-30) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) January 31, 2011 Page 6

Specifically, NHTSA and EPA propose to regulate c ombination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational trucks, usin g fuel efficiency (not economy) metrics such as gallons/100 miles (grams CO2/100 miles) and gall ons/1,000 ton-miles(grams CO2/ton mile). For each vehicle group, the proposal suggests that fuel savings over time will offset the up-front and ongoing costs of new technologies, including im proved aerodynamics, more efficient tires, engine and transmission upgrades, and anti-idling c ontrols. However, in addition to higher costs, these strategies inevitably will make vehicle owner ship and operation more complex. With most commercial truck purchasers being very risk averse, any higher costs, reduced performance, or increased complexities associated with this rule wi ll be top-of-mind, especially in light of the compromised rollout of EPA’s 2010 and 2007 truck em issions standards.

The proposal attempts but does not fully recognize the complex and varied nature of commercial vehicle manufacturing, sales and ownersh ip. For example, commercial purchasers often do not spec and purchase truck bodies and tra ilers from tractor and truck chassis

manufacturers and their dealers, but rather from bo dy and trailer manufacturers and dealers. Moreover, vehicle purchasers often spec engines and other major components from a variety of manufacturers with no single manufacturer having co mplete dominion over the finished product. Also, due to the prevalence of leasing and other co mmercial realities, operators often do not own and control the trucks, tractors, and trailers they operate.

A. Combination Tractors :

ATD is primarily concerned with the structure and application of the proposed standards for combination tractors, not with their stringency . In short, the proposal for this vehicle group aims to phase-in between MY 2012-17 engine and vehi cle standards designed to achieve a 7-20 percent reduction in GHG emissions and fuel consump tion over a 2010 baseline. The proposal tailors 18 standards to 9 categories of on-road com bination tractors designed to pull box trailers. These nine attribute-based categories reflect low-, mid-, and high-roof versions of Class 7 and Class 8 day cab tractors and Class 8 sleeper cabs. In addition, the proposal also phases-in 4 engine-only standards for medium-heavy-duty (MHD) a nd heavy-heavy-duty (HHD) engines.

The proposal contemplates that engine and chassis manufacturers will use existing technologies to meet the 18 attribute-based targets , at least in the early years. These technologies include advanced engine designs, anti-idling contro ls, aerodynamic cab designs, tractor weight reductions, and improved cab A/C systems. In theor y, each time a tractor is sold, the chassis

manufacturer will enter the vehicle’s relevant char acteristics into a GHG emissions model (GEM) which will then output data for use in calcul ating compliance. An average $6,000 per

unit cost is associated with the combination tracto r standards.

While most if not all major manufacturers indicate that they will have little difficulty achieving compliance with the proposed standards fo r this group in MY 2014, some apprehension is being expressed for the out years o f the phase-in. As such, NADA/ATD requests that the rule provide for a mid-term “real ity check” review aimed at determining if the standards continue to be appropriate, cost-effectiv e, and technologically feasible.National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA)

Docket Management Facility (M-30) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) January 31, 2011 Page 7

There is some suggestion that by MY 2017, some OEM s will no longer be able to make available certain commonly sought after tractor con figurations, either because they will be too unaerodynamic or because they will not compete well in their category. On a related note, concerns have been raised regarding whether the pro posal’s assumptions on the potential aerodynamic efficiency of future tractors are biase d toward the towing of box trailers. If so, adjustments should be made to better reflect the de gree to which prospective purchasers will be using combination tractors to primarily or signific antly to tow tankers, flat beds, and other nonbox trailers. EPA and NHTSA must take these concer ns seriously since, as mentioned above, any significant reduction in customer choice or inc reased cost associated with unnecessary vehicle changes will cause commercial customers to avoid the new tractor marketplace to the detriment of OEMs, suppliers, dealerships, their em ployees, and the rule’s public policy goals.

The rule should avoid imposing unnecessary costs ( without commensurate benefits) on Class 7 and 8 tractors that are essentially used fo r vocational purposes. Consequently, the “vocational truck” group definition should be revis ed and expanded to include an appropriately

defined universe of “vocational tractors.” In no e vent should combination tractors include tractors significantly used off-road or at low spee ds.

B. Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans:

This vehicle group includes Class 2b and Class 3 la rge pickups and vans not otherwise covered by the EPA/NHTSA light-duty fuel economy/GH G program. They are commonly recognized to be “work trucks” principally used for a variety of commercial purposes including heavy-trailer towing, shuttle vans, and mini-school buses. Notably, these vehicles are sold by dealerships both primarily engaged in selling nonco mmercial, light-duty vehicles and primarily engaged in selling medium- and/or heavy-duty commer cial vehicles. According to data compiled by WardsAuto for 2010, Class 2b sales incl uded vehicles manufactured by Chrysler,

Ford, General Motors, Daimler, and International de alerships, while Chrysler, Ford, General

Motors, Isuzu, International, Daimler, and Mitsubis hi Fuso dealerships sold Class 3 vehicles.

The proposal attempts to appropriately target stan dards using a “work factor” attribute. The “work factor” attribute is designed to reflect consideration of vehicle payload, towing capacity, and 2 or 4 wheel drive. Standards to be phased-in between MY 2014-18 aim to achieve up to 10 percent reductions for gasoline-equipped v ehicles, and 15 percent reductions for dieselequipped vehicles. Similar to the light-duty progr am, each OEM will have its own target based on the “work factor” of the fleet it produces. It is proposed that an additional 2% of GHG reductions will be achieved through the regulation of vehicle A/C systems. An average $1,400 per unit cost is associated with the heavy-duty pic kup truck and van standards.

Like vocational vehicles, “work trucks” often aren ’t built by a single manufacturer, but rather are completed or altered (upfitted) by body and equipment installers or truck dealerships. This reality should be taken into consideration as the standards are finalized.

OEMs who build complete vehicles or cab chassis fo r this commercial vehicle group indicate that while aggressive, the proposed standa rds are achievable through strategies such asNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA)

Docket Management Facility (M-30) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) January 31, 2011 Page 8

engine downsizing, new engine and transmission tech nologies, and weight reductions. A major concern is that such strategies could result in veh icles that are no longer appropriate for certain uses. Certainly, mandates for this vehicle group m ust not result in designs that effectively force customers to purchase vehicles that are undersized or underpowered for their needs (i.e., trailer towing), as this would result in real safety concer ns.

C. Vocational Trucks

The proposal effectively defines “vocational trucks ” to include everything the other two vehicle groupings do not. Consequently, the range of covered Class 2b through Class 8 trucks, tractors, and buses is very wide, as is the scope o f work functions and duty-cycles they engage in. The proposal focuses on phasing-in engine and tire standards in MY 2014-18 aimed at achieving 7- 10 percent reductions in fuel consumpt ion and GHGs over a MY 2010 baseline. Two targets each are laid out for three classes of vocational trucks (Class 2b-5, Class 6-7, and Class 8). Approximately $400 per unit cost is asso ciated with the vocational truck standards. NADA/ATD supports the proposed exemption for small vocational vehicle OEMs.

Vocational trucks very often involve multi-stage m anufacturing involving one

manufacturer which makes the chassis or cab chassis and (at least) one other which adds a body or other equipment to it. In other words, vocation al truck and tractor purchasers often do not spec and purchase completed vehicles directly from truck and tractor chassis manufacturers (and their dealers), but rather from tractor and truck c hassis manufacturers (and their dealers) and body and equipment manufacturers (and their install ers). The contractual arrangements involved are many although typically, but not always, custom ers take delivery of completed vehicles from a truck/tractor dealership. Moreover, vocational pu rchasers, like combination tractor purchasers, often specify engines and other major components fr om a variety of manufacturers with no single manufacturer having complete dominion over t he finished product. Dealerships often alter or up-fit vocational vehicles prior to delive ry.

Vocational vehicle production can be both commerci al (read “for stock”), or “custom” in nature. Regarding the latter, it is not at all unu sual for “production” runs to involve just one vehicle. So, unlike for most on-highway combinatio n tractors, there are literally thousands of unique and distinct potential vehicle combinations being produced by thousands of different manufacturers and alterers, which are sold by thous ands of dealerships.

The duty cycles of vocational vehicles range from significant over-the-road operation, to periodic over-the-road operation, to stop and start low speed operation, to limited over-the-road and significant “at rest” operation, to off-road-op erations, and to every combination thereof. Given the complexity of vocational truck design, pr oduction, and use, only engine and tire standards are worthy of consideration. The regulat ion of entire vehicles simply isn’t appropriate. On the other hand, with respect to vocational truck engines it appears that most, if not all, OEMs indicate that they can achieve compliance with the proposed standards in the time frame allowed using existing and potentially available technologi es. However, tires are another matter.National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA)

Docket Management Facility (M-30) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) January 31, 2011 Page 9

NHTSA and EPA need to take a second look at what th ey hope to achieve with low rolling resistant tire mandates for vocational truc ks. First and foremost, low rolling resistance

tires should never be mandated if their use could r esult in safety concerns arising from longer stopping distances, cornering issues, or otherwise. Also, customers will avoid lower rolling resistance tires that may compromise intended vehic le use. Unless customers have sufficient test-based performance data upon which to conclude that these tires will meet their reliability and durability needs, especially in “severe” use condit ions ( i.e, stop/go, heavy-load, bad weather, and off-road operations), they will not invest in them. Certain vocational vehicles (emergency, trash hauling, etc) should be excluded from the tire mand ate altogether.

Even where no potential performance compromises ex ist, prospective vocational purchasers must be convinced that their vehicles’ d uty-cycles will allow for a reasonable fuel economy pay-back of the extra costs involved with i nvesting in low rolling resistant tires. Given expected and perceived performance and payback conc erns, it is highly unlikely that customers will adopt low rolling resistant tires at anything like the 70% rate estimated in the proposal.

As mentioned above, the definition of vocational t rucks should be revised to include vocational tractors, to exclude vehicles significan tly used off-road, and to categorically exclude recreational vehicles. Of course, any vehicle used exclusively off-road should be excluded from

the tire mandate. Moreover, several manufacturers appear to correctly suggest that the proposal overestimates in-use speeds for this group, while u nderestimating stationary work times. Appropriate corrections should be made to address t hese concerns.

The final rule must do more to incentivize the purc hase of alternate fuel and new technology vocational trucks and tractors. As note d in the NAS report, natural gas, propane, biofuel, hybrid, and/or plug-in electric vehicles e ach offer a significant potential for reducing petroleum fuel use and/or GHG’s. However, each of these alternatives involves significant cost, performance, infrastructure and other concerns. Th ese concerns are being addressed through numerous EPA, DOE, DOT, and state research, grant, and loan programs. However, the final rule could and should supplement these efforts with an appropriate credit scheme designed to promote and reward the in-use adoption of these alt ernative fuels and new technologies. It would appear that an expanded and fully-fungible version of the proposed Advanced or Innovation Technology Credit would be the best way for the rul e to incentivize alternate fuels and new technology vehicles and systems.

V. ENGINE STANDARDS

NADA/ATD support separate minimum standards for veh icles and engines, so long as manufacturers involved in both engine and vehicle m anufacturing are free to use credits generated by “over performing” in one area to off-s et compliance obligations in another. Moreover, “over performance” credits generated in o ne vehicle class or category should be available for application to any other. Providing OEMs with such flexibility will maximize compliance and economic efficiencies, providing the marketplace with the most efficiently produced compliant vehicles and engines. Since a g allon of fuel is a gallon of fuel and a gram ofNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA)

Docket Management Facility (M-30) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) January 31, 2011 Page 10

GHGs is a gram of GHGs, what matters most is the pe rformance outcome, less how compliance

is achieved.

To the greatest degree possible, the final rule sho uld take into account and harmonize with EPA’s commercial truck onboard diagnostics (OB D) implementation timeframe. In no way should the rule impose any new OBD requirements rel ated to GHGs or otherwise.

As noted above, the rule should provide OEMs with adequate credit incentives designed to assist with overcoming the numerous obstacles re stricting the adoption of new technologies

and alternate fuels. At the same time, the rule sh ould strive to be fuel and technology “neutral,” leaving it to the new vehicle marketplace to largel y determine what works best.

. NADA/ATD cannot support a mandate or large credit for the installation of engine shutoffs that kick in after 5 minutes of idling. While excessive and unnecessary idling is a legitimate concern, it is best addressed through an array of t ailored strategies including state and local laws, fleet policies, and anti-idling devices, that accom modate a variety of potential real world circumstances. Mandatory shut-offs can involve ser ious risks to driver health and welfare that outweigh any potential benefits, especially for sle eper cabs.

Tamper-proof speed limiters also raise real safety concerns. As with the operation of cruise control systems, there are times when driver s are called upon to exceed the “limit.” As long as tamper resistant

systems can be manually overridden as conditions w arrant, they should be given appropriate credit under the rule.

As drafted, the proposal appears to disadvantage n atural gas and other alternative-fueled vehicles. Corrections and adjustments should be pr ovided for to promote fuel neutrality.

VI. SMARTWAY

Launched in 2004 with the support of the trucking industry and freight shippers, SmartWay is a voluntary program to improve the efficiency o f freight transportation while reducing fuel consumption and emissions. SmartWay promotes the benefits of key truck technologies including idle reduction, aerodynamics , and efficient tires. Today, industry partners include some 2,600 entities running 660,000 trucks (more than 10% of in-use fleet). SmartWay certified trucks represent about 5% of new truck sa les, with every major truck maker now offering at least one SmartWay Certified tractor. Since its inception, the progr am has reduced CO2 emissions by some 15 million metric tons, NOx b y 215,000 tons, and PM by 8,000 tons, and has saved 1.5 billion gallons of fuel equating to approximately $3.6 billion in fuel costs.

While the proposal borrows extensively from the Smartway program, it should not supplant it. For one thing, Smartway can serve to successfully encourage vehicle owners and operators to retrofit vehicles with systems and com ponenets designed to improve fuel efficiency.

Bottom line: the Administration should avoid elimin ating a successful “voluntary” public/private program by replacing it with a yet-to-be-tested set of command and control regulations.National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA)

Docket Management Facility (M-30) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) January 31, 2011 Page 11

VII. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Compliance with the national fuel economy/GHG prog ram must only be measured when new vehicles are produced and delivered for sale or lease. This is the model NHTSA has used successfully for over thirty years when implementin g its fuel economy standards. Dealers and their customers simply cannot support fuel economy/ GHG standards that would impose potential

liabilities downstream. Of course, if OEMs are wil ling to accept the liability for emissions-type performance warranties applicable to the engines an d vehicles they deliver for sale, so be it. However, such warranties must not be accompanied by mandatory “allowable maintenance” requirements. Again, compliance with and responsib ility for nonconformity with the final rule must rest exclusively with the vehicle and engine O EMs.

In addition, the final rule must not impose any po tential downstream “tampering” liabilities related to fuel economy and GHGs. Any attempt to do so would only serve to reinforce the absurdity of applying EPA’s redundant mobile source emissions regulations to fuel economy and GHGs. While Section 203(a)(3)(A) of th e Clean Air Act makes it unlawful for “any person to render inoperative any such device o r element of design after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser,” that provision makes no sense in the context of fuel economy

and GHGs. 42 USC ' 7522. For example, it would be ridiculous to sugge st that owners, operators, dealerships, and others must not render inoperative a device or element of design of a truck or tractor arguably related to its fuel effic iency.

If anything, vehicle owners and operators are econ omically incentivized to maintain and operate their vehicles with the goal of maximizing, not reducing fuel efficiency (and thus GHG emissions performance). Similar incentives have no t historically existed with respect to criteria emissions, so EPA’s tampering policies have made se nse when applied to components related to such emissions. By way of contrast, changes to veh icle aerodynamics and tires, for example, are to be expected in the normal course of truck and tr actor operations, and in some cases, may be done for safety reasons (winter tires, skirt and fa ring modifications, etc).

NADA/ATD does not object to the concept of making OEMs primarily responsible for any and all components, including tires, which they install in their vehicles. Dealerships selling and purchasers buying commercial vehicles should no t be burdened by having to look to several different potential OEMs when an issue arises. Ins tead, if and when an issue arises, the truck or tractor manufacturer should be required to work thi ngs out with the suppliers whose parts or components they install. On the other hand, OEMs s hould not be primarily responsible for the performance of parts and components installed by a downstream manufacturer or installer where they have no control over the manufacture or instal lation of such those parts or components.

No new certification/compliance labels are necessar y. Rather the rule should simply require that the “underhood” emissions label be mod ified to include information indicating compliance with the national fuel efficiency/GHG st andard. An external label is unnecessary and more than likely would fall off, wash off, beco me stolen or destroyed, or otherwise disappear.National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA)

Docket Management Facility (M-30) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) January 31, 2011 Page 12

VIII. TRAILERS

The NAS study emphasized that long-haul trailers c ould achieve upwards of a 10% reduction in fuel and GHGs through aerodynamics and tire improvements. NHTSA and EPA should reconsider their decision not to impose trai ler requirements in the MY 2014-18 timeframe. However, should reliable data justifying a timely Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking prove to be insufficient, potential trai ler regulations should be deferred.

IX. NON-REGUALTORY STRATEGIES

In its report, the NAS discussed numerous other app roaches to increasing fuel efficiency, including comprehensive driver training, the use of higher productivity vehicles (e.g., longer combinations), congestion mitigation, more efficien t vehicle deployment and routing, and rigorous maintenance practices. NADA/ATD recognize s the limited authority EPA and NHTSA have to regulate vehicles in-use. Nonetheless, age ncy resources should be devoted to promoting these and other effective fuel efficiency improveme nt strategies.

X. CONCLUSION

These first ever national commercial truck efficie ncy regulations will govern how new

trucks are built for sale, not whether and when the y are put into use. Thus, it is critical that they be technologically feasible and economically practi cal and that they result in fuel efficiency improvements commercial fleets and businesses will want to buy at prices they can afford. Otherwise, truck dealerships, their employees, and the economy will suffer, without commensurate environmental or national security ben efits.

On behalf of ATD, I thank NHTSA and EPA for the opp ortunity to comment on this

matter.

Sincerely,

Douglas I. Greenhaus Director, Environment, Health and Safety