January 31, 2011 

 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

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 Standards for 

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; 49 CFR Parts 

523-5; and 40 CFR Parts 85-6, 1036-7, 1065-6, and 1068; 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 and engage in service, repair, and parts sales, 

including 1,900 American Truck Dealers Division (ATD) members who sell new and used 

commercial trucks and tractors. Together they employ 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 national 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 currently 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 Section 102 of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). 49 USC '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 supplement Mr. Treadway’s testimony. 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

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 Section 102 of EISA, which established 

a detailed Congressionally-mandated national program 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 strategies, and 

2. NHTSA, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy (DOE) and EPA, examine the 

fuel efficiency of commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work 

trucks and determine: 

(A) the appropriate test procedures and methodologies for measuring the fuel 

efficiency of such vehicles; 

(B) the appropriate metric for measuring and expressing fuel efficiency 

performance, taking into consideration, among other things, the work performed 

by such vehicles and the types of operations in which they are used; 

(C) the range of factors, including, without limitation, design, functionality, use, 

duty cycle, infrastructure, and total overall energy consumption and operating 

costs that affect the fuel efficiency of such vehicles; and 

(D) such other factors and conditions that could have an impact on a program to 

improve the fuel efficiency of such vehicles. 

3. Not later than 24 months after completion of the NAS study, NHTSA consult with 

DOE and EPA and determine by rulemaking how to implement a commercial mediumand heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program 

designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement, and adopt and implement 

appropriate test methods, measurement metrics, fuel economy standards, and compliance 

and enforcement protocols appropriate, cost-effective, 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 stability. 

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 indicated that they intend to publish a final rule 

by September 2011.1

 The proposal indicates that EPA would require compliance beginning in 

MY 2014, aggressively cutting by half the Congressionally-directed four years of lead-time. In 

an apparent attempt to pay some deference to Congress’ 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 “stability” is to be satisfied by the “certainty” of 

 

1

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201010&RIN=2060-AP61

 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

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 stability. To the contrary, it is generally understood 

that the proposal, if finalized, will be followed by an even more stringent set of standards 

designed to take effect immediately following the phase-in timeframe. 

 The proposal ignores Congress’ clear intent that NHTSA 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 ignoring Congressional intent, the proposal poses 

several untoward, unintended, and unnecessary outcomes for dealerships that directly result from 

EPA’s taking the lead instead. These potential outcomes are discussed in detail below. 

 

 Section 102 of EISA provided for several other constraints on the regulatory process 

which protect truck dealership interests, including a requirement that any new fuel efficiency 

rules be “appropriate, cost-effective and technologically 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 marketplace without commensurate requirements 

or incentives for their purchase. Thus, unless fuel efficiency rules are “appropriate, costeffective and technologically feasible,” prospective 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 expensive unsold inventory and undermining 

the livelihood of dealership employees. 

 When Congress vested NHTSA with the exclusive authority to regulate commercial 

vehicle and engine fuel efficiency, it did so recognizing 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 the 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 urges NHTSA and EPA to clearly 

acknowledge in the final rule the need to avoid duplicative and non-identical state rules that 

would impose untenable burdens on dealerships, on new truck and engine manufacturers, and on 

prospective purchasers. Above all else, the rule must result in only one national fuel economyrelated program applicable to new commercial vehicles. 

 Of course, NADA/ATD supports and commends the efforts 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 states like California and others have expertise and 

insights to offer on federal regulatory programs governing 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 instant proposal. 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

Docket Management Facility (M-30) 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 

January 31, 2011 

Page 4 

 Lastly, while Congress required NHTSA to consult with DOE and EPA, it did not 

specifically authorize DOE or EPA to regulate concurrently, 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 lessens 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 AFFORDABLE AND MUST 

NOT COMPROMISE PERFORMANCE 

 

 Even in years when freight demand is high, and truckers and businesses are flush with 

cash, only a few hundred thousand potentially regulated 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 customers often do not place a high value on 

fuel efficiency, fuel cost is the number one variable cost for the trucking industry. In fact, the 

overwhelming majority of new commercial vehicle customers focus on fuel efficiency once 

they’ve determined which vehicle and drivetrain features 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 near the top. First and foremost are the 

customers’ practical needs; the vehicle and drivetrain features necessary to meet expected use 

conditions. Every vehicle potentially covered by the proposal has a work purpose that must be 

met through the design, specification, ordering, and manufacture process. Every customer’s 

needs are different. To its credit, the proposal takes pains to recognize this fact by applying 

several attribute-based categories to combination tractors, and by limiting cross-cutting mandates 

for vocational trucks. However, several other aspects 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 the nation’s largest fleets can afford to be 

“early adopters” and to experiment with new fuels and high-cost technologies is commendable, 

but it is by no means representative. The vast majority 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 rates 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 include 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-compliant 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 (NHTSA) 

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 new commercial vehicle emissions mandates for 

2007 and 2010. Commercial customers will only expend 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 capability or increased downtime. Especially 

when it comes to engines and other drivetrain components, improving one feature such as fuel 

efficiency must not diminish other critical performance 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. Since prospective truck customers are very specific 

when it comes to meeting their needs, they often will 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 floorplan interest and becoming less desirable. 

It can be burdensome for light-duty dealerships when 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 dealerships 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 mandates. First they establish pricing and production 

schedules for “work ready” trucks. Dealers and some 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 way to “mix shift” is to sell more of something 

and less of something else. OEMs typically accomplish 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 order them. 

 This complex scenario is made even more complex by the fact that newly ordered and 

delivered units may have a concession (or concessions) 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 more difficult to sell and, if the higher prices 

or lower performance attributes of those vehicles are 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 designed 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 range of potentially regulated vehicle classes, 

and to provide for considerable compliance flexibility. 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

Docket Management Facility (M-30) 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 

January 31, 2011 

Page 6 

 Specifically, NHTSA and EPA propose to regulate combination tractors, heavy-duty 

pickup trucks and vans, and vocational trucks, using fuel efficiency (not economy) metrics such 

as gallons/100 miles (grams CO2/100 miles) and gallons/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 improved aerodynamics, more efficient tires, 

engine and transmission upgrades, and anti-idling controls. However, in addition to higher costs, 

these strategies inevitably will make vehicle ownership 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 will be top-of-mind, especially in light of the 

compromised rollout of EPA’s 2010 and 2007 truck emissions standards. 

 The proposal attempts but does not fully recognize the complex and varied nature of 

commercial vehicle manufacturing, sales and ownership. For example, commercial purchasers 

often do not spec and purchase truck bodies and trailers from tractor and truck chassis 

manufacturers and their dealers, but rather from body 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 complete dominion over the finished product. 

Also, due to the prevalence of leasing and other commercial 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 vehicle standards designed to achieve a 7-20 

percent reduction in GHG emissions and fuel consumption over a 2010 baseline. The proposal 

tailors 18 standards to 9 categories of on-road combination 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) and 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 controls, aerodynamic cab designs, tractor weight 

reductions, and improved cab A/C systems. In theory, each time a tractor is sold, the chassis 

manufacturer will enter the vehicle’s relevant characteristics into a GHG emissions model 

(GEM) which will then output data for use in calculating compliance. An average $6,000 per 

unit cost is associated with the combination tractor standards. 

 While most if not all major manufacturers indicate that they will have little difficulty 

achieving compliance with the proposed standards for this group in MY 2014, some 

apprehension is being expressed for the out years of the phase-in. As such, NADA/ATD 

requests that the rule provide for a mid-term “reality check” review aimed at determining if the 

standards continue to be appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible. 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

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 OEMs will no longer be able to make 

available certain commonly sought after tractor configurations, 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 proposal’s assumptions on the potential 

aerodynamic efficiency of future tractors are biased toward the towing of box trailers. If so, 

adjustments should be made to better reflect the degree to which prospective purchasers will be 

using combination tractors to primarily or significantly to tow tankers, flat beds, and other nonbox trailers. EPA and NHTSA must take these concerns seriously since, as mentioned above, 

any significant reduction in customer choice or increased cost associated with unnecessary 

vehicle changes will cause commercial customers to avoid the new tractor marketplace to the 

detriment of OEMs, suppliers, dealerships, their employees, 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 for vocational purposes. Consequently, the 

“vocational truck” group definition should be revised and expanded to include an appropriately 

defined universe of “vocational tractors.” In no event should combination tractors include 

tractors significantly used off-road or at low speeds. 

B. Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans: 

This vehicle group includes Class 2b and Class 3 large pickups and vans not otherwise 

covered by the EPA/NHTSA light-duty fuel economy/GHG 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 noncommercial, light-duty vehicles and primarily 

engaged in selling medium- and/or heavy-duty commercial vehicles. According to data 

compiled by WardsAuto for 2010, Class 2b sales included vehicles manufactured by Chrysler, 

Ford, General Motors, Daimler, and International dealerships, while Chrysler, Ford, General 

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

 The proposal attempts to appropriately target standards 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 vehicles, and 15 percent reductions for dieselequipped vehicles. Similar to the light-duty program, 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 pickup 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 for this commercial vehicle group 

indicate that while aggressive, the proposed standards are achievable through strategies such as 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

Docket Management Facility (M-30) 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 

January 31, 2011 

Page 8 

engine downsizing, new engine and transmission technologies, and weight reductions. A major 

concern is that such strategies could result in vehicles that are no longer appropriate for certain 

uses. Certainly, mandates for this vehicle group must 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 concerns. 

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 of 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 consumption 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 associated with the vocational truck standards. 

NADA/ATD supports the proposed exemption for small vocational vehicle OEMs. 

 Vocational trucks very often involve multi-stage manufacturing 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, vocational 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 chassis manufacturers (and their dealers) and

body and equipment manufacturers (and their installers). The contractual arrangements involved 

are many although typically, but not always, customers take delivery of completed vehicles from 

a truck/tractor dealership. Moreover, vocational purchasers, like combination tractor purchasers, 

often specify engines and other major components from a variety of manufacturers with no 

single manufacturer having complete dominion over the finished product. Dealerships often 

alter or up-fit vocational vehicles prior to delivery. 

 Vocational vehicle production can be both commercial (read “for stock”), or “custom” in 

nature. Regarding the latter, it is not at all unusual for “production” runs to involve just one 

vehicle. So, unlike for most on-highway combination 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 thousands 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-operations, and to every combination thereof. 

Given the complexity of vocational truck design, production, and use, only engine and tire 

standards are worthy of consideration. The regulation 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 technologies. However, tires are another matter. 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

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 they hope to achieve with low 

rolling resistant tire mandates for vocational trucks. First and foremost, low rolling resistance 

tires should never be mandated if their use could result in safety concerns arising from longer 

stopping distances, cornering issues, or otherwise. Also, customers will avoid lower rolling 

resistance tires that may compromise intended vehicle 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 conditions (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 mandate altogether. 

 Even where no potential performance compromises exist, prospective vocational 

purchasers must be convinced that their vehicles’ duty-cycles will allow for a reasonable fuel 

economy pay-back of the extra costs involved with investing in low rolling resistant tires. Given 

expected and perceived performance and payback concerns, 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 trucks should be revised to include 

vocational tractors, to exclude vehicles significantly 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 underestimating stationary work times. 

Appropriate corrections should be made to address these concerns. 

The final rule must do more to incentivize the purchase of alternate fuel and new 

technology vocational trucks and tractors. As noted in the NAS report, natural gas, propane, 

biofuel, hybrid, and/or plug-in electric vehicles each 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. These 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 alternative 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 rule to incentivize alternate fuels and new 

technology vehicles and systems. 

 

V. ENGINE STANDARDS 

NADA/ATD support separate minimum standards for vehicles and engines, so long as 

manufacturers involved in both engine and vehicle manufacturing are free to use credits 

generated by “over performing” in one area to off-set compliance obligations in another. 

Moreover, “over performance” credits generated in one 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 gallon of fuel is a gallon of fuel and a gram of 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

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 performance outcome, less how compliance 

is achieved. 

To the greatest degree possible, the final rule should take into account and harmonize 

with EPA’s commercial truck onboard diagnostics (OBD) implementation timeframe. In no way 

should the rule impose any new OBD requirements related to GHGs or otherwise. 

 As noted above, the rule should provide OEMs with adequate credit incentives designed 

to assist with overcoming the numerous obstacles restricting the adoption of new technologies 

and alternate fuels. At the same time, the rule should strive to be fuel and technology “neutral,” 

leaving it to the new vehicle marketplace to largely 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 tailored strategies including state and local laws, 

fleet policies, and anti-idling devices, that accommodate a variety of potential real world 

circumstances. Mandatory shut-offs can involve serious risks to driver health and welfare that 

outweigh any potential benefits, especially for sleeper cabs. 

Tamper-proof speed limiters also raise real safety concerns. As with the operation of 

cruise control systems, there are times when drivers are called upon to exceed the “limit.” As 

long as tamper resistant systems can be manually overridden as conditions warrant, they should 

be given appropriate credit under the rule. 

 As drafted, the proposal appears to disadvantage natural gas and other alternative-fueled 

vehicles. Corrections and adjustments should be provided 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 of 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 sales, with every major truck maker now 

offering at least one SmartWay Certified tractor. Since its inception, the program has reduced 

CO2 emissions by some 15 million metric tons, NOx by 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 componenets designed to improve fuel efficiency. 

Bottom line: the Administration should avoid eliminating 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 (NHTSA) 

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 program 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 implementing 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 willing to accept the liability for emissions-type 

performance warranties applicable to the engines and vehicles they deliver for sale, so be it. 

However, such warranties must not be accompanied by mandatory “allowable maintenance” 

requirements. Again, compliance with and responsibility for nonconformity with the final rule 

must rest exclusively with the vehicle and engine OEMs. 

 In addition, the final rule must not impose any potential 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 the Clean Air Act makes it unlawful for 

“any person to render inoperative any such device or 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 suggest 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 efficiency. 

 

 If anything, vehicle owners and operators are economically incentivized to maintain and 

operate their vehicles with the goal of maximizing, not reducing fuel efficiency (and thus GHG 

emissions performance). Similar incentives have not historically existed with respect to criteria 

emissions, so EPA’s tampering policies have made sense when applied to components related to 

such emissions. By way of contrast, changes to vehicle aerodynamics and tires, for example, are 

to be expected in the normal course of truck and tractor operations, and in some cases, may be 

done for safety reasons (winter tires, skirt and faring 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 not be burdened by having to look to several 

different potential OEMs when an issue arises. Instead, if and when an issue arises, the truck or 

tractor manufacturer should be required to work things out with the suppliers whose parts or 

components they install. On the other hand, OEMs should 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 installation of such those parts or components. 

No new certification/compliance labels are necessary. Rather the rule should simply 

require that the “underhood” emissions label be modified to include information indicating 

compliance with the national fuel efficiency/GHG standard. An external label is unnecessary 

and more than likely would fall off, wash off, become stolen or destroyed, or otherwise 

disappear. 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

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 could 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 trailer requirements in the MY 2014-18 timeframe. However, should reliable data justifying a timely Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking prove to be insufficient, potential trailer regulations should be deferred. 

 

IX. NON-REGUALTORY STRATEGIES 

In its report, the NAS discussed numerous other approaches to increasing fuel efficiency, 

including comprehensive driver training, the use of higher productivity vehicles (e.g., longer 

combinations), congestion mitigation, more efficient vehicle deployment and routing, and 

rigorous maintenance practices. NADA/ATD recognizes the limited authority EPA and NHTSA 

have to regulate vehicles in-use. Nonetheless, agency resources should be devoted to promoting 

these and other effective fuel efficiency improvement strategies. 

X. CONCLUSION 

 These first ever national commercial truck efficiency regulations will govern how new 

trucks are built for sale, not whether and when they are put into use. Thus, it is critical that they

be technologically feasible and economically practical 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 benefits. 

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

matter. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Douglas I. Greenhaus 

 Director, Environment, Health and Safety