State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Response 

ADOPTION OF THE REGULATION TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 

FROM HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

I. GENERAL 

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) established requirements 

for a comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, 

quantifiable, and cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. AB 32 

requires the Air Resources Board (the Board or ARB) and other state agencies to adopt 

regulations and other requirements that would reduce statewide GHG emission levels to 

the equivalent of 1990 levels by 2020. To swiftly address GHG emission reductions in 

the near-term, AB 32 also directs ARB to identify a list of early action measures to be 

adopted by the Board by January 1, 2011, and made enforceable by January 1, 2012. 

AB 32 also requires that discrete early action measures be identified, requiring adoption 

and implementation by January 1, 2010. In 2007, the Board identified 44 early action 

measures, of which 9 were identified as discrete early action measures. The 

rulemaking is one of the discrete early action measures. 

The rulemaking was initiated on October 24, 2008, with the release of a notice of public 

hearing and staff report, entitled “Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for 

Proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Regulation to 

Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Heavy-Duty Vehicles“ (Staff Report or 

ISOR). The Staff Report, which is incorporated by reference herein, describes the 

ARB’s rational for the regulatory proposal. The proposed new sections, 95300 through 

95311, of title 17, California Code of Regulation (CCR), were included as an attachment 

to the Staff Report. These documents were also posted on the ARB’s Internet site for 

the rulemaking at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/ghghdv08/ghghdv08.htm . 

The rulemaking will reduce GHG emissions by requiring on-road tractors and trailers 

operating on California highways to be equipped with technologies that will result in 

improved fuel efficiency, and thus reduce GHG emissions. The regulation references a 

federal voluntary program, called the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(U.S. EPA) SmartWay Partnership Program (SmartWay program), which is designed to 

improve the environmental performance associated with the ground freight delivery 

system in the United States. In particular, the SmartWay program approves 

technologies, such as aerodynamic equipment and low-rolling resistance tires, and 

certifies tractors and trailers that incorporate these technologies. The rulemaking 

requires the use of SmartWay certified tractors and trailers, and SmartWay approved 

aerodynamic technologies and low-rolling resistance tires. 
- 2 - 

On December 11, 2008, the Board conducted a public hearing to consider staff’s 

proposal as described in the Staff Report. At the hearing, staff proposed to adopt new 

requirements for heavy-duty vehicles to reduce GHG emissions through fuel efficiency 

improvements. Additionally, staff proposed various editorial corrections and several 

modifications to the originally proposed regulation. After consideration of the written 

comments received during the 45-day public comment period prior to the hearing and 

the testimony received at the hearing, the Board acted in Resolution 08-44 to adopt the 

proposed regulation. 

Resolution 08-44 approved staff’s originally proposed regulation as well as the 

suggested modifications provided at the Board Hearing. In addition, Resolution 08-44 

directed the Executive Officer to modify the regulatory language or take other steps to 

ensure the requirements specified in section 95303(a), title 17, CCR, for certification of 

tractors will take effect only if the U.S. EPA modifies the existing SmartWay certified 

tractor certification requirements to establish new performance-based test requirements 

that will provide for comparable GHG emission reductions for similar certified SmartWay 

tractors from different manufacturers. 

Furthermore, in accordance with section 11346.8 of the Government Code, the Board in 

Resolution 08-44 directed the Executive Officer to incorporate the modifications to the 

proposed regulatory text approved by the Board, with such other conforming 

modifications as may be appropriate, and to make the modified text available to the 

public for a period of at least fifteen days. The Executive Officer was then directed 

either to adopt the amendments with such additional 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. 

On August 17, 2009, U.S. EPA provided interim SmartWay tractor certification 

requirements for tractor manufacturers, which established both design and 

performance-based requirements by allowing new tractor models to be certified if the 

fuel efficiency of the new tractor model meets or exceeds the fuel efficiency of at least 

one current SmartWay certified tractor model from any manufacturer. Because a 

performance-based standard for U.S. EPA SmartWay certified tractors was established, 

the tractor component of the rulemaking was retained. 

The revised regulation, which included the new U.S. EPA interim performance-based 

requirements for tractors and other modifications since the originally proposed 

regulatory text of October 24, 2008, was made available to the public through an 

issuance of a “Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text and Availability of Additional 

Documents" on September 17, 2009, with a comment period of 15 days. Several 

written comments were received during the 15-day comment periods. 

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 
- 3 - 

text. The FSOR also contains a summary of the comments received on the regulatory 

text during the formal regulatory process and ARB’s responses to those comments. 

Fiscal Impacts. The Board has determined that this regulatory action will not create 

costs or savings, as defined in Government Code section 11346.5(a)(5) and 

11346.5(a)(6), in federal funding to the state; or costs or mandate to any local agency or 

school district whether or not reimbursable by the state pursuant to Government Code, 

title 2, division 4, part 7 (commencing with section 17500) or other non-discretionary 

costs or savings to local agencies. The Board has determined that the regulatory action 

will create costs to a state agency in the form of costs to ARB to implement and enforce 

the regulation and to contract with the California Highway Patrol, air quality 

management districts and air pollution control districts for enforcement. No costs or 

savings affecting other state agencies were identified. 

The Board has determined that this regulatory action will not have a significant 

statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of 

California businesses to compete with businesses in other states, or on representative 

private persons. 

In accordance with Government Code section 11346.3, the Board has determined that 

this regulatory action will affect the creation or elimination of jobs within the State of 

California, the creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses 

within the State of California, or the expansion of businesses currently doing business 

within the State of California. 

The Board has also determined, pursuant to section 4, title 1, CCR, that this regulatory 

action will affect small businesses use own or operate heavy-duty tractors pulling 53-

foot or longer trailers affected by the regulation.

In accordance with Government Code sections 11346.3(c) and 11346.5(a)(11), the 

Board has found that the reporting requirements of the regulation that apply to 

businesses are necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State 

of California. 

Consideration of Alternatives. The regulatory language proposed in the rulemaking 

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

warehouse and logistics companies, equipment manufacturers, associations, and other 

interested parties. In the Staff Report, ARB evaluated and ultimately rejected two 

potential alternatives: (1) no action and (2) expand the applicability of the requirements 

to other types of trucks and trailers. 

The first alternative to the proposal was to not adopt a regulation to require the use of 

SmartWay technologies on affected heavy-duty trucks but rather to rely on tractor and 

trailer owners to voluntarily install SmartWay technologies. Although SmartWay 

technologies have been available for several years, most truck and trailer owners have 

not installed them despite available fuel savings. ARB believes the incorporation of 
- 4 - 

aerodynamic technologies on box-type trailers will not happen in a timely manner 

without regulatory impetus. Real and quantifiable near-term GHG reduction benefits 

would be lost if the regulation is not implemented. As a result, ARB rejected the "No 

Action" option. 

The second alternative to the proposal was to expand the applicability of the 

requirements beyond 53-foot and longer box-type trailers and tractors that pull them to 

include box-type trailers of various lengths and types, and straight trucks. Expanding 

the applicability to other types of trucks and trailers is not possible because the current 

SmartWay program only applies to 53-foot and longer box-type trailers. Expanding the 

applicability of the rule would require ARB to develop an ARB certification program for 

tractors and trailers, low rolling resistance tires, and aerodynamic technologies. This 

cannot be done in the timeframe allotted for this rulemaking, as required for an AB 32 

discrete early action measure. Therefore, ARB rejected this alternative. 

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 further determined that no alternative 

considered by the agency would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which 

the regulation is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected 

private persons than the adopted regulation. 

II. MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL 

A. MODIFICATIONS APPROVED AT THE BOARD HEARING AND PROVIDED FOR 

THE 15-DAY COMMENT PERIOD 

At the hearing, the Board approved the originally proposed regulatory action as well as 

staff’s suggested modifications presented at the hearing. Further, the Board directed 

the Executive Officer to modify the regulatory language, as appropriate, to include new 

U.S. EPA performance-based test requirements for tractors that will compare GHG 

emission reductions for similar certified SmartWay tractors from different manufacturers. 

The regulatory modifications made to the originally proposed regulatory text released on 

October 24, 2008 were made available to the public for a 15 day comment period by the 

issuance of a “Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text and Availability of Additional 

Documents” on September 17, 2009. The following is a consolidated description of the 

modifications and clarifications by section. 

Applicability (section 95301): 

Language was added to clarify that the regulation applies to specified parties not only 

when they use certain tractors and trailers in California, but also when they cause the 

use of that equipment by others within the state. This modification is consistent with the 

substantive requirements in section 95303 and reflects the fact that some motor 

carriers, brokers and shippers covered by the regulation could arrange the use of this 

equipment in the state without using it themselves. 
- 5 - 

“Refuse trailers” and “livestock trailers” have been added to the list of vehicles for which 

the requirements of this subarticle do not apply. Both refuse trailers and livestock 

trailers have been exempted because their design and typical uses are not compatible 

with the requirements for aerodynamic technologies and low-rolling resistance tires. 

Language has been added to clarify that short-haul and local-haul tractors, local-haul 

trailers, and drayage tractors are exempt from certain provisions of the regulation in 

accordance with section 95305. 

Definitions (section 95302): 

The definition of “broker” was changed to improve clarity and to make the definition 

consistent with other ARB regulations. 

A definition for the Diesel On-road and Off-road Reporting System (DOORS) has been 

added because this system is referred to in section 95307, Optional Trailer Fleet 

Compliance Schedules. 

A definition of “fleet’ has been added to improve clarity. 

The definition of “authorized emergency vehicle” has been changed to a definition of 

“emergency vehicle” to improve clarity. 

The definitions of “container,” “flatbed trailer,” and “lessee” have been deleted as 

unnecessary. The terms “container” and “flatbed trailer” do not need to be defined 

because the terms are not used in the proposed regulation. “Lessee” is a common term 

that does not need to be separately defined for purposes of this regulation. 

Definitions of ‘livestock trailer” and “refuse trailer” have been added because both 

vehicles have been added to the list of vehicles exempted from the requirements of this 

subarticle. 

The definitions of “cab side extender,” “curtain-side trailer,” “drop-frame trailer,” “dry-van 

trailer,” “flow control device,” “front trailer fairing,” “refrigerated-van trailer,” “sleeper 

cab,” and “trailer side skirt” have been modified to improve clarity. 

The definition of “motor carrier” has been modified to reference the definition of “motor 

carrier” in the California Vehicle Code. 

The definition of “owner” has been modified and expanded to provide greater clarity and 

additional details about which parties are responsible for ensuring that vehicles, 

including leased vehicles and federal government vehicles, comply with the regulation’s 

requirements. 
- 6 - 

The definition of “short-haul tractor” has been modified so the term refers only to 

tractors that travel less than 50,000 miles per year, and new definitions were added for 

“local-haul tractor” and “local-haul trailer” to describe tractors and trailers that travel 

within a 100 mile radius of their local haul base. The definition of “short-haul trailer” was 

deleted because the term has been replaced by “local-haul trailer.” 

A definition of “trailer” has been added to improve clarity. 

The term “U.S. EPA Approved SmartWay Technology” has been changed to “U.S. EPA 

Verified SmartWay Technology” and the term “U.S. EPA SmartWay Partnership 

Program” has been changed to “U.S. EPA SmartWay Transport Partnership Program” 

to be consistent with the program’s current terminology. Other minor modifications were 

made to these definitions, including an update of the U.S. EPA contact information. 

Definitions for “compliant trailer,” “compliance year,” “conformance,” “delayed 

compliance trailer,” and “early compliance trailer” have been added to clarify the 

provisions of the Optional Trailer Fleet Compliance Schedules. 

Definitions for “California-based broker” and “California-based shipper” have been 

added to clarify the applicability of this subarticle. 

The definition of “dispatch” has been modified to improve clarity. 

Requirements and Compliance Deadlines (section 95303) and Refrigerated Fleet 

Compliance Provision (section 95308): 

Subsection 95303(b), Trailer Requirements, has been restructured to specify the tire 

and aerodynamic technology requirements in separate subsections, and to delete an 

option that identified specific aerodynamic equipment that could be installed on dry-van 

trailers and refrigerated-van trailers for compliance. ARB deleted this language 

because the regulation establishes performance standards of 5% fuel savings for dryvan trailers and 4% fuel savings for refrigerated-van trailers, which makes specifying the 

aerodynamic equipment required to meet these standards unnecessary and potentially 

limiting. 

In subsection 95303(b)(3), the compliance schedule requirements for a refrigerated-van 

trailer that is a model year 2003 through 2008 trailer equipped with a 2003 or 

subsequent model year transport refrigeration unit, has been added. These 

requirements were previously part of referenced subsection 95308. As a result of this 

restructuring of the regulation, subsection 95308 is no longer necessary and has been 

deleted. The subsequent subsections (formerly 95309 through 95312) are renumbered 

as 95308, 95309, 95310, and 95311, respectively. 

Subsection 95303(c)(2) specifies the information a driver must provide to an authorized 

enforcement official. This subsection has been modified to improve clarity, and to 
- 7 - 

specify that the vehicle odometer reading is only required if the vehicle is an exempt 

short-haul tractor. 

Subsection 95303(e)(3) is no longer necessary and has been deleted. It referenced the 

requirements of subsection 95308 which are now contained in subsection (b). 

Subsections 95303(f), Requirements for California-based Brokers, and 95303(g), 

Requirements for Motor Carriers, have been modified to clarify that the requirements 

only apply to tractors and trailers dispatched for travel on California highways. 

Subsection 95303(h), Requirements for California-Based Shippers, has been modified 

to clarify that a California-based shipper must not ship freight from its California facility 

or facilities in non-compliant tractors and trailers. 

Exemptions (section 95305) 

Previously, the term “short-haul” was used to describe both tractors that travel less than 

50,000 miles per year and those that travel within a 100 mile radius from their local haul 

base. It also was used to describe trailers that are restricted in travel within a 100 mile 

radius of their local haul base. To clarify the regulation, ARB redefined “short-haul” 

tractor as a tractor that travels less than 50,000 miles per year, and added the terms 

“local-haul” tractor and “local-haul” trailer to describe those tractors and trailers that are 

restricted in travel within a 100 mile radius. Changes have been made throughout 

section 95305 and 95306 to reflect this change in nomenclature. 

Subsection (a) has been modified to reference the specific subsections from which a 

short-haul tractor is exempt, and to delete the listing of the criteria that define a short 

haul tractor since these criteria are identified in the definition of “short-haul tractor.” 

A new subsection (b) has been added to identify the specific subsections from which a 

local-haul tractor is exempt, and those subsections with which it still must comply. 

Subsection (b) has been renumbered to subsection (c) and has been modified to 

identify the specific subsections from which a local-haul trailer is exempt and those 

subsections with which it still must comply. 

Subsection (c) has been renumbered to subsection (d) and has been modified for 

clarity. 

A new subsection (e) has been added to identify the specific subsections from which a 

53-foot or longer box-type trailer is exempted from when being pulled by a local-haul 

tractor. 

A new subsection (f) has been added to identify the specific subsections a 2011 or 

subsequent model year sleeper cab HD tractor is exempted from when pulling a localhaul trailer. 
- 8 - 

Short-Haul Tractor and Short-Haul Trailer Exemption Requirements (section 

95306) 

As discussed above, changes have been made throughout section 95306 to reflect the 

redefinition of “short-haul” tractors and trailers as “short-haul” tractors and “local-haul” 

tractors and trailers. 

Subsection (a) has been modified to remove Executive Officer approval criteria from the 

short-haul and local-haul tractor and trailer exemption requirements. Approval is 

granted automatically as long as all requirements specified in section 95306 are met. 

Subsections (b) through (e) have been modified to make the owner contact information 

required consistent with the information required in section 95307, Optional Fleet 

Compliance Schedules. 

Subsection (f), the requirement to provide a map of the local-haul base location, 

originally thought to be a useful compliance tool, has been determined to be 

unnecessary and was deleted. 

Subsection (g) has been renumbered as subsection (f) and has been modified to clearly 

identify the information required to be submitted to the Executive Officer. The 

statements required to be submitted have also been modified to reflect the removal of 

Executive Officer approval criteria from the exemption requirements. 

New subsection (g) has been added to clarify how long the exemption will be in effect 

for owners of local-haul tractors or trailers; and to require owners to notify the Executive 

Officer of reported information changes. 

Subsection (h), which defined the exemption period for all short-haul tractors and 

trailers as one year from the date of the approval letter, has been deleted. 

New subsections (h) and (i) clarify that owners of local-haul tractors or trailers, and 

owners of short-haul tractors, are required to notify the Executive Officer and update 

applicable tractor and trailer fleet list information when these vehicles are removed from 

local or short haul service. The requirements state that this notification must occur prior 

to the vehicle’s change in ownership or prior to traveling on California highways, 

whichever comes first. The reason for this language is to ensure the exempt status of 

these vehicles is removed expeditiously. Also, in new subsection (i), a provision was 

added that does not allow a short-haul tractor that was dropped from an owner’s shorthaul fleet to be added back into the fleet sooner than 3 years from the removal date. 

This language was added to prevent circumvention of the rule by opting in and out of 

the short-haul exemption fleet. 

New subsection (j) has been added to clarify the length of time an exemption is in effect 

for an owner of a short-haul tractor. 
- 9 - 

Subsection (i) has been renumbered as subsection (k) and has been modified to clarify 

that drivers must, upon demand, provide the information specified in this subsection for 

exempt local-haul trailers. 

New subsection (l) has been added to provide enforcement personnel the authority to 

directly view the odometer of HD tractors when enforcing the short- haul exemption 

50,000 annual miles travelled requirement. 

New subsections (m) through (o) have been added to clarify that exceeding the 

applicable limits for short-haul tractors (50,000 miles per year) and local-haul tractors 

and trailers (travel within a 100 mile radius of the vehicle’s local-haul base) are 

violations of this subarticle. 

Optional Trailer Fleet Compliance Schedules (section 95307) 

Section 95307 has been restructured for clarity and to allow for referencing of the 

requirements defined in the introductory eight paragraphs. The information contained in 

these paragraphs has been either deleted from this subarticle because it was 

redundant, transferred to new subsection (a) Trailer Fleet Compliance Schedule 

Applicability, transferred to section 95302 Definitions, or transferred to new subsections 

(f)(19) and (f)(20). To accommodate new subsection (a), subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), 

and (e) have been renumbered to subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f), respectively. 

In subsection (a), which has been renumbered as subsection (b), Large Fleet 

Compliance Schedule, and subsection (b), which has been renumbered as subsection 

(c), Small Fleet Compliance Schedule, the large and small fleet compliance threshold 

dates have been changed from December 31 to January 1. Also, for clarity the term 

“conformance” has replaced the term “compliance” where applicable. In addition, the 

requirement for the fleet owner to provide evidentiary documentation for early 

compliance trailers has been deleted, since information identifying the early compliance 

trailer is required as part of the trailer fleet list. Also, the requirements defining the 

maximum allowable number of delayed compliance trailers has been deleted and 

replaced with requirements defining the maximum allowable number of early 

compliance trailers. This change has been made because it is simpler for the fleet 

owner to determine the number of early compliance trailers, than to calculate the 

number of delayed compliance trailers. Finally, in subsections (b)(2) and (c)(2), the 

requirement for the fleet owner to provide a copy of the registration for each trailer listed 

on the trailer fleet list has been determined to be unnecessary and deleted. 

In subsection (c), which has been renumbered as subsection (d), General Compliance 

Plan Components, the information required to be submitted in the trailer fleet list, 

subsection (d)(2), has been modified as follows: 

• For clarity, the address information required to be provided has been 

specifically listed. 
- 10 - 

• New subsection (L) has been added requiring the DOORS (Diesel Off-road 

Online Reporting System) identification number of the owner’s corporate parent 

to be submitted. 

• Subsection (K) has been renumbered to subsection (M) and clarifies that 

owners that elect to participate in the large fleet compliance schedule are 

required to report all trailers that will operate in California, while owners that 

elect to participate in the small fleet compliance schedule are required to list all 

trailers that will operate both inside and outside California. Previously, small 

fleet owners were required only to list trailers that will operate in California. 

This change has been made to improve the enforceability of the small fleet 

compliance provisions. 

• Subsection (N) identifies the information required to be submitted for each 

trailer participating in an optional compliance plan. Vehicle identification 

number, registration type, county of registration, exemption status, and 

California operating status were added to improve enforceability of the 

regulation. The information listed that is required for each refrigerated-van 

trailer listed in the trailer fleet list has been reduced from eight to two items: 

transport refrigeration unit (TRU) model year and TRU engine model year. 

ARB determined the six deleted information requirements were unnecessary to 

ensure compliance. 

Subsection (c)(3), which has been renumbered as subsection (d)(3), has been modified 

to clarify which trailers are to be included in the compliance plan base list. 

Subsection (c)(4), which has been renumbered as subsection (d)(4), has been modified 

to reflect terminology changes (compliance to conformance) and to clarify how the 

annual conformance commitment list is to be determined by the trailer owner. The 

requirement specifying how the trailers shall be listed has been deleted because it was 

determined by ARB to be unnecessary and overly prescriptive. 

In subsection (d), which has been renumbered as subsection (e), Calculation 

Methodology, the calculation methodology has been modified. Equation 2 has been 

modified and renumbered to equation 3, and a new equation 2 has been added. These 

changes were made to remove trailers that will not travel on California highways from 

the calculation of the small fleet compliance plan base number. Equation 3 has been 

modified and renumbered to equation 5. The new equation 5 is used to calculate the 

maximum allowable number of early compliance trailers, rather than the maximum 

allowable delayed compliance trailers. As mentioned earlier, this change has been 

made because it is simpler for the fleet owner to calculate the number of early 

compliance trailers, than to calculate the number of delayed compliance trailers. 

In subsection (e), which has been renumbered as subsection (f), General Requirements 

for all Compliance Schedules, requirements have been added or modified that: 

• update the information to be provided as part of the trailer fleet list for clarity 

and to accommodate trailers based in Mexico and Canada, 
- 11 - 

• clarify that an owner participating in the small fleet compliance schedule may 

only operate a trailer in California that is included in the owner’s trailer fleet list, 

unless the trailer is acquired after the compliance plan due date and is 

compliant with the equipment requirements of the regulation, 

• allow a trailer owner to remove a trailer identified in the compliance plan base 

list and re-designate it as a local-haul trailer, 

• allow compliance plan revisions for owners whose companies are affected by a 

merger, acquisition, split or other changed circumstance affecting operations, 

• do not allow compliance plan participation for owners of affected businesses 

(i.e. motor carriers) that form after the compliance plan submission due date, 

• clarify that the Executive Officer may make public the non-confidential 

information submitted pursuant to the optional fleet compliance plan 

requirements, 

• clarify that the Executive Officer may terminate a fleet’s participation in a 

compliance schedule if the fleet is found in violation of this subarticle, 

• clarify the scenarios in which an owner participating in the large fleet 

compliance schedule may operate a trailer subject to the requirements of this 

subarticle, and 

• clearly state that any violation of the requirements of subsection 95307 is a 

violation of this subarticle. 

B. MODIFICATIONS MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE 15-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT 

PERIOD 

After the 15-day comment period, ARB has made several nonsubstantive changes to 

the regulation as summarized below. Each of these modifications constitutes a 

nonsubstantial change to the regulatory text because, as described in greater detail 

below, each modification clarifies the text without materially altering the requirements, 

rights, responsibilities, conditions or prescriptions in the regulation as last circulated for 

public comment on September 17, 2009. In addition to the specific modifications 

described below, the regulatory text was modified to correct formatting and punctuation 

errors, none of which altered the meaning of the text. At several locations in the text 

where a list of requirements appeared without punctuation, semicolons were added 

after each item in the list and the word “and” was added before the final item in the list 

for consistency purposes. In each case where this was done, the regulatory text 

already made clear that the list was inclusive and that all items in the list had be to 

completed or provided as part of the requirement. 
- 12 - 

1. Section 95302 

(a) Deleted definitions (25) “Front trailer fairing” and (50) “Trailer side skirt” and 

renumbered the remaining definitions. This change does not material alter 

the substance of the regulation because neither of the deleted terms were 

used anywhere in the modified text of the regulation. 

(b) Deleted a stray letter that was inadvertently left in the text when the word 

“either” was marked for deletion from the definition for “Short-Haul Tractor” as 

part of the September 17, 2009 modifications circulated for public comment. 

2. Sections 95300, 95301, 95302, 95303, 95306, and 95307 

 The phrases “on California highways”, “on a California highway”, “on a highway 

within California”, “on a highway in California”, and ”on highways in California” 

were used interchangeably in the September 17, 2009 text. For improved 

consistency and clarity, the phrase “on a highway within California” was substituted 

for each occurrence. 

3. Sections 95303, 95306, and 95307 

The phrases “contact person’s name”, “name of contact”, and “contact’s name” 

were interchangeably used to designate “contact person’s name” for the fleet 

owner, the motor carrier or the broker. For improved consistency and clarity, these 

phrases were replaced with the phrase “contact person’s name.” Similarly, the 

term “contact’s title” was changed to “contact person’s title.” 

4. Section 95306(n) and (o) 

Replaced the phrase “in an area” with the phrase “at a location” to improve clarity 

of the text. The phrase is used to identify a location that is farther than 100 miles 

away from the local-haul base for application of one of the regulation’s 

exemptions. 

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 24, 2008 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 another heavy-duty vehicle regulation, Regulation to Reduce 

Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants, 

and Greenhouse Gases from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles” (Truck and 

Bus Regulation). Written and oral comments provided for both rulemakings were 

carefully examined to determine whether they related to this rulemaking only, the Truck 

and Bus Regulation only, or both. This FSOR only addresses the relevant comments 

related to the GHG rulemaking. 
- 13 - 

Listed below are the organizations and individuals that provided comments during the 

45-day comment period. 

Written Commentor 

(45-day Period) 

Affiliation Abbreviation 

Alford, Charlie Alford Distributing Company Alford 

Altrichter, Kirk Gorden Trucking, Inc. GTI 

Anderson, Mike Mendicino County Board of 

Supervisors 

MendicinoCo 

Anonymous None Anonymous 

Berry, Bob None Berry 

Blubaugh, Timothy A. Engine Manufacturers Association EMA 

Bowans, Jim None Bowans 

Brian, Tom None Brian 

Broad, Barry California Teamsters Public Affairs 

Council 

CTPAC 

Burke, Rob None Burke 

Burroughs, John None Burroughs 

Bush, Kevin None Bush 

Carey, Steve National Trailer Dealers Association NTDA 

Charette, Larry Silver Valley Propane SVP 

Cortie, Steve None Cortie 

Costales, Ric Siskiyou County SiskiyouCo 

Cox, Andy Mike Campbell & Associates MCA 

Crum, Michael Mike Crum Trucking MCT 

D., R. None R.D. 

Davies, Les None Davies 

DeVecchi, Randy Industrial Drayage, Inc. IDI 

Denvir, Peter None Denvir 

DiSalvo, Sal None DiSalvo 

Doggett, Mike None Doggett 

Eaton, Tom None Eaton 

Elliff, Budd None Elliff 

Ellington, Ty Anza Gas Service, Inc. AGSI 

Faulkner, Ron Faulkner Trucking, Inc. FTI 

Fitzgerald, Kathy None Fitzgerald 

Fleck, Jonathan Deflecktor Deflecktor 

Ford, Jim C.R. England, Inc. CREI 

Fortier, Tim None Fortier 

Frank, Susan Submitted on behalf on the following 

organizations and individuals: 

Wafaa Aborashed, Bay Area Healthy 

880 Communities – San Leandro; 

Don Anair, Union of Concerned 

Scientists; 

MULTIPLE 
- 14 - 

Written Commentor 

(45-day Period) 

Affiliation Abbreviation 

Tina Andolina, Planning and 

Conservation League; 

Diane Bailey, Natural Resources 

Defense Council; 

Nidia Bautista, Coalition for Clean Air; 

Brian Beveridge, West Oakland 

Environmental Indicators Project; 

Rajiv Bhatia, MD, MPH; 

Mara Burstein, Environment Now; 

Patricia Castellanos, Los Angeles 

Alliance for a New Economy; 

Tom Frantz,Association of Irritated 

Residents; 

Catherine Garoupa, Madera Coalition 

for Community Justice; 

Elina Green, MPH, Long Beach 

Alliance for Children with Asthma; 

Dede Greybeck, RN; 

Kevin Hamilton & Dr. David Pepper, 

Medical Advocates for Healthy Air; 

Allyson Holman, Merced/Mariposa 

County Asthma Coalition; 

Bonnie Holmes-Gen & Linda Weiner, 

American Lung Association of 

California; 

Andy Katz, Breathe California; 

Lisa Kayser-Grant, Moms Clean Air 

Network; 

Marylia Kelley, Tri-Valley Cares; 

Dr. Michael Kelly, San Diego Regional 

Asthma Coalition; 

Anne Lamb, Regional Asthma 

Management and Prevention & 

Community Action to Fight Asthma; 

Isaac Lieberman; 

Angelo Logan, East Yard 

Communities for Environmental 

Justice; 

Bill Magavern, Sierra Club; 

Nury Martinez, Pacoima Beautiful; 

Brent Newell, Center on Race, 

Poverty & the Environment; 

Jill Ratner, Rose Foundation for 

Communities and the Environment; 
- 15 - 

Written Commentor 

(45-day Period) 

Affiliation Abbreviation 

Betsy Reifsnider, Catholic Charities, 

Diocese of Stockton; 

Sarah Sharpe, Fresno Metro Ministry; 

Jim Stewart, Earth Day Los Angeles; 

Madelyn Weiss, MD; 

Ed Welch, Save the Air in Nevada 

County; 

Ryan Wiggins, EndOil; 

Joy Williams, Environmental Health 

Coalition; 

Barbara Young, MA, Sonoma County 

Asthma Coalition; 

Gates, Cecil Crown Fence Company CFC 

Gill, Rachelle None Gill 

Goliti, Rob None Goliti 

Grewal, Randy None Grewal 

Groves Jr, William None Groves 

Hall, Ron C.R. England, Inc. CREI2 

Heilman, Ted None Heilman 

Hobbs, Tony Baker Trucking, Inc. BTI 

Hoffman, Curt None Hoffman 

Howe, G. D & H Transportation DHT 

Iaconis, Samuel Sammy’s Transportation, Inc. STI 

Ingram, Bill None Ingram 

Jenkins, Larry None Jenkins 

Jones, Gary None Jones1 

Jones, Guy None Jones2 

Keppel, Charles None Keppel 

Klenske, Terry Dalton Trucking, Inc. DTI 

Krauss, Kenneth None Krauss 

Kustin, Camille Environmental Defense Fund EDF 

Lawley, Rodney None Lawley 

Liese, Valerie Jack Jones Trucking, Inc. JJTI 

Lloyd, Kenny None Lloyd 

Long, Larry and 

Dianne 

L & D Transportion LDT 

Luiz, Tony T&L Trucking LLC TLTLLC 

Malchow, Randal None Malchow 

Mason, Bob None Mason 

McGinnis, Patrick None McGinnis 

Morton, Jim Morton Trucking MT 

Murray, Michael Glen County Board of Supervisors GlenCo 

Nard, Nancy None Nard 
- 16 - 

Written Commentor 

(45-day Period) 

Affiliation Abbreviation 

Neal, Danny None Neal 

Nelthorpe, Ron None Nelthorpe 

Nielsen, Donald Nielsen Trucking Co. NTC 

O'Sullivan, Dennis Blue Star Gas Garberville Company BSGGC 

Panella, Matt None Panella 

Perrigue, Grover None Perrigue 

Phillips, Andrew None Phillips1 

Phillips, John None Phillips2 

Rader, Eric None Rader 

Rasmussen, Karen Arizona Trucking Association AZTA 

Renner, Mike Rock Hard Transportation, Inc. RHTI 

Rose Padel, Deanne None RosePadel 

Ross, Karen None Ross 

Sambucetti, Don None Sambucetti1 

Sambucetti, John None Sambucetti2 

Sanders, Kit None Sanders 

Sargent, Marie None Sargent 

Sauer, Eric California Trucking Association CTA1 

Schrap, Matt California Trucking Association CTA2 

Senecal, Patty International Warehouse Logistics 

Association 

IWLA 

Shallenberger, John None Shallenberger 

Shuemake, Mike Central Valley Trailer Repair, Inc. CVTRI 

Simon, Roger M. Pioneer Trailer Sales PTS 

Smith, Frank None Smith 

Smith, William N. Smith Trucking, LLC STLLC 

Spainhoward, John None Spainhoward 

Stallings, Rod Rod’s Truck Repair, Inc. RTRI 

Tata, Rajiv Truck Trailer Manufacturer 

Association 

TTMA 

Taylor, Cheryl Avenal Chimes Newspaper ACN 

Torres Jr., Joe None Torres 

Torres, Chris F & L Farms Trucking, Inc. FLFTI 

Tunnell, Michael American Trucking Associations ATA

Upfold, William None Upfold 

Van Wingerden, June None VanWingerden 

Vasconi, Andrew None Vasconi 

Vercruyssen, Rene None Vercruyssen 

Williamson, Daniel None Williamson 

Wood, Richard SOLUS-Solutions and Technologies 

LLC 

SOLUS 

Wright, C. Edmund None Wright 

Yandell, John Yandell Truckaway, Inc. YTI 
- 17 - 

Written Commentor 

(45-day Period) 

Affiliation Abbreviation 

Zinn, Richard Rich Zinn Trucking RZT 

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

following commentors. 

Written Commentor 

(Submitted at 

Hearing) 

Affiliation Abbreviation 

 

Allen, David Allenco Consulting Group ACG 

Banks, Sharon Cascade Sierra Solutions CSS 

Fleck, Johnathan Deflecktor Deflecktor 

Ganduglia, Jim Agrium US Inc. Agruim 

Gaussoin, Gary Silver Eagle Manufacturing Company Silver Eagle 

Kayes, David Daimler Trucks North America Daimler 

Marsom, Matthew Public Health Institute PHI 

Smith, Andrew Advanced Transit Dynamics, Inc. ATDynamics 

Smith, Neil Con-way Freight Con-way 

Tichelman, Robert Windyne Windyne 

At the December 11, 2008 public hearing, oral testimony was presented by the following 

commentors. 

Oral Commentor at 

Hearing 

Affiliation Abbreviation 

Acott, Andy Laydon Composites Laydon 

Allen, David Allenco Consulting ACG 

Anair, Don Union of Concerned Scientists UCS 

Arriola, Anna None Arriola 

Bailey, Diane Natural Resources Defense 

Council 

NRDC 

Banks, Sharon Cascade Sierra Solutions CSS 

Broad, Barry California Teamsters Public 

Affairs Council 

CTPAC 

Cohen, Brian None Cohen 

Collier, Michael C.C. Mathes, Inc. CDMI 

Cox, Andy Mike Campbell & Associates MCA 

Delbar, Michael County of Mendocino MendocinoCo 

Diaz, Charles Charles Diaz Trucking, Inc. CDTI 

Drisker, Tiana Communities for Better 

Environment 

CBE 
- 18 - 

Oral Commentor at 

Hearing 

Affiliation Abbreviation 

Faulkner, Ron Faulkner Trucking, Inc. FTI 

Fleck, John Deflecktor Deflecktor 

Ganduglia, Jim Ganduglia Trucking/Agrium US 

Inc. 

Agrium 

Gaussoin, Gary Silver Eagle Manufacturing Co. Silver Eagle 

Goliti, Rob Air Carrier Goliti 

Graham, Sean Freight Wing, Inc. Freight Wing 

Hall, Ron C.R. England, Inc. CREI2 

Hansen, Jacqui Breathe California Breathe 

Holmes-Gen, Bonnie American Lung Association ALA 

Kayes, David Daimler Trucks North America Daimler 

Lopez, Felipe Consejo de Federaciones de 

Estados Mexicanas 

Lopez 

Magavern, Bill Sierra Club Sierra 

Marsom, Matthew Public Health Insitute PHI 

Matheson, Mark Matheson Trucking Matheson 

McDaniel, Michael Continental Tire Continental 

Miller, Dan Save Mart Supermarket SMS 

Nunes, Albert J. A.C. Trucking ACT 

Paparian, Michael California Pollution Control 

Financing Authority 

CPCFA 

Rees, Brian California Poultry Foundation CPF 

Reifsnider, Betsy Stockton Diocese Diocese 

Rose, Kathy Nose Cone Manufacturing Co. Nose Cone 

Schrap, Matthew California Trucking Association CTA2 

Senecal, Patty International Warehousing & 

Logistics Association 

IWLA 

Shumake, Mike Central Valley Trailer Repair CVTRI 

Simpson, Charlie E.M. Tharp, Inc. Tharp 

Smith, Andrew ATDynamics ATDynamics 

Smith, Neal Con-Way Freight Con-Way 

Tichelman, Robert Windyne Windyne 

Trump, Paul Mike Campbell & Associates MCA2 

Tunnell, Michael American Trucking Association ATA 

Yandell, John Yandell Truckaway YTI 

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

as the agency response, including the explanation of how the regulation was changed 

to accommodate the comment or of the reasons for making no change to the regulation. 

Comments not involving objections or recommendations specifically directed toward the 

rulemaking or to the procedures followed by ARB in this rulemaking are not included. 
- 19 - 

The comments summarized below are divided into 13 subsections: (A) General 

Comments, (B) Scope of the Regulation, (C) U.S. EPA SmartWay Program, (D) 

Standards and Test Procedures, (E) Technology, (F) Safety, (G) Economic Impact, (H) 

Financial Assistance/Incentives, (I) Emission Inventory, (J) Outreach, (K) 

Implementation and Phase-in Schedule, (L) Compliance and Enforcement, and (M) 

Miscellaneous. 

A. General Comments 

1. Comment: The proposed regulation should not be adopted because the 

current economic situation is poor and truck owners do not have the financial 

means to comply with the requirements. It should be delayed and reviewed 

again at a later date when the economy can support such a program. (Doggett, 

DHT, DTI, Groves, Hoffman, JJTI, Malchow, Sargent, Shallenberger, 

VanWingerden, Vercruyssen, Williamson)

The state is already in bad shape. This regulation will cause more 

unemployment and financial hardship, especially to small businesses, in this 

state. (Burroughs, Bush, Denvir, Fitzgerald, Hoffman, Jones2, Krauss, Nard, 

Neal, MT, PTS, TLTLLC) 

The proposed regulation places a significant economic risk on the State and 

jeopardizes future viability in almost every industry. Your responsibility is not 

only to the health of the people and our environment but also to their financial 

welfare. (Vasconi) 

We are in a financial crisis. Do we want to strap small businesses and run 

them out of business, cause the State to lose the kind of revenue that you’re 

talking about here, in a time when we need to worry about the coffers of the 

State? (ACG, Agrium) 

The proposed regulation is a sure way to add to the closure and bankruptcy 

woes. We need to continue research and find additional ways to clean up the 

air. It is not timely given the economy. (Jones1)

The proposed standards are too aggressive. The economy is slumbering and 

will become comatose if we do not incentivize instead of penalize. (Torres)

Agency Response: The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 

(AB32) 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, fire fighting, 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 
- 20 - 

future due to our inaction. Many measures will be adopted pursuant to AB32 in 

the coming years, but this regulation in particular is one that has been 

designated as a discrete early action item, which means it must set forth 

requirements that are enforceable starting January 1, 2010. Because of this 

statutory mandate and the urgent need to begin reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions at this time, this regulation cannot be delayed. That said, while the 

primary goal of this regulation is 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 longterm costs for the freight transportation industry. The cost of fuel is a significant 

expenditure in this industry and even modest efficiency improvements will result 

in very substantial fuel savings. ARB realizes the capital costs needed for 

compliance may be difficult for many fleets in this 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. In 

addition, ARB has also been working to make financial assistance programs 

available to those businesses affected by this regulation. A summary of some 

available financial assistance and grant programs may be found in Section I of 

the Staff Report. See also agency responses in section H, Financial 

Assistance/Incentives, for more information about available financial assistance 

resources and the current economic climate. 

2. Comment: Please consider a flexible and attainable policy that will not hurt the 

business environment. Consider a more manageable approach to support 

businesses. (BSGGC, Cortie, Panella, RTRI, TLTLLC)

Agency Response: See agency response to comment #1. In addition, the 

regulation incorporates flexibility for businesses through the optional fleet 

compliance plans. These plans allow fleets to choose to delay some of their 

up-front costs and phase-in compliance over several years (4 years for small 

fleets with less than 21 trailers, and 5 years for large fleets with 21 or more 

trailers; large fleets may get an additional year if they meet certain early 

compliance requirements). 

3. Comment: All the issues associated with the proposed regulation have not 

been considered. The Board should look at all aspects of the proposed 

regulation, including the impact on the supply chain, the state and local 

economy, and unemployment rates, as well as the long term ramifications. The 

proposed regulation will devastate the trucking industry and their vendors and 

suppliers. The Board should make decisions that will be beneficial to all 

involved and allow businesses to continue doing business in the State. (FTI)

Agency Response: As stated in the Staff Report: Initial Statement of 

Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking (Staff Report), The California Global 
- 21 - 

Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) requires that climate change 

regulations must consider the impacts on the economy of the state. The 

consideration should include, but not be limited to, the impacts of the 

regulations on jobs and businesses, and California business competitiveness. 

In its analysis, ARB determined that, over the course of an 11-year equipment 

lifespan, from 2010 to 2020, affected stakeholders should realize an 

approximate net savings of $8.6 billion in 2008-dollar values. While there will 

be modest up-front costs associated with the regulation before the fuel savings 

occur, ARB anticipates that with the optional compliance phase-in programs 

incorporated in the regulation, businesses will be able to defer some of the 

costs of retrofits over a several year period. In addition, for those smaller 

businesses that may have difficulty financing these upgrades, financial 

assistance will be available to assist them. A summary of some available 

financial assistance and grant programs may be found in Section I of the Staff 

Report. See also agency responses in section H, Financial 

Assistance/Incentives, for more information about available financial assistance 

resources and the current economic climate 

The regulation will also likely increase demand for aerodynamic devices and 

low-rolling resistance tires, which may result in the creation or expansion of 

businesses involved in the manufacturing, distributing, and marketing of these 

devices. 

4. Comment: We believe that California does not have the authority to impose 

these and any other state-specific equipment requirements on interstate 

vehicles. The interstate and global nature of commerce today requires United 

States motor carriers to operate equipment compliant with the laws and 

regulations of all states, Canada, and Mexico. (AZTA)

Agency Response: It is true that motor carriers must use equipment that is 

compliant with the law and regulations of all states and nations where the 

equipment is being operated. In the United States, individual states are 

allowed to adopt rules relating to operation of vehicles when there is a 

legitimate state interest in regulating and the rules do not violate the Commerce 

Clause of the United States Constitution. 

The rulemaking record, including the Staff Report and the Board resolution 

adopting the regulation, establishes California’s strong interest in adopting 

measures to curb the emissions of greenhouse gases, including through AB 32 

early action items such as this one. This regulation and others developed by 

ARB under authority of AB 32 represent an exercise of the state’s police 

powers to protect public health, traditionally a function of states. 

This measure only regulates tractors and trailers that are operating within 

California. It does not directly regulate or discriminate against interstate 

commerce, substantially impede the flow of interstate commerce, or have an 
- 22 - 

effect that favors in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests. In 

addition, the regulation’s indirect effects on interstate commerce are incidental 

and minor, particularly when compared to the public health benefits that will be 

achieved as a result of the measure's implementation and the fact that the cost 

to vehicle owners of installing and maintaining the equipment will typically be 

recouped in a few years through fuel savings. The regulation is also designed 

to give operators ample time to decide what equipment they will operate in 

California and to bring that equipment into compliance on a reasonable 

schedule. Considering all of this, ARB does not believe the regulation violates 

the Commerce Clause under the balancing test used by the courts to analyze 

state regulations affecting interstate commerce. 

ARB also notes that the regulation does not introduce a new state standard or 

certification program, but relies on an existing federal certification program that 

is known to and has been utilized by equipment manufacturers and makes use 

of equipment certified under that program mandatory in California.

5. Comment: Having to dedicate a fleet or portion of a fleet to one state’s 

requirements is extremely costly and inefficient. In today’s economic 

environment, the regulation imposes unacceptable costs on the businesses 

least able to absorb these increases. (AZTA)

Agency Response: The regulation does not mandate how fleets from outside 

California may choose to comply, as long as they meet the requirements when 

operating in California. However, the regulation does offer optional compliance 

schedules that will allow fleets time to phase-in compliance, thereby deferring 

much of the up-front costs over several years. In addition, complying with this 

regulation will save fleets money, over time. As stated in agency response to 

comment #3, ARB’s analysis determined that, over the course of an 11-year 

equipment lifespan, from 2010 to 2020, affected stakeholders should realize an 

approximate net savings of $8.6 billion in 2008 dollar values. ARB further 

determined that individual fleets will, on average, recoup the costs to comply 

over a 2.3-year period (based on a trailer-to-tractor ratio of 2.5-to-1 and an 

estimated fuel cost of $3.14 per gallon). 

6. Comment: ARB should consider the developing national landscape of fuel 

efficiency requirements and GHG emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles. 

Reducing GHG emissions from products like commercial vehicles – which 

fundamentally operate in interstate commerce and must be manufactured to be 

sold and operated in all states – would be most effectively accomplished under 

a harmonized set of regulations across the United States. ARB should work 

with interested stakeholders, including United States Department of 

Transportation (DOT) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(U.S. EPA), to develop performance-based standards, and use those as a 

basis of an integrated program to effectively reduce fuel consumed by the 

commercial trucking industry. (EMA)
- 23 - 

Agency Response: AB 32 requires ARB to develop and implement the 

regulation in California, beginning January 1, 2010. That timeframe cannot be 

delayed until a federal rulemaking is developed and implemented. That being 

said, ARB is collaborating with the U.S. EPA as they enhance the SmartWay 

program standards, which are the basis for this regulation’s standards. 

 

7. Comment: We respectfully request that the Board vote “no” on the proposed 

regulation because we oppose a rule that mandates unproven and costly 

technologies. (AZTA)

Agency Response: The regulation’s technology requirements are based upon 

the U.S. EPA SmartWay program. This program uses established test 

methods, demonstrating the benefits of U.S EPA’s verified SmartWay 

technologies. Thus, owners can be confident in the benefits of the verified 

technologies and have the option of choosing any vehicle or technology that 

SmartWay has certified or verified to meet the minimum performance standard 

required by this rule. While there is some initial, modest up-front cost 

associated with the regulation before fuel gains occur, ARB has determined 

that, over the course of an 11-year equipment lifespan, from 2010 to 2020, 

affected stakeholders should realize an approximate net savings of $8.6 billion 

in 2008 dollar values. 

8. Comment: California and its government agencies are insensitive and blind to 

the concerns of the trucking industry and the needs of the people. (Doggett, 

Elliff, Keppel, Lloyd, LDT, MT, Taylor)

Agency Response: ARB is not insensitive or blind to the concerns of the 

trucking industry and the needs of the people. Required under California’s 

regulatory processes, ARB analyzes both the economic impact and benefits on 

the affected business industry and the citizens of California. Throughout the 

process of developing the regulation, ARB sought input from representatives of 

the trucking industry, as well as other stakeholder groups who will be impacted 

by the regulation. ARB has incorporated as much flexibility in the regulation as 

is feasible (in terms of offering optional phase-in opportunities) while still 

meeting the goals of AB 32. 

9. Comment: The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

Technical Paper VI, the technical basis for global warming, is not sufficient 

justification for the proposed regulation. The words used in the paper, “likely,” 

“high confidence,”, and “assume,” are not the most convincing words of 

science. (Lloyd)

Agency Response: The basis for the regulation is the California Global 

Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which was passed by the legislature 

and signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger. It set into law a requirement 
- 24 - 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by the year 

2020. To accomplish this, it directed ARB to develop discrete early actions to 

reduce greenhouse gases while also preparing a scoping plan to identify how to 

achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in 

greenhouse gas emissions from sources or categories of sources of 

greenhouse gases by 2020. The current regulation is one of the identified 

discrete early action measures. It is beyond the scope of this regulation to 

address the veracity of words used in the above-mentioned United Nations 

document. 

10. Comment: The regulations will not bring global carbon dioxide levels down by 

any significant level. That process is occurring naturally, and must be given 

more time to occur. (Jones2)

Agency Response: As stated previously, AB 32 set into law a requirement to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by the year 2020. 

To accomplish this, it directed ARB to develop discrete early actions to reduce 

greenhouse gases while also preparing a scoping plan to identify how to 

achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in 

greenhouse gas emissions from sources or categories of sources of 

greenhouse gases by 2020. The regulation is one of many measures 

developed by ARB to meet the requirements of AB 32, either as discrete early 

action measures, or through various measures identified in the scoping plan. 

Thus, while any one measure may not reduce global carbon dioxide levels 

significantly to reverse climate change, the combined impact of all the proposed 

measures is designed to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and 

cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from a wide range of 

sources by the year 2020. 

11. Comment: We would like to see a “level playing field” for California-based 

companies in relation to out-of-state competitors. (ACT, CPF, Matheson, Goliti)

Agency Response: The regulation requires all affected fleets (tractor-trailers 

with 53-foot or longer box-type trailers) that travel long haul on California 

highways, regardless of their state or country of origin, to comply with its 

requirements. Thus, the regulation will not give out-of-state carriers that do 

business in California undue advantage over California-based companies. 

12. Comment: These rules are late in the making and take too long to implement. 

I urge quick passage, fast and full implementation of these rules. (Cohen)

Agency Response: As one of the discrete early action measures mandated 

by AB 32, the regulation must become enforceable by January 1, 2010. 

Implementation for new (2011 and newer model year) tractors and trailers will 

begin on January 1, 2010, while implementation for pre-2011 model year 

tractors and trailers will be phased in over several years, to allow fleets time to 
- 25 - 

comply while still achieving the targeted greenhouse gas emission savings by 

2020. 

13. Comment: We have several trailers running across the nation with all different 

types of aerodynamics on them. We think it’s a great thing. But we would like 

to see you not make it unilateral across the trucking industry, because 

aerodynamics don’t always benefit all driving situations. (Matheson)

Agency Response: This regulation does not impose requirements unilaterally 

across the trucking industry, but rather targets long-haul tractors (that pull 53-

foot and longer box-type trailers), because these vehicles are more likely to 

benefit from using aerodynamic devices. On average, long-haul tractor-trailers 

tend to travel at high enough speeds to realize significant fuel efficiency savings 

from using aerodynamic devices. The regulation also provides exemptions for 

equipment that operate locally or infrequently that will not benefit from the 

technology and will not benefit the goals of reducing greenhouse gases. Fleets 

have the option to select the devices that best meet their needs and 

circumstances from among the devices verified by the SmartWay program. As 

more equipment manufacturers submit applications to have their devices 

verified by SmartWay, ARB anticipates that fleets will have even more 

equipment options from which to choose. 

14. Comment: We object to being subjected to multiple rules (TRU, HDVGHG, 

Truck and Bus) impacting tractors and trailers (CDMI, MCA2, Mendocino Co, 

Goliti)

Agency Response: 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. In addition, for 

fleets with refrigerated-van trailers with model years 2003 through 2008 

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. 

15. Comment: Truckers purchase new tractors and trailers that comply with 

regulations established by the government. Now, you want us to shoulder the 

burden of extra equipment for retrofit even though the equipment when 

purchased already complied with the applicable regulations. (JJTI) 

Agency Response: For 2010 and older model year tractors, the regulation 

only requires the use of SmartWay verified low-rolling-resistance tires starting 

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 
- 26 - 

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 development of this regulation, and 

based on the 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 general 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, in addition 

to SmartWay verified tires, 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. 

16. Comment: California is too far ahead of the rest of the country on its 

regulatory requirements. As a result, it will be difficult for the trucking industry 

to comply with these requirements. (Brian)

Agency Response: ARB acknowledges that ARB often takes a leading role in 

the nation in developing regulations to curtail air pollution and protect the health 

and welfare of the people of California. At the same time, ARB has 

incorporated as much flexibility in the regulation as possible (within the 

constraints of AB 32) to allow the trucking industry time to comply. 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. In addition, for fleets with refrigerated-van trailers with model 

years 2003 through 2008 and transport refrigeration units (TRUs) with 2003 or 

later model years, additional time to comply is provided due to the impact of the 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for TRU and TRU generator sets. 

17. Comment: In lieu of the proposed regulation, it would be more reasonable to 

test individual trucks to see how much pollution is emitted and then create 
- 27 - 

programs that will assist owners of polluting equipment to make the needed 

changes. (LDT)

Agency Response: The regulation, based upon the AB 32 mandate to reduce 

California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, is part 

of an extensive program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in California from 

all sources. In developing this regulation ARB was required by AB 32 to 

consider how to achieve “the maximum technologically feasible and costeffective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” Therefore, this regulation is 

designed to improve the fuel efficiency of all affected tractors and trailers 

through the use of aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance tires to 

reduce their CO2 emissions from current levels. In regards to the commenter’s 

suggestion about testing individual trucks, ARB does not believe such testing is 

necessary because SmartWay verified low-rolling-resistance tires and 

aerodynamic technologies are expected to significantly reduce the greenhouse 

gas emissions and improve the fuel economy of any long-haul combination 

vehicle regardless of its baseline emission level. Regarding the commenter’s 

suggestion about creating programs to assists owners, there are a number of 

financial assistance programs that are currently available. Please see section I 

of the Staff Report and agency response to comment #111 for more information 

about financial assistance and grant programs. 

18. Comment: The way the truck rules and the Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) 

rules are dealt with has been unfair and without regard to the actual technology 

available when the rules are made and voted on. (Heilman)

Agency Response: ARB is uncertain about how this comment specifically 

pertains to the regulation, but will respond to the comment nevertheless. As 

illustrated in the Staff Report, ARB investigated the types of aerodynamic 

technologies and low rolling resistance tires certified or verified by the 

SmartWay program and has determined that there are numerous technologies 

available to meet the requirements. Thus, technologies needed to comply with 

the regulation are available in the marketplace today and ARB expects an even 

greater selection of technologies when implementation of the regulation begins. 

19. Comment: ATA’s efforts to achieve these goals are captured in our 

sustainable plan entitled Strategies for Reducing the Trucking Industry’s 

Carbon Footprint. The recommendations set out real solutions for the trucking 

industry that are achievable today to reduce greenhouse gases. The six key 

recommendations set out in the report are as follows: 

• Enact a national 65 mph speed limit and govern maximum truck speeds at 

65 mph; 

• Decrease idling; 

• Reduce highway congestion through highway infrastructure 

improvements; 

• Increase fuel efficiency through U.S. EPA’s SmartWay Program; 
- 28 - 

• Promote the use of more productive truck combinations; and 

• Support national fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty 

trucks. 

(ATA, Con-way) 

Agency Response: ARB commends the commenters for their proactive plan 

and encourages them to pursue each of the six key strategic recommendations. 

Any efforts taken to reduce greenhouse gases produced by the trucking 

industry beyond the requirement of this regulation can only enhance the 

effectiveness of the regulation and the requirements of AB 32. 

B. Scope of the Regulation 

20. Comment: We identified in recent analysis that making full use of these 

products could improve the emission reductions by 50 percent. According to 

staff estimates, 50 percent increases in the regulation would result in 3.5 million 

metric tons of greenhouse gas emission reductions in 2020 – a significant 

improvement. All of these are cost effective. They can be achieved with 

today’s technology. We estimated over $30,000 in net cost savings with these 

technologies with payback periods as short as two years. We ask that the 

Board resolve to come back to this issue in one year’s time to get additional 

reductions and specifically to look at tractor-trailer combinations that have not 

been included in the proposal and also for new trucks and trailers not affected 

by the regulation. (UCS)

The Board should direct staff to return in 6 months time with further 

recommendations to reduce global warming emissions from heavy-duty trucks, 

which is not limited to the requirements of the SmartWay program. Staff should 

include an evaluation of the emission reductions possible from more stringent 

standards for new tractors, trailers, and straight trucks, such as requiring a full 

suite of aerodynamic and tire technologies on these vehicles. (MULTIPLE)

We urge you to adopt this regulation today, but a more aggressive standard is 

possible with the technology that’s on the market today. (UCS, Sierra)

Agency Response: The regulation requires new and existing 53-foot box-type 

trailers and the tractors that pull them to be equipped with SmartWay approved 

aerodynamic and tire technologies when operating on California highways. 

These technologies are verified through the SmartWay Program to meet 

performance and fuel efficiency requirements for long-haul tractors and trailers. 

The requirements mirror those of the current SmartWay Program, applying to 

53-foot box-type dry-van trailers and tractors that pull them. In addition, the 

regulation extends these requirements to apply to another type of box-type 

trailers, 53-foot refrigerated van trailers, because these trailers are similar to 

dry-van trailers, thereby allowing the dry-van SmartWay verified aerodynamic 
- 29 - 

equipment (except front trailer fairings) and tires to be applied to refrigerated 

van trailers without modification. Expanding the required use of the 

technologies to include even more types of trailers as suggested by the 

commenters, however, would require an additional verification program beyond 

the scope of the SmartWay verification program that would have to take into 

account performance, fuel efficiency and other factors. A new technology 

verification program would be necessary because these types of trailers are 

substantially different from dry-van trailers. Such a program does not exist at 

this time and would require substantial resources and time to develop. 

In addition, the commenter suggested the application of the full suite of 

technologies to tractor-trailers. The full suite of technologies entails all the 

types of trailer aerodynamic technologies (front trailer fairings, skirts, and rear 

trailer fairings), a SmartWay certified tractor, and low-rolling resistance tires. 

The regulation requires the latter two items as well as a combination of 

technologies which meet a minimum percentage fuel savings, rather than all of 

the available technologies. Requiring the full suite of technologies on the trailer 

was not part of staff’s proposal to the Board because some of the technologies 

may be too restrictive or impractical for certain types of box-type trailers at this 

time. In addition, requiring every available type of technology may 

unreasonably limit the flexibility of fleets to apply technologies that would 

achieve maximum fuel savings without hindering operational needs. 

21. Comment: To increase the level of emission reductions achieved through this 

proposed regulation, the Board should apply tire requirements to all tractortrailers, not just tractors pulling van trailers and remove the 100-mile range limit 

exemption. Including these two changes would increase overall benefits by 20 

percent or more and not conflict with SmartWay program requirements. (EDF, 

MULTIPLE)

Expand the tire requirements to additional tractor and trailer types. (UCS)

Agency Response: Because this regulation was designated as a discrete 

early action measure under AB 32, ARB did not have time to evaluate the 

impact of the requirements on other vehicle types. For the equipment 

requirements of the regulation, ARB relied solely upon the existing U.S. EPA 

SmartWay program, which currently only addresses the use of efficiency 

technologies on combination vehicles composed of a tractor and a 53-foot van 

trailer. In order to expand the regulation to include other tractor–trailer 

combinations, a separate rulemaking process would be necessary, and the 

owners of these other types of combination vehicles would have to be notified. 

That way, it would give these owners an opportunity to make ARB aware of any 

potential issues or problems the requirements could cause for their particular 

combination vehicle type. This process is necessary to ensure that ARB 

develops a regulation that is both feasible and effective. 
- 30 - 

ARB concurs that the 100-mile range exemption limit for tire requirements on 

affected tractors and trailers be removed because the tire requirements are 

cost effective and reduce GHG emissions when applied to locally operated 

tractors and trailers. This modification was suggested at the Board Hearing 

and approved. It has been noticed to the public as part of the Notice of Public 

Availability of Modified Text (15-day Notice). 

22. Comment: 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 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. 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. Due to these mileage limitations, CTA is requesting that ARB 

increase the short haul radius exemption to 150 miles. This will help carriers 

achieve maximum efficiency benefits within the state. (CTA)

The mileage and territory limitations on the short haul exemption are still too 

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 

typically 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 and a trucking making a round 

trip to Bakersfield from Los Angeles 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. CTA recommends that ARB set the exemption standard for 

tractors at 100,000 miles per year or 150 mile radius. (CTA2)

The mileage requirement for the short-haul exemption should be increased to 

200 miles to protect California carriers. The current short-haul exemption is too 

narrow to incorporate fuel-efficiency gains in urban congestion areas. A truck 

trip from Los Angeles to Bakersfield, San Francisco or San Diego is more than 

100 miles, which means that the truck making this trip would be required to be 

compliant. However, the projected fuel efficiency gained by the proposed rule 

needs to be weighed against the urban congestion of the four trade corridors in 

California. (IWLA) 

Agency Response: Since 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. The 100 mile 

radius distance is calculated in a straight line (i.e., “as the crow flies”) rather 
- 31 - 

than by the distance on the road. The straight line distance between 

Bakersfield and Los Angeles is about 100 miles; therefore a truck traveling 

between these two cities may be exempt from the requirements, depending on 

the starting and ending destinations. 

The commenters did not provide data to substantiate their claims of mileage 

and driving speeds. However, assuming the information is correct, the required 

aerodynamic improvements will still provide substantial fuel savings. First, a 

truck that operates 80,000 annual miles with 25 percent of its mileage at 

freeway speeds will have about 20,000 annual miles at freeway speeds. 

Assuming a fuel economy of 6 miles per gallon, a 7 percent increase in fuel 

efficiency (using a compliant day cab and refrigerated trailer) will be achieved 

due to the requirements, which will result in an annual savings of almost 220 

gallons of fuel. Second, if a vehicle operates for 20 hours per day with multiple 

drivers, a large portion of those driving hours will occur during the night or midday when urban congestion is at a minimum and vehicles can operate at 

highway speeds. This will result in the percent of operating time at highway 

speeds being significantly higher than 25 percent, thereby resulting in even 

greater fuel savings. Note that while aerodynamic equipment provides the 

greatest fuel economy benefit at highway speeds, data show that some fuel 

savings will be achieved at lower cruise speeds as well. 

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. Increasing the annual mileage 

limit or the distance from the home base is unnecessary because it would 

exempt many trucks that will benefit from the requirements. 

23. Comment: Trailers should have their own short haul exemption mileage and 

territory standards because a trailer may be used only for short haul purposes 

but may be pulled by a tractor that must be compliant because of mileage or 

territorial radius standards. CTA recommends that ARB set the exemption 

standard for trailers at 100,000 miles per year or 150 mile radius. (CTA2)

Agency Response: The regulation contains an exemption for trailers that are 

used for local haul purposes (i.e., operate only within a 100 mile radius of their 

local base) but does not include a mileage exemption. Since trailers do not 

have odometers to record mileage, an annual mileage limit was not proposed. 

See also agency response to comment #22. 

24. Comment: The mileage radius of the 53-foot short haul trailer exemption 

should be increased to 150 miles to mirror the U.S. DOT short haul radius. 

(YTI)

Agency Response: ARB is uncertain as to which specific U.S. DOT short-haul 

definition the commenter is referring to since a reference was not given. 
- 32 - 

However, ARB is aware of a U.S. DOT 150-mile radius definition, but is 

applicable only for non-commercial driver’s licenses. California law requires 

that all operators of tractors pulling 53-foot box-type trailers possess 

commercial driver’s licenses. Under the Hours of Service regulation of the U.S. 

DOT, a short haul operator with a commercial driver’s license is one that 

operates within a 100 air-miles of such operator’s normal work reporting 

location (Note that 1 air-mile is equal to 6,076 feet, or 1.15 statue miles.) The 

provisions under this U.S. DOT regulation specify the maximum driving time 

and minimum rest time allowable within a certain period of time. 

C. U.S. EPA SmartWay Program 

25. Comment: The federal SmartWay program was meant as a complete 

package, not individual components thereof. They rely on 13 different 

strategies, including idle reduction, improved aerodynamics, improved freight 

logistics, automatic tire inflation systems, single wide base tires, driver training, 

low viscosity lubricants, intermodal shipping, longer combination vehicles, 

reducing highway speed, weight reduction, hybrid power train technology and 

renewable fuels. The California ARB is ignoring many of the strategies that can 

be utilized to increase fuel efficiency and reduce pollution that contributes to 

climate change. The US EPA estimates that improved aerodynamics for trucks 

and trailers could reduce 20 metric tons (MT) of CO2 annually. While that 

number is large, it accounts for less than 20% of the total decrease in 

greenhouse gases through the ARB’s SmartWay recommended strategies that 

can be used to promote fuel economy. Not included in the ARB’s plans are the 

following CO2-reducing methods: improving freight logistics (24 MT), automatic 

tire inflation (1 MT), singlewide base tires (4 MT), training (8 MT), low viscosity 

lubricants (5 MT), intermodal shipping (~65% reduction), combination vehicles 

(34 MT), reduced speed (10MT), weight reduction (3 MT), hybrid power trains 

(12 MT), and renewable fuels (varies). As you can see, a company that only 

trains its drivers and improves freight logistics will reduce 50% more GHG than 

a company employing aerodynamics. Choosing only one aspect of the US 

EPA’s SmartWay program and ignoring the others is entirely ignorant in its 

reasoning. (MCA) 

Agency Response: As one of the nine discrete early action items identified by 

ARB in October 2007 to reduce GHG, the regulation was put on the fast track 

for development, and earmarked by the Board to be adopted and enforceable 

by January 1, 2010. The short timeframe for its development necessitated that 

ARB rely on the existing U.S. EPA SmartWay program to identify enforceable 

GHG reduction requirements. As such, in establishing the scope of this 

regulation, ARB limited the regulation to two basic strategies: use of new 

SmartWay certified tractors and trailers; and use of improved aerodynamics 

and low-rolling resistance tires for both in-use long-haul heavy-duty tractors and 

in-use 53-foot box-type trailers. ARB chose these two strategies because they 
- 33 - 

are commercially available, pay for themselves in a relatively short period of 

time, and have been verified by the SmartWay program to provide significant 

GHG emission reductions. Establishing enforceable requirements to address 

improved freight logistics, training, low-viscosity lubricants, and intermodal 

shipping would make the regulation much more complex and greatly increase 

the number of different stakeholders impacted. As such, ARB concluded that it 

was not feasible to consider these strategies as part of a discrete early action 

regulation. However, ARB is committed to considering these strategies as part 

of future rulemakings. 

26. Comment: There are other means available to meet the desired fuel 

efficiencies and therefore the corresponding emission reductions with 

alternative means of compliance, making use of various tractor and trailer 

technologies in combinations that suit a particular company’s operational 

characteristics rather than the one size fits all approach being proposed. 

Rather than unfunded, untested mandates, we ask that ARB allow alternative 

means of compliance, including consideration that a carrier with the highest 

SmartWay score possible would be considered in compliance with the 

proposed rules. (Con-way)

Agency Response: The regulation is designed to be the first step in regulating 

GHG emissions in California from the long-haul trucking industry. The 

regulation requires the use of low-rolling resistance tires and aerodynamic 

technologies on those tractor and trailer applications where real, quantifiable 

GHG emission reductions can be gained. ARB agrees with the commenter that 

there are other means of reducing GHG emissions from a fleet, and that these 

should be pursued either voluntarily or under the purview of future rulemakings. 

However, it was not appropriate to consider these options in the current 

rulemaking given the short timeframe for its development. 

The characterization of the regulation as a “one size fits all approach” is not 

accurate. During the regulatory development process, staff held numerous 

meetings and several public workshops where concerned stakeholders 

informed staff of how the operational characteristics of their fleets would make 

compliance with the regulation impractical or result in little GHG benefit. Staff 

also met with U.S. EPA SmartWay program administrators, fleets that are 

currently using the SmartWay certified and verified technologies, and 

manufacturers of aerodynamic technologies and low-rolling resistance tires. 

From the information gathered, ARB identified specific exemptions from the 

required use of aerodynamic improvements and/or low-rolling resistance tires. 

These included short haul and local haul fleet applications, drayage tractors 

and trailers, curtain-side trailers, solid-waste vehicle applications, container 

chassis applications, and drop frame vans. Also, the regulation allows flexibility 

in choosing the specific types of SmartWay verified aerodynamic technologies 

that can be used for compliance when retrofitting a trailer. For example, a 

company whose operational characteristics require the trailer to access very 
- 34 - 

steep loading docks may elect to retrofit their trailers with rear trailer fairings 

rather than trailer side skirts. 

The characterization that the requirements of the regulation are untested is not 

accurate. The GHG emission benefits associated with the use of these 

technologies has been verified by the U.S. EPA in accordance with industry 

accepted test methods as required under the SmartWay program. 

Although providing funding for compliance is not mandatory, ARB does provide 

some financial assistance to help owners purchase SmartWay certified tractors 

and trailers, SmartWay verified aerodynamic equipment and low-rolling 

resistance tires. Additional financing assistance may be obtained through the 

U.S. EPA SmartWay program. For additional information about financing, see 

agency response to comment #145. 

27. Comment: I think SmartWay is being underfunded, and it’s a bit of a dilemma 

of a horse to hitch to right now. (Silver Eagle)

Agency Response: Much of the work to establish certification and verification 

of SmartWay technologies has already been accomplished. There are 

products in the market place approved by the SmartWay program that meet the 

requirements of this regulation. Congress is considering a bill that would 

appropriate additional funds to support the SmartWay program. If for any 

reason U.S. EPA dissolves the SmartWay program in the future, ARB would 

consider whether to make changes to its regulation to establish a 

certification/verification program in California to take the place of the federal 

program. 

28. Comment: SmartWay was designed as a system for the EPA, and not as 

certain pieces that you can pull out of it. (Tharp)

Agency Response: The SmartWay program was designed to provide tools 

and strategies to improve the environmental performance of the freight delivery 

system in the United States. One of the ways a carrier can improve 

performance is to use SmartWay certified tractors, SmartWay certified trailers, 

or to retrofit his or her existing fleet of trailers with SmartWay verified 

aerodynamic technologies and low-rolling resistance tires. A list of current 

SmartWay certified and verified tractors, trailers, aerodynamic technologies, 

and tires is provided by the U.S. EPA and is currently available on their website 

at http://www.epa.gov/smartway/transport/what-smartway/verifiedtechnologies.htm#advanced . The current regulation establishes requirements

to use SmartWay certified and verified equipment while traveling in California. 

ARB believes that it is appropriate to require the use of SmartWay certified and 

verified equipment without incorporating other aspects of the SmartWay 

program. 
- 35 - 

29. Comment: One of the primary reasons for the success of the SmartWay 

Partnership program is that it allows its partner companies the latitude to adopt 

fuel-saving technologies and strategies that are tailored to their individual 

business practices, rather than forcing them to employ generic approaches that 

may not work in their operations. The SmartWay program provides tools for 

fleets to evaluate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These tools include 

more than just the aerodynamic devices. There are a host of mechanisms that 

fleets can look at and evaluate what will work best for them. The HDVGHG 

regulation in the present case requires specific equipment to be installed on 

tractors and trailers with inadequate consideration given to operating 

environment, equipment performance and maintenance, and potential benefits. 

(ATA, Con-way)

Agency Response: The regulation establishes requirements to improve 

aerodynamics and reduce rolling resistance on that segment of the long-haul 

trucking industry where it is feasible and practical. During the regulatory 

development process, staff held numerous meetings and several public 

workshops where concerned stakeholders informed staff of how the operational 

characteristics of their fleets would make compliance with the regulation 

impractical or result in little GHG benefit. Staff also met with representatives of 

freight carriers whose fleets are currently using the SmartWay certified and 

verified technologies, and with the manufacturers of aerodynamic technologies 

and low-rolling resistance tires. From the information gathered, ARB identified 

specific exemptions from the requirements of the regulation. These included 

short haul and local haul fleet applications, drayage tractors and trailers, 

curtain-side trailers, solid-waste vehicle applications, container chassis 

applications, and drop frame vans. Also, the regulation allows flexibility in 

choosing the specific types of SmartWay verified aerodynamic technologies 

that can be used for compliance when retrofitting a trailer. For example, a 

company whose operational characteristics require the trailer to access very 

steep loading docks may elect to retrofit their trailers with rear trailer fairings 

rather than trailer side skirts. 

Staff’s discussions with fleets that utilize aerodynamic devices on their tractors 

and trailers revealed that, in general, their tractors and trailers did not require 

significantly more maintenance than do vehicles without the devices. Most of 

the fleets indicated that the maintenance needed for tractor fairings was 

minimal; and although some reported damage to trailer skirts, it was often 

caused by driver error, loading, and environmental conditions. ARB estimated 

the cost of maintenance and repair to be, on average, $120 per year per trailer. 

However, the fuel savings from installing aerodynamic technologies and lowrolling resistance tires will allow the owner of a tractor-trailer combination to 

recover maintenance costs (and initial capital costs) over time. More detailed 

information on the economic benefits of this regulation can be found in Section 

XII of the Staff Report. 
- 36 - 

The environmental benefit from this regulation is projected to be 1.0 million 

metric tons (MMT) of CO2 equivalent emissions in 2020. Nationwide the 

benefits are projected to be 6.7 MMT of CO2 equivalent emissions in 2020. In 

addition to GHG benefits, reducing aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance will 

also reduce NOx emissions. More detailed information on the environmental 

benefits of this regulation can be found in Section XI of the Staff Report. 

30. Comment: ARB’S proposed program takes two specific aspects of SmartWay 

– tractor and trailer certification – and mistakenly assumes that those factors, 

by themselves, will improve the efficiency of all carriers operating in California. 

ARB should recognize that the ability of shippers and carriers to custom tailor 

the multitude of factors in SmartWay to their individual needs has made it 

successful, and ARB should include the flexible use of such multiple factors in 

its program. If a carrier must purchase vehicles from a limited list, it may no 

longer have access to the unique specifications that provide it with maximum 

hauling efficiency, operational efficiency, and a consistent platform for drivers 

and technicians. ARB forfeits SmartWay’s effectiveness by excluding what 

makes it successful and does not provide a sound basis for improving fuel 

efficiency. (EMA)

Agency Response: The scope of this regulation is focused on mandating 

aerodynamic technology improvements from the long-haul trucking industry that 

will result in GHG emission reductions. Specifically, this regulation is designed 

to reduce the GHG emissions from on-road long-haul heavy-duty tractors 

pulling 53 foot or longer box-type trailers by requiring both the tractors and 

trailers to be equipped with aerodynamic technologies and low-rolling 

resistance tires that improve fuel efficiency. The fuel savings associated with 

the required technologies has been verified by the SmartWay program using 

established test methods. To the extent that a carrier uses tractors and trailers 

that are compliant, the fuel consumption and GHG emissions from those 

tractors will be reduced. Although this regulation relies on the SmartWay 

program to certify the GHG emission reductions of compliant tractors and 

trailers, it was never ARB’s intent to broaden the focus of this regulation to 

encompass all aspects of the SmartWay program. 

Regarding the commenter’s concern about a carrier having to purchase 

vehicles from a limited list, a SmartWay certified tractor can be configured for 

specific applications (e.g. engine-size, transmission) allowing carriers to obtain 

maximum hauling efficiency. Similarly, SmartWay certified trailers and existing 

trailers that are retrofitted with SmartWay verified aerodynamic devices can be 

configured to accommodate the specific needs of the carrier. For example, a 

SmartWay certified dry-van trailer can meet the requirements by installing 

verified trailer side skirts, but if ground clearance is a concern for the carrier, a 

verified rear trailer fairing may be a better option to comply with the 

requirements. 
- 37 - 

31. Comment: One of the hallmarks of the SmartWay program, and an element of 

its success, has been the changing and expanding list of measures and factors 

that allow shippers and carriers to tailor flexible SmartWay criteria to their 

unique operations. A voluntary program can be successful with such 

“continuous improvement” and evolving framework. The same is not true for a 

regulatory program – where lead-time, stability and certainty are essential 

elements of success. By linking its HDVGHG regulation to the changing and 

evolving elements of the SmartWay program, ARB fails to provide the leadtime, stability and regulatory certainty that manufacturers and users require. 

(EMA)

Agency Response: ARB anticipates that the regulation will result in greater 

use of SmartWay certified tractors and trailers and deployment of SmartWay 

devices on non-certified vehicles. But the flexibility in the existing SmartWay 

program that the commenter applauds will not be eliminated by the decision to 

require use of certified technologies and devices on specified vehicles using 

California highways. In fact, ARB anticipates the trend noted by the commenter 

of expanding options and lists of available equipment will continue after the 

regulation is effective as additional products are certified and approved by U.S. 

EPA. If anything, greater demand for SmartWay certified products would be 

expected to increase the number and type of products being developed and 

marketed. As the list of tractors, trailers, aerodynamic equipment, and tires 

changes and evolves, those subject to the regulation will have more flexibility 

and choice in how they elect to comply with the regulation. In short, the 

regulation’s reliance on the existing SmartWay program means that 

manufacturers and users can choose from an existing pool of proven and 

tested technologies that are expected to evolve and expand over time. 

ARB has incorporated as much lead-time as possible given the immediacy of 

the impacts of climate change and AB 32’s direction that discrete early action 

measures be enforceable by January 1, 2010. Within those constraints, ARB 

has incorporated opportunities for fleets to phase-in compliance over a period 

of several years. 

32. Comment: The current SmartWay program has an arbitrary list of several 

models from each manufacturer meeting a simplified set of specifications. As 

the program grows, it will transition from this to an objective, performancebased certification. EMA is actively working with U.S. EPA to develop a costeffective, objective, performance-based fuel efficiency measurement method. 

However, this is a very difficult undertaking, and a robust, repeatable and 

validated method of measuring fuel efficiency currently does not exist. Without 

other measures or an appropriate certification method, simply requiring the use 

of tractors from the SmartWay list may not reduce a carrier’s overall fuel 

consumption. (EMA)
- 38 - 

Agency Response: The current list of SmartWay certified tractor models 

includes the most fuel-efficient tractors offered by individual manufacturers 

based on an existing test protocol and scientific reasoning. To characterize 

the current list of SmartWay tractor models as an “arbitrary list” is inaccurate. 

For each SmartWay certified tractor model, the manufacturer had to provide 

U.S. EPA with data supporting the manufacturer’s claim that it represents the 

most fuel efficient of their entire on-road line-up. The data had to be obtained 

using an industry-accepted method, e.g. computational fluid dynamics (CFD) 

modeling, wind tunnel testing, or track testing in accordance with Joint 

TMC/SAE J1321 Fuel Consumption Test procedure Type II RP J1321 (SAE 

J1321). In addition, each SmartWay certified tractor must have a 2007-ornewer U.S. EPA certified engine, and be equipped with additional aerodynamic 

features (fuel tank fairings, aerodynamic bumper, integrated roof fairing) and 

low-rolling resistance tires. Requiring the use of aerodynamic features was 

based on fuel-savings data from technical literature, including testing and 

analysis by the Department of Energy (DOE) Consortium for Aerodynamic Drag 

of Heavy Vehicles led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 

Manufacturers of SmartWay certified tractors must only use tires that have 

demonstrated fuel savings as determined using one of the following industry 

accepted methods: the SAE J1321 test protocol demonstrating a 3% or greater 

fuel savings or the SAE J1269 Tire Rolling Resistance Test demonstrating the 

tire’s rolling resistance coefficient complies with SmartWay target values. 

 However, ARB agrees that the approach described above, while established 

on performance based test methods, is limited in that it can only be used to 

identify the most fuel efficient models within one vehicle make. That is why the 

Board directed staff at this regulation’s hearing on December 11-12, 2008 to 

work with U.S. EPA on developing a protocol under which the performance of 

all vehicles could be compared with each other. U.S. EPA has recently 

released an interim performance-based protocol which allows these 

comparisons, and all new tractors will have to be certified in accordance with 

this new protocol. ARB believes this new interim protocol is a valid protocol 

upon which to base SmartWay tractor certifications and is confident that it 

sufficiently addresses the concerns brought up by the Board. 

33. Comment: The SmartWay program was invented to allow personal choice and 

incentives to the truck owners. Allowing the SmartWay program to operate as it 

is intended will result in older less efficient equipment gradually retiring with 

less hardship to truck and trailer operators and our state’s economy. (PTS)

Agency Response: The SmartWay program has been in place since 2004, 

but only a relatively small number of tractors and trailers on the road are 

SmartWay certified. This is especially true for trailers where less than one half 

of one percent of the inventory of 53-foot box-type trailers have been retrofitted 

with aerodynamic technologies. Given the conservative nature of the long-haul 

transport industry, ARB believes that implementing the regulation which 
- 39 - 

requires a majority of the California long-haul tractor and trailer inventory to use 

aerodynamic technologies by 2020, is necessary to achieve the GHG 

reductions needed to achieve the goals of AB 32. Besides significantly 

reducing GHG emissions, this regulation will also result in significant cost 

saving by reducing the amount of fuel trucking companies will need to 

purchase. Therefore, it is not reasonable to wait for the gradual vehicle 

turnover when both GHG emission reductions and cost savings can be 

achieved now by retrofitting the fleet. 

34. Comment: We request that ARB not make mandatory the proposed 

requirements for trailers based on the SmartWay Partnership Program. In the 

meantime, we suggest that California create additional financial incentives to 

help persuade companies in adopting the voluntary SmartWay program. 

(CBTRI, NTDA)

Agency Response: See the agency response to comment #25 and #33 for a 

discussion of the reason for making part of the SmartWay program mandatory. 

In addition, ARB offers financial assistance for vehicles subject to the regulation 

through the Providing Loan Assistance for California Equipment 

(PLACE) Program for On-Road Vehicles. The PLACE Program provides small 

business owners with competitive rate loans to purchase compliant tractors and 

trailers. 

35. Comment: SmartWay certification is not adequate for establishing mandatory 

requirements for trailers. Mandated technologies must meet not only fuel 

savings standard but also durability, performance, safety, and vocational 

requirements, elements which are currently not present in the SmartWay 

certification. Aerodynamic trailer technologies are not mature enough to meet 

such requirements for a mandatory program; these technologies may be 

adequate for a voluntary program because truck owners can decide which 

options make business sense for them and can choose those that do. Staff has 

failed to understand the differences between the certification standards that are 

adequate for a voluntary program and those for a mandatory program. Also, 

staff’s knowledge base is not adequate to make judgments about what 

mandatory combinations of aerodynamic options make sense for all 53-foot or 

longer trailers that serve California, such as staff’s erroneous assumption that 

the joint potential benefits of different technologies is the sum of individual 

benefits. CTA recommends that ARB defer aerodynamic trailer upgrade 

requirements and grandfather the current trailer fleet under the proposed rule. 

In the interim, ARB should work with U.S. EPA to develop certification criteria 

that meet the performance, vocational, and safety requirements needed to 

support a mandatory upgrade program. (CTA2)

Agency Response: ARB believes it is appropriate to base the requirements of 

the regulation on the SmartWay certification and verification program. This 

regulation requires 53-foot box type trailers pulled by heavy-duty tractors to 
- 40 - 

either be SmartWay certified trailers or to be retrofitted with SmartWay verified 

aerodynamic devices that have been demonstrated to meet or exceed a 4% to 

5% fuel savings. The SmartWay program establishes industry-accepted test 

methods for evaluating the fuel savings potential of using aerodynamic 

technologies and low-rolling resistance tires on both tractors and trailers. ARB 

believes it is appropriate, and necessary, to rely on the SmartWay program 

when establishing the requirements in order to ensure GHG reductions are 

achieved in the timeframe dictated by AB 32. As a discrete early action 

measure, the regulation must be implemented no later than January 1, 2010; it 

is therefore necessary to rely on the existing SmartWay program to certify/verify 

fuel savings performance. Developing an ARB certification and verification 

program or waiting for the U.S. EPA to develop additional performance 

certification criteria was not considered as part of this rulemaking because of 

the additional time it would take to develop and adopt such a program. 

The regulation does not mandate the use of specific aerodynamic technologies, 

such as trailer side skirts or front trailer fairings, but instead requires the trailer 

owner to install any combination of SmartWay verified aerodynamic 

technologies that will meet or exceed the fuel savings requirement. 

SmartWay certified trailers and verified aerodynamic technologies are currently 

being designed by manufacturers to stand up to the real-world durability, 

performance, safety, and vocational needs of tractor and trailer fleets. Several 

trailer fleets have equipped their trailers with SmartWay verified aerodynamic 

technologies and are currently pulling these trailers on U.S. and Canadian 

highways. New and improved versions are being developed in response to 

fleet experience and needs. This process is happening outside of the 

requirements of the regulation in response to the increased demand for these 

products because they offer fuel savings. Summaries of fleet experiences with 

SmartWay certified trailers and verified technologies can be found in Section IX 

of the Staff Report. 

Manufacturers of aerodynamic technologies have been addressing issues of 

safety, durability, and vocational use (e.g. steep loading docks, inclement 

weather). ARB did not consider any of these issues to be significant enough to 

delay or stop the promulgation of this regulation. This is supported by the fleets 

that are currently using compliant tractors and trailers on the road today. 

D. Standards and Test Procedures 

36. Comment: We object to the greenhouse gas proposal because there actually 

is no test protocol or guideline for certifying SmartWay vehicles and there is no 

thorough process for certifying vehicles. (Daimler)
- 41 - 

Agency Response: There is a protocol in place for certifying SmartWay 

tractors and SmartWay trailers. The protocol for certifying SmartWay tractors is 

discussed in the agency response to Comment #32. The process for certifying 

a SmartWay trailer is discussed in Appendix B of the Staff Report. 

37. Comment: Only after developing a scientifically rigorous procedure should 

ARB regulate vehicles based on SmartWay certification. The SmartWay 

program is not based upon a scientific measure of tractors’ aerodynamics or 

fuel saving capability. A clear, uniform set of test procedures and selection 

criteria is nonexistent. The selection and number of eligible vehicles for 

SmartWay certification are determined by individual manufacturers. 

Manufacturers that have not already participated in the program are not eligible 

for SmartWay certification. ARB should work with U.S. EPA to develop a 

rigorous procedure to compare the fuel efficiency of HDVs and to determine 

SmartWay eligibility as well as with the DOT. (Daimler)

The certification process for aerodynamic technologies should employ a broad 

set of data and information sources to evaluate and certify cost-effective and 

operationally practical devices that reduce fuel use and reduce emissions 

rather than rely on the SmartWay program. The certification should rely upon 

all aerodynamic technology test procedures of the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) and Technology and Maintenance Council (TMC) of the 

American Trucking Association (ATA) as well as in-use industry data for 

evaluation and certification of technologies. For example, SAE/TMC Type II 

test requirements do not account for many factors in testing such as cross-flow 

or changes in speed, whereas TMC Type IV accounts for these Type II 

limitations. The SmartWay program has not established a clear set of industryrelative scientific, engineering, and user-based criteria for the certification of 

aerodynamic technologies. In addition, the SmartWay criteria are highly limited 

and device specific and will restrict the options available to fleets, stifle 

competition and innovation, and result in higher costs. (SOLUS) 

Agency Response: See also agency response #32. As a discrete early 

action measure, the regulation is designed to be implemented no later than 

January 1, 2010, relying on the existing SmartWay program to certify/verify fuel 

savings performance. Developing an ARB certification and verification program 

or waiting for the U.S. EPA to develop additional performance certification 

criteria was not considered as part of this rulemaking because of the additional 

time it would take to develop and adopt such a program. 

Despite this, U.S. EPA has recently released new performance-based eligibility 

criteria for SmartWay certification, which allows for the comparison of vehicle 

models from different manufacturers. Therefore, all new SmartWay tractor 

certifications will be based on this new protocol, and some of the previous 

limitations of the SmartWay certification program have been eliminated. For 

instance, it is now possible for one manufacturer to certify more than two 
- 42 - 

tractors as long as the tractors are more efficient than any existing SmartWay 

certified tractor. In addition, as additional tractors are certified and more data 

become available, those looking to purchase tractors will be able to compare 

SmartWay certified models from different manufacturers. 

The commenter claims manufacturers that have not previously participated in 

the SmartWay program are not eligible for SmartWay certification. This claim is 

false, as U.S. EPA has a protocol in place just for that purpose. (See agency 

response to comment #32). 

38. Comment: The vehicles selected for the SmartWay program were done on a 

sort of “you know it when you see it” idea of what constitutes an aerodynamic 

vehicle. It was done in such a way that there is the very real possibility that 

some vehicles that are more efficient than SmartWay certified vehicles are 

actually not SmartWay certified and may be barred from pulling the most 

common trailers on the roads. And, therefore, you run the very real possibility 

of barring from California roads vehicles based upon no scientific reason. 

(Daimler)

Agency Response: The SmartWay program has established a procedure for 

designating specific tractor models as SmartWay certified that is based on 

scientific reasoning. See the agency response to comment #32 for a 

description of the procedure. Tractors that are more efficient than SmartWay 

certified tractor models can be certified in accordance with this procedure. All 

manufacturers are eligible to certify one or more tractor models. New tractor 

models can be certified at any time. 

39. Comment: As an alternative, or perhaps as an interim measure, ARB can 

require technologies, with rigorous specifications, that have been scientifically 

demonstrated to improve efficiency. This may start with the U.S. EPA’s list of 

SmartWay add-on technologies: fuel tank side fairings, cab roof fairings, cab 

side extenders, aerodynamic mirrors, aerodynamic bumpers, idle reduction 

technologies, and low rolling resistance tires. (Daimler)

Agency Response: The regulation fulfills what the commenter is requesting. 

In addition to testing showing the tractor meets the performance requirement, 

SmartWay certified tractors are also required to have certain components, 

include the components listed by the commenter. Specifically, a SmartWay 

certified tractor must be equipped with all of the following: 

• EPA-certified engine that meets 2007 or newer federal emission 

standards 

• Integrated roof fairing 

• Cab side extender fairings 

• Side fuel tank fairings 

• Aerodynamic mirrors 

• Aerodynamic bumper 

• Low-rolling resistance tires 
- 43 - 

• Idle reduction system capability 

40. Comment: SmartWay really doesn’t have a testing protocol. They are trying 

to develop one. It’s based only on test tracks. Temperature, 68 degrees to 86 

degrees. So you couldn’t prove a product that might be the best thing going at 

this time of year. (Silver Eagle)

Agency Response: See agency response to comment #32. 

41. Comment: I think you should have rules that regulate for performance, not for 

methodology, to keep things open. You should allow for proven devices. If 

people can prove to the Air Resources Board that these things meet your 

requirements, your performance requirements, you should accept them. (Silver 

Eagle)

Agency Response: The regulation establishes levels of fuel efficiency savings 

that may be met on the basis of performance – as determined by the U.S. EPA 

SmartWay program. Due to the short turnaround time associated with the 

development of this regulation, it was not feasible for ARB to develop our own 

verification program before the mandated implementation date of January 1, 

2010. Thus, the regulation accepts the use of aerodynamic devices that have 

been SmartWay verified to meet certain performance requirements. As new 

aerodynamic technologies are verified by the SmartWay program, they may be 

used to comply with the regulation. 

42. Comment: What I want to take a look at, and what SmartWay vehemently 

supports me on, is the fact that the standards that they identified at 6.5 percent 

are over two and a half years old and are based around older technology that 

was low in its capabilities at the time it was originally developed... Don’t have a 

bar set so low that the transportation industry will put a two percent belly fairing 

on, a two percent gap fairing, and a two percent boat tail, meeting their six 

percent number, leaving very little room to go (grow?). Consider raising the 

number from 6.5 to 8.5 percent, because once SmartWay gets their testing 

protocol in place, they’re going to raise that number themselves. (Windyne)

Agency Response: The regulation standards are based upon the levels 

established by the U.S. EPA SmartWay program. At the present time, 

SmartWay has established a minimum aerodynamic fuel efficiency savings of 

5% for dry vans and 4% for refrigerated vans (excluding the low rolling 

resistance tire requirement which adds an additional 1.5% per trailer). If 

SmartWay increases these standards in the future, ARB will likely propose to 

incorporate those changes in a subsequent regulation. In the interim, however, 

as technological advances provide opportunities for greater savings, nothing in 

the regulation limits fleets from utilizing them and achieving greater fuel 

efficiency savings. 
- 44 - 

43. Comment: Currently if you use the 6.5 percent standards and the current 

products from the marketplace, you’re going to have to identify three of those 

areas to just meet that 6 percent, leaving very little room to add another product 

and increase the number as it goes by. (Windyne)

Agency Response: For a dry-van trailer subject to the regulation, SmartWay 

specifies a 6.5% fuel efficiency savings, based on a 5% reduction from 

aerodynamic devices, and an additional 1.5% from low rolling resistance tires. 

A fleet may select any combination of aerodynamic devices to meet the 

standard, including several devices that meet or exceed it or a single device, 

such as the advanced trailer skirts that are estimated to achieve at least a 5% 

fuel savings. In that case, a fleet has the option in achieve even greater 

savings by using the most efficient or additional aerodynamic devices. 

44. Comment: If the SmartWay efficiency requirements are increased in the 

future, it would be unfair to the transporters who put this equipment on their 

trailers. Are you going to then grandfather them in, or are you going to require 

them to take the stuff off and then meet the new compliance numbers? 

(Windyne)

Agency Response: ARB anticipates that once a fleet brings a trailer into 

compliance with the regulation using aerodynamic equipment that was 

SmartWay verified at the time of purchase, they would not be required to 

replace that equipment on the same trailer, should the standards become more 

stringent at a later time. Any future changes to this regulation would not force 

the replacement of installed equipment on a trailer used to meet this rule. 

However, it may affect the reinstallation of equipment if the original equipment 

was damaged and needed to be replaced. Note that any future changes to this 

rule would go through the same public rulemaking process, allowing comments 

and suggestions by affected stakeholders. 

45. Comment: All of the tests that the ARB has used to prove the fuel efficiency of 

SmartWay technologies were done at 62 MPH. These tests should be thrown 

out, as the California truck speed limit is 55 MPH over the majority of roads, or 

change the California truck speed limit to 65 MPH. (MCA)

Agency Response: ARB does not believe the SmartWay verification testing 

for fuel saving technologies is invalid because the testing was done at a vehicle 

speeds that exceed California’s speed limit for heavy-duty tractor trailers. Nor 

does ARB believe it is necessary to increase the speed limit for heavy-duty 

tractor trailers from 55 mph to 65 mph. The verification test method, U.S. 

EPA’s SmartWay Interim Test method, defines requirements that allow for the 

comparison of the performance of fuel savings technologies to a set standard. 

The regulation requires aerodynamic technologies to meet either a 4% or 5% 

fuel savings requirement, depending on their application. This verification test 

method allows maximum speeds of up to 65mph – the actual speeds of the test 
- 45 - 

vehicles were between 60 and 62 mph. Although the posted speed limit for 

tractor trailers on California highways is 55 miles per hour (mph), the average 

speed for tractor trailers that are driven on California highways is somewhat 

higher. Data collected by the Freeway Performance Measurement System 

(PeMS), a project headed by the University of California at Berkeley, show that 

the average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) weighted statewide average tractor 

trailer speed to be 59.7 mph. For southern California, the average is lower at 

57.07 mph. Based on these data, the difference between test vehicle speed 

and average speed on California highways ranges from 0.3 mph to 5 mph. 

Regardless of the actual difference between test speeds and the on-road 

speeds, the primary purpose of this test method is to evaluate the fuel 

efficiency performance of different aerodynamic technologies under set 

conditions, not to predict the fuel efficiency benefit from using a specific 

technology on a specific fleet under real-world conditions. The test method 

provides the means to meet this goal. 

46. Comment: The US EPA’s study of rolling friction vs. aerodynamic drag shows 

that friction is only overcome by aerodynamics at constant speeds above 50 

MPH. Considering the average CA highway speed (48.43 MPH), the 

aerodynamics do not come into play for trucks driving on California highways. 

In fact, requiring solely these aerodynamic technologies on all of a fleet’s 

trailers that extend past a 50-mile radius will make the same trailers that are 

used for short haul applications lose fuel efficiency, use more fuel, and cause 

more air pollution. In the end, the ARB’s efforts do not seem well-planned and 

could easily end up hurting the air quality that the ARB is fighting for. (MCA) 

Agency Response: ARB agrees with the commenter that at slower speeds

the power required to overcome rolling resistance can be greater than the 

power required to overcome aerodynamic drag. However, ARB does not agree 

with the commenter that aerodynamic drag does not come into play for tractor 

trailer rigs that travel on California highways. The commenter states that the 

average speed on California highways is 48.43 MPH. ARB believes the 

average speed is actually closer to 57 mph (See agency response to comment 

#45.) Regardless, ARB believes the regulation’s requirement for the use of 

aerodynamic technologies will reduce the power required (and fuel 

consumption rate) to operate tractor trailer rigs, even at much lower speeds. 

The power required to maintain constant vehicle speed on a level road is equal 

to the sum of the power required to overcome the aerodynamic drag plus the 

rolling resistance experienced at that speed, as shown in this equation: 

 

P = 1⁄2 ρa CD AV3 + μ MgV 

 Aerodynamic drag Rolling resistance 
- 46 - 

Where: 

P = power 

ρa = air density 

CD= aerodynamic drag coefficient 

 A= vehicle frontal area 

 μ = tire rolling resistance coefficient 

 Mg= vehicle weight 

 V= vehicle speed 

Figure 1 shows graphically the power (in units of horsepower) required to 

overcome both aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance on a level road, 

assuming density of air is 0.75 pounds per cubic foot at sea level, CD is 0.6, A 

is 108 square feet, μ is 0.006, Mg is 80,000 pounds and V is 20 to 80 miles per 

hour (MPH), which are values consistent with a typical Class 8 tractor trailer rig. 

The commenter stated that U.S. EPA studies shows that rolling friction is 

overcome by aerodynamics at constant speeds above 50 mph. In the figure, 

this is graphically shown where the two curves intersect, at 55 mph. As shown, 

at speeds below 55 mph, rolling resistance requires more power to sustain 

vehicle speed than aerodynamic drag. However, a tractor trailer rig traveling at 

any appreciable speeds must always overcome both forces, especially at 

highway speeds where both forces are significant. 

 

Figure 1: Horsepower Required to Overcome Rolling Resistance and Aero Drag

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Level Highway Speed, MPH

Horsepower

Aerodynamic Drag 

Rolling Resistance

CD=0.6

Figure 2 below shows graphically the total power requirements to overcome 

rolling resistance AND aerodynamic drag. The horsepower requirements of 
- 47 - 

rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag shown above in Figure 1 are added 

together. 

Figure 2: Sum of Horsepower Required to Overcome Rolling Resistance and Aerodynamic 

Drag

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Level Highway Speed, MPH

Horsepower

CD=0.6

Aero Drag + Rolling Resistance

The regulation will require that aerodynamic technologies be installed to reduce 

aerodynamic drag. Figure 3 below shows the effect of installing technologies 

that reduce aerodynamic drag, such that the coefficient of drag (CD) for the 

tractor trailer rig is reduced from 0.6 to 0.5. As shown, the benefit of 

aerodynamic technologies at low vehicle speeds is minimal. However, even at 

48 MPH, there is still a significant benefit gained by using aerodynamic 

technologies. 
- 48 - 

Figure 3: Impact of Decreasing Aerodynamic Drag

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Level Highway Speed, MPH

Horsepower

CD=0.6

Aero Drag + Rolling Resistance

CD=0.5

The regulatory requirements will have a positive impact on the fuel economy of 

compliant tractor trailer rig that travel in California, resulting in reduced GHG 

emissions and fuel consumption. However, to the extent a regulated tractortrailer rig travels at less-than highway speeds, the benefit will be less and the 

payback on investment will be longer. To address this issue, the regulation 

provides an exemption for short-haul or local-haul tractors and local-haul 

trailers. These tractors and trailers either operate exclusively within a 100-mile 

radius of their local haul base, or travel no more than 50,000 miles per year. 

As short-haul and local-haul tractor-trailer rigs, they spend a significant 

percentage of their time traveling on city streets at less than freeway speeds. 

47. Comment: It is a known fact that the maximum fuel savings benefit for trucks 

and trailers equipped with aerodynamic efficiency kits occurs at 62 miles per 

hour. How can carriers be able to achieve the optimum benefit when 

California’s maximum speed for trucks is 55 miles per hour? Is the State 

prepared to increase the speed limit for trucks to 65 mph so truckers can 

realize the true benefits of these products? (CTA)

Agency Response: The maximum fuel savings benefit associated with the 

installation of aerodynamic devices does not occur at 62 miles per hour. The 

faster a vehicle travels, the greater the benefit. A vehicle that travels at 70 

MPH will see a greater fuel savings than a vehicle that travels at 55 MPH, but 

both will see benefits. See agency response to comment #49. 
- 49 - 

. 

48. Comment: The study was based on 62 miles an hour. We as a fleet with 200 

tractors average 45.7 miles per hour. We will not offset that additional cost of 

those fairings and those trailers with any fuel savings. (SMS) 

Agency Response: See agency response to comment #49. 

49. Comment: ARB has never conducted any studies on the proposed regulation 

regarding actual application. The numbers for a federal program are going to 

display different outcomes than a state whose truck speed limit is 55 MPH. All 

of the federal testing was performed at speeds of 62 MPH. This 7 MPH 

reduction could account for more fuel efficiency (and less greenhouse gas 

emission) than adding any aerodynamics to a trailer. (MCA) 

Agency Response: ARB agrees with the commenter that the fuel efficiency 

improvement associated with the application of SmartWay verified aerodynamic 

technologies will be less for tractor-trailers operating at 55 mph than 62 mph. 

ARB also agrees that improvement in fuel economy associated with reducing 

vehicle speed from 62 mph to 55 mph may be greater than the improvement 

associated with adding aerodynamics. However significant improvements in 

fuel efficiency can be gained by improving aerodynamics even for vehicles that 

typically travel at 55 mph. This relationship is shown in Figure 4 below: 
- 50 - 

Drag Coefficients, CD

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

40 45 50 55 60 65 70

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3

Figure 4: Fuel consumption rates to overcome the aerodynamic drag for a 

typical Class 8 tractor traveling on a level highway as a function of 

speed, with various aerodynamic drag coefficients 

Gallons 

Per 

Mile 

Level Highway Speed 

The curves in Figure 4, showing fuel consumption rates, were generated using 

engine fuel economy information and the following load relation equation 

associated with aerodynamic drag: 

P = 1⁄2 ρa CD AV3 

 Aerodynamic drag 

where P = power needed to overcome aerodynamic drag 

ρa = density of air 

CD= aerodynamic drag coefficient of the vehicle 

 A= frontal area of the vehicle 

 V= vehicle speed 

 

The power needed to overcome aerodynamic drag was translated into fuel 

consumption rate (gallons per mile) by assuming the tractor was operating at a 

fixed specific fuel consumption of bsfc=0.34 lbs/hp-hr, which is representative 

of a modern Class 8 tractor-trailer powered by a modern turbocharged engine, 
- 51 - 

and assuming the same values used for a typical class 8 tractor, as used in the 

calculation in response to comment #46, at various speeds. 

In Figure 4, the vertical axis presents the fuel consumed to overcome 

aerodynamic drag in gallons per mile travelled Five estimates of fuel 

consumption are shown, corresponding to five values of aerodynamic drag 

coefficients (CD) between 0.7 and 0.3. A typical tractor-trailer has a CD of 

around 0.6. 

From the data illustrated in Figure 4, one can estimate the impact of 

aerodynamics at 55mph and compare it to the impact of lowering the speed 

from 62 to 55 mph. If a tractor trailer’s CD is reduced from 0.6 to 0.5 through 

the application of aerodynamic technologies, the amount of fuel saved from the 

reduction in aerodynamic drag would be about 10 gallons per thousand miles 

travelled at 55 mph. This 10 gallon per thousand miles travelled represents the 

fuel savings benefit of the regulation from the aerodynamic requirements only. 

Additional savings would be gained through the reduction in rolling resistance 

from the use of low rolling resistance tires. 

If no aerodynamic improvements are made and speed is lowered from 62 mph 

to 55 mph, the corresponding fuel efficiency improvement would be about 17 

gallons per thousand miles travelled. Therefore, as the commenter theorized, 

lowering speed from 62 to 55 mph has a greater effect on increasing fuel 

efficiency than adding aerodynamics. However, the data also illustrate in this 

example that the aerodynamic improvements mandated by the regulation and a 

reduction of speed would result in an additional fuel savings of 10 gallons per 

thousand miles (resulting in fuel savings of 27 gallons verses only 17 gallons), 

a significant fuel efficiency improvement. 

 

50. Comment: Our fleet averages 39-40 miles per hour and we’re not seeing 

anything from these aerodynamics. We did a test with three different phases. 

The first one was standard operation. Second one was with side skirts. The 

third one was with low rolling resistance tires. The low rolling resistance tires 

helped. The side skirts, going from Chino, California to Las Vegas, Nevada, we 

actually saw a slight reduction in fuel efficiency (with a particular unspecified 

brand of side skirts). Those were our tests over a month’s time. (MCA)

Agency Response: From the information provided by the commenter, it is 

difficult to determine why this fleet experienced a fuel efficiency reduction 

associated with the application of side-skirts. The commenter states that a 

slight reduction in fuel economy was experienced on tractor-trailers traveling 

from Chino Hills to Las Vegas over a month’s time. Assuming the majority of 

the 240 miles travelled between the two cities were on Interstate 15, ARB 

would expect to see some fuel efficiency gains, even when averaging 39 to 40 

miles per hour. Nevertheless, it is inherently difficult to evaluate the 
- 52 - 

performance of side skirts in a non-test environment because of the number of 

uncontrolled factors that may influence fuel efficiency, including the variation in 

driver’s habits (e.g. hard acceleration, timing of shifting gears), variations in 

load, and variations in weather. Another factor that could affect fuel efficiency 

performance is the specific side skirts installed. If the side skirts were not 

SmartWay verified technologies, they may not meet the design specifications 

and verification requirements established by the SmartWay program and may 

not achieve the same reduction in aerodynamic drag that SmartWay verified 

technologies have shown through testing. 

51. Comment: Due to the potential risk of improperly installed modifications, have 

standards been set for securing any and all modifications to the affected 

trailers? (ACG)

Agency Response: The regulation establishes the following good operating 

criteria for the aerodynamic technologies that are required to be installed on 

box-type trailers: 

• The aerodynamic technology must be installed in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s specifications; 

• The aerodynamic technology must be securely fastened to the trailer; 

• The aerodynamic technology must not be missing any sections; 

• The aerodynamic technology must not be used if damaged to such an 

extent as to compromise aerodynamic effectiveness; and 

• The rear trailer aerodynamic technology must be capable of being folded 

back against the trailer sides or otherwise be readily compacted to allow 

normal functioning of the doors. 

The regulation specifies that a driver cannot operate a tractor- trailer subject to 

the regulation unless it is in good operating condition, and that a trailer owner 

must ensure that the trailer is in good operating condition prior to it traveling on 

a California highway. 

52. Comment: With the extra length of aerodynamic modifications, have any 

studies been performed in regards to the ability of these trailers to move 

through city streets and county roads? (ACG)

Agency Response: The only aerodynamic device that will add extra length to 

the tractor-trailer when deployed is the rear trailer fairing. ARB has not 

performed any studies regarding the ability of tractor-trailers to navigate city 

streets or county roads with deployed rear trailer fairings. However, whether 

rigid in structure or inflatable, these devices are designed to be compacted 

against the sides or rear doors of the trailer. ARB believes that should the extra 

length of a deployed rear trailer fairing become a concern, the driver could 

retract the device, as needed. 
- 53 - 

53. Comment: Have any real world studies been performed on the effects of 

modifications on the ability of trailers to access loading docks and ramps? 

(ACG)

Agency Response: While ARB has not performed any studies to evaluate the 

impact of aerodynamic modifications on the ability of trailers to access loading 

docks, manufacturers of aerodynamic technologies (side skirts and rear trailer 

fairings) are acutely aware of these concerns and have developed workable 

solutions that are incorporated in many of the products available today. For 

example, side skirt manufacturers are using pliable and durable materials that 

are designed to deflect and snap back into place when compressed by a steep 

loading dock ramp. Others can be manually retracted or folded up as 

necessary, or are designed to automatically retract at slow speeds. Rear trailer 

fairing manufacturers have designed their products to be compacted against 

the sides or rear doors of the trailer when approaching loading docks and 

accessing cargo through the rear trailer doors. Staff spoke with representatives 

of several fleets that have been using aerodynamic technologies in order to 

ascertain what their “real-world’ experiences have been. Details of these 

discussions can be found in Appendix E of the Staff Report. 

54. Comment: Have any technical studies been performed on the impact of these 

modifications on intermodal transportation, i.e., loading and unloading, securing 

to rail, etc.? (ACG)

Agency Response: ARB has not performed any studies evaluating the impact 

of side skirts, front trailer fairings or rear trailer fairings on intermodal 

transportation. Based on the current methods of loading, unloading, and 

securing 53 foot box-type trailers onto flat cars, the only potential interference 

issue associated with the use of aerodynamic technologies would be the 

potential for the forward end of the trailer side skirt to interfere with the forward 

load point of the trailer when the trailer is lifted onto or off of the flat car. Trailer 

side skirt manufacturers have addressed this issue by developing SmartWay 

verified side skirts that either mount well inboard of the forward load point, stop 

short of the forward load point, or can be manually retracted out of the way. 

55. Comment: To date, EPA SmartWay program has not tested certain alternative 

tractor-trailer configurations to determine whether or not they are more or less 

efficient than SmartWay design specification. Wind tunnel analysis has 

demonstrated combinations with shorter tractor heights and Nose Cone treated 

trailers are equally efficient under no wind conditions and are more efficient 

under cross wind conditions. Until these other configurations are objectively 

analyzed and compared, there is no basis for making these other applications 

non-compliant. (Nose Cone)

Agency Response: To ensure that fuel saving and GHG emission benefit 

claims associated with the use of specific tractor/trailer configurations and 
- 54 - 

technologies are real and verifiable, the regulation establishes performance 

standards that must be met exclusively through the use of SmartWay certified 

and verified vehicles and technologies. It is not the role of the U.S. EPA to test 

specific aerodynamic technologies or tractor and trailer configurations for 

inclusion in SmartWay. It is the equipment manufacturer’s responsibility to test 

the equipment. For SmartWay purposes, U.S. EPA has established an interim 

test method that assesses the fuel consumption impact of fuel-saving tractor 

and trailer components to determine eligibility for inclusion in SmartWay. This 

interim test method modifies a well-accepted industry test, the SAE J1321 test 

protocol. U.S. EPA is developing a more comprehensive tractor/trailer 

emissions test which, when completed, will supersede the interim test method. 

Until the above described configurations are tested in accordance with the 

interim test method and the test results are reviewed and approved by the U.S. 

EPA as meeting the performance requirements established by the SmartWay 

program, they cannot be used to meet the requirements of this regulation. 

56. Comment: The problem with the methodology is track testing. Track testing is 

deficient when it comes to proving aerodynamic performance. (Nose Cone)

Agency Response: The SmartWay program evaluates the aerodynamic 

performance of a vehicle or aerodynamic-improving technology by quantifying 

its impact on fuel efficiency. Track testing is an industry accepted method of 

evaluating the improvement in fuel efficiency. Currently, the U.S. EPA has 

established a modified version of the SAE J1321 test procedure as the method 

for quantifying the fuel consumption impact of fuel saving equipment for the 

purpose of SmartWay verification. The U.S. EPA’s modification to the test 

method reduces variability of ambient effects on testing and helps reduce the 

potential for voided tests. 

57. Comment: With the addition of aerodynamic skirts to the trailer, the effects of 

the new air flow needs to be studied, including:

• How does the added air flow down the sides and back affect the 

passenger vehicle traffic

• Does the additional air flow down the sides create a “vacuum” effect 

behind the trailer

• How do the side skirts affect the handling of the trailer in heavy cross 

wind situations

• With the trailer skirts installed, in heavy crosswinds, how does it affect 

passenger vehicles when passing

• Do the trailer skirts increase the likelihood of injury in a right turn accident 

with a passenger vehicle

• What are the effects on moisture, i.e., rain, snow, with the skirts installed

• Also, the wind and safety issues become even greater when we begin to 

move toward “doubles.” 

 (ACG) 
- 55 - 

Agency Response: See agency response to comment #58. 

58. Comment: In addition to fuel economy testing, it is critically important that 

aerodynamic technologies be subjected to rigorous wind tunnel testing in 

accordance with published procedures, guidelines, and criteria established by 

the SAE and Subsonic Aerodynamic Testing Association. The wind tunnel will 

isolate the aerodynamic forces from all other forces acting on the vehicle. 

(SOLUS)

Agency Response: ARB agrees with the commenter that evaluating the

effects listed in comment #57, and conducting rigorous wind tunnel testing 

would provide valuable information to the manufacturers of trailers and 

aerodynamic technologies. However, ARB believes that it is not necessary to 

require such expensive wind tunnel testing to evaluate safety as part of the 

regulation since manufacturers have addressed concerns with the use of their 

products and for several years their products have been on the road and are 

legal for use on California and U.S. highways. In addition, several trailer 

manufacturers offer these products for sale to their customers. Currently, there 

are at least eight companies that offer commercially available SmartWay 

verified trailer side skirts. ARB staff has spoken with representatives of several 

fleets that have been using trailer side skirts on their trailers over a period of 

nine months to more than 2 years. The effects of rain, moisture, snow, wind 

force, trailer handling, and side impacts have been addressed and further 

improvements are being made by trailer and aerodynamic technology 

manufacturers as they develop and market their products. See also agency 

response to comment #53. 

59. Comment: ATA would like ARB’s support, in terms of financial and personnel 

resources, in working with the trucking industry and the U.S. EPA to further 

develop the evaluation protocols necessary to ensure the expected benefits are 

real and the performance meets the demands of the trucking industry. (ATA)

Agency Response: ARB believes the testing method established by the U.S. 

EPA SmartWay program is sufficient to quantify the expected benefits from the 

technologies required by this regulation. SmartWay’s test method is based on 

an industry accepted testing method for determining the fuel economy of trucks. 

With that said, ARB is willing to work with stakeholders to developing and 

establishing other testing methods, especially methods that could be used overthe-road during service operation. As with all in-use testing, accounting for the 

variability of ambient, road, elevation, weight, speed, driver and other 

conditions make it difficult for fleets to assess the fuel-saving benefit they 

achieve with the technologies required by this rule. 

60. Comment: The proposed regulation should be crafted to allow eventual 

independence from the SmartWay program. If U.S. EPA does not update 
- 56 - 

SmartWay standards to reflect technological advancement, then ARB should 

be able to modify the regulation independently. (ATDynamics)

Agency Response: The regulation was identified by the ARB in October 2007 

as one of the nine AB 32 discrete early action items to reduce GHGs. As such, 

these regulations were put on the fast track for development, earmarked by the 

Board to be adopted and enforceable by January 1, 2010. The short time 

frame for development necessitated the reliance on the existing U.S. EPA 

SmartWay program to identify enforceable GHG reduction requirements. The 

regulatory language does not include language that allows eventual 

independence from the SmartWay program. However, if ARB determines that 

such independence is merited, the ARB has the authority to modify the 

regulation in the future, in an open and public process, and present the 

modified regulation to the Board for adoption. 

61. Comment: Refrigerated trailers should be required to meet the same 

aerodynamic standard as dry van trailers. Since overwhelmingly the same 

aerodynamic technologies are available to dry van as to refrigerated trailers, we 

consider this double standard to be arbitrary. The double standard is not 

supported by the U.S. EPA SmartWay Partnership’s lack of specification for 

refrigerated trailers, which reflects a neutral position. (ATDynamics)

Agency Response: The regulation requires dry van trailers to be retrofitted 

with aerodynamic equipment that collectively meets or exceeds a 5 percent fuel 

savings in accordance with test requirements defined by the SmartWay 

program. Refrigerated van trailers are required to be retrofitted with 

aerodynamic equipment that collectively meets or exceeds 4 percent fuel 

savings. The reason for the lesser requirement for refrigerated vans is that 

fewer aerodynamic options are available for them. Specifically, front trailer 

fairings are not feasible on refrigerated vans because the transport refrigeration 

unit is typically installed where the front trailer fairing would be mounted. 

Similarly, requiring a rear trailer fairing on all refrigerated van trailers would be 

too restrictive, since current SmartWay approved rear trailer fairing 

technologies are not compatible with roll-up door trailers. 

62. Comment: In Table IX-2 of the ISOR, the fuel savings ranges are given for 

different types of trailer aerodynamic devices. While using the range of fuel 

savings may be appropriate for side skirts and front trailer fairings, in the case 

of rear trailer fairings, the range of fuel savings (1% to 5.1%) is more than four 

times larger than its lower bound. It would be useful when describing fuel 

savings ranges to subdivide rear trailer fairings into long rear trailer fairings and 

short rear trailer fairings. (ATDynamics)

Agency Response: The categorization of aerodynamic devices provided in 

the Staff Report was based upon information obtained from the U.S. EPA 

SmartWay staff prior to the drafting of the Staff Report. Since that time, 
- 57 - 

SmartWay has grouped their list of verified aerodynamic technologies into the 

following categories: trailer gap reducers (estimated fuel savings 1% or 

greater); trailer boat tails (estimated fuel savings 1% or greater); trailer side 

skirts (estimated fuel savings 4% or greater); advanced trailer end fairing 

(estimated fuel savings 5%); and advanced trailer skirts (estimated fuel savings 

7%). Thus, as proposed by the commenter, SmartWay has differentiated 

between long rear trailer fairings and short rear trailer fairings. 

63. Comment: The rear trailer should be subject to 23 CFR 658.16, “Exclusions 

from Length and Width Determinations,” under the purview of the DOT, Federal 

Highway Administration. The proposed regulation’s “Good Operating Condition 

Criteria for U.S. EPA Certified SmartWay Trailer Aerodynamic Technologies” 

(95304(b)) should include a provision to the effect that, “The rear trailer 

aerodynamic technology must be determined by the Federal Highway 

Administration to be excluded from the length measurements for commercial 

motor vehicles.” (ATDynamics)

Agency Response: The good operating condition criteria for trailer 

aerodynamic technologies defines what an in-field inspector can do to evaluate 

the condition of a technology as it relates to its aerodynamic effectiveness. For 

rear trailer aerodynamic technologies, it also defines a criterion to ensure the 

technology does not interfere with the operation of the rear door. Although 

ARB agrees with the commenter that the length exemption is needed for 

operation on highways, ARB elected not to include the provision as suggested 

by the commenter in the “Good Operating Condition Criteria for U.S. EPA 

Certified SmartWay Trailer Aerodynamic Technologies” section because it is 

not directly related to aerodynamic effectiveness or operation of the trailer and 

ARB does not have enforcement authority to regulate trailer length. However, 

ARB recommends that the commenter bring this issue to the U.S.EPA 

SmartWay Program staff, they may decide to request proof of length exemption 

prior to certifying rear trailer devices. 

64. Comment: Encourage continued innovation in the proposed regulatory 

language and formulate a process for inclusion of new technologies. Do not 

stifle new technologies by limiting the language to include only advocated 

technologies. Wheel covers have been overlooked in the past for economic 

reasons, which is about to change with our new aerodynamic wheel covers 

made of lightweight fabric. (Deflecktor)

Agency Response: The GHG regulation does allow for the inclusion of new 

technologies. However, new technologies, like the commenter’s wheel covers, 

must be verified by U.S EPA in accordance with the Interim Test Method for 

Verifying Fuel-Saving Components for SmartWay: Modifications to SAE J1321, 

EPA-420-F-09-046 (Interim Test Method). We encourage the commenter to 

contact the U.S. EPA regarding the SmartWay verification of their product. 
- 58 - 

E. Technology 

65. Comment: The regulation that you speak to... does not deal with this specific 

area, the wheels. The wheels are standard on everything, regardless of the 

configuration. They’re on all of those things that you eliminate....This product... 

has been found to save one quarter of one percent per wheel cover. I believe it 

is the least amount of investment for the highest payback than any of the 

technologies that are being discussed right now. (Deflecktor)

Agency Response: The aerodynamic technologies that meet the 

requirements of the regulation have been verified by the SmartWay program to 

meet certain fuel efficiency savings standards. If the commenter, or any other 

manufacturer, wishes their device to meet the aerodynamic requirements of this 

regulation, they may apply to the U.S. EPA for verification of their device. 

66. Comment: I would suggest that you work on results instead of methodology, 

because a methodology approach provides a barrier to technology. For 

instance, we have a product that goes against the idea of closing the gap, 

because it actually can create suction on the front of the trailer just like the 

suction on the back of the trailer and help pull it forward. So those rules don’t 

work very well. (Silver Eagle)

Agency Response: The technology requirements in the regulation are based 

on results rather than methodology, as verified by the SmartWay program. The 

regulation requires the use of aerodynamic technologies, which have been 

defined to include both fairings and flow control devices. If the commenter, or 

any other manufacturer, wishes their device to meet the aerodynamic 

requirements of this regulation, they may apply to the U.S. EPA for verification 

of their device. 

67. Comment: You should also allow removable devices for aerodynamics. 

(Silver Eagle)

Agency Response: The regulation does not specify that aerodynamic devices 

must be permanently installed as opposed to being removable. As long as 

aerodynamic devices are SmartWay verified, installed according to 

manufacturer specifications, securely fastened to the trailer, and in good 

operating condition when operating in California, they can be used to meet the 

requirements of the regulation. 

68. Comment: In California, only less than 30 percent of trucks are made for the 

line-haul service. A whole different class of tires works on regional, urban or 

intrastate trucks. If we put the current approved SmartWay tires, and all of the 

manufacturers at the current tires approved, they will not work well on the 

service. So what will happen, fleets will get 30 and 40 percent less mileage on 
- 59 - 

tires, which is certainly a tremendous cost to the fleet and it’s also an 

environmental problem of another sort. We’re recommending that the 

standards be moved to regional and urban tires, a whole different standard – so 

that you could have a broad range of tires. (Continental)

Agency Response: The requirement for low rolling resistance tires contained 

in the regulation is based upon the specifications of the SmartWay program, 

which apply to line haul trucks. As stated on the SmartWay website, “Based 

upon data provided by tire manufacturers and EPA testing and research, EPA 

determined that certain tire models can provide a reduction in NOx emissions 

and an estimated fuel savings of 3% or greater, relative to the ‘best selling’ new 

tires for line haul trucks, when used on all five axles on long haul class 8 

trucks.” The options offered include both dual tires and single wide tires. Since 

the regulation applies to long haul tractor-trailers, those who comply with the 

tire requirements should realize fuel savings benefits over time. Moreover, 

even those who travel more regionally but exceed the short haul requirements 

of the regulation should realize some fuel savings benefits since they travel at 

least some of the time at highway speeds. If and as U.S. EPA expands or 

changes their tire requirements to incorporate alternative applications such as 

regional or urban tires that meet their fuel savings requirements, they may be 

used to comply with this regulation. 

69. Comment: There’s no provision in the bill for retreads. Eighty-some percent of 

fleets retread for economic considerations. It cuts a fleet’s costs... and reduces 

the impact of waste tires on the environment. (Continental)

Agency Response: The regulation does not specifically exclude or include 

retread tires; however, retread tires will be considered compliant with the 

regulation as long as the casings are SmartWay verified. Regarding tires that 

will be replaced by SmartWay verified tires, those tires will continue to have a 

commercial value and use with other types of trailers and tractors that are 

unaffected by this regulation. Thus, ARB determined that there will not be an 

environmental impact since these tires can be used in other fleet operations. 

70. Comment: I’m a proud SmartWay carrier. We have done things they have 

asked us to do, in low resistance tires (super singles), all kinds of different 

fairings, but have we seen any benefit of it? Our company has not seen the 

benefit. (ACT)

Agency Response: The aerodynamic devices and low rolling resistance tires 

referenced in the regulation have been verified by the SmartWay program to 

achieve certain minimum fuel efficiency savings. The SmartWay program 

utilizes industry accepted test methods to evaluate the fuel savings potential 

from using aerodynamic devices and low rolling resistance tires on both tractors 

and trailers. Examples of the types of devices and minimum fuel savings 

attributed to them include the following: trailer gap reducers (1% fuel savings 
- 60 - 

or greater), trailer boat tails (1% or greater), trailer side skirts (4% or greater), 

advanced trailer end fairing (5%), advanced trailer skirts (7%), low rolling 

resistance tires (3% or better for all tires on tractor-trailer). There are currently 

several different technologies available within most of these categories that are 

verified by the SmartWay program to meet or exceed these fuel savings 

requirements. In order to comply with the regulation fleets may select any 

individual or combination of aerodynamic technologies, along with the low 

rolling resistance tires. The commenter did not state which method or what 

was used to calculate their fuel economy, so ARB has no way of determining 

why their fleet did not see any benefits. There are many environmental factors, 

such at ambient conditions, speed, load, driver and other factors that have 

significant affects on a tractor’s fuel economy. Those factors, if working against 

the fuel economy of the truck, will mask any benefits achieved by having the 

technologies required by this regulation. 

71. Comment: While aero devices may help a small number of our customers 

achieve greater fuel economy, most would see no improvement, while incurring 

higher maintenance costs and higher acquisition costs. ARB used numbers 

provided by manufacturers of these devices without taking into account the 

unique California transportation industry’s real-world challenges, which include 

lower speed limits and heavy congestion on our roadways. (CVTRI) 

Agency Response: The fuel economy information used by ARB in its analysis 

was derived from testing conducted according to established U.S. EPA 

SmartWay test procedures. These procedures must be conducted under 

controlled conditions that eliminate mitigating variables in order to allow one to 

more accurately measure the true fuel efficiency benefits of the technologies 

being tested. While on-road testing may appear to achieve different results, 

these results can be misleading, since they will be influenced by such factors 

as wind velocity, ambient temperature, weather conditions, season, driver 

behavior, topography, other road conditions, etc. 

ARB has considered the challenges of the California transportation industry, by 

including full or partial exemptions for short haul and local haul fleets. In 

addition, although the speed limit for tractor-trailers in California is 55 miles per 

hour, California Department of Transportation data on actual speeds travelled 

reveals their vehicle miles travelled weighted average median speeds is 59.7 

miles per hour. Thus, while there certainly are circumstances in California 

where tractor trailer rigs travel at lower speeds with little benefits from the 

aerodynamic technology, on average they do travel at speeds high enough to 

benefit from the requirements of this regulation. 

While there are some up-front acquisition costs associated with aerodynamic 

technologies, ARB estimates that the fuel efficiency savings achieved will offer 

payback within, on average, 2.3 years (for fleets with a trailer-to-tractor ratio of 
- 61 - 

2.5-to-1). This also includes ARB estimates that average annual maintenance 

costs will be approximately $143 for tractors and $120 for trailers. 

72. Comment: We question ARB’s assumptions about payback on the investment 

in various trailer technologies. We already use low rolling resistance tires. The 

assumed fuel savings are much higher than we experienced in real-world 

operation. The purchase and installation costs assumed were substantially 

less than we experienced. And the miles run and cost of fuel are both much 

lower than the assumptive modeling. (Con-Way)

Agency Response: See the agency response to comment # 70 and #71. 

73. Comment: The following recommendations should be incorporated into the 

proposed regulation to allow trucking companies greater flexibility to direct their 

financial resources to reduce GHG emissions. The Board should direct staff to 

perform a more rigorous evaluation of the compliance technologies to ensure 

that they perform satisfactorily and that actual costs and benefits are 

considered. A report documenting this evaluation should be submitted to the 

Board for further consideration no later than December 31, 2009. ATA 

surveyed its fleet maintenance managers in November 2008 and found that the 

trucking fleets have very limited experience with the technologies ARB is 

proposing to mandate. (ATA, Con-Way)

Agency Response: ARB’s evaluation of the performance of the compliance 

technologies in this regulation relies on the U.S. EPA SmartWay program, 

which utilizes industry-accepted test methods to evaluate the fuel savings 

potential from using aerodynamic devices and low rolling resistance tires on 

both tractors and trailers. In terms of the costs and benefits associated with 

these technologies, ARB performed a rigorous evaluation during the 

development of this rule that was presented at workshops and outlined in the 

Staff Report. Staff also contacted several fleets that have been using these 

technologies to understand the real-world experience (Summaries of fleet 

experiences with SmartWay certified trailers and verified technologies can be 

found in Section IX of the Staff Report). The information collected was used in 

ARB’s determination of cost and maintenance of the technologies required 

under this regulation. ARB is unaware and the commenter did not provide any 

details regarding additional information that would be available to conduct a 

more rigorous evaluation of the technologies. Further, ARB acknowledges that 

trucking fleets, as a whole, have limited experience with the technologies, 

which is one of the reasons why implementation of this regulation will generate 

significant GHG emission reductions. 

74. Comment: Putting fairings on our 53-foot trailers reduces our access to our 

stores. In stores where we have pits, those fairings will not clear the pits. We 

will be forced to dispose of or replace the 53-foot trailers with smaller trailers, 
- 62 - 

thereby increasing our loads on the road, increasing our greenhouse gas 

emissions. (SMS)

We’ve seen problems with low ground clearance and we’ve pulled the devices 

off because they get damaged. (Matheson) 

The fairings on these trailers are not going to stay on. They might take a side 

impact, but when you back into a pit dock, you’re going to drag them off. I have 

two and a half feet of clearance from the bottom of the trailer to the cement on 

my tractors and trailers. That SmartWay fairing is not going to stay on there in 

the front when I reverse or back in or pull out of the dock. Sideways it may 

give. Front and back is not going to give. (FTI)

Agency Response: Manufacturers of aerodynamic technologies have 

designed trailer side skirts to address the issue of low clearance, particularly 

when navigating in steep pits. Several alternatives, including using more 

flexible materials and offering a retractable skirt, are currently available. Thus, 

rather than downsize their trailers to avoid complying with this regulation and 

increase their loads on the highway, fleets may purchase SmartWay verified 

skirts that are also designed to withstand steep grades without being damaged. 

75. Comment: We look at some of the numbers the staff has shown on long haul 

and the efficiency of aerodynamics. As a regional short-haul carrier, we cannot 

justify the costs on the trailing equipment. (YTI)

Agency Response: The regulation provides a short-haul exemption for 

tractors that do not exceed 50,000 miles per year and the trailers they pull. 

Those owners will be able to register as short-haul, and will not have to comply 

with either the aerodynamic or tire requirements of the regulation. In addition, 

the regulation provides a partial exemption for fleets that do not travel outside 

of a 100 mile radius from their base of operation (local haul). Those fleets will 

only be required to install low rolling resistance tires, but not aerodynamic 

equipment, in order to comply with the regulation. For those fleets that exceed 

either of these two options, ARB anticipates that they will, over time, achieve 

sufficient benefits from using the required technologies to realize a cost 

savings. 

76. Comment: With aerodynamics it’s not a one size fits all. We have trucks that 

run in stop and go traffic. Aerodynamics don’t help them a bit. (Matheson) 

Agency Response: See response to comment #75. 

77. Comment: These fairings that are being proposed to go on the rear of trailers 

will increase that trailer’s length by four feet. How is that going to be reconciled 

with the overall length rule in the state of California? And is there any kind of 

provision for those of us that haul 57-foot trailers already that aren’t allowed to 
- 63 - 

proceed past that overall length? Are those of us who haul 57-footers going to 

go out of business when everyone else can still be hauling a 57-footer with 

these fairings? (CDMI) 

Agency Response: The regulation does not specifically require the use of a 

rear trailer fairing in order to comply with its aerodynamic technology 

requirements. The regulation requires that dry vans and refrigerated vans meet 

a 5% and 4% improvement in fuel efficiency, respectively. There are a number 

of trailer side skirts that have been verified by SmartWay to meet or exceed the 

fuel efficiency savings required by this regulation that will not impact the overall 

length of trailers. Specifically, at the time of this writing there are four different 

trailer side skirts that have been verified to meet or exceed a 4% or greater fuel 

savings, and an additional 9 advanced trailer skirts that have been verified to 

achieve an estimated fuel savings of 5% or better. 

ARB is exploring the possibility of modifying the California Vehicle Code to 

eliminate rear trailer fairings from the calculation of trailer length. If approved 

and implemented, 57-foot trailers would be able to operate on California 

highways with trailer rear trailer fairings and not be cited for exceeding the 

California length limitation. See also agency response to #93. 

78. Comment: ARB should not implement the proposed regulation but rather 

adopt it as a voluntary program for the trucking industry. Further testing and 

analysis need to be performed before such a drastic measure should be made 

mandatory. There is not sufficient data available on the technologies during 

real world operations and what the true costs and benefits of the technologies 

will be. Instead of the combination of technologies mandated in the proposed 

regulation, it may be that alternative combinations of technologies will achieve 

the best balance of weight savings, fuel savings and GHG reductions for 

particular types of trailers and cargo. (TTMA)

There are insufficient data available to demonstrate how the various 

aerodynamic technologies perform in the real-world California short-haul 

operations and thus not enough data to support a regulatory mandate. ARB 

should follow U.S. EPA’s lead and adopt a voluntary standard that is real, 

additional, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable. This will 

prevent ARB from overestimating GHG reductions and focus on new equipment 

purchases instead of on the in-use fleet. (IWLA) 

GTI is concerned with the direction that California is taking. We feel that the 

transportation sector has borne more than its share of costs due to the new 

engine standards in 2004, 2007 and 2010. We feel that letting the market 

determine implementation of aerodynamic devices or fuel efficient tires, versus 

legislation to mandate these items, is the most effective manner for 

implementation. The required technology is not proven and in the real world, 
- 64 - 

the results will differ greatly from the costs and benefits that ARB is using to 

make their case. (GTI)

Agency Response: ARB cannot adopt a voluntary program in place of the 

regulation because this regulation is one of the discrete early action measures 

mandated by AB 32. AB 32 calls for the reduction of GHG emissions to 1990 

levels by the year 2020, a reduction of about 25 percent. In addition, as a 

discrete early action measure, this regulation must become enforceable by 

January 1, 2010, and must support the goal of achieving the maximum 

technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions by 

2020. Relying exclusively on voluntary actions would not ensure that California 

meets these requirements. 

Due to the short time frame to develop and implement this regulation, ARB 

must rely on the U.S. EPA SmartWay program, which was already in place 

prior to the development of this regulation, to verify and certify the aerodynamic 

and tire technologies that meet the requirements. With regard to the comments 

on the need for establishing benefits with testing and analysis and the request 

for flexibility in using various technologies, please see agency response to 

comment # 26. 

As described in the Staff Report, staff interviewed a number of existing fleets 

that had used aerodynamic and tire technologies in “real world” applications. 

Although some of the fleets were not able to isolate the benefits that were 

achieved from using these technologies exclusively, those who could isolate 

the benefits attributed an estimated 3 to 6 percent improvement in fuel 

economy with trailer side skirts – a significant improvement according to these 

fleet representatives. As stated in the agency responses to comment #3, 

ARB’s analysis determined that, over the course of an 11-year equipment 

lifespan, from 2010 to 2020, affected stakeholders should realize an 

approximate net savings of $8.6 billion in 2008 dollar values. ARB further 

determined that individual fleets will, on average, recoup the costs to comply 

over a 2.3-year period (based on a trailer-to-tractor ratio of 2.5-to-1 and an 

estimated fuel cost of $3.14 per gallon). Although the requirements will result in 

cost savings for fleets over the equipment useful life, ARB also understands the 

upfront cost and the cost of other regulations that will have an impact on the 

trucking industry. Please see agency response to comment #16 regarding the 

need for developing regulations applicable to the trucking industry and the 

flexibility provided to help the industry comply. 

79. Comment: The TRU rule is a perfect example of a rule that was put together 

in haste without enough real world testing. In that rule the available technology 

was not available to meet the requirements of the rule and in some cases are 

still not available. Do not take the word of vendors using tests that prove only 

that one product is superior to another in a particular situation. The real world 

of transportation is too diverse to say that one fix will work for all aspects of the 
- 65 - 

industry. Please send this rule back to staff and urge them to work with 

industry to achieve the goals you have set. (CVTRI)

Agency Response: Despite the fact that AB 32 required this regulation be 

developed and enforceable by January 1, 2010, the technologies that can be 

used to comply with the regulation are all certified or verified to meet the 

standards established by the SmartWay program, and are therefore ready to be 

used. As new technologies become available, manufacturers must complete 

specific test procedures (e.g., SAE J1321) and apply to the U.S. EPA for either 

verification or certification of their vehicles or equipment before they can be 

used by fleets to meet the requirements of this regulation. At the present time 

SmartWay has verified 21 different aerodynamic technologies that fleets can 

utilize, including trailer gap reducers, trailer boat tails, trailer side skirts, 

advanced trailer end fairings, and advanced trailer skirts. ARB anticipates that 

with the large and small fleet compliance plans which allow fleets to phase-in 

compliance over several years, manufacturers will be able to respond to 

demand and ramp up production as demand increases over time (see also 

agency response to comment #84. 

80. Comment: The SmartWay equipment does not have a track record for fuel 

savings. Over the years, industry has already tried these components and has 

discovered the expense of repairing the fiberglass damage inherent with the 

lower fairing placement far outweighed any fuel savings realized. (Fitzgerald)

Agency Response: The equipment certified or verified by the SmartWay 

program has been shown through accepted test procedures to achieve specific 

fuel savings, as described on the SmartWay website. As described in the Staff 

Report, among the fleets that staff interviewed who currently use trailer side 

skirt technologies, the vast majority reported having very few incidents of 

damage to the side skirts; among the minority who experienced damage, all 

were minor (and were often caused by driver error).

The performance and durability of side skirts has been improving relative to the 

products used by industry “over the years” as manufacturers develop newer, 

more flexible products. ARB anticipates that the availability of such options will 

only increase with time, fueled by increasing competition in the marketplace. 

There are already skirts that are far more flexible, resistant to breakage, as well 

as those that retract either manually or mechanically, to prevent problems when 

navigating steep inclines. 

81. Comment: The emission reductions of the technology mandated by the 

proposed regulation are questionable because few fleets have used the 

required technology. In addition, the selection of technologies is arbitrary; it is 

difficult to understand the rationale behind the selection of certain types of 

equipment and not others, given the lack of data and experience with these 

technologies. There are far less costly and more reliable ways to reduce fuel 
- 66 - 

use and emission, including reductions in truck speed. Most fleets have 

learned that the single most significant factor in fuel use is driver technique and 

behavior. Effective driver training programs can do as much to improve fuel 

efficiency as any of the technologies outlined by ARB. (AZTA)

Agency Response: Although ARB agrees that there are other approaches 

that fleets can take to reduce GHG emissions, ARB disagrees with the 

statement that the technologies required by this regulation are questionable 

because few fleets have used them. While the number of fleets using them 

may be limited, U.S. EPA has evaluated the testing of aerodynamic 

technologies using established test protocols and has verified the fuel efficiency 

savings associated with them. Moreover, the selection of technologies is not 

arbitrary, but rather based upon those that have been certified or verified by 

SmartWay to provide specific fuel efficiency savings. As additional 

aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance tires are verified by 

SmartWay to achieve verified fuel efficiency savings, they may be used to 

comply with the regulation. While ARB agrees that driver technique and 

behavior is a significant contributor to fuel efficiency, it is not something that 

ARB can mandate or enforce. ARB encourages fleets to add this technique to 

their strategy to improving fuel efficiency beyond what is required by this 

regulation. Such action would result in further emission reductions and cost 

savings for the fleet. 

82. Comment: Some of the technologies required for compliance are not yet 

ready to be used. (Brian)

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with this statement. The technologies that 

can be used to comply with the regulation are all certified or verified to meet the 

standards established by the SmartWay program, and are therefore ready to be 

used. As new technologies become available, manufacturers must complete 

specific test procedures and apply to the U.S. EPA for either verification or 

certification of their vehicles or equipment before they can be used by fleets to 

meet the requirements of this regulation. 

83. Comment: Staff’s cost-effectiveness calculations have not reflected the reality 

of the costs that regulated entities are likely to face. SmartWay does not test 

for or certify durability. The technologies are so new that there is no good data 

on maintenance costs from damage to side skirts. CTA recommends that staff 

revise its cost-effectiveness analysis to ensure that it reflects a realistic 

appraisal of the costs of the program versus any claimed benefits. (CTA2)

Agency Response: It is true that SmartWay does not test or certify durability. 

Among the aerodynamic technologies, the most vulnerable components to 

damage are the trailer side skirts. As discussed in the Staff Report page 40 

and in Appendix E, staff discussed the issue of durability of the technologies 

with fleets who have already installed trailer skirts on their equipments. The 
- 67 - 

majority of the fleets reported having very few incidents of minor damage to the 

skirts which were mainly caused by driver error, while some were caused by 

unavoidable accidents. Fleets reported that when damage occurred to skirts, 

they were often able to repair minor damages themselves, or they were able to 

easily replace the panels. ARB believes that such incidents will be minimized 

as drivers and warehouse personnel get familiar with the technologies. In 

addition, aerodynamic equipment manufacturers are continuously taking steps 

to improve their products susceptibility to damage by improving the design and 

materials of the components. For example, some have changed from skirts 

made of aluminum to a new version that uses high density polyethylene which 

is strong, but also flexible enough to withstand damage. Some have developed 

retractable skirts that are pneumatically controlled and that deploy at 35 miles 

per hour and retract when speed drops below 35 miles per hour, reducing the 

chances of getting damaged at loading docks and in urban operations. 

ARB believes that no annual scheduled maintenance is needed for tractor and 

trailer aerodynamics other than checking and tightening loose fasteners. 

However, in calculating the cost-effectiveness of the regulation, ARB included 

costs incurred to maintain tractor and trailer aerodynamics in order to be 

conservative because the equipments may get damaged due to accidents. As 

discussed on page 61 of the Staff Report, ARB included an annual 

maintenance cost of $143 for the fuel tank skirts based on the repair and 

replacement of a fiberglass panel for one out of ten tractors. For trailer 

maintenance and repair, ARB included an average cost of $120 per year per 

trailer. This amount was estimated by averaging $170 (about 10 percent of the 

cost of a trailer skirt) reported by one fleet that used trailers skirts in harsh 

environments of snow and ice; and $75 per year per trailer from a 2.5 year 

maintenance study of 20 trailers. ARB believes that these are very 

conservative and reasonable estimates and the cost-effectiveness analysis 

reflects a conservative evaluation of the program costs and claimed benefits. 

84. Comment: ARB should not create a mandatory upgrade program based upon 

the faith that appropriate aerodynamic technologies will be developed in the 

future and that the small, poorly capitalized companies that manufacture 

aerodynamic technologies will have the ability to cover the costs of warranty 

and liability claims. (CTA2)

Agency Response: The technology requirements contained in the regulation 

are not based on faith that appropriate aerodynamic technologies will be 

developed in the future, but rather on the specific technologies verified by the 

SmartWay program to provide fuel efficiency savings. There are currently, at 

the time of this writing, 21 different verified technologies listed on the SmartWay 

website that may be used by fleets to comply with this regulation. 

While many of the manufacturers that provide aerodynamic technologies are 

small companies, some have licensed their technologies to larger companies 
- 68 - 

such as Carrier Corporation, which is a part of United Technologies 

Corporation. 

ARB has no authority to require manufacturers to cover the costs of warranty 

and liability claims. It is up to individual customers to make informed purchases 

and to ensure that they have appropriate liability coverage for their equipment. 

85. Comment: Con-way disputes the accuracy of the fuel savings associated with 

tractor skirts projected by ARB, as they are based on projections that do not 

take into account the increase in vehicle weight that will result from their 

installation. Con-way conducted a two year comparison test with a fleet of ten 

tractors to evaluate the fuel mileage performance of tractors equipped with full 

skirts versus those equipped with half or no skirts. On average, the test trucks 

achieved 0.12 miles per gallon, or 2 percent, better fuel efficiency with half or 

no skirts versus full skirts during the test period. While no wind tunnel testing 

was performed, we believe that the improved performance of trucks with half or 

no skirts versus those with full skirts was primarily due to a reduction in vehicle 

weight once the skirts were reduced or removed. In addition, full skirts cover 

the tractor’s fuel tank, which causes heat retention, increasing the temperature 

of the fuel and reducing its British thermal unit output. In the winter, full side 

skirts collect more ice and snow build-up, which further increases the weight of 

the tractor and further reduces fuel mileage performance. Since the test 

program, Con-way Truckload has primarily operated tractors with half or no 

side skirts throughout its fleet and these units have consistently outperformed 

tractors with full skirts. The company currently operates 200 tractors with full 

skirts and these units are consistently the lowest performing trucks in its fleet by 

0.19 miles per gallon, or 3.2 percent, for the past 12 months. ARB’s projection 

as to the return on investment of this technology is inaccurate. (Con-way)

Agency Response: To be clear, the commenter’s use of the term “skirts” is, in 

this case, not referring to trailer side skirts, but rather the tractor’s fuel tank 

fairings. Discussions with fleets that have used fuel tank fairings show 

improvements in fuel economy and no negative impacts (see Staff Report, 

Appendix E: Fleet Summaries, summary of phone meetings with B & B 

Trucking, Inc., Cascade Transport, Inc., and Hiner Transport). One fleet, which 

has been using fuel tank fairings since 1999, noted at least a 0.1 miles per 

gallon savings at 65 miles per hour. Two other fleets did not isolate the fuel 

economy benefits of the tractor fuel tank fairings alone but noted a significant 

overall benefit with the combination of several tractor and trailer aerodynamics. 

The fuel economy benefits were observed even with the added weight of 

aerodynamic equipment, because the testing was conducted on trucks with 

tractor fuel tank fairings and other equipment installed. 

The commenter did not provide the actual test data or a test plan to show how 

the testing was performed. Therefore, ARB was unable to analyze the data or 

provide an explanation for the lack of fuel economy benefit. Information such 
- 69 - 

as the type and amount of driving by the skirted and non-skirted tractors, the 

load on the trucks, the types of trailers being pulled, and maintenance records 

would be invaluable for analyzing the test program and explaining the results. 

86. Comment: Con-way disputes the accuracy of the fuel savings associated with 

trailer skirts projected by ARB, as they are based on projections that do not 

take into account the increase in vehicle weight that will result from their 

installation. Con-way Truckload has not experienced the improvement in fuel 

economy projected by ARB in its use of trailers equipped with side skirts. The 

Company operates over 8,000 53-foot dry van trailers, approximately 400 of 

which were equipped with side skirts up until last year. The fuel economy 

observed in the field was less than 3 percent at high speeds in excess of 60 

miles per hour and none at speeds of less than 45 miles per hour. The skirts 

added hundreds of pounds of extra weight to the trailer and also had the 

tendency to collect snow and ice in the winter. This results in reduced fuel 

efficiency and limiting their loading capacity. Skirts were frequently damaged, 

resulting in higher repair and replacement costs. Also skirts prevented sliding 

the trailer tandem and prevented the trailer from being lifted onto railroad cars. 

As a result of these issues, after two years of operation on 400 trailers, Conway Truckload has determined that it simply is not cost-effective from a return 

on investment perspective to install and operate them on its trailer fleet. ARB’s 

projection as to the return on investment of this technology is inaccurate. (Conway) 

Agency Response: The commenter’s claim of little or no benefit from trailer 

side skirts is contrary to the claims made by trucking fleets that staff contacted 

during the development of this regulation. Of the six fleets staff contacted that 

use trailer side skirts, four noted about a 2 to 3 percent fuel economy benefit at 

high speed cruise. One fleet observed a six percent increase in fuel economy 

and another observed a 10 percent increase (Staff Report, Appendix E). These 

fuel economy benefits were observed over a period of time ranging from six 

months to two years, depending on the fleet. The commenter’s fleet of trailers 

achieved fuel economy increases also within this range. Factors that may 

influence fuel economy include operator driving habits, vehicle duty cycle, the 

loaded weight of the trailer, other aerodynamic devices, and environmental 

conditions. While side skirts are SmartWay verified to achieve an estimated 

four percent or better fuel economy increase, real world use may obtain slightly 

different results depending on these factors. 

The commenter also noted that trailer skirts may collect snow and ice in the 

winter. Skirt manufacturers contend that the current materials from which their 

skirts are constructed tend to prevent ice buildup, but if it does build up, the ice 

can be easily scraped off. In addition, the commenter stated that the skirts 

were frequently damaged. Skirt manufacturers have addressed this concern by 

using durable thermoplastics for all or at least the lower part of trailer skirts 

such that they will bend and flex without permanent damage when they contact 
- 70 - 

an obstacle. Also, one manufacturer produces a retractable skirt that can be 

flipped up to avoid a deep-angled dock or to access tool boxes or spare tires on 

the underside of the trailer. Finally, the commenter stated that skirts prevent 

sliding the trailer tandem and prevent the trailer from being lifted onto railroad 

cars. Some skirt manufacturers have addressed the former issue of the sliding 

tandem by stopping the trailer skirt at the rear tandem or by having the skirt 

slaved to the trailer tandem and sliding with it. The latter issue of a trailer on a 

flatcar is addressed by skirt manufacturers that provide an optional package for 

a trailer to be placed on the flatcar without damage. Trailer owners should 

review the skirt models from different manufacturers to choose the product that 

best fits their needs in daily operation. 

Also, staff did meet with Conway representatives during the rulemaking process 

to solicit fleet experience and data. Although Conway did mention that most of 

the trailer skirts they tested sustained some type of road damage, they did not 

provide any specifics, such as damage rates, types of damage, severity of 

damage, and repair costs. Therefore, ARB was unable to fully assess 

Conway’s claims. In addition, the trailer skirts that Conway tested were first 

generation trailer skirts. The trailer skirts that are currently available are much 

less susceptible to damage than those tested by Conway. See also agency 

response to comment #83 regarding trailer skirts for more information. 

87. Comment: Our company tested low rolling resistance tires and side skirts on a 

trailer to realize true fuel efficiencies of technologies. Using the Turnpike 

System, the constants were the driver, truck, trailer, route (Chino, CA to Las 

Vegas, NV), average load weight and all factors measured by Turnpike’s GPS 

system. The variables were the tires and side skirts. The results were as 

follows: Phase 1 (no side skirts or low rolling resistance tires) achieved an 

average fuel consumption of 6.13 miles per gallon; Phase 2 (side skirts only) 

achieved an average fuel consumption of 6.12 miles per gallon; Phase 3 (side 

skirts and low rolling resistance tires) achieved an average fuel consumption of 

6.32 miles per gallon (an increase of 3.24 percent).

Conclusions: 1) The assertions made by the US EPA, ARB and side skirt 

companies regarding the benefits of adding this aerodynamic technology to a 

trailer appear to be contraindicative of our findings. The side skirts we tested, 

overall, have no positive effects on a long haul tractor trailer. These findings 

suggest that the side skirts may actually hinder fuel efficiency for tractor trailers. 

2) The tires that are certified by the US EPA’s SmartWay program have a 

definite positive effect on the overall fuel efficiency of the tractor trailer that we 

utilized in this study. These findings suggest that the low rolling resistance tires 

can help fuel efficiency. (MCA) 

Agency Response: The data provided are difficult to analyze given the lack of 

detailed information. The commenter did not indicate the duration of the test 

program, how many test runs were completed, and what types of vehicle 

speeds were encountered during the route. Also, the actual test results were 
- 71 - 

not shared with ARB to analyze. Thus, ARB is unable to ascertain, based on 

the comment provided, why no fuel economy benefit was observed with the use 

of side skirts. In its discussions with other fleet operators, ARB was 

consistently told by companies using side skirts that they observed a noticeable 

fuel economy benefit. See section E of the Staff Report and agency response 

to comment #86 for further information about staff’s discussions of these fleets. 

See also agency response to comment #50 for a more detailed discussion 

regarding this topic. 

88. Comment: There have been significant operational problems reported with the 

aerodynamic technologies that are currently available. Some of these issues 

concern specific transportation vocations; others are related to freight 

movement infrastructure. For example, trailers with side skirts cannot be 

loaded onto railcars without the side skirts being damaged; trailers with side 

skirts cannot use tapered or steeply ramped loading docks without sustaining 

damage, docks at a large number of facilities originally constructed to handle 

40-foot trailers. Side skirts have been found to be easily damaged in normal 

usage such as crossing roadways and railroad tracks and block access to 

equipment such as tool boxes and spare tire racks that are commonly stored 

under the trailer body. (CTA2)

Agency Response: See agency response to comment #86. 

89. Comment: Trailer skirting is ineffective and reduces payload. Rate of speed is 

essential for aerodynamics such as trailer skirting to be effective. Trailer 

skirting adds 150 to 300 pounds of weight to the trailer and the skirts do not 

provide fuel economy in urban settings at lower rates of speed. The higher 

weight will provide less fuel economy and increase the carbon footprint for 

trucks. (IWLA)

Agency Response: The maximum aerodynamic benefits of trailer skirts are 

achieved during steady-state highway driving. However, operating the vehicle 

at lower cruise speeds has shown lower benefits as well. At urban speeds, 

trailer skirts may only provide nominal fuel economy benefits. As a result, the 

regulation provides an exemption for trucks driven locally, primarily within the 

city, and for low-use vehicles, which will likely be driven primarily in the city. 

These local haul and short haul trucks would have low fuel economy benefits at 

a high cost and thus, the regulation includes exemption provisions for these 

trucks. See also agency response to comment #94 regarding the weight of the 

aerodynamic equipment. 

90. Comment: While belly fairings will reduce drag and improve fuel economy, we 

have the following concerns. First, in a sliding tandem axle when the tandem is 

moved to comply with bridge weight laws, the fuel economy benefit, on some 

fairings, is lost because the distance between the tail end of the fairing and the 

front tire of a tandem-axle trailer is greater than 1-6 inches for optimal fuel 
- 72 - 

economy. We are then left with carrying extra weight on a trailer. Also, the 

200-500 pound weight gain by installing a belly fairing will reduce hauling 

capacity. (GTI) 

Agency Response: While it is true that aerodynamic equipment provides the 

greatest fuel economy benefit under optimal conditions, more modest benefits 

can usually be obtained under less than optimal circumstances. In the case 

where the sliding tandem axle is moved back, which creates a greater distance 

between the fairing and this axle, the trailer skirt coverage will still be significant 

and provide partial fuel economy benefits. In addition, at least one skirt 

manufacturer has addressed this issue by having the skirt slaved to the trailer 

tandem and sliding with it. In the case of the trailer skirt consisting of panels, 

an additional panel may be added, if appropriate, to increase skirt coverage 

and maximize fuel economy benefit. See agency response to comment #86 

regarding trailer side skirts. See also agency response to comment #94 

regarding the weight of the aerodynamic equipment. 

91. Comment: Most trucking companies have had little or no experience with 

retrofitted trailer skirts and fairings, even less with these items as original 

equipment enhancements. How will retrofitted trailer skirts and fairings hold up 

under normal wear-and-tear? How often will they need to be replaced during 

the average useful life of a trailer? (For example, the average age of trailers in 

revenue operation throughout the United States today is about 7.5 years, 

depending upon type and utilization.) How will retrofits affect trailer warranties? 

(AZTA)

Agency Response: As discussed in the Staff Report, the majority of the 

interviewed fleets that have used aerodynamic technologies stated little 

additional maintenance or few damage issues. In the winter, some drivers 

noted ice buildup but they were easily able to remove the ice from the skirts. 

Side skirt manufacturers, aware of the need for increased resistance to dents 

and impact, are using flexible thermoplastic materials for the entire or lower 

portion of the side skirts such that the material retains its shape when impacted, 

especially at low speeds. One manufacturer has also designed retractable side 

skirts to avoid any impact at all with angled docks or elevated railroad tracks. 

In addition, discussions with fleets show that many cases of side skirt damage 

were caused by driver error. Thus, driver education would also help minimize 

damage incidents. 

The warranty of the aerodynamic technologies will vary by manufacturer and by 

product type. For example, one manufacturer of trailer skirts will warrant its 

trailer skirts for 5 years while another manufacturer warrants them for 1 year. 

Another manufacturer of trailer skirts expects a 10 year service life in normal 

operation. Still another manufacturer has partnered with a major manufacturer 

of refrigeration units for trailers and tractors to provide its services and warranty 

on aerodynamic devices. A comparison of the various verified SmartWay 
- 73 - 

technologies will aid truck owners in choosing the best technology or 

combination of technologies. The impact of trailer retrofits on trailer warranties 

is a matter to be addressed with individual trailer manufacturers and dealers. 

92. Comment: According to ARB’s own research, more than one million trailer 

retrofit devices will be needed to meet the requirements of the proposed 

regulation. Yet we are aware of only two manufacturing entities that currently 

produce these devices. How will ARB ensure sufficient manufacturing capacity 

to produce these devices within the deadlines envisioned by the regulation? 

(AZTA)

Agency Response: With regard to the number of manufacturers that produce 

trailer retrofit equipment, the Staff Report, published in October 2008, identified 

four companies that manufactured SmartWay verified trailer side skirts as well 

as three other companies that produced front trailer fairings and another 

company that produced rear trailer fairings. As of September 2009, according 

the SmartWay website, the number of companies with SmartWay verified trailer 

side skirts, front trailer fairings, and rear trailer fairings grew to nine, four, and 

four respectively. 

While the Staff Report identified more than one million impacted trailers, these 

trailers will not be required to be retrofitted all at once. If a fleet owner chooses 

to participate in an optional implementation schedule, only a certain percentage 

of impacted trailers will be affected each year, beginning in 2010. For example, 

in 2010, a large fleet will only be required to retrofit five percent of its trailer fleet 

to comply with the requirements. Such flexibility not only allows fleets to spread 

the cost of implementation over several years but also to recover this cost 

through fuel savings generated by impacted trailers. The phase-in schedule 

will also spread the number of retrofit equipment required for the entire trailer 

fleet over many years. 

93. Comment: The only available aerodynamic equipment for compliance would 

add another 3 feet to the overall length of the vehicle, resulting in a total of 76 

feet for the overall vehicle and exceeding the 65 foot length restriction for state 

and local highways. (Upfold)

Agency Response: (Note: The commenter stated that adding the 3-foot 

aerodynamic device to the truck would total 76 feet, which implies that the truck 

without the aerodynamic device is 73 feet. 73 feet is greater than the 65 foot 

length restriction and thus will already be in violation of the length restriction. 

Therefore, ARB assumes that the commenter inadvertently stated 76 feet but 

meant 66 feet instead.) 

The federal government sets certain vehicle length provisions that are 

applicable on the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways 

(National Network, or NN) and its applicable Terminal Access (TA) routes. 

These provisions allow vehicles to exceed the State’s own length limitations in 
- 74 - 

order to allow for the use of 53-foot trailers. The provisions also exclude, from 

vehicle length determinations, the additional length added by rear trailer fairings 

that meet certain safety standards, as determined by U.S. DOT. Therefore, 

rear trailer fairings that comply with these standards are not counted towards 

vehicle length on NN and TA routes. 

However, it is true that a trailer equipped with a rear trailer fairing could cause a 

combination vehicle to exceed the 65-foot length limit currently in force on 

California Legal routes. Therefore, ARB is pursuing legislation that would 

exclude the additional length from length determinations on California Legal 

routes as well. 

Lastly, the regulation does not specifically require the use of rear trailer fairings 

in order to comply. There are other technologies available, such as trailer 

skirts. See agency response to comment #77 regarding alternative 

aerodynamic technologies. 

94. Comment: Current California and federal laws do not allow a weight or length 

tolerance to accommodate the trailer equipment. Carriers that comply with the 

proposed ARB regulation are at risk for violating the state and federal weight 

and length restrictions. (AZTA)

Agency Response: At this time, federal and state laws do not provide an 

exemption for the weight of trailer aerodynamic equipment. Therefore, trucks 

retrofitted with aerodynamic equipment must not exceed the maximum legal 

weight limit of 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. The weight of the trailer 

equipment will not likely affect motor carriers that haul cargo with less than the 

maximum weight capacity; however, motor carriers that carry cargo at the 

maximum weight capacity must consider the trailer equipment weight when 

determining how much cargo the truck may carry (i.e., weight-limited load). 

See agency responses to comments #77 and #93 regarding vehicle length 

restrictions. 

95. Comment: The fuel economy improvement of using a nose fairing will vary 

greatly based upon the gap between the back of the tractor and the front of the 

trailer. If this gap is kept to a minimum and the tractor already carries the full 

aerodynamic package, it will provide nominal improvement, if any. Finally, the 

nose fairing adds 50 to 150 pound weight gain, reducing the cargo hauling 

capacity. (GTI) 

Agency Response: This regulation does not require that fleets utilize any 

particular aerodynamic technology, but rather leaves the choice to the fleet 

owner. ARB agrees that there may be circumstances when a trailer gap 

reducer (nose fairing) may not offer as much fuel economy improvement as in 

other circumstances, depending on the configuration of the tractor-trailer. In 
- 75 - 

those situations, a fleet may select one or more other technologies in order to 

meet the 5 percent (or 4%) reduction required by this regulation. Nevertheless, 

several trailer front fairings have been verified by SmartWay to achieve a one 

percent or greater improvement in fuel economy. The testing required for 

verification specifies that the tractor must be equipped with features typical of 

line haul combination trucks, including a high roof fairing, side cab extender 

fairings, and aerodynamic profile. Thus, even with these tractor features, trailer 

gap reducers will still be effective in maintaining smoother air flow around the 

vehicle and reducing aerodynamic drag. See the agency response to comment 

#94 regarding the weight of the aerodynamic equipment. 

96. Comment: Reducing the vortex behind a trailer will improve the truck fuel 

economy; however, the boat tail designs that we have seen or evaluated are 

not easy or easy enough to employ. They will take man-hours each and every 

day. (GTI)

Agency Response: In September 2009, there were four rear trailer fairing 

technologies verified through the SmartWay program. One rear trailer fairing 

can be opened in about six seconds and closed in about eight seconds while 

allowing drivers to swing trailer doors around to the sides of the trailer in the 

usual way for full cargo access. Another type of rear trailer fairing requires a 

couple of minutes to open and close to allow full access for the trailer doors. 

Therefore, the use of the rear trailer fairing should only add between a few 

seconds and a few minutes to load and unload, depending on the technology; 

these technologies will not require an overly burdensome amount of man-hours 

each day to deploy and retract the devices. Trailer owners should review the 

rear trailer fairings verified through the SmartWay program and determine the 

best technology to meet their operation’s needs. 

97. Comment: Test track results may show the fuel economy of a particular tire at 

a particular speed, however, when the same tire is used for an over-the road 

test, the results will vary greatly. First, low-rolling resistance tires diminish the 

traction of the tire, which equates to greater stopping distances and more 

accidents. There is a balance between rolling resistance and fuel economy that 

needs to be maintained and considered by application. Second, while widebase tires will cost the same as two single tires, the longevity of the tread and 

the casing are half that of a set of single tires. Wide-base tires also require a 

different wheel. Therefore, the transition cost from eight single tires to four 

wide- base tires could cost from $3,000 to $5,000 per piece of instrument. 

Finally, the rubber for a low-rolling resistant tire is harder and will not handle 

impacts as well as softer rubber composition and therefore will result in more 

failures on the road. (GTI)

Agency Response: As discussed in the Staff Report, the development of lowrolling resistance tires began largely in response to the 1975 Energy Policy 

Conservation Act, and since 1980, the tire and rubber industry has responded 
- 76 - 

by reducing the rolling resistance of tires by more than 50 percent. Thus, 

reducing the rolling resistance of tires is not a new concept but has been 

researched and developed over several decades. Requiring the use of the 

lowest rolling resistance tires through the SmartWay program will achieve 

additional fuel reductions compared to conventional tires. One of the test 

methods for the verification of SmartWay low-rolling resistance tires, SAE 

J1321 fuel consumption test, requires testing on a test track at defined speeds. 

While only limited vehicle speeds are tested, the test cycle broadly represents 

real-world driving. 

The regulation requires the use of SmartWay verified low-rolling resistance 

tires. Vehicle owners may choose to use SmartWay verified dual tires or single 

wide tires (single wide tires replace the double tire on each end of a drive or 

trailer axle) to comply with this requirement. The main advantage of using 

SmartWay verified dual tires over single wide tires is that no modification to the 

vehicle needs to be made. The Staff Report lists four manufacturers that 

produce SmartWay verified dual tires. Anticipating that fleets will utilize this 

less costly option to comply with the requirements, the cost analysis included 

only the cost for the use of SmartWay verified dual tires. 

Tire manufacturers have made improvements to both the SmartWay verified 

tire casing and tread design over the years. Today’s technology 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, lowrolling resistance tire casings 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. 

F. Safety 

98. Comment: While belly fairings will reduce drag and improve fuel economy, the 

fairings will drag on the ground and be damaged when backing in or pulling out 

of an angled dock, depending on the make and model of the fairings, as well as 

being damaged due to road debris, curbs, etc. A damaged trailer cannot be 

moved and would require a road call to repair or tow the trailer. (GTI)

Agency Response: The SmartWay program verifies two categories of trailer 

side skirts (sometimes called belly fairings), one of which is estimated to 

achieve a four percent or greater fuel savings and the other a five percent or 

greater fuel savings. The latter category incorporates advanced designs and/or 

increased side coverage to further reduce aerodynamic drag as compared to 

the four percent fuel savings category. Currently verified side skirts are made 

of aluminum or thermoplastic materials and may be constructed of a single 

panel or of modular panels for each side. Side skirt manufacturers, aware of 
- 77 - 

the need for increased resistance to dents and impact, are using flexible 

thermoplastic material for the entire or lower portion of the side skirts such that 

the material retains its shape when impacted, especially at low speeds. One 

manufacturer has also designed retractable side skirts to avoid any impact at all 

with angled docks or other steep inclines. In addition, discussions with fleets 

show that many cases of side skirt damage were caused by driver error. Thus, 

driver education would also help minimize damage incidents.

If, however, the side skirt is damaged, the truck driver will have to assess 

whether the vehicle is safe to drive back to its home or local base for repair or 

whether a road call is necessary to repair or tow the trailer. The regulation 

requires that aerodynamic technologies be securely fastened to the trailer, must 

not be used with missing sections, and must not be used if damaged to such an 

extent as to compromise their effectiveness. Thus, if there is damage, the 

driver must determine the extent of the damage, and if the skirt is only dented 

or slightly cracked but not broken off, it may be safe to drive. If serious damage 

occurs to the side skirt, a road call may be necessary to repair or tow the trailer. 

99. Comment: Staff’s cost-effectiveness calculations have not reflected the reality 

of the costs that regulated entities are likely to face. SmartWay does not test 

for or certify safety. ARB must factor in the public safety consequences of 

requiring the mounting of equipment whose safety has not been certified. Also, 

the insurance costs associated with having to install equipment that has no 

safety certification need to be taken into account. CTA recommends that staff 

revise its cost-effectiveness analysis to ensure that it reflects a realistic 

appraisal of the costs of the program versus any claimed benefits. (CTA2)

Agency Response: The regulation specifies that any aerodynamic technology 

used on a tractor or trailer must be in good operating condition such that they 

be securely fastened to the tractor or trailer and not be used with any missing 

sections. In addition, the technology must be installed according to the 

manufacturer’s specifications. Trailer owners and vehicle drivers are required 

to ensure that these good operating conditions are met before a vehicle is 

operated on California highways. 

While it is true that the SmartWay program does not test for or certify safety, 

the aerodynamic devices are exterior components placed on the vehicle and do 

not impact the engine or any combustible component, and thus do not cause 

any imminent damage to the vehicle. The main concerns are if a component 

falls off or cracks, or if an accident occurs. Such occurrences should be treated 

the same as if any tractor-trailer exterior component failure happens. For 

example, for safety purposes, broken components may be detached and 

placed within the trailer or tractor cab and the vehicle brought to a repair shop 

or to its home base for repairs. Discussions with fleets that have utilized the 

aerodynamic components reported very few incidents of damage and any 

damage incidents that did occur were minor. Some incidents were caused by 
- 78 - 

driver error, which can be prevented, or at least minimized, through driver 

education and experience. 

100. Comment: What are the potential safety consequences of trailer retrofits that 

may become disconnected and fall off? (AZTA)

Agency Response: The regulations specify that any aerodynamic 

technologies used on the trailer must be in good operating condition such that 

they must be securely fastened to the trailer and not be used with missing 

sections. Trailer owners and vehicle drivers are required to ensure that these 

good operating conditions are met before a vehicle is operated on California 

highways. 

If an accident occurs and the aerodynamic technology is damaged, the truck 

driver will have to assess, based on the extent and type of damage, whether 

the vehicle is safe to drive back to its home or local base for repair. Also, some 

sectional skirt fairings are hinged with removable pins, and the damaged 

section can be taken down and stored inside the trailer while the vehicle is 

driven back to its home or local base for repair. If the skirt fairing is only dented 

but not broken off, the tractor-trailer may be safe to drive. If serious damage 

occurs to the side skirt or other parts of the trailer, a road call may be 

necessary to repair or tow the trailer. 

101. Comment: In addition, nose fairing damage will occur easily when parked 

because at drop yards and customer locations, trailers are parked head to tail 

in fairly close proximity to one another. A damaged trailer cannot be moved, 

requiring either a road call to repair the damage or possibly towing the trailer. 

(GTI)

Our customers sometimes tear up our nose cones. (Matheson) 

Agency Response: The regulation requires existing applicable trailers to be 

retrofitted with aerodynamic equipment to meet a minimum percent fuel 

savings: five percent for a dry van trailer and four percent for a refrigerated van 

trailer. The SmartWay program has verified various trailer front fairings, side 

skirts, and rear trailer fairings to achieve certain fuel savings. Some of the 

verified technologies may achieve five percent or greater fuel savings and thus 

may be used alone to meet the fuel savings requirements. Front front fairings, 

such as the nose fairing, are verified to achieve an estimated one percent or 

greater fuel savings and must be used in combination with other technologies 

to meet the requirements. 

To comply with these fuel savings requirements, the trailer owner has the 

option to choose which aerodynamic technologies would work best in its day to 

day operation. For example, if trailer front fairings (e.g., nose cones) are not 

convenient for the user, the owner may choose to use advanced side skirts 
- 79 - 

alone, to comply with the requirements. In addition, driver education in 

operating a vehicle with aerodynamic technologies may help minimize driver 

error and trailer damage. 

102. Comment: With the number of accidents at truck stops and customers 

increasing each year, the extended length of the trailer, in some cases, will 

cause more trailer swing accidents. Finally, a trailer with a damaged boat tail 

cannot be moved, requiring a road call to repair the damage or a possible tow 

of the trailer. (GTI)

Agency Response: The rear trailer fairing (also known as a boat tail) is used 

to streamline the air flow behind the trailer to minimize turbulence and may 

extend several feet beyond the length of the trailer. Some rear trailer fairings 

are designed to retract against the trailer doors when not in operation or when 

the doors are to be opened. To minimize incidental damage at truck stops or 

other areas where trailer movement is difficult, the rear trailer fairing could be 

retracted and then redeployed prior to highway use. In addition, as with the use 

of any new technology, education of drivers on the use of the rear trailer fairing 

according to the manufacturer’s specification will lessen incidences of damage. 

If the rear trailer firing is damaged, the truck driver will have to make the 

assessment whether the vehicle is safe to drive back to its home or local base 

for repair. For example, if the fairing is only dented but not broken off, it may be 

safe to drive. If serious damage occurs to the fairing, a road call may be 

necessary to repair or tow the trailer. 

G. Economic Impact 

103. Comment: We have an economy that’s based on natural resources, primarily 

agricultural and timber. These are seasonal activities. And we cannot, despite 

your staff’s claims, simply pass on the cost of these regulations to our 

consumers. We are completely dependent on heavy-duty diesel equipment for 

the delivery of goods in and out of Mendocino County. And just like the rest of 

the State of California, we are struggling. And these proposed rules for both 

on- and off-road diesel equipment will absolutely cripple our economy. We 

request the Board complete a detailed economic impact analysis for rural 

counties. (MendocinoCo) 

The proposed regulation should not be adopted until an economic impact on 

rural communities has been fully addressed and mitigated. (GlenCo, 

MendocinoCo, SiskiyouCo) 

Agency Response: Despite the fact that rural counties as well as the State of 

California and the nation are experiencing difficult economic times that impact 

the trucking industry, implementation of the regulation cannot be delayed 
- 80 - 

because it is one of the discrete early action measures mandated by AB 32. 

AB 32 specifies that the regulation must become enforceable by January 1, 

2010. Implementation for new (2011 and newer model year) tractors and 

trailers begins on January 1, 2010, while implementation for pre-2011 model 

year tractors and trailers will be phased in over several years, to allow fleets 

time to comply while still achieving the targeted GHG emission savings by 

2020. In addition, while compliance with this regulation will require an initial 

capital cost, it is expected that a cost savings will ultimately result due to the 

increase in heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency and the resultant usage of less 

fuel. 

AB 32 also requires that all climate change regulations must consider their 

impacts on the economy of the state, including impacts on jobs, businesses, 

business competitiveness, as well as impacts on local communities. The 

results of that analysis were presented in the Staff Report. While it did not 

specifically address rural communities as a discrete entity separate from the 

remainder of the state, it did provide an overall picture of the economic impacts 

on the economy of the state as a whole, which determined that the regulation 

will provide an overall cost savings to the state of $8.6 billion over the course of 

the 11-year period ending in 2020. 

104. Comment: I’m concerned about the notion that we’re going to be able to pass 

the cost on to consumers. (Goliti, Agrium, CTA2) 

Agency Response: As stated in the Staff Report, 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 

approximately $8.6 billion to the 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 Staff Report, 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. 

 

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. 
- 81 - 

105. Comment: I don’t believe we can pass along the costs to shippers. (YTI) 

Agency Response: See response to Comment #104. 

106. Comment: The trucking industry is feeling the full effects of the current 

economic crisis. Many companies are struggling to stay alive. Adding nondiscretionary costs to that already difficult enterprise in the midst of the current 

crisis doesn’t make good sense, especially since the analysis that justifies the 

rule on the basis of projected savings is suspect. What is coming to be known 

as the “Great Crash of 2008” is beginning to present itself as an economic 

chasm of uncertain depth and length. CTA requests that ARB take some time 

to better assess the economic climate and delay implementation of this rule 

until a more robust analysis has been accomplished. In the interim, staff should 

be asked to redo its analysis using cost and savings values that are more 

reflective of reality. (CTA, ACG)

Agency Response: The implementation of the regulation does not begin

immediately during this economic downturn. Rather, the requirements are 

spread over a number of years. The first deadline, in 2010, applies only to new 

2011 and later model year tractors and trailers. Companies that are struggling 

financially will not be impacted since they will not likely be making new 

equipment purchases. The next deadline is in 2012 when all tractors must use 

low-rolling resistance tires. Some models of these tires cost the same as 

conventional tires and thus, this requirement may not cause any financial 

hardship for businesses. It is not until 2013 when in-use trailers (2010 and 

earlier model year) must comply with the requirements. 

To provide flexibility, trailer owners have the option to participate in phase-in 

schedules rather than meeting the 2013 trailer deadline. The phase-in options 

were crafted to spread the cost of implementation over several years and gives 

smaller fleets that have less financial resources and purchasing power slightly 

more time for implementation. If an owner-operator chooses to participate in 

the phase-in option, they would not be required to retrofit their 2010 and older 

model year trailer until 2014. For an affected trailer fleet of 20 or fewer trailers 

(small fleet), the required percentages for the phase-in option are 25 percent in 

2013, 50 percent in 2014, 75 percent in 2015 and 100 percent in 2016. For a 

larger affected trailer fleet, the phase-in option begins in 2010 at 5 percent, 

requiring full compliance by 2015. By 2016, all affected trailers that use the 

phase-in options will be in compliance. (Note that 2003 to 2008 model year 

refrigerated trailers with 2003 or newer TRUs have an even more delayed 

schedule because another regulation has concurrent requirements.) It should 

be noted that aerodynamic devices and low rolling-resistance tires are 

expected to reduce operating costs due to fuel savings and thus, over the long 

term, will be financially beneficial to the businesses. 
- 82 - 

As described in the “Costs and Economic Impact” chapter of the Staff Report, 

ARB used reasonable and realistic cost and saving values. The estimated 

capital and installation costs for aerodynamic devices and fuel efficient tires, 

and the incremental cost of SmartWay certified tractors and trailers were 

obtained from equipment (aerodynamic device, tire, tractor, and trailer) 

manufacturers and fleets that have already adopted the technologies. Although 

many fleets indicated that no major maintenance was needed other than 

inspection and tightening loose fasteners, ARB nonetheless considered 

maintenance costs of the tractor and trailer aerodynamic devices to take care of 

damages that may occur due to driver errors and accidents. The maintenance 

cost estimates were again obtained from manufacturers and the fleets that 

were using the technologies. ARB also considered administrative costs to 

account for costs incurred by fleets for record keeping, tracking of California 

compliant tractors and trailers, inspection costs for shippers, and administrative 

costs during implementation. The estimated cost savings were based on the 

average annual miles accrued by a long haul tractor of 125,000 miles and the 

fuel economy improvements realized by the aerodynamic technologies and fuel 

efficient tires which range from 7 percent for an in-use tractor pulling a 

refrigerated van trailer to 10 percent for a SmartWay certified tractor pulling a 

SmartWay certified dry van trailer. These fuel efficiency improvements were 

based on SAE J1321 test protocol, modeling, and industry input and the 

technologies have to meet these performance levels in order to be certified or 

verified by U.S EPA SmartWay Program. Furthermore, only 75 to 85 percent of 

the VMT was assumed to be accrued at highway speeds benefiting from these 

improvements. ARB believes that these are very conservative and reasonable 

estimates and the cost-effectiveness analysis reflects a conservative evaluation 

of the program costs and claimed benefits. See also response to comment 

#83. 

107. Comment: We want to address the probable impact on the State revenue. 

The State of California is at its core a revenue generating organization. All 

programs must create a revenue stream to remain effective, or they become a 

burden and ineffective. Instituting multiple costly programs on one segment of 

business in California is not only disastrous to that business, but can wreak 

financial havoc on the State.

Extrapolating data available from marketing and economic institutes, we 

produced a most likely model that 10% (15,500) of the trucking businesses will 

cease to operate due to an inability to fund the mandatory changes. We 

calculated what the State of California’s approximate revenue loss across 

multiple agencies would be. 

a. Income taxes based on a two driver one office worker company - 

$231,000

b. DMV fees, 2 tractors with 2/5 trailers per tractor - $5,525,000

c. DOT fees, 2 tractors with 2/5 trailers per tractor - $4,600,000
- 83 - 

d. State sales tax based on paying $2,000 per company annum - 

$31,000,000

e. Fuel tax revenue based on paying $1500 per company in annual taxes - 

$23,250,000 

(ACG)

Agency Response: The commenter did not provide any details on how the 

cost estimates above were determined or how the information conflicts with 

ARB estimates on the cost to businesses or to the industry. In addition, ARB 

cannot comment about businesses ceasing operations, because so many 

factors are involved in the success or failure of businesses. What ARB can say 

is that while the regulation will require substantial capital outlay from affected 

fleets, the regulation will improve the overall efficiency of the industry, which, in 

the end, is good for the industry and the economy. This regulation is also 

expected to stimulate innovation and growth in such industries that 

manufacture and distribute technologies that improve fuel efficiency. But more 

importantly, the primary reason for this regulation’s immediacy is that the cost 

of inaction is expected to far exceed the cost of prevention. Global warming 

poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural 

resources, and environment of California. It is this threat that spurred the 

development and enactment of AB 32. 

However, ARB does recognize the severity of current economic conditions in 

California. Therefore, ARB developed the optional trailer fleet compliance 

schedules which allow fleets to spread the cost of compliance over several 

years. See agency response to comment #186 for more information regarding 

the optional trailer fleet compliance schedules. In addition, there are several 

financial assistance programs available to help truck and trailer owners with the 

purchase of cleaner trucks and equipment. See agency responses to 

comments #145 and #148 for more information on financial assistance 

programs. 

108. Comment: An ATA survey of fleet maintenance managers in November 2008 

found that the trucking fleets have very limited experience with the technologies 

ARB is proposing to mandate, and wide variations in the fuel economy 

improvements and costs of the technologies were also reported. Given these 

limitations, it is insufficient to base the projected benefits and costs of these 

technologies on a single scenario that may or may not reflect the operations of 

the affected fleets. For example, estimated cost savings are based on an 

assumed average long-haul mileage accrual rate of 125,000 miles per year. 

The Truck & Bus Regulation, however, estimates average accrual rates for 

these vehicles ranging from 75,000 to 85,000 miles per year. Additional 

analyses are needed to determine how sensitive benefit and cost estimates are 

to changes in operating speeds, annual mileage, fuel costs, capital and 

maintenance costs, and other factors. Other areas where additional 

information is needed include: (1) an assessment of the manufacturing and 
- 84 - 

distribution capabilities for the required technologies is needed; (2) affected 

trailers are not owned by trucking companies, but are instead owned by 

shippers; and (3) the impact of the proposed regulation on individual 

businesses with multi-year scenarios characterizing the timing and level of 

financing required for individual businesses. (ATA, Con-way) 

Agency Response: During the rulemaking process, ARB staff contacted 

several fleets who have already adopted the technologies required by this 

regulation to find out about their experience with the technologies. As reported 

in Appendix E of the Staff Report, the majority of these fleets reported positive 

experience with the technologies and expressed their desire to purchase more 

of these technologies and install them on more of their trailers. However ARB 

understands that different fleets will realize different benefits from the 

technologies depending on how and where they operate the vehicles which 

include factors such as speed, annual miles per year, road conditions, weather 

conditions, and area of operation, to mention a few. For example, the benefits 

from the technologies required by this regulation were evaluated at speeds of 

60 to 62 miles per hour. Since aerodynamic drag varies with the square of the 

speed, the higher the speed of the vehicle, the higher is the fuel savings 

realized and vice versa if the speeds are lower (see also agency response to 

comment #46). 

Also as discussed in agency response to comment #157, the Truck and Bus 

rule estimates of average annual mileage accrual rates include the mileage 

accrued by all tractors including short haul, seasonal tractors, and long haul 

tractors. Therefore, it should be expected to be less than the average mileage 

accrual rate for long haul tractors which for the purposes of this regulation is 

assumed to be 125,000 miles per year. The table below shows how changes 

in mileage accrual rates and fuel cost affect the fuel savings and payback 

periods. Specifically the table shows fuel savings and payback periods at 

accrual rates of ±25 percent of the assumed average of 125,000 miles and fuel 

prices dropping from $3.14 to $2.82 per gallon. The results indicate that even 

at lower accrual rates and reduced fuel costs the fuel savings are significant 

enough to result in a favorable payback period. ARB believes that although 

fuel prices fluctuate periodically, the trend is always towards increasing prices, 

which will result in a much better payback period than that shown in the table. 
- 85 - 

Savings Payback 

Months Savings Payback Months Average 

Annual Miles

Fuel Savings

gallons/year @3.14/gallon @$2.82/gallon 

156,250 2,266 $7,114 8.4 $6,389 9.4 

125,000 1,813 $5,691 10.5 $5,111 11.7 

93,750 1,359 $4,268 14.1 $3,833 15.7 

Assumptions: SmartWay certified tractor-trailer combination; 

Incremental cost: $5,000; Fuel savings: 10 percent; Tractor-to-trailer ratio: 1:1 

Baseline fuel economy: 5.8 miles per gallon 

VMT at highway speed: 84 percent 

Projected fuel cost for 2010: $3.14 per gallon from Transportation Energy Forecasts 

for the 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report, California Energy Commission. 

Fuel cost: $2.82 per gallon is California diesel fuel cost for the week of September 21, 

2009. (Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy) 

As discussed in the Staff Report, businesses that own only trailers but not the 

tractors may not be able to directly recover the cost of retrofitting the trailers, 

and therefore, they may need to recover the investment by paying less to 

tractor owners who receive the direct fuel economy benefit or by passing it to 

customers by temporarily increasing the cost of their merchandise. 

ARB also analyzed the impact of the regulation on typical individual businesses 

such as owner-operators. For a typical owner-operator, the cost of compliance 

ranges from $250, if the owner-operator owns only a tractor and thus only 

needs to install low rolling resistance tires, to approximately $9,000 for an 

owner-operator who owns one to two tractors (1.5 average) and 2 trailers (Staff 

Report, page 63) and replaces them with brand new SmartWay certified 

tractors and trailers. For such businesses the payback period is less than 2 

years. 

Many of the companies that manufacture trailer aerodynamic devices are small 

companies. As discussed in the Staff Report, page 42, staff contacted many of 

the manufacturing companies to assess their production capability to meet the 

demand for the technologies. Some of them indicated that they will have the 

capability to meet upcoming demand for their devices in their existing facilities 

by increasing the number of shifts they operate or by purchasing additional 

production equipment to increase the number of production lines. Others 

indicated that they have licensed their technology to other larger companies 

that have nationwide dealer and manufacturing networks. For example, Freight 

Wing, Inc. has partnered with Carrier (a unit of United Technologies 

Corporation) to sell, distribute, and install trailer fairings. Furthermore, the 

regulation provides an extended 6-year phase-in compliance plan for large 

fleets beginning in 2010 and a 4-year phase-in compliance plan for small fleets 

beginning in 2013. The compliance phase-in years are so spread out over 

many years that they significantly alleviate the surge in demand of retrofit 

technologies that would have occurred if full compliance were required during 
- 86 - 

the first 2-3 years beginning in 2010. Thus, ARB believes that there will be 

sufficient quantities of aerodynamic retrofit devices to meet the demand when 

compliance begins in 2010. In discussions with tire manufacturers, the added 

demand for SmartWay tires does not pose a product availability problem. Also, 

refer to Staff Report pages 32, 42, and 46 for a discussion of product 

availability of the required technologies. 

109. Comment: Undoubtedly many objections will be voiced regarding the cost of 

the SmartWay program, its rewards and payback time based upon fuel 

consumption. These are valid points, due to the current financial state of our 

economy; the amount of freight being transported has seen a decline. Major 

carriers are beginning layoffs and load counts are down. (ACG)

Agency Response: See agency responses to comment #106 and #124.

110. Comment: The Staff Report’s cost/benefit analysis relies on incomplete data. 

It is unreasonable to approve a regulation whose implementation and benefits 

are unknown and dependent on future occurrences which may or may not 

happen. More testing and analysis is required before placing such a significant 

financial burden on the businesses shipping and carrying goods to and from 

California. (CBTRI, NTDA)

Agency Response: The Staff Report provides a complete cost analysis of the 

cost and benefits of the regulation. This cost analysis predicts the cost of 

compliance for a tractor and trailer, as well as the fuel savings and emission 

reductions that will occur as a result of compliance. The assumptions used in 

the cost analysis were based on the best available data. Expectations for 

future changes noted in the Staff Report (i.e., prices dropping because of 

economies of scale and additional technology manufacturers entering the 

marketplace) will decrease the price of technologies used in the cost analysis 

and thus, should make implementation of the regulation even more practical. 

However, these expectations do not need to be realized to support the 

regulation since they were not used in the cost analysis. Regarding the 

comment that more testing and analysis is needed, please see agency 

response to comment #7. 

111. Comment: Combined with the SmartWay program, each tractor trailer 

combination could cost $29,000 - $30,000 to retrofit to meet compliance 

requirements. Companies with multiple trucks and the industry standard 2.5 

trailers per tractor, the cost quickly reaches in excess of $100,000 just to 

comply with the first stage. Load counts are down, costs up and money from 

lenders scarce; this will cause untold financial damage to the trucking industry. 

(ACG)

Agency Response: The cost that the commenter is referring is the cost 

imposed by the Truck and Bus regulation. It is beyond the scope of this 
- 87 - 

regulation to respond to comments on the Truck and Bus regulation. However, 

this regulation is a cost savings regulation. Fleets will recover their expenses 

back from fuel savings in approximately 1 year for a tractor-to-trailer ratio of 1 to 

2.3 years for a tractor to trailer ratio of 2.5. In addition, the compliance plan 

phase-in years are spread out over six years such that they provide fleets the 

flexibility to spread out the costs of compliance over several years. Also, see 

agency responses to comments #145 and #148 for more information on 

financial assistance programs. 

112. Comment: Use of a real interest rate of 5 percent to calculate the annualized 

cost of equipment purchases and replacement in the Initial Statement of 

Reasons was misleading. The real interest rates trucking companies are likely 

to face will be much higher, reflecting the loan industry’s view of the riskiness of 

lending to them. Trucking companies often face rates of 15 to 20 percent under 

normal economic conditions. If the staff’s analysis is repeated using more 

reasonable assumptions of higher interest rates, lower fuel savings and lower 

fuel costs, the likely analytical outcome is a measure that will produce a net 

loss, not a net savings. (CTA)

Agency Response: The estimated capital costs and operating cost savings 

reported in the Staff Report reflect the economic impacts of the regulation on 

the whole trucking industry affected by the regulation rather than an individual 

business. Therefore, when the cost-benefit analysis of the regulation is 

performed on the whole affected industry, ARB believes that it is appropriate 

and also a standard practice to use the real interest rate which accounts for the 

time value of money (nominal interest rate minus inflation rate) and brings the 

money back into present value. Nonetheless, ARB agrees that some truckers 

who are not creditworthy may have higher capital cost due to high interest 

rates. To see the effect of higher interest rates on the payback period, ARB 

conducted sensitivity analyses using 5, 15, and 20 percent annual interest 

rates. ARB’s findings are that savings from fuel use are significant enough to 

make a good business case even at interest rates higher than 5 percent. For 

example, a business that purchases a new SmartWay certified tractor and 

trailer at the incremental cost of approximately $5,000 (Table XII-1 of the Staff 

Report) with borrowed money at an interest rate of 5 percent and a loan period 

of 4 years would recover the cost in approximately 12 months from fuel 

savings. If the interest rate is increased to 15 or 20 percent, then the payback 

period would increase by 3 to 5 months, which is slightly longer than that with a 

5 percent interest rate, but still a favorable payback period. 

113. Comment: The economic climate has changed significantly in the state and 

the nation since AB 32 was passed. We are here to argue about the timing of 

this issue. (CPF, YTI) 

Agency Response: ARB agrees that the economic climate has changed 

significantly for the worse in the state and the nation since AB 32 was passed. 
- 88 - 

However, the serious challenges that we face as a state, nation and planet due 

to the impact of global warming continue to loom over our future. AB 32 

requires ARB to take actions to reduce GHG emission in California to 1990 

levels by the year 2020, by implementing an array of regulatory actions. As 

one of the discrete early action measures, this regulation cannot be delayed. 

ARB has incorporated delayed phase-in opportunities into the implementation 

section of this regulation, which will provide fleets with flexibility to spread out 

the costs of compliance over several years. Specifically, large fleets of trailers 

that choose to participate in the optional Large Fleet Compliance Phase-In, will 

have 6 years to bring all their trailers into compliance (5% the first year, 15% 

the second year, 30% the third year, 50% the fourth year, 75% the fifth year, 

and 100% the sixth year). The first phase-in deadline is January 1, 2011; 

subsequent deadlines take place each year thereafter until January1, 2016. 

Small fleets may choose the Small Fleet Compliance Phase-In for their trailers, 

over a four year period beginning January 1, 2014, and ending January 1, 2017 

(the annual required percentages that must be retrofitted are 25%, 50%, 75% 

and 100%). Small fleets may also choose to follow the same compliance 

option as large fleets. These phase-in options provide fleets with the ability to 

spread out the costs of compliance over several years. 

114. Comment: Today, to try to ask carriers and other people in the business to 

retrofit, repower, replace, and do so simultaneously with the trailer equipment is 

an economic burden that I don’t think is prudent. (YTI)

Agency Response: While it is beyond the scope of this document to address 

the impacts of the Truck and Bus Regulation, ARB considered the impacts of 

multiple regulations on fleets when developing the compliance strategy for this 

regulation. For that reason, fleets are offered the opportunity to participate in 

an optional compliance phase-in as described in the response to comment 

#113. In addition, ARB offers financial assistance to help address some of the 

financial burden, as described in the responses to comments #145 and #148. 

115. Comment: We want to follow the regulation. We need the money to do that. I 

can’t qualify for any grants. If this goes through, I don’t have any choice but to 

fold up – and put 47 employees out of work. (FTI)

Agency Response: ARB appreciates the commenter’s desire to comply with 

the regulation and acknowledges the severity of the current economic climate. 

While there are no grants available to assist with complying with the regulation, 

ARB does offer a loan guarantee program as described in the agency response 

to comment #148. Additional financing information can be obtained through the 

U.S. EPA SmartWay program. It should also be emphasized that in the long 

run, trucking companies such as FTI will save money with the installation of the 

aerodynamic technologies required by the regulation. See agency response to 

comment #126. 
- 89 - 

116. Comment: This new regulation, timing, speed, could not be the worst. Our 

customers and investors are pushing our margin to their lowest point. This new 

regulation is an additional cost that is unbearable at this time. (CDTI)

Agency Response: Several provisions in the regulation should ease the 

financial burden for companies, such as phase-in schedules for regulatory 

implementation, recovery of the initial upfront technology costs through truck 

fuel savings over time, and loan assistance programs. See agency response to 

comment #126. 

117. Comment: What happens in the trucking industry is overnight these trucking 

companies will convert employee drivers to independent contractors, generally 

misclassifying them, in order to avoid having to comply. So trucking companies 

like Rogers, that have 30 truck drivers, will have to comply. But a trucking 

company that’s working 135 owner-operators, no employees, he won’t have to 

comply at the same time. What you’re going to do is actually contribute to 

furthering the underground economy in this industry. What needs to happen is 

that you need to make sure that the carriers that actually employ these people, 

whether they’re employee drivers or they’re owner-operators, are on the hook 

to comply. And you don’t create perverse incentives in the marketplace to 

undermine your regulations. (CTPAC)

Agency Response: The regulations apply to all tractors that pull 53-foot or 

longer box-type trailers and the trailers they pull, unless they are exempted as 

short-haul or local-haul equipment. All requirements apply alike to both 

equipment operated by employee drivers and owner-operators except for the 

2010 and older model year trailer phase-in options. The phase-in options were 

crafted to provide flexibility to spread the cost of implementation over several 

years, giving smaller fleets that have less financial resources and purchasing 

power slightly more time for implementation. If an owner-operator with one 

trailer chooses to participate in the phase-in option, they would be required to 

retrofit their 2010 and older model year trailer by 2014. For an affected trailer 

fleet of 20 or less trailers, the required percentages for the phase-in option are 

25 percent in 2013, 50 percent in 2014, 75 percent in 2015 and 100 percent in 

2016. For a larger affected trailer fleet, the phase-in option begins in 2010 at 5 

percent, requiring full compliance by 2015. By 2016, all affected trailers that 

use the phase-in options will be in compliance. (Note that 2003 to 2008 model 

year refrigerated trailers with TRUs have a delayed schedule because another 

regulation has concurrent requirements.) It should be noted that aerodynamic 

devices and low rolling-resistance tires are expected to reduce operating costs 

due to fuel savings and thus, in the long term, will be financially beneficial to the 

business. 

118. Comment: I think your payback results are a little exaggerated. All these tests 

are run at highway speeds. And of course a vehicle has an average speed 

that’s lower than that. And then if you take a 100,000 mile truck, if you divide 
- 90 - 

by 2.5 on the trailers, you get 40,000 miles. So be conservative on your 

payback calculations. (Silver Eagle)

Agency Response: The Staff Report accounted for an average truck's typical 

driving pattern and for a 2.5 trailer to tractor ratio. The fuel savings were 

estimated to be about $3,700 to $5,400 per year for a compliant tractor-trailer 

combination. This fuel savings accounted for 85 percent of the VMT at highway 

speeds that would benefit fully from the aerodynamic devices. The remaining 

15 percent of VMT was not included in the aerodynamic fuel benefit. In 

addition, for a tractor-trailer, it stated that the owner would be able to recover 

the initial costs in less than 1.5 years, and that for an owner who had more 

trailers than tractors, it would require additional time for the payback of the 

initial capital costs. 

119. Comment: This is a multi-million dollar mandate without significant benefits for 

us or the citizens of California at a time when trucking companies and all other 

businesses are dealing with the most challenging economic environment since 

the great depression. (Con-way)

Agency Response: The projected air quality benefits of the regulation are 

significant. From 2010 to 2020, a projected cumulative reduction of almost 8 

million metric tons of CO2-equivalent emissions in California is expected from 

compliant trucks. 

Several provisions in the regulation should ease the financial burden for 

companies such as phase-in schedules for regulatory implementation, recovery 

of the initial upfront technology costs through truck fuel savings over time, and 

loan assistance programs. See agency response to comment #126. 

120. Comment: The Initial Statement of Reasons analysis of impacts of the GHG 

regulation is misleading and not reflective of the economic benefits or 

circumstances trucking companies are likely to face in complying with the rules. 

The assumptions that ARB staff use in their analysis support conclusions that 

seriously underestimate the difficulties that companies will face in making 

equipment investments and benefiting from those investments. (CTA)

Agency Response: To obtain the cost of the technology, data were collected 

from technology manufacturers, fleets that have used the technologies, and the 

U.S. EPA SmartWay program. The low, average, and high costs for tractor and 

trailer modifications and for annual maintenance were provided in the cost 

analysis found in the Initial Statement of Reasons (Staff Report). On average, 

the incremental cost estimate of purchasing a SmartWay certified tractor and a 

compliant dry-van trailer is approximately $5,000. The primary cost benefit 

from these investments is the fuel savings from operating a compliant vehicle. 

The expected truck fuel efficiency gain in this example, would be 10 percent 

due to the aerodynamic and tire improvements. These are the fuel savings 
- 91 - 

estimates obtained from the SmartWay program to which the equipment or 

technology has been verified. Many of the fleets interviewed (Appendix E of 

the Staff Report) noted fuel savings that were within the range of those for 

which the product was verified through the SmartWay program. The 

assumptions and estimations used in the cost analysis were the best available 

data to calculate the cost and benefit of the requirements. 

121. Comment: The Initial Statement of Reasons states: “The fuel savings due to 

the proposed requirements would allow the owner to recover the initial capital 

and maintenance costs for both the tractor and trailer in less than 1.5 years.” 

However, the average truck owner has 2.5 trailers. This means it will take 2.5 

times longer to recover costs because one tractor cannot pull each of the 2.5 

trailers the equivalent of 125,000 miles per year. (CTA)

Agency Response: The Staff Report as well as staff’s presentation at the 

public hearing acknowledge that if an owner has more trailers than tractors, it 

would require additional time to recover the initial capital costs. The estimated 

average cost for a 2.5 to 1 trailer-to-tractor ratio which includes a SmartWay 

certified sleeper cab tractor and 2.5 compliant dry-van trailers is stated to be 

$9,200 (Staff Report, page 60, Table XII-1). Such a tractor-trailer combination 

would achieve a 10 percent fuel efficiency improvement and therefore, would 

realize approximately $5,400 per year in fuel savings at fuel prices of $3.14 per 

gallon (Staff Report, page 63, Table XII-3). Thus, it would take approximately 2 

years to recover the initial cost. 

122. Comment: Use of a “projected diesel fuel cost of $3.14 per gallon” is 

misleading. Oil prices have crashed since the Initial Statement of Reasons 

analysis so the assumption of $3.21 is too high. The current OPEC target price 

of $70 per barrel crude is equivalent to $2.31 per gallon diesel and it may be 

too high. Lower fuel costs make for lower savings and lower costeffectiveness. (CTA)

Agency Response: The $3.14 projected diesel fuel cost was a projection of 

fuel cost in 2010 by the California Energy Commission. If $2.31 is used instead 

of $3.14 to calculate the annual fuel savings for a compliant tractor-trailer, the 

fuel savings would be approximately $4,000. The payback period would be 

less than 1.5 years for a tractor-trailer and less than 2.5 years for a 2.5 to 1 

trailer to tractor ratio. These payback periods are still reasonable and costeffective for the implementation of the regulation. 

123. Comment: The simplistic “addition” of projected savings of individual pieces of 

tested equipment is misleading. The ARB staff’s fuel savings estimate of 10 

percent is not supported by empirical data because there has been no 

SmartWay testing that summarizes the joint effect of adding various measures. 

Lower savings will further lengthen time to recover costs and reduce the 
- 92 - 

general cost effectiveness of the measure. The analysis should use a lower 

percentage of fuel savings. (CTA)

Agency Response: In the Cost and Economic Impact Section of the Staff 

Report, Table XII-3 identifies the annual operating cost savings for the 

regulation. Affected tractor-trailers will observe an estimated 7 to 10 percent 

fuel savings, depending on the required modifications. The fuel savings 

associated with the use of low rolling resistance tires for the tractor and trailer is 

about 3 percent, while the remaining savings (4%-7%) is attributable to the 

aerodynamic devices. The fuel savings realized using low-rolling resistance 

tires should not overlap with the savings realized using aerodynamic devices, 

since the mechanisms which result in the vehicles being more fuel efficient are 

different for the two types of technologies. Therefore, these savings can be 

simply added together. 

Fuel savings estimates for the design features of a SmartWay tractor were 

developed using a combination of U.S. EPA testing and modeling results, 

review of the technical literature, and technical input from industry experts 

including truck manufactures. The estimated benefits of these additional 

features are 1 percent from fuel tank fairing, 1 percent from aerodynamic 

mirrors and bumpers, and up to 4 percent from a base aerodynamic profiled 

tractor model with roof fairings and cab side extenders relative to a 

conventional classic tractor. Based on testing and modeling, industry experts 

including truck manufactures estimate that a SmartWay certified tractor can 

improve fuel efficiency by approximately 2 to 3 percent due to aerodynamic 

improvements (excluding tires) relative to an average moderately aero profiled 

tractor with roof fairings and cab side extenders. In estimating the cost savings 

from using a SmartWay certified tractor, ARB used a total of 3.5 percent 

improvement including 1.5 percent improvement from using low rolling 

resistance tires on the tractor only. 

For dry van trailers equipped with a front trailer fairing and side skirts, the 

estimated fuel savings were based from testing the trailer with side skirts 

separately and both components together. For example, Freight Wing’s test2

 of 

the side skirts alone and in combination with front trailer fairings under the 

modified SAE J1321 test protocol showed approximately 4 percent and 6 

percent fuel savings improvement, respectively, at a highway speed of 65 miles 

per hour. Note that the improvement from the combined effect is higher than 

the 5 percent improvement ARB used to estimate the cost savings from a dry 

van trailer. The U.S. EPA also conducted tests to evaluate the combined effect 

 

2

 Freight Wing, 2007. Freight Wing, Inc. Technology, Test Results and Benefits Summary. 

2007. 
- 93 - 

of the various trailer aerodynamic devices and low rolling resistance tires3. One 

of U.S. EPA’s tests evaluated the combined effect of trailer aerodynamics (side 

skirts, front trailer fairings, and an inflatable boat tail) and single wide tires 

under the modified SAE J1321 test protocol. The test results showed that the 

combined effect of the three trailer aerodynamic components alone (without the 

single wide tires) improved the fuel efficiency by 5 percent and 12.6 percent at 

highway speeds of 55 miles per hour and 65 miles per hour, respectively. In 

another test4, the U.S. EPA demonstrated that the combined effect of a trailer 

side skirt and front trailer fairing improved fuel efficiency by 6.6 percent at 

highway speeds of 65 miles per hour. 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 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. 

124. Comment: One way or another there are emissions reductions associated 

with this economic downturn. VMT and fuel use is down, and that means that 

emissions are down. Coupled with the fact that people are going out of 

business, people are getting laid off, and people are losing their benefits, it 

makes for a very unique situation. (CTA2)

Agency Response: The current economic downturn may cause less freight 

transport, resulting in emission reductions in the short term. However, the 

economic downturn cannot be relied upon as the sole means of emission 

reductions needed to reach the goals of AB 32 by 2020. The regulation has 

been shown to be technologically feasible and cost-effective, projected to 

reduced GHG emissions by 1 MMT (CO2-equivalent) and 1.4 tons per day of 

NOx in 2020 statewide. Therefore, the regulation is appropriate to reduce GHG 

and other pollutants despite the economic downturn. 

125. Comment: Have any cost analyses of installation time of SmartWay 

modifications been performed by the Mitchell Manual? (ACG)

Agency Response: The cost analysis of SmartWay equipment installation 

time was not performed by Mitchell Manual. Rather, the installation costs used 

 

3

 Bachman, Leon J., Anthony Erb, Cheryl Bynum. Effect of Single Wide Tires and Trailer 

Aerodynamics on Fuel Economy and NOx Emissions of Class 8 Line-Haul Tractor-Trailers. 

Society of Automotive Engineers 2005-01-3551 

4

 Bachman , L J., A. Erb, C. Bynum, B. Shoffner, H. De La Fuente, C. Ensfield. Fuel Economy 

Improvements and NOx Reduction by Reduction of Parasitic Losses: Effect of Engine 

Design. Society of Automotive Engineers, 2006-01-3474 
- 94 - 

in the Staff Report were gathered from a variety of sources. First, fleets 

identified in Appendix E and other fleets with experience in the installation of 

aerodynamic components provided installation times. In addition, aerodynamic 

equipment manufacturers provided the installation time required for each 

verified component. The SmartWay website was also another source of 

information. Finally, fleet newsletters that discussed aerodynamic equipment 

provided additional information. The information obtained from these reliable 

sources were used to calculate the installation time used in the cost analysis. 

126. Comment: The proposed regulation will significantly and unreasonably 

increase the cost of transporting goods in the state. The proposed regulation is 

too much and too expensive for truck owners to comply with. (Alford, 

Anonymous, Bowans, Eaton, Ingram, Perrigue, Rader, R.D., Sambucetti2, 

TLTLLC, Wright)

Agency Response: The cost of compliance with the regulation will not be 

unreasonable or too expensive for truck owners to comply with, for the following 

reasons. First, the total cost of compliance for a truck fleet will be spread over 

several years in order to ease the financial burden. 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 two 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. Second, 

unlike many other regulations, the requirements will actually 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 (for assumptions, see the Staff Report, 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. Finally, 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 Finance Program. 

127. Comment: The proposed regulation will put companies out of business and 

should not be passed. (DiSalvo, Doggett, Eaton, Ellington, Gill, Hobbs, IDI, 

Jenkins, MCT, NTC, Panella, Phillips1, Phillips2, RZT, Rader, Renner, 

RosePadel, Sambucetti1, Sanders, Smith, STI, STLLC, SVP, TLTLLC, Wright, 

VanWingerden)

Agency Response: See agency response to comment #126. 
- 95 - 

128. Comment: The proposed regulation will be cost prohibitive for trucking 

companies to adopt and will have severely negative economic impacts at a time 

when trucking companies and all other businesses are dealing with the most 

challenging economic environment since the Great Depression. It is simply 

impractical to presume that Con-way and other companies will be able to pass 

the added costs of implementing these technologies on to their customers, 

particularly during the current economic climate. Many carriers may choose to 

stop providing service to and from California, as it will be very expensive, if not 

cost prohibitive, for them to implement the technologies mandated by the 

proposed regulation. In order to comply with the proposed regulation, Con-way 

will be forced to re-direct resources away from proven fuel saving technologies 

and strategies to other technologies which simply do not work in its operation. 

(Con-way)

Agency Response: There are several provisions in the regulation that should 

ease the financial burden for companies such as phase-in schedules for 

regulatory implementation, recovery of the initial upfront technology costs 

through truck fuel savings over time, and loan assistance programs. See 

agency responses to comment #126 for cost concerns and to comments #85 

and #86 for technological feasibility concerns. 

129. Comment: From an economic perspective, emission levels and timelines for 

compliance in the proposed changes would force expensive carrier equipment 

upgrades, the costs for which when passed along through this supply chain 

would constitute unsustainable increases for all parties, causing irreparable 

harm to the California trucking and agricultural industries. (Agrium, FTI)

If the proposed regulation was initiated in its current form, cost increases for 

companies with economic strength to stay compliant would rise 6% to 8% each 

year between 2010 through 2022, as compared to the current 2% to 3.5% 

annual increases. Companies without the economic strength to make the 

proposed changes would have even more severe rate increases. (Agrium)

Agency Response: The regulation contains provisions to ease the financial 

burden for companies. The estimated cost for upgrading existing tractors with 

low rolling resistance tires is negligible to $500. For existing trailers, the 

estimated cost is about $2,900 per trailer. Flexibility provided in the regulation 

allows trailer owners to spread the implementation of the requirements over 

several years, from four to six years depending on the size of the applicable 

trailer fleet. Since compliant tractor-trailer combinations will realize a 7 to 10 

percent fuel savings, one major benefit of these phase-in schedules is that the 

operating cost savings from complying vehicles in the first phase-in year can be 

used to pay for the second and later phase-in compliance years. While it is 

possible that the cost of regulatory implementation during the initial years may 

be passed to the consumer, it will not likely be a permanent cost as compliant 
- 96 - 

trucks will cost less to operate due to fuel savings. Also see agency response 

to comment #126. 

The second commenter noted that the regulation will result in a 6 to 8 percent 

cost increase for companies due to the changes to Title 17. However, the data 

provided by the commenter were for the Truck and Bus regulation (i.e., power 

equipment cost percentage and fleet modernization percentage) and not for the 

GHG rule. These two regulations were concurrently brought before the Board 

and approved with modifications at the December 2009 hearing and the 

commenter may have confused these comments intended for the Truck and 

Bus regulation. 

130. Comment: As a result of the high cost of compliance, many carriers will stop 

sending trucks to California and refuse to deliver into the State to avoid the 

additional costs to comply with the proposed regulations. (Anonymous, 

Bowans, FTI, Mason, Upfold)

This will cause unreasonable price hikes of goods and services of products 

coming into the state from other places. (FTI) 

To recover costs for regulatory compliance, it’s feasible that some fleets could 

start implementing a “California surcharge” that will result in higher costs of 

goods to California consumers. (CREI2) 

Agency Response: The estimated compliance costs for a tractor-trailer range 

from $2,900 to $5,000. As a result of the technology changes to the vehicle, an 

average of 7 to 10 percent fuel savings is expected on a compliant tractortrailer combination, which translates to approximately $3,700 to $5,400 per year 

on an average long-haul truck (for assumptions, see the Staff Report, 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. 

In addition, flexibility provided in the regulation allows trailer owners to spread 

the implementation of the requirements over a period of 6 years, from four to 

six years depending on the size of the applicable trailer fleet. One major 

benefit of these phase-in schedules is that the operating cost savings achieved 

in the first phase-in year can be used to pay for the second and later phase-in 

compliance year costs. While it is possible that the cost of compliance during 

the initial years may be passed along to the consumer, it will not likely be a 

permanent cost as compliant trucks will cost less to operate due to the fuel 

savings. See agency response to comment #126. 

131. Comment: ARB is assuming that fleets operating occasionally in California will 

be able to segregate their equipment, both tractor and trailer, and install 

upgrades to only that subset. This assumption is false because fleets that 

operate only partially in California will require full fleet implementation for the 
- 97 - 

following reasons: 1) freight destined for California originates out of virtually 

every part of the nation, 2) trans-loading at the California border onto California 

compliant equipment is not an option with most of the food products that we 

haul, and 3) even if compliant equipment could be positioned in advance, the 

lack of isolated trailer pools in most one-way trucking applications prohibits 

reserving compliant equipment for California destined loads. We urge ARB to 

consider the far reaching impact of these regulations for carriers that operate 

only partially in California. We are concerned about the implementation and 

maintenance costs for full fleet implementation. (CREI2)

Staff’s cost-effectiveness calculations have not reflected the reality of the costs 

that regulated entities are likely to face. 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. 

CTA recommends that staff revise its cost-effectiveness analysis to ensure that 

it reflects a realistic appraisal of the costs of the program versus any claimed 

benefits. (CTA2, ACG) 

Agency Response: In Section VI of the Staff Report, the impacted fleet 

operating on California highways is estimated at about 436,000 tractors and 

1,090,000 trailers in 2010. The full lifetime capital cost of implementation of the 

regulation is estimated at $8.5 billion. Included in this cost is an annual 

administrative cost of $3.50 per affected tractor and $5.00 for affected trailer to 

account for record keeping, tracking of California compliant tractors/trailers, and 

other administrative costs during the first five years of implementation as well 

as an annual maintenance cost of $143 per tractor and $120 per trailer. 

At a 7 to 10 percent fuel savings for compliant vehicles, the lifetime savings of 

the regulation will be about $17.1 billion resulting in a net cost savings of $8.6 

billion over the life of the regulation. These costs and savings assume that an 

interstate company will only modify the portion of its fleet that travels on 

California highways since a company may choose to dedicate a certain fleet of 

tractors and trailers to transport freight to and from California. If companies 

choose to bring additional equipment into compliance to enhance operational 

flexibility, they should also obtain even greater savings over the useful life of 

the compliant equipment. For companies that only have a portion of their 

business in California, they may choose to create a sub-fleet of compliant 

trailers, although full fleet implementation may offer benefits such as lower 

operating costs due to fuel savings, and purchasing power for aerodynamic 

equipment and low-rolling resistance tires resulting in lower aerodynamic 

equipment and tire prices for its fleet. 

132. Comment: Staff’s cost-effectiveness calculations have not reflected the reality 

of the costs that regulated entities are likely to face. The rule will put California 

registered trucking companies at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis out-ofstate trucking companies because it will take the lower mileage California 
- 98 - 

companies significantly longer to recover their costs. The cost-effective 

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. CTA recommends that staff revise its costeffectiveness analysis to ensure that it reflects a realistic appraisal of the costs 

of the program versus any claimed benefits. (CTA2)

Agency Response: As stated in the Staff Report, in 2010, affected California 

interstate and intrastate trucks are estimated to be less than 10 percent of the 

total number of affected trucks. The remaining affected trucks are neighboring 

out-of-state and non-neighboring out-of-state trucks. Although California trucks 

make up less than 10 percent of the total number of trucks, in 2010, the VMT 

by California trucks will be about 34 percent of the total VMT by trucks in 

California. Thus, California trucks are substantial contributors to the overall 

truck emission inventory in California, and regulating these trucks is an 

important component of California's emission control program. For a response 

regarding whether ARB’s cost estimates are realistic, please see agency 

response to comment #106. 

To aid businesses whose primary economic effect is in California, some 

financial assistance programs are available to assist tractor and trailer owners, 

such as the ARB Providing Loan Assistance for California Equipment Program. 

One of the qualifications to participate in this loan assistance program is that 

recipient companies must operate in California a minimum of 51 percent of their 

total annual mileage. See agency response to comment #126. 

133. Comment: Staff’s cost-effectiveness calculations have not reflected the reality 

of the costs that regulated entities are likely to face. 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. CTA recommends that staff revise its 

cost-effectiveness analysis to ensure that it reflects a realistic appraisal of the 

costs of the program versus any claimed benefits. (CTA2)

Agency Response: Businesses that own only trailers but no tractors may not 

be able to directly recover the cost of retrofitting their trailers through fuel 

savings. It should be noted, however, that the tractor pulling a compliant trailer 

will achieve a noticeable fuel savings, the extent of the fuel savings depending 

on the drive cycle of the truck. Trucks that will not benefit greatly from the 

aerodynamic equipment will likely only be those that operate local haul or short 

haul, and trailers that are used for such purposes are exempt from the 

requirements. A trailer owner may recover its compliance costs by charging a 

higher fee for the lease of the equipment (that would be offset by the lessor 

through a reduction in tractor fuel usage). Additionally, some financial 
- 99 - 

assistance is 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 Finance Program. See also responses to comments 

#104 and #108. 

134. Comment: Staff’s cost-effectiveness calculations have not reflected the reality 

of the costs that regulated entities are likely to face. 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 staff’s projected savings percentages. CTA recommends that staff revise its 

cost-effectiveness analysis to ensure that it reflects a realistic appraisal of the 

costs of the program versus any claimed benefits. (CTA2)

Agency Response: See response to comment #123. 

135. Comment: My leased truck cannot be modified to comply with the proposed 

regulation during its lease term. When the truck is paid for in 2010, its value 

will not be worth the estimated $30,000 required for upgrade. In this current 

poor economic state, funds will not be available to comply with the proposed 

regulation. (Upfold)

Agency Response: Although the commenter was responding to the Truck and 

Bus regulation, ARB is responding to the cost the owner will face when 

complying with the GHG regulation. Based on the information provided, the 

commenter owns one truck that is a 2009 or older model year truck and no 

trailer. Based on this assumption the cost to comply with the regulation will be 

negligible to $500. 

136. Comment: The proposed regulation has not considered the following added 

cost of the usage of single wide tires: wheel damage due to a tire blow out 

($900 for new wheel and tire), service call for a repair truck ($200), damage 

done to equipment before operating on the road, and increased potential of 

accidents. (Upfold)

Agency Response: The regulation does not exclusively require the use of 

single wide tires. Rather, the low-rolling resistance tire requirement can be met 

by the use of either SmartWay verified dual tires or single wide tires. Using a 

single wide tire and rim instead of the dual wheel configuration weighs less, 

thus allowing for greater freight capacity. Single wide tires also provide 

excellent low-rolling resistance and fuel economy. However, the major 

disadvantage is that if the single wide tire becomes deflated or destroyed, 

driving the truck to a service location is difficult without risking damage to the 

rim. A service call for a repair truck may be necessary. If the commentor is 

concerned about this issue, compliance with the low-rolling resistance tire 

requirement can be met with the use of SmartWay verified dual tires instead of 

single wide tires. 
- 100 - 

137. Comment: Your estimates on the costs to the economy are far off. The State 

has no money to subsidize these trucks to comply with the proposed regulation. 

(Lloyd)

Agency Response: The Staff Report identifies various federal, state, and local 

programs that may provide assistance for owners to comply with the regulation. 

One such state program, created by Assembly Bill 118, creates a loan 

guarantee program for vehicle owners to comply with this regulation and other 

ARB regulations. The loan may be used to purchase complying tractors, 

trailers, and aerodynamic equipment and tires. Vehicle owners must meet 

certain criteria in order to qualify for the loan. Also, see agency response to 

comment #148. 

138. Comment: The only companies that will be left standing after the regulation 

takes effect will be the national mega fleets. Large companies will not be 

financially impacted by the proposed regulation because they can merely send 

all of their new equipment into California and use their older equipment out of 

state. Companies that only operate in California have no outlet for the noncompliant equipment. Therefore, ARB will unlevel the playing field and allow 

the huge companies to monopolize the state. (Lawley)

Agency Response: The regulation applies to all affected trucks traveling on 

California highways and is not biased towards out-of-state versus in-state fleets 

or “mega” fleets versus smaller fleets. All long-haul fleets, regardless of size, 

will be required to comply with the requirements, resulting in improved fuel 

efficiency. In addition, the regulation does not require vehicle owners to 

dispose of non-compliant vehicles, but rather to retrofit them with aerodynamic 

devices and low rolling-resistance tires. 

To provide flexibility for fleets, optional phase-in schedules are provided for 

trailers, as opposed to requiring all affected trailers to comply by a certain date. 

Small fleets (20 and less trailers) have added flexibility through a later 

implementation and phase-in schedule (beginning in 2013, instead of 2010 for 

large fleets.) This allows added time to generate needed capital to bring trailers 

into compliance. In addition, unlike many other regulations, compliance with 

the regulation will save fleets money through less fuel usage over time. In 

addition, California incentive programs are geared toward helping California 

businesses obtain loans for compliance with regulations, and are targeted at 

“small businesses” (less than 100 employees, less than $10 million annual 

revenues) rather than the large businesses. Moreover, only vehicles that 

operate a majority of the time on California highways qualify for the programs. 

These and other provisions should ensure that small fleets and California fleets 

continue to be competitive. 
- 101 - 

139. Comment: The proposed regulation will cause depreciation in the value of 

trailers. Prospective buyers of equipment will reduce the equipment purchase 

price to compensate for the retrofits that the Board will require, resulting in a 

loss of value to the seller. The net result will be that the obsolete pieces of 

equipment will be kept on the road, in which the Board will have invested much 

needed capital in an obsolete piece of equipment. The sellers of the equipment 

will have to increase freight rates to compensate for the loss in trade-in value. 

(CREI1)

The value of my customer's trade-ins has already dropped thousands of dollars 

with just the threat of this regulation. If it passes, the used truck market will 

evaporate in California leaving my customers scrambling to stay in the 

business. (Fitzgerald) 

This regulation would make my equipment unsalable in California. 

(Spainhoward) 

Mandating SmartWay type equipment will further devalue used trailers in this 

poor economy. Trailers will be virtually useless if they don’t meet the new 

requirements. (PTS) 

Agency Response: Certain provisions in the regulations will minimize sudden 

changes to the value of the equipment. First, to spread the cost of compliance 

over several years, optional trailer phase-in schedules are provided, as 

opposed to requiring all affected tractors and trailers to comply by a certain 

date. The large trailer fleet schedule begins in 2011, requiring only five percent 

compliance by January 1, 2011; full compliance will be required by January 1, 

2016. The small trailer fleet schedule begins by January 1, 2013 and ends by 

January 1, 2017. Another benefit of the phase-in schedules is that operating 

cost savings from vehicles brought into compliance in the early phase-in years 

can be used to pay for the costs of compliance during subsequent. Second, 

the retrofit modifications should add monetary value to equipment brought into 

compliance because aerodynamic devices are value-added items that result in 

lower fuel usage for the vehicle. Finally, equipment that is used for local haul or 

short haul is exempted from the provisions. Therefore, non-complying trailers 

can still be sold into the local or short haul market, without affecting their value. 

140. Comment: Cost-effectiveness deals with several aspects, including the initial 

cost of the aerodynamic technologies, the costs of maintaining these devices in 

service, the repair costs due to possible damage while in service and downtime 

losses during repairs. The costs may also include the added weight to the 

trailers which would reduce the overall payload capacity and in turn result in 

additional trucks and trailers on the highways in order to transport the same 

amount of cargo that is currently being transported, thereby potentially negating 

fuel savings and GHG reductions while increasing the potential for more motor 

vehicle collisions. (TTMA)
- 102 - 

Agency Response: ARB’s cost-effectiveness analysis included the initial cost 

of the aerodynamic technologies and the increased maintenance and repair 

costs when the aerodynamic devices are damaged. The cost increase for a 

compliant sleeper tractor and trailer ranges from $3,000 to $7,300, with an 

average of $5,000. The estimated increased cost for maintenance and repair 

for a compliant sleeper tractor and trailer ranges from $105 to $399, with an 

average of $263. 

The cost of downtime losses during repairs was not included in the calculations. 

Most of the fleets indicated that maintenance and repair needed for tractor 

fairings was minimal, and subsequently, the down time should be minimal as 

well. Damage to trailer side skirts, however, may occur and result in some 

vehicle downtime to repair the component. Some of the fleets contacted by 

ARB staff indicated that they had extra skirt panels and components in stock so 

that this downtime was minimized. 

Regarding the comment that the added weight of aerodynamic devices will 

reduce the overall payload capacity of trailers thereby negating the fuel savings 

and GHG benefits achieved, ARB asserts that the added weight contributed by 

the aerodynamic equipment is relatively insignificant relative to the overall 

weight of a truck’s payload. For example, as stated in the Staff Report, the 

average weight of a set of side skirts is between 150 and 350 pounds. 

Moreover, ARB’s cost effectiveness calculations were based on 5 percent fuel 

savings, when in actuality several of the aerodynamic technologies verified by 

the SmartWay program achieve 7% fuel efficiency savings, which will more 

than offset the minimal impact caused by the weight of the skirts for those 

vehicles that operate at maximum payload capacity. 

141. Comment: The fact that ARB proposed to mandate aerodynamic technologies 

on all 53-foot or longer box-type trailers that operate in the State of California, 

and not just on those domiciled within the State, would create an extreme and 

irrational burden on interstate commerce. The effect on interstate commerce of 

this proposed regulation would as a practical matter be to mandate installation 

of all of these technologies on the vast majority of trailers in use throughout the 

country regardless of the views of the governing agencies in other states on the 

issues that ARB is seeking to address. A study of the cost-effectiveness of this 

proposal should therefore also include the nationwide effects on interstate 

commerce. (TTMA)

Agency Response: ARB’s economic analysis of the measure did in fact 

include the compliance costs for tractors and trailers that are registered in other 

states but used on California highways. The compliance costs or other burdens 

associated with these requirements are neither extreme nor irrational. As with 

California-registered vehicles, a out-of-state fleet with a 1:1 ratio of tractors to 
- 103 - 

trailers that are used on California highways is expected to entirely recoup 

compliance costs in an average of less than 1.5 years through fuel savings. 

While ARB agrees that the regulation will force the owners of vehicles 

registered in other states to bring those vehicles into compliance if they are 

going to be used in California, ARB does not agree that the vast majority of 

trailers will be affected. The regulation provides for compliance schedules that 

will allow trailer owners to spread compliance obligations and costs out to avoid 

hardships. 

With this regulation, ARB does not directly regulate or discriminate against 

interstate commerce, substantially impede the flow of interstate commerce, or 

have an effect that favors in-state economic interests over out-of-state 

interests. In addition, the regulation’s indirect effects on interstate commerce 

are incidental and minor, particularly when compared to the public health 

benefits that will be achieved as a result of the measure's implementation. The 

regulation is also designed to give operators ample time to decide what 

equipment they will operate in California and to bring that equipment into 

compliance on a reasonable schedule. Considering all of this, ARB does not 

believe the regulation violates the Commerce Clause under the balancing test 

used by the courts to analyze state regulations affecting interstate commerce. 

142. Comment: The Staff Report states that the projected cost to comply with the 

proposed trailer requirements is approximately $2,900 per trailer with an 

additional $120 annual cost for maintenance. We question the veracity of these 

figures. In the Report itself, staff notes that the fleets they chose to interview 

reported side skirts alone costing as much as $2,600. Compliance would also 

require low-rolling resistance tires and either front or rear trailer fairings. 

(CBTRI, NTDA)

Agency Response: In the Staff Report, a range of cost estimates was 

provided for compliance with the regulation, ranging from $1,900 to $4,200, 

with an average cost of $2,900. The cost estimates include side skirts, either 

rear or front fairings, low-rolling resistance tires, and installation. The most 

variable component of the costs was that of the trailer side skirts, due to the 

range of material used and different designs and options. In discussions with 

fleets that were interviewed (Appendix E of Staff Report), the cost of side skirts 

ranged from $1,000 to $2,699. These and other product prices were used to 

calculate the low, average, and high cost estimates used in the Staff Report. 

143. Comment: In the discussion of costs and user concerns many conclusions 

seem to be based on a small sampling of anecdotal evidence. Also, there 

appear to be a great many statements that begin, “staff anticipates that...” It is 

clear that the staff is counting on numerous instances of future improvements 

and developments to be carried by the private sector in order to make this 

regulation viable. (CBTRI, NTDA)
- 104 - 

Agency Response: As of the date of the Staff Report, numerous product 

offerings were commercially available that were SmartWay verified, which may 

be used to comply with the regulation. There were SmartWay certified tractors 

from six different companies, four models of SmartWay verified side skirts, 

three models of SmartWay verified front trailer fairings, and one model of 

SmartWay verified rear trailer fairings. Staff held private meetings with over ten 

companies that used at least one type of aerodynamic technology and most 

found the technology mature and reasonable in cost. Some fleets even 

reported that they were planning to install side skirts on all of their trailers, after 

successfully testing the skirts on a limited number. Therefore, the technological 

feasibility of the required aerodynamic products is sound as of the date of the 

Staff Report and does not depend on any further improvements or 

developments to meet the requirements of this regulation. 

144. Comment: The cost burden of replacing power units and retrofitting the trailers 

simultaneously is a cost that cannot be justified. We have over three trailers for 

every one power unit. These trailers are used as a “mobile” warehouse while 

the customer unloads the trailers over a period of days. These trailers 

sometimes make only one or two trips per week. Our trailers do not travel 

enough miles to justify a savings in fuel because of their limited time on the 

road. Companies with excess trailing equipment will be unfairly burdened by a 

cost that cannot be justified. If the law is to have new trailers be manufactured 

with SmartWay technology, we would support that. But retrofitting older trailers 

is not a prudent business decision. (YTI)

Agency Response: In response to the comment regarding the affects of 

multiple rules, please see agency response to comment #14 and #166. The 

regulation aims to reduce GHG emissions by improving the fuel efficiency of 

long-haul tractors and trailers. From 2010 to 2020, a cumulative projected 

reduction of almost 8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions 

in California is expected from compliant trucks. These emission reductions 

come at an average cost of about $2,100 per new SmartWay certified sleeper 

cab tractor and $2,900 per trailer. In the regulation, older model tractors are 

only required to use low-rolling resistance tires but not to be retrofitted with 

aerodynamic equipment; the cost of the tire upgrade ranges between negligible 

and $500 per tractor. However, trailers will be required to use both low-rolling 

resistance tires and be retrofitted with aerodynamic equipment, unless the 

trailer is exempted (used within 100 miles of its local base) or is pulled by an 

exempted local haul or short haul tractor. Unlike most other ARB regulations, 

compliance with the regulation will result in a fuel savings, which will ultimately 

payback the initial upfront equipment costs. For the average long-haul mileage 

accrual rate of 125,000 miles per year, the Staff Report states that the fuel 

savings would be approximately $3,700 to $5,400 per year at fuel prices of 

$3.14 per gallon for a compliant tractor-trailer combination. 
- 105 - 

In the case of the commenter, the total compliance cost per unit of one older 

model tractor and three trailers is about $9,200. The fuel savings will be at the 

lower end of the stated $3,700 to $5,400 savings range because the tractor will 

not be a more fuel efficient model, only requiring the use of low rolling 

resistance tires. Even at $3,700 annual fuel savings, the commenter may still 

recover the initial cost in less than 3 years, making this an affordable regulation. 

H. Financial Assistance/Incentives 

145. Comment: Even though many of the improvements have significant fuel 

savings, the reality is that many companies do not have the credit available to 

qualify. Even large companies have a hard time borrowing money as of late. 

In addition, more work is needed to assure that incentives are distributed to 

various trucking vocations to achieve compliance. Not all trucks are the same 

and for some vocations, the grant is not enough. The industry needs extended 

terms and easy access to financing to help them during these dire economic 

times. (CSS)

Agency Response: ARB agrees that the recent downturn in the economy has 

made obtaining financing more challenging for fleets, and although there is 

evidence that conditions have improved since this comment was submitted, 

fleets may still face challenges in obtaining financing to upgrade their 

equipment. However, as economic conditions improve further, financing will 

become more accessible. Moreover, since the optional phase-in plans will 

provide fleets with extra time to comply, ARB anticipates that more financing 

will become available to them as the economy continues to strengthen. 

The comment pertaining to the issue of distributing incentives to various 

trucking vocations does not apply to this regulation since the regulation only 

applies to long-haul tractor-trailer configurations. 

Potential sources of funding to assist fleets in complying with the regulation 

include the U.S. EPA SmartWay Finance Center, the SmartWay Clean Diesel 

Finance Program, and the ARB Providing Loan Assistance for California 

Equipment (PLACE) Program. See agency response to comment # 148 for 

additional information about PLACE. Fleets may also find financing 

administered through their local states; some states and nonprofit organizations 

(including the commenter, Cascade Sierra Solutions) have received grant 

funding to offer financing for SmartWay upgrades, and additional grant funds 

may be made available to them in the future. 

146. Comment: The following recommendation should be incorporated into the 

proposed regulation to allow trucking companies greater flexibility to direct their 

financial resources to reduce GHG emissions. The Board should direct staff to 

include provisions in all existing and future on-road vehicle incentive and loan 
- 106 - 

programs which allow companies doing a portion of their business in California 

to apply for and leverage state funds. Current incentive and loan programs 

require a vast majority, if not all, of the vehicle’s operation to be in California in 

order to qualify. Yet the vast majority of affected equipment is based outside 

the state and will require large capital expenditures to comply. (ATA, Con-way) 

Agency Response: As stated by the commenters, there is an ARB incentive 

program (the PLACE loan program) available to some fleets to assist them in 

complying with this regulation. See agency response to comment # 148 for 

additional information about PLACE. The commenters are correct in stating 

that in order to obtain California funds through the PLACE loan program, fleets 

must travel a majority of their annual mileage (at least 51%) in California. 

Comments about developing new incentive programs or modifying existing 

incentive programs would require legislative changes and therefore are beyond 

the scope of this regulation 

147. Comment: A majority of the trucks hauling freight into and from California are 

not based in the state, meaning that the bulk of the $10.4 billion cost will be 

borne by non-domicile long-haul carriers. All but a small percentage of these 

trucks and trailers are operated by small businesses with fewer than 20 trucks. 

These small carriers will likely not have the capital resources to comply. Yet, 

those limited funds allocated by California to retrofit equipment are largely not 

available to non-domiciled fleets. (AZTA)

Agency Response: The PLACE loan program is not exclusively offered to 

California-domiciled fleets. Rather, applicants must have their primary 

economic effect in California (51% or more of their total annual mileage 

generated in California). In addition, qualified borrowers must be small 

businesses (less than 100 employees, less than $10 million annual revenues), 

and have no more than 20 heavy-duty tractors in their fleet. Thus, the fleets 

described by the commenter might in fact be eligible for PLACE loans. 

Other resources that offer funding opportunities to fleets nationwide include the 

U.S. EPA SmartWay Finance Center and other state or nonprofit-administered 

programs. Cascade Sierra Solutions, a grant recipient of the SmartWay Clean 

Diesel Finance Program, offers loans to assist fleets in complying with the 

regulation. 

148. Comment: We are pleased to see ARB maximize the potential of this initiative 

by enlarging funding and broadening access available to fleets that are 

prepared to make initial capital investment in SmartWay-approved 

technologies. ARB should provide financial assistance and grant programs to 

the greatest possible extent. (ATDynamics)
- 107 - 

Agency Response: 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/onroad.htm 

149. Comment: The State has talked about grants to offset some of the cost to 

upgrade existing equipment. However, trucking companies of our size do not 

qualify. We own 35 power units and over 50 trailers. We are all for clean air. 

What we need is the funding to do this. (FTI)

Agency Response: There are currently no grants available through ARB to 

help offset some of the cost of equipment upgrades to comply with the 

regulation. In addition, based on the information provided by the commenter, 

their fleet would not qualify for financing through the PLACE program since they 

exceed the fleet size limitation of not more than 20 heavy-duty tractors. Other 

resources that offer funding opportunities to fleets nationwide include the U.S. 

EPA SmartWay Finance Center, and other state or nonprofit-administered 

programs. Cascade Sierra Solutions, a grant recipient of the SmartWay Clean 

Diesel Finance Program, offers loans to assist fleets in complying with the 

regulation. 

However, although there are up-front capitol costs to purchase and install 

aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance tires, this regulation will, 

over time, save money as described in response to comments #71 and #108 is 

that the costs are paid for within less than 2.3 years (trailer-to-tractor ratio of 2 

to 1), as well as reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In fact, from 2010 to 

2020, ARB has estimated the benefits of this regulation to include: a net 

savings of 8.6 billion dollars; a reduction of approximately 8 million metric tons 

of carbon dioxide emissions in California and approximately 52 million metric 

tons of carbon dioxide emissions nationwide; savings of 750 million gallons of 

diesel fuel from operations within California and approximately 5 billion gallons 

of diesel from nationwide operations 

150. Comment: We cannot comply with the proposed regulation if we do not get 

loans that will even match grant funds. We cannot buy new equipment or 

retrofit the old if our shippers are not moving product. (JJTI)
- 108 - 

Agency Response: See agency response to comment #148 for a description 

of the PLACE loan program. Other resources that offer funding opportunities to 

fleets nationwide include the U.S. EPA SmartWay Finance Center and other 

state or nonprofit-administered programs. Cascade Sierra Solutions, a grant 

recipient of the SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program, offers loans to assist 

fleets nationwide in complying with the regulation. 

151. Comment: Any incentive or subsidy program must not operate to create a 

subprime lending scheme or create competitive disadvantages for motor 

carriers. First, the subsidy program should not discriminate on the basis of fleet 

size. This will tend to limit such a program to providing subsidies to large motor 

carriers using one-truck owner operators to the disadvantage of other deserving 

motor carriers. Second, the program must be based on sound commercial 

underwriting standards. The vast majority of one-truck owner-operators are 

economical marginal and at high risk for default. If the State guarantees loans 

to these owners where the lenders share no risk in the event of default and the 

loan terms are not reasonable, then the program will fail in a scandalous way. 

(CTPAC) 

Agency Response: The ARB’s incentive programs, Carl Moyer grant program 

and loan guarantee program, are governed by existing statutes, which provide 

a legal framework for these programs. ARB, working within the legislative 

intent of the governing statutes, strives to create incentive programs that would 

maximize the air quality benefits and the number of fleets that could be 

assisted, while minimizing potential negative impacts on businesses and 

market competitiveness. For example, the Carl Moyer program provides grant 

for fleets to obtain cleaner vehicles and equipment primarily on the basis of how 

cost effective a project is without regard to fleet size. The ARB’s heavy-duty 

vehicle loan guarantee program does have fleet size restriction; only fleets with 

20 or fewer vehicles are eligible. However, this criterion was included based on 

ARB’s interpretation of statutory requirements (Health and Safety Code, 

Section 44274.7(c)(1)) and based on inputs received from the public. 

The ARB’s heavy-duty vehicle loan guarantee program is implemented through 

the California Pollution Control Financing Authority’s (CPCFA) California 

Capital Access Program (CalCAP). Under CalCAP, participating lenders, 

banks and credit unions, evaluate loan applications based on their own 

established underwriting standards. The ARB does not specify or impose any 

loan underwriting standards on participating lenders. The ARB, through this 

program, does provide a loan guarantee for the loan applications that were 

independently approved by the participating lenders. 

Even though the State is providing funds to help guarantee loans for fleet 

owners outside normal lending criteria, the State is putting only 14% of the loan 

amount into a loan loss reserve account for each participating lender to be paid 
- 109 - 

out in case of loan defaults. Therefore, there is a built-in constraint on how 

many loan defaults the reserve can sustain for each lender. Through this 

mechanism, as well as through the CPCFA’s monitoring of the loans enrolled 

under this program, participating lenders do not have an incentive to engage in 

risky behavior. This way, loans can be provided to borrowers that fall just 

outside of conventional underwriting standards but not for those with the riskiest 

credit profiles. The ARB has confidence in the soundness and integrity of the 

CalCAP’s loan guarantee program. CalCAP has achieved a historical fund 

leveraging ratio of about seven-to-one with a loan default rate of about 4 

percent. For ARB and for the fleet owners, this means that the total dollar 

amount of loans made with lender funds will be at least seven times greater 

than the funds ARB contributes to the program while maintaining low default 

rates for these loans. 

152. Comment: The Board should come up with a plan that would promote buyouts 

of older equipment, grants, low interest loans, tax incentives, and other 

measures to mitigate the burden on the trucking companies, businesses, and 

the California public. (TLTLLC) 

Agency Response: The ARB PLACE loan program provides financial 

assistance for qualified fleets to comply with the regulation. See agency 

response to comment #148 for a description of the PLACE loan program. 

Comments about developing new incentive programs or modifying existing 

incentive programs would require legislative changes and therefore are beyond 

the scope of this regulation. 

I. Emission Inventory 

153. Comment: The mileage restrictions in the Initial Statement of Reasons appear 

to be based upon an assumption that trucks and trailers work five ten-hour 

days. In fact, trucks and trailers typically 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. (CTA)

Agency Response: ARB’s estimate of the 50,000 mile limit for the short haul 

exemption is based on a five days per week, 50 weeks per year, and 200 miles 

per day (roundtrip with trip length of 100 miles or a 200-mile one way trip) 

operation5

. ARB believes that a tractor that accrues more than 200 miles per 

day is more likely to be driven a significant portion of its mileage at highway 

speeds, thereby benefiting from aerodynamic treatments. As in the 

 

5

 Staff assumed a tractor downtime of approximately 10 business days per year on average for 

maintenance and other unforeseen situations when the truck remains inoperable. 
- 110 - 

commenter’s example, if a truck is operated for longer service hours and longer 

trips, and accrues approximately 150,000 miles per year, then it is even more 

likely to be operated at highway speeds since a significant portion of its travel 

would occur on less congested highways during off-peak hours, benefiting from 

improvements in aerodynamic drag and tire rolling resistance. See also agency 

response to comments #22, 23, and 24. 

 

154. Comment: We question the estimates used in the analysis for the number of 

trailers likely to be affected by the proposed regulation. As the report indicates, 

“for trailers, no database exists that provide a complete inventory on the total 

number of box-type trailers that would be impacted by the proposed rule.” Staff 

then simply chose to estimate a ratio for the number of trailers to tractors and 

extrapolate a figure. (CBTRI, NTDA)

Agency Response: ARB looked at various data sources including trailer 

registration data by state provided by the United States Department of 

Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Polk data base, trailer 

registration data from the California Department of Motor Vehicles, and other 

published data from sources such as Commercial Carrier Journal. All of these 

data sources provide the total number of registered trailers operating 

throughout the nation during a given calendar year. However, they do not tell 

how many of these trailers operate during a given year in the state of California. 

In the absence of any other data, ARB estimated the number of trailers 

operating in California indirectly using the industry average trailer-to-tractor 

ratio and the number of tractors that operate in California. As discussed on 

page 14 of the Staff Report, the trailer-to-tractor ratio was determined using 

data provided in a Commercial Carrier Journal article about the top 250 carriers 

in the nation. The number of tractors that operate in California was based on 

inventory developed for the purposes of the Truck and Bus rule, which is the 

most up to date inventory of on-road heavy-duty vehicles operating in 

California. 

155. Comment: The data for the emission benefit in the Staff Report is incomplete. 

The analysis for vehicle usage takes estimated VMT and assumes that a very 

high percentage of those miles are at highway speed. The test procedure for 

measuring the fuel efficiency improvement for aerodynamic devices is 

conducted on a test track at speeds of 60 to 62 miles per hour. Thus, ARB 

calculated the benefits of this proposal for vehicles traveling 60 to 62 miles per 

hour; yet the speed limit for trucks in California is 55 miles per hour, assuming 

traffic conditions allow for traveling at the speed limit. We question whether the 

Staff Report data is reflective of the real world conditions typically experienced 

in the State of California. It appears that the report’s analysis clearly overstates 

the monetary benefit that would actually be experienced. (CBTRI, NTDA)

Agency Response: ARB is aware that the legal speed limit for trucks in 

California is 55 miles per hour. However, speeds at which vehicles are 
- 111 - 

operated in the real world are different than the legal speed limit. In estimating 

the average speed for trucks that are driven on California highways, staff relied 

on data collected by the Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS), 

a project conducted by University of California at Berkeley, with the cooperation 

of the California Department of Transportation, California Partners for 

Advanced Transit and Highways, and Berkeley Transportation Systems. ARB 

calculated a vehicle miles weighted statewide average median truck speed of 

59.7 miles per hour. Therefore, ARB’s estimation of the monetary as well as 

the emission benefits from this regulation does not overestimate the benefits as 

claimed by the commenter. See also agency response to comment #156 

regarding ARB response to the percent of operation at highway speeds. 

156. Comment: The data for the emission benefit in the Staff Report is incomplete. 

The report indicates that the VMT data the staff were able to obtain cannot be 

directly applied to the fuel efficiency improvements they show as VMT is 

accrued at various speeds, while the fuel efficient improvements are 

determined at Speeds of approximately 60 miles per hour. The report then 

clearly states, “...the speed-VMT distribution of the impacted tractors and fuel 

efficiency improvements at different speeds are needed in order to accurately 

quantify the GHG emission benefits. However, such data were not available 

and there staff estimated the GHG benefits using only the VMT accrued at 

highway speeds, without taking into account benefits that occur at lower 

speeds.” Trucks traveling at higher rates of speed are likely to obtain much 

greater fuel savings from the proposed aerodynamic equipment than while 

traveling at lower speeds. (CBTRI, NTDA)

Agency Response: Since aerodynamic drag is proportional to the square of 

the speed, it is true that a truck with aerodynamic treatment traveling at speeds 

higher than 60 miles per hour is likely to obtain greater fuel savings than those 

determined at 60 miles per hour. It is also true that the same truck will get less 

fuel savings when it is traveling at speeds lower than 60 miles per hour. A 

more accurate estimate of the emission benefits could have been obtained if 

the speed distribution by VMT for long haul tractors was available. However, to 

ARB staff’s knowledge, no such data is available. Therefore, ARB estimated 

the emission benefits assuming that 75 percent (85 percent for non-neighboring 

out-of-state tractors) of the VMT is accrued at highway speeds. As referenced 

in the Staff Report, this is consistent with assumptions made by other experts in 

the trucking industry. 

157. Comment: Staff’s cost-effectiveness calculations have not reflected the reality 

of the costs that regulated entities are likely to face. In the analysis, the ratio of 

trailers to tractors is 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 
- 112 - 

year. CTA recommends that staff revise its cost-effectiveness analysis to 

ensure that it reflects a realistic appraisal of the costs of the program versus 

any claimed benefits. (CTA2)

Agency Response: ARB analyzed the heavy-duty truck inventory data 

developed for the Truck and Bus Rule and found that the average annual 

mileage accrual rate of California registered tractors is approximately 51,000 

miles. However, this estimate is much lower than the annual miles accrued by 

long haul tractors. This is to be expected since the inventory data developed 

for the Truck and Bus rule for California registered tractors includes all tractors 

including short haul, old model year tractors that operate seasonally or 

occasionally for a very short period of time of the year, and tractors that operate 

as long haul. Since the regulation applies only to long haul tractors, it is 

appropriate to use the mileage accrued by long haul tractors rather than the 

averaged estimate developed for the Truck and Bus rule. 

In a fleet survey conducted by ARB staff (refer to Staff Report, Appendix E, 

Fleet Summaries), annual mileage accrual rates reported by fleets operating 

long haul tractors ranged from 120,000 to 250,000 miles per year for tractors 

and 80,000 to 100,000 miles for trailers. However, in estimating the costeffectiveness for California registered tractors, ARB assumed a more 

conservative estimate mileage accrual rate of 125,000 miles per year for a new 

tractor and 74,000 miles for an older model year tractor. Furthermore, as 

discussed in Appendix C of the Staff Report, only 75 percent of this mileage 

was assumed to be accrued at highway speeds and only 23 percent of the 

California registered tractor-trailer combinations were assumed to operate in 

long haul service. ARB believes that these assumptions are conservative and 

ensure that the cost-effectiveness analysis in the Staff Report reflects a realistic 

evaluation of the costs and claimed benefits of the regulation. 

158. Comment: Staff’s cost-effectiveness calculations have not reflected the reality 

of the costs that regulated entities are likely to face. The fuel savings 

associated with SmartWay aerodynamic technologies assume a speed of 62.5 

miles per hour. 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 miles per hour and the median speed is about 55 

miles per hour. Moreover, many tractors are governed to go no more than 55 

miles per hour, the posted speed for trucks. There is nothing in ARB’s 

calculations that takes these facts into consideration. Instead, ARB staff 

dismisses trucking companies’ claims that they observe the posted limits. CTA 

recommends that staff revise its cost-effectiveness analysis to ensure that it 

reflects a realistic appraisal of the costs of the program versus any claimed 

benefits. (CTA2)

Agency Response: See also response to comment #155. ARB can not 

comment on the commenter’s claim that Caltrans data for I-5 show average 
- 113 - 

speeds of less than 60 miles per hour and a median speed of about 55 miles 

per hour, since the commenter did not provide any reference to enable ARB to 

verify the claims. Furthermore, the commenter does not provide any study or 

reference on the statistics of the governed speed and the number of long haul 

tractors with governed speed. ARB is aware of some fleets that operate 

tractors with governed speed. However, as indicated by some fleets that 

operate long haul tractors (Appendix E of the Staff Report), the governed speed 

is in the range of 65 miles per hour or more rather than the 55 miles per hour 

claimed by the commenter. Thus, ARB does not believe it is appropriate to 

apply any corrections to the costs and benefits analysis to take into account 

tractors with speed governed at or below 55 miles per hour. 

159. Comment: Trucks accessing California shipper warehouses operating in 

urban setting at lower road speeds do not achieve the stated emission 

emissions in the staff report. The staff report used the U.S. EPA SmartWay 

modeling at 62.5 miles per hour whereas the speed limit in California for a truck 

is 55 miles per hour. The stated emission benefits are overestimated and 

provide inaccurate assumptions of the truck rate of speed and topography and 

of driving in urban congestion. This violates AB 32’s requirements for 

reductions to be real, additional, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable and 

enforceable. (IWLA)

Agency Response: Please see agency responses to comments 155, 156,

and 158. In calculating the benefits of the regulation, ARB considered only the 

VMT that is accrued at highway speeds by including only 75 to 85 percent of 

the total VMT. This means that 15 to 25 percent of the total VMT has been 

excluded assuming that it occurs at speeds lower than highway speeds and in 

urban settings. 

J. Outreach 

160. Comment: We hope ARB will continue vigorous outreach to truck owners to 

ensure incentive programs are understood and accessible. Ensuring owners 

are aware of the multiple funding sources that can be leveraged to assist 

individual truck and fleet owners, will maximize compliance with the rule and 

minimize the economic impact on owners and business. (PHI)

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 in which the proposed rulemaking and financial 

incentive options were discussed. In section XII of the Staff Report, a summary 

of the current financial assistance and grant programs provided information to 

stakeholders on financing options. Since the time of the Board Hearing, 

outreach including meetings, fact sheets, and presentations at trucking 

conferences has been extensive to inform stakeholders of the impending 
- 114 - 

regulatory requirements, in which incentive and financial programs were also 

discussed. In addition, a new ARB website has been launched to allow truck 

owners to easily understand the regulatory requirements applicable specifically 

to them and the financial options available. During the implementation of the 

regulation, ARB will continue to provide outreach to affected stakeholders to 

ensure that they are aware of available incentive programs and regulatory 

requirements. 

161. Comment: ARB has not included sole operators of trucks to be involved on its 

committees and has chosen to ignore our pleas from the beginning. Individual 

drivers have no control over the rules under which they must operate. (LDT)

Agency Response: ARB staff conducted numerous outreach efforts to inform 

affected parties regarding the regulation and to obtain stakeholder comments 

and feedback. During 2008, ARB jointly conducted thirty-five public workshops 

statewide in 9 different locations in conjunction with another regulatory 

proposal, the Truck and Bus Rule. In addition, public workshops were held in 

San Diego/Otay Mesa with Spanish interpreters. During these public 

workshops, sole owner/operators of trucks as well as other interested parties 

provided oral comments to ARB staff. These comments were taken into 

consideration as the regulatory proposal was developed. For example, the 

optional trailer compliance phase-in schedule for small fleets gives additional 

time for an owner operator to retrofit its existing trailer. During the rulemaking 

process, there was no formation of any type of committee and thus owner 

operators were not excluded. ARB will continue to provide outreach during the 

regulatory implementation to affected stakeholders, including owner operators, 

through ARB's website, email service (listserv), toll free hotline at 

(866) 6DIESEL, fact sheets, workshops, and training sessions. 

162. Comment: ARB should work with industry to put in place a plan that does not 

cause viable businesses in this state to either close or relocate to Arizona or 

Nevada. Use a plan proven to work. For example, look at the United Kingdom 

model. They changed the face of the trucking industry through peer pressure. 

They have a program where a truck is tagged with a colored band so that 

everyone can see it is a gross polluter and in 5 years the worst offenders are 

now gone. (Ross) 

Agency Response: The regulation adopted by ARB applies to all trucks and 

trailers that operate in California. Therefore, trucking businesses that choose to 

leave California will not be provided business advantage by leaving the state 

because of this rule. In addition, companies that comply with the requirements 

will have visible aerodynamic equipment showing the public that they are doing 

their part in protecting the environment. 

163. More work with the trucking industry needs to take place to develop a better 

regulation. (Berry)
- 115 - 

Agency Response: During the regulatory development, ARB staff conducted 

numerous outreach efforts to inform affected parties regarding the regulation 

and to obtain stakeholder comments and feedback. During 2008, ARB jointly 

conducted thirty-five workshops statewide in 9 different locations in conjunction 

with another regulatory proposal, the Truck and Bus Rule. In addition, public 

workshops were held in San Diego/Otay Mesa, conducted with Spanish 

interpreters. ARB staff contacted more than 60 industry associations, 

representing the trucking, logistics, manufacturing, wholesale and retail 

industries as well as individual industry members to inform them of the 

regulation and invite them to provide comments. ARB staff also conducted 

several presentations and off-site meetings targeted at specific stakeholders 

groups including owner operators, drivers, motor carriers, warehouse and 

logistics companies, brokers, tractor and trailer manufacturers of aerodynamic 

technologies and equipment. During the implementation of the regulation, ARB 

will continue to provide outreach to affected stakeholders through ARB's 

website, email service (listserv), toll free hotline at (866) 6DIESEL, fact sheets, 

public workshops and training sessions. 

K. Implementation and Phase-in Schedule 

164. Comment: The proposed implementation schedule is too short because it will 

be too costly. A longer timeframe is needed. (Burke, CFC, Fortier, FLFTI, 

Grewal, Ingram, Nard, Nelthorpe, Phillips2, Rader, RZT, YTI)

Agency Response: The implementation schedule for this regulation was 

developed to provide maximum flexibility and ability to phase-in compliance 

over time, while still holding to the time constraints imposed by AB 32. As 

such, large fleets of trailers that choose to participate in the optional Large Fleet 

Compliance Phase-In will have 6 years to bring all their trailers into compliance 

(5% the first year, 15% the second year, 30% the third year, 50% the fourth 

year, 75% the fifth year, and 100% the sixth year). The first phase-in deadline 

is January 1, 2011; subsequent deadlines take place each year thereafter until 

January 1, 2016. Small fleets may choose the Small Fleet Compliance PhaseIn for their trailers, over a four year period beginning January 1, 2014, and 

ending January 1, 2017 (the annual required percentages that must be 

retrofitted are 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%). Small fleets may also choose to 

follow the same compliance option as large fleets. These phase-in options 

provide fleets flexibility and the ability to spread out the costs of compliance 

over several years. Also, see agency response to comment #166. 

165. Comment: Similar to the early compliance option, a worthwhile option would 

be to reward fleets for going above and beyond the proposed 5% and 4% fuel 

savings requirements, for dry van and refrigerated van trailers, respectively. As 

with the early compliance option, the fully-equipped trailer could be used to 
- 116 - 

meet an optional 10% fuel savings requirement, which in turn allows the delay 

of the retrofit of another trailer for a given number of years, though not 

extending into 2016. A fully-equipped aerodynamic trailer would substantially 

outperform its peers; there is no better tool than competition to encourage early 

adoption. (ATDynamics)

Agency Response: A 10 percent fuel savings requirement would necessitate 

the use of an advanced rear trailer fairing; only one technology in this category 

has been verified to date. In addition, while the commenter's proposal may 

allow additional flexibility for fleets to earn credit, such an option would exceed 

the requirements of the SmartWay program, upon which the regulation is 

based. For these reasons, ARB did not propose a 10 percent fuel savings 

compliance option. Over time, as the U.S. EPA SmartWay program expands 

its requirements and more efficient technologies become available, ARB may 

consider modifying the regulation to achieve greater benefits. Until that time, 

however, fleets may decide to voluntarily improve their fuel efficiency to reach a 

10 percent fuel savings. 

166. Comment: Industry does not have enough funds to comply with multiple rules, 

the off-road regulation as well as the current on-road regulations. Extend the 

implementation schedule to lessen the financial impact. (Davies)

Agency Response: The regulation already provides vehicle owners with more 

than one compliance option that extends implementation and spreads the 

financial impact over several years. First, optional phase-in schedules are 

provided for trailer retrofit requirements in lieu of the full compliance 

requirement by January 1, 2013. These phase-in schedules spread the cost of 

implementation over either four or six years, depending on the size of the trailer 

fleet. While large fleets will need to bring a small percentage (5%) of their 

trailers into compliance by January 1, 2011 and additional percentages for each 

subsequent year, final compliance will not be required until January 1, 2016. 

Similarly for small trailer fleets the first compliance deadline will require 25 

percent compliance by January 1, 2014 and an additional 25 percent each 

subsequent year until January 1, 2017. Also, certain model year refrigerated 

trailers subject to the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled 

Transport Refrigeration Units are allowed additional years for compliance, until 

January 1, 2018, 2019 or 2020, depending on model year. It should be noted 

that fuel savings will be realized when a compliant vehicle is driven, which 

translates into an operational cost savings to the owner. As a result of the 

phase-in schedule, this cost savings may, in turn, be used by the owner to pay 

for the upfront costs of other retrofits. Financial assistance for obtaining loans 

may also be available to eligible businesses. See agency response to 

comments #145 and #148 for additional information on financial assistance. 

167. Comment: There’s enough CARB staff and other mechanisms, rather than 

adding cost onto our side to have to go out and police the equipment. (IWLA)
- 117 - 

Agency Response: Appendix G of the Staff Report describes the enforcement 

approach for the regulation. Enforcement authority is given only to ARB 

enforcement staff, peace officers, and local air pollution control district staff. 

The responsibility of a California-based shipper is to ship freight from its 

facilities using only compliant tractors and trailers. Since a California-based 

shipper is typically not directly responsible for the tractors and trailers used to 

carry freight from its facility, it will not be directly held liable for tractors and 

trailers found in violation for the first time. If, however, the violating motor 

carrier, tractor owner, or trailer owner fails to settle the notice of violation within 

the permitted time period, ARB will notify the affected shipper that, until the 

notice of violation is settled, it will be responsible for future violations involving 

the delinquent motor carrier, tractor owner, or trailer owner. While the shipper 

is not required to "police" equipment that carries freight from its facility, once 

notified of a delinquent violation the shipper must take action. It may notify the 

delinquent violating motor carrier or equipment owner to settle the violation 

before it can carry freight from the shipper’s facility, choose to use a different 

motor carrier or equipment owner, or other options. 

168. Comment: The Board should consider requiring compliance by the larger 

trucking companies first while allowing smaller companies to use their existing 

equipment. As larger companies continue to purchase new equipment, smaller 

companies would be able to purchase their used compliant equipment at a 

better price. (FTI)

Agency Response: The regulation already contains some provisions that will 

result in smaller companies being able to purchase used compliant equipment 

from larger companies. First, companies (likely larger companies) that are 

replacing existing equipment by purchasing new affected 2011 model year 

tractors and trailers beginning in January 1, 2010 must comply with the 

regulation. Companies (likely smaller companies) that are not purchasing new 

equipment in 2010 may continue using their existing equipment and need not 

comply with the aerodynamic requirements at that time. Larger companies may 

choose to sell their compliant equipment into the secondary market after a few 

years of usage, in which case smaller companies can purchase compliant 

equipment at a lower cost. Second, the optional phase-in schedules for trailer 

retrofits begin on January 1, 2011 for large trailer fleets but do not begin until 

January 1, 2014 for small trailer fleets. This time frame will allow larger trailer 

fleets to sell compliant trailers after a couple of years, in which case smaller 

trailer fleets may purchase them at a lower cost. 

169. Comment: Individual truck owners (owner operators) should not be allowed to 

avoid compliance until 2017. This will just cause employers using employee 

drivers to switch to owner-operators to avoid compliance and leave the best 

trucking companies to comply earlier. (CTPAC)
- 118 - 

Agency Response: The optional compliance schedule for small trailer fleets is 

25 percent by January 1, 2014, 50 percent by 2015, 75 percent by 2016, and 

100 percent by 2017. Based on the compliance schedule formula in the 

regulation, an individual truck owner (who owns one trailer) will be required to 

bring the trailer into compliance by January 1, 2015, not 2017 as stated by the 

commenter. 

170. Comment: ARB should delay the implementation of the proposed regulation 

until more products that can lower emissions are tested. There are businesses 

with products that can lower emissions but cannot afford to have them tested. 

The product testing process should be more inexpensive. (RTRI)

Agency Response: The regulation is based on the U.S. EPA SmartWay 

program, which certifies tractors and trailers that have been demonstrated to 

use less fuel and produce lower emissions than their traditional counterparts. 

As of the publication of the Staff Report, six tractor manufacturers had 

SmartWay certified tractors, four companies had SmartWay verified trailer side 

skirts; three companies had SmartWay verified front trailer fairings; and one 

company had SmartWay verified rear trailer fairings. The number of SmartWay 

products that may be used to comply with the requirement is substantial and 

provides sufficient flexibility for equipment owners to choose the appropriate 

combination of technologies. Furthermore, ARB does not have the authority to 

set cost rates of test facilities. 

171. Comment: Alternative solutions must be looked at to slow this implementation. 

(CDTI)

Agency Response: The implementation schedule was developed during the 

regulatory process, allowing maximum flexibility for affected equipment owners 

while still meeting the statutory timeline of AB32. In particular, the optional 

phase-in schedules span four or six years, depending on fleet size, so that 

fleets can spread the cost of implementation over those years. See also 

agency responses to comments #166 and #168. 

L. Compliance and Enforcement 

172. Comment: If you do not enforce whatever rule you adopt – I don’t mean just 

throw it out there and do it randomly – you’re going to create a really bad 

situation for those of us that have been in business for a long time. Because 

what’s going to be created is I’m going to pay $125,000 for a truck, $65,000 for 

a trailer, and my competitor will spend $10,000 for a truck and $5,000 for a 

trailer. And that’s why I hope you have a plan in place, whether it’s holding the 

shippers or receivers liable for carriers like that, because it’s going to be very 

hard to monitor the situation. And if you don’t, those of us that have been 

around for a long time will not be around anymore. (Goliti)
- 119 - 

Agency Response: The regulation contains enforcement provisions in the 

newly proposed section 95308, title 17, California Code of Regulations. The 

Staff Report also discusses the enforcement of the regulation on pages 28-29 

and in Appendix G. Enforcement will be carried out primarily by authorized 

representatives of ARB, but peace officers and authorized representatives of air 

pollution control districts will also have authority to enforce this rule. A violation 

may be issued for failure to comply with the tractor or trailer requirements, 

failure to submit required information, or providing false information. In regards 

to ARB, in particular, initial enforcement of the regulation will likely occur 

concurrently with two existing ARB programs, the Heavy-Duty Vehicle 

Inspection Program and the Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. The HeavyDuty Vehicle Inspection Program is a roadside inspection program that checks 

heavy-duty vehicles for excess smoke emissions and for engine and 

aftertreatment tampering, while the enforcement of the Periodic Smoke 

Inspection Program consists of fleet audits at truck facilities. Over time, 

however, as more and more requirements of this regulation become effective, 

ARB may progressively increase its rule-targeted inspections and actively look 

for non-compliant vehicles in the field. Moreover, enforcement personnel will 

also have the authority to conduct comprehensive compliance audits of fleets 

that elect to participate in one of the optional trailer fleet compliance schedules, 

so such compliance audits may occur as deemed appropriate. Although 

shippers will not initially be held responsible for the compliance of their carriers, 

they may eventually be cited if they continue to use a particular motor carrier 

that has one or more outstanding violations. ARB believes this strategy will 

help level the playing field between in-state and out-of-state carriers. Note that 

any premium that a motor carrier may pay to equip tractors and trailers with 

efficiency-improving devices will likely be recovered as a result of fuel savings 

and will save money over the long run. 

173. Comment: The following recommendation should be incorporated into the 

proposed regulation to allow trucking companies greater flexibility to direct their 

financial resources to reduce GHG emissions. The Board should direct staff to 

develop an additional compliance option which allows companies to be deemed 

compliant because of their participation in the federal SmartWay program. 

Trucking companies should be allowed to include the proven measures being 

used in the federal SmartWay program to demonstrate compliance and any 

motor carrier that has been certified under SmartWay should automatically be 

deemed in full compliance with the proposed regulations. ARB staff should 

work with U.S. EPA and the trucking industry to come up with such a 

compliance option so that we can reduce greenhouse gases most effectively 

without doing things that don’t work. (ATA, Con-way)

Agency Response: The U.S. EPA SmartWay Program is a federal voluntary 

program aimed at improving energy efficiency, reducing GHG and air pollutant 

emissions, and improving energy security of the ground freight movement 
- 120 - 

system. While the SmartWay Program offers fleets many different strategies to 

meet its qualifying criteria, simply requiring participation in the program would 

not satisfy the requirements set forth in, and our commitments made pursuant 

to, AB32. Firstly, ARB does not believe such an approach would provide 

sufficient GHG benefit to meet California’s commitments. Secondly, ARB 

believes that the GHG benefit of many of the strategies offered by the 

SmartWay program are not quantifiable. Therefore, it is inappropriate to allow 

an option for full compliance simply by participating in the SmartWay Program. 

174. Comment: The following recommendation should be incorporated into the 

proposed regulation to allow trucking companies greater flexibility to direct their 

financial resources to reduce GHG emissions. The Board should direct staff to 

add the following credit provisions to the Optional Trailer Fleet Compliance 

Schedules for those companies that have taken proactive steps to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. First, SmartWay tractors and trailers that are 2010 

or older should be eligible to receive early and/or additional compliance credit. 

These credits could then be accumulated and used to offset trailer 

requirements under the Optional Trailer Fleet Compliance Schedules. Second, 

credits should be available to fleets that deploy aerodynamic technologies in 

excess of the proposed requirements, which can be used to offset trailer 

requirements under the Optional Trailer Fleet Compliance Schedules. (ATA, 

Con-way)

Agency Response: The requirements already contain early compliance

provisions for 2010 and older model year trailers belonging to those who elect 

to participate in the Optional Large Trailer Fleet Compliance Schedule. 

However, 2010 and older model year tractors are not eligible because except 

for tires they are not required to retrofit with aerodynamic devices. ARB did not 

incorporate the second recommendation because such an option would exceed 

the tractor and trailer criteria of the SmartWay program, upon which the 

regulation is based. In addition, applying the technologies on different trailer 

length and types would require benefit analysis based on test data, so that 

credits on one type could offset the emissions of non-retrofitted 53-foot trailers. 

Such data does not exist and would be needed for any consideration. If a fleet 

chooses, it may voluntarily decide to improve their fuel efficiency beyond the 

requirements to generate more fuel savings. 

175. Comment: The following recommendation should be incorporated into the 

proposed regulation to allow trucking companies greater flexibility to direct their 

financial resources to reduce GHG emissions. The Board should direct staff to 

add the following additional compliance provisions.

• A compliance provision is needed to allow 2011 and later model year sleeper 

cab tractors that are not SmartWay certified to become compliant with the 

regulation. The U.S. EPA currently allows only two models of tractors from 

each manufacturer to be SmartWay certified. Consequently, a tractor may 

demonstrate fuel efficiency sufficient for SmartWay certification, but because 
- 121 - 

of program limits, cannot be certified. ARB should work with U.S. EPA to 

develop these specifications in order to ensure the technologies which 

comprise a U.S. EPA SmartWay truck and trailer are uniform throughout the 

country. 

• A compliance exception is needed for situations where operational or safety 

considerations limit or prohibit the application of the required technologies 

such as operations in sunken docks, extreme cold weather or other factors 

that compromise the integrity and/or performance of the technologies. 

• A compliance provision is needed which allows fleets the ability to bring 

equipment into shops to be repaired without being cited for noncompliance. 

A fix-it citation should be incorporated into the regulation to allow operators to 

safely make the necessary repairs to equipment which has become 

inadvertently damaged. 

(ATA, Con-way)

Agency Response: The first compliance provision suggested by the 

commenter was not added to the regulation because SmartWay certified 

tractors represent the most fuel efficient model(s) from each manufacturer. The 

Staff Report identified six major tractor manufacturers that offer SmartWay 

certified tractors, and thus vehicle owners have a diverse selection when 

choosing a new 2011 and later model year SmartWay certified tractor. In 

addition, U.S. EPA has recently released an interim performance-based test 

protocol for SmartWay tractor certifications that no longer limits certifications to 

two per manufacturer. See also agency response to comment #32 and #37 for 

more information on U.S. EPA’s new performance-based test protocol. 

The second compliance provision suggested by the commenter was not 

included in the regulations because in discussions with fleets that have used 

the aerodynamic devices, the vast majority of the fleets reported very few 

incidents of damage to the aerodynamic equipment (Appendix E of the Staff 

Report.) In the event of sunken docks or other factors that may damage the 

aerodynamic technologies, technology manufacturers have addressed this 

concern by using durable thermoplastics for all or at least the lower part of 

trailer skirts such that they will bend and flex without permanent damage when 

they contact an obstacle. Also, one manufacturer produces a retractable skirt 

that can be flipped up to avoid a deep-angled dock or to access tool boxes or 

spare tires on the underside of the trailer. The commenter also noted that 

trailer skirts may be damaged in extreme cold weather (where the side skirts 

will collect snow and ice.) Skirt manufacturers contend that the current 

materials from which their skirts are constructed tend to prevent ice buildup. 

However, if ice does build up, it can easily be scraped off. See also agency 

response to comment #85. 

The regulations specify that any aerodynamic technology used on the trailer 

must be in good operating condition. If a damaged but drivable vehicle is 

stopped by an enforcement officer, it will be cited as violating the regulation. 
- 122 - 

The regulation does not contain a provision for a fix-it citation. However, 

enforcement discretion will be used on issuing a notice of violation based on 

the inspection staff’s determination if the equipment damage just happened. 

176. Comment: There’s no way that I believe that your staff or any other 

enforcement is going to be able to monitor (compliance of all trucks from inside 

and outside California) and keep those trucks from polluting our air. After we’ve 

done all that we can do, it’s still incumbent upon your group to monitor and 

police it, and I don’t believe it’s possible. (ACT)

Agency Response: Enforcement by monitoring compliance on every truck 

transporting freight on California highways would be resource-intensive and 

over burdensome. Rather, enforcement of the regulation will consist of 

conducting roadside inspections by enforcement personnel and audits at fleet 

facilities. Violators of the requirements may be fined for noncompliance. See 

also agency responses to comments #172 and #185. 

177. Comment: The proposed rule is unenforceable because California can not 

expect the nation to comply with a trailer concept that is not nationally accepted 

or commercially viable. Therefore, the reductions do not meet The Global 

Solutions Act of 2006, Health and Safety Code section 38562(d)(1-2), which 

requires reductions to be real, additional, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable 

and enforceable. (IWLA)

Agency Response: The purpose of the regulation is not to impose its 

requirements on the nation, but rather on applicable trucks and trailers that 

transport freight on California highways. Out-of-state companies that transport 

freight in 53-foot box-type trailers and the tractors that pull them must comply 

with the requirements when operating on California highways. ARB 

enforcement staff is currently conducting inspections on the road or at fleet 

facilities for two existing ARB programs, the Heavy-Duty Inspection Program 

and the Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. To enforce the regulation, the 

same staff will also inspect vehicles for compliance once the regulation is in 

effect. 

178. Comment: IWLA is opposed to having the California warehouse as an 

enforcement arm for ARB. The proposed rule as defined includes the shippers 

as the owners of the freight, a distribution center, or a temporary freight storage 

facility. Our members fit the latter two categories. We are not cargo owners 

but rather third party logistics providers. ARB is transferring enforcement costs 

and liability to the California warehouse. The proposed rule places the shipper 

warehouse into an inappropriate role and creates an untenable relationship 

between business parties. The warehouse does not actually own the cargo 

and has no control over cargo movement. ARB should enforce the proposed 

regulation with their own staff through weigh stations, at the state lines, 

roadside with the smoke testing teams, or DMV registration. (IWLA) 
- 123 - 

Agency Response: Appendix G of the Staff Report describes the enforcement 

approach for the regulation. The responsibility of a California-based shipper is 

to ship freight from its facilities using only compliant tractors and trailers. Since 

a California-based shipper is typically not directly responsible for the tractors 

and trailers used to carry freight from its facility, ARB will not hold the shipper 

liable for tractors and trailers found in violation for the first time. If, however, the 

violating motor carrier, tractor owner, or trailer owner fails to settle the notice of 

violation within the permitted time period, ARB will notify the affected shipper 

that, until the notice of violation is settled, it will be responsible for future 

violations when using the delinquent motor carrier, tractor owner, or trailer 

owner. While the shipper is not required to enforce the regulation, once notified 

of a delinquent violation, the shipper will likely have to take some type of 

preventative measure to avoid being cited for future violations. It may notify the 

delinquent violating motor carrier or equipment owner to settle the violation 

before it can carry freight from the shipper’s facility, choose to use a different 

motor carrier or equipment owner, or explore other options. 

179. Comment: ARB has erroneously determined that a warehouse employee is 

trained and certified in truck or trailer mechanics. Since the trucks or trailers 

will not have an ARB sticker on them, the shipper warehouse will be required to 

inspect all equipment. Warehouse employees do not have the knowledge to 

determine whether a truck is compliant with the proposed regulation and that it 

is in good working order and thus, the warehouse would have to hire truck 

mechanics to inspect and document every vehicle that comes into a California 

shipper warehouse. Some of our distribution centers have at least a hundred 

dock doors running on two shifts. The cumulative cost of staff time and delays 

for drivers are unfairly incurred by the warehouse shipper. This additional cost 

was not part of the staff report and reflected in the economic analysis. We 

recommend removal of California shippers and warehouses from enforcing this 

rule and subsequent penalties. (IWLA)

Agency Response: The regulation does not require warehouse employees to 

inspect all equipment that ships freight from the warehouse. Rather, the 

responsibility of a California-based shipper is to ship freight from its facility 

using only compliant tractors and trailers. ARB will notify the shipper if a 

violating motor carrier, tractor owner, or trailer owner that carries freight from its 

facility fails to settle a notice of violation within the permitted time period. The 

shipper will then be responsible for future violations when using the delinquent 

motor carrier, tractor owner, or trailer owner, until the notice of violation is 

settled. See also agency response to comment #178. 

180. Comment: The warehouse shipper, on receipt of a notice of violation, would 

have to assign staff to document conversations with all motor carriers and 

cargo interests about the notice of violation. And if for some reason equipment 

is still loaded out, then the warehouse is part of the penalty process. That 
- 124 - 

would mean inspection of every single truck and trailer, because we are going 

to have to document that we talked to them and that they are aware of the rule. 

The cumulative costs of staff time and driver-delay hourly penalties are unfairly 

incurred by the warehouse. California shippers and warehouses should not be 

required to enforce ARB rules. (IWLA)

Agency Response: As discussed in Appendix G of the Staff Report, ARB will 

notify, for informational purposes, all affected California-based shippers 

involved in a shipment for which a notice of violation was issued to a motor 

carrier, tractor owner, or trailer owner. However, in the event that a violating 

motor carrier, tractor owner, or trailer owner does not settle the notice of 

violation within the permitted time period, a second notification will then be sent 

to affected shippers to notify them that if they continue to use the violating 

motor carrier to ship freight in non-compliant vehicles, they can be part of the 

penalty process for future violations. 

The shipper does not need to inspect every single truck or trailer that loads its 

freight from the warehouse; the shipper only becomes involved in a small 

subset of these trucks (i.e., violating motor carriers that have missed the 

penalty deadline.) The shipper does not need to document conversations with 

the violating motor carriers but rather only to ensure that the motor carrier's 

non-complying vehicles are not used to ship freight from its facility. To achieve 

this, the shipper may notify the delinquent violating motor carrier or equipment 

to settle the violation before it can carry freight from the shipper’s facility, 

choose to use a different motor carrier or equipment owner, or explore other 

options. 

181. Comment: Staff’s cost-effectiveness calculations have not reflected the reality 

of the costs that regulated entities are likely to face. There is no analysis of the 

economy-wide legal and administrative costs that will be imposed by staff’s illconceived “joint liability” enforcement approach that will affect all parties, not 

just those responsible for upgrading the trailers. These costs will affect every 

party that takes delivery from a 53-foot or longer trailer. Thus, restaurants, 

small grocery stores and virtually any retail outlet will be subject to ARB fines, 

whose legitimacy or costs they will have no ability to assess or recover. CTA 

recommends that staff revise its cost-effectiveness analysis to ensure that it 

reflects a realistic appraisal of the costs of the program versus any claimed 

benefits. (CTA2)

Agency Response: During the informal rulemaking process, the proposal 

included responsibilities for the receiver of the freight from an affected 53-foot 

or longer trailer. Due to comments from stakeholders, all the responsibilities of 

the receiver were deleted from the regulation that was adopted by the Board, 

as described in the Staff Report. 
- 125 - 

182. Comment: California trucking businesses that have to comply with the 

proposed requirements cannot compete with out-of-state trucks not meeting the 

proposed requirements. (SVP)

Out-of-state trucks will not conform to the proposed requirements as California 

trucks are required. (DiSalvo, Eaton) 

Agency Response: Identical requirements apply to both in-state and out-ofstate trucks that transport freight on California highways. Enforcement of the 

regulation for both in-state and out-of-state trucks may occur through a 

roadside inspection by ARB enforcement personnel, where a vehicle is pulled 

over and inspected. The inspections performed by ARB enforcement 

personnel may occur at border crossings, California Highway Patrol weigh 

stations, fleet facilities, and randomly selected roadside locations. See also 

agency response to comment #172. 

183. Comment: How does ARB ensure that all vehicles will be compliant so we 

may have a level playing field? How will ARB enforce compliance? (JJTI)

Agency Response: See agency response to comment #172. 

184. Comment: My concern for the proposed rule is unilateral enforcement to 

ensure that everyone complies. Shippers and receivers should be held liable 

for allowing non-certified equipment into their facilities. State vehicle truck 

inspection facilities should also check for certified equipment as well as through 

the use of DMV records. (Goliti)

The California Highway Patrol and the Department of Motor Vehicles should be 

involved in enforcement to ensure a level playing field. (Berry) 

Agency Response: ARB will enforce the regulation in an equitable manner 

and at various locations including weigh stations, vehicle inspection facilities, 

rest stops, and other locations as they see fit. While tractor and trailer owners 

will hold the primary responsibility for compliance since they are the ones who 

purchase new vehicles and retrofit existing ones, the regulation also places 

some responsibility on the driver, motor carrier, California-based broker and 

California-based shipper. ARB has decided not to hold receivers responsible 

for the compliance of delivery vehicles since receivers, unless they operate the 

vehicles themselves, generally do not have any control over the shipping 

process and, additionally, do not typically see such vehicles until the time their 

freight is delivered. As with other ARB mobile source programs, the 

Department of Motor Vehicles will be used both as a source of information and 

as a tool for blocking registrations of vehicles with unsettled violations. 

Although the regulation gives the California Highway Patrol the authority to 

enforce, whether they decide to enforce the regulation or not is at their sole 

discretion. See also agency response #171. 
- 126 - 

185. Comment: A more liberal compliance should be considered. A more doable 

schedule is 25 percent of a fleet by 2012, 50 percent by 2016, 75 percent by 

2019, and full compliance by 2022. (Berry)

Agency Response: The compliance options contained in the regulation were 

developed to ensure meeting the goals of AB 32 while providing optional 

phase-in opportunities for fleets that allow them to spread out compliance over 

several years. The compliance schedule proposed by the commenter would 

delay full compliance until 2022, which is two years after the required deadline 

of 2020. The compliance options for large and small fleets of trailers are 

actually more liberal at the startup than the schedule proposed by the 

commenter, as detailed in the agency response to comment #113. 

M. Miscellaneous 

186. Comment: Does the aftermarket industry truly have the ability to supply in 

excess of 200,000 units for retrofit in a timely manner?

Agency Response: The regulation contains retrofit requirements for 2010 and 

earlier model year trailers. The retrofit requirements must be completed by 

2013 or optionally can be phased-in over several years. The initial year of 

compliance requires only a small percentage of trailers to be retrofitted. For 

example, the optional phase-in schedule for trailer retrofits of fleets with 21 and 

more trailers begins on January 1, 2011 with 5 percent and slowly ramps up in 

percentage each subsequent year. The optional phase-in schedule for smaller 

fleets with less than 21 trailers does not start until January 1, 2014 at 25 

percent, requiring full phase-in compliance by January 1, 2017. Spreading the 

required compliance of retrofitting trailers over several years through the 

optional phase-in schedules will also spread the demand for the aerodynamic 

devices over these years. While many of the retrofit technology manufacturers 

are small and have been in business for only a few years, the phase-in period 

provides additional time for manufacturers to increase production capability as 

demand increases. Also, some of these small companies have contract license 

agreements with larger companies to manufacture and sell their equipments. 

187. Comment: The regulation exempts some of the higher-polluting trucks 

operating in California. While the use of trailer skirts and fairings offer little 

benefit at lower speeds, by exempting many short-haul trucks from the 

requirements, ARB is unfairly discriminating against long-haul trucks. (AZTA)

Agency Response: The definition of a short-haul truck was carefully crafted in 

such a way that only trucks that will not substantially benefit from the use of 

aerodynamic devices were excluded. These are trucks that either infrequently 

operate at highway speeds or generate low mileage. As noted by the 
- 127 - 

commenter, such trucks would achieve lower fuel savings with aerodynamic 

equipment and low rolling resistance tires, which in turn translate into lower 

GHG emission reduction. It is less cost-effective to reduce GHG emissions 

from short-haul trucks, and consequently, it is appropriate to exclude this 

category of truck from the regulation. 

188. Comment: Diesel trucks and buses should be held to the same air pollution 

laws that have been applied to automobiles. Farm vehicles should be required 

to conform to these standards as well. (McGinnis)

Agency Response: This comment does not directly apply to the regulation 

since buses, automobiles, and farm vehicles are not within the scope of the 

regulation. However, in response to the commenter, trucks and cars have been 

historically subjected to separate sets of air pollution regulations because they 

are used and built differently. Individual automobile manufacturers are 

responsible for all the components of their cars, including the engine, chassis, 

and transmission; they are also responsible for ensuring that their vehicles 

comply with applicable regulations. However, for trucks, the engine 

manufacturer produces an engine that can be placed into a variety of chassis 

by the truck manufacturer. Air pollution regulations apply to the engine and 

thus, the engine manufacturer is held responsible for complying with applicable 

regulations. Farm equipment are subjected to similar emission regulations as 

heavy-duty diesel trucks, in that the engine is certified to meet certain emission 

standards, rather than as a whole vehicle/equipment. 

189. Comment: Within the proposed regulation, there are provisions that are not 

logical given the professed goals of the agency. For example, the 53-foot 

length threshold is arbitrary, as in the exemption for chassis trailers. (TTMA)

Agency Response: The regulation is not arbitrary and illogical because the 

regulation is based on the U.S. EPA SmartWay program. The SmartWay 

program has established specific technical guidelines for the verification of 

aerodynamic improvements and low-rolling resistance tires for 53-foot and 

longer dry-van trailers and of heavy-duty tractors. The regulation parallels 

these requirements for 53-foot and longer dry-van trailers and heavy-duty 

tractors within an appropriate implementation schedule. In addition, these 

requirements were extended to 53-foot and longer refrigerated van trailers 

because these trailers are most similar to dry-van trailers in that the SmartWay 

verified aerodynamic equipment (except front fairings) can be applied without 

modification. Other types of trailers for which SmartWay has not verified 

equipment for, such as shorter trailers and chassis trailers, are exempted from 

the regulation. In the future, ARB plans to evaluate the benefits of these 

technologies for other trailer lengths and types, which may result in a 

subsequent rulemaking adding these trailers to the program. 
- 128 - 

190. Comment: ATA disagrees with ARB staff’s assessment that the conservative 

nature of the long-haul transport business is a factor in fleets not pursuing 

retrofitting their entire fleet of trailers. A more plausible explanation is that the 

competitive nature of the trucking industry forces companies to rely on proven, 

cost-effective methods which have been thoroughly tested and evaluated. 

(ATA)

Agency Response: In the Alternatives Considered section of the Staff Report, 

the “No Action” alternative was rejected because ARB assessed that without 

regulatory intervention, fleets would not voluntarily retrofit their trailers with 

aerodynamic technologies. ARB’s explanation for why this would be the case 

included the conservative nature of the trucking industry. Regardless of the 

reasons why fleets have not pursued retrofitting trailers, the reality is that 

currently most fleets have not voluntarily done so. 

As stated in the Staff Report, discussion with most fleets that are currently 

using side skirts has shown that the technology is mature and cost-effective, 

and ready for commercial use. Many of these fleets reported that they plan to 

install side skirts on all of their trailers, while others were uncertain primarily 

due to the capital needed to retrofit their fleet, while staying competitive with 

fleets that are not investing in these technologies. ARB has heard numerous 

times that the trucking industry runs on very thin profit margins and that 

investing in these technologies would result in increasing their prices to their 

customers, placing them temporarily at an economic disadvantage. A limited 

number of fleets have used the front or rear trailer fairings and some expressed 

skepticism about the ease of using them and potentially damaging the 

equipment due to misuse. As drivers and operators become more familiar with 

these technologies, these concerns should be minimized. While the required 

aerodynamic technologies are not yet in wide-spread use, sufficient experience 

with these technologies among fleets has shown that they are technologically 

feasible and effective. In addition, the slow phase-in schedule for the 

implementation of the regulation will allow adequate time for fleets to choose 

and to learn about the aerodynamic technologies that can be used most 

appropriately with in their fleet. 

191. Comment: Staff’s cost-effectiveness calculations have not reflected the reality 

of the costs that regulated entities are likely to face. Despite a pledge to 

assess the cumulative impacts of other ARB programs that are or will affect the 

trucking industry, 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-and-trade program. The costs of these other ARB programs and 

regulations must be included in any cumulative impact analysis. CTA 

recommends that staff revise its cost-effectiveness analysis to ensure that it 

reflects a realistic appraisal of the costs of the program versus any claimed 

benefits. (CTA2)
- 129 - 

Agency Response: During the public workshops, commenters requested an 

analysis of the impact of the regulation along with other applicable heavy-duty 

truck regulations on the trucking industry. ARB analysis showed that the only 

truck regulation with overlap was the Transport Refrigeration Unit regulation. 

As a result, the regulation contains a separate optional phase-in schedule for 

refrigerated trailers that are subjected to both regulations, which allows for 

delayed compliance with the regulation. The regulations mentioned by the 

commenter (low-carbon fuel standard rule and cap-and-trade program) have 

not been adopted nor formally proposed as of the date of the Board Hearing 

and thus cannot be included in this analysis since the proposed provisions have 

not been finalized. 

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 

September 17, 2009 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 Commentor 

(15-day Period) 

Affiliation Abbreviation 

Blubaugh, Timothy Engine Manufacturers Association EMA2 

Butcher, Steven Rubber manufacturer’s 

Association 

Rubber 

Curbo, Rod F. PACCAR PACCAR 

 

Gaussoin, Gary Silver Eagle Manufacturing Co. Silver Eagle2 

James, Thomas M. Truck Renting and Leasing 

 Associations 

TRALA 

Jones, William B. Werner Enterprises Werner 

Kayes, David Daimler Trucks North America Daimler2 

 

Lew, Stan Michelin North America, Inc. Michelin 

Mullett, C. Randall Con-way, Inc. Con-way2 

Rose, Kathy Nose Cone Manufacturing Co. Nose Cone2 

Sauer, Eric California Trucking Association CTA3 

Tavares, Dave McKinney Trailers and Containers McKinney 

Tunnell, Michael American Trucking Associations ATA2 

Wood, Richard SOLUS –Solutions and 

Technologies LLC 

Solus2 

Listed below are the individuals that provided comments that were not pertinent to the 

regulation. 
- 130 - 

Written Commentor 

(15-day Period) 

Affiliation 

Becker, Bill None 

Dodds, John None 

Lange, Bill None 

Rentie, Elmer None 

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 or the additional documents made available by ARB in this 

rulemaking are not included. 

The comments summarized below are divided into 5 subsections: (A) General 

Comments, (B) Scope of the Regulation, (C) U.S. EPA SmartWay Program, (D) 

Standards and Test Procedures, and (E) Compliance and Enforcement. 

A. General Comments 

1. Comment. The definition of “California-Based Broker” is overly broad. Large 

companies are often involved in many facets of the transportation process. 

For example, a company may function as a logistics planner for one 

customer, haul freight, point-to-point, by truck for another, and function as a 

third-party broker for another. It is often not accurate to define one company 

solely as a broker and another solely as a motor carrier. A company that 

moves freight in 48 states and has a trucking terminal in California but 

conducts brokerage operations from locations outside of California should not 

be considered a “California-Based Broker” simply because it conducts other, 

non-related business operations at a location in California. We suggest that 

the definition of California-Based Broker be changed to the following: 

“California-Based Broker” means a broker that conducts brokerage operations 

out of a business location in California. (Werner) 

Agency Response: Based on the definition of “Broker,” “California-based 

Broker,” and “Person” in the regulation, the responsibility for compliance with 

this regulation will apply to any business entity that brokers freight loads into 

or out of a facility in California and has a physical business location within the 

state of California, regardless of what type of business is conducted at the 

California location. As a result, ARB did not make any changes to the 

language that defines a “California-based Broker” as proposed by the 

commenter. 

2. Comment: The definition of “Fleet” needs to distinguish between various 

types of ownership, much like the modified language of “Owner” has done. 
- 131 - 

For example, a fleet of trailers may be owned by a fleet operator, a leasing 

company or a combination of the two. The regulation should provide 

clarifying language for trailer fleets which identifies how ownership and fleet 

size is to be determined and who is responsible for fleet reporting. This 

language should also clarify the responsible parties for preparing the lists 

required in Section 95307(d). These clarifications are especially important in 

the case of leased equipment which can change hands multiple times within 

very short periods. (ATA2) 

Agency Response: The owner as identified by the definition in 95302(a)(39) 

is the person that is responsible for compliance with all the elements of the 

regulation. Furthermore, the definition of a “person” provided in 95302(a)(40) 

ties the definition of “owner” to the definition of “fleet” which is one or more 

trailers owned by a person or other entity. ARB believes there is no ambiguity 

in these definitions and therefore no changes were made in response to this 

comment. 

3. Comment: The definition of “Local-haul base” should be modified to include 

a clarification that, for a leased trailer, the “local-haul base” means the 

lessee’s location where the local-haul trailer is garaged, maintained and 

routinely dispatched. (ATA2) 

Agency Response: The regulation puts the responsibility for complying with 

the reporting requirements for short-haul and local-haul exemptions (section 

95306) directly on the owner of the trailer fleet as defined in subsection 

95302(a)(39). If the lessee is identified as the owner of the local-haul fleet 

then the location identified by the lessee will be the local-haul base of the 

local-haul fleet. The same applies to the lessor or any other person or 

business if he/she is identified as the owner of the trailer. Thus, no changes 

were made in response to this comment. 

4. Comment: Requiring the lessor to insert into the lease contract the language 

specified in Section 95302 (39)(C), is unnecessary and unduly burdensome to 

the lessor. Rather than allow the particulars of a lease contract dictate 

responsibility for compliance obligations, TRLA submits that the registered 

operator of a leased or rented vehicle – who clearly the party in position to 

most effectively control compliance-related activities – bears responsibility for 

compliance with the GHG Regulation. (TRALA) 

Agency Response: ARB believes the provisions in Section 95302 (39) (C), (D), 

and (E) regarding compliance responsibilities for leased vehicles is a reasonable 

and equitable approach that will in many cases make the lessee (or operator) of 

a leased tractor or trailer responsible for compliance, as the commenter urges. 

ARB agrees that a lessee that operates a vehicle should bear most of the 

responsibility for the compliance with the regulation because the operator most 

directly controls how, when, and where the leased vehicle will operate. However, 
- 132 - 

the lessor bears some responsibility for compliance, including a role in ensuring 

that those leasing equipment are notified of the regulatory requirements and 

given an opportunity to make an informed decision whether to lease equipment 

that can be used in California. That is the primary purpose of the contractual 

language that the commenter objects to. ARB also believes it is reasonable and 

appropriate, in the case of trailers that were leased prior to January 2013, to 

require that a lessor either permit a lessee to bring the trailer into compliance or 

exchange the non-compliance trailer for a compliant trailer. Without this 

provision, a person who has a long-term trailer lease might have no viable way to 

comply with the regulation. Once these requirements are met, the lessee, not 

the lessor, is considered the owner of the trailer for purposes of compliance from 

that point on. 

5. Comment: The proposed changes to the definition of “owner” would 

essentially treat all leases alike, whether they are for periods of three days or 

three years. Placing responsibility for compliance on the registered operator 

of the vehicle would be more efficient and effective approach. (TRALA) 

Agency Response: The commenter is correct that the owner definition does not 

distinguish between the lengths of leases. (The provisions for a leased trailer do 

vary, however, depending on when the lease was entered into.) Essentially, the 

regulation does place the responsibility for compliance on the lessee that 

operates the vehicle, but only when the lessor has included language in the lease 

agreement to notify the lessee of the regulatory requirements (for trailers that are 

leased prior to January 2013, other forms of written notice are allowed, but must 

be combined with steps to allow the lessee to retrofit the leased trailer or 

exchange it for a compliant trailer). 

6. Comment: The proposed changes to the definition of “owner” would 

mandate that in order to remove the default provision of compliance 

responsibility, a lessor demonstrate that either 1) the lease agreement 

permits the lessee to modify the trailer to be compliant with the substantive 

requirements, or 2) the lessor has provided a reasonable method to exchange 

the trailer for one that is compliant. Requiring such demonstrations (which 

could necessitate amendments to numerous leases) to overcome application 

of a default rule presents significant transaction costs without the promise of 

additional substantial benefits. (TRALA) 

Agency Response: Neither of the provisions cited by the commenter require

the amendment of an existing lease. For trailers that are leased through a lease 

agreement signed prior to January 1, 1013, responsibility for complying with the 

regulation shifts to the lessee if the lessor: 1) provides the lessee with actual 

written notice of the regulation’s requirements, and 2) either demonstrations that 

the lessee is allowed to make the required modifications in the trailer under the 

lease agreement, or that the lessor has provided a reasonable method for the 

lessee to exchange the trailer for one that complies with the regulation. Although 
- 133 - 

including the specified language in a lease is one way to meet the notification 

requirement, any actual notice outside the lease agreement will also suffice. If 

the existing lease agreement prohibits the lessee from modifying the trailer in a 

way that is required by the regulation, a lessor could either amend the lease 

agreement to allow such modifications or provide a reasonable method for the 

lessee to exchange the trailer for another that complies with the regulation. 

For trailers leased on or after January 1, 2013, section 95301(E) requires that the 

lease contain specific language to put the lessee on notice about the regulation’s 

requirements before the compliance obligation shifts from the lessor or lessee. 

This will allow trailer leasing companies plenty of time to amend applicable lease 

forms and should not require amendments to existing lease agreements. 

7. Comment: The definition of “owner” should be modified to clearly provide 

that the lessor has no liability for any failure of the lessee to comply with the 

GHG Regulation in situations where the specified language (Section 95302 

(39)(C)) is included in the lease. (TRALA) 

Agency Response: The suggested change in the definition of owner is

unnecessary because under the circumstances described by the commenter, the 

lessor of a tractor would not be considered the “owner” and therefore would have 

no compliance obligations under the regulation except in the rare circumstance 

where the lessor was also acting in another capacity that does fall within the 

regulation (i.e. a driver, a California-based broker, a California-based shipper or a 

motor carrier). That would not normally be the case. The same is true for 

lessors of trailers that are leased under an agreement signed on or after January 

1, 2013. (Additional requirements apply for trailers leased before this date.) 

To the extent the commenter may be referring to civil liability issues other than 

compliance obligations under the regulation, e.g., contractual liability, such 

issues are beyond the scope of this regulation. 

8. Comment: Requiring an explicit provision in order for the lessee to be 

responsible for compliance is not keeping with the reality of many lease 

situations. Consider the likely situation in which use of equipment in 

California is not contemplated by either the lessor or the lessee at the time of 

the transaction. If equipment is later operated in California without the 

lessor’s knowledge, the lessor could be responsible for lack of compliance. 

Requiring specific language making explicit reference to the California 

provisions in order for responsibility to be placed with the operator presents 

the lessor with unnecessary risks. The GHG regulation should provide for 

situations in which the language is not included in a lease, and the lessee 

operates equipment in California without the lessor’s knowledge. (TRALA) 

Agency Response: ARB believes that the lessors of heavy-duty tractors and 

53-foot box-type trailers bear some responsibility for ensuring compliance with 
- 134 - 

the regulation. ARB understands that a lessor cannot always control where a 

lessee chooses to operate leased equipment. The regulation therefore allows 

the lessor to shift responsibility for compliance to the lessee by including the 

lease language set forth in Section 95302 (38)(C) and (E) in a lease agreement 

where there is the possibility of the lessee operating equipment covered by the 

regulation on California’s highways. ARB believes the language is suitable for 

various types of lease agreements. 

Without this requirement, an operator would be more likely to end up with 

equipment that could not lawfully be used in California without even knowing that 

the equipment could not be used in California. 

9. Comment: The definition of “owner” potentially imposes compliance 

obligations on lessors that provide contract maintenance for equipment 

through Vehicle Maintenance Agreements. This provision should be deleted. 

Compliance responsibility is more properly imposed upon entities directing 

operation of the equipment at issue in California, not an entity retained to 

perform maintenance that has no involvement in the operation. (TRALA) 

 

Agency Response: The rules in section 95302(38)(C), (D) and (E) governing 

compliance responsibility for leased equipment will apply without regard to 

whether the lessor has a vehicle maintenance agreement with the lessee. A 

lessor that maintains the leased vehicles can take the steps outlined in those 

subsections to ensure the lessee shoulders the compliance obligations. Section 

95302(38)(A) includes a provision that allows a registered owner to demonstrate 

that another party is responsible for vehicle maintenance including the 

modifications required by this regulation, but that subsection expressly states that 

it does not apply to leased vehicles. 

Compliance obligations under the regulation are distinct from possible 

contractual obligations between private parties. For example, the regulation 

requires the owner (and other parties) to operate compliant equipment, but 

another party not directly bound by the regulation may have contractual 

obligations to the owner to pay for or install required equipment. Except for the 

limited circumstances described in section 95302(38)(A), such private 

agreements do not affect which parties ARB will hold responsible for complying. 

10. Comment: We suggest changing the definition of “Trailer side skirt” to read 

as follows: “means a fairing that extends down from the sides or bottom of the 

trailer to cover part of the open space between the trailer frame and the 

ground. There are applications, such as Intermodal transport, which require 

the skirt to be inset for lifting equipment. Intermodal use should not be 

discouraged by this rule. (Silver Eagle2)

Agency Response: ARB is deleting this definition in its entirety because the 

term no longer appears in the regulation following the modifications dated 
- 135 - 

September 17, 2009. The deletion of this definition is without material effect 

because the term does not appear anywhere. The deletion should indirectly 

address the commenter’s concern that the definition was too narrow. 

11. Comment: A flow control device may be either an add-on or an integrated 

design element. Thus the definition of “Flow control device” must be modified by 

adding the words “device or” before “design element”. Also, delete the phrase 

“around an object by changing the air flow”. (Solus2)

Agency Response: No changes were made in response to this comment 

because the proposed modifications would not change the meaning of a flow 

control device as originally defined. A design element can be an add-on 

device that is not integrated. 

B. Scope of Regulation 

12. Comment: ARB’s proposed addition to the Applicability language of the 

phrase “or caused to be used” exposes companies to the prospect of being 

cited on the basis of speculation. This potential liability will require companies 

to incur the additional cost of a defensive legal capability in addition to the 

costs of compliance already required by the rule. The language is vague and 

creates the possibility of mistaken violation charges that would be dependent 

upon the speculations of an inspector. (CTA3) 

Agency Response: The phrase, “or cause to be used,” was added to clarify that 

the regulation applies to “motor carriers, California-based brokers, and California 

shippers that use, or cause to be used, the following equipment......HD tractors 

that pull 53-foot or longer box-type trailers....53-foot or longer box-type trailers 

that are pulled by HD Tractors.” In this context, it is appropriate and necessary to 

make this distinction since the listed entities may not actually use the tractor 

trailers to haul freight, but instead cause it to be used, i.e. dispatch it for use. It 

was clear from earlier iterations of the regulation that ARB was including parties 

that play a role in assigning the use of equipment to particular tasks but do not 

directly use the equipment. The specific requirements that apply to each category 

of regulated party -- owners, drivers, California-based brokers, motor carriers, 

and California-based shippers -- are well defined in Section 95303. It is these 

requirements that inspectors will use to evaluate compliance with the regulation. 

13. Comment: New section 95306(i) that provides for a 36 month ineligibility for 

the short-haul exemption if a tractor is voluntarily removed from an owner’s 

short-haul list appears punitive and has not been justified. At most, a shorthaul tractor should be deemed ineligible to return to that status within the 12 

month period beginning when the vehicle began its short-haul status. (CTA3)

Agency Response: ARB believes it is appropriate to require a 36 month period 

of ineligibility for a short-haul tractor that has been removed from short-haul 
- 136 - 

service. The intent was to provide adequate disincentive for owner’s of heavyduty tractors from adding and removing a tractor from the owner’s short-haul list 

as a way of avoiding the requirements of the regulation. For example, let’s 

assume a long-haul HD tractor reaches the 50,000-mile limit 6 months after it 

was identified as a short-haul tractor. Under the existing language, the owner 

could then remove the tractor from the short-haul list and add it back in the next 

day, restarting the 50,000-mile short-haul tractor limit. 

The commenter suggests that deeming a tractor removed from the short-haul 

list ineligible for the remainder of its 12-month period is adequate to prevent 

this type of regulatory requirement circumvention. ARB disagrees and 

believes that a 12-month ineligibility period is not adequate disincentive. A 

HD tractor could continue to operate primarily outside California for several 

months, with owners willing to take the chance of being found in noncompliance on the few times the HD tractor would enter and leave California 

during that period. However, if we increase the ineligibility period to 36 

months, the increased length of time makes the probability of being found in 

non-compliance sufficiently greater and provides adequate disincentive for 

identifying long-haul HD tractors as short-haul tractors to avoid compliance 

with the regulation. 

14. Comment: The regulation requires exempt local-haul trailers to have low-rolling 

resistance (LRR) tires. We supply 53-foot trailers that are used for storage 

purposes that would qualify as local-haul trailers. The cost of changing all the 

tires on these trailers to low-rolling resistance tires would be cost prohibitive, 

while the fuel-saving benefit would be minimal since they remain stationary after 

delivery. Would it be possible to add an additional local-haul exempt trailer 

category, “Storage Trailer”, which would exempt local haul storage trailers from 

the LRR tire requirement? Any local-haul storage trailer found on the road with 

freight would be out of compliance and a citation would be issued. If the trailer is 

empty and in route to the storage destination (local-haul base) the trailer would 

be considered in compliance. (McKinney) 

Agency Response: The commenter supplies trailers that function more like 

storage units than typical local-haul trailers. ARB recognizes that the cost vs. 

fuel efficiency benefit associated with requiring storage trailers to replace their 

existing tires with low-rolling resistance tires is low, but ARB does not believe 

a modification to the regulatory language is merited at this time for the 

following reasons. (1) The cost of retrofitting storage trailer tires can be 

spread out over several years. Dry-van trailers are not required to be in 

compliance until January 1, 2013. Also, the new tires would last for the life of 

the trailer resulting in a negligible cost over the life of the trailer; and (2) Lack 

of low-rolling resistance tires would only be a compliance issue during the 

delivery of the storage trailer to and from its destination. The storage trailer 

owner could arrange for a short-haul tractor to pull the trailer. The regulation 

currently allows an exempt short-haul tractor to pull the storage trailer (i.e. a 
- 137 - 

trailer without aerodynamic technologies or low-rolling resistance tires) to and 

from its destinations without threat of violation. 

15. Comment: An exemption is needed for "Low-use trailers." Many 53-foot 

trailers which are subject to this regulation fall into an occasional use category 

(such as specialized trailers, peak stock trailers, etc) or are used for the 

storage of goods at a location and not for over-the-road transport of cargo 

(storage trailers). An exemption to the trailer requirements under Subsection 

95303(b) is needed for these types of trailers to allow for their continued use. 

(ATA2)

Agency Response: See response to Comment 14. 

C US EPA SmartWay Program 

16. Comment: We recommend the omission of the definitions in the proposed 

regulation that do and/or may conflict with those developed by the U.S. EPA 

SmartWay Program. These include but may not be limited to the definitions 

found in section 95302 definitions (a)(4) “Cab side extender”, (26) “Fuel tank 

fairing”, (31) “Integrated sleeper cab roof fairing”. (PACCAR) 

Agency Response: These three terms are used in one paragraph of the 

regulation, which sets out the requirement to maintain SmartWay devices and 

tires in good operating condition (see section 95304(a)(1)). ARB does not agree 

that the definitions need to be deleted from the regulation. While some of the 

definitions do not precisely match existing definitions used by U.S. EPA, the 

definitions do not conflict with those used by U.S. EPA, and ARB believes the 

differences are necessary to add clarity and specificity to these terms. 

17. Comment: The SmartWay Interim Tractor Requirements do not satisfy the 

performance–based caveat set by the Board because they require specific 

design feature be met. The design feature requirements for the SmartWay 

tractor will limit emerging technologies from entering the marketplace and 

stifle progress toward greater efficiency. We suggest limiting the regulation to 

requiring no classic style tractors rather than requiring all tractors to be 

SmartWay certified until SmartWay completes a more comprehensive test 

protocol. (Nose Cone2) 

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with the comment that the interim tractor 

requirements do not satisfy the Board’s direction that the tractor requirements 

be performance based. The current interim tractor requirements for certifying 

SmartWay tractors require that manufacturers conduct the industry accepted 

SAE J1321 test procedure to measure the fuel efficiency of the tractor model. 

In order to be eligible for SmartWay certification, the tractor model must meet 

or exceed the fuel efficiency performance of at least one current SmartWay 

certified tractor model, of any make from any manufacturer. It is true that 
- 138 - 

there is not a set threshold performance criteria to compare with. However, in 

order to be designated as SmartWay tractor, there is a minimum fuel 

efficiency improvement that the new model has to meet which is at least the 

fuel efficiency of the worst performing existing SmartWay certified tractor of 

any make. This enables the comparison of SmartWay tractor models across 

manufacturers. 

It is true that in order to be eligible for SmartWay certification, the U.S. EPA 

requires that the sleeper cab tractor model have certain design features that 

enhance the fuel efficiency of the vehicle such as aerodynamic styled cab, 

integrated roof fairings, fuel tank skirts, aerodynamic mirrors and bumpers, 

and cab side extenders, and low rolling resistance tires. These required 

design features were developed by the U.S. EPA in consultation with truck 

manufacturers because they have been tested and resulted in increased 

tractor fuel efficiency. ARB does not believe that these design features limit 

emerging technologies from entering the marketplace. If there is a 

technology that can perform better than the mentioned design features, then 

that technology can be added on its merits to the SmartWay specifications by 

working with the U.S. EPA to verify that the technology meets the U.S. EPA’s 

SmartWay specifications. 

18. Comment: The SmartWay Interim Test Method Requirements do not satisfy 

the performance–based caveat set by the Board because they require 

specific design feature be met. The test method also results in tractor design 

components being tested in little to no wind conditions and within a short 

period of time (usually one-day track test). This is not representative of realworld operation of these vehicles. (Nose Cone2) 

Agency Response: See also response to comment #17. ARB believes the 

Interim Test Method is appropriate for certification or component verification 

purposes. It is true that like any other certification test procedure, the test 

conditions set by the U.S. EPA to test tractor models for SmartWay 

certification do not include all of the conditions that would be encountered in 

the real world. To develop a test procedure that would incorporate all the real 

world conditions is impractical. However, certification or verification test 

procedures must be standardized and to the extent possible test conditions 

that significantly impact fuel consumption such as wind speed at test site, 

maximum vehicle speed, elevation, track surface condition and grade, 

ambient temperature range during testing, etc. must be controlled or 

maintained within a specified range to minimize the variability of test results 

and enable the comparison of the performance of different vehicles and 

technologies from different manufacturers. ARB believes the Interim Test 

Method meet these criteria. 

19. Comment: Real-world analysis by one the nations largest fleets found 

trucks with fuel tank fairings to perform 3.2% lower in fuel economy than 
- 139 - 

trucks with half or no skirts after 12 months of operation. The cause for loss in 

performance is unknown, but may be due to the heat retention in the fuel tank 

caused by the skirting. Hot fuel is less volatile producing less energy and 

lowered fuel economy. This is a legitimate cause for concern that should be 

understood before a mandate requiring this design feature is set in place. 

(Nose Cone2) 

Agency Response: The commenter admits that the cause for loss in 

performance is unknown but hypothesizes that the cause may have been due 

to fuel tank skirts. Furthermore, the commenter does not provide any 

reference for the above mentioned analysis and therefore, ARB can not 

comment on the commenter’s theory that fuel tank skirts result in decreased 

fuel economy. On the contrary, ARB still believes fuel tanks skirts are an 

effective means to improve tractor fuel efficiency. Truck manufacturers have 

been providing fuel tank skirts as an optional design feature for their tractor 

models for many years now that the majority of the tractors on the road are 

equipped with this fuel saving aerodynamic technology. Furthermore, the 

U.S. EPA, which has been working with truck manufacturers for a number of 

years and has extensively studied the aerodynamics of heavy-duty tractors, 

has adopted fuel tank skirts as a feature of a SmartWay certified tractor. 

Moreover, ARB staff has interviewed numerous fleet owners about their 

tractors and trailers and never has the effectiveness of fuel tank skirts come 

into question. 

20. Comment: The requirements for semi-trailers lack EPA verification for nonlong haul applications. The savings percentages identified for trailer 

technologies as verified by the EPA are based on three assumptions; 1) that 

the tractor pulling the trailer is a sleeper-cab with full aerodynamic package, 

2) that the vehicles will operate in the long-haul duty cycle, and, 3) the 

equipment will not operate in wind conditions that exceed the maximum wind 

speed required for successful track testing repeatability. Not all fleets affected 

by this regulation will operate sleeper cabs, in the long-haul duty cycle, and 

under no wind conditions. 

The requirement forces imprudent purchases that lack scientific validation. 

Not all fleets affected by the regulation operate under the same duty-cycle as 

that which the verified technologies were tested under. Fleets should have the 

option to choose the solution that is most cost-effective for their operation. 

CARB acknowledges that savings for the front trailer fairings may be higher if 

the tractor is shorter than the full height version. Many fleets affected by this 

regulation have a variety of tractor configurations and could reach the 5% 

threshold using the front trailer fairing alone. CARB should allow a waiver for 

fleets that can submit test performance that proves 5% or more with at least 

one of the three possible treatments; the three possible treatments being a 

front treatment, and underside treatment, or a rear treatment. (Nose Cone2) 
- 140 - 

Agency Response: See also agency response to comments #17 and #18. 

The comment that there are no U.S. EPA verification requirements for semitrailers in non-long haul applications should be directed to the U.S. EPA. 

However, the reason for the focus on long-haul operations to reduce GHG 

emissions from trucks is because the impact of aerodynamic improvements is 

the greatest on long-haul operations which is often characterized by high 

speed operation, long trip distances, and high annual miles. For this reason, 

this regulation does not require any aerodynamic improvements on short-haul 

and local haul operations and it is up to such fleets to choose the most costeffective aerodynamic treatment for their operation. Furthermore, the drive 

cycle used for the Interim Test Method which is normally at highway speeds 

of 60 to 62 miles per hour is an appropriate drive cycle for long haul 

operations because such vehicles are operated at those speeds for more 

than 75 percent of their VMT. Moreover, as discussed earlier, certification 

and verification test procedures must be standardized and the test conditions 

controlled to reduce variability of test results and enable fleets to compare the 

performance of different technologies. Therefore, ARB cannot provide a 

waiver to use an alternative test procedure that will result in test results that 

may not be useful for fleets to compare the performance of various 

technologies. 

The commenter also claims that many fleets affected by this regulation have 

a variety of tractor configurations and could meet the 5 percent fuel savings 

using the front trailer fairing alone. If such a technology exists, the technology 

developer has to work with the U.S. EPA and have his component verified for 

applications on that tractor configuration. Such a technology can then be 

used as a means for complying with this regulation provided the technology is 

used on tractor-trailers with a configuration similar to that used for testing. 

This regulation is based on the U.S. EPA SmartWay program and as such 

can only use technologies verified by that program. 

21. Comment: We suggest eliminating the SmartWay tractor requirement until 

EPA finalizes a more comprehensive test protocol. The “Interim” test method 

does not satisfy the performance-based requirement requested by the board 

and since engine requirements and anti-idle requirements are covered under 

other CARB regulations doing so will not diminish the intended GHG 

reductions of the rule. (Nose Cone2) 

Agency Response: See comments 17, 18, 20, and 23 for a response to the 

comment that the Interim Test Method does not satisfy the performancebased requirement requested by the board. Also as discussed above, ARB 

believes that the Interim Test Method which is based on the industry-wide 

accepted modified SAE J1321 test protocol is an appropriate test method for 

evaluating the fuel efficiency of tractors and aerodynamic technologies. No 

changes were made in response to this comment. 
- 141 - 

22. Comment: The process of selecting tractors eligible for SmartWay 

certification was never subjected to the scrutiny of a rulemaking process and 

therefore may not be ready for CARB’s adoption into its regulatory program. 

Similarly, the new interim requirements upon which CARB bases its 

regulation have never been subject to a public rulemaking process. They 

were adopted over objections from Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA) 

and others, without comment or explanation from the EPA and without the 

possibility of public involvement. They include arbitrary and vague limitations. 

They have never yet been demonstrated to correspond to or correlate with 

improved fuel efficiency. And in fact, they never will be, because they contain 

requirements and limitations that have nothing to do with fuel efficiency. In 

fact, as noted in footnote 1 of the interim requirements, the EPA 

acknowledges that the new “method is an interim method, in effect until the 

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalizes a more comprehensive 

greenhouse gas emissions test protocol for medium duty and heavy duty 

commercial on highway vehicles. When the more comprehensive test 

protocol is finalized, EPA plans to establish new performance-based eligibility 

criteria for SmartWay certification of Class 8 sleeper-cab tractor-trailers using 

the new more comprehensive test method..” (See EPA, Interim Requirements 

to Determine Eligibility of SmartWay Tractors, EPA-420-F-09-045, 2009.) 

EPA has not completed the work necessary to establish a reliable and fair 

standard. CARB should not adopt as part of its standard a method not yet 

proven by EPA to be adequate for a regulation. (Daimler2) 

Agency Response: ARB has made clear from the beginning of this rulemaking 

process that the proposed regulation involved the mandatory application in 

California of a voluntary federal certification program that is still evolving. The 

U.S. EPA Smartway Transport Partnership Program is a federal certification 

program under which manufactures can qualify new tractors and trailers, 

aerodynamic devices and tires as SmartWay certified, indicating that they 

incorporate or constitute features for improved fuel efficiency, which relates 

directly to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. 

The SmartWay program thus confers a status on certain equipment as promoting 

fuel efficiency. ARB’s regulation uses this status conferred by U.S. EPA to 

require that certain equipment operated on California highways be SmartWaycertified or use SmartWay-approved devices. 

The commenter is correct that U.S. EPA did not conduct a formal rulemaking 

process in selecting tractors eligible for Smartway certification or for the Interim 

Requirements. That is because both are elements of a voluntary program, and 

as such are not subject to the federal rulemaking process. U.S. EPA conducted 

stakeholder outreach with key stakeholders over several months as part of its 

developing the definition of a SmartWay certified tractor and the Interim 

Requirements. ARB understands the outreach included truck manufacturers, 

engine manufacturers, environmental groups, state groups, ARB and others. 
- 142 - 

ARB has complied with all procedural requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act proposing, revising and adopting the regulation. The public has 

had an opportunity to comment on the original proposal and on amendments to 

the original proposal. The public has also been specifically invited to comment 

on all aspects of the SmartWay program itself, including the Interim 

Requirements announced during the course of ARB’s rulemaking. In summary, 

appropriate processes have been followed by ARB and interested parties have 

had an opportunity to comment on all relevant parts of the regulation, including 

not only the regulatory language and supporting documents relied on by ARB, 

but SmartWay documents released by U.S. EPA. 

ARB disagrees that the Interim Requirements contain vague or arbitrary 

limitations that have nothing to do with fuel efficiency. The Interim Requirements 

establish design requirements and performance requirements based on criteria 

used to define the initial SmartWay Certified Tractors. When added to a class 8 

tractor, the design features are likely to provide certain fuel savings when used in 

line haul operation compared to a truck without these features. Fuel savings 

estimates for the design features were developed using a combination of U.S. 

EPA testing and modeling results, review of the technical literature, and technical 

input from industry experts including truck manufacturers themselves. 

Specifically, the features include: sloped hood (not a “classic profile” tractor), 

high roof sleeper cab with integrated roof fairing and side extender fairings, 

aerodynamic bumper, aerodynamic mirrors, fairings over the side fuel tanks, idle 

reduction system capable of providing eight or more hours idle reduction with 

main engine shut down, low rolling resistance tires, and a 2007 or newer U.S. 

EPA-certified engine. 

The definition of a “classic profile” tractor is well-understood by industry. A 

review of the truck industry's own sales literature will confirm this. During the 

initial discussions with stakeholders, U.S. EPA and its stakeholders discussed 

research that indicated that classic profile tractors -- as generally understood -- 

are up to 15% less fuel efficient than aerodynamic tractors, on the basis of their 

inherently poorer aerodynamics, if all else is held equal. On the basis of such an 

inherently large difference in performance, classic profile trucks were not 

considered for SmartWay. ARB understands that U.S. EPA does not plan to 

revisit this issue. 

The combined benefits when a SmartWay tractor is pulling a U.S. EPA Certified 

SmartWay Trailer are expressed as a range -- "from 10% - 20% more fuel 

efficient than a tractor trailer without these features" -- to account for any 

uncertainties in the estimates. Stakeholders generally agreed with these 

estimates during discussions with U.S. EPA. Therefore, establishing the initial 

design criteria for the tractors was neither arbitrary nor vague, but the result of a 

lengthy stakeholder process informed by testing, modeling, analysis, and 

significant input from industry experts. 
- 143 - 

The performance requirements require that a candidate tractor be track-tested in 

accordance with the requirements of the Interim Test Method. The Interim Test 

method requires the candidate tractor demonstrate that it meets or exceeds the 

fuel efficiency performance of at least one current SmartWay Certified tractor. 

The current lineup of Smartway Certified tractor models, which form the current 

baseline for performance comparison, was determined by the tractor 

manufacturers. Tractor manufacturers identified one or two base models that 

incorporated the SmartWay design features and were tested in-house using 

industry-accepted test methods or modeling (e.g. wind tunnel, computational fluid 

dynamics, and SAE J1321 track testing) to prove they were the most 

aerodynamic in their fleet. 

Therefore, the selection of the base models was not arbitrary or vague either, but 

was provided by the truck manufacturers themselves based upon their own use 

of an industry-accepted method. Beyond this, EPA provided an opportunity to 

manufacturers for a more rigorous demonstration, but the truck manufacturers 

declined this invitation. 

23. Comment: The newly incorporated interim SmartWay standards are not 

performance-based, not scientific, potentially discriminate against fuel 

efficient vehicles based solely on their appearance, and hence do not meet 

the criterion that CARB demanded of such standards. The EPA’s new 

requirements to certify new vehicles as SmartWay-eligible are not solely 

performance-based and hence leave open the possibility of very efficient 

vehicles being barred from eligibility. Specifically, those requirements include 

the statement: “No ‘classic-style’ tractors (long nose, flat hood, flat, squaredoff grill) will be considered eligible even if they meet other requirements.” (Id.) 

In other words, even if a classic-style vehicle proves itself the most fuel 

efficient vehicle on the road, it is barred from SmartWay-eligibility because of 

its appearance. A standard of this sort is vague, at best. (For example, the 

standard does state what length of nose is too long. Is a 125 inch “BBC”1 too 

long to be fuel efficient and, if so, why?) A standard of this sort is not 

scientific. And most importantly, it is not a “performance-based test 

requirements that will provide for comparable greenhouse gas reductions for 

similar certified SmartWay tractors from different manufacturers.” 

Consequently, it does not meet CARB’s requirements, as specified in 

Resolution 08-44. (Daimler2) 

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with the commenter and believes the newly 

incorporated interim SmartWay standards scientifically evaluate the fuel 

efficiency performance of similar aerodynamic tractors, are performance-based, 

and hence do meet the criterion the Board demanded of such standards. 

The “newly incorporated SmartWay standards” the commenter is referring to are 

the Interim Requirements to Determine Eligibility of Smartway Tractors, EPA420-F-09-045, (Interim Requirements). U.S. EPA developed the Interim 
- 144 - 

Requirements earlier this year, after the Board’s directed the Executive Officer in 

Resolution 08-44 to ensure that “the requirements...for certification of tractors will 

take effect only if the U.S. EPA modifies the existing U.S. EPA Certified 

SmartWay Tractor certification requirements to establish new performance-based 

test requirements that will provide for comparable greenhouse gas reductions for 

similar certified SmartWay tractors from different manufacturers...” The Interim 

Requirements establish three separate sets of requirements for SmartWay 

Certification: design requirements, performance requirements, and licensing 

requirements. Only the design and performance requirements are relevant to 

this discussion. 

The design requirements establish criteria that every SmartWay-eligible tractor 

must meet before being considered for SmartWay certification. These include a 

sloped hood with curved features, an integrated roof fairing, cab side extender 

fairings, aerodynamic side mirrors, aerodynamic bumpers, and low-rolling 

resistance tires. These design features have been demonstrated to U.S. EPA to 

improve fuel efficiency through the reduction of aerodynamic drag and rolling 

resistance. (See agency response to comment #22 for further discussion on the 

basis for the design features.) Tractor manufacturers evaluated the fuel 

efficiency of tractor models equipped with these features using industry-accepted 

test methods, computational fluid dynamics modeling, and wind tunnel testing. 

As such, incorporation of these design features is a minimum requirement for 

SmartWay certification eligibility. Only after tractor models have met the design 

requirements is their fuel efficiency performance to be evaluated. 

The performance requirements establish new performance-based test 

requirements that allow for the comparison of fuel efficiency performance for 

similar SmartWay-eligible tractors from different manufacturers. These tractors 

are similar in that they all meet the design requirements. Each tractor must 

demonstrate that it meets or exceeds the fuel efficiency performance of at least 

one current SmartWay-certified tractor model, of any make from any 

manufacturer, in accordance with the Interim Test Method. Consequently, ARB 

disagrees with the commenter and believes the newly incorporated interim 

SmartWay standards scientifically evaluate the fuel efficiency performance of 

similar aerodynamic tractors, are performance-based, and do meet the criterion 

that Board demanded of such standards. 

24. Comment: There is a more reasonable alternative to CARB’s proposed 

regulation, and CARB should consider that alternative. CARB should work 

with the EPA to develop a truly rigorous procedure to compare the fuel 

efficiency (or greenhouse gas emissions) of heavy-duty vehicles and 

determine SmartWay eligibility. Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA) 

recommends that, only after developing a rigorous procedure, should CARB 

regulate vehicles based upon SmartWay certification. DTNA suggests that 

CARB also work with the US Department of Transportation on its heavy-duty 
- 145 - 

vehicle fuel efficiency (and greenhouse gas) measure, as mandated under 

the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. As an alternative, or 

perhaps as an interim measure, DTNA suggests that CARB require 

technologies, with rigorous specifications, that have been scientifically 

demonstrated to improve fuel efficiency. We suggest CARB start with the 

EPA’s list of SmartWay add-on technologies: fuel tank side fairings, cab roof 

fairings, cab side extenders, aerodynamic mirrors, aerodynamic bumpers, idle 

reduction technologies, and low rolling resistance tires. However, while a 

scientific tractor standard is still nonexistent, we recommend CARB refrain 

from requiring certain tractors. (Daimler2) 

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with the commenter that an alternative to 

the regulatory requirements for tractors should be considered. The Interim 

Requirements, as discussed in the response to Comment 20, scientifically 

evaluate the performance of candidate SmartWay tractor models. Further, the 

alternative approach that the commenter suggests is incorporated into the 

existing Interim Requirements. Candidate SmartWay tractor models are required 

to incorporate the add-on technologies listed by the commenter. The Interim 

Requirements then require that the candidate SmartWay tractor demonstrate that 

it meets or exceeds the fuel efficiency performance of at least one current 

SmartWay-certified tractor model, of any make from any manufacturer, in 

accordance with the Interim Test Method. 

Regarding the suggestion to work with federal agencies, ARB is working with the 

U.S. EPA to develop a more comprehensive greenhouse gas emission test 

protocol for medium and heavy-duty commercial on-highway vehicles. And, ARB 

has also met with the U.S. DOT regarding its efforts to improve heavy-duty 

vehicle fuel efficiency. 

25. Comment: ARB should suspend section 95303(a)(1) of the GHG regulation. 

The Interim SmartWay Requirements (EPA-420-F-09-45) and Test Method 

(EPA-420-F-09-046) do not establish new performance-based test 

requirements as the Board properly required before moving ahead with the 

implementation of section 95303(a)(1). EPA’s SmartWay certification still 

lacks an objective, verifiable procedure that the Board noted was necessary 

for its regulatory program. This conclusion is based on the following points:

a. The Interim Requirements do not modify the existing SmartWay 

tractor certification requirements. The current list of models that 

are SmartWay certified will not change for some time, and there is 

not yet any method by which the performance of those existing 

tractors can be verified.

b. The Interim SmartWay Requirements are ultimately subjective and 

not performance-based. Design elements, e.g. sloped hood, no 
- 146 - 

“classic-style’ tractors, are still included in the technical 

specifications.

c. The Interim SmartWay Test Method will not verifiably measure 

performance. A new tractor model must demonstrate that it meets 

or exceeds the fuel efficiency performance of a current SmartWay 

Certified tractor model. The performance here simply is that the 

tractor must be better than an unverified, arbitrarily certified model. 

(EMA2)

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with the commenter that section 

95303(a)(1) should be suspended based on arguments presented. See 

responses to comments 17-18, 20, 22 and 23, above. 

Regarding point a in the comment, it is true that the interim requirements do not 

modify the SmartWay Tractor certification requirements for tractors that are 

already certified. Nothing in the Board’s direction to the Executive Officer on this 

issue suggested the Board wanted the tractor requirement dropped if existing 

SmartWay tractors were not de-certified. Rather, the Board wanted to see U.S. 

EPA adopt a new standard that would be more performance-based. The current 

list of SmartWay Certified Tractors will remain U.S. EPA Certified SmartWay 

tractors for the purposes of the SmartWay program and the regulation. Their fuel 

efficiency performance was verified by U.S. EPA staff as part of the SmartWay 

certification process. The fuel savings estimate for the existing Smartway 

tractors was based upon the added features and the aerodynamic profile of the 

candidate tractor. The quantification itself was based upon U.S. EPA testing, 

modeling and analysis, a review of technical literature, and input from industry 

experts. Prior to the Interim Requirements, a manufacturer had to confirm to the 

U.S. EPA that the candidate tractor model or models were the most fuel-efficient 

model or models offered in that tractor make. Each manufacturer evaluated the 

fuel efficiency of its tractor models using industry accepted test methods 

including the SAE J1321 test procedure, the TMC RP 1109 Type IV Fuel 

Economy Test procedure, computational fluid dynamics modeling, and wind 

tunnel testing. Additionally, the candidate tractor models had to be equipped with 

specified aerodynamic features, low-rolling resistance tires, and an idle reduction 

system. Thus, the certification process prior to the existence of the new Interim 

Requirements was not a subjective arbitrary process as the commenter has 

characterized it to be. 

Regarding point b in the comment, the interim requirements do include design 

requirements and performance requirements. The design requirements are not 

subjective or arbitrary as the commenter suggests, but are set to ensure 

candidate tractors incorporate design features that have been demonstrated to 

U.S EPA to improve fuel efficiency. The performance requirements ensure the 

candidate tractor is at least as fuel efficient as a current SmartWay certified 

tractor. See the response to Comment 20 for further discussion. 
- 147 - 

Regarding point c in the comment, the commenter is accurate in stating that the 

Interim Test Method is designed to ensure the candidate SmartWay tractor 

model meets or exceeds the fuel efficiency performance of any currently certified 

SmartWay tractor. But, to characterize a current SmartWay Certified tractor 

model as unverified and arbitrary is inaccurate. See response to point a for a 

discussion of current SmartWay tractor certification requirements. 

26. Comment: ARB should suspend section 95303(a)(1) of the GHG regulation. 

The existing SmartWay tractor certification requirements, even with the new 

Interim Requirements for new models, are inappropriate for a regulatory 

program. The Interim Requirements and Test Method are part of the 

continuous improvement and evolving framework that have made the 

voluntary SmartWay program flourish. That flexible certification method 

works well for a voluntary program; however, it falls short of the clarity and 

verifiability needed for a mandatory regulation. (EMA2)

Agency Response: ARB disagrees that the requirement in section 

95303(a)(1) that sleeper-cab HD tractors of model year 2011 or later should 

be suspended as inappropriate for a regulatory program. ARB believes the 

certification method as recently revised by U.S. EPA is clear, and certainly 

there can be no confusion about which tractors have been certified and which 

have not, which is what owners, drivers and other parties subject to ARB’s 

regulation need to know for compliance purposes. For further response to the 

view that the SmartWay program is not suitable for use in the regulation, see 

responses to comments 22-25, above. 

27. Comment: ARB should suspend section 95303(a)(1) of the GHG regulation. 

The tractor certification requirements do not provide adequate due process. 

The Smartway Interim Requirements and Test Method were developed and 

published outside the notice and comment structures that would be required 

for a mandatory program. As such, EPA did not provide public notice that it 

was proposing the new Interim Requirements. EPA did not provide the public 

with the opportunity to review and comment on the proposal. And, EPA did 

not consider any public input before it finalized the requirements. And, 

presumably, EPA also can unilaterally change the requirements without 

notice or opportunity to comment. Linking the GHG regulation’s requirements 

to voluntary program that was developed without due process is ignoring the 

rulemaking requirements in California’s Administrative Procedure Act. See 

Cal. Gov’t Code, section 11340 et seq. A tractor manufacturer’s product may 

comply with the Regulation only if it is awarded SmartWay certification, which 

is subjective, flexible, and subject to change without notice. Consequently, 

the Tractor requirements altogether fail to provide the clarity the Act requires 

“so that the meaning of regulations will be understood by those persons 

directly affected by them.” See, Cal. Gov’t Code, section 11349.1(a)(3). 

(EMA2) 
- 148 - 

Agency Response: See response to comment 22, above, for a detailed

discussion of the process followed by U.S. EPA in designing the SmartWay 

program and the process followed by ARB in adopting the regulation. 

ARB, not U.S. EPA, is adopting this regulation, so the relevant question is 

whether ARB has proceeded in its rulemaking as required by law. It has. 

ARB complied with the requirements of the California Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) by, among other things, making the original and 

modified versions of the regulation available for public comment during two 

periods as required by the APA. It also identified and made available all 

documents relied upon in the rulemaking, including SmartWay documents. 

Interested parties and the public generally had ample opportunity to raise 

questions and concerns about the proposed action, to suggest changes in the 

regulation, and to voice their objections to the regulation. ARB considered 

comments received and explained how the comments were incorporated into 

the proposal or why they were rejected. This process not only met the 

requirements of any applicable constitutional right to due process, it complied 

with the letter and spirit of the APA. 

As noted in response to comment 22, the U.S. EPA’s SmartWay program is 

evolving and ARB anticipates that the list of SmartWay certified tractors, 

trailers and technologies will continue to expand. By certifying certain 

vehicles and equipment as SmartWay approved, the voluntary federal 

program confers a status that is mandatory under ARB’s rule. The APA does 

not prohibit California agencies from including such “conferred status” 

requirements in their regulations. 

ARB disagrees that the SmartWay tractor standards are subjective or 

inappropriate for “conferred status” use in ARB’s regulation. See responses 

to comments 17, 18, 22 and 23 for ARB’s response on this issue. 

D Standards and Procedures 

28. Comment: It is our understanding that trailer requirements have been 

modified to split the 5% required aerodynamic improvement from the lowrolling-resistance tire requirement of 1.5% into two parts wherein neither 

improvement can be counted toward the other. Please clarify that this 

interpretation is accurate. (Con-way2)

Agency Response: The required 5 percent aerodynamic improvement and 

1.5 percent tire improvement are not changed in the modified language, but 

have been modified for clarity purposes. The tire requirements were 

independent of the aerodynamic requirements in the original language and 

remained independent in the modified language. The commenter is also 

correct that neither improvement can be counted towards the other. See also 

agency response to comment #31. The only thing that is changed in section 
- 149 - 

95303 (b) is that the modified language removed the language that specified 

the specific aerodynamic equipments (trailer side skirts, front trailer fairings, 

and rear trailer fairings) required for compliance, allowing fleets to use any 

combination of the verified aerodynamic technologies to meet the 

requirements. 

29. Comment: We request that the modified language include confirmation that 

low-rolling-resistance tires that have been recapped are in compliance so 

long as the tire casing originally qualified as a LRR tire. (Con-way2)

Agency Response: Please see agency response to comment #32. 

30. Comment. The rule seems to have conflicting definitions of short-haul 

tractors; those that operate less than 50,000 miles annually as well as those 

that operate within a 100 mile radius. Federal DOT regulations for 

maintaining duty-logs specify a 100 air-mile radius. This is already well 

established within the trucking industry and the enforcement community. We 

request that the modified language specify that tractors qualify as “short haul” 

if they meet either of these requirements and that the 100 mile radius conform 

with the Federal statute as air miles. (Con-way2) 

Agency Response: The modified regulatory language uses the term “shorthaul tractor” to refer solely to a tractor that travels less than 50,000 miles per 

year. A tractor or trailer that operates strictly within a 100-mile radius is now 

referred to as “local-haul tractor” or “local-haul trailer,” respectively. Since the 

regulatory requirements on these two types of operations are different, ARB 

believes the use of the two different terms will help clarify these two distinct 

types of operation that qualify vehicles for different exemptions under this 

regulation. Regarding the issue of using air-mile instead of mile for the 

operating radius of local-haul vehicles, ARB does not believe such a 

modification is necessary. ARB believes that mile, or statute mile (5,280 

feet), is more commonly understood, and most distance measurement tools, 

such as those found on the internet, display their results in mile rather than 

air-mile. ARB expects that many of the businesses affected by this rule and 

authorized enforcement entities will use these tools to determine if vehicles 

qualify for the local-haul exemption. 

31. Comment. It is our interpretation that Subsection 95303 (b) now states that 

trailers no longer have to adopt trailer skirts, nose cones or boat tails as the 

only approved technology for improving fuel savings by the required 5% and 

that any combination of EPA SmartWay technologies achieving that goal will 

qualify the trailer as CARB compliant. Please clarify this interpretation in the 

modified language. (Con-way2)

Agency Response: Subsection 95303(b) requires trailers to use U.S. EPA 

verified SmartWay tires and any combination of U.S. EPA SmartWay verified 
- 150 - 

aerodynamic technologies verified to meet or exceed 5 percent fuel savings 

for a dry van and 4 percent for a refrigerated van trailer. To be compliant the 

combination of technologies can only be SmartWay verified aerodynamic 

technologies and not any other technologies that are not aerodynamic even if 

these non aerodynamic technologies are SmartWay verified. Currently, U.S. 

EPA verified aerodynamic technologies for trailers include skirts that achieve 

4 percent and 5 percent fuel savings, front trailer fairings that achieve 1 

percent fuel savings, and rear trailer fairings that achieve 5 percent fuel 

savings. Thus, a fleet may comply with the dry van requirements by 

equipping its trailer fleet with either a skirt that is verified to meet a 5 percent 

fuel savings, or a skirt and a front trailer fairing that are verified to meet a 4 

percent and a 1 percent fuel savings respectively, or a rear trailer fairing that 

is verified to meet a 5 percent fuel savings. 

32. Comment: The definition of “Low-rolling-resistance tires” should provide 

clarification as to the use of retreads. At a workshop on September 14, 2009, 

CARB staff indicated that the use of retread tires is a compliance option as 

long as the tire’s original casing has been SmartWay certified. The ability to 

use retread tires is an important component of this regulation from both a cost 

and reuse/waste reduction perspective. Language clarifying the use of 

retread tires as a compliance option should be either included in the 

regulation or addressed in a formal guidance document. (ATA2) 

Agency Response: ARB agrees with the commenter’s assertion that the 

ability to use retread tires is very important from the economic and 

environmental point of views. The U.S. EPA SmartWay Program is currently 

working with the tire retread industry to develop specifications for SmartWay 

retread tires. As soon as the specifications are developed, ARB plans to 

update the regulation to include the requirements for SmartWay retread tires. 

Until then, ARB plans to provide an interim guidance or advisory that retread 

tires may be used as long as the casings of the retreaded tire are made from 

an originally SmartWay verified low rolling resistance tire. Regarding tires 

that will be replaced by SmartWay verified tires, those tires will continue to 

have a commercial value and use with other types of trailers and tractors that 

are unaffected by this regulation. Thus, ARB determined that there will not be 

an environmental impact since these tires can be used in other fleet 

operations. 

33. Comment: It is not clear why local-haul equipment continues to be subject 

to the low-rolling-resistance tire (LRRT) requirements. Local-haul equipment 

is not likely to accumulate the mileage necessary to achieve the benefits from 

LRRTs to justify their additional expense. Consequently, local-haul 

equipment, or equipment pulled by or pulling local-haul equipment, should be 

exempted from the LRRT requirements as well. (ATA2) 
- 151 - 

Agency Response: Most of the local haul tractors are deployed in urban 

local haul operations and normally operate at low average speeds compared 

to tractors that operate in regional or long haul operations. As discussed 

earlier, since aerodynamic drag varies with the square of the speed, requiring 

aerodynamic devices on local haul tractors and trailers does not justify the 

expenses since the low average speeds of the tractors provide minimal or 

negligible GHG benefits. However, at lower speeds rolling resistance is 

dominant (see Figure 1, agency response to Section III, comment #46) and 

thus reducing rolling resistance of tires at the low average speeds of local 

haul tractors could result in meaningful GHG benefits. ARB agrees that if the 

annual mileage accrued by a vehicle is very small then requiring low rolling 

resistance tires does not justify the expenses because the benefits are not 

significant due to the low mileage of the vehicle. Thus, a low mileage vehicle 

may be exempt from tire requirements based on the short-haul exemption 

criteria. However, local haul tractors and trailers that accrue more than 

50,000 miles per year, but stay within 100-mile operating range, are more 

likely to be traveling some portion of their mileage at highway speeds and will 

achieve greenhouse gas reductions. Even if tractors are operated at lower 

average speeds, benefits will accrue due to high truck utilization and the 

relatively low or no incremental cost of the tires which justifies the tire 

requirements for local haul tractors. 

34. Comment: A few of the concerns with the EPA Interim Test Method are: 

● does not measure in-service performance of a vehicle or vehicle component, 

● can not provide valid fuel consumption data, and 

● has a precision error of at least 6%. 

For these reasons listed above and based upon additional information provided 

below the CARB should immediately modify the existing technology verification 

process and procedures. 

According to the SAE and TMC the precision of the subject test method is not 

reduced by testing on a roadway. The provision to test on “test track” only 

serves to increase test costs that will result in an increase in the cost of products 

and thereby limiting the number of options available to the industry. If CARB 

continues to rely solely upon the subject test method then CARB should allow for 

test results from all sources. The Interim Test Method should be modified to 

remove testing requirements on a “test track”; replace “test track” with “test route” 

to include testing on a roadway; remove limits on track grade, test site altitude, 

track surface condition, and precipitation; remove ambient temperature limits 

during testing, instead require a temperature range not to exceed 30°F for the 

duration of the test; modify maximum wind speed and wind gusts from 12 miles 

per hour to 5 miles per hour; and test trailers and test tractors must be same 

model, mileage, and configured the same. (Solus2) 

Agency Response: ARB does not believe the comments made merit changing 

the Interim Test Method for the following reasons. 
- 152 - 

ARB does not agree with the commenter’s conclusion that the Interim Test 

Method does not provide valid fuel consumption data. U.S. EPA’s Interim Test 

Method which is based on the SAE J1321 is established to evaluate the 

performance of a vehicle or vehicle component under standardized conditions. 

In addition to the provisions specified by SAE J1321 test procedures, the Interim 

Test Method specifies additional conditions or constraints on variables such as 

grade, wind speed, length of test track, track surface conditions, ambient 

temperature, elevation, etc., that have significant impact on fuel consumption 

performance of the vehicle. Controlling these variables reduces the variability of 

the measurement, helps ensure the validity of the test results, and enables fleets 

to compare the performance of one device against that of the other tested under 

the same conditions. This is consistent with SAE J1321 test procedure which as 

a rule recommends the control of as many variables as possible in order to get 

conclusive results (see section 1 of SAE J1321 test protocol.) 

The purpose of the Interim Test Method is not to measure the in-service 

performance of a vehicle or technology but to measure the performance of a 

technology for the purposes of certification or verification of the technology. 

Furthermore, the commenter’s claim that the test method has a precision error of 

6 percent is not substantiated. Rather, as indicated in SAE J1321 test protocol6

, 

based on test experience of long haul trucks, fuel consumption measurement 

using portable weigh tank methods is considered to have an overall accuracy of 

±1 percent. 

SAE J1321 permits testing on a roadway or a test track. It also states that the 

more variables controlled the more conclusive the test results and better 

repeatability of the test. Conducting testing on a test track rather than on a 

roadway enables controlling more variables such as track shape, surface, grade, 

and altitude, provides better monitoring and recording of weather conditions, and 

minimizes the impact of other vehicles on the test vehicles. The length of the test 

track is recommended by testing experts to reduce undue lateral forces on the 

vehicle and maintain a neutral speed appropriate for the drive cycle. We agree 

that zero or reduced wind speeds are ideal to reduce measurement errors. 

However, setting wind speed and wind gust at 12 miles per hour balances what 

is optimum speed with what is practical so as not to increase unduly the cost and 

time needed to conduct testing. The Interim Test Method requires that the test 

trailers to be of the same age, same model, mileage, and condition. Similar 

requirements apply to the test tractor. All of the specifics of the test plan 

including tractor-trailer gap, tire tread depth (included in tire condition), and other 

details would be worked out by the technology developer and the U.S. EPA 

before the testing is conducted. 

 

6

 See SAE J1321 Joint TMC/SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedure - Type II, Section 7, Test 

Accuracy. 
- 153 - 

35. Comment: The U.S. EPA has not verified any aerodynamic devices based on 

the “General Requirements” specified in the Interim Test method. According to 

the SAE J1321, there have not been any valid tests performed and thus there are 

not any verified EPA technologies and therefore there are no CARB verified 

technologies. SAE J1321 states: “A single test is inconclusive regardless of the 

results. A single test should be taken as an indicator. Test results must be 

repeatable to have validity.” SAE J1321 also states: “If a number of tests do not 

show consistent results, then one must conclude that the changes caused by the 

component or vehicle system are less than can be measured by the test 

procedure.” The EPA has violated its own Interim Test Method by failing to 

require that J1321 tests be repeated, as instructed by the SAE J1321 standard, 

in order to develop a valid test result with quantifiable fuel use measurements. 

(Solus2) 

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with the above comment. The Interim Test 

Method does not affect the existing devices that are already verified by the U.S. 

EPA. This is because the guidance that was used to verify these technologies 

was exactly the same as the Interim Test Method. Like the “General 

Requirements” in the Interim Test Method, the guidance (Appendix B of the Staff 

Report) also required manufacturers of the product to conduct an SAE J1321 test 

protocol and to follow all provisions in the protocol which includes the provision to 

repeat the tests until at least 3 valid T/C (Test Vehicle Fuel Used/Control Vehicle 

Fuel Used) ratios were obtained (section 6.10 of SAE J1321 test protocol.) In 

addition to complying with all the requirements in the SAE test procedure, the 

initial guidance also required manufactures to meet additional provisions such as 

testing vehicle on a test track, ambient temperature range during testing, grade 

changes, altitude of test facility, test speed, precipitation on test track during 

testing, etc. Based on these test conditions, a number of manufacturers were 

able to verify their technologies as SmartWay compliant technologies. Examples 

are Freightwing, Inc., Laydon Composites, Ltd., and Advanced Transit Dynamics 

to mention a few. The commenter may refer to the test reports published 

(referenced in the Staff Report) by these manufactures to verify the test protocol 

followed by these manufacturers in verifying their technologies, which are 

consistent with SAE J1321 test procedures. 

36. Comment: Currently none of the aerodynamic technologies on the EPA verified 

list have satisfied the published EPA Interim Test Method based upon the SAE 

J1321 standard. SAE J1321 clearly states the following; “A test is inconclusive 

regardless of the results. A single test should be taken as an indicator. Test 

results must be repeatable to have validity”. EPA verification does not require 

that TEST be repeated to validate the fuel savings. The failure of EPA to require 

this fundamental and critical step in the process results in test results that do not 

satisfy either SAE J1321 or the EPA Interim test method and therefore the 

verification of device by EPA is not supported by valid test data. (Solus2) 
- 154 - 

Agency Response: The above comment is incorrect. As indicated in agency 

response to comment #35, manufacturers followed all provisions of SAE J1321 

test protocol including the statements quoted in the above comment when 

verifying their products. Published test reports by Freight Wing, Advanced 

Transit Dynamics, and others document that tests were repeated several times 

until at least 3 valid T/C ratios were obtained as required by SAE J1321 test 

protocol (section 6.10 of SAE J1321 test protocol. 

37. Comment: CARB’s strict reliance on the voluntary EPA SmartWay program to 

identify viable aerodynamic technologies has and will continue to adversely affect 

the programs success. CARB should provide itself an option for a waiver of the 

EPA verification process based upon a body of data provided by a fleet or fleets 

that desire to use non EPA verified technology. This waiver is critical to ensure 

that CARB does not arbitrarily restrict the use of technology that has continually 

demonstrated high fuel saving performance and operational performance in the 

real-world operational environment. This waiver option is critically important due 

to the unreliability of the EPA verification process based upon SAE J1321 test 

data. Language should be added to the regulation to allow any combination of 

dry-van aerodynamic technologies that has been demonstrated to the U.S. EPA 

or CARB to meet or exceed a 5 percent fuel savings in accordance with industry 

standards and based upon preferred in-service testing. (Solus2) 

Agency Response: ARB does not arbitrarily restrict the use of technology that 

demonstrates high fuel savings performance. Any technology that is verified 

according to the U.S. EPA’s Interim Test Method would qualify as a compliant 

technology to meet the requirements of this regulation. Thus, ARB does not 

believe it is necessary to provide a waiver of U.S EPA verification test procedure. 

Furthermore, ARB does not agree with the commenter’s statement that the U.S. 

EPA verification is unreliable. The U.S. EPA verification method was developed 

with input from the trucking industry and technology developers and is based on 

the industry-wide accepted SAE J1321 test protocol. Allowing various test 

methods and in-service testing would limit the ability to compare the performance 

of technologies since they will be subject to different test conditions. Therefore, 

no change was made to the regulatory language to allow alternative means of 

testing procedures. 

E Compliance and Enforcement 

38. Comment: The definition of “Compliant trailer” in Section 95302 (a)(9) 

unnecessarily takes away flexibility large fleets need in order to remain 

competitive in a rapidly changing marketplace by eliminating the provision 

previously found in the second paragraph of Section 95307 allowing for 

bringing a trailer into compliance by “retiring such trailer from California 

service.” We recommend the definition of compliant trailer be modified to 

state that, for the purposes of the fleet trailer compliance schedule, methods 
- 155 - 

of bringing a trailer into compliance include retiring it from California service. 

(Werner) 

Agency Response: Although not explicitly stated in the regulation, retiring a 

trailer from California service will still be an acceptable method of complying 

with an optional trailer fleet compliance schedule. 

39. Comment: Section 95307(f)(20) prohibits a large fleet participating in the 

large fleet compliance schedule from operating any trailer in California after 

July 1, 2010 unless such trailer is (a) compliant, (b) listed on the owner’s fleet 

list, (c) a refrigerated van, or (d) otherwise exempt under the regulation. This 

restriction effectively accelerates the compliance date for non-compliant 

trailers not in the designated California fleet from January 1, 2013, to July 1, 

2010. The prior version of this regulation included no such prohibition. Under 

the prior version, trailers not identified as part of a carrier’s California fleet 

could have operated on California highways until January 1, 2013. This would 

have allowed such a carrier more time to adjust to the new conditions and 

perfect its methods of segregating its fleet into California and non-California 

operating units. More troubling than this seemingly arbitrary restriction is the 

equally arbitrary provision added at 95307(f)(13) that places a similar 

restriction on owners participating in the small fleet compliance schedule. The 

restriction on small fleet owners, however, does not take effect until July 1, 

2012, a full two years after large fleets are affected. We recommend that the 

requirements set forth in (f)(20) and (f)(13) be removed entirely from the 

regulation. In lieu of a complete deletion of these provisions, they should at 

least be made consistent so that large fleets, also, have until July 1, 2012, to 

make the necessary, drastic revisions to their operations. (Werner) 

Agency Response: ARB does not believe it is necessary to allow fleets 

participating in the large fleet compliance schedule to create a separate pool 

of vehicles subject to the January 1, 2013 hard deadline. This is because 

ARB believes it could actually hurt the flexibility of fleets that allocate too 

many trailers into a hard deadline pool initially to avoid bringing trailers into 

compliance in the early years of the large fleet compliance schedule. By 

doing so, a fleet owner could end up being forced to retrofit a large 

percentage of his/her fleet before January 1, 2013 because he/she still needs 

such trailers to operate in California after such date. Alternatively, if a fleet 

owner designates all trailers into a single compliance plan pool, as will likely 

be the case under the current regulation, the fleet owner would have the 

flexibility to decide for each individual trailer whether to retrofit or retire such 

trailer from California service when its particular compliance deadline 

approaches. Not only would this spread the requirement to retrofit or retire 

the fleet over a six year period, it would also allow the owner to return a 

retired trailer back into California service by simply retrofitting such trailer with 

the required SmartWay verified technologies at that time. In addition, the 

phase-in schedule begins slowly, so even if a fleet’s early retrofits are to 
- 156 - 

trailers that he/she eventually removes from California service, such trailers 

would probably only represent a small portion of the fleet. 

As to the restrictions set forth in section 95307(f)(13), in addition to the 

reasons given above, ARB believes they are also necessary to prevent large 

fleets from underreporting the number of trailers they own in order to qualify 

for the small trailer fleet compliance schedule. Because they are expected to 

have more limited financial resources to retrofit their fleets, small fleets are 

given additional time to comply with this regulation. If a large fleet is able to 

participate in the small trailer fleet compliance schedule, it would undermine 

the intent of the regulation to restrict large fleets from taking advantage of the 

additional compliance time given to small fleets. 

40. Comment: The regulation specifies that the diesel on-road and off-road 

reporting systems (“DOORS”) will be used as the online reporting tool for this 

regulation. Unlike off-road equipment, the tractors and trailers affected by this 

regulation are required to be registered with motor vehicle agencies in order 

to receive operating credentials. As a result, fleets are already devoting 

considerable resources to adding, modifying and deleting equipment 

registrations. (ATA2) 

Agency Response: Although ARB realizes that reporting requirements often 

require a substantial resource commitment from affected businesses, such 

reporting is necessary in order for ARB to provide flexibility without 

compromising the regulation’s effectiveness or enforceability. ARB continues 

to work on DOORS with the goal of simplifying the reporting process, and we 

encourage affected fleets to continue to provide us with comments and 

suggestions. 

41. Comment: It is not clear how compatible DOORS is with the current 

systems being used by motor carriers and motor vehicle agencies. In the 

interest of conserving fleet resources and avoiding duplication, ATA requests 

that CARB work with fleets, registration agents, leasing companies, motor 

vehicle agencies and others to ensure DOORS is either interfaced with 

existing equipment registration systems or, alternatively, compatible with such 

systems. In addition, the data confidentiality protections of DOORS must be 

equivalent to those which have been established by the motor vehicle 

agencies. (ATA2) 

Agency Response: Currently, ARB is working to harmonize the reporting 

required by this regulation with that of the Statewide Truck and Bus 

Regulation to prevent the need for fleets to enter vehicles subject to both 

regulations twice. In addition, ARB has formed a public-private subcommittee 

dedicated to improving DOORS and making it more user-friendly. Regarding 

the commenter’s concern about information security, access to DOORS is 

currently through a connection that is secured through a protocol that is 
- 157 - 

widely used on the internet. ARB understands the commenter’s concerns 

about information security and welcomes any additional comments or 

suggestions as to how to improve upon the security protocol that is currently 

in place. 

42. Comment: Although not stated in the regulation, with the exception of 

exempt equipment and trailers included in the fleet compliance schedules, it 

is our interpretation that equipment which conforms to the requirements of the 

regulation is not subject to any reporting requirements. Please confirm that 

this is in fact correct. (ATA2) 

Response: A fleet is only required to report a compliant trailer if such fleet 

elects to participate in the small fleet compliance schedule. Reporting such 

trailer as part of the large fleet compliance schedule is optional. However, for 

any fleet participating in an optional trailer fleet compliance schedule, 

reporting such trailer is to the fleet’s benefit since the trailer may be used to 

meet annual fleet conformance thresholds and could be eligible for early 

compliance credit under the provisions of the large fleet compliance schedule. 

If a fleet, however, is not participating in an optional trailer fleet compliance 

schedule, the trailers do not need to be reported. 

43. Comment: While tractors and/or trailers that meet certain operating 

conditions are eligible for specific exemptions, a mechanism to allow the 

movement of exempt equipment beyond its operating radius is needed. For 

example, a local-haul trailer may be purchased or leased at a location beyond 

100 miles of its local-haul base. This trailer will need to travel outside of its 

exempt operating range, yet provisions are not currently in place to allow this. 

CARB staff has acknowledged the need for such a solution. ATA would like 

to ensure an operating solution for this situation is either provided in the 

regulation or addressed through a formal guidance document. (ATA2) 

Agency Response: ARB does not believe movement of exempt equipment 

will prove to be a problem in practice. If a problem should emerge, ARB is 

committed to working with the affected party and, if warranted, will consider 

addressing the issue in a future amendment of the regulation. 

44. Comment: In addition, with demand for equipment ranging from planned 

expansions to instant response, the interaction between registration and 

enforcement needs to be seamless to allow for the movement of equipment. 

With DOORS being envisioned as the primary link between the regulated 

fleets and the enforcement agency, ATA encourages CARB to develop a 

system which allows for the nearly instantaneous movement of equipment 

when placed in service or when changes in service status occur (i.e., moving 

exempt equipment out of state). The ability to quickly add, delete or modify 

the registration status of equipment is especially important. In the case of 

leased equipment, multiple lessees may operate the same piece of 
- 158 - 

equipment during a one-week period. This will require the ability to add and 

delete lessee information through DOORS in order to keep the equipment inservice and accurately registered. (ATA2) 

Agency Response: Because some information entered into DOORS will 

require ARB review before being made available to enforcement personnel, 

there is the potential for database synchronicity issues during the 

enforcement of this regulation. However, since all new data entered into 

DOORS will be time stamped, any questions that arise regarding reported 

data can easily be resolved through a more detailed investigation. 

45. Comment: It is not clear how trailer fleet compliance schedules can be 

adjusted to accommodate growth or reductions. Trailer owners will need to 

make compliance plan revisions when they add purchased trailers and 

remove sold or retired trailers throughout the year. A modification allowing 

such revisions should be included in this section. (ATA2) 

Agency Response: A fleet may add trailers at any time, but a newly-added 

trailer may not be added to an existing compliance plan once the due date for 

that compliance plan has passed. The optional trailer fleet compliance 

schedules are only available to trailers that exist in the owner’s fleet at the 

time of the compliance plan due date. Therefore, for a newly-added trailer, 

the owner will have three options: 1) bring the trailer into compliance before 

operating such trailer in California, 2) register the trailer as a local-haul trailer 

before operating such trailer in California, or 3) dedicate such trailer to only 

short-haul and local-haul tractors when operating in California. Regarding 

sold and retired trailers, they will not have to be removed from our database. 

For a sold trailer or a trailer completely taken out of service, once the fleet 

officially relinquishes custody of the trailer, they will no longer be held 

responsible for it. However, the fleet should maintain evidence documenting 

the transfer should questions of ownership arise in the future. For a trailer 

that is simply retired from California service, as long as the trailer does not 

operate on a California highway after such time, the trailer will be considered 

compliant. 

46. Comment: The requirement to report trailers that will not operate in 

California should be eliminated. With today’s corporate structures, the 

breadth of this requirement could capture trailers that are outside the North 

America continent. There is no nexus between the reporting of these trailers 

and the goals of this state regulation. Therefore, the requirements to report 

trailers that will not operate in the state, as well as their California operating 

status, are unnecessary. (ATA2) 

Agency Response: For fleets participating in the large fleet compliance 

schedule, they are no longer required to report trailers that do not operate 

within California. However, for fleets participating in the small fleet 
- 159 - 

compliance schedule, it is still required to report such trailers. This reporting 

is necessary to help ensure large fleets do not underreport trailers to qualify 

for the small fleet compliance schedule. 

47. Comment: There does not appear to be a means, provision, or requirement 

in the regulations whereby exempt trailers or tractors can be identified as 

such by individuals who must verify whether a tractor or trailer is compliant. 

There is no provision for a certificate or other documentation for a responsible 

person to refer to protect themselves from using or shipping in a noncompliant tractor or trailer. (CTA3) 

Agency Response: ARB is currently developing a web portal for the public to 

look up the expected compliance or exemption status of any reported trailer. 

48. Comment: Section 95303 does not contain specific provisions entitling 

drivers, California-based brokers, motor carriers, or California-based shippers 

to use exempt equipment. (CTA3) 

Agency Response: Drivers, California-based brokers, motor carriers, and 

California-based shippers are required to only operate and/or dispatch 

vehicles that comply with section 95303. Pursuant to the regulation, a vehicle 

meeting the exemption provisions set forth in section 95305 also complies 

with section 95303. Therefore, the regulation does entitle the aforementioned 

entities to operate or dispatch vehicles that are exempt pursuant to section 

95305. 

49. Comment: The proposed regulation in Section 95306(d)(2) and Section 

95307(c)(2)(N) requires tractor and/or trailer owners to provide, among other 

information, VIN and license plate numbers. While CTA has no objection to 

such information being provided, ARB must keep this information confidential 

at a level equal to the standard established by the DMV by not making it 

available for public access. This data can be used by competitors and 

vendors to put companies at a competitive disadvantage. (CTA3) 

Agency Response: Proprietary and trade secret information that a company 

provides to ARB when reporting as required by this regulation, and that the 

company clearly identifies as confidential, will generally not be released to the 

public without ARB following procedural safeguards against the release of 

confidential information. Air pollution emissions data, however, including 

such data that a company may believe constitutes trade secrets, are public 

records that must be disclosed under Government Code 6254.7(e). 

Information used to calculate air pollution data is not “emission data” and will 

not be released to the public if that information qualifies as a trade secret. 

ARB expects to hold the following information as confidential whenever 

companies assert a claim of confidentiality when they submit the information: 
- 160 - 

fleet composition, vehicle or fleet age, fleet size, and other confidential data 

used to determine the estimated cost of compliance. Title 17, California Code 

of Regulations (CCR), Sections 91000 to 91022, and the California Public 

Records Act (Government Code 6250 et seq.), set forth procedural 

safeguards for those who submit information to ARB that they have identified 

as confidential. If ARB receives a request for disclosure or seeks to disclose 

data that the originating company has identified as confidential, ARB will ask 

the fleet owner to provide written confirmation that the information is indeed 

proprietary or a trade secret, along with documentation supporting the claims 

of confidentiality. ARB may release fleet information to the U.S. EPA, which 

protects trade secrets as provided in Section 114(c) of the Clean Air Act and 

amendments thereto (42 USC 7401 et seq.) and in federal regulation, as well 

as other public agencies including, but not limited to, law enforcement and 

public health agencies, provided those agencies preserve the protections 

afforded the information which is identified as a trade secret or is otherwise 

exempt from disclosure by law (Section 39660(e)). 

ARB may make information available to the public relating to 1) violations that 

have been issued, 2) the reported exemption status of a vehicle, 3) the 

expected compliance status of a trailer being brought into compliance in 

accordance with an optional trailer fleet compliance schedule, and 4) the 

make and model of a vehicle based on its vehicle identification number or 

license plate number. 

50. Comment: The regulation needs to discuss the requirements for ARB to 

ensure the process of adding and removing tractors and trailers from exempt 

and compliance lists can be accomplished electronically so that the 

consequences of changes can be reflected instantly. This is especially critical 

for large fleets that will undergo thousands of changes each year. For large 

fleets, a paper intensive process is problematic. (CTA3)

Agency Response: Regarding exemption reporting only, ARB is currently 

working on an online reporting system that will allow fleets to enter and/or edit 

their reported information at any time. The aforementioned online reporting 

system will also be available to fleets for submitting their compliance plans 

pursuant to one of the optional trailer fleet compliance schedules. However, a 

fleet owner will not be able to add or delete trailers from a compliance plan 

once the due date for such compliance plan passes. See agency response 

#45 for more information about adding and deleting trailers. 

51. Comment: Section 95307(b)(3) states “....a trailer owner may redistribute 

trailers among the final three annual conformance commitment lists (but) the 

trailer owner may not alter the number of trailers identified on each list.” 

Under this provision, it is unclear how a large fleet compliance schedule 

would be adjusted for a growing or shrinking large fleet in which there could 

be thousands of fluctuations every year. (CTA3)
- 161 - 

Agency Response: See agency response #45. 

52. Comment: If the only reason for an owner to report all the trailers is to 

determine eligibility for the Large Fleet Compliance Plan yet the only trailers 

that must comply are those that visit California, it is not reasonable or 

necessary to require large companies to report all the trailers in their 

corporate families. Reporting should only be required for the subsidiaries that 

plan on operating trailers in California once the regulations become effective. 

(CTA3)

Agency Response: ARB agrees with the commenter. The current regulatory 

language does not require large fleets to report trailers that will not operate in 

California.