The Honorable Gina McCarthy

Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator McCarthy:

Enclosed for your consideration is the report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel 

(SBAR Panel or Panel) convened for EPA’s planned proposed rulemaking entitled “Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles -

Phase 2” (or “Phase 2”). This notice of proposed rulemaking is being developed by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

EPA’s Phase 1 Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles Program, which was finalized in 

September 2011, marked the first greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles and 

engines. The program addressed heavy-duty’s GHG emissions through the adoption of performancebased standards that allow manufacturers to determine the optimal mix of technologies to achieve 

the necessary reductions for their vehicle fleets and engines. 

Building on the Phase 1 rule, this proposed Phase 2 rule would be designed to reduce GHG 

emissions associated with the transportation of goods across the United States post-2017. The 

proposed Phase 2 rulemaking considers changes to existing engine and vehicle GHG standards, as 

well as regulatory standards and certification requirements for previously-unregulated new trailers 

pulled by semi-tractors. If such a rule is adopted, manufacturers of heavy-duty engines, chassis, 

vehicles and trailers could be required to incorporate GHG-reducing and fuel-saving technologies in 

order to comply with EPA’s performance-based standards.

On October 22, 2014, EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened this Small 

Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel under section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). In 

addition to its chairperson, the Panel consists of the Director of the Assessment and Standards 

Division within EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). It is important to note that 

the Panel’s findings and discussion are based on the information available at the time this report was 

written. EPA is continuing to conduct analyses relevant to the proposed rule, and additional 

information may be developed or obtained during this process as well as from public comment on 

the proposed rule. The options the Panel identified for reducing the rule’s economic impact on small 

entities may require further analysis and/or data collection to ensure that the options are cost 

effective, practicable, enforceable, protective of public health, environmentally sound and consistent 

with the CAA.
Summary of Small Entity Outreach

Before beginning the formal SBREFA process, EPA actively engaged in outreach with 

entities that would potentially be affected by the upcoming rulemaking. EPA held phone conferences 

and face-to-face meetings with many of these companies to discuss the upcoming proposed 

rulemaking and to provide these contacts with an early opportunity to ask questions and discuss their 

concerns with the upcoming rulemaking.

Prior to convening the Panel, EPA conducted outreach with small entities that will potentially 

be affected by these regulations. On April 2, 2014, EPA issued a press release to solicit potential 

small entity representatives (SERs) to participate. In June 2014, EPA invited SBA, OMB, and ten 

potentially affected SERs to a conference call and meeting, and solicited comments from them on 

preliminary information sent to them. EPA shared the small entities’ written comments with the 

Panel as part of the Panel convening document.

After the SBAR Panel was convened, the Panel distributed additional information to the 

SERs on October 22, 2014, for their review and comment in preparation for another outreach 

meeting. On November 5-6, 2014, the Panel met with SERs representing 13 small businesses (in 

three separate meetings by industry) to hear their comments on the information distributed in these 

mailings. The SERs were asked to provide written feedback on ideas under consideration for the 

proposed rulemaking and responses to questions regarding their experience with existing CO2-

reducing technologies. The Panel received written comments from the SERs in response to the 

discussions at these meetings and we have summarized them in the Panel Report that is attached. 

Their full written comments are also attached (see Appendix B of the Panel Report). In light of these 

discussions and comments, the Panel considered the regulatory flexibility issues specified by 

RFA/SBREFA and developed the findings and discussion summarized below.

Panel Findings and Discussion

Under section 609(b) of the RFA, the Panel is to report its findings related to these four 

items:

• A description of an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule 

will apply.

• A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance 

requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities 

which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record.

• Identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant federal rules which may duplicate, 

overlap or conflict with the proposed rule. 

• A description of any significant alternatives to the planned proposed rule which would 

minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities 

consistent with the stated objectives of the authorizing statute.

2
The Panel’s most significant findings and discussion with respect to each of these items are 

summarized below. To read the full discussion of the Panel findings and recommendations, see 

Section 9 of the Panel Report.

Number and Types of Entities Affected

EPA identified 115 trailer manufacturers and 100 of them are small. Currently 24 vocational 

chassis manufacturers have registered with EPA under the Phase 1 rulemaking and three have 

confirmed small entity status to obtain an exemption for MY 2014. Twenty alternative fuel engine 

converters are currently registered with EPA to certify their converted HD engines for criteria 

pollutants. Eighteen of those engine converters are small. EPA is aware of four glider 

manufacturers and three of these companies are small businesses. 

General Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens

For any emission control program, EPA must have assurances that the regulated products 

will meet the standards. The program that EPA is considering for manufacturers subject to this 

proposal will include testing, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. Testing requirements for 

these manufacturers could include use of EPA’s Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) vehicle 

simulation tool to obtain the overall CO2 emissions rate for certification of vocational chassis and 

trailers, aerodynamic testing to obtain aerodynamic inputs to GEM for some trailer manufacturers 

and engine dynamometer testing for alternative fuel engine converters to ensure their conversions 

meet the proposed CO2, CH4 and N2O engine standards. Reporting requirements would likely 

include emissions test data or model inputs and results, technical data related to the vehicles, and 

end-of-year sales information. Manufacturers would have to keep records of this information.

Related Federal Rules

The Phase 1 rulemaking would continue to be in effect in the absence of this proposed rule. 

The Panel is also aware of several other state and Federal rules related to heavy-duty vehicles and to 

the proposed Phase 2 rule under consideration. DOT/NHTSA has several safety requirements for 

these vehicles. California adopted its own greenhouse gas initiative, which places aerodynamic 

requirements on trailers used in long-haul applications. None of these existing regulations were 

found to conflict with the proposed rulemaking.

The Panel recognizes that there is the potential for a tension between technologies to improve 

fuel efficiency and some other Federal mandates, such as NHTSA safety regulations, EPA emissions 

standards for criteria pollutants, and EPA transportation fuel blending requirements for biofuels. 

EPA sought information from SERs on many of these tensions and flexibilities that could aid small 

businesses in complying with these multiple mandates and will continue to seek comment on them in 

the rulemaking development process.

3
Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives

As described above, EPA is developing standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and 

vehicles to be addressed in this rulemaking. Because of the potential costs and technology challenges 

involved in meeting these standards, the Panel recommends that EPA consider and seek comments 

on the flexibility options described below. We believe that the following set of flexibility options, 

taken together, have the potential to significantly reduce compliance burden for small manufacturers 

without significantly compromising the environmental benefits of the program.

Trailers

Comments from trailer manufacturer SERs indicate that these companies are familiar with 

most of the technologies described in the materials, but have no experience with EPA certification 

and do not anticipate they could manage the accounting and reporting requirements without 

additional staff and extensive training. Performance testing, which is a common requirement for 

many of EPA’s regulatory programs, is largely unfamiliar to these small business manufacturers and 

the SERs believe the cost of testing would be a significant burden on their companies. In light of 

this feedback, the Panel recommends a combination of streamlined compliance, which minimizes 

tracking and testing requirements, and targeted exemptions for these small businesses. The Panel 

believes these strategies will achieve many of the benefits for the environment by driving adoption 

of CO2-reducing technologies, while significantly reducing the burden that these new regulations 

would introduce on small businesses.

Box Trailers

Box trailer manufacturers have the benefit of relying on the aerodynamic technology 

development initiated through EPA’s voluntary SmartWay program. The Panel is aware that EPA is 

planning to propose a simplified compliance program for all manufacturers, in which aerodynamic 

device manufacturers have the opportunity to test and register their devices with EPA as 

technologies that can be used by trailer manufacturers in their trailer certification. This preapproved technology strategy is intended to provide all trailer manufactures a means of complying 

with the standards without the burden of testing. At the time of this report, it is unclear if this 

strategy will be available indefinitely, or if it will be an interim flexibility to allow manufacturers to 

ease into a testing-only compliance program. In the event that this strategy is limited to the early 

years of the trailer program for all manufactures, the Panel recommends that small manufacturers 

continue to be given the option to use pre-approved devices in lieu of testing. 

In the event that small trailer manufacturers adopt pre-approved aerodynamic technologies 

and the appropriate tire technologies for compliance, the Panel does not believe it is necessary to 

require the use of a vehicle emissions model, such as GEM, for certification. Instead, the Panel 

believes it could be possible for manufacturers to simply report to EPA that all of their trailers 

include approved technologies. 

4
Non-Box Trailers

The Panel recommends that EPA not require the installation of aerodynamic devices for nonbox trailers. Some of the non-box trailer manufacturers SER have seen prototype-level 

demonstrations of aerodynamic devices on non-box trailers. However, most non-box trailer SERs 

identified unique operations in which their trailers are used that preclude the use of those 

technologies and many that they have seen used on box trailers today. 

Some non-box trailer manufacturers have experience with lower rolling resistance (LRR)

tires and automatic tire inflation (ATI) systems. However, the non-box trailer manufacturer SERs 

indicated that LRR tires are not currently available for some of their trailer types. The SERs noted 

that tire manufacturers are currently focused on box trailer applications and there are only a few 

LRR tire models that meet the needs of their customers. The Panel believes EPA should ensure 

appropriate availability of these tires in order for it to be deemed a feasible means of achieving these 

standards and recommends a streamlined compliance process based on the availability of 

technologies. The Panel suggests that the best compliance option from a small business perspective 

would be for EPA to pre-approve tires once they are available in sufficient quantities on the market, 

similar to the approach being proposed for aerodynamic technologies, and to maintain a list that 

could be used to exempt small businesses when no suitable tires are available. However, the Panel 

recognizes the difficulties of maintaining an up-to-date list of certified technologies. The Panel 

recommends that, if EPA does not adopt the list-based approach, the agency consider a simplified 

letter-based compliance option that allows manufacturers to petition EPA for an exemption if they 

are unable to identify tires that meet the LRR performance requirements on a trailer family basis. 

Trailers with Unique Use Patterns

The Panel recommends excluding all trailers that spend a significant amount of time in offroad applications. These trailers may not spend much time at highway speeds and aerodynamic 

devices may interfere with the vehicle’s intended purpose. Additionally, tires with lower rolling 

resistance may not provide the type of traction needed in off-road applications.

General Flexibilities for All Small Trailer Manufacturers

The Panel recognizes that some manufacturers, who have diverse product lines and high sales 

volumes, may benefit from an emissions averaging, banking and trading (ABT) strategy. However, 

due to the custom-order nature of the trailer industry, SERs have expressed their concern that ABT 

may provide an opportunity for historically loyal customers or customers with large fractions of a 

manufacturer’s business to bargain for the portion of a manufacturer’s sales that have minimal 

requirements. Based on the low volume of sales and niche market of many small business trailer 

manufacturers, small businesses in particular may have little leverage in this situation and risk losing 

their customers to larger manufacturers who have credits to spare. In addition, the accounting and 

reporting burdens of ABT may preclude small businesses from participating in the flexibility. 

Due to the potential for reducing a small business’s competitiveness compared to the larger 

manufacturers, as well as the ABT record-keeping burden, the Panel recommends EPA consider 

5
small business flexibilities to allow small entities to opt out of ABT without placing themselves at a 

competitive disadvantage to larger firms that adopt ABT, such as a low volume exemption or 

requiring only LRR where appropriate. EPA should also consider flexibilities for small businesses 

that would ease and incentivize their participation in ABT, such as streamlining the tracking 

requirements for small businesses. In addition, the Panel recommends that EPA request comment on 

the feasibility and consequences of ABT for the trailer program and additional flexibilities that will 

promote small business participation. 

In addition, for all trailer types that will be included in the proposal, the Panel recommends a 

1-year delay in implementation for small trailer manufacturers at the start of the proposed 

rulemaking to allow them additional lead time to make the proper staffing adjustments and process 

changes and possibly add new infrastructure to meet these requirements. In the event that EPA is 

unable to provide pre-approved technologies for manufacturers to choose for compliance, the Panel 

recommends that EPA provide small business trailer manufacturers an additional 1-year delay for 

each subsequent increase in stringency. This additional lead time will allow these small businesses 

to research and market the technologies required by the new standards.

Alternative Fuel Engine Converters

To reduce the compliance burden of small business engine converters who convert engines in 

previously-certified complete vehicles, the Panel recommends allowing engine compliance to be 

sufficient for certification. This would mean the converted vehicle would not need to be recertified 

as a vehicle. This flexibility would eliminate the need for these small manufacturers to gather all of 

the additional component-level information in addition to the engine CO2 performance necessary to 

properly certify a vehicle with GEM (e.g., transmission data, aerodynamic performance, tire rolling

resistance). In addition, the Panel recommends that small engine converters be able to submit an 

engineering analysis, in lieu of measurement, to show that their converted engines do not increase 

N2O emissions. Many of the small engine converters are converting SI-engines, and the catalysts in 

these engines are not expected to substantially impact N2O production. Small engine converters that 

convert CI-engines could likely certify by ensuring that their controls require changes to the SCR 

dosing strategies.

Based on the comments received from SERs, the Panel does not recommend separate 

standards for small business natural gas engine manufacturers. The Panel believes this would 

discourage entrance into this emerging market by adding unnecessary costs to a technology that has 

the potential to reduce CO2 tailpipe emissions. In addition, the Panel believes additional leakage 

requirements beyond a sealed crankcase for small business natural gas-fueled CI engines and 

requirements to follow industry standards for leakage could be waived for small businesses with 

minimal impact on overall GHG emissions. 

Finally, the Panel recommends that small engine converters receive a one-year delay in 

implementation for each increase in stringency throughout the proposed rule. This flexibility will 

provide small converters additional lead time to obtain the necessary equipment and perform 

calibration testing if needed. 

6
Vocational Chassis Manufacturers

The Panel recommends interim reduced requirements for these small manufacturers with 

stringencies that include technologies that fit the applications of these vehicles. 

Emergency Vehicles

One of the vocational chassis SERs was a fire truck manufacturer. Fire trucks, and many 

other emergency vehicles, are built for high level of performance and reliability in severe-duty 

applications. Some of the CO2-reducing technologies listed in the materials could compromise the 

fire truck’s ability to perform its duties and many of the other technologies simply provide no benefit 

in real-world emergency applications. The Panel recommends proposing less stringent standards for 

emergency vehicle chassis manufactured by small businesses. The Panel believes it is feasible for 

small manufacturers to install a Phase 2-compliant engine, but recommends EPA request comment 

on whether the use of LLR tires will provide enough CO2 benefits to justify requiring small business 

emergency chassis manufacturers to adopt them. In addition, the Panel recommends a simplified 

certification approach for small manufacturers who make chassis for emergency vehicles that 

reduces the number of inputs these manufacturers must obtain for GEM. Emergency vehicles make 

up less than one percent of the annual vocational vehicles sold, and the Panel anticipates these 

reduced requirements would have a minimal impact on the overall CO2 reductions of the program.

Off-Road Vocational Vehicles

EPA is planning to propose to continue the exemptions in Phase 1 for off-road and low-speed 

vocational vehicles (see generally 76 FR 57175). These provisions currently apply for vehicles that 

are defined as “motor vehicles” per 40 CFR 85.1703, but may conduct most of their operations offroad. Vehicles qualifying under these provisions must comply with the applicable engine standard, 

but need not comply with a vehicle-level GHG standard. The Panel believes this exemption is 

sufficient to cover the small business chassis manufacturers who design chassis for off-road 

vocational vehicles.

Custom Chassis Manufacturers

The second vocational SER manufactures chassis for specialty operations and that SER has 

very small annual sales volumes. He provided a summary of his products that indicate his company 

has a limited ability to adopt many of the technologies described in the materials. The Panel 

recommends proposing a low volume exemption based on the volume of sales. Similar to the 

recommendation for emergency vehicle chassis manufacturers, the Panel believes it is feasible to 

require installation of a Phase 2-compliant engine and recommends that EPA request comment on 

the benefits of LRR tires in this market segment. At this time, the Panel doesn’t have enough 

information to recommend a sales volume, but recommends that EPA request comment on how to 

design a small business exemption by means of a volume exemption and what sales volume would 

be an appropriate threshold. 

7
Glider Manufacturers

The Panel recognizes that EPA would like to reduce the use of glider kits, which have higher 

emissions of criteria pollutants like NOx than current engines, and which could have higher GHG 

emissions than Phase 2 engines. However, the Panel believes that the number of vehicles produced 

by these small businesses is too small to have a substantial impact on the total heavy-duty inventory. 

The Panel also believes that there should be an allowance to produce some number of glider kits for 

legitimate purposes, such as for newer vehicles badly damaged in crashes. The Panel therefore 

recommends proposing an explicit allowance for existing small businesses to continue assembling 

glider vehicles without having to comply with the GHG requirements. The Panel recommends that 

any other limitations on glider production be flexible enough to allow sales levels as high as the peak 

levels in the 2010-2012 timeframe. 

 

8

Final Report 

of the 

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel 

on EPA’s Planned Proposed Rule

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel 

Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles: Phase 2

January 15, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1

2 Background............................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Background and Regulatory History..................................................................... 2

2.2 Description of the Rule and its Scope ................................................................... 3

2.3 Related Federal Rules............................................................................................ 4

3 Overview of Proposal Under Consideration........................................................................... 6

3.1 Potential Requirements and Guidelines of the Proposal ....................................... 6

3.1.1 Engines............................................................................................................ 6

3.1.2 Tractors............................................................................................................ 6

3.1.3 Vocational Vehicle Chassis............................................................................. 7

3.1.4 Complete Pickup Trucks and Vans................................................................. 7

3.1.5 Trailers ............................................................................................................ 7

4 Applicable Small Entity Definitions....................................................................................... 8

5 Small Entities that May Be Subject to the Proposed Regulation............................................ 8

6 Summary of Small entity Outreach......................................................................................... 9

6.1 Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting with Potential Small Entity Representatives ........ 10

6.1.1 Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting Summary......................................................... 11

6.2 SBAR Panel Outreach to Small Entity Representatives..................................... 12

6.2.1 Trailer Manufacturers.................................................................................... 12

6.2.2 Alternative Fuel Engine Converters.............................................................. 15

6.2.3 Vocational Vehicle Chassis Manufacturers .................................................. 16

7 List of Small Entity Representatives..................................................................................... 17

8 Summary of Comments from Small Entity Representatives................................................ 18

8.1 Summary of Written Comments Following Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting ......... 18

8.1.1 Trailer Manufacturers.................................................................................... 18

8.1.2 Vocational Vehicle Chassis Manufacturers .................................................. 20

8.1.3 Alternative Fuel Engine Manufacturers........................................................ 20

8.2 Summary of Written Comments following Panel Outreach Meeting................. 22

ii
8.2.1 Trailer Manufacturers.................................................................................... 22

8.2.2 Alternative Fuel Engine Converters.............................................................. 28

8.2.3 Vocational Chassis Manufacturers................................................................ 33

8.2.4 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens.................... 34

8.2.5 Suggested Flexibilities.................................................................................. 34

9 Panel Findings and Discussion ............................................................................................. 35

9.1 Number and Types of Entities Affected.............................................................. 35

9.2 General Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens ............ 35

9.3 Trailers ................................................................................................................ 35

9.3.1 Feasibility of Proposed Technologies........................................................... 35

9.3.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens.................... 36

9.3.3 Suggested Flexibilities.................................................................................. 37

9.4 Alternative Fuel Engine Converters.................................................................... 39

9.4.1 Feasibility of Proposed Technologies........................................................... 39

9.4.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens.................... 40

9.4.3 Suggested Flexibilities.................................................................................. 40

9.5 Vocational Chassis Manufacturers...................................................................... 41

9.5.1 Feasibility of Proposed Technologies........................................................... 41

9.5.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens.................... 41

9.5.3 Suggested Flexibilities.................................................................................. 41

Appendix A ................................................................................................. A1

Appendix B ................................................................................................. B1

iii
1 INTRODUCTION

This report is presented by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel or Panel) 

convened for the proposed rulemaking “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards 

for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles: Phase 2” (or “Phase 2”) that is currently being 

developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under section 609(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), EPA must convene a Panel prior to publication of the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that the agency may be required to prepare under the RFA. In 

addition to EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chairperson, this particular Panel consists of the 

Director of the Assessment and Standards Division of the EPA Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of 

Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration.

This report includes the following:

• Background information on the proposed rule being developed;

• Information on the types of small entities that would be subject to the proposed rule;

• A description of efforts made to obtain the advice and recommendations of representatives of 

those small entities; and

• A summary of the comments that have been received to date from those representatives.

Section 609(b) of the RFA directs the Panel to report on the comments of small entity 

representatives and make findings on issues related to elements of an IRFA under section 603 of the 

RFA. Those elements of an IRFA are:

• A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the 

proposed rule will apply;

• A description of projected reporting, record keeping, and other compliance requirements of 

the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject 

to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report

or record;

• An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule;

• A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities. This analysis shall discuss any significant alternatives such 

as:

o the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that 

take into account the resources available to small entities;

o the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting 

requirements under the rule for such small entities;

o the use of performance rather than design standards; and

1
o an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.

Once completed, the Panel Report is submitted to the EPA Administrator and is included in 

the rulemaking record. EPA considers the Panel’s findings when completing the draft of the 

proposed rule. In light of the Panel Report, and where appropriate, EPA also considers whether 

changes are needed to the IRFA for the proposed rule or the decision on whether an IRFA is 

required.

The Panel’s findings and discussion are based on the information available at the time the 

final Panel Report is drafted. EPA will continue to conduct analyses relevant to the proposed rule, 

and additional information may be developed or obtained during the remainder of the rule 

development process.

Any options identified by the Panel for reducing the rule’s regulatory impact on small entities 

may require further analysis and/or data collection to ensure that the options are practicable, 

enforceable, environmentally sound, and consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and its 

amendments. 

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Background and Regulatory History

Heavy-duty vehicles are classified as those with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 

greater than 8,500 lb. Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) allows EPA to regulate new 

vehicles and new engines by prescribing emission standards for pollutants which the Administrator 

finds “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” In 2009, EPA found that 

six greenhouse gases (GHGs) were anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, and new motor 

vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to that pollution. 

Acting under the authority of the CAA, EPA, in a joint rulemaking with National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), set the first phase of heavy-duty vehicle GHG standards 

(Phase 1) and specified certification requirements for emissions of four GHGs emitted by mobile 

sources: carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFC)

in a final rule, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and HeavyDuty Engines and Vehicles,” issued in September 2011. These rules marked the first greenhouse gas 

emissions (GHGs) and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines, 

and together comprise a national program for fuel efficiency and GHG reductions for these vehicles 

and engines. The program addressed heavy-duty’s increasing GHG contribution and fuel 

consumption increases through the adoption of performance-based standards that allowed 

manufacturers to determine the optimal mix of technologies to achieve the necessary reductions for 

their vehicle fleets and engines. The standards phase in from model year (MY) 2014 through MY 

2018 (NHTSA’s fuel efficiency standards being voluntary during the first two of the model years) 

and remain fixed beyond MY 2018 until the next phase of regulations adjust that standard. 

Manufacturers meeting the applicable small business criteria in 13 CFR 121.201 were not subject to 

the GHG emissions standards in Phase 1. 

2
Due to the diversity of products in the heavy-duty vehicle/engines industries, the Phase 1 rule 

divided heavy-duty vehicles into three regulatory categories: heavy-duty pick-up trucks and vans 

(Class 2b and 3), vocational vehicle chassis (Class 2b – Class 8), and combination tractors (Class 7 

and 8). In addition, the engines of the vocational vehicle chassis and combination tractors were 

regulated separately. Vocational body manufacturers, trailer manufacturers, fleet owners, and truck 

owner/operators were not regulated in Phase 1.

Class 2b and 3 pick-up trucks and vans weigh less than 14,000 lb GVWR and are sold by 

vehicle manufacturers as complete vehicles. Under Phase 1, these pick-up trucks and vans are 

certified by their manufacturers as complete vehicles using amended vehicle test procedures from 

EPA’s existing program for emissions such as NOx and PM for these vehicles.

Vocational vehicles frequently begin as incomplete chassis that can be used for a number of 

vocational applications. Chassis manufacturers install engines and transmissions and sell the chassis 

to final stage body manufacturers who add appropriate features for the vehicles’ final end-use (e.g., 

dump bed, delivery box, or utility bucket). 

Combination tractor manufacturers build their own tractor chassis and bodies and install an 

engine and transmission. The engines are either the manufacturers’ own or purchased from a 

separate engine manufacturer. The rule also created a new vehicle certification and compliance 

program for tractor manufacturers and vocational chassis manufacturers, which relies on a computer 

simulation of vehicle CO2 emissions rather than emissions testing. EPA did not establish standards 

for new trailers and trailer manufacturers were not regulated in Phase 1. 

The Phase 1 rule also required that engines used in heavy-duty vehicles greater than 14,000 

lb GVWR be separately certified by their manufacturers to meet CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions 

standards using the same test procedures used to certify engines for other pollutants (NOx, PM, etc.). 

Phase 1 created separate GHG emissions standards for spark-ignition (traditionally gasoline-fueled) 

and compression-ignition (traditionally diesel-fueled) engines. 

Alternative fuel engine converters, who obtain incomplete engines and install fuel systems to allow 

the engine to run on alternative fuels, were required to meet the applicable engine standard based on 

the architecture of the base engine. 

2.2 Description of the Rule and its Scope

The Administration’s 2013 Climate Action Plan instructed EPA and NHTSA to “once again 

partner with industry leaders and other key stakeholders to develop post-2018 fuel economy 

standards for heavy-duty vehicles.” On February 18, 2014, the President further directed EPA and 

NHTSA to finalize these standards by March 31, 2016.

Similar to the Phase 1 rule, the proposed Phase 2 rule would significantly reduce GHG 

emissions associated with the transportation of goods across the United States post-2018. Phase 2 

may include changes to existing engine and vehicle GHG standards, as well as regulatory standards 

and certification requirements for previously-unregulated new trailers pulled by semi-tractors. If 

such a rule is adopted, manufacturers of heavy-duty engines, chassis, vehicles and trailers could be 

3
required to incorporate GHG-reducing and fuel-saving technologies. Many of these technologies are 

available in the marketplace already, but some may still be in development at this time.

Phase 2 will build upon the requirements in Phase 1 and could generally rely on the same 

basic certification and compliance structure. As part of the proposed rulemaking, EPA may consider 

increased stringency of engine and vehicle emissions standards based on engine and vehicle 

manufacturers’ current projections of technology use, as well as EPA’s own assessment of the 

penetration of existing emission-control technologies and potential for application of new, emerging 

technologies.

Manufacturers meeting the applicable small business criteria in 13 CFR 121.201 were not 

subject to the GHG emissions standards in Phase 1. EPA does not intend to extend such broad

exemptions into Phase 2, but EPA may replace them with limited and targeted flexibilities. The 

recommendations outlined in this SBAR Panel Report will be used to identify and implement 

appropriate flexibilities for these small businesses.

2.3 Related Federal Rules

The proposed Phase 2 rule under consideration builds on EPA’s Phase 1 GHG and fuel 

efficiency rule (Federal Register Vol. 76, p. 57106, September 15, 2011). In addition, manufacturers 

are required to comply with all current standards set by EPA and other Federal and State agencies. 

EPA identified several standards related to the industries affected by this proposed rulemaking. 

These are listed in Table 1. 

The Panel recognizes that there is the potential for a tension between technologies to improve 

fuel efficiency and some other Federal mandates, such as NHTSA safety regulations, EPA emissions 

standards for criteria pollutants, and EPA transportation fuel blending requirements for biofuels. 

EPA sought information from SERs on many of these tensions and flexibilities that could aid small 

businesses in complying with these multiple mandates and will continue to seek comment on them in 

the rulemaking development process. Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of the manufacturers to 

ensure that they continue to meet these requirements when adopting new technologies and strategies 

for the proposed Phase 2 rulemaking. 

4
Table 1: Federal and State regulations related to the industries impacted by this rulemaking

Agency Rule Title

EPA

40 CFR 85 Control of Air Pollution from Mobile Sources

40 CFR 86 Control of Air Pollution from New and In-Use Highway Vehicles and 

Engines

40 CFR 600 Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission of Motor 

Vehicles

40 CFR 1036 Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Heavy-Duty Highway 

Engines

40 CFR 1037 Control of Emissions from New Heavy-Duty Motor Vehicles

40 CFR 1039 Control of Emissions from New and In-Use NonRoad CompressionIgnition Engines

40 CFR 1065 Engine-Testing Procedures

40 CFR 1066 Vehicle Testing Procedures

40 CFR 1068 General Compliance Provisions for Highway, Stationary, and Nonroad 

Programs

California ARB AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006

NHTSA

49 CFR 523 Vehicle Classification

49 CFR 534 Rights and Responsibilities of Manufacturers in the Context of 

Changes in Corporate Relationships

49 CFR 535 Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Program

49 CFR 565 Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) Requirements

49 CFR 566 Manufacturer Identification

49 CFR 567 Certification

49 CFR 568 Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages

49 CFR 569 Regrooved Tires

49 CFR 573, 577, 579 Defect and Noncompliance 

49 CFR 574 Tire Identification and Recordkeeping

49 CFR 575 Consumer Information

49 CFR 576 Record Retention

FMVSS 106 Brake Hoses

FMVSS 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

FMVSS 119 New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars

FMVSS 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger 

Cars

FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems

FMVSS 223 Rear Impact Guards

FMVSS 224 Rear Impact Protection

FMVSS 303 Fuel System Integrity of Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles

FMVSS 304 Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity

FHWA

23 USC 127 Vehicle Weight Limitations – Interstate System

23 CFR 657 Certification of Size and Weight Enforcement

23 CFR 658 Truck Size and Weight, Route Designations – Length, Width and 

Weight Limitations

5
3 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSAL UNDER CONSIDERATION

3.1 Potential Requirements and Guidelines of the Proposal

Building on the Phase 1 rule, this proposed Phase 2 rule will significantly reduce GHG 

emissions associated with the transportation of goods across the United States post-2018. The 

proposed Phase 2 rulemaking considers changes to existing engine and vehicle GHG standards, as 

well as regulatory standards and certification requirements for previously-unregulated new trailers 

pulled by semi-tractors. If such a rule is adopted, manufacturers of heavy-duty engines, chassis, 

vehicles and trailers could be required to incorporate GHG-reducing and fuel-saving technologies in 

order to comply with EPA’s performance-based standards. The proposed Phase 2 standards would 

represent a more technology-forcing approach than the Phase 1 approach, effectively requiring 

manufacturers to apply both off-the-shelf technologies and potentially technologies still under 

development. Unlike the Phase 1 rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to exempt small businesses 

from the Phase 2 proposal.

3.1.1 Engines

EPA is proposing to continue the basic Phase 1 structure for the Phase 2 engine standards. 

There would be separate standards and test cycles for tractor engines, vocational diesel engines, and 

vocational gasoline engines, including a proposed revision to the test cycle for tractor engines to 

better reflect actual in-use operation. EPA is proposing more stringent standards for all on-highway 

diesel engines and gasoline engines used in pickup trucks and vans in the Class 2b and 3 weight

categories. EPA is not planning to propose more stringent standards for gasoline engines used in 

vocational vehicles. In Phase 2, alternative fuel converters will continue to be subject to engine and 

vehicle standards for GHG emissions. Small business alternative fuel converters of new engines may 

also be required to report and/or certify their engines and vehicles meet the GHG standards in 

addition to criteria pollutants.

3.1.2 Tractors

EPA is proposing to largely continue the Phase 1 tractor program but to propose new 

standards. EPA projects that the proposed tractor standards could be met through improvements in 

the engine, transmission, driveline, aerodynamic design, lower rolling resistance tires, extended idle 

reduction technologies, and other accessories of the tractor. EPA’s evaluation shows that some of 

these technologies are available today, but have very low adoption rates on current vehicles, while 

others will require some lead time for development. Similar to Phase 1, EPA is proposing to use the 

Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) vehicle simulation tool as the “test procedure” to certify 

the complete tractors. The proposed rule will include several updates to this model, including new 

vehicle categories, simulated test cycle improvements, and recognition of additional technologies. 

EPA is not aware of any tractor manufacturers who are small businesses.

6
3.1.3 Vocational Vehicle Chassis

EPA is proposing to revise the Phase 1 vocational vehicle program and propose new 

standards. These proposed standards also reflect further sub categorization from Phase 1, with 

separate proposed standards based on mode of operation: urban, rural, and multi-purpose. EPA is

also proposing alternative standards for certain low-volume emergency vehicles. EPA projects that 

the proposed vocational vehicle standards could be met through improvements in the engine, 

transmission, driveline, lower rolling resistance tires, workday idle reduction technologies, and 

weight reduction. In Phase 1, EPA adopted air conditioning (A/C) refrigerant leakage standards for 

tractors, as well as heavy-duty pickups and vans, but not for vocational vehicles. However, EPA 

now believes that it would be feasible to apply similar A/C refrigerant leakage standards for

vocational vehicles in the Phase 2 proposal. Small business vocational vehicle chassis 

manufacturers may be required to report and/or certify their chassis meet the Phase 2 GHG 

standards.

Gliders are new truck chassis that are intended to be combined with used engines, 

transmissions and/or axles. Traditionally, gliders were produced to improve vehicles damaged in 

accidents or those that lost function with age. In these cases, often much of the powertrain was in 

working condition and gliders were a way to avoid the purchase of a completely new vehicle. Prior 

to 2011, fewer than 1000 glider kits were produced per year. In 2011 and 2012, sales spiked to 

almost 4000 per year. Many of the glider kits use pre-2002 engines, which have low fuel 

consumption and CO2 emissions compared to current engines (the primary focus of this proposed 

rulemaking), but higher NOx and PM than current engines. EPA plans to include glider 

manufacturers in the vocational vehicle chassis manufacturer requirements in Phase 2.

3.1.4 Complete Pickup Trucks and Vans

EPA is proposing to adopt new Phase 2 GHG emission and fuel consumption standards for 

complete heavy-duty pickups and vans that would be applied in largely the same manner as the 

Phase 1 standards. These standards would effectively require the use of most existing technologies, 

but would stop short of requiring significant use of strong hybrid powertrain technology or lean-burn 

gasoline direct injection (GDI). EPA is not aware of any small businesses who manufacture heavyduty pickup trucks or vans. 

3.1.5 Trailers

EPA is, for the first time, proposing a set of GHG (as CO2) emission and fuel consumption 

standards for manufacturers of new trailers pulled by Class 7 and 8 tractors. The proposed standards 

would gradually require trailer manufacturers to achieve incrementally greater aerodynamic and/or 

tire improvements and cover more trailer types as the program phases in. Many of the existing CO2-

reducing technologies have been evaluated and verified through EPA’s SmartWay Transport 

Partnership. Adoption of and demand for these technologies continues to rise due to fleet 

participation in the voluntary SmartWay program, as well as enactment of California’s Assembly 

Bill 32 (AB32), which required aerodynamic equipment and lower-rolling resistance tires on most 

tractors and trailers operating in California. Many trailer manufacturers are small businesses. 

7
EPA is proposing that Phase 2 regulate manufacturers of on-highway dry van and 

refrigerated van (reefer) trailers. These trailer types constitute over 60% of the heavy-duty truck 

trailer market and have the greatest potential for application of aerodynamic technologies to reduce 

CO2 emissions. Container chassis, which are used to transport intermodal containers, as well as some 

configurations of flatbed and tank trailers, could also be considered for inclusion in the aerodynamic 

requirements of the regulation. EPA is also considering requirements for tire technologies (e.g., 

lower-rolling resistance tires and automatic inflation systems) on nearly all on-highway trailers. 

Similar to the tractor program, trailers would not be expected to measure CO2 emissions through 

testing. Instead, EPA’s vehicle simulation model, GEM, would be used to calculate an emissions 

rate. Some testing is expected to be required to obtain the inputs needed for the vehicle model.

4 APPLICABLE SMALL ENTITY DEFINITIONS

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) defines small entities as including “small businesses,” 

“small governments,” and “small organizations” (5 USC 601) and references the Small Business Act 

for the definition of “small businesses” using size standards based on the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) (13 CFR 121.201). The standards being considered by EPA for this 

rulemaking are expected to affect a variety of small businesses. A listing of the NAICS codes 

identified as relevant to the potential rulemaking, along with their respective SBA size thresholds, is 

located in Table 2 in Section 5, below.

5 SMALL ENTITIES THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED 

REGULATION

EPA expects the same industries affected by the Phase 1 rulemaking will also be affected by 

the proposed Phase 2 rulemaking. In addition, small businesses and trailer manufacturers are also 

expected to be included in the proposed Phase 2 rule. EPA used the criteria for small entities 

developed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as a guide to identifying Small Entity 

Representatives (SERs) for this proposed rulemaking. Table 2 below lists industries potentially 

directly affected by the regulation. The NAICS Code and size threshold are shown as well. 

Table 2: Industry Sectors Potentially Affected by EPA’s Planned Action

Industry Expected in 

Rulemaking

NAICS 

Code

NAICS 

Description

SBA Size 

Threshold

Alternative Fuel 

Engine Converters

333999 Misc. General Purpose Machinery 500 employees

811198 All Other Auto Repair & Maintenance $7.0M (annual receipts)

HD Pick-up Trucks & Vans 336111 Automobile Manufacturing 1,000 employees

Vocational Chassis, 

Class 7 & 8 Tractors 336120 Heavy-Duty Truck Manufacturing 1,000 employees

Trailers

336212 Truck Trailer Manufacturing 500 employees

333924 Ind. Truck, Trailer & Stacker Machinery 750 employees

HD Engines 336310 Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine & Engine 

Parts 750 employees

8
Using this information, with EPA’s certification data and employment information from the 

Hoover’s Online business information database, EPA determined that only three of these affected 

industries contained small businesses: vocational chassis manufacturers, alternative fuel engine 

converters and trailer manufacturers, as described below. EPA believes there are about 115 trailer 

manufacturers and 100 of these manufacturers qualify as small entities with 500 employees or less. 

EPA identified 21 alternative fuel engine converters from previous certification data and 18 of these 

converters are considered small entities. Currently, 20 manufacturers who make chassis for 

vocational vehicles certify with EPA under the Phase 1 program. Three vocational chassis 

manufacturers contacted EPA to request an exemption from Phase 1 based on their small entity 

status. Gliders are a subset of vehicles is being considered for regulation under the proposed Phase 2 

rulemaking. Glider manufacturers traditionally manufacture new vehicle bodies (vocational vehicles 

or Class 7 and 8 tractors) for use with older powertrains. EPA is aware of four glider manufacturers 

and three are small entities. 

6 SUMMARY OF SMALL ENTITY OUTREACH

Before beginning the formal SBREFA process, EPA actively engaged in outreach with 

entities that would potentially be affected by the upcoming rulemaking. EPA held phone conferences 

and face-to-face meetings with many of these companies to discuss the upcoming proposed 

rulemaking and to provide these contacts with an early opportunity to ask questions and discuss their 

concerns with the upcoming rulemaking.

Prior to convening the Panel, EPA conducted outreach with small entities that will potentially 

be affected by these regulations. On April 2, 2014, EPA issued a press release to solicit potential 

small entity representatives (SERs) to participate. Eleven eligible representatives from eight small 

businesses or organizations volunteered to participate as potential SERs. Two additional SERs 

volunteered later in the process.

EPA conducted a meeting and teleconference with potential small entity representatives

(SERs) on June 19, 2014. This outreach meeting was held to solicit feedback from the potential 

SERs on their suggestions for the upcoming rulemaking. To help these entities prepare for the 

meeting and teleconference, EPA sent materials on June 5, 2014 to each of the potential SERs via 

email. A list of the materials shared with the potential SERs during the pre-Panel outreach meeting is 

contained in Appendix A. For the June 19, 2014 pre-Panel outreach meeting with the potential SERs, 

EPA also invited representatives from the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 

and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget. 

A total of 10 potential SERs participated in the pre-Panel outreach meeting. EPA presented an 

overview of the SBREFA process, an explanation of Phase 1 and the planned rulemaking, and other 

background information. EPA asked the potentials SERs to provide written comments by July 7, 

2014. Comments discussed during the June 19 outreach meeting and written comments submitted by 

the potential SERs are summarized in Section 8 of this document.

9
The Panel convened on October 22, 2014 and EPA distributed additional information to the 

SERs for their review and comment in preparation for another outreach meeting. On November 5-6, 

2014, the Panel met with the SERs to discuss the outreach materials and receive feedback on EPA’s 

proposed approaches and possible flexibilities detailed in the outreach packets. The first meeting 

was held on November 5, 2014 for trailer manufacturers, followed by two separate meetings on 

November 6, 2014 with the alternative fuel engine converters and vocational chassis manufactures. 

The Panel also met with trailer manufacturer SERs on October 28, 2014, prior to the official meeting 

on November 5. The SERs were asked to provide written feedback on ideas under consideration for 

the proposed rulemaking and responses to questions regarding their experience with existing CO2-

reducing technologies. The Panel received written comments from the SERs in response to the 

discussions at these meetings and we have summarized them in Section 8. Their full written 

comments are also attached (see Appendix B). In light of these discussions and comments, the Panel 

considered the regulatory flexibility issues specified by RFA/SBREFA and developed the findings 

and discussion summarized below.

6.1 Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting with Potential Small Entity Representatives

A Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting was conducted for the potential Small Entity Representatives. 

The meeting included an overview of the Panel Process lead by EPA’s Office of Policy. The 

program office, EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, delivered a presentation 

introducing the proposed Phase 2 Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards, followed by 

questions and a discussion. 

Meeting Attendance

• Lanelle Wiggins, EPA Office of Policy (OP)

• Peter Nagelhout, EPA-OP

• Jessica L. Brakora, EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ)

• Glenn W. Passavant, EPA-OTAQ

• Tad Wysor, EPA-OTAQ

• Nathan Ranns, ORISE Intern for the EPA-OTAQ

• David Rostker, SBA Office of Advocacy (OA)

• Charley Maresca, SBA-OA

• Christine Kymn, SBA-OA

• Chad Whiteman, OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)

• Karen Teslovich, CNG One Source, Inc. 

• Jan Hoover, Diamatrix (phone)

• Fred Pearson, E-One, Inc. (phone)

• Bradley Shrock, E-One, Inc. (phone)

• Adam Jump, Indiana-Phoenix, Inc. (phone)

• Neil Johnson, Spartan Truck Company (phone)

• Andy Suhy, Power Solutions International, Inc. (phone)

• Bill Harp, Engine Certification Organization (representing CleanFUEL USA and 

helping Power Solutions International, Inc.) (phone)

10
• Jeff Sims, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (phone)

• John Freiler, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (phone)

6.1.1 Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting Summary

Lanelle Wiggins of EPA’s Office of Policy delivered a presentation titled “An Overview of 

the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Process”. David Rostker of SBA’s Office of Advocacy

emphasized the goals of the Panel and the role of the SERs in the process. Jessica Brakora of the 

program office (EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality) delivered a presentation titled 

“Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Rule (Phase 2) – SBAR Pre-Panel Outreach 

Meeting”. The presentation offered an overview of the Phase 1 regulation, a timeline of the Phase 2 

program, and expected details of the new rulemaking.

EPA was asked when the NPRM for Phase 2 is expected, and EPA responded that it is 

expected in March 2015. When asked if regulated entities would have to comply with both the EPA 

and NHTSA regulations separately or together, EPA noted that EPA houses the certification process 

for both and that when an entity certifies with EPA, the information is transferred to NHTSA, so

complying with one indicates compliance with the other.

A trailer manufacturer asked if the criteria for trailer regulations would be the reduction of 

CO2, a drag coefficient, or something else, and EPA described that the input to the vehicle 

simulation would be a drag coefficient and rolling resistance value and that the result that is shared 

with EPA is a CO2 emissions rate (g/ton-mi).

A vocational chassis manufacturer asked EPA if it would be able to trade credits between 

divisions if they fall into different segments of the regulations. SBA asked the manufacturer to 

notify the Panel of how an ABT program could best work for its product line. 

An alternative fuel converter asked if small companies could sell credits to large 

manufacturers to help them comply. EPA responded that conceptually, yes. However, the potential 

ABT program needs to be evaluated and the potential issue of “windfall credits” needs to be 

considered. SBA added that trading to a competitor is rare in ABT programs since it gives an

advantage to competitors. Averaging and banking of credits is generally more valuable for 

companies.

An alternative fuel converter stated the importance of knowing what requirements are in the 

works as soon as possible to minimize the number of times operations are adjusted to comply. OMB 

asked EPA to consider existing renewable fuel standards when developing the Phase 2 program. 

SBA asked EPA to elaborate on whether it is thinking of promulgating different standards for 

different fuel types or a single standard for each engine class. EPA replied that the Phase 1 

standards were by engine type only. For Phase 2, it is still under consideration whether specific 

rules for specific fuels will be developed.

11
6.2 SBAR Panel Outreach to Small Entity Representatives

6.2.1 Trailer Manufacturers

Since the trailer industry as a whole has never been regulated by EPA, the Panel wanted to 

ensure that the SERs had a thorough understanding of the materials in order to facilitate a 

constructive meeting during the official Panel Outreach meeting on to be held on November 5. On 

October 28, 2014, the Panel offered a supplementary outreach meeting for the trailer SERs via 

conference call and video conference. The purpose of the meeting was to present the materials and 

answer any clarifying questions regarding the materials or the Panel process. 

6.2.1.1 Summary of the Supplementary Meeting, October 28

Meeting Attendance

• Lanelle Wiggins, EPA Office of Policy (OP)

• Bill Charmley, EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ)

• David Rostker, SBA Office of Advocacy

• Chad Whiteman, OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)

• Jessica Brakora, EPA OTAQ

• Tad Wysor, EPA OTAQ

• Tia Sutton, EPA OTAQ

• Dennis Johnson, EPA OTAQ

• Peter Nagelhout, EPA OP

• Steve Silverman, EPA Office of General Council (OGC)

• Patrick Delehanty, SBA Office of Advocacy

• Jan Hoover, Diamatrix/Strick

• John Freiler, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

• Jeff Thompson, Timpte

• Steven Fairbanks, XL Specialized Trailers

• Shannon Richardson, XL Specialized Trailers

• David de Poincy, East Manufacturing

During the meeting, EPA presented the materials and solicited feedback on topics that could 

be further expanded during the official Outreach Meeting. SBA encouraged the SERs to provide 

specific information about their products physical characteristic and use patterns to help EPA 

effectively identify appropriate flexibilities and exemptions if necessary. Following the meeting, 

two SERs provided feedback to guide the discussion during the November 5 meeting. 

The SER from Diamatrix/Strick provided descriptions of some trailer characteristics that my 

not be amenable to the technologies listed in the materials and asked for more information on how 

trailer families would be defined. He believes testing would be a “huge expense” and that his 

company would benefit from a chance to pick from approved devices. He asked for clarification on 

12
what is required during each stage of the certification process in order to determine the amount of 

time and resources that would be required. He also confirmed that he would like access to the GEM 

simulation tool to test its functionality. In terms of the record keeping, he asked what type of data 

was required and how long the records were required to be kept. Finally, he stated that he would 

appreciate a workshop similar to the one held for tractors in Phase 1 in order to better prepare his 

company for regulation.

The SER from Timpte also sent comments prior to the Outreach Meeting. He described his 

company and product line and his experience with the technologies listed in the materials. He noted 

that he was unsure how well the technologies would be accepted by his customers and that each 

trailer is custom built and that their customers “are reluctant to allow us to add anything to the trailer 

that they didn’t specify.” He is also concerned that significant changes to the products may cause his 

customers to delay purchasing the products, particularly for aerodynamic devices. Requirements to 

install new components could require additional space in their facility as well as a need to hire more 

employees, which can be difficult in their rural community.

6.2.1.2 Outreach Meeting, November 5

Meeting Attendance

• Lanelle Wiggins, EPA Office of Policy

• Bill Charmley, EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality

• David Rostker, SBA Office of Advocacy

• Chad Whiteman, OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

• Jessica Brakora, EPA OTAQ

• Tad Wysor, EPA OTAQ

• Tia Sutton, EPA OTAQ

• Chuck Moulis, EPA OTAQ

• Patrick Delehanty, SBA Office of Advocacy

• Karl Simon, EPA OTAQ

• Dennis Johnson, EPA OTAQ

• Nathan Ranns, ORISE intern with EPA OTAQ

• Peter Nagelhout, EPA OP

• Steve Silverman, EPA OGC

• Joan Rogers, EPA Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP)

• Jan Hoover, Diamatrix/Strick (by phone)

• John Freiler, TTMA (by phone)

• Steven Fairbanks, XL Specialized Trailers (by phone)

• Shannon Richardson, XL Specialized Trailers (by phone)

• David dePoincy, East Manufacturing (by phone)

• Andy Grove, East Manufacturing (by phone)

• Gary Christen, E.D. Etynre (by phone)

13
During the Trailer SER Outreach Meeting, EPA’s Office of Policy described the Panel 

process and the role of the SERs. The remaining portion of the alloted time was used for discussion 

of the materials. Diamatrix/Strick asked if businesses could have an opportunity to report to EPA 

more frequently than once at the end of the year to ensure their accounting was correct. EPA offered 

that it was possible to allow more frequent check-in opportunities if a company found value in them, 

though it would only require a single official report at the end of the year. 

Several SERs asked for clarification of the “model year” definition and EPA explained the 

definition that is used for many of its regulatory programs. Most manufacturers’ current model year 

strategies fit EPA’s definition, though many agreed that a regulatory model year that aligned with a 

calendar year manufacture date would be the easiest to understand. 

In terms of technologies, two of the SERs who make flatbed and specialty trailers noted that 

very few LRR tires were available in the sizes and ratings required for their trailers’ applications. 

Many of the SERs had experience with automatic tire inflation (ATI) systems, but they commented 

that they most certainly did not get the same prices that the larger manufacturers were receiving. 

They also mentioned that some ATI systems are only compatible with certain suspension systems 

and were not always interchangeable with the specifications of a given trailer. 

XL Specialized was concerned about ABT, since his company produced small volumes of 

just flatbeds. If a company produced dry vans or reefers that got a lot of credits, that company might 

be able to put zero technologies on their flatbeds. EPA stated that ABT averaging sets could be 

restrictive (e.g., flatbeds only) or very broad and requested the SERs provide feedback on their 

preference, since some companies may prefer to have very broad averaging sets. 

East Manufacturing, who manufacturers bulk commodity trailers, commented that their 

trailers are not in EPA’s SmartWay program and XL Specialized confirmed the same for his 

flatbeds. Diamatrix/Strick noted his concern with testing and that he would prefer a vender-based 

option. East agreed that testing would be difficult to do. They sell so limited volumes of highly 

variable trailers and it would be difficult to group them to test. 

Timpte asked how trailer families would be developed. EPA responded that trailers would 

be grouped based on their design and the performance they could achieve. The tractor program 

allowed families to be grouped according to the devices that were added. EPA requested 

descriptions of the SERs technologies (noting EPA’s strict CBI provisions) and asked for objective 

physical characteristics that may help distinguish the trailers’ use patterns. 

Finally, the SERs commented that ATI systems seemed to be available to meet their current 

demand. LRR tires are less available in some applications. SBA asked if they provide tires or if 

the customers choose them. East noted that its standard option has “tried-and-true” options at a good 

cost. Some customers will request other tires for specific needs, but there is not a lot of demand for 

LRR tires on East’s trailers. Timpte commented that the tire manufacturers started in the van market 

where there is the most demand and it is just now trickling down to the other trailer sectors. 

14
6.2.2 Alternative Fuel Engine Converters

6.2.2.1 Summary of the Outreach Meeting, November 6

Meeting Attendance

• Lanelle Wiggins, EPA Office of Policy (OP)

• Bill Charmley, EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ)

• David Rostker, SBA Office of Advocacy (Advocacy)

• Chad Whiteman, OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)

• Jessica Brakora, EPA OTAQ

• Tad Wysor, EPA OTAQ

• Tia Sutton, EPA OTAQ

• Chuck Moulis, EPA OTAQ

• Alan Stout, EPA OTAQ

• Patrick Delehanty, SBA Advocacy

• Peter Nagelhout, EPA OP

• Paula Hoag, EPA, Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP)

• Michael DeGain, Engine Certification Organization (by phone)

• Todd Trauman, Engine Certification Organization (by phone)

• Josh Pietek, Engine Certification Organization (by phone)

• Karen Teslovich, CNG One Source (by phone)

• Andy Suhy, Power Solutions International (by phone)

The Outreach Meeting for Alternative Fuel Engine Converter (AFC) SERs began with a 

presentation by EPA’s Office of Policy describing the Panel process and the role of the SERs. EPA 

then stepped through the meeting materials. The SER from PSI asked if it was possible to trade 

credits from natural gas (NG) engines with gasoline or diesel engines in an ABT system. EPA 

responded that there is nothing restricting EPA from allowing a very broad definition of averaging 

sets, particularly for small businesses. PSI commented that he did not support a lower standard for 

natural gas engines as was suggested in the NAS report. He felt that it negated any advantage that 

they might have with their NG engines. CNG One Source commented that their company also does 

not support lower standards for NG with no lower standards for the other alternative fuels. She 

highlighted that it is already difficult for them as a small business. 

The AFC SERs asked EPA to expand on the OBD requirements for NG engines. EPA 

responded that for Phase 1, OBD requirements were limited to leak detection in the evaporative 

system and did not require measurement of CO2 or methane. ECO stated that OBD requirements 

will be particularly difficult for converters since they do not have access to the algorithms developed 

by the base engine’s OEM. Small businesses in particular, who don’t have a direct connection with 

the large manufacturers, will have a difficult time writing new algorithms without access to the 

diagnostics from the OEM. CNG One Source stated that NHTSA already has leakage requirements 

for component failures tied to the pressure regulator and that other OBD requirements that are tied to 

15
fuel characteristics will be hard for NG engines, since the fuel is so variable depending on the 

source.

In terms of N2O requirements, ECO stated that currently labs are only just now getting set to 

measure N2O and he estimated that measurement from a contracted test facility could cost around 

$2000. Since there is little N2O expected from spark-ignition (SI) engines, he supports the use of 

“engineering analyses” to show that the N2O emissions are unchanged from a compliant base engine. 

However, a full waiver would be well received from the smalls his company represents. The SER 

from PSI commented that his company has control of the catalyst formulation for his compressionignition (CI) engines, but that he doesn’t expect much change from a compliant CI engine either. He 

would advocate for allowing the engineering analysis as well. PSI also asked if engine 

manufacturers could receive credit for hybrid technologies, such as start-stop, that are associated 

with the engine. EPA stated that currently hybrid technologies are recognized at the vehicle level, 

but it could be considered. 

The AFC SERs asked if they could participate in the vocational vehicle outreach meeting 

later in the afternoon and EPA responded that they were welcome to join the call.

6.2.3 Vocational Vehicle Chassis Manufacturers

6.2.3.1 Summary of the Outreach Meeting November 6

Meeting Attendance

• Lanelle Wiggins, EPA Office of Policy (OP)

• Bill Charmley, EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ)

• David Rostker, SBA Office of Advocacy (Advocacy)

• Chad Whiteman, OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)

• Jessica Brakora, EPA OTAQ

• Tad Wysor, EPA OTAQ

• Tia Sutton, EPA OTAQ

• Chuck Moulis, EPA OTAQ

• Lauren Steele, EPA OTAQ

• Patrick Delehanty, SBA Advocacy

• Peter Nagelhout, EPA OP

• Lillian Harris, EPA Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP)

• Adam Jump, Indiana-Phoenix (by phone)

• Kevin Kelly, Indiana-Phoenix (by phone)

• Rand Smith, Sutphen Corporation (by phone)

• Karen Teslovich, CNG One Source (by phone)

• Andy Suhy, Power Solutions International (by phone)

16
EPA’s Office of Policy presented a description of the Panel process and described the role of 

SERs to the vocational vehicle chassis manufacturers. Two of the AFC SERs were also in 

attendance for this meeting. EPA began by asking if the SERs were able to go through the materials 

prior to the meeting and they confirmed that did. The meeting began with SBA asking about the 

chassis manufacturers’ experience with LRR tires. Sutphen, the fire apparatus manufacturer SER, 

stated that LRR tires are the most appropriate technology for their industry. They do have special, 

knobby tires, but there are some LRR available. SBA recommended that the SERs provide written 

comments with how much of their production need non-LRR tires for their applications (off-road, 

snow, etc). 

In terms of transmissions, all fire trucks are automatics with PTO. Idle reduction is not 

feasible, because if they’re stopped, they’re in neutral. Sutphen has worked with axle manufacturers 

to improve gearing for performance (take-off and acceleration), but not for fuel economy. EPA 

noted that axle improvements could be through lubricants, which Sutphen responded would be easy 

to implement, but it doesn’t provide a very large improvement. APUs could be of use for on-scene 

applications, but those engines aren’t much cleaner. Hybrids do not have the power or PTO for 

emergency applications. Sutphen also noted that fire trucks shift from an axle driver to a pump 

driver and stay in gear to pump the water. Also, emergency vehicle purchase special engines and 

transmissions that have special calibrations for their applications. They are “certified” engines, but 

they were produced as part of the engine OEM’s ABT program. 

Indiana-Phoenix, the SER who manufacturers cement mixers, indicated that a hydraulic 

pump turns the drum through PTO and when it gets to the job site, the vehicle has to be at an 

elevated idle to move the shoot. He has asked tire manufacturers for LRR data, but they do not 

provide it to him. All of Indiana-Phoenix’s chassis use super single tires that are a cog-type tire. He 

asked the number of axles that would be represented in GEM. EPA responded that there would be a 

“representative” vehicle, which may not have the same number of axles, but it would not affect 

compliance if a company’s production has more or fewer. He noted that 100% of his chassis 

products are rear engines and that they may be on the highway to get to a construction site, but spend 

most of their time sitting. 

Both chassis SERs indicated that they believe they have limited ability to take advantage of 

ABT since their production volumes are so low and they sell very specific, custom chassis. SBA 

asked about air conditioning. Indiana-Phoenix stated that only about 10% of their sales ask for A/C 

and it takes about 20 feet of tubing to connect the A/C system from the rear engine to the cab. 

Sutphen said all of their fire trucks have A/C installed and they are very high capacity system. 

Neither company was familiar with the SAE J2727 leakage calculation standard for vehicles, but 

they committed to ask their engineers. 

7 LIST OF SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES

Table 3 lists the small entity representatives (SERs) that participated in the SBAR Panel for 

the Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Phase 2 proposed rulemaking. 

17
Table 3: List of Small Entity Representatives

Name Industry/Sector Business Name & Address

Michael DeGain, 

Bill Harp, Josh Pietak

Engine Certification

(on behalf of Engine Converter)

Engine Certification Organization

Rocklin, CA 95677

Karen Teslovich Alternative Fuel Engine Converter CNG One Source, Inc.

Erie, PA 16505

Andy Suhy Secondary Engine Manufacturer Power Solutions International, Inc.

Wood Dale, IL 60191

Adam Jump Vocational Chassis Manufacturer 

(Cement Mixer)

Indiana-Phoenix, Inc.

Avilla, IN 46710

Rand Smith Vocational Chassis Manufacturer

(Fire Apparatus Chassis)

Sutphen Corporation Chassis Division

Springfield, OH 45501

Jan Hoover Trailer Manufacturer 

(Dry Van, Container, Specialty)

Diamatrix

Fairless Hills, PA 19030

Neil Johnson Trailer Manufacturer 

(Transfer, Pup)

Spartan Truck Company

Sun Valley, CA 91352

Trey Gary Trailer Manufacturer 

(Flatbed, Dry Bulk)

Dorsey Trailer

Elba, AL 36323

Steven Fairbanks Trailer Manufacturer 

(Flatbed)

XL Specialized Trailers

Manchester, IA 52057

Jeff Thompson Trailer Manufacturer 

(Dump, Grain)

Timpte Inc.

Denver, CO 80203

Gary Christen Trailer Manufacturer

(Flatbed, Heavy-Haul)

E.D. Etnyre

Oregon, IL 61061

Dave de Poincy Trailer Manufacturer

(Flatbed, Dump, Refuse)

East Manufacturing

Randolph, OH 44265

Jeff Sims,

John Freiler Trailer Manufacturer Trade Assoc. Truck Trailer Manufacturers Assoc.

Gainesville, VA 20155

8 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM SMALL ENTITY 

REPRESENTATIVES

8.1 Summary of Written Comments Following Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting

At the conclusion of the Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting, potential SERs were asked to submit 

written questions and comments to EPA. Five of nine entities submitted written materials to EPA. 

The following subsections summarize these submissions.

8.1.1 Trailer Manufacturers

One trailer manufacturer submitted written comments to EPA following the Pre-Panel 

Outreach Meeting. EPA received comments from Diamatrix on July 1, 2014.

18
8.1.1.1 Feasibility of Proposed Technologies

Diamatrix (holding company for Strick Trailers and Evans Trailers) discussed its range of 

specialty trailers, including drop-frame dry freight van trailers and trailers with belly boxes that may 

not be compatible with currently available GHG-reducing technologies (side skirts, etc.). Diamatrix 

expressed that being required to implement these technologies on these trailer types could result in a 

compliance issue or increased burden on the company. It expects to both acquire technologies from 

vendors and develop its own technologies in-house. Diamatrix also stated that it does not have any 

experience with customer response to current California requirements. Diamatrix primarily has 

customers east of the Mississippi River.

8.1.1.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens

Diamatrix had several questions regarding EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM). 

It asked if computer simulation and GEM were synonymous and expressed interest in seeing a 

demonstration of the software. Diamatrix expressed interest in learning more about the program in 

general and the overall compliance process. Diamatrix also asked how the compliance workshop 

materials from Phase 1 contained in slide 37 of the Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting presentation related 

to trailers.

Diamatrix indicated a lack of understanding regarding the Averaging, Banking, and Trading 

(ABT) program. Diamatrix asked EPA to further explain this program and how it may affect trailer 

manufacturers. 

Diamatrix expressed that it is unsure of the upcoming rule’s full impact on its operations 

given the preliminary status of the process. However, Diamatrix did state that it anticipates unique 

legal, administrative and record keeping burdens as a result of compliance since it currently does not 

engage in any such reporting. 

Diamatrix also discussed the issue of finding space to store and install any new GHGreducing technologies that it may need to meet requirements. Diamatrix anticipates having to create 

a new space for these technologies, as well as increased labor. However, Diamatrix expressed that it 

anticipates passing these labor costs on to the customer.

Diamatrix did not foresee any sector-unique business or competitive issues and was unsure of 

which flexibilities could serve its operations best given the preliminary nature of the rulemaking 

process.

8.1.1.3 General Comments

Diamatrix shared concern regarding an NTSB recommendation that NHTSA proposes a 

“Side Underride” regulation. Diamatrix stated that it is unsure of how this regulation and the 

upcoming Phase 2 rule will affect each other.

19
8.1.2 Vocational Vehicle Chassis Manufacturers

Two vocational chassis manufacturers submitted written comments following the Pre-Panel 

Outreach Meeting. EPA received comments from E-One on July 3, 2014 and Indiana-Phoenix on 

July 7, 2014.

8.1.2.1 Feasibility of Proposed Technologies

Indiana Phoenix, Inc. discussed the niche market it serves through the manufacturing of front 

discharge cement mixers. The company explained that technologies such as aerodynamics and tire 

inflation systems will be impractical for these vehicles as they frequently operate off road. 

Indiana Phoenix, Inc. also stated that it does not currently produce any vehicles subject to 

Phase 1 requirements. The company has not had any experience with lower rolling resistance tires, 

tire inflation systems, or light weighting components. However, the company does use Cummins 

ISX12 engines, which do comply with Phase 1 standards. Indiana Phoenix, Inc. finds lower rolling 

resistance tires moderately feasible, inflation systems not very feasible, light weighting not very 

feasible, and Phase 1 engines moderately feasible. 

8.1.2.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens

Indiana Phoenix, Inc. anticipates that the potential regulations could require the company to 

add additional staff, acquire FEA software, and update computers. The company also mentioned 

potential administrative and record-keeping burdens could arise from the potential rulemaking. 

Indiana Phoenix, Inc. also expressed concern that the potential regulations could overwhelm its 

engineering development process.

Indiana Phoenix, Inc. mentioned that a partial exemption, partial delayed compliance and/or 

less stringent compliance could help the company comply. Indiana Phoenix, Inc. also asked if any 

grant money would be available to assist the company with compliance. The company also stated 

that the length of time given to engineer in the requirements and the stringency of compliance would 

affect which flexibilities would be most helpful.

E-One Inc. commented on the diversity of its product line. E-One Inc. expressed that it is 

concerned regarding the ability to be able to trade credits between different vehicle types within the 

same class of vehicles. The company expressed that having ABT between different vehicle types is 

imperative to its business model and potential future growth. 

8.1.3 Alternative Fuel Engine Manufacturers

Two alternative fuel converters/secondary engine manufacturers submitted written comments 

to EPA following the Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting. EPA received comments from CNG One Source 

and Power Solutions International (PSI) on July 7, 2014. 

20
8.1.3.1 Feasibility of Proposed Technologies

Power Solutions International stressed that GHG-reducing technologies all impact the design 

and construction of the long engine block assembly. As a secondary engine manufacturer, Power 

Solutions International states that it, along with other small business secondary engine 

manufacturers, have very little ability to influence the content of the new long engine block 

assemblies purchased from automotive companies. Furthermore, the company states that it receives 

very little support from the long block engine manufacturer for challenges faced when developing 

and applying the long block engine assembly into new applications. 

In order to comply, Power Solutions International says it will need to invest in developing 

new and additional internal technological capability to be able to accommodate the more stringent 

standards. Also, small business secondary engine manufacturers will require additional time beyond 

that required by a large entity to adapt to more stringent standards. 

8.1.3.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens

CNG One Source expressed that it is unlikely to manufacture a high percentage of its CNG 

engines for medium- and heavy-duty use. Therefore, the company feels the great expense of research 

and development coupled with the high costs of formal emissions testing could limit the commercial 

availability of new CNG engine designs. 

CNG One Source asked which specific testing would be required for each age category for 

medium- and heavy-duty CNG engines. CNG One Source also asked if any alternative testing 

methods could accomplish the same goals (portable emissions testing equipment, state emissions 

testing, etc.). 

CNG One Source also discussed the disproportionate certification expenses in relation to 

larger companies. The company warned that this could hinder the development of new and 

innovative natural gas engine technologies. CNG One Source stated that small businesses will have 

little resources to develop their ideas which could lead to further curtailment of the industry. CNG 

One Source cites the Department of Energy’s (through NREL) refusal to fund small businesses as a 

reason for this lack of resources. 

Power Solutions International stated that small secondary engine manufacturers will need 

time to adjust and comply with the potential regulations. The company indicates that small 

businesses will need to invest in human resources and increased technological capabilities. These 

adaptations will require time. Power Solutions International also states that small businesses will 

likely never evolve to have the capability of a large automotive company. Furthermore, the company 

states that small entities will struggle to support the required investment to move toward these more 

stringent standards.

21
8.1.3.3 General Comments

CNG One Source emphasized the distinction between an engine with emissions certification 

and a safe, durable engine. CNG One Source stressed that consumers pay high prices for natural gas 

engines for medium- and heavy-duty applications (partly due to the initial certification costs passed 

on to the consumer) and are subject to high costs for ongoing maintenance. Consumers, however, 

believe that these high costs automatically designate the engine as safe and durable. CNG One 

Source argues that any CNG engine will likely pass emissions testing on the dynamometer, but will 

not always perform in the field. CNG One Source would like to see the development of a designation 

of a quality engine beyond merely meeting EPA standards.

CNG One Source asked about the incentive for emerging companies to follow regulations 

when there is a lack of EPA enforcement. The company cited shade tree mechanics offering 

conversions that are not EPA compliant and other small businesses thriving by performing “illegal” 

conversions as a reason for CNG One Source’s disadvantage in the market. CNG One Source states 

that companies performing illegal conversions offer cheaper conversions, and companies such as 

CNG One Source that do not tamper are unable to compete. CNG One Source states that if front-end 

costs of compliant systems were lower, it would recommend an annual or every three year emissions 

inspection which could facilitate continued maintenance on the systems and improve durability. As 

an example, the company cites the lack of follow through to maintain valve adjustments, which 

adversely impacts performance, durability, and emissions. 

8.2 Summary of Written Comments following Panel Outreach Meeting 

EPA received comments from five manufacturers that included confidential business 

information (CBI) related to their product lines or their business practices. This information is not 

included in the discussion to follow, but will be used by EPA to develop the proposed rulemaking. 

8.2.1 Trailer Manufacturers

The following comments from Trailer Small Entity Representatives were received:

• Timpte – October 24, 2014

• Timpte – November 10, 2014

• Diamatrix – October 29, 2014

• Diamatrix – November 19, 2014

• East Manufacturing – November 4, 2014

• East Manufacturing – November 20, 2014

8.2.1.1 Number and Types of Entities Affected

Diamatrix provided production information for its company, stating that its dry freight van

plant builds 2500 to 3000 units per year and estimating that 50% are 53’ and longer vans, 25% are

28’ vans, 15% are other length vans and 10% are drop frame and special vans, including belly

boxes, etc.

22
8.2.1.2 Feasibility of Proposed Technologies

8.2.1.2.1 Aerodynamic Devices

Timpte stated that they have not installed any side skirts on their trailers. They only build 

bulk commodity trailers – primarily used to move grain, aggregate, and other free flowing materials 

– and a large portion of these materials are discharged into augers that are “swung” into position 

underneath of the trailer. As such, use of side skirts would preclude the ability of their customers to 

unload the trailers. Side skirts are not a practical solution for their style of trailer.

All of Timpte trailers have a portion of the trailer referred to as the Hopper Assembly which 

fills the majority of the space below the lower rail and between the tractor tires and the trailer tires. 

This Hopper Assembly would negate most of the positive impact of adding siding skirts to their

trailers, even if it was practical to do so, as their trailers do not experience the same air turbulence 

pattern that traditional dry freight trailers generate. Most of them do not operate at highway speeds 

for other than short periods of time.

Timpte has also not had any experience with rear air skirts/fairings. Timpte does not see a 

practical reason why they could not be physically attached. They would interfere with the current 

access system that is mounted on the rear of the trailer, which is used to inspect the load. It may be 

possible to design a solution to that issue and to insure that the rear fairings did not interfere with the 

statutorily required lighting on the rear of the trailer.

The trailers built by Timpte are used to haul bulk commodity, any additional weight 

associated with adding any aerodynamic devices would be seen as a negative and result in resistance 

from the marketplace as it will reduce the amount of “product” that they can haul per load. If the 

required change included side skirts, Timpte stated that their business would be devastated as the 

customer base simply would not purchase the trailers at all. Those that would still buy the trailers 

would remove the side skirts as soon as they purchased the trailer as the skirts would prevent them 

from being able to unload the trailer. Timpte also stated that their trailers are unloaded out of the 

bottom of the trailer and typically into an auger system which is “swung” into place underneath of 

the trailer. The auger would reside and travel through the same space as the space the side skirts 

would be installed. That is why they are not a practical solution for their particular type of trailer.

East Manufacturing provided comments that stated due to the specific applications of their 

trailer types they fear that adding aerodynamic side fairings, front and rear fairings could create 

unsafe conditions, higher warranty costs and product liability issues if required to be installed. In 

addition, a high percentage of the products East builds are specified with 4 or more axles up to 8. 

East Manufacturing feels that none of the aerodynamic device currently used today would be able to 

be installed and if they could, would be of little to no effect. Also, there may be possible trailer 

length law issues associated with boat tails on their refuse trailers.

Diamatrix provided comments that stated they have experience with side and rear fairings. 

They commented that they have not seen any benefits with the implementation of these

technologies as they are not the end user. They have heard from customers that they see a benefit

in fuel reduction but those numbers are not concrete.

23
Diamatrix commented that they build some special trailers such drop frame dry freight van

trailers and trailers with belly boxes that they may not be able to use existing technologies 

(side skirts) for reduction of CO2. This could create an issue of compliance or increased burden on 

us. What they will be specifically, if any, is unclear at this time. They also commented that trailer

options or models that would preclude the use of some aero devices:

• Rear and side mounted liftgates or similar devices. Belly boxes and similar

devices. Belly boxes are mounted under the trailer and can be used for

storing tools or equipment necessary to the freight being hauled.

• Trailers with heater units or similar options installed would not permit 

the installation of nose mounted aero devices.

• Vents specified at the front and rear. Vents are usually used to provide

airflow through the trailer while it is running on the highway. These may

produce interference with nose or rear mounted aero devices.

• Side door steps. Steps are used to permit the entry into the trailer through the 

side door. The structure of and bracing of these steps may preclude the use of 

certain side aero devices.

• Trailers with more than three axles or trailers with spread axles. With

these configurations there would be no room or very little room for side and

underbelly devices to be installed.

• Trailers for intermodal use have underneath clearance criteria and lift pads

that may cause issues with specific aero devices.

• Drop frame trailers. Drop frames trailers have a drop in the floor at or near the 

landing gear. The trailers or trailers similar to them would not be

conducive to some aero devices.

• They build some trailers where they build a “shell” that their customer may

convert into a portable office or add machinery to. The modifications that are 

done may require the removal of aero devices, if installed, or preclude the use

of them altogether

• Container chassis, including extendible and specialty

• Flatbed trailers, including extendable; typically flatbeds have winches

mounted under the side rail that could preclude the use of some side 

fairings.

Diamatrix commented that they will need to determine a place in the plant that they can

install and store the aero devices. Depending upon the devices they may actually have to 

restructure their line stations to accommodate there assembly/installation. Diamatrix also provided 

cost estimates for side fairings (skirts) and range from around $600 to $800 not including 

installation or FET. Installation is around $300. They stated that pricing does seem to be coming 

down.

8.2.1.2.2 LRR Tires

Timpte has been installing almost exclusively Low Rolling Resistance Tires for the past two 

years.

24
East Manufacturing commented that the only tires currently applicable to their product types 

are rolling resistant dual tires, wide base single tires. LRR tires today are limited in availability, 

sizes and certain applications. It is unknown if they may have an adverse effect to tire wear on 

flatbed and multi-axle end dumps that are subjected to “High Scrub” tire situations which could 

cause owners to buy more tires in a shorter time period. This will increase the usage of materials and 

drive operating cost up and profitability down for Owner operators and Fleet owners. 

East Manufacturing purchases tires from several manufacturers, but there are limited sizes 

available from each of them for their applications. East provided CBI related to the cost and 

volumes of tires installed in their trailers. Their concern is that if low rolling resistance tires and tire 

inflation systems were mandated for every trailer, then they would not be able to purchase the tires 

or inflation systems competitively compared to the large trailer manufacturers, such as Wabash, 

Great Dane, and Utility and it would put East in a non-competitive situation.

Diamatrix has experience with LRR tires. They commented that they have not seen any

benefits with the implementation of these technologies as they are not the end user. They have

heard from customers that they see a benefit in fuel reduction but those numbers are not concrete. 

Diamatrix also provided feedback that the $320 incremental cost for LRR tires is good for an

average - some manufacturers are less and some that are more.

8.2.1.2.3 ATI Systems

Timpte has been installing automatic tire inflation systems for approximately a dozen years 

and currently have about a 3% adoption rate.

East Manufacturing commented that the only devices currently applicable to their product 

types are tire pressure monitoring systems and automatic tire inflation systems. East provided a list 

of the types of tire monitoring and inflation systems that they install on their trailers as part of a CBI 

submittal.

Diamatrix provided estimated costs for ATIS, ranging from $500 to $700 not including

installation or Federal Excise Tax. Installation varies depending on the system and what can be

prepped ahead of time.

8.2.1.2.4 General Technology

Timpte raised a concern regarding the acceptance of the additional equipment by the end 

user. Each of their trailers is built uniquely to the customer’s specification and they are reluctant to 

allow Timpte to add anything to the trailer that they didn’t specify. Timpte has this same issue with 

any aspect of the trailer that is required by statute.

Timpte also commented that any significant change in the weight or cost of the trailer will 

cause a dramatic reduction in sales for a several year period of time as customers will defer 

purchasing the units with the additional aerodynamic devices as long as they can. They would more 

readily accept the increased cost than the increased weight.

25
Timpte stated that depending on what the requirements end up being, they would have to try 

and hire additional employees to handle the installation of the additional componentry, which is 

difficult to do in the small, rural community in which they are located. In addition, depending on the 

requirements, they would most likely have to invest in enlarging their facility to allow space for the 

installation of the additional devices.

Timpte would hope to be able to acquire technologies from vendors. As they are used to haul 

bulk commodities – weight and strength are the two most important features of their trailers. They 

are built primarily of aluminum. Their most popular models – the 40’ and 42’ overall length units –

weigh only about 9000 pounds. Customers have the ability – and do – to buy options to reduce the 

weight such as aluminum wheels, lightweight hub & drum and other aluminum structural 

components. That said, being bulk commodity trailers, they will always fill them to achieve the 

legal loaded limit but the lighter the trailer, the more commodity that they will move per trip and 

hence the lower the number of trips. 

Diamatrix stated that there will be engineering, purchasing and material handling costs

associated with any device added to the trailers. Engineering will need to evaluate options, create

drawings and bills of materials, ensure compliance of other components (lights, etc.) and to avoid

interferences with other items on the trailers. Purchasing will have to buy the additional items,

receive the items and process the invoices. Material handling will have these additional items to

store and deliver to the line. They may also be required to hire shop personnel to install the aero 

devices.

East Manufacturing stated that they would have to acquire technologies from vendors as they

do not have the resources for a full R&D study. East anticipates Product Liability lawsuits on dump 

and refuse trailers due to causing potential trailer rollovers and/or damage to equipment in landfills 

and construction sites.

8.2.1.3 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens

Timpte commented that their units are highly configured. They sell primarily to farmers and 

owner/operators and they all have different opinions on what they want from an appearance and 

functionality standpoint. Timpte’s average order size is for 1.3 trailers. It would be impractical for 

us to try and certify their product on a basis that required actual aerodynamic testing. The cost 

would exceed their revenue.

East Manufacturing noted that these regulations would require East to add additional clerical 

staff, more Direct labor and additional Material Handing/indirect labor. Trailers serving niche 

markets are too small in annual production to affect the overall output of GHG CO2 emissions. Since 

averaging probably will not work for small entities some other method of leveling the playing field 

between large and small manufacturers should be developed. 

Diamatrix anticipates that they will have unique legal, administrative and record 

keeping burdens as a result of compliance since they do not currently have any such 

reporting. What specifically these will be is unclear at this time. Diamatrix is not quite sure at

this time what the impact would be to their company or if they would need to add equipment or

26
staff. They definitely will have to spend what seems like a significant amount of time with

certifications and reporting. If this is the case and they will likely have to add staff.

Diamatrix will have increased costs associated with engineering, purchasing and

material handling at the plant level. They will also have increased costs, either at the plant or at the 

corporate level, for certification and reporting. They could also have increased costs if they are 

required to do testing rather than using a pre-approved aero device list.

Diamatrix commented that aerodynamic testing will be a huge expense, not only to small

businesses, if they are required to do this. It would be beneficial if they could pick devices from

an approved menu or list. If they are required to test and verify every device it would be a huge

burden on small business and might put them out of business.

8.2.1.4 General Comments

8.2.1.4.1 Model Year

Timpte also commented in reference to Certification Year, tying the certification to the 

model year is more difficult for trailer builders than was described for automobile manufacturers.

Model Year designation is all over the board. Each manufacturer can decide when to change 

year models within two years. In the past most manufacturers changed over in June or July of each 

year. Today most change over January 1st of each year. This was driven by Fleet and customer 

requests. There is currently no government mandate regulating the timing of year model change for 

trailers. (Example: Today on January 1, 2015 most manufacturers will be building 2016 year model 

trailers). Conversely, there is nothing to keep manufacturers from pushing off the change to a year 

model out one or even two years at this point. Thereby delaying the mandate to comply with these 

regulations.

Diamatrix noted that their model year changes, officially, on January 1. However, if they 

have an order that starts in December and will finish in January, that entire order will be of the new

model year.

8.2.1.5 Suggested Flexibilities

Timpte commented that the flexibilities that they believe that would be helpful would 

include:

• Alternatives to compliance that did not include the use of side skirts.

• Alternatives to compliance that did not require us to do actual aerodynamic testing as 

they could not afford that expense.

Timpte also stated that due to the low volume of construction of any given configuration of 

trailer, it is difficult for them to see how Averaging and Banking would benefit smaller 

manufacturers. It could easily put them at a disadvantage to larger trailer builders, especially those 

that might build a variety of different styles of trailers.

27
East Manufacturing proposed the following flexibilities:

• Full or partial exemption for their product types.

• Products spec’d with more than 4 axles should be fully exempted from this program.

East Manufacturing stated that Averaging, Banking and Trading will most likely not be 

available to East Mfg or other small business manufacturers simply due to the small number of 

trailers built annually of each product type. This inability to use Averaging, Banking and 

Trading will put small manufacturers at a market disadvantage compared to large business 

manufacturers.

East would like to see the time extended for compliance for all small business manufacturers 

so that they have more time to study the requirements and they associated perceived benefits.

Extending the start date for small business entities will allow us to evaluate technology and the 

effects of the cost associated on their businesses.

Diamatrix proposed the following flexibilities that could reduce small entity burden:

• Exempt small businesses completely.

• Exempt small businesses for a period of time.

• Reduce the level of compliance for small businesses.

• Allow manufacturers to pick aero devices from a pre-approved list rather than having to 

test themselves. It is understood that manufacturers would test if they come up with a

device that is not on the approved list.

Diamatrix also commented based on what they perceive that EPA will propose, they do not

think that additional lead time will be required. That is, if they are permitted to pick from approved

aero devices and not to have to test there should be no additional lead time. They also think that

they would be able to figure out the reporting and record keeping prior to the effective date.

Workshops for reporting and certification would be greatly beneficial.

8.2.2 Alternative Fuel Engine Converters

The following comments from Alternative Fuel Small Entity Representatives were received:

• Power Solutions International – November 19, 2014

• CNG One Source – November 20, 2014

8.2.2.1 Number and Types of Entities Affected

Power Solutions International would like to recommend that the establishment of a company’s

ability to use “small” business provisions of GHG standards be based on one of two criteria.

Currently, the establishment of “small business” is based on the business size standards specified in

13 CFR 121.201. They would like EPA to give consideration, in future GHG rules, to also allow the 

establishment of “small volume manufacturer” based on total number of units sold. Such allowances 

28
are provided in the criteria section 40 CFR 86.094‐14(b)(1) on the basis of 10,000 or fewer units. 

This would allow companies to qualify to use “small business volume” provisions of the new rule by 

either means. 

8.2.2.2 Feasibility of Proposed Technologies

8.2.2.2.1 Engine Long Blocks

Power Solutions International stated that imposing more stringent GHG regulations on

secondary manufacturers, especially those that fit into the category of small businesses – which 

most do, makes it very difficult to architect base engine specific technology. The GHG 

reducing technologies all impact the design and construction of the long engine block assembly.

Small businesses / secondary engine manufacturers have very little ability to influence the 

content of the new long engine block engine assemblies purchased from automotive companies. 

Small businesses/secondary engine manufacturers receive very little support from the long 

block engine manufacturers for challenges faced when developing and applying the long block 

engine assembly into new applications. The small business / secondary engine manufacturer will

need to invest in developing new/additional internal technological capability to be able to 

accommodate more stringent standards. 

Alternative fuel converters have limited ability to control features of base engine architecture

in the incomplete engines that they convert, which significantly reduces the options for reducing 

emissions. Improvements could definitely be made on the base engines which would be helpful for

a superior natural gas engine design. However, it appears that the OEM cannot justify the expense

involved in making these changes, as they are not necessary for running the engines on diesel fuel. 

Therefore, secondary manufacturers and alternative fuel converters are limited in the amount of 

changes that can be made. Small entities could comply with emission standards within a range of 

the original engine’s emissions. When the industry improves, OEMs will be more likely to 

manufacture blocks that better support natural gas fuel.

CNG One Source also commented that the NAS 2014 report recommended separate CO2 

standards for natural gas fueled engines. NAS did not recommend new requirements for engines 

that use other alternative fuels. This limitation is unnecessary and unfairly targets the natural gas 

industry. In fact, having separate standards is punitive to the natural gas industry, and why? It was 

just in March 2013 that the NAS stated in their report, “Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and 

Fuels”, that the ‘CNGV emphasis scenario’, is the only scenario which achieves 50% reduction in 

petroleum use by 2030. Unnecessary limitations are going to kill the natural gas industry before it 

even has a chance to become widely adopted. At this time, there is no sound reason to implement 

different standards for natural gas engines. These limitations are barriers and will completely stifle

an already struggling industry at a time when the technology and market adoption need to grow.

8.2.2.2.2 Engine Calibration

CNG One Source stated that EPA believes most of the GHG standards can be met with 

proper tuning of fuel and emission control systems requiring the cost of some additional 

29
engineering time. “The cost of some additional engineering time” is likely hundreds of thousands 

of dollars when you consider all of the proposed changes in standards. Increasing restrictions on

emissions can compromise the integrity and longevity of the engine. Durability of the engine 

should be balanced with emissions standards.

8.2.2.2.3 On Board Diagnostics (OBD) Requirements

CNG One Source commented that the Phase 2 proposal may include additional 

requirements for natural gas-fueled engines to control methane emissions and OBD requirements 

for CNG and LNG methane leaks. Methane leaks are presently not known to be significant as far as

emissions are concerned. Again, this requirement is punitive to the natural gas industry. Currently

the most common cause of methane leakage is a faulty pressure regulator. When the regulator fails, 

the engine ceases to operate, even if in motion on the highway. While this is a huge safety concern, 

as is as the flammability concern, it is not presently a significant environmental concern. Methane

gas composition varies greatly depending on well gas, landfill gas, and utility grade gas. Even 

utility gas changes in composition during the winter months. Knowing this, how will the data be

acquired for OBD? Vehicles running on low quality CNG (lower percentage of CH4) will not be 

detected as readily as vehicles running on high quality methane (higher percentage of CH4). 

Further, if vehicles run on lower quality gas, the engine components will be deteriorate much more

quickly. However, to avoid MIL light and OBD issues with the EPA, operators could and would 

exploit this system. Detection of methane leakage by measuring mercaptan/odorant is faulty 

because:

1. It doesn’t exist for LNG as it transitions from liquid to gas.

2. Not all fuel stations use mercaptan/odorant, even though it is required by NFPA 

The engine manufacturer or converter might achieve desired EPA standards for certification. 

However, until the quality standard is built for CNG refueling stations, the OEM or AFC will

continue to foot the bill to theoretically comply during testing but will not in real life applications.

8.2.2.2.4 N2O Emission Standards

CNG One Source commented that N2O measurement may require additional equipment in 

some test facilities. EPA is considering the option of allowing AFCs to use “engineering analysis”

to demonstrate that the base engine did not exceed the N2O cap and their conversion process would 

not impact N2O. 

CNG One Source stated that EPA believes N2O measurement devices can be purchased, if

necessary, for ~$100,000. These prices will either be incurred by small business or passed along to 

small business. Is this necessary for AFC or secondary manufacturers? How much will facilities

charge to take N2O measurements? Even certification companies contract with a third parties for

testing. Will there be a backlog with the number of engine manufacturers having to use a limited 

number of facilities? An engineering analysis would be appropriate, although this will add 

engineering expenses as well.

30
8.2.2.2.5 CH4 Leak Reduction

CNG One Source commented that EPA is considering more stringent CO2 emission 

standards, including CH4 and N2O caps for all engine types. According to the EPA’s Inventory of 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2012 published April 15, 2014, methane

emissions are not known to be significant in the transportation sector. More stringent standards are

not necessary for natural gas engines.

CNG One Source also commented that the Phase 2 standards have not been set yet. CH4

may be more challenging for natural gas engines. Improper fueling can result in high levels of 

unburned CH4 emissions. Converted CI (diesel) engines would need to ensure the crankcase is 

closed with a suitable ventilation system installed to reduce blow- by CH4 emissions. CH4

standards should not be more restrictive. There is no clear evidence to support that mobile methane 

use from natural gas vehicles significantly affects CH4 emissions. Improper fueling should not 

impact the engine’s emissions. Further restrictions on methane emissions are unwarranted.

CNG One Source stated that if the base engine for conversion is a CI engine with an open 

crankcase, they estimate a closed crankcase ventilation system to cost ~$500. This design will

affect engine durability as the byproducts of the natural gas system will deteriorate the engine 

components. For example, H2S combined with CO2 will create fissures in the steel. Methane

emissions occurring in a closed system would likely create an unsafe and potentially hazardous 

situation. Allow open crankcase for two reasons: (1) Methane emissions are not known to be 

significant in natural gas vehicles. (2) Maintain vehicle safety by eliminating potentially hazardous 

closed “ventilation” system.

8.2.2.3 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens

CNG One Source commented that small businesses are disproportionately burdened by 

certification expenses compared to large businesses and have few funding opportunities for research 

and development. Small businesses must use a higher percentage of their budget for research and 

development and costs associated with certification. CNG One Source stated that the government 

has specifically told them that they have no interest in funding small businesses involved with 

engine development. Therefore, the burden is entirely on the engine manufacturer. Larger

companies with greater resources not only spend a smaller share on research and development, they

are also candidates for federal funding. This excludes small businesses from realistically competing

in the marketplace. If regulations burden small businesses, EPA should identify and provide

realistic resources to assist small businesses achieve certification. The EPA could provide

personnel to assist small entities in the certification process rather than redirect the small entities to 

costly third party companies.

CNG One Source commented regarding their concern over lack of enforcement against

companies that do not certify their converted engines. The majority of natural gas vehicles in the

United States are not EPA compliant. The EPA has not provided adequate enforcement, and there

is no real incentive for companies to comply with EPA regulations. By choosing to register with 

the EPA and follow all regulations, CNG One Source is at a huge disadvantage. Their company

will bear the burden of expense on the research and development, certification, and use of time and 

resources to satisfy the government. In real life applications, consumers and trucking companies

31
are finding ways to convert their vehicles to run a natural gas because of the fuel cost savings. They

literally weigh out the risk and cost of fines from the EPA with the price of EPA compliant engines. 

CNG One Source has fielded such phone calls, and unfortunately, contrary to their

recommendations, the trucking companies ultimately opted to purchase non-EPA compliant 

engines. In addition, CNG One Source has visited with companies who have modified the EPA 

certified engines to improve performance. Some of these companies have even hollowed out the

catalytic converter as well as making other dramatic modifications. There is already a very high 

level of non-compliance, and the more stringent the regulations and the more expensive the engines 

(noting that the prices of development, improved components, and certification will be passed on to 

the consumer), the greater the degree of non- compliance. The only way to change behaviors and 

create compliance is to provide adequate enforcement. On the state level, there have been 

discussions that enforcement will discourage the industry, which seems to indicate that there is no 

desire anywhere to provide enforcement. If there is no real enforcement, what is the incentive to 

comply? Collecting fines from enforcement could provide revenue to the EPA to assist small 

entities in achieving certification.

CNG One Source commented that converters will need to certify their engine and also work 

with the vehicle manufacturer to ensure their new vehicle meets the GHG standards with the 

alternative fuel engine. Will secondary manufacturers and alternative fuel converters be required to

work with the vehicle manufacturer? This could be a cumbersome process for some small 

businesses. In addition, when the industry grows and CNG engines become competitive in the 

market, OEM’s can eliminate the small business “partner.” CNG One Source recommends EPA

allow engines to be certified independently so that they can be used in different vehicles and

applications.

CNG One Source commented that engine manufacturers may be required to provide engine

fuel map data to vehicle manufacturers as inputs for EPA’s vehicle certification model. What data

will be treated as CBI? Could this requirement encourage OEMs and vehicle manufacturers to take

the conversion process in house and exclude the small businesses? CNG One Source would like

information on the process of becoming EPA certified to take such measurements.

CNG One Source also stated that additional incremental increase in costs associated with 

this proposed rulemaking could include attorney fees to interpret regulations, accountant fees to 

manage sale and compliance figures, administrative staff for record keeping. Most companies in 

the alternative fuels industry are struggling to make a profit as it is still a small niche market. Many

companies have gone out of business or their stocks are failing. The additional incremental costs 

will excessively burden the small businesses who are the ones willing to comply with the EPA’s 

regulations and in turn suffer the direct, indirect and induced costs of meeting and managing these

stringent regulations.

8.2.2.4 Suggested Flexibilities

Power Solutions International commented that the small business/secondary engine 

manufacturer will require additional time, beyond that required by a large entity, to adopt more 

stringent standards. Additionally, PSI would be opposed to more stringent GHG regulations for NG 

fueled engines for the following reasons: 

32
• As a small business, they are going to be required to use ABT credits to bring some of 

their engine families into GHG compliance. Specifically, some of their gasoline engine 

models will require credits to bring CO2 into compliance. With the 627 g/hp‐hr standard,

there are a good amount of credits that can be generated from their NG fueled engine

families. These credits will help Power Solutions International bring other families into 

compliance. More stringent GHG standards for NG fueled engines would impede their

ability to bank credits. 

• Further stringency on GHG standards for NG fuel may not incentivize vehicle 

manufacturers to adopt NG engine models for their products.

Power Solutions International also stated that the establishment of a “technology” credit to be

applied to engine based GHG certification for use of such technologies as Start/Stop or other similar

hybridization. Currently, there is no ability for an “engine MOR” to realize an advantage for such

technology based on testing over the engine dynamometer based transient FTP cycle. An

establishment of a technology credit based on the use of such technology would incentivize

implementation of such technology by heavy duty engine companies. It is recognized that some

method of establishing the level of a credit would need to be developed. There are many reports of

hybridization based fuel efficiency improvements in the heavy duty vocational markets that cover a

wide band of fuel efficiency improvements. The type of hybridization and duty cycle use of the

vehicle are both contributors to the magnitude of the fuel economy improvement. 

CNG One Source commented above that further restrictions on methane emissions are

unwarranted. They also suggested above that EPA could provide personnel to assist small entities in 

the certification process rather than redirect the small entities to costly third party companies. CNG 

One Source also recommends above that EPA allow engines to be certified independently so that 

they can be used in different vehicles and applications. CNG One Source suggested that an 

engineering analysis would be appropriate in lieu of measuring N2O emissions, although this will 

add engineering expenses as well.

CNG One Source stated that small businesses will require additional time to invest in 

resources required to adopt new standards. Small businesses will have to have more capital in order 

to comply with the new regulations. Changes in government regulations is discouraging to 

customers and investors. Allow additional time (one year) for implementation by small entities.

CNG One Source also stated that ABT allows a manufacturer to internally average similar 

models (by engine architecture or engine size), generate credits for future use if they over- comply, 

and sell banked credits to other under-complying manufacturers or buy another manufacturer’s 

banked credits to cover their own deficits. Although this system theoretically can benefit small 

entities, the system heavily favors large corporations. Most of these proposed regulations seriously

favor large corporations and are dangerously close to creating a monopoly in the industry. Small 

entities are likely to specialize in limited types of engines only.

8.2.3 Vocational Chassis Manufacturers

The following comments from a Vocational Chassis Manufacturer Small Entity 

Representative were received summarizing comments made during the teleconference:

33
• Indiana Phoenix – November 19, 2014

8.2.3.1 Feasibility of Proposed Technologies

8.2.3.1.1 LRR Tires

Indiana Phoenix stated that all of the trucks they build are 6X6 configuration with up to two 

tag axles and two pusher axles. The majority of the trucks they build use wide based single tires on 

the rear drive axles and all use super single on the steer axle. Most of their customers use a cog type 

traction tire since they spend a lot of time on construction sites.

8.2.3.1.2 Engine Improvements

Indiana Phoenix commented that their customers deliver usually within 25 miles of the batch 

plant due to the cure time of the concrete. The drum must be turning anytime there is concrete in it. 

Hydraulic pumps are either on-engine or FEPTO (power take-off) driven and the only power used 

through the transmission is to move the truck. The on-engine hydraulic pump is commonly used for 

both power steering and discharge chute control.

8.2.3.1.3 Weight Reduction

Indiana Phoenix commented that weight reduction as a means of achieving compliance is 

ineffective since their customers are payload driven.

8.2.3.1.4 A/C Leakage

Indiana Phoenix commented that the take rate on the air conditioning option is about 10% 

and it is assembled in-house. Since these vehicles are front cab, rear engine configuration the 

refrigerant lines are approximately 20 feet long. Indianan Phoenix has not evaluated their A/C 

system for compliance to SAE J2727.

8.2.3.1.5 Other Technologies

The SERs did not provide written comments regarding idle reduction, transmission 

improvements, axle improvements, or hybrids. However, some of their verbal comments are noted 

in the summary of the meetings described in Section 6. 

8.2.4 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens

Indiana Phoenix did not provide any comments related to compliance burdens.

8.2.5 Suggested Flexibilities

Indiana Phoenix did not provide any suggestions for flexibilities.

34
9 PANEL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

9.1 Number and Types of Entities Affected

EPA identified 115 trailer manufacturers and 100 of them are small. Currently 24 vocational 

chassis manufacturers have registered with EPA under the Phase 1 rulemaking and three have 

confirmed small entity status to obtain an exemption for MY 2014. Twenty alternative fuel engine 

converters are currently registered with EPA to certify their converted HD engines for criteria 

pollutants. Eighteen of those engine converters are small. EPA is aware of four glider 

manufacturers and three of these companies are small businesses. 

9.2 General Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens

For any emission control program, EPA must have assurances that the regulated products 

will meet the standards. The program that EPA is considering for manufacturers subject to this 

proposal will include testing, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. Testing requirements for 

these manufacturers could include use of EPA’s Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) vehicle 

simulation tool to obtain the overall CO2 emissions rate for certification of vocational chassis and 

trailers, aerodynamic testing to obtain aerodynamic inputs to GEM for some trailer manufacturers 

and engine dynamometer testing for alternative fuel engine converters to ensure their conversions 

meet the proposed CO2, CH4 and N2O engine standards. Reporting requirements would likely 

include emissions test data or model inputs and results, technical data related to the vehicles, and 

end-of-year sales information. Manufacturers would have to keep records of this information for 

eight years.

9.3 Trailers

9.3.1 Feasibility of Proposed Technologies

9.3.1.1 Aerodynamic Devices

Diamatrix/Strick, the box trailer manufacturer SER, has some experience installing side 

skirts. However, many of their box trailers have unique physical features that limit the use of 

aerodynamic devices that cover the underside of the trailer. This company does not have experience 

with rear fairings or boat tail aerodynamic devices. 

None of the non-box trailer manufacturers had experience with aerodynamic technologies 

and cited several common use patterns for their specific trailer types that would damage or eliminate 

the benefit of these devices. 

9.3.1.2 LRR Tires

Most SERs have some experience with lower rolling resistance (LRR) tires, though they

expressed concern that they have not been able to obtain LRR data from the tire manufacturers. 

35
Several SERs indicated that there were limited LRR tires available for their non-box trailers at this 

time, since most tire manufacturers are focusing on developing lower rolling resistance tires for 

long-haul box trailers where operators will see the greatest benefit. Other manufacturers, whose 

trailers are used in off-road or heavy-haul applications, were concerned about the performance and 

durability of LRR tires, since so few are currently being used in conditions that have heavy loads, 

high scrubbing potential, or the need for additional traction. 

One SER also expressed concern that if it would be required to install LRR tires or tire 

inflation systems on all of their trailers, it would not be able to purchase them competitively 

compared to their larger counterparts, which the SER said would put the company at a competitive 

disadvantage. 

9.3.1.3 Automatic Tire Inflation (ATI) Systems

Most trailer SERs have experience installing ATI systems on some of their trailers, but ATI 

systems are not installed as a standard feature on any of the SERs’ current products. The non-box 

trailer manufacturers have installed tire inflation systems on some trailers, but indicate that the 

customers are reluctant to purchase the systems because of the added cost. In addition, the 

manufacturers noted that inflation systems are often tied to a particular suspension system and they 

cannot be applied universally.

9.3.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens

Trailer manufacturers are currently not regulated by EPA and do not have experience with 

recordkeeping, reporting, or compliance. EPA is proposing that trailer manufacturers certify their 

trailers using EPA’s Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) vehicle simulation tool to obtain the 

overall CO2 emissions rate. Some manufacturers would need aerodynamic inputs to run GEM, 

which could be obtained through aerodynamic testing. EPA is proposing a voluntary vendor-based 

testing program in which aerodynamic technology manufacturers could perform the required testing 

and have their technologies pre-approved with EPA for trailer manufacturers to use. This is similar 

to how many technology vendors have been verified by the existing voluntary EPA SmartWay 

Program. Reporting requirements for trailer manufacturers would likely include emissions test data 

(model inputs and results), technical data related to the trailers, and end-of-year sales information. 

Manufacturers would have to keep records of this information for eight years.

Two SERs stated that emissions averaging, banking and trading (ABT) would be difficult 

since their companies have very specific product lines and relatively low sales volumes. Larger 

manufacturers, who have greater diversity of products and much higher sales, would have a 

significant advantage in averaging and banking. 

The SERs have emphasized that their industry is highly custom-order and most trailers are 

designed to specifications identified by the customer. One SER noted that it is difficult to add 

anything to the trailer that his customer did not specify, including components “required by statute”. 

He is concerned that some customers would simply refuse to buy from them or would defer sales as 

long as possible to avoid the requirements. 

36
Additionally, all of the SERs expressed concern over the prospect of requirements to perform 

aerodynamic testing on their trailers. The cost and resources required for a single test would be a 

significant burden and requirements to do annual testing of multiple trailers could add enough cost to

end their business. 

Finally, all trailer manufacturers noted that they expect to need to hire additional staff to be 

able to comply with any new requirements, including administrative staff to help with recordkeeping 

and reporting, as well as technical staff to evaluate and install new technologies. One SER also 

indicated that their physical facilities would require significant changes to the storage capacity and 

possibly the installation process, to accommodate the new devices and installation stages. 

9.3.3 Suggested Flexibilities

Comments from trailer manufacturer SERs indicate that these companies are familiar with 

most of the technologies described in the materials, but have no experience with EPA certification 

and do not anticipate they could manage the accounting and reporting requirements without 

additional staff and extensive training. Performance testing, which is a common requirement for 

many of EPA’s regulatory programs, is largely unfamiliar to these small business manufacturers and 

the SERs believe the cost of testing would be a significant burden on their companies. In light of 

this feedback, the Panel recommends a combination of streamlined compliance, which minimizes 

tracking and testing requirements, and targeted exemptions for these small businesses. The Panel 

believes these strategies will achieve many of the benefits for the environment by driving adoption 

of CO2-reducing technologies, while significantly reducing the burden that these new regulations 

would introduce on small businesses.

9.3.3.1 Box Trailers

Box trailer manufacturers have the benefit of relying on the aerodynamic technology 

development initiated through EPA’s voluntary SmartWay program. The Panel is aware that EPA is 

planning to propose a simplified compliance program for all manufacturers, in which aerodynamic 

device manufacturers have the opportunity to test and register their devices with EPA as 

technologies that can be used by trailer manufacturers in their trailer certification. This preapproved technology strategy is intended to provide all trailer manufactures a means of complying 

with the standards without the burden of testing. At the time of this report, it is unclear if this 

strategy will be available indefinitely, or if it will be an interim flexibility to allow manufacturers to 

ease into a testing-only compliance program. In the event that this strategy is limited to the early 

years of the trailer program for all manufactures, the Panel recommends that small manufacturers 

continue to be given the option to use pre-approved devices in lieu of testing. 

In the event that small trailer manufacturers adopt pre-approved aerodynamic technologies 

and the appropriate tire technologies for compliance, the Panel does not believe it is necessary to 

require the use of a vehicle emissions model, such as GEM, for certification. Instead, the Panel 

believes it could be possible for manufacturers to simply report to EPA that all of their trailers 

include approved technologies. 

37
9.3.3.2 Non-Box Trailers

The Panel recommends that EPA not require the installation of aerodynamic devices for nonbox trailers. Some of the non-box trailer manufacturers SER have seen prototype-level 

demonstrations of aerodynamic devices on non-box trailers. However, most non-box trailer SERs 

identified unique operations in which their trailers are used that preclude the use of those 

technologies and many that they have seen used on box trailers today. 

Some non-box trailer manufacturers have experience with LRR tires and ATI systems. 

However, the non-box trailer manufacturer SERs indicated that LRR tires are not currently available 

for some of their trailer types. The SERs noted that tire manufacturers are currently focused on box 

trailer applications and there are only a few LRR tire models that meet the needs of their customers. 

The Panel believes EPA should ensure appropriate availability of these tires in order for it to be 

deemed a feasible means of achieving these standards and recommends a streamlined compliance 

process based on the availability of technologies. The Panel suggests that the best compliance 

option from a small business perspective would be for EPA to pre-approve tires once they are 

available in sufficient quantities on the market, similar to the approach being proposed for 

aerodynamic technologies, and to maintain a list that could be used to exempt small businesses when 

no suitable tires are available. However, the Panel recognizes the difficulties of maintaining an upto-date list of certified technologies. The Panel recommends that, if EPA does not adopt the listbased approach, the agency consider a simplified letter-based compliance option that allows 

manufacturers to petition EPA for an exemption if they are unable to identify tires that meet the LRR 

performance requirements on a trailer family basis. 

9.3.3.3 Trailers with Unique Use Patterns

The Panel recommends excluding all trailers that spend a significant amount of time in offroad applications. These trailers may not spend much time at highway speeds and aerodynamic 

devices may interfere with the vehicle’s intended purpose. Additionally, tires with lower rolling 

resistance may not provide the type of traction needed in off-road applications.

9.3.3.4 General Flexibilities for All Small Trailer Manufacturers

The Panel recognizes that some manufacturers, who have diverse product lines and high sales 

volumes, may benefit from an emissions averaging, banking and trading (ABT) strategy. However, 

due to the custom-order nature of the trailer industry, SERs have expressed their concern that ABT 

may provide an opportunity for historically loyal customers or customers with large fractions of a 

manufacturer’s business to bargain for the portion of a manufacturer’s sales that have minimal 

requirements. Based on the low volume of sales and niche market of many small business trailer 

manufacturers, small businesses in particular may have little leverage in this situation and risk losing 

their customers to larger manufacturers who have credits to spare. In addition, the accounting and 

reporting burdens of ABT may preclude small businesses from participating in the flexibility. 

Due to the potential for reducing a small business’s competitiveness compared to the larger 

manufacturers, as well as the ABT record-keeping burden, the Panel recommends EPA consider 

38
small business flexibilities to allow small entities to opt out of ABT without placing themselves at a 

competitive disadvantage to larger firms that adopt ABT, such as a low volume exemption or 

requiring only LRR where appropriate. EPA should also consider flexibilities for small businesses 

that would ease and incentivize their participation in ABT, such as streamlining the tracking 

requirements for small businesses. In addition, the Panel recommends that EPA request comment on 

the feasibility and consequences of ABT for the trailer program and additional flexibilities that will 

promote small business participation. In addition, for all trailer types that will be included in the 

proposal, the Panel recommends a 1-year delay in implementation for small trailer manufacturers at 

the start of the proposed rulemaking to allow them additional lead time to make the proper staffing 

adjustments and process changes and possibly add new infrastructure to meet these requirements. In 

the event that EPA is unable to provide pre-approved technologies for manufacturers to choose for 

compliance, the Panel recommends that EPA provide small business trailer manufacturers an 

additional 1-year delay for each subsequent increase in stringency. This additional lead time will 

allow these small businesses to research and market the technologies required by the new standards.

9.4 Alternative Fuel Engine Converters

9.4.1 Feasibility of Proposed Technologies

9.4.1.1 Engine Testing and Measurement

The feedback received from the Alternative Fuel Engine Converter (AFC) SER comments 

suggests that the testing procedures for CO2 and CH4 are relatively straightforward and the small 

businesses expect to be able to test and report those emissions to EPA. However, N2O measurement 

is more challenging and requires a separate, costly measuring device. For the small converters who 

currently do testing in-house, the expense of purchasing one of these instruments would be a 

significant burden. The other converters, who contract their testing to outside facilities, believe 

those facilities would have N2O measurement capabilities by the start of this propose rulemaking and 

the added expense of including N2O measurements is expected to be manageable. However, none of 

the SERs believe the changes they are making to their engines significantly impact N2O production 

compared to the base engine and they support the use of engineering analysis to demonstrate 

compliance with N2O standards. 

In addition, the SERs expressed concern that, if they are required to perform vehicle

certification in addition to their own engine testing, they do not believe they will be able to obtain 

the necessary vehicle information, such as detailed information about transmissions or computer 

controls. According to the SERs, the large OEMs that provide these vehicles have little incentive to 

provide any vehicle information to the small engine converters and these converters have no control 

over many of the vehicle characteristics. 

9.4.1.2 Engine Calibration and Catalyst Tuning

The AFC SERs expressed concern about their ability to meet on-board diagnostic (OBD) 

requirements, since they do not always have access to the diagnostic algorithms and calibrations of 

39
the base engines they convert from other manufacturers. Finally, N2O is not expected to be high for 

converted spark-ignition (SI) engines, but can be a concern for converted compression-ignition (CI) 

engines if the dosing of their aftertreatment devices is not properly calibrated with the new fuel. 

Similar to OBD, these small engine converters often have very little information about the catalysts’ 

dosing and the calibration of the aftertreatment devices. 

9.4.1.3 CH4 Leak Reduction and More Stringent Standards for Natural Gas Engines

Most of the engine converters believe their converted engines would be capable of meeting 

engine CO2 standards that are more stringent than Phase 1. Engine converters who convert engines 

to run on natural gas do not support separate standards for natural gas-fueled engines citing the 

difficulties they already have in succeeding in the engine market. 

9.4.1.4 Enforcement

One SER’s comments indicated that many small businesses are converting engines and not 

making the effort to comply with EPA’s regulations. This company believes they are at a 

competitive disadvantage with these companies who are converting engines with a focus on 

performance, but with little concern for durability or the effect on the environment. The SER 

suggested EPA provide incentives for compliance and increase enforcement to create a more level 

playing field.

9.4.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens

EPA expects that the recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance provisions of the proposed 

rule for alternative fuel engine converters will be similar to those in place today for heavy-duty 

engine criteria pollutant requirements. SERs did not provide comments to suggest an increased 

burden due to recordkeeping and reporting to EPA, but noted that the option of conducting an 

engineering analysis for N2O in lieu of testing would reduce their burden.

9.4.3 Suggested Flexibilities

To reduce the compliance burden of small business engine converters who convert engines in 

previously-certified complete vehicles, the Panel recommends allowing engine compliance to be 

sufficient for certification. This would mean the converted vehicle would not need to be recertified 

as a vehicle. This flexibility would eliminate the need for these small manufacturers to gather all of 

the additional component-level information in addition to the engine CO2 performance necessary to 

properly certify a vehicle with GEM (e.g., transmission data, aerodynamic performance, tire rolling 

resistance, etc.). In addition, the Panel recommends that small engine converters be able to submit an 

engineering analysis, in lieu of measurement, to show that their converted engines do not increase 

N2O emissions. Many of the small engine converters are converting SI-engines, and the catalysts in 

these engines are not expected to substantially impact N2O production. Small engine converters that 

convert CI-engines could likely certify by ensuring that their controls require changes to the SCR 

dosing strategies.

40
Based on the comments received from SERs, the Panel does not recommend separate 

standards for small business natural gas engine manufacturers. The Panel believes this would 

discourage entrance into this emerging market by adding unnecessary costs to a technology that has 

the potential to reduce CO2 tailpipe emissions. In addition, the Panel believes additional leakage 

requirements beyond a sealed crankcase for small business natural gas-fueled CI engines and 

requirements to follow industry standards for leakage could be waived for small businesses with 

minimal impact on overall GHG emissions. 

Finally, the Panel recommends that small engine converters receive a one-year delay in 

implementation for each increase in stringency throughout the proposed rule. This flexibility will 

provide small converters additional lead time to obtain the necessary equipment and perform 

calibration testing if needed. 

9.5 Vocational Chassis Manufacturers

9.5.1 Feasibility of Proposed Technologies

The vocational chassis SERs who participated in the Panel produce specialized vehicles with 

use patterns that are not amenable to most of the GHG-reducing technologies outlined in the 

materials. SERs commented that LRR tires would be feasible if appropriate tires were available for 

their applications, though limited LRR tires are available at this time. Idle reduction technologies 

may not be feasible since their products have operational requirements (i.e., turning a cement mixer 

or pumping water) when they are stopped. The transmissions and axles are also uniquely developed 

for performance in their very specialized applications and many of the improvements to these 

components for CO2 reduction will not be appropriate for these applications. The SERs also 

suggested that hybrid technologies may not be feasible for these use patterns. 

9.5.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Burdens

The Panel recognizes that many of the small vocational chassis manufacturers offer a narrow 

set of products that are very custom to a specific application and that they have very low sales 

volumes. These manufacturers have limited ability to take advantage of an averaging credit program 

and have limited resources for recordkeeping and reporting. 

9.5.3 Suggested Flexibilities

The Panel recommends interim reduced requirements for these small manufacturers with 

stringencies that include technologies that fit the applications of these vehicles. 

9.5.3.1 Emergency Vehicles

One of the vocational chassis SERs was a fire truck manufacturer. Fire trucks, and many 

other emergency vehicles, are built for high level of performance and reliability in severe-duty 

applications. Some of the CO2-reducing technologies listed in the materials could compromise the 

41
fire truck’s ability to perform its duties and many of the other technologies simply provide no benefit 

in real-world emergency applications. The Panel recommends proposing less stringent standards for 

emergency vehicle chassis manufactured by small businesses. The Panel believes it is feasible for 

small manufacturers to install a Phase 2-compliant engine, but recommends EPA request comment 

on whether the use of LLR tires will provide enough CO2 benefits to justify requiring small business 

emergency chassis manufacturers to adopt them. In addition, the Panel recommends a simplified 

certification approach for small manufacturers who make chassis for emergency vehicles that 

reduces the number of inputs these manufacturers must obtain for GEM. Emergency vehicles make 

up less than one percent of the annual vocational vehicles sold, and the Panel anticipates these 

reduced requirements would have a minimal impact on the overall CO2 reductions of the program.

9.5.3.2 Off-Road Vocational Vehicles

EPA is planning to propose to continue the exemptions in Phase 1 for off-road and low-speed 

vocational vehicles (see generally 76 FR 57175). These provisions currently apply for vehicles that 

are defined as “motor vehicles” per 40 CFR 85.1703, but may conduct most of their operations offroad. Vehicles qualifying under these provisions must comply with the applicable engine standard, 

but would not need to comply with a vehicle-level GHG standard. The Panel believes this 

exemption is sufficient to cover the small business chassis manufacturers who design chassis for offroad vocational vehicles.

9.5.3.3 Custom Chassis Manufacturers

The second vocational SER manufactures chassis for specialty operations and that SER has 

very small annual sales volumes. He provided a summary of his products that indicate his company

has a limited ability to adopt many of the technologies described in the materials. The Panel 

recommends proposing a low volume exemption based on the volume of sales. Similar to the 

recommendation for emergency vehicle chassis manufacturers, the Panel believes it is feasible to 

require installation of a Phase 2-compliant engine and recommends that EPA request comment on 

the benefits of LRR tires in this market segment. At this time, the Panel doesn’t have enough 

information to recommend a sales volume, but recommends that EPA request comment on how to 

design a small business exemption by means of a volume exemption and what sales volume would 

be an appropriate threshold. 

9.5.3.4 Glider Manufacturers

The Panel recognizes that EPA would like to reduce the use of glider kits, which have higher 

emissions of criteria pollutants like NOx than current engines, and which could have higher GHG 

emissions than Phase 2 engines. However, the Panel believes that the number of vehicles produced 

by these small businesses is too small to have a substantial impact on the total heavy-duty inventory. 

The Panel also believes that there should be an allowance to produce some number of glider kits for 

legitimate purposes, such as for newer vehicles badly damaged in crashes. The Panel therefore 

recommends proposing an explicit allowance for existing small businesses to continue assembling 

glider vehicles without having to comply with the GHG requirements. The Panel recommends that 

42
any other limitations on glider production be flexible enough to allow sales levels as high as the peak 

levels in the 2010-2012 timeframe. 

43
Appendix A: 

List of Materials EPA shared with Small Entity Representatives

• Agenda for Pre-panel meeting, June 19, 2014

• Power Point Presentation: “An Overview of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel

Process,” June 19, 2014

• Power Point Presentation: “Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Rule

(Phase 2) – SBAR Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting,” June 19, 2014

• Fact Sheet: “EPA and NHTSA: Joint Rulemaking, Different Responsibilities”

• “Outreach Document for Potential Small Entity Representatives: Heavy-Duty Vehicle

GHG Phase 2 Rulemaking (Phase 2),” June 19 2014

• “Flexibility Concepts from Current and Previous EPA Regulations”

• ICCT Whitepaper: “Costs and Adoption Rates of Fuel-Saving Technologies for Trailers

in the North Americal On-Road Freight Sector”, February 2014

•

• Agenda for Panel Outreach meeting, February 20, 2014

• List of SERs

• Power Point Presentation: Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Process Recap,

February 20, 2014

• Information from Farmers Branch, Texas on PCBs in light ballasts (included as written

comment in Appendix B)

• Power Point Presentation: PCB Use Authorization Update Rule. Small Business

Advocacy Review Panel Outreach Meeting, February 20, 2014

A1
Appendix B: 

Written Comments Submitted by Small Entity Representatives

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a pre-panel outreach meeting with 

potential Small Entity Representatives (SERs) on June 19, 2014. EPA, along with Panel partners, 

Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy (SBA), and Office of Management and 

Budget’s Office of Information and Regulation Affairs (OMB), hosted one supplementary 

outreach conference call for the trailer manufacturer SERs on October 28th, 2014, and three

separate Panel outreach meetings with SERs from the three separate sectors on November 5 and 

6, 2014. 

After the June 19th pre-panel outreach meeting, potential SERs submitted five sets of written 

comments, which are provided in this appendix. The following people submitted the comments: 

• Jan Hoover, Diamatrix

• Adam Jump, Indiana-Phoenix, Inc.

• Brad Schrock, E-One Inc. (later determined was not a small entity and therefore did not

participate as a SER in the formal Panel outreach meetings)

• Karen Teslovich, CNG CNG One Source, Inc.

• Andy Suhy, Power Solutions International, Inc.

For the October 28th and November 5th and 6th Panel outreach meetings, the following six SERs 

submitted written comments, which are provided in this appendix: 

• Jeff Thompson, Timpte Inc. (submitted two sets, one before the 10/28 meeting and one

after the 11/5 meeting) 

• Jan Hoover, Diamatrix (submitted two sets, one after the 10/28 meeting and one after the

11/5 meeting)

• David de Poincy, East Manufacturing Corp. (submitted two sets, one after the 10/28

meeting and one after the 11/5 meeting)

• Adam Jump, Indiana-Phoenix, Inc.

• Andy Suhy, Power Solutions International, Inc.

• Karen Teslovich, CNG One Source, Inc.

B1
B1: Written Comments from Potential Small Entity Representatives following 6/19/2014 

Pre-panel Outreach Meeting

B2
From: Jan Hoover

To: Wiggins, Lanelle

Subject: RE: follow up from EPA"s Pre-panel Outreach Meeting

Date: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 12:00:08 PM

Attachments: image001.png

image002.png

image003.png

image004.png

20140701 Written Response & Questions.pdf

Lanelle,

Attached is a pdf with some questions I have along with answers to the questions in the GHG SER

Outreach document. Some of the questions I cannot answer because, as a trailer manufacturer, I do

not fully understand what the process or requirements will be.

If you have any questions regarding my questions or answers please let me know.

Thank you,

Jan Hoover

Diamatrix

215-949-4790

  

From: Wiggins, Lanelle [mailto:Wiggins.Lanelle@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 4:24 PM

To: Adam Jump; Andy Suhy; Bill Harp; Bradley Schrock; Fred Pearson; Jan Hoover; Jeff Simms; Josh

 Pietak; Karen Teslovich; Neil Johnson; Trey Gary

Cc: Brakora, Jessica; Passavant, Glenn; Ranns, Nathan; Wysor, Tad; Rostker, David J.; Whiteman, Chad

Subject: follow up from EPA's Pre-panel Outreach Meeting

Dear Potential Small Entity Representatives (SERs),

Thanks to those who participated in Thursday’s Pre-panel Outreach Meeting.  My apologies once

again for the technical difficulties we experienced at the beginning of the meeting.

As promised by EPA’s Glenn Passavant, the following link is for the National Research Council of the

National Academies report, “Reducing the Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two: First Report” : http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?

record_id=18736

B3
I am also resending OTAQ’s powerpoint presentation (see attached).  At least one of you told me

that you could not open the most recent version that I sent to you on 7/18.  The only difference

between it and the version you were sent on 6/4 is the title page (date and place).

Finally, just a reminder that you may submit optional written comments and/or questions over the

next two weeks to my email (wiggins.lanelle@epa.gov).  Any comments/questions will be used to

update the materials, and shape the discussion for the formal Panel Outreach meeting.  Those

comments/questions are due COB Monday July 7th. 

Please do not send me confidential business information (CBI). If you do have CBI that you would

like to share with EPA, please prepare and submit to me a redacted version with CBI removed and

indicate that you have a CBI version you would like to also submit.  I will help you submit it directly

to an EPA/OTAQ staff person equipped to handle CBI. 

At this time, we are hoping to hold the formal Panel Outreach meeting sometime in September.

Lanelle Bembenek Wiggins

RFA/SBREFA Team Leader

US EPA - Office of Policy (1803A) - 1200 Penn Ave NW - Washington DC - 20460

202.566.2372

B4
To:    Lanelle Wiggins ‐ EPA

From:   Jan Hoover – Diamatrix, 215‐949‐4790

Questions I have

 Reference slide 11 in presentation regarding the comment “....continue to rely on

computer simulation.....”. How and what does this mean to trailers and trailer

manufacturers? Is it GEM simulation?

 Would it be possible to see the GEM simulation run, even if not for a trailer? What is the

basis for the GEM simulation?

 Is the GEM simulation a certification tool? What is the process? Latter may be answered

with the question above.

 How would the items on slide 37 of the presentation affect trailer manufacturers? Or

what would be required of trailer manufacturers relating to the contents of this slide?

 I really don’t understand the ABT Program. Would it be possible to receive an

explanation of it and how that might affect trailer manufacturers?

 On the conference call one of the people at your location stated that it would be good

to have a separate call with the trailer manufacturers to explain more in detail the

current processes. Is that something that can be arranged?

Answers to question for all SER’s

1. Unsure at this time what the impact would be to our company or if we would need to

add equipment or staff.

2. Unsure at this time what flexibilities could reduce the burden on small entities.

3. I am not sure I can answer this question at this time as I do not fully understand what

will be required of us. One concern I have is that NTSB has recommended to NHTSA that

they consider establishing a Side Underride regulation. I am not sure how a Side

Underride regulation and the GHG regulation will mesh with one another if both are

instituted.

4. We build some special trailers such drop frame dry freight van trailers and trailers with

belly boxes that we may not be able to use existing technologies (side skirts) for

reduction of CO2. This could create an issue of compliance or increased burden on us.

What they will be specifically, if any, is unclear at this time.

5. I cannot answer this question at this time.

6. I am unsure if additional lead time would be necessary.

B5
7. At this time I cannot think of any sector‐unique business or competitive issues that you

should understand.

8. Yes, I anticipate that we will have unique legal, administrative and record keeping

burdens as a result of compliance since we do not currently have any such reporting.

What specifically these will be is unclear at this time.

Answers to questions to trailer manufacturers

1. Yes, we have experience with side and rear fairings along with LRR tires. We have not

seen any benefits with the implementation of these technologies. One drawback is

where in our facility we can store and install fairings. In limited quantities it has not

really been an issue, but if done on most or all of our production, it could require us to

create a location in which store and install these.

2. We possibly could experience a hardship in creating an area in which to install fairing in

our facility as mentioned above. Aside from that we will have increased labor, but

assuming we can pass that on to our customers, I do not anticipate any additional

hardships.

3. See questions 1 and 2 regarding considerations that would need to be made.

4. I am unsure at this time what flexibilities would be helpful.

5. I would expect that we would both acquire technologies from vendors along with

developing technologies in‐house.

6. We do not have any specific experience regarding a response to the California

requirements and do not have many customers in the western part of the country. Most

of our customers and our major customers are located east of the Mississippi.

B6
Questions for All SERs (Indiana Phoenix Inc.Answers in red)

1. How do you anticipate the potential regulations would affect your business? 

For example,

would this require the purchase of any unique equipment or the hiring of 

additional staff? We would need to add additional staff and depending on the 

ruling, FEA software and updated computers. 

 

2. What flexibilities do you believe may reduce small entity burden (or, can 

flexibilities be structured in a way to better provide assistance to small entities in

reducing potential burdens)? Depending on the ruling, partial exemption, partial 

delayed compliance and/or less stringent compliance.

 

3. Do you anticipate any significant issues or circumstances not addressed in the 

materials provided? Will there be grant money available to help offset cost of 

compliance at any level?

4. If you serve a niche market or are located in a unique geographical location, 

do you anticipate any specific burdens and/or issues resulting from the

potential rulemaking? Our niche market is Front Discharge Cement Mixers. A 

ruling including technologies such as aerodynamics or tire inflation system will 

likely be cumbersome for the end user or damaged as these vehicles are 

commonly in off road circumstances. 

5. Do your answers to any of the above question differ depending on the start 

date or stringency level of the standards? Yes, the length of time available to 

engineer in the requirements as well as the volume of engineering required. 

6. Do you believe that additional lead time would be necessary for you to comply 

with new standards? Depending on what the ruling is and when it occurs. Yes.

7. Are there any sector-unique business or competitive issues that we should 

understand? Aerodynamic requirements would not be practical on a front 

discharge cement mixer. 

8. Do you anticipate any unique legal, administrative or record-keeping burdens 

associated with compliance? Administrative and record-keeping.

B7
Questions for Manufacturers of Vocational Vehicle Chassis

1. What GHG-reducing technologies does your business implement already?

We were exempt for model year 2014 and now exempt for model year 2015.

To date, we have not sold any new vehicles that would be subject to these GHG

reducing requirements.

2. Do you have any specific experience with lower rolling resistance drive and 

steer tires? No. With tire inflation systems? No. With light weighting of 

components? No.

With engines certified to the heavy-duty Phase 1 standards (e.g., MY2014 

engines)? Yes, Cummins ISX12

3. How feasible do you find each of the aforementioned technologies?

LLR tires: moderately feasible. Inflation system: Not very feasible.

Light Weighting: Not very feasible. Phase 1 Engines: Moderately feasible.

4. Have you experienced any effects (manufacturing changes, consumer 

responses) from these technologies? (move down)

No. See response to question number 1.

5. How do you anticipate the proposed standards will affect your engineering 

development process? Depending on the ruling, it will likely overwhelm our 

engineering development process. 

Thank you,

Adam Jump/Engineering Manager

Kevin Kelly/Project Engineer

B8
From: Schrock, Brad

To: Wiggins, Lanelle

Subject: E-One Comments on Phase 2 of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Heavy Duty Vehicles

Date: Monday, July 07, 2014 3:38:48 PM

Ms. Wiggins,

I, on the behalf of E-One Inc. would like to make a comment on the phase two ruling of the

 greenhouse gas emissions regulations for heavy duty vehicles. We are concerned on the

 ability to be able to trade credits between different vehicle types within the same class of

 vehicles. Being able to trade between different vehicle types is imperative to our business

 model and potential future growth.

We would like to be able to discuss this in future meetings with the EPA.

Sincerely,

Brad Schrock

Manufacturing Engineer

E-One Inc.

(352) 861-3429

On Jul 3, 2014, at 11:57 AM, "Wiggins, Lanelle" <Wiggins.Lanelle@epa.gov> wrote:

Hello potential SERs,

I just wanted to send a reminder that any written comments you wish to submit in

 response to the June 19 meeting are due by close of business (COB) Monday, July 7.

 You can think of these initial written comments as a way to let EPA know of any issues

 that were not clear or that you’d like more information on during the formal Panel

 outreach meeting. You will also have the opportunity to submit written comments

 after the formal Panel outreach meeting.

The presentation given on June 19 was meant to be introductory. Most of the material

 highlighted requirements for large manufacturers in Phase 1 (2014-2018) an example

 of the topics we’re considering for Phase 2. As small businesses, you continue to be

 exempt from certifying for 2014-2018. However, EPA is investigating the option to

 include small businesses in the second phase of this rulemaking, which would begin

 after 2018. The purpose of the SBREFA process is to give you an opportunity to tell

 EPA how you think regulations would impact your business and help us identify

 appropriate flexibilities that will keep the rule from having a significant economic

 impact on your company. The ChartofFlexibilitiesfromPreviousRulemakings.pdf file

 lists some small business flexibilities implemented in previous rulemakings, which

 included options such as delayed implementation, reduced stringencies, and reduced

 testing burdens.

B9
Your comments from the first presentation will be helpful as we prepare for our second

 meeting in September. During this meeting we will provide more details about Phase

 2 and it will be much more of a discussion. We provided a list of questions in the

 outreach document (GHG SER Outreach Doc.pdf) that will give you an idea of the

 information we hope to gain in our second meeting. We understand that you may not

 have enough information at this point to be able to answer them with certainty, but

 they can be used as a guide for the written comments you’re generating from the first

 presentation. We welcome general comments, questions about things that were

 confusing during the presentation, or requests for specific information we should

 provide in the second meeting to help answer the questions.

Please don’t hesitate to contact us at any time if you have questions.

Stay cool and enjoy the holiday this weekend!

Lanelle

Lanelle Bembenek Wiggins

RFA/SBREFA Team Leader

US EPA - Office of Policy (1803A) - 1200 Penn Ave NW - Washington DC - 20460

202.566.2372

B10
phone: 814.835.0200 | fax: 814.835.0201 | 1620 Harper Drive, Erie 16505 | www.cngonesource.com 

Preliminary Comments Following the June 19, 2014 Meeting with the EPA 

CNG One Source intends to submit further written comments following the formal Panel 

Outreach Meeting 

CNG One Source anticipates the potential regulations to impose burdens on its small business. 

Not only is CNG One Source a small business, but we are likely to manufacture a very small 

percentage of CNG engines for medium and heavy duty. That being said, the great expense of 

research and development coupled with the high costs of formal emission testing will limit the 

commercial availability of new CNG engine designs. 

CNG One Source would like to ask specifically what testing will be required for each age 

category for medium and heavy duty CNG engines. For very small entities such as CNG One 

Source, could alternative methods accomplish the same goals? For example, could portable 

emission testing equipment satisfy the requirements? Could state emission testing be sufficient? 

Our company is committed to not only achieving the best emissions possible, but to designing a 

safe and durable engine system as well. Having an engine receive emissions certification does 

not suggest that the engine is safe or durable. This is confusing to consumers. Consumers pay 

high prices for natural gas engines for medium and heavy duty applications, and many times later 

discover that the maintenance costs are even higher. Part of that initial expense is the cost of 

certification that is passed to the customer. It appears that new customers often believe that 

because the engines are expensive, that they are also safe, durable, and require little maintenance. 

CNG One Source would like to see a way to show that the engines are also made of safe and 

durable components. Any CNG engine can likely pass emissions testing on the dyno. But when 

that engine is put into the field, it may not perform. At this point in time, the only thing that 

customers look for in a “quality” system, is whether or not the engine or conversion system is 

EPA approved. They don’t understand the difference. 

CNG One Source has never tampered with emissions, and does not intend to do so. However, 

we would like to ask about enforcement of the existing EPA regulations. If the EPA is not going 

to enforce the anti-tampering regulations, then what incentive is there for emerging companies to 

follow the regulations? The shade tree mechanics already offer conversions that are not EPA 

compliant. Other small businesses have thrived performing what we call “illegal” conversions, 

B11
July 7, 2014 

Page 2 

while CNG One Source has “walked the straight and narrow” to our own detriment. Our 

competition is the myriad of companies doing what they want and are ignoring the regulations. 

Those are the companies that are selling the most conversions. If there is no enforcement, the 

country will continue to be the Wild Wild West with CNG. CNG One Source experiences the 

uneven playing field due to the lack of enforcement. Companies not following regulations offer 

much less expensive systems, and companies such as CNG One Source cannot come close to 

competing with them. However, if the front end costs of compliant systems were lower, CNG 

One Source would recommend an annual or every three year emissions inspection which would 

facilitate continued maintenance on the systems and improve long term durability. As an 

example, once the engine is installed, there is no follow through to maintain valve adjustments, 

which adversely impact performance, durability, and emissions. Finally, by reducing costs up 

front and adding emissions testing, the industry will improve its products as a whole. 

In addition, CNG One Source experiences the uneven playing field by having to pay expenses 

for certification that are disproportionate to what big business has to pay. New and innovative 

technologies to improve natural gas engines will continue to be stymied if this continues. 

Furthermore, other government agencies, such as the Department of Energy through NREL, has 

stated to us that they will never fund a small business again. So small businesses will have little 

resources to develop their ideas which will further curtail the industry. 

CNG One Source would like to explore these issues further, contribute more with this process, 

and provide more detailed feedback during the next comment period. We sincerely appreciate 

the opportunity to work with you on these issues. 

Thank you, 

Karen Teslovich 

B12
201 Mittel Drive, Wood Dale, IL 60191

1.630.350.9400 (Main) – 1.630.350.9900 (Fax)

www.psiengines.com

Lanelle Wiggins, 

RFA/SBREFA Team Leader 

EPA Office of Policy 

1200 Penn Ave NW 

Washington DC - 20460

202-566-2372 

wiggins.lanelle@epa.gov

RE: Comments from June 19, 2014 Pre-Panel Meeting on GHG Phase 2 

Dear Lanelle: 

Thank you for providing our company with an opportunity to participate in this process. 

We look forward to the next steps in this process and will likely have more to add as the 

process proceeds further into the details about GHG Phase 2. 

We have reviewed all of the material presented during the pre-meeting and have also 

reviewed and considered the “Questions for All SERs” provided. Below are some general 

comments considering both the review of information and the questions for SERs. 

Our company would generally fall into the category of being a Secondary Engine 

Manufacturer. We mostly purchase “new” incomplete long block engines and fit them with 

the fuel and emission control system. We then certify the completed engine assembly to the 

appropriate regulatory standard for the given market. Further, our company specializes in 

OHHD engines that are spark ignited and are fuel by alternative fuels (LPG and CNG). We do 

plan to offer gasoline fueled OHHD engines in the near future as well. 

As a result of being a secondary engine manufacturer we do not control the design and 

content of the long block engine assembly. In the GHGPhase2SBAR_Panel_FINAL 2014-06-

17.pdf slide deck presented during the meeting, there was a slide which displayed “Engine 

GHG-Reducing Technologies.” For Spark-Ignition, this slide presented Reduced Friction, 

and Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection as technologies. Similarly, technologies were 

presented for Compression-Ignition Engine. The GHG Reducing technologies all involve 

improving the overall efficiency of combustion which will directly reduce GHG emissions. 

All of these GHG-reducing technologies apply directly to the design and construction of the 

long block engine assembly. The specific spark ignited engine technology of Stoichiometric 

Gasoline Direct Injection provides a much greater benefit with gasoline as a fuel than it does 

with LPG or CNG fuel. 

Small businesses, especially secondary engine manufacturers, are at a disadvantage when it 

comes to applying new technologies to their engine products. Secondary engine 

manufacturers purchase new incomplete long block engine assemblies from large 

automotive companies, typically, and these long engine blocks are always design for the 

specific applications of the automotive manufacturer’s vehicle products. As such, the 

secondary engine manufacturer has no ability to control or influence the content of the long 

block engine assembly. 

B13
201 Mittel Drive, Wood Dale, IL 60191

1.630.350.9400 (Main) – 1.630.350.9900 (Fax)

www.psiengines.com

The integration of leading edge GHG reducing technologies by the large automotive 

companies will present the small business entity with challenges and hardships to adopt. 

As mentioned above, the automotive companies develop their powertrain (engine) 

technologies specifically for their own vehicle applications. There is no consideration given 

for outside entity use of the technology. 

Automotive companies do sell long engine blocks to secondary engine manufacturers. The 

development, certification and application of the long block is the complete responsibility of 

the secondary engine manufacturer. When applying a purpose designed long engine block 

into a different market, the secondary engine manufacturer can face challenges requiring 

redesign and reconstruction of certain aspects of the long block engine. 

These challenges, in many cases, will require interaction between the secondary engine 

manufacturer and the automotive company (long engine manufacturer) in support of the 

changes required by the secondary engine manufacturer’s application/market needs. In 

many cases, the automotive company has no interest; motivation; resources or willingness 

to support the needs of the secondary engine manufacturer. There are many reasons for the 

automotive company not being able to support the secondary engine manufacturer, but the 

primary reasons are low volume, time and pending internal requirements. 

The secondary engine manufacturer finds itself in a position of not being able to effectively 

pursue changes that may be required to apply current leading edge technology. The 

general point here is it takes the small business / secondary engine manufacturer time to 

adopt new technology, given the general lack of support from the entity that owns the 

technology. 

Considering the current position of small businesses / secondary engine manufacturers, 

compliance with more stringent standards will require change over time. Small businesses 

will need to invest in human resources and more technological capability in order to comply 

with more stringent regulations, similar to large automotive entities. This capability will 

require time to adopt and evolve inside the small business. The small business will likely 

never evolve to have the capability of a large automotive company, but a closing of the gap 

will take time and financial resources. All of this will require a business case to support. 

The small entity will struggle to support the required investment to move toward more 

stringent standards; however, some movement can likely be accommodated by progressive 

small businesses. 

In summary, our current comments are stated in these points. 

 The GHG reducing technologies all impact the design and construction of the long 

engine block assembly. 

 Small businesses / secondary engine manufacturers have very little ability to 

influence the content of the new long engine block engine assemblies purchased 

from automotive companies. 

 Small businesses / secondary engine manufacturers receive very little support from 

the long block engine manufacturer for challenges faced when developing and 

applying the long block engine assembly into new applications. 

B14
201 Mittel Drive, Wood Dale, IL 60191

1.630.350.9400 (Main) – 1.630.350.9900 (Fax)

www.psiengines.com

 The small business / secondary engine manufacturer will need to invest in 

developing new/additional internal technological capability to be able to 

accommodate more stringent standards. 

 The small business / secondary engine manufacturer will require additional time, 

beyond that required by a large entity, to adopt more stringent standards. 

We look forward to further participation in this process. Thanks for you time and 

consideration. 

Regards, 

Andy Suhy 

Director, Emissions Development and Compliance 

B15
B2: Written Comments from Small Entity Representatives for the 10/28/2014 and 11/5-

6/2014 Panel Outreach Meetings 

B16
Lanelle Wiggins October 24, 2014

US-EPA – Office of Policy

1200 Penn Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20460

In response to your questions posed on page 44 of the Small Business Trailer Manufacturers 

presentation that you supplied in your email dated ; 

1. We have been installing almost exclusively Low Rolling Resistance Tires for the past two years.

We have been installing automatic tire inflation systems for approximately a dozen years and 

currently have about a 3% adoption rate.

We have not installed any side skirts on our trailers. We only build bulk commodity trailers – 

primarily used to move grain, aggregate, and other free flowing materials – and a large portion 

of these materials are discharged into augers that are “swung” into position underneath of the 

trailer. As such, use of side skirts would preclude the ability of our customers to unload the 

trailers. Side skirts are not a practical solution for our style of trailer.

That said, all of our trailers have a portion of the trailer that we refer to as the Hopper Assembly 

which fills the majority of the space below the lower rail and between the tractor tires and the 

trailer tires. This Hopper Assembly would negate most of the positive impact of adding siding 

skirts to our trailers, even if it was practical to do so, as our trailers do not experience the same 

air turbulence pattern that traditional dry freight trailers generate. Most of them do not 

operate at highway speeds for other than short periods of time.

We have also not had any experience with rear air skirts/fairings. I do not see a practical reason 

why they could not be physically attached. They would interfere with the current access system 

that is mounted on the rear of the trailer, which is used to inspect the load, but I am sure that 

we could design a solution to that issue. We would of course have to insure that the rear 

fairings did not interfere with the statutorily required lighting on the rear of the trailer.

2. Hardships that we would anticipate would be;

a. Acceptance of the additional equipment by the end user. Each of our trailers is built 

uniquely to the customer’s specification and they are reluctant to allow us to add 

anything to the trailer that they didn’t specify. We have this same issue with any aspect 

of the trailer that is required by statute.

b. As these trailers are used to haul bulk commodity, any additional weight associated with 

adding any aerodynamic devices would be seen as a negative and result in resistance 

B17
from the marketplace as it will reduce the amount of “product” that they can haul per 

load.

c. Any significant change in the weight or cost of the trailer will cause a dramatic reduction 

in sales for a several year period of time as customers will defer purchasing the units 

with the additional aerodynamic devices as long as they can. They would more readily 

accept the increased cost than the increased weight.

d. If the required change included side skirts our business would be devastated as the 

customer base simply would not purchase the trailers at all. Those that would still buy 

the trailers would remove the side skirts as soon as they purchased the trailer as the 

skirts would prevent them from being able to unload the trailer.

 

3. Other considerations we would have to make in our manufacturing processes could include;

a. Depending on what the requirements end up being, we would have to try and hire 

additional employees to handle the installation of the additional componentry, which is 

difficult to do in the small, rural community in which we are located.

b. Again depending on the requirements, we would most likely have to invest in enlarging 

our facility to allow space for the installation of the additional devices.

4. Flexibilities that we believe that would be helpful would include;

a. Alternatives to compliance that did not include the use of side skirts.

b. Alternatives to compliance that did not require us to do actual aerodynamic testing as 

we could not afford that expense.

5. We would hope to be able to acquire technologies from vendors.

6. Our customer base is located throughout the country but we have a much higher concentration 

of users in the Midwest. Our trailers are all shorter than those covered by the California 

ordinance so we have no feedback from our customer base on the California requirements.

In closing I would just like to explain our particular product briefly. As stated above, we build strictly 

bulk commodity trailers used to move free flowing commodities. They have an open top which is 

covered with a tarp when in transit. Externally they are shaped like a rectangular box. Internally they 

are shaped like a large funnel. Beneath the lower rail of the trailer –between the tractor tires and the 

tires of the trailer - is a hopper assembly. This hopper assembly is funnel shaped and extends to within 

about 15” of the ground and has trap doors on the bottom which are used to release the load out of the 

trailer.

Over 85% of our production is trailers that are 42’ in length or shorter. None of our production is longer 

than 50’ in overall length. Most of our production is built to a 96” overall width and most have an 

overall height of 110” to 122” – so they fit inside of the envelope in the air cut by the tractor.

As they are used to haul bulk commodities – weight and strength are the two most important features 

of our trailers. They are built primarily of aluminum. Our most popular models – the 40’ and 42’ overall 

length units – weigh only about 9000#. Customers have the ability – and do – to buy options to reduce 

the weight such as aluminum wheels, lightweight hub & drum and other aluminum structural 

B18
components. That said, being bulk commodity trailers, they will always fill them to achieve the legal 

loaded limit but the lighter the trailer, the more commodity that they will move per trip and hence the 

lower the number of trips. 

Over 50% of our production is sold directly to farmers and they are used to move grains out of the field 

and from the farm to market. The balance of the production is used by commercial firms to move bulk 

commodities between different processing centers.

Our units are highly configured. We sell primarily to farmers and owner/operators and they all have 

different opinions on what they want from an appearance and functionality standpoint. Our average 

order size is for 1.3 trailers. It would be impractical for us to try and certify our product on a basis that 

required actual aerodynamic testing. The cost would exceed our revenue.

As mentioned above, our trailers are unloaded out of the bottom of the trailer and typically into an 

auger system which is “swung” into place underneath of the trailer. The auger would reside and travel 

through the same space as the space the side skirts would be installed. That is why they are not a 

practical solution for our particular type of trailer.

B19
I look forward in participating in the conference call next week and hope that my input will be of benefit 

to the process.

Thank you

Jeff Thompson

Vice President

Timpte Inc.

B20
To: Lanelle Wiggins - EPA 

From: Jan Hoover – Diamatrix, 215-949-4790 

Input 

 On slide 10, I would add 49 CFR 568 - VEHICLES MANUFACTURED IN TWO OR 

MORE STAGES. Which manufacturer would be responsible for the reporting and 

certification in this case? 

 On slide 40 other costs to consider. There will be engineering, purchasing and material 

handling costs associated with any device added to the trailers. Engineering will need to 

evaluate options, create drawings and bills of materials, ensure compliance of other 

components (lights, etc.) and to avoid interferences with other items on the trailers. 

Purchasing will have to buy the additional items, receive the items and process the 

invoices. Material handling will have these additional items to store and deliver to the 

line. 

 Aerodynamic testing will be a huge expense, not only to small businesses, if we are 

required to do this. It would be beneficial if we could pick devices from an approved 

menu or list. If we are required to test and verify every device it would be a huge burden 

on small business and might put us out of business. 

 Model year on slide 26. Our model year changes, officially, on January 1. However, if we 

have an order that starts in December and will finish in January, that entire order will be 

of the new model year. I cannot speak for other manufacturers. You will need to contact 

them directly. Possibly TTMA could get that from their membership but it will not be all 

inclusive. 

 Trailer options or models that would preclude the use of some aero devices: 

o Rear and side mounted liftgates or similar devices. A liftgate is a work performing 

device that raises and lowers freight to and from the ground and the trailer. 

o Belly boxes and similar devices. Belly boxes are mounted under the trailer and 

can be used for storing tools or equipment necessary to the freight being hauled. 

o Trailers with heater units or similar options installed would not permit the 

installation of nose mounted aero devices. 

o Vents specified at the front and rear. Vents are usually used to provide airflow 

through the trailer while it is running on the highway. These may produce 

interference with nose or rear mounted aero devices. 

B21
o Side door steps. Steps are used to permit the entry into the trailer through the side 

door. The structure of and bracing of these steps may preclude the use of certain 

side aero devices. 

o Trailers with more than three axles or trailers with spread axles. With these 

configurations there would be no room or very little room for side and underbelly 

devices to be installed. 

o Trailers for intermodal use have underneath clearance criteria and lift pads that 

MAY cause issues with specific aero devices. 

o Drop frame trailers. Drop frames trailers have a drop in the floor at or near the 

landing gear. The trailers or trailers similar to them would not be conducive to 

some aero devices. 

o We build some trailers where we build a “shell” that our customer may convert 

into a portable office or add machinery to. The modifications that are done may 

require the removal of aero devices, if installed, or preclude the use of them 

altogether. How would these types of trailers be handled under the regulation? 

Questions I have that were not fully addressed on the call 

 How are the trailer families defined? Slide 33 refers to “manufacturers define 

families.....” 

 On slide 33 there are the general certification steps. What is involved in each step and 

how do we accomplish each step? How is this affected by using a menu of pre-approved 

aero devices, if any? I am trying to get a feel for what kind of time is required. 

 How is reporting done? Is it yearly, quarterly, or other? Can reporting be done quarterly, 

if not currently set up that way. 

 It was asked if we could get access to the existing GEM calculator for tractors. I think 

this would be helpful. 

 On slide 27 there is a comment about maintaining records of data. What data records 

need to be kept and maintained? How long do these records need to be kept? 

 On the TTMA/EPA conference call on 10/17 it was suggested that EPA, Ann Arbor, 

could hold a meeting to go over the reporting/GEM process with trailer manufacturers 

(not just small businesses). Is that still on the table? 

Answers to question for all SER’s 

1. I am still not quite sure at this time what the impact would be to our company or if we 

would need to add equipment or staff. We definitely will have to spend what seems like a 

significant amount of time with certifications and reporting. If this is the case and we will 

likely have to add staff. We may also be required to hire shop personnel to install the aero 

devices. 

2. Flexibilities that could reduce small entity burden. 

a. Exempt small businesses completely. 

b. Exempt small businesses for a period of time. 

B22
c. Reduce the level of compliance for small businesses. 

d. Allow manufacturers to pick aero devices from a pre-approved list rather than 

having to test themselves. It is understood that manufacturers would test if they 

come up with a device that is not on the approved list. 

3. The materials appear to address all issues. 

4. We build some special trailers such drop frame dry freight van trailers and trailers with 

belly boxes that we may not be able to use existing technologies (side skirts) for 

reduction of CO2. This could create an issue of compliance or increased burden on us. 

What they will be specifically, if any, is unclear at this time. 

5. If stringency levels are too great to start and technology does not exist to meet those 

levels it would be an issue. But I do not think that it would change my answers to any of 

the questions above. 

6. Based on what I perceive that EPA will propose, I do not think that additional lead time 

will be required. That is, if we are permitted to pick from approved aero devices and not 

to have to test there should be no additional lead time. I also think that we would be able 

to figure out the reporting and record keeping prior to the effective date. Workshops for 

reporting and certification would be greatly beneficial. 

7. At this time I cannot think of any sector-unique business or competitive issues that you 

should understand. 

8. Yes, I anticipate that we will have unique legal, administrative and record keeping 

burdens as a result of compliance since we do not currently have any such reporting. 

What specifically these will be is unclear at this time. 

9. I am not aware of any potential regulatory conflicts. 

Answers to questions to trailer manufacturers 

1. Yes, we have experience with side and rear fairings along with LRR tires. We have not 

seen any benefits with the implementation of these technologies as we are not the end 

user. We have heard from customers that they see a benefit in fuel reduction but those 

numbers are not concrete. 

2. We will have increased costs associated with engineering, purchasing and material 

handling at the plant level. We will also have increased costs, either at the plant or at the 

corporate level, for certification and reporting. We could also have increased costs if we 

are required to do testing rather than using a pre-approved aero device list. 

3. We will need to determine a place in the plant that we can install and store the aero 

devices. Depending upon the devices we may actually have to restructure our line stations 

to accommodate there assembly/installation. 

4. See question 2 in previous section. 

5. I would expect that we would both acquire technologies from vendors along with 

developing technologies in-house. 

6. We do not have any specific experience regarding a response to the California 

requirements and do not have many customers in the western part of the country. Most of 

our customers and our major customers are located east of the Mississippi. 

B23
East Manufacturing Corp.

1871 State Route 44 

Randolph, OH 44265 

November 4, 2014 

Re: Comments and Questions to the EPA- GHG Fuel Efficiency Standards (Phase 2)

• East designs and manufactures four basic types of All aluminum lightweight trailers.

o End Dump trailers

o End Dump truck bodies 

o Platform Trailers (Flatbed and Dropdeck) 

o Refuse Trailers (Tippers and Walking Floors) 

• The total annual US Market for these four types of trailers is very small compared to 

Vans and Reefers.

o End Dump trailers/bodies are estimated to be 6,000 to 10,000 units annually. 

o Platform trailers are estimated to be 15,000 to 28,000 units annually. 

o Refuse trailers are estimated to be 3,000 to 4,000 units annually. 

• None of the trailers East builds are covered under the EPA’s SmartWay program. 

o The only devices currently applicable to our product types are Rolling resistant 

dual tires, Wide base single tires, Tire pressure monitoring systems and 

Automatic Tire Inflation systems.

o LRR tires today are limited in availability, sizes and certain applications. It is 

unknown if they may have an adverse effect to tire wear on Flatbed and multiaxle end dumps that are subjected to “High Scrub” tire situations. Causing owners 

to buy more tires in a shorter time period. This will increase the usage of materials 

and drive operating cost up and profitability down for Owner operators and Fleet 

owners. 

• Averaging, Banking and Trading will most likely not be available to East Mfg or other 

Small Business manufacturers simply due to the small number of trailers built annually of 

each product type.

o This inability to use Averaging, Banking and Trading will put small 

manufacturers at a market disadvantage compared to large business 

manufacturers.

B24
• Year Model designation is all over the board. Each manufacturer can decide when to 

change year models within two years. In the past most manufacturers changed over in 

June or July of each year. Today most change over January 1st of each year. This was 

driven by Fleet and customer requests. There is currently no government mandate 

regulating the timing of year model change for trailers. (Example: Today on January 1, 

2015 most manufacturers will be building 2016 year model trailers). Conversely, there is 

nothing to keep manufacturers from pushing off the change to a year model out one or 

even two years at this point. Thereby delaying the mandate to comply with these 

regulations. 

• Due to the specific applications of our trailer types we fear that adding aerodynamic side 

fairings, front and rear fairings could create unsafe conditions, higher warranty costs and 

product liability issues if required to be installed. (More discussion is needed here) 

• A high percentage of the products we build a specified with 4 or more axles up to 8. We 

feel that none of the current Aerodynamic device currently used today would be able to 

be installed and if they could would be of little to no effect. (More discussion needed 

here) 

o Products spec’d with more than 4 axels should be fully exempted from this 

program. 

The following are answers to the Questions to All SERs on page 42 of the document provided by 

the EPA on 11/5/2014. 

1. Yes these regulations would require East to add additional clerical staff, more Direct 

labor and additional Material Handing/indirect labor. 

2. Since averaging probably will not work for small entities some other method of leveling 

the playing field between large and small manufacturers should be developed. 

3. We believe there will be many unknown adverse issues and circumstances not thought 

about today as a result of these regulations. 

4. Trailers serving Niche markets are too small in annual production to affect the overall 

output of GHG CO2 emissions. 

5. Extending the start date for small business entities will allow us to evaluate technology 

and the effects of the cost associated on our businesses.

6. Yes we would like to see the time extended for compliance for all small business 

manufacturers so that we have more time to study the requirements and they associated 

perceived benefits.

7. Yes there should be more open discussion around all four of our product types. 

8. Yes we anticipate Product Liability laws suits on dump and refuse trailers due to causing 

potential trailer rollovers and/or damage to equipment in landfills and construction sites. 

9. There may be possible trailer length law issues associated with Boat tails on our Refuse 

trailers.

B25
The following are answers to the Questions to All SERs on page 44 of the document provided by 

the EPA on 11/5/2014. 

1. No

2. Yes

3. Unknown at this point. Too early in the process. 

4. Full or partial Exemption for our product types. 

5. We would have to acquire technologies from vendors as we do not have the resources for 

a full R&D study.

6. (a) No

(b) Most of our customers are located East of the Mississippi river. 

We appreciate your consideration of our comments, questions and requests. 

Regards,

David J. de Poincy

President/COO

East Manufacturing Corp.

Office: 330-325-9921 Ext. 212

Cell: 817-948-5733

Fax: 330-325-7851

ddepoincy@eastmfg.com

B26
Lanelle Wiggins November 10, 2014

US-EPA – Office of Policy

1200 Penn Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20460

To expand on the earlier responses to your questions of the Small Business Trailer Manufacturers; 

1. As to Annual Mileage, Speed and Life Span 

We believe that the average life span of one of our trailers in about 20 years but has different 

stages of life and associated mileage similar to some of the information that you collected on 

dry vans and reefers. 

In the first 5 years of their life we believe that the average annual mileage for our trailers is

51,000 miles.

In the second 5 years of their life we believe that the average annual mileage for our trailers is

36,000 miles.

In the third 5 years of their life we believe that the average annual mileage for our trailers is 

10,000 miles and in their last five years of life the average annual mileage would be 5,000 miles.

The average speed in the first five years would be 50 miles an hour and drop an average of 5 

miles per hour for each of the next five year brackets.

2. Tractor type and utilization

Something else that is somewhat unique about our style of trailer is that they are typically 

married to a tractor – unlike dry vans and reefers which frequently pull different trailers all of 

the time. 

As stated previously about half of our sales are directly to farmers. In those applications the 

tractor is typically an older unit – commonly a tractor from the 80s or 90s. Our commercial 

customers commonly have later model tractors – say 1 to 8 years old.

3. Certification Year

In reference to the conversation on Certification Year, as was discussed on the phone, tying the 

certification to the model year is more difficult for trailer builders than was described for 

automobile manufacturers.

B27
I would suggest for our environment that tying the certification year to the calendar year would 

work the easiest.

4. Averaging/Banking

Due to the low volume of construction of any given configuration of trailer, it is difficult for us to 

see how Averaging and Banking would benefit smaller manufacturers. It could easily put us at a 

disadvantage to larger trailer builders, especially those that might build a variety of different 

styles of trailers.

Thank you

Jeff Thompson

Vice President

Timpte Inc.

B28
From: Adam Jump

To: Wiggins, Lanelle

Subject: General comments made during conference call on Nov.6th 2014 12:30-2:30 pm (Eastern) - Panel Outreach

 Meeting with Vocational Chassis Manufacturer SERs

Date: Monday, November 17, 2014 2:19:40 PM

Attachments: Comments made during conference call.doc

Lanelle,

 Please see attached comments made on Nov.6, 2014.

Thank you,

Adam Jump

Engineering Manager

Indiana Phoenix, Inc.

200 Dekko Drive,

Avilla, IN 46710

Work: 260-897-4651

Cell: 260-402-9348

Fax: 260-897-4646

B29
Comments made during conference call:

- All the trucks we build are 6X6 configuration with up to two tag axles and two pusher 

axles.

- The majority of the trucks we build use super single tires on the rear drive axles and all 

use super single on the steer axle.

- Most of our customers use a cog type traction tire since they spend a lot of time on 

construction sites.

- The take rate on the air conditioning option is about 10% and it is assembled in-house.

- Since these vehicles are front cab, rear engine configuration the refrigerant lines are 

approximately 20 feet long.

- Weight reduction as a means of achieving compliance is ineffective since our customers 

are payload driven.

- Delivery is usually within 25 miles of the batch plant due to the cure time of the concrete.

- The drum must be turning anytime there is concrete in it.

- Hydraulic pumps are either on-engine or FEPTO driven and the only power used through 

the transmission is to move the truck.

- The on-engine hydraulic pump is commonly used for both power steering and discharge 

chute control.

- We have not evaluated our AC system for compliance to SAE J2727.

 

Questions:

- In the event that gliders are required to be compliant, what emissions level engines must 

be used?

- Since all the trucks we build have pusher and/or tag axles and commonly have different 

tires than the drive axles, how will these be handled in the GEM model?

B30
To: Lanelle Wiggins - EPA 

From: Jan Hoover – Diamatrix, 215-949-4790 

Input 

 Costs of aero devices. 

o We see side fairings (skirts) range from around $600 to $800 not including 

installation or FET. Installation is around $300. Pricing does seem to be coming 

down. 

o We have no experience with rear fairings. 

o LRR tires. The $320 you mention is good for an average. We have some 

manufacturers that are less and some that are more. 

o ATIS ranges $500 to $700 not including installation or FET. Installation varies 

depending on the system and what can be prepped ahead of time. 

 Volume of production by family. Our dry freight van plant builds 2500 to 3000 units per 

year. The percentages shown following this are subject to change based on our 

customer’s needs. That is, we could easily build higher or lower percentages of any trailer 

type in any given year. 

o 50% - 53’ and longer vans.

o 25% - 28’ vans.

o 15% - Other length vans. 

o 10% - Drop frame and special vans. Could include belly boxes, etc. 

 On slide 10, I would add 49 CFR 568 - VEHICLES MANUFACTURED IN TWO OR 

MORE STAGES. Which manufacturer would be responsible for the reporting and 

certification in this case? 

 On slide 40 other costs to consider. There will be engineering, purchasing and material 

handling costs associated with any device added to the trailers. Engineering will need to 

evaluate options, create drawings and bills of materials, ensure compliance of other 

components (lights, etc.) and to avoid interferences with other items on the trailers. 

Purchasing will have to buy the additional items, receive the items and process the 

invoices. Material handling will have these additional items to store and deliver to the 

line. 

 Aerodynamic testing will be a huge expense, not only to small businesses, if we are 

required to do this. It would be beneficial if we could pick devices from an approved 

B31
menu or list. If we are required to test and verify every device it would be a huge burden 

on small business and might put us out of business. 

 Model year on slide 26. Our model year changes, officially, on January 1. However, if we 

have an order that starts in December and will finish in January, that entire order will be 

of the new model year. I cannot speak for other manufacturers. You will need to contact 

them directly. Possibly TTMA could get that from their membership but it will not be all 

inclusive. 

 Trailer options or models that would preclude the use of some aero devices: 

o Rear and side mounted liftgates or similar devices. A liftgate is a work performing 

device that raises and lowers freight to and from the ground and the trailer. 

o Belly boxes and similar devices. Belly boxes are mounted under the trailer and 

can be used for storing tools or equipment necessary to the freight being hauled. 

o Trailers with heater units or similar options installed would not permit the 

installation of nose mounted aero devices. 

o Vents specified at the front and rear. Vents are usually used to provide airflow 

through the trailer while it is running on the highway. These may produce 

interference with nose or rear mounted aero devices. 

o Side door steps. Steps are used to permit the entry into the trailer through the side 

door. The structure of and bracing of these steps may preclude the use of certain 

side aero devices. 

o Trailers with more than three axles or trailers with spread axles. With these 

configurations there would be no room or very little room for side and underbelly 

devices to be installed. 

o Trailers for intermodal use have underneath clearance criteria and lift pads that 

MAY cause issues with specific aero devices. 

o Drop frame trailers. Drop frames trailers have a drop in the floor at or near the 

landing gear. The trailers or trailers similar to them would not be conducive to 

some aero devices. 

o We build some trailers where we build a “shell” that our customer may convert 

into a portable office or add machinery to. The modifications that are done may 

require the removal of aero devices, if installed, or preclude the use of them 

altogether. How would these types of trailers be handled under the regulation? 

o Extendible container chassis. 

o Container chassis in general. 

o Specialty container chassis. 

o Extendible flatbed trailers. 

o Flatbed trailers in general. 

 Typically flatbeds have winches mounted under the side rail that could 

preclude the use of some side fairings. 

B32
Questions I have that were not fully addressed on the call 

 On the conference call on the 5th I asked about the pre-certification, certification 

application and end of year compliance. Specifically, I wanted to try to understand what 

is required through each step to make some determination as to what resources we will 

have to have in place. Unfortunately we got sidetracked a little and my question was not 

fully answered and I still do not have an understanding. Would it be possible to have 

someone explain the process to me? Is there somewhere I can look to get a better 

understanding? 

 On the TTMA/EPA conference call on 10/17 it was suggested that EPA, Ann Arbor, 

could hold a meeting to go over the reporting/GEM process with trailer manufacturers 

(not just small businesses). Is that still on the table? 

Answers to question for all SER’s

1. I am still not quite sure at this time what the impact would be to our company or if we 

would need to add equipment or staff. We definitely will have to spend what seems like a 

significant amount of time with certifications and reporting. If this is the case and we will 

likely have to add staff. We may also be required to hire shop personnel to install the aero 

devices. 

2. Flexibilities that could reduce small entity burden. 

a. Exempt small businesses completely. 

b. Exempt small businesses for a period of time. 

c. Reduce the level of compliance for small businesses. 

d. Allow manufacturers to pick aero devices from a pre-approved list rather than 

having to test themselves. It is understood that manufacturers would test if they 

come up with a device that is not on the approved list. 

3. The materials appear to address all issues.

4. We build some special trailers such drop frame dry freight van trailers and trailers with 

belly boxes that we may not be able to use existing technologies (side skirts) for 

reduction of CO2. This could create an issue of compliance or increased burden on us. 

What they will be specifically, if any, is unclear at this time. In addition, container 

chassis and flatbeds could be an issue for using aero devices. 

5. If stringency levels are too great to start and technology does not exist to meet those 

levels it would be an issue. But I do not think that it would change my answers to any of 

the questions above except for the one regarding flexibilities. 

6. Based on what I perceive that EPA will propose, I do not think that additional lead time 

will be required. That is, if we are permitted to pick from approved aero devices and not 

to have to test there should be no additional lead time. I also think that we would be able 

to figure out the reporting and record keeping prior to the effective date. Workshops for 

reporting and certification would be greatly beneficial. 

7. At this time I cannot think of any sector-unique business or competitive issues that you 

should understand. 

8. Yes, I anticipate that we will have unique legal, administrative and record keeping 

burdens as a result of compliance since we do not currently have any such reporting. 

What specifically these will be is unclear at this time. 

B33
9. For van type trailers I cannot think of any conflicts with regulations regarding addition of 

aero devices. However, on container chassis the conspicuity tape is applied to the main 

rails of the trailer. If a side fairing is used the conspicuity tape will not be visible. 

Answers to questions to trailer manufacturers 

1. Yes, we have experience with side and rear fairings along with LRR tires. We have not 

seen any benefits with the implementation of these technologies as we are not the end 

user. We have heard from customers that they see a benefit in fuel reduction but those 

numbers are not concrete.

2. We will have increased costs associated with engineering, purchasing and material 

handling at the plant level. We will also have increased costs, either at the plant or at the 

corporate level, for certification and reporting. We could also have increased costs if we 

are required to do testing rather than using a pre-approved aero device list. 

3. We will need to determine a place in the plant that we can install and store the aero 

devices. Depending upon the devices we may actually have to restructure our line stations 

to accommodate there assembly/installation. 

4. See question 2 in previous section.

5. I would expect that we would both acquire technologies from vendors along with 

developing technologies in-house.

6. We do not have any specific experience regarding a response to the California 

requirements and do not have many customers in the western part of the country. Most of 

our customers and our major customers are located east of the Mississippi. 

B34
201 Mittel Drive, Wood Dale, IL 60191

1.630.350.9400 (Main) – 1.630.350.9900 (Fax)

www.psiengines.com

November	19,	2014	

Lanelle	Wiggins	

RFA/SBREFA	Team	Leader	

EPA	Office	of	Policy	

1200 Penn Ave NW

Washington DC ‐ 20460

202‐566‐2372	

wiggins.lanelle@epa.gov

RE:		Comments	from	November	6,	2014	SBAR	Panel	Meeting	on	GHG	Phase	2	

Dear	Lanelle:	

Thank	you	for	providing	our	company	with	an	opportunity	to	participate	in	this	process.		The	SBAR	

Panel	meetings	earlier	this	month	were	very	informative.			

Immediately	below	are	a	summary	of	the	initial	comments	that	we	made	from	the	Pre‐Panel	

meeting	back	in	June	of	this	year.		I	wanted	to	provide	them	by	way	of	review	because,	they	are	

definitely	a	barrier	that	secondary	engine	manufacturers	have	to	deal	with.		Imposing	more	

stringent	GHG	regulations	on	secondary	manufacturers,	especially	those	that	fit	into	the	category	of	

small	businesses	–	which	most	do,	makes	it	very	difficult	to	architect	base	engine	specific	

technology.	

Summary of Comments from June 2014 Pre‐Panel Meeting:

 The	GHG	reducing	technologies	all	impact	the	design	and	construction	of	the	long	engine	

block	assembly.	

 Small	businesses	/	secondary	engine	manufacturers	have	very	little	ability	to	influence	the	

content	of	the	new	long	engine	block	engine	assemblies	purchased	from	automotive	

companies.	

 Small	businesses	/	secondary	engine	manufacturers	receive	very	little	support	from	the	

long	block	engine	manufacturer	for	challenges	faced	when	developing	and	applying	the	long	

block	engine	assembly	into	new	applications.	

 The	small	business	/	secondary	engine	manufacturer	will	need	to	invest	in	developing	

new/additional	internal	technological	capability	to	be	able	to	accommodate	more	stringent	

standards.	

 The	small	business	/	secondary	engine	manufacturer	will	require	additional	time,	beyond	

that	required	by	a	large	entity,	to	adopt	more	stringent	standards.	

Below	are	a	summary	of	our	comments	derived	from	participating	in	the	SBAR	Panel	meetings	on	

November	6th.	

B35
201 Mittel Drive, Wood Dale, IL 60191

1.630.350.9400 (Main) – 1.630.350.9900 (Fax)

www.psiengines.com

Summary of Comments from SBAR Panel Meetings on November 6, 2014:

 There	has	been	discussion	about	making	a	specific	GHG	standard	for	NG	fuel	type	to	account	

for	the	lower	carbon	content	of	natural	gas.		We	would	be	opposed	to	more	stringent	GHG	

regulations	for	NG	fueled	engines	for	the	following	reasons:	

o As	a	small	business,	we	are	going	to	be	required	to	use	ABT	credits	to	bring	some	of	

our	engine	families	into	GHG	compliance.		Specifically,	some	of	our	gasoline	engine	

models	will	require	credits	to	bring	CO2	into	compliance.		With	the	627	g/hp‐hr	

standard,	there	are	a	good	amount	of	credits	that	can	be	generated	from	our	NG	

fueled	engine	families.		These	credits	will	help	us	bring	other	families	into	

compliance.		More	stringent	GHG	standards	for	NG	fueled	engines	would	impede	our	

ability	to	bank	credits.	

o Further	stringency	on	GHG	standards	for	NG	fuel	may	not	incentivize	vehicle	

manufacturers	to	adopt	NG	engine	models	for	their	products.	

 We	would	like	to	recommend	that	the	establishment	of	a	company’s	ability	to	use	“small”	

business	provisions	of	GHG	standards	be	based	on	one	of	two	criteria.		Currently,	the	

establishment	of	“small	business”	is	based	on	the	business	size	standards	specified	in	13	

CFR	121.201.		We	would	like	EPA	to	give	consideration,	in	future	GHG	rules,	to	also	allow	

the	establishment	of	“small	volume	manufacturer”	based	on	total	number	of	units	sold.		

Such	allowances	are	provided	in	the	criteria	section	40	CFR	86.094‐14(b)(1)	on	the	basis	of	

10,000	or	fewer	units.		This	would	allow	companies	to	qualify	to	use	“small	

business/volume”	provisions	of	the	new	rule	by	either	means.	

 The	establishment	of	a	“technology”	credit	to	be	applied	to	engine	based	GHG	certification	

for	use	of	such	technologies	as	Start/Stop	or	other	similar	hybridization.		Currently,	there	is	

no	ability	for	an	“engine	MOR”	to	realize	an	advantage	for	such	technology	based	on	testing	

over	the	engine	dynamometer	based	transient	FTP	cycle.		An	establishment	of	a	technology	

credit	based	on	the	use	of	such	technology	would	incentivize	implementation	of	such	

technology	by	heavy	duty	engine	companies.		It	is	recognized	that	some	method	of	

establishing	the	level	of	a	credit	would	need	to	be	developed.		There	are	many	reports	of	

hybridization	based	fuel	efficiency	improvements	in	the	heavy	duty	vocational	markets	that	

cover	a	wide	band	of	fuel	efficiency	improvements.		The	type	of	hybridization	and	duty	cycle	

use	of	the	vehicle	are	both	contributors	to	the	magnitude	of	the	fuel	economy	improvement.			

Thanks	again	for	allowing	our	company	to	participate	in	this	process.		We	look	forward	to	

remaining	involved	in	this	rule	making	as	it	continues	through	the	process.		Please	do	not	hesitate	

to	contact	me	directly	should	you	have	any	questions	or	require	clarification	on	any	of	our	

comments.	

Best	Regards,	

Andy	Suhy	

Director,	Emissions	Development	and	Compliance	

B36
Page 1 of 7

Medium and Heavy Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards – Phase 2 

Small Business 

Alternative Fuel Converters 

Response to HD GHG Phase 2 Proposal from CNG One Source, Inc. November 20, 2014 

PPT PROPOSED RULE OR 

COMMENT MENTIONED 

IN SER POWER POINT

IMPACT FLEXIBILITIES AND OTHER 

COMMENTS

p.6 Small businesses are 

disproportionately burdened by 

certification expenses compared 

to large businesses and have 

few funding opportunities for 

research and development.

Small businesses must use a higher percentage of 

their budget for research and development and costs 

associated with certification. The government has 

specifically told us that they have no interest in 

funding small businesses involved with engine 

development. Therefore, the burden is entirely on 

the engine manufacturer. Larger companies with 

greater resources not only spend a smaller share on 

research and development, they are also candidates 

for federal funding. This excludes small businesses 

from realistically competing in the marketplace.

If regulations burden small businesses, 

the agencies involved should identify and 

provide realistic resources to assist small 

businesses achieve certification.

The EPA could provide personnel to 

assist small entities in the certification 

process rather than redirect the small 

entities to costly third party companies.

p.6 Limited ability to control 

features of base engine 

architecture in the incomplete 

engines that they convert, which 

significantly reduces the options 

for reducing emissions.

Improvements could definitely be made on the base 

engines which would be helpful for a superior 

natural gas engine design. However, it appears that 

the OEM cannot justify the expense involved in 

making these changes, as they are not necessary for 

running the engines on diesel fuel. Therefore, 

secondary manufacturers and alternative fuel 

converters are limited in the amount of changes that 

can be made.

Small entities could comply with 

emission standards within a range of the 

original engine’s emissions.

When the industry improves, OEMs will 

be more likely to manufacture blocks that 

better support natural gas fuel.

B37
Page 2 of 7

p.6 Small businesses will require 

additional time to invest in 

resources required to adopt new 

standards.

Small businesses will have to have more capital in 

order to comply with the new regulations. Changes 

in government regulations is discouraging to 

customers and investors.

Allow additional time (one year) for 

implementation by small entities.

p.6 Concern over lack of 

enforcement against companies 

that do not certify their 

converted engines.

The majority of natural gas vehicles in the United 

States are not EPA compliant. The EPA has not 

provided adequate enforcement, and there is no real 

incentive for companies to comply with EPA 

regulations. By choosing to register with the EPA 

and follow all regulations, CNG One Source is at a 

huge disadvantage. Our company will bear the 

burden of expense on the research and development, 

certification, and use of time and resources to satisfy 

the government. In real life applications, consumers 

and trucking companies are finding ways to convert 

their vehicles to run a natural gas because of the fuel 

cost savings. They literally weigh out the risk and 

cost of fines from the EPA with the price of EPA 

compliant engines. We have personally fielded such 

phone calls, and unfortunately, contrary to our 

recommendations, the trucking companies 

ultimately opted to purchase non-EPA compliant 

engines. In addition, we have visited with 

companies who have modified the EPA certified 

engines to improve performance. Some of these 

companies have even hollowed out the catalytic

converter as well as making other dramatic 

modifications. There is already a very high level of 

non-compliance, and the more stringent the 

regulations and the more expensive the engines 

(noting that the prices of development, improved 

The only way to change behaviors and 

create compliance is to provide adequate 

enforcement. On the state level, there 

have been discussions that enforcement 

will discourage the industry, which 

seems to indicate that there is no desire 

anywhere to provide enforcement. If 

there is no real enforcement, what is the 

incentive to comply?

Collecting fines from enforcement could 

provide revenue to the EPA to assist 

small entities in achieving certification.

B38
Page 3 of 7

components, and certification will be passed on to 

the consumer), the greater the degree of noncompliance.

p.14 Converters will need to certify 

their engine and also work with 

the vehicle manufacturer to 

ensure their new vehicle meets 

the GHG standards with the 

alternative fuel engine.

Will secondary manufacturers and alternative fuel 

converters be required to work with the vehicle 

manufacturer? This could be a cumbersome process 

for some small businesses. In addition, when the 

industry grows and CNG engines become 

competitive in the market, OEM’s can eliminate the 

small business “partner”.

Allow engines to be certified 

independently so that they can be used in 

different vehicles and applications.

p.16 ABT allows a manufacturer to 

internally average similar 

models (by engine architecture 

or engine size), generate credits 

for future use if they overcomply, and sell banked credits 

to other under-complying 

manufacturers or buy another 

manufacturer’s banked credits 

to cover their own deficits.

Although this system theoretically can benefit small 

entities, the system heavily favors large 

corporations. Most of these proposed regulations 

seriously favor large corporations and are 

dangerously close to creating a monopoly in the 

industry. 

Small entities are likely to specialize in limited types

of engines only.

p.18 EPA is considering more 

stringent CO2 emission 

standards, including CH4 and 

N2O caps for all engine types.

According to the EPA’s Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2012 

published April 15, 2014, methane emissions are not 

known to be significant in the transportation sector. 

More stringent standards are not 

necessary for natural gas engines. 

p.18 Engine manufacturers may be 

required to provide engine fuel 

map data to vehicle 

manufacturers as inputs for 

EPA’s vehicle certification 

model.

What data will be treated as CBI? Could this 

requirement encourage OEMs and vehicle 

manufacturers to take the conversion process in 

house and exclude the small businesses?

B39
Page 4 of 7

p.19 N2O measurement may require 

additional equipment in some 

test facilities. EPA is 

considering the option of 

allowing AFCs to use 

“engineering analysis” to 

demonstrate that the base 

engine did not exceed the N2O 

cap and their conversion 

process would not impact N2O.

“EPA believes N2O measurement devices can be 

purchased, if necessary, for ~$100,000.” PPT p.24. 

This expense will either be incurred by the small 

business or passed along to the small business. Is 

the measurement so critical at this point, that the 

expense is justifiable?

How much will facilities charge to take N2O 

measurements? Even certification companies

contract with a third parties for testing. Will there 

be a backlog with the number of engine 

manufacturers having to use a limited number of 

facilities?

An engineering analysis would be 

appropriate, although this will add 

engineering expenses as well.

CNG One Source would like information 

on the process of becoming EPA certified 

to take such measurements. 

p.20 Phase 2 standards have not been 

set yet. CH4 may be more 

challenging for natural gas 

engines. Improper fueling can 

result in high levels of unburned 

CH4 emissions. Converted CI 

(diesel) engines would need to 

ensure the crankcase is closed 

with a suitable ventilation 

system installed to reduce blowby CH4 emissions.

CH4 standards should not be more restrictive. There 

is no clear evidence to support that mobile methane 

use from natural gas vehicles significantly affects 

CH4 emissions.

Improper fueling should not impact the engine’s 

emissions.

Further restrictions on methane emissions 

are unwarranted.

p.21 NAS 2014 report 

recommending separate CO2

standards for natural gas fueled 

engines. NAS did not 

recommend new requirements 

for engines that use other 

alternative fuels.

This limitation is unnecessary and unfairly targets 

the natural gas industry. In fact, having separate 

standards is punitive to the natural gas industry, and 

why? It was just in March 2013 that the NAS stated 

in their report, “Transitions to Alternative Vehicles 

and Fuels”, that the ‘CNGV emphasis scenario’, is 

the only scenario which achieves 50% reduction in 

At this time, there is no sound reason to 

implement different standards for natural 

gas engines. These limitations are 

barriers and will completely stifle an 

already struggling industry at a time 

when the technology and market 

adoption need to grow. 

B40
Page 5 of 7

petroleum use by 2030. Unnecessary limitations 

are going to kill the natural gas industry before it 

even has a chance to become widely adopted.

p.21 Phase 2 proposal may include 

additional requirements for 

natural gas-fueled engines to 

control methane emissions; 

OBD requirements for CNG 

and LNG methane leaks.

As stated earlier, methane leaks are presently not 

known to be significant as far as emissions are 

concerned. Again, this requirement is punitive to 

the natural gas industry.

Currently the most common cause of 

methane leakage is a faulty pressure 

regulator. When the regulator fails, the 

engine ceases to operate, even if in 

motion on the highway. While this is a 

huge safety concern, as is as the 

flammability concern, it is not presently a 

significant environmental concern.

Methane gas composition varies greatly 

depending on well gas, landfill gas, and 

utility grade gas. Even utility gas 

changes in composition during the winter 

months. Knowing this, how will the data 

be acquired for OBD? Vehicles running 

on low quality CNG (lower percentage of 

CH4) will not be detected as readily as 

vehicles running on high quality methane 

(higher percentage of CH4). Further, if 

vehicles run on lower quality gas, the 

engine components will be deteriorate 

much more quickly. However, to avoid 

MIL light and OBD issues with the EPA, 

operators could and would exploit this 

system.

B41
Page 6 of 7

Detection of methane leakage by 

measuring mercaptan/odorant is faulty 

because:

1. It doesn’t exist for LNG as it 

transitions from liquid to gas.

2. Not all fuel stations use 

mercaptan/odorant, even though it 

is required by NFPA 52.

The engine manufacturer or converter 

might achieve desired EPA standards for 

certification. However, until the quality 

standard is built for CNG refueling 

stations, the OEM or AFC will continue 

to foot the bill to theoretically comply 

during testing but will not in real life 

applications.

p.24 EPA believes N2O 

measurement devices can be 

purchased, if necessary, for 

~$100,000.

These prices will either be incurred by small 

business or passed along to small business. 

Is this necessary for AFC or secondary 

manufacturers? As stated above, an 

engineering analysis would be 

appropriate, although this will add 

engineering expenses as well.

p.24 EPA believes most of the GHG 

standards can be met with 

proper tuning of fuel and 

emission control systems 

requiring the cost of some 

additional engineering time.

“the cost of some additional engineering time” is 

likely hundreds of thousands of dollars when you 

consider all of the proposed changes in standards.

Increasing restrictions on emissions can 

compromise the integrity and longevity 

of the engine. Durability of the engine 

should be balanced with emissions 

standards.

p.24 If the base engine for 

conversion is a CI engine with 

an open crankcase, we estimate 

This design will affect engine durability as the 

byproducts of the natural gas system will deteriorate 

Allow open crankcase for two reasons:

B42
Page 7 of 7

a closed crankcase ventilation 

system to cost ~$500.

the engine components. For example, H2S 

combined with CO2 will create fissures in the steel.

Methane emissions occurring in a closed system 

would likely create an unsafe and potentially 

hazardous situation.

1. Methane emissions are not known 

to be significant in natural gas 

vehicles.

2. Maintain vehicle safety by 

eliminating potentially hazardous 

closed “ventilation” system.

p.24 Additional incremental increase 

in costs associated with this 

proposed rulemaking could 

include attorney fees to 

interpret regulations, accountant 

fees to manage sale and 

compliance figures, 

administrative staff for record 

keeping.

Most companies in the alternative fuels industry are 

struggling to make a profit as it is still a small niche

market. Many companies have gone out of business 

or their stocks are failing. The additional 

incremental costs will excessively burden the small 

businesses who are the ones willing to comply with 

the EPA’s regulations and in turn suffer the direct, 

indirect and induced costs of meeting and managing 

these stringent regulations.

Safety Emissions

Costs Durability

B43
From: dePoincy, Dave

To: Wiggins, Lanelle

Subject: East Mfg submitted CBI Information related to the EPA GHG Fuel Efficiency Standards Phase 2.

Date: Thursday, November 20, 2014 4:29:38 PM

Dear Ms. Wiggins,

Just a note indicating to you that I submitted Confidential CBI information for East Mfg today,

 related to the EPA GHG Fuel Efficiency Standards Phase 2.

It was requested that we share cost information and an indication of volumes used for LRR tires and

 Tire Pressure monitoring Systems. I have shared that information today in hopes that it will assist

 the EPA in writing a fair and balanced regulation considering the size and purchasing power of small

 manufacturers.

You may note that we buy tires from several manufacturers, but there are limited sizes available

 from each of them for our applications. I have also given an indication of the high volume

 purchases and the number of LRR tires that not available for those applications.

Also at the bottom of the list we show the 3 types of Tire monitoring/inflation systems that we

 buy/use along with the volume.

Our concern is that even if LRR tires and Tire systems were mandated for every trailer we build we

 would not be able to purchase the tires or inflation systems competitively compared to companies

 such as Wabash/Transcraft/Benson, Great Dane and Utility and it would put East in a noncompetitive situation when quoting business against these companies.

Best regards,

David J. de Poincy

President/COO

East Manufacturing Corp.

Office: 330-325-9921 Ext. 212

Cell: 817-948-5733

Fax: 330-325-7851

ddepoincy@eastmfg.com

B44