*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

1

EO12866_GHG+Fuel Eff Stds for Med-Heavy-Duty Engines+Vehicles 2060-AP61 FRM 

Response to OMB_20110628 without 12.docx

Below is a summary of interagency comments received during EO 12866 and EO 13563 review 

of the draft final rule establishing GHG emissions standards and fuel efficiency standards for 

medium and heavy duty trucks; for consideration and subject to further policy review. Agency 

responses are provided for each comment.

Table of Contents

1) Probabilistic Uncertainty Analysis ............................................................................................ 3

2) Estimates of costs and benefits.................................................................................................... 4

3) Annualized Estimates of Costs and Benefits using Model Year 2014-2018 analysis.......... 6

4) Averaging, Banking, and Trading Provisions.......................................................................... 6

5) Upstream emissions. .................................................................................................................. 9

6) Advanced Technology Credits.................................................................................................. 9

7) Accuracy of Analysis of Alternatives....................................................................................... 9

8) Analysis of Alternatives for Subcategories............................................................................ 11

9) Accounting for Uncertainty in Analysis of the Alternatives ................................................ 12

10) Tables in the RIA.................................................................................................................. 13

11) No-Action Option................................................................................................................. 13

12) Baselines ............................................................................................................................... 13

13) Market Effects ...................................................................................................................... 14

14) Fuel Savings.......................................................................................................................... 14

15) RPE and Learning curve ...................................................................................................... 15

16) Retreading of Tires............................................................................................................... 15

17) Time value associated with reduced refueling ................................................................... 15

18) GDP Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 16

19) Market Failure ...................................................................................................................... 16

20) Baseline.................................................................................................................................. 16

21) Fleet Make-up....................................................................................................................... 17

22) Tire data ................................................................................................................................ 18

23) Benefits of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 19
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

2

24) Public Comments.................................................................................................................. 20

25) Learning ................................................................................................................................ 21

26) Employment.......................................................................................................................... 21

27) Market Failure ...................................................................................................................... 21

28) Incentives.............................................................................................................................. 22

29) NRC Assessment.................................................................................................................. 22

30) Citations ................................................................................................................................ 22

31) Impacts.................................................................................................................................. 23

32) Footnote................................................................................................................................. 23

33) Oil Production........................................................................................................................ 23

34) NOX and PM Text ................................................................................................................ 24

35) Capacity................................................................................................................................. 24

36) High Roof & Mid Roof Sleepers......................................................................................... 25

37) EISA ...................................................................................................................................... 25

38) Tire Safety............................................................................................................................. 26

39) VSL........................................................................................................................................ 27

40) Tire Tread Comment............................................................................................................ 27

41) Tire Market Comment.......................................................................................................... 28

42) Test Variability ..................................................................................................................... 29

43) Innovative Credit Submissions............................................................................................ 29

44) Final Reports......................................................................................................................... 30

45) Testing Fees.......................................................................................................................... 31

46) Typo 1.................................................................................................................................... 31

47) Typo 2.................................................................................................................................... 31

48) Typo 3.................................................................................................................................... 31

49) Typo 4.................................................................................................................................... 31

50) Typo 5.................................................................................................................................... 31

51) Typo 6.................................................................................................................................... 32

52) Job Creation .......................................................................................................................... 32

53) SBA Declaration................................................................................................................... 32

54) Small Entities and Sales....................................................................................................... 33

55) Delay of Sales....................................................................................................................... 34

56) Human Factor ....................................................................................................................... 35

57) Timing of In-Use .................................................................................................................. 35
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

3

58) RV’s....................................................................................................................................... 36

59) California .............................................................................................................................. 36

60) Trailer Program..................................................................................................................... 36

61) Timing of Future Rules........................................................................................................ 36

62) Pickup Standards.................................................................................................................. 37

63) Net Benefits .......................................................................................................................... 37

64) Credit Deficits....................................................................................................................... 37

65) FFV’s..................................................................................................................................... 38

66) DOE PEF............................................................................................................................... 38

67) NGV’s ................................................................................................................................... 39

68) Early Credits......................................................................................................................... 39

69) Multiplier .............................................................................................................................. 39

70) Non-Tailpipe EV Emissions................................................................................................ 39

71) Tailpipe and Upstream Edits ............................................................................................... 40

72) Tailpipe 1 .............................................................................................................................. 41

73) Tailpipe 2 .............................................................................................................................. 41

74) Tailpipe 3 .............................................................................................................................. 41

75) Tailpipe 4 .............................................................................................................................. 42

76) FFV Weighting ..................................................................................................................... 42

77) Tailpipe 5 .............................................................................................................................. 42

78) Tailpipe 6 .............................................................................................................................. 42

79) Upstream from EV’s............................................................................................................ 43

80) Tailpipe 7 .............................................................................................................................. 44

81) Climate Context.................................................................................................................... 45

82) Hybrids.................................................................................................................................. 46

83) Acceptable Uncertainty........................................................................................................ 46

84) Frontal Area .......................................................................................................................... 47

1) Probabilistic Uncertainty Analysis

OMB Circular A-4 states, “For major rules involving annual economic effects of $1 billion or 

more, you should present a formal quantitative analysis of the relevant uncertainties about 

benefits and costs. In other words, you should try to provide some estimate of the probability 

distribution of regulatory benefits and costs. In summarizing the probability distributions, you should 

provide some estimates of the central tendency (e.g., mean and median) along with any other 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

4

information you think will be useful such as ranges, variances, specified low-end and high-end 

percentile estimates, and other characteristics of the distribution.”

The RIA does not include a formal probabilistic uncertainty analysis. Please provide this analysis.

Response:

EPA continues to work toward developing a comprehensive strategy for characterizing the 

aggregate impact of uncertainty in key elements of its analyses. For example, it has taken many

years to develop the uncertainty characterization for criteria pollutant impacts (monte carlo 

ranges of uncertainty, alternative mortality endpoints, etc., all of which is present in the copollutant analysis for the FRM). For the final HD GHG action, however, many of the analyses 

have been developed relatively recently and conducted using a tremendous amount of staff and 

budget resources. To the best of our ability at this time, we have identified the uncertain aspects 

of these analyses and have worked to quantify them when/if possible (e.g., sensitivity ranges 

associated with quantified and monetized GHG impacts). EPA will continue to work to refine 

these uncertainty analyses in the future as time and resources permit.

We have added the following text to the beginning of Section VIII of the preamble:

“Where possible, we identify the uncertain aspects of these economic impacts and attempt to 

quantify them when/if possible (e.g., sensitivity ranges associated with quantified and monetized 

GHG impacts; probabilistic uncertainty associated with non-GHG health benefits). For some 

impacts, however, there is a lack of adequate information to inform a probabilistic assessment of 

uncertainty. EPA continues to work toward developing a comprehensive strategy for 

characterizing the aggregate impact of uncertainty in key elements of its analyses and we will 

continue to work to refine these uncertainty analyses in the future as time and resources permit.”

2) Estimates of costs and benefits

Several reviewers had concerns about the timeline used to estimate the rule’s costs and 

benefits. Costs and benefits of model year 2014 to 2018 standards have been estimated for every 

year from 2012 to 2050 as if the 2018 standards remain in place for model years through 2050. 

This results in the aggregate estimates of costs and benefits being largely driven by long-term 

values (i.e., beyond 2020) associated with the impacts of the standards on trucks manufactured 

decades in the future. However, both costs and benefits are measured against a baseline fuel 

economy associated with MY 2010 vehicles that is assumed to remain constant through 2050. 

The selection of a constant baseline is problematic for estimating long-term costs and benefits, 

particularly given assumptions about declining technology costs and increasing fuel prices. For 

example, if historical trends in fuel economy improvements continue into the future, there should 

be a point at which, even in the baseline, vehicles would exceed the standards proposed here. In 

such a case, the standards would become non-binding, and, beyond that point in time, the 

program would neither impose costs nor produce benefits.

More generally, given that the question at hand relates to the merits of standards for MY 2014 to 

MY 2018, and the standards will almost certainly be revisited in response to new information in 

future years, the results of analysis of these standards should not be driven, as they currently are, 

by estimates of the standards’ effects on trucks manufactured decades into the future.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

5

In light of the above, commenters suggest that EPA and NHSTA re-evaluate the approach taken 

to presenting estimates of costs and benefits, and shift the focus of this analysis to the near- and 

medium-term costs and benefits of the rule. Commenters recommend that agencies estimate 

costs and benefits for only MY 2014 to MY 2018 trucks, over their estimated useful lifetimes. 

Presumably, this would not require new analysis, but rather simply altering what is drawn from

the existing analysis to present in the preamble and RIA.

This rule’s primary direct effect will be on the emissions and fuel economy of MY2014 to 

MY2018 vehicles, and the standards can be adjusted for subsequent model years. 

Consequently, as a matter of good regulatory analysis, commenters recommend that the 

agencies focus their analysis of the rule’s costs and benefits on its implications for MY2014-

2018 vehicles alone. Given that most of the trucks contributing to the 2030-2050 net benefit 

results will presumably be post-2018 model year trucks, a discussion of the rule’s overall net 

benefits from 2030 onward seems to be an unnecessary distraction. Commenters note that 

the agencies selected the standards based on their implications for MY2014-MY2018 trucks, 

not based on the implications of the standards if they were to remain in place through 2050. 

The regulatory analysis should therefore reflect this focus.

Response: 

We do present the recommended analysis and refer to it as our “Model Year” analysis in contrast 

to our “Calendar Year” analysis which presents annual costs and benefits for the calendar years 

2012-2050 (and assumes that the 2018 standards remain in place in perpetuity).

EPA believes that there are two key reasons for presenting the calendar year analysis. First, it is 

necessary to review the total impact the rule has on climate change and ambient air quality. 

Second, the 2018 standards will, in fact, remain in place in perpetuity unless and until amended, 

so it is accurate and reasonable to estimate costs and benefits for model years beyond 2018. It is 

for these reasons that EPA routinely uses this methodology in assessing rules’ costs and benefits, 

e.g. the light duty vehicle GHG rule. While it is possible that future improvements to fuel 

consumption would be made absent the rule, this cannot be known today. If such improvements 

were to occur absent the rule, then the society would still incur the costs of those improvements 

and realize the benefits of those improvements. In that case, the costs and benefits would not be 

attributable to the rule, but would instead be attributable to the marketplace. However, EPA and 

NHTSA cannot ensure that the marketplace will impose those costs on itself even knowing the 

benefits that could be realized. We discuss this issue in the introductory portion of preamble 

Section VIII.

The comment also suggests, we believe, that the analytical results of future standards should not 

be driven by estimates of the current standards’ effects. We disagree. In fact, they should 

without question be driven by them. 

The comment states further that the agencies focus on near term costs and benefits and suggests 

estimating costs and benefits for 2014MY to 2018MY trucks over their useful lifetimes. We 

have presented exactly that analysis in Section VIII.L of the preamble along with our analysis 

which presents annual costs and benefits for the calendar years 2012-2050.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

6

3) Annualized Estimates of Costs and Benefits using Model 

Year 2014-2018 analysis

Commenters also recommend that agencies include summary tables of annualized costs and 

benefits using 3 and 7% discount rates using model year 2014-2018 analysis. Please include

these tables in the summary of the Preamble and the RIA.

Response:

We now have such a table in the Executive Summary of the RIA and can also include the 

annualized costs in the preamble as well.

4) Averaging, Banking, and Trading Provisions

Regarding the averaging, banking, and trading provisions (Section IV. A of the preamble), 

EPA/NHTSA have increased the flexibility of these provisions relative to the proposed rule. 

However, the agencies are maintaining some restrictions on averaging and trading, specifically 

those between vehicle weight classes and between engine subcategories. In explaining their 

rationale for restricting averaging and trading between vehicle weight classes and engine 

subcategories, the agencies make two key arguments.

The first of these two arguments is economic in nature (pp. 255 – 256):

“a manufacturer that produces both engines and heavy-duty highway vehicles could mix credits 

across engine and vehicle categories to gain an advantage over competitors that are not 

integrated. Limiting credit ABT to within each engine averaging set and not allowing it 

between engines and vehicles will help prevent a competitive advantage due solely to the 

regulatory structure. Similarly, large volume manufacturers of engines could shift credits 

between heavy heavy-duty diesel engines and light heavy-duty diesel engines to gain an advantage 

in one subcategory over other manufacturers that may not have multiple engine offerings over 

several regulatory engine subcategories.”

a) Interagency commenters have concerns about this language on several levels, and raised 

concerns about similar language in early versions of the draft proposed rule before that 

language was rephrased to make clear that it reflected views of industry participants and not 

necessarily views of the USG. Commenters request clarity on why the agencies are 

endorsing this view and request that agencies provide basis for this concern. 

Commenters note that not all industry participants raised this concern.

4a Response: 

The two agencies have worked extensively with the regulated industry and other stakeholders in 

developing rules that deliver on the goals of the President’s May 21 announcement and the spirit 

of the letters of support sent by the regulated industry before the proposal, and that adequately 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

7

address the public comments we received on the proposal. Key among the industry’s concerns 

is that the program not inadvertently change the existing market structures that have grown 

through time to satisfy the needs of the trucking industry. The President of Cummins Engine 

Company, Tom Linebarger, made this very point during Cummins’ 12866 meeting with OMB on 

September 14, 2010. From the environmental NGOs, we have a longstanding concern that 

mobile source averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) programs that rely on upfront estimates of 

lifetime emissions, rather than actual measured emissions in use, could lead industry actors with 

greater access to information than EPA and NHTSA to game the ABT program, accruing credits 

in segments where the actual emissions savings are smaller than EPA estimates and then using 

those credits in segments where the actual emissions are higher than EPA estimates. For both of 

these reasons, EPA has consistently required that ABT credits be used between like products in 

all of its mobile source programs, and NHTSA believes it is important to limit trading for this 

first regulatory program. The final rule conforms to the ABT provisions for GHG heavy duty 

engine emissions to be consistent with the parallel ABT provisions for criteria pollutants with 

same weight engines treated as a single averaging set regardless of the vehicles in which they are 

installed. We have applied this same principle with respect to combination tractors and 

vocational vehicles: treating like weight classes as an averaging set. The agencies also note that 

no commenter offered an explanation of why the restrictions on this ABT program should differ 

from the parallel ABT program respecting criteria pollutants.

In response to these inter-agency comments we are adding text to the preamble to make clear our 

intent to re-evaluate the averaging sets in the follow-up rulemaking: "As part of the planned 

follow-up rulemaking, the agencies intend to re-evaluate the appropriateness of the ABT 

averaging sets and credit use restrictions we are adopting here for the HD GHG and fuel 

consumption programs."

b) Further, the agencies’ concern about not creating “a competitive advantage due solely to the 

regulatory structure” could actually argue strongly against limiting trading as the agencies 

have proposed. Specifically, relative to allowing more flexibility, limiting averaging and 

trading necessarily increases the cost of compliance for certain high-cost manufacturers 

within an “averaging set”. Therefore, by foreclosing averaging and trading across averaging 

sets, to the extent that there are particular manufacturers that are technology leaders in a 

particular averaging set, the proposed restrictions will effectively raise the compliance costs 

of those manufacturers’ rivals to a greater extent than would occur if broader trading were 

allowed. In turn, this will provide a greater, regulatory-induced competitive advantage to 

such manufacturers, and will adversely affect consumers too. In light of this concern that 

the proposed approach could work at cross purposes with the agencies’ goal of 

avoiding adverse effects on competition and consumer welfare, commenters 

recommend that the agencies give further consideration to the ultimate effects of their 

proposed restrictions on averaging and trading.

4b Response:

This argument focuses on the benefits of unrestricted trading. However, the concern expressed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

8

in the rules about the use of ABT to gain unfair competitive advantages is really focused on 

averaging and banking by companies with diverse product offerings, because, in fact, trading is 

almost never practiced in these highly competitive markets. The commenters’ concern that 

restrictions on trading exacerbate competitive advantages misses the fact that technology leaders 

avoid trading not because of ABT restrictions, but because they quite sensibly choose not to help 

their competitors. In fact, it is important to note that there are no trading restrictions per se, only 

restrictions on what vehicle/engine types that credits may be used for. To remove these 

restrictions so that a company may sell credits it earned from one engine/vehicle category (to a 

non-competitor) for use in another category, would not lower compliance costs for the credit 

seller’s rivals as indicated by the commenters, only for the non-competitor who buys the credits. 

By doing so, the original credit owner gains not only through fair proceeds from the credit sale, 

but also through unfair leveraging of an advantage over any of his own competitors who sell into 

both markets.

c) The second argument that the agencies make to support their position is that: 

“[trading/averaging] credits between averaging sets of engines would be problematic 

because of the differences in regulatory useful lives. The agencies want to avoid having 

credits from longer useful life categories flood shorter useful life categories, adversely 

impacting compliance with the final CO2 and fuel consumption standards in the shorter 

useful life category.” (p. 256) Can the agencies clarify why this concern about trading 

of credits associated with different regulatory useful lives could not be addressed by

simply incorporating information on regulatory useful life in determining how many 

credits are awarded for each regulated engine or vehicle type?

4c Response:

It is not differences in regulatory useful life that make the creation of averaging sets necessary, 

and in fact EPA has provided for credit transfer between categories with differing regulatory

useful lives in other programs. This paragraph is meant to point out the problem caused by 

assuming parity for credits earned and used in widely diverging applications, given especially 

that both activities, credit generation and credit redemption, are necessarily carried out before the 

actual engines and vehicles involved ever enter the field, and are not corrected later based on 

their real world experience. To perform such corrective adjustments in credit balances would 

add uncertainty and burden for manufacturers to the point of making ABT programs useless. In 

lieu of extensive real world tracking, averaging sets provide a reasonable amount of confidence 

that typical engines or vehicles within each set have roughly the same real world experience in 

the things that matter for lifetime emissions -- actual operating life, load cycles, maintenance, 

etc. -- such that actually measuring those real world parameters is not necessary. However, the 

farther outside an averaging set one goes, the more likely it is that these key parameters will 

diverge greatly, creating uncertainty and opening the possibility of gaming by any manufacturers 

wishing to take advantage of these divergences.

We agree that clarification is needed and have revised this paragraph in the preamble to reflect 

the text below: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

9

“[trading/averaging] credits between averaging sets of engines would be problematic because 

of the diversity of applications that the broad spectrum of HD engines go into. This diversity

creates large differences in the real world conditions that impact lifetime emissions -- such as 

actual operating life, load cycles, and maintenance practices. In lieu of conducting extensive and 

burdensome real world tracking of these parameters, along with corrective measures to provide 

some assurance of parity between credits earned and credits redeemed, averaging sets provide a 

reasonable amount of confidence that typical engines within each set have comparable enough 

real world experience to make such follow-up activity unnecessary. differences in regulatory 

useful lives. The agencies want to avoid having credits from longer useful life categories flood 

shorter useful life categories, adversely impacting compliance with the final CO2 and fuel 

consumption standards in the shorter useful life category.”

5) Upstream emissions.

Commenter notes that if the objective of the rule is to reduce national GHG emissions as the 

agencies claim in this Preamble and RIA, then commenters strongly recommend that future EVs 

or other related electric technologies etc be responsible for the national average GHG emissions 

from electric power generation. Please revise rule and discussion accordingly.

Response:

Upstream emissions from electricity generation are not of central relevance to this rulemaking 

due to the negligible amount of electric vehicles expected in this sector during this phase. The 

agencies believe it is appropriate for the rule to regulate direct vehicle exhaust emissions, rather 

than account for upstream emissions as a basis for the standards. 

6) Advanced Technology Credits

Both for its direct implications in this rule and for its precedential implications, commenters 

would appreciate additional clarity from the agencies regarding how they settled on the chosen 

crediting multiplier and limits on credit use for advanced technology credits.

Response:

The 1.5x credit multiplier the agencies intend to finalize is the same value the agencies sought 

public comment on in the proposal and is the value most commonly supported by commenters 

for the final rule. EPA has used a 1.5x and a 2x multiplier in past rulemakings to encourage 

early introductions of new technologies such as diesel particulate filters in the heavy-duty 2007 

engine regulations. In this case, the agencies judged multipliers less than 1.5x as too low to 

encourage additional sales of advanced technologies and larger multipliers as having the 

potential to undermine the environmental goals of the regulation.

7) Accuracy of Analysis of Alternatives

Regarding the analysis of alternatives, the agencies have partially responded to previous 

interagency comments during proposed rule phase and have added to the RIA and preamble 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

10

tables that summarize the monetized net benefits of each alternative for the lifetime of 

MY2014-2018 vehicles (Tables 6-22 and 6-23 on pages 6-16 and 6-17 of the RIA, and tables IX4 and IX-5 in the preamble). Commenters are pleased that the agencies have added this 

information. However, commenters are concerned that the numbers presented may not have been 

calculated correctly, given some puzzling results contained in those tables.

In particular, one table presents results with monetized net benefits calculated at a 3% 

discount rate while the other table uses a 7% discount rate. In comparing the two tables, and 

focusing only on the first two lines of results for truck program costs and fuel savings, it can be 

seen that the change from a 3% discount rate to a 7% discount rate reduces monetized program 

costs by about 60%, whereas monetized fuel savings decline by only about 30%. This result is 

counterintuitive, given that the program costs for MY2014-2018 trucks will be almost 

entirely near-term capital costs whose monetized NPV should not be significantly affected by a 

change in discount rate. On the other hand, fuel savings accrue over a longer timeframe and so 

should be more (not less) affected by the choice of discount rate. The numbers also appear to 

be inconsistent with similar estimates for only the preferred alternative that appear in 

preamble tables VIII-34 and VIII-35.

Commenters recommend that the agencies check the data underlying tables 6-22 and 6-23 

of the RIA (IX-4 and IX-5 of the preamble), and provide the interagency reviewers 

with updated, corrected versions. If possible, please provide more detailed data underlying 

the table to ensure that the numbers are accurate.

Response:

The agencies have revised the tables that include the analysis of the alternatives.

Monetized Net Benefits Associated with Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of 2014 through 

2018 Model Year Vehicles(3% discount rate, Million 2009 dollars)

ALT.1

BASELINE

ALT.2 LESS 

STRINGENT

ALT.3

PREFERRED

ALT.4 MORE 

STRINGENT

ALT.5 MAX 

TECHNOLOGY

Truck Program Costs d$0

-$5,900 -$8,800 -$21,500+c -$38,000+c

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) $0 $47,100 $50,100 $63,800 $79,100

Energy Security Impacts 

(price shock)

$0

$2,500 $2,600 $3,400 $4,200

Accidents, Congestion, Noise $0 -$1,400 -$1,500 -$1,600 -$1,600

Refueling Savings $0 $500 $500 $500 $700

Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and 

Non-GHG Impacts c

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a,b

5% (avg SCC) $0 $1,200 $1,200 $1,600 $1,900

3% (avg SCC) $0 $5,200 $5,800 $7,200 $9,000

2.5% (avg SCC) $0 $8,500 $9,600 $11,900 $14,700

3% (95th percentile) $0 $15,500 $17,500 $22,200 $27,400

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a,b

5% (avg SCC) $0 $44,000 $44,100 $46,200+c $46,300+c

3% (avg SCC) $0 $48,000 $48,700 $51,800+c $53,400+c
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

11

ALT.1

BASELINE

ALT.2 LESS 

STRINGENT

ALT.3

PREFERRED

ALT.4 MORE 

STRINGENT

ALT.5 MAX 

TECHNOLOGY

2.5% (avg SCC) $0 $51,300 $52,500 $56,500+c $59,100+c

3% (95th percentile) $0 $58,300 $60,400 $66,800+c $71,800+c

Monetized Net Benefits Associated with Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of 2014 through 

2018 Model Year Vehicles(7% discount rate, Million 2009 dollars)

ALT.1

BASELINE

ALT.2 LESS 

STRINGENT

ALT.3

PREFERRED

ALT.4 MORE 

STRINGENT

ALT.5 MAX 

TECHNOLOGY

Truck Program Costs d$0 -$5,900 -$8,800 -$21,500+c -$38,000+c

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) $0 $32,200 $34,300 $43,700 $53,900

Energy Security Impacts (price 

shock)

$0

$1,800 $1,800 $2,300 $2,900

Accidents, Congestion, Noise $0 -$1,000 -$1,100 -$1,100 -$1,100

Refueling Savings $0 $200 $200 $500 $500

Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and 

Non-GHG Impacts c

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a,b

5% (avg SCC) $0 $1,200 $1,200 $1,600 $1,900

3% (avg SCC) $0 $5,200 $5,800 $7,200 $9,000

2.5% (avg SCC) $0 $8,500 $9,600 $11,900 $14,700

3% (95th percentile) $0 $15,500 $17,500 $22,200 $27,400

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a,b

5% (avg SCC) $0 $28,500 $27,600 $25,500+c $20,100+c

3% (avg SCC) $0 $32,500 $32,200 $31,100+c $27,200+c

2.5% (avg SCC) $0 $35,800 $36,000 $35,800+c $32,900+c

3% (95th percentile) $0 $42,800 $43,900 $46,100+c $45,600+c

8) Analysis of Alternatives for Subcategories

Also regarding the analysis of alternatives, while tables 6-22 and 6-23 (once corrected) will 

allow for a comparison of the monetized net benefits of an overall alternative in aggregate across 

all model years, the tables present aggregate information on the entire set of regulatory 

subcategories (e.g., vehicle weight classes) and for all model years included in the rulemaking. 

However, the RIA does not currently present net benefit calculations for the alternatives with 

respect to individual subcategories or model years, which would allow reviewers to establish that the 

selected regulatory alternative was the one that maximizes net benefits for each subcategory (e.g., 

pickups and vans, vocational vehicles, and combination tractors) and model year. During review 

of the proposed rule, agencies requested that this information be added to the RIA, given 

that the agencies have flexibility with respect to the choice of standards for each model year 

and for each regulatory subcategory.

Commenters request that the agencies provide versions of Tables 6-22 and 6-23 for 

each subcategory and model year (2014-2018).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

12

Response:

The agencies have presented the net benefits by alternative as the sum of 2014 through 2018 

model years. We can add tables reflecting the individual model years for each alternative, 

such as the table below which represents Alternative 2 at 3% discount rate. However, the 

agencies are not able to apportion some of the cost/benefit categories to specific categories. 

For example, there is sufficient overlap of engines used in all three categories that it is 

difficult to separate out the benefits. The agencies believe that the presentation that is 

already included in the RIA (see page 6-14 and 6-15) and preamble (see page 496) which 

reflects the CO2 emissions reductions, oil savings, and costs by subcategory in 2030 and 

2050 provides the ability for reviewers to analyze the different alternatives relative to each 

subcategory.

Estimated Societal Impacts of Alternative 2 of the Heavy-duty Program (Millions of 2009 dollars; 3% discount 

rate)

MONETIZED VALUES 2014MY 2015MY 2016MY 2017MY 2018MY SUM

Costs

Truck Program Costs -$1,100 -$1,000 -$1,100 -$1,200 -$1,500 -$5,900

Benefits

Pre-tax Fuel Savings $8,800 $7,800 $7,600 $10,800 $12,100 $47,100

Energy Security $500 $400 $400 $600 $600 $2,500

Accidents, Congestion, Noise -$300 -$300 -$300 -$200 -$300 -$1,400

Refueling $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $500

Reduced CO2 emissions

5% (avg SCC) $200 $200 $200 $300 $300 $1,200

3% (avg SCC) $1,000 $900 $800 $1,200 $1,300 $5,200

2.5% (avg SCC) $1,600 $1,400 $1,400 $1,900 $2,200 $8,500

3% (95th percentile) $2,900 $2,600 $2,500 $3,500 $4,000 $15,500

Net Benefits

5% (avg SCC) $8,200 $7,200 $6,900 $10,400 $11,300 $44,000

3% (avg SCC) $9,000 $7,900 $7,500 $11,300 $12,300 $48,000

2.5% (avg SCC) $9,600 $8,400 $8,100 $12,000 $13,200 $51,300

3% (95th percentile) $10,900 $9,600 $9,200 $13,600 $15,000 $58,300

9) Accounting for Uncertainty in Analysis of the Alternatives

The agencies note that, whereas Alternatives 2 and 3 (the preferred alternative) are believed to be 

achievable in the proposed timeframe, Alternative 4 (the next most stringent alternative) 

could have far higher costs because agencies “do not believe that these technologies can be 

developed and introduced in the timeframe of this rulemaking.” Effectively, the agencies are 

arguing that there is a “knee” in the cost curve and that they have chosen the stringency just to 

the left of that knee.

Commenters request agencies to provide a full probabilistic uncertainty analysis. In addition, to 

the extent that the agencies believe that a knee in the cost curve exists just beyond the 

preferred alternative, as they have suggested, commenters suggest that the agencies at least 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

13

provide some discussion of the implications of cost uncertainty for the expected value of its 

preferred alternative, versus Alternative 2, the less stringent alternative.

Specifically, if the exact location of the knee in the cost curve is unknown, then the expected cost 

of the preferred alternative (Alternative 3), taking into account this uncertainty, could be 

considerably higher than the most likely cost, as forecasted by the agencies. By contrast, as 

Alternative 2 is further to the left from that knee, this cost uncertainty will have less of an effect 

on the expected cost of Alternative 2, relative to its most likely cost as projected by the agencies. 

This has important implications for not only the net benefits of Alternative 3, but also for the 

relative merits of Alternatives 2 and 3. Commenters would appreciate the agencies’ views on the 

implications of cost uncertainty for the expected cost of, and their choice of, the preferred 

alternative, given the apparent knee in the cost curve just beyond Alternative 3. Further, 

commenters recommend that the agencies include a discussion of the implications of cost 

uncertainty, in light of this knee in the cost curve, in the preamble and RIA.

Response:

In regard to the comment on probabilistic uncertainty, please see the response to Comment 1).

10) Tables in the RIA

The text in preamble section IX, p. 491, incorrectly references Table 2.35 in the RIA. The correct 

table is 2.36 in the RIA. Several table references in the text in Chapter 2 of the RIA are 

incorrectly numbered.

Response:

The cross reference has been fixed.

11) No-Action Option

The RIA defines the No-Action Option as an alternative. The presentation would be clearer (and 

more accurate) if this discussion was framed as a discussion of the choice of baseline for 

analysis. This might be particularly true given that the section discusses two alternative baselines. If 

the exposition followed this format, it would facilitate later analysis of the alternatives considered 

in comparison with these baselines. Commenters hence suggest removing lines for Alternative 

1 (and 1a) from Tables 6-19 through 6-23.

Response:

Please note the response to #12 included below.

12) Baselines

Commenters recommend that the costs and emissions for the proposal and the alternatives 

be presented relative to each of the baselines. Commenters recommend that the agencies analyze 

the costs and benefits of the AEO 2011 Baseline as well. Please include these in the RIA and 

preamble. 

Commenters recommend that the costs and emissions for the proposal and the alternatives be 

presented relative to each of the baselines. Commenters recommend that the agencies analyze the 

costs and benefits of the AEO 2011 Baseline as well. Please include these in the RIA and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

14

preamble.

Response:

Response under development.

13) Market Effects

Commenters recommend a fuller explanation of why agencies cannot rely upon market effects 

to solve this problem when fuel savings of the program are estimated to be five times the 

cost of the program.

Response: 

The Preamble discusses this issue in Section VIII.A. As noted there, it is not understood why

private markets have not adopted these fuel-saving technologies. Comments on the rule did not 

provide evidence on expected effects. A search of the economics literature found no articles 

exploring this issue. Our primary evidence is anecdotal. We hear that truck drivers are often 

hesitant to adopt new fuel-saving technologies, in part because they have been sold “snake oil” in 

the past. SmartWay has found that its partners do experience improved fleet fuel efficiency. It is 

possible that the improvements predicted in this rule might eventually occur in the absence of the 

rule, but, given what appears to be the inherent conservatism of the industry, those changes are 

likely not to occur very soon.

The agencies added the same discussion to RIA in Chapter 9.2.

14) Fuel Savings

Commenters recommend that the agencies include fuel savings in the benefits category throughout 

the entire Preamble and RIA tables and discussion. Please make this change.

Response:

Fuel savings are presented in an identical way to the fuel savings in the proposal for the HD

GHG rule. EPA continues to believe that fuel savings should be presented as negative costs of 

the program (or positive savings of the program). This approach is consistent with past OMB 

guidance where our rules have impacted operating costs. OMB has directed EPA to consider 

operating costs as costs of our rules and to include those in $/ton calculations. This is what we 

have done whether those operating costs are positive (i.e., increase operating costs) or negative 

(decrease operating costs). For this action, fuel use affects operating costs, though, in this case, 

for the better. 

That said, the agencies list Fuel Savings separately in the preamble and RIA summary tables 

(preamble overview and RIA executive summary) to clearly present the monetized value due to 

fuel savings. Furthermore, in Sections VIII.L and VIII.M of the preamble, the agencies present a 

summary of cost and benefits based on two different “regulating perspectives.” In Section 

VIII.L, the perspective is presented where the primary motivations of the HD National Program 

are improved energy security and GHG emissions reductions in the United States, to reduce the 

impact of climate change. From that perspective, the benefits of the program are the external 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

15

effects, and the net effects on truck owners and operators are the costs. Fuel savings are 

therefore treated as negative costs from this perspective.

In Section VIII.M, however, the perspective is presented where the purpose of a program to 

regulate fuel efficiency is primarily to save fuel. Considering costs and benefits from a fuel 

efficiency perspective, technology costs occur when the vehicle is purchased, just as they do 

from a GHG emissions perspective, but fuel savings are counted as benefits that occur over the 

lifetime of the vehicle as it consumes less fuel, rather than as negative costs experienced either at 

the time of purchase or over the lifetime of the vehicle.

15) RPE and Learning curve

Please discuss the rationale for deviating from the NAS recommendation on RPE. Also, please 

provide evidence for the time learning curve used in the analysis. Given that the regulation 

doesn’t appear to be very technology forcing, please provide evidence for taking 2 learning curve 

discounts, which serves to lower the cost of the rule and is in total is a more aggressive learning 

curve then the agencies have used in the past. Please clearly present the costs with and without 

learning discounts (probably in a tabular form would be the best). Also, how were the fixed 

costs spread over the relevant trucks/trailers?

Response:

We have made clear our preference for using indirect cost markups (ICM) rather than the RPE 

for estimating indirect costs associated with our rules (see discussion beginning on page 2-3 of 

RIA Chapter 2). We do not believe it is appropriate to use an identical markup factor for all 

technologies, especially one that incorporates indirect cost elements that should not change due 

to a regulatory action. For example, retiree healthcare should not increase because the cost of 

building vehicles in some future year increases due to a new regulation. We do agree with the 

NAS position that return on capital (or income) should be included in the markups and have done 

so for the final rule.

As regards time learning, we have restructured our discussion of learning impacts to make clear 

that there is but one type of learning, learning by doing which occurs with increasing production 

of parts (see page 2-9 of RIA Chapter 2). We now point to whether a part, or technology, should 

be considered to be on the steep or flatter portion of the learning curve rather than referring to 

“volume” and “time” learning which lead many to believe we were suggesting two separate 

learning effects.

16) Retreading of Tires

How does this NPRM affect the retreading of tires? Is there any weather-related safety 

concern with reduced tire rolling resistance?

Response:

The HD program does not intend to impact the retreading of tires. One tire supplier suggested 

that tire life could be impacted if a tire maker chooses to reduce tread depth as a shortcut to 

reduce rolling resistance. This approach would affect tire life. However, agencies believe tire 

manufacturers that knowingly reduce overall tire life will be adversely impacted in sales as tire 

life is a critical component to this vehicle segment. The agencies conducted a winter tire 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

16

traction test program and found no statistical relation between winter traction and rolling 

resistance.

In addition to the winter traction and rolling resistance tests, NHTSA intends to conduct addition, 

performance based, testing later this year to further understand the effects of tire performance in 

varying weather conditions (e.g. wet weather).

17) Time value associated with reduced refueling

How many refills in the baseline? What is the assumed time saved per refill?

Response:

We have not calculated a baseline number of refills or a control case number of refills. Instead, 

we have calculated a reduced amount of time spent refilling. We have done this based on the 

reduced number of gallons expected to be consumed (including the increased gallons due to 

rebound), the typical fill rate of pumps used to fill the three truck categories (fill rates are higher 

for pumps used to fill tractors), and the typical pay rate of a driver. This gives gallons divided by

gallons/minute multiplied by $/hour (with conversion from minutes to hours) to give dollars 

saved.

18) GDP Analysis

Many commenters request that agencies remove reference to the GDP analysis (memo to 

docket on “economy-wide modeling”) from the Preamble and the RIA.

Response:

The presentation of the analysis is consistent with the presentation made at proposal and in the 

final LD 2012-2016 rule. EPA sees no reason to change the approach previously decided for this 

analysis.

19) Market Failure

The RIA does not include a market failure discussion. Without this discussion, the agency has no 

compelling reason to characterize private fuel savings that accrue to firms as social benefit.

Response:

As in the proposal, the primary discussion of market failures is in the Preamble. It would not be 

difficult to duplicate it in the RIA, but it would add nothing to the existing discussion.

20) Baseline

 Commenters request a better understanding of how SmartWay is projected to affect the 

baseline? The current discussion states that SmartWay has “saved 1.5 billion gallons of 

diesel fuel as well as $3.6 billion in fuel costs” (p. 1-34).

 What is the baseline fuel consumption assumed?

 What is the fleet make-up assumed?

 Commenter recommends that the “No action” alternative be moved to the baseline 

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

17

Response:

 SmartWay fuel consumption is based upon activity data submitted to EPA by 

SmartWay partners. Since SmartWay trucking fleets help comprise the national 

fleet, we did not factor these fleets’ fuel use independently of the baseline fuel use. 

 The baseline fuel use was developed using the MOVES2010a default emission rates. 

 The baseline fleet make-up was based primarily on the defaults in MOVES, which 

categorizes vehicle types by their use, these vehicle types are represented by combination 

tractors, single unit tractors, refuse trucks, motor homes, transit buses, intercity buses, 

school buses, and light commercial trucks. EPA updated the defaults using relative sales 

and activity growth projections from AEO2011. For HD pickups and vans, the agency

updated sales projections for model years 2011 through 2018 using forecasts purchased 

from CSM Worldwide for the light-duty greenhouse gas rule.

 The agencies respectfully disagree with the recommendation to move the “No 

Action” alternative to the baseline discussion in RIA Chapter 1. The agencies 

believe that it is appropriate to discuss the No Action Alternative along with the other 

alternatives in RIA Chapters 5 and 6.

21) Fleet Make-up

Will this rule and standards established affect the fleet make-up? If so, how does this affect 

the benefit and cost estimates?

o NAS Report makes three findings regarding fleet make-up:

 Finding 6-12. Standards that differentially affect the capital and operating 

costs of individual vehicle classes can cause purchase of vehicles that are 

not optimized for particular operating conditions. The complexity of truck 

use and the variability of duty cycles increase the probability of these 

unintended consequences.

 Finding 6-16. Some fuel efficiency improving technologies will add 

weight to vehicles and push those vehicles over federal threshold weights, 

thereby triggering new operational conditions and affecting, in turn,

vehicle purchase decisions. More research is needed to assess the 

significance of this potential impact.

 Finding 6-17. Some fuel efficiency improving technologies will reduce 

cargo capacity for trucks that are currently “weighed-out” and will 

therefore force additional trucks on the road. More research is needed to 

assess the significance of this potential impact.

Response:

As discussed in Section VIII.F.1 of the preamble (page 444 of the preamble), NHTSA and 

EPA believe that the final regulatory structure for HD trucks does not significantly change the 

current competitive and market factors that determine purchaser preferences among truck types. 

Furthermore, even if a small amount of shifting does occur, any resulting GHG impacts are 

likely to be negligible because any vehicle class that sees an uptick in sales is also being 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

18

regulated for fuel efficiency. Therefore, the agencies did not include an impact of class shifting 

on the vehicle populations used to assess the benefits of the program. 

The agencies do not anticipate an increase in weight of the heavy-duty vehicles due to the 

rulemaking. The agencies structured the program to avoid unintended consequences of adding 

weight. For example, the agencies created a new combination tractor category, called vocational 

tractors, for the explicit reason to avoid the unintended consequence of requiring the addition of 

aerodynamic fairings and extra weight on these tractors (see page 55 of the preamble). The other 

types of combination tractors already contain aerodynamic fairings and the rule is simply driving 

more aerodynamic designs of these features.

22) Tire data

22a Commenter requests reference to discussion or including new discussion on the 

difference between rolling resistance vs. traction, and how this rule will affect both.

22a Response:

See response to #40).

22b Commenter requests that the agencies provide basis (e.g., citation, etc.) for the 

following:

i. Baseline tires are assumed to have RRc=7.8 (steer) and 8.2 (drive) for combination 

tractors and RRc=9.0 for vocational vehicle. (Table 2-1)

22b Response:

Reference for the rolling resistance values are derived from the EPA Smartway data for Class 7-

8 long-haul vehicles and the results from the independent, EPA-conducted tire testing. However, 

the tire testing data did result in revised standards for the vocational vehicles of 7.7 RRc. The 

final report for this testing should be issued in the next two weeks.

This is reflected in the following table in the Preamble (latest version):

Table 22-1: GEM Inputs for Final Vocational Vehicle Standards

2014 MY 2017 MY

Engine 2014 MY 7L for LHD/MHD 

and 15L for HHD Trucks 

2017 MY 7L for LHD/MHD 

and 15L for HHD Trucks

Tire Rolling Resistance 

(kg/metric ton)

7.7 7.7

22c Commenter requests that the agencies provide basis (e.g., citation, etc.) for the 

following:

ii. The cost estimate of $7 (e.g., $1.75/tire) for Class 2b trucks and $10 (e.g., $2.5/tire) 

per Class 3 trucks/vans (p. 2-21).

22c Response:

The estimate is based on the MY 2012-2016 light-duty rule, which based the estimate on the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

19

2006 NRC/NAS tire study (reference 24 of RIA Ch2). On page 120 at the very end of the page 

is an estimate of $1/tire. In the MY 2012-2016 light-duty rule, we estimated $5/vehicle (4 tires 

plus 1 spare, which is somewhat conservative because it's likely the spare isn't LRR). That value 

has been adjusted to 2009 dollars to result in a value of $5.30/vehicle. For this action, we have 

used that $5 value for Class 2b and have multiplied by 1.5 for Class 3 (or $8/vehicle, 1.5 simply

to adjust to use of 6 tires due to dual rears). With low complexity markups, these values become 

$7 and $10 per vehicle.

The NAS 2010 report is inconsistent in its estimates of tire costs. On page 7-26 it states an 

estimate of $2-5 per tire based on the $1 NRC value noted above and a belief that more costs will 

be required to avoid compromises to stopping distance. Our CBI discussions with tire makers 

have suggested that won't be an issue. On page 7-30 NAS 2010 suggests a cost of $10 per tire.

22d Commenter requests that the agencies provide basis (e.g., citation, etc.) for the 

following:

iii. EPA and NHTSA project a cost of $68 ($2009$) for low rolling resistance steer 

tires (2 per truck) for both Class 7 and 8 tractor including a low complexity 

ICM of 1.18. For low rolling resistance tires, the agencies estimate truck-based 

costs of $63 (2009$) and $126 (2009$) for Class 7 and 8 tractors, respectively, 

including a low complexity of ICM of 1.18. (p. 2-51) What is the length of time 

for these cost estimates? Yearly?

22d Response:

The costs were derived from the ICF cost study cited in the RIA. The costs reflect the 2014MY 

cost in 2009 dollars. The costs represent the incremental cost of the tires. The costs for the tires 

in each model year are included in Table 2-36 in Chapter 2 of the RIA.

22e Commenter requests that the agencies provide basis (e.g., citation, etc.) for the 

following:

iv. Please explain the retread cost savings of $1600 to $2000 per tractor. (p. 2-54)

22e Response:

Based on information from industry, we estimated the cost of a new retreaded tire between $150 

and $200, compared to a new tire which costs typically around $400. Since retreads are not 

typically used on the steer axle position, this represents a savings of $1,600 to $2,000 per tractor.

23) Benefits of Alternatives

It looks like Alternative 4 (20% more stringent than preferred alternative) maximizes net 

benefits. During the EPA/NHTSA briefing, the agencies explained that this Alternative is 

based on a bench-scale technology that is not commercially available. Given this technology 

constraint, commenters suggest that the agency provide an assessment of likelihood of fuel 

savings instead of the currently provided point estimate. Same comment applies to the most 

stringent alternative. Also, are the estimates provided incremental in nature?

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

20

We understand the desire to provide a clearer explanation of why the agencies have not 

chosen the more stringent alternatives, but we do not have a clear basis for projecting a 

likelihood of fuel savings for the identified technologies short of saying we believe it is 

effectively zero. We do have strong confidence in our estimates of the efficacy of the 

identified technologies (advanced Rankine cycle waste heat recovery systems and hybrid 

powertrains), and we are confident that these technologies will be ready for use post 2018

(see page 493 of the preamble). Hence, our analysis is more binary in nature. Prior to 2018, 

we simply don’t believe the technologies can be in the market in any volume (zero volume 

for Rankine waste heat recovery, less than 1% volume for hybrid powertrains). Hence our 

conclusion that more stringent standards would be infeasible prior to that year. In essence, 

we are saying there is near zero likelihood of achieving the standards envisioned in the more 

stringent alternatives in the years 2014-2018. Rather than present those cases with zero 

incremental reductions, we think it is better to show the potential for those technologies in 

the future and to recognize the reasons that the alternatives are not viable for 2014-2018. In 

this way, the alternatives help to highlight that we expect there remains the possibility of 

larger net benefit maximizing reductions in the future. The agencies intend to take up the 

question of future standards beyond those being finalized in this rule in the near future.

24) Public Comments

Please provide summary of all public comments to this rule. The Preamble does not include this 

and it must be part of the Preamble, not as a separate document as stated in Preamble. Please 

provide this full summary of comments.

Response:

Case law has held that “With regard to responding to public comments, it is settled that “the 

agency [is not required] to discuss every item of fact or opinion included in the submissions 

made to it in informal rulemaking.” Automotive Parts & Accessories Ass'n v. Boyd, 407 F.2d 

330, 338 (D.C.Cir.1968); cf. Simpson v. Young, 854 F.2d 1429, 1435 (D.C.Cir.1988) ( “[t]he 

agency need only state the main reasons for its decision and indicate it has considered the most 

important objections”). Instead, the agency's response to public comments need only “enable us 

to see what major issues of policy were ventilated ... and why the agency reacted to them as it 

did.” Automotive Parts, 407 F.2d at 335. Indeed, the agency need not respond at all to comments 

that are “purely speculative and do not disclose the factual or policy basis on which they rest.” 

Home Box Office, 567 F.2d at 35 n. 58.” Public Citizen v. FAA, 988 F.2d 186, 197 (DC Cir 

1993)

Further, while E.O. 12866 requires agencies to seek the views of regulated entities and other 

affected stakeholders, it contains no express requirement that agencies respond in final rule 

preambles to every single comment. For EPA’s purposes, Section 307(d)(6)(B) of the CAA also 

states that “the promulgated rule shall also be accompanied by a response to each of the 

significant comments, criticism, and new data.” Even if this language were construed to apply to 

preambles, it wouldn’t require a summary of each comment to be in the preamble.

However, the APA does require agencies to respond to significant issues raised by the 

comments. The agencies have made substantial efforts to ensure that the preamble summarizes 

all significant comments and responds to them appropriately and sufficiently. Any comments 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

21

not summarized and addressed in the preamble (and all the ones that are) are excerpted and 

responded to in the separate Response to Comments document which is being created as a part of 

the Administrative Record for this final rule.

25) Learning

How does learning affect the total cost estimate? What is the projected cost without any 

learning?

Response:

The agencies provided the requested analysis to OMB last week.

26) Employment

Interagency commenters suggest that the agencies remove the employment impacts 

discussion from the Preamble and the RIA. The discussion does not seem to add any value, 

and because it is speculative, commenters suggest it be removed.

Response:

The Presidential Memorandum Regarding Fuel Efficiency Standards states that the program 

should “seek. . . [to] enhance job creation in the United States.” Though the analysis is not 

quantitative, and thus cannot identify net employment impacts in the economy, identifying the 

direction of likely employment effects in the most directly affected sectors can provide policymakers with information on those affected positively and negatively by the policy. We will 

consider specific revisions or line edits to the analysis that commenters or OMB might provide.

27) Market Failure

Market Failure discussion from Preamble currently states:

“It is often asserted that there are cost-effective fuel-saving technologies that truck 

companies are not taking advantage of. This is commonly known as the “energy gap” or 

“energy paradox.” ”

The energy paradox is more broad than just for truck companies, so commenters 

recommend that the agencies phrase this as:

“It is often asserted that there are cost-effective fuel-saving technologies that markets do not 

take advantage of. This is commonly known as the “energy gap” or “energy paradox.”

Or,

“It is often asserted that there are cost-effective fuel-saving technologies that consumers fail 

to recognize, or that producers fail to incorporate into their products. This is commonly 

known as the “energy gap” or “energy paradox.”
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

22

Response:

We agree with the comment and adopted the first of the two suggestions. 

28) Incentives

Has EPA considered creating an incentive program so that consumers fully internalize the 

benefits of investing in fuel saving technology?

Response:

The SmartWay program provides a nonfinancial incentive – the ability to advertise as a 

SmartWay partner – as a way to encourage participation in the program and improved fuel 

efficiency for those participants. As discussed in the rule documents, we consider SmartWay to 

complement the rule efforts: for instance, SmartWay can assist with logistics and driver training, 

two areas not covered by the rule.

Incentives oriented toward externalities, such as a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, are beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking.

Consumers already have incentives to internalize the private benefits of fuel-saving technology: 

the reduced fuel expenditures net of technology costs. Why truck purchasers do not adopt all the 

cost-effective technology is, as discussed in Preamble Section VIII.A., a puzzle.

29) NRC Assessment

Commenter recommends deleting the following sentence on page 368 of the Preamble “The 

NRC assessment is a clear affirmation that the scientific underpinnings of the Administrator’s 

Endangerment Finding are robust, credible, and appropriately characterized by EPA. 

Commenters request this deletion becusae NAS did not review underpinnings and do not 

mention these.

Response:

We will delete this sentence because the previous sentence already addresses the main point.

30) Citations

Commenters request the agencies to provide full citations of the discussion found from page 

369 through 376. There are no citations provided and it is very unclear whether this 

language is pulled verbatim from a particular document or if it is original agency text. Unless 

they are direct quotes, citations are always needed for all statements of scientific facts.

Response:

As stated in the introduction to Section D, “The source document for the section below is the 

Technical Support Document (TSD)1for EPA’s Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings Under the Clean Air Act (74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009). Below is the Executive 

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

23

Summary of the TSD which provides technical support for the endangerment and cause or 

contribute analyses concerning GHG emissions under section 202(a) of the CAA.” The entire 

section starting at “(1) Observed Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Concentrations” is 

nearly a verbatim quote of the TSD.

Our recommended action is no change, but we would be willing to consider adding in a more 

explicit note that the section comes from the TSD if OMB requests it.

31) Impacts

Commenter requests that the next to last sentence on page 373 read: “Thus, the potential 

impacts of climate change raise potential environmental justice issues, depending on direction of 

potential impact.”

Response:

As noted in the above comment, the language in this section comes from the TSD. In the absence 

of a factual error or necessary clarification, we would prefer to leave the language as a verbatim 

quote.

32) Footnote

Commenter recommends deletion of footnote 3 on page 5 because it is not necessary for 

rulemaking at hand.

Response:

The footnote is removed.

33) Oil Production

Commenter requests evidence for the claim on page 9 that “world crude oil production is highly 

concentrated, exacerbating the risks of supply disruptions and price shocks as the recent 

unrest in North Africa and the Persian Gulf highlights.”

Response:

The agencies revised the text in the preamble to read as follows:

“The agencies recognize that potential national and energy security risks exist due to the 

possibility of tension over oil supplies. Much of the world’s oil and gas supplies are located 

in countries facing social, economic, and demographic challenges, thus making them even 

more vulnerable to the potential local instability. For example, in 2010 just over 40% of 

world oil supply came from OPEC nations, and this share is not expected to decline in the 

AEO 2011 projections through 2030. Approximately 28% of global supply is from Persian 

Gulf countries alone. As another measure of concentration, of the 137 

countries/principalities that export either crude oil or refined petroleum products, the top 12 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

24

have recently accounted for over 55% of exports.2 Eight of these countries are members of 

OPEC, and a 9th is Russia.3 In a market where even a 1-2% supply loss raises prices 

noticeably, and where a 10% supply loss could lead to a significant price shock, this regional 

concentration is of concern. Historically, the countries of the Middle East have been the 

source of eight of the ten major world oil disruptions4, with the 9th originating in Venezuela, 

an OPEC member.”

34)NOX and PM Text

page 13. Commenter requests clarity from agencies on why the following section is included 

in the Preamble. Please provide clarity on the relevance of these benefits to the rulemaking under 

current review: “As a result of these programs, new vehicles meeting current emission standards 

will emit 98% less NOX and 99% less PM than new trucks 20 years ago. The resulting emission 

reductions provide significant public health and welfare benefits. The most recent EPA 

regulations which were fully phased-in in 2010, the monetized health and welfare benefits alone 

are projected to be greater than $70 billion in 2030 – benefits far exceeding compliance costs and 

not including the unmonetized benefits resulting from reductions in air toxics and ozone 

precursors (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001).”

Response:

The preamble section containing this text provides a broad overview of the actions the agencies 

took prior to this rulemaking that provide either context or the underpinnings of the test 

procedures and vehicle technology baselines leading to this regulation. Past EPA regulations of 

criteria emissions including NOX and PM have had a significant impact on heavy-duty truck 

designs and directly relate to the baseline CO2 and fuel efficiency performance of these vehicles. 

A number of commenters raise the 2007/10 emission standards in the context of the CO2 and fuel 

consumption levels that can be achieved through this regulation. In the context of those 

comments, we think it is valuable to highlight the cost, benefits and efficacy of the 2007/10 

emission standards in this section.

35) Capacity

Are tons in g/ton-mile measured (and tested) at vehicle max capacity?

Response:

No, they are not measured or tested at maximum capacity. 

The combination tractors are evaluated at the payloads and total weights noted on page 95, 

Table II-10 (as shown below). These values were derived from the U.S. Federal Highway 

Administration Truck Payload Equivalent Factors.

 

2 Based on data from the CIA, combining various recent years, 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2176rank.html.

3 The other three are Norway, Canada, and the EU, an exporter of product.

4

IEA 2011 “IEA Response System for Oil Supply Emergencies.”
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

25

MODEL TYPE CLASS 8 CLASS 8 CLASS 8 CLASS 8 CLASS 8 CLASS 8 CLASS 7 CLASS 7 CLASS 7

Regulatory 

Subcategory

Sleeper 

Cab High 

Roof

Sleeper 

Cab Mid 

Roof

Sleeper 

Cab Low 

Roof

Day Cab 

High Roof

Day Cab 

Mid Roof

Day Cab 

Low Roof

Day Cab 

High Roof

Day Cab 

Mid Roof

Day Cab 

Low Roof

Tractor Tare 

Weight (lbs) 19,000 18,750 18,500 17,500 17,100 17,000 11,500 11,100 11,000

Trailer Weight 

(lbs) 13,500 10,000 10,500 13,500 10,000 10,500 13,500 10,000 10,500

Payload (lbs) 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

Total Weight 

(lbs) 70,500 66,750 67,000 69,000 65,100 65,500 50,000 46,100 46,500

As noted on page 151, the agencies are adopting final curb weights of 10,300 pounds for the 

LHD trucks, 13,950 pounds for the MHD trucks, and 27,000 pounds for the HHD trucks. The 

agencies are also adopting payloads of 5,700 pounds for the Light Heavy-Duty trucks, 11,200 

pounds for Medium Heavy-Duty trucks, and 15,000 pounds for Heavy Heavy-Duty trucks.

These values were also derived from the U.S. Federal Highway Administration Truck 

Payload Equivalent Factors.

36) High Roof & Mid Roof Sleepers

Page 23 table 1-2. Why is the high roof sleeper cab standard lower than the mid-roof?

Response:

The mid roof tractor is paired with a tanker trailer which has poor aerodynamics relative to a box 

trailer and therefore increases the baseline fuel consumption of mid roof tractors. The low roof 

tractor has a flat bed trailer and smaller frontal area so it has lower fuel consumption than a mid 

roof tractor. The high roof tractor has a box trailer so the aerodynamics of the combination 

tractor-trailer are better relative to a mid roof tractor paired with a tanker trailer.

37) EISA

Is maximum feasible the only condition in EISA or are there other conditions to be met in 

setting standards?

Response:

EISA/EPCA states that the Secretary of Transportation “shall determine in a rulemaking 

proceeding how to implement a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and 

work truck fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible 

improvement, and shall adopt and implement appropriate test methods, measurement metrics, 

fuel economy standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols that are appropriate, costeffective, and technologically feasible for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway

vehicles and work trucks.” 49 USC 32902(k)(2).

Thus, “maximum feasible improvement” is the statutory standard that the fuel efficiency

program must meet. The various components of a maximum feasible program must also be 

appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible. Therefore, NHTSA interprets 

‘maximum feasible” to be the main criteria for this program, and appropriateness, costeffectiveness, and technological feasibility to be sub-criteria to be met when creating maximum 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

26

feasible standards. 

With respect to the setting of standards for light-duty vehicles, EPCA/EPCA “gives NHTSA 

discretion to decide how to balance the statutory factors – as long as NHTSA’s balancing does 

not undermine the fundamental purpose of EPCA: energy conservation.” See Center for 

Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1194 (9th Cir. 

2008) at 1195. Where Congress has not directly spoken to a potential issue related to such a 

balancing, NHTSA’s interpretation must be a “reasonable accommodation of conflicting 

policies... committed to the agency’s care by the statute.” Id. (discussing consideration of 

consumer demand) (internal citations omitted). NHTSA recognizes that the statutory factors in 

32902(k)(2), such as maximum feasibility and cost-effectiveness, may not always be aligned. In 

the context of the agency’s light-duty vehicle authority, it was determined that Congress 

delegated the process for setting the maximum feasible standards to NHTSA with broad

guidelines concerning the factors that the agency must consider. Id. (emphasis in original). We 

believe that the same conclusion should be drawn about the statutory provisions governing the 

agency’s setting of standards for heavy-duty vehicles. Those provisions prescribe statutory 

factors commensurate to, and equally broad as, those prescribed for light-duty. Thus, NHTSA 

believes that it is firmly within the agency’s discretion to weigh and balance the factors laid out 

in 32902(k).

As detailed in Section III of the Preamble, NHTSA has considered the appropriateness, costeffectiveness, and technological feasibility for each regulatory category of the standards in 

designing a program to achieve the maximum feasible fuel efficiency improvement. It believes 

that each of those criteria is met.

38) Tire Safety

It is not clear from Preamble what comments were received on safety impacts from tire 

rolling resistance assessment. Please summarize comments on this topic.

Response:

Regarding whether LRR tires should be applied to certain types of vocational vehicles, the 

agencies received many comments from stakeholders, such as Daimler Trucks North America, 

Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Association (FAMA), International Association of Fire Chiefs, 

National Ready Mix, National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), Spartan 

Motors, National Automobile Dealers Association, among others. There were comments 

regarding applicability of low rolling resistance tires to vocational vehicles based on LRR tire 

availability, suitability of the tires for the applications, fuel consumption and GHG emissions 

benefits and the appropriateness of standards. Many of these commenters focused particularly on 

the whether LRR tires would compromise the capability of emergency vehicles. 

The independent tire test data discussed in the final rule preamble indicate the rolling resistance 

targets for on-road vocational vehicles can be met with tires that are currently available (and 

therefore recognized as safe) for many vehicle types and applications. As part of the final rule, 

the agencies provided provisions to allow for exemption of specific off-road capable vocational 

vehicles from the fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards. Included in the exemption 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

27

criteria are provisions for vehicles equipped with specific tire types which would fitted to a 

vehicle to meet extreme demands, including those designed for off-road capability. In addition, 

NHTSA plans to conduct additional performance-focused testing (beyond rolling resistance) as 

part of FMVSS rule development for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. This testing is targeted for 

completion toward the end of this year. The agencies will review this performance data when 

available in concert with any subsequent proposed rulemakings regarding fuel consumption and 

GHG standards for medium and heavy-duty vehicles.

The agencies are not aware of any definitive work on weather-related effects on low rolling 

resistance commercial truck tires. Tire manufacturers have already introduced low rolling 

resistance steer and drive tires for commercial trucks that perform well. Studies of passenger 

vehicle tires have found no evidence of weather-related safety concerns for low rolling resistance 

tire models. (TRB special report 285, p. 4-5, p. 79-88). By changing the compounds used in 

making the tire, the rolling resistance of light vehicle tires can be reduced while maintaining 

traction and tread-life. We believe the same will be true for heavy truck tires.

39) VSL

Page 88 regarding vehicle speed limiters. Are there any safety benefits or time costs from 

vehicle speed limiters?

Response:

In response to a petition from the American Trucking Association, NHTSA is currently 

estimating the safety impacts of speed limiters, and is the process of finalizing an analysis of the 

safety benefits for the upcoming safety rule on VSLs. The agencies deferred adding statements 

in the HD final rule because it believed that discussions on any safety impacts would be better 

suited for the upcoming safety rule. However, the agencies will add language in the next 

versions of the preamble to clarify this issue. 

There are time costs associated with vehicle speed limiters such as the additional time required to 

move goods, or the loss of productivity, but at the same time there are fuel savings attained by 

driving at lower speeds at which engines are tuned to optimally perform. Even though, the

elasticity between speed reduction and productivity loss has not been well defined in industry, 

the agencies anticipate that the incurred time cost will not outweigh the potential gains in fuel 

savings that will be achieved. The agencies base this position on a Canadian assessment of 

speed limiters that concluded the fuel savings due to the lower operating speeds outweigh any 

productivity losses. Further, the general consensus among the OEMs is that a one percent 

decrease in speed might lower productivity by approximately 0.2 percent. Nonetheless, to offset 

any potential disbenfits associated with this technology, the agencies are finalizing the proposal 

in the final rule deferring the mandatory use of VSLs which directly addresses concerns such as 

how to set a realistic application rate that avoids unintended consequences. 

40) Tire Tread Comment

The agencies don’t seem to have responded to this point in the Preamble on page 124. Please 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

28

provide response to this comment:

“That supplier also indicated that a correlation of a 20 percent reduction in rolling 

resistance achieved through tread depth reduction could lead to a 30 percent decrease in 

tread-life and 15 percent reduction in wet traction. The agencies note that when they

inquired about potential ‘safety’ related tradeoffs, such as traction (braking and handling) 

and tread wear when applying low rolling resistance technologies, tire suppliers 

consistently responded that they would not produce a tire that compromises safety when 

fitted in its proper application.”

Response:

The agencies have revised the preamble text as follows to specifically reference the intent to gain 

a further, independent, science-based understanding of rolling resistance and traction correlation 

versus that received strictly from comments and discussion with tire suppliers:

“That supplier also indicated that a correlation of a 20 percent reduction in rolling resistance 

achieved through tread depth reduction could lead to a 30 percent decrease in tread life and 15 

percent reduction in wet traction. As follow-up to this final rule, and in support for development 

of a separate FMVSS rule, NHTSA plans to conduct additional performance-focused testing 

(beyond rolling resistance) for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. This testing is targeted for 

completion toward the end of this year. The agencies will review this performance data when

available in concert with any subsequent proposed rulemakings regarding fuel consumption and 

GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.”

There are many ways to reduce rolling resistance. Reducing tread depth is one method, but not a 

method that would be chosen by any knowledgeable purchaser. We are not aware of any

definitive work on weather-related effects on low rolling resistance commercial truck tires. Tire 

manufacturers have already introduced low rolling resistance steer and drive tires for commercial 

trucks that perform well. Studies of passenger vehicle tires have found no evidence of weatherrelated safety concerns for low rolling resistance tire models. (TRB special report 285, p. 4-5, p. 

79-88). By changing the compounds used in making the tire, the rolling resistance of light 

vehicle tires can be reduced while maintaining traction and tread-life. We believe the same will 

be true for heavy truck tires.

41) Tire Market Comment

Commenters recommend that the agencies either delete this section on page 327 or provide basis 

for this claim. It seems to indicate that market works after regulation but not before. Is it 

because of in-use standards? What is the basis for this? Commenters recommend it be deleted:

“We believe that as LRR tires become more common on new equipment, the aftermarket 

prices of these tires will also decrease. Along with decreasing tire prices, the fuel savings 

realized through use of LRR tires will ideally provide enough incentive for 

owner/operators to continue purchasing these tires. The inventory modeling in this final 

action reflects the continued use of LRR tires through the life of the vehicle.”

Response:

The primary barrier to the introduction of more fuel efficient tire designs into the truck market is 

the upfront costs of tire development and upfront capital costs for new production machinery

(e.g., new tire molds). Once manufacturers have sunk these costs into new tire designs and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

29

production facilities in order to meet our vehicle standards, there is little barrier for bringing 

these better products into the replacement tire market as well. The incremental cost for these 

tires is quite small and in some cases may in fact be negative. In a meeting with one of the 

largest tire OEMs, we asked for an estimate of the production cost increase to reduce the rolling 

resistance of a particular tire. The response: if we can’t achieve a manufacturing cost reduction 

on a piece basis when we redesign a new tire, we aren’t doing our jobs right. We do not believe 

this to be these case in for all tires, reflecting that low rolling resistance tires are expected to use 

slightly more expensive rubber compounds, but we do believe the OEM in their general 

statement that once a decision is made to redesign a tire, opportunities exist to not only improve 

the performance compared to the tire being replaced but also to improve the manufacturing 

process to lower some aspects of manufacturing costs. Our regulations will certainly not remove 

the barrier to market represented by upfront costs for designs and new capital, but it will 

effectively force OEMs to make these investments and, having done so, should lead to better 

tires not only for new vehicles but in the replacement tire market as well. We will update the 

preamble to better explain our reasoning.

42) Test Variability

Commenters request further clarity on what this means. Please elaborate from page 126 in 

Preamble:

“The agencies concluded that although laboratory-to-laboratory and test machine-to-test 

machine measurement variability exists, the level observed is not excessive relative to the 

distribution of absolute measured RRC performance values and relative to the proposed 

standards. Based on this, the agencies concluded that the test protocol and the proposed 

standards are reasonable for this program.”

Response:

The text has been rewritten as follows:

“The agencies also reviewed the RRC data from the tires that were tested at both the STL and 

Smithers laboratories to assess inter-laboratory and test machine variability. The agencies 

conducted statistical analysis of the data to gain better understanding of lab-to-lab correlation 

and developed an adjustment factor for data measured at each of the test labs. When applied, 

this correction factor showed that for 77 of the 80 tires tested, the difference between the original 

RRC and a value corrected RRC was 0.01 kg/metric ton. The values for the remaining three tires 

were 0.03 kg/metric ton, 0.05 kg/metric ton and 0.07 kg/metric ton. Based on these results, the 

agencies believe the lab-to-lab variation for the STL and Smithers laboratories would have very

small effect on measured RRC values. Further, in analyzing the data, the agencies considered 

both measurement variability and the value of the measurements relative to proposed standards. 

Based on these results, the agencies concluded that although laboratory-to-laboratory and test 

machine-to-test machine measurement variability exists, the level observed is not excessive 

relative to the distribution of absolute measured RRC performance values and relative to the 

proposed standards. Based on this, the agencies concluded that the test protocol and the 

proposed standards are reasonable for this program.”

43) Innovative Credit Submissions

Could EPA describe for the reviewer the process for reviewing and vetting manufacturers’ 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

30

submissions for extra credit under the provision for “innovative technologies?” How will the 

agency make use of public comment? Is there a threshold (in terms of potential GHG 

reductions) for awarding a manufacturer credit for developing an innovative technology? This 

approach, while seemingly well-intentioned, would appear to run the risk of requiring an 

extremely large amount of manufacturer and EPA effort just to determine whether a new 

technological advance qualifies for credit under the program. Is there no simpler way to reward 

technological innovation?

Response:

The agencies agree that the process could require significant effort to provide due diligence 

in making a determination regarding whether a technical approach is in fact valid and 

performs as expected. The public process is necessary as it helps to ensure a level playing 

field for all market participants should there be an aspect of the technology or testing 

method for which other manufacturers or stakeholders would have concerns. As an 

example, if a proposed test method inappropriately advantages one system design over 

another without accurately reflecting real-world performance, the public process would help 

to inform the review.

44) Final Reports

In several subsections throughout Section V, the rule attempts to describe the requirements 

for final reports (pp. 298-299, 317-319, 340-342, 356). The reader found these sections 

confusing because they did not clearly state whether EPA has acceded to commenters’ requests 

to modify the requirements for final reports. Are manufacturers allowed to combine EOY and 

final reports? Or is the NPRM proposal left unchanged? Please describe the need for both of 

these reports, and how manufacturers are supposed to comply.

Also, the subsection “Compliance Reports” and Table V-5 on pp. 356-357 appears to be out of 

place. It could be moved to p. 351, just before Section F on “General Regulatory 

Provisions.”

Response:

The agencies are adding clarification in the final rule to describe the intent for providing final 

reports as proposed in the NPRM. The NPRM proposed for manufacturers to provide two types 

of year end reports; End-of-the-Year (EOY) reports and Final Reports. The agencies are also 

adding a number of changes to the required content of the reports and to the timing of reports to 

simplify submissions as requested by commenters. This includes allowing all applicable parties 

required to submit, the option to provide a combined EOY report 90 days after the end of the 

model year and creates a consolidated format for which manufacturers can submit one single 

report to satisfy both agencies reporting requirements. Additionally, Final Reports will be 

required 270 days after the end of the model year. These dates are consistent with the criteria 

pollutant program to avoid confusion. The two distinct reports provide the agencies with a report 

on the fleet performance of the manufacturers and help the agencies to identify those 

manufacturers that may have a credit deficit. The Final Reports allow manufacturers to 

opportunity to reconcile any discrepancies or errors it may have detected in its initial EOY 

report. Consistent with the NPRM, the final rule will also allow manufacturers that are in good 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

31

credit standing to request to not submit the EOY report, as long as it plans to submit the Final 

Report in a timely manner. Also, the final report may be unchanged from the EOY report.

45) Testing Fees

What is EPA’s current thinking for when and how to update certification and compliance 

testing fees, given the additional demands as a result of this HD and MD trucks GHG 

rulemaking?

Response:

The Agency is not modifying its fees provisions in this final rule and is determining how to 

appropriately address this issue in the future.

46) Typo 1

Page 281: In the first sentence of the paragraph that begins with, “Furthermore...” the verb is 

recommended to be “adopted.”

Response: We changed to “are adopting” in section IV.B.3.b.

47) Typo 2

Page 316: The first sentence of the last paragraph could say, “EPA is requiring finalizing that 

engines...”

Response: We deleted “finalizing” in section V.C.3.d.

48) Typo 3

Page 317: The second sentence of the fourth paragraph could say, “These alternative 

standards are defined as 65 percent below...”

Response: 

We revised V.C.3.f. to be consistent with the heavy-duty engine regs at §1036.620(a).

“These alternate standards are defined as a certain percentage below a baseline value 

established from their corresponding 2011 model-year products. For instance, the alternate 

emission standard for light and medium heavy-duty FTP-certified (vocational) engines is 

equal to 0.975 times the baseline value.”

49) Typo 4

Page 341: The first sentence in the third paragraph could say, “One commenter (Volvo) 

requested that the agencies simply simplify the reporting...”

Response: We changed to “simplify” at V.D.4.b.

50) Typo 5

Page 417: The first sentence of the third paragraph could say, “...however, that the gap 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

32

between actual investment in fuel efficiency...”

Response: We deleted “that” in VIII.A.1.

51) Typo 6

Page 484: This sentence appears twice in the first paragraph: “The petroleum refinery 

industry employed about 65,000 people in the U.S. in 2009, the most recent year that 

employment estimates are available for this sector.”

Response: We deleted duplicate text in VIII.N.1.

52) Job Creation

Page 489: Commenter suggests removing: “Given job creation as a result of the $1.2 billion 

($2009) in fuel savings...”

Response:

As we discuss earlier, we believe it is important to acknowledge potential job impacts from this 

regulation. This last sentence in the section provides a very measured summary of the preceding 

section tying all of the elements together. We think it is needed to conclude the section and is 

certainly fully supported by the preceding text.

53) SBA Declaration

Commenter notes that the language in the preamble at p.34 (“Each declaration must be 

submitted in writing to EPA as prescribed in Section V below, and a manufacturer would not 

be considered exempt until EPA and NHTSA have made a formal determination as to their 

status in writing.”) is inconsistent with the plain reading of the text of the rule 

(“Manufacturers meeting the small business criteria specified for “Gasoline Engine and Engine 

Parts Manufacturing” or “Other Engine Equipment Manufacturers” in 13 CFR 121.201 are not 

subject to the greenhouse gas emission standards in § 1036.108. Qualifying manufacturers must 

notify the Designated Compliance Officer before importing or introducing into U.S. 

commerce excluded engines. This notification must include a description of the 

manufacturer’s qualification as a small business under 13 CFR 121.201. You must label your 

excluded vehicles with the statement: “THIS ENGINE IS EXCLUDED UNDER 40 CFR 

1037.150(c).” in order for this exclusion to be valid.”) or language in other places in the preamble. 

This seems not to be a “clarification” but a substantive change to the requirements. 

Interagency commenter recommends allowing the exemption to operate by notice. If formal 

determinations are to be required, commenters recommend that the agencies allow exemption 

by notice to operate while formal determination is pending, and the agencies commit to a 

timeframe for response and a process for appeal to SBA for a determination (since it is an 

SBA regulation being applied). In any case, interagency commenter believes that a single 

mention of this new requirement is not sufficient notice to small businesses, particularly given the 

number of other places in the preamble and the rule where the small business exemption is 

discussed without mentioning such a requirement.

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

33

The agencies will be adding consistent language to the next draft of the final rule’s preamble 

discussion and the regulatory text. The language will now indicate that only a letter of 

acknowledgement will be sent to exempted manufacturers meeting SBA’s qualification in 13 

CFR 121.201 but that the agencies will reserve the right to review and challenge a small 

manufacturers qualifications for exemption. The agencies’ focus is on reducing any potential 

gaming that may occur such as a large business selling their product through an exempted small 

business.

54) Small Entities and Sales

Interagency commenter also has concerns about the indirect effects of this rule on small 

entities that purchase HD vehicles. Small businesses have asserted that the increase in the 

price of HD vehicles will lead to delays in purchasing replacement vehicles, which would reduce 

the expected benefits of GHG emission standards in any particular year. Logically, delay makes 

sense. Small entities will experience an increase in the immediate purchase price. If funded 

on credit, lenders do not necessarily increase credit availability based on future fuel savings. 

(The analogy is that a bank did not increase the amount it was willing to lend someone for a 

mortgage simply because the homeowner was going to buy a house close to the Metro or 

because the house had double-paned windows.) If self-financed, investments would be 

delayed if on a fixed budget for capital outlays. Only firms large enough to have a continuous 

capital investment cycle will be able to monetize the fuel savings and incorporate the fuel 

savings into their investment stream. In addition, firms that buy new and re-sell after a few 

years can monetize fuel savings through the sale price of the used vehicle. Firms that use the 

vehicle through its useful life don’t have that option. Since small firms cannot easily 

monetize future fuel savings, the increased cost of HD vehicles should lead to a reduction in 

sales. Incorporating this reduction in sales into the analysis would reduce the projected benefits 

of the rule. This is a separate effect from the “rebound” effect. There is a further disincentive to 

purchase new vehicles if they have VSLs implemented or have other technologies installed that 

may limit the useful life or carrying load. However, the RIA asserts that there will be an increase 

in sales. What is the agencies’ basis and evidence for claim that rule will increase sales?

Response:

Pre-buying of new trucks to avoid the higher costs associated with regulation is more likely to 

occur with regulations, such as those reducing particulate matter, that provide no private benefits 

to truck owners. In this program, because of the expected private benefits, pre-buy is possible 

but less likely. The effect of the rule on truck sales depends on why truck buyers have not in the 

past adopted fuel-saving technology. As discussed in Preamble Section VIII.A., a number of 

hypotheses have been raised for this “efficiency gap,” and the effect of this rule on truck sales 

depends on the relative roles of these (and any other) hypotheses. We do not have sufficient 

evidence to evaluate the relative roles of these hypotheses in the truck purchase decisions, and 

thus make no claims about the direction of truck sales. 

Sales increase in the baseline, based on AEO2011 projections from EIA of increasing vehicle 

sales with increasing annual VMT due to economic growth. The RIA does not claim increases in 

sales due to the program. Instead, it maintains the baseline assumption of fleet sales. See 

response to #55 for more on the relationship of VMT to sales. The argument presented for 

reduced sales is a constrained capital market that does not take into account reduced fuel 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

34

expenditures. We expect this to be less of a problem in the commercial sector, where truck 

purchasers can show lenders their expected returns from an investment, than in the consumer 

market, where consumers are judged based on income, not spending patterns. (Nevertheless, 

utilities often support consumer investments in double-paned windows, because of the energy

savings that will result.) The investments in fuel savings in this rule have short payback periods: 

about one year for a vocational vehicle or a combination tractor, about 3 years for a heavy-duty 

pickup. Even if the resale market does not put much of a premium on improved fuel efficiency, 

the initial owner is likely to recoup the initial increase in purchase price before the vehicle goes 

on the resale market.

An owner who keeps the vehicle for its useful lifetime is expected to recoup the technology costs 

via the fuel savings, not the resale market.

Vehicle speed limiters (VSLs) are not specifically required for compliance. As a result, a buyer 

of a truck with a VSL will be expected to have taken into account the effects of the VSL on the 

vehicle resale price. The cost estimates for the technologies in the program take into account the 

costs needed to maintain carrying load and other vehicle attributes. If purchasers decide to buy

trucks with reduced attributes to lower costs, instead of buying full functionality with the costs 

estimated here, they should also be expected to have considered the resale market in their 

decisions.

55) Delay of Sales

Commenter requests supporting analysis for increase in sales. What portion of the costs and

benefits of this rule are driven by this increase in sales? Have the agencies responded to the 

assertion by independent truckers that fleet turnover will be delayed by this rule? If so, 

please provide specific page numbers? If not, commenter requests clarity on why it is missing.

Response:

The agencies’ analysis makes no projection of increases or decreases in vehicle sales due to the 

rule. As noted in response to #54, sales increases are from AEO2011 projections from EIA of 

increasing vehicle sales with increasing annual VMT due to economic growth, and are included 

in the baseline. 

This annual increase in sales is reflected in both the baseline and control case analyses. This 

does highlight one inconsistency in the rule. EIA assumes that increasing VMT with economic 

growth is achieved through increases in the number of commercial trucks in operation. In the 

rule analysis, we have made a projection of VMT rebound due to the regulation but have not 

estimated the increased vehicle sales necessary to allow for the projected increase in VMT. 

Given hours of service regulations, it seems safe to assume that the additional VMT is done by 

additional drivers. Unless the additional drivers are using the trucks in hot seat operations 

around the clock, it seems most likely that the additional VMT in the rebound analysis is met 

through additional truck sales. The agencies have not accounted for these additional truck sales 

in our analysis.

As discussed in response to #54, pre-buy and purchase delay are possible outcomes of the rule, 

but we expect them to be less likely than in rulemakings that limit criteria pollutants, because 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

35

there will be private benefits associated with fuel savings.

56) Human Factor

Commenters request clarity on whether the effect of human drivers has been incorporated into the 

expected benefits. Industry and the agencies readily acknowledges that the most effective 

fuel efficiency technology is driver training, and that a well-trained driver can be more fuel 

efficient than any one of the technologies alone. Presumably, that also means that a welltrained driver will be able to use a vehicle in a way that negates the fuel economy benefits of 

this rule in favor of power, speed, or both. Similarly, if a choice of tires can improve fuel 

economy, replacement with a different set of tires will reduce fuel economy. Do the agencies 

incorporate a human factor into their analysis?

Response:

The technologies that the agencies expect to be used to comply with the GHG emissions and 

fuel consumption standards will reduce the emissions and fuel consumption regardless of 

the type of driver. The technologies reduce the energy required to move the vehicle on the 

road or make the engines more efficient at burning fuel. The technologies do little to change 

how a driver behaves so we would not expect a shift in driver behavior, therefore, we have 

not incorporated a shift in quantification of the projected impacts of the rule.

While the agencies encourage the exclusive use of LRR tires throughout the life of heavyduty vehicles, we recognize that it is inappropriate at this time to hold vehicle manufacturers 

responsible for ensuring that this occurs. Additionally, we believe that owner/operators 

have a legitimate financial motivation for ensuring their vehicles are as fuel efficient as 

possible, which includes purchasing LRR replacement tires. However owner/operators may 

not have a sound knowledge of which replacement tires to purchase to retain the as-certified 

fuel efficiency of their vehicle. Therefore we are requiring that vehicle manufacturers 

supply adequate information in the owner’s manual to allow the owner/operator of the 

vehicle to purchase tires meeting or exceeding the rolling resistance performance of the 

original equipment tires. We expect that these instructions will be submitted to EPA as part 

of the application for certification.

57) Timing of In-Use

Commenter suggests that the agencies clarify in the rule summary when these standards 

apply during the lifetime of HD vehicles. In other words, an explanation that the EPA 

standards apply to both new and “in use” vehicles and how this works. Commenters 

recommend that agencies also clarity on pg. 50 (“What Vehicles Would be Affected?”)

Response:

The following text was added at the beginning of the “What Vehicles Would be Affected?” 

section:

“In general, these standards will apply for model year 2014 and later engines and vehicles, 

although some are delayed until 2016 or 2017. They will apply throughout the useful life 

engine or vehicle, just as existing criteria emission standards apply throughout the useful 

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

36

58) RV’s

Commenters recommend that Pg. 8 clarify that, while NHTSA’s standard will not cover 

RVs, EPA’s will cover them.

Response:

Added language in section I.A. to clarify that EPA is regulating RV’s.

59) California

When California is mentioned on pg. 9-10, it would be helpful to provide a quick 

explanation of the fact that California has unique authority to set emission standards. Also, 

if the agencies consulted with other states beside California, it may be worth mentioning this 

outreach here as well.

Response:

The agencies will add a note to the preamble regarding California’s authority.

60) Trailer Program

Pg. 12 – This may be confusing: “While we are deferring action today on setting trailer 

standards, the agencies are committed to moving forward in a timely manner to create a 

complementary regulatory program for trailers.” To the extent possible, the agencies are 

recommended by commenters to clarify what is meant by moving forward on a 

complementary regulatory program for trailers.

Response:

We revised page 12 (I.A.) as follows:

“While we are deferring action today on setting trailer standards, the agencies are 

committed to moving forward in a timely manner to create a complementary regulatory

program for trailers that would complement the current vehicle program.”

61) Timing of Future Rules

Clarifying question: Do the agencies have a timeline in mind for setting standards for 

trailers? Will the industry and other stakeholders be surprised by what seems to be a 

commitment to set trailer standards before the next phase of the national HD program (pgs. 

12 and 500)?

Response:

The agencies have not yet developed a complete rulemaking timeline for trailer regulations 

with a schedule for an NPRM or goal for an FRM. We do intend to begin our initial 

technical work and early stakeholder outreach soon after the completion of this rule. We do 

not expect stakeholders to be surprised by the language in this final rule. The NRPM was 

meant to function similar to an Advanced Notice making the stakeholder community aware 

of our interest and eliciting their early input. We believe it has served that function and that 

the stakeholder community is fully expecting the agencies to begin this work. We will also 

continue to engage with industry and other stakeholders on trailer strategies through our 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

37

SmartWay program.

62) Pickup Standards

Pages 25-29 summarizing the standards for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans do not 

include a chart or paragraph that lists the actual standards. For consistency with the sections 

that precede and follow on tractor trailers and vocational vehicles, commenter suggests 

adding this missing piece.

Response:

Unfortunately, the approach to standards being taken for heavy-duty pickups and vans does 

not lend itself to a more concise statement of the standards levels than what is already 

indicated in the figures and tables. This is because each manufacturer will have its own fleet 

average standard in each model year, based on its mix of vehicles produced in the model 

year, and each vehicle in the fleet will have its own work factor that in turn contributes to 

forming the manufacturer’s unique fleet average standard.

63) Net Benefits

The summary of costs and benefits (pgs. 35-38) would benefit from greater up-front clarity 

about what is and is not included in the overall estimates of costs and benefits. Also, Table 

I-4 could explain more clearly what is included in “benefits” (why is fuel savings not 

included, for example). Table I-4 is also confusing, because “net benefits” cannot be easily 

derived from the benefit and cost numbers listed within that column.

Response:

EPA originally had fuel savings included in the Program costs line item because EPA 

considers fuel savings to be part of the costs (or savings) of a program. NHTSA has 

traditionally considered fuel savings to be a benefit rather than a cost (or savings). To help 

reduce confusion and to make clear the magnitude of the fuel savings, it has been agreed 

that fuel savings would be included in summary tables as a separate line item.

The agencies will add text to provide greater up-front clarity about what is and is not 

included in the cost benefit summary tables (pp. 35-38 of the preamble). However, it is 

clear that in Table I-4, fuel savings are presented as its own category and that, when 

combined with program costs and benefits, yields total net benefits which should be easy for 

readers to calculate from the information provided in the table. Note also that subsequent 

tables in this section clearly indicate what is included in the cost and benefit categories.

64) Credit Deficits

The summary section on “Program Flexibilities” (beginning on pg 38) does not clearly 

discuss the rule’s provisions that would allow manufacturers to carry forward credit deficits 

(the flip side of banking) and would benefit from additional discussion. Please include this 

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

38

Response:

Stringency for the alternatives has been selected to allow a manufacturer, through the use of 

the credit and deficit carry-forward provisions that the agencies are also finalizing, to rely on 

the same product plans to satisfy either of these two alternatives, and also EPA 

requirements. Under the provisions of the ABT program in this action EPA and NHTSA are

allowing manufacturers to carry forward credits and deficits for a set period of time. We 

contemplate allowing manufacturers of vehicles or engines to carry forward a deficit for up 

to three years when there is less lead time available. If a manufacturer cannot meet an 

applicable standard in a given model year, it may make up its shortfall by overcomplying in 

a subsequent year, called reconciling a credit deficit. NHTSA is also allowing manufacturers 

to voluntarily opt into the NHTSA HD pickup and van program in model years 2014 or 

2015. For these model years, NHTSA’s fuel consumption target curves are equivalent to 

EPA’s target curves.

65) FFV’s

Pg. 115-116: Commenter suggests revising the explanation for the agency’s selected 

approach to account for FFVs. The current explanation that the light duty program’s 2012-

2015approach is not appropriate because “the HD sector does not have the incentives 

mandated in EISA for light-duty FFVs, and so has not relied on the existence of such credits 

in devising compliance strategies for the early model years of this program” is not 

particularly powerful and is somewhat confusing. Commenters instead recommend that the 

agencies simply explain how the chosen accounting approach demonstrates fuel use and 

associated GHG emissions is logical and benefits low-GHG fuels.

Response:

The cited draft preamble language, repeated from the NPRM, is intended to explain why the 

agencies are not taking the approach used in the light-duty vehicle rule. Judging by the 

public comments we received on this, it is a relevant issue for a number of stakeholders. We 

are adding further explanation to this section in response to this inter-agency comment.

66) DOE PEF

Clarifying questions: Pg. 116 explains that NHTSA will determine fuel consumption of 

dedicated alternative fuel vehicles using the DOE petroleum equivalency factor. How will 

EPA determine GHG emissions of dedicated alt fuel vehicles? Why did NHTSA opt for 

using the PEF rather than methodology similar to the approach used for natural gas vehicles 

(deriving a fuel equivalency based on CO2 emissions)? Does the DOE-derived PEF include 

the 0.15 conversion factor incentive that the agencies reject using for NGVs on pg. 264?

Response:

The text on Page 116 is from an earlier version of the preamble and was meant to be deleted. It 

should have been replaced with text explaining that NHTSA is not adopting a petroleum 

equivalency method for determining fuel consumption from alternative fuel vehicles, but rather 

is finalizing to calculate fuel consumption from C02 emissions as is described on page 264 of the 

preamble. We will correct the text so that it is consistent with the approach described on page 

264 which rejects the 0.15 conversion factor.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

39

67) NGV’s

Pg. 264. The discussion of NGVs (first full paragraph on pg. 264) includes a reference to 

FFVs, which seems to be a typo.

Response:

Agreed. Corrected.

68) Early Credits

The description of early credits (beginning on pg. 265) touches a few times on the concerns 

about providing windfall credits to companies with low baseline emissions/consumption 

levels. Commenter suggests that the agencies explain more clearly and succinctly here why 

the early credit program being finalized will not provide windfall credits.

Response:

Agreed. Clarifying language is being added to this section.

69) Multiplier

Clarifying question: Did the agencies do any analysis or rough calculations as the basis for 

concluding that providing a 1.5 multiplier for early credits would generate enough additional 

early reductions (beyond BAU) to outweigh the loss of GHG/efficiency benefits that will be 

created by adding extra credits to the program?

Response:

The agencies did not perform an analysis as the basis for proposing the 1.5 multiplier. It 

was felt that using a 1.5 multiplier strikes a reasonable balance between the need to provide 

a meaningful incentive for manufacturers to make the investment in accelerating technology 

development work and the need to avoid significant over-crediting of these investments to 

the detriment of investments made later to meet the standards. Comments provided in 

response to the proposal reinforced the agencies’ belief that the 1.5 multiplier provides the 

appropriate balance.

See also response to #6).

70) Non-Tailpipe EV Emissions

Pg. 269-270 – On the issue of how electricity-related emissions of EVs should be treated, 

commenters strongly recommend that the agencies include non-tailpipe emissions for the 

purpose of setting standard and for compliance as well.

At the very least, commenter believes it is important to preserve options for future 

rulemakings and to avoid the impression that EPA/NHTSA have already made up their 

minds about how non-tailpipe emissions should be treated going forward. While the last 

sentence in the paragraph at the top of pg. 270 (“We also recognize that the ongoing 

EPA/NHTSA rulemaking...”) accomplishes this goal, the preceding sentence seems to go 

too far in signaling the agencies inclination to deal only with tailpipe emissions by 

referencing “consistency with past practice...whereby we treat all vehicles equally.” 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

40

Commenter suggest revising this sentence to avoid signaling that any other approach would 

not be viewed as treating all vehicles equally (and to clarify that counting EVs as 0 g/mile is 

to provide an incentive for advanced technologies, which the agencies have said previously 

in the light duty context).

Response:

The relevant paragraph on p 269 is revised as follows: 

“After considering these comments, we have decided to maintain consistency with past 

practice for setting vehicle emissions standards under Clean Air Act section 202(a)(1), 

whereby we treat all vehicles equally, based on tailpipe-only emissions performance. The 

agencies recognize that the ongoing EPA/NHTSA rulemaking to reduce GHGs and fuel 

consumption in MY 2017 and later light-duty vehicles is also further examining this issue, 

and may yield information and policy direction relevant to the planned follow-on 

rulemaking for the heavy-duty sector.”

71) Tailpipe and Upstream Edits

Page 10 (and in RIA where appropriate): commenters provide suggested edits in red:

“...As in the light-duty vehicle rule establishing CAFE and GHG standards for MYs 2012-

2016 light-duty vehicles, EPA’s and NHTSA’s final standards for the heavy-duty sector are 

largely harmonized with one another due to the close and direct relationship between 

improving the fuel efficiency of these vehicles and reducing their CO2 tailpipe emissions. 

For all vehicles that consume carbon-based fuels, the amount of CO2 emitted from the 

tailpipe is essentially constant per gallon for a given type of fuel that is consumed. The more 

efficient a heavy-duty truck is in completing its work, the lower its environmental impact 

will be, because the less fuel consumed to move cargo a given distance, the less CO2

emitted from the tailpipe into the air. The technologies available for improving fuel 

efficiency, and therefore for reducing both CO2 emissions and fuel consumption, are one 

and the same.[1] Because of this close technical relationship, NHTSA and EPA have been 

able to rely on jointly-developed assumptions, analyses, and analytical conclusions to 

support the standards and other provisions that NHTSA and EPA are adopting under our 

separate legal authorities.

The agencies recognize that the ongoing EPA/NHTSA rulemaking to reduce GHGs and fuel 

consumption in MY 2017 and later light-duty vehicles is also further examining this 

issue, and may yield information and policy direction relevant to the planned follow-on 

rulemaking for the heavy-duty sector. The agencies recognize that biofuels, such as 

biodiesel and ethanol, will play an important role in reducing the nation‘s dependence on 

foreign oil, thereby increasing domestic energy security. The agencies recognize that 

biofuels have unique GHG emission characteristics. When considered on a lifecycle basis 

(including both tailpipe and upstream emissions), the net GHG emission impact of 

individual biofuels can vary significantly from both petroleum-based fuels and from one 

biofuel to another. EPA‘s Renewable Fuel Standard program, as modified by EISA, 

examined these differences in lifecycle emissions in detail. For example, EPA found that 

with respect to aggregate lifecycle emissions including non-tailpipe GHG emissions (such 

as feedstock growth, transportation, fuel production, and land use), lifecycle GHG 

emissions in 2022 for biodiesel from soy, using certain advanced production 

technologies, are about 50 percent less than diesel from oil. The agencies recognize that in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

41

the case of biofuels, ―upstream emissions include not only GHG emissions, but also any 

biological sequestration that takes place. For purposes of this discussion, the term 

―upstream emissions, when considered in the case of biofuels, should be construed to 

encompass both GHG emissions and sequestration. The agencies note that to the extent 

future policy decisions involve upstream emissions, the agencies will need to consider not 

only upstream emissions from electricity production, but also the unique emission 

characteristics associated with biofuels...”

Response:

Revised paragraph in I.A. (p 10 of 6/1 OMB version) as follows: 

“For all vehicles that consume carbon-based fuels, the amount of CO2 exhaust emissions is 

essentially constant per gallon for a given type of fuel that is consumed. The more 

efficient a heavy-duty truck is in completing its work, the lower its environmental impact 

will be, because the less fuel consumed to move cargo a given distance, the less CO2

emitted that truck emits directly into the air.”

Added clarifying statement in this same section (I.A) as follows:

“This program is based on standards for direct exhaust emissions from engines and 

vehicles. In characterizing the overall emissions impacts and benefits of the program, 

emissions from upstream sources have been included. In this action, the agencies use the 

term upstream to include emissions from the production and distribution of fuel. A 

summary of upstream emissions is presented in Section VI.C of this preamble, and further 

details are available in Chapter 5 of the RIA.”

72) Tailpipe 1

Page 23:Table I-2: Heavy-duty Combination Tractor EPA TAILPIPE-ONLY Emissions 

Standards (g CO2/ton-mile) and NHTSA Fuel Consumption Standards (gal/1,000 ton-mile)

Response: 

We don't see a need to use the term "tailpipe" throughout the document. Instead a clarifying 

statement has been added to Section I.A. 

73) Tailpipe 2

Page 23:“...EPA’s engine-based CO2 standards for tailpipe emissions and NHTSA’s enginebased fuel consumption standards are based on EPA’s existing test procedures and 

regulatory structure for criteria pollutant emissions from medium- and heavy-duty engines...”

Response:

We don't see a need to use the term "tailpipe" throughout the document. Instead a clarifying 

statement has been added to Section I.A. 

74) Tailpipe 3

Page 50:“...technologies that would reduce CO2 tailpipe emissions and fuel consumption 

and that are judged to be feasible and appropriate for these vehicles and engines through the 

2018 model year...”
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

42

Response:

We don't see a need to use the term "tailpipe" throughout the document. Instead a clarifying 

statement has been added to Section I.A. 

75) Tailpipe 4

Page 63: Table II-1, replace “CO2 grams” with Tailpipe CO2 grams”

Response:

We don't see a need to use the term "tailpipe" throughout the document. Instead a clarifying 

statement has been added to Section I.A. 

76) FFV Weighting

Page 114:

“... FFVs, and so has not relied on the existence of such credits in devising compliance strategies 

for the early model years of this program. See 74 FR at 49531. In fact, manufacturers have not 

in the past produced FFV heavy-duty vehicles. On the other hand, we did seek comment on how 

to properly recognize the impact of the use of alternative fuels, and E85 in particular, in HD 

pickups and vans, including the proper accounting for alternative fuel use in FFVs in the real

world.[2] See 75 FR at 74198. FFV performance will be determined in the same way as for 

light-duty vehicles, with a 50-50 weighting of alternative and conventional fuel test results 

through MY 2015, and a manufacturer-determined weighting based on estimated fuel use over 

the useful life of the vehicle after MY 2015 (defaulting to an assumption of 100 percent 

conventional fuel use). See 75 FR at 25339. For dedicated alternative fueled vehicles, NHTSA 

will require that vehicles be tested with the alternative fuel, and a petroleum equivalent fuel 

consumption level be calculated based on the Petroleum Equivalency Factor (PEF) that is 

determined by the Department of Energy.

Response:

The agencies have revised the preamble text to more accurately reflect the light-duty approach 

being followed for HD FFVs:

“FFV performance will be determined in the same way as for light-duty vehicles, with a 50-

50 weighting of alternative and conventional fuel test results through MY 2015, and an 

EPA- or manufacturer-determined weighting based on real world use of the alternative fuel 

after MY 2015 (defaulting to an assumption of 100 percent conventional fuel use).”

77) Tailpipe 5

Page 128: Table II-14, replace CO2 emissions with Tailpipe CO2 emissions.

Response:

We don't see a need to use the term "tailpipe" throughout the document. Instead a clarifying 

statement has been added to Section I.A. 

78) Tailpipe 6

Page 202: Table III-6, replace “CO2 grams” with Tailpipe CO2 grams”
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

43

Response:

We don't see a need to use the term "tailpipe" throughout the document. Instead a clarifying 

statement has been added to Section I.A. 

79) Upstream from EV’s

Page 269-270:

“...The proposal also solicited comment on the handling of upstream GHG emissions. 

Some commenters argued that EPA should maintain its traditional focus in mobile source 

rulemakings on vehicle tailpipe emissions and leave the consideration of GHG emissions 

from upstream fuel production and distribution-related sources such as refineries and 

powerplants to EPA regulatory programs that focus specifically on those sources. Others 

argued that, since EPA accounts for upstream GHG emissions in its benefits assessments, 

the agency should reflect upstream GHG emissions impacts in vehicle compliance values 

as well. After considering these comments, we have decided to maintain consistency with 

past practice for setting vehicle emissions standards under Clean Air Act section 

202(a)(1), whereby we treat all vehicles equally, based on tailpipe-only emissions 

performance.

We also recognize that the ongoing EPA/NHTSA rulemaking to reduce GHGs and fuel 

consumption in MY 2017 and later light duty vehicles is also further examining this issue, 

and may yield information and policy direction relevant to the planned followon rulemaking 

for the heavy duty sector.

The agencies also recognize that the ongoing EPA/NHTSA rulemaking to reduce GHGs and 

fuel consumption in MY 2017 and later light-duty vehicles is also further examining this 

issue, and may yield information and policy direction relevant to the planned follow-on 

rulemaking for the heavy-duty sector. The agencies recognize that biofuels, such as 

biodiesel and ethanol, will play an important role in reducing the nation‘s dependence on 

foreign oil, thereby increasing domestic energy security. The agencies recognize that 

biofuels have unique GHG emission characteristics. When considered on a lifecycle basis 

(including both tailpipe and upstream emissions), the net GHG emission impact of 

individual biofuels can vary significantly from both petroleum-based fuels and from one 

biofuel to another. EPA‘s Renewable Fuel Standard program, as modified by EISA, 

examined these differences in lifecycle emissions in detail. For example, EPA found that 

with respect to aggregate lifecycle emissions including non-tailpipe GHG emissions (such 

as feedstock growth, transportation, fuel production, and land use), lifecycle GHG 

emissions in 2022 for biodiesel from soy, using certain advanced production 

technologies, are about 50 percent less than diesel from oil. The agencies recognize that in 

the case of biofuels, ―upstream emissions include not only GHG emissions, but also any 

biological sequestration that takes place. For purposes of this discussion, the term 

―upstream emissions, when considered in the case of biofuels, should be construed to 

encompass both GHG emissions and sequestration. The agencies note that to the extent 

future policy decisions involve upstream emissions, the agencies will need to consider not 

only upstream emissions from electricity production, but also the unique emission 

characteristics associated with biofuels.”

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

44

Preamble Section IV.B.2.a on p 269 is revised as follows: 

“After considering these comments, we have decided to maintain consistency with past 

practice for setting vehicle emissions standards under Clean Air Act section 202(a)(1), 

whereby we treat all vehicles equally, based on tailpipe-only emissions performance. The 

agencies recognize that the ongoing EPA/NHTSA rulemaking to reduce GHGs and fuel 

consumption in MY 2017 and later light-duty vehicles is also further examining this issue, 

and may yield information and policy direction relevant to the planned follow-on 

rulemaking for the heavy-duty sector.”

The agencies also agree to insert the suggested edits in RIA Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3, as follows:

5.3.3 Calculation of Upstream Emissions 

“The term “upstream emissions” refers to air pollutant emissions generated from all crude oil 

extraction, transport, refining, and finished fuel transport, storage, and distribution; this includes 

all stages prior to the final filling of vehicle fuel tanks at retail service stations. The details of the 

assumptions, data sources, and calculations that were used to estimate the emission impacts 

presented here can be found in the Technical Support Document and the docket memo, 

“Calculation of Upstream Emissions for the GHG Vehicle Rule”, initially created for use in the 

Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas rulemaking. 

The agencies recognize the unique GHG emission characteristics associated with biofuels, and 

specifically that in the context of biofuels, “upstream emissions” include not only GHG 

emissions, but also any net biological sequestration that takes place. When considered on a 

lifecycle basis (including both tailpipe and upstream emissions), the net GHG emission impact of 

individual biofuels can vary significantly from both petroleum-based fuels and from one biofuel 

to another. EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard program, as modified by EISA, examined these 

differences in lifecycle emissions in detail. For example, EPA found that with respect to 

aggregate lifecycle emissions including non-tailpipe GHG emissions (such as feedstock growth, 

transportation, fuel production, and land use), lifecycle GHG emissions in 2022 for biodiesel 

from soy, using certain advanced production technologies, are about 50 percent less than diesel 

from petroleum. 

The agencies note that to the extent future policy decisions involve upstream emissions, the 

agencies will need to consider the unique emission characteristics associated with biofuels. More 

broadly, the agencies recognize that biofuels, including biodiesel, will play an important role in 

reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, thereby increasing domestic energy security.”

80) Tailpipe 7

Page 357:

“...All electric vehicles are deemed to have zero tailpipe emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O...”

Response:

Revised Table V-5 in Section V.F.4.c. as follows: 

“All electric vehicles are deemed to have zero exhaust emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O”
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

45

81) Climate Context

In summarizing the quantified climate change impacts of the rule on page 377, commenter 

suggests that the agencies provide context about how the HD program addresses climate change.

Response: 

We have already included some context in the preamble:

 "The analysis projects that the preferred alternative of this program will reduce 

atmospheric concentrations of CO2, global climate warming and sea level rise relative to 

the reference case. Although the projected reductions and improvements are small in 

comparison to the total projected climate change, they are quantifiable, directionally

consistent, and will contribute to reducing the risks associated with climate change. "

 "The projected reductions are small relative to the change in temperature (1.8 – 4.8 oC), 

sea level rise (27 – 51 cm), and ocean acidity (-0.30 pH units) from 1990 to 2100 from 

the MAGICC simulations for the GCAM reference case. However, this is to be expected 

given the magnitude of emissions reductions expected from the program in the context of 

global emissions. "

 "As a substantial portion of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is not removed by natural 

processes for millennia, each unit of CO2 not emitted into the atmosphere avoids 

essentially permanent climate change on centennial time scales. Reductions in emissions 

in the near-term are important in determining long-term climate stabilization and 

associated impacts experienced not just over the next decades but in the coming centuries 

and millennia.[1] Though the magnitude of the avoided climate change projected here is 

small in comparison to the total projected changes, these reductions represent a reduction 

in the adverse risks associated with climate change (though these risks were not formally 

estimated for this action) across a range of equilibrium climate sensitivities.

 EPA’s analysis of the program’s impact on global climate conditions is intended to 

quantify these potential reductions using the best available science. EPA’s modeling 

results show repeatable, consistent reductions relative to the reference case in changes of 

CO2 concentration, temperature, sea-level rise, and ocean pH over the next century."

However, we can make some of these points even more clear. We suggest changing the first 

paragraph to read:

"The analysis projects that the preferred alternative of this program will reduce atmospheric 

concentrations of CO2, global climate warming and sea level rise relative to the reference case. 

Although the projected reductions and improvements are small in comparison to the total 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

46

projected climate change, they are quantifiable, directionally consistent, and will contribute to 

reducing the risks associated with climate change. Climate change is a global phenomenon and 

EPA recognizes that this one national action alone will not prevent it: EPA notes this would be 

true for any given GHG mitigation action when taken alone. EPA also notes that a substantial 

portion of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is not removed by natural processes for millennia, 

and therefore each unit of CO2 not emitted into the atmosphere due to this rule avoids essentially 

permanent climate change on centennial time scales”

82) Hybrids

Page 1-39. The document incorrectly describes Plug-in Hybrids as “The third type of HD 

hybrid vehicle is a ‘plug-in’”. Hybrids can be electric or hydraulic as correctly mentioned. 

PHEVs simply mean that the battery can be recharged from a plug. They are in fact electric 

hybrids.

New DRIA Chapter 1.8 text:

The third type of HD hybrid design is a ‘plug-in’ which operates on the same principle as

the electric hybrid only adds the capability to recharge the hybrid battery using an 

external power source. These trucks can use electric power for auxiliary system 

power

and operations and can have range-extended batteries as they can switch propulsive 

power to the diesel engine when the battery runs low. Typical applications for this type of 

vehicle include utility (powering the grid), small pickup and delivery trucks, and shuttle 

buses.

Interagency commenter notes that this section has been removed from the DRIA, and the Table of 

Contents needs to be modified to reflect this. The draft final Regulation (pg 237) has not 

been changed to reflect agency response.

Response: 

The agencies will update the RIA table of contents to reflect the latest RIA. The agencies will 

revise the text on page 237 such that it reads:

“The industry is currently developing many variations of hybrid powertrain systems.”

83) Acceptable Uncertainty

Page 3-9, last paragraph. Commenter recommends that agencies include text to clarify that 

Acceptable uncertainty refers to the reduction in coastdown uncertainty that yielded a drag 

coefficient with approximately 5% standard error. Commenter notes that “achieve and 

acceptable” should be “achieve acceptable”

Response: 

We agree and thank you for the correction. The additional text clarifying the intent has been 

added to the Regulatory Impact Analysis in section 3.2.2.1.3.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

47

84) Frontal Area

Commenters recommend that agencies include the following clarification in RIA:

For subsequent testing conducted off-site, the following methods were used to develop the 

frontal area.

 SAE J2263 analysis process requires the vehicle frontal area be measured for each tested 

configuration.

 The process of measurement evolved through three phases for this program. Early 

HD

vehicles were photographed in a parking lot and analyzed using a grid overlay method.

 In an attempt to improve the process and results, LHD vehicles were photographed in 

front of a “green screen” with a high resolution digital camera with a long telephoto 

lens.

 Finally, all additional HD vehicles were photographed against this green screen 

backdrop, inside of the shop with studio lighting and the camera placement outside in an 

open field on adjacent. (all subsequent vehicles were measured using this method)

 Photogrammetric computer software was used for the measurements for vehicles 

photographed using the “green screen method.”

 The contractor sought to largely comply with the methods described in EPA advisory 

Circular No. 73.

Measurement of the frontal area of a tractor can be considered to be fairly accurate because 

it is based upon simple measurement of tractor geometry. More specifically, the area is 

comprised of a series of length measurements of a static object (i.e. a tractor). However, the most 

important aspect of accurate Cd comparison is the consistent use of standard area. This importance 

arises from the fact that the area is used to convert the measured drag forces to a normalized Cd 

and then used by the simulation to convert the Cd back to the drag force experienced by the 

vehicle. For comparisons of frontal areas, accuracy is dependent upon a clear, detailed protocol 

for which measurements to take. Examples can include which components to include (e.g., 

fender mirrors), factors that affect the ride height (e.g., tire inflation), and whether it is based 

upon the tractor’s geometry or a combination of the tractor and trailer geometry (in instances 

where the trailer may extend slightly beyond the dimensions of the tractor).

Response: 

We agree and thank you for the clarification. The recommended text, along with additional 

clarifying text will be added to the RIA. Additionally, regulatory requirements will be 

clarified.