<^tDsrx
1S1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
20-P-0047
December 5, 2019
Why We Did This Project
We received a congressional
request raising concerns about
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's)
development of the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, "Repeal
of Emission Requirements for
Glider Vehicles, Glider Engines,
and Glider Kits." We sought to
determine whether the EPA
acted in compliance with
Executive Orders (EOs) 12866
and 13045 in developing the
proposed rulemaking.
The EPA's "Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles—Phase 2," finalized in
October 2016, included
emission requirements and
production limits for glider
vehicles. A glider kit is a chassis
for a tractor-trailer; it becomes a
glider vehicle when an engine,
transmission and/or rear axle
are added. After receiving a
petition from the glider industry
in July 2017, the EPA proposed
to rescind the portion of the
Phase 2 rule affecting gliders
(proposed Glider Repeal Rule)
in November 2017.
This report addresses the
following:
•	Compliance with the law.
•	Improving air quality.
Address inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391 or
OIG WEBPOSTINGS@epa.gov.
List of OIG reports.
EPA Failed to Develop Required Cost and Benefit
Analyses and to Assess Air Quality Impacts on
Children's Health for Proposed Glider Repeal Rule
Allowing Used Engines in Heavy-Duty Trucks
What We Found
The EPA did not comply with requirements of
EOs 12866 and 13045 when developing and issuing
the proposed Glider Repeal Rule. Additionally, the
EPA did not follow its principal rulemaking guidance—
the Action Development Process—in developing the
proposed Glider Repeal Rule, nor did it meet Federal
Records Act requirements.
The EPA's actions
regarding the
proposed Glider
Repeal Rule lacked
transparency and
deprived the public of
required information.
EO 12866 directs that significant regulatory actions be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
for review. Any substantive OIRA-recommended changes to the regulatory action
must be publicly identified. A regulatory action deemed "economically significant"
under EO 12866 triggers an assessment of (1) the anticipated costs and benefits
and (2) any reasonable alternatives. EO 13045 applies to "economically
significant" regulatory actions that "concern an environmental health or safety risk
that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children." This
order requires an evaluation of the environmental health risks to children and an
explanation of why the planned regulation is preferable to alternatives.
According to EPA managers and officials, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt
directed that the Glider Repeal Rule be promulgated as quickly as possible. The
proposed repeal rule would relieve industry of compliance requirements of the
Phase 2 rule, which set emissions standards and production limits for gliders
beginning January 1, 2018. EPA officials were aware that available information
indicated the proposed Glider Repeal Rule was "economically significant;"
however, Pruitt directed the Office of Air and Radiation to develop the proposed
rule without conducting the analyses required by the EOs. The lack of analyses
caused the public to not be informed of the proposed rule's benefits, costs,
potential alternatives and impacts on children's health during the public comment
period. As of the date of this report, the proposed Glider Repeal Rule is listed on
the EPA's Fall 2019 Regulatory Agenda as "economically significant."
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the agency identify for the public the substantive change to
the proposed rule made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA, conduct
the required analyses prior to finalizing the repeal, provide the public a means to
comment on the analyses supporting the rulemaking, and document the
decisions made. The agency provided sufficient planned corrective actions for
two recommendations, while one recommendation remains unresolved.

-------