UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(Amendment No.        )

Filed by the Registrantx

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant¨

Check the appropriate box:

United Rentals, Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if Other Than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

UNITED RENTALS, INC.

Five Greenwich Office Park100 First Stamford Place, Suite 700

Greenwich,Stamford, Connecticut 0683106902

March 27, 201324, 2015

Dear Fellow Stockholders:

You are cordially invited to attend this year’s annual meeting of stockholders, which will be held on Wednesday, May 8, 2013,6, 2015, at the Hyatt Regency Greenwich, 1800 East Putnam Avenue, Old Greenwich, Connecticut.Rosewood Crescent Hotel, 400 Crescent Court, Dallas, Texas. The meeting will start at 9:00 a.m., EasternCentral time.

Enclosed you will findUnder U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules that allow companies to furnish proxy materials to stockholders over the Internet, we have elected to deliver our proxy materials to the majority of our stockholders over the Internet. This delivery process allows us to provide stockholders with the information they need, while at the same time conserving natural resources and lowering the cost of delivery. On March 24, 2015, we mailed to our stockholders a notice setting forthNotice and Access to Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (the “Notice”) containing instructions on how to access our 2015 proxy statement and annual report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Notice also provides instructions on how to vote online or over the telephone and includes instructions on how to receive, free of charge, a paper copy of the proxy materials by mail.

Details of the business expected to come before the annual meeting are provided in the enclosed Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders and proxy statement, a proxy card and a copy of our annual report to stockholders for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

statement. Your vote is important. Whether or not you intend to be present at the meeting, it is important that your shares be represented. Voting instructions are provided on yourIn addition to voting in person, stockholders of record may vote via a toll-free telephone number or over the Internet. Stockholders who received a paper copy of the proxy materials by mail may also vote by completing, signing and mailing the enclosed proxy card andpromptly in the accompanying proxy statement. We encourage you to submit your proxy and vote via the Internet, by telephone or by mail.return envelope provided.

Thank you for your continued support.

UNITED RENTALS, INC.

Five Greenwich Office Park100 First Stamford Place, Suite 700

Greenwich,Stamford, Connecticut 0683106902

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

TO OUR STOCKHOLDERS:

The annual meeting of stockholders of United Rentals, Inc. will be held at the Hyatt Regency Greenwich, 1800 East Putnam Avenue, Old Greenwich, Connecticut,Rosewood Crescent Hotel, 400 Crescent Court, Dallas, Texas, on Wednesday, May 8, 2013,6, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., EasternCentral time, for the following purposes:

The meeting may be adjourned or postponed from time to time. At any reconvened or rescheduled meeting, action with respect to the matters specified in this notice may be taken without further notice to stockholders, except as may be required by our by-laws. Stockholders of record at the close of business on March 11, 2013,9, 2015, are entitled to notice of, and to vote on, all matters at the meeting and any reconvened or rescheduled meeting following any adjournment or postponement.

We are pleased to take advantage of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules that allow issuers to furnish proxy materials to their stockholders on the Internet. We believe these rules allow us to provide you with the information you need while lowering the costs of printing and delivering proxy materials and reducing the environmental impact of the Annual Meeting.

March 27, 201324, 2015

By Order of the Board of Directors,

JONATHAN M. GOTTSEGEN

Corporate Secretary

ImportantIMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS FOR THE ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2015. Prior to May 6, 2015, the Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on Wednesday, May 8, 2013. The Notice of and Proxy Statement for the 20132015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and the Company’s 20122014 Annual Report to Stockholders are available electronically at https://materials.proxyvote.com/911363. These materials are also available at http://www.ur.com/www.unitedrentals.com/index.php/investor/.

Table of Contents

UNITED RENTALS, INC.

Five Greenwich Office Park100 First Stamford Place, Suite 700

Greenwich,Stamford, Connecticut 0683106902

March 27, 201324, 2015

PROXY STATEMENT

ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

We are providing this proxy statement in connection with the solicitation by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of United Rentals, Inc. (the “Company”) of proxies to be voted at our 20132015 annual meeting of stockholders to be held at the Hyatt Regency Greenwich, 1800 East Putnam Avenue, Old Greenwich, Connecticut,Rosewood Crescent Hotel, 400 Crescent Court, Dallas, Texas, on Wednesday, May 8, 2013,6, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., EasternCentral time, and at any reconvened or rescheduled meeting following any adjournment or postponement. This proxy statement and the accompanying form of proxy card, together with our 2012 annual report to stockholders, are first being mailed to stockholders on or about March 27, 2013.

This proxy statement contains important information for you to consider when deciding how to vote. Please read this information carefully.

Internet Availability of Proxy Materials

We are making this proxy statement and our 2014 annual report to stockholders available to our stockholders on the Internet. On March 24, 2015, we mailed our stockholders a Notice and Access to Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (the “Notice”) containing instructions on how to access our proxy materials, including this proxy statement and our 2014 annual report. Stockholders will be able to access all proxy materials over the Internet free of charge, with such materials being searchable, readable and printable. The Notice also provides instructions on how to vote over the Internet, by telephone or by mail. If you received the Notice by mail, you will not receive a printed copy of the proxy materials in the mail unless you specifically request these materials.

Internet distribution of proxy materials is designed to expedite receipt by stockholders, lower the cost of our annual meetings, and reduce the environmental impact of such meetings. However, if you received the Notice by mail and would like to receive a printed copy of our proxy materials, free of charge, please follow the instructions for requesting such materials contained in the Notice.

Record Date

The record date for determining stockholders entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the annual meeting (and at any reconvened or rescheduled meeting following any adjournment or postponement) has been established as the close of business on March 11, 2013.9, 2015.

Voting Securities Outstanding on Record Date

As of the record date, there were 93,480,89496,857,859 shares of our common stock outstanding and entitled to vote. From April 2822 to May 7, 2013,5, 2015, a list of the stockholders entitled to vote at the annual meeting will be available for inspection during ordinary business hours at our principal executive offices located at Five Greenwich Office Park, Greenwich,100 First Stamford Place, Suite 700, Stamford, Connecticut. The list will also be available at the annual meeting.

Right to Vote

With respect to each matter properly brought before the annual meeting, each holder of our common stock as of the record date will be entitled to one vote for each share held on the record date.

Voting

Voting Before the Annual Meeting

If you are a stockholder of record, meaning that you hold your shares in certificate form or through an account with our transfer agent, American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, you have three options to vote before the annual meeting:

If you indicate a choice with respect to any matter to be acted upon when voting via the Internet (or by telephone or on your returned proxy card)card, if applicable) and you do not validly revoke it, your shares will be voted in accordance with your instructions. If you do not vote via the Internet or by telephone, or sign, date and return a proxy card, you must attend the annual meeting in person in order to vote.

If you hold your shares in “street name” through an account with a bank or broker, you will receive voting instructions from your bank or broker.

If you are a participant in the URI 401(k) Plan, you should have received a separate proxy voting instruction cardscard from the plan trustee, and you have the right to provide voting instructions to the plan trustee by submitting your voting instruction card for those shares that are held by the plan and allocated to your plan account. For your voting instructions to be processed, they must be received by 11:59 p.m., Eastern time, on Friday,Sunday, May 3, 2013.2015.

Voting at the Annual Meeting

If you are a stockholder of record, you may vote your shares at the annual meeting if you attend in person. If you intend to vote your shares at the annual meeting, you will need to bring valid picture identification with you. We will confirm that you were a stockholder of record on the record date and will provide you with a blank proxy card, which will serve as a ballot on which to record your vote.

If you hold your shares in “street name,” you must obtain a legal proxy from your bank or broker in order to vote at the annual meeting. A legal proxy is an authorization from your bank or broker to vote the shares it holds in its name. In addition to a legal proxy, you will need to bring with you valid picture identification and a recent account statement from your bank or broker, confirming your holdings on the record date. Based on these documents, we will confirm that you have proper authority to vote and will provide you with a blank proxy card to serve as a ballot.

If you are a participant in the URI 401(k) Plan, you may not vote plan shares in person at the annual meeting because the plan trustee submits one proxy to vote all shares held by the plan.

Even if you plan to attend the annual meeting, we encourage you to vote your shares before the meeting via the Internet, by telephone or by mail.

Directions to the annual meeting are available by calling the Hyatt Regency GreenwichRosewood Crescent Hotel at 1-203-637-12341-214-871-3200 or visiting its website athttp://greenwich.hyatt.com/hyatt/hotels/services/maps/index.jspwww.rosewoodhotels.com/en/crescent-hotel-dallas/location/getting-around.

Failure to Provide Specific Voting Instructions

If you are a stockholder of record and you properly sign, date and return a proxy card, but do not indicate how you wish to vote with respect to a particular nominee or proposal, then your shares will be voted:

If you hold your shares in “street name” through an account with a bank or broker, you will receive voting instructions from your bank or broker. Banks and brokers have the authority under New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) rules to vote shares for which their customers do not provide voting instructions on routine matters. The proposal to ratify the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm is considered a routine matter under NYSE rules. This means that banks and brokers may vote in their discretion on this matter on behalf of clients who have not furnished voting

instructions at least ten days before the date of the annual meeting. However, some brokers will only vote uninstructed shares in the same proportion as all other shares are voted with respect to a proposal. Unlike the proposal to ratify the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm, the proposals to elect directors1 and to vote on an advisory basis on executive compensation3 are each non-routine matters for which brokers do not have discretionary voting power and for which specific instructions from beneficial owners are required. As a result, brokers are not allowed to vote on these proposals on behalf of beneficial owners if such owners do not return specific voting instructions.

If you are a participant in the URI 401(k) Plan, you should have received a separate proxy voting instruction cardscard from the plan trustee. If you sign and return the voting instruction card but otherwise leave it blank or if you do not otherwise provide voting instructions to the plan trustee by mail, Internet or telephone, your shares will be voted by the plan trustee:

Quorum

The presence at the annual meeting, in person or represented by proxy, of a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote will constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. If a share is deemed present at the annual meeting for any matter, it will be deemed present for all other matters. Abstentions and broker non-votes are treated as present for quorum purposes.

Right to Revoke Proxies

If you are a stockholder of record (even if you voted via the Internet, by telephone or by mail), you retain the power to revoke your proxy or change your vote. You may revoke your proxy or change your vote at any time prior to its exercise by (i) sending a written notice of such revocation or change to United Rentals, Inc., Five Greenwich Office Park, Greenwich,100 First Stamford Place, Suite 700, Stamford, Connecticut 06831,06902, Attention: Corporate Secretary, which notice must be received by 5:00 p.m., Eastern time, on Tuesday, May 7, 2013,5, 2015, (ii) voting in person at the annual meeting, (iii) submitting a new proxy via the Internet or by telephone that is received by 11:59 p.m., Eastern time, on Tuesday, May 7, 2013,5, 2015, or (iv) executing and

mailing a later-dated proxy card to American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, Operation Center, 6201 15th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11219, which proxy card must be received by 5:00 p.m., Eastern time, on Tuesday, May 7, 2013.5, 2015.

“Street name” stockholders who wish to revoke a proxy already returned on their behalf must direct the institution holding their shares to do so.

Participants in the URI 401(k) Plan who wish to revoke or change voting instructions provided to the plan trustee must follow the instructions of the trustee in order to do so.

Method and Cost of Solicitation

In addition to solicitation by mail, our directors, officers and employees may solicit proxies by telephone, electronic communication or other means. We have also retained Innisfree M&A Incorporated, a proxy solicitation firm, to assist us in soliciting proxies, for an estimated fee of $15,000, plus reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses and disbursements. Our directors, officers and employees receive no additional compensation for solicitation of proxies.

We will bear all costs associated with soliciting proxies for the annual meeting. We will, upon request, and in accordance with applicable regulations, reimburse banks, brokers, other institutions, nominees and fiduciaries for their reasonable expenses in forwarding solicitation materials to beneficial owners.

Matters to Be Acted Upon

As discussed in more detail under “Proposal 1—Election of Directors,” each director is required to be elected by a majority of votes cast with respect to such director, i.e., the number of votes cast “for” must exceed the number of votes cast “against.” Abstentions and shares not represented at the meeting will have no effect on the election of directors. Brokers are not entitled to vote on director elections and thusif not furnished voting instructions by their client. As a result, broker non-votes arewill not be treated as votes cast and will have no effect on the election of directors.

The matter described in “Proposal 2—Ratification of Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” is required to be approved by the affirmative vote of the majority of shares present in person or represented by proxy at the annual meeting and entitled to vote on the matter. Abstentions will have the same effect as a vote against this proposal, whereas shares not represented at the meeting will not be counted for purposes of determining whether such matter has been approved. Brokers may vote in their discretion on this proposal on behalf of clients who have not furnished voting instructions. As a result, broker non-votes will not arise in connection with, and thus will have no effect on, this proposal.

With respect to “Proposal 3—Advisory Approval of the Company’s Executive Compensation,” the affirmative vote of a majority of shares present in person or represented by proxy at the annual meeting and entitled to vote on the matter is required for approval of the compensation of our named executive officers. Voting for Proposal 3 is being conducted on an advisory basis and, therefore, the voting results will not be binding on the Company, the Board or the Compensation Committee. Abstentions will have the same effect as a vote against this proposal, whereas broker non-votes and shares not otherwise represented at the meeting will have no effect on the outcome of such matter.

The Board unanimously recommends that you vote:

PROPOSAL 1

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

General

Our Board is currently comprised of the following 13 members: Jenne K. Britell, José B. Alvarez, Bobby J. Griffin, Michael J. Kneeland, Pierre E. Leroy, Singleton B. McAllister, Brian D. McAuley, John S. McKinney, James H. Ozanne, Jason D. Papastavrou, Filippo Passerini, Donald C. Roof and Keith Wimbush. All directors are elected annually for one-year terms.

TheOn March 18, 2015, Mr. Leroy informed the Company that he would not stand for re-election at the 2015 annual meeting. Therefore, the Board, upon the recommendation of our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, has nominated each of the aforementioned directors to stand for re-election.re-election, and all such directors will stand for re-election other than Mr. Leroy. We thank Mr. Leroy for his years of service on the Board and his dedication to the Company. The size of our Board will be reduced to 12 members immediately following the 2015 annual meeting.

Election of 1312 Directors

The terms of Drs. Britell and Papastavrou, Ms. McAllister and Messrs. Alvarez, Griffin, Kneeland, Leroy, McAuley, McKinney, Ozanne, Passerini, Roof and Wimbush will expire at the 20132015 annual meeting. Upon the unanimous recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, the Board has nominated each of Drs. Britell and Papastavrou, Ms. McAllister and Messrs. Alvarez, Griffin, Kneeland, Leroy, McAuley, McKinney, Ozanne, Passerini, Roof and Wimbush to stand for re-election at the annual meeting.

Each director elected at the 20132015 annual meeting will hold office until our 20142016 annual meeting of stockholders and, subject to the resignation policy described below, until such director’s successor is elected and qualified.

Voting

Our by-laws require a director to be elected by a majority of votes cast with respect to such director in uncontested elections. The number of votes cast “for” a director must exceed the number of votes cast “against” that director. Abstentions and shares not represented at the meeting have no effect on the election of directors. Directors will continue to be elected by a plurality of votes cast in contested elections. A “contested election” takes place at any meeting in respect of which (i) our corporate secretary receives a notice pursuant to our by-laws that a stockholder intends to nominate a director or directors and (ii) such proposed nomination has not been withdrawn by such stockholder on or prior to the tenth day preceding the date on which the Company first mails its notice of meeting for such meeting to its stockholders.

If a nominee who is serving as a director is not elected at the annual meeting, under Delaware law, the director would continue to serve on the Board as a “holdover director” until his or her successor is elected and qualified. However, under our by-laws,corporate governance guidelines, any director who fails to be elected by a majority vote must offer to tender his or her resignation to the Board on the date of the certification of the election results. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will then consider the resignation offer and make a recommendation to the Board on whether to accept or reject the resignation, or whether other action should be taken. The Board will accept such resignation unless it determines that the best interests of the Company and its stockholders would not be served in doing so. The Board will act on the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s recommendation within 90 days from the date of the certification of the election results, unless such action would cause the Company to fail to comply with any requirement of the NYSE or any rule or regulation under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), in which event the Company will take action as promptly as is practicable while continuing to meet those requirements. The Board will promptly disclose its decision and the rationale behind it in a Form 8-K report furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The director who offers to tender his or her resignation will not participate in the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s recommendation or in the Board’s decision.

If a nominee who is not already serving as a director is not elected at thean annual meeting, under Delaware law, that nominee would not be a “holdover director” and the process described above would not apply.

All nominees for election at the 20132015 annual meeting are currently serving on the Board. Each person nominated has agreed to continue to serve if elected. If any nominee becomes unavailable for any reason to serve as a director at the time of the annual meeting, then the shares represented by each proxy may be voted for such other person as may be determined by the holders of such proxy.

The Board unanimously recommends a vote FOR the election of each of Drs. Britell and Papastavrou, Ms. McAllister and Messrs. Alvarez, Griffin, Kneeland, Leroy, McAuley, McKinney, Ozanne, Passerini, Roof and Wimbush to hold office until the 20142016 annual meeting of stockholders (designated as Proposal 1 on the enclosed proxy card)1) and until such director’s successor is elected and qualified.

Information Concerning Directors and Executive Officers

The table below identifies, and provides certain information concerning, our current executive officers and directors.

Michael J. Kneeland has been our president and chief executive officer and a director of the Company since August 2008, having previously served as our interim chief executive officer since June 2007. Prior to that time, Mr. Kneeland served as our executive vice president and chief operating officer since March 2007 and as our executive vice president—operations since September 2003. Mr. Kneeland joined the Company as a district manager in 1998 upon our acquisition of Equipment Supply Company, and was subsequently named vice president—aerial operations and then vice president—southeast region. Mr. Kneeland’s more than 33 years of experience in the equipment rental industry includes a number of senior management positions with Free State Industries, Inc. and Equipment Supply Company. In 2011, Mr. Kneeland was appointed to serve on the board of directors of YRC Worldwide, Inc., a leading provider of transportation and global logistics services, where he serves as the Chairman of the Compensation Committee.

William B. Plummerjoined the Company as our executive vice president and chief financial officer in December 2008. Before joining the Company, Mr. Plummer served as chief financial officer of Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a leading provider of global business news and information services, from September 2006 to December 2007. Prior to Dow Jones & Company, Mr. Plummer was vice president and treasurer of Alcoa Inc., one of the world’s leading producers of aluminum, since 2000. He also held similar executive positions at Mead Corporation and GE Capital, the financial services subsidiary of General Electric. Mr. Plummer is also a director of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and UIL Holdings Corporation.

Matthew J. Flannery was appointed as our executive vice president and chief operating officer in April 2012. Mr. Flannery has extensive experience in all areas of the Company’s operations, having previously served as executive vice president—operations and sales, senior vice president—operations east and in two regional vice president roles in aerial operations. Mr. Flannery has also served as a district manager, direct sales manager and branch manager of the Company. He has almostover two decades of sales, management and operations experience in the rental industry. Mr. Flannery joined the Company in 1998 as part of the Company’s acquisition of Connecticut-based McClinch Equipment.

Jonathan M. Gottsegen joined the Company as our senior vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary in February 2009. Before joining the Company, Mr. Gottsegen directed the Corporate and Securities Practice Group at The Home Depot, Inc., the world’s largest home improvement retailer, from 2004 to 2009, where he led a team responsible for oversight of the company’s key legal matters. Prior to The Home Depot, Mr. Gottsegen served as securities counsel for Time Warner Inc., a leading media and entertainment company, from 2003 to 2004, where he was responsible for corporate, securities and corporate governance matters. From 1999 to 2003, Mr. Gottsegen was an associate in the New York office of Kaye Scholer Fierman Hays & Handler in its corporate and securities transactional practice. From 1996 to 1999, Mr. Gottsegen was a senior staff attorney with the SEC in its Division of Corporation Finance.

Dale A. Asplund was promoted to our senior vice president—business services and chief information officer in April 2012. Mr. Asplund has been our senior vice president—business services since April 2011. Joining the Company in 1998, he has held various senior positions that included responsibility for supply chain, fleet management and shared services. His current position also includes management of the Company’s information technology systems. Mr. Asplund previously worked for United Waste Systems, Inc. as a divisional manager.

John J. FaheyJessica T. Graziano was appointedjoined the Company as our vice president—controller in January 2008 and in that role, continues to serve the Company as principal accounting officer as he has since August 2006. Mr. Fahey joinedin December 2014. Before joining the Company, in September 2005Ms. Graziano served as senior vice president—assistantchief accounting officer, corporate controller. His prior experience includescontroller and treasurer of Revlon, Inc. since April 2013. Prior to that, she served as Revlon’s senior positionsvice president—global operations finance from December 2010 through March 2013 and as manager—corporate business development for Xerox Corporation, a leading document management technology and services company, from June 2003 to September 2005, andRevlon’s vice president and chiefcontroller—U.S. customer finance from July 2009 to December 2010. Prior to Revlon, Ms. Graziano held other financial officer for Xerox Engineering Systems,positions with UST Inc., (Altria Group) and KPMG LLP. Ms. Graziano holds a provider of solutions for technical documents,Bachelor’s degree from January 2000 to June 2003. Mr. Fahey has also served as vice president—financeVillanova in Accountancy and controller for Faulding Pharmaceutical Company, an international health care company. Mr. FaheyMBA in Finance from Fairfield University and is a licensed certified public accountant who previously served as a general practice manager in accounting and auditing for Deloitte & Touche LLP, one of the four largest international accounting and consulting firms.accountant.

Jenne K. Britell, Ph.D. became a director of the Company in December 2006 and Chairman of the Board in June 2008. In March 2010, she was named a Senior Managing Director of Brock Capital Group LLC, an advisory and investment banking firm. Dr. Britell was chairman and chief executive officer of Structured Ventures, Inc., advisors to U.S. and multinational companies, from 2001 to 2009. From 1996 to 2000, Dr. Britell was a senior executive of GE Capital. At GE Capital, she most recently served as the executive vice president of Global Consumer Finance and president of Global Commercial and Mortgage Banking. From January 1998 to July 1999, she was president and chief executive officer of GE Capital, Central and Eastern Europe, based in Vienna. Before joining GE Capital, she held significant management positions with Dime Bancorp, Inc., HomePower, Inc., Citicorp

and Republic New York Corporation. Earlier, she was the founding chairman and chief executive officer of the Polish-American Mortgage Bank in Warsaw, Poland. Dr. Britell is also a director of Crown Holdings, Inc., Quest Diagnostics, Inc.,

and previously the U.S.-Russia Investment Fund and the U.S.-Russia Foundation for Entrepreneurship and the Rule of Law. During the past five years, Dr. Britell has also served as a member of the board of directors of West Pharmaceutical Services, Aames Investment Corp. and Lincoln National Corp. Dr. Britell was named the 2011 Director of the Year by the National Association of Corporate Directors. She was also named one of six outstanding directors for 2011 by the Outstanding Directors Exchange, a division of the Financial Times. In early 2012, Dr. Britell was elected a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

José B. Alvarez became a director of the Company in January 2009. Mr. Alvarez has been on the faculty of the Harvard Business School since February 2009. Until December 2008, he was the executive vice president—global business development for Royal Ahold NV, one of the world’s largest grocery retailers. Mr. Alvarez joined Royal Ahold in 2001 and subsequently held several key senior management positions, including president and chief executive officer of the company’s Stop & Shop and Giant-Landover brands. Previously, he served in executive positions at Shaw’s Supermarket, Inc. and American Stores Company. Mr. Alvarez also serves as a director of The TJX Companies, Inc. and previously as a director of Church & Dwight Co., Inc. He holds an MBA degree from the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and an AB degree from Princeton.

Bobby J. Griffin became a director of the Company in January 2009. From March 2005 to March 2007, he served as president—international operations for Ryder System, Inc., a global provider of transportation, logistics and supply chain management solutions. Beginning in 1986, Mr. Griffin served in various other management positions with Ryder, including as executive vice president—international operations from 2003 to March 2005 and executive vice president—global supply chain operations from 2001 to 2003. Prior to Ryder, Mr. Griffin was an executive at ATE Management and Service Company, Inc., which was acquired by Ryder in 1986. He also serves as a director of Hanesbrands Inc. and WESCO International, Inc. Previously, Mr. Griffin served as a director of Horizon Lines, Inc. from May 2010 until April 2012.

Pierre E. Leroy became a director of the Company on April 30, 2012, in connection with our acquisition (the “RSC Transaction”) of RSC Holdings Inc. (“RSC”). Mr. Leroy served as a Director of RSC and RSC Equipment Rental from 2008 to April 2012. Mr. Leroy iswas previously the Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Vigilant Solutions. Vigilant Solutions is a leading provider of public and private safety solutions utilizing advanced video and content analysis and location database services. Prior to joining Vigilant Solutions in March 2012, Mr. Leroy served prior to retiring in 2005, as President of both the Worldwide Construction & Forestry Division and the Global Parts Division of Deere & Company. Deere & Company is a world leader in providing advanced products and services for agriculture, forestry, construction, lawn and turf care, landscaping and irrigation, and also provides financial services worldwide and manufactures and markets engines used in heavy equipment. During his professional career with Deere, he served in a number of positions in Finance, including Treasurer, Vice-President and Treasurer, and Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Leroy has been a director of Capital One Financial Corporation since September 1, 2005, and is also a director of Capital One, National Association. He joined Capital One’s Audit and Risk, Compensation, and Governance and Nominating committees in September 2005, July 2006, and April 2006, respectively. Mr. Leroy was a director of Fortune Brands, Inc. from September 2003 until March 2012, where he served on the Audit and Compensation and Stock Option committees. Mr. Leroy also served on the board of ACCO Brands from August 2005 to April 2009, and Nuveen Investments, Inc. from March 2006 to April 2007.

Singleton B. McAllister became a director of the Company in April 2004. Ms. McAllister is a partner of the law firm Williams Mullen.Husch Blackwell. Before joining Williams MullenHusch Blackwell in December 2012,May 2014, Ms. McAllister had been a partner in the law firms of Williams Mullen since 2012, Blank Rome LLP since 2010 and LeClairRyan since October 2007, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. since July 2005, Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal LLP since 2003 and Patton Boggs LLP since 2001.2007. Prior to entering private practice, Ms. McAllister served for five years as the general counsel for the United States Agency for International Development and has served in senior positions in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ms. McAllister is also a director of Alliant Energy Corporation, Interstate Power and Light Company and Wisconsin Power and Light Company. Additionally, she previously chaired the National Women’s Business Center. Ms. McAllister is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations and a fellow to the National Academy of Public Administration. She has also served on the Advisory Board of the African Development Foundation and has been appointed Secretary to the Virginia State Board of Elections.

Brian D. McAuley became a director of the Company in April 2004. Mr. McAuley has served as chairman of Pacific DataVision, Inc. (“PDV”) since August 2004. PDV is a privately held telecommunications software applications and hosting company. He has also been a partner at NH II, LLC, a consulting firm that specializes in telecommunications businesses, since 2003. Mr. McAuley is a co-founder of Nextel Communications, Inc. and held senior executive positions at Nextel from the company’s inception in 1987 until 1996, including seven years as president and chief executive officer. Upon leaving Nextel, he joined Imagine Tile, Inc., a custom tile manufacturer, where he served as chairman and chief executive officer from 1996 to 1999 and continues to serve as chairman. He also served as president and chief executive officer of NeoWorld Communications, Inc., a wireless telecommunications company, from 1999 until the sale of that company to Nextel in 2003. Mr. McAuley is a certified public accountant and, prior to co-founding Nextel, his positions included chief financial officer of Millicom Incorporated, corporate controller at Norton Simon Inc. and manager at Deloitte & Touche LLP.

John S. McKinneybecame a director of the Company in September 1998 following the merger of the Company with U.S. Rentals, Inc. He also served as a vice president of the Company until the end of 2000. Mr. McKinney served as chief financial officer of U.S. Rentals from 1990 until the merger and as controller of U.S. Rentals from 1988 until 1990, and as a staff auditor and audit manager at the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen & Co. Mr. McKinney was assistant dean of the Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering and Technology at Brigham Young University from November 2006 to January 2008.

James H. Ozanne became a director of the Company on April 30, 2012, in connection with the RSC Transaction. Mr. Ozanne served as a Director of RSC and RSC Equipment Rental from May 2007 until April 2012 and was the Lead Independent Director of the RSC Board. Mr. Ozanne has served in executive positions in the Financial Services industry since 1972. During this time he has held the positions of Chief Financial Officer, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of several leasing, rental, and consumer finance businesses ranging from full service railcar leasing to general equipment finance and grocery pallet rental. He also served as Executive Vice President of GE Capital responsible for the Consumer Finance and Operating Lease/Asset Management business units. Mr. Ozanne was a Director of Financial Security Assurance Holdings Ltd. and Distributed Energy Systems Corp. He was Vice Chairman and Director of Fairbanks Capital Corp. from 2001 through 2005. He was also Chairman of Source One Mortgage Corporation from 1997 to 1999. Previously, he was President and Chief Executive Officer of Nation Financial Holdings and its predecessor, US WEST Capital. Mr. Ozanne is also a director of ZBB Energy Corporation.Corporation and NMI Holdings, Inc.

Jason D. Papastavrou, Ph.D. became a director of the Company in June 2005. Dr. Papastavrou has served as chief executive officer and chief investment officer of ARIS Capital Management, an investment management firm, since founding the company in January 2004. He previously held senior positions at Banc of America Capital Management also an investment management firm, where he served as managing director—fund of hedge funds strategies from 2001 to 2003, and at Deutsche Asset Management, where he served as director—alternative investments group from 1999 to 2001.Management. Dr. Papastavrou, who holds a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, taught at Purdue University’s School of Industrial Engineering from 1990 to 1999 and is the author of numerous academic publications. He is also a director of XPO Logistics, Inc. (formerly Express-1 Expedited Solutions Inc.), an international expedited freight shipping provider.one of the largest and fastest growing providers of transportation logistics services in North America.

Filippo Passerini became a director of United Rentals in January 2009. He is currently GroupIn January 2015, Mr. Passerini began serving as Officer on Special Assignment to the President and CEO of The Procter & Gamble Company. Prior to this, he served as Procter & Gamble Company’s Group President, Global Business Services (GBS) organization and Chief Information Officer (CIO), positions he has held since February 2008 and July 2004, respectively. Mr. Passerini joined Procter & Gamble, a leading multinational manufacturer of consumer goods, in 1981 and has held executive positions in the United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, Turkey, Latin America and the United States. HeOn behalf of the Procter & Gamble organization, he oversaw over 170 distinct services in 70 countries and led the integration of Procter & Gamble’s IT and services groups to form GBS, one of the largest and most progressive shared services organizations in the world. Under his leadership, GBS has saved Procter & Gamble more than $1 billion to date. Mr. Passerini is a member

of the CIO Hall of Fame and has received numerous awards, including: the inaugural Fisher-Hopper Prize for Lifetime Achievement in CIO

Leadership; Shared Service Thought Leader of the Year; andInformationWeek’s Chief of the Year. He is a native of Rome, Italy and holds a degree in Operations Research from the University of Rome.

Donald C. Roof became a director of the Company on April 30, 2012, in connection with the RSC Transaction. Mr. Roof served as a Director of RSC and RSC Equipment Rental from August 2007 to April 2012. Mr. Roof most recently served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Joy Global Inc., a worldwide manufacturer of mining equipment, from 2001 to 2007. Prior to joining Joy, Mr. Roof served as President and Chief Executive Officer of American Tire Distributors/Heafner Tire Group, Inc. from 1999 to 2001 and as Chief Financial Officer from 1997 to 1999. Mr. Roof has previously served on the board of directors and audit committee of two additional NYSE companies, Accuride Corporation from March 2005 through January 2010, and Fansteel, Inc. from September 2000 through March 2003. Mr. Roof had significant experience during his career in capital raising, mergers and acquisitions, and operating in highly-leveraged situations.

Keith Wimbush became a director of the Company in April 2006. Mr. Wimbush is currentlymost recently served as executive vice president and head, legal search practice, of Seiden Krieger Associates, Inc., an executive search firm.firm, from February 2013 to July 2014. Before joining Seiden Krieger, in February 2013, Mr. Wimbush served as executive vice president and North American head of legal of DHR International, another executive search firm, since April 2011. From 2010 to 2011, he was a managing director of Executive Search Services International, LLC. From 2003 until 2005, Mr. Wimbush was with Korn/Ferry International, where he served as a senior client partner and was also co-practice leader of the firm’s legal specialist group. From 1997 until 2003, Mr. Wimbush served as senior vice president and general counsel of Diageo North America, Inc. and predecessor companies. Mr. Wimbush, who holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School, served as an adjunct professor of law at Thomas Cooley Law School during 2007 and 2008.

See “Corporate Governance Matters—Board Consideration of Director Qualifications” for additional information regarding the specific experience, qualifications, attributes and skills of the directors named herein that led the Board to conclude that each such director should serve as a director of the Company.

BOARD MATTERS

General

Our Board is currently comprised of the following 13 members: Jenne K. Britell, José B. Alvarez, Bobby J. Griffin, Michael J. Kneeland, Pierre E. Leroy, Singleton B. McAllister, Brian D. McAuley, John S. McKinney, James H. Ozanne, Jason D. Papastavrou, Filippo Passerini, Donald C. Roof and Keith Wimbush. All directors are elected annually for one-year terms.

The Board, upon the recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, has nominated each of the aforementioned directorsDrs. Britell and Papastavrou, Ms. McAllister and Messrs. Alvarez, Griffin, Kneeland, McAuley, McKinney, Ozanne, Passerini, Roof and Wimbush to stand for re-election at the annual meeting.

Meetings of the Board and its Committees

During 2012,2014, the Board met six times. During 2012,2014, each then-current member of the Board attended at least 75% of the aggregate of (i) the total number of Board meetings held during the period for which he or she was a director and (ii) the total number of meetings of each committee of the Board on which the director served during the period for which he or she was on the committee.

Committees of the Board

The following table summarizes the current composition of the five current standing committees of the Board: the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, the Risk Management Committee and the Strategy Committee. Our Chairman, Dr. Britell, is not a member of any of the Board’s standing committees. However, she regularlyusually attends meetings of the Board’s committees, as all directors are invited.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

None of the current members of the Compensation Committee has ever been an officer or employee of the Company or its subsidiaries or had any relationship with the Company requiring disclosure as a related party transaction under applicable rules of the SEC. During fiscal year 2012,2014, none of our executive officers served as a member of the compensation committee of another entity, one of whose executive officers served on our Compensation Committee; none of our executive officers served as a director of another entity, one of whose executive officers served on our Compensation Committee; and none of our executive officers served as a member of the compensation committee of another entity, one of whose executive officers served as a member of our Board.

Audit Committee

We have a separately-designated Audit Committee established in accordance with the Exchange Act. The Audit Committee operates pursuant to a charter that complies with the corporate governance standards of the NYSE. You can access this document, and other committee charters, on our website athttp://www.ur.comwww.unitedrentals.com under(under “Corporate Governance” in the Investor Relations section. The document, and each of the other committee charters, is also availablesection) or in print to any stockholder upon written request to our corporate secretary at United Rentals, Inc., Five Greenwich Office Park, Greenwich,100 First Stamford Place, Suite 700, Stamford, Connecticut 06831.06902.

The general purposes of the Audit Committee are to:

The Audit Committee also has the sole authority to appoint or replace the independent auditor (subject, if applicable, to stockholder ratification) and to approve compensation arrangements for the independent auditor.

The current members of the Audit Committee are Messrs. McKinney, Alvarez, Griffin, Ozanne (since July 22, 2014) and Roof and Dr. Papastavrou. Messrs.Mr. Alvarez Griffin and Roof have been members of the Audit Committee since April 30, 2012. Messrs. McAuley and Passerini were memberswas a member of the Audit Committee until April 30, 2012.July 22, 2014. Each member of the Audit Committee meets the general independence requirements of the NYSE and the additional independence requirements for audit committees specified by Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act. The Board has determined that each of Messrs. McKinney, Ozanne and Roof and Dr. Papastavrou qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by the SEC and has “accounting or related financial management expertise” within the meaning of the corporate governance standards of the NYSE, and that each member of the Audit Committee is financially literate within the meaning of the corporate governance standards of the NYSE.

In 2012,2014, the Audit Committee met seveneight times.

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee operates pursuant to a charter that complies with the corporate governance standards of the NYSE.

The general purpose of the Compensation Committee is to aid the Board in discharging its responsibilities relating to: (i) the oversight of executive officer and director compensation, (ii) oversight of the relationship between risk management policies and (ii)practices, corporate strategy and senior executive compensation and (iii) the development of compensation policies that support the Company’s business goals and objectives. The Compensation Committee is also responsible for producing an annual report on executive compensation and assisting management in the preparation of a Compensation Discussion and Analysis. For additional information concerning the Compensation Committee, see “Executive Compensation—Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”

The current members of the Compensation Committee are Ms. McAllister and Messrs. Leroy, McAuley (since April 30, 2012)July 22, 2014), PasseriniRoof (since July 22, 2014) and Wimbush. Messrs. Alvarez and Griffin were membersMr. Passerini was a member of the Compensation Committee until April 30, 2012.July 22, 2014. Each member of the Compensation Committee meets the independence requirements of the NYSE. In addition, each member qualifies as an “outside director” within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) and as a “non-employee director” within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 under the Exchange Act.

The Compensation Committee may select, retain and terminate outside compensation consultants to advise with respect to director, chief executive officer or executive officer compensation. The

Compensation Committee also has the authority to obtain advice and assistance from internal or external legal, accounting and other advisors. Although the Company pays for any compensation consultant, the Compensation Committee, in its sole discretion, approves the fees to the compensation consultant and other terms related to the consultant’s engagement. The Compensation Committee’s use of compensation consultants is described below under “Executive Compensation—Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”

The Compensation Committee may delegate all or any portion of its duties and responsibilities to a subcommittee consisting of one or more members of the Compensation Committee.

In 2012,2014, the Compensation Committee met sevenfive times.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee operates pursuant to a charter that complies with the corporate governance standards of the NYSE.

The general responsibilities of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee include: (i) developing criteria for evaluating prospective candidates to the Board (or its committees) and identifying and recommending such candidates to the Board; (ii) taking a leadership role in shaping the corporate governance of the Company and developing the Company’s corporate governance guidelines; and (iii) coordinating and overseeing the evaluation processes for the Board and management which are required by the Company’s corporate governance guidelines. For additional information concerning this committee, see “Corporate Governance Matters—Director Nomination Process.”

The current members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are Messrs. McAuley, Alvarez, OzannePasserini (since April 30, 2012)July 22, 2014) and Wimbush and Ms. McAllister. Mr. Ozanne was a member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee until July 22, 2014. Each member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee meets the independence requirements of the NYSE.

In 2012,2014, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee met fourthree times.

Risk Management Committee

Pursuant to its charter, the Risk Management Committee assists the Board in overseeing the Company’s enterprise-wide risk management practices to the extent not otherwise assigned to the Audit Committee, including (i) the process by which management identifies and assesses the Company’s exposure to risk, including but not limited to financial risk, and (ii) that the risk management infrastructure established by management is capable of managing those risks, in order to effectively support the Company’s strategic and operational objectives while maintaining the Company’s sound financial condition.

The current members of the Risk Management Committee are Dr. Papastavrou and Messrs. Griffin, McKinney, Ozanne (since July 22, 2014) and Passerini. Messrs. McAuley McKinney, Passerini and Roof.

TheRoof were members of the Risk Management Committee replaceduntil July 22, 2014.

In 2014, the Finance Committee, which was comprised of Dr. Papastavrou and Mr. McAuley, on April 30, 2012. In 2012, the Finance/Risk Management Committee met four times.

Strategy Committee

Pursuant to its charter, the Strategy Committee assists the Board in overseeing and facilitating the development and implementation of the Company’s corporate strategy, including long- and short-term strategic plans and related operational decision-making.

The current members of the Strategy Committee are Messrs. Griffin, Alvarez (since July 22, 2014), Kneeland, Leroy, McAuley, OzannePasserini and Passerini.Roof (since July 22, 2014). Messrs. Leroy, McAuley and Ozanne have been members of the Strategy

Committee since April 30, 2012, and Messrs. Alvarez and McKinney were members of the Strategy Committee until April 30, 2012.July 22, 2014.

In 2012,2014, the Strategy Committee met sevenfive times.

Risk Oversight

The Board has overall responsibility for risk oversight, including, as a part of regular Board and committee meetings, general oversight of the way the Company’s executives manage risk. A fundamental part of risk oversight is not only understanding the material risks the Company faces and the steps management is taking to manage those risks, but also understanding what level of risk is appropriate for the Company. Our Board’s involvement in reviewing our business strategy is integral to the Board’s assessment of management’s tolerance for risk and also its determination of what constitutes an appropriate level of risk for the Company.

The BoardCompensation Committee has delegated primary responsibility for reviewing incentive compensation arrangements to confirm that incentive pay does not encourage unnecessary risk oversight totaking and oversees the Audit Committee, which has delegated this responsibility to the Risk Management Committee. relationship between risk management policies and practices, corporate strategy and senior executive compensation.

The Risk Management Committee shares this responsibility for risk management with senior management and the Company’s Enterprise Risk Management CommitteeCouncil (the “ERM Committee”Council”), which is comprised of senior representatives from field operations and from each of the primary corporate functions. Risks are initially identified by each department and then communicated to senior management and the ERM CommitteeCouncil for the development of appropriate risk management programs and policies which are subsequently implemented at the department or other appropriate level within the Company. The Risk Management Committee oversees the process by which management identifies and assesses the Company’s exposure to risk, including but not limited to financial risk, and helps ensure that the risk management infrastructure established by management is capable of managing those risks. In addition, the Risk Management Committee periodically reviews and assesses critical risk management policies and infrastructure implemented by management and recommends improvements where appropriate. The Risk Management Committee coordinates relations and communications regarding risk among the various Board committees and keeps risk on both the full Board’s and management’s agenda on a regular basis.

In addition to the work done by the Compensation Committee, Risk Management Committee, the ERM CommitteeCouncil and senior management, the Company’s Internal Audit Department conducts an annual risk assessment that is reported to the Risk Management Committee.assessment. Such assessment consists of reviewing the risks identified by the Risk Management Committee and the ERM Committee,Council as well as risks identified during the prior year’s risk assessment and the audit work performed during the year; interviewing members of managementyear. In addition, the Internal Audit Department collaborates with the ERM Council to identify discrete risks and other employees to understand the potential risks impacting the Company; identifying common risk themes to be considered in developing the Internal Audit Plan; developing a risk-based Internal Audit Plan that provides assurance in assessing the functionality of controls that directly mitigate key risks; and producing an estimate of the resource requirements necessary to execute the Internal Audit Plan.internal audit plan.

Director Attendance at Previous Annual Meeting

We encourage our directors to attend annual meetings of stockholders, and we typically schedule Board and committee meetings to coincide with the annual meeting. All then-current directors attended the 20122014 annual meeting of stockholders.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE MATTERS

Corporate Governance Guidelines

We have adopted corporate governance guidelines to promote the effective functioning of the Board. The guidelines address, among other things, criteria for selecting directors and director duties and responsibilities. We have also adopted categorical independence standards (in addition to the requirements of the NYSE) by which we assess the independence of our directors. You can access these documents on our website athttp://www.ur.comwww.unitedrentals.com under(under “Corporate Governance” in the Investor Relations section. The documents are also availablesection) or in print to any stockholder upon written request to our corporate secretary at United Rentals, Inc., Five Greenwich Office Park, Greenwich,100 First Stamford Place, Suite 700, Stamford, Connecticut 06831.06902.

Code of Business Conduct

We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct for our employees, officers and directors. You can access this document on our website athttp://www.ur.comwww.unitedrentals.com under “Corporate Governance” in the Investor Relations section. This document is also available in print to any stockholder upon written request to our corporate secretary at United Rentals, Inc., Five Greenwich Office Park, Greenwich,100 First Stamford Place, Suite 700, Stamford, Connecticut 06831. This06902. The Code constitutes a “code of ethics” as defined by the rules of the SEC. We intend to satisfy the disclosure requirement under Item 5.05 of Form 8-K relating to amendments to the Code of Business Conduct or waivers from any provision of the Code of Business Conduct applicable to our principal executive officer, principal financial officer and controller by posting such information on our website at the location set forth above within four business days following the date of such amendment or waiver.

Board Leadership Structure

Our Board has separated the roles of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. The current Chairman, Dr. Jenne Britell, is an independent director. We believe that an independent Chairman is better able to provide oversight and guidance to management, especially in relation to the Board’s essential role in risk management oversight, and to ensure the efficient use and accountability of resources. Furthermore, this separation provides for focused engagement between these two roles in their respective areas of responsibility, while still providing for collaborative participation. The separation of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer roles, together with our other comprehensive corporate governance practices, are designed to establish and preserve management accountability, provide a structure that allows the Board to set objectives and monitor performance, and enhance stockholder value.

Director Independence

In assessing director independence, we follow the criteria of the NYSE. In addition, and without limiting the NYSE independence requirements, we apply our own categorical independence standards. You can access these standards on our website athttp://www.ur.com under “Corporate Governance” in the Investor Relations section. Under these standards, we do not consider a director to be independent if he or she is, or in the past three years has been:

A substantial majority of our directors must be independent under our corporate governance guidelines, which are more stringent than NYSE rules in this regard. Twelve of our thirteen current directors have been determined by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the Board to be independent under those criteria: Jenne K. Britell; José B. Alvarez; Bobby J. Griffin; Pierre E. Leroy; Singleton B. McAllister; Brian D. McAuley; James H. Ozanne; John S. McKinney; Jason D. Papastavrou; Filippo Passerini; Donald C. Roof and Keith Wimbush. In addition, the Board has determined that each of these directors also meets the categorical independence standards described above. Michael J. Kneeland, our chief executive officer, is not considered independent because he is an employee of the Company.

In accordance with SEC regulations, with respect to the directors that we have identified as being independent under NYSE rules, we discuss below any relationships considered by the Board in making its independence determinations. Each such relationship was determined by the Board to be an “immaterial relationship” that would not disqualify the particular director from being classified as an independent director.

Filippo Passerini became a director of the Company in January 2009. He is currently an officer on special assignment to the President and CEO of The Procter & Gamble Company and formerly served as president of Procter & Gamble’s global business services organization and chief information officer. Procter & Gamble rented equipment from the Company for which the Company received monetary compensation in 2014. Mr. Passerini was not involved in the decision by Procter & Gamble to use the Company’s services. The Board determined that the foregoing relationship was an immaterial relationship given that Mr. Passerini had no involvement in the procurement decision and the amounts paid by Procter & Gamble to the Company represent substantially less than 1% of Procter & Gamble’s annual revenues and substantially less than 1% of the Company’s annual revenues.

Board Consideration of Director Qualifications

In addition to the independence matters described above, the Board considered the specific experience, qualifications, attributes and skills of the directors named herein and concluded that based on the aforementioned factors, and including each director’s integrity and collegiality, such directors should serve as directors of the Company. Although each director offers a multitude of unique and valuable skills and attributes, including a demonstrated business acumen and an ability to exercise sound judgment, the Board identified the following specific experience, qualifications, attributes and skills that led the Board to conclude that such persons should serve as directors.

Mr. Alvarez has held several key management positions with Royal Ahold NV, one of the world’s largest grocery retailers, providing him with business leadership experience in, and valuable knowledge of, the global retail industry. These experiences, together with his other public company directorships and academic credentials in business and as a member of the Harvard Business School faculty, allow him to contribute to the Company and the Board a combination of strategic thinking and industry knowledge with respect to marketing and retailing.

Dr. Britell has served in senior management positions with both public and private companies, such as Brock Capital Group LLC, an advisory and investment banking firm where she is a Senior Managing Director, andincluding GE Capital, where she was executive vice president of Global Consumer Finance and president of Global Commercial and Mortgage Banking. She also has significant experience with public company directorships, which provides her with leadership and consensus-building skills to guide the Board, as well as exposure to a broad array of best practices.

Mr. Griffinhas notable business experience in the areas of transportation, logistics and supply chain management, including extensive international experience, due to his past senior leadership positions with Ryder System, Inc. In addition to these attributes, Mr. Griffin’s public company directorship experience provides a valuable perspective for the Board and the Company.

Mr. Kneeland has served in a variety of positions in the equipment rental industry for over 30 years, including a number of senior management positions with the Company, as well as Free State Industries, Inc. and Equipment Supply Company. He has extensive experience and knowledge of the competitive environment in which the Company operates. Further, he has demonstrated strategic and operational acumen that the Board believes has been of significant value to the Company.

Mr. Leroy has significant experience in finance/accounting/control, general management, industry/customer knowledge, and board experience/governance as demonstrated by his years of experience in capital markets and asset-liability management as well as leading and managing large complex international marketing, engineering, and manufacturing organizations and serving on other public company boards.

Ms. McAllister has served as the general counsel of the United States Agency for International Development and currently is a partner of the law firm Williams Mullen LLP.Husch Blackwell. With her vast legal experience, she serves as an important resource to the Board with regard to legal and regulatory matters. Like other Board members, Ms. McAllister’s service on other public company boards serves as an important benefit by providing the Company a broad perspective at the Board level.

Mr. McAuley brings business leadership skills to the Board from his career in the telecommunications and manufacturing industries, including through his tenure as chairman of Pacific DataVision, Inc. and senior executive positions at Nextel Communications, Inc. and Imagine Tile, Inc. In addition, as a co-founder of Nextel Communications, Inc., Mr. McAuley has also exhibited valuable entrepreneurial abilities. Furthermore, he has extensive financial and accounting experience as a result of his past positions as chief financial officer and controller at public and private companies and as a manager at the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP.

Mr. McKinney has significant accounting and finance experience unique to the Company and its industry as a result of his past positions as vice president—finance of the Company, chief financial officer and controller of U.S. Rentals Inc., and as a staff auditor and audit manager at the accounting firm Arthur Andersen & Co.

Mr. Ozanne has significant experience in finance/accounting/control,finance and accounting, general management, industry/industry and customer knowledge, and board experience/experience and governance as evidenced by his extensive knowledge of business and accounting issues, his experience as an officer and director of various mortgage, finance, asset management, and venture capital organizations, his experience with leasing and rental businesses, and his years of experience serving as the chief executive officer of several public companies.

Dr. Papastavrou currently serves as the chief executive officer and chief investment officer of ARIS Capital Management, and has held senior positions at other investment management firms, such as Banc of America Capital Management and Deutsche Asset Management. Collectively, these experiences allow him to contribute to the Board and the Company a valuable perspective on finance-relatedfinance and risk-related matters.

Mr. Passerini has gained significant global business and leadership experience in the consumer goods industry as well as valuable knowledge of the global retail industry through his various senior level positions with Procter & Gamble during the pastfor more than 25 years. Mr. Passerini has particular strength with international operations, which he acquired through his previous executive positions in the United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, Latin America and Turkey.

Mr. Roof has significant experience in finance/accounting/control,finance and accounting, general management, business development/development and strategic planning, board experience/governance, and other functions, including merchandising and distribution as evidenced by his over 35 years of experience serving in executive positions ranging from President/CEO to Executive Vice President/CFO with an international manufacturer of mining equipment and a distributor and retailer of tires and related products, as well as his years of experience serving on the board of directors and audit committees of several public companies.

Mr. Wimbushhas gained significant legal experience through his formal legal training at Harvard Law School, as well as his subsequent positions in the legal department of Diageo North America, Inc. and as an adjunct professor of law at Thomas Cooley Law School. He complements his legal experience with experience gained through his former positions with Korn/Ferry International, and DHR International and his current positionmost recently as Executive Vice Presidentexecutive vice president and Head, Legal Search Practice,head, legal search practice, with Seiden Krieger Associates.

Executive Sessions of the Board

Our corporate governance guidelines provide that our non-management directors should meet, at least twice a year, in executive sessions without the presence of management. Non-management directors who do not qualify as “independent” may participate in these meetings. However, the corporate governance guidelines provide that, at least once a year, the independent directors should meet in executive session without the presence of either management or any non-independent directors. The purpose of executive session meetingssessions is to facilitate free and open discussion among the participants. The Chairman of the Board (or, in the absence of the Chairman, the Chairman of the Audit Committee or such other independent director as may be selected by the Board) should preside over executive sessions and, as required, provide feedback to the chief executive officer, and to such other directors as is appropriate, based upon the matters discussed at such meetings.

Director Nomination Process

General

The Board has established the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, as described above. The responsibilities of this committeeCommittee include, among other things: (i) developing criteria for evaluating prospective candidates to the Board or its committees; (ii) identifying individuals qualified to become members of the Board or its committees; and (iii) recommending to the Board those individuals that should be nominees for election or re-election to the Board or otherwise appointed to the Board or its committees (with authority for final approval remaining with the Board).

Process for Identifying and Evaluating Candidates

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may identify potential Board candidates from a variety of sources, including recommendations from current directors or management, recommendations of security holders or any other source the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee deems appropriate. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may also engage a search firm to assist in identifying director candidates. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee has been given sole authority to select, retain and terminate any such search firm and to approve its fees and other retention terms.

In considering candidates for the Board, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee evaluates the entirety of each candidate’s credentials. In accordance with our corporate governance guidelines, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers, among other things: (i) business or other relevant experience; (ii) expertise, skills and knowledge; (iii) contacts in the communities in which the Company does business and in the Company’s industry or other industries relevant to the Company’s business; (iv) personal qualities and characteristics, accomplishments, integrity and reputation in the business community; (v) the extent to which the candidate will enhance the objective of having directors with diverse viewpoints, backgrounds, experience, expertise, skills and other demographics; (vi) willingness and ability to commit sufficient time to Board and committee duties and responsibilities; and (vii) qualification to serve on specialized Board committees, such as the Audit Committee or the Compensation Committee. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee recommends candidates based on its consideration of each individual’s specific skills and experience and its annual assessment of the composition and needs of the Board as a whole, including with respect to diversity. Consideration of diversity as one of many attributes relevant to a nomination to the Board is implemented through the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s standard evaluation process. In particular, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee obtains and reviews questionnaires, interviews candidates as appropriate and engages in thorough discussions at Committee meetings in an effort to identify the best candidates and to populate an effective Board. The effectiveness of the Board’s diverse mix of viewpoints, backgrounds, experience, expertise, skills and other demographics is considered as part of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s assessment.

The 1312 nominees for election as directors at the 20132015 annual meeting are: Jenne K. Britell, who has been a director since December 2006; José B. Alvarez, who has been a director since January 2009; Bobby J. Griffin, who has been a director since January 2009; Michael J. Kneeland, who has been a director since August 2008; Pierre E. Leroy, who has been a director since April 2012; Singleton B. McAllister, who has been a director since April 2004; Brian D. McAuley, who has been a director since April 2004; John S. McKinney, who has been a director since September 1998; James H. Ozanne, who has been a director since April 2012; Jason D. Papastavrou, who has been a director since June 2005; Filippo Passerini, who has been a director since January 2009; Donald C. Roof, who has been a director since April 2012; and Keith Wimbush, who has been a director since April 2006. Each of these directors is standing for re-election at the annual meeting. In making its recommendation to the Board, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee reviewed and evaluated, in addition to each nominee’s background and experience and other criteria set forth in the Company’s corporate governance guidelines, each director’s performance during his or her recent tenure with the Board and whether each was likely to continue to contribute positively to the Board.

Procedure for Submission of Recommendations by Security Holders

Our security holders may recommend potential director candidates by following the procedure described below. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will evaluate recommendations from security holders in the same manner that it evaluates recommendations from other sources.

If you wish to recommend a potential director candidate for consideration by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, please send your recommendation to United Rentals, Inc., Five Greenwich Office Park, Greenwich,100 First Stamford Place, Suite 700, Stamford, Connecticut 06831,06902, Attention: Corporate Secretary. Any notice relating to candidates for election at the 20142016 annual meeting must be received by our corporate secretary after January 8, 20147, 2016 but on or before February 7, 20146, 2016 (unless the 20142016 annual meeting is not scheduled to be held within the period between April 8, 20146, 2016 and June 7, 2014,6, 2016, in which case our by-laws prescribe an alternate deadline). You should use first class, certified mail in order to ensure the receipt of your recommendation.

Any recommendation must include (i) your name and address and a list of the securities of the Company that you own; (ii) the name, age, business address and residence address of the proposed candidate; (iii) the principal occupation or employment of the proposed candidate over the preceding ten years and the person’s educational background; (iv) a statement as to why you believe such person should be considered a potential candidate; (v) a description of any affiliation between you and the person you are recommending; and (vi) the consent of the proposed candidate to your submitting him or her as a potential candidate. You should note that the foregoing process relates only to bringing potential candidates to the attention of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Following this process will not give you the right to directly propose a nominee at any meeting of stockholders. See “Other Matters—Stockholder Proposals for the 20142016 Annual Meeting.”

Direct Communications with Directors

We have adopted procedures to enable our security holders and other interested parties to communicate with the Board or with any individual director or directors. If you wish to send a communication, you should do so in writing. Security holders and other interested parties may send communications to the Board or the particular director or directors, as the case may be, in the manner described in the Company’s written policy available on its website athttp://www.ur.comwww.unitedrentals.com under “Corporate Governance” in the Investor Relations section.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Introduction

Our executive compensation program is used to attract and retain the employees who lead our business and to reward them for outstanding performance. This Compensation Discussion and Analysis, or “CD&A,” explains, for 2012,2014, our executive compensation philosophy and objectives, each element of our executive compensation program and how the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board made its compensation decisions for our President and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Michael Kneeland; our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Mr. William Plummer; and our three other most highly compensated2014 named executive officers: Mr. Matthew Flannery, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; Mr. Jonathan Gottsegen, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary; and Mr. Dale Asplund, Senior Vice President, Business Services and Chief Information Officer, as well as certain significant developments occurring in 2013. Throughout this proxy statement, these individuals are referred to as our “named executive officers.”officers (“NEOs”) listed below:

In addition, the compensation and benefits provided to our named executive officersNEOs in 20122014 are set forth in detail in the Summary Compensation Table (which if required by SEC regulations, also details compensation and benefits provided in 20112013 and 2010)2012) and other tables that follow this analysis, and in the footnotes and narrative material that accompany those tables.

Executive Summary

Growth of Stockholder Value2014 Business Highlights

Three years ago, we embarked on a journey to transform our business. Looking back over 2012, 2013, and 2014, we are proud to say we delivered on our commitments. We made massive improvements in our operational efficiencies and strengthened our customer focus. We became the scale industry leader through the successful realization of synergies in connection with the RSC Transaction. And now, we are delivering on a new standard of operation excellence across a more diversified customer base to drive more consistent through-cycle returns.

To keep our senior management team focused on building a sustainable, scalable platform for profitable growth, the Committee believes that the executive compensation program must place its heaviest emphasis on Revenue, Adjusted EBITDA^(a) and Return on Invested Capital^(b) (“ROIC”). The Committee also believes Economic Profit Improvement (“EPI”)^(c)is highly-correlated with strong stockholder returns and better reflects and measures year-over-year economic improvement, while continuing to focus on exceeding cost of capital throughout the business cycle.

Note: 2012 Revenue and Adjusted EBITDA are reported on a pro-forma basis (that is, assuming the combination of United Rentals results and RSC results for the full year 2012).

The Link to Three-Year Stock Price Performance

Adjusted EBITDA, ROIC and EPI are especially important because we believe they are key drivers of total shareholder return, which we believe is a meaningful measure of performance for our stockholders.

The chart below describesshows the total cumulative return of the Company’s stock (assuming reinvestment of dividends) as compared with the S&P 500 and the Company’s peer group (see “—How We Make Decisions Regarding2014 Executive Pay—RoleCompensation Peer Group (as defined below) since December 31, 2011.

2014 Pay At-A-Glance

Aligned with our strong financial results, funding of our 2014 incentive plans was above target levels due to the achievement of exceptional performance against the goals in the plan. Specifically, annual bonuses under the Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (“AICP”) paid out at 145% of target, and performance-based restricted stock units (“PSRUs”) under the Long-Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”) vested at 239.39% of target.

Our executive compensation program emphasizes variable pay that aligns compensation with performance and shareowner value. The mix of compensation elements for NEOs is heavily leveraged toward variable, performance-based compensation. The CEO, in particular, has a greater emphasis on variable compensation than all other NEOs because his actions have a greater influence on the performance of the Independent Compensation Consultant” for a listing of the Company’s peer group).

Company.

As shown above, overbelow, the three-year period between 2010significant majority of NEO pay continues to be variable (88% for the CEO and 2012, our stock price rose over 364% as compared to a 69% growthan average of 77% for our peer group and a 26% growth for the S&P 500. As discussed below, our impressive performance was a key factor in driving compensation decisions and outcomes for 2012.other NEOs) based upon actual fiscal year 2014 compensation.

Business Conditions & Key Performance Achievements2014 “Say on Pay” Results and Program Changes

During 2010At the Company’s 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, we beganreceived substantial support for our executive compensation program, with approximately 98% of the stockholders who voted on the “say on pay” proposal approving the compensation of our NEOs. We interpreted this exceptionally strong level of support as affirmation of the structure of our program and approach to see a modest improvementmaking compensation decisions.

At the same time, the Committee is committed to the continuous evolution of the executive compensation program to ensure that it keeps pace with the Company’s business strategy, leadership objectives and commitment to deliver exceptional long-term stockholder returns. To this end, and with our focus on growth and returns, we adjusted the 2014 executive compensation program as follows:

Summary of Our Executive Compensation Practices

In 2012, we realized a number of achievements related to our strategy. In addition to the financial performance highlighted in the table above, the Company’s achievements included:

Key 2012 Compensation Decisions and Outcomes

As shown above, the Company achieved strong levels of performance in 2012, continuing our strong performance over the past several years. The following discussion highlights the Compensation Committee’s key compensation decisions and outcomes for 2012, as reported in the 2012 Summary Compensation Table below. These decisions were made with the advice of the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant, Pearl Meyer & Partners (“PM&P”) (see “—How We Make Decisions Regarding Executive Pay—Role of the Independent Compensation Consultant” below), and are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this CD&A.

•

Our synergy awards program, a one-time program adopted in connection with the RSC Transaction, incentivizes employees to work to efficiently integrate RSC into the existing Company.    We implemented a Synergy Incentive Program based upon the achievement of synergy-related milestones tied to the Company’s purchase of, and integration with, RSC. This program incentivizes employees to accomplish annualized run-rate cost and revenue synergies between the two companies. See “—Our Executive Compensation Components—Equity Compensation” below.

Compensation Program Highlights

The core of the Company’s executive compensation continues to be pay for performance, and the overall program includes the compensation governance features discussed below:

Our Executive Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

Executive Compensation Philosophy

Our overall compensation program seeks to alignaligns executive compensation with the achievement of the Company’s business objectives and with individual performance towards these objectives. It also seeks to enableenables the Company to attract, retain and reward executive officers and other key employees

who contribute to our success and to incentivize them to enhance long-term stockholder value. In reviewing the components of compensation for each named executive officer,NEO, the Compensation Committee emphasizes pay for performance on both an annual basis and over the long-term.

To implement thisour philosophy, the totalexecutive compensation program is designed to be competitive with the programs of other companies with which the Company competes for talented executives,talent, and to be fair and equitable to both the Company and the executives. Consideration is given to each executive’s overall

responsibilities, professional qualifications, business experience, job performance, technical expertise and career potential, and the combined value of these factors to the Company’s long-term performance and growth.

Objectives of Executive Compensation

The objectives of our executive compensation program are to:

The Compensation Committee strives to meet these objectives while maintaining market-competitive pay levels and ensuring that we makemaking efficient use of equity-based compensation.

Consideration of Advisory Say-on-Pay Results

At both the Company’s 2011 and 2012 annual meeting of stockholders, stockholders expressed substantial support for the compensation of the named executive officers, with over 98% of the votes cast in both years for approval of the “say-on-pay” advisory vote on executive compensation. The Compensation Committee considers the advisory “say on pay” vote, along with the other factors described herein, when evaluating the Company’s compensation program or potential changes to the compensation program. In light of the favorable views of our stockholders regarding the compensation of the named executive officers, the Compensation Committee did not implement significant changes to the executive compensation program as a result of the stockholder advisory vote.

How We Make Decisions Regarding Executive Pay

The Compensation Committee, management and the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant all play an integral roleroles in the determination of executive compensation programs, practices and levels. ActualThese roles are thoughtfully developed to align with governance best practices and objectives. Below is an explanation of the key roles and responsibilities of each group, as well as how market data is integrated into the Compensation Committee’s decision making process.

Role of the Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee is responsible for establishing, implementing and continually monitoring adherence to the Company’s compensation philosophy. The Compensation Committee seeks to ensure that the total compensation paid to our executive officers is fair, reasonable and competitive.competitive, provides an appropriate balance of base pay and short- and long-term incentives and does not cause unnecessary risk taking on the part of our executive officers.

The Compensation Committee’s specific responsibilities are set forth in its charter, which may be found on the Company’s website athttp://www.ur.comwww.unitedrentals.comunder “Corporate Governance” in the Investor Relations section. Among other things, the Compensation Committee is required to:Committee’s responsibilities include: (i) determinedetermining and approveapproving the compensation of the chief executive officer; (ii) reviewdetermining and approveapproving the compensation of the Company’s other executive officers; (iii) reviewreviewing and approveapproving any incentive compensation plan or equity-based plan for the benefit of executive officers; and (iv) reviewreviewing and approveapproving any employment agreement, severance arrangement or change-in-controlchange in control arrangement for the benefit of executive officers.

Role of Management

Management’s role in the determination of our executive pay programs and practicescompensation program is three-fold. First, management is responsible for developing proposals regarding program design and administration for the Compensation Committee’s review and approval. Second, management is responsible for making recommendations for compensation actions each year, typically in the form of salary adjustments, short-term incentive targets or awards, and long-term incentive grants. Lastly,Finally, management in collaboration with the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant, is responsible for responding to any Compensation Committee requests for information, analysis or perspective as it relatesthey relate to topics that may arise during the course of the year.

To carry out the responsibilities relating to program design and administration, the chief executive officer, the chief financial officer, chief operating officer and the senior vice president of human resources consider the business strategy, key operating goals, economic environment and organizational culture in formulating proposals. Proposals are then brought to the Compensation Committee for thorough discussion. The Compensation Committee ultimately has the authority to approve management’s proposals for the executive officers. For recommendations regarding compensation actions, the chief executive officer, the chief financial officer and the senior vice president of human resources consider market data, individual responsibilities, contributions, performance and capabilities of each of the executive officers, other than the chief executive officer, and what compensation arrangements they believe will drive desired results and behaviors. The considerations are used to determine if any change in compensation or award is warranted and the amount and type of any proposed change or award. After consulting with the senior vice president of human resources, the chief executive officer makes compensation recommendations, other than with respect to his own compensation, to the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee reviews management’s recommendations regarding pay changes and awards and then approves or suggests changes to the proposal or may seek further analysis or background on the proposal.

Role of the Independent Compensation Consultant

The Compensation Committee also utilizes outside compensation experts. Beginning in November 2010, the CompensationThe Committee has engaged Pearl Meyer & Partners (“PM&P&P”) as its independent compensation consultant. PM&P reports directly to the Compensation Committee and provides nodoes not provide any other consulting or other services to the Company. In March 2013,May 2014, the Compensation Committee performed an independence assessment of PM&P pursuant to the rules and standards promulgated by the SEC and the New York Stock ExchangeNYSE and determined that PM&P is an independent advisor. In performing theirits evaluation, the Compensation Committee took into consideration a letter from PM&P certifying its independence.

The compensation consultantPM&P generally reviews, analyzes and provides advice about the Company’s executive compensation programs for senior executives in relation to the objectives of those programs, including comparisons to designated peer groupExecutive Compensation Peer Group companies (discussed below under “—Benchmarking of Compensation Levels”) and comparisons to “bestbest practices,” and provides information and advice on competitive compensation practices and trends, along with specific views on the Company’s compensation programs. TheIn 2014, PM&P also provided advice to the Committee on director compensation consultantand related market practices. PM&P responds on a regular basis to questions from members of the Compensation Committee and provides them with analysis and insight with respect to the design and implementation of current or proposed compensation programs.

The compensation consultant PM&P reports directly to the Compensation Committee and, as directed by the Compensation Committee, works with management and the Chairman of the Compensation Committee and also regularly attends Compensation Committee meetings.

In October 2012, as they have done in previous years, PM&P presented2014, Meridian Compensation Partners was engaged to the Compensation Committee the current trendsprovide additional support and best practices relatedanalysis for management with respect to executive compensation. Key outcomes of this review included validation of (i) the key design features of the Company’s stock ownership guidelines; and (ii) the Company’s mix of long-term equity incentives for executive officers, which is consistent with the marketplace.

Benchmarking of Compensation Levels

In making compensation decisions, the Compensation Committee compares each component of the total compensation package of the chief executive officer, chief financial officer and, when compensation information for a sufficient number of comparable executive positions is publicly available, the other named executive officers againstto the compensation components of comparable executive positions of a peer group of publicly traded companies. Whilepublicly-traded companies (the “Executive Compensation Peer Group”) or, if information for a sufficient number of comparable executive positions in the Executive Compensation Committee does not use a specific formula to determine the allocation between performance-based and fixed compensation, it does review the total compensation and competitive benchmarking when determining the allocation.

In May of 2011, PM&P conducted the annual review of the peer group and recommended to the Compensation Committee that the same peer group used for 2011 compensation decisions be used in assessing executive compensation decisions for 2012, as the peer group remained appropriate in terms of its business focus and financial compatibility. The Compensation Committee adopted PM&P’s recommendations andPeer Group for the period of 2012 prior to the RSC Transaction, compensation decisions used the 2011 peer group, which consisted of the following companies:

For purposes of 2012 compensation decisions for the Company’s named executive officers where peer group dataapplicable year was not sufficient,publicly available, the Company utilizedCommittee considers comparisons with general industry executive compensation benchmarking data from Towers Watson’s U.S. CDB General Industry Executive Database (the “General Industry Executive Database”). Data utilized from this survey reflected companies with comparable revenues to that of the Company. For benchmarking in 2012, the sample from the General Industry Executive Database consisted of 119 general industry companies.

In December 2011, PM&P reviewed the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers compared to the competitive benchmarks described above. Based on this review, the current level of total target compensation (including base salary, annual incentives and long-term incentives) for the named executive officers covered in the review is positioned between the competitive 50th percentile and the 75th percentile of the relevant comparison group for 2011, except for Mr. Flannery, whose current level of total target compensation covered in the review was less than the competitive 25th percentile of the relevant comparison group for 2011. These findings were consistent with findings from the previous year. PM&P advised the Compensation Committee that the current level of total target compensation for the named executive officers covered in the review, other than Mr. Flannery, was generally within a reasonable range of competitive norms, and the Compensation Committee considered these findings when determining base salaries, target annual incentives and long-term incentive grants for 2012.

In 2012, in light of the RSC Transaction, PM&P conducted a review of the peer group and recommended changes to the peer group used for compensation decisions after the RSC Transaction,

including 2013 executive compensation decisions. These recommendations included the exclusion of Foster Wheeler AG, Quanta Services Inc., Rent-A-Center, Inc., RSC, and Aircastle Limited. PM&P also recommended including Republic Services, Inc., Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., J.B. Hunt Transportation Services, Inc., Cintas Corporation, and MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc. The rationale for these changes was to better align the Company’s size and evolving business focus, taking into account the RSC Transaction, with the peer group. This peer group was used for compensation decisions made after the RSC Transaction was completed. The Compensation Committee approved the recommended peer group, consisting of:

For purposes of 2013 compensation decisions for the Company’s named executive officers other than the Company’s chief executive officer, chief operating officer and chief financial officer, the Company utilized general industry executive compensation benchmarking data from the General Industry Executive Database, adjusted for better comparability to the Company’s projected revenue levels through a regression analysis (a commonly accepted statistical method for rendering companies of different sizes more comparable) since. The companies that make up the Executive Compensation Peer Group and the General Industry Executive Database may vary from year to year. While the Committee does not use a specific formula to determine the allocation between performance-based and fixed compensation, informationit does review the total compensation and competitive benchmarking when determining such allocation.

Compensation decisions for a sufficient number of comparable executive positions in2014 were made with reference to the peer group was not publicly available. For benchmarking for 2013 Executive Compensation Peer Group, and the sample from the General Industry Executive Database for 2014 consisted of 250 342

non-financial services companies. In 2014, pay decisions for the Company’s NEOs other than the Company’s chief executive officer, chief operating officer and chief financial officer, were made with reference to the General Industry Executive Database.

For 2014, the Executive Compensation Peer Group consisted of:

In October 2012,December 2014, PM&P again reviewed the compensation of the Company’s named executive officersNEOs compared to the competitive benchmarks described above. Based on this review, the current level of target total targetdirect compensation (including base salary, target annual incentives and long-term incentives) for the named executive officersNEOs was, on balance, positioned betweenwithin a reasonable range of competitive norms, and the competitive 25th percentile and 50th percentile of the comparison group for 2012. PM&P advised the Compensation Committee that the current level of total target compensation for the named executive officers was reflective of the size of the Companyconsidered these findings when the 2012 annual salary, target annual incentive, and long-term incentive grant decisions were made, and that the new peer group competitive compensation ranges could be used to determine compensation for the balance of the year as well as for 2013determining base salaries, target annual incentives and long-term incentive grants.grants for the balance of 2014, as well as for 2015.

Our Executive Compensation Components

The principal components of2014 direct compensation structure for the Company’s named executive officersNEOs comprised base salary, annual performance-based cash incentives and long-term equity compensation in 2012 were:

The 2014 total direct compensation opportunity for each of the NEOs is set forth in the following table. The Committee determined these annual base salaries (generally effective as of April 1, 2014), annual cash incentive and equity compensation opportunities in the first quarter of 2014.

2014 Target Direct Compensation⁽¹⁾

We believe that the use of relatively few straightforward compensation components promotes the effectiveness and transparency of our executive compensation program.

Base Salary

The Company provides its named executive officersNEOs with a base salary to compensate them for services rendered during the fiscal year. Base salaries provide stable compensation to executives, allow usthe Company to attract competent executive talent, maintain a stable management team and, through periodic merit increases, provide a basis upon which executivesNEOs may be rewarded for individual performance.

The baseBase salary levels of continuing executives are reviewed annually. The Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant, PM&P, recommends a salarysalaries for the chief executive officer, and the chief executive officer, in consultation with the senior vice president of human resources, recommends a salary for the other named executive officers.NEOs. In considering whether to adopt these suggestions, the Compensation Committee considers the Company’s performance; the executive’s individual performance; the executive’s experience, career potential and length of tenure with the Company; the applicable terms, if any, of the executive’sNEO’s employment agreement; the salary levels of similarly situated officers at peer groupExecutive Compensation Peer Group companies or, if applicable, based on the adjusted general industry executive compensation benchmarking data from the General Industry Executive Database, as collected and presented by the independent compensation consultant; and the salary levels of the Company’s other officers.

When an executive is initially hired, the Compensation Committee considers the same factors, as well as the executive’s salary in his or her previous employment and the compensation of other Company executives with similar responsibilities.

During the first quarter of each year, based on this process and a review conducted by the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant, the Compensation Committee considers merit increases to the base salaries of the Company’s named executive officers. The table below showsNEOs. In the resultsfirst quarter of 2015, the review of the named executive officer’s salaries, and resulting changes, for 2012:

In March 2013, the Compensation Committee determined consistent with senior management’s recommendation, to increase base salaries for all of the named executive officers, except for Mr. Kneeland. Accordingly,Messrs. Plummer, Flannery, Asplund and Gottsegen by $22,400, $22,400, $18,372 and $20,800, respectively, effective April 1, 2013, Mr. Kneeland’s base salary will remain at $950,000, Mr. Plummer’s base salary will be increased to $527,850, Mr. Flannery’s base salary will be increased to $518,500, Mr. Gottsegen’s base salary will be increased to $400,000 and Mr. Asplund’s base salary will be increased to $441,150.2015.

Performance-Based Compensation

Performance-based compensation primarily serves two functions. First, it creates an incentive for the NEOs to focus on and achieve the objectives we identify as significant. The Compensation Committee works with its compensation consultant and with senior management, including the named executive officers,NEOs, to identify the specific areas to be addressed by performance metrics and decide on appropriate targets.

Second, performance-based compensationit provides a mechanism by which named executive officers’the NEOs’ compensation fluctuates with the performance of the Company, thus helping to align named executive officers’the NEOs’ interests with those of stockholders. This is accomplished with comprehensive performance metrics, such as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (as adjustedas:

Each year, the Compensation Committee identifies and considers a wide range of measures for Company performance and, as appropriate, also considers measures tied to individual performance or stockholder return. With the assistance of its advisors, the Compensation Committee then selects the measures it believes most closely align with the Company’s business and/or financial objectives (or other measures of performance, if applicable), or are otherwise most likely to support those objectives, and defines specific performance goals based on those metrics.

For 2012,2014, the Company’s performance compensation program for named executive officers wasthe NEOs comprised of fivethree components: (i) an annual cash incentive; (ii) RSUs that vest based on continued employment with the Company; and (iii) RSUs that vest based on the achievement of performance criteria; (iv) for Messrs. Kneeland, Plummer and Flannery, stock options that reward executives for improvement in the Company’s stock price and (v) a new, one-time, component introduced in 2012 in connection with the RSC Transaction, synergy awards, which are performance-based awards that vest based on the achievement of performance criteria. Performance-based awards (other than the synergy awards) are typically granted in connection with a Compensation Committee meeting held in the first quarter of each year. The date of the meeting is set several months in advance and usually occurs after the announcement of the Company’s results for the previous fiscal year and before the end of the first fiscal quarter. As described below, the Compensation Committee has established metrics to assist it in determining awards, if any, in each of these components. The Compensation Committee retains discretion to deviate from these metrics.

Annual Performance-Based Cash Incentives

The Company currently maintains twoOur annual cash incentive plansprogram for our namedNEOs is designed to promote the Company’s growth and profitability by attracting, retaining and motivating selected executive officers. For 2012, Messrs. Kneeland, PlummerThe program consists of an annual award under the AICP based on both Company and Flannery were participantsindividual performance, paid in our 2012 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Executive Plan”),a combination of cash and Messrs. Gottsegen and Asplund were participants in our corporate incentive program (the “Corporate Incentive Plan”). Both plans operate on the same incentive platform, with identical funding and payout ranges. The only difference between the plans is that, for the Executive Plan, the incentive measures and goals which determine the bonus payout are formulaic in nature, generally intended to qualify as performance-based compensation under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m). For the Corporate Incentive Plan, the final bonus payout determination is based upon an assessment of performance against pre-determined goals and objectives that may include formula-based goals, but is not limited to them. The following is a descriptionvested shares of the incentive fundingCompany’s stock.

The chart below details the threshold, target and allocation design, followed by details on the operation of, and results under, the two incentive plans.

Incentive Funding.    In 2012, in response to complexities related to the RSC Transaction, the Compensation Committee recognized a need to change its historic approach to funding the annual cash incentive for our named executive officers. In recognition of the cyclical nature of the equipment rental business, it is critical that the named executive officers remain focused on maximizing value throughout the business cycle. The Company makes significant investments in fixed assets, such as equipment and real estate, and believes that a focus on earning more than its cost of capital is critical and paramount to our stockholders. In addition, pursuant to the RSC Transaction, the Company decided to set two different sets of performance goals for the 2012 Annual Incentive Compensation Plans: one set covering January 1, 2012 through the close of the RSC Transaction, which occurred on April 30, 2012, and a second set covering the period from the closing of the RSC Transaction through the end of 2012. The Compensation Committee believed that this structure would provide for more well-informed goal setting and more transparency, and would encourage continued performance. Payments for the first performance period, to the extent that they were earned, were paid at the normal payment time for annual bonuses along with any earned payment related to the second performance period.

In 2011, the Company made use of an internal metric called EBITDA after Charge (“EAC”) to fund the annual cash incentive for our named executive officers. Due to the complexities resulting from the RSC Transaction and the Company’s decisions to implement two separate bonus performance periods for 2012, the Company abandoned the EAC metric in favor of utilizing Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Margin to fund the annual cash incentive, each weighted 50% and each independent of the other.

For the portion of 2012 relating to the pre-close performance period, the minimum thresholdmaximum levels established for Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Margin were $246 millionEPI, as well as actual results for each metric, for the 2014 performance period.

2014 Targets for Messrs. Asplund and 31.1%, respectively,Gottsegen.    In 2014, the Committee established a target levelsincentive of 80% for Mr. Asplund pursuant to the Company’s established were $282 millioncompensation structure, and 32.9%, respectively, anda target incentive for Mr. Gottsegen of 80% of base salary consistent with the maximum levels established were $295 million and 33.5%, respectively. For the post-close performance period, the minimum threshold levels established for Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Margin were $1,350 million and 42.1%, respectively, the target levels established were $1,494 million and 44.4%, respectively, and the maximum levels established were $1,550 million and 45.2%, respectively. For the pre-close performance period we achieved actual Adjusted EBITDA of $316 million and actual Adjusted EBITDA Margin of 35.6%. For the post-close performance period we achieved actual Adjusted EBITDA of $1,456 million and actual Adjusted EBITDA Margin of 45.1%. (Appendix A sets forth how the Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Margin metrics provided above are calculated from our financial statements).incentive targets specified in his employment agreement.

Incentive AllocationPerformance Cap.    OnceIn 2014, the initial levelCompany maintained the AICP to provide annual incentive awards to the NEOs in a manner intended to qualify as “performance-based compensation” under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) (“Section 162(m)”). Accordingly, separate from determining the incentive targets, the Committee established performance criteria and set 0.3% of incentive funding isEBITDA (defined as set forth on page 21 of the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014) as the Section 162(m) compliant maximum for the aggregate amount of annual incentives awarded to the NEOs, with actual award levels determined based on theby achievement of Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Margin, asperformance goals described above, the Compensation Committee adjusts the individual named executive officer’s funding level (either up or down between 0% and 150% of the funded amount determined by the Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Margin formula) based on the attainment of performance metrics and individual performance, as applicable.above.

The performance metrics selected for 2012 forFor Messrs. Kneeland, Plummer and Flannery, related to specific objective Company performance metrics, and the Company criteria themselves were ones highly correlated to enhancing stockholder value and were individually determined for each performance period. For the pre-close performance period, the Compensation Committee relied on: Adjusted EBITDA (20%); Adjusted EBITDA Margin (20%); rental revenue growth (10%); key accounts revenue growth (10%); cost of SG&A expenses as a percentage of revenue (5%); rental flow through (5%) and free cash flow (10%). For the post-close performance period, the Compensation Committee relied on: Adjusted EBITDA (20%); Adjusted EBITDA Margin (20%); rental revenue growth (20%); cost of SG&A expenses as a percentage of revenue (5%); rental flow through (5%) and free cash flow (10%). In addition, given the role of management in numerous key initiatives, the Compensation Committee also establishedselected discretionary performance objectivesgoals tied to key strategic initiatives: branch productivity; customer service at our customer-focused branch operations scorecard;operations; safety performance; growth in key accounts (for the post-close period only);ROIC performance; and the recruitment of diverse employees to key sales and management positions. While the discretionary performance objectives are weighted 20% in the aggregate, for each performance period,positions, none of the discretionary performance objectiveswhich are dispositive or individually weighted.

In settingFor Messrs. Asplund and Gottsegen, the performance goals for each of the performance metrics, the Compensation Committee believed that correlating themmeasures are tied to the board-approved internal operating plan was appropriate and fostered alignment of Messrs. Kneeland, Plummer and Flannery’s interests with stockholder interests.

At the time they are set, achievement of the performance goals established by the Compensation Committee is substantially uncertain. The threshold-level goals can be characterized as “stretch but attainable” goals, meaning that, based on historical performance, although attainment of this performance level is uncertain, it can reasonably be anticipated that the threshold level of performance may be achieved, while the target and maximum goals represent increasingly challenging and aggressive levels of performance.

The performance measures selected for 2012 for Messrs. Gottsegen and Asplund included both objective performance metrics and additional discretionary goals, none of which are dispositive or individually weighted. The objective performance metrics selected for Messrs. Gottsegen and Asplund included many of the same performance metrics selected for Messrs. Kneeland, Plummer and Flannery; however, the performance metrics selected for Messrs. Gottsegen and Asplund wereweighted, chosen based on Messrs. Gottsegen’s and Asplund’stheir respective areas of responsibility. In addition, their performance measures also included additional discretionary goals within their areas of responsibility. For Mr. Gottsegen, our Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, some of the goals included: coordination of board activities; negotiation, financing, regulatory and other matters related to the acquisition and closing of the RSC Transaction; corporate governance matters; reduction in legal SG&A; completing more of the Company’s legal work in-house; securities and other regulatory filings; assisting with business development and termination and settlement of litigation matters. For Mr. Asplund, the Company’s Senior Vice President, Business Services and Chief Information Officer, many of thekey goals were tied to: achievement of budgeting goals; integration matters associated with the RSC Transaction; efficient use of shared services; increased efficiency in fleet management; implementationimproved management of new purchasing procedures; warranty collections; contractor suppliesaccounts receivables;

strategic sourcing and information and technology matters. Consequently, the specific performanceFor Mr. Gottsegen, our Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, key goals were tied to: assisting field operations; coordination of board activities; corporate governance matters; reduction in legal expenses; progress in litigation management; compliance; securities and the extent to which they were achieved differ for each of Messrs. Gottsegenother regulatory filings; assisting with finance and Asplund.business development matters; and maintaining books and records.

2012 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan Targets and2014 Results for Messrs. Kneeland, PlummerAsplund and FlanneryGottsegen.    .    In 2012, the Company maintained the Executive Plan to provide annual cash compensation to our executives upon the achievement of pre-established performance goals in a manner intended to comply with Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m).

The Executive Plan permits awards up to $5 million per year to each participant. For 2012, awards under the Executive Plan were designed so that achievement of Adjusted EBITDA targets (for 2012, funding of the plan bonus pool was set at a maximum of 0.3% of Adjusted EBITDA) would, subject to the $5 million limit, establish the maximum award level for each of Messrs. Kneeland,

Plummer and Flannery, with actual award levels determined by achievement of performance goals described above. In 2012, the Compensation Committee established a target incentive for Mr. Kneeland of 125% of base salary and limited his maximum award benefit to 150% of base salary, which was consistent with the incentive targets specified in his employment agreement. The Compensation Committee established a target incentive of 90% of base salary for Mr. Plummer and provided for a maximum award benefit of 135% of base salary, which was consistent with the incentive targets specified in his employment agreement. The Compensation Committee also established a target incentive of 90% of base salary for Mr. Flannery and provided for a maximum award benefit of 135% of base salary, which was consistent with the incentive targets specified in his employment agreement.

The table below summarizes the threshold, target and maximum level performance goals established by the Compensation Committee for the 2012 Executive Plan and the actual performance of the Company in 2012, which resulted in funding of the annual cash incentive amount to be set at 110.83%, adjusted down, per the plan formula, to 97.6% based on the achievement of specific performance metrics, for each performance period.

As discussed above, based on the Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA MarginEPI in 2012,2014, the funding of the annual cash incentive amounts for each named executive officer was set at 110.83%145% of each executive’sNEO’s applicable bonus target, subject to adjustment up or down between 80%90% and 120% of the applicable bonus target based on the achievement of the specific performance metrics assigned to each named executive officer, as described above. In determining the amount of bonuses to pay for 2012, the Compensation Committee determined to pay Mr. Kneeland a bonus of $1,036,788 (which represents 97.6% of the target), to pay Mr. Plummer a bonus of $447,892 (which represents 97.6% of the target) and to pay Mr. Flannery a bonus of $439,110 (which represents 97.6% of the target).

2012 Corporate Incentive Plan Targets and Results for Messrs. Gottsegen and Asplund.    In 2012, the Compensation Committee established a target incentive for Mr. Gottsegen of 80% of base salary, and pursuant to the Company’s established compensation structure, a target incentive of 80% for Mr. Asplund, which was consistent with the incentive targets specified in each of their employment agreements. As discussed above, based on the Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Margin in 2012, the funding of the annual cash incentive amounts for each named executive officer was set at 110.83% of each executive’s applicable bonus target, subject to adjustment up or down between 80% and 120% (which in limited cases can be increased to 150% based on extraordinary achievement in a given year)110% of the funded amount based on the achievement of the specific performance metrics assigned to each named executive officer, as described above. In determining the amount of bonusesNEO. After assessing performance, the Committee determined to pay for 2012,Mr. Asplund a bonus of $667,205 (which represents 117% of the Compensation Committee determinedfunded amount, after the Committee’s additional adjustment) and to pay Mr. Gottsegen a bonus of $365,740$482,560 (which represents 110%100% of the funded amount) and to pay Mr. Asplund a bonus of $452,515 (which represents approximately 140% of the funded amount in recognition of his extraordinary achievements in 2012).

Equity Compensation

The Compensation Committee believes that equityEquity compensation is an important component of performance-based compensation in its ability to directly alignaligns the interests of the named executive officersNEOs with those of stockholders. The Compensation Committee recognizes that different types of equity compensation afford different benefits to the Company and the recipients. As noted above, in 2011,In 2014, the Compensation Committee returned to granting performance-based RSUs. The decision to re-introduceCompany granted equity compensation using a combination of time-based and performance-based RSUs reflects the Company’s view that, in 2011, the economic environment permitted greater accuracy in building forecast models that can be reliably usedgranted under our Second Amended and Restated 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan.

Consistent with our emphasis on pay-for-performance, approximately 70% (80% for Mr. Kneeland) of equity compensation purposes. Further, performance-based RSUs enable the Compensation Committee to focus the named executive officers on the achievement of specific operating metrics that align with the creation of stockholder value. However, the Compensation Committee believes that, for Messrs. Kneeland, Plummer and Flannery, a percentage of the long-term incentive grants should remain in2014 took the form of stock options, as they create strong accountability to stockholders and provide a consistent performance-based equity grant vehicle over the business cycle.

Stock-settled RSUs are “full value grants,” meaning that, upon vesting, the recipient is awarded a full share of Company common stock. As a result, while the value executives realize in connection with an award of RSUs does depend on our stock price, time-based RSUs generally have some value even if the Company’s stock price significantly decreases following their grant (unlike performance-based RSUs, thatwhich do not vest unless a specified performance level is achieved). Asachieved. The remaining 30% (20% for Mr. Kneeland) took the form of time-based RSUs, which vest ratably over a result, time-based RSUsthree-year period based solely on continued service and help to secure and retain executives and instill an ownership mentality, regardless of whether the Company’s stock price increases or decreases. In contrast, stock options aim to align the executives’ interest with that of stockholder interests by providing the opportunity for executives to realize value only when the Company’s stock price increases relative to the exercise price following their grant. Accordingly, stock options may end up having no value if, subsequent to the date of grant, the Company’s common stock price declines below the exercise price and does not recover before the expiration of the stock option. Furthermore, if the stock price does increase relative to the exercise price, the vesting period helps to retain executives. Because the expense to the Company is less for each stock option than for each RSU, the Compensation Committee can award an executive more stock options than RSUs when attempting to provide a specified value—which means that stock options potentially provide more upside potential and, therefore, greater incentive to increase stockholder value through an appreciated share price.mentality. Historically, neither the Company’s RSUs nor its stock optionshave not earned any dividend equivalents.

In determining the size of each equity award granted, the Compensation Committee considers a variety of factors, including benchmarking data on competitive long-term incentive values, the percentage of long-term

incentive value to be allocated to time-based RSUs, performance-based RSUs and stock options,time-based RSUs and the strategic importance of the executive’s position within the Company as a

whole and, in the case of new hires, the compensation such executive received from his or her prior employer. In terms of the actual allocation among time-based RSUs, performance-based RSUs and stock options, for Messrs. Gottsegen and Asplund, we allocated 67% to performance-based RSUs and 33% to time-based RSUs. However, for Messrs. Kneeland, Plummer and Flannery, a percentage of the long-term incentive grants remained in the form of stock options, and we allocated 25% to stock options, 40% to performance-based RSUs and 35% to time-based RSUs. whole. Once the dollar value of the size of the equity award has been determined (using the factors described above), the actual number of RSUs (both time-basedperformance-based and performance-based)time-based) to be granted areis calculated by dividing the dollar value of the proposed award by the closing price of the Company’s stock on the equity award grant date and, for stock options, by dividing the dollar value of the proposed award by the binomial value of the Company’s closing stock price on the grant date. The Company’s award allocation for 20122014 is presented in the table below:

For grantsDue to the dynamic nature of our business, our performance-based RSUs are designed to measure year-over-year performance during a three-year period, rather than a single set of targets at the end of three years. Accordingly, one-third of our NEOs’ performance-based RSUs are eligible to vest each year, in 2012 (which includesan amount ranging from 0% to 200% of target, based on achievement of annual performance metrics and subject to the NEO’s continued employment through year-end. This earned amount may increase to up to 300% of target based on achievement of a performance multiplier established for 2014, as described below.

For 2014, the Committee selected Revenue and EPI as the performance metrics, each weighted 50%. Consistent with our structure, these metrics applied to the first tranche of performance-based RSUs grantedawarded in 2012 and2014, the second tranche of performance-based RSUs awarded in 2011 for which performance goals were established in 2012),2013 and the number of RSUs that may vest each year is tied to the Company’s achievement of annual performance targets, determined by the Compensation

Committee each year. Performance-based RSUs are each eligible to vest with respect to one-third of the shares on the annual certification date subject to the achievement of performance criteria described below, and provided the employee is continuously employed at the end of each one-year performance period. The numberthird tranche of performance-based RSUs that may vest rangeawarded in 2012.

For 2014, the Committee also established a ROIC multiplier, whereby achievement of ROIC above a certain level would result in applying a multiplier, ranging from 0%1.1 to 200%1.5, to the amount otherwise earned. The Committee established a threshold level of ROIC required for the target number of RSUs granted, based upon the Company’s performance. For 2012 the selected performance measures were Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Marginmultiplier to apply, and the Company made use of performance goals set both pre- and post-closing of the RSC Transaction (with each set of performance goals controlling up to 100% of the target number of RSUs),multiplier would be rounded down rather than apply at an amount beyond the first involving only Adjusted EBITDA achieved overdecimal point (e.g., if ROIC performance would extrapolate to a 1.27 multiplier, the full-year period andmultiplier would be rounded downward to 1.2).

To account for our acquisition of National Pump, the second involving both Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Margin overCommittee used appropriate downward discretion to adjust the eight-month post-close period (May 1, 2012—December 31, 2012). The first performance goal, which was set pre-close and covered performanceearned amounts to account for the full year, wasimpact on Revenue, EPI and ROIC. After exercising such discretion, the Company achieving an Adjusted EBITDA threshold of $1,010 million for the full year, at which point 100% of the target number of performance-based RSUs for 2012 would vest. In addition, post-close, the Company set two further performance targets for both Revenue and EPI were exceeded in 2014, and ROIC was achieved at the eight-month post-close period, based on eight-month Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Margin (assessed separately and each controlling up to 50% of the target number of RSUs) resultslevel necessary for the combined company. If either or both of these targets were met, additional RSUs would vest between target and maximum. In 2012, the full-year Adjusted EBITDA threshold relating to the first performance goal was met, resulting in 100% of the target number of RSUs vesting. The eight-month Adjusted EBITDA target was missed, however, resulting in no RSUs vesting based on that metric, but the eight-month Adjusted EBITDA Margin target was met and exceeded,a 1.3 multiplier, resulting in a cumulative 143.75%earn-out of each named executive officer’s239.39% of performance-based RSUs eligible to vest for 2012 vesting.2014. The chartcharts below showsshow how the performance-based RSUs vested for performance in 2012.2014, as compared to our original goals and the adjusted goals the Committee took into account in adjusting the earned amounts downward to account for our acquisition of National Pump.

In March 2013, in recognition of extraordinary performance and accomplishments during 2012, the Compensation Committee awarded Mr. Kneeland $1,500,000 of performance-based RSUs eligible for vesting over the next three years, based on the achievement of performance goals.

In addition to the equity-based awards described above, in 2012, the Compensation Committee implemented a one-time supplemental awards program with awards based upon the achievement of synergy-related milestones tied to the Company’s purchase of, and integration with, RSC. The RSC Transaction closed in April 2012. The Compensation Committee believes that this program incentivizes employees to accomplish goals related to achieving synergies between the two companies. In June

2012, the Compensation Committee approved a form of 2012 Performance Unit Award/Merger Integration—Synergy Award (the “Synergy Award Agreement”) which was granted pursuant to the Amended and Restated 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan.

The Synergy Award Agreement grants an award at the stated target award amount, contained in the award agreement, but actual payment of the award, if any, is based on the Company’s synergy-related performance during three separate performance periods: (i) from April 30, 2012 through April 29, 2013 (the first performance period), (ii) from April 30, 2012 through October 31, 2013 (the second performance period) and (iii) if the total performance goals set forth in the award agreement are not achieved before the close of the second performance period (October 31, 2013), from April 30, 2012 to April 29, 2014 (the third performance period). At the close of each performance period, the Compensation Committee shall determine whether or not any payment is due based on the achievement of threshold performance goals. The total payout amount under the Synergy Award Agreement may range from 0% to 175% of the target award payment. The total payout made at the close of the first performance period cannot exceed 25% of the target amount; the total payment made at the close of the second or, if applicable, third performance period cannot exceed 150% of the target amount. All awards will be settled in common stock of the Company as soon as practicable following the close of the applicable performance period.

The performance goals that the award agreement contemplates are the realization of annualized run-rate cost synergies consisting of (1) cost synergies—savings realized due to reductions or savings in the cost basis of the Company (generally flowing to EBITDA) and (2) at the discretion of the Compensation Committee, and provided minimum threshold annualized run-rate cost synergies have been achieved, revenue synergies—incremental revenues that can be achieved as a result of the merger. The achievement of any of these performance goals will be determined in the sole discretion of the Compensation Committee. In addition, for each performance period, the Compensation Committee has some discretion with regard to increasing the award payment for the period, but not in a way that would exceed the 25% and 150% maximums set forth above.

For the first performance period, the threshold annualized run-rate synergy goal is $134 million and the target goal is $150 million. For the second performance period, the threshold annualized goal is $204 million, the target goal is $219 million and the maximum goal is $234 million. For the third performance period, the threshold annualized goal is $204 million, the target goal is $224 million and the maximum goal is $234 million.

Severance and Change in Control Benefits

The Compensation Committee believes that agreeing to provide reasonable severance benefits is common among similar companies and is essential to recruiting and retaining key executives, which is a fundamental objective of our executive compensation program.executives. Accordingly, the employment agreements with the named executive officersNEOs generally provide for varying levels of severance in the event that the Company terminates the executive’s employment without “cause” or the executive resigns from employment forwith “good reason” (each as defined in the employment agreement with the executive, as set forth in more detail under “Benefits upon Termination of Employment”). Upon a qualifying termination, Mr. Kneeland would receive 450% of his base salary paid over a two-year period.period; Mr. Plummer would receive 190% of his base salary paid over one year.a one-year period; Mr. Flannery would receive 380% of his base salary paid over a two-year period. Mr. Gottsegen would receive 180% of his base salary paid over one year.period; Mr. Asplund would receive a severance payment equal to 100% of his base salary paid over one year. Severance payments to the named executive officers are conditioned on their execution of a release of claims in favor of the Company. In addition, each of the named executive officers are subject to non-competition and non-solicitation restrictions for aone-year period of time following their termination, as described in more detail under “Benefits upon Termination of Employment.”

In addition, the Company’s time-based RSUs granted toand Mr. Gottsegen in 2009, as well as the 2009 awardswould receive 180% of stock options granted to Messrs. Kneeland, Plummer and Gottsegen, provide that if

the Company terminates the executive’s employment without “cause” or the executive resigns from employment for “good reason,”his base salary paid over a pro-rata portion of such RSUs or stock options scheduled to vest during the year of termination will vest on the date of termination. The Company’s time-based RSUs and stock options granted to each of the named executive officers in 2010, 2011 and 2012, to Messrs. Flannery and Asplund in 2009, and stock options granted to Messrs. Kneeland, Plummer and Flannery in 2010, provide that if the Company terminates the executive’s employment without “cause,” all unvested RSUs or stock options will be cancelled, unless such termination occurs within twelve months following a change in control, in which case all such unvested RSUs and stock options will immediately vest. The Company’s performance-based RSUs granted to each of the named executive officers in 2011 and 2012 provide that if the holder terminates for any reason, all RSUs are forfeited, unless the Company terminates the executive’s employment without “cause,” or the executive resigns from employment with “good reason,” within 12 months following a change in control, in which case all performance based RSUs will be deemed earned at the target level. Finally, the Company’s synergy awards granted to each of the named executive officers in 2012 provide that if the Company terminates the executive without “cause” or the executive resigns from employment for “good reason,” the executive will be eligible to earn a pro-rata portion of the award payout with respect to the performance period that ends next following the date of the termination.

one-year period. The Company also typically provides its executives with COBRA continuation coverage for a period coterminous with the duration of their severance benefit, although variations exist. Severance payments to the NEOs are conditioned on their execution of a release of claims in favor of the Company. In addition, each of the NEOs is subject to non-competition andnon-solicitation restrictions for a period of time following their termination, as described in more detail under “Benefits upon Termination of Employment.” All RSUs and stock options granted to each of the NEOs since 2011 provide for forfeiture on the NEO’s termination of employment for any reason, except in the case of a change in control as described below. Upon a termination as a result of death or permanent disability, a pro rata portion of awards vest, based on the number of days between the beginning of the applicable performance period and the date of termination.

The prospect of a change in control of the Company can cause significant distraction and uncertainty for executive officers and, accordingly, the Compensation Committee believes that appropriate change in control provisions in employment agreements and/or equity awards are important tools for aligning executives’ interests in change in control scenarios with those of stockholders by allowing our executive officers to focus on strategic transactions that may be in the best interest of our stockholders without undue concern regarding the effect of such transactions on their continued employment.stockholders. In addition, changes to the Company following a change in control may affect the ability to achieve previously set performance measures.Consequently, outstanding RSURSUs and stock option awards held by the named executive officers includeNEOs provide for “double trigger” treatment upon a change in control.control. A “change in control” for this purpose is defined in the employment agreement with the executive or in the applicable award agreement, as set forth in more detail under “Benefits upon a Change in Control.” In the case thatIf the change in control results in shares of common stock of the Company (or any direct or indirect parent entity) being publicly traded, then all such RSUs and stock options will vest in full, and all performance conditions for performance-based RSUs will be deemed satisfied at theirthe target level, only if there is also a termination by the Company without “cause” or by the individual for “good reason” within 12 months following the change in control. However, in the limited circumstances that the change in control results in none of the common stock of the Company (or any direct or indirect parent entity) being publicly traded following a change in control, then all such

RSUs and stock options will vest in full, and all performance conditions for performance-based RSUs will be deemed satisfied at their target level, upon the change in control. However, for the synergy awards granted in 2012, upon a change in control, the Compensation Committee is given the discretion whether to: (i) settle the award with any applicable performance criteria deemed earned at target with respect to any performance period in effect on the date of the change in control, (ii) provide that the award will remain outstanding and eligible for payment following the originally scheduled determination dates and subject to adjusted performance criteria as the Compensation Committee may determine, or (iii) take any other actions necessary or advisable consistent with the terms of the plan.

The existence of arrangements providing for severance and change in control benefits did not affect decisions that the Compensation Committee made regarding other compensation elements.

The Internal Revenue Code imposes an excise tax on the value of certain payments that are contingent upon a change in control, referred to as parachute payments, which exceed a safe harbor amount. The Company does not provide any executive with a gross-up for any excise tax that may be triggered. Mr. Kneeland’s employment agreement provides that if he receives payments that would

result in the imposition of the excise tax, such payments will be reduced to the safe harbor amount so that no excise tax is triggered if the net after-tax benefit to him is greater than the net after-tax benefit that he would receive if no reduction occurred.

The severance and change in control provisions of our named executive officers’NEOs’ employment agreements and other arrangements are described in detail in the sections “Benefits upon Termination of Employment” and “Benefits upon a Change in Control,” respectively.

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plans

The Company’s non-qualified deferred compensation plan, the Executive Nonqualified Excess Plan (“ENEP”), is an unfunded plan, and the participants in the plan are unsecured general creditors of the Company. The ENEP permits a select group of management and other highly compensated employees, including the NEOs, and independent contractors of the Company to defer all or part of their base salary, service-based bonus and performance-based compensation. Deferred amounts are credited with earnings (or losses) based on the investment experience of measurement indices selected by the participant from among the choices offered by the plan. The ENEP also provides for additional credits that are discretionary on the part of the Company. The Company did not make any contributions to the ENEP in 2014. A participant must elect to begin receiving distributions on a date at least two years following the end of the year of contribution and may receive payment of his or her vested account balance either in a single lump sum or in a series of annual installments over a period not to exceed five years. The entire vested account balance is paid out in a lump sum once a participant separates from service with the Company, unless the sum of the participant’s age plus years of service is equal to 65 or greater, in which case the participant may elect that the balance be paid out as a series of annual installments over a period not to exceed ten years.

Retirement Benefits

The Compensation Committee believes that providing a cost-effective retirement benefit for the Company’s executives is an important recruitment and retention tool. Accordingly, the Company maintains a 401(k) plan for all employees, and provides discretionary employer-matching contributions (subject to certain limitations, including an annual limit of $2,000$3,000 for 2012)2014 for our NEOs) based on an employee’s contributions.

The Company affords our named executive officers an opportunity to defer a portion of their compensation in excess of the amounts that are legally permitted to be deferred under the Company’s 401(k) plan and to defer the receipt of the shares of the Company’s common stock that ordinarily would be received upon the vesting of RSUs. Any deferred compensation is credited with earnings based on the investment performance of investments selected by the executive. No such earnings would be considered above market or preferential. The deferred RSUs are not credited with earnings, but changes in the value of our common stock similarly change the value of the deferred RSUs. The deferred compensation, which may be of significant benefit to the executives and entails a minimal administrative expense for the Company, is a common benefit provided to senior executives of similarly situated companies. Consequently, the Compensation Committee believes that it is appropriate to provide such deferred compensation.

Perquisites and Other Personal Benefits

We also maintain various employee benefit programs, including health and medical benefits, for all of our employees, including our NEOs. In addition, in December 2012, the Committee approved an Executive Wellness Program for all executives and other employees. Our named executive officers generallywho are senior vice presidents or above. All of our NEOs are eligible to participate in our employee health and welfare benefits on the same basis as all employees.this program.

The Company does not have a formal perquisite policy, although the Compensation Committee periodically reviews perquisites for our named executive officers.NEOs. Rather, there are certain specific perquisites and benefits with which the Company has agreed to compensate particular executives based on their specific situations. Among these are relocation costs, including temporary housing and living expenses, and use of Company vehicles.

In order to make travel time more conducive to work-related activities, we may periodically provide our executives with business class travel on commercial airlines when they are traveling for work-related matters.

Other Programs,Agreements, Policies and Considerations

Employment Agreements

We have entered into employment agreements with each of the NEOs, effective August 22, 2008 for Mr. Kneeland, December 1, 2008 for Mr. Plummer, March 12, 2010 for Mr. Flannery, April 28, 2008 for Mr. Asplund and February 2, 2009 for Mr. Gottsegen.

Mr. Kneeland’s base salary was increased to $950,000, effective October 22, 2012. Mr. Kneeland’s base salary was not adjusted again in 2013 or 2014. Base salaries for the other NEOs, through March 31, 2014 and raised as of April 1, 2014, respectively, are as follows: Mr. Plummer—$527,850 to $560,000; Mr. Flannery—$518,500 to $560,000; Mr. Asplund—$425,000 to $441,500; and Mr. Gottsegen—$400,000 to $416,000. Mr. Asplund’s base salary was subsequently raised to $490,000 as of May 6, 2014 to reflect the expanded scope of his position as Chief Information Officer. Each of the NEOs is eligible to participate in the AICP, as described in more detail above under “Annual Performance-Based Cash Incentives” and is eligible for equity compensation grants, as described in more detail above under “Equity Compensation.” The rights of the NEOs to receive certain benefits upon termination of employment or a change in control of the Company are described below under “Benefits Upon Termination of Employment” and “Benefits Upon a Change in Control,” respectively.

The employment agreements generally provide that the NEOs are entitled to participate in, to the extent otherwise eligible under the terms thereof, the benefit plans and programs, and receive the benefits and perquisites, generally provided by us to our executives, including family medical insurance (subject to applicable employee contributions).

The employment agreements also generally provide that, during the period of employment, the NEO shall not engage in any activity which would conflict with the executive’s duties and cannot engage in any other employment. In addition, the employment agreements generally provide for two-year (one-year for Messrs. Plummer and Gottsegen) non-compete and non-solicit restrictions. Mr. Asplund’s employment agreement provides for an indefinite non-disparagement obligation.

Indemnification Agreements

We have also entered into indemnification agreements with Messrs. Kneeland, Plummer, Flannery, Asplund and Gottsegen. Each of these agreements provides, among other things, for us to indemnify and advance expenses to each such officer against specified claims and liabilities that may arise in connection with such officer’s services to the Company.

Recoupment PolicyProvisions

Beginning with Mr. Kneeland’s new employment agreement entered into in August 2008, and continuing with Mr. Plummer’s December 2008 employment agreement, Mr. Gottsegen’s February 2009 employment agreement and Mr. Flannery’s 2010 employment agreement, the Compensation Committee has included “clawback” provisions in its agreements that generally require reimbursement of amounts paid under performance provisions (in the case of cash incentives and performance-based RSUs) if amounts were paid or shares vested based on financial results that subsequently become subject to certain “mandatory restatements” (as defined in the applicable employment agreement) that would have led to lower payments or forfeiture of all or a portion of shares subject to an award. More

generally, for all RSU and stock option awards since 2009, including both time-based and performance-based RSUs, the award forms include an “injurious conduct” provision that requires forfeiture of the award or, to the extent the award has vested or been exercised within six months prior to the occurrence of the relevant conduct, mandates reimbursement of shares or amounts realized. The injurious conduct concept is generally focused on actions that would constitute “cause” under an employment agreement, which actions are in material competition with the Company or breach the executive’s duty of loyalty to the Company.

Stock Ownership Guidelines

The Compensation Committee believes stock ownership guidelines are a key vehicle for aligning the interests of management and the Company’s stockholders. Moreover, a meaningful direct ownership stake by our officers demonstrates to our investors a strong commitment to the Company’s success. Accordingly, in February 2010, the Compensation Committee adoptedmaintains stock ownership guidelines for our named executive officersNEOs and approximately 30 other officers with a title of vice president and above. Under the stock ownership guidelines, the Company’s chief executive officer is required to hold fivesix times his base salary in the Company’s common stock, the chief financial officer and chief operating officer are required to hold three times their base salary in the Company’s common stock, and all other officers subject to the guidelines are required to hold one times their base salary in the Company’s common stock. The following shares count towards meeting these ownership guidelines: shares that are directly owned by the executive; shares that are beneficially owned by the executive, such as shares held in “street name” through a broker or shares held in trust; amounts credited to the executive’s deferred compensation or 401(k) accounts that are invested or deemed invested in the Company’s common stock; unvested restricted stock or RSUs that vest based on continued service; and the value of the spread (the difference between the exercise price and the full market value of the Company’s common stock) of fully vested stock options. Until the guidelines are met, the officers are required to retain 50% of the net shares of the Company’s common stock received upon the exercise, vesting or payment of equity-based awards granted by the Company. The named executive officersNEOs and the other officers arewere required to be in compliance with such guidelines within five years of their effective date inby February 2010.2015. Each of the named executive officersNEOs had satisfied the stock ownership guidelines when their holdings were measured as of March 2013.2015.

No Hedging Policy; No Pledging

In addition, to further align our executives with the interests of the Company’s stockholders, the Company’s insider trading policy and the Second Amended and Restated 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan prohibit transactions designed to limit or eliminate economic risks to our executives from owning the Company’s common stock, such as transactions involving options, puts, calls or other derivative securities tied to the Company’s common stock. On an annual basis, we also ask our directors and executive officers to identify any shares of Company common stock pledged in a margin brokerage account or otherwise used as collateral to support a borrowing. For 2013,In response, no such directors or executive officers have indicatedreported any shares pledged for such a purpose.

Tax and Accounting Considerations

When it reviews compensation matters, the Compensation Committee considers the anticipated tax and accounting treatment of various payments and benefits to the Company and, when relevant, to the executive. Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) (“Section 162(m)”) limits to $1 million the annual tax deduction for compensation paid to each of the chief executive officer and the three other highest paidhighest-paid executive officers employed at the end of the year (other than the chief financial officer). However, compensation that does not exceed $1 million during any fiscal year or that qualifies as “performance-based compensation” (as defined in Section 162(m)) is deductible. The Compensation Committee considers these requirements when designing compensation programs for named executive officers.NEOs. Although the Company has plans that permit the award of deductible compensation under Section 162(m), the Compensation Committee does not necessarily limit executive compensation to the amount deductible under that provision. Rather, it considers the available alternatives and acts to preserve the deductibility of compensation in its discretion to the extent reasonably practicable and consistent with its

other compensation objectives. As a result, most of the Company’s compensation programs (including annual performance-based cash incentives, stock options and performance-based RSUs) are designed to qualify for deductibility under Section 162(m). However, in certain situations, the Compensation Committee may in its discretion approve compensation that will not meet these requirements in order to ensure competitive levels of total compensation for the named executive officersNEOs or for other reasons.

New employment or similar agreements and employee benefit plans are prepared with the assistance of outside counsel and will be designed to comply with Section 409A and the applicable

regulations, a tax law that governs “nonqualified deferred compensation.” Existing employment agreements and employee benefit plans were amended to comply with Section 409A statutory deadlines imposed in 2008, 2010 and 2012.

The Company accounts for stock-based compensation in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718 (“FASB ASC 718”), which requires the Company to recognize compensation expense relating to share-based payments (including stock options and other forms of equity compensation). FASB ASC 718 is taken into account by the Compensation Committee in determining which types of equity awards should be granted.

Compensation Risksand Risk Management

The Committee performs an annual risk assessment of our executive compensation programs. In 2014, the Committee considered both risk mitigators—elements of the executive compensation architecture that assist in mitigating excessive risk—and risk aggravators—elements of compensation architecture that potentially encourage risk-taking in its assessment. On balance, the Committee found that the sum total of the risk mitigators, including the opportunity for stockholders to cast advisory votes on executive compensation, stock ownership guidelines for executives, an independent compensation committee and compensation consultant, clawback provisions in executive officer employment agreements, a clearly defined pay philosophy, peer group and market positioning to support the Company’s managementbusiness objectives, provisions enabling the use of negative discretion in certain payouts and an effective balance of cash and equity compensation, greatly outweighed any risk aggravators. In performing its assessment, the Committee took into account the annual risk review of the Company’s compensation programs by the Enterprise Risk Management Council comprising senior representatives from field operations and from each of the primary corporate functions.

The Enterprise Risk Management Council reviews the Company’s compensation policies and practices annually to ensure that they appropriately balance short- and long-term goals and risks and rewards. Specifically, this review includes the annual cash incentive program that covers all senior management and a broad employee population, and equity compensation. These plans are designed to focus senior management and employees on increasing stockholder value and enhancing financial results. Based on this comprehensive review in 2014, we concluded that our compensation program does not encourage excessive risk-taking for the following reasons:

In addition to the review performed by management, the Compensation Committee also performed a risk assessment in 2012. The Compensation Committee reviewed both risk mitigators—elements of the executive compensation architecture that assist in mitigating excessive risk—and risk aggravators—elements of compensation architecture that potentially encouraging risk-taking. On balance, the Compensation Committee found that the sum total of the risk mitigators affecting the Company, including the opportunity of stockholders to cast advisory votes on executive compensation, stock ownership guidelines for executives, an independent compensation committee and compensation consultant, clawback provisions in executive officer employment agreements and an effective balance of cash and equity compensation, greatly outweighed any risk aggravators. The Compensation Committee found that compensation risks were being properly addressed by the Company.

“injurious conduct” provision that requires the forfeiture of the award or, to the extent the reward has vested or been exercised within six months prior to the occurrence of the relevant conduct, mandates reimbursement of shares or amounts realized.

We are confident that our program is aligned with the interests of our stockholders and rewards for performance.

Compensation Committee Report

The Compensation Committee has reviewed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K and discussed that analysis with management and with the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant. Based on this review and discussion, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K and in this proxy statement.

THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE*COMMITTEE

Singleton B. McAllister, Chairman

Pierre E. Leroy

Filippo PasseriniBrian D. McAuley

Donald C. Roof

L. Keith Wimbush

Summary Compensation Table

The table below summarizes the total compensation paid or earned by each of the named executive officersNEOs for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2012, 20112014, 2013 and if applicable, 2010.2012.

Messrs.$4,305,765 (representing 8,081 RSUs awarded in 2012, 21,073 RSUs awarded in 2013 and 18,413 RSUs awarded in 2014), for Mr. Plummer is $814,952 (representing 2,424 RSUs awarded in 2012, 3,099 RSUs awarded in 2013 and 3,480 RSUs awarded in 2014), for Mr. Flannery is $600,000,$814,952 (representing 2,424 RSUs awarded in 2012, 3,099 RSUs awarded in 2013 and 3,480 RSUs awarded in 2014), for Mr. Asplund is $450,000$633,912 (representing 2,707 RSUs awarded in 2012, 2,491 RSUs awarded in 2013 and 1,805 RSUs awarded in 2014) and for Mr. Gottsegen is $250,000. Assuming that$466,721 (representing 1,895 RSUs awarded in 2012, 1,972 RSUs awarded in 2013 and 1,289 RSUs awarded in 2014). Mr. Asplund was granted an additional 562 performance-based RSUs on May 6, 2014, with a grant date fair value of $52,508. At the highestmaximum level of performance, conditions are achieved, the maximumgrant date fair value of the synergy awards for Mr. Kneeland is $1,750,000, Messrs.$12,917,295 (representing 24,243 RSUs awarded in 2012, 63,219 RSUs awarded in 2013 and 55,239 RSUs awarded in 2014), for Mr. Plummer is $2,444,855 (representing 7,272 RSUs awarded in 2012, 9,297 RSUs awarded in 2013 and 10,440 RSUs awarded in 2014), for Mr. Flannery is $1,050,000,$2,444,855 (representing 7,272 RSUs awarded in 2012, 9,297 RSUs awarded in 2013 and 10,440 RSUs awarded in 2014), for Mr. Asplund is $787,500$2,059,258 (representing 8,121 RSUs awarded in 2012, 7,473 RSUs awarded in 2013 and 7,101 RSUs awarded in 2014) and for Mr. Gottsegen is $437,500.$1,400,163 (representing 5,685 RSUs awarded in 2012, 5,916 RSUs awarded in 2013 and 3,867 RSUs awarded in 2014). Assumptions used to calculate these amounts are set forth in footnote 2 to the “Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2014” and in “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies—Stock-Based Compensation” in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 20122014

The table below summarizes the equity and non-equity awards granted to the named executive officersNEOs in 2012.2014.