Continuing its current trend of rolling back environmental regulations, the EPA announced on Thursday that it will “revisit” portions of its new emissions standards for heavy commercial trucks.
The so-called Phase 2 Emissions Standards set a series of compliance dates from Jan 1st, 2018 until 2027 that seek to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by 25%. “Phase 1” brought the industry to current emissions levels by setting milestones for truck and engine manufacturers.
Phase 2 would set additional emissions goals for truck and engine manufacturers, but it would also mark the first time that trailer and glider kits would be subject to EPA goals and regulations. And that’s something that trailer manufacturers don’t want to see happen.
After Phase 2 was finalized last year, the Truck and Trailer Manufacturers Association filed a lawsuit against the EPA to try and stop them from regulating trailer fuel efficiency. According to the TTMA’s website, they are an international trade association “whose current membership produces more than 90% of the truck trailers built in the United States.” Their the case against Phase 2’s trailer regulations has three main parts:
- Trailers are not “motor vehicles” as defined under the Clean Air Act, so the EPA has no authority over them.
- There are already ways that fleets can choose to benefit from aerodynamic innovations, and even a federal program to help them decide which options are best. But most carriers don’t opt in because the fuel-saving equipment only provides a benefit under certain conditions.
- If Phase 2 is implemented, it could actually increase emissions since the additional weight of the Phase 2 equipment might decrease the amount of freight each truck is able to haul, thereby increasing the number of trucks needed on the road.
According to Heavy Duty Trucking, other groups such as The North American Council for Freight Efficiency, the Environmental Defense Fund, and The International Council on Clean Transportation have pointed out flaws in this reasoning. Flaws include that, like trailers, an engine is also not a “motor vehicle” but is still subject to regulation by the EPA; the ‘specific conditions’ they refer to are just when a trailer is going fast; and since Phase 2 equipment hasn’t been developed yet, there’s no way to know how much it might weigh.
But the lawsuit definitely caught the EPA’s attention. In court filings, the EPA even stated that the lawsuit might soon not be necessary since it would “undertake actions that could obviate the need for judicial resolution.”
It is also telling that despite grumblings from the truck and engine manufacturers, the EPA has only announced that it will “revisit” the trailer and glider portions of Phase 2. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt even addressed some of the TTMA’s concerns specifically in his statement.
“In light of the significant issues raised, the agency has decided to revisit the Phase 2 trailer and glider provisions,” said Pruitt. “We intend to initiate a rulemaking process that incorporates the latest technical data and is wholly consistent with our authority under the Clean Air Act.”
The TTMA says it’s pleased with the EPA’s statement.
But it’s not just environmental and efficiency groups that are unhappy. Even the ATA – whose members would bear the brunt of trailer costs increasing due to new regulations – has spoken out against the EPA’s statement. According to them, if the industry doesn’t take its medicine now, it will find itself with a more bitter pill to swallow soon.
“By reopening the rule to reexamine trailers and glider kits, EPA has opened the door to California taking the lead, and a more aggressive track, in setting trailer standards,” said ATA President and CEO Chris Spear in a statement published by the ATA. “As representatives of an interstate industry, ATA believes a single national standard, set by federal regulators, is preferable to at worst, a patchwork of state standards or at best, a de facto national standard that is set without the appropriate opportunity for the entire regulated community — many members of which are not based in California — to weigh in.”
You really can’t improve trailer aerodynamics anyway. Sure they added the skirts, but if anything, those cause more brake cooling issues than saving fuel.
Trailer tail is a joke, although a good conversation piece, and great for whipping up snow into the face of tailgaters.
And super singles… I won’t get started there.
If you make the nose of the trailer into a semi circle, you might be able to improve fuel mileage, and of course lighter materials, but then you’ll jeopardize durability.
Only so much you can do to a trailer.
I have noticed that trailer skirts juice save a few percentage points of mpg, at least on high-speed flat runs with little crosswind. My company runs both skirt and the non skirt trailers so I’ve been able to compare.
And I’ve never noticed any brake cooling problems. Honestly, if you have a decent engine brake and if you gear down on downhill grades, you barely even need to use brakes in an extended fashion ever.
And you’re right, the trailer tail is pointless
Whenever there is mention of increased regulations, one of the main arguments against is the cost to bring all of the trucks into compliance. What’s the national ratio of trailers to trucks? The cost would kill companies.
Once again the ATA comes down on the side that will increase the costs for the small independent truckers. Far be it for the ATA to support the logical side of the argument, so they again reveal their leftist leanings and desire for more and more regulations. AS IF the GOVERNMENT has the answers to all problems, real & imagined.
Not sure how long you’ve been driving but ATA is not an owner operater organization. They are a group of individuals from the largest trucking companies like England, swift, jb hunt etc. They are 1000 percent against real owner ops and want to see them all out of business. They see us as their biggest competition.
If they did that, they would bite themselves in the ass. A very sizeable portion of people go into trucking to eventually be O/Os. I was with CRE, got my own rig, hit a bad spot. I was going to go back, but all the thumbsucking snowflakes forced them to eliminate the lease program. Didn’t go back because I could not L/P another rig.
What does that tell you?
Try another outfit. Crete has a good program. Also Schneider. Check them out. Never ever give up on your dream just because you went down a dark path.
hard to describe what this would be like, covering the beams on the bottom of trailer structure, smooth on floor, smooth on belly, no skirt, maybe a close in skirt in front of trailer axle set (never liked them on the drives either) maybe just one “blocker” configured to force feed the brakes air (cooling drag) the rest tunneled in between over and under the axles. then maybe some fins all of one inche tall close in to edges that could auto tune for crosswinds, on those, rather than big time electronics just have them slaved to low pressure areas, low pressure and the fin armed to anaroid bellows turns the fin to and hunts in slow cycles….or….
It’s funny were always Being told what to do Which use the results in laws and money which does not benefit but only one ha .
Hahaha heavy haulers do not care about fuel efficiency. Just reliability.
Trailer skirts on a detach? Maybe grass skirts
Where do you put the areo tabs. On the dozer blade that’s 12′ wide.
How about the trailer tail?
OH WOW, what happened to this country, how can anyone shoot himself in the foot over and over again and expect to be able to stand still? They’ve been stickin in it to us for so long that we became numb, we follow them like sheep. They’ve taken away most of our liberties, and the ones we’re left with can be easily manipulated and persuaded to benefit one group or the other. Welcome to the new edge slavery.
Everybody thinks arodynamics on the back of the trailer is a joke…guess you never heard about drafting? You get about 100 feet more or less behind a van or refer… you will get sucked down the road…you can feel the buffeting when you are in the right area where the wind is coming back together behind the trailer..now with that wind filling in behind forming a suction.. you get drag pulling that trailer…and if you fill in that void of air..less drag …whether it is some kind of device that pushes the air behind the trailer such as something like a curved scoop that takes the air off the sides.. or the top…and places it right near the back doors..
You can learn a lot when you use the fuel management system on a Volvo. It can give mpg for the tank and instantaneous . My highest instant mpg was when I was behind a standard work van at 55 mph and not behind a 53 footer. I don’t think “suction ” applys to the phenomenonal 8.5 to 9 mpg which was matched when I had a strong persistent tail wind. Interestingly the worst I saw was eastbound I 40 into Memphis . Heavy prolonged gust from the north got me 4 mph reading verses 7 when the wind subsided . A strong head wind didn’t suck the fuel like a strong sidewind.
If they would just stop the emissions stuff right where it is right now the industry will be fine. The manufacturers have finally gotten the scr stuff sorted to the point that the trucks are actually running pretty darn good. I kind of like getting 8+ mpg.
How about from NOW On the FEDERAL GOV’T has to do an “Approved Study” minimum 5 years before a Ruling is approved on changes to equipment, engines, trucks, and trailers. We need a 50 State USA and Canada – 1 set of Rules and Regulations for transportation. California has single state screwed up the entire trucking industry with todays equipment without proved confirmed studies – mostly recommended suggestions and options. They should use there universities for research and development, not there politician’s with pocket books. Super Singles worst and most dangerous idea ever – when they blow truck disabled and other motorist / motorcycles are in danger. Side Skirts waste of money with speed under 65 miles per hour and yes proven brakes don’t cool as well had to add thicker / heavier drum and brake pads (California Truck Speed Limit 55) did I say California – Studies – Research!!! When Catipillar said the Engine change couldn’t work how come no one listened to the Engineer’s? Now today New Engines Problems, Expensive to Maintain, Not lasting as long 1 Million Miles without Troubles, catching fire exhaust systems to HOT, etc… Bring back old school Engines 90’s models early 2000’s… Long Live The Glider’s!!!