Truck and engine manufacturers are used to being subject to EPA efficiency guidelines, but for trailer manufacturers it’s a new experience – and they’re fighting back. But now, lawsuits are flying from both sides.
EPA refers to past generation of truck/engine regulation as “Phase 1,” and now it’s time for “Phase 2.” While Phase 2 does set additional emissions goals for truck and engine manufacturers, it also sets efficiency guidelines for trailers.
The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) filed a lawsuit last year after the regulations were finalized. Their goal was to try and stop the EPA from regulating trailer fuel efficiency. To the EPA, increasing trailer efficiency would increase fuel efficiency for tractor-trailers on the road. But to the TTMA, the EPA doesn’t have a right to regulate trailers since they are not “motor vehicles” as defined by the Clean Air Act.
While the argument may seem like semantics, the lawsuit still hasn’t been resolved. Unfortunately for the TTMA however, the compliance date for Phase 2 of January 2018 is fast approaching. So last month they filed a request to delay the compliance date. The EPA issued a response that said that they would “revisit the Phase 2 trailer and glider provisions.”
Now, that request has been met with a motion filed by numerous other groups including the Environmental Defense Fund, public health advocacy groups, and others.
According to Heavy Duty Trucking, the EDF and its allies is asking the EPA to continue ahead with the Phase 2 regulations despite TTMA’s attempts to “delay these critical health and environmental protections for the duration of the litigation, which could last for years.”
Even those who would seemingly bear the brunt of the cost of increased trailer regulations, like the American Trucking Association, are upset with the TTMA’s attempts at a regulatory delay.
“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.”
As with many new regulations however, there is concern among smaller fleets and owner-operators about what the new Phase 2 rules will do to trailer affordability for the over 97% of American carriers that have 20 trucks or fewer.
Source: truckinginfo, trailerbody, bulktransporter, truckersreport
So the EPA is going after Reefer trailers fuel use ?
Those small diesel engines are noisy and need mufflers but fuel use ?
Or ALL trailers wind drag ?
I’m very disappointed that Trump hasn’t dismantled the EPA. This agency is evil and needs to be abolished.
That is what I hate about articles like this. “measure 2017-5″ will raise taxes and cause layoffs” end of story. Huh?!? What are you talking about? Broadcast news does this as well. instead of giving a small summary of what they are talking about and why I should care. This is bad (lazy) reporting and wastes the readers time.
In this case, as Jon asks, what type of trailers are we talking about and what is the issue?
Ya I think from now on I’m gonna just delete the link these stupid so called truckers garbage media superstars send me…useless, biased Trash almost equal to the cap that came out of nazi germany.
I think a lot of this is about aerodynamic add-ons for trailers. ‘Glider Kits’ for example – those skirts that go back to the tires and those trailer-tail things.
I can’t imagine what else could be added to a trailer to make it more aerodynamic. Those weird hub-cover things? I’ve seen a few companies have started using them.
As to reefer engines…
Are they even regulated for emissions standards? As far as I know, they’re considered off-road engines, so do they even fall under the same guidelines that trucks do? For that matter – do APUs? Go into about any truckstop at night where there’s a lot of reefers and especially APUs running, and the air is so toxic with fumes you can get really sick from them. These trucks that follow California emission standards, though, stink up the air hardly at all.
Glider kits are truck chassis that don’t have a drive train. Companies typically buy them from a manufacturer, and install rebuilt pre-egr motors and transmissions.
James, you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge by the glider kit comment.
I very much doubt anything else you comment on.
gents, the EPA and carb came out years ago and plainly stated the reason we drive the rigs of today and not yester-year is because the truck vendors could not sell the overpriced , malfunctioning equipment
to fleets that saw their present equipment doing the job.
Congress and the vendors who support Congress’s habits…hummm.
money is the name of the game. Greed , once again rears it’s ugly head.
Getting sick of this over regulation mess and the no brain ata
There’s always someone to benefit from new regulations evan if it’s roots are legitimate’
Someone will make a buck’ wink wink nod nod.
Can we finally defund the epa and padlock the doors.
What someone in manufacturing doesn’t want the feds looking over their shoulder, maybe you should have spent a little more on K street.