kscarbel2

US Proposes Freezing Mexican Trucks Out of New NAFTA Transport Topics / November 9, 2017 The U.S. has proposed another difficult change to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that could eventually prevent long-haul Mexican truckers from operating in the country. American negotiators have asked to remove Mexico’s long-haul industry from a NAFTA chapter on cross-border services. That could open the door to restrictions on truckers, as losing NAFTA trade protections and advantages would make it harder for Mexico to challenge any future U.S. requirements on trucks such as new safety checks. A government official described it as a broad industry exclusion that came during the last round of talks in October. The U.S. Trade Representative’s office refused to comment, and hasn’t made its proposals public. Reuters also reported last month that the U.S. was seeking fresh restrictions on long-haul trucks from Mexico. The U.S. for years after NAFTA came into effect resisted giving Mexican truckers the right to operate throughout the country. They were limited to bringing loads a short distance into the U.S., where they would be transferred to American outfits for final delivery. A dispute resolution panel backed Mexico on the matter in 2001, though the U.S. didn’t comply for years. Mexico at one point imposed tariffs in retaliation. It wasn’t until 2015 that the U.S. gave licensed Mexican truckers the right to haul cargo throughout the nation. Contentious Demands The U.S. proposal to exclude Mexican trucking adds to a list of contentious demands that President Donald Trump’s team has signaled must be met to keep the 1994 pact alive. The U.S. has also asked to scrap a dispute mechanism that is essential to Canada, the third party to NAFTA, and to tighten local content rules for cars. Negotiators have already said they will extend talks through March 2018, which is longer than originally anticipated and could bring the issue into Mexico’s presidential campaign season and U.S. congressional elections. The next round of discussions is in Mexico City this month. Mexico’s government opposes the new proposal on trucking, seeing it as a rollback of the rights won in the previous cross-border trucking dispute settlement, according to a person familiar with the position. Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo has said the government opposes anything that would weaken current market access under NAFTA. ‘Not Surprising’ “It’s not surprising that this is being discussed, especially in view of the history of Washington’s policy approach toward Mexican trucks crossing the border,” said Stephen Laskowski, president of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, or CTA. Laskowski said he hasn’t seen a specific proposal on the matter, and the trucking industries in all three nations are working together to see NAFTA improved. The American Trucking Associations, in a joint statement last month with the CTA and Mexico’s main trucking lobby group, said that NAFTA benefits the three countries. On the other side of the debate, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a labor union, argues cross-border trucking takes away American jobs and creates safety risks. Teamsters President Jim Hoffa suggested the U.S. was backing his view during the last round of talks. “The Teamsters and our allies among independent truckers and highway safety advocates will be pleased with the U.S. position on cross-border services,” he said in a statement in mid-October.

You and I both know your remark is dead on Mark. Now tell them how much you paid, the year, and what it's depreciated to already.

The mosque is Belgium’s biggest. Officials say it’s a hotbed for extremism The Washington Post / November 10, 2017 BRUSSELS — The Grand Mosque of Brussels is Belgium’s biggest and oldest site of Muslim worship. Officials in Belgium say it is also a hotbed for Saudi-backed Islamist extremism. Now the Parliament wants the country’s leaders to take over the sprawling complex that is just steps from the gleaming core of the European Union. It is the latest attempt to tighten security after radicalized Belgians emerged at the heart of terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels in the last three years. The sudden move against the mosque underscores the challenge for Western European leaders seeking to embrace what they call a “European Islam” that endorses pluralistic values. For too long, many officials say, they have stood by as imams preaching the ultraconservative interpretation of Islam favored by clerics in Saudi Arabia and Qatar have worked among their populations, encouraging the frustrated descendants of North African immigrants to wall themselves off from mainstream society. But the very same crackdown on the mosque puts Belgian policymakers in the unusual position of picking and choosing among strains of Islam in the name of protecting freedom of religion and democracy. The dilemma has grown more pressing after Europe was struck repeatedly by Islamic State-inspired terror, often perpetrated by disgruntled citizens born inside the countries they have targeted. The mosque’s leaders “are trying to live in their splendid isolation with a radical point of view, and their aim is not to integrate into our society. And that is a big problem,” said Servais Verherstraeten, one of the leaders of a Belgian parliamentary commission that recommended last month that the government break the Saudi government’s 99-year rent-free lease on the mosque. The lease was handed to Saudi King Faisal in 1969 as a goodwill gesture [???] by Belgian King Baudouin. “We want in Belgium an Islam practiced by people who respect our constitution, who want to integrate into our country,” Verherstraeten said. “There is the perception that there is something to hide in the most important mosque in the country.” Leaders of the mosque and community center, which is run by the Mecca-based World Muslim League, deny that they espouse a conservative vision of Islam and say that they are working to improve openness. “I don’t see any contradiction between what we’re trying to do and European Islam,” said Tamer Abou El Saod, the executive director of the Islamic and Cultural Center of Belgium, which oversees the mosque. Abou El Saod, a polyglot Swedish businessman, swooped in to run the center at the end of May after his predecessor upset the parliamentary commission with halting testimony at a hearing. Several lawmakers publicly questioned what he was covering up. That former director was a replacement in 2012 for a director who was quietly asked to leave Belgium after authorities said he advocated radical ideology. “We can admit that we had some internal management issues,” said Abou El Saod, who described himself as someone who was sent in to fix problems. “This place has maybe not been communicating enough in Belgium.” “An imam who talks to people here has to be different from one in Oman,” he said in an interview in his office at the mosque, where photographs of Mecca adorn the walls along with blurry likenesses of the old Belgian and Saudi kings. The Saudi lease is unusual but not unique. The Saudi government operates an Islamic school near Washington Dulles International Airport [???], for example, and it helps fund mosques and imams around the world. Belgian counterterrorism officials acknowledge that a move against the crowded mosque will do little to stem radicalization that more often comes over the Internet or on the street, and they say they have no evidence that its imams have advocated violence or lawbreaking. But they also say they were mistaken to adopt a live-and-let-live attitude to the squat, plain concrete mosque tucked in the corner of the central Brussels’s CinquantenairePark, across the street from apartment buildings and the boxy office block that holds the E.U. diplomatic headquarters. On Fridays, worshipers spill from prayers and mix with joggers and suited bureaucrats taking strolls along the park’s manicured paths. In the half-century since the Saudi government took over the site, Belgian authorities say the mosque has espoused the hard-line interpretation of Islam favored in the conservative Gulf monarchy. That has undermined an effort originally intended to help serve Belgium’s then-growing Moroccan and Turkish guest-worker communities. The center is Belgium’s main hub for conversions to Islam, and its religious and Arabic-language schools teach 850 pupils. The Belgian move came at the same time the newly-named Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, announced in Riyadh that he wanted to fight extremist interpretations of Islam. Belgium’s migration agency is also trying [trying???] to expel the mosque’s top imam, an Egyptian cleric who is accused of preaching an ultraconservative vision of Islam to his flock during his 13 years in Belgium. The reassessment came after the March 2016 attacks on the Brussels airport and subway that killed 32. Those attacks were led by Belgians with Moroccan roots. They are not believed to have ties to the mosque, but the violence disturbed Belgian security services and led to a broad rethinking of their strategy. Although the Saudi government is the leading funder of the World Muslim Leader, which operates the mosque, the group is independent and more than 50 other Muslim nations also contribute to its operations. The league’s top leader, Secretary General Muhammad Al-Issa, was Saudi justice minister until last year. The mosque’s longtime imam, Abdelhadi Sewif, said that he is mystified that the Belgian state is attempting to expel him and his family by refusing to renew their residence permits. He is appealing the decision, and joked that his trim beard was too short and his floor-scraping robe too long to satisfy radicals. In an interview, Sewif said that he had always advocated a moderate form of Islam, and that he never called Muslims to cut themselves off from mainstream society, as Belgian authorities have accused him of doing. He said he was searching his past words for what had made him a target. Authorities have not let him see the evidence against him. “When I tell Muslims that Muslims love their Muslim brothers and have to help each other, does this then mean you should hate the rest?” he said. “I have always fought violence and spoken up against it. . . . I have always preached about forgiveness in Islam and in behavior.” But despite the mosque’s protests, the Belgian government appears ready to break the lease and boot out its imams. Sewif “is a dangerous man to the national security of our country,” Theo Francken, the Belgian state secretary for asylum and migration and an anti-immigration hard-liner, told the RTBF broadcaster. Lawmakers said that they were taken aback by the testimony of the then-director and one of Sewif’s imam colleagues earlier this year. “The hearing was astonishing,” said Gilles Vanden Burre, a member of the parliamentary commission. “It was not an open and progressive and tolerant Islam.” Inside Parliament, the two mosque officials outlined a vision of starkly regressive gender roles and a prickly attitude toward mainstream Belgian society, Vanden Burre said. “It’s not objectively proved that they have a link with jihad or radicalization. But all those processes to show their goodwill to integrate, they never did,” he said. Segregation leads to alienation, Belgian security officials said. And that can make people more receptive to jihadist messages. Officials said there was no recent shift at the mosque that set off alarm bells to cause the new approach. Instead, several said, it was Belgium that had changed. Policymakers have hardened their attitudes in a challenging era of terrorism. “Many of the guys say they are not violent, but then they actually do preach hatred,” said a security official who is familiar with the investigation and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal intelligence matters. “The issue that we have in Belgium is that people are teaching an Islam that is incompatible with Belgium or Europe.”

Here’s an idea, Republicans: Repeal and replace the tax code George Will, The Washington Post / November 10, 2017 The Republicans’ tax bill would somewhat improve the existing revenue system that once caused Mitch Daniels (former head of the Office of Management and Budget, former Indiana governor) to say: Wouldn’t it be nice to have a tax code that looked as though it had been designed on purpose? Today’s bill, which is 429 pages and is apt to grow, is an implausible instrument of simplification. And it would worsen the tax code’s already substantial contribution to “moral hazard.” Economists use that phrase to denote circumstances in which incentives are for perverse behavior. Today’s tax code is such a circumstance, and the Republican bill would exacerbate this by expanding the $1,000 child credit to $1,600 with an additional $300 “family credit” for each parent and non-child dependent, and by doubling the standard deduction to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for married couples. These measures would increase the number of persons not paying income taxes and would further decrease the percentage of income tax revenues paid by low-income earners. Already 62 percent of American households pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. The bottom 50 percent of earners supply less than 3 percent of income-tax revenues. Forty-five percent of American households pay no income tax, either because they earn too little or because they qualify for enough exemptions and credits to erase their liability. Sixty percent pay nothing or less than 5 percent of their income. Forty percent of earners are net recipients from the income tax because they qualify for refundable tax credits. All this means that an already large — and, if the Republican bill passes, soon to be larger — American majority has a vanishingly small incentive to restrain the growth of a government that they are not paying for through its largest revenue source. These facts might be the results of defensible tax and social policies. They should, however, be discomfiting to those remaining conservatives — they are on the endangered species list — who dispute Dick Cheney’s notion that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” Deficits matter for their political as well as — actually, even more than — their economic effects: Deficits make big government cheap, enabling the political class to charge taxpayers rather less than $1 for every $1 of government benefits dispensed. When the Bush-Cheney administration managed the last large tax cut, the publicly held national debt was 33 percent of gross domestic product. Today it is 75 percent. Today’s Republican bill, drafted in the aftermath of the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare, is supposed to demonstrate to the party’s Trumpian base that congressional majorities matter and must be extended. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, has said (to USA Today): “If we had a whole bunch of wins on major items up to this point, would we perhaps be a little bit more deliberate in our negotiations? I think the answer is yes.” But the facts about participation in the income tax mean that the bill is unlikely to assuage the injured feelings of core Trump supporters, understood as downscale white working-class voters who supposedly are seething because they are not benefiting enough from burdensome government. They might have valid grievances, but not ones that can be addressed by income-tax rate reductions for individuals. Payroll tax reductions would be another matter. And all individual earners will benefit to some extent from cutting the corporate rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. The incidence of corporate taxation — who actually pays it — is fiercely debated by economists, a remarkably cocksure cohort with strikingly divergent views about the degree to which corporate taxation depresses the wages of the corporations’ workers, curtails shareholders’ dividends and is passed on to consumers in the costs of corporations’ products. Suffice it to say that corporations do not pay taxes; they collect taxes. Uncertainty about the incidence of corporate taxation is one reason the Republican bill’s corporate tax rate is 20 points too high. This year’s best tax bill, which Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has introduced six times since 2006, is four pages long and contains fewer words (411) than the new Republican bill has pages. It could be titled “The ‘What You Wished For, Mitch Daniels’ Act.” It is titled, with almost unprecedented accuracy, the “Tax Code Termination Act.” It would nullify the existing 4 million-word code as of Dec. 31, 2021, and require that by July 4 of that year it must be replaced by a new one, which would necessarily be one designed on purpose.

The VM Motori diesel is superb. But, as was VW, always financially strapped FCA was using the lowest cost means possible to (allegedly) have it meet emissions standards.

Is that not the truck that Cashtown, Pennsylvania-based John Chalmers often drove to the shows to sell his antique truck parts?

Senate Plan Could Increase Taxes on Some Middle-Class Workers The New York Times / November 10, 2017 WASHINGTON — Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, acknowledged on Friday that the Republican tax plan might result in a tax hike for some working Americans, saying he “misspoke” days earlier when he said that “nobody in the middle class is going to get a tax increase” under the Senate bill. “I misspoke on that,” Mr. McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said in an interview on Friday with The New York Times. “You can’t guarantee that absolutely no one sees a tax increase, but what we are doing is targeting levels of income and looking at the average in those levels and the average will be tax relief for the average taxpayer in each of those segments.” The Senate bill unveiled on Thursday would raise taxes on millions of middle-class families, according to a preliminary New York Times analysis. The plan would also disproportionately benefit high earners and corporations. Still, middle-class earners would fare better under the Senate proposal than its counterpart in the House, the analysis found. The Senate Finance Committee bill would, on average, cut taxes for people at every income level. But, as Mr. McConnell alluded to in his revised remarks, those benefits would vary widely within income brackets, depending on the specific circumstances of individuals and households, and many would pay more than under existing rules. Republican lawmakers have been in a dash to devise — and pass — a tax overhaul that would mark their most significant achievement since taking control of Congress. President Trump and Republican leaders have outlined two main objectives for the rewrite: cutting taxes for American businesses and for the middle class. The legislation reduces tax rates on individuals and businesses, while eliminating some tax breaks to make up for lost revenues. It is meant to accelerate economic growth and increase wages for workers. Both the House and Senate bills would cut the corporate tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent and provide business tax benefits, such as the ability to immediately expense purchases of equipment. The Times analysis, using the open-source software TaxBrain, found that roughly one-quarter of families in the middle class would see their taxes increase in 2018, by about $1,000 on average. By 2026, the share seeing an increase would rise slightly, to about one-third, and the average increase would rise to about $1,600. For the majority of middle-class families that receive a tax cut, the average savings would be about $1,300 in 2018 and $1,700 in 2026. Who Will See Tax Cuts From Senate Plan? Under the Senate bill, four out of five high earners would receive tax cuts in 2018. Note: Includes all households, not adjusted for household size. The Times analysis defines the middle class broadly as those earning between two-thirds and twice the median household income, or about $50,000 to $160,000 per year for a family of three. To focus on families, the analysis excluded individual filers and households headed by people 65 or older and is adjusted for the size of each household. Under the House bill, The Times has found, about half of middle-class families would pay more in taxes in 2026. The analysis did not seek to calculate how workers might benefit from a steep cut in the corporate tax rate, which both the Senate and House bills would reduce to 20 percent from a top rate of 35 percent today, or project how the bills might increase economic growth and, with it, Americans’ wages. On Friday, the independent Tax Foundation released an analysis of the plan’s growth effects. It projected that the Senate bill would increase gross domestic product by 3.7 percent over the next decade and raise wages by 2.9 percent across the economy. For taxpayers earning more than $1 million a year, the Senate bill offers a more limited upside and downside than the House bill. The Senate bill is less likely than the House bill to yield tax increases for high-income Americans, in part because it cuts the top marginal personal tax rate, while the House bill creates a so-called “bubble rate” that would actually raise taxes on many high-salaried workers. The Senate measure would also produce a smaller average tax windfall for high earners than the House version, in part by offering less generous benefits for owners of businesses known as pass-throughs, which are not organized as corporations. Under the Senate plan, “Americans are especially likely to face a tax increase if they have a smaller family, have mostly wage income instead of investment income, or claim some of the many deductions that the bill repeals, like those for state and local taxes and employee business expenses,” said Lily Batchelder, a professor and tax specialist at New York University Law School, who worked on economic policy in the Obama administration. “They are increasing taxes on many in the middle class, while concentrating their tax cuts on the wealthy.” The Senate bill appears much better for the very wealthy than it is for the somewhat wealthy. About half of families earning between two and three times the median income — or about $160,000 to $240,000 for a family of three — would pay more in 2018 than under existing law. But among the richest families, those earning more than about $500,000 for a family of three, nearly 90 percent would get a tax cut. The findings come with an important caveat: The Senate bill, as written, appears unable to muster the 60 votes needed to avoid a Democratic filibuster, meaning Republicans will need to amend it to comply with the budget reconciliation rules and allow permit passage by a simple majority. Those changes could likely include putting expiration dates on some of the bill’s major provisions, which could make the final version of the bill look less favorable to the middle class, particularly in later years. The Times’s figures are based on an analysis of Census Bureau data using a tax model from the OpenSourcePolicyCenter, a Washington research organization affiliated with the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. Because the analysis is based on publicly available data, not actual tax records, it may not capture all the intricacies of Americans’ household finances. The Senate bill differs sharply from the House version in its approach to cutting taxes on businesses. But when it comes to taxes on individuals and families, the bills are more similar than different. Both would double the standard deduction while eliminating a raft of deductions and credits. Both would make the child tax credit more generous. Both would restructure federal income tax brackets to impose lower marginal tax rates at most income levels, although the Senate approach, unlike the House version, doesn’t eliminate two brackets entirely. The Senate bill includes features that would make its plan more favorable to the middle class. It preserves some popular tax deductions and credits that the House bill initially would have eliminated, and it makes the child tax credit somewhat more generous and widely available. On the other hand, the Senate bill, unlike the House version, would eliminate the deduction for property taxes, which could lead to higher federal taxes for homeowners in areas with high property tax rates or expensive housing markets. Aparna Mathur, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, said senators could improve the bill with further changes, such as expanding the earned-income tax credit and extending the benefits of the child tax credit to more low-income taxpayers. “We clearly need to do more to help the lowest-income families,” she said. “At the same time, we can engage in more base broadening for the highest-income households, perhaps by eliminating and not just capping the mortgage-interest deduction.” The Times analysis found that roughly one-fifth of the Senate bill’s cuts in 2018 would go to families and individuals earning $1 million or more, and close to half would go to people earning at least $200,000. Between 10 million and 15 million taxpayers earning less than $100,000 a year would pay more than under existing law. Families earning more than $1 million a year would see their after-tax income rise by about 1.7 percent in 2018 compared with what they would make under current law, nearly triple the gains enjoyed by those earning less than $200,000. Over all, the Senate bill would cut individual income taxes by about $30 billion in 2018, and by $900 billion over the next decade, according to Congress’s nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. And most people in all income groups would see a tax cut, although the cuts would be modest for most lower earners.

Fitzgerald Glider Kits Press Release / November 9, 2017 . .

U.S. proposes to reverse Obama rules on heavy duty vehicle 'gliders' Reuters / November 9, 2017 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday proposed to undo pollution rules on remanufactured heavy duty vehicles known as "gliders," which environmentalists say generate as much as 40 times the pollution of modern engines. The vehicles have a used engine in a new frame and rules introduced under former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, said new trucks on the road must use more efficient, less polluting engines. The EPA has previously said that if gliders were allowed through 2025, they would make up 5 percent of the freight trucks on the road but would account for one third of all nitrogen oxides and particulate matter emissions from the heavy truck fleet. The EPA under President Donald Trump, a Republican, said it was proposing gliders should not be regulated as "new motor vehicles" or "new motor vehicle engines" under the Clean Air Act. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement that the regulation "threatened to put an entire industry of specialized truck manufacturers out of business." Sierra Club's Andrew Linhardt said the move to rollback the rules is "a blatant attempt by the Trump administration to rig the system for the glider industry at the expense of American families and jobs." Glider companies told the EPA in July that remanufactured glider trucks are 25 percent cheaper than new vehicles and left unchanged the regulation couple prompt hundreds of layoffs. They urged Pruitt to reverse the regulations imposed under President Barack Obama. Volvo Group North America, Cummins Inc and Navistar International Corp in September opposed Pruitt's move and said the Obama rule should remain in place. Glider kits "should not be used for circumventing purchase of currently certified powertrains." The move could inflict "uncertainty and damage to our industry," they added. Environmentalists said sales of gliders have risen tenfold from the 1,000 sold annually in 2007. EPA estimates that about 10,000 gliders are manufactured annually, comprising less than five percent of heavy duty trucks. American Trucking Associations' environmental counsel Glen Kedzie said the EPA's "position supporting the continued growth of the glider kit industry that produces the highest emitting equipment on our nation's highways is perplexing." In August 2016, the Obama administration issued final rules to cut greenhouse gas emissions from medium and heavy duty trucks through 2027, a sector that accounts for 20 percent of carbon pollution from vehicles. The commercial vehicle rules would cut 1.1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration estimated. Fuel costs would be cut by about $170 billion, surpassing the $25 billion projected costs for new technology, it said.

International 7000-MV Brochure (PDF) - https://www.navistardefense.com/staticfiles/navistardefense/vehicles/7000-mv/7000_mv/7000-MV.pdf International 7000-MV 2-door extended cab "walk around" - http://www.primeportal.net/trucks/daryl_nightingale/navistar_truck/ No surprise the tandem rear axle has a Hendrickson suspension. The U.S. military has always spec'd their tandem axle Internationals with Hendrickson suspensions going back the 2-1/2 ton model M-5-6 6x6 of World War 2. (Most of International's WW2 military truck production went to the U.S. Navy and Marines)

EPA moves to exempt gliders from GHG rule Neil Abt, Fleet Owner / November 10, 2017 ATA's Kedzie calls decision 'perplexing' and warns of legal challenges. Citing “the regulatory overreach” of the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a proposal to exempt gliders kits from the Phase 2 greenhouse gas rule for heavy- and medium-duty trucks. The announcement drew criticism from Glen Kedzie, energy and environmental affairs counsel for American Trucking Associations (ATA). He spoke to Fleet Owner as he was still reviewing EPA’s 20-page proposal, but suggested legal challenges seemed inevitable and the decision could open the door for states such as California to take regulatory action. “The agency’s position supporting the continued growth of the glider kit industry that produces the highest emitting equipment on our nation’s highways is perplexing,” he said. EPA said that gliders should not be regulated as “new motor vehicles” or “new motor vehicle engines” under the Clean Air Act. “Gliders not only provide a more affordable option for smaller owners and operators, but also serve as a key economic driver to numerous rural communities.” said Scott Pruitt, EPA’s administrator. The Phase 2 rule, issued by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2016, called for rebuilt engines installed in gliders to satisfy emission standards in the year they were assembled applicable to new engines. Though there was not an immediate challenge at the time the rule was issued, earlier this year Fitzgerald Glider Kits appealed to Pruitt, saying it would effectively put it and similar firms out of business. ATA's Kedzie noted the trucking industry spent three years meeting with the government officials, environmental groups, and other stakeholders to develop a multi-phased rule that created certainty through 2027. He said ATA supports the rule as originally issued and said EPA’s decision could invite California “to step into this space.” Kedzie also worried about other negative ramifications in the coming years. “This is just a moment in time. Nothing stays constant in Washington – that goes for the management of EPA,” Kedzie said. Likewise, changes in the make-up of Congress and the White House could lead to “a big push to make up for a lost opportunity as a result of this administration.” He added the fleets paying higher prices for new, cleaner equipment are being undercut by those turning to gliders. EPA estimates that about 10,000 gliders are manufactured annually and make up about 5% of the entire Class 8 truck market. However, the agency previously said gliders could account about one-third of all nitrogen oxides and particulate matter emissions from the sector. Drew Kodjak, executive director of the International Council on Clean Transportation, said glider kits are “enticing” to a segment of the trucking industry because they are 25% cheaper to buy versus new truck. He spoke at a Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE) press event in Washington, D.C. “Not having a DPF [diesel particulate filter], SCR [selective catalytic reduction] system and urea [diesel exhaust fluid or DEF] tank can save $10,000 in cost,” he explained. Kodjak added gliders can “poke a huge hole” in the fuel saving expectations of the GHG rule. The agency will hold a public hearing on Dec. 4. Public comments will be accepted until Jan. 5. .

EPA Issues Proposed Rule to Repeal Regulation of Glider Kits Transport Topics / November 9, 2017 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Nov. 9 issued a proposed rule to repeal the Obama administration’s Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emission and Fuel Efficiency Standards for the glider industry. The agency has requested comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking through Jan. 5. EPA said that under its proposed interpretation of the Clean Air Act, it lacks the authority to regulate glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits. “The previous administration attempted to bend the rule of law and expand the reach of the federal government in a way that threatened to put an entire industry of specialized truck manufacturers out of business,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement. “Accordingly, the agency is taking comment on an interpretation of the Clean Air Act that recognizes the unique nature of a vehicle made up of both new and used component parts. Gliders not only provide a more affordable option for smaller owners and operators, but also serve as a key economic driver to numerous rural communities.” The Obama administration maintained that even though gliders are not complete vehicles by themselves, they are highly significant components of tractor-trailer combinations and therefore they can be regulated under the terms of the Clean Air Act. But President Trump’s EPA has said gliders are a specially manufactured type of heavy duty highway vehicle assembled from newly manufactured kits that include the vehicle’s frame and cab, to which a used engine, transmission and axles are added. EPA estimates that about 10,000 gliders are manufactured annually, but comprising less than 5% of the Class 8 heavy-duty highway truck market. Due to the unique way that gliders are manufactured, the agency said it is proposing that gliders should not be regulated as “new motor vehicles” or “new motor vehicle engines.” “This action does not affect nor propose to affect EPA’s authority to address heavy-duty engine rebuilding practices under the Clean Air Act,” the EPA said. The new NPRM says that according to comments submitted to EPA during the Phase 2 rulemaking, gliders are approximately 25% less expensive than new trucks, which makes them popular with small businesses and owner-operators. “In contrast to an older vehicle, a glider requires less maintenance and yields less downtime,” the proposed rule said. “A glider has the same braking, lane drift devices, dynamic cruise control, and blind spot detection devices that are found on current model year heavy-duty trucks, making it a safer vehicle to operate, compared to the older truck that it is replacing.” The Natural Resources Defense Council, an international nonprofit environmental organization, takes issue with the new proposal. “Reopening this loophole is an unconscionable move that could cause the premature deaths of 1,600 Americans from just one year of dirty truck sales,” said Luke Tonachel, director of NRDC’s Clean Vehicles and Fuels Project. “Instead of letting these dirty trucks keep spewing up to 40 times more pollution than modern big rigs, the EPA should protect the air we all breathe from this dangerous threat.” .

Ford pilots Ekso exoskeleton technology to help lessen chance of worker fatigue, injury Green Car Congress / November 10, 2017 Ford is working with California-based Ekso Bionics to test the use of exoskeleton technology for Ford assembly workers. Some Ford assembly line workers lift their arms during overhead work tasks some 4,600 times per day, or about 1 million times per year. At this rate, the possibility of fatigue or injury on the body increases significantly. The new upper body exoskeletal tool is designed to help to lessen the chance of injury under these conditions. Called EksoVest, the wearable, non-powered technology elevates and supports a worker’s arms while performing overhead tasks. It can be fitted to support workers ranging from 5 feet tall to 6 feet 4 inches tall, and provides adjustable lift assistance of five pounds to 15 pounds per arm when its springs are activated. It’s comfortable to wear because it’s lightweight, it isn’t bulky, and it allows workers to move their arms freely. As a result, the worker will get a noticeable level of support for overhead tasks that require either no tools at all or tasks requiring tools that weigh up to approximately 8 pounds. Primary tools used with the vest vary by application, including applications that use no tools at all—just manipulating parts with hands overhead. The vest is optimized to support the weight of the worker’s arms so that any overhead work puts less of a strain on the worker’s shoulders and arms. Designed and built for dynamic, real-world environments such as factories, construction sites and distribution centers, the non-powered vest offers protection and support against fatigue and injury by reducing the stress and strain of high-frequency, long-duration activities that can take a toll on the body over time. With support from the United Automobile Workers and Ford, EksoVest is being piloted in two US plants, with plans to test in other regions, including Europe and South America. EksoVest is the latest example of advanced technology Ford is using to reduce the physical toll on employees during the vehicle assembly process. Between 2005 and 2016, the most recent full year of data, the company saw an 83% decrease in the number of incidents that resulted in days away, work restrictions or job transfers—to an all-time low of 1.55 incidents per 100 full-time North American employees. To date, Ford ergonomists have worked on more than 100 new vehicle launches globally using ergonomic technology tools, including most recently the 2018 Ford Mustang, 2018 Ford F-150, and the all-new 2018 Ford Expedition and 2018 Lincoln Navigator. Through significant investments in the program, not only has Ford achieved a reduction in employee incident rates, it has seen a 90% decrease in such ergonomic issues as overextended movements, difficult hand clearance and tasks involving hard-to-install parts. .

Nikola Sources Fuel Cell Suppliers Heavy Duty Trucking (HDT) / November 9, 2017 Nikola Motor Company has officially named Bosch and PowerCell AB as the primary suppliers of its fuel cells for the upcoming Nikola Class 8 hydrogen-electric truck. The fuel cell used in the Nikola truck is projected to output more than 300 kilowatts continuously and was designed to handle the lease period of one million miles per truck. Nikola says its fuel cell will be one of the most power dense and advanced fuel cells on the market and is a critical piece of the Nikola drivetrain. Nikola has been a partner with Nikola on the electric powertrain, developing a dual-motor commercial vehicle powertrain based on the company’s eAxel design as well as the fuel cell. “Our relationship with Bosch also gives us access to their experienced engineering team which is one of the largest and most respected in the world,” said Nikola Motor CEO Trevor Milton. “This relationship will be helpful in bringing our products to market as quickly and safely as possible. Design of reliable systems for commercial vehicles takes decades of experience and Bosch brings that to our relationship.” Joining the fuel cell development team is PowerCell AB of Sweden as the primary stack supplier for the fuel cells in the first pre-production testing vehicles. If all goes well during road testing, PowerCell will be integrated into the production lineup, according to Nikola. Nikola plans to announce a secondary stack supplier in 2018 that will act as a backup and overflow for any testing issues or production bottlenecks. The fully operational, pre-production Nikola Two day-cab will begin testing in Fall of 2018. Following its release, the Nikola Two will undergo a rigorous 12-month testing period in extreme climates. This testing period will give the company valuable data in preparation for full production in 2021. The first 5,000 trucks will be built at Fitzgerald Gliders in Tennessee while Nikola builds its own manufacturing facility. The location of the Nikola manufacturing facility will be named in early 2018. .

Public-private partnerships might be legitimate in nature if the public voted for it in a referendum. Since that never occurred, this amounts to taxpayers involuntarily paying the R&D tab on UPS's new revenue-generating trucks. The taxpayer deserves some form of compensation for their investment. There's an old saying, "If you want to play, you have to pay", rather than if UPS wants to make money, the taxpayer has to pay. What UPS charges individuals (non-commercial accounts) at their UPS stores should be a crime.

Heavy Duty Trucking (HDT) / November 9, 2017 UPS and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) plan to use new technology to convert UPS package delivery vehicles from diesel to electric, UPS has announced. UPS and Unique Electric Solutions LLC (UES) will design, build, test, and make the conversions. The project supports Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2030 by replacing diesel vehicles with clean technology. “Public-private partnerships help push innovation forward and transform industries,” said Carlton Rose, UPS president of global fleet maintenance and engineering. “This program will help UPS develop and deploy electric delivery trucks faster and more affordable. Because they are cleaner and quieter, electric vehicles are ideal for dense urban environments like New York City and are a critical part of our strategy for the future.” NYSERDA is providing $500,000 in [U.S. taxpayer] funding to develop and test the conversion system. If successful, the Bronx-based project is expected to bring a production version of the converted truck to the streets of New York City by the spring. In addition to producing a new, cost-effective all-electric conversion kit, the project will deliver a blueprint for converting up to three UPS vehicles a day. This could lead to the conversion of up to 1,500 UPS delivery trucks, which is about 66% of UPS’s NYC fleet, operating in New York City by 2022. The conversions will be based on electric vehicle technology developed by Unique Electric Solutions. The core system features a 225-kilowatt Switched Reluctance Motor (SRM) with a high voltage backbone optimized for the duty cycle of UPS delivery trucks. SRMs are simpler, cheaper and better suited for electric vehicles over conventional induction motors and do not rely on the use of magnets made from imported rare earth metals like permanent magnet motors do, according to UPS. The UES SRM propulsion system provides more miles per battery charge, according to the manufacturer, which reduces charging times and increases energy efficiency up to 20%. UPS operates more than 770 electric or hybrid-electric vehicles in urban settings around the world. They are part of a fleet of more than 8,500 alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles worldwide. .

FCA hopes to win approval for diesel fix by spring Reuters / November 8, 2017 WASHINGTON -- Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV said on Wednesday it hopes to reach an agreement over a fix for vehicles linked to alleged U.S. diesel emissions violations by next spring if not earlier. In May, the Justice Department sued Fiat Chrysler, accusing the company of illegally using software that led to excess emissions in nearly 104,000 diesel vehicles sold in the United States since 2014. It also faces numerous lawsuits from owners of those vehicles. Company lawyer Robert Giuffra said at a court hearing in San Francisco the company expects to win U.S. approval of its proposed fix for the emissions issue by the end of March or early April. Testing is expected to last about three months and start later this month, he said. In July, Fiat Chrysler won approval from federal and California regulators to sell 2017 diesel vehicles after it came under scrutiny for alleged excess emissions in older diesel models. Giuffra has said the company hopes to be able to use updated emissions software in the 2017 vehicles to address concerns over 2014-16 Fiat Chrysler diesel vehicles. A court mediator, Ken Feinberg, on Wednesday met with the company, government and lawyers for owners to talk about the testing plans. Giuffra has said the engine and emissions controls were identical in the older vehicles to those in the 2017 models. Regulators have said that the older Fiat Chrysler diesel vehicles had undisclosed emissions controls that allowed vehicles to emit excess pollution during normal driving. The company has denied wrongdoing, saying there was never an attempt to create software to cheat emissions rules. Fiat Chrysler's emissions case came after Volkswagen AG's diesel emissions scandal prompted increased industry scrutiny. The German automaker pleaded guilty in March to skirting emissions tests for vehicles it sold since 2009. Volkswagen has agreed to spend up to $25 billion to address claims from U.S. owners, environmental regulators, states and dealers, and offered to buy back about 500,000 polluting U.S. vehicles. Regulators are also investigating emissions in Daimler AG Mercedes-Benz diesel vehicles, but have yet to take any action. Daimler AG withdrew a request for approval to sell its 2017 Mercedes-Benz diesel models in the United States in May.

EPA Issues Proposal to Pull Glider Kits from GHG/MPG Rule Heavy Duty Trucking (HDT) / November 9, 2017 Following up on an August promise to review Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Standards Phase 2 rule due to concerns raised by certain manufacturers, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed rule on Nov. 9 that would repeal emission requirements for glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits. As written, the new rule does not limit the kits’ production, but only allows them to be installed for their traditional uses, such as engine salvage. The GHG Phase 2 rule, adopted during the final months of the Obama administration, is slated to go into effect Jan. 1. Now, under the purview of Administrator Scott Pruitt, EPA is moving ahead with its promise to repeal the glider provision found in the 2016 Clean Truck Standards, despite support for the provision from some industry stakeholders. According to The Washington Post, a Sept. 11 letter to Pruitt urged him not to reopen the rule, stating that glider kits “should not be used for circumventing purchase of currently certified powertrains.” The letter was signed by executives from Volvo Group North America, Cummins, and Navistar. The companies noted that they were joining the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, the American Trucking Associations, and the Truck Rental and Leasing Association in supporting the mandate as written. Environmental impact and public health are two of the biggest concerns for groups advocating for full application of the Phase 2 rule. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, used engine gliders can emit almost 40 times more pollution than modern engines and that, if allowed to operate until 2025, glider vehicles would cause as many as 12,800 premature deaths. “The health impacts are even more galling when you consider that this is essentially just a handout to one company, Fitzgerald Glider Kits, which manufactures the largest share of glider vehicles,” Dave Cooke, senior analyst in the Clean Vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement. “Fitzgerald’s CEO met with Administrator Pruitt in May to push him to reverse this rule. It looks like Administrator Pruitt listened, and he’s willing to do one company a huge favor, protecting a polluter at the cost of our health.” Pruitt met with Fitzgerald Glider Kits May 8, according to his schedule. Fitzgerald Glider Kits could not be reached for comment. In the EPA request to repeal, the agency claims that representatives of the glider manufacturing industry wrote a joint petition requesting a review of Phase 2 rule. The petition claimed that EPA is not authorized under the Clean Air Act to regulate glider kits, glider vehicles, and glider engines and that the Phase 2 rule “relied upon unsupported assumptions to arrive at the conclusion that immediate regulation of glider vehicles was warranted.” Petitioners also claimed a reconsideration of the rule was necessary due to Executive Order 13783, an “energy independence” order signed by President Donald Trump in March. When Pruitt announced his intention to revisit the rule in August, he stated in a press release that EPA initiated “a rulemaking process that incorporates the latest technical data and is wholly inconsistent with our authority under the Clean Air Act.” In the latest documents filed to repeal the rule, EPA cites court cases to claim that since there has been a change in administration, the agency must “assess administrative records and evaluate priorities in light of the philosophy of the administration.” EPA now proposes to revisit the rule based on the view that it lacks “authority under CAA to impose requirements on glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits, and therefore proposes to remove the relevant rule provisions.” Aside from the negative environmental impact of reopening the loophole, EDF said the repeal proposal “would unfairly disadvantage freight truck companies complying with current standards.” The advocacy group claimed that glider vehicles have an unfair advantage over trucks that achieve clean air standards. It also said that reopening the rule could danger the clean freight truck investments made by truck fleet and put their employees' jobs at risk. EPA will be holding a public hearing on the proposed rule at 10 a.m. Dec. 4 at 1201 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington D.C. The agency said the hearing will conclude once everyone has had a chance to speak. For those who cannot attend the public hearing, online comments may be submitted here.

EPA’s repeal of Obama-era emissions regs for glider kits advances James Jaillet, Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ) / November 9, 2017 The White House’s Office of Management and Budget has concluded its review of an attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency to repeal Obama-era emissions regulations placed on glider kit trucks, paving the way for publication of the proposed rule. The OMB approved the proposal as “consistent with change,” meaning it issued recommendations to the EPA to alter the rule, but not substantively enough to delay its publication in the Federal Register. The EPA will likely publish the proposed rule in the coming weeks and accept public comments for 60 or 90 days. The OMB cleared the proposal just two and a half weeks after the EPA submitted it, signaling the administration is moving quickly to repeal the regs ahead of their effective date in January. No details about the rule have been made public. According to a summary in the OMB’s regulatory dashboard, it would repeal the emissions standards enacted in 2016 by the EPA that threatened the glider kit industry because of its use of older engines. The tightened emissions regulations placed on glider kit trucks were part of the sweeping Phase 2 emissions standards put in place by the Obama-era EPA. The EPA’s glider kit rule would not affect the other components of the Phase 2 standards, which call for dramatic reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases by tractor-trailers. Those standards will be phased in over 10 years, should the Trump EPA not alter them. The glider kit-specific portions of the Obama-era Phase 2 standards would force glider vehicle manufacturers, such as Fitzgerald Glider Kits, to drastically alter operations to meet the standards. Fitzgerald said last year that the Phase 2 rule would “decimate” the glider kit business, which accounts for about 3 percent of total new truck sales each year. EPA representatives said last year, however, that the roughly 10,000 glider kits sold each year emit about the same amount of greenhouse gases and NOx as 200,000 trucks with engines compliant with 2010 emissions standards. .

Trailer-Body Builders / November 9, 2017 Freightliner’s new Cascadia will now be offered in a 60-inch raised roof sleeper model in both 116- and 126-inch BBC platforms. “Driver experience is a key part of our Real Cost of Ownership proposition, and this is another solution the new Cascadia offers to address a variety of customer needs,” said Mike McHorse, manager, on-highway product marketing, Freightliner Trucks. “With the shorter wheelbase and reduced weight versus a 72-inch sleeper, this truck spec is lighter and more maneuverable, while still giving drivers a comfortable, spacious area to work and rest.” This marks yet another cab configuration announced for the new Cascadia in the past two months. At the North American Commercial Vehicle (NACV) show in September, Freightliner Trucks announced 48-, 60- and 72-inch mid-roof XT sleeper cabs in both 116- and 126-inch BBC platforms. Those models are designed for regional overnight haulers and bulk haul and flat-bed applications. The new 60-inch raised roof sleeper’s interior features a lower bunk with storage underneath, and a choice of either a cargo shelf for additional storage or an upper bunk with a telescoping ladder, providing easy access for team drivers. There is also a longer wardrobe cabinet for hanging clothes, a large microwave cabinet, an optional flat-panel TV bracket and an area for customer-supplied refrigerators or coolers. For maximum fuel efficiency, the new 60-inch raised roof configuration is available with either Aero or AeroX aerodynamic packages. It features the Integrated Detroit Powertrain (IDP) with either a DD13® and DD15® engine, as well as the DT12™ transmission with Intelligent Powertrain Management (IPM4), and Detroit axles with axle lubrication management (ALM). The new configuration is also available with Cummins X15 engines and Eaton® Fuller Advantage® transmissions. Customers can now place orders for delivery of all cab configurations in January. They can also digitally configure the interior and exterior at https://freightliner.com/configurator Since the new Cascadia debuted in September 2016, Freightliner Trucks has received over 30,000 orders, topping the total number of orders for the first three years after the original Cascadia debuted. The new Cascadia has earned praise as Freightliner’s most productive, fuel efficient, and driver-friendly truck. Benefits include: · One-piece windshield designed for improved visibility. It also uses asymmetric glass construction to reduce chipping and cracking, and it is roped-in for ease of installation and increased uptime. · LED-lit interior and exterior lights, making the lighting system more maintenance-friendly. · Ergonomic dashboard with a layout that helps drivers easily access gauges and switches. · Detroit™ Connect Virtual Technician™ and Detroit Assurance® 4.0 suite of safety systems that seamlessly integrate into the new Cascadia, providing enhanced fleet management while increasing uptime. For more information visit www.freightliner.com or, to select from 12 different day cab and sleeper cab options, visit www.freightliner.com/configurator. .

Americans want everything (latest trendy models, technology, ect.), but they also want a low price. Then complicate that with excessive, convoluted safety standards that add to the cost. The final outcome is Americans get cheapened cars. Compare any brand and model car sold in the U.S., European and Chinese markets. The U.S. version looks like a "stripper" rental car, compared to its global market equivalent.

Dueling Republican tax plans advance in Congress Reuters / November 9, 2017 U.S. Senate Republicans unveiled a tax plan on Thursday that differed from the House of Representatives' version on several key fronts, including how they treat the corporate tax rate, the tax deduction for state and local taxes, and the estate tax. Complicating a Republican push for the biggest overhaul of U.S. tax law since the 1980s, senators said that, like the House, they wanted to slash the corporate tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent, but in 2019, not right away. The House was set to vote on its measure next week after its tax-writing Ways and Means Committee approved the legislation on Thursday along party lines, with Democrats united in opposition. The Senate's timetable was less clear, with a formal bill yet to be drafted in that chamber, where Republicans have a much smaller majority and a narrower path to winning approval for any legislation, let alone one as contentious as a tax package. Republicans reiterated their goal of enacting final legislation by the end of the year. Stocks, which have rallied this year on hopes for business tax cuts, declined as details of the two plans emerged. Investors worried about divergence between the House and Senate and the Senate's proposed corporate tax rate cut delay. In a broad sense, the House and Senate plans matched up in calling for deep tax cuts for high-earners and businesses and for a dramatic reshaping of how the United States taxes multinational corporations, big winners if the plans become law. Democrats, largely ignored in the closed-door drafting of both bills, have condemned them as giveaways to the rich and businesses that will do little for ordinary Americans. White House economic adviser Gary Cohn handed them ammunition, saying: "The most excited group out there are big CEOs, about our tax plan." The White House issued statements that praised the Ways and Means Committee and the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee and expressed confidence that further progress would be made. Election Wake-Up Victories by Democrats in state and local elections in Virginia, New Jersey and elsewhere on Tuesday increased the urgency for Republicans, who control both the White House and Congress, to make good on their campaign promises on taxes. "We're going to get this over the finish line," House Speaker Paul Ryan said, adding the House would not just approve whatever the Senate passes and that a House-Senate conference committee would be needed to reconcile differences. One big disagreement between the two chambers concerns a deduction now available to Americans for state and local taxes (SALT), a keen concern for taxpayers in high-tax, typically Democratic-leaning states such as California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts. The Senate plan would entirely repeal the SALT deduction. The House bill would repeal it only for state and local income and sales tax, but preserve it for property tax up to $10,000. Estate Tax Another point of friction is the estate tax on inheritances. The Senate would leave it on the books, but increase exemptions so fewer people pay. The House would increase exemptions, but repeal the tax over a six-year period. The Senate calls for keeping the existing seven tax brackets and cutting the top tax rate for the highest-earning taxpayers to 38.5 percent from 39.6 percent. The House wants to reduce the number of brackets, but leave the 39.6 percent top rate alone. The Senate would close a loophole that allows private-equity fund managers and other wealthy Wall Street financiers to pay the capital gains tax rate on "carried interest" income, instead of the higher wage rate. The House plan leaves the tax break in place, but further restricts who can claim it. In another divide that will need bridging, both chambers call for slapping a mandatory tax on $2.6 trillion in foreign profits being held offshore by U.S. multi-nationals. The Senate wants that tax to be 12 percent for cash and liquid assets, and 5 percent for non-liquid assets. The House amended its bill on Thursday, going to 14 percent and 7 percent, respectively. A late revision to the House bill exempted vehicle dealers from new limits on interest deductibility on inventories, responding to car dealers' concerns about an earlier draft. Such tweaks to both bills were expected to continue in days ahead as lobbyists descend on Capitol Hill seeking favors. "At every stage, the GOP tax scam grows more generous for multi-national corporations and more destructive toward American workers and middle class families," California's Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, said in a statement. Both bills would add $1.5 trillion over 10 years to the budget deficit and national debt, a problem that not long ago would have drawn Republican criticism. Pelosi said: "It turns out that deficit hawks are extinct in the Republican Party."

. . . . .

. . . . . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lKa8A3dHrs