ATA Says New Rules Rely On Yet Unproven Technology

[kscarbel2]

Today's Trucking / June 22, 2015

Industry reaction to the proposal announced Friday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to improve fuel efficiency and cut carbon pollution for medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks has been swift and more positive than negative in tone.

The plan for the 2021-2027 models years, which also calls for trailers to be subject to fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for the first time, drew support from the American Trucking Associations, but the fleet group said it remains concerned the rule may result in the use of certain technologies on vehicles before they can be fully tested.

“Fuel is an enormous expense for our industry, and carbon emissions carry an enormous cost for our planet,” said ATA President and CEO Bill Graves. “That’s why our industry supported the Obama Administration’s historic first round of greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for medium and large trucks and why we support the aims of this second round of standards.”

Since the first round of efficiency standards were announced in 2011, ATA szid has been working to evaluate their impact on the trucking industry and has been in constant contact with the EPA and NHTSA to make sure the second round of standards can be effectively implemented by the industry.

“ATA has adopted a set of 15 ‘guiding principles’ for Phase II,” said ATA Vice President and Energy and Environmental Counsel Glen Kedzie, “and based on conversations with regulators and a preliminary review this proposal appears to meet 14 of those.

“We believe this rule could result in the deployment of certain technologies that do not fully recognize the diversity of our industry and could prove to be unreliable. This unreliability could slow not only adoption of these technologies, but the environmental benefits they aim to create,” Kedzie said. “To prevent this, truck and engine manufacturers will need adequate time to develop solutions to meet these new standards.”

The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and American Truck Dealers (ATD) expressed a similar concern about the use of untested technologies, as well as increased truck costs.

"By the administration's own estimate, an average of just under US$12,000 to the cost of a new truck through mandates based on potentially untested technologies is a great risk to a still-fragile economy,” the groups said. “Recent history has shown that mandates with underestimated compliance costs result in substantially higher prices for commercial vehicles, and force fleet owners and operators to seek out less-expensive and less fuel-efficient alternatives in the marketplace.

According to NADA and ATD, the costs could even drive small fleets and owner-operators out of business, costing jobs and only further impeding economic growth.

“While supportive of affordable fuel-economy improvements, ATD is closely reviewing the proposal and the many potential impacts it will have on truck dealerships and their customers."

As for driver reaction, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said it is reviewing the more than 1,000 page plan.

“OOIDA still needs to examine the proposal to see if the input from small-business truckers was truly taken to heart. However, based on reviews of initial summaries, we do have concerns that the rule will push truckers to purchase technology that is not fully tested and may lead to costs such as maintenance and downtime that will eclipse the potential savings estimated in the proposal,” said OOIDA Director of Government Affairs Ryan Bowley.

Meantime, the Canadian Trucking Alliance said it wants to ensure that equipment imported into Canada is ready and proven to operate in specific Canadian marketplaces, such as withstanding the country’s extreme weather conditions and operating conditions.

It said staff has been travelling across the country to gather feedback from fleets on their opinions and concerns regarding Phase 2 and how they think governments should treat the Canadian version of the regulations.

[41chevy]

No surprises there! Like the non existent bio additive for gas the refiners get fined for not using and just had the make believe additives amount increased by 20%.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/business/energy-environment/companies-face-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html?_r=0