EPA to rescind glider kit emissions regs enacted last year

[kscarbel2]

Opponents decry EPA’s glider kit proposal during public hearing

Cristina Commendatore, Fleet Owner  /  December 5, 2017

ATA and others throughout industry say a proposal to exempt heavy-duty gliders from GHG rules would undermine industry investments made and harm public health.

Opponents of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to exempt heavy-duty gliders from the Phase 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) rule argued the move would undercut significant investments manufacturers have already made in order to comply with the GHG emissions standards.

During the earlier part of a daylong public hearing on Dec. 4, Pat Quinn, executive director of the Heavy-duty Leadership Group, whose members include Cummins, PepsiCo, FedEx, Eaton, Wabash National and Waste Management, said “making modifications to the glider kit provision would undermine investments made in the industry, encourage the use of older, less efficient technologies, and increase smog-forming pollution that harms public health.”

The group worked closely with EPA in the development of the Phase 2 rule, which was finalized during the Obama administration.

However, earlier this year, EPA said that gliders should not be regulated as “new motor vehicles” or “new motor vehicle engines” under the Clean Air Act. In November, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt signed legislation to repeal emissions standards for glider kits. He said they provide a more affordable option for smaller owners and operators.

During the hearing, Glen Kedzie, vice president of American Trucking Assns.’ (ATA) energy and environmental affairs council, stated ATA members strongly oppose EPA changing the course of the agency’s glider provisions.

“U.S. member fleets have worked tirelessly to be both sustainable and environmentally sensitive in their operations,” Kedzie explained.

According to ATA, the proposed repeal would circumvent today’s emissions standards for diesel particulate matter (PM), NOx and greenhouse gases.

“It’s well-known that gliders are purchased to save money, avoid maintenance costs and late penalties, and skirt federal excise tax payments,” Kedzie said, adding that ATA member fleets have paid $31,000 more on average per new truck since 2004 to comply with new emissions rules.

“While the best-run trucking companies in the nation are heavily investing and cleaning up the environment and improving the overall profile of the industry, the glider vehicle industry openly promotes their sale of ‘pre-emission’ engines and uses the cost savings differential between clean diesel technologies and high-emitting old trucks as a promotional sales pitch,” he stressed.

Steven Cliff, deputy executive officer of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), called the proposal illegal, adding it would have a “profoundly harmful impact on public health.”

“The repeal would effectively place thousands of outdated, heavy-duty engines that do not meet modern emissions standards that have been in effect in the last decade on our highways,” he said. “In short, a repeal puts our most disadvantaged communities at risk by walking away from the commitment to reduce their exposure to smog forming and toxic pollutants that impact public health, leading to additional hospitalizations, asthma cases, lost work and school days, and premature deaths.”

Modern trucks that meet current emissions standards come with diesel particulate filters to capture toxic diesel particulate matter and selective catalytic reduction systems to NOx emissions. Cliff emphasized that reducing diesel PM is important to cut cancer and other health risks.

“Glider builders have been circumventing the requirements for these important emissions controls by using pre-2007 remanufactured engines, misusing a loophole in the provisions to sell thousands of dirty trucks each year with completely uncontrolled emissions,” Cliff pointed out.

Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland remarked that he was “baffled and confounded” as to why the EPA would consider repealing this rule. Raskin noted that after one of the largest manufacturers of gliders, Fitzgerald Glider Kits, located in Tennessee, failed to secure a legislative repeal of the glider kits rule via the annual appropriations process, Fitzgerald’s owners met directly with Pruitt this past May.

According to Raskin, Fitzgerald’s petition included new information on glider vehicle criteria pollutant emissions which purported to show that glider vehicles were less polluting than non-glider vehicles.

Though opponents of the exemption came out in droves – at least during the earlier part of the hearing – glider builder, trucker and owner of Clarke Gliders said he fully supported the proposal.

“Glider engines, glider kits and glider vehicles are used parts that still have adequate life in them,” Clarke explained. “By recycling gliders, we can further the life of the existing parts that are so costly to buy new.”

In his comments, Clarke stressed that the only new parts in a glider kit are the cab and the hood; the remaining parts of the truck are all used parts.

“In no way should a glider be considered a new truck, subject to the new emissions rules set forth in August 2016 because all major components are used and already exist,” he explained.

Clarke referenced a study recently conducted by Tennessee Tech University (TTU) comparing NOx levels in older engines versus new engines. He said the study found that older engines are just as clean – and some even better – than the new ones today, mainly due to cleaner sulfur content.

Cliff, however, in his comments, noted that TTU study is “invalid and lacks scientific credibility.”

In addition, Raskin had this to say about the study: “It is important to note that the study, run by Tennessee Tech University, has been criticized by experts for its poor and shoddy quality and has provoked serious ethical questions about the university’s academic independence and its cozy relationship with Fitzgerald,” he stated, adding that the study was done at Fitzgerald’s request and paid for with grant money from Fitzgerald.

But during his presentation, Clarke also cited a Nov. 15 statement released from Pruitt that encouraged Americans to recycle more. Clarke claimed that according to most recent data from 2007, recycling and reclaimed and reused activities created more than 750,000 jobs and $6.7 billion in tax revenues.

“We really should be thanking our glider builders,” he urged. “We should be encouraging every trucker in this country to use a glider, or should I say a recycled truck. This is exactly what we do in our business. We recycle old trucks, not only do we create hundreds of jobs, we save our trucking industry thousands of dollars.”

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.

Written comments regarding the proposed repeal will be accepted until Jan. 5.

[kscarbel2]

Comments on glider kit proposal reflect economics of environmentalism

Neil Abt, Fleet Owner  /  January 2, 2018

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received more than 24,000 comments in response to its proposal to repeal earlier efforts that would effectively phase out glider kits as part of the Phase 2 greenhouse gas regulation.

Related: EPA moves to exempt gliders from GHG rule

Most of comments posted online thus far are from individuals, and often focus on the economics behind the decision, rather than strictly the potential environmental impact of glider kits. Among truckers, officials with small fleets tend to favor the glider option, while dealerships have generally opposed them.

The Phase 2 rule, issued in 2016 by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, called for rebuilt engines installed in gliders to satisfy emission standards in the year they were assembled in relation to the engine. It also would have capped how many gliders manufacturers could produce in a year. 

EPA has estimated about 10,000 gliders are manufactured annually and make up about 5% of the entire Class 8 truck market. However, gliders could account for about one-third of all nitrogen oxides and particulate matter emissions from the sector, according to the agency.

Citing “the regulatory overreach” of the Obama administration, new EPA administrator Scott Pruitt ruled gliders should not be regulated as “new motor vehicles” or “new motor vehicle engines” under the Clean Air Act, and opened a public comment period that ends Jan. 5.

It is common for a rush of comments to be filed just prior to the deadline, so it is likely the final number received will rise significantly. In late December, the Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) urged members to submit comments in support of the repeal.

“We know [American Trucking Associations] and the corporate interests they represent will be opposing the repeal along with various environmental groups, so we will need all the positive comments we can get as the EPA reviews public input and makes their final decision,” OOIDA wrote.

A number of small fleets already filed detailed comments in favor of allowing gliders.

R. Kyle Fresh, president of WJW Associates in Florida, wrote that glider kits allow the fleet “to maintain our own vehicles, have much greater uptime, and attract new talent to our company.” Newer engines with emissions reduction technology “simply do not work well.”

“Not only do we have too much downtime, but maintenance shops are packed with other companies' equipment having similar issues,” he said.

Lane Parker, president of Trinity Transport Inc. of North Carolina, said that without gliders his small fleet would run older trucks longer because of the cost of new equipment.

“Gliders are much more environmentally friendly than continuing to keep older trucks on the road indefinitely, which is what will ultimately happen,” he wrote.

Similarly, Kyle Moye, assistant operations manager of Moving Office Equipment in Georgia, called gliders “a middle ground for small fleets between extremely expensive new trucks and old worn out used ones.” The company, which runs about 40 trucks, previously purchased older used equipment from larger carriers, “but ended up spending more in maintenance and downtime rentals that it became uneconomically sensible.”

John Kennelly from Skunk River Transport said new trucks are “much more expensive but the freight rates have not increased to match the increased cost of new equipment.” He said gliders are less expensive because they do not require a diesel exhaust fluid and require less maintenance.

Jerry Gray, manager of Gray Logging LLC in Florida, also defended the use of gliders, saying they cost less and “get the best fuel mileage of all the trucks in our fleet and have had the fewest breakdowns which has led to less downtime and maintenance cost.”

These comments are in stark contrast to Patrick Quinn, executive director of the Heavy Duty Fuel Efficiency Leadership Group, which includes Cummins, Eaton, FedEx, PepsiCo, Wabash National, and Waste Management.

Quinn said these companies value regulatory certainty, and changing the rules at this stage undermines investment decisions.

“The policy was designed to allow gliders for legitimate purposes, such as salvaging a relatively new powertrain from a vehicle chassis badly damaged in a crash, while ensuring a level playing field for manufacturers of trucks and engines,” he wrote. “We are concerned that the EPA proposal to repeal the glider kit portion of the Phase 2 Rule could lead to an inconsistent patchwork of federal and state requirements, producing uncertainty for truck and engine manufacturers and fleets.”

A number of truck dealers opposed the proposed change, even those selling glider kits.

“While I stand as a partial owner to win financially from rolling the regulations back I find it exceptionally difficult to reconcile with it when I know clearly what the right thing to do,” wrote Justin Hopkins, part of the ownership group for Truck Centers Inc., which sells Freightliner and Western Star trucks in Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri.

With new trucks now often emitting cleaner air than they are taking in, he asked, “why would we as a governing body decide to allow ourselves to create a secondary market for dirty engines on less efficient trucks after we went through everything already?”

Hopkins also took issue with the suggestion that gliders are significantly cheaper, suggesting that updated IRS guidelines states new gliders are subject to the 12% federal excise tax. 

Chris Bruckner, dealer principal of Brucker Truck Sales, said allowing gliders puts his 26 Mack and Volvo dealerships at an unfair disadvantage in the marketplace. Additionally, he said that existing gliders avoiding the excise tax are skirting money that is needed for the Highway Trust Fund.

“We miss out on the sales of the very vehicles that would be deployed in the construction and repair of highway infrastructure,” said Brucker, adding that “I simply want a level playing field so that we can fairly compete.”

Truck Country of Wisconsin president Doug McCoy focused his comments on the health implications, writing that “properly regulating the glider kit issue will improve the health care of all citizens as we try to address greenhouse gas emissions for future generations.”

In a recent opinion piece published in Fortune magazine, Margo Oge, director of the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality from 1994 to 2012, wrote the agency’s current position on gliders is “really no different from allowing manufacturers to sell cars without seatbelts.” 

[kscarbel2]

Chris Bruckner, dealer principal of Brucker Truck Sales, said allowing gliders puts his 26 Mack and Volvo dealerships at an unfair disadvantage in the marketplace. Additionally, he said that existing gliders avoiding the excise tax are skirting money that is needed for the Highway Trust Fund.

“We miss out on the sales of the very vehicles that would be deployed in the construction and repair of highway infrastructure,” said Brucker, adding that “I simply want a level playing field so that we can fairly compete.”

Chris, when Volvo took over Mack and discontinued the sale of glider kits, you had the freedom to dump the Mack franchise and take on another brand that still offered glider kits, if you felt that lacking glider kit product would impair your distributor's ability to compete in the market place. You made your decision to stay put.....don't complain now. Rather, you should join the Mack distributor council in demanding from Volvo the return of Mack glider kit offerings.

.

[TS7]

 Is there a market for Mack glider kit? Would a 1998 Mack E7 fit in a 2018 GU713 or GU813? How much engineering would this take. What would it cost? Are there a lot of good E7s' out there to reuse? There are a lot of junk trucks with DD engines in them and most of use know built them.  My guess is most 1998 Mack trucks are still running. The real market for a Mack glider would be a MR.

[57 bcr]

Hope they do rescind it. Not to point  fingers,but I see more diesel pickups putting  out more  smoke than most of  the big trucks that actually  contribute to the economy  of this  country. I would  venture to say most tree huggers see the "light" trucks smoking,in their travels. My 02 cents.   Al  

[Maxidyne]

I can see why Daimler needs gliders- Freightliner cabs are often junk long before their Detroit and Cummins engines die. But Mack cabs are usually good for a couple decades or more, same as Mack engines...

[41chevy]

5 hours ago, 57 bcr said:

Hope they do rescind it. Not to point  fingers,but I see more diesel pickups putting  out more  smoke than most of  the big trucks that actually  contribute to the economy  of this  country. I would  venture to say most tree huggers see the "light" trucks smoking,in their travels. My 02 cents.   Al  

Are they the same people who include a full size pick ups or SUVs  in the  the truck crash statistic's?

[57 bcr]

5 hours ago, 41chevy said:

Are they the same people who include a full size pick ups or SUVs  in the  the truck crash statistic's?

It's  just a guess Paul,I think you're  on to something! (AGREED) Al  

[kscarbel2]

Environmental Group, State Attorneys Urge EPA to Keep Glider Kit GHG Rules

Heavy Duty Trucking (HDT)  /  January 8, 2018

Environmental advocates, state attorneys general and others are urging the Environmental Protection Agency to maintain the previous administration’s regulation restricting the use of glider kits under the Greenhouse Gas Phase 2 rules, calling the current efforts to reverse the rule at odds with the Clean Air Act.

Last November, the EPA moved ahead with its promise to repeal the glider provision found in the 2016 GHG rules. The EPA’s proposed repeal contends that glider kits should not be included GHG regulations because glider vehicles are not technically “new motor vehicles” and glider engines are not “new motor vehicle engines," and thus are not subject to the EPA’s authority on environmental regulations.

In a phone conference Monday, the Environmental Defense Fund challenged this reading as intentionally misrepresentative of the CAA, saying it went against the principles upon which the legislation was founded.

“For EPA to propose an interpretation of the Clean Air Act that would exclude these extremely high-polluting trucks from emissions standards is not only an unreasonable reading of the plain text of the CAA, it’s also at odds with and severely undermines the core purpose of the Clean Air Act,” said Alice Henderson, EDF attorney.

EDF representatives also pointed out that industry stakeholders didn't challenge the EPA's authority over glider kits at the time the Phase 2 standards were being written.

In fact, some of those stakeholders late last year signed a letter supporting the original mandate. The letter, signed by executives from Volvo Group North America, Cummins, and Navistar, stated that glider kits should not be used to bypass currently certified powertrains.

In addition, a coalition of 12 attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington filed a comment strongly opposing the glider rule repeal, saying that the group was prepared to take any action to protect the emissions regulation, including legal challenges.

“Repealing the glider rule is bad for our environment, for the health of our families, and for truckers and shippers who play by the rules and operate trucks with cleaner fuel-burning engines,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. “Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to set and enforce motor-vehicle emissions standards. If EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decides to neglect this legal responsibility by doing away with the glider rule, we are prepared to take any and all action to protect the air our children breathe and the vitality and level playing field of the trucking industry, an important sector of our economy.” 

Fitzgerald Glider Kits Petition

In May 2017, Pruitt held a meeting with Fitzgerald Glider Kits, according to a report by the Washington Post, but the details of that meeting were not publicly discussed. Just two months later, Fitzgerald petitioned the EPA for the repeal of the rule, citing the EPA’s lack of authority to do so as its first reason. Fitzgerald also challenged the validity of the EPA’s assessment of the environmental impact that glider kits would have, saying that it was based on unsupported assumptions rather than data. This petition was directly cited in the EPA’s proposed repeal of the glider rule.

The EDF criticized the EPA’s lack of transparency on the meeting with Fitzgerald Glider Kits, saying that the apparent impact of the meeting had "concerning implications" for the Pruitt-led EPA. The group also called attention to a study conducted by Tennessee Technical University – underwritten by Fitzgerald – which appeared to show that glider kits would not have as significant an environmental impact as previously argued by the EPA’s own study, as also reported by the Washington Post. The Tennessee Tech study was included in the EPA’s repeal proposal instead of the agency's own report. 

“EPA itself put in the docket an extensive documentation of a test program that they had conducted at their own research facility and that was not even mentioned or cited in the proposal to roll back the provision,” said Jason Mathers, EDF director for on-road vehicles. “There’s a series of more than suspicious circumstances surrounding this particular action.”

Public Comments

As part of the proposed repeal of the glider rule, the EPA held a public comment period for citizens and industry stakeholders to voice opinions on the rollback. More than 24,000 comments were received by the EPA before the comment period ended Jan. 5.

Daimler Trucks North America (which offers glider kits itself) and Detroit Diesel Corporation filed a comment in opposition to the EPA’s proposal, stating it supports the Phase 2 rules as written.

“EPA’s proposed revisions to the glider rules would undermine the investments that DTNA and Detroit Diesel Corporation — and all other U.S. manufacturers — made in advanced technologies and exhaust aftertreatment, while opening the vehicle and engine markets to manufacturers who find simple options to skirt EPA regulations altogether and market high-emitting engines or vehicles.”

However, some small trucking businesses filed comments supporting easing the rules on gliders.

For instance, Micha Miller of MJ Miller Inc. cited its reliance on glider kits for profitable business. “Being a small company, profit margins are slim. Glider kits give us the ability to do our own maintenance and repairs, which decreases our downtime. We have tried the later model trucks and the results of that ended in a fuel mileage that did not even compare to the glider kit's fuel mileage. We get an average of over a mile to the gallon better fuel mileage on the gliders. The glider kits also give us an advantage of availability of parts, due to our local part stores having the majority of older engine parts in stock. The loss of the glider kit truck would devastate our business and the way we operate.”

All public comments on the rule are archived and searchable on Regulation.gov.

[kscarbel2]

Lawmakers urge OMB to finalize repeal of emissions standards for gliders

Land Line (OOIDA)  /  May 31, 2018

A group of 24 lawmakers – 21 members of the House and three senators – are urging the director of the Office of Management and Budget to move forward quickly with the Environmental Protection Agency’s final rule to repeal emissions standards on glider kits.

The lawmakers – including Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.; Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn.; Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa; Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas; and 20 others – sent a letter last week to OMB Director Mick Mulvaney.

“We are writing to you regarding the rule titled ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles Phase 2’ that apples to glider vehicles, glider engines and glider kits,” the letter stated. “As members of Congress who represent manufacturers and/or users of glider kits, we urge the Office of Management and Budget to waive the regulatory impact analysis on this rule.”

In November, the EPA proposed a rule to repeal emissions requirements for glider vehicles, glider engines and glider kits. The EPA said the proposal was based on an interpretation of the Clean Air Act under which “glider kits would not be treated as incomplete new motor vehicles.” Under the proposed interpretation, EPA would lack the authority to regulate the gliders.

Simply put, the EPA said that gliders aren’t new trucks and that they shouldn’t be regulated like new trucks.

According to a 2018 spring regulatory report released earlier this month, the rule could be finalized as soon as May.

However, the month is set to close with no final rule in place. The lawmakers said the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs informed EPA that it needs a regulatory impact analysis before the final rule can take effect.

“It is our understanding the EPA does not need to conduct an RIA for deregulatory issues and taking such a step would delay this deregulatory action unnecessarily,” the letter stated.

“(Gliders) are an affordable option for many small businesses. According to Fitzgerald Glider Kits, eliminating this choice may adversely impact the U.S. economy by $1 billion and jeopardize 22,000 jobs. Again, we urge the OMB to waive the RIA and support the EPA’s final rule concerning glider vehicles, engines and kits with an immediate effective date.”

The rule has received opposition from environmentalist groups.

To see the entire letter and all of the lawmakers who signed it, go here.