EPA asked to probe contact between its staff and Volvo on glider emissions study

[kscarbel2]

James Jaillet, Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ)  /  June 27, 2018

Lawmakers from the U.S. House have sent letters to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requesting that the agency’s Inspector General investigate potential improper contacts between EPA staffers and Volvo Trucks regarding research into glider kit truck emissions.

The letters are the latest development in the ongoing debate over whether the EPA should strip Obama-era emissions regulations placed on glider kit trucks, which opponents argued threatened to kill the glider kit industry.

In one letter, Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-Montana) says that EPA career employees were in email communication with Volvo employees to arrange a study to test the emissions of glider kits “without the knowledge or approval of EPA leadership.” Volvo supplied glider kits to EPA staffers for the test, which Gianforte argues makes the study’s conclusions questionable, given Volvo’s active opposition of repealing glider kit emissions regulations. Another letter asking for an investigation was filed by four other House Republicans: Reps. Bill Posey (Florida), James Comer (Kentucky), Steve King (Iowa) and Brian Babin (Texas). The latter four are members of the House’s Oversight Committee.

Volvo says its work to lobby in favor of regulating emissions of glider kit trucks is standard practice and posed no ethical or legal issues. “Like most of the trucking industry, the Volvo Group for several years now has argued that the improper use of glider kits is bad for the environment and unfair to manufacturers who have invested in the latest environmental controls.  All our communication and cooperation with the EPA on this issue has been an entirely appropriate part of a broad trucking industry advocacy effort – we did nothing improper,” Volvo said in a statement to CCJ.

In addition to Volvo (which owns Mack), Cummins and Daimler also lobbied against the repeal of the glider emissions restrictions. Volvo does not offer truck bodies for use as gliders. Most gliders are Paccar brands — Peterbilt or Kenworth — or Daimler vehicles, Freightliner and Western Star.

The study by EPA found that glider kits produce greater emissions of greenhouse gases and particulate matter than new trucks. It was filed with the EPA in November, two months after the EPA proposed a rule to rescind glider kit regulations. Gianforte’s letter also accuses a former employee of the Engine Manufacturers Association of violating lobbying laws in his or her contact with EPA staffers while the study was being conducted.

The move to repeal glider emissions regs would allow glider kit builders like Fitzgerald Glider Kits and Harrison’s Truck Centers to continue to install older, remanufactured engines and transmissions into new truck bodies and chassis. The glider emissions restrictions were part of the sweeping Phase 2 emissions regulations enacted in 2016. They require truck, engine and trailer manufacturers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 25 percent over the course of a decade and would have held gliders to the same emissions standards as new trucks. The EPA’s proposal to reverse the glider emissions regs would only remove the glider-specific portions of Phase 2.

As it stands, glider makers are left in limbo, given that the emissions regulations took effect in January. Absent a final rule from EPA, glider kit makers would have a yearly cap of 300 units that do not comply with Phase 2 regs.

A competing study on gliders, funded by Fitzgerald Glider Kits and conducted by Tennessee Tech University, has also come under scrutiny. Tennessee Tech said earlier this year it is investigating concerns raised by faculty members about the study and its conclusions. That study concluded that gliders do not produce emissions of greenhouse gases and particulate matter at a rate greater than that of new trucks. Tennessee Tech asked the EPA to ignore the study’s conclusions until its investigation is complete.

[kscarbel2]

"Volvo says its work to lobby in favor of regulating emissions of glider kit trucks is standard practice"

What ???

[41chevy]

56 minutes ago, kscarbel2 said:

"Volvo says its work to lobby in favor of regulating emissions of glider kit trucks is standard practice"

What ???

Sounds like we have an issue with a small market nipping at what Volvo feels should/could be theirs.  

[kscarbel2]

More Allegations Made in Repeal of Proposed Glider Kit Restrictions Under GHG Phase 2

Deborah Lockridge, Heavy Duty Trucking (HDT)  /  July 5, 2018

Several members of Congress have asked the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency to look into allegations that there was improper contact between Volvo Group, the Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association, and the EPA regarding the agency’s regulation of glider kits under its Greenhouse Gas Phase 2 rules.

In October 2016, EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued the final GHG/Fuel Efficiency Phase 2 rule. Among other things, this rule required engines in new “glider” vehicles to meet the emissions standards for the year the vehicle was assembled, rather than the year the engine was manufactured.

A glider vehicle is a truck that uses an older powertrain but has new body parts. The original intent of glider kits was to allow truck owners to repair vehicles that had been in a crash. But in recent years, owner-operators and fleets increasingly used them to avoid not only the higher cost of brand-new trucks, but also the maintenance headaches of engines required to use aftertreatment under newer emissions rules.

In July 2017, after Fitzgerald Glider Kits petitioned the agency to do so, EPA announced it intended to revisit those glider kit provisions. In November, it issued the official proposal.

This proposal to allow a glider kit loophole to the GHG/fuel economy regulations has drawn criticism from environmental groups, truck and engine makers, the American Trucking Associations, some large fleets such as FedEx and PepsiCo, two former EPA administrators, some state attorneys general, and some Democratic senators, among others.

The repeal proposal has yet to become a final rule. It's unclear at this point how the resignation of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt may affect this process, although in general, changes in agency administrators often slow down rulemaking processes.

Just How Polluting Are Glider Kits, Anyway?

One of the key issues in this whole debate appears to be efforts to prove just how polluting (or not) glider kits are.

A Tennessee Technical University study that was funded by Fitzgerald Glider Kits apparently played a key role in the agency’s decision to revisit the rule. That study appeared to show that glider kits would not have as significant an environmental impact as previously argued by the EPA’s own study.

However, the university later disavowed the study pending a review of the validity of the research.

Now, two Congressional letters point to the agency’s own research into glider kits as suspect. They allege that Volvo Group had undue influence with some employees at the agency, provided glider kits for testing, and that the testing was done without the approval or knowledge of agency leadership. That testing found that glider vehicle NOx levels are four to 40 times higher than current powertrains and particulate matter levels are 50 to 450 times higher.

“The EPA would purportedly run the emissions testing according to specifications provided by [Volvo]…. At the very least, the EPA’s testing methods were highly questionable and should not be recognized,” said a letter from Brian Babin (R-TX), James Comer (R-KY), Steve King (R-IA), and Bill Posey (R-FL).

Another letter to the IG came from Greg Gianforte (R-MT), chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and Environment. It raised similar concerns, saying, “collaboration between agency employees and a regulated entity to potentially sway the outcome of NVFEL tests in order to disadvantage a competitor compromises the EPA’s integrity and allows a handful of agency staff and one company the opportunity to manipulate the regulatory process.”

Volvo denies any wrongdoing in the matter.

"Like most of the trucking industry, the Volvo Group for several years now has argued that the improper use of glider kits is bad for the environment and unfair to manufacturers who have invested in the latest environmental controls,” said a Volvo Group spokesman in response to HDT’s request for comment. “All our communication and cooperation with the EPA on this issue has been an entirely appropriate part of a broad trucking industry advocacy effort – we did nothing improper."  

The letters also asked the IG to look into the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association for a potential lobbying violation, because the lobbyist was once a senior employee of the EPA and was instrumental in the drafting of the Phase 2 rule, yet “communicated and influenced the EPA less than 10 months from his departure.”

.

[kscarbel2]

More GOP Congressmen Question Legitimacy of EPA Glider Kit Study

David Cullen, Heavy Duty Trucking (HDT)  /  July 13, 2018

Yet more Republican members of the House of Representatives have fired a broadside at the Volvo Group, as well as at the Engine Manufacturers Association, in the ongoing congressional questioning of the legitimacy of a study on glider kit regulations conducted recently by the Environmental Protection Agency.

On July 12, the Republican leadership of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee sent a letter to EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler requesting information on the study, which was conducted by the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory.

Released in 2017, the study compared emissions from glider trucks to non-refurbished or unmodified or, simply put, conventionally manufactured trucks. In the report, EPA testing found that the NOx levels of glider vehicles are four to 40 times higher than that of current powertrains and that associated particulate matter levels are 50 to 450 times higher.

What the committee’s letter questions in no uncertain terms is whether the study was put together objectively, as would be expected. “Documents obtained by the Committee indicate that representatives from Volvo and the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association engaged in what appears to be a concerted effort with EPA staff at the NVFEL to shape the study’s design to achieve a desired outcome,” the committee alleges in a press release on the letter.

“In one email, the representative from Volvo lays out the ‘ideal’ test program for the NVFEL, listing specifically the test articles to use and the schedule by which the test program should be conducted,” the committee’s letter states. 

“These documents raise serious questions as to the objectivity and legitimacy of the NVFEL study,” the letter continues. “To better assist the Committee in understanding how EPA intends to uphold scientific integrity and how it undertakes decisions to perform scientific studies underlying regulation, we request a briefing for Committee staff by the appropriate EPA officials who are familiar with this matter.”

The committee also requested all documents related to the NVFEL glider study.

The letter was signed by Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Ralph Abraham, MD (R-LA), Oversight Subcommittee Vice Chairman Clay Higgins (R-LA), Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Space Subcommittee Chairman Brian Babin (R-TX), and Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL).

Commenting on the July 12 letter from the Science, Space, and Technology Committee leaders, Volvo Group spokesperson John Mies told HDT that, “Like most of the trucking industry, the Volvo Group for several years now has argued that the improper use of glider kits is bad for the environment and unfair to manufacturers who have invested in the latest environmental controls."

“All our communication and cooperation with the EPA on this issue has been an entirely appropriate part of a broad trucking industry advocacy effort [???] – we did nothing improper,” he added.   

Earlier this month, two other letters were sent to EPA — one sent jointly by four House GOP members and the other by the Republican chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and Environment— alleging that Sweden-based Volvo Group (parent firm of both Volvo Trucks North America and Mack Trucks) had undue influence with some employees at the agency, provided glider kits for the testing, and that the study was done without the approval or knowledge of EPA leadership. The letters also asked EPA to look into a potential lobbying violation by the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association.

The back story to all the back and forth on glider kits is this: In October 2016, EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued the final GHG/Fuel Efficiency Phase 2 rule. Among other things, this rule required engines in new “glider” vehicles to meet the emissions standards for the year the vehicle was assembled, rather than the year the engine was manufactured.

In July 2017, after glider kit-maker Fitzgerald Glider Kits petitioned the agency to do so, EPA announced it intended to revisit the glider kit provisions. In November, it issued its official proposal, which would repeal emission requirements for glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits. The repeal proposal has yet to become a final rule. 

The proposal to allow a glider kit loophole to the GHG/fuel economy regulations has drawn criticism from environmental groups, truck and engine makers, the American Trucking Associations, some large fleets such as FedEx and PepsiCo, two former EPA administrators, some state attorneys general, and some Democratic senators, among others.

The most recent development came on July 9, when EPA said it will not enforce for 2018 and 2019 a 300-unit production cap put in place on the manufacture of glider kits that do not comply with Phase 2 GHG emission rules.

EPA said this action is being taken because it is working to finalize its proposed rule to repeal “certain emission requirements” on glider kits that were imposed under the Phase 2 rules. News of the enforcement loophole was broken by The New York Times one day after the resignation of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on July 5.

[kscarbel2]

House members write EPA asking for ‘documents’ related to 2017 study of glider kit emissions

James Jaillet, Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ)  /  July 17, 2018

Seven members of the U.S. House have asked the Environmental Protection Agency to provide them with “all documents and communication” related to a late 2017 study used to promote regulating emissions of glider kit trucks.

The request appears to be the beginning of a probe by Congress into alleged improper contact between EPA staffers and employees at Volvo Trucks. Volvo, which owns Mack, has lobbied against the repeal of the glider emissions restrictions, as have Cummins and Daimler.

The July 12 letter from the lawmakers is the latest in a saga over whether the EPA should cap the number of trucks glider kit builders can make and sell annually. The glider industry, led by Fitzgerald Glider Kits, says the emissions regulations could severely harm their businesses. The glider kit segment has seen burgeoning sales, especially among smaller fleets and owner-operators, since the 2008 round of tighter emissions regulations for manufacturers of new trucks and engines.

Glider kits, in contrast, were exempt from major emissions regulations enacted in 2008 and 2014, as those rules applied only to new engines. Glider kits are new truck bodies and chassis equipped with older, remanufactured engines and transmissions.

2016’s Phase 2 rule sought to stamp out the growth of the glider kit segment. EPA officials said in 2016 that glider increasingly accounted for a major share of emissions from new truck sales.

The issue is settled short-term, as the EPA said that it will, at least through the end of 2019, not enforce the Obama-era regulations, which capped glider makers at building 300 trucks a year. The EPA also has a rule in the works to more permanently exempt glider builders from the Obama-era Phase 2 emissions regulations. That rule has not yet been made final.

At the same time the agency was working on the proposal to rescind the 2016 glider kit regulations, the EPA also was conducting a study to compare emissions output from glider kit trucks to new vehicles operating under 2014 emissions standards. The study concluded glider kits did produce greater emissions of greenhouse gases and particulate matter. Concerns were later raised about the study and its conclusions, due to alleged contact between EPA staffers and Volvo employees.

Five members of the House in June wrote the EPA asking the agency’s Inspector General to investigate the claims. Two others also signed the July 12 letter asking for the EPA to submit the requested documents and communication.

Signatories of the July 12 letter are Reps. Brian Babin (R-Texas), Gary Palmer (R-Alabama), Andy Biggs (R-Arizona), Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Bill Posey (R-Florida), Clay Higgins (R-Louisiana) and Ralph Abraham (R-Louisiana).

A separate ethical cloud hangs over the matter following a competing study on glider kits, commissioned by Fitzgerald and performed by Tennessee Tech University. That study found that glider kits do not produce greater emissions than new trucks. TTU told EPA to disregard its study while the school investigates questions regarding its efficacy.

Volvo in June told Overdrive that the company did nothing unethical or illegal regarding the EPA study. “Like most of the trucking industry, the Volvo Group for several years now has argued that the improper use of glider kits [???] is bad for the environment and unfair to manufacturers who have invested in the latest environmental controls. All our communication and cooperation with the EPA on this issue has been an entirely appropriate part of a broad trucking industry advocacy effort – we did nothing improper,” Volvo said in a statement.

Volvo and Mack do not offer truck bodies for use as gliders. Most gliders are Paccar brands, Peterbilt and Kenworth, or Daimler brands, Freightliner and Western Star.

[kscarbel2]

EPA to probe alleged improper conduct by EPA staffers on glider kit emissions study

James Jaillet, Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ)  /  September 5, 2018

The Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday it will investigate questions surrounding a 2017 study used to justify regulations that cap annual production of glider kit trucks. The move is a response to a non-binding request from a group of lawmakers in the U.S. House.

The investigation, taken up by EPA’s Office of Inspector General, centers on a November report aimed at derailing a proposed rule intended to repeal Obama-era emissions regulations placed on glider kit trucks. The proposed rule was also published in November 2017, but it has not yet been made final. Those regulations limit glider kit builders, like Fitzgerald Glider Kits, to producing 300 completed gliders a year.

The study found that glider kit trucks produce emissions of nitrous oxide (NOx) and particulate matter at greater levels than that of new trucks equipped with new engines.

However, a lawmaker from the U.S. House’s Oversight Committee in June called the study into question, alleging that EPA staffers had improper contact with representatives from Volvo Trucks during the study and used suspect vehicles to conduct its research.

Volvo has lobbied in favor of regulating gliders, but it denies any improper contact with EPA officials. In a statement to Overdrive in June, Volvo said its “communication and cooperation with the EPA on this issue has been an entirely appropriate part of a broad trucking industry advocacy effort” to promote the regulation of glider kit trucks. Cummins and Daimler have also been proponents of maintaining the 300-truck annual cap of glider kit builders.

Gianforte’s letter says that emails between EPA and Volvo reveal that Volvo provided the gliders for EPA’s study. The letter also says documents obtained “show a small number of [EPA] employees orchestrated this testing and submitted the test results to the public rulemaking docket without the knowledge or approval of EPA leadership.”

Gianforte accused the EPA staffers of collaborating with “a regulated entity to potentially sway the outcome” of the tests.

Four other House Republicans sent a separate letter in June also asking the EPA to probe the contact between EPA staffers and Volvo: Reps. Bill Posey (Florida), James Comer (Kentucky), Steve King (Iowa) and Brian Babin (Texas).

EPA’s Inspector General responded Tuesday, saying it would investigate the claims by the Congressmen and examine the “selection, acquisition and testing of glider vehicles.” It did not provide a timeline for completing the study.

A competing study, which was performed by Tennessee Tech University but funded by Fitzgerald Glider Kits, found that glider kits do not produce emissions of particulate matter and NOx at greater levels than new trucks. That study has also been called into question, and TTU has told EPA to ignore the study’s results until its investigation has been completed.

.

[kscarbel2]

EPA Green-Lights Audit of Controversial Glider Kit Emissions Study

Heavy Duty Trucking (HDT)  /  September 10, 2018

A 2017 study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that found glider trucks emit more greenhouse gases than newer trucks is getting another look.

At the request of four Republican congressmen, the Office of Inspector General for the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to conduct an audit of the agency’s 2017 study of glider kit trucks. Glider kits are a long-standing option for truck buyers that allows a new truck frame and body to be fitted with an older, refurbished powertrain – which has not been required to meet current EPA emissions standards.

While glider kits originally were designed to allow truck owners to refurbish wrecked vehicles, in recent years they gained popularity as a way for truck owners to avoid early-generation low-emissions engines that were plagued with maintenance problems and got poorer fuel economy. Opponents of glider kits saw this as a loophole that needed to be closed, and the GHG Phase 2 emissions/fuel economy regulations curtailed their use. Some glider kit makers, including Fitzgerald, challenged the Obama-era rules. Currently the EPA is still evaluating a proposal that would remove the glider kit provisions from the rules.

Two different studies have been cited by those on both sides of the issue, and both have come under fire for different reasons.

In a Sept. 4 letter to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, the Inspector General’s office said it will “examine the selection, acquisition and testing of glider vehicles at EPA’s National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory as well as EPA’s planning for this testing.”

The audit is in response to questions raised in June by Rep. Greg Gianforte of Montana, chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy and Environment, who questioned the integrity of the EPA glider truck study. Gianforte was joined by three other Republican congressmen, including Reps. Bill Posey of Florida, Steve King of Iowa, and Brian Babin of Texas, who also wrote to the Inspector General requesting an audit of the EPA study.

The EPA study has been controversial since it was released last November, just days after the EPA’s administrator at the time, Scott Pruitt, proposed repealing a rule from the Obama Administration that limited the number of nonemission compliant gliders built by a manufacturer to 300 units per year. The rule was included in the EPA’s 2016 Phase 2 greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy trucks. Pruitt was forced to resign from the EPA in the wake of scandals earlier this year, although the agency is still considering repealing the Obama-era rule limiting the number of annual glider kit production.

Adding to the furor is the fact that the Republican lawmakers requesting the audit seem to be suggesting Volvo North America rigged the study to produce an outcome in support of newer, emissions-compliant truck models.

The matter is further clouded by a competing study conducted by Tennessee Tech University and funded by Tennessee-based glider manufacturer Fitzgerald Gliders, which found that newer trucks “in some instances” emitted more harmful emissions into the air than glider kits. The Trump-era EPA has cited this study as a reason for rolling back the Obama-era standards limiting glider kit production. However, Tennessee Tech’s own faculty senate has condemned the study as biased. The school’s president, Phil Oldham, said last February that the school would launch an investigation into how the Fitzgerald-funded study was conducted to ensure that proper scientific and educational standards were followed.

While the EPA currently has no plans to audit the Tennessee Tech glider study’s findings, agency spokesperson Jennifer Kaplan stressed that this audit is not an investigation into allegations of misconduct.

In his letter to the EPA Inspector General, Gianforte claimed that EPA employees reached out to Volvo — which opposes repealing the glider rule — about obtaining glider kit test vehicles. Volvo agreed to work through its dealer network to obtain at least one glider kit for evaluation purposes.

John Mies, manager of corporate communications for Volvo Group North America [and its Mack brand], said in a statement, “Like most of the trucking industry, the Volvo Group for several years now has argued that the improper use of glider kits is bad for the environment and unfair to manufacturers who have invested in the latest environmental controls. All our communication and cooperation with the EPA on this issue has been an entirely appropriate part of a broad trucking industry advocacy effort. We did nothing improper.”

[kscarbel2]

EPA IG Finds Study Critical of Glider Emissions Was Properly Conducted

Transport Topics  /  August 1, 2019

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Inspector General audit has given a 2017 agency study critical of glider truck emissions a clean bill of health.

The audit alleges that the study was “consistent with Clean Air Act authority, standard EPA practices and relevant policies and procedures.”

The audit also concluded that EPA did not improperly secure glider test vehicles from Volvo Trucks North America to be used for the emissions testing, but noted that EPA did not fully adhere to “delegation of authority” requirements. EPA should have technically consulted with the EPA’s Director of the Office of Administration, and obtained approval through the appropriate Deputy Ethics official before it accepted vehicle donations for the study, the audit said.

Nonetheless, the IG concluded, “The practice of using OEMs or external parties to help locate and test certain types of vehicles is not uncommon, especially when testing is conducted for research instead of compliance purposes.”

“We confirmed that EPA employees obtained approval to conduct glider vehicle testing and that EPA leadership received an August 2017 briefing on the potential for a glider vehicle test program before EPA career staff initiated the program,” the IG audit said. “We found that EPA employees followed normal procedures in submitting the November 2017 glider vehicle test report to a public rulemaking docket.”

Glider trucks combine new truck bodies with older and oftentimes rebuilt engines that commonly do not meet current truck emissions requirements.

The IG audit was initiated in September of last year at the request of four Republican members of Congress, who questioned the integrity of EPA’s glider study conclusions that emissions from glider vehicles tested under highway conditions had nitrogen oxide emissions 43 times higher than newer trucks and particulate matter emissions 55 times higher.

The IG said its audit was intended to primarily address three areas:

• Did the selection and testing of glider vehicles violate any policies or procedures intended to ensure the objectivity and integrity of tests conducted at the EPA’s laboratory?

• Did EPA employees follow policies and procedures in seeking and obtaining approval from EPA leadership to conduct testing and submit the test results to the public rulemaking docket?

• Were e-mail communications between EPA and Volvo deleted or not fully provided to EPA Freedom of Information Act personnel in response to a FOIA request(s) regarding the report?

The EPA study was first made public Nov. 20, 2017, four days after then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt proposed repealing the Obama-era rule to limit the production of glider trucks, a decision based in part on a Tennessee Technological University since-discredited study that concluded some glider engines actually burn cleaner than new trucks. The decision whether to go ahead with the repeal has been put on the agency’s back burner.

The TTU study, the subject of a university research misconduct investigation, was funded by Tennessee-based glider truck maker Fitzgerald Glider Kits, the largest glider manufacturer in the United States.

“The IG report puts to rest the unfounded accusations from the glider industry that a truck OEM influenced the outcomes of the glider testing results by the EPA,” said Glen Kedzie, environmental affairs counsel for American Trucking Associations.

Asked if Fitzgerald accepted the IG’s findings, Jon Toomey, the company’s director of government affairs responded, “We are unaware of any requirement that Fitzgerald accept or reject the audit. We find concerning that the trucks were paid for by opponents [i.e. Volvo] of gliders.”

Volvo, which has opposed a repeal of the rule, did not return an e-mail seeking comment.

[kscarbel2]

This was all a thinly veiled attack on North American market glider kit manufacturers by Swedish foreign aggressor Volvo Group.

[Maxidyne]

All the testing did was confirm the obvious- A glider with a pre EPA2010 engine and emissions system will pollute more than a new truck that meets the EPA 2010 standard. Even if Fitzgerald or Volvo outright bribed the EPA, the results would be the same.

[kscarbel2]

10 minutes ago, Maxidyne said:

All the testing did was confirm the obvious- A glider with a pre EPA2010 engine and emissions system will pollute more than a new truck that meets the EPA 2010 standard. Even if Fitzgerald or Volvo outright bribed the EPA, the results would be the same.

A. A "glider kit" doesn't have to meet EPA 2010 emissions.

B. Volvo's actions here were improper.

[Dirtymilkman]

Volvo should just mind their own business. If they're so worried about gliders taking market share then maybe they should sell them. 

[Bullheaded]

You bet the manufacturers are against gliders. Yes, they can sell lots of them, but they can't make millions and millions in profit fixing them and selling parts every time the emissions junk fails.

Selling new junk is big business.

[Lmackattack]

Pure example of a big company trying to force the little guys out and throw a wrench into their larger competitors