Limit of 300 Gliders Per Small Manufacturer Suspended, EPA Says

[kscarbel2]

Transport Topics  /  July 9, 2018

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has suspended through the end of 2019 a cap on the number of glider kits that a single builder may produce, the agency told Transport Topics July 9.

The move lifts the current annual cap of 300 glider kits per manufacturer, a limit instituted during the Obama administration which EPA has proposed to repeal. After reviewing comments on that proposal submitted by stakeholders, the agency determined additional evaluation is needed before a final decision is made, said Molly Block, an EPA spokeswoman. She added that EPA is exercising its enforcement discretion this year and for 2019 as it relates to manufacturers of glider kits.

“Until a final rule can be completed to bring regulatory certainty to glider manufacturers, the agency is considering interim steps to reduce severe impacts on the industry,” Block said. She noted that one option the agency is considering is extending to Dec. 31, 2019 the compliance date for the 300-unit limit.

In November 2017, the agency proposed to repeal certain emissions requirements for gliders. As Block put it, the repeal proposal “contemplated as alternatives or additional measures an extension of compliance deadlines, and raising the cap on the number of gliders allowed to be built by small manufacturers.”

The agency’s move, first published July 6 in The New York Times, essentially would allow glider companies to sell more than 300 vehicles annually while the agency crafts its glider rule repeal. The agency’s former administrator, Scott Pruitt, announced his resignation on July 5. Deputy administrator Andrew Wheeler took on the role of acting chief.

At the start of 2017, small manufacturers were limited to the number of gliders they built in their biggest production year between 2010 and 2014. In 2018, those manufacturers were limited to no more than 300 gliders.

EPA’s 2016 Phase 2 heavy-truck greenhouse gas emissions rule includes the limits to the number of gliders with engines that predate current emissions regulations that can be built by a company annually. The rule also requires certain gliders to be certified as emissions-compliant for the model year they are built.

.

[kscarbel2]

Report: EPA won’t enforce glider emissions limits until end of next year

James Jaillet, Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ)  /  July 9, 2018

The U.S. EPA has said it will not enforce Obama-era emissions restrictions placed on glider kit manufacturers at least through the end of next year, giving glider kit builders like Fitzgerald Glider Kits a substantial victory in their fight against the regulations.Manufacturers like Fitzgerald will be limited in 2018 and 2019 to producing the number of vehicles they produced in 2017, which is well above the 300-a-year cap.

Starting this year, glider kit manufacturers were limited to building 300 trucks a year that did not comply with the Phase 2 emissions regulations, finalized by the EPA in 2016. The EPA has a rule in the works to permanently repeal the glider-specific portions of the Phase 2 emissions standards, but the rule has not yet been made final, leaving glider kit builders caught in a regulatory limbo. The EPA proposed the rule in November 2017, just over a month before the 300-truck cap was slated to take effect, leaving the agency little time to finalize the repeal before Phase 2’s January 1 effective date.

However, an EPA spokesperson has told CCJ the agency is “exercising its enforcement discretion” this year and next year and will not hold glider kit makers to the 300-a-year cap.

Fitzgerald Glider Kits, the country’s largest builder of gliders, and others have fought the regs since they were proposed in 2015, arguing they would kill the glider kit industry. Demand for glider trucks, which are new truck bodies equipped with older, remanufactured engines and transmissions, has soared over the past decade, since they’re equipped with engines that do not use exhaust gas recirculation and do not require exhaust after-treatment. They’re also cheaper than new trucks.

The 300-truck cap was meant to offer fleets and owner-operators an exemption from the regs, so that truck owners who wanted to equip glider kits with older engines could do so. But for builders who assemble and sell thousands of trucks a year, like Fitzgerald, the regs would have caused them to dramatically alter their businesses to stay alive.

Receptive to these concerns, EPA under President Trump sought to overturn portions of the Phase 2 regulations that applied to glider kit makers.

The move has been fought by major truck OEs like Volvo, Cummins and Daimler.

[kscarbel2]

EPA gives glider builders a hall pass

Trailer-Body Builders  /  July 7, 2018

Canned EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on Friday got in a parting shot at Obama-era “regulatory overreach” in his last day in office, ordering the agency not to enforce an annual cap on glider kits.

“The Agency is exercising its enforcement discretion in 2018 and 2019,” Molly Block, an agency spokeswoman, said in a statement reported originally by The New York Times.

Related: A rough go for gliders in EPA review hearing

Gliders, or new chassis into which refurbished older engines without modern emissions control systems can be installed, were deemed to be a substantial loophole in the decade-long EPA effort to greatly reduce emissions from heavy-duty commercial vehicles.

Indeed, given the expense and troublesome nature of the mandated emissions controls, production of gliders has soared since 2010, going from going from just a few hundred per year to more than 10,000 in 2015.

So, in the Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles (GHG 2) rule that took effect Jan. 1, 2017, EPA required that engines installed in new glider vehicles meet the emission standards applicable in the year of assembly. A “small business” exception was included in GHG2 to allow glider builders to assemble up to 300 non-compliant units per year through 2020.

But last fall, following a lobbying effort and appeal by leading glider builder Fitzgerald Glider Kits, Pruitt determined that that gliders should not be regulated as “new motor vehicles” 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,” Pruitt said, and EPA proposed to repeal the emission standards and other requirements for glider vehicles.

A subsequent public hearing on the matter, however, drew dozens of angry opponents compared to just a couple of supporters.

“It’s well-known that gliders are purchased to save money, avoid maintenance costs … and skirt federal excise tax payments,” said Glen Kedzie, American Trucking Associations vice president of energy and environmental affairs council. He noted that ATA member fleets have paid $31,000 more on average per new truck since 2004 to comply with new emissions rules.

And Susan Alt, senior vice president of public affairs, Volvo Group North America, cited EPA’s own testing which found that glider vehicles emit 43 times more NOx and 55 times more soot than today’s low-emission diesels. EPA estimates that gliders make up about 5% of the entire Class 8 market, but contribute about one-third of all NOx and particulates from the sector.

“The current annual impact of glider emissions already grossly outweighs that of the VW diesel engine violations in the U.S. at their peak,” Alt said. “A repeal of the Phase 2 glider provisions makes a mockery of the massive investments we’ve made to develop low-emission compliant technology.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland said he was “baffled and confounded” as to why EPA would consider a repeal. He noted that Fitzgerald had failed to secure legislative relief, so the company’s owners then met directly with Pruitt.

According to Raskin, Fitzgerald’s petition included new information on glider vehicle emissions which purported to show that gliders were less polluting than non-glider vehicles. But that “independent” study was bought and paid for by none other than Fitzgerald.

“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 said.

On the other side, glider builder and trucker Farrell “Dale” Clark Jr., president of D & B Trucks, said he fully supported the proposal, and he referenced the Fitzgerald-funded study. Clark 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.

He also noted an environmental benefit to the pro-glider case: “We really should be thanking our glider builders. We should be encouraging every trucker in this country to use a glider, or should I say a ‘recycled truck,’” Clark said. “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.”

Tennessee Tech later informed EPA that the agency should not use the university's study on glider kits in developing federal emissions regulations, and that the school was pursuing a peer review of the report and investigating claims of research misconduct.

[kscarbel2]

EPA Will Not Enforce 300-Unit Limit on Glider Kits through 2019

Heavy Duty Trucking (HDT)  /  July 9, 2018

The Environmental Protection Agency 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 the action is being taken because it is working to finalize a proposed rule to repeal “certain emission requirements” on glider kits that were imposed under the Phase 2 rules, which were put in place in 2016. 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.

EPA Press Secretary Molly Block told HDT on July 9 that back in November, the agency proposed to “repeal certain emission requirements for gliders. This proposal also contemplated as alternatives or additional measures an extension of compliance deadlines, and raising the cap on the number of gliders allowed to be built by small manufacturers.” (Per Block, a “small” manufacturer is one defined as such by the Small Business Administration.)

In July 2017, after Fitzgerald Glider Kits petitioned EPA to do so, the agency announced it intended to revisit the Phase 2 glider kit provisions. In November, the agency issued its official proposal to entirely repeal emission requirements for glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits.

The repeal proposal came out only weeks before the 300-unit glider cap was to take effect on Jan. 1 of this year, which is the driving factor behind the newly announced enforcement pause.

“The [Phase 2] requirements in question first took effect in January 2017, and limit the number of new glider vehicles that small manufacturers can produce and sell without being subject to additional requirements,” stated Block. “The limit took effect in two stages. In 2017, small manufacturers were limited to the number of gliders they built in their biggest production year between 2010 and 2014. In 2018, small manufacturers are limited to no more than 300 gliders" by the rule.

She said EPA took into consideration “public comments received as well as engagement with stakeholders” before determining that “additional evaluation of a number of matters is required before it can take final action on one or more aspects of the [repeal] proposal."

However, it should be noted that, per The Washington Post, a Sept. 11 letter to then-EPA chief Pruitt urged him not to revisit the rule, contending 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 Phase 2 mandate as written.

“Until a final rule can be completed to bring regulatory certainty to glider manufacturers,” Block stated, “the agency is considering interim steps to reduce severe impacts on the industry. First, EPA is considering an extension of the compliance date, which would set a new effective date of Dec. 31, 2019. And, second, the agency is exercising its enforcement discretion in 2018 and 2019 for small manufacturers who limit production to the interim cap provided in 2017.”

The decision to not enforce the existing Phase 2 limits on glider kits means that, for at least the next two years, a manufacturer may produce as many gliders as it did during its biggest production year between 2010 and 2014. 

.

[james j neiweem]

Nothing wrong with a little competition for the big boys and their cookie cutter trucks

[kscarbel2]

16 States Join Request for Court Review of EPA’s Glider Decision

Transport Topics  /  July 24, 2018

Attorneys general from 16 states have joined a request that an appeals court review a decision by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials to not enforce an Obama-era regulation limiting the production of glider kit trucks to 300 units per manufacturer.

The legal action, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, has been consolidated with a similar action filed by three environmental groups also attempting to block EPA’s decision. The appeals court on July 18 issued a temporary stay blocking the EPA from failing to enforce the regulation, saying it will make a decision sometime after hearing arguments from all of the parties by the end of the month.

“EPA’s action concerns regulatory restrictions on the production and sale of ‘gliders’ — new heavy-duty trucks manufactured with highly polluting, refurbished engines that do not comply with modern emissions standards,” said the attorneys general court filing. “In both substance and process, EPA’s action is unlawful.”

The states challenging the EPA decision are California, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.

EPA’s decision circumvents Congress’ established limits on the agency’s authority to suspend or stay a rule, as well as limits on its authority to exempt new motor vehicles or engines from regulation, the attorneys general said.

The decision “also constitutes a complete reversal of EPA’s position, reflected in the 2016 [Obama-era] rule, that it is mandated to regulate glider emissions — a reversal made without adequate explanation or good reason,” the attorneys general argued in court documents. “Had EPA engaged in the public notice and comment process required to stay or amend a regulation, these faults would have been exposed prior to consummation. But EPA’s action provided no opportunity for public input.”

An emergency motion also was filed on July 17 by the Environmental Defense Fund, Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club, in response to a July 6 agency memo from EPA enforcement chief Susan Bodine suspending for a year enforcement of the cap on the production and sale of glider kits.

Bodine’s “no-action assurance” memo was dated only a day after then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt resigned amid a dozen ethical investigations into some of his official actions. In November, the agency issued a proposed rule to repeal the Obama-era regulation, questioning the notion that the gliders were big polluters and whether EPA even had the authority to regulate the gliders.

EPA’s proposed repeal of the glider truck rule drew more than 3,500 written comments, and was overwhelmingly opposed by nearly all of the speakers at a public hearing by the agency.

However, in her memo, Bodine said suspension of the Obama regulation for one year was needed to allow the agency time to consider “several matters” before it could take a final action on the proposed repeal.

But in their emergency motion, the environmentalists said the trucks are “poised to spend their lifetimes emitting many times more smog-forming nitrogen oxides, lung-damaging particulate matter and cancer-causing toxics than lawfully built heavy-duty trucks. Relief is urgently needed from EPA’s unlawful action in order to avert substantial and irreparable public-health consequences.”

Glen Kedzie, energy and environmental counsel for American Trucking Associations, said the court’s action to temporarily suspend the enforcement directive reaffirms his group’s position.

“EPA has both the legal authority and responsibility to the public to close this dangerous emissions loophole created by a small special interest group of manufacturers,” Kedzie told Transport Topics on July 18. “As the court next moves to consider a permanent suspension, I am confident that the science and the law will fall squarely on our side.”

The attorneys general filing said that even by EPA’s own estimates, the model year 1998-2001 engines that typically are used in glider vehicles emit 20 to 40 times more particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen than engines that conform to current emissions standards.

“Testing of glider vehicles conducted by EPA in 2017 showed even greater emissions impacts: NOx emissions were as much as 43 times higher than emissions from compliant vehicles, and PM emissions as much as 450 times higher,” the attorneys general said in their court briefs. “NOx and PM are linked to serious adverse health effects, including increased incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular disease and premature death.”

[kscarbel2]

EPA Reverses Course, Will Enforce Rule Limiting Production of Glider Trucks

Transport Topics  /  July 27, 2018

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler has reversed a controversial decision made earlier this month that would have allowed the proliferation of glider kit trucks until the end of 2019.

In a July 26 memo to the agency’s enforcement chief, Susan Bodine, Wheeler said a “no-action assurance” order blocking enforcement of the glider kit trucks provision in the 2016 Obama administration’s Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Heavy Truck Rule is “not in the public interest.”

“The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance has a general guidance limiting the circumstances under which the agency will consider issuing no-action assurances,” Wheeler wrote. “The 1995 restatement of that policy states that the principles against the issuance of a no-action assurance are at ‘their most compelling in the context of rulemakings.’ OECA guidance is clear that a no-action assurance should be issued only in an ‘extremely unusual’ case when the no-action assurance is necessary to serve the public interest, and only when no other mechanism can adequately address that interest.”

Bodine’s “no-action assurance” memo was dated only a day after then EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt resigned amid a dozen ethics investigations. In November, the agency issued a proposed rule to repeal the Obama-era regulation, questioning the notion that the gliders were big polluters and whether EPA even had the authority to regulate the gliders.

Wheeler’s action came July 26, only days after an environmental coalition and 16 state attorneys general filed separate requests for review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, claiming that not enforcing the glider provision in the 2016 Phase 2 Heavy Truck Greenhouse Gas rule would allow thousands of the “super polluting” glider trucks on U.S. roadways.

The court quickly issued a temporary stay of the EPA nonenforcement plan while it considers whether to approve or deny the emergency motions filed by environmentalists and the states, which said allowing the production and sale of more than 300 per-manufacturer gliders — “new heavy-duty trucks manufactured with highly polluting, refurbished engines that do not comply with modern emissions standards” — is unlawful.

“This is a huge win for all Americans who care about clean air and human health,” Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, one of the lawsuit plaintiffs, said in a statement. “These super-polluting diesel freight trucks fill our lungs with a toxic stew of pollution. EPA’s effort to create a loophole allowing more of them onto our roads was irresponsible and dangerous. We hope their decision to withdraw that loophole puts a firm and final end to this serious threat to our families’ health.”

Glen Kedzie, energy and environmental counsel for American Trucking Associations, told Transport Topics, “EPA’s reversal of its prior decision to not enforce glider vehicle provision under the final Phase 2 rule was a welcome announcement, which reaffirms the agency’s legal authority and responsibility to the public to close the dangerous emissions loophole created by a small special interest group of manufacturers. We will await EPA’s next steps as this issue continues to evolve.”

In their emergency motion, the environmentalists said the trucks are “poised to spend their lifetimes emitting many times more smog-forming nitrogen oxides, lung-damaging particulate matter and cancer-causing toxics than lawfully built heavy-duty trucks. Relief is urgently needed from EPA’s unlawful action in order to avert substantial and irreparable public-health consequences.”

The attorneys general in their court brief said, “Testing of glider vehicles conducted by EPA in 2017 showed even greater emissions impacts: NOx emissions were as much as 43 times higher than emissions from compliant vehicles, and PM emissions as much as 450 times higher. NOx and PM are linked to serious adverse health effects, including increased incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular disease and premature death.”