Jeff Sims

EPA takes ‘big first step’ on trailer GHG review

Sept. 7, 2017
2018 Phase 2 implementation schedule still in place, TTMA cautions

Maybe trailers shouldn’t be considered motor vehicles after all. The federal agencies responsible for implementing the next phase of heavy-duty fuel efficiency standards have notified the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association that the industry’s concerns warrant a formal reconsideration of the regulation. TTMA President Jeff Sims called the government’s decision “a big first step towards solving the entire issue.” But he cautions that the looming implementation date—and the associated uncertainty for trailer manufacturers and their customers—remains in place, at least for the time being.

The issue for TTMA, essentially, is that the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the authority to regulate trailers under the Clean Air Act. For Phase 2 of the Obama Administration’s truck fuel efficiency/greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards, trailers and other equipment are treated as an integral part of the commercial vehicle—and TTMA has argued against that assumption throughout the rulemaking process, including a post-publication court filing and subsequent requests to the new Trump administration.

And on August 17 those requests were finally answered by both EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

In EPA’s reply, Administrator F. Scott Pruitt highlighted the trailer association’s challenges, including:

•  the Clean Air Act definition of “motor vehicle” refers to “self-propelled” vehicles, and therefore EPA’s authority to regulate trailers because they are not self-propelled;

•  the projection of greenhouse gas and fuel economy benefits, because of vehicle speeds assumed by EPA; and

•  the weight of the new emission components, which will decrease payload, and increase the number of trucks on the road—along with GHG emissions and fatal crashes.

“In light of these issues, the EPA has decided to revisit the Phase 2 trailer provisions in general, and the issue of the EPA’s authority to regulate trailers in particular,” Pruitt writes. However, “the EPA has made no decision at this time regarding your request for an administrative stay.”

NHTSA Acting Deputy Administrator Jack Danielson provided a brief response, granting the petition for rulemaking but noting that doing so “does not prejudge the outcome” nor mean that a final rule will be issued.

TTMA’s Sims said that he “looks forward to full administrative review” of the trailer GHG rules.

“Our concern remains over the implementation date of those rules, which are still scheduled to begin with January 2018 trailer production, just a few short months away,” he said.

Most heavy-duty trailers are custom-ordered, Sims explained, and the required lead time for scheduling production means that manufacturers are quoting orders for 2018 delivery—and, depending on the application, that could force customers to purchase equipment they do not want and that will not produce any fuel efficiencies in their operations.

Moreover, he noted, much of this equipment is still not certified by EPA, so trailer manufacturers are not certain if they can incorporate the equipment into future orders and still comply with the regulations.

“This is disrupting the normal ordering process and is frustrating both customers and manufacturers,” Simms said. “TTMA hopes the implementation date will be stayed until the agencies complete their review.”

The Western States Trucking Association has also argued that EPA exceeded its authority in its application of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG, and in allowing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to do so, as well.

“It has always been this association’s position that regulating trailers either by CARB or EPA was a grand example of regulatory overreach,” said Joe Rajkovacz, director of governmental affairs for Western States. “CARB worked closely with the EPA in crafting this aspect of Phase II since they originated the tractor/trailer GHG rule in this state and in Phase II you basically saw the federal adoption of what CARB mandated. This has always been a case of ‘the ends justify the means’ and ... only an ideologue could ever claim a trailer is somehow a ‘motor vehicle” under the Clean Air Act.

“Truckers don’t need bureaucrats telling them how to save on their number one expense—fuel. If it makes financial sense in their operation, they’ll adopt the technology without Big Brother’s help.”

Indeed, American Trucking Associations officials said they were concerned that by moving to reopen Phase 2, EPA could be setting the stage for CARB to impose a more aggressive standard, superseding federal rules.

“As representatives of an interstate industry,”said ATA President and CEO Chris Spear, “ATA believes a single national standard, set by federal regulators, is preferable to at worst, a patchwork of state standards or at best, a de facto national standard that is set without the appropriate opportunity for the entire regulated community—many members of which are not based in California—to weigh in.”

Environmental groups, however, oppose any rollback of emissions regulations. The Environmental Defense Fund sees the decision to reconsider Phase II as short sighted, and a “capitulation to industry requests” that ignores the cost effectiveness of pollution control technologies and efficiency standards for trailers, and “the firm legal basis for these standards.”

About the Author

Kevin Jones | Editor