Comment Log Display

Please accept the following comments on behalf of Utility Trailer
Manufacturing Company (“Utility”) to the California Air Resources
Board’s (“CARB”) May 21, 2008 Draft Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Measure (the “Draft Measure”).  For the reasons set
forth below, Utility urges CARB to reclassify the Draft Measure as
a non-regulatory early action under the 2008 Scoping Plan to allow
for further studies examining the technological feasibility and
cost effectiveness of the requirements of the Draft Measure.    

I.	Company Background

Based in City of Industry, California, Utility is America’s oldest
privately owned, family-operated semi-trailer manufacturer. 
Founded in 1914, Utility is the largest producer of refrigerated
semi-trailers in the United States and the third largest
semi-trailer manufacturer in the country.  Utility currently
operates five regionally placed semi-trailer factories, located in
Virginia, Utah, Alabama and Arkansas, and employs over three
thousand people nationwide.  Utility’s historical position as
America’s largest producer of refrigerated semi-trailers is a
direct result of its management’s focus on designing road safe
semi-trailers in an environmentally responsible manner. 

Utility representatives recently attended the June 12, 2008
workshop session for the Draft Measure held at CARB’s offices in
El Monte.  While Utility supports the federal Environmental
Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) voluntary SmartWay program to increase
fuel efficiency while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there are
numerous issues in the Draft Measure relating to technological
feasibility and cost-effectiveness, the analyses of which have not
progressed to the point where the impacts of same can be
conclusively defined at this early time.  Utility offered some
suggestions as to how to address some of these outstanding issues
during the workshop.  As a follow up to the workshop, Utility
hereby respectfully submits the following comments to the Draft
Measure to urge CARB to reclassify the Draft Measure as a
non-regulatory early action under the 2008 Scoping Plan to further
examine the issues identified herein. 
 

II.	California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (the “Act”)

As you know, Section 38560 of the Act requires that all greenhouse
gas reduction rules and regulations adopted and implemented by CARB
be technologically feasible and cost-effective.  However, the
mandated time frame for implementing the Act’s requirements has
resulted in CARB itself stating that:

		While staff has advanced its understanding with respect to key
require-
		ments that must be addressed for most of the proposed
strategies, the
		analyses have not progressed to the point where all impacts
(e.g., technical
		feasibility, cost-effectiveness) can be defined conclusively at
this time. . .
		If additional information of analysis reveals that a particular
measure 
		cannot meet one or more of these requirements, it will not be
put into effect.

EXPANDED LIST OF EARLY ACTION MEASURES TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS IN CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD DECISION, California
Air Resources Board (October 2007).

Indeed, there are numerous sub-categories of issues relating to
the technological feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the Draft
Measure which require further analysis prior to CARB adopting same
as a discrete early action.  A discussion of these issues is set
forth below.

III.	Technological Feasibility

The technological feasibility of the aerodynamic devices that
trailer manufacturers will need to append to their products will
depend on such as issues as the completion of laboratory and field
tests studying the compatibility of the aerodynamic devices with
trailer bodies, and national standards governing the
specifications of other fuel-saving devices.    

	A.	Adequate Testing

The primary reason Utility is urging CARB to reclassify the Draft
Measure as a non-regulatory early action is that the
implementation date of the Draft Measure is premature due to the
lack of adequate testing needed to fully develop the required
aerodynamic devices.  More tests are required on these devices not
only for confirming their claimed efficiencies, but for safety
reasons.

		1.	Gap Reducers

One such device, the front mounted “gap reducer,” was developed
some time ago by a west coast company called Nose Cone.  To
qualify its product for the SmartWay program, Nose Cone needed to
achieve a fuel economy gain of at least one percent (1%).  To
demonstrate this gain, Nose Cone ran a SAE J1321 type 2 test. 
Another company, Freight Wing, also manufactures a gap reducer and
was approved by SmartWay by conducting similar testing.  However,
neither of these companies’ qualifying tests were performed in
conjunction with other potentially fuel saving devices such as
side and roof fairings and in situations where a tractor is “close
coupled” to a trailer.  In the event a tractor is tested with a
trailer, with and without the gap reducer, there would likely be
no appreciable benefit from the gap reducer, thus rendering them
ineffective in achieving the Draft Measure’s stated purpose.  

Moreover, a primary aerodynamic principle in running efficiency is
to situate the back end of the tractor within 28” or less of the
trailer.  If such placement is achieved, the need for a “gap
reducer” to save fuel is mitigated.  Therefore, the significant
cost associated with adding gap reducers does not provide the
benefit the Draft Measure is intended to provide.  

		2.	Side Skirts

Other aerodynamic devices such as side skirts are made from either
injection molded plastic or aluminum sheet construction.  During
normal driving conditions these devices can be damaged while
crossing railroads and drive ways, and during loading and
unloading at docks with tapered ramps.  Once damaged, the operator
typically has to remove the device or risk it falling off during
transit.  Notwithstanding such safety issues, if the operator does
not remove the damaged device, it will not achieve its intended
fuel savings.  Moreover, these devices have to perform in all
weather conditions, including but not limited to rain, snow, ice,
and combinations thereof. Additional testing is necessary to
ensure these devices are durable and have predictable failure
modes that will not cause catastrophic failure during high speed
highway transport.  

Additional development is currently underway from manufacturers to
develop sturdier, more operator friendly devices.  However,
subsequent generations of these products will require SAE testing.
 Adopting regulations requiring the use of such untested products
is therefore premature.  

		3.	Fairings and Boat Tails

The newest devices to qualify for the SmartWay program are rear
trailer fairings and boat tails. Once such approved device claims
it improves fuel economy by 5.1% at 62 MPH.  This device is
currently undergoing “crash” testing for DOT approval.  As such,
this device is still in the prototype development phase of design
and is not being used in commercial applications.  Again, adopting
regulations requiring the use of such untested devices is
premature.

		4.	Performance and Safety

The common concern regarding all of the aforementioned devices is
the need for additional testing, whether due to performance or
safety issues.  With respect to performance, there is a
significant difference between running a controlled test and
proving a device achieves the fuel savings it claims. 
Significantly, none of the tests that claim such aerodynamic
devices save fuel have been verified by independent third parties
who do not have a vested commercial interest in the premature
adoption of the Draft Measure.  Moreover, tests performed to date
involve just one test with one tractor on one day.  It is also
important to recognize that each of the approved devices was
tested individually.  As mentioned above, there is currently a
dearth of studies testing the above aerodynamic devices in
combination, i.e., side skirts and gap reducer, gap reducer and
trailer tail, etc.  The SmartWay program tends to cumulatively add
the fuel saving benefits of multiple aerodynamic devices. 
Unfortunately, none of these cumulative benefits have been proven
in the field.  Indeed, a device that initially indicates a benefit
may not have the same result when combined with another device. 
For these reasons, Utility urges CARB to reclassify the Draft
Measure as a non-regulatory early action under the 2008 Scoping
Plan to allow for further testing of the issues identified herein.


With respect to safety issues, as previously mentioned,
aerodynamic devices are often damaged while crossing railroads and
drive ways, and during loading and unloading at docks with tapered
ramps.  They also have to perform in all weather conditions such
as rain, snow and ice.  Once damaged, the operator typically has
to remove the device or risk it falling off during transit. 
Additional testing is necessary to ensure these devices are
durable and have predictable failure modes that will not cause
catastrophic failure during high speed highway transport.  

In the event CARB proceeds with classifying the Draft Measure as a
discrete early action, it appears that Utility, other trailer
manufacturers, and aerodynamic device manufacturers will be forced
to place products on the market that may not be able to withstand
the rigors of heavy duty transportation.  One potential
consequence of this situation may be a significant increase in the
costs associated with satisfying customers’ warranty claims.  Such
claims would increase not only the actual costs of replacing
and/or repairing unsatisfied customers’ trailers, but also the
administrative costs of coordinating and responding to such claims
as well as potential consequential costs in the loss of unsatisfied
customers.  Moreover, Utility and other trailer manufacturers may
see an increase in the number of product liability claims filed
against them.  The increased costs associated with defending, and
potentially satisfying unfavorable verdicts rendered against
Utility and other trailer manufacturers for using untested
aerodynamic devices on their trailers would again significantly
increase the cost of doing business.  Such increased costs will
provide yet another significant hurdle to overcome to remain
competitive in a global marketplace.  For these reasons, Utility
urges CARB to reclassify the Draft Measure as a non-regulatory
early action under the 2008 Scoping Plan to allow for further
testing of these products.

	B.	Need for National Standards

Section 2800(d) of the Draft Measure sets forth requirements and
compliance deadlines for new and in-use tractors and trailers. 
One of these requirements is for these vehicles to be fitted with
low-rolling resistance tires.  As discussed in the June 12
workshop, tire manufacturers set their own standards to determine
rolling resistance.  By unilaterally defining “low-rolling
resistance” tires, tire manufacturers can alter the intended
benefits of the fuel efficiencies the Draft Measure seeks to
achieve.  As such, a federal standard for defining “low-rolling
resistance” tires is necessary prior to requiring new and in-use
tractors and trailers to use such tires.  This process, allowing
for petitions for rule making and notice and comment periods, will
take time.  Moreover, in the event such a rule is adopted, a
phase-in period will be required to allow tire manufacturers to
comply with the new requirements.  For these reasons, Utility
urges CARB to reclassify the Draft Measure as a non-regulatory
early action under the 2008 Scoping Plan to allow for such
rulemaking to run its course.

	C.	Technologically Limiting Definitions

Section 2800(e) of the Draft Measure sets forth “Good Operating
Condition” criteria for the maintenance of tractors and trailers. 
Sections 2800(e)(1)(B)(1) and (2) further describe the
specifications for side skirt fairings and front and rear trailer
fairings.  Based on the language used to describe these devices,
it is evident that these specifications were strictly based on the
patents for those devices.  By utilizing language appropriate for a
single, unique, patentable product, rather than a broader,
generalized concept, the Draft Measure may preclude innovation. 
Indeed future research and development may result in devices that
offer much greater fuel efficiency than is available today.  Under
the current “Good Operating Condition” standard, such new products
would fail to comply with CARB’s requirements and thus would be
precluded from being introduced into the marketplace.  For these
reasons, Utility urges CARB to reclassify the Draft Measure as a
non-regulatory early action under the 2008 Scoping Plan to allow
for revisions to the Draft Measure.
 
 

IV.	Cost-Effectiveness

As noted above, the Act mandates that all greenhouse gas reduction
rules and regulations adopted and implemented by CARB be, inter
alia, cost-effective.  Two factors that determine the
cost-effectiveness of compliance with a particular regulatory
program include maintenance costs and their effect on competition.
 

	A.	Maintenance Costs

Like any industry, the transportation business is very
competitive.   Often, the difference between success or failure is
determined by a company’s cost per mile.  Proven technologies that
can lower transportation companies’ cost per mile would likely be
embraced by the industry.  However, lowering the cost per mile
must inherently address reducing initial costs, potential lower
payloads due to the additional weight of aerodynamic devices, and
necessary maintenance costs for the aerodynamic devices.  Adopting
the Draft Measure without fully analyzing these issues will likely
prevent the Draft Measure from achieving its intended effect. 
Indeed, in Europe, where fuel prices are substantially higher than
in the United States, regulations similar to the Draft Measure were
adopted and ultimately repealed because, once implemented, proved
not to be cost effective.   

Currently, side skirts carry significant maintenance costs.  Such
costs are associated with damages incurred during normal use,
including crossing railroads and drive ways, loading and unloading
at docks with tapered ramps, and the elements.  Once damaged, the
operator typically has to remove or repair the device, which might
result in down time.  Although manufacturers are currently
developing additional designs to lower the aforementioned costs,
none are currently commercially viable.  At some point in the
future, these manufacturers may have commercially viable devices
that will provide fuel savings without significant maintenance
costs that raise a company’s cost per mile instead of lowering it.
 However, that time has not yet arrived.  For these reasons,
Utility urges CARB to reclassify the Draft Measure as a
non-regulatory early action under the 2008 Scoping Plan to allow
for such product development to occur.

	B.	Effect on Competition

There are currently only two (2) aerodynamic device manufacturers
with products that are certified by the SmartWay program.  Both
manufacturers are relatively small, and would not have the
capacity to manufacture the volume of devices necessary if fifty
percent (50%) of 2010 model year trailers needed their products to
comply with the Draft Measure.  Based on a projected volume of
220,000 trailers to be produced in 2010, aerodynamic device
manufacturers would need to manufacture 110,000 devices to meet
this demand.  It is doubtful these small companies have the
capacity to handle such demand.

In addition, a limited number of suppliers of certified SmartWay
products required for compliance with the Draft Measure could
increase production costs for Utility and other trailer
manufacturers by the suppliers’ ability to unfairly determine the
price of their products.  This will likely be caused by an
increase in demand for their products due to the expedited
adoption of the Draft Measure.  It will also take some time before
other manufacturers will be able to bring alternative products to
market to present viable options to tractor and trailer
manufacturers, thereby eliminating the ability of natural market
forces to keep prices in check.  In sum, by failing to reclassify
the Draft Measure as a non-regulatory early action under the 2008
Scoping Plan, CARB could subject a portion of its regulated
community to the scrutiny of the Federal Trade Commission. 

V.	Regulation-Specific Comments

In the event CARB chooses not to reclassify the Draft Measure as a
non-regulatory early action under the 2008 Scoping Plan, Utility
offers the following specific comments related to the language of
the Draft Measure: 

	A.	Section 2800(b)(1)

The Draft Measure should not be limited in its applicability to
just 53-foot trailers.  Although the majority of trailers Utility
sells are 53 feet in length, there are existing populations of
varying lengths of trailers that could also benefit from the
aerodynamic devices required by the Draft Measure.  Moreover, the
burdens imposed by the Draft Measure to achieve its purpose and
goals should be jointly borne by all Californians, not just the
trucking industry.  CARB should focus on every vehicle that
travels on California’s highways, not just the heavy-duty tractors
and trailers that deliver products necessary for millions of
peoples’ every day lives.  If the regulation of the transport of
these necessities becomes too restrictive, the result will be an
increase in the cost of those products at a time when the
transportation industry can not absorb such increased costs. 
While Utility supports the Draft Measure’s purpose, the latter
fails to reflect the understanding that the burdens of its
requirements outweigh its benefits.

	B.	Section 2800(c)(3)

Delete the language, “. . . or curtain-side trailer that is not a
drop-frame trailer.” Utility does not have designs for a side
skirt for a curtain side trailer.  If one was produced or modified
for installation on a curtain sided trailer, it surely would not
provide the 4% fuel efficiency savings that the same skirt would
have on a box trailer due to its inboard mounting location.

	C.	Section 2800(c)(8)

This section should be deleted in its entirety for the same
reasons as set forth in the comments relating to subsection (c)(3)
above.

	D.	Section 2800(c)(12)

Delete the language, “. . . that can only be loaded/unloaded
through the rear doors.”  Some trailers have side doors through
which unloading can be completed.

	E.	Section 2800(c)(21)

As you likely know, California and several other western states
allow 14’0” tall trailers.  Most of the factory produced roof
fairings are designed for the more standard 13’6” tall trailers. 
Utility is currently unaware of how it would design roof fairings
for particular hauls with 14’ trailers.  Based on the foregoing,
Utility suggests the last line of this subsection’s language be
amended to provide that the roof fairings be of a height “that
matches the height of a 13’6” height trailer.”

	F.	Section 2800(c)(29)

The word “transportable” should be amended to read “transport.”

	G.	Section 2800(c)(31)

Utility is not aware of any aerodynamic drag or friction between
the tire and rim.  As such, the language “and between the tire and
the rim” should be deleted.

	H.	Section 2800(c)(36)

As you likely know, according to the California Motor Vehicle
Code, a trailer is not part of a truck.  Rather, the trailer is
the vehicle that carries the cargo pulled by the motorized
tractor.  This subsection should be re-drafted to reflect this
difference.

	I.	Section 2800(c)(37)

The language, “. . . between the support legs and the forward most
axle” should be added to the end of the definition of “Trailer Side
Skirts.”

	J.	Section 2800(c)(38)

 As products are generally not transported in tractors, the words,
“. . . tractors and” should be deleted.

	K.	Section 2800(d)(1)(B)

Since one requirement for obtaining SmartWay certification is the
utilization of low resistance tires, it appears that subsections
(d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B) are redundant.  As such, subsection
(d)(1)(B) can be deleted.  

	L.	Section 2800(d)(1)(C)

The applicability of this subsection should be extended to
tractors that haul containers and “short haul” tractors.  This
would necessitate a national standard to determine which tires
qualify as “low rolling resistance tires.”

	M.	Section 2800(d)(3)

The requirements of this subsection may be premature as the EPA
has not yet established refrigerated van trailer requirements as
part of its SmartWay program.

	N.	Section 2800(d)(4)

This subsection should be deleted in its entirety for the reasons
set forth above in the comments to Section 2800(c)(3).

	O.	Section 2800(d)(5)

The language, “. . . and subsections (d)(4) for curtain-sided
trailers” should be deleted for the reasons set forth above in the
comments to Section 2800(c)(3).
 

	P.	Section 2800(d)(11)(A)(1)

The words “of freight” after the word “transported” should be
deleted.

VI.	Conclusion

Pursuant to the Act, all rules and regulations enacted by CARB are
required to be technologically feasible and cost efficient.  As
noted in the discussion above, there are numerous outstanding
issues pertaining to performance, safety, maintenance costs and
anti-competitive effects that should preclude CARB from enacting
the Draft Measure under the Act.  Therefore, Utility urges CARB to
reclassify the Draft Measure as a non-regulatory early action under
the 2008 Scoping Plan to allow for further studies examining the
technological feasibility and cost effectiveness of the
requirements of the Draft Measure.          

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue.  If you
have any questions regarding Utility’s submission, please do not
hesitate to contact the undersigned.