Truck News

News

CTA wants crackdown on emissions tampering


TORONTO, Ont. – The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) is calling on governments to help fight those who tamper with emissions controls on trucks.

While most fleets have complied with ever-tighter emissions standards – and their related costs –  other operators have been disconnecting equipment like diesel particulate filters (DPFs), or using electronic means to circumvent electronic control modules.

The alliance wants provincial governments to give roadside enforcement teams the tools to scan and detect if emission systems are regenerating properly and in good working order, or whether they are non-compliant.

This would be similar to the “read-only, plug-in” approach Ontario and Quebec uses to determine speed limiters are working, says Geoff Wood, senior vice-president of policy. Ontario has already shown interest in the emissions-related enforcement, and the CTA has asked the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) to get other provinces to move with roadside enforcement plans of their own.

“Regardless of the method used to circumvent the emissions requirements, the result is direct, high emissions levels of both [particulate matter] and NOx directly into the atmosphere – something we are all striving to prevent,” says Wood.

Even if resources are limited, the jurisdictions could share information about non-compliant trucks found at roadside. If a truck failed a roadside inspection, that could trigger enforcement action for the carrier.

The alliance is also suggesting an update to National Safety Code standards around annual inspections, requiring technicians to plug in to verify an engine complies. If that was followed, a failing vehicle would not earn a valid annual safety inspection.


Print this page
Related Articles
TruckNews
TodaysTrucking


10 Comments » for CTA wants crackdown on emissions tampering
  1. mark says:

    These people from the cta need to go to school this globle warming is bull and I can prove it the diesel trucks are not the problem. Just put this in your head nobody went to Paris in a row boat next the human body puts out more toxins in one day than any truck. People should stop trying to steel money from the trucking industry. When in fact trucks with dpf burn twice the fuel and that is a fact not fiction.

  2. Steve says:

    Just another shot at the independent owner operator. Notice at the very beginning where it says “ most fleets have complied” then it says “other operators” (meaning owner operators) using government again to force out the little guy trying to make an honest living. Maybe if these emissions weren’t so cost prohibitive, then an owner operator could comply.

  3. Tom Reid says:

    Speed limiter, don’t have anything to do with emissions. Owner/Operaters, who delete exhaust systems that’s another story. We wouldn’t have emissions problem if the fuel companies weren’t, cutting corners on the diesel. Then we have cleaner to diesel to purchase, give better fuel mileage, cleaner engines and there for a cleaner air to breathe. With DEF fluid burn off, it will kill us all. As it cause Cancer. Why do you think Europe done away with it. The new engines from 2011 burn cleaner now, than ever before. But yet governments complain, not having an ideal about this industry. Just keep pushing new rules to us and the bigger companies. Next year E Log in Canada. When everyone on board with it. It’s ok, but there’s no place to park between A and B. It’s very limited in the USA. Canada rest areas are too small. Cities don’t want Trucks parked in their cities, but want products we haul. Be play or eat.
    I think as a country, we need to work together, little more friendly. ( you may want to edit some, I’m not a writer)

  4. Rick says:

    As owner of a small fleet (fully compliant, I will add) it interests me that the CTA would establish its position on enforcement rather than improvement.

    We have a few pre-emission era trucks and results from their regular e-testing show that they consistently burn as clean as newer units equipped with emission systems. What appears lost in this conversation is the added fuel consumption (and the increase in generated emissions) and increase in failures that came with the early systems.

    When electing to tamper with emission systems, I don’t think the ‘guilty’ are looking for an economic advantage as much as a triage approach to mitigating the financial risks that come with the early iterations of the technology. Faulty science has lead to faulty technology, and there will always be those who will comply regardless of the cost, just as there will be those who defy the regulators with work-arounds that they feel are essential to their survival.

    The politics are of no interest to me; that said, I suspect these associations of promoting the interests of the members who provide most of their funding – large carriers. And having the Association raise this issue as a compliance problem appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to have smaller carriers and independent owner/operators put under the microscope for competitive rather than environmental reasons.

    It’s too bad… perhaps if, instead of finger-pointing, we spent our time encouraging more critical thinking and better science on this issue, we would achieve an outcome that benefits everyone.

  5. Brenda E says:

    I totaly agree Rick! As a fleet manager of a mid size fleet I have seen the fuel comsumption of our trucks almost doubled. Trucks parked on the side of the road at least 45 min at a time doing the BURN 🙁 The cost of maintaining these emmission engines are outrageous to say the least and they must be maintained by a dealer. Not to mention the down time of getting them repaired. OR the time lost in production having trucks parked doing regens. Hours for the drivers are lost and is a scheduling nightmare. Rick also has a point Europe has done away with these types of engines. Maybe SOMEONE in the CTA should investigate that and find a solution to ALL the problems companies and independant operators are facing and give the trucking industry a bone.

  6. lee says:

    I guess the one way to get around it is to put 2007 engines (rebuilt with warranty) into 2012 and newer trucks…. this must have been cheaper than operating the 2012 engines or the very VERY LARGE carrier –name begins with …S … would not not have done it… new trouble-down-again-engine OUT & slide a new OLD engine in Slider to Glider…. & gov wants to stop all glider kits too…You guys need to burn more fuel..HOW DO YOU expect the Gov to collect tax if you dont…

  7. Alex says:

    A nice page for truck drivers and O/O in face ook
    professional truck drivers alliance

  8. steve says:

    Al my trucks except one are pre 2000 i own a 2005 truck it uses at least 10% more fuel than the 1996 truck i bought used after the first owner had taken back after at least 19 times in the shop in the first 3 years i put 4 computers and 7 seven program in in 4 years .We put a e-log in it in feb. of this year since the cruise control and jake brake does not work . The e-log connection had a fire under the dash burning many wires and airlines and this has happened other trucks as well. The C T A . needs to examine why there are so many truck drivers and former owner ops in the homeless shelter system.

  9. dave plain says:

    I can take the extra fuel burn. I can take a little extra maintenance.
    I cannot take the downtime.
    Im not a CTA fleet. I dont have 25 spare trucks with no drivers up against the fence.
    When a truck gets towed three times in the first 5000 k for emissions failures….
    And yes. I have warranty. Warranty doesn’t pay downtime.
    Time for the Geoff Wood and the CTA to get their heads out of their a++es. I thought Dave Bradley was a scourge….woods is following in his footsteps.
    Lets have more regulation.

  10. Harold Larter says:

    Why are these companies hiding behind the CTA is it there trying to control the industry through CTA. I think theses companies should step up and put there names out in public. I for one won’t support such a company working against smaller ones operators,using there money and strength to get government on there side. The CTA is nothing more than a group of rich trucking companies and owners getting together to try and squeeze out the little guy,because he is more efficient. Call it like it is.

Have your say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*