Outside his company’s warehouse in Otay Mesa, truck driver Jorge Villanueva inspected his 24-foot GMC on Wednesday. The bobtail box-truck is operated by Tijuana-based Grupo Behr, which has applied to participate in a pilot program that allows Mexican truckers to make deliveries across the United States. / Photo by Nelvin C. Cepeda * U-T
Grupo Behr, the Mexican carrier who was the first victim of OOIDA’s campaign of propaganda and misinformation, has allegedly been found to be in violation of leasing statutes in Section 219 of the 1999 Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act, according to William Quade assistant administrator for FMCSA’s Enforcement and Compliance division.
Section 219 of the 1999 Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act was intended to end the ability for a Mexican carrier to lease trucks and drivers to a U.S.carrier for operations beyond the authority the Mexican carrier could get clearance for on its own. That ability was for commercial zone authority commonly referred to as OP-2 authority.
FMCSA issued a notice to Grupo Behr, whose headquarters are in Tijuana Baja California for violating Section 219, but FMCSA chose not to pursue civil penalties. “Our preliminary decision is to monitor the situation for six months to consider whether we should allow them into the program,” Quade added.
Grupo Behr successfully completed their PASA last year but approval to participate in the program was put on hold after OOIDA erroneously claimed that Grupo Behr would be operating pre- 1995 semi’s and straight truck in the project.
MTO spoke to a representative of Grupo Behr who said that critics’ accusations about lax safety standards are unfounded and erroneous.
Roberto García de León, managing partner of Grupo Behr said, “They’re accusing us about vehicles that we haven’t even enrolled in the program,” a fact MTO uncovered shortly after OOIDA made their outrageous and totally false claims again GB.
Grupo Behr also participated in the 2007 pilot program successfully. Currently, under CSA, their SMS scores are consistent or slightly below the US national average. 21% out of service for equipment and 3% OOS for drivers.
Josue Cruz, a driver for Transportes Olympic inaugurated the new Mexico Cross Border Pilot Program when he arrived in Laredo on his first trip to Garland Texas
Nearly 20 years after President Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, a key provision that grants Mexican trucks access to U.S. highways remains stalled. Staunch opposition from unions and consumer groups in this country, which argue that unsafe foreign trucks and inexperienced drivers put U.S. jobs and lives at risk, have successfully shut down even the most modest attempts to comply with NAFTA.
In October, the Obama administration tried again, with a pilot program granting three Mexican trucking firms limited access to U.S. roads. So far, just two carriers have sent trucks into the country — a small but positive development. But now, the Teamsters union and the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen have asked a federal judge in Washington to shut down the program because transportation officials failed to comply with national regulations that require environmental impact tests before starting any pilot program.
Their objections are specious, and old news. Both groups made the same sort of legal arguments when President George W. Bush announced plans to start a similar pilot program in 2001. And in 2004, the Supreme Court found that the Bush administration did not need to conduct environmental impact tests and that the U.S. could allow Mexican trucks across the border. The program was finally started in 2007 but came to a halt in 2009 when Congress pulled the funding.
If the Teamsters and other groups are so worried about safety and job security, they should work with the Obama administration to develop additional guidelines and tests that will assuage their concerns. The administration has already shown itself willing to collaborate by adopting some of their demands, such as requiring monitoring devices in all Mexican trucks as a way to track the number of hours drivers spend on the road, as well as mandatory drug testing and language proficiency rules — even though there is little reason to believe that Mexican drivers pose a greater hazard than Canadian truckers, who already have access to U.S. roads and are not required to meet similar standards. In fact, an 18-month study conducted during the Bush administration’s pilot program found that the safety records of Mexican truckers were comparable to those of their U.S. counterparts.
The United States can’t continue to violate its free-trade obligations. Mexico is too important a trade partner, and failure to meet our end of the bargain has already led to retaliation. In 2010, Mexico slapped hefty tariffs on nearly 100 U.S. products — including California wines, strawberries and oranges — totaling well over $2 billion. The U.S. signed on to NAFTA. Isn’t it time it made good on its word?
This editorial appeared in the January 15, 2012 edition of the LA TIMES
Mexican trucks such as these two are the targeted obsession of Teamsters, OOIDA and their allies whose lawsuit against allowing them legally required access has now been consolidated by the DC Court of Appeals
The two separate and frivolous lawsuits filed last year by the Teamsters, Public Citizen, Sierra Club and Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) have now been consolidated into one lawsuit on orders from a Judge with the D.C. Court of Appeals.
The case numbers for the two actions are 11-1444 for the Teamsters and 11-1251 for OOIDA.
Attorney’s for all plaintiffs will now be required to make their oral arguments before the Court in the same courtroom on the same day.
Back in July of 2011, OOIDA filed their frivolous action against the Cross Border Pilot Program with Mexico asking the court to “enjoin, set-aside, suspend (in whole or in part) or determine the validity of the implementation of (DOT’s cross-border program).” In September of 2011, the Court refused their request for the injunction sought to stop the program, but did agree to put it on the fast track.
Later in September of last year, the Teamsters, along with the shady advocacy group Public Citizen and the tree huggers from Sierra Club filed their own and very similar lawsuit to stop the program with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. That action, with all parties agreeing, was kicked over to the DC Circuit later in 2011, denying Hoffa and his cronies their foray into “judge shopping”.
Both lawsuits are “frivolous and without merit” as they closely parallel a cases filed by the same groups in 2002.
Those lawsuits voiced the same environmental concerns as are being pressed in the 2011 filings. The trial court in 2002 sided with FMCSA saying
that although the FMCSA pilot program would result in more trucks, FMCSA did not have control over those trucks and therefore did not have to account for them in an EIS. Public Citizen went shopping and appealed to the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, reversing the trial court. The Appellate Court found that the EA was deficient because it failed to give adequate consideration to the overall environmental impact from the Mexican trucks. Of course, FMCSA appealed, all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 21, 2004 with a unanimous verdict being rendered on June 7, 2004.
The US Supreme Court held that the FMCSA had no control of the trucks once the regulations governing the pilot program were passed, and would therefore be unable to act on the findings of an EIS even if it did conduct one.
FMCSA has no statutory authority to impose or enforce emissions controls or to establish environmental requirements unrelated to motor carrier safety.
The Court also found that the passage of the regulations was not sufficiently responsible for the increased pollution caused by the trucks to warrant an EIS.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the Courts most conservative Judge wrote the opinion which you can read here.
Merging these two lawsuits will make it easier and quicker for the sitting judges to toss them as a whole when they are argued before the Court. This will clear the way for more Mexican carriers to apply to the program without having to worry about it being a waste of time and money for them to do so.
GCC Transporte with it's excellent safety record and previous participation in the 2007 Pilot Program is on track to participate in the reincarnated program. If the name seems familiar, CEMEX is worldwide, including a heavy presence in the US
The Cross Border Pilot Program with Mexico is on track as more than 15 carriers have applied for admission into the program.
The FMCSA is continuing to conduct the Pre-Authority Safety Audits (PASA) in full compliance with the terms of the pilot program.
The latest applicant to undergo their PASA is Transportes Unimex SA de CV of Reynosa Tamps. Their USDOT #1739863 shows a company with 30 power units and 28 drivers. Their SAFERSYS data shows a carrier with zero crashes, a vehicle out of service rate of 13%, the national average being 20.72%, a driver out of service rate of 0.3%, only 2 drivers being placed OOS out of 608 inspections.
Their SMS Scores paint a different story and show what is inherently flawed with the entire CSA schema.
Under the DRIVER FITNESS BASIC, they sit in the 100% percentile due to 212 violations of 391.11(b)(2) Non-English speaking driver, a regulation which is arbitrary, capricious and offers absolutely no guidelines as to what is English proficiency. This is over a 24 month period involving 28 drivers and 619 inspections.
Under the FATIGUE DRIVING BASIC, of 619 inspections, there are only 4 violations which is strange as this carrier operating in a drayage operation, would not be required to maintain a logbook.
In the VEHICLE MAINTENANCE BASIC, they sit at 90.9% percentile. Looking at the inspection reports, they show violations typical of Texas DPS inspection program. Reflective tape on trailers damaged or missing, light not operating and one that would not apply to a tractor or trailer registered in Mexico, 396.17(c) Operating a CMV without periodic inspection. Another good example of how CSA is going to be bad for all of us, US, Canadian or Mexican.
During this reporting period 10/31/2011 thru 11/06/2011, Transportes Olympics made 2 crossings, using 2 drivers in 1 truck. No CVSA inspections were conducted nor required under terms of the program. Both drivers licenses were checked and found to be active. There were no other incidents reported concerning this carrier.
WEEK OF 11/07/2011 – 11/13/2011
This reporting period saw Transportes Olympics making 1 border crossing using 2 drivers with nothing out of the ordinary.
There were also two more PASA’s conducted. Baja Express Transportes SA de CV. No information available on this company at the moment.
The second, GCC Transporte SA de CV of Chihuahua, Chih., DOT#:650155, operated under the 2007 Cross Border Demonstration Program. GCC has 15 trucks, 15 drivers and their trucks have been inspected a total of 834 times in the past 24 months with an OOS rate of 6.7%. The drivers have been inspected a total of 1610 times with a 0% OOS rate.
Looking at GCC Transports through the lens of SMS,, we get a slightly different perspective on the company, although still well below the thresholds.
Under the DRIVER FITNESS BASIC, they score a 40.6%, well below the 80% intervention threshold. And again, out of 1600 inspections, 15 were found to be “not proficient in English”.
Under the VEHICLE MAINTENANCE BASIC,, the score 43.7%, again, the typical Mickey Mouse violations. They have no violations under DRIVER FITNESS nor under the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BASIC.
WEEK OF 11/14/2011 – 11/20/2011
This week saw no new PASA’s conducted. Transportes Olympics made 1 crossing using 2 drivers with no reported problems. Both drivers licenses were found to be valid.
It’s interesting to note that GCC Transports, a flatbed outfit which hauls cement products in the border states, was the target of OOIDA in 2007 in their failed lawsuit against the 2007 Demonstration Project. (07-73987). This provides even more proof that a Mexican carrier can adapt and fully comply with our rules and regulations here in the United States.
In OOIDA’s latest lame attempt to stop cross border trucking with Mexico using bogus or suspect data, they go back to a little known provision of the Safe Port Act of 2006, specifically Section 703.
Peter King, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, and Candice Miller, chairman of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, no doubt at the urging of OOIDA and the Teamsters, recently sent a letter to Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security demanding to know why section 703 of the act had not been complied with.
Anybody heard of section 703, much less the Safe Port Act of 2006? We hadn’t until now, but when we saw this, we got up to speed on it pretty damned quick.
The Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 or SAFE Port Act is an 1883 page document that has to do with securing America’s seaports and other ports of entry and provides guidelines for the C-TPAT program, crewmember identification, nuclear incident preparedness and the like. ABSOLUTELY nothing within the SAFE Port Act of 2006 specifically targets the cross border pilot program with Mexico as OOIDA alleges.
[pullquote]
SEC. 703. TRUCKING SECURITY.
(c) VERIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC.—
(1) GUIDELINES.—Not later than 18 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation, shall draft guidelines
for Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials, including
motor carrier safety enforcement personnel, on how to identify
noncompliance with Federal laws uniquely applicable to
commercial motor vehicles and commercial motor vehicle operators
engaged in cross-border traffic and communicate such noncompliance
to the appropriate Federal authorities. Such guidelines
shall be coordinated with the training and outreach activities
of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration under
section 4139 of SAFETEA-LU (Public Law 109–59).
(2) VERIFICATION.—Not later than 18 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration shall modify the
final rule regarding the enforcement of operating authority
(Docket No. FMCSA–2002–13015) to establish a system or
process by which a carrier’s operating authority can be verified
during a roadside inspection.
[/pullquote]
The date of the act was October 13, 2006. 18 months would put the date of compliance at April 13, 2008.
So the question is, what laws are “uniquely applicable” to commercial motor vehicles and commercial motor vehicle operators engaged in cross-border traffic? What laws do they refer to that would fall under the authority of DHS? Certainly not the requirement to speak English. That’s a regulation, not a law. And again, this says nothing specific to the cross border pilot program. It specifies CMV and CMV operators engaged in cross border traffic. A reasonable mind would come to the conclusion that this was aimed at the 25,000 or so drayage or commercial zone carriers crossing the southern border annually in addition to all the Canadians who have carte blanche access to the United States across the northern border.
With that in mind, it begs the question as to why OOIDA even brings it up in their continued pathetic attempts to stop the unstoppable. It has absolutely nothing to do with the participants in the Cross Border Pilot Program with Mexico.
This goes to show that congress critter like King and Miller blindly follow what they are fed by the various lobbyists. Part of the letter sent to Secretary Napolitano offers proof of this.
“Given the numerous regulations and strict oversight your department places over our domestic trucking industry, we would hope that your department would take an equally active role in foreign carriers operating within the United States.”
They continue with,
“Therefore, we want to make certain that the department is taking all precautions and steps necessary to ensure that we are properly and thoroughly vetting the trucks and drivers entering this country, and providing necessary guidance to our federal, state and local partners who will encounter these trucks in their various jurisdictions during the course of their duties.”
Again, nothing at all about Mexican trucks and we know from looking at the guidelines published regarding the Cross Border Pilot Program with Mexico, that the participants are the most closely monitored and vetted commercial vehicles operating in our country.
And where it concerns Mexico, their drivers must possess a valid passport, I-94 entry/exit card and the appropriate visa to conduct their business on this side of the border, something not required of the Canadians. We know who the Mexicans are crossing into this country through our commercial ports of entry. Not so much so those from the north.
This is simply another lame attempt by OOIDA to muddy the issue and foster outrage among their members, and perhaps persuade members who are wondering “what the hell has OOIDA done for me” to renew their membership in the rapidly dwindling ranks of OOIDA.
For those interested, the SAFE Port Act of 2006 can be downloaded here.
Sufficient data is becoming available for the FMCSA to begin to publish status reports for the Mexican carriers participating in the Mexican Cross Border Pilot Program.
The weekly updates can be accessed at FMCSA’s website.
This is part of the transparency of the program required under the rules for the program and which groups who oppose Mexican trucking claims not to exist.
Here’s an overview of the first report published. It covers the week of 10/21/2011 through 10/31/2011.
Transportes Olympic has made 2 crossings using 2 drivers in one truck.
There was one inspection done on Transportes Olympics trucks as required under the pilot program rules. Since Transportes Olympics was eligible and granted, permanent operating authority after factoring in their successful 18 month participation in the previous program, further inspections are not mandated every time one of their trucks crosses the border.
No drivers nor vehicles were placed Out-of-Service during this period of time.
There were no violations of terms of any participants operating authority.
Review of data from EOBR’s placed on-board the truck belonging to Transportes Olympics revealed one violation of Hours of Service Rules, however, upon investigation FMCSA determined that the driver’s sleeper berth period was interrupted for 2 minutes due to a need to relocate the vehicle. Activities that momentarily interrupt a driver’s sleep are not considered to interrupt the driver’s sleeper berth status.
The drivers Licencia Federal de Conductors were checked and licenses were found to be active.
There were no reportable crashes nor other violations found during this period.
A third applicant, Moises Alvarez Perez DBA Distribuidora Marina El Pescador, a refrigerated carrier has undergone their PASA and awaiting the results from FMCSA.
Much ado about nothing.
"Someone oughtta shoot that motherf*&#er! Let 'im organize the dead!" – Jimmy R. Hoffa (referring to his sons delusional opposition to Mexican trucks?)
Jimmy R. Hoffa (1913-1982), legendary leader of the Teamsters must be looking up from from the great beyond, shaking his head in disgust at the pathetic loser that bears his name, James P. Hoffa. Hoffa, re-elected by a minority of the Teamsters (Hoffa received 137,172 votes out of a membership of 1.4 million) rank and file to guide the once powerful International Brotherhood of Teamsters into further mediocrity, has chosen to hasten their descent by expanding their frivolous lawsuit against Mexican trucks.
Teaming up with so called “public interest” group PUBLIC CITIZEN and tree huggers SIERRA CLUB, they’ve expanded their frivolous and merit-less lawsuit filed back in September which failed to halt the implementation of the new cross border pilot program with Mexico.
“Opening the border to these dangerous, dirty trucks is an attack on highway safety, an attack on American truckers and warehouse workers, an attack on border security and an attack on our environment,” said the delusional little man, James Hoffa. “It’s outrageous enough that we’ve outsourced millions of jobs to foreign countries, but now we’re bringing foreign workers across the border into the United States to take our jobs. This is another pressure the American middle class doesn’t need.”
Hoffa and his cohorts are using the same baseless arguments as OOIDA did in a similar lawsuit filed in September in which a Federal Court denied OOIDA an injunction to stop the program, although allowing the suit to be fast tracked.
The Teamsters suit claims the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration breaks the following laws:
- It waives a law that trucks must display certain proof that they meet federal safety standards.
(Not true. The pilot program requires trucks participating to be 1998 or newer and compliant to US EPA laws in effect at time of manufacture. An EPA sticker or declaration of compliance is required)
- It breaks the law requiring the pilot program to achieve an equivalent level of safety because Mexican drivers don’t have to meet the same physical requirements as U.S. drivers.
(Medical requirements for Mexican drivers are more stringent than those for US drivers. The basis of this claim is Mexico only requires vision acuity of the color red, while the US requires Red, Yellow, Green, acuity. A minor difference)
- It breaks the law that Mexico must provide simultaneous and comparable access to U.S. trucks. Mexico cannot do so because of the limited availability of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel in Mexico.
(NAFTA truck access rules require “equal access” for all three countries to one another. The ULSD claim is bogus as ULSD is widely available in border cities and major metropolitan areas in Mexico.)
- It breaks the law that the pilot program must include enough participants to be statistically valid. The FMCSA’s proposal ensures that only the best Mexican trucks participate, which would allow it to justify letting any Mexican truck over the border in the future.
(Another bogus argument and because of this, Mexican carriers are hesitant to commit the money and other resources necessary to participate in the program until they are assured these bogus claims and lawsuits are a thing of the past.)
They also make the claim that FMCSA has not made the required Environmental Impact Assessment, which is patently false.
This is just more chest pounding and posturing by this irrelevant little media whore. Case law prevails on the environmental issue.
In 2002, Public Citizen sued the FMCSA claiming an environmental impact study was required before any effort could be made to open the southern border to Mexican trucks as required under our NAFTA obligations.
At that time, FMCSA prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), but they did not prepare and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as PUBLIC CITIZEN claimed was required by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
The EA focused mainly on the environmental impact from doing more inspections, not on the impact from more trucks driving the roads.
Public Citizen sued to stop the possibility of cross border trucking until an EIS was prepared.Public Citizen argued that the increased number of trucks on US roads was liable to have a significant environmental impact, and therefore an EIS was required. There claim was that more than 30,000 older polluting trucks burning high sulphur diesel would have an impact on our environment.
The trial court found in favor of the defendent, FMCSA. The Trial Court found that although the FMCSA pilot program would result in more trucks, FMCSA did not have control over those trucks and therefore did not have to account for them in an EIS. Public Citizen went shopping and appealed to the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, reversing the trial court. The Appellate Court found that the EA was deficient because it failed to give adequate consideration to the overall environmental impact from the Mexican trucks. Of course, FMCSA appealed, all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 21, 2004 with a unanimous verdict being rendered on June 7, 2004.
The US Supreme Court held that the FMCSA had no control of the trucks once the regulations governing the pilot program were passed, and would therefore be unable to act on the findings of an EIS even if it did conduct one.
FMCSA has no statutory authority to impose or enforce emissions controls or to establish environmental requirements unrelated to motor carrier safety.
The Court also found that the passage of the regulations was not sufficiently responsible for the increased pollution caused by the trucks to warrant an EIS.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the Courts most conservative Judge wrote the opinion which you can read here.
All other arguments seem to be without merit and simply a manner for the opposition to keep pressure on the Mexicans not to participate in the program, due to the uncertainty of it’s future.
Teamsters talk about job losses which will not occur yet they ignore the 25,000 private sector jobs lost due to the legal retaliatory tariffs Mexico imposed over our refusal to comply with our NAFTA obligations.
They choose to ignore also, that Mexico reserves the right, to re-apply the tariffs if in the slim chance, Hoffa, OOIDA, through their puppet Congress critters, is somehow able to put an end to the program. We see this newest attempt as going now where in the end.
And the delusional little man leading the Teamsters will push that once proud organization into further irrelevance, the same as Todd Spencer and Jim Johnston are doing with OOIDA in their opposition to this program.
Thinking back, Jimmy Hoffa was a corrupt but brutally honest man who kept his word. Damned shame his son is just the opposite.
Why are we worrying about a few Mexican trucks when we have thousands of our own polluting the landscape?
At one time or another, we’ve all heard Dale “The Trucking Bozo” Sommers, or his kid Steve and Eric “Bubba Bo” Bolanger from ATN preaching the gospel to anyone of their dwindling number of listeners, that Mexican diesel is garbage fuel, thick, contaminated, green slime, not fit to be burned in a ships bunker. And lamentably, many beliefs these self righteous talkers.
However, a report has come to light by the Texas Transportation Institute, part of the Texas A&M University system that suggests the diesel fuel processed and sold in Mexico, by PEMEX, is equal to and in some cases exceeds EPA standards, post 2007.
I’m not going to go into a lot of detail here. You can download and assess the report HERE, but needless to say, the report debunks many of the claims made by opponents of Mexican trucks who continue to grasp at an ever dwindling bunch of straws to discredit the program.
The overall goal of this scientific study was to quantify emissions produced by Mexican trucks operating on standard diesel and alternative fuels. Vehicle testing was conducted near the Colombia Commercial Bridge, just outside of Laredo, Texas. A sample of five Mexican drayage trucks and five Mexican long-haul trucks were selected for testing. Each truck was subjected to long-haul and drayage drive cycles while operating with three different fuel types and pulling a trailer that had been loaded to a specified weight. Emissions data was collected using portable emissions measurement system (PEMS) equipment.
The study measures the emissions for Mexican trucks using three types of fuel – the standard diesel available in Mexico, sold by PEMEX. ULSD fuel (mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] for use in 2007 and later model trucks in the U.S.), and a biodiesel mix (20 percent biodiesel fuel and 80 percent ULSD fuel). A detailed description of these fuels can be seen in the source document.
The procedure involved testing emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO2 – collectively referred to as NOx), total hydrocarbons (THC), and particulate matter (PM). Sampling was also performed for mobile-source air toxics (MSATS) under idling conditions. The existing vehicle fleet participating in cross-border trucking was first profiled and a representative sample of trucks was selected. Testing was conducted for the three different fuel types on the selected trucks following pre-determined drive cycles. The research team used two PEMS units for the testing.
[pullquote]In general, the results of this study suggest that using the ULSD fuel instead of the PEMEX fuel might not provide the expected emissions benefit.[/pullquote]
RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS
NOx Emissions
It was found that for idling modes (low and high) the B20 and PEMEX fuels tend to decrease NOx emissions slightly (compared to the ULSD fuel). For on-road modes (drayage and long-haul cycles), both the B20 and PEMEX fuels seemed to increase NOx. There was no clear correlation between vehicle age and NOx emissions rates. The impact of air conditioner usage on NOx was mixed; with a notable impact in idle mode and no apparent effect for on-road tests.
HC Emissions
Both the B20 and PEMEX fuels reduced hydrocarbons emissions during all modes of operation when compared to the ULSD fuel with the B20 fuel having the highest reduction. The age of the trucks appeared to have an inverse effect (newer trucks showed higher emissions) on HC emissions, which might be the result of finer fuel injection in newer diesel engines. The effect of air conditioning usage on HC was not clear because of the mentioned inverse impact of age on HC.
CO Emissions
Similar to HC emissions, the B20 and PEMEX fuels tended to decrease CO emissions compared to the ULSD fuel for all operation modes. It was found having a newer engine does not appear to have a positive impact on CO emissions rates in the idling mode as would be expected. The results were mixed for on-road tests: no age impact was observed for long-haul trucks. Newer drayage trucks had lower CO emissions than the older ones. There was no obvious correlation between air conditioning usage and changes in CO rates.
CO2 Emissions
The results showed that the fuel type does not have an impact on the CO2 emissions. However, it must be noted that 20 percent of the B20 fuel came from a renewable source. CO2 from this portion can be considered as an emission benefit. Air conditioning appeared to have a notable impact on CO2 emissions. The age of the trucks showed no apparent effect on CO2 emissions.
PM Emissions
The B20 fuel appeared to substantially reduce PM emissions (from the ULSD fuel) for the on-road operational mode. The PEMEX fuel also seemed to reduce PM, but to a lesser extent. The PEMEX fuel used had a higher cetane index as compared with the ULSD fuel (50.2 versus 47.5). Previous studies have shown that higher cetane numbers can increase NOx slightly and reduce CO and HC. All else equal, higher cetane tends to advance the ignition timing which causes a decrease these emissions and a slight increase in NOx. The increase in NOx would be most obvious on the driving cycles where the engine is under load. Additionally, the process to lower the sulfur to develop the ULSD fuel could involve the addition of hydrogen that might result in higher PM numbers. There is also a potential lubricity effect (contaminants in the fuel system mixes into the fuel line) resulting in higher than expected emissions rates, especially for PM.
Mobile Source Air Toxics
The formaldehyde and acetaldehyde emissions were significantly lower than observed previously in idling trucks from the U.S. and Mexico. The higher cetane index of all three fuels may be responsible for this observed reduction. No additional aldehyde emissions were detected from the biodiesel fuel, despite its fuel oxygen. Because the new ultralow sulfur rules have improved fuel quality in both the U.S. and Mexico, there is no reason to expect that ULSD or B20 fuels would have a noticeable effect on the aldehyde MSAT emissions.
In general, the results of this study suggest that using the ULSD fuel instead of the PEMEX fuel might not provide the expected emissions benefit. But as this carefully conducted scientific study shows, and contrary to what you’ve been led to believe, in most cases, PEMEX diesel fuel is comparable to USLD and can produce lower emissions, clearly debunking the claims of OOIDA and other opponents of cross border trucking who use environmental issues to cloud the debate over Mexican trucking.
Loading ...
Readers Reponses