ATA Seeking Tax Break For Clean Diesel Engines
Companies have the option of holding on to their older trucks, rebuilding older engines, leasing older trucks or buying new trucks before the 2007 deadline – which they might do if they cannot afford the new technology.
Oliver B.Patton
Washington Editor
The American Trucking Assns. is lobbying for a short-term tax break to help trucking companies handle the expense and risk of new, clean diesel engine technology.
The association has lined up supporters on Capitol Hill, said ATA President and CEO Bill Graves in remarks to the transportation press. Also on Graves’ agenda at the recent Transportation Table were hours of service, electronic onboard recorders, fuel taxes and longer combination vehicles.
Graves said ATA supports the government’s effort to clean up engine emissions by setting tough new standards for ozone and fine particulates. The standards, which will take effect in 2007, require new engine technologies that will be more expensive to buy and maintain.
"Enacting a short-term tax incentive would put the cost of new clean diesel technology on a level playing field with the cost of today’s trucks,” Graves said.
Companies have the option of holding on to their older trucks, rebuilding older engines, leasing older trucks or buying new trucks before the 2007 deadline – which they might do if they cannot afford the new technology.
"Federal regulations can require manufacturers to produce emission compliant products, but the government cannot mandate the purchase of these clean diesel trucks.”
The tax break would make it easier for companies to make the transition to the cleaner engines, which also would help EPA achieve its clean air goals more quickly, Graves said.
He said it was too early to discuss details about the proposal or the process. This reflects the political sensitivity of the issue – tax breaks of this type are not easily won on Capitol Hill. It will be important, he noted, not “over-reach” by seeking too much in the bill.
On hours of service, ATA is urging Congress to “establish certainty.”
This is in reference to the decidedly uncertain status of the rules right now. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is drafting revised rules in response to a court finding last summer that the current rules are invalid because they do not take driver health into account. The agency’s revisions could solve the problem, or they could set the stage for more litigation.
At the same time, the agency is pushing legislation that would codify the current rules as they stand. So far its efforts have not produced results; neither the Senate nor the House included the provision in their highway bills. There remains the chance, however, that it will be added while the two chambers reconcile their different versions of the bill.
The rules are not perfect, but they never will be, Graves said. “What counts is how they’re working, and whether they are leading to more rested drivers and safer motor carrier operations.”
ATA’s data indicates that the industry’s accident rate and driver out-of-service rate is either level or better in the time that the rule has been in effect, he said.
Concerning a controversial subject of the hours regulations – electronic onboard recorders – Graves said ATA “envisions greater use of EOBRs in our industry and we are working to make this a reality.” He cited the association’s effort to develop specifications for the devices, as well as policy positions on issues such as data ownership and reliability. ATA is generally opposed to increases in fuel taxes, but Graves said that between taxes and tolls, taxes are the lesser of two evils. In the next highway reauthorization debate, the association might be willing to discuss its position on taxes, he said. “It takes money to build roads and we are willing to be part of that conversation.”
Another controversial subject for a future highway bill will be truck sizes and weights.
Graves took that issue off the table in this highway bill by striking an agreement with the Association of American Railroads, stating ATA will not seek longer or heavier trucks if AAR does not push for tighter restrictions than those already in place.
That agreement ends when this highway bill is finished, possibly this summer, but Graves downplayed a return to the bitter contentiousness that has characterized the truck-rail fight over longer combination vehicles. He said there are other ways besides bigger trucks to improve productivity – technological innovations such as onboard recorders, for example – and in any event the trucking industry needs to resolve its internal differences over the issue.
