FTC Seeks Public Comment on Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on Aug. 18 that it is requesting comments on five key consumer warranty issues concerning interpretations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Specifically, the FTC is requesting public input on: Rule Governing Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions; Rule Governing Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms; Rule Governing Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures; and Guides for the Advertising of Warranties and Guarantees and procedural standards for warrantors who want consumers to use a dispute resolution process before filing suit for breach of warranty. FTC’s announcement is, in part, a response to efforts to urge the FTC to take a stronger role in making sure that auto manufacturers companies do not condition their new car warranties on the use of original equipment parts or service.
NAFA has submitted written comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in support of EPA’s proposal to waive requirements for State II vapor recovery because there is widespread use of onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) for capturing gasoline vapor emissions when gasoline-powered vehicles are refueled. You can read the statement by clicking here.
In the comments filed with the EPA, NAFA agreed with EPA’s assessment that the use of ORVR is significant in the national motor vehicle fleet and that widespread use of ORVR will occur by the mid-point in the 2013 calendar year. NAFA noted that because corporate and public fleet vehicles are typically newer, the use of ORVR is even greater in centrally-fueled fleets.
Automakers were required to install ORVR on all new passenger cars beginning in 2000 and on all new light-duty trucks and vans (less than 6000 lbs GVWR) beginning in 2003. Based on a recent NAFA survey, NAFA told the EPA the overwhelming number of corporate and public fleet vehicles have been put into service since the point in time that one hundred percent of vehicles were to be equipped with ORVR. These results reflect that most fleets adhere to a strict replacement policy which has resulted in older vehicles not equipped with ORVR being out of service.
NAFA, however, expressed concerns regarding the effect of the proposed regulation on refueling facilities in northeastern states that make up the ozone transport region (OTR). States in the OTR are subject to a separate Stage II-related requirement under the Clean Air Act. NAFA urged the EPA to permit ORVR to be recognized as an emission reduction measure considered "comparable" to Stage II in the OTR states.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit recently against a trucking company, saying that the company’s policy of not permitting drivers with a history of alcohol problems to return to driving after treatment violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The company should have met its legal obligation to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act while assuring safety, rather than permanently sidelining self-reporting drivers, the EEOC contended.
According to the EEOC’s suit (Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-02153-PKH in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas), the drive had worked for the company for five years without incident. In late June 2009, the employee reported to the company that he believed he had an alcohol problem. Under U.S. Department of transportation regulations, the employer suspended the employee from his driving position and referred him for substance abuse counseling. However, the employer also informed the driver that the employer would never return him to a driving position, even upon the successful completion of a counseling program. The EEOC said that the company violated both the ADA and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act of 2008 (ADAAA) by conditioning reassignment to non-driving positions on the enrollment in an alcohol treatment program. In addition, the EEOC argued that Old Dominion’s policy that bans any driver who self-reports alcohol abuse from ever driving again also violates the ADA.
NAFA Submits Comments to EPA on Stage II Vapor Recovery Proposal
NAFA has submitted written comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in support of EPA’s proposal to waive requirements for State II vapor recovery because there is widespread use of onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) for capturing gasoline vapor emissions when gasoline-powered vehicles are refueled. You can read the statement by clicking here.
In the comments filed with the EPA, NAFA agreed with EPA’s assessment that the use of ORVR is significant in the national motor vehicle fleet and that widespread use of ORVR will occur by the mid-point in the 2013 calendar year. NAFA noted that because corporate and public fleet vehicles are typically newer, the use of ORVR is even greater in centrally-fueled fleets.
Automakers were required to install ORVR on all new passenger cars beginning in 2000 and on all new light-duty trucks and vans (less than 6000 lbs GVWR) beginning in 2003. Based on a recent NAFA survey, NAFA told the EPA the overwhelming number of corporate and public fleet vehicles have been put into service since the point in time that one hundred percent of vehicles were to be equipped with ORVR. These results reflect that most fleets adhere to a strict replacement policy which has resulted in older vehicles not equipped with ORVR being out of service.
NAFA, however, expressed concerns regarding the effect of the proposed regulation on refueling facilities in northeastern states that make up the ozone transport region (OTR). States in the OTR are subject to a separate Stage II-related requirement under the Clean Air Act. NAFA urged the EPA to permit ORVR to be recognized as an emission reduction measure considered "comparable" to Stage II in the OTR states.
EEOC Sues Fleet over Alcohol Policy
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit recently against a trucking company, saying that the company’s policy of not permitting drivers with a history of alcohol problems to return to driving after treatment violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The company should have met its legal obligation to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act while assuring safety, rather than permanently sidelining self-reporting drivers, the EEOC contended.
According to the EEOC’s suit (Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-02153-PKH in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas), the drive had worked for the company for five years without incident. In late June 2009, the employee reported to the company that he believed he had an alcohol problem. Under U.S. Department of transportation regulations, the employer suspended the employee from his driving position and referred him for substance abuse counseling. However, the employer also informed the driver that the employer would never return him to a driving position, even upon the successful completion of a counseling program. The EEOC said that the company violated both the ADA and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act of 2008 (ADAAA) by conditioning reassignment to non-driving positions on the enrollment in an alcohol treatment program. In addition, the EEOC argued that Old Dominion’s policy that bans any driver who self-reports alcohol abuse from ever driving again also violates the ADA.