1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194 
A smarter choice?
1st July 2004, Page 55
1st July 2004
Page 55
Page 55, 1st July 2004
— A smarter choice?
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
European hauliers and truck manufacturers aren't the only groups of people looking at selective catalytic reduction (SCR) with a wary eye in North America the powerful Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has major concerns about SCR's suitability to the US truck market.
As a result, says ArvinMeritor, "the EPA is likely to require that in any engine or truck using a SCR system the manufacturer incorporates a lockout system to prevent the vehicle's operation if the urea system is inoperative or empty".
The EPA will also require that there are sufficient urea dispensing points throughout the country infinitely more difficult in a country as big as America when compared with setting up a filling network in the UK.
Tags
Organisations:
Environmental Protection Agency