State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking,
Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO ADOPT REDUCED EMISSION STANDARDS FOR 2007 AND SUBSEQUENT MODEL YEAR
NEW HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL ENGINES
Public Hearing Date: October 25, 2001
Agenda Item No.: 01-8-1
Table of Contents
I. GENERAL 1
II. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSE 3
III. GENERAL 4
IV. ANALYSIS OF TECHNICAL ISSUES 5
A. Fuel 5
1. Need For Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel 5
a. Engine and aftertreatment system technology is integrally linked to diesel fuel sulfur levels. 9
b. Cap standard for diesel fuel sulfur levels versus average standard. 12
c. 5 ppm cap on diesel fuel sulfur levels. 14
d. Availability of ultra low sulfur fuel for Tier 2 light-duty engines and vehicles. 16
2. The New Diesel Fuel Sulfur Standard Should Be Effective No Later Than January 1, 2006. 17
3. Low Sulfur Nonroad Diesel Fuel. 21
4. Diesel Fuel Issues Outside of California. 24
5. Other Fuel Related Issues. 30
B. Emission Standards 38
1. Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine and Vehicle Standards 38
a. Technologically feasible demonstration. 40
(i) NOx and PM Standard 46
(ii) Optional combined NMHC+NOx standard. 53
(iii) Formaldehyde standard. 54
(iv) Issues with Major Systems Components 56
(v) Trap/Adsorber System Issues 65
(vi) Technological Feasibility of Proposed NOx and NMHC Standards for Alternative-fueled Engines 67
(vii) Natural Physical Limitations of Emission Control Systems 68
b. Period of stability for introduction of the new standards. 69
c. Phase-in of NOx, NMHC and formaldehyde standards. 70
(i) NOx standard implementation. 76
(ii) Emission standards level and emission benefits. 78
(iii) Phase-in. 80
(iv) Alternative technologies. 82
2. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engine And Vehicle Standards 84
a. Nationwide availability and use of California Phase III reformulated gasoline, with a 30-ppm sulfur cap, to meet the proposed 2007 HDG Standards. 86
3. Closed Crankcase Requirement. 87
4. Technology Review. 89
5. Non-Conformance Penalties. 90
C. Supplemental Emission Tests 90
1. Technologically Feasibility of the Proposed Supplemental Emission Requirements and Tests. 95
a. NTE caps. 100
b. SSS (Euro III) 106
c. Mystery Points/MAELs 108
d. Load response test 108
e. Expanded ambient conditions 108
f. Stringency impact of the new defeat device definition 112
g. Cost-effectiveness of the SERTs. 114
2. SERTs for 2007 and Later Model Year Engines. 114
D. Compliance And Other Issues 115
1. Averaging, Banking & Trading Program. 115
a. NOx and PM credits rounded to 0.01 megagram. 118
b. AB&T emission caps levels. 118
2. Requirements for Allowable Maintenance Procedures. 119
3. OBD Requirements 120
4. Voluntary Retrofit Program 121
5. Labeling Requirements for Vehicle Manufacturers. 121
6. Special Provisions For Intermittently Regenerating Aftertreatment Devices. 122
7. Urban transit bus standards. 123
8. In-use compliance program. 130
V. HEALTH EFFECTS ANALYSIS 130
A. Health Effects Of Ambient PM And Diesel PM 132
B. Cancer Effects Associated With Diesel Exhaust 133
C. Non-Cancer Effects Of Diesel Exhaust 135
VI. COST ANALYSIS 136
A. Economic Impact and Cost Effectiveness Analysis 137
1. Development Cost Analysis 138
2. Hardware Costs Analysis 141
3. Operating Cost Analysis 145
4. Cost Effectiveness Analysis 147
VII. INVENTORY/MODELING ANALYSIS 148
VIII. LEGAL ANALYSIS 150
A. Due Process of Law. 150
B. Technologically Feasible and Cost Effective. 154
C. Lead Time and Period of Stability. 156
D. Arbitrary and Capricious. 158
E. Statutory Authority - “Not To Exceed” Requirements And Other Supplemental Emissions Requirements And Tests. 159
F. Statutory Authority - Definition of “Defeat Device.” 162
G. Unconstitutional. 162
H. Promulgate and Enforce the Proposed High Altitude Requirements. 163
I. Context of EPA Rule. 164
J. Applicability. 167
ii
List of Acronyms
ABT Averaging, banking, and trading
AECD Auxiliary emission control device
ALA American Lung Association
AMG AM General Corporation/Hummer (also referenced as GEP)
ANPRM Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking
APBF Advanced Petroleum Based Fuels
API American Petroleum Institute
ARB Air Resources Board
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BOTD Ball-on-Three-Discs
bsfc Brake specific fuel consumption
BSNOx Brake specific NOx
BSPM Brake specific PM
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agancy
CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCV Closed crankcase ventilation
CDPF Catalyzed diesel particulate filter
CETC California Electric Transportation Coalition
CF Correction factor
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
COV Coefficient of variance
CRC Coordinated Research Council
CVS Constant volume sampling
D.C. District of Columbia
DDC Detroit Diesel Corporation
DECSE Diesel Emissions Control Sulfur Effects
DNPR Diesel NOx Particulate Reduction
DOC Diesel oxidation catalyst
DOE Department of Energy (also see U.S. DOE)
DPF Diesel particulate filter
EGR Exhaust gas recirculation
EMA Engine Manufacturers Association
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (also see U.S. EPA)
ESC European stationary cycle
FEL Family emission limit
FR Federal Register
FSOR Final Statement of Reasons
FTP Federal Test Procedure
g/bhp grams per brake horsepower
g/bhp-hr grams per brake horsepower-hour
GVWR Gross vehicle weight rating
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
HAD Health Assessment Document
HD Heavy-duty
HDDE Heavy-duty diesel engine
HDDV Heavy-duty diesel vehicle
HFRR High Frequency Reciprocating Rig
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ISOR Initial statement of reasons (staff report)
lb/bhp pounds per brake horsepower
LRT Load response test
MAEL Maximum allowable emission limits
MAF Mass air flow
MECA Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association
MSTD Monterey-Salinas Transit District
MY Model year
NCP Non-conformance penalty
NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
NMHC Non-methane hydrocarbon
NMMAPS National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air pollution Study
NOx Oxides of nitrogen
NO Nitrogen oxide
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTE Not to Exceed
NVFEL National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
OBD On-board diagnosis
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OTAQ Office of Transportation and Air Quality
PM Particulate matter
ppm Parts per million
RIA Regulatory impact analysis
ROG Reactive organic gas
S Sulfur
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCR Selective catalytic reduction
SERT Supplemental emission requirement and test
SLBOCLE Scuffing Load Ball-on-Cylinder Lubricating Evaluator
SOx Oxides of sulfur
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SO3 Sulfur trioxide, or sulfur (VI) oxide
SOP Statement of Principles
SRP Scientific Review Panel
SSS Supplemental steady state
TBN Total base number
UHC Unburned hydrocarbon
U.S. DOE United States Department of Energy
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOC Volatile organic compound
ZDDP Zinc-dialkyl-dithiophosphate
Note: Acronyms listed above have been used in the abbreviated comments in this Final Statement of Reasons and all other unabbreviated public responses.
iv
I. GENERAL
The Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking ("staff report"), entitled “Public Hearing to Consider Amendments Adopting More Stringent Emission Standards for 2007 and Subsequent Model Year New Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines,” released September 7, 2001, is incorporated by reference herein.
Following a public hearing on October 25, 2001, the Air Resources Board (the Board or ARB) by Resolution 01-38 approved more stringent emission standards for 2007 and subsequent model year new heavy-duty diesel engines (HDDEs). Resolution 01-38 is attached and incorporated by reference herein. The Board approved the regulatory language as proposed with non-substantive corrections. The affected sections are title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), section 1956.8 (amended) and the incorporated “California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 1985 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles” (amended).
Background: HDDEs are used in a variety of applications such as large trucks, school buses, and motor homes. For large trucks in particular, HDDEs have proven to be reliable, durable, and very fuel efficient. Because of this, HDDEs play a vital role in the transportation of goods and material in California, as well as the rest of the nation. Consequently, HDDEs are a key element of a strong economy.
Compared to gasoline-fueled automobiles and light-duty trucks, HDDEs have significantly lagged behind in the use of aftertreatment-based emission control systems. This is primarily because HDDEs emit relatively low levels of hydrocarbons, particulate matter (PM) reductions have been achieved through engine modifications, and aftertreatment systems to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from HDDEs have been slower to develop. However, in recent years, PM filters have become available to address diesel PM health risk concerns, and NOx aftertreatment devices are rapidly developing. These devices offer the opportunity to achieve substantial reductions in HDDE emissions.
In October of 2000, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) adopted a rule that reaffirmed[1] emission standards for 2004 and subsequent model year HDDEs.[2] This rulemaking also included supplemental test procedures required for certification in addition to the existing Federal Test Procedure (FTP). Because aftertreatment technologies for diesel engines have been fully developed for PM and are on the near horizon for NOx, in January of 2001 the U.S. EPA followed the 2004 Final Rule with another rule to reduce emission standards for 2007 and subsequent model year heavy-duty engines,[3] including both Otto-cycle and diesel-cycle engines. These emission standards represent a 90% reduction of NOx emissions, 72% reduction of non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions, and 90% reduction of PM emissions compared to the 2004 emission standards. In addition to the more stringent emission standards, in the U.S. EPA’s 2007 Final Rule, the U.S. EPA adopted minor changes to the previously adopted supplemental test procedures.
The U.S. EPA’s 2007 Final Rule breaks new ground by setting emission standards that are projected to need aftertreatment-based technologies. The U.S. EPA’s 2007 Final Rule is analogous to the regulations that first required the use of aftertreatment devices (i.e., catalytic converters) on gasoline-fueled automobiles and light-duty trucks in the mid 1970s. The U.S. EPA’s 2007 Final Rule is also a “systems” approach in that it relies on the use of low sulfur fuel, analogous to the requirement for unleaded gasoline in the mid 1970s.
The California amendments include nearly identical emission standards, test procedures, and other requirements contained in the U.S. EPA’s 2007 Final Rule. Although the California amendments include diesel certification test fuel specifications, a major difference with the federal amendments is that there is no proposal to require the production and sale of low sulfur diesel fuel in California. A proposal to require the production of low sulfur diesel fuel in California will be part of a separate rulemaking. In addition to the emission standards and test procedures, other requirements include the elimination of the current exemption that allows turbocharger-equipped engines to vent crankcase emissions to the ambient air. The proposed amendments do not apply to heavy-duty spark-ignited engines and vehicles. Similar emission standard and test procedure requirements for the spark-ignited engines and vehicles are scheduled for consideration before the Board in 2002.
The amendments ensure that the requirements for 2007 and subsequent model year HDDEs are identical to those adopted by the U.S. EPA in January 2001. The Board expects that the adopted, more stringent, emission standards will reduce NOx emissions by 49 tons per day, reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions by 2 tons per day, and PM emissions by 3 tons per day in 2010, statewide, from California and out-of-state registered medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. However, by harmonizing the existing ARB medium-duty CO emission standard with the U.S. EPA’s 2007 and subsequent model year HDDE emission standard, the amendments will result in an increase in statewide CO emissions of 0.1 tons per day in 2010.
Economic and Fiscal Impacts. The Executive Officer determined, and the Board agreed, that the proposed regulatory action will not create costs or savings, as defined in Government Code section 11346.5(a)(6), to any state agency or in federal funding to the state, costs or mandate to any local agency or school district whether or not reimbursable by the state pursuant to part 7 (commencing with section 17500), division 4, title 2 of the Government Code, or other non-discretionary savings to local agencies.
The Board agreed with the Executive Officer’s initial determination that adoption of the regulatory action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. That determination has not changed. While not significant, the ARB has identified the following potential cost impacts that a representative private person or business may necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the adopted action:
1. The businesses affected by the adopted emission standards and supplemental test procedures are the manufacturers of heavy-duty and medium-duty diesel engines sold in California. Based on previous sales data, there are 21 companies that manufacture these types of engines. Since the adopted emission standards and test procedures harmonize ARB requirements with the U.S. EPA, there may be a net decrease in costs to the engine manufacturers. The cost decrease would be due to reduced manufacturing costs from the manufacturing of one national line of engines rather than two lines of engines. The decreased costs are expected to be passed on to the consumers or purchasers of heavy-duty vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,501 pounds and greater.
- Any increase in costs to engines and vehicles would be due to adoption of federal requirements. If the entire costs, due to the federal requirements, are passed on to the consumer, heavy-duty vehicle retail prices would increase by approximately $3,400 per heavy heavy-duty vehicle, $2,700 per medium heavy-duty vehicle, and $2,100 per light heavy-duty vehicle after full implementation in the 2010 model year. The U.S. EPA estimates that current average vehicle costs are $108,000 per heavy heavy-duty vehicle, $52,000 per medium heavy-duty vehicle, and $25,000 per light heavy-duty vehicle. Based on the U.S. EPA’s estimated vehicle costs, the estimated price increase would represent a 3-8 percent price increase. The potential cost increase could be greater if the proposed ARB requirements and federal requirements are not harmonized. Consequently, the impact to manufacturers and dealers of heavy-duty vehicles due solely to the amendments in this proposal are not expected to be significant. The expected price increase is also not expected to impact California employment, business expansion, creation and elimination, or the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses from other states.
3. Due to the additional emission control technologies that may be required by the U.S. EPA’s 2007 Final Rule, manufacturers of those technologies may experience higher sales volume. The higher sales volume may also increase employment for those businesses that supply parts between the related businesses. Compared to overall California employment, this effect is expected to be minor. Additionally, to the extent that manufacturers use contract laboratories located in California for testing or other research and development efforts, there is a potential increase in contract laboratory employment. No other associated businesses are expected to be affected by the proposed regulatory action.