Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 

AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE FOR IN-USE 

DIESEL-FUELED TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION UNITS (TRU) AND 

TRU GENERATOR SETS, AND FACILITIES WHERE TRUs OPERATE 

Public Hearing Date: November 18, 2010 

Agenda Item No.: 10-10-6 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page

I. General................................................................................................................. 1 

II. Summary of Comments and Agency Responses to the Original Proposal........... 3 

A. Written Comments Received During the 45-Day Public Comment Period 

and the Public Hearing............................................................................... 3

B. Oral Comments Provided During the ARB Public Hearing....................... 10 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
1 

State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL 

MEASURE FOR IN-USE DIESEL-FUELED TRANSPORT 

REFRIGERATION UNITS (TRU) AND TRU GENERATOR SETS, AND 

FACILITIES WHERE TRUs OPERATE 

Public Hearing Date: November 18, 2010 

Agenda Item No.: 10-10-6 

I. GENERAL 

In this rulemaking, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) adopted amendments to 

the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration 

Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities Where TRUs Operate (TRU 

ATCM), title 13 California Code of Regulations (CCR), section 2477. These changes 

are needed because they address compliance requirements that, per the 

originally-adopted TRU ATCM, became effective at the end of 2010. There are 

additional issues related to the TRU ATCM that will be addressed during a later 

rulemaking. 

On September 29, 2010, ARB published a Notice for a November 18, 2010, public 

hearing to consider the amendments to the TRU ATCM. The Initial Statement of 

Reasons (Staff Report) for the proposed amendments to the TRU ATCM was also 

made available for public review and comment starting on September 29, 2010. The 

Staff Report contains a description of the purpose and necessity for the amendments to 

the regulation. The text of the amendments was included as Appendix A of the Staff 

Report. These documents were posted on ARB’s Internet website for the rulemaking at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/tru2010/tru2010.htm. The Notice and Staff Report 

are incorporated by reference herein. 

Three amendments were considered and adopted by the Board: 

1. The in-use performance standard for model year (MY) 2003 TRU engines in the 

25 hp and greater category and MY 2003 and MY 2004 TRU engines in the less 

than 25 hp category were changed to allow TRU owners to comply by either 

meeting the ultra-low-emission TRU (ULETRU) in-use performance standard or, 

as an option, the less stringent low-emission TRU (LETRU) in-use standard. The 
2 

initial compliance deadlines for MYs 2003 and 2004 TRU engines are 

December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2011, respectively. The proposed 

amendments would also require that all MY 2003 and MY 2004 engines that 

initially comply by meeting the LETRU in-use standard must subsequently meet 

the ULETRU standard seven years after the initial LETRU compliance date (i.e., 

2017 or 2018). 

2. Requirements for “flexibility” engines used in TRUs by original equipment 

manufacturers (OEM) under the federal Transitional Program for Equipment 

Manufacturers and California’s equipment manufacturer flexibility program (title 

13 CCR, section 2423(d)) were clarified. Flexibility engines are new engines that 

are allowed under State and federal law to be certified to a lower emission 

standard than is otherwise in effect for new engines at the time of manufacture.1

The amendments clarify that the operational life of flexibility engines installed 

before the effective date of these amendments is seven years from the year of 

engine manufacture. Flexibility engines installed after the effective date of the 

amendments would have a shorter operational life under the amendments, based 

on the effective model year, the last year that a flexibility engine’s prior-tier 

emission standard was in effect. 

3. New reporting requirements for TRU original equipment manufacturers were 

added, which require the filing of periodic reports that include unit and engine 

data for coming production periods and sales information for previous years and 

reporting periods going forward. 

On November 18, 2010, the Board conducted a public hearing and received oral and 

written comments. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board adopted 

Resolution 10-39 which approved the proposed amendments without modification. 

Fiscal Impacts. The Executive Officer has determined that this regulatory action will 

not impose a mandate on local agencies or school districts or otherwise create costs to 

any federal, state, or local agencies. Rather, the regulation will result in cost savings for 

those public agencies that own affected TRU engines. The Executive Officer also has 

determined that the amendments will have no adverse impact on business 

competiveness, employment, business creation, elimination, or expansion. The 

proposed regulatory action may result in the creation of jobs or businesses, or 

expansion of businesses that manufacture, market, install or maintain the diesel 

emissions control strategies needed to comply with the LETRU in-use performance 

standard. Further discussion of the economic impacts of the amendments can be found 

in Chapter V of the Staff Report.

Consideration of Alternatives. The regulatory amendments in this rulemaking were 

the result of extensive discussions involving ARB, engine manufacturers, TRU 

manufacturers, and key stakeholders. A discussion of alternatives to the amendments 

 

1

 Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 89.102, 40 CFR §1039.625, 40 CFR §1068.265, and title 13 CCR § 

2423(d) (CFR, 2010a; CFR, 2010b; CFR, 2010c; CCR, 2010)). 
3 

as proposed is found in Chapter II of the Staff Report. These included retaining the 

existing provisions (a “no action” alternative); delaying the in-use compliance date for 

MY 2003 engines by one year; and only allowing a one-year adjustment for “flexibility” 

engines. 

For the reasons set forth in the Staff Report, in staff’s comments and responses at the 

hearings, and in the FSOR, the Board has determined that none of the alternatives 

considered by the agency or that have otherwise been identified and brought to the 

attention of the agency would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which 

the regulatory action was proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to 

affected private persons than the action taken by the Board. 

II. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES 

A. Written Comments Received During the 45-Day Public Comment Period 

and the Public Hearing 

The Board received written comments during the formal 45-day rulemaking comment 

period, which began with the notice publication on September 29, 2010, and ended with 

written comments submitted at the Board hearing on November 18, 2010. Persons 

submitting written comments during the 45-day public comment period and at the public 

hearing are listed in Table 1. Following the list are summaries of each comment made 

regarding the specific regulatory action proposed as well as agency responses. Each 

response includes an explanation of either any changes made to accommodate the 

comment or the reasons for making no change. 

Table 1. List of Individuals and Businesses Submitting Written Comments 

Received During the 45-day Comment Period and at the Public Hearing 

Commenter 

Reference Code Name and Affiliation 

Date Comment 

Received 

CARR Rodney Carr, Sr.; Carr Transport 11-08-2010 

TKC Erich Lucht; Thermo King Corporation 11-15-2010

RYPOS Peter Bransfield; Rypos, Inc. 11-16-2010 

ET Vicki Carne; C. W. Ennis Trucking 11-17-2010 

JCT Vicki Carne; John Carne Trucking 11-17-2010 

MECA 

Antonio Santos; Manufacturers of Emission 

Controls Association 11-17-2010 

CTA Matt Schrap; California Trucking Association 11-17-2010 

ATA Michael Tunnell; American Trucking 

Associations 

11-17-2010 

PF Tom Sem; Proventia Filters 11-18-2010 

SRP Senator Richard Polanco (retired); Rypos, Inc. 11-18-2010 

AP-20SD Alex Padilla; 20th Senate District 11-18-2010 

JBT Oralia Ornelas; Juarez Bros. Trucking, Inc. 11-18-2010 
4 

Availability and Reliability of Retrofits 

1. Comment: The amendments are needed because there is a lack of available 

ULETRU retrofits. (CTA, ATA) 

Agency Response: This is consistent with the Staff Report’s evaluation of the 

need for the amendment. 

2. Comment: There are plenty of LETRU retrofits available, they are proven and 

reliable (some free reliability upgrades have been made), and ULETRU retrofits 

are ready for trials now. There are more than 50 small business dealerships in 

California providing retrofit emissions controls. The Board should not send mixed 

signals to those that have spent resources to meet the standards. Millions of 

dollars have been invested to bring this technology to the market. Delays in 

implementing emission control requirements will only cause retrofit 

manufacturers to be extremely cautious in making future investments. It would 

be foolish in the current economic environment to drive away private investment 

in clean technology. (RYPOS, PF, MECA, AP-20SD) 

Agency Response: As discussed in the Staff Report, these points were

considered in staff’s evaluation of the need for and feasibility of these 

amendments. Staff will continue to consider these points in future rulemaking 

efforts. 

3. Comment: ULETRU retrofits have a limited track record which means that 

buyers will be reluctant to purchase unproven ULETRU retrofit technology. (ATA) 

Agency Response: Staff agrees that ULETRU retrofits have not been widely 

used as of today. This was a key reason for the decision to allow either ULETRU 

or LETRU as compliance options. Staff encourages TRU owners to begin 

working with retrofit manufacturers as early as possible in trial testing ULETRU 

devices in order to gain operating experience and familiarity with the devices so 

that improvements, if necessary, can be made in a timely manner. 

4. Comment: Diesel particulate filters are effective at reducing PM emissions; 

therefore, ARB should consider maximizing the use of these technologies 

wherever possible to meet regulatory obligations. (RYPOS, MECA) 

Agency Response: Staff recognizes that diesel particulate filters are an 

effective control technology for reducing diesel particulate matter. Staff is also 

aware that the use of cleaner engines also reduces diesel PM emissions and 

public health risk. The TRU ATCM allows both options and the amendments do 

nothing to change this. 
5 

Enforcement 

5. Comment: Less than 50 percent of the TRUs operating in California are 

compliant and the Board should provide the resources to adequately and 

diligently enforce and implement the regulation to maintain a level economic 

playing field. (RYPOS, SRP, AP-20SD) 

Agency Response: This comment is related to the ongoing implementation and 

enforcement of the regulation and not specifically to the proposed amendments. 

However, staff agrees that enforcement efforts need to be adequate to ensure 

compliance and maintain a level playing field, and that ARB is fully committed to 

effective enforcement of the TRU ATCM. 

6. Comment: CTA members are willing to assist ARB in the enforcement of the 

regulation and to help educate carriers nationwide. (CTA) 

Agency Response: Enforcement cooperation and coordination are appreciated. 

Staff is interested in working with CTA on outreach to their members so that they 

are informed about this regulation. 

Economic Issues 

7. Comment: The recession has severely impacted refrigerated carriers’ ability to 

manage their assets. In the midst of the largest freight recession in 40 years (a 

16.5 percent decrease in volumes from 2007 to 2009), TRU owners have spent 

significant amounts of money to comply. With the proposed amendments, all of 

the oldest and dirtiest engines will have been retrofitted, scrapped, or replaced, 

so steps already taken have resulted in public health protections. Given the 

economic conditions facing businesses today, some type of economic relief is 

warranted. (CTA, ATA) 

Agency Response: This comment is not specific to the proposed amendments. 

As discussed in the Staff Report, staff estimates that cost savings will result from 

the amendment to allow MY 2003 engines to comply by optionally meeting the 

less costly LETRU in-use standard instead of the more stringent ULETRU 

standard. The 16.5 percent decrease in freight volumes cited by the commenters 

is close to what was cited for revenue reductions for all trucking sectors in the 

July 19, 2010 issue of ATA’s trade journal, Transport Topics, at pages A20 to 

A23 (emphasis added). Staff is also aware of trade journal articles that clearly 

indicate the refrigerated trucking sector has weathered the recession much better 

than other trucking sectors. The amendments do not impede the refrigerated 

trucking sector’s ability to weather the recession and in fact provide some 

economic relief. 

8. Comment: The Board should not allow the recession to be blamed or used as a 

means to delay, defer, extend, or stop rules and regulations from being enforced. 
6 

The defeat of Proposition 23 showed that California voters don’t support 

suspending the law. Changing the compliance schedule would bring into 

question the regulatory reliability and stability of regulations and the certainty of 

enforcement. (SRP) 

Agency Response: These amendments were not made to provide regulatory 

relief due to the economic recession. The primary reason for amending the 

in-use standard for MY 2003 TRU engines was the lack of available Level 3 

(ULETRU) control technology in sufficient numbers to meet the demand 

expected from the TRU ATCM as initially adopted. The primary reason for the 

amendments for flexibility engines and manufacturer reporting requirements were 

to address issues arising from the unexpected high number of flexibility engines 

installed in TRU. 

9. Comment: There is an unfair financial burden on small operators who are not 

able to qualify for financial assistance. (CARR, ET) 

Agency Response: As discussed in the Staff Report, staff estimates that cost 

savings will result from the amendment to allow MY 2003 engines to comply by 

optionally meeting the LETRU in-use standard instead of the more stringent and 

more expensive ULETRU standard. Staff believes the TRU ATCM is structured 

to be fair for all TRU owners, whether they are a small or large operator. A 

company’s ability to get financing is typically based on their credit rating and 

other factors that are beyond the control of ARB. 

10. Comment: There is an unfair financial burden on larger companies who cannot 

compete with smaller companies that get financial help. (JBT) 

Agency Response: See response to Comment 9. 

Financial Assistance 

11. Comment: ARB should allocate money to pay for compliance. There are no 

grants available for TRUs. (JBT) 

Agency Response: As mentioned, at pages I-5 through I-6, of the Revised 

2003 Staff Report for the TRU ATCM, which can be found at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/trude03/isor.pdf, several voluntary grant programs, 

including the Carl Moyer Program, exist for funding TRU upgrades. The Carl 

Moyer Program provides funding for projects that achieve surplus emissions 

reductions, meaning the emissions reductions occur sometime before a 

regulatory deadline or are reduced beyond what is required by regulation. For 

example, partial funding may be available for zero emission TRU systems 

because emissions are reduced beyond TRU ATCM requirements. Potential 

applicants should contact their local air district to determine eligibility and if TRU 
7 

funding applications are being accepted. A list of local air district contacts is 

available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/capcoa/roster.htm. 

TRU Manufacturer Reporting 

12. Comment: OEM reporting is not immediately feasible. The timeline and work 

required to automate this process has not yet been determined. It is estimated to 

take at least 18 months after the effective date of the amendments. (TKC) 

Agency Response: If an internal automated process is not in use, TRU OEM 

may elect to gather data manually. However, the proposed amendments include 

a provision for OEMs to request alternative reporting systems. Staff is committed 

to working with TRU OEMs to explore and develop reporting systems and 

processes that are equivalent to and at least as effective as those proposed in 

the amendments. 

13. Comment: The OEM reporting amendment needs to include language 

protecting the equipment and engine manufacturers from liability for 

unintentionally distributing inaccurate information to the end-user. (TKC) 

Agency Response: Like all stakeholders subject to ARB regulations, TRU 

OEMs and engine manufacturers may be subject to penalties for noncompliance. 

However, ARB considers noncompliance on a case-by-case basis and will use its 

enforcement discretion in determining whether violations have been committed 

and if penalties are appropriate. One factor that ARB always considers is 

whether the stakeholder has acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the 

regulation’s requirements. In the case of TRU OEMs and engine manufacturers, 

ARB will consider the OEM and manufacturers good faith in providing complete 

and accurate information to ARB and end-users. ARB is aware that the 

information required to be provided by TRU OEMs and engine manufacturers is 

detailed, and it is not the intent of the regulation to penalize inadvertent or minor 

technical errors. Rather, in an effort to gather the information necessary to make 

the TRU ATCM effective, the emphasis by ARB staff will be to evaluate data 

gaps and inaccuracies and work with the TRU OEMs and engine manufacturers 

to resolve deficiencies so that the best and most accurate information is provided 

to ensure full compliance by all stakeholders (i.e, TRU OEMs, engine 

manufacturers, TRU owners and operators). While ARB may not initiate 

enforcement against an OEM or engine manufacture, who while acting to comply 

in good faith has made unintentional, inadvertent errors in its reporting, ARB 

cannot shield the OEM or manufacturer from third party actions (TRU owners 

and operators) who may be adversely affected by the errors committed.
8 

14. Comment: OEM reporting amendments need to include language protecting 

against the misuse of proprietary data submitted to ARB by the manufacturer. 

(TKC) 

Agency Response: The proposed amendments include a provision for 

confidential information or data submitted by TRU OEMs [see subparagraph 

(f)(3)(C)]. Staff is committed to ensuring data that is identified as confidential is 

handled in accordance with regulations for disclosure of public records, 

title 17 CCR, section 91000. 

General Comments

15. Comment: Although we are in general support of the proposed amendments, 

there is no reasonable justification for delaying the compliance dates beyond 

what is being proposed in these amendments. Delays in enforcement result in 

delays in reductions and are detrimental to the goals of the regulation. No 

significant installations take place until 60 days prior to a compliance deadline, so 

delays cause compliance efforts to stop until then. The Board should not adopt 

the amendments that would provide for delays or extensions beyond the 

currently proposed amendments. (RYPOS, MECA, SRP, AP-20SD) 

Agency Response: ARB staff is appreciative of the support for the proposed 

amendments, and their recognition that the amendments address the current 

limited availability of verified Level 3 retrofit devices and that the amendments will 

reduce the cost of complying with the TRU ATCM while providing increased 

emission reductions from the affected engines. Given the short timeframe 

between the Board hearing (November 18, 2010) and the December 31, 2010, 

compliance date for MY 2003 TRU engines, the Board directed staff to use its 

discretion in not immediately commencing enforcement during the first quarter of 

2011 (see response to Comment 8 in Section B). This delay will not undermine 

the goals of the regulation. The Board has also directed staff to return with 

additional amendments to the TRU ATCM in 2011. In addressing future 

amendments, staff will fully consider the impact of enforcement delays on 

compliance actions as those amendments are developed. 

16. Comment: The Board should not open the TRU ATCM to further discussion in 

2011. (SRP) 

Agency Response: This comment is not specific to the proposed amendments. 

During implementation of the original TRU ATCM, staff identified a number of 

outstanding issues that warrant further discussion with stakeholders. The Board 

agreed that at least several issues require further consideration and has directed 

staff to work with stakeholders to determine if these and other issues need to be 

resolved in a future rulemaking. The commenter is encouraged to participate in 

that process to provide its perspective and share its concerns. 
9 

17. Comment: Regulatory changes need to be made far in advance of 

implementation deadlines. TRU owners need as much advance notice of 

regulatory changes as possible. (ATA) 

Agency Response: Staff understands the benefit to compliance planning 

provided by advanced notice of regulatory changes and will consider this, to the 

extent possible, in future rulemaking efforts. 

18. Comment: The amendments are needed, but don’t go far enough and do not 

consider other factors. For example, the Board needs to consider the following: 

the appropriateness of a 7-year operational life and the “two in seven years” 

compliance requirements; the need to align future compliance deadlines with the 

introduction of new engines that meet ULETRU standard; whether the regulation 

should provide a compliance-extension period for fleets that have expended 

resources to meet the first step in the current two-step process; whether there is 

a lack of compliant, reliable retrofit equipment; whether technology costs are 

much higher than originally projected; whether overall economic impacts have 

been under-estimated; and whether the estimates of the TRU population 

operating in California and TRU emissions inventory need to be improved. (CTA, 

ATA) 

Agency Response: Staff has been directed by the Board to work with 

stakeholders on these issues to determine which of them need to be resolved 

through rulemaking. The Board also directed staff to return with additional 

proposed amendments in 2011. 

19. Comment: A better way to control diesel emissions would be for ARB to set up 

an inspection system that would identify those units that are polluting and 

smoking and bad for the environment and would require that those units be 

upgraded; those that are in good condition would get a compliance certificate. 

(JCT) 

Agency Response: This comment is not specific to the proposed amendments. 

The proposed amendments did not change the process for determining 

compliance with the in-use standards. However, the approach recommended by 

the commenter is likely to impose a significant economic burden on the industry 

given the emission testing costs to each TRU owner. Additionally, there are 

significant state costs for implementing such a program. 

20. Comment: ARB should take into consideration the feasibility, costs, emissions 

impacts of changes to this ATCM as well as changes to other ATCMs. (MECA) 

Agency Response: The Staff Report chapters II, II, IV, and V fully considered 

feasibility, costs, and emissions impacts associated with the proposed 

amendments to the TRU ATCM. ARB has similarly fully considered the listed 

factors in proposing amendments for other in-use diesel regulations. See staff 
10 

reports for in-use truck and bus and drayage regulations and in-use off-road and 

large spark-ignition engine regulations, which respectively can be found at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/truckbus10/truckbus10.htm, and 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/offroadlsi10.htm. 

21. Comment: The OEM, not the equipment owner, should be responsible for 

reducing emissions. This approach would be preferred over ARB creating a new 

retrofit industry. (JBT) 

Agency Response: This comment is not specific to the proposed amendments. 

The proposed amendments did not change the applicability or party responsible 

for compliance. Compliance responsibility for in-use TRUs must be with the 

equipment owner. The goal of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan that the Board 

approved in 2000 is to reduce diesel PM emissions and associated potential 

cancer risk by 75 percent by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020. Natural turnover to 

cleaner equipment is not fast enough to meet California’s public health and State 

Implementation Plan needs. The accelerated upgrade and replacement of TRUs 

will ensure that the majority of the TRU fleet will be comprised of ultra-low 

emission TRUs by 2020. 

Support Comments 

22. Comment: Several commenters indicated support for diesel emissions control 

measures and cleaner, healthier, better quality air. (RYPOS, ET, MECA, ATA, 

SRP, AP-20SD, JBT) 

Comment: The proposed amendments are needed and should be adopted. 

(RYPOS, MECA, CTA, ATA, AP-20SD, JBT) 

Agency Response: ARB staff agrees with these comments. They are 

consistent with staff’s finding presented in the Staff Report and presentation. 

B. Oral Comments Provided During the ARB Public Hearing 

The general public presented comments to the Board during the ARB public hearing 

held on November 18, 2010, in Sacramento, California. Persons that made oral 

statements on the proposed amendments are listed in Table 2. Written comments 

submitted the day of the hearing are addressed in Table 1 and subsequent responses. 

Following the list are summaries of each oral comment made regarding the specific 

regulatory action proposed as well as agency responses. Each response includes an 

explanation of either any changes made to accommodate the comment or the reasons 

for making no change. 
11 

Table 2. List of Individuals and Businesses 

Presenting Oral Comments During the ARB Public Hearing 

Commenter 

Reference 

Code Name and Affiliation 

Written 

Comments 

Provided 

MECA Joe Kubsh; Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association Yes 

PF Tom Sem; Proventia Filters Yes 

HR Pat Smith; Harris Ranch No 

SAVMART Dan Miller; Save Mart No 

CVTR Michael Shuemake; Central Valley Trailer Repair No 

21EAGLE1 Larry Milton; 21 Eagle No 

SRP Senator Richard Polanco; Rypos Yes 

RYPOS Peter Bransfield; Rypos, Inc. Yes 

LA Mik Skvarla; Lukas Advocates No 

CTA Matt Schrap; California Trucking Association Yes 

21EAGLE2 Ralph Shulhe; 21 Eagle No 

ATA Mike Tunnell; American Trucking Associations Yes 

Availability and Reliability of Retrofits 

1. Comment: LETRU (Level 2) control technologies are available and reliable. 

Retrofit manufacturers have the inventory and production capability to meet 

customer demand for Level 2 VDECS compliance technology and have 

established distribution channels and excellent geographic coverage for sales, 

service, and support in California and across the country. Over 4,600 diesel 

particulate filters have been delivered to the marketplace. Combined, the retrofit 

systems have completed over 11 million hours of operation and captured over 

85 tons of particulate matter. (MECA, PF, RYPOS) 

Agency Response: This is consistent with the Staff Report and justification for 

the proposed amendments. 

2. Comment: ULETRU (Level 3) control technologies are being expanded and will 

be more readily available. These technologies are ready for trial testing. One 

manufacturer has a goal to complete verification of two Level 3 VDECS in early 

2011 after completing thousands of hours of testing. (MECA, RYPOS) 

Agency Response: Staff encourages expedited trial testing and will monitor the 

verification progress. If verification is delayed, staff may need to evaluate the 

impact on future compliance dates in the TRU ATCM. 

3. Comment: We have tried ULETRU (Level 3) compliance technology and the 

results were disastrous. More field testing is needed prior to verification of these 

devices. (HR) 
12 

Agency Response: Staff has been closely monitoring the introduction of 

Level 3 VDECS in the marketplace and understands that TRUs are a very 

challenging application for VDECS retrofits. Staff recognizes that more testing 

may be needed during the verification process. However, staff believes that the 

VDECS manufacturers have been very proactive in addressing issues that have 

arisen for retrofits deployed in the field. Operators may also need to adjust 

historic operation and maintenance procedures for engines using exhaust 

after-treatment systems. Heightened monitoring of engine operation and periodic 

maintenance of fuel injectors and other components are very important to 

successfully using diesel particulate filters. 

4. Comment: Warranties on VDECS have been said to be four years or 

2,600 hours, whichever comes first. However, for most carriers that relates to 

only two years and some may be as low as one year of warranty. (CVTR) 

Agency Response: This comment is not specific to the proposed amendments. 

The warranty duration is stipulated by the Verification Procedure (title 13, CCR, 

section 2707). Staff understands that the annual usage of a TRU varies greatly 

from one type of use to another. Low-use TRUs may operate for four years 

before the warranty expires and unusually high-use TRUs may operate 

2,600 hours in a single year. Increasing warranty duration would have a direct 

effect on the cost of VDECS. VDECS manufacturers report the actual life of 

VDECS is much longer than the warranty. 

5. Comment: Even though LETRU (Level 2) VDECS have been verified, there 

have been some reliability problems. However, manufacturers are proactively 

fixing these problems. More field testing is needed to provide a good comfort 

level for industry. Reliability is something this industry relies on because food 

safety and liability would otherwise be a problem. A pragmatic approach to 

produce a sustainable regulation that protects the end user is needed. (HR, 

CVTR, CTA) 

Agency Response: Staff agrees that reliability and food safety are major 

concerns. Over 4,600 Level 2 VDECS have been installed on TRUs and have 

been operated over 11 million hours with very few issues reported. Staff closely 

monitors reports of problems with Level 2 VDECS. As recognized by the 

commenters, manufacturers have been proactively addressing problems that 

have been identified, and we have found that manufacturers have been quick to 

provide reliability upgrades and replacements at no charge and with minimal 

disruption of service. It has been reported that some VDEC malfunctions have 

occurred because of inappropriate service and maintenance by end-users. It is 

the end-users responsibility to follow the owner’s manual requirements for 

operation and maintenance, which means some changes to operation and 

maintenance procedures may be required to ensure reliable operation of 

VDECS. 
13 

6. Comment: There is only one Level 2 VDECS manufacturer providing product for 

each of the TRU manufacturers. Owners are forced to use only one vendor, so 

it’s a bit monopolistic. (CVTR) 

Agency Response: At this time, there are two VDECS manufacturers that have 

verified Level 2 devices that can be used on trailer TRUs manufactured by both 

of the major TRU OEMs. As to commenter’s claim that owners are forced to use 

the products of only one vendor and the practice is monopolistic, ARB has no 

authority over how VDECS manufacturers market their products. Moreover, 

retrofitting with a VDECS is not the only compliance option available to endusers; repowering with a new or rebuilt replacement engine, replacing the entire 

unit, or using an Alternative Technology are also compliance options. See 

comment 7. 

7. Comment: Engine replacement, rebuild, and exhaust retrofits are all available 

compliance options. There is and will continue to be competition between 

compliance technology providers. The refrigerated trucking industry has thrived 

with only two TRU manufacturers for the last 30 years. VDECS prices have been 

held constant in spite of increasing costs over time. (RYPOS) 

Agency Response: Staff agrees with this comment. See also the response to 

Comment 6. 

Enforcement 

8. Comment: The compliance deadline for MY 2003 engines should be pushed out 

90 days, to March 31, 2011, due to the November 18, 2010, Board decision 

being so close to the December 31, 2010 compliance date. (SAVEMART, CVTR, 

CTA) 

Agency Response: As presently written, the TRU ATCM requires that all 

MY 2003 TRU engines comply with the regulation by December 31, 2010. This 

compliance date was not changed. The amendment for MY 2003 compliance 

instead provides owners with an alternative path for compliance that provides 

owners with greater compliance flexibility. While not amending the date for 

compliance, staff recognized that in some cases deliveries and installations of 

Level 2 (LETRU) VDECS, the new compliance pathway, may not occur by the 

end of the year. To address this, ARB has informed stakeholders that it will use 

its enforcement discretion not to enforce compliance for MY 2003 engines that 

have a December 31, 2010 deadline until March 31, 2011.

9. Comment: Certainty of enforcement is critical to achieving compliance. We 

need robust enforcement. (SRP, CTA) 

Agency Response: Staff agrees with the commenter. ARB enforcement staff 

has been actively enforcing the TRU ATCM and will continue to do so. 
14 

Economic Issues 

10. Comment: Retrofit compliance costs are roughly two and a half to three times 

greater than originally projected. Also, engine repowers are the primary 

compliance strategy used by nearly two-thirds of affected units. The regulation 

should be further modified to eliminate the current two- and seven-year 

compliance requirement and instead align future compliance with the introduction 

of new engines meeting the ULETRU standard for the 25 to 50 horsepower 

category. (ATA) 

Agency Response: The Staff Report showed that the proposed amendments 

actually result in cost savings. The second compliance step may not be 

necessary for high-use units that would normally be scheduled for retirement. 

Staff has been directed by the Board to work with stakeholders on this and other 

issues, and to return to the Board in 2011 with proposed amendments for Board 

consideration. In working through these issues, staff will use the best information 

that is available at the time to update the estimates, modeling, and evaluations of 

TRU populations, emissions, exposure, health risk, costs, cost-effectiveness, and 

other required considerations. 

11. Comment: There should be an extended compliance period for fleets that have 

expended financial resources complying with step one of the current two-step 

process. (ATA) 

Agency Response: This comment is not specific to the proposed amendments. 

A single compliance step that stops at LETRU would only reduce PM emissions 

by 50 percent and would not meet the emission reduction goals of the Diesel 

Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP). Meeting the ULETRU standard is necessary to 

meet the goals of the DRRP, which is to reduce diesel PM emissions by 

85 percent by 2020. However, staff has been directed by the Board to work with 

stakeholders and to propose changes for consideration by the board in 2011. 

12. Comment: The Board should not allow the recession to be blamed or used as a 

means to delay, defer, extend, or stop rules and regulations from being enforced. 

The defeat of Proposition 23 showed that California voters don’t support 

suspending the law. Changing the compliance schedule would bring into 

question the regulatory reliability and stability of regulations and the certainty of 

enforcement. (SRP) 

Agency Response: These amendments were not made to provide regulatory 

relief due to the economic recession. The primary reason for amending the 

In-use standard for MY 2003 TRU engines was the lack of available Level 3 

control technology in sufficient numbers to meet the demand. The primary 

reason for the amendments for flexibility engines and manufacturer reporting 

requirements were to address issues arising from the unexpected high number of 

flexibility engines installed in TRUs. 
15 

TRU Manufacturer Reporting 

13. Comment: We have been working with ARB staff to address the concern over 

the confidentiality of competitively sensitive data that is required in the reporting 

requirements. We believe that the optional reporting mechanisms that have 

been included in the current update will provide the possibility of working with 

ARB staff to achieve compliance. (LA) 

Agency Response: Staff is committed to working with TRU OEMs in exploring 

and developing reporting systems and processes that are equivalent to and at 

least as effective as those proposed in the amendments, and will at the same 

time work to address manufacturers’ confidentiality and data availability issues. 

There are provisions in the rule that allow for these situations like these to be 

resolved. 

General Comments 

14. Comment : Several commenters indicated support for or no opposition to the 

proposed amendments, or acknowledged that the proposed amendments are 

needed. (MECA, HR, SAVMART, CVTR, SRP, RYPOS, CTA, ATA) 

Agency Response: No response necessary. 

15. Comment: Regulatory certainty is important and needed to get compliance and 

to protect investments in the development and verification of control technology. 

These clean technologies are creating jobs in California. Over $100 million has 

been invested in research and development of control technologies. (MECA, 

SRP, RYPOS) 

Agency Response: Staff understands the need for regulatory certainty and 

encourages these stakeholders to participate in the rulemaking process for the 

subsequent amendments to ensure their concerns are considered. 

16. Comment: The Board should consider a 10-year operational life for TRUs 

instead of the seven-year life currently in the ATCM. (HR, CVTR, CTA) 

Agency Response: This comment is not specific to the proposed amendments. 

Staff will look at the feasibility of extending the operational life to up to 10 years, 

in consideration of risk and cost, in a subsequent rulemaking, as directed by the 

Board. 

17. Comment: Future amendments should not go beyond what is being proposed 

today. (SRP) 

Agency Response: This comment is not specific to the proposed amendments. 

During implementation of the original TRU ATCM, staff identified a number of 
16 

outstanding issues that warrant further discussion with stakeholders. The Board 

has directed staff to work with stakeholders to determine if these issues need to 

be resolved through rulemaking. The commenter is encouraged to participate in 

that process to provide his perspective. 

18. Comment: Any future changes to the regulation need to be made as soon as 

possible to provide certainty to those facing compliance decisions. There has 

been an estimated 83 to 133 million dollars already spent on repowers and 

retrofits, so there has been a significant financial commitment made to this 

regulation. The Board should direct staff to keep working on the regulation to 

work the bugs out. (ATA) 

Agency Response: See response to Comment 17 in Section A. 

19. Comment: Several commenters from a single company promoted their fuel 

additive as a compliance option; but first, it needed to be verified. These 

commenters requested an expedited verification so that it could be used to 

comply as soon as possible. (21EAGLE1, 21EAGLE2) 

Agency Response: This comment is not specific to the proposed amendments. 

These commenters were directed by the Board to contact appropriate staff for 

verification of control technologies. Staff have been in contact with these 

suppliers and have explained the verification process to them.