ATTACHMENT B

STATEMENT OF EMERGENCY

The Executive Officer of the Air Resources Board hereby finds that an emergency exists 

and that an emergency regulation is necessary to address a situation that requires 

immediate action to avoid serious harm to the public peace, health, safety or general 

welfare. Failure to extend the specified registration deadline for “Option 2” of the large 

fleet compliance plan in title 17, California Code of Regulations section 95307(b)(3), and 

to amend associated compliance schedule and reporting requirements related to 

Option 2, would require owners of large trailer fleets to retrofit their entire fleets by 

January 1, 2013. The logistics associated with this requirement presents a significant 

problem that substantially reduces the number of compliant trailers to service the needs 

of California. Such a situation would result in financial hardship for those fleets, as well 

as California businesses and consumers that rely on those trailer fleets to bring goods 

into the state. 

Informative Digest

Background

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32, AB 32, Núñez, 

Ch. 486, Stats. 2006) creates a comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California. AB 32 requires the Air Resources 

Board (ARB or Board) to identify a list of discrete early action greenhouse gas reduction 

measures and to adopt regulations to implement those measures. One of the measures 

that the Board identified as a discrete early action was the reduction of GHG emissions 

from 53-foot and longer box type trailers and the tractors that haul such trailers on 

California highways. 

On October 23, 2009, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) adopted the Heavy-Duty 

Vehicle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reduction regulation (hereinafter

“Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation”)1

 to reduce GHG emissions from 53-foot or longer 

box-type trailers and the tractors that haul such trailers on California highways. The 

regulation references a federal voluntary program, the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) SmartWay Partnership Program, that is designed to 

improve the environmental performance associated with the ground freight delivery 

system in the United States. In particular, the SmartWay program approves 

technologies, such as aerodynamic equipment and low-rolling resistance tires, and 

certifies tractors and trailers that incorporate these technologies. The Board estimated 

that this regulation would reduce GHG emissions by approximately 7.8 million metric 

tons of CO2-equivalents (MMT CO2e) statewide from 2010 to 2020, and would also 

 1 Title 17, CCR sections 95300, 95301, 95302, 95303, 95304, 95305, 95306, 95307, 95308,

95309, 95310, 95311, and 95312.
2

reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) by 4.3 and 1.4 tons per day in 2014 and 

2020 respectively.

The Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation established separate requirements applicable to 

53-foot or longer box-type trailers and to the tractors that haul such trailers on California 

highways. 2010 and earlier model year 53-foot or longer box-type trailers pulled by a 

tractor on a California highway were required to either be SmartWay certified trailers or 

retrofitted with SmartWay approved technologies (i.e., low-rolling resistance tires and 

aerodynamic technologies) by January 1, 2013,2 or alternatively, a trailer owner could 

elect to comply with an optional trailer fleet compliance schedule. The regulation 

established two optional trailer fleet compliance schedules that were based on the size 

of the trailer fleet, and provided owners of trailer fleets comprised of 21 or more 2010 or 

older model- year trailers an option to retrofit those trailers over several years (from 

January 1, 2011 through January 1, 2016) in lieu of fully complying with the trailer 

requirements by January 1, 20133 (Option 1 of the Large Fleet Compliance Plan, 

“Option 1”). Trailer fleet owners that wanted to utilize this option were required to 

provide specified information supporting their request by July 1, 2010.4

ARB staff proposed the trailer fleet compliance schedules because it recognized that 

the requirements applicable to 2010 and earlier model year trailers presented the 

largest potential cost impact of the regulation, given the large number of trailers that 

operate in California,5 and believed that the trailer fleet compliance schedules would 

provide trailer fleet owners additional flexibility to better manage their capital 

expenditures for complying with the regulation. Staff estimated that the compliance 

costs associated with the trailer requirements ranged from approximately $1900 to 

$4200 per trailer,6 and estimated the number of trailers impacted by the regulation as 

approximately 1,089,215 and 1,456,570 for calendar years 2010 and 2020, 

respectively.7

 The Office of Administrative Law approved the Tractor-Trailer GHG 

regulation on December 9, 2009, and the regulation became effective on 

January 1, 2010.

Comparable Federal Regulations: As described above, the Tractor-Trailer GHG 

regulation is based on the voluntary U.S. EPA SmartWay Partnership Program. 

Recently, U.S. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

adopted regulations to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency of on-road 

 2 17 CCR § 95303(b)(3)(A). The citations to footnotes 2-4 are to the version of the regulation that was 

approved by OAL on December 9, 2009. 

3 17 CCR § 95307(b)

4 Ibid.

5 See pp. 77-78 “Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearing to 

Consider Adoption of the Regulation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles”, 

dated October 2008 (“hereinafter 2008 Staff Report”); 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/ghghdv08/ghgisor.pdf 6 Table XII-1, p. 60, Staff Report. 7 P. C-7 and C-8, Appendix C to 2008 Staff Report; 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/ghghdv08/ghgappc.pdf
3

medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines8 (hereinafter referred to as federal 

regulations). However, significant differences between the federal regulations and the 

Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation exist, both in terms of their applicability and the 

requirements. 

The federal regulations establish separate GHG emission and fuel efficiency standards 

for model year 2014 and later new medium and heavy-duty engines and vehicles, 

including Class 2b through Class 8 trucks, heavy-duty pick-up trucks and vans, 

combination tractors, and all types and sizes of vocational trucks and buses. 

In contrast, the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation does not establish fuel efficiency 

standards, but only mandates the usage of SmartWay technologies that reduce 

aerodynamic drag of new and in-use box-type trailers and the tractors that haul those 

trailers on California highways. U.S. EPA lacks the authority to adopt emission 

standards relating to the control of in-use motor vehicles, and therefore the federal 

regulations do not apply to in-use tractors. Moreover, the federal regulations do not 

regulate the trailers that are subjected to the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation. Therefore, 

the small subset of vehicles that may be subject to both the Tractor-Trailer GHG 

regulation and the federal regulations would be those 2014 and newer model year 

tractors that haul 53-foot and longer box-type trailers on California highways. 

Finding of Emergency

As ARB staff began implementing the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation, it received 

substantially fewer requests from trailer fleet owners to participate in the optional 

compliance schedules than anticipated, which staff believed was due to the fact that 

many trailer fleet owners were simply unaware of the regulation, and may have 

therefore missed the opportunity to participate in the compliance phase-in option.9

 Staff 

also received comments from fleets and trucking associations that it would be difficult 

for fleets participating in a compliance option to report, at the time of registration for the 

phase-in, which trailers they would be bringing into compliance during each of the 

phase-in years, and that certain provisions of the regulation presented issues that 

 8 U.S. EPA and NHTSA. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for 

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 179, September 15, 2011 

(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-15/pdf/2011-20740.pdf)

9 95 fleets with approximately 180,000 trailers registered by the July 1, 2010 deadline. However, the total 

number of trailers impacted by the regulation in 2010 was estimated as approximately 645,000. Appendix 

F, “Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed Amendments to the 

Truck and Bus Regulation, the Drayage Truck Regulation and the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas 

Regulation,” dated October 2010 (“hereinafter 2010 Staff Report)

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/truckbus10/truckbusappf.pdf
4

affected the ability of tractor owners, trailer owners, and fleets to comply with the 

regulation.

10 

Furthermore, the economic environment in California and in the nation had not 

substantially improved since the Board approved the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation in 

December 2008.11 The Board found that the recession had significantly impacted 

overall trucking activities, and specifically those companies that operate on-road 

heavy-duty vehicles in the normal course of business, and staff, after reviewing and 

updating its emissions inventory for heavy-duty on-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles and 

engines, determined that emissions from such vehicles are substantially lower than 

estimated in December 2008 when the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation was initially 

adopted.12

On October 26, 2011, the Board, in consideration of the above mentioned findings, 

adopted amendments to the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation that it found would provide 

affected fleets with additional flexibility to comply with the regulation’s requirements 

without significantly affecting the GHG benefits of the existing regulation. One of the 

primary amendments established another compliance schedule for large trailer fleets 

(Option 2 of the Large Fleet Compliance Plan, “Option 2”) that would allow large trailer 

fleet owners to phase in compliance from 2012 to 2016, provided that they provide 

specified information supporting their request by July 1, 2011.13 Another significant 

amendment allowed fleets registered in the optional compliance phase-in plans to report 

compliance activity retrospectively, on an annual basis.14 OAL approved the 2011 

amendments on December 12, 2011, and the amendments became effective on 

January 11, 2012.

Specific Facts Showing the Need for Immediate Action

Subsequent to OAL’s approval of the 2011 amendments, ARB staff became aware that 

due to an oversight, the 2011 amendments specified a registration deadline for Option 2 

(July 1, 2011) that preceded the effective date of the amendments (January 11, 2012), 

and compliance schedules and annual reporting deadlines also preceded the 

January 12, 2012 effective date.15 This oversight constitutes a fact requiring immediate 

action because it immediately and adversely affects trailer fleet owners who waited for 

 10 Such issues included the incompatibility of certain trailer configurations with existing verified 

aerodynamic devices, the need to transport certain trailers from one location to another without requiring 

the trailers to comply with the aerodynamic device and/or low rolling resistance tire requirements, the 

unavailability of SmartWay verified retread tires, and issues related to the existing reporting requirements.

11 Resolution 10-46, dated December 17, 2010.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/truckbus10/reso1046.pdf

12 Ibid.

13 17 CCR § 95307(b)(3). 14 17 CCR § 95307(f). 15 Option 1 large fleet phase-in participants were given until December 31, 2011, to report activity during 

the first two phase-in years; Option 2 large fleet phase-in participants were given until December 31, 2011 

to report activity during their first year of the phase-in.
5

OAL’s approval of the 2011 amendments before submitting their registration requests, 

as well as any fleet owners who had not timely submitted registration requests, by 

requiring them to retrofit their entire trailer fleets by January 1, 2013. ARB has received 

comments that a number of large fleets desired to utilize Option 2 but were nonetheless 

unwilling to register their trailer fleet until the amendments were formally approved by 

OAL. Trailer fleet owners have also stated that the logistics associated with retrofitting 

thousands of trailers by January 1, 2013 poses a difficult problem and may significantly 

reduce the number of available trailers to service the needs of California. In addition, 

this oversight entirely vitiates the Board’s intent in adopting Option 2, which was to 

provide economic relief to an industry that is experiencing the adverse effects of the 

prolonged economic recession, and would allow large trailer fleets to spread their 

compliance costs across 5 years, rather than requiring full compliance by 

January 1, 2013. 

To date, ARB has received requests from eight large trailer fleet owners seeking to 

participate in the Option 2 compliance plan, but had failed to submit registration 

requests by the July 1, 2011 deadline. As of the effective date of the amendments, 

these owners collectively operate over 73,000 trailers, which represent approximately 

182% of the number of trailers currently registered in Option 2, and 11% of the total 

number of trailers projected to be impacted by the regulation in calendar year 2010. 

Several of these large trailer fleet owners have stated that their preclusion from Option 2 

would impose severe problems associated with having to ensure their entire trailer fleet 

complies with the regulation’s requirements by January 1, 2013. Specifically, those fleet 

owners would need to ensure that each trailer in their fleets will be out-of-service for the 

time needed to retrofit it with required equipment, and such retrofitting will therefore 

substantially reduce the number of available trailers available to service the needs of 

California.16 Such a situation will likely result in financial hardship for those fleets, as 

well as California businesses and members of the public that rely on those trailer fleets 

to bring goods into the state. Consequently, ARB believes the proposed emergency 

regulatory action that would extend the registration deadline for Option 2 until 

June 1, 2012, and to amend associated compliance schedules and reporting 

requirements related to Option 1 and Option 2 would effectuate the Health and Safety 

Code provisions identified below in the authority and reference section of this 

rulemaking, and would also address only the demonstrated emergency. 

Authority and Reference

The authority for these amendments in set forth in sections 39600, 39601, 38510, 

38560 and 38560.5 of the Health and Safety Code. The amendments implement, 

interpret, and make specific sections 39600, 38560, 38560.5 and 38580 of the Health 

and Safety Code.

 16 One trailer fleet owner that operates approximately 7000 trailers states that any and all of its trailers 

may be operated in California due to motor carriers’ operations, which involves point-to-point operations 

throughout the entire country.
6

Sections 39515 and 39516 of the Health and Safety Code, and Executive Order 78-10, 

dated February 23, 1978, authorize the Executive Officer to take action under the 

present circumstances.

Disclosures Regarding the Proposed Action

The determinations of the Board’s Executive Officer concerning the costs or savings 

necessarily incurred in reasonable compliance with the emergency amendments are 

presented below.

The Executive Officer has determined that the emergency amendments 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 nondiscretionary 

costs or savings to local agencies.