## STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING

AMENDMENTS FOR THE

AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE

FOR IN-USE DIESEL-FUELED TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION UNITS (TRU) AND TRU GENERATOR SETS,

AND FACILITIES WHERE TRUs OPERATE

Stationary Source Division

Emissions Assessment Branch

September 2010

### This Page Left Intentionally Blanki State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Public Hearing to Consider

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL ME ASURE FOR

IN-USE DIESEL-FUELED TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION UNITS (TRU) AND TRU GENERATOR SETS,

AND FACILITIES WHERE TRUs OPERATE

To be considered by the Air Resources Board on Nove mber 18, 2010, at:

California Environmental Protection Agency

Headquarters Building

1001 “I” Street Byron Sher Auditorium Sacramento, California

Stationary Source Division: Richard W. Corey, Chief Cynthia Marvin, Assistant Chief

Emission Assessment Branch: Dan Donohoue, Chief

Process Evaluation Section: Richard Boyd, Manager

This report has been prepared by the staff of the A ir Resources Board. Publication does not signify that the contents reflect the view s and policies of the Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercia l products constitute

endorsement or recommendation for use.ii 

### This Page Left Intentionally Blankiii State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL ME ASURE FOR

IN-USE DIESEL-FUELED TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION UNITS (TRU) AND TRU GENERATOR SETS,

AND FACILITIES WHERE TRUs OPERATE

Primary Authors Rod Hill, Lead Staff Carolyn Craig

Renèe Coad

Contributing Authors

Matt Malchow

Reza Mahdavi

Todd Sax

Contributing Divisions

Enforcement Division

Mobile Source Control Division Planning and Technical Support Division

Research Division

Legal Counsel

Michael Terrisiv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the assistance of the following individuals, agencies, and organizations for their participation:

Mike Tunnell, American Trucking Association Jim Deerwester, Kurt Hauer, David Kiefer, Alan Knig ht, and Bill Maddox, Carrier

Transicold Kara Bush, California Grocers Association Matt Schrap, California Trucking Association Mike Shuemake, Central Valley Trailer Repair Scott Cramer, Certified Freight Logistics, Inc. Chuck Hunter, Coast Truck Centers Roger Cunnington and Ted Cooper, El Dorado Water an d Shower Doug Emig, Emission Reduction systems Joseph Suchecki, Engine Manufacturers’ Association Ted Heilman, Foster Farms Dairy Pat Smith, Harris Ranch Miles Hartman and Blain McCallum, Huss Filters, Inc

. Pati Seneca, International Warehouse Logistics Asso ciation Itaru Fujita and Rick Cook, “K” Line America Ken Lund, Allen Lund Company Diane Bailey, Natural Resource Defense Council Andy Cox, MCA Logistics Rick Mellow and Bill Rollins, Northern Refrigerated Transport Ed Gamache, Ozark Trucking Charlie Morasch, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Tom Sem, Proventia Emission Control Randy Standiford, Raley’s Distribution Center
Duane Wanner, Reviva Peter Bransfield, Pete Guzman, and Peter Ellison, R ypos, Inc. Westley Say, Saladino’s Inc. Jennifer Champion, Shaw Environmental and Infrastru cture Daniel C. Miller, SMART Refrigerated Transport
David Bates, Paul Barbaro, Tom Birchard, Erich Luch t , Glen Pirie, Thermo King Corp. Cornwall VanBeek, TK Fresno Corky Cobo and Steve Holmes, TK Services John Stirrup, Transportation Intermediaries Jon Germer, Union Pacific Railroad Phil Carlson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Kelly McKechnie and Ken Gilliland, Western Growers Loretta Calderon, Yamko Truck Linesv Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Amendment of the Airborne Toxic Co ntrol Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Un its (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities where TRUs O perate



### Table of Contents

Contents Page

Executive Summary ..................................

................................................... ............. ES-1

I. Introduction....................................

................................................... .................. I-1

A. Overview ........................................

................................................... ............ I-1 B. Need for Regulation .............................

................................................... ...... I-1 C. Regulatory Authority............................

................................................... ....... I-2

II. Summary of Proposed TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments ... ................................. II-1 A. Background Information on Emission Standards for New Off-Road Engines ............................................

................................................... ......... II-1 B. Background Information on In-Use Requirements ... .................................... II-2 C. Proposed Amendments for MY 2003 (25 hp and great er) – Change In-Use

Standard from ULETRU to LETRU ...................... ........................................ II-4 D. Proposed Amendment for MY 2003 and 2004 (less th an 25 hp) – Change In-Use Standard from ULETRU to LETRU ........ ............................. II-6 E. Other Proposed TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments ......... ................................ II-8

F. Alternatives Considered .........................

................................................... . II-12

III. Emissions Inventory and Health Risk ...........

................................................... . III-1 A. MY 2003 and MY 2004 Engine Populations ......... ...................................... III-1 B. Emissions from MY 2003 and MY 2004 Engines ...... .................................. III-1 C. Population of Flexibility Engines...............

................................................... III-3 D. Emissions from Flexibility Engines .............. ................................................ III -4 E. Total Combined Emissions Impacts from Proposed A mendments.............. III-5

F. Health Risk.....................................

................................................... .......... III-6

IV. Environmental and Health Impacts of Proposed Am endments ........................IV-1 A. Statewide Emissions Impacts..................... .................................................IV -1 B. Health Impacts ..................................

................................................... .......IV-3 C. Environmental Impacts...........................

................................................... ..IV-4 D. Global Warming Impacts..........................

................................................... IV-4 E. Reasonably Foreseeable Mitigation Measures ...... .....................................IV-5 F. Reasonably Foreseeable Alternative Means of Comp liance with the Proposed Amendments ............................... ...............................................IV-5vi 

### Table of Contents (cont.)

Contents Page

V. Economic Impacts ................................

................................................... ..........V-1 A. Summary of the Economic Impacts................. .............................................V-1 B. Legal Requirements ..............................

................................................... ....V-2 C. Methodology for Estimating Costs Associated with Proposed

Amendments.........................................

................................................... ....V-3 D. Total Regulatory Costs..........................

................................................... ....V-7

E. Estimated Costs to Businesses................... .................................................V- 8 F. Cost to Local, State and Federal Agencies ....... ...........................................V-9

G. Cost Effectiveness ..............................

................................................... ......V-9

VI. Public Outreach and Future Activities..........

................................................... ..VI-1

A. Public Outreach.................................

................................................... .......VI-1

B. Environmental Justice ...........................

................................................... ...VI-1

C. Future Activities...............................

................................................... .........VI-1

VII. Recommendation ................................

................................................... .........VII-1

References.........................................

................................................... ...................... R-1

APPENDIX A: Proposed Regulation Order: Title 13 Air borne Toxic Control

Measures for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrige ration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities Where TRUs Operate APPENDIX B: Proposed TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments In-U se Compliance Cost

Estimates APPENDIX C: Acronymsvii 

### LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

Table ES-1: Effectiveness of PM Emissions Standards for New TRU Engines

vs PM Control Levels for Verified Retrofit Devices . ............................. ES-3

Table II-1: ARB and U.S. EPA PM Emission Standards for New

Non-Road/Off-Road Diesel Engines Used in TRUs...... .......................... II-1 Table II-2: Existing TRU and TRU Gen Set In-Use Per formance Standards ........... II-3

Table II-3: > 25 HP TRU and TRU Gen Set Engines Proposed In-Use

Compliance Dates for In-Use Standards.............. ................................... II-6 Table II-4: <25 HP TRU and TRU Gen Set Engines Prop osed In-Use

Compliance Dates for In-Use Standards.............. ................................... II-8 Table II-5: Flexibility Engine Allowances..........

................................................... ..... II-9

Table II-6: Effective Model Year...................

................................................... ....... II-10 Table II-7: Compliance Cost Comparisons for Trailer TRUs .................................. II-13 Table III-1: Summary of Population of Affected MY 2 003 and MY 2004

Engines (2010) .................................... ................................................. II I-1 Table III-2: Annual Hours of Operation, Average Eng ine Power, and Load

Factors for TRUs by Equipment Type................. ................................... III-2 Table III-3: Off-Road Emission Factors for TRUs by Equipment Type..................... III-2 Table III-4: Flexibility Engine Population Share by MY and Horsepower

Category ...........................................

................................................... .. III-3 Table III-5: Annual Hours of Operation, Average Eng ine Power, and Average

Load Factors for Flexibility Engines by Horsepower Category .............. III-4

Table III-6: Off-Road Emission Factors for Flexibil ity Engines by Horsepower

Category ...........................................

................................................... .. III-4 Table III-7: Overall Emissions Impacts from Propose d TRU ATCM

2010 Amendments (2010) ............................. ........................................ III-5

Table III-8: Statewide Diesel PM Emission Reduction s Attributable to the

Existing TRU Regulation and Subset of Reductions to be Deferred Under the Proposed 2010 TRU Amendments ............. .......................... III-6

Table IV-1: Statewide Diesel PM Annual Unrealized E mission Reductions for

2010 to 2020 Attributable to Proposed TRU ATCM 2010

Amendments......................................... .................................................IV -2 Table V-1: Estimated Average VDECS Retrofit Costs b y Equipment Type

(2010 Dollars) .....................................

................................................... .V-4 Table V-2: Incremental Cost Savings from Proposed A mendment Extending the

Level 2 VDECS Requirement to MY 2003 and MY 2004 En gines (2010 Dollars) .....................................

................................................... .V-5 Table V-3: Costs from Proposed Amendment Extending the Level 3 VDECS

Compliance Deadline for MY 2003 and MY 2004 Engines to 2017 and 2018 (2010 Dollars) ............................ .............................................V-6 Table V-4: Total Estimated Regulatory Costs for Pro posed TRU ATCM

2010 Amendments (2010 Dollars) ..................... .....................................V-7viii 

### LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

Table Title Page

Table V-5: Estimated Incremental Regulatory Cost Sa vings for Small and

Typical Business (2010 Dollars) .................... .........................................V-9 Table V-6: Comparison of Diesel PM Cost Effectivene ss of the Proposed

TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments to Other ARB Regulations .. ................V-10



### LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

Figure ES-1: Statewide Diesel PM Emissions from TRU s With Existing Regulation and Proposed 2010 Amendments ..................... .................................. ES-1 Figure IV-1: Projected Statewide Diesel PM Emission s for Baseline, TRU ATCM,

and with Proposed TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments......... ......................IV-3ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) s taff is proposing amendments to the existing regulations affecting transport refrig eration units (TRU) and TRU generator sets (gen set). When we refer to TRUs in this repo rt, we also include TRU gen sets unless otherwise specified. These proposed amendme nts affect the TRU Airborne

Toxic Control Measure 1 that the Board approved for adoption on February 2 6, 2004. All characterizations of benefits and impacts are relat ive to the estimates in the 2003 ARB Staff Report for the 2004 TRU regulation (ARB, 2003 ). The proposed 2010 amendments to the TRU regulation are included here as Appendix A.

Implementation of the TRU regulation is reducing di esel particulate matter (PM)

emissions and the associated health risk in communi ties near distribution centers, railyards, and ports. The end goal of the existing regulation is to upgrade the in-use TRUs to 85 percent PM control or better, with the c ompliance schedule based on a seven-year operational life for the equipment. Sta ff believes that three changes are needed now to respond to new information that affec ts upcoming compliance deadlines. The proposed amendments would:

1. Add an interim, lower cost retrofit option for a subset of TRU engines due to very limited availability of the most effective retrofit devices. To expand the range of options, owners could retrofit model year 2003 and some 2004 TRUs with Level 2 (50 percent PM control) filters now for com pliance with the December 2010 requirements (December 2011 for some 2004 TRUs). TRUs that comply by using Level 2 retrofits would need t o be upgraded to meet 85 percent emission controls via retrofit or replac ement in seven years.

2. Phase in provisions that link the schedule to up grade TRU “flexibility engines” to the actual emissions profile of the engines, rather than the labeled engine model year. The existing TRU regulation establishes an u pgrade schedule based on the engine model year. TRU manufacturers are selli ng significant quantities of new TRUs with flexibility engines that rely on olde r, less effective control technology instead of the latest technology. While this is permitted under the federal and State regulations for new engines, it d elays turnover to cleaner engines. The amendments would use the emissions pr ofile (characterized as the “effective model year”) to define when the flexibil ity engines need to be upgraded. Future purchases of flexibility engines would be regulated based on the effective model year of the engine. However, t o preserve prior-year investments that TRU owners have already made in pu rchasing new TRUs that are equipped with a higher-emitting flexibility eng ine, the manufacture year of the engine (typically a later date than the effective m odel year) would be used.

1 Title 13, CCR section 2477 is known as the Transpor t Refrigeration Unit Airborne Toxic Control Measure and establishes in-use performance standards, recor dkeeping, and facility reporting requirements for

TRUs.ES-2

3. Increase reporting by TRU manufacturers to assis t TRU owners with compliance.

With the proposed amendments, the TRU regulation wo uld continue to substantially decrease diesel PM and NOx emissions, but defer a s mall portion of the expected emission reductions from now until the 2017-2018 pe riod. Figure ES-1 shows the decline in diesel PM emissions expected under the T RU regulation, and the change with the proposed 2010 amendments. The overall deferred reductions from the proposed amendments amount to 0.04 tons PM per day statewide in 2010, steadily decreasing to 0.001 tons PM per day statewide by 2018. The amend ments would also allow TRU owners selecting a two-step retrofit path to realiz e near-term cost savings while still reducing diesel PM now.

Figure ES-1: Statewide Diesel PM Emissions from TR Us With Existing Regulation and Proposed 2010 Amendmen ts

To evaluate the health impact of deferring these em ission reductions for the seven-year period, we conservatively assumed that an individua l living near a large distribution center was exposed to the maximum increment of high er emissions for a full 70 years. This would increase the maximum potential cancer ri sk by less than one in a million.

A. Background

TRUs are refrigeration systems (powered by an integ ral diesel engine) to protect perishable goods transported in insulated truck and trailer vans, rail cars, and domestic shipping containers. TRU gen sets provide onboard electric power to electrically driven refrigeration systems that are used in shipping con tainers and trailers.

Federal and State regulations establish progressive ly more stringent emission standards that TRU engine manufacturers must meet o ver time. These standards are

Existing Regulation

Proposed Amendments

0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 8 1 . 0 1 . 2 1 . 4 1 . 6 1 . 8

2 0 0 9 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 1tons per dayES-3

characterized by emission “tier” levels that apply to a range of manufacturing model

years.

To reduce PM emissions from in-use engines, ARB ver ifies diesel PM retrofit devices

based on levels of PM control. Table ES-1 shows th e PM control associated with the emissions tiers for new engines and the emissions l evels for retrofit devices.

Table ES-1: Effectiveness of PM Emission Standards for New TRU Engines vs PM Control Levels

for Verified Retrofit Devices

New TRU Engines:

Emissions Tiers % PM Control Retrofit Devices:

Emissions Levels
Tier 0 Engine None - Tier 1 Engine 20% - Tier 2 Engine 40% -

- 50% Level 2 Retrofit Tier 4i Engine 70% -

- 85% Level 3 Retrofit Tier 4f Engine 97% -

ARB adopted the existing TRU regulation in 2004 to accelerate the cleanup of existing TRUs through retrofit, engine repower, or unit repl acement. The compliance schedule is based on the model year of the existing engine – the oldest model year TRU engines had to be upgraded first. The schedule provides a seven-year operational life for the equipment. Ultimately, all TRUs must have 85 perce nt PM control to fully comply with the regulation. Currently, only the Level 3 retrof it can provide the 85 percent control. New model year 2010 TRU engines are Tier 4i with 70 percent PM control. Tier 4f engines with 97 percent PM control will be produced beginning in 2013.

Under the existing regulation, the owners of model year 2003 and 2004 TRUs can currently choose from the following compliance path s:

1. Retrofit the existing TRU with a Level 3 (85 per cent PM control) filter system at a cost of about $6,000.

2. Replace the existing unit with a new TRU (equipp ed with 70 percent PM control) at a cost of $20,000-$25,000 now, then upgrade that TRU with a Level 3 retrofit or another new TRU (equipped with at least 85 perce nt PM control) in seven years. Owners selecting this path typically have h igher use existing TRUs that are at or beyond their useful life and need to be r eplaced anyway for operational and reliability reasons.

3. Repower the TRU engine with a new engine (equipp ed with 70 percent PM control) at a cost of $5,500-$9,750 now, then upgra de that engine or TRU with aES-4

Level 3 retrofit or another new TRU (equipped with at least 85 percent PM control) in seven years.

4. Use an alternative technology, like an electric standby-equipped TRU or cryogenic temperature control system.

B. Add an Interim, Lower Cost Retrofit Option for a Subset of TRUs

Issue: Over the next year, more than 4,000 existing engi nes need to be upgraded to comply with the TRU regulation. The model year 200 3 engines must upgrade by the end of 2010 and the 2004 engines must do so by the end of 2011. As of this report, there is a single ARB-verified Level 3 filter syste m available for these TRUs. After some setbacks in the field testing that required redesig n, this unit received its ARB verification in June 2010. Since June, the sole manufacturer ha s produced about 50 units for sale, far short of the more than 1,200 units that need to be purchased and installed by December 31, 2010, under the existing regulation.

However, two manufacturers are producing several mo dels of Level 2 filters, which have been successfully installed on thousands of model y ear 2002 and older TRUs at a cost of $3,650 to $4,750 for each filter. These filters for model year 2002 TRUs are compatible with the model year 2003 engine technolo gy as well. The Level 2 filters

have an established network of dealers and installe rs; the filters have also have been thoroughly demonstrated.

Proposal: Amend the TRU regulation to allow Level 2 filters to be used for interim compliance on this subset of model year 2003 and so me 2004 (less than 25 horsepower) engines. There is a sufficient supply of the Level 2 filters, plus capacity at dealers and installers, to meet the demand over the next few months. Model year 2003 and 2004 (<25 hp) engines are also compatible with Level 2 filters. This proposed amendment would give TRU owners an additional, chea per option now (retrofit a Level 2 filter on an existing TRU) and allow them t o defer for seven years the need to retrofit to a Level 3 filter or purchase a new TRU with an engine that meets the most stringent PM in-use standard.

Controlling diesel PM from a portion of the affecte d TRUs by 50 percent, rather than the current 85 percent, means that fewer of the expecte d emission reductions will be realized between 2010 and 2017, as compared to the original TRU regulation. There would also be a net savings for the TRU owner on th e compliance costs due to the regulation, based on the lower cost to purchase Lev el 2 rather than Level 3 retrofit technology now, and deferral of the upgrade to Leve l 3 control to the 2017 timeframe.

The impact from this provision would be to temporar ily defer a very small quantity of the anticipated emission reductions from the TRU regula tion – 0.012 tons PM per day statewide in 2010 – steadily decreasing to less tha n 0.004 tons PM per day by 2017 and

to zero from 2018 on. This assumes that all owners using the retrofit option wouldES-5

comply using a Level 2 filter. The near-term emiss ions impact would be less if owners

are able to obtain and install the limited number o f available Level 3 filters.

C. Link Compliance Schedule for Flexibility Engines to Their Emissions Tier

Issue: When staff evaluated the reductions in emissions and heath risk associated with the original TRU regulation, we assumed that TRU en gines manufactured in a specific year would meet the emission standards applicable f or that year. However, federal and State regulations for new TRU engines allow manufac turers to certify a portion of new TRU engines to a less effective emission standard. This provision for “flexibility engines” is intended to provide equipment manufactu rers with more time to design, engineer, and produce equipment for each successive phase of cleaner engines. As a result, a new TRU for sale could contain a new engi ne with older, less effective control technology based on emission standards for prior mo del years. Based on data provided by TRU original equipment manufacturers, there are significantly more flexibility engines being used in California than originally anticipate d. This diminishes the emission reductions being achieved with the regulation.

Proposal: The proposed TRU amendments would specify that fo r future purchases of TRUs with flexibility engines, the emissions tier o r effective model year would be used to determine the compliance schedule to upgrade tha t engine. However, many TRU owners were unaware that purchasing a TRU equipped with a flexibility engine would trigger an earlier requirement to upgrade compared to a TRU engine with the latest emission controls. For TRUs with flexibility engin es that were purchased prior to the effective date of the TRU amendments, the complianc e schedule would be based on the year the engine was manufactured. While this t emporarily defers a very small quantity of the anticipated emission reductions exp ected in 2010 – 0.025 tons PM per day – it provides the full seven-year operational l ife to these TRUs before upgrades would be required.

D. Expand Reporting by TRU Manufacturers

Issue : To implement the proposed amendment to address f lexibility engines, staff will

need additional data from the TRU manufacturers. I n addition, staff is working on enhancements to the TRU on-line registration system – ARBER - to make data entry by TRU owners easier and to reduce data entry errors. Staff is also working to improve estimates of TRU populations and statewide emission s.

Proposal : To help accomplish these goals, ARB staff is pro posing to require the TRU manufacturers to periodically report data on each T RU and TRU engine for the coming production year as well as production information f or previous years.

E. Impacts of Proposed 2010 Amendments to TRU Regul ation

Emission Impacts. Even with no changes to the existing TRU regulati on, expanded use of higher emitting flexibility engines will slightl y increase PM and NOx emissionsES-6

compared to the regulatory estimates in the 2003 St aff Report. While this does not mean a net increase in emissions; it does mean that all of the expected emission reductions will not be realized. With the proposed change for flexibility engines, this loss of emission reductions will end by 2018. The proposal to allow owners of model year 2003 and 2004 (<25 hp) TRUs to use a Level 2 f ilter as an interim compliance strategy would mean 50 percent PM control instead o f 85 percent control on a subset of engines until 2017 or 2018. The combined, maximum impact of the proposed amendments would be approximately 0.04 tons per day of diesel PM reductions not realized statewide in 2010, decreasing to zero in 2 018. The impact on NOx emissions is expected to range from a high of 0.10 tons per d ay of unrealized reductions in 2010, decreasing to nearly zero by 2020.

Compliance Cost Impacts. There will be cost savings due to allowing use of lower cost Level 2 filters for model year 2003 and 2004 (<25 h p) TRUs in the near-term. The total savings would be about $2.1 million (annualized ove r the seven-year operational life and presented in 2010 dollars). However, since the engines with Level 2 retrofits still operating in 2017 and 2018 would need to upgrade ag ain to Level 3 PM control, the deferred compliance costs would be about $1.79 mill ion in 2010 dollars. The net savings for TRU owners would be about $310,000 in 2 010 dollars. The proposed amendments do not affect the cost of repowering a u nit with a cleaner engine to maintain compliance.

There are no end-user compliance costs related to t he amendment addressing the past use of flexibility engines. Together, the TRU manu facturers would incur total one-time costs of about $19,000 for flexibility engine repor ting, total one-time costs of $25,000 for the initial prior production reports, and total ann ual costs of $8,000 for 18 years of periodic update reports. The total cost to all of the TRU manufacturers combined adds to nearly $150,000 over the 18 years of implementat ion. Staff anticipates that the manufacturers can significantly reduce the cost of preparing and submitting these reports through automation and electronic reporting

.

With a net savings for TRU owners of $310,000 and a net cost to TRU manufacturers of $150,000, the overall cost impact of the proposed a mendments is a savings of $160,000 in 2010 dollars.

Public Health Impacts. Staff applied the estimated emissions impacts to dispersion models to estimate the change in public exposure to PM. Staff then applied that exposure to risk models and found that the change i n the public health risk to be negligible. Under the proposed amendments, a small increment of diesel PM emission reductions would not be realized for seven years, r anging from 0.001 to 0.04 tons per day statewide, compared to the original TRU regulat ion.

Using the State’s cancer risk modeling protocols an d assuming constant exposure to the maximum emissions for a 70-year life, the incre ase in the maximum individual cancer risk near a large distribution center would be less one in a million.ES-7

Environmental Justice. The proposed 2010 amendments to the TRU regulatio n are consistent with ARB environmental justice policies. They restore the emission reduction

benefits that would otherwise be lost to the future use of flexibility engines, while deferring a small portion of the expected reduction s to accommodate technology availability. The proposed amendments have a negli gible net effect on emissions and public health risks in communities near distributio n centers, rail yards, intermodal facilities or ports.

F. Public Outreach and Comments

In developing the proposed 2010 amendments to the T RU regulation, ARB staff conducted three public workshops and worked closely with stakeholders, including TRU owners and fleet operators, trade associations, tra de journal reporters, TRU original equipment manufacturers, TRU dealers and service ce nters, truck and trailer dealers, brokers and leasing companies, diesel particulate m atter emissions control system manufacturers, environmental groups, engine rebuild ers, and other interested parties.

Stakeholders provided informal comments during the workshops and prior to release of the 45-day public notice. TRU owners and trade ass ociations have expressed support for the amendments related to changing the requirem ents for model year 2003 and 2004 (<25 hp) engines to Level 2 PM control. Simil arly, the TRU manufacturers, dealers, and owners are supportive of the amendment that allows existing flexibility engines to use the manufacture date as the model ye ar of the engine. The TRU manufacturers are generally willing to cooperate wi th the periodic recordkeeping requirements; however, they are concerned about the security of confidential production information. Current California law provides the n ecessary protection for TRU manufacturers’ data by allowing them to declare the data as confidential or trade secret. ARB staff has worked through this concern with manu facturers in other competitive industries and developed effective procedures to pr otect such data.

G. Staff Recommendation for Board Action

ARB staff recommends the Board approve the proposed 2010 amendments to the TRU regulation as presented in Appendix A of this Staff Report.(This Page Left Intentionally Blank)I-1

I. Introduction

A. Overview

This Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking (Staff Report) provides the basis for the California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) staff’s proposal to amend the regulations affecting transpo rt refrigeration units (TRU) 2 . The primary purpose of the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amend ments is to change the in-use performance standard for model year (MY) 2003 TRU e ngines from the Ultra-Low-Emission TRU (ULETRU) in-use standard to either ULETRU or the less stringent Low-Emission TRU (LETRU) in-use standard. This change is needed because the control technology that is needed for t he retrofit compliance option to meet ULETRU has limited availability while the technolog y for meeting LETRU is readily

available.

Requirements for “flexibility” engines used in TRUs by original equipment manufacturers under the Transitional Program for Equipment Manufa cturers are also clarified. In addition, new reporting requirements for TRU origin al equipment manufacturers are proposed. The proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments ar e provided in Appendix A of this Staff Report.

This Staff Report discusses California’s estimated population of affected TRU engines, the emissions impacts, and the health risk impacts associated with the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments. Potential environmental, hea lth, and economic impacts of the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments are discussed , as well as the alternatives

that were considered.

The basis of the original TRU ATCM and background i nformation can be found in the Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Pro posed Rulemaking – Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities Where TRUs Operate , October 2003 (ARB,2003). For the remainder of this report, the original 2003 sta ff report will be referred to as the 2003 Staff Report.

B. Need for Regulation

ARB’s mission is to protect public health, welfare, and ecological resources through the effective and efficient reduction of air pollutants , while recognizing and considering the effects on the economy of the State. ARB’s vision is that all individuals in California, especially children and the elderly, can live, work , and play in a healthful environment – free from potential harmful exposure to air polluti on. To help achieve this, ARB has adopted regulations to control emissions from many different sources, including diesel-fueled engines. Diesel-fueled engine exhaus t is a significant health concern

2 Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR) sect ion 2477 is known as the Transport Refrigeration Un it Airborne Toxic Control Measure (TRU ATCM) and estab lishes in-use performance standards, recordkeeping, and facility reporting requirements for TRUs.I-2

because it is a source of unhealthful air pollutant s including particulate matter, gaseous and particulate-phase toxic air contaminants (TAC), nitrogen oxides (NO

x ), carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons.

In 1998, the Board identified diesel PM as a TAC wi th no specified threshold exposure level below which adverse health impacts would be e xpected, pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) sections 39650 through 39675. A needs assessment for diesel PM was conducted between 1998 and 2000 pursuant to HSC sections 39658, 39665, and 39666. This resulted in ARB staff developing, and the Board approving, the Risk

Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissio ns from Diesel-Fueled Engines

and Vehicles

(Diesel RRP) in 2000 (ARB, 2000). The Diesel RRP presented information on the available options for reducing d iesel PM and recommended regulations to achieve these reductions. The Diese l RRP’s scope addressed all categories of mobile and stationary diesel engines and included control measures for off-road diesel PM sources, such as those covered b y the TRU ATCM. The ultimate goal of the Diesel RRP is to reduce, by 2020, Calif ornia’s diesel PM emissions and associated potential cancer risks by 85 percent fro m the 2000 levels.

The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Qualit y Standards (standards) for pollutants considered harmful to public health, inc luding fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone. The South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins are the two areas in

the State that exceed the annual PM2.5 standards. These air basins are required by federal law to develop State Implementation Plans ( SIP) describing how they will attain the standards by 2015. U.S. EPA further requires t hat all necessary emission reductions be achieved one calendar year sooner – b y 2014 – in recognition of the annual average form of the standard. Diesel PM emi ssion reductions are needed

because diesel PM contributes to ambient concentrat ions of PM2.5.

C. Regulatory Authority

Several sections of the California Health and Safet y Code (HSC) provide ARB with authority to adopt the TRU ATCM and these TRU ATCM 2010 amendments. HSC sections 39600 (General Powers) and 39601 (Standard s, Definitions, Rules, and Measures) confer to ARB, the general authority and obligation to adopt rules and measures necessary to execute the Board's powers an d duties imposed by State law. HSC sections 43013(b) and 43018 provide broad autho rity for adopting measures to reduce TACs and other air pollutant emissions from vehicular and other mobile sources. HSC section 39618 classifies refrigerated trailers as off-road mobile sources under ARB jurisdiction.

More specifically, California's Air Toxics Program, established under California law by AB 1807 (Stats. 1983, Ch. 1047) and set forth in He alth and Safety Code sections 39650 through 39675, mandates the identifi cation and control of air toxics in California. The identification phase of the Air To xics Program requires ARB, with participation of other state agencies, such as the Office of Environmental Health HazardI-3

Assessment (OEHHA), to evaluate the health impacts of, and exposure to, substances and to identify those substances that pose the grea test health threat as TACs. ARB's evaluation is made available to the public and is f ormally reviewed by the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) established under Health and Saf ety Code section 39670. Following ARB's evaluation and SRP's review, the Bo ard may formally identify a TAC at a public hearing. Following the identification of a substance as a TAC, Health and Safety Code sections 39658, 39665, 39666, and 39667 requires ARB, with the participation of the air pollution control and air quality management districts, and in consultation with affected sources and interested p arties, to prepare a report on the need and appropriate degree of regulation for that substance.

As discussed above, the Board identified diesel PM as a TAC and in October 2000, ARB published a "Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Part iculate Matter Emissions from Diesel-fueled Engines and Vehicles." In the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, ARB identified TRU emissions associated with refrigerated warehous e distribution centers as creating potential cancer risks and included off-road engine s in the plan to reduce diesel PM

emissions.

On February 26, 2004, the Board approved for adopti on the TRU ATCM, establishing in-use performance standards for TRUs and TRU gen s ets that would be phased in commencing on December 31, 2008. The Office of Adm inistrative Law (OAL) approved the TRU ATCM, which was codified at title 13, CCR, section 2477 on November 10, 2004, and the regulation became effect ive 30 days later upon being certified by the California Secretary of State.

Staff requested U.S. EPA grant authorization to ado pt and enforce the TRU ATCM pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 209(e)(2). U.S. EPA granted California authorization to enforce the TRU ATCM on January 16 , 2009 3 (U.S. EPA, 2009).

ARB delayed the enforcement of the TRU ATCM’s in-us e performance standards until January 2010, because U.S. EPA’s authorization was granted after the first compliance date, creating uncertainty for the regulated commun ity.

3 74 Fed. Reg, 3030 (January 16, 2009)(This Page Left Intentionally Blank)II-1

II. Summary of Proposed TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments

Staff is proposing to amend the TRU ATCM to change the in-use performance standards for two model years and two horsepower ca tegories. In addition, the in-use requirements for “flexibility” engines will be clar ified. Also, new reporting requirements for TRU and TRU gen set original equipment manufact urers (TRU OEM) are being proposed.

A. Background Information on Emissions Standards fo r New Off-Road Engines

TRU and TRU gen set engines utilize off-road engine s. 4 Off-road engine standards adopted by U.S. EPA 5 and ARB (CCR, 2010) require new off-road engines t o become progressively cleaner. In developing the new engin e standards, ARB staff worked closely with U.S. EPA to develop a harmonized feder al and State program to more effectively control emissions from off-road equipme nt.

The new engine emission standards are divided into four increasingly stringent levels (tiers); the allowed emission level (standard) and effective dates vary with horsepower category. Until the mid-1990’s, off-road diesel en gines were not subject to any emission standards (commonly referred to as “Tier 0” or “unc ontrolled engines”). Engines that are used in TRUs and nearly all of the TRU gen sets are less than 50 horsepower (hp). TableII-1 illustrates how these standards change ov er time for the horsepower categories for engines used in TRUs. The numerical standards vary by category, but

the downward trend in emissions is the same for all horsepower categories.

Table II-1: ARB and U.S. EPA PM Emission Standards for New Non-Road/Off-Road Diesel Engines Used in TR Us

Less than 11 hp 11 hp to less than 25 hp 25 hp to less than 50 hp Off-road

Standard

Tier PM

Standard 1 Tier

Effective Date 2 PM

Standard 1 Tier

Effective Date 2 PM

Standard 1 Tier

Effective Date 2

Tier 0 N/A 3 N/A N/A

Tier 1 0.75 2000-2004 0.60 2000-2004 0.60 1999-2003

Tier 2 0.60 2005-2007 0.60 2005-2007 0.45 2004-2007

Tier 4

interim N/A 3 N/A N/A N/A 0.22 2008-2012

Tier 4 final 0.30 2008+ 0.30 2008+ 0.02 2013+

1. Emission rates expressed in grams per brake hor sepower-hour (g/bhp-hr)

2. Effective dates indicate when the tier standard s are in effect and start on January 1 of the first year shown and extend to December 31 of the second year shown, except that “ +” means “and subsequent years”. 3. N/A means “Not Applicable”

4 Off-road is the term used in California to identif y an internal combustion engine that is neither use d to propel a vehicle designed and intended for highway use or an engine used to power a stationary source. Off-road is used interchangeably with the term “non road,” which is used in the federal Clean Air Act a nd regulations adopted by the U.S. Environmental Prote ction Agency (U.S. EPA)

5 Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 89 and 1039II-2

The two lowest horsepower categories shown in Table II-1 were combined for the TRU ATCM’s in-use standards because less than 25 hp eng ines are generally used in straight truck (bobtail) TRUs. Engines used in tra iler TRUs and TRU gen sets are generally from the 25 hp to less than 50 horsepower category. Further discussion is provided below for these two horsepower categories on the history of the tiers.

Less than 25 hp category : As Table II-1 shows, Tier 1 standards became eff ective for less than 25 hp engines on January 1, 2000, continu ing through December 31, 2004. Between January 1, 2005 and the end of 2007, Tier 2 was in effect for this horsepower category. There was no Tier 3 standard for this ca tegory. Tier 4 final (Tier 4f) became effective January 1, 2008 and subsequent years. Th ere was no Interim Tier 4 (Tier 4i) standard for this category, like there is for the 2 5 hp to less than 50 hp category.

25 hp to less than 50 hp category : Table II-1 also shows that on January 1,1999, th e Tier 1 standards became effective for 25 to less th an 50 hp engines and continued through the end of 2003. Between January 1, 2004 a nd the end of 2007, Tier 2 standards were in effect. Again, there was no Tier 3 standard for this horsepower category. Tier 4 standards are divided into two st ages: Tier 4i, which began the beginning of 2008 and is in effect through the end of 2012; and Tier 4f, which will become effective January 1, 2013, and will be effec tive in subsequent years. The Tier 4f standards will likely necessitate the use o f advanced exhaust after-treatment technologies, and will result in diesel engines tha t will be over 94 percent cleaner (PM) than Tier 0 engines.

B. Background Information on Existing In-Use Requir ements

As adopted in 2004, the TRU ATCM’s in-use performan ce standards require that in-use TRU and TRU gen set engine PM emissions be reduced by the end of the seventh year after the engine model year (MY). There are two le vels of in-use standard stringency: the Low-Emission TRU (LETRU) in-use standard, which reduces diesel PM by at least 50 percent, and the more stringent Ultra-Low-Emissi on TRU (ULETRU) in-use standard, which reduces diesel PM by at least 85 percent.

As originally adopted, LETRU applies to MY 2002 and older TRU and TRU gen set engines. Seven years after complying with LETRU, t hese MY 2002 and older engines are required to meet the ULETRU in-use standard. F or example, a model year 2002 engine is required to meet the LETRU in-use standar d by December 31, 2009, and then meet the ULETRU in-use standard by December 31, 201 6. As originally adopted, MY 2003 and subsequent model year engines are requi red to skip LETRU and meet ULETRU by the end of the seventh year after the eng ine model year; for example MY 2003 engines must meet ULETRU by December 31, 20 10. The TRU ATCM requires that all TRU and TRU gen set engines must eventually meet the ULETRU in-se

standard.

As shown in Table II-2 below, compliance with the e xisting in-use standards can be achieved several ways. For less than 25 hp engines , LETRU can be achieved by usingII-3

an engine certified to meet 0.30 grams per brake ho rsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) PM, or by retrofitting the engine with a Level 2 Verified Die sel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS). VDECS that are typically used on TRUs are diesel particulate filters (DPF) that control particulate matter engine exhaust emis sions. These DPFs must be verified by ARB to control the PM emissions to the level cla imed by the manufacturer and must be shown to meet durability requirements. 6 For 25 hp or greater engines, LETRU can be achieved by using an engine certified to meet 0. 22 g/bhp-hr PM, or by retrofitting the engine with a Level 2 VDECS, which reduces diesel P M by at least 50 percent.

ULETRU can be achieved by using an engine certified to meet 0.02 g/hp-hr PM, or by retrofitting the engine with a Level 3 VDECS, which reduces diesel PM by at least 85 percent. All TRU and TRU gen set engines must e ventually meet ULETRU. As currently adopted, MY 2003 and subsequent model yea r TRU and TRU gen set engines skip LETRU and must meet ULETRU by the end of the s eventh year after the engine model year.

Table II-2: Existing TRU and TRU Gen Set In-Use Pe rformance Standards

Horsepower Category Engine Emissions

Certification for PM Retrofit

Level of VDECS

Low-Emission TRU In-Use Standard
<25 0.30 g/hp-hr Level 2 or better (>50 percent PM reduction) >25 0.22 g/hp-hr Level 2 or better(>50 percent PM r eduction)

Ultra-Low-Emission TRU In-Use Standard

<25 N/A 1 Level 3 (>85 percent PM reduction) >25 0.02 g/hp-hr Level 3 (>85 percent PM reduction)

1. N/A means “Not Applicable”, another compliance option must be chosen.

Another compliance option is to use an Alternative Technology, such as electric standby or hybrid electric TRUs, or hybrid cryogenic temper ature control systems. To qualify as an Alternative Technology, these technologies must be used in a way that eliminates the diesel engine operations at facilities where TR Us operate. For example, the TRU engines can run on the road, but not at distributio n centers, where they must run on electricity or use cryogenic cooling. Under the TR U ATCM, if diesel PM emissions are eliminated to qualify as an Alternative Technology, the technology meets the ULETRU standard and would also be a compliance option to m eet the LETRU standard, since ULETRU is more stringent than LETRU.

Many owners have elected to maintain their TRUs and TRU gen sets in compliance by repowering these units with new replacement engines or rebuilt replacement engines that meet a more stringent emissions standard than the engines being replaced. At this time, although an owner choosing to repower a TRU w ith a new Tier 4i engine would meet the LETRU standard, it could not be used to co mply with the ULETRU standard.

6 Title 13. California Code of Regulations (CCR), se ction 2700 through 2710.II-4

However, repowering with a newer model year Tier 4i or Tier 2 engine would have the effect of keeping a unit in compliance by resetting the in-use compliance requirements and dates, which are based on the engine model-year designation. For example, if a MY 2002 35 hp engine is repowered with a new MY 200 9 Tier 4i replacement engine, it would be in compliance until the end of 2016, when it must meet ULETRU.

New replacement engines may be manufactured to meet current or prior-tier new engine emissions standards. A new replacement engi ne that meets the tier of the

emissions standard that is in effect when it was ma nufactured would use the engine model year to determine compliance requirements and dates. The engine model year is indicated on the engine’s emissions label when it i s manufactured to meet the emissions standards that are currently in effect at the time of manufacture.

A new replacement engine that is manufactured to me et a prior-tier standard that is no longer in effect at the time of manufacture would u se the effective model year for determining compliance requirements. The effective model year is the last year that the prior-tier standard was in effect. For example, a 35 hp new replacement engine that meets Tier 2, but was installed in 2009, when Tier 4i was in effect, would have an effective model year of 2007 (the last year that Ti er 2 was in effect), and would be required to meet ULETRU by December 31, 2014, seven years after the effective model year. More discussion and details related to effec tive model year will be presented later in this staff report.

A rebuilt replacement engine that meets a prior tie r new engine emissions standard also resets the in-use compliance requirements and compl iance dates, which would be based on the rebuilt engine’s effective model year. Similar to the case of the new replacement engine, a rebuilt replacement engine th at meets a current new engine standard would use an effective model year, which w ould be the same as the rebuild year; and if it meets a prior-tier standard, the ef fective model year would be the last year that the prior-tier standard was in effect.

C. Proposed Amendment for MY 2003 (25 hp and greate r) - Change

In-Use Standard from ULETRU to LETRU

Staff is proposing that the in-use standards for MY 2003 TRU engines in the 25 hp and greater horsepower category be changed to allow own ers to comply with the in-use standards by meeting either the ULETRU or

LETRU standards. Under the current regulation, the compliance options for MY 2003 TRU engines are currently limited. New engines that meet ULETRU are currently not in produ ction and Level 3 VDECS (85 percent PM control) are not readily available i n the marketplace in sufficient numbers to retrofit the MY 2003 engines that need t o comply by the end of 2010. The amendments would allow owners to comply in the near -term by installing either a Level 2 (50 percent diesel PM control) VDECS or a L evel 3 VDECS (85 percent diesel PM control). The compliance date for meeting eithe r the ULETRU or LETRU standard would still be December 31, 2010.II-5

Level 2 VDECS, for meeting the LETRU standards, are readily available on the market

and have been installed in thousands of MY 2002 and older TRUs. The existing dealer

and installation network is well established and wi ll be able to meet product demand. An additional advantage is that Level 2 VDECS cost about $1,300 to $2,000 less than a Level 3 VDECS, so near-term compliance costs would be reduced during the current down-economy. Further, extending existing verifica tions to MY 2003 engines is straightforward since the MY 2003 engines in the 25 to <50 hp category also meet Tier 1, like the MY 1999 to MY 2002 engines for whi ch Level 2 verifications have been approved. As Table II-1 shows, 2003 was the last y ear that Tier 1 was in effect for 25 hp to less than 50 hp engines. Also, model year 2004 engines were the first year that new engines were required to meet the cleaner Tier 2 standards, which makes these engines a better match for Level 3 VDECS that must achieve 85 percent PM

reductions.

The proposed amendments would also require that all MY 2003 engines remaining in service meet the ULETRU standard by December 31, 20 17, seven years after the initial compliance date for those owners who chose to compl y by meeting the LETRU standard in 2010. As stated above, all TRU and TRU gen set engines must eventually meet the ULETRU in-use standard. So, if the owner chose to comply with ULETRU in 2010, there would be no subsequent compliance date for meeting a more stringent

in-use standard.

Staff published TRU Advisory 10-19 in July 2010 to inform MY 2003 TRU and TRU gen set owners of its intent to propose this amendment to the Board. Advisory 10-19 also informed affected owners that the compliance date w ould continue to be December 31, 2010.

Table II-3 shows this proposed amendment using the underline convention to show added requirements. In the row for MY 2003, the le tter “U” stands for ULETRU. The letter “L” stands for LETRU, and is shown underline d, indicating this in-use standard would be an option under the amendments. Again, if “L” is chosen in 2010, “U” is still required in 2017.II-6 Table II-3: > 25 HP TRU and TRU Gen Set Engines Proposed In-Use Compliance Dates for In-Use Stan dards

In-Use Compliance Year 7 Engine

MY ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19 ‘20

’01 &

Older L L L L L L L U U U U U U

‘02 L L L L L L L U U U U U

‘03 U

or L U

or L U

or L U

or L U

or L U

or L U

or L U U U U

‘04 U U U U U U U U U U

‘05 U U U U U U U U U

‘06 U U U U U U U U

‘07 U U U U U U U

‘08 U U U U U U

‘09 U U U U U

‘10’ U U U U

‘11 U U U

‘12 U U

‘13 U

D. Proposed Amendment for MY 2003 and 2004 (less th an 25 hp) - Change In-Use Standard from ULETRU to LETRU

Staff is proposing similar amendments to those prop osed above for both MY 2003 and 2004 engines in the less than 25 hp category. The amendments would allow owners to comply by either

meeting the ULETRU or LETRU in-use standards. The compliance dates for meeting one of the standards would remain December 31, 2010, for MY 2003 engines, and December 31, 2011, for MY 2004 engines . MY 2004 engines in the less than 25 hp category are included in the proposed am endment because Tier 1 was effective through 2004, so Level 2 VDECS would be a good match with these engines (explained further below). This is in contrast wit h the 25 hp and greater category because Tier 1 ended in 2003 for the 25 to 50 hp ne w engine standard.

The amendments are necessary because for MYs 2003 a nd 2004, compliance options are relatively limited. Repowering with an engine that meets an in-use emissions standard is not an option for meeting the ULETRU st andard. This is because the new off-road engine standards do not require these engi nes to have PM exhaust

after-treatment emissions controls that would reduc e emissions at least 85 percent from 2000 levels, which is what is needed to meet the UL ETRU in-use standard (note Table II-2 indicates “N/A”, or not applicable for t his horsepower category which means that another compliance option must be chosen).

7 Compliance date is December 31 st of the compliance year shown. “MY” means model ye ar. Black shaded areas are years with no requirements since in-use complia nce year precedes model year . Dark shaded areas w ithout letter codes have no in-use standard requirements, pending in-use compliance date. “L” means must mee t LETRU in-use performance standards. “U” means must meet ULETRU in-use performance standards.II-7

Furthermore, while a Level 3 VDECS has been verifie d for the < 25 hp category, it

cannot be used with TRUs because it cannot fit insi de the TRU housing. Also, unless the TRU was equipped with electric standby when new , electric standby would not be a viable Alternative Technology option because retrof itting is very expensive.

In contrast, Level 2 VDECS meeting LETRU standards are readily available on the

market for most truck TRUs and have been installed in hundreds of MY 2002 and older

TRUs. Dealer and installation networks are establi shed and these products have been demonstrated. In addition, since MY 2003 and 2004 engines are the last two years of Tier 1 in this hp category, they are the same engin es as the MY 2000 through 2002 engines (all meet Tier 1), so Level 2 VDECS ve rifications are straightforward. As noted above, Table II-1 shows that 2004 was the las t year that Tier 1 was in effect for less than 25 hp engines and model year 2005 engines were the first year that new engines were required to meet the cleaner Tier 2 st andards, making these engines a

better match for Level 3 VDECS that must achieve 85 percent PM reductions.

This proposed amendment would still require the ULE TRU standard to be met by December 31, 2017, for MY 2003 and by December 31, 2018, for MY 2004 engines, seven years after the initial compliance date for t he owners who chose to comply with LETRU in 2010 and 2011. If the owner chose to comp ly with ULETRU in 2010, there would be no subsequent compliance date for meeting a more stringent in-use standard.

As discussed above, staff published TRU Advisory 10 -19 in July 2010, to inform MY 2003 and 2004 TRU and TRU gen set owners of this proposed amendment and informed affected owners that they should make plan s to choose a compliance option and place orders in time to comply by December 31, 2010.

Table II-4 shows this proposed amendment in the row s for MY 2003 and 2004, using the same lettering conventions as in Table II-2, ab ove. As an example, the row for MY 2004 engines shows that compliance with either U LETRU of LETRU is required by December 31, 2011, and if LETRU is chosen in 2011, then ULETRU would still be required by December 31, 2018.II-8 Table II-4: <25 HP TRU and TRU Gen Set Engines Proposed In-Use Compliance Dates and In-Use Standar ds

In-Use Compliance Year 8 Engine

MY ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19 ‘20

’01 &

Older L L L L L L L U U U U U U

‘02 L L L L L L L U U U U U

‘03 U

or L U

or L U

or L U

or L U

or L U

or L U

or L U U U U

‘04 U

or L U

or L U

or L U

or L U

or L U

or L U

or L U U U

‘05 U U U U U U U U U

‘06 U U U U U U U U

‘07 U U U U U U U

‘08 U U U U U U

‘09 U U U U U

‘10 U U U U

‘11 U U U

‘12 U U

‘13 U

E. Other Proposed TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments

Several other amendments that are considered to be essential in the short term are also being proposed for the TRU ATCM 2010 amendments.

1. Requirements for “Flexibility” Engines

Background on Flexibility Engines When U.S. EPA and ARB adopted new engine emission s tandards for off-road diesel engines, they included “flexibility” provisions. 9 The flexibility provisions are also called the Transitional Program for Equipment Manufacturer s (TPEM or flexibility engine) and allow equipment manufacturers to produce limited nu mbers of equipment with engines that meet less stringent emission standards for up to seven years after a new tier of emissions standards has gone into effect. In doing so, the number of engines used cannot exceed 80 percent of the total engines produ ced in a production year, expressed as cumulative yearly percentage increments for each production year that flexibility engines are produced. The intent of TPEM is to giv e more time for equipment manufacturers to change equipment designs to be com patible with new engines

8 Compliance date is December 31 st of the compliance year shown. “MY” means model ye ar. Black shaded areas are years with no requirements since in-use complia nce year precedes model year . Dark shaded areas w ithout letter codes have no requirements, pending in-use c ompliance date. “L” means must meet LETRU in-use performance standards. “U” means must meet ULETRU in-use performance standards.

9 Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, section 89.10 2 (40 CFR 89.102), 40 CFR 1039.625, 40 CFR 1068.265 , and title 13, CCR section 2423(d))(CFR, 2010a; CFR, 201 0b; CFR, 2010c; CCR, 2010)II-9

meeting the new standards, since dimensions, engine mounts, and controls may be

affected.

For example, under the federal and state flexibilit y provisions, when Tier 1 off-road new engine standards went into effect in 2000, TRU OEMs were allowed to install pre-Tier 1 “flexibility” engines (i.e. non-certified engines) for up to seven years. Later, when new engines were required to meet the Tier 2 standards, TRU OEMs were allowed to install a limited number of flexibility engines meeting pre -Tier 1 or Tier 1 emission standards.

Similar allowances are made each time the tier stan dard changes.

Table II-5 displays the tier standards that apply t o TRU engines, the PM emissions limits and years that each tier standard was in effect, al ong with the last year that flexibility engines were allowed to be used.

Table II-5: Flexibility Engine Allowances

Emissions Standard

in Effect PM Emissions

Limit (g/hp-hr) Tier Standard

Effective Years Last Year of Seven-Year

Flexibility Engine Usage Period
Tier 1 (<11 hp) 0.75 2000-2004 2012 Tier 1 (11-<25 hp) 0.60 2000-2004 2012 Tier 2 (<25 hp) 0.60 2005-2007 2015 Tier 4f (<25 hp) 0.30 2008 and Subsequent 2016 Tier 1 (25 to < 50 hp) 0.60 1999-2003 2011 Tier 2 (25 to <50 hp) 0.45 2004-2007 2015 Tier 4i (25 to <50 hp) 0.22 2008-2012 2020 Tier 4f (25 to <50 hp) 0.02 2013 and Subsequent 202 1

As described above, flexibility engines are manufac tured to meet a less stringent, prior-tier standard than the standard currently in effect for new engine certification. An example of what actually happened follows: looking at the 25 to less than 50 hp category in row 6, after Tier 2 went into effect in 2004, TRU manufacturers installed Tier 1 engines in TRUs during 2004 and 2005.

Until now, the practice of manufacturers in identif ying the model year of flexibility engines has varied. Many engine emissions labels h ave identified the model year as the last year that the flexibility engine’s tier wa s in effect even though the engine may have been manufactured several years after the next tier was in effect. ARB’s term for this model-year designation is the “effective model year” of the flexibility engine. Other engines have emission labels identifying the model year of the flexibility engine as the engine’s manufacture date. This variance of identi fication has resulted in confusion for

ARB and stakeholders.

Table II-6 lists the new engine tier standards that apply to TRU and TRU gen set engines, the years that each tier is effective, and the corresponding effective model years that result for these tiers when ARB’s term i s applied to flexibility engines.II-10 Table II-6: Effective Model Year

Prior-Tier Engine Emissions Standard Tier Standard Effective Years Effective Model Year 1

Tier 1, under 25 hp (truck) 2000-2004 2004 Tier 2, under 25 hp (truck) 2005-2007 2007 Tier 1, 25-50 hp (trailer) 1999-2003 2003 Tier 2, 25-50 hp (trailer) 2004-2007 2007 Tier 4i, 25-50 hp (trailer) 2008-2012 2012 2

1. Engines that meet a prior tier (less stringent than currently in effect) have an effective model y ear that is the last year that the prior tier was in effect. 2. Effective model year applies for this tier only after Tier 4f becomes effective in 2013 for 25 to l ess than 50 hp engines.

Use of the effective model year of the flexibility engine effectively shortens the operational life 10 of the TRU engine. Under the TRU ATCM, the operat ional life of an engine is typically seven years – that is, an engin e is not required to meet a more stringent in-use performance standard until seven y ears after the denoted model year of the engine. By using the effective model year (whi ch may be one to two years before the engine’s manufacture date) the operational life of the engine may be shortened several years.

To address this shortened operational life, a TRU m anufacturer and many TRU fleets have requested that Tier 1 flexibility engines that were manufactured and installed in trailer TRUs during Tier 2 (e.g. during 2004, 2005, or 2006) be allowed to use the actual engine manufacture year as the model year, even tho ugh many engine labels on these engines show the effective model year as the last y ear of the prior tier (MY 2003 for Tier 1). Two TRU manufacturers have provided infor mation on their use of flexibility engines. Over 10,000 flexibility engines have bee n directed to the California market and over 37,000 have been directed to the U.S. mark et.

Staff has evaluated the flexibility engine data pro vided by TRU manufacturers and found that these flexibility engines’ actual certificatio n values for PM are below the Tier 2 standard. However, in the case of oxides of nitrog en plus non-methane hydrocarbon (NO X +NMHC) emissions, the certification values were som ewhat above the Tier 2

standard.

Staff has further found that many TRU owners unknow ingly purchased TRUs with flexibility engines in the past and were unaware th at flexibility engines may have a shortened operational life under the TRU ATCM in co mparison to engines that denoted a model year based upon year of manufacture.

Proposed Amendment Staff has determined that it would be appropriate t o amend the regulation to allow owners of flexibility engines purchased prior to th e effective date of the amendments to

10 Operational life is the life of the engine or unit as allowed under the regulation. Operational life should be distinguished from useful life, as defined under new engine standards and used for survivability (engine mortality over time) in engine population i nventory reports.II-11

use the engine manufacture year to determine compli ance requirements and deadlines

under the TRU ATCM. This would ensure that TRU own ers obtain the benefits of a full seven-year operational life. Staff is also proposi ng that flexibility engines installed in

TRUs after the effective date of the amendments wou ld be required to use the “effective model year” of the flexibility engine to determine future ULETRU compliance dates. As stated, the effective model year of the flexibility engine would be the last year that the flexibility engine’s tier standard was in effect fo r new engine compliance. Compliance with the in-use standards would then be required by the end of the seventh year after the effective model year of the flexibility engine.

Staff is further proposing that TRU OEMs be require d to report to ARB information on the use of flexibility engines, including the seria l numbers of the TRU units with flexibility engines. ARB would then use the unit serial number to identify the information in the ARB Equipment Registration (ARBER) system and would change the model year of the affected engines to be the manufacture year. The u pcoming ULETRU compliance date would also be changed in ARBER, based on the engine manufacture year instead of the effective model year. Since flexibility engine lab els often show the effective model year,

a notation would also be added to each affected ARB ER record to explain the reason for the discrepancy to enforcement staff that may o bserve this discrepancy in the field.

In order to retain the emission reduction benefits of the regulation in future years, limiting the operational life of flexibility engine s in 2011 and beyond is critical. Beginning in 2013 the new off-road engine standards in the 25 to <50 hp category will transition

from Tier 4i to Tier 4f. This action will result i n PM reductions of about 90 percent (0.22 g/hp-hr goes to 0.02 g/hp-hr) and NOx reducti ons of almost 40 percent (5.6 g/hp-hr goes to 3.5 g/hp-hr). Limiting the op erational life of flexibility engines in the

future will ensure that these PM and NOx reductions will be achieved as expeditiously as intended. Staff believes that using the effectiv e model year for future flexibility engine use would discourage their use since operational li fe is affected and would result in dirtier earlier tier flexibility engines being phas ed out sooner.

By way of example, if a flexibility engine meeting Tier 4i is installed in a TRU manufactured in 2013, when Tier 4f is in effect, th e flexibility engine’s effective model year would be 2012, so the flexibility engine would be required to meet the ULETRU in-use standard seven years later, by the end of 20 19. Had a MY 2013 engine meeting Tier 4f been installed, compliance would be require d by the end of 2020. So, the use of a flexibility engine in 2013 would result in the lo ss of a year of operational life under the proposed amendments. Continued use of flexibility engines meeting Tier 4i (effective MY 2012) in 2014 would result in the loss of an add itional year of operational life because the ULETRU compliance date would still be 2 019.

Staff is further proposing that if a TRU OEM instal ls flexibility engines after January 1, 2011, they would be required to disclose the following information to the end user before sale is completed: a) that a flexibili ty engine is installed; b) the effective model year of the engine; and c) the resulting in-u se compliance date, seven years after the effective model year.II-12 2. Reporting Requirements for TRU and TRU Gen Set O EMs

The TRU ATCM includes requirements for California-b ased TRUs and TRU gen sets to be registered with ARB. Registration is voluntary for units that are based outside of California. Complying units are issued an ARB Iden tification Number (IDN) that is affixed to the unit housing. The purpose of regist ration is to provide a way to track compliance and make enforcement inspections a more efficient, less time-consuming process for owner/operators through the use of pres creened registration information. Owners may register online, using ARB’s Equipment R egistration (ARBER) system, or manually using paper forms. Online application is encouraged to reduce errors and allow ARBER to instantly issue IDNs.

Staff is working on enhancements to the ARBER syste m to make data entry by TRU owners easier and to further reduce data entry erro rs. Staff is also working to improve estimates of TRU populations and statewide emission s. To accomplish these goals, ARB staff is proposing to require the TRU and TRU g en set OEMs to periodically report unit and engine data for the coming production year as well as production information for previous years. Information that is needed inc ludes the TRU models that will be in production, along with the engine information for e ach model. Specifically, OEMs would be required to report the manufacturer of the engin e installed in the TRU; the engine model and family; the rated horsepower and speed, d isplacement, exhaust emissions control system, and tier standard of the engine; an d ARB’s Executive Order certifying the engine for use in off-road equipment.

In addition, staff has been working to improve the quality of the data in ARBER and simplify the registration process. Also, improveme nts in estimates of TRU populations and statewide emissions is needed. Currently, ther e is no existing, comprehensive, reliable database that provides TRU and TRU gen set production numbers that can be used for this purpose. To facilitate this work, th e TRU ATCM 2010 amendments would require the TRU and TRU gen set OEMs to report to A RB on production information for five previous calendar years, or alternatively, uni t and engine information for specific unit and engine serial numbers. Periodic reporting would also be required going forward, unit and engine information needed to impr ove emissions estimates.

F. Alternatives Considered

Staff considered alternatives to each of the propos ed TRU ATCM amendments.

Retain Existing Provisions

This alternative would retain both the ULETRU stand ard and the December 31, 2010, compliance date. This would effectively eliminate retrofit as a compliance option since the Level 3 VDECS retrofit has limited availability . Compliance options would effectively be limited to the more available choices: unit rep lacements, new and rebuilt engine repowers, and Alternative Technologies. Compliance costs would be greater than the Level 2 retrofit to meet LETRU, as demonstrated by the comparisons in Table II-7 (ARB, 2010).II-13 Table II-7: Compliance Cost Comparisons for Traile r TRUs

Compliance Option Compliance Cost per Unit
Retrofit with Level 2 VDECS to meet LETRU $3,650 to $4,750 Retrofit with Level 3 VDECS to meet ULETRU $5,000 t o $6,000

New Engine Repower $5,500 to $9,750 Rebuilt Engine Repower $6,250 Unit Replacement $19,000 to $25,000

Retrofitting trailer TRUs with electric standby (an Alternative Technology) is not economically attractive because it would cost more than replacing the engine and has never been attempted, to staff’s knowledge.

Retaining the existing provisions would also negati vely impact TRU owners that purchased units with flexibility engines. By not a djusting the regulation requirements to allow the use of the manufacture year for flexibili ty engines installed prior to 2011, TRU owners would loose one to two years of operational life. This would create hardship for TRU owners that were unaware that flexibility engin es were used in the TRU units that they purchased. Finally, retaining the existing pr ovisions would prevent staff from making improvements to ARBER and the TRU emissions inventory.

Delay In-Use Compliance Date for MY 2003 Engines by One Year In lieu of changing of the in-use standard going fr om ULETRU to LETRU for MY 2003 engines in the 25 hp and greater power category, an d for MY 2003 and 2004 engine in the less than 25 hp category, staff considered and rejected retaining the ULETRU in-use standard and delaying the in-use compliance date by one year. Staff’s evaluation found that the short-term compliance cos ts for this alternative would be greater because a Level 3 VDECS (meeting ULETRU) co sts $1,300 to $2,000 more than a Level 2 VDECS (meeting LETRU) for trailer TR Us. However, the overall statewide compliance cost for this alternative woul d be about $500,000 less (in 2010 dollars) than the proposed amendment after annualiz ing the costs and discounting to 2010 dollars. This is because the proposed amendme nt includes both the 2010 LETRU compliance costs and the 2017 ULETRU compliance cos ts while the alternative has only ULETRU compliance costs in 2011.

However, this alternative has a number of drawbacks . First, no diesel PM reductions would be realized for a year, which would negativel y impact residents living near distribution centers due to exposure to elevated di esel PM emissions. Second, since 65 percent of compliance has been through engine re power with a cleaner engine, the NOx+NMHC reductions would also be delayed for one y ear. Third, the near-term economic relief for the down economy, a benefit of the proposed amendment, would be lost - specifically, the near-term savings realized by the Level 2 VDECS retrofit compliance ($1,300 to $2,000 per unit savings). Ad ditionally, if a fleet owned MY 2003 and 2004 engines, the economic impact would be more severe in 2011, when both compliance dates came due.II-14

An additional consideration is the impact that susp ending the standard for a year would have on VDECS manufacturers, new replacement engine manufacturers, and rebuilt replacement engine manufacturers. Delaying the sta ndard for a year would mean that manufacturing and installation operations would be suspended for a year. Then production, distribution, and installation would ne ed to ramp up again in 2011 to twice the levels of a normal phase compliance year to mee t the needs of MY 2003 and 2004 engine compliance.

Past delays in the compliance schedule have shown s taff that they cause a significant level of uncertainty that is detrimental to timely compliance. Most owners stop evaluating compliance options, put off field testin g of compliance technology, and postpone purchase decisions until the new complianc e deadline approaches. The uncertainty also affects compliance technology manu facturers, who delay their product development, testing, and verification work. Staff believes that delays cause lower rates of compliance.

On the other hand, staff is concerned that since TR U Advisory 10-19 was issued, instructing owners of MY 2003 engines to comply by December 31, 2010, there would be negative consequences if this alternative is not rejected. First, staff knows that some owners have in good-faith, already invested in LETR U compliance technologies so they will be at a competitive disadvantage with those ow ners that may delay, if the alternative was accepted. Second, compliance technology manufa cturers and dealers have already gone to considerable expense, having launch ed marketing promotions for the LETRU compliance options.

Given these potential adverse impacts, staff reject ed this alternative.

Only Allow a One-Year Adjustment for “Flexibility” Engines Staff also considered and rejected providing a maxi mum of one additional year of useful life for flexibility engines. Although this would have restored a measure of fairness to the owner who purchased a TRU with a flexibility en gine, it would still leave an inequity for the end user who has an engine manufacture year of more than one year. Given the small impact on emissions for flexibility engines i nstalled prior to 2011, providing TRU owners the full operational life is appropriate.III-1

III. EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND HEALTH RISK

In this chapter, staff provides estimates of the im pact of the proposed amendments on the TRU emissions inventory. The emissions invent ory estimates for the proposed amendments utilize the same assumptions and data so urces as the methodology used in the 2003 Staff Report (see Appendix D of the 200 3 Staff Report). The specific emissions impacts for each of the proposed amendmen t are listed below and combined in Section E of this chapter. The emissions impact s represent emission reductions that were anticipated but will not be realized due to ne eded adjustment to the existing TRU

ATCM.

A. MY 2003 and MY 2004 Engine Populations

As discussed in Chapter II, staff is proposing to a mend the in-use standards from

ULETRU or Level 3 VDECS to allow LETRU or Level 2 V DECS as well as ULETRU for MY 2003 engines in both the <25 hp and the 25 to <5 0 hp categories and for MY 2004 engines in the <25 hp category. Staff estimated th e population of affected engines using the assumptions for sales of MY 2003 and MY 2 004 TRUs and the survival rates from Appendix D of the 2003 Staff Report. A summar y of the population of affected engines in calendar year (CY) 2010 by equipment typ e and hp category is provided in

Table III-1 below.

Table III-1: Summary of Population of Affected MY 2003 and MY 2004 Engines (2010)

Equipment Type Horsepower Category (hp) Approximate

Number of TRUs Number of TRU

Generator Sets

California-based truck van Less than 15 840 N/A

California-based truck van 15- <25 300 N/A

California-based semi-trailer 25- <50 2,040 N/A

Out-of state semi-trailer 25- <50 670 N/A

Railcar 25- <50 150 N/A

California-based TRU gen set (shipping container) 25- <50 N/A 300

Total 4,000 300

N/A – Not Applicable

All values rounded.

B. Emissions from MY 2003 and MY 2004 Engines

The change in emissions from the affected MY 2003 a nd MY 2004 engines due to the proposed amendments is estimated by multiplying the TRU population, the annualIII-2

hours of engine operation, engine hp, load factor, and the change in emission factors

between ULETRU and LETRU. PM emission factors were reduced 25 percent from those in the OFFROAD model to incorporate data that was provided by the engine manufacturers at the time of the earlier analysis. This factor was also used in the Addendum to Appendix D of the 2003 Staff Report. T he average annual hours of engine operation, average engine power ratings, and load factors as listed in Appendix D of the 2003 Staff Report are shown in Ta ble III-2.

Table III-2: Annual Hours of Operation, Average En gine Power, and

Load Factors for TRUs by Equipment Type

Equipment Type Horsepower Category (hp) Annual

Engine Operation (hours) Average

Engine Power (hp) Load Factor

California-based truck van Less than 15 1,038 10 0. 64

California-based truck van 15-25 1,038 17 0.64

California-based semi-trailer 25-50 1,465 34 0.53

Out-of state semi-trailer 25-50 1,465 34 0.53

Railcar 25-50 1,465 34 0.53

California-based TRU gen set (shipping container) 25-50 1,100 31 0.45

Emission factors for Particulate Matter (PM) and Ox ides of Nitrogen (NO

x ), as estimated for ARB’s OFFROAD model and listed in Appendix D of the 2003 Staff Report, are

shown in Table III-3.

Table III-3: Off-road Emission Factors for TRUs by Equipment Type

Equipment Category Horsepower Category (hp) PM Emission Factors

(g/hp-hr) NOx Emission Factors (g/hp-hr)

California-based truck van Less than 15 0.47 6.08

California-based truck van 15-25 0.38 5.79

California-based semi-trailer 25-50 0.60 5.55

Out-of state semi-trailer 25-50 0.60 5.55

Railcar 25-50 0.60 5.55

California-based TRU gen set (shipping container) 25-50 0.60 5.55

The current in-use standard of ULETRU requires a PM reduction of 85 percent. The proposed in-use standard of LETRU requires a PM red uction of 50 percent. Therefore,III-3

a change from ULETRU to LETRU would result in 35 pe rcent less PM control (41 percent less PM reduction) for the affected eng ine population than originally

estimated.

The emission reductions that would be lost from the proposed amendment is estimated to be 0.041 tons/day (tpd) of diesel PM in 2010 and 0.013 tpd in 2017 if the entire affected population retrofitted with Level 2 VDECS. However, based on the Level 2 VDECS retrofits on 2002 engines, staff has estimate d that approximately 30 percent of the population will retrofit (with approximately 65 percent repowering and 5 percent using alternative technology), decreasing the emiss ion reductions lost to approximately 0.012 tpd in 2010. The change in PM emissions ends after 2018 as all the surviving affected MY 2003 and MY 2004 engines will be subjec t to ULETRU then. As NO

x emissions are not affected by the change to allow L ETRU, there would be no change to

the NO

x emissions impact projected in the 2003 Staff Repor t.

C. Population of Flexibility Engines

Staff has estimated the population of TRU flexibili ty engines from information provided by the TRU Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) i n 2010. The population of TRU flexibility engines was not estimated in 2003. App endix D of the 2003 Staff Report estimated populations using sales data of TRUs and therefore assumed that the sales year would also be the model year of the engine. T o estimate the emissions from flexibility engines that were not accounted for in 2003, staff estimated the percentage of the overall population represented by flexibility e ngines. A summary of these populations is shown in Table III-4. As shown in t he table, a large percentage of the flexibility engines were installed in the first yea r after a change in engine tier standards.

Table III-4: Flexibility Engine Population Share by MY and Horsepower Category 1

Horsepower Category

(hp) Model Year Percent of

Nationwide

Share

2004 56

2005 18 25- <50 2

2006 0

2004 0

2005 50 Less than 25 3

2006 5

1. Flexibility engine population in emissions esti mate are all Tier 1 engines. 2. Tier 2 engine standard effective starting in 2004 for 25-< 50 hp. 3. Tier 2 engine standard effective starting in 2005 for < 25 hp.III-4

D. Emissions from Flexibility Engines

The change in emissions due to the use of flexibili ty engines associated with the proposed amendments is due to the unknown prior use of flexibility engines instead of the more stringent, current tier engines. While th e amendment offers an adjustment in compliance dates for prior flexibility engines, it also clarifies compliance dates for future flexibility engines which preserve the intended emi ssions reductions when more stringent tiers come into effect. This change is es timated by multiplying the TRU population using flexibility engines, the annual ho urs of operation, engine hp, load factor, and the change in emission factors between the year of manufacture as a flexibility engine and the effective MY (the last y ear that the prior tier met by flexibility engine was in effect). The annual hours of engine operation, average engine power, and average load factors using the methodology in A ppendix D of the 2003 Staff Report

are shown in Table III-5.

Table III-5: Annual Hours of Operation, Average En gine Power, and Average Load Factors for Flexibility Engines by Horsepower Category

Horsepower Category (hp) Annual Hours of

Operation (hours) Average Engine Size (hp) Average Load Factor

Less than 15 1,038 10 0.64

15- <25 1,038 17 0.64

25-< 50 1,465 34 0.53

Emission factors for diesel PM and NO x, for flexibility engines are shown in Table II-6.

Table III-6: Off-road Emission Factors for Flexibi lity Engines

by Horsepower Category

Horsepower Category (hp) PM Emission Factors

(g/hp-hr) NOx Emission Factors (g/hp-hr)

Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2003 2004 2005 2006

Less than 15 0.47 - 0.38 0.38 6.08 - 4.37 4.37

15- <25 0.38 - 0.38 0.38 5.79 - 4.57 4.57

25- <50 0.60 0.43 0.38 - 5.55 5.10 4.95 -

The incremental change in diesel PM emissions due t o the proposed amendment for flexibility engines is 0.025 tpd in 2010 and 0.010 tpd in 2012. After 2012, the incremental change becomes negligible as the surviv ing flexibility engines are required to meet ULETRU. The incremental change in NO

x emissions from the proposedIII-5

amendment for flexibility engines is 0.10 tpd in 20 10 and is due to the higher emissions from the previous tier engines.

E. Total Combined Emissions Impacts from Proposed Amendment

Table III-7 presents staff’s estimate of anticipate d emission reduction that will not be achieved due to the proposed amendments. Overall e missions impact from both proposed amendment categories is estimated to be 0. 04 tpd of diesel PM and 0.10 tpd

of NO

x in 2010. For additional information, see Appendix D of the 2003 Staff Report.

Table III-7: Overall Emissions Impacts from Propos ed

TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments (2010)

Affected MY

2003 and MY 2004 Engines Flexibility

Engines Adjustment Total Overall

Emissions

PM Emissions (tpd) 0.012 0.025 0.04

NOx Emissions (tpd) 0.0 0.10 0.10

All values rounded.

Table III-8 provides a summary of the overall incre mental annual statewide diesel PM changes that will result from the TRU ATCM 2010 ame ndments in tons/year in 2010 through 2020. The summary is based on a 30 percent usage of Level 2 VDECS for compliance by the affected MY 2003 and MY 2004 engi nes. Emission reductions that were anticipated but will not be realized are highe st in 2010 and are approximately 0.012 tpd of diesel PM for affected MY 2003 and MY 2004 engines dependent on compliance method and approximately 0.025 tpd of di esel PM for flexibility engine adjustments, for a total of 0.04 tpd. This emissio ns increase will primarily occur in years 2010 through 2012 with negligible increase after 20 17 for affected MY 2003 and MY 2004 and after 2012 for the flexibility engine a djustments. Emission reductions that

will not be realized for NO

x result only from the flexibility engine adjustments and are approximately 0.10 tpd in 2010.III-6 Table III-8: Statewide Diesel PM Emission Reductio ns Attributable to the Existing TRU Regulation and Sub set of Reductions to be Deferred Under the Proposed 2010 TRU Amendmen ts

Emission Reductions to be Deferred Under the Proposed 2010 TRU Amendments Emission

Reductions to be Achieved by Existing TRU Regulation (2003 Staff Report) Affected MY 2003

and MY 2004 Engines Flexibility Engine

Adjustment Total Year

PM

(tpd) NO

x

(tpd) PM

(tpd) NO

x

(tpd) PM

(tpd) NO

x

(tpd) PM

(tpd) NO

x

(tpd)

2010 0.600 0.922 0.012 0 0.025 0.10 0.037 0.10

2011 0.695 0.935 0.012 0 0.024 0.10 0.036 0.10

2012 0.739 0.937 0.011 0 0.010 0.09 0.021 0.09

2013 0.765 0.941 0.010 0 0.003 0.09 0.013 0.09

2014 0.786 0.958 0.009 0 0.003 0.08 0.012 0.08

2015 0.811 0.990 0.007 0 0.003 0.07 0.010 0.07

2016 0.805 0.926 0.006 0 0.002 0.06 0.008 0.06

2017 0.664 0.862 0.004 0 0.002 0.05 0.006 0.05

2018 0.610 0.903 0.000 0 0.001 0.04 0.001 0.04

2019 0.559 0.950 0.000 0 0.001 0.02 0.001 0.02

2020 0.525 1.002 0.000 0 0.000 0.01 0.000 0.01

All values rounded.

F. Health Risk

The Board listed diesel PM as a toxic air contamina nt in 1998 based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health eff ects. NO

x is a precursor to the formation of ozone and contributes to secondarily f ormed PM in the lower atmosphere.

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessmen t (OEHHA) has shown both chronic cancer and non-cancer health impacts due to exposure to diesel PM, but the cancer health risk impacts are generally higher tha n the non-cancer health impacts. For this analysis, only cancer risks were addressed for diesel TRUs. A summary of the risks reported in the 2003 Staff Report and impacts estimated as a result of the proposed amendments are provided below.

In the 2003 Staff Report, ARB staff estimated poten tial cancer risks from diesel TRU using activities at a distribution center where 35 horsepower diesel TRU engines operate. The potential excess cancer risk from die sel PM was estimated to be approximately 130 chances in a million up to one-ha lf mile from a large facility operating 2,000 hours per week. These estimates were based o n the year 2000 fleet average emission rate (0.7 grams PM per brake horsepower-hr (g/bhp-hr)). The 2010 estimated fleet average emission rate is 0.24 g PM/bhp-hr or about a factor of 3 lower. As a result of the significant change in the average emission r ate of TRUs over the past 10 years, this same facility in 2010 (without the existing TR U regulation) would have an updated excess cancer risk of about 45 chances per million. The existing TRU regulation

reduces excess cancer risks near distribution cente rs to approximately 33 chances per

million. With the deferred emission reductions fro m the proposed 2010 amendments,III-7

the excess cancer risk would increase by less than one chance per million in each of seven years. All parameters and assumptions, along with the methodology for estimating these cancer risks, are found in Appendi x E of the 2003 Staff Report (ARB, 2003).(This Page Left Intentionally Blank)IV-1

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS OF PROPOSED AM ENDMENTS

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and ARB policy require an analysis to determine the potential environmental impacts of pr oposed regulations. Because ARB's program involving the adoption of regulations has b een certified by the Secretary of Resources pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.5, the CEQA environmental analysis requirements may be included in the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for this rulemaking. In the ISOR, AR B must include a “functionally equivalent” document, rather than adhering to the f ormat described in CEQA of an Initial Study, a Negative Declaration, and an Environmental Impact Report. In addition, staff will respond, in the Final Statement of Reasons for the proposed regulation, to all significant environmental issues raised by the publ ic during the public review period or at the Board public hearing. Public Resources Code section 21159 requires that the environmental impact analysis conducted by ARB incl ude the following:

• An analysis of reasonably foreseeable environmenta l impacts of the methods of compliance;

• An analysis of reasonably foreseeable feasible mit igation measures (CEQA requires an agency to identify and adopt feasible m itigation measures that would minimize any significant adverse environmental impa cts); and

• An analysis of reasonably foreseeable alternative means of compliance with the proposed regulation.

ARB staff’s analysis of these requirements is prese nted below. The proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments reduce the cost of complying w ith the ATCM while still ensuring the emissions and risks from TRU diesel en gines are mitigated.

A. Statewide Emissions Impacts

ARB staff has estimated the incremental emissions w hich were anticipated but may not be realized with the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendme nts for 2010 through 2020 as shown in Table IV-1. As stated earlier, statewide emissions from these specific engine model year categories are a small portion of the to tal TRU emissions. However, these emission reductions are important in achieving the Board’s goals in the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (ARB, 2000) and Goods Movement Actio n Plan (CalEPA, 2007), as well as attaining and maintaining ambient air quality st andards.IV-2

Table IV-1: Statewide Diesel PM Annual Unrealized Emission Reductions for 2010 to 2020 Attributable to Proposed TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments

Affected MY 2003 and MY 2004 Engines Flexibility Engine Adjustment Total

Year PM (tpd) NO

x (tpd) PM (tpd) NO

x (tpd) PM (tpd) NO

x (tpd)

2010 0.012 0 0.025 0.10 0.037 0.10

2011 0.012 0 0.024 0.10 0.036 0.10

2012 0.011 0 0.010 0.09 0.021 0.09

2013 0.010 0 0.003 0.09 0.013 0.09

2014 0.009 0 0.003 0.08 0.012 0.08

2015 0.007 0 0.003 0.07 0.010 0.07

2016 0.006 0 0.002 0.06 0.008 0.06

2017 0.004 0 0.002 0.05 0.006 0.05

2018 0.000 0 0.001 0.04 0.001 0.04

2019 0.000 0 0.001 0.02 0.001 0.02

2020 0.000 0 0.000 0.01 0.000 0.01

Values are rounded.

The projected total statewide diesel PM emission in cremental changes from the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments are presented in Figure IV-1 as a comparison

to the TRU ATCM and the TRU baseline as estimated i n the 2003 Staff Report. The

diesel PM emissions from TRUs in 2010 were estimate d to be about 1.6 tpd in the 2003 Staff Report, dropping to about 0.31 tpd in 20 20. The incremental change in PM emissions that would occur as a result of the propo sed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments drops from 2010 through 2020, with the impacts beco ming negligible after 2018. As discussed in Chapter III, the only incremental NO

x emission impacts are due to the use of flexibility engines which have higher emissions. This amendment allows the adjustment of compliance dates for prior flexibilit y engines, but limits the life of future flexibility engines to preserve emission reductions

.IV-3

Figure IV-1: Projected Statewide Diesel PM Emissio ns for Baseline, TRU ATCM and with Proposed TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments

Baseline

Existing Rule

Amendments

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 202 1tons per day

As Figure IV-1 shows, the emissions impact from the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments is negligible, but nonetheless represent s an adverse, although not substantial, emissions impact. The highest concent rations of diesel PM from TRUs are expected to occur at locations where numerous TRUs operate such as distribution facilities, ports and intermodal facilities. These locations could see slightly increased concentrations of approximately 0.04 tpd of diesel PM.

B. Health Impacts

The impacts associated with the proposed TRU ATCM 2 010 amendments would result in slight increases of ambient particulate matter ( PM) emissions and exposure to diesel

PM and NO

x . Estimating the impact of the diesel PM emission due to the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments on potential cancer risk d epends on location of the emission impacts. The diesel PM emission impacts b etween the end of 2010 and the end of 2017 due to the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amend ments may result in a small increase in potential health risks of less than one per million (see Chapter III for additional details).

Staff believes that the majority of TRU owners will continue to comply with the in-use emissions standards by repowering with new replacem ent engines and TRU gen set owners will continue to replace the entire unit. I f there is a change in this trend, so that

more owners elect to retrofit with exhaust aftertre atment systems, a 2 to 5 percent fuelIV-4

penalty is typically associated with diesel particu late filters; and the increased fuel use would translate into increased carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions. While this potentially could occur, staff does not believe the TRU ATCM 20 10 amendments, by themselves, would cause a significant change in the use of the retrofit option over the repower option. In general newer engines are expected to b e more fuel efficient than the older engines being replaced, but there is some uncertain ty whether this will be the case when engine manufacturers may need to utilize exhau st aftertreatment technologies to meet Tier 4 final new engine emissions standards in the 25 horsepower (hp) to less than 50 hp category.

C. Environmental Impacts

ARB staff anticipates that the proposed TRU ATCM 20 10 amendments to allow owner’s to comply by meeting either the LETRU or ULETRU r equirements and adjust the compliance deadline for prior flexibility engines, but limit use of future flexibility engines, will not significantly increase criteria, toxic, an d greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As
shown in Table VI-1, emissions reductions not reali zed consist of 0.037 tpd of PM and 0.10 tpd of NO

x

in 2010. There would not be any change to the impa cts discussed in the 2003 Staff Report for potential compliance methods including diesel particulate filters (DPF).

D. Global Warming Impacts

The following sections provide an overview of the c urrent understanding of the potential climate impacts of the pollutants emitted by diesel engines, which are used to power all but a few TRUs and TRU gen sets.

Particulate Matter (PM): PM from diesel engine exhaust is composed of comb ustion particles consisting of elemental and organic carbo n and sulfate, all of which can form aerosols. Atmospheric aerosols play an important r ole in the climate system through modifications of the global energy budget: directly , by the scattering and absorption of radiation; indirectly, by the modification of cloud properties. Black carbon typically emitted as a fraction of PM from combustion process es, is the main light-absorbing component of aerosols and thereby causes global war ming. In recent years, there has been increased attention to black carbon for its gl obal warming potential through direct

and semi-direct effects.

Overall, the climate impact assessment of PM emitte d by diesel engines is rather complex: radiative forcing of black carbon is posit ive (climate warming impact), while radiative forcing of sulfate particles is negative (cooling impact). The particles emitted from diesel engines represent a variety of composit ions and sizes. The magnitude of the overall direct climate impact of black carbon e mitted from diesel engines and information on emissions of diesel-exhaust particle s, such as detailed characterization of chemical composition, microphysical characterist ics and the fate of the particles in the environment are not well known. (ARB, 2008) A better characterization of dieselIV-5

engine emissions is needed to improve the understan ding of the climate change impacts from control strategies.

Nitrogen oxides (NO

x ): Through the production of tropospheric ozone, emi ssions of

NO

x have a climate warming impact. However, by affecti ng the concentration of hydroxyl radical (OH), they reduce the levels of me thane, providing a cooling effect. The net climate impact of changes in NO

x emissions will depend on whether ozone or methane production dominates. At this time, there is no consensus on which action is likely to dominate or on the overall magnitude of t he impact due to changes in NO

x emissions resulting from the regulation. (ARB, 2008 )

Conclusion: With the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments, the T RU ATCM would continue to substantially decrease diesel PM and NO

x emissions, but defer a very small portion of the expected emission reductions until t he 2017-2018 period. Additionally, staff expects the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments to have a negligible effect on global warming.

E. Reasonably Foreseeable Mitigation Measures

ARB staff has concluded that the emissions impact f rom the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments will be negligible and will not have a s ignificant adverse impact on the environment. The proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments are necessary in that they will add a compliance option for affected MY 2003 a nd MY 2004 engines and clarify the standards with regard to flexibility engines while ensuring that the goals of the ATCM to reduce emissions and risks from TRU diesel engines continue to be met.

F. Reasonably Foreseeable Alternative Means of Com pliance with the Proposed ATCM

Having found that the amendments will not result in any significant environmental effects, it is not necessary to address alternative s to the proposed amendments under CEQA. However, staff has considered alternatives t o the regulation as discussed in Chapter II of this report.(This Page Left Intentionally Blank)V-1

V. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

This chapter discusses the estimated incremental co sts and incremental economic impacts associated with implementation of the propo sed TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments. The expected equipment incremental cos ts for potential compliance options, the cost and associated economic impacts o n businesses, as well as an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments to the regulation are presented. Estimates in this sectio n are based on the costs incurred and incremental emissions during the years of 2010 to 2 027. The costs, presented as net present value (NPV) in 2010 dollars, are included w ith an explanation of the methodology used in Section C.

A. Summary of the Economic Impacts

In assessing the costs and savings associated with the proposed TRU ATCM 2010
amendments, ARB staff developed estimates for regulatory costs and savings associated with the proposed amendments to the in-u se standards for MY 2003 and MY 2004 engines for TRU operators, as well as the r egulatory costs of additional recordkeeping and reporting for the OEMs. The esti mated regulatory costs for TRU operators include the incremental capital cost diff erential between installing a Level 2 VDECS to meet LETRU rather than installing a Level 3 VDECS for ULETRU adjusted for the estimated percentage of use of VDECS for co mpliance, the cost of a Level 3 VDECS on the surviving TRUs in 2017, and the time v alue of money associated with the additional ULETRU step. If a business chooses to replace the TRU engine rather than retrofit with a VDECS, there is no incremental cost from the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments as engine replacement is a complian ce option in both regulatory scenarios. The proposed amendment to provide addit ional compliance time for flexibility engines has no change in economic impac ts from the original TRU ATCM as the original economic impacts were based on year of sale, not the model year of the engine. However, it does provide some relief to bu sinesses that were anticipating expenditures based on the model year of the TRU pur chased, but are currently faced with unexpected early expenditures based on the mod el year of the engine.

There will be compliance cost savings due to changi ng the in-use standard to allow compliance to be achieved with the optional LETRU s tandard because the Level 2 VDECS required to meet the LETRU standard costs abo ut $2,000 less than the Level 3 VDECS required to meet ULETRU. The total savings w ould be about $2.1 million (annualized over the seven year operational life an d presented in 2010 dollars). However, since the affected engines still operating in 2017 and 2018 would still need to meet ULETRU, these compliance costs would reduce th e savings by about $1.79 million in 2010 dollars. After considering t he additional cost to OEMs for recordkeeping and reporting, staff estimates that t he net cost savings for compliance with the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments to the r egulation to be approximately $160,000 (2010 dollars) from 2010 through 2027.V-2

Staff evaluated the economic impacts the proposed T RU ATCM 2010 amendments had on businesses by estimating the effect of the regul atory costs on small businesses and typical businesses. The impact produces a signific ant cost savings in early years for all business, but has a cost impact in later years if t he TRU owner decides to comply with ULETRU when the engine is 14-years old. The OEMs i ncur annual reporting costs that are not significant; however they have an initial r eport that includes the previous five years of data.

One state agency would be impacted by the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments to the regulation. The California Department of Co rrections operates refrigerated trucks

and trailers used to service correctional facilitie s, three TRUs of which are impacted by this amendment to the in-use engine standards. The capital cost savings to this state agency is estimated to be a maximum of $6,000. Ref rigerated trucks and trailers are owned and operated by at least 25 local school dist ricts and county agencies, which may have maximum cost savings of $10,000, and by th e Federal Bureau of Prisons, which may have maximum cost savings of $4,000.

Cost-effectiveness is expressed in terms of costs i n dollars per unit of emissions reduced (pounds or tons). As the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments will generate cost savings and emissions reductions that were anticipated but will not be realized, we will not describe the impacts in terms of cost-effectiveness.

B. Legal Requirements

In this section we explain the legal requirements t hat must be satisfied in analyzing the economic impacts of the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amen dments to the TRU ATCM.

Section 11346.3 of the Government Code requires Sta te agencies assess the potential for adverse economic impacts on California business enterprises and individuals when proposing to adopt or amend any administrative regu lation. The assessment shall include a consideration of the impact of the propos ed amended regulation on California jobs, business expansion, elimination or creation, and the ability of California business to compete with businesses in other states. Also, California state agencies are required to estimate the cost or savings to any State or loc al agency in accordance with instructions adopted by the Department of Finance ( DOF). The estimate shall include any non-discretionary cost or savings to local agen cies and the cost or savings in federal funding to the State.

In addition, Health and Safety Code section 57005 r equires the ARB to perform an economic impact analysis of submitted alternatives to a proposed regulation before adopting any major regulation. A major regulation is defined as a regulation that will have a potential cost to California business enterp rises in an amount exceeding 10 million dollars in any single year. Because the estimated cost of the TRU ATCM

2010 amendments to the TRU ATCM does not exceed 10 million dollars in any single year, the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments to the TRU ATCM do not constitute a major regulation.V-3

The following is a description of the methodology u sed to estimate costs as well as ARB staff’s analysis of the economic impacts on Califor nia businesses, as well as, federal, State, and local agencies.

C. Methodology for Estimating Costs Associated with Proposed

Amendments

In this section, the estimated costs associated wit h the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments are discussed. Briefly, the methodology entailed:

• Estimating the regulatory costs associated with th e proposed amendments to the in-use performance standards for MY 2003 and MY 200 4 engines.

• Estimating the regulatory costs of additional reco rdkeeping and reporting for the OEMs. The only costs associated with the flexibili ty engine adjustment are OEM reporting to identify TRUs with flexibility engines . No additional reporting costs are anticipated for TRU owners since the required i nformation will be provided by the OEM and the registration updates will be done b y ARB staff.

• Costs were estimated in 2010 dollars and also adju sted to NPV using a five percent discount rate.

1. Differential in VDECS Retrofit Costs for Level 2 and Level 3:

The estimated costs for purchasing and installing V DECS in an in-use TRU were determined using manufacturers suggested cost data from the Level 2 VDECS

manufacturers and the Level 3 VDECS manufacturers. There are currently two Level 2

VDECS manufacturers with two sizes of VDECS and one Level 3 VDECS manufacturer marketing VDECS for TRUs. The estimated costs incl uded the cost of the filter, new injectors as required by the VDECS verifications, a nd the labor for installation. Staff’s estimate of the average costs for purchase and inst allation of a VDECS retrofit, as well

as the cost differential are shown in Table V-1.V-4 Table V-1: Estimated Average VDECS Retrofit Costs

by Equipment Type (2010 Dollars)

Equipment Type Horsepower Category (hp) Cost of Level 2

VDECS 1 Cost of Level

3 VDECS 1 Incremental

Cost

Decrease

between

Level 3 and

Level 2

California-based truck

van Less than 15 $3,650 $6,000 $2,350

California-based truck

van Less than 25 $3,650 $6,000 $2,350

California-based

semi-trailer 25- <50 $4,705 $6,000 $1,295

Out-of-state semi-trailer 25- <50 $4,705 $6,000 $1, 295

Railcar 25- <50 $4,705 $6,000 $1,295

California-based

container on

semi-trailer/railcar 25- <50 $4,705 $6,000 $1,295

1. Includes VDECS, labor, and ancillary equ ipment costs.

Table V-2 presents estimates of the number of affec ted engines in 2010 and 2011 and cost of installing Level 2 VDECS on these engines. Staff has adjusted the incremental cost assuming that about 30 percent of TRU operator s are expected to comply with the TRU ATCM by retrofitting with a VDECS. This percen tage adjustment is based on the compliance percentage for 2002 engines. The detail ed calculations associated with this cost savings estimate are located in Matrix 1 of Ap pendix B: Proposed TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments In-Use Compliance Cost Estimates.V-5 Table V-2: Incremental Cost Savings from Proposed Amendment Extending the Level 2 VDECS Requirement t o MY 2003 and MY 2004 Engines (2010 Dollars)

Number of

TRUs Affected Number of

TRUs Expected to

Use Level 2 Incremental

Level 2 VDECS Cost Savings (2010 Dollars) Equipment Type Horsepower Category (hp)

2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

California-based

truck van Less than 15 403 442 121 133 $2,350 $2,253

California-based

truck van 15-<25 149 161 45 40 $2,350 $2,233

California-based

semi-trailer 25-<50 2,038 0 611 0 $1,295 N/A

Out-of-state

semi-trailer 25-<50 672 0 202 0 $1,295 N/A

Railcar 25-<50 150 0 45 0 $1,295 N/A

California-based

container on

semi-trailer/railcar 25-<50 292 0 45 0 $1,295 N/A

2. Future Level 3 VDECS Costs

If Level 2 VDECS are installed on MY 2003 and MY 20 04 engines, an additional ULETRU compliance step must be performed on survivi ng engines by December 31 of

the 14 th year after the model year of the engine (2017 for MY 2003 engines and 2018 for MY 2004 engines less than 25 hp). Again, staff has adjusted the incremental cost assuming that about 30 percent of TRU operators are expected to comply with the TRU ATCM by retrofitting with a VDECS. This is a conse rvative assumption as staff anticipates that most TRU operators with Level 2 VD ECS will comply with the regulation in 2017 and 2018 by replacing their existing TRUs r ather than retrofitting with a Level 3

VDECS because these TRUs will be at the end of thei r useful service life. Table V-3 presents estimates of the number of surviving engin es in 2017 and the cost of installing Level 3 VDECS on the surviving engines. These cost s were derived by applying a five percent discount rate to the 2010 costs listed in Table V-1. The detailed

calculations associated with this cost estimate are located in Matrix 1 of Appendix B: Proposed TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments In-Use Compliance Cost Estimates.V-6 Table V-3: Costs from Proposed Amendment Extending the Level 3 VDECS Compliance Deadline for MY 2003 and M Y 2004 Engines

to 2017 and 2018 (2010 Dollars)

Number of TRUs

Affected Number of TRUs

Expected to Use

Level 3 VDECS Level 3 VDECS

Cost (2010 Dollars) Equipment Type Horsepower Category (hp) 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018

California-based

truck van Less than 15 126 132 38 40 $4,190 $3,981

California-based

truck van 15-25 47 48 14 14 $4,190 $3,981

California-based

semi-trailer 25-50 638 0 191 0 $4,190 $3,981

Out-of state

semi-trailer 25-50 211 0 63 0 $4,190 $3,981

Railcar 25-50 47 0 14 0 $4,190 $3,981

California-based

container on

semi-trailer/railcar 25-50 92 0 28 0 $4,190 $3,981

3. Flexibility Engine Adjustments

Staff anticipates that the only change in costs fro m flexibility engines from the economic analysis in the 2003 Staff Report is attributed to the one-time reporting cost for TRU manufacturers. In the 2003 Staff Report, capital c osts were expected in the year of sale, not the effective engine model year, therefor e there is no incremental change in capital cost as this amendment proposes to return t he costs to year of sale rather than

the 7 th year after the effective engine model year. There are increased emissions impacts associated with this adjustment as the emis sions for the year of sale (Tier 2 in effect) were estimated from the current tier engine s (Tier 2) for the year of sale, which is

lower than the emissions than the emissions from th e flexibility engines (Tier 1).

4. Operation and Maintenance Costs

Staff does not anticipate that there will be a sign ificant change in the operating and maintenance costs for the proposed Level 2 VDECS in -use standard compared to the

current Level 3 VDECS standard as noted in the 2003 Staff Report.

5. Recordkeeping and Reporting Costs

Under staff’s proposal, OEMs are required to report flexibility engine data to ARB, as well as unit and engine data for both prior and cur rent production years. The cost for collecting and reporting this data to ARB was estim ated by contacting the OEMs for estimates of the time to prepare these reports. Th e flexibility engine reporting and the initial prior production reporting will occur in 20 10 and is based on estimates providedV-7

by the OEMs for reporting of flexibility engines. ARB staff estimates a cost of about $19,000 for initial reporting of flexibility engine s and $25,000 for initial reporting of five years of data for prior production years. Bas ed on ARBER registrations, ARB estimates that approximately 10,000 TRUs per year w ill require prior year production reporting for an estimated cost of $5,000. Current production year reporting is estimated to be approximately $3,400 per year based on an estimate of the number of models per production year.

D. Total Regulatory Costs

Table V-4 provides the regulatory costs attributed to the proposed TRU ATCM 2010

amendments from the calculations located in Matrix 1 and Matrix 2 of Appendix B. The in-use engine regulatory costs are derived from the cost differential between Level 2 and Level 3 VDECS, the future cost of Level 3 VDECS in 2017, and the reporting cost. The net total regulatory cost savings for the TRU A TCM 2010 amendments over the years 2010 to 2027 are estimated to be about $160,0 00 (2010 dollars).

Table V-4: Total Estimated Regulatory Costs for Pr oposed TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments (2010 Dollars)

Proposed TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments Regulatory Cost or (Savings)

NPV Incremental Cost Savings for MY 2003 and MY 2004 < 25 hp Savings (2010 $) ($810,000)

NPV Incremental Cost Savings for MY 2003 > 25 hp Savings (2010 $) ($1,290,000)

NPV ULETRU Cost for MY 2003 and MY 2004 < 25 hp (2010 $) $460,000

NPV ULETRU Cost for MY 2003 > 25 hp (2010 $) $1,330,000

NPV OEM Reporting Cost (2010 $) $150,000

Operating and Maintenance Cost (2010 $) $0

NPV Net Total Cost or (Savings) (2010 $) ($160,000)

All values rounded.

E. Estimated Costs to Businesses

The costs and economic impacts on businesses are pr esented in this section. The overall impact on business competitiveness, employm ent, and other impacts on business are also presented.V-8

1. Potential Impact on Employment, Business Creat ion, Elimination or Expansion

a. Potential Impact on Employment

The proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments are not expec ted to cause a measurable change in California employment and payroll. The p roposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments are likely to result in no change in emp loyment in businesses as compared to the 2003 Staff Report.

b. Potential Impact on Business Creation, Eliminat ion, or Expansion

The proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments would have a positive impact on the status of California businesses. The proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments reduce

the economic burden on businesses which have affect ed MY 2003 and MY 2004 engines, and extend the current compliance dates fo r flexibility engines. These businesses may benefit from the proposed addition o f a less expensive compliance alternative for MY 2003 and MY 2004 engines, and th e proposed relief from the unexpected compliance costs associated with flexibi lity engines.

c. Potential Impact on Business Competitiveness

The proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments would have no significant impact on the ability of California businesses to compete with bu sinesses in other states. The proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments are likely to res ult in no change in business competitiveness as compared to the 2003 Staff Repor t, as Non-California-based TRUs operating in California will be required to meet th e same regulatory requirements as

California-based TRUs.

2. Estimated Regulatory Cost for Small and Typica l Business

About 80 percent of the companies that own TRUs are considered small businesses, having less than 20 TRUs. The estimated regulatory cost for small and typical business is presented in Table V-5. The estimated regulator y cost savings from these TRU ATCM 2010 amendments for a small business ranges fr om $2,000 for one unit to $40,000 for 20 units, with an average of $21,000. The estimated regulatory cost savings for a typical business ranges from $42,000 for 21 units to $100,000 for 50 units with an average of $71,000. The estimated regulato ry costs for OEMs are estimated at about $44,000 initially and about $8,000 per year t hereafter.V-9 Table V-5: Estimated Incremental Regulatory Cost S avings for

Small and Typical Business (2010 Dollars)

Incremental Cost Savings to Small

Business Incremental Cost Savings to Typical

Business Year

1 Unit 20 units 21 Units 50 Units Cost to OEMs

Capital Cost Savings (2010 $) $2,000 $40,000 $42,000 $100,000 N/A

Annualized Capital Cost Savings (2010 $) $400 $8,000 $8,000 $40,000 N/A

OEM Initial Reporting Costs (2010 $) N/A N/A N/A N/A $44,000

OEM Annual Reporting Costs (2010 $) N/A N/A N/A N/A $8,000

All values rounded.

F. Cost to Local, State, and Federal Agencies

One state agency would be impacted by the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments to the regulation. The California Department of Co rrections operates refrigerated trucks

and trailers used to service correctional facilitie s, three of which are impacted by this amendment to the in-use engine requirements. The c apital cost savings to this state agency is estimated to be a maximum of $6,000. Ref rigerated trucks and trailers are owned and operated by at least 25 local school dist ricts and local agencies, which may have a maximum cost savings of $10,000, and by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which may have a maximum cost savings of $4,000.

The proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments are not expec ted to add significant costs above those already required to implement and enfor ce the proposed amended regulation. ARB’s administrative costs for outreac h, educational efforts, and technical assistance would be absorbed within existing budget s and resources.

G. Cost-Effectiveness

Cost-effectiveness is expressed in terms of costs i n dollars per unit of emissions reduced (pounds or tons). As the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments to the TRU ATCM will generate cost savings and emissions reduc tions not realized, it is not practical to describe the impacts in terms of cost- effectiveness.

Table V-6 shows the range of cost effectiveness for ARB regulations. The cost savings and emission reductions lost from the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments are negligible and do not affect the original cost-effe ctiveness range of the TRU ATCM as presented in the 2003 Staff Report.V-10 Table V-6: Comparison of Diesel PM Cost Effectiven ess of the Proposed TRU ATCM 2010 Amendments to Other ARB Regu lations

Diesel PM Cost- Effectiveness Regulation or Airborne Toxic Control Measure Dollars/ Pound PM

Commercial Harbor Craft (2007) $29
Commercial Harbor Craft (2010 Amendments) $35

In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles $40
Cargo Handling Equipment Proposal $41

Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule $28
Stationary Diesel Engine ATCM $4 - $26
Transport Refrigeration Unit ATCM (2004) $10 - $20
Transport Refrigeration Unit ATCM (2010 Amendments) $10 - $20VI-1

VI. Public Outreach and Future Activities

A. Public Outreach

Staff has provided opportunities for participation in the rulemaking process. Staff’s public outreach efforts included three public works hops at which draft regulatory concepts, language, emissions impacts, health risk impacts, and economic impacts were provided. Staff’s public outreach efforts inc luded meetings, webcasts, teleconferences, telephone contacts, and emails wit h TRU owners and fleet operators, trade associations, trade journal reporters, TRU or iginal equipment manufacturers, TRU dealers and service centers, truck and trailer deal ers, brokers, leasing companies, diesel particulate matter emissions control system manufacturers, environmental groups, engine rebuilders, and other interested par ties. Staff also created a website

and maintained an email address list that includes over 5,100 addresses to automatically update interested parties about rulem aking developments. The TRU website can be accessed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ diesel/tru.htm

B. Environmental Justice

The proposed amendments result in a short-term negl igible increase diesel PM emissions and will impact diesel PM emissions at di stribution centers, grocery stores, and other facilities where TRUs operate. Communiti es near distribution centers are often more heavily impacted by TRUs operating at th ese locations. On December 13, 2001, the Board approved “Policies and Actions for Environmental Justice,” which formally established a framework fo r integration of environmental justice into ARB’s programs, consistent with the directive of California state law. These policies apply to all communities in California; ho wever, environmental justice issues have been raised specifically in the context of low -income areas and ethnically diverse communities. The proposed amendments are consisten t with our environmental justice policy to reduce health risk in all communities, in cluding those with low-income and ethnically diverse populations.

C. Future Activities

When staff began this rule amendment process our go al was to bring to the Board a series of amendments addressing implementation, enf orcement, and economic issues. As we progressed through the first two workshops, t he number of potential amendments grew as did the number of possible approaches to ad dress issues and concerns. It

became clear to staff that additional data collecti on and analysis would be needed before we would be in a position to recommend speci fic rule changes to the Board. However, there were several amendments that require d Board action in 2010 because of compliance dates that become effective at the en d of the year. As a result, staff decided to bring the rulemaking forward in two phas es. Phase 1, which is the subject of this Staff Report, would address time-critical amen dments that urgently need Board approval before the end of the year.VI-2

Phase 2, which we tentatively plan to bring to the Board in July 2011, would address the remaining issues and concerns that are not as time- critical. This will provide staff additional time to adequately develop the remaining proposed amendments, address stakeholder concerns, and complete the necessary up date to the emissions inventory. Below is a list of the issues we will be working on :

Changes to Emission Standards

• Clarify ULETRU standard for less than 25 hp engine s meeting Tier 4f – require highest level VDECS retrofit available or alternati ve technology when 7 years old

Changes to the Compliance Schedule

• Extend LETRU compliance period by one year for com plying by original December 31, 2008, compliance date (engine model ye ars 2001 and older)

• Extend LETRU compliance period by one year for com plying by December 31, 2009, compliance date (engine model ye ar 2002)

• Provide an alternative compliance schedule for low -use TRUs using automated GPS/wireless recordkeeping

Sell Thru Provisions

• Establish the “effective model year” for TRUs wher e the difference between the model year of the engine and model year of the TRU is no more than 1 year to be the more recent model year

Monitoring, Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Labeling Provisions

• Require OEMs to provide unit labels identifying th e effective model year

• Require engine rebuilders to provide labels identi fying the effective model year

• Require engine rebuilders, sellers, and installers to provide unit and engine data to ARB and purchaser

• Add monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requi rements for Alternative Technologies, such as hybrid-electric TRUs and hybr id cryogenic temperature control systems

• Clarify dealer registration requirements and handl ing of noncompliant units

Other Proposed Changes

• Clarify purchase, transport, and storage requireme nts for noncompliant units

• Exempt TRUs used during State or federal declared emergencies

• Provide Executive Officer authority to grant limit ed exemptions where complying technology has not been delivered on time or is not available

• Extend compliance co-responsibility to the entity that arranges transport (e.g. brokers, shippers, or receivers)

• Clarify the existing prohibition on the sale of no ncompliant unitsVII - 1

VII. RECOMMENDATION

ARB staff recommends the Board approve the proposed TRU ATCM 2010 amendments to the regulations, as presented in Appendix A, for the following reasons:

Proposed Amendment to the In-Use Emissions Standard s for MY 2003 and MY 2004 Engines

• Level 3 VDECS were anticipated being available as a compliance option for TRUs early in 2010. This has not occurred. Amending th e ULETRU requirements is necessary given that there is only one Level 3 VDEC S currently available, that verification of this VDECS did not occur until July 2010, that the availability of this VDECS is limited, that the supporting dealer networ k is in the initial stages of development, and that there are no Level 3 VDECS t hat fit in the TRU housing for <25 hp units.

• Level 2 VDECS are readily available on the market, and have been installed in thousands of model year (MY) 2002 and older TRUs, s o the dealer and installation network is established and these products have been thoroughly demonstrated.

• Level 2 VDECS are compatible with MY 2003 engines in the 25 hp to less than 50 hp category and the VDECS verifications have bee n extended to include this model year.

• Level 2 VDECS are compatible with MY 2003 and 2004 engines in the less than 25 hp category and the VDECS verifications have bee n extended to include this model year.

Flex Engine Provisions

• Staff finds that because TRU owners were unaware t hat purchasing a TRU equipped with a flexibility engines would not have the same operating life as an engine meeting the tier standards in effect at the time of manufacture, using the manufacturer year for flexibility engines installed in the past is appropriate. However, going forward, the effective model year fo r flexibility engines needs to be used to provide an incentive to original equipment manufacturers to install the cleanest engines that are available in new equipmen t as soon as possible and to ensure that if flexibility engines that meet dirtie r prior-tier standards are installed in new equipment, they are cleaned up as soon as possi ble. The effective model year of an engine that was manufactured to a prior tier standard that was not the standard currently in effect at the time of manufacture woul d be the last year that the prior tier

standard was in effect.

Reporting Provisions

• To facilitate staff efforts to provide enhancement s to the ARBER registration system, making it easier for owners to register, and to imp rove the emissions inventory, TRU and TRU gen set OEMs need to periodically report un it and engine data for the coming production year and prior production years.(This Page Left Intentionally Blank)R-1

REFERENCES

(ARB, 2000) California Air Resources Board. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Eng ines and Vehicles . Sacramento,

California. October 2000.

(ARB, 2003) Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for proposed Rulemaking of the Airborne Toxic Control M easure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generat or Sets, and Facilities where TRUs Operate , October 2003.

(ARB, 2008) Air Resources Board, Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking: Fuel Sulfur and Other Operational Requ irements for Ocean-Going

Vessels Within California Waters and 24 Nautical Mi les of the California Baseline

. June 2008.

(ARB, 2010) Air Resources Board, Diesel PM Control Technology Options for complying with TRU ATCM, August 2010

(CalEPA, 2007) Business, Housing, and Transportati on Agency, and California Environmental Protection Agency, Goods Movement Action Plan. January 2007.

(CFR, 2010a) Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations , Part 89, section 89.102. Effective dates, optional inclusion, flexibility for equipmen t manufacturers. Current as of September 1, 2010.

(CFR, 2010b) Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations , Part 1039, section 1039.625. What requirements apply under the program for equip ment manufacturer flexibility? Current as of September 1, 2010.

(CFR, 2010c) Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations , Part 1068, section 1068.265. What provisions apply to engines that are condition ally exempted from certification? Current as of September 1, 2010.

(CCR, 2010) Title 13, California Code of Regulatio ns, section 2423. Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures – Off-Road Compressio n Ignition Engines. Operative 1-6-2006 (Register 2005, No. 49).

(U.S. EPA, 2009) California State Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Polluti on Control Standards; Authorization of Transport Refrigeration Unit Engine Standards, Notice of

Decision. Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 11, page 3030, Fri day, January 16, 2009,

Notices.(This Page Left Intentionally Blank)

## APPENDIX A

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF

AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE

FOR IN-USE DIESEL-FUELED TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION UNITS (TRU) AND TRU GENERATOR SETS,

AND FACILITIES WHERE TRUs OPERATE

TITLE 13, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS

SECTION 2477(This Page Left Intentionally Blank)A-1

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fu eled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities Where TRUs Operate

___________________________________________________ _________________

Amend article 8, Off-Road Airborne Toxic Control Me asures, and section 2477, within division 3, chapter 9, title 13, California Code of Regulations, to read as follows: (Note: Proposed amendments are shown in underline to indicate additions and strikeout to indicate deletions.)

Article 8. Off-Road Airborne Toxic Control Measures

Section 2477. Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generat or Sets, and Facilities Where TRUs Operate.

(a) Purpose . Diesel particulate matter (PM) was identified in 1998 as a toxic air contaminant. This regulation implements provisions of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, adopted by the Air Resources Board in Octobe r, 2000, as mandated by the Health and Safety Code Sections 39650-39675, to red uce emissions of substances

that have been determined to be toxic air contamina nts. Specifically, this regulation will use a phased approach to reduce the diesel PM emissions from inuse transport refrigeration units (TRUs) and TRU ge nerator (gen) set equipment used to power electrically driven refrigerated ship ping containers and trailers that are operated in California.

(b) Applicability

.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (c), this regu lation applies to owners and operators of diesel-fueled TRUs and TRU gen sets (s ee definition of operator and owner in subsection (d) that operate in the sta te of California. This specifically includes:

(A) Operators and owners of California-based TRUs a nd TRU gen sets that are installed on trucks, or trailers, shipping containe rs, or railcars; and

(B) Operators and owners of non-California-based TR Us and TRU gen sets that are installed on trucks, trailers, shipping contain ers, or trailers.

(2) This regulation applies to facilities located i n California with 20 or more loading dock doors serving refrigerated areas where perisha ble goods are loaded or unloaded for distribution on trucks, trailers, ship ping containers, or rail cars that are equipped with TRUs and TRU gen sets and that ar e owned, leased, or contracted for by the facility, its parent company, affiliate, or subsidiary that are under facility control (see definition).A-2

(3) To the extent not already covered under subsect ions (b)(1) and (b)(2), above, subsection (g) of this regulation shall apply to an y person engaged in this State in the business of selling to an ultimate purchaser , or renting or leasing new or used TRUs or TRU gen sets, including, but not limit ed to, manufacturers, distributors, and dealers.

(4) TRU and TRU gen set original equipment manufact urers that directly or indirectly sell or offer for sale TRUs and TRU gen sets to the California market.

(4) (5) Severability. If any subsection, paragraph, subpar agraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this regulations is, for any reason, held invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed as a separate, distinct, an d independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the r emaining portions of the regulation.

(c) Exemptions . This regulation does not apply to military tacti cal support equipment.

(d) Definitions . For purposes of this regulation, the following d efinitions apply:

(1) “Affiliate or Affiliation” refers to a relation ship of direct or indirect control or shared interests between the subject business and a nother business.

(2) “Alternative Fuel” means natural gas, propane, ethanol, methanol, or advanced technologies that do not rely on diesel fu el, except as a pilot ignition source at an average ratio of less than 1 part diesel fuel to 10 parts total fuel on an energy equivalent basis. Alternat ive fuels also means any

of these fuels used in combination with each other or in combination with other non-diesel fuels. Alternative-fueled engines shall not have the capability of idling or operating solely on diesel fuel at any time.

(3) “Alternative-Fueled Engine” means an engine tha t is fueled with a fuel meeting the definition of alternative fuel.

(4) “Alternative Diesel Fuel” means any fuel used i n diesel engines that is not commonly or commercially known, sold or represented as diesel fuel No. 1- D or No. 2-D, pursuant to the specification for Die sel Fuel Oils D975-81, and does not require engine or fuel system modifica tions for the engine to operate, although minor modifications (e.g. recalib ration of the engine fuel control) may enhance performance. Examples of alte rnative diesel fuels include, but are not limited to, biodiesel, Fischer Tropsch fuels, and emulsions of water in diesel fuel. Natural gas is not an alternative diesel fuel. An emission control strategy using a fuel ad ditive will be treated as an alternative diesel fuel based strategy unless:

(A) The additive is supplied to the vehicle or engi ne fuel by an on-board dosing mechanism, orA-3

(B) The additive is directly mixed into the base fu el inside the fuel tank of the vehicle or engine, or

(C) The additive and base fuel are not mixed until vehicle or engine fueling commences, and no more additive plus base fuel comb ination is mixed than required for a single fueling of a single engine or vehicle.

(5) “ARB” means the California Air Resources Board.

(6) “B100 Biodiesel Fuel” means 100% biodiesel fuel derived from vegetable oil or animal fat and complying with ASTM D 6751-02 and commonly or commercially known, sold, or represented as “neat” biodiesel or B100.

B100 biodiesel fuel is an alternative diesel fuel.

(7) “B100 Biodiesel-Fueled” (compression-ignition e ngine) means a compression-ignition engine that is fueled by B100 biodiesel fuel.

(8) “Business” means an entity organized for profit including, but not limited to, an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, li mited liability partnership, corporation, limited liability company, joint ventu re, association or cooperative; or solely for purposes of the Prompt P ayment Act (Government Code 927 et seq.), a duly authorized n onprofit corporation.

(9) “California-Based TRUs and TRU Gen Sets” means TRUs and TRU gen sets equipped on trucks, trailers, shipping contain ers, or railcars that a reasonable person would find to be regularly assign ed to terminals within

California.

(10) “CARB Diesel Fuel” means any diesel fuel that is commonly or commercially known, sold or represented as diesel f uel No. 1-D or No. 2-D, pursuant to the specification for Diesel Fuel Oils D975-81 and meets the specifications defined in 13 CCR 2281, 13 CCR 2282, and 13 CCR 2284

.

(11) “Carbon Monoxide (CO)” means a colorless, odor less gas resulting from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon fuels.

(12) "Carrier” means any person, party, or entity w ho undertakes the transport of goods from one point to another.

(13) "Certification" means the obtaining of an Exec utive Order for a new offroad compression-ignition engine family that complies wi th the off-road compression-ignition emission standards and require ments specified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2 423. A "certified engine" is an engine that belongs to an engine family that has received a

certification Executive Order.A-4

(14) "Certification Data" means the ARB Executive O rder number and related exhaust emission data for each test cycle mode used to certify the engine family and obtain the certification level shown in the certification Executive

Order. Such data includes modal exhaust emissions data for nitrogen oxides, nonmethane hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, a nd particulate matter includes, as a minimum, torque, engine speed , weighting factor, power, mass emission rate (grams per hour), and cer tification test fuel.

(15) “Compression Ignition (CI) Engine” means an in ternal combustion engine with operating characteristics significantly simila r to the theoretical diesel combustion cycle. The regulation of power by contr olling fuel supply in lieu of a throttle is indicative of a compression igniti on engine.

(16) “Consignee” (see receiver).

(17) "Consignor” (see shipper).

(18) "Cryogenic Temperature Control System" means a heating and cooling system that uses a cryogen, such as liquid carbon d ioxide or liquid nitrogen that is routed through an evaporator coil that cool s air blown over the coil. The cryogenic system uses a vapor motor to drive a fan and alternator, and a propane-fired heater superheats the carbon dioxid e for heating and defrosting. Electrically driven fans may be used i nstead of a vapor motor and heating and defrost needs may be met by using e lectric heaters and/or vehicle engine coolant.

(19) "Deterioration Factor (DF)" means a factor tha t is applied to the certification emission test data to represent emissions at the en d of the useful life of the engine. Separate DFs apply to each measured pollut ant, except that a combined NMHC+NOx DF applies to engines that do not use aftertreatment devices. Decreasing emissions over time would not be allowed to offset increasing emissions of the other pollutant in this

combined DF.

(20) “Diesel Fuel” means any fuel that is commonly or commercially known, sold, or represented as diesel fuel, including any mixture of primarily liquid hydrocarbons – organic compounds consisting exclusi vely of the elements carbon and hydrogen – that is sold or represented a s suitable for use in an internal combustion, compression-ignition engine.

(21) “Diesel-Fueled” means fueled by diesel fuel or CARB diesel fuel in whole or in part, except as allowed for a pilot ignition sou rce under the definition for

“alternative fuel”.A-5

(22) "Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC)” means the us e of a catalyst to promote the oxidation processes in diesel exhaust. Usually refers to an emission control device that includes a flow-through substra te where the surfaces that contact the exhaust flow have been catalyzed t o reduce emissions of the organic fraction of diesel particulates, gas-ph ase hydrocarbons, and

carbon monoxide.

(23) “Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF)” means an emi ssion control technology that reduces PM emissions by trapping the particles in a flow filter substrate. Periodically the collected particles are either phy sically removed or oxidized (burned off) in a process called regeneration.

(24) “Diesel Particulate Matter” means the particle s found in the exhaust of diesel-fueled CI engines. Diesel PM may agglomerat e and adsorb other species to form structures of complex physical and chemical properties.

(25) “Dual-Fuel Engine” means an engine designed to operate on a combination of alternative fuel, such as compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and conventional fuel, such as diesel or gasoline. These engines have two separate fuel systems, which either inject both fuels simultaneously into the engine combustion cha mber or fumigate the gaseous fuel with the intake air and inject the liq uid fuel into the combustion

chamber.

(26) “Effective model year” or “effective engine mo del year” is an alternative model-year designation (see definition of “model ye ar”) for a new replacement engine, rebuilt replacement engine, or flexibility engine when the engine does not meet, at the time of manufactur e, the most stringent emission tier standard for a new engine in effect f or the horsepower rating of the engine. When an engine is manufactured to m eet a less stringent prior-tier emissions standard than is currently in effect, the effective model year is the last year that the prior-tier emission standard was in effect. Table 1 lists the tier standards that apply to TRUs and TRU gen sets and the corresponding effective model years.

Table 1

Effective Model Year
Prior-Tier Engine

Emissions Standard Tier Standard

Effective Years Effective Model

Year Tier 1, 25-50 Hp (trailer) 1999-2003 2003 Tier 1, under 25 Hp (truck) 2000-2004 2004 Tier 2, 25-50 Hp (trailer) 2004-2007 2007 Tier 2, under 25 Hp (truck) 2005-2007 2007 Tier 4i, 25-50 hp (trailer) 2008-2012 2012 11

11 Effective model year applies for this tier only af ter Tier 4f becomes effective in 2013 for 25 to les s than 50 hp engines.A-6

(26) (27) “Emergency” means any of the following times:

(A) A failure or loss of normal power service that is not part of an “interruptible service contract” (see definition in subsection (d ));

(B) A failure of a facility’s internal power distri bution system, provided the failure is beyond the reasonable control of the operator;

(C) When an affected facility is placed under an in voluntary “rotating outage” (see definition in subsection (d)).

(27) (28) “Emission Control Strategy” means any device, syst em, or strategy employed with a diesel-fueled CI engine that is int ended to reduce emissions. Examples of emission control strategies include, bu t are not limited to, particulate filters, diesel oxidation catalysts, selective cata lytic reduction systems, alternative fuels, fuel additives used in combination with part iculate filters, alternative diesel fuels, and combinations of the above.

(28) (29) “Emissions Rate” means the weight of a pollutant e mitted per unit of time (e.g., grams per second).

(29) (30) “Executive Officer” means the Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board or his or her delegate.

(30) (31) “Facility” means any facility where TRU-equipped t rucks, trailers, shipping

containers or railcars are loaded or unloaded with perishable goods. This includes, but is not limited to, grocery distributi on centers, food service distribution centers, cold storage warehouses, and intermodal facilities. Each business entity at a commercial development is a se parate facility for the purposes of this regulation, provided the businesse s are “independently owned and operated” (see definition in subsection (d)).

(31) (32) “Facility Control (of TRUs or TRU Gen Sets)” means the TRUs or TRU gen sets located at the facility are owned or leased by the facility, its parent company, affiliate, or a subsidiary, or under contract for t he purpose of providing carrier service to the facility, and the TRUs' or TRU gen s ets' arrival, departure, loading, unloading, shipping and/or receiving of cargo is de termined by the facility, parent company, affiliate, or subsidiary (e.g scheduled r eceiving, dispatched shipments).

(32) (33) “Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Fuel” See “ultra-low-aroma tic synthetic diesel fuel”.

(34) “Flexibility engine” means an engine installed in new equipment by an original equipment manufacturer under the Transitional Progr am for Equipment

Manufacturers in accordance with title 40 Code of F ederal Regulations (40 CFR)A-7

sections 89.102 and 1039.625, and title 13 CCR sect ion 2423(d). Such engines shall use the “effective model year” designation fo r purposes of compliance with this subarticle, except as allowed under subsection (e)(1)(B)5.a.

(33) (35) "Fuel Additive” means any substance designed to be added to fuel or fuel systems or other engine-related engine systems such that it is present in-cylinder during combustion and has any of the following effe cts: decreased emissions, improved fuel economy, increased performance of the engine; or assists diesel emission control strategies in decreasing emissions , or improving fuel economy or increasing performance of the engine.

(34) (36) "Generator Set (gen set)” means a CI engine coupled to a generator used as a source of electricity.

(35) (37) "Hybrid Cryogenic Temperature Control System” means a temperature control system that uses a cryogenic temperature co ntrol system in conjunction

with a conventional TRU.

(36) (38) “Independently Owned and Operated” means a busines s concern that independently manages and controls the day-to-day o perations of its own business through its ownership and management, with out undue influence by an outside entity or person that may have an ownership and/or financial interest in the management responsibilities of the applicant bu siness or small business.

(37) (39) "Intermodal Facility” means a facility involved in the movement of goods in one and the same loading unit or vehicle which uses successively several modes of transport without handling of the goods themselv es in changing modes. Such a facility is typically involved in loading and unl oading refrigerated shipping containers and trailers to and from railcars, truck s, and ocean-going ships.

(38) (40) "Interruptible Service Contract” means any arrangem ent in which a nonresidential electrical customer agrees to reduce or consider reducing its electrical consumption during periods of peak deman d or at the request of the System Operator in exchange for compensation, or as surances not to be blacked out or other similar non-monetary assurances.

(39) (41) "In Use TRU, TRU gen set, or engine” means a TRU, T RU gen set, or engine that is not a “new” TRU, TRU gen set, or eng ine.

(40) (42) “Low Emission TRU (LETRU or L)” means a TRU or TRU gen set that meets the performance standards described under par agraph (e)(1)(A)1. or (e)(1)(A)2.

(41) (43) “Manufacturer” means a business as defined in Gove rnment Code § 14837(c).A-8

(42) (44) “Military tactical support equipment (TSE)” means equipment that meets military specifications, owned by the U.S. Departme nt of Defense and/or the U.S. military services, and used in combat, combat suppo rt, combat service support, tactical or relief operations, or training for such operations.

(43) (45) “Model Year (MY)” means the following:

(A) The designation used for engines manufactured to meet the emissions tier standard in effect for new engines at time of manuf acture (see alternative designation, “effective model year, defined above); and

(B) The diesel-fueled engine manufacturer’s annual product ion period, which includes January 1 st of a calendar year, or if the manufacturer has no annual production period, the calendar year.

(44) (46) “New TRU, TRU Gen Set, or Engine" means any TRU, T RU gen set, or engine that has never been subject to a retail sale or lease to an “ultimate purchaser” (see definition in subsection (d)).

(45) (47) “Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)” means compounds of nitric o xide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), and other oxides of nitrogen. Nitrogen oxides a re typically created during combustion processes and are major contribut ors to smog formation and acid deposition.

(46) (48) ”Non-California-Based TRUs and TRU Gen Sets” means TRUs and TRU gen sets that are equipped on or used in trucks, tr ailers, shipping containers, or railcars that a reasonable person would find to be regularly assigned to terminals outside of California and operate in California fro m time to time for the purpose of transporting perishable goods into or out of the st ate.

(47) (49) “Non-methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC)” means the sum of all hydrocarbon air pollutants except methane. NMHCs are precursor s to ozone formation.

(48) (50) “Operate” means to start, cause to function, progr am the temperature controller, select an operating program or otherwis e control, fuel, monitor to assure proper operation, or keep in operation.

(49) (51) “Operator” means any person, party or entity that operates a TRU or TRU gen set for the purposes of transporting perishable goods, excluding an employee driver and third party maintenance and rep air service, and including

but not limited to:

(D) Manufacturer, producer, supplier, carrier, ship per, consignor, consignee, receiver, distribution center, or warehouse of peri shable goods;A-9

(E) An individual, trust, firm, joint stock company , business concern, partnership, limited liability company, association, or corporat ion including but not limited to, a government corporation;

(F) Any city, county, district, commission, the sta te or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof, any interstate bo dy, and the federal government or any department or agency thereof to t he extent permitted by

law.

(50) (52) “Owner” means any person that legally holds the ti tle (or its equivalent) showing ownership of a TRU or TRU gen set, excludin g a bank or other financial lending institution, and including but not limited to:

(A) Manufacturer, producer, supplier, carrier, ship per, consignor, consignee, receiver, distribution center, warehouse;

(B) An individual, trust, firm, joint stock company , business concern, partnership, limited liability company, association, or corporat ion including but not limited to, a government corporation;

(C) Any city, county, district, commission, the sta te or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof, any interstate bo dy, and the federal government or any department or agency thereof to t he extent permitted by

law.

(51) (53) “Owner/Operator” means a requirement applies to th e owner and/or operator of a TRU or TRU gen set, as determined by agreement or contract between the parties if the two are separate busines s entities.

(52) (54) “Parent Company” means a company that has a contro lling interest in another company, usually through ownership of more than one-half the voting

stock.

(53) (55) “Particulate Matter (PM)” means the particles foun d in the exhaust of CI engines, which may agglomerate and adsorb other spe cies to form structures of complex physical and chemical properties.

(54) (56) “Rated Brake Horsepower” means the power delivered , according to the statement of the engine manufacturer, at the rated speed.

(55) (57) “Real Emission Reductions” means that an action is taken that results in reductions in the PM emission rate of an in-use eng ine (e.g. a VDECS is installed that reduced the PM emissions rate by more than 50% ).

(56) (58) “Receiver” means the person, party, or entity that receives shipped goods, cargo, or commodities.A-10

(57) (59) “Refrigerated Trailer” means a trailer van, railca r, or shipping container equipped with a TRU or TRU gen set. Pursuant to Hea lth and Safety Code section 39618, refrigerated trailers are mobile sou rces and shall be regulated by

the ARB on a statewide basis.

(58) (60) “Rotating Outage” means a controlled involuntary c urtailment of electrical power service to consumers as ordered by the system operator - see definition in subsection (d).

(59) (61) “Shipper” means the person, party, or entity who u sually owns or supplies the commodities shipped by a carrier.

(60) (62) “System Operator” means one of the several organiz ations that control energy in California. System operators include, bu t are not limited to, the California Independent System Operator, the Los Ang eles Department of Water and Power, the Imperial Irrigation District, the Sa cramento Municipal Utility

District.

(61) (63) “Terminal” means any place where a TRU or TRU gen set equipped truck, trailer, shipping container, railcar or TRU gen set is regularly garaged, maintained, operated, or dispatched from, including a dispatch office, cross-dock facility, maintenance shop, business, or private re sidence.

(62) (64) "Tier 4 Nonroad/Offroad Emission Standards" means t he emission standards and associated procedures promulgated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in "Control of Emissions of Air P ollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel; Final Rule" (Vol. 69, No. 124 Fed .Reg. pp. 38957-39273 (June 29, 2004).

(63) (65) “Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU)” means refrige ration systems powered by integral internal combustion engines designed to control the environment of temperature sensitive products that are transported in trucks and refrigerated trailers. TRUs may be capable of both cooling and heating.

(64) (66) “TRU Generator Set (TRU gen set)” means a generato r set that is designed and used to provide electric power to electrically driven refrigeration units of any kind. This includes, but is not limited to gen set s that provide electricity to electrically powered refrigeration systems for semi -trailer vans and shipping

containers.

(65) (67) “Ultimate Purchaser” means with respect to a new T RU, TRU gen set, or engine, the first person who in good faith purchase s a new TRU, TRU gen set, or engine for purposes other than resale.A-11

(66) (68) “Ultra-Low-Aromatic Synthetic Diesel Fuel” means f uel produced from natural gas, coal, or biomass by the Fischer-Tropsc h gas-to-liquid chemical conversion process, or similar process that meets t he following properties:

Table 1 2
Property ASTM Value Sulfur Content (ppmw) D5453-93 <1 Total Aromatic Content (wt %) D5186-96 <1.5% Polynuclear Aromatic Content (wt %) D5186-96 <0.5%

Natural Cetane Number D613-84 >74

(67) (69) “Ultra-Low Emission TRU (ULETRU or U)” means a TRU or TRU gen set that meets the performance standards described unde r subparagraph (e)(1)(A)1. and (e)(1)(A)2. or that uses an “alternative techno logy” in accordance with subparagraph (e)(1)(A)3.

(68) (70) “Verification Classification Level” means the clas sification assigned to a Diesel Emission Control Strategy by the Executive O fficer as defined in the Verification Procedure, Warranty and In-Use Complia nce Requirements for InUse Strategies to Control Emission from Diesel Engi nes (13 CCR Sections 2700 – 2710). PM reductions correspond as follows: Level 1: > 25%; Level 2: > 50%;

Level 3: > 85% or 0.01 g/hp-hr.

(69) (71) “Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy” (VDECS ) means an emission control strategy designed primarily for the reducti on of diesel particulate matter emissions that has been verified per the Verification Procedure, Warranty and InUse Compliance Requirements for In-Use Strategies t o Control Emissions from Diesel Engines (13 CCR Sections 2700 – 2710) . Examples of diesel retrofit systems that may be verified include, but are not l imited to, diesel particulate filters, diesel oxidation catalysts, fuel additives (e.g. fuel-borne catalysts), alternative fuels (e.g. dual fuel), alternative die sel fuels, and combinations of the

above.

(e) Requirements

.

(1) In-Use Operation :

(A) In-Use Performance Standards: In accordance with the schedule set forth below in paragraph (e)(1)(B), no owner/operator sha ll operate a TRU or TRU gen set in California unless it meets the in-us e emission category performance standards set forth below.

1. In-Use performance standard categories for TRU a nd TRU gen set engines with rated brake horsepower less than 25 ho rsepower (<25 hp)

are shown in Table 2 3 , along with the engine certification standards orA-12 the level of Verified Diesel Emission Control Strat egy (VDECS) (see definition) that is necessary to qualify for each c ategory.

Table 2 3

<25 HP TRU and TRU Gen Set In-Use PM Performance Standards

In-Use Emission Category Engine

Certification (g/hp-hr) Level of VDECS

Equipped with

Low Emission TRU (LETRU or L) 0.30 12 Level 2

Ultra-Low Emission TRU

(ULETRU or U) NA 13 Level 3

a. Compliance can be achieved by:

I. Using a certified engine meeting the applicable nonroad/offroad emissions standards for all regulated pollutants an d the in-use PM performance standard. Only engines for which certi fication data and deterioration factors have been provided to ARB shall be considered when determining compliance. The Execut ive Officer will consider such submittals, publish, and make av ailable a list of qualifying engines.

II. Equipping the engine with the required Level of VDECS.

2. In-Use performance standard categories for TRU a nd TRU gen set engines with rated brake horsepower greater than or equal to 25 horsepower (> 25 hp) are shown in Table 3 4 , along with the engine

certification standards or the level of VDECS that is necessary to qualify for each category.

Table 3 4

> 25 HP TRU and TRU Gen Set In-Use PM Performance Sta ndards

In-Use Emission Category Engine

Certification (g/hp-hr) Level of VDECS

Equipped with

Low Emission TRU (LETRU or L) 0.22 14 Level 2

Ultra-Low Emission TRU

(ULETRU or U) 0.02 15 Level 3

12 The Engine Certification value for the Low Emission TRU category corresponds to the "Interim" Tier 4 Nonroad/Offroad Emission Standards that are to go i nto effect in 2008.

13 Not Applicable – must choose another compliance op tion ARB and U.S. EPA will perform a technical review i n 2007 to evaluate DOC or filter

- based standard for <25 hp category new en gines in 2013. If a more stringent “long term” level for new tier 4 (as identified in the Ti er 4 Nonroad/Offroad Emission Standards) engines is adopted by U.S. EPA for this horsepower category, the Board will co nsider adopting an engine certification in

- us e performance standard for ULETRU for <25 hp TRUs and TRU gen set s

. 14 The Engine Certification value for Low Emission TRU category corresponds to the "Interim" Tier 4 Nonro ad/Offroad Emission Standards that are to go into effect in 20 08.A-13 a. Compliance can be achieved by:

I. Using a certified engine meeting the applicable nonroad/offroad emissions standards for all regulated pollutants an d the in-use PM performance standard. Only engines for which certi fication data and deterioration factors have been provided to ARB shall be considered when determining compliance. The Execut ive Officer will consider such submittals, publish, and make av ailable a list of qualifying engines.

II. Equipping the engine with the required Level of VDECS.

3. As an alternative to meeting the ULETRU in-use p erformance standards in subsections (e)(1)(A)1. and 2., an owner/operato r may operate a TRU or TRU gen set in California meeting one of the Alternative Technology options listed below. Alternative Technologies qua lify to meet the ULETRU in-use performance standard only if the TRU or TRU gen set is operated under the conditions included in the descr iption listed below.

a. Electric standby, provided that the TRU is not o perated under diesel engine power while at a facility, except during an emergency.

b. Cryogenic temperature control systems or hybrid cryogenic temperature control systems, provided that the TRU does not operate under diesel engine power while at a facility, exce pt during an

emergency.

c. Alternative-fueled engines (see definition in su bsection (d)). If the engine is a CI engine, a VDECS is required.

Note: If the engine is not a compression ignition diesel fueled engine, this regulation would not apply, but the en gine may have to meet other emission standards (e.g. large spark-ign ited engine standards if >25 hp).

d. Fuel exclusively with an alternative diesel fuel (see definition in subsection (d)) that has been verified as a VDECS, provided it is used in accordance with the requirements of subsect ion (e)(2)(A) and

the alternative diesel fuel contains no conventiona l diesel or CARB

diesel fuel.

e. Power by fuel cells. If a reformer is used with diesel fuel as the source of hydrocarbons, then emissions must be eval uated and verified through the Verification Procedure Warranty and In-Use

15 The Engine Certification value for the Ultra-Low Em ission TRU category corresponds to the "Long Term" Tier 4

“final” Nonroad/Offroad Emission Standards that will go int o effect in 2012 or 2013.A-14 Compliance Requirements for In-Use Strategies to Co ntrol Emissions from Diesel Engines (13CCR section 2700 – 2710).

f. Equip with any other system approved by the Exec utive Officer to not emit diesel PM or increase public health risk while at a facility.

(B) In-Use Compliance Dates

. : In-use compliance dates are based upon the engine MY or effective MY, except as allowed under subparagraph (e)(1)(B)5.a.

1. No owner/operator shall operate a 2001 and older model year (MY) TRU or TRU gen set engine in California unless it meets the in-use performance criteria set forth in paragraph (e)(1)( A) for

a. LETRU on or before December 31, 2008, and

b. ULETRU on or before December 31, 2015, as shown in Tables 4 5

and 5 6

.

2. No owner/operator shall operate a 2002 MY TRU or TRU gen set engine in California unless it meets the in-use performanc e criteria set forth in paragraph (e)(1)(A) for

a. LETRU on or before December 31, 2009, and

b. ULETRU on or before December 31, 2016, as shown in Tables 4 5

and 5 6

.

3. No owner/operator shall operate a 2003 MY TRU or TRU gen set engine in California unless it meets the in-use performanc e criteria set forth in subsection (e)(1)(A) for

a. LETRU on or before December 31, 2010, and

b. ULETRU on or before December 31, 2017, as shown in Tables 5

and 6.

4. No owner/operator shall operate a 2003 2004 MY and subsequent MY TRU or TRU gen set engine in California unless it m eets the in-use performance criteria set forth in paragraph (e)(1)( A) for ULETRU on or

before December 31 st of the seventh year past the unit engine ’s model year, as shown in Tables 4 5 16 and 5 6 6 , with the following exception:

.

16 Model years 2013 and subsequent (not shown in Table 5 and 6), shall meet ULETRU by December 31 st of the seventh year after the engine model year or effecti ve model year, except as allowed under subparagraph (e)(1)(B)5.A-15 a. Less than 25 hp model year 2004 engines shall me et the in-use performance criteria set forth in paragraph (e)(1)( A), shown in Table 5,

for:

I. LETRU on or before December 31, 2011, and

II. ULETRU by December 31, 2018.

Table 4 5 : <25 HP TRU and TRU Gen Set Engines In-Use Compliance Dates
In-Use Compliance Year 17

MY ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19 ‘20

’01 &

Older L L L L L L L U U U U U U

‘02 L L L L L L L U U U U U

‘03 U L U L U L U L U L U L U L U U U U

‘04 U L U L U L U L U L U L U L U U U

‘05 18 U U U U U U U U U

‘06 U U U U U U U U

‘07 U U U U U U U

‘08 U U U U U U

‘09 U U U U U

‘10 U U U U

‘11 U U U

‘12 U U

‘13 U

17 Compliance date is December 31 st of the compliance year shown. “MY” means model ye ar. Black shaded areas are years with no requirements since in-use complia nce year precedes model year . Dark shaded areas w ithout letter codes have no requirements, pending in-use c ompliance date. “L” means must meet LETRU in-use performance standards. “U” means must meet ULETRU in-use performance standards.

18 TRUs and TRU gen sets with MY 2003 5 engines and subsequent MY engines shall be require d to comply with ULETRU requirements by the end of the seventh year after the model year or effective model year, except as allowed under subparagraph (e)(1)(B)5. The exception to this is > 25 hp 2013 and subsequent model years, since these model years would meet ULETRU in

- use performance standards as new engines.A-16 Table 5 6 : > 25 HP TRU and TRU Gen Set Engines In-Use Compliance Dates

In-Use Compliance Year 19

MY ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19 ‘20

’01 &

Older L L L L L L L U U U U U U

‘02 L L L L L L L U U U U U

‘03 U L U L U L U L U L U L U L U U U U

‘04 20 U U U U U U U U U U

‘05 U U U U U U U U U

‘06 U U U U U U U U

‘07 U U U U U U U

‘08 U U U U U U

‘09 U U U U U

‘10’ U U U U

‘11 U U U

‘12 U U

‘13 U

5. Requirements for TRUs or TRU gen sets that are equipped with flexibi lity engines and operated in California.

a. Flexibility engines installed in TRUs and TRU ge n sets manufactured prior to [effective date of amendments ], and operated in California shall meet the in-use performance sta ndards of subsection (e)(1)(A) by December 31 st of the seventh year after the TRU or TRU gen set engine’s manufacture year instea d of the effective model year provided the TRU or TRU gen se t owner registers the flexibility engine equipped TRU or TR U gen set in ARBER in accordance with subsection (e)(1)(E) by [6 0 days after the effective date of these amendments].

b. To allow TRU and TRU gen set owners to meet the registration requirements of subparagraph (a) above, the origina l equipment manufacturer shall by [30 days after the effective date of these amendments]: I. Provide the following unit and flexibility eng ine information to

ARB in electronic format:

19 Compliance date is December 31 st of the compliance year shown. “MY” means model ye ar. Black shaded areas are years with no requirements since in-use complia nce year precedes model year . Dark shaded areas w ithout letter codes have no requirements, pending in-use c ompliance date. “L” means must meet LETRU in-use performance standards. “U” means must meet ULETRU in-use performance standards.

20 TRUs and TRU gen sets with MY 2003 4 engines and subsequent MY engines shall be require d to comply with ULETRU requirements by the end of the seventh year after the model year or effective model year, except as allowed under subparagraph (e)(1)(B)5. . The exception to this is > 25 hp Tier 4 final standards go into effect in 2013 and subsequent model years, since these model years which would meet ULETRU in-use performance standards as new engin es in the 25 hp to less than 50 hp category . If engines installed by original equipment manufacturers do not meet ULETRU in 2013, then subp aragraph (e)(1)((A)5. applies.A-17 i. TRU or TRU gen set manufacturer; ii. TRU or TRU model name; iii. TRU or TRU gen set serial number; iv. TRU manufacture date; v. Engine manufacturer vi. Engine Family; vii. Engine manufacture year; and viii. Engine serial number;

II. Notify the TRU or TRU gen set owners in writing that: i. The unit they own is equipped with a flexibility or TPEM engine; and ii. The owner must register the TRU or TRU gen set that is equipped with a flexibility engine in ARBER by [60 days after the effective date of amendments];

III. Provide directly or through its dealers instru ctions and assistance on registration in ARBER to all owners o f TRUs and TRU gen sets equipped with flexibility engines that request such help, which shall include specific instructions and assistance

that ensures that information entered in ARBER is c onsistent with what appears on the unit label and engine emis sions label, including the model year.

c. The following requirements shall apply to flexib ility engines installed in TRUs and TRU gen sets manufactured after [the ef fective date of the amendments], and operated in California:

I. The owner of a TRU or TRU gen set that is operat ed in California shall comply with the in-use performance standards set forth in subsection (e)(1)(A) by December 31 st of the seventh year after the engine’s effective model year.

II. The original equipment manufacturer shall provi de the following, written disclosures to the interested ultimate pur chaser of a TRU or TRU gen set that is equipped with a flexibil ity engine prior to its sale: i. The TRU or TRU gen set has a flexibility engine that meets a less stringent emissions standard than was in effec t at the time the flexibility engine was manufactured; ii. The effective model year of the flexibility eng ine; iii. If the owner registers the unit in ARBER, the owner must report the effective model year of the engine, not the model year of engine manufacture, and failure to do so ma y result in the owner being cited;A-18 iv. If the TRU or TRU gen set is operated in Califo rnia, the owner will be responsible at a future date for the engine meeting the ULETRU in-use standard based on the eff ective model year of the engine, in accordance with subsec tion (e)(1)(B) .

(C) Replacements Due to Failures

.

1. If a VDECS fails within its warranty period, the owner/operator of the TRU or TRU gen set must replace it with the same VD ECS or a higher verification classification level, if available.

2. If a VDECS fails outside its warranty period and a higher verification classification level VDECS is available, then the o wner/operator of the TRU or TRU gen set shall upgrade to the highest lev el VDECS required under paragraphs (e)(1)(A)1. and (e)(1)(A)2. that i s determined to be cost-effective by the Executive Officer.

(D) In-Use Recordkeeping and Reporting. In-use recordkeeping and reporting shall be completed by the operator in accordance wi th the requirements of subsection (f)(1).

(E) ARB Identification Numbering Requirements . Identification numbers will be issued to help expedite the inspection procedure and prevent shipping delays.

1. California-based TRUs and TRU gen sets:

a. On or before January 31, 2009, owner/operators o f all Californiabased TRUs and TRU gen sets subject to this regulat ion shall apply

for an ARB identification number for all California -based TRUs or TRU gen sets operated by the operator by submitting an application

that includes the information listed below.

I. Operator name, address, and contact information for the responsible official (e.g. phone number, email addr ess, fax number).

II. Owner name, address, and contact information (i f other than operator).

III. TRU or TRU gen set make, model, model year, an d serial

number.

IV. TRU engine make, model, model year, and serial number.A-19 V. Terminal or terminals that the TRU-equipped truc k or trailer is assigned to, with address and contact information.

VI. Other associated identification numbers, which may include (as applicable):

i. Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of the TRU-e quipped truck

or trailer.

ii. Vehicle license number of the TRU-equipped truc k or trailer.

iii. Railcar recording mark and car number.

iv. Shipping container number (for TRU-equipped shi pping containers only).

v. Company equipment number (if any).

VII. Compliance status with paragraph (e)(1)(A) req uirements. If compliance not as-yet required, mark N/A.

i. Date when compliance was achieved.

ii. What performance standard was met (e.g. LETRU o r ULETRU).

iii. How compliance was achieved (e.g. new complian t TRU, TRU engine replacement, or description of VDECS that wa s used).

iv. Identify who did the installation work (if appl icable).

b. Applications shall be submitted by one of the fo llowing methods:

I. Mail or deliver a physical report to ARB at the address listed immediately below:

California Air Resources Board Stationary Source Division (TRU)

P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

II. Electronically submit through ARB's web site. The web address will be identified in an advisory.

c. TRUs and TRU gen sets added to an operator’s TRU operations after January 31, 2009 shall be brought into compliance w ith subsectionA-20 (e)(1)(E). An application shall be submitted to AR B within 30 days of the unit entering the operator’s control:

I. Requesting an ARB I.D. number for a new TRU or T RU gen set that was not previously numbered, or

II. Requesting a change in owner or operator (or ot her pertinent application information) for used equipment that al ready has an

ARB I.D. number.

d. Failure to apply or submittal of false informati on is a violation of state law subject to civil penalty.

e. On or before February 1, 2009, the Executive Off icer shall begin issuing identification numbers to TRU and TRU gen s et operators for each unit based in California for which a complete application has been filed. The number will include a 2-digit pref ix for model year (e.g. 2001 model year would have a prefix 01); a 6- digit serial number; a check-digit, and a letter indicating comp liance status with in-use performance standards (either “L” or “U”). In the event that an operator applies for an early compliance certificat e in accordance with subsection (e)(1)(F), ARB will also issue a ce rtificate which acknowledges early compliance per (e)(1)(F)3.

f. Within 30 days of receipt of the ARB-issued iden tification number, owner/operators shall permanently affix or paint th e identification number on the TRU or TRU gen set chassis housing in clear view according to the following specification:

I. The ARB identification number shall be preceded by the letters

“ ARB ”.

II. Letters and numbers shall contrast sharply in c olor with the color of the background surface on which the letters are placed.

III. The location of the I.D. number shall be as fo llows:

i. Truck and trailer TRUs - both sides of TRU chass is housing.

ii. Rail car and shipping container TRUs– both side s of the TRU.

iii. TRU gen sets – both sides of gen set housing.

IV. Letters and numbers shall be readily legible du ring daylight hours, from a distance of 50 feet (15.24 meters) while uni t is stationary.A-21 V. Marking shall be kept maintained in a manner tha t retains the legibility required by the subparagraph immediately above.

2. Non-California-based TRUs and TRU Gen Sets:

a. Operators of non-California-based TRUs and TRU g en sets may voluntarily apply for ARB identification numbers fo r TRUs that are based outside of California but operate within Cali fornia during the normal course of business. Non-California-based op erators may voluntarily submit the same application information listed above in subparagraph (e)(1)(E)1.a., above, using the same m ethods of submittal listed in subparagraph (e)(1)(e)1.b., abo ve. Upon application approval, ARB would issue identificatio n numbers to the operator in accordance with subparagraph (e)(1)(E)1 .e., above. The non-California-based operator would then permanentl y affix or paint the identification number on the TRU or TRU gen set chassis in clear view, in accordance with (e)(1)(E)1.f., above.

(F) Early Compliance with LETRU In-Use Performance Stan dards

.

1. For 2002 and older MY TRU and TRU gen set engine s, operators or owners that meet the LETRU in-use performance stand ard earlier than required in paragraph (e)(1)(B) may apply to the Ex ecutive Officer for a delay in the ULETRU in-use performance standard. E xcept as provided below, early compliance would be achieved through a ny of the options available in paragraph (e)(1)(A). a. This delay would not be available to the operato r or owner if the engine manufacturer of the replacement engine is us ing the early compliance with engine emissions standards in U.S. EPA’s Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program (or Califor nia’s equivalent program).

b. Early compliance is conditioned upon real emissi on reductions (refer to definition in sub section (d)) occurring earlier than the applicable compliance deadline.

c. This delay may not be available to the operator or owner if public funds were used for early compliance. The applican t shall disclose whether public funds were used for any portion of e arly compliance and what program the funding came from.

2. Early LETRU compliance with real emission reduct ions would allow specific units to delay compliance with ULETRU in-u se performance standards by up to three years, according to the ro unding conventions and examples listed below.A-22 a. Each year of early compliance with the LETRU in- use performance standards would be rewarded with 1 year delay in th e ULETRU inuse performance standard.

I. One full year early compliance qualifies for one full year delay in meeting ULETRU compliance.

II. Two full years early compliance qualifies for t wo full years delay in meeting ULETRU compliance.

III. Three full years early compliance qualifies fo r three full years delay in meeting ULETRU compliance.

b. A partial year of early LETRU compliance would b e rounded to the nearest full year for the delayed ULETRU requiremen ts.

I. Early LETRU compliance of 183 days or more in a calendar year would count toward a one year ULETRU delay.

II. Early LETRU compliance of 182 days or less in a calendar year would not count toward a ULETRU delay.

3. Upon receipt of an application to delay ULETRU c ompliance, the Executive Officer shall determine if the applicatio n demonstrates early compliance with LETRU in-use performance standards in accordance with subsection (e)(1)(F)1., and if the application is approved, shall delay the in-use ULETRU compliance date for specific TRUs and TRU gen sets operating in California in accordance with sub paragraph (e)(1)(F)2.

4. Upon approval of the application, ARB shall issu e a certificate and ARB

identification number in accordance with subsection (e)(1)(E)1.e. which acknowledges early compliance with LETRU requiremen ts and discloses the number of years delay granted, and resulting UL ETRU compliance

date.

5. The operator shall maintain a legible copy of th e certificate in a watertight sleeve mounted inside the TRU or TRU gen set chassis housing. The operator shall paint the identification number in clear view in accordance with subsection (e)(1)(E)1.f. on the spe cific TRU or TRU gen set that was granted the compliance extension.

(2) Fuel Requirements.

(A) Operators Choosing to Use Alternative Diesel Fuels. Operators choosing to use alternative diesel fuels in compres sion ignition TRU and TRU gen set engines to meet the requirements of sub section (e)(1) shall:A-23 1. Maintain records in accordance with subsection ( f)(1)(B) of this regulation.

2. Use only fuel that is a VDECS alternative diesel fuel that contains no

conventional diesel or CARB diesel fuel in TRUs or TRU gen sets operated in California.

3. Permanently affix a label in clear view near the fill spout that identifies the proper fuel that is required to be in complianc e.

4. In the event that the operator decides to revert to using conventional diesel or CARB diesel fuel, the operator shall comp ly with the requirements of subsection (e)(1) within 10 days of discontinuation of alternative diesel fuel use. Within 10 days of dis continuation, the operator shall notify the Executive Officer in writ ing of this change in fuel use and shall include an update to any ARB I.D. num ber application or annual report submitted to comply with subsections (e)(1)(E), (e)(1)(F), or (f)(1).

(B) Operators that Retrofit TRUs or TRU Gen Sets with a VDECS

. Operators that retrofit TRUs or TRU gen sets with a VDECS that requires certain fuel properties to be met in order to achie ve the required PM reduction or PM emissions shall only fuel the subje ct TRU or TRU gen set with fuel that meets these specifications when oper ating in the state of California. In addition, operators that choose a V DECS that requires certain fuel properties to be met in order to prevent damag e to the VDECS or an increase in toxic air contaminants, other harmful c ompounds, or in the nature of the emitted PM shall only fuel the subjec t TRU or TRU gen set with fuel that meets these specifications.

(f) Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requiremen ts.

(1) TRU and TRU Gen Set Operator Recordkeeping and Repo rting

.

(A) Operator Reporting

. 1. All operators subject to this regulation shall s ubmit an Operator Report to ARB by January 31, 2009 that shall include the foll owing information:

a. Operator name, address, and contact information for the responsible official (phone number, email address, fax number).

b. List of all terminals owned or leased by the ope rator located within California, with address, phone number, and termina l contact name.A-24 c. TRU and TRU gen set inventory information for ea ch TRU and TRU gen set based in California that is owned or leased by the operator:

I. TRU or gen set make, model, model year, and seri al number.

II. TRU owner, and if other than operator, owner na me, address, and

contact.

III. Engine make, model, model year, and serial num ber.

IV. Terminal(s) that the TRU is assigned to.

V. ARB TRU or TRU gen set identification number, if already issued.

If the ARB identification number has not been issue d or there has been a change in the other identification numbers l isted below since the prior annual report, then provide the fol lowing identification numbers (as applicable):

i. Vehicle Identification Number.

ii. Vehicle license number.

iii. Railcar recording mark and car number.

iv. Shipping container number (for TRU-equipped shi pping containers only).

v. Company equipment number.

VI. Compliance status with paragraph (e)(1)(A) requ irements.

2. The Operator Report shall be updated within 30 d ays when changes to any of the above operator information occur.

a. Operator Reports shall be submitted by one of th e following methods:

I. Mail or deliver a physical report to ARB at the address listed immediately below:

California Air Resources Board Stationary Source Division (TRU)

P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

II. Electronically submit through ARB's web site. The web address will be identified in an advisory.A-25 3. Failure to report or submittal of false informat ion is a violation of state law subject to civil penalty.

(B) Alternative Diesel Fuel Use and Fuel Additive Recor dkeeping and Reporting

.

1. Operators that choose a compliance pathway that involves the use of alternative diesel fuel in accordance with subparag raph (e)(1)(A)3.d. (e.g. B100 biodiesel fuel or ultra-low-aromatic syn thetic diesel fuel)

and/or a VDECS that includes the use of a fuel addi tive (e.g. fuel-borne catalyst) shall maintain records that document excl usive use of the chosen fuel or additive for each affected CI engine and hours of operation. Appropriate records would be copies of receipts or invoices of appropriate fuel and/or fuel additive and daily ope rating hour logs.

2. Records shall be kept available for a minimum of three (3) years and shall be compiled and made available to the ARB upo n request.

3. Failure to keep records or submittal of false in formation is a violation of state law subject to civil penalty.

(2) Facility Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

.

(A) Facility Reporting . All facilities subject to this subsection shall submit a Facility Report to ARB by January 31, 2006, contain ing the following information, as of December 31, 2005: 1. Contact information for the facility’s responsib le official.

2. Provide all North American Industrial Classifica tion System codes (NAICS) applicable to the facility.

3. The number of loading dock doors serving refrige rated storage space.

4. The number of square feet of refrigerated storag e space.

5. The number of TRUs or TRU gen sets under facilit y control by model year and horsepower category.

6. The number of refrigerated trucks, trailers, shi pping containers, or railcars

leased or rented.

7. The total annual TRU engine operating hours for all TRUs or TRU gen sets under facility control during 2005 (e.g. total TRU engine operating time for both on-road and off-road operations).A-26 8. The average weekly number of inbound refrigerate d trucks, trailers, shipping containers, and railcars delivering goods to the facility during 2005, calculated by dividing the annual total inbou nd refrigerated loads by 52.

9. The average weekly number of outbound refrigerat ed trucks, trailers, shipping containers and railcars delivering goods f rom the facility during 2005, calculated by dividing the annual total outbo und refrigerated loads by 52.

10. The average total number of hours per week that outbound TRU or TRU gen set engines operate while at the facility durin g 2005. Average TRU or TRU gen set engine operating time at facility fo r outbound refrigerated loads may be used if the result is representative o f the outbound TRU or TRU gen set operations at facilities, as determined by the Executive Officer. Average values would be determined for ou tbound loads based on recordkeeping, conducted in accordance with subp aragraph (f)(2)(B)2., and applied to the total annual number of refrigerated outbound loads, and then weekly averages calculated as follows: Average TRU or TRU gen set engine operating time pe r outbound refrigerated load multiplied by the total annual nu mber of outbound loads, divided by 52 weeks equals the average total number of hours per week that outbound TRU or TRU gen set engines opera te while at the facility.

11. The average total number of hours per week that inbound TRU or TRU gen set engines operate while at the facility durin g 2005. Average TRU or TRU gen set engine operating time at facility fo r inbound refrigerated loads may be used if the result is representative o f the inbound TRU or TRU gen set operations at facilities, as determined by the Executive Officer. Average values would be determined for in bound loads based on recordkeeping, conducted in accordance with subp aragraph (f)(2)(B)2., and applied to the total annual number of refrigerated inbound loads, and then weekly averages calculated as follo ws: Average TRU or TRU gen set engine operating time per inbound refri gerated load multiplied by the total annual number of inbound lo ads, divided by 52 weeks equals the average total number of hours per week that inbound TRU or TRU gen set engines operate while at the fac ility.

12. The number of refrigerated trailers (as defined ) that are used at the facility for cold storage, the total annual number of hours of TRU engine operation associated with these refrigerated traile rs, and the total annual number of hours of operation using electric standby associated with these refrigerated trailers.A-27

(B) Recordkeeping.

1. Recordkeeping that substantiates the information reported in the Facility Report shall be maintained and shall be compiled an d made available to State inspectors upon request for a minimum of thre e (3) years.

2. The Executive Officer may approve alternative re cordkeeping and calculation procedures for determining the average weekly hours of TRU engine operation at a facility for inbound and outb ound refrigerated loads, provided the Executive Officer finds that the alter native procedures meet the intent of subparagraph (f)(2).

(C) Facility Report Submittals . Facility Reports shall be submitted by one of the following methods:

1. Mail or deliver a physical report to ARB at the address listed immediately

below:

California Air Resources Board Stationary Source Division (TRU)

P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

2. Electronically submit through ARB's web site. T he web address will be identified in an advisory.

(D) Failure to report or submittal of false information . Failure to report or

submittal of false information is a violation of st ate law subject to civil penalty.

(3) Original Equipment Manufacturer Reporting

(A) Current Production Reports: Beginning [30 days after the effective date of the amendment], and by January 1 st and June 30 th of each calendar year thereafter, TRU and TRU gen set original equipment manufacturers shall provide to ARB the information listed below for all TRUs and TRU gen sets

that will be manufactured and marketed for sale in the following markets: California, United States, Canada, and Mexico. The following data shall be provided for TRUs and TRU gen sets that will be pro duced during the six-month period following the report due date for each market area:

1. TRU or TRU genset manufacturer and model name, a s it appears on the unit label; and

2. The following engine information for each TRU or TRU gen set model:A-28 a. Engine manufacturer; b. Engine model, as it appears on the engine emissi ons label; c. Engine model, as it appears on the serial number label, if different; d. Engine Family; e. Rated horsepower and rated speed; f. Displacement (liters); g. Exhaust Emissions Control System

h. Tier standard met i. ARB’s Executive Order that the engines are manuf actured under

3. Current Production Reports shall be submitted by one of the following

methods:

a. Mail or deliver a physical report in electronic format to ARB at the address listed immediately below:

California Air Resources Board Stationary Source Division (TRU)

1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814

b. Electronically submit to ARB's TRU Program via e mail at: tru@arb.ca.gov

4. Original equipment manufacturers that produce le ss than 100 TRUs or TRU gen sets per calendar year may submit Current P roduction Year Reports within ten days of installing the first eng ine in a production run of

a new model.

(B) Prior Production Reports:

1. Prior unit and engine data. TRU and TRU gen set original equipment

manufacturers shall:

a. By [30 days after the effective date of this am endment], provide a production report to ARB with the information liste d below in subparagraph 3 for the previous five calendar years for each TRU or TRU gen set produced for sale in California, North America, Canada,
and Mexico; or

b. If the TRU or TRU gen set original equipment ma nufacturer elects not to provide the information in subparagraph (f)(3)(B )1.a., then within 30 days of any request from ARB, the TRU or TRU gen set original equipment manufacturer shall provide a production r eport to ARB with the information listed below in subparagraph 3 for the unit and engine serial numbers provided in ARB’s request.A-29 2. Monthly production reports. TRU and TRU gen set original equipment

manufacturers shall either:

a. Beginning [30 days after the effective date of this amendment], provide by the 15th of each calendar month, a monthly produ ction report to ARB with the information listed below in subparagra ph 3 for the previous calendar month for each TRU or TRU gen set produced for sale in California, North America, Canada, and Mexi co; or

b. As an alternative, the TRU or TRU gen set origi nal equipment manufacturer may request reporting that is equivale nt to and at least as effective as subparagraph (f)(3)(B)2.a., immedia tely above, subject to Executive Officer approval.

3. Original equipment manufacturers shall provide t he following information for each TRU and TRU gen set: a. TRU or TRU gen set model name, as it appears on the unit label b. TRU or TRU gen set serial number c. Engine manufacturer d. Engine model, as it appears on the engine emissi ons label e. Engine model, as it appears on the serial number label, if different; f. Engine Family g. Engine serial number h. Rated horsepower and rated speed

i. Tier standard met

4. Prior Production Reports and Flexibility Engine Reports shall be submitted

on CD or DVD to:

California Air Resources Board Stationary Source Division (TRU)

1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814

(C) Confidentiality of current and prior production reports. TRU and TRU gen set original equipment manufacturers may designate curr ent and prior production report information as confidential or trade secret, and such information will be handled in accordance with title 17, CCR, section 9 1000.

(g) Prohibitions.

(1) No person who is engaged in this State in the b usiness of selling to an ultimate purchaser, or renting or leasing new or used TRUs o r TRU gen sets, including, but not limited to, manufacturers, distributors, an d dealers, shall intentionally or negligently import, deliver, purchase, receive, or otherwise acquire a new orA-30

used TRU or TRU gen set engine that does not meet t he performance requirements or alternatives set forth in section ( e)(1) above.

(2) No person who is engaged in this State in the b usiness of selling to an ultimate purchaser new or used TRU or TRU gen set engines, i ncluding, but not limited to, manufacturers, distributors, and dealers, shall sell, or offer to sell, to an ultimate purchaser who is a resident of this State or a person that could reasonably be expected to do business in this State a new or used TRU or TRU gen set engine that does not meet the performance r equirements or alternatives set forth in section (e)(1) above.

(3) No person who is engaged in this State in the b usiness of renting or leasing new or used TRU or TRU gen set engines, including, but not limited to, manufacturers, distributors, and dealers, shall lea se, offer to lease, rent, or offer to rent, in this state any new or used TRU or TRU g en set engine that does not meet the performance requirements or alternatives s et forth in section (e)(1)

above.

(4) Operators of affected facilities and operators of affected TRUs and TRU gen sets are prohibited from taking action to divert af fected TRUs to alternative staging areas in order to circumvent the requiremen ts of this section.

(h) Penalties.

(1) All persons, as defined in section 19 of the He alth and Safety Code, found to be in violation of title 13, CCR, section 2477 may be cited and subject to the penalty provisions set forth in Health and Safety C ode sections 39674, 39675, 42400 et seq., 42402 et seq., and 42410.

NOTE: Authority cited: sections 39600, 39601, 3961 8, 39658, 39659, 39666, 39667, 39674, 39675, 42400 et seq.

, 42400.1, 42400.2, 42400.3.5 , 42402 et seq. , 42402.2, 42410, 43013, 43018, California Health and Safety C ode. Reference: sections 39618,
39650, 39658, 39659, 39666, 39667, 39674, 39675, 42 400, et seq. 42400.1, 42400.2,

42400.3.5 , 42402 et seq. , 42402.2, 42410, 40717.9, 43013, and 43018.

## APPENDIX B

PROPOSED TRU ATCM 2010 AMENDMENTS IN-USE

COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES(This Page Left Intentionally Blank)B-1B-2B-3B-4B-5B-6

## APPENDIX C

ACRONYMS(This Page Left Intentionally Blank)C-1 Appendix C

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

$/lb Dollars per pound AB Assembly bill ARB, or the Board Air Resources Board

ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure CCR California Code of Regulations DECS Diesel Emission Control System or Strategy DPF Diesel particulate filter DRRP, or Plan Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particu late Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles Risk Reduction P lan

ED Enforcement Division of ARB

EO Executive Officer of the Air Resource Board E/S Electric standby g/hp-hr Grams per horsepower-hour

> Greater than

> Greater than or equal to H&SC Health and Safety Code

< Less than

< Less than or equal to LETRU Low Emissions Transport Refrigeration Unit MY Model year NMHC Non-methane hydrocarbons

NO

x Oxides of nitrogen O & M Operation and maintenance

PM Particulate matter PTSD Planning and Technical Support Division of ARB SSD Stationary Source Division of ARB

TAC Toxic air contaminant tpd Tons per day TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit TRU OEM Transport Refrigeration Unit Original Equip ment Manufacturer ULETRU Ultra-Low Emission Transport Refrigeration U nit U. S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Ag ency VDECS Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy