**STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD**  **Public Meeting to Consider Approval )**  **Hearing Date: of the South Coast Air Basin 2012**  **) January 25, 2013**  **PM 2.5**  **and Ozone State Implementation )**  **Agenda Item: 13 -**  **2 -**  **2 Plans**  **)**

**COMMENTS OF THE TRUCK AND**  **ENGINE MANUFACTURE R**  **S ASSOCIATION**

**January 2 4**  **, 2013 Timothy A. French**  **Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association**  **333 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 810 Chicago, Illinois 60606**  **(312) 929 -**  **1954**1 **STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD**  **Public Meeting to Consider Approval )**  **Hearing Date: of the South Coast Air Basin 2012**  **) January 25, 2013**  **PM 2.5**  **and Ozone State Implementation )**  **Agenda Item: 13 -**  **2 -**  **2 Plans**  **) COMMENTS OF THE**  **TRUCK AND ENGINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Introduction**  The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Ass ociation (“EMA”) hereb y submits its comments regarding the California Air Resources Board’s consideration of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (“AQMP”), and specifically o ne of the recommended control measures contained in the South Coast’s State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) for attaining the federal ozone standard. The specific SIP measure at issue - - ADV

–01 - - would, among other things, establish an “optional” exhaust emission standard for oxides of nitrogen (NOx ) at or below 0.01 g/bhp - hr for heavy- duty

v ehicles . The proposed standard appears to be unworkable , inconsistent with policy choices that CARB has made to date to incentivize the accelerated use of clean new technology heavy- duty diesel engines , and at odds with other stated CARB goals (such as to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions an d to promote the utilization of advanced on -board diagnostic (OBD) systems). Accordingl y, CARB should not approve that proposed mobile source implementation measure as a component of the South Coast SIP. EMA represents the world’s leading manufacturers o f internal combustion engines, including the engines utilized in heavy- duty vehicles. EMA was a key stakeholder in developing the current ultra - low emission standards that apply to 2010 and later model year heavy- duty engines and vehicles ( i.e. , a PM limit of 0.01 g/bhp - hr , and a NOx limit of 0.20 g/bhp - hr). Those2

heavy- duty engine emission standards, as adopted by C ARB and U.S. EPA, are the most stringent in the world, and are at the very limit of technological feasibility and cost - effectiveness , especial ly when taking into consideration, as one must, ARB’s requirements for in - use compliance, OBD, deterioration , and measurement accuracy . E MA and its members have a direct and vital interest in ensuring that th os e ultra - low heavy- duty emission limits continue to be implemented in a cost - effective and harmonized manner (including with respect to newly implemented GHG emission standards) , both in California and across the nation as a whole. The proposed “optional” NOx emission limit for heavy- duty engines and vehicles cannot be implemented in a fair and reasonable manner , and, taking all of the elements of compliance into consideration, may

n ot even be feasible . M oreover, the proposed “optional” standard could actuall y thwart the accelerated introduction of new technology diesel engines and vehicles, which, in turn, could frustrate important public policy objectives and pending incentive programs in California . For all of the reasons detailed below, CARB should not adopt mobile source implementation measure ADV - 01 .

**Proposed Mobile Source Implementation Measure**  **ADV -**  **01 Should Not B**  **e Appro**  **ved By CARB** One of the South Coast’s recommended control measures for inclusion in the 2012 SIP is to have CARB adopt an “optional” NOx standard for heavy- duty on - highway v ehicles. As proposed, the optional NOx standard would be “at least 95% lower than the current 2 010 on - road exhaust emissions standard ( i.e. , at or below 0.01 g/bhp - hr).” The South Coast’s SIP submission describes this proposed control measure as follows: The proposed action seeks CARB to establish an optional NOx exhaust emissions standard which represents a 95% reduction of the 2010 standard or 0.01 g/bhp - hr. The optional NOx standard serves as a benchmark for heavy- duty engine manufacturers to develop the next generation of cleaner combustion engines.3

Such engines in combination with the ability to achieve a specific level of zero emission miles are likely

to be developed in the near- term to achieve the proposed optional NOx exhaust emission standard. In addition, having optional NOx emission standards provides certainty in funding incentives, by e stablishing a standard for engines to meet in order to receive incentives. (Draft Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix IV

–B, p. 48.). This proposed control measure raises a number of questions, including the overall feasibility o f a 0.01 g/bhp - hr standard , the feasibility o f even measuring NOx emissions at those levels, the feasibility

o f meeting OBD requirements at such a low NOx level, the question of whether the proposed optional standard effectively v iolates CARB’s policy in favor of fuel neutrality , and whether restricting incentive funding to engines meeting such an optional standard is consistent with sound public policy . EMA will address each of these issues in turn. As an initial matter, it is at best uncertain whether a NOx standard of 0.01 g/bhp - hr i s feasible for heavy- duty engines. A s evidenced by the most recent certification data from 2013 model ye ar heavy- duty

e ngines , today ’s most advanced new - technology diesel engines equipped with oxidations catalysts, wall - flow PM filters , and fully optimize d selective cataly tic reduction (“SRC”) systems generate NOx emission levels over the FTP cycle that range from 0.0 7 g/bhp hr to 0. 1 9 g/bhp - hr , with most engines recording NOx emission levels in excess of 0.10 g/bhp - hr. Those emission levels need to be ad j u sted to acc ount for deterioration, OBD compliance, and the entirety of CARB’s regulatory p rogram . Achieving an “optional” NOx standard that is more than 9 0% lo wer than the be st performing new - technology diesel engines is not supported by any current emissions test data. Th at challenge becomes even more speculative when the requisite deterioration factors are added to the equation. Moreover, a NOx standard of 0.01 g/bhp - hr is reall y the practical equivalent of a NOx st andard of 0.00 given the variability o f engine emissions tests and emissions measurement equipment (discussed below). In that regard, zero emission heavy- duty

vehicles have not been demonstrated, even in concept.4

Accordingl y, until CARB can point to actual test data to support the feasibility and cost effectiveness of such an “optional” NOx standard , it should not be approved as a recommended SIP control measure. To that end, EMA is very interested in working with CARB to conduct investig ational studies to explore the potential outer limits of advanced emissio n - control technologies for heavy- duty a pplications , and to pursue other coordinated activities to help to define and shape CARB’s recentl y updated Vision Plan for Clean Air. Compounding the potential technological infeasibility of a NOx standard of 0.01 g/bhp - hr is the fact that current emissions measurement systems are incapable of accuratel y and repeatedly

m easuring NOx emissions at such zero - equivalent levels. T o the contrary , a NOx standard of 0.01 g/bhp - hr is well within the variability o f today ’s NOx measurement systems, and so is a standard that cannot be accuratel y tested for or, as a result, complied with. The goal of emissions measurement systems is to be able to record emissions consistently within a 5% window of variability . 5 % of 0.01 g/bhp - hr is 0. 0005 g/bhp - hr. N o current emission measurement systems for NOx can obtain that degree of accuracy , let alone on a repeatable basis . A ccordingl y, and for this reason as well, the proposed N Ox standard of 0.01 g/bhp - hr is inherently

problematic . Simil arly, today ’s heavy- duty engine s must comply

with comprehensive and state - of - the art OBD requirements. Those requirements call for the detection , measurement and response to emission levels that are set at various multiples ( e. g. , 1.5 or 2.0 times) of the relevant emission standard. However, current NOx sensors and related OBD systems are incapable of meeting CARB’s numerous OBD requirements if those requirements are premised on a NOx standard s et a s low as 0.01 g/bhp - hr (which, again, is the effective equivalent of zero) . This renders the proposed optional NOx standard all the more unworkable .5

Given the inherent challenges of the proposed “optional” NOx standard, the question becomes whether th e South Coast’s proposal is really a back- door means to incentivize a shift of heavy- duty engine technologies to a specific technology choice - - one not based on traditional fuels and apparentl y favored by the South Coast . S electing one technology over another , however, is not a proper use of CARB’s standard - setting function, and would amount to a direct contradiction of CARB’s long - standing commitment to fuel - neutrality . Engine technology and f uel choices impact many important issues in addition to NOx emission levels - - issues that include overall life - cycle emissions , relative fuel economy, infrastructure, cost - effectiveness, customer acceptance, GHG impacts, and many other important considerations. Accordingl y, without conducting the wide - ranging and comprehensive anal ys es that would be necessary , CARB should not accept on faith what may amount to indirect advocacy in favor of the South Coast’s technology

choices for heavy- duty applications . And, more to the point, CARB most certainl y should not premise the 2012 SIP on an unstudied abandonment of fuel - neutrality for heavy- duty engines and vehicles. Finally , the proposed “optional” NOx limit is intended to restrict incentive funding to engines and vehicles that can meet the optional NOx standard. In reality , however, the optional standard will not just restrict incentive funding, it will eliminate the availability o f incentive funding altogether , since both heavy- duty engine technologies and emissions - measurement technologies are likel y incapa ble of meeting the zero - equivalent optional NOx standard. Moreover, setting the bar for incentive funding so low means that CARB will forego incentivizing all of the cost - effective emissions reductions that could be provided by the as - yet to -be - develop ed engine technologies that could feasibly m e et NOx emission levels above 0.01 g/bhp - hr yet significantly b elow the current standard of 0.20 g/bhp - hr. Foregoing incentives for such a wide swath of potential near- zero emission technologies seems, at best, ill - advised. In6

addition, g iven the importance and tremendous efficacy of CARB’s programs to accelerate the deploy ment of new technology

diesel engines (“NTDE”) for almost all heavy- duty applications and fleets across the State, it is difficult to understand how the effective elimination of incentive funding for virtuall y all ultra - clean heavy- duty engines and vehicles could help to advance the sound public policy

choices that CARB has made to date to promote NTDE. It is therefore similarly difficult to understand how CARB could approve the recommended SIP measure without acting in an ar

bitrary and unreasonable manner.

**Conclusion** Accordingl y, and for all the foregoing reasons, CARB should not approve proposed control measure ADV - 01 as a component of the South Coast SIP. Respectfully

submitted, TRUCK AND ENGINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

67784_1