BEFORE THE 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

In the Matter of California's Request for ) 

Authorization Action Pursuant to Clean Air ) 

Act Section 209( e) for the 2011 ) 

Amendments to California's Airborne ) 

Toxic Control Measure for In-Use ) 

Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration ) 

Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and ) 

Facilities Where TRUs Operate ) 

) 

CLEAN AIR ACT§ 209(e)(2) AUTHORIZATION SUPPORT DOCUMENT 

SUBMITTED BY THE 

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

March 2, 2015 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The California Air Resources Board (GARB or Board) requests that the 

Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take 

authorization action pursuant to section 209(e)(2) of the federal Clean Air Act 

(CAA) with respect to California's 2011 amendments to its "Airborne Toxic Control 

Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU 

Generator Sets (collectively referred to as TRUs) and Facilities Where TRUs 

Operate" (TRU ATCM or ATCM; the amendments are hereinafter referred to as the 

2011 Amendments or amendments).1 . 

The 2011 Amendments primarily provide owners of 2001 through 2003 model year 

(MY) TRU engines that complied with applicable Low-Emission TRU (LETRU) inuse performance standards by specified compliance deadlines a one- or two-year 

extension from the more stringent Ultra-Low Emission (ULETRU) in-use 

performance standards. The amendments also clarify manual recordkeeping 

requirements for electric standby-equipped TRUs and ultimately require automated 

electronic tracking system requirements for such TRUs; establish requirements for 

1 The amended regulation is codified at California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs.), tit. 13, § 

2477. The Administrator granted California an authorization for the initial TRU ATCM in 2009 (74 

Fed.Reg. 3030 (January 16, 2009)). On November 18, 2010, GARB approved the adoption of 

limited amendments to the TRU ATCM (201 0 Amendments) and submitted a request on May 13, 

2011 that the Administrator confirm that the 2010 Amendments either fall within the scope of the 

initial TRU authorization or are not subject to preemption. On June 19, 2013, the Administrator 

confirmed that the 2010 Amendments were within the scope of the initial authorization. 78 

Fed. Reg. 38970 (June 28, 2013). 
businesses that arrange, hire, contract, or dispatch the transport of goods in TRUequipped trucks, trailers or containers; and clarify issues that arose during the 

initial implementation of the regulation. A more detailed description of the 

amendments is presented below . 

. At its October 21, 2011 meeting, the Board adopted Resolution 11-35 (Enclosure 

6) approving for adoption the 2011 Amendments. At the direction of the Board, 

after making modifications to the regulation available for supplemental public 

comment, GARB's Executive Officer formally adopted the amendments in 

Executive Order R-12-007 on August 31, 2012 (Enclosure 7). The 2011 

Amendments were approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and 

became operative under state law on October 15, 2012. 

Section II of this document provides a brief summary of the 2011 Amendments. 

Section Ill describes the criteria for granting authorizations and demonstrates that 

the 2011 Amendments satisfy the criteria for the requested authorization actions. 

II. SUMMARY OF THE 2011 AMENDMENTS TO THE TRU ATCM 

A summary of the emissions-related and accompanying enforcement provisions of 

the 2011 Amendments that require authorization actions follows. A more detailed 

description of these provisions is provided in the Staff Report: Initial Statement of 

Reasons (Staff Report, Enclosure 2), Notices of Availability of Modified Text 

(Enclosures 4 and 5), and in the Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR, Enclosure 8). 

A. Extend ULETRU Compliance Date for MY 2003 and Older TRUs that 

Complied With LETRU Standard by Specified Dates2 

The amendments provide owners of 2003 and older MY TRUs that complied with 

the Low-Emission TRU (LETRU) in-use performance standard by specified dates 

an extension for second-stage compliance to the Ultra-Low Emission TRU 

(ULETRU) standard. 3 

Table 1 shows the relevant LETRU compliance deadlines, the original ULETRU 

deadlines, and the new, extended ULETRU deadlines. 

2 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13, §§ 2477.5(g) and 2477.5(m). Unless otherwise noted, all section 

references are to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13. 

3 The LETRU standard requires a 50 percent reduction of particulate matter (PM) emissions; the 

ULETRU standard requires an 85 percent reduction of PM emissions. 

2 
Table 1: ULETRU Extension for MY 2003 and Older TRU Engines 

That Met LETRU Deadline 

I' O~ac!line ,, .ULEJRU Deadline' 

, ~~gi~ei'Av LETRU M~j~t By Original '' 

New ' 

2001 & 12-31-2009 12-31-2015 12-31-20164 

Older 

2002 12-31-2009 12-31-2016 12-31-2017 

2003 12-31-2010 12-31-2017 12-31-2018 

The Board approved these extensions to restore competitive fairness to those 

owners that voluntarily complied with the initial LETRU compliance deadlines in 

2008 through 2010, when other owners deferred compliance because of the delay 

in GARB receiving the initial TRU ATCM authorization from EPA. In granting the 

compliance extensions, the Board considered the minimal emissions impact and 

near-source risks that compliance extensions posed to the public. 

B. Operational and Record keeping Requirements for Hybrid Electric, 

Electric Standby (E/S), and Hybrid Cryogenic TRUs5 

The TRU ATCM allows TRU owners to utilize hybrid electric, hybrid cryogenic, 

and electric-standby (E/S) equipped TRUs as an "Alternative Technology" 

compliance option, which requires such TRUs to be operated in a manner that 

eliminates diesel engine operations at the facilities where the TRUs operate. The 

Board's intent in establishing the Alternative Technology compliance provision was 

to require owners to document via recordkeeping that TRU diesel engine 

operations at facilities were in fact eliminated. However, manual records submitted 

by owners during the initial years of implementation of the regulation were 

incomplete and inconsistent. 

To address this problem, the 2011 Amendments establish the following 

record keeping requirements for TRU owners using the Alternative Technology 

compliance option. First, hybrid electric and E/S equipped TRUs must be 

equipped with non-resettable engine hour meters and electric power use hour 

meters; hybrid cryogenic equipped TRUs must be equipped with both nonresettable engine hour meters and cryogenic system hour meters. Second, as of 

November 14, 2012, owners must prepare manual records for hybrid electric or 

E/S equipped TRUs that contain specified information, including TRU diesel engine 

run time and shore-powered electric motor run time when the vehicle in which the 

TRU is equipped is stationary at a facility for more than five minutes. Third, 

automated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements are required to 

4 MY 2001 and older engines may qualify for a total extension of two years if they met LETRU by 

the original December 31, 2008, deadline. In this case, the new ULETRU deadline for such 

engines would be December 31, 2017. 

5 Sections 2477.5(a)(3), 2477.5(d)(3), and 2477.5(d)(4). 

3 
be phased-in for hybrid electric, hybrid cryogenic, and E/S TRUs. At least 50 

percent of an owner's fleet of hybrid electric, hybrid cryogenic, or E/S-equipped 

TRUs that have passed an in-use compliance deadline must be equipped with 

electronic tracking systems by December 31, 2012, and all remaining units by 

December 31, 2013. The electronic tracking systems must be capable of providing 

automated Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates, TRU engine hour meter 

readings, and date and time information once per minute, with no more than a ten 

minute delay in transmitting data. These automated tracking and reporting 

requirements replace the manual record keeping requirements previously 

applicable to hybrid-electric, hybrid cryogenic, or E/S-equipped TRUs, and provide 

improved enforceability compared to manual recordkeeping. 6 Finally, out-of-state 

owners that elect to use the Alternative Technology compliance option must 

register such TRUs in GARB's Equipment Registration (ARBER) system (in-state 

owners are already required to register their units in ARBER). 

The amendments further clarify that Alternate Technology TRUs may not be 

powered by diesel engines for more than five minutes each time such TRUs are 

moved within a facility fence line or property· boundary, and may not be powered by 

diesel engines for more than 30 minutes per delivery/pick-up point at retail delivery 

and pick-u? points, including restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, and 

cafeterias. 

C. Requirements for Drivers, Freight Brokers and Forwarders, Motor 

Carriers, Shippers, and Receivers to Ensure the Use of Compliant 

TRUs 

To ensure greater compliance, the Board amended the TRU ATCM to cover 

business entities that arrange, hire, contract for, or dispatch the transport of 

perishable goods in TRU-equipped trucks, trailers, shipping containers, or railcars. 

Coverage of such businesses help ensure that the motor carriers they hire or 

contract with only dispatch equipment that complies with the TRU ATCM while 

traveling on California highways or railways. Such businesses must provide the 

driver with company contact information and a bill of lading that includes shipper, 

carrier, and receiver information. The driver, in turn, must provide this information 

to GARB inspectors upon request. 

6 The capital and operating costs associated with electronic tracking systems are anticipated, over 

time, to be lower than the costs associated with the manual recordkeeping requirements. 7 These requirements constitute in-use operational limits and consequently do not require an 

authorization. EMA v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075, 1094 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 

4 
D. Clarify Requirements for Repowering a TRU with a New Replacement 

Engine or a Rebuilt Engine8 

1. Background of Initially Adopted TRU ATCM 

The TRU ATCM requires TRU engines to meet in-use standards that vary by 

horsepower (hp) range and have two levels of stringency (LETRU and ULETRU) 

that are phased in over time. For TRU engines rated between 25 and 50 hp, the 

LETRU standard corresponds to the "interim" Tier 4 off-road diesel engine 

standards, that specify a particulate matter (PM) emissions standard of 0.30 

grams per brake horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr), and the ULETRU standard 

corresponds to the "final" Tier 4 off-road engine standards that specify a PM 

emissions standard of 0.22 g/bhp-hr. 

For TRU engines rated below 25 hp, the LETRU standard corresponds to the Tier 

4 off-road diesel engine standard that specifies a PM emissions standard of 0.30 

g/bhp-hr. In contrast to the Tier 4 standard for off-road diesel engines rated 

between 25 and 50 hp, the Tier 4 standard for off-road diesel engines rated below 

25 hp consists solely of a single Tier 4 standard, with no "interim" or "final" 

designation.9 The Tier 4 standard for these smaller engines constitutes a 

compliance option for the LETRU standard, but does not sufficiently control PM 

emissions to serve as a compliance option for the ULETRU standard, which 

specifies a PM emission standard of 0.09 g/bhp-hr. Consequently, owners of 

these engines will need to use other compliance options, such as retrofitting 

engines with level 3 verified diesel emission control strategies (VDECS), or using 

Alternate Technology TRUs to meet the ULETRU standard. A Level 3 VDECS is a 

verified retrofit system that will achieve PM emission reductions greater than or 

equal to 85 percent of baseline emissions of a tested representative engine. 10 

As initially adopted, the TRU ATCM required 2002 and older model year TRUs to 

meet the LETRU standard by the end of the seventh year following the model year 

of the TRU (e.g., a 2002 MY TRU was required to meet the LETRU standard by 

December 31, 2009), and the more stringent ULETRU standard seven years after 

the LETRU compliance date, (e.g., a 2002 MY TRU needed to comply with the 

ULETRU standard by December 31, 2016). The initial ATCM exempted 2003 and 

newer model year TRUs from the LETRU requirements and instead required them 

to comply with the ULETRU standards by the end of the seventh year following the 

engine model year. 

8 Sections 2477.5(i) and 2477.16. 

9 California's Tier 4 off-road engine standards are aligned with EPA's lier 4 non road engine 

standards, and EPA granted California an authorization for these standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures in 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 8056 (Feb. 23, 2010). 10 Section 2701 (a)(9) defines "baseline" to mean the test of a vehicle or engine without the diesel 

control strategy implemented." Emission levels of VDECS are set forth at section 2702(f). 

5 
The TRU ATCM was amended in 2010 to require 2003 MY TRUs to meet the 

LETRU standard by December 31, 2010 and the ULETRU standard by December 

31, 2017. The 2010 Amendments further revised the standards for 2004 MY TRUs 

rated below 25 hp to require compliance with the LETRU standard by December 

31, 2011, and the ULETRU standard by December 31, 2018. 

Table 2 below illustrates the TRU ATCM's current in-use compliance schedule. 

Table 2 Current TRU ATCM In-Use Standards Compliance Schedule 

2001 or Older 

2002 

2003 

<25 hp 2004 

>25 hp 2004 

2005 and 

subsequent MYs 

. 

LETRU ~r ULETRU . 

1 

ULETRU Compliance Date • . , Compliance Date 1 .- • - -- - - - :O>c .-·--

December 31 , 200811 December 31, 2015 (if met LETRU in 

2008i 

December 31, 2009 

December31, 2010 

December 31, 2011 

Must Meet ULETRU 

December 31, 2016 (if met LETRU in 

. 2009) 

December 31, 2017 (if met LETRU in 

. 201 0) 

December 31, 2018 (if met LETRU in 

2011) 

December 31 , 2011 

Must Meet ULETRU December 31st of MY plus seven years 

. 

The initially adopted TRU ATCM provided TRU owners several options for 

complying with the LETRU and ULETRU in-use standards that include repowering 

existing TRU engines rated between 25 and 50 hp with new replacement engines 

certified to the Tier 4 interim and final standards for new off-road compression 

ignition (CI) engines. New replacement engines below 25 hp that are certified to 

the Tier 4 standards are a LETRU compliance option, but are not a compliance 

option for the more stringent ULETRU standard. 12 

2. Issues Arising From the Use of Flexibility Engines and Prior-Tier 

Replacement Engines in TRUs 

In the course of implementing the initially adopted TRU ATCM, CARB staff 

identified several issues that arose from the widespread usage of flexibility and 

prior-tier replacement engines in TRUs. Both California and EPA's Tier 4 off-road 

11 Enforcement delayed until January 2010. 

12 As explained above in Section 11.0.1, replacement engines rated between 25 and 50 hp that are 

certified to the interim Tier 4 standards meet the LETRU standard and replacement engines rated 

between 25 and 50 hp that are certified to the final Tier 4 standards meet the ULETRU standard. 

However, new replacement engines rated below 25 hp that are certified to the Tier 4 standard do 

not sufficiently control PM emissions to constitute a compliance option for the ULETRU standard 

applicable to such engines. 

6 
engine regulations include "flexibility" provisions 13 that allow equipment 

manufacturers to produce limited numbers of equipment with new off-road engines 

that meet less stringent emission standards than otherwise required for new 

engines for up to seven years after a new tier of emissions standards has gone 

into effect. These provisions were established to provide equipment manufacturers 

with more time so that they could modify equipment designs to be compatible with 

new engines. 

California and EPA's Tier 4 off-road engine regulations also contain a provision 

that allows an engine manufacturer to continue to produce new replacement 

engines that do not meet the most current emissions standards (prior-tier 

replacement engines) provided it determines that no engine produced by either 

itself or by the manufacturer of the engine being replaced, if different, has the 

appropriate physical and performance characteristics to repower the equipment. 14 

CARB staff was initially concerned that widespread usage of flexibility and prior tier 

engines would undermine the emissions reductions from the initially adopted TRU 

ATCM. CARB staff initially estimated the emissions reductions attributable to the 

initial TRU ATCM based on the assumption that TRU engines manufactured in a 

specific year would meet the currently applicable emission standards. CARB staff 

subsequently became aware that TRU manufacturers were using significantly 

more flexibility engines than originally anticipated, effectively undermining CARB's 

initially projected emissions reductions because flexibility engines are not required 

to demonstrate compliance with current emissions standards. CARB staff was 

also concerned that engine manufacturers were inconsistent in how they identified 

the model year of flexibility engines. Some manufacturers identified a flexibility 

engine's model year as the last year that the flexibility engine's tier was in effect, 

while other manufacturers identified a flexibility engine's model year as the year 

corresponding to the engine's manufacture date. The inconsistent model year 

designations adversely affected owners that purchased TRUs powered by 

flexibility engines or prior tier replacement engines to meet the LETRU standard 

because they were left unaware that such engines have a reduced operational life 

compared to TRUs powered by engines that meet the most current emissions 

standards- meaning they would not have the full seven years before the 

replacement engine would have to be replaced with an engine meeting the more 

stringent ULETRU standard. 

As discussed below, the 2010 Amendments to the TRU ATCM addressed the 

issues resulting from the use of flexibility engines, and the 2011 Amendments 

13 Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, section 89.102 (40 CFR 89.102), 40 CFR 1039.625, 40 

CFR 1068.265, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13 § 2423(d). 

14 New replacement engines must comply with the requirements of Title 40, Code of Federal 

Regulations sections 89.1003 and 1068.240 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13, § 2423(j). EPA granted 

California authorization of the California emission standards and accompanying test procedures for 

new off-road Cl engines that encompassed these replacement engine provisions. 75 Fed.Reg. 

8056 (Feb. 23, 201 0). 

7 
address issues that allow the use of prior-tier engines replacement engines in 

TRUs. 

a. 2010 Amendments to the TRU ATCM to Address Issues Arising 

from Use of Flexibility Engines 

GARB amended the TRU ATCM in 2010 to address the potential posed by 

widespread usage of flexibility engines to undermine the emissions reductions from 

the initially adopted TRU ATCM, and to clarify inconsistencies in how engine 

manufacturers identified the model year of flexibility engines. The 201 0 

Amendments clarified that flexibility engines installed in TRUs after the effective 

date of the 2010 Amendments were required to use the flexibility engine's 

"effective model year" to determine future ULETRU compliance dates, and defined 

"effective model year" as the last year that the flexibility engine's tier standard was 

in effect for new engine compliance. Compliance with the ULETRU standards was 

then required by the end of the seventh year after the effective model year of the 

flexibility engine. 15 

Table 3 shows the years that the off-road engine emissions standard tiers were in 

effect for the horsepower categories of engines used in TRUs and the effective 

model years for prior-tier replacement engines 

Table 3: Effective Model Year 

for Prior-Tier Off-Road Replacement Engines 

Off-Road E:ngine · .. ' ' Effective Model Year·· 

Tier stlln~ard · · · .•... ··•·· f6r .•... ·· '. . Emission~ Standard Tier . EffectiiteYears .. . ..... . j:)rior7fier .. ·· 

· .... '·. . . ' Repl~ce'mentJSnQin~s • 

Tier 1, >25 to <50 hp (trailer) 1999-2003 2003 

Tier 1, <25 hp (generally truck) 2000-2004 2004 

Tier2, >25 to <50 hp (trailer) 2004-2007 2007 

Tier2, <25 hp (generally truck) 2005-2007 2007 

Tier4i, >25 to <50 hp (trailer) 2008-2012 2012 

These amendments limit the operational life of replacement engines because inuse compliance with the ULETRU standard is now based on the last year that the 

flexibility engine's tier standard was in effect, rather than on the model year the 

flexibility engine was manufactured. For example, if a TRU had a MY 2003 original 

engine that was required to comply with the LETRU standard by 

December 31, 2010, and the owner chose to repower the TRU in 2010 with a 

Tier 2 replacement engine having an effective model year of 2007, compliance with 

15 As stated above, EPA previously confirmed that the 2010 Amendments are within the scope of 

the initial TRU authorization. 78 Fed. Reg. 38970 (June 28, 2013). 

8 
ULETRU standard would then be required by December 31, 2014, seven years 

after the effective model year date. 16 In this example, the operational life of the 

replacement engine would only be four years. 

The 2010 Amendments ensured that owners purchasing TRUs powered by 

flexibility engines were sufficiently informed that such TRUs had reduced 

operational lives by requiring manufacturers of TRUs powered by flexibility engines 

to disclose to the owners at point-of-sale that such units were equipped with 

flexibility engines that have reduced operational lives under the TRU ATCM. The 

amendments further require manufacturers to provide owners with the dates that 

such flexibility engines must meet the ULETRU in-use standards. 17 

b. 2011 Amendments to the TRU ATCM Address Issues Arising 

from Use of Prior Tier Engines Used to Repower TRUs and Allow 

Use of Rebuilt Replacement Engines 

The 2011 Amendments follow-up on the issues described above in Section 11.0.2 

regarding the use of new prior-tier engines to repower TRUs. Specifically, the 

2011 Amendments address issues that have arisen in implementing the "effective 

model year" concept as they apply to prior-tier engines used to repower TRUs. 18 

As previously discussed, such issues concern the potential for widespread usage 

of prior-tier engines to undermine the emissions reductions from the initially 

adopted TRU ATCM and the potential that purchasers of prior-tier engines may be 

adversely affected because they were not adequately informed that such engines 

have reduced operational lives compared to TRUs powered by engines meeting 

the most current standards.19 

As described below, the 2011 Amendments specify the criteria for new 

replacement engines used to repower a TRU, and additionally clarify that owners 

may now repower TRUs with rebuilt replacement engines that meet specified 

criteria as an alternative compliance pathway. 

i) New Replacement Engine Requirements 

The amendments specify that a new replacement engine used to repower a TRU 

must meet more stringent emissions standards than the TRU's original engine that 

is being replaced, and that the new replacement engine must comply with the TRU 

ATCM's in-use standards based on the new replacement engine's model year or 

16 In contrast, if a 2010 Tier 4i engine had been used for compliance, the owner would have until 

2017 to meet the ULETRU standard. 

17 EPA confirmed that the 2010 Amendments are within the scope of the initial TRU authorization. 

78 Fed.Reg. 38970 (June 28, 2013). 18 The earlier references to prior-tier engines were in the context of flexibility engines that allowed 

the use of prior-tier engines in new equipment. 19 As discussed in Section 11.0.1, this issue of reduced operational life only applies to prior-tier 

engines rated between 25 to 50 hp, as new replacement engines rated below 25 hp do not 

constitute a compliance option for the ULETRU standard. 

9 
effective model year. New current-tier replacement engines must use the engine 

model year as shown on the engine emissions label to determine the applicable inuse standard and compliance deadline. New prior-tier replacement engines must 

use the engine's effective model year to determine the applicable in-use standard 

and compliance deadline. 

ii) Rebuilt Replacement Engine Requirements 

The initially adopted TRU ATCM did not expressly allow TRU owners to comply 

with the TRU ATCM's in-use standards by repowering TRUs with rebuilt 

replacement engines. The amendments now clarify that rebuilt replacement 

engines may be used to repower TRUs provided they meet more stringent 

emission standards than the TRU's original engine, and are rebuilt in compliance 

with federal and state engine rebuilding requirements for off-road compression 

ignition engines. 2

° Current tier rebuilt replacement engines can use the year in 

which the rebuild is completed as the engine model year to determine incuse 

requirements and associated compliance dates. A rebuilt-replacement engine that 

meets a prior-tier emission standard must use the engine's effective model year, 

as described in Section 11.0.2, to determine in-use requirements and associated 

compliance dates. 

iii. Engine Rebuilder Requirements 

In addition to meeting the requirements specified above in section 11.0.2, engine 

rebuilders must also comply with federal and California engine rebuilding 

requirements for off-road compression ignition engines (40 CFR 89.130, 40 CFR 

1068.120, and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, section 2423(1), respectively), which require 

rebuilders to do the following: have a reasonable technical basis for knowing that 

a rebuilt engine is equivalent, from an emissions standpoint, to a previously 

certified configuration (i.e., tolerances, calibrations, specifications); rebuild the 

engine to a certified configuration of matched components; re-label an engine that 

is rebuilt to a more stringent emissions configuration; and provide a supplemental 

label including the name of the rebuilder, year of the rebuild, tier of the emissions 

standard, engine model, engine effective model year (if prior-tier standard is met) 

or model year (if current tier standard is met), and horsepower rating. 

Supplemental engine labels must be affixed to the rebuilt engine in a readily 

accessible location. Engine rebuilders must additionally provide, within 30 days of 

a request from GARB, documentation and engineering arguments to demonstrate 

that they have complied with these engine rebuilding practices, and must supply a 

registration information document with each rebuilt engine that includes all 

information needed to register the TRU in ARBER and instructions to the dealer or 

repair shop to forward this document to the end-user. The information on the 

registration information document must be consistent with the information on the 

rebuilt engines' re-label and supplemental engine label. 

20 40 CFR sections 89.130 and 1068. 120 and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, § 2423(1), respectively. 

10 
E. Allow California TRU Dealers to Acquire Non-compliant TRUs21 

The TRU ATCM, as initially adopted, prohibits dealers from selling non-compliant 

equipment to persons that could reasonably be expected to do business in 

California, and from purchasing, receiving, or otherwise acquiring non-compliant 

TRUs. California dealers subsequently informed GARB that they need to be able 

to acquire and move non-compliant TRUs in order to accept trade-ins when 

owners purchase new or newer compliant TRUs, and the 2011 Amendments 

therefore now. allow California dealers to purchase, receive, or acquire and 

possess non-compliant TRUs in California under limited circumstances (i.e., noncompliant TRUs can only be sold to persons that would not reasonably be 

expected to do business in California and cannot be operated on California 

highways or at the dealer's place of business for the purpose of controlling the 

environment of temperature sensitive goods.) 

F. Compliance Extensions When Technology is Not Available for a 

Specific TRU Model or Based on Delays Due to Private Financing, 

Equipment Manufacturers, or lnstallers22 

The 2011 Amendments provide TRU owners up to a one-year extension from a 

compliance deadline if they demonstrate that no compliance technology is 

available for a specific TRU model within six months of a compliance date. This 

extension is not available if a fleet has other non-compliant equipment for which 

technology is available; owners have the burden of demonstrating that all other 

units in their fleet are complaint with the TRU ATCM. Furthermore, the specific 

TRU for which an extension is sought must be registered in ARBER to enable 

GARB to verify that the unit has become compliant with the TRU ATCM by the time 

the extension has expired. This provision provides flexibility in addressing issues 

related to Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategies (VDECS) and other 

compliance options that may not be immediately commercially available prior to a 

compliance date.23 The amendments also provide a one-time extension, not to 

exceed four months, if the owner can demonstrate that TRU noncompliance is the 

result of delays due to financing, delivery by the manufacturer, or installation. 

21 Section 2477.14. These requirements are neither emission standards nor other requirements 

related to the control of emissions that are subject to authorization under CAA section 209(e)(2)(A). 22 Section 2477.5(k). 23 As of April 24, 2014 three Level 3 VDECS were verified by CARB and are commercially 

available. Other compliance options, such as replacement engines or unit replacements, are also 

readily available. ARBER registration data indicates that TRU owners predominately utilize engine 

replacement to comply with the TRU ATCM (engine replacement constitutes approximately 70 

percent of compliance methods utilized). 

11 
G. Compliance Exemptions 

1. Obviously Non-Operational Equipment and Refrigeration Systems 

Not Powered by Integral Diesel Engines24 

The 2011 Amendments clarify that obviously non-operational TRUs are generally 

exempt from compliance with the TRU ATCM performance standards, but are still 

prohibited from being sold, rented, or leased to a person that could reasonably be 

expected to operate such TRUs in California. The amendments further clarify that 

transport refrigeration systems not driven by an integral diesel internal combustion 

engines are also exempt from having to comply with the TRU ATCM requirements. 

2. Exemption for Mobile Catering Service TRUs Used During 

Emergencies25 

The amendments also establish a limited exemption from in-use performance 

standards26 for TRU-equipped refrigerated trucks and trailers used by mobile 

catering companies to feed emergency responders, such as firefighters 

suppressing wildfires, during emergencies. This exemption allows qualifying mobile 

catering companies to obtain a one-year exemption per TRU from applicable inuse performance standards that can be annually renewed upon proof of 

applicability by the owner. TRUs covered by this exemption are still subject to the 

TRU ATCM's registration requirements. 

3. Non-Compliant, Non-Operational Refrigerated Railcar TRUs 

Passing Through California27 

The amendments further exempt from compliance with the in-use performance 

standards non-compliant, non-operational TRUs on refrigerated railcars that travel 

through California. For instance, railroads occasionally need to move noncompliant, non-operational TRUs on empty refrigerated railcars from Arizona to 

Oregon or Washington. Allowing such TRUs to pass through California would 

avoid railroads having to route such TRU equipped railcars around California 

borders along longer and costlier routes. 

This exemption is contingent upon GARB's Executive Officer approving a written 

compliance plan submitted by a railway carrier that clearly identifies the monitoring, 

record keeping, and reporting procedures that the railway carrier will use to ensure 

that non-compliant TRUs on refrigerated railcars will not operate at any time while 

in California. The compliance plan must include, without limitation the following: 

the procedures for tracking and recording routes and dates of travel within 

California of each non-compliant TRU, information identifying each non-compliant 

24 Sections 2477.3(b) and 2477.3(c). 25 Sections 2477.3(d) and 2477.5(j). 26 The mobile catering service exemption sunsets on January 1, 2025. 

27 Section 2477.3(e). 

12 
TRU, a description of the automated monitoring and record keeping system for 

reporting TRU "engine on" and "engine off" status, and the procedure for 

expeditiously reporting violations observed or discovered by the railway carrier to 

CARB. 

4. Exempting Railway Carriers from the Owner/Operator Requirements 

for TRUs Not Owned by the Railway Carrier28 

The TRU ATCM's in-use performance standards apply to owners or operators that 

operate a TRU in California. The preexisting ATCM defined "operate" as "to start, 

cause to function, ... or otherwise control, fuel, monitor to assure proper operation, 

or keep in operation [a TRU]." The amendments redefine the term "operate" to 

clarify that a TRU shall be considered to be operational if it is capable of being 

operated while in California. 

The 2011 Amendments establish an exemption for railway carriers that may be 

contractually obligated to perform activities that fall within the definition of 

"operate," such as fueling, monitoring, or keeping in operation a TRU on a 

refrigerated railcar that is not owned by the railway carrier (third-party TRU owner) 

in order to ensure the safe transit of perishable goods transported in the 

refrigerated railcar. For example, in the event of a derailment or other delay in 

movement, a railway carrier may monitor a TRU's fuel levels and refuel it if 

necessary. But railway carriers do not load or unload perishable goods being 

transported and do not set the equipment operating programs of these third-party 

TRUs. The amendments therefore exempt a railway carrier from the TRU ATCM's 

owner/operator requirements for refrigerated railcar TRUs owned by third parties if 

the railway carrier is only moving a third-party owned refrigerated railcar, or the 

railway carrier or its agent is fueling, monitoring to assure proper operation, 

keeping in operation, arranging repairs at the request of the third-party TRU owner, 

or restarting the TRU engine after an unscheduled shut-down or repair, and is not 

performing any of the other activities listed under the definition of "operate." This 

exemption does not apply if a rail carrier is leasing the TRU. 

H. Clarify Seller, Lessor, and Lessee Requirements 

1. Prohibition on Selling Non-Compliant TRUs29 

· The amendments extend the TRU ATCM's prohibition of selling non-compliant 

TRUs to any person selling such non-compliant units30 and expressly prohibit 

auctioneers and motor carriers from intentionally or negligently importing, 

28 Section 2477.3(1) 

29 Sections 2477.4(a) and 2477.1B(b). 

30 The amendments define "person" as an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, 

partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental 

subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity. 

13 
delivering, purchasing, or otherwise acquiring non-compliant new or used TRU 

engines. 

The amendments require a seller of a non-compliant TRU to disclose to a potential 

buyer located outside of California that the unit is not compliant with the TRU 

ATCM's in-use requirements and cannot be legally operated in California unless it 

meets such in-use requirements, and further prohibits an owner of a TRU equipped 

with an Alternative Technology, such as electric standby, from selling that TRU 

without disclosing in writing that the TRU must be used in a way that qualifies it as 

an Alternative Technology in accordance with the TRU ATCM. 

2. Clarify and Streamline Requirements for Lessors and Lessees31 

The amendments clarify compliance responsibilities for lessors and lessees of 

TRU-equipped trucks and trailers, including issues related to ARBER registration 

requirements, Operator Reports, and compliance with the TRU ATCM's in-use 

standards. 

I. Allow Use of Unit Manufacture Year Instead of Engine Model Year to 

Determine Compliance Requirements for New Equipmenf2 

The TRU ATCM, as initially adopted, specifies in-use performance standard 

compliance dates based on the model year of the TRU engine. TRU original 

equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and owners subsequently notified CARB staff 

that because new TRUs produced in January, February, or March are typically 

equipped with engines from the prior model year (e.g., TRUs manufactured in 

January 2008 are usually equipped with MY 2007 engines), owners that purchase 

such TRUs can lose up to a year of useful life, and will therefore likely delay their 

TRU purchases to obtain engines with a model year matching the unit manufacture 

year. This would result in disruption of the OEM's production cycle for several 

months and would negatively impact the availability of new TRUs. 

The amendments therefore allow the in-use performance standards and the 

related compliance deadlines to be based on the year the TRU (the unit itself) was 

manufactured, instead of the TRU engine model year, provided that the difference 

between the unit manufacture year and the engine model year does not exceed 

one year. If the difference between the unit manufacture year and the engine 

model year is greater than one year, the engine model year must be used to 

determine compliance dates. The engine model year must still be used when 

determining VDECS compatibility and must also be entered into the space for 

engine model year when registering the TRU in ARBER. 

31 Section 2477.12. 

32 Section 2477.5(b)(6). 

14 
J. Allow Use of Unique Identification Numbers Instead of a GARB 

Identification Number (IDN)33 

The TRU ATCM currently requires owners of California-based TRUs to apply for 

GARB Identification Numbers (ION) and affix or paint the IONs onto the TRU or 

TRU generator set housing. GARB IONs are voluntary for out-of-state-based units. 

The amendments allow the use of Bureau International des Containers (BIG) 

codes, or reporting marks in place of GARB IONs, provided the owner applies for 

an GARB ION if the unit is California-based, the BIG Code or reporting mark is 

unique for each piece of equipment, and the BIG Code or reporting mark meets the 

same readability specifications currently required for GARB IONs. 

K. Disclosure Requirements for TRU Original Equipment Manufacturers 

(OEMs)34 

The engine emissions labels on new replacement engines and new flexibility 

engines generally do not contain sufficient information for owners of TRUs to 

register their units in ARBER. The amendments accordingly require TRU OEMs 

that equip TRUs with flexibility engines to do the following: notify GARB at least 12 

months in advance of the first flexibility engine installation in production; provide a 

supplemental engine emissions label containing all engine information needed to 

register the TRUs in ARBER (if the engine manufacturer's label does not already 

provide this information); and provide a written disclosure with new TRUs that 

notifies ultimate purchasers of TRU equipped with flexibility engines of the effective 

model years of the engine, the ULETRU compliance deadline, and the effective 

model year that must be entered when the unit is registered in ARBER. These 

written disclosures may be included with the documentation that is shipped with 

the TRU and must include instructions to dealers informing them that they are 

required by California law to notify the ultimate purchaser of these disclosures prior 

to sale and to pass these written disclosures to the ultimate purchaser at point of 

sale. 

TRU OEMs are also required to provide: supplemental engine emissions labels for 

each new or rebuilt replacement engine they supply that list all engine information 

needed to register the equipment in ARBER (if the engine manufacturer's 

emissions control label does not provide this information); a written disclosure with 

each prior-tier engine that must be supplied to interested buyers prior to sale that 

the engine was manufactured to meet less stringent emissions standards than 

otherwise required for' new engines and providing the effective model year of the 

prior-tier replacement engine and the ULETRU compliance deadline; and a 

ARBER registration information document with each new TRU or new and rebuilt 

engine that must be passed on to the end user. The registration information 

33 Section 2477.5(e)(3). These requirements are neither emission standards nor other 

requirements related to the control of emissions that are subject to authorization under CM section 

209(e)(2)(A). 

34 Section 2477.13. 

15 
document must include all the engine information needed to register the equipment 

in ARBER and must be consistent with the information that is on the engine 

emissions label and supplemental engine label. As an alternative to providing the 

ARBER registration information document, the OEM may provide, with Executive 

Officer approval, a web-based on-line look-up system for registration information. 

L. Disclosure Requirements for Dealers and Repair Shops35 

The amendments require dealers and repair shops to pass the ARBER registration 

information documents that are supplied with new units, new replacement engines, 

and rebuilt engines to the end-user. The registration information documents are 

usually supplied by the TRU original equipment manufacturer or the engine 

rebuilder. If registration information documents are not included with a 

replacement engine, the dealer or repair shop must provide such documents or 

print-outs from the OEM's on-line look-up system. If the TRU is equipped with a 

flexibility engine, the dealer must notify the ultimate purchaser of the written 

disclosure provided by the OEM prior to sale, and must pass the OEM's written 

disclosure to the ultimate purchaser at point of sale. 

M. Clarify Registration Requirements, Consistent with Current ARBER 

Screens36 

In the course of implementing the TRU ATCM, GARB staff learned that additional 

information was needed from owners and operators to validate the registration 

information required by the TRU ATCM. The amendments therefore expressly 

require owners or operators of California-based TRUs to provide the following 

information in their applications for an GARB ION: company/business name, 

address, contact information, tax identification or federal employer identification 

number or equivalent; rental or lease status; applicant information; TRU unit 

Information; TRU engine information; compliance status with in-use performance 

standards; and location where the TRU is based. 

Ill. AUTHORIZATION CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS 

A. Criteria for Granting Authorizations Under CAA Section 209(e) 

Section 209(e)(2) of the CAA sets forth the protocol for the Administrator to grant 

California an authorization to adopt and enforce standards and other requirements 

relating to controlling emissions from new and in-use non road engines that are not 

conclusively preempted by section 209(e)(1)- new engines less than 175 hp used 

in farm and construction equipment and vehicles and new engines used in 

35 Sections 2477.14 and 2477.15. 

36 Section 2477.5(e). To the extent that the above information is used for emission inventory 

purposes, authorization is not required. 

16 
locomotives. Section 209(e)(2) directs the Administrator to grant California an 

authorization for standards and requirements for all other nonroad engines if 

California determines that the state's standards will be, in the aggregate, at least 

as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards, unless 

she finds that: (1) the protectiveness finding of the state is arbitrary and 

capricious; (2) California does not need separate state standards to meet 

compelling and extraordinary conditions; or (3) the state standards and 

accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with CAA section 209. 

"Not consistent with section 209" refers to being inconsistent with sections 209(a), 

209(b)(1)(C), and 209(e)(1). 37 · 

In considering whether to grant authorizations for accompanying enforcement 

procedures tied to standards for which an authorization has already been granted, 

Administrators have long followed principles in waiver decisions under CAA section 

209(b), holding that they will only address questions as to (1) whether the 

enforcement procedures are so lax that they threaten the validity of California's 

determination that its standards are as protective of public health and welfare as 

applicable federal standards and, (2) whether the enforcement procedures are 

consistent with section 202(a).38 The Administrator has applied a similar analysis 

in confirming that amendments to a GARB standard or regulation are within the 

scope of a previously granted authorization: 

EPA can make such a confirmation if certain conditions are present. 

Specifically, if California acts to amend a previously authorized standard or 

accompanying enforcement procedure, the amendments may be 

considered within the scope of a previously granted authorization provided 

that it does not undermine California's determination that its standards in the 

aggregate are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable 

Federal standards, does not affect the consistency with section 209 of the 

Act, and raises no new issues affecting EPA's previous authorization 

determination. [Citation omitted.]39 

It is also well established that EPA may only consider the aforementioned criteria 

set forth in section 209(e)(2), that EPA shall give substantial deference to 

California's policy judgments, and that the burden is on those who oppose the 

granting of the authorization to show why it should not be granted.40 

B. The Amendments Providing Compliance Date Extensions and 

Additional Exemptions Fall Within the Scope of the Existing TRU 

ATCM Authorization 

37 59 Fed. Reg. 36969, 36982-83 (July 20, 1994}. 

38 Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association v. EPA (MEMA /), (D.C. Cir. 1979} 627 F.2d. 

1095,1111,1113. 

39 65 Fed.Reg. 69767, 69768 (November 20, 2000}. 

40 MEMA I, supra 627 F.2d <;~t 1121; 40 Fed.Reg. 23102,23103-23104 (January 7, 1993}. 

17 
CARB requests that the Administrator confirm that the following amendments fall 

within the scope of the existing authorization for the TRU ATCM: 41 

• Extending the ULETRU compliance date for MY 2003 and older 

TRUs that complied with the LETRU standard by specified dates 

(Section II.A above), 

• Extending compliance dates when compliant technology is 

unavailable or is delayed due to financing, delivery, or installation 

(Section II.F above), 

• Establishing new exemptions (Section II.G above), and 

• Allowing in-use performance standards and associated compliance 

deadlines to be based on the year the TRU was manufactured, 

instead of the TRU engine model year (Section II. I above). 42 

1. Protectiveness 

As stated above, EPA will confirm that amendments are within the scope of a 

previously granted authorization provided the amendments do not undermine 

California's prior determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as 

protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards and are 

consistent with CAA section 209. 

In approving the amendments to the TRU ATCM, the Board approved Resolution 

11-35 (Enclosure 6), in which it expressly declared: 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby determines that 

pursuant to Title II, section 209(e)(2) of the federal Clean Air Act, as 

amended in 1990, that the emission standards and other requirements 

related to the control of emissions adopted as part of the amendments to 

the TRU ATCM are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health 

and welfare as applicable federal standards, that California needs the 

adopted standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and 

that the adopted standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are 

consistent with the provisions of section 209. 

The Administrator cannot find that CARS's protectiveness determination is 

arbitrary and capricious. Although each of the above mentioned amendments 

provide TRU owners additional exemptions and compliance extensions beyond 

those established in the initially adopted TRU ATCM, the amendments are 

nevertheless more stringent than federal standards because EPA continues to be 

41 As previously stated, EPA recently determined that GARB's 2010 Amendments to the TRU 

ATCM are within the scope of the initial TRU authorization. 78 Fed.Reg. 38970 (June 28, 2013). 42 Provided that the difference between the unit manufacture year and the engine model year does 

not exceed one year. 

18 
without authority to regulate in-use TRUs or TRU engines and has not promulgated 

any federal standards applicable to the in-use performance of TRUs.43 

2. Consistency with CAA Section 209 

a. Consistent with CAA sections 209(a), and 209(e)(1) 

In granting California an authorization for the initial TRU ATCM rulemaking action, 

EPA found that the TRU ATCM was consistent with CAA sections 209(a) and 

209(e)(1) because the ATCM did not apply to new motor vehicles and engines or 

to new engines under 175 hp used in farm and construction vehicles and 

equipment or to new locomotives or locomotive engines.44 The amendments 

likewise do not apply to the above categories of preempted mobile sources and 

EPA must accordingly find that the amended ATCM is not inconsistent with either 

CAA sections 209(a) or 209(e)(1). 

b. Consistent with CAA section 209(b)(1)(C) 

CAA section 209(b)(1)(C) provides that no waiver (authorization) shall be granted if 

the Administrator finds that California's standards and accompanying enforcement 

procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the CAA. EPA has historically 

interpreted consistency with section 202(a) using a two-pronged test: (1) that there 

is sufficient lead time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet 

the standards and other requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost 

of compliance in the time frame provided, and (2) that the California and federal 

test procedures are sufficiently compatible to permit manufacturers to meet both 

the state and federal test requirements with one test vehicle or engine.45 The 

reference to "cost of compliance" in CAA section 202(a) refers to the economic 

costs of emission standards and accompanying enforcement procedures and the 

timing of a particular emission control regulation rather than to its social 

implications.46 

The amendments do not raise any issue that disturbs EPA's prior findings that the 

TRU ATCM's in-use performance requirements are technologically feasible within 

43 CAA section 213; EMA v. EPA, (D.C. Cir. 1996) 88 F.3d 1075; Authorization of ln~Use Emission 

Standards for Transport Refrigeration Unit Engines, Decision Document (Decision Document), at 

pp. 13-14 and 18. The Board made its protectiveness determination fully aware that the 

amendments were supplementing the 2010 amendments to the TRU ATCM (See ISOR, p. ES-6, 

Resolution11-35), and consequently its protectiveness determination encompasses not only the 

subject rulemaking, but its previous protectiveness determinations for the original TRU ATCM 

rulemaking and the 2010 Amendments. 

44 Decision Document at pp. 24 and 26. 

45 See 61 Fed. Reg. 53371, 53372 (October 11, 1996); Decision Document at p.2 (OBD II Waiver 

Decision). 

46 /d., referencing SeeS. Rep. No. 192, 89th Gong., 1st Sess. 5-8 (1965); H.R. Rep. No. 728, 90th 

Gong., 1st Sess. 23 (1967), U.S. Code Gong. & Admin.News 1967, p. 1938; see also 74 Fed. Reg. 

3030 (January 16, 2009), Decision Document at p. 49. 

19 
the lead time provided for compliance or that California's adopted test procedures 

are consistent with federal procedures.47 Each of the subject amendments provide 

owners with greater flexibility to comply with the existing TRU ATCM's in-use 

requirements. These amendments were not enacted because the technologies 

required to comply with the in-use requirements do not exist, but rather because 

the Board determined that such amendments. were needed to accommodate 

special considerations of TRU owners and to address issues that have arisen 

during the implementation of the TRU ATCM. Specifically, TRU owners and their 

trade associations expressed concerns that Level 3 VDECS would not be available 

in time to enable 2004 MY engines equal to or greater than 25 hp to meet the 

December 31, 2011 ULETRU compliance deadline.48 However, CARB staff 

determined that sufficient Level 3 VDECS would be commercially available to allow 

these TRU engines to meet the December 31, 2011 ULETRU compliance 

deadline.49 Furthermore, once the final Tier 4 standards for off-road Cl engines 

rated at or above 25 hp become effective for 2013 and later MY engines, owners 

may also elect to comply with the ULETRU standards by repowering TRUs with 

new replacement engines certified to the Tier 4 final standards or by replacing an 

existing TRU with a new TRU powered by an engine certified to the final Tier 4 

standards. 

Although CARB staff reaffirmed the technical feasibility of the TRU ATCM's in-use 

performance standards, the Board approved amendments that provide GARB's 

Executive Order the authority to grant limited compliance extensions should an 

owner adequately demonstrate that compliance technology is not available for a 

specific TRU model, or if an owner experiences delays due to financing, 

manufacturer delivery or installation. Owners will generally not be able to 

demonstrate the absence of compliance technology for specific TRUs because, as 

explained above, several ULETRU compliance options currently exist. 50 However, 

this provision provides CARB limited flexibility to address unforeseen 

circumstances beyond an owner's control that could affect the availability of a 

specific TRU model. 

The amendments do not present any issue of incompatibility between California 

and federal test procedures because EPA continues not to have any comparable 

in-use standards and test procedures, and lacks the authority to adopt such 

requirements. 51 

47 Decision Document, supra at p. 65. 

48 The owners of 2004 MY engines rated at or above 25 hp could not comply with the ULETRU 

standard by repowering TRUs with new replacement engines because the Tier 4 final standards for 

those engines first became effective for 2013 MY engines. 49 Two Level 3 VDECS were verified by CARB for use in all TRU models in August 2011 (FSOR, p. 

19), and as of April24, 2014 three Level3 VDECS are verified by CARB and are commercially 

available. 

50 The final ULETRU compliance date was December 31, 2011, so TRU owners can no longer 

repower TRUs with engines that do not meet LETRU standards. 

51 CAA section 213; EMA v. EPA, 88 F. 3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 1996) 

20 
c. No New Issues 

Finally, the amendments raise no new issues affecting EPA's prior authorization 

decision. Consequently, there should be no dispute that the Administrator should 

confirm that these amendments are within the scope of the existing authorization 

for the TRU ATCM. 

C. The Amendments that Specify the Requirements for Repowering TRUs 

with New Replacement Engines and that Allow Owners to Repower 

TRUs With Rebuilt Engines Meet the Criteria for a New Authorization 

The amendments (discussed in Section II.D.2.b.i) above) that require new 

replacement engines to meet more stringent requirements than the original TRU 

engine arguably impose more stringent requirements than the replacement engine 

provisions of the authorized TRU ATCM, which allowed owners ofTRUs that had 

not yet demonstrated compliance with LETRU or ULETRU compliance dates to 

repower TRUs with replacement engines that were certified to the same emissions 

standards as the original engines. · 

The TRU ATCM previously did not allow TRU owners to meet the LETRU or 

ULETRU in-use standards by repowering TRUs with rebuilt replacement engines 

(Section II.D.2.b.ii) above). The amendments now provide TRU owners the option 

to do so, provided the rebuilt engines meet more stringent emission standards than 

the standards of the original engines, and provided the engines are rebuilt by 

engine rebuilders in compliance with federal and state engine rebuilding 

requirements for off-road compression ignition engines. 5

2 

As discussed below, these amendments meet the criteria for a new authorization. 

1. Protectiveness 

These amendments do not undermine the Board's prior protectiveness finding for 

the reasons set forth in Section 111.8.1, and because the amendments now require 

that both new replacement engines and rebuilt replacement engines meet more 

stringent emission standards than the standards of the original engines. 

2. Consistent with CAA Section 209 

a. Consistency with CAA sections 209(a) and 209(e)(1) 

The amendments are not inconsistent with CAA sections 209(a) or 209(e)(1) for 

the reasons set forth in Section III.B.2.a. 

52 40 CFR sections 89.130 and 1068.120 and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13., § 2423(1), respectively. 

21 
b. Consistency with CAA section 209(b)(1)(C) 

No issues regarding technological feasibility under the test established under CAA 

section 209(b)(1)(C) exist. The amendment that specifies the requirements for 

repowering a TRU with a new replacement engine does not modify the previously 

authorized compliance dates of the TRU ATCM's LETRU and ULETRU in-use 

compliance standards 5

3 or the compliance dates of California's authorized off-road 

Cl engine emission standards, which the Administrator has previously determined 

constitute a technically feasible means of complying with the LETRU and ULETRU 

in-use compliance standards. 5

4 

The amendment allowing owners to repower TRUs with rebuilt replacement 

engines similarly raises no issues regarding technological feasibility as the 

Administrator has previously authorized California's regulation establishing 

emission standards for new off-road Cl engines, which encompasses engine 

rebuilding requirements that allow engine manufacturers to rebuild engines to more 

stringent emissions configurations than the emission configurations of the original 

engine. 5

5 In the present rulemaking adopting the 2011 Amendments, no 

manufacturer stated that the requirement to repower TRUs with new replacement 

engines certified to more stringent emission standards than the original engines 

were technically infeasible and could not be used for compliance. Similarly, no 

manufacturer commented that the requirement to repower TRUs with rebuilt 

replacement engines that meet more stringent emission standards than the 

standards of the original engines, and that are rebuilt by engine rebuilders in 

compliance with federal and state engine rebuilding requirements for off-road 

compression ignition engines were technically infeasible and could not be used for 

compliance. 56 

The amendments present no issue of incompatibility between California and 

federal test procedures as they do not alter the test procedures specified for 

certifying federal or California off-road Cl engines. 5

7 To the extent that the 

amendments apply to in-use modifications of existing engines, they are not 

inconsistent with federal test procedures because, as stated, EPA lacks the 

53 74 Fed.Reg. 3030 (January 16, 2009) and 78 Fed. Reg. 38970 (June 28, 2013). As previously 

noted, new replacement engines below 25 hp are not a compliance option for the more stringent 

ULETRU standard because the final Tier 4 standards for such engines do not sufficiently control 

PM emissions. See fn 12 supra. 54 EPA has already determined that the Tier 4 off-road Cl engine emission standards for new 

replacement engines used to repower TRUs are technically feasible within the lead time provided 

for compliance. See pp. 60-62, and 65, Decision Document accompanying authorization granted 

for intial TRU ATCM 74 Fed.Reg. 3030 (Jan. 16, 2009). 55 See fn. 9, supra. 56 Moreover, to the extent that these amendments do not establish mandatory compliance 

requirements, but instead establish a new compliance alternative, the amendments do not require 

authorization. Motor and Equipment Mfrs. Association, Inc. v. EPA (MEMA II), (D.C. Cir. 1979) 627 

F.2d 1128, 1132 (a regulatory compliance option is only a mandate that can result in a denial of a 

waiver if the regulation does not specify another technically feasible compliance option.) 57 75 Fed. Reg. 8056, 8060 (Feb. 23, 2010). 

22 
authority to adopt such requirements and does not have any comparable in-use 

standards and test procedures. 5

8 

3. Compelling and Extraordinary Circumstances 

In adopting Resolution 11-35, the Board confirmed CARS's longstanding position 

that California continues to need its own non road engine program to meet serious 

air pollution problems. The relevant inquiry under section 209(e)(2)(A)(ii) is 

whether California needs its own emission control program to meet compelling and 

extraordinary conditions, not whether any given standard is necessary to meet 

such conditions. 59 

"[C]ompelling and extraordinary conditions" [do] not refer to levels of 

pollution directly, but primarily to the factors that tend to produce 

them: geographical and climatic conditions that, when combined with 

large numbers and high concentrations of automobiles, create 

serious air pollution problems. 5° 

California, and particularly the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, 

continue to experience some of the worst air quality in the nation and continue to 

be in non-attainment with national ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 and 

ozone.61 The unique geographical and climatic conditions, and the tremendous 

growth in on-road motor vehicle and off-road vehicle and equipment populations 

that moved Congress to authorize California to establish separate on-road motor 

vehicle standards in 1967 and off-road engine standards in 1990, still exist today. 62 

The Administrator has repeatedly agreed with CARB that California's continuin~ 

extraordinary conditions justify California's mobile source emission programs.6 

Nothing in these conditions has changed to warrant a change in this determination. 

Accordingly, for all the aforementioned reasons, there can be no doubt of the 

continuing existence of compelling and extraordinary conditions justifying 

California's need for its own mobile source emissions program.6 

58 CAA section 213; EMA v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 

59 Fina/209(e) Rule, 59 Fed.Reg. at 36982. The Administrator has recognized that even if such a 

standard by standard test were applied to California, it "would not be applicable to its fullest 

stringency due to the degree of discretion given to California in dealing with its mobile source 

pollution problems." (41 Fed.Reg. 44209, 44213, (October 7, 1976); 49 Fed. Reg. 18887, 18892 

~May 3, 1984).) 0 49 Fed.Reg. 18887, 18892 (May 3, 1984). . 61 78 Fed.Reg. 2112,2130 (Jan. 9, 2013); 76 Fed.Reg. 40652,40654 (July 11, 2011). 

62 See 74 Fed. Reg. 32744,32762-32763 (July 8, 2009); 79 Fed.Reg. 6584, 6588-590 (Feb. 4, 

2014). 

63 60 Fed. Reg 37440 (July 2, 1995) utility engine authorization Decision Document, at p. 33; 76 

Fed.Reg. 77515, 77518 (December 13, 2011); 79 Fed.Reg. 6584,6588-590 (Feb. 4, 2014). 64 76 Fed. Reg. 77515, 77518 (December 13, 2011); 76 Fed.Reg. 77521, 77525 (December 13, 

2011 ). 

23 
D. Amendments to the Accompanying Enforcement Provisions of the 

TRU ATCM Fall Within the Scope of the Existing TRU ATCM 

Authorization or Meet the Criteria for a New Authorization 

1. The Amendments that Clarify the Compliance Responsibilities of Lessors 

and Lessees, and the Manual Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Alternative Technology Equipped TRUs Fall Within the Scope of the 

Existing TRU Authorization 

The following provisions of the amendments clarify preexisting associated 

enforcement requirements of the TRU ATCM and fall within the scope of the 

existing authorization: 

• Amendments clarifying compliance responsibilities between lessors 

and lessees of TRU-equipped trucks and trailers, including issues 

related to ARBER registration, filing Operator Reports, and 

compliance with the TRU ATCM's in-use standards. (Section II.H.2 

above) 

• Amendments that require TRU owners to prepare manual records 

beginning November 14, 2012 for hybrid electric or E/S equipped 

TRUs that provide specified information, including TRU diesel engine 

run time and shore-powered electric motor run time for each 

stationa~ location at which such TRUs are located for more than five 

minutes. 5 (Section II.B above). 

The original TRU ATCM allowed alternative technology equipped TRUs to comply 

with the ULETRU in-use performance standards only if such TRUs were operated 

in compliance with specified conditions. For instance, E/S equipped TRUs could 

not be powered by diesel engines when located at a facility, except during an 

emergency, and a fleet owner could only obtain GARB's approval that a TRU 

qualified for the Alternative Technology compliance option by documenting through 

recordkeeping reports that TRU diesel engine operations at facilities were in.fact 

eliminated. The amendments to section 2477.5(d)(3) now specify the specific 

information that owners must submit to demonstrate an E/S or hybrid electric 

equipped TRU qualifies for the Alternative Technology compliance option. As 

discussed below in Section 111.0.2, other amendments establish automated 

recordkeeping requirements for E/S, hybrid electric, and hybrid cryogenic equipped 

TRUs. 

The amendments described in Sections II.H.2 and in 11.8 do not undermine the 

Board's protectiveness finding for the reasons set forth above in Section III.B.1, 

and are not inconsistent with CAA sections 209(a), 209(e)(1) and 209(b)(1)(C). 66 

65 Section 2477.5(d)(3). 66 See discussion, supra at 111.8.2 regarding protectiveness and consistency with CM sections 

209(a}, (e)(1), and 202(b)(1)(C). 

24 
These amendments do not raise any issue of inconsistency with CAA section 

209(b)(1)(C) because they do not affect the technical feasibility of engine or 

equipment manufacturers complying with the TRU ATCM or of incompatibility 

between California and federal test procedures because EPA has no comparable 

requirements.67 Finally, these amendments raise no new issues affecting EPA's 

prior authorization decision, and EPA should therefore confirm that these 

amendments are within the scope of the existing authorization for the TRU ATCM. 

2. Other Amendments to the Accompanying Enforcement Provisions 

Meet the Criteria for a New Authorization 

The following amendments help ensure that the TRU ATCM is effectively 

implemented and enforced, and therefore constitute accompanying enforcement 

provisions. As demonstrated below, these amendments meet the criteria for a new 

authorization: 

• Amendments requiring E/S, hybrid-electric, and hybrid cryogenic 

TRUs to be equipped with non-resettable engine hour meters, and 

electric power use and cryogenic system usage hour meters, 

respectively, and further requiring E/S, hybrid-electric, and hybrid 

cryogenic TRUs to be equipped with electronic tracking systems 

beginning December 31, 2012 (Section 11.8 above) 

• Amendments extending the responsibility for ensuring the use of 

compliant TRUs to drivers, brokers, motor carriers, shippers, and 

receivers, and requiring businesses that arrange, hire, contract for, or 

dispatch goods in TRU-equipped trucks, trailers, shipping containers, 

or railcars to provide the driver with company contact information and 

a bill of lading that includes shipper, carrier, and receiver information. 

(Section II.C above) 

• Amendments extending the TRU ATCM's prohibition of selling noncompliant TRUs to any person, and prohibiting auctioneers and 

motor carriers from intentionally or negligently importing, delivering, 

purchasing, or otherwise acquiring non-compliant new or used TRUs 

(Section II.H.1 above)68 

67 CAA section 213; EMA v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 68 The Board also amended other sections that GARB does not believe are subject to authorization. 

Section 2477.18(b) requires sellers to disclose to purchasers that non-compliant TRUs are not 

compliant with the TRU ATCM, and requires owners of alternative technology equipped TRUs to 

disclose that such TRUs must be operated in accordance with operational conditions that qualify 

them as Alternative Technology TRUs (described above in Section (II.H.1 ). Sections 2477.14 and 

2477.15 now require dealers and repair shops to pass the ARBER registration information 

documents supplied with new units, new replacement engines, and rebuilt engines to end-users, 

and to transfer the written disclosures supplied by TRU manufacturers that equip TRUs with 

flexibility engines or that supply prior-tier engines to ultimate purchasers for repowering existing 

TRUs (described above in Section II.L). Section 2477.5(e) now requires owners or operators of 

25 
• Amendments requiring TRU manufacturers that equip TRUs with 

flexibility engines to notify GARB at least 12 months before installing 

the first production flexibility engine; provide supplemental engine 

emissions labels containing all engine information needed to register 

the TRUs in ARBER (if the engine manufacturer's label does not 

already provide this information); provide written disclosures to 

ultimate purchasers of the effective model years of the engines, the 

ULETRU compliance deadlines, and the effective model years that 

must be entered when the units are registered in ARBER. (Section 

II.K above) 

• Amendments requiring TRU manufacturers that supply new or rebuilt 

replacement engines to provide supplemental engine emissions 

labels containing all engine information needed to register the 

equipment in ARBER (if the engine manufacturer's emissions control 

label does not provide this information); to provide written disclosures 

to interested purchasers of prior-tier replacement engines that the 

engines were manufactured to meet less stringent emissions 

standards than otherwise required for new engines, and the effective 

model years and ULETRU compliance deadlines. (Section II.K 

above).69 

• Amendments requiring owners or operators of California-based 

TRUs to provide specific following information in their applications for 

an GARB IDN (II.M) 

a. Protectiveness 

These amendments described in Sections II.B, C, H.1, K, and M do not undermine 

the Board's protectiveness finding for the reasons set forth above in Section III.B.1, 

but rather further ensure that the TRU ATCM is effectively implemented and 

enforced, and will allow GARB to further validate that diesel engines on hybrid 

electric, hybrid cryogenic, and E/S TRUs are actually eliminated atfacilities. 

b. Consistency with CAA section 209 

i) Consistency with CAA sections 209(a) and 209(e) 

California-based TRUs to provide specific information in their applications for an GARB I DN 

(described above in Section II.M). GARB believes that the above disclosure requirements that 

apply to sellers, not manufacturers are more attuned to in-use operational requirements than 

emission standards or other requirements related to the control of emissions and should not be 

subject to authorization under CAA section 209(e)(2)(A). GARB respectively requests that EPA 

confirm GARB's opinion that these amendments are not subject to authorization. 

69 To the extent that the above information is used for emission inventory purposes, authorization is 

not required. 

26 
The amendments are not inconsistent with CAA sections 209(a) or 209(e)(1) for 

the reasons set forth in Section III.B.2.a. 

ii) Consistency with CAA sections 209(b)(1)(C) 

The amendments described above in Section II.C, H.1, K and M present no issues 

of inconsistency with CAA section 209(b)(1 )(C), because they do not affect the 

technical feasibility of engine or equipment manufacturers complying with the TRU 

ATCM. 

The amendments described above in Section II.B that pertain to the new 

automated monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements for E/S, hybridelectric, and hybrid cryogenic TRUs likewise present no issues regarding the 

technical feasibility. As explained in the ISOR, the technology needed to comply 

with such reporting requirements presently exists. GPS tracking systems are 

currently being used with TRUs on refrigerated trucks, trailers, shipping containers, 

and railcars that are capable of wirelessly transmitting reports and data to a 

computer server through a wireless cell phone network or via satellite.70 GARB 

also appropriately considered the cost of compliance of the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements within the lead time provided. The capital costs for GPS 

tracking systems range from $250 to $300 per unit (installed), 71 with cellular 

connection and server service costs ranging from $26 to $30 per month. GARB 

staff determined that' these additional costs would ultimately significantly offset the 

costs associated with manual record keeping. 

The amendments present no issue of incompatibility between California and 

federal test procedures because EPA lacks the authority to adopt such 

requirements and has no comparable requirements applicable to in-use hybrid 

electric, electric standby, or hybrid cryogenic TRUsn . 

E. Alternatively, the Administrator Must Grant a New Waiver for those 

2011 Amendments to the TRU ATCM that CARB Has Asserted Relax 

and Clarify Previously Waived Requirements and for those 

Amendments to Accompanying Enforcement Provisions That Do Not 

Fall Within the Scope of Previously Granted Waivers 

Should the Administrator determine that any of the 2011 Amendments to the TRU 

ATCM or to the accompanying enforcement provisions to the TRU ATCM do not 

fall within the scope of the existing TRU authorization, GARB requests that a new 

authorization be granted for such amendments. No basis exists to deny this 

. request. As discussed above, no issue regarding protectiveness or consistency 

70 ISOR, p. 11-10. 

71 The costs for GPS tracking systems having capabilities that exceed the basic requirements can 

be as high as $1300. 

72 CAA section 213; EMA v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 

27 
with CAA sections 209(a), 209(e)(1),) or 209(b)(1)(C) exists, and as demonstrated 

in section III.C.3, California satisfies the compelling and extraordinary criterion. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, GARB respectfully requests that the Administrator grant 

California's request for the authorization action as described in this document 

pursuant to CAA section 209(e). To assist you in reviewing the requests, GARB is 

enclosing two CO-ROMs, each containing the following referenced documents to 

be included in the record of this proceeding. 

Reference Materials from the 2011 Amendments to the TRU ATCM 

1. Public Hearing Notice, dated August 31, 2011. 

2. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking 

3. Copy of Slides for Staff Presentation. 

4. Notice of Availability of Modified Text, with Attachment 1, issued 

February 28, 2012. 

5. Notice of Availability of Modified Text, with Attachment 1, issued 

June 15, 2012. 

6. Resolution 11-35, dated October 21, 2011, with Attachment B. 

7. Executive Order R-12-007, dated August 31,2012 

8. Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including Summary of 

Comments and Agency Response. 

9. Addendum to Final Statement of Reasons 

10. Transcript of October 21, 2011 Public Hearing to Consider Proposed 

Amendments to the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel 

Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and 

Facilities Where TRUs Operate. 

11. Request for Early Effective Date, dated August 21, 2012. 

12. Fully endorsed STD 400 face sheet and Final Regulation Order as approved 

by OAL and filed with the Secretary of State January 18, 2007, for 

amendment of title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 2477, and 

adoption of title 13, California Code of Regulations, sections 24 77.1 through 

2477.20. 

28 
13. Office of Administrative Law Approval Notice, dated October 15, 2012. 

CARB Contacts 

Technical questions or requests for additional technical information on this item 

should be directed to Mr. Richard Boyd, Manager, Process Evaluation Section, 

Emissions Assessment Branch, Transportation and Toxics Division, at (916) 322-

8285 or rboyd@arb.ca.gov. Legal questions should be directed to Mr. Alex Wang, 

Senior Staff Counsel, at (916) 323-9610 or awanq@arb.ca.gov. 

29