BEFORE THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

In the Matter ofCalifornia's Requestfor ) Authorization Action Pursuantto Clean Air ) Act Section 209(e) forthe 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 BYTHE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

March 2, 2015



### I. INTRODUCTION
The California Air Resources Board (GARB or Board) requests thatthe Administrator ofthe United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take authorization action pursuantto section 209(e)(2) ofthe federal Clean AirAct (CAA) with respectto California's 2011 amendments to its "Airborne Toxic Control Measurefor In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets (collectively referred to asTRUs) and Facilities Where TRUs Operate" (TRU ATCM orATCM; the amendments are hereinafter referred to asthe 2011 Amendments oramendments). 1

. The 2011 Amendments primarily provide owners of2001 through 2003 model year (MY) TRU engines that complied with applicable Low-Emission TRU (LETRU) inuse performance standards by specified compliance deadlines a one- ortwo-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

1The amended regulation is codified at California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs.), tit. 13, § 2477. TheAdministrator granted California an authorization forthe 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 (2010 Amendments) and submitted a request on May 13, 2011 thatthe Administrator confirm thatthe 2010 Amendments eitherfall within the scope ofthe initial TRU authorization orare not subjectto preemption. On June 19, 2013, the Administrator confirmed thatthe 2010 Amendmentswere within the scope ofthe initial authorization. 78 Fed.Reg. 38970 (June 28, 2013).businesses that arrange, hire, contract, or dispatch the transport ofgoods in TRUequipped trucks, trailers or containers; and clarify issues that arose during the initial implementation ofthe regulation. A more detailed description ofthe amendments is presented below

.

. At its October21, 2011 meeting, the Board adopted Resolution 11-35 (Enclosure

6) approving for adoption the 2011 Amendments. Atthe direction ofthe Board, after making modifications to the regulation available for supplemental public comment, GARB's Executive Officerformally adopted the amendments in Executive Order R-12-007 on August 31, 2012 (Enclosure 7). The 2011 Amendments were approved by the Office ofAdministrative Law (OAL) and became operative under state law on October 15, 2012.
Section II ofthis document provides a briefsummary ofthe 2011 Amendments. Section Ill describesthe criteria for granting authorizations and demonstratesthat the 2011 Amendments satisfythe criteria for the requested authorization actions.


### II. SUMMARY OF THE 2011 AMENDMENTS TO THE TRU ATCM

A summary ofthe emissions-related and accompanying enforcement provisions of the 2011 Amendments that require authorization actions follows. A more detailed description ofthese provisions is provided in the Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (Staff Report, Enclosure 2), Notices ofAvailability 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 

### bySpecified Dates2

The amendments provide owners of2003 and older MY TRUs that complied with the Low-Emission TRU (LETRU) in-use performance standard by specified dates an extension forsecond-stage compliance to the Ultra-Low Emission TRU (ULETRU) standard. 3

Table 1shows 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 ofparticulate matter (PM) emissions; the ULETRU standard requires an 85 percent reduction of PM emissions. 

### 2

### Table 1: ULETRU Extensionfor MY 2003 and OlderTRU 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 ofthe 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 Recordkeeping 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 mannerthat eliminates diesel engine operations atthefacilities where the TRUs operate. The Board's intent in establishing the Alternative Technology compliance provision was to require owners to documentvia recordkeeping that TRU diesel engine operations atfacilities were in fact eliminated. However, manual records submitted by owners during the initial years of implementation ofthe regulation were incomplete and inconsistent.
To address this problem, the 2011 Amendments establish the following recordkeeping requirements forTRU 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 mayqualifyfor a total extension oftwo years ifthey met LETRU by the original December31, 2008, deadline. In this case, the new ULETRU deadline for such engineswould be December 31, 2017. 5 Sections 2477.5(a)(3), 2477.5(d)(3), and 2477.5(d)(4). 

### 3be phased-in for hybrid electric, hybrid cryogenic, and E/S TRUs. At least 50 percent ofan 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 electronictracking systems by December31, 2012, and all remaining units by December 31, 2013. The electronic tracking systems must be capable ofproviding 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 recordkeeping 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 electto use the Alternative Technology compliance option must register such TRUs in GARB's Equipment Registration (ARBER) system (in-state owners are already required to registertheir units in ARBER).

The amendments further clarifythatAlternate 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 perdelivery/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 Ensurethe Use ofCompliant TRUs

To ensure greater compliance, the Board amended the TRU ATCM to cover business entities that arrange, hire, contractfor, or dispatch the transport of perishable goods in TRU-equipped trucks, trailers, shipping containers, or railcars. Coverage ofsuch businesses help ensure that the motor carriers they hire or contract with only dispatch equipmentthat complies with the TRU ATCM while traveling on California highways or railways. Such businesses must provide the driverwith 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 electronictracking systems are anticipated, over time, to be lowerthan 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 ora 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 ofstringency (LETRU and ULETRU) that are phased in overtime. ForTRU engines rated between 25 and 50 hp, the LETRU standard corresponds to the "interim" Tier4 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" Tier4 off-road engine standards that specify a PM emissions standard of0.22 g/bhp-hr.

ForTRU engines rated below 25 hp, the LETRU standard corresponds to the Tier 4 off-road diesel engine standard that specifies a PM emissions standard of0.30 g/bhp-hr. In contrastto the Tier4 standard for off-road diesel engines rated between 25 and 50 hp, the Tier4 standard foroff-road diesel engines rated below 25 hp consists solely ofa single Tier4 standard, with no "interim" or "final" designation.9 The Tier4 standard forthese smaller engines constitutes a compliance option forthe LETRU standard, but does not sufficiently control PM emissions to serve as a compliance option forthe ULETRU standard, which specifies a PM emission standard of0.09 g/bhp-hr. Consequently, owners of these engines will need to use other compliance options, such as retrofitting engines with level 3verified diesel emission control strategies (VDECS), or using Alternate TechnologyTRUs to meetthe ULETRU standard. A Level 3 VDECS is a verified retrofit system thatwill achieve PM emission reductions greaterthan or equal to 85 percent of baseline emissions ofa tested representative engine. 10

As initially adopted, the TRU ATCM required 2002 and older model yearTRUs to meetthe LETRU standard by the end ofthe seventh yearfollowing the model year ofthe TRU (e.g., a 2002 MY TRU was required to meetthe LETRU standard by December 31, 2009), and the more stringent ULETRU standard seven years after the LETRU compliance date, (e.g., a 2002 MYTRU needed to comply with the ULETRU standard by December 31, 2016). The initial ATCM exempted 2003 and newer model yearTRUs from the LETRU requirements and instead required them to complywith the ULETRU standards by the end ofthe seventh yearfollowing the engine model year.

8 Sections 2477.5(i) and 2477.16. 9 California's Tier4 off-road engine standards are aligned with EPA's lier4 nonroad engine standards, and EPA granted California an authorization forthese 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 ofavehicle or engine withoutthe diesel control strategy implemented." Emission levels ofVDECS are setforth atsection 2702(f). 

### 5The TRU ATCM was amended in 2010 to require 2003 MY TRUs to meetthe LETRU standard by December 31, 2010 and the ULETRU standardby December 31, 2017. The 2010 Amendments further revised the standards for 2004 MYTRUs rated below25 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 CurrentTRU 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

. 2010) December 31, 2018 (if met LETRU in 2011) December 31 , 2011 Must Meet ULETRU December 31st ofMY 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 Tier4 interim and final standards for new off-road compression ignition (CI) engines. New replacement engines below25 hp that are certified to the Tier4 standards are a LETRU compliance option, but are not a compliance option forthe 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 arosefrom the widespread usage offlexibility and prior-tier replacement engines in TRUs. Both California and EPA's Tier4 off-road

11 Enforcementdelayed until January2010. 12 As explained above in Section 11.0.1, replacement engines rated between 25 and 50 hp that are certified to the interim Tier4 standards meetthe LETRU standard and replacement engines rated between 25 and 50 hp that are certified to the final Tier4 standards meetthe ULETRU standard. However, new replacement engines rated below 25 hp that are certified to the Tier4 standard do not sufficiently control PM emissions to constitute a compliance option forthe ULETRU standard applicable to such engines. 

### 6engine regulations include "flexibility" provisions13 that allow equipment manufacturersto produce limited numbers ofequipmentwith new off-road engines that meet less stringent emission standards than otherwise required for new engines for up to seven years aftera newtier ofemissions standards has gone into effect. These provisions were established to provide equipment manufacturers with more time so thatthey could modify equipment designs to be compatible with new engines.
California and EPA's Tier4 off-road engine regulations also contain a provision that allows an engine manufacturerto continue to produce new replacement engines that do not meetthe most current emissions standards (prior-tier replacement engines) provided it determinesthat no engine produced by either itselfor bythe manufacturer ofthe engine being replaced, ifdifferent, has the appropriate physical and performance characteristics to repowerthe equipment. 14

CARB staffwas initially concerned thatwidespread usage offlexibility and priortier 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 thatTRU engines manufactured in a specificyearwould meetthe currently applicable emission standards. CARB staff subsequently became aware thatTRU 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 staffwas also concerned that engine manufacturerswere inconsistent in howthey identified the model year offlexibility engines. Some manufacturers identified a flexibility engine's model year as the lastyearthat the flexibility engine'stierwas in effect, while other manufacturers identified aflexibility engine's model year asthe year corresponding to the engine's manufacture date. The inconsistent model year designations adversely affected owners that purchased TRUs powered by flexibility engines or priortier replacement engines to meetthe LETRU standard because theywere left unaware that such engines have a reduced operational life compared toTRUs powered byenginesthat meetthe most currentemissions standards- meaning theywould not havethe 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 offlexibility 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 mustcomply with the requirements ofTitle 40, Code of Federal Regulations sections 89.1003 and 1068.240 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13, § 2423(j). EPA granted California authorization ofthe California emission standards and accompanying test procedures for newoff-road Cl engines that encompassed these replacement engine provisions. 75 Fed.Reg. 8056 (Feb. 23, 2010). 

### 7address issues that allow the use ofprior-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 offlexibility engines to underminethe emissions reductions from the initially adopted TRU ATCM, and to clarify inconsistencies in how engine manufacturers identified the model yearofflexibility engines. The 201 0 Amendments clarified that flexibility engines installed in TRUs afterthe effective date ofthe 2010 Amendments were required to use theflexibility engine's "effective model year" to determinefuture ULETRU compliance dates, and defined "effective model year" as the lastyear thatthe flexibility engine's tier standard was in effect for new engine compliance. Compliance with the ULETRU standards was then required by the end ofthe seventh year afterthe effective model year ofthe flexibility engine. 15

Table 3 shows the years that the off-road engine emissions standard tiers were in effect forthe horsepower categories ofengines used in TRUs and the effective modelyears 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~** 

### StandardTier

. EffectiiteYears

.. ...... . j:)rior7fier

..·· 

### ·.... '·. . 

## . '**Repl~ce'mentJSnQin~s** • Tier 1, >25to <50 hp (trailer) 1999-2003 2003 Tier 1, <25 hp (generallytruck) 2000-2004 2004 Tier2, >25 to <50 hp (trailer) 2004-2007 2007 Tier2, <25 hp (generallytruck) 2005-2007 2007 Tier4i, >25 to <50 hp (trailer) 2008-2012 2012

These amendments limitthe operational life of replacement engines because inuse compliance with the ULETRU standard is now based on the last yearthatthe flexibility engine's tier standard was in effect, ratherthan on the model yearthe flexibility engine was manufactured. For example, ifa TRU had a MY2003 original engine thatwas required to complywith the LETRU standard by December31, 2010, and the owner chose to repowerthe TRU in 2010 with a Tier 2 replacement engine having an effective model year of2007, compliance with

15As stated above, EPA previously confirmed thatthe 2010 Amendments are within the scope of the initial TRU authorization. 78 Fed.Reg. 38970 (June 28, 2013). 

### 8ULETRU standard would then be required by December 31, 2014, seven years afterthe effective model year date. 16 In this example, the operational life ofthe replacement engine would only be fouryears.
The 2010Amendments ensured thatowners purchasing TRUs powered by flexibility engines were sufficiently informed that such TRUs had reduced operational lives by requiring manufacturers ofTRUs powered byflexibility engines to disclose to the owners at point-of-sale thatsuch units were equipped with flexibility engines that have reduced operational lives underthe TRU ATCM. The amendmentsfurther require manufacturersto provide owners with the datesthat such flexibility engines must meetthe ULETRU in-use standards. 17

b. 2011 Amendments to the TRU ATCM Address IssuesArising from Use of PriorTier Engines Used to RepowerTRUs 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 ofnew prior-tier engines to repower TRUs. Specifically, the 2011 Amendments address issuesthat have arisen in implementing the "effective model year" concept as they apply to prior-tierengines used to repowerTRUs. 18 As previously discussed, such issues concern the potential forwidespread usage of prior-tier engines to underminethe emissions reductions from the initially adopted TRU ATCM and the potential that purchasers of prior-tierengines may be adversely affected because theywere not adequately informed thatsuch engines have reduced operational lives compared to TRUs powered by engines meeting the most currentstandards. 19

As described below, the 2011 Amendments specifythe criteria for new replacement engines used to repower a TRU, and additionally clarify that owners may now repowerTRUs with rebuilt replacement engines that meetspecified 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 enginethat is being replaced, and thatthe 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, ifa 2010 Tier4i engine had been used for compliance, the ownerwould have until 2017 to meetthe ULETRU standard. 17 EPAconfirmed thatthe 2010Amendments arewithin the scope ofthe initial TRU authorization. 78 Fed.Reg. 38970 (June 28, 2013). 18 The earlier references to prior-tier engineswere in the context offlexibility engines that allowed the use of prior-tierengines 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 below25 hp do not constitute a compliance option forthe ULETRU standard. 9effective model year. New current-tier replacement engines must use the engine modelyear as shown on the engine emissions label to determinethe applicable inuse standard and compliance deadline. New prior-tier replacement engines must use the engine's effective model yearto determinethe applicable in-use standard and compliance deadline. ii) Rebuilt Replacement Engine Requirements
The initially adopted TRU ATCM did notexpressly allowTRU 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 repowerTRUs 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 yearto determine incuse requirements andassociated 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 complywith 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 ofthe rebuilder, year ofthe rebuild, tier ofthe emissions standard, engine model, engine effective model year (if prior-tierstandard is met) or model year (ifcurrent tierstandard 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 requestfrom GARB, documentation and engineering arguments to demonstrate that they have complied with these engine rebuilding practices, and mustsupply a registration information documentwith each rebuilt engine that includes all information needed to registerthe TRU in ARBER and instructions to the dealeror repair shop to forward this documentto the end-user. The information on the registration information document must be consistentwith 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-compliantTRUs21

The TRU ATCM, as initially adopted, prohibits dealers from selling non-compliant equipmentto persons that could reasonably be expected to do business in California, and from purchasing, receiving, orotherwise acquiring non-compliant TRUs. California dealers subsequently informed GARB thatthey need to be able to acquire and move non-compliantTRUs in orderto accepttrade-ins when owners purchase new or newer compliantTRUs, and the 2011 Amendments therefore now.allow California dealers to purchase, receive, or acquire and possess non-compliantTRUs in California under limited circumstances (i.e., noncompliant TRUs can only be sold to persons thatwould not reasonably be expected to do business in California and cannot be operated on California highways oratthe dealer's place of business forthe purpose ofcontrolling the environment oftemperature sensitive goods.)


### F. Compliance Extensions When Technology is NotAvailable 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 ifthey demonstratethat no compliance technology is availablefor a specific TRU model within six months ofa compliance date. This extension is not available ifa fleet has other non-compliant equipmentforwhich technology is available; owners have the burden ofdemonstrating that all other units in theirfleet are complaintwith the TRU ATCM. Furthermore, the specific TRU forwhich an extension is sought must be registered in ARBER to enable GARB to verifythat the unit has become compliantwith the TRU ATCM bythe time the extension has expired. This provision providesflexibility in addressing issues related toVerified 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, notto exceed four months, ifthe owner can demonstrate that TRU noncompliance is the result ofdelays due to financing, delivery by the manufacturer, or installation.

21 Section 2477.14. These requirements are neither emission standards norother requirements related to the control ofemissions that are subjectto authorization under CAA section 209(e)(2)(A). 22 Section 2477.5(k). 23 As ofApril 24, 2014 three Level 3VDECS were verified by CARB and are commercially available. Othercompliance options, such as replacement engines or unit replacements, are also readily available. ARBER registration data indicates thatTRU owners predominately utilize engine replacement to comply with the TRU ATCM (engine replacement constitutes approximately 70 percent ofcompliance 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 exemptfrom 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 notdriven by an integral diesel internal combustion engines are also exemptfrom 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 forTRU-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 perTRU from applicable inuse performance standards that can be annually renewed upon proofof applicability by the owner. TRUs covered bythis exemption are still subjectto the TRU ATCM's registration requirements.


### 3. Non-Compliant, Non-Operational Refrigerated RailcarTRUs Passing Through California27

The amendments further exemptfrom compliance with the in-use performance standards non-compliant, non-operationalTRUson 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 orWashington. 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 carrierthat clearly identifiesthe monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting procedures thatthe railway carrierwill use to ensure that non-compliantTRUs on refrigerated railcars will not operate at any time while in California. The compliance plan must include, without limitation the following: the procedures fortracking and recording routes and dates oftravel within California ofeach non-compliantTRU, 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). 12TRU, a description ofthe automated monitoring and recordkeeping system for reporting TRU "engine on" and "engine off" status, and the procedure for expeditiously reporting violations observed or discovered bythe railway carrierto CARB.


### 4. Exempting Railway Carriers from the Owner/Operator Requirements forTRUs NotOwned bythe 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, monitorto assure properoperation, or keep in operation [a TRU]." The amendments redefine the term "operate" to clarifythat 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 thatfall within the definition of "operate," such as fueling, monitoring, or keeping in operation a TRU on a refrigerated railcar that is not owned bythe railway carrier (third-party TRU owner) in orderto ensure the safetransit of perishable goodstransported in the refrigerated railcar. For example, in the event ofa derailment orother delay in movement, a railway carrier may monitor aTRU's fuel levels and refuel it if necessary. But railway carriers do not load or unload perishable goods being transported and do not setthe equipmentoperating programs ofthese third-party TRUs. The amendments therefore exempt a railway carrierfrom the TRU ATCM's owner/operator requirementsfor refrigerated railcarTRUs owned bythird parties if the railway carrier is only moving a third-party owned refrigerated railcar, orthe railway carrier or its agent is fueling, monitoring to assure proper operation, keeping in operation, arranging repairs atthe request ofthe third-party TRU owner, or restarting the TRU engine after an unscheduled shut-down or repair, and is not performing any ofthe otheractivities listed underthe definition of"operate." This exemption does not apply ifa rail carrier is leasing the TRU.


### H. Clarify Seller, Lessor, and Lessee Requirements
1. Prohibition on Selling Non-CompliantTRUs29

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

TRUs to any person selling such non-compliant units30 and expressly prohibit auctioneers and motorcarriers 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, jointventure, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, orany other legal orcommercial entity. 13delivering, purchasing, or otherwise acquiring non-compliant new or used TRU engines.
The amendments require a seller ofa non-compliantTRU to disclose to a potential buyer located outside ofCalifornia thatthe unit is not compliantwith 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 thatTRU without disclosing in writing that the TRU must be used in awaythat qualifies it as an Alternative Technology in accordancewith the TRU ATCM.


### 2. Clarifyand Streamline Requirements for Lessors and Lessees31

The amendments clarify compliance responsibilities for lessors and lessees of TRU-equipped trucks and trailers, including issues related toARBER registration requirements, Operator Reports, and compliance with the TRU ATCM's in-use standards.


### I. Allow Use ofUnit ManufactureYear Instead ofEngine 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 ofthe TRU engine. TRU original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and owners subsequently notified CARB staff that because newTRUs produced in January, February, or March are typically equipped with engines from the prior model year (e.g., TRUs manufactured in January2008 are usually equipped with MY2007 engines), owners that purchase such TRUs can lose up to a yearofuseful life, and will therefore likelydelaytheir TRU purchases to obtain engines with a model year matching the unit manufacture year. This would result in disruption ofthe OEM's production cycle for several months and would negatively impactthe availability of newTRUs.
The amendments therefore allowthe in-use performance standards and the related compliance deadlinesto be based on the yearthe TRU (the unit itself) was manufactured, instead ofthe TRU engine model year, provided thatthe difference between the unit manufacture yearand the engine model year does not exceed one year. Ifthe difference between the unit manufactureyear and the engine modelyear is greaterthan 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 yearwhen registering the TRU in ARBER.

31 Section 2477.12. 32 Section 2477.5(b)(6). 

### 14

### J. Allow Use of Unique Identification Numbers Instead ofa GARB Identification Number(IDN)33

The TRU ATCM currently requires owners ofCalifornia-based TRUs to apply for GARB Identification Numbers (ION) and affix or paintthe IONs ontothe TRU or TRU generator set housing. GARB IONs are voluntary for out-of-state-based units. The amendments allowthe use of Bureau International des Containers (BIG) codes, or reporting marks in place ofGARB IONs, provided the owner applies for an GARB ION ifthe unit is California-based, the BIG Code or reporting mark is unique foreach piece ofequipment, 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 newflexibility engines generally do not contain sufficient information for owners ofTRUsto registertheir units in ARBER. The amendments accordingly require TRU OEMs that equip TRUswith flexibility engines to do the following: notify GARB at least 12 months in advance ofthe firstflexibility engine installation in production; provide a supplemental engine emissions label containing all engine information needed to registerthe TRUs in ARBER (ifthe engine manufacturer's label does not already provide this information); and provide a written disclosure with newTRUs that notifies ultimate purchasers ofTRU equipped with flexibility engines ofthe effective model years ofthe 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 lawto notify the ultimate purchaser ofthese disclosures prior to sale and to pass these written disclosures to the ultimate purchaser at point of sale.
TRUOEMs are also required to provide: supplemental engine emissions labelsfor each new or rebuilt replacement enginethey supply that list all engine information needed to registerthe equipment in ARBER (ifthe engine manufacturer's emissions control label does not provide this information); a written disclosurewith each prior-tier engine that must be supplied to interested buyers priorto sale that the engine was manufactured to meet less stringent emissions standards than otherwise required for' newengines and providing the effective model year ofthe prior-tier replacement engine and the ULETRU compliance deadline; and a ARBER registration information documentwith each newTRU 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 norother requirements related to the control ofemissions that are subjectto authorization under CMsection 209(e)(2)(A). 34 Section 2477.13. 

### 15document must include all the engine information needed to registerthe equipment in ARBER and must be consistentwith 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 Officerapproval, 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 orthe 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. Ifthe TRU is equipped with a flexibility engine, the dealer must notifythe ultimate purchaserofthe written disclosure provided bythe OEM priorto sale, and must pass the OEM's written disclosure to the ultimate purchaser at point ofsale.


### M. Clarify Registration Requirements, Consistentwith CurrentARBER 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 bythe TRU ATCM. The amendments therefore expressly require owners or operators ofCalifornia-based TRUs to provide thefollowing information in their applications foran GARB ION: company/business name, address, contact information, tax identification orfederal 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 UnderCAA Section 209(e)
Section 209(e)(2) ofthe CAA sets forth the protocol forthe Administratorto grant California an authorization to adopt and enforce standards and other requirements relating to controlling emissions from newand in-use nonroad engines that are not conclusively preempted bysection 209(e)(1)- newengines 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 extentthatthe above information is used for emission inventory purposes, authorization is not required.



### 16locomotives. Section 209(e)(2) directstheAdministratorto grant California an authorization for standards and requirements for all other nonroad engines if California determinesthatthe state's standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicablefederal standards, unless shefinds that: (1) the protectiveness finding ofthe 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 consistentwith CAAsection 209. "Not consistentwith section 209" refers to being inconsistentwith sections 209(a), 209(b)(1)(C), and 209(e)(1). 37
·
In considering whetherto grantauthorizations for accompanying enforcement procedures tied to standardsforwhich an authorization has already been granted, Administrators have long followed principles in waiver decisions under CAA section 209(b), holding thatthey will only address questions asto (1) whetherthe enforcement procedures are so laxthattheythreaten thevalidity of California's determination that its standards are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards and, (2) whetherthe enforcement procedures are consistentwith section 202(a).38 TheAdministrator has applied a similaranalysis in confirming that amendmentsto a GARBstandard or regulation are within the scope ofa previously granted authorization:

EPA can make such a confirmation ifcertain conditions are present. Specifically, ifCalifornia acts to amend a previously authorized standard or accompanying enforcement procedure, the amendments may be considered within the scope ofa previously granted authorization provided that it does not undermine California's determination that its standards in the aggregate are as protective ofpublic health and welfare as applicable Federal standards, does not affectthe consistencywith section 209 ofthe Act, and raises no new issues affecting EPA's previous authorization determination. [Citation omitted.]39

It is also well established that EPA mayonly considerthe aforementioned criteria setforth in section 209(e)(2), that EPAshall give substantial deference to California's policyjudgments, and thatthe burden is on those who opposethe granting ofthe authorization to showwhy it should not be granted.40



### B. The Amendments Providing Compliance Date Extensions and Additional Exemptions Fall Within the Scope ofthe Existing TRU ATCM Authorization

37 59 Fed.Reg. 36969, 36982-83 (July 20, 1994}. 38 MotorandEquipmentManufacturersAssociation 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}. 17CARB requests thatthe Administrator confirm thatthefollowing amendments fall within the scope ofthe existing authorization forthe TRU ATCM:41

• Extending the ULETRU compliance datefor MY2003 and older TRUsthat complied with the LETRU standard by specified dates (Section II.A above),
• Extending compliance dates when complianttechnology 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 deadlinesto be based on the yearthe TRU was manufactured, instead ofthe TRU engine model year (Section II.I above). 42



### 1. Protectiveness

As stated above, EPAwill confirm that amendments are within the scope ofa previously granted authorization provided the amendments do not undermine California's prior determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as protective ofpublic health and welfare as applicable federal standards and are consistentwith CAA section 209.
In approving the amendmentsto the TRU ATCM, the Board approved Resolution 11-35 (Enclosure 6), in which it expresslydeclared:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED thatthe Board hereby determinesthat pursuantto Title II, section 209(e)(2) ofthe federal Clean AirAct, as amended in 1990, thatthe emission standards and other requirements related to the control ofemissions adopted as part ofthe amendments to the TRU ATCM are, in the aggregate, at least as protective ofpublic health and welfare as applicable federal standards, that California needs the adopted standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and thatthe adopted standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with the provisions ofsection 209.
The Administrator cannot find that CARS's protectiveness determination is arbitrary and capricious. Although each ofthe 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 stringentthan federal standards because EPA continues to be

41 As previously stated, EPA recently determined that GARB's 2010 Amendmentsto the TRU ATCM are within the scope ofthe initial TRU authorization. 78 Fed.Reg. 38970 (June 28, 2013). 42 Provided thatthe difference between the unit manufacture year and the engine model year does not exceed one year. 

### 18without authority to regulate in-use TRUs orTRU engines and has not promulgated anyfederal standards applicable to the in-use performance ofTRUs.43



### 2. Consistency with CAA Section 209

a. Consistentwith CAAsections 209(a), and 209(e)(1)

In granting California an authorization forthe initial TRU ATCM rulemaking action, EPAfound thatthe TRU ATCM was consistent with CAA sections 209(a) and 209(e)(1) because the ATCM did not applyto new motorvehicles and engines or to new engines under 175 hp used in farm and construction vehicles and equipment orto new locomotives or locomotive engines.44 The amendments likewise do not applyto the above categories of preempted mobile sources and EPA must accordingly find thatthe amended ATCM is not inconsistentwith either CAA sections 209(a) or209(e)(1).


### b. Consistentwith CAA section 209(b)(1)(C)
CAA section 209(b)(1)(C) provides that nowaiver (authorization) shall be granted if the Administratorfinds that California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistentwith section 202(a) ofthe 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 oftechnology necessaryto meet the standards and other requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost ofcompliance in the time frame provided, and (2) thatthe California and federal test procedures are sufficiently compatible to permit manufacturersto meet both the state and federal test requirements with one test vehicle or engine.45 The reference to "cost ofcompliance" in CAAsection 202(a) refers to the economic costs ofemission standards and accompanying enforcement procedures and the timing ofa particularemission control regulation ratherthan to its social implications.46

The amendments do not raise any issuethatdisturbs EPA's priorfindings thatthe TRU ATCM's in-use performance requirements are technologicallyfeasible within

43 CAAsection 213; EMA v. EPA, (D.C. Cir. 1996) 88 F.3d 1075; Authorization of**ln~Use** Emission Standards for Transport Refrigeration UnitEngines, 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 onlythe subject rulemaking, but its previous protectiveness determinations forthe original TRU ATCM rulemaking and the 2010 Amendments. 44 Decision Documentat pp. 24 and 26. 45 See 61 Fed.Reg. 53371, 53372 (October 11, 1996); Decision Documentat p.2 (OBD II Waiver Decision). 46 /d., referencing SeeS. Rep. No. 192, 89th Gong., 1stSess. 5-8 (1965); H.R. Rep. No. 728, 90th Gong., 1stSess. 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. 19the lead time provided for compliance orthat California's adopted test procedures are consistentwith federal procedures.47 Each ofthe subject amendments provide owners with greaterflexibility to complywith the existing TRU ATCM's in-use requirements. These amendments were notenacted because the technologies required to complywith the in-use requirements do not exist, but rather because the Board determined that such amendments.were needed to accommodate special considerations ofTRU owners and to address issues that have arisen during the implementation ofthe TRU ATCM. Specifically, TRU owners and their trade associations expressed concerns that Level 3VDECS would not be available in time to enable 2004 MYengines equal to orgreaterthan 25 hp to meetthe December 31, 2011 ULETRU compliance deadline.48 However, CARB staff determined that sufficient Level 3VDECS would be commercially available to allow these TRU engines to meetthe December 31, 2011 ULETRU compliance deadline.49 Furthermore, once thefinal Tier4 standards for off-road Cl engines rated at or above 25 hp become effectivefor 2013 and later MY engines, owners may also electto comply with the ULETRU standards by repowering TRUs with new replacement engines certified to the Tier4 final standards or by replacing an existing TRU with a new TRU powered by an engine certified to the final Tier4 standards. Although CARB staff reaffirmed the technical feasibility ofthe TRU ATCM's in-use performance standards, the Board approved amendments that provide GARB's Executive Orderthe authorityto grant limited compliance extensions should an owner adequately demonstratethat compliance technology is not available for a specificTRU model, or ifan ownerexperiences delays due to financing, manufacturer delivery or installation. Owners will generally not be able to demonstratethe absence ofcompliance technologyforspecific 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 affectthe availability ofa specificTRU model.
The amendments do not present any issue of incompatibility between California and federal test procedures because EPA continues notto 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 of2004 MY engines rated at or above 25 hp could not comply with the ULETRU standard by repowering TRUswith new replacement engines because the Tier4 final standards for those engines first became effective for 2013 MYengines. 49 Two Level 3 VDECSwere verified by CARB for use in all TRU models in August2011 (FSOR, p. 19), and as ofApril24, 2014 three Level3 VDECS are verified by CARB and are commercially available. 50 The final ULETRU compliance date was December31, 2011, so TRU owners can no longer repowerTRUs 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 disputethat theAdministrator should confirm thatthese amendments are within the scope ofthe existing authorization forthe TRU ATCM.



### C. The Amendments that Specifythe Requirements for Repowering TRUs with New Replacement Engines and thatAllow Owners to Repower TRUs With Rebuilt Engines Meetthe Criteria for a NewAuthorization

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 ofthe authorized TRU ATCM, which allowed owners ofTRUs that had notyet demonstrated compliance with LETRU or ULETRU compliance dates to repowerTRUs with replacement engines thatwere certified to the same emissions standards asthe original engines. ·
TheTRU ATCM previously did notallowTRU owners to meetthe 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 ofthe 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.52

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



### 1. Protectiveness
These amendments do not undermine the Board's prior protectiveness finding for the reasons setforth 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 ofthe original engines.



### 2. Consistentwith CAA Section 209

a. Consistencywith CAA sections 209(a) and 209(e)(1)

The amendments are not inconsistentwith CAAsections 209(a) or209(e)(1) for the reasons setforth in Section III.B.2.a.

52 40 CFR sections 89.130 and 1068.120 and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13., § 2423(1), respectively. 21b. Consistencywith CAA section 209(b)(1)(C)
No issues regarding technological feasibility underthe 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 modifythe previously authorized compliance dates ofthe TRU ATCM's LETRU and ULETRU in-use compliance standards53 orthe compliance dates ofCalifornia's authorized off-road Cl engine emission standards, which theAdministrator has previously determined constitute a technically feasible means ofcomplying with the LETRU and ULETRU in-use compliance standards.54

The amendment allowing owners to repowerTRUs 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 stringentemissions configurations than the emission configurations ofthe original engine.55 In the present rulemaking adopting the 2011 Amendments, no manufacturer stated that the requirementto repowerTRUs 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 repowerTRUs with rebuilt replacement engines that meet more stringent emission standards than the standards ofthe 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 alterthe test procedures specified for certifying federal or California off-road Cl engines.57 To the extent thatthe amendments applyto in-use modifications ofexisting 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 Tier4 standards for such engines do notsufficiently control PM emissions. See fn 12 supra. 54 EPA has already determined thatthe Tier4 off-road Cl engine emission standards for new replacement engines used to repowerTRUs are technically feasible within the lead time provided forcompliance. 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 thatthese amendments do not establish mandatory compliance requirements, but instead establish a new compliance alternative, the amendments do not require authorization. MotorandEquipment 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 ofa waiver ifthe regulation does notspecify anothertechnically feasible compliance option.) 57 75 Fed.Reg. 8056, 8060 (Feb. 23, 2010). 22authority to adopt such requirements and does not have any comparable in-use standards and test procedures.58



### 3. Compelling and Extraordinary Circumstances

In adopting Resolution 11-35, the Board confirmed CARS's longstanding position that California continues to need its own nonroad 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, notwhether any given standard is necessaryto meet such conditions. 59
"[C]ompelling and extraordinary conditions" [do] not referto 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 ofautomobiles, create serious air pollution problems.

## 5°
California, and particularlythe South Coast and San Joaquin ValleyAir Basins, continue to experience some ofthe worst airquality in the nation and continue to be in non-attainmentwith national ambient airquality standards for PM2.5 and ozone.61 The unique geographical and climatic conditions, and the tremendous growth in on-road motorvehicle 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 existtoday. 62

TheAdministrator has repeatedly agreed with CARB that California's**continuin~** extraordinary conditionsjustify 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 doubtofthe continuing existence ofcompelling and extraordinary conditionsjustifying California's need for its own mobile source emissions program.6

58 CAAsection 213; EMA v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 59 Fina/209(e) Rule, 59 Fed.Reg. at 36982. TheAdministrator has recognized that even ifsuch a standard by standard testwere applied to California, it "would not be applicable to itsfullest stringencydueto the degree ofdiscretion 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). 23D. Amendments to the Accompanying Enforcement Provisions ofthe TRU ATCM Fall Within the Scope ofthe Existing TRU ATCM Authorization or Meetthe Criteria fora NewAuthorization

1. The Amendments that Clarify the Compliance Responsibilities ofLessors and Lessees, and the Manual Recordkeeping Requirements for Alternative Technology Equipped TRUs Fall Within the Scope ofthe Existing TRU Authorization
The following provisions ofthe amendments clarify preexisting associated enforcement requirements ofthe TRU ATCM and fall within the scope ofthe existing authorization:

• Amendments clarifying compliance responsibilities between lessors and lessees ofTRU-equipped trucks and trailers, including issues related toARBER 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 foreach**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 ifsuch TRUs were operated in compliance with specified conditions. For instance, E/S equipped TRUs could not be powered by diesel engines when located at afacility, except during an emergency, and afleet owner could only obtain GARB's approval that a TRU qualified forthe Alternative Technology compliance option by documenting through recordkeeping reports thatTRU diesel engine operations atfacilities were in.fact eliminated. The amendments to section 2477.5(d)(3) nowspecify the specific information that owners mustsubmitto demonstrate an E/S or hybrid electric equipped TRU qualifies forthe 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 underminethe Board's protectiveness finding forthe reasons set forth above in Section III.B.1, and are not inconsistentwith 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 CMsections 209(a}, (e)(1), and 202(b)(1)(C). 24These amendments do not raise any issue of inconsistency with CAA section 209(b)(1)(C) because they do not affect the technical feasibility ofengine or equipment manufacturers complying with the TRU ATCM orofincompatibility 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 thatthese amendments are within the scope ofthe existing authorization forthe TRU ATCM.



### 2. OtherAmendments to the Accompanying Enforcement Provisions Meetthe Criteria for a NewAuthorization

Thefollowing amendments help ensure that the TRU ATCM is effectively implemented and enforced, and therefore constitute accompanying enforcement provisions. As demonstrated below, these amendments meetthe 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, contractfor, or dispatch goods in TRU-equipped trucks, trailers, shipping containers, or railcars to provide the driverwith 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 ofselling noncompliantTRUs to any person, and prohibiting auctioneers and motor carriers from intentionally or negligently importing, delivering, purchasing, or otherwise acquiring non-compliant newor used TRUs (Section II.H.1 above)68

67 CAAsection 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 subjectto authorization. Section 2477.18(b) requires sellersto disclose to purchasers that non-compliantTRUs are not compliantwith theTRU ATCM, and requires owners ofalternativetechnology equipped TRUsto 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 transferthe written disclosures supplied by TRU manufacturers that equip TRUswith flexibility engines orthat supply prior-tier engines to ultimate purchasers for repowering existing TRUs (described above in Section II.L). Section 2477.5(e) now requires owners oroperators 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 (ifthe engine manufacturer's label does not already provide this information); provide written disclosuresto ultimate purchasers ofthe effective model years ofthe 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 registerthe equipment in ARBER (ifthe engine manufacturer's emissions control label does not provide this information); to provide written disclosures to interested purchasers ofprior-tier replacement engines thatthe 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 ofCalifornia-based TRUs to provide specific following information in theirapplications 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 forthe reasons setforth above in Section III.B.1, but ratherfurther ensure thatthe TRU ATCM is effectively implemented and enforced, and will allow GARB to furthervalidate that diesel engines on hybrid electric, hybrid cryogenic, and E/S TRUs are actually eliminated atfacilities.


### b. Consistencywith CAA section 209 i) Consistencywith CAA sections 209(a) and 209(e)

California-based TRUs to provide specific information in their applications for an GARB IDN (described above in Section II.M). GARB believes thatthe above disclosure requirements that apply to sellers, not manufacturers are more attuned to in-use operational requirements than emission standards orother requirements related to the control ofemissions and should not be subjectto authorization under CAAsection 209(e)(2)(A). GARB respectively requests that EPA confirm GARB's opinion thatthese amendments are not subjectto authorization. 69 To the extent thatthe above information is used for emission inventory purposes, authorization is not required. 

### 26The amendments are not inconsistentwith CAA sections 209(a) or209(e)(1) for the reasons setforth in Section III.B.2.a. 

### ii) Consistencywith CAAsections 209(b)(1)(C)

The amendments described above in Section II.C, H.1, K and M present no issues of inconsistencywith CAA section 209(b)(1)(C), because they do not affectthe technical feasibility ofengine or equipment manufacturers complying with the TRU ATCM.

The amendments described above in Section II.B that pertain to the new automated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirementsfor 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 ofwirelessly transmitting reports and datato a computer serverthrough awireless cell phone network orvia satellite.70 GARB also appropriately considered the cost of compliance ofthe 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 serverservice costs ranging from $26to $30 per month. GARB staffdetermined that'these additional costs would ultimately significantly offsetthe costs associated with manual recordkeeping.
The amendments present no issue ofincompatibility between California and federal test procedures because EPA lacks the authorityto adopt such requirements and has no comparable requirements applicable to in-use hybrid electric, electric standby, or hybrid cryogenic TRUsn

. 

### E. Alternatively, the Administrator MustGranta NewWaiverforthose 2011 Amendments tothe TRU ATCM thatCARB Has Asserted Relax and Clarify PreviouslyWaived Requirements and forthose Amendments to Accompanying Enforcement Provisions That Do Not Fall Within the Scope ofPreviously Granted Waivers
Should the Administratordeterminethat any ofthe 2011 Amendments to the TRU ATCM orto the accompanying enforcement provisions to the TRU ATCM do not fall within the scope ofthe existing TRU authorization, GARB requests that a new authorization be granted for such amendments. No basis exists to denythis

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

### 27

### with CAA sections 209(a), 209(e)(1),) or209(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 thattheAdministrator grant California's request for the authorization action as described in this document pursuantto CAA section 209(e). To assist you in reviewing the requests, GARB is enclosing two CO-ROMs, each containing the following referenced documentsto be included in the record ofthis 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 ofSlides for Staff Presentation.

4. Notice ofAvailability of Modified Text, with Attachment 1, issued February 28, 2012.

5. Notice ofAvailability 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 ofOctober21, 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. Requestfor 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 ofState January 18, 2007, for amendment oftitle 13, California Code ofRegulations, section 2477, and adoption oftitle 13, California Code of Regulations, sections 2477.1 through 2477.20.

2813. Office ofAdministrative LawApproval Notice, dated October 15, 2012.
CARB Contacts

Technical questions or requests foradditional technical information on this item should be directed to Mr. Richard Boyd, Manager, Process Evaluation Section, EmissionsAssessment Branch, Transportation and Toxics Division, at (916) 322- 8285 or rboyd@arb

.ca.gov

. Legal questions should be directed to Mr

.AlexWang, SeniorStaffCounsel, at (916) 323-9610 orawanq@arb

.ca.gov

.

29