Opinion ID: 185692
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cummins's Challenges

Text: Cummins argues that the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that engine manufacturers will be ableto develop emissions-control systems satisfying the new rule. According to Cummins, the EPA failed to make reasonableextrapolations, Cummins's Opening Brief at 5 (quoting Natural Resources Defense Council v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410, 432(D.C. Cir. 1986)), or to provide a reasoned explanation forbelieving that its projection is reliable, id. (quoting National Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 328(D.C. Cir. 1981)). In reviewing these issues, we note that EPA was notobliged to provide detailed solutions to every engineeringproblem, but had only to identify the major steps forimprovement and give plausible reasons for its belief thatthe industry will be able to solve those problems in the timeremaining. Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 201 (D.C.Cir. 2001) (quoting NRDC, 655 F.2d at 333). Since the EPAis authorized to adopt technology-forcing regulations, seeNRDC, 655 F.2d at 333; Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298,364 (D.C. Cir. 1981), a petitioner's evidence that currenttechnology is inadequate is not enough to show that the EPAwas arbitrary in predicting future success.
In support of its assessment that manufacturers can feasibly meet the 2007 standards using NOx adsorbers, the EPApointed to the successful results achieved already in varioustest programs. For example, the National Vehicle and FuelEmission Laboratory (NVFEL) program reached the following conclusion: This test program has shown that NOxadsorbers and [particulate filters] are capable of greater than90% emission reductions ... after running approximately 200hours on 5 ppm sulfur equivalent fuel, without a desulfationevent. With reasonably expected desulfation, the expectedNOx reduction efficiency would be higher. EPA, 2007 DieselEmission Test Program, Initial Test Report at 31, IV-A-29(Dec. 11, 2000) (hereinafter NVFEL Study); see also RIAIII-35 to III-48 (discussing the NVFEL test program). TheDepartment of Energy's Diesel Emission Control Sulfur Effects (DECSE) program produced several reports findingNOx conversion efficiencies exceeding 90 percent.... RIAIII-35. And ironically, Cummins's own researchers (cited bythe EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis) reported using a NOxadsorber that cut NOx emissions by 98% on the Federal TestProcedure, to a level of 0.055 g/bhp-hr (slightly more than aquarter of the 0.20 g/bhp-hr standard adopted for 2007). Byron Bunker, Memo to File II-E-25, Handout 6 (Sept. 18,2000) (Joint Appendix J.A. III 1947); see also RIA III-34. Other industry commenters agreed that NOx adsorbertechnology could be developed and available by 2007. See,e.g., Letter of Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (April 5, 2000), II-G-60; Testimony of Johnson Matthey(June 22, 2000), IV-F-100; Testimony of the EngelhardCorp. (June 27, 2000), IV-F-188; Letter of Apyron Technologies, Inc. (Aug. 10, 2000), IV-D-227; Letter of the EngelhardCorp. (Oct. 3, 2000), IV-G-38; Letter of Johnson Matthey(Oct. 19, 2000), IV-G-55. Of course it is no surprise that NOxadsorber manufacturers would support a regulation creatinga potential for sales of their products. See, e.g., George J.Stigler, The Economic Theory of Regulation, 2 Bell J. Econ.& Management Sci. 3 (1971). But such a manufacturer wouldrisk a considerable loss of reputation if its technology couldnot fulfill a mandate that it had persuaded EPA to adopt. Sothe submissions add something to the more direct experimental evidence. Cummins, however, asserts that no NOx control system willbe capable of meeting the EPA's 2007 standards. It presentsthree reasons to support this conclusion; ultimately, we areconvinced by none.