Opinion ID: 185692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Emissions Standards

Text: We review the 2007 Rule under the arbitrary and capricious standard of 42 U.S.C. s 7607(d), which is indistinguishable from the Administrative Procedure Act equivalent. SeeEthyl Corp. v. EPA, 51 F.3d 1053, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705F.2d 506, 519 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Deference is particularlygreat where EPA's decision is based on complex scientific ortechnical analysis. Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 251 F.3d1026, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
Diesel exhaust emissions can be controlled through the useof catalytic emission control devices in the vehicle's exhaustsystem. 66 Fed. Reg. at 5007. These resemble the familiarcatalytic converters found on ordinary automobiles. Id. Current control devices for diesel engines work less well thanthey do for gasoline engines, because of diesels' oxygen-richand relatively cool ... exhaust environment. Id. at 5009. PM emissions are also more difficult to control in dieselengines because of the soot formed during diesel combustion. Id. Compounding the difficulties is the fact that historicaldiesel NOx control approaches tend to increase PM and viceversa, but both are harmful pollutants that need to be controlled. Id. Thus, in order to achieve drastic--and simultaneous--reductions in PM, NOx, and non-methane hydrocarbons, enginemanufacturers will need technical innovations in emissioncontrols. The EPA predicts that two relatively new technologies will aid in achieving the 2007 reductions: the catalyzeddiesel particulate filter (particulate filter) and the NOxadsorber. 66 Fed. Reg. at 5036. In the following paragraphs, we explain briefly--and to the best of our understanding--how each technology works on the targeted emissions. Particulate matter is made up of three things: Unburnedcarbon particles (or soot), unburned hydrocarbons (also calledthe soluble organic fraction), and sulfates (resulting fromthe oxidation of sulfur in the engine's exhaust). 66 Fed. Reg.at 5047. The majority of diesel PM is soot. Catalyzedparticulate filters work by passing the exhaust through aceramic or metallic filter that captures soot and other PM. Particulate filters eventually become plugged up with particulate matter, at which point the collected particles (mostlycarbon) have to be burned off (or oxidized). Id. Theburning-off process is called regeneration, and the result(from oxidizing carbon) is of course carbon dioxide. Id. TheEPA was convinced that precious metal catalysts would makeregeneration possible at the low temperatures typical ofdiesel engines, and that such catalysts could thus be used on acontinuous basis throughout the life of the trap. Id.; see alsoRegulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) III-6. NOx adsorbers do their work by storing NOx during thenormal oxygen-rich conditions of diesel engine operation. RIA III-18. Over time, the adsorber becomes full of thestored NOx, thus requiring regeneration. During regeneration, the excess NOx is burned off; technically, it is reduced to N2 by an interaction with carbon monoxide across acatalyst system that typically contains platinum and rhodium; the less-harmful gases that result are N2 and CO2. Id. LikeNOx, sulfur from the fuel accumulates over time by bondingto the NOx adsorber's catalysts, and must be burned offduring a desulfation process (more on that below). TheEPA suggests the use of dual-bed NOx adsorbers (for adiagram, see RIA III-23), which involve splitting of theexhaust stream into two pipes, each of which has an adsorberbed. The benefit of such an arrangement is that regeneration and/or desulfation can be conducted in one bed whilenearly all the exhaust stream is directed to the bed that isstill in adsorbtion mode, thus maintaining a consistent level ofperformance. RIA III-22 to III-25. Crankcase emissions are emitted from the vehicle's crankcase, having gotten there by leaking from the combustionchamber through the piston rings. 66 Fed. Reg. at 5040. The EPA's elimination of the previous exception for suchemissions is a performance requirement, leaving the solution entirely up to manufacturers. Id. The EPA predictsthat manufacturers will either filter crankcase gases androute them back into the engine intake, or route the gasesinto the exhaust stream (upstream of any emissions controldevices). RIA III-78-79. Another option would be to ventcrankcase gases directly to the atmosphere; this is an unlikely choice, because the combined emissions from exhaust andcrankcase together would have to fall within the exhaustemissions standards. 66 Fed. Reg. at 5040.

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.