U.S. EPA, White House reject CAT/ATA delay push, finalize October 2002 low-emissions rule

Diesel Fuel News, August 5, 2002 by Jack Peckham

Caterpillar and American Trucking Associations (ATA) failed to get either U.S. EPA or the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) to delay the October 2002 deadline to produce low-emissions diesel engines.

EPA announced last week that it has now finalized the "non-conformance penalties" (NCPs) for engine makers failing to hit the 2.5 grams/brake horsepower-hour limit on nitrogen oxides (NOx) plus hydrocarbons (HC).

As a result, Cat or any other engine maker failing to certify engines to the 2.5 grams limit will pay a sliding scale of penalties, depending upon how far off the mark

Penalty Rates at Several Example Emission levels (1)

NMHC [NO.sub.x]                 Heavy-Duty Service Class
Compliance Level
[(g/bhp-hr).sup.2]  Light        Medium        Heavy     Urban Bus

2.5                 $0           $0            $0        $0
3.0                 $1,262       $910          $3,640    $2,470
3.5                 $1,745       $1,820        $6,946    $4,393
4.0                 $2,227       $2,716        $7,999    $5,527
4.5                 $2,710       $4,930        $9,052    $6,660
6.0                 [N/A.sup.3]  [N/A.sup.3]   $12,210   [N/A.sup.3]
Here's how the final NCPs (above) compare to the earlier proposed NCPs
(below):

Proposed Penalty Rates at Several Example Emission Levels (1)

NMHC [NO.sub.x]                 Heavy-Duty Service Class
Compliance Level
[(g/bhp-hr).sup.2]  Light        Medium        Heavy     Urban Bus

2.5                 $0           $0            $0        $0
3.0                 $1,262       $1,170        $4,680    $3,185
3.5                 $1,644       $2,340        $9,043    $5,042
4.0                  $2,127       $3,759        $10,193   $6,081
4.5                 $2,610       $6,870        $11,342   $7,120
6.0                 [N/A.sup.3]  [N/A.sup.3]   $14,790   [N/A.sup.3]

(1) The propsed penalties are for exceedance of the 2.5 gram per brake
horsepower-hour

Differences between the proposed and final NCPs can be explained by new calculations accounting for changes in diesel fuel prices (due to fuel economy penalty with the cleaner engines), projections about future sales levels (using 2001 instead of 2000 baseline data) and minor revisions in projected maintenance costs, EPA spokesperson Cathy Milbourn told us.

Cummins, the most outspoken defender of the October 2002 rule, praised EPA and President Bush's administration for its action.

"We're pleased that the White House stood up and didn't allow any delay," Cummins spokesman Jason Rawlings told us.

However, the company is still analyzing the changes between the final and proposed NCPs and may have further comment on these later, he added.

American Trucking Associations slammed the Bush Administration decision as an "egregious example where our government failed us" because of supposedly excessive costs for cleaner engines.