NPRA, EMA TERM EPA'S DIESEL RULE 'ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS'

Diesel Fuel News, April 30, 2001 by Jack Peckham

In separate "statement of issues" complaints, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) tell the U.S. Court of Appeals that U.S. EPA's 2006/7 highway diesel rule is legally "arbitrary & capricious."

NPRA claims that "the refining industry as a whole probably will be unable to produce sufficient quantities of [ultra-low sulfur] highway diesel fuel to meet total demand" by EPA's mid-2006 deadline, so EPA's dismissal of this alleged problem could be considered "arbitrary and capricious" or "otherwise contrary to law."

While only about 10% or less of vehicles will actually require ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) "for a considerable period after mid-2006," EPA nevertheless mandated that 80% of highway diesel be ULSD in mid-2006, another "arbitrary & capricious" action, NPRA contends.

Nor did EPA address supply-shortage problems with its 80% ULSD/20% low-sulfur diesel (LSD) four-year phase in, as it will raise distribution costs (double storage) and provoke single-fuel refining/marketing decisions, NPRA claims.

EPA also wrongly understated costs, didn't make clear that its heavy-duty rule was also intended to address light-duty diesel, and didn't make available for timely public comment the impacts on emissions inventories, air quality or its cost-benefit analysis, the refiner group claims.

* Engine Makers: NTE Problems

Separately, EMA "on behalf of certain of its members" claims that EPA could be considered as "arbitrary & capricious" for setting not-to-exceed (NTE) emissions levels on portions of its diesel test cycle. This NTE level scheme supposedly isn't authorized by the federal Clean Air Act. EPA likewise wrongly applied and adopted NTE standards from the 2004 standards to the 2007 rule, EMA charges, and failed to provide "reasonably feasible or cost-effective" standards, or give enough advance notice for industry comment.

EMA also slams EPA's "unreasonably burdensome, costly and unjustified 'averaging, banking and trading' programs and other related averaging requirements" for diesel emissions. The group also cited "infeasible testing requirements and procedures," but the petition doesn't elaborate.