### Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE

REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO PORTABLE DIESEL ENGINES A ND

DIESEL ENGINES USED IN OFF-ROAD AND ON-ROAD VEHICLE S

Public Hearing Date: January 28, 2010 Agenda Item Numbers: 10-1-2i TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. GENERAL DISCUSSION ..............................

.................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

I.a Description of Board Action........................

....... Error! Bookmark not defined.

I.b Modifications to the Original Proposed Regulation ..

........ Error! Bookmark not

defined.

I.c Bifurcation of the Rulemaking ......................

..... Error! Bookmark not defined.

I.d Fiscal Impact of Proposed Changes ................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

I.e Consideration of Alternatives ......................

...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

II. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES Error! Bookmark

not defined.

II.a Written Comments Received During the 45-Day Public Comment

Period ............................................

................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

II.b Written Comments Received on the Day of the ARB Pub lic Hearing........ Error!

Bookmark not defined.

II.c Oral Comments Provided During the ARB Public Hearin g...... Error! Bookmark

not defined.

II.d Written Comments Received During the 15-Day Public Comment

Period ............................................

................... Error! Bookmark not defined.ii LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Written Comments During

the 45-Day Public Comment Period................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 2: List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Written Comments on the

Day of the ARB Public Hearing ......................

. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 3: List of Individuals & Businesses Providing Oral Com ments During the

ARB Public Hearing .................................

....... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 4: List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Written Comments During

the 15-Day Public Comment Period................ Error! Bookmark not defined.1 State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULA TIONS

APPLICABLE TO PORTABLE DIESEL ENGINES AND DIESEL EN GINES USED IN

OFF-ROAD AND ON-ROAD VEHICLES

Public Hearing Date: January 28, 2010

Agenda Item No.: 10-1-2

I. GENERAL DISCUSSION

This Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) provides an update to the Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendment s (Staff Report). The Staff Report was released to the public on December 10, 2 009 and is incorporated by reference herein. This FSOR identifies and explain s the modifications that were made to the original proposal as a result of public comment and staff analysis after the Staff Report was issued. The FSOR also summari zes written and oral comments the Board received on the proposed regulat ory text during the formal rulemaking process and the ARB’s responses to those comments.

I.a Description of Board Action At its January 28, 2010 hearing, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) adopted resolution 10-2 approving the amendments to the following regulations:

1. The Regulation for the Statewide Portable Equipm ent Registration Program (PERP Regulation);

2. The Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Pa rticulate Matter from Portable Engines (Portable Engine ATCM); 3. The Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets (Off-Road Vehicle Regulation); and 4. The Regulation for In-Use On-Road Heavy-Duty Die sel-Fueled Vehicles (On-Road Vehicle Regulation).

In this rulemaking, staff proposed the following ch anges:

1. Provide an operating extension for certain uncer tified portable engines in small and medium fleets. Approximately half of the uncertified engines that were required to be put out of service by December 31, 2009 will now be able to operate until December 31, 2010 upon select ion by their owners.2

2. Revise the applicability of the regulations for water well drilling rigs. Both engines on two-engine water well drilling rigs will now be subject to the requirements of the Off-Road Vehicle Regulation. 3. Change the permit and registration eligibility r equirements for some portable engines. Engines certified to the marine and on-hi ghway emission standards may be registered in the Statewide PERP w hen operated in an eligible manner. 4. Streamline the recordkeeping and reporting requi rements. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements have been reduced for all certified engines and engines owned by rental busin esses. 5. Incorporated miscellaneous minor wording changes that will provide additional clarity to the PERP Regulation and Porta ble Engine ATCM.

These amendments were initiated by the publication of the Notice of Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Proposed Amendm ents to the Regulations Applicable to Portable Diesel Engines and Diesel En gines Used in Off-Road and On-Road Vehicles (45-Day Notice) on December 10 , 2009. Written comments were received during the 45-day public com ment period, which closed on January 28, 2010, the date of the public hearing. ARB also received written and oral comments made by local regulatory agencies, affected businesses, and the public on the day of the public hearing.

In response to comments received during the 45-day comment period, ARB staff presented to the Board members an issue regar ding permit eligibility of certified engines that do not meet the current tier , and agreed to work with the local districts and stakeholders on a possible modi fication to the Portable Engine ATCM to resolve it. In addition, based on p ublic testimony at the hearing, the Board directed staff to make the follo wing three additional modifications to the regulations:

1. Give the uncertified engine operating extension to owners of larger fleets; 2. Further revise the recordkeeping and reporting r equirements for rental engines to include only necessary information; and 3. Potentially change the applicability of the regu lations to snow blowing equipment, if the evaluation by ARB staff shows thi s to be necessary.

I.b Modifications to the Original Proposed Regulati ons

On January 28, 2010, the Board adopted resolution 1 0-2 which included amendments to the four regulations. As part of thi s action, the Board directed staff to address certain issues, and make appropria te changes consistent with the changes proposed in the original 45-day notice package. Staff addressed
these issues and, on March 15, 2010, sent out a not ice proposing additional amendments to the PERP Regulation and Portable Engi ne ATCM consistent with the Board’s direction for public comment for a period of 15 days. These additional amendments will provide the same extensi on for uncertified engines to all owners of portable engines, regardless of fl eet size.3

Summary of Proposed Modifications

In the first 15-day Notice, ARB made the following modifications to the text of the regulations:

1. Modified section 2456(f)(11) of the Statewide PE RP Regulation to remove the fleet size restriction for the operating extens ion of registered uncertified spark-ignition engines.]

2. Modified section 93116.3(b)(1)(C) of the Portabl e Engine ATCM to remove the fleet size restriction for the operating extens ion of permitted or registered uncertified diesel-fueled engines.

I.c Bifurcation of the Rulemaking The Executive Officer determined it was necessary t o bifurcate approval of the regulations so that the final regulations with the most critical elements will become legally effective as expeditiously as possib le. The first submittal for approval contains critical elements including the o perating extension for noncertified engines, the changes to the regulations r egarding water well drilling rigs, allowing for the continued operation of certi fied on-highway engines in portable applications, allowing certified marine en gines used on vessels to register in PERP, and other changes necessary to re sult in stand-alone regulations when approved.

Summary of Amendments Included in the First Submitt al

Below is a list of the regulatory sections that ARB is requesting approval for in

this first submittal.

Title 13, California Code Of Regulations, sections 2025(c)(12) to (14), 2449(b), 2449(c)(60), 2449(c)(61), 2449(c)(62), 2449(c)(63), 2449(e)(16), 2449(g)(1), 2449(g)(1)(B), 2449.3(b)(2)(C), 2452(c), 2452(ww) t o (bbb), 2453(g), 2456(f), 2456(f)(2), 2456(f)(10), 2456(f)(11), 2456(i), 2458 (j) to (l), 2460(b)(1), 2460(b)(3), 2460(b)(5) 2461(c) 2461(d), 2461(e), 24 61(g), 2461(j), 2461(k), Table 2 and Table 3 in section 2461, and 2462(a).

Title 13, California Code Of Regulations, sections 93116.1(b)(8) to (10), 93116.2(a)(19), 93116.3(b)(1)(A), and 93116.3(b)(1 )(C)

All of these provisions above are included in the F inal Regulation Orders submitted with this rulemaking package. The follow ing is a description of the amendments being submitted for approval in this fir st submittal.

1. Provide a limited operating extension to spark-i gnition engines registered in PERP and in-use portable diesel engines. This affe cts sections 2456(f)(10), 2456(f)(11), 2460(b)(1), and 2462(a) of the PERP Re gulation and sections 93116.2(a)(19), 93116.3(b)(1)(A), and 93116.3(b)(1) (C) of the Portable Engine ATCM.4

2. Revise the applicability of the regulations to e ngines on two-engine water well drilling rigs. This affects sections 2452(zz) , 2453(g), 2456(i), and 2458(l) of the PERP Regulation, and 93116.1(b)(10) of the Portable Engine ATCM, and all of the amended sections of the Off-Ro ad and On-Road Vehicle Regulations. 3. Allow for the continued operation of permitted o r registered on-highway certified diesel engines beyond January 1, 2010. T his affects section 93116.3(b)(1)(A) of the Portable Engine ATCM. 4. Allow certified engines on marine vessels to reg ister in PERP. This affects sections 2452(c) and 2456(f)(2) of the PERP Regulat ion 5. Delete obsolete definitions in sections 2452(ww) , (xx) and (aaa) of the PERP Regulation so that the section numbering will be consistent with the added definition of “water well drilling rig” in se ction 2452(zz). 6. Delete the vendor report in section 2458(j) whic h was deemed unnecessary so that the section numbering will be consistent wi th the new provision for water well drilling rigs in section 2458(l). 7. Delete section 2461(k), which has become obsolet e, including Table 2 of the PERP Regulation because this section makes refe rence to definitions in 2452(ww) and (xx) which are being deleted in this s ubmittal. 8. Because Table 3 will now be Table 2, all sub-sec tions of 2460 and 2461

with a reference to the fee table are also included for consistency.

The second submittal will include amendments listed in the first 45-day public notice which consist mainly of changes intended to improve clarity of the PERP Regulation and Portable Engine ATCM, and also amend ments that will be made available for public comment by a second 15-da y notice, consistent with the Board direction mentioned previously. The amen ded sections to be submitted in the second submittal are clearly noted in the Final Regulation

Orders included with this submittal.

This FSOR includes only comments directed towards t he amendments listed in the initial 45-day notice and the first 15-day noti ce. A separate FSOR document identifying the remaining amendments and i ncluding comments made during the second 15-day notice will be issued subsequently. ARB plans

to submit the second submittal with these additiona l amendments, as part of the current rulemaking, on or before December 9, 20 10.

I.d Fiscal Impact of Proposed Changes

The Board has determined that this regulatory actio n will result in temporary cost savings to some State agencies, will have no i mpact on federal funding to the State, and will have some temporary cost saving s to local government agencies. The temporary savings are due to the del ay in replacing certain uncertified portable engines by one year, which wil l affect the latter half of fiscal year 2009/2010 and the first half of fiscal year 20 10/2011.5

ARB staff originally estimated that the fiscal impa ct of the one year extension for uncertified engines to affected local governmen t agencies was a temporary delay in costs of approximately $10.3 million. Wit h the modification to include all fleets, 35 additional local agencies will quali fy for the extension. Therefore, the delay in costs for local government agencies is now approximately $11 million.

ARB staff originally estimated that the fiscal impa ct of the one year extension for uncertified engines to affected State governmen t agencies was a temporary delay in costs of about $228,000. With the modific ation to include all fleets, one additional State agency will qualify for the ex tension. Therefore, the delay in costs for State government agencies is now appro ximately $339,000.

I.e Consideration of Alternatives

Alternatives to this regulatory action were conside red in the Staff Report,

in accordance with Government Code section 11346.2. After responding
to the comments received, ARB concludes that no rea sonable alternative considered by the agency, or that has otherwise bee n identified and brought to the attention of the agency, would be mo re effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulatory action was proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected privat e persons than the amendments adopted by the Board.6

II. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES

II.a Written Comments Received During the 45-Day Pu blic Comment Period

The Board received several written comments during the formal 45-day comment period. The 45-day public comment period w as open from December 10, 2009 to January 28, 2010. Persons sub mitting written comments during the public comment period are liste d in Table 1. Following the list are summaries of each comment as well as agency responses. Each response includes an explanation o f either any changes made or the reasons for making no change.

Table 1 List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Written Comments

During the 45-Day Public Comment Period

Commenter

Reference Code Name & Affiliation Date of

Comment

BOB Bob

Private Citizen San Diego, California 12-11-09

HCAT Wood, Jeff

Hawthorne Caterpillar San Diego, California 12-18-09

BAES Bandera, Cara

BAE Systems SDSR San Diego, California 1-05-10

CRI Boyd, Charles

Cinerep International, Inc. Chatsworth, California 1-05-10

WFUS Hassebrock, Robert

Weatherford U.S., L.P. Santa Paula, California 1-06-10

NWS Thomas, James

Nabors Well Services Co. Bakersfield, California 1-07-10

BJSC Van Allen, Doug

BJ Services Company USA Bakersfield, California 1-08-10

EAI Danforth, Miles

Evergreen Arborists, Inc. Woodland, California 1-13-10

LASTELIC Lastelic, John

Private Citizen

Location Unknown 1-14-107

Commenter

Reference Code Name & Affiliation Date of

Comment

CRS Mangold, Grace

John Johnson

The CAT Rental Store Stockton, California 1-18-10

MANN Mann, David

Private Citizen

Location Unknown 1-18-10

MCAQMD Brown, Christopher

Mendocino County AQMD Ukiah, California 1-19-10

WALLACE Wallace, Arleen

Private Citizen

Location Unknown 1-20-10

MAHAN Mahan, Kevin

Private Citizen

Location Unknown 1-20-10

SCEC Lany, Karl

SCEC Air Quality Specialists Orange, California 1-21-10

ARA Graboski, Michael, Ph.D.

McClelland, John, Ph.D., V.P., Gov. Affairs

American Rental Association Washington, D.C. 1-22-10

TFI Gaines, Bill, Chairman

Transfer Flow, Inc. Chico, California 1-25-10

MBAPCD Stedman, Richard

Monterey Bay Unified APCD Monterey, California 1-26-10

GU Venerable, Randall

Generators Unlimited Brisbane, California 1-26-10

SLOAPCD Allen, Larry

San Luis Obispo APCD San Luis Obispo, California 1-26-10

CGA Mortensson, J. Michael

California Groundwater Association Santa Rosa, California 1-27-10

CIAQC Lewis, Michael

Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition West Covina, California 1-27-10

GCTWD Segarra, Anthony

Gary C. Tanko Well Drilling, Inc.

Location Unknown 1-27-108

Commenter

Reference Code Name & Affiliation Date of

Comment

STEVE K., Steve

Private Citizen

Location Unknown 1-27-10

CCIMA Harper, Adam

Cal. Construction & Industrial Materials

Assoc. Sacramento, California 1-27-10

MC McNally, James

Manson Construction Long Beach, California 1-27-10

Comment 1:

Several private citizens requested that the agency abandon or severely curtail the regulation of diesel engines. (BOB, LASTELIC, MANN , WALLACE, MAHAN, STEVE)

Agency Response:

The ARB is committed to protecting public health fr om the harmful effects of Air Pollution. In 1998, California identified diesel e xhaust particulate matter (PM) as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cau se cancer, premature death, and other health problems. Diesel engines also contrib ute to California’s fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) air quality problems. Those most v ulnerable are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. Based on year 2005 emissions in Californ ia, diesel PM contributes each year to approximately 3,500 premature deaths and th ousands of hospital admissions, asthma attacks and other respiratory sy mptoms, and lost workdays. Overall, diesel engine emissions are responsible fo r the majority of California’s known cancer risk from outdoor air pollutants. The se regulations for diesel engines are necessary to reduce the public’s exposure to to xic diesel PM. As part of the rulemaking process, the Board is required to consid er the cost of the regulation that is designed to reduce emissions and protect public health.

Comment 2:

An industry representative requested that ARB creat e a web-based reporting system for portable equipment to reduce the cost of paperw ork. This representative also requested an online fleet average emission calculat or. (HCAT)

Agency Response:

Staff agrees with the value of electronic reporting tools. Currently, there is a fleet average emission calculator on our website. An onl ine system is in development which will allow companies to register equipment, s ubmit reports, and perform fleet calculations. ARB staff expects this system to be available within two years.9

Comment 3:

Two industry representatives requested that changes be made to the PERP Regulation requirements for engines operating in St ate Territorial Waters (STW) to make them less burdensome to industry. Specificall y, they recommended that the district notification requirement should be reduced or removed. (BAES, MC)

Agency Response:

This comment is outside the scope of the proposed a mendments. No changes to the requirements for engines operating in the STW a re being proposed at this time. However, ARB staff believes that this issue is best handled at the local district level in order to mitigate any potential emissions impact s.

Comment 4:

An industry representative stated that the complian ce dates in the Portable Engine ATCM should be made to align with the requirements of the In-Use Off-Road Vehicle Regulation. Specifically, non-certified engines sh ould be allowed the compliance deadlines of 2013 or 2015, depending on fleet size. (CRI)

Agency Response:

We recognize that similar engines are used in the t wo programs. However, there is a major difference in the timing of the rules that have been adopted for the two programs. The Statewide PERP Regulation was establ ished in 1997 as an alternative program to the local permitting require ments of portable engines. Since the beginning of the program, there was a requireme nt that all registered Tier 0 engines had to be upgraded by January 1, 2010. Thi s time period allowed businesses a minimum of 13 years of useful life to recover the cost of the equipment. However, due to economic conditions, th e Board is allowing for a oneyear extension of certain non-certified portable en gines. In order to preserve emission reductions and protect public health, we h ave not proposed further relaxing the compliance date.

Comment 5:

Owners of larger fleets want the same operating ext ension for uncertified engines as was proposed for owners of smaller fleets. (WFUS, NWS, BJSC, CRS, CIAQC, CCIMA)

Agency Response:

At the hearing, the Board directed staff to grant t he same operating extension for uncertified engines to all owners of portable engin es.10

Comment 6:

The amendment to allow certified on-highway engines to remain in service should have been made sooner because our company spent sig nificant amounts of money to replace these on-highway engines already. (NWS, BJSC)

Agency Response:

As part of considering regulatory amendments, we ev aluated the impact the change would have on affected businesses. This is an impo rtant element of our evaluation. We did not make this single change earlier due to t he small number of engines affected, which would not justify the resources req uired for a regulatory effort. However, once ARB began amending other sections of the regulation it became effective to include this action as part of our ove rall regulatory effort. The change to allow on-highway certified engines used in portable applications to continue to remain in service was made after carefully consider ing both the costs and benefits of the proposed action and was developed as expeditiou sly as possible.

Comment 7:

ARB and the local districts should either thoroughl y inspect all registered engines or focus inspections on older engines in order to veri fy that the uncertified engines that are not allowed to operate have been removed from s ervice. (NWS, CRS)

Agency Response:

This comment is related to the ongoing implementati on and enforcement of the regulation and not specifically to the proposed ame ndments. However, we agree that enforcement is an important part of the effect iveness of the program. In the last few years, additional funding has allowed the local air districts to enhance their activities and many illegally-operating engines hav e been identified.

Comment 8:

The amendments to the recordkeeping and reporting r equirements contained in the PERP Regulation are still too burdensome, especiall y for rental companies. These requirements should be further revised to be less c ostly, or they should be completely removed. (BJSC, CRS, SCEC, CIAQC)

Agency Response:

At the hearing, the Board directed staff to evaluat e the current recordkeeping and reporting requirements for rental equipment and mak e further amendments as necessary. We are currently developing proposed ch anges that will be subject to a subsequent 15-day public comment period.11

Comment 9:

The PERP regulation should be revised to allow regi strations to be issued electronically and accessed over the internet. (SC EC)

Agency Response:

An online system is currently under development whi ch will allow companies to register equipment, submit annual reports, and perf orm fleet calculations. ARB staff expects this system to be available within two year s.

Comment 10:

A few representatives from the wood chipping and wa ter well drilling industries expressed support of the proposed amendments and ur ged the Board to adopt them. (EAI, CGA, GCTWD)

Agency Response:

Thank you for your support.

Comment 11:

A representative from a local air district does not want the vendor sales reporting requirement to be removed from the PERP Regulation. The commenter believes the information can be useful in finding those operator s who are not in compliance with the requirement to have a permit or registration. (MCAQMD)

Agency Response:

The PERP Regulation is intended to only contain req uirements for portable equipment registered in the program. It was not in tended to regulate the sales of new equipment. In an effort to clarify the intent of the regulation, it was decided to remove this provision. If a mechanism is desired t o track the sales of equipment for which a permit may potentially be required, then a vendor notification requirement should be established in the rules and regulations that require those mandatory permits.

Comment 12:

The language of the proposed amendment to section 2 453(i)(3) of the PERP Regulation is not clear. (ARA)

Agency Response:

ARB staff made changes to the strikeout underline n otation of this section which were published with the 15-day notice on March 15, 2010. These notation changes should clarify the proposed language.12

Comment 13:

It is unclear what rental companies must provide in order to satisfy the requirement that “a written copy of applicable requirements” mu st be provided to the customer as part of the rental agreement per section 2458(b) of the PERP Regulation. (ARA)

Agency Response:

This comment is related to the ongoing implementati on and enforcement of the regulation and not specifically to the proposed ame ndments. However, ARB staff has stated previously that a copy of the registrati on documents including the operating conditions would be sufficient to comply with this requirement. ARB staff plans to conduct additional outreach to improve awa reness.

Comment 14:

Many of the items such as material throughput and s pecific location that are currently required to be tracked for recordkeeping are not known to the rental company. (ARA)

Agency Response:

ARB staff added certain criteria with these amendme nts, such as tracking specific location, in order to make it possible to determine compliance with the requirements of the applicable regulations. The rental equipmen t owners should make it part of the rental agreement that this information is requi red to be kept by the operator. However, as part of the modifications directed by t he Board at the January 28, 2010 hearing, ARB staff will be evaluating the recordkee ping and reporting requirements for rental equipment and will be proposing further amendments as necessary. Any proposed changes will be subject to a subsequent 15 -day comment period.

Comment 15:

Equipment used by a Provider of Essential Public Se rvices (PEPS) but owned by the rental company should not be subject to the reporti ng requirements of section 2458(g) of the PERP Regulation. (ARA)

Agency Response:

ARB staff will consider this change as part of the modification directed by the Board. Any proposed changes will be subject to a subsequen t 15-day comment period.13

Comment 16:

There should be a refund available for rental compa nies who pay full inspection fees but then later qualify for the “multiple engine ins pection fee discount.” (ARA)

Agency Response:

This is an implementation issue and is not related to the proposed amendments. This topic is specifically addressed in our Frequen tly Asked Questions (FAQ) document on our website. It states the following: “Inspection fees are required to be paid with the initial application and renewal. Bec ause this multiple-engine discount has to be chosen in advance, registrants should giv e careful consideration to selecting this option as being able to comply with this provision will take significant planning on their part. Because the intent to part icipate in a multiple inspection discount must be chosen upfront per section 2460(b) (7) of the PERP Regulation, we

are not able to issue a refund in situations where industry later elects to alter its inspection planning and/or schedule.”

Comment 17:

If the operator of rental equipment is in violation of any requirement in either the PERP Regulation or the Portable ATCM, then the owne r of the equipment should not be held liable. (ARA)

Agency Response:

Rental equipment owners are required to give writte n notification of all the PERP regulation requirements to their customers. If an operator is then in violation of any of these requirements, the enforcement will be hand led on a case-by-case basis by

the local air district or ARB enforcement staff tak ing into consideration the specific circumstances to determine the responsible parties.

Comment 18:

The Retrofit Verification process should be revised to allow diesel particulate filters (DPFs) that have been verified for on-road engines to be automatically extended to off-road, portable, and stationary engines without additional testing. (TFI)

Agency Response:

This comment is outside the scope of the proposed a mendments. The Retrofit Verification Program is not part of the regulations being amended by this action. However, ARB staff is available to discuss this mat ter further with the commenter.14

Comment 19:

The portable ATCM should be revised to allow the re trofit of non-certified portable engines with DPFs instead of the current requiremen t to have them replaced or removed from service by January 1, 2010. (TFI)

Agency Response:

The Portable Engine ATCM does not allow retrofits o f portable non-certified engines so that they may operate beyond January 1, 2010. D uring the development of the Portable Engine ATCM, it was the consensus among st akeholders that engine replacement, and not retrofit, was the best course of action for these non-certified engines. It should also be noted that most of the portable engines discussed in the comment letter are used at agricultural sources, an d these engines are not subject to the regulations being amended with this action.

Comment 20:

Representatives from two local air districts do not want the Portable Engine ATCM to restrict the ability of the local air district’s to issue permits for certified diesel-fueled engines that do not meet the current emission tier level. (MBAPCD, SLOAPCD)

Agency Response:

At the hearing, ARB staff proposed to work with the local air districts and stakeholders regarding this situation and make addi tional amendments if necessary. Proposed amendments will be available for public re view in a subsequent 15-day comment period.

Comment 21:

An industry representative stated that ARB should r e-evaluate the regulations applicable to portable engines with consideration t o the recent economic recession, and relax the requirements to be less burdensome on businesses. (GU)

Agency Response:

ARB performs an economic analysis with each new reg ulation and regulation amendment. The proposed amendments will provide an operating extension for many engines which will result in economic relief f or businesses that own these engines. A consideration of the current economic r ecession was an important factor in developing the proposed changes.15

II.b Written Comments Received on the Day of the AR B Public Hearing

Written comments were also accepted by ARB at the time of the ARB Public Hearing (January 28, 2010). These written comments are also considered to be 45-day public comments. Individuals, busines ses, and organizations submitting written comments at the public hearing a re listed in Table 2. Following the list are summaries of each comment as well as agency responses. Each response includes an explanation o f either any changes made or the reasons for making no change.

Table 2 List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Written Comments on the

Day of the ARB Public Hearing

Commenter

Reference Code Name & Affiliation Date of

Comment

RCRC Pitto, Mary

Regional Council of Rural Counties Sacramento, California 1-28-10

SCCA Davis, William

Southern California Contractors

Association Los Angeles, California 1-28-10

CGA Mortensen, Michael

California Groundwater Association Santa Rosa, California 1-28-10

Comment 1:

A representative from local government requested th at ARB revise the applicability of the regulations for snow blowing equipment. Thi s type of equipment faces many of the same issues as two-engine cranes, street swe epers, and water well drilling rigs. Therefore, snow blowers should be similarly exempted from the Portable Engine ATCM as was done for those types of equipmen t. (RCRC)

Agency Response:

At the hearing, the Board directed staff to evaluat e this situation and make additional amendments if necessary. Any proposed amendments w ill be available for public review in a subsequent 15-day comment period.

Comment 2:

Owners of larger fleets should get the same operati ng extension for uncertified engines as proposed for those fleets with 25 or few er engines. (SCCA)16

Agency Response:

Please see the agency response to Comment 5 submitt ed during the 45-day comment period.

Comment 3:

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contai ned in the PERP Regulation are too burdensome for all industry. These require ments should be completely removed. (SCCA)

Agency Response:

Recordkeeping and reporting are needed in order to determine compliance with the requirements of the applicable regulations, so they cannot simply be removed. However, as part of the modifications directed by t he Board at the January 28, 2010 hearing, ARB staff will be evaluating the recordkee ping and reporting requirements for rental equipment and will be proposing further amendments as necessary. Any proposed amendments will be available for public re view in a subsequent 15-day comment period.

Comment 4:

Although this representative from industry had subm itted written comments during the 45-day period, he passed along additional comme nts from two members in his association that supported the amendments regarding water well drilling rigs. (CGA)

Agency Response:

Thank you for your support.17

II.c Oral Comments Provided During the ARB Public H earing

The general public presented comments to the Board during the ARB Public Hearing held on January 28, 2010, in Sacramento, Ca lifornia. Persons that made oral statements on the proposed amendments are listed in Table 3. Following the list are summaries of each comment as well as agency responses. Each response includes an explanation o f either any changes made, or the reasons for making no change.

Table 3 List of Individuals & Businesses Providing Oral Com ments

During the ARB Public Hearing

Commenter

Reference Code Name & Affiliation Written

Comments

Provided

TFI Gaines, Bill

Transfer Flow, Inc. Yes

CAPCOA Zeldin, Mel

California Air Pollution Control Officers Assoc. No

SCAQMD Wallerstein, Barry

South Coast AQMD No

ARA Graboski, Michael

American Rental Association Yes

RCRC Pitto, Mary

Regional Council of Rural Counties Yes

BJSC Van Allen, Doug

BJ Services Company Yes

NWS Thomas, James

Nabors Well Services Co. Yes

SCEC Lany, Karl

SCEC Air Quality Specialists Yes

SCCA Davis, William

Southern California Contractors Assoc. Yes

CGA Mortensen, Michael

California Groundwater Association Yes

DWD Fulton, Arthur

Diamond Well Drilling No

CIAQC Lewis, Michael

Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition Yes

WATSON Watson, Scott

Private Citizen No

BCP Weiss, Fitz

Berkeley Concrete Pumping No18

Comment 1:

Various representatives from industry and local reg ulatory agencies provided oral testimony that repeated the same objections, concer ns, and recommendations that were stated in their submitted written comments. ( TFI, ARA, RCRC, BJSC, NWS, SCEC, SCCA, CGA, CIAQC)

Agency Response:

Because the oral testimony was duplicative of the w ritten comments submitted by these persons, no additional response is contained here. Refer to agency responses to written comments as follows:

Commenter

Reference Code Previously Submitted

Comment Number Time Submitted

TFI 18 and 19 45-day period ARA 12 through 16 45-day period RCRC 1 ARB public hearing BJSC 5, 6, and 8 45-day period NWS 5, 6, and 7 45-day period SCEC 8 and 9 45-day period SCCA 2 and 3 ARB public hearing CGA 10 45-day period CGA 4 ARB public hearing CIAQC 5 and 8 45-day period

Comment 2:

The Portable Engine ATCM should not restrict the lo cal air district’s ability to issue permits for certified diesel-fueled engines that do not meet the current emission tier level. (CAPCOA)

Agency Response:

Please see the agency response to Comment 20 submit ted during the 45-day comment period.

Comment 3:

The Portable Engine ATCM should contain a prohibiti on of sale provision to prevent unpermitted Tier 1 and Tier 2 engines from being so ld to unsuspecting buyers in California by unscrupulous vendors. (CAPCOA)

Agency Response:

This comment is outside the scope of the proposed a mendments. No requirements for the sale of portable engines are being proposed at this time. There has been

and will continue to be outreach efforts to inform stakeholders about the requirements of the regulations.19

Comment 4:

A representative from a local air district expresse d his support of the proposed amendments and urged the Board to adopt them. (SCA QMD)

Agency Response:

Thank you for your support.

Comment 5:

A representative from the water well drilling indus try expressed his support of the proposed amendments and urged the Board to adopt th em. (DWD)

Agency Response:

Thank you for your support.

Comment 6:

A person expressed concern about the selection proc ess for members of the Scientific Review Panel. (WATSON) Agency Response:

This comment is outside the scope of the proposed a mendments. No additional response is required.

Comment 7:

A representative from industry expressed concern th at the proposed extension for uncertified engines is only proposed for engines th at were permitted or registered as of December 31, 2009. His engines are currently op erating under a compliance agreement, and would not be eligible for the extens ion. (BCP)

Agency Response:

The compliance agreement issued by the district inc ludes criteria for operation and replacement of the engines. The local district has the enforcement discretion to let him operate under his current compliance agreement for as long as the district deems to be appropriate, which may be in line with the extension time period.20

II.d Written Comments Received During the 15-Day P ublic Comment Period

Written comments from the general public were also accepted by ARB during the 15-day public comment period following t he issuance of the 15-Day Notice. The modified regulations were relea sed for public comment on March 15, 2010. The public comment period remai ned open until the close of business on March 30, 2010. Persons that commented on the modified PERP Regulation or Portable Engine ATCM re gulation by submitting written comments are listed in Table 4. Following the list are summaries of each comment as well as agency respons es. Each response includes an explanation of either any changes made or the reasons for making no change.

Table 4 List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Written Comments

During the 15-Day Public Comment Period

Commenter

Reference Code Name & Affiliation Date of

Comment

CASTILLA Castilla, Carlos

Private Citizen

Location Unknown 3-16-10

CPBO McClure, Laurie

Concrete Pumping Business Owner

Location Unknown 3-23-10

CIAQC Lewis, Michael

Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition West Covina, California 3-25-10

SBO Kenyon, Stan

Small Business Owner San Rafael, California 3-30-10

MWDSC Bell, Janet

Metropolitan Water District of Southern Los Angeles, California 3-30-10

Comment 1:

A private citizen stated that these amendments will put him and many others like him out of business, which will result in them going on government welfare. A business owner stated that the ARB regulations are too burde nsome and have a negative economic impact on his business. (CASTILLA, SBO)

Agency Response:

The objective of the amendments is to provide tempo rary economic relief for operators of non-certified portable engines after c onsidering public comment as well as considering other factors including costs and em issions. Please see the agency response to the Comment 21 submitted during the 45- day comment period.21

Comment 2:

This business owner was displeased with the fact th at Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified engines are no longer eligible for permits or regis tration. (CPBO)

Agency Response:

Please see the agency response to Comment 20 submit ted during the 45-day comment period.

Comment 3:

A representative from industry stated the same obje ctions, concerns, and recommendations that were stated in their previous written comments submitted during the 45-day comment period and oral comments made at the hearing. (CIAQC)

Agency Response:

Please see the agency responses to Comments 5 and 8 submitted during the 45- day comment period.

Comment 4:

The amendment to the recordkeeping requirements to include more tracking of specific location is contrary to the goal of stream lining the regulation and reducing the regulatory burden on portable equipment owners. (MWDSC)

Agency Response:

This comment is outside the scope of the modificati ons included in the 15-day notice. No additional changes to the requirements for recordkeeping are being proposed with that notice. It should be noted that the commenter is not subject to this recordkeeping requirement as a Provider of Ess ential Public Services (PEPS). The tracking of specific location is necessary for the enforcement of the requirement that portable equipment shall not reside at a locat ion for more than 12 consecutive

months.

Comment 5:

The PERP regulation should be amended to allow equi pment to be operated during the lag time from when an electronic notification i s sent to the equipment owner that the equipment has been registered, and when the reg istration documents are received in the mail by the owner. (MWDSC)22

Agency Response:

This comment is outside the scope of the modificati ons included in the 15-day notice. No additional changes to the requirements for electronic notification of registration are being proposed with that notice. This issue concerns the implementation of the online registration system cu rrently under development. ARB staff will conduct outreach and training for all us ers of this system once it is ready.