State of California 

California Environmental Protection Agency 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REGULATORY AMENDMENTS TO THE 

EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS FOR 2007-2009 MODEL-YEAR HEAVY DUTY 

URBAN BUS ENGINES AND THE FLEET RULE FOR TRANSIT AGENCIES 

Public Hearing Date: September 15, 2005 

Agenda Item No.: 05-8-6 

 Continued on October 20 and October 27, 2005 

 Agenda Item No.: 05-10-2 

I. GENERAL 

In this rulemaking the Air Resources Board (ARB or the Board) is amending the 

regulations for two programs that reduce emissions from urban buses. One program 

affects emissions from in-use urban buses operated by transit agencies (Fleet Rule for 

Transit Agencies - Urban Bus Requirements, contained in section 2023.1, title 13, 

California Code of Regulations (CCR) and the related Reporting Requirements for 

Transit Agencies, contained in section 2023.4). The other program achieves emission 

reductions by establishing new engine standards for urban buses (contained in 

sections 1956.1 and 1956.8). 

The rulemaking was initiated on July 29, 2005, with the publication of a notice of public 

hearing scheduled for September 15, 2005. Notices of continuation, dated September 

9, 2005, and October 20, 2005, continued the Board’s consideration of the rulemaking 

to October 20 and 27, 2005, and were also posted and made available to the public. 

The Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, entitled "Proposed Amendments to the 

Exhaust Emission Standards for 2007-2009 Model-Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus 

Engines and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies" (Staff Report or ISOR) was made 

available for public review and comment beginning on July 29, 2005. The Staff Report, 

which is incorporated by reference herein, describes the rationale for the amendments. 

This Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking (FSOR) updates the staff report by 

identifying and explaining the modifications that were made to the original proposal at 

the Board’s direction and summarizes and responds to written comments and hearing 

testimony. 
2

At the public hearing held on September 15, 2005, the Board considered amendments 

presented by staff affecting urban buses owned or operated by transit agencies. Staff 

presented two policy decisions for the Board’s consideration: 1) amending the statewide 

urban bus engine emission standards, and 2) mandating that all transit agencies 

operating in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or South Coast 

District) be required to follow the alternative-fuel compliance path. The Board adopted 

Resolution 05-47 at the hearing, which adopted the staff’s proposed amendment 

mandating transit agencies in SCAQMD to switch to the alternative-fuel path. The 

Board deferred consideration of the amendment to the statewide urban bus emission 

standard until October 20, 2005. 

On October 20, 2005, staff presented modifications to the regulation originally proposed 

in the Staff Report. Staff presented three options to the Board: 1) retain the current new 

urban bus emissions standards, 2) align the 2007 and subsequent model-year new 

urban bus engine emission standards with the equivalent model-year heavy-duty 

truck-engine emission standard, and 3) require all transit agencies statewide to 

purchase/lease only alternative fuel buses. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board 

adopted Resolution 05-53, in which it approved modified amendments subject to the 

Board’s consideration at an October 27, hearing of a report from the staff on the likely 

effect of one element of the modified amendments. 

At the October 27, 2005, hearing, after considering the staff’s report, the Board adopted 

Resolution 05-61, approving the modifications previously approved with one additional 

modification. The modified amendments align the 2007 and subsequent model-year 

urban bus engine emission standards with the equivalent model-year California 

heavy-duty truck engine emission standards, but require diesel path transit agencies 

with more than 30 urban buses in their fleets that purchase 2007 through 2009 

model-year urban buses with diesel engines not certified at or below 0.2 grams per 

brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) oxides of nitrogen (NOx) engine emission standard to 

meet specified conditions. The conditions require the transit agency to mitigate the NOx 

emissions through retrofitting an existing urban bus or transit fleet vehicle within its fleet 

with a level 3 diesel emission control strategy with a 40 percent NOx reduction, and if a 

device is not verified, a minimum of 25 percent NOx reduction, until vehicles in the 

agency’s fleet are retrofitted or are incapable of being retrofitted. 

Resolution 05-61 reaffirmed the directions in Resolution 05-53 that the Executive Officer 

incorporate the approved modifications into the proposed regulatory text, with such 

other conforming modifications as may be appropriate, and make the modified text 

available for a supplemental comment period of 15 days or more. The Executive Officer 

was then directed either to adopt the amendments with such additional modifications as 

may be appropriate in light of the comments received, or to present the regulations to 

the Board for further consideration if warranted in light of the comments. 

On April 28, 2006, ARB issued a Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text, which 

advised of, and requested comment on, the above described modifications to the 
3

regulations. The notice included an additional conforming modification as authorized in 

Resolution 05-53. The additional modification adds a reporting requirement to title 13, 

CCR, section 2023.4 for transit agencies. No further substantive modifications were 

made following the April 28, 2006 notice and the Executive Officer issued Executive 

Order R-05-007, in which she adopted the amendments to 1956.1, 1956.8, 2023.1, and 

2023.4.1

Fiscal Impacts. Pursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(2), ARB has 

determined that the amended regulations will not impose a mandate upon or create 

costs or savings, as defined in Government Code section 11346.5(a)(6), to any school 

district. The ARB has also determined that while the amendments will impose a 

mandate on local agencies (i.e., transit agencies), there are no costs that require 

reimbursement as explained below. 

Alternative-Fuel Path Mandate for All Transit Agencies in the District.

The direct cost impacts of this amendment affect transit agencies that are public 

agencies in SCAQMD. Requiring all transit agencies in SCAQMD to follow the 

alternative-fuel path for urban buses would not have a fiscal impact on transit agencies 

or on transportation planning agencies and commissions within the South Coast District 

because SCAQMD Rule 1192 already requires transit agencies operating in the District 

to purchase only alternative-fuel buses. For this reason, the amendment of ARB’s 

regulation will not cause additional costs to be incurred. Further, this proposal does not 

require a new program nor does it expand existing programs, but simply affects 

transportation agencies’ methods for providing existing services. 

Transit agencies receive 80 to 83 percent of their direct capital costs in the form of 

grants from the federal government (Federal Transportation Administration). Transit 

agencies in California generally make up the additional 17 to 20 percent of capital costs 

and all operating costs through a variety of grant programs administered by state and 

local governments and through fares. 

Amend the Statewide Urban Bus Emission Requirements.

The amendments will have a fiscal impact on those transit agencies and transportation 

planning agencies and commissions statewide which elect to purchase diesel buses 

before 2010 because such buses would require mitigation. The amended regulations, 

however, require neither a new program nor an expanded level of service from existing 

 

1

 The Proposed Regulation Order attached to the ISOR showed the text of section 1956.1(a)(8) as it then

existed, without change. This subsection was adopted in 2001 and became operative January 13, 2001. 

On January 7, 2005, ARB submitted to OAL another rulemaking package that included amendments to 

section 1956.1(a)(11); the Final Regulation Order showed those amendments and indicated that no 

changes were being made to subsection (a)(8). Nevertheless, due to an apparent printing error, section 

1956.1(a)(8) was omitted when the amendments to section 1956.1(a) were printed in Barclays Register 

2006, No. 5. To correct this error, the Final Regulation Order in this rulemaking shows subsection (a)(8) 

in underline format. Item 19 of the rulemaking file contains the Secretary of State filings for the 

rulemaking that adopted section 1956.1 (January 2001) and the most recent rulemaking before the 

current rulemaking in which section 1956.1 was amended (January 2006). The latter filing shows the 

paragraph without amendment, i.e., as an extant regulatory provision. 
4

programs; they simply affect transportation agencies’ methods for providing existing 

services. 

No costs are expected for the 2005-2006 fiscal year. The expected costs of the 

proposal for the 2006-2007 fiscal year are about $736,700, with a range of about 

$345,000 to $1,129,000; and expected costs for the 2007-2008 fiscal year are about 

$1,438,000, with a range of about $673,000-$2,204,000. These costs are for the 

purchase and maintenance of an expected 40 to 130 diesel emission control systems 

each year for calendar years 2007-2009. It is assumed that half of the controls 

purchased in calendar year 2007 are purchased in fiscal year 2006-7. There is also a 

small possible variation in the range of the purchase cost of plus-or-minus 2.7 percent in 

addition to the ranges given above. 

Transit agencies receive 80 to 83 percent of their direct capital costs in the form of 

grants from the federal government (Federal Transportation Administration). Transit 

agencies in California generally make up the additional 17 to 20 percent of capital costs 

and all operating costs through a variety of grant programs administered by state and 

local governments and through fares. 

Consideration of Alternatives. The Board has determined that no reasonable 

alternative considered by the agency or that has otherwise been identified and brought 

to the attention of the agency would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for 

which the regulatory action was proposed, or would be as effective and less 

burdensome to affected private persons or small businesses than the action taken by 

the Board. 

II. MODIFICATIONS TO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENTS 

At the October 27, 2007, hearing, the Board adopted Resolution 05-61, approving the 

originally noticed alignment of the statewide urban bus engine standards with the 

heavy-duty truck engine standards with additional modifications. The Board further 

directed staff to work with stakeholders regarding modifications or clarifications to the 

approved regulations. The following is a description of the final modifications and 

clarifications, by section number. 

Title 13, CCR

§ 1956.1 – Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures 

Paragraph (a) (12) was modified by removing the 2007 and subsequent model year 

urban bus engine standard. 

§ 1956.8 – Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures 

Paragraph (a)(2)(A) was modified to include additional footnotes to the chart of Exhaust 

Emission Standards. These footnotes clarify the applicable emission standard for 
5

model year 2007 through 2009 urban bus engines and reference purchasing 

requirements for transit agencies. 

§ 2023.1 – Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies – Urban Bus Requirements 

Paragraph (a) was modified to include subparagraph (5) which details the mitigation and 

reporting requirements for transit agencies on the diesel path purchasing urban buses 

with engines not certified at or below 0.2 g/bhp-hr. 

§ 2023.4 – Reporting Requirements for Transit Agencies 

Paragraph (b) was modified to include subparagraph (4) which details the reporting 

requirement for transit agencies purchasing urban buses with engines not certified at or 

below 0.2 g/bhp-hr. 

III. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES 

During the 45-day comment period, the Board received written comments from: 

Albert Chang Rowland Unified School District (Rowland) 

Angelo J. Bellomo Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) 

Austin O'Dell San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO) 

Barry Wallerstein South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 

Bonnie Holmes-Gen American Lung Assoc. of Calif. (Enviro Coalition) 

Brhram Fazeli Communities for a Better Environment (Enviro Coalition) 

Carl Sedoryk Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) 

Catherine Reheis-Boyd Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) 

Charles Saylar Ocean Conservation Society, Form Letter #3, 7 form letters 

stating similar opinions (FL#3); 

Craig Perkins City of Santa Monica (Santa Monica) 

Don Anair Union of Concerned Scientists (Enviro Coalition) 

Enrique Chiock American Lung Assoc. of Los Angeles County (Enviro 

Coalition) 

Gary Patton Planning and Conservation League (Enviro Coalition) 

Jac A. Crawford San Luis Obispo RTA and South County Transit Authorities 

(RTA, SCAT) 

Jeffrey Noonan-Day John Deere (Deere) 

Jesse Marquez Coalition for a Safe Environment (Enviro Coalition) 

Jose Carmona Center for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Technologies 

(Enviro Coalition) 

Jose Huizar Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) 

Joseph Haraburda Oakland Metro Chamber of Commerce, Form Letter #2, 3 form 

letters stating similar opinions (FL#2) 

Julie Masters Natural Resources Defense Council (Enviro Coalition) 

Mark Wall Lake Transit Authority (Lake) 

Matthew Haskett private citizen (Haskett) 
6

Michael T. Burns Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 

Michael Eaves California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (CNGVC) 

Mitchell Pratt Clean Energy 

Neil Miller City of Manhattan Beach Public Works Department, Form 

Letter #1 20 form letters stating similar opinions (FL#1) 

Noel Park San Pedro & Peninsula Homeowner's Coalition (Enviro 

Coalition) 

Patricia Ochoa Pacoima Beautiful (Pacoima) 

Patrick Kudell American Lung Assoc. of the Inland Counties (Enviro 

Coalition) 

Paul J. Phillips City of Covina (Covina) 

Peter Spaulding California Association for Coordinated Transportation 

(CalACT) 

Racheal Lopez Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice 

(CCAEJ) 

Richard Prentice City of Hawthorne (Hawthorne) 

Rick Fernandez Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) 

Rick Ramacier The County Connection (CCCTA) 

Robert Mack private citizen (Mack) 

Robina Suwol California Safe Schools (Enviro Coalition) 

Sarang S. Dalal private citizen (Dalal) 

Steve Wallauch Lynn Suter & Assoc. for MCI (MCI) 

Susan Smartt California League of Conservation Voters (Enviro Coalition) 

Todd Campbell Coalition for Clean Air (Enviro Coalition) 

Tom Whittle City of Torrance (Torrance) 

Tonia Reyes Uranga Councilmember, 7th District, City of Long Beach (Uranga) 

At the September 15, 2005, hearing, oral testimony was presented by: 

Allan Pollock* Montebello Bus Lines (Montebello) 

Allen Schaeffer* Diesel Technology Forum (DTF) 

Barry Wallerstein* South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 

Bill Haller Sierra Club & West Van Nuys Neighborhood Council 

(WVNNC) 

Brian Decker California Independent Oil Marketers Association (CIOMA) 

Bruce Magnani California Chamber of Commerce (CCC) & Californians for 

Sound Fuel Strategy (CSFS) 

Catherine Reheis-Boyd* Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) & Californians 

for Sound Fuel Strategy (CSFS) 

Charles Lapin International Truck and Engine Corporation (ITEC) 

Charlie Ker Westport Innovations (Westport) 

Clay Thomas Barrio* Montebello Bus Lines (Montebello) 

Dave Smith British Petroleum (BP) 

Dave Winnett City of Torrance (Torrance) 

Francisca Porchas Bus Riders Union (BRU) 

Gordan Exel Cummins Westport (CWI) 
7

Henry Lo Senator Gloria Romero, 24th District (Romero) 

Jacqueline McHenry Councilmember, City of Claremont (McHenry) 

James Lyons* Diesel Technology Forum (DTF) 

Jed Mandel* Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) 

Jeffrey Noonan-Day* John Deere (Deere) 

Jim Parker Norwalk Transit (Norwalk) 

John Hall Torrance Transit (Torrance) 

Joseph Lyou, Dr. California Environmental Rights Alliance (CERA) 

Joshua Goldman* ISE Corporation (ISE) 

Joshua Shaw* California Transit Association (CalTransit) 

Julie Masters* Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 

Laurene Weste City of Santa Clarita (Santa Clarita) 

Lee Wallace* Southern California Gas Company (SCG) and San Diego Gas 

and Electric (SDGE) 

Margaret Wilkinson private citizen (Wilkinson) 

Michael Eaves* California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (CNGVC) 

Mike Tunnell American Trucking Association (ATA) 

Mitchell Pratt* Clean Energy 

Patricia Byrd American Lung Association (ALA) 

Patrick Charbonneau International Truck and Engine Corporation (ITEC) 

Patrick O'Connor* National Assoc. of Fleet Administrators (NAFA) 

Richard Teebay Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADPW) 

Rick Sikes City of Santa Monica (Santa Monica) 

Rick Zbur* International Truck and Engine Corporation (ITEC) 

Rosa Washington Western Riverside Council of Government & the Western 

Riverside Clean Cities Coalition (WRCOG/CCC) 

Shabaka Heru Community Coalition for Change and Society for Positive 

Action (CSPA) 

Stephanie Magnien Judy Chu, Assemblywoman 49th district (Chu) 

Stephanie Williams Californians for Sound Fuel Strategy (CSFS) 

Todd Campbell* Coalition for Clean Air (CCA) 

Tzeitel P. Caracci Mayor Pro Tem, City of Duarte (Caracci) 

The people listed above with asterisks also submitted written comments. 

Prior to the October 20, 2005 Board Hearing, the Board received written comments 

from: 

A.L. Andrews Clean Air Partners Transportation Systems (CAPTS) 

Alnna & Doug Cameron private citizens (Carmerons) 

Andrew Littlefair private citizen (Littlefair) 

Austin O'Dell City of San Luis Obispo (SLO) 

Barry Wallerstein South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 

Bill Vernon private citizen (Vernon) 

Bob Guzman private citizen (Guzman) 

Bob Jorgensen Cummins, Inc. (Cummins) 
8

Bonnie Holmes-Gen American Lung Association of California (Enviro Coalition) 

Brian Stokes Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) 

Bret Banks private citizen (Banks) 

Catherine Reheis-Boyd Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) 

Carl G. Sedoryk Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) 

Carol Harmon private citizen; Form Letter #3-2, 4 form letters stating similar 

opinions (FL#3-2) 

Chad Lindhom private citizen (Lindhom) 

Charlie Ker Westport Innovations (Westport) 

Charlie Stringer private citizen. Form Letter #1-2, 8 form letters stating similar 

opinions (FL#1-2) 

Chris Ferrera East Bay Clean Cities (EBCC) 

Crista Worthy private citizen (Worthy) 

Daniel Price private citizen (Price) 

Dave Aasheim private citizen (Aasheim) 

David Lilly San Luis Obispo RTA (RTA) & San Luis Obispo SCAT 

(SCAT) 

David Mazer private citizen (Mazer) 

David Pearce private citizen (Pearce) 

David Shonbrunn Transportation Solutions Defense & Education Fund 

(TSDEF) 

Debra Padilla private citizen, Form Letter #2-2, 12 form letters stating 

similar opinions (FL#2-2) 

Diane Bailey Natural Resources Defense Council (Enviro Coalition) 

Don Anair Union of Concerned Scientists (Enviro Coalition) 

Fred Cavanah Modesto (Modesto) 

Gayle Pratt private citizen (Pratt) 

Henry McElvery private citizen (McElvery) 

Jared Hightower private citizen (Hightower) 

Jean-Francois Oeullet Xebec Inc. (Xebec) 

Jeanne Cain California for a Sound Fuel Strategy (CSFS) 

Jeffrey Noonan-Day John Deere (Deere) 

Jim Hekkers Monterey Bay Aquarium (MBA) 

Joseph Lyou California Environmental Rights Alliance (Enviro Coalition) 

Joseph J. Haraburda Oakland Metropolitan Chamber (FL#2) 

Judith Morgan Richmond Chamber of Commerce (FL#2) 

Julie Ivy Kids First (Kids) 

Kathryn Phillips Environmental Defense (Enviro Coalition) 

Kenneth Scheidig Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) 

Larry Ozier Gas Equipment Systems Incorporated (GESI) 

Laura Dennison private citizen (Dennison) 

Lawrence Smith private citizen (Smith) 

Lewis Nelson City of Tulare (Tulare) 

Lila Hussain Urban Habitat 

Lola Ungar private citizen (Ungar) 

Mark Perez private citizen (Perez) 
9

Mary Pitto Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) 

Melantha Tatum private citizen (Tatum) 

Michael Eaves California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (CNGVC) 

Mike Wixon City of Roseville (Roseville) 

Neal Mulligan City Engines Inc (CEI) 

Nelsen Fregoso Humboldt Transit Authority (HTA) 

Pattie Sanchez private citizen (Sanchez) 

Peter Slaby private citizen (Slaby) 

Rich Wagner Cummins, Inc. (Cummins) 

Richard Kolodziej Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (NGVC) 

Robert A Lynch private citizen (Lynch) 

Scott Raty Hayward Chamber of Commerce (FL#2) 

Sherrie Fisher Santa Barbara Metro Transit District (SBMTD) 

Shirley Bianchi San Luis Obispo RTA (RTA) 

Stuart Sunshine SF MUNI (MUNI) 

Steve Wallauch Motor Coach Industries (MCI) 

Susan Chiaroni Golden Gate Transit (GGT) 

Todd Campbell Coalition for Clean Air (Enviro Coalition) 

Virginia Field private citizen (Field) 

At the October 20, 2005, hearing, oral testimony was received from: 

Arthur Douwes Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 

Bonnie Holmes-Gen* American Lung Association of California (ALA) 

Brian Stokes* Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) 

Bruce Magnani California Chamber of Commerce (CCC) and Californians for 

a Sound Fuel Strategy (CSFS) 

Carl Sedoryk* Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) 

Chuck Harvey San Mateo County Transit District (Samtrans) 

Dawn Friest* Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)

Diane Bailey* Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 

Don Anair* Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) 

Gene Walker* California Transit Association (CalTransit) and Golden Gate 

Bridge Highway & Transportation District (GGT) 

Jean Roggenkamp Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 

Jeanne Krieg Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (ECCTA) 

Joe Sparano Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) 

Joshua Goldman* ISE Corp (ISE) 

Joshua Shaw* California Transit Association (CalTransit) 

Kenneth Scheidig* Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (ACTransit) 

Marty Mellera San Francisco MUNI and Regional Transit Association 

(RTA) (MUNI) 

Mary King Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (ACTransit) 

Michael Eaves* California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (CNGVC) 

Mitchell Pratt* Clean Energy 
10

Peter Spaulding* California Association for Coordinated Transportation 

(CalACT) 

Rebecca Kaplan Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (ACTransit) 

Steve Heminger* Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 

Todd Campbell Coalition for Clean Air (CCA) 

Vallerie Turella Assembly Majority Leader Dario Fromer from LA County 

(Fromer) 

The people listed above with asterisks also submitted written comments. 

Set forth below is a summary of each objection or recommendation made regarding the 

specific adoption, amendment, or repeal proposed, together with an explanation of how 

the proposed action has been changed to accommodate each objection or 

recommendation, or the reasons for making no change. The requirement applies only 

to objections or recommendations directed at the agency's proposed action or to the 

procedures followed by the agency in proposing or adopting the action. The agency 

may aggregate and summarize repetitive or irrelevant comments as a group, and may 

respond to repetitive comments or summarily dismiss irrelevant comments as a group. 

For the purposes of this paragraph, a comment is "irrelevant" if it is not specifically 

directed at the agency's proposed action or to the procedures followed by the agency in 

proposing or adopting the action. The comments have been grouped by topic wherever 

possible. 

As stated previously, the September 15 rulemaking was continued to October 20 

and 27. The Board heard testimony and approved actions regarding the SCAQMD 

transit bus fleet rulemaking at the September 15 hearing, and heard testimony and 

approved actions for the statewide urban bus engine emission standards at the 

October 20 and 27 hearings. At the September 15 Board hearing, the SCAQMD fleet 

rulemaking was considered with two related fleet rulemakings which the Board did not 

approve. The comments received during the 45-day notice period and testimony at the 

September 15 hearing included comments and testimony on all three related fleet 

rulemakings. Many of the commentors and testifiers included background information 

which was not related to the specific regulatory proposals. Among these at the 

September 15 hearing, the SCAQMD's presentation and testimony provides 

background information about the South Coast District's circumstances, its rules, and its 

views about the merits of alternative fueled vehicles. As these comments and a 

numbers of other comments in the same vein do not make specific objections to, or 

recommendations on, the ARB's amendments to the regulations, ARB has not 

responded as provided in Government Code section 11346.9 paragraph (a)(3). 

Part 1. Related to requiring all transit agencies operating in the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District to follow the alternative-fuel compliance path 

A. General 
11

1. Comment: The Board received general support to amend the urban transit bus rule 

mandating transit fleets in the South Coast Air Quality Management District to follow 

the alternative-fuel compliance path. (SCAQMD, Rowland, LAUSD, Enviro Coalition, 

FL#3, Santa Monica, Hasket, CNGVC, Clean Energy, FL#1, Pacoima, Covina, 

CCAEJ, Hawthorne, Uranga, WVNNC, Westport, BRU, Romero, McHenry, Deere, 

CERA, NRDC, Santa Clarita, SCG & SDGE, Wilkinson, ALA, Santa Monica, 

WRCOG/CCC, Chu, CCA, Caracci) 

Agency Response: The Board adopted the amendment to the Fleet Rule for Transit 

Agencies requiring all transit agencies operating in the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District to follow the alternative-fuel compliance path. 

2. Comment: The Board received general opposition based on the request that ARB 

maintain fuel neutrality in all aspects of ARB transit fleet rules and engine 

regulations and not mandate a local or regional "carve out" or regional exception to 

the ARB's statewide transit fleet rule. (SLO, WSPA, CalACT, Mack, MCI, Torrance, 

Montebello, DTF, CIOMA, CSFS, CCC, ITEC, BP, EMA, Norwalk, CalTransit, ATA, 

NAFA, LADPW) 

Agency Response: See the response to Comment E-1. 

3. Comment: Existing rules already provide for substantial decreases in the 

contributions of diesel to emissions of NOx and of its already modest share of 

PM 2.5 emissions. (DTF) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. 

4. Comment: The proposed fleet rules do not provide any PM [particulate matter] or 

NOx [oxides of nitrogen] emission benefits. The projected NOx benefits in the staff 

report are completely illusionary and come at an incredible cost. (EMA, CSFS) 

Agency Response: While the South Coast District is able to enforce Rule 1192, we 

believe the ARB’s rule and the District’s rule will get the same benefits. There are 

no additional emission benefits of ARB’s rule beyond the District’s rule. 

Nonetheless, the Board’s decision reflects a balancing of legal and policy 

considerations. By amending ARB’s fleet rule to require that all transit agencies 

within the South Coast District follow the alternative fuel path, the Board assists the 

South Coast District in continuing to exercise its authority in HSC section 40447.5. 

This statute authorizes the South Coast District to impose alternative fuel 

requirements on fleets within its jurisdiction. Further, the Board’s assistance to the 

South Coast District is consistent with the Board’s authority in Health and Safety 

Code section 39605 to provide any assistance to any district. If ARB’s rule were a 

stand-alone rule it would reduce NOx emissions by 0.13 tons per day in 2010. See 

the response to Comment C-1 for cost effectiveness information. 
12

5. Comment: We are committed to have engines that will meet the 0.2 gram NOx per 

brake horsepower-hour for model year 2007. (Deere, CWI) 

Agency Response: The Board appreciates the manufacturers’ commitment to 

offering engines that meet a NOx emission rate of 0.2 grams per brake horsepowerhour in the 2007 model year. The availability of Carl Moyer Program funding for 

these engines will likely encourage their purchase by transit agencies in the South 

Coast District and statewide. 

6. Comment: If you choose to adopt this rulemaking, I request that the fleets maintain 

records that demonstrate that they have purchased fully compliant motor vehicle 

fuels. (BP) 

Agency Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. But the 

commentor may wish to know that Reporting Requirements for Transit Agencies, 

adopted in title 13, CCR, section 2023.4, already require that each transit agency to 

submit an annual report that includes the fuel used for each urban bus it currently 

owns and operates. Additionally, ARB’s Standards for Motor Vehicles, title 13, CCR 

division 3 chapter 5, commencing with section 2260, require that all fuels sold for 

motor vehicles in California, except as waived, excluded, or otherwise exempted, 

comply with the appropriate standard for fuel type.

7. Comment: I would like to see the Board seriously consider mandating biodiesel as 

an alternative to the current proposal. This would be a cost-effective solution that 

every transit agency can implement here and now, without abandoning their 

significant capital investments in diesel. (Dalal) 

Agency Response: In the definition applicable to the Fleet Rule for Transit 

Agencies – Urban Bus Requirements, “Alternative fuel” means natural gas, propane, 

ethanol, methanol, gasoline (when used in hybrid electric buses only), hydrogen, 

electricity, fuel cells, or advanced technologies that do not rely on diesel fuel. 

“Alternative fuel” also means any of these fuels used in combination with each other 

or in combination with other non-diesel fuels. Most biodiesel blends are considered 

to be diesel fuel since they consist primarily of petroleum-derived diesel fuel. This 

suggested modification is not within the scope of the notice for the rulemaking since 

ARB did not propose to amend the definition of alternative fuel. 

B. Authority 

1. Comment: The rules are not necessary. Based on Judge Cooper’s decision, the 

South Coast is enforcing its own Fleet Rules against public and private fleet 

operators. The rules will not act as a backstop for the South Coast. They need an 

EPA waiver, which could take a year or more and likely would themselves be the 

subject of litigation. ARB should not risk its prestige or its authority by adopting rules 

which EPA disfavors and which require EPA waivers and do not meet Clean Air Act 

waiver requirement[s]. (EMA, WSPA) 
13

Agency Response: The Board’s decision reflects a balancing of legal and policy 

considerations. The ultimate outcome in the litigation to which the comment refers is 

yet to be determined as Judge Cooper’s decision in this litigation has been 

appealed.2

 In amending ARB’s fleet rule to require that all transit fleets within the 

South Coast District follow the alternative fuel path, the Board assists the South 

Coast District in continuing to act under its authority in Health and Safety Code 

(HSC) section 40447.5 to impose alternative fuel requirements on public fleets within 

its jurisdiction. The Board’s action is consistent with the waiver provisions in section 

209(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) since the purpose of section 209(b) is to 

allow California to adopt and enforce its own emission standards for new motor 

vehicles and engines that are not identical to federal requirements. 

Over the years, the criteria in section 209(b) for granting waivers of preemption have 

been interpreted in many waiver decisions issued by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). In granting waivers to California’s 

motor vehicle program, U. S. EPA has routinely deferred to the policy judgments of 

California’s decision makers. Recognizing Congress’s intent to create a limited 

review of California’s determinations, U.S. EPA has said: 

The structure and history of the California waiver provision clearly indicate both a 

congressional intent and an U.S. EPA practice of leaving the decision on ambiguous 

and controversial matters of public policy to California’s judgment. (40 Fed.Reg. at 

23104.) See also 58 Fed.Reg. 4166, LEV I Decision Document at p. 64.) 

Given the broad policy discretion accorded to California under FCAA section 209(b), 

the Board has not violated 209(b) by exercising its discretion to assist the South 

Coast District to exercise its authority under HSC section 40447.5 to require that 

transit-agency urban buses in the South Coast District use alternative fuels. 

2. Comment: We believe this represents an abandonment of CARB's long-standing 

policy of fuel neutrality, which has served the State's clean air programs well. If 

adopted, we believe this would be the first time CARB will adopt an emissions 

standard with the intention and effect of excluding a comparably low emitting 

technology. Because the proposed rules are not fuel neutral, as our comments 

discuss, we believe they violate requirements for approval of a waiver under Section 

209(b) of the Federal Clean Air Act because they're not consistent with the federal 

regulatory framework, which is fuel neutral. (ITEC, EMA, WSPA) 

Agency Response: The Board’s decision reflects a balancing of legal and policy 

considerations. By amending ARB’s fleet rule to require that all transit agencies 

within the South Coast District follow the alternative fuel path, the Board assists the 

South Coast District in continuing to exercise its authority in Health and Safety Code 

(HSC) section 40447.5. This statute authorizes the South Coast District to impose 

 

2

Engine Manufacturers Association, et al. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al., United 

States District Court Central District of California, CV 00-09065 FMC (BQRx). 
14

alternative fuel requirements on fleets within its jurisdiction. Further, the Board’s 

assistance to the South Coast District is consistent with the Board’s authority in 

Health and Safety Code section 39605 to provide any assistance to any district. 

The Board’s action is also consistent with section 209(b) of the federal Clean Air Act 

(FCAA). See the response to Comment B-1. 

3. Comment: Adoption of the proposed rule would be the first time CARB has adopted 

piecemeal emissions standards applicable to only a portion of the state. Again, the 

Federal Clean Air Act Section 209(b) gives EPA authority to waive preemption for 

emissions standards adopted by the State of California. Congress clearly 

envisioned that only emissions standards of statewide applicability would qualify for 

such waivers. CARB has never previously adopted, nor has the U.S. EPA granted a 

waiver for, emission standards that apply to only a limited portion of the state. 

(ITEC) 

Agency Response: The ARB’s current regulation, title 13, CCR, section 2023.1, 

Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies - Urban Bus Requirements, establishes two paths for 

compliance by transit agencies: a diesel-fuel path and an alternative-fuel path. 

Since 2001 when the regulation was first adopted,3 transit agencies on differing fuel 

paths have followed differing requirements. This results in differing requirements for 

transit districts throughout the State. The present amendments to the regulations 

affect the option available to transit agencies operating in the South Coast District, 

but do not otherwise amend the differing requirements for transit agencies 

throughout the State. As noted earlier, U.S. EPA’s consideration of the California’s 

waiver request must give deference to California’s policy choices as explained in the 

response to Comment B-1. 

4. Comment: The proposed rules violate both the Federal Clean Air Act Section 209(b) 

and the California Health and Safety Code because the proposed rules, 

implementation, and enforcement would be delegated to the AQMD. And that's the 

provision under the Health and Safety Code. Importantly, Health and Safety Code 

Section 43101 requires that CARB implement emission standards that it adopts. 

The delegation to the AQMD violates CARB's authority under this provision. (ITEC) 

Agency Response: The amendments adopted in this rulemaking do not delegate 

enforcement to the South Coast District. 

5. Comment: The proposed rules are inconsistent with Section 209(b) of the Federal 

Clean Air Act, because they violate lead time and stability requirements. I won't go 

into this in more detail other than to say the letter that was addressed to the AQMD 

from the U.S. EPA on February 1 of this year indicated that EPA believed lead time 

standards applied in this case. (ITEC) 

 

3

 First adopted in title 13, CCR, section 1956.2, filed with the Secretary of State on January 23, 2001; 

renumbered to section 2023.1 and amendments filed with the Secretary of State on January 31, 2006. 
15

Agency Response: The provisions for lead time and stability to which the comment 

refers are found in federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) section 202(a)(3)(C), not section 

209(b). Whether the lead time and stability requirements apply to California in the 

context of a fleet regulation remains an open question since U.S. EPA has not 

issued any waiver decision on the specific question. As noted in several recent ARB 

waiver requests, California continues to believe that the requirements of FCAA 

section 202(a)(3)(C) do not apply to California’s adoption of heavy-duty vehicle and 

engine standards. The text of the FCAA provision itself indicates that the provision 

is not applicable to California: 

Any standard promulgated or revised under this paragraph and applicable to 

classes or categories of heavy-duty vehicles or engines shall apply for a 

period of no less than 3 model years beginning no earlier than the model 

year commencing 4 years after such revised standard is promulgated. 

[FCAA section 202(a)(3)(C).] 

The provision’s text states that “standards promulgated or revised under this 

paragraph,” that is, under FCAA section 202(a), must provide the specified lead time 

and stability. In the person of the Administrator, U.S. EPA prescribes standards 

under 202(a). Clearly the provision applies to U.S. EPA’s promulgation of 

standards. 

California, however, does not promulgate its standards under the grant of authority 

in section 202(a). California promulgates vehicular emission standards under grants 

of authority in state law4 and under the waiver of federal preemption for California’s 

standards contained in FCAA section 209(b). Since section 202(a)(3)(C) is only 

applicable to standards promulgated under section 202(a) and since California does 

not promulgate its standards under 202(a), the provision does not apply to 

California. And, if the provision does not apply, its specified lead-time and stability 

requirements do not apply to California. 

With regard to the consistency issue, U.S. EPA’s Administrator has stated that 

California’s standards and accompanying test procedures are inconsistent with 

section 202(a) if: (1) there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of 

technology to meet those requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost 

of compliance within that time frame, or (2) the federal and California test 

procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements so as to make 

manufacturers unable to meet both sets of requirements with the same vehicle.5

 

4 California Health & Safety Code Division 26. 

5 See, e.g., 46 F.R. 26371 (May 12, 1981). Even where there is incompatibility between the California 

and federal test procedures, U.S. EPA’s Administrator has granted a waiver when U.S. EPA is able to 

determine that federal compliance can be demonstrated based on California test results, thus obviating

the need for two separate tests. (43 F.R. 1829, 1830 (January 12, 1978); 40 F.R. 30311, 30314 (July 18, 

1975).) 
16

Notable as well, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Engine Manufacturers 

Association and Western States Petroleum Association, et al. v. South Coast Air 

Quality Management District, et al. suggested that fleet rules that can be 

characterized as internal state purchasing decisions would not be preempted.6 

Because transit districts are created in the California Public Utilities Code, an ARB 

regulation that imposes fleet requirements on transit district agencies is consistent 

with a characterization of the regulation as an internal state purchasing decision to 

which preemption would not apply. 

6. Comment: There are only 21 [school] buses that will be affected by this, and that's 

in response to Dr. Gong's question. And there have been a number of exemptions 

that have been applicable to the AQMD by AQMD contractors, one in which we are 

involved with, which I think affected over 150 buses. So the LAUSD's [Los Angeles 

Unified School District] issues, they have required significant exemptions under the 

AQMD rule. (ITEC) 

Agency Response: This comment does not relate to the fleet rule for transit 

agencies. 

7. Comment: ARB must obtain a preemption waiver from U.S. EPA under FCAA 

section 209(b) before attempting to enforce the alternative-fuel mandate. Stated 

differently, ARB cannot grant itself a preemption waiver, but must wait to receive 

(or not) the grant of a waiver from EPA as a condition precedent to enforcing any 

new motor vehicle emission standard. In this instance, ARB is not allowing sufficient 

time for EPA to act on a preemption waiver request (especially since OAL approval 

will itself take approximately 60 days). Moreover, a condition to EPA's grant of a 

preemption waiver is that the ARB standard and accompanying enforcement 

procedures must be consistent with FCAA section 202(a). That section includes the 

4-year lead time and 3-year stability requirements, which would be violated by the 

ARB rule. Thus, EPA may not properly grant a preemption waiver for he proposed 

urban bus fleet rule. (EMA, WSPA) 

Agency Response: Under the waiver process established by U.S. EPA, regulations 

that represent amendments or modifications to requirements for which a waiver of 

preemption has been granted pursuant to FCAA section 209(b) may be treated as 

within the scope of the previously granted waiver and are federally enforceable. The 

current rulemaking represents an amendment of the Fleet Rule for Transit 

Agencies – Urban Bus Requirements. The ARB believes that these amendments 

may be considered as within the scope of the earlier rulemaking and, therefore, will 

not need a new waiver of preemption. As to the issues of lead time and stability, see 

the response to Comment B-5. As to consistency with FCAA section 202(a), see the 

response to Comment B-9. 

 

 

6

Engine Manufacturers Association and Western States Petroleum Association v. South Coast Air 

Quality Management District, et al. (2004) 124 S.Ct. 1756, 1764-1765. 
17

8. Comment: CAA section 209(b) contemplates a preemption waiver for ARB 

standards and accompanying ARB enforcement procedures. Here, however, ARB is 

proposing to allow the SCAQMD's Executive Officer to administer the enforcement 

procedures for the proposed fleet rule. The CAA makes no allowance for a 

preemption waiver of any kind – whether for standards or enforcement procedures – 

in favor of a political subdivision, such as the SCAQMD. (EMA, WSPA) 

Agency Response: See the responses to Comments B-3 and B-4. 

9. Comment: The alternative-fuel mandate (or, alternatively, the outright ban of new 

diesel-fueled urban bus engines) through 2015 is not "within the scope" of any prior 

ARB rulemaking. Historically, EPA has treated regulatory packages as "within the 

scope" only where the action was straightforward and noncontroversial. The 

proposed fleet rule is neither. Thus, ARB's claim that it can proceed to enforce its 

alternative-fuel mandate upon the mere filing of a waiver request is baseless. (EMA, 

WSPA) 

Agency Response: See the response to Comment B-7. Additionally, 

U.S. EPA considers ARB’s amended standards as within the scope of a previous 

waiver of preemption if California’s rulemaking action does not undermine 

California’s determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as protective of 

public health and welfare as comparable federal standards, does not affect the 

consistency of California’s requirements with section 202(a) of the Act, and raises no 

new issues affecting the U.S. EPA’s previous waiver determination.7 With regard to 

the consistency issue, U.S. EPA’s Administrator has stated that California’s 

standards and accompanying test procedures are inconsistent with section 202(a) if: 

(1) there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of technology to meet 

those requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within 

that time frame, or (2) the federal and California test procedures impose inconsistent 

certification requirements so as to make manufacturers unable to meet both sets of 

requirements with the same vehicle.8 

10. Comment: MCI is concerned with the precedent setting nature of the proposal to 

adopt a separate fleet rule for the South Coast District, and the lack of a clearly 

defined process for securing a waiver to this proposed rule. (MCI) 

Agency Response: See the responses to Comments B-3, B-7, and B-9.

 

7 Decision Document accompanying scope of waiver determination in 51 F.R. 12391 (April 10, 1986), at 

p. 2; see also, e.g., 46 F.R. 36742 (July 15, 1981). 

8 See, e.g., 46 F.R. 26371 (May 12, 1981). Even where there is incompatibility between the California 

and federal test procedures, U.S. EPA’s Administrator has granted a waiver when U.S. EPA is able to 

determine that federal compliance can be demonstrated based on California test results, thus obviating

the need for two separate tests. (43 F.R. 1829, 1830 (January 12, 1978); 40 F.R. 30311, 30314 (July 18, 

1975).) 
18

11. Comment: The proposed process for adopting these new standards has been 

identified by the US EPA as inappropriate for consideration as within the scope of a 

previously issued waiver for State standards, which would impose a four year lead 

time from adoption – effectively making the issue moot until 2010. (Torrance) 

Agency Response: See the responses to Comments B-1, B-5, and B-7. 

12. Comment: Supports the Board's consideration for a waiver to avoid any lag time 

should the District's rules be ruled invalid by the courts. (CCA) 

Agency Response: The Board appreciates the commentor’s support. 

13. Comment: The rules would pull the rug out from under the manufacturers who in 

response to EPA's and ARB's challenge and in reliance on their rulemaking 

commitment to certainty, stability, and lead time have invested billions in 

successfully achieving clean diesel technology. (EMA) 

Agency Response: The amendments to the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies – Urban 

Bus Requirements only affect the transit agencies in the South Coast District. 

Transit agencies in the balance of California, if on the diesel path, may continue to 

purchase diesel urban buses and engines. See also the responses to Comments 

B-3 and B-5. 

C. Cost-Effectiveness and Emission Reductions 

1. Comment: The cost-effectiveness and emission reductions calculations published in 

the Staff Report are in question. (SCAQMD, EMA, CNGVC, ATA, DTF) 

Agency Response: During the 45-day comment period, staff was notified of the 

calculation error in the cost-effectiveness and emission reductions published in the 

Staff Report. Subsequently, staff made the corrections and presented the 

information at the Board Hearing. Comments were received supporting the new 

numbers. The revised cost-effectiveness is estimated to be $10,784 per ton of NOx 

reduced with an emission benefit of 0.13 tons per day NOx in 2010. 

The cost-effectiveness analysis is based on estimates of expected emissions 

reductions and of costs for implementation. The incremental cost is determined by 

the difference between the capital and operations and maintenance costs of diesel 

urban buses and alternative-fuel urban buses. In order to determine costeffectiveness, ARB took the typical incremental cost of the buses to be purchased, 

with FTA funding, and divided by the total NOx emission reductions for the life of the 

regulation. 

2. Comment: This is staff’s analysis of the cost of the three rules that were before you 

today. The most expensive under staff’s analysis is the transit rule, which is that dot 
19

way up there. So I don’t think we want to suggest that this transit bus rule is 

cost-effective. (EMA) 

Agency Response: See the response to Comment C-3. 

3. Comment: This rulemaking is not cost-effective. (EMA, CCC, CSFS) 

Agency Response: The information presented by EMA at the hearing was based on 

information provided in the Staff Report published on July 29, 2005. As stated in the 

response to Comment C-1, staff presented updated information at the hearing. This 

rulemaking is cost-effective and the cost-effectiveness value of $10,784 per ton of 

NOx reduced is in line with other adopted regulations. 

D. Exemptions 

1. Comment: We ask the Board to consider having the same 30 bus exemption 

standard for sections 2023(e) and (g). Requiring all transit agencies to purchase or 

lease only alternative fuel buses will work an extreme financial hardship. 

(SCAT, RTA) 

Agency Response: The alternative-fuel compliance path requires that 85 percent of 

a transit agency’s annual purchases or leases be powered by alternative fuels. 

Section 2023.4(a)(2) provides a transit agency an opportunity to apply for a waiver 

from the 85 percent requirement. Section 2023(e) provides that a transit agency 

with fewer than 30 buses in its transit fleet may apply for waiver based on financial 

hardship. Section 2023(g) provides for an extension of the particulate matter 

requirements for a transit agency with fewer than 20 buses in its transit fleet in a 

federal one-hour ozone attainment area. No amendments to these provisions were 

proposed in this rulemaking. Any amendments to title 13, CCR, section 2023, 

paragraphs (e) and (g) would not be within the scope of this rulemaking. 

2. Comment: Alternative fuel technology is currently insufficient to power 40- and 

45-foot coaches in all conditions. Therefore, it is important for CARB to develop a 

process that allows transit operators to request a waiver in the event that no 

alternative fuel technology exists. (MCI) 

Agency Response: Exemptions or waivers are already available under title 13, 

CCR, section 2023.4(a)(2). Exemption criteria are not with in the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

E. Fuel Neutrality 

1. Comment: An ARB fleet rule potentially can be adopted by other States under 

Section 177 of the CAA, which (as noted above) could undermine the nationwide 

2007/2010 HDOH [federal heavy-duty on-highway engine] standards that ARB and 

EPA developed, and on which engine manufacturers expressly relied. The possible 
20

proliferation of bans on diesel technologies when those technologies are becoming 

as clean as or cleaner than alternative fuel technologies should be avoided. 

Adopting an alternative-fuel mandate will make a departure from ARB's policy of 

"fuel neutrality," and will also amount to an abrogation of ARB's agreement to pursue 

general alignment with the 2007/2010 HDOH engine standards. Engine 

manufacturers have spent billions of dollars to achieve compliance with the 

near-zero 2007/2010 emission standards in express reliance on ARB's commitment 

to adopt and maintain those standards. Banning the sale of otherwise-compliant 

HDOH diesel-fueled engines amounts, in effect, to changing the rules in the middle 

of the game, and bespeaks regulatory bad faith. It also opens the door for other 

jurisdictions to attempt similar rulemakings, thereby directly threatening the 

regulatory uniformity that was and remains such a fundamental tenet supporting the 

cost-effectiveness and feasibility of the 2007/2010 emission standards. ARB should 

not be seen as engaging in such blatant efforts to renege on core regulatory 

commitments. (EMA) 

Agency Response: This rulemaking does not ban the use of diesel buses. Of the 

17 transit agencies in the South Coast District, 16 are using and/or purchasing 

alternative fuel buses, including five of the six agencies on the diesel path. This is a 

result of ARB’s fleet regulations and South Coast District Rule 1192. Thus the 

adoption of this regulatory amendment will have little affect on the status quo, and 

will serve mainly as a backstop to prevent any of the six agencies from purchasing 

higher emitting diesel engines during 2007 through 2009 should the South Coast 

District’s authority be invalidated. 

The Board’s decision reflects a balancing of legal and policy considerations. By 

amending ARB’s fleet rule to require that all transit agencies within the South Coast 

District follow the alternative fuel path, the Board assists the South Coast District in 

continuing to exercise its authority in HSC section 40447.5. This statute authorizes 

the South Coast District to impose alternative fuel requirements on fleets within its 

jurisdiction. Further, the Board’s assistance to the South Coast District is consistent 

with the Board’s authority in Health and Safety Code section 39605 to provide any 

assistance to any district. 

2. Comment: It is my understanding that the diesel engines used by the majority of 

public transit agencies will effectively be banned by this proposal, as no diesel 

technology available or under development will be able to meet the proposed 

standards. This would effectively force these agencies to abandon their diesel fleets 

and switch to natural gas vehicles. (Dalal, CCC, CSFS) 

Agency Response: See response to Comment E-1 above. 

3. Comment: Supports fuel neutrality. Encourage clients to buy the cleanest. Complex 

technology development and certification needs market certainty. It is important that 

when standards are set, they are maintained. (ISE) 
21

Agency Response: South Coast District Rule 1192 has been in place since 2000. 

This rulemaking maintains the status quo. ARB appreciates the cooperation from 

industry and looks forward to working with the industry in the future. 

4. Comment: It is our position that recent advances in clean air technology, especially 

as they pertain to cleaning up diesel emissions, both NOx and PM, make such an 

action both untimely and unnecessary. The gap between diesel and natural gas is 

quickly disappearing; PM is very much under control, and as regards the overall 

emissions profiles of the fuels in question, the toxic equivalence issue remains a 

very open question. (Torrance) 

Agency Response: See the response to Comment B-2. 

5. Comment: Elimination of the diesel path would eradicate the investment we have 

made in diesel clean-up technology and infrastructure. (Torrance, Norwalk, 

Montebello, EMA) 

Agency Response: The six public transit agencies within the South Coast District 

that will be affected by this rulemaking are already subject to SCAQMD Rule 1192. 

The South Coast District currently enforces the alternative fuel new purchase 

requirement. This rulemaking will support the status quo within the South Coast 

District. 

F. Fuel Supply 

1. Comment: Rules not fuel-neutral, effectively ban the use of ultra low sulfur diesel, 

advanced engines, and highly efficient after-treatment devices with little or no air 

quality benefit in a cost ineffective manner between now and 2010. Clean diesel is a 

success. A fuel monopoly will create supply shortages and price instability among 

other unintended consequences. Discussion of likely NG supply constraints. 

Requiring CNG will not pave the way for hydrogen. (WSPA) 

Agency Response: As stated in the response to Comment E-1, this rulemaking is 

not a ban on diesel, will have little affect on the status quo, and will serve mainly as 

support for South Coast District’s Rule 1192 to prevent any of the six agencies from 

purchasing higher emitting diesel engines during 2007 through 2009 should the 

South Coast District’s authority be invalidated. 

This rulemaking will not create a fuel monopoly creating fuel supply shortages and 

price instability. “Alternative fuel” means natural gas, propane, ethanol, methanol, 

gasoline (when used in hybrid electric buses only), hydrogen, electricity, fuel cells, or 

advanced technologies that do not rely on diesel fuel. Many of these fuels are 

currently used by transit agencies within SCAQMD. 
22

2. Comment: The rules eliminate fuel and technology choices and place the public's 

transportation and refuse collection needs at the risk of a single source off-shore fuel 

supply. (EMA) 

Agency Response: See the response to Comment F-1. 

3. Comment: Adopting an alternative-fuel mandate will create unwarranted 

dependencies on one type of fuel and technology, which in turn can lead to 

shortages in supply and instabilities in pricing. Fuel-neutral standards allow for a 

diverse range of fuels and products to compete in the marketplace, resulting in an 

optimized mix of standard-compliant options at a market-driven price. (WSPA) 

Agency Response: See the response to Comment F-1. 

4. Comment: If you lock in CNG and eliminate the propane path, what happens is it 

eliminates all the small businesses. (LADPW) 

Agency Response: Propane is an alternative fuel and is not prohibited from use 

under this rulemaking. 

5. Comment: We can not depend on an interruptible fuel supply, such as natural gas, 

after a disaster such as a catastrophic earthquake. (Torrance, NAFA) 

Agency Response: The needs of public safety and demands on public service 

during the times of a natural disaster are understood. State law provides regulatory 

flexibility during catastrophic or emergency events. 

Part 2. Related to aligning California’s urban bus engine standards in the 2007 

and subsequent model years with California’s heavy-duty truck engine 

standards 

A. Keep the current 2007 model-year urban bus emissions standards 

1. Comment: Staff received several comments in general support for maintaining the 

existing 2007 model year urban bus emission standards. Commentors did not want 

to “roll back” the emission standard in order to maintain the progress on cleaning up 

California’s air. (FL#3, Pacoima, CAPTS, Cameron, Littlefair, SCAQMD, Vernon, 

Guzman, Environ Coalition, PG&E, Banks, FL#3-2, Lindhom, Westport, FL#1-2, 

EBCC, Worthy, Price, Aashiem, Maxer, Pearce, TSDEF, FL#2-2, Pratt, McEvery, 

Hightower, Xebec, Kids, GESI, Dennison, Smith, Tulare, Ungar, Perez, Tatum, 

CNGVC, Sanchez, Slaby, NGVC, Field, ALA, NRDC, UCS, BAAQMD, Clean 

Energy, CCA, Fromer) 

Agency Response: The Board adopted alignment of the urban bus engine emission 

standard with the California heavy-duty truck engine standard starting in the 2007 

model year. With alignment, purchases of diesel urban bus engines and fleet turn-
23

over will be able to resume in 2007 since engines meeting the phased-in heavy-duty 

truck engine standard will be available. These 2007-2009 purchases will replace 

older, dirtier urban buses and engines that are in use now. As a consequence, 

near-term emissions will be lowered by up to about 1.6 tons per day NOx and 

80 pounds per day PM in 2009, compared to retaining the 2007 model-year urban 

bus standards. 

However, the sale of urban bus engines in 2007 through 2009 meeting the 

phased-in heavy-duty truck engine NOx standard will increase mid-term NOx 

emissions after 2009 as a result in-use emissions from urban buses certified to the 

relaxed NOx standard. Projections show a maximum disbenefit in NOx emissions 

in 2015. There is no difference in diesel PM emissions after the initial near-term 

benefit attributable to alignment. By 2025, emissions of both NOx and PM will be 

the same whether the 2007 urban bus standards are retained or whether they are 

aligned with the heavy-duty truck engine standards. The Board’s approval of 

alignment balances the near-term benefits in NOx and PM against the mid-term 

NOx disbenefit. The Board’s action acknowledges and accepts the mid-term NOx 

disbenefit, but mitigates it by requiring the retrofitting of in-use diesel engines. 

See the response to Comment B-4. 

2. Comment: Keeping the current 2007 model year urban bus engine standard keeps 

pressure on engine manufacturers to meet the 0.2 grams per brake horsepowerhour standard and rewards those companies who invested into cleaner technologies 

to meet this standard. (Banks, Sanchez, Xebec, GESI, Lynch, CEI, CNGVC, 

TSDEF, Fromer, SCAQMD, CCA, Deere, Clean Energy, NGVC) 

Agency Response: The California market for new urban bus engines is small, and 

meeting the California 2004 and 2007 NOx urban bus engine exhaust standards 

proved to be technologically challenging for diesel engines. In addition, U.S. EPA 

adopted new heavy-duty engine standards for trucks and urban buses that were less 

stringent than the urban bus standards previously adopted by ARB. As a result, 

diesel engine manufacturers decided not to attempt to comply with California’s new 

urban bus engine standards but instead to work towards achieving the less stringent, 

but still technologically challenging, national heavy-duty truck and urban bus engine 

standards. 

Although 2007 model year urban bus engines powered by alternative fuel will be 

available, transit agencies on the diesel path have stated that they are prepared to 

forgo purchases of new buses until 2010 if only alternative fuel engines are 

available. 

B. Align the 2007 model-year urban bus emission standard with the California 

heavy-duty truck engine standard 

1. Comment: Staff received several comments in general support of the alignment of 

the 2007 model year urban bus engine standard with California’s equivalent model 
24

year regulations for heavy-duty trucks. (SLO, MST, WSPA, RTA, SCAT, VTA, 

CALACT, CCCTA, Torrance, DTF, CCC,CSFS, ITEC, Cummins, Modesto, MBA, 

FL#2, RCRC, Roseville, HTA, SBMTA, MUNI, GGT, SamTrans, EMA, CalTransit, 

ECCTA, ACTransit, MTC) 

Agency Response: The Board adopted alignment of the urban bus engine emission 

standard with the California heavy-duty truck engine standard starting in the 2007 

model year with modifications that apply to transit agencies in specified 

circumstances. See the responses to Comments A-1 and C-1. 

2. Comment: Aligning with the heavy-duty engine standard punishes those who have 

invested in developing the cleaner technologies and sends the message to the 

engine manufactures that these standards can be changed – providing a 

disincentive for companies to invest in future cleaner technologies. (CEI, CNGVC, 

TSDEF, Fromer, SCAQMD, CCA, Deere, Clean Energy, CNGVC, FL#2-2, FL#1-2) 

Agency Response: The investment in low emission natural gas engine development 

will continue. Alignment allows for incentive funds for cleaner technologies to 

remain available until 2010. In addition, transit districts on the alternative fuel path 

account for nearly 60 percent of all California transit buses, and they will provide a 

continuing demand for natural gas and other alternative fuel engines through at 

least 2015. 

3. Comment: Harmonizing the standard with weaker federal standards would likely 

remove the alternate fuels path as an option for many transit agencies. (PG&E) 

Agency Response: The amendment of the emission standards for urban bus 

engines does not alter the path selection required of transit agencies statewide. 

Transit agencies on the alternative fuel path account for nearly 60 percent of all 

California’s urban buses and they will provide a continuing demand for natural gas 

and other alternative fuel engines through at least 2015. 

4. Comment: Alignment of 2007 urban bus emission standard with the California 

heavy-duty truck engine standard will allow diesel engines to be purchased that are 

six times dirtier than what is now required. These dirtier buses will be on the road 

for at least 12 years. (GESI, Field, Perez, Lindhom, Pearce, FL#3-2) 

Agency Response: The commentors are correct that aligning the urban bus and 

heavy-duty truck engine standards relaxes the standards for urban buses in the 

2007-2009 model years. Diesel engine manufacturers have said that they plan to 

certify urban bus engines in 2010 when they will certify all families of engines to the 

fully phased-in parallel heavy-duty truck engine standards. Under the anticipated 

circumstances, therefore, for transit agencies on the diesel path statewide, there 

would be no available diesel urban bus engines in 2007-2009, resulting in no fleet 

turnover in diesel urban buses. The lack of fleet turnover increases NOx in the near 

term as explained below. 
25

With alignment, purchases of diesel urban bus engines and fleet turn-over will be 

able to resume in 2007 since engines meeting the phased-in heavy-duty truck 

engine standard will be available. These 2007-2009 purchases will replace older, 

dirtier urban buses and engines that are in use now. As a consequence, near-term 

emissions will be lowered by up to about 1.6 tons per day NOx and 80 pounds per 

day PM in 2009, compared to retaining the 2007 model year urban bus standards. 

However, the sale of urban bus engines in 2007-2009 meeting the phased-in 

heavy-duty truck engine NOx standard will increase mid-term NOx emissions after 

2009 as a result in-use emissions from urban buses certified to the relaxed NOx 

standard. Projections show a maximum disbenefit in NOx emissions in 2015. There 

is no difference in diesel PM emissions after the initial near-term benefit attributable 

to alignment. By 2025, emissions of both NOx and PM will be the same whether the 

2007 urban bus standards are retained or whether they are aligned with the 

heavy-duty truck engine standards. Figures 3 and 4 on page 47 of the ISOR 

illustrate these findings. 

The Board’s approval of alignment balances the near-term benefits in NOx and PM 

against the mid-term NOx disbenefit. The Board’s action acknowledges and accepts 

the mid-term NOx disbenefit, but mitigates it by requiring the retrofitting in-use diesel 

engines. The mitigation occurs whenever a diesel-path transit agency with more 

than 30 buses in its fleet purchases an urban bus engine not certified to a NOx 

emission level at or below 0.2 gram per brake horsepower-hour. For this purchase, 

the transit agency must concurrently retrofit on a one-to-one basis its diesel urban 

buses and transit fleet vehicles by equipping them with verified diesel emission 

control strategies that meet specified NOx reduction criteria. In this way, the Board 

effects a mitigated negative declaration for any adverse environmental impact 

attributable to the amended urban bus standards. 

5. Comment: The California market for bus engines is just too small for engine 

manufacturers to produce compliant engines until required by EPA in 2010. From 

2007 through 2009 transit agencies on the diesel path will not be able to purchase 

buses with compliant engines and will continue to operate older, dirtier buses. 

Harmonization will allow transit agencies to remove older dirty diesel engines from 

service sooner than 2010 and would achieve greater emission reductions from 

California transit fleets. (EMA, HTA, RCRC, VTA, MST, CCCTA, Torrance, Covina, 

Modesto, CCC, CSFS, MTA, SBMTD, SCAT, CalACT, SLO, RTA, GGT, Cummins) 

Agency Response: The Board aligned California’s urban bus standard with the 

California heavy-duty truck engine standards. 

6. Comment: Keep the current standard. ARB staff seemed to have ignored many of 

the incentive programs in the state that could impact cost effectiveness. In August, 

the federal Energy and Highway Bills passed and were signed into law by the 

President. These bills will offer as much as a $32,000 tax credit for purchasers of 

heavy-duty natural gas vehicles. There will be also tax credits for the installation of 
26

fueling infrastructure. Their impact on cost-effectiveness calculations and customer 

economics will be significant. (CNGVC, Clean Energy, PGE) 

Agency Response: At the October 20 Board hearing, the Board asked staff to 

evaluate the effect of keeping the separate, more stringent, 2007 urban bus engine 

standard on incentive funding for urban bus and engine purchases. Staff reported to 

the Board on the available funds for transit agencies at the October 27 Board 

hearing. Based on a review of Federal Transit Administration funding mechanisms 

and the new energy bill tax credit legislation, staff illustrated the effect for the Board 

in an example. Looking at the funding of a diesel bus and the incremental cost of 

the natural gas bus with the new federal tax credit included, the local transit 

agency’s share cost for a natural gas bus was about $60,860 versus $68,000 for a 

diesel bus. This estimate, however, did not include infrastructure costs. Thus the 

Board’s alignment of the urban bus engine standard with the heavy-duty truck 

engine standards allows transit districts that want to seek incentive funding to do so, 

and provides flexibility to all transit agencies. 

7. Comment: I do not believe if you uphold the standard the Carl Moyer funding will be 

in jeopardy for anyone, particularly if you are buying .2 gram engines because the 

standard is .5. And, therefore, you would have an advantage and be able to use 

those funding. (CCA) 

Agency Response: As Executive Officer Witherspoon responded at the October 20 

hearing, “The standard in 2007 goes to .2 for both technologies, diesel and natural 

gas. And at that time, natural gas becomes ineligible for Carl Moyer funding unless 

you adjust the standard. And [the testifier] was correct in indicating that currently 

and until ’07 they can still qualify. But that will no longer be the case after ’07.” 

The Board requested additional analysis to be conducted by staff on the affect to 

Carl Moyer funding availability if the Board did not align the urban bus and truck 

engine standards. At the October 27 hearing the Board determined that transit 

agencies lose sufficient funding opportunities from Carl Moyer and modified the 

2007 urban bus standard to align with the California heavy-duty truck engine 

standard the engines standards to maintain this funding opportunity through 2009. 

C. Allow for the purchase of urban bus engines above the current 2007 urban bus 

emission standard and require transit agencies to mitigate the excess NOx 

emissions from those purchases 

1. Comment: General support for a policy to allow the purchase of buses certified to 

NOx emissions greater than 0.2 g/bhp-hr by requiring certain conditions to be met to 

mitigate the NOx. (ACT, VTA, CalTransit, ECCTA, WSPA) 

Agency Response: The Board adopted a NOx mitigation requirement for diesel path 

transit agencies with more than 30 urban buses. When purchasing diesel urban 

buses with an engine certified to greater than 0.2 grams NOx per brake horsepower-
27

hour, for each new purchase, a transit agency must retrofit one bus in its fleet. The 

retrofit is to be made with a level 3 diesel emission control strategy with 40 percent 

NOx reduction, if available, or a minimum 25 percent NOx reduction, until all urban 

buses and transit fleet vehicles are retrofitted or are unable to be retrofitted. 

As reflected in the numerous comments, various options for mitigation were 

suggested. The Board’s approval in Resolution 05-61 of the mitigations that are 

reflected in the final regulation order for section 2023.1 represent the Board’s view of 

the options that provide the greatest flexibility to transit agencies while achieving 

significant mitigation. 

2. Comment: Preserve the 2007 urban bus standard with the following flexibility – 

small transits with fewer than 30 buses are exempt from the California standards; 

large diesel fuel path transits can also have the exemption as long as they purchase 

the cleanest available diesel buses and as long as they retrofit an existing bus in 

their fleet with the best available NOx control device for every new bus purchased. 

(EBCC, Enviro Coalition, TSDEF, CNGVC, PG&E, NRDC, Urban Habitat) 

Agency Response: As reflected in the numerous comments, various options for 

mitigation were suggested. The Board’s approval in Resolution 05-61 of the 

mitigations that are reflected in the final regulation order for section 2023.1 represent 

the Board’s view of the options that provide the greatest flexibility to transit agencies 

while achieving significant mitigation. 

3. Comment: Require 100% offset of emissions for the purchase of engines above the 

current 2007 urban bus emission standard that include repowers of older buses and 

verified NOx control devices in offset formulas. (CNGVC) 

Agency Response: As reflected in the numerous comments, various options for 

mitigation were suggested. The Board’s approval in Resolution 05-61 of the 

mitigations that are reflected in the final regulation order for section 2023.1 represent 

the Board’s view of the options that provide the greatest flexibility to transit agencies 

while achieving significant mitigation. 

4. Comment: Keep the current 2007 standard. Where the standard is waived, if the 

cleanest diesel equipment available is purchased, require the property to pay for 

additional emission reductions, either from its own fleet or from another fleet of 

buses or trucks in its air basin. These reductions would make the State whole for 

the emission reductions expected from implementing the 2007 standard. (TSDEF) 

Agency Response: As reflected in the numerous comments, various options for 

mitigation were suggested. The Board’s approval in Resolution 05-61 of the 

mitigations that are reflected in the final regulation order for section 2023.1 represent 

the Board’s view of the options that provide the greatest flexibility to transit agencies 

while achieving significant mitigation. 
28

5. Comment: For every non-compliant bus purchased, an existing bus within the same 

fleet must be retrofitted with a verified NOx control. If no other buses within that fleet 

are available for retrofit, funds equivalent to cost of the retrofit shall be deposited in 

an account established for NOx emission reductions measures. The in-lieu payment 

shall be borne by the engine manufacturer selling a non-compliant engine. (PG&E) 

Agency Response: As reflected in the numerous comments, various options for 

mitigation were suggested. The Board’s approval in Resolution 05-61 of the 

mitigations that are reflected in the final regulation order for section 2023.1 represent 

the Board’s view of the options that provide the greatest flexibility to transit agencies 

while achieving significant mitigation. 

6. Comment: We propose that ARB adopt a variation to the rule that allows a transit 

bus operator to purchase a non-compliant conventional bus only if 1) they purchase 

the cleanest available option; and 2) for every non-compliant bus purchased, an 

existing bus within the same fleet must be retrofitted with a verified NOx control, and 

3) if no other buses within the fleet are available for retrofit, funds equivalent to cost 

of the retrofit shall be deposited in an account established for NOx emission 

reductions measures. The in-lieu payment shall be borne by the engine 

manufacturer selling a non-compliant engine. (Modesto) 

Agency Response: As reflected in the numerous comments, various options for 

mitigation were suggested. The Board’s approval in Resolution 05-61 of the 

mitigations that are reflected in the final regulation order for section 2023.1 represent 

the Board’s view of the options that provide the greatest flexibility to transit agencies 

while achieving significant mitigation. 

7. Comment: Supports staff proposal for retrofits in return for buying buses that don't 

meet the current standards. This provides flexibility in the rule that allows transit 

agencies that need to purchase diesel buses the option to do so and also maintain 

some of the benefits that we expected from the engine standards that are currently 

on the books. (Enviro Coalition) 

Agency Response: As reflected in the numerous comments, various options for 

mitigation were suggested. The Board’s approval in Resolution 05-61 of the 

mitigations that are reflected in the final regulation order for section 2023.1 represent 

the Board’s view of the options that provide the greatest flexibility to transit agencies 

while achieving significant mitigation. 

8. Comment: Support one-to-one mitigation as an alternative to keeping standard. We 

would also like to see you do everything possible to promote additional NOx 

reduction beyond the one-to-one. We also want to see you write into the regulation 

a requirement that transits that are on the diesel path that cannot buy complying 

buses and do go ahead and buy non-complying diesel technology buses, they buy 

the cleanest diesel bus that's available. (Enviro Coalition) 
29

Agency Response: As reflected in the numerous comments, various options for 

mitigation were suggested. The Board’s approval in Resolution 05-61 of the 

mitigations that are reflected in the final regulation order for section 2023.1 represent 

the Board’s view of the options that provide the greatest flexibility to transit agencies 

while achieving significant mitigation. 

9. Comment: Support mitigating for those operators that need to purchase diesel 

buses. We also think that you need to require transit properties offset the emissions 

of non-compliant engines. (BAAQMD) 

Agency Response: As reflected in the numerous comments, various options for 

mitigation were suggested. The Board’s approval in Resolution 05-61 of the 

mitigations that are reflected in the final regulation order for section 2023.1 represent 

the Board’s view of the options that provide the greatest flexibility to transit agencies 

while achieving significant mitigation. 

10. Comment: Supports exemption with a one-to-one mitigation across fleets. WSPA 

supports allowing regulated entities some flexibility in how they comply with state 

regulations in order to ensure the regulations get implemented in a cost-effective 

manner based on individual business variations. Therefore, WSPA supports the 

staff's optional policy decision to align. (WSPA) 

Agency Response: As reflected in the numerous comments, various options for 

mitigation were suggested. The Board’s approval in Resolution 05-61 of the 

mitigations that are reflected in the final regulation order for section 2023.1 represent 

the Board’s view of the options that provide the greatest flexibility to transit agencies 

while achieving significant mitigation. 

D. Require all transit agencies (statewide) to purchase/lease only alternative-fuel 

buses. 

1. Comment: General opposition to a statewide alternative fuel mandate because of 

the lack of infrastructure availability throughout the State and the capital expenses 

already spent by transit agencies on the diesel path. In some cases, alternative fuel 

vehicles are not a viable option given the necessary duty cycles required by some 

transit authorities. (MUNI, ACT, Lake, HTA, RCRC, Samtrans, MTA, VTA, WSPA, 

GGT, MTC,TSDEF, Hayward, Richmond, RTA, FL#2) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. The Board did not adopt this option; rather the 

Board acted to align the urban bus standard with the heavy-duty truck engine 

standard. This action maintains the status quo for transit agencies as diesel and 

alternative fuel engines will be able for transit agencies on the diesel fuel path and 

those on the alternative fuel path. 

2. Comment: This [statewide mandate to alternative fuel path] would create 

competition for the limited supply of natural gas and thus increase the price of 
30

natural gas. Any conversion to an alternative fuel path would require funds be 

diverted from transit services in order to install infrastructure, purchase vehicles, and 

pay for higher operating costs associated with maintenance. No backfill is available 

to fund services on the streets. This would result in service cuts effecting the poor 

and transit dependant, youth, seniors, and disabled populations. (AC Transit) 

Agency Response: See response to Comment D-1 above. 

3. Comment: Maintain technology and fuel neutrality in all aspects of ARB transit fleet 

rules and engine regulations, and accept and allow technology that meets adopted 

emission standards, including diesel-electric hybrid buses on the diesel path starting 

in 2007. (MST, GGT, RTA, SLO, SBMTD) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. The Board did not adopt this option, but did 

require all transit agencies within the South Coast District to follow the alternativefuel path. The alternative-fuel path requires 85 percent of a transit agency’s urban 

bus annual purchases be fueled by alternative fuel. Of the 17 transit agencies in the 

South Coast District subject to ARB’s Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies, eleven are on 

the alternative-fuel path and under current state law must continue to purchase 

alternative fuel buses through 2015. These agencies represent 90 percent 

(4120 buses) of the transit buses in the South Coast District. 

The Board’s decision also reflects a balancing of legal and policy considerations. By 

amending ARB’s fleet rule to require that all transit agencies within the South Coast 

District follow the alternative fuel path, the Board assists the South Coast District in 

continuing to exercise its authority in Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 

40447.5. This statute authorizes the South Coast District to impose alternative fuel 

requirements on fleets within its jurisdiction. Further, the Board’s assistance to the 

South Coast District is consistent with the Board’s authority in Health and Safety 

Code section 39605 to provide any assistance to any district. 

 

4. Comment: To require transit operators, least of all small transit operators with less 

than 100 buses in the entire fleet, to convert to alternative fuel urban buses would be 

a substantially inappropriate investment of public funds. (Roseville) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. The Board did not adopt this option for transit 

agencies outside of the South Coast District. See the response to Comment D-3. 

5. Comment: It is the District's position that the Board cannot legally adopt the 

regulations because the Board has not complied with its own regulations 

implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The financial costs 

associated with the proposed regulation have been woefully underestimated. The 

proposed policy is contrary to the Board's Environmental Justice policy. Finally, if 

adopted, the regulation constitutes a "state mandated program" for which the State 

is responsible for compensating the 48 transit agencies that adopted the "diesel 

path" for the costs of compliance. (ACTransit) 
31

Agency Response: Comment noted. The Board has not required transit districts 

outside the South Coast District to be on the alternative fuel path. See the response 

to Comment D-3. 

6. Comment: Supports fuel neutrality. Encourage clients to buy the cleanest. If 

standards are aligned with EPA, we will likely defer further emissions reduction and 

develop more cost effective systems with those standards that are met. Complex 

R&D needs market certainty. (ISE) 

Agency Response: ARB appreciates the cooperation from industry and looks 

forward to working the industry in the future. 

7. Comment: I would ask you not to fall for false choices. The choice Option 3 to go to 

natural gas option only is a false choice. You’d have to redo the rule. We never 

asked you to do that. All we asked for is for public health standard to be maintained 

and for you to require the transit agencies to meet it. (CCA) 

Agency Response: Comment noted. The Board did not adopt this option for transit 

agencies outside of the South Coast District. See the response to Comment D-3. 

IV. SUMMARY OF 15-DAY SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS AND AGENCY 

RESPONSES 

During the 15-day supplemental comment period, the Board received written comments 

from: 

Kevin Beach City of Westminster 

John Dayton/Richard Hunt Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) 

Susan Chiaroni Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Trans District (GGT) 

The comment letter from GGT supported the Board’s modifications to the proposed 

amended regulations. The other two comment letters did not direct any objections or 

recommendations at the Board’s proposed modifications or to the procedures followed 

by the Board in rulemaking action.