Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 

AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATION FOR THE STATEWIDE 

PORTABLE EQUIPMENT REGISTRATION PROGRAM AND THE 

AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE FOR DIESEL PARTICULATE 

MATTER FROM PORTABLE ENGINES 

Public Hearing Date: March 22, 2007 

Agenda Item Numbers: 07-3-3 & 07-3-4 

July 2007 

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 REGULATION FOR THE STATEWIDE 

PORTABLE EQUIPMENT REGISTRATION PROGRAM AND THE 

AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE FOR DIESEL PARTICULATE 

MATTER FROM PORTABLE ENGINES 

Public Hearing Date: March 22, 2007 

Agenda Item Numbers: 07-3-3 & 07-3-4 

I. GENERAL 

On March 22, 2007, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) conducted a public 

hearing to consider amendments to the Regulation for the Statewide Portable 

Equipment Registration Program (Statewide PERP Regulation) and the Airborne Toxic 

Control Measure for Diesel Particulate Matter from Portable Engines (Portable Engine 

ATCM). The proposed amendments are designed to make permanent the emergency 

regulatory changes to the Statewide PERP Regulation and the Portable Engine ATCM 

adopted on December 7, 2006. In addition, these amendments will provide additional 

clarity and facilitate the implementation of the Statewide PERP Regulation and Portable 

Engine ATCM. These amendments will affect about 40,000 pieces of portable 

equipment. 

Staff proposed in this rulemaking to address and make changes to the eligibility 

requirements for portable engines, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and the 

registration fees for some engines. Certified engines that were previously ineligible for 

a district permit or PERP registration because they did not meet the most current 

emission standard in effect at the time of application will now be able to be registered 

with CARB or permitted with a district if they can demonstrate residency in California. 

Owners of non-certified engines may be able to obtain a district permit at the District’s 

discretion if residency in California can be proven. Rental equipment units will only be 

required to track material throughput for daily recordkeeping and annual reporting 

requirements, instead of operating hours as in previous adopted versions of the 

Statewide PERP Regulation. For resident certified engines entering PERP that do not 

meet the current emission standard, back registration and inspection fees must be paid. 
2

At the March 22, 2006, hearing, the Board adopted the proposed amendments along 

with additional amendments that were presented for a 15 day comment period after the 

hearing. This Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) summarizes the written and oral 

comments received during the 45-day comment period preceding the March 22, 2007, 

public hearing, at the hearing itself, and during the 15-day comment period after the 

hearing. This FSOR contains the ARB staff’s responses to those comments. 

Fiscal Impacts 

The Board has determined that this minor regulatory action will result in minor costs 

and/or savings impacts to some State agencies, no impact on federal funding to the 

State, and some costs to local agencies or school districts, that are not reimbursable by 

the State pursuant to part 7 (commencing with section 17500), division 4, and title 2 of 

the Government Code, as discussed below or other non-discretionary savings to local 

agencies. The increased costs are due to the collection of back fees for some engines 

entering PERP. ARB staff estimates that the total economic impact of the proposed 

amendments to the Statewide Regulation to affected private businesses and public 

(local, State, and federal) agencies is $6.6 million over its lifetime ($6.05 million for 

private businesses and $0.59 million for public agencies). Because this is a voluntary 

program, public agencies and private businesses that do not wish to participate in the 

PERP may obtain permits from the districts. 

Staff estimates that 260 local agencies will be affected by the proposed amendments. 

The total economic cost for local agencies to comply with the amendments to the 

Statewide Regulation is estimated to be $450,000. 

Staff estimates that 15 State agencies will be affected by the amendments. The total 

economic cost for State agencies to comply with the amendments to the Statewide 

Regulation is estimated to be $93,000. 

Staff estimates that 19 federal agencies will be affected by the amendments. The total 

economic cost for federal agencies to comply with the amendments to the Statewide 

Regulation is estimated to be $42,000. 

The Executive Officer has made an initial determination that the regulatory action will 

have minimal statewide adverse economic impacts directly affecting businesses. The 

Executive Officer has also assessed that the regulatory action will have minimal 

statewide adverse economic impacts directly affecting the ability of California 

businesses to compete with businesses in other states or representative private 

persons. In fact, the amendments will result in an economic benefit of approximately 

$243.4 million compared to the previous version of the regulations. 

The Executive Officer has determined, pursuant to title 1, CCR, section 4, that the 

amendments to the Statewide Regulation will affect small businesses. The total 

economic impact to small businesses would be $4.3 million dollars. The total economic 

impact to all businesses would be $6.1 million dollars. In accordance with Government 
3

Code section 11346.3, the Executive Officer has determined that the regulatory action 

will not affect the creation or elimination of jobs within California, the creation of new 

businesses or elimination of existing businesses within California, or the expansion of 

businesses currently doing business within California. A detailed assessment of 

economic impacts of the proposed regulatory action can be found in the Initial 

Statement or Reasons (ISOR). 

In accordance with Government Code sections 11346.3(c) and 11346.5(a)(11), the 

Executive Officer has found that the amended reporting requirements that apply to 

businesses are necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State 

of California. The amendments to the Statewide Regulation will continue to have a 

beneficial effect on the California business climate by eliminating the need for 

duplicative permits, allowing increased flexibility, and lowering overall costs compared 

to obtaining and maintaining multiple district permits. 

Consideration of Alternatives 

The Board has further determined that there are no alternatives available that 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 than the 

action taken by the Board. 

At the September 2006 Board hearing, the Board received public testimony concerning 

the inability to register older engine in PERP or permit them at the districts. Pursuant to 

this testimony, the Board directed staff to consider options and report back to the Board. 

ARB staff, in consultation with affected industry and the districts, developed emergency 

amendments to both the Statewide PERP Regulation and the Portable Engine ATCM. 

Staff believes that these amendments to the Statewide PERP Regulation and the 

Portable Engine ATCM being adopted in this rulemaking reflect full consideration by 

both the affected industry and regulatory agencies of the available alternatives that 

could offer improved flexibility for affected industries regarding the Statewide PERP and 

district permitting programs. 

Effective Date 

On December 7, 2006 and again on March 22, 2007, the Board adopted emergency 

amendments that revise the registration and registration fee requirements in the 

regulation for the Statewide Program and the requirements in the Portable Engine 

ATCM. The first of these emergency amendments was approved by the Office of 

Administrative Law on December 27, 2006, and they were filed with the Secretary of 

State on the same day. In accordance with Government Code section 11346.1, they 

became effective December 27, 2006 for a period not exceeding 120 days. The 

emergency amendments that were adopted on March 22, 2007 were a re-adoption of 

the December 7, 2006 emergency amendments in order that there would not be a gap 

in regulatory authority since these proposed permanent amendments would not become 
4

effective prior to the expiration of the emergency amendments adopted in December of 

2006. 

ARB initiated a fully-noticed rulemaking to permanently implement the emergency 

amendments, with various modifications. The Proposed Regulation Orders in that 

rulemaking will show the amendments as changes to the Statewide PERP Regulation 

and the Portable Engine ATCM as amended in the rulemaking covered by this FSOR. 

The current Emergency Portable Engine ATCM is due to expire on August 27, 2007; 

therefore, ARB staff intends to have the permanent amendments covered by this FSOR 

to become effective on or before August 27, 2007. 

II. CHANGES WITHOUT REGULATORY EFFECT 

The following non-substantial or solely grammatical modifications to the regulatory text 

were made after the hearing. The changes do not materially alter any requirement, right, 

responsibility, condition, prescription, or other regulatory element of any California Code 

of Regulations provision. 

In section 2460, Fees, the incorrect citation of Table 3 in subsection (k)(2) was changed 

to Table 2. 

III. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES 

The Board received written and oral comments during the 45-day comment period and 

at the March 22, 2007, hearing. A list of commenters is set forth below, identifying the 

date and form of all comments that were submitted in a timely manner. 

Abbreviation Commenter

ACPA American Concrete Pumping Association 

Ms. Christi Collins 

Written Testimony: March 20, 2007 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

ARA American Rental Association 

Dr. John W. McClelland, Ph.D. 

Dr. Michael S. Graboski, Ph.D. 

Written Testimony: March 20, 2007 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

Written Testimony: July 16, 2007 

ARBI ARB, Inc. 

Mr. Dan Dresser 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 
5

ATT American Telephone & Telegraph 

Mr. Linus Farius 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

BD Mr. Bill Davis 

Written Testimony: March 21, 2007 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

BJS BJ Services Co. 

Mr. Doug Van Allen 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

CCEEB California Council for Environmental and 

Economic Balance 

Mr. Allan Lind 

Written Testimony: March 19, 2007 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

Written Testimony: July 16, 2007 

CCR Cooper Crane & Rigging 

Mr. Howard Cooper 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

CIAQC Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition 

Mr. Jeb Stuart 

Mr. Michael Lewis 

Written Testimony: March 21, 2007 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

COA Crane Owners Association 

Mr. Alvan Mangalindan 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

CP Conco Pumping 

Mr. Mike Cusak 

Written Testimony: March 21, 2007 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

CQC/PTS California Quartz Crystals/Pat’s Tree Service 

Mr. Patrick Hurley 

Written Testimony: March 22, 2007 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

CRA California Rental Association 

Mr. Louis Davies 

Written Testimony: March 21, 2007 
6

DK Mr. Doug Korthof 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

ECA Engineering Contractors Association 

Ms. Lorena Fisher 

Written Testimony: February 21, 2007 

EUCA Engineering & Utility Contractors Association 

Ms. Tara Haas 

Written Testimony: March 21, 2007 

MCAQMD Mendocino County AQMD 

 Mr. Chris Brown 

 Written Testimony: July 2, 2007 

NWS Neighbors Well Services, Inc. 

Mr. James Thomas 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

PAI Putzmeister America, Inc. 

Mr. James Bury 

Mr. David Rudin 

Written Testimony: March 13, 2007 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

QPS Quinn Power Systems 

 Mr. Bob Shepherd 

 Written Testimony: July 16, 2007 

RA Mr. Richard Aguilera 

Written Testimony: March 19, 2007 

RM Reed Manufacturing, LLC 

Mr. James Shea 

Written Testimony: March 20, 2007 

RW Mr. Robert Wilder 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

SCAQMD South Coast AQMD 

Mr. Danny Luong 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

SCCA Southern California Contractors Association 

Mr. Cash Benton 

Written Testimony: March 20, 2007 
7

SCEC SCEC Air Quality Specialists 

Mr. Karl Lany 

Written Testimony: July 16, 2007 

SCR Specialty Crane & Rigging 

Mr. Seth Hammond 

Oral Testimony: March 22, 2007 

SR Sierra Reaserch 

Mr. Allan Daly 

Written Testimony: March 21, 2007 

SSDC State Senator 

Honorable Dave Cox 

Written Testimony: March 21, 2007 

UCCI Underground Construction Co., Inc. 

Mr. Thomas Thornton 

Written Testimony: March 19, 2007 

A few of the commenters supported the amendments to the Statewide Portable 

Equipment Registration Program. Set forth below is a summary of each objection or 

recommendation made regarding the proposed action with the agency response. The 

specific comments from each organization are summarized according to subject area. 

The comments below were received during the 45-day notice period or presented as 

oral testimony at the Board hearing on March 22, 2007. 

1. Comment: Several commenters expressed their support of the proposed 

amendments and urged the Board to adopt them. (ATT, NWS, PAI, CCEEB, ARBI, 

BJS, SCR, SCAQMD) 

Agency Response: Thank you for the support. No response is required. 

2. Comment: ARB should re-open PERP registration to all previously unpermitted 

Tier 0 engines. Having to permit these engines in multiple districts is problematic. 

It is also a potential economic hardship if owners are forced to replace these 

engines. (ECA, UCCI, ACPA, RM, SCCA, CP, EUCA, CRA) 

Agency Response: Tier 0 engines have been ineligible for registration in PERP 

and district permitting since January, 1, 2006. The regulation amendments for that 

change were adopted back in February of 2004. Tier 0 engines have much higher 

NOx and PM10 emissions than certified engines. Due to these significantly higher 

emissions, we believe that it is inappropriate to include these engines in a program 

that would allow them to operate on a statewide basis. Since diesel PM has been 
8

identified as a toxic air contaminant, it has been the goal of the Board to minimize 

the toxic risk associated with exposure to these emissions. It should be noted that 

the Portable Engine ATCM does provide for the permitting of Tier 0 engines. 

Permitting at the district level allows the potential local impacts to be better 

evaluated. 

3. Comment: ARB should allow Tier 0 engines to operate beyond January 1, 2010. 

Many of these engines have useful life expectancies beyond 2010, and to force 

their retirement places an economic burden on the affected industry. Forcing the 

replacement of Tier 0 engines would make aggregate product, roads, concrete, and 

other building material more expensive, which would adversely affect the economy 

overall. (ECA, RM, EUCA, CRA, CQC/PTS)

Agency Response: This comment does not pertain to these proposed 

amendments as there was no proposal in these amendments to change the 

provision regarding the retirement of non-certified engines in 2010. 

Notwithstanding, diesel PM has been identified as a toxic air contaminant. It is the 

goal of the Board to minimize the toxic risk associated with exposure to these 

emissions. Allowing older engines to continue to operate beyond 2010 is contrary 

to that goal. 

The nonroad emissions standards took effect for portable engine starting in 1996. 

This means that by 2010, almost all Tier 0 engines will be at least 14 years old, and 

will be nearing the end of their useful life. 

4. Comment: PERP should be reopened to register Tier 0 engines because sufficient 

notice of the previous amnesty was not provided to owners of portable engines. 

Approximately 80% of portable equipment owners have never been exposed to 

ARB or any sort of regulatory requirements. (BD, RA, RW, CIAQC) 

Agency Response: The regulation has been previously opened three times before 

to allow engines into the program and ample opportunity has been allotted to 

register non-certified engines. Owners of engines that currently do not qualify for 

PERP will need to work with the district to bring the engine into compliance and 

obtain a district permit. However, if these older engines are replaced with certified 

engines, there is no need to obtain district permits. 

We have already begun aggressive outreach activities which have included 

sending out almost 300,000 postcards to members of affected industry that may be 

subject to the requirements (using such databases as the State Contractor 

Licensing Board), dedicating resources to assist the public with questions and 

applications, and developing a specific informational website. Based on staff’s 

estimates, ARB outreach has been more than 20% successful. ARB will continue 

to work with industry representative associations such as CIAQC, which has been 
9

actively involved in PERP since the beginning, to inform all affected industry about 

all of the applicable requirements and permitting options. 

5. Comment: ARB should not force the replacement of Tier 1 engines, but should 

establish a “clean up program” that would make these engines cleaner burning. 

Engine Manufacturers and CARB should perform research to develop a device that 

will allow older engines to comply with emission regulations. This would allow 

engines to stay in California rather than being shipped to Mexico or Canada. (ECA, 

CQC/PTS) 

Agency Response: ARB staff has considered the alternatives, and requiring 

replacement of older engines and then reducing emissions of newer engines 

through retrofits is the most effective approach to reducing toxic risk from exposure 

to diesel PM emissions from portable engines. A clean up program would be very 

resource intensive to implement, and would still not be as effective as the current 

approach. The emission reductions from this replacement approach are faster and 

more farther reaching. 

6. Comment: The wording in the regulation is unnecessarily complicated for the 

engine eligibility provisions and the compliance flexibility provisions for engines 

when there is an emission standard change. This is a great source of confusion, 

and ARB should take a more realistic approach to registering engines. (PAI, UCCI) 

Agency Response: ARB staff has worked with the commenters to ensure a better 

understanding of the regulatory requirements. ARB staff is committed to working 

with applicants on application submittals and to achieve compliance with the 

regulations. ARB staff has addressed this issue in the 15 day changes. 

7. Comment: The back registration and inspection fees for PERP are excessive, 

punitive, and unfair. These fees should be removed or reduced. (ACPA, RA, 

SCCA, ARA) 

Agency Response: Those engines that would be registered in PERP that do not 

meet the current standard are required to pay the back registration and inspection 

fees. These fees would have been paid had the engine been properly registered 

when first put into service. As explained in the ISOR, these fees are necessary for 

several reasons including funding the increased compliance efforts of the local 

districts who are mandated by State law to assist in the enforcement of PERP. 

Furthermore, by not being registered, these engines have been operating at an 

economic advantage over those that have been in compliance. A level playing field 

needs to be created with those that have been paying registration fees since the 

beginning of PERP. The alternative to paying back fees would be to purchase a 
10

new engine which meets the current standards, which is far more costly than 

paying the back fees that have been adopted. 

8. Comment: Instead of the current replacement provisions and fleet averaging 

requirements, ARB should require that all engines be phased out upon 15 years of 

service or 7,500 hours, whichever comes first. (UCCI) 

Agency Response: This type of phasing out of engines would result in slower 

engine replacement and consequently higher emissions than the current regulatory 

proposal. In order to achieve the goal of reducing toxic risk due to diesel PM 

emissions, engines need to be replaced and/or retrofitted on a more expedient 

schedule. Any delay would increase the public health risk associated with diesel 

PM emissions. 

9. Comment: Any rule being implemented statewide should be pre-empted from 

district interference. Having both the state rule and the district rules is chaotic. 

(UCCI) 

Agency Response: This is already the case for the Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program. Once an engine or equipment unit is registered in PERP, 

district rules and regulations do not apply, except at locations where the PERP 

registration is not valid. The ATCM is also applicable statewide, but is implemented 

separately by the ARB or the district depending on which agency the operator holds 

permits or registrations. State law specifically allows local districts to adopt more 

restrictive regulations than the ATCM. 

10. Comment: ARB should allow the registration in PERP of Tier 0 engines and nonresident previous Tier certified engines if used exclusively for emergency-use or 

designated as low-use. These emergency use engines typically operate less than 

50 hours per year. Having these engines in PERP would provide unrestricted 

mobilization of equipment throughout the state in the event of an emergency. 

(CCEEB, ATT) 

Agency Response: The PERP regulation does not preclude the use of engines for 

alleviating the threat to public health and safety during an emergency event. Nor 

does it preclude the use of registered engines to serve as backup power for 

telecommunications equipment. This second type of use should be readily 

performed by an existing fleet of registered engines, but if the need arises to 

increase the fleet of engines used for backup power, telecommunications 

companies have the option to rent equipment on a temporary basis as needed, or 

they should be required to purchase the newest, cleanest engines available. 
11

11. Comment: The residency requirement for previous tier certified engines is very 

costly for small businesses. If there is not a sufficient quantity of used engines 

available in California, the owners of small businesses would be forced to buy new 

equipment with Tier 3 engines, which is very expensive. (ACPA, BD, SCCA) 

Agency Response: It is the goal of ARB to reduce emissions from this category of 

engines by replacing older engines with newer ones and in the mean time only 

allowing the cleanest engines into the state. Allowing the registration of dirtier, 

out-of-state engines is directly contrary to this goal. Prior to these amendments, 

previous tier certified engines were not allowed to register at all. Allowing 

registration of previous tier resident engines is consistent with the goal stated 

above while providing industry with a reasonable mechanism for the purchase of 

used engines within the State. 

12. Comment: If there are not sufficient quantities of Tier 4 engines available in the 

future, it will be difficult to comply with the fleet average requirements specified in 

the ATCM. Compliance flexibility, similar to those proposed for eligibility when 

engines are not available, should be provided for fleet standard compliance. (ARA) 

Agency Response: The development of the fleet standards in the ATCM did take 

into account the emission standards for each size range, and are expected to be 

achieved by existing certified engines in 2013 (combination of Tiers 1, 2 and 3). 

The standards in 2017 and 2020 are expected to be achieved by a combination of 

newer engines meeting Tier 4 standards and previous-tier certified engines 

equipped with Level 3 technology. If the Level 3 technology is not readily available 

in a time frame conducive to compliance with the fleet standards, then the ARB will 

re-evaluate the emission standards set forth in the ATCM. 

13. Comment: Having to wait up to 90 days for registration to be issued so that the 

equipment can be operated is a significant financial hardship. Engines should be 

able to be put into service immediately upon delivery. ARB should modify the 

regulation to alleviate this financial hardship. (ARA, SSDC) 

Agency Response: In response to public testimony, the Board directed staff to 

work with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association on a mutually 

acceptable procedure for allowing expedited registration. ARB staff has already 

initiated this effort with the commenters and CAPCOA. If regulatory changes are 

necessary, staff will propose appropriate amendments in a separate rulemaking. 

14. Comment: The Statewide PERP regulation states in section 2458(b) that the 

owner of rental equipment shall provide the renter with a written copy of applicable 

requirements of the regulation, including recordkeeping and notification 

requirements. ARB staff has previously stated that providing a copy of the 
12

registration satisfies this requirement. This should be clarified in the regulation. 

(ARA) 

Agency Response: Since it is required in section 2453(f) that the registration be 

kept onsite with the registered engine or equipment unit, it follows that the owner of 

the rental business is therefore required to provide his/her customers with a copy of 

the registration. The requirement in 2458(b) was intended to ensure that the 

operator of the rental engine or equipment unit was not only aware of the 

registration requirements, but of other regulatory requirements that may pertain as 

well. 

15. Comment: According to the Census Bureau, there are 234,000 construction 

companies in California. If only half of these owned one portable engine over 50 

bhp, that is more than 109,000 engines that should already be in PERP. ARB must 

vastly increase its outreach efforts in order to reach all the potential owners of 

portable equipment. (BD) 

Agency Response: It should be kept in mind that PERP is a voluntary program. 

ARB staff believes that there are many portable engines and equipment units that 

are operating under district rule exemptions, making registration unnecessary. 

However, ARB has started and will continue to conduct an aggressive outreach 

program regarding these amendments to PERP. Individual meetings and/or 

workshops will be held as necessary to explain the changes that have been made 

to the regulation and to answer any concerns that may arise. Furthermore, letters, 

brochures, and pamphlets will be mailed to owners of registered engines and to 

those who may potentially be interested in participating in the PERP. To date, 

nearly 300,000 post cards have been sent to a comprehensive list of contractors in 

California. 

16. Comment: ARB Chairman Dr. Sawyer should appoint a construction industry task 

force to accurately measure the scope of the affected industries, consolidate all 

regulations impacting the construction industry, and develop meaningful emission 

reductions to benefit all Californians. (BD) 

Agency Response: ARB staff has continuously worked closely with many 

representatives from industry in the development of PERP. Many regulatory 

agencies, not just concerning air quality, have environmental jurisdiction over the 

construction industry. To consolidate all agencies’ regulations is not feasible. 

17. Comment: Forcing Tier 0 and older certified engines out of state does not solve the 

problem of emissions, it just moves them. Shouldn’t ARB try to control emissions 

from these engines, rather than just move them away? Moving emissions does not 

reduce the risk of global warming. (CP, ECA) 
13

Agency Response: The purpose of PERP and the Portable Engine ATCM is to 

reduce the exposure of toxic diesel PM emissions to the residents of California. 

Greenhouse gas emissions from sources in California are being addressed 

pursuant to Assembly Bill 32. Environmental agencies in other jurisdictions have 

the option of adopting regulations to address emissions impacts in those areas. 

18. Comment: ARB should allow the PERP registration of Tier 0 engines and nonresident non-current Tier certified engines on cranes. Furthermore, ARB should 

allow these engines to be exempt from replacement on January 1, 2010. (SR, 

CCR) 

Agency Response: ARB staff understands that there are unique technical, cost, 

and logistical issues associated with the retrofit of cranes. We are currently 

evaluating these issues with a focus on equivalent emission reductions and are 

continuing our dialogue with the crane industry. We have committed to 

representatives of the crane industry that we would address the unique issues with 

cranes as part of the ARB staff’s development of the regulation to reduce diesel 

emissions from existing heavy-duty onroad fleets. 

19. Comment: ARB should allow the registration without any penalties for any engine 

that has historically been operating in a district that did not require permits for 

portable engines. Registration of such engines would be completely voluntary 

since the districts continue to consider these engines permit exempt. (SR, COA) 

Agency Response: By penalties, it is assumed that the commenter is referring to 

back fees. Any previous certified engine may register in PERP, but will still have to 

pay back fees. If they wish to operate in a district where permits are required, then 

they have the options of paying the back fees to register in PERP, applying for a 

district permit, or purchasing newer clean equipment. They also have the option of 

staying in that district that does not require permits. Because of ARB’s commitment 

to reduce the toxic risk associated with diesel PM emissions, we feel it is 

inappropriate to allow the operation of Tier 0 engines in PERP under these 

circumstances. 

20. Comment: These regulations are a distraction from the real air pollution problems 

facing California, e.g. refinery and car emissions. If those sources are dealt with, 

then the emissions from construction equipment are not so significant. The 

construction industry should not be subject to these regulations. (DK) 

Agency Response: The air pollution challenge facing California is complex and 

comes from many different sources. However, portable engines are a significant 

source of diesel PM emissions; much more than those from cars (which are 
14

primarily gasoline-powered) and refineries. Even so, it is important to reduce 

hazardous emissions, such as particulate matter from diesel exhaust from every 

possible source in order to protect the health of the people of California. 

Furthermore, the districts and the Board are continually developing and 

implementing various regulatory programs that affect many industries and sources 

of air pollution. 

The comments below were received during the 15-day notice period after the Board 

hearing. 

21. Comment: The definition of rental business should be modified to mean 

businesses that have engines to rent whether or not they are registered in PERP. 

Also, the definition of resident engine should be restricted to only those engines 

that hold valid permits with a district. (MCAQMD) 

Agency Response: There is no need to modify the definition of rental business in 

the PERP regulation to include those that do not have engines registered in PERP, 

as the regulation is only applicable to rental businesses with engines so registered. 

It was the intent of the residency provision to include both those engines with valid 

district permits originally issued prior to January 1, 2006 and those engines that 

have been operating without a permit; therefore, the definition will not be modified 

as suggested. 

22. Comment: The requirement for rental businesses to provide customers with a copy 

of the applicable requirements is difficult to comply with. Attaching a copy of the 

operating conditions is not always sufficient since they might be outdated with the 

recent amendments to PERP. Attaching a copy of the entire regulation is also very 

impractical. Furthermore it is inconsistent that the districts can have their own 

interpretation of PERP requirements. ARB should amend the regulation to make 

this requirement easier and more consistent for rental businesses. (ARA) 

Agency Response: All existing registrations will not be updated until the current 

renewal cycles are complete. All operating conditions will be updated with the new 

requirements upon renewal. Every registered company has to deal with this 

transition when regulatory changes are made. Including a copy of the most current 

regulation with a rental agreement is only one option in addressing the need to 

notify renters of all new applicable requirements. There are companies that chose 

to go through the new regulation and develop their own supplement to include with 

their agreements. 

Although the enforcement of the PERP regulation is primarily handled by the 

districts, ARB has and will continue to work with the districts to ensure statewide 

consistency in application. 
15

23. Comment: The requirement for rental businesses to provide annual reports of total 

process weight or throughput for rented equipment units is unreasonable because 

the rental company does not have access to this information. (ARA) 

Agency Response: The operators of rental equipment units are required to 

maintain written records of daily throughput. The rental business must inform the 

customer of this requirement and all other applicable PERP requirements as part of 

the rental agreement. Copies of these throughput records can easily be handed 

over to the rental business so that the annual reports can be submitted. 

24. Comment: The multiple inspection discount program is difficult for rental 

companies to participate in because it is not known in advance if multiple engines 

can be brought together for an inspection. There should be an option to get a 

refund if the rental company chooses to participate in the multiple engine discount 

inspection program at a later time. (ARA) 

Agency Response: ARB is required to collect inspection fees upon initial 

application and/or renewal, and therefore registrants must select the multiple 

inspection discount option at that time. If this option is selected, the 

company/agency must have the ability to bring 4-9 (or 10+) engines together at the 

same location for an inspection. Registrants should give careful consideration to 

selecting this option as being able to comply with this provision will take significant 

planning on their part. If a company/agency is not sure that they will be able to do 

this, they should not select the multiple engine discount. Selecting the multiple 

engine inspection option at a later time and getting a rebate in fees is not possible. 

 

25. Comment: The penalty fees charged for not paying rental fees when due is unfair 

since the due date is prior to the registration expiration date. (ARA) 

Agency Response: The regulation clearly states in Table 3 what the fees are for 

paying renewal fees within 2 months prior to expiration date and also for paying 

them within 1 month prior to expiration date. Renewal fees are due prior to the 

expiration date because time is needed to process the renewal transaction and 

issue renewal registration documents prior to expiration. 

26. Comment: It is punitive that the original fee for a placard is only $5 while the fee for 

a replacement placard is $30. (ARA) 

Agency Response: The $5 initial cost for the placard is for materials only. The 

administrative costs associated with issuing this placard are included in the fee paid 

for initial registration or renewal. The extra fees for a replacement placard cover 

the administrative cost of processing the replacement request (accounting, data 
16

entry, document generation, mailing, etc.) and also for issuing a second 

identification sticker that has to be issued with the placard. 

 

27. Comment: ARB has not yet made much progress with temporary registration which 

has been previously requested at the board hearing. (ARA) 

Agency Response: See comment #13 and agency response. ARB staff is still 

working with CAPCOA and the affected industry on this issue. 

28. Comment: The fleet average requirements in the ATCM will be impossible to 

comply with because individual engine emission standards are not consistent with 

the fleet standards. (ARA) 

Agency Response: This issue has been raised previously by the same party. See 

comment #12 and agency response. 

29. Comment: It is impractical and unreasonable to require that the written rental 

agreements be kept onsite with the rental unit at all times. Often times these 

agreements are simply not available as the rental transaction is initiated by phone 

or from locations hundreds of miles away from the jobsite. In addition, most rental 

agreements contain sensitive and confidential data that should not be viewed by 

competing entities. (SCEC, QPS) 

Agency Response: This comment does not pertain to these proposed 

amendments as there was no proposal in these amendments to change the 

provision regarding the written rental agreement. However, ARB staff believes that 

when a rental piece of equipment is received by a renter, there is usually some 

form of written acknowledgement of the transaction at that time, even if the original 

order was not placed in person at the rental yard. 

On a jobsite, the only people that would need to see the rental agreement are the 

operator and the district inspector. There is no need to display the rental 

agreement in plain view. It is possible to keep it in a folder or binder in the 

operator’s vehicle. ARB staff does not agree that contact information is 

confidential; therefore, it is not inappropriate to disclose. 

Having the written rental agreement onsite actually may protect the rental company 

from enforcement action in some instances if the operator is in violation of PERP 

requirements. The written rental agreement may be used as proof that the operator 

was made aware of the PERP requirements by the rental company when the 

operator took possession of the rental unit. 
17

Furthermore, district enforcement staff needs to be able to verify in the field if the 

engine or equipment unit is being operated under the proper authority and/or if a 

change of ownership is needed. It is imperative that if a district inspector 

encounters an engine with a rental company’s registration operating in the field that 

he/she be able to determine if the unit is being rented, or if it was sold to the 

operator and a change of ownership application needs to be filed. Change of 

ownership applications are required to be filed within 30 days after a unit has been 

purchased from a rental company. 

30. Comment: The monthly sales transaction reports required by the PERP regulation 

may result in the sharing of confidential data with competitors. Also, this 

requirement was not in the draft regulatory language leading up to Board adoption. 

(SCEC, QPS) 

Agency Response: This comment does not pertain to these proposed 

amendments as there was no proposal in these amendments to change the 

provision regarding the monthly sales transaction reports. This requirement was 

originally adopted by the Board in the amendments proposed on June 22, 2006. 

The implication made by the commenters that this requirement was not properly 

noticed, and is therefore an illegal requirement is completely false. This 

requirement was contained in the Staff report released on May 5, 2006, and there 

was ample opportunity for public comment before the Board hearing on June 22, 

2006. 

ARB staff understands that the sales price of equipment is considered confidential 

information by the commenters. ARB has procedures in place to protect 

confidential information as long as it is identified in advance by the submitter. The 

sales price, however, is not required to be submitted with these monthly sales 

transaction reports. ARB staff does not agree that engine information or customer 

information is considered confidential or “trade secrets”. This information is needed 

to determine compliance with other applicable district permitting and/or PERP 

requirements. 

31. Comment: Engines designated as low use or emergency use should be allowed 

into PERP regardless of tier level or residency. These engines are necessary for 

alleviating any threat of emergency to telecommunication networks. California’s 

largest telecommunications provider already owns approximately 50 of these noncertified engines, which on average operate less than 20 hours per year. The cost 

to replace any Tier 0 engine not already registered is unreasonably high, 

considering that they are used very infrequently. These engines should be allowed 

to remain in PERP until January 1, 2020. (CCEEB) 

Agency Response: This comment was submitted previously by the same party. 

See comment #10 and agency response. In discussions with representatives from 
18

California’s largest telecommunication provider, it was revealed that they have most 

of their engines registered in PERP already, but that they wanted to retain the 

ability to register older engines just in case they came across some that they were 

unaware of. ARB staff believes that registered companies have a responsibility to 

effectively manage their fleet in order to meet their business needs, and should 

dedicate sufficient resources to do so. ARB should not allow the registration of a 

Tier 0 engine because a company lost track of it in their fleet. 

Tier 0 engines designated as exclusively emergency use or low use are all 

scheduled for replacement within 2 years of the Tier 4 emission standards taking 

effect, which is expected to start in 2011. California’s largest telecommunication 

provider will incur the cost of replacement for all these engines at that time.