Appendix I 

Costs and Cost Methodology

I-1 

Cost Methodology 

This Appendix describes the methodology used to determine the annual costs 

and the total cost of the proposed amendments for the Truck and Bus Regulation 

and the Drayage Truck regulation. The costs for the Tractor-Trailer GHG 

regulation are not significant. 

A. Truck and Bus Regulation Cost Methodology 

Staff used the same methodology in estimating the cost saving of the amended 

Truck and Bus regulation as was used in estimating the costs attributable to the 

existing regulation. Staff updated some of the assumptions used in the model 

and modified the model to reflect the predicted effects of the recession consistent 

with the updated emissions inventory. Details on the methodology and the inner 

working of the cost compliance model and results are available in Chapter XIII 

and Appendix J of October 2008 Technical Support Document for In-Use OnRoad Diesel Vehicles (ARB, 2008). 

1. Overview 

To estimate the costs associated with the amended Statewide Truck and Bus 

Regulation, staff of the Air Resources Board (ARB) developed a compliance 

model to simulate normal vehicle replacement practices for individual fleets and 

the costs to that of projected replacement and retrofit strategies a fleet would use 

to comply with regulation. The compliance model was used to estimate the 

capital expenditures of normal vehicle replacement compared to the capital 

expenditures required to comply with the regulation for individual company. Staff 

also considered the costs of retrofitting a vehicle compared to replacing it in 

estimating what types of fleet may accelerate vehicle replacements to reduce the 

number of retrofits otherwise required. The results for each fleet included in the 

cost compliance model were then scaled up to reflect the estimated costs for the 

statewide truck population. 

2. Fleet Cost Compliance Model Modification 

To determine the costs of the regulation with proposed amendments, staff made 

several modifications to the cost compliance model. Staff divided the simulation 

into three sub-modules: small fleet, lighter trucks, and heavier trucks. Major 

changes applied to all three modules with minor changes in each module that 

matched the fleet’s requirements as in the proposed amendments. Staff added a 

method to account for the recession, converted the costs to 2010 dollars and 

removed the fleet averaging option that is no longer applicable and modified the 

percentage limit option in the existing regulation to reflect the proposed new 

optional phase-in provision. 
I-2 

a) Modeling Effects of the Recession 

Due to the recession, many fleets have slowed normal vehicle replacements or 

stopped replacing vehicles. As a result, the average fleet age for a given fleet in 

2009 is older than what it would be under “normal” conditions. The compliance 

model uses the fleet age to determine normal replacement practices. The 

simulation needed to slow down predicted vehicle purchases for the near future 

and to accelerate purchase later as the economy recovers and estimated vehicle 

sales increase due to pent up demand. To compensate for this faster 

replacement rate, staff added routines to account for this catch up period and 

then return to normal after the period. In all, the modifications include defer, 

catch up and average fleet age change with respect to each period. With the 

regulation, staff also assumed fleets would begin making normal replacements 

with 2007 model year engines and newer starting in 2012 and that most fleetw 

would replace their trucks with those having 2010 model year engines and newer 

starting 2015. 

b) Dollar Conversion and Loss In Value 

The cost compliance model developed in the initial rule making was based on 

2008 dollars. Staff updated the model to convert the output to 2010 dollars using 

an interest rate of 5 percent. The formula for computing the net present value 

(NPV) is NPV = Cost / (1+r)^(CY-2010), where r = the annual interest rate and 

CY = the calendar year for the cost. 

The loss in value due to the regulation has been zeroed out for all fleets. The 

rational was that since the proposed amendments do not require replacement for 

any vehicles younger than 20 years old, and 20 years or older vehicles have 

practically no value, any replacement done would be based on fleet’s business 

needs rather than the regulation with proposed amendments. 

c) Addition and Removal of Options to Align with the Proposed 

Amendments 

The proposed amendments contain two new BACT schedules: one for heavier 

trucks and one for lighter trucks. Subroutines were created that matched the 

new BACT schedules and implemented in each respective modules. The PM 

portion of the existing routines for the lighter trucks was removed since there is 

no PM requirement for the lighter trucks under the amendments. The fleet 

averaging and the NOx percentage limit options were no longer applicable and 

therefore removed or made inactive. The PM percentage limit option with the 

percentage matching the amendments remained for the heavier trucks and small 

fleets. The NOx portion of the BACT schedule routine applicable to heavier 

trucks was added to small fleet module, allowing small fleet an alternative 

compliance pathway to lower the costs. Staff also added codes to reflect that in 

compliance years where fleets would have to replace vehicles more than normal, 

fleets would replace vehicles with vehicle age older than normal to reduce costs. 
I-3 

3. Fleet Data 

Staff used actual fleet data to match the revised emissions inventory model year 

distribution for various inventory categories. This was done to allow the 

compliance model results to be compared directly with the emissions inventory. 

The compliance model predictions of fleet actions was compared with the 

inventory analysis for consistency and assured that statewide cost estimates 

would be as comparable as possible. The fleet makeup was primarily from a 

collection of fleets chosen from ARB fleet survey conducted over the last few 

years. See Appendix J of October 2008 Technical Support Document and the 

survey form at the end of the appendix for summary information obtained by the 

survey regarding reported counts by vehicle body type and by a consistent base 

year (ARB, 2008). From the survey pool, staff selected fleets that best match the 

statewide fleet types, weight classes and age distributions compared to the 

emissions inventory. Where certain engine model year data was missing from 

the fleets selected, staff supplemented the actual fleet information with created 

fleets to match the age distributions and vehicle class. Figure 1 and Figure 2 

illustrate the matching patterns between the matching fleet data and the 

emissions inventory data. 

Figure 1 Fleet Pattern Matching for 1 to 20 Fleet Size 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-1 4 9 14 19 24 3 8 13 18 23 2 7 12 17 22 1 6 11 16 21

Age

Trucks

Goal

Attempt

T7Tractor

T7Single

T6 T7CAIRP
I-4 

Figure 2 Fleet Pattern Matching for Fleet Size Over 20 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-1 4 9 14 19 24 3 8 13 18 23 2 7 12 17 22 1 6 11 16 21

Age

Trucks

Goal

Attempt

T7Tractor

T7Single T6 T7CAIRP

4. Capital Cost Inputs and Ongoing Costs for Modeling 

a) VDECS Cost 

Staff developed VDECS costs in conjunction with internal and external sources 

for the 2008 Staff Report. The costs for active and passive VDECS are listed in 

Table 1. These costs include taxes and installation; however annual 

maintenance would be an additional cost calculated separately. The costs for 

VDECS on 1994 model year and newer engines were estimated to include a mix 

of passive and active systems and that higher costs VDECS would be used on 

pre-1994 model year engines. 

Table 1: Installed Retrofit PM Filter Costs 

Engine Model Year PM Filter 

1994 to 2006 15,000 

Heavy Heavy-Duty $19,000 

b) Vehicle Prices and Replacement Cost Curves 

For the current regulation staff developed price curves for over 50 vehicle body 

types by using for-sale vehicle price data downloaded from Truckpaper.com and 

other online sources. Staff example price curves are shown in Figure 3. 
I-5 

Figure 3 Example Vehicle Prices (in thousands of dollars) 

Conventional Truck Without Sleeper

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Vehicle Age

Price (thousands of $)

GVRW > 33,000 lbs

Flatbed Truck

Cab & Chassis Truck

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Vehicle Age

Price (thousands of $)

GVRW < 33,001 lbs

Dry Van Staff reviewed vehicle prices in August 2010 to confirm that the previously 

developed price curves from 2008 remained accurate given the shifting vehicle 

market and recession. Existing price curves by vehicle age was found to be 

within the range of current data and subsequently no vehicle price modifications 

were made. 

 

5. Cost by Fleet Age and Fleet Size 

The cost compliance model was run for each fleet to determine the costs above 

normal replacements. The costs for each fleet are determined by comparing the 

modeled costs for normal vehicle replacement with that required by the 

regulation with proposed amendments. The increased cost is then divided by the 

number of vehicles to determine the average increased cost per vehicle in each 

fleet. The average cost per vehicle in the fleet was then plotted by fleet age to 

determine the average cost. The average increased costs by fleet age and fleet 

size groups reflect that individual companies with newer fleets will have no 

increased costs while companies with older fleets will have higher costs 

compared to normal vehicle replacements. Older fleets are estimated to either 

normally buy used lower cost vehicles or to buy new vehicles but to keep them 

longer than newer fleets. Therefore, the average increased cost per vehicle 

associated with the proposed amendments varies by the average age of the 

fleet. The analysis was done for large fleets with 4 or more trucks with a GVWR 

more than 26,000 pounds meeting the full requirements as shown in Figure 4. 

The results for the small fleet provisions trucks with a GVWR more than 26,000 

pounds is shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the results of the proposed 

requirements for trucks with a GVWR 26,000 or less. 
I-6 

Figure 4 Average Increased Cost by Fleet Age for Large Fleets 

Average Increased Cost for HHD in Fleets with 4 or More Vehicles

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Average Fleet Age (Years)

Average Increased Cost per Truck ($)

Figure 5 Average Increased Cost by Fleet Age for Small Fleets 

Average Increased Cost for HHD in Fleets with 1 to 3 Vehicles

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Average Fleet Age (Years)

Average Increased Cost per Truck ($)
I-7 

Figure 6 Average Increased Cost For Fleets with Trucks Less Than 

26,001 GVWR 

Average Increased Cost for Vehicles with GVWR Less Than 26,000

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Average Fleet Age (Years)

Average Increased Cost per Truck ($)

6. Scaling to Statewide Results 

The cost model output provides the average increased cost per vehicle by fleet 

age and fleet size for individual company fleets. The statewide total cost was 

then calculated for each fleet age group by multiplying the increased average 

cost by fleet age with the fleet age distributions previously used from DMV and 

IRP data. The average costs by inventory group was scaled to match the current 

inventory population for each of the inventory categories were fleet age 

distribution data was available. Table 2 shows sample results for the heavy 

heavy-duty vehicles subject to the heavy duty fleet requirements for fleets with 

four or more vehicles and would not qualify for any of the special provisions. 

Table 2 Instate Heavy Heavy-Duty Vehicles by Fleet Age for Fleets with 4 or 

More Vehicles (excluding special provisions) 

Fleet Age 

# Vehicles (Per 

Updated Emissions 

Inventory for 2008)

% (per 2006 DMV 

Data)

$/Vehicle (Per 

Model Output) Statewide $ 

<=3 5,775 16.7% $- $- 

>3 & <=6 12,083 35.0% $2,150 $25,972,902 

>6 & <=10 12,515 36.2% $6,454 $80,770,463 

>10 & <=13 2,604 7.5% $10,759 $28,016,977 

>13 & <=16 592 1.7% $14,449 $8,551,982 
I-8 

>16 & <=20 406 1.2% $18,138 $7,363,585 

>20 360 1.0% $20,598 $7,416,901 

Unknown 212 0.6% $10,364 $2,201,281 

 34,547 100.0% $160,294,092 

 Overall Average $/Vehicle $1,263

In the above example, the highest increased costs due to the regulation with 

amendments are found in the >20 fleet age category with an average $/vehicle of 

$20,598 and the least cost increases due to the regulation are found in the three 

or fewer fleet age category with no average increased costs. Similar analyses 

have been done for all the remaining population categories including: California 

IRP fleets with four or more vehicles, neighboring out of state fleets with four or 

more vehicles, instate small fleets with heavy duty vehicles, and instate fleets 

with vehicles less than 26,000 pounds. The results of the analyses as well as the 

cost model are posted at ARB web site (ARB, 2010). 

7. School buses 

Adjustments to the original cost estimates, published in Appendix K of the 2008 

staff report for the rule, have been calculated to reflect proposed changes to the 

school bus portion of the regulation which aligning the requirements with the 

broader truck and bus regulation. Staff estimates that the costs to school 

districts will be reduced by about 12 percent, or over $8 million, over the life of 

the regulation. Approximately $200 million in Lower-Emission School Bus 

Program funds have been provided to assist public school districts with this 

effort. In addition, many local air districts have also provided local and federal 

funds. 

8. Annual Costs 

a) Ongoing Maintenance and Regeneration Costs 

In addition to capital costs, there are various annual operational and 

maintenance costs. Operational and maintenance costs associated with verified 

DECS include annual filter cleaning expenses, fuel economy losses and costs 

associated with regeneration of active systems. The methodology and 

assumptions for calculating the annual costs remain the same, and is available in 

Appendix J of October 2008 Technical Support Document for In-Use On-Road 

Diesel Vehicles (ARB, 2010). 

In 2012 through 2016, the proposed amendments would require the installation 

of diesel particulate matter filters (DPFs) on existing vehicles. After 2016 all 

vehicles would have PM filters and the total number decreases as vehicles are 

retired. By 2021, aftermarket PM retrofits will be phased out. The estimated 

maximum number of retrofits and OEM DPFs in the instate vehicles is shown in 

Table 3 (ARB, 2010). This estimate does not include the effects of the phase-in 

option or other credits in the regulation. 
I-9 

Table 3 Total Number of Aftermarket and OEM DPFs Statewide for In-State 

Vehicles Resulting from Proposed Amendments 

Calendar year Number of Aftermarket DPFs Increased Number of Engines 

with OEM equipped DPF 

2012 14,154 0

2013 35,424 0

2014 101,069 0

2015 105,190 16,801

2016 100,413 23,631

2017 93,030 29,241

2018 85,059 24,862

2019 80,048 20,655

2020 59,647 32,661

2021 30,237 50,720

2022 0 68,599

2023 0 56,993

2024 0 47,808 

2025 0 40,585 

For neighboring out of state fleets, the maximum number of estimated retrofits 

would be about 12,000. For non-neighboring out of state vehicle, generally long 

haul fleets that have the newest trucks, staff do not expect there will be a 

significant number of retrofits because almost all of these vehicles will already be 

equipped with PM filters. Staff believes that most out of state fleets would send 

their newer vehicles to California and keep the small percentage of older trucks 

outside of California. Trucks that come into California infrequently would also be 

able to utilize the exemption for vehicles operating less than 1,000 miles in the 

state or could utilize the three day pass to avoid retrofit costs. 

Staff used the same maintenance costs for the OEM DPF and the aftermarket 

VDECS as previously used. The annual DPF maintenance costs resulting from 

the proposed amendments from 2012 to 2025 was estimated to be approximately 

$266 million, as shown in Table 4. The maintenance cost due to the current 

regulation is $516 millions in 2008 dollars (ARB, 2008), which is equivalent to 

$569 million in 2010 dollars. The reduction results in a savings of $283 million 

(ARB, 2010). 

Table 4 Cumulative Increased Retrofit Maintenance Costs 

Per Filter Costs 

Cumulative Costs 

(millions $) 

OEM equipped DPFs $ 64 

Aftermarket DPFs $ 222 

TOTAL $ 286 
I-10 

For the regeneration cost, staff assumes that considerably fewer vehicles would 

require a filter that needs active regeneration. This is in part because the 

proposed amendments only require VDECS on 1998 and newer vehicles that 

tend to be higher mileage vehicles than lighter trucks, and that with the added 

flexibility more fleets would be able to use lower cost retrofits first and would 

likely replace older vehicles in later years. The estimated cost of active 

regeneration would be much lower than the current regulation. 

Assuming that a small percentage of 1998 model year and newer engines will 

require an active VDECS for a variety of operational reasons, and assuming the 

changes in the number of regeneration and fuel usage during regeneration are 

negligible, staff estimates the total cost to the statewide fleet is $102.1 million at 

a diesel fuel price of $3.69 per gallon. Table 5 shows the statewide regeneration 

costs for various fuel prices. The regeneration cost as a result of the current 

regulation is $181.7 million in 2008 dollars, which is equivalent to $200.3 million 

in 2010 dollars (ARB, 2008). The amendments to the regulation would result in a 

savings of $98 million (ARB, 2010). 

Table 5 Regeneration Costs for Various Fuel Prices

Fuel Prices/Gallon 

Regeneration Costs 

(millions $) 

$3.00 $110.3 

$3.69 $110.7 

$4.00 $110.9 

$5.00 $111.4 

The regeneration cost calculation is highly sensitive to the active VDECS 

population assumed and to vehicle down time but is insensitive to fuel price. Staff 

assumes that the majority of regenerations will be planned to avoid vehicle 

downtime during the workday. 

 

b) Reporting Costs 

Staff anticipates that substantially fewer fleets will be required to report with the 

proposed amendments, and reporting cost will be lower for most fleets. Vehicles 

with GVWR 26,000 pounds or less will no longer need to report. These vehicles 

account for about 150,000 in-state vehicles. Using the same assumptions as in 

2008 Technical Support Documents to calculate the reporting cost, the initial 

reporting costs would be reduced by 40 percent and more fleets would be 

expected to meet the BACT schedule requirements and would not need to report. 

The initial reporting for the current regulation is approximately $16.5 million in 

2008 dollars (ARB, 2008). That is an equivalent of $18 million in 2010 dollars. 

The estimated savings on the initial reporting costs would be approximately $13 

million (ARB, 2010). 
I-11 

The reporting period over the life of the regulation has also been reduced by 

several years, one year defer at the beginning for all fleets, three years shorter 

for small fleets and seven years shorter for large fleets. The total annual 

reporting cost for the current regulation is $60 million in 2008 dollars, which is 

equivalent to $67 million in 2010 dollar (ARB, 2008). Adjusting the costs by the 

reporting period and reducing it by the equivalent percentages, the total annual 

reporting cost is approximately $10 million, which is a $57 million savings (ARB, 

2010). Table 6 shows the costs and savings as the result of amendments. 

Table 6 Reporting Costs and Savings for In-State Fleets 

Cost Reporting Cost 

(million) 

Savings Accrues 

by Amendments 

(million) 

Initial Reporting $5 $13 

Annual Reporting $10 $57 

Total $15 $70 

9. Total Costs 

The results of multiplying the number of vehicles for each fleet type by the costs 

per vehicle are shown in Table 7 (ARB, 2010). This table also incorporates 

reporting costs for company fleets to comply with the regulation with 

amendments including the initial reporting costs and the total annual reporting 

costs. It also includes the annual maintenance cost of retrofits. Overall, staff 

estimates the cost of the regulation to be about $2.2 billion. 

Table 7 Total Statewide Compliance Costs 

Fleet/Population Type Total Cost 

(Millions) 

# Vehicles 

CA-IRP Vehicles for Fleets >3 Vehicles $160 34,547

NEIG-OOS Vehicles for Fleets >3 Vehicles $118 25,384

Instate HHD Vehicles for Fleets >3 Vehicles $69 54,375

Instate MHD Vehicles for Fleets >3 Vehicles $313 97,842

Instate HHD Vehicles for Fleets w/1-3 Vehicles $478 76,410

Instate MHD Vehicles for Small Fleets with 1-3Vehicles $487 92,307

Far State Vehicles for All Fleets $149 344,294

School Buses $61 14,629

Reporting Costs $15 n/a 

Operating Costs $397 n/a 

Grand Total $2,247 734,024 

The total compliance cost for the current regulation is approximately $5.5 billion 

(ARB, 2008). Comparing to the costs incurred by the amendments, the 

amendments would result in about $3.3 billion in savings. 
I-12 

10. Cost Sensitivities 

The total compliance cost calculation is sensitive to several factors: how many 

fleets utilize credits, growth and decline of vehicle population and age groups, 

fleets buying new replacement vehicles verses the number buying used 

replacements, the increased cost of new 2010 truck, and how older out of state 

fleets might change their business practice to conform with the regulation. 

Credits would reduce the number of retrofits or OEM DPF in the population for a 

period of time and would improve fleets ability to make lower cost used vehicle 

replacements to comply. This, in turn, would affect not only the capital cost but 

also the operating costs. The end result would be a lower overall compliance 

cost. The effect of the credits providing economic relief for fleet size reduction is 

highly dependent on the rate of economic recovery. 

 

Changes in population for instate vehicles also could have significant impact on 

cost estimates. First, vehicles that are operated fewer than 1000 miles per year, 

do not have any cleanup requirements. Staff was conservative in not reducing 

costs due to low use vehicles. Second, the proposed amendments would 

provide credit until 2016 if fleets have fewer vehicles operating in the compliance 

year than they had in the peak year of 2006. Fleets could have substantially 

lower compliance costs if they retire additional vehicles. The credit encourages 

fleets to decrease the number of trucks in the fleet and reduces actions required 

on other trucks at the same time. If the economy continues to recovers slower 

than projected and the population declines more the costs would be lower. On 

the other hand, if the economy recovers faster then fewer fleets would be able to 

take advantage of the credits and the costs would be higher. 

The population of affected out of state vehicles is more variable than for instate 

fleets. Long haul fleets generally have the newest trucks, and most will already 

comply with the regulation because of normal 3 to 7 year replacement cycles. 

However, the number of different out of state trucks operating in California is 

estimated to be about one half million. Staff believes that most out of state fleets 

would send their newer vehicles to California and keep the small percentage of 

older trucks outside of California. Staff was conservative in assuming costs 

attributable to the regulation for many of the out of state trucks because trucks 

that come into California infrequently would also be able to utilize the exemption 

for vehicles operating less than 1,000 miles in the state or could utilize the three 

day pass to be exempt from the clean-up requirements. 

Staff considered the impact of using different vehicle replacement costs. The 

costs attributable to the regulation are subtracted from the costs from normal 

replacements. Fleets that typically buy used trucks are expected to be older 

fleets and have lower capital investments than fleets that buy newer trucks on the 

same schedule. Cost estimates are dependent on whether fleets are expected to 

buy newer or older vehicles as a result of the regulation. Because per vehicle 

cost is calculated based on the replacement vehicle costs, buying new or near 
I-13 

new replacement vehicles would result in an increase in per vehicle cost, and its 

effect ripples through the cost calculation. If fleets were to rely on buying older 

used vehicles than normal to comply with the regulation, the estimated costs 

could be decreased substantially. 

Staff evaluated the sensitivity to the estimated price premium for new trucks with 

2010 model year or newer heavy duty engine and found that the results do not 

vary significantly. First, no truck that is less than 20 years or 97 percent of all 

trucks would be required to be replaced early until 2020. Newer fleets are 

expected to buy new replacement vehicles, but also normally replace their 

vehicles faster than the regulation would require. Both the baseline cost 

estimates and the with rule costs would change by an equal amount. Older fleets 

have higher costs attributable to the regulation but are not modeled as buying 

new replacement trucks. These fleets typically buy used trucks and would be 

expected to continue to do so with the regulation in place. Used truck prices 

were not assumed to be higher because of higher initial costs. The change in the 

price premium for new engines attributable to the regulation have minimal impact 

on the cost estimates. 

11. Cost Effectiveness of the Proposed Amendments 

The cost-effectiveness for the proposed amendments is determined by dividing 

the total capital costs plus the annual costs by the total pounds of diesel PM and 

NOx reduced during the years 2012 to 2025. The expected cost effectiveness of 

the amended regulation is $1.70/lb for NOx and $44/lb for PM. All costs are in 

$2010. Staff used the inventory estimated number of PM filters adjusted the 

costs attributable to PM reductions down by 15 percent to account for the effects 

of credits and flexibility options because the total cost calculation had considered 

BACT schedule and phase-in compliance options and the inventory cost 

modeling, on the other hand, had not and therefore was conservative on PM filter 

estimate. The remaining total cost of the regulation was attributed to NOx 

reductions. Most of the replacement costs are attributed to NOx reductions 

(ARB, 2010). Table 8 shows the summary of the cost effectiveness ratio 

estimated for the amended Truck and Bus regulation.

Table 8 Cost Effectiveness Ratio Comparison 

Emission 

Reductions

Proposed 

Amendments

Current 

Regulation

NOx ($/lb) $1.70 $1.76 

PM ($/lb) $44.20 $46.00 

B. Truck and Bus Regulation Costs Analysis for Individual Fleets 

Although the overall economy for trucks is down about twenty percent on 

average, some fleets and sectors are more affected than others. Staff collected 

survey data from fleets from various industries to better understand their ability to 
I-14 

comply with the existing regulation and the proposed amendments. The 

Economic Analysis Survey Form can be found in at the end of this appendix. 

1. Financial Analysis of Survey Respondents 

The recession has imposed significant downward pressure on most fleets, and 

fleets have downsized their businesses significantly. Many fleets have sold 

assets, cut back debt, reduced employment, and improved productivity. This 

adjustment still continues for some fleets and is expected to continue for some 

time because the recovery that followed the recession has been slow and it is 

uncertain when it will accelerate to a more normal growth path. The amended 

regulation would decrease costs substantially for most fleets, and the additional 

economic relief in the form of credits for fleets that have downsized would further 

reduce capital investments required until 2016. The credit provision can delay 

some or all of the compliance costs to later years giving fleets the ability to defer 

costs and to take advantage of lower used truck prices in later years. To further 

analyze the savings expected from the proposed amendments, staff evaluated 

the impact of the amendments on individual fleets. 

a) Moving Company 

The following company is an actual moving fleet with 14 trucks, seven of which 

are heavier trucks (more than 26,000 pounds GVWR) and the others are lighter 

trucks (less than 26,001 pounds GVWR). The engine model years for the trucks 

range from 1996 to 2007. The fleet has downsized 30 percent since 2006 and 

typically will replace one truck per year at a cost of about $94,000 after trade-in. 

Staff assumed the annual revenue of this company for 2010 would remain the 

same as in 2009. From 2006 to 2010 the average annual revenue was about 

$4.9 million. 

The existing regulation would require the fleet to install six retrofit PM filters and 

to replace eight trucks one to two years earlier than normal. The fleet’s total 

costs with the existing regulation above normal replacement costs from 2010 to 

2025 would be $160,000 (2010 dollars). 

With the proposed amendments the fleet would need to install two retrofit PM 

filters and replace two trucks one year early. Figure -7 shows the annual 

expenditures the company would make in current dollars under the proposed 

amendments compared to the existing regulation. The average normal 

replacement costs are shown by the dashed line. With the proposed 

amendments, the fleet’s total compliance costs would be reduced to about 

$74,000 above normal replacement costs, or 55 percent lower than with the 

current regulation. More importantly the proposed amendment would impose no 

additional costs other than business as usual for this fleet until 2014, in part, 

because of the credits for downsizing. By January 1, 2014, the fleet would need 

to install one PM filter on an existing truck. The cost to comply would represent 
I-15 

about 0.15 percent of annual revenue. The spreadsheet analysis used for this 

example is available at xxx 

Figure -7: Moving Company Annual Rule Costs vs. Normal Replacement 

Costs 

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

2010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025

Proposed

Existing

Average Normal

Replacment Costs

b) Concrete Company 

Staff also evaluated the impact of the proposed amendments for an actual 

concrete company. The concrete company has 18 trucks with engine model 

years ranging from 1994 to 2007, all of which are heavier trucks with a GVWR 

greater than 26,000 pounds. The company has annual revenues above 

$3,000,000. The fleet has the same number of trucks as it did in 2006, but it has 

not been operating six of the trucks. Therefore, the fleet could utilize a 

33 percent economic relief credit (six out of 18 trucks). The fleet typically 

replaces one truck per year at a cost of about $103,000 per year after trade-in. 

Staff assumed the annual revenue of this company for 2010 would remain the 

same as in 2009. From 2006 to 2010 the average annual revenue was about 

$6.5 million. 

The existing regulation would require the fleet to install eight retrofit PM filters 

and to replace 14 trucks one to six years earlier than normal. With the existing 

regulation, the fleet’s cumulative compliance costs from 2010 to 2025 are 

expected to be $440,000 (2010 dollars) above normal replacement costs. 

With the proposed amendments, the fleet would be expected to install seven 

retrofit PM filters and to replace nine trucks early. Figure -8 shows the annual 

expenditures the company would make in current dollars under the proposed 

amendments compared to the existing regulation. One truck is replaced one year 
I-16 

early in 2016 because the fleet would not be expected to install a PM filter on a 

truck that would normally be replaced in one year. Most of the early 

replacements occur from 2021 to 2023. With the proposed amendments, the 

fleet’s cumulative compliance costs from 2010 to 2025 would be reduced to 

about $230,000 above normal replacement costs or about 50 percent lower than 

with the current regulation. More importantly the amended regulation would 

impose no costs for this fleet until 2014 when three PM filters would be required 

compared to substantially higher costs under the existing regulation. In 2016, 

one more truck than normal was replaced 2 years early and reflects that a fleet 

would not be likely to install a retrofit PM filter on a truck that was about to be 

replaced. The spreadsheet analysis used for this example is available at xxx 

Figure -8: Concrete Company Rule vs Normal Replacement Costs 

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

2010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025

Proposed

Existing

Average Normal

Replacment Costs

c) Transportation Company 

The following company is an actual freight transportation fleet, primarily a 

truckload carrier, with 33 truck tractors (GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds). 

The engine model years range from 1990 to 2009. Staff assumed the annual 

revenue of this company for 2010 would remain the same as in 2009. From 

2006 to 2010 the average annual revenue was about $5.5 million. The fleet did 

not provide information about the number of trucks in 2006; therefore, staff did 

not assume the fleet size declined and no economic relief credits for downsizing 

would apply in this example. The fleet typically replaces two trucks per year with 

used trucks that are three years old at a cost of less than $45,000 per truck after 

trade-in. 

The existing regulation would require the fleet to install 14 retrofit PM filters and 

to replace 27 trucks one to six years earlier than normal. The cost increase in 
I-17 

2010 reflects that the fleet would purchase a newer truck than normal that is 

originally equipped with a PM filter. The fleet would be expected to replace some 

trucks early in planning to meet future NOx reduction requirements while 

reducing the number of retrofit PM filters. The fleet’s total costs to comply with 

the existing regulation from 2010 to 2025 would be $410,000 (2010 dollars) 

above normal replacement costs with the highest capital investments required 

2012 to 2014. 

Under the proposed amendments the fleet would be expected install 16 retrofit 

PM filters and to change the order in which the older trucks are replaced. Figure 

9 shows the annual expenditures the company would make in current dollars with 

the proposed amendments compared to the existing regulation. The fleet would 

continue to replace two trucks per year until 2016 when the fleet would need to 

replace four trucks. In 2022 and 2023 the fleet would need to replace 11 trucks 

early. With the proposed amendments, the fleet’s total compliance costs would 

be reduced to about $185,000 above normal replacement costs, or 55 percent 

lower than with the current regulation. The capital investments required from 

2010 to 2015 would be about 50 percent lower. The cost increase in 2010 

reflects that the fleet has begun to purchase newer trucks than normal that are 

originally equipped with a PM filter. The average normal replacement costs are 

shown by the dashed line. The cost to comply with the proposed amendments 

would represent about 0.3 percent of annual revenue. The spreadsheet analysis 

used for this example is available at xxx 

Figure 9: Freight Company Annual Rule Costs vs. Normal Replacement 

Costs 

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023

Proposed

Existing

Average Normal

Replacment Costs
I-18 

2. Financial Feasibility for Individual Fleets 

Staff is continuing to evaluate the potential impacts on actual individual fleets and 

industries subject to the regulation. Towards this end, staff plans to present 

additional economic information regarding cash flow analyses, access to capital, 

and fleets’ “ability to pay” to comply with the revised regulation as part of the 

December 2010 Board hearing. 

C. Cost Savings for Drayage Truck Amendments 

Trucks serving the Ports of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles already 

have 2007 model year engines or newer; therefore, the proposed amendments 

would not result in any changes except for trucks serving other ports and 

intermodal rail yards. 

As shown in the following table, by 2014, 23 percent of the drayage trucks 

outside the South Coast are expected to have 2007 and newer engines. 43 

percent are expected to have 2004 to 2006 model year engines and 35 percent 

are expected to have 1994 to 2003 model year engines already retrofit with PM 

filters. 

Trucks Serving the Port of Oakland and other ports outside LA 2014 

CY Population 2007Plus 2004to2006 Pre2004 

2014 4224 960 1801 1463

 23% 43% 35%

The 23% with 2007 engines would have no costs with the existing rule and would 

have no savings with the amendments. Fleets that would be expected to have 

2004 to 2006 model year engines would need to upgrade to a 2007 model year 

or newer truck to comply with the existing drayage regulation by 2014. Staff 

estimates that it would cost $35,000 to purchase a 2008 model year truck in 2013 

instesd of $20,000 for a 2004 to 2006 model year truck. The net cost would be 

about $15,000 which is the roughly the same cost as installing a PM filter on an 

existing truck. Therefore, these fleets would not experience a significant change 

in cost with the proposed amendments. Fleets with 1994 to 2003 model year 

engines represent 35% of the trucks. These trucks have already been retrofit to 

comply with the regulation and would need to be upgraded to a 2007 model year 

engine by 2014 if the regulation were not amended. The cost to upgrade to a 

2007 model year engine would be about $35,000 minus the trade-in value of the 

older truck. The trade-in value would likely range from $5000 to $20,000 

depending on the condition of the truck. If the average trade-in value was 

$10,000 the average cost would be $25,000 per truck. The proposed 

amendments would eliminate the requirement to upgrade to the 2007 engine; 

therefore, the average cost savings would be 1,463*25,000=$36 million. 

By 2014, the existing Truck and Bus Regulation already requires all trucks to 

have PM filters and nearly all trucks to have at least a 2004 model year engine or 
I-19 

newer. Fleets with 4 or more trucks can comply with 50 percent 2010 model 

year engines and the remainder could be any model year with PM filters. Newer 

trucks are able to comply longer; therefore, there is an incentive for fleets to 

upgrade to newer trucks. Therefore, the inclusion of Class 7 tractors serving the 

ports and rail yards would result in no increased costs for fleets with 2004 or 

newer engines. 

With the proposed amendments to the truck and bus regulation, single truck 

owners with pre-2004 engines could comply with the amended regulation by 

installing a PM filter and would no longer have to upgrade to a truck with a 2004 

model year engine and equip it with a PM filter. Therefore, if the truck costs are 

similar to the example above, the truck owner would experience a cost saving of 

$20,000-$10,000=10,000 for avoiding the truck replacement. The PM filter cost 

would be unchanged. Thus, the minimum net cost savings for a single truck 

owner would be $10,000 per truck. 

Reporting cost saving from the Drayage Truck regulation will be about $13 

million. Business owners as well as motor carriers will see a cost savings 

starting in 2017 when reporting, data collection, and truck monitoring 

requirements cease after the Drayage Truck Regulation sunsets. The savings is 

estimated to be approximately $270 per year (2010 dollars) for an independent 

drayage truck owner and approximately $4,700 per year (2010 dollars) for a 

licensed motor carrier. The total annual costs savings that results from an 

estimated 18,000 drayage truck owner-operators, and approximately 1,800 

licensed motor carrier firms is estimated to be about $13 million (18,000 x $270 + 

1,800 x $4,700 total cost ~ $13,000,000). 
I-20 

D. References 

ARB, 2008. California Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial Statement of 

Reasons (ISOR), Technical Support Document. October 2008. Available at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/truckbus08/truckbus08.htm

ARB, 2010. California Air Resources Board, Diesel Activities - AB1085 

Compliance. October 2010. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/dieseltruck
I-21 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SURVEY 

Staff evaluated survey information from 72 fleets that participated in ARB’s 

Economic Analysis Survey below. The purpose of the survey was to gather fleet 

data and financial information so staff could evaluate the impact of the economy 

on individual business that need to comply with the Truck and Bus regulation. 

The survey responses included information on more than 2,500 vehicles. These 

fleets ranged in size from one vehicle to over 700 vehicles and represented 

various business sectors such as construction, agriculture, transportation, and 

government. 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SURVEY 

 □Confidential 

Company Information

Company Name: Contact Person: 

Company Address: Phone Number: 

 Email Address: 

ARB Confidentiality

The California Code of Regulation (CCR) Article 2, sections 91010 requires the state 

board to give notice to any person from whom it request information that the information 

proved may be released (1) to the public upon request, except trade secrets which are 

not emission data or other information which is exempt from disclosure or the disclosure 

of which is prohibited by law, and (2) to the federal Environmental Protection Agency, 

Please feel free to contact the following staff for questions concerning the survey 

Virginia Humphreys 

Phone: (916) 322-8739 

 Email: vhumphre@arb.ca.gov

Please return the completed survey and any additional information by 

[DATE] and email or mail to: 

 Attention: Virginia Humphreys (MSCD)

 California Air Resources Board 

 P.O. Box 2815 

 Sacramento, CA 95812 
I-22 

which protects trade secrets as provided in Section 114(c) of the Clean Air Act and 

Amendments thereto and in federal regulations. 

If your responses to any part of this survey contain confidential information, please 

check the box marked confidential located above on the right side of this page and refer 

to Attachment C for more detailed information. In addition, please complete the 

confidentiality form provided in Attachment C. 

□Confidential 

Economic Analysis Survey Form 

The purpose of this form is to gather fleet data and financial information for staff 

to evaluate the impact of the economy on individual business that need to comply 

with the Truck and Bus Regulation. Any information that is marked confidential 

will remain confidential. Please complete and return this form to the Air 

Resources Board by [Date] 

Company Name: __________________________________________________ 

 

Contact Person: __________________________________________________ 

 

Physical Address: ________________________________________________ 

Email Address: ___________________________________________________ 

1. Please provide us with your NAICS or SIC code: 

2. Please provide audited financial statements, balance sheets and/or 

profit and loss statements for the past three to five years (Attach 

information to this form and email to Virginia Humphreys at 

vhumphre@arb.ca.gov or mail to PO box 2815, Sacramento, CA 

95812 Attn: Virginia Humphreys). 

3. Please tell us about your trucks and buses operated in the calendar 

years of 2006 to 2009. Specifically, what is the model year(s) and 

annual miles traveled for each vehicle during each calendar year? If 

the truck was idle for the entire year, please enter zero for mileage. 

 
I-23 

Annual Miles Traveled 

Model 

Year 

Vehicle Body Type 

(see Attachment A) 

Gross 

Vehicle 

Weight 

Rating 

(GVRW) 

Year 

Sold/ 

Retired 2006 2007 2008 2009 

 

 

 (See attachment B to include additional vehicles) 

□Confidential 

4. In addition to vehicles in your fleet that are subject to the Truck and Bus 

regulation, do you also have vehicles that are subject to the Off-Road 

regulation? If so, please provide us with your DOORS identification 

number so we may access information regarding your off-road vehicles. 

5. Have you or your company applied for and received any incentive funding 

for vehicle purchases, repowers, or retrofits in the last three to five years? 

If yes, how much money have you received? 

6. Do any of your trucks have a PM exhaust retrofit? If so, how many? 

 

7. Please tell us how you classify your business. For example, are you a 

logging, construction, or moving company? 

8. If your organization is a national organization, is there a California branch 

or affiliate? 

9. How many California fleet owners does your organization represent? 

10. Can you provide us with individual fleets willing to provide data? 
I-24 

11. Do you currently subscribe to our listserv? If not, would you like to be 

enrolled? (Note: listserv subscribers are notified immediately by email 

regarding updates on the regulation, outreach material, and workshops. 

Please provide your email address if you wish to subscribe) 

 

Attachment A 

Vehicle Body Type 

Vehicle Body Type Vehicle Body Type (Continued) 

Beverage Tank Truck: LPG 

Bucket/Boom Tank: Milk 

Bus (Motor Coach) Tank: Vacuum 

Bus - Shuttle Tank: Water-Single 

Cab & Chassis single Tank: Water-Tandem 

Cab & Chassis tandem Toter 

Cab & Chassis (Cabover) Tow Truck: Roll-back-Single

Cab & Chassis Dual Frame Tow Truck: Roll-back-Tandem 

Car Carrier Tow Truck: Wrecker 

Chipper Tractor: Cabover w/o Sleeper-Single 

Cotton Module Tractor: Cabover w/o Sleeper-Tandem 

Crane Tractor: Cabover w/ Sleeper-Single 

Drill Rig Tractor: Cabover w/ Sleeper-Tandem 

Dump Tractor: Conv w/ Sleeper-Single 

Dump: Transfer Tractor: Conv w/ Sleeper-Tandem 

Expeditor/Hot Shot Tractor: Conv w/o Sleeper-Single

Farm/Grain Tractor: Conv w/o Sleeper-Tandem 

Flatbed Van: Dry-Single 

Flatbed-Dump Van: Dry-Tandem 

Fuel/Lube-Single Van: Moving 

Fuel/Lube-Tandem Van: Reefer 

Garbage Trucks: Packer Winch 

Garbage Trucks: Roll-Off Yard Spotter (Goat) 

Grapple 

Hooklift 

Logging 

Landscape 

Mixer/Asphalt 

Service/Utility 

Stake 

Sweeper 

Tank Truck: General 

Tank Truck: Asphalt 

Tank Truck: Chemical 

Tank Truck: Liquid fuel 
I-25 

□Confidential 

Attachment B 

On-Road Vehicles 

Annual Miles Traveled Model 

Year 

Vehicle Body Type Gross Vehicle 

Weight Rating 

(GVRW) 

Year 

Sold/ 

Retired 2006 2007 2008 2009 

 
I-26 

□Confidential 

Attachment C 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBMITTAL FORM 

If you wish to designate any information contained in your survey data as CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION, please provide the information requested below and return it with your 

completed Survey form. 

In accordance with Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Sections 91000 to 91022, and 

the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), the information that a 

company provides to the Air Resources Board (ARB) may be released (1) to the public upon 

request, except trade secrets which are not emissions data or other information which is exempt 

from disclosure or the disclosure of which is prohibited by law, and 2) to the Federal 

Environmental Protection Agency, which protects trade secrets as provided in Section 114(c) of 

the Clean Air Act and amendments thereto (42 USC 7401 et seq.) and in federal regulation, and 

3) to other public agencies provided that those agencies preserve the protections afforded 

information which is identified as a trade secret, or otherwise exempt from disclosure by law 

(Section 39660(e)).

Trade secrets, as defined in Government Code 6254.7, are not public records and therefore will 

not be released to the public. However, the California Public Records Act states that air pollution 

emission data are always public records, even if the data comes within the definition of trade 

secrets. Even so, the information used to calculate air pollution data is not "emission data," and 

will not be released to the public if it is a trade secret. 

If any company believes that any of the information it may provide is a trade secret or otherwise 

exempt from disclosure under any provision of law, it must identify the confidential 

information as such at the time of submission to the ARB and must provide the name, 

address, and telephone number of the individual to be consulted. If the ARB receives a 

request for disclosure or seeks to disclose the data claimed to be confidential, the ARB may ask 

the company to provide documentation of its claim of trade secret or exemption at a later date. 

Data identified as confidential will not be disclosed unless the ARB determines, in accordance 

with the above referenced regulations that the data do not qualify for a legal exemption from 

disclosure. The regulations establish substantial safeguards before any such disclosure. 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 

In accordance with the provisions of Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Sections 91000 to 

91022, and the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250 et seq.) 

Company Name: 

declares that only those portions specifically identified (by checking the upper right-hand corner 

confidentiality box on each form) and submitted in response to the California Air Resources 

Board's information request on the Survey are confidential "trade secret" information, and 

requests that it be protected as such from public disclosure. We have designated confidential 

information by checking (x) in the upper right-hand corner confidentiality box on the first page of 

the survey. 

Printed Name: Title: 

Signature: Date: 

Mailing Address: 

City/State: Zip/Country: 

Telephone Number: E-mail Address: 

Page C-1 
I-27 

Division 3, Air Resources Board 

Chapter 1, Air Resources Board 

Subchapter 4. Disclosure of Public Records 

Article 1. General 

§91000. Scope and Purpose. 

This subchapter shall apply to all requests to the state board under the California Public 

Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250 et seq.) for the disclosure of public records or for 

maintaining the confidentiality of data received by the state board. Written guidelines shall govern 

the internal review of such requests. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600 and 39601(a), Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: California Public Records Act, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250), Division 

7, Government Code. 

§91001. Disclosure Policy. 

It is the policy of the state board that all records not exempted from disclosure by state law 

shall be open for public inspection with the least possible delay and expense to the requesting 

party. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600 and 39601(a), Health and Safety Code. Reference: 

Section 6253, Government Code; Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 645. 

Article 2. Board's Requests for Information 

§91010. Request Procedure. 

The state board shall give notice to any person from whom it requests information that the 

information provided may be released (1) to the public upon request, except trade secrets which 

are not emission data or other information which is exempt from disclosure or the disclosure of 

which is prohibited by law, and (2) to the federal Environmental Protection Agency, which protects 

trade secrets as provided in Section 114(c) of the Clean Air Act and amendments thereto (42 

USC 7401 et seq.) and in federal regulations. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601 and 39602, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 39701, 41510, 41511, 41512 and 42705, Health and Safety Code; and 

Section 6253, Government Code. 

§91011. Submissions of Confidential Data. 

Any person submitting to the state board any records containing data claimed to be “trade secret” 

or otherwise exempt from disclosure under Government Code Section 6254 or 6254.7 or under 

other applicable provisions of law shall, at the time of submission, identify in writing the portions 

of the records containing such data as “confidential” and shall provide the name, address and 

telephone number of the individual to be contacted if the state board receives a request for 

disclosure of or seeks to disclose the data claimed to be confidential. Emission data shall not be 

identified as confidential. The state board shall not disclose data identified as confidential, except

in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter or Section 39660(e) of the Health and 

Safety Code. 

Page C-2 
I-28 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600 and 39601, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 39660, 39701, 41500, 41511, 41512 and 42705, Health and Safety Code; 

Sections 6253, 6254 and 6254.7, Government Code Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 

489 F.2d 390 (5th Cir. 1974) (6 ERC 1248); Northern California Police Practices Project v. Craig 

(1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 116; Uribe; v. Howie (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 194. 

Article 3. Inspection of Public Records 

§91020. Disclosure Policy. 

§91021. Disclosure Procedure. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 39601, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 6253-6257, Government Code. 

§91022. Disclosure of Confidential Data. 

(a) This section shall apply to all data in the custody of the state board (1) designated “trade 

secret” prior to the adoption of this subchapter, 

 

(2) considered by the state board or identified by the person who submitted the data as 

confidential pursuant to this subchapter, or 

 (3) received from a federal, state or local agency, including an air pollution control district, 

with a confidential designation, subject to the following exceptions: 

(A) Except for the time limits specifically provided in subsection (b), only subsections (c) and 

(d) of this section shall apply to information submitted pursuant to Health and Safety Code 

section 39660(e). 

 (B) Appropriate portions of an application for approval, accreditation, or certification of a 

motor vehicle emission control device or system shall be kept confidential until such time as the 

approval, accreditation, or certification is granted, at which time the application (except for 

trade secret data) shall become a public record, except that estimates of sales volume of 

new model vehicles contained In an application shall be kept confidential for the model year, 

and then shall become public records. If an application is denied, it shall continue to be 

confidential but shall be subject to the provisions of this section. 

(C) If disclosure of data obtained after August 9, 1984 from a state or local agency subject to 

the provisions of the Public Records Act is sought, the state board shall request that the 

agency which provided the data determine whether it is confidential. The state board shall 

request that it be notified of the agency's determination within ten days. The state board shall 

not release the data if the agency determines that it is confidential and so notifies the state 

board; provided, however, that the data may be released with the consent of the person who 

submitted it to the agency from which it was obtained by the state board. 

(b) Upon receipt of a request from a member of the public that the state board disclose data 

claimed to be confidential or if the state board itself seeks to disclose such data, the state 

board shall inform the individual designated pursuant to Section 91011 by telephone and by 

mail that disclosure of the data is sought. The person claiming confidentiality shall file with the 

state board documentation in support of the claim of confidentiality. The documentation must 

be received within five (5) days from the date of the telephone contact or of receipt of the 

mailed notice, whichever first occurs. In the case of information submitted pursuant to Health 

and Safety Code section 39660(e), the documentation must be received within 30 days of the 

date notice was mailed pursuant to that section. 

Page C-3 
I-29 

The deadlines for filing the documentation may be extended by the state board upon a 

showing of good cause made within the deadline specified for receipt of the documentation. 

© The documentation submitted in support of the claim of confidentiality shall include the 

following information: 

(1) the statutory provision(s) under which the claim of confidentiality is asserted; 

(2) a specific description of the data claimed to be entitled to confidential treatment; 

(3) the period of time for which confidential treatment is requested; 

(4) the extent to which the data has been disclosed to others and whether its confidentiality 

has been maintained or its release restricted; 

(5) confidentiality determinations, if any, made by other public agencies as to all or part of the 

data and a copy of any such determinations, if available; and 

(6) whether it is asserted that the data is used to fabricate, produce, or compound an article 

of trade or to provide a service and that the disclosure of the data would result in harmful 

effects on the person’s competitive position, and, if so, the nature and extent of such 

anticipated harmful effects. 

(d) Documentation, as specified in subsection ©, in support of a claim of confidentiality may 

be submitted to the state board prior to the time disclosure is sought. 

(e) The state board shall, within ten (10) days of the date it sought to disclose the data or 

received the request for disclosure, or within 20 days of that date if the state board 

determines that there are unusual circumstances as defined in Government Code Section 

6256.1, review the request, if any, and supporting documentation, if received within the time 

limits specified in subsection (b) above, including any extension granted, and determine 

whether the data is entitled to confidential treatment pursuant to Government Code Section 

6254, 6255 or 6254.7 or other applicable provisions of law and shall either: 

(1) decline to disclose the data and, if a request was received, provide to the person making 

the request and to the person claiming the data is confidential a justification for the 

determination pursuant to Government Code Section 6255; or 

(2) provide written notice to the person claiming the data is confidential and, if a request was 

received, to the person requesting the data that it has determined that the data is subject to 

disclosure, that it proposes to disclose the data, and that the data shall be released 21 days 

after receipt of the notice by the person claiming confidentiality, unless the state board is 

restrained from so doing by a court of competent jurisdiction. The state board shall release 

the data in accordance with the terms of the notice unless so restrained. 

(f) Should judicial review be sought of a determination issued in accordance with subsection 

(e), either the person requesting data or the person claiming confidentiality, as appropriate, 

may be made a party to the litigation to justify the determination. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 39601, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 6253, 6254, 6254.7, 6255, 6256, 6256.1, 6258 and 6259, Government 

Code. 

Page C-4