## California Environmental Protection Agency

Air Resources Board

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking

FOR AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING REGULATIONS MADE AS PART OF THE

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED REGULATION TO R EDUCE EMISSIONS FROM IN-USE ON-ROAD DIESEL VEHICLES, AND AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATIONS FOR IN-USE OFF-ROAD VEHICLES, DRAYA GE TRUCKS, MUNICIPALITY AND UTILITY VEHICLES, MOBILE CARGO HAN DLING EQUIPMENT, PORTABLE ENGINES AND EQUIPMENT, HEAVY-DU TY ENGINES

AND VEHICLE EXHAUST EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND TEST PR OCEDURES

AND COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE IDLING

October 2009TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. GENERAL............................................

................................................... ............. 1

A. A CTION T AKEN IN T HIS R ULEMAKING

................................................... ..................... 1

B. E CONOMIC AND F ISCAL I MPACTS

................................................... ........................... 3

C. C ONSIDERATION OF A LTERNATIVES

................................................... ....................... 3

II. Summary of Comments and Agency Responses to the Ori ginal Proposal... 3

A. S UMMARY OF C OMMENTERS

................................................... ................................. 4

B. S UMMARY OF P UBLIC C OMMENTS P RESENTED P RIOR TO OR AT THE H EARING AND
A GENCY R ESPONSES

................................................... ........................................... 4

1. Portable Engines and Equipment.....................

............................................... 4

2. Municipality & Utility Vehicles....................

................................................... ... 9

3. Drayage Trucks.....................................

................................................... ....... 9

4. Commercial Idling Regulation ....................... ................................................ 13

5. Summary of Comments and Agency Responses to Notice of Modified Text 131 State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

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

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED REGULATION TO R EDUCE EMISSIONS FROM IN-USE ON-ROAD DIESEL VEHICLES, AND AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATIONS FOR IN-USE OFF-ROAD VEHICLES, DRAYA GE TRUCKS, MUNICIPALITY AND UTILITY VEHICLES, MOBILE CARGO HAN DLING EQUIPMENT, PORTABLE ENGINES AND EQUIPMENT, HEAVY-DUTY ENGINES AND VEHICLE

EXHAUST EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND TEST PROCEDURES AND

COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE IDLING

Public Hearing Date: December 12, 2008

Agenda Item No: 08-11-3

I. GENERAL

A. Action Taken in This Rulemaking

On December 12, 2008, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) approved for adoption a new regulation, section 2025, title 13, Californi a Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs.) to reduce emissions of diesel particulate ma tter (diesel PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and greenhouse gases from in-use diesel truc ks and buses that operate in California. In this document the regulation will b e commonly referred to as the “Truck and Bus regulation. The regulation will establish requirements for in-state or out-ofstate motor carriers, California-based brokers, veh icle owners operators, and any California resident who hires or dispatches vehicle s subject to the regulation. In addition to adopting section 2025, the Board approv ed amendments to several existing regulations to ensure that the existing regulations , and the new regulation, work together effectively. The changes were made to clar ify the responsibilities and duties of regulated stakeholders, to provide additional compl iance flexibility, and to improve enforceability in general of the existing regulatio ns. Specifically, amendments were made to title 13, Cal. Code Regs., section 2020, “ Purpose and Definitions of Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measures,” sections 202 2 and 2022.1, “Diesel Particulate Control Measure for Municipality or Utility On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles,” section 2027, “Regulation to Control Emi ssions from In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks,” sections 2449 and 2449.3, “Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets,” sections 245 1, 2452, 2453, 2455, 2456, 2458, 2461, and 2462 of the “Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program;” section 2479, “Regulation for Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Railyards,” section 2485, “Airborne Toxic Control M easure to Limit Diesel Fueled2

Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling,“ section 1956.8, “ Exhaust Emissions Standards and Test Procedures – 1985 and Subsequent Model Heavy-D uty Engines and Vehicles,” and to title 17, Cal. Code Regs. sections 93116.1, 93116.2 and 93116.3 of the “Airborne
Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate Matter from Portable Engines Rated at 50 Horsepower and Greater. The Executive Officer a dopted these amendments on October 19, 2009 in Executive Order R-09-010, bifur cating the amendments from approved section 2025, title 13, Cal. Code Regs., a t the request of several stakeholders needing immediate clarification of their rights and responsibilities of stakeholders under the existing regulations and relief from imminent c ompliance deadlines. This Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) includes only comments directed towards the amendments to existing regulations. A separate FSO R document covering section 2025 will be issued before October 23, 2009.

The rulemaking was initiated by the publication on October 24, 2008 of a notice for a December 11 and 12, 2008 public hearing to consider the adoption of the regulation. A “Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Pro posed Rulemaking” entitled “Proposed Regulation For In-Use On-Road Diesel Vehi cles” (the Staff Report) and Technical Support Document (TSD) was also released on October 24, 2008 and made available to the public upon request as required by Government Code § 11346.2.

The Staff Report and TSD, which are incorporated by reference herein, described the rationale for the adoption of the amendments, as we ll as new section 2025. The text of the proposed amendments to the existing regulations was included in Appendix B of the Staff Report. The documents were also posted on the ARB’s internet site for the rulemaking at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/tr uckbus08/truckbus08.htm

On December 12, 2008, the Board considered the prop osed adoption of section 2025 and the proposed amendments to the above-referenced existing regulations and received written and oral comments. At the hearing , staff proposed several

modifications to the amendments that were made in r esponse to public comments made to staff after the publication of the original prop osal.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board adopted Resolution 08-43, in which it approved the originally proposed amendments with th e modifications presented at the hearing. The Resolution directed the Executive Off icer to incorporate the modifications into the proposed regulatory text, with such other conforming modifications as may be appropriate.

In accordance with section 11346.8 of the Governmen t Code, the Board directed the Executive Officer to adopt the new and modified sec tions described above after making the modified text available to the public for comme nt for a period of at least 15 days.

The Board conditioned this directive with the instr uction that the Executive Officer shall consider the written comments regarding the modifie d text that may be submitted during this period, shall make modifications as may be app ropriate in light of the comments received, and shall present the regulations to the Board for further consideration if warranted. The 15-day changes were made available August 19, 2009 and there were

no comments received on the amendments to the exist ing regulation. The 15-Day3

Notice of Availability of Modified Text, setting fo r the rationale of the proposed

modifications and the text of the modifications are incorporated by reference and included as part of this bifurcated-rulemaking pack age. The Executive Officer subsequently issued Executive Order R-09-010, which adopted the amended sections with additional modifications, which is incorporate d by reference and included as part of this rulemaking package.

B. Economic and Fiscal Impacts

In developing the proposed amendments to existing r egulations, ARB staff evaluated the potential economic impacts on private persons a nd businesses. The Board determined that the costs associated with approved amendments to existing regulations will not result in additional incurred costs, excep t for drayage trucks, because the remaining amendments either codify changes that are already in practice or provide for flexibility that potentially lowers compliance cost s for existing regulations.

Pursuant to Government Code section 11346.5(a)(5) a nd 11346.5(a)(6), the Executive Officer has determined that the adopted amendments will not create costs and may result in savings to a state agency, will not affec t federal funding to the state, will not impose costs or mandates to any local agency or sch ool district whether or not reimbursable by the State pursuant to part 7 (comme ncing with section 17500), division 4, title 2 of the Government Code, nor other nondis cretionary cost or savings to state or local agencies.

C. Consideration of Alternatives

Staff incorporated many suggestions from stakeholde rs in developing the proposed Truck and Bus regulation that led to numerous speci al provisions that needed to be addressed in the amendments to existing regulations . However, for reasons set forth in the Staff Report, in staff’s comments and responses at the hearing, and in this FSOR,

ARB has determined that no alternative considered b y the agency, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the agency, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the amendments w ere proposed or would be as effective or less burdensome to affected private pe rsons than the adopted regulation.

II. S UMMARY OF C OMMENTS AND A GENCY R ESPONSES TO THE O RIGINAL P ROPOSAL

The Board received numerous written and oral commen ts in connection with the 45-day public comment period and the December 12, 2008 hea ring. Set forth below is a summary of each objection or recommendation specifi cally directed to the amendments to the existing regulations for in-use off-road veh icles, drayage trucks, municipality and utility vehicles, mobile cargo handling equipment, portable engines and equipment, heavy duty engines and vehicle exhaust emissions st andards and test procedures and commercial motor vehicle idling or to the procedure s followed by ARB in proposing or adopting the regulation. Each comment is followed by the agency response explaining how the proposed action was changed to accommodate each objection or recommendation, or the reasons for making no change . The comments have been4

grouped by topic whenever possible. Comments that do not involve objections or recommendations specifically directed towards the p roposed amendments, or to the procedures followed by ARB in this rulemaking are g enerally not summarized below. Additionally, any other referenced documents are no t summarized below.

A. Summary of Commenters

During the 45-day comment period, the Board receive d written comments from the following persons or entities listed in Table 1 reg arding the amendments to the previously existing regulations. The identifier in the left column is used to attribute each listed comment to the person or entity submitting t he comment. The following

individuals made oral comments and did not submit w ritten comments: Alvan Mangalindan, Scott Taylor, Lee Steinberg, and Dick Stuart.

Table 1 – List of Commenters for 45 day Comment Per iod

Code Commenter Affiliation BJSC1 Doug Van Allen BJ Services Company USA COA Michael J. Vlaming Crane Owners Association, In c COARC Alvan Mangalindan Crane Owners Association an d the

Association of Crane Rental Contractors EGI Robert Engel Engel & Gray, Inc. LDT Larry and Dianne Long L & D Transportation GSCL1 John Baudendistel GSC Logistics, Inc. GSCL2 Robert Rodriguez GSC Logistics, Inc. GSCL4 Scott Taylor GSC Logistics, Inc. MCOG Lee Steinberg Mobile Crane Owners Group

MCW Dick Stuart Maxim Crane Works NAV1 Thomas Kramer Navistar, Inc Engine Group NWSC1 James Thomas Nabors Well Services Company PGE Tyler Wellman Pacific Gas & Electric Company PRR Steve Moore Pacific Rim Recycling SDAPCD Robert Reider San Diego Air Pollution Contro l District

SCAQMD1 Barry Wallerstein South Coast Air Quality Managemen t District

SCAQMD2 Henry Hogo South Coast Air Quality Management Distr ict WFSI Tony Picarello Westport Fuel Systems, Inc.

B. Summary of Public Comments Presented Prior to or at the Hearing and Agency Responses

1. Portable Engines and Equipment

a) Permitting Authority

1. Comment : We have some concerns with the proposals regardi ng two-engine cranes and sweepers. It is our understanding that t hese proposed amendments are not intended to change the existing classificat ion of the auxiliary engines as “portable engines,” such that districts may still r equire permits and establish5

emission standards (if the owner chooses not to reg ister the engine under the PERP program). However, the proposed amendments to the Portable Engines and Equipment Regulation and the Initial Statement of Reasoning Staff Report do

not make this clear. We are concerned that once the se engines become subject to their associated regulations (i.e., two-engine swee pers would be subject to the proposed In-Use On-Road Vehicle Regulation and two- engine cranes would be subject to the In-Use Off-Road Vehicle Regulation), air districts that would be permitting these equipment if these pieces of equip ment have not entered into the state's registration program, would not have an abi lity to disallow older Tier 0 engines from operating as they do currently. As a result, even though these older equipment would eventually be cleaned up under the on-road or off-road diesel vehicle regulations, they can continue to operate o ver a longer period of time in areas such as the South Coast Basin than they would have otherwise. For example, equipment that is running with Tier 0 engi nes are presently not allowed to be permitted and operate in the South Coast Air Basin. Equipment that have Tier 1 engines may be permitted to operate, but mus t demonstrate that the engine

does not exceed the certification level since the e ngine is certified under a "family emissions level." There is concern among the air d istricts that the amendments move the two-engine cranes and sweepers out of dist ricts’ permitting programs allow them to be unregistered. We request that CAR B preserve air districts' authority to affect the use of cleaner equipment th rough permitting or other means with the proposed amendments. (SCAQMD1) (SCAQMD2)

Agency Response: The amendments to the Portable Equipment Registrati on Program (PERP) affect only certain requirements on two engi ne cranes and two engine street sweepers and should not be considered a general “mo ving out” of the program. These vehicles would still be subject to opacity, inspect ion and fee requirements of the PERP. Changes to the PERP do not impinge on the local air districts present authority to permit equipment, and equipment owners will continue to ha ve the flexibility in deciding to register in PERP or be subject to district permitti ng programs. With certain limited exceptions, engines registered in PERP may operate throughout the State without obtaining permits from the local air districts

Both the Truck and Bus and In-Use Off-Road Vehicle regulations allow fleets to offset emissions from dirtier engines and by cleaning up o ther engines. The Truck and Bus regulation with the amendments to the portable engi ne requirements limits the hours of operation that Tier 0 auxiliary engines on two engi nes sweepers may operate and also requires PM and NOx reductions from both engines. As discussed in TSD chapter XVI, although PM and NOx emissions from the auxiliary en gine itself could be higher in the first few years, the NOx and PM emissions from both engines on two engine street sweepers will be substantially lower after 2012 tha n if the amendments were not made. Similarly the effect of emissions from both crane e ngines in the In-Use Off-Road Vehicle Regulation also will result slight increases in NOx emissions prior to 2013 with substantial reductions being achieved after that da te. Additionally, the regulation as

amended will achieve substantial PM reductions afte r 2011.6

b) Need for Regulatory Changes

2. Comment : Staff is also proposing to make modifications to the PERP to allow unregulated Tier 0 secondary off-road engines on cr anes and sweepers to be newly registered under PERP. These engines would th en only be subject to the inspection requirements and fees listed in the PERP regulation. Does this mean that these Tier 0 engines will be allowed to operat e past December 31, 2009? The PERP regulation was adopted by the CARB Board in Se ptember 1997, and the required replacement of all Tier 0 engines by Decem ber 31, 2009 was clearly stated. In addition, the PERP required that after July 2001 all engine replacement require certified engines, which did not allow repl acement of Tier 0 engines with another Tier 0 engine. The staff report states, "C urrently, non-registered Tier 0 secondary engines on cranes and sweepers are not al lowed to be registered through PERP." Tier 0 engines were allowed in the PERP in 1997, 1998, 2002 and 2005 through an amnesty period. If a fleet owne r did not register during the amnesty periods, they were not allowed in the PERP and could be permitted under the local air districts. (NWSC1)

3. Comment : Staff is proposing to make modifications to the PERP to allow unregulated Tier 0 secondary off-road engines on cr anes and sweepers to be newly registered under PERP. These engines would t hen only be subject to the inspection requirements and fees listed in the PERP . Does this mean that these Tier 0 engines will be allowed to operate past Janu ary 1, 2010? The CARB Board adopted the PERP regulation in September 1997. As part of the regulations, all fleet owners were required to replace all Tier 0 en gines by January 1, 2010. In addition, fleet owners were required to repower eng ines with certified engines starting in July 2001, which did not allow replacem ent of Tier 0 engines with another Tier 0 engine. By CARB allowing the PERP t o be modified once again is another slap in the face for industries that have b een working hand in hand with CARB through the PERP process. BJS has spent multi -millions of dollars to make our fleets comply with CARB regulations since 1998. Allowing industries to come into the PERP and exempting them from the rules tha t we all had to follow means that CARB is providing a competitive edge to those companies! The staff report states, “Currently, non-registered Tier 0 secondary engines on cranes and sweepers are not allowed to be registered through P ERP.” Tier 0 engines were allowed in the PERP in 1997, 1998, 2002 and 2005 th rough multiple amnesty periods. If a fleet owner did not register during the amnesty periods, they were not allowed in the PERP and could be permitted under th e local air districts. (BJSC1)

Agency Response: Amendments to the PERP shift several requirements f or two engine cranes and street sweepers to the In-Use Off -Road Vehicle regulation and the Truck and Bus regulation respectively. The changes clarify regulatory compliance by creating a single set of requirements (instead of f alling under multiple regulations) that affect these two vehicle types. This means the veh icles will not be subject to the PERP Tier 0 replacement requirement of January 1, 2010, and therefore the PERP registrations for these vehicles will not expire on December 31, 2009. In addition, any portable engine on a two-engine crane or street swe eper will still be allowed to register in PERP, as long as the performance requirements of the off-road or Truck and Bus7

regulation are being met. These revisions also modi fy the Portable Engine ATCM so that the emission control requirements of the ATCM are replaced by the new

amendments.

These changes were made to address unique issues th at crane and street sweeper operators face related to the safety, complexity an d unnecessary cost associated with complying with multiple regulations without any app reciable emission benefits. The high costs of engine repowering would potentially requir e custom design, manufacture and certification of engines for a small subset of Cali fornia-specific vehicles that are unlikely to be cost effective. Under the Occupational Safety & Health Administration and California Division of Occupational Safety & Health requirements, the original vehicle manufacturer would have to re-certify replacement a nd retrofit of the secondary Tier 0 engine for safety and feasibility. The manufacturer s’ approval, technical support and availability for modifications for compliance creat e significant safety and design

concerns that these amendments and the Truck and Bu s regulation address. These specific issues are further discussed in the Append ix L, Two-Engine Cranes , and Appendix M, Street Sweeper s, sections of the TSD

. The Staff understands that certain affected compani es may have already made changes to their fleet in anticipation of upcoming regulations. However, the amendments in combination with the other changes ap ply equally to fleets with the same type of equipment, and fleets who have already taken action will still get credit towards compliance with the respective regulations.

Although tier 0 engines will be able to operate bey ond 2009, the changes will require accelerated installations of PM filters and engine replacements beyond what is required under the existing portable engine regulation. Wit h the adopted amendments, nearly all auxiliary engines will need to have PM filters when the Portable Engine Regulation just begins to phase in its emission requirements. Furth ermore, both the Truck and Bus and In-Use Off-Road Vehicle regulations require fleets to replace or retire the dirtier engines in the fleet and that fleets clean-up other vehicle engines that remain in the fleet to offset emissions from these dirtier engines The sp ecific requirements would depend on the individual fleet size and make-up. Fleets who have already made changes will be closer to meeting the regulatory requirements than fleets who have not.

c) Two-Engine Cranes

4. Comment : The Crane Owners Association is an organization of mobile crane rental contractors who provide mobile crane service s principally in northern California. In the event there is a basis to delay acting on the proposed regulation, we respectfully request that the two engine crane p rovisions be adopted to allow immediate implementation. Without this action, cra ne rental contractors will be forced to comply with multiple ATCM's and multiple reporting requirements. (COA)

5. Comment : Members of the Crane Owners' Association and Ass ociation of Crane

Rental Contractors out of northern California curre ntly own approximately 1,000 mobile cranes, of which a large portion are two-eng ine cranes that are licensed for travel on California roadways. We request that the two-engine crane provisions contained in the rulemaking package today be adopte d immediately, independent8

of any possible delay as to the rest of the provisi ons contained in the rulemaking package. (COARC)

6. Comment : The members Mobile Crane Owners Group in souther n California own and operate more than 90 percent of the mobile cran e rental fleet in southern California. We support immediate adoption of the r equirements for two-engine cranes, even if there happens to be a delay in the adoption of the rest of the proposal. The requirements for two-engine cranes pr ovides a comprehensive approach to regulating the diesel-powered cranes, w hich are now subject to three different rules - the off-highway, PERP, and on-hig hway. Adoption will help our relatively small industry to continue to invest in equipment required by California industry contractors. (MCOG)

7. Comment : Maxim Crane Works is a nationwide crane rental c ompany with five locations in California and approximately 250 crane s. Roughly 32 of the cranes that we have in California will be impacted by the two-engine crane provision described in Appendix L of the ISOR. Our company s upports these provisions as an efficient means of allowing the crane industry t o achieve CARB's emissions objectives. In the event there is a delay acting on the on-road rule, we would request that there's no delay in avoiding that part icular provision or implementation of that particular provision. This will avoid the m ultiple reporting requirements and ATCMs that currently apply and reduce the burden of compliance for our industry. (MCW)

Agency Response: ARB has recognized the imminent need to ensure a sm ooth regulatory transition for the crane and street swee per industries and has accelerated administrative rule making procedures to ensure a t imely adoption of the amendments.

8. Comment : Both the proposed modification to the Portable D iesel Engine ATCM

and PERP define "Crane" as "means the same as "Two- Engine Cranes" defined in title 13, Cal. Code Regs., section 2449(c)(56)". In San Diego County there are a number of single engine cranes that move along a fi xed track and are located at ship yards. These crane engines are currently regul ated under the Portable Diesel Engine ATCM. The District requests a definition be added for portable single engine cranes and clarification added to the applic ability section that non-vehicular portable single engine cranes will remain subject t o the Portable Diesel Engine ATCM and PERP requirements.

The District also requests that the current propose d definition for "Crane" be changed to "Two-Engine Crane" and defined in the Po rtable Diesel Engine ATCM and PERP rather than referencing title 13, Cal Code Regs., section 2449(c)(56). It is clearer for the affected industry to read and un derstand the regulation without having to refer to a separate section of the Health and Safety Code. (SDAPCD)

Agency Response: There is no need to add a separate definition for single engine cranes that are not self propelled because the engi nes on these cranes already meet the definition of portable and remain within the sc ope of the existing regulation. Because two-engine cranes will be subject to the In -Use Off-Road Vehicle regulation,

the owners of these machines should be familiar wit h the definition contained in that9

regulation. Therefore, it should not be difficult for affected industry to refer to a regulation of which they are already knowledgeable.

2. Municipality & Utility Vehicles

9. Comment : Amend Public Agencies and Utility Rule Section 2 022 (1)(d)(8) to read: (8) Privately-Owned Utility Extension. A util ity may be granted an extension for Group 2 and Group 3 intermediate and final comp liance deadlines as required in section 2022.1(c)(1) by two years, provided that thirty (30) percent of its fleet vehicles meet the 2010 engine emission standards, a nd twenty (20) percent of its fleet vehicles meet the 2007 or newer engine Emissi on standards for NOx as defined in section 2025(d) by December 31, 2013. (P GE)

Agency Response: ARB staff revised the language for utility fleets c onsistent with the comment to clarify the actions required to comply w ith the Truck and Bus regulation.

3. Drayage Trucks

10. Comment : For the most part, the trucks that are producing the most pollution are those that run short-haul from the ports to distrib ution centers outside of the port areas. The trucks going into the ports are very ol d, not maintained to the same degree as most over-the-road trucks are; and they a re subject to fewer in-depth inspections because they rarely cross a scale where they can be inspected periodically. (LDT)

Agency Response: The Board recognized the serious impact of air poll ution generated by older vehicle used in port operation a nd in response approved the In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Truck Regu lation on December 7, 2007 to aggressively clean up port trucks. Tractors enterin g and intermodal rail yards must register with ARB and must meet stringent performan ce requirements to enter the facility starting in late 2009. The ARB is dedicate d to protect public health and provide safe, clean air to all Californians by reducing emi ssions of air contaminants through the fair, consistent and comprehensive enforcement of s tatutory and regulatory requirements. ARB enforcement inspectors randomly a udits the maintenance and inspection records of fleets and tests a representa tive sample of vehicles to ensure compliance all applicable regulations including veh icles in drayage operation.

11. Comment : We ask that CARB remove the amendment that port drayage trucks meet the Private Fleet Rule. (GSCL4)

Agency Response: As discussed in the Technical Support Document, pa ge 259, when the Drayage Truck regulation was initially propose d and adopted, staff working on the drayage rulemaking were concerned that the regulati on not be incompatible with the then planned Truck and Bus regulation because it wa s uncertain what the final regulatory proposal would be for non-drayage trucks . The changes to the drayage truck regulation align the requirements between the two r egulations. These changes help

meet the State’s PM emission reduction commitments and ensure that uncontrolled trucks will not cycle into the drayage fleet to del ay meeting the requirements of the Truck and Bus Regulation. The amendments to the reg ulation require that drayage10

owners and operators install verified diesel emissi ons control strategies (DECS) on 2004 model year engines by 2012 and on 2005 or 2006 model year engines by 2013. Adding drayage trucks to the scope of the Truck and Bus Regulation starting in 2021 will require drayage trucks meet the same requireme nts as other fleets.

12. Comment: My company employs over 150 drivers at our logist ics facility within the Port of Oakland. Many of our drivers have purch ased 2004 tractors, attempting to abide by existing CARB regulations. The Private Fleet Rule will be devastating to port drayage drivers because their 2004 tractors will be in violation of CARB's regulations after December of 2011. All port drive rs have financed their 2004

tractors over a minimum of 60 months and could not trade it in for a newer tractor if the Private Fleet Rule is implemented. Fundamen tally, the drivers would be out of business. (EGI)

13. Comment: As the compliance manager for GSC Logistics I hav e always been given the directives from day one to be proactive, take initiative, and use the

resources that are available in order to educate an d help our valued contracted independent owner operators stay in compliance. I along with our management team have been working diligently with our owner op erators for the last 12 months to meet the upcoming “Drayage Regulations”. GSC Log istics along with our 150 partnered Owner Operators were on track to meet the upcoming regulations. It was no easy task to have our team of Owner Operator s buy into the "drayage regulations”. And after months of discussion expla ining the costs involved from either retrofitting or replacing their equipment, o ur owner operators have been complying with little or no help from the grant fun ds that would lock them into a contract. Now you are telling me that I have to go back to these hard working people which I feel are the most important part of the commerce chain and tell them that the rules have changed again and they wil l have to spend several more thousand dollars to continue operating their busine sses. How can you tell our industry and the thousands of people involved in th is economy to spend more money? I urge you to withdrawal the added drayage r egulations portion from the private fleet rule. (GSCL2)

14. Comment: I am President, CEO and owner of Pacific Rim Recy cling. Pacific Rim is a 65 employee company located in Benicia, Califo rnia and processes residential recyclables for over 500,000 people. In addition, I am President, CEO and Owner of P and R Trucking, an Oakland based an inter-moda l trucking company with 35

trucks in and out of the Oakland Port 50-100 times per day, primarily hauling recyclable commodities from not only our facility b ut from dozens of recycling

facilities around northern California. I am here t o tell you, "the recycling industry is upside down." Everyone is losing money, big money. Adding additional expense to our operations at a time when we are struggling to survive is unwise. The CIWMB had a hearing just yesterday to try and figur e out what to do with this latest crisis. (PRR)

15. Comment : The Private Fleet rule and the Drayage rules are in conflict. Many owners and owner operators purchased 2004 newer tru cks which should qualify up through 2013 based on the Drayage truck rules. The differences in the two11

rules are in conflict. The Private Fleet rule decre ased the time allowed on a 2004 vehicle to operate. This increases the cost to the owner who purchased under the Drayage rules. A 2004 truck costs in the range of $45K, which many operators have purchased expecting to be compliant up to 2013 . This is now not the case under the Private Fleet rules. Consistency in the r ules and the agencies is of paramount importance. (GSCL1)

Agency Response: Staff agrees that there will be economic impact a ssociated with the amendments to the Drayage Truck regulation for owners of drayage trucks with 2004-2006 model year engines. Although we recogniz e the challenges with the current economic climate, the amendments do not impose addi tional requirements until 2012. The costs attributable to the drayage trucks catego ry are estimated in Appendix J and

include the costs attributable to the amendments ma de to the Drayage Truck regulation and the costs attributable to adding drayage trucks to the scope of the Truck and Bus regulation starting in 2021. Although we recognize the impact of the economy on businesses, ARB must balance the cost to stakeholde rs against how to best achieve federally mandated reductions of smog forming pollu tants and hazardous particulate matter (PM) emissions.

The amendments to the regulation requires that dray age trucks with 2004-2006 model year engines be equipped with the highest level ver ified DECS for PM according to the same schedule as all other trucks subject to the Tr uck and Bus regulation. See response to comment 11 regarding the rationale for the amendments.

The Drayage Truck regulation already requires all d rayage trucks to have 2007 model year engines or equivalent by 2014. Accordingly, a drayage truck owner who plans to continue in drayage service with a 2004-2006 model year engine must already be planning to replace the vehicle or engine prior to 2014. The additional investment required for a drayage truck owner with a 2004-2006 model year engine is associated with the amendment that requires the installation o f a verified DECS by January 1, 2012 and 2013, respectively, for 2004 and 2005-2006 dray age trucks. A substantial portion of this additional cost is likely to be recouped wh en sold for non-drayage use in the state. 2004-2006 model year engines with verified DECS that do not operate at ports or intermodal rail yards will be able to operate at le ast until 2015 or 2019 or longer depending on the fleet size and a number of other f actors. As a result, 2004 to 2006 model year engines already equipped with verified D ECS should have higher value than a similar vehicle that will need to be equipped wit h a verified DECS. In the event that a drayage truck owner, with a 2004-2006 model year en gine, chooses to discontinue operation in drayage service, the vehicle will imme diately be subject to the Truck and Bus regulation and will need to be equipped with ve rified DECS to meet the same requirements and schedule as other non-drayage truc ks. In addition, some drayage trucks may also qualify for public financial assist ance for installation of verified DECS which could substantially reduce or eliminate the e conomic impact of the amendments.

16. Comment : Westport Innovations wishes to seek clarification on the status of CARB 2004 certified heavy-duty pilot ignition engin es under this ruling and additionally the Port Drayage Truck Rule, adopted o n November 24 th , 2008. There12

are approximately 120 of these engines currently op erating in heavy-duty vehicles in California at this time. The engines are CARB c ertified. See Executive Order A-343-0003. These particular engines have a NOx re duction of over 50 percent,

and PM levels below the 2004 certification levels. Additionally greenhouse gas emissions reductions of approximately 18 percent ov er diesel-fueled engines are achieved with this engine, contributing to the goal s of this regulation.

According to the current language of the ruling the re is a credit available to fleets running “alternative-fueled engines” or “heavy-duty pilot ignition engines” in their

fleet. This credit is outlined in definition 9 of the in-use on-road diesel vehicle rule. With credit being given to these engines effectivel y taking their PM emissions as zero, Westport understands that these engines are e xempt from this fleet rule as it is written. Thus Westport understands that this ex emption should also apply to the Port-Drayage Truck rule. Westport would like to see CARB supply wording to the current rules to clearly define these engines as be ing exempt. (WFSI)

Agency Response: Staff does not believe additional wording is nece ssary to define Westport’s certified heavy-duty pilot ignition engi ne as exempt from the Truck and Bus regulation. We believe that the regulation’s state ment of scope and applicability and the definition of a heavy-duty pilot ignition engine ar e sufficient to establish that heavy-duty pilot ignition engines are exempt from the regulati on. Section 2025(b,) which describes the scope and applicability of the regulation, stat es that affected vehicles are those that operate on diesel fuel, dual-fuel, or alternative d iesel fuel. Alternative fuel vehicles are not included in the scope and applicability and are therefore not subject to the regulation. As defined in the regulation, a heavy- duty pilot ignition engine is designed to operate “using an alternative fuel, except that die sel fuel is used for pilot ignition at an average ratio of no more than one part diesel fuel to ten parts total fuel on an energy equivalent basis”. An engine that can operate or i dle solely on diesel fuel at any time does not meet this definition. Westport’s certifie d heavy-duty pilot ignition engine is

therefore an alternative-fuel vehicle that meets th e definition given in the regulation of would not be subject to the regulation.

Although alternative fuel vehicles like those opera ting with Westport’s heavy-duty pilot ignition engines are exempt from the requirements o f the regulation, a fleet may count these vehicles in their fleet to reduce the average emissions of the fleet. The provision in the regulation for alternative fuel vehicles is intended to be an incentive to fleets gives credit for alternative fueled engines that burn cle aner than diesel fueled engines. Also, for fleets using vehicles equipped with alternative fuel or heavy-duty pilot ignition engines, credit would be granted for the purpose of calculating the NOx and PM fleet average target rates towards compliance with the fl eet average. In using this credit, the PM emission factor would be zero, and the NOx facto r would be based on the emission factor corresponding to the engine standard to whic h the engine is certified.

The drayage truck regulation has been amended to ma ke the definition and scope consistent with the truck and bus regulation. This means that drayage trucks operating with Westport’s heavy-duty pilot ignition engine or any other alternative fuel engine are13

exempt from the drayage truck regulation. The amen dments to the drayage truck regulation were approved by the Board at the Decemb er 2008 public hearing.

17. Comment: The new proposed amended version of the regulatio n for In-Use OnRoad Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks lists the applicabil ity as follows:

This regulation applies to owners and operators of on-road diesel-fueled, alternative diesel-fueled and dual-fueled heavy-dut y drayage trucks operated at California ports and intermodal rail yard facilitie s. This regulation also applies to “motor carriers,” "marine or port terminals,” "inte rmodal rail yards, " and "rail yard and port authorities.”

Under this proposed amendment, the Westport ISX G e ngine, the definition most closely describing vehicles powered with the Westpo rt ISX G is definition 30 (Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) Fueled Trucks) and thus W estport understands that any vehicle powered with the Westport ISX G is exempt f rom the regulation to control emissions from In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-D uty Port Drayage Trucks. (WFSI)

Agency Response: The applicability of the drayage truck regulation to the Westport ISX G engine is as Westport understands it. Any ve hicle powered with the Westport ISX G is an alternative fuel vehicle is exempt from the drayage truck regulation.

4. Commercial Idling Regulation

18. Comment : As originally written, the provisions and requir ements of the Heavy Duty Diesel Idling Requirements and Automatic Engin e Shutdown System (AESS) overlooked an important vehicle type, armored cars, for exemption to the rule. Some manufacturers of vehicles that are produced an d ultimately used for build-up into armored cars would have no practical way to ap ply the infrastructure required to discriminate a chassis that was required to comp ly with the idle shutdown rule versus one that did not need to comply. As such, m anufacturers and dealers would have incurred a costly burden of programming all engines to engage the idle shutdown, and then “de-selecting” those settings on ce the truck was delivered to a

location other than the State of California. For t he aforementioned reason, plus for reasons of security of armored car cargo, driver an d operator safety, and the need to not hamper the drive-off capability of an armore d car we are pleased that staff recognized the requirement and suggestions of the a ffected industries and have taken measures to include armored cars in the categ ory of exempt vehicles. Navistar endorses the changes as stipulated in § 24 85(d)(2)(M) and 1956.8(a)(6)(B). (NAV1)

Agency Response: ARB staff revised the rule for the Commercial Idlin g Regulation to improve the health and safety of the onboard guard.

5. Summary of Comments and Agency Responses to Noti ce of Modified Text

No comments were received.