Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking

FOR THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATION TO REDUCE

EMISSIONS FROM IN-USE ON-ROAD DIESEL VEHICLES MADE AS PART OF THE 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 

REGULATION TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM IN-USE ON-ROAD DIESEL-FUELED 

VEHICLES THE HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION 

REDUCTION MEASURE, AND THE REGULATION TO CONTROL EMISSIONS FROM 

IN-USE ON-ROAD DIESEL-FUELED HEAVY-DUTY DRAYAGE TRUCKS AT PORTS 

AND INTERMODAL RAIL YARD FACILITIES

Public Hearing Date: December 16 and 17, 2010

Agenda Item No.: 10-11-3

i

I. GENERAL ................................................................................................................ 1

A. ACTION TAKEN DURING THIS RULEMAKING ................................................................ 1

B. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE............................................................. 3

C. FISCAL IMPACTS....................................................................................................... 3

D. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................... 4

II. NONSUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE FINAL REGULATION ORDER ................................ 4

III. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES...................................... 7

A. SUMMARY OF COMMENTERS ..................................................................................... 7

B. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS PRESENTED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING AND 

AGENCY RESPONSES ............................................................................................. 15

1. Need for Emissions Reductions ..................................................................... 15

a) Ambient Air Quality ................................................................................... 15

b) State Implementation Plan Commitments................................................. 24

2. Health Effects................................................................................................. 28

a) Public Health Impacts ............................................................................... 28

b) PM Emissions and Mortality...................................................................... 40

3. Inventory ........................................................................................................ 51

a) Emissions Inventory Methodology - General ............................................ 51

b) Basic Inventory Calculation....................................................................... 63

c) Heavy Duty Vehicle Populations............................................................... 64

d) Mileage Accrual Rates .............................................................................. 64

e) Emission Factors ...................................................................................... 71

f) Estimated Odometer Values ..................................................................... 74

g) Assessment of Recession Impacts ........................................................... 84

h) Emission Reductions from the Regulation ................................................ 87

i) Peer Review of the Inventory.................................................................... 87

j) General..................................................................................................... 88

4. Technology..................................................................................................... 89

a) Availability of Verified DECS..................................................................... 89

b) Performance of Verified DECS and OEM Technology.............................. 90

5. Regulatory Provisions .................................................................................... 93

a) General..................................................................................................... 93

b) Engine Model Year Compliance Schedule and Phase in Option .............. 95

c) Changing Compliance Options ................................................................. 97

d) Requirements for a New Fleet and Changes to an Existing Fleet............. 97

e) Credit for Early PM Retrofit ....................................................................... 99

f) Credit for Early Addition of Newer Vehicles ............................................ 100

g) Downsizing Credit................................................................................... 105

h) Excess PM VDECS Credit ...................................................................... 106

i) Use of Incentive Funds for Credit Towards Compliance ......................... 108

j) Verified Emissions Control Strategies..................................................... 108
ii

k) Alternative Fuel and Hybrid Vehicles ...................................................... 110

l) Rural Fleets ............................................................................................ 111

m) NOx Exempt Areas ................................................................................. 112

n) Low-Use Vehicles ................................................................................... 116

o) Low-Mileage Construction Trucks........................................................... 116

p) Tow Trucks ............................................................................................. 127

q) Agricultural Fleets ................................................................................... 130

r) Two Engine Street Sweepers ................................................................. 133

s) Yard Trucks ............................................................................................ 133

t) Motor Home & Personal Use Exemption ................................................ 134

u) Reporting Requirements ......................................................................... 135

v) Emergency Support Vehicles.................................................................. 136

6. School Bus Requirements............................................................................ 137

a) School District Budget Limitations........................................................... 137

b) Delay Regulation..................................................................................... 139

c) Exemption for Smaller School Buses and Extension for Private Fleets .. 141

d) Replace Not Retrofit School Buses......................................................... 142

e) Technology Concerns ............................................................................. 145

f) Cost Analysis .......................................................................................... 146

g) School Bus Service Transportation Reduction........................................ 150

h) Impact on Safety..................................................................................... 151

i) Environmental Justice............................................................................. 152

j) Funding................................................................................................... 152

k) Benefits Assessment .............................................................................. 155

l) Reimbursable Mandate........................................................................... 156

7. Cost and Economic Impact .......................................................................... 157

a) Delay or Eliminate Rule .......................................................................... 157

b) Impact on Businesses............................................................................. 160

c) Economic Impact .................................................................................... 161

d) Comments by Small Businesses............................................................. 165

e) Competitive Advantage or Disadvantage................................................ 167

f) Other Cost Comments ............................................................................ 168

g) Construction Industry Comments............................................................ 171

h) Logging Fleet Comments........................................................................ 177

i) Continue Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................... 184

j) Economic Effects on Retrofit Manufacturers........................................... 185

8. Funding ........................................................................................................ 190

a) Requests for Additional Incentive Funds for Log Trucks......................... 190

b) Changes to Existing Funding Programs.................................................. 192

c) Low Mileage Vehicles ............................................................................. 196

d) Rural Fleets ............................................................................................ 198

9. Consideration of Alternatives ....................................................................... 199

a) Proposal for More Stringent Requirements............................................. 199

b) Require Level 1 and Level 2 VDECS on Lighter Trucks ......................... 203

c) Performance of Engine and Retrofit Technology .................................... 204
iii

d) Credit for Dual-Fueled Engines............................................................... 205

e) Increase Mileage Limits .......................................................................... 207

f) Low Mileage Vocational Trucks .............................................................. 208

g) Regulate Other Vehicle Owners.............................................................. 211

h) Increase California Weight Limits for Trucks........................................... 211

i) Body Built or Special Built Trucks ........................................................... 212

10.Out-of-State Fleets....................................................................................... 213

a) General................................................................................................... 213

b) Burden on Interstate Commerce............................................................. 216

c) Burden on Truckers who Drive Limited Miles in California...................... 220

d) Availability of Exemptions for Out-of-State Interests............................... 223

e) Proposed Low-Mileage Alternative for Out-of-State Truckers................. 230

11.Outreach ...................................................................................................... 232

a) Regulatory Development Process........................................................... 232

b) Continue Outreach.................................................................................. 234

12.General ........................................................................................................ 235

a) In Support of the Regulatory Amendments ............................................. 235

b) Not Applicable to the Regulatory Amendments ...................................... 236

c) Reduce GHG Emissions and Dependence on Petroleum....................... 237

C. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES –NOTICE OF MODIFIED TEXT.... 238

a) Early PM Retrofit Credit .......................................................................... 239

b) Excess PM VDECS Credit ...................................................................... 242

c) Credit for Early Addition of Newer Vehicles ............................................ 244

d) Requirements for New Fleets and Changes to Existing Fleets ............... 245

e) Exemptions and Extensions.................................................................... 246

f) Low-Mileage Construction Trucks........................................................... 247

g) Agricultural Vehicles ............................................................................... 251

h) Tow Trucks ............................................................................................. 252

i) Street Sweepers ..................................................................................... 253

j) Alternatives ............................................................................................. 259

k) Other Comments..................................................................................... 260

l) General................................................................................................... 262
iv
APPENDIX A

Table A-1 List of Acronyms .....................................................................................A-1

APPENDIX B

Table B-1 Signers of Better World Group (BWG) Letter..........................................B-1

Table B-2 Signers of Health Network for Clean Air (HNCA) Letter..........................B-2

Table B-3 List of Names Submitted by Representative of the Rose Foundation.....B-3 

1

State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Response

FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATION TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM 

IN USE ON-ROAD DIESEL VEHICLES MADE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING 

TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATION TO REDUCE 

EMISSIONS FROM IN-USE ON-ROAD DIESEL-FUELED VEHICLES,

THE HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION 

MEASURE, AND THE REGULATION TO CONTROL EMISSIONS FROM IN-USE ONROAD DIESEL-FUELED HEAVY-DUTY DRAYAGE TRUCKS AT PORTS AND 

INTERMODAL RAIL YARD FACILITIES

Public Hearing Date: December 17, 2010

Agenda Item No: 10-11-3

I. GENERAL

A. Action Taken During This Rulemaking

In this rulemaking, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) adopted amendments to 

the Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen 

and Other Criteria Pollutants from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (Truck 

and Bus regulation) California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs.), section 2025; the 

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reduction Measure 

(Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation), title 17, Cal. Code Regs., sections 95301 to 95307, 

95309, and 95311; and the regulation for In-Use On Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled 

Drayage Trucks at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yard Facilities (Drayage Truck regulation), 

title 13, Cal. Code Regs., section 2027. The amendments to the Truck and Bus

regulation have been adopted independently of the amendments to the other two 

regulations, and this final statement of reasons (FSOR) includes only comments and 

responses pertinent to the Truck and Bus regulation 

The notice of public hearing for this rulemaking was published in the Office of 

Administrative Law’s Regulatory Notice Register on November 1, 2010 and posted on 

the ARB’s website and made publicly available on October 27, 2010, at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/truckbus10/truckbus10.htm.

A ―Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking‖ entitled: 

―Proposed Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation, the Drayage Truck 

Regulation and the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation.‖ (Staff Report) was 
2

also released on October 27, 2010 and made available to the public upon request as 

required by Government Code § 11346.2. 

The Staff Report which is incorporated by reference herein, describes the rationale for 

the amendments of section 2025 and the amendments to the other two regulations. 

The text of the originally-proposed amendments of section 2025 was included in 

Appendix A of the Staff Report. The hearing was held on December 17, 2010. 

Among other things, staff’s originally proposed amendments to the Truck and Bus 

regulation bifurcated the handling of trucks and buses by weight. Those vehicles that 

are 26,000 pounds or less would no longer be required to install diesel particulate 

matter (PM) filters. Trucks and buses over 26,000 pounds would still be required to 

install PM filter, but initial compliance phase-in would be delayed by one year to 

January 1, 2012. The amendments also deferred the initial engine replacement 

requirements for all trucks for two years, until January 1, 2015. Starting in 2015 and 

continuing through 2019, fleets will be required to replace trucks, regardless of weight, 

that are 20 year old or older that are not equipped with PM filters with trucks that are 

equipped with 2010 model year or emissions-equivalent engines. Between 

January 1, 2020 and January 1, 2023, fleets will be required to have all of their heavyduty trucks, equipped with 2010 model year or emissions-equivalent engines. 

At the December 17, 2010 hearing, the Board considered the proposed amendments to 

section 2025 and received written and oral comments. At the conclusion of the hearing, 

the Board adopted Resolution 10-44 in which it delegated to the Executive Officer final 

authority to approve the originally proposed amendments to the Truck and Bus 

regulation with modifications as set forth in the Resolution. 

The additional modifications included: modifying the compliance dates for the 1996, 

1997 and 2000 model year engines; adding credits for the early purchase of newer 

engines, delaying requirements for vehicles that operate exclusively in Oxides of 

Nitrogen (NOx) exempt areas; adding an extension for fleets that equip all engines in 

the fleet with PM filters by January 1, 2014; delaying the PM filter phase-in schedule for 

low mileage construction trucks; allowing fleets to exchange credits accrued in the OffRoad In-Use Diesel Vehicle regulation, title 13, Cal. Code Regs., Section 2449 or the 

Truck and Bus regulation by installing retrofits beyond what is required under the 

respective regulations to count towards compliance in the other regulation; expanding 

the definition of NOx exempt areas to include northern Sonoma County; providing 

additional compliance flexibility for fleets with low-mileage construction trucks fleets to 

the extent feasible without compromising emission reductions necessary to achieve 

attainment with NAAQS. The Board also directed staff to retain the provision in the 

initially adopted Truck and Bus regulation that requires school buses 26,000 pounds or 

less be equipped with PM filters. 

The Resolution directed the Executive Officer 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 Government Code, the Board 
3

directed the Executive Officer to adopt the amendments to title 13, Cal. Code Regs., 

section 2025, and the modified sections described above after making the modified text 

available to the public for comment for a period of at least 15 days. The Board 

conditioned this directive with the instruction that the Executive Officer shall consider 

the written comments regarding the modified text that may be submitted during this 

period, shall make modifications as may be appropriate in light of the comments 

received, and shall present the regulations to the Board for further consideration if 

warranted. After the hearing, staff also identified additional conforming modifications. 

The text of the modifications to the originally proposed regulatory amendments was 

made available for a supplemental 15-day comment period by issuance of a ―Notice of 

Public Availability of Modified Text‖ on May 19, 2011. The 15-Day Notice described 

each modification to title 13, Cal. Code Regs., section 2025, and the rationale thereto. 

The changes to the initially proposed regulatory text were clearly identified by double 

strikeout and underline and attached to the 15-Day Notice. The 15-day Notice and 

attachment were mailed to all parties identified in section 44(a), title 1, Cal. Code Regs., 

and other interested parties. The 15-day Notice and attachment were also posted on 

the ARB’s Internet site for the rulemaking on May 19, 2011 and made available for 

public comment through June 3, 2011. The 15-day Notice and attachments thereto are 

incorporated herein by reference. 

After considering the comments submitted during the 15-day comment period, on 

September 19, 2011, the Executive Officer issued Executive Order R-11-009, adopting 

the amendments to title 13, Cal. Code Regs., section 2025. 

B. Documents Incorporated by Reference

There are no documents incorporated by reference.

C. Fiscal Impacts 

Fiscal Impact on State Government

No fiscal impact exists because the amended Truck and Bus regulation does not affect 

any State agency or program except for school bus transportation, and as described 

below, there will be no increased costs for school districts. 

Fiscal Impact on Local Government

ARB has determined that the amendments to the Truck and Bus regulation will impose 

no mandate on local agencies or school districts that is reimbursable pursuant to Part 7

(commencing with section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code. No fiscal 

impact exists because the amended Truck and Bus regulation does not affect any local 

agency or program except for school bus transportation, and all school buses will still 

need PM filters by 2014 as currently required in the existing regulation. The 

amendments delay the initial requirements by one year and State funding is available 

for most of the retrofits needed. The retrofit requirements are applicable to all public 

and private schools. Staff estimates that the amendments will result in no increased 
4

costs for school districts and that the savings from maintenance or operational cost 

savings from the one year deferral are de minimis. 

D. Consideration of Alternatives

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 by the 

agency, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the agency, 

would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulatory action was 

proposed or would be as effective or less burdensome to affected private persons than 

the adopted regulation. 

II. NONSUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE FINAL REGULATION ORDER

Staff has made minor nonsubstantive changes to the final regulation order to correct 

punctuation and typographical errors, fix incorrect references, and improve accuracy 

and clarity. The changes do not alter any requirement and reflect the original intent of 

the regulation. The modifications and the reason for each change are discussed below. 

1. Sections 2025(d)(2) and 2025(d)(3)

Staff included the word ―or‖ at the end of (A) and (B). This clarifies the definition of 

―2007 Model Year Emissions Equivalent‖. 

2. Section 2025(d)(23)

The word ―provide‖ was included in the definition of emergency support vehicle. 

This clarifies that emergency support vehicles are defined as vehicles dispatched 

by a local, state, or federal agency that are used to provide transport services or 

supplies in connection with an emergency operation. 

3. 2025(d)(40)(A)

―Truck‖ was changed to ―dump truck‖ to clarify that the description of the vehicle in 

section 2025(d)(40)(A) refers to types of dump trucks.

4. Section 2025(d)(46)

The reference that defines the Northern Sonoma area was incorrect in the 

definition of NOx Exempt Area in the regulation. The correct reference is title 17, 

CCR section 60100(e). 

5. Section 2025(f)(3) 

Staff included the statement ―except for the following sections that apply only to 

heavier trucks: 2025(p)(1)(B), 2025(p)(2), 2025(p)(8), 2025(p)(9), and 

2025(p)(10)‖. This was added to clarify that vehicles with a GVWR of 

26,000 pounds or less cannot use all of the exemptions, delays, and extensions of 

section 2025(p). The sections either specifically state that they do not apply to the 

lighter-weight trucks or entail requirements (i.e., installation of PM filters) that are 

not applicable to lighter weight trucks. 
5

6. Section 2025(j)(1)(B)1.

The wording in this section was changed from 

a. ―Either a planned non-operation certificate that has been issued by the 

DMV or a certificate of non-operation‖ or

b. An equivalent certificate has been filed with another state prior to the 

beginning of the compliance year; or

to: 

a. ―Either a certificate of non-operation has been issued by the DMV or a 

request for a non-operation certificate has been filed with DMV prior to the 

beginning of the compliance year; or

b. An equivalent certificate has been issued by another state or a request for 

such a certificate has been filed with the state prior to the beginning of the 

compliance year. 

This change was made to clarify the regulation’s intent that the non-operational 

requirements for California and out-of-state vehicles are aligned. 

7. Section 2025(k)(4)(A)

The reference to 2025(k)(5)(B) is incorrect and was corrected to 2025(k)(4)(B). 

8. Section 2025(k)(4)(C)

An unnecessary comma was removed. 

9. Section (m)(11)(C)

A comma was added to correct the punctuation. 

10. Section 2025(m)(12) Table 7

The title of the table was changed from ―Compliance Schedule for Reported Log 

Trucks‖ to ―Compliance Schedule for the Log Truck Phase-In Option‖. The title 

was changed for consistency in terminology and to more accurately describe the 

provision. 

11. Section 2025(n)(2)

A sentence was added to clarify fleet owners of the preexisting reporting 

requirement that they must meet the reporting requirements in 2025(r)(17) for two 

engine sweepers with Tier 0 auxiliary engines (50 horsepower or greater).

12. Section 2025(o)(2)

Modifications were made to section 2025(o)(2) to clarify that a fleet does not have 

to report vehicles added to the fleet if they are 2007 model year or newer engines 

that meet PM BACT. 

13. Section 2025(p)(1)

This section was changed to include ―when operating in California‖, to clarify that 

the provision applies to vehicles used exclusively in NOx exempt areas when they 

are operating in California, and that vehicles that cross state lines are eligible for 

the NOx Exempt Area provision. 
6

14. Section 2025(p)(1)(A)

The statement ―meet PM BACT but‖ was inserted after ―used exclusively in NOx 

exempt areas.‖ This was added to emphasize that the use of the NOx exempt 

area provision does not excuse vehicles from meeting the PM BACT 

requirements. This addition does not change the original intent of the NOx exempt 

area provision, which only exempts vehicles from meeting the 2010 model year 

emissions equivalent requirements. 

15. Section 2025(p)(2)(A)

This section was modified to correct a grammatical error. The word ―describe‖ 

was changed to ―described‖. 

16. Section 2025(p)(2)(D)

The word ―Alternately‖ was deleted and the word ―other‖ was added to the first 

sentence for clarity. Additionally, the word ―may‖ was changed to ―must‖ to 

emphasize that to use the option fleets are required to meet the minimum 

requirements specified in the phase-in schedule of Table 9. This is consistent with 

the existing language that conditions use of the option on meeting the 

requirements (i.e., ―and, if so‖). A reference to 2025(p)(1)(A) was in error and was 

corrected to read 2025(p)(2)(A).

17. Section 2025(p)(2)(G)

Sections 2025(p)(2)(F) and 2025(p)(2)(G) were duplicative. Therefore, 

2025(p)(2)(G) was deleted. 

18. Section 2025(p)(2)(H)

Section 2025(p)(2)(H) was renumbered to section 2025(p)(2)(G) since section 

2025(p)(2)(G) was deleted. 

19. Section 2025(p)(2)(I)

Section 2025(p)(2)(I) was renumbered to section 2025(p)(2)(H) since section

2025(p)(2)(G) was deleted. 

20. Section 2025(p)(2)(J)

Section 2025(p)(2)(J) was renumbered to section 2025(p)(2)(I) since section 

2025(p)(2)(G) was deleted.

21. Section 2025(p)(5)(A)

The number of days required for a fleet owner to apply for a three-day pass 

exemption before operating the vehicle in California was changed from seven days 

to three days. This change was made to make the required reporting date 

consistent with the three day period in which the Executive Officer has to respond 

to the request.

22. Sections 2025(r)(12)(D), 2025(r)(12)(E), and 2025(r)(12)(F)

The punctuation and grammar were corrected as follows:

2025(r)(12)(D) – A period was replaced with a semicolon.

2025(r)(12)(E) – A semicolon was added.
7

2025(r)(12)(F) – The word ―and‖ was added. 

23. Sections 2025(r)(17)1. and 2025(r)(17)2.

Sections 2025(r)(17)1. and 2025(r)(17)2. were deleted because it was repeated in 

subsequent sections: 2025(r)(17)(A) and 2025(r)(17)(B). 

24. Section 2025(r)(17)

―Single-Engine and‖ was deleted from the title ―Single-Engine and Two-Engine 

Sweepers‖ as the reporting requirements for the auxiliary engine only applies to 

sweepers with two engines (a propulsion and auxiliary engine). 

25. Section 2025(r)(19)

The reference to items ―2025(r)(19)(A) to 2025(r)(19)(G)‖erroneously identified 

sections that do not exist. The reference was replaced with a corrected reference 

to 2025(r)(8) items (A) to (G).

26. Section 2025(r)(19)

The reference to items ―2025(r)(19)(A) to 2025(r)(19)(G)‖erroneously identified 

sections that do not exist. The reference was replaced with a corrected reference 

to 2025(r)(8) items (A) to (G).

27. Section 2025(s)(17)

The term ―Early PM Retrofit Credits -‖ was added at the beginning of that section 

as a heading and the format of the font was modified to remove italics to be 

consistent with the format used in the rest of section (s). 

III. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES

The Board received numerous written and oral comments during the 45-day public 

comment period and at the December 2011 Board hearing. Set forth below is a 

summary of each objection or recommendation specifically directed to the proposed 

regulation for in-use on-road diesel vehicles or to the procedures 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 been grouped by topic whenever possible. Comments that do not involve 

objections or recommendations specifically directed towards the proposed regulation or 

to the procedures followed by ARB in this rulemaking are generally not summarized 

below. 

A. Summary of Commenters

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

persons or entities listed in Table 1. The reference code listed in the first column will be 

used to identify the person or entity submitting the comment in the summary of 

comments and responses. Oral testimony was presented at the Board Hearing by the 

persons or entities listed in Table 2. 
8

Table 1

List of Persons and Entities Who Submitted Comments

During the 45-Day Comment Period

Reference

Code Commenter Company or Affiliation

AARMC Mike Cook A&A Ready Mixed Concrete Inc.

ACLOG1 Eric Carleson Associated California Loggers

ACLOG2 Eric Carleson Associated Califiornia Loggers

AKELL Alan Kellogg Alan Kellogg

ALAM Ann Laman Ann Laman

ALOG Myles Anderson Anderson Logging, Inc.

APTCO Jim Bañuelos Aptco, LLC Agricultural Packaging Inc. 

ATA1 Michael Tunnell American Trucking Associations

BAAQMD1 Anthony Fournier Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

BAAQMD2 Jack Broadbent Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

BGLID Brian Glidden Brian Glidden

BHULZ Brian Hulz Brian Hulz

BSAM Barbara Samardich Barbara Samardich

BWG1 Camille Kustin Better World Group

BWG2 Camille Kustin Better World Group

BYOUNG Bill Young Bill Young

CAEC1 Brad Edgar Cleaire Advanced Emission Controls

CAPCOA Mel Zeldin California Air Pollution Control Officers 

Association

CASTO1 Michael Rea California Association of School 

Transportation Officials

CASTO2 Michael Rea California Association of School 

Transportation Officials

CCIMA1 Charles Rea California Construction and Industrial 

Materials Association

CDT1 Kevin Brown Clean Diesel Technologies, Inc. 

CDTOA1 Lee Brown California Dump Truck Owners Association

CEMEX1 Christine Jones Cemex

CFA1 Steven Brink California Forestry Association

CFCOAL1 Sean Edgar Clean Fleets Coalition

CIAQC1 Michael Lewis Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition

CIAQC2 Clayton Miller Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition

CMSA1 Steve Weitekamp California Moving and Storage Association

COEU Eric Eisenhammer Coalition of Energy Users

CRAND Christy Randall Christy Randall

CRIT Cheryl Ritchie Cheryl Ritchie

CSTRAT Cindy Stratton Cindy Stratton 

CTA1 Matt Schrap California Trucking Association
9

Reference

Code Commenter Company or Affiliation

CTI1 Tim Fortier Commercial Transfer Inc. 

CTI2 Tim Fortier Commercial Transfer Inc.

CTTA Jeff Hunter California Tow Truck Association

CUSD Karen E. Frison Compton Unified School District

CVWD Gary Williams Coachella Valley Water District

DCC1 Skip Brown Delta Construction Company Inc.

DCCI Andy Recalde The Don Chapin Company Inc.

DFS1 Julian Imes Donaldson Company, Inc.

DJER Donald Jerome Donald Jerome

DLOREN Dyan Lorenzen Dyan Lorenzen

DVON David Vonasek David Vonasek

DWILL David Williamson David Williamson

EBARBO Eddie Barbosa Eddie Barbosa

EDTOW Ed Bruno Ednic Towing

ENG Assemblymember 

Mike Eng Assembly California Legislature

ERIK Erik K Erik K

ES-OOIDA Claire Shapiro Eisen & Shapiro, Drivers Association, Inc.

EWILL Ebbeling William Fresno-Madera Medical Society

FLFT Chris Torres F & L Farms Trucking Inc.

FRMI Kevin Brunnemer Foothill Ready Mix Inc.

FUSD Ralph Meza Fresno Unified School District

GCI1 Dave Sbaffi Granite Construction Inc. 

GFLEM George Fleming George Fleming

GGIFF Garry Gifford Garry Gifford

GHILL Gary Hill Gary Hill

GIBBS David Gibbs Gibbs Law Firm, P.A. 

GMEN Greg Menna Greg Menna

GPAY Gary Pay Gary Pay

GVUSD Sarah Koligian Golden Valley Unified School District

HBAB Henry Babich Henry Babich

HCHUN Helena Chung Helena Chung

HNAP Heidi Napier Heidi Napier

HNCA Jenny Bard Health Network for Clean Air

JBALL John Ballesteros John Ballesteros

JGRIF Jim Griffith Jim Griffith

JHOL Jacque Holub Jacque Holub

JMC1 Martin Lassen Johnson Matthey Catalysts

JQUILT John Quilter John Quilter

JSERRE John Serres John Serres

JWOOD1 Jeff Wood Jeff Wood

JWOOD2 Jeff Wood Jeff Wood

JYOUNG Justin Young Justin Young
10

Reference

Code Commenter Company or Affiliation

KBROWN Kelly Browne Kelly Browne

KCEAR KC Earnshaw KC Earnshaw

KCUT John D. Clements Kings County Unified Transportation

KDURK Kay Durkee Kay Durkee

KGRAV Kay Graves Kay Graves

KTRAV Ken Travers Ken Travers

LCL Tina Olivari Luna Custom Landscaping

LECK Larry Eckman Larry Eckman

LLNL Anthony Wegrecki Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

LOWEN Hon. Bonnie Lowenthal California Legislature 

LTECH Donald Debelak Liqtech NA

MCAQMD Carre Brown Mendocino County AQMD

MCOOP Mark Cooper Mark Cooper 

MECA1 Rasto Brezny Manufacturers of Emission Controls 

Association

MFIN Myrtle Findley Myrtle Findley

MIRE Dwayne Fosseen Mirenco Inc.

MMORT Mark Morton Mark Morton

MMURRY Mike Murry Mike Murry

MPAT Mike Patton Mike Patton

MPPSTA Martin Ward Mid-Placer Public Schools Transportation 

Agency 

MSHENK Madelaine Shenkel Madelaine Shenkel

MVT Glenn Tucker Moreno Valley Tow

NAFA Richard Battersby NAFA CARB Advisory Council

NRDC1 Diane Bailey Natural Resources Defense Council

NSCAPCD

1

Barbara Lee Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution 

Control District

NWSC1 James Thomas Nabors Well Services Co

OUSD Pamela McDonald Orange Unified School District 

Transportation Dept.

PCAR Paulette Cary Paulette Cary

PMAC Patricia McDonald Patricia McDonald

PPIN Pam Pinkston Pam Pinkston

PRMI Ronald Biang Puente Ready Mix, Inc.

PUESD Diane Cox Pioneer Union Elementary School District

RDIE1 Robert Dietrich Robert Dietrich

RDIE2 Robert Dietrich Robert Dietrich

RETURN Dan Scanlan AutoReturn

RMAR Rudy Marin Rudy Marin

RNUSS Ron Nuss Ron Nuss

ROSE1 Jill Ratner Rose Foundation
11

Reference

Code Commenter Company or Affiliation

ROTC Alan Osofsky Rodgers Trucking Co

RTOM Rick Tomlinson Rick Tomlinson

SCAQMD1 Barry Wallerstein South Coast AQMD

SCAQMD2 Henry Hogo South Coast AQMD

SCCA3 William Davis Southern California Contractors Association

SCHAT Scott Chatten Scott Chatten

SFIN Sandra Finch Sandra Finch

SHALL Steve Hall Steve Hall

SJONES Susan Jones Susan Jones

SJV/SC1 Seyed Sadredim San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District

SLYNES Steve Lynes Steve Lynes

SNIETO Stephen Nieto Stephen Nieto

SRES1 Jim Lyons Sierra Research

SSTAL Susan Stalzer M.D. Susan Stalzer M.D.

STANS Steve Stansberry Steve Stansberry

STC Stephen Rhoads School Transportation Coalition

SUHSD Tom Carroll Shasta Union High School District

SYAR Steve Thomson Syar Concrete

TGILD Todd Gildersleeve Todd Gildersleeve

TTC Clyde Stires Tom's Truck Center

TTOW Ruben Ayala Tippy's Tow Service

TWRIGH Tracey Wright Tracey Wright

UCLA James Enstrom University of California, Los Angeles

UPSD David Merk Unified Port of San Diego 

VCOOT Victoria Coots Victoria Coots

WARD1 Corey Wardlaw Wardlaw Trucking

WBENG Wayne Bengston Wayne Bengston

WCC Neysa McLoughlin West-Cal Concrete

WCDI Paul DiGuiseppi West Coast Drywall, Inc.

WCTA Michael Rea West County Transportation Agency

WEAT1 Robert Hassebrock Weatheford

WGROW Kelly McKechnie Western Growers 

WSKIN Warren Skinner Warren Skinner
12

Table 2

List of Individuals and Other Entities who Presented Oral Testimony

Reference

Code Commenter Affiliation

ACLOG3 Eric Carleson Associated California Loggers

AFTR Allen Faris Allen Faris Trucking

ALAC1 Bonnie Holmes-Gen American Lung Association of 

California

ALAC2 Bonnie Holmes-Gen American Lung Association of 

California

ARA John McClelland, 

Ph.D. American Rental Association

ATA2 Michael Tunnell American Trucking Association

BAAQMD3 Anthony Fournier Bay Area AQMD

BCA Andy Katz Breathe California

BCPG Rod Michaelson Bay Cities Paving and Grading, Inc.

BJSC Doug Van Allen BJ Services Company

BWG3 Camille Kustin Better World Group

CAEC2 Bradley Edgar Cleaire Advanced Emission Controls

CAFBF Cynthia Cory California Farm Bureau Federation 

CAPC Paul Moore CalPortland Company

CASTO3 Michael Rea CA Association of School 

Transportation Officials

CCAIR1 Nidia Bautista Coalition for Clean Air

CCAIR2 Elizabeth Jonasson Coaltion for Clean Air

CCAIR3 Nidia Bautista Coalition for Clean Air

CCDS Betsy Reifsnider Catholic Charities

CCIMA2 Charles Rea California Construction and Industrial 

Materials Association

CCM Shirley Batchman California Citrus Mutual

CCP1 Frank de Carbonel California Concrete Pumpers

CCP2 Hank de Carbonel California Concrete Pumpers

CDT2 Kevin Brown Clean Diesel Technologies

CDTOA2 Betty Plowman California Dump Truck Owners 

Association

CDTOA3 Betty Plowman California Dump Truck Owners 

Association

CEMEX2 Chris Shrader Cemex

CEOC Craig Parker CalEnergy Operating Corporation

CFA2 Steven Brink California Forestry Association

CFCOAL2 Sean Edgar Clean Fleets Coalition

CIAQC3 Clayton Miller Construction Industry Air Quality 

Coalition
13

Reference

Code Commenter Affiliation

CIOMA Jay McKeeman California Independent Oil Marketers 

Association

CMSA2 Steve Weitekamp California Moving and Storage 

Association

CNGVC Tim Carmichael California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition

CPASC Bruce Wick California Professional Association of 

Specialty Contractors

CRPE Brent Newell Center on Race, Poverty, and the 

Environment

CTA2 Matt Schrap California Trucking Association

CTI3 Tim Fortier Commercial Transfer Inc.

CVAQC Catherine Garoupa Central Valley Air Quality Coalition

DCC2 Skip Brown Delta Construction Company Inc.

DFS2 Julian Imes Donaldson Filtration Solutions

DSTR Susan Jones D&S Trucking, CDTOA

EHC Joy Williams Environmental Health Coalition

ELKG Jill Gayaldo Elk Grove Unified School District

ERAA Kathy Turner Enterprise Rent-A-Car

EYARD1 Isella Ramirez East Yard Communities for 

Environmental Justice

EYARD2 Jocelyn Vivar East Yard Communities for 

Environmental Justice

FHS1 Tomas Aire Fremont High School

FHS2 Sheila Hong Fremont High School

FMMS Michelle Garcia Fresno-Madera Medical Society

GCI2 Nick Pfeifer Granite Construction

JCI Jon Cloud J. Cloud, Inc.

JMC2 Martin Lassen Johnson Matthey Catalysts

JPT John Pitta John Pitta Trucking

KBAK Kami Baker Kami Baker

KUSD Kyle Reams Kelseyville Unified School District

LFS Laura Fultz Stout Laura Fultz Stout

LUSD Dave Norris Lakeport Unified School District

MAFEE Reginal McAfee Reginal McAfee

MALFA Senator Doug LaMalfa Senator Doug LaMalfa

MASBI Daniel Massolo Massolo Brothers, Inc.

MECA2 Dr. Joseph Kubsh Manufacturers of Emission Controls 

Association

MEZG Dan Mezger Mezger Trucking

MHS1 Cecilia Ayala Mandela High School

MHS2 Segun Balogun Mandela High School

MHS3 Julian Fisher Mandela High School

MHS4 Anabel Flores Mandela High School
14

Reference

Code Commenter Affiliation

MHS5 Salvador Matteo Mandela High School SLWBP

MHS6 Marisol Rogue Mandela High School

MVE James Blevins Mountain Valley Express

NCTP Ed Duffek NorCal Tea Party

NRDC2 Diane Bailey Natural Resources Defense Council

NRDC3 Morgan Wyenn Natural Resources Defense Council

NSCAPCD2 Barbara Lee Northern Sonoma County APCD

NWSC2 James Thomas Nabors Well Services Company

POLAN Senator Richard 

Polanco (Ret.) Senator Richard Polanco

RAMP Brandon Kitigawa Region Asthma Management and 

Prevention Project

REI Edward G. Walker Robinson Enterprises Inc.

RHS1 Neli Gutierrez Richmond High School

RHS2 Jessica Orozco Richmond High School

RHS3 Victoria Ramirez Richmond High School

RLEE Richard Lee Richard Lee

ROSE2 Jill Ratner Rose Foundation for Communities and 

the Environment

RTRU Bob Ramorino Roadstar Trucking

RYPOS Peter Bransfield Rypos

SCAQMD3 Henry Hogo South Coast AQMD

SCAQMD4 Henry Hogo South Coast AQMD

SCAQMD5 Dr. Barry Wallerstein South Coast AQMD

SCC Bill Magavern Sierra Club California

SCCA1 William Davis Southern California Contractors 

Association

SCCA2 William Davis Southern California Contractors 

Association

SCRANE Seth Hammond Specialty Crane and Rigging

SES Stephen Rhoads Strategic Education Services

SJV/SC2 Seyed Sadredin San Joaquin APCD/South Coast 

AQMD

SRES2 Jim Lyons Sierra Research

STA Kirk Hunter Southwest Transportation Agency

TLT Tony Luiz T&L Trucking, L.L.C.

UCMC John Spangler U.S. Marine Corps, MCI West

USEPA Elizabeth Adams U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USNSW Randal Friedman Navy Region Southwest

VPS Susan Seivright Valley Power Systems
15

Reference

Code Commenter Affiliation

WAPA Roger Isom

Western Agricultural Processors 

Association/

California Cotton Ginners and Growers 

Association

WARD2 Corey Wardlaw Wardlaw Trucking

WATS Don Watson Don Watson

WEAT2 Robert Hassebrock Weatherford

WMAN Chuck White Waste Management

YTI John Yandell Yandell Truckaway Inc.

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

Agency Responses

The 45-day comments refer to sections of the regulation that was made available with 

the October 2010 hearing notice. Some of these sections have since been renumbered 

and the responses to the comments will refer to the section of the current regulation 

released with the Notice of Availability of Modified Text. 

1. Need for Emissions Reductions 

a) Ambient Air Quality

1. Comment: As a state, it is vitally important that we act prudently when making 

adjustments to our clean air standards because the health and economic vitality of 

California depends on it. In the San Joaquin Valley, for example, emission 

inventory margins to meet our current Clean Air Act commitments are currently at 

zero. In the South Coast Air Basin, the margin is minimal. If we fail to meet these 

commitments as mandated by the Clean Air Act, we would not only jeopardize 

federal funding, but also endanger the health and wellbeing of millions of our 

residents. (ENG) (LOWEN) 

Agency Response: As a result of State Implementation Plan (SIP) implementation 

efforts at the local and State level, air quality is improving in both the South Coast and 

San Joaquin Valley regions. These measurable improvements demonstrate that ARB is 

on track to meet our control strategy commitments.

The South Coast has seen dramatic improvement in PM2.5 air quality, with a 37 percent 

decrease in the basin-wide annual average design value over the last eight years. This 

decrease has occurred even with the inclusion of a new high site monitor in Mira Loma 

(Riverside County) in 2006. Based on data in 2009, sites outside the Riverside area 

already meet or are close to meeting the annual standard. Preliminary South Coast 

data for 2010 indicate that concentrations are continuing to decline, with only the Mira 

Loma site exceeding the annual standard. 

PM2.5 air quality in the San Joaquin Valley has also improved, although the progress 

has not been as uniform across the region. The most significant air quality 
16

improvement occurred in the northern and central part of the Valley where monitoring 

sites meet or are close to meeting the annual standard. Air quality in the southern San 

Joaquin Valley, which includes the Bakersfield area, has also improved, with annual 

design values decreasing 10 to 20 percent. 

Air quality design values reflect a three-year average which is used for comparison to 

federal standards. However, evaluating multiple measures of air quality can provide a 

broader picture of overall air quality progress. For example, individual year annual 

PM2.5 values for 2009 and 2010 throughout the Valley show significant improvement. 

In 2010, only two of the twelve sites in the Valley (Corcoran and Bakersfield) recorded

annual concentrations that exceed the federal air quality standard. Peak 24-hour PM2.5 

concentrations have also declined significantly, dropping over 30 percent since 2001. 

The Air Quality Index (AQI) is another measure that is used to evaluate daily air quality 

conditions. Between 2001 and 2010, the number of days considered unhealthy under 

the AQI has been cut in half.

As the economy recovers, ARB will continue to track emission trends to ensure the 

2014 emission targets are met. ARB Resolution 10-441directs the Executive Officer to 

monitor the state’s progress toward meeting its emission reduction commitment and to 

provide an update to the Board at its July 2012 meeting that includes an updated 

emissions trend including:

 the impact of economic conditions on the on-road and off-road source 

categories;

 the identification of any potential emission reduction shortfall in the expected 

emission reductions from these source categories; and

 proposed actions to remedy any identified shortfalls; these could include but 

are not limited to regulatory or other actions, such as more rapid and effective 

use of incentive grants to generate earlier reductions. 

2. Comment: This comment letter is being provided to you jointly on behalf of the 

South Coast Air Quality Management District and the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District. Together, these two air basins comprise most of the 

geographical nonattainment area in California for health-based federal ozone and 

PM2.5 standards, and are also home to most of the population impacted by 

excessive levels of those pollutants. As you know, over 80% of the emissions 

that contribute to PM2.5 and ozone formation in these air basins are released from 

the on-road and off-road mobile sources of air pollution that are the subject of a 

public hearing during the regularly scheduled meeting of your governing board in 

December. It is impossible for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley to meet 

the health-based federal ozone and PM2.5 standards without significant 

reductions in emissions from the in-use on-road diesel-fueled vehicles and the 

in-use off-road diesel-fueled fleets. In December, your Board is considering 

significant relaxations of the existing regulations covering these source categories. 

 

1 Resolution 10-44 can be found on ARB’s website at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/truckbus10/res1044.pdf
17

The primary justification for the proposed relaxations is rooted at the adjustments 

to the current and projected emissions estimates for the affected source 

categories which show significantly lower emissions compared to the 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast Air 

Basin. These adjustments reflect enhancements to the inventory from better 

quantification methodologies and better accounting for the impact from the 

economic recession. We have reviewed CARB's work on the new emissions 

estimates and believe that new inventory estimates reflect major improvements 

and are reasonable given the available data. We are also aware of the fact that 

the industry estimates show that the projected emissions may be even lower than 

the CARB's estimates. We are, however, concerned that the proposed relaxations 

leave little or no margin for error in relation to the reductions needed to reach 

attainment of the PM2.5 standards before the federally mandated deadline in 

2015. 

Our concern arises from the fact that failure to meet the standards in a timely 

fashion will subject the South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley regions to 

devastating sanctions under the federal Clean Air Act. Failure to get the 

necessary reductions from mobile sources under state's jurisdiction will unfairly 

shift the burden to stationary sources that have been heavily regulated already. 

Given the current high level of control on stationary sources and that fact that over 

80 percent of the emissions come from mobile sources, any shortfalls cannot be 

rectified with more regulations on stationary sources. (SCAQMD1) (SJV/SC1)

Agency Response: State law2assigns ARB the primary responsibility to ensure 

California's compliance with the federal Clean Air Act. Traditionally, ARB shares that 

responsibility with local air districts through defined SIP commitments at both the State 

and local level. 

When ARB adopted the 2007 State Strategy as a SIP revision, the State of California 

made a legal commitment, required by the Clean Air Act and enforceable in federal 

court, to reduce emissions to the levels necessary for 2014 attainment. ARB 

specifically identified several ways this emission reduction commitment could be 

achieved: 

 New measures as described in the SIP;

 Other alternative measures that ARB had not considered at the time the SIP 

was adopted;

 Incentive programs that support the replacement or retrofit of aging, higher 

polluting pieces of equipment; and 

 Actual emission decreases resulting from changes in economic activity. 

ARB continues to fully implement the PM2.5 SIPs, even as the economic recession has 

resulted in substantial emission reductions for some source categories. As a result of 

the recession, actual emission decreases from reduced economic activity, most notably 

in the goods movement sector, moved California closer to the emissions levels needed 

 

2 California Health and Safety Code section 39003.
18

for attainment in 2014. This has allowed ARB to maintain the State’s SIP commitments 

in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley while also providing some additional time for 

affected industries to comply. 

In the case of the PM2.5 SIP, there is also an expectation on the part of the State that 

the federal government provide additional emission reductions based on the U.S. EPA’s 

authority to regulate locomotives and other national sources of air pollution. However, if 

there is a shortfall in a SIP due to lack of federal action, California will be required to 

achieve additional emission reductions. For example, the SIP for the South Coast calls 

for reductions of 10 tons per day of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from sources U.S. EPA or 

other federal agencies regulate. The South Coast AQMD has already agreed to a 1 ton 

backstop in the event federal reductions fail to materialize. ARB would still have the 

overall obligation that the emissions targets specified in the SIP are met by the required 

deadline. 

As the economy recovers, ARB will continue to track emission trends, as directed by the 

Board, to ensure the 2014 emission targets are met. See the response to Comment 1

for the directives issued by the Board in ARB Resolution 10-44. 

3. Comment: We probably set a precedent having a co-signed letter between our 

Executive Officers asking for consideration of re-assurance that if there are any 

deficits or shortfalls with the proposed amendments relative to the SIP that they be 

made up. And we urge you to take our language and put some dates certain in 

there relative to time line. Because that time frame from 2012, 2014 is very short. 

We thought that similar to what you have done with the -- like the railroad 

commitment letter concept that we set a date certain they come back with some 

actions that could achieve further reductions in 2014. So we urge you to consider 

some of the recommendations in our resolution language as you move forward. 3

We do appreciate the language that you have provided. And we appreciate all the 

hard work staff has put in on the emissions inventory updates and look forward to 

continuing to work with staff and enhance the inventories. (SCAQMD3)

Agency Response: As the economy recovers, ARB will continue to track emission 

trends, as directed by the Board, to ensure the 2014 emission targets are met. See the 

response to Comment 1 for the directives issued by the Board in ARB Resolution 10-44. 

Resolution 10-44 also incorporates the additional provisions requested in this comment. 

4. Comment: Our coalition has actively engaged in the emission inventory update 

process. We appreciate the responsiveness of staff to new emissions data and 

the extensive efforts to make the necessary inventory adjustments in a short 

timeframe. We are concerned however, that the revised emissions inventory is 

 

3

The attachment to the comment letter, which sets forth the suggested resolution language, is 

not reproduced here. The SCAQMD’s proposed language is attached to a comment letter 

submitted during the 45 day comment period and identified as Comment 91 of the comments 

posted on the comments log for this rulemaking at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=on-offroad10. 
19

being used in lieu of committed emissions reductions. Therefore, use of the full 

―margin‖ created by the newly reduced inventory to allow for slower compliance 

timeframes in the proposed amendments directly conflicts with the 2007 State 

Strategy’s aggregate tonnage State Implementation Plan commitments for 2014. 

Reliance on unenforceable inventory changes as ―emissions reductions‖ does not 

comport with the Clean Air Act, which requires that the reductions necessary to 

demonstrate that attainment be enforceable. Even if ARB could use 

unenforceable changes in the inventory to satisfy its SIP commitment, in the event 

that economic growth is greater than ARB projections, or any other unforeseen 

vehicle or equipment usage patterns occur, failure to meet the 2014 aggregate 

tonnage targets would be all but inevitable. Further, current SIP commitments are 

based on air quality modeling done prior to significant changes in the off-road 

inventory. New air quality modeling needs to be performed to determine the actual 

impact of inventory changes, but changes are likely to show that additional 

reductions will be needed. For example, the 2008 Inventory in the South Coast 

estimates that off-road equipment accounts for more than twenty percent of total 

air basin NOx emissions. (BWG1)(BWG2)

Agency Response: In designing the regulatory amendments, staff were very careful in 

ensuring that the overall SIP commitment would be met. The staff analysis 

demonstrated that emissions from trucks, buses, and construction equipment were 

much lower by the end of 2010 than previously anticipated in the SIP. The updated 

forecasts strongly suggest that emissions would also be lower in 2014. The amended 

regulation will generate sufficient emissions reductions to meet federal SIP 

commitments while providing the time necessary for fleets to comply with the regulation. 

The most significant change in emissions from trucks, buses, and off-road equipment 

was the impact of the recession. An emissions accounting that incorporates the 

impacts of the recession, future emission changes, and the benefits of the new SIP 

measures is the appropriate approach to assess the adequacy of the PM2.5 SIPs now 

close to final implementation. This accounting was performed as part of the PM2.5 SIP 

revision submitted to U.S. EPA in May 2011 for the South Coast and San Joaquin 

Valley air basins and demonstrates that ARB is on track to meet our control strategy 

commitments. 

As the economy recovers, ARB will continue to track emission trends, as directed by the 

Board, to ensure the 2014 emission targets are met. See the response to Comment 1

for the directives issued by the Board in ARB Resolution 10-44. 

There has been no significant change to the fundamental science and air quality 

modeling used to set the 2014 emission targets in the South Coast and San Joaquin 

Valley. The new emissions inventory data primarily impact current emissions and 

estimates of future emissions as the economy recovers and do not substantially change 

the total regional emissions in the base years. The recession does not impact the SIP 

base year modeling since both regions used base years prior to the recession. Small 

changes in the base year emissions due to methodology improvements would not 

substantially change the fundamental relationship between emissions and air quality in 
20

the base year modeling. Therefore, the air quality modeling and the 2014 emission 

targets are still sound. 

5. Comment: We write on behalf of the undersigned organizations [identified in 

Table 2 of Appendix A of this document] and our hundreds of thousands of 

California members in support of the regulations, with serious concern over the 

amendments proposed in October 2010 for the ―truck and bus‖ and ―off-road‖ 

regulations. We are cognizant of the need to provide some relief to diesel 

equipment and truck owners during the economic downturn. However, the rule 

changes as proposed go beyond what is necessary in the short term, and reduce 

near-term health benefits in the 2014-2017 timeframe. We therefore urge your 

consideration of the amendments recommended here in order to achieve the 

following:

1. Reduce localized impacts and retain the mid- and long-term benefits of the 

On- and Off-Road rules.

2. Eliminate loopholes to ensure all equipment is cleaned up by 2023.

3. Create at least a 20 percent SIP margin for 2014 and beyond due to 

uncertainty in economic projections, inventory uncertainties, and the 

absence of updated air quality modeling. (BWG1)(BWG2)

Agency Response: ARB’s charge, under state law, in adopting regulations to improve 

air quality is to consider the need for regulations, their technological feasibility, costs to 

affected stakeholders and cost-effectiveness. The changes to these rules were made to 

achieve a better balance between the needed emissions reductions and the ability of 

fleets to comply. When the regulations for in-use and off-road vehicles were first 

adopted in 2007 and 2008 respectively, the economy was growing. The recession has 

reduced fleets’ financial ability to make the needed investments to comply. 

The mid-term and long-term benefits of the Truck and Bus regulation will be retained. 

For a discussion of the benefits of the Off-Road regulation, see the rulemaking 

documents for the Off-Road regulation at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/offroadlsi10.htm. 

The response to Comment 1 discusses the improvements in air quality that will continue 

to 2014 and beyond and will reduce public exposures and related adverse health 

effects. Updating our emissions inventories for trucks and buses to account for 

recessionary impacts has shown that PM2.5 emissions from these sectors will be lower 

in 2012 than would have been achieved through implementation of the truck and bus 

rule as originally adopted. In 2014, PM2.5 emissions from trucks and buses will be 

equivalent under the revised SIP to those forecasted in the original SIP. Thus, we 

remain on track to meet the emission reduction commitments that are needed to reach 

the annual air quality goal in 2014. Measurable improvements in air quality also 

demonstrate the benefits of our overall program. This program will continue to reduce 

emissions into the future, beyond 2014. ARB will revisit implementation progress in 

2012 and take action, as necessary, to offset any unforeseen emission increases. 
21

The amendments to the regulation take advantage of the emission reductions produced 

by the economic downturn, some of which reduce localized impacts in residential areas 

that abut major roadways and areas prime for near-term development. In general, PM 

emissions along roadways will decline significantly because 90 percent of heavier trucks 

will have PM filters by 2014 and nearly all will have PM filters by 2017. In addition, by 

2023, all trucks will have 2010 model year emissions equivalent engines except low-use 

trucks and those operating exclusively in NOx-exempt areas where there is no need for 

NOx emissions reductions. The NO-exempt trucks will all be equipped with PM filters. 

Therefore, staff does not believe there are loopholes to be closed. The response to 

Comment 19 includes a description of changes to the regulation since the Board 

Hearing to require additional cleanup of older trucks to help mitigate the health impacts 

in these communities. The Board also acted to mitigate the health impacts in 

environmental justice communities by maintaining the Phase 2 requirements of the 

Drayage Truck regulation and adopting amendments to address emissions from dray-off 

and Class 7 drayage trucks that operate in and around ports and intermodal rail yard 

facilities. 

For more information on the SIP margin, please see the response to Comment 66 for a 

discussion of the updated emissions inventory and staff’s goals for a revised regulation 

that would continue to generate sufficient emissions reductions to meet federal SIP 

commitments while providing the regulatory relief necessary to ensure that fleets could 

comply with the regulation. As the economy recovers, ARB will continue to track 

emission trends, as directed by the Board, to ensure the 2014 emission targets are met. 

See the response to Comment 1 for the directives issued by the Board in ARB 

Resolution 10-44. 

6. Comment: The Air Quality Sub-Committee of the Fresno-Madera Medical Society 

would like to comment on the amendments proposed in October 2010 for the 

―truck and bus‖ and ―off-road‖ regulations. We have always and continue to be 

appreciative of ARB board and staff commitment to cleaning up our air. We know 

that this is no easy task but still you remain committed to protecting the health of 

Californians. 

The rule changes, which are being proposed, do a great job of identifying areas of 

relief for truck owners; however, in some areas they seem to go beyond what is 

necessary in the short term. As physicians we are always concerned with health 

protections. With the proposed changes, communities in the San Joaquin Valley 

living around the State’s most important transit corridors will have to suffer longer 

from the impacts of diesel pollution. Our Valley will also have a ZERO SIP margin 

making us very susceptible to small changes in the economy. With some of the 

dirtiest air in the nation, the Valley needs to be on the fast track to meeting SIP 

requirements not delaying attainment or even failing to meet attainment. We 

therefore urge your consideration of the amendments recommended here in order 

to achieve the following:

1. Reduce localized impacts, especially for the San Joaquin Valley, and retain 

the mid- and long-term benefits of the On- and Off-Road rules.
22

2. Eliminate loopholes to ensure all off-road equipment is cleaned up by 2023.

3. Create a State Implementation Plan margin for 2014 and beyond, especially 

for the San Joaquin Valley.

4. Create or make available more incentives for truck drivers to encourage 

compliance.

In closing, we appreciate the hard work of staff, as well as board members to 

adjust these important regulations in these changing circumstances while making 

an effort to maintain health benefits. Your decisions to enforce a balanced yet 

aggressive plan bring us closer to a better California, a California that embodies 

good health and a good economy. (EWILL)

Agency Response: Please see the agency response to Comment 5 for responses to 

the first three points of this comment. Regarding incentives for truck owners, specific 

changes to ARB funding programs are considered separately from the regulatory 

process. As described in Chapter VII, Section D of the October 2010 Staff Report: 

Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, funding program changes were 

planned to occur after Board action and direction on the regulatory changes. In general, 

the extended compliance deadlines for many trucks enable greater potential funding 

opportunities by allowing more time for applicants to apply for funding before regulatory 

compliance dates. ARB Resolution 10-44 also includes Board’s directives to modify 

funding programs to obtain near term health benefits from early emission reductions. 

7. Comment: The Coalition for Clean Air is a statewide air quality advocacy 

organization with offices in Los Angeles, Fresno, and Sacramento, and we're 

committed to ensuring clean air for all Californians. I want to acknowledge the 

efforts of CARB staff and Board for, over the last few years, continuing to engage 

with us in dialogue and really spending time with us going over the inventory. I 

know it's a tough task before you in terms of getting things as best as we can with 

the latest data. So we do appreciate your efforts there. I also want to acknowledge 

the work of the [Truck Regulatory Advisory Committee] TRAC and the outreach 

that ARB has committed itself to do on diesel rules. I think these efforts want to 

continue to support those and ensure they continue. 

Certainly in terms of the regulation, we appreciate the efforts to address the drayoff issue. That said, I think we have some major concerns with the proposal before 

us today. While we acknowledge certainly a need for and have consistently 

acknowledged with the downturn of the economy there would be a need for some 

modification to these rules, we are concerned by the level of the modifications both 

in terms of the fact that we are unfortunately trading off some of the near-term 

benefits that we would otherwise have experienced, particularly in localized 

communities, as well as our level of comfort with the SIP margin is just not at a 

place where we'd like to be. So as the joint coalition letter shared, we would really 

appreciate having a 20 percent margin there, particularly considering the South 

Coast emissions inventory analysis showed the potential for 20-to- 30 percent of 

the emissions being off. So we don't want to get to a place where we're at 2014 

and actually short. And though I know that the staff is committed to reviewing this 
23

rule, if the economy changes down the line, I'm concerned that's going to be too 

late to really make any fundamental changes we might need to do to shore up that 

SIP. That said, in [the joint-coalition] letter, we did include some -- those are the 

umbrella requests. We included some specific suggestions where staff can explore 

making these changes, and we really encourage the Board to ask staff directly 

about some of those changes, but also to ensure to see if they can explore any 

others that might be able to meet the request we're making today. 

[The commenter referred to a "joint coalition letter" submitted by the Better World 

Group (BWG2) on the day of the Board Hearing. It is identified as Comment 16 in 

the table titled ―Comments posted to on-offroad that were presented during the 

Hearing‖ posted on the comments log for this rulemaking at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=on-offroad10] 

(CCAIR1)

Agency Response: See the response to Comment 1. Also, see the responses to 

Comments 4, 5, 20 and 363 for our responses to the joint coalition letter. 

8. Comment: CAPCOA supports ARB’s efforts to reduce public exposure to these 

air pollutants, and also recognizes the importance of basing control requirements 

on accurate emissions inventories and addressing the economic impacts on the 

regulated community. CAPCOA supports ARB’s efforts to ensure that the 

underlying scientific, technical, and economic data for the rulemaking include the 

best available information. 

We have several concerns that we request ARB consider as part of undertaking 

these rulemakings. CAPCOA members rely on the emission reductions from 

ARB’s mobile source program as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and several 

air districts are facing near-term attainment deadlines. Since mobile source 

emission inventories are vital to air quality improvement planning efforts 

throughout California, CAPCOA would like to see a firm commitment of resources 

by ARB to improve the mobile source emission inventories on both a regional and 

statewide basis. It is also critically important that ARB clearly identify shortfalls in 

the SIP, and alternative emission reduction strategies to cover any shortfalls. 

Further, ARB should take responsibility for addressing any concerns raised by 

USEPA (EPA) regarding the impact of these rulemaking efforts on the SIP and 

associated attainment demonstrations. We also request that affected districts be 

included in discussions with EPA regarding impacts on their SIPs. (CAPCOA)

Agency Response: ARB continues to commit significant resources to the 

improvement of mobile source emission inventories at the county, air district, air basin, 

and statewide levels. Also, ARB will address concerns raised by U.S. EPA regarding 

the impacts of these rule amendments and include affected districts in discussions with 

EPA regarding the impacts of these rule amendments.
24

b) State Implementation Plan Commitments

9. Comment: I want to thank the Board for advancing clean air and public health 

through cleaning up diesel equipment. I understand that taking reasonable efforts 

to relax the rule due to fewer emissions and slower economy is what the Board is 

prepared to do. But due to the absence of updated air quality monitoring and 

modeling and specific reasons for uncertainty, these proposed amendments risk 

missing the mark and falling short on SIP requirements and public health goals to 

prevent cancer, asthma, and other health effects due to diesel pollution. That SIP 

requirements and public health goals to -- some of the reasons for uncertainty, 

some of the specific reasons for uncertainty are, number one, the credit provisions 

for early PM retrofits. I think that those are good provisions that can help 

encourage early compliance and early health reductions. But there's some 

uncertainly in how they're going to progress. The trend in the economy indicating 

that truck miles could outpace expectations in the economy, that's an uncertainty. 

And the methodology changes to off-road equipment. While this adjustment to the 

inventory is reasonable, this does not mean there's a linear relationship with SIP 

requirements. This is because the 2007 SIP commitment were projected 

assuming 15 percent more tons of emissions than were actually occurring. So 

there is a lot of uncertainty in the modeling, and I do hope that ARB will follow 

through and make sure when the SIP occurs in April 2011 that there will be an 

adequate margin or contingency measures. I encourage the Board to have a 20 

percent margin to make sure that there will not be falling short of the SIP 

commitments and there will be a compliance with the Clean Air Act. Thank you. 

(BCA)

Agency Response: See the responses to Comments 2 and 4. 

10. Comment: We want to thank you for making the difficult decision a couple years 

ago to adopt these rules knowing the economic uncertainty ahead. So we want to 

thank you for adopting these rules, but also for showing reasonable flexibility to 

modify the rules given on their changing on-the-ground conditions. We want to 

remind people that what was true when these rules were adopted is still true 

today. Many of our asthma coalitions still deal with the effects of diesel pollution 

every day. They see kids forced indoors for recess, kids missing school, and 

parents missing work because of asthma attacks. And we see families spending 

money on preventable health care costs. These rules still represent the best 

opportunity for California to improve some of the dirtiest air in the country. We 

know diesel trucks and buses are the single largest source of diesel pollution in 

the state and account for some 40 percent of the diesel soot. Curbing these 

emissions is vital to meeting federal air quality standards and removing the health 

and economic burdens to many families. So RAMP and the COFA coalitions urge 

you to continue to protect the people's health by making key changes to the 

proposed amendments. They were outlined in the [joint coalition] letter submitted 

by Camille Kustin from public health, environmental, and communities groups. 

Those changes would provide near-term relief to impacted communities, eliminate 

loopholes, and create a margin of error for the SIP. (RAMP)
25

Agency Response: See the response. to Comment 2. Also, please see the 

responses to Comments 4, 5, 20 and 363 for our response to the joint coalition letter. 

11. Comment: We are particularly concerned about how these amendments to both 

diesel rules will affect our home in the short and long term, as these sources 

represent a considerable amount of PM and NOx emissions. Even though we are, 

of course, sensitive to the economic situation and the current times that we are 

living in, of course, the localized impacts will continue. These especially affect lowincome communities of color a lot, which are located in the San Joaquin Valley. 

These people will have little or no access to health care. And they will not be 

getting relief in their health or their health care bill. People don't feel the difference 

in the changes in modeling or inventory. They feel the changes in how they 

breathe and how well they can breathe. These rules play a significant role also in 

our SIP attainment. The economy, of course, is a very difficult thing to predict, and 

I know staff has spent tireless hours working on that. However, in terms of health, 

a slightly faster economic recovery would put us out of SIP compliance. And since 

we have no margin of error, as other people have mentioned, this is a serious 

concern. Some specific steps are mentioned in a comment letter [joint coalition 

letter] that we signed onto, but in sum, we respectfully ask some changes be made 

to these amendments to minimize the localized impacts and give us at least a 20 

percent SIP margin. Thank you very much for your time. (CCAIR2)

Agency Response: See the responses to Comments 1, 2 and 6. Also, please see the 

responses to Comments 4, 5, 20 and 363 for our response to the joint coalition letter. 

12. Comment: We commend ARB's efforts to reduce emissions from these in-use 

diesel fleets and believe that the implementation of these rules is a critical step 

towards achieving clean air and improving public health. As you know, California 

has submitted several State Implementation Plans, or SIPS, to EPA that rely 

heavily on reductions from these rules in order to reach attainment of the federal 

PM2.5 and ozone standards. We are currently discussing with ARB staff the scope 

of the SIP provisions that will be necessary for the South Coast and San Joaquin 

Valley SIPS due to the new emission estimates that form the basis for many of the 

changes to the rules being considered today. We plan to work with your staff on 

these SIPS in the next few months as we intend to finalize our action on the PM2.5 

SIPS by September 2011 and the ozone SIPS by December 30th, 2011, to meet 

our consent decree deadlines. If the rules are adopted today, we request that you 

expedite their submittal to EPA so that we may have sufficient time to take action 

on them. (USEPA)

Agency Response: ARB will submit these amended rules to U.S. EPA as 

expeditiously as practicable, consistent with the administrative procedures rules 

governing the ARB regulatory process.

13. Comment: In 2003, this Board adopted a resolution that committed itself to 

adopting significant mobile source reductions, including diesel reductions, in order 

to meet the one-hour ozone standard. The deadline for which was just over a 
26

month ago, November 15th of 2010. The South Coast air basin and the San 

Joaquin Valley have failed miserably to meet that one-hour ozone standard. The 

primary reason they failed to meet that one-hour ozone standard is because this 

Board, this agency, did not deliver on the reductions that it adopted and committed 

to in the 2003 resolution. Failure to meet that one-hour standard triggered Section 

185 of the Clean Air Act, which imposed a fee -- $10,000 per ton fee on stationary 

sources. The Clean Air Act says it goes to stationary sources. Stationary sources 

are paying a penalty in the South Coast air basin and in the San Joaquin Valley 

primarily as a result of the Board not adopting the mobile source reductions as 

promised in 2003. Ironically, the San Joaquin Valley Air District, instead of 

charging the fee to the stationary sources, will charge passenger vehicle owners 

through their DMV registrations, as if they had anything to do with the not adopted 

rules. So my point is do not adopt these amendments. The San Joaquin Valley 

and the South Coast need these reductions, which you're going to backslide to 

meet the one-hour standard. You still have to meet the one-hour standard. We've 

been talking about the PM2.5 standard and the eight-hour ozone standard. You 

still need to meet the one-hour standard. (CRPE)

Agency Response: This comment is not pertinent to the Board action addressed in 

this rulemaking, which is to approve amendments to the Truck and Bus regulation to 

reduce NOx- and PM2.5-related emissions and attain the PM2.5 air quality standard in 

2014 and the 8-hour ozone standard in 2023. These amendments will not affect the 

dates by which we meet the former 1-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin or South 

Coast Air Basins. 

14. Comment: We do understand that emissions inventory estimates are always a 

work in progress that can be enhanced over time. This is particularly true for 

complex sources categories such as the ones in question here. Another added 

variable here is the assumptions regarding the pace and timing of the economic 

recovery which is very difficult to forecast. Given that the proposed amendments 

rely heavily on CARB's new emissions estimates leaving no margin for error in the 

San Joaquin Valley and a small margin for error in the South Coast Air Basin, we 

urge your Board to consider the following in adopting the proposed relaxations to 

the existing regulations:

 Reaffirm CARB's commitment that mitigating any shortfall in emission 

reductions will be the responsibility of CARB from sources under the state's 

jurisdiction.

 Accept a commitment by CARB to regularly monitor and report on the actual 

emissions and related trends for the affected source categories, and take 

timely regulatory action to remedy shortfalls, if any;

 Partner with the South Coast AQMD and the San Joaquin Valley APCD to do 

additional work to improve the statewide and regional emissions inventory 

estimates for the affected source categories (which includes collection of 

additional in-use information such as load factor and activity data); and

 Take actions to facilitate more rapid and effective use of incentive grants in 

generating earlier reductions from the affected source categories to minimize 
27

potential shortfalls such as a SOON type program or the San Joaquin's FAST 

(Fleet Accelerated Surplus Turnover) program for on-road diesel trucks funded 

by the state. 

We have prepared draft resolution language containing commitments with date 

certain for actions by CARB to implement the above recommendations and the 

language is attached for your consideration. We urge your Board to add the 

attached language to the adopting resolution for the proposed amendment. 

(SCAQMD1) (SJV/SC1) 

Agency Response: ARB Resolution 10-44 incorporates the additional provisions 

requested in this comment. 

15. Comment: There is a zero margin of error for the San Joaquin Valley for our 

State Implementation Plans, and I wonder whether in those calculations there was 

consideration for the fact that when this rule was originally passed, there was a 

special exception given to short haul agricultural trucks, which are going to be 

disproportionately in our region. Again, minimizing the margin of error we have 

has already been zero. Delays ultimately mean prolonging public health impacts, 

and there are so many variables attached to this rule, including the economy and 

the inventory. The bottom line for us in the San Joaquin Valley is we need all of 

the reductions that we can get from wherever we can get them. The original rule 

saves more lives and money than it's ultimately going to cost industry. Research 

from U.S. EPA shows for a dollar in pollution cleanup targeted at diesel pollution, 

there's $13 in health savings. So today I'm here to urge you to stay the course on 

the on-road rule. (CVAQC) 

Agency Response: Trucks serving the agricultural sector were characterized and 

included in the update of the emissions inventory. In addition to developing population 

and age distribution data and accrual rates, staff also collected information regarding 

where the trucks had traveled. The updated data were used in the calculation of the 

emissions benefits of the compliance requirements for agricultural vehicles that were 

included in the SIP margin estimate. Emissions with the amended regulation will remain 

about the same for the life of the regulation. See the response to Comment 1 for a 

summary of the Board’s directive to monitor the progress of the economy and the 

projected emissions reductions from the regulation. See also the response to 

Comment 5. 

16. Comment: Regarding the SIP, the current proposal leaves the San Joaquin 

Valley little or no margin for error to reach the federally mandated standards 

before 2015. We're keenly aware of the economic crisis in the Central Valley. 

Hundreds of families come to Catholic Charities every single week, and the 

number is growing. But bad air quality is also costly, financially and health wise. 

There were two headlines in this morning's paper that illustrate this point. The first, 

"Asthma Hits State's Poorest the Hardest. Asthma is on the rise in California, and 

low-income tend to bear the greatest burdens from the condition." And that is from 

the UCLA Center for Health Policy. Then in the L.A. Times this morning, 
28

"Proximity to Freeways increases autism risks, study finds." On top of this, as you 

know, people are struggling to pay health insurance. Every day at Catholic 

Charities, we have many children and their families who come in to sign up for the 

Children's Health Initiative and Healthy Families. They are struggling. The last 

headline from today's Sacramento Bee, "Study finds 6.8 million Californians 

without health insurance. As the recession continues to grip the state, the number 

of Californians without health insurance, especially coverage provided by 

employers, has continued to decline." Diesel pollution is costly. So I'd ask that 

you please pass a strong diesel rule with a greater SIP margin. (CCDS)

Agency Response: See the responses to Comments 1 and 5.

17. Comment: We would like to express our appreciation for how you have helped to 

make the rule a little bit more feasible for truckers. We know that’s not an easy 

task, especially in light of these hard economic times. We feel the rule is very 

important, especially as it related to the San Joaquin Valley. We have an 

incredible health burden as you very well know. And we are especially concerned 

with the zero margin that the San Joaquin Valley will face. So we just ask that you 

continue to look at that and maybe revisit it or talk about it a little bit more and 

figure out if there is some way to ensure that there will be come safeguards for us. 

(FMMS)

Agency Response: See the response to Comment 1

2. Health Effects

a) Public Health Impacts

18. Comment: I want to commend the ARB on its willingness to revisit the 

requirements of these regulations based on updated inventory information and the 

present economic downturn. The Air District believes that this represents an 

equitable approach to regulation and demonstrates ARB's willingness to consider 

flexible solutions to achieving emissions reductions goals. The Air District 

continues to be proud to be a partner with the ARB in delivering the emissions 

reductions necessary to protect public health, global climate and the environment. 

This partnership is exemplified by our recent successful efforts to decrease health 

risk from toxic diesel particulate matter (DPM) emitted by drayage trucks in the 

West Oakland community. It is in the spirit of that partnership, that the Air District 

offers the following analysis and recommendations regarding the proposed 

regulatory amendments.

The Air District is concerned about the proposed regulatory amendments based on 

the fact that the primary driver of health risk in Bay Area communities is DPM from 

on-road trucks. This fact is borne out by studies such as our joint health risk 

assessment (HRA) performed in West Oakland in December 2008. That HRA 

identified West Oakland as having a cancer health risk of three times greater any 

other location in the Bay Area and one of the highest in the State of California 
29

(1,500 in I million). It also identifies on-road truck DPM emissions as being the 

cause of 70% of that health risk. 

This impact is confirmed by the Air District's Community Air Risk Evaluation 

(CARE) Program which has identified DPM primarily from on-road trucks and 

secondarily from off-road construction equipment as being the main drivers of 

health risk in five additional communities (see Attachment I)4in the Bay Area. This 

evaluation utilized mobile source emissions inventories prepared by the ARB. 

Based on ARB's new inventory numbers for off-road equipment emissions it 

appears there will be some reduction of that source's relative impacts on these 

communities. However, the new inventory also reveals a significant increase in 

the emissions from on-road sources and particularly their contribution to overall 

DPM. The Air District therefore believes that the health risk in its six most highly 

impacted communities and along Bay Area highways remains at the same or 

increased levels. (BAAQMD1) (BAAQMD2)

Agency Response: In general, PM emissions along roadways will decline significantly 

because of the recession and the impacts of the amended regulation. By 2014, 

90 percent of heavier trucks will have PM filters and nearly all will by 2017. This will 

substantially reduce exposure along roadways. In addition, most drayage trucks are 

already equipped with PM filters and will have 2007 or better engines by 2014. As 

such, residents of these areas will reap considerable health benefits from the emission 

reductions that will be accrued due to the amended regulation. 

19. Comment: I'm here today in very strong support of the diesel regulations that this 

agency has passed. We are deeply appreciative of all the efforts this agency has 

made to reduce toxic diesel emission over the years. And no doubt, tens of 

thousands of lives have been saved. We are concerned, however, with the latest 

proposal that sort of weakens the health protections of these diesel regulations. 

Before I comment further, I just want to thank staff for all of their hard work on 

these regulations. I know it's been a tough slug. We're very appreciative in 

particular for the effort in working with communities to address the dray-off 

problems that were undermining the port drayage truck regulation. So thank you 

for those fixes. While we understand that there is a strong need for economic relief 

and nearly everyone has been impacted by this recession, including my own 

family, at the same time, so many communities continue to suffer from truck 

pollution. And it really remains high, despite reduced activity of the recession. The 

current proposal will significantly delay diesel cleanup over the next few years. 

We took a look at what the difference in health benefits would be considering the 

existing regulations as they are on the books versus the new proposal under 

 

4

The attachment is not reproduced here. It is a map titled ―Bay Area Highly Impacted 

Communities.‖ that was submitted during the 45 day comment period as part of a comment 

letter identified as Comment 71 of the comments posted on the comments log for this 

rulemaking at http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=on-offroad10. 
30

consideration today.5 We used the latest U.S. EPA and CARB methods, and we 

accounted for the recession and the emissions inventory updates. And we found 

that there is actually a significant loss in health benefits, about 50 percent for the 

year 2014. So in the near term, we're looking at some pretty big differences, pretty 

large gap in health benefits. And on off-road, we see even bigger differences, a 90 

percent loss of health benefits in 2014. And still, in 2017, we have a gap in health 

benefits. We're very concerned about these near-term losses in health protections. 

So we decided to take a look at who is most impacted. And the answer is obvious. 

I think you're all aware that families living near high-traffic roadways are the most 

impacted by diesel pollution. And we've heard a lot of very compelling testimony 

today. I thought the stories from the students were very compelling. And these 

maps that we put together just put the demographic data together to show what 

the disparities look like. They show a very striking disparity that supports the fact 

that the poorest, the lowest income communities, and those that are more likely to 

be minority are also the most like fully to live in the highest traffic areas. And that's 

true on average throughout the state. That's true even more so in southern 

California, and that's true in these three areas where we did some mapping. That 

was Commerce. This is Richmond, California, where a lot of the students came 

from. You can see a very striking disparity when it comes to who's living closest to 

the freeways. They are more likely to be minority and low income. And of those 

living near freeways, we found that there are a lot of children; 50,000 in southeast 

Los Angeles; 10,000 in this area right here, Richmond area. And in Fresno, the 

disparity persists as well. So we wanted to bring these disparities to your attention, 

and we're asking you to consider some amendments that would offer some relief 

to these impacted communities and move up some of the cleanup for the very 

oldest trucks that tend to operate in these communities the most. I thank you for 

your consideration. I thank staff for their hard work. (NRDC1) (NRDC2) 

Agency Response: The recession has already resulted in lower emissions than 

anticipated when the on-road and off-road regulations were initially approved by the 

Board. Our estimates show that the combined statewide impact of the recession with 

the amendments to the Truck and Bus and Off-Road regulations will provide essentially 

the same cumulative reductions in emissions levels between 2011 and 2023 as was 

expected when originally approved before the recession. The health benefits for the 

years 2014 and 2017 from the rule alone are less than the predicted benefits under the 

previously adopted on-road and off-road diesel rules; however, when the effects of the 

recession are added to the amended rule from 2010 to 2025, the estimated health 

benefits are similar to the originally adopted rule. 

If the effects of the recession are excluded, the health benefits over the course of the 

amended regulations, will still be substantial: approximately 3,900 premature deaths 

avoided as a result of full implementation of the amended on-road and off-road 

 

5

The commenter is summarizing a presentation that was submitted during the 45-day 

comment period. It is identified as Comment 13 of the comments presented during the 

December 17, 2010 Board Hearing and posted to the comments log for this rulemaking at

http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=on-offroad10
31

regulations from 2010 to 2025. Changes in ARB and U.S. EPA methodology in 

obtaining health impact estimates, as well as effects of the recession, also led to 

downward revision of the original estimates of premature deaths associated with the 

previously adopted regulations. 

The Board also acted to mitigate the health impacts in environmental justice 

communities, near busy ports and rail yards by maintaining the Phase 2 requirements of 

the Drayage Truck regulation and adopting amendments to address emissions from 

dray-off and Class 7 drayage trucks that operate in and around ports and intermodal rail 

yard facilities. The Board also acted to mitigate health impacts along roadways for the 

amended Truck and Bus regulation by adjusting the model year compliance schedule 

for heavier trucks. Since the Board hearing, the engine model year schedule of the 

Truck and Bus regulation has been modified to require heavier trucks with 1996 and 

1997 model year engines to be retrofit by January 1, 2012. The modifications, which 

were made available for comment with the May 19, 2011 Notice of Availability of 

Modified Text, will provide additional PM emissions reductions between 2012 and 2017. 

In general, PM emissions along roadways will decline significantly because 90 percent 

of heavier trucks will have PM filters by 2014 and nearly all will have PM filters by 2017. 

In addition, by 2023, all trucks will have 2010 model year emissions equivalent engines. 

As such, residents of these areas will reap considerable health benefits from the 

emission reductions that will be accrued due to the amended regulation.

20. Comment: While the ARB analysis indicates that overall emission reductions from 

the rules with proposed changes combined with the economic downturn are similar 

to the original rules, the health impacts are most certainly not. Communities most 

impacted by diesel pollution from trucks will have to wait as many as seven years 

longer to see the types of emission reductions that were originally approved by the 

ARB. We are especially concerned that toxic hotspots of diesel pollution 

throughout the state will receive little relief in the short term. Compared to the 

existing regulations, for example, emissions of diesel soot under the new proposal 

would be fifty percent higher in 2014.

Many areas that are most impacted by truck pollution are the very environmental 

justice communities that we seek to protect, as they are already overburdened by 

pollution. Hundreds of thousands of Californians live within one quarter mile of a

major freeway carrying diesel trucks; most of these communities are comprised of 

a much higher percentage of minorities and a greater percent of families that fall 

below the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development designation for 

Very Low Income. For example, in Richmond, families living near freeways are 

more than 70 percent more likely to be non-white and almost 50 percent more 

likely to be very low income compared to the average in Contra Costa County. 

Thus, it is of paramount importance to offer these areas immediate relief from the 

severe pollution levels that they experience. Please see the attached maps at the 

end of this letter. 

In fact, after accounting for the adjustments to the emissions inventory due to the 

recession and other factors, the loss of near term health benefits from new 

proposals translate to roughly 380 fewer lives saved in 2014. That means that 
32

compared to the existing regulation, the new proposals would result in a loss of 

health benefits in 2014 of more than 50% for trucks and 90% from off-road 

equipment. The loss of health benefits is also significant in 2017. (BWG1) 

Agency Response: See response to Comment 19. 

21. Comment: The proposal for modifications to On-Road Diesel are of concern, 

increasing the number of trucks exempted from PM filter retrofits from less than 

10,000 to over 140,000. This potentially equates to over 240,000 non-filtered 

engines being allowed to pollute our skies with cancer-causing pollution. (ENG)

(LOWEN) 

Agency Response: The recession has already resulted in lower emissions than 

anticipated when the on-road and off-road regulations were initially approved by the 

Board. Our estimates show that the combined statewide impact of the recession with

the amendments to the Truck and Bus and Off-Road regulations will provide essentially 

the same cumulative remaining emissions levels between 2011 and 2023 as was 

expected when originally approved before the recession. When the effects of the 

recession are included from 2010 to 2025, the estimated health benefits are similar to 

the originally adopted rule. 

Nearly all of the vehicles that would not have PM filters after 2015 would be lighter 

trucks. These trucks represent a smaller portion of the emissions inventory in 

comparison to heavier trucks, because lighter vehicles generally are replaced in shorter 

cycles, they operate fairly low miles, and have smaller engines. Many of the lighter 

trucks will already have PM filters as original equipment. The additional near term 

emissions reductions achieved by requiring PM filters on the light trucks prior to 2015 

are small – about 2 percent of the total benefit achieved for all trucks with the regulation 

as amended. Lighter trucks also don’t tend to be concentrated in localized areas such 

as distribution centers and don’t pose as much of a local PM exposure risk as heavier 

vehicles. Further, the amended regulation requires the replacement of all light trucks 

starting in 2015, ultimately providing the maximum PM benefits. 

22. Comment: While we understand that CARB’s proposed revisions are designed to 

address the downturn in the economy and inventory changes, we believe CARB 

must still move forward as quickly as possible to protect communities and ensure 

a transition to cleaner vehicles and equipment. A large body of scientific literature 

has clearly established the link between diesel pollution and premature death and 

illness. Diesel pollution sickens and kills thousands of residents annually in 

California, and disproportionately impacts our poorest and most vulnerable 

individuals including seniors, people with heart or lung disease, children and 

infants. The state’s sensible rules to reduce toxic soot pollution over time will 

protect lives and save California far more than it will cost. Pollution from diesel 

buses and trucks comprises the largest source of cancer-causing emissions in 

California, making them the top air pollution-related cancer risk for state residents. 

In addition to aggravating a variety of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses and 

contributing to thousands of hospitalizations each year, exposure to the toxic air 

contaminants contained in diesel exhaust has also been linked to developmental 
33

harm to fetuses, decreased lung growth and development in children, and other 

serious health and reproductive problems. Diesel truck drivers are especially at 

risk, and are 1.5 to 2 times more likely to develop lung cancer, as compared to 

workers not exposed to diesel exhaust. Strong state regulations to control harmful 

emissions from trucks and buses are critical to saving lives and improving health. 

But more importantly, regulations on diesel emissions are critical to address health 

inequities in low income communities and communities of color who pay the 

highest price in terms of increased risk of death and illness caused by proximity to 

busy roads and freeways. We support the strongest possible California Air 

Resources Board’s regulations to cut diesel pollution, protect vulnerable and 

impacted communities, and protect public health from the illnesses and deaths 

caused by diesel exposure. (HNCA)

Agency Response: Comment noted. 

23. Comment: I'm here to present this letter on behalf of the undersigned 

23 environmental, public health, and community groups.6These groups 

representing all parts of the state and hundreds of thousands of members support 

the diesel cleanup but have serious concerns -- health concerns regarding the 

proposed amendments to the on- and off-road rules. There will be other people 

after me to speak on the specifics. I just want to present the letter. (BWG3) 

24. Comment: Our organizations have enthusiastically supported the slate of diesel 

clean up regulations adopted by CARB over the past decade. While it may be 

particularly difficult to enforce compliance with air quality regulations in the current 

recession, it is never a good time to be exposed to diesel pollution either. Every 

day, three times as many Californians die prematurely from the effects of 

particulate air pollution than in traffic accidents. Diesel pollution not only contains 

toxic particulates, but contains smog- forming nitrogen oxides and more than 40 

other toxic chemicals. Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies from around the world 

have documented the health hazards of long-term exposure to diesel exhaust, 

particulate pollution and smog, including asthma and heart attacks, stunted lung 

growth in children, birth defects, more emergency room visits and higher death 

rates. At greatest risk are children, the elderly, people with asthma or other lung 

illnesses, and those who live in congested industrial areas including near ports or 

rail yards. (BWG1) 

Agency Response: We agree that exposure to diesel PM presents a health hazard to 

California communities. The specific comments in the letter submitted by BWG3 and 

BWG1 (also referred to as the joint coalition letter by various commenters) are 

addressed in the responses to Comments 4, 5, 19, 20 and 363. 

 

6

The signers are identified in a comment letter submitted by the Better World Group (BWG). 

It is identified as Comment 16 in the table titled ―Comments posted to on-offroad10 that were 

presented during the Hearing‖ and posted on the comments log for this rulemaking at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=on-offroad10. 
34

25. Comment: I know these rules have been very difficult for a lot of people here and 

that we all sympathize both with people who are hurt by the recession and also 

people who are hurt by illnesses caused by air pollution. And I know that you as 

Board members are trying to strike a balance here, and it's not an easy thing to 

do. I think it's also essential that you operate with the best possible data that is up 

to date while taking into account the effects of the recession and also correcting 

the errors that have been made in the inventory. So clearly there does need to be 

a course correction. In doing that, we think it's important to also remember that 

diesel soot is not distributed evenly, as you've heard from the students. And the 

health impacts are also not distributed evenly. So we suggest some amendments 

that we think would particularly help to reduce some of the localized impacts as 

you've heard. (SCC)

Agency Response: Please see the response to Comment 18. Also, for the agency 

response to the amendments proposed by the commenter (SCC), see the response to 

Comment 364

26. Comment: We have a public health crisis in the San Joaquin Valley due to our 

chronic air pollution problem, which includes more than $6 million in public health 

costs and 2400 premature deaths in our region alone due to air pollution. We're 

particularly concerned about the delays for the on-road rule. Many of our 

environmental justice communities are living near roadways. These communities 

are already impacted by pollution, and a delay means more continued pollution in 

those areas and more health impacts. (CVAQC)

Agency Response: The figure of 2,400 premature deaths in the San Joaquin Valley 

Air Basin was presented in the December 2009 ARB Staff Report 

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/pm-mort/pm-mort_final.pdf, page 39, Table 4a). 

Due to revisions in methodology for calculating estimates of premature death (by the 

U.S. EPA and ARB), the estimated number of premature deaths for the San Joaquin 

Valley air basin was updated in August 2010 to 1,500 premature deaths due to 

cardiopulmonary causes. We agree with the concern for communities living near 

roadways. Please see the agency response to Comment 19 regarding the impact on 

environmental justice communities. 

27. Comment: The American Lung Association and other health organizations have 

strongly supported the diesel on-road and off-road regulations because they are 

life saving regulations and they reduce asthma attacks, reduce respiratory and 

cardiac illnesses, and hospitalizations, and are very important from our public 

health perspective. We understand that the ARB needs to provide some additional 

flexibility in those regulations due to the economy and inventory changes. And we 

are asking that we do everything possible to maximize the public health 

protections and maintain the strongest possible regulations. And we have 

recommended some strengthening amendments to the staff proposal to increase 

the retrofits and upgrades in the early years and to increase the SIP margin, 

especially in the San Joaquin Valley.

The American Lung Association is, of course, particularly concerned about the 

most vulnerable and disadvantaged communities and urge you to pay special 
35

attention to pollution reduction in impacted areas and to consider measures to 

strengthen requirements in areas near warehouses, truck distribution centers, rail 

yards, ports, heavy traffic corridors. And finally, just a couple points. We believe

it's extremely important to continue to monitor emission levels that are consistent 

with production we are looking at today to make sure we are reaching the 

emissions levels that we're expecting and achieving all benefits we're expecting 

today and to also monitor the pace of the economy. And we can all agree in 

closing that it will be important to do everything possible to use incentive funds to 

get early reductions in health impacted communities so we can all work together 

on that as we move forward. (ALAC1) 

28. Comment: We continue to urge you to focus on the important overarching goal of 

health protection, especially making sure that we achieve both near-term and longterm goals to protect public health. And so along those lines, we would urge you, 

number one, to be cautious as you move forward and to avoid moving up the 

entire margin of emissions reductions that are estimated in the target update. And 

number two, we would urge you to look very carefully at the impacts of the 

regulatory changes on public health benefits, especially in the near term and make 

sure that in addition to achieve our SIP commitments we avoid giving up public 

health benefits, especially in vulnerable communities. And we hope you will look at 

ways that we can achieve all the near-term health benefits through both regulatory 

and incentive approaches to make sure that we are moving forward with our public 

health goals. (ALAC2)

29. Comment: I'm speaking today on behalf of myself, family, and friends in the San 

Joaquin Valley and those living near the transportation corridor areas - between 

580 and 880 and 238 in the East Bay. My concern with the rule proposed today is 

that it does not safeguard with enough margin of certainty those most affected by 

PM and NOx pollution, especially those in the San Joaquin Valley and in the 

corridors of highway 101, I-5, 99, 880. I'm here today to urge the Board to include 

an early 2012 emission review to see if the tons of pollution reduced are on target 

and build in the 20 percent 2014 SIP margin on the emission reductions. Although 

I've moved to the East Bay where supposedly it's cleaner, my lungs of 30 years 

living in Fresno are damaged. But for my five nephews, it's not too late. They're 

relying on you and the staff to get it right. (LFS) 

Agency Response: Residents of disadvantaged areas will reap considerable health 

benefits from the emission reductions that will accrue due to the regulation. Please see 

the response to Comment 19 for an account of these health benefits. The response to 

Comment 19 also discusses changes to the Truck and Bus regulation and to the 

Drayage truck regulation since the Board Hearing that would help to mitigate health 

impacts in environmental justice communities. 

As the economy recovers, ARB will continue to track emission trends, as directed by the 

Board, to ensure the 2014 emission targets are met. See the response to Comment 1

for the directives issued by the Board in ARB Resolution 10-44. 

Regarding incentives for truck owners, specific changes to ARB funding programs are 

considered separately from the regulatory process. As described in Chapter VII, 
36

Section D of the October 2010 Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed 

Rulemaking, funding program changes were planned to occur after Board action and 

direction on the regulatory changes. In general, the extended compliance deadlines for 

many trucks enable greater potential funding opportunities by allowing more time for 

applicants to apply for funding before regulatory compliance dates. ARB Resolution 

10-44 also includes Board’s directives to modify funding programs to obtain near term 

health benefits from early emission reductions. 

30. Comment: I am concerned that the proposed modifications do not maintain the 

short and long-term health benefits of the original rule. They also go too far and 

can impact the public's health adversely. The health of businesses should not

become a priority when the public's health can suffer. (HCHUN)

Agency Response: Please see agency response to Comment 19.

31. Comment: We are an environmental health and justice organization in the city of 

Commerce where our communities are heavily impacted by activity from the goods 

movement industry. There is a real impact in our communities because the place 

where they live and work is a diesel hot spot. With two major freeways, one of 

which is the I-710 super highway, a major arterial road, and four rail yards, they 

are suffering from asthma, cancer and other respiratory illnesses due to the 

cumulative impacts from all of these sources, of which some are mobile smoke 

stacks just driving by constantly through our community. It is really unfortunate 

that instead of children carrying backpacks full of toys, they are carrying 

backpacks with respiratory machines. And there are children whose backyard is 

rail yards or their backyard is the freeway or other highways where their quality of 

air is heavily impacted. We do appreciate the fact that the staff and the Board are 

working towards improving the quality of air, but we do recognize that the 

economy is not ideal right now. Not for some of the industry and not for our 

community. And these rules are important because they will cut down on costs, 

medications, and also health risk for the families that are heavily impacted. The 

human cost is heavy, and the proposed changes go beyond what is necessary. 

And the near-term health risks in 2014 and 2017 would be cut short. Our 

impacted communities need near-term relief now. We ask that staff provide nearterm benefits through upgrades on the oldest dirtiest trucks beginning in 2014. So 

we would ask that the staff provide near-term benefits starting in 2012 from the 

dirtiest trucks, including a higher SIP margin and also a monitoring program. And 

thank you for the drayage rules that you are working on. (EYARD2)

Agency Response: The amendments to the regulation take into consideration the 

emission reductions resulting from the recession, some of which reduce localized 

impacts. These amendments were made carefully to reduce costs to the regulated 

community while maintaining the emissions reductions needed to protect public health. 

We believe the amendments achieves that balance. Please see agency response to 

Comments 19 regarding the impact on environmental justice communities and the 

changes to the Truck and Bus regulation and the Drayage Truck regulation since the 

Board Hearing. Also, see the response to Comment 1 for the Board’s directive to staff 
37

to monitor the State’s progress toward meeting its emission reduction commitment and 

provide an update to the Board at its July 2012 meeting. 

32. Comment: I live in the Richmond community two blocks from one truck route and 

two blocks from another truck route. I stand here today because I'm concerned in 

how diesel exhaust is becoming a harm to the children's health. The children who 

are exposed to diesel exhaust have a higher risk of having asthma because their 

defenses are not fully developed. As you all probably know, Richmond's asthma 

hospitalization rate is three times the state average. I, myself, suffered from 

asthma as a child. I once had to go to the emergency room because I was having 

trouble breathing. My seven-year-old sister has asthma now. She sometimes has 

to use a machine that helps her take the medicine she needs. This medicine 

helps her by opening the pores to her lungs. I have two cousins who also live in 

Richmond and also suffer from asthma. In your mission, you mention that you 

want to promote and protect the public health. And all of us who are suffering this 

diesel impact want to see you do as you say. (RHS1) 

33. Comment: I'm currently attending Richmond High School and I'm a junior in the 

Health Academy. First of all, I would like to show you the map of where our school 

is. All the highlighted parts are the truck routes. As you can see, there's, a lot of 

them around our school. The reason I'm here today is because I wanted to talk to 

you about diesel exhaust and how it is affecting everyone around us. As you know, 

diesel exhaust is a problem because it contains more than 40 toxic air 

contaminants. Diesel is widely used throughout our society. It is used to power 

bus, agricultural equipment, back-up generators and, of course, trucks. Imagine 

trucks passing by your house every day leaving particles and gases in the air that 

are just waiting for the moment so you will breathe them in. At that moment, they 

may not affect you, but sooner or later they make you sick when you least expect 

it. Every time we breathe the toxic gases, they are drawn into our lungs. One 

truck route runs through 23rd Street, right in front of my school. Around my school 

there are two more trucks routes. And around Richmond, there are many more. 

Wouldn't you be worried if you and your family were breathing toxins that could be 

killing you slowly? I would like to ask you to not wait any longer to make the 

changes that we have known for so long that we need to make. It is difficult to 

start, but it's not impossible. Nothing should stop us from pursuing just this. 

(RHS2)

34. Comment: I've been living in Richmond since birth. I'm here to talk to you about 

the diesel problem in our community. There are more than four routes that pass 

near our school, especially the one that passes right in front of my school. There 

are two routes around my house. This problem is actually affecting us, the 

citizens. It is affecting our health. The percentage of kids from Richmond that are 

hospitalized for asthma is three times the percentage of kids in California. I 

understand that we have to be concerned about the jobs that are going to be 

affected by this rule. But on the other hand, the percentage of kids hospitalized is 

going to decrease by a lot. I know it's not easy finding a job now since the 
38

economy has gone bad. But the delay that is being proposed means more kids 

are going to be affected and get sicker. (RHS3) 

Agency Response: We share your concern for people living near roadways, especially 

children who live, learn, and play in communities in close proximity to truck routes. 

Residents of these areas will reap considerable health benefits from the emission 

reductions that will be accrued due to the on-road truck and bus regulation. Also, see 

the response to Comment 19 for a description of changes to the Truck and Bus 

regulation and the Drayage Truck regulation since the Board Hearing that would help to 

mitigate the health impacts in environmental justice communities. 

35. Comment: Truck routes run right along one side of my school just outside the 

fence around our football field. My house is also close to the truck route, four 

blocks to the nearest one. But I'm really more concerned about the impact diesel 

pollution might have on my little sister than I am about the impact it's having on 

me. My little sister is 14-years-old. So her lungs are still growing. I know you 

understand that children who are exposed to diesel exhaust are more likely to 

have asthma, and they also have reduced lung function. I also know that you care 

about these things, because you have been working on this problem for a long 

time. When the Board adopted the California's Diesel Risk Reduction Plan in 

2000, my little sister was four-years-old. The plan set a goal of reducing diesel 

pollution by 75 percent by 2010. Of course, we haven't yet reached that goal. Then 

in 2007 and 2008, the Board adopted some important rules for trucks and buses 

and construction equipment. Those rules were going to reduce diesel particulate 

pollution by 75 percent by 2014 and then the recession hit. I agree there have 

been some changes to help truckers and construction workers in these hard times, 

but the proposal in front of you won't get us to 75 percent reduction on diesel 

pollution until 2023. By that time, my little sister will be 25-years-old. Her lungs will 

have stopped growing. She will have lost any chance to grow up with clean air. 

I'm here to say respectfully, please don't wait that long. You need to fix the 

proposal so that all trucks, old or new, have diesel filters by 2017. And old 

equipment needs to be retired faster. All the loopholes need to be closed. (MHS5)

Agency Response: The amendments to the regulation take into consideration the 

emission reductions resulting from the recession, some of which reduce localized 

impacts. These amendments were made carefully to reduce costs to the regulated 

community while maintaining the emissions reductions needed to protect public health. 

Please see the response to Comment 19 for a discussion of the health benefits of the 

regulation for environmental justice communities. Also, staff does not believe there are 

loopholes to be closed as indicated by the cleanup goals listed in the response to 

Comment 19. Nearly all trucks will have PM filters by 2017. In addition, the response 

includes a description of changes to the regulation since the Board Hearing to require 

additional cleanup of older trucks that would help mitigate the health impacts in these 

communities. See also the response to Comment 5. 

36. Comment: Policies should be made that benefit all people, and I believe that rerouting of trucks will help lower the asthma-related hospital visits for low-incomes 
39

families that reside in those areas. The diesel filters should be mandatory on all 

trucks. I believe my community will benefit greatly from the diesel filter. There 

should be an earmark to the amendment that, like tax breaks for people who 

comply with the filter, they should be guaranteed grants, like mom and pop truck 

companies. And there should be just an earmark that helps the economy as well. 

(KBAK) 

37. Comment: I'm here because there are truck routes close to my school and my 

community and, of course, my house. The asthma hospitalization rate for children 

in the zip code where I live is much higher than the rest for children in California in 

general. People in my community are affected by trucks diesel pollution, but they 

are not getting much of the economic benefit from the freight of those trucks 

coming through the neighborhoods. The people who make the most money from 

the trucks live someplace else. If the companies that make a lot of money from 

shipping and selling the products that come into the port of Oakland could pay a 

little bit of money for every container that comes to Port of Oakland, then that 

could help my community and they could clean up the diesel trucks. I know this is 

an idea that Board has heard before. I think this should recommended as an idea 

to the Governor and the Legislature. Also, I think it should be on the ballot for 

election of 2012. Suppose that for every container that comes through the Port of 

Oakland the shipping company paid something like $30, that money would be 

used to clean up the trucks. And this would really help my community because of 

less pollution and less asthma in my community. (MHS2) 

Agency Response: ARB does not have authority to affect traffic patterns or develop 

any tax-based programs to help reduce emissions. Any tax-based programs would 

have to be developed and approved by the Legislature and Governor. Regardless, 

several funding sources have already been allocated through proposition or by the 

Legislature to address emission impacts from diesel engines. Also, please see the

discussion of the benefits of the Truck and Bus regulation in the responses to the 

preceding comments 18 to 35 on the public health impacts of exposure to diesel 

exhaust. 

38. Comment: The Environmental Health Coalition in San Diego did sign onto the 

Environmental Coalition letter [or joint coalition letter] and we're in agreement with 

those recommendations. We're especially concerned about the on-road rule 

deadline roll-backs in our region. For one thing, it's not that clear to me that our 

communities have gotten any reprieve in particulate pollution due to the recession. 

Looking at levels of PM2.5 at the air monitor that's located in one of our 

environmental justice communities, Barrio Logan, we have not seen any 

consistent decreases between 2006 and 2009 in the annual average levels. So 

questioning whether that highly-impacted community is really getting a break from 

pollution during the last three years. That community has also been working hard 

to finalize a new land use community plan which would allow water-front industries 

and residential communities to exist side-by-side in order to keep those jobs and 

make sure that air quality has improved for those residents. We need to make 

sure that every truck going through that truck or traveling through or visiting the 
40

port is as clean as possible in its emissions. Looking further south, the cargo 

terminal in National City receives mostly car cargos, so the trucks visiting that 

terminal are car carriers, which are exempt from the drayage truck rule. The only 

relief that community will see from truck particulate matter is from the on-road rule. 

So again, we're looking to that rule to help air quality in that community. And then 

looking way down at the border area, the area of our region with the most 

consistently high particulate levels is the Otay Mesa area where the Mexico/U.S. 

border crossings are. And although those are ports of entry, they're not subject to 

the emission -- drayage truck rules. So we need the on-road rule to help that 

community. Finally, I want to remind you, you've gotten a letter from the Port of 

San Diego expressing level playing field concerns between the drayage truck rule 

and the on-road rule. (EHC)

Agency Response: Please see agency response to Comment 19. Regarding the 

commenter’s statement about Barrio Logan air quality, while we are not sure which air 

quality monitors the commenter is referring to, the closest San Diego Air Pollution 

Control District (SDAPCD) monitors to Barrio Logan are the Downtown and Chula Vista 

monitors. While we agree that there has not been a consistent decrease in PM2.5 

annual average concentrations at these two monitors from 2006 to 2009, there has 

been a steady decline in PM2.5 levels at these monitors and all other SDAPCD 

monitors since monitoring began in 1999. 

b) PM Emissions and Mortality

39. Comment: My trust in CARB's ability to objectively present the facts regarding 

PM2.5 is waning rapidly. Starting with cherry picking data to support loss of life 

due to PM2.5, it seems that upon being questioned about the data to support the 

mortality rate, the data changes. The answer depends on whether the subject is 

diesel PM2.5 or background PM2.5. CARB conveniently combines the data when 

it supports their desired end game. CARB has ignored studies that show PM2.5 

has no effects on premature deaths. So my suggestions:

(a) Hire a 3rd party scientific consultant with verifiable credentials to review all 

existing PM2.5 data (within CA and other states) and make 

conclusions/recommendations. This person should be vetted through the 

public arena to ensure true objectiveness and competency.

(b) Hire an economist similarly qualified as the 3rd party scientist above to 

give a true picture of the economic impact of PM2.5 regulations on the 

local/state economy should it be implemented.

(c) CARB should openly and honestly answer questions regarding this 

legislation that is presented in local newspapers. 

Currently the public's confidence in CARB's ability to objectively make decisions 

on its behalf regarding health issues is falling. (RTOM)

Agency Response: We do not agree that we have ―cherry picked the data‖ to support 

loss of life due to PM2.5 exposure. We have carefully reviewed all studies that have 
41

been performed in the United States on the relationship between long-term PM2.5 

exposure and mortality, as has the U.S. EPA in its recent review of the NAAQS for 

particulate matter. There are a few studies that do not find a relationship between longterm PM2.5 exposure and all-cause mortality, but the majority of studies do report a 

statistically significant relationship. In addition, U.S. EPA and we have also critically 

evaluated the methods used in each study so that we can place the most weight on the 

studies that have used the strongest methodologies. The effect estimate we have used 

from Krewski et al. (2009) comes from the largest and most rigorously and publically 

evaluated study in existence. The effect estimate for the relationship between long-term 

PM2.5 exposure and mortality from this study is being used by multiple agencies 

worldwide. The Krewski et al. (2009) estimate, though not the lowest in the literature, is 

toward the lower end of the range of results from American studies. 

All-cause mortality is not the most appropriate endpoint to consider, because it includes 

many causes of death that have no plausible relationship with PM2.5 exposure, for 

example deaths due to complications of surgery, appendicitis, and systemic infections. 

Inclusion of these non-plausible deaths in effect dilutes the relationship between PM2.5 

exposure and mortality. Moreover, the studies that have found no relationship between 

PM2.5 exposure and all-cause mortality have additional limitations that make it unlikely 

that they would be able to detect an effect. These limitations include the size of the 

study, particularly the number of communities included and the population distribution 

among those communities, population age, use of an indirect PM2.5 measurement 

method, and inadequate exposure assessment methodology. 

Mortality from cardiopulmonary causes is supported by a large body of biological 

evidence, which is reflected in its stronger relationship with long-term PM2.5 exposure 

compared to all-cause mortality. There are no studies that have reported no effect for 

cardiopulmonary mortality. When analyses are limited to categories of deaths for which 

there is biological support, the relationship between long-term PM2.5 exposure and 

mortality is stronger than for all-cause mortality. 

There are no established methods for routinely measuring DPM in ambient air. The 

ambient DPM concentration is estimated from an ambient air surrogate method 

developed using emission inventory data (and verified with ambient air monitoring 

results from research instruments), both for current conditions and with the regulation in 

place, to estimate the anticipated emissions reductions associated with the regulation. 

Due primarily to the lack of a routine monitoring method for DPM, there are no 

epidemiological studies that estimate population risk related to DPM emissions separate 

from other particle sources. DPM is less than 2.5 microns in diameter, and 

consequently falls into the PM2.5 size category. Because of the size fraction in which 

we find DPM, and also because the results of animal exposure studies suggest that 

DPM is at least as toxic as other species within PM2.5, we make estimates of the 

mortality impact of DPM using the relationship between long-term exposure to PM2.5 

and mortality.

Our conclusions about the relationship between long-term exposure to PM2.5 and 

mortality are in alignment with those of the U.S. EPA, the World Health Organization, 

Health Canada, and the British government. These conclusions have been publicly peer 
42

reviewed by multiple independent bodies worldwide. In addition, the methods used in 

ARB’s economic analyses are comparable to those used by U.S. EPA and other 

regulatory agencies world-wide, and have also been extensively reviewed by multiple 

independent review groups. Consequently, there is no need for the additional reviews 

suggested by the commenter.

It is unclear from the comment what questions that have appeared in the local 

newspaper the commenter would have us answer.

40. Comment: While voicing our support for staff recommendations, we still question 

the science behind the finding of diesel as a Toxic Air Contaminant and further 

question the inclusion of NOx in the calculations for the PM2.5 as a basis for 

suggesting that there is not more harm to health from the regulation than from 

doing nothing. Rather, we contend that the costs in real terms to the availability of 

choices that will result from the economic harm cause by this rule. Passage and 

implementation will directly impact and influence decisions made by the most 

vulnerable members of our community resulting in greater harm than the pursuit of 

a standard for which there is so little epidemiological support. 

Specific to PM2.5, we have particular concern over the lack of transparency in the 

2.5 assessment; the combination of diesel PM and background PM and the 

apparent cherry picking of data to support loss of life due to PM2.5, CARB has 

ignored studies that show PM2.5 has no effects on premature deaths. To address 

this, we suggest a 3rd party engineering firm be vetted and hired to perform the 

subject assessment and further, that the report be subjected to rigorous peer 

review prior to acceptance, and lastly, that stakeholders are informed and allowed 

to provide input at critical junctures (i.e. selection, vetting and acceptance of peer 

review methodologies). (WEAT1) 

Agency Response: First, the commenter questions the finding of diesel particulate 

matter (DPM) as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). In 1983, the California Legislature 

established a process for risk identification and risk management to address the 

potential health effects from air toxic substances and to protect the health of 

Californians. TAC identification is done through a public process outlined in State law 

that solicits public comments at several points, and includes public workshops with 

interested constituents. Application of this process requires staff from ARB and the 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to draft a report that 

serves as the basis for the TAC determination. ARB staff assesses exposure to the 

substance under consideration, and OEHHA staff evaluates the substance’s health 

effects. After the required public comment periods and workshops, the report is 

reviewed by the independent Scientific Review Panel (SRP) for scientific accuracy. SRP 

members are appointed by the Governor’s office. If the SRP approves the report, its 

specific scientific findings are officially submitted to ARB, and are considered by the 

Board at a public hearing, followed by a vote by the Board on whether or not to identify 

the substance as a TAC. While we regret that the commenter does not agree with the 

listing of DPM as a TAC, the required process was followed in listing DPM as a TAC. 
43

The second part of this comment concerns the relationship between NOX and PM2.5. 

Diesel engines produce particulate matter through two processes: directly through the 

combustion process, and secondarily through atmospheric transformation of NOX 

emissions. This secondary contribution is due to chemical reactions that occur in the 

atmosphere, which convert NOX from the gas phase into particles. Estimation of the total 

PM2.5 emissions attributable to diesel engines requires consideration of both primary 

and secondary PM2.5 contributions.

ARB recognizes that the regulations under discussion will result in costs to truck and 

bus owners, and that the costs of the control strategies included in the regulation are 

readily apparent. The ARB must balance the cost of regulations against the adverse 

health impacts associated with elevated PM2.5 levels. For example, the scientific 

literature indicates that there is a greater incidence of adverse health effects in areas 

with higher vs. lower PM2.5 concentrations. These health effects include mortality, 

hospitalizations, and emergency room visits, among others. Each excess incidence of 

these health effects imposes a cost either to individual health insurance, to the public 

which pays for healthcare for people without insurance, or to income. Air pollution also 

reduces agricultural productivity, and thus increases the cost of food. PM2.5 influences 

visibility, and reduced visibility tends to reduce tourism to scenic locations, thereby 

reducing employment in and enjoyment of these locations. In short, air pollution has 

many more adverse effects than are generally appreciated. 

The second paragraph of this comment covers much the same material as 

Comment 39. The reader is referred to the Agency response to Comment 39 for our 

response to this paragraph of the comment.

41. Comment: Hien Tran was the lead scientist on the study of ―Premature Mortalities 

from the exposure of PM2.5‖, which is the basis for the PM2.5 regulations. He 

claimed to have a PhD from UC Davis, when in fact, he had a mail-order, 

fraudulent PhD from a fake university that lists a UPS store as its address. We 

demand that CARB suspend the implementation and rule-making processes of all 

PM2.5 regulations until a new study can be completed, peer-reviewed, and is 

made available for public comment. 

Furthermore, there is discussion within the scientific community regarding whether 

or not diesel is the largest emitter of PM2.5. Frederick W. Lipfert, in the 

Symposium on PM2.5 and Mortality presented on the 26th of February 2010 that 

no single source emits PM2.5, but rather PM2.5 particles come from many 

sources, which cannot be identified directly. In the same presentation, Lipfert also 

held the conclusion that national studies cannot be applied to California where 

pollutants and populations differ from states in the nation. CARB does not have 

accurate data regarding how much PM2.5 is emitted in California. CARB does not 

have any conclusive study linking health risks to exposure of PM2.5. CARB does 

not have any conclusive study that suggests diesel emissions are responsible for 

the majority of PM2.5 pollution. CARB has misused public money during the 

course of its writing and implementation of diesel PM2.5 regulations through 

fraudulent actions of its employees and possibly some board members. CARB has 
44

misused tax-payer money by creating regulations before it has obtained accurate 

data. (JYOUNG)

Agency Response: ARB adopted the Truck and Bus Rule, in part, to meet California’s 

legal obligations under federal law to achieve attainment with the NAAQS for PM2.5 by 

2014. The emission reductions in the rule are critical to attaining federally mandated air 

quality standards. Primary diesel PM emissions are a significant contributor to overall 

PM2.5. In 2008, 20,600 tons of diesel PM were emitted in California. The amended 

regulation has been approved to accommodate the economic hardship of affected small 

businesses while still meeting the legal requirements and protecting the public health of 

all Californians. 

ARB develops PM2.5 emissions inventories which cover all of the sources of PM2.5 

emissions in California, whether generated from combustion of diesel and gasoline fuels 

or from other types of dust and particulate sources. These sources range from 

stationary sources like power plants and refineries; to mobile sources including cars, 

trucks, and off-road equipment; and to other sources like road dusts and wildfires. 

These inventories are developed using California-specific data reported directly by 

regulated facilities, obtained by research and testing programs, and developed using 

comprehensive emissions inventory methods like those used in the Statewide Truck 

and Bus Rule. The inventories are based on decades of research, reporting, and 

experience. In addition, the ARB and local districts maintain a comprehensive 

monitoring network consisting of more than 250 air monitoring stations in California. 

Data from this monitoring network is routinely used by ARB staff and others to help 

assure the quality of the PM2.5 emissions inventories. In general there is good 

agreement between PM2.5 observed in the ambient monitoring network, and in PM2.5 

emissions estimates. Decreases in measured PM2.5 levels in the atmosphere track 

well with decreases in estimated PM2.5 emissions over the years, providing further 

validation of the emissions inventory

Please see the responses to comments 39, 40 and 59 for information on the scientific 

evidence that supports relationships between PM2.5 and diesel emissions exposures 

and premature mortality. 

Regarding Mr. Tran, because he falsified his credentials he has been demoted, 

disciplined, and removed from all regulatory support work. The Board also directed staff 

to withdraw the original PM health report and prepare a new version, without input from 

Mr. Tran, which was completed in August, 2010. The report can be found at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/pm-mort/pm-report_2010.pdf. 

The new PM health report updates ARB methods for quantifying premature death 

associated with long-term public exposure to PM2.5 air pollution. The method relies on 

a peer-reviewed risk assessment document developed by U.S. EPA as part of its 

current review of the NAAQS for PM2.5. The federal Clean Air Act gives the U.S. EPA 

the responsibility to research and assess the health impacts of air pollution at the 

national level. California law gives the ARB similar responsibilities as part of the state’s 

comprehensive program to reduce air pollution. The national studies reviewed by the 

U.S. EPA for the NAAQS assessment apply to California as well. In fact, as part of the 

federal standards review process, U.S. EPA estimated the premature deaths associated 
45

with PM2.5 in two California cities – Los Angeles and Fresno. The new report expands 

on that work by estimating mortality impacts of PM2.5 air pollution statewide.

42. Comment: The original report upon which you base your proposed regulations 

was later exposed to be written by a total fraud who received his PhD by mail 

order. Isn't that enough reason to completely throw out his recommendations? 

(PPIN)

43. Comment: You are working off of information provided by a bogus "expert." 

Please just stop. You are killing California. (GPAY)

44. Comment: CARB’s regulations which have so devastated the trucking industry 

were based on a discredited report by a ―Dr.‖ Hien Tran, a CARB researcher who 

mail ordered his PhD from a phony university. However, even when it was 

discovered that Hien Tran had falsified his qualifications, CARB refused to fire him 

and stood by his study – a study that now even CARB itself admits overestimated 

pollution by more than 300%. (VCOOT)

45. Comment: Based on the improperly done study by Dr. Tran, I believe it is truly in 

your best interest to back off the restrictions until a new study can be conducted 

and affirmed by a separate (non CARB) affiliated source. (BHULZ)

46. Comment: I do not understand how a government for the people could impose job 

killing regulations on their own public based on phony statistics by a phony 

scientist. This agency is part of what has made California a laughing stock to the 

rest of the States. (JHOL)

47. Comment: I am writing in regards to the (now widely known) fraudulent study on

diesel emissions. How can a government agency act so irresponsibly? You can't 

enact regulations that will potentially destroy the entire economy of California, 

based on junk science. The only chance you have to regain credibility with the 

public is to admit your mistakes, and retract these ridiculous studies. (EBARBO)

48. Comment: While we all want clean air, destroying our already unsound economy 

based upon faulty data is ludicrous. Basing decisions upon the rantings of 

"Dr." Hien Tran who mail ordered his PhD and overestimated pollution by 300% is 

so absurd that even the far-left San Francisco Chronicle disagrees. Please stop 

this madness and give California a chance to once again be the economic land of 

golden opportunity it once was before it's too late. (DVON) 

49. Comment: The new regulations are based on bogus information. (SCHAT)

50. Comment: These new regulations are based on phony research by phony Hien 

Tran, and you all know it. (HNAP)

51. Comment: Aside from the very serious impact diesel regulations will have on our 

jobs and economy, they are based on a study by a researcher who both falsified 

his credentials and overestimated pollution by up to 300%. This is not a sound 

basis for policies which harm the livelihoods of California citizens. (COEU)
46

52. Comment: Your studies appear to be flawed. Please do not pass any new laws. 

(AKELL)

53. Comment: I understand that you are basing your actions on fraudulent data from 

a bogus researcher who purchased a false degree documenting him as a PHD. 

(SFIN)

54. Comment: I can't believe you guys are going to help further destroy the state’s 

economy by giving credence to a bogus "study" by a fake PhD. (SSTAL) 

Agency Response: Please see the response to Comment 41

55. Comment: Where is that pesky Tran report that was supposed to be done on 

California specific environment, not national? (DCC2)

Agency Response: The report that the commenter is referring to was released in 

August of 2010. It can be found at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/pm-mort/pmreport_2010.pdf. 

56. Comment: I attended a CARB talk given where we were told we are living in a 

pollution hot spot. And I quote; we are living in a "pollution hot spot, one of the 

worst in the U.S." We got a real guilt trip on that one laid on us. I'm not alone in my 

concern about this intimidation. I belong to a group of like-minded experts and 

scientists in the Nor Cal Tea Party where our purpose is to explore untruthful 

statements. I'm afraid that the gross costly error committed by the MTBE, well 

water contamination that went on for years and years, and the fraudulent PM2.5 

report resulting in millions of dollars of fines will be repeated today. Because of 

this, businesses will close. By the way, these fines that were imposed on these 

eleven companies back in March have not been returned, over millions of dollars. 

As a California resident, the senior resident by the way, forever 50 years, I have 

seen the lifestyle enjoyment disappear completely. Please consider the decisions 

you make today carefully. (NCTP)

Agency Response: Please see response to Comment 41 regarding "fraudulent PM2.5 

report." We cannot respond to the "living in a pollution hot spot" reference because we 

do not know where or when this occurred or the context in which it was presented. We 

also cannot respond to the comment regarding fines to eleven companies without more 

specific detail about the fines. 

57. Comment: The last time I was up here in 2008, there were staff members and 

Board members that knew that that researcher you had didn't have any certificates 

like he said he did. And you guys held it back from the rest of your Board 

members. And you did not let them know. In my opinion, that's corruption, because 

you, as Board members, are supposed to take care of the people of the state of 

California to do the best for the state of California for the population of the state of 

California, not to do your own agendas. And this Board has costs millions --

actually billions of dollars of companies that have already retrofitted, updated for 

garbage information that you guys took into consideration knowing that you have 

professors from UCLA and other universities saying that the information you guys 
47

have are incorrect. And you guys do not look at that. To me, that's corruption. 

(TLT) 

58. Comment: There is ample evidence in the record for you, as Board members, to 

question the public health benefit of this program. And that's been entered several 

times over the last year-and-a-half. There was a question of whether there is a 

correlation between fine particulates and adverse health benefits when you use 

California-only data. We believe that, with all this new information, the right thing to 

do is to step back from the regulation and make sure you have the best 

information available. We urge you to take that step. (CIOMA)

Agency Response: Please see the responses to Comments 41 and 59. 

59. Comment: The attached table7on the relationship between PM2.5 and total 

mortality in California is directly related to the calculation of premature deaths 

associated with diesel particulate matter in California. These premature deaths 

provide the primary public health justification for the CARB on-road and off-road 

diesel regulations. (ENSTR) 

 

7

The table was submitted as an attachment to the commenter’s letter that was submitted 

during the 45 day comment period. It is identified as Comment 146 of the 45-day written 

comments posted to the comments log for this rulemaking at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=on-offroad10. 
48

Agency Response: ARB adopted the Truck and Bus Rule, in part, to meet California’s 

legal obligations under federal law to achieve attainment with the NAAQS for PM2.5 by 

2024. The emission reductions in the rule are critical to attaining federally mandated air 

quality standards. The present amendments to the Truck and Bus Rule have been 

adopted to accommodate the economic hardship of affected businesses while still 

meeting the legal requirements and protecting the public health of all Californians. 

The federal Clean Air Act requires U.S. EPA to promulgate NAAQS for six criteria 

pollutants, including particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5), which are based solely 

on public health considerations. The Clean Air Act also requires that all states meet the 

federally established NAAQS by designated target dates. 

The California Legislature assigned ARB the State’s responsibilities under the federal 

Clean Air Act. These federally mandated responsibilities include development of plans 

and regulations that will bring California into compliance with the health-based NAAQS 

by the required target date. Much of California does not currently meet the NAAQS for 

PM2.5. Because of this, ARB is required under federal law to develop regulations to 
49

reduce statewide emissions of PM2.5 to the extent necessary to achieve attainment of 

the PM2.5 NAAQS in all parts of the State. The particulate matter that is emitted by 

diesel engines is in the PM2.5 fraction of particulate matter, and reductions in DPM 

emissions are necessary for the state to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS, in addition to 

reductions in emissions of PM2.5 from other sources. 

The goal of regulations is to protect public health by reducing emissions to the extent 

necessary to attain the health-based NAAQS. In adopting such regulations in 

California, the Board must find that the regulations are necessary, technologically 

feasible, and cost effective.

Mortality and other health endpoint count estimates come into the regulatory process 

only at the point of estimating the costs vs. the benefits of a regulation. We have chosen 

to use the same concentration-response function from the same study that U.S. EPA 

used to estimate the relationship between long-term exposure to PM2.5 and mortality 

(Krewski et al. 2009). Use of the same study as used by U.S. EPA puts cost-benefits 

analyses of California’s regulations on a level scale with those of other states, and the 

federal government. The sole point at which the concentration-response function 

selected enters into the regulatory process is for the cost-benefit analysis. 

Specifically, we used the estimates in Krewski et al. (2009) from Table 33, which were 

adjusted for 44 individual level covariates, and for seven ecological factors. These 

estimates are the most appropriately modeled of those presented to take into account 

both individual and ecological confounders. We recognize that the estimated number of 

deaths depends on the effect estimate used. As will be seen from the following 

discussion, the estimate we have chosen is conservative, and we believe that it is the 

most defensible estimate available.

The table submitted by the commenter shows a selection of alternative effect estimates 

for the relationship between long-term exposure to PM2.5 and mortality that he 

proposes ARB use in benefits analyses instead of Krewski et al. (2009). There are 

strong technical reasons for not selecting any of the alternatives proposed by the 

commenter. A key consideration in making estimates of premature mortality is to 

recognize who the at-risk population is. Collectively, the health science literature on 

PM2.5 indicates that the population most at risk of premature death with exposure to 

PM2.5 has chronic heart or lung disease and is between about 55 and 75 years of age. 

Starting at the top of the table, the McDonnell et al. (2000) study has a small number of 

subjects, many of whom were not old enough to be in the at-risk population. PM2.5 

exposure was estimated based on airport visibility, not measured, and some of the 

participants lived as much as 35 miles from the airport used to estimate their exposure, 

both of which would introduce considerable exposure misclassification. Subjects were 

stratified into three groups: over and under 65 years of age, and over 85 years of age. 

Preliminary analyses indicated that the hazard functions were not the same for the three 

groups. Ultimately, the over 85 years of age group was not included in the analysis 

because the coefficients for the model variables for this age group were dissimilar from 

those of the other two groups, and the number of subjects in this age group was small. 

The two exposure misclassification issues, coupled with the small number of subjects 

and deaths, led to effect estimates with very large confidence intervals. In short, the 
50

study has insufficient statistical power to demonstrate whether or not there is a 

significant effect of long-term PM2.5 exposure on mortality.

Table entries two and seven are analyses of the four and seven metropolitan statistical 

areas where the California portion of the ACS study reside. The data are derived from 

Krewski et al. (2000) and Krewski et al. (2009). These analyses have too few data 

points (four and seven, respectively), and thus insufficient statistical power, to allow 

meaningful conclusions. It should be noted that these results are not published, and Dr.

Krewski and the Health Effects Institute released them only reluctantly, and neither is 

willing to stand behind them. 

The study by Enstrom (2005) also has a relatively small number of data points (11), and 

much of the population is beyond the at-risk age group. It does not make sense to talk 

about premature death in people who are over 75 years of age (the few currently 

surviving members of the cohort are in their 90’s). Enstrom (2005) also reported that 

when the subjects were split into two groups based on whether they were above or 

below 65 years of age in 1973, the beginning of the follow-up period, there was a 

statistically significant effect in the younger group throughout the full exposure period 

that was of similar magnitude to that reported by Krewski et al. (2000, 2009) for people 

of similar age, but no effect in the older group. This result is in agreement with other 

literature that has investigated the influence of age on risk of PM2.5-related mortality. 

The regional analysis in Zeger et al. (2008) is difficult to interpret. The highest effect 

was observed in the central U.S., which also had the lowest PM2.5 levels. In addition, 

the statistical power of the western analysis was considerably less than that for the east. 

Moreover, the considerably larger counties in the west probably lead to greater 

exposure misclassification in the west, in that the investigators used only one monitor 

per county, regardless of its geographical size. Zeger et al. (2008) also found that the 

influence of PM2.5 exposure on mortality was greatest in people between 65 and 75 

years of age, less in people between 75 and 85 years of age, and not detectable in 

people over 85 years of age. 

The Jerrett (2010) analysis referred to was a preliminary analysis presented at a

symposium. The study had not been completed at the time of the symposium. While 

the final report did not find a significant risk for all-cause mortality, there was a risk for 

cardiopulmonary mortality that was similar to that reported for the U.S. by Krewski et al. 

(2009). The study has not yet been published.

The estimate presented for Ostro et al. (2010) is incorrect. The authors determined that 

there was a calculation error in the results published, and they have issued errata for 

this paper. The correct risk estimate is 1.05 (95% CI: 0.96 – 1.16), which although not 

statistically significant is similar to that of Krewski et al. (2009).

The effect estimates in the commenter’s table from the Krewski et al. (2009) study are 

from table 33, as is the estimate we are using, but they have not been adjusted for 

ecological confounders, and are thus not the most appropriate to select. The 

commenter cites incorrect years for both RR estimates presented. The correct years 

are 1979-1983 for the 1.028 estimate, and 1999-2000 for the 1.036 estimate
51

In summary, the commenter presents a table of effect estimates from studies that either 

have insufficient statistical power to show whether or not there is an effect, that are not 

peer reviewed and published, or that are based on populations in which one would not 

expect to see an effect due to subject age. In addition, the table omits more studies than 

it includes. The table omits the majority of published, peer reviewed studies that have 

been performed in the U.S. Virtually all of the omitted studies report a statistically 

significant association between long-term exposure to PM2.5 and all-cause mortality, 

often larger than the ~5% effect estimate we have applied in our cost-benefit analyses. 

While the commenter’s table focuses on the lowest estimates available (published or 

not), the ones left off of the table range up to several times the estimate we have used. 

3. Inventory

a) Emissions Inventory Methodology - General

60. Comment: We believe the changes to the inventory are reasonable and 

directionally correct, given the available data we have today. However, we need 

to be cautious since these inventories are being used to propose regulatory relief. 

And when we are asked to look at the proposals, we need to look at if the 

inventories are technically sound. [These comments summarize an overhead 

presentation that is not reproduced here. The presentation was submitted during 

the 45 day comment period as part of a comment letter identified as Comment 2 of 

the comments presented during the November 18, 2010 Board Hearing and 

posted to the comments log for this rulemaking at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=on-offroad10]. 

What we've done is take a look at some of the parameters that went into it and the 

uncertainty balance associated with the parameters that staff provided in the staff 

report. So we looked at the range of uncertainties that are associated with each of 

these parameters. What we found is that doing some of these sensitivity tests and 

stress testing that the inventory potentially could be as much as 20 to 30 percent 

higher, especially on the off-road side. We believe the on-road emissions inventory 

are very reasonable given the amount of data -- much more data that's available 

on the on-road side compared to the off-road side. What the implications of this 

would be in terms of the margin that Todd mentioned, the 62 tons per day margin 

in the South Coast, (this is Table 37 from Appendix G of the on-road regulation 

ISOR). And what we've done is increased the off-road emissions by 20 percent 

and most of the numbers that you see in red on the far right column. When you 

add up those numbers, and with the proposed amendments that you'll be 

considering in December, there really is no margin left. And so we have to be 

cautious on the inventory numbers. We know that staff has done their best at the 

estimates at this time. But we need more adequate review of the inventory, more 

long-term review of the data, especially when we started using this data for the 

next Air Quality Management Plan update. We believe that staff should be 

encouraged to conduct additional analysis of the parameters just to ensure that 

you know the implications of the inventory relative to the proposed amendments. 

Even though the reductions are not meeting 2015, we believe they will be met 
52

after 2015. And given these uncertainties and these estimates, we believe we still 

have to clean up vehicles as early as possible and incentivize that. (SCAQMD2) 

(SCAQMD4) 

61. Comment: I have two requests of the Board. One is that as you prepare your 

budget for the upcoming year -- and I know this is a tough budget time for the 

entire state and all of us even at the regional levels -- that there be additional 

resources put to this issue of emissions inventory, because this is so fundamental 

to our ability to demonstrate attainment for the particulate standards as well as the 

ozone standards. And the decision you'll have in December naturally isn't just 

about 2015, which is the annual average PM2.5 standard for South Coast and San 

Joaquin, but also in 2019 when we address the 24-hour standard. And we haven't 

prepared the plan for that. So inventory numbers are always a snapshot in time, 

but historically we've seen them bounce around. Your staff has done leading work 

in this area, but it's important now that the ambient air quality standards are being 

tightened that we put more resources to this. And not just your staff, but we will 

commit to do so at South Coast as well. My second request is in reference to a 

comment or a notation that the Chair made at the outset about the fact the State 

has received notification from EPA on our PM2.5 plans in South Coast and San 

Joaquin that they are proposing partial disapproval. I would recommend -- and I 

mentioned this to James earlier today -- that before you act on these two critical 

regulations in December, because of the changes in the inventory that we seek to 

have a conversation between CARB, EPA, and the two associated air districts to 

make sure they're going to be okay with these inventory changes. As you heard in 

your staff presentation, there are departures from the standard EPA methodology.

We're agreeing with your staff that these are improvements. But if the three of us 

agree – San Joaquin, South Coast, and CARB, but we don't have EPA's approval, 

we've got big problems. So we would just request your consideration of these two 

actions. I think this is maybe something we need to talk about, because if these 

are new inventories just being completed now, I'm not quite sure how EPA has 

approved them. (SCAQMD5)

62. Comment: We acknowledge that emission inventories are always a work in 

progress, and we understand that the inventory and emission reductions estimates 

being proposed today are based on the best available information. In light of this, 

we encourage the tracking of future emissions to ensure that the emission rates in 

today's proposal continue as expected since these reductions are an important 

component in the attainment of the PM2.5 and ozone standard in the San Joaquin 

Valley and South Coast. Thank you again for this opportunity to support the 

adoption these important rules. We share ARB's goal to protect public health and 

recognize ARB's national leadership in reducing emissions from mobiles 

sources.(USEPA)

63. Comment: We are extremely concerned with the fact that there is zero margin for 

compliance in San Joaquin Valley and very little margin of compliance in South 

Coast. What gives us some comfort to move forward today is the fact that we've 

looked at the work that your staff has done on the inventory, we scrutinize it with 

EPA, with South Coast, and our district, and we're comfortable that today's 
53

inventory before you and the projected emissions reflect a major improvement in 

inventory and the assumptions methodology is reasonable. But as you know, 

inventories are always a living document, a work in progress that will improve over 

time and. If there is the shortfall, our concern is that given that more than 80 

percent of air pollution in San Joaquin Valley and South Coast come from mobile 

sources and our stationary sources are already well regulated, it is impossible for 

us to make any shortfall, should there be any. So we want you to reaffirm your 

commitment that your Board will be responsible for that shortfall and we want 

regular and ongoing monitoring and tracking. (SJV/SC2)

Agency Response: Staff designed proposed regulatory amendments across both the 

Statewide Truck and Bus and In-Use Off-Road Rules to provide the maximum amount 

of regulatory relief possible while still preserving as much of the originally envisioned 

benefits as possible. We developed the Truck and Bus regulation emissions inventory 

through a public process that was initiated in 2007 and continued with public meetings 

in 2008, 2009, and 2010. The emissions inventory model and documentation of all 

assumptions in the model is available on our web site. We believe there was adequate 

opportunity for review of inventory assumptions. The Truck and Bus rulemaking 

documentation for the 2010 rulemaking is available at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/ab1085compliance.htm.

The emissions inventory for the Off-Road regulation was developed and updated in a 

similar fashion. We presented both the Statewide Truck and Bus and In-Use Off-Road 

rule inventories at the November 2010 Board Hearing. The inventories account for the

impact of recession and represent all the most accurate and current data available to 

the Air Resources Board. We spent so much time on these emissions inventories, and 

especially on our assessment of the impact of the recession on emissions because of 

the very important role the inventory played in determining how much relief could be 

provided in the regulation while ensuring SIP commitments would be met. 

In April 2011 staff presented our accounting of the impact of the recession, revised 

future emissions, and benefits of SIP measures related to SIP commitments. Our 

analysis demonstrated that both the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley are on track 

to achieve the PM2.5 standard in 2014. Since May 2011 staff has been in contact with 

both air districts and the US EPA on our accounting. As required by the Clean Air Act, 

the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 SIPs show how California plans to 

attain the annual PM2.5 standard by the 2014 deadline, with specific emissions targets 

for each region. With three years remaining until the attainment deadline, California is 

meeting the commitments identified in the PM2.5 SIPs, and air quality continues to 

improve. The targeted revisions to the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 

SIPs should provide what U.S. EPA needs to fully approve the PM2.5 plans for the 

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley.

In April 2011 staff presented our accounting of the impact of the recession, revised 

future emissions, and benefits of SIP measures related to SIP commitments. Our 

analysis demonstrated that both the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley are on track 

to achieve the PM2.5 standard in 2014. Since May staff has been in contact with both 

air districts and the US EPA on our accounting. As required by the Clean Air Act, the 
54

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 SIPs show how California plans to attain 

the annual PM2.5 standard by the 2014 deadline, with specific emissions targets for 

each region. With three years remaining until the attainment deadline, California is 

meeting the commitments identified in the PM2.5 SIPs, and air quality continues to 

improve. The targeted revisions to the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 

SIPs should provide what U.S. EPA needs to fully approve the PM2.5 plans for the 

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley. 

Since the Board Hearing, staff has continued to evaluate new information about 

economic trends to see how those trends would impact forecasted emissions. To date 

updated economic data support the emissions forecasting assumptions developed for 

the Truck and Bus rule and the Off-Road rule. As the economy continues to recover, 

ARB will continue to track emission trends to ensure the 2014 emission targets are met. 

If future emissions were to exceed the SIP target, ARB would still have the overall 

obligation that the emissions targets specified in the SIP will be met. ARB 

Resolution10-44 directs the Executive Officer to monitor the state’s progress toward 

meeting its emissions reduction commitment and to provide an update to the Board in 

2012. ARB will identify any potential emission reduction shortfall and take action, if 

necessary. 

64. Comment: The American Lung Association has been very committed to the goal 

of reducing diesel pollution and diesel public health impacts in California. We first 

want to thank you for your hard work over the years to addressing the health 

impacts of diesel pollution and important regulations that you've adopted. We 

applaud you for that. And we have worked hard alongside you to support the onroad rules and keep it moving forward to addressing the dangerous impacts of 

diesel emissions. As you're looking for this inventory data today, I want to say, first 

of all, that we appreciate the work that you've done to review and update the 

diesel inventory and we support this work. But given the huge implications of the 

changes in the inventory, we also want to make sure that this data is as accurate 

as possible. And we do hope that as you are looking at how you're moving forward 

that you will continue to look at this data on the fuel use factors, the hours of use, 

and these estimates, and make sure these estimates are matched by the actual 

experience in California and make sure that we're not underestimating inventory. 

We are concerned and we don't want to swing in the opposite direction. We want 

to be accurate of course and not underestimate as you move forward to update 

the regulations. (ALAC2) 

Agency Response: As described in response to Comment 63 we developed the 

emissions inventory in a multiple year public process where we evaluated all of the data 

available to us in order to develop sound assumptions on which the emissions inventory 

is based. We will also be continuing to evaluate new information as it comes in to 

determine how our emissions forecasts will compare with actual emissions in the future. 

In developing regulatory amendments we tried to ensure that we continue to meet SIP 

obligations while providing more time for fleets to comply in light of the recession. While 

the amended rule does delay compliance requirements for some trucks, we expect that 
55

by 2014 more than 85% of all truck miles driven in California will be with engines 

equipped with a PM filter. 

65. Comment: We appreciate the responsiveness of the staff to the new emissions 

data and the extensive efforts to make the necessary inventory adjustments in the 

short time frame. However, we are concerned the sudden drop in diesel emissions 

gives a false sense that we can back off reduction commitment in the SIP. The 

latest round of amendments to the diesel rules for trucks, buses, and off-road 

equipment goes much too far in dialing back the health protective requirements of 

the original measures. The proposals utilize the full margin created by the 

inventory adjustment, making SIP compliance somewhat uncertain. Of most 

concern is that our lungs do not benefit from inventory adjustments. While the 

diesel emissions inventory may now be much smaller due mainly to technical 

accounting changes, that doesn't change the fact that communities throughout the 

state suffer from the ills of diesel pollution from trucks and heavy equipment. We 

urge you to use the newly created margin of emissions cautiously. Please 

preserve more of the health protection of your regional diesel rules. (NRDC3) 

66. Comment: The changes in the emission inventory are quite dramatic from our 

perspective and we were certainly quite surprised by the changes. Clearly, the 

success of these lifesaving regulations is largely hinged on this emissions 

inventory particularly because I know this Board is so very mindful of its SIP 

commitments and our federal clean air commitment. So in that regard, we do 

applaud your efforts to ensure that. But we also second the comments about 

ensuring that we're erring on the side of caution so we are protecting the lives and 

that we're meeting our SIP commitments and not find ourselves short and not be 

able to get past that goal line. We are also concerned that -- or actually would like 

to have better understanding to what extent ARB sees the need to do air quality 

modeling now that the emission inventories for off-road has changed since a lot of 

the modeling was done prior to the inventory changes. We want to ensure the real 

experience that's happening in California this -- isn't just an accounting situation 

but really about trying to improve the air quality in our communities. And I also just 

want to second the comments about working with EPA to ensure that we have 

accurate inventories and in fact they are going to be -- again, be mindful of our 

federal SIP commitments, wanting to ensure it is something we can submit. We 

don't want to be at a place either through the mid-course review or particularly 

when 2014 comes that we are falling short because the emissions inventory is not 

acceptable to EPA. (CCAIR3)

Agency Response: In designing the regulatory amendments, staff was very careful to 

provide regulatory relief while ensuring that our overall SIP commitment was met. Our 

analysis clearly demonstrated that emissions from trucks, buses, and construction 

equipment were much lower by the end of 2010 than previously anticipated in the SIP. 

Our forecasts strongly suggested that emissions would also be lower in 2014 under the 

originally adopted regulation. The regulatory amendments ensured that the revised 

regulation will generate sufficient emissions reductions to meet federal SIP 
56

commitments while providing the regulatory relief necessary to ensure that fleets could 

comply with the regulation. 

The most significant change in emissions from trucks, buses, and off-road equipment 

was the impact of the recession. An emissions accounting that incorporates the 

impacts of the recession, future emission changes, and the benefits of the new SIP 

measures is the appropriate approach to assess the adequacy of the PM2.5 SIPs now 

close to final implementation. This accounting was performed as part of the PM2.5 SIP 

revision submitted to U.S. EPA in May 2011 for the South Coast and San Joaquin 

Valley air basins. As a result of this accounting, ARB found that these air basins remain 

on target to achieve the PM2.5 standard in 2014. ARB resolution 10-44 directs the 

Executive Officer to monitor the state’s progress toward meeting its emissions reduction 

commitment and to provide an update to the Board in 2012. ARB will identify any 

potential emission reduction shortfall and take action, if necessary.

There has been no significant change to the fundamental science and air quality 

modeling used to set the 2014 emission targets in the South Coast and San Joaquin 

Valley. The new emissions inventory data primarily impact current emissions and 

estimates of future emissions as the economy recovers and do not substantially change 

the total regional emissions in the base years. The recession does not impact the SIP 

base year modeling since both regions used base years prior to the recession. Small 

changes in the base year emissions due to methodology improvements would not 

substantially change the fundamental relationship between emissions and air quality in 

the base year modeling. Therefore, the air quality modeling and the 2014 emission 

targets are still sound.

67. Comment: We still think you guys are overestimating the construction industry's 

emissions impacts. And we think that's the case for several reasons, one of which 

is -- and you found it out in the off-road rule. When you got real data, the numbers 

changed dramatically. You still don't have real data on the truck rule. And you 

could get it. You're building in a little time to do some things like actually acquire 

real data from DMV. If they currently don't have a check box for vocational trucks, 

for example, or mileage, I'm sure they could be induced to provide you with that 

information either as an agreement between agencies or we can go to the 

Legislature and ask for it. And real data would satisfy us and I think you and our 

friends at the environmental community instead of estimates and models. 

(SCCA2) 

68. Comment: As I am sure your staff will tell you, nobody actually knows how many 

trucks traveling California roads actually belong to the construction industry. We 

have seen staff estimates that the number may be as high as 20 percent of instate trucks, but we believe that to be a substantial over-estimate. What we can 

tell you is, that regardless of the estimate, the emissions from the construction 

industry are way, way down from what they were estimated to be when this rule 

was originally drafted and they are going to stay that way for a very, very long 

time. (SCCA3)
57

Agency Response: As described in response to Comment 63 we developed the Truck 

and Bus emissions inventory in a multiple year public process where we evaluated all of 

the data available to us in order to develop sound assumptions on which the emissions 

inventory is based. The inventory is based upon population data from the Department 

of Motor Vehicles, travel miles data from the U.S. Census Bureau, emission factors from 

testing programs, economic trend and forecast information, academic studies and other 

sources. All of these sources are described in the Technical Appendix to the emissions 

inventory; all of our assumptions are fully documented, and our emissions inventory 

models are available to the public. 

Our emissions inventory can be used to estimate historical on-road diesel fuel sales in 

California. As can be seen in Figure 1, our results compare within a few percent to 

actual historical on-road diesel sales in California. This suggests our emissions 

inventory is accurate with regard to overall truck and bus activity in California. 

Figure 1. ARB Diesel Fuel Usage Estimates vs. On-Road Diesel Fuel Sales in 

California from the State Board of Equalization

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Billion Gallons Diesel Fuel per Year

BOE On-Road Taxable Fuel ARB Estimates - All On-Road Diesel

69. Comment: We insist that you, Board Members, and staff personally read and 

understand Sierra Research’s November 15, 2010 report Review of CARB OnRoad Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Inventory. As you will note, the report 

concludes that CARB grossly overestimated emissions by about 40% as well as 
58

notes that a number of CARB’s assumptions and data are either questionable or 

not publicly available. Blindly ignoring such independent findings would be 

deplorable given the massive financial implications and job losses the Truck and 

Bus Rule has inflicted, and will continue to inflict, upon our state’s businesses and 

citizens. Once again, we urge you to delay the Truck and Bus Rule until 

California’s economy fully recovers, or provide further concessions to unjustly 

impacted industries, such as the dump truck industry. (CDTOA1)

70. Comment: It is absolutely vital that ARB staff thoroughly evaluate the 

November 15, 2010 report ―Review of CARB On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel 

Emissions Inventory‖ prepared by Sierra Research as accurate information is 

critical when considering a rule with such expansive consequences." (CTTA).

71. Comment: At the request of a group of Diesel truck owners and organizations 

representing a variety of commercial interests known as the Ad Hoc Working 

Group, Sierra Research attempted to perform an independent review of the 

current CARB on-road heavy-duty Diesel vehicle inventory. That review was 

unfortunately restricted by the fact that little documentation is currently available 

regarding the current CARB inventory and that data from key sources used by 

CARB are not publicly available. Also not publicly available at the time of this 

writing is a complete and functioning version of the CARB inventory model. 

However, it must be acknowledged that although key information related to the 

current CARB inventory has not been released publicly, CARB did agree to meet 

with Sierra Research on several occasions to discuss this information in general 

terms and did provide additional insight into the inventory methodology.

Despite the aforementioned limitations imposed by the lack of publicly available 

data and the lack of a functioning version of the CARB inventory model, Sierra 

was able to review two important areas of the CARB inventory related to annual 

vehicle mileage accrual rates (MAR) and maximum assumed average odometer 

values. With respect to MARs, Sierra found substantial differences between 

CARB’s assumed values, which are based on a 2002 survey that includes data 

from approximately 50 California-registered heavy- heavy-duty Diesel trucks, and 

the values reported as part of a Sierra survey of Ad Hoc Working Group members 

conducted during the summer of 2010, which included usable data for 

approximately 950 California-registered heavy-duty Diesel trucks. In particular, 

Sierra found that the CARB assumptions regarding MARs for older trucks were 

substantially higher than those observed in the survey data, leading to an 

overstatement of baseline emissions. Similarly, Sierra’s review of available data 

regarding maximum average odometer values found that CARB’s current 

assumptions overstate the observed values by about 25%, again resulting in an 

overstatement of baseline emissions. (SRES1)

72. Comment: With respect to the inventory, it's based on an enormous amount of 

data and a multitude of assumptions. These data and assumptions have not been 

thoroughly reviewed and, in fact, have pretty much been in the state of flux for the 

course of this summer as well as since the time the rule was originally developed. 

In addition, all of the data that underlies the inventory is not publicly available for a 
59

number of reasons. Given this, the potential exists for mistakes, inappropriate use 

of data, and assumptions, and other factors impact the accuracy of the inventory. 

In addition, there are areas where simply using the upper and lower end of the 

range of assumptions can lead to substantial differences in the inventory. 

Unfortunately, the truck and bus inventory have not, to the best of my knowledge, 

been subjected to a comprehensive peer review at any point in time since it was 

developed back around 1970 -- or 2007, 2008. I believe that a peer review of the 

inventory should be conducted. This isn't a new thought on my part. I urged this 

back in December of 2008 when I testified at the hearing where the truck and bus 

rule was originally adopted. Presumably, a peer review could be structured also to 

eliminate some of the problems with confidential data and other data that's not 

publicly available for review. I'd like to close my testimony with a quote from 

Section 39607.3 of the California Health and Safety Code, which I believe was 

enacted in 1996. This section requires the Board to hold periodic public hearings 

to approve emissions inventories. I don't there's happened with respect to this 

inventory. The Legislature hereby finds and declares it is in the interest of the 

State that air quality plans be based on accurate emission inventories, inaccurate 

inventories that do not reflect actual emissions into the air can lead to misdirected 

air quality control measures, resulting in delayed attainment of standards and 

unnecessary and significant costs. Again, I don't believe that the truck and bus 

rule inventory can be deemed to be accurate without a peer review and would 

urge the Board to direct such a review occur.(SRES2)

73. Comment: To analyze the inventory impact of substituting the MAR values for 17 

year old and older vehicles from the 2010 survey for the MAR values assumed by 

CARB, a ―hybrid‖ approach was used that melded CARB’s assumptions for newer 

trucks (less than 17 years old) with the results of the 2010 survey for vehicles 

17 years old and older. In addition, Sierra used the 600,000-mile maximum 

average odometer value discussed above in this assessment. The results are 

shown in Figure 2, along with the original 2008 CARB baseline and the withregulation inventories.

As shown, these substitutions reduce the baseline inventories even further and 

result in an estimate that is closer to the original emission targets of the regulation. 

It must be stressed that the changes in MARs made by Sierra based on the survey 

data, which are reflected in Figure 4, are conservative in that they apply only to 

17-year-old and older vehicles, and CARB’s assumed mileage rates for newer 

vehicles have not been adjusted despite the discrepancies between those rates 

and the rates observed in the 2010 survey data.

Finally, Sierra combined the MAR and maximum odometer assumptions noted 

above with CARB Slow economic recovery scenario data, rather than the average 

of the Fast and Slow scenarios used by CARB, in order to investigate the impacts 

of the current economy on the baseline inventory. Although Sierra does not 

perform economic forecasting, there is little evidence available to suggest that a 

―fast‖ economic recovery is underway in the California trucking sector and more 

evidence, including California Diesel fuel sales data and discussions with Ad Hoc 

Working Group members, indicating that a slow recovery is more likely. 
60

The results of this plausible combination of Sierra’s modifications are shown in

Figure 3, again for PM and NOx, respectively, along with the original CARB 

baseline and CARB’s original regulatory emission targets. In this case, the original 

CARB baseline is 1.61 and 1.45 times higher than the Sierra-estimated baseline in 

2009 for PM and NOx emissions, respectively. Further, in 2014, which CARB has 

indicated to be a key year with respect to the need for the regulation, the original 

CARB baseline is 1.41 and 1.28 times greater for PM and NOx, respectively, than 

the Sierra estimated baseline.

It is also important to note, as shown in Figure 3, that the combination of the slow 

recovery scenario and the other Sierra revisions results in a baseline NOx 

emission inventory that achieves the original targets of the In-Use On-Road Diesel 

Regulation and further reduces the difference between the baseline and the 

original with-regulation inventory for PM emissions. This is an important finding 

because it brings into question the need for the NOx provisions of the regulation 

and suggests that the reductions in PM emissions needed to reach CARB’s 

regulatory goals are smaller than those envisioned at the time the regulation was 

adopted. To view the graphs in color, please see the Sierra Research Report8. 

(SRES1) 

 

8 Sierra Research Report, ―Review of CARB On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Inventory.‖ 

Comment 14 of 2010 Staff Report comments available at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=on-offroad10
61

Figure 2. Comparison of Current CARB Baseline Inventory Modified Based on 

Sierra Findings to Original (2008) Baseline and With-Regulation Inventories
62

Figure 3. Comparison of Current CARB Baseline Inventory Modified Based on 

Sierra Findings and Slow Recovery to Original (2008) Baseline and WithRegulation Inventories

Agency Response: In developing proposed regulatory amendments and updating the 

technical analyses including emissions inventory, staff followed public process as 

required by law. Staff applied the same basic emissions calculation methods as in the 

EMFAC2007 model but used updated data for more detailed and current activity 

assumptions.These assumptions and methodologies were documented and shared with 

shareholders throughout the regulatory development process, both at public workshops 

and at meetings with industry stakeholders as documented in 2008 Supplement to the 

Final Statement of Reasons available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/truckbus08/fsorsupp.pdf. After the 2008 Board 

Hearing, staff held public workshops in December 2009, May 2010, and September 

2010 to discuss the emissions inventory. Staff also reported to the Board with updates 

to the inventory in December 2009 and November 2010. During 2010, staff released the 

2008 rulemaking and 2009 Board updates on inventory for review. Many interest 

groups such as the representatives of the California Trucking Association, American 

Truck Association, and their consultants received a copy of inventory files, and these 

files are now part of AB 1085 compliance package available at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/ab1085compliance.htm. While there was no 

formal peer review process, the development of the inventory was a public process with 

many opportunities for all interested parties to comment.
63

The claims made by industry rely upon their assertion that ARB mileage accrual was 

overstated, that ARB overstated emission factors for older vehicles by overestimated 

lifetime odometer, and that a slower recovery emissions forecast should be used. ARB

staff reviewed the industry report that is the subject of these comments and conducted 

additional analyses that are described in response to comments 77 through 87. The 

results from these analyses do not substantiate the claims made by industry. Since our 

review and the data supports our estimates on lifetime mileage, annual mileage and 

recession estimates, staff believes the current emissions estimates and forecasts are 

reasonable, and regulation continues to be needed to meet the state’s emission 

reduction commitment.

b) Basic Inventory Calculation

74. Comment: Because resources available for this review were limited and much of 

the data incorporated into the CARB inventory are not publicly available, a 

comprehensive review was not possible. 

In the simplest terms, the CARB on-road heavy-duty Diesel emissions inventory is 

based on the mathematical calculation shown below in Equation 1. 

Equation 1. Emissions = POP*MAR*EF 

The variables in the equation are as follows: 

1. ―POP‖ is an estimate of the number of vehicles that constitute a ―population‖ of 

heavy-duty Diesel trucks of a given vocation, weight rating, and model year 

that are assumed to be operating in California on a given day or in a given 

year;

2. ―MAR‖ is an estimate of the ―mileage accrual rate‖ or number of miles vehicles 

in that population will operate on average in California on that given day or 

year; and

3. ―EF‖ is an estimate of the average ―emission factor‖ for a given pollutant from 

the population in units of grams of pollutant emitted per mile of operation. 

When using the variables described above in Equation 1, the result is the 

estimated emissions of a given pollutant for a given population in units of grams of 

pollutant per day or year. In order to estimate the entire on-road Diesel inventory, 

the same calculation must be performed for each type of vehicle and each of the 

46 model years of vehicles that are assumed by CARB to be in operation in the 

California fleet during any given calendar year. 

Estimating the emissions of a population of on-road heavy-duty Diesel vehicles is 

based on a relatively simple calculation involving three basic variables. However,

the reality of calculating an emission inventory is far more complicated. (SRES1) 

Agency Response: We agree that calculating an emissions inventory representing 

trucks and buses is more complex than the simplified equation offered in this comment. 
64

More information about the methods used to calculate the inventory is available through 

the Technical Appendix on emissions inventory, and through the rulemaking web site. 

c) Heavy Duty Vehicle Populations

75. Comment: The data used to develop the population estimates are generally 

derived by CARB from historic registration information obtained from the California 

Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). These data are supplemented in some 

cases with data from a variety of surveys and other sources.9,10 (SRES1) 

76. Comment: As indicated in Equation 1, the assumed population of heavy-duty 

Diesel vehicles operating in California is directly proportional to the emissions of 

those vehicles and therefore of critical importance. CARB has indicated that it 

uses data obtained twice yearly from the California Department of Motor Vehicles 

as ―the primary source for vehicle population and model-year by category.‖ 

However, these data, which are necessary to confirm CARB’s vehicle population 

and age distributions (e.g., model year by category), are not publicly available 

because CARB and apparently the Department of Motor Vehicles believe it 

contains confidential information. 

While this may be accurate, the fact that the data are not publicly available makes 

it impossible to verify in general the accuracy of the vehicle populations and age 

distributions use by CARB in the on-road diesel inventory. (SRES1)

Agency Response: We did develop truck population estimates using data from the 

Department of Motor Vehicles, and additional information including surveys, forecasted 

economic trends, and other data sources. DMV records that contain legally confidential 

vehicle owner name and/or address information are protected under California law and 

cannot be released. The emissions inventory posted to our website in advance of 

rulemaking does provide estimated populations by model year and vehicle category 

which can be analyzed and compared to many other data sources to check if the 

assumed populations are reasonable. 

d) Mileage Accrual Rates 

77. Comment: Separate MARs exist for each of the different vehicle population 

categories and for each model year of vehicle.9,10 However, the same MAR 

values are used for certain population categories. In addition, the same MAR 

value applies to a given model year and population type (e.g., ten-year-old heavyheavy-duty California tractors), regardless of calendar year. In general, estimated 

 

9

Technical Support Document for In-Use On-Road Diesel Vehicles, California Air Resources 

Board, Mobile Source Control Division, Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Strategies Branch, 

Appendix G, October 2008. 

10 Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation, the 

Drayage Truck Regulation and the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation, California Air 

Resources Board, Mobile Source Control Division, Heavy-Duty Diesel Implementation 

Branch, Appendix G, October 2010. 
65

MAR values tend to be highest for new vehicles and then decline steadily with 

age. The MAR values represent total annual mileage accumulation by these 

vehicles as a function of age (model year) and adjustments made by CARB to 

account for out-of-state travel by California vehicles registered under the 

International Registration Plan (IRP). CARB assumes that the average new truck 

will accumulate over 105,000 miles in its first year of operation, and mileage will 

then decline to about 20,000 miles per year by 34 years of age and ultimately 

down to 15,500 miles per year at the end of the truck’s useful life. 

In order to estimate MARs, CARB indicates that it has used data collected in the 

Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS). VIUS was conducted as a part of the 

economic census performed every five years by the U.S. Census Bureau; 

however, that the survey has been discontinued,* and the most recent report dates 

back to calendar year 2002.11 (SRES1)

78. Comment: CARB’s MAR values are largely based on the VIUS data that date all 

the way back to calendar year 2002 and include information derived from 136,000 

surveys nationwide, of which 3,200 were specific to California.11 VIUS was a 

paper-based survey in which owners were asked to provide estimates of usage for 

a single identified vehicle. It is important to note that the 2002 VIUS included 

information for both gasoline- and Diesel-powered vehicles ranging from light-duty 

pick-up trucks to cranes and tankers. The subset of California-registered heavyheavy-duty Diesel trucks included in the 2002 VIUS was limited to about 

50 vehicles that spanned only 17 model years. CARB indicates that the MAR 

values it used for older vehicles were based on survey data it collected but those 

data are not documented or publicly available. (SRES1) 

79. Comment: CARB has abandoned its previous practice of linking maximum 

odometer values to its assumed MAR values. However, despite the logical 

existence of a linkage between average maximum odometer and MAR values, 

CARB has not reexamined in anyway its assumed MAR values. As noted in the 

previous section, such a reexamination is warranted based on the age of the VIUS 

data as well as the fact that the data used to estimate MAR values for older 

vehicles are not, to the best of Sierra’s knowledge, publicly available. 

Given the limitations and age of the VIUS information, Sierra Research, in 

combination with the Ad Hoc Working Group, conducted a survey of heavy-dutyvehicle fleet owners to collect data that could be used to assess CARB’s assumed 

MAR values. This survey was conducted during the summer of 2010. It involved 

asking fleet operators to provide information on the operation of their vehicles, 

including historic and current odometer readings and estimates of fuel 

consumption. Some 20 fleets responded, providing operating data for close to 

1,200 vehicles covering calendar years 2005 through 2010.

The initial dataset was screened to remove from the analysis those vehicles that 

were reported as weighing less than 33,001 pounds gross vehicle weight and/or 

 

11 See http://www.census.gov/svsd/www/vius/2002.html
66

those records missing the information necessary to determine MAR values. Sierra

Research computed MARs by subtracting the reported odometer reading for one 

year from the odometer reading recorded for the same vehicle in the prior year. In 

some instances, odometer readings in a subsequent year were lower than the 

previous, yielding a negative estimate of mileage accrual. Reasons for these 

occurrences include mis-entry of the information, odometer rollover, and/or 

odometer replacement. Rather than speculate on the cause or implement some 

erroneous adjustment, these negative values were also eliminated from the 

analysis.

The resulting dataset included some 950 trucks with a model-year range from 1974 

to 2010. Because vehicles were either introduced or retired from the fleet from one 

calendar year to the next, and as a result of the data screening described above, 

the fleet sizes used to determine the age-specific MARs ranged from 343 to 587 

trucks. Table 3 summarizes the vehicle count and average MAR for each calendar 

and vehicle age and provides the VIUS and CARB survey information that CARB 

assumes to be accurate. It is important to note that 2010 data were not included in 

this analysis because they represented activity for only a partial year.

Figure 4 compares the results of the analysis of the 2010 survey data to the MARs 

assumed by CARB to be applicable to California vehicles. The figure includes an 

exponential fit of the survey data. As can be seen, the MAR values used by CARB 

are generally higher than those from the 2010 survey, particularly for older 

vehicles. 
67

Table 3. Survey MARs by Vehicle Age and Calendar Year

2005 to 2006 2006 to 2007 2007 to 2008 2008 to 2009 Weighted

Age Count Average Count Average Count Average Count Average Average VIUS

-1 0 - 12 58,167 19 38,356 0 - 46,025 43,847

0 10 106,543 8 34,401 17 89,056 27 100,183 89,670 105,234

1 16 79,158 61 126,530 33 82,402 31 91,676 103,164 105,141

2 36 48,764 47 65,648 78 103,579 37 86,850 81,483 102,228

3 42 50,246 71 92,801 48 55,512 82 84,424 75,253 97,292

4 35 30,686 71 65,836 73 64,426 49 47,183 55,980 91,028

5 37 43,540 47 37,665 61 40,776 56 50,416 43,243 84,030

6 38 42,514 42 35,881 40 24,574 55 31,537 33,371 76,791

7 17 49,438 40 31,339 41 24,992 32 31,085 31,641 69,707

8 18 30,013 15 63,494 41 41,119 36 27,464 37,884 63,069

9 38 21,396 16 53,219 14 46,204 43 27,264 31,385 57,069

10 6 23,515 34 17,221 19 38,725 14 31,380 26,050 51,799

11 12 19,847 6 23,126 17 19,676 14 33,627 24,126 47,251

12 8 17,848 12 33,796 5 28,629 6 15,044 25,218 43,315

13 9 43,940 8 14,282 12 32,078 6 8,828 27,075 39,780

14 7 20,507 5 25,406 7 21,317 7 42,102 27,481 36,336

15 12 15,588 3 13,856 9 22,722 5 16,696 17,814 32,572

16 25 19,465 9 12,240 4 35,913 4 25,956 20,101 32,241

17 20 24,336 19 17,373 4 12,507 4 4,722 18,845 31,891

18 11 23,717 10 37,214 11 23,295 2 6,319 26,527 31,521

19 6 22,199 6 28,680 6 36,689 9 29,166 29,182 31,131

20 2 12,504 6 18,144 10 28,191 7 40,836 28,065 30,722

21 2 10,515 3 16,190 6 14,451 8 39,579 24,892 30,292

22 1 5,973 2 7,907 3 10,232 6 11,095 9,921 29,843

23 1 15,000 1 12,880 2 8,962 3 13,723 12,424 29,374

24 0 - 1 11,000 1 12,865 2 6,012 8,972 28,885

25 1 5,690 0 - 1 8,000 1 21,073 11,588 28,377

26 2 4,288 1 7,089 0 - 1 6,000 5,416 27,848

27 0 - 2 2,099 1 8,575 0 - 4,258 27,300

28 0 - 0 - 2 3,459 0 - 3,459 26,732

29 0 - 0 - 0 - 2 4,168 4,168 26,144

30 1 380 0 - 0 - 0 - 380 25,537

31 0 - 1 233 0 - 0 - 233 24,909

32 1 16,315 0 - 1 185 0 - 8,250 24,262

33 1 30,208 0 - 1 227 15,218 23,595

34 1 2,640 0 - 2,640 22,899

35 1 1,149 1,149 22,202

Total 414 560 587 551
68

Figure 4. Comparison of Survey Results and CARB MARs

Because CARB uses different MAR values for different vehicle categories and the 

survey data were not sufficiently detailed to resolve those vehicle categories, a 

direct comparison of the survey and CARB MAR values for newer vehicles is not 

appropriate. It is appropriate, however, for vehicles 17 years old and older where 

CARB uses the same MAR values for a number of different vehicle categories. 

This issue is of importance because older vehicles in the fleet are assumed to be 

the highest emitting. To view the graphs in color, please see the Sierra Research 

Report8. (SRES1)

Agency Response: Mileage accrual estimates in the truck and bus rule emissions 

inventory are based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau in VIUS 2002, and 

supplemental surveys conducted by ARB staff. The analysis to estimate accrual rates 

(MAR) is included in the AB1085 package for the Truck and Bus rulemaking: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/ab1085compliance.htm. . 

The survey database discussed in this comment included roughly 950 trucks from 20 

fleets over a four year period, for a total of roughly 2000 data points. Based on the 

survey, industry claimed that ARB mileage accrual estimates overstate mileage accrual 

in all but the earliest years of the vehicles’ life. To evaluate this claim, ARB staff 

evaluated the analysis conducted by industry, and collected additional information. 

In their memo, industry compares their survey data derived from California-based fleets 

to ARB modeled mileage accrual rates for interstate vehicles driving across the United 

States. Interstate trucks drive more than California-registered non-interstate trucks, and 

the interstate mileage accrual schedule to which industry compared their survey results 

included miles traveled across the United States, not just in California. 
69

Figure 5 provides a comparison between industry survey data and ARB accrual rates 

representing California-registered non-interstate tractors and construction trucks. ARB 

accrual rate schedules shown on Figure 5 are not adjusted to reflect the recession. 

Results show that with the exception of the newest vehicles and the oldest vehicles, 

industry survey results generally fall between the two ARB estimated accrual schedules. 

Because mileage accrual rates are a function of vehicle vocation, it would be useful to 

evaluate industry survey results based on the different types of vocations represented in 

the survey. That information was not included in the survey. 

Figure 5. Comparison of Relevant ARB Accrual Schedules to Industry Survey 

Data

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Vehicle Age (Years) Miles per Year Traveled

SRI Survey Data Average ARB Instate Tractors ARB Construction Tractors

Figure 5 initially suggests that after age 22 ARB accrual schedules may overestimate 

annual miles traveled. However, the industry survey contains only 33 data points 

representing trucks older than age 22. Those data represent less than half a sample 

per vehicle age and less than 2% of all industry survey data. 

To further evaluate the industry analysis, staff collected and analyzed additional 

information representing California registered tractors (drayage trucks are excluded). In 

addition to VIUS and the 2008 on-line survey data, staff collected mileage accrual data 

reported by applicants to the ARB Bond and Carl Moyer funding programs. Data from 

the funding programs included both funded and non-funded applicants in order to 

minimize bias in the comparison. Results are shown in Figure 6. 
70

Figure 6. ARB and Industry Accrual Schedules vs. VIUS, Bond, Moyer and OnLine Survey Accrual Data Representing California Registered Non-Drayage 

Tractors

In Figure 6 mileage accrual records from the VIUS, Bond, Moyer, and on-line survey 

sources are represented as gray dots. More than 11,000 data points, each representing 

an annual mileage accrual point for a specific truck, are represented. Data representing 

age 17 and older come primarily from the Bond Moyer programs with some additional 

information provided by the on-line survey; 1400 data points are represented (12 

percent of data). In contrast the industry survey contained roughly 2000 data points 

with 200 representing trucks age 17 and older. Results show wide variability in annual 

mileage accrual by age. Some of this variability could be decreased if the vocation of 

the trucks were known and accounted for in the data. However, because those 

attributes are not available in the data sources other than VIUS, that analysis cannot be 

conducted. There is a high degree of variability in how trucks are used; mileage accrual 

estimates represent the average of a diverse data set. 

In Figure 6, the average of the 11,000 data points is represented by a dark solid line, 

with error bars representing the 95 percent confidence interval of the data in each age. 

The data show good agreement with the ARB California-registered non-interstate tractor 

mileage accrual schedule. At age 16 the data average dips from 40,000 miles per year 

to 20,000 miles per year. This occurs because age 16 VIUS data represent trucks aged 

16 and older. Age 17 and older vehicles represent about 4 percent of the population of 

trucks operating in California in any given year. 
71

The industry survey data do not compare as well to the overall data set but this is 

probably because of the particular mix of trucks represented by the their survey, and the 

more limited sample size of their survey. Their data do compare reasonably well to 

ARB in-state tractor and construction truck accrual schedules. 

Given the wide variability in trucking operations larger sample sizes are helpful for 

evaluating mileage accrual estimates. In this analysis staff has combined all known 

available mileage accrual data sets, and the results support ARB estimates. Fleets 

surveyed by industry appear to fall towards the lower end of the mileage accrual 

estimates, but given the relatively small sample size the data do not suggest ARB 

mileage accrual estimates are incorrect. 

e) Emission Factors

80. Comment: Of the three variables used in Equation 1, the EF or emission factor 

term is the most complicated. The heart of the EF is the basic emission rate 

(BER), the grams per mile assumption of emissions, which is estimated according 

to Equation 2, shown below.

Equation 2. BER = ZM+DR*ODO/10,000

The variables in the BER for a given pollutant are as follows:

1. ―ZM‖ represents the estimated average emissions of a given pollutant 

expressed in terms of grams per mile from a vehicle when the vehicle is new, 

e.g., at the ―zero mile level‖ and free of emissions-related defects and 

emission control system related tampering;

2. ―DR‖ is the deterioration rate, or the rate of increase in emissions as a function 

of engine operation, expressed in terms of grams per mile per 10,000 miles of 

operation resulting from engine wear, defective and/or failed emissions control 

system components, and/or emission control system tampering; and

3. ―ODO‖ is the average odometer reading of the vehicle or fleet of vehicles, 

expressed in terms of miles

81. Comment: Current CARB emission factor estimates for heavy-duty Diesel trucks 

are based upon dynamometer testing of a limited number of randomly selected 

vehicles operating in California. The most recent emission factor test program 

was Coordinating Research Council Project E55-59,4 conducted between 

September 2001 and June 2005—in this program, emissions testing was 

performed on fifty-seven 1975 to 2003 model-year heavy-heavy-duty Diesel 

trucks. The data used by CARB in establishing BERs were all obtained using a 

loaded vehicle weight of 56,000 pounds and were not adjusted to reflect a 

distribution of in-use loaded vehicle weights, despite the fact that other data from 

E55-59 show that vehicle weight does affect emissions. Also, despite the 

significant changes in the design and use of emission control technologies on 

newer Diesel vehicles, CARB’s current emission estimates for trucks newer than 

the 2003 model year are not based on any actual emissions test data. 
72

CARB currently assumes for heavy-duty diesel vehicles that emissions will remain 

constant over time in the absence of defective, failed, or tampered emission 

control system components, which is referred to as ―tampering and malmaintenance‖ (T&M). In order to assess the impacts of T&M on emissions, CARB 

utilizes a model originally developed by the Radian Corporation in the 1980s that 

estimates the impact of 19 specific T&M acts within the heavy-heavy-duty Diesel 

fleet. The incidence or frequency of T&M is estimated by CARB based on a 

limited number of dated field observations and engineering judgment. Similarly, 

the emissions impacts of T&M are based on engineering judgment and limited test 

emissions test data from engines where T&M problems were found or induced. 

The process described above by Equation 2 establishes BERs that reflect 

laboratory emission test conditions. These BERs are adjusted by CARB to account 

for, among other things, differences in fuel composition using ―fuel correction 

factors‖ (FCF), and for the effects of vehicle speed using ―speed correction factors‖ 

(SCF). The final fully adjusted BER is the EF specified in Equation 1.

Diesel FCFs attempt to account for variation in the sulfur and aromatic 

hydrocarbon content of commercially dispensed fuel compared to the fuels used to 

perform emissions testing. These factors are different for California fuel and for 

fuel assumed by CARB to be purchased in other states.

Diesel SCFs were developed by CARB based on data collected during the CRC 

E55-59 project obtained using four different driving cycles each with a different 

average speed and one of which was the standard test cycle used for emissions 

testing. SCFs were developed by CARB for emissions from vehicles of different 

ages. (SRES1)

82. Comment: CARB indicates9that the emission factors used in the heavy-duty onroad diesel inventory were derived from the EMFAC2007 model and the CRC 

E55-59 project, and that adjustments were made to the penetration rates for 

advanced technology vehicles (e.g., those meeting 2010 model-year emission 

standards) used in EMFAC2007.

There are a number of issues associated with the EMFAC2007 emission factors 

used in the inventory. First, as noted above, the CRC E55-59 emission factors are 

linked to a specific loaded vehicle weight; no analysis has been performed, 

however, to determine whether vehicle weight is representative of in-use heavyduty Diesel trucks operating in California, despite the fact that there appears to be 

a linkage between vehicle weight and emissions in the CRC E55-59 data.

Next, it should be noted that the EMFAC2007 emission factors for all 2003 and 

later model-year heavy-duty trucks are based on emissions testing of four 2003 

model-year vehicles as part of the E55-59 project. These data were used to 

create emission factors for 2007 to 2009 model-year vehicles and 2010 and later 

model-year trucks by applying the ratio of the emission standards to the average 

emissions of these 2003 model-year trucks (i.e., 2007 emissions = 2007 standard / 

2003 standard * 2003 average emissions). This means that the CARB inventory 

does not reflect any actual emissions test data from vehicles older than the 2003 
73

model year and that the assumed emissions from trucks with advanced emission 

control systems are directly related to those of older trucks that are not equipped 

with such systems. More specifically, this means that CARB assumed that 

emissions from trucks with emission control after-treatment systems like 

particulate filters and selective catalytic reduction systems are directly related to 

the emissions from trucks that are not equipped without any such systems.

This assumption, which is questionable at best, warrants careful investigation as 

the actual emission levels of trucks with advanced emission control technologies 

are critical to the need for the In-Use On-Road Diesel Regulation. For example, if 

actual emissions from advanced technology trucks are lower than CARB 

estimates, normal vehicle attrition will lead to a faster decline in the baseline 

inventory and could potentially obviate the need for the regulation. In contrast, if 

the emissions performance of advanced technology vehicles is worse than CARB 

assumes, the implementation of the regulation—which generally requires that all 

trucks have 2010 or later model-year engines by 2023—will lead to far lower 

emission reductions than estimated by CARB.

Another related issue is CARB’s assumptions regarding T&M for advanced 

technology vehicles. As noted previously, CARB uses a dated model developed in 

the 1980s and later updated to address T&M from all heavy-duty Diesel on-road 

vehicles. In 2009, CARB initiated a research project to develop an assessment of 

T&M impacts for advanced technology vehicles.12 In soliciting proposals to 

perform the work, CARB stated: 

The application of diesel particulate filters (DPFs) and selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) as aftertreatment devices starting in the 2007 model year to 

meet the new truck emission standards is expected to reduce emissions from 

HDDTs to very low levels. However, because of the reduction potentials of 

aftertreatment devices, failures of the systems or system components will lead 

to a dramatic increase in the tailpipe emissions. Therefore, it is critical to 

understand the failure rates of aftertreatment systems and their key 

components as well as the T&M frequency of these systems in order to better 

estimate the emission deterioration rates of HDDTs.

This research project was cancelled, however, and, to the best of Sierra’s 

knowledge, the work was never performed. As a result, the T&M impacts used by 

CARB in the on-road Diesel inventory for advanced technology vehicles have not 

been updated to reflect actual data from vehicles equipped with such technologies. 

This is again important with respect to the emission impacts on the In-Use OnRoad Diesel Regulation, for the reasons stated above. (SRES1)

Agency Response: Emission factors used in the truck and bus rule emissions 

inventory are based fundamentally upon the CRC E55/59 testing project. That project, 

based on in-use testing of more than 60 vehicles, is the most comprehensive study of 

 

12 CARB Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 08-764, ―Study of Performance of Emission Control 

Systems on 2007 and Later Model Year Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks.‖ April 30, 2009.
74

its kind conducted. Clearly truck emissions are a function of test weight and this was 

acknowledged in the E55/59 study. The 56,000 pound test weight was set based on an 

analysis that suggested the average weight of a heavy heavy-duty truck in operation in 

California is 56,000 pounds when miles traveled by empty, partially laden, and fully 

laden trucks are considered. 

Prior to sale, truck engines go through a certification process to prove that each engine 

family offered for sale meets the emissions standards to which it is built. Both ARB and 

U.S. EPA monitor and evaluate certification tests to ensure trucks offered for sale meet 

emissions standards. The ratio of standards method used in EMFAC2007 is based on 

the principle that emission levels when the engine is new directly reflect the emission 

standards. Historically, the application of this method has been shown to provide a 

satisfactory estimate of vehicle emission rates when the vehicle is new and offered for 

sale. The argument that emission factors are not based upon testing for 2007 and later 

standard trucks is not correct, as certification testing data was used to develop the ratio 

of standards method to estimate emission factors for 2007 and 2010 standard engines. 

In using the ratio of standards method for 2007 and 2010 engines, staff assume that 

when the vehicle is new the emissions control technologies will provide the benefits of 

the emissions standards to which those engines were legally certified, which is a wellfounded assumption. 

We do estimate that across the fleet of trucks, emissions increase over time as trucks 

age. This emissions increase, called deterioration, is a function of the estimated impact 

of tampering and mal-maintenance of engine components over time. In 2007 and 2010 

standard engines, we make assumptions about the frequency and impact specific types 

of tampering, especially with emissions control equipment, which can lead to increases 

in emissions. This is important for after-treatment controlled engines because if the 

control fails, emissions can increase dramatically. 

In developing tampering and mal-maintenance assumptions for heavy duty trucks in 

EMFAC2007, staff conducted a comprehensive review of available data and a detailed 

engineering analysis. The details behind this analysis and assumptions have been 

available on ARB’s web site since 2007. Although in-use data from vehicles with 

advanced emission control technology has not been obtained (largely because these 

vehicles have not been on the road long enough to study in detail) the assumptions 

behind deterioration estimates in EMFAC2007 were well founded, and informed by 

years of similar experience in after-treatment impacts on other types of vehicles 

including automobiles. It is worth noting that U.S. EPA, in implementing truck emission 

deterioration for the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model, examined the 

EMFAC2007 truck tampering and mal-maintenance calculations and adopted the

methodology with a few adjustments to some values. 

f) Estimated Odometer Values

83. CARB utilizes information collected in VIUS, formerly known as TIUS, which was 

conducted every five years by the U.S. Census Bureau and contains estimates of 

vehicle population by type, average fuel economy, and average annual miles 
75

driven. As noted previously, the most recent VIUS report available is for calendar 

year 2002.

13

CARB uses the estimates of average odometer reading to determine the impact of 

deterioration, increases in emissions attributable to mal-maintenance, and usagerelated wear on the engine and/or emissions control system. DR [deterioration 

rate] values are expressed as incremental increases in the base emission rate per 

every 10,000 miles of driving. Until recently, the fleet average odometer readings 

in CARB’s model ranged from zero to over 1.8 million miles at age 45; however, 

CARB is now generally assuming average maximum odometer readings of 

800,000 miles for heavy-heavy-duty Diesel vehicles and 400,000 miles for 

medium-heavy-duty Diesel vehicles.

In investigating the accuracy of CARB’s assumptions, Sierra Research staff 

analyzed several datasets in which the odometer readings of heavy-duty trucks 

were recorded. These datasets were the Coordinating Research Council’s (CRC) 

E55-59 test program, a California Trucking Association (CTA) survey of member 

activities, and a heavy-duty truck origin/destination survey conducted by CARB.

CRC E55-59 - Project E55-59 was conducted between September 2001 and June 

2005 with the objective of acquiring regulated emissions measurements for the 

test fleet and non-regulated emissions measurements on a subset of in-use trucks 

in order to improve the emissions inventory in California.14 The various phases of 

the E55-59 project involved a total of 57 heavy-heavy-duty trucks. Odometer 

readings of these trucks were recorded at the time of testing and the readings by 

model year are plotted in Figure 7. Also shown are lines representing the previous 

and current CARB assumptions regarding MAR values as a function of vehicle age 

as well as a statistical fit of the data. With respect to the statistical fit of the data, 

although odometer readings appear to decline after reaching a peak at 600,000 

miles, it was assumed—in order to reduce the influence of the sparse sample 

sizes at advanced vehicle ages—that average odometer readings reached a ―cap‖ 

and remained at that level. Therefore, an exponential fit of the odometer data was 

used with the Equation 3: 

Equation 3. y = y0 + A1e

(x-x0)/t1

As can be seen in Figure 7, the average odometer readings appear to peak 

around 600,000 miles and then decline, rather than continuing to increase as 

CARB assumed previously. The 600,000-mile peak is also considerably below the 

800,000-mile peak currently assumed by CARB and is achieved later in the life of 

the vehicle.

 

13 http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec02tv-ca.pdf

14 http://www.crcao.com/reports/recentstudies2007/E-55-59/E55_59_Final_Report_23AUG2007.pdf
76

Figure 7. CRC E55-59 Average Odometer Data

CTA Member Survey - In 2005, in an effort to better quantify the emissions 

benefits of CARB’s clean Diesel fuel, CTA conducted a survey of member trucking 

companies to obtain mileage accumulation data for heavy-duty Diesel trucks in 

California. Twenty seven companies responded, providing odometer readings and 

model-year information for nearly 1,100 trucks.15 As shown in Figure 8, the 

odometer readings again appear to rise to an average of just over 600,000 miles 

before declining. Also shown again for reference are CARB’s current and previous 

assumptions regarding MAR values. The results of the CTA survey are quite 

similar to those observed from the CRC E55-59 project. 

 

15 January 6, 2005 memorandum to Michael Jackson, Staci Heaton, and Mark Carlock from 

Jenny Pont entitled ―CTA Survey Odometer Data vs. Emfac2002 Defaults.‖ 
77

Figure 8. CTA Survey Odometer Data

CARB Origin/Destination Study - In an attempt to improve its activity estimates for 

on-road heavy-duty vehicles, CARB conducted a massive origin/destination (O/D) 

survey of trucks traveling on state highways and interstates. During this effort, 

information was collected on over 5,000 vehicles, including their odometer 

readings and model-year information. As with most datasets, CARB’s O/D survey 

contained data gaps, entry errors, and other issues that made some records 

unusable for this analysis and some data screening was required. As a first step, 

the records of all vehicles with a recorded GVWR of less than 33,001 pounds were 

eliminated from the analysis, leaving only heavy-heavy-duty vehicles. Next, all 

records were eliminated that were lacking odometer readings, model year data, 

and/or GVWR entries. The remaining records were then analyzed to derive the 

minimum, maximum, and average odometer readings by model year along with 

the standard deviation of the data about the mean. Table 4 displays the statistics 

mentioned above (model-year groups with fewer than two vehicles will have no 

statistics for standard deviation).

Table 4. CARB Origin/Destination Survey Odometer Statistics

Model Year Count Minimum Average Maximum Std. Dev.

2009 2 9,628 39,905 70,182 42,818

2008 52 1,289 53,099 478,723 73,003

2007 248 1,123 128,623 821,593 122,990

2006 522 4,001 195,082 3,816,193 280,267
78

Table 4. CARB Origin/Destination Survey Odometer Statistics

Model Year Count Minimum Average Maximum Std. Dev.

2005 501 1,001 260,378 2,295,711 208,219

2004 380 10,073 346,370 4,386,599 361,766

2003 261 3,101 401,246 5,003,124 368,332

2002 257 11,883 737,146 64,100,517 4,000,920

2001 237 4,072 547,539 6,690,417 626,036

2000 367 13,092 607,646 8,107,174 645,286

1999 461 11,147 625,086 10,957,774 737,894

1998 332 568 676,736 10,962,196 770,485

1997 254 7,279 686,326 6,632,255 542,564

1996 243 1,735 635,679 4,658,990 505,876

1995 222 1,754 806,420 37,553,317 2,589,393

1994 181 8,365 741,965 10,998,626 1,223,885

1993 115 48,498 1,047,259 29,160,499 2,806,473

1992 75 8,057 561,573 1,617,995 372,296

1991 60 46,773 736,192 8,867,164 1,185,226

1990 46 29,849 583,153 1,910,446 395,497

1989 45 17,269 599,266 2,386,807 491,168

1988 38 55,359 844,145 9,000,341 1,409,969

1987 23 13,574 965,337 8,990,380 1,786,665

1986 16 34,767 985,149 9,738,778 2,353,277

1985 28 64,884 608,657 2,408,771 484,437

1984 16 0 1,198,918 10,011,134 2,386,969

1983 10 68,338 539,021 1,400,350 397,339

1982 3 272,004 508,242 870,400 318,451

1981 2 298,960 538,090 777,219 338,180

1980 2 828,646 918,288 1,007,929 126,772

1979 3 176,535 595,131 880,889 370,490

1978 2 100,220 629,611 1,159,001 748,671

1977 2 918,462 1,147,577 1,376,692 324,018

1974 1 168,000 168,000 168,000

1972 1 386,659 386,659 386,659

1970 1 4,812 4,812 4,812

1967 1 749,973 749,973 749,973

1964 1 230,493 230,493 230,493

Total 5,011
79

Because of the variability displayed in some of the model-year groups, the data 

were again screened to remove readings that were found to be beyond three 

standard deviations in either direction of the mean. The three-sigma, or empirical, 

rule in statistics states that for a normal distribution, nearly all values (99.7%) lie 

within three standard deviations of the mean. This process was repeated until no 

statistical outliers remained. The resulting data are displayed in Table 5 and Figure 

9.

Table 5. CARB Origin/Destination Survey Statistics (Cleaned)

Model Year Count Minimum Average Maximum Std. Dev.

2009 2 9,628 39,905 70,182 42,818 

2008 49 1,289 38,848 127,524 29,889 

2007 237 1,123 113,991 384,794 93,031 

2006 498 4,001 165,319 507,265 114,409 

2005 488 1,001 244,401 660,105 150,159 

2004 361 10,073 316,454 875,311 191,728 

2003 249 3,101 391,465 1,039,282 232,751 

2002 249 11,883 446,823 1,101,563 231,267 

2001 230 4,072 478,838 1,107,828 281,274 

2000 361 13,092 559,826 1,371,382 301,421 

1999 456 11,147 571,971 1,482,852 329,394 

1998 327 568 609,109 1,553,134 371,615 

1997 252 7,279 652,113 1,490,952 355,202 

1996 238 1,735 596,428 1,534,151 370,346 

1995 217 1,754 594,121 1,663,932 371,338 

1994 172 8,365 540,457 1,409,871 357,904 

1993 110 48,498 675,660 1,853,838 408,970 

1992 73 8,057 569,697 1,617,995 373,682 

1991 53 46,773 536,927 1,625,885 362,411 

1990 41 29,849 518,741 1,060,326 280,714 

1989 42 17,269 574,792 1,434,021 416,222 

1988 36 55,359 620,610 1,557,007 386,274 

1987 22 13,574 600,563 1,591,870 371,555 

1986 15 34,767 401,574 875,432 308,712 

1985 27 64,884 541,986 1,104,452 338,317 

1984 15 0 611,437 1,377,562 433,601 

1983 10 68,338 539,021 1,400,350 397,339 

1982 3 272,004 508,242 870,400 318,451 

1981 1 298,960 298,960 298,960 
80

Table 5. CARB Origin/Destination Survey Statistics (Cleaned)

Model Year Count Minimum Average Maximum Std. Dev.

1980 2 828,646 918,288 1,007,929 126,772 

1979 3 176,535 595,131 880,889 370,490 

1978 2 100,220 629,611 1,159,001 748,671 

1977 2 918,462 1,147,577 1,376,692 324,018 

1974 1 168,000 168,000 168,000 

1972 1 386,659 386,659 386,659 

1970 1 4,812 4,812 4,812 

1967 1 749,973 749,973 749,973 

1964 1 230,493 230,493 230,493 

Total 4,848

Figure 9. CARB O/D Study Average Odometer Data

As with the other two data sets, the fit of the data suggests a maximum average 

odometer value of 600,000 miles as opposed to the 800,000 assumed by CARB, 

and demonstrates that the previous CARB methodology greatly overstated 

maximum average odometer values. 

Based on the data presented here, Sierra believes that the 600,000-mile value for 

heavy-heavy-duty Diesel vehicles is more appropriate than CARB’s assumed 
81

800,000-mile value, as CARB has presented only a qualitative analysis10 to 

support its assumed value. Given that Sierra did not examine maximum odometer 

data for medium-heavy duty Diesel vehicles, CARB’s assumed value of 400,000 

miles is not questioned here. To view the graphs in color, please see the Sierra 

Research Report8. (SRES1)

Agency Response: In the 2008 rulemaking for the Truck and Bus regulation, staff 

assumed that lifetime mileage increases annually as a function of the annual mileage 

driven by the vehicle. The oldest trucks were assumed to travel more than 1,000,000

miles during their lifetime depending on the truck category. After the 2008 rulemaking 

staff reviewed lifetime mileage estimates, and reduced the maximum lifetime mileage 

estimate for HHDDT to 800,000 miles and for MHDDT to 400,000. This change led to a 

5 percent reduction in estimated emissions, which is included in current inventory 

estimates. The change is generated because tampering and mal-maintenance 

assumptions increase in frequency and severity with odometer estimates, and so a 

reduction in estimated odometer levels has a marginal effect in reducing the impact of 

deterioration on emission rates, especially in older vehicles. 

The revised estimates are appropriate because engines are manufactured to achieve a 

certain level of durability and will not last forever. In theory, trucks that accrue higher 

mileage earlier in their lives are more likely to be scrapped as they reach their maximum

engine durability. Trucks that accrue fewer miles earlier in their lives are likely to last 

longer than higher mileage trucks, so that the population of older trucks predominantly 

represents trucks that accrued fewer miles earlier in their useful life. Ultimately this 

means that on average older truck lifetime mileage accrual should converge towards a 

single value. 

In a memo provided to ARB, industry claimed a more appropriate lifetime mileage cap 

for HHDDT would be 600,000 miles rather than the 800,000 miles estimated by ARB. 

They based this claim on an evaluation of roughly 60 data points from the Coordinating 

Research Council’s Project E55/59 and ARB field study data. To evaluate this claim, 

staff reviewed the industry memo and collected/analyzed additional information. 

There are several different ways to estimate lifetime mileage. One way is to use 

information on a vehicle’s useful life as defined in the emissions standard, and assume 

several rebuilds. For example, a HHDDT manufactured prior to 2003 was 

manufactured to a useful life of 290,000 miles. If that truck were rebuilt once in its life it 

might have accrued around 600,000 miles, and if that truck were rebuilt twice in its life it 

might have accrued 900,000 miles. 

A quantitative approach to estimating lifetime mileage was developed by Greenspan 

and Cohen in 1996. That approach, adopted by both the US Department of 

Transportation and the US Environmental Protection Agency, calculates population 

average lifetime mileage as a function of vehicle survivability rates and mileage accrual 

schedules. The approach is designed to account for the idea discussed above that 

higher mileage vehicles are more likely to be scrapped (because they cannot be 

repaired cost-effectively) than lower mileage vehicles of the same type. Using this 
82

approach and ARB mileage accrual schedules, a lifetime mileage cap on the order of 

1,000,000 miles is estimated. 

Another quantitative approach to estimate lifetime mileage is a survey approach. In this 

approach odometer readings from a sample of vehicles are used to estimate lifetime 

mileage in a population of vehicles. The accuracy of the method depends on the 

degree to which the sample represents the population, and the degree to which the data 

are accurate. The accuracy of odometer readings is somewhat questionable, because 

of odometer rollover, tampering, and other data quality issues. The odometer estimates 

also represent a snapshot of operating trucks, and do not represent the final odometer 

reading of each vehicle at the end of its life. 

To evaluate the industry analysis ARB staff collected available lifetime mileage accrual 

data representing HHDDT from a variety of sources including the Bond and Moyer 

funding programs , truck ―for-sale‖ records , the 2008-2009 field study , CRC E55/59, 

and VIUS. To reduce the potential for data quality or input errors affecting analysis 

results, staff evaluated the data statistically. Staff found the data to be normally 

distributed and removed outliers that were more than 3 standard deviations greater than 

the mean. Odometer records of zero, less than annual mileage accrual when those 

data were reported in funding programs, and unreasonably small odometer readings 

(generally less than 40,000 miles in older vehicles) were removed from the analysis. 

Results are shown in Figure 10, and compared to the ARB lifetime mileage schedule for 

a California registered non-interstate HHDDT.

Figure 10. HHDDT Lifetime Mileage Data and Comparison to Estimates
83

In Figure 10, each HHDDT odometer record is represented as a gray dot. More than 

11,400 records are shown on the chart. As with mileage accrual, lifetime mileage data 

show a wide range of variability, with some trucks reporting a lifetime mileage 

approaching two million miles, and others less than 100,000 miles. Because of the 

variability, a wide range of data is necessary to properly characterize the average of the 

population. 

In Figure 10 the average of the odometer data in each year is represented as a blue 

line, with a 95 percent confidence interval represented as blue bars about the blue line. 

In ages 0-5, the data appear to be statistically higher than the lifetime mileage schedule 

assumed by ARB for California-registered in-state trucks. This implies the data set in 

those age vehicles contains a sizeable fraction of higher mileage, probably interstate 

operating trucks. In ages 9-16, the data appear to fall between the current ARB lifetime 

mileage cap and the industry suggested lifetime mileage cap. The average of the data 

seems to fall between 650,000 and 750,000 miles. After age 16, the standard deviation 

in the data increases substantially because the sample size is more limited. While the 

average of the data appears to decrease, the standard deviation is large enough that 

the apparent decrease is not significant. 

The impact of a change in lifetime mileage is relatively small, because the most 

important determining factor on emission rates is the standard to which the vehicle was 

certified. Deterioration has a relatively small impact. Changes in assumed lifetime 

mileage only affect deteriorated emission rates in a relatively small portion of trucks in 

higher mileage truck categories. 

Figure 11 compares the estimated fleet average emission rate for California-registered 

non-interstate traveling HHDDT. This category is the largest category that would be 

impacted by any change to lifetime mileage assumptions. Results show fleet average 

PM2.5 emissions could be 5 percent higher or 8 percent lower in the category depending 

on which lifetime mileage cap is assumed. Staff estimated emissions assuming a 

600,000 cap as industry requested. In 2014 total PM2.5 emissions were reduced by 5 

percent by that assumption.

The current ARB lifetime mileage estimate for HHDDT is capped at 800,000 miles. If 

the approach used by USDOT and USEPA is applied, a lifetime mileage cap of 

1,000,000 miles is estimated. If the snapshot approach is applied to all available data, a 

lifetime mileage cap of around 700,000 miles is estimated. The current ARB estimate 

falls between these two alternative estimates. The industry suggested cap of 600,000 

miles falls outside of this estimate. Even if the lifetime mileage were adjusted, the 

impact on the inventory would be negligible. 
84

Figure 11. HHDDT Fleet Average PM2.5 Emission Rates Under Several Lifetime 

Mileage Cap Assumptions

g) Assessment of Recession Impacts

84. Comment: CARB has made adjustments to the heavy-duty on-road Diesel 

inventory to account for the impacts of the recent economic recession. The CARB 

analysis adjusts current emission estimates to reflect decreased truck operation 

activity using data from a variety of sources. However, the adjustment made by 

CARB is based on the assumption that the activity of all trucks in a given 

population should be decreased by the same percentage. For example, if a 20% 

decrease in VMT is assumed for International Registration Plan trucks, the VMT 

levels for both the oldest (highest emitting) and newest (lowest emitting) vehicles 

in that category are reduced by 20%. This is a relatively simplistic assumption—it 

is equally as likely that trucking fleets may park older, less reliable trucks and rely 

more heavily on newer trucks in order to maximize the economic viability of their 

operations. Unfortunately, no data are readily available that can be used to 

examine this assumption.

CARB also assumes that there will be changes due to the economy in the age 

distribution of trucks within a given population category, resulting in an older, 

higher-emitting fleet. That is, CARB assumes that the benefits of natural attrition 

within the fleet will be delayed as older trucks are not being replaced by newer, 

lower-emitting vehicles. The assumption of a static registration distribution ignores 

the fact that attrition is not completely voluntary as, in reality, it may become 
85

economically infeasible to keep old trucks indefinitely and many vehicles are 

retired from the fleet due to accidents or other unforeseen events. Again, the key 

issue is the validity of CARB’s assumption regarding uniform percentage changes 

in population and activity for trucks as a function of age. Alternatively, if the fleet 

were assumed to be getting older on the basis of population but most of the trucks 

operating were newer, fleet emissions as the result of the recession could be far 

lower than CARB’s estimates. Given these uncertainties, CARB needs to validate 

the assumptions used in its analysis. (SRES1) 

Agency Response: The recession is expected to have two impacts on trucking 

operations in California. First, overall activity is reduced by the recession. In the 

absence of any data suggesting otherwise, staff assumed that activity across all 

vehicles will decline equally as a result of the recession. Second, during the recession 

new vehicle sales have declined dramatically, making the age distribution of trucks on 

the road older than they otherwise would have been both now and in the future. This 

assumption, presented in workshops in 2009 and 2010, is based on actual sales data, 

both in California (DMV data) and nation-wide (Ward’s database). 

85. Comment: In addition to addressing the current impacts of the recession, CARB 

has developed emission forecasts for future years using two economic recovery 

scenarios, which it refers to as the ―Fast‖ and ―Slow‖ growth scenarios. Under the 

Fast growth scenario, new truck sales are assumed to begin increasing again in 

2010, such that truck operations return in eight years to the level assumed by 

CARB for its long-term trend. Under the Slow growth scenario, new truck sales 

are assumed to remain depressed until 2011 and then begin to increase such that 

truck operations rebound to reflect only the average historic growth rate thereafter.

These scenarios define both revised future year age distributions as well as

activity levels for heavy-duty trucks operating in California. Under the Fast growth 

scenario, fleet average emission rates are lower owing to the greater percentage 

of new trucks but are offset by higher activity levels. For the Slow growth 

scenario, fleet average emission rates are higher but are offset somewhat by lower 

activity levels.

The relative impact of the scenarios is that the fleet-average emission factor is 

lower for the Fast growth scenario than for the Slow growth scenario. In both 

scenarios, however, the fleet average emission factors are higher in future years 

than they were in the baseline used during the rulemaking.

In assessing the impact of the recession on the emissions inventory, CARB uses 

the average of the Fast and Slow growth scenarios. There is no technical rationale 

for this choice other than it leads to the use of the middle of the range of potential 

values, and there has not been any economic analysis that supports the validity of 

either the Fast and Slow growth scenarios. (SRES1) 

86. Comment: Under the Board’s direction, CARB staff has reexamined the level of 

activity and resulting emissions from the affected vehicles. As a result, emissions 

from on-road vehicles are estimated to be 35 percent less in 2010 than originally 

projected. Future year emissions are projected to be lower as well. Through this 
86

process, CARB staff has determined that an emissions margin exists that allows 

for economic relief from the existing requirements while still allowing California to 

meet federal air quality standards in 2014 and beyond. Some suggest this margin 

may be even larger than staff has projected. (ATA1)

Agency Response: At the November 2009 Board Hearing, staff presented the fast and 

slow recovery scenarios to show the potential range of forecast. As historical truck 

sales data would show, the truck sales usually drop during recession resulting in less 

new and better emission controlled trucks entering fleets. Therefore, the reduction in 

emissions during recession will be less than the level of reduction in activity. The 

reduction in activity ranges from 20 to 50% depending on trucking sector and the overall 

emissions have been reduced by 25% in 2009 from what we had previously estimated. 

The average recovery as the commenter describes was used in the 2010 truck and bus 

rule emission inventory. The average recovery rate compares well to transportation and 

warehousing employment forecasts developed by UCLA and UOP as shown in Figure 

12. The slow recovery was designed to be a worst-case forecast where the economy 

would not recover from the recession in the foreseeable future and is not consistent with 

forecasted metrics like employment in the transportation industry. By planning for a 

reasonable, modest recovery, we can provide economic relief while also ensuring that 

public health will be protected and legal obligations under the Clean Air Act will be met.

Figure 12. ARB Activity Forecasts in Truck and Bus Rule Emissions Inventory
87

h) Emission Reductions from the Regulation

87. Comment: CARB estimated the emission reductions due to the regulation by 

assuming that there would be accelerated turnover of the truck fleet, which 

increases the number of 2010 and later model-year trucks in the fleet and retrofit 

of particulate matter (PM) control devices on some older vehicles. In addition, 

even though CARB assumed that newer trucks are driven more than older trucks, 

the agency also assumed that the accelerated turnover of the fleet would not lead 

to an overall increase in truck travel in the state. Retrofit PM control devices were 

assumed by CARB to be 85% effective in reducing PM emissions and to be 

immune from the types of T&M impacts assumed by CARB to occur on trucks 

equipped with these devices by the manufacturer. (SRES1)

Agency Response: The overall truck activity is driven by demand for goods movement 

and service needs. Since turning over to newer model year trucks would not affect the 

demand of goods movement or service, it would not impact the overall truck activity, 

and so no adjustment to the inventory is necessary. The commenter is correct that staff 

did not assess the impact of tampering and mal-maintenance on retrofit diesel 

particulate filters. However, the impact of deterioration on PM emission rates in DPF 

equipped vehicles is relatively small and including this impact on retrofits would not 

have materially impacted staff’s analysis of regulatory amendments. 

i) Peer Review of the Inventory

88. Comment: There are several important areas where the assumptions and data 

associated with CARB’s on-road Diesel inventory are either questionable or not 

publicly available. The same situation existed in 2008 when the In-Use On-Road 

Diesel Regulation was adopted. At that time, Sierra urged that CARB conduct a 

peer-review of the inventory16– a request that was ignored by CARB as evidenced 

by the fact that Sierra’s recommendation is not addressed in the Final Statement 

of Reasons published by CARB.17 Sierra again urges that CARB conduct a peer 

review of the inventory to ensure that the need for and the emission benefits of the 

In-Use On-Road Diesel Regulation are accurately quantified.

Sierra also believes that peer review of the inventory is consistent with California 

Health and Safety Code Section 39607.3, which requires the following:

(a) The state board shall, not later than January 1, 1998, and triennially 

thereafter, approve, following a public hearing, an update to the emission 

inventory required by subdivision (b) of Section 39607.

(b) Each inventory update shall include all of the following:

 

16 See http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/truckbus08/875-sierra_research_comments.pdf

17 See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/truckbus08/pt2revfsor.pdf
88

(1) The state board's and each district's best estimates of emissions from all 

sources, including, but not limited to, motor vehicles, nonroad mobile sources, 

stationary sources, area wide sources, and biogenic sources.

(2) A detailed verification of source category emission rate data with available 

scientific data, including, but not limited to, actual measurements of pollutants 

in the atmosphere, and an explanation of any discrepancies.

(3) An update to a mobile source emission inventory for any air quality 

attainment plan required by the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 7401 et 

seq.) or this division, that considers all available information regarding current 

and projected vehicle miles traveled, vehicle trips, demographics, and other 

nontechnological factors affecting the mobile source emission inventory, and 

bases the mobile source emission inventory upon the best information 

available to achieve compliance.

(c) Any emission inventory update approved on or after January 1, 1997, shall 

comply with this section. 

(d) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that it is in the interests of the 

state that air quality plans be based on accurate emission inventories. 

Inaccurate inventories that do not reflect the actual emissions into the air can 

lead to misdirected air quality control measures, resulting in delayed attainment 

of standards and unnecessary and significant costs. (SRES1)

Agency Response: ARB’s response to the commenter’s 2008 comment is in the 

"Supplement to the Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking" and is available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/truckbus08/fsorsupp.pdf. 

As described in response to Comment 73, we developed and will continue to update the 

Truck and Bus emissions inventory through public process including public workshops 

and meetings with stakeholders.

j) General

89. Comment: These draconian regulations are based on false information that over 

estimated diesel pollution by 300%. Stop the over regulation of commerce in this 

State so we can go about the business of bringing a vital economy back to 

California. (TGILD)

Agency Response: In light of the economic recession and comments from 

stakeholders, staff re-evaluated emissions inventory representing trucks, buses, and offroad equipment. Staff found that the recession had a major impact on current 

emissions estimates, and that updated economic forecasts suggested that future year 

growth in emissions from these vehicles and equipment would be much lower than 

originally anticipated. Overall estimated truck and bus emissions were down about 30% 

due largely to the recession, with a small reduction in emissions due to updated 

inventory methods derived from new data and analysis. The methods used to develop 

truck and bus emissions estimates are sound.
89

Staff conducted a similar analysis on off-road equipment, taking advantage of the 

substantial amount of new information made available through reporting provisions of 

the regulatory process. Staff found the recession had a profound effect on the 

construction industry, with activity levels 50% lower than estimated due to the recession 

alone. In addition, new California fleet-specific reporting data demonstrated that 

previous estimates for how much and how hard off-road equipment works were 

substantially overestimated, and the off-road inventory was adjusted accordingly.

Overall, the off-road emissions inventory was reduced by 80 percent, about half of 

which was caused by the recession.

Due to the major change in off-road emissions estimates, staff re-evaluated the 

emissions inventory against the Statewide Implementation Plan commitment for 

compliance with Clean Air Act requirements. Staff found that economic relief for both 

rules could be provided while continuing to meet emissions targets in the future. The 

amendments that were considered by the Board in December 2010 provide economic 

relief while ensuring our air quality commitments will continue to be met. 

90. Comment: I am astonished that nobody at your board or SCAQMD is able to 

figure out and convey to the public that the reason the inland empire has poor air 

quality and high amounts of particulate matter is because of the hydrologic cycle, 

you need to explain this to the public. They are under the impression that they 

have more trucks than south bay and the Los Angeles area and that’s why the 

poorer air quality. if you need more detail about this please write back (DWILL)

Agency Response: While the Inland Empire has more dust than the coastal areas 

because of less precipitation and drier conditions, the poor PM2.5 air quality is not 

driven by dust. Rather, ammonium nitrate and motor vehicle exhaust our significant 

contributors to the poor PM2.5 air quality in the Inland Empire. Diesel trucks contribute 

to both of these components of PM2.5.

4. Technology

a) Availability of Verified DECS

91. Comment: There is strong uncertainty about the availability of remaining filters for 

the massive number of trucks that will require them – and about the availability of 

enough technicians to service those filters when they break down, which happens 

with great frequency.(ACLOG1)(ACLOG2)

Agency Response: Staff believes that the PM filters market and installation network 

will be sufficient to meet the compliance requirements on time. During the development 

of the original regulation, staff contacted several PM filter manufacturers to inquire 

about their manufacturing capacities, and they indicated that their manufacturing 

facilities are capable of producing over one million diesel particulate filters for original 

equipment and retrofit applications on an annual basis. 

However, if there are disruptions in the ability of the fleet to install PM filters, fleet 

owners that plan ahead will not be penalized. Section 2025(p)(8) specifies that fleet
90

owners will not be penalized if manufacturing delays prevent them from acquiring the 

equipment or vehicles they need to comply if the equipment is ordered 4 months prior to 

the compliance deadline. Fleet owners will be able to continue to operate the vehicle 

that was planned to be replaced or retrofit until the replacement vehicle, engine or PM 

filter retrofit is delivered.

As described in response to Comment 96, the use of PM retrofit filters on on-road trucks 

have proven to be reliable and will not result in frequent break downs or a strain on the 

existing dealer network.

b) Performance of Verified DECS and OEM Technology

92. Comment: I am not in disagreement with the goals or end of what we are all 

trying to do. Why I am here today is this technology has had a profound history of 

mechanical failure from the beginning. The diesel users have experienced 

numerous breakdowns from the premature failures of the added pollution control 

devices placed on diesel engines since 2004 through 2009 (Current 2010 engine 

statistics are not readily available however recent field test results are showing the 

continued service failure pattern). As has been testified before this Board in 

December 2009, the Tow Truck Association stated they were towing more new 

trucks than old trucks which are counter to the historical norm. Our own history 

shows in the last 2 years versus the previous 20 years combined, our tow bills 

were exceedingly more. In September of this year alone, for our fleet of 33 trucks, 

there was $5,400.00 in towing costs due to EGR pollution control devices. All of 

the manufacturers have been involved, some having more issues than others. In 

the case of Caterpillar, they have stopped producing engines for trucks. 

These problems have resulted from the dispute between the EPA and the diesel 

manufacturers over the engines testing criteria used for the 2004 year models. 

The result of this dispute was a rush to market to meet further government 

mandated requirements without the prudent historical testing of past practices we 

have experienced from the diesel manufacturers. Our repairs to EGR pollution 

control devices were more than $25,000.00 in September. The average truck age 

of this repair history has been between 2 1/2 and 4 years. The average mileage 

bracket for the start of the failure rates has been between 200,000 and 370,000 

miles. To help you relate to this; that would be similar to you having to do similar 

repairs to your personal vehicle at 50,000 miles at your expense. In the 

automobile industry there is a standard that pollution control devices must last a 

minimum of 5 years, or they are replaced at the manufacturers’ cost. Our industry 

has become the guinea pigs for the real world test results. I believe we deserve 

better than what we have been forced to accept! This history is not acceptable. 

Why are we subjected to this continued abuse? With this terrible record of 

dubious diesel technology, by ignoring the real life performance feedback is bad 

public policy! This Board needs to remember the disastrous consequences 

suffered by California's experiment with the diesel reformulation project several 

years ago. (CTI1) (CTI2) (CTI3) 
91

93. Comment: We went out and bought 07-08 technology trucks. They are the most 

frequently towed vehicle in our fleet. My 1998 trucks, they run all day long. They 

run all day long without all the emission standards that are required of the new 

technology. There are a lot of issues on durability and dependability with retrofit 

devices, new OEM equipment. We are pursuing a lemon law through the State 

Legislature to apply to heavy-duty diesels, OEM to put some burden back on the 

manufacturer for dependability of the technology. You folks need to recognize that 

and hopefully address that as well. (MVE)

Agency Response: ARB receives warranty records from new engine manufacturers, 

and the data does not show a widespread pattern of failures or high warranty claims for 

engines with enhanced exhaust gas recirculation or 2007 model year or new engines

that are originally equipped with PM filters. We understand that periodic failures occur, 

but they are mostly not related to PM filters. In most cases, these failures are covered 

under warranty, and in some cases, design changes have been made to correct issues. 

If there is an emissions related problem ARB can issue a recall.

See response to Comment 96 that explains how PM retrofit filters have been proven to 

be reliable.

94. Comment: We need to trust that the technology is viable and durable to do what 

it is intended to do. A different course of action to correct these known shortfalls 

needs to be implemented before it is allowed to continue to go on. (CTI1)

Agency Response: New engine technology and PM retrofits are widely available and 

are performing as expected. See response to Comment 96 that explains how PM 

retrofit filters have been proven to be reliable and response to Comment 92 on the 

durability and dependability of newer engines with OEM emission control system.

95. Comment: CalPortland owns about 300 ready-mix trucks in the California area, 

but only operate about half of those due to the downturn in the economy. The 

trucks that used to be able to operate 14, 15 hours a day can now only operate 

about 11 hours a day because the diesel particulate filters have to be regenerated 

and therefore have to park that truck and bring out another truck out of the fleet to 

continue our business. I just believe that more time is needed not only for the 

economy to improve, but the technology of the diesel particulate filters to improve 

as well. (CAPC)

Agency Response: See response to Comment 268 regarding how the compliance 

options in the regulation can delay compliance and lower costs. 

Fleet owners need to identify which PM filters are most appropriate for their application. 

Passive systems require the exhaust temperature to be in a suitable range and no 

interaction by the driver is needed; however, for applications where the exhaust 

temperature is not high enough (cold duty cycle) an active device may be required. 

Active PM filters use an external heat source to regenerate the PM filter, typically when 

the engine is off. The regeneration time and frequency depends on many factors, such 

as the engine size, how the vehicle is used, and the condition of the vehicle on which 

the retrofit is installed. Retrofit manufacturers are required to inform the customer about 
92

the regeneration times and how long the vehicle is expected to operate. Active PM 

filters that have a regeneration time less than an hour are commonly available and can 

be used during lunch or other down periods to ensure a full shift can be completed.

96. Comment: These diesel particulate filters, as I've really come to understand this, 

they really don't work well on short haul vehicles. Engines in short haul vehicles do 

don’t really come up to temperature. (RLEE) 

Agency Response: Diesel particulate filters have been proven to work well on both 

short haul and long-haul vehicles, and they are widely available today. Experience to 

date has demonstrated that PM filters are reliable and durable for most engines in a 

wide range of uses and industries. In California, thousands of verified PM filters (or 

VDECS) have been installed to comply with other regulations affecting urban buses, 

transit fleet vehicles, solid waste collection vehicles, vehicles owned by public agencies, 

and drayage trucks. Most of these vehicles have similar duty cycles to short-haul 

vehicles. 

Fleet owners need to identify which PM filters are most appropriate for their application. 

Passive systems require the exhaust temperature to be in a suitable range and no 

interaction by the driver is needed; however, for applications where the exhaust 

temperature is not high enough (cold duty cycle) an active device may be required. 

In the unlikely event that no verified device is suitable for a specific engine, the 

regulation does not require fleets to use retrofit PM filter technology. PM filters are only 

required to be installed when that are proven to work for a specific engine family and 

can be safely installed. In the event that a VDECS is unavailable for a particular engine 

class, the amended regulation allows for annual extensions from the PM filter 

requirement until January 1, 2018, as specified in (section 2025 (p)(9)). 

97. Comment: The existing rule and its proposed amendments offer diesel 

particulate filters (DPFs) as much-needed relief as an alternative to the purchase 

of new trucks, but does so in a marketplace in which many filters have been deverified on the basis of being unable to meet CARB requirements. 

We believe that the accelerated pace of diesel rule enactment has ―gotten the 

rules ahead of the technology,‖ but that with the existing delays until 2014 for 

certain aspects of the rule, there is time for the technology to catch up with the 

rule. This should be a goal for all of us to pursue with the filter manufacturers. 

(ACLOG1) (ACLOG2)

Agency Response: There are currently 16 different PM retrofits verified for use in onroad applications in California. These systems include both active and passive 

systems, whereby nearly all on-road trucks in nearly any application have an available 

retrofit solution. As such, staff believes that there are adequate technology options 

available to fleets to meet the requirements of the amended regulation. 

The regulation also has provision so that fleets are not penalized because of 

manufacturers’ delays as described in response to Comment 91 . 
93

98. Comment: You're seeing an additional three to four to even eleven percent lower 

fuel mileage. So we're talking about reducing the particulate. Now we're increasing 

the CO2 for technology that is not here yet. We have major engine manufacturers 

that are dropping out of the California market. We need to allow them time to catch 

up. I go back to the mandate CARB had I think in 1990 or so to have the certain 

amount of cars sold in California be zero emission vehicles. And so the big three 

at the time had to spend much effort trying to make battery powered cars work at 

the time battery technology was nowhere near accommodating a real life 

automobile that people would drive. So that mandate finally after about a decade 

had to be relieved, because there was no such thing as a zero emission car that 

was a practical thing somebody would buy. So it isn't always because of 

mandates that are made by governments that is going to drive technology to come 

out of thin air. We still don't have battery technology that truly works for the 

average driver. It's okay for commuters or in town, but if we apply the same logic 

thinking, it's forcing a mandate upon an industry to develop technology that doesn't 

meet the goal. We're not necessarily going to see that. We're seeing major engine 

manufacturers not wanting to be in California applying the needs. So let's take a 

little longer term look at this and find practical solutions that -- I know the people 

involved here. They want to help. They want to come forward. They want to be 

part of a solution here. But when they feel it's so hopeless they can't afford it --

please help me to help you to get them that hope. (MALFA)

Agency Response: In the ISOR, staff acknowledged the fuel economy penalty from 

the use of retrofit PM filters. This impact was considered by staff in both their economic 

and emission impact analyses. Even after considering this, staff’s emission impact 

analysis showed a significant benefit in NOx, PM, and GHG emission from the amended 

regulation. 

Staff appreciates the comments relative to technology forcing standards. However, as 

described in response to Comment 97, there are adequate technologies available in the 

marketplace for fleets to meet the requirements of the amended regulation. In addition, 

the amended regulation significantly extends clean-up requirements of the regulation, 

and significantly lowers the cost of compliance as described in response to 

Comment 268.

Lastly, the certification standards for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines are the same in 

California as the rest of the United States. Therefore, the Truck and Bus regulation will 

no impact on engine manufacturer’s decision to supply engines in California. 

5. Regulatory Provisions

a) General

99. Comment: The CARB staff proposal for compliance is far too complicated to 

meet, much less to understand and more complicated to enforce. (CTI1)

Agency Response: Staff designed the amended model year schedules to be straight 

forward and easy to understand. Fleets that meet the model year schedules require no 
94

further action. The model year schedules specify when each engine model year must 

be retrofit and replaced. The schedule for lighter trucks and buses with a GVWR of 

14,001 to 26,000 pounds has no PM filter requirements and specifies the engine model 

year that must be replaced each calendar year starting January 1, 2015. The schedule 

for heavier trucks and buses starts January 1, 2012, and specifies the engine model 

years that must be equipped with the best available PM filters and when engines need 

to be replaced. Both schedules end in 2023 when all trucks and buses must have 2010 

model year engines with few exceptions. 

Staff also realized that model year schedules might not be suitable for all fleets and 

added more flexible alternatives such as the phase-in option and a number of special 

provisions, and credits. The phase-in option allows fleets to decide which vehicles to 

retrofit or replace, regardless of engine model year. The phase-in option requires fleets

to install PM filters from 2012 to 2016 and delays replacements until 2020 or later. 

Owners that comply with the phase-in option can also take advantage of other 

provisions that can delay compliance. These provisions include credits to reward fleets 

that have taken early actions to comply, delay compliance for certain business sectors, 

and lower compliance costs more for fleets that have been adversely affected by the 

recession. Small business with less than four diesel vehicles can also delay compliance 

with the PM filter requirements until 2014. These alternative compliance options allow 

fleets to determine the best compliance strategy for their business, lowers compliance 

cost, and achieves the needed emissions reductions. Fleets that use the more flexible 

options must report information about the fleet.

In the field, enforcement will check that trucks and buses meet the requirements of the 

model year schedule. Vehicles that do not meet the requirements of the model year 

schedule will be in violation unless the fleet owner has reported to the ARB to document 

that the fleet has met other more flexible compliance options.

ARB staff is also committing significant resources for outreach and education about the 

regulation to assist fleets in understanding their options and meeting the requirements. 

These include expansion of training and outreach efforts and materials to give 

stakeholders more opportunities to receive compliance assistance on the Truck and Bus 

regulation as well as other diesel vehicle regulations. 

100. Comment: If you can find a way to gradually phase in new standards that would 

not force us out of business, we would be willing to comply. You may think that 

the current proposed requirements are just that, but they are not. (TTOW)

Agency Response: ARB staff believes that the amended regulation does phase-in its 

requirements. The amended regulation simplifies the compliance requirements while 

retaining flexibility for fleets to determine which vehicles to retrofit or modernize. 

Overall, the amended regulation would exempt about 150,000 lighter trucks with a 

GVWR of 26,000 pounds or less from meeting the PM filter requirements, and would 

delay any truck replacement requirements until 2015. Beginning in 2015, these lighter 

trucks would be required to be modernized (replaced, but not necessarily with new 

vehicles), but not until the trucks are 20 years old or older. 
95

Additionally, larger, heavier trucks (with a GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds) would 

have two primary compliance options. Fleets could comply with the compliance 

schedule by engine model year or could use a PM filter phase-in option from 2012 to 

2016 that is more flexible. The PM filter phase-in option allows fleets to decide which 

vehicles to retrofit or replace, regardless of engine model year. This option counts 2007 

model year and newer engines originally equipped with PM filters toward compliance 

and would reduce the overall number of retrofit PM filters needed. Any engine with a PM 

filter regardless of model year would be compliant until at least 2020. From 2020 to 

2023 all engines will need to be replaced with 2010 model year engines or newer 

according to the model year schedule. Fleets must report information about all of their 

heavier trucks starting January 31, 2012, to use the PM filter phase-in option. 

In addition to the PM filter phase-in option, there are a number of provisions or credits 

that may delay compliance requirements such as for low use vehicles or fleets that have 

downsized. 

101. Comment: I am all for clean air and the environment, but implement this over the 

next ten to fifteen years, not within the next couple of years. As new automobiles 

come out with new standards the same should apply to the trucks, so as we buy 

new trucks the emissions standards will meet the new requirements. We need 

more time. (GMEN) 

102. Comment: Please amend this regulation so that it does not affect any vehicles 

purchased before the law was put into place. (LCL)

103. Comment: How can we be made to install smog equipment the manufacturer 

was not required to install? Just like our cars we should be required to maintain 

them to the standard for the year they were produced. Smog tests are ok. (MVT) 

Agency Response: Emission reductions from all trucks, except those driven very few 

miles annually, are necessary for California to meet state implementation plan (SIP) 

commitments needed to meet national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and 

diesel PM health risk reduction and other health protective goals. California is 

mandated to meet these standards for PM composed of particles less than 2.5 microns 

(PM2.5) and ozone by 2014 and 2023 respectively. If California fails to meet these 

attainment targets, it would be subject to federal penalties (e.g., loss of national highway 

funds.)

Even after considering the reduced trucking activity resulting from the recession, heavy 

duty diesel trucks and buses subject to the regulation remain the largest contributor to 

emissions from all mobile sources. See the response to Comment 268 that explains 

why the regulation is necessary and how given the economic and emission impacts of 

the severe recession, the regulation has been amended to substantially lower the 

compliance costs of affected fleets. 

b) Engine Model Year Compliance Schedule and Phase in Option

104. Comment: Whether or not you gave any consideration to moving the 2005 and 

2006 model year trucks out to 2016 to give us a couple more years of relief --
96

because our ultimate date has changed in 2014. We still have to be 100 percent 

at least PM trapped. And we thank you for that consideration -- not NOx, the way I 

understand it -- but PM. And there is a different big cost in investment that has to 

occur between 2012 and 2014. Those two years is still a major hit for us. I would 

just ask if there is any consideration that's been given to moving the BACT 

compliance date to 2016 for the 2005 and 2006 model year trucks. (MVE)

Agency Response: Allowing 2005 and 2006 model year engines to operate without a 

PM filter until 2016 would impair the State’s ability to meet NAAQS and put the public at 

unnecessary risk of exposure to diesel PM. A high percentage of the vehicles in the 

statewide fleet have 2004 to 2006 model year engines, tend to have higher miles 

travelled than older trucks, and represent a significant fraction of the emissions 

inventory. Therefore, it is not feasible to postpone the PM BACT requirements for 2005 

and 2006 model year engines, as the commenter requests. 

Fleets that have a high percentage of vehicles in a narrow model year range may use 

the PM filter phase-in option to spread out compliance requirements. The PM filter 

phase-in schedule requires 30 percent of the vehicles in a fleet to have PM filters by 

January 1, 2012, 60 percent by January 1, 2013, 90 percent January 1, 2014 and 100 

percent by January 1, 2016. Therefore, a fleet owner that uses the Phase-in option can 

delay installing PM filters on 10 percent of the fleet until 2016.

105. Comment: We also suggested some additional opportunities for generating 

additional reductions of PM through the application of retrofits on segments not 

covered by the proposal, including older trucks like '94 to '97. But I am glad to hear 

that there is a conclusion on the '96 to '97 trucks in the 15-day changes. (MECA2) 

Agency Response: As the commenter indicates, there have been changes to the 

engine model year schedule that affect heavier trucks with 1996 and 1997 model year 

engines. The amended regulation now requires heavier trucks with 1996 and 1997 

model year engines to be retrofit by January 1, 2012. The modifications, which were 

made available for comment with the May 19, 2011 Notice of Availability of Modified 

Text (15-day changes), will provide additional PM emissions reductions between 2012 

and 2017. These emissions reductions will offset emissions increases from additional 

provisions for low-mileage construction trucks and additional credits for the early 

purchase of newer engines without increasing emissions in 2014 such that there is no 

net change in benefits. 

While there is no PM retrofit requirement for trucks with 1994 and 1995 model year 

engines, these engines must be replaced by 2016. Trucks with 1994 and 1995 model 

year engines represent a smaller part of the emissions inventory because they are near 

the end of their useful lives and typically operate fewer miles than trucks with newer 

engines. Under the commenter’s proposal, they would not be replaced by 2016 as 

required by the amended regulation. This means that although there would be more 

PM reductions from 2012 to 2016 from these engines, the benefits would be partially 

offset from higher NOx emissions from 2016 to 2020. As such, staff does not believe 

the proposed alternative would not be as health protective as it would initially appear, 

and is not needed to meet the SIP. 
97

106. Comment: The optional phase-in provision is great. The proposed amendment 

provides a one year delay for heavier trucks. NWSC is suggesting that staff 

increase the period of time one additional year to a two year delay for heavier 

trucks. (NWSC1)

Agency Response: The PM filter phase in option and the engine model year 

compliance schedules were both developed to bring most of the heavy duty diesel 

vehicle into compliance before 2014 to help meet the NAAQS for PM2.5 by the required 

target date in 2014. Delaying compliance dates would mean the State would not meet 

its SIP commitments nor diesel PM health risk reduction goals. 

c) Changing Compliance Options 

107. Comment: An explicit statement is needed to indicate that a fleet with four or 

more vehicles may switch compliance paths in any compliance year provided 

compliance with one path is achieved. (CFCOAL1) (CFCOAL2) 

108. Comment: As long as the fleet is in compliance in one schedule, it would be 

compliant on the other schedule and that's [not] intuitive but not explicit. 

(CFCOAL1)

Agency Response: We believe it is clear from section 2025(e)(1)(B) that a fleet may 

switch between the model year schedule and the PM filter phase-in option so as long as 

they report by January 31, 2012 to opt-in to the phase-in option. 

d) Requirements for a New Fleet and Changes to an Existing Fleet

109. Comment: The proposed regulation changed the new fleet requirements stating, 

―Owner of new fleets must meet the requirements of section 2025 (e) immediately 

upon bringing such vehicles into the State of California for the first time after 

January 1, 2011 January 1, 2012.‖ In addition, the proposed regulation states, 

―New fleets must report vehicles subject to the regulation to ARB within 30 days of 

bringing such vehicles into the State. NWSC is suggesting that staff keeps the 

January 1, 2011 date, and require the new fleet to report before starting operation 

in California.‖ ( NWSC1)

Agency Response: The regulation was amended to extend the initial general 

requirements compliance date to January 1, 2012. Therefore, there is no need for new 

fleets to report prior to that date. 

110. Comment: The proposed regulation has a provision for adding vehicles to an 

existing fleet and states, ―Before a fleet may operate a newly added vehicle in 

service, or operate a vehicle that was previously reported as non-operational, in 

California, it must file a report with the Executive Officer that it has added a new 

vehicle, and the Executive Officer shall approve the vehicle for service operation 

upon the fleet demonstrating that the fleet, as newly constituted, complies with the 

requirement section 2025.‖ The existing fleet must gain approval from the 

Executive Officer before operating the vehicle, but a new fleet has 30 days. As 
98

fleets move toward compliance in the future, the fleets will be adding and moving 

vehicles within the fleets. Large fleets will have to file reports all the time before 

operating their vehicles. NWSC is suggesting that staff changes the proposed 

regulation to allow fleets to change vehicles and if the vehicles are new or used 

vehicles with PM filters, the fleets do not have to demonstrate that they are in 

compliance until the annual reporting.‖ (NWSC1)

111. Comment: The proposed regulation has a provision for removing vehicles from 

an existing fleet. If an existing fleet is not in compliance, the owner must file a 

report with the Executive Officer to demonstrate compliance. Fleets will be 

removing vehicles all the time to meet the requirements of the regulation. Filing 

the report and gaining approval from the Executive Officer will restrict fleet owners 

during their normal operations. NWSC is suggesting that staff changes the 

requirement to have fleet owners only report to the Executive Officer during the 

annual report period.‖ (NWSC1)

Agency Response: Fleets owners that comply with the model year schedules do not 

need to report, and if the added vehicle is equipped with a PM filter and meets the 

requirements of the model year schedule the added vehicle will not need to be reported. 

The reporting requirements apply to fleets owners that use the flexibility provisions in 

the regulation. Reporting is required because compliance is determined based on the 

entire California fleet; therefore, having accurate fleet information is necessary to 

determine compliance and provides the explanation to enforcement, in the field, as to 

why a given vehicle does not need comply with the model year schedule requirements.

The commenter may have misinterpreted the compliance and reporting requirements for 

fleets that use the flexibility provisions in the regulation. An existing fleet or a newly 

constituted fleet may not operate the added vehicle or vehicles unless the fleet can 

demonstrate compliance; however, the fleet will have 30 days to report the change and 

will not be prohibited from operating the vehicle provided the fleet continues to comply 

with the beginning of the year requirements. Also, consistent with the suggestion by the 

commenter, fleet owners will not need to report if the added vehicle has a 2007 or 

newer engine that meets PM BACT because these engines already comply with the 

model year schedule until 2023 or meet the final requirements. The regulation 

language was modified during the 15-day comment period to make this clear.

However, other changes to the fleet must be reported, including when vehicles are 

removed from the fleet, because various credits and provisions require complete fleet 

information to determine compliance. Also the information is necessary so that 

enforcement will have the appropriate information to confirm that the fleet still complies 

and to avoid issues with apparent misreporting.

Staff previously considered whether reporting could be avoided during the middle of the 

year when changes were made; however, staff concluded that enforcement efforts 

would be compromised without accurate information. For instance, if a fleet 

misreported information at the beginning of the year, but fleets were allowed to make 

changes in the middle of the year, enforcement would have no practical way to verify, in 

the field, whether the initial report was accurate. This would also mean that out of state 
99

fleets could report compliance at the beginning of the year, but could bring noncompliant vehicles into the state. This would effectively make enforcement ineffective. 

A change that keeps the fleet in compliance would simply need to be reported and 

would not need approval from the Executive Officer. In most cases, the fleet owner 

would simply need to report the date the vehicle is removed from the fleet, and for 

vehicles that are using a mileage based provision would also need to report the 

odometer reading. As such we do not believe this is an onerous requirement and will 

reduce uncertainty in determining compliance in the field and for fleet audits as approval 

from the Executive Officer would be required only in cases where the change to the fleet 

would make the fleet go out of compliance with the beginning of the year requirements. 

e) Credit for Early PM Retrofit

112. Comment: Our organization made the mistake of trying to pay for compliance 

early. Our mistake was retrofitting early some of our important trucks that are 

below 26,001 GVWR. Then the rules were changed. We would like to ask the 

staff to propose that a fleet be allowed to pair a heavy fleet truck over 26,000 

GVWR with a early retrofitted light fleet truck below 26,001 GVWR for exemption 

until 2017 for at least the first year of BACT requirements in 2012 to allow relief so 

a fleet can benefit from its early compliance spending efforts. The economy is still 

very tough and this would help us and some other fleets through 2012. 

(JWOOD1)

Agency Response: The original staff proposal allowed the early retrofit of a lighter 

truck to count towards compliance with a heavier truck in the fleet. The language was 

further modified in sections 2025(j)(2) and (j)(2)(A) of the amended regulation, and was 

made available for comment with the 15-day changes made available on May 19, 2011. 

Specifically, the early PM retrofit credit will be granted for each vehicle, with a GVWR 

greater than 14,000 lbs that is equipped with the highest level VDECS for PM by 

July 1, 2011. The credit counts towards compliance with the phase-in option for heavier 

trucks, with a GVWR greater than 26,000 lbs, and delays compliance for another 

heavier vehicle in the fleet until January 1, 2017. In addition, any vehicle that is 

equipped with a PM filter prior to January 1, 2014, including those that are retrofitted to 

earn the early PM credit, would also be exempt from meeting the 2010 model year 

emissions equivalent requirement until January 1, 2020. 

113. Comment: The Clean Fleets Coalition wishes the Board to consider the following 

technical revisions to the Proposed Regulation Order before you today: 

Early Action - the ―prepayment‖ requirement by May 1, 2011 to claim early credit 

for VDECS installed by September 1, 2011 should be amended to allow a 

purchase order or deposit by the fleet owner. It is not a standard business 

practice to pay for vehicle service prior to completion** [ref. Section 2025 (j)(I )(A), 

p. A-23 (CFCOAL1)

114. Comment: There is early action -- there is currently a pre-payment requirement --

I use that terminology, because Board staff has a requirement that filters will need 
100

to be paid for prior to completion of the work. And that's something that we have 

concern about and should be the same language as the items that correspond to 

the VDECS manufacturer delay in terms of having deposit or contractual 

obligation. (CFCOAL2).

Agency Response: Staff modified the early PM retrofit credit during the 15-day 

comment period from May 19, 2011 to June 3, 2011. In section 2025(j)(2)(A) of the 

amended regulation, the option to make a 20 percent deposit was added so fleets would 

not need to pay in full to qualify for the credit. The PM filter must have been ordered by 

May 1, 2011 and the date by which the VDECS must have been installed was extended 

one month, to October 1, 2011, to ensure that fleets have sufficient time to install the 

VDECS. The installation date was moved to as late in the year as practicable without 

losing the original intent of the provision, which is to reward fleets for taking action early 

and achieving early emissions reductions. In addition, language was added to clarify 

that fleets must report by January 31, 2012 to claim the credit and must meet the record 

keeping requirements. 

115. Comment: Due to the uncertainty and constant changes of the diesel regulations 

many fleets are hesitant to spend money for early compliance. It would be a 

benefit to see the July 1st 2011 incentive be extended until the end of 2011 to help 

fleets determine whether or not the regulation will assume its current form. We 

have been penalized for our early efforts in the past. Please consider extending 

the July 1st 2011 early credit until the end of 2011 to help give fleets more time to 

decide whether or not to spend early retrofit $. (JWOOD2)

Agency Response: The credit provision was introduced to reward fleets that had 

taken action to comply with the regulation as originally adopted. The July 1, 2011 

deadline assures that PM filters will be installed six months before the compliance 

deadline and appropriately gives extra credits for fleet that have already taken action. 

Extending the early credit period beyond July would give extra credit for meeting the 

basic compliance requirements and will not result in early emissions reductions the 

credit is intended to achieve.

116. Comment: The provisions regarding early compliance credit, which is available 

for particulate matter retrofits, sounds good but has very little practical applicability 

because, as I explained in the beginning of this letter, there are no PM retrofit 

devices available. How can we get early compliance credit? (APTCO)

Agency Response: Most engines have at least one PM filter option that could be 

installed to take advantage of the early credit provision. At least 16 verified PM filters 

are available for on-road applications that are suitable for a wide variety of engines. 

f) Credit for Early Addition of Newer Vehicles 

117. Comment: Some companies purchased new model on-road vehicles and

engines based upon-or in advance of--the requirements of the current law. This 

means they purchased either 2007 or 2010 model year engines. These purchases 

have come at a time of great financial stress for the companies, but were done to 
101

spread out compliance costs over the long-term. These purchases have often 

required lead times of 8 to 9 months, due to the lack of a developed market. 

Finally, these purchases are very important in developing a market for these 

newer engines as well as a market for used equipment in years to come. 

However, this proposal gives no credit for early replacement of vehicles, even 

though there is provision for early retrofits.

Proposed Solution: We are encouraged that the ARB notice indicates a provision 

will be added in this regard. (CEMEX1) (CCIMA1) (PRMI) (SYAR) (AARMC)

118. Comment: The proposed changes allow for a credit to treat another vehicle with 

a GVWR greater than 26,000 lbs as compliant until January 1, 2017 for each 

vehicle the fleet has equipped with the highest level VDECS for PM by July 1, 

2011. A fleet may also receive the same credit if the highest level VDECS is 

ordered and paid for by May 1, 2011 and installed by September 1, 2011. Staff 

did not include credit if a truck is simply replaced with a new truck even though we 

asked repeatedly. The rationale is beyond the understanding of stakeholders. We 

would rather have a compliant new truck than a compliant old truck and the former 

choice is a greater stimulus to the economy than the latter. The end result of this 

lack of credit means that our company will run our usable equipment till the end 

and replace versus repower as the deadlines near. The lack of incentive will mean 

easily captured early efforts will not occur. Staff should be directed to submit an 

amendment that allows replacement as a strategy that qualifies for credit in the 

rule. (WEAT1) (WEAT2)

119. Comment: The first item that you've heard from Trucking Association as well as 

others that the 2007 to 2009 engine credit is something that is very important to 

them. The Board allows that for VDECS or aftermarket installation. So we'd like 

to give equal consideration to folks that actually put down -- give money to buy 

new equipment, because recognizing you also get a NOx benefit with that 

decision. I know folks have been gearing up to be prepared for the rule. That's 

first item we'd like to ask, equity with regard to early action. (CFCOAL2).

120. Comment: We realize that some companies stepped up to the plate early and 

invested in newer technologies. For this they must be commended. Although we 

were not able to invest as they did, we feel it is only fair that they be rewarded for 

their efforts. Perhaps some State tax benefits can be offered to them to help even 

out the competitive playing field over the next 10 years. We realize that these 

changes allow many of us to continue to use older technology for a while longer, 

and that may or may not give us a competitive advantage. We know that 

advantage is only temporary and at some point we will need to step up to the plate 

and invest in newer cleaner emission technology. Please consider some 

advantage to those carriers that complied ahead of schedule. (ROTC)

Agency Response: We introduced a method to allow fleets to earn credits for 

purchasing newer engines earlier than they normally would in modifications to the 

amended regulation. A new credit was added in a new section (2025(j)(3)) in the 

modified regulation that was made available for comment with the May 19, 2011 15-day 

changes. The credit is available to fleets that have added vehicles with GVWR greater 
102

than 26,000 pounds and equipped with an OEM diesel particulate filter. The amended 

language includes a method to estimate what proportion of the fleet was replaced 

earlier than normal business. Fleets with a newer average age in the compliance year 

than in their 2006 baseline fleet can receive a credit that may be used to reduce the PM 

filter requirement of the phase-in option of section 2025(i) of the amended regulation. 

As long as the average age of the fleet remains the same or becomes newer, the credit 

may be used each year until exhausted. The credit will exclude vehicles that were 

purchased with public funds if the funding contract is still in place, and the credit cannot 

exceed the percentage of the fleet with 2007 or newer model year engines that meet 

PM BACT.

The credit is calculated by multiplying the difference between the average age of the 

2006 baseline fleet and the average age of the fleet in the compliance year by five 

percent but it cannot be higher than the percentage of the fleet that has original 

equipment PM filters. For example, take a fleet with 40 heavier trucks with an average 

age of 12 years old in 2006. If the fleet average age is 10 years old on January 1, 2012, 

the fleet is two years newer than it was in 2006; therefore, the fleet could receive a 

credit up to 10 percent (2*5=10) for 2012. The maximum allowable credit will be the 

least of the 10 percent or the percentage of the fleet that has original equipment PM 

filters. If by January 1, 2012 the fleet has six trucks with 2007 model year or newer 

engines that were originally equipped with PM filters, the percentage of the fleet that 

has original equipment PM filters would be 15 percent (6/40=15). For this example, the 

credit earned is 10 percent, since that is the lower amount. In future years the credit 

could decline if the average fleet age of the fleet becomes older, but could not increase 

above the 10 percent established for 2012.

While it’s clear that a PM filter is installed to comply with the regulation, it is more 

difficult to separate business as usual truck replacements from actions taken to comply 

with the regulation. Vehicle replacement practices vary widely among fleets and 

business types. Giving extra credit for vehicle replacements that would occur in the 

normal course of business would result in little to no emissions reductions for fleets that 

operate higher annual miles and normally replace their vehicles in shorter cycles, and in 

turn, would require still more emissions reductions from fleets that keep their vehicles 

longer because they typically operate fewer annual miles. 

In several workshops prior to the December 2011 Board Hearing, staff sought ideas on 

developing a mechanism for determining how early replacements could be 

distinguished from replacements that would normally occur. No practical methods were 

proposed. New language to introduce a method was presented by staff to the Board at 

the hearing in Attachment B to ARB Resolution 10-44; however, the method could result 

in fractional truck credits or would require rounding that could result in no credits if the 

calculation rounded down or higher than appropriate credits if rounding up. Subsequent 

changes were made as part of the 15-day changes after consulting with industry

representatives on how to simplify the calculation further. The changes still represent 

the proportion of the fleet that is replaced earlier than normal with vehicles that are 

equipped with original equipment PM filters. The early replacement credit is now 

calculated as the difference in the fleet average age for the compliance year compared 
103

to the 2006 baseline fleet multiplied by 5. The extra credit is equivalent to a percentage 

of the fleet and counts towards the PM filter phase-in option requirement.

The multiplier in the prior method varied with the initial fleet age. The amended 

multiplier was fixed at 5 to simplify the calculation and represents the factor calculated 

for a fleet with an average age of 10. An average fleet age of 10 is very common and 

represents a fleet that purchases new vehicles and keeps them for 20 years.

Staff acknowledges that no calculation method can perfectly address every situation, 

but we believe the method gives a fair outcome for most fleets. The maximum credit is 

established January 1, 2012 and is limited to the number of 2007 model year or newer 

engines that are in the fleet.

121. Comment: While Granite agrees that economic relief from the CARB rules is 

necessary and appropriate in today's economy, the mechanics of the relief that are 

being proposed are of great concern. Proactive fleets like Granite that exhausted 

cash and disposed of older equipment are now paying a huge price for 

compliance. In a nutshell, the rule changes penalize leaders and reward laggards 

in today's ultra-competitive, low-bid construction market. (GCI1)

Agency Response: We believe the credits included in the amended regulation reward 

fleets that have taken early action so that early investments to comply would not put 

most fleets that have complied early at a competitive disadvantage compared to fleets 

that have taken no action. These include extra compliance credits for fleets that have 

installed PM retrofit filters early, for those that have added newer trucks that have OEM 

PM filters earlier than normal, and for fleets that have added fuel efficient hybrids or 

alternative fueled engines. In addition, fleets that have installed PM filters on off-road 

equipment may use credits accrued in the off-road rule to delay compliance for trucks. 

Finally, fleets that cannot use credits, but have taken action to comply with the original 

regulation, have an option to use an alternative model year schedule that is based on 

the original regulation until January 1, 2014. We believe all of these provisions 

adequately reward fleets for taking action early.

122. Comment: My company, as with many others, spent a great deal of capital to 

upgrade our equipment knowing that the rule was coming into play. We would 

have continued to operate our older equipment if we knew that there would be 

more time to comply. Now we are being penalized for our early action. We will 

now have to add filters to our equipment that should be paid off and realizing some 

additional capital recovery.

By giving the older equipment a longer period to comply CARB will be giving a 

competitive advantage to those people who did not do anything and continue to 

emit higher emissions. Whereas the people (me, us) who have taken early action 

and reduced emissions with cleaner equipment, have to suffer with lower rates 

that the non-compliant operators can survive on. These people have not spent 

any capital, while the CARB makes their mind up on the rule. I like many others 

did and are doing our part to clean the air. We would not have purchased 

equipment as the normal course of business, especially now, in this horrible 
104

economic environment. We have struggled to make our payments, pay our payroll 

etc. We are the group who needs to be helped. We are the ones who risked our 

capital/livelihood to bring cleaner air to the state. I would like to see the rule stay 

the same as originally posted by the board in 2009. This would keep the 

economics even for all involved. (FLFT)

123. Comment: NAFA’s Council recommends that in order to provide equity if 

implementation is delayed, CARB should identify and provide preferential 

incentives to fleets that have already made efforts to comply with CARB 

regulations. Fleets that committed to early or as scheduled compliance made 

significant financial investments in vehicles and other capital assets. These fleets 

will be at a severe competitive disadvantage against other similar businesses with 

fleets that did not take any compliance actions. Some possible options include 

establishing a preferential priority for grant funding for these fleets, establishing tax 

credits or incentives for these fleets, or providing additional equipment 

―grandfathering‖ opportunities for those fleets that may take advantage of them. 

NAFA looks forward to working with CARB staff to develop a plan to ensure equity 

for those fleets that made good faith efforts to comply with CARB regulations. 

(NAFA)

124. Comment: Section 6A, Credits for Early PM Retrofits, states: ―Fleets that have 

already installed a PM filter or install them prior to July 2011 would be able to treat 

another vehicle as compliant until 2017‖. It is my suggestion that fleets that 

purchase a new or used vehicle equipped with a PM filter should also be eligible 

for this early PM credit and treat another vehicle as compliant until 2017, assuming 

the vehicle being replaced will be retired and removed from service. In essence, a 

vehicle will be put into service with PM reduction. Whether this PM reduction is 

achieved with a Retrofit PM filter or a replacement vehicle should have no bearing 

on the fleet receiving the early retrofit credit. (TTC) 

125. Comment: Many fleets allocated significant resources to purchasing 2007 and 

newer technology prior to the latest round of changes. In doing so, fleets put 

themselves at a competitive disadvantage, simply because many other carriers 

who ―waited it out‖ are benefitting from lower operational costs associated with 

running older equipment. At a minimum, fleets should receive the same one to 

one credit that the proposed early retrofitting incentive allows for if the fleet 

purchased 2007 or newer technology. This will help spread out some of the costs 

and ensure that those who acted early do not get punished for their proactive 

compliance steps.

CTA recommends that fleets receive a one to one credit until 2017 for purchase of 

2007 and newer technology prior to December 31, 2011.‖ (CTA1)

126. Comment: ATA asks the Board to adopt additional revision that will help align 

operational practices with the emission benefits being sought:

Provide one for one credit for 2007 and newer vehicle purchases. Under the 

Truck and Bus regulation, fleets that have already installed a particulate matter 

(PM) filter or install them prior to July 2011 would be able to treat another vehicle 
105

as compliant until 2017. While retrofitting existing vehicles is one compliance 

option, this option may not be available for certain vehicles due to age, duty-cycle, 

economics, etc. As an alternative, many fleets have purchased 2007 or newer 

vehicles in order to comply. Both compliance options result in the use of PM 

filters, yet credit is only provided when a vehicle is retrofit. CARB staff has 

indicated that one of the barriers to providing credit for vehicle purchases is 

differentiating between normal turnover and regulatory compliance. Fleets have 

indicated a willingness to provide the necessary data to demonstrate to CARB 

staff which purchases are beyond normal turnover and, therefore, represent 

regulatory compliance. We believe this credit should be made available to enable 

compliance through new purchases to be treated equal to retrofits. (ATA1) 

Agency Response: The amended regulation allows for extra credits to be earned for 

the early purchase of 2007 or newer engines. The method included in the amended 

regulation is based on the fleet age and number of vehicles that have OEM PM filters. 

The credit compares the fleet age in the 2006 baseline fleet to that of the fleet in the 

compliance year. This approach does not require additional information to be reported 

than was already expected for fleets that have downsized. The method is 

straightforward, and we believe that it provides equivalent PM filter credit for most fleets 

as the early retrofit credit would. See response to Comment 120 for a summary of the 

provision.

ATA’s comment recognizes the need to identify ―which purchases are beyond normal 

turnover‖. However, the suggestion that this identification be made on a case-by-case 

evaluation of individual fleet data would create a compliance option that is impractical to 

implement. CTA suggests that a credit be given until 2017 for the purchase of every 

2007 and newer engine purchase prior to December 31, 2011. This would give extra 

credit for actions that would be made in the normal course of business for higher 

mileage fleets that normally replace their vehicles on a short replacement cycle and 

whose cost of compliance is already lower than most other fleets. We do not believe 

this is appropriate. Such an option would result in little or no emissions reductions from 

high mileage fleets and would require more emissions reductions from low-mileage

trucks. The proposal also would not achieve the emissions reductions needed to meet 

the State Implementation Plan obligations. 

g) Downsizing Credit

127. Comment: Our on road vehicles have either been parked in great numbers due 

to the recession, or spend most of their time on jobsites, so they are a very small 

part of diesel emissions. (DLOREN)

128. Comment: Many on-road vehicles have either been parked in great numbers due 

to the recession, or spend most of their time on jobsites, so they are a very small 

part of diesel emissions. (WCDI)

Agency Response: Fleets that have fewer heavier vehicles in the compliance year 

compared to 2006 can claim a credit towards the PM filter phase-in option. The credit 

delays compliance for other vehicles in the fleet until January 1, 2016. In this example, 

there are 25% fewer heavier trucks in the compliance year than were registered on 
106

October 1, 2006. The fleet owner can subtract 25% from the annual PM filter 

requirement to determine what portion of the fleet needs to have PM filters. The table 

below shows the standard PM filter phase-in requirement in the second column. The 

fleet size reduction in this example is 25% and is shown in the third column. The 

adjusted compliance requirement for the remaining fleet is on the right. The provision 

expires by January 1, 2016 and all trucks must have PM filters. The credit is calculated 

each year and can change.

January 1 

Compliance

PM Filter Phase-in 

Option Requirements

Fleet Size 

Reduction

Adjusted 

Requirement

2012 30% 25% 5%

2013 60% 25% 35%

2014 90% 25% 65%

2015 90% 25% 65%

2016 100% --- 100%

h) Excess PM VDECS Credit 

129. Comment: Many companies with Off and On- road fleets had taken early action 

to comply with the Off-Road rule and received credit for doing so. However, due 

to the changes proposed in the Off-Road rule, they will be unable to utilize those 

credits. At the same time, the lack of current revenue greatly reduces their 

financial ability to address the On-road rule. In recognition of their efforts to assist 

with diesel emissions reduction and by placing filters on and modernizing their offroad fleets, they should be granted opportunity to transfer credits among the two 

rules.

Proposed Solution: Develop a retrofit credit transfer program based on a ratio of 

Off- road to On-road credits. We are encouraged that ARB's notice for the rule 

indicates this is under consideration. (AARMC) (CCIMA1) (CEMEX1) (PRMI)

(SYAR)

130. Comment: Granite is in favor of general economic relief for Offroad and Onroad 

diesel fleets but asks that the following changes be included to establish an 

equitable regulatory environment where environmental leadership is still 

encouraged.

Emission reductions achieved by complying with the current Offroad Rule that are 

no longer required under the proposed rule should be transferable to the Onroad 

Rule.

Granite installed over 50 DPF retrofits on offroad equipment and made substantial 

changes to its offroad fleet in preparation for the initial compliance dates in the 

offroad rule. These steps will create excess emission reductions in Granite's 

offroad fleet while the company struggles to comply with the much more 

aggressive compliance schedule proposed for heavy trucks in the onroad rule.
107

Granite has provided Staff with multiple exchange concepts that we feel are viable, 

and some type of mechanism must be given to allow this exchange of emissions 

credit. At a minimum, the amendments should allow fleet owners to apply to the 

Board for a transfer of emission credit. (GCI1) 

131. Comment: Granite Construction currently owns a fleet of approximately 800 

pieces of off-road diesel equipment and 800 diesel trucks in California. Since 

2006, Granite's business is off more than 50 percent in the state of California. And 

we actually did the math, and our emissions are off more than 75 percent. That 

reduction in emissions is obviously for two reasons. The economy is one driver, 

but we also took a number of proactive steps to comply primarily with the Off-Road 

rule, and there are reductions to show for that. So I'm here for the most part in 

support of the amendments and do appreciate staff working with us. The light truck 

relief provision is particularly helpful. But I would like to stress the importance of 

one of the 15-day changes that was mentioned, and that's the bubble or credit 

exchange concept. For proactive fleets, this concept, especially to be able to move 

credit from the Off-Road rule to the on-road rule, is very helpful. It allows us to 

"cash in" some of our actions that we took early. And it really does give us some 

breathing room on the on-road rules for things that we did to comply with the OffRoad rule early. (GCI2)

Agency Response: Staff agree the Truck and Bus regulation and the Off-Road 

regulations have both been modified to include a method to exchange credits earned in 

either the Truck and Bus regulation or the Off-Road regulation to count toward 

compliance with the other regulation. The credits are determined and exchanged each 

compliance year, until January 1, 2017.

The Truck and Bus regulation was modified to describe how credits earned from actions 

on off-road equipment can be applied towards compliance for trucks and how credits for 

actions taken on trucks are determined. The language is in a new section 

(2025(j)(2)(C)) of the modified regulation that was made available with the May 19, 2011 

15-day changes. Fleets can earn excess PM filter credits if the number of PM filters in 

the truck fleet exceeds the minimum number required to meet the PM BACT percentage 

of the phase-in option of section 2025(i) of the modified Truck and Bus regulation. PM 

filter credits include Level 3 PM VDECS and OEM filters. In addition, section 

(2025(j)(2)(C)) describes how excess PM VDECS credits earned in the Off-Road 

regulation can be applied as a credit towards meeting the requirements of the phase-in 

option of section 2025(i) in the Truck and Bus regulation. A credit would count the 

same as if a truck with a GVWR greater than 26,000 lbs were equipped with a PM filter. 

The Off-Road regulation (section 2449) was also modified to describe how credits 

earned from actions on trucks can be applied towards compliance for the Off-Road 

regulation and how credits for actions taken on off-road equipment are determined. The 

amended Off-Road regulation (title 13, CCR, section 2449) is available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/lsi15dayatt3.pdf. 

132. Comment: Staff is allowing for credit transfer between a fleet and the Off-Road 

and On-Road regulation, and we think that's great. But what they talked about in 
108

the concept was retrofit credit. They did not mention anything about fleet 

reduction credits or early engine replacement credits, and we believe that those 

two should also be included in that credit transfer. (NWSC2) 

Agency Response: As directed by the Board, the excess credit transfer concept was 

integrated into new compliance options in the Truck and Bus regulation and the OffRoad regulation. The response to Comment 129 summarizes the provision in the Truck 

and Bus regulation. The off-road compliance option is described in the Off-Road 

regulation available on ARB’s website for the Off Road rulemaking:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/offroadlsi10.htm. 

Fleet reduction credits and early replacement credits were not included for a number of 

reasons. The Board’s goal in adding a credit transfer mechanism between the two 

regulations is to preserve emission benefits in a manner that is practical to implement 

and enforce. It is difficult to separate business as usual truck or off-road equipment 

replacements from actions taken to comply with a regulation and the variety of engine 

sizes, emissions rates, and usage patterns between off-road equipment and trucks 

would be impractical to predict, assess and monitor. It is clear that a retrofit PM filter is 

installed to comply with a regulation and that it would not typically be installed if not 

otherwise required. We believe the Board’s goal is met by limiting the credit transfer to 

excess PM filters since quantifying excess PM filters is straightforward to determine and 

enforce. 

i) Use of Incentive Funds for Credit Towards Compliance

133. Comment: Regarding this bubble concept that was introduced today, we’d like -

to the extent that we want to use these grant moneys - to actually create a margin 

of safety. I think your resolution should make it clear that any early reductions, 

cross-source category that one wants to take credit for towards compliance could 

not come from any retrofits that are paid for by public funds. I believe that is 

probably the intent of your staff to maintain those reductions that are paid by 

grants to be surplus, but I think it would be good to clarify that so there are no false 

expectations. That would be a question I have. Was the intent that if the public 

pays for those reductions, you cannot use those towards compliance in getting 

credit from one source category to another? That is our request. And if that is the 

case, make that clear in the resolution. (SJV/SC2)

Agency Response: Both the Truck and Bus and the Off-Road regulations restrict the 

use of publicly funded vehicles engines or retrofits for demonstrating compliance during 

the funding contract period and consequently restrict the use of these vehicles, engines 

or retrofits for determining the excess credits for transfer between regulations. 

j) Verified Emissions Control Strategies

134. Comment: We understand that the rule as drafted allows companies to obtain 

exemptions from the rule when filters are unavailable, or unsafe for use with their 

trucks. We strongly urge the Board to direct CARB staff to make these 

exemptions readily available for use by companies during the life of the rule. Staff 

must be ready to approve these exemptions on presentation of proof. 
109

We are told that while CARB staff will give consideration to exemptions being 

granted when filters are unavailable or unsafe, such exemptions will not be 

granted on the basis of cost. This remains of concern to us, particularly given that, 

in some cases, an older truck may require two filters, rather than one, to properly 

filter exhaust. Thus the owner of an older truck of $13,000 value would be forced 

to purchase two filters at a cost of $45,000 or higher. We must deal with this 

problem. (ACLOG1) (ACLOG2) 

Agency Response: Staff recognizes that not every vehicle subject to the regulation 

can be retrofitted; therefore we have included a provision in the regulation that would 

allow a fleet owner to receive a one year extension of the compliance deadline for the 

PM BACT requirement if the highest level VDECS is not available or cannot be installed 

on a particular vehicle. The fleet owner would have to apply to the Executive Officer for 

an extension each year that the owner is claiming the extension until January 1, 2017. 

The Executive Officer may grant a one-year extension of the compliance deadline 

based on evaluation of required documentation submitted by the fleet owner to support 

the application and provided all other vehicles in the fleet are in compliance with the PM 

BACT requirements of the compliance year.

This provision was subsequently modified in the 15-day changes made available on 

May 19, 2011. A four months filing requirement has been added in section 2025(p)(9) 

of the modified regulation. This is to provide ample time for the fleet owner to react in 

case the request is not justified and is denied by the Executive officer. 

The regulation also does not require a PM retrofit if it cannot be safely installed. A fleet 

owner is allowed to request an annual exemption from complying with the PM 

requirement if the owner can document that a VDECS cannot be safely installed. The 

regulation describes a process for a fleet owner to obtain an exemption based on safety 

concerns. Upon finding that a retrofit device cannot be installed safely, the Executive 

Officer will issue a determination that the device will not be considered to be available to 

meet PM BACT for the vehicle. 

Any vehicle that cannot be equipped with the highest level VDECS for PM (either 

because of availability, incompatibility or safety) by January 1, 2018, must be replaced, 

or have its engine replaced, with an engine that can be equipped with the highest level 

VDECS for PM. We do not believe it is appropriate to extend this provision past 2018 

because older vehicles produce far more toxic diesel emissions than newer model 

vehicles and older-used vehicles that have PM filters installed will be widely available 

and may be the lowest cost option by that time. 

135. Comment: A majority of the trucks operating in rural California are pre 1994 

mechanical engines; no current filter will bring them into compliance. (ALOG) 

Agency Response: The engine model year schedule delays compliance for pre-1994 

model year engines until 2015 at which time they must be replaced. Fleets that use the 

phase-in option can delay compliance for up to 10 percent of the fleet until 2016. 

136. Comment: APTCO, LLC operates a fleet of eight trucks, including five with 2003 

model year engines, two with 2006 model year engines and one with a 2010 
110

model year engine. I have communicated frequently with the suppliers of engine 

parts for our fleet of eight trucks. Consistently, the suppliers have advised me that 

they are unable to provide particulate matter filters as provided for in your truck 

and bus regulation. APTCO, LLC is a small business and our fleet of trucks is a 

relatively small fleet, but our trucks are very serviceable and have a long life 

remaining. APTCO, LLC is concerned about the ARB truck and bus regulation, not 

only because particulate matter filters that are contemplated for the proposed 

regulation are not commercially available, but also because our relatively new fleet 

of trucks has a long, useful life remaining. APTCO should not be forced to replace 

these trucks in the future, only part way through their useful life. (APTCO) 

Agency Response: The PM filter phase in option can be met with the use of retrofit 

PM filters, and does not require any replacements until 2020 unless the engine cannot 

be equipped with a PM filter. Exhaust PM retrofits are available for most engines, 

including the MY engines identified by the commenter. Each retrofit PM filter is verified 

for use on a specific group of engine families operating under specific conditions. 

Currently, there are 16 verified Level 3 systems that reduce PM emissions by at least 85

percent and they work on a wide range of engine families under most operating 

conditions. The regulation contains provisions that address the issue of availability of 

PM filters. Until January 1, 2018, no action is required to reduce PM emissions if a 

suitable exhaust PM retrofit is not available as described in the response to 

Comment 134. 

During the development of the original regulation, staff contacted several diesel 

particulate filter manufacturers inquiring about their manufacturing capacities, and they 

indicated that their manufacturing facilities are capable of producing over a million diesel 

particulate filters on an annual basis. However, in the event that there is an 

unanticipated disruption in the manufacturing, distribution and supply for diesel 

particulate filters, the regulation contains a provision so that fleets are not penalized if 

manufacturing delays prevent them from acquiring the equipment or vehicles they need. 

An owner who has purchased, but has not received, a VDECS, a replacement engine, 

or vehicle in order to comply with this regulation will be excused from immediate 

compliance if the VDECS or vehicles have not been received due to manufacturing 

delays. Section 2025(p)(8) of the regulation specifies the conditions the fleets must 

meet to qualify for this extension. 

The amended regulation allows retrofitted trucks to operate for a longer period of time 

compared to the existing regulation before requiring upgrades to a 2010 model year 

engine or equivalent. If all of APTCO’s trucks are over 26,000 lbs GVWR and the fleet 

has no PM retrofit credits, the Phase-in option would require retrofits to be installed from 

January 2012 to January 2016, but replacements would not start until 2020. 

k) Alternative Fuel and Hybrid Vehicles

137. Comment: We noted that the current version of the on-road regulation seems to 

eliminate compliance credits for alternative fuels and HDPI vehicles after 

January 1. We've been told this is a typographical error and this is going to be 

fixed in the 15-day notice change. (WMAN)
111

Agency Response: The description of the credit for alternative-fueled vehicles and 

heavy-duty pilot ignition engines was corrected in section 2025(j)(2)(B) of 15-day 

changes that were made available for comment on May 19, 2011. For each fuel 

efficient hybrid vehicle, alternative fueled vehicle, or vehicle powered by a heavy-duty 

pilot ignition engine having a GVWR greater than 26,000 lbs that is added to the fleet 

any time before January 1, 2017, a fleet can earn a credit to delay compliance for 

another vehicle in the fleet until January 1, 2017. To earn credits for such vehicles with 

a GVWR between 14,000 and 26,000 lbs, the fleet must have added the cleaner vehicle 

to the fleet prior to July 1, 2011 and report the information by January 31, 2012. 

138. Comment: Fleets that implement hybrid heavy duty vehicles, regardless of fuel 

type, should be eligible for the Credits for Early PM Retrofits, Hybrid Vehicles, 

Alternative Fueled Vehicles** [Section 2025 (j) p. A-23]. In an atmosphere where 

the Board is encouraging vehicle efficiency, work trucks or vans that incorporate 

the 20% increased fuel economy should be treated equally whether they are 

diesel, natural gas, or gasoline powered. (CFCOAL1)

139. Comment: You should allow gasoline hybrid electric vehicles (CFCOAL2)

Agency Response: The credit is available for any heavy-duty hybrid vehicle that 

achieves the required 20 percent fuel economy improvements and meets the other 

specifications of the definition of a fuel efficient hybrid vehicle given in section 

2025(d)(31).. The definition does not specify the fuel to be used in the hybrid vehicle. 

Therefore, the credit is available to heavy-duty vehicles that use fuels other than diesel 

such as an alternative fuel or gasoline. By being silent on the fuel type, the definition is 

consistent with the intent of the hybrid credit, which provides an incentive to facilitate 

early expansion of the hybrid heavy-duty vehicle market. 

This credit is the same as it is for alternative-fueled vehicles, pilot ignition engines and 

alternative fueled hybrid vehicles. 

l) Rural Fleets

140. Comment: Equipment in Mendocino County tends to be used less than 

equipment elsewhere in the state. This is a result of 

 A local economy dependent on struggling resource industries.

 Regional Water Board regulations which limit the off-road work season to 155 

days – a restriction only present on the North Coast.

 The geographic remoteness of the County from most of the economic drivers 

of the modern California economy.

As a result of the above, equipment in Mendocino County has much lower usage 

than other areas of the state. This lower usage results in longer equipment 

lifespans due to economic factors. This lower usage equipment is –

 More subject to ARB regulations which target the older equipment first 

(irrespective of usage).
112

 Not competitive or even eligible for grant dollars because of low usage or 

regulatory requirements (grants cannot fund compliance). (MCAQMD)

Agency Response: ARB recognized the need for delayed requirements for rural areas 

and low-mileage construction trucks while balancing the goal of protecting public health. 

However, reducing diesel PM emissions in rural areas is still necessary because diesel 

PM is toxic and exposure occurs wherever diesel vehicles are used.

The amended regulation has special provisions for vehicles that operate exclusively

within certain designated attainment area counties because accelerated NOx reductions 

from trucks are not needed to meet federal air quality standards. These areas, termed 

NOx Exempt Areas, have attained the federal air quality standards for NOx and PM and 

do not contribute pollution to downwind areas that violate the standards. Any fleet with 

vehicles that operate exclusively in these areas can take advantage of a delayed PM 

filter schedule from 2014 and 2016 for heavier trucks, and can take advantage of the 

exemption from the replacement requirements for any vehicle with a GVWR greater 

than 14,000 lbs. if equipped with a PM filter.

In addition, construction trucks that do not stay exclusively in the designated NOx 

exempt areas or operate anywhere in the state can take advantage of the delayed PM 

filter phase-in schedule for low-mileage construction trucks. This provision provides 

more time for construction trucks that operate fewer than 15,000 miles per year and for 

dump trucks that operate less than 20,000 miles per year. These thresholds are more 

likely to be used by rural fleets because of the shorter operating season.

Finally, for fleets that cannot use these provisions, they may be able to use the engine 

model year schedule for heavier trucks that requires the use of PM filters on newer 

trucks starting January 1, 2012 but delays compliance for 1995 model year and older 

engines until 2015 or 2016 when they would need to be replaced. Additionally, the 

optional PM filter phase-in schedule will provide fleet owners with more flexibility to 

determine their best compliance strategy by reporting. With this provision, a fleet owner 

will be able to determine which vehicles to retrofit first and which ones to replace. 

Fleets that report starting January 2012 can comply with either option each year.

The Carl Moyer Program, which is allocated statewide based on statutory requirements, 

and several other programs exist to provide funding statewide or specifically to rural 

areas. For additional information on availability of funding for rural areas, see response 

to Comment 362.

m) NOx Exempt Areas

141. Comment: In March of 2010, the ARB designated the Northern Sonoma County 

Air Pollution Control District (NSCAPCD, or District) as attainment for all federal 

and state ambient air quality standards. With this recognition of our clean air, we 

are writing to respectfully request that ARB also extend the exemption from NOx 

control requirements in your regulations for in-use (retrofit) on-road and off-road 

diesel vehicles (CCR title 13, article 4.5, chapter I, section 2025; and CCR title 13, 

article 4.8, chapter 9, sections 2449,2449.1,2449.2, 24493)
113

In CCR Section 2025(d)(55), the on-road diesel rule defines a NOx-exempt area 

as the following counties: "Alpine, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, 

Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Monterey, Plumas, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, 

Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Trinity, Tehama, and Yuba." 

Recognizing that the District comprises only a portion of a County, we recommend 

that the list [of NOx exempt areas] be amended to include "the portion of Sonoma 

County that lies within the boundaries of the North Coast Air Basin" consistent with 

the description of the District in your formal designation on March 25, 2010.

As one of only two air districts that attain all of the federal and state ambient 

standards, and with typical maximum 1-hr ozone levels of 0.06 ppm, the 

NSCAPCD is certainly one of the cleanest air quality regions of the state. As such, 

it should be granted the same exemption as other clean air areas. NOx-exempt 

status would provide expanded compliance options for owners of Captive 

Attainment Area Fleets. While many of the fleets in the NSCAPCD would not 

qualify for this provision, the District anticipates that some fleets would. The 

District has worked hard to provide incentive funding in advance of the compliance 

dates in ARB's diesel regulations. Based on our understanding of the fleets in the 

District, and the very low levels of ozone that we are recording, we believe NOxexempt status would not have any impact on our ability to maintain our clean air 

designation. (NSCAPCD1)

142. Comment: I would like to ask your consideration for adding the Northern Sonoma 

Air District area to the NOx exempt area list in Section 2449(c)(6) and 2449.1(a) of 

your rules. As you know, last March, ARB classified Northern Sonoma as 

attainment for all federal and state ambient air quality standards. Only one other 

area in the state has achieved this status. And in northern Sonoma, we will 

maintain, regardless of the level at which the EPA sets its new ozone standard. 

Our highest ozone level in 2010 was .036 PPM, which is I think below background 

for most of the state. I'm giving you that information by way of underscoring that 

allowing NOx-exempt status in northern Sonoma would have no adverse impact 

on our air quality, but it would provide some really important relief and compliance 

alternatives for the regulated community there. (NSCAPCD2)

143. Comment: The NOx exempt boundaries leave a lot to be desired. Boundaries 

should coincide with impaired air districts not county lines. A perfect example is 

the Northern Sonoma air quality district where the air is not impaired, however NE 

trucks cannot operate there because of a line on a Map. Southern Sonoma air 

district is the impaired district where the air quality problem exists and that is 

where the exclusion to NOx-exempt trucks should take place. If lines are to be 

drawn restricting access it should be done by actual air quality conditions not 

abstract boundaries set up over 100 years ago for a different purpose. In order to 

minimize the impact on jobs in rural California this rule must be as flexible as 

possible; otherwise it is an all out recipe for disaster. (ALOG)

144. Comment: While ARB staff has created specific language that creates 

exemptions for equipment that operates exclusively in areas like Mendocino 
114

County, there is some uncertainty about how this will function in cases where outof-county travel is incidental:

There are multiple parts of Mendocino County which are only accessible by 

entering into neighboring Counties. One of the largest local destinations for 

logging trucks is the Empire Sawmill in Cloverdale, less than one mile across the 

Sonoma County line. One reading of the rule is that trucks that go to this 

destination would be required to be upgraded or replaced because of this one mile 

of travel. (MCAQMD)

145. Comment: Access to Cloverdale from the north is important to the forestry sector 

and likely other economic sectors. The forestry sector has many trucks that we 

could put the NOx exempt ―NE‖ label on the doors (as could many other small instate fleet owners in the rural coastal counties to the north of Cloverdale) if the 

small wedge of northern Sonoma county was included (using Hwy 101 and Hwy 

128 as the NOx boundary instead of the county line). We are only 4 percent of the 

truck traffic at the Hwy 128/Hwy 101 intersection but we have lots of wood fiber 

that goes to the mill in Cloverdale.

We can't believe that the NOx emissions in and around Cloverdale are what 

causes Sonoma County to be NOx non-attainment. We think a small wedge 

(bounded by Hwy 128 and Hwy 101) at Cloverdale added to the NOx Exempt Area 

in northern Sonoma County makes good common sense. (CFA1)

Agency Response: The list of counties defining the NOx exempt areas has been 

expanded in section 2025(d)(46) of the amended regulation to include the Sonoma 

County portion of the North Coast Air Basin. The revised Truck and Bus regulation 

designating Northern Sonoma as a ―NOx Exempt Area‖ was made available as part of 

the 15-day changes that were made available for comment on May 19, 2011. The 

reference that defined the North Sonoma area was incorrect in the definition in the 

proposed amended language released for 15 day comment. It has since been 

corrected to refer to title 17, CCR, section 60100(e). 

With the new designation for Northern Sonoma, vehicles operating within the area 

would now be eligible for the NOx Exempt Area provision and trucks with a NOx exempt 

―NE‖ label may now operate in Cloverdale without affecting their ―NE‖ status. 

146. Comment: There is substantial local in-state fleet owners that could put the ―NE‖ 

label on their truck doors if Butte County were a NOx Exempt Area. The reason is 

there is substantial freight movement and redistribution particularly at Oroville 

(including a log reload yard to send logs north). What we don't understand is what 

is driving Butte County to be NOx non-attainment? Colusa, Glenn, Tehama, 

Plumas, Yuba, and Sierra are all NOx Exempt (counties that surround Butte 

County). It is not intuitively obvious why Butte County is non-attainment. You 

would think the 1-5 traffic in Colusa, Glenn, and Tehama Counties would be a 

bigger NOx producer than the Hwy 99 corridor through Chico and Oroville. What 

causes Butte Co. to be NOx non-attainment? (CFA1)
115

147. Comment: In an effort to fine-tune the Diesel Truck Rule so as to make the 

17 NOx exempt areas of the state more practical in their boundaries, we have 

been working with Air Board staff in suggesting that consideration be given to 

using boundaries other than strict county administrative boundaries to ―mark‖ 

those NOx exempt areas. We have submitted suggested map lines for the 

Cloverdale area (following state highways 128 and 101); Butte County(currently, 

an ―island‖ is created which should be absorbed into the NOx exempt area) and 

Lincoln, where a boundary other than the Placer County line should be considered 

– we would suggest using state highways 65 and 193 for the boundaries. The 

timber industry will continue to work with staff on these refinements. (ACLOG1)

(ACLOG2)

Agency Response: The NOx exempt area boundaries are consistent with the 

boundaries of the geographic areas designated by law for Federal and State standards 

for the specified criteria pollutants – whether the designation is made by air basin, 

county, or other geographic area. The NOx exempt area provision of the Truck and Bus 

regulation does not introduce new geographic designation criteria. Butte County and 

Northern Sonoma were not included in the list of NOx exempt areas when the regulation 

was adopted because the areas had been designated by the U.S. EPA as violating the 

federal 8-hour ozone standard. 

The Health and Safety Code requires ARB to annually review area designations for 

State standards. During the annual review, ARB determines whether changes to the 

existing area designations are warranted, based on an evaluation of recent air quality 

data. Based on a review in 201018, the Board approved the re-designation of the 

Sonoma County portion of the North Coast Air Basin as attainment. The geographic 

area is defined in title 17, Cal. Code Regs., section 60100(e) of the Health and Safety 

Code. The definition of NOx exempt area counties in the amended regulation now 

includes northern Sonoma county as described in response to Comment 145.

Butte County is still classified as non-attainment for ozone and it cannot be added to the 

list of NOx exempt areas in the amended regulation. Federal law mandates the 

development of SIPs documenting the actions the State will take to attain the ambient 

air quality standard. Therefore areas like Butte County are already required to mitigate 

their emissions. Staff does not believe it is appropriate to grant exemptions in the Truck 

and Bus regulation that allow local NOx contributions that could add to the severity of 

the area’s ozone problem. 

148. Comment: A final complicating factor is the lack of local truck dealers. If a newer 

truck needs warranty service, it must be taken out of the County for repair. In 

most cases these dealers are located in ―non-attainment‖ areas. In theory, a truck 

taken in for service may result in enforcement action being taken by ARB. 

(MCAQMD)

 

18 Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking. Proposed 2010 Amendments to the 

State Area Designations Criteria, Area Designations, and Maps. Staff Report. Release 

Date: February 4, 2010. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/area10/areaisor.pdf
116

Agency Response: Vehicles that use the NOx exempt areas exemptions may travel 

outside of the designated NOx exempt areas for repairs or other services to the vehicle

such as installation of a PM filter. The vehicle owner must obtain a work order from the 

facility that describes the service and it must show the date of the service and the 

location of the facility. If these conditions are met, no enforcement action would be 

taken by ARB staff against the owner of a NOx exempt area vehicle that travels outside 

the designated NOx exempt areas. 

n) Low-Use Vehicles

149. Comment: LLNL recommends that the hour use limit for vehicles with power 

take-off be increased from 100 hours per year to 200 hours per year. This would 

harmonize the low use definition in this regulation with the proposed low use 

definitions in CARB’s other vehicle regulations such as the Large Spark Ignition 

Engine Regulation and the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. (LLNL)

Agency Response: Truck engines are larger than most off-road engines, generally 

have higher emission than off-road equipment and are more likely to be operated in or 

near populated areas. The 100 hour limit is consistent with all other existing on-road 

diesel vehicle regulations and staff does not see a sufficient rationale for harmonizing

the low use provisions for trucks and buses with those for off-road equipment. 

o) Low-Mileage Construction Trucks 

150. Comment: Vocational trucks should have separate and distinct provisions in the 

Onroad Rule. Vocational trucks range from mechanics truck's and fuel/lube trucks 

to water trucks and dump trucks. These trucks log fewer miles per year than overthe-road trucks, so they have a longer service life. They also tend to have much 

lighter duty cycles than over-the-road trucks, and thus are generally poor DPF 

retrofit candidates. In many cases, these trucks spend a significant amount of 

their operating time running a power take-off unit consuming only a small fraction 

of the engine's rated power capacity (and emitting only a fraction of the engine's 

rated emissions output).

The inability to retrofit makes vehicle turnover the preferred compliance method for 

vocational trucks. Unfortunately, the current compliance schedule for trucks over 

26,000 pounds creates a situation where heavy vocational trucks would need to 

begin being turned over when they have not even reached half of their expected 

service life. A provision is needed to allow vocational trucks traveling less than 

15,000 miles per year and operating less than 1000 hours per year to operate for a 

period of time beyond 2015 without requiring retrofit or retirement. (GCI1)

151. Comment: The construction industry has developed a proposal that it sent to 

your staff for consideration, which is a 15,000 mile lower use exemption for 

construction trucks or the trucks that are used to support the construction industry. 

We certainly hope that this is something your staff can consider during the 15-day 

changes. We think there might be two ways to look at developing how it would 

apply. One could be to come up with a prescriptive list of trucks limiting who could 

participate. The other would be maybe to take a look at an overall number of 
117

trucks and allow the industry to, through reporting, participate in that. So I would 

just hope or I ask that you could direct your staff to take a look at those two 

options today and move forward through the process. And hopefully we can come 

up with something that's workable and helps everybody on both sides. (CIAQC3)

152. Comment: We'd like for you (Chairman Nichols) to direct staff to work with us on 

this question of vocational trucks. It's something that was talked about during all 

the workshops. But that's as far as it's gone. And it's not in the rule. (SCCA2)

153. Comment: Increase Low Use Exemption Threshold for Construction Trucks to 

15,000 miles per year. CIAQC1) (CIAQC2)

154. Comment: We need to have you to increase the low-use mileage exemption for 

construction to at least 15,000 miles per year. Our on-road and off-road vehicles 

& equipment spend the majority of their time sitting at a job site or in our yard. We 

hope you can help the construction industry. (WCC) 

155. Comment: I'm asking the Board to please consider raising the low miles 

exemption for both P.M. and NOx for trucks to at least 15,000 miles per year. A 

truck that operates less than 15,000 miles annually not only emits less emissions 

but also uses less fuel, oil, tires, brakes, and filters. That contributes to less 

emissions not only in the manufacturing but also in the transportation and delivery 

of those products to the supply house. Raising the low miles use to 15,000 

annually would help our company, especially during these tough economic times 

in the construction industry. (RNUSS)

156. Comment: If we could get any kind of an exemption for our low mileage

[construction trucks], being that we don't have any, 20,000 miles may sound like a 

lot. It would immensely help folks. We want to comply. (CDTOA3)

157. Comment: We operate about 500 ready-mix trucks in the state of California. And 

we operated a fleet of 18 tankers in Southern California. If staff passes the new 

regulation, it will save my company a million and a half dollars on 

January 1st, 2012. My trucks become non-compliant on that date. And it's a very 

critical important move if the staff passed the amendment today giving us until 

2014 to replace our equipment. (CEMEX2)

Agency Response: The low-mileage construction truck provision was expanded at the 

direction of the Board to provide additional flexibility while preserving the emission 

benefits of the amended rule and meeting the SIP commitment. At the Board hearing, 

staff proposed a compliance option that would delay the PM phase-in requirements for 

low-mileage construction trucks with GVWR greater than 26,000 lbs. In response to 

comments from stakeholders, the Board directed staff to provide additional flexibility for 

fleets with low-mileage construction trucks to the extent feasible without compromising 

the emissions reductions necessary to achieve attainment with NAAQS. The new 

compliance option for low-mileage construction trucks is described in a new section 

(2025(p)(2)) of the modified regulation that was made available as part of the 15-day 

changes made available for public comment on May 19, 2011. 
118

The changes raised the mileage limit to 20,000 miles per year for dump trucks and 

greatly expanded eligible truck types that can operate up to 15,000 miles per year. The 

definition of ―low-mileage construction truck‖ in section 2025(d)(40) divides low-mileage

construction trucks into two categories. The first category is for dump trucks, which

operate less than 20,000 miles per calendar year, and covers trucks that transport 

construction materials such as dirt, asphalt, rock or construction debris including a 

transfer truck, or a tractor trailer combination used exclusively to pull bottom dump, end 

dump, or side dump trailers. The second category is for all other eligible trucks, which

operate less than 15,000 miles per calendar year, and covers concrete mixer trucks, 

trucks with a concrete placing boom, water tank truck, single engine cranes with a load 

rating of 35 tons or more, tractors that exclusively pull low-boy trailers, or trucks owned 

by a company that holds a valid license issued by the California Contractors State 

License Board. 

Fleet owners must report by January 31, 2012 to be eligible for the low-mileage 

construction provision and must label the trucks and report business and vehicle 

information annually. With the new compliance option, fleet owners are required to 

meet a minimum PM BACT requirement for the fleet that is phased in at the rate of 

33 percent per year starting January 1, 2014 so that all vehicles must meet PM BACT 

by January 1, 2016. Until 2014 the low-mileage construction trucks would be exempt. 

By January 1, 2014 the fleet will need to demonstrate that a minimum of 33 percent of 

the entire fleet (except low-mileage vehicles) meets PM BACT. This allows the fleet 

owner to count other trucks in the fleet, that will already have PM filters, towards 

meeting the minimum criteria and allows the low-mileage construction trucks to delay 

compliance further. By January 1, 2014, most fleets will have PM filters on about 90 

percent of the heavier trucks (that do not qualify for the low-mileage construction truck 

provision) as required by the model year schedule or the PM filter phase-in option. 

Because the minimum percentage required to use the low-mileage construction truck 

extension is based on the entire fleet, other trucks in the fleet that have PM filters will be 

counted towards meeting the minimum percentage requirement. Similarly, by 

January 1, 2015, most fleets will already meet the minimum of 66 percent PM BACT 

required for the fleet to use the low-mileage construction truck extension. This 

approach could delay compliance for many low-mileage construction trucks until 

January 2016 if low-mileage construction trucks represent a small portion of the fleet. A 

single truck owner with a low-mileage construction truck will be able to delay 

compliance with PM BACT until January 1, 2016. Any truck that is equipped with a PM 

filter no longer needs to operate below the mileage limits. Starting January 1, 2020, all 

construction trucks must be upgraded to a 2010 model year engine on the same engine 

model year schedule (section 2025(g)) as other fleets so that by January 1, 2023, all 

trucks will have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.

For all low-mileage construction trucks, if a suitable exhaust PM retrofit is not available 

in advance of an annual PM emissions reduction compliance date, no action is required 

on that low-mileage construction truck until January 2018, at which time the engine or 

vehicle would need to be replaced.

Staff was able to include the low-mileage construction truck option while remaining 

emissions neutral and meeting the SIP commitments by setting limits on annual mileage 
119

of 20,000 miles for dump trucks and 15,000 miles for other vehicle types and by setting 

the initial limits on the number of vehicles that are eligible to ten in any fleet. Staff also 

established a threshold to identify how many more could be approved for individual 

fleets such that the overall number of approved vehicles does not exceed 9,000. 

158. Comment: We have consistently been asking for a designation within this rule for 

"vocational trucks" and from time to time, at workshops and other public 

discussions, staff has said they are "working on it." We think now is the time for 

them to produce their work. For this reason, we once again ask the Board to direct 

staff to create a category of vocational truck within the on-road regulation that 

gives special recognition to both the already existing reduction in emissions due to 

the over-estimate of the size of the fleet and to the crushing economic conditions 

that seem to be without end. We believe that the conditions offered to the 

agricultural industry within this rule would meet the needs of our industry and a few 

other small fleet operators within the state who could also be recognized under a 

definition of vocational trucking. The numbers represented by these vocational 

trucks would be small – far smaller than the original estimate of the size of the 

construction fleet alone. (SCCA3)

159. Comment: Proposal for Air Resources Board re: Construction Industry Low- Use 

Exemption: Definition of construction trucks may include but are not limited to 

vehicles over 14,000 gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) that are:

 Bucket lift truck, Drill rigs, Dual engine street sweepers (construction cleanup

only), Dump trucks Single Body, Dump trucks Tractor Units, Support Trucks -

Single Body (mechanics, fuel, lube, tire, welding, etc.), Water trucks, Low-boy 

heavy transport, Ready mix concrete, Concrete pumps, Single-engine mobile 

cranes and

 Trucks equipped with a Power Take-Off (PTO) unit – i.e. ready mixed concrete 

mixer, concrete pumping trucks, single-engine cranes, etc. (PTO usage would 

be reported separately and allowed to not exceed 500 hours)

 Trucks outfitted with a service body (i.e. non-payload carrying) or specialized 

equipment—i.e. welding equipment mounted on the truck body, etc.

 Trucks operated in a fleet that includes off-road equipment—(i.e. trucks 

carrying counterweights and other components of an offroad crane; low-bed 

trucks used to deliver heavy equipment to a job site, etc.)

 Additional Miscellaneous Construction Truck Types (typically small populations 

of specialty trucks): Asphalt; Bridge inspection; Chip spreader; Digger derrick; 

Flatbed; Flusher; Highway specialty (cone, paint-stripper, sign, etc.); 

Knuckleboom; Hot Oil; Hydro Seeder; Platform lift; Reel carrier; Stone ejector; 

Sewer rodder; Sheet rock/wallboard; Snowplow; Spreader; Stake bed; 

Telebelt; Vacuum.

Additional requirements to claim the exemption could include a contractor license 

or have equipment registered in the D.O.O.R.S. program; additional registration, 

reporting, for the vehicles in the low use exemption category including vehicle 
120

model, age, horsepower and annual mileage. Among the considerations 

regarding this request would be the number, type and annual mileage of trucks 

qualifying for this exemption.

We propose that the ARB grant a two year compliance extension for fleets 

operating under this provision to allow time for complete registration and reporting 

by the regulated industry. This would settle the questions surrounding the 

potential emissions, size of the fleet, requirements of the rule and allow time for 

additional amendment if necessary. We believe that ARB and the regulated 

industries should continue to work in a formally established group, based on 

mutual cooperation and collegial manner to implement and refine the provisions of 

this amendment to the on-road heavy-duty diesel truck rule. (CIAQC1) (CIAQC2)

160. Comment: We have provided staff with a simple one-page proposal providing a 

small bit of additional relief through increasing low use exemption for construction 

trucks. We believe this exemption will actually not affect your emissions in any 

significant way. Today, we and your staff find ourselves in substantial agreement 

on the size of the construction fleet. We, however, have differing estimates of 

potential low-use activity. We propose we use the two-year relief in the 

amendments through registration and reporting, substitute real data for estimates, 

models, and inventories. At that point, we'll all know if additional relief from our 

low-use proposal will add to your environmental emissions envelope, subtract from 

it, or as we believe, be emissions neutral. Please direct staff to implement this 

request. (SCCA1)

Agency Response: Staff has made changes to the regulation that provide more time 

for all fleets and for the construction industry without compromising the emissions 

reductions necessary to achieve attainment with NAAQS. The low-mileage construction 

truck provision was expanded at the direction of the Board to provide additional 

flexibility while preserving the emission benefits of the amended rule and meeting the 

SIP commitment. Because the emission margin had already been utilized for the

amendments to the regulation, any emissions increases resulting from the increased 

flexibility for construction trucks had to be offset. This change was made in conjunction 

with changes to the engine model year schedule to require heavier trucks with 1996 and 

1997 model year engines to be retrofitted by January 1, 2012. Information about the 

methods used to calculate the inventory is available in Appendix G of the Staff Report19

and on the AB 1085 compliance website for the Truck and Bus rulemaking: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/ab1085compliance.htm. 

The mileage limits and the 9000 truck threshold that determines how many trucks could 

be approved were necessary for the modification to remain emissions neutral and could 

not be higher whether it is for construction trucks or any other group of trucks. No 

additional trucks could be approved regardless of the number of construction trucks 

 

19 See Appendix G to the Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the Truck 

and Bus Regulation, the Drayage Truck Regulation and the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas 

Regulation, California Air Resources Board, Mobile Source Control Division, Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Implementation Branch. October 2010. 
121

identified in the inventory data. The inventory was used to estimate emissions, but the 

9,000 truck limit applies regardless of the industry type eligible for the extension, which 

includes nearly all trucks owned by contractors and six truck body types owned by any 

business. The provision, however, is not intended to cover every vehicle in companies 

that support the construction industry. That would require an increase in the overall limit 

of eligible vehicles or would reduce the number of trucks that contractors could include 

in the provision.

The emissions increases from delaying compliance for low-mileage construction trucks 

and adding the new credit for the early addition of newer vehicles is offset by the 

change to require 1996 and 1997 model year engines to have PM filters starting 

January 1, 2012. The original staff proposal would have delayed compliance for 1996 

and 1997 model years engines until 2016. Therefore, staff set January 1, 2016 as the 

expiration date to remain emission neutral. 

161. Comment: The rule will present challenges and hardship, particularly given the 

reduced capital available and dim forecasts for future growth in the construction 

sector. The biggest difficulty for most fleets is the bunching of PM filter 

requirements between 2012 and 2014. Essentially, this is one area where the rule 

has not changed. It still presents a huge cost burden within a relatively short time, 

particularly given that it impacts all vehicles in a fleet. Proposed solutions:

Additional delay or expanded low-use mileage exemption for vocational trucks in 

the construction and construction supply industries. These include concrete mixer 

trucks that deliver a product, and water, fuel/lube, and mechanics trucks that serve 

plant and construction sites. These are vehicles that travel 15,000-20,000 miles or 

less in a year. The cost of compliance is far greater relative to the PM impact of 

these low-mileage trucks.

 Increase the threshold for the lower weight class to 33,000 lbs.

 Provide an early retirement credit in the regular BACT compliance path.

 Spread out the initial PM filter compliance dates to 2017.

(AARMC)(CCIMA1)(CEMEX1)(PRMI)(SYAR)

Agency Response: Staff has made changes to the regulation that provide more time 

for all fleets and for the construction industry without compromising the emissions 

reductions necessary to achieve attainment with NAAQS. The low-mileage construction 

truck provision was expanded at the direction of the Board to provide additional 

flexibility while preserving the emission benefits of the amended rule and meeting the 

SIP commitment. The response to Comment 160 provides the rationale for the limits on 

the number of eligible vehicles and on the miles they can operate to qualify for the 

provision. 

Staff cannot accommodate the commenters request to expand the weight rating 

threshold for lighter vehicles from the current limit of 26,000 pounds (the GVWR of 

Class 6 trucks) to 33,000 pounds (the GVWR of Class 8 trucks). The amendments that 

removed the PM filter requirements for these lighter vehicles use a GVWR cutoff of 

26,000 pounds because they represent a smaller portion of the emissions inventory.
122

Furthermore, because commercial licensing requirements do not apply to lighter trucks, 

it makes sense to set the weight rating the same so that they could be easily identified. 

The PM emissions impact of the Class 7 and Class 8 trucks is much greater because 

they transport heavier loads and operate more miles than the lighter trucks. Class 7 

trucks are usually part of fleets with heavier trucks and they normally compete with 

heavier truck fleets that operate in the same industry. They are expected to have 

similar compliance costs because the effect of the regulation would be similar for 

businesses that compete with each other in providing the same service. 

The downsizing credit, referred by the commenter as early retirement credit, was 

designed to be used only in the phase-in option, which requires a percentage of the 

entire fleet to meet compliance each year. However, the model year schedule requires 

the installation of PM retrofit filters for 1996 to 2006 model year engines between 2012 

and 2014 and requires pre-1996 model year engines to be replaced in 2015 and 2016. 

If the downsizing credit is allowed to be used in the model year schedule option, a 

number of fleets would be able to defer cleanup of the model year that is supposed to 

have PM filters and would postpone all cleanup until 2015 or 2016. This would result in 

zero emission benefits to meet the 2014 SIP and would back load all compliance 

requirements in one or two years, which is counter to the goal expressed by the 

commenter. This also results in an unfair competitive advantage for fleets that happen 

to have a different model year distribution. Therefore, the downsizing credit is limited to 

the phase-in option.

The PM filter phase in option and the engine model year schedule were both developed 

to bring most of the heavy duty diesel vehicles into compliance before 2014 to meet the 

federal air quality standards. Delaying compliance dates would delay emission 

reductions needed to protect public health and would jeopardize meeting the SIP 

commitments. 

162. Comment: I ask that you seriously take into consideration the fact that not all 

trucks are created equal. Our diverse fleet of construction (vocational) trucks 

experience very low use compared to those drive all day long or even around the 

clock. The vocational trucks I am referring to usually drive from our office/yard to 

job sites within a 50 mile radius and are parked on the job all day with the engine 

off. These specialized trucks are essential to our operation and can last more than 

20 years due to the low mileage they are driven. Many of these specialized trucks 

are equipped with bodies or attachments that are very expensive to transfer to a 

new replacement chassis which adds to the total replacement cost that your staff 

does not understand. Trucks that are equipped with just a fifth wheel hitch are 

very economical to replace, unfortunately we only have one of these trucks. We 

simply cannot afford to replace or even retrofit our trucks unless business 

improves drastically before we are faced with compliance deadline. (DCCI)

Agency Response: Staff recognizes the cost of transferring a body to a replacement

chassis and included this cost as part of the economic analysis in the 2008 staff report 

and in the cost estimates for the amended rule in 2010. The first replacement 

requirements are delayed until 2015 and if using the PM filter phase-in option, no 

replacements are required until 2020. With the PM filter phase-in option, fleets have the 
123

flexibility to determine which vehicles to equip with PM filters or whether replacements 

should be part of the compliance strategy. Until 2020, neither compliance option

requires replacements of engines that are less than 20 years old, which is around the 

typical useful life cited by the commenter. Also, both compliance options allow for used 

truck replacements to meet the final requirements.

Fleet owners can delay compliance for low-mileage construction trucks and can phasein PM filters from 2014 to 2016 and delay replacements until 2020 or later if operated 

less than 15,000 to 20,000 miles per year, as described in response to Comment 157, 

163. Comment: The recession in construction has taken a severe toll on our company. 

Since this recession began, we have gone from 390 employees to 24 employees. 

The changes to the on-road and off-road diesel emission regulations will be a step 

in the right direction towards recovery in construction. It is our hope to secure 

more help in construction for On-Road Diesel. It is imperative that you increase 

the low-use mileage exemption for construction to 15,000 miles per year. With the 

onset of the recession and the decline in work, many of our on road vehicles have 

remained in our yard and many more are often stationary at the job sites, so they 

are a very small part of diesel emissions. (MCOOP)

164. Comment: The recession in the construction industry has greatly hurt our 

company. We have seen our payroll dwindle from over 150 employees to fewer 

than 50 employees. The changes to the on-road and off-road diesel emission 

regulations are a big step needed to keep us in business, but they are not enough. 

I urge you to increase the low-use mileage exemption for construction to 15,000 

miles per year. (WCDI)

165. Comment: Our company has been greatly hurt by the recession in construction. 

We are a small company trying to survive. The changes to the on-road and offroad diesel emission regulations are the minimum needed to keep us in business. 

We hope for more help in construction for On-Road Diesel. We need you to 

increase the low-use mileage exemption for construction to 15,000 miles per year. 

(DLOREN)

Agency Response: See the response to Comment 157 for a detailed description of 

the low-mileage construction provision. These changes were incorporated as part of 

the 15-day changes where an extension is provided for dump trucks that operate less 

than 20,000 miles per year and other eligible construction trucks operate up to 15,000 

miles per year.

Several commenters had indicated that their businesses had declined due to recession, 

and many of their vehicles were not being used. Staff expanded the retirement credit, 

now referred to as downsizing credit, by extending the delay until 2016 instead of 2014 

and modified the credit to allow vehicles that are not being used and are registered as 

non-operational to be treated as if they are no longer in the fleet in determining the 

credit. Fleets that downsize either by retiring their vehicles or by not operating their 

vehicles registered as non-operational can now reduce their percent requirement by the 

same percentage they downsize. Using this credit, fleets can delay their compliance 

requirements and conserve capital.
124

166. Comment: We are 100% supportive of concepts for additional relief for vocational 

trucks submitted by the Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition (CIAQC) and 

others, particularly further reprieve for ―low-use construction trucks.‖ We feel this 

relief is consistent with the direction previously provided by the Board, and strongly 

urge its adoption now. Evidence brought forth time and time again has shown that 

the construction industry is truly experiencing unprecedented economic struggles 

and relief is necessary for compliance.

Based on recent 2010 estimates by CIAQC (based upon the 2002 Vehicle 

Inventory and Use Survey), the entire universe of dump trucks (both single body 

and dedicated-use tractors) in California is approximately 34,000. A ―low-use 

construction truck exemption‖ set at 20,000 miles/year would include 8,500 of 

these dump trucks. This leaves approximately 25,500 dump trucks that will be not 

be directly aided under such an exemption. As a supplement to a ―low-use 

construction truck exemption‖, we also submit the following dump truck- specific 

concept for the Board’s consideration:

An exemption from the Truck and Bus Rule until 2020 for no more than 25,500 

―Dump Trucks.‖ ―Dump Truck‖ means ―a truck with a GVWR greater than 

33,000 GVWR with a dump body that is owned by a private company whose 

primary business is the hauling of aggregate construction materials (i.e. sand, 

gravel, rock, dirt, etc.) to, from, or at a construction site.‖

It is our belief that this supplemental dump truck concept is both warranted and 

necessary for several reasons. First, while a low-use construction truck concept 

may be of significant value to a number of contractors who also utilize dump trucks 

for incidental use, the bulk of CDTOA’s membership solely operate dump trucks 

and typically operate these trucks at a slightly higher annual mileage. In general, 

a dump truck must be operated 30,000 miles at a bare minimum to maintain 

solvency. (CDTOA1)

Agency Response: As we explained in the response to Comment 160 the compliance 

extension for construction trucks had to conform with the Board’s directive to staff to 

ensure that our overall SIP commitment was met. Staff could not make the compliance 

extension available to 25,500 dump trucks as suggested by the commenter and still 

meet the State’s SIP commitment. For the same reason, the mileage threshold could 

not be increased to 30,000 miles and dump trucks between 26,000 and 33,000 lbs 

GVWR could not be granted the extension as suggested by the commenter. A higher 

mileage threshold would require that the compliance extension be restricted to fewer 

trucks to meet the SIP commitment. 

167. Comment: For construction, two really important concepts are the bubble 

concept because dual regulations are hurting construction a lot. And the low 

mileage on-road regulations for construction, because we do have a lot of 

equipment that do have very little mileage, but go over the thousand miles a year. 

(CPASC) 
125

Agency Response: The ―bubble concept‖ refers to a method that allows credits 

earned from action taken to reduce emissions from off-road to be used toward 

compliance with trucks and vice versa. See the response to Comment 131 for a 

summary of the excess PM VDECS credit provision in the Truck and Bus regulation. 

The off-road compliance option is described in the Off-Road regulation available on 

ARB’s website for the Off Road rulemaking 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/offroadlsi10.htm. 

The new compliance extension for low-mileage construction trucks was modified to 

address stakeholder’s comment and is described in the response to Comment 157. 

Also, see the response to Comment 160 for the rationale for the usage limits and limits 

on eligible vehicles included in the compliance extension. 

168. Comment: I'm with the Concrete Pumpers of California. In our industry, five, six 

years ago, over 1,000 new concrete pump boom trucks were sold in the United

States of America. One year ago, for which the accurate records exist, there were 

less than 35 for the United States. And in California, that's probably down to about 

two or three trucks as far as I could find out. So, yeah, we've had a little bit of a 

downturn in our economy. The California Legislative Analysts Office says the 

overall California economy won't recover start to recover until 2013. And as some 

of the previous people have mentioned, construction in homes won't probably go 

for another -- until another five or six years. So our guys are going to stay busy 

doing nothing. 

Your amended rules to give us 15,000 miles of travel does nothing for us should 

business come back. And I base that on taking 12,000 miles or 15,000 divided by 

each month. Divide each month by 20 working days, and you get a working radius 

of about 30 miles. Or that means we could travel maybe from Oakland to San 

Francisco should there be a job. The numbers just don't work out for us. (CCP1)

Agency Response: The low-mileage construction trucks provision provides 

compliance extension for many vocational trucks including concrete pump boom trucks. 

See the response to Comment 157 for a summary of the compliance extension for lowmileage construction trucks. Staff designed the provision with the intention to assist 

fleets that run lower miles and probably have reduced income. If the truck usage 

increases, the business income more than likely would have increased also, and fleet 

owner would then be in a better position to comply without assistance.

169. Comment: In our case, with concrete pumps, we use a transfer case so we are 

classified as only incidentally traveling on the highway. When we get to the job 

site, we go into a transfer case mode, and we cannot move until we're finished 

placing the concrete. And then placing of the concrete, we use about a third of the 

horsepower that we use for motion of the truck on a highway because our 

hydraulic systems are rated at that. Our odometer turns and shows mileage while 

we're standing still. I think it's very important that -- and there is a number of 

vehicles that fit this category, whether they're moving and storage, ready mix 

trucks, trains, all sorts of equipment that has a very unique application. And the 

truck is only a small part of the thing. And basically the truck is moving -- the sole 
126

source of income is not the trucking; it's moving the item that's involved. In our 

case, the truck is incidental. It’s maybe 20 percent of a total value of a million 

dollar piece of equipment. We have a $100,000 truck in there. So I think that we 

really should have a vocational category. It makes more sense. It cleans up a lot 

of problems. And, you know, just because we're not off highway, we're not truly 

highway, and I think that a lot of the considerations for mileage and emissions and 

all of that would change considerably. And also the average life expectancy of 

these vehicles changes dramatically due to technology plus usage. In our case, in 

the construction industry, we know we are off by 65 percent. So getting a 30 

percent reduction is incidental when we're down 65 percent. And of that 65 

percent, we're only using about 30 percent of our horsepower probably 80 are 90 

percent of the time. We travel very little. We spend a lot of our time hopefully 

when things get better on a job site performing a function. That's how we make 

money, not going down the highway. (CCP2)

Agency Response: Trucks with concrete placing booms, or concrete pump trucks as 

they are more commonly known, are included in the list of vehicles that could qualify for 

the new compliance extension for low-mileage construction trucks. See the response to 

Comment 157 for a summary of the compliance extension for low-mileage construction 

trucks. 

The annual mileage limit for concrete pump trucks is 15,000 miles. If an owner is 

concerned that the mileage limit could be exceeded due to the odometer continuing to 

record miles while the truck is stationary, mileage readings taken from a properly 

functioning hubodometer on January 1 and December 31 of the compliance year may 

be used to demonstrate compliance with the mileage requirement. As defined in the 

regulation in section 2025(d)(37), the hubodometer must be non-resettable, have a 

serial number, and a lock-out feature that permanently prevents tampering. If a 

hubodometer is used in lieu of an odometer, the fleet owner must also report the serial 

number for each hubodometer used or replaced. 

170. Comment: I've spoken to you in the past about the mobile crane, and you've 

actually given us some help. And we appreciate staff's effort and the things that 

you have done for us. There are a couple of things, however, that need to be 

addressed, and the on-road rule is one of them. These endangered species that I 

speak about, the mobile crane, which is very imperative to keep our society 

moving because we need it not only for building new buildings but we need it for 

maintaining and for emergency services when we have things like the tanker truck 

that exploded on the Oakland Bridge. These mobile cranes require trucks to haul 

auxiliary equipment, counterweights, boom sections and jigs. So it's very 

imperative that we be able to carry that stuff. And these trucks get very low use. 

We have submitted a letter to the workshop down in El Monte. I think it was in 

May of last year. I think I talked to Tony about it. And we would like to ask your 

consideration for including low use equipment of these trucks that haul these 

counterweights into a low use equipment. Currently, the letter that I submitted 

asked for a 20,000 mile use for low equipment. There are other pieces of low use 

equipment that should be considered in that request. But for our main source of 
127

work is the equipment that hauls these auxiliary parts for our cranes. So if you 

could help us with that, we think that would be a big help. (SCRANE)

Agency Response: Single engine cranes with a load rating of 35 tons or more as well 

as tractors exclusively pull low-boys trailers are included in the list of vehicles that could 

qualify for the new compliance extension for low-mileage construction trucks. The list is 

not meant to be comprehensive and does not cover every type of vehicle.

The definition allows for the eligibility of many specialized vehicles that perform specific 

functions related to the construction industry provided the truck is owned by a company 

that holds a valid license issued by the California Contractors State License Board. So 

trucks that haul auxiliary equipment such as counter weights, boom section or jigs could 

qualify as low-mileage construction trucks if the business is licensed under the 

California Contractors State License Board.

Mobile cranes used in emergency operations could exclude the usage accrued in an 

emergency event from the annual vehicle usage when determining compliance with the 

low-mileage threshold for the low-mileage construction truck provision. Mileage and 

hours of operation may also be excluded in determining eligibility for the low use vehicle 

exemption. The response to Comment 186 describes the provision for emergency 

support vehicles for more detail.

171. Comment: Our members' fleets are primarily local use vocational trucks. These 

include concrete mixer fleets that deliver within a 15 mile radius, drive less than 

14,000 miles in a year, and operate about 1,400 hours per year (national 

averages). They also include water, fuel/lube, and mechanics trucks that operate 

primarily at a plant or construction site. These trucks are used for local supply of 

materials and support local business and construction. They typically have longer 

service lives than over-the-road long haul trucks, can be difficult to retrofit, and 

don't have the engine revolutions to make retrofits effective. (CCIMA1) (AARMC) 

(CEMEX1) (PRMI) (SYAR)

Agency Response: At the December 2010 hearing, the Board directed staff to develop 

an additional compliance option for construction trucks to provide additional flexibility. 

In response, staff developed a low-use construction truck provision to allow a delayed 

phase-in of PM filters from 2014 to 2016. The response to Comment 157 summarizes 

the provisions for low-use construction trucks. With respect to retrofit performance for 

short-haul vehicles, see the response to Comment 96. The construction truck provision 

is not intended to cover every vehicle in companies that support the construction 

industry. That would require an increase in the overall limit of eligible vehicles or would 

reduce the number of trucks that contractors could include in the provision. The 

rationale for setting the limits on construction truck provision is explained in the 

response to Comment 160. 

p) Tow Trucks

172. Comment: On behalf of the membership of the California Tow Truck Association 

(CTTA) we are writing to express our continued reservations with the California Air 

Resources Board (ARB)’s Truck and Bus Regulation.
128

Founded in 1969, the California Tow Truck Association represents over 1,000 

towing companies within the state of California, providing vital services to the 

state’s motoring public. Our members employ approximately 15,000 people 

across the state. Unfortunately, the current poor economy continues to wreak 

havoc on our members’ companies.

While the recent proposed amendments may provide some much needed relief for 

our membership, without even further delay or modifications the regulation will 

have dire financial implications upon our industry, at a time when our industry can 

least afford it. The economic reality will be a shortage of tow trucks being able to 

respond to minor and major traffic incidents throughout the state. Tow Truck 

response times to these incidents will increase causing increases in the amount of 

time thousands of vehicles will sit idling in traffic gridlock. As a result, health 

considerations will be compounded and the safety of our state’s motoring public 

will be jeopardized. (CTTA1) 

173. Comment: As we have discussed on many occasions with ARB Staff, heavy-duty 

tow trucks of 33,001 GVWR and above continue to be particularly impacted by the 

regulation, as they tend to be traditionally driven for only a low number of miles 

each year (thus tend to be long-lasting, yet older model trucks) and, as specialty 

trucks, are extremely expensive to replace. Replacement costs for these specialty 

trucks range between $325K to $750K, very similar to the replacement costs for 

emergency vehicles such as firefighting apparatus. Unfortunately the rule does not 

differentiate between a long-haul truck driving 200K miles/year and such a heavyduty tow truck driven only 30K miles/year; the schedule for replacing both trucks is 

based solely on its model engine year. Furthermore, retrofit devices are oftentimes 

impractical as modification to these trucks would cost far more than just the retrofit 

device installation. Bodies would have to be modified to create space to physically 

enable installation. This process would be both costly and time consuming 

resulting in excessive out of service time. 

It has always been our argument that these heavy-duty low-mileage vehicles are 

utilized to clean-up the most disastrous accidents on our roadways as part of the 

CHP and local law enforcement tow rotation lists. With so few miles driven and 

such a huge cost of replacement (hundreds of thousands of dollars in specialty 

equipment), these trucks understandably tend to be replaced at a slower pace 

than smaller tow trucks. Our members have mortgages on these trucks, and their 

business model is based on the assumption that they can get decades of service 

out of the vehicles. Requiring them to replace these trucks ahead of schedule will 

have one of two direct consequences – get out of heavy-duty towing completely or 

take a massive financial risk in an unstable economy by purchasing a new heavyduty tow truck to meet the rule requirements. Either way there’s a strong 

likelihood there will be less heavy-duty tow truck operators in California. As such, 

roads will remain uncleared, traffic will back up, vehicle emissions will increase, 

and our economy and environment will be further harmed. It is ironic that the very 

air the rule is designed to clean will actually become even more polluted. We urge 

you to strongly consider concessions for these heavy-duty tow trucks, as well as 

delaying the rule until California’s economy fully recovers. (CTTA1) 
129

Agency Response: We acknowledge the significant impact of the recession on 

California’s economy and on companies that rely on diesel engines – whether it is 

trucking and transportation businesses, construction companies, or airlines. Overall, 

businesses’ revenues and employment are down, and this has reduced the ability of 

many fleets to make the investments needed to comply with the regulation. In 

consideration of the economy, the regulation was amended to provide more time and to 

lower compliance costs for affected fleets while preserving emissions benefits and 

protecting public health.

The amendments reduce the compliance costs of the existing regulation for all affected 

fleets by reducing the number of required PM filters, providing a longer period of time for 

retrofitted trucks to operate before having to upgrade to a 2010 MY engine or 

equivalent, delaying truck replacements and extending various credits. Changes to the 

credits and other special provisions provide further flexibility and reduce the annual 

compliance requirements. Further delays of the regulation could not be provided 

without impairing the State’s ability to meet national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) and diesel PM health risk reduction goals. 

The actions an individual company would have to take to comply with the regulation 

would depend on factors such as the size of the fleet, the vehicle types, vehicle age, 

and normal vehicle replacement practices. From discussions with tow truck companies 

and CTTA representatives, staff obtained some information about the characteristics of 

tow truck fleets. We understand that on average, tow truck fleets have more light duty 

vehicles (those with a GVWR less than 26,001 lbs) than heavier tow trucks. The 

amended regulation eliminates PM filter requirements for this lighter class of vehicles, 

delays the start of the replacement requirement to 2015, and limits the replacements to 

engines 20 years old or older until 2020. From 2020 to 2023 all engines need to be 

upgraded to 2010 model year engines or equivalent. We also understand that although 

most tow trucks travel relatively few miles, most tow truck companies replace these 

lighter tow trucks at a rate ahead of what the amended regulation would require. 

Therefore, the amended regulation is not expected to result in changes to the normal 

vehicle replacement practice for nearly all lighter tow trucks and there will not be a 

reduction of the numbers of lighter tow trucks available to respond to traffic incidents 

throughout the state. 

For heavier vehicles, fleets can defer all replacements until January 1, 2020 by using 

the PM filter phase-in option. Most tow truck fleets would have no early replacements 

until 2020 and at that time could upgrade to 10 year old replacements to comply. In 

addition, if a suitable PM retrofit is not available, no other action is required to meet the 

PM reduction requirements until 2018.

Small fleets with heavier trucks with a GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds also have the 

option to delay the initial PM filter requirements until 2014 and can defer engine 

replacements until January 1, 2020 or later based on the engine model year. 

Staff believes that the flexibility provided in the regulation and the reduced requirements 

of the amended regulation significantly lowers the compliance costs for all fleets and are 

not expected to have a negative effect on the level of tow truck support on our 

roadways.
130

q) Agricultural Fleets

174. Comment: The Clean Fleets Coalition appreciates this opportunity to submit this 

information concerning specialty equipment used in lettuce harvesting in 

California. In support of this request to add the lettuce harvesting truck (LHT) as a 

"specialty agricultural vehicle", we offer:

Unique function: As documented in the attachment to this letter, the LHT is very 

similar to the cotton module movers, which is currently defined as a "specialty 

agricultural vehicle."

Small inventory: We believe that there are less than 100 LHT's in the state and 

the only truck manufacturer (FABCO, formerly of San Leandro) is no longer in 

business, making near-term replacement unlikely.

Geographic considerations: This harvesting equipment operates almost entirely 

within the Central Coast. The Board has recognized that this "NOx Exempt Area" 

does not typically have the same localized health risk and also merits a less 

aggressive compliance schedule.

TRUCRS reporting data: We understand from Board staff that the 2010 reporting 

reveals that the expected statewide limit of 2,200 specialty agricultural vehicles 

has not been exceeded. It appears that there remains room within the current cap 

to accommodate our request. (CFCOAL1)

175. Comment: We have a vehicle that we are requesting that you would place in the 

specialty agriculture category. Our vehicle is a vehicle that can't be bought. 

They're not made anymore. They're a short wheel base for sharp turning in the 

field. They have 80-inch track. They're wider than a regular truck so that the tire 

doesn't fit in the lettuce furrow. They also have a self-loading bed on them that 

they pack up to the harvesting machine, the load is transferred off the harvesting 

machine onto our truck and taken to a processing plant. We are a family business. 

We can't find a truck to replace this in a short amount of time that you're giving us. 

If you can get into the specialty ag category, they will give us the time to start 

either manufacturing our own trucks or finding a manufacturer that would do it for 

us. (MASBI)

Agency Response: Lettuce harvesting trucks have been added to the list of 

agricultural vehicles identified in section 2025(d)(54) as eligible for the specialty 

agricultural vehicle exemption. This revision was made available for comment with the 

May 19, 2011 15-day changes. Expanding the types of trucks that can quality for the 

specialty vehicle definition to include lettuce harvesting trucks does not result in 

increased emissions because the number of specialty truck exemptions is capped by 

the regulation. Therefore, the total number of specialty truck exemptions cannot 

increase as a result of the change.

176. Comment: We request for agricultural vehicles that the out-of-state miles not 

count against the limits established in "Table 5: Agricultural Vehicle Mileage 
131

Limits.‖ We request that the same proof of operation deemed acceptable by your 

staff for the phase-in option be allowed (i.e. "Records could include IRP records, 

GPS tracking records, or DMV or law enforcement permits.") (CFCOAL1)

Agency Response: Staff does not believe it is appropriate to change the method of 

determining compliance with the agricultural vehicle mileage limits. The total annual 

mileage accrued by an agricultural vehicle other than a specialty agricultural vehicle 

should continue to be based on the January 1 odometer readings reported for each 

calendar year as required by section 2025(r)(14)(h). The mileage limits were introduced 

for agricultural vehicles that are driven infrequently, are needed for peak periods such 

as during harvest, and are kept a long time because of their low use. 

Agricultural vehicles that operate more than the allowable agricultural vehicle mileage 

limits are more likely to be replaced more frequently as a normal course of business 

than trucks that are used periodically. Agricultural fleets that operate in and out of 

California have the same opportunity to use the agricultural vehicle provisions and have 

a comparable business model. Applying the mileage limits to California miles alone 

would create an unfair economic advantage for out of state fleets that use their trucks in 

the same way as fleets that operate exclusively in California. In addition, out of state 

fleets could easily operate multiple trucks in California to stay below the mileage limits 

to avoid clean-up. This would result in an unfair competitive advantage for out of state 

fleets compared to in-state fleets.

The regulation’s low use exemption (which is distinct from the agricultural low-mileage 

exemption) applies to all trucks that operate fewer than 1,000 miles inside of California 

and does not consider miles driven outside of the State. Fleets that operate low-use 

vehicles inside and outside of California must provide records, upon request, from an 

electronic tracking system or some other documentation of the vehicle’s operation and 

location. 

177. Comment: Despite the time, effort and, for some of our most active members, 

personal cost involved in travelling to meetings, and preparing data for CARB staff, 

we believe that the amendments before you for vote on December 17 will likely 

require future meetings, further amendment, and, during the implementation 

period, a great deal more work on all of our parts to make the Diesel Truck Rule 

work efficiently and cost-effectively in future years.

Proposed changes to the Diesel Truck Rule are indeed making the rule more 

workable, and indeed – specifically in the area of the proposed ―Log Truck 

Provision‖ and certain of the agriculture vehicle provisions -- reflect concerns 

expressed by our industry about the specific seasonal restraints, physical 

environment, and cost factors faced by our industry (see below for a review of 

these factors).

It is the position of Associated California Loggers that while these amendments will 

indeed offer our membership (logging companies, log truckers, log road builders) 

more time, more options, and more flexibility with regard to the Diesel Truck Rule, 

we remain hamstrung by economic problems in the California logging economy 

that look to take years to resolve. The Diesel Truck Rule, however improved by 
132

these amendments, must continue to be considered in terms of its workability and 

its cost. This is the beginning, and not the end, of that implementation process.

Associated California Loggers appreciates the work done by CARB staff in 

developing this specific provision, particularly with regard to the option being 

reportable starting in January 2012 (thus allowing all of 2011 for our members to 

receive education and training on how to use that provision and others within the 

rule); with regard to the requirement not beginning until 2014; and with regard to 

the ―10%‖ turnover rate contemplated by the provision, starting in 2014." 

(ACLOG1) (ACLOG2) (ACLOG3)

Agency Response: Staff has made every effort to meet with affected stakeholders 

throughout the state and country during the rulemaking process. Staff will continue to 

outreach to members of the affected public through public speaking engagements, the 

Internet, informational flyers, media interviews, association meetings, and a variety of 

other sources of communication.

Staff will continue to work with industry representatives and associations on additional 

methods to educate stakeholders and will continue to work with industry groups to 

inform their members about the regulation. Staff has created a Truck Regulations 

Advisory Committee comprised of industry members to address rule implementation 

issues and to get feedback on how to improve future outreach efforts. This effort will 

include holding public workshops, seminars, and individual meetings throughout the 

state. Staff is creating an online reporting system, as well as other tools, to assist fleets 

in determining what compliance options are available and to develop their own 

compliance plans.

178. Comment: Forestry vehicles have already been given recognition in the rule as 

―unique vehicles‖ which cannot be readily replaced in the new or used-truck 

market, and which have specific use requirements – heavy duty frame rails, rear 

suspension, 18-speed transmission, rear differential axle set, and severe service 

cab. These unique vehicles are used at different altitudes, bearing different weight 

loads, often on steep or twisting roads.

To some extent, these matters specific to the timber industry are now being 

addressed in Diesel Truck Rule amendments, and again, we thank you. At the 

same time, we must all continue to understand how these specific requirements 

must be addressed in the actual implementation of the rule, for instance, in terms 

of the workability of filters given different weight loads and uphill/downhill driving 

conditions, or our need to put on more miles than the ―low mileage‖ range 

designated by the Diesel Truck Rule, but within a shorter driving season. 

(ACLOG1) (ACLOG2)

Agency Response: The Log Truck Phase-in Option allows dedicated log trucks with a 

GVWR over 33,000 lbs that exclusively transport logs and have permanently attached 

log bunks to follow a separate replacement schedule. Such trucks need to be replaced 

with trucks with 2010 model year engines at a rate of ten percent per year beginning in 

2014, and no retrofit PM filters are required.
133

The regulation continues to contain several provisions that allow flexibility and 

opportunities to delay compliance should retrofit PM filters not be available or unable to 

work on various vehicles, including log trucks that do not use the log truck phase-in 

option. Vehicles that cannot be retrofit can receive annual extensions until 2018 as 

described in response to Comment 134 about the unavailability of a suitable VDECS. 

r) Two Engine Street Sweepers

179. Comment: Section 2025(n)(2), Requirements for Two-Engine Sweepers. LLNL 

recommends that Tier 0 auxiliary engines (greater than 50 horsepower) on two 

engine sweepers be allowed to operate up to 200 hours per year after January 1, 

2014. This limit would be consistent with the low use limits for engines covered in 

the Large Spark Ignition Engine Regulation and in the In-Use Off-Road Diesel 

Vehicle Regulation. (LLNL)

Agency Response: The amended regulation continues to limit operation of any tier 0 

engine in a two engine sweeper after January 1, 2014 to no more than 100 hours per 

year. This aspect of the regulation was not changed. Tier 0 engines have no emissions 

controls and have significantly higher emissions than newer engines that were certified 

to an emissions standard. 

Prior to the initial adoption of the Truck and Bus regulation, the auxiliary engine of street 

sweepers (portable engines) were subject to the portable engine air toxic control 

measure that required Tier 0 engines to be retired before January 1, 2010. The low-use 

exemption for portable engines is 80 hours per year. With the adoption of the Truck and 

Bus regulation in 2008-2009, the Board moved coverage of both the propulsion and 

auxiliary engines of two-engine sweepers into the regulation so that owners would be 

subject to the requirements of just one ARB regulation. At that time, the Board decided 

that the auxiliary Tier 0 engines would be permitted to operate no more than 450 hours 

per year starting January 1, 2010 until January 1, 2014 and no more than 100 hours per 

year thereafter. The initial 450-hour limit was provided to allow owners time to meet the 

fleet requirements for both the propulsion and auxiliary engines. The Truck and Bus 

regulation and the Off-road regulation affect different equipment, and the costs and 

other emissions considerations were part of the Board’s decision increasing the hours 

for off-road equipment and not for trucks.

s) Yard Trucks

180. Comment: The proposed regulation states that yard trucks (yard goats) with onroad and off-road engines are affected by this regulation. During the workshops, 

staff made the statement that yard trucks can be in the Truck and Bus Regulation 

or the Off-Road Regulation. NWSC is suggesting that staff clarify the fact that 

yard trucks can be in both regulations.‖ (NWSC1)

181. Comment: Staff should clarify that yard goats can be operated in both the offand on-road reg. (NWSC2)

Agency Response: Staff provided clarification in the revised statement of scope and 

applicability in the modified language made available during the 15 day comment 
134

period. The revised text in section 2025(b) of the regulation states that yard trucks with 

off-road engines used for agricultural operations are subject to the requirements of the 

Truck and Bus Regulation. This category of yard trucks are the only ones that are not 

already subject to an in-use regulation. All on-road yard trucks, except those that are 

subject to the cargo handling equipment regulation, that are originally designed to be 

registered to be operated on public highways regardless where they operate, are 

subject to the Truck and Bus regulation and are not subject to the Off-Road regulation. 

Off-road yard trucks with off-road engines that are not used for agricultural operations 

are subject to the requirements of the Off-Road regulation, and if operated at ports, 

could be subject to the cargo handling regulation.

182. Comment: We especially note improvements made to rule with respect to 

delayed implementation dates of the Best Available Control Schedule and the 

addition of ―yard dogs‖ to the agricultural vehicle provisions. (WGROW) 

Agency Response: The definition of an agricultural vehicle is modified in section 

2025(d)(E) of the amended regulation to clarify that a yard truck operated at agricultural 

processing faculties that are not owned by a farming business will qualify as an 

agricultural vehicle. This was appropriate because many yard trucks used in 

agricultural operations are often operated at processing facilities. Specific language 

was also added to clarify that yard trucks that meet the definition of a vehicle that 

transports a load of unprocessed crops between the farm and the location of the first 

processing would be eligible to use the agricultural vehicle provision. The amended 

regulation also clarified that trucks making interim movements between the farm and the 

first-processor, including yard trucks, would be eligible for the provision. 

t) Motor Home & Personal Use Exemption

183. Comment: I own a 2003 Freightliner Specialty Vehicle that I purchased from an 

RV dealer for pulling my personal 5th Wheel RV trailer. It was sold as a 4 door 

heavy duty pickup with a single rear axle and GVWR of 31,000 lbs. This truck is 

labeled ―Not For Hire‖ and is only used for personal use and not commercial use. 

My standard pickup truck was not able to safely haul my family and RV trailer so I 

upgraded to this truck 6+ years ago. I drive it 4 to 5,000 miles a year for RV 

purposes. It is like new with 32,000 miles. I have no other trucks and would be 

considered a single truck fleet by CARB as I understand it. To sell the truck or 

spend $10,000 for DPF on seems extreme and very costly considering the 

economy and the fragileness of my job right now. Please reconsider the definition 

of personal use or a reasonable mileage exception, or RV use exception. The 

vehicle is built by Sportchassis Specialty Vehicles and is used to tow horses or 

heavy 5th wheel trailers.‖ (BGLID)

Agency Response: The regulation includes an exemption in section 2025(c)(10) for 

motor homes used for non-commercial private activities. These vehicles are exempt 

from the requirements of the regulation including any reporting requirements or mileage 

limitations. The definition of a motor home includes vehicles that exclusively tow a 

trailer designed for human habitation for recreational or emergency occupancy. 
135

184. Comment: We have a Ford F550 Diesel truck with a GVWR of 17,500 lbs that is 

used for personal use but because this truck has a flatbed, not a pickup bed, we 

are subject to these new regulations even though it is used for personal use. We 

use this truck for our hobby, taking our large model steam engine and cars to local 

model railroad clubs.

We are very confused by the ARB’s logic that makes us subject to these new 

regulations. The engine in our Ford F550 flatbed truck is the same engine that 

Ford uses to put the pickup bed on to make their heavy duty pickup trucks that this 

exemption talks about. This is also the same Ford power stroke engine Ford uses 

in their F150, F250 and F350 pickup trucks that are exempt from these 

regulations. Why is there some sort of difference perceived by the ARB because it 

has a flatbed on it? Because it is a personal use vehicle with a GVWR under 

19,500 lbs, it should be exempt under Section 2025, C exemptions, number 13 

regardless of the bed type.

We just wanted to comment on this and bring this to the ARB’s attention. The 

exemptions for personal use vehicles with a GVWR under 19,500 lbs need to be 

redone to allow the same exemption for our personal use flatbed truck that you 

allow for the oversize pickup trucks that have a GVWR under 19,500 lbs. (PCAR)

Agency Response: The intent of the exemption was to exclude pick-up trucks

because they are typically used for non-commercial purposes. Pick-up trucks generally 

have a GVWR less than 14,000 lbs, and these lighter trucks are not in the scope of the 

regulation. In some cases, larger trucks are equipped with a pick-up bed and are more 

commonly used for private or non-commercial use. Trucks that have a service bed or a 

flatbed are most commonly used as commercial vehicles and not for personal use. 

Staff chose to use the vehicle configuration to define the exemption for clarity and to 

simplify enforcement. Allowing an exemption based on the use of the truck rather than 

its configuration creates substantial uncertainty and makes enforcement more difficult 

for vehicles that are primarily used for commercial purposes.

The requirements for lighter trucks do not begin until 2015. There is no PM filter 

requirement and, until 2020, no engine less than 20 years old is affected. It is likely that 

many truck owners will replace their lighter trucks before the compliance date for the 

vehicles.

u) Reporting Requirements

185. Comment: Fleets required to report should be relieved of the requirement to 

report the ―engine family‖ or ―engine family name‖ unless the engine has had a 

VDECS installed. Where a VDECS is installed, the engine family name is 

mandatory and fleet owners are encouraged to consult the ARB guidance on 

proper VDECS selection. [ref. Section 2025 (r)(9) p. A-58] (CFCOAL1)

Agency Response: The engine family identifier and the engine family number is 

important because it identifies the emissions standard that the engine meets. Engines 

are certified independent of the vehicles chassis, therefore, the model year of the 

engine may be different from the model year of the vehicle. For example, it is common 
136

for a 2007 model year truck to be powered by a 2006 model year engine. The only way 

to verify which engine has been installed in a vehicle is to record the engine family 

identifier. The engine family is also necessary to determine whether there is a VDEC 

available for the engine family and it serves to verify the engine model year. Fleets that 

report can use either the model year schedule or the phase-in option. The engine model 

year is needed to verify compliance with the model year schedule, and to determine 

compliance with the agricultural vehicle provisions and the low-mileage construction 

truck provisions. 

In addition, title 13, Cal. Code Regs., Division 3 states that no 1974 or newer diesel 

power truck may operate in California without an emissions control label affixed to the 

engine. The emission control label contains the engine family identifier so reporting this 

information should be readily available.

v) Emergency Support Vehicles 

186. Comment: The District is also concerned about the potential side effects of the 

on-road regulations on the availability of water trucks for dust suppression and wild 

land firefighting. Frequently, water trucks are the oldest vehicles in trucking and 

construction fleets. The regulation may result in the retirement of a large number 

of these vehicles statewide, which in turn will limit dust suppression and firefighting 

capabilities. (MCAQMD)

Agency Response: Vehicles operating in non-emergency management situations 

need to comply with the rule like any other vehicle. Many water trucks used for dust 

suppression support agricultural and construction activities, which may qualify them to 

use the compliance extension for low-mileage construction trucks and the provisions for 

agricultural vehicles. Given these compliance options, the emergency support vehicle 

option and others available to water trucks to reduce their compliance requirements, 

staff does not believe that a large number of these vehicles will be retired due to the 

regulation. 

The regulation allows the mileage and hours of operation accrued as an emergency 

support vehicle to be subtracted from the annual vehicle usage when determining 

compliance with any usage thresholds. This exclusion of accrued mileage and hours 

applies to usage at the emergency event and during travel to and from the event. It is 

not applicable to vehicle usage for activities that do not meet the definition of 

emergency operation in section 2025(d)(22) of the regulation or to vehicles that do not 

meet the definition of an emergency support vehicle in section 2025(d)(23). The 

regulation also specifies the documentation – including usage and dispatch records –

required to qualify a vehicle’s usage as emergency support. 

Water trucks used in emergency operations like firefighting could qualify for the 

provision for emergency support vehicles summarized above. For example, if a water 

truck is operated a total of 3,000 miles in a compliance year and 2,500 miles were 

accrued during an emergency event or during travel to and from the emergency event, 

then the total eligible miles counted towards any usage threshold would be 500, placing 

the truck in the low-use category with no clean-up requirements. A water truck that is 

dedicated to emergency support use would have no other usage and would remain 
137

below the thresholds for a low use vehicle. It would therefore be exempt from the PM 

filter requirements and the 2010 engine replacement requirements. 

187. Comment: Loggers also contribute to the prevention of forest fires and the carbon 

emissions they generate, practicing prevention through thinning and harvesting 

practices. We fight the fires side by side with CALFIRE when they occur, and our 

trucks and equipment are required for use in the clean-up of fires after they occur. 

(ACLOG1) 

Agency Response: Logging trucks used in emergency operations like firefighting may

qualify for the provision for emergency support vehicles summarized in response to 

Comment 186. If the logging trucks are used for forest management or other nonemergency activities, they would need to comply with the regulation like any other log 

truck or other vehicle subject to the regulation.

6. School Bus Requirements 

a) School District Budget Limitations

188. Comment: California’s funding for school transportation prior to the recent 

economic downturn only covered 45% of our costs, and in the past two years our 

funding has been cut an additional 20%. School districts throughout California are 

reducing school transportation, and in some cases completely eliminating this 

service. (CASTO1)(WCTA)(CASTO2)

189. Comment: As everyone knows, the state’s fiscal condition is in terrible shape. 

The latest estimate from the Governor Elect is a deficit of $28 billion. We believe 

the potential action of this board could increase this deficit by over $650 million 

because the proposed requirements will impose a reimbursable state-mandated 

program on our school districts. 

It should be noted that K-12 education (Proposition 98) has been cut by 

$6.6 billion since 2007-08. This is an absolute reduction of 13 percent in state and 

local dollars for education. This is equivalent to cutting the funding for every child 

in the state by $1,100. The LAO is estimating that K-12 education will not reach its 

2007-08 level until 2014-15, the final year that school districts must have installed 

retrofits on all their school buses.

School transportation state aid has been cut by 20 percent. We do know that 

there may be additional cuts this year. School districts will be cut by somewhere 

in the vicinity of 4 percent next year 2011-12. This will be the worse year for 

school districts. It will be the same year that the ARB regulations go into effect. 

ARB could not have picked a worse year. The impact of ARB’s action will cause 

school districts to make even deeper cuts in school transportation. You only need 

to look locally at San Juan school district, which is considering eliminating regular 

home-to-school transportation. (STC) 
138

190. Comment: We oppose the proposed school bus regulations. Our school district 

has made devastating cuts. It looks like it is going to get worse in 2011-12 with 

additional cuts of at least 4% below this year’s level, after last year’s 20% cut. 

These regulations will cost us another $2 million. We simply do not have any 

money to pay that. (SUHSD)(OUSD)(PUESD)(GVUSD). 

191. Comment: Our school district has made dramatic cuts. It appears that 2011-12 

budget year will be worse with additional cuts of at least 4% below this year’s 

level. Your regulations will cost our school district another $4 million to replace 25 

remaining non-compliant 1979 to 1993 school buses that are not able to be 

repowered or retrofitted by 2018. (KCUT)

192. Comment: Our agency and its member districts have made devastating cuts. It 

looks like it is going to get worse in 2011-12 with additional cuts of at least 4% 

below this year’s level. Your regulations will cost us another $2.9 million. We 

simply do not have any money to pay that. (MPPSTA)

193. Comment: Although these amendments do delay the rules for school 

transportation, they're still overly burdensome on school transportation. As you 

know, school transportation has been poorly funded. Before the economic 

downturn, school transportation received only about 45 percent of what it took to 

operate school buses in California. The remaining amount the State required us to 

take out of our school district general funds, more impacting the classroom. In the 

last couple of years, the State has further reduced our funding by 20 percent. So 

now the State funding only covers about 35 percent of what it takes to operate 

school transportation in California. All over the state of California, the impact of 

that is that school districts are making decisions to severely reduce, restrict, or 

eliminate school transportation. (CAST03)

194. Comment: We are in agreement with you that we need to update our school bus 

fleet with new modern buses. Our parents want their children to ride in school 

buses that have seat belts. However, this is the worst time to impose new 

mandates on school districts without additional funds. (CASTO1)(WCTA) 

(MPPSTA)(OUSD)(PUESD)(CASTO2)(KCUT)(GVUSD)

195. Comment: School districts have and will continue to undergo tremendous 

reductions in funding. This has been especially true of school transportation. The 

program has been eliminated and scaled back in many school districts. (STC)

Agency Response: Staff recognizes school transportation budgets are being cut as a 

result of the economic downturn. As such, the regulation was restructured to allow 

additional time to utilize the most cost-effective compliance option, DPFs, and reduce 

administrative burdon. The Board delayed the initial compliance date by one year and 

provided an optional three year delay until 2014 for school buses with engine model 

years 1988-1993 to allow time for existing retrofit technology to advance. Additionally, 

the board added credits for electric, hybrid, alternative fuel, and pilot ignition engine 

school buses and they also reduced the reporting requirements. 
139

Staff continues to educate school districts on the compliance requirements, including 

the most cost-effective option of retrofitting. Retrofiting a school bus costs $11,000-

$15,000, while new school buses can cost at least seven times that amount. School 

bus fleets can meet compliance requirements at one-seventh of the cost by retrofitting 

their school buses with PM filters instead of replacing them. 

In addition to the regulatory amendment relief, at the December 17, 2010 Board 

Hearing, staff were directed by the Board to identify potential opportunities for additional 

funding that will help complete the school bus clean-up. Several actions have occurred 

to help meet that direction. Assembly Bill (AB) 470 has been recently chaptered and 

allows local air districts additional flexibility with local AB 923 funds (a motor vehicle fee) 

to purchase PM retrofits for school buses. ARB has recently received a grant for federal 

funds to provide retrofits for some school bus fleets and a Supplemental Environmental 

Project option to assist school bus fleets install PM filters is now available. These 

changes along with existing funding will help to clean up public school buses in 

California that still need to become compliant, and staff continues to pursue other 

avenues of funding for the clean-up of the remaining public school bus fleet. 

b) Delay Regulation

196. Comment: ARB’s regulations may not improve the health of our children. It may 

even have the opposite impact. It would be a wiser strategy to wait on the 

regulations and to work together to obtain additional funds to replace the oldest 

school buses. (STC)

197. Comment: Our agency and our community urge you to either postpone your 

hearings until after the Governor Elect has presented his budget proposal, or to 

postpone your regulations until K-12 education and the state gets back on its feet, 

or to make all your regulations contingent on available funds. If the funds are not 

available then we do not want to have to fire teachers or eliminate transportation in 

order to pay for your regulations. (MPPSTA)(KCUT)(SUHSD)(OUSD) 

(PUESD)(GVUSD)

198. Comment: We respectfully request that the Board delay the implementation of 

these rules altogether for school transportation until funding is available for us to 

be able to afford bus replacements -- fully funded bus replacements and trap 

replacements. (CAST03)

199. Comment: We oppose the proposed amendments to the school bus regulations. 

We respectfully request that these regulations are suspended until adequate 

resources to fund them are attained. (CASTO1)(WCTA)(CASTO2)

200. Comment: Do not pass any regulations impacting school districts unless funds 

are available. At a minimum, these regulations should be postponed to when our 

school districts have a level of funding that is at least equal to their funding level in 

2007-08. (STC)

201. Comment: We were very appreciative of the Proposition 1B funds, but those 

funds are no longer available to us. We would urge to wait. We know of no other 
140

state program that has been cut as much as education. We cannot afford to take 

additional funds out of the classroom or to eliminate or reduce school 

transportation any more. (SUHSD)(CASTO1)(WCTA)(MPPSTA)(OUSD)(PUESD) 

(CASTO2)(GVUSD)

Agency Response: The commenter speculates as to potential generalized health 

impacts that could occur from implementation of the amended regulation with no 

specific evidence to support the claims. In contrast, the rulemaking record clearly 

shows that postponing or excluding regulation of diesel exhaust PM from school buses 

would result in the loss of significant emission benefits, increased exposure of children 

to toxic contaminants, with consequential detrimental health impacts, and increased 

health care costs. 

The Children’s Health Study, which began in 1992, was a large, long-term study of the 

health effects of children’s chronic exposures to air pollution. About 5,500 children in 

twelve communities were enrolled in the study; two-thirds of them were enrolled as 

fourth-graders. Data on the children’s health, their exposures to air pollution, and many 

factors that affected their responses to air pollution were gathered annually until they 

graduated from high school. One of the most consistent results of the study is a 

reduction of lung development with exposure to higher concentrations of particulate 

matter, nitrogen dioxide, acid vapor, and elemental carbon. Children living in 

communities with higher concentrations of these pollutants had lungs that developed 

and grew more slowly and were less able to move air through them. Decreases in lung 

development were seen at age 18 in polluted communities. By age 18 the lungs are 

nearly mature and the decreases in lung development are unlikely to be reversed. 

Therefore, the children may have permanent adverse respiratory health effects in later 

life. 

In order to protect children’s health while recognizing the financial constraints faced by 

school districts, ARB agrees that it is important to work together with school districts and 

other stakeholders to identify new funding opportunities to complete the school bus 

clean-up. At the December 17, 2010 hearing, the Board directed staff to identify 

potential opportunities for additional funding that will help to complete the school bus 

clean-up, and work is currently underway to carry out that direction.

Please see Agency Response to Comment 195 for response to comments on school 

district budget limitations. 

202. Comment: We believe it would be prudent to study the impact of the active filters 

both from an economic and health perspective. We would urge ARB to postpone 

the regulations until that study is done. (STC)

Agency Response: Installation of an active PM filter is only one option that school 

districts can choose to comply with the regulation. Other compliance options include 

installation of a passive PM filter, engine repower, or bus replacement depending on the 

age, maintenance history, and usage characteristics of the school bus engine and 

chassis. 
141

ARB, school districts, and other stakeholders have extensive experience with the 

operation and performance of active diesel particulate filters (DPF) or PM filters on 

school buses, therefore further study is not required. Thousands of PM filters have 

been installed on school buses throughout the state and have proven to be successful. 

Approximately 4,000 school bus PM filters have been funded by the Lower Emission 

School Bus Program alone, and the majority of those are active PM filters. Retrofits are 

also the least expensive compliance option. The cost of an active filter is about $17,900 

including installation. Based on data from end users and retrofit manufacturers, the cost 

of electricity needed to power the routine PM filter cleaning procedure is about $11,000 

over a 20 year life. By comparison, the cost of a new diesel school bus is approximately 

$156,000. Even when the lifetime costs of retrofits are compared to the lifetime cost of 

a new bus, retrofits are still 3 to 5 times less expensive. 

Please see the Agency Responses to Comments 196 and 215 for information on 

detailed studies that document the health benefits of reducing exposure to diesel 

particulate matter. 

203. Comment: I understand you gave an extension to the private fleets for retrofits 

yet did not give the same consideration to public fleets. In an era of drastic 

revenue cuts the public fleets should be afforded the same consideration. I work 

for a Unified School district and the additional $40,000 expense to achieve 

compliance is a burden. (MPAT) 

Agency Response: The requirements for public and private school buses are the 

same. Although lighter trucks with a GVWR from 14,001 lbs to 26,000 lbs are no longer 

required to have PM retrofit filters, they will need to be replaced over the course of the 

regulation whereas school buses do not face the same replacement requirements. 

Also, all heavier trucks will need PM filters by 2014-2016. 

c) Exemption for Smaller School Buses and Extension for Private Fleets

204. Comment: Preserve the original clean up requirements for all school buses, large 

and small (less than 26,000 pounds), with a commitment to ensure funding where 

necessary: We are concerned that there is pressure to delay or relax clean up 

requirements for school buses despite the fact that millions of dollars of funding 

has been made available to school districts across the state. According to 

numerous studies, including one from this agency, children can be exposed to 

very hazardous levels of diesel pollution on uncontrolled school buses, increasing 

cancer risks, and incidence of other health impacts such as asthma. The 

amendments proposing delayed compliance for short buses (those under 26,000 

pounds) should not be considered on the simple grounds that all children should 

be provided safe transportation to school, whether they ride large or small buses.

(BWG1)(BWG2)

205. Comment: A number of ideas have been suggested by my industry to try to close 

some of what we believe to be gaps, for example...school buses under 26,000 

pound. (JMC1)
142

206. Comment: Add mandatory PM retrofits for school buses under 26,000 pounds 

and prioritize incentive funding to cover the costs. (DFS1)

207. Comment: We believe that children riding on school buses less than 26,000 lbs 

GVWR should be given the same opportunity of cleaner air as those riding on the 

larger buses and therefore these lighter school buses should also be required to 

install Level 3 PM retrofit devices. (MECA1) (MECA2)

208. Comment: We also especially want you to preserve the school bus cleanup 

provisions, since that's where our kids are very frequently exposed. (SCC)

209. Comment: We ask that you preserve the school bus cleanup provisions for all 

sizes of school buses. We know that children are particularly vulnerable. The soot 

pollution effects the growth and development of their lungs, and we know there's 

funding out there. We need to work together and get additional funding, but we do 

believe there should be equal protection for all children riding on school buses. 

(ALAC1) 

Agency Response: Staff originally proposed to exempt diesel-fueled school buses 

under 26,001 lbs. GVWR from the amended regulation. However, the Board chose to 

include school buses greater than 14,000 lbs. GVWR in the amended regulation and 

directed staff to make necessary changes to preserve the requirements for smaller 

school buses. As such, the amended regulation requires owners of all diesel-fueled 

school buses greater than 14,000 lbs. GVWR to be equipped with Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT) which requires engines equipped with the highest level 

verified diesel emission control for PM that is available. The amended regulation 

requires both publicly owned and privately owned school buses to meet the same 

compliance schedule, affording all school children similar health benefits. 

In order to protect children’s health while recognizing the financial constraints faced by 

school districts, ARB agrees that it is important to work together with school districts and 

other stakeholders to identify new funding opportunities to complete the school bus 

clean-up. At the December 17, 2010 hearing, the Board directed staff to identify 

potential opportunities for additional funding that will help to complete the school bus 

clean-up, and work is currently underway to carry out that direction. 

d) Replace Not Retrofit School Buses

210. Comment: There is one recommendation that you have that we actually kind of 

agree with. And that is the one that says in 2018 if a bus does not have a trap, 

then it has to be replaced. Now, we don't agree with the part about the trap. But 

we do agree that in 2018 buses like pre-'87s should be replaced. In fact, we would 

actually -- and the reason you have it there is because it's 30 years. And we would 

actually urge you to continue that type of regulation to say that maybe all buses, 

as time goes when we reach the age of 30, they should be replaced. In fact, we 

would ask you to move it down to 25 over time. CDE says buses should be 

replaced when they're 15. If you can get those old buses off the road, you'll do 

more to children's health than anything. (SES)
143

211. Comment: At a minimum, these regulations should be changed to say that all 

pre-1987 school buses should be replaced by 2018. (STC)

212. Comment: I have 25 buses that are 25 years and older. I want them to be clean 

and I want them replaced. Help us get there. I can't put a trap on a 25-year-old bus 

that's going to be reliable. Let's not spend $15,000 to put [a retrofit device] on a 

bus that's worth five. (ELKG)

213. Comment: And also in regards to maintenance, the newer buses that come with 

the devices have been far more successful than applying retrofits. Many of my 

school buses to be retrofitted are 20 years old. And to put a $15,000 retrofit on a 

20-year-old bus, like some of the other guys were saying, is extending the buses 

out beyond their useful years. (LUSD)

214. Comment: Why does ARB want to take a post 1986 school bus that is worth less 

than $20,000 and is probably leaking air pollution into the bus cabin and place a 

$15,000 retrofit device on that bus which will end up costing well over cost of the 

filter and force those students to ride in those school buses for the next 15 years 

instead of focusing the limited dollars on replacing those old school buses with 

modern school buses that contain seat belts, are fuel efficient – saves fuel, will 

uses alternative fuels in many cases, and will result in lower pollution and in lower 

greenhouse gases? (STC)

215. Comment: We have always argued for the replacement of the pre-1987 schools 

buses as the best strategy for the state and the children. We believe that PM 

savings would increase under this strategy. We did a very preliminary cost/benefit 

analysis. We were handicapped by not knowing precisely the emissions from a 

pre-1987 school bus and a 2006 school bus that had an active filter. We 

―borrowed‖ school emission data from a report done by the Union of Concerned 

Scientists. In this analysis, we found the cost per pound of PM emissions to be 

$329 for the replacement bus and $382 per pound for the active filter. In addition, 

the replacement school bus saved 6,000 lbs of NOx during the 15 years, reduced 

green house emissions, was far more fuel efficient, addressed the environmental 

justice issue and was safer because it contained seat belts. All these factors, with 

the exception of the fuel savings, were not part of the analysis.

The ARB staff was insistent that the active filter method was more efficient 

because the cost of seven filters equaled the cost of a new bus. When we asked 

to see the cost analysis, we were presented with data that showed that the total 

ARB strategy was cost/effective, not an analysis comparing the cost benefit of a 

new school bus compared to the installation of an active filter. 

As far as we know, ARB staff has never done any pilot studies on the service cost 

of filters. We do not know if they have observed the ―burning‖ off or the five-hour 

cleaning of an active filter usually done right next to a school facility. They have 

never kept records of the total cost or performance of the active filter nor examined 

the impact of the filter on the emissions of the school bus. An active filter was 

used to study the impact of exhaust gas on the children riding a bus, but the 

pollutants from the trap-outfitted bus appeared higher than expected and it was 
144

decided that the filter was not working properly. No follow-up study was 

performed. (STC)

Agency Response: PM filters are one option for meeting BACT on post-1986 model 

year school buses and are effective at reducing harmful diesel exhaust emissions 

exposure, particularly to vulnerable school children. Several studies20 conclude that 

installing retrofits improves the indoor air quality on a school bus as it reduces exhaust 

emissions. As described below, school bus owners have the choice to use available 

funding for the purchase of a new school bus which arrives from the manufacturer 

equipped with a PM filter or for the purchase of a retrofit PM filter.

As previously discussed, school bus owners may choose to replace buses instead of 

utilizing retrofit PM filters and are not prohibited from replacing their oldest and most 

polluting school buses prior to 2018. Typically, school buses with 1987 and newer 

model year engines can be successfully retrofitted or will be originally equipped with PM 

filters, while 1986 and older model year engines cannot be equipped with PM filters and 

will need to be replaced by a newer model year engine that can be equipped with a PM 

filter. 

Thirty year lifetime costs for a passive PM filter, an active PM filter, and a new school 

bus are $29,200, $50,750, and $172,200, respectively. The lifetime cost of an active 

PM filter includes electricity costs for filter regeneration, cleaning and de-ashing, and 

potentially a replacement filter to extend the life of the system. Even when considering 

the life time costs of retrofit PM filters, they are still three to five times less expensive 

than a new bus. 

In compliance with AB 1085, all emission data was made available for public review 

prior to the regulatory comment period. Emissions data and emission support 

documents, including school bus data, were included in the background materials 

available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/ab1085compliance.htm. 

As explained during the staff presentation at the December, 2010 Board hearing, an 

investment of $140,000 can be used to purchase one replacement bus or retrofit seven 

buses with PM filters. 

 

20 Solomon, G. M., Campbell, T. R., Ruderman Feuer, G., Masters, J., Samkian, A., Paul, K. A. 

2001. No breathing in the aisles. Diesel Exhaust Inside School Buses. Natural Resources 

Defense Council. Coalition for Clean Air.

Fitz, D. R., Winer, A. M., Kozawa, K., Pandratz, D., Bumiller, K., Gemmill, D., Smith, M. 2003. 

Characterizing the range of children’s pollutant exposure during school bus commutes. Final 

Report to California Air Resources Board, Research Division, Sacramento, CA. 

Fitz, D. R., Winer, A. M., Kozawa, K., Behrentz, E., Pandratz, D., Gemmill, D. 2006. 

Evaluation of mechanisms of exhaust intrusion into school buses and feasible mitigation

measures. Final Report to California Air Resources Board, Research Division, Sacramento, 

CA.
145

e) Technology Concerns

216. Comment: We operate 100 school buses, transport 7,000 students one way a 

day, 53 natural gas buses and the additional balance are diesel. And we are the 

proud owners of 33 Cleaire traps. If the staff were to do an air quality report, they 

would say I've improved air quality by 50 percent, because half the time the buses 

don't run. They're parked up against a fence, and my ongoing costs are 

unbelievable. Traps are boondoggles. They do not work. (STA) 

217. Comment: The failure rate (of exhaust retrofits) is something your staff should 

know. And they should be out there in the field. And they should be looking at 

how they're working in the school districts. (SES)

218. Comment: We've heard a little bit about the problems about the exhaust retrofits, 

and I would like to tell you about some firsthand experiences that I have 

experienced at my transportation yard. When I have buses that go out on trips or I 

have buses that come into my school district that have the exhaust retrofits on 

them, there are times when those buses are in limp mode or de-power zone 

basically where they are unable to drive safely with students on board. That 

requires either to find a facility that has an exhaust retrofit kit where they can 

recharge or burn off their filter or, by any chance, if that is not available, they have 

to drive in a limp mode sometimes at low excessive speeds with students on board 

to a safe spot where we can get a mechanic out there to replace a filter so they 

can get back safely. I would like you to please look at this and just think about very 

carefully what you're doing for the safety of our students. (KUSD) 

219. Comment: Many school buses with filters can no longer be used for field trips. 

(STC) 

220. Comment: I have 25 compressed natural gas buses, and I put traps on 58 of my 

buses long before you ever asked for them. We were the guinea pigs, and we tried 

to work out the bugs for our neighboring districts. Please know there are bugs. We 

were able to accommodate that with our regular education students on big buses 

due to the size of our fleet. I could handle the breakdowns. That cannot be the 

case for special needs buses. The smaller buses are for medically fragile students. 

They cannot sit by the side of the road in heat and cold while we have wait to get 

another driver to them. They're emotionally disturbed and they get too shook. So I 

do encourage you to look at those special ed buses and follow through with what 

you're recommending. (ELKG)

Agency Response: Hundreds of thousands of PM filters have been installed 

successfully on trucks and buses throughout the world, both in new vehicles and in 

numerous on-road retrofit applications. Most medium-heavy and heavy-heavy duty 

diesel engines produced since 2007 have been equipped by the manufacturer with 

DPFs. PM filters have been installed in response to existing regulations targeting urban 

buses, transit fleet vehicles, solid waste collection vehicles, vehicles owned by public 

agencies, drayage trucks, and others. Experience to date has demonstrated that PM 

filters provide effective, reliable, and durable performance for most engines. In 

California, PM filters on school buses have been funded through the Lower-Emission 
146

School Bus (LESB) Program, successfully placing thousands of PM filters on school 

buses throughout the state.

The regulation requires fleets to use technology that is verified by ARB’s Diesel 

Emission Control Strategies Verification. The ARB’s Diesel Emission Control Strategies 

Verification Procedure ensures that emission reductions achieved by a control strategy 

are both real and durable. As part of the verification process, a robust and 

comprehensive durability demonstration is required. Additionally, the Diesel Emissions 

Control Strategies Verification program provides a comprehensive warranty. One 

manufacturer representative testified at the Board hearing that their warranty rate is in 

the one percent or less range. 

f) Cost Analysis

221. Comment: ARB assumes that the total cost is only $60 million. Their original 

cost estimates were based on school buses that were greater than 14,000 GVWR. 

The proposed regulations are based on the school buses greater than 26,000 

GVWR. This reduced the population of private and public school buses by 88%. 

ARB simply factored all their cost data by 88%. Because we needed additional 

information that was not contained in ARB’s original staff material, we actually did 

a more refined calculation of the school buses covered by the proposed regulation. 

Table 1 provides a list of the buses summarized by year. [The table to which the 

commenter is referring is not reproduced here. It was submitted during the 45 day 

comment period as part of a comment letter identified as Comment 111 of the 

comments posted on the comments log for this rulemaking at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=on-offroad10]. The 

distribution by year of the smaller buses between 14,000 and 26,000 GVWR that 

were removed is slightly different from the remaining school buses. For example, 

and not surprisingly, the buses are newer; the average age is 13 compared to the 

average age of 18 for the buses covered by the proposed regulations. In general, 

the impacts of these differences on costs are minor. Unless otherwise stated, we 

used the underlying assumptions used in ARB’s methodology. This does not 

account for the huge cost differences between us and ARB. Instead, the following 

are the four major reasons for the great difference in the cost estimates. 

 First, ARB assumes that school districts will replace the 1,701 public school 

buses – buses built prior to 1987 plus the 2-strokes built in 1987 – at no 

cost to the regulation because they will be older than 30 years by 

January 1, 2018. The regulation states that school buses that cannot be 

retrofitted with a PM filter must be replaced by January 1, 2018, which is 

approximately seven years from now. Unfortunately, the average age of 

our public fleet is 20 years. According to CDE, school buses should be 

replaced after 15 years. Over 14% of the public fleet is already 30 years or 

older. There is nothing magic about the ARB’s 30-year date to school 

districts. Given the extreme fiscal times, it highly unlikely that school 

districts will have the funds to purchase new school buses. If ARB truly 

believes that school districts will get rid of the 1,701 school buses when 

they are 30 years old, then they do not need regulations to mandate that it 
147

be done by January 1, 2018; otherwise, they need to show the cost as a 

cost of the regulation to replace the school buses.

 Second, ARB assumes that when the old school buses are replaced that 

are less than 30 years by 1/1/2018, the cost of that replacement is only the 

value of the school bus at 1/1/2018. For example, if an old school bus is 

only worth $10,000, that is the cost assigned to the regulation by ARB 

instead of the actual replacement cost of at least $165,000 for a diesel, 

$190,000 for a CNG, and $220,000 for a hybrid school bus. That is the cost 

to the district and that will be the cost of the mandate. ARB assumes that 

the replacement cost of 688 public 2-stroke buses and 170 private 2-stroke 

school buses is only $11.4 million. ARB factored this cost by 88% to get a 

savings of $1.4 million. We instead assumed that all the 2-stroke buses 

were greater than 26,000 GVWR. ARB assumed that the cost of a new 

school bus is $140,000; however, that cost never entered into any of ARB’s 

calculations. We assumed that school districts would buy 75% diesel, 20% 

CNG, and 5% Hybrid. Therefore the average cost will be $172,750 per 

school bus not the junk value of $10,000 per bus.

 Third, ARB assumes that all school buses built after 1986, except for the 

two-strokes engines can be fitted with an active or a passive filter. A 

passive filter only has to be cleaned once a year. Older school buses emit 

a larger amount of particular matter (PM) emissions that will clog-up the 

passive filters. PM emissions are particularly dangerous because they can 

enter children’s lungs. School buses that were built prior to 1987 were built 

before the state had any controls on PM emissions. Thus, the replacement 

of those school buses is our number one priority. Active filters on old 

school buses also clog-up, but they can be removed and the PM emissions 

can be ―burned‖ off. The engine manufacturer also has to certify that the 

filter can be used on that engine. Our experience has shown that active 

filters cannot be used on buses built prior to 1994. Under the regulation, if 

a bus cannot be fitted with a filter then it must be replaced during the next 

seven years. We have conservatively assumed that the buses built 

between 1887 and 1990 cannot use an active filter. We also assumed that 

all the remaining 858 2-stroke school buses were built in this period. This 

increased the number school buses that have to be replaced by 1,906 

public school buses and 880 private school buses. Therefore, the 

replacement cost of the public school buses (3,612) in the first and third 

point is $624 million.

 Fourth, ARB assumes that a passive filter costs $11,000 and an active filter 

costs $15,000. In addition, ARB assumes that 78% of the 1987-1993 

4-stroke school buses have an passive filter, 66% of the 1994-2002 school 

buses have a filter and 0% of the 2003-2006 school buses already have a 

passive filter. The problem with the active filter, especially on an older bus, 

is that it requires a great deal of servicing. This is the regenerative cost or 

cleaning cost. For example, the cost can include installation ($3,000 – onetime cost), electricity use for cleaning (annual cost of $945), manpower 
148

(annual cost of $1,000), out servicing (annual cost of $600). Over the 15-

year life of the filter, the present value (PV) of the upkeep will often exceed 

the cost of the filter. In this example, the PV is $24,500. This does not 

include the impact on the engine - $6,000 cost to replace injectors, $11,000 

to replace an engine, $200 just for staff to drive the school bus for warranty 

service, and reduce driving range of 100 to 200 miles. All of these costs 

are mandated cost. The cost of the new filters for 1994 to 2006 is $23 

million for the private schools and $21 million for the public schools. If we 

assume that the present value of the upkeep for all the active filters is 

conservatively estimated at $5,000 per filter, then the additional cost is $13 

million for public buses and $8.5 million for private school buses. (STC) 

222. Comment: There is a large difference between ARB’s calculation of the cost 

impact and STC’s calculation. ARB assumes that the cost impact to public 

schools is just $33.5 million, while STC assumes that the cost impact on public 

schools is $658 million. The major difference is that 1) ARB assumes that all 

school buses greater than 30 years old will be replaced by the school districts 

before January 1, 2018, and 2) ARB uses the value of the bus, while STC 

assumes the actual replacement cost to the school district. (STC)

223. Comment: There are several additional costs to the regulations beyond the cost 

estimated by ARB. First, ARB has assumed that new cost of a school bus is 

$140,000. The more appropriate cost of a new diesel bus is between $165,000 

and $170,000. Especially in mountain terrain, engine brakes, transmission 

retarders, luggage storage, manual and or automatic snow chains will be needed. 

Second, the cost of CNG school buses is in the vicinity of $195,000. Even if 

Proposition 1B funds are available, the cost differential between $140,000 and the 

actual cost of the replacement school buses must be borne by the school districts.

The additional cost of implementing and installing an active filter will often exceed 

the cost of the filter sometimes by as much as a factor of four. The annual 

electricity cost for the electricity can be near $1,000. The manpower cost can be 

in the same magnitude. The data from Los Angeles Unified shows that the life 

time cost is equal to the original cost of the filters. The cost of the de-ashing 

equipment is $51,000. With the exception of the de-ashing equipment all this cost 

has to be paid for by the school district.

We have other examples where the cost has increased by 1) $6,000 for the 

replacement of injectors, 2) $11,000 to replace an engine, 3) $200 just for staff 

time to drive the school bus 120 miles for the warranty service on the filter, and 

4) reduced driving range of 100 to 200 miles because of the active filter. Many 

school buses with filters can no longer be used for field trips. In analyzing the 

impact of the active filter it is important to look at all the costs on the school 

districts. We have requested that ARB analyze the cost and do a cost-benefit 

analysis on the active filters at the school site. We think in many cases that it may 

be more cost-beneficial to replace a pre-1987 school bus than to install active 

filters on school buses.
149

We do know for a fact that active filters will increase the operating cost of the 

district’s transportation system. During these critical fiscal times it is less likely for 

administrators to continue programs like school transportation if those programs 

are increasing in cost. (STC) 

Agency Response: As noted on page 1 of Appendix K: Cost and Economic Analysis 

Methodology of the Technical Support Document for the 2008 rulemaking 

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/truckbus08/appk.pdf), the cost attributable to the 

estimated 8,312 private and public school buses in California still needing to become 

compliant with the Truck and Bus Regulation was estimated to be $69 million, with $27 

million in costs attributed to the public school bus fleet and $42 million in regulatory 

costs to be incurred by the private school bus fleets. Below, Table 6 summarizes those 

anticipated costs to the school bus fleet in California.

Table 6: Estimated Cost of Truck and Bus Regulation for School Buses

Estimated Costs Public Fleets Private Fleets Total

Replacement $8.8 million $2.6 million $11.4 million

Retrofit $18 million $39 million $57 million

Total $27 million $42 million $69 million

The cost of a replacement school bus is based upon school bus purchases funded 

through the LESB Program. The actual costs of a school bus can vary depending on 

the configuration and options chosen by a particular school district. Compressed natural 

gas (CNG), hybrid electric, and zero emission electric school buses are not required for 

compliance. This approach is conservative because the regulation does not require that 

replacement buses be new; that is, compliant used buses may be used for compliance.

Staff used a school bus service life of 30 years and school bus replacements to reflect a 

conservative approach in the cost analysis. The regulatory costs associated with the 

replacement of school buses with 1987 to 1993 model year two-stroke engines were 

prorated to the remaining service life of the school bus. For example, the full cost of a 

school bus replacement cannot be attributed to the regulation if it was only replaced one 

year early: rather one-thirtieth of the cost of a school bus replacement is assumed. 

In addition, staff estimates that a substantial number of school buses will use PM filters 

to meet compliance. A wide variety of sources were used to collect information about 

active and passive PM filter costs, including surveys, retail price guides, and actual 

invoices from fleets where PM filters were installed. Retrofit cost assumptions were 

based on actual installations of PM filters on a variety of vehicles including school 

buses.

Staff used retrofit costs of $11,000 for a passive-style PM filter and $15,000 for an 

active-style PM filter. These costs do not include operating and maintaining a diesel 

particulate filter. ARB staff acknowledges that there are costs associated with filter 

maintenance such as regeneration of active filters including the cost of electricity or fuel 

used per regeneration. Staff also researched the total life cycle cost of using PM filters 
150

to reduce diesel PM. Based on this research, staff found that no better cost-effective 

option exists to reduce public exposure to harmful diesel PM emissions than using 

retrofit PM filters. 

Ultimately, the business decision to retrofit older school buses that are scheduled to be 

replaced is one for the school districts to make. 

g) School Bus Service Transportation Reduction

224. Comment: We are concerned about the cuts and reductions to school 

transportation. School districts have taken cuts of over 20%. There are fewer 

school buses on the road; our children are walking longer distances. Several 

school districts have completely eliminated school bus services and many are 

planning to do so in the near future. Congestion and air pollution have increased 

as families that can afford to do so are transporting their children in the family car. 

It was not coincidental that the San Joaquin Valley was just hit with a $27 million 

fine because they were out of compliance for two days in August and these two 

days were the first two days of school. (STC)

225. Comment: These mandates would have the unintended consequence of 

increasing congestion and thereby increasing air pollution. (SUHSD) (MPPSTA) 

(OUSD) (CASTO1) (WCTA) (PUESD) (CASTO2) (KCUT) GVUSD) 

226. Comment: West County Transportation Agency is a Joint Powers Agreement of 

sixteen school districts in Sonoma County. Due to ongoing funding cuts, our 

school districts have reduced over thirty school bus routes over the years. Two of 

our members have completely eliminated home to school transportation. (WCTA)

227. Comment: The school districts have to make a lot of cuts. They're going to cut 

school transportation. They're going to cut school transportation especially if it 

costs money and retrofits do cost more to service. They're going to make kids walk 

longer. They're going to cut out routes. And they're not going to allow them for 

extracurricular activities. And in some cases, they're going to get rid of them, the 

whole transportation system. (SES)

228. Comment: I'm going to use Pleasant Grove High School as an example. I 

transport 1100 students every day on 18 buses. It's incredibly efficient, clean 

equipment. Putting those kids on the roads means 1100 cars. We are the public 

bus. There is no public bus coming down Jackson highway, and it's 16 miles to 

school. I don't think anyone expects them to walk. (ELKG) 

229. Comment: Only one in five of our district’s families even have a second vehicle, 

so walking to school is the only option if we eliminate our non-compliant school 

buses. (KCUT) 

Agency Response: Staff recognizes that the installation and maintenance of diesel 

particulate filters represents an additional cost. However, PM filters are standard 

equipment on all new diesel school buses which means that school districts must 

include maintenance costs in their budget anytime a new diesel school bus is added to 

the fleet. Additional costs to school districts due to the PM requirements of the 
151

amended regulation would be the cost of PM filter installation on existing buses and the 

cost of replacing buses where PM filters cannot be installed. Replacement can be done 

through purchase of newer used buses that have a PM filter already installed or that can 

be retrofitted with a PM filter after purchase, both of which effectively reduce the cost of 

the regulation below what many commenter’s have suggested. Additionally, the cost of 

the regulation is spread out over a number of years, which should provide the time 

needed for school districts to factor these costs into their budgets. 

Student transportation has been declining steadily since 2002 as school districts across 

the state have reduced or eliminated school transportation services. Staff does not 

anticipate that the regulation will have an impact on this trend. Staff conducted a survey 

of school transportation trends in 2009 and again in 2010. Both surveys indicated 

transportation reductions from more than half of the responding transportation 

managers. A quarter to a third of the responding transportation managers indicated no 

changes to their routes while a small percent indicated increasing routes. Decreases in 

routes were attributed to budget cuts, economic downturn, and increasing special 

education enrollment with associated mandated transportation requirements. Staff will 

continue to monitor the effects on school transportation services. 

h) Impact on Safety

230. Comment: The school bus is the safest method of transporting children. 

According to the National Safety Council it is 172 times safer than the family 

automobile. We are concerned that ARB regulations will have the unintended 

consequence of increasing a child’s risk of death. Your briefing paper on 

―Characterizing the Range of Children Pollutant Exposure during School Bus 

Commutes‖ recognizes that we must be very careful. Your own staff has stated 

that ARB must be careful that it does not:

―Have the unintended consequence of actually increasing a child’s risk of 

death due to the switching to an automobile (200 in a million) or walking 

longer distances to school than due to the lifetime increase cancer risk 

due to diesel vehicle-related pollutant exposure (30 in a million)‖ (STC)

231. Comment: We are extremely concerned about safety of our school children. We 

are concerned that these regulations will force us to curtail or to eliminate school 

transportation for most of our disadvantaged children. School transportation is 

172 times safer than riding in the family automobile. It will harm our most 

disadvantaged children because they will have to walk longer distances to school 

or simply not go. (SUHSD) (MPPSTA) (OUSD) (CASTO1) (WCTA) (PUESD) 

(CASTO2) (KCUT) (GVUSD) 

232. Comment: It was upsetting that one of three seven-passenger vans transporting 

basketball players from Hoover High at Fresno Unified school district was recently 

involved in an accident. Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more common 

because of budget reductions and increased costs, that school districts are no 

longer transporting children with a school bus. (STC) (STA) 
152

Agency Response: Staff acknowledges the safety benefits of school bus 

transportation relative to other types of transportation. As noted earlier, staff doesn’t 

expect the rule to change busing patterns. Because school bus fleets have several 

opportunities to have all or most of the costs paid for through incentive programs, staff 

does not believe that districts will need to reduce their transportation services because 

of the regulation. 

Please see the Agency Response to Comment 229 for information on school bus 

service transportation reductions. 

i) Environmental Justice

233. Comment: The majority of the school bus ridership is minority students, farm 

workers, and low-income disadvantaged children. (STC)

234. Comment: Parents and children from affluent areas will be able to drive their 

children to school. It will be the less affluent that will be hurt the most. (SUHSD) 

(MPPSTA) (OUSD) (CASTO1) (WCTA) (PUESD) (CASTO2) (KCUT) GVUSD)

235. Comment: Because of that, students are not riding on school buses. They're 

being left out on the streets. And more than likely, it's the most socioeconomic or 

disadvantaged students that are affected by this. (CAST03)

Agency Response: ARB is committed to integrating environmental justice in all of its

activities. The proposed regulation would require cleaner fleets of in-use on-road diesel

vehicles to be used throughout the State, which would reduce emissions in all the

communities of California, including those with environmental justice concerns. Staff 

does not believe the regulation will adversely impact children in environmental justice 

areas through reduced bus service, as discussed in response to previous comments. 

j) Funding

236. Comment: The first priority of funds should be to replacing pre-1987 school 

buses. The proposed regulations state that all school buses that do not have 

filters should be replaced by 2018. (STC) 

237. Comment: Incentive funding should be prioritized to cover the costs of these 

retrofits on school buses. (MECA1) (MECA2)

238. Comment: Let's be good stewards of this money and replace the equipment. It's 

the reasonable way to do it. We want to do it with you. The voters voted three 

years ago, and we had Proposition 1B and we were going to replace old school 

buses. We get safer buses that were clean. It's been three years. I haven't seen 

a dime. That's a failure to our kids and a failure to our community. (ELKG)

239. Comment: We believe that the staff proposal runs counter to SB 77, 

Chapter 171, Statutes of 2007, which is the implementing legislation of 

Proposition 1B. SB 77 states 1) that the funds are allocated to air quality districts 

in proportion to the number of pre-1987 school buses and 2) each air quality 

district should determine how much of their allocation should be spent to replace 
153

old school buses (pre-1987) and retrofits. ARB was deliberately not given the 

authority to administer the funds and they were deliberately not allowed to 

determine the distribution of the funds between school bus replacement and 

retrofits. It is important to note that the Proposition 1B funds can only be used to 

replace pre-1987 buses or retrofits. The air districts must replace the oldest 

school buses first and or retrofit the most polluting school buses first. (STC)

240. Comment: We are a full attainment air district. I recently received our grant to 

retrofit our school buses and will be underway at the beginning of January doing 

that. However it is the wish of all of the schools in Lake County that we were able 

to take -- if we could take our 1.9 million that came into Lake County Air District 

and apply it to replacing pre-87 school buses. We all feel it would be most 

advantageous for all of us. The main thing is that all of those buses, the minute 

they hit the yards, will be underway with children in those buses and longevity wise 

will last us a long time. (LUSD)

241. Comment: I want to make it very, very clear - when the Legislature passed -- the 

voters voted for the bond measure and the Legislature did the implementation 

legislation, they specifically gave the direction to the local air quality district. The 

local air quality district could spend that money either on getting rid of the pre '87 

buses (They were built before you had any particulate standards. Very, very dirty 

buses as far as PM) or they can have retrofits for the most polluting buses. The 

control for the Proposition 1B money is in the hands of the local air quality districts. 

To do otherwise and to try to change that from ARB is going against the 

Legislature. As far as the seven-to-one ratio, we have always taken problems with 

that. Because you take those pre '87 buses – they’re very, very heavy polluting 

bus – the ratio cannot be seven to one. And we've been working with staff to try to 

get some cost effectiveness – to study what is the cost per ton for getting rid of a 

pre-'87 bus versus putting on retrofits. And I think we have concluded that it is 

actually cheaper per ton to get rid of a pre-'87 bus than it is to put a retrofit on 

1995 or earlier bus. (SES)

242. Comment: Please work with us to get additional funds for school transportation. 

(SUHSD) (CASTO1) (WCTA) (MPPSTA) (OUSD) (PUESD) (CASTO2) (GVUSD) 

243. Comment: Kings Canyon Unified replaced our remaining pre-1977 school buses 

this past year. We appreciate the Proposition 1B funds that made these school 

bus replacements available with no required match. Our district has utilized funds 

to retrofit all possible equipment to level III. We operate many school buses on 

alternative fuel CNG. While we will be in compliance through 2014, our remaining 

25 non-compliant school buses will need to be replaced under the rule. The 

remaining LESBP funds are encumbered and will soon be gone. No other state 

program has been cut as much as education and school transportation. Our 

school district cannot afford to take additional funds away from the classroom or to 

reduce or even eliminate school transportation any further. Please work with 

public schools to seek additional funds for school bus replacements and school 

transportation. (KCUT) 
154

244. Comment: There are no additional state funds for the proposed regulations. 

Page K 4 of ARB’s original Appendix K on the School Bus Cost methodology 

states:

―In the cost calculation for the school buses affected by the proposed regulation it 

was assumed that all Proposition 1B funds have been fully expended.‖ 

In other words there are no additional state funds for these proposed regulations. 

In conversations with ARB staff, we now understand that ARB is going to claim 

that there is now $84 million of Proposition 1B funds available. We simply do not 

believe that is the case. We would like to know how much is available by air 

quality district. If there are any additional funds available, then the need 

calculations in Appendix K should be updated. (STC) 

245. Comment: I'd like to see if some changes could be made specifically for full 

attainment air districts to allow us to replace pre-87 buses that the regulation 

initially wanted to address. (LUSD)

Agency Response: The Lower-Emission School Bus Program (LESB Program) is a 

voluntary grant program administered by the ARB and implemented by local air quality 

management and air pollution control districts (air districts) and is completely separate 

from the regulatory action. The LESB Program has provided funds to purchase new 

school buses that replaced old, high-emitting public school buses, and equipped in-use 

diesel school buses with retrofit devices that have significantly reduced toxic particulate 

matter (PM) emissions since 2001. Unlike the other vehicles covered by this regulation, 

funding has been dedicated to school districts to clean-up their fleets. 

In 2006, $200 million was allocated to the LESB Program by passage of Proposition 1B. 

Current funding allocations are prescribed by Senate Bill 88 (SB88; Stats 2007 Ch 181) 

which specifies that once funds are set aside to replace the pre-1977 model year school 

buses, the remaining funds are to be allocated to air districts based on their share of the 

1977 to 1986 model year school bus population. 

Once all pre-1977 model year school buses were replaced, funding could have been 

prioritized for PM filters and nearly all of the 13,000 school buses eligible for public 

incentive funds would be clean. However, SB88 provides flexibility by allowing air 

districts the discretion to determine how to split their remaining allocation between 

replacing and retrofitting buses. Throughout the implementation of the LESB Program, 

staff strongly encouraged the funding of retrofits even though local school districts 

preferred replacements.

To maximize use of State funds, the LESB Program requires $25,000 in match funding 

for each new school bus that replaces a 1977-1986 model year school bus. Match 

funding may come from the school district, air district, or any source other than the 

Proposition 1B funds, which are insufficient to replace and retrofit the entire population 

of the California public school bus fleet.21 There is no match funding required when 

 

21 ARB has granted Lake County Air Pollution Control District, an air district not able to collect 

local fees, the authority to use Proposition 1B funds to pay for a full waiver for the match 

requirement for 20 percent of the buses funded in its air district. 
155

replacing a pre-1977 model year bus or when installing a PM filter. Additionally, State 

funding cost caps have been set in place for both replacements and retrofits to 

maximize State funds. Replacements have been capped at $140,000 and retrofits at 

$20,000. 

Every effort has been made to ease the burden on school districts including providing 

incentive funding though the LESB Program. Local and federal funds are also available 

to help many school districts. As directed by the Board, ARB staff continues to seek 

additional funding to assist in bringing the remaining school buses into compliance. 

k) Benefits Assessment

246. Comment: I think your emission inventory is wrong. The savings you're getting 

are not due to your regulations. They're due to Proposition 1B. They're due to the 

$197 million that you're putting out there that the air quality districts are spending 

to get rid of old buses and install retrofits. Your baseline shows no change. Your 

baseline should show the change of that $193 million, not the changes that you 

say are there because of regulation. ARB staff -- I disagree with them. But ARB 

staff today said that their regulations cost $60 million. And ARB staff says there is 

$84 million available. Well, geez, that means $84 million available from the 

Proposition 1B money. So that means Proposition 1B is going to be paying for 

everything. So I think you got to change your emission regulations. (SES)

247. Comment: ARB’s emission inventory has completely overestimated the PM 

reductions due to the regulations and completely overstated the emission 

reduction in the baseline case or under current law. If the ARB staff is assuming 

that the regulations cost $60 million (we disagree with that assumption) and that 

there is $84 million of Prop 1B funds available, then all the emission reductions 

that are shown in the inventory are due to Proposition 1B and not due to the ARB 

regulations. The emission reductions because of Proposition 1B need to be 

reflected in the baseline case. They are not being reflected now. In the 

Appendix K – School Bus Cost Methodology, ARB staff assumed that the 

Proposition 1B funds resulted in 56% of the pre-1987 school buses (2,000) 

complying, that is being replaced, 78% of the 1987 to 1993 school buses (2,565) 

having active filters installed, and 66% of the 1994 to 2002 school buses (4,222) 

having either an active or a passive filter. ARB staff seems to have accounted for 

the emission reductions due to Proposition 1B funds, which are substantial, as due 

to the ARB regulations. That is incorrect and misleading. These substantial 

emission reductions should have been accounted for in the baseline case or the 

current law case. (STC)

Agency Response: As noted on page 1 of Appendix K: Cost and Economic Analysis 

Methodology of the TSD for the 2008 rulemaking, the cost attributable to the estimated 

8,312 private and public school buses in California still needing to become compliant 

with the Truck and Bus Regulation in 2010 is estimated to be $69 million, with $27 

million in costs attributed to the public school bus fleet and $42 million in regulatory 

costs to be incurred by the private school bus fleets. This estimate already accounts for 
156

buses funded through the LESB Program, and therefore does not include benefits and 

costs associated with these buses. 

As Appendix K states, ―From the 2005 CHP Safety Certification Database it has been 

estimated that in 2010 there will be approximately 15,500 diesel-fueled school buses 

that will be covered by the proposed regulation, of which nearly one-half are already 

compliant with the proposed regulation or will be in the near future due to available 

State or local funding. School buses that have been replaced or will be replaced with 

current funding have been removed from the population of school buses that still need 

action to comply with the proposed regulation.‖ This estimate was based on the 

assumption that the LESB Program would fund 1,100 pre-1987 model year school bus 

replacement projects and 3,500 school bus retrofit projects. Current data suggests that 

686 school bus replacement projects and 4,413 retrofit projects will be funded. 

Because more school bus projects are being funded than originally estimated, the cost 

attributable to the school buses in California still needing to become compliant with the 

Truck and Bus Regulation will be less than the originally estimated $69 million.

Please see the Agency Response to Comment 245 for more information on funding.

l) Reimbursable Mandate

248. Comment: In addition, STC also believes that this is a state reimbursable 

mandate. Therefore, the additional cost of $658 million to the schools is another 

state mandate or increases the state deficit by $658 million. (STC)

Agency Response: Pursuant to Government Code sections 11346.5(a)(5) and (6), the 

Executive Officer has further determined that the board approved regulatory action 

would create costs for school districts, and may impose a mandate that would not be 

reimbursable by the State, pursuant to Government Code, title 2, division 4, part 7 

(commencing with section 17500). The mandate which would require school bus 

engines to be retrofitted engines with the best available verified diesel emission control 

strategy is not reimbursable because the costs would apply to all school bus owners, 

not just school districts. All other on-road heavy-duty vehicles that operate in the State 

will need to be upgraded to 2010 model year or newer engines and many will need to 

have PM retrofit filters. To the extent that the regulation would require school districts to 

remove all school buses manufactured before April 1, 1977, that requirement also 

applies to all school bus owners and not to school districts alone. As previously stated, 

all other on-road heavy-duty vehicles that operate in the state must be replaced or 

upgraded to 2010 model-year engines when they are approximately 20 years old. 

Additionally, school districts qualify for public funding grants under the California Clean 

School Bus Program (HSC section 44299.90) for replacement of all pre-1987 school 

buses that were in operation as of December 31, 2005.

It is estimated that the direct regulatory cost of the regulation for public school districts is 

$27 million from 2010 through 2017 based on 2008 dollars. Further information on the 

cost of the regulation to public and private school fleets may be found in Appendix K of 

the TSD. 
157

7. Cost and Economic Impact

a) Delay or Eliminate Rule

249. Comment: These draconian regulations are killing the farmers and truckers---the 

backbone of our economy. Where will you go for the eggs once you've killed the 

Golden Goose? This is insanity! Do not even give in to the environmental 

extremists. California's economy isn't even on their list of concerns. You must 

stand against them on behalf of people of the State of California. (PPIN)

250. Comment: Please do not impose the new diesel regulations!! Our state economy 

needs help, not another increase in the cost of doing business and, therefore, 

living here. And honestly, if it keeps getting more and more expensive to live in 

the state, we will have to leave. We have a lot of family - I'm a fifth-generation 

Californian - so the last the thing I want to do is move, but when the money runs 

out, something has to give. (CRAND)

251. Comment: People are hurting in this state. We don't need the prices of 

everything to go up due to your destruction of the trucking industry. Your stupid 

regulations will put mom and pop type truckers out of business, leaving us to deal 

with the big companies only. How will that help California? Please do the right 

thing and leave the trucking industry alone. (SSTAL)

252. Comment: I respectfully request the Board to reject any amendment that 

jeopardizes the ability to retain transportation jobs in within the state. While I 

understand the intent of the environmental special interest groups, I believe their 

tenets are extreme and not business nor job friendly thus reducing the number of 

potential employers to other states and thereby losing potential tax revenues to the 

general fund. (JBALL)

253. Comment: Unless killing off what little economy left in California is your intention, 

stop your diesel proposal. Look at who is leaving California: businesses, the tax 

base providers, the people that manage to sell their homes and leave. (KGRAV)

254. Comment: I am against any further pollution regulation at this time. As long as 

businesses are leaving in droves and unemployment is so high, we need to stop 

increasing costs on businesses. (WBENG)

255. Comment: If this is enacted with all of the new regulations regarding diesel fueled 

farm equipment and trucks, will the last person leaving this state please turn out 

the lights. (BSAM)

256. Comment: Stop your plans to impose further regulations on diesel engines. 

These new regs will cost us all money and devastate the trucking and ag 

industries. (HNAP)

257. Comment: During the last energy crisis you put many independent truckers out of 

business--now you want to destroy: jobs, the trucking industry, the farm industry, 

highway construction firms. Back off we cannot do this until our economy is back 

to normal. (WSKIN)
158

258. Comment: My salary has been non-existent (zero) for the last 2 years and 3 

months. (DCC1)

259. Comment: Dump the job killing diesel regulations now! I say again, vote No on 

the diesel regs!!! (GFLEM)

260. Comment: The enforcement of these new proposals will affect the weak job 

sector, and we cannot afford any more taxes. Please decline both amendments. 

(CRIT)

261. Comment: I have talked to 3 major companies that will be leaving CA. if this law 

passes. We will be putting more companies out of business and people out of 

work! (MVT)

262. Comment: I am against any new regulations on the diesel transportation industry. 

In this time of economic crisis, any new regulations are just not warranted. 

(AKELL)

263. Comment: Why make more regulations to choke business and by direct relation 

cost jobs? (SHALL)

264. Comment: Your policies are going to cost CA dearly and I would hope that you 

take a closer look at what you're trying to do. While I fundamentally agree with the 

green concept, I truly believe that slowing the implementation to a rate that is more 

in line with the rest of the United States would benefit all Californians. If you push 

ahead with all the plans you have, you could see the whole [industry] fail because 

CARB acted too quickly. You don't want to cut off your nose to spite your face do 

you? (BHULZ)

265. Comment: I was just thinking what a role reversal we have had here. 2023, that's 

not good news. As I listen to the reports from UCLA and UOP and everything was 

off. I was here in '07 for the off-road hearings when the folks were trying to tell you 

we've got a big problem. Whether it's reflected yet or not, we are in a recession. 

Think back to December of '08 when we filled this hall and we tried to say we're 

really in a recession, we need some relief, no one was listening. We are trying to 

comply. And believe me, we all want to. We always want to comply but were 

unable. And I don't know when the economy will come back. Our credit ratings are 

shot. We can't purchase. Folks that did get incentive funding have lost that 

equipment. It's been repossessed. Check out Peterbilt, Kenworth, and look at all 

the dump trucks. The guys that traded in all their old ones and even with incentive 

funding couldn't continue to make the payments. (CDTOA3)

266. Comment: On the way in from the Bay Area, I heard a talk show host saying after 

yesterday's meeting, if you have a business in California, leave now. When I listen 

to the kids from Oakland talk about the trucks going down the road and reading 

that in Northern Mexico China is helping build the largest intermodal facility so they 

can go around California, there will be less trucks on the road. There will be less

jobs. So we will get -- the air is going to be cleaner, and you will all probably get 

kudos for doing that. I think it just happens. So our California economy Margaret 

Thatcher talked about running out of people's money. But we're there. We don't 
159

have money. I listened to quite a few people come up and they don't say we'd like 

more tax money, but they use euphemisms for that. We don't have more to give 

them. Let the free market system work and get out of the way. The air will clean 

up. At this point, you've done a good job up to this point. I grew up in Riverside 

where you couldn't see down the street. I went down there last summer. It's much 

better. Your city is much cleaner than when I left it in 1969. So that's good. So try 

to keep the businesses that are in California in California. (BCPG) 

267. Comment: Concern about air quality is certainly a noble cause. Realistically 

however, in these financially perilous times air quality concern is tantamount to 

worrying about the smoke from Titanic's funnels when the iceberg is in sight. If 

Governor-Elect Brown's predictions are correct, the State California is on the verge 

of bankruptcy. Now is not the time to impose crippling financial regulations on 

businesses that pay taxes or non-profits that provide free community services that 

state and local governments can no longer afford to provide. It is unreasonable for 

the State of California, including the California Air Resources Board, to allow 

themselves budget cuts but to impose regulations on their constituents that could 

force them out of the state or out of business. A more logical reaction to the 

financial crisis that is affecting the state and local governments as well as large 

and small businesses and religious and charitable organizations across the state 

would be to declare a moratorium on the implementation of the truck and bus 

regulations until the economy is not in such crisis. (GIBBS)

268. Comment: No more regulations!! Let's enforce the laws and regs we already 

have on the books. Unless you want this state to fail, don't regulate jobs away!! 

(TWRIGH)

Agency Response: ARB adopted the regulation, in part, to meet California’s legal 

obligations under federal law to achieve attainment with the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 and ozone by 2014 and 2023 respectively, and to reduce 

exposure to toxic diesel exhaust emissions. See the response to Comment 2 that 

describes how State law assigns ARB the primary responsibility to ensure California's 

compliance with the federal Clean Air Act.

ARB recognizes that the recession has had a significant impact on California’s economy 

and on companies that rely on diesel engines – whether it is trucking and transportation 

businesses, construction companies, or airlines. Overall, businesses’ revenues and 

employment are down, and this has reduced the ability of many fleets to make the 

investments needed to comply with the regulation. The recession has also resulted in 

lower emissions than expected when the regulation was initially approved. Cognizant of 

the impacts of the recession, in designing the amendments to the truck and bus 

regulation, staff attempted to reduce the regulation’s compliance costs while still 

achieving sufficient emissions reductions to meet its federal state implementation plan 

(SIP) commitments and attain NAAQS by the applicable federal compliance dates. The 

amendments reduce the compliance costs of the existing regulation for all affected 

fleets by, among other things, reducing the number of required PM filters, and providing 

a longer period of time for retrofitted trucks to operate before having to upgrade to a 

2010 MY or emissions-equivalent engines. Changes to the provisions for accruing 
160

compliance credits and other special provisions provide further flexibility and reduce 

annual compliance costs. The amendments have nearly eliminated the compliance 

costs for small businesses with lighter trucks, which will not be required to be retrofitted 

with diesel particulate filters. Further compliance delays could not be provided without 

impairing the State’s ability to meet the NAAQS and diesel PM health risk reduction 

goals.

Overall, the amendments have substantially reduced the estimated compliance costs of 

the Truck and Bus regulation. The net investments for affected fleets in the first five 

years of compliance have been reduced from $3.3 billion to about $1.5 billion, a 

reduction of more than 50 percent. For the life of the amended regulation, the overall 

cost has been reduced by about 60 percent - from $5.5 billion to about $2.2 billion. 

Average costs for businesses such as local contractors, retailers and local moving 

companies, has been reduced by approximately 70 percent, with nearly all of the costs 

being eliminated entirely for thousands of small businesses with lighter trucks (trucks 

having a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds but less than 

or equal to 26,000 pounds). 

b) Impact on Businesses

269. Comment: I often communicate with individuals who share horror stories with me 

of being forced to purchase retrofits of their trucks that cost in the tens of 

thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. These are real human 

beings, and they are already struggling to get by. If not offered relief, many will go 

out of business or leave the state, costing our state even more jobs and hurting 

our already fragile economy.

Aside from the very serious impact diesel regulations will have on our jobs and 

economy, please also consider the role of economics on public health. Nations 

with the highest poverty rates also have the highest infant mortality rates and 

lowest life expectancies. A conversation on public health is not complete without 

considering how harmful economic impacts also detract from citizen’s ability to pay 

for quality medical care.

With even the San Francisco Chronicle reporting on the pollution overestimates, 

now is an ideal time for the Board to revise its diesel policy to take into account the 

needs of affected citizens, taxpayers and business owners. (COEU)

Agency Response: ARB must balance the cost of regulations against the adverse 

health impacts associated with elevated PM2.5 levels. These health effects include 

mortality, hospitalizations, and emergency room visits, among others. Each excess 

incidence of these health effects imposes a cost either to individual health insurance, to 

the public which pays for healthcare for people without insurance, or to income. Please 

see the response to Comment 40 for information on the many effects, including reduced 

employment, due to air pollution. 

See the response to Comment 268 that explains why the regulation is necessary and 

how given the economic and emission impacts of the severe recession, the regulation 

has been amended to substantially lower the compliance costs of affected fleets. See 
161

also the response to Comment 66 that explains the updates to the emissions inventory

and how the effects of the recession made the most significant change in emissions 

from trucks, buses, and off-road equipment. 

270. Comment: This law is false and inconclusive. This is the worst possible time to 

submit these regulations on trucks because we are bordering a full blown 

depression in the construction industry. (GMEN)

271. Comment: CARB must recognize that California businesses are in a time of 

extreme hardship because of the recession. Though the members and employees 

of CARB have not received any pay-cuts, the private industries in California have. 

California cannot afford to lose jobs and businesses because of unnecessary 

regulations. We demand that CARB suspend all rule-making processes and 

implementation of PM2.5 regulations until all the data has been collected and the 

studies have been completed, peer-reviewed and commented upon by the 

stakeholders. (JYOUNG)

Agency Response: See the response to Comment 268 that explains why the 

regulation is necessary and how given the economic and emission impacts of the 

severe recession, the regulation has been amended to substantially lower the 

compliance costs of affected fleets. To the extent that the commenter JYOUNG is 

referring to health studies related to PM 2.5, see response to Comment 39 that 

describes how our conclusions about the relationship between long-term exposure to 

PM2.5 and mortality are in alignment with those of the U.S. EPA, the World Health 

Organization, Health Canada, and the British government, many of which have been 

peer reviewed. These conclusions have been publicly peer reviewed by multiple 

independent bodies worldwide. See the response to Comment 66 that explains how the 

most significant change in emissions from trucks, buses, and off-road equipment was 

the impact of the recession and that there has been no significant change to the 

fundamental science and air quality modeling used to set the 2014 emission targets in 

the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley. ARB cannot identify a reason to delay the 

regulation for further review of PM 2.5 studies as suggested by the commenter.

c) Economic Impact

272. Comment: The majority of people out here are barely making it and you would 

enforce insane regulations that are only going to burden the poor and middle 

class! The people are going to be outraged when the effects of this measure take 

hold and prices rise even further. You are forcing the working people and 

businesses out of this state. What will you do then? I have lived here my entire life 

but we are in the process of trying to get out of this insane state. (KBROWN)

273. Comment: California is in decline because it is over taxed and over regulated. 

Businesses are fleeing the state so they can do business without all of this. 

Putting more stringent fuel standards on Trucks, Buses, etc. will just cause all 

products we depend on to rise in cost and some will not be available. What may 

sound like a good idea needs to be given far more attention than passing another 

"feel good" rule that becomes a bad one once it is realized what it causes. (ALAM)
162

274. Comment: If the diesel regulations are implemented as currently designed, small 

trucking companies will go out of business because they cannot afford to make 

costly retrofits that could sock them with tens of thousands or even hundreds of 

thousands in new costs. The diesel regulations are aimed at truckers and 

operators of heavy machinery but their costs will hit all of us with more expensive 

prices on everything brought to us in a truck – that is to say, nearly everything. 

Housing prices furthermore will be affected as construction will become more 

costly. (KTRAV)

275. Comment: Just another Californian against the restrictive regulations you are 

trying to push through, which will force small trucking companies out of business 

and also drive up the costs of ALL goods statewide. Until then, diesel regulations 

like the ones you're trying to force on California will continue to drive business 

elsewhere and will keep our state under the water. (ERIK)

276. Comment: I work in the trucking industry and our industry has been making great 

strides. The new regulations are putting small trucking companies out of business 

in droves. There needs to be resolution and these people back to work. The 

transportation industry is one of the leading industries in this state. (SCHAT)

277. Comment: I can't believe you would even consider new regulations on diesel fuel 

that will put independent Truckers and Small Trucking Companies out of business. 

How can you justify an action of this magnitude that will create a domino effect on 

commodities, cost of goods and freight? (SFIN)

278. Comment: Obviously, as the shipping cost of virtually everything we touch, wear, 

and eat goes up our cost of living goes up and more middle and lower class 

peoples will suffer greater poverty. (DJER)

279. Comment: Your overbearing proposed regulations on diesel engines will drive 

consumer costs up and up and drive viable businesses from the state little by little. 

It is time to back off and allow existing federal air quality rules to achieve their 

goals. (JQUILT)

280. Comment: I am a small business owner and have lived in California for 49 years. 

My business has gone from 42 employees to 9, as the current economic 

conditions have affected business. Our business requires equipment such as 

trucks, driven locally. I have not made a profit in 3 years. The only reason I am still 

in business is that I am using my savings from more prosperous years (the greedy 

rich). I keep my trucks in fine running condition. I cannot afford to replace them. 

The letter you sent us about this law is a joke. It said simply "Pass the cost on to 

your customers". I don't have enough customers to make this happen. There is a 

reason residents are headed to Texas and Arizona. Please help this state recover. 

Stop over regulating. No one wants to destroy our home, we will be responsible 

without the rule. California cannot afford this. You are driving productive people 

into places where they can’t be successful. Be smart - stop the madness. 

(SLYNES)
163

281. Comment: These are challenging times for small businesses like APTCO, LLC. 

Sadly, we were recently forced to lay off some of our workers. Regulations such 

as the ARB truck and bus regulation must contemplate not only the difficulty of the 

adverse economics facing small businesses in California, but also must calibrate 

the timing and stringency of regulation to the reduced emissions that have resulted 

from the poorer California economy. (APTCO)

282. Comment: I'm down 72 percent, barely hanging on with the business. I've already 

lost employees due to the economic downturn and also legislation that this Board 

is trying to pass, some haulers, and I don't know how much longer that we can 

stay in business. I don't support any of these amendments or propositions or 

proposals that you're proposing. The thing that I do support is what the Senator 

was saying is through attrition. (TLT)

283. Comment: With the economy the way it is, I hope considerations can take place 

for extensions and revisions. I have children and would never want to jeopardize 

their health and well-being. But with the additional expense of new emission 

equipped diesel trucks and the fact that it must be purchased relatively new with 

this equipment has just made it impossible under our current business 

environment. I only hope that ARB realizes what this is doing to small business 

owners. I am in favor of all amendments. (EDTOW)

284. Comment: Everything that you can see, hear, feel, touch, taste or smell came 

here by truck. If you impact the cost of trucking, you will impact the cost of 

Everything!!!! When it comes to payload, there is not a "known" fuel that has the 

efficiency of diesel. Today’s engines and diesel fuel are very clean compared to a 

few years ago. Right now, California needs JOBS more than a little cleaner air. 

(GHILL)

Agency Response: See the response to Comment 268 that explains why the 

regulation is necessary and how given the economic and emission impacts of the 

severe recession, the regulation has been amended to substantially lower the 

compliance costs of affected fleets.

The impact on the price of goods is not expected to be noticeable to the average 

consumer. For the initial 2008 rulemaking, staff’s cost analysis showed that there would 

be a modest increase in the cost of goods of about 0.04 percent. For example, this 

equates to about a 1 to 2 cent increase in price of a pair of shoes. With the amended 

regulation, these costs should be substantially lower for all fleets and still lower for fleets 

that have been more adversely affected by the recession. Diesel fuel standards are not 

within the scope of the Truck and Bus regulation and are not pertinent to this 

rulemaking.

Average compliance costs for businesses, including small businesses, such as local 

contractors, retailers, and local moving companies would be reduced by 70 percent. 

The amendments have nearly eliminated the compliance costs for small businesses 

with light trucks, which are not required to be retrofitted with diesel particulate filters. 

With the reduced costs, staff believes that many affected businesses will recover some 
164

of their costs by passing the costs to their customers, although we recognize the ability 

to pass on costs will vary by company and business sector.

While the amendments will significantly lower compliance costs for affected fleets, 

businesses that have been more adversely affected by the economy and are operating 

fewer heavier trucks in the compliance year compared to 2006, can further delay 

compliance with the PM filter phase-in option. See response to Comment 128 for more 

details on how fleets can take advantage of the downsizing credits to lower compliance 

costs further.

In addition, a low-mileage construction truck provision was added to provide more time 

for certain construction trucks. This compliance option both delays the initial PM filter 

requirements for these trucks, and phases-in the PM filter requirements between 

January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2016 at the rate of 33 percent per year. The response to 

Comment 157 describes the low-mileage construction truck provision in more detail.

Small fleets with three or fewer vehicles can take advantage of the small fleet provision 

to delay compliance for heavier trucks until 2014 and can postpone their replacements 

until 2020 or later as described in the response to Comment 308. A single truck owner 

with a low-mileage construction truck can delay compliance until 2016, and a single log 

truck owner can delay compliance until 2018.

285. Comment: Weatherford appreciates the effort undertaken by Staff as directed by 

the Board to propose amendments. We have serious doubts about the wisdom of 

implementing the rule even as proposed given the depth of the recession and the 

continued high rate of unemployment in general and relative to the other states. 

We do believe that even if approved, the Board should continue to evaluate the 

impact of this rule upon affected companies and consider a further slide should the 

economy not meet staff projections for recovery as presented in the workshops. 

(WEAT1) (WEAT2)

Agency Response: See the response to Comment 268 that explains why the 

regulation is necessary and how given the economic and emission impacts of the 

severe recession, the regulation has been amended to substantially lower the 

compliance costs of affected fleets.

Staff will continue to track the economy and emission trends, and their effects on fleets. 

ARB Resolution 10-4422 directs the Executive Officer to monitor the state’s progress 

toward meeting its emission reduction commitment and to provide an update to the 

Board at its July 2012 meeting that includes an updated emissions trend including the 

impact of economic conditions on the on-road and off-road source categories. 

286. Comment: Even with these changes, this rule will still cause significant negative 

economic impact to California farming operations by driving up costs associated 

 

23 Verified diesel emission control strategy. – a retrofit device that has been verified under 

ARB’s Verification Procedure which ensures the effectiveness and durability of diesel engine 

retrofits. 
165

with transportation of California fresh produce. This will only increase the 

regulatory cost advantage enjoyed by farmers in other states and nations. 

(WGROW)

Agency Response: In consideration of the unique circumstances involving the 

agricultural industry and its motor vehicle fleet, the amended regulation continues to 

have provisions for agricultural trucks that operate below certain mileage thresholds 

(10,000 to 25,000 annual miles) and for a limited number of specialty trucks. The 

provisions delay compliance for farm trucks and seasonal trucks that haul the harvest 

from the farm to the first point of processing. Overall, the provision delays compliance 

with the emissions reduction requirements until 2017 or 2023 for all agricultural vehicles 

that operate in California, irrespective of where they are based or registered. In general, 

transportation costs represent a small fraction of the cost of growing, harvesting of 

crops, and processing agricultural products to market. Transportation needs for hauling 

finished agricultural products to market are generally provided by long-haul trucking 

companies that are already expected to have newer trucks because of the high annual 

miles they travel. These high mileage fleets will typically have little or no compliance 

costs with the amended regulation whether based in California or not. 

d) Comments by Small Businesses

287. Comment: I'm a one truck owner operator that the new regulations could 

probably put me out of business, so I'm hoping for a change or postponement on 

the rules, and like me there's thousands of small fleets owner operators that will be 

out of business. (RMAR)

288. Comment: I really, really believe that you guys have got to give us mom and pop 

operations, the low mileage guys; we've got to have more time. We want to 

comply. We want to do what we can. We can't make it with what we've got with the 

equipment we're trying to run now. We are in horrible shape with this recession, 

depression, whatever it is. It's terrible. Just to make our house payments. Please 

give us some time. (DSTR)

289. Comment: I own a small landscaping business with one truck bought new in 

2006 and because of the economy I can't afford the retrofit nor can I purchase 

another vehicle that meets the current standard. I feel like I am being penalized 

for something that I have no control over. (LCL)

290. Comment: I'm a tow-truck operator, twice as big as the other fellow. 2010 

revenue versus 2008 revenue's down 44 percent. I have one employee. He's the 

sole source of income for his family. I no longer can provide him with health 

insurance, paid holidays, sick leave. He's moved with his family to a house with 

another family because of these conditions. I cannot afford a new truck, 

replacement truck, or to put a device on it. I do not qualify for any of the programs 

for a number of reasons. We need more time. We are hurting. And I'm doing better 

than most. (JPT)

Agency Response: See the response to Comment 268 that explains why the 

regulation is necessary and how given the economic and emission impacts of the 
166

severe recession, the regulation has been amended to substantially lower the 

compliance costs of affected fleets. Also, see the response to Comment 308 on how 

the amended regulation substantially lowers the compliance costs for small fleets with 

three or fewer vehicles. 

291. Comment: My entire life’s monetary worth is tied up in my trucks and business. If 

the new laws take effect it would literally shut down small business. I'm a law 

abiding, tax paying, and even drive a Prius. Please reconsider the small 

businesses and are struggle to survive in this miserable economy. My trucks are 

smoke tested and they pass with flying colors. However their age make them 

vulnerable under the new proposed regulations. We certainly care about the air 

quality. Please have heart and keep this little guy in mind. (KCEAR)

Agency Response: See the response to Comment 268 that explains why the 

regulation is necessary and how given the economic and emission impacts of the 

severe recession, the regulation has been amended to substantially lower the 

compliance costs of affected fleets. Also, see the response to Comment 308 on how 

the amended regulation substantially lowers the compliance costs for small fleets with 

three or fewer vehicles.

The opacity test, referred by the commenter as a smoke test, serves to detect visible 

smoke in the exhaust and is useful to determine engine tampering , or if an engine is 

malfunctioning. Also, most diesel PM is PM 2.5 and not visible. Opacity doesn’t 

measure whether PM emissions are high. Because of this a properly operating engine 

still has complex mixture of air pollutants including diesel particulate matter that is a 

toxic air contaminant and has the potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other 

health problems. Without major reductions from existing engines, including those with 

low opacity readings, California cannot meet its SIP obligation to attain federal air 

quality standards by the required dates. 

292. Comment: My family has been in heavy construction in California since 1929 for 

3 generations we have gone from 45 employees to 3 that are laid off for the winter. 

These regulations will be the final nail in the coffin for our family business. 

(JSERRE)

Agency Response: See the response to Comment 268 that explains why the 

regulation is necessary and how given the economic and emission impacts of the 

severe recession, the regulation has been amended to substantially lower the 

compliance costs of affected fleets. Also, see response to Comment 284 on how a 

number of provisions can substantially lower compliance costs further. 

If the fleet size has suffered a 90 percent decline since 2006 as has the employee staff, 

compliance for the fleet could be delayed until 2016 by reporting and using the 

downsizing credit. See the response to Comment 128 for more details on how fleets can 

take advantage of the downsizing credits to lower compliance costs further.
167

e) Competitive Advantage or Disadvantage

293. Comment: Truck owners that have already invested in upgrades to comply with 

regulations are at a competitive disadvantage to those who have not. 

Implementation of the Truck and Bus Regulation as soon as is feasible will help to 

level the playing field for all truck owners and operators, and also for the ports that 

are committed to reducing air emissions. (UPSD)

294. Comment: I don’t think amendments should be made to the regulation at this 

point in time because companies that have already made the move to become 

compliant are the ones that will suffer. The companies that have dragged their

feet will be rewarded by these amendments. As far as the economy, it’s already 

showing signs of improvement and by the time these new amendments go into 

effect, the economy will be well on its way to normal productivity. So, we need to 

keep the regulation in place as is. I believe if you amend the regulation you will 

only be hurting companies that have already moved to become compliant and at 

this point, put them at a disadvantage to the companies that have not made a 

move to become compliant. By allowing these noncompliant companies to run 

their junk at reduced operating cost, due to fact they have minimal operating costs 

verses a company that has retrofitted or replaced their units to become compliant 

and proactive, and by doing so increased their operating cost which they will need 

to recover in the form of higher rates, the amendments would make the already 

compliant companies less competitive with their competitors that are noncompliant 

and putting them at a disadvantage. (HBAB)

Agency Response: ARB recognizes that some fleets have already taken steps to 

meet the requirements of the existing regulation. With this in mind, a number of 

provisions have been included in the amendments to provide credits for early 

installation of PM filters, for the purchase of newer vehicles, and to allow for PM filters 

installed on off-road equipment to count towards compliance for on-road vehicles. 

These credits reward fleets that have taken action early by delaying compliance 

requirements for other trucks in the fleet and reduce the overall cost of compliance 

compared to other fleets that have not been proactive. In addition, to the modified 

model year schedule for heavier trucks, the amended regulation also allows fleets to 

comply with an alternative compliance option specified in section 2025(g)(3), from 2012 

to 2014, that is based on the original engine model year schedule. We believe the new 

credits appropriately reward fleets for being proactive and the alternative engine model 

year compliance option assures that owners who made investments based on the 

original engine model year schedule are not adversely affected.

295. Comment: The large, big, national corporations that run construction companies 

that would love to do our roads and our bridges don't need to be in California. 

They don't mind seeing California businesses go out because they can just come 

in when they need to. (BCPG)

296. Comment: I'm with the California Independent Oil Marketers Association. We 

remain opposed to the mutually expensive emission control requirements. While 

staff has made significant adjustments to the regulatory package, there will remain 
168

a very significant burden on California-based trucking operations. Out-of-state and 

interstate trucking operations are able to manipulate their fleets so that newer 

trucks will be based for California deliveries, while older trucks will remain in active 

duty at least to the other 48 states. In-state operators do not have that luxury. We 

believe this will put a competitive disadvantage to our members and likely increase 

the demise of independent small businesses in the state. With that demise,

California public will experience higher costs and less convenience in the product 

delivery options. CARB need only examine the in-state gasoline regulations to 

understand the cost impacts of this. California gasoline is typically 25 to 50 cents a 

gallon higher than other states, and that's largely due to the loss of small 

independent refiners in the state. We question the regulation necessity. (CIOMA)

Agency Response: The amended regulation applies equally to in-state and out-ofstate fleets. While we understand that some out-of-state fleets may have the ability to 

manage their fleets to operate cleaner vehicles in California without incurring added 

costs to comply, there is no way to eliminate this possibility while applying the same 

requirements for all fleets. However, the amended regulation reduces the overall costs 

further and will provide relief to all fleets, in particular in-state fleets with older trucks. 

The costs associated with the regulation and the ability to pass on costs will vary by 

individual fleet and business sector. We believe the economic impact of the regulation 

will be similar for fleets that compete in the same markets. Long-haul fleets are 

expected to have newer trucks and little or no compliance costs whether based in 

California or not. Short haul fleets, whether providing fuel delivery or other services

tend to travel fewer miles per year because of their local operation and are expected to 

have somewhat older trucks. These fleets compete with other fleets that also operate 

locally and will have similar costs to comply with the regulation. In this instance staff 

does not believe it is likely that out-of-state fleets will have a noticeable advantage. 

Overall, we expect that the costs of the regulation will be similar for businesses that 

compete with each other in providing the same service.

f) Other Cost Comments

297. Comment: I'm the president of a third-generation trucking company based in 

Hayward. Our company submitted full financials for I believe four years to the staff. 

I hope they were revealing and either interesting or boring to you. But just want to 

talk about the economics and the marketing. I'm on board with the clean air thing. 

We have done nothing -- we've been hanging by a thread for the last year-and-ahalf, two years. We do nothing but try to pay wages, fuel, and repairs. Our capital 

expenditures are near zero. In normal times over the last three years, we would 

purchase nine brand-new trucks to replace older equipment. We have one that we 

purchased in the last few years. So our fleet has gotten older. For the first time in 

our history, we borrowed against a credit line. And thank God we were still able to 

qualify for one. But our time is running out on how long we can continue to draw 

on that. All of our 45 or so employees have taken pay cuts, including that of the 

president. We've reduced expenses everywhere we can. In short, the turnaround 

has not come for our company yet, as I suspect, many truckers and some of them 

have spoken here. It's not just limited to the one- and two-truck operators. In my 
169

circumstances, it's 30 or 40. But I have the same issues they do. Maybe I'm just 

weary about it, but I complement the good work of the staff. I support the 

amendments. Whatever you do, vote on it and then don't change it, because one 

of the hardest things we've had to do is deal with the constant back and forth. 

Now, the proposed amendments, I have a couple wins. My 05-06 equipment I get 

to run another year or so. However, my 2000 equipment, which I have 15, has to 

be dealt with in the next 12 months. Probably one of the largest things I'm going to 

have to do is maybe reduce my fleet size by 25 vehicles if I can't find a way to 

finance it. And I will tell you it's just a question of being able to finance the 

equipment. So again, I support the goals. Move ahead. I think a lot of us have just 

tired of the back and forth. I think the staff has done just about the best job they 

could in trying to find some fairness and give us a little breathing room. It's not 

going to be enough. So I'll take my lumps and see what we can do. Hopefully, we 

can protect jobs before we get into a growth mode again. (RTRU)

Agency Response: See the response to Comment 268 that explains why the 

regulation is necessary and how given the economic and emission impacts of the 

severe recession, the regulation has been amended to substantially lower the 

compliance costs of affected fleets. The amendments were crafted with a number of 

provisions and credits to give fleets the most flexibility, so that each business would be 

able to comply without having to retire or sell a significant portion of the fleet. However, 

for fleets that have already downsized or choose to downsize the fleet as part of the 

compliance strategy, the downsizing credit can delay compliance for the remaining fleet. 

See the response to Comment 128 for more details on how fleets can take advantage of 

the downsizing credits to lower compliance costs further.

Staff understands that the administrative process in considering amendments creates a 

level of uncertainty in the business community for compliance planning, but overall staff 

took the time to ensure that the amended rule achieved the best balance in meeting air 

quality goals and lowering costs for fleet owners, and that the information used in 

crafting the amendments was as robust as possible. Staff does not anticipate major 

revisions to the rule going forward. 

298. Comment: I have supported my family by the sales of Heavy Diesel Trucks for the 

past 15 years. The last two years have been tough. We are in the middle of the 

biggest sale slump in 25 years. You would think Heavy truck dealers would be 

having a field day selling new Trucks and retrofitting older trucks with the soon to 

be CARB mandated particulate traps. After all, The California government is 

requiring our customers to retrofit or buy new trucks. No chance, as every time 

government gets in the way of natural market forces it has crippled an already 

struggling industry. The Federal EPA in the middle of a 15-year plan to reduce 

diesel emissions. Our industry has responded by meeting all the federal 

requirements. The engineers should be commended. All of the engine 

manufactures have complied or gotten out of the business of manufacturing diesel 

motors. (A whole other topic). 

If you buy a new truck today it will meet the new standards. This goes for 50 

states. Somewhere in their infinite wisdom, CARB is trying to force Company's and 
170

individuals to replace or retrofit by 2014. They have amended their plan several 

times as recent as 1/20/10. But that is still the bottom line. What do you think that 

has done to the value of used diesel trucks in California? Industry estimates 40-

80% devaluation. So the fleets that run the most miles that normally would replace 

trucks in say 5 years. Now they cannot afford to. Their fleet has no equity in it to 

be used for replacing their older trucks with the new non-polluting trucks. The 

typical use for the trade-ins would be to sale them for lower mile applications, local 

delivery, construction, etc. The used trucks are converted to other types of trucks. 

A lot of people make a buck off on this transaction. It used to be a win-win for 

everyone and the environment. Now there are thousands upon thousands trucks 

rotting, trucks that where once recycled and reused. Now the big fleets that run 

the most miles can't afford to upgrade to the new less polluting trucks that are 

available NOW. (SNIETO)

Agency Response: The commenter is correct to note that emissions have continued 

to decline as businesses normally replace older trucks with newer trucks. Also, the 

recession has resulted in lower emissions than originally expected in 2008; however, 

the regulation is still needed to meet federal air quality standards and other state 

obligations. See the response to Comment 268 that explains why the regulation is 

necessary and how given the economic and emission impacts of the severe recession,

the regulation has been amended to substantially lower the compliance costs of 

affected fleets.

With the amended regulation, no trucks need to be replaced if less than 20 years old 

until 2020 and with the PM Filter Phase-in Option specified in section 2025(i), no truck is 

required to be replaced until 2020 regardless of age. In addition, trucks operating 

exclusively in NOx exempt areas are exempt from the requirement to upgrade to a 2010 

model year engine if equipped with a PM filter. Fleet owners may also find a market to 

sell their older trucks to fleet owners in NOx exempt areas. Also, if a PM filter is not 

suitable for an engine annual extension would require no action until 2018. Therefore, in 

most cases, trucks will be able to operate their full economic lives.

Quality used trucks will continue to have value. Trucks are regularly traded across 

State lines and this practice is expected to continue. It is a common business practice 

for dealers to purchase trucks from other states to sell in California and vice versa. Also 

most auction houses regularly sell trucks to purchasers in other states or countries.

We do not believe there is any evidence that suggests that lower truck sales volume or 

variations in used truck prices can be attributed to the regulation. California new truck 

sales have fluctuated consistent with national trends. Historical truck sales are shown in 

Appendix G - Emissions Analysis Methodology and Results of the 2010 staff report. 

Historical national truck sales over the past 25 years, for both medium duty trucks and 

heavy duty trucks, have fluctuated widely as the growth in the economy has fluctuated. 

Prices for used trucks vary based on demand for trucks and their availability and the 

effects in California are no different than in the rest of the nation. As described in the 

2008 Staff Report, staff compared new and used truck prices of trucks for sale in 

California at www.truckpaper.com and compared them to National Automobile Dealers 

Association prices and found no significant differences. 
171

299. Comment: The church programs provide a variety of social services to families 

who are in need. They are non-profit ministries that receive no public funding, nor 

do they sell a product or service to generate an income. Instead they depend 

upon the charitable donations of members and friends to be able to operate and to 

provide the services their communities so desperately need in this time of 

economic depression when government bodies are reducing services to the 

needy.

Traditionally, donations to churches and other charities are among the first to be 

cut from the budgets of donors who are facing their own economic crises. As a 

result, the churches we represent are being forced to cut their budgets to continue 

to provide the services on which local communities depend; making it impossible 

for them to meet the original deadlines imposed by the Truck and Bus regulation to 

reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and other pollutants. (GIBBS)

Agency Response: Staff recognizes the impacts that the regulation could have on 

churches and other non-profit organizations that operate these buses, and that ARB is 

continually evaluating approaches that will allow California to meet its emission 

reduction needs in a manner that would have less of an economic impact on affected 

fleets. See the response to Comment 268 that explains why the regulation is necessary 

and how given the economic and emission impacts of the severe recession, the 

regulation has been amended to substantially lower the compliance costs of affected 

fleets.

Diesel buses emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, including diesel particulate matter 

that is a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, 

and other health problems. Those most vulnerable to exposure to diesel PM are 

children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious 

health problems.

While considering recent amendments to the regulation, the Board placed a high priority 

on reducing exhaust emissions from all buses, and was particularly concerned with 

those that transport children. Although older buses may not travel as many miles as 

some trucks, they have considerably higher emissions than newer vehicles. Exhaust 

emissions tend to collect in the cabin of older buses and increase exposure of the 

passengers to elevated levels of diesel PM. Therefore, reducing diesel PM emissions 

from buses is a significant public health priority. 

g) Construction Industry Comments

300. Comment: About a year ago you asked me when I would be able to meet the 

requirements of the on-road truck rule. I half-jokingly said "ask me again in a 

couple of years." My answer today is 2 years after the economy returns to 2004-

2005 levels. 

I am not sure when the economy will get back to those levels, but I do know as of 

today and the near future, we do not have any money for a down payment or for 

moving the dump body and other equipment to a new truck. We are not making 
172

enough money to cover a monthly truck payment or the additional cost of running 

a new truck, including higher fuel costs due to lower fuel economy, maintenance 

costs of the PM filter and SCR units, etc. On top of all these additional costs, rates 

in the dump truck industry have gone down due to fewer jobs. Competition is 

tough in this economy as we all scrap for the few construction-related jobs 

available. Considering how little work is available, there is no way that we can 

afford CARB's requirements. Even if we were offered financing, we have no way 

to make the monthly payments until the construction industry comes back to its 

previous levels. (WARD1)

301. Comment: The dump truck industry is dying with this depressive economy. We 

cannot afford to pay our bills much less try to upgrade, retrofit, or repower our 

trucks. We need more time for the economy to come around before we can do any 

of this. We all want clean air, but not at the cost of our businesses, families, health 

and our own lives due to the stress of no work. (SJONES)

302. Comment: The construction materials industry has been hit hard by the economic 

downturn. California aggregate and ready mixed concrete production is off 50% 

and 60% respectively from 2005 to 2009. For 2010, production continues to be 

flat or slightly below 2009 levels. Most forecasts, including one by the Legislative 

Analyst Office's, do not foresee any significant up-turn in the construction sector 

prior to 2015. In fact, the LAO states, "The construction industry remains flat on its 

back- with few immediate prospects-due to the massive fall in residential and 

commercial real estate markets." (LAO, California's Fiscal Outlook, Nov. 2010). 

(CEMEX1) (PRMI) (CCIMA1) (SYAR) (AARMC)

303. Comment: CARB staff and other board members have been working with us and 

other like-minded industries to discuss additional relief for fleets who continue to 

be discriminatorily impacted by the Truck and Bus rule, such as vocational trucks. 

The economy has truly been devastating to our industry over the past few years 

and we are appreciative of all efforts to work with us to find a solution.

It is true that the construction industry has been decimated over the past 3 years. 

However, if you look at the most directly negatively impacted subset of the 

construction industry, you will undoubtedly find the small businesses that 

subcontract dump truck services. CDTOA’s membership has dropped by more 

than 50% in the last three years, directly attributable to the terrible construction 

industry and these impending regulations. For many of our members, they are 

truly unique as their dump trucks are the sole asset for their business – essentially 

serving as their office, tool of their trade, sole source of capital and investment, 

and only basis of income. (CDTOA1)

304. Comment: We are a small Ready Mix Concrete firm (11 trucks) in the Northern 

Sacramento Valley. Because of the nature of our business, the nature of people in 

Construction and the weather, we need a lot of trucks for a short period of time 

each day. In the heat of summer, people want to pour concrete in the 6am-10am 

range. Ambient air temperature is detrimental to placing and finishing of concrete. 

It also adversely affects the people who do the work. Likewise in winter, with cold 

temperatures and slower set times, concrete must be poured early in order to 
173

prevent concrete people from working into the night on overtime. While we have 

10 mixer trucks, it is generally safe to say that 70% of them are parked after about 

4 hours use per day. In this current economy, it is rare that all 10 are used at all 

on any given day. Since they are seldom used, they are older trucks. A new 

Mixer Truck costs approximately $130,000. You simply can't run newer equipment 

with such little use. It’s a financial no-brainer. Over the past 3 years, our Diesel 

purchases have dropped from approximately 36,000 gallons in 2006 to 33,283 in 

2008 and 31,805 in 2009. The Construction Industry meltdown has already 

achieved the goals set by AB 32. Also, given the Housing Industry collapse and 

the Banking meltdown, I have no idea how we can comply with your regulations. I 

have no idea how we can borrow the money necessary to upgrade our fleet, who 

we could borrow it from or how we would be able to pay the money back. There 

are grants (none available) guaranteed loans but only for Interstate freeway 

corridors that we do not use. (FRMI)

305. Comment: As a small business owner, I want to protest the onerous regulations 

that are being proposed for trucks in the construction industry. Our industry in 

particular is such that we stay fairly close to home - usually within a 50 or 100 mile 

radius. We contribute very little to any supposed "negative diesel" particulate 

effect. Our industry is so suppressed now, due to the economic recession we are 

experiencing, that I am barely able to draw a paycheck, let alone have the fund to 

either retrofit my not-very new (1998) truck OR to buy a newer one. To do either 

of those things requires capital that can be recouped by working. There is little or 

no work, and the rates because of it are absolutely pathetic. Unless there is a 

huge change in our economy, the enforcement of the regulations I have heard are 

proposed will put me out of business - I become just another statistic. (PMAC)

306. Comment: Dump trucks are truly now the industry that will be most destroyed by 

the Truck and Bus Rule being that they are construction-based, have a higher 

GVWR, and are relatively low-mileage. The rule provides no real relief for this 

group, while other industries have been accommodated. Many of our members 

are now wondering, ―When has the air we breathe become more important than 

the people that are breathing it?‖

Aggregates, construction and the transportation of construction materials was 

California’s fourth largest industry. Every Californian makes use of nearly 7-tons 

of aggregates per person per year and 95% is hauled to and from locations via 

trucks. Statewide, the aggregates and construction industry’s total economic 

impact is $230 billion – 16% of all California industry output. Construction 

materials transportation costs are worth approximately 7% of that total or $16 

billion. A new ―2010‖ transfer dump truck with the new 2010 clean diesel engines 

and emissions devices, without any other special equipment, costs about 

$210,000 (not including sales tax - an additional 10% $21,000 or licensing - about 

1.5% or $3,500). That’s about $234,500. The median home price in California is 

$297,500. A new 2-axle dump set-up straight truck tractor costs about $130,000 

(not including sales tax or licensing). And a 3-axle truck tractor costs about 

$145,000 (not including sales tax or licensing). Specialty truck prices can easily 

exceed $225,000 (not including sales tax or licensing). These higher equipment 
174

costs when combined with low truck rates and worsening credit scores, is a 

―perfect storm‖ that few within our industry can overcome. (CDTOA1)

Agency Response: The response to Comment 268 explains why the regulation is 

necessary and how given the economic and emission impacts of the severe recession, 

the regulation has been amended to substantially lower the compliance costs of 

affected fleets. Also, see response to Comment 284 on how a number of provisions 

can substantially lower compliance costs further.

See the responses to Comments 39 and 40 regarding the adverse effects of air 

pollution on the public.

307. Comment: Who’s going to help build the freeways, streets, all the buildings. I 

have 32 years in the dump truck business, hundreds of owner operators have 

been put out of business because the way Arnold and his group has handled his 

"GREEN" state. You need the trucks, you want the trucks, you cannot do without 

the trucks. (MSHENK)

308. Comment: We are here today because the economy is in the tank and emissions 

are lower than we thought. I'm thankful that the Air Resources Board is 

recognizing these conditions, and I encourage the members to approve the 

proposed amendments. But I would also like some more consideration for owneroperators like myself. I have one truck. I'm due to replace it by -- particulate filter 

by 2014. And in these economic times, I don't have the money. And I don't foresee 

the money being available within a couple of years. What I would do would be 

buying a new truck. That way, I would meet all the proposals of the rule. But I have 

money for a down payment. I work in the construction industry and have a transfer 

dump truck. My business is way off. I wouldn't have money for -- until the economy 

picks back up to 2004/2005 levels, I don't foresee having the money for a monthly 

truck payment. The additional costs of particulate filter maintenance, the SCR, 

units or having extra money to pay for higher fuel costs because smog engines get 

less fuel economy than mine does now. So with that, with those things in mind, I 

would like additional time or additional flexibility within the rules. Wait another two 

years for the economy to get back to 2004/2005 levels when I can save up the 

money for a down payment when I think I can make monthly payments and, you 

know, the higher costs of running a new truck. (WARD2)

Agency Response: Small fleets can take advantage of the small fleet provision to 

delay compliance for heavier trucks until 2014 and can postpone their replacements 

until 2020 or later. Smaller fleets generally have fewer resources than larger ones, and 

because of the limited number of vehicles in the fleet, are not able to take full advantage 

of regulation’s flexibility options like larger fleets. Small fleets are defined as having one 

to three vehicles with a GVWR greater than 14,000 lbs.

To be exempt from the PM filter requirements until January 1, 2014, small fleets must 

report information about the heavier trucks in the fleet by January 31, 2012, if any of the 

heavier vehicles have 1996 to 1999 model year engines and by January 31, 2013, if any 

of the heavier vehicles have 2000 to 2004 model year engines. All small fleets will need 

to opt-in by January 31, 2014. By January 1, 2014 one truck must have a PM filter, by 
175

January 1, 2015, a second truck must have a PM filter, and by January 1, 2016, the 

third truck must have a PM filter. The owner must report by January 31 of each 

compliance year until the owner reports information to show that all trucks are equipped 

with PM filters. No additional reporting is required unless the vehicles in the fleet are 

replaced or more vehicles are added. 

Small fleets can also take advantage of other provisions or credits. Any fleet with PM 

filters on all heavier trucks by January 1, 2014 can report in January 2014 and delay all 

heavier truck replacements until 2023. This means that single truck owners that retrofit 

their trucks with PM filters by 2014 will not need to upgrade to a 2010 model year 

engine until 2023. 

A single truck owner with a low-mileage construction truck can delay compliance until 

2016 by reporting by January 31, 2012. See the response to Comment 157 that 

describes the low-mileage construction truck provision. Please also see the response 

to Comment 360 regarding funding opportunities for construction truck owners.

309. Comment: I'm an owner-operator of one ten-wheel dump truck. Let me explain 

briefly how I get my work. I call brokers, many of which are here today. And when 

their trucks are out, they give me a call back and tell me I have some work. When 

their trucks don't get out and they're not, then I don't have any work. So this 

recession, like everybody else, has hit me very, very hard. I'm down over 50 

percent in what I'm taking in a year. I have a 1990 Kenworth. And I talked to Peter 

earlier this morning, and he said that there might be some relief on the way as far 

as a particulate matter filter or something I might be able to do for my truck. 

Without some kind of relief like that, with this recession, you're going to find 

another 60-year-old man in the unemployment line, because I just won't be able to 

purchase any truck. It's just not in the cards. (WATS) 

Agency Response: The amended regulation allows the owner of a single truck with a 

1990 model year engine to delay compliance until 2015, thereby providing more time to 

upgrade or retrofit, as well as additional funding opportunities. In 2012, the truck will be 

22 years old and the fleet owner can purchase a used vehicle and still meet the 

compliance requirements See the response to Comment 157 that describes the lowmileage construction truck provision. The amended regulation is expected to reduce 

compliance costs by reducing the number of required PM filters, delaying truck 

replacements substantially, and extending credits. See the responses to Comments 

342 through 362 for more information on funding opportunities. 

310. Comment: I've been hauling rock, sand, and gravel in Sacramento for over 45 

years. My position on this hasn't changed one bit. Everybody wants the cleanest 

air possible. They want the latest technology and everything else, and there is 

nobody in their right mind that wouldn't like to own a brand-new state-of-the-art 

truck or any company. I'm down to the small fleet, three truck operator right now 

because of taking advantage of the complying element with your original rules. 

Due to the economics, our business is down probably like 90 percent today. It 

depends on how you look at the figures. Fortunately, almost all of our equipment is 

paid for. And I would hate to think if I had a couple thousand dollars a month 
176

payment on a new truck, even though a large percentage of it was granted money 

from one place or another, we could not meet that liability. We would not be able 

to meet the terms and conditions of that. I am quite sure there are a lot of people 

that have already lost the Carl Moyer trucks, all the stuff. I really want you to take a 

good look at how down the economy is right now. And when it comes back, it's 

going to be hard to borrow money to meet the new technology in the state-of-art 

vehicles. Even if you have some grants because you won't be able to borrow any 

money if you can't state some income, have some jobs. There's just no work in the 

construction industry in Sacramento, northern California right now to speak of. And 

our entity is probably in good times we put 45,000 miles on our truck because it's 

all pretty local. We're not in that category where we're gross emitter. And there's a 

lot more people. There's thousands of people with one, two, three truck, swimming 

pool diggers or whatever that due to the economy, one thing, cannot afford any 

more cash outlays. Please be sensitive to where our economy is right now and 

where it's going to be for the next ten years. (AFTR)

311. Comment: I have been in business for ten years. I have 3 ten wheel dump trucks, 

2 of which I am still making payments on and will do so for two more years, if I’m 

lucky. The newest one being a 1999 year model motor with 240,000 original miles 

is junk according to you guys! You want me to replace it! I have not even finished 

paying for it yet. Prior to 2008, I averaged about 20,000 miles a year per truck. 

Last year 2009, I went 6,000, 9,000, and 11,000 per truck and my revenue has 

declined from being a small profit business to being a no profit business. I am only 

hanging on because I had a small savings account, available credit, health 

insurance, and now that those are all gone I just hope and pray everyday that I will 

have a job for tomorrow and nothing breaks on any of my trucks if I am lucky 

enough to work. So having said all that, please delay or scrap the on road rule 

until things get better in this state of ours. (MMURRY)

Agency Response: The regulation cannot be delayed further. See the response to 

Comment 268 that explains why the regulation is necessary and how given the 

economic and emission impacts of the severe recession, the regulation has been 

amended to substantially lower the compliance costs of affected fleets.

See responses to Comment 308 that address the phase-in options for small fleets. See 

the response to Comment 157 for a summary of the provision for low-mileage 

construction trucks. 

312. Comment: Our company has been impacted profoundly by the recession in 

construction. We have gone from approximately 330 employees to around 200 

employees. These changes being considered to the on-road and off-road diesel 

emission laws would be a small step towards helping to keep us in business. We 

hope for more far reaching measures in construction for On-Road Diesel. If you 

were to increase the low-use mileage exemption for construction to 15,000 miles 

per year, this would be another step in the right direction. Our on road vehicles 

have been used far less than they used to be due to the recession, and when they 

are used they are on jobsites for the most part, so they are a very small part of 

diesel emissions. (BYOUNG)
177

313. Comment: Our company has been greatly hurt by the recession in construction. 

We have gone from 100 employees to 7 employees. The changes to the on-road 

and off-road diesel emission regulations are the minimum needed to keep us in 

business. We hope for more help in construction for On-Road Diesel. We need 

you to increase the low-use mileage exemption for construction to 15,000 miles 

per year. Our on road vehicles have either been parked in great numbers due to 

the recession, or spend most of their time on jobsites, so they are a very small part 

of diesel emissions. (GGIFF)

Agency Response: Consistent with the commenter’s request, the annual mileage 

limits for the low-mileage construction truck provision was modified as part of the 15-day 

changes to the proposed amendments to 20,000 miles for dump trucks and 15,000 

miles for all other trucks that are eligible. See the response to Comment 157 for a 

summary of the provision for low-mileage construction trucks.

See response to Comment 128 which discusses how fleets can take advantage of the 

downsizing credits to delay compliance with the PM filter requirements and lower 

compliance costs further.

314. Comment: CalPortland owns about 300 ready-mix trucks in the California area, 

but only operate about half of those due to the downturn in the economy. Although 

the downturn in the general economy of California has been very bad, construction 

industry specifically has been extremely hit hard. I've installed or had installed 24 

retrofits on ready-mix trucks at initial cost of $497,000. That's a lot of money in this 

economy right now when we are doing all we can just to keep the doors open. I 

say initial cost, because the ongoing cost of limited operating hours of those trucks 

is going to be continuous. 

I'd like to thank the staff of CARB for working with our industry as well as all the 

other industries. A lot of time and effort that was put into coming up with the 

amendments. And I just want to say I believe the amendments will be good for all 

Californians in the long run because we'll have better technology and hopefully 

better economy to work with. (CAPC)

Agency Response: See the response to Comment 306 regarding how the compliance 

options in the regulation can delay compliance and lower costs. 

h) Logging Fleet Comments

315. Comment: The companies that Associated California Loggers represents in 

California are largely family-owned, and have been passed down from generation 

to generation. We represent some large companies with extensive fleets, but we 

also represent many small-business owner-operators with only several trucks. 

Our companies operate in rural counties which are overwhelmingly in attainment 

for NOx (78%) and PM (97%) – counties which themselves are suffering from the 

current disastrously poor California economy, at levels of unemployment well 

above the levels in more populous areas of the state.
178

At a time when the timber industry is facing a downturn in lumber prices, log prices 

and available work at levels not seen since the Great Depression, our association

has nonetheless committed a great deal of time and personal investment in 

meeting with CARB staff and working on the language of the In-Use On-Road rule 

(hereafter, ―the Diesel Truck Rule‖) (ACLOG1) (ACLOG2)

316. Comment: There has been no significant measurable improvement in California’s 

economy for the Forestry Sector in 2010 and we do not expect much improvement 

for the foreseeable future. For the forestry sector, we believe the On-Road Rule 

staff recognized that it makes little or no sense to spend $20,000 for a particulate 

filter for a truck that's worth $10,000 or less. The compliance schedule has been 

adjusted to recognize this and try to create a situation where an investment only 

has to be made once (either repower or replace). Further, and more important, we 

believe we've demonstrated that there is no particulate filter technology in the 

market place that will work in our forestry application with old, mechanical fuel 

injection, trucks.

The in-State forestry fleet owners have historically turned over their trucks at a rate 

of 4 percent per year. Forestry fleets generally put 30,000-60,000 miles/year on 

their part-time trucks (they're weathered-out 5-6 months/year). So it takes 20-30 

years to ―wear-out‖ the truck. Further, there is no bank in California that will lend 

money to a fleet owner to buy a filter and install it on an old, mechanical fuel 

injection truck.

We applaud On-Road staff's efforts in working with the Forestry Sector to craft an 

excellent Log Truck Provision. Turning the log trucks over at a 10 percent annual 

rate starting January 1, 2014 is a simple, easy-to-understand approach. The 

problem is there's no economy in California to support the implementation. The 

historic replacement rate is 4 percent. What this will mean is that fleet owners will 

declare a percentage of their log trucks under the Log Truck Provision and keep 

the rest within the mileage exemption categories for Agricultural Vehicles. (CFA1)

317. Comment: Our members are aware that they provide a significant amount of the 

employment in rural timber counties. This rule will thus doubly harm local 

counties, first by harming our industry, and then by harming our industry’s support 

to counties. Further, we understand that 60% of trucks in rural California are 1994 

model year and older, and banks won’t lend money on equipment over ten years 

old. Given that these counties are largely in attainment for NOx and PM, they are 

being treated inequitably as against the more high-pollution counties in California, 

with little or no relief funding directed their way. 

At a time when all governments are looking to create more jobs in the U.S. and 

California, the diesel truck regulation is still poised to take jobs away – including 

both private sector and public sector jobs in rural California counties -- unless 

certain actions are taken to reduce the cost and impact of the rule. The proposed 

amendments are a good step in that direction, but more must be done. (ACLOG1)

(ACLOG2)
179

318. Comment: You heard about the economy. Our situation is no different than 

anybody else's. Quite frankly, even with the adjustments, we're not going to be 

able to afford the rule. Some solutions that we've come up with is time credit. We 

haven't had a chance to understand what was presented here this morning, but 

our written comments will talk about that later on after we understand them. One 

other item -- I mentioned this before we've been before the Board. We are 

continuing to have a lot of down time with our new trucks. So we're not anxious to 

jump into more trucks. We would suggest as government funding becomes 

available that the rule become implemented over time. We need to stretch out 

compliance period for a longer period of time. One thing that we are current, some 

of the other people that have spoken, we're a seasonal operation. We're five-anda-half months. A good year for us is seven months. We're trying to get compliance 

to buy new trucks with that money. It's just not possible. One solution we've come 

up with -- I hope our employees aren't watching -- is cancel our health insurance. If 

we cancel our health insurance, we could afford to buy five trucks a year. That is 

not on the table yet, but that is the only place I can see in our operations that we 

can find any extra money to comply with the rules. (REI)

Agency Response: See the response to Comment 268 that explains why the 

regulation is necessary and how given the economic and emission impacts of the 

severe recession, the regulation has been amended to substantially lower the 

compliance costs of affected fleets.

The engine model year schedule for heavier trucks in the amended regulation delays 

the clean-up requirements for the oldest trucks until 2015 and 2016. Vehicles that 

comply with the engine model year schedule for heavier trucks have no requirements 

for pre-1994 model year engines until January 1, 2015 and no requirements for 1994 

and1995 model year engines until January 1, 2016. Fleets with older vehicles can 

avoid having to retrofit these older vehicles and instead elect to wait to replace these 

vehicles with newer used trucks that are originally equipped with PM filters. 

In addition, owners of trucks with permanent bunks that haul logs could elect to comply 

the Log Truck Phase-in Option. This alternative compliance option does not require 

installation of PM retrofits, but instead requires the phase in of 2010 model year 

emissions equivalent engines at the rate of 10% per year from January 1, 2014, to 

January 1, 2023. Vehicles must be labeled ―AG‖ on both doors, like the trucks using the 

agricultural provision. The log truck provision applies statewide and there are no 

mileage limits. In a mixed fleet, can the log truck provision and the agricultural truck 

provisions be used together. The number of trucks that can use the log truck provision 

and the agricultural vehicle provisions is limited to the number of vehicles owned by the 

fleet on January 1, 2009. Fleets must opt-in by January1, 2012, and identify which 

trucks will use this alternative compliance option for log trucks. 

Vehicles that are operated exclusively in the NOx Exempt Areas (typically rural areas) 

can also reduce costs by delaying compliance with the PM filter requirements for 

heavier trucks and by making any truck exempt from the requirement to upgrade to a 

2010 model year engine if equipped with a PM filter.PM filter requirements for heavier 

vehicles may be delayed until January 1, 2014, at which time the fleet owner must have 
180

PM filters on 33 percent of their vehicles. By 2015, 66 percent of the vehicles must 

have PM filters and all vehicles must have PM filters by 2016. The fleet owner must 

report the vehicle information to the ARB, and label (or using a tracking system) 

vehicles the use the extension. Vehicles that have been reported and are equipped 

with PM filters will not need to be replaced starting 2020 like other trucks as long as 

they continue to operate exclusively in the NOx exempt areas.

Fleet owners that comply with the engine model year schedule for heavier trucks must 

meet the PM filter requirements according to the schedule and do not need to report; 

however, if any of the vehicles in the fleet will stay in the NOx exempt areas, whether 

they are lighter trucks or heavier trucks, the fleet owner can use the replacement 

exemption by reporting information about each vehicle and PM filter installed on the 

engine before the replacements are required in the appropriate model year compliance 

schedule. At that time the owner must label the vehicle (or using a tracking system). 

See the responses to Comments 342 through 362 for general information on incentive 

funding programs and in particular, see the responses to Comments 342, 360, and 362

for information applicable to log trucks, trucks that drive limited miles and trucks that 

operate in rural areas.

319. Comment: Even with the proposed amendments this rule will dramatically impact 

employment in rural California. There simply is not the money available for the 

updates even with the amendments in this rule, for rural operations to continue 

with seasonal constraints as they have for multiple generations. These companies 

have provided jobs in rural California for generations and today these same areas 

are listed in the top ten cleanest air districts in the Country. Even though these 

districts are ranked high nationally for clean air, businesses within them will suffer 

greater impacts and higher costs to comply when compared with companies 

operating in San Joaquin and South Coast air basins. The inequity in this 

regulation is due to seasonality of operation and access to public funding. A 

majority of the trucks operating in rural California are pre 1994 mechanical 

engines. These trucks are still being utilized because seasonal operations take 

decades to exhaust the useful life of a truck, not to mention the cost to purchase a 

replacement truck or engine using a rural business model, State agencies have no 

concept of the burden this puts on small business in the current financial situation. 

Replacing a pre-1994 mechanical engine with a post-1994 electric engine is 

something that can be done at a reasonable cost or hopefully no more than the fair 

market value of the original truck itself. In NOx compliant rural California the result 

of taking mechanical engines out of service and replacing them with electronic 

versions would have an astronomical impact on the reduction of Particulate Matter. 

Replacing mechanical engines with electric engines and no further requirements 

could save jobs in rural clean air districts while providing significant PM reduction. 

Instead the PM reduction will come from business’s closing their doors and 

eliminating jobs because of the cost of this rule. Everyone would like to have a 

new truck however spending money that the business does not have makes no 

sense. Requiring local trucking firms to run the cleanest diesel technology in the 
181

low use areas of the state that currently have the cleanest air in the nation makes 

little sense either. (ALOG)

Agency Response: Please see response to comment 318 on the compliance options 

that lower the compliance cost for log trucks and for vehicles that operate exclusively in 

cleaner parts of the state defined as NOx Exempt Areas. Costs are lowered even 

further if the fleet has downsized since October 1, 2006. See response to 

Comment 128 for more details on how fleets can take advantage of the downsizing 

credits to lower compliance costs further. 

Commenter’s recommendation for replacing a pre-1994 engine with a post-1994 engine 

as a method to reduce PM emission would result in some PM emissions reductions, but 

would not be as health protective as an engine equipped with a PM filter. Diesel engines 

produce a complex mixture of air pollutants including diesel particulate matter that is a 

toxic air contaminant. Diesel PM emissions have the potential to cause cancer, 

premature death, and other health problems. PM retrofit filters are a cost effective 

method to reduce exposure to harmful particulate matter emissions including fine 

particles. Finally, if suitable PM filter is not available for the engine, the amended 

regulation allows for annual compliance extensions until 2018.

320. Comment: My constituents have very grave concerns with how this will affect 

their livelihoods. So the voters of California are interested in clean air. They are 

also interested in having jobs in an economy. And the direction this Board I hope 

can go will be able to pause and take into account what the best solutions really 

are in a practical way, especially for rural California where the air attainment zones 

are doing better. I know the issues down in the valley are more acute. But we are 

doing pretty good up in the north and much of rural California. So when we look at 

the plan -- and I know you're working on amendments right now. As we move 

forward, that we can take into account some areas are doing better than others 

and some areas don't need nearly the focus. And so as dollars are allocated, 

whether that's through Carl Moyer or other methods, let's put these efforts where 

it's really needed. 

But let the folks that are doing well have a little more of a time line. So one of the 

things I'm talking about is that people with fleets that need updating, let's let the 

process work through normal attrition. My own farm, for example, we've purchased 

newer trucks for us in the last couple years that have brought us quite a bit into the 

direction you would like to see us go. We're running cleaner trucks than the 70s 

models we've had in the past. So we are achieving right there just with normal 

attrition 90 percent increases in efficiency in those trucks for the low mileage that 

we use in agriculture. Applying that model to all across the industry, the long haul 

people that use them up fairly quickly, trade them off, the medium line people and 

the mom and pops as these move down the steps, we're achieving air quality 

improvements dramatically just through that transition. And this is then affordable. 

I can afford to upgrade my trucks one generation from a 70s model to a 90s 

model. So can the mom and pops and the medium ones, but they can't all just 

jump from 1970 to 2012. And I appreciate that you've worked that way with the ag 

exemption, but more folks out there need this kind of relief. And so as you 
182

consider these amendments and other policies as you push forward, please really 

take a look at what that means. All manner of truckers, especially in the mom and 

pops, they can't afford to put on technology that does not work for them. We are 

even seeing it with the newer rigs. Brand-new ones, they're having to get many 

times major repairs because the retrofit equipment or the new equipment they're 

putting on is not working for them. (MALFA)

Agency Response: The commenter is correct to note that emissions are expected to 

decrease as fleets normally replace older trucks with newer ones; however, the 

emissions reductions do not occur fast enough in California to meet federal air quality 

standards. See the response to Comment 268 that explains why the regulation is 

necessary and how given the economic and emission impacts of the severe recession,

the regulation has been amended to substantially lower the compliance costs of 

affected fleets.

The amended regulation continues to recognize that certain areas in California do not 

need the same emissions reductions as the rest of the state. Please see response to 

comment 318 regarding compliance vehicles that operate exclusively in NOx Exempt 

Areas

Also, see the response to Comment 308 on how the amended regulation substantially 

lowers the compliance costs for small fleets with three or fewer vehicles.

Please see response to Comment 93 for details regarding the durability and availability 

of retrofit PM filters. Finally, if a suitable PM filter is not available for the engine, the 

amended regulation allows for annual compliance extensions until 2018.

321. Comment: On behalf of Associated California Loggers, we thank the Air 

Resources Board and you for changes and amendments made or contemplated to 

the Diesel Truck Rule. At the same time, we remain concerned that the 

implementation of the Diesel Truck Rule will require a careful and ongoing review 

of the effect of the divested economy on the ability of our members to comply with 

the rule, and a search for grant funds which can be used to meet compliance 

requirements. Additionally we believe that we must continue to work on the 

measures by which all provisions of the rule can be made workable and costeffective at a time when emissions inventories are decreasing as a natural 

consequence of the economy.

California is already experiencing a decline in the ―logging infrastructure‖ 

necessary to manage our forestlands and assist in the prevention of massive fires 

and to assist in the fight against climate change. In adopting these amendments, 

we hope that the Air Board will continue to offer its understanding of the particular 

problems of the timber industry in complying with the Diesel Truck Rule.

(ACLOG1)(ACLOG2)

Agency Response: Please see response to Comment 318 regarding compliance 

options that spread out the compliance costs for log trucks and for vehicles that operate

exclusively in NOx Exempt Areas. The response also describes how the changes to the 

regulation affect funding opportunities.
183

322. Comment: Even as we have all worked towards meeting deadlines imposed by 

the state and federal government on these diesel rules, the national, state and 

logging economies have refused to meet any deadlines for recovery thus far. 

Associated California Loggers still has many members who are struggling, month 

to month, to keep their businesses going and to provide for their families. For 

these members, the requirements of any rule that might involve cost – the 

purchase of equipment or trucks, the retirement of trucks upon which they depend 

to make a living – cannot even be contemplated at this time. We must use the 

years remaining to us before the Diesel Truck Rule requirements become fully 

operative to find the means to make this rule work financially. In addition, we 

believe that it is appropriate to further delay the start of Diesel Truck Rule 

requirements, given that the economy is not improving markedly and we can 

assume that this will keep the emissions inventory levels in California low and 

ahead of your schedule for further reduction. (ACLOG1) (ACLOG2)

Agency Response: Staff analysis demonstrated that emissions from trucks, buses, 

and construction equipment were much lower by the end of 2010 than previously 

anticipated in the SIP. The updated forecasts strongly suggest that emissions would 

also be lower in 2014, and the amendments providing for greater compliance flexibility 

have taken this into account. However, the regulation is still needed for the State to 

meet federal air quality standards and SIP commitments. See the response to 

Comment 268 that explains why the regulation is necessary and how given the 

economic and emission impacts of the severe recession, the regulation has been 

amended to substantially lower the compliance costs of affected fleets.

Please see response to Comment 318 regarding compliance options that spread out the 

compliance costs for log trucks and for vehicles that operate exclusively in NOx Exempt 

Areas.

323. Comment: Costs of purchasing and financing diesel particulate filters, let alone 

new diesel trucks, are prohibitive. Our logging season is short (six months or less) 

and the ability of our members to earn a living, make a small profit, or even break 

even is limited in the best of times. These are not the best of times. Our ability to 

earn the income to re-pay loans is limited. 

The rule contemplates our companies being able to set aside the money, or to 

secure the financing, to buy new logging trucks --- or to buy PM filters for existing 

older trucks. But our members cannot borrow money against their trucks as 

collateral (CARB has been presented with letters from the banking industry saying 

this.)

CARB staff has told our membership that if the filters are not a cost-effective 

solution, ―you might as well buy the new truck.‖ Easier said than done. Our 

members are currently relying on older trucks, or fleets containing older trucks, in 

reliance on the long life of those trucks. The regulation will continue to render 

those older trucks worthless for resale in California, while requiring our companies 

to buy new trucks. Thus, our members won’t be able to use the sale of their older

trucks to finance the purchase of new trucks, which can cost upwards of $130,000. 
184

And, as forestry competes in a world market, we cannot pass on these additional 

costs to consumers. (ACLOG1)(ACLOG2)

Agency Response: Staff met with representatives of the logging industry to better 

understand the industry and their concerns with the existing regulation. Given the 

specific characteristics of logging trucks, staff recognizes that the retrofits might not be 

the best compliance solution for all fleets in the logging industry. Subsequently, as part 

of ARB’s 15-day changes to the proposed amendments, a special replacement option 

for log trucks was added to the amended regulation in response to industry requests.

Trucks that remain in NOx Exempt areas do not have to be replaced if they are 

equipped with a PM filter. Please see response to comment 318 regarding compliance 

options that spread out the compliance costs for log trucks and for vehicles that operate

exclusively in NOx Exempt Areas.

As described in response to Comment 298, there is no evidence to suggest that truck 

prices in California differ significantly compared to other states. See Comment 342

regarding low cost loans.

324. I think that changes in the design and performance of diesel engines should be 

incorporated at the manufacturing level. I, as a business man, understand that as 

technology changes and new products become available, I may have to pay a little 

extra when purchasing something new. What you guys want to do is change the 

standards, making our current fleet noncompliant. This forces us to spend money 

on our existing fleet to comply, or buy new equipment to replace a unit that is a 

productive part of our business. I do not have to explain that these are tough 

economic times, and these standards will force people out of business. Any good 

business owner will upgrade their fleet, over time, when it is necessary. We would 

voluntarily upgrade our fleet to current standards as we gradually phase out the 

older units. All of the units we purchased in the past met the guidelines and 

standards set during the time of purchase. (TTOW) 

Agency Response: The emissions are expected to decrease as fleets normally 

replace older trucks with newer ones; however, the emissions reductions do not occur 

fast enough in California to meet federal air quality standards. See the response to 

Comment 268 that explains why the regulation is necessary and how given the 

economic and emission impacts of the severe recession, the regulation has been 

amended to substantially lower the compliance costs of affected fleets. 

i) Continue Monitoring and Evaluation

325. Comment: We believe the Board should direct staff to continue diligently looking 

for modifications to these rules to reduce the financial burden in California's 

struggling economy with specific emphasis on integration and consistency 

between the Rules. (CFA1)

326. Comment: We appreciate the effort ARB has put into reviewing emissions 

estimates resulting from the downturn in the economy; and, consequently, the 

proposed rule changes based on these realities. We encourage ARB to continue 
185

assessing emissions and the impact of the economy.

(CCIMA1)(AARMC)(CEMEX1)(PRMI)(SYAR)

Agency Response: ARB will continue to track the economy and emission trends as 

explained in response to comment 285.

j) Economic Effects on Retrofit Manufacturers

327. Comment: These changes will also have an impact on the number of green jobs 

created here in California. Our business is done through California distribution 

where literally thousands of jobs are created by my industry to market, sell, install 

and maintain VDECS systems. The elimination of the requirement for retrofit for 

off-road and the slashing of the affected vehicles for on-road by more than half will 

literally result in the elimination of the need for many thousands of these green 

jobs. (JMC1) (JMC2)

328. Comment: ARB’s diesel fleet regulation push California into a sustainable green 

economy and create jobs associated with the manufacture, sales, installation, and 

servicing of diesel exhaust emission controls. A survey conducted in late 2008 

shows that MECA members directly contribute over 65,000 green jobs around the 

country including more than 1,000 jobs in California. These jobs include technical 

and service personnel responsible for selling, developing, installing and 

maintaining diesel retrofits that are employed by our members. A more recent 

analysis took into account independent small businesses in California that install 

and maintain retrofit devices and estimated 4,000 jobs are associated with the 

diesel retrofit industry in California. An independent economic analysis completed 

in early 2009 (available on MECA’s diesel retrofit website, www.dieselretrofit.org, 

under ―Useful Documents‖) translates investments in diesel retrofit technologies 

into jobs associated with manufacturing, sales, installation, and maintenance of 

advanced emission control technologies. Every million dollars spent on diesel 

retrofit technology creates or preserves about 21 jobs. The mandatory PM retrofits 

on 1998-2006 MY trucks/buses (> 26,000 lb GVWR) included in the ARB staff 

proposal are estimated to create more than 20,000 jobs. On the contrary, the 

removal of mandatory PM retrofits for 1994-1997 trucks and the lighter trucks < 

26,000 lbs, as well as, all retrofit requirements from California’s off-road equipment 

eliminates the opportunity for more than 26,000 additional retrofit-related jobs. 

(MECA1)

329. Comment: Back in 2000 or so CARB invited JMI and other emission control 

technology companies to come to California and develop and commercialize PM 

control technology for the Diesel Risk Reduction Program. We came, and we 

developed, verified and commercialized technology to reduce PM from HDD 

vehicles by over 85% (Level 3 devices). We came and spent many millions of 

dollars to do so on the promise of a defined market that allowed for the 

development of a business plan that justified the development, verification and 

commercialization of these technologies. Now, due to the effects of the economy 

and reduced economic activity, that promised market has been dramatically 

reduced.
186

Economic relief was a goal of these amendments. However, one of the affected 

industries that has not been included in this economic relief effort is my own, the 

VDECS manufacturers. We as an industry, and specifically for my company, JMI, 

have spent millions of dollars to develop, verify, and in several cases reverify 

technology due to amendments in the Board approved verification process, and 

then commercialize these technologies. The economic downturn has affected 

JMI's overall business just like all the regulated industries here in CA and across 

the nation. We have started conversations with Staff on some ideas for economic 

relief but we would ask that the Board direct Staff to look at specific ways that the 

VDECS manufacturers can be provided with some economic relief. (JMC1) 

(JMC2)

330. Comment: We are also heavily involved in the retrofit market here in California. In 

2000, ARB essentially invited Johnson Matthey and our industry to come here to 

California and essentially develop, verify, and commercialize technology for the 

Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. We came to California. We've spent millions of dollars 

developing technology and verifying, some cases re-verifying, and 

commercializing technology. That was based on our business plan, which 

essentially came off of a market that, in essence, was proposed and promised 

based on your rules. 

Today, there are more than 21 verified systems out there, some of them mine. We 

are also in process verifying combined NOx PM systems, which can take 

advantage of your rule by meeting 2007 emission standards and allowing engines 

or vehicles to be operated until 2023. Now due to the reduced activity because of 

the economy, we do agree that relief is necessary. In fact, Johnson Matthey, our 

business has been affected. And quite honestly, just the specter of the changes in 

the rule has already started to really slow down the number of retrofits being done 

here in California. 

You guys had recommended the staff to look at economic relief for industry. I 

guess regulated industry was what people had in mind. But our industry has also 

felt the impact of the recession and such. And we would ask that the Board 

consider directing staff who we've had conversations with already to look at some 

measures for economic relief for our industry as well. 

Our VDECS products are sold here in California through distribution, through 

California companies. We market. We sell. We install. And we essentially maintain 

these systems through California green jobs. The changes to the rules really will 

impact the number of jobs that can be foreign. (JMC2)

331. Comment: Ten years since the finalization of the Diesel Risk Reduction Program 

(DRRP), the proposed changes in the In-use Heavy Duty Diesel-Fueled Fleet 

Rules have eliminated 160,000 highway retrofits and over 100,000 off-road 

retrofits. This leaves the number of remaining diesel engines requiring mandatory 

retrofit in the highway segment to just over 100,000. Mandatory retrofit 

requirements of offroad machines have been completely eliminated. The 

investments made in support of ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Program by all 

verified device manufacturers in the emissions control industry will be greatly 
187

impacted by the proposed in-use rule changes. Despite the fact the verified device 

manufacturers have already made numerous investments and re-investments over

the past ten years, our industry remains the only stakeholders before you today 

which still faces the full impact of the economy as well as the proposed pullback in 

the in-use fleet regulations. (CDT1)

332. Comment: We're a manufacturer and designer of electrically-regenerated diesel 

particulate filters. We've been developing these products over the last ten years at 

significant cost to us as individuals and founders as well as our investors. We 

made that investment based on supporting the market created by the clean air 

regulations here in California. These systems take years to design and develop 

and to verify, and we've reached the point where the mandatory retrofit regulation 

would finally start to produce fruit to support this industry over time. I believe the 

proposed changes will impact not just our company but the long term health of the 

industry. It will lead to fewer green jobs in California. In our particular case, we've 

had no choice but to push off our implementation of a 40-person assembly shop in 

the San Joaquin Valley that was going to be specifically building off-road retrofit 

devices. That sends a strong message mine to invest hard to come by private 

capital in other places and other things. The proposed changes I think set the 

stage for requests for additional relief from other industries, and I think this is a 

slippery slope that could ultimately defer or delay the recovery of the economy of 

California that many believe will be on the backs of clean tech jobs. In our 

particular case, we're a member of MECA. We support what MECA has proposed 

as relief for the industry. We ask specifically that you reconsider the 100 percent 

removal of mandatory retrofits. (RYPOS)

333. Comment: Our members have invested and continue to invest significant 

resources in developing and verifying diesel retrofit technologies for the whole 

range of in-use diesel engines currently operating in California, including on-road, 

off-road, and stationary sources. A 2007 survey of MECA members estimated that 

more than $2 billion has been invested in developing and commercializing diesel 

emission control technologies for both new and in-use vehicles. New diesel 

emission control products continue to be added to ARB’s list of verified retrofit 

technologies. There are twenty-one Level 3 diesel retrofit technologies on ARB’s 

verified list each of which has taken between $1-2 million of up-front investment to 

develop and verify. Retrofit manufacturers have made substantial additional 

investments in verification costs associated with de-verified technologies, revised 

verification requirements, and pending verifications of new retrofit technologies to 

further expand the options available to fleet owners to comply with ARB’s in-use 

fleet regulations. In 2013, off-road VDECS manufacturers will be required to reverify existing systems using the Non-Road Transient Combined (NRTC) test 

cycle. Manufacturers have made significant investments in re-verifying retrofit PM 

reduction technologies to comply with other changes to ARB’s verification 

requirements such as NO2 limits. Furthermore, manufacturers are required to 

begin the in-use compliance portion of the verification process after the sale of 

only 50 units. Before their initial investment is recovered, manufacturers are 

required to remove and replace devices from vehicles for testing. In-use testing 
188

requires significant resources at an added cost of approximately $0.5 million per 

Level 3 device that manufacturers must bear at a time when their business has 

disappeared due to regulatory changes and delays. Technology providers rely on 

regulatory stability in order to develop their business plans and justify the 

necessary investments to meet the commercial needs in time for implementation. 

The regulatory changes outlined in this proposal have significantly diminished their 

present and future business outlook. (MECA1)

Agency Response: Staff realizes that the amendments will reduce the number of 

retrofit PM filters required for fleets and economically impact the retrofit manufacturers. 

However, this impact must be balanced against the rest of the affected fleets that have 

been impacted by the recession. The amended regulation lowers costs substantially,

delays vehicle replacements and continues to rely on PM filters to achieve substantial 

PM emissions reductions. See the response to Comment 268 that explains why the 

regulation is necessary and how given the economic and emission impacts of the 

severe recession, the regulation has been amended to substantially lower the 

compliance costs of affected fleets.

In mitigating the impacts of the amendments on retrofit manufacturers, staff expanded

the early compliance credits to reward proactive fleets and to further encourage fleets to 

install retrofits early. Fleets that have already installed a retrofit PM filter or install them 

prior to July, 2011 would be able to treat another vehicle as compliant until 2017. The 

vehicle that was retrofitted early would also extend compliance until 2020. The 

amended regulation also extends the expiration date of the credit from 2014 to 2017. 

Furthermore, any vehicle that is equipped with a PM filter prior to 2014 can delay 

compliance until at least 2020. Finally, fleets that equip their vehicles (both those above 

and below 26,000 lbs) with PM filters by 2014 extend the vehicles’ compliance until 

2023. These early compliance provisions are expected to result in earlier and greater 

demand for PM retrofits.

334. Comment: In collaboration with the rest of the industry through MECA, a list of 

proposed relief measures has been provided to ARB staff for consideration. Based 

upon initial discussions, we believe that a significant period of time could still pass 

until any relief is provided to the retrofit industry. Clean Diesel Technologies is 

asking the board again today to reiterate its support for the industry and direct 

senior ARB staff to urgently lead the pursuit of immediate relief measures which 

are comparable to the loss in market that have resulted from these in-use fleet rule 

changes. (CDT1)

335. Comment: Market stability demands finalization of the in-use on-road rule. Since 

release of the proposed changes to the Highway and Off-Road In-use Rules, we 

have observed that fleets are delaying purchases hoping that even further relief 

will be provided to fleets. For this reason, it is of paramount importance that the 

proposed changes for the In-Use Highway Truck Rule are approved without further 

delay or any further reduction in the number of mandatory retrofits. Given the 

industry investments needed to insure supply capacity requirements in 2012 thru 

2014, the highway truck retrofit market needs, at a minimum, stability in the interim 

year of 2011. Further delaying the In-use Highway Truck Rule is likely to result in 
189

the decline of sales in 2011 creating further financial challenges for retrofit device 

manufacturers. (CDT1)

Agency Response: The ARB recognizes the importance of retrofit manufacturers in its 

partnership to achieve its clean air obligation. As such, the Board directed staff to not 

only develop amendments that provide relief for fleets but also to maintain support for 

clean technologies. Please see response to Comment 333 for information on credits for 

early installation of retrofit PM filters. Staff expects regulatory amendments to be 

effective by the end of 2011, and we do not anticipate additional changes in the near 

future.

336. Comment: We've for the last ten years strategically invested behind ARB's clean 

air objectives. And we had to make these investments, not just over time, but also 

had to make green investments in the products to maintain compliance. And 

despite the fact that we've made these numerous investments, we remain today 

one of the -- I think the only stakeholder before you which still faces the full impact 

of the bad economic times, but additionally the pull back of these regulation. 

Today one of the things I would ask the Board is to reiterate its support for the 

industry and direct senior ARB staff to lead the pursuit of immediate relief 

measures for the retrofit device manufactures so that we have some stability in the 

next year as we ramp up towards complying with the demands in 2012 and 2014. 

Additionally, we have had reports from our distributors already that when the 

proposals came out for these rule changes that fleets immediately stopped making 

purchases. And that's further destabilizing the marketplace that we have to 

operate in. And we again saw further destabilization in the Lower Emission School 

Bus Program. Our distributors were recording money that was set to flow, that 

should have flowed a year and a half ago is now delayed because of the removal 

of the 26,000 pounds in school buses. There was already money lined up for the 

school buses, and now it's leading to another delay where all the money is being 

shuffled to other school buses. This is a very critical time to say we need you 

today to pass these rule changes so that, at a minimum, we have finality and we 

have stability. (CDT2)

337. Comment: MECA requests that the Board direct senior ARB staff to quickly 

identify relief opportunities within the verification program to off-set the loss of 

revenue from these regulatory roll backs. (MECA1)

Agency Response: See response to Comments 333 and 335 for information on how 

credits for early installation of retrofit PM filters are expected to stabilize the PM retrofit 

market.

The Board further determined that children’s health risk associated with diesel PM was 

important and therefore directed that the amendments should be modified to retain the 

PM filter requirement for school buses with a GVWR less than 26,001 pounds. Those 

changes were made as part of the 15-day changes to the proposed amendments. By 

maintaining the PM filter requirements for the lighter school buses, the demand for 

school bus retrofits should return.
190

ARB will be addressing amendments to the ARB’s verification program separately.

8. Funding

a) Requests for Additional Incentive Funds for Log Trucks

338. Comment: We urge CARB to explore and provide as much funding as is 

necessary to allow California companies to purchase filters, engines, and trucks. 

Funding mechanisms must be found, with an emphasis on grants rather than 

loans, as neither the general economy nor the timber harvesting economy make it 

feasible to repay loans in the amounts contemplated by this regulation. (ACLOG1)

339. Comment: The simple problem is that there are not sufficient monetary incentives 

through existing programs to make the On-Road Rule workable for in-state fleet 

owners. The Carl Moyer Program has insufficient funds and the match 

requirement is crippling to potential applicants. The Forestry Sector is not eligible 

for Proposition 1(B) funds or 118 funds. (CFA1)

340. Comment: Financial burden is still beyond the ability of many in-state fleet owners 

to comply even with these modifications. You'll hear more about that. So I won't 

say any more. We obviously need more money in the Carl Moyer and other related 

programs. And I was extremely gratified there was $200 million in the omnibus bill 

for federal emission reductions. Unfortunately, Senator Reed pulled the omnibus 

bill yesterday, which was bad news. And obviously $200 million, California could 

suck that up in a heartbeat. That was the national number. (CFA2)

341. Comment: Our industry is committed to the achievement of proper air quality in 

California, and our individual companies have strived to comply with air quality 

requirements as they exist now. Some of our members have participated in the 

much-needed Carl Moyer Program which provides funds for retrofits of diesel 

vehicles – but many other of our members have found their companies ineligible 

for Carl Moyer funds or trying to obtain them in poor counties that cannot provide 

matching funds and hence refuse to participate. (ACLOG1)

342. Comment: At the January 22, 2009 meeting of the Air Resources Board at which 

the original Diesel Truck Rule was adopted by the Board, you made the following 

comments:

―CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We were talking when we broke about the fact 

that the federal government has just made available (a) really substantial 

amount of money for agricultural air quality purposes. Ms. D’Adamo is familiar 

with how that worked. I believe it goes mostly for irrigation pumps on farms. 

But for the first time, there was money made available for mobile sources like 

tractors as well...Clearly this is a problem that can be solved with money 

(emphasis ours.) And to the extent that we can identify any potential new 

sources of funding that can assist, I think that ought to be factored into the 

discussion as well. ―(Transcript, January 22, 2009 Air Board meeting, page 

139, lines 5-17.)
191

Associated California Loggers concurs with your statements as the Chair. This is 

a problem that can be solved with money, and we must act over the coming 

months to identify sources of money that can be used to purchase filters, engines, 

and new trucks.

One existing source of money is the Carl Moyer Program, which should be a good 

source of grants for our members to purchase this equipment, but which currently 

poses many barriers to doing so: ineligibility to apply for Carl Moyer funds based 

on the counties in which we work or the number of miles we run on our trucks 

each year; unwillingness of impoverished local governments to cover matching 

costs; lack (in some cases) of enough money in a local Carl Moyer account to 

meet demand.

We also understand that logging and log trucking companies are largely unable to 

access Proposition 1(B) monies because our companies do not operate in areas 

that are part of the ―goods movement‖ corridors in that program.

We believe that all of these obstacles can be surmounted via a coordinated effort 

among CARB, the business community, the federal government, local 

governments, and, if need be, the U.S. Congress and the State Legislature to 

make the changes to law and policy necessary to free up Carl Moyer funding, 

secure federal funding and make the logging community eligible for such funds.

The emissions reduction benefits from this action are conferred on the entire state 

of California; we should have access to monies that will allow us to confer these 

benefits without going out of business. (ACLOG1)

Agency Response: As described in Chapter VII of the October 2010 Staff Report: 

Initial Statement of Reasons, the proposed regulatory amendments are expected to 

reduce compliance costs by reducing the number of required diesel particulate filters

(DPFs), delaying truck replacements substantially, and extending credits. The overall 

cost of the regulation is expected to be reduced by about 60 percent – from $5.5 billion 

in the original regulation to about $2.2 billion after the proposed amendments. 

However, even considering the reduced overall cost, ARB recognizes these costs are 

still significant and that financial assistance programs are not adequate to fund all of the 

emission reductions necessary to meet clean air standards and reduce exposure to 

toxic air contaminants. As is the case with most regulations, the majority of compliance 

costs are expected to be borne by the regulated community.

The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines include specific funding eligibility for log truck 

projects that provide early or extra emissions reductions, and coordinate with the log 

truck compliance deadlines. In addition, many log trucks are eligible to participate in the 

On-Road Voucher Incentive Program (VIP), implemented through the Carl Moyer 

Program, as well as the Providing Loan Assistance for California Equipment (PLACE) 

program, which is implemented through the California Capital Access Program 

(CalCAP). 

VIP funding is available throughout California on a first-come first-served basis and 

does not restrict usage to a specific air district. Therefore, VIP funding is currently 
192

available even in rural areas that may not have funding available through the traditional 

Carl Moyer Program. VIP provides up to $45,000 for truck replacement and up to 

$10,000 for PM filters. VIP allows participation by trucks with a manufacturer gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of at least 19,501 pounds, and minimum usage is set at 

15,000 miles or 1,500 gallons of fuel consumed per year as long as the project achieves 

cost-effective emission reductions. ARB recognizes that the current economic downturn 

could affect mileage accrual for log trucks as well as other vehicles. This can be an 

issue since grant amounts are largely dependent on vehicle mileage or fuel 

consumption. To help provide funding options for lower-mileage trucks, the VIP 

includes a two-for-one option to allow the combined mileage of two existing trucks to be 

used for one replacement truck. This flexibility is expected to help some applicants 

qualify for funding that otherwise would not have met minimum usage requirements or 

may have qualified for very low grant amounts. 

PLACE provides loan assistance to help owners gain access to capital for the portion of 

a project cost that is not covered by a grant. ARB believes that grant programs as well 

as loan assistance programs are important components of the overall funding 

assistance portfolio.

Finally, ARB staff will continue to work with our federal, state, and local partners to 

identify new potential funding opportunities, such as the federal Diesel Emissions 

Reduction Act, that can help to make additional funds available to California truck 

owners.

b) Changes to Existing Funding Programs

343. Comment: The California Air Pollution Control Officer Association (CAPCOA) is 

very concerned that the effects of this rulemaking be assessed in regards to the 

various grant programs for heavy-duty diesel engines. This is essential since 

CARB will be taking this rulemaking action prior to coming out with both revised 

program language and guidance for several of the incentive programs (e.g., Carl 

Moyer, Prop. 1B, VIP). Coordination and consistency between the different grant 

programs and the diesel emission reduction rules are essential for effective and 

efficient use of the funds, and for the expedited protection of public health. The 

CAPCOA Grants Committee is prepared to assist ARB staff in completing a review 

of the packages and identifying areas where appropriate changes may be 

warranted. We urge ARB to implement the needed changes at the same time the 

diesel rulemaking occurs in order to ensure that no gaps or conflicts are created.

(CAPCOA)

344. Comment: We're very pleased to see the credit for the new purchases of 2007 

vehicles. The amendments are welcome relief. And, in fact, for many in our 

segment of the industry, the light at the end of the tunnel is no longer a train 

headed right for us. And it's positive also that with potential expansion of funding 

criteria for Cal Cap and for 1B, many fleets all over the state will be afforded the 

opportunity to purchase compliant equipment with public assistance. (CTA2)

345. Comment: The other comment regarding the grants is that we've had great 

leadership from Board Member Berg and the Committee or the work group that 
193

has been in place. We are very close with your staff with some recommendations 

to fix some of the impediments that currently exist in the program. Your staff 

mentioned in January we will have $12 million to go out with grants. As we begin 

that process, we're going to be offsetting the current grant guidelines and the 

changes in your rule do not match. And there are some obstacles, some 

inconsistencies that would be good for your Board to weigh in on in this resolution. 

So as we begin that process, we can count on your Board to support with the 

specific recommendations that I believe your staff is going to bring to you later on 

anyway, but we can begin that process. And as we have applications, to be able to 

count on those things as being things that your Board supports. (SJV/SC2) 

346. Comment: Adopt uniform program guidelines and funding caps across various 

incentive grant programs (i.e., Prop. 1B, VIP, Moyer, etc.) with a particular focus 

on encouraging emissions reductions as early as possible by increasing program 

participation. (SCAQMD1)

Agency Response: Specific changes to ARB funding programs are considered 

separately from this regulatory process. As described in Chapter VII, Section D of the 

October 2010 Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, 

funding program changes were planned to occur after Board action and direction on the 

proposed regulatory changes. The most recent modifications to the Goods Movement 

Emission Reduction Program and Carl Moyer Program incorporate changes resulting 

from the regulatory amendments. These changes were discussed at Incentive Program 

Advisory Group meetings in November 2010 and April 2011 as well as funding 

workshops in January 2011 and implemented at the April 2011 Board meeting (Carl 

Moyer Program only) to ensure that public comments were considered regarding the 

Truck and Bus amendments. In general, these changes were made to expand funding 

opportunities for fleets and to streamline administrative requirements.

347. Comment: Implementation of the recommendations from the advisory committee 

headed by ARB Board member, Sandra Berg, by streamlining State grants 

programs: Over the past year, a significant effort has been spearheaded by ARB 

Board member, Sandra Berg, in relation to the re-tooling of State grants programs. 

That process has brought forward a number of significant streamlining suggestions 

that would make the granting process easier, more user-friendly and more 

attractive to prospective applicants.

The Air District urges the ARB Board to implement the suggestions from the 

advisory committee now. This would make it possible to mitigate any increased 

emissions that may occur based on the proposed rule amendments in the event of 

improved economic activity. This would also allow the Air District to continue to 

address its health risk concerns via a simplified and less cumbersome State grant 

process. This new streamlined process would retrofit and replace on- and off-road 

vehicles during the period before the proposed start dates of regulatory mandates.

(BAAQMD1) (BAAQMD2) (BAAQMD3)
194

348. Comment: Streamline and simplify application processes that encourage (not 

discourage) participation, especially from small fleet owners and owner operators.

(SCAQMD1)

Agency Response: As described in the response to Comment 346, modifications were 

made to the funding programs after the Board adoption of these regulatory 

amendments. In April 2011, the Board approved updated Carl Moyer Program 

guidelines that included streamlined administrative requirements for air districts and 

applicants, modifications to increase participation from minimum allocation and rural air 

districts, and provided flexibility to air districts to make contract adjustments. These 

updates incorporated suggestions made by the Incentive Program Advisory Group and 

are geared at increasing overall participation. 

349. Comment: Support air districts in efforts to seek streamlined legislation and 

extension of State grants programs: One of the principal recommendations of the 

advisory committee mentioned above has been the request to streamline the 

requirements of State grants programs. This recommendation has received strong 

support from industry, air districts, the public and local communities. However, 

ARB staff has insisted that they believe legislative changes will be necessary in 

order to make this happen.

In light of the proposed rule amendments and their implementation timeline, the Air 

District believes that ARB should support local air districts and CAPCOA in a 

legislative effort to seek simplified and unified requirements for State grants 

programs. Additionally, the Air District believes that ARB should also support an 

extension of State grants programs through the year 2024. This would allow air 

districts to continue to achieve emissions reductions over and above what is 

required by the proposed amendments to the regulations. (BAAQMD1) 

(BAAQMD2) (BAAQMD3)

Agency Response: As noted in Comment 347, the Incentive Program Advisory Group, 

led by ARB Board Member Sandra Berg, provides a forum for discussing policy level 

issues relating to the development and ongoing implementation of the ARB incentive 

programs. We anticipate that the group will continue to provide a useful venue for 

policy level coordination among agencies and programs. All interested stakeholders are 

invited and encouraged to participate. ARB’s funding program staff will continue to work 

together to implement near term and long term solutions identified by the Incentive 

Program Advisory Group, CAPCOA, and other stakeholders. 

350. Providing additional funding and larger percentages to loan guarantee programs to 

increase grant program participation: As the ARB is aware, one of the main 

considerations which led to the proposed regulatory amendments was the 

downturn in the economy. This economic downturn has also had a severe impact 

on the ability of those affected by the proposed regulations to obtain credit or loans 

to replace equipment. (BAAQMD1) (BAAQMD2) (BAAQMD3)

351. Based on input obtained through an End-User issues process initiated by 

CAPCOA and subsequent feedback from the State grants advisory group; the Air 
195

District urges the ARB to consider additional funding and larger percentages for 

loan guarantee programs associated with equipment replacement. Such programs 

would provide the ability for grant applicants to secure the additional funding 

necessary to replace equipment and would give confidence to lending institutions 

to invest in these projects. (BAAQMD1) (BAAQMD2) (BAAQMD3)

Agency Response: As described in the response to Comment 342, PLACE assists 

trucking fleets operating in all areas of California to obtain affordable financing for truck 

purchases as well as ARB-verified equipment such as exhaust retrofits and 

SmartWay-certified equipment to improve fuel efficiency. PLACE provides a stable 

financing structure enabling eligible financial institutions to provide competitive-rate 

loans to small businesses that fall just outside of conventional underwriting standards. 

Since inception in 2009, the PLACE program has made some program refinements to 

better address the needs of trucking fleets. In November 2009, Senate Bill 832 

(Chapter 643, Statutes of 2009) was signed to allow truck manufacturing and dealer 

finance companies to participate in the PLACE program. The newly-added financing 

entities have a unique knowledge of the trucking industry and are able to utilize their 

established relationships with fleet owners to market PLACE to eligible borrowers. 

Additionally, in October 2010, ARB authorized CalCAP to change the premium 

contribution from 14 to 20 percent with the goal of increased accessibly. 

352. Comment: Allow increased participation by medium sized fleets in State grants 

programs: As they currently stand and under proposed revisions, the guidelines of 

State grants programs do not provide for sufficient funding to address reducing the 

emissions from on-road fleets in the 3 to 20 vehicle size range. The Air District 

believes that this segment of the regulated community comprises a significant 

portion of the emissions inventory and that while small fleets in the 1 to 3 vehicle 

size range still requires significant help, it should not be done at the expense of 

these medium size fleets. Therefore, the Air District encourages ARB to revise its 

State grants program guidelines to allow significant funding to be available for both 

of the equipment categories above. (BAAQMD1) (BAAQMD2) (BAAQMD3)

353. Comment: Increase opportunities for small businesses by adjusting the definition 

of small fleets to include small businesses with more than three vehicles. This 

concept is in alignment with CARB's current focus on assisting small businesses 

and we would welcome the opportunity to assist in crafting an appropriate 

definition of small fleets. It is our understanding that your staff is considering such 

flexibilities as part of the Carl Moyer Program retooling early next year 

(SCAQMD1)

Agency Response: As described in the response to Comment 346, modifications were 

made to the funding programs to incorporate changes due to these regulatory 

amendments. At the April 2011 Board meeting, the new 2011 Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines were adopted, including expanded funding eligibility for fleets of 4-10 

vehicles. 
196

354. Comment: Maximize flexibility with respect to the definition of "surplus" as 

allowed under federal law, with an emphasis on maximizing the availability of 

projects and cost-effectiveness. (SCAQMD1)

355. Comment: We understand, first hand, the strain on California’s fleets caused by 

today’s economic environment. MECA supports ARB’s efforts to increase the 

availability of state incentive funds, grants and loan programs to help end-users 

comply with the off-road and on-road regulations. End users that have to comply 

with ARB’s various diesel risk reduction regulations can make use of federal 

economic stimulus funds, state incentive funds and loan programs to help pay for 

clean diesel technologies and vehicles that comply with these regulations. 

California incentive programs need modifications that provide additional 

opportunities for the use of verified retrofit technologies. These should include; 

accepting projects with 2 years of surplus emissions and additional weighting 

given to cost effectiveness of diesel retrofits relative to repowers or replacements.

(MECA1)

356. Comment: With respect to the on-road regulations, we basically appreciate the 

changes you've made to delay compliance. Our refuse fleet has basically been in 

compliance with the previous rule. We were a little concerned about the fact you 

eliminated the compliance credits for alternative-fueled vehicles, but we think the 

delay might provide additional opportunities for us to get the funding through Carl 

Moyer and other types of programs. We are aware that you're in the process of 

also revising Carl Moyer programs, so we urge you to encourage staff to make 

sure we can secure maximum funding and surplus emission credit opportunities 

through that program. (WMAN) 

Agency Response: As described in the response to Comment 346, modifications were 

made to the funding programs to incorporate changes due to these regulatory 

amendments. At the April 2011 Board meeting, the surplus methodology in the Carl 

Moyer Program was revised to provide greater long term funding opportunities while 

meeting statutory requirements. The revised methodology incorporates a baseline that 

reflects regulatory requirements and compliance dates. 

c) Low Mileage Vehicles

357. Comment: As I've mentioned in previous hearings and workshops, members of 

our industry rarely qualify for any grants or money and have no source of relief. Is 

there any help for our industry? And also to amend the opportunity for grants or 

other forms of aid to allow low mileage industry to participate in relief. (CMSA2)

358. Comment: My husband and I have two trucks. We both drive. One is an '88 with 

extremely low mileage. It's probably one-fourth its life. The other one is a '91. 

Neither one can be retrofitted, repowered. It's impossible. In December of 2008, I 

found out I had qualified for a $50,000 grant for a new truck. And I was quite 

excited about that. But then the Prop. 1B money disappeared. And that was really 

a blessing in disguise because had I bought that truck, I would have lost the truck 

like so many others that have tried to comply and went out and did that. And I 

probably would have lost my home and my business. I'm glad that money dried 
197

up. And contrary to belief, I'm not available for Moyer funds. The dump truckers 

do not go enough miles, so we can't even ask for that. My business is now down 

45 percent, and I have worked more than most. And also up here in the north, as 

you know, we don't work 12 months out of the year due to the rain. This makes it 

even harder for us to make up for lost time. (DSTR).

359. Comment: Every time something comes up, they say call this number and we'll 

help you get a truck. And I call and they tell me I don't qualify. I have a '90 

Peterbilt three axle. I've not heard anybody address the dump truck industry. So I 

think that either you guys don't know about us or don't care about us. I know you 

know about us because you talk to the people with the CDTOA. But how do we 

get funded? How do we get money? How do we get attention of somebody? 

(MAFEE)

360. Comment: The California Dump Truck Owners Association (CDTOA) is a 

501(c)(6) trade association incorporated in 1941. A little over three years ago, we 

represented nearly 2,000 construction industry related trucking company members 

ranging in size from 1 truck to over 350 trucks. Sadly, today that number has 

diminished to fewer than 1,000 due to the recessionary economy, neardepressionary construction industry, the off-road diesel engine rule, and the 

ramifications of the Truck and Bus Regulation. Approximately 60%, or less than 

600, of our members are sole proprietors; small one truck independent contractor 

owner-operator businesses. Additionally, the majority of our members operate low 

mileage vehicles, typically between 20,000 – 65,000 per year. These vehicles are 

all well above 26,001 GVWR, thus do not receive any of the true benefits of the 

recent proposed amendments. It is important to note that due to the relatively low

mileage that the typical construction truck operates, small business owners within 

our industry rarely qualify for any of the grant money or funding CARB constantly 

alludes to. So while you and your staff continue to publicly avow that ―a billion 

dollars is available for retrofits and replacements,‖ our industry continues to be 

overlooked and neglected despite the financial devastation the Truck and Bus 

Regulation has brought and will continue to bring. (CDTOA1)

Agency Response: While substantial public incentive funding has been made 

available to reduce emissions, ARB recognizes that existing financial incentive 

programs are not adequate to fund all of the emission reductions necessary to meet 

clean air standards and reduce exposure to toxic air contaminants. ARB funding 

programs include eligibility criteria to ensure that projects achieve emissions reductions 

and meet statutory requirements. Many factors are considered in establishing eligibility 

for funding programs including cost-effectiveness, usually calculated based on usage 

(mileage or fuel), or competitive application ranking. For the Carl Moyer Program, the 

cost-effectiveness requirement is prescribed in Health and Safety Code Section 44283. 

In general, projects with very low usage tend to have poor cost-effectiveness. 

However, as described in the response to Comment 342, VIP has incorporated flexibility 

to address low-usage trucks. VIP grants can be combined with loan assistance through 

the PLACE program. Additionally, eligible borrowers securing loans through the PLACE 
198

program without the use of ARB’s incentive grants are not subject to the same project 

specific criteria such as cost-effectiveness or usage. 

Other programs that do not include a specific mileage requirement include the Goods 

Movement Emission Reduction Program and the Hybrid Voucher Incentive Program 

(HVIP). The Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program provides funding for 

vehicles with a GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds through a competitive application 

process. The HVIP, part of the AB 118 Air Quality Improvement Program, is a 

first-come, first-served program that provides vouchers for the purchase of hybrid trucks 

or buses, with no mileage requirements. 

d) Rural Fleets

361. Comment: Major grant programs, particularly the large amount of 1B funding, is 

focused exclusively on more populated areas of the state. Mendocino County 

equipment is ineligible strictly because of geography.

Besides the 1B Program, equipment in Mendocino County is also not eligible for 

the following programs –

 EPA Clean Diesel Campaign (no funding for Ozone attainment areas)

 CMAQ Funding (no funding for Ozone attainment areas)

 ARB’s AQIP (AB 118) does not provide funding for projects in Mendocino 

County (ozone status) 

The total amount of grant funding available for private diesel projects in Mendocino 

County is $180,000 annually in Carl Moyer Program funding. Although more 

funding is technically available from the Carl Moyer Program, the District lacks the 

available matching funds to receive its full allocation from ARB. The District also 

expends a small amount of AB 923 funding (enough for less than one bus per 

year) for school bus projects in Mendocino County.

While the Air Resources Board is not considering changes to the Grants Programs 

until a later date – it is critical that these changes are closely coordinated with the 

changes before the Board today. Any changes made in March 2011 will not have 

any effect until projects are approved for funding in the spring of 2012 at the 

earliest (Year 14 of the Carl Moyer Program).

The District Board is requesting that ARB consider ways to expand the benefits of 

the 1B and AB 118 programs to cover equipment in Mendocino County. 

(MCAQMD)

362. Comment: There is no public funding for truck/engine replacement in rural 

California, Mendocino County has turned down Carl Moyer funding the last 3 years 

because they have no matching funds. There are no other direct funding 

opportunities in our County as with most of rural California. Even with the 

matching funds no more than 3 trucks would be replaced assuming the county did 

not use the funds to replace their own engines first. Industry only receives funds 

once municipalities have turned it down, and seldom is there any funding left. 
199

Mendocino County with its clean air is still going to face significant job losses due 

to their employer’s inability to replace trucks in compliance with the amended rule. 

This scenario will play out in multiple rural counties facing the exact same 

problem. (ALOG) 

Agency Response: In addition to the Carl Moyer Program, which is allocated statewide 

based on statutory requirements, several other programs exist that provide funding 

statewide or specifically to rural areas. As discussed in the response to Comment 348, 

the Carl Moyer Program incorporated updates in April 2011 that were geared at 

increasing participation by rural air districts. In addition, recognizing the unique needs 

in rural areas, the Carl Moyer Program includes a Rural District Assistance Program 

(RAP). The RAP program, administered by the CAPCOA, provides a pooled funding 

resource to help rural air districts identify and fund cost-effective projects through a 

combined application and project selection process. Many trucks with model year 1994 

or newer engines may be eligible for diesel particulate filter funding through the RAP 

program. More information and application materials are available on the CAPCOA 

website at www.capcoa.org.

Funding for truck replacement and PM filters is available statewide through the VIP on a 

first-come, first-served basis. The VIP does not restrict usage to a specific air district 

and provides up to $45,000 for truck replacement and up to $10,000 for PM filters. 

Unlike the VIP, Proposition 1B funding does include geographic truck usage restrictions. 

The ballot proposition and implementing statute expressly direct ARB to focus funding 

from the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program on diesel trucks and 

equipment used to move goods in California’s four major trade corridors. These include 

the Bay Area, Central Valley, Los Angeles/Inland Empire, and the San Diego/Border 

regions of California. However, Proposition 1B funding is available to trucks based in 

rural areas, as long as the funded trucks have sufficient travel in the trade corridors.

Other incentive programs that are available statewide include the Lower-Emission 

School Bus Program (LESBP), the HVIP, and the PLACE program. The LESBP 

includes provisions that ensure rural air districts have access to school bus funds. The 

HVIP has no air district administrative or matching fund requirements and fleets have 

equal access to funding, regardless of their location within California. The PLACE 

program assists trucking fleets operating in all areas of California obtain affordable 

financing for truck purchases, exhaust retrofits, and SmartWay-certified equipment to 

improve fuel efficiency. 

9. Consideration of Alternatives

a) Proposal for More Stringent Requirements

363. Comment: The uncertainties about future economic growth, the inability to 

enforce changes in the emission inventory, and the significant negative impacts to 

the most impacted communities argues for a more cautious approach that leaves 

no room for eroding the Board’s commitment in the 2007 State Strategy. The rule 

amendments should focus on providing short-term economic relief over the next 
200

couple of years. Short term relief should not rollback requirements up to ten years 

or longer at the expense of public health benefits. The following proposed 

strengthened amendments would ensure long-term benefits.

(1) Proposal: Require all model year 1994-2000 heavy-duty vehicles with a 

GVWR of greater than 26,000 lbs to install PM filters by 2012, or upgrade to 

newer models. Allow all retrofitted vehicles eight years before compliance 

with 2010 standards: 

Direct diesel PM emissions are responsible for the high cancer risks 

experienced by communities near truck traffic. Cost-effective particulate 

retrofits are widely available and have been proven a successful technology 

for these trucks. According to ARB estimates, model year 1994-2000 trucks 

emit 7 times more PM per mile than ones equipped with a particulate filter. 

Allowing retrofits an eight year life as in the current proposal would allow truck 

owners to hold on to these vehicles, while providing benefits for impacted 

communities where some of the oldest trucks travel most.

(2) Proposal: Replace all heavy-duty vehicles more than 20 years old beginning 

in 2012.

The current proposal allows uncontrolled pre-1994 model year trucks to 

continue operating until 2015. A mandatory 20 year retirement age would 

remove the oldest vehicles from use, giving owners a choice to either retrofit 

or upgrade to a newer model year. 

(3) Proposal: Require all trucks less than 26,000 pounds to retrofit, retire or 

upgrade to a newer vehicle at 15 years of age: 

These trucks, delivery vehicles, tow trucks, and others operate primarily in 

high density, urban areas where exposure to diesel emissions is greatest. 

The proposal should be modified to begin retiring medium duty trucks at 15 

years of age, while providing an option to retrofit to extend the life of the truck.

(4) Proposal: Preserve the original clean up requirements for all school buses, 

large and small (less than 26,000 pounds), with a commitment to ensure 

funding where necessary: (BWG1) (BWG2)

Agency Response: The commenter suggests several proposals to ensure continued 

emission benefits of the regulation. The following is a summary of each comment 

(identified through underlined text) and response:

Proposal 1: Require all model year 1994-2000 heavy-duty vehicles with a GVWR of 

greater than 26,000 lbs to install PM filters by 2012 and allow to operate for 8 years. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s proposal. Staff presented modifications to the 

compliance requirements and options for heavier trucks at the December 17, 2010 

Hearing. The changes included modifications to the model year schedule, the addition 

of a delayed compliance option for construction trucks, and a credit for the early addition 

of newer engines to the fleet. The net changes are not expected to result in a 

significant change in total emissions from the original staff proposal, but are expected to 
201

result in early addition of newer engines and lower compliance costs for construction 

truck owners. 

While there is no PM retrofit requirement for trucks with 1994 and 1995 model year 

engines, as proposed by the commenter, these engines must be replaced by 2016. 

Trucks with 1994 and 1995 model year engines represent a smaller part of the 

emissions inventory because they are near the end of their useful lives and typically 

operate fewer miles than newer engines. If they were retrofitted by 2012 as proposed 

by the commenter and allowed to operate up to eight years, they would not be replaced 

by 2016 as required by the amended regulation. This means that although there would 

be more PM reductions from 2012 to 2016 from these engines, the benefits would also 

be partially offset from higher NOx emissions from 2016 to 2020 and would not be as 

health protective as it would initially appear. 

The changes to the model year schedule for heavier trucks were made available for 

comment with the May 19, 2011 Notice of Availability of Modified Text. The modified 

schedule requires heavier trucks with 1996 and 1997 model year engines to be retrofit 

by January 1, 2012 and delays the PM filter requirement for 2000 model year engines 

by one year, until 2013. Consistent with the above comment, the schedule allows 

retrofitted vehicles to operate 8 years before being required to be replaced. The 

requirements for 1995 and older model year engines remained unchanged from the 

regulation that was made available with the December 2010 Notice of Public Hearing. 

Proposal 2: Replace all heavy-duty vehicles more than 20 years old beginning in 2012. 

While the alternative proposal would achieve additional emission reductions, the 

proposal to begin replacements by January 1, 2012 would increase the capital 

investments required for fleets with older equipment compared to both the existing 

regulation and the amended regulation and would require replacements with new 

vehicles rather than allowing used replacements to be a viable compliance option. 

Such a proposal is counter to the Board’s goal of amendments that provide near term 

economic relief to on-road fleets. 

Staff believes the most cost effective way to achieve the needed emissions reductions 

to meet federal requirements, to address localized risk, and to proctect public health is 

to initially retrofit existing trucks that continue to have sufficient useful lives remaining 

and to phase-out older trucks with new ones in later years. Targeting PM filters on 

newer engines is a lower cost compliance strategy than replacing trucks. Immediate 

PM reductions are achieved equal to a vehicle replacement for a fraction of the cost (a 

new tractor trailer sleeper cab might cost $130,000 while a PM filter costs around 

$15,000 installed). This approach has the lowest compliance costs and considerably 

lower capital costs in the early years and provides more time for the economy to recover 

before replacements are required and makes used vehicle replacements to be a viable 

compliance option.

Proposal 3: Require all trucks less than 26,000 pounds to retrofit, retire or upgrade to a 

newer vehicle at 15 years of age.
202

Staff considered a number of options to achieve emissions reductions from trucks while 

seeking a strategy that would lower capital investments required and achieve the most 

cost-effective emissions reductions. We believe the amended regulation, which does 

not require lighter vehicles to install PM filters but focuses on replacement of such 

vehicles at 20 years of service, achieves the appropriate balance between costs for 

affected fleets and emissions reductions needed to protect public health and meet 

federal air quality standards. 

Overall emissions from light trucks represent less than 10 percent of the emissions 

inventory while emissions from the older light trucks targeted by the proposed 

alternative represent less than 2 percent of the inventory. The additional emissions 

reductions achieved by requiring PM filters on these older light trucks at 15 years would 

be about 2 percent of the total benefit achieved for all trucks with the regulation as 

amended. Considering this, the commenter’s proposal would not be as cost-effective 

as reducing emissions from heavier trucks. 

In the 2010 Staff Report, the overall cost effectiveness of the amended rule was $44.20 

per pound of PM reduced. For comparison, staff estimated the cost effectiveness for a 

lighter truck with a level 3 PM filter and an analysis period of 5 years of operation. Five 

years represents the remaining useful life of the 15-year old vehicle. The cost 

effectiveness for the lighter truck is about $200 per pound of PM reduced because of 

the reduced 5-year useful life of the PM retrofit (compared to the 8 years allowed by the 

regulation) and because lighter trucks tend to operate fewer miles and have lower 

emissions per mile travelled. This makes the costs of this proposed alternative 

relatively high and the benefits rather small in comparison to the benefits from heavier 

trucks. The cost of replacement of the lighter truck at 15 instead of 20 years would be 

even higher than the cost of retrofitting and therefore the emissions reductions would be 

even less cost-effective than that estimated for retrofitting. Finally, the commenter’s 

proposal would not be consistent with the Board’s goal of improved cost-effectiveness 

for the amendments. 

Proposal 4: Preserve the original clean up requirements for all school buses, large and 

small (less than 26,000 pounds), with a commitment to ensure funding where 

necessary.

Staff originally proposed to exempt diesel-fueled school buses under 26,001 lbs. GVWR 

from the amended regulation. However, the Board chose to include school buses 

greater than 14,000 lbs. GVWR in the amended regulation and directed staff to make 

necessary changes to preserve the requirements for smaller school buses, effectively 

accepting Proposal 4 as suggested by the commenters. 

364. Comment: We suggest some amendments that we think would particularly help 

to reduce some of the localized impacts. For the on-road rule, require the '94 to 

2000 vehicles to install PM filters in the next two years, replace all the vehicles 

more than 20 years old beginning in 2012 and require all the trucks under 26,000 

pounds also retrofit, retire, or upgrade to a newer vehicle when they hit 15 years of 

age. (SCC)
203

Agency Response: The alternatives proposed in the above comment are similar to 

proposals 1, 2 and 3 of Comment 363 See the response to Comment 363. 

365. Comment: I come here to recommend that as we - or you - consider offering 

some economic relief to the small and large businesses, and that you don't forget 

about the communities that are also having to contend with an economic crisis, 

while having to contend with the negative impacts on their health caused by toxic 

diesel pollution, as Senator Polanco detailed earlier. In particular, East Yard EJ 

recommends that you require all 1994 to 2000 year heavy-duty vehicles to install 

these much needed filters by 2012. Waiting until 2017, as staff proposes, is 

inconceivable, given our communities are already overburdened with diesel 

pollution. (EYARD1)

Agency Response: The alternative proposed in the above comment is similar to 

Proposal 1 of Comment 363. See the response to Comment 363. Also, please see the

discussion of the benefits of the Truck and Bus regulation in the responses to 

Comments 18 through 38 on the public health impacts of exposure to diesel exhaust. 

366. Comment: We also request that you replace all heavy-duty vehicles that are 

more than 20 years old beginning in 2012. We cannot allow for these uncontrolled 

pre-1994 model year trucks to continue to park near our schools, drive past our 

parks, and exhaust in our lungs. I ask that you consider the children and the 

communities that are most negatively impacted both by the economic crisis and

also by these dirty businesses. (EYARD1) 

Agency Response: The alternative proposed in the above comment is similar to 

Proposal 2 of Comment 363. See the response to Comment 363. Also, please see the

discussion of the benefits of the Truck and Bus regulation in the responses to 

Comments 18 through 38 on the public health impacts of exposure to diesel exhaust. 

b) Require Level 1 and Level 2 VDECS23 on Lighter Trucks

367. Comment: We understand that retrofitting lighter, less expensive, vehicles 

(<26,000 lbs GVWR) with Level 3 retrofits may not be cost effective in all cases, 

however, in-order to capture some emission reductions of PM and other air toxics 

from the medium duty fleet, we believe ARB should incentivize installation of ARB 

or EPA verified Level 1 and Level 2 retrofits on these lighter trucks. These 

technologies provide a more economical, passive solution to achieving some 

emission reductions from this fleet of 140,000 vehicles in the state. (MECA1)

368. Comment: Incentivize installation of ARB or EPA verified Level 1 or Level 2 

retrofits on under 26,000 pound trucks before turnover to provide additional 

reductions in toxic exhaust emissions from the medium duty fleet. (DFS1)

 

23 Verified diesel emission control strategy. – a retrofit device that has been verified under 

ARB’s Verification Procedure which ensures the effectiveness and durability of diesel engine 

retrofits. 
204

369. Comment: Incentivize program for less than 26,000 pound vehicles that would 

allow for Level 1 or 2 VDECS. (JMC1)

370. Comment: With respect to highway vehicles with Gross Vehicle Weights less 

than 26,000 lbs, we ask that ARB consider the installation of verified Level 1 diesel 

oxidation catalysts which can be supplied for less than $1000 per vehicle and will 

afford particulate emissions reductions of more than 25% and a significant 

reduction in unregulated toxics. This would seem to be a better option than simply 

eliminating all mandatory retrofit requirements. (CDT1)

Agency Response: Lighter trucks represent a smaller portion of the emissions 

inventory in comparison to heavier trucks, because lighter vehicles generally are 

replaced in shorter cycles, their population is smaller, they operate fairly low miles, and 

have lighter engines. The additional near term emissions reductions achieved by 

requiring PM filters on the light trucks prior to 2015 are small – about 2 percent of the 

total benefit achieved for all trucks with the regulation as amended. These additional 

emissions reductions are also not as cost effective as controlling emissions from 

heavier trucks. Lighter trucks also don’t tend to be concentrated in localized areas such 

as distribution centers and don’t pose as much of a local PM exposure risk as heavier 

vehicles. Further, the amended regulation requires the replacement of all light trucks 

starting in 2015, ultimately providing the maximum PM benefits – more than would be 

achieved under the commenter’s proposal. 

Staff investigated the cost effectiveness of requiring lower level verified devices to 

provide additional reductions in toxic exhaust emissions from lighter vehicles. In the 

2010 Staff Report, the overall cost effectiveness in dollars for each pound of PM 

reduced was $44.20. For comparison, staff estimated the cost effectiveness for a 

lighter truck with a level 2 PM filter and that of a heavier truck with a level 3 PM filter. 

Both trucks are 10 years old and the analysis period is for 8 years of operation. The 

cost effectiveness for the lighter truck is about $120 per pound of PM reduced and for 

the heavier truck it is about $26 per pound of PM reduced. The typical heavier vehicle 

has higher emissions per mile and travels significantly more miles per year, so 

retrofitting a level 3 PM filter on a heavier truck is a substantially more cost effective way 

to achieve the same emissions reductions. 

Using PM filters verified to a lower level, especially a Level 1 device (which achieves 

only a 25 percent reduction in PM emissions), does not provide many of the air quality 

benefits that would be achieved by using Level 3 devices or by vehicle replacement, 

regardless of the lower cost. For this reason, the staff did not recommend and the 

Board did not direct the use of Level 1 devices. 

c) Performance of Engine and Retrofit Technology

371. Comment: Diesels [diesel vehicles should] be given a 20 year life from date of 

service introduction if not compliant to 2007 standards or an alternate compromise 

of 1.2 million miles or equivalent engine hours. (CTI1)

Agency Response: As the commenter recommends, the amended regulation is 

designed to allow most trucks to operate until they are 20 years old; however, significant 
205

PM emissions reductions are needed by 2014 and the maximum achievable NOx 

emissions reductions are needed by 2023. Prior to 2020, the amended regulation does 

not require truck replacements unless the vehicle is 20 years old or older. However, we 

expect that by 2014 more than 85 percent of all truck miles driven in California will be 

from heavier trucks that need to be equipped with PM filters to achieve enough PM 

emissions reductions to meet SIP obligations. Therefore, most trucks operating in 

California that are less than 20 years old will need to have retrofit PM filters installed or 

be replaced. Additionally, to achieve needed NOx reductions by 2023 , between 2020 

to 2023, all engines must be upgraded to 2010 model year or newer engines to achieve 

the maximum NOx emissions reductions needed to meet the State’s SIP commitments. 

372. Comment: Diesel EPA requirements would be covered the same as the warranty 

life of the engine block of 500,000 miles or equivalent engine hours, including all of 

the electrical relays. This will enhance the manufacturer’s ability to insure quality 

technology and durability. Towing bills should be included in this warranty. (CTI1)

Agency Response: We agree that a warranty is necessary for new engines. 

However, this comment is not relevant to the rulemaking. Engine warranties are 

already addressed as part of the engine certification standards.

373. Comment: Provide financial incentives:

A. No sales tax on retrofitting costs or new truck sales.

B. Fuel taxes to be reimbursed for retrofitted and new trucks for 5 years. 

This feature alone will enhance the economy and clean the air faster 

because more units will be bought with an immediate cash savings to the 

buyer. (CTI1)

Agency Response: The ARB does not have the authority to establish or develop any 

tax-based programs to help reduce emissions. Any tax-based programs would have to 

be approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. In addition, several 

funding sources have already been allocated through proposition or by the Legislature 

to address emission impacts from diesel engines. For a discussion of the financial 

incentives available, please see the responses to Comments 338 through 356 in the 

section on Funding. 

374. Comment: Provide an extension of 2 years until 2016 for the time allowances for 

real field testing to ensure the reliability and durability of the products being 

introduced and the current problems to be corrected. (CTI1)

Agency Response: We do not believe there is evidence to suggest that emission 

control system reliability or durability is a problem, as explained in the response to 

Comment 96.

d) Credit for Dual-Fueled Engines

375. Comment: Clean Air Power has been working to reduce air pollution and 

emissions from the trucking industry for over 20 years. These efforts have 
206

encompassed a variety of offerings in natural gas vehicles, as well as aftertreatment emission control technologies. It is anticipated that some of the 

proposed amendments by CARB to the on-road regulation will put a select Clean 

Air Power technology at a competitive disadvantage-- technology that would be 

successful in providing the equivalent if not greater environmental benefit as those 

proposed.

The amendments propose that the purchase of alternative fuel or hybrid vehicles

would allow the fleet to treat another vehicle as compliant until January 1, 2017, 

and would thus provide a potential significant market incentive for alternative fuel 

and hybrid technologies. However, dual-fuel engines are specifically excluded as a 

compliance path for credits. The exclusion of dual-fuel engines within the 

amendment decreases the options, flexibility and efficiency that truck fleets 

will have in achieving emissions reductions.

The amendment in the regulation defines dual-fuel engines as "any compression 

ignition engine that is engineered and designed to operate on a combination of 

alternative fuels, such as compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied petroleum 

gas (LPG) and diesel fuel or an alternative diesel fuel. These engines have two 

separate fuel systems, which inject both fuels simultaneously into the engine 

combustion chamber." This definition and the exclusion of dual-fuel engines from 

credit eligibility are remnants from prior regulations that forced fleets to choose 

either a diesel path or an alternative fuel path. The current proposals are fuel 

neutral but not technology neutral; considering that the overarching goal is to 

reduce petroleum consumption and resulting criteria air pollutants and greenhouse 

gases in California, CARB should further amend the proposed revisions in order to 

include other technologies which meet equivalent reduction goals.

Clean Air Power in conjunction with Navistar has developed a dual-fuel technology 

that not only meets but exceeds the 0.2 g/bhp-hr emission standard. A small 

amount of diesel-10%-25% of what is typically used in conventional trucks-will act 

as the "pilot" or ignition source for the natural gas and air. The resulting 

combination is a hybrid between conventional diesel combustion-where the diesel 

pilot auto-ignites as it would in a standard diesel-cycle-and a regular otto-cycle 

engine with a sparkplug for incoming natural gas and air. Thus, with the 

compression-ignition engine, the dual-fuel MaxxForce 13 will offer the efficiency,

power and performance levels more commonly associated with diesel-fuel 

engines. Furthermore, the MaxxForce 13 engine will have the flexibility of being 

powered by CNG or LNG, thus making it viable in a diversity of markets and a 

wider range of applications. The concept readiness phase has been completed 

and internal testing has proven the ability to certify the criteria emissions as 

targeted while displacing between 75%-90% of diesel normally used.

Overall, the dual-fuel engine is expected to displace four times the amount of 

diesel displaced by a hybrid meeting the 20% reduction required in the proposed 

changes to the regulation. The benefit of the dual-fuel engine is likely to be even 

greater due to the heavier duty cycle. The dual-fuel engine would also reduce wellto-wheel greenhouses gas emissions by nearly 20% in comparison with diesel 
207

counterparts, and create opportunities for near-zero well-to-wheels GHG 

emissions as bio- methane fuel production technologies mature and become 

increasingly used.

There are no additional emission benefits for either dedicated or high-pressure 

direct injection (HPDI) natural gas engines. However, the current proposed 

regulation could act as a significant driver for these technologies, without the 

consideration of dual-fuel engines that would provide the same if not greater 

petroleum and emissions reduction benefits.

In conclusion, Clean Air Power requests revisions to the rule changes in order to 

remove the exclusion of dual-fuel technologies from the type of vehicles eligible for 

credits under the on-road regulation. (CAP)

Agency Response: Staff does not agree that fleet owners should receive credit for 

dual-fuel engines to delay compliance for another vehicle in the fleet. Dual-fuel 

engines, by definition, can operate with alternative fuel or on diesel fuel. However, this 

flexibility means the vehicle can operate on diesel indefinitely and can pose the same 

toxic PM exposure risk as conventional diesel vehicles and may not achieve any of the 

GHG emissions benefits expected with alternative fuels. 

Although, heavy-duty pilot ignition engines are eligible for the credit, there are specific 

criteria in the regulation that must be met. Heavy-duty pilot-ignition engines are eligible 

only if diesel fuel is used at an average ratio of no more than one part diesel fuel to ten 

parts total fuel on an energy equivalent basis. The amended regulation also stipulates 

that the vehicle cannot idle or operate solely on diesel fuel to be eligible for the credit. 

e) Increase Mileage Limits

376. Comment: NAFA’s Council recommends increasing all vehicle and equipment 

minimum usage exemption parameters (mileage and hours of operation). This will 

provide a small measure of relief to public and private fleets which have been 

incredibly impacted by the current economic situation. It is no secret that this state 

has been especially hard hit by the recession and that current diesel vehicle 

operation and usage is far below projections due to the economic environment.

(NAFA) 

Agency Response: The limits on mileage and hours of operation for low-use vehicles 

were set to allow limited use from back up vehicles that are used only incidentally to the 

normal operation of a fleet. It is also a limit that minimizes the potential for out-of-state 

fleets to gain an unfair competitive advantage. 

The regulation, as amended, has attempted to create a level playing field between 

California and out-of-state fleets. Staff believes that increasing the mileage limit would 

increase the potential for out-of-state trucks to manage their fleets to circumvent the 

regulation by rotating in several different trucks each year. This could result in 

California businesses being placed at a competitive disadvantage and would result in 

fewer emissions reductions from out-of-state trucks that in turn would need to be made 

up by California fleets to achieve the needed emissions reductions. 
208

f) Low Mileage Vocational Trucks

377. Comment: Movers have been negatively impacted by the economic downturn 

and are linked to construction, when buildings are not built no-one is moving. 

Additionally, individuals losing their homes are not calling professional movers. 

Like many other California based Low Mileage Vocational Trucking businesses we 

are still in need of economic and regulatory relief in order to continue our long 

standing tradition of providing service, employment, and tax revenue to our 

customers, local communities, and state. (CMSA1)

378. Comment: While CSMA is appreciative of the willingness of ARB staff to listen to 

our proposal for additional relief for fleets with vocational trucks, their proposed 

modifications fall short. I ask the Board to direct staff to amend the 15-day 

changes to broaden the two-year deferral of lower use trucks to include CPUC 

permitted carriers and movers. (CMSA2) 

379. Comment: In addition to staff's proposed rule modifications for trucks less than 

26,001 pounds, Low Mileage Vocational/Special Use Vehicles industry is in need 

of further relief in the form of a mileage based exemption for Medium Heavy Duty 

and Heavy Heavy Duty Trucks. CMSA would propose a 20,000 miles exemption 

for class 7 and 8 trucks. We believe that a mileage based benchmark is more in 

line with the spirit of the rule than a distance based exemption. Simply put, 

mileage most strongly correlates with particulate output. (CMSA1) 

380. Comment: After review of the currently proposed modifications to the ―Statewide 

Truck and Bus Rule‖ recommended by ARB staff, the California Moving and 

Storage Association (CMSA) requests that the Board adopts additional relief for 

Low Mileage Vocational/Special Use Vehicles. The legal California moving 

industry would definitely fall within the definition of low mileage vocational trucking. 

For a large portion of our work truck engines are only used for a small segment of 

the billed hours. Household and Office/Industrial movers generally drive short 

distances, many times less than an hour per day, truck engines are turned off and 

the movers spend the majority of their time moving furniture. (Attached are the 

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requirements to be a permitted 

household goods carrier (―mover‖), a small part of a 58 page application. Clearly 

the requirements are arduous enough that one would not undertake getting a 

permit unless they planned to be a dedicated mover. It seems reasonable and 

correct to define CPUC PERMITTED CARRIERS (LICENSED MOVERS) as a part 

of a larger class of Vocational Trucking.)‖ (CMSA1)

[Note: The commenter’s attachment is not reproduced here. It was submitted as 

part of a comment letter identified as Comment 1 of the comments presented 

during the Hearing and posted on the comments log for this rulemaking at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=on-offroad10].

381. Comment: I would just like to add something to these low mileage trucks. We've 

had a real hard time trying to figure out what is a vocational truck. You could go 

and look up everything and try to find vocational. I think we all agree it's a pretty 
209

specific truck. A dump truck, that's pretty easy to look at. He's hauling dirt. He's 

hauling construction. A tow truck, he's got a huge investment. He's really well a 

vocational truck. But I did want to point out -- and I had the clerk point out for you 

from the moving guys, because this is something I didn't realize. They are also 

very short hauls. And I'm talking about the guys that start the truck, drive to your 

house, park it, load it, and then drive back and park it that night. They may do, 10-

20,000 miles a year also. They don't look separate. I would just like to pass on 

this information for you to notice that they are regulated by the Public Utilities 

Commission and that might be a way to determine that group. (CDTOA3)

382. Comment: As members of the vocational trucking industry, we continue to have 

deep concerns with the implementation and impact of the Truck and Bus 

regulation. The amendments to the regulation proposed this morning provide 

insufficient relief for the moving industry who continue to be negatively impacted 

by the dramatic economic slides of home sales and construction. Even though 

there's been some relief here, all these costs are front loaded. And our industry 

can't really bear it. If you say the economy is down 30 percent for the moving and 

storage industry, I can tell you I get calls on a regular basis from small and 

medium-size operators that with a 30 percent reduction they're unable to take 

salaries for themselves. They've taken out loans on their homes to finance their 

business. (CMSA2)

Agency Response: See the response to Comment 268 that explains why the 

regulation is necessary and, that given the severe recession, how the regulation was 

amended to substantially lower the compliance costs. 

During the development of the amended regulation, staff collected survey data on 

trucking fleets and financial information from several businesses. The data showed that 

moving companies predominantly have lighter trucks (those with a GVWR less than 

26,001 lbs). The amended regulation eliminates PM filter requirements for this lighter 

class of vehicles, delays the start of the replacement requirement to 2015, and limits the 

replacements to engines 20 years old or older until 2020. From 2020 to 2023 all 

engines need to be upgraded to 2010 model year engines or equivalent. The cost 

saving from the amendments for lighter trucks greatly lowers the compliance costs for 

most moving companies. As summarized in the October 2010 Staff Report

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/truckbus10/truckbus10isor.pdf), we estimated the 

average compliance costs for local moving companies would be reduced by about 

70 percent over the life of the regulation and additional changes to allow moving 

companies to use the low-mileage construction truck provision are unwarranted. The 

response to Comment 160 provides the rationale for the limits on the number of eligible 

low-mileage construction trucks and on the miles they can operate to qualify for the 

provision.

For heavier vehicles, fleets can defer all replacements until January 1, 2020 by using 

the PM filter phase-in option. With this option fleets would not have to replace older 

vehicles until at least 2020 and at that time could upgrade to 10 year old replacement 

vehicles to comply. Fleets could also delay compliance with the PM filter requirements 

through 2016 if the fleet is smaller at the time of required compliance than it was in 
210

2006. For example, if the number of trucks currently being operated has decreased by 

30 percent, then the fleet can use the fleet size reduction credit to delay clean-up of 

30 percent of the heavier trucks in the fleet until January 1, 2016. In addition, if a 

suitable PM retrofit is not available, no other action is required to meet the PM reduction 

requirements until 2018.

Staff also performed an analysis on a typical moving company with 14 trucks, seven of 

which are heavier than 26,000 lbs GVWR. The analysis is in the Chapter VII, Section A 

of the October 2010 Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed 

Rulemaking. The analysis found that the amended regulation would impose no 

additional costs beyond what the fleet would have historically done as part of its normal 

business operations through 2013. Additionally, the amendments would reduce total 

compliance costs by 55 percent compared to the originally adopted regulation. Overall, 

the cost to comply would represent about 0.15 percent of the annual revenue for this 

company. Of course, the actions and compliance costs of any individual company 

would likely deviate from the example above and depend on many factors such as the 

size of the fleet, the vehicle types, vehicle age, and normal vehicle replacement 

practices: however, the costs for most moving companies are likely to be well below 

1 percent of revenue. 

383. Comment: I look at CARB’s estimates of the on-road annual mileage as being 

dangerously simplistic. These estimates of annual mileage I think should be 

deconstructed to reflect not just the quantity of miles traveled, but also the quality 

of miles traveled. What I mean by this is a long haul truck is actually traveling we'll 

say a higher quality mile as far as pollution is concerned than a short haul truck 

because the engines in a short haul truck or short haul, the engines don't really 

come up to temperature. So what's going to happen with these annual mileage 

estimates is that you're basing -- the painting both long haul and short haul trucks 

with the same brush. I think that some real attention needs to be given to on-road 

trucks traveling under 20,000 miles a year. And many of these are actually I would 

categorize as vocational vehicles. I’ve spoken about vocational vehicles before, 

and I think there should be a clear distinction in the regulation covering vocational 

vehicles. In fact, you might want to view vocational vehicles as somewhere in 

between an on-road and an off-road vehicle. 

One thing for sure is that both of these trucks share a similar characteristic, and 

that is there's probably a limiting operating budget generated by the activity, if you 

have basically limited resources, less money to afford the new technology. And 

given the limited resources, any imposition of, say, the installation of a diesel 

particulate filter puts an undue hardship I believe on the operators who are running 

fewer miles. (RLEE)

Agency Response: Staff recognizes that there are differences between high-mileage 

and short-haul vehicles and appropriate distinctions were made in the emission 

modeling and cost analyses during the rule making process in 2008 and in the 

development of these amendments. The revised emissions inventory accounts for 

differences between different categories of trucks and buses. Construction trucks are 

one of the categories. Information about the methods used to calculate the inventory is 
211

available in Appendix G of the Staff Report and on the AB 1085 compliance website for 

the Truck and Bus rulemaking: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/ab1085compliance.htm. 

Long-haul fleets travel high annual miles, have predominantly newer vehicles with the 

latest emissions technology, and have the lowest emissions per mile. Local fleets tend 

to operate fewer miles and the trucks are kept longer. Older trucks have considerably 

higher emissions than new trucks. Older truck emissions can be effectively controlled 

with exhaust retrofit PM filters. Retrofit PM filters are widely available for vehicles that 

have a low exhaust temperature profile. Please see the response to Comment 95 for 

more detailed information regarding retrofits for cold duty cycle vehicles. In the event 

that a PM filter is not available or cannot be safely installed, fleet owners may request 

an annual extension until January 1, 2018 as explained in response to Comment 134. 

As suggested by the commenter, a compliance option for low-mileage construction 

trucks is included in the amended regulation and is described in response to 

Comment 157. See response to Comment 268 that explains why the regulation is 

necessary and how the amended regulation substantially lowers the compliance costs.

g) Regulate Other Vehicle Owners

384. Comment: Before we get crazy on truck and bus emissions we should look at 

what vehicles are not required to meet any standards, such as state and local 

government owned vehicles, utility company vehicles, emergency vehicles, transit 

vehicles, solid waste collection vehicles, and others which are all exempt from 

diesel regulations at this time. If California wants to be green it should start at the 

top and include all these vehicles too. (LECK)

Agency Response: Several ARB regulations already require reductions of PM and 

other criteria pollutants from all other in-use trucks and buses that are not in the scope 

of the Truck and Bus regulation. In fact, most other diesel trucks and buses in the state 

will have PM filters by the end of 2011. This includes: urban bus vehicles, transit 

vehicles, solid waste collection vehicles, public agency and utility vehicles, and drayage 

trucks. Most of the vehicles in these fleets installed PM filters before 2011. All 

authorized emergency vehicles are exempt from the in-use diesel vehicle regulations 

per California Vehicle Code, section 27156.2 which does not allow installation of motor 

vehicle pollution control devices. 

h) Increase California Weight Limits for Trucks

385. Comment: What would the Board and staff think about an additional 20 percent 

reduction in diesel emission reductions in the state? The way to accomplish that is 

to increase the gross vehicle weight from 80,000 to 105,000 pounds in California. 

We had that opportunity as an option until 1991 through the federal highway bills. 

We didn't do it. We're now surrounded with states with 105,000 pound gross 

vehicle weight. And the studies are in; you get a 20 percent reduction in fuel 

consumption with the increased gross vehicle weight. (CFA2)
212

Agency Response: The ARB does not have jurisdiction over California vehicle 

registration laws. Thus, the ARB has no authority to set higher gross vehicle weight 

limits on vehicles operating on California highways. 

i) Body Built or Special Built Trucks

386. Comment: BJ Services would like to ask for one additional change in there as far 

as the body load trucks where we have the 20-year span for life span for a truck. 

On the body load trucks, a lot of times just switching the body and putting the stuff 

on the back of the truck costs about ten times the cost of the initial truck. So we'd 

like to see that we could get another five year running time out of the body load, 

instead of 20 years, so we can have a chance to recoup our investment costs on 

that. Normally, in the past, we've run about 30 years. So five is cutting back some 

already. Ten year cut back makes it really tough when you're looking at trucks that 

run about a million, million-four to replace. (BJSC)

387. Comment: Body Built or Special Built Equipment. We have presented testimony 

regarding the costs structure that has not resulted in any accommodations for 

some of our fleet that simply defies the justification for rule promulgation. We have 

estimated that in general the rule is predicated upon a $120,000 base purchase 

price, which was not argued by Staff. We have certain units that fit that model and 

some that are more but not significantly and which we would agree the model is 

close enough. We also have some units that can cost from 2 times the purchase 

to over 8 times the purchase price for added equipment and fabrication. These 

units are special built and do not fit the model of purchase, use and sell to replace 

with new after a few years. We have been frustrated that Staff has not seen fit to 

make special accommodations for equipment that obviously exceeds the amount 

that would fall into acceptable level for rule promulgation. Further, this equipment 

is generally already extra-legal or otherwise not suitable to retrofit technologies. 

The Unique Vehicle allowance does not provide relief for this as it does not 

address the inequitable and unjustifiable costs basis.

I'm not suggesting we exempt these units. I am saying perhaps a 25-year rule 

versus 20 for anything with the body built that we've taken. And you can't put a 

retrofit on it. There is no place. You can't have any weight. So it's a replacement 

anyway. So if we could maybe slide those 25 year versus a 20-year replacement 

cycle and no retrofit requirement, we'll let that go.

Staff should be directed to draft language identifying Body Built or Special Built 

Equipment exceeding the costs basis of the rule by a factor of 2 and allow a more 

reasonable slide to the rule so that we can make a onetime change into model 

year 2011 trucks without having to replace the entire fleet at once. (WEAT1) 

(WEAT 2)

Agency Response: In designing the regulatory amendments, staff lengthened the 

required engine replacement cycle as long as possible while ensuring that the overall 

SIP commitment would be met. Staff met with oil service company representatives 

about body load trucks and considered these issues when options in the amended 

regulation were developed. In meetings with the commenters above, prior to finalizing 
213

the regulatory amendments, staff was informed that the typical body load truck life was 

about 20 years, although some body load trucks may last even longer. 

In general, the amended regulation does not require any truck replacements of engines 

that are less than 20 years old until 2020. Fleets that opt to use the PM filter phase-in 

option have no replacement requirement regardless of truck age until 2020. Staff 

believes this provides adequate time to plan compliance. In addition, fleets can defer all 

heavier vehicle replacements until 2023 if they can demonstrate that all heavier vehicles 

in the fleet are equipped with PM filters by 2014. A similar provision applies to all lighter 

vehicles in the fleet.

Lastly, in order to achieve the 8 hour ozone standard by 2023, reductions of NOx, on 

the order of 75 to 88 percent, are needed. Despite the fact that emissions in future 

years are expected to be lower than originally anticipated when the regulations were 

adopted, all on-road trucks will need to have 2010 or newer engines by 2023 to meet 

the 8-hour ozone attainment deadline. 

10. Out-of-State Fleets

a) General

388. Comment: The nearly 153,000 owner-operators, small-business motor carriers, 

and professional truck drivers (―small-business truckers‖) that make up OOIDA’s 

membership, including more than 5,000 members in California alone, operate 

approximately 200,000 trucks in all 50 states and Canada. OOIDA is the largest 

international trade association representing the interests of these small- business 

truckers on all issues affecting their operations. Small-business truckers, like 

those belonging to OOIDA, have a significant presence in the trucking industry. 

Indeed, one-truck motor carriers represent nearly half of all active motor carriers 

operating in the United States while approximately 96 percent of active motor 

carriers operate 20 or fewer trucks. See American Trucking Associations, 

Economic and Group Statistics 2004. This segment of the goods movement 

industry has been hit particularly hard by the economic contraction, given the low 

profit margins and levels of compensation that have left many of them struggling to 

survive. 

Because compliance with the Truck and Bus Regulation imposes a significant 

financial burden on many of OOIDA’s members who haul freight in interstate 

commerce to and from California, generally on an intermittent and irregular basis, 

OOIDA appreciates CARB’s efforts to implement new compliance schedules and 

phase-in options that will make compliance easier for some of these and other 

financially strapped motor carriers and owner-operators. 

OOIDA also appreciates other changes, including those expanding exemption 

coverage, that should decrease the number of motor carriers subject to the 

Regulation. However, the Association also believes that the Regulation in general 

and some of the recently proposed amendments focus relief on and 

disproportionately benefit in-state entities, while ignoring the dire economic plight 

of out-of-state motor carriers, especially small-business truckers, who may 
214

occasionally serve California. Indeed, the exemptions will rarely accrue to the 

benefit of out-of-state truck owners who often operate far fewer miles in California 

than in-state motor carriers who are exempt. Accordingly, OOIDA suggests that 

the Board direct CARB staff to explore further means to reduce the regulatory 

burden being felt by small-business motor carriers and owner-operators nationally. 

(ES-OOIDA)

389. Comment: Although OOIDA appreciates the additional compliance options now 

being offered by CARB to alleviate the economic burdens placed on financiallystrapped motor carriers by the ongoing economic downturn, the Association 

believes that it is incumbent upon CARB to consider further amendments that will 

reduce the regulatory burden imposed by the Truck and Bus Regulation on smallbusiness motor carriers and owner-operators nationwide. In particular, in order to 

eliminate conflicts with the Interstate Commerce Clause, CARB should make 

adjustments to existing exemptions that allow out-of-state motor carriers operating 

only limited miles in California to be exempted from the Regulation in a manner 

that is comparable to exemptions available primarily to agricultural and other instate interests.

390. Comment: The seemingly uniform regulatory requirements and the exemptions 

from those requirements give the Truck and Bus Regulation, on its face, the 

appearance of an even-handed regulation furthering a legitimate state interest. If 

that were the case, the Regulation would be a totally appropriate exercise of 

CARB’s regulatory authority. Upon closer scrutiny of the Regulation as a whole, 

however, OOIDA has found that various provisions improperly discriminate against 

out-of-state interests and place an undue burden on interstate commerce. In 

short, while the exemption language is crafted to appear non-discriminatory, we 

believe that is illusory and that benefits will flow primarily to in-state motor carriers. 

(ES-OOIDA) 

Agency Response: The amended Truck and Bus regulation balances necessary 

reductions in toxic PM air pollution and NOx emissions while reducing costs for fleets. 

This balance was achieved in a manner that does not unduly burden interstate 

commerce or favor in-state over out-of-state interests. The regulation is structured to

provide flexibility for in-state and out-of-state fleet owners to determine the best 

compliance options for themselves. 

Responses to each of the issues raised by the commenter are summarized below and 

are addressed in more detail in each of the responses identified. As described in 

response to Comment 396, long haul fleets, typical of OOIDA membership, have newer 

trucks and generally have lower compliance costs than most in-state fleets. Interstate 

fleets also may be able to lower costs by managing their fleets to operate their newer 

lower emitting vehicles in California. The response to Comment 398 explains how the 

list of exemptions identified in section 2025(c) of the amended regulation predominantly 

exclude vehicles that are already subject to in-use diesel vehicle regulations or 

represent very limited categories of vehicles and have no bearing on interstate 

commerce concerns.
215

The special provisions in the amended regulation that are claimed to be unfair are 

available to be used by either in-state and out-of-state fleets, so long as the fleet meets 

the criteria of the provisions. Because these provisions are available to any fleet 

regardless of whether the fleet is in-state or out-of-state, they do not create a 

competitive disadvantage for interstate fleets. The responses to Comments 399 and 

401 address comments on the agricultural vehicle provisions, and the response to 

Comment 400 addresses the comments on the optional phase-in provision for log trucks 

and the NOx exempt area provision.

The commenter’s concerns that the amended regulation would create advantages for 

in-state fleets relative to out-of-state fleets are partly based on misinterpretations of how 

compliance for out of state fleets is determined. The response to Comment 402

describes how the low use provision benefits infrequent visitors to California, and the 

response to Comment 403 describes how the three-day pass exemption can be used by 

out-of-state fleets. The commenter’s misunderstanding of the definition of fleet size and 

the flexibility to designate cleaner vehicles for California operation is addressed in the 

response to Comment 404. In addition, staff’s evaluation of the commenter’s alternative 

to increase the mileage limits within California’s borders can be found in the response to 

Comments 405.

391. Comment: The multiple CARB regulatory requirements have also had a 

significant impact on small-business truckers who must in many cases comply with 

CARB’s Transportation Refrigeration Unit (TRU) Regulation, the GHG regulation, 

and Drayage Truck Regulation (DTR), as well as the Truck and Bus Regulation. 

(ES-OOIDA)

Agency Response: Overall, the cumulative costs of multiple regulations on individual 

fleets is not expected to be significant for interstate long haul fleets because they 

generally have newer trucks and therefore should have little to no costs in meeting the 

requirements of the amended Truck and Bus regulation. See response to Comment 396

that describes how few interstate trucks will be affected.

Staff have identified a small number of fleets that will experience cumulative cost 

impacts. Specifically, trucks that must meet the emission reduction requirements of the 

Tractor Trailer Greenhouse regulation, by definition, are long-haul fleets that commonly 

have newer trucks. Staff’s analysis presented to the Board in 2008 showed that only 

about 5 percent of the trucks that operate in California should have costs associated 

with both regulations. However, these costs are not expected to be significant 

considering that the equipment required under the Tractor Trailer Greenhouse 

regulation is expected to provide a net cost savings to fleets over its useful life, thereby 

offsetting any cumulative cost impacts of the two regulations.

Most TRUs from out-of-state that enter California are replaced before the TRU 

regulation would require any action. The TRU regulation requires engine upgrades after 

7 years. Appendix C of the 2011 Staff Report for the TRU Air Toxic Control Measure 

documents that engines in out-of-state TRU fleets have an average age of 4.6 years. 

Therefore, most TRUs will meet the requirements with normal replacement cycles and 

only a portion of the fleet will likely have costs associated with the TRU regulation. 
216

Additionally, the Drayage Truck regulation and the Truck and Bus regulation both have 

the potential to impact similar fleets; however, these two regulations do not have 

overlapping compliance requirements at the same time. The Drayage Truck regulation 

requires PM filters and truck replacement before the Truck and Bus regulation would 

require them. As an option for fleets that have trucks that are subject to both 

regulations, the amended Truck and Bus regulation allows fleet owners to include all 

their drayage trucks in determining compliance with the Truck and Bus regulation. 

Therefore, the combined costs for fleets with both drayage and non-drayage trucks are 

similar to other fleets that have no drayage trucks.

392. Comment: OOIDA also notes that in-state motor carriers that must comply with 

this Regulation are unable to access public funding for truck replacements and 

retrofits through various state programs, such as Carl Moyer grants, that limit 

participation to those entities located in California.

Agency Response: Public funding programs for emissions reductions from diesel 

trucks are funded by California taxpayers and are intended to lower emissions in 

California. Therefore, it is appropriate that a significant percentage of a truck’s miles be 

driven within the state. Funding opportunities are available to vehicles that travel out-ofstate provided the in-state mileage criteria are met. These programs target early 

reductions before regulatory compliance is required and the use of publicly funded 

vehicles engines or retrofits for demonstrating compliance during the funding contract 

period is not allowed.

Moreover, to the extent that the commenter’s claim that it is discriminatory for in-state 

trucks to be able to access public funding for truck replacements and retrofits through 

various state programs while out-of-state trucks cannot has no merit. See West Lynn 

Creamery v. Healy (1994) 114 S.Ct. 2205, 2214 [―A pure subsidy funded out of general 

revenue ordinarily imposes no burden on interstate commerce, but merely assists local 

business.‖]

b) Burden on Interstate Commerce

393. Comment: It is beyond dispute that a state and its various authorities may only 

regulate conduct within their own state’s boundaries. Laws or regulations that 

impose liability on or otherwise regulate conduct occurring wholly outside of the 

state go beyond inherent limits on the state’s authority and may not be allowed to 

stand. Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989); Edgar v. MITE Corp., 

457 U.S. 624, 642-643 (1982). This is so whether or not the extraterritorial reach 

was intended. Id. This general principle is reflected in the Interstate Commerce 

Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the federal government authority over 

commerce between the various states and, in so doing, relegates each of the 

states to the regulation of commerce within their own borders. Article I, Section 8, 

Clause 3. Thus, CARB’s authority extends to the regulation of air quality and 

vehicle emissions only within the state, which correlates to miles operated within 

the state. As stated in CARB’s enabling statute, the agency is to engage in a 

coordinated effort, with state, regional, and local authorities to ―protect and 
217

enhance the ambient air quality of the state.‖ See Cal. Health & Safety Code 

39001 (emphasis added). What happens outside of California is not and cannot 

be of concern – specifically regarding how vehicle miles are accumulated. 

Recognizing the reality that state laws and regulations will often have incidental 

and indirect effects on interstate commerce, however, such effects are ordinarily 

allowed if the benefits to the local state interest outweigh the burden on interstate 

commerce. Healy v. Beer Inst., supra; New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 

U.S. 269, 273 (1988); Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor 

Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 579 (1986); Edgar v. MITE, supra. The burden is undue when 

a balancing of national and local interests reveals that the costs of complying are 

disproportionate (i.e., clearly excessive) when compared to the demonstrable local 

benefits that cannot otherwise be obtained by the state. United Haulers Ass’n, Inc. 

v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt Auth., 550 U.S. 330, 339 (2007); Pike v. 

Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970). 

Because of the obviously interstate nature of the transportation industry, the 

interstate commerce issue has often arisen in U.S. Supreme Court cases involving 

state regulation of transportation. For example, in Raymond Motor Trans., Inc. v. 

Rice, 434 U.S. 429 (1978), the Supreme Court struck down on Commerce Clause 

grounds a state statute that prohibited trucks longer than 55 feet with one trailer 

and trucks pulling more than one trailer from operating within that state without a 

permit, based upon the finding that it substantially interfered with the movement of 

goods in interstate commerce without a meaningful contribution to highway safety. 

See also Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 450 U.S. 662 (1981) 

(invalidating state statute banning trucks over 60 feet); Bibb v. Navajo Freight 

Lines, 359 U.S. 520 (1959) (invalidating state law requiring mudflaps that could 

not be used in adjacent states); Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 

(1945) (invalidating state law restricting length of trains). Although discrimination 

against out-of-state interests was not the decisive factor in the Raymond Motor

case, the Court did note that the numerous exemptions from the general rule, 

some of which were found to discriminate in favor of local industry, raised 

additional doubts about the validity of the regulation. Raymond Motor, 434 U.S. at 

446-447. 

The Interstate Commerce Clause may also be violated when a state statute or 

regulation that does not expressly favor in-state over out-of-state economic

interests, does so in practice, thereby raising the costs of doing business for outof-state interests, but not their in-state counterparts. Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 

U.S. 322, 336 (1979); Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 

U.S. 333, 350-351 (1977). The discriminatory result is even more objectionable 

where the state requirement also deprives out-of-state interests of advantages 

they might otherwise have over local interests. Id. When in-state versus out-ofstate discrimination is demonstrated, the burden falls on the involved state to 

justify it both in terms of the local benefits flowing from the regulation and the 

unavailability of nondiscriminatory alternatives adequate to preserve the local 

interests at stake. Id. at 353.
218

While the U.S. EPA has primary authority to set emissions standards for new 

motor vehicles, California alone has the right to regulate emissions from in-use 

motor vehicles (42U.S.C. § 7521, 7543), a right that has been delegated to and 

exercised by the CARB. However, this right is not unlimited. Among other 

limitations24, this right must be exercised consistent with constitutional limitations, 

including the Interstate Commerce Clause. As discussed above, this requires a 

careful balancing to make certain that the Truck and Bus Regulation, as modified, 

does not unduly burden interstate commerce directly or by favoring in-state over 

out-of-state interests. (ES-OOIDA)

Agency Response: Staff believes that the board approved amended regulation would 

not be in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Commerce 

Clause of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3) grants Congress 

the power ―[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States. 

. . .‖ In addition to granting Congress an affirmative grant of authority, courts have found 

that the clause creates an implied restraint on state authority to enact legislation that 

imposes significant burdens on interstate commerce. (See United Haulers Ass'n, Inc. v. 

Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1786; Healy v. 

The Beer Institute (1989) 491 U.S. 324, 326, fn.1.) The adopted regulation is not per se 

unlawful in that it does not expressly discriminate against out-of-state heavy-duty 

vehicle fleets, have the practical effect or purpose of protecting California economic 

interests at the expense of out-of-state interests, or have an impermissible 

extraterritorial effect on other states. 

In such cases, the courts have typically applied a balancing test that weighs the state’s 

legitimate interests in adopting the regulation against the burden that the regulation may 

have on interstate commerce. (Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970) 397 U.S. 137.). Here, 

the board approved regulation, which achieves significant reductions in diesel PM, an 

identified toxic air contaminant, and NOx, with concomitant reductions in health risks to 

the public (i.e., resulting in fewer fatalities, hospitalization, lost school and work days), 

would provide great health and welfare benefits to the public. The benefits of the 

regulation, adopted under the police powers granted to the State, clearly outweigh any 

burdens that the regulation would impose on out-of-state interests above and beyond 

those imposed on in-state interests. As stated, since the regulation applies equally to 

both in-state and out-of-state fleets operating within the state of California, no economic 

inequality will occur as a result of the regulation

As addressed in response to Comment 390, the amended regulation is drafted so as to 

treat in-state and out-of-state trucks evenhandedly. As to the commenter’s statements 

that the regulation would have an impermissible extraterritorial effect, by its terms, the 

 

24 CARB’s actions are also limited by the preemption provision of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Authorization Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14501© (―FAAAA‖), which prohibits states from 

adopting any law or regulation related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier with 

respect to the transportation of property. Although the effect of that provision on the Truck 

and Bus Regulation is not addressed in these comments, it is worth noting that barriers to 

interstate operations, such as those created by the Truck and Bus Regulation, might also run 

afoul of the FAAAA.
219

regulation will only apply to trucks and buses that operate in California. It has no 

applicability to trucks that operate wholly outside of the state (i.e., never enter and 

operate within California). See Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989); Edgar v. 

MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 642-643 (1982). The regulation will impose no requirement 

or condition on commerce that occurs wholly outside of California. As stated, the focus 

of the regulation is only on trucks that operate within the state. It does not regulate the

sale or servicing or any other out-of-state activity engaged in by out-of-state vehicles. 

Applying the Supreme Court created balancing test of Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970) 

397 U.S. 137, which balances the state’s legitimate interests in adopting the regulation 

against the burden that the regulation may impose on interstate commerce, the scales 

clearly weigh in favor of the legitimate state police powers to protect the health and 

welfare of its citizens. As acknowledged by the commenter in Comment 394 below, 

California has ―the nation’s most polluted air [and] has a strong and legitimate interest in 

reducing emissions within the state, including emissions from heavy-duty trucks that 

jeopardize the health of California’s residents.‖ ARB adopted the regulation to reduce 

emissions and public health risk associated with exposure to diesel PM, an identified 

toxic air contaminant linked with cardio vascular and pulmonary disease and cancer. 

ARB, as the designated air pollution control agency for purposes set forth in federal law 

and the agency responsible for the preparation of the state implementation plan under 

the Clean Air Act, adopted the regulation to meet national ambient air quality standards. 

Health and Safety Code section 39602. Upon approval by the United States 

Environmental Agency (U.S. EPA), the regulation will have the effect of federal law. 

The regulation will impose no greater economic burdens on out-of-state trucks than 

imposed on California-based trucks that operate in the same sector of the trucking 

industry. (See response to Comments 1-3 and 11-13.) Indeed, the economic burden 

imposed by the regulation on out-of-state trucks, in fact, will in most cases be less than 

the burden imposed on in-state vehicles. See response to Comment 396 below. 

The cases cited by the commenter to support its claims of a Dormant Commerce 

Clause violation are inapposite. For example, in Raymond Motor Trans., Inc. v. Rice 

(1978) 434 U.S. 429 and Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. (1981) 450 U.S. 

662, a plurality of the Court found that the statutes in question violated the Commerce 

Clause, in large part, because the defendant states did not provide persuasive evidence 

showing that the statutes prohibiting the use of 65-foot double trailers were any less 

safe than 55-foot single trailers, and that the illusory state interests were consequently 

outweighed by the identified burdens imposed on interstate commerce. Further, as 

opposed to the real interstate regulatory conflicts that existed in Bibb v. Navajo Freight 

Lines (1959) 359 U.S. 520 [Arkansas and Illinois had conficting mudflap statutes that 

could not be harmonized making it impossible for an interstate truck to comply with both 

statutes) no such conflict exists here.

ARB does not agree with the commenter’s passing assertion in footnote 1 above that 

the regulation violates the motor carrier preemption in the Federal Aviation 

Administration Authorization Act of 1994. The regulation does not directly or indirectly 

regulate prices, routes, or services of motor carriers engaged in the transportation of 

property. Moreover, the state action here is effectively authorized by the federal Clean 
220

Air Act (CAA), is part of the state implementation plan that California is required to adopt 

pursuant to the CAA, and once approved by EPA will have the effect of federal law.

Staff addressed the specific provisions that the commenter believes would deprive outof-state interests of advantages they might otherwise have over local interests are 

summarized in response to Comments 390 and in the response to Comment 398.

c) Burden on Truckers who Drive Limited Miles in California

394. Comment: As applied to the Truck and Bus Regulation, it is undisputed that 

California, the state with the nation’s most polluted air, has a strong and legitimate 

interest in reducing emissions within the state, including emissions from heavyduty trucks that jeopardize the health of California’s residents. Moreover, it is 

logical for CARB to extend the Regulation’s coverage to out-of-state heavy-duty 

trucks that provide transportation services in California, since CARB has found 

that out-of-state trucks travel millions of vehicle miles annually on California’s 

roads. See Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking. 

Proposed Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation, the Drayage Truck 

Regulation, and the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation (Oct, 2010) 

(―ISOR‖), at Appendix G, Emissions Analysis Methodology and Results, p.10. 

However, just as all in-state trucks are not treated similarly because they are not 

comparable in all pertinent respects, all out-of-state trucks are not equal and 

should not be treated as such. Specifically, while many trucks based in states 

adjacent to California travel a significant number of miles on average in the state, 

the number decreases substantially for trucks coming from farther away. Yet 

CARB has lumped them all together in the analyses underlying this Regulation. 

(ES-OOIDA) 

Agency Response: Staff did not ―lump‖ together vehicles from states adjacent to 

California with vehicles from non-adjacent states as the commenter suggests. In the 

inventory out-of-state trucks are categorized into two categories: one for neighboring 

states and one for non-neighboring states. Vehicle miles travelled from nonneighboring states account for 75% of total vehicle miles travelled from out-of-state 

trucks.

See response to Comment 396 that describes how the predominant business model for 

long-haul fleets results in a lower compliance cost than most in-state or local haul fleets. 

Also, various provisions in the amended regulation provide relief to trucks that have 

incidental travel within California. The response to Comment 402 describes how the 

low use provision benefits infrequent visitors to California, and the response to 

Comment 403 describes how the three-day pass exemption can be used by out-of-state 

fleets. The flexibility to designate cleaner vehicles for California operation is addressed 

in the response to Comment 404.

395. Comment: The International Registration Plan (IRP) – which is the mandatory 

vehicle registration program for commercial motor vehicles, including heavy-duty 

trucks engaged in interstate commerce - is the definitive resource in determining 

the minimum average annual miles a vehicle from another state travels in 
221

California during any calendar year. A cursory examination of the data for 28 

geographically scattered states shows that, with the exception of vehicles from 

states that border California or are located along the I-5 corridor, the average 

mileage operated in California is quite low. In fact, it shows that more distant 

motor carriers tend to operate fewer miles to/from California, going there 

irregularly and intermittently. (ES-OOIDA)

Alabama 2,891 Arizona 32,143 California 42,243 Delaware 910

Georgia 2,388 Idaho 6,658 Iowa 1,956 Illinois 2,985

Kentucky 980 Maryland 424 Mass. 231 Michigan 2,016

Montana 5,184 Mississippi 4,718 Missouri 3,323 Nebraska 3,379

Nevada 8,568 New Jersey 2,160 New Mexico 4,446 New York 944

N. Carolina 2,177 Oregon 15,404 Ohio 2,005 Oklahoma 7,386

S. Dakota 3,344 Tennessee 3,092 Vermont 2,496 Washington 15,041

Source: IRP Estimated mileage/distance charts from each jurisdiction’s respective

motor carrier licensing division.

Agency Response: Staff believes that the best sources for information on interstate 

trucks are from the IRP and the International Fuel Tax Agreement program, and not just 

the IRP. Both sources are used in developing the emissions inventory. The mileage 

data presented by the commenter in the above table are consistent with the IRP 

estimates issued by each state. However, the IRP data alone are not sufficient to 

determine the actual miles traveled or the frequency of trips by individual out-of-state 

vehicles in California. Fleets report their fleet total mileage in each jurisdiction and the 

total number of power units. These data are then used to calculate the average annual 

miles per vehicle for the fleet. However, this method could underestimate the actual 

miles traveled in California by far-state fleets that make infrequent trips since not all 

trucks in the fleet that have operating authority in California will actually come to 

California. For example, an average of 4,000 miles can mean 100 trucks travelled 4000 

miles each in California or that 10 trucks out of 100 travelled 40,000 miles each.

Staff’s evaluation of out-of-state truck activity in California for the original 2008 Truck 

and Bus rulemaking25 indicated that for states neighboring California, approximately 

60 percent of the trucks in those fleets authorized to enter California actually do so and 

for non-neighboring states, this estimate falls to 40 percent. This explains why some 

mileage reports in the table are lower than the distance of one round trip from the 

border to the nearest city. 

396. Comment: While the actual out-of-pocket costs of purchasing compliant 

equipment (to replace or retrofit) are comparable no matter where a truck or fleet 

is based, the economic benefits gained by motor carriers from those expenditures 

are far less for more distant truckers who typically operate relatively few miles in 

California. Accordingly, the burden imposed by the regulation on distant motor 

carriers operating in interstate commerce is far greater than the burden on in-state 

interests who will be the primary beneficiaries of the exemptions. (ES-OOIDA)

 

25 Appendix G See ARB 2008 Technical Support Document, Appendix G, p.G-29 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/truckbus08/appg.pdf
222

Agency Response: Long haul fleets that are typically represented by OOIDA are 

expected to have newer trucks than local haul fleets and many will have little or no 

compliance costs whether based in California or not. Interstate freight carriers typically 

replace their trucks on a 3 to 10 year replacement cycle and will have original 

equipment filters before the regulation requires them. Under the regulation’s PM filter 

replacement schedule, any vehicle that is seven years old or newer will be ahead of the 

regulation’s clean-up requirements because newer trucks have PM filters equipped by 

the original equipment manufacturer as part of a new vehicle engine. Similarly, the 

regulation’s schedule for replacement of trucks to 2010 model year or emissions 

equivalent engines is based on a 16 to 20 plus year schedule. This is well after the 

normal course of business turnover schedule of interstate carriers. 

A fleet that normally purchases new trucks within a seven year replacement cycle would 

continue to have no costs attributable to the regulation and a fleet with an eight year

replacement cycle would have no costs other than one year of reporting. Fleets that 

have a 10 year replacement cycle would likely need to retrofit two out of 10 trucks. 

Fleets with a replacement cycle less than 10 years would not need to replace any trucks 

early. Therefore, the issues raised by the commenter will apply to only a small fraction 

of all interstate trucks – covering both California and out-of-state trucks engaged in 

interstate transportation – that operate in California. In addition, out of state fleets have 

the ability to change their operating practices to reduce compliance costs by bringing 

lower emitting trucks into California; in-state fleets do not have this same flexibility.

Short-haul fleets, whether wholly or partly in-state, tend to travel fewer miles per year, 

because of their local operation, and are expected to have somewhat older trucks. 

These short haul fleets typically keep trucks longer and will have similar compliance 

costs as other short haul fleets that transport similar products whether based inside or 

outside California. Overall, we expect that the costs of the regulation will be similar for 

businesses that compete with each other in transporting goods in the same market or in 

providing the same service. Also, as discussed in the responses to Comments 402 and 

403, vehicles from non-neighboring state fleets that are infrequent visitors to California 

will be able to utilize the low-use exemption and three day pass. Therefore, staff do not 

believe the amended regulation unduly burdens out-of-state fleets and does not violate 

the Interstate Commerce Clause. 

397. Comment: The primary factor affecting the amount of harmful emissions in 

California is miles traveled within the state.26 See EMFAC 2007. Out-of-state 

heavy-duty vehicles are estimated to account for only approximately 30 percent of 

heavy-duty truck mileage in California. See Assessment of Out-of-State HeavyDuty Truck Activity Trends in California, UC Davis, Institute of Transportation 

Studies (March 2008). Yet compliance is demanded for the occasional entry into 

the state of all heavy-duty trucks engaged in interstate commerce even though instate entities that could be performing the same services can be exempt. When 

that is done, the burden on interstate commerce, in the form of increased costs for 

 

26 EMission FACtors is the model used by CARB to calculate emissions rates from all motor 

vehicles operating on California highways
223

motor carriers who must comply or stop serving California altogether, outweighs 

the minimal health benefits that accrue given the limited number of miles many of 

these motor carriers operate in the state. Under those circumstances, as 

discussed in Section II above, the Interstate Commerce Clause is violated. See 

United Haulers Ass’n v. Oneida-Herkimer, supra; New Energy Co. v. Limbach, 

supra; Brown-Forman Distillersv. New York State, supra; Pike v. Bruce Church, 

Inc., supra. (ES-OOIDA)

Agency Response: Including out-of-state heavy duty vehicles in the regulation is 

appropriate because they represent a significant source of emissions in California. This 

class of vehicles represents approximately 33 percent of the total truck mileage and 27

percent of emissions in 2014 in California. 

The amended regulation applies equally to in-state and out-of-state fleets and affects 

fleets similarly, depending on their vocation and business model. While the agricultural 

vehicle provisions and log truck option have a very limited scope and provide more time 

to certain qualifying vehicles, these provisions are narrowly defined, have limited 

eligibility criteria, and do not discriminate against out-of-state fleets. Out-of-state fleets 

can utilize all provisions in the regulation the same way as the in-state fleets to delay 

compliance as long as they can meet the same requirements. In-state fleets will not be 

at any more of a competitive advantage or disadvantage than the out-of-state fleets that 

compete in the same markets. The response to Comment 394 discusses the flexibility 

long-haul fleets have to minimize their compliance costs. 

d) Availability of Exemptions for Out-of-State Interests

398. Comment: Although the Truck and Bus Regulation purports to impose emissionsrelated requirements equally on all heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles operating in 

California, this Regulation, like the objectionable state statutes involved in the 

Raymond Motor and Hunt v. Washington cases, contains numerous exemptions to 

the rule’s requirements that will be used predominantly by in-state businesses. For 

example, paragraph (c) of the Regulation identifies 15 classes of vehicles that are 

exempted from the Truck and Bus Regulation. While a number of these vehicles 

are exempted because they are covered by other CARB regulations, a larger 

number are exempted for policy reasons unrelated to emissions. These include 

military tactical support vehicles, authorized emergency vehicles, dedicated snow 

removal vehicles, two-engine cranes, historic vehicles, motor homes for noncommercial private use, two-engine water well drilling rigs, and certain school 

buses. Regulation, § 2025(c). Of course, most of the vehicles taking advantage of 

these exemptions would be registered and based in California (ES-OOIDA)

Agency Response: The exemptions addressed by the commenter exclude vehicles 

that are already subject to an in-use diesel engine regulation or apply to a limited group 

of vehicles. Most of the vehicles identified in the exemptions section 2025(c) are 

already covered by existing California regulations. Two-engine cranes, two-engine 

water well drilling rigs and workover rigs are already subject to the off-road regulation, 

title 13, Cal. Code Regs., section 2449. It does not make sense to subject them to a 

second rule with similar requirements. 
224

School buses are subject to the Truck and Bus regulation and have a more aggressive 

PM filter schedule than trucks. All school buses with a GVWR greater than 14,000 lbs. 

need to have PM filters by 2014. The Board did not agree with staff’s original 

recommendation to exempt lighter school buses from the PM filter requirements as 

described in response to Comment 209.

Motor homes for private and non-commercial use are exempt for a number of reasons. 

The exemption represents no change for motor home owners and applies regardless of 

whether the motor home is registered in California. The suggestion that somehow this 

unfairly benefits California motor home owners compared to out-of-state motor home 

owners has no merit.

By state law, emergency vehicles are pre-empted from in use regulations, and the 

exemption applies regardless of location of registration.

Historic vehicles are typically low use vehicles and are uncommon. The exemption 

applies regardless of the location of registration. 

Overall, we do not agree that the limited exemptions for these vehicles represent a 

significant number of vehicles, nor has a significant impact on the emission benefits of 

the amended regulation. 

399. Comment: CARB has taken care, in crafting this Regulation, to ease the burden it 

places on California businesses, particularly its substantial agricultural and logging 

businesses.

Another exemption, which probably excludes more vehicles from the Regulation’s 

emissions-related strictures than all others combined, is the exemption for 

―agricultural vehicles.‖ California is the world's fifth largest supplier of food and 

agriculture commodities. Thus, the state and its regulatory agencies have 

repeatedly bowed to pressures from the agricultural industry to exempt various 

aspects of its operations from environmental restrictions that could affect their 

profitability. The provision exempting ―agricultural vehicles‖ from the Truck and 

Bus Regulation exemplifies this practice. Id. at § 2025(m). 

First, the definition of ―agricultural vehicles‖ includes virtually all vehicles used in 

agricultural operations on farms, ranches, and in forests, as well as vehicles that 

deliver fertilizer and other agricultural chemicals to those facilities, and vehicles 

that transport agricultural products from those locations to the facility where they 

will first be processed, which is ordinarily within the state. Id. at § 2025(d)(5). 

Further, CARB staff has, in the proposed amendments, responded to the 

legitimate economic concerns of in-state agricultural interests by clarifying the 

definition in a way that could only increase the number of vehicles that come within 

the scope of this exemption. Id. Pertinent here, however, the definition does not, 

in either its original or amended format, include vehicles that move the same 

products in interstate commerce from the first processing facility to points farther 

along the supply chain, ending with the retail establishments where they are sold 

to the ultimate consumers. Id. The disparity is not readily justifiable when ―[i] n 

the supply chain that stretches from the farm to the consumer, trucking provides 
225

the first miles, the last miles, and sometimes all the transportation miles.‖ USDA 

Study of Rural Transportation Issues (April 2010), www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ 

RuralTransportationStudy, at pp.xii,403,432. Indeed, it is an efficient interstate 

trucking industry that allows California to be competitive in the national and global 

marketplace for agricultural products. Id. at 403. 

Second, to qualify for the exemption, agricultural vehicles must travel less than 

specified annual total miles to qualify. Until January of 2017 the annual mileage 

limits are as follows: for a truck with a pre-1996 model year engine, fewer than 

15,000 miles; for a truck with a 1996 through 2005 model year engine, fewer than 

20,000 miles; and for a truck with a 2006 or newer model year engine, fewer than 

25,000 miles. Id. at § 2025(m)(1). Emissions restrictions are delayed until January 

of 2023 for agricultural vehicles that have not exceeded 10,000 miles per year 

prior to 2017. Id. at § 2025(m)(2). 

Agency Response: Recognizing the broad breadth of industrial sectors and vehicle 

classes covered by the Truck and Bus regulation, the regulation makes some 

distinctions between the different sectors and classes. But within each specific industrial 

sector or class, all vehicles, irrespective of whether they are California or out-of-state 

based, are treated similarly. Most OOIDA members are in the goods movement 

transportation sector. Examination of the regulation will indicate that out-of-state trucks 

engaged in goods movement are treated no differently than California-based trucks. 

ARB approved an Agricultural Vehicle Provision to provide more time for a limited 

number of low mileage agricultural vehicles in recognition of their unique vehicle and 

seasonal use characteristics. The number of vehicles that could use the extension is 

limited to ensure that California can still achieve the SIP commitments and other air 

pollution goals. The agricultural provision is available only for vehicles exclusively used 

in the growing or harvesting of crops. Eligible trucks cannot transport any products other 

than unprocessed agricultural products from the field to the first point of processing. 

Because of the mileage limits and other restrictions, the provisions can only be used by 

farmers that own their own trucks and seasonal haulers that operate only a few months 

per year. The provision is not limited to California farmers or in-state agricultural 

vehicles.

The agricultural vehicle extensions appropriately exclude any trucks that haul packaged 

agricultural products or any non-agricultural products whether based in California or 

elsewhere, regardless of miles travelled. The narrow definition limits the number of 

trucks that can use the extension and assures air quality goals will be met. The 

population of eligible trucks cannot be expanded while meeting air quality goals, and it 

is immaterial whether the trucks that are excluded are part of the extensive agricultural 

supply chain or not.

See response to comment 400 for the discussion about the log truck provision.

400. Comment: CARB has also added a new provision under the agricultural vehicle 

section for ―log trucks,‖ which exempts them from the use of PM filters without 

mileage restrictions, but subjects them to an accelerated BACT schedule. Id. at 

§ 2025(m)(11). However, logging trucks with 1997 or older engines, which 
226

operate exclusively in NOx exempt areas of the state (21 northern California 

counties), may also avail themselves of a delayed compliance schedule for vehicle 

replacement if they meet the PM filter requirements. See Id. at § 2025(p)(1). 

Although the cleaner air in the northern part of the state provides the principal 

justification for this exemption, the reality is that these specialized log trucks stay 

in a relatively confined area that limits their annual mileage. 

Agency Response: See response to Comment 399. The log truck phase-in option is 

limited to log trucks with permanently attached log bunks when operating in California 

regardless of registration state. The log truck phase-in option requires the purchase of 

2010 model year or emissions equivalent engines for trucks opting for the compliance 

delay, and fleet owners cannot use the delay and later choose to install PM filters rather 

than meet the requirement to upgrade to 2010 model year engines. 

The exemption from upgrading to 2010 model year engines for vehicles operated within 

the NOx exempt areas applies to all trucks operating in those parts of the state and is 

not limited strictly to log trucks. In-state and out-of-state vehicles that operate in or 

through these parts of the state can take advantage of the exemption provided they are 

not operated in the other parts of the state. The NOx exempt area provisions have no 

impact on the emissions reduction needed in the rest of the state. The amendments 

clarify that that the provision applies to vehicles that cross state lines if they operate

exclusively in NOx exempt areas within California’s borders. 

401. Comment: Annual vehicle mileage is a key metric utilized to measure (and 

presumably justify) the agriculture-related exemptions, presumably in recognition 

of the fact that emissions are related to either the miles operated or total engine 

hours.27 OOIDA would like to bring to the Board’s attention, as shown in the IRP 

mileage chart [See Table], with the exception of a few states surrounding 

California, trucks entering California from non-neighboring states do not even 

come close to operating the total annual total miles on California highways that is 

being permitted to in-state agricultural interests under the exemptions. Moreover, 

as we get further away from California, the mileage disparity gets even greater. 

Nevertheless, the vast majority of these trucks, because of their total annual 

mileage usage in jurisdictions outside of California, will not qualify for these 

mileage-based exemptions. (ES-OOIDA)

Agency Response: We disagree with the suggestion that the amended regulation is 

unfair towards out-of-state operators because the annual miles travelled in California by 

out-of-state fleets can be lower than the mileage limits allowed for trucks that qualify for 

the agricultural vehicle extension.

All freight haulers, California based or otherwise, transporting non-agricultural products 

and finished agricultural products, are not eligible for the agricultural vehicle extensions 

at all, regardless of annual miles travelled. Non-agricultural businesses, including in-

 

27 Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle, U.S. EPA 

website at www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05004.htm#key (Step 6: Using EPA MOBILE6.2 

fuel economy numbers).
227

state and out-of-state long haul trucking fleets, have a very different business model 

and marketplace than the farm trucks and seasonal haul trucks that are eligible for the 

agricultural vehicle extensions; therefore, there is little or no competition for these loads. 

See response to Comment 399. Also, response to comment 396 describes how long 

haul fleet have lower compliance costs than most California based fleets. 

See response to comment 395 regarding the limited conclusions that can be drawn from 

the average mileage information in the IRP table.

402. Comment: CARB has displayed almost a total disregard for the burdens imposed 

on out-of-state truckers by the same Regulation. The current Regulation has only 

two exemptions that in any way address the needs of out-of-state motor carriers, 

but neither of these are very useful in their current or modified formats. 

First, the Regulation exempts from coverage ―low-use vehicles,‖ which are defined 

as vehicles that operate less than 1,000 miles and 100 hours per year. 

Regulation, §§ 2025(d)(40) & (p)(3). The definition does not qualify the hour and 

mileage requirement in any respect and, accordingly, seems to mean the total 

miles driven by a vehicle in any state. There are not likely to be any out-of-state 

vehicles driven less than a total of 1,000 miles per year that would be entering 

California under this exemption. This is a striking departure from the current 

Regulation (at § 2025(d)(47)), which expressly provides that the mile/hour limits 

only include California operations.28 Even with that qualification, however, few outof-state motor carriers are willing to comply with the Regulation’s reporting 

requirements for such a limited number of California miles. Id. at § 2025(p)(3).

Agency Response: The amended regulation released with the 45-day Notice 

inadvertently removed language that indicated that the 1,000 mile limit applied to 

operation within California’s borders, which may have caused confusion about 

requirements for out of state vehicles. This oversight has been corrected in the 

modified language provided with the 15-day changes and was made available on 

May 19, 2011. The modified language clarifies that vehicles that operate less than 

1,000 miles per year in California, would be exempt from the clean-up requirements 

provided that fleet owners meet the record keeping and reporting requirements.

ARB disagrees that the reporting requirements are burdensome. Fleets that periodically 

visit California have the flexibility to plan and report that the truck will operate less than 

1000 miles per year in California. This option allows the vehicle owner to come into 

California for a limited number of loads for whatever timeframe is needed.

403. Comment: The Regulation contains an exemption for non-compliant ―Vehicles 

Operating with a Three Day Pass.‖ Id. at § 2025(p)(4). The exemption describes 

the procedures to be used by out-of-state interests operating non-compliant 

 

28 It is not clear whether this change was intentional since it is not mentioned in the SOR, and 

Appendix I to the SOR, captioned Costs and Cost Methodology, at p.12, mentions the 

California limitation. If intentional, it is another slap at out-of-state long-haul truckers. If 

inadvertent, then the proposed new definition should be amended
228

vehicles seeking to enter California with such a three-day pass. The current 

language (at § 2025(p)(5)) reads:

(A) Until January 1, 2021, a fleet that obtains a three-day pass will be allowed 

to operate one vehicle in California without complying with section 

2025(e) for the specified three day period per calendar year.

(B) To obtain a three-day pass, a request to the Executive Officer, identifying 

the initial date that an out-of-state vehicle or vehicle operating without 

meeting the compliance requirements within California will be traveling 

within the state making a one-time annual visit to the state, the vehicle 

owner, company name, and vehicle identification number and must obtain 

written approval, which must be carried within the vehicle, prior to 

operating in the state. 

(C) A three-day pass must be obtained from the Executive Officer either 

online, email, or by fax. The Executive Officer will have three business 

days to respond from receipt of the request before the vehicle may 

operate in California. 

A fleet owner wishing to make use of the three-day pass exemption must have 

also complied with the reporting requirements set forth in the Regulation (currently 

at § 2025(d)(7)). The proposed amendment retains all the current requirements for 

use of this once-yearly exemption, but expands the timeframe for requesting a 

pass to ―at least seven days prior to the vehicle’s planned entry into California.‖ Id. 

at §2025 (p)(4)(B). 

The Three Day Pass exemption both as currently structured and with the more 

onerous proposed modifications is unusable for the vast majority of out-of-state 

vehicle owners. First, the reporting requirements are overly burdensome for 

applying just to get one isolated vehicle into California once during the year, 

whether it is the only vehicle owned by a small-business motor carrier or is part of 

a larger fleet. 

Second, goods movement is a dynamic business, where motor carriers –

especially small- businesses – often do not know their next freight offering until the 

day before or even the same day of expected pick-up. Or a carrier might be 

dispatched on a Friday for an expected delivery in California on Monday. The lack 

of advance notice makes the three-day pass unworkable. Thus, both the current 

―three business days‖ allowed for a response from the Executive Officer or the 

minimum ―seven days‖ timeframe for requesting a pass, plus the fleet reporting 

requirements, would discourage the vast majority of out-of-state motor carriers 

from attempting to utilize this exemption. 

Finally, limiting the pass to a maximum three-day timeframe is problematic. There 

are significant seasonal fluctuations in freight availability, mostly driven by 

agricultural and import availability. If goods are not available for pick-up 

immediately after delivery (in industry parlance – a quick turn-around), anyone 

utilizing a three-day pass runs the very real risk of having to leave the state empty 
229

in order to not be in violation. One can hardly imagine a more inefficient and 

wasteful use of resources than forcing out-of-state motor carriers into this 

position. (ES-OOIDA)

Agency Response: See response to Comment 402. The three day pass exemption is 

a complementary option to the 1,000 mile low-use exemption that allows the fleet 

owner, who did not anticipate operating trucks in California, or did not report a particular 

truck as a low-use vehicle because it was not expected to be needed in California, to 

come in to the State one time each year to pick-up an unanticipated load. Based on 

comments received by staff during the regulatory development process, the three day 

period was deemed adequate by most commenters for the original rulemaking although 

it may not address every possible situation.

Fleets can take advantage of the three day pass exemption provided the pass is 

obtained before the vehicle is used in California and the fleet information is filed three 

days prior to travel. The section will allow a fleet owner that obtains a three-day pass 

for a vehicle to operate one vehicle per calendar year in California without having to 

comply with section 2025(e) for the specified three day period provided the information 

required in section 2025(r)(10) is filed with the Executive Officer at least three days prior 

to the vehicle’s planned use in California. This change to the regulation was made to 

remain consistent with the three-day period in which the Executive Officer has to 

respond to the request. The three day response time is necessary for the Executive 

Officer to have sufficient time to evaluate and respond to requests. Staff intends to 

have an online application process available in the near future to expedite the 

application and confirmation process. Considering this change and the planned 

implementation process, staff does not believe that the reporting necessary to obtain a 

three day pass is overly burdensome.

404. Comment: CARB makes it very difficult for out-of-state truck owners wanting to 

send only compliant trucks from their fleets into California, in an apparent attempt 

to improperly control conduct outside its borders. Cf. Healy v. Beer Inst., supra; 

Edgar v. MITE, Corp., supra. Specifically, in determining the size of a fleet of 

vehicles subject to the Regulation’s replacement and retrofit requirements, the 

fleet owner is required to count the total number of heavy-duty diesel trucks that 

are subject to common ownership or control ―regardless of whether the vehicles 

operate in California. . .‖ Regulation, § 2025(d)(3). 

Additionally, the Regulation requires a motor carrier to notify and update CARB on 

equipment changes to its fleet. Thus, an out-of-state vehicle owner who puts on 

more than 1,000 miles/100 engine hours per year or who needs more than one 

three-day pass each year, must count vehicles that may never enter California in 

determining what equipment must be retrofitted or replaced, and must bring the 

overall fleet into compliance before any truck can transport goods within the state. 

It is not sufficient for an out- of-state motor carrier to dedicate one or a limited 

number of vehicles to California service and bring those vehicles into compliance 

with the Regulation, even though that would serve California’s legitimate interest in 

controlling emissions within its borders. (ES-OOIDA)
230

Agency Response: The commenter has misunderstood how compliance is 

determined, as the amended regulation does not consider vehicles that will stay outside 

California when determining what equipment needs to be retrofitted or replaced. The 

amended regulation, in fact, specifies that only the portion of the fleet that operates in 

California in the compliance year (and more than 1,000 miles) must comply with the 

emissions reductions requirements. Only the vehicles that operate in California must 

be reported if the owner opts to use the PM filter phase-in option or other provisions that 

require reporting. In fact, vehicles that do not enter the State may not be included in the 

company’s fleet for determining compliance. The term ―fleet‖ is defined in section 

2025(d)(28). Therefore, the amended regulation does allow out-of-state fleet owners to 

manage their fleets to operate their cleaner vehicles in California.

The ―fleet size‖ definition in section 2025(d)(30), which includes language about 

common ownership and control, does require out-of-state, as well as in-state fleets, to 

consider all trucks covered by the regulation solely for the purpose of determining if a 

fleet qualifies for the small fleet provision. The small fleet provision is available to both 

in-state and out-of-state fleets and provides smaller fleets with additional time for 

compliance. Smaller fleets generally have fewer resources than larger ones, and unlike 

larger fleets, because of the limited number of vehicles in the fleet, are not expected to 

be able to effectively take full advantage of regulation’s flexibility options. 

e) Proposed Low-Mileage Alternative for Out-of-State Truckers

405. Comment: A closer look also shows that other reasonable alternatives exist that 

could accommodate interstate commerce while still allowing CARB to achieve its 

emissions reduction goals. Neither the three-day pass nor the low-use vehicle 

exemption provides adequate relief to out-of-state motor carriers who come into 

California on an intermittent and irregular basis. However, CARB could both 

eliminate the undue burden on interstate commerce and equalize the treatment of 

in-state and out-of-state truckers, by focusing exclusively on miles driven in the 

state, the only factor that truly affects emissions, and increasing the corresponding 

number of hours allowed under the low-use exemption to a more reasonable level. 

Indeed, OOIDA strongly urges CARB to consider either an annual mileage limit of 

15,000 miles in the state, the number of miles allowed until 2017 by the dirtiest 

and most heavily-polluting agricultural vehicles with engines from model year 1995 

and earlier, or the 10,000 mile limit applicable to any agricultural vehicle that wants 

to remain exempt from the Regulation until 2023. 

While these suggested limits are far higher than those contained in the current 

low-use exemption and would allow the out-of-state vehicles using them to spend 

far more than the three days currently allowed by the one-time three-day pass 

exemption, the trucks making use of the exemption would not pollute any more 

than the agricultural vehicles that already have comparable mileage 

exemptions. In fact, they are likely to pollute even less because, as CARB staff 

recognized in its Cost and Cost Methodology analysis in the SOR, ―most out of 

state fleets would send their newer vehicles to California and keep the small 

percentage of older trucks outside of California.‖ see SOR, Appendix I, at p.12. 

Further, given the IRP statistics on the average number of miles operated in 
231

California by trucks registered in other states, those based in nearby states (e.g., 

Arizona, Oregon, and Washington) would exceed both of these limits and not be 

able to make use of the exemption. At the same time, those farthest away (e.g., 

Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Kentucky) would actually 

operate less and, as distance from California increases, substantially less than the 

maximum allowed miles. However, the higher limit would allow those out-of-state 

motor carriers who do find themselves in California for more than 1,000 miles and 

100 engine hours or more than three days to conduct their interstate business 

without undue interference. (ES-OOIDA) 

Agency Response: Interstate fleets benefit from the amendments made to delay 

compliance and lower costs equally relative to in-state fleets. See response to 

Comment 268. 

Additionally, high mileage interstate fleets are more likely to have lower costs that most 

California based fleets and do not have an undue burden as explained in response to 

Comment 396. In addition, we do not agree that long-haul trucking businesses have a 

comparable compliance cost with agricultural fleets. Trucks that qualify for the 

agricultural vehicle extensions do not compete in the same markets as freight haulers 

that transport processed crops or non-agricultural products; therefore, claims about 

interstate commerce concerns are unwarranted. The agricultural vehicle provision is 

not available to most in-state or out-of-state fleets, regardless of annual miles travelled. 

See response to Comment 399 about the rationale for the low mileage agricultural truck 

provision and how the population of trucks that is eligible is limited.

Increasing the number of trucks that could operate up to 10,000 or 15,000 miles would 

result in higher emissions from both in-state and out-of-state trucks, resulting in the 

State not meeting its SIP commitments nor diesel PM health risk reduction goals. To 

allow a higher mileage threshold for out-of-state fleets alone would inappropriately 

discriminate against California based fleets. Out-of-state vehicles represent one-third of 

the vehicle miles travelled by heavy-duty vehicles in California and failure to control their 

emissions would jeopardize the State’s SIP commitments. 

Out-of-state fleets would only be likely to bring in cleaner trucks if the mileage threshold 

remains low. Out of state fleets already have the ability to change their operating 

practices to reduce compliance costs by bringing lower emitting trucks into the State. 

Increasing the 1,000 mile low-use threshold substantially would mean that a higher 

proportion of the out-of-state fleet would not need to take any action to reduce their 

emissions, and would have an unfair competitive advantage compared to California 

fleets that compete in the same market. For example, a near-state fleet that might 

average more than the suggested 15,000 mile threshold for the trucks that enter 

California may easily be able to rotate in different non-compliant trucks to stay below the 

limit because the threshold is high and would incur no costs to upgrade equipment; 

whereas an identical fleet that is based in California would have to incur capital costs to 

meet the requirements of the amended regulation for the entire fleet..

See response to comment 395 regarding the limited conclusions that can be drawn from 

the average mileage information in the IRP table. 
232

11. Outreach

a) Regulatory Development Process 

406. Comment: We do not get to see the staff report prior to your meetings, so it's 

very difficult for us to respond to them in writing and online and that sort of thing. 

I'm not sure if the reason we can't see them is they are so pressed for time or if 

there is a certain hide the bunny factor. In either case, we'd really like to see the 

staff report five working days before your meeting so we would be more cogent in 

our response to it. Since you have my prepared remarks, I don't have to read 

them to you. (SCCA2)

Agency Response: The staff report for this rulemaking to amend the Truck and Bus 

regulation was made available for comment 45 days before the Board meeting as 

required by law. The adoption of ARB regulations is conducted through a public 

process that exceeds the minimum public process mandated by State law. Before the 

staff proposal was presented to the board at the public hearing, staff undertook various 

actions to ensure participation by stakeholders. During this informal part of the public 

process, public workshops were held to discuss proposed amendments to the 

regulation and changes to the emissions inventory. Staff also met with a number of 

companies and representatives of trade groups and industry associations to provide 

further opportunity to participate in the regulatory development process. 

Staff initiated the formal rulemaking process with the publication of a notice of the 

December 17, 2010 board hearing. The notice, staff report and the full text of the 

proposed regulatory language were posted by October 28, 2010, as required on several 

web pages of ARB’s website. Specific to the Truck and Bus Regulation it was posted at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/truckbus10/truckbus10.htm. Notice of the Truck and 

Bus Regulation was also made available in the Regulatory Notice Register, which can 

be found on the website of the Office of Administrative Law at: 

http://www.oal.ca.gov/California_Regulatory_Notice_Online.htm

The notice invited interested members of the public to present comments orally or in 

writing at the meeting, and in writing or by e-mail before the meeting. In addition, emails 

were sent to over 7,000 members who subscribed to the electronic mailing list for the 

regulation. ARB for years has provided, on its website, the opportunity for any person 

to sign-up for electronic mailings of its rulemaking notices. Copies were also available 

to any person requesting to be on a list to receive hardcopies of notices of ARB 

rulemakings and upon request from the ARB’s Public Information Office. The notice 

contained detailed instructions about availability of these documents and agency 

contact persons. The notice also provided a link to a webpage where comments not 

physically submitted at the board meeting could be submitted electronically until noon 

December 15, 2010. 

As staff received numerous comments during the 45-day public comment period before 

the hearing, further changes were made to the regulation and presented to the Board on 

the day of the hearing. As required by statute, staff’s additional changes as well as 

changes directed by the board were made available to the public for a 15-day period 

during which the public could submit comments on the additional proposed 
233

amendments. The modifications were made available for comment with the May 19, 

2011, Notice of Availability of Modified Text (15-day notice). Staff used the same 

methods to advise the public about the 15-day comment period on additional 

amendments to be proposed as those described above for the 45-day comment period. 

In addition, the 15-day notice was sent by postal mail or e-mail to anyone who 

submitted a comment on the originally proposed amendments. 

407. Comment: We recognize that the rule contemplates some type of a 

postponement of the effective date for the truck and bus retrofit and turnover 

requirements, however, the ARB has still failed to be specific about exactly how 

much of a postponement (and to what specific date) the requirements will be 

extended. Planning is essential to good business operations. Ambiguity and 

vagueness in your proposed regulation harms our ability to plan. (APTCO)

408. Comment: I hear this frequently from the people that are affected by this rule and 

my industry -- they are looking for certainty. They make a plan. The rule changes. 

They make another plan. We really appreciate what you've done for the economy. 

But at some point, they've got to know so they can plan going forward. (CCM) 

409. Comment: We have 10,000 commercial trucks in the United States, 3,000 in 

California. We see the commercial truck rental business as a growing market, and 

we will be purchasing thousands of these diesel trucks each year and in turn, 

reselling the older one to five-year vehicles into the secondary market. We believe 

it's critical that the regulatory standards be fixed and predictable so our purchasing 

and re-selling decisions can be made with some degree of certainty. We support 

the proposed revisions, and we commit to working with you in any manner 

possible to fully integrate our company's practices with your clean air and the 

greenhouse gas reduction rules. (ERAA)

Agency Response: Staff agrees that the regulatory requirements should be clear and 

enable fleets to plan their compliance paths to the maximum extent possible. 

However, it was important that the process be thorough and that staff receive input from 

interested stakeholders. Because the regulation affects so many different industries and 

such a diverse set of vehicles, it was important to design a regulation that would 

achieve the best balance between meeting air quality goals and lowering costs for fleet 

owners while considering the impact on various industries. The regulation, as adopted, 

provides clarification and certainty for fleets. Staff does not expect any major revisions 

to the regulation in the near future, and affected fleets can now plan for compliance with 

certainty. 

410. Comment: I'm a small business person. I attended many stakeholder meetings. 

Meeting after meeting, we had people come up to the microphone and state that 

this is going to ruin their businesses. The proposition, the proposal that you guys 

came up with originally didn't take into account any of the comments that were 

done at any of these stakeholders meetings. So I'm spending my time, but you 

guys aren't considering that. (TLT) 
234

Agency Response: The workshops conducted by staff in 2010 always included an 

open discussion between attendees and staff personnel. The open exchange of ideas 

often led to refinements of the regulatory language, additions and deletions of various 

provisions, and a better understanding of the regulated community. Each revision of the 

regulation was built on the previous version as a result of working collectively over time 

with the affected stakeholders. The amended regulation, presented to the Board in 

2010, was the result of several iterations developed over the course of 2010. Staff has 

worked hard to craft a rule that provides flexibility and compliance options for all types of 

fleets, and reflects, where appropriate, the comments received at the workshops. 

b) Continue Outreach

411. Comment: Staff has done an incredible job by modifying these regulations and 

re-evaluation of the data and outreaching and listening to the affected industry. I'd 

like to request that your staff continue their endeavors to implement outreach as 

diligently as they have done for the modifications. (VPS) 

Agency Response: Staff agrees continued outreach is important and has committed 

significant resources for outreach and education to assist fleets in understanding their 

compliance options and the financial incentives programs that are available. Staff will 

continue outreach to members of the affected public through public speaking 

engagements, the Internet, informational flyers, media interviews, association meetings, 

and a variety of other methods of communication. We plan to continue to work with 

industry representatives and trade associations to inform their members about the 

regulation and to develop additional methods to educate stakeholders. We will continue 

to improve outreach materials. All informational fact sheets are now available in 

multiple languages, and the website has been made more user friendly. 

Staff has created a Truck Regulations Advisory Committee (TRAC) comprised of 

industry members to address rule implementation issues and to get feedback on how to 

improve future outreach efforts. This effort will include holding public workshops, 

seminars, and individual meetings throughout the State. Staff has developed an online 

reporting system, TRUCRS, as well as other tools to assist fleets in developing their 

own compliance plans. 

ARB staff has also initiated outreach activities to ensure that those affected by the Truck 

and Bus regulation are also aware of other diesel regulations that may apply to them. 

These include development of the Truck Stop website, an information phone line and 

email, and free training opportunities. The Truck Stop website is a one- stop website 

that has information and tools for fleet owners to find out information on multiple 

regulations that may apply to them.

ARB staff will continue to conduct free training sessions throughout the State and make 

this training available through webcasts and videos as well. ARB staff will continue to 

work internally and with affected stakeholders through the Truck Regulations Advisory 

Committee to coordinate outreach efforts on all regulations that affect fleet owners. 
235

12. General 

a) In Support of the Regulatory Amendments

412. Comment: ARB must remain vigilant on any further attempts to stay or delay the 

overall goals of the agency’s various in-use fleet rules or ARB’s broader Diesel 

Risk Reduction Plan. These important emission reductions strategies not only 

protect the health of all the citizens of California but also provide an important 

source of economic growth and green jobs for the state. We wish to thank the ARB 

staff for its willingness to work closely with all interested parties throughout the 

regulatory process. Our industry is committed to do its part to help achieve the 

goals of these regulations. (MECA1)

413. Comment: We have a complex system of laws and regulations that govern our 

military funding process. It's different. And our procurement processes are also a 

challenge. And that was recognized. We appreciate that. We also appreciate the 

recognition of our dynamic and unpredictable mission. We don't always know what 

we'll be called upon to do. We are committed to complying with the proposed 

regulations. (UCMC) 

414. Comment: Cal Energy supports the staff proposal for the truck and bus rule, for 

the off-road rule, the large spark ignition rule. In this last month, we received our 

first new truck. We also are retrofitting engine and particulate matter filter. It's 

interesting, our local ARB has asked us about the effectiveness. It sounds like 

there may have been some potential issues there. But we'll look forward to 

working through that. We appreciate the additional time to use this equipment and 

see how it impacts. And we want to thank the staff for their workshops coming 

down to El Centro. (CEOC)

415. Comment: This has been a really long and challenging time for agriculture. And I 

think staff would agree when they have had negotiations with us (California Citrus 

Mutual). But I want to tell you, I'm pleased today to tell you that we do support the 

amendments that have been put forth for the agricultural component of the rule. 

The citrus industry has a high percentage of our trucks that do not qualify for the 

agricultural component of the rule, because we are an industry that pretty much 

operates ten months a year. So with the amendments that have been put forward 

in the main part of the rule today, they will have benefit for a great percentage of 

the citrus industry. So I do thank you for taking a look at the economy, because 

the profit margins that you've heard many times today are very, very thin. (CCM) 

416. Comment: Ag is not exempt from the truck rule. We've been complying for the 

last year. We're going to continue to comply. We just wanted to make sure that 

you knew we appreciated that. We also appreciate the changes that you've made 

for the folks that could not take advantage of the mileage provisions for the 

agriculture community. Because there's many folks in the agriculture communities 

that harvest several times a year and can't stay under the low mileage provisions, 

and these new changes will be helpful to them. I appreciate the staff already 

helping us get the word out and doing the workshopping. I just wanted to make 
236

sure that you heard from all sides on that and you appreciate the staff and the 

Board. (CAFBF) 

417. Comment: Our own surveys indicate investments in excess of two billion dollars. 

These same companies have created or saved thousands of jobs here in 

California through the retrofit industry and the amendments that are before you 

today are going to create additional retrofit opportunities that are going to create 

thousands more jobs for California and the rest of the United States. As Mr. Brown 

indicated, our number one request today is that you finalize the requirements for 

trucks processing off-road equipment that are before you today to provide some 

certainty in the marketplace and get end users off the sidelines and into the 

pathway for compliance. We appreciate very much the inclusion of credits and 

incentives in the package before you for retrofits. These are very important to help 

jump start the demands for retrofit technology here in California, and we're 

appreciative that there are additional credits that have been included in the 15-day 

changes that were mentioned in the presentation this morning. (MECA2)

418. Comment: We are supportive of the current rule (submitted by ARB staff on 

October 29, 2010) and above all we urge you and your Board to adopt a rule 

without further delay. As one of many stakeholders in this process, we need the 

certainty provided by a rule in order to continue to operate our business. (CAEC1) 

(CAEC2)

Agency Response: ARB appreciates comments in support of the Truck and Bus 

regulation. 

419. Comment: I wanted to thank everybody for bearing with us and letting us all come 

up together. If it's all right, we're going to have the whole group. There are 15 

students in all, but not all are speaking. So I just wanted everyone to be able to 

come up and stand with their friends while they speak. The students who are 

speaking today are from Oakland and Richmond, and they can speak better for 

themselves than I can. So I'll just let them. (ROSE1) (ROSE2) 

Agency Response: ARB appreciates comments of support of the Truck and Bus 

regulation. The names of the students that the commenter is referring to were 

submitted by the commenter during the 45 day comment period as part of the comment 

letter identified as Comment 22 (ROSE1). The comment letter was posted on the day 

of the hearing in the comments log for this rulemaking at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=on-offroad10. The 

names of the students are listed in Table B-3. While this is a list of students who were 

in attendance at the hearing, only some of the students testified. The comments for the 

students who testified are responded to separately in the Health and Alternatives 

chapters. 

b) Not Applicable to the Regulatory Amendments

420. Comment: We urge the Board to adopt the proposed changes to the fleet 

regulations and also request near term ARB policy guidance adjustments for 

existing verification and in-use compliance procedures. (DFS1) (DFS2)(MECA1)
237

421. Comment: CDTI asks the board to add further resources to the Retrofit 

Assessment Section so that verifications, extensions, and parts changes can be 

obtained with greater efficiency. (CDT1)

422. Comment: We have found it is possible to maintain engine combustion over an 

entire engine life. This eliminates unwanted diesel fuel producing increasing 

emissions as an engine ages. We have found Caterpillar dealers learning how to 

measure combustion as a diagnostic tool and then tuning the diesel engine for 

maximum fuel savings. This results in vehicle owner savings and the Caterpillar 

professional service centers are taking the engine combustion responsibility same 

as a aircraft mechanic signing of an airworthy engine log. Check out the Whayne 

Supply CAT link for information about the Mirenco products and service through 

CAT Dealers. I would encourage you to check is the large "Mirenco" tile in the 

center of the Whayne Supply home page (www.whayne.com). It will explain much 

of the Mirenco process (MIRE)

423. Comment: The poor economy has affected Public Utilities in much the same way 

it has the private sector. We have had to slash our budgets, reduce our workforce, 

and raise rates just to keep operating and provide the necessary service to our 

customers. We don't have extra money laying around to retrofit or replace our 

diesel trucks and equipment. Any money spent on our fleet to comply with the 

emission regulations has to be passed on to our customers who are already 

feeling the effects of the down economy themselves. Public Fleets need to have 

the same considerations that the private sector is receiving in the regulation 

amendments. We need some breathing room as well. We have had to spend 

hundreds of thousands of dollars to date to remain compliant with the regulations 

and we still have much more to go with the current compliance schedule. (CVWD)

Agency Response: These comments are not pertinent to modifying the Truck and Bus 

regulation or to the proposed amendments and will not be responded to in this 

document. 

c) Reduce GHG Emissions and Dependence on Petroleum

424. Comment: I am with the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition. Very much 

share the concerns that have been raised about health impacts and about the 

inventory and the lack of a margin for error. But I want to use my time to discuss 

something that I don't think has been discussed today. A few weeks from now, in 

early January, the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is going to 

retire its last diesel bus. It's going to retire its last diesel bus. That's an effort I was 

involved with back in the 1992. It's taken them 18 years, but they're going to retire 

their last diesel bus. I raise this, because it highlights what these heavy-duty rules 

don't accomplish. They don't reduce our dependence on petroleum. And they don't 

really do much for reducing greenhouse gases. 

In 2006 and 2007, the Air Board worked with the CEC to develop an AB 1007 

alternative fuels plan for the state. This Board adopted that plan. That plan -- the 

moderate growth scenario in that plan calls for 26 percent alternative fuels by 

2022; 26 percent alternative fuels for the transportation sector in California by 
238

2022. I have two specific requests for the Board. I raised this one before back in 

2009. As I recall, several of you from the dais agreed and thought it was a good 

idea. 

Starting now with every regulation that this staff brings to you, including 

amendments to regulations that you've already adopted, not only should they 

report on the economic impacts, not only should they report on the 

health/SIP/criteria pollutant impacts, but also be reporting to you on what are the 

greenhouse gas impacts of these changes or this new reg, as well as how does 

this play into our petroleum reduction goals that we've adopted as a state? That 

was not part of the presentation today, and it should be part of every presentation 

that staff makes to you with any regulation or an amendment to a regulation. 

The second request is looking even beyond 2022; we've done so much work as a 

state in clarifying and developing our strategy for the light-duty vehicle sector. 

Where do we need to be by 2050 and how are we going to get there? We have not 

done the work with the heavy-duty sector. My request is that the Board directs 

staff to accomplish this in 2011. Work with interested parties and develop that 

equivalent plan for the heavy-duty sector in California. Where do we need to be 

and how are we going to get there? Today, I submit even those that work on this 

reg can't lay that out for you. And they should be able to. (CNGVC) 

Agency Response: The purpose of the Truck and Bus regulation is to reduce 

emissions of PM, NOx and other criteria pollutants from in-use diesel vehicles. The 

GHG emissions impact of the Drayage Truck, Tractor-Trailer, and Truck and Bus 

regulations was evaluated and is discussed in the Initial Statement of Reasons (2010), 

which was provided to the public for comment 45 days prior to the Board hearing on 

December 17, 2010. Due to the need for brevity, the impact of the Truck and Bus 

regulation on GHG emissions was not discussed at the Board hearing on 

December 17, 2010.

The Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plan identifies the key strategies California will use to 

reduce the GHG that cause climate change. The scoping plan has a long term range of 

GHG reduction actions which include regulations, such as the Tractor Trailer regulation, 

which was developed to explicitly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel usage in a 

relatively inexpensive way, through reduction of wind resistance and rolling resistance 

with aerodynamic cowling and improved tires.

While the Truck and Bus regulation is not part of the Scoping Plan, it provides certain 

provisions which will help achieve the goals of GHG reduction and the reduction of 

dependence on petroleum. For example, it provides credits for adding alternative fueled 

vehicles and fuel efficient hybrid vehicles that result in reduced fuel consumption and 

reduced GHG emissions. 

C. Summary of Comments and Agency Responses –Notice of Modified Text

Table 7 lists all commenters who submitted comments on the modifications to the 

originally proposed amendments. Following the table is a summary of each pertinent 

objection or recommendation, together with an agency response providing an 
239

explanation of how the proposed action has been changed to accommodate the 

objection or recommendation or the reasons for making no change. The comments 

have been grouped by topic whenever possible. Comments not pertinent to the 

modifications proposed in the first 15-Day Notice are not summarized below. 

Table 7

List of Persons and Entities who Submitted Written Comments

During the 15-Day Comment Period

Reference

Code Commenter Affiliation

ATI Shellie Archer Archer Trucking Inc. 

BLOU John Blough John Blough 

CACTS K. Michael O’Connell Coalition of Approved California 

Truck Driver Training Schools

CCIMA3 Charles Rea California Construction & Industrial 

Materials Association

CFA3 Steven Brink California Forestry Association

CIAQC4 Michael Lewis Construction Industry Air Quality 

Coalition

CTA3 Chris Shimoda California Trucking Association

CTTA2 Glenn Neal California Tow Truck Association

CVS Bill & Jo Ann Bawks Central Valley Sweeping

DCC3 Skip Brown Delta Construction Company Inc. 

GALL Sean Galleher Sean Galleher

GCI3 Nick Pfeifer Granite Construction Inc. 

IMET Julius Rim Julius Rim

LRENN Larry Rennacker Larry Rennacker

MGOR Martin Gordon Martin Gordon 

NAPSA1 Jay Wells North American Power Sweeping 

Association

NAPSA2 Kevin Kroeger North American Power Sweeping

Association

NAPSA3 Mark Carter North American Power Sweeping

Association

NRDC Diane Bailey Natural Resource Defense Council 

QUINN Bob Shepherd Quinn Company

a) Early PM Retrofit Credit

425. Comment: CIAQC supports credits that serve as an incentive for the early 

installation of emission reduction technologies, i.e., PM VDECS. However, we 

have two concerns with the amendments for early retrofit credits as proposed.

The first concern relates to the information provided in News Release #11-13 

issued April 6, 2011 that states, "ARB announces special compliance option for 
240

California on-road diesel fleets purchase of particulate filter by May 1 earns early 

action credit for another truck in fleet." The news release includes the following 

paragraphs:

"The early action ―buy-one-get-one-free‖ credit applies to heavier trucks with a 

manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating of more than 26,000 lbs. There is no 

limit on how many trucks in the fleet can earn the early action credit."

"Fleets that install a particulate matter filter by July 1, 2011, will get the early action 

credit. Fleets that have made the commitment to purchase by May 1 and install 

the PM filter after July 1, 2011, will still receive early action credit In addition, the 

vehicle that is retrofitted would also be compliant until 2020 regardless of engine 

model year. Extra particulate filter credits are not available for filters installed to 

comply with other pre-existing ARB regulations or, if partially paid for by public 

funding." This information did not state that the early action credit would only 

apply to the phase-in compliance option and not also the PM BACT, as the 

May 19, 2011 proposed amendments specify. The April 2011 news release is 

misleading and the two-for-one credits should be available without limitations for 

both compliance paths. (CIAQC4)

426. Comment: Section 2025(j) This credit section is misleading. All of the credits are 

tied only to the phase-in option. Even more confusing is the "two-for-one" credit 

that was announced in an e-mail on 4/6/11. The e-mail announcement states the 

credits can be taken as two-for-one with no limitations (i.e. no reference to being 

restricted to only the phase-in option). However, the regulation as released for the 

15-day only allows this credit only if the fleet uses the phase-in option to meet the 

BACT percentages (section 2025(j)). Based upon the information in the e-mail 

copied at the end of this comment letter, a lot of people moved forward thinking 

this credit would also apply to owners using the straight BACT method. 

This ―two-for-one‖ credit must be allowed for both the straight BACT method 

(Table 2) and the Phase-In option. If not allowed for the straight BACT method, 

based upon the e-mail announcement, the public has been totally misled. (QUINN) 

Agency Response: The news release dated April 6, 2011, was primarily an 

announcement of the approaching May 1 deadline for fleets intending to take advantage 

of the early PM retrofit credit. The announcement did not describe every detail on how 

to use the early action credit option and was not intended to be a substitute for the 

regulatory language. Although the news release could easily be interpreted to apply to 

the PM filter phase-in option, it did not explicitly state that the early retrofit credit would 

only count towards compliance with the phase-in-option or that it would not apply to 

fleets that comply with the engine model year schedule. 

The engine model year schedule was included in the regulation as a straightforward 

compliance option that specifies which engines to retrofit and replace based solely on 

the engine model year so that no reporting would be required. Staff considered allowing 

fleets to use the early PM credit with this compliance option; however, as described 

below, to do so would add additional complexity, would create unnecessary competitive 
241

disadvantages, and require reporting which undermines a key purpose of having the 

engine model year compliance schedule.

Complexity would be added by needing to track which vehicles in the fleet were using 

the credits. The regulation would have to spell out whether or not the credit could be 

transferred to different vehicles from year to year. Either approach would be 

problematic, but allowing credit transfers would add significant complexity by requiring 

fleets to audit and verify. The PM filter phase-in option already requires reporting and 

specifies the percentage of the whole fleet that needs to have PM filters; there is no 

need to specify a particular vehicle to use the credit.

Allowing for credits to be used with the model year schedule can create competitive 

disadvantages or loop holes that staff believes should be avoided. The engine model 

year schedule already defers clean-up of 1996 model year or older engines to 2015 and 

2016. Certain fleets will also be able to use other provisions in the regulation and will 

be able to defer clean-up of the engines that would be required to be retrofit in the early 

years. This means that such a company able to use such provisions would be able to 

further delay clean-up of a small fraction of the fleet while other companies could not 

simply because of the model year grouping of the engines in the fleet. This would 

create an unfair competitive advantage, would further backload compliance costs, and 

would result in fewer emissions benefits than expected from the regulation. Because 

the PM filter phase-in option determines compliance based on a percentage of the 

vehicles in the fleet, it treats similar fleet more equitably regardless of engine model 

year groupings. 

Finally, the model-year schedule requires turnover of older heavier trucks in 2015 and 

2016. If fleets were able to delay engine replacements, then the engines with the 

highest PM emissions would operate longer and the early PM reduction credit would 

result in increased NOx emissions. This could further jeopardize the overall emissions 

reductions expected from the regulation. The PM filter phase-in option defers 

replacements until 2020; therefore, this issue is not present with the phase-in schedule.

427. Comment: The inconsistent application of early action credits as described in the 

April 6, 2011 news release and the May 19, 2011 proposed amendments also 

underscores that additional time should be given to receive credits for the 

purchase and installation of PM VDECS. The official 15-day proposed 

amendments were released on May 19, 2011. Until this time, the changes to the 

Truck and Bus Regulation were uncertain. VDECS installations are capital 

intensive and the decision to purchase VDECS for early credit purposes were 

likely postponed until the rule language was available. For this reason, the 

deadlines to receive credit for early PM VDECS should be extended 

commensurate with the five-month time frame between the amended rule adoption 

and the release the amendments. The early credit deadline for installing a VDECS 

is July 1, 2011. The early credit deadline for purchased VDECS is May 1, 2011, 

and the deadline to install the purchased VDECS is October 1, 2011. The July 1 

and May 1, 2011 dates should be extended at least by five months to keep the 

incentive for early credits viable and useable. (CIAQC4)
242

Agency Response: The primary purpose of the early PM retrofit credit provision was 

to reward fleets that had taken action to comply with the regulation as originally 

adopted. The credit period was later extended to July 1, 2011 to further encourage 

fleets to install retrofits early and to minimize the potential for PM filter orders placed in 

2010 to be cancelled. The July 1, 2011 installation date, gave fleets enough time to 

take action after the Board meeting. These installations are considered early 

compliance actions in that they must be made at least six months before the initial 

compliance deadline. We believe this appropriately rewards fleets that had taken steps 

to comply with the regulation. 

Extending the early credit period significantly beyond July 2011 would give additional 

credit for meeting the basic compliance requirements and would not result in the early 

emissions reductions the credit is intended to achieve. Similarly, a PM filter purchased 

5 months later than the May 1, 2011 purchase deadline, would be unlikely to be 

installed before January 1, 2012; therefore, it would not be early and should not be 

given extra credit for early action. . 

b) Excess PM VDECS Credit

428. Comment: CIAQC applauds CARB for incorporating its recommendation to allow 

excess credits earned for one regulation to be applied toward compliance for the 

other under certain conditions as provided in section 2025(j)(2)(C). Section 

2025(j)(2)(C)(1) specifies how the excessive PM credits are applied between the 

two regulations. This section should be amended to clarify that the unit of credit 

exchange between the regulations is horsepower.

The reason for this recommendation is that the PM Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) requirements for the Truck and Bus Regulation is based on 

the number of vehicles and the PM BACT requirements (and thus credits) for the 

Off-Road Regulation is based on horsepower. A unit of horsepower would provide 

that the exchange of credits would be on an equal basis between the two 

regulations. This could be accomplished by inserting the following underlined text 

into this portion of section 2025(j)(2)(C)(1) "The annual excess PM VDECS credits 

are determined by counting the number of Level 3 PM VDECS filters and 2007 

model year and newer engines that meet PM BACT in the fleet that exceed the 

minimum number required to meet the PM BACT percentage of section 2025(i) 

multiplied by the horsepower of engines in those vehicles that exceed the 

minimum number without accounting for the credits specified in sections 

2025(j)(2)(A), and 2025(j)(3)."

In addition, section 2025(j)(2)(C)(2) should be modified to clarify what constitutes 

excess PM VDECS credit. This modification needs to clarify that PM VDECS 

installed on off-road equipment prior to the first compliance dates, January 1, 2014

for large fleets, January 1, 2017 for medium fleets and January 1, 2019 for small 

fleets, would qualify as excess credits for use in meeting the Truck and Bus 

Regulation PM BACT requirements.

To avoid potential confusion regarding the expiration date for utilizing excess PM 

VDECS credits between the two regulations, section 2025(j)(2)(C) could be 
243

amended as follows, "For the same owner, excess PM VDECS credits granted in 

the Off-road regulation (title 13, CCR section 2449) may be used in the Truck and 

Bus regulation and excess PM VDECS credits granted in the Truck and Bus 

regulation may be used in the Off-road regulation to meet BACT requirements up 

to and including the January 1, 2016 compliance date. Starting with the 

January 1, 2017 compliance date no credits may be transferred between the two 

regulations." (CIAQC4)

Agency Response: As suggested, the method used to exchange credits between the 

two regulations uses horsepower, but the language on how the conversion is made is 

addressed in the Off-Road regulation. The Off-Road regulation also specifies the use of 

a conversion factor to convert the total maximum horsepower of excess engines with 

Level 3 PM VDECS to excess PM VDECS credits that may be applied towards 

compliance with the Truck and Bus regulation. The response to Comment 131 explains 

how the credits can be earned and transferred between the two regulations.

We do not agree that section 2025(j)(2)(C)(2) of the Truck and Bus regulation should 

define how credits from off road equipment should be earned in the Off-Road regulation. 

The specific requirements regarding compliance dates and other details for determining 

the off-road credits should be addressed in section 2449 of the Off-Road regulation. 

The concept for transferring credits is reflected in section 2025(j)(2)(C) of the Truck and 

Bus regulation. Credits may be transferred between the Truck and Bus regulation and 

the Off-Road regulation until January 1, 2017. Starting January 1, 2017 no credits may 

be transferred between the two regulations. Similar language is in the amendments to 

section 2449 of the Off-Road regulation. 

429. Comment: Text at (j)(2)(C) allows the use of excess off-road regulation PM 

VDECS credits to meet truck and bus PM BACT requirements, and vice versa. In 

general the same model year off-road engine emits significantly more PM than the 

same model on-road engine. In addition, the same passive or active PM VDECS 

costs at least 25% more in off-road applications than in on-road applications. It 

would therefore be in all parties’ best interests to give excess off-road PM VDECS’ 

additional credit when used to meet on-road PM BACT requirements. I would 

suggest a minimum of 25%. So, for example, if a 300 hp of off-road piece of 

equipment were retrofit generating an excess credit, the amount of credit when 

applied to the Truck and Bus PM BACT would be at 375 hp. (LRENN) 

Agency Response: Section 2025(j)(2)(C) provides a straightforward method for 

calculating excess PM VDECS credits for trucks that may be used for compliance with 

the Off-Road regulation and the method for applying excess PM VDECS credits earned 

in the Off-Road regulation to compliance with the Truck and Bus regulation. The 

response to Comment 131 explains how the credits can be earned and transferred 

between the two regulations. The Off-Road Regulation, section 2449, addresses how 

excess credits are accrued in the Off-Road regulation and how excess PM filter credits 

from trucks can be used for off-road vehicle compliance. 

We recognize that trucks have varying horsepower. For simplicity, the Truck and Bus 

regulation uses the number of PM filters and doesn’t use horsepower. Of course the 
244

Off-Road regulation is based on off-road engine horsepower; therefore, a conversion 

factor of off road horse power to number of equivalent PM filters for trucks has been 

established. The conversion rate that will be used to determine the value of the credit 

from action in one rule compared to action in the other is addressed in the Off-Road 

regulation amendments. 

430. Comment: CalCIMA members have a variety of fleets subject to this regulation 

that are used in the production and delivery of materials. These include on-road 

fleets of mixer trucks that deliver concrete to project sites. They also include 

water, crane, lube, mechanics, and other vocational fleets that operate at material 

production plants. The materials industry continues to face many challenges in a 

down construction economy, so we appreciate the Board making changes to 

provide more options, allowances, credits, and extensions in the rule.

Since CalCIMA members operate both On and Off-road fleets, the "bubble 

concept" in Section 2025 (j)(2)C) is one of the potentially helpful changes, since it 

will allow exchange of excess credits among the two rules. Since this is a two part 

provision-requiring completion of the 15 day changes to the Off-road rule as well, 

we encourage the Board to complete the Off- road changes as soon as possible, 

so members will know the credit exchange rate and be able to make decisions 

accordingly. (CCIMA3) 

Agency Response: New compliance options were added to the Truck and Bus 

regulation and the Off-Road regulation to allow excess PM VDECS credits in either the 

Truck and Bus regulation or the Off-Road regulation to count toward compliance with 

the other regulation. Section 2025(j)(2)(C) describes how on-road excess PM credits 

are determined for compliance with the Off-Road regulation. The Off-Road regulation, 

with the method for calculating the off-road excess PM VDECS credit is available at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/lsi15dayatt3.pdf. 

c) Credit for Early Addition of Newer Vehicles

431. Comment: The revised "fleet age reduction" credit continues to treat aftermarket 

DPFs as the favored compliance option of the ARB. The inequitable treatment of 

those fleets that choose to comply with OEM equipment (for functional purposes) 

at ten times the upfront cost of aftermarket retrofits could be, at best, described as 

puzzling given that their early and additional emission reductions are identical. We 

have yet to hear adequate justification for this policy and fail to recognize the 

ARB's statutory authority to prejudice policy to favor one Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) versus another.

The argument put forth by Board staff that they do not want to credit fleets that 

would have purchased the new equipment as part of their normal buying cycles is 

tenuous. It is impossible for Board staff to know whether new equipment was 

bought in response to the rule or not. Measuring average fleet age at a single point 

in time (October 2006) against another (compliance year) is an entirely arbitrary 

way to measure vehicles added and one that has no statutory support. Also, fleets 
245

who ordinarily turn over equipment in advance of the requirements of the BACT 

schedule would have no reason to claim credits it does not need.

The simplest way to measure additional vehicles is to credit all like-reductions in 

emissions achieved prior to a date not to exceed six months prior to rule 

implementation. This is consistent with the basic principles of general pollutant 

incentive crediting schemes. The "one-to-one" method of crediting aftermarket 

retrofits is simple and easy for fleets to administer. We would strongly suggest the 

Board and staff consider adopting equitable crediting for aftermarket and OEM 

filters. (CTA3)

Agency Response: Providing extra credits for actions that would be taken without a 

regulation results in no emissions reductions and is counter productive to the goals of 

having the regulation. The credit for the early installation of retrofit PM filters is straight 

forward because it is reasonable to expect that PM retrofits would not be installed 

without the regulation; however, determining how many vehicles in each fleet would 

already have original equipment filters, if there were no regulation, will vary by business 

type and a variety of other factors. We agree with the notion that if fleets make early 

truck replacements, it is appropriate to provide extra credits; however, there is no ideal 

way to determine how many engines in a given fleet are replaced early in response to 

the regulation. The method included in the amended regulation is the best compromise 

for determining the credit and is discussed in the response to Comment 120.

d) Requirements for New Fleets and Changes to Existing Fleets

432. Comment: would like to express several concerns with changes made in the 15-

day modified text.

Section 2025(o)(2)(A). I believe CARB is trying to make this more complicated 

than it really needs to be to ensure compliance. In several other regulations the 

statements for compliance are more straight-forward and do not require reporting 

every time equipment is added. To report to the Executive Officer every time a 

new vehicle is added to a fleet is too onerous. I suggest you word this section 

similar to the reverse of 2025(o)(2)(B):

"If an existing fleet does not meet the requirements of section 2025(f) or 2025(g) 

when a vehicle is added to the fleet, the owner must file a report with the 

Executive Officer that demonstrates how the requirements of 2025(o)(2)(C)1 and 2 

will be met within 30 days of the addition of the vehicle."

If you are concerned with this language allowing someone to add an older pre1996 engine, you could use the following language:

"An existing fleet may not add a vehicle with an engine 1995 or older. Additionally, 

a vehicle may not be added to the fleet that does not comply with section 2025(f) 

or 2025(g), and the requirements of 2025(o)(2)(C)(1) and 2".

This latter suggestion would ensure that even if the BACT phase-in option were 

used, the fleet could not add any vehicle that did not meet the PM BACT portion of 

the regulation when it was required to by Tables 1 and 2. It also prevents the 
246

introduction of older vehicles that would not need to comply with the PM BACT at 

all (the pre-1996s that only require replacement later). (QUINN) 

433. Comment: The requirement found in section 2025(o)(2) that an existing fleet must 

report within 30 days to the executive Officer each time a vehicle is added is 

unnecessary and overly burdensome. This section could be modified, while 

ensuring compliance, with the following change, ―If an existing fleet does not meet 

the requirements of section 2025(f) or 2025 (g) when a vehicle is added to their 

fleet, the owner must file a report with the Executive Officer that demonstrates 

how the requirements of section 2025(o)(2)(c)(1) and 2025 (o)(c)(2) will be met 

within 30 days of the addition of the vehicle. (CIAQC4).

Agency Response: Fleets that comply strictly with the model year schedules do not 

need to report and do not need to report any additions to the fleet if the vehicle added 

complies with the schedule. Fleets that use credits provisions or the more flexible 

compliance options must report changes to ensure that enforcement has information 

consistent with the fleet’s vehicle information.

For fleets that must report, section 2025(o)(2)(A) was modified to make it more clear 

that newly added vehicles that have 2007 model year engines or newer that meet PM 

BACT are not required to be reported to the Executive Officer within 30 days of adding 

the vehicle and only need to be reported at the next annual reporting date. However, if 

a fleet owner makes changes to the fleet that would make the fleet no longer compliant 

with the requirements that had to be met at the beginning of the compliance year, such 

as adding a vehicle that does not have a PM filter, the fleet owner must report the 

changes to the Executive Officer within 30 days and identify the steps taken to ensure 

continued compliance. 

e) Exemptions and Extensions

434. Comment: Section 2025(f)(3) may need to be clarified as to exactly what 

exemptions, delays, and extensions apply to the vehicles under 26,000 lbs.; for 

section 2025 (j), it may help to have clarification or guidance as to which credits 

are one-for-one per vehicle and which are applied on a fleet percentage basis; list 

and section 2025 (p)(2)(G) appears to be a duplicate of Section 2025 (p)(2)(F).

(CCIMA3)

Agency Response: Staff amended 2025(f)(3) to include the statement ―except for the 

following sections that apply only to heavier trucks: 2025(p)(1)(B), 2025(p)(2), 

2025(p)(8), 2025(p)(9), and 2025(p)(10)‖. Each of the respective sections already 

specify that they apply to heavier vehicles. This change was added to clarify upfront 

that vehicles with a GVWR of 26,000 pounds or less cannot use all of the exemptions, 

delays, and extensions of section 2025(p). 

Section 2025(j) contains credits for fleets that have downsized; early PM retrofits; 

excess PM VDECS; hybrid, alternative fueled, and heavy-duty pilot ignition engine 

vehicles; and early addition of newer vehicles. All of these credits count towards 

compliance with the PM filter phase-in option. Each of these credits is described in 

more detail. See the responses to Comment 112 for the credit for early PM retrofit; 
247

Comment 131 for the excess PM VDECS credit; Comment 137 for the credit for hybrid, 

alternative fueled and heavy-duty pilot ignition engine vehicles and Comment 120 for 

the credit for early addition of newer vehicles. 

The duplication error in sections 2025 (p)(2)(G) and 2025 (p)(2)(F) was corrected by 

eliminating the duplicate section 2025(p)(2)(G) as a non-substantive change. 

f) Low-Mileage Construction Trucks

435. Comment: While Granite supports the amendments, there is one detail that we 

feel has the potential to create competitive imbalance in the low-bid construction 

environment. The 10 truck per fleet limit in the low mileage construction truck 

exemption puts larger, pro-active fleets at a potential disadvantage. Using a 

percent of fleet cap rather than a 10- truck fleet cap would maintain the desired 

limit to the exemption while maintaining bid parity for fleets in the ultra-competitive 

construction market. (GCI3) 

Agency Response: The low-mileage construction truck provision was modified to 

make the provision more flexible for construction fleets. The changes made to expand 

the eligible truck types and to raise the mileage threshold for dump trucks required a 

cap on the number of trucks to be eligible to remain emissions neutral. Because it is 

uncertain how many fleets will use the provision, staff specified an initial limit of 10 

trucks per fleet with the ability to increase the number of eligible trucks per fleet after the 

initial reporting until the 9,000 truck limit is reached. Depending on how many trucks 

are initially eligible to use this provision, it is possible that the number of trucks 

approved for larger companies can be increased. The changes to the low-mileage 

construction truck provision are described in detail in response to Comment 157.

This provision does favor smaller businesses consistent with the original rulemaking 

where more time is given for smaller fleets. Smaller fleets generally have fewer 

resources than larger ones, and may have more difficulty complying with the regulation. 

In addition, smaller fleets are typically not as able as larger fleets to effectively take full 

advantage of flexibility options such as credits for early PM filters, vehicle retirement 

and other special provisions that reduce annual compliance requirements for larger 

fleets. A fleet limit based on a percentage of the fleet would likely require the 

percentage to be quite small and would potentially prevent the smallest fleets from 

being eligible at all. For example, if the appropriate limit for each fleet was 5%, a fleet 

with 9 trucks could not use the provision because 5 percent of 9 rounds to zero. In 

addition, as stated in the Staff Report (2008), nearly 90 percent of the California-based 

fleets, that are subject to the Truck and Bus regulation, are small fleets and a 

percentage based provision would competitively disadvantage such fleets. 

Regarding the potential competitive disadvantage of proactive fleets, we believe that 

fleets that took early action to equip trucks or off-road equipment with PM filters or have 

upgraded to newer trucks are rewarded by the amended regulation for the early action 

with the credits that delay compliance for other trucks in the fleet. See the responses to 

Comment 112 and Comment 120 for discussions of the credits for fleets that retrofitted 

their vehicles early or purchased newer vehicles ahead of their normal replacement 

schedule. 
248

436. Comment: CIAQC appreciates the direction of the CARB Board to its staff in 

December 2010 to provide a Low Mileage Construction Truck provision in the 

Truck and Bus Regulation. The following comments would improve the draft 

proposal and bring in to alignment the intent of the Board.

Definition of Low Mileage Construction Truck. The proposed definition of a Low 

Mileage Construction Truck includes "A truck with a gross vehicle weight rating 

greater than 26,000 pounds that travels less than 15,000 miles per calendar year 

and is a concrete mixer truck, truck with a concrete placing boom, a water tank 

truck, a single engine crane with a load rating of 35 tons or more, a tractor that 

exclusively pulls a low-boy trailer, or a truck owned by a company that holds a 

valid license issued by the California Contractors State License Board.

The last section of this definition that a truck owned by a company that holds a 

valid license issued by the California Contractors State License Board is too 

restrictive and will preclude the participation of some companies whose sole 

business is tied directly and exclusively to construction. For example, many 

companies that rent off-road construction equipment do not necessarily have 

contractor licenses. They do not perform work that requires a contractor's license, 

so they do not qualify for one. There are also construction companies (that 

possess a contractor's license) that have a separate subsidiary company that 

owns the off-road equipment and on-road truck assets used in its business. The 

equipment is rented back to its affiliate construction company or on occasion can 

be rented to other contractors. In this case the company that owns the equipment 

and vehicle assets would not meet the requirements for a contractor's license. 

This company would not satisfy the definition for low mileage construction truck 

definition and many of its trucks could be unnecessarily excluded from the 

extension.

CIAQC recommends that the definition for low mileage construction truck be 

revised to include companies whose business exists only to support the 

construction industry. CIAQC has provided CARB staff several concepts that 

could allow non-contractor licensed construction companies the ability to 

participate in the extension for low mileage construction trucks and thus fulfill the 

Board's direction to provide relief during this severe economic crisis. However, the 

concepts have not been incorporated in the proposed regulation and CIAQC 

believes it is incumbent on staff to continue to find a solution. (CIAQC4) 

Agency Response: The definition and the requirements for the compliance extension 

for low-mileage construction trucks are consistent with the Board’s direction to develop 

a provision that would reduce compliance costs for construction truck owners while 

maintaining the emissions reductions needed to protect public health and meet federal 

air quality standards. The revised definition allows for nearly all trucks owned by 

contractors to be eligible and for six truck body types owned by any business to be 

eligible. The definition does not prevent participation by companies that rent or lease 

vehicles that are used to perform construction work. Companies that rent or lease 

vehicles can take advantage of the low-mileage construction truck provision for dump 
249

trucks, concrete mixer trucks, trucks with a concrete placing boom, water tank trucks, 

single engine cranes with a load rating of 35 tons or more, or tractors that exclusively 

pull low-boy trailers. Companies with subsidiaries that own trucks that are used in the 

construction industry need to decide how their fleet is managed in order to qualify for 

the low-mileage construction truck provision 

The definition is not intended to address every company that supports the construction 

industry and would require an increase in the overall limit of eligible vehicles or would 

reduce the number of trucks that contractors could include in the provision. In addition, 

the definition of ―businesses that exist only to support the construction industry‖ would

be difficult to define and would create problems with interpretation and enforcement, 

since it cannot be defined clearly and would introduce more ambiguity. 

437. Comment: Our company delivers off-road machines, power equipment, rental 

equipment, and other construction-related materials to the construction industry, 

and we also service the construction machines and equipment. Our operations 

are similar to those companies that hold a California State License Board license, 

yet we will not be able to take advantage of this extension for our construction 

vehicles (service trucks, tractors pulling low-boy trailers, water trucks, delivery 

vehicles, etc.). Companies like ours typically would not have a California State 

License Board license because we are not bidding construction work. In order to 

allow the extension to be equitable, the last part of this section needs to be worded 

as such:

―..., or a truck owned by a company that is registered in California that provides 

construction-related services to the construction industry.‖

Additionally in this section ―a tractor that exclusively pulls a low-boy trailer‖ is too 

broad. As written, any low-boy could apply for this exemption. I would suggest 

the following:

―a tractor that exclusively pulls a low-boy trailer carrying construction-related 

materials and equipment‖ (QUINN)

Agency Response: We do not believe that the definition is inequitable as suggested 

by the commenter. Fleets with dump truck, concrete mixer truck, truck with a concrete 

placing boom, water tank, single engine crane with a load rating of 35 tons or more, or

tractor that exclusively pulls a low-boy trailer qualify for the provision regardless of 

whether they have a contractor’s license or not. A contractor’s license is only needed if

a fleet wants to take advantage of the compliance extension for additional truck types. 

The definition cannot be extended as the commenter suggests as this would extend the 

compliance extension to a large number of vehicles currently providing services to the 

construction industry and would potentially reduce the number of eligible trucks owned 

by contractors. See the response to Comment 160 for the reason for the limit on the 

number of eligible vehicles. 

Also, extending the definition as the commenter suggests including companies that 

―provide construction-related services‖ would create problems of enforceability of this 
250

provision. The same situation applies if restricting the definition for the tractors that 

exclusively pull a low-boy trailer by adding ―carrying construction-related materials and 

equipment.‖ It would create substantial uncertainty and make enforcement more 

difficult. 

438. Comment: CIAQC requests clarification for section 2025(p)(2)(D). It is unclear 

how this provision would work in practice and how it provides any benefits. Please 

clarify this section and provide an example of how this provision is intended to 

accomplish the benefit it provides.

CIAQC recommends that the reporting requirements be clarified and simplified. 

That would help prevent unnecessary reporting violations for companies that are in 

compliance with the regulation. (CIAQC4) 

Agency Response: The low-mileage construction truck provisions allows eligible 

trucks to be exempt from the emissions reductions requirements until January 1, 2016 

provided that a minimum percentage of the fleet has PM filters from 2014 to 2016. The 

minimum PM filters required is 33 percent by January 1, 2014, 66 percent by January 1, 

2015 and 100 percent by January 1, 2016. Other trucks in the fleet that do not qualify 

as low-mileage construction trucks will need to comply with the model year schedule or 

the PM Filter Phase-in Option and can use other extensions and credits.

Section 2025(p)(2)(D) of the amended regulation specifies that all heavier trucks in the 

fleet, except for low-use trucks that operate less than 1,000 miles per year, are counted 

when determining whether the minimum PM filter percentage is met. Fleets that do not 

meet the minimum requirement will need to equip more trucks with PM filters until this 

minimum is met. This approach allows fleets with a small proportion of low-mileage 

construction trucks to delay compliance for the low-mileage construction trucks until 

2016.

Low-mileage construction trucks are exempt from the PM filter requirements until 2014. 

For January 1, 2014, the fleet owner will first need to comply with the general 

requirements of the regulation for the portion of the fleet that is not eligible for the lowmileage construction truck provision, then the fleet owner will need to determine if the 

whole fleet (including the low-mileage construction trucks and other heavier trucks, 

except for low-use trucks that operate less than 1000 miles per year) meets the 

minimum 33 percent PM filters required. If the fleet does not, then additional vehicles 

need to be equipped with filters until the minimum 33 percent is met. Similarly, for 

January 1, 2015 the fleet owner will need to determine compliance for the portion of the 

fleet that is not eligible for the low-mileage construction truck provision, then will need to 

determine if the whole fleet meets the minimum 66 percent PM filters required to use 

the extension. By January 1, 2016, the low-mileage construction truck provision ends. 

This approach in determining compliance allows fleet owners to retrofit higher mileage 

vehicles to further delay compliance for the low-mileage construction trucks. The 

following are some examples of how the provision works.

Suppose all 10 trucks in a given fleet are low-mileage construction. All of the trucks are 

exempt from the PM filter requirement until 2014. By 2014, at least 33 percent of the 

fleet (or 3 trucks) must have PM filters for the remaining low-mileage construction trucks 
251

to continue to be exempt. By January 1, 2015, a minimum of 66 percent of the fleet (or 

7 trucks) must have PM filters (because 66 percent of 10 is 6.6 trucks and this rounds to 

7 trucks). By January 1, 2016 the provision ends and all 10 vehicles must have PM 

filters.

Another example is for a fleet with 110 heavier trucks. Ten (10) are low-mileage 

construction trucks and the 100 other trucks in the fleet need to comply with either the 

normal engine model year schedule or the PM filter phase-in option starting 

January 1, 2012. For a fleet that chooses the phase-in option, 30 trucks will be 

equipped with PM filters in 2012, 60 in 2013 and 90 in 2014. Like the prior example, the 

10 low-mileage construction trucks are exempt until 2014. By January 1, 2014, the fleet 

needs to demonstrate that at least 33 percent of all vehicles in the fleet have PM filters 

so that the low-mileage construction trucks can continue to be exempt. In this example, 

the fleet has 90 vehicles equipped with PM filters. Because 90 of the 110 trucks (or 

82 percent) have PM filters, the fleet meets the minimum 33% required for all 10 lowmileage construction trucks to continue to be exempt. By January 1, 2015, the fleet still 

exceeds the 66 percent minimum PM filter requirement, and no further action is 

required. By January 1, 2016, the low-mileage construction truck extension ends and 

the entire fleet must have PM filters unless another provision or credit allows some 

vehicles in the fleet to continue to operate without a PM filter. 

The information that is required to be reported is expressly set forth in section 2025(r) 

and no further explanation is needed here. Staff is currently developing an on-line 

reporting system that will simplify reporting and allow fleet managers access to update 

their fleet information at any time. In addition, staff will be providing training on how and 

when to report as the reporting deadlines approach. 

g) Agricultural Vehicles

439. Comment: On-Road, page 6 - definition of Ag Operations precludes chipping of 

wood waste in the field as an Ag/Forestry operation. We have argued with ARB 

staff for 3 years that chipping of orchard removals, vine removals, orchard and 

vine prunings, forest harvested tops and limbs and related brush and small tree 

removal are all standard Ag/Forestry in-the-field operations before transport to a 

biomass power plant.

It makes no sense for ARB to preclude these activities from the Ag/Forestry 

definition. The chipping is simply to put the wood waste in a transportable form. 

You cannot haul the raw material in a box truck because you cannot generate a 

sufficient payload to make the transportation cost affordable. Hence, the wood 

waste is chipped in the-field and then dumped into a chip van for transport.

ARB is, in essence, encouraging use of inefficient box trucks that will require two 

or three times as many trips to haul ag or forestry wood waste to a biomass power 

plant compared to in-the-field chipping and using a chip van. (CFA3) 

Agency Response: The agricultural truck definition specifies that eligible vehicles 

include those used to transport raw, unprocessed crops to the first point of processing. 

The definition allows enforcement to determine whether the cargo is processed. 
252

Therefore, vehicles in transportation business cannot use the agricultural vehicle 

provision unless they are transporting raw, unprocessed crops to the first point of 

processing. Converting tree limbs, brush, or crops, such as alfalfa, into another form, 

such as chipped wood or bales of hay, is considered processing and vehicles used to 

transport these converted products would not be eligible to use the agricultural vehicle 

provision. We do not believe this should be changed because it would be difficult for 

enforcement staff to determine whether chipped wood was being transported from the 

forest to a mill or if the chipped wood was waste from another source such as a 

construction site.

h) Tow Trucks

440. Comment: On behalf of the membership of the California Tow Truck Association 

(CTTA) we are writing to express our continued reservations with the California Air

Resources Board (ARB)’s Truck and Bus Regulation.

Founded in 1969, the California Tow Truck Association represents over 1,000 

towing companies within the state of California, providing vital services to the 

state’s motoring public. Our members employ approximately 15,000 people 

across the state. Unfortunately, the current poor economy continues to wreak 

havoc on our members’ companies.

While the recent proposed amendments may provide some much needed relief for 

our membership, without even further delay or modifications the regulation will 

have dire financial implications upon our industry, at a time when our industry can 

least afford it. The economic reality will be a shortage of tow trucks being able to 

respond to minor and major traffic incidents throughout the state. Tow Truck 

response times to these incidents will increase causing increases in the amount of 

time thousands of vehicles will sit idling in traffic gridlock. As a result, health 

considerations will be compounded and the safety of our state’s motoring public 

will be jeopardized. (CTTA2) 

441. Comment: As we have discussed on many occasions with ARB Staff, heavy-duty 

tow trucks of 33,001 GVWR and above continue to be particularly impacted by the 

regulation, as they tend to be traditionally driven for only a low number of miles 

each year (thus tend to be long-lasting, yet older model trucks) and, as specialty 

trucks, are extremely expensive to replace. Replacement costs for these specialty 

trucks range between $325K to $750K, very similar to the replacement costs for 

emergency vehicles such as fire fighting apparatus. Unfortunately the rule does 

not differentiate between a long-haul truck driving 200K miles/year and such a 

heavy-duty tow truck driven only 30K miles/year; the schedule for replacing both 

trucks is based solely on its model engine year. Furthermore, retrofit devices are 

oftentimes impractical as modification to these trucks would cost far more than just 

the retrofit device installation. Bodies would have to be modified to create space to 

physically enable installation. This process would be both costly and time 

consuming resulting in excessive out of service time.

It has always been our argument that these heavy-duty low-mileage vehicles are 

utilized to clean-up the most disastrous accidents on our roadways as part of the 
253

CHP and local law enforcement tow rotation lists. With so few miles driven and 

such a huge cost of replacement (hundreds of thousands of dollars in specialty 

equipment), these trucks understandably tend to be replaced at a slower pace 

than smaller tow trucks. Our members have mortgages on these trucks, and 

their business model is based on the assumption that they can get decades of 

service out of the vehicles. Requiring them to replace these trucks ahead of 

schedule will have one of two direct consequences – get out of heavy-duty towing 

completely or take a massive financial risk in an unstable economy by purchasing 

a new heavy-duty tow truck to meet the rule requirements. Either way there’s a 

strong likelihood there will be less heavy-duty tow truck operators in California. As 

such, roads will remain un-cleared, traffic will back up, vehicle emissions will 

increase, and our economy and environment will be further harmed. It is ironic 

that the very air the rule is designed to clean will actually become even more 

polluted. We urge you to strongly consider concessions for these heavy-duty tow 

trucks, as well as delaying the rule until California’s economy fully recovers.

(CTTA2)

Agency Response: These comments submitted during the 15-day comment period 

have been addressed in responses to identical Comments 172 and 173 submitted 

during the 45-day comment period.

Tow trucks that are used in emergency operations, as defined in section 2025(d)(22) 

can exclude the mileage and hours of operation in determining eligibility for the low-use 

vehicle exemption. The response to Comment 186 describes the provision for 

emergency support vehicles for more detail.

i) Street Sweepers 

442. Comment: Street sweepers in California continue to be one of the most regulated 

vehicles in the state. A small sweeper fleet can easily be burdened by multiple 

local and multiple state emissions regulations. NAPSA strongly urges CARB to 

regulate and require reporting under a single rule. Even if utilizing PERP to avoid 

the requirements of the many and varied local jurisdictions, PERP is also 

burdensome and expensive in its own right. To be fair, street sweeper emission 

regulations should be the sole and exclusive purview of the On Road, Bus & Truck 

Rule and not subject to additional local and state rules, fees and reporting 

requirements. 

For simplicity, NAPSA suggests allowing each street sweeper with an auxiliary 

engine above 50 hp. a no cost, lifetime registration in PERP. To avoid the current 

duplication, after the initial registration in PERP, all future reporting will be done 

under the On Road Bus and Truck Rule. While not perfect, this simple action 

places sweepers in one rule and if data is needed by PERP, they can easily 

request data from within CARB. (NAPSA2) 

Agency Response: The regulation contains a special provision for two engine street 

sweepers which shifts the cleanup requirements for the auxiliary engine out of the 

Portable Diesel-Fueled Engines Air Toxic Control Measure and into the Truck and Bus 

regulation. Staff made the change to provide consistency for owners and operators in 
254

complying with the emission reduction requirement of only one regulation for the same 

vehicle. The provision also allows Tier 0 auxiliary engines to continue to operate until

2014 as described in response to Comment 179. The requirement to register portable 

engines with the local air pollution control districts or the optional statewide portable 

equipment registration program has not changed and remains under the jurisdiction of 

the local air pollution control districts. 

The portable engine registration program (PERP) is a voluntary program administered 

by CARB that allows businesses to report their portable equipment into a central system 

in lieu of requesting permits from the local air pollution control districts where the 

equipment is operated. It is not a mandatory program. Obtaining a permit from the 

local air pollution control district to operate portable equipment is required by district 

regulation. State law created PERP as a service to industries that operate portable 

equipment in various areas within the state, allowing a single point of application where 

one permit would be valid in all areas of California. We cannot modify compliance with 

district registration rules or reporting through PERP. State law provides this authority to 

the districts. 

443. Comment: NAPSA is surprised construction sweepers were not included in the 

low mileage construction vehicle option. With a limit of only 9,000 trucks it is 

obvious, should construction activities actually increase, and it will continue to be 

stifled by this arbitrary limit. Members have reported construction contractors 

limiting work crews because 3⁄4 of their fleet sits idle due to this (and the off-road) 

regulation. This limitation of work crews will only get worse as compliance dates 

get closer. 

NAPSA strongly encourages CARB to include construction street sweepers in the 

low mileage limits and remove the finite number of vehicles that can be included. 

This will not only help maintain the jobs of our members, but also the jobs of their 

customers. (NAPSA2) 

Agency Response: Staff disagrees with the view that fleets would limit or reduce work 

activity because of the limits on the number of vehicles that can be eligible for the lowmileage construction truck extension. Staff believes that construction fleets, like other 

businesses, will seek work regardless of whether the fleet qualifies for an exemption. If 

demand for services increase, then vehicle usage and revenues would also increase, 

and the fleet owner would then be in a better position to make needed investments to 

comply.

The rationale for the limits on the low-mileage construction truck provisions is discussed 

in response to Comment 160. Any vehicle, including construction sweepers, is included 

in the low-mileage construction truck definition if owned by a licensed contractor as 

described in response to Comment 444. 

444. Comment: We have been involved in the on going discussion with CARB Staff, 

regarding the On Road Bus & Truck Rule and developing a solution that would 

allow the sweeping industry to survive through this process. We appreciate their 
255

willingness to hear our concerns and make some changes that are positive. The 

following are still concerns that we have:

 Section 2025 (d) (40) Low mileage Construction Truck - Construction 

Sweepers should be included in this definition. Sweepers remove many tons 

of air and water pollution from the environment each year, much more than 

they add. Including the construction sweepers in this definition would help 

compliance and reduce overall PM. Construction sweepers work a limited 

number of days per year.

 Section 2025 (s)(7)(y)- Compliant fleets without motor carrier numbers should 

be posted on the website as well (CVS)

Agency Response: The low-mileage construction truck definition is Section 2025 

(d)(40) was introduced to provide more time for construction fleets. Street sweepers 

that are owned by licensed contractors are eligible for the low-mileage construction 

truck extension; however, street sweepers that clear public roadways, parking lots or 

other areas are not construction equipment and are not included in the definition. See 

response to Comment 160 on the rationale for not expanding the definition to include 

non-construction sweepers. We believe that sweeper fleets will be able to comply with 

the amended regulation and will continue to remove surface debris. 

It is not necessary to modify section (s)(7)(y) to specify that ARB staff will post the name 

of fleets that appropriately do not have a motor carrier number. Section (e)(7)(D) 

specifies that the Executive Officer can determine whether an alternative operating 

authority number is applicable. In the situation where no operating authority is required, 

fleets will be eligible to use the flexible provisions in the regulation and will be listed as 

having reported compliance.

445. Comment: As a member of the North American Power Sweeping Association 

California Chapter I have been working with CARB staff to develop a workable 

solution that would allow our industry to survive the On Road Truck and Bus Rule. 

The CARB staff has been courteous and professional. They have listened to our 

input and made a number of positive changes that were not easy or quick to 

accomplish. Staff has strived to understand our unique equipment and progressed 

significantly since we started this process.

There are, however, still quite a few areas that are either confusing or the new 

wording has changed the intent as it was explained. Follows are the items in 

question:

 Section 2025 (c) Exemptions (13) this is confusing as the auxiliary engine if 

below 50 hp is still excluded. Stating this plainly in this section avoids confusion 

and the need to repeat it in other sections.

 Section 2025 (d) (40) Low Mileage Construction Truck – Because street 

sweepers work construction all across California and are a major component for 

the remediation of fugitive dust, and for the same economic reasons as other 

constructions vehicles, construction street sweepers should be included in the 

definition. While other vehicles add a small portion of PM to the construction 
256

environment, street sweepers remove it by the ton. Allowing sweepers another 

compliance option aids CARB in reducing overall PM.

 Section 2025 (p) (9) Extension of PM BACT Compliance Deadline... Regulation 

states ―any‖ auxiliary engine in a two engine sweeper.... Please change to reflect 

that this refers to only auxiliary engines above 50 hp.

 Section 2025 (s) (7) (A) (4) Record Keeping: Fleets had no way of knowing they 

would someday need ―proof‖ of mileage driven in 2006. It is hard enough to know 

what is required today, let alone five years in the future.

 Section 2025 (s) (7) (B) (2) Record Keeping: Vehicles taken to scrap recycling 

where they are crushed and sold as scrap metal require pink slips be submitted 

with the vehicle. However, only a receipt is given back. No certificate from the 

state or local jurisdiction is given.

 Section 2025 (s) (7) (y) Please ensure compliant fleets without motor carrier 

numbers (such as street sweepers) are also posted on the website. (NAPSA3)

Agency Response: The following are responses to the commenter’s recommended 

modifications to several sections to address some concerns of the sweeper industry. 

Section 2025(c)(13) states that two-engine on-road vehicles that are subject to the OffRoad regulation are exempt from the Truck and Bus regulation except in the case 

where the vehicle is a two-engine sweeper. All on-road two engine sweepers, with 

auxiliary engines regardless of the horsepower of the auxiliary engines are subject to 

the Truck and Bus regulation and not the off-road regulation; therefore, it is 

inappropriate to make the change requested. 

Please see the response to Comment 444 for the reasons that street sweepers owned 

by contractors are included in the low-mileage construction truck definition of Section 

2025 (d)(40) but others are not. 

The suggested changes to section 2025(p)(9) are not needed because the applicability 

of the PM BACT requirements for two-engine sweepers is clearly specified in section 

2025(n). The section specifies that the PM BACT requirements apply to the drive 

engine of a two-engine sweeper and to the auxiliary engine if it is 50 hp or greater. It is 

unnecessary to add language to explicitly exclude a group of engines from a 

compliance extension when the group of engines is not subject to the requirement 

addressed by the compliance extension. 

The minimum mileage requirements in section (s)(7)(A)(4) is only required for fleets that 

had vehicles that are registered outside of California when determining how many 

vehicles are in the 2006 baseline fleet. The requirement is there to prevent out of state 

fleets from receiving credits by identifying vehicles that never operated in California. 

The 1000 mile limit is consistent with the threshold for the low use exemption.

Fleets that operate interstate routes typically track miles travelled in each state for 

purposes of paying road fees or fuel taxes and it should be straightforward to retain 

existing documentation. 
257

Section 2025(s)(7)(B)(2) requires fleet to keep documentation issued by DMV or 

another government agency for a scrapped vehicle. This record keeping requirement is 

for the forms or other documentation that is typically submitted to terminate the 

registration with the DMV or an equivalent agency in another state. A confirmation of 

the registration termination from the DMV or a copy of the form that is submitted to the 

DMV to relinquish title to the vehicle will meet the requirement.. 

As described in response to Comment 444, fleets that appropriately do not have motor 

carrier numbers will be listed online and the suggested changes to section 2025 

(s)(7)(y) are not needed.

446. Comment: Taken as a whole, the regulation already has the effect of a phased 

reduction of street sweepers and the corresponding unemployment of sweeper 

operators. Additionally, the price increases staff has suggested must be passed on 

to consumers has been met with property owners electing to cancel or reduce 

service. Streets and paved areas now not being swept or swept less frequently are 

contributing to the states air pollution problems. The forced reduction of 

California’s private sweeper fleet is particularly disturbing as street sweepers 

actually pick up 10 to 1,000 times more PM than they produce, including both 

PM10 and PM2.5. If air quality is the goal then eliminating even the oldest, most 

polluting sweeper remains counterproductive. (NAPSA3)

447. Comment: The slow economic recovery has resulted in less work, employees on 

extended unemployment, and many property owners and or business owners 

reducing or canceling sweeping service. This only adds to the air pollution 

problem. As a service business, people have a choice as to whether or not they 

choose to use the service. Passing on the price increases that staff has proposed, 

has not been received well by property owners. (CVS)

448. Comment: As the need to control emissions for street sweepers and other in-use 

diesel on-road vehicles has evolved, we feel (NAPSA) that the vital remediation 

role street sweepers play has been overlooked. Under the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), street sweepers play the most important 

role under Best Management Practices (BMPs) to remove pollutants from streets 

and roadways that otherwise would enter our storm water systems, streams and 

rivers. Even with concessions and extensions given to our industry during the 

proposed changes there will be a large number of sweepers removed from service 

and not replaced. In fact, because of economic conditions, cities and counties 

have cut back on their sweeping programs which will directly lead to more 

pollutants entering our water systems. Private sweeping fleets will be downsized 

to meet the regulations and in many cases will not be able to retrofit or replace 

because of the high cost of replacement now nearing $250,000.00 each. Private 

fleets play a critical role to supplement sweeping operations not carried out by 

state, county, city and other government agencies. This will lead to additional 

pollutants entering our water systems.

To summarize this issue, the CAL/EPA departments of Air and Water need to 

collaborate to maintain an adequate number of street sweepers needed to 
258

remediate the streets and roadways to protect air quality and water quality under 

the (NPDES) storm water system. (NAPSA1)

449. Comment: In regards to the most recent changes, CARB staff recognized that a 

slowing of economic activity, caused in part by this very regulation, resulted in 

lower emissions. Protecting and enhancing the environment is critical. In fact, 

"enhancing the environment" is a crucial part of the NAPSA Mission Statement. 

But regulating productive equipment that is fundamentally designed to remove 

pollutants from our air and water to the point that it is not able to be used will have 

the unintended result of actually hurting the environment and will further reduce 

economic activity as more small businesses succumb to economic failure. 

While NAPSA members outside of California theoretically will enjoy the purchase 

of quality, productive sweeper trucks from the California fleet at fair sale prices, the 

reduced trade-in value and forced retirement of productive equipment is already 

having a devastating effect on our California members. The reduced purchasing 

power and company shrinkage is also affecting our manufacturer members as 

well. (NAPSA2)

450. Comment: Removing street sweepers from the street, when they are the only 

weapon against re-entrainment is counter intuitive. The only logical assumption is 

that these harsh regulations are based more on opinion and emotion than science, 

economics or reason. Street sweepers remove millions of tons of air and water 

pollutants from our environment every year. Even the oldest, so called "dirty" 

sweepers (which are perfectly acceptable across the state line) remove more 

pollutants than they produce. Making it more difficult to achieve this environmental 

benefit defies logic. (NAPSA2)

Agency Response: Staff does not agree with the commenter that the economic impact 

of the regulation will result in reductions in sweeper service in the state, thereby 

resulting in increased entrained PM emissions. First, the amended regulation 

significantly lowers the compliance costs for all fleets and should allow sweeper fleets to 

meet the demand for services when the economy recovers. The overall reduction in 

compliance costs are expected to be comparable to most other fleets. Staff expects 

that in the first five years, the estimated costs of the regulation would be reduced by 

more than 50 percent statewide. For the life of the regulation, the overall cost would be 

reduced by about 60 percent on average. The costs to businesses that contract with 

sweeper operators is expected to be typically 1 to 2 percent of revenue and the costs to 

the consumer is not expected to be noticeable. 

The actions an individual company would have to take to comply with the amended 

regulation will depend on factors such as the size of the fleet, the vehicle types, vehicle 

age, and normal vehicle replacement practices. From discussions with sweeper fleets 

and NAPSA representatives, we understand that on average, sweeper fleets have more 

light duty vehicles (those with a GVWR less than 26,001 lbs) than heavier vehicles. The 

amended regulation eliminates PM filter requirements for this lighter class of vehicles, 

delays the start of the replacement requirement to 2015, and limits replacements to 

engines that are 20 years old or older until 2020. After 2020 all vehicles need to be 

upgraded to 2010 model year engines. Therefore, most lighter street sweepers will be 
259

able to operate for a typical 20 year life and very few would need to be replaced earlier 

than normal. For most fleets, these reduced requirements will mean that the 

compliance costs attributable to the regulation for lighter sweepers will be eliminated.

For the remaining heavier vehicles in the fleet, all replacements can be delayed until 

2020 or later with the PM filter phase-in option. At that time, 10 year old used 

replacement vehicles can be used to meet the final requirements and new vehicle 

replacements are not needed to comply. With the phase in option, from 2011 to 2016 

fleets must meet PM filter requirements and are not required to make any replacements 

until January 1, 2020. In addition, no action is required until 2018 if PM filters are not 

available for an engine or cannot be safely installed. 

The amended regulation as presented to the Board in December 2010 also has a 

downsizing credit for heavier vehicles over 26,000 lbs that delays the annual 

compliance requirements until January 1, 2016. This option can substantially delay 

compliance costs for fleets most affected by the recession and provides more time for 

the economy to recover. This credit was expanded for street sweepers in a new section 

2025(n)(4) of the modified regulation that was made available for comments with the 15-

day Notice of Availability of Modified Text. The change was made because street 

sweepers have a GVWR that is in a fairly narrow range above and below 26,000 lbs. 

This modification gives street sweeper owners more flexibility than other fleets in 

delaying compliance for heavier street sweepers when retiring lighter street sweepers. 

In summary, the flexibility provided in the regulation and the reduced requirements and 

credits for fleets that have been more adversely affected by the economy significantly 

lowers the compliance costs and are not expected to have a negative effect on street 

sweeping services or entrained PM emissions. 

j) Alternatives 

451. Comment: The members of the Coalition of California Truck Driver Training 

Schools (―Coalition‖) have investigated the possibility of retrofitting their trucks to 

allow compliance with regulation, and have found that (because of their unique 

operating conditions) there are no kits currently on the market that will bring them 

into compliance.

The reason for this discrepancy is that the trucks owned and operated by Coalition 

members to train their students operate far fewer miles than a truck operated by a 

typical trucking company fleet. These trucks operate an average of 12,000 –

15,000 miles per year, while a typical truck in service with a trucking company fleet 

operates (on average) more than 100,000 miles per year. Thus one truck 

operated in fleet service would be the equivalent of 7 trucks operated by Coalition 

members. Further, these trucks are not engaged in loaded operations, and 

therefore produce fewer particulate emissions than loaded trucks that are engaged 

in hauling freight. 

The Coalition asks that the California Air Resources Board take these unique 

circumstances into consideration as the Rule is finalized and either grant an 

exemption to schools that have been approved by the Bureau for Private 
260

Postsecondary Education, or grant an extension of time for them to come into 

compliance that extends until effective retrofit kits are available on the commercial 

market plus a reasonable period for them to be installed. (CACTS) 

Agency Response: Staff agrees that if a retrofit PM filter is not available or cannot be 

safely installed, then there should be an additional period of time allowed to install a 

retrofit. The regulation allows fleet owners of vehicles that cannot be equipped with

retrofit PM filters to get annual extensions until 2018 before the vehicle needs to be 

replaced. 

Staff does not agree that an exemption should be provided to schools that have been 

approved by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, as this would not achieve 

the needed emissions reductions to meet federal requirements or address localized 

health risk. The health impact on the operators from these older, dirtier vehicles is of 

great concern. In addition, an integral element of a truck driver training school is to 

instruct drivers on not only the requirements of the Truck and Bus regulation, but the 

installation, maintenance, and cleaning of retrofits as well. 

k) Other Comments

452. Comment: I am still amazed at the level of rule and regulations to deliver products 

to market. With the OE engines and fuel quality improvements, the number of new 

truck orders coming into the market place, I feel this entire program is a waste of 

time and money. Older equipment is being replaced at an acceptable pace to 

create cleaner air. The cost and effect on the business models is damaging. I 

think the cost and pressure on OE technology improvements is a sufficient burden 

for the transportation industry to carry. (GALL) 

Agency Response: See response to Comment 103. For more detailed information on 

cost, please see the response to Comment 268. 

453. Comment: Our DPF-Hydrated EGR system was verified in Japan to meet both 

PM level 3 and NOx 35%. California should mandate both PM and NOx by 40-

50% as a retrofit.

2007 US EPA's PM-NOx regulation is achievable economically and 2010 NOx 

regulation must be changed. It is because 90% NOx spikes the cost too much, and 

NOx is not toxic as PM. (IMET)

Agency Response: The regulation already specifies the engine and retrofit 

combinations that are equivalent to newer engines. Retrofit technologies can be used 

to extend the economic life of an engine or can meet the final requirements without 

additional changes to the regulation. We believe this is an adequate incentive for fleets 

to use available technology if it is a more cost-effective compliance option for fleet 

owners. Any diesel emission control strategy used to comply with the regulation must 

be one that has been verified by ARB’s Diesel Emission Control Strategies Verification 

Program. 
261

454. Comment: Where do I get money to retro fit 13 trucks at $15,000 to $20,000 per 

truck? I guess I will just throw it all away. I can't even sell them and that's just this 

year. I have 42 trucks and the newest is a 2006, not counting all of my off-road 

that will soon be trash. So thank you for putting companies out of business. 

(BLOU)

Agency Response: See response to Comment 268 that explains why the regulation is 

necessary and how the amended regulation substantially lowers the compliance costs. 

455. Comment: My first comment is the second amendments to the original proposed 

regulation are unwieldy. There is not a practical way for the public to completely 

understand it. I am not sure that the authors have a good idea of what they have 

written or would have written it in an understandable way.

The conditions that led to the December 2010 amendments are still relevant. 

Therefore the proposal should be postponed.

(1) Diesel is still expensive which means: 

 Better fuel management is in place. 

 Freight is increasing therefore there will be less shipping. 

 Inefficient engines will be used less. 

(2) There is unlikely to be 2007 level construction in the near future because: 

 The housing inventory is well over market. 

 The foreclosures will continue for another 1 - 2 years.

(3) The phase in period does not accommodate the ability of trucking rates to pay 

for the increased expense. The exemptions of the pre 1996 motors are 

arbitrary and do not apply to all affected fleets evenly.

(4) The lack of interest in the early retrofit credits can now be documented and 

indicates:

 Lack of faith in the government's will to follow through on the enforcement 

of this law. 

 The unwillingness for the industry to spend $18,000 to keep using a 

$10,000 truck. (MGOR) 

Agency Response: See response to Comment 268 that explains why the regulation is 

necessary and how the amended regulation substantially lowers the compliance costs.

The regulation meets the clarity criteria set forth in title 1, Cal. Code Regs., section 16. 

That said, ARB recognizes that the regulation is long and covers numerous topics. This 

is a result of the number of different types of vehicles covered by the regulation and the 

numerous options that the regulation provides to stakeholders to provide compliance 

flexibility and reduce costs. Staff is taking steps to ensure that the regulation is well 

understood by affected stakeholders. We are committing significant resources for 

outreach and education about the regulation to assist fleets in understanding their 
262

options and meeting the requirements. These include expansion of training and 

outreach efforts and materials to give stakeholders more opportunities to receive 

compliance assistance on the Truck and Bus regulation as well as other diesel vehicle 

regulations. See the response to Comment 411 for a description of staff’s plans for 

outreach and implementation. 

With regard to the early retrofit credit, many fleets have already purchased retrofits and 

will be rewarded by acting early other fleets will still be able to take advantage of this 

provision. Fleets choosing this option may delay compliance for other vehicles in the 

fleet until January 1, 2017 and will further spread out compliance costs. For many 

fleets, this is a cost effective choice.

l) General

456. Comment: In general, it will be helpful to have guidance and examples to assist 

in understanding how provisions such as downsizing, low-mileage construction 

truck, early addition of vehicles, and excess credit transfer work, particularly in 

conjunction with the different compliance paths. (CCIMA3)

Agency Response: An example of how the downsizing credit works is addressed in 

response to Comment 128. The low-mileage construction truck provision is described 

in response to Comment 157. An example of the early addition of newer vehicles credit 

is described in response to Comment 120. Finally the excess PM credit that can be 

transferred between the Truck and Bus regulation and the off-road regulation is 

described in response to Comment 131. 

Staff has created fact sheets, outreach materials, as well as other tools, such as a fleet 

compliance calculator, to assist fleets in determining what compliance options are 

available so that fleets can develop their own compliance plans and will continue to 

improve available information.

457. Comment: Archer Trucking, Inc. would like to thank the CARB for listening to our 

needs in the matter of low-mileage construction dump trucks! This new language 

will be a great help to our company. (ATI)

458. Comment: We write on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Union 

of Concerned Scientists, American Lung Association in California, Coalition for 

Clean Air, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, Environmental Defense Fund, 

Environmental Health Coalition, Regional Asthma Management and Prevention, 

Community Action to Fight Asthma, and our hundreds of thousands of California 

members in support of several key changes to the proposed amendments to the 

―truck and bus‖ and ―drayage truck‖ regulations adopted in December 2010. We 

believe that these changes protect children’s health, and provide greater health 

benefits to disproportionately impacted communities near ports and major trucking 

thoroughfares. Specifically, we strongly support the following changes:

(1) Removal of the exemption for lighter school buses, providing consistency in 

health protections afforded to all children who ride school buses.
263

(2) Retaining the Phase 2 clean up provisions for drayage trucks, providing relief 

from excessive truck emissions in port communities.

(3) Extending earlier clean up requirements including PM filters by 2012 for 

model year 1996 and 1997 trucks, which make up a significant portion of the 

truck fleet and lack modern pollution controls.

We appreciate the efforts of staff and board members to maintain most of the 

health benefits of these important regulations, particularly for vulnerable 

populations. (NRDC)

Agency Response: Thank you. Comments noted. 

APPENDIX A

Lists of Acronyms

A-1

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AQI Air Quality Index

ARB Air Resources Board

BACT Best Available Control Technology

CalCAP California Capital Access Program

CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association

CDTI Clean Diesel Technologies, Incorporated

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CTTA California Tow Truck Association

DMV Department of Motor Vehicles

DPF Diesel Particulate Filter

DPM Diesel Particulate Matter

EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

HVIP Hybrid Voucher Incentive Program

IFTA International Fuel Tax Agreement

IRP International Registration Plan

LESBP Low Emission School Bus Program 

MAR Mileage Accrual Rates

MECA Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association

MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NAPSA North American Power Sweeping Association

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen

OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

PLACE Providing Loan Assistance for California Equipment

PM Particulate Matter

PM2.5 Particles up to 2.5 microns in diameter

RAP Rural District Assistance Program

SIP State Implementation Plan

TAC Toxic Air Contaminant 

TRAC Truck Regulations Advisory Committee

TRUCRS Truck Regulation Upload and Compliance Reporting 

System

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

VDECS Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy

VIP Voucher Incentive Program
A-2
APPENDIX B

Lists of Commenters Assigned to Groups

B-1

Table B-1

Signers of Better World Group (BWG) Letter

Signers Affiliation

Camille Kustin Better World Group

Bonnie Holmes-Gen American Lung Association in California

Karen G. Pierce Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates

Andy Katz Breathe California

Betsy Reifsnider Catholic Charities of the Stockton Diocese

Christine G. Cordero Center for Environmental Health

Brent Newell Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

Jesse N. Marquez Coalition for a Safe Environment 

Nidia Bautista Coalition for Clean Air

Anna Yun Lee Communities for a Better Environment

Gisellle Fong Communities for Clean Ports

Jocelyn Vivar East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice

Joy Williams Environmental Health Coalition

Sarah Sharpe Fresno Metro Ministry

Gabrielle Weeks Long Beach Coalition for a Safe Environment

Kevin D. Hamilton RRT, RCP Medical Advocates for Health Air

Diane Bailey Natural Resources Defense Council

Anne Kelsey Lamb Regional Asthma Management and Prevention

Community Action to Fight Asthma

Jill Ratner Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment

Bill Magavern Sierra Club California 

Don Anair Union of Concerned Scientists

Brian Beveridge West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project

[List of signers identified in Comment 16 in the table titled ―Comments posted to onoffroad10 that were presented during the Hearing‖ posted on the comments log for this 

rulemaking at http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=onoffroad10]
B-2

Table B-2

Signers of Health Network for Clean Air (HNCA) Letter

Signers Affiliation

Bonnie Holmes-Gen, 

Senior Policy Director

American Lung Association in California

Kris Calvin, MA, 

Executive Director

American Academy of Pediatrics, California 

District

Andy Katz, MCP, 

Government Relations Director

Breathe California

Justin Malan, 

Executive Director

California Conference of Directors of 

Environmental Health

Veronica Ramirez, 

Research Associate

California Medical Association

Ruben Cantu, 

Program Director

California Pan-Ethnic Health Network

William W. Stringer, MD, 

President

California Thoracic Society

Anne Kelsey-Lamb, MPH, 

Director

Community Action to Fight Asthma (CAFA)

Regional Asthma Management and Prevention 

(RAMP)

Jeremy Cantor, MPH Healthy Places Coalition

Sean O’Brien, Interim Executive 

Director

Los Angeles County Medical Association

Robert Gould, MD, President, SF-Bay 

Area Chapter

Physicians for Social Responsibility

Manal Aboelata, MPH Prevention Institute

Robin Salsburg, JD, 

Senior Staff Attorney

Public Health Law and Policy

Mary A. Pittman, DrPH,

President and CEO

Public Health Institute

Shan Magnuson, 

Director

Sonoma County Asthma Coalition

Sonal Patel, MD, MS, 

Chief, Division of Allergy and 

Immunology

White Memorial Pediatric Medical Group
B-3

Table B-3

List of Student Names Submitted by Rose Foundation Representative

Students

Christina McGhee

DePaul Nguon

Salvador Matteo

Segun Balogun

Jessica Orozco

Neli Gitierrez

Victoria Ramirez

Marisol Rogue

Kami Baker

Tomas Aire

Julian Fisher

Cecilia Ayala

Anabel Flores

Sheila Hong