Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses

FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAYAGE TRUCK REGULATION MADE AS PART OF 

THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 

REGULATION TO REDUCE EMISSIONS OF DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER, 

OXIDES OF NITROGEN AND OTHER CRITERIA POLLUTANTS FROM IN-USE ONROAD 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 17, 2010

Agenda Item Number: 10-11-3
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Contents Page

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

A. Description of Board Action ....................................................................... 1

B. Summary of Modifications to the Originally Proposed Amendments to the 

Regulation.................................................................................................. 2

C. Fiscal Impacts of Proposed Changes on Local and State Agencies and 

School Districts .......................................................................................... 4

D. Consideration of Alternatives ..................................................................... 4

E. The Amendments Will Not Adversely Impact the Environment.................. 4

II. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE 45-DAY PUBLIC 

COMMENT PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES ............................................ 7

A. Health Effects and Emissions .................................................................. 14

B. Regulatory Provisions .............................................................................. 17

C. Economic Impacts ................................................................................... 20

D. Environmental Impacts ............................................................................ 25

E. Definitions ................................................................................................ 31

F. Funding.................................................................................................... 31

G. Retrofit Technology.................................................................................. 34

H. Miscellaneous .......................................................................................... 36

III. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE 15-DAY PUBLIC 

COMMENT PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES .......................................... 39

A. Regulatory Provisions .............................................................................. 40

B. Economic Impacts ................................................................................... 45

C. Miscellaneous .......................................................................................... 46

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 47

List of Tables 

Table 1 List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Comments During the 45-Day 

Public Comment Period

Table 2 List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Comments During the 15-Day 

Public Comment Period
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
1

State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking,

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Response

FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAYAGE TRUCK REGULATION MADE AS PART OF 

THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 

REGULATION TO REDUCE EMISSIONS OF DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER, 

OXIDES OF NITROGEN AND OTHER CRITERIA POLLUTANTS 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 17, 2010

Agenda Item Number: 10-11-3

I. GENERAL DISCUSSION

On December 17, 2010, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) considered the 

adoption of proposed amendments to the Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel 

Particulate Matter (PM), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), and Other Criteria Pollutants from 

In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (Truck and Bus Regulation), the Heavy-Duty 

Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measure (Tractor-Trailer GHG 

Regulation), and the Regulation to Control Emissions from In-Use On-Road DieselFueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yard Facilities 

(Drayage Truck Regulation). The proposed amendments and “Staff Report: Initial 

Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking” (Staff Report) were released to the 

public on October 19, 2010 (ARB, 2010), and are incorporated by reference herein. 

This Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) provides an update on the Drayage Truck 

Regulation only. Separate FSOR documents will cover the Truck and Bus and TractorTrailer GHG Regulations. 

A. Description of Board Action

At its December 17, 2010 public hearing, the Board considered amendments to title 13, 

California Code of Regulations (CCR), section 2027, which establishes the Drayage 

Truck Regulation. Written comments were received during the 45-day public comment 

period, which began on November 1, 2010, and continued through December 15, 2010. 

ARB also received written and oral comments on the day of the public hearing. 

At the hearing, the Board considered the proposed amendments to the Drayage Truck 

Regulation and adopted Resolution 10-45, in which it suggested modifications 
2

discussed at the hearing. ARB‟s Executive Officer was directed to incorporate the 

suggested modifications into the proposed regulatory text and make the modified 

regulatory language available for a supplemental comment period of 15 days. The text 

of the modifications to the originally proposed Regulation was made available for a 

supplemental 15-day comment period by issuance of a “Notice of Public Availability of 

Modified Text and Information and Availability of References, to which Corrections Have 

Been Made, that Were Listed in the Initial Statement of Reasons” (15-Day Notice). The 

15-Day Notice set forth ARB‟s rationale for the proposed modifications and is hereby 

incorporated by reference herein. The 15-Day Notice and a copy of the proposed 

Regulation, with modifications clearly indicated, were posted on May 19, 2011, for a 

public review and comment period that ended on June 3, 2011. Notification was sent to 

persons who had expressed an interest in the Regulation during the course of rule 

development and review. By these actions, the modified Regulation was made 

available to the public for a supplemental comment period pursuant to Government 

Code section 11346.8.

Seven written comments were received during the supplemental 15-day comment

period that pertained to the Drayage Truck Regulation. Staff did not make additional 

modifications in response to those comments. After considering the comments, the 

Executive Officer issued Executive Order R-11-XXX, adopting the amendments and 

new regulatory text. 

This FSOR updates the Staff Report by identifying and providing the rationale for 

modifications made to the originally proposed amendments as a result of comments 

made by the Board at the public hearing, comments received during the 45-day public 

comment period, and staff analysis after the Staff Report was released. The FSOR also 

summarizes written and oral comments ARB received on the proposed amendments to 

the Drayage Truck Regulation during the formal rulemaking process and ARB‟s 

responses to those comments. 

B. Summary of Modifications to the Originally Proposed Amendments 

to the Regulation

Several modifications were made to the originally proposed amendments to address 

comments made by the Board at the public hearing and those received during the 

45-day public comment period. The 15-Day Notice and text of the modifications to the 

originally proposed Regulation were made available for public comment from 

May 19, 2011 to June 3, 2011. A summary of all the modifications are described below. 
3

Applicability: section 2027(b) and Sunset: section 2027(j)

 

In response to retaining the Phase 2 requirement, the proposed sunset date was 

modified to realign the transition between the regulatory requirements for the Drayage 

Truck Regulation and the Truck and Bus Regulation after December 31, 2022. 

Extending the sunset date from December 31, 2016 until December 31, 2022 is 

necessary to ensure that emission and health benefits achieved at ports and rail yards 

are kept intact during the transition to the Truck and Bus Regulation.

Definitions: section 2027(c) 

In response to the proposed modification that requires drayage trucks with a GVWR 

between 26,001 to 33,000 pounds that operate in the South Coast Air Basin to be 

equipped with a level 3 diesel particulate filter after December 31, 2011, a definition of 

the South Coast Air Basin, definition (41), was added to identify its geographical 

boundaries. In addition, staff inadvertently included “...that pulls a trailer or chassis...” 

in the proposed definition of a „Drayage Truck,‟ subsection (15), during the 45-day 

comment period. This language was removed to maintain the original intent of the 

Regulation to include all drayage trucks while on port or intermodal rail yard properties 

regardless of whether the truck is or is not physically pulling a trailer or chassis.

Requirements and Compliance Deadlines: section 2027(d) 

As indicated above, subsection (d)(1)(D) was added to require drayage trucks with a 

GVWR of 26,001 to 33,000 pounds that operate in the South Coast Air Basin to 

be equipped with a level 3 diesel particulate filter after December 31, 2011. In addition, 

the original language in Phase 2 was retained in subsection (2) that requires all drayage 

trucks, including those with a GVWR between 26,001 and 33,000 pounds, with 1994 or 

newer model year engines to meet or exceed 2007 model year California or federal 

emission standards after December 31, 2013. The modifications in this section are 

necessary to meet diesel PM and NOx reduction goals, and eliminate business 

practices that are jeopardizing those goals and fostering an uncompetitive environment

within the drayage truck industry.

Other Non-Substantive Changes

Minor modifications were made throughout the regulatory text to improve clarity, correct 

typographical or grammatical errors, and make changes in numbering or formatting. 

These modifications were included in the strikeout/underline version of the regulatory 

text that was provided for public comment with the 15-day Notice.
4

C. Fiscal Impacts of Proposed Changes on Local and State Agencies 

and School Districts

Pursuant to Government Code sections 11346.5(a)(5) and 11346.5(a)(6), the Executive

Officer has determined that the proposed regulatory action will not create costs or

savings to any state agency or in federal funding to the state; costs or mandate to any

local agency or school district whether or not reimbursable by the state pursuant to

Part 7 (commencing with section 17500), division 4, title 2 of the Government Code; or

any other nondiscretionary cost or savings to local agencies. 

D. Consideration of Alternatives

The proposed amendments were the result of extensive discussions and meetings

involving ARB staff, the trucking industry, and other stakeholders. Alternatives to this 

regulatory action were considered in accordance with Government Code section 

11346.9(a)(4), and can be found in Chapter VIII of the Staff Report. These included 

retaining the existing provisions (make no changes to the Regulation), and delaying the 

Phase 2 requirements in the current Regulation by two years, until December 31, 2015. 

For reasons set forth in the Staff Report, the Executive Officer has determined that no 

reasonable alternative considered by the agency, or that has otherwise been identified 

and brought to the attention of the agency, would be more effective in carrying out the 

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

burdensome to affected private persons than the action taken by the Board.

As provided in ARB‟s rationale in the 15-Day Notice, the Regulation, as amended, does 

not include staff‟s proposal to eliminate the Phase 2 in-use emission requirements. 

These requirements, which were initially adopted by the Board in 2008, require all 

drayage trucks to be equipped with engines that meet or exceed 2007 model year 

California or federal emission standards after December 31, 2013. It was determined 

that the emission and health risk reductions that would be achieved through 

implementation of the Phase 2 requirements continue to be necessary to protect the 

health and welfare of persons who live and work in communities in and around ports 

and intermodal rail yard facilities. It was also determined that equity and fairness 

dictated that the Phase 2 requirements not be repealed, as some stakeholders had

already made business decisions and invested significant capital in Phase 2 

compliance, relying on the requirements as they were adopted in 2008 to ensure their 

competitors would have to make similar investments by 2014 to stay in the drayage 

business. 

E. The Amendments Will Not Adversely Impact the Environment

The Staff Report identified potential adverse environmental impacts based on an 

increase in emissions that would result from staff‟s recommendation to eliminate the 

Phase 2 compliance provision (Title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 

2027(d)(2)), which requires all drayage trucks to be equipped with engines that meet or 

exceed 2007 model-year certification standards by 2014. However, the Regulation, as 
5

finally amended by the Air Resources Board (ARB), did not repeal this provision, finding 

that the current requirements are necessary to safeguard emission reductions and 

health benefits for communities near California‟s ports and intermodal rail yards. 

In deciding not to adopt the amendment, ARB recognized that the Regulation was 

already in place, and that the requirements were needed to provide regulatory 

consistency within the drayage industry. Specifically, to avoid creating a competitive 

disadvantage for truck owners who invested early in Phase 2-compliant trucks with the 

expectation that their competitors would also be required to do so under the Regulation. 

Therefore, staff does not expect any significant adverse environmental impacts in 

response to the adopted amendments. 
6

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
7

II. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE 45-DAY PUBLIC 

COMMENT PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES

The Board received written comments during the formal 45-day public comment period, 

which was open from November 1, 2010 to December 15, 2010. Written and oral 

comments were also received at the ARB public hearing on December 17, 2010. A list 

of commenters, including the date and form of all comments received during the 45-day 

public comment period and public hearing, is provided in Table 1 below. Following the 

list are summaries of each comment, as well as responses to the objections, concerns, 

and recommendations made. Each response is an explanation of either the changes 

made as a result of an objection or recommendation, or the reasons for making no 

change.

The comments addressed here apply specifically to the Drayage Truck Regulation 

and/or the combined rulemaking. Public comments received specifically on the Truck 

and Bus, Tractor-Trailer GHG, Off-Road, and LSI Regulations will be addressed in 

separate FSOR documents. 

Table 1: List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Comments

During the 45-Day Public Comment Period

Abbreviation Commenter

ACCC Quilter, John 

Association of California Car Clubs 

Written comment: December 14, 2010

ALA Holmes-Gen, Bonnie 

American Lung Association of California 

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Anonymous Anonymous

Written comment: December 3, 2010

AutoReturn Scanlan, Dan

AutoReturn

Written comment: December 10, 2010

Ayala Ayala, Ruben 

Written comment: December 13, 2010

BAAQMD1 Broadbent, Jack

Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

Written comment: December 15, 2010 

BAAQMD2 Fourniee, Anthony

Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Babich Babich, Henry 

Written comment: November 23, 2010

Ballesteros Ballesteros, John 

Written comment: December 9, 2010
8

Barbosa Barbosa, Eddie

Written comment: December 14, 2010

Bengston Bengston, Wayne

Written comment: December 7, 2010

Breathe Katz, Andy

Breathe California

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Browne Browne, Kelly

Written comment: December 14, 2010

BWGI1 Kustin, Camille 

The Better World Group, Inc. for :

American Lung Association 

Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates 

Breathe California 

Catholic Charities of the Stockton Diocese

Center for Environmental Health 

Center on Race, Poverty, & the Environment 

Coalition for a Safe Environment 

Coalition for Clean Air 

Communities for a Better Environment 

Communities for Clean Ports 

East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice 

Environmental Health Coalition 

Fresno Metro Ministry 

Long Beach Coalition for a Safe Environment 

Medical Advocates for Health Air 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Regional Asthma Management and Prevention

Community Action to Fight Asthma 

Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment 

Sierra Club California 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project 

Written comment: December 15, 2010

BWGI2 Kustin, Camille 

Better World Group, Inc. 

Written comment: December 17, 2010

BWGI3 Kustin, Camille 

Better World Group, Inc.

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

CAEC1 Edgar, Brad

Cleaire Advanced Emission Controls 

Written comment: December 15, 2010

CAEC2 Edgar, Brad

Cleaire Advanced Emission Controls

Oral Comment: December 17, 2010
9

CCA1 Bautista, Nidia 

Coalition for Clean Air 

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

CCA2 Jonasson, Elizabeth 

Coalition for Clean Air

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

CCT Chidester, Dave 

Central Cal Transportation 

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

CDTI Brown, Kevin

Clean Diesel Technologies, Inc.

Oral Comment: December 17, 2010

CEU Eisenhamrmer, Eric

Coalition of Energy Users

December 14, 2010

Charities Reifsnider, Betsy

Catholic Charities

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Chatten Chatten, Scott

Written comment: December 9, 2010

Chung Chung, Helena

Written comment: December 15, 2010

Cloud Cloud, Jon

J. Cloud, Inc.

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

CNGVC Carmichael, Tim

California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition

Oral Comment: December 17, 2010

CRPE Newell, Brent 

Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

CVAQC Garoupa, Catherine

Central Valley Air Quality Coalition

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Devine1 Coyle, Richard

Devine Intermodal

Written comment: December 9, 2010

Devine2 Dolk, Carl 

Devine Intermodal 

Written comment: December 9, 2010 

Devine3 Coyle, Richard

Devine Intermodal

Written comment: December 21, 2010

Devine4 Coyle, Richard

Devine Intermodal

Oral comment: December 17, 2010
10

Devine5 Dolk, Carl 

Devine Intermodal

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Dietrich1 Dietrich, Robert 

Written comment: December 9, 2010

Dietrich2 Dietrich, Robert 

Written comment: December 14, 2010

Districts Sadredin, Seyed

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District /

Barry Wallerstein

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Written comment: December 17, 2010

Donaldson Imes, Julian

Donaldson Company

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Durkee Durkee, Kay

Written comment: December 9, 2010

Earnshaw Earnshaw, KC

Written comment: December 9, 2010

Earth Baker, Kami

Earth Team 

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Eckman Eckman, Larry

Written comment: December 14, 2010

EHC Williams, Joy

Environmental Health Coalition

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Enterprise Turner, Kathy

Enterprise Holdings

Oral Comment: December 17, 2010

Erik K., Erik

Written comment: December 8, 2010

EYCEJ1 Ramirez, Isella

East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Finch Finch, Sandra

Written comment: December 10, 2010

Findley Findley, Myrtle

Written comment: December 9, 2010

Fleming Fleming, George

Written comment: December 9, 2010

Fosseen Fosseen, Dwayne

Written comment: December 7, 2010

FTSI Fitzgerald, Kathy

Fitzgerald Truck Sales, Inc.

Oral comment: December 17, 2010
11

Gildersleeve Gildersleeve, Todd

Written comment: December 14, 2010

Graves Graves, Kay

Written comment: December 9, 2010

Griffith Griffith, Jim

Written comment: December 9, 2010

Hall Hall, Steve

Written comment: December 15, 2010

Hill Hill, Gary

Written comment: December 14, 2010

HNSSR Bard, Jenny

Health Network Support for Strong Regulations 

Written comment: December 15, 2010

Holub Holub, Jacque 

Written comment: December 8, 2010

HTA Cherin, Alex

Harbor Trucking Association 

Written comment: December 15, 2010 

Hulz Hulz, Brian

Written comment: December 9, 2010

Impact Cancilla, Ron

Impact Transportation

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Jerome Jerome, Donald 

Written comment: December 9, 2011

Kellogg Kellogg, Alan 

Written comment: December 9, 2010

LaMalfa LaMalfa, Doug

California State Senate 

Oral Comment: December 17, 2010

Laman Laman, Ann

Written comment: December 9, 2010

Liqtech Debelak, Donald

Liqtech North American

Written comment: December 14, 2010

Lynes Lynes, Steve

Written comment: December 14, 2010

Matthey Lassen, Martin

Johnson Matthey

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Marin Marin, Rudy 

Written comment: December 9, 2010

MCHS Nguon, Paul 

McClymonds High School

Oral comment: December 17, 2010
12

MECA1 Brezny, Rasto

Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association

Written comment: December 17, 2010

MECA2 Kubsh, Joe

Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

MHS1 Balogun, Segun

Mandela High School 

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

MHS2 Rogue, Marisol

Mandela High School

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

MHSLPSA Matteo, Salvador 

Mandela High School Law and Public Service Academy

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Morton Morton, Mark

Written comment: December 14, 2010

NAFA Battersby, Richard

NAFA Fleet Management Association

Written comment: December 15, 2010

Napier Napier, Heidi

Written comment: December 9, 2010

Nieto Nieto, Stephen

Written comment: December 14, 2010

NRDC Bailey, Diane

Natural Resources Defense Council

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Pay Pay, Gary

Written comment: December 9, 2010

Pinkston Pinkston, Pam 

Written comment: December 9, 2010

POLA1 Cannon, Christopher

The Port of Los Angeles

Written comment: December 15, 2010 

POLA2 Cannon, Christopher

The Port of Los Angeles

Written comment: December 17, 2010

POLA3 Cannon, Christopher

The Port of Los Angeles

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

POLB Steinke, Richard 

The Port of Long Beach 

Written comment: December 15, 2010 

Prime Ryker, Shaun 

Prime, Inc. 

Written comment: December 7, 2010
13

RAMP Kitagawa, Brandon 

Regional Asthma Management and Prevention

Community Action to Fight Asthma 

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

RHS1 Gutierrez, Neli

Richmond High School

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

RHS2 Orozco, Jessica

Richmond High School

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

RHS3 Ramirez, Victoria 

Richmond High School

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Ritchie Ritchie, Cheryl

Written comment: December 11, 2010

RTC Osofsky, Alan 

Rodgers Trucking Co. 

Written comment: December 14, 2010

Rypos Bransfield, Peter

Rypos

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Samardich Samardich, Barbara 

Written comment: December 9, 2010

SCAQMD Hogo, Henry

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Sierra Lyons, Jim

Sierra Research 

Written comment: November 18, 2010

SJVAPCD Sadredin, Seyed

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Skinner Skinner, Warren

Written comment: December 11, 2010

Stalzer Stalzer MD, Susan

Written comment: December 10, 2010 

Stansberry Stansberry, Steve

Written comment: December 15, 2010

Stratton Stratton, Cindy

Written comment: December 10, 2010

Tomlinson Tomlinson, Rick 

Written comment: November 15, 2010

Torres Torres, Chris 

Written comment: November 16, 2010

Travers Travers, Ken 

Written comment: December 9, 2010
14

UCLA Enstrom, James

University of California, Los Angeles

Written comment: December 15, 2010

UPSD Merk, David 

Unified Port of San Diego

Written comment: December 2, 2010 

VPS Seivright, Susan

Valley Powers Systems, Inc.

Oral comment: December 17, 2010

Williamson Williamson, David 

Written comment: December 8, 2010

WLI Bishop, Ralph 

Western Lime, Inc. 

Written comment: December 10, 2010 

Wright Wright, Tracey

Written comment: December 15, 2010

Young Young, Justin

Written comment: December 14, 2010

A. Health Effects and Emissions

Methodology

A-1 Comment: I am writing in regards to the fraudulent study on diesel emissions. 

You can't enact regulations that will potentially destroy the entire economy of 

California. Admit your mistakes, and retract these ridiculous studies. (Barbosa)

A-2 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. (Finch)

A-3 Comment: I do not understand how a government for the people could impose 

job killing regulations on the public based on phony statistics by a phony 

scientist. (Holub)

A-4 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. While I 

fundamentally agree with the green concept, slowing the implementation to a rate 

that is more in line with the rest of the United States will benefit all Californians. 

(Hulz)

A-5 Comment: Estimates regarding CA and global pollutions data were hugely 

overstated. As the shipping cost of virtually everything goes up, our cost of living 
15

will go up and more middle and lower class peoples will suffer greater poverty. 

(Jerome) 

A-6 Comment: These new regulations will cost us all money and devastate the 

trucking and agriculture industries. They are based on phony research by phony 

Hien Tran. (Napier)

A-7 Comment: You are working off of information provided by a bogus "expert." 

Please just stop. (Pay)

A-8 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? 

(Pinkston)

A-9 Comment: It has been discussed that there is faulty data used in making the 

proposals. Please review all references before you make a decision. (Ritchie)

A-10 Comment: I can't believe you guys are going to help further destroy the state‟s 

economy by giving credence to a "study" by a fake PhD. We don't need the 

prices of everything to go up. Your regulations will put mom and pop type 

truckers out of business, leaving us to deal with the big companies only. 

(Stalzer)

A-11 Comment: I suggest the following regarding PM 2.5: (1) Hire a 3rd party 

scientific consultant vetted through the public with verifiable credentials to review 

all existing PM 2.5 data and make conclusions/recommendations; (2) Hire an 

economist to give a true picture of the economic impact of PM 2.5 regulations on 

the local and state economy should; and (3) CARB should openly and honestly 

answer questions regarding this legislation. (Tomlinson)

A-12 All of this from a regulation based on fraud: “Dr.” Hien Tran, the researcher with 

the phony PhD. (Travers)

A-13 Comment: Hien Tran was the lead scientist on the study of “Premature 

Mortalities from the exposure of PM 2.5,” which is the basis for the PM 2.5

regulations. He claimed to have a PhD from UC Davis, when in fact, he had a 

mail-order, fraudulent PhD from a fake university. We demand that CARB 

suspend the implementation and rule-making processes of all PM 2.5 regulations 

until a new study can be completed, peer-reviewed, and is made available for 

public comment. Also, there is discussion whether or not diesel is the largest 

emitter of PM 2.5. PM 2.5 particles come from many sources, which cannot be 

identified directly. National studies cannot be applied to California where 

pollutants and populations differ from states in the nation. (Young)
16

Agency Response to Comments A-1 through A-13: ARB staff recognizes that 

businesses will incur some costs due to the amendments to the Drayage Truck 

Regulation, and that this is challenging, especially in the current economic climate. 

However, the State is required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) to come into 

attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate 

matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM 2.5) and ozone. Drayage trucks are also a 

source of NOx emissions, which is a contributor to overall PM 2.5 and is also a 

precursor to ozone. Additionally, Assembly Bill 1807, The Toxic Air Contaminant 

Identification and Control Act, requires ARB to reduce health risk from identified toxic air 

contaminants, including diesel PM. Primary diesel PM emissions are a significant 

contributor to overall PM 2.5. In 2008, 20,600 tons of diesel PM were emitted in 

California. The emissions reductions from the Drayage Truck Regulation, as amended,

are necessary to protect public health and welfare; attain the federally mandated air 

quality standards for PM 2.5 and ozone; as well as reduce NOx and diesel PM 

emissions. 

Regarding Mr. Tran, as a result of falsifying 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 (ARB, 2010a),

which was completed in August 2010 and used for this rulemaking. 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‟s methods for quantifying premature death 

associated with long-term public exposure to PM 2.5. The methods rely on a peerreviewed risk assessment document developed by the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as part of its current review of the NAAQS for PM 2.5. 

The CAA gives U.S. EPA the responsibility to research and assess the health impacts 

of air pollution at the national level. California law gives ARB similar responsibilities as 

part of the State‟s comprehensive program to reduce air pollution. The national studies 

reviewed by U.S. EPA for the NAAQS assessment also apply to California, and as part 

of the federal standards review process, U.S. EPA estimated the premature deaths 

associated with PM 2.5 in two California cities (Los Angeles and Fresno). The new 

ARB report expands on that work by estimating mortality impacts of PM 2.5 statewide.

A-14 Comment: The attached list of study references on the relationship between 

PM 2.5 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 onroad regulations. (UCLA)

Agency Response to Comment A-14: ARB staff appreciates the extensive research 

provided regarding the relationship between PM 2.5 and total mortality in California. 

ARB staff believes the Drayage Truck Regulation is necessary to achieve needed 

emissions reductions, reduce localized risk from exposure to diesel PM, reduce impacts 

of diesel engine emissions on mortality and other health effects, and meet State 
17

Implementation Plan (SIP) commitments to meet federal air quality standards in 

California.

B. Regulatory Provisions 

Opposition to Eliminating Phase-2 2007 Model-Year Requirements 

B-1 Comment: I disagree with this new proposal. I think it‟s unfair to change the 

requirements after we have already made decisions and spent time trying to 

figure out which would be the best decision to make. And now, somebody with a 

2006 truck could possibly be driving it until 2020. You need to stick with what 

you said and everybody will be feeling more secure with the decisions that they 

made. Otherwise, you can reimburse the drivers for the money they spent that 

was unnecessary. (Anonymous)

B-2 Comment: I don‟t think amendments should be made to the regulation. You will 

put those companies that have already made the move to become compliant at a 

disadvantage to the companies that have not by allowing them to run their junk at 

reduced operating costs. They have minimal operating costs verses a company 

that has retrofitted or replaced their units to become compliant. (Babich)

B-3 Comment: We strongly urge you to maintain the much needed Phase 2 

deadline requiring all drayage trucks to meet EPA 2007 engine standards by 

2014. Community health is at risk if this deadline is eliminated. Maintaining the 

Phase 2 deadline of the regulation ensures that all drayage trucks will meet high 

clean air standards as originally intended. (BWGI1, BWGI2, BWGI3, RAMP)

B-4 Comment: We urge you to deny the amendment eliminating the Phase 2 

requirement which mandates that drayage trucks use engines that meet or 

exceed 2007 or newer emission standards by 2014. Our company made a 

strategic investment to purchase expensive new and clean trucks. In doing so,

we scrapped dirtier trucks that still had significant mechanical life remaining. 

Changing this regulation now is unfair, and will enable the dirty and undercapitalized and illegitimate truckers to hang on longer, polluting longer, and quite 

likely could wipe us out. We also believe that the elimination of this requirement 

will weaken current rules in place designed to protect residents near ports and 

rail yards from exposure to toxic air contaminants. (Devine1, Devine2, Devine3, 

Devine4, Devine5)

B-5 Comment: We need to get the older dirtier trucks off the road with a second 

phase for port trucks. I recognize how important jobs are, but at the same time, I 

really hope that the Board does not back down on protecting our health. (MCHS)

B-6 Comment: The diesel problem is affecting us, the citizens. It is affecting our 

health. 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 
18

hospitalized is going to decrease by a lot. I know it's not easy finding a job now 

since the economy has gone bad. But the delay (in Phase 2 requirements) that 

is being proposed means more kids are going to be affected and get sicker. 

(RHS3)

B-7 Comment: The proposed changes 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. We ask that you reconsider the removal of 

mandatory retrofits. (Rypos)

B-8 Comment: By giving older equipment a longer period to comply, CARB will be 

giving a competitive advantage to those who did not do anything and continue to 

emit higher emissions. Keeping the rule the same as originally passed by the 

board would keep the economics even for all involved. (Torres)

Agency Response to Comments B-1 through B-8: Comments noted. The adopted 

amendments did not include staff‟s proposal to eliminate the Phase 2 requirements 

(section 2027(d)(2)), which requires drayage trucks to be equipped with engines that 

meet or exceed 2007 model year California or federal emission standards) from the 

Drayage Truck Regulation. ARB determined that the emission reductions achieved 

through implementation of the Phase 2 requirements are needed to maximize air quality 

benefits and reduce health risk exposure for communities near California‟s ports and rail 

yards. The Board also recognized that the Phase 2 requirements were already being 

implemented by stakeholders relying on the previously adopted provisions, and that the 

requirements were needed to provide regulatory consistency and prevent possible 

competitive disadvantages for truck owners who have already complied. All drayage 

trucks will continue to be required to operate with engines that meet or exceed 2007 or 

newer emission standards after December 31, 2013. 

Support for Eliminating Phase-2 2007 Model-Year Requirements

B-9 Comment: I support the change in the drayage rule to give the useful life to the 

trucks longer after they retrofit. I ask that the engines that are 2004, 2005, and 

2006, that you give one more year for them to get the retrofit. And finally, make a 

decision. It‟s very hard to do business when we don't have a decision. (FTSI)

B-10 Comment: I support the amendments to the Drayage Truck Rule. Give us 

some time so we can make proper decisions on where to invest our money going 

forward. (Impact)

Agency Response to Comments B-9 through B-10: See agency response to 

comments B-1 through B-8 above.
19

Class 7 Trucks and Trucks Operating Off of Port and Intermodal Rail Yards 

B-11 Comment: We applaud the proposed changes to the Drayage Truck Regulation 

regarding the practice called “dray-off” (the use of non-compliant trucks to shuttle 

containers to and from staging locations very close to port terminals) and 

inclusion of Class 7 trucks. Ending “dray-offs” and including Class 7 trucks 

ensures that all drayage trucks will meet high clean air standards as originally 

intended. (BWGI1, BWGI2, BWGI3, CCA1, EHC, RAMP)

B-12 Comment: We support closing the loopholes in the current regulation that

address dray-offs and Class 7 trucks. (Devine1, Devine2, Devine3, Devine4, 

Devine5)

B-13 Comment: The financial commitment made by our membership in new and 

clean trucks is being threatened by a small group of businesses that are 

exploiting a small loop hole in the current regulations that allow the use of Class 

7 trucks to dray containers from the port terminals. These trucks are avoiding the 

associated clean truck fees, and thereby gaining an unfair competitive advantage 

over those in the industry who have complied with the regulations. We ask that 

ARB move those Class 7 trucks into the same category as Class 8 trucks as it 

pertains to their phase-out from port and related uses, and effectuate this new 

regulatory framework immediately. We are also concerned about the increasing 

use of dray-offs on port property, which allow trucking firms to haul containers 

using a compliant truck and then switch the container to a non-compliant truck 

just outside the terminal gates. (HTA)

B-14 Comment: My high school is surrounded by truck routes, so I'm very happy that 

ARB staff is recommending an end to the dray-off loophole and recommending 

including more trucks in the program. (MCHS)

B-15 Comment: All the loopholes need to be closed. (MHSLPSA)

B-16 Comment: We're appreciative for the effort in working with communities to 

address the dray-off problems that were undermining the port drayage truck 

regulation. (NRDC)

B-17 Comment: We support the proposed changes to the Drayage Truck regulation 

that address dray-off activity. (UPSD)

Agency Response to Comments B-11 through B-17: ARB staff agrees. The 

Regulation, as amended, expands the Drayage Truck Regulation to include Class 7 and 

“dray-off” trucks that circumvent the intent of the Regulation. These trucks delay 

expected emission and health benefits, and foster an uncompetitive environment with 

complying competitors. ARB staff believes that requiring trucks transporting drayage 

cargos off port and rail yard properties to meet the same emission standards and 
20

deadlines as trucks operating on port and rail yard properties will eliminate any 

competitive and cost disadvantages between the two trucking groups. 

B-18 Comment: Under the proposed amendments, Class 7 trucks would not be 

subject to any emissions control requirements until January 1, 2014. We believe 

Class 7 vehicles should be brought into sync with the progressive bans already 

imposed on Class 8 vehicles by January 1, 2012, allowing for a short transition 

period in order to allow current Class 7 truck owners to purchase retrofits or order 

new vehicles. (POLA1, POLA2, POLA3, POLB)

Agency Response to Comment B-18: ARB staff modified the requirements for 

Class 7 drayage trucks operating in the South Coast Air Basin (where the ports of Los 

Angeles and Long Beach are located). These trucks will be subject to emission control 

requirements after December 31, 2011, which require all pre-2007 model year engines 

to be retrofitted with an ARB verified level 3 diesel particulate filter or to meet or exceed 

2007 engine standards. This requirement is consistent with the successful diesel 

emission reduction efforts already in place at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach

and ensures that emission and health benefits are retained.

C. Economic Impacts 

Credits and Incentives

C-1 Comment: After we complied with the regulation, everybody got an extension

(commenter is referring to an ARB issued 4-month extension from January 1, 

2010 through April 30, 2010). I had to compete head to head with people that 

had done nothing for months. Then there's another extension (commenter is 

referring to a second ARB issued 2-month extension from May 1, 2010 through 

June 30, 2010 for a very limited number of trucks awaiting new equipment). I‟m 

hoping there is something that can be done to give credit to fleets that have 

already taken action to comply with the regulations. (CCT)

C-2 Comment: 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. (NAFA)

C-3 Comment: We appreciate that staff has taken into account the plight of many in 

these difficult economic times. We are hopeful that with the extra time for 

meeting the requirements, that the economic future will become brighter. We 

realize that some companies stepped up to the plate early and invested in newer 

technologies. 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 
21

competitive playing field over the next 10 years. Please consider some 

advantage to those carriers that complied ahead of schedule. (RTC)

Agency Response to Comment C-1 through C-3: ARB staff believes it is no longer 

necessary to consider giving credit or incentives to stakeholders that have already 

complied with Phase 2 of the Drayage Truck Regulation since the proposed amendment 

that would have eliminated the current Phase 2 requirements requiring 2007 model-year 

compliant engines was not approved. The Board recognized that the Regulation was 

already being implemented, and that the requirements were needed to provide 

regulatory consistency and prevent possible competitive disadvantages for truck owners 

who complied early with Phase 2. Therefore, Phase 2 remains unchanged, and all 

drayage trucks will be required to operate with engines that meet or exceed 2007 or 

newer emission standards after December 31, 2013. 

Impacts on Businesses

C-4 Comment: Your overbearing proposed regulations on diesel engines will drive 

consumer costs up and drive viable businesses from the state. Allow existing 

federal air quality rules to achieve their goals. (ACCC)

C-5 Comment: As one of the founders of AutoReturn, the current contract holder for 

all of the municipal towing in San Francisco, I am aware of the (additional) costs 

the proposed regulations will have. However, I do support the proposed truck 

and diesel engine emissions regulations. Yes, there will be some increased 

costs initially; but the long term benefits will show that these regulations like 

those imposed decades ago for passenger cars were the driving force for the 

needed change. (AutoReturn)

C-6 Comment: I request the Board to reject any amendment that jeopardizes the 

ability to retain transportation jobs within the state. While I understand the intent 

of the environmental special interest groups, their tenets are extreme and not 

business nor job friendly thus reducing the number of potential employees to 

other states and thereby losing potential tax revenues to the general fund. 

(Ballesteros)

C-7 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. (Bengston)

C-8 Comment: These regulations are only going to burden the poor and middle 

class. You are forcing the working people and businesses out of this state. 

(Browne)

C-9 Comment: The diesel regulations will have a serious impact on our jobs and 

economy. Please also consider the role of economics on public health. Nations 
22

with the highest poverty rates also have the highest infant mortality rates and 

lowest life expectancies. (CEU)

C-10 Comment: These regulations that are based on bogus information are putting 

small trucking companies out of business. (Chatten)

C-11 Comment: Increasing the tax and/or limiting the use of diesel fuel for truckers 

and other transportation methods will be a hardship for farmers, truckers, and the 

common citizen. We will be forced to pay more for farm products and trucking of 

food and other materials. I am tired of our lives and livelihoods being controlled 

by extreme environmentalists. Such limitations are based upon faulty and 

misinterpreted statistics. (Durkee)

C-12 Comment: Dump the diesel regulations. These are unnecessary and job killers. 

They do nothing except destroy business. (Dietrich1, Deitrich2) 

C-13 Comment: If the new laws take effect, it would literally shut our small business. 

Please reconsider the small businesses that are struggling to survive in this 

miserable economy. (Earnshaw)

C-14 Comment: I am against the regulations you are trying to push through. They 

will force small trucking companies out of business and drive up the costs of all 

goods statewide. (Erik)

C-15 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. (Finch)

C-16 Comment: Please dump the strict regulations. They will kill my small business. 

(Findley)

C-17 Comment: Dump the job killing diesel regulations now. Vote no on the diesel 

regulations. (Fleming)

C-18 Comment: Unless killing off what little economy left in California is your 

intention, stop Cap and Trade and stop your diesel proposal. (Graves)

C-19 Comment: Before they destroy countless jobs, and price us out of existence. 

Abolish CARB before it is too late. (Griffith)

C-20 Comment: Why make more regulations to choke business and by direct relation 

cost jobs? It is not governments place to instruct us how to live our lives. (Hall)
23

C-21 Comment: If you impact the cost of trucking, you will impact the cost of 

everything. 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. (Hill)

C-22 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. Additionally, your studies appear to be flawed. (Kellogg)

C-23 Comment: 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. 

(Laman)

C-24 Comment: I am a small business owner and have lived in California for 49 

years. My business has gone from 42 employees to nine, as the current 

economic conditions have affected business. Our business requires equipment 

such as trucks, driven locally. I have not made a profit in three years. I keep my 

trucks in fine running condition. I cannot afford to replace them. It said simply 

"Pass the cost on to your customers." I don't have enough customers to make 

this happen. Please help this state recover. Stop over regulating. California 

cannot afford this. (Lynes)

C-25 Comment: The new regulations could probably put me out of business, so I'm 

hoping for a change or postponement on the rules. (Marin)

C-26 Comment: CARB should temper zealous and punitive actions against industry 

and business. CARB is apparently driven by more than unreasonable clean air 

goals. (Morton)

C-27 Comment: Please do not enact further restrictions on diesel fuel. The 

enforcement of these new proposals will affect the weak job sector, and we 

cannot afford any more taxes. (Ritchie)

C-28 Comment: Back off we cannot do this until our economy is back to normal. 

(Skinner)

C-29 Comment: Please do not cave in to the environmental extremists and vote no 

on proposed amendments regarding diesel fuel. Harm has been grossly 

exaggerated, and businesses are more important. (Stratton)

C-30 Comment: Small trucking companies will go out of business because they 

cannot afford to make costly retrofits. The regulations will hit all of us with more 

expensive prices on everything brought to us in a truck. (Travers)

C-31 Comment: Unless you want this state to fail, don't regulate jobs away. (Wright)
24

Agency Response to Comments C-4 through C-31: See agency response to 

comments A-1 through A-17. ARB believes that the Drayage Truck Regulation is

necessary to meet California‟s air quality obligations and goals. The need to reduce 

emissions from drayage trucks continues to be a significant factor in meeting air quality 

standards. Solely relying on federal new engine emission standards will not achieve 

emission reduction goals in the necessary timeframe because of the long lives of diesel 

trucks. Drayage truck emissions contribute to localized health risks associated with 

exposure to diesel PM, and premature deaths associated with exposure to PM 2.5 near 

California‟s port and intermodal rail yard facilities. Staff believes that the analysis 

presented in the Staff Report is an accurate estimate of the emissions inventory and 

economic impacts from the Regulation on California‟s industries. Additionally, staff 

believes that most businesses will be able to offset costs because the effect of the 

Regulation will be similar for businesses that compete with each other in providing the 

same service. ARB staff will continue to monitor the impacts of the recession on the 

emissions inventories and industry as the Regulation is implemented. 

C-32 Comment: We ask the Board to reiterate its support for the diesel retrofit 

industry and direct senior ARB staff to lead the pursuit of immediate relief 

measures for the retrofit device manufacturers 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. (CDTI)

C-33 Comment: We fully support the MECA recommended changes, which includes 

the need for economic relief consideration for retrofit manufacturers. We request 

Board support of near-term reviews with ARB staff and ARB interim policy 

guidance approaches that would provide economic relief and ensure that verified 

technologies are available and needed. (Donaldson)

C-34 Comment: 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. Our 

industry has felt the impact of the recession and such. We ask that the Board 

consider directing staff to look at some measures for economic relief for our 

industry as well. Our VDEC products are sold here in California through 

distribution, through California companies. We market, sell, and install. 

We essentially maintain these systems through California green jobs. 

The changes to the rules will impact the number of jobs that can be foreign. 

(Matthey)

C-35 We think obviously with the changes in the demand for retrofit technology that 

have occurred because of the changes that are before you, some relief is

needed. (MECA1, MECA2)
25

Agency Response to Comments C-32 through C-35: ARB staff continues to support 

the option to use retrofit devices to reduce emissions in the Drayage Truck Regulation,

and by extension, the retrofit manufacturing and installation industries. At its

December 17, 2010 public hearing, the Board directed staff to incorporate several 

regulatory changes to include Class 7 drayage fleets that provide the option to employ 

retrofit technologies. ARB staff continues to support research and development of 

technologies that assist in meeting California‟s clean air commitments. For drayage 

trucks, the adopted amendments increase the market for retrofit devices.

Effect on Vehicle Value

C-36 Comment: CARB is trying to force companies and individuals to replace or 

retrofit by 2014. That has caused used diesel trucks to drop in value 40-80

percent. The fleets that run the most miles normally would replace trucks in 5 

years. Now they cannot afford to. Now there are thousands upon thousands 

trucks rotting. Trucks that were 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. (Nieto)

Agency Response to Comment C-36: ARB staff recognizes that in California, the 

value of used trucks that do not meet required engine standards may change as a result 

of the Regulations. When determining the costs attributable to the Drayage Truck 

Regulation, staff estimated there would be some loss in value associated with 

equipment being replaced early. This analysis is reflected in the 2007 staff report. The 

Regulation is crafted to maximize the availability of used emission compliant trucks in 

the market to meet demand, while ensuring that emission reduction goals and timelines 

are met. Typically, trucks cycle from the large long-haul fleets to local fleets within 

five years of purchase. In addition, trucks that meet the PM emission standards under 

the Drayage Truck Regulation could be resold as compliant trucks under the Truck and 

Bus Regulation. By 2014, the „oldest‟ compliant truck will be seven years old. 

Therefore, staff is confident that a sufficient number of 2007 model year and newer 

trucks will be available in the marketplace to meet future demands. 

D. Environmental Impacts

Public Health

D-1 Comment: I am concerned that the proposed modifications do not maintain the 

short and long-term health benefits of the original rule. The health of businesses 

should not become a priority when the public's health can suffer. (Chung)

D-2 Comment: 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 PM 2.5

at the air monitor that's located in one of our environmental justice communities, 

we have not seen any consistent decreases between 2006 and 2009 in the 

annual average levels. That community has also been working hard to finalize a 
26

new land use community plan which would allow water-front industries and 

residential communities to exist side-by-side. We need to make sure that every 

truck traveling through or visiting the port is as clean as possible in its emissions. 

(EHC)

D-3 Comment: We urge you to ensure the regulations are as strong as possible and 

provide commensurate health protections to the original rules. While we 

understand that ARB‟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. Strong state regulations to control harmful emissions 

from trucks and buses are critical to saving lives and improving health. We 

support the strongest possible regulations to cut diesel pollution, protect 

vulnerable and impacted communities, and protect public health from the 

illnesses and deaths caused by diesel exposure. (HNSSR)

D-4 Comment: When the Board adopted California's Diesel Risk Reduction Plan in 

2000, it set a goal of reducing diesel pollution by 75 percent by 2010. I 

understand 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 a 

75 percent reduction on diesel pollution until 2023. Please don't wait that long. 

You need to fix the proposal so that trucks, old or new, have diesel filters by 

2017. And old equipment needs to be retired faster. (MHSLPSA)

D-5 Comment: The current proposal will significantly delay diesel cleanup over the 

next few years. Demographic data shows 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. 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. (NRDC)

D-6 Comment: I‟m concerned in how diesel exhaust is becoming harmful to 

children's health. As you all probably know, Richmond's asthma hospitalization 

rate is three times the state average. I, myself, suffered of asthma as a child. 

My seven-year-old sister has asthma now. I have two cousins who also live in 

Richmond and also suffer of asthma. In your mission, you mention that you want 

to promote and protect the public health. All of us who are suffering this diesel 

impact want to see you do as you say. (RHS1)

D-7 Comment: I want 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. Imagine trucks passing by your 

house every day leaving particles and gases in the air that are just waiting for the 

moment so you breathe them in. At that moment, they may not affect you, but 
27

sooner or later they make you sick when you least expect it. One truck route 

runs 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. Nothing should stop us from pursuing 

just this. (RHS2)

D-8 Comment: The diesel filters should be mandatory on all trucks. I believe my 

community will benefit greatly from the diesel filter. (Earth)

Agency Response to Comments D-1 through D-8: ARB staff agrees. While 

acknowledging the effects of the recession on the overall trucking industry, the 

Regulation includes Phase 1 requirements for diesel PM reductions from 2010-2012 

and, as amended, retains the even more effective Phase 2 requirements, which will 

ensure continued protection of residents in impacted communities who suffer adverse 

health impacts from exposure to diesel PM and NOx emissions. Air quality 

improvement began in 2010 with the ban on the oldest trucks, and the installation of PM 

filters on a majority of drayage trucks. 

Environmental Justice

D-9 Comment: Policies should be made that benefit all people, and I believe that 

re-routing of trucks will help lower the asthma-related hospital visits and lowincomes families that reside in those areas. (Earth)

D-10 Comment: It's not fair how we have to live under environmental racism and how 

other people, often rich people don't have to. I understand all the people that 

don't support this amendment, but I think they should stop being selfish and also 

care about the people that live under this environmental racism. The world is not 

all about money. It's also about the health of other people. (MHS2)

Agency response to Comment D-9 through D-10: Comments noted. ARB staff is 

committed to integrating environmental justice in all of its activities. The amended 

Drayage Truck Regulation requires cleaner fleets of in-use on-road diesel vehicles to be 

used throughout the State with accelerated requirements for highly impacted 

communities near port, rail yards, warehouses, and high traffic freeways. This will 

reduce emissions in communities statewide, including those with environmental justice 

concerns. Additionally, the requirements facilitate fleet turnover for all drayage trucks 

hauling port or rail cargos, regardless of truck owner‟s fleet size. The suggested 

alternative to re-routing truck traffic is outside the scope of ARB‟s authority. The

commenter should seek assistance from local municipal government.
28

State Implementation Plan Commitments

D-11 Comment: While we acknowledge a need for some modification to these rules 

with the downturn of the economy, we are concerned by the level of the 

modifications both in terms of the fact that we are trading off some of the nearterm 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. We would really appreciate having a 20 percent 

margin there. And though I know that the staff is committed to reviewing this 

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. (CCA1)

D-12 Comment: We are particularly concerned about how these amendments 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 sensitive 

to the economic situation and the current times that we are living in, the localized 

impacts will continue. These rules also play a significant role in our SIP 

attainment. The economy 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, this is a serious concern. 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. (CCA2)

D-13 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 aware of the economic crisis in the Central Valley, but diesel 

pollution is costly. I ask that you please pass a strong diesel rule with a greater 

SIP margin. (Charities)

D-14 Comment: I'm here today to support these proposed changes. The amendment 

to this rule is really not backsliding on any of the health benefits. The reason 

being for those on the environmental side, is the health benefits that were 

discussed six months ago, let alone two years ago, were pure fantasy. They 

weren't based off any real actual numbers. Today, we have a far better baseline 

to deal with. And the proposed health benefits are going forward from that 

baseline. (Cloud)

D-15 Comment: Don't adopt these amendments. The San Joaquin Valley and the 

South Coast need these reductions, these extra reductions that you're going to 

backslide on to meet the one-hour standard. You still have to meet the one-hour 

standard. We've been talking about the PM 2.5 standard and the eight-hour 

ozone standard. You still need to meet the one-hour standard. The 

environmental justice screen method demonstrates the adverse and disparate 

impacts that will occur as a result of these amendments. The current rule 
29

requires a significant amount of reductions to occur earlier. This amendment 

reduces the reductions and pushes them off. Near-highway communities that 

are predominantly low income and communities of color will bear an adverse and 

disparate impact. Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act says a federally funded agency 

like yours may not discriminate on the basis of race. Therefore, there will be a 

Title 6 complaint in your future. (CRPE)

D-16 Comment: My concern on the rule proposed today is that it does not safeguard 

with enough margin of certainty for 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, and 880. I 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. (CVAQC)

D-17 Comment: Given that the proposed amendments rely heavily on ARB‟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 

regulation: (1) Reaffirm ARB‟s commitment that mitigating any shortfall in 

emission reductions will be the responsibility of ARB from sources under the 

State‟s jurisdiction; (2) Accept a commitment by ARB to regularly monitor and 

report on the actual emissions and related trends for the affected source 

categories, and take timely regulatory action to remedy any shortfalls; 

(3) Partner with SCAQMD and SJVAPCD to do additional work to improve the 

statewide and regional emissions inventory estimates for affected source 

categories. We have prepared draft resolution language containing 

commitments and dates for actions by ARB to implement these 

recommendations, and urge your Board to add it to the adopted resolution for the 

proposed amendments. (Districts, SCAQMD, SJVAPCD)

D-18 Comment: There is a real impact in our communities because of the place that 

where they live and work is a diesel hot spot. With major freeways, major arterial 

roads, and rail yards, they are suffering from asthma, cancer and other 

respiratory illnesses due to the cumulative impacts from all of these sources. 

These rules are important because they will cut down on costs, medications, and 

also health risk for the families that are heavily impacted. Our impacted 

communities need near-term relief now. We ask that staff provide near-term 

benefits through upgrades on the oldest dirtiest trucks beginning in 2014, 

including a higher SIP margin and a monitoring program. (EYCEJ1)

D-19 Comment: 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. I 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 
30

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. 

(Breathe)

Agency Response to Comments D-11 through D-19: Recognizing the health risks 

posed by drayage truck emissions on communities located near to ports and intermodal 

rail yards, the Drayage Truck Regulation, as amended, was strengthened - not relaxed. 

The Phase 2 requirements have been retained as initially adopted, and the loopholes in 

the existing Regulation regarding use of Class 7 drayage trucks and dray-off have been 

closed. The Regulation, as amended, will result in greater NOx and PM emission 

reductions which will assist the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air districts in 

achieving attainment of the federal ambient air quality standards, as originally set forth 

in the 2007 SIP. 

Emissions Inventory and Monitoring

D-20 Comment: We understand that ARB needs to provide some additional flexibility 

due to the economy and inventory changes. We are asking that you do 

everything possible to maximize the public health protections and maintain the 

strongest possible regulations. We are particularly concerned about the most 

vulnerable and disadvantaged communities and urge you to pay special attention 

to pollution reduction in impacted areas and to consider measures to strengthen 

requirements in areas near ports and rail yards. We also 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. (ALA)

D-21 Comment: CARB‟s on-road diesel inventory cannot be reasonably or thoroughly 

reviewed based on the information currently available and that, where a review is 

possible, there are substantial issues that need to be addressed. Given this, 

Sierra strongly recommends that the inventory, as well as all data sources and 

methodologies, be subjected to an independent “peer” review by an experienced 

third party or parties before it is used as the basis for regulatory decision making, 

including the assessment of potential modifications to the In-Use On-Road Diesel 

Regulation. (Sierra)

Agency Response to Comments D-20 through D-21: Please see agency responses

to comments D-1 through D-19. With regard to monitoring emissions levels and the 

pace of the economy, ARB staff routinely reviews emission levels and monitors air 

quality throughout California to measure the effectiveness of its air quality programs and 

will continue to do so in the future. This active monitoring is independent of the pace of 

the economy. However, as the economy improves with a significant increase in volume 

of truck emissions, ARB‟s monitoring will quickly identify any significant emissions 

increases and take appropriate actions to meet its SIP commitments.
31

The drayage truck emissions inventory was developed using a step-wise approach. 

Container lift data and other information was used to estimate the number of truck trips 

to various destinations, origin and destination data was used to estimate trip lengths, 

survey data was used to estimate truck population and age distribution, and future 

growth trends were estimated using container vessel growth rates and other 

information. 

E. Definitions

E-1 Comment: We ask ARB staff to work with us and others in the trucking 

community to develop a definition of “dray-off” for regulatory and enforcement 

purposes to avoid over-reaching. There are a number of legitimate business 

practices, all ARB compliant, that involve the use of two or more trucks for the 

move of a single container. While we support a ban on the activities involving 

switching of vehicles to avoid regulation, we would encourage ARB to speak with 

trucking companies to garner a better understanding of the legitimate practices in 

use in order to avoid an overly-broad regulatory scheme. (HTA)

Agency Response to Comment E-1: ARB staff did not include a definition for

“dray-off” in the proposed amendments to the Drayage Truck Regulation. Instead, staff 

worked closely with the trucking industry and other stakeholders to expand the original 

definition of a “drayage truck” to include trucks hauling cargos, containers, or chassis 

that are either bound from or destined for a port or rail yard. By expanding the definition 

of „drayage truck,‟ staff avoided the possible pitfalls of defining a new activity. The 

amended Regulation has been vetted through industry, and staff is confident that it will 

properly address and eliminate “dray-off” activities intended to circumvent the intent of 

the Regulation. ARB staff is committed to continue to work with industry throughout the 

Regulation‟s implementation to address any unforeseen circumstances not consistent 

with the intent of the Regulation. 

F. Funding

General 

F-1 Comment: 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. 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. (ALA, Earth) 

F-2 Comment: Let‟s get the money into the hands of these people. Whatever you 

can do to facilitate getting the money out on the street, the industry is going to 

appreciate it. (FTSI)
32

F-3 Comment: I commend ARB on its willingness to revisit the requirements of the 

Drayage Truck regulation based on updated inventory information and the 

present economic downturn. However, we believe that the health risk in its 

impacted communities and along Bay Area highways remains at the same or 

increased levels. We request that ARB consider the following recommendations, 

should they decide to proceed with the proposed amendments to the Drayage 

Truck regulation: (1) Implement recommendations from the advisory committee 

to streamline State grants programs; (2) Support air districts in efforts to seek 

streamlined legislation and extension of State grants programs; (3) Allow 

increased participation by medium sized fleets in State grants programs; and 

(4) Provide additional funding and larger percentages to loan guarantee 

programs to increase grant program participation. (BAAQMD1, BAAQMD2). 

F-4 Comment: In adopting the proposed relaxations to the existing regulation, we 

urge your Board to consider taking actions to facilitate more rapid and effective 

use of incentive grants in generating earlier reductions from the affected source 

categories to minimize potential shortfalls. We also recommend the following 

actions with respect to necessary enhancement to the incentive grant programs: 

(1) Adopt uniform program guidelines and funding caps across various incentive 

programs with a particular focus in encouraging emissions reductions as early as 

possible by increasing program participation; (2) streamline and simplify 

application processes that encourage participation, especially from small fleet 

owners and owner operators; (3) 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; and (4) Increase opportunities for 

small businesses by adjusting the definition of small fleets to include small 

businesses with more than three vehicles. (Districts, SJVAPCD, SCAQMD)

F-5 Comment: If the companies that make 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 the port, then that could help my community and 

they could clean up the diesel trucks. I think this should be recommended as an 

idea to the Governor and the Legislature. Also, I think it should be on the ballot 

for the 2012 election. Suppose that for every container that came through the 

Port of Oakland, the shipping company could pay $30. That money could be 

used to clean up the trucks. (MHS1)

Agency Response to Comments F-1 through Comment F-5: ARB staff is committed 

to working with local districts to continue helping truck owners (including drayage truck 

owners) identify available assistance options as well as creating programs, when 

possible, to aid in this effort.

ARB has been active in providing incentive funding opportunities to drayage truck 

owners and operators to finance the purchase of retrofits or cleaner trucks prior to any 

applicable compliance deadlines. The Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission 

Reduction Program (Prop. 1B) is a partnership between ARB and local agencies to 
33

provide grants to equipment owners regardless of fleet size. Drayage truck owneroperators and owners of small and medium size fleets can participate in ARB‟s 

Providing Loan Assistance for California Equipment (PLACE) program that provides 

loan guarantees and will shortly provide loans. In February 2011, modifications to 

PLACE expanded eligibility criteria to allow more trucking fleets to participate in the 

program. 

The Prop. 1B program has awarded $105 million for equipment owners to replace or 

upgrade drayage trucks. Additionally, the Board approved March 2010 Prop. 1B 

Guidelines includes a provision for a priority reserve fund for owners and operators of 

drayage trucks who installed PM filters prior to June 30, 2010 and will need to replace 

those trucks by 2014. ARB or the air districts will contact the owner of record of these 

trucks when such funds are available which are dependent upon ARB receiving upfront 

proceeds from future bond sales.

Additionally, 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. In recent years, 

California‟s portfolio of incentive programs has expanded to include the Goods 

Movement Emission Reduction Program, the AB 118 programs, the PLACE program, 

and other locally run air district programs, among others. 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.

Public Outreach 

F-6 Comment: I request that staff continue their endeavors to implement outreach 

regarding compliance schedules, credits, and grant funding opportunities. 

Taking advantage of credits and funding opportunities will get reductions ahead 

of schedule. Additionally, I'd like to request that your staff dedicate ample time to 

re-evaluate the effectiveness of the Cal Cap Program, which provides a 

tremendous amount of relief to fleets that are affected by these rules as well that 

may have already missed their window to qualify for grant programs. (VPS)

Agency Response to Comment F-6: ARB staff has developed an outreach plan to 

help increase awareness of the regulatory requirements and financial assistance 

programs. To implement the plan, ARB has launched a series of outreach tools 

including the new Truck Stop website at

www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truckstop/truckstop.htm; the diesel hotline at 1-866-6DIESEL,

or by email at 8666diesel@arb.ca.gov. Interested truck owners can use any of these 

resources to obtain information regarding on-road regulations and available financial 

assistance. 
34

Additionally, ARB staff will implement a drayage specific outreach effort once the 

proposed changes become effective. This effort will include updated information for 

drayage owners and operators, motor carriers, and port and rail authorities on any 

regulatory changes. Staff will also inform fleets of new or expanded incentive funding 

opportunities as they become available. Education efforts will include training seminars, 

public workshops, and individual meetings with stakeholders throughout the State, 

continuation of the toll free Drayage Truck Hotline at 1-888-247-4821, email 

communication at drayage@arb.ca.gov, and ongoing electronic communication via 

ARB‟s Port Truck list-serve. Staff will also continue to work with industry 

representatives and associations on additional ways to educate stakeholders on the 

amendments to the Regulations.

G. Retrofit Technology 

Installation Feasibility and Operational Difficulties

G-1 Truckers 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 are having to get major 

repairs because the retrofit equipment or the new equipment they're putting on is 

not working for them. In that same situation, you're seeing an additional three to 

four to even eleven percent lower fuel mileage. We have major engine 

manufacturers that are dropping out of the California market. We need to allow 

them time to catch up. So let's take a little longer term look at this and find 

practical solutions. (LaMalfa)

Agency response to Comment G-1: Over the past decade, heavy-duty diesel vehicle 

technology has rapidly evolved to meet new engine standards promulgated by ARB and 

U.S. EPA. New engine certification is designed to ensure that new equipment meets 

minimum thresholds. To be certified, a vehicle must demonstrate to ARB and U.S. EPA 

that its emission control systems are durable and comply with the emission standards 

for the vehicle's useful life. This is done through durability and certification testing of the 

prototype certification vehicles. Compliance with on-board diagnostics, anti-tampering, 

vehicular emissions, etc., as applicable, must also be demonstrated. 

Production vehicles must be identical in all material respects to those of the certification 

vehicles for which the certification was granted. All emissions-related production 

running changes and field fixes must be approved by ARB. Production vehicles must 

be properly labeled and their emission control systems warranted. New and customerowned production vehicles are subject to compliance testing (by either the 

manufacturers or ARB) and warranty repairs reporting by the manufacturers, either of 

which can result in remedial actions.

In regards to new vehicle reliability and durability, originally equipped PM filters on 2007 

or newer vehicles are under warranty for 150,000 miles. Any failures occurring during 

this period would be reconciled by the manufacturer. In addition, recent industry 

evidence suggests that newer 2010 model year engine technology is proving durable 

with performance above expectations.
35

Approved PM retrofit devices are thoroughly evaluated and approved by ARB‟s Diesel 

Emission Control Strategies Verification Program and have been found to be effective in 

collecting diesel PM contaminants. These retrofit devices are designed and verified for 

specific engine families, operating conditions, and applications. Engines that do not 

meet the verified system requirements are not qualified for the retrofit installations. 

There are currently over 2,200 PM retrofits operating on drayage trucks statewide. Only 

a small number (less than 15) have been reported to ARB as having malfunction 

problems. Staff agrees that suitability is very important when selecting a verified PM 

retrofit, and issues involving retrofit system malfunctions should be promptly reported to 

the installer or other professionals authorized by the retrofit manufacturers. ARB staff 

also notes that there are a greater number of retrofits operating for longer periods of 

time on other types of diesel equipment in the U.S. and Europe. 

Verification of Retrofits 

G-2 Comment: We believe that more can be done to increase ARB cooperative 

efforts to harmonize the verification process with EPA, and better achieve true 

reciprocity between EPA and ARB. We also believe that a more streamlined cost 

effective ARB verification procedure and end use testing procedures are desired 

and possible. We urge the Board to consider the changes that we have identified 

and request these near-term policy guidance adjustments. (Donaldson)

G-3 Comment: We have found it is possible to maintain engine combustion over an 

entire engine life. 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 an aircraft mechanic signing of an airworthy engine log. (Fosseen)

G-4 Comment: We think there are pathways for improving the verification end use 

testing program that can provide relief for the diesel retrofit industry. And we 

would ask the Board to direct staff to work with us on making those changes 

happen. (MECA1, MECA2)

Agency Response to Comments G-2 through G-4: ARB staff appreciates the 

manufacturer‟s efforts in developing technologies and diesel particulate filter devices for 

customers to comply with the Regulation. However, the commenters are referring to the 

Verification Procedure, Warranty and In-Use Compliance Requirements for In-Use 

Strategies to Control Emissions from Diesel Engines Regulation, which outlines the 

requirements for verification of DECS. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce 

emissions of diesel PM, NOx, and other criteria pollutants from in-use on-road dieselfueled heavy-duty drayage trucks at ports and intermodal rail yard facilities. This 

rulemaking is not an appropriate venue for addressing possible improvements and/or 

streamlining the verification process or in-use compliance testing requirements. We 
36

encourage manufacturers to continue to work closely with ARB verification staff to 

address the concerns raised in the comments. 

H. Miscellaneous

H-1 Comment: We are supportive of the current rule and 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)

H-2 Comment: Over the last few weeks we have seen a drop in business due to 

ARB changing and delaying its diesel rules and not having any new rules, or 

funding in place. Potential buyers are waiting until rules are in place or funding 

guidelines are clear. I can't help feel that our industry is the only one being left 

out on a limb to fend for itself. (Liqtech)

H-3 Comment: I support the proposed truck and diesel engine emissions 

regulations. There will be some increased costs initially, but the long term 

benefits will show that these regulations like those imposed decades ago for 

passenger cars were the driving force for the needed change. (AutoReturn)

H-4 Comment: 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.

(Enterprise)

Agency response to Comments H-1 through H-4: The Drayage Truck Regulation, as 

amended, will help ensure that companies can make short and long term business 

plans that comply with the regulatory schedules. The proposal to eliminate Phase 2 

requirements for compliance with 2007 model-year standards was not adopted in 

recognition of public health concerns and the fact that some stakeholders have relied on 

the existing requirements in making business decisions and investments towards 

compliance and that changes to the requirements would potentially place these 

companies at a competitive disadvantage with competitors who have not yet taken 

action to comply with the later year requirements. 

H-5 Comment: You may think that the current proposed requirements are a way to 

gradually phase in new standards, but they are not. You guys are changing the 

standards, making our current fleet non-compliant. The findings presented were 

based on a false study. Start by conducting a real study with real numbers, in 

our area. Changes in the design and performance of diesel engines should be 

incorporated at the manufacturing level. (Ayala)
37

Agency response to Comment H-5: With respect to the Drayage Truck Regulation, 

staff‟s proposed changes are intended to close loopholes related to Class 7 and dray-off 

trucks that have emerged since the implementation of the Regulation. With the 

retention of the Phase 2 2007 model-year engine requirements, staff‟s proposed 

changes do not alter the standards in the existing Regulation. The Regulation‟s in-use 

emission performance requirements, which entail use of verified diesel PM filters and/or

federal and California certified engines are based on the design and performance of 

diesel engines. 

ARB staff assumes that the „study‟ mentioned by the commenter refers to the PM 

premature mortality study performed by ARB in 2008. Please see agency response to 

comments A-1 through A-17 above. 

H-6 Comment: You still have one unaddressed dirty little secret out there, and that's 

exempt trucks operating in the ports. The exemption status was supposed to be 

for people that had PTOs that ran in bottom dumps and tanker units. If you're 

hooked onto an ocean container or rail container, there's no reason that you 

ought to be exempt. If you're pulling an ocean container, you ought to comply. 

(CCT)

Agency Response to Comments H-6: ARB staff believes that a majority of exempt 

trucks operating in the ports are Class 7 trucks. The Regulation, as amended, expands 

the Drayage Truck Regulation to include Class 7 trucks that circumvent the intent of the 

Regulation. 

H-7 Comment: These heavy-duty rules don't reduce our dependence on petroleum. 

And they don't really do much for reducing greenhouse gases. I request that 

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 regulation, as well as how 

does this play into our petroleum reduction goals that we've adopted as a state? 

Also, we've done so much work as a state in clarifying and developing our 

strategy for the light-duty vehicle sector. We have not done the work with the 

heavy-duty sector. My request is that the Board direct staff to accomplish this in 

2011. Work with interested parties and develop that equivalent plan for the 

heavy-duty sector in California. (CNGVC)

H-8 Comment: We should look at what vehicles are not required to meet any 

standards. Government (state and local), utilities, emergency vehicles, transit 

vehicles, solid, etc. are all exempt from diesel regulations at this time. California 

should start at the top and include all these vehicles too. (Eckman)

H-9 Comment: The current format for large companies to register tractors in a group 

is through an XML upload. I would like to see a system that is easier for 
38

uploading. I suggest an Excel upload. Most large companies use Excel to track 

their equipment and several states we do business with already use Excel for 

uploading. (Prime).

H-10 Comment: If this is enacted with all of the new regulations regarding dieselfueled farm equipment and trucks, will the last person leaving this state please 

turn out the lights. (Samardich)

H-11 Comment: Your infringement in all areas of the automotive world is far too wide. 

(Stansberry)

H-12 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 the south bay and Los Angeles area and that is why the 

poorer air quality. (Williamson)

H-13 Comment: My company participated in the VIP program and received funds for 

turning in a 1993 truck towards the purchase of a 2009 truck. We would like 

CARB to review the requirement that the purchased truck cannot enter the ports 

in California for 3 years from date of purchase. (WLI)

Agency Response to Comments H-7 through H-13: Comments noted. However,

ARB staff did not respond to these comments because they did not pertain to the 

proposed modifications to the Drayage Truck Regulation. Per Government Code 

section 11346.9(a)(3), a comment is “irrelevant” if it is not specifically directed at the 

agency‟s proposed action or to the procedures followed by the agency in proposing or 

adopting the action, and may be dismissed. 
39

III. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE 15-DAY PUBLIC 

COMMENT PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES 

Written comments were also received during the 15-day open public comment period 

following the issuance of the 15-Day Notice. The modified Regulation was released for 

public comment on May 19, 2011. The public comment period remained open until the 

close of business on June 3, 2011. Persons that commented on the modified Drayage 

Truck Regulation by submitting written comments are listed in Table 2 below. Following 

the list are summaries of each comment, as well as responses to the objections, 

concerns, and recommendations made. Each response is an explanation of either the 

changes made as a result of an objection or recommendation, or the reasons for 

making no change. 

The comments addressed here apply to the Drayage Truck Regulation only. As 

specified in the 15-Day Notice, comments not specifically identified for the Drayage 

Truck Regulation within the subject or body of the comment were assumed to be 

directed to the Truck and Bus Regulation. Public comments received on the Truck and 

Bus Regulation will be addressed in a separate FSOR document. 

Table 2: List of Individuals & Businesses Submitting Comments

During the 15-Day Public Comment Period

Abbreviation Commenter

CCT Chidester, David

Central Cal Transportation

Written comment: May 24, 2011

Coapstick Coapstick, Dave 

Written comment: June 1, 2011

COO Kaplan, Rebecca

City of Oakland 

Written comment: June 3, 2011

NRDC Bailey, Diane 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Written comment: June 3, 2011

OPL Gillon, Rupinder

Oakland Port Logistics 

Written comment: May 19, 2011

RTC Osofsky, Alan

Rodgers Trucking Co.

Written comment: May 27, 2011

WSA Light, Ronald

West State Alliance 

Written comment: May 20, 2011
40

A. Regulatory Provisions

Retention of Phase 2 Requirements – Impacts on Business 

A-1 Comment: Delay the Phase 2 requirements to mirror the compliance timeframe 

for non-port trucks. It is morally and legally indefensible to disparately place the 

entire financial burden for reducing truck emissions in California exclusively on 

one small group of truck drivers. Focused, targeted, economic devastation is 

aimed discriminatorily and unfairly exclusively on one low-income community, 

and is racially disparate treatment and is not justified by any rational relationship 

to any legitimate goal. The small minority of port truckers would be obligated to 

make upgrades not being expected of others, and would be obligated to fund 

these upgrades themselves. (COO)

A-2 Comment: I oppose the elimination of the delay of the 2007 standards for the 

Drayage Truck rule. The burden of a truck payment and a DPF install would 

have a devastating financial consequence for small trucking companies. Our 

company installed 23 DPF's on trucks 1996 to 2001. I request that ARB 

reconsider its cancelation of the 1/1/17 compliance date for 2007 compliant 

engines. (RTC)

A-3 Comment: We submit the following arguments in response to the decision not 

to delay requirements for Phase 2 compliance of drayage trucks until 

January 1, 2020: (1) Current volumes are up 15 percent over this time last year 

and expected to continue on a growth curve throughout 2011. A large 

percentage of trucks run the risk of obsolescence which will have a significant 

impact on cargo movements at the Port. ARB runs the risk of removing a sizable 

portion of the Port's truck fleet from daily cargo transport and the vital commerce 

it supports; (2) The City of Oakland cannot afford the loss of jobs resulting from 

trucks being prematurely mothballed due to the high cost of another emissions 

upgrade. Additional job loss will have significant social and health impacts on an 

already economically disadvantaged community; (3) Using "fairness" to support a 

rationale for not enacting a Phase 2 rule delay neglects the hardship realities of 

independent owner operators and small businesses with respect to out-of-pocket 

equipment and maintenance costs while rejecting CARB's own admission that 

California's deep and long-lasting recession has had a significant impact on all 

truckers. The lobbying of big companies who willingly made large equipment 

investments with $50,000 per truck State subsidies yet cite fairness as the 

underlying principle to force compliance with Phase 2 scheduling, appears an 

attempt to attain unfair competitive advantages by purging the market of 

independent operators. (WSA)

Agency Response to Comments A-1 through A-3: Comments noted. ARB staff 

does not believe the Regulation discriminates against any specific community. The 

Drayage Truck Regulation is applicable statewide to 14 ports and 11 railroads, in over 

19 cities. California communities most impacted by diesel pollution and benefitting from 
41

the Regulation are often the low-income and minority communities around ports and rail 

yards. 

ARB staff is routinely in contact with the ports covered by the Drayage Truck Regulation 

to understand the impact on the flow of cargo and confirm that sufficient trucking 

capacity exists to meet the demand. Both ARB and Port staff believe that California 

motor carriers will continue to expand the number of Phase 2-compliant trucks to meet 

the Port‟s current and future cargo needs. Mechanisms include fleets expanding their 

own fleets, and working in partnership with current owner-operator drivers to help them 

move into cleaner trucks. In the last 12 months, owners introduced over 630 additional 

Phase 2-compliant trucks in Northern California after the major transition in early 2010. 

The Drayage Truck Registry includes another 39,000 Class 8 trucks that are compliant 

with Phase 2 and registered out-of-state that can supplement the California based fleet 

if needed. The numbers for current and expected truck volumes only increase the 

importance of the Phase 2 Drayage requirements to ensure that all of the critical air 

quality benefits are achieved while activity at the Port grows. 

Data from the Port of Oakland shows 2010 cargo activity had nearly returned to prerecession levels. This welcome recovery provides the work that the drayage industry 

needs to support new investments in truck upgrades, consistent with the statewide 

regulatory requirements established in 2007. Owners of trucks needing upgrades to 

stay in drayage service can use private financing, support from motor carriers, access to 

State supported loans and loan guarantees, and limited State-funded grants to bring 

their trucks into compliance. 

The Drayage Truck Regulation is neutral regarding the size of the fleet or trucking 

company. The Regulation establishes the same requirements for large drayage fleets 

and independent owner-operators alike. Drayage trucks already meeting the Phase 2 

requirements and those still requiring replacement by 2014 include a mix of 

owner-operators, small and large fleets. State subsidies through the Proposition 1B 

funding program are also size-neutral. The program requires each individual truck to 

compete for grant funding on the same objective criteria, whether that truck is in a fleet 

of one or 50. Please also see agency responses to comments A-4 through A-7. 

Retention of Phase 2 Requirements – Emission / Health Impacts 

A-4 Comment: Delay the Phase 2 requirements to mirror the compliance timeframe 

for non-port trucks. As the balance of emissions has changed (NOx and PM 

reductions from Phase 1), there is no justification for the disparity between truck 

rules (Drayage and Truck and Bus). It would be inappropriate and unlawful to 

proceed to implement these policy proposals at this time, without mitigating, or 

even looking at, the serious, harmful impacts of the now-pending proposal. 

Harms specifically caused by the ARB action (to loosen rules on trucks 

throughout our communities while strengthening rules only on Port/drayage 

trucks): (1) The more polluting vehicles will be moved off the Port, but will still be 

in use driving through our communities working in other non-Port areas, where 
42

they often do travel adjacent to homes and schools; and (2) The disparate rules 

have created an entirely new dangerous hazard to the environment and human 

health by motivating people to swap vehicle loads on the streets of West Oakland 

(dray-offs). (COO) 

A-5 Comment: We strongly support retaining the Phase 2 clean-up provisions for 

drayage trucks and providing relief from excessive truck emissions in port 

communities. We believe that these changes protect children‟s health, and 

provide greater health benefits to disproportionately impacted communities near 

ports and major trucking thoroughfares. We appreciate the efforts of staff and 

board members to maintain most of the health benefits of the regulation, 

particularly for vulnerable populations. (NRDC)

A-6 Comment: I oppose the elimination of the delay of the 2007 standards for the 

Drayage Truck rule. Per a study of emissions at the Port of Oakland, it was 

learned that PM emissions had been reduced by 50 percent and NOx was 

reduced by 40 percent. We feel that these trucks are much cleaner than before 

and have helped to achieve a huge reduction in PM and NOx, as stated above. 

(RTC)

A-7 Comment: We submit the following arguments in response to the decision not 

to delay requirements for Phase 2 compliance of drayage trucks until 

January 1, 2020: Limiting NOx emissions to only port trucks will have no 

discernable health or environment benefits for communities. Port of Oakland 

trucks are well on their way to significant reductions in NOx emissions without 

need of preserving the 2014 deadline for technically stringent and financially 

punishing Phase 2 compliance requirements. (WSA)

Agency Response to Comments A-4 through A-7: Comments noted. While 

acknowledging the effects of the recession on the overall trucking industry, the Board 

found it was necessary to retain the existing Phase 2 requirements of the Drayage 

Truck Regulation to protect residents of impacted communities from exposure to diesel 

PM and PM 2.5 and ozone, both of which are formed, in part, from NOx emissions. 

Relative to a current Phase 1 compliant truck, a Phase 2 compliant truck will cut NOx 

emissions by 60-90 percent. Nowhere is this more critical than in communities near 

ports, rail yards, and distribution centers that are exposed to a higher risk of premature 

death, cancer, and respiratory diseases due to diesel-related air pollution. The Board 

also concluded that retaining the existing Phase 2 requirements would provide fairness 

within the drayage industry to the truck owners and operators who have made the 

greater investment in new and modified trucks. Delaying the Phase 2 requirements

would have favored truck owners and operators who have not yet invested in pollution 

controls to meet Phase 2 standards and penalized those driving the cleanest trucks with 

the greatest air quality benefits. 

With respect to older, higher polluting trucks simply moving from operating at the ports 

to operating nearby, and negatively affecting nearby communities, staff disagrees with 
43

this assessment. At the December 2010 hearing, the Board supported staff‟s proposal 

to expand the Regulation to capture Class 7 and “dray-off” trucks circumventing the 

intent of the Regulation and undercutting complying competitors. These amendments 

will expand the definition of „drayage truck‟ to include “dray-off” trucks that transport

drayage cargos while operating off port or rail property and make „swapping vehicle 

loads on the streets of West Oakland‟ a citable offense. Progress that has been made 

at the Port of Oakland is notable, but not yet at the level of emission reductions 

expected with full implementation of the Regulation. Additionally, trucks leaving 

drayage services will be required to meet standards set by the Truck and Bus 

Regulation. 

Retention of Phase 2 Requirements – Availability of Technologies 

A-8 Comment: Delay the Phase 2 requirements to mirror the compliance timeframe 

for non-port trucks. I urge you to commit to resolving the issue of the nonexistence of the required NOx filter, by a time well before the deadline for the 

next phase of implementation. The NOx filter that drayage trucks would be 

required to purchase does not exist. Since you have now shrunk the number of 

truckers who will be required to purchase the NOx device to a small fraction of 

the trucks in California, you make it far less likely that any business would 

consider it worthwhile to produce and sell it, and you are not taking any action 

yourselves to make sure the required device will exist. If only a small number are 

produced, they will be much more expensive than if they had been massproduced, as would have taken place had you not given a time extension to 

statewide trucks. Thus, the burden of the requirement is much heavier making it 

even more inappropriate and wrongful to place 100 percent of California‟s NOx 

reduction costs exclusively on this small group of low-income people. (COO) 

A-9 Comment: We submit the following argument in response to the decision not to 

delay requirements for Phase 2 compliance of drayage trucks until 

January 1, 2020: (1) CARB failed to gauge the true cost of NOx compliance for 

1994-2006 engine model trucks. There are no commercially available CARB 

certified filters or retrofit devices that meet the emissions reduction requirement 

of Phase 2 rules. Truck replacement is now a certain outcome of this rule. 

(WSA)

Agency Response to Comment A-8 through A-9: The Drayage Truck Regulation 

adopted in 2007 allowed for the possible development of technologies that could help 

older truck engines meet 2007 or newer emission standards (Phase 2). This approach 

is routinely used to give industry room to develop technologies that offer a less

expensive and/or better functioning alternative to what currently exists. As no retrofit 

technology existed at the time of the initial rulemaking, ARB staff‟s economic analysis 

assumed that drayage fleets would modernize by replacing their older trucks with those 

that meet Phase 2 emission standards (engines that meet or exceed 2007 or newer 

emission standards). 
44

Retention of Phase 2 Requirements – Credits and Incentives 

A-10 Comment: Delay the Phase 2 requirements to mirror the compliance timeframe 

for non-port trucks. Prior funding for trucks was inadequate. ARB could offer 

incentives for taking a non-compliant vehicle out of service. For the Phase 2 now 

under discussion, there is no evidence whatsoever to ensure that funding will 

actually be provided. (COO) 

A-11 Comment: I oppose the elimination of the delay of the 2007 standards for the 

Drayage Truck rule. Perhaps ARB should offer a credits package to those who 

have already invested in new trucks would help offset the anticipated competitive 

edge they feel older trucks would pose to them. (RTC)

A-12 Comment: We submit the following arguments in response to the decision not 

to delay requirements for Phase 2 compliance of drayage trucks until 

January 1, 2020: (1) Past experience suggests that State subsidies will be overly 

limited in number and/or result in dollar amounts too small to serve the needs of 

Port truckers. Due to the limited number of available grants and the high cost of 

retrofits, over 600 local truckers with legitimate grant requests were forced out of 

business. Thus, commitments to the welfare of truckers during future equipment 

purchasing cycles ring hollow. Some form of compliance relief for all of 

California's truckers is vital to the trucking industry due to the State's 

unprecedented slumping economy. (2) Unlike with the Truck and Bus

Regulation, ARB neglected to put in place a credit system compensating drayage 

truck owners who complied early with purchase of new trucks. In choosing not to 

reward early compliance, ARB created an inequity within drayage trucking. The 

decision not to delay implementation of Phase 2 was a flawed attempt to address 

this inequity with punitive consequences for owners of 1994-2006 engine model 

trucks. (WSA)

Agency Response to Comments A-10 through A-12: The Drayage Truck Regulation 

adopted in 2007 was intentionally structured with simple, across-the-board requirements

to reflect the fact that the competitive drayage industry was dominated by owneroperators. The Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation offers fleet averaging and fleet 

credits for early implementation, which provides substantial flexibility for larger fleets but 

does not benefit individual owner-operators. ARB staff considered introducing similar 

approaches via amendments to the Drayage Truck Regulation, but concluded that this 

would advantage only large drayage fleets.

In regards to past incentive funding, truckers who acted early had access to full funding 

for retrofit devices and partial funding for truck replacements. Combined funding was 

made available from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) that 

included State Proposition 1B, Port of Oakland, District, and U.S. EPA funds. These 

funds were equally available to owner-operators and small and large fleets. Truckers 

who delayed action and didn‟t seek funding until a few months before the compliance 

deadline were limited to a smaller pot of monies in early 2010 when ARB extended the 
45

regulatory transition period specifically to allow use of supplemental Proposition 1B 

funds. The District provided the same level of Proposition 1B funding on a per-truck 

basis for both early and late applicants. Roughly 1,300 trucks serving the Port were 

replaced with Phase 2-compliant models with no grant funding. Fleets funded their own 

upgrades and a number of motor carriers assisted their owner-operator drivers with 

financing to make this possible. 

Class 7 Trucks and Trucks Operating Off of Port and Intermodal Rail Yards 

A-13 Comment: Thank you for tightening up this regulation to effectively include

dray-offs or equipment swaps that have been occurring in our industry. I think 

that holding everyone accountable for this practice is very fair as the intent of the 

regulations was to clear our air, not to provide a loophole to be gotten through. 

We need a level playing field and until this takes effect, it is unfair and gives a 

marketing advantage to truckers operating in this manner. I believe this will go a 

long way in leveling the playing field for us all. (CCT)

Agency Response to Comment A-13: ARB staff agrees. The Regulation, as 

amended, requires “dray-off” trucks, which have been circumventing the intent of the 

Regulation and fostering an uncompetitive business environment with complying 

competitors, to come into immediate compliance. 

B. Economic Impacts

Credits and Incentives

B-1 Comment: I would like to know if owners and operators of 2006 model year 

trucks are getting any compensation (engine 2005). (OPL)

Agency Response to Comment B-1: The Regulation allows drayage trucks with 

2005-2006 model year engines to continue port and rail operations without a filter until 

December 31, 2012. Owners have the option to retrofit the engine with a Level 3 

VDECS to continue operating through December 31, 2013. After December 31, 2013,

all trucks must be equipped with engines that meet 2007 or newer emission standards

to stay in drayage service. The Regulation does not have provisions mandating 

compensation, nor did staff propose amendments for this purpose. However, a general 

discussion of possible funding opportunities is provided in the agency‟s response to 

comments A-10 through A-12 above. 

Impacts to Businesses

B-2 Comment: I believe the serious negative impacts of the now-pending decision 

have not been mitigated, analyzed, or even fully understood. In particular, in 

addition to the need to study the impacts of each of the two policy actions – to 

extend the deadline for reduction of emissions from diesel vehicles on our local 

streets, roads, and highways, while making more strict the emission regulations 
46

on vehicles that operate on ports and rail yards. ARB must analyze the impact of 

the two actions when looked at together, and the disparity should be eliminated 

or a very good reason given to justify it. (COO)

B-3 Comment: WSA also takes issue with the implication that the cost of new truck 

purchases put a disproportionate burden on fleet owners while those who kept 

older rigs skated by with inexpensive installation of diesel particulate filters. We 

beg the Board to recognize that many Port trucks received no State subsidies 

and others mere $5,000 grants on filter purchases of up to $20,000, 

necessitating sizable debt and $500 monthly loan repayments. These trucks 

continue to incur costly filter maintenance, they bear increased costs and 

frequency of engine maintenance, and experience financially punitive down days 

for all too frequent filter cleaning and engine repair. Thus, those who purchased 

emissions equipment upgrades already bear an extensive financial burden for 

which no immediate upturn in container movements will compensate. (WSA)

Agency Response to Comments B-2 through B-3: Staff performed the required 

economic analysis of the impacts to drayage businesses for compliance with the Phase 

2 requirements as part of the rulemaking decision in 2007 (ARB, 2007). At the 2010 

Board hearing, the Board decided to retain the Phase 2 requirements. Therefore, a new 

economic analysis is not required.

C. Miscellaneous 

C-1 Comment: I understand that we need to get the dirty old trucks out of the ports 

and rails, but I am a single truck owner and cannot afford to spend up to $10,000 

for an upgrade. I go to the ports for military equipment deliveries and pick-ups. 

Can we get an exception for deliveries and pick-ups for the military? (Coapstick) 

Agency Response to Comment C-1: Military Tactical Support Vehicles, defined in title 

13, CCR, section 1905, are not subject to the requirements of the Regulation. However, 

privately owned vehicles that transport military cargo are subject to the requirements of 

the Regulation. Regulation of vehicles that transport cargo to and from California's 

ports and rail yards is necessary to safeguard emission reductions and health benefits 

for impacted communities. 
47

REFERENCES

ARB, 2007. California Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed 

Rulemaking: Regulation to Reduce Emissions from Heavy-Duty On-Road Drayage 

Trucks in California Port and Intermodal Rail Service. October 2007.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/drayage07/drayisor.pdf

ARB, 2010a. California Air Resources Board. Estimate of Premature Deaths Associated

with Fine Particle Pollution (PM2.5) in California Using a U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Methodology. August 2010.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/pm-mort/pm-report_2010.pdf

ARB, 2010. California Air Resources Board. 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. October 2010.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/truckbus10/truckbus10isor.pdf