MEETING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

JOE SERNA, JR. BUILDING

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

BYRON SHER AUDITORIUM, SECOND FLOOR

1001 I STREET

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2011

8:43 A.M.

TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

LICENSE NUMBER 12277

CALIFORNIA REPORTING, LLC

52 LONGWOOD DRIVE

SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901

(415) 457-4417
APPEARANCES

BOARD MEMBERS

Ms. Mary Nichols, Chairperson

Dr. John R. Balmes

Ms. Sandra Berg

Ms. Doreene D'Adamo

Mr. Hector De La Torre

Dr. Daniel Sperling

Mr. Ken Yeager

STAFF

Mr. James Goldstene, Executive Officer

Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer

Mr. Bob Fletcher, Deputy Executive Officer

Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer

Ms. Mary Alice Morency, Board Clerk 

Ms. Adrian Cayabyab, Air Resources Engineer, Fuels 

Section, Stationary Source Division

Mr. Rodney Hill, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, Process 

Evaluation Section, Stationary Source Division

ALSO PRESENT

Mr. Thomas Babineau, Rypos

Mr. Arthur Boone

Mr. Peter Bransfield, Rypos
APPEARANCES CONTINUED

ALSO PRESENT

Dr. Rasto Brezny, MECA

Ms. Kara Bush, California Grocers Association

Ms. Brenda Coleman, CA Chamber of Commerce

Mr. Tim Coyle, Apt. Association of LA, San Diego, and 

Santa Barbara

Mr. Jon Cramer, Certified Freight Logistics, Inc.

Mr. Evan Edgar, California Refuse Recycling Council

Mr. Frank Farrel, Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce

Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association

Ms. Crystal Jack, KSC

Mr. Mark Leary, Acting Director, CalRecycle

Mr. Howard Levenson, CalRecycle

Mr. Bryan Long, Foster Farms and TRU Industry

Mr. James Lyons, Sierra Research and California Trucking 

Association

Mr. Dan Miller, Save Mart

Ms. Cara Morgan, CalRecycle

Ms. Jennifer Svec, CA Association of Realtors

Mr. Chris Shimoda, California Trucking Association

Mr. Mike Shumake, CVTR and CTA

Ms. Brenda Smyth, CalRecycle

Mr. Patrick Smith, Harris Ranch

Mr. Mike Tunnell, American Trucking Association

Ms. Kathleen Yip, NRDC
INDEX

 PAGE

Item 11-8-4

Chairperson Nichols 4

Executive Officer Goldstene 4

Staff Presentation 6

Staff Discussion 27

Ms. Yip 43

Dr. Brezny 45

Mr. Shimoda 48

Mr. Lyons 52

Mr. Long 54

Mr. Shumake 56

Mr. Cramer 58

Mr. Miller 60

Mr. Smith 61

Mr. Babineau 64

Mr. Bransfield 66

Mr. Tunnell 67

Ms. Bush 68

Ms. Holmes-Gen 69

Ms. Jack 70

Motion 91

Vote 93

Item 11-8-5

Chairperson Nichols 93

Executive Officer Goldstene 94

Staff Presentation 95

Motion 99

Vote 99

Item 11-8-3

Chairperson Nichols 99

Executive Officer Goldstene 100

Presentation 101

Ms. Coleman 116

Mr. Farrel 117

Ms. Svec 120

Mr. Boone 124

Mr. Coyle 125

Mr. Edgar 126

Public Comment 126

Adjournment 129

Reporter's Certificate 130
PROCEEDINGS

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good morning, ladies and 

gentlemen. Welcome to the October 31st public meeting of 

the Air Resources Board. The Board will come to order. 

But before we begin our normal order of business, 

it's my great pleasure to welcome a new Board member to 

the Air Resources Board, just appointed by Governor Jerry 

Brown. Hector de la Torre comes to us from South Gate, 

California. 

I've had the great pleasure of knowing him for 

quite a few years now before and during his term of 

service. He served three terms in the California Assembly 

before going off into the private sector. He is a person 

who had a reputation and still does as a bright young star 

when he was in the Legislature, one of those people who 

took on tough environmental issues. And so I got to know 

him in part over our work on rail yards, which has been of 

great interest in the reduction in the rail yard 

communities. But he's worked on a lot of other issues as 

well. 

He is somebody who has shown a great talent for 

bridging gaps between different communities and different 

areas, which is a skill that we are all in need of here on 

this Board, and a commitment to working on issues of air 

quality. So we're thrilled to have him. 

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
And I'm going to ask him to come stand with me 

and I will administer the Oath of Office, which is the 

official act that we have to do before he can actually 

serve. You've done this a time or two before. Please 

raise your hand and repeat after me. 

(Whereupon the Oath of Office was administered to 

Hector de la Torre by Chairperson Nichols.)

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you so much. 

(Applause)

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Now before we call the 

roll, we will all rise and say the Pledge of Allegiance. 

(Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was

Recited in unison.)

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Madam Clerk, would you 

please call the roll? 

BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Dr. Balmes? 

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Here. 

BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Ms. Berg? 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: Here. 

BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Ms. D'Adamo? 

BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 

BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Mr. Hector de la Torre?

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Here. 

BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Mayor Loveridge? 

Mrs. Riordan? 

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 

BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Supervisor Roberts? 

Professor Sperling? 

Supervisor Yeager?

BOARD MEMBER YEAGER: Here. 

BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Chairman Nichols? 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Here. 

BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Madam Chairman, we have a 

quorum. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

I have a couple of announcements before we get 

started this morning. 

First, I want to call to your attention there is 

a change in the order on today's agenda for Item 11-8-3, 

the update on mandatory commercial waste recycling. This 

item is going to be heard after Item 11-8-5, the 

amendments to the California reformulated gasoline 

regulation. So the report will not come until the end. 

Anyone who wishes to testify and has not signed 

up on line should fill out a request to speak card. 

They're available in the lobby outside the auditorium. 

Please turn it in to the Clerk of the Board, and you have 

the option to include your name. 

If you already signed up on line, you don't have 

to sign up again, but we do ask you to check in with the 

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Clerk here just to make sure that your name is on the 

speakers' list. Otherwise, it might be removed. 

We will be imposing the usual three-minute time 

limit on testimony, and we ask speakers to summarize their 

comments and not read their written testimony because the 

written testimony will be entered into the record. 

I also need to point out the emergency exits at 

the rear of the auditorium and up here on the podium. In 

the event that there is an alarm, we're required to exit 

the building promptly by stairs and to gather outside 

until we get the all-clear signal. And I think that is it 

as far as mandatory announcements are concerned. Welcome 

to all of you. We had a big day yesterday. We have a lot 

of important things to do today as well. We're pleased to 

have you here. 

The first item on our agenda for this morning is 

amendments to the airborne toxic control measure for 

transport refrigeration units, which will be known as TRUs 

at the rest of this meeting. Staff has proposed some 

amendments in response to issues that have arisen the 

implementation of this regulation. And I'd like to turn 

the program over at this time to Mr. Goldstene. 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Thank you, Chairman 

Nichols. 

Today, we're proposing four additional amendments 

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
to the transport refrigeration unit regulation. These 

amendments are based on our experience with implementing 

the regulation. 

In addition, we'll also address our findings 

related to extending the amount of time that certain 

trucks must operate before they're replaced -- TRUs must 

operate before they're replaced. As you recall, we 

committed to evaluate this issue when we amended the 

regulation last December. 

The amendments today are designed to improve 

compliance and enforceability, restore fairness to 

complying businesses, and clarify existing requirements. 

The proposed amendments also add documentation 

and labeling requirements to assist TRU owners in 

registering their units. 

As staff will discuss, we're not proposing to 

extend the operational life for certain TRUs because of 

concern about the public health impacts associated with 

changing the current seven-year operational life. 

Even under the current regulation, a significant 

number of facilities are likely to have off-site potential 

cancer risk levels greater than ten per million and some 

greater than 100 per million. Many of these facilities 

are near residential areas. 

Rod Hill from our Stationary Source Division will 

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
present the amendments today. Rod.

(Thereupon an overhead presentation was 

presented as follows.)

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: Thank you, 

Mr. Goldstene, Chairman Nichols, and members of the Board. 

Today, we're proposing amendments to the 

transport refrigeration unit airborne toxic control 

measure, otherwise known as the TRU ATCM. 

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: This slide 

is an overview of today's presentation.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: In 1998, 

the Board identified diesel particulate matter, or PM, as 

a toxic air contaminant. 

In the October 2000, the Board adopted the Diesel 

Risk Reduction Plan, which included a provision for a 

transport refrigeration unit control measure, because TRUs 

congregate in large numbers at distribution centers and 

expose nearby residents to toxic air contaminant 

emissions. Risks of over 100 in a million are common near 

these centers. 

The TRU regulation was adopted in February 2004 

and became effective in December 2004. 

In March 2005, we requested U.S. EPA 

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
authorization to implement the TRU ATCM. It was approved 

January 16th, 2009. Since this approval came after the 

first in-use compliance deadline, we delayed its 

enforcement for model year 2001 and earlier until December 

31st, 2009. 

The Board adopted time critical amendments in 

November 2010 and provided direction to staff to evaluate 

the impacts of providing additional time for TRUs to 

comply and to report back to the Board with 

recommendations. We have completed the evaluation and are 

recommending providing some additional flexibility. But 

due to the high-near source risks, we are not recommending 

any near-term across-the-board compliance extensions. 

I will discuss our assessment and recommendations 

later in the presentation.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: TRUs are 

refrigeration systems that are powered by integral diesel 

engines used to control the environment of temperature 

sensitive products that are transported in trucks, 

semi-trailers, rail cars, and shipping containers. 

Pictures of these types are shown here. 

The engines in the truck TRUs shown in the lower 

right picture are generally rated at less than 25 

horsepower. The engines in trailer, rail car, and 

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
shipping containers TRUs are generally rated in the 25 to 

50 horsepower category. 

TRU gensets, which are not shown here, provide 

electric power to refrigerated ship containers powered by 

electric motors and are also affected by this regulation.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: The primary 

requirements of the existing TRU ATCM are listed here. 

All California-based TRUs are required to be registered in 

ARBOR, ARB's web based equipment registration system. 

All California terminals are required to submit 

an operator report that provides information on terminal 

location and TRUs assigned to the terminal. 

And all TRUs that operate in California, 

including those based out of state, are required to meet 

the TRU ATCM's in-use performance standards on a phased 

compliance schedule based on how old the equipment is. 

Once a TRU engine reaches its seventh year of 

operational life, it must come into compliance with the 

in-use standards or be replaced. All TRUs must eventually 

meet the most stringent in use standard.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: The TRU 

ATCM has two levels of stringency for diesel PM emission 

reductions. The first level is called the low emission 

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
TRU in-use standard, or LE TRU. The meet LE TRU, PM 

emissions have to be reduced at least 50 percent compared 

to uncontrolled TRU engines. 

The more stringent in-use standard is called the 

ultra low emission TRU in-use performance standard. To 

meet the ULE TRU standard, PM emissions have to be reduced 

at least 85 percent. The overall goal of the ATCM is to 

have all TRU engines eventually meet the ULE TRU standard. 

In general, the options available to meet these 

standards include replacing the engine, retrofitting the 

engine with a verified diesel particulate filter, or using 

an electric standby system. All these compliance options 

are available now for model year 2004.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: The in-use 

compliance schedule is based on a seven-year operational 

life for the engine. This means that the owner must meet 

an in-use standard seven years after the engine model 

year. 

Model year 2003 and older engines are allowed to 

meet the low emission TRU or the ultra low emission TRU 

standard at the end of the seventh year after the engine 

model year. If the owner chooses to meet the LE TRU 

standard at the seventh year, they must meet UL TRU by the 

end of the 14th year after the engine model year. 

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Newer engines, model year 2004 and newer, are 

required to meet ULE TRU standard by the end of the 

seventh year after the engine model year. Once the engine 

meets the ultra low emission TRU in-use standard, they are 

done. And there are no further in-use standard 

requirements.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: Since the 

TRU ATCM became effective, staff has conducted outreach 

training and provided compliance assistance to affected 

TRU owners and operators. We have also met regularly with 

stakeholders on various compliance issues. 

As a result, we have developed regulatory 

advisories to clarify the requirements and explain ARB's 

policies to provide flexible compliance solutions. 

Staff has also worked with compliance technology 

providers to assist their development efforts toward 

verification of retrofit systems. 

We have also conducted and participated in 

compliance technology forums. 

ARB's web-based equipment registration system, or 

ARBER, has registered over 100,000 units. 

Finally, we maintain a toll-free help line to 

answer questions about the control measure and provide 

registration assistance.

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: Enforcement 

began in August 2009 for registration requirements and in 

January 2010 for the in-use requirements. ARB has been 

inspecting TRUs at a wide variety of locations, as shown 

in this slide. 

Compliance rates have been unacceptably low. And 

because of that, we are proposing several amendments that 

will be discussed later.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: ARB staff 

has been actively involved in compliance assistance, 

including providing notification of approaching compliance 

dates and compliance status updates to TRU owners. 

We are developing a 100 percent compliant fleet 

list that will serve as a tool for freight brokers, 

shippers, and receivers to help them hire carriers with 

compliant equipment.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: In November 

2010, the Board adopted three time critical amendments 

listed in this slide. 

The Board also directed staff to evaluate 

industry's request for extending the operational life for 

model year 2004 and newer engines beyond the current seven 

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
years to eight, nine, or ten years. In order to complete 

this evaluation, staff updated both the emission inventory 

and the economic analysis or impacts of the original 

regulation using actual costs of compliance. 

Also, the information from the updated emissions 

inventory was used to update the health risk assessment at 

distribution centers.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: The key 

issue for today is staff's re-evaluation of the ATCM's 

seven-year operational life and the impacts if we were to 

extend it to eight, nine, or ten years. 

Based on the results of the updated emissions 

inventory, economic impacts and health impacts analyses, 

staff is not recommending a change in the operational life 

of TRUs. However, later in the presentation, we do have 

some recommendations that provide further flexibility and 

that recognize actions taken to date. 

With respect to extending the operational life 

for model year 2004 and newer engines, our evaluation 

showed that the estimated potential cancer risk near many 

distribution centers is still a concern at the existing 

seven-year requirement. Increasing the operational life 

one, two, or three years would erode cancer risk 

reductions by 11, 23, and 42 percent. 

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
The following slides provide additional 

information that provides a basis for our recommendation.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: As 

previously mentioned, staff updated the risk analysis for 

a typical distribution center using the current seven-year 

operational life and assuming 100 percent in-use 

compliance. Computer modeling was used to estimate diesel 

PM concentrations and risk. The estimated potential 

cancer risk is shown in this table. 

For a facility with TRU engine operations of 100 

hours per week, which is about 40 loads per week or eight 

trucks per day, staff estimated a near source cancer 

health risk greater than ten in a million. At 1,000 

engine hours per week, which is about 400 loads per week, 

the cancer health risk is greater than 100 in a million. 

In 2006, as part of the facility reporting 

requirements of the original regulation, facilities were 

required to report TRU activity. The results showed that 

TRU engine operations at many large facilities are well 

above these levels. The average activity for large 

facilities was close to 2,000 hours per week. The highest 

facility's activity was over 8,000 hours per week.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: The 2006 

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
facility report also showed that of the 56 facilities 

reporting, 51 had at least 100 engine hours of operation 

per week. As shown in the prior slide, this level of TRU 

activity would correspond to the potential cancer risk 

over ten per million. Of these 56 facilities, 33 had at 

least 1,000 engine hours of operation per week, 

corresponding to potential cancer risk over 100 in a 

million. 

Staff used the existing ARBER data to estimate 

the number of distribution facilities capable of handling 

at least 40 loads per week. Using the same ratio as 

identified in the 2006 facility reports, we estimated that 

there would be at least 400 facilities with the potential 

cancer risk above ten in a million. 

We did not have sufficient data to estimate the 

number of these facilities that are likely to have a 

potential cancer risk greater than 100 in a million. 

However, we believe that the number of facilities 

operating TRU engines greater than 1,000 hours per week is 

significant. 

Staff also looked at aerial photos for a subset 

of these facilities and found that at least 50 percent of 

them are located near residences, schools, hospitals, 

convalescent homes, daycare centers, or commercial zones 

where off-site health impacts could occur.

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: Staff also 

conducted a thorough and comprehensive review of the 

inputs to the TRU inventory. We reviewed the data and 

received input from industry stakeholders through a public 

process. All the information and modeling used for this 

inventory is consistent with the types of data and methods 

we've used for previous rule-makings, including the truck 

and bus and off-road rules. These new data led to a 

significant improvement to the inventory. 

This slide shows the inventory inputs and the 

data sources used to estimate those inputs. Those that 

had the most significant impact on the inventory were 

population, activity, and growth. 

Through the public process, staff has taken into 

consideration all the comments and concerns of 

stakeholders. Staff has made a significant effort to 

research each issue, but have not found any additional 

data that would lead to change the inventory presented 

here.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: As a result 

of this improved data, the emissions inventory is 

generally lower. This slide shows, for the same inputs 

discussed in the previous slide, a quantitative comparison 

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
of the changes to the emissions inventory since 2003. As 

you can see, most of the input factors were lower than 

what was used in the 2003, except for engine activity. 

In consideration of new information, staff 

reduced the growth factor, which more closely follows 

human population growth. If you recall, we've had lots of 

discussion on the impact of the recession on various 

industries in California. While some transport sectors 

were impacted significantly by the recession, the 

refrigerated goods transport sector was not hit as hard.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: As a result 

of the changes to the inputs discussed on the previous 

slide, the current improved base line emissions for PM is 

shown here.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: The solid 

orange line shows PM emissions for the adopted TRU ATCM 

using the new inventory. 

As you can see, the ATCM started reducing 

emissions in 2009 and will continue to do so as the 

program is implemented.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: In response 

to the Board's direction to update compliance cost, staff 

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
gathered new data on actual equipment and operating and 

maintenance costs. Both costs were significantly higher 

than originally estimated. 

In 2003, we estimated that about 50 percent would 

comply by repower and 50 percent would comply by retrofit. 

What has actually been the preferred compliance option is 

the repower, despite being 45 percent more costly. 

Cost effectiveness using this updated information 

cost analysis is $83 per pound of PM reduced compared to 

the original estimate of $10 to $20 per pound. And while 

this is significantly higher than originally estimated, it 

is below the cost effective value for other diesel 

measures approved by the Board, including public fleets 

rule and ocean going vessels rule.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: The next 

few slides briefly describe the proposed 2011 amendments. 

These proposed amendments address a number of issues that 

arose during implementation, such as providing a one-year 

ULE TRU extension for some model year 2003 and older 

engines, providing flexibility, improving enforceability 

and compliance rates, and clarifying existing 

requirements.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: Staff is 

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
also proposing an amendment which extends the operational 

life for model year 2003 and older TRUs that met the LE 

TRU requirements. If compliance with the LE TRU occurred 

by the ATCM deadlines, we are proposing to extend the ULE 

TRU compliance date one year. This amendment would 

provide some economic relief to TRU owners who made 

purchases during the height of the recession. 

Another amendment is designed to restore 

competitive fairness by extending the operational life for 

some older TRU engines by one year. It applies to model 

year 2001 and older TRUs that met the LE TRU standard by 

the original compliance date, which was December 31st, 

2008. These owners complied by the original 2008 

compliance date, which was later extended to December 31, 

due to delays in U.S. EPA's authorization approval. 

The low emission TRU compliance was achieved by 

the end of 2008. Then the ultra low emission TRU 

compliance date would be extended -- let's back up. 

If the low emission compliance date was achieved 

by the end of 2008, then the ULE TRU compliance date would 

be extended an additional year. We believe this would 

restore a measure of competitive fairness to those owners 

that complied the meet the original intent of the ATCM.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: Two 

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
amendments are being proposed to address equipment 

availability issues. 

First would allow the Executive Officer to extend 

the compliance date by up to one year if the applicant can 

demonstrate no suitable filter or replacement engine is 

available. 

The second amendment would allow the Executive 

Officer to extend a compliance date by up to four months 

if there are delivery or installation delays beyond the 

owner's control. 

Both of these extensions would be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. We see these amendments as providing 

flexibility to TRU owners that choose to install Level III 

retrofit systems, should there be any availability issues, 

particularly for model year 2004 engines.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: Staff is 

proposing two amendments to provide additional 

flexibility. One amendment would allow the use of TRU 

manufacture year instead of the engine model year to 

determine compliance requirements and deadlines. This 

amendment provides cost savings because it effectively 

extends the operational life up to one year. 

Another amendment we are proposing would allow an 

owner to use an alternative unique equipment 

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
identification number on the equipment housing instead of 

the ARB identification number. 

Staff is proposing to add language to clarify two 

existing exemptions and add one new one. These amendments 

include clarifying the exemption for obviously 

non-operational TRUs, clarifying that refrigeration 

systems that are not powered by a diesel engine are exempt 

from this regulation, and proposing an exemption for TRUs 

used to support emergency workers, such as fire fighters 

responding to a wild fire.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: Staff is 

proposing several amendments designed to improve 

enforceability. TRUs that are equipped with electric 

stand-by or hybrid electric are powered by a diesel engine 

or an electric motor when plugged into a power source. 

Staff is proposing to modify the recordkeeping 

requirements to transition from manual recordkeeping to 

electronic recordkeeping. Automated electronic tracking 

and reporting would be phased in. This change is needed 

to improve enforceability of the regulation.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: Staff is 

proposing several amendments to improve compliance. This 

proposed amendment would add requirements for freight 

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
brokers, shippers, and receivers if they arrange the 

transport of perishable goods on California highways. 

These entities would be required to notify 

carriers of the ARB compliant requirements and include 

contract language in their agreements requiring ARB 

compliant TRUs. They would not be required to inspect 

TRUs. 

This amendment is needed because compliance rates 

are unacceptably low. For TRUs that have passed an in-use 

compliance deadline, that would be the model year 2003 and 

older, the compliance rate is 66 percent overall and much 

lower, about 30 percent, for model year 2003 engines. 

By requiring brokers, shippers, and receivers to 

hire only compliant carriers, staff believes that unfair 

competition can be minimized and compliance rates 

improved.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: Several 

other amendments are also designed to improve compliance 

rates. TRU manufacturers and engine rebuilders would be 

required to provide additional documentation and 

supplemental labels to new units and new and rebuilt 

engines. 

Dealers and repair shops would be required to 

pass registration information documents to the ultimate 

21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
purchaser. 

TRU manufacturers using flexibility engines would 

need to notify ARB, provide supplemental engine labels, 

and provide written disclosure to the end user so they 

know the effective model year of the engine and the ULE 

TRU compliance date. 

Similar disclosure would be required if the TRU 

manufacturer supplies a prior tier replacement engine.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: Finally, 

staff is proposing several amendments to provide 

clarifications. These proposed amendments include: 

Clarifying that the effective model year will be 

used to determine the future compliance date if the engine 

does not meet the current new engine standards. 

Providing greater flexibility for TRU dealers 

related to non-compliant unit sales and service. 

Adding disclosure requirements to prospective 

buyers on non-compliant units that cannot be legally 

operated in California. 

Clarifying lessor and lessee requirements and 

requiring engine rebuilders to rebuild to a cleaner 

emissions configuration than the engine being replaced.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: This table 

22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
shows the costs and savings associated with the proposed 

amendments. 

Overall, the proposed 2011 amendments will 

generate a net cost savings of approximately $13 million 

from now through 2029. 

Of note is the cost savings for using electronic 

recordkeeping for electric stand-by units instead of 

manual recordkeeping, of about $3.9 million. 

Also of note is the cost savings of about $21 

million for allowing the use of the TRU model year rather 

than the engine model year to determine compliance dates.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: This chart 

shows the emissions impacts of the proposed amendments. 

Under the existing rule, the emissions of diesel PM will 

continue to decrease each year between 2011 and 2020 as 

shown by the solid line on this chart. The dashed line 

shows the emission reductions with the proposed 

amendments. 

The impact on emission reduction of the proposed 

amendments is to defer very small amounts of emission 

reductions from now through 2018. Three amendments 

contribute to these deferred emission reductions: 

Extending the second compliance date for model year 2003 

and older TRUs; exempting catering services serving 

23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
emergency responders; and allowing the use of unit 

manufacturer year to be used instead of the engine model 

year. 

As you can see, the level of stringency see of 

the proposed amended regulations has changed very little 

compared to the original 2004 regulation.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: The 

combined emissions impacts from all of the proposed 

amendments would defer a total of .21 tons per day of 

diesel PM emissions reductions between 2009 and 2018 and 

maintains the downward trend in emissions and risk 

reductions established in the 2004 rule.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: There are 

several compliance options for complying with the 

standards that are readily available, such as repowering 

with a replacement engine or a unit replacement. In fact, 

registration data shows that engine and unit replacements 

have been the dominant compliance methods used by TRU 

owners about 80 percent of the time. 

Registration data also indicates that 

retrofitting with a VDECS has only been the chosen 

compliance option 20 percent of the time. 

Owners and their trade associations have 

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
expressed concerns whether Level 3 VDECS will be 

sufficiently available on the market in time for model 

year 2004 to meet the December 31, 2011, ultra low 

emission TRU compliance deadline. 

Staff has been closely monitoring the development 

of these retrofit devices. Currently, one Level 3 VDECS 

is fully verified and has been on the market for well over 

a year. A second Level 3 VDECS is currently under review 

by staff and verification action is likely to occur this 

fall. 

Given that one level 3 VDECS is currently on the 

market, another is expected to be on the market this fall, 

and there is ample supply of replacement engines, staff 

believes sufficient compliance options are available to 

meet the December 31st, 2011, deadline. 

As discussed earlier, two amendments are being 

proposed that will allow the Executive Officer to extend 

compliance deadlines, should there be issues with respect 

to availability of suitable compliance options or delays 

in delivery and installation. We would plan to 

administratively implement these provisions, if necessary.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: Staff is 

suggesting several additional modifications to the 

proposed amendments that would include a 15-day change. 

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
These modifications provide OEMs, or original equipment 

manufacturers, some additional flexibility with regards to 

disclosures to end users related to the use of flexibility 

engines. Dealers would have a role in making sure the end 

user receives this disclosure. 

Another change would allow the original equipment 

manufacturer to propose alternatives to providing a 

registration information document in each unit, providing 

the alternative is equally effective in assisting the end 

user with registration in ARBER.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: Staff 

recommends the Board approve the proposed amendments. 

Staff also recommends the Board direct staff to continue 

outreach and implementation assistance efforts, including 

working with brokers, shippers, and receivers to develop 

implementation guidance and compliance assistance tools. 

On this point, staff has been in discussion with 

ag product shippers and railroads to develop approaches 

that recognize the need for sector-specific flexibility. 

We believe that there is sufficient flexibility in the 

rule to make these adjustments but would propose 15-day 

changes, if necessary. 

As mentioned earlier, we recommend implementing 

the proposed Executive Officer extension authority for 

26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
model year 2004 on a case-by-case basis, if necessary. 

Staff also recommends that the Board direct staff 

to continue to work with electronic tracking system 

suppliers to ensure they are market ready by the phased in 

compliance dates and to evaluate alternatives to enable 

less than 25 horsepower TRUs to meet the ultra low 

emissions TRU in-use standard in the future. 

This concludes staff's presentation of the 

proposed amendments. Thank you. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Any concluding remarks? 

Just recommending that we pass these? 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: We think what we're 

proposing will improve compliance and clean up some of the 

implementation issues. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Board members have 

any questions? 

Yes, Ms. Berg. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: Good morning. I had a couple 

of questions. 

First on that health risk assessment, it's 

surprising me that we have such a high risk at 100 in a 

million. And I was wondering on those facilities both 

with ten in a million and 100 in a million, what are we 

doing to identify them? And are those strictly TRUs? Or 

are those distribution centers including other trucks, 

27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
non-TRU, but diesel trucks obviously? 

PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: Yes. 

The health risk assessment included only TRUs. We didn't 

count other emissions.

We do have some information based on the 

registration data we have received and people reporting 

other terminal locations to us. So we do have the ability 

to identify some of those facilities. And certainly as we 

collect more data, we can identify more. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: Are we planning on doing any 

additional work on that health risk assessment to bring 

additional information either to the districts or -- 

because that is a very high risk. I mean, that risk is as 

high as some of the rail yards. 

STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF COREY: That's 

right on point. And consistent with an overall rate 

strategy, goods movement strategy that we're looking at as 

an organization are going to conceptually be bringing back 

to the Board next year to discuss looking at the high risk 

areas, both distribution centers, warehouses, and ports 

that where there are additional opportunities to get 

further reductions in the sense that compliment roles like 

this regulation and others, because our sense is the same 

that some of these sites have considerably high risk. And 

that concept would be where the opportunities get further 

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
reduction, where there are opportunities to go to zero, 

near zero, electrification, so on. 

This is a discussion we've been having with the 

districts. Particularly, South Coast is coordinating with 

us on this rate strategy. It's something that we think is 

going to be an important compliment to the overall 

program. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: I did notice in your 

presentation that you were talking about modeling. Is 

there also any monitoring happening that it confirms the 

modeling? 

PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: This is 

Rich Boyd. 

The exercise we did was strictly a computer 

modeling. We have not yet done ambient monitoring around 

these facilities. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: I do certainly think that's 

an important strategy, given that this is so high and we 

would certainly hope that our modeling figures are on 

point. So I would recommend that we follow up on that. 

Also I also notice on slide 14 that we're using 

2006 data. That probably was at the height of the market. 

And I was wondering what update we might have that more 

fairly represents what's happening post -- 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Dan 

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Donohoue. 

Ms. Berg, the issue here, it does represent 2006 

data. However, if you go back and you look at the other 

tables what we ended up finding is the activity level 

overall even during the recession period didn't change. 

So we believe that the numbers from 2006 updated with the 

actual activity levels at these facilities is 

representative of what has happened during that time 

period. 

It's interesting that in even talking in some of 

the workshops, the anecdotal thing is that while the 

overall economic -- there was an overall economic impact 

within the sector. The overall activity of moving 

refrigerated goods did not see that type of decrease. In 

fact, remained fairly constant. And that may well be that 

what happened is different sectors of where that food was 

going may have changed high-end restaurants and all that 

and increase in other areas. So we do believe these 

numbers do take into consideration the economic downturn 

and that the activity levels are accurate. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: And so if we then go to slide 

18, I'm kind of curious as to if you look at the reduction 

in emissions, which I believe is the orange line, is that 

correct? Do I understand this chart correctly, that we 

see a reduction? 

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: That's 

correct. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: So if we don't have -- if we 

aren't severely hit by the recessions, we can't say that 

the reduction is because of the recession and we have low 

compliance. I'm curious as to where we feel that 

reduction is coming from. 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 

Could I have either Nichole Dolney or Todd Sax of the 

Planning and Support Division respond to that, and we'll 

follow up based upon their initial explanation. 

MS. DOLNEY: So during the time of the original 

2003 regulation, we reviewed the inputs and just found in 

general that the original inventory growth rate was based 

on a number that was a little bit too high to begin with. 

So we analyzed between 1990 and 2010 engine sales. And 

while we saw a decrease in engine sales as a result of the 

recession, we also found that the overall growth rate from 

these engine sales data indicate a lower growth than what 

we were originally projecting, around one to two percent, 

which closely follows human population growth. 

So just to add to the comment about engine 

activity, per engine, the activity remained pretty 

constant through the recession. But what we did see is a 

drop in engine sales. 

31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So just to put this in 

maybe plainer English, there was a lot of -- there was a 

continued rate of activity of people delivering 

refrigerated produce or meats or whatever into California 

but they weren't buying newer engines; is that what you're 

saying? 

MS. DONLEY: Right. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: But people were still 

eating as much of the stuff as they would have been 

otherwise. 

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: That's not the answer to 

Ms. Berg's question. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: What is the question? 

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: She can restate it. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Your question is why is 

there a drop-off in emissions from the emissions 

inventory. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: So if we have older engines 

and we have the same level of activity -- 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I was rephrasing that. 

That gets us to what the question is. So on slide 18 

there is this big drop-off. 

MS. DOLNEY: Oh, okay. So as the engines turn 

over naturally to newer equipment, you'll still see 

emissions dropping considerably. So essentially, normal 

32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
turnover is happening at a rate that exceeded the increase 

in emissions from the recession from the recession. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Doesn't make sense. Let's 

try this again. 

PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: Ms. 

Nichols and Ms. Berg, this is Rich Boyd. Let me take a 

crack at this. 

What the orange line is attempting to capture is 

the affect of the current ATCM that we have right now. 

And what you're seeing is we have compliance dates that 

are triggered where folks are being moved to cleaner 

equipment. And this orange line is projecting the 

improvement in that reduction profile as we move forward. 

So that's what this orange line is. 

PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: This is 

Richard Corey. I'm going to make another run at your 

question. 

The orange line show represents 100 percent 

compliance. So the actually observed -- 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: What would be if we were 

getting 100 percent compliance. 

PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: That's 

correct. I think that's what you're going at. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: That's correct. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So -- 

33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: 

Basically, it's compliance with the standard in the 

reductions we would get if there was that compliance. But 

it does underscore and something we'll be talking about 

later the importance of the enforcement of the overall 

program to get these reductions.

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 

These reductions are rules. They are not activity. 

And the only thing that might be a little 

confusing where that line starts to drop is actually at 

the end of 2009. So that represents the compliance that 

came in in the ones that complied by the end of 2008 and 

everybody came in 2009. 

And since that was all 2002 and before, there 

were a lot of engines that were in the late 1990 time 

frame so that the number of engines coming in were fairly 

big and the emissions levels for those were pretty high. 

So there was a big slug that came in that actually by 

December 31st, 2009. And that's what that initial drop 

represents. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much for that 

explanation. I really appreciate that. 

And then leading then to the compliance rate, we 

have -- could you just go over the model years and the 

rates of compliance, because I believe the lower rate of 

34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
compliance would have been the compliance date of 2010 is 

at 33 percent. 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: That 30 

percent number does reflect for the model year 2003 

engines that would have complied by the end of 2010. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: How about the 2002 and older? 

How are we doing on those? 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: 2002 was 

about 40 percent compliant. And the 2001 and older, those 

were -- 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 

Eighty. 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: Eighty 

percent compliant. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: And just to clarify, the LE 

TRU and the ULE TRU, engines that are older than 2004 were 

required to be LE TRU. Starting in 2004, we went to ULE 

TRU. 

PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: That's 

correct.

BOARD MEMBER BERG: So December 2011 would be the 

first year for a ULE TRU. 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: That is 

correct. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: Are there engines available 

35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
for ULE TRU purchasing new? 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: You cannot 

buy a new replacement engine at this point in time that 

meets the ultra low emissions standard. You would have to 

retrofit with a Level 3 diesel particulate filter. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. And does that one 

filter work on every 2004 engine? 

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HILL: No. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: Can you repower to ULE TRU? 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: No, 

you cannot repower to ULE TRU, but you can repower to LE 

TRU and get seven years of life on the engine. So you do 

have an option still of repowering. It just doesn't get 

you totally finished with the program. You've got seven 

years out that you're going to have to then move it to ULE 

TRU. So you get a repower; you get a seven-year delay in 

having to go to ULE TRU. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: And are there retrofits are 

available for the LE TRU on the 2004 engines? 

PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: Well, 

you would apply the retrofit for 2003 and older. And 

those are available. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: So then there would be an 

opportunity also to put on a retrofit on 2004s and have 

seven years? 

36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: Well, 

if you put a Level 2 on there, that only gets you to LE 

TRU. You have that ULE TRU to compliance to worry about 

seven years later. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: That would be TRU no matter 

what, because there's only one device. If that device 

doesn't fit your 2004 engine for whatever reason, LE TRU 

is the option. 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: The 

question here -- I don't know the answer to it -- is would 

the reg allow somebody to put a Level 2 on a 4I engine 

or -- I'm sorry. Not a 4I. Would it allow you to put a 

Level 2 on and extend the compliance date? 

PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: I don't 

think so. 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: I 

don't think so under the way it's structured. Your 

options would be to repower -- would be basically the 

option that you have. And out seven years, then you make 

the option at that point in time to decide whether you go 

with a new Tier 4F engine or you put a particulate filter 

on at that point in time that would be a Level 3 that 

would make that engine be ULE TRU. 

STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF COREY: I just 

want to add to this, because I think this is getting 

37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
confusing. I'll try to be as clear as I can about '04. 

We're talking about model year '04 and the current 

compliance date at the end of this year. 

There's two options. One: They can go to ULE 

TRU with the verified retrofit that's currently available. 

We talked about one that's moving through the process. 

But as of today, that'd be one. 

The other one is to repower that engine with the 

4I that resets the seven-year clock. Those are options 

available today for the '04. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: DeeDee. 

BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I think Ms. Berg's 

questions highlight sort of the challenge that we're 

facing. When this first came before us, we believed that 

we had three options; two that were practical in terms of 

resetting the clock, and then an ultimate solution of 

getting a whole new engine. 

And one of the concerns that I have is with the 

retrofit. And I'm going to be very careful about what I 

say here, because I think that we have a retrofit 

strategy, and across the various sectors and diesel, it 

has been very successful. But I think that in this 

particular application, I've been notified of a number of 

problems, and I just want to make sure we're being honest 

38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
about the situation and there is only one that's 

certified. There's going to be another one coming up. I 

think some of the witnesses will be talking, and I'll let 

them decide what they should or shouldn't say on the 

record, because I think some of these were test 

applications. 

But I want to just register my concerns in that 

it really doesn't appear that we have the options that we 

originally set out to have when we started on this whole 

route. 

Also, because of some maintenance concerns with 

the retrofit technology, the costs have increased once you 

account for maintenance and also fuel costs. So to me, 

it's no surprise there's only 20 percent compliance with 

retrofit. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That is actually 

commendable that the staff is being as honest as they are 

about the level of compliance. As you saw from the chart, 

we usually put out information that assumes everybody is 

complying with the rules, even though we know there is no 

such thing as 100 percent compliance. But the fact is the 

rate of non-compliance is exceptionally high. 

BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I agree. I agree. 

So as far as questions to staff, what I'd like to 

see is some way to hone in on the emissions inventory, 

39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
because I do still think that we need to -- first of all, 

the public health data is very troubling. I was one at 

the last hearing that pushed for an extension of the 

useful life. But once that data came in, I'm convinced 

that's not really an appropriate course to take at this 

time. 

But what I'd like to see is honing in a little 

bit more on that emissions inventory, 50 percent at 

distribution centers where there are sensitive receptors. 

What about the other 50 percent? What can we do to 

determine where those facilities are located and whether 

or not some flexibility could be afforded with respect to 

use at those facilities? I don't know if it's going to be 

more complex than it's worth. But it's worth looking 

into. 

And then on the eight mode versus four mode, this 

is a cycle that is used to determine emissions. I don't 

want to get into a lot of detail here, because I have 

talked with staff about this, and I understand the reason 

why you've used the method that you have. 

But there are a lot of engines out there that 

have not been tested with eight mode versus four. Again, 

maybe there is an opportunity to hone in on the emissions 

inventory so that we could determine at a later time 

whether or not we could provide some additional 

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
flexibility. 

And then also in terms of once the engine is 

touched with a repower, if repower is selected, is there 

some flexibility that can be afforded for those that 

select that repower? In other words, not putting off the 

decision at this point. But once the decision is made, 

can some flexibility provided on the back end. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think I'm going to jump 

in at some point before I recognize anybody else and just 

say I want to pick up on both the last comment and also 

Sandy's comment and say that when I was briefed on this 

issue recently, it just jumped out at me as a glaring fact 

that whether we were more flexible or less flexible, we 

weren't actually going to be solving the health problem 

related to these units. 

And so my direction and the direction that I want 

to see us heading here is, regardless of what we do 

today -- and I think we probably need to do what the staff 

is proposing -- to make a commitment that we're going to 

come back sooner rather than later with some other tools 

in our toolbox that don't just focus on this one group of 

vehicles and engines where we're doing our best to push 

things along. 

But given the state of the economy and the 

diversity of the industry, et cetera, we got some problems 

41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
and we do need to try to be flexible. But flexibility, 

although it's a virtue, is not really the end of the game 

when it comes to actually trying to meet our goals, which 

is to make really significant levels of risk reduction for 

the communities that actually breathe in the stuff around 

these distribution terminals. 

So I think we need to broaden our thinking and to 

approach this problem from that kind of a public health 

perspective, taking advantage of new legal authority 

that -- well, legal authority that we now know that we 

have in the area of indirect source review between us and 

the local districts. We have the ability to focus on 

these centers as what they are, which is sources when the 

trucks are there, and come up with more comprehensive 

emissions control programs that focus on whatever we can 

learn about the timing of operations, the plug-in 

opportunities at the sites themselves, so forth. Because 

that's what this is all about. And I feel like in a way 

we're tinkering around the margins at this point. 

So any other questions or comments? 

Dr. Balmes. 

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: I was just going to pick up 

on your comment and what Mr. Corey hinted at. This is all 

part of a surface goods movement, you know, economic 

system that we have. 

42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
And I give lectures on air pollution and health 

effects. I show photos going from the container vessels 

at the ports through the intermodal yards, rail and truck 

and then to the distribution centers where the containers 

are unpacked. And they're truck farms. So it's not just 

the TRUs. And so we do, in fact, have to have a strategy, 

as you said, that captures all the sources of emissions, 

not just focus on the TRUs. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Well, with that, 

that sort of set the stage for the testimony. And we have 

13 witnesses. We'll just get started with Kathleen Yip 

followed by Dr. Brezny and Chris Shimoda. 

MS. YIP: Good morning, Chairman Nichols members 

of the Board and staff. 

My name is Kathleen Yip. I'm representing the 

Natural Resources Defense Council in strong support of the 

TRU regulation and staff proposed amendments that are 

before you today. 

We are very concerned about the industry efforts 

to lengthen equipment lifetimes that lead to compliance 

delays and greatly diminish health and air quality 

benefits of this important regulation. 

As you know, diesel pollution from TRUs and other 

sources contributes to serious health impacts, including 

increased risk of emergency room visits, hospital 

43

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
emissions, asthma attacks, cardiovascular disease, 

respiratory disease, adverse birth outcomes, cancer and 

premature death. 

This is a major health concern, particularly in 

communities with concentrated freight activities where 

TRUs are frequently used, including warehouses, rail 

yards, port terminals, and other transportation services. 

I wanted to show you one example if you look at 

the slide. The dull berth and container storage area are 

on the other side of the terminal from Cesar Chavez Park. 

However, additional trucks and TRUs are parking and idling 

in the lot immediately adjacent to the park. 

This park is used -- if you want to flip to the 

next slide. 

This park is used a lot for soccer games by the 

community. Warm places in the grass near the fence and 

trucks are an indication of how close the TRUs are to 

where kids play. 

Many yards facilities are in close proximity to 

homes, schools, and other sensitive sites. Even with the 

current regulation in place, TRU activity at these large 

facilities poses very high cancer risks above 100 per 

million residents living within a thousand feet through 

2016. 

Without the industry proposed delay, this 

44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
regulation can provide important air quality and public 

health benefits with an economic boost of $2.6 billion 

through 370 lives saved, 125 hospitalizations avoided, 

5,600 cases of asthma, and other lower respiratory systems 

averted and 470 cases of acute bronchitis prevented. 

We strongly urge you to preserve these benefits 

by adopting the carefully crafted staff proposed 

amendments. We have seen great progress with 2003 and 

older TRUs cleaning up. We need the 2004 and newer TRUs 

cleaned up as well. 

There are many compliance pathways available for 

2004 TRUs, as staff have presented. We urge you to adopt 

the staff proposed amendments without any further delays, 

lengthen equipment lifetimes or weaken compliance 

obligations that would prolong exposure to emissions from 

TRUs. 

We thank the staff for their hard work on this 

regulation and consideration of health implications of the 

various amendment options. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

Dr. Brezny. 

DR. BREZNY: Good morning, Chairman Nichols and 

members of the Board. I'm Rasto Brezny with the 

Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association. 

MECA represents the leading manufacturers of 

45

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
emission control technologies for internal combustion 

engines, including TRU applications. 

I will start out by thanking staff for their hard 

work and bringing this proposal forward to you. And we 

support the recommendations. 

MECA member companies have invested significant 

resources in developing, verifying, and commercializing 

emission control technologies for TRU applications, and 

also to ensure that there is an effective plan in place to 

bring additional Level 3 devices to the market through the 

verification process. 

In order for manufacturers to continue to make 

these investments, they need to see some level of 

stability in the implementation time line and also in the 

enforcement of the regulation. 

Our members estimate that less than 40 percent of 

the TRUs that have been impacted by this regulation are in 

compliance. And that's why we urge the Board to continue 

to support the enforcement program to ensure that those 

that have chosen to comply are not financially 

disadvantaged in the marketplace. 

Also, we urge the Board to continue to support 

the resource verification process in order to ensure that 

these Level 3 devices that are in the pipeline get through 

as fast as possible. 

46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
TRU retrofit devices are a proven technology 

based on the same types of filter designs as have been 

commercialized in other off-road and on-road applications. 

And currently, there are over 5,000 LE TRU devices out in 

the field demonstrating excellent results. 

The latest versions of ULE TRU demonstration 

units have accumulated thousands of hours and also with 

very good reliability and fuel consumption impacts of less 

than about five percent. Although early designs of these 

technologies have identified some issues, these were 

easily addressed through redesigns. And currently, our 

members' experience with TRU retrofits has been excellent 

and consistent with what we've seen with other retrofit 

devices in that fleets that have comprehensive maintenance 

programs for their engines and their devices do get 

excellent performance from their retrofit units. 

Finally, to summarize, we believe that any 

further delays in the implementation of this rule is going 

to be counterproductive to both ARB's PM reduction goals, 

but also going to stifle further technology development in 

efforts to bring additional technologies to the 

marketplace, these Level 3 ULE TRU devices. 

Once again, I want to thank you for your time. 

And I'll be happy to address any questions you might have. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Chris Shimoda. 

MR. SHIMODA: Madam chair, members of the Board. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

My name is Chris Shimoda, Manager of 

Environmental Policy for the California Trucking 

Association. I have a few slides here today. 

I'd first like to speak the staff's revised cost 

estimates associated with the TRU rule. As you can see 

from the first slide, the cost of the rule is now four to 

eight times higher than originally forecasted in 2003. 

We've got from about a 10 to $20 per pound reduced 

estimate in the original ISOR to an estimate of $88 per 

pound reduced as expressed in 2011 dollars in this current 

ISOR. 

So what was originally estimated to be a very 

cost effective rule now looks much less so, with the TRU 

rule being almost twice as expensive as the truck and bus 

rule on a per pound basis. 

If you look at the cost effectiveness using the 

EPA form of test cycles for TRUs, which Jim Lyons from 

Sierra Research will be giving further testimony on today, 

the cost of the rule gets closer to the 120 to $222 per 

pound reduced range, which would make this one of the, if 

not to the, expensive rule ever considered by the Board. 

And we believe that's a pretty conservative estimate. 

48

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Next slide. 

--o0o--

MR. SHIMODA: Staff was directed by the Board 

last fall to consider several amendments, including 

extending the operational life of TRUs. Cost 

effectiveness associated with those amendments are 

expressed here in this slide. As you can see, there is a 

significant cost savings associated with extending 

operational life. Should be noted that any TRU 

operational life between seven and nine years will achieve 

the emission reduction goals you had originally set out to 

achieve in 2003. A seven-year operational life as 

recommended by staff actually to achieves a significantly 

higher reduction, albeit at a significantly higher cost. 

CTA recommends considering a nine year 

operational life for TRUs. A nine year operational life 

still achieves a higher emission reduction than you set 

out to achieve in 2003 and would save businesses who 

utilize TRUs $430 million between now and 2029. Those are 

staff's figures. 

It is important to remember these businesses are 

often located in some of the areas of the state hardest 

hit by the recession. You will be hearing testimony later 

from a major employer in Merced County which currently has 

a 17-and-a-half percent unemployment rate. A $430 million 

49

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
cost savings translates directly into a significant number 

of jobs created and a lot of local services purchased. 

Next slide, please.

--o0o--

MR. SHIMODA: We believe a nine-year operational 

life for TRUs is a fair compromise which achieves 

environmental and economic balance and can fix many of the 

issues we've been dealing with since this rule was first 

introduced almost a decade ago. It would allow 

one-and-done OEM ULE TRU compliance option come to market 

so these carriers would no longer have to spend money on 

repowering and retrofitting down the road. And it would 

allow fleets who do choose to retrofit additional time to 

assess available ULE TRU retrofit options for cost 

effectiveness and the kind of reliability necessary when 

dealing with temperature-sensitive food products sensitive 

to contamination. 

So I'd like to just thank the Board and staff for 

their hard work on this rule and please consider directing 

staff to look at the nine-year operational life. Thank 

you. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Just a question to the 

staff and maybe also to the witness. 

So the cost effectiveness figure changing is 

50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
primarily because the operators have chosen to repower as 

opposed to retrofit; am I correct on that?

PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: That's 

part of -- the revised cost effectiveness takes into 

account the actual compliance options that have been 

chosen, which is driven by the repower. 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: And 

it also takes into consideration at the time when we 

originally made the estimates, there are additional 

operation and maintenance costs associated with the 

retrofits. We've updated. We've updated that. So 

basically, you know, we were crystal balling it back then 

the best we could, and now we have the real data on it. 

This has proved to be a harder application than 

any of us originally anticipated, partly because of the 

way these engines are operated and partly because, you 

know, of the importance of these systems operating 

properly because of food safety and food cost issues and 

ice cream, too. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Ice cream. That's the 

important thing. 

BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And actually, isn't it 

true that the retrofit, once you account for increased 

maintenance cost and fuel costs, it ends up being pretty 

close to what a repower would cost.

51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: That's 

correct. 

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: That is why most people are 

using the repower to comply. I understand. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Jim Lyons. 

Mr. LYONS: Thank you, Madam Chairman and members 

of the Board. 

I'm going to talk just for a couple of minutes 

about the eight mode versus four mode test. 

Second slide, please.

--o0o--

Mr. LYONS: First thing I want to address is 

where it came from. This is not a new issue. It was 

first raised in the ISOR. EPA developed a test cycle for 

certification of engines that are used only for TRU 

purposes. I'll talk about more in a minute. It's four 

modes versus eight modes. The reason why it's four is 

there are four modes that TRUs never operate on. 

The staff looked at this initially, concluded 

that it could adjust the PM emission inventory by reducing 

it 25 to 60 percent. There could be an increase of NOx. 

They were going to look at it further and they indicated 

support for this four mode cycle as being characteristic 

of the way TRUs operate. 

Next slide, please.

52

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
--o0o--

Mr. LYONS: Every engine is certified on the 

eight mode test gets tested over eight modes. You weight 

them up and get a number. 

To do the four mode calculation, you don't need a 

new test. You throw away half of the eight mode data, 

simply recalculate it, and come up with a different 

weighted emission number. This is the Tier 3, 33 

horsepower indirect injection diesel engine, like that 

used in TRU applications. 

For this particular engine, going from four modes 

to eight modes increases NOx emission factor by ten 

percent and reduces the PM emission factor by 58 percent, 

almost right on what staff said in 2004. I don't have 

data for every engine. Otherwise, I would do this 

calculation and give you a final answer. 

Next slide, please.

--o0o--

Mr. LYONS: If you look in the existing TRU 

regulation, there is a definition for something called 

certification emissions data. It's exactly what's needed 

in order to perform this calculation on every engine 

that's used for TRU applications. That definition has 

been in the regulation since it was originally adopted. 

All of this information has to be generated by each 

53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
emission factor and underlies the new engine certification 

process. All of this data should be readily available to 

CARB staff. 

I would recommend that you direct staff to obtain 

this mode certification from the engine manufacturers, use 

it to revise the inventory, and then to reanalyze the 

regulatory options. Obviously, having an accurate 

inventory is vital to assessing the regulatory impacts of 

any regulation, as well as the cost effectiveness of those 

regulatory options. Thank you. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Bryan Long.

MR. LONG: Good morning, Chairman Nichols and 

esteemed Board members. 

My name is Bryan Long. I'm here today 

representing the 12,000-plus employees of Foster Poultry 

Farms. My title is Vice President of Purchasing, and I'm 

responsible for almost everything we buy. 

We are a privately held business owned by the 

Foster family. We do not make our financial results 

public, but I can state we have not made a profit in 2011, 

like many California companies. 

In 2010, Foster Farms invested approximately 

$900,000 in filters to retrofit our refrigerated trailers 

to gain compliance with California regulations. The shame 

is that our competition, which comes from out of state, 

54

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
did not have to make the same investment because they 

could simply divert newer units to California. 

After working through a number of installation 

issues with our LE TRU filters, we thought we were good 

for the next seven years. Not so fast. During the past 

11 months, we've experienced 41 fuel pump failures of our 

200 filter units. Our current failure rate of fuel pumps 

on non-filter units is approximately two percent. In 

addition, we have experienced an increase in fuel 

consumption, which we attribute to the filters. 

And equipment failure to a refrigerated carrier 

can be one of their worst nightmares. The loads are often 

valued at over $100,000. If failure happens while in 

transit, the TRU shuts down and our customers could reject 

the load. Worse, we are now dealing with a food safety 

issue that is our number one concern. 

We have 71 days to gain compliance with the ULE 

TRU standards at this time. We believe we only have one 

viable option, and that is to repower. The ULE TRU filter 

will not be a viable option due to total operating cost, 

filter product reliability, and importantly, food safety. 

Staff has left us with only one TRU option at a 

cost close to 400 percent higher than the original 

estimate. 

I can go on, but I simply ask that you accept the 

55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
fact that we are ahead of the curve in cleaning the air 

and allow us to improve our cash flow by granting us the 

extra years of useful life. Thank you. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

Mike Shumake. 

MR. SHUMAKE: Madam Chair, I'm Mike Shumake, 

President of Central Valley Trailer Repair and also Chair 

of the CTA Refrigerated Carriers Conference. And I had 

prepared remarks today, and I'm going to go completely off 

the reservation, I think. 

One thing I'd like to discuss is the compliance 

rate, which was presented last November or December, 

whenever we met on this last. It somewhere around 90 

percent. And that 90 percent came from actual check 

points, you know, on the road. And now all of a sudden, 

it's being presented as 60 percent. I think if you look 

at the numbers, that 60 percent is for all effected 

vehicles, which includes out-of-state carriers and the 

number of units involved. 

I believe that the actual California compliance 

for those people that are operating in California is much, 

much higher than that and could be -- you know, with a 

little analysis could easily be proved. 

Options, you've heard it. We've got one ULE TRU 

option. In 2004, we were told -- in 2003, we were told 

56

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
that we had to meet ULE TRU by 2004. Actually, 2003; we 

moved it up. And there was going to be plenty of 

technology available. There isn't. There is no way to 

change our engine and comply with the ULE TRU component. 

As we've been told today, you have to go to a LE TRU 

engine. 

The other thing that has come into conversation 

today is the health risk. And that health risk is pretty 

much a direct result of the facilities report. And if you 

look at the facilities report very closely, obviously it 

shows that originally I think 80-something facilities 

reported; 30 of them didn't -- the information was 

garbage. They had to throw it out. They came down to 56 

that they used. 

And just a cursory glance last night, I looked 

and noticed there's 218 trailer fleet reported three 

times. It's pretty obvious it's the same fleet because 

it's the same number of hours each time. It probably is 

three different facilities, but the same trailer. So 

we're getting impacted by those hours, which are on the 

same trailer. So all the numbers aren't quite adding up, 

and that's what's killing our industry and forcing us to 

have to not get the extended life that we really need 

because of the cost that we're having to incur. 

Thank you very much. 

57

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

John Cramer. 

Mr. CRAMER: Good morning. I'm John Cramer. I'm 

one of the owners of Certified Freight Logistics. We 

operate 300 TRUs up and down the west coast of the 

United States. 

Out of those three, originally when the rule came 

into effect, we retrofitted with filters 100 trailers. We 

replaced 50 total trailers and TRUs at the cost of about 

$3.5 million. In the offset since that time, we've also 

retrofitted probably 25 trailers at the cost of $100,000. 

So we've spent the money to become compliant. 

Originally, we went on a ten-year turn on our 

trading equipment in TRUs to replace. By this rule, we've 

had to relook at that and extend ourselves out. Of 

course, we haven't met that 14-year period yet. Don't 

know exactly when that's going to go to. But we'll have 

to consider going that far with our equipment. 

With this today, we're 100 percent compliant as 

of today with the rule. 

Going forward, we're concerned with this retrofit 

device that is approved today. Our customers -- this 

device requires a shut down of equipment once every 

eight hours. We're not understanding the time that is at 

this point. We're thinking 30 to 40 minutes. 

58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Also it's putting a strain on that piece of 

equipment because of the electronic side of it. We're 

concerned because of our customer base today is very 

concerned about the coal chain and these viruses and other 

things that are coming out, as we just saw with 

cantaloupes. And what happens is they put a tattle-tail 

device in the trailer to monitor the temperature as you're 

going down the highway. As they deliver -- as we deliver, 

they pull the product out and read that device. That 

device will show exactly what's been happening inside that 

trailer during the travel time. 

We experience at times when the customer refuses 

the product because there is a spike in the temperature. 

Anything over 40 degrees, they set it aside. They 

sometimes take it and a lot of times refuse it. We buy 

it. 

We're very concerned that this device will shut 

that down and won't start again. And we're going to have 

spikes and we had have a lot of potential claims hanging 

out there. 

We would like to have the staff look at this 

nine-year period group 24 months more where we can get 

into a true engine that's going to be compatible to the 

rule from now on. There, you're putting very good money 

towards a good cause. Thank you very much. 

59

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

Dan Miller and then Patrick Smith. 

MR. MILLER: Good morning, Madam Chairman, 

members of the Board and staff. 

My name is Dan Miller. I'm with Save Mart 

Supermarkets. Save Mart is a privately held California 

corporation, which operates 245 grocery stores in northern 

California and northern Nevada. 

To service this group of stores, we operate a 

transport fleets combined facilities approximately 200 

tractors, 500 trailers; employ approximately 400 drivers, 

mechanics, and staff. 

In the last three years, we have retrofitted or 

replaced 150 of our TRU units. We are 100 percent 

compliant under the current law. In the next -- or this 

year, we have 70 units will come up for compliance by year 

end. 

As was stated before, there's currently only one 

supplier, one certified unit -- filter unit on the market. 

The repower unit, all that does is restart the clock 

again, and seven years later, we have to deal with that 

issue again. 

Our concerns -- and I think I speak for the 

industry. 

Number one, lack of ULE TRU options available to 

60

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
us. 

Number two, the rule is not cost effective. It's 

the estimates on the filters, repowers are over the 

estimates presented by the staff a number of years ago. 

And we've incurred, as operators, additional maintenance 

costs to service these units. 

There is no Tier 4 engine available, and that 

won't be available for several years. And we're stuck 

with a filter or repower option. 

Updates TRU inventory supports a two-year 

additional life, and I would like to ask the Board to look 

at extending the TRU life an additional two years. Thank 

you. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

Mr. Smith. 

MR. SMITH: Madam Chair, Board members, and 

staff, my name is Patrick Smith and I'm Transportation 

manager for Harris Ranch. 

Originally, we tried to get to 85 percent 

compliance. There were two options available to us for 

our units. We worked with staff, met with manufacturers, 

and even did field testing. But they weren't practical 

for our operation. They wouldn't work. So we had to go 

back to Level 2 compliance. And that gave us two options, 

retrofit or engine replacement. 

61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Engine replacement was approximately 50 percent 

higher, so we chose to retrofit. 

We met with the retrofit manufacturers and Level 

2 device. They were planning a future cartridge that 

could be a change to meet Level 3 compliance that could 

exchange for a modest up-charge. We retrofitted 49 units 

at a cost of approximately $300,000. In 14 months of 

operation, we had the following failures: 51 electronic 

control units, 104 percent failure rate; 30 particulate 

filters, 61 percent failure rate; 44 alternators, 90 

percent failure rate; 35 batteries, 73 percent failure 

rate; six engines, twelve percent failure rate. 

In all of our years of operation, we never 

replaced an engine. These failures cause down time, 

required emergency action to maintain temperature control 

for food safety, cold chain custody. You're going to hear 

a lot about the new federal cold chain custody regulations 

that President Obama ordered to ensure food safety. 

We have a system in our trailers called 

temperature tractor which gives us real-time readings. 

When a TRU goes down and ambient temperatures or 90 

degrees and above, within an hour, internal trailer 

temperatures are 65 degrees. Duty cycle set points range 

from 25 degrees to 32 degrees and our product has to be 

delivered at 40 degrees or less. 

62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Our duty cycle for our TRUs would be similar. 

It's not a heavy load duty cycle. It would be similar 

if you are driving your vehicles down the intestate at 45 

miles an hour instead of 70 miles an hour. You would have 

20 to 30 percent better fuel economy and your engines 

would run cooler. 

Since retrofitting our TRUs, fuel consumption is 

33 percent higher. I suspect lower operating RPMs do not 

facilitate regeneration, causing more back pressure, 

increasing fuel consumption. 

Our retrofitted TRUs would be out of compliance 

soon unless the rule would be extended. If not extended, 

they will have to be retrofitted for 85 percent 

particulate reduction. I'm very doubtful that the 

technology will be available for 85 percent particulate 

reduction, considering the failures we experience with 

50 percent particulate reduction. We would certainly 

welcome a longer operational life for TRUs or a 

one-and-done concept that Mayor Loveridge suggested in a 

meeting last year. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Could you summarize? 

MR. SMITH: I would like to thank the Board for 

allowing -- one last thing. Our maintenance provider 

informed us our maintenance rates are going up 50 percent. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
We have two witnesses from Rypos: Thomas 

Babineau and Peter Bransfield. 

MR. BABINEAU: Madam Chair, Board members, thank 

you. 

I'm Tom Babineau from Rypos. We are one of the 

VDECS suppliers that have been referred to so 

affectionately this morning. We're not a new comer to 

this market space. We've been developing and supplying 

electrically regenerated filters for California's market 

for over ten years. We have built an installation and 

support network that covers the western United States and 

Mexico. So there is a lot today to talk about all 

availability and reliability. 

Our LE TRU experience didn't come without pain. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Could you move closer to 

the microphone? We're having a hard time. Thank you

MR. BABINEAU: We have supplied over 5200 filters 

to the field. And collectively these filters have 

accumulated over 20 million operating hours, removed 215 

tons of PM, and we are removing 90 tons per year at the 

rate today. 

West Virginia University did a test two months 

ago. Our fuel consumption to achieve those reductions is 

at 4.8 percent. That is an independent lab testing data 

that we can make available. 

64

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
The general success of the program didn't come 

without hardships. Early on, new technology, these 

filters are part of a system. And we made some mistakes. 

We fixed those mistakes, learned from them. And frankly, 

we paid for them 100 percent. We move quickly to 

voluntarily exchange 100 percent of the units, whether 

they were having problems or not. We have not charged a 

single dollar for any repair or replacement. Units in 

spite of warrantee we've covered cost. 

We've been completely transparent with our 

customers and ARB staff regarding issues and recovery 

plans, and ARB staff, when notified by us there were 

problems or the field, immediately got involved and have 

been great about addressing these issues. 

Our efforts to fix the issues have worked. Our 

mean time between repairs has improved. Our failure rate 

peeked at 6.2 percent. So of the 5200 units that we have 

in the field, we had 318 failures. We are now down to a 

3.7 percent failure rate. 

While that is still unacceptable, the operators 

have hung in there with us, resolved problems, educating 

themselves and others as part of the solution. Working to 

improve the product is also part of the solution. 

Today, 95 percent of the failures are due from 

the engine side not providing quality electricity to the 

65

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
filter. That doesn't mean the filter doesn't have a part 

in that, but maintenance is the key issue here to 

maintain. If they used the recommended parts, the 

recommended belts, operate with the recommended belt 

tensioning, we have a reliable system. 

The ULE TRU product, we're in the threshold of 

the ULE TRU product. The final configuration is easier to 

install, which is a more effective, more efficient 

alternator, which should aid this problem, has a better 

belt and pulley system, which should aid the problem, and 

more fault checking to identify the issues early on so 

that we can address them. VDECS are not mufflers. 

They're sophisticated pieces of equipment. Thank you. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

Mr. Bransfield here? 

MR. BRANSFIELD: Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I don't really have any comments. I'm making 

myself available to answer direct questions because 

there's been a lot of talk about performance, about 

reliability, about supporting the marketplace. And I 

wanted to make sure that the Board had a full opportunity 

to ask direct questions and get facts. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

We may get back to you then during the course of 

the discussion. 

66

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Mike Tunnel. 

MR. TUNNEL: Good morning, Chairman Nichols, 

members of the Board and staff. 

My name is Mike Tunnel. I'm here on behalf of 

the American Trucking Association. 

ATA has been working closely with the California 

Trucking Association and its Refrigerated Carriers 

Conference to analyze the proposed amendments. 

We appreciate the continuing dialogue with staff 

and members of the Board. 

Based on these discussions, we request the Board 

take two specific actions today: 

First, we urge the Board to direct staff to 

adjust the emissions inventory. Quite simply, the 

inventory is based on operating modes that TRUs never use, 

never use. As a result, the inventory may be overstating 

PM emissions by as much as 60 percent. With the inventory 

serving as the basis for analysis and recommendations 

before you today, it needs to be adjusted to more 

accurately reflect TRU operations. 

Secondly, we urge the Board to provide a minimum 

two-year extension to the operating life. We believe that 

inventory adjustments further justify this extension. In 

addition, this extension will provide additional time for 

compliance options to become available. Specifically, a 

67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
one-and-done compliance solution currently does not exist 

for the majority of TRU operators. Given the mixed 

results fleets are having with retrofits and the scarce

number of ULE TRU options, fleets are having to invest in 

temporary compliance solutions. 

This has significantly increased the cost of 

compliance four to seven times higher than originally 

projected. At some point, you have to ask -- you have to 

acknowledge that this approach isn't working. The 

amendments presented today do not address the core issue. 

What is needed is a solution that manages the 

engine's operating cycle with its emission control system, 

not a bolted-on solution that compromises overall 

efficiency. This solution becomes available in 2013, and 

not only meets the ULE TRU standards, but lowers NOx 

emissions as well. 

We ask that you address our core issue today, the 

lack of viable long-term compliance options by granting 

the two-year extension to operating life. Thank you for 

your consideration. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Cara Bush. 

And then we have Bonnie Holmes-Gen and Crystal Jack. And 

that's the remainder of our list. 

MS. BUSH: Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and 

members of the Board. 

68

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Cara Bush with the California Grocers 

Association. 

We'd like to thank staff for working with us over 

the last ten months to address some of our concerns and 

look forward to continuing to work with staff to address a 

few outstanding concerns. So thank you very much, and we 

look forward to working with you. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. Thank you. 

Bonnie Holmes-Gen and Crystal Jack. 

MS. HOLMES-GEN: Good morning, Chairman Nichols 

and Board members. 

Bonnie Holmes-Gen with the American Lung 

Association of California. And welcome to new Board 

Member de la Torre. 

And I wanted to add our voice to the voice of 

NRDC and our partners in support of the staff regulation 

and in opposition to the industry proposals for further 

delay of implementation of the TRU requirements. 

And we are pleased to hear the testimony of the 

Manufacturers of Emission Controls and others about the 

Level 3 emission control devices that are moving forward 

and progress that has been made with these applications. 

And we think that proves the feasibility of this 

regulation and supports the direction of the staff. 

We appreciate the thoughtful discussion by the 

69

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Board. And clearly, we have learned a lot over the past 

decade about these applications and this sector. But 

we've also learned a lot about the health impacts and the 

serious dangers of diesel exposures to communities, 

especially to children. And especially about the serious 

risk from the concentration of these units in hot spot 

areas. 

I appreciate your focus, Chairman Nichols, about 

let's take a look more closely at what we can do to 

address these areas with high concentrations of diesel 

sources and units. And moving towards cleaner goods 

movement. Especially moving towards zero emission goods 

movement is a very high priority for the Lung Association. 

So we know that the avoided health costs of this 

regulation are extremely high. Your last estimation was 

topping 2.6 billion in lives saved and asthma attacks 

avoided. These are tremendous benefits, and we believe 

they far exceed the costs of the regulation. 

We can't afford major delays and weaken 

compliance. We urge you to move forward today and stay on 

track with the Diesel Risk Reduction Program. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

MS. JACK: Madam Chair, Members, Crystal Jack on 

behalf of the Neisi Farmers League, California Citrus 

Mutual, California Grape and Tree Fruit League, and the 

70

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Western Agricultural Processors Association. 

We wanted to come here today and express our 

support for all of the hard work the staff has put in. We 

greatly appreciate their efforts to address our concerns. 

And we look forward to this moving forward and continuing 

to work with staff. Thank you. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Okay. 

That concludes the list of witnesses that we have 

before us. 

Staff, I don't know if you have any concluding 

remarks. I would appreciate your response to this issue 

about the four versus eight cycle test and what it means. 

Usually, ARB is not resistant to doing additional testing 

of any kind. So I'm kind of curious about your thoughts 

on this one. 

STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF CORY: I'm going 

to call Todd Sax up to speak directly to the eight versus 

four mode. 

MOBILE SOURCE ANALYSIS BRANCH CHIEF SAX: 

Chairman Nichols, members of the Board, my name is Todd 

Sax. I'm Chief of the Mobile Source -- I've got some 

backup slides. 

So I'm Chief of the Mobile Source Analysis 

Branch. I'm responsible for the mobile source emissions 

inventories, including the one before you today. 

71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
I wanted to say a couple things about the 

inventory. First, obviously, we take our job very 

seriously. When we started developing this emissions 

inventory, we went back and looked at all of the available 

information out there. That included data on activity, 

emission factors, load, population, impacts of the 

recession, the whole gamut of what you need to consider 

for these types of issues. As was mentioned in the 

presentation, we made a number of updates to address 

those. 

The stakeholders have alleged the emissions 

inventory is off by 60 percent. We don't believe that's 

the case. And we don't believe that for several reasons. 

First of all, on the eight mode versus four mode 

issue, diesel engines are certified typically to an eight 

mode cycle that's meant to represent the range of 

operations that engines operate at. And when really what 

the issue before you today on emissions from diesel 

engines like this is what their real world duty cycle is. 

That's a function of the operating loads and modes they 

operate at. It's also a function of how they transition 

between those modes and the particular aspects of the 

settings to which the TRUs are operated on on the 

individual trailers. 

What we have is data from the eight mode cycle. 

72

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
We also have data for one engine manufacture for one 

engine certified to a four mode cycle. The stakeholders 

are arguing that a four mode cycle better represents TRU 

operation. That may very well be the case. In this case, 

manufacturers get the option to choose to certify between 

an eight mode and a four mode cycle. And in all cases, 

except one, they've chosen to continue certifying under 

the eight mode cycle. 

And as part of certifying the four mode cycle, 

they need to be able to show that the engine operates only 

within that range of operation and then it transitions 

smoothly between those ranges. And so most of the engine 

manufacturers are not choosing to show that. 

So next slide.

--o0o--

MOBILE SOURCE ANALYSIS BRANCH CHIEF SAX: When we 

evaluated the data, we looked at what EPA assumes for TRU 

emission rates. We look at what we assume. We looked at 

an eight mode test, and we looked at four mode test 

results. What I'm showing you today is emission rates for 

the one engine we have that was tested on both an eight 

mode and a four mode result. And what this slide shows is 

that the emission rate that to which -- the emission rated 

of the four mode test result is the same as the emission 

rate that we're currently assuming in the emission 

73

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
inventory. 

What we would find by looking at the difference 

between the eight mode and four mode test for this 

particular result is it would have been about 30 percent 

higher. So for the one engine test that we actually had, 

it suggests there is a 30 percent impact, but that the 

emission rate we're using is consistent with the emission 

factors that we're using in the emissions inventory. So 

we don't see a lot of evidence that suggests at this point 

with the data that we have that our emission factors need 

to be changed. 

The 16 percent factor that the stakeholders are 

claiming we believe is based on a combination of emission 

factors, activity, and deterioration factors. That's 

actually detailed in their comments. When you look at in 

terms of deterioration factors, for example, they're 

claiming we should cap our deterioration rates, which is a 

measure of how emission rates increase over time because 

of tampering and maintenance and other basic engine 

degradation associated with natural operation of these 

engines. 

And what they are essentially claiming is that we 

should cap that at 3- to 5,000 hours of operation because 

they allege these engines are all regularly rebuilt over 

that period. What we've seen in the emissions inventory 

74

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
is that the average useful life in terms of hours of 

operation on this equipment is more like 20,000 hours. So 

we don't feel it's appropriate to assume that engines go 

through multiple rebuilds and keep emission rates at the 

low levels they allege. We don't think it's appropriate. 

And finally, what the stakeholders are alleging 

is that from an activity perspective, the activity levels 

should be much lower than what we've assumed. And we went 

back and looked at the surveys that we used to develop the 

activity rates for the inventory. Those rates cover about 

25 percent of the in-state population. So it's a pretty 

robust survey. 

When we look at the activity estimates in there, 

we're comfortable with the estimates we have. When you 

look at the stakeholder comments with regard to that, what 

they're essentially saying is that you should be able to 

spread this out and look at the impacts of different types 

of TRU operation, different types of facilities. But when 

we do that, we don't think you get a better robust 

estimate. 

So in closing, covering all of these issues, I 

think that what the stakeholders are alleging on emission 

factors is not supported by the data. What the 

stakeholders are alleging on activity is also not 

supported by the data. And what the stakeholders are 

75

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
alleging on deterioration is also not supported by the 

data. We're comfortable with our emissions inventory 

estimates. I'll take any questions. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That pretty much covers 

those points. 

I know you're dying to speak. Jim, go ahead. 

Give us your best shot here. You want to tear it apart. 

MR. LYONS: I'm just going to limit myself to the 

four mode versus eight mode. A lot of the stuff is the 

usual stuff we agree to disagree on. 

The reason why manufacturers don't certify to the 

four mode is because they build engines that go into 

equipment. The only way you can certify an engine to the 

four mode test is if you limit its use only to TRUs. All 

you have to do is read the EPA regulations to find that 

out. And the reason why is because the particulate matter 

emissions are higher on the eight mode test. EPA wants to 

be conservative and want to make sure that engine is going 

meet the emission standards in any application it's used 

in. 

That's why Todd has only got data from one 

engine. I have data for three engines that back mine up, 

because as I pointed out in my presentation, all of this 

data is collected by the engine manufacturers routinely in 

order to get your agency to certify their engines. To get 

76

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
the data, we need to look at this. All we have to do is 

ask the manufacturers to provide the data to ARB and 

analyze it. It will take a couple months, and we can have 

a correct inventory. Thank you. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, correct inventory is 

a term of art, as I've learned in this business, because 

people use inventories for different things, different 

purposes for these inventories. And if you want to try to 

find a way to measure every single engine -- the perfect 

inventory would measure every single engine exactly as it 

is used and reflect it with complete precision. 

But that doesn't involve prediction. That only 

involves the past. It wouldn't even involve the future 

because you still have to apply deterioration factors and 

changes in use and all of those other factors. 

So I'm just -- really having a hard time getting 

convinced that this is a huge problem that we need to fix 

right away. Despite the fact that you've raised this 

criticism, this four mode/eight mode thing seems like a 

bit of a red herring to me. I'm sorry, but I just need 

you to give me something better than just saying that 

unfortunately the poor manufacturers had to certify to 

this eight mode and it's too conservative. 

MR. LYONS: Well, the difference is the factor of 

two in the particulate matter emissions inventory. It's 

77

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
either about what staff estimates. It could be as much AS 

half of what staff estimates. If those kinds of 

differences are unimportant, I'm not sure what we can do 

about it. 

But in the kind of work that I do, a factor of 

two is a big deal, especially if it can be addressed 

quantitatively by getting information that already exists 

from a limited number of engines. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: No. Absolutely, it would 

be important if it changed the overall result. But then 

you go out and you compare it with what's out there in the 

real world in terms of PM emissions and exposures. Are 

you saying those are also wrong? That what's measured out 

there in the world in terms of PM is not correct? 

MR. LYONS: Well, there's two things I'll say. 

One is that the change in the emission factors would 

effect the risk assessment proportionately. The risk 

would go down by about 50 percent, because the emissions 

went down. 

And an excellent point was made by Board Member 

Berg who pointed out there is no monitoring data to back 

up these modeling estimates for the health risk 

assessments. I agree completely that monitoring should be 

done to give at east a couple of points of validation to 

the process. There's uncertainty in the emissions, 

78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
weather dispersion. There is uncertainty in a lot of 

areas. And the ground truth in this case is the 

monitoring data that would really convince me about the 

staff's health risk assessment. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Interesting back and 

forth. We have a proposal in front of us, and I think 

it's time to do something with it here. 

Would anybody like to make any proposals? 

Yes? 

BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Getting back to the four 

versus eight, my sense is that we're going to go forward, 

but we have more work to do sort of the comprehensive 

approach that you were talking about, Madam Chair. And as 

we move forward, I don't have any heartburn spending more 

time on four versus eight. I think that staff was 

directed to do that back in 2003 or 2004. And if all we 

have is what the engine manufacturers are giving us, 

because that's what they test on, I don't know if it's as 

easy as going back and saying give us the four mode. But 

I think we ought to continue to pursue it. I don't see 

any downside to getting that. 

And then I'd like to go back to some of my 

earlier comments about seeing what we can do to hone in on 

site-specific emissions or data, and I'd like to have 

staff respond. 

79

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
I know there's that facilities report. How often 

do you update that report? Are there any questions you 

could ask so we could get some further refined information 

as we move forward? 

And then the last question that I had for Mr. 

Corey has to do with in light of the fact that repower is 

going to -- it appears that repower is going to be the 

preferred option, is there anything that we can 

justifiably do to provide some additional flexibility on 

the back end, not extending the useful life on the front 

end, but on the back end, providing for an additional 

period of time when repowers are used. 

STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF COREY: Yes, Ms. 

D'Adamo. I'm going to go right to the last question you 

posed, and then Mr. Donohoue will go to the follow-up in 

terms of the distribution center work. 

I think it's really a good question, because the 

'03s with the enforcement issue and need to continue to 

follow up on that, there was a requirement they took 

action. 

So really, I think the core question here is the 

'04s in going forward and the point you just raised. So 

the '04s as we talked about earlier have today two options 

really: Repower option and the one verified level VDECS 

with the expectation of another one coming around. 

80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
If they stayed on the compliance schedule for the 

'04 by the end of the year and chose the repower route, 

that means they're putting in a 4I engine. That's a 70 

percent reduction in PM. Not as great as the ULE TRU, 

they're 85 percent. But it's greater than the LE TRU, 

which is 50. So in a sense, it splits the baby in terms 

of the PM. 

What we could do if they move forward with the 

existing schedule is return to the Board having done 

analysis on what are the implications of additional time 

on the back end, providing those 70 percent reductions in 

PM. What does that mean from a long-term emissions and 

local impact standpoint? Because the way the analysis was 

done that we're talking about today is time on the front 

end. We're convinced more time on the front end is not a 

sound approach. So in the back end, it would need to be 

formed by analysis, and analysis that we could return to 

the Board and discuss, but all predicated on the '04s 

taking action as currently called out in the reg. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. So that would be a 

proposal to direct the staff to come back with some 

additional information. If we are going to go in that 

direction, I think there are a number of things I think we 

would like to direct them to come back to us in terms of 

additional information. 

81

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: What 

I've heard and think -- and you know, Richard has talked 

about that. I mean, what we've done in the proposal today 

is we have looked at engines get ULE TRU in the 2003 and 

before, and we said looking at all the data we have on 

those, we're recommending that you do extend the second 

step on that by a year, but we are doing that. 

We're not recommending that you do that to 

engines that have not achieved LE TRU. We are willing to 

go back in as we gather additional data and look at those 

engines that come in as LE TRU now and see if as more data 

becomes available that there is a possibility of extending 

that on the back end. And some of the things that you've 

asked us to look at are the emission inventory related to 

four mode and all that. We are committed to gathering 

more data on that, additional risk analysis as far as 

looking at what the emissions locations of the risk are 

associated with that. I think additional information with 

looking at what -- over the next year or so what is 

happening on VDECS availability and operation. 

And all of those play into the coming back to you 

on -- you know, it's going to take some time, but coming 

back and saying okay, here's what we think is going to be 

happening seven years from now. But it's much easier to 

deal with what's the population out there once we've got 

82

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
some emission reductions, the 50 percent reduction. Then 

doing a two-year delay right now where we're delaying 

engines that are not getting a 50 percent reduction and 

having them operate for two additional years on the front 

end. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I didn't hear you 

suggesting that we delay at the front end. 

BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: No. Just comparing. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Sorry. It seemed like a 

hypothetical. Good. I'm sorry. 

With had Mrs. Riordan. 

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I have a quick question. 

I'd like to go the retrofits and their performance, 

because I think staff knows that I'm very supportive of 

your recommendations, but I also know that there are 

issues on performance retrofits. And I want to be sure 

that there is adequate flexibility in allowing for our 

Executive Officer to work some of the issues. 

Mr. Goldstene, do you feel that you have that 

flexibility if we encounter some problems there with our 

retrofits and the performance of the installed retrofits? 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: I do. I think 

that's part of what's being incorporated here. 

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Good. Because I think I'm 

very hopeful that you can intervene if we do -- if a 

83

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
problem does arise. 

And then secondly, in that effort, to say this to 

those who are representing the trucking industry before 

us, who would they contact? Let's say they are having 

problems, significant problems, that seem to follow a 

pattern. Who should they contact in that regard? 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Me. Send a letter 

to me and I can give it to Rich Boyd. 

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Goldstene is the man 

in the kitchen that takes the heat. All right. Good. I 

appreciate that. And I think the message ought to get out 

for that. Okay. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, and in fact, I think 

there is evidence that that has occurred when we have 

detected problems, not in this sector, but in others with 

the retrofit devices that were not performing according 

the certification standards, we've been able to yank the 

certification and make -- 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 

We've been very proactive in that area. If we want to 

talk about it a little bit more, we could. 

We've specifically assigned a staff engineer to 

work through these issues. We've been out to the sites. 

We've held technology forums. We've, in all our workshops 

and all that, say if you have a problem, call us because 

84

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
we're willing to go out and see what's happening. And 

we've worked very closely. 

Some of the issues, there clearly have been some 

issues with these things. Some of the fixes that we're 

particularly seeing on the newer units, the upgrade for 

the alternators to address some of the electricity issues, 

the Kevlar belts to address tension issues, the 

replacement of the emission control units because moisture 

was getting into those. We've worked very closely with 

both the people that are using these units and the system 

manufacturers to make this as seamless as possible. 

What we would like to do now is expand that 

effort even more as we move into this next phase of Level 

3 with having weekly meetings with the -- weekly calls 

with the retrofit system manufacturers and things like 

that and periodic meetings with the industry group to see 

that we're on top of this whole thing. 

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Good. Thanks. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I'd like to bring this 

conversation to some sort of a formal resolution, if we 

could, with a motion to -- are we able to do that at this 

point? 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: I do have one still issue. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: And that is I think it's 

85

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
important to understand that everything up to 2003 we're 

not looking at changing at all and we do have a compliance 

issue there. And we need to bring those into compliance. 

And so I'm trusting that staff and enforcement has a plan 

to do that, not only because we need the emissions, but 

also it keeps a level playing field. And that some of the 

recommendations today will also help that. 

We really have a problem with the 2004 and the 

2005 engines, because in 2006, those engines will be able 

to purchase a brand-new Tier 4 and they will be in 

compliance forever. Correct? 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 

That's correct. They will be able to purchase it. But 

they will not be able to repower their existing unit. 

When they purchase it at that point in time, it's not just 

an engine. It's also going to have to be the compressor 

and the refrigeration unit which changes the cost picture 

significantly. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So just clarify this. 

You're talking about a 2006 engine in 2000 -- 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: 13. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: 13. All right. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: But they'll have that as an 

option.

86

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF COREY: That's 

correct. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: They'll be able to take the 

compliance down to one step, if they choose. At that 

point, they can continue to repower. Hopefully, they'll 

be even more retrofits that is also an option. And they 

can go and change out the full unit and be done. But 

three. 

So really, we're looking at the 2004 and even 

2005 will have more options. So today, if we didn't 

change the rule at all, would the manufacturers be in 

compliance by putting in a 4I engine?

STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF COREY: Yes, 

they would. 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: They 

would re-set the clock for seven years.

STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF COREY: Seven 

year, and we talked about evaluating the extension of the 

back end. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: So we didn't need to do an 

amendment in order for them to put in the 4I engine? 

STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF COREY: Correct. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. I'm concerned that we 

have 60 days to get into compliance, but what you're 

saying to me is they could have had that compliance option 

87

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
all along. 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 

That's correct. And it's clear based on our discussions 

with stakeholders they are waiting to see what you all do. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: Well, I don't blame them. I 

can understand that from a business perspective.

STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF COREY: I did 

want to add one point to that by including making 

reference to the provision for the Executive Officer. So 

there are case-specific examples, situations. Piece of 

equipment wasn't available, delay in order. Executive 

Officer has the flexibility to take that into account 

through a period of time of 2012 in terms of their 

compliance. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: How many engines do we 

estimate are in the 2004 range?

PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: About 

4,000 engines. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: So you have time, Mr. 

Goldstene, to address the better part of 4,000 engines in 

the next of 60 days? 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Bob and Rich do, 

yes. 

(Laugher) 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: I think we'll be calling me 

88

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
if you don't. 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: I think they will. 

I think we're ready for that. If there is any issue, we 

have some flexibility also on the other end. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: I'm ready. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Does that satisfy you? 

Great. Those are very good points. 

I guess this also helps to me what the universe 

of things is that we're talking about. 

But I'm still focused on this issue of the attack 

on the emissions inventory and on the risk factors that 

we're dealing with, although even at half those levels 

we're still talking about some facilities which are way in 

excess of anything that we would consider to be acceptable 

in terms of excess cancer risks. So I'm not worried about 

it to the extent that I think we're focusing on the wrong 

thing here. 

But I think there is an issue about whether we're 

using the best data or not when we develop our rules. So 

which are the engines that are subject to this four versus 

eight question? 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: All 

of them. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Going back forever? I 

mean, starting -- 

89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
PROCESS EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER BOYD: '99. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So we would have to do some 

pretty substantial review of data then going back? 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Yes, 

we would. And we have, you know, prepared internally. We 

do not have that information in our database. We've 

prepared both working with PTSD and SSD and sent a request 

down to MSOD to identify the engine families and the type 

of information. 

The other thing that we really need here is 

deterioration data. That's what's been lacking. That's 

what we've had a difficult time to get. That's going to 

be a very detailed and time-consuming analysis. And the 

first step of it relies on engine manufacturers going back 

in and pulling that data and getting it to is us, which is 

going to be a time-consuming effort. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: This is proprietary 

information? 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: All 

those kinds of things. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: But you're willing and 

already embarked on an effort to do that. 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Yes, 

we have. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: What's your estimate of how 

90

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
long this is going to take? 

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 

Well, I think it's going to take us at least three months 

to get the data and look through the additional work and 

then the internal analysis. And obviously, you know, with 

this thing, we would have to have some type of technical 

meetings and all that. So I would not envision that we 

would be able to do something before late 2012. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Would that fit with the 

rest of the Board's need here to re-look at this issue? 

BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Along with the other issue 

on the -- 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Back end. 

BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Consideration on the back 

end. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: On the back end compliance. 

All right then. So we have a motion to approve the 

Resolution that's before us here? 

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I would so move, Madam 

Chair. 

BOARD MEMBER YEAGER: Second. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: Second.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: Madam Chair, ex parte. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: There is an attachment? 

91

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
BOARD MEMBER BERG: Ex parte. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Oh, ex parte. Sorry. I 

was not -- I definition have any. Okay. Go ahead. Let's 

start with you, then. 

BOARD MEMBER BERG: On October 4th, I had a call 

with Rypos with Tom Babineau and follow-up calls as well. 

On October 17th, I had a call with the California 

Trucking Associations and CPA. Also Harris Ranch, Foster 

Farms, and Central Valley Trailer Repair, also with some 

follow-up data. 

On October 19th, I had a phone call with NRDC and 

Coalition for Clean Air and also some follow-up 

information. 

Then I had a sidebar comment yesterday with 

Bonnie Holmes-Gen. All of the testimony is consistent. 

All my calls were consistent with their testimony today. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Ms. D'Adamo. 

BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I don't have it on my 

list, but I met with Tom Babineau with Rypos I believe in 

early October. I just don't have it on my list here. 

October 11th, a call with California Trucking 

Association. Actually, this was a meeting. CTA, Chris 

Shimoda, Pat Smith, Harris Ranch, Bryan Long, Foster 

Farms, Mike Shumake, Central Valley Trailer, and Dan 

92

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Miller with Save Mart. 

And then October 19th the same group in addition 

to staff, Richard Corey and others. And the discussions 

were consistent with the testimony today. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Any others? No. Okay. 

All right then. 

I think we're ready to call the question at this 

point. So we have a motion before us. We have a 

Resolution. There was an attachment to it, Attachment B 

apparently. Just the make sure you all have that as well. 

All in favor, please say aye. 

(Ayes) 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Opposed? 

All right. We've approved it. Thank you very 

much. And we'll be back to this before the end of next 

year. 

We need a break to shift in personnel. Let's 

give ourselves until 11:00. 

(Whereupon a recess was taken.) 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We're ready to resume the 

meeting with Agenda Item 11-8-5, the proposed 2011 

amendments to the California Phase 3 reformulated gasoline 

regulations. 

I understand that we have no witnesses who've 

signed up to testify on this item. But we will have a 

93

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25