Comment Log Display

12-7-09
To all CARB board members and staff,

I want to take this opportunity to comment on the on-road workshop
that took place 12-3-09. First of all I want to approach this from
a neutral perspective. We have a mid-sized fleet (150 trucks) that
is also experiencing severe economic hardships but we aren’t one of
the companies that will be forced to go out of business because of
this rule. And we aren’t a large high mile fleet either that won’t
see any negative effect of this rule. We are somewhat in the middle
and therefore we can proceed with our overall opinion without
simply focusing on our own situation. 

I saw the report that your staff is going to present to you on
12-9-09, and I wanted to add my perspective on what I saw in
regards to their report, as well as address the public comments
that I heard. 

It is quite apparent that this truck rule is going to have a huge
negative impact on the small business owners that operate
relatively low miles. These fleets are going to bear the brunt of
the burden because they can’t qualify for assistance nor can they
secure the balance of the loans needed to retrofit or replace
trucks. I believe your plan is greatly flawed if you think it is
fair for this sector of the industry to suffer such great loss due
to your truck rule. As the numerous truck owners spoke on 12-3-09
about being forced out of business because of this rule the staff
simply did not have a response for them. How can the CARB
consciously sit there and listen to these folks being put out of
business and not have a response to their concerns? This just isn’t
right and should not be ignored. 
One of the staff members admitted that they simply do NOT have
statistics on how this rule is going to effect different sectors of
this industry. How can CARB not have the stats on different sectors
of the industry and come up with one state-wide rule that would be
fair to each sector equally? The fact is high mile fleets won’t be
affected, yet low mile fleets will be put out of business. And your
staff just sits there and does not have a response. They just seem
to look at each other and wait for someone to say something.
 I think the staff has left out a crucial factor in their
calculations. These facts simply have not been collected and
therefore your staff has failed to provide you with a workable
plan. And because your staff has failed you, as board members, you
don’t have all the data needed in order to take into consideration
the entire negative impact this rule is going to have on the
economy. And as board members you are held accountable to live up
to your own mission statement which requires you to “…recognize and
consider the negative effects this rule is going to have on the
economy”. 

There was another flaw that was brought to light that your staff
simply does not have an answer for. Many truck owners stated the
problems they were having with these diesel particulate filters
(DPF’s). On the local/low-mile trucks, these filters are plugging
up and causing damage to engines or simply disabling the trucks
from running. These engines simply don’t get hot enough to burn the
soot that is being trapped in the mufflers. The technology just
isn’t there. When these very real problems were brought to staffs
attention they just didn’t have an answer for it. Again I just
don’t understand how your staff can simply ignore this and say, “Oh
well, sure hate it for you”. Again, your staff has failed to come
up with a plan that will work!

Another flaw. Your staff seems to want to justify this rule based
on “projected” economic recovery. I don’t feel it is right at all
to follow this plan. Look around, it’s no joke that we are in a
recession. Don’t go through with a rule based on how you “think”
the economy is going to recover. When it is “proven” that the
economy can support such a huge expense to proceed with another
plan then let’s talk about how we can do it and then find a plan
that will work. The current plan is non-workable even in a good
economy. But this non-working plan implemented in a recession is
simply a disaster. Again, your staff has failed to provide you with
a viable plan.

In regards to the Federal Air Quality Attainment Standard and this
so-called SIP target. Listen, we understand that the board has been
given the task to meet these standards. But I believe these goals
were set prior to the economic recession. There is nobody in their
right mind that can disregard this economy and justify moving
forward with this truck rule. Everyone is trying to tell you that
but it seems to be falling on deaf ears. And when your staff was
backed into a corner and asked to respond to this issue their reply
was simply to say “If CARB does not meet this goal then the Feds
may require a new plan”. Hey, guess what? CARB needs a new plan
because this one is not a workable plan. 

Another point that needs to be highlighted is the fact that
trucking appears to have declined substantially in the last two
years. Some claim an average of 50% statewide. In fact your staff
showed a huge reduction in statewide diesel usage over the last two
years. What is perplexing is that your staffs report doesn’t show
such a huge reduction in PM2. Now doesn’t that tell you something?
Doesn’t that suggest that perhaps the truck rule isn’t going to
clean the air as much as someone anticipated? These are real
numbers. This isn’t just speculation here. Staff has
over-exaggerated the benefits of this truck rule. Their own report
proves it!

And last but not least. Your staff has admittedly failed to
calculate the high health cost of unemployment. I think this is
also a critical factor that has been left out of the calculation.
The reason this is so important is because you are going to hear
another barrage of speakers on 12-9-09 pushing for this truck rule
to pass because of all the people dying due to diesel exhaust.
First of all it is becoming clearer that these numbers are now in
question. It is also becoming clearer that the truck rule isn’t
going to make as much of a difference as it was expected to make.
But there is going to be a big argument given to you about the high
cost of people with lung disease, etc…  Ok, yes that’s important to
consider. But don’t you think your staff should have numbers to
provide you with that show you the high health cost of so many
people losing their jobs? You are going to find out that your staff
simply doesn’t have the numbers. Again, they have failed to provide
you with a huge piece of the puzzle. If they had done their job
then you could have a knowledgeable argument stating the high
health cost of unemployment. You simply are not prepared for the
argument because your staff did not gather the numbers. Being
unprepared does not give the board the right to ignore this issue.




And just so the proponents of this truck rule don’t think that the
trucking industry has escaped regulation all these years, please
remind them that because of efforts by CARB the trucking industry
has already answered back with many areas of improvements to help
clean the air. Examples of these improvements are found in: 

1. Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR)
2. Common-Rail Fuel Injection.
3. Combustion Chamber Design.
4. Turbocharging modifications.
5. Retarded fuel injection timing.
6. Electronic Engine Controls.
7. Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel. (Sulfur content dropped from 300 parts
per million (ppm) to 15 ppm. (99% reduction)
8. Annual Smoke Opacity testing. (Even for older trucks)
9. Vehicle Idling Reduction Strategies. (Even for older trucks)
10. Diesel Particulate Filters on all 2007 engines and newer.
(Results in particulate matter reductions of 80-90%)

And continued research in:
11. Diesel Oxidation Catalysts.
12. Selective Catalytic Reduction. (SCR) (Reduces NOx by 70%)
13. NOx Reduction Catalyst. (Reduces NOx by 25% and PM by 85%)
14. NOx Absorber Catalyst Technology. (Reduces NOx, HC, and CO by
90%)
15. Crankcase Emission Control. (Reduces PM emissions by 25-32%
and CO by 14-18%) 
16. Water-in-Diesel Fuel Emulsion. (PuriNOx) (Reduces NOx up to
30% and PM up to 65%)
17. Catalysts included in diesel fuel. (Will reduce NOx up to 10%,
PM up to 33%, and HC and CO up to 50% during the combustion
process)
Etc…
Sources: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association
               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


What I’m trying to do here is save hours and hours of the same old
arguments. We are all tired of hearing it. 

I bring to your attention your very own mission statement:

CARB’s mission is to promote and protect public health, welfare,
and ecological resources through effective reduction of air
pollutants while recognizing and considering effects on the
economy.

We believe you have done a great job so far as I outlined in
detail above which reflects the first part of your mission
statement. We feel it would be irresponsible at this time to move
forward with any truck (on-road and off-road) rule during this
recession. We believe moving forward would be in direct
contradiction to the second half of your mission statement.

When the economy can support such a rule, please make sure you
have obtained studies from qualified researchers with appropriate
credentials so that there won’t be any question of the integrity of
the CARB. And inform your entire board and staff of every detail
along the way. In addition please make sure your staff will get you
all the data you need well in advance of any decision of the board.
And post these findings publicly with ample time for input from
everyone involved. 

Thank you,

Dan Ruoff
Frank C. Alegre Trucking, Inc.
Lodi, Ca.