Comment Log Display

December 8, 2009

Mary Nichols
Chair, Air Resources Board
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

	Re:	On-road Diesel Rules – Adjustments needed for economic
Impacts

Dear Chair Nichols:

The California Construction & Industrial Materials Association
respectfully requests that, given the unprecedented economic times
and reduced emissions resulting from a slowed economy, that the
Board consider measures to provide additional time and/or
compliance options for the On-road diesel rule. 

CalCIMA

The California Construction & Industrial Materials Association
(CalCIMA) is the trade association for aggregate, ready mixed
concrete, and industrial material producers in California.  We have
100 members representing over 500 production facilities in the
state.  Our members supply the materials to build California’s
roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, and water ways as well as
materials for water purification systems, energy efficient light
bulbs, and hybrid vehicle batteries.   

Our members’ fleets are primarily local use fleets.  For instance,
fleets that deliver concrete within a 15 mile radius (on average),
or lube, water, and related plant trucks that typically operate at
a production site, but have an on-road vehicle license.

Diesel Truck Rule

Our members have been supportive of the general effort of the Air
Resources Board’s diesel air toxic control measures (ATCM).  They
have striven to provide constructive comments throughout
development and implementation of the stationary, portable,
drayage, forklift, Off-road, and On-road rules.  We have worked
closely with and included ARB as speakers and participants in many
meetings.  Indeed, CalCIMA and its members are active in advisory
groups to help implement, monitor, and communicate information on
the On-road and Off-road diesel rules.  

In many ways, too, industry benefits from high standards and
public knowledge that trucks are cleaner and reduce emissions. 
Many of our member companies have implemented far reaching plans to
incorporate the latest technology and up-grade their fleets.  This
has been done despite up-front costs in advance of the rule-making
and increased fuel costs, since many new engines get 25-35% lower
mileage.
 

Economy
 
However, these are unprecedented economic times.  These are just a
few of the ways to measure the drop off in economic activity,
according to California Department of Finance economic indicator
reports comparing May 2005 to May 2009:

•	Housing construction is down 85%.
•	Commercial construction is down 74%.
•	Industrial construction is down 53%.  
•	All other construction is down 57%.  

The costs to comply with this rule are staggering.  Three
companies within CalCIMA’s membership that supply ready mixed
concrete—an essential material for infrastructure and
transportation projects—estimate costs of over $100 million each to
comply with this rule over the next 5 to 10 years.  Other ready
mixed concrete companies have estimated costs of $40 million. 
These are simply unachievable amounts in this economy. 

Predictions of economic recovery, as presented at last week’s
workshop, indicate it may be 8 – 10 years before we achieve a
normal trend again.  As a result, businesses have little capital to
invest in purchases or obtain credit.  There is simply not the
money available now to make retrofits and equipment purchases.  

The impact of the rule has been much greater than expected also
because there has not been the financial assistance programs
available—whether Carl Moyer or Proposition 1B—as was envisioned
when this rule passed in Dec. 2008.  

Emission Impacts

We have reviewed last week’s presentation on the emission impacts
from a slow economy.  These show there are emission reduction
benefits over the next two years.  But, they may well understate
the emission reductions, since they do not take into account that
idle vehicles are generally the older vehicles, while the ones that
continue to operate are newer models.

Options to Consider

While the Board did adopt a few provisions last year to assist
with compliance, such as early credits for retirement and an extra
year for fleets with 3 vehicles or less, additional adjustments are
needed given the extent of the economic downturn.  We respectfully
request that the ARB give additional consideration to adjustments
that will facilitate compliance with this expensive rule.  Here are
a few ideas:

•	Without scaling back on the ultimate 2023 compliance goal,
provide a less aggressive set of compliance dates within the
time-period from 2010 to 2023.  This could provide more compliance
options in the early years of the rule, when the economy is at its
slowest, yet still achieve the same overall emission reductions. 

•	Adjust the baseline from year 2008 to a more average year--such
as 2007 or 2006--, or use a 3-year average.  Any of these would
provide a more reasonable basis for an average year.
 

•	Create a separate compliance path for local-use vehicles with
shorter trips.  These are not the typical long-haul vehicles that
are the main target of the rule.  These local vehicles supply
materials locally to projects and manufacturers.  These local
fleets have longer use lives, the retrofit technology is less
available, the retrofit technologies are less efficient at slower
speeds and shorter distances, the vehicles are more complex, and
retrofits tend to pose more of a safety risk.

•	Prior to requiring a retrofit on a local-use vehicle, require
particulate filter manufacturers to demonstrate the effectiveness
of their products under actual, short haul conditions using actual
operator demonstration installations.  This could help reduce
unnecessary expenditures for products that don’t work.  

•	Allow the early retirement credit to apply to all three
compliance paths.

•	Adjust mileage and hour use requirements to more accurately
reflect low use vehicles in a slow economy. 

•	Allow drayage fleets to be included in the fleet averaging
compliance paths.

•	Institute Courtesy Inspections.   Last year, the Board adopted
courtesy inspections as part of the On-road diesel rule.  This was
thought to be a way to especially assist companies complying with
multiple Diesel ATCMs.  Yet, despite this being one of the primary
actions taken by the Board last year, it has not been instituted.

These are just a few ideas to be considered, and we would
certainly be interested in others that may be posed by the Board.

Sincerely, 



Charles L. R ea
Director of Communications & Policy