Comment Log Display

December 2, 2021 
California Air Resources Board 
1001 I Street 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
RE: PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE 
 PROGRAM 
 Submitted Electronically -
https://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bclist.php 
Dear Chair Randolph and Members of the Board: 
The Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition is composed of the
membership of 
the major construction organizations in California including the
Associated General 
Contractors, Building Industry Association of Southern California,
Engineering 
Contractors Association, Southern California Contractors
Association, San DiegoAssociated General Contractors, United
Contractors, and the Western States Trucking 
Association. Collectively these Associations represent 20,000
contractors employing 
over 400,000 construction workers. 
Our industry has over 100,000 trucks affected by this proposed
regulation. 
THE PROGRAM IS TOO COSTLY. 
The construction industry had serious reservations about SB210
while it was being 
considered by the legislature because it proposed a costly new
requirement on fleets 
without an apparent need and with little concern given to the cost
of compliance for 
fleet owners. Those concerns continue today. The $30/vehicle
initial fee for the 
compliance certificates proposed in the legislation does not
include the cost of 
employee training and the testing, recordkeeping, and reporting
required by this 
regulation. In fact, there is no limit on the cost to the fleet or
truck owner. Fleets will 
be required to purchase a dongle to extract data and subscribe to a
service to be able 
to access telematics. Because there appears not to be a universal
dongle, more than 
one will be required for each manufacturer. The real reporting cost
per truck could be 
several hundred dollars. 
For those fleets that would choose to use the state testing
stations, there is no limit 
established on the cost of those tests. Nor are there testing
stations established to 
provide the service. Such a testing scheme would require both the
truck and an 
operator to be out of service for the testing period adding further
to the cost of 
compliance. For those fleets that may use their in-house
technicians, the company 
will need to buy the annual software from each vehicle OEM in order
to access the 
vehicle ECM. In talking with current PSIP testers, the cost for
each OEM's annual 
subscription runs from $2,000 to $4,000 per computer, so a site
with multiple 
technicians will be quite costly. For companies with multiple sites
with multiple technicians spread out throughout 
California, each site that does the testing in-house will be
subject to software subscriptions. For a company that 
runs 8 different OEM type vehicles, the costs per site are enormous
and outrageous compared to the current smoke 
test program. 
In reviewing the cost data, we were shocked that the initial
reporting was estimated at 5 minutes per vehicle. What 
was not accounted for was the time spent physically gathering the
data. CARB states time would be saved by data 
from DMV, but that is not feasible when the operator is leasing or
renting the vehicle. CARB assumes a cost 
savings for large fleets doing testing in-house, but as already
pointed out, the software alone makes that option cost 
prohibitive. This was not disclosed in any of the pilot programs.
Finally, we found it odd that CARB equated a cost 
savings to PSIP sunsetting. Given the excessive costs associated
with this proposed regulation, there would be no 
cost savings. 
TWICE-A-YEAR TESTING IS EXCESSIVE 
We also believe that two tests a year is excessive and adds
unnecessarily to the cost of compliance when CARB's 
own data demonstrate that the vast majority of trucks are in
compliance with the existing standards. Vehicles 
running with the MIL light on will derate and finally shut down
within a short period, so what is the real reason 
behind requiring more tests than the annual smoke test? Is CARB
looking for manufacturers' data at the expense of 
the end user? Owners must repair the vehicle engine issues as soon
as possible in order to continue running their 
business. 
THE PILOT PROGRAM WAS INSUFFICIENT 
Rather than pilot their proposed program, CARB tested devices and
experimental technologies. They did not test 
the effort needed to meet the requirements of the regulation. Nor
did they thoroughly examine the time and cost 
required to acquire and report the data utilizing the methods
required by the regulation. Nor does it appear that the 
pilot program was ever submitted to the legislature for their
review as required. 
CARB HAS IGNORED IMPORTANT REQUIREMENTS OF SB 210 
SB 210 proposed a "streamlined process" for reporting. The proposed
reporting process is not streamlined and 
envisions the cooperation of two state agencies (CARB and DMV) in
the registration process. CARB is also 
proposing a requirement that the subject vehicles be tested based
upon the DMV registration period instead of on 
the calendar year basis in effect since 2010 when AB1922 amended
Health and Safety Code section 43701 allowing 
the testing period to be on a calendar year for smoke tests for
ease of fleet management. Prior to that was a rolling 
365 days and that was a nightmare in managing to stay in
compliance. The OBD is related to PSIP (in fact still 
requires smoke tests for 2013 and older vehicles), so without
legislation changing the Health and Safety Code, it is 
unclear how CARB can now deviate requiring testing in anything
other than a calendar year. For the rental 
industry, let alone any owned vehicles in large fleets, having
different 90-day windows for every vehicle will be a 
nightmare to track and will ultimately lead to a high probability
of inadvertent missed testing date windows. SB 210 
envisioned "minimized costs". Given the time required to drive to
and from a Kiosk, or schedule a mobile service 
twice a year, there is no way the cost per truck will not greatly
exceed the low costs outlined in the legislation, let 
alone the costs compared to the current PSIP program that run
between $75 to $150 per vehicle. 
LARGE FLEET REPORTING MAINTENANCE POSES A RISK TO ENFORCEMENT 
Reporting for large fleets with multiple sites will be difficult to
manage reporting purchases and sales within a 30-
day window, especially with fleet purchases that are managed
separately at each location. We are concerned with 
the high potential of fleets inadvertently missing the 30-day
window, only to be handed a notice of violation and a 
fine. We ask to Governing Board to consider warnings instead of
violations for this administrative error. 
LEVEL PLAYING FIELD? 
We are quite concerned with how the program will be enforced for
companies that lease their vehicles through out 
of state leasing companies where those vehicles are not registered
in California. Given the number of out of state 
vehicles (and California registered vehicles) still running
noncompliant under the truck and bus regulation, we do 
not see how this regulation can be properly enforced to ensure
those operating in the state legally will be on a level 
playing field as required by SB210. Noncompliant vehicles are not
being stopped by CHP at the borders. 
CONSTRUCTION RENTAL COMPANY ISSUES 
We are concerned with how a rental company will be able to manage
the vehicles that are out on rent for a period 
extending into a single to multiple testing windows. The rental
companies typically have no idea where the vehicles 
are being used so testing would not be possible by the rental
company. Additionally, when the vehicle is out on rent 
a rental company has no idea if or when a MIL light might come on
unless the renter contacts the rental company. 
Any delay in contact between the renter and the rental company
could delay timely repairs and inappropriately 
subject the rental company to potential enforcement. There must be
a provision in the HD I/M that allows for an 
exception to the test interval if the vehicle is out on rent across
a test window. We suggest the rental company 
vehicles be subject to the testing a single time during a calendar
year (again the annual interval should remain a 
calendar year versus a DMV registration year due to the conflict
with the Health and Safety Code). 
REQUIRING ENFORCEMENT BY PRIVATE COMPANIES 
The regulation requires freight contractors and brokers, which
includes "any person," verify that vehicles owned by 
third parties comply with regulation and maintain records to that
effect. This requirement is pointless for trucks 
registered in California because such trucks cannot be registered
if they do not comply with the HDVIM program. 
Such a requirement should only apply to trucks not registered by
DMV in California. Limiting the application to 
trucks registered out of state not only makes rational sense, but
it also provides a small benefit to California 
registered truck owners. 
We would encourage your Board to return this proposed rule to the
staff and direct that they address these serious 
weaknesses in the framework. We are ready to collaborate with the
staff to craft a rule that is fair to California 
fleets and achieves the goals of reducing air pollution while
keeping our economy on a successful path to recovery. 
Sincerely, 
Michael Lewis, Senior Vice President 
Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition 
951-206-4420