Comment Log Display

After listening to the ARB staff recommendations at the meeting in
San Diego on Friday May 25th, 2007, I have the following
comments.

1. In regards to the economic boom in the Construction Industry
that will help finance the increase in costs. The last six years
have been very tough on the contruction industry. In our industry,
work is obtained by "hard bidding", lowest bid gets the job. In the
last six years, we have experienced insurance costs that have
tripled, fuel costs that have doubled, escalating prices in steel,
lumber, cement, plastics, aggregate meterials and equipment. Low
inflations rates have avoioded our industry. These increases in
costs, can not be recovered after a contract is awarded. Many
contractors in California have gone out of business for this
reason in the last six years. The so called "boom", is an expected
(yet to materialized) increase in work in the infrastructure
sector, public work provided by Caltrans, which is only a small
sector of the total industry.

Additionally, the companies that will be mostly negatively
impacted by the regulation, are excavating and earth moving firms,
working mostly in the private sector (housing development), that
have high horse power equipment.
This insdustry happens too be in the worst slump of recent
years.So the expected boom in the public sector will not help
finance the capital expenditures required.

2. Examples of working emission reducing models elsewhere, should
be closely checked by the staff. One of the mentioned district
regulation penalizes tier 1 and tier 2 engines because they have
BACT. Tier 0 engines are allowed because there is no BACT
available to them. The purpose of the regulation should be to
decrease NOx and PM, using this district as a primary example is
wrong.

3. The regulation is unfair to California based business. Multi
state companies can simply move "dirty equipment" to other states
in order to comply. California based business can not opt for this
solution, thus creating an environment of unfair competition to
companies that operate solely in California.

4. Companies that own mostly tier 0 equipment, do so because they
do not have the capital required to update their fleet.
The proposed regulation will put them out of business, and even if
they are fortunate enough to come up with the required capital, the
added debt will create serious problems with their bonding
capacity. Potentially, the increase in risk will drive them out of
the market.

5. The calculations of the staff are questionable. Companies with
balaced fleets (equal numbers of tier 0, 1, 2 and 3 engines), do
not operate those equipment the same amount of hours. Newer, more
productive equipment, with large capital investemnt, need to work
more hours, older equipment is often used as back up equipment
(much like a second beater auto). In our company tier 2 and tier 3
equipment works on average 1,800 hours a year, tier 0 equipment on
average works 500 hours. Thus "dirty" equipment has less emission
than projectd by staff.

6. The implementation of administrative record keeping will be a
tremendous burden to business. Also, the implementation of
regulations and compliance will create "fertile grounds" for
unfair policing.

Thank you for your consideration.