Comment Log Display

 Let me start by saying that the truck rule is very aggressive and
should be reconsidered by taking smaller steps of cleaning up the
pre 1994 engines. the engines of 1994 and newer are mostly
electronic and burn very clean if takin care of. For the ignorant
comments from the public that think this rule is a good idea, you
will be the first people to complain of milk that cost over $10.00
a gallon. The trucking industry & farming industry does not make
the money the public thinks! It was proven that USC is the only
study to support the health problems caused by trucks, UCLA does
not support and infact commented that they seen no sign of diesel
PM present in the study( from 1985 to 1999). I run a diesel repair
shop and see everyday how clean we can get these trucks to run to
reduce PM levels, as for NoX technology has not came out yet for
this reduction so how can you reduce it. The state fund (carl
Moyer)  is running out of money, how can my customers afford it if
the state cant even afford it. The ARB says "pass it on" but thats
to me and you. I want to be apart of cleaning the air but at a
resonable cost so we can all survive the transition. My customers
which include companies from one truck to fifty trucks and only 10%
can afford this, that means you will kill the smaller companies.If
the state wants to make this work then set some hauling standards,
like rates companies have to follow like PUC of the past, but again
that drives up everyones cost. Cars are just as much to blame as
trucks specially because there is 10 times the cars on the road
then trucks. 30% of cars are pre 1995 but the arb denies this. Does
the ARB attack truck because they make money? Why not make a rule
for everything and everyone, how will that go over? Is this about
clean air of is this political ?