Comment Log Display

Dec. 5, 2008

To Whom It May Concern:

In response to Mary Nichols video release regarding the Private
Fleet Rule.

Mary Nichols reminds us that it is the job of ARB to find a
solution to clean up the air. Does Mary Nichols, the board, the
governor, and the public, not realize the progress already made in
this effort? Substantial emission reductions have already been
realized and continue to improve as the result of existing
regulations mandated by ARB. Critical factors that have enabled the
industry to meet these standards are from implementation of:
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 Fuel. (ULSD) 
(Sulfur content dropped from 300 parts per million (ppm) to 15
ppm. 99% reduction)
8.	Annual Smoke Opacity testing.
9.	Vehicle Idling Reduction Strategies.
10.	Diesel Particulate Filters installed on 2007 model year
engines and newer. (DPF)
(Result in particulate matter reductions of 80 – 90%)
11.	Diesel Oxidation Catalysts. (DOC)
12.	Selective Catalytic Reduction. (SCR) 
(Reduces NOx by 70%)
13.	NOx Reduction Catalyst. (Longview system from Cleaire)
(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%)
Additional Technology Potential
1.	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.
2.	Water-in-diesel fuel emulsion (PuriNOx) reduces NOx up to 30%
and PM up to   
      65%.
                 Sources: DieselNet
                                Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Association
                                U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency


Mary Nichols says on December 11th and 12th that “Her board is
going to take action on this rule”. The language here sounds very
much like she has her mind made up. Even though this meeting is
being held to welcome public comment, it seems to be just another
example of swaying the public into believing that the ARB is
actually listening to the concerns and suggestions of the trucking
industry. 
Mary goes on to say that “The rule the board will vote on Dec.
12th reflects the idea’s we have heard from the trucking
community”, “And stays on target to reduce harmful diesel and smog
forming emissions”. I have a hard time with this statement. Again,
is she trying to sway the public into thinking she has taken us
into consideration? I have not spoken to nor have I heard from
anyone in the trucking community that feels that ARB is taking us
into consideration. And again there is no reference to emission
reduction efforts already obtained. This gives the message to the
general public that nothing has been achieved yet and won’t unless
this rule is passed. 

Mary stresses that “Because of this careful outreach work we think
we’ve struck a good balance”. The truth is that the balance was
already met years ago. We have gone well above and beyond what the
general public would reasonably expect from our industry. We have
suffered, endured, and addressed more than our fair share of
responsibility for the emissions that everybody produces. There is
no more balance left. Anything else required beyond what is already
being mandated is extremely insensitive to the needs and efforts of
the trucking industry. 

Mary says “We look forward to supporting truck owners as they
comply with these rules beginning in 2010”. Well, I think my point
is made. The ARB has no intention of hearing the trucking industry
on Dec. 11th and 12th. The ARB simply is not as concerned for the
trucking industry as they would lead the public to believe. 

Mary states that “To further help the trucking industry the
Governor, legislature, and voters together have approved 1 Billion
in grants and low-cost loans and will continue to look for ways to
make compliance with this rule as painless as possible”. 
The term “further help” implies that the ARB has been helping the
industry all along. The truth is, and the general public should be
informed of this, that we have had to pay for all these emissions
upgrades from the beginning. We have absorbed these costs all
along. 
And there is admission on her part by indicating that this is
going to be painful for the trucking industry to comply with. This
is one statement in which she is correct. The money that is being
distributed is not going to benefit the truckers who can’t afford
the balance of the truck payment. Many truckers are going to suffer
because this so-called “help” from the ARB is actually no help at
all. So again, the general public is led to believe that this money
is going to help. And even the truckers that can qualify for the
balance of the loan are not necessarily going to benefit from this
so-called “help”. There is a list of negative impacts that this
ruling is going to have on them that will erase any so-called help
money that they will receive. Just to name a few:
1.	Trade-in values are diminished.
2.	Anticipated truck life is shortened.
3.	Already budgeted operating costs can no longer be relied on. 
4.	Government restrictions on areas of operation. (No out of state
hauls)
5.	Government control over normal trade-in cycles. (government
micro-managing)
6.	Government selection of which new trucks can be purchased. 
7.	Government dictating how long we need to operate the new
trucks. 
Etc…………



Mary states that she “Knows this rule is going to cost money but
it also gives truck owners and drivers an opportunity to drive
newer, cleaner vehicles”. In just about every statement she makes,
she is careful to counter any words than might indicate this is
unfair. For example, she knows this is going to cost money but she
immediately counters that fact with something positive like we will
all get new trucks. Don’t you think we would all like to be driving
new trucks? She makes it sound like this rule is something all
truckers are anxious to adopt.  Just say it the way it is: We
aren’t all getting new trucks like she wants everyone to believe.
We aren’t all getting the assistance that she says will help us. We
aren’t being heard. Our comments will not be taken into
consideration. Quit trying to butter this up by suggesting that
there is an equal balance. There isn’t!

And Mary gets something else right. She realizes our economy is in
a slump. But again, immediately, she counters that by saying “She
believes our economy will be turned around by the time the industry
has to spend any money”.  Listen, her job, as she so well stated,
is to clean up the air. It is not in her scope to predict what the
economy is going to do. Nor does she have a crystal ball telling
her how many years it will take the trucking industry to recover
from this economic depression. She can’t say that in 2010, the
trucking industry will be fully recovered and ready to take on
these additional costs. But again, she wants to sway the public
into believing this.

And finally, Mary claims that this rule “is going to save 9,000
California lives over the next decade”. Marvelous! I’m sure the
public will give her their full support to do whatever it takes to
save all these lives. But, has she (or her board) (or the public)
read the letter submitted to public comment on the ARB web site on
April 2008 from James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H., University of
California, Los Angeles? In this letter Dr. Enstrom reveals
extensive research in direct contradiction to this claim of
pre-mature deaths. In addition, he makes comment that the ARB
completely disregards his research. This is in direct alignment to
our industries claim that the ARB simply doesn’t listen. How much
other information is being published or verbally spoken by Mary or
the ARB that simply isn’t accurate? This question needs to be
asked. 

Let’s face it, the ARB has an agenda and Mary Nichols conveyed it
clearly today. Her statement and pre-mature decision is intended to
please a particular group of people. She wants this group of people
to think that it’s them against the trucking industry. Just read
all the public comments from numerous organizations such as the
American Lung Association, the Friends of the Earth, the Nature
Conservancy, and especially from all the school children from
Oakland with Asthma. It’s all so heart felt. The problem is that
it’s not us against them. We are all in agreement to clean up the
air. The trucking industry is made up of citizens that also have
children, elderly parents, and other family members and friends
that suffer from the effects of emissions that have accumulated
over the years from all types of industry. We want to be heard. We
want the public to know how much we care and how much we have
already contributed to address this problem. This message needs to
be heard. We are all in this together.  We should be able to rely
on our appointed leaders to take into consideration all the facts,
un-biased, and come to a reasonable solution. And the solution is
already taking place without further mandates.

Let me remind the ARB of their own mission statement which reads:

... the 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.

Let me emphisis WHILE RECOGNIZING AND CONSIDERING EFFECTS ON THE
ECONOMY. 

The economy is not going to benefit from this. This money could be
better utilized elsewhere. Inform the public of the imporvements
your staff has already made over the years in the trucking
industry. They will appreciate your accomplishments, and understand
why we don't need to spend this kind of money any further in this
area.

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