Channel 19

Todd Dills

CARB’s ‘loan denial provision’ less appealing by the minute

| July 15, 2014

CARB lead featuredAfter the public meetings earlier this year that resulted in some narrow options for delaying compliance with the California Air Resources Board’s Truck & Bus Rule, some owner-operators were hopeful to take advantage of a provision that would have allowed compliance extensions for those who could prove they were denied financing to upgrade and/or retrofit their truck or trucks to comply. As it stands now, aside from some extensions already in placeclick here for what the regs are requiring by model year of the truck’s engine.  

The board, however, recently released draft language of changes to the proposed amendments. The one referred to above — dubbed now the “Economic hardship extension” — you’ll find on p. 45 of this linked document showing changes. Among the stipulations now included, any owner-operator or fleet owner looking to take advantage of it must demonstration that…


CARB approves some compliance alternatives, deadline delays for owner-ops, small fleets

CARB has voted to amend some of its emissions regulations deadlines, giving owner-operators and small fleets who financially were unable to comply with the rule ...

The fleet owner has made every attempt to bring as many other vehicles into compliance as possible, and has documentation of all of the following for the vehicle that cannot be brought into compliance: 

1. Written price quotes from an authorized [PM filter retrofit] installer for the purchase and installation of a PM filter retrofit; and
2. Written price quote from a vehicle dealer for a suitable replacement vehicle that has a 1996 or newer engines that meets PM BACT and has the same configuration and body type as the existing truck; and
3. A written estimate from a leasing entity for a 1 to 3 year vehicle lease for a replacement vehicle with the same configuration and body type as the existing vehicle. In the case of specialized vehicles that are not available for lease, the owner must provide an explanation of why leased vehicles are not available.

Click here to submit a comment to CARB.

And if that wasn’t tough enough, as Joe Rajkovacz points out over on the website of the California Construction Trucking Association, “CARB reserves the right to deny you access to this extension if – in their opinion — you can afford the lease arrangement.”

And it only gets more difficult from there. Read his account of all the ins and outs via this link. 

You have through Thursday this week, July 17, 5 p.m. Pacific, to comment on any of the proposed revisions to the amendments’ language. To submit comments via the web, use the page at this link.  

  • Pingback: CARBs loan denial provision less appealing by the minute - Truck Trends

  • Trucker Lee

    Why don’t all of us let the big companies have California? When food prices double, furniture becomes scarce, cigarettes and gasoline supplies run out, perhaps, then they will see the monster they have set loose. California doesn’t deserve the hard working truckers and all the taxes they pay.

  • Bob ramorino

    There will be plenty of compliant truckers to haul California freight. Ultimately (but not soon enough) freight rates will adjust to adequately compensate those who have shouldered the burden of meeting the regulations.

    Californians won’t run out of food or gas. Most likely the typical Californian won’t even know things have changed. And they will all live happily ever after.

  • steve p

    It is time to tell CARB to F off. Sick and tired of 1state trying to put me in Bankruptcy.

  • Chris Jonsen

    I am a 8 truck owner and have upgraded to 2014/2015 Freightliner Cascadias with 0 down and a $2500.00 per month payment on each. With the 450,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty and a fleet average of 7+ mpg, it’s the same as having all my trucks paid for.

  • martymarsh

    This just proves the corruption there is in government. These trucks were compliant when they were new, so until they are in the junk yard they should leave them alone. It’s about nothing more than keeping the money wheel turning.

  • Mike Smith

    Stop hauling CA. The new trucks r costing more to repair than it use to cost to rebuild the engines. Trucks r down for days, a week at a time. This is costing O/O a lot of money.

    Shops say to stay away from newer trucks they have way to many serious & complicated issues. It’s being said the codes & computers shops use r a failure, giving false codes, issues & reports, leading to replacement of critical parts like turbos,when not even needed.

    Owns of new trucks must raise rates in order to compensate for lost time, and expensive repairs.

  • brad

    I would love to have a brand new truck under warranty.I don’t know of any driver that doesn’t want one either.The fact of the matter is that I have a mortgage to pay for and enough insurance payments that I cant afford a new truck.Putting a dpf on my truck that will decrease mileage and increase maitenance costs doesn’t really make a lot of sense.I think this whole California crap is so stupid.In ten or fifteen years most of the trucks they are against will be in the bone yard anyway so what is the point of all this except money when the problem will work itself out in time when the newer technology comes to the used market where most can afford to purchase it and the bugs have been worked out.But in the mean time let the big carriers have California.

  • largecar

    the carrier I am leased to, has its trucks (all of the CARB compliant) down for ten (10) days out of thirty (30), due to either bad DPF/DEF equipment and/or waiting to get in the shop to repair this equipment.
    this is a fleet of 2600 trucks.

    think about it—

    if you increased productivity on those 10 days, let’s say at least 6 of the ten, we are looking at an increase in basic revenue of nearly $200 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR.

    please explain to me why the ENTIRE industry doesn’t tell California to go “F” themselves……

    NO, i don’t run a CARB complaint truck, NOR will I….

    I DON”T go to California anymore. GET IT?????

  • largecar

    keep thinking you’ve got a good deal—-

    the fleet I’m leased to has your same equipment, and the same warranty coverage.

    their trucks are down 10 days out of 30 due to emissions equipment (DPF/DEF) failure.

    that equals a minimum loss in productivity revenue of nearly $200 MILLION per year for 2600 trucks.

    they can probably get by on their margins—

    Can YOU??????

    Your warranty doesn’t cover DOWNTIME. if your little fleet can operate profitably on 2/3 of the available monthly/yearly HOS, you must be doing something very illegal, like hauling dope or illegals…. certainly not pulling freight in today’s competitive rate markets.

    as for your comment about “it’s the same as having all my trucks paid for”— I’d really like to see your books.

    I’m calling bullshit on this one. strives to maintain an open forum for reader opinions. Click here to read our comment policy.