Truck Owners, Drivers Air Emission Complaints

0

As state air regulators get set to vote next month on sweeping regulations to reduce diesel emissions from big-rig trucks, major fleet owners and truck operators are stepping up their campaign to postpone the deadlines, citing the recent financial crisis.

Late last month, the California Air Resources Board released its final version of the rules that it said would prevent 9,400 premature deaths. In-state and out-of-state owners of an estimated 900,000 trucks would be required to install diesel exhaust filters on their rigs starting in 2010 and replacing older diesel engines over a 10-year span from 2012 through 2022.

Agency staff estimated it would cost truck owners $5 billion to make the transition to cleaner-burning diesel engines, but also said that about $1 billion in state funds would be made available to help out truck owners who can’t afford conversion costs.

But that’s not enough for truck and fleet operators. They say the financial crisis has made it nearly impossible to get loans for diesel filters or for new big rigs, which typically start at $100,000. Even the grant monies that would come from the state require matching loans from truck owners.

“It used to be just our smaller member companies that had trouble getting loans to keep their trucks in compliance with environmental laws,” said Kristin Power, vice president of government relations for the California Grocers Association. “Now even the major chains looking for capital to upgrade their fleets can’t get the capital to do so.”

Power said her members are seeking two major changes to the regulation: extending the deadlines to give more time for the transition to new diesel engines and making more state funds available to assist with the conversions.

But getting more state funds to be set aside may be difficult given the looming budget deficit, estimated at more than $10 billion for the current fiscal year.

“That’s what makes it even more essential to stretch out the deadlines, so we can get over this rough time in our economy and give our truckers the ability to meet this regulation without being forced out of business,” said Julie Sauls, spokeswoman for the California Trucking Association.

Air Resources Board officials are sticking firm to the deadlines, calling the regulation essential to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency timelines to reduce diesel emissions. But they say there is some wriggle room on funding.

“Flexible funding options exist and the ARB is working to create more so that this regulation can be fully implemented at the lowest cost and we can all benefit from vastly improved air quality,” said board Chairman Mary Nichols in a statement announcing the final regulations.


No Slacking on Rest Periods

California employers appeared to get a break a few months back when a state appellate court ruled California law requires only that employers provide meal periods, but not force employees to take the break at particular times.

The ruling came in a case involving Brinker International Restaurants, operator of Chili’s, Romano’s Macaroni & Grill and other chains. Employees brought a class-action lawsuit alleging that Brinker violated the state’s meal and rest period law, saying the company frequently encouraged employees to skip the breaks.

“The decision clarified a point of much concern for employers: whether the requirement to provide a meal or rest break meant employers had to force the employees to take the break,” according to a California Chamber of Commerce statement at the time.

But not so fast. The decision has been appealed to the state Supreme Court and on Oct. 22, the court announced it would take up the case in its current term.

The state chamber urged employers not to jump the gun in easing up on enforcement of meal and rest periods.

“Make sure supervisors and managers consistently enforce the employer’s policies and procedures, in particular, as they relate to meal and rest breaks for nonexempt employees,” wrote the chamber in a memo to member companies.


Concrete Decision

A long-running dispute between a local concrete and asphalt recycling company and the city of Los Angeles took another turn recently when the Building and Safety Commission voted to reject the company’s appeal to obtain a permit to continue operating in Boyle Heights.

Shamrock Base Corp. has long been the target of unhappy neighbors seeking to shut it down. They claim that the company was operating without all the required permits in an area not zoned for heavy industrial use.

Most recently, L.A. City Councilman Jose Huizar, who represents the area, has taken up the fight, trying to shut down the facility. Opponents prevailed earlier this year before the city’s East Los Angeles Area Planning Commission and again at the Building and Safety Department, where staff refused to grant an operating permit. Shamrock appealed to the Building and Safety Commission and the panel ruled Oct. 22 against the company.

Reached by phone, Shamrock Base executive Bob Galvan declined to comment late last week, saying he needed more time to review the decision.


Staff reporter Howard Fine can be reached at [email protected] or at (323) 549-5225, ext. 227.

Previous article Tracinda to Boost Delta Petroleum Stake
Next article Herbalife Forecast Disappoints Wall Street
Howard Fine
Howard Fine is a 23-year veteran of the Los Angeles Business Journal. He covers stories pertaining to healthcare, biomedicine, energy, engineering, construction, and infrastructure. He has won several awards, including Best Body of Work for a single reporter from the Alliance of Area Business Publishers and Distinguished Journalist of the Year from the Society of Professional Journalists.

No posts to display