BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






           SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE       BILL NO: AB 344
          SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN              AUTHOR:  Mendoza
                                                         VERSION: 
          8/24/2012
          Analysis by:  Eric Thronson                    FISCAL:  yes
          Hearing date:  August 30, 2012



          SUBJECT:

          Vehicular emission regulation exemptions

          DESCRIPTION:

          This bill provides exemptions for certain vehicles from the 
          California Air Resource Board's (ARB) In-Use On-Road Heavy-Duty 
          Diesel Vehicles Regulation.  

          ANALYSIS:

          Existing law requires ARB to adopt standards and regulations on 
          all classes of motor vehicles that will result in, among other 
          things, reductions in motor vehicle exhaust and evaporative 
          emissions.  In 2008, ARB adopted the In-Use On-Road Heavy-Duty 
          Diesel Vehicles Regulation, which includes requirements for 
          diesel-fueled school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating 
          (GVWR) over 14,000 pounds.  Among other things, this regulation 
          generally requires owners to retire schoolbuses manufactured 
          before April 1, 1977, and then to install particulate filters 
          on: 

                 33% of their remaining fleet by January 1, 2012; 
                 66% of their fleet by January 1, 2013; and 
                 The entire fleet by January 1, 2014.

          ARB's diesel vehicle regulation defines a "low-use vehicle" as a 
          vehicle that will be operated fewer than 1,000 miles in 
          California per year.  In addition, the regulation defines a 
          "yard truck" as a vehicle, with an on-road or off-road engine 
          and a hydraulically elevated fifth wheel, that is used in moving 
          and spotting trailers and containers at locations such as ports, 
          heavy-manufacturers, and rail yards.  

           This bill  requires ARB  instead to define, for tax-exempt 
          nonprofit organizations, a "low-use vehicle" as a vehicle 




          AB 344 (MENDOZA)                                       Page 2

                                                                       


          operated fewer than 5,000 miles in the state in a given year.  

          Further, the bill defines an "affected vehicle" related to 
          low-use vehicles as a yard truck with an on-road engine, a yard 
          truck with an off-road engine used for agricultural operations, 
          a two-engine sweeper, or a school bus with the following 
          characteristics:

                 Operates on diesel fuel, dual fuel, or alternative 
               diesel fuel; 
                 Was originally designed to be driven on public highways 
               whether or not registered; and
                 Has a manufacturer's GVWR greater than 14,000 pounds.
          


          COMMENTS:

           1.Purpose  .  According to the author, this bill is necessary 
            because many non-profits cannot afford to comply with ARB's 
            diesel regulation.  The author states that ARB exempts 
            vehicles that travel fewer than 1,000 miles per year, while 
            the federal government provides grants for organizations to 
            comply with the regulation if the vehicle travels more than 
            10,000 miles annually.  Many of these organizations, which 
            pick up needy children in poor neighborhoods and drive them to 
            and from related service activities and programs, use buses 
            that travel between 3,000 and 5,000 miles per year.  The 
            author claims that therefore these non-profits are forced to 
            either spend significant sums to comply with the diesel 
            regulation or cease to operate their buses and severely impact 
            their programs.  Increasing the annual mileage a bus can 
            travel and be exempt from the diesel regulation will allow 
            these non-profit organizations to continue to operate their 
            buses.

           2.The flip side of the fairness issue  .  The author points out 
            that it is unfair for these non-profit organizations to spend 
            precious resources to comply with state emission regulations.  
            On the other hand, it may not be fair to require buses 
            carrying children with more advantages to be clean while 
            allowing underprivileged populations taking advantage of these 
            non-profits' services to be exposed to dirtier emissions shown 
            to lead to significant health risks.  This bill seems to 
            suggest that buses carrying needy children in poor 
            neighborhoods should not be held to the same health standards 




          AB 344 (MENDOZA)                                       Page 3

                                                                       


            that buses in more affluent neighborhoods are required to 
            meet.

           3.Bill applies beyond schoolbuses and ARB's diesel regulation  .  
            Despite the author's contention that this bill is meant to 
            expand the exemption for relatively low-mileage buses, the 
            provisions of the bill include vehicles outside of buses in 
            the expanded exemption. Beyond school buses, this bill defines 
            vehicles affected by this broader exemption to include yard 
            trucks and street sweepers.  While there may be some 
            reasonable argument to broadening the exemption for 
            non-profits using buses to provide services to needy children, 
            it is unclear what other entities could take advantage of the 
            exemption created by this bill, and why the Legislature should 
            unintentionally provide such relief to these unknown entities. 
             Further, according to ARB, this bill as written will affect 
            at least five different ARB regulations, not just the diesel 
            regulation.  Given that the scope of this bill appears to be 
            far outside the potential solution to the author's stated 
            problem, it may be wise to hold the bill and revisit the 
            problem next year.

           4.Background  .  This bill was gutted and amended on the Senate 
            Floor on August 24th to change authors from Assemblymember 
            Furutani to Assemblymember Mendoza and to include the current 
            provisions.  These amendments are nearly identical to AB 2024 
            (Mendoza), which passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 
            on April 16, 2012 with a 14 - 0 vote.  In May, AB 2024 was 
            held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.  Should the 
            bill pass this committee, it will be referred to the Senate 
            Appropriations Committee.
                
            5.Concurrence hearing  .  When this bill passed the Senate Public 
            Employment and Retirement Committee in June, it related to the 
            public employees' retirement law.  As mentioned previously, 
            the author deleted those provisions on the Senate Floor and 
            inserted the current version of the bill.  Because of these 
            amendments, the Senate Rules Committee referred this bill back 
            to this committee for a hearing under Senate Rule 29.10.  At 
            today's hearing, the committee may not amend the bill further 
            and may only, with a majority vote, (1) hold the bill; (2) 
            return the bill as approved by the committee to the Senate 
            Floor; or (3) refer the bill to the Committee on 
            Appropriations.

          Assembly Votes:                        N/A




          AB 344 (MENDOZA)                                       Page 4

                                                                       



          POSITIONS:  (Communicated to the committee before noon on 
          Wednesday,                                             August 
          29, 2012 )

               SUPPORT:  None received.
          
               OPPOSED:  None received.