ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A pending California “magnet” bill that would allow regions to set their own diesel emission benchmarks should be rejected by Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, says the U.S.’s largest carrier group.

American Trucking Associations President and CEO Bill Graves described the legislation as “unwise.” Permitting local air districts to control diesel emissions would dilute the authority of state and federal regulatory agencies over diesel-powered equipment operated at ports, rail yards and airports, he says.

Copies of letters opposing the bill were sent to several state senators and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

A pending California bill could require shipping ports and rail
yards to inventory and control emissions at their sites

Trucks, trains, and ships transport the bulk of goods that move throughout California to major transport facilities where the concentration of diesel-fueled vehicles is perceived to attract particulate matter emissions. The bill would require ports, rail yards and airports to inventory and control emissions at their sites, subject to differing requirements by varied agencies.

According to Graves, the bill would require facilities vital to the state’s economy to take responsibility for emissions issues over which they have no legal authority or control. It also would make it difficult, “if not impossible,” to determine responsible parties and enforce the requirements imposed under the bill, he said.

“ATA believes that state and federal governments should continue to be the main regulatory agencies to help maintain consistency over mobile sources that facilitate interstate commerce and business throughout California,” Graves said. “By providing regulatory authority to local air districts to control mobile diesel sources, a diverse set of local, facility-specific requirements will result, creating a patchwork of widely-varied regulations.”

The ATA boss reminded the committee chairs that the requirements would be costly to local facilities in terms of planning, implementation, oversight, and enforcement, and could vary from facility to facility. This would limit the flexibility of companies serving these facilities. Numerous programs and requirements already are in place to accomplish the objectives of the bill and significantly reduce any purported health risks over the next few years.

“Proactive steps currently being taken will provide significant reductions in diesel emissions,” Graves said, noting the bill would overlap with ongoing regulations “bringing confusion and additional bureaucracy to the process.”

The State Assembly passed the measure in January 2006, and it has been assigned to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing and the Environmental Quality Committee.