-
Thank you for visiting HeavyEquipmentForums.com! Our objective is to provide industry professionals a place to gather to exchange questions, answers and ideas. We welcome you to register using the "Register" icon at the top of the page. We'd appreciate any help you can offer in spreading the word of our new site. The more members that join, the bigger resource for all to enjoy. Thank you!
On and off highway californa arb info
- Thread starter Chaz Murray
- Start date
Bob Horrell
Charter Member
Chaz, thanks for the info. I had heard about the letter but hadn't seen it. These are two of the stupidest laws yet in California. Both of them will affect me. If they aren't stopped and come to pass, it will be the final nail in the coffin for our economy (if that nail isn't already there). The average citizen of California has no idea of the impact. Almost anyone I talk to that is not involved in the trucking or construction industry has no knowledge of these new laws. I am informing as many as I can.
Chaz Murray
Well-Known Member
If you or anyone else would like a better copy of this letter I can rescan it as a pdf tomorrow and e-mail it to you.
E-mail me at chaz@murraytrailer.com and ill send it to you
surfer-joe
Senior Member
I've sent comments to the California State Legislature and CARB since 1996 regarding California emissions regulations and paperwork, Chaz. But California politicians are tone-deaf and hell bent on creating a utopia where no one can be harmed by anything. The fact that no one will be able to afford to live there either apparently hasn't occurred to them.
CARB. They may arguably be some of the dumbest people on the planet and I have had a very low opinion of them and their regulations for a long, long time. They march to their own drummer like a ghost battalion of long dead Scot's guards, never turning, never listening, never paying any attention to outside information or – heaven forbid – some actual facts that are credible.
The Swartz would do the world a great favor if he were to somehow thank CARB directors, managers, and staff for a job well done, and then quickly dismiss the lot of them with no chance of another agency taking up their tasks.
I like the letter, and will forward a copy to my former rep in Bakersfield. Also some other friends in the shops and businesses I worked with over there.
CARB. They may arguably be some of the dumbest people on the planet and I have had a very low opinion of them and their regulations for a long, long time. They march to their own drummer like a ghost battalion of long dead Scot's guards, never turning, never listening, never paying any attention to outside information or – heaven forbid – some actual facts that are credible.
The Swartz would do the world a great favor if he were to somehow thank CARB directors, managers, and staff for a job well done, and then quickly dismiss the lot of them with no chance of another agency taking up their tasks.
I like the letter, and will forward a copy to my former rep in Bakersfield. Also some other friends in the shops and businesses I worked with over there.
Joe
I wholeheartedly agree with your take on CARB
They do not care one bit about any one but the greenies. It does not matter that the rules they write are not technically practical, not affordable, nor do they do anything more than accelerate the natural pace of improvements by only a couple of years over the next 15 to 20 year period. If they leave everything alone with the off road engines, They miss a federally mandated deadline of air quality by 1 to 2 years, IF their estimates on how much cleaner the retrofitted engines are.
I have my doubts, after going through 10 machines and having very poor reliability. I have numerous pictures of our repowered "clean" machines pouring out 10 times the smoke that the older ones were. They are difficult at best to maintain at the proper operating conditions. The new iron designed around all the regs SEEM to hold up much better.
I have spoken at board meetings, written letters, and attended seminars held with various industry groups, and the only thing that seems to catch the ear of these people is the welfare mother whose kids can't breath because she lives next to the port, railroad, and a few construction machines, as well as every type of heavy industry left in the state. Then they make it sound like she will get well if "we" just clean up our off road diesel engines.
These people do not care that even in the busiest boom on record, only aout 10% of companies could afford to comply withthe rules, or that the businesses we have worked our whole lives for will be ruined due to making our equipment obsolete overnight.
Sorry for the rant, but it is unAmerican to force the retrofit of legally made machines. Regulate the new at the factory level like has always been done, and the old will work its way out of the system in due time, without imposing hardship on those who struggled to build up a business, just to see it wiped out.
I wholeheartedly agree with your take on CARB
They do not care one bit about any one but the greenies. It does not matter that the rules they write are not technically practical, not affordable, nor do they do anything more than accelerate the natural pace of improvements by only a couple of years over the next 15 to 20 year period. If they leave everything alone with the off road engines, They miss a federally mandated deadline of air quality by 1 to 2 years, IF their estimates on how much cleaner the retrofitted engines are.
I have my doubts, after going through 10 machines and having very poor reliability. I have numerous pictures of our repowered "clean" machines pouring out 10 times the smoke that the older ones were. They are difficult at best to maintain at the proper operating conditions. The new iron designed around all the regs SEEM to hold up much better.
I have spoken at board meetings, written letters, and attended seminars held with various industry groups, and the only thing that seems to catch the ear of these people is the welfare mother whose kids can't breath because she lives next to the port, railroad, and a few construction machines, as well as every type of heavy industry left in the state. Then they make it sound like she will get well if "we" just clean up our off road diesel engines.
These people do not care that even in the busiest boom on record, only aout 10% of companies could afford to comply withthe rules, or that the businesses we have worked our whole lives for will be ruined due to making our equipment obsolete overnight.
Sorry for the rant, but it is unAmerican to force the retrofit of legally made machines. Regulate the new at the factory level like has always been done, and the old will work its way out of the system in due time, without imposing hardship on those who struggled to build up a business, just to see it wiped out.
surfer-joe
Senior Member
Well, you see, your last paragraph is what CARB now sees as the problem. They came up with the retro-fit programs after it became clear to them that farmers and construction types were not going to trade off a perfectly good 30 year old tractor for a new one just because it might pollute a little less or gain a little better economy. I still remember one CARB guy saying that "they just didn't know the stuff would last so long." They originally assumed, like the good little know-nothing environmentalists they were, that everyone got a new machine every two or three years, just like their parents and friends did with a car you know. That was the basis for their preliminary program of regulation.
Now that they realize that wouldn't work, they have managed, without much input from anyone other than themselves, and without much legal authorization or authority from the legislature, to augment much stricter and far more costly rules that are going to change the way California does future business if allowed to stand.
The way California's demographics are going, I don't see a lot of hope for the smaller contractors with older equipment. I know my former employer is going to take a big hit as his entire fleet of larger trucks and yellow iron is way old and will not comply. It may be one reason his company has expanded to several other states, and he may have to quit doing business in California and depend on the other locations to keep going. The California population is changing too, and the new people seem only too willing to go with the flow in state government.
With a little luck, the letter Chaz and others are circulating may do some good and direct some politicians to reexamine what CARB is doing, and their own role in forcing un-needed and costly regulation at this time. I sure hope so.
Now that they realize that wouldn't work, they have managed, without much input from anyone other than themselves, and without much legal authorization or authority from the legislature, to augment much stricter and far more costly rules that are going to change the way California does future business if allowed to stand.
The way California's demographics are going, I don't see a lot of hope for the smaller contractors with older equipment. I know my former employer is going to take a big hit as his entire fleet of larger trucks and yellow iron is way old and will not comply. It may be one reason his company has expanded to several other states, and he may have to quit doing business in California and depend on the other locations to keep going. The California population is changing too, and the new people seem only too willing to go with the flow in state government.
With a little luck, the letter Chaz and others are circulating may do some good and direct some politicians to reexamine what CARB is doing, and their own role in forcing un-needed and costly regulation at this time. I sure hope so.
ddigger
Senior Member
Thank you for the info, and concerns on our behalf.
I would say this thread is on the edge of political discussion.
But it affects many owners and operators.
Regardning the topic i have a feeling that this is the future for many of us.
We have had the same type of discussion over here regarding the right to enforce laws/regulations like this on machinery/transport equipment.
Law says you cant put in a new regulation that goes backwards in time. Meaning; affects old/sold before materiall.
They found a whole in the law for that....
You might buy/sell all that old equipment, but if you want to use it on spesific tasks it has to comply with the regulations.
Just to list a few: Roll over protection, emergensy stearing, ABS brakes on trailers, speed/time printers in trucks and periodicaly car and truck inspections.
But then back to the topic; this is not a problem at all!
Market will adapt in seconds, those who follow will survive and take the price needed to pay for the right equipment.
Those who don't will be out of bussines.
Of course there is a lot of personall problems for many owners who has not been keeping their equipment up to date.(not invested in new or nearly new equipment)
But then, thats a choise theese people has made by themselves.
Everybody has seen this comming, those who has adapted already will survive.....
And regarding the polution...
Most big towns over here meassure the polution constantly over the year.
Noise, wind, particles in the air++
Now u have to pay extra in Oslo for driving with wintertires with steelnobbs in them.(its a must most places outside the big towns)
Reduction in particles is well documented, as is costs for the extra wintermaintenance.(extra work for the contractors)
When looking at the mainroad passing my town, i see the change on the trucks. There is nearly no trucks that puts out black smoke anymore.
Driving south last week i was behind a truck in -3o, no smoke/ash visible at all. Only white smoke due to condense. And no smell at all.
Arriving in the next town, somebody had fired up an old truck, blue smoke was laying all over the area, smell was horrible.
No way anybody can argue that there aint positive things about this topic.
But it affects many owners and operators.
Regardning the topic i have a feeling that this is the future for many of us.
We have had the same type of discussion over here regarding the right to enforce laws/regulations like this on machinery/transport equipment.
Law says you cant put in a new regulation that goes backwards in time. Meaning; affects old/sold before materiall.
They found a whole in the law for that....
You might buy/sell all that old equipment, but if you want to use it on spesific tasks it has to comply with the regulations.
Just to list a few: Roll over protection, emergensy stearing, ABS brakes on trailers, speed/time printers in trucks and periodicaly car and truck inspections.
But then back to the topic; this is not a problem at all!
Market will adapt in seconds, those who follow will survive and take the price needed to pay for the right equipment.
Those who don't will be out of bussines.
Of course there is a lot of personall problems for many owners who has not been keeping their equipment up to date.(not invested in new or nearly new equipment)
But then, thats a choise theese people has made by themselves.
Everybody has seen this comming, those who has adapted already will survive.....
And regarding the polution...
Most big towns over here meassure the polution constantly over the year.
Noise, wind, particles in the air++
Now u have to pay extra in Oslo for driving with wintertires with steelnobbs in them.(its a must most places outside the big towns)
Reduction in particles is well documented, as is costs for the extra wintermaintenance.
(extra work for the contractors)When looking at the mainroad passing my town, i see the change on the trucks. There is nearly no trucks that puts out black smoke anymore.
Driving south last week i was behind a truck in -3o, no smoke/ash visible at all. Only white smoke due to condense. And no smell at all.
Arriving in the next town, somebody had fired up an old truck, blue smoke was laying all over the area, smell was horrible.
No way anybody can argue that there aint positive things about this topic.
Chaz Murray
Well-Known Member
I am all for cleaning up the air...but do it in a way where everyone can catch up. With the way the economy is right now...it is not the time to be doing this. The State of CA has to follow the same rules...where is the money going to come from to replace the thousands of trucks and equipment they have? Going forward I think its fair that new trucks and equipment meet the required levels but going backwards is just wrong and way too costly. Not every company can afford to go out and buy brand new machines or even retrofit older equipment. Some can but I know very few other than the 100+ fleet companys
I would say this thread is on the edge of political discussion.
But it affects many owners and operators.
Regardning the topic i have a feeling that this is the future for many of us.
We have had the same type of discussion over here regarding the right to enforce laws/regulations like this on machinery/transport equipment.
Law says you cant put in a new regulation that goes backwards in time. Meaning; affects old/sold before materiall.
They found a whole in the law for that....
You might buy/sell all that old equipment, but if you want to use it on spesific tasks it has to comply with the regulations.
Just to list a few: Roll over protection, emergensy stearing, ABS brakes on trailers, speed/time printers in trucks and periodicaly car and truck inspections.
But then back to the topic; this is not a problem at all!
Market will adapt in seconds, those who follow will survive and take the price needed to pay for the right equipment.
Those who don't will be out of bussines.
Of course there is a lot of personall problems for many owners who has not been keeping their equipment up to date.(not invested in new or nearly new equipment)
But then, thats a choise theese people has made by themselves.
Everybody has seen this comming, those who has adapted already will survive.....
And regarding the polution...
Most big towns over here meassure the polution constantly over the year.
Noise, wind, particles in the air++
Now u have to pay extra in Oslo for driving with wintertires with steelnobbs in them.(its a must most places outside the big towns)
Reduction in particles is well documented, as is costs for the extra wintermaintenance.
When looking at the mainroad passing my town, i see the change on the trucks. There is nearly no trucks that puts out black smoke anymore.
Driving south last week i was behind a truck in -3o, no smoke/ash visible at all. Only white smoke due to condense. And no smell at all.
Arriving in the next town, somebody had fired up an old truck, blue smoke was laying all over the area, smell was horrible.
No way anybody can argue that there aint positive things about this topic.
John C.
Senior Member
Given the state of the finance industry just who is going to be able to lend money for new machines? How many companies are going to have signed contracts for work or enough collateral to back up a tight loan? I can understand companies planning for the advent of a new law but this was done in an underhanded way by bureaucrats and not elected politicians.
I would also have to say that the air is far cleaner now in Washington State than it was in 1968. I guess, according to the greanies, that by virtue of humans being on earth that we have to leave no trace of our existance in the future.
The last point that I have is that everyone should consider how many projects that small businesses actually accomplish. Yes, monster construction companies will not like having to purchase new fleets of equipment but might have the resources to do it anyway. It's the hundreds of small companies with less than a hundred employees operating at a 12 to 15 percent profit margin that will not be able to fork over big bucks for trucks, backhoes, dozers, excavators and wheel loaders in order to stay in business. If those companies are gone, who will do that work?
I would also have to say that the air is far cleaner now in Washington State than it was in 1968. I guess, according to the greanies, that by virtue of humans being on earth that we have to leave no trace of our existance in the future.
The last point that I have is that everyone should consider how many projects that small businesses actually accomplish. Yes, monster construction companies will not like having to purchase new fleets of equipment but might have the resources to do it anyway. It's the hundreds of small companies with less than a hundred employees operating at a 12 to 15 percent profit margin that will not be able to fork over big bucks for trucks, backhoes, dozers, excavators and wheel loaders in order to stay in business. If those companies are gone, who will do that work?
This is my one of my biggest problems with the rules. The history of this industry is full of enterprising people who started out with 1 usually old piece of equipment (whatever they could afford), and used it to earn enough to grow a little, hire some help, and gradually take on bigger and bigger projects. This rule is a HUGE barrier to entry for a small operator. Very few start up small companies can affford new equipment, unless you are talking very small equipment. I know lots of folks that started doing house pads with a D-6 or D-8, then over the years moved up to sizable operations. You can get a loan and buy a decent used D-8 for $100,000 or so, and make enough with it to make it pay, but if you have to get new equipment, a new D-8 is $600,000, and few could start out that way.
The large companies that are well funded will be doing the small work as well, and the prices will go through the roof, which will make it even harder for someone to build a home, as the costs will skyrocket, and there will be much less competition to do the work.
When the cost of the work is too much, there will tend to be much less of the work to be done. If no work is being done, we will really be cleaning the air then!
These large companies can make benifit of the rules, if they can get the amount of capital needed for the equipment.
much agreed
This seems quite contradictory when Obama and his campaign are in the middle of turning our economy around i.e. providing jobs and work through infrastructure improvements which in turn is our services. It seems like their heads are not screwed on straight, how do they expect roads and bridges to get built?
This seems quite contradictory when Obama and his campaign are in the middle of turning our economy around i.e. providing jobs and work through infrastructure improvements which in turn is our services. It seems like their heads are not screwed on straight, how do they expect roads and bridges to get built?
LT-x7
Senior Member
When looking at the mainroad passing my town, i see the change on the trucks. There is nearly no trucks that puts out black smoke anymore.
Driving south last week i was behind a truck in -3o, no smoke/ash visible at all. Only white smoke due to condense. And no smell at all.
Arriving in the next town, somebody had fired up an old truck, blue smoke was laying all over the area, smell was horrible.
No way anybody can argue that there aint positive things about this topic.
I think everyone agrees that newer diesel engines run cleaner. I think what is mainly in question is what kind of impact our trucks and tractors have on our planet. Golbal Warming:laugh
DarrylMueller
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 309
- Location
- Altamont Pass, Livermore, CA
- Occupation
- Excavating Contractor & Operator
We are allowing burocrats to regulate what we do. I don't care what Europe does. This is America. The government is going to mess with our business and they cannot fix anything. CARB has to be stopped. The problem in Calif. is real bad and just got a whole lot less friendly with the increase in license fees like 100%. I wrote CARB and Arnold during the comment period, Arnold's form letter said he was for any changes that were for the environment. I hope your letter will do some good and I will make copies, but I doubt they care. If we all took a month off maybe that would get their attention?No way anybody can argue that there aint positive things about this topic.
Calif. is so messed up that B100 is not listed as a fuel it is listed as experimental fuel and 98% cleaner than petro-diesel.
Thank God for Chaz Murray and his letter.
This attack on business is just getting started on the National level, The” CAP ON TRADE” is a TAX ON CO2 output. Will we just give up? I hope not!
Almost everything emits it and trees need it and turn it into oxygen for us to breath. It's another tax on business. Europe has it and let them keep it. They are coming up with new fees which is a code for tax. Please don’t give up. Post Chaz Murray letter at the dealers, parts counters and by all means email it. We can’t loose this fight.
Chaz Murray
Well-Known Member
as much as i would like to take credit for this letter I dident write it....just passin it along
DarrylMueller
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 309
- Location
- Altamont Pass, Livermore, CA
- Occupation
- Excavating Contractor & Operator
My 2007 letter to CARB
I thought I would post the letter I wrote back in July of 07' and since it also focus on asthma I though I would post it. And one more thing were now into a survival mode. Survival is not political it's common sience that burocrats have forgot and are not held to any account they are appointed in most case. This is a wake up call to Calif. and other states. To this date I still have not recieved any notice on my class 8 truck that I can't run it after 2011 except a bill for $1600. Which is now double. There is a lot of small contractors that have no idea this is a law and the clock is ticking for off road and on road diesel.
California Air Resource Board
PO Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
July 11,2007
Off Road Diesel Regulations
First let me say I have had asthma all my life or 62 years. In the past 10 years I have had only very minor asthma. I don't think a lot of the claims can be proven that diesel fumes cause asthma. I had asthma before I was around diesel fumes, and now I am around diesel all day long and my asthma is improved. Most of asthma is allergy related. This is treated with antigens and bronco inhalers.
There are some common sense measures that could have already been in place to reduce breathing diesel exhaust. Buses have caused this problem for years. Vehicles and equipment with horizontal low exhaust pipes need to be changed so fumes are not blown out at ground level and into people’s faces. This is just common sense, but not all equipment and vehicles have vertical exhaust pipes. Vertical exhaust pipes could provide a very cost effective way to keep people from breathing fumes.
In the past CARB took the diesel industry down a very rough road with low sulfur fuels that damaged most of the fuel systems and caused leaks and break downs and lot of expense. The fact is the fuel should have been tested and problems corrected before use.
We have been forced to use low sulfur and ultra low sulfur fuel all at the cost of performance and more fuel usage. The fact is the power has been taken out of the fuel. We are paying more for fuel and getting less in return. To set goals that that are unattainable does not work, does not solve a problem that does not exist. Now we are told to scrap or sell our fleets. Well- maintained equipment that has been properly cared for should provide income back to the owner like it was intended when it was purchased. Our businesses run on sound financial principles. Your proposed regulation is not founded on sound financial principles.
You cannot rewrite how we run our business unless you provide a way for us to do it. For me to replace a four hundred thousand dollar piece of equipment that I may use 400 hours a year cannot be justified unless you pay me to do it. The money has to come from somewhere to replace the equipment in your proposal. We have good years and we try to save when there are bad years. That is just good sense. We cannot go and buy equipment without being able to pay for it. If we do, we go out of business.
I have been taking very good care of my diesel off-road equipment for over 40 years. Under the proposed regulation I would have to liquidate and go out of business because it cannot be retrofitted. Also, all of the 15 owner-operators that work with me cannot comply with the proposal. The technology does not exist. It does not seem reasonable to OUTLAW THE USE and force well-maintained, good productive equipment into retirement to be sold out of state. This is a plan that must have been conceived by people that have no economic insight. It only seems logical that as the equipment ages it will be replaced, or will be operated very few hours a year. Contractors must have spare machines that can go into service. If not, work won't get done and contractors face liquidated damages.
I cannot afford new equipment. I buy used equipment 5 to 10 years old this is all I can afford to purchase. How many years will I have to wait for used equipment to meet the standards that new equipment can meet? Where will affordable and viable equipment going to come from? You need to answer this before any new standards are even considered.
"We have to be able to allow good operating equipment to remain in service until it can be replaced. If you do not allow equipment to be replaced through attrition, you will ruin the majority of contractors, which are small family owned business."
I will be praying that CARB will think about the economic impacts. We bought equipment as an investment. We have worked hard to preserve that investment through proper care and maintenance. We have done our part; don't change your mind after I have made the investment, taken care of the investment and have been a good steward.
Please don’t wreck the heavy construction industry in California.
Sincerely Yours,
Darryl Mueller President
On this forum go to for more post and info:
https://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=10319
I thought I would post the letter I wrote back in July of 07' and since it also focus on asthma I though I would post it. And one more thing were now into a survival mode. Survival is not political it's common sience that burocrats have forgot and are not held to any account they are appointed in most case. This is a wake up call to Calif. and other states. To this date I still have not recieved any notice on my class 8 truck that I can't run it after 2011 except a bill for $1600. Which is now double. There is a lot of small contractors that have no idea this is a law and the clock is ticking for off road and on road diesel.
California Air Resource Board
PO Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
July 11,2007
Off Road Diesel Regulations
First let me say I have had asthma all my life or 62 years. In the past 10 years I have had only very minor asthma. I don't think a lot of the claims can be proven that diesel fumes cause asthma. I had asthma before I was around diesel fumes, and now I am around diesel all day long and my asthma is improved. Most of asthma is allergy related. This is treated with antigens and bronco inhalers.
There are some common sense measures that could have already been in place to reduce breathing diesel exhaust. Buses have caused this problem for years. Vehicles and equipment with horizontal low exhaust pipes need to be changed so fumes are not blown out at ground level and into people’s faces. This is just common sense, but not all equipment and vehicles have vertical exhaust pipes. Vertical exhaust pipes could provide a very cost effective way to keep people from breathing fumes.
In the past CARB took the diesel industry down a very rough road with low sulfur fuels that damaged most of the fuel systems and caused leaks and break downs and lot of expense. The fact is the fuel should have been tested and problems corrected before use.
We have been forced to use low sulfur and ultra low sulfur fuel all at the cost of performance and more fuel usage. The fact is the power has been taken out of the fuel. We are paying more for fuel and getting less in return. To set goals that that are unattainable does not work, does not solve a problem that does not exist. Now we are told to scrap or sell our fleets. Well- maintained equipment that has been properly cared for should provide income back to the owner like it was intended when it was purchased. Our businesses run on sound financial principles. Your proposed regulation is not founded on sound financial principles.
You cannot rewrite how we run our business unless you provide a way for us to do it. For me to replace a four hundred thousand dollar piece of equipment that I may use 400 hours a year cannot be justified unless you pay me to do it. The money has to come from somewhere to replace the equipment in your proposal. We have good years and we try to save when there are bad years. That is just good sense. We cannot go and buy equipment without being able to pay for it. If we do, we go out of business.
I have been taking very good care of my diesel off-road equipment for over 40 years. Under the proposed regulation I would have to liquidate and go out of business because it cannot be retrofitted. Also, all of the 15 owner-operators that work with me cannot comply with the proposal. The technology does not exist. It does not seem reasonable to OUTLAW THE USE and force well-maintained, good productive equipment into retirement to be sold out of state. This is a plan that must have been conceived by people that have no economic insight. It only seems logical that as the equipment ages it will be replaced, or will be operated very few hours a year. Contractors must have spare machines that can go into service. If not, work won't get done and contractors face liquidated damages.
I cannot afford new equipment. I buy used equipment 5 to 10 years old this is all I can afford to purchase. How many years will I have to wait for used equipment to meet the standards that new equipment can meet? Where will affordable and viable equipment going to come from? You need to answer this before any new standards are even considered.
"We have to be able to allow good operating equipment to remain in service until it can be replaced. If you do not allow equipment to be replaced through attrition, you will ruin the majority of contractors, which are small family owned business."
I will be praying that CARB will think about the economic impacts. We bought equipment as an investment. We have worked hard to preserve that investment through proper care and maintenance. We have done our part; don't change your mind after I have made the investment, taken care of the investment and have been a good steward.
Please don’t wreck the heavy construction industry in California.
Sincerely Yours,
Darryl Mueller President
On this forum go to for more post and info:
https://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=10319