0001 01 BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 01 02 AIR RESOURCES BOARD 02 03 JOHN D. DUNLAP, III, CHAIRMAN 03 04 04 05 05 06 IN THE MATTER OF: ) 06 ) 07 THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD PUBLIC ) 07 MEETING ) 08 _____________________________________) 08 09 09 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 14 15 DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 15 16 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1998 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 REPORTED BY: 22 23 MICHELLE HANNAH, 23 CSR NO. 9985 24 24 JOB NO.: 25 ARB4767 25 0002 01 BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 01 02 AIR RESOURCES BOARD 02 03 JOHN D. DUNLAP, III, CHAIRMAN 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 07 IN THE MATTER OF: ) 07 ) 08 THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD PUBLIC ) 08 MEETING ) 09 _____________________________________) 09 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS, TAKEN AT 14 15 THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, 15 16 21865 EAST COPLEY DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, 16 17 COMMENCING AT 9:30 A.M., ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 17 18 1998, HEARD BEFORE JOHN D. DUNLAP, III, CHAIRMAN, 18 19 REPORTED BY MICHELLE HANNAH, CSR NO. 9985, A 19 20 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER IN AND FOR THE STATE 20 21 OF CALIFORNIA. 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 0003 01 APPEARANCES: 01 02 CHAIRMAN: JOHN D. DUNLAP, III 02 03 BOARD MEMBERS: JOSEPH C. CALHOUN, P.E. 03 JACK C. PARNELL 04 SALLY RAKOW 04 MARK DE SAULNIER 05 WILLIAM F. FRIEDMAN, M.D. 05 BARBARA PATRICK 06 BARBARA RIORDAN 06 07 07 08 08 09 09 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 0004 01 DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1998 02 9:30 A.M. 03 04 05 MR. DUNLAP: WILL THIS, THE FEBRUARY MEETING OF THE 06 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, PLEASE COME TO ORDER. 07 MR. CALHOUN, CAN I GET YOU TO LEAD THE BOARD 08 AND THE AUDIENCE IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE. 09 (WHEREUPON THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS 10 RECITED.) 11 MR. DUNLAP: THANK YOU, MR. CALHOUN. 12 WILL THE BOARD CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. 13 MS. HUTCHENS: CALHOUN? CALHOUN? 14 MR. CALHOUN: HERE. 15 MS. HUTCHENS: DE SAULNIER? 16 MR. DE SAULNIER: HERE. 17 MS. HUTCHENS: EDGERTON? 18 FRIEDMAN? 19 DR. FRIEDMAN: HERE. 20 MS. HUTCHENS: PARNELL? 21 MR. PARNELL: HERE. 22 MS. HUTCHENS: PATRICK? 23 MS. PATRICK: HERE. 24 MS. HUTCHENS: RAKOW? 25 MS. RAKOW: HERE. 0005 01 MS. HUTCHENS: RIORDAN? 02 MS. RIORDAN: HERE. 03 MS. HUTCHENS: ROBERTS? 04 SILVA? 05 SHERMAN DUNLAP? 06 MR. DUNLAP: HERE. 07 THANK YOU. 08 GOOD MORNING. I'D LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO OUR 09 BOARD MEETING, FOR THOSE OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE AND MY 10 BOARD COLLEAGUES. BEFORE WE GET INTO THE AGENDA TODAY, I 11 WOULD LIKE TO NOTE SOMETHING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT; A VERY 12 IMPORTANT MILESTONE IS PASSING. 13 THIS IS THE THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE 14 FIRST MEETING OF THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, AND 15 WE HAD SOMEONE ON THE STAFF DO SOME RESEARCH FOR US AND 16 DETERMINE THAT. WE'RE PLEASED TO HAVE A MEMBER OF THAT 17 ORIGINAL BOARD HERE WITH US, AND I WILL ASK HIM IN A 18 MOMENT TO COME FORWARD AND REFLECT, TELL US A BIT ABOUT 19 THOSE DAYS. 20 BEFORE WE DO THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE 21 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN READ A LETTER FROM GOVERNOR WILSON 22 DIRECTED TO OUR BOARD. 23 BARBARA? 24 MS. RIORDAN: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 25 WE'RE STILL LEARNING HOW TO TURN ON OUR 0006 01 BUTTONS HERE. THANK YOU. 02 THIS IS FROM GOVERNOR PETE WILSON. IT'S 03 ADDRESSED TO MR. JOHN DUNLAP, CHAIRMAN OF THE AIR 04 RESOURCES BOARD. 05 "DEAR JOHN: 06 "AS THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD 07 OBSERVES ITS THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY AT 08 YOUR UPCOMING FEBRUARY BOARD MEETING, 09 I AM PLEASED TO EXTEND MY 10 CONGRATULATIONS FOR A JOB WELL DONE 11 PROTECTING ONE OF CALIFORNIA'S MOST 12 PRECIOUS RESOURCES, THE AIR WE 13 BREATHE. 14 "I WELL REMEMBER BACK WHEN I WAS 15 COMPLETING MY FIRST TERM AS 16 ASSEMBLYMAN FROM SAN DIEGO, THAT THE 17 AIR RESOURCES BOARD WAS CREATED FROM 18 MERGING THE CALIFORNIA MOTOR VEHICLE 19 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND THE BUREAU 20 OF AIR SANITATION. THE MULFORD CARTAL 21 AIR RESOURCES ACT WAS SIGNED INTO LAW 22 BY THEN GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN, AND 23 DR. R.E. HAGEN SCHMIDT WAS APPOINTED 24 AS THE FIRST CHAIRMAN. 25 "TODAY, THE BOARD'S 0007 01 ACCOMPLISHMENTS ARE CLEARLY 02 DEMONSTRATED IN THE DRAMATIC 03 IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR AIR QUALITY. 04 CALIFORNIA JUST COMPLETED A YEAR 05 DURING WHICH THE AIR WAS THE CLEANEST 06 SINCE RECORDS WERE KEPT. THE RESULTS 07 ARE QUITE EXTRAORDINARY. 08 "THE LOS ANGELES AREA, FOR 09 EXAMPLE, RECORDED JUST ONE SMOG ALERT 10 THE ENTIRE SEASON, COMPARED TO 148 IN 11 1970. SIMILAR IMPROVEMENTS ARE FOUND 12 IN THE CENTRAL AND NORTHERN REGIONS OF 13 THE STATE AS WELL. 14 "I KNOW THAT MORE CHALLENGES 15 REMAIN AS WE STILL HAVE SOME OF THE 16 SMOGGIEST REGIONS IN THE NATION. 17 THROUGH YOUR DELIBERATIVE PROCESS 18 INCORPORATING SOUND SCIENTIFIC 19 PRINCIPLES, THE USE OF BREAK-THROUGH 20 CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES IN THE 21 COLLABORATION WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS, I 22 KNOW THAT YOU WILL FIND WAYS TO 23 ACHIEVE CLEAN AIR FOR FUTURE 24 GENERATIONS OF CALIFORNIANS. 25 "SINCERELY, PETE WILSON." 0008 01 MR. DUNLAP: THANK YOU, BARBARA. I APPRECIATE YOUR 02 READING THAT FOR US. 03 WE HAVE WITH US COMMISSIONER 04 HAROLD SULLIVAN. 05 CAN WE ASK YOU TO COME FORWARD. OVER HERE, 06 HAROLD. 07 I FIRST GOT TO KNOW THE COMMISSIONER YEARS 08 AGO WHEN I WORKED HERE AT THE SOUTH COAST DISTRICT. HE 09 WAS A MEMBER OF THE ADVISORY COUNSEL. 10 PAT, IF YOU'LL SHOW HIM MAYBE RIGHT HERE TO 11 THE MICROPHONE OVER HERE. 12 HE WAS A MEMBER OF THAT COMMISSION. HE 13 SERVED A NUMBER OF ROLES IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES WITH 14 THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WAS APPOINTED BY GOVERNOR REAGAN, I 15 BELIEVE, IN THE MID OR LATER 60'S TO BE COMMISSIONER OF 16 THE HIGHWAY PATROL. 17 AND JOE CALHOUN JUST WHISPERED TO ME THAT 18 WHEN HE WAS A STAFF PERSON HERE YEARS AGO, HE CAN REMEMBER 19 YOU BEING ON THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD. 20 WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR COMING FROM THE 21 VALLEY TO BE WITH US TODAY. 22 MR. SULLIVAN: IT IS MY PLEASURE, MEMBERS OF THE 23 BOARD. 24 AN INTERESTING PERIOD OF TIME, AND IT WAS 25 INTERESTING THAT GOVERNOR WILSON, THAT HE MENTIONED 0009 01 DR. R.E. HAGEN SCHMIDT; AND NOBODY COULD PASS BY WITHOUT 02 MENTIONING THAT PIONEER IN THE FIELD. 03 I FIRST MET HIM IN 1952 WHEN HE HAD AN 04 ORIGINAL IDEA THAT MAYBE AUTOMOBILES CONTRIBUTED TO SMOG 05 AND A GROUP OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE MET WITH HIM. I 06 ENTERED THE AIR POLLUTION FIELD WHEN I BECAME A YOUNG 07 POLICEMAN, AND WE USED TO WRITE 673 VEHICLE CODE 08 VIOLATIONS FOR EXCESSIVE SMOKE BACK IN THE LATE 30'S. 09 AND R.E. CAME UP WITH A NEW IDEA. AND WHEN I 10 WENT TO THE HIGHWAY PATROL IN '67 AS AN APPOINTEE OF 11 REAGAN, I FOUND OUT I WAS A MEMBER OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE 12 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THAT BOARD, 13 JOE HAEBNER OF THE AUTO CLUB, TOLD ME IF I DIDN'T SHOW 14 UP -- PREVIOUSLY, A LOWER RANKING MEMBER OF THE DEPARTMENT 15 SHOWED UP -- THAT HE WAS GOING TO WRITE TO GOVERNOR REAGAN 16 AND TELL HIM THAT I WAS NEGLECTING MY DUTIES. 17 SO I DID APPEAR AT TWO MEETINGS OF THAT BOARD 18 BEFORE THEY CREATED THE 15-MEMBER BOARD -- 14-MEMBER 19 BOARD, 9 CIVILIANS AND 5 DEPARTMENT HEADS. AND THE 20 DEPARTMENT HEADS TO ATTEND: CONSERVATION, AGRICULTURE, 21 DEPARTMENT MOTOR VEHICLES, HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND THE 22 HIGHWAY PATROL, WERE THE FIVE STATE PEOPLE ON THE BOARD; 23 AND THERE WERE NINE CITIZENS. 24 INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, FOR THE PEOPLE HERE IN 25 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, THE MOTHER OF A LONG-TIME MEMBER OF 0010 01 THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY BOARD'S SUPERVISOR YOUNGLOVE 02 WAS ONE OF THE NINE CITIZEN MEMBERS OF THAT BOARD AND MET 03 ONCE A MONTH AND SET GENERAL POLICY FOR THE AIR RESOURCES 04 BOARD. 05 AND AS THE COMMISSIONER, I DID ATTEND AND 06 PARTICIPATE IN ALL OF THOSE MEETINGS. BUT THE CHAIRMAN OF 07 THAT BOARD WAS R.E. HAGEN SCHMIDT, AND CERTAINLY WE'RE 08 INDEBTED TO HIM FOR HIS CONTRIBUTIONS. HE WAS A 09 TREMENDOUS INDIVIDUAL. THAT WAS IN 1967. 10 IN 1972, THEY CREATED A FIVE-MEMBER BOARD. I 11 WENT BY THE GOVERNOR AND TOLD HIM I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ONE 12 OF THE SPOTS; AND SO I WAS APPOINTED TO THE FIVE-MEMBER 13 BOARD, WHICH IS THE PREDECESSOR OF YOUR CURRENT BOARD. 14 AT THAT TIME, DR. R.E. HAGEN SCHMIDT WAS THE 15 CHAIRMAN. I HAPPENED TO BE THE VICE CHAIRMAN. WE HAD 16 BRAD BRADIN, GLADYS MEAD AND BOB LEMON AS THE FIVE MEMBERS 17 OF THE BOARD. 18 IT WAS INTERESTING THAT IN THOSE DAYS, WE 19 HAVE THE SAME PROBLEMS YOU HAVE TODAY. ONE OF THE BIG 20 ISSUES WAS WE WERE INCREASINGLY CONTROLLING AUTOMOBILES, 21 AND WE HAD A VIEW ON WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT, INSPECTIONS OF 22 THE AUTOMOBILES, IN THOSE PARTICULAR DAYS. BUT IT WAS A 23 PARTICULARLY INTERESTING PERIOD OF TIME. I THINK WE MADE 24 A LOT OF PROGRESS, AND CERTAINLY THE REFLECTION, AS 25 REFLECTED IN MAYOR WILSON'S LETTER, IS IMPORTANT. 0011 01 IT WAS AN INTERESTING EXPERIENCE; AND LIKE I 02 SAID, WE CAN'T DO MORE THAN REMEMBER R.E. HAGEN SCHMIDT, 03 WHO WAS A PIONEER AND REALLY IS THE FATHER OF MOST OF THE 04 PROGRESS I THINK WE HAVE MADE IN THIS FIELD TODAY. 05 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 06 MR. DUNLAP: WELL, THANK YOU FOR THOSE REMARKS. I 07 APPRECIATE IT, AND I KNOW THEY WERE IMPROMPTU. WE'RE JUST 08 HAPPY TO HAVE YOU WITH US. 09 JOE, DID YOU WANT TO -- 10 MR. CALHOUN: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN 11 THE EARLIER DAYS WHEN COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN WAS ON THE 12 BOARD, THE BOARD HAD COMMITTEES; AND COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN 13 WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE. SO YOU 14 COULD IMAGINE WE HAD SOME DIFFICULTIES IN THOSE DAYS, AND 15 HE WAS HEAVILY INVOLVED IN A LOT OF THAT. 16 MR. DUNLAP: THANK YOU. 17 HAROLD, WE HAVE A PACKAGE I'LL ASK OUR BOARD 18 CLERK TO PROVIDE YOU, WHICH IS THE MINUTES FROM THE FIRST 19 MEETING AND SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION THAT WE WERE ABLE 20 TO FIND. 21 AND AGAIN, I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH YOU BEING 22 WITH US TODAY. 23 ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THAT AT ALL FROM 24 THE BOARD? 25 ALL RIGHT. WE WILL MOVE FORWARD, THEN. 0012 01 I WANTED TO START OFF BY THANKING OUR 02 GRACIOUS HOST, THE SOUTH COAST DISTRICT, FOR THE USE OF 03 THIS FACILITY AND THE SUPPORT THEY PROVIDED IN GETTING US 04 HERE. AND IT'S MEANINGFUL FOR ME TO COME BACK. I SPENT 05 ABOUT A DECADE WITH THIS DISTRICT EARLIER IN MY CAREER. 06 WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT WE WILL MOVE 07 INTO. HOWEVER, I WANT TO BRIEFLY ANNOUNCE THAT FOLLOWING 08 TODAY'S BOARD MEETING, THERE WILL BE AN INFORMAL 09 GATHERING OF INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS TO CONTINUE FOLLOW-UP 10 DIALOGUE IN THE 1996 AIR QUALITY STAKEHOLDER VISIONING 11 FORUMS. 12 THIS STATEWIDE EFFORT CARRIED OUT BY OUR 13 BOARD AND AIR DISTRICTS INCLUDED A SERIES OF TEN FORUMS, 14 INCLUDING THREE IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR DISTRICT. OVER 350 15 STAKEHOLDERS SHARED THEIR VIEWS ABOUT THE HEALTH OF 16 CALIFORNIA'S AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND WHAT 17 MODIFICATIONS AND STEPS WERE INDICATED TO BRING ABOUT 18 SUCCESS IN THE FUTURE. 19 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SEVERAL OF THE 20 ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA TODAY ARE OF SPECIAL INTEREST TO A 21 BROAD RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS, IN THE SESSION THAT WILL 22 FOLLOW TODAY'S BOARD MEETING, WE WILL CONTINUE THAT 23 DISCUSSION. 24 A PANEL OF LEADING AIR QUALITY STAKEHOLDERS 25 WILL LEND THEIR PERSPECTIVES ABOUT WHERE WE ARE TODAY, AND 0013 01 THE DISTANCE WE HAVE YET TO GO. IT IS MY HOPE THAT YOU 02 WILL JOIN US IN THE LOS ANGELES ROOM, I GUESS 03 LOS ANGELES COUNTY ROOM, CC-6, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE 04 INTERESTED IN ATTENDING, WHICH IS AROUND THE CORNER. AND 05 IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROGRAM 06 LATER TODAY, PLEASE SEE OUR OMBUDSMAN, JIM SCHONING. 07 WITH THAT, WE WILL GET INTO THE FIRST ITEM 08 TODAY. AND AGAIN, WE DO THIS AT EVERY MEETING. 09 I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE AUDIENCE TO SEE 10 THE CLERK TO OUR BOARD IF YOU HAVE A NEED TO PRESENT 11 TESTIMONY. YOU CAN SIGN UP WITH HER. IF YOU HAVE WRITTEN 12 COMMENTS, WE ASK THAT YOU PROVIDE 20 COPIES TO HER. 13 THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS 98-2-1, A 14 PUBLIC MEETING TO CONSIDER AN INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON AIR 15 QUALITY TRENDS. 16 WE'RE GOING TO START THIS MORNING'S MEETING 17 WITH A REPORT FROM THE STAFF OF THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT 18 DIVISION ON THE IMPROVEMENTS IN AIR QUALITY IN THE 19 GOLDEN STATE. THIS LAST YEAR WAS THE CLEANEST YEAR IN THE 20 LOS ANGELES AREA SINCE OZONE MONITORING BEGAN. THE STAFF 21 WILL SHOW THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TRENDS OF THE 22 LAST 17 YEARS. WE HAVE MADE GREAT PROGRESS IN MEETING OUR 23 AIR QUALITY GOALS. 24 AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. KENNY 25 TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM AND BEGIN THE STAFF'S PRESENTATION. 0014 01 GOOD MORNING, MIKE. 02 MR. KENNY: GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN 03 AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 04 WE HAVE MADE GREAT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE 05 QUALITY OF THE AIR WE BREATHE. THESE SUCCESSES ARE THE 06 RESULT OF A COOPERATIVE EFFORT ON THE PART OF GOVERNMENT, 07 INDUSTRY AND THE PUBLIC. WE CAN ALL TAKE PRIDE IN THE 08 FACT THAT THE AIR IS CLEANER FOR MOST CALIFORNIANS. 09 THE STATE AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 10 STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET FOR NITROGEN DIOXIDE, SULFUR 11 DIOXIDE, AND FOR LEAD. AND BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, WE 12 EXPECT ALL BUT LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND CALEXICO AND 13 IMPERIAL COUNTY TO MEET THE STANDARD FOR CARBON MONOXIDE. 14 HOWEVER, WE CANNOT REST SOLELY ON THESE 15 SUCCESSES, FOR THERE IS STILL QUITE A BIT TO BE DONE. WE 16 HAVE CONQUERED SOME OF THE AIR QUALITY PROBLEMS IN THE 17 STATE, BUT WE STILL HAVE MORE THAN 120 DAYS ABOVE THE 18 STATE OZONE STANDARD AND 50 DAYS ABOVE THE NATIONAL OZONE 19 STANDARD IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ALONE. 20 FURTHERMORE, MOST AREAS OF THE STATE ARE NOT 21 ATTAINMENT FOR THE STATE PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARDS, AND 22 WE WILL NEED ADDITIONAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS TO SOLVE THESE 23 MORE PERSISTENT PROBLEMS. 24 THE SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A 1998 25 RULEMAKING CALENDAR WHICH WILL OUTLINE THE PROPOSED 0015 01 REGULATORY ACTIONS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THESE 02 ADDITIONAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS. 03 BUT FIRST, MARCI NYSTROM OF THE TECHNICAL 04 SUPPORT DIVISION WILL SHOW YOU THE AIR QUALITY TRENDS. 05 AND FOLLOWING HER PRESENTATION, BILL WELTY, ALSO OF THE 06 TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION, WILL DEMONSTRATE SOME OF THE 07 TOOLS AVAILABLE TO THOSE INTERESTED IN THE AIR QUALITY AND 08 EMISSIONS INVENTORY DATA. 09 MS. NYSTROM? 10 MS. NYSTROM: THANK YOU, MR. KENNY. AND GOOD 11 MORNING CHAIRMAN DUNLAP AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 12 AS MR. KENNY SAID, THIS PRESENTATION DEALS 13 WITH CALIFORNIA AIR QUALITY TRENDS. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO 14 SHOW YOU THIS MORNING IS NOT ONLY HOW MUCH OUR AIR QUALITY 15 HAS IMPROVED, BUT ALSO POINT OUT THE AREAS WHERE WE STILL 16 HAVE PROBLEMS. 17 TO SET THE STAGE, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU 18 JUST A FEW COMPARISONS OF CALIFORNIA AND THE REST OF THE 19 NATION. THIS MAP SHOWS CALIFORNIA SUPERIMPOSED ON THE 20 EASTERN UNITED STATES. AS YOU CAN SEE, JUST IN TERMS OF 21 SIZE, CALIFORNIA COVERS AN AREA SIMILAR TO THE MOST 22 URBANIZED PORTIONS OF 13 EASTERN STATES. 23 AS A STATE, CALIFORNIA RANKS FIRST IN THE 24 NATION IN TERMS OF POPULATION WITH NEARLY 33 MILLION 25 PEOPLE. BY VIRTUE OF OUR SIZE, POPULATION, GEOGRAPHY AND 0016 01 VARIETY OF EMISSION SOURCES, THE AIR QUALITY PROBLEMS WE 02 FACE ARE MORE DIVERSE AND WIDESPREAD THAN THOSE IN OTHER 03 STATES. HOWEVER, AS YOU WILL SEE, WE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL 04 IN IMPROVING OUR AIR QUALITY, DESPITE THESE CHALLENGES. 05 THE NEXT FEW GRAPHS COMPARE AIR QUALITY ON A 06 NATIONAL SCALE. THE DATA REFLECT 1993 THROUGH 1995, WHICH 07 IS THE MOST RECENT PERIOD FOR WHICH PUBLISHED DATA ARE 08 AVAILABLE. 09 THIS GRAPH SHOWS HOW THE OZONE PROBLEM IN 10 CALIFORNIA COMPARES WITH THE REST OF THE NATION. IT SHOWS 11 THE TOP TEN URBAN AREAS RANKED BY THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF 12 DAYS ABOVE THE NATIONAL OZONE STANDARD. CALIFORNIA HOLDS 13 SEVEN OF THE TOP TEN SPOTS, WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREAS 14 SIGNIFICANTLY AHEAD OF THE OTHERS. 15 WE CAN USE THESE DATA TO MAKE A ROUGH 16 ESTIMATE OF EXPOSURE. ASSUMING THAT PEOPLE IN THE VARIOUS 17 URBAN AREAS ARE EXPOSED EQUALLY ON EXCEEDANCE DAYS, THE 18 PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA RECEIVE ABOUT 70 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL 19 NATIONWIDE EXPOSURE, TO LEVELS ABOVE THE NATIONAL 20 STANDARD. 21 WE CAN ALSO LOOK AT THE OZONE PROBLEM IN 22 TERMS OF MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS. THIS APPROACH GIVES US A 23 LITTLE DIFFERENT PICTURE. AGAIN, WE HAVE THE TOP 24 TEN URBAN REGIONS. HOWEVER, THIS TIME, WE SEE ONLY 25 FOUR CALIFORNIA AREAS. AGAIN, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TOPS 0017 01 THE LIST. THE RED LINE SHOWS THE LEVEL OF THE NATIONAL 02 STANDARD, WHICH ALL OF THESE AREAS EXCEED. 03 TEN YEARS AGO, CALIFORNIA WOULD HAVE BEEN 04 MORE DOMINANT IN ITS COMPARISON. HOWEVER, AS 05 CONCENTRATIONS IN CALIFORNIA CONTINUE TO DECLINE, OTHER 06 AREAS OF THE NATION ARE CATCHING UP. 07 THIS CHART SHOWS A NATIONAL COMPARISON FOR 08 CARBON MONOXIDE OR C.O. IT SHOWS THE TOP TEN AREAS BASED 09 ON THE NUMBER OF DAYS ABOVE THE NATIONAL EIGHT-HOUR 10 STANDARD. THE LOS ANGELES/LONG BEACH AND CALEXICO AREAS 11 RANK FIRST AND SECOND. THE NUMBER OF EXCEEDANCE DAYS IN 12 THESE AREAS ARE AT LEAST THREE TIMES HIGHER THAN ANY OTHER 13 AREA. HOWEVER, WE'RE CONTINUING TO MAKE PROGRESS IN 14 REDUCING CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS. 15 THE LAST NATIONWIDE COMPARISON IS FOR 16 P.M.10. THE COLORED AREAS ON THIS MAP ARE THE NATIONAL 17 P.M.10 NONATTAINMENT AREAS. AS YOU SEE, P.M.10 IS MAINLY 18 A PROBLEM IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. FOUR OF THE SIX 19 SERIOUS P.M.10 NONATTAINMENT AREAS, SHOWN IN RED, ARE 20 LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA. BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEX NATURE OF 21 THE PARTICULATE MATTER PROBLEM, IT WILL BE MANY YEARS 22 BEFORE WE OBTAIN THE STANDARDS. 23 WITH THIS BACKGROUND IN MIND, LET'S TAKE A 24 LOOK AT THE PROGRESS WE MADE IN IMPROVING AIR QUALITY. 25 I'LL BE FOCUSING ON SEVEN POLLUTANTS. THE FIRST THREE, 0018 01 LEAD, SULFUR DIOXIDE, AND NITROGEN DIOXIDE, REPRESENT THE 02 SUCCESS STORIES. THE LAST FOUR, BENZENE, OZONE, CARBON 03 MONOXIDE AND P.M.10, CONTINUE TO POSE CHALLENGES IN A 04 NUMBER OF AREAS. 05 FOR THIS PRESENTATION, I'LL FOCUS ON THE 06 STATE STANDARDS. THE TRENDS I'LL BE SHOWING YOU GENERALLY 07 GO THROUGH 1996. HOWEVER, FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES, 08 PRELIMINARY 1997 DATA ARE SHOWN ON SOME OF THE GRAPHS. 09 I WOULD LIKE TO START OFF WITH LEAD, WHICH 10 REPRESENTS OUR MOST DRAMATIC SUCCESS STORY. THE STATE 11 AMBIENT LEAD STANDARD IS 1.5 MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER. 12 THIS STANDARD IS BASED ON A 30-DAY AVERAGE. 13 THIS GRAPH FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN 14 SHOWS JUST HOW DRAMATIC THE DECREASE HAS BEEN. WE SEE A 15 99 PERCENT DECREASE IN AMBIENT LEAD FROM 1975 TO 1996. 16 THIS LARGE DECREASE IS ALMOST ENTIRELY THE RESULT OF 17 PHASING THE LEAD OUT OF GASOLINE. 18 TRENDS FOR OTHER AREAS IN THE STATE WOULD 19 LOOK SIMILAR TO THIS ONE. AT THE PRESENT TIME, LEAD 20 CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED BY THE AMBIENT NETWORK DO NOT 21 VIOLATE THE STATE STANDARD, AND ALL AREAS OF CALIFORNIA 22 ARE ATTAINMENT. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SEVERAL AREAS WITH 23 STATIONARY LEAD SOURCES THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE 24 HOT SPOT PROBLEMS. STATIONARY LEAD SOURCES ALSO CAUSE 25 PROBLEMS IN AREAS OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA. 0019 01 TO ADDRESS CALIFORNIA'S PROBLEM, THE BOARD 02 IDENTIFIED LEAD AS A TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT IN 03 APRIL OF '97. THE STAFF IS EVALUATING LITIGATIONS UNDER 04 THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOXICS LEGISLATION. 05 THE NEXT POLLUTANT I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT 06 IS SULFUR DIOXIDE OR S.O.2. THERE ARE TWO STATE STANDARDS 07 FOR S.O.2; A ONE-HOUR STANDARD OF 0.25 PARTS PER MILLION, 08 OR P.P.M., AND A 24-HOUR STANDARD OF 0.04 P.P.M. 09 THIS GRAPH SHOWS THE 24-HOUR S.O.2 TREND FOR 10 THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN. SIMILAR TO LEAD, WE SEE A 11 SIGNIFICANT DECLINE OVER THE YEARS. CONCENTRATIONS HAVE 12 DROPPED 92 PERCENT SINCE THE PEAK IN 1977. 13 MUCH OF THIS DECLINE RESULTED FROM INDUSTRIES 14 SWITCHING FROM FUEL OIL TO NATURAL GAS AND TO MANDATED 15 REDUCTIONS IN THE SULFUR CONTENT OF FUELS. BECAUSE OF 16 THESE REDUCTIONS, ALL AREAS OF CALIFORNIA ARE NOW 17 ATTAINMENT FOR S.O.2. WE EXPECT THE REGULATIONS CURRENTLY 18 IN PLACE AND THOSE ANTICIPATED FOR P.M.10 WILL CONTINUE TO 19 ENSURE ATTAINMENT. 20 MOVING ON TO NITROGEN DIOXIDE, OR N.O.2, WE 21 SEE THAT THERE'S ONLY ONE STATE STANDARD. IT'S A ONE-HOUR 22 CONCENTRATION OF 0.25 PARTS PER MILLION. 23 THIS GRAPH SHOWS THE TREND IN N.O.2 24 CONCENTRATIONS, AGAIN FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN. AS 25 YOU CAN SEE, CONCENTRATIONS DECREASED OVER 50 PERCENT FROM 0020 01 1975 TO 1996. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE 02 INDICATOR SHOWN HERE, THE ANNUAL MAXIMUM ONE-HOUR 03 CONCENTRATION, IS QUITE VARIABLE. AND THE APPARENT 04 INCREASE WE SEE DURING THE LATE 1980'S IS WITHIN THE 05 EXPECTED VARIABILITY OF THE INDICATOR. THEREFORE, IT 06 DOESN'T REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE OVERALL 07 TREND. 08 MOST OF THE DECLINE IN THE STATEWIDE N.O.2 09 CONCENTRATIONS HAS RESULTED FROM THE INCREASINGLY 10 STRINGENT N.O.X. EMISSION CONTROLS REQUIRED FOR MOTOR 11 VEHICLES. SIMILAR TO LEAD AND S.O.2, ALL AREAS OF THE 12 STATE ARE NOW ATTAINMENT FOR N.O.2. WE EXPECT THAT 13 CURRENT REGULATIONS WILL BE MORE THAN ADEQUATE TO ASSURE 14 CONTINUED ATTAINMENT THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA. 15 NOW, BEFORE WE TACKLE THE OTHER POLLUTANTS 16 FOR WHICH WE HAVE STANDARDS, I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT 17 BENZENE. BENZENE IS A TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT, RATHER THAN 18 A CRITERIA POLLUTANT. 19 BECAUSE IT'S A HUMAN CARCINOGEN AND POSES 20 SUBSTANTIAL RISK THROUGHOUT THE STATE, BENZENE WAS THE 21 FIRST SUBSTANCE THE BOARD IDENTIFIED AS A TOXIC AIR 22 CONTAMINANT. THIS WAS DONE IN JANUARY OF 1985. ABOUT 23 85 PERCENT OF THE BENZENE EMITTED IN CALIFORNIA COMES FROM 24 MOTOR VEHICLES. THE REMAINDER COMES LARGELY FROM 25 INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES. 0021 01 THIS GRAPH SHOWS THE DECREASE IN MEAN 02 STATEWIDE LEVELS OF BENZENE FROM 1990 THROUGH 1996. OVER 03 THIS SHORT TIME PERIOD, CONCENTRATIONS DECREASED BY MORE 04 THAN TWO-THIRDS. A NUMBER OF BOARD ACTIONS HAVE 05 CONTRIBUTED TO THE DOWNWARD TREND. SOME OF THE MORE 06 SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS WERE THE CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION OF 07 THE LOW-EMISSION VEHICLE PROGRAM, THE 1992 REDUCTION IN 08 GASOLINE VAPOR PRESSURE, AND THE 1996 REQUIREMENTS FOR 09 CLEANER-BURNING GASOLINE. 10 THE REDUCTION IN BENZENE CONCENTRATIONS HAS 11 CONTRIBUTED TO A REDUCTION IN THE STATEWIDE CANCER RISK. 12 THIS GRAPH SHOWS THE CANCER RISK FOR BENZENE IN BLUE, AND 13 FOUR OTHER TOXIC CONTAMINANTS IN YELLOW. THE VALUES 14 REPRESENT THE POTENTIAL NUMBER OF LIFETIME CANCER CASES 15 PER MILLION PEOPLE. THIS ESTIMATE IS BASED ON A 70-YEAR 16 EXPOSURE. SIMILAR TO THE MEAN ANNUAL CONCENTRATIONS, THE 17 BENZENE CANCER RISK DECLINED MORE THAN 65 PERCENT OVER THE 18 SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD. 19 WHEN WE CONSIDER ALL FIVE TOXIC AIR 20 CONTAMINANTS TOGETHER, WE SEE A DROP OF MORE THAN 21 50 PERCENT. FUTURE EFFORTS TO REDUCE TOXIC EMISSIONS 22 SHOULD RESULT IN A CONTINUED REDUCTION IN CANCER RISK. 23 BEFORE I MOVE ON, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEND JUST 24 A FEW MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT THE AIR QUALITY INDICATORS 25 I'LL BE USING IN THE REST OF THIS PRESENTATION. 0022 01 VERY SIMPLY, AN INDICATOR IS A WAY OF 02 SUMMARIZING THE MEASURED DATA TO REPRESENT SOME ASPECT OF 03 AIR QUALITY. LONG-TERM TRENDS ARE USEFUL FOR EVALUATING 04 THE SUCCESS OF EMISSION CONTROL PROGRAMS AND ASSESSING 05 PROGRESS TOWARD ATTAINMENT. MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF TREND 06 INDICATORS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED. HOWEVER, THE RELIABILITY 07 OF THE INFORMATION WE GET FROM A TREND DEPENDS ON THE 08 INDICATOR WE USE. 09 AS YOU KNOW, AIR QUALITY IS A FUNCTION OF 10 EMISSIONS AND METEOROLOGY. SOME OF THE MOST COMMONLY USED 11 INDICATORS, LIKE THE MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION AND THE NUMBER 12 OF DAYS ABOVE THE STANDARD, ARE VERY SIMPLE TO 13 UNDERSTAND. UNFORTUNATELY, THESE INDICATORS TEND TO BE 14 HIGHLY VARIABILITY AND SENSITIVE TO METEOROLOGY. THE 15 RESULTING TRENDS ARE DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET BECAUSE THEY 16 SHOW CHANGES CAUSED BY VARIATIONS IN METEOROLOGY MORE THAN 17 CHANGES CAUSED BY EMISSION REDUCTIONS. 18 USING A MORE ROBUST INDICATOR CAN REDUCE THE 19 INFLUENCE OF METEOROLOGY. A ROBUST INDICATOR IS ONE 20 THAT'S BASED ON A LARGE ENOUGH NUMBER OF DATA POINTS THAT 21 THE RESULT IS NOT HIGHLY INFLUENCED BY UNUSUAL OR EXTREME 22 VALUES. 23 THE A.R.B. STAFF HAS DEVELOPED, AND THE BOARD 24 HAS APPROVED, SEVERAL TREND INDICATORS THAT WE ROUTINELY 25 USE TO TRACK PROGRESS TOWARD ATTAINMENT OF THE STATE 0023 01 STANDARDS. OUR PEAK INDICATOR REPRESENTS THE VALUE THAT'S 02 ESTIMATED TO OCCUR ONCE PER YEAR. WE USE THIS INDICATOR 03 TO TRACK PROGRESS IN REDUCING THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS. 04 THE PEAK INDICATOR MAY SOUND FAMILIAR TO YOU. IT'S THE 05 SAME INDICATOR WE USE FOR DETERMINING ATTAINMENT OF THE 06 STATE STANDARDS. 07 IN ADDITION TO THE PEAK INDICATOR, WE HAVE 08 ALSO DEVELOPED A POPULATION-WEIGHTED EXPOSURE INDICATOR 09 FOR OZONE. THE EXPOSURE INDICATOR INCORPORATES BOTH THE 10 MAGNITUDE AND THE DURATION OF THE AMBIENT OUTDOOR 11 EXPOSURE. UNLIKE THE PEAK INDICATOR, WHICH TRACKS 12 PROGRESS AT INDIVIDUAL LOCATIONS, THE EXPOSURE INDICATOR 13 COMBINES EXPOSURES THROUGHOUT A REGION INTO A SINGLE 14 AVERAGE VALUE. 15 THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIRES THE USE 16 OF POPULATION-WEIGHTED EXPOSURE IN ASSESSING PROGRESS. AS 17 YOU KNOW, THE ACT REQUIRES NONATTAINMENT DISTRICTS TO 18 ADOPT ALL FEASIBLE MEASURES TO REDUCE THEIR ANNUAL 19 EMISSIONS. IN ADDITION, IT REQUIRES THE DISTRICTS WITH A 20 SEVERE OR EXTREME OZONE PROBLEM TO REDUCE THEIR OVERALL 21 POPULATION EXPOSURE BY CERTAIN INCREMENTS MEASURED FROM AN 22 1987 BASELINE. THE INCREMENTS ARE 25 PERCENT, 40 PERCENT 23 AND 50 PERCENT BY THE END OF 1994, 1997 AND THE YEAR 2000. 24 THE SOUTH COAST AND SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR 25 BASINS AND VENTURA COUNTY IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AIR 0024 01 BASIN ARE THE ONLY THREE AREAS IN CALIFORNIA THAT ARE 02 SUBJECT TO THE EXPOSURE REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS. 03 THE LAST THREE POLLUTANTS I'LL BE TALKING 04 ABOUT ARE OZONE, CARBON MONOXIDE AND P.M.10. BECAUSE 05 THESE POLLUTANTS POSE A GREATER CHALLENGE THAN THOSE I 06 TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, I'LL BE DESCRIBING THEM IN GREATER 07 DETAIL, PAYING SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE AIR BASINS 08 HIGHLIGHTED ON THIS MAP. THESE SIX AIR BASINS REPRESENT 09 THE MOST POPULATED AREAS OF THE STATE. 10 I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH OZONE, WHICH IS THE MAIN 11 COMPONENT OF URBAN SMOG. IN MOST PARTS OF THE STATE, 12 MOTOR VEHICLES ARE THE MAJOR SOURCE OF OZONE PRECURSOR 13 EMISSIONS. THERE'S ONE STATE STANDARD FOR OZONE. IT'S A 14 HEALTH BASED STANDARD OF 0.09 PARTS PER MILLION FOR ONE 15 HOUR. 16 ON A STATEWIDE BASIS, THE OZONE 17 CONCENTRATIONS DECREASED AN AVERAGE OF 25 PERCENT FROM 18 1980 TO 1996. THIS DECREASE OCCURRED DESPITE A 33 PERCENT 19 INCREASE IN POPULATION AND A 78 PERCENT INCREASE IN THE 20 NUMBER OF VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED. THIS SIGNIFICANT 21 DECLINE IN THE FACE OF SUBSTANTIAL GROWTH DEMONSTRATES THE 22 OVERALL SUCCESS OF OUR EMISSION CONTROL PROGRAMS. 23 THIS GRAPH SHOWS THE PEAK INDICATOR TREND FOR 24 THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN PLOTTED IN LIGHT BLUE. BECAUSE 25 IT'S MORE ROBUST, THE PEAK INDICATOR IS THE ONE I'VE BEEN 0025 01 TALKING ABOUT. HOWEVER, FOR COMPARISON, WE ALSO PLOTTED 02 THE MAXIMUM MEASURE CONCENTRATIONS. THESE ARE SHOWN IN 03 YELLOW. 04 YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PEAK INDICATOR HAS 05 DECLINED STEADILY OVER THE YEARS. IT SHOWS AN OVERALL 06 DECLINE OF ABOUT 50 PERCENT FROM BEGINNING TO END. OTHER 07 INDICATORS FOR THIS AREA SHOW SIMILAR IMPROVEMENTS. THIS 08 GRAPH SHOWS THE NUMBER OF DAYS ABOVE THE STATE STANDARD. 09 WHILE THIS INDICATOR IS MORE VARIABLE THAN THE PEAK 10 INDICATOR, IT STILL DECREASED NEARLY 40 PERCENT OVER THE 11 TREND PERIOD. 12 IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT DATA PRIOR TO 1980, THE 13 DECLINE WOULD BE EVEN GREATER. FOR EXAMPLE, FROM 1965 TO 14 1970, THERE ARE AN AVERAGE OF 255 EXCEEDANCE DAYS PER 15 YEAR. THIS COMPARES WITH 131 DAYS IN 1997. 16 STILL ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THE HIGH OZONE 17 IS THE NUMBER OF STAGE I AND STAGE II ALERT DAYS. THIS 18 GRAPH SHOWS A STEADY DECLINE IN STAGE I DAYS SHOWN IN 19 BLUE. THEY DROPPED FROM 102 DAYS IN 1980 TO ONLY 1 DAY IN 20 1997. OVER THE SAME PERIOD, WE SEE THE ELIMINATION OF 21 STAGE II DAYS, SHOWN IN RED. IN FACT, THERE'S NOT BEEN A 22 STAGE II ALERT ANYWHERE IN CALIFORNIA SINCE 1988. 23 THE POPULATION-WEIGHTED EXPOSURE TREND IS 24 SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE. AS I SAID EARLIER, THE CALIFORNIA 25 CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIRES DISTRICTS WITH SEVERE OR EXTREME 0026 01 OZONE PROBLEMS TO REDUCE THIS EXPOSURE BY 50 PERCENT BY 02 THE YEAR 2000. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SOUTH COAST MET ITS 03 2000 GOAL IN 1991. FROM THIS GRAPH, IT'S APPARENT THAT 04 EXPOSURES HAVE DECREASED AT A FASTER RATE THAN THE PEAK 05 INDICATOR. 06 THIS NEXT SET OF TRENDS IS FOR THE 07 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA. YOU NOTE THAT THE VALUES ARE MUCH 08 LOWER THAN THEY WERE IN THE SOUTH COAST. THE PEAK 09 INDICATOR FOR THE BAY AREA SHOWS A 14 PERCENT DECLINE FROM 10 1980 TO 1994. THEN WE SEE AN INCREASE IN THE INDICATOR 11 DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS. HOWEVER, THE MEASURED MAXIMUM 12 CONCENTRATION FOR 1997 IS MUCH LOWER. 13 WE WILL NEED TO WATCH THIS AREA CLOSER OVER 14 THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS TO DETERMINE IF 1995 AND 1996 WERE 15 AN ANOMALOUS INCREASE OR IF THEY REPRESENT METEOROLOGY 16 THAT WILL BE FREQUENTLY REPEATED. 17 WHEN WE LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF DAYS ABOVE THE 18 STANDARD, WE SEE A SIMILAR TREND. THE NUMBER OF 19 EXCEEDANCE DAYS GENERALLY DECREASES UNTIL THE MID 1990'S 20 AND THEN INCREASES DURING 1995 AND 1996. THE VALUE DROPS 21 BACK DOWN AGAIN IN 1997. BASED ON THESE LIMITED DATA, WE 22 CANNOT DETERMINE WHETHER 1995 AND 1996 REPRESENT A 23 SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE OVERALL TREND. 24 THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY IS A BIT DIFFERENT 25 FROM THE PREVIOUS TWO AREAS, IN THAT THE OZONE IS NOT 0027 01 DOMINATED BY EMISSIONS FROM ONE LARGE URBAN AREA. 02 INSTEAD, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF MODERATELY SIZED URBAN AREAS 03 SPREAD OUT ALONG THE MAIN AXIS OF THE VALLEY. IN ADDITION 04 TO LOCAL EMISSIONS, THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY IS AFFECTED BY 05 TRANSPORT FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA. 06 THE PEAK INDICATOR FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 07 SHOWS SOME YEAR-TO-YEAR VARIATION, PROBABLY RELATED TO 08 METEOROLOGY. OVERALL, THERE'S BEEN ONLY A SMALL 09 DECREASE. THIS PLOT AND THE NUMBER OF DAYS ABOVE THE 10 STANDARD SHOWS SIMILAR VARIATION. THERE'S A GENERAL 11 DECREASE FROM 1980 TO 1983. THIS IS FOLLOWED BY AN 12 INCREASE UNTIL 1988, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE HOTTEST YEARS ON 13 RECORD WITH A VERY HIGH OZONE POTENTIAL. 14 FINALLY, WE SEE A GENERAL DECLINE DURING THE 15 LAST NINE YEARS. AT THIS TIME, WE DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND 16 THE REASONS FOR THE INCREASE DURING THE MID TO LATE 17 '1980'S. THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE CONTINUE TO WORK 18 ON. 19 WHEN WE LOOK AT POPULATION-WEIGHTED EXPOSURE, 20 WE ALSO SEE AN OVERALL DECLINE. SIMILAR TO THE SOUTH 21 COAST, WE SEE A LARGER REDUCTION IN EXPOSURE THAN WE SAW 22 WITH THE PEAK INDICATOR. THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY MET ITS 23 YEAR 2000 GOAL IN 1990. 24 THE PEAK INDICATOR FOR THE SAN DIEGO AIR 25 BASIN REFLECTS THE INFLUENCE OF LOCAL CONTROLS, AS WELL AS 0028 01 TRANSPORT FROM AREAS OUTSIDE THE BASIN. THE TREND LINE 02 SHOWS A 33 PERCENT DECLINE IN PEAK OZONE FROM BEGINNING TO 03 END. THE NUMBER OF DAYS ABOVE THE STATE STANDARD SHOWS AN 04 EVEN LARGER DECLINE. OVER THE 18-YEAR TREND PERIOD, THIS 05 INDICATOR DROPPED NEARLY 75 PERCENT FROM 168 DAYS IN 1980 06 TO 43 DAYS IN 1997. 07 THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS A SUMMARY GRAPH BASED ON 08 DATA FROM 1994 THROUGH 1996. IT INCLUDES INFORMATION FOR 09 THE FOUR AIR BASINS I'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, AS WELL AS 10 DATA FOR THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY AND THE SOUTH CENTRAL COAST 11 AIR BASINS. THE BARS REPRESENT THE STATE DESIGNATION 12 VALUE FOR EACH AREA. 13 JUST TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF EXPLANATION, THE 14 DESIGNATION VALUE IS BASED ON THE PEAK INDICATOR. IT 15 REPRESENTS THE HIGHEST MEASURED VALUE THAT REMAINS AFTER 16 WE EXCLUDE THE EXTREME VALUES. WHILE THE DESIGNATION 17 VALUES EXCEED THE STATE STANDARD IN ALL SIX AIR BASINS, 18 THEY ARE MUCH LOWER THAN THE VALUES WE SAW IN THE 1960'S 19 WHEN OZONE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN 20 EXCEEDED 0.6 PARTS PER MILLION. 21 CALIFORNIA'S WORST OZONE PROBLEM IS STILL 22 FOUND IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN WHERE THE DESIGNATION 23 VALUE IS MORE THAN TWICE THE LEVEL OF THE STATE STANDARD. 24 WHILE THE OTHER AREAS HAVE A LESS SEVERE PROBLEM, THEY 25 STILL HAVE A PROBLEM. 0029 01 IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT WHILE WE SAW 02 DIFFERENCES IN THE NUMBER OF EXCEEDANCE DAYS AMONG THESE 03 AREAS, THE DESIGNATION VALUES ARE QUITE SIMILAR. 04 THEREFORE, EACH OF THESE AIR BASINS MUST ACHIEVE SIMILAR 05 REDUCTIONS IN THEIR PEAK CONCENTRATIONS IN ORDER TO REACH 06 ATTAINMENT. 07 BEFORE I MOVE ON, YOU'LL RECALL THAT I 08 MENTIONED EARLIER THAT IN ADDITION TO THE SOUTH COAST AND 09 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, VENTURA COUNTY IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL 10 COAST AIR BASIN IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE 50 PERCENT OZONE 11 EXPOSURE REDUCTION REQUIREMENT. SINCE 1987, EXPOSURE IN 12 VENTURA COUNTY HAS DECREASED MORE THAN 60 PERCENT, SO THIS 13 AREA HAS ALSO SATISFIED ITS YEAR 2000 GOAL. 14 IN SUMMARY, OUR TREND ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT 15 ALTHOUGH WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO, OZONE AIR QUALITY HAS 16 IMPROVED THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA. SOME OF THE BIGGEST 17 IMPROVEMENTS ARE SEEN IN THE MOST POPULATED AREAS. 18 HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT OF IMPROVEMENT DEPENDS ON WHICH ASPECT 19 OF AIR QUALITY WE LOOK AT. WE HAVE MADE PROGRESS NOT ONLY 20 IN REDUCING PEAK CONCENTRATIONS, BUT ALSO IN REDUCING 21 EXPOSURE. THE PERCENT DECREASE IN EXPOSURE HAS TYPICALLY 22 BEEN SEVERAL TIMES MORE THAN THE DECREASE IN THE PEAK 23 VALUE. 24 IN GENERAL, THE COASTAL AREAS HAVE BEEN MOST 25 RESPONSIVE TO EMISSION REDUCTIONS. INLAND AREAS, SUCH AS 0030 01 THE CENTRAL VALLEY, HAVE EXPERIENCED LARGER RATES OF 02 GROWTH AND SHOW LESS PROGRESS. HOWEVER, OVERALL, THE 03 OZONE DATA SHOW THAT THE AIR MOST CALIFORNIANS ARE 04 BREATHING NOW IS MUCH CLEANER THAN IT WAS IN 1980. 05 THESE MAPS SHOW HOW THE STATE OZONE 06 DESIGNATIONS HAVE CHANGED FROM 1989, WHICH WAS THE FIRST 07 YEAR THE BOARD MADE DESIGNATIONS, TO THE PRESENT. THERE'S 08 STILL A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF NONATTAINMENT AREAS SHOWN IN 09 RED. IN FACT, ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE STATE IS CURRENTLY 10 DESIGNATED AS NONATTAINMENT FOR OZONE. 11 YOU WILL NOTE THAT THERE ARE FEWER WHITE OR 12 UNCLASSIFIED AREAS NOW. NEW MONITORING IN SEVERAL AREAS 13 HAS ALLOWED TO US DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE DESIGNATION FOR 14 THE UNCLASSIFIED AREAS. FINALLY, IF YOU COMPARE THE 15 TWO MAPS, YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE ARE NOW SEVERAL YELLOW 16 AREAS. THESE ARE TRANSITIONAL AREAS WHICH ARE MOVING 17 CLOSER TO ATTAINMENT. 18 WHILE WE HAVE MADE PROGRESS IN REDUCING OZONE 19 IN ALL AREAS OF THE STATE, THESE REDUCTIONS HAVE NOT YET 20 BEEN SUFFICIENT TO REDESIGNATE ANY OF THE NONATTAINMENT 21 AREAS AS ATTAINMENT. WE EXPECT OZONE CONCENTRATIONS WILL 22 CONTINUE TO DECLINE. AT THE PRESENT TIME, OUR EFFORTS ARE 23 FOCUSED ON ACHIEVING THE ONE-HOUR OZONE STANDARDS; BUT AS 24 YOU ALL KNOW, THE FEDERAL E.P.A. RECENTLY PROMULGATED AN 25 EIGHT-HOUR STANDARD. 0031 01 THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NOT YET DESIGNATED 02 AREAS WITH RESPECT TO THE EIGHT-HOUR STANDARD, AND 03 PLANNING REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. 04 NEVERTHELESS, WE EXPECT THAT EMISSION REDUCTIONS AIMED AT 05 ACHIEVING THE ONE-HOUR STANDARD WILL ALSO BE EFFECTIVE IN 06 REDUCING THE EIGHT-HOUR CONCENTRATIONS. 07 THE NEXT POLLUTANT I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT 08 IS CARBON MONOXIDE. THIS POLLUTANT STILL POSES A PROBLEM 09 IN JUST A COUPLE OF AREAS. UNLIKE OZONE, WHICH FORMS IN 10 THE ATMOSPHERE, C.O. IS DIRECTLY EMITTED. THE MAJOR 11 SOURCES OF C.O. ARE MOTOR VEHICLES AND OTHER MOBILE 12 SOURCES. 13 THERE ARE THREE STATE STANDARDS FOR C.O. A 14 ONE-HOUR STANDARD OF 20 PARTS PER MILLION APPLIES 15 STATEWIDE. CURRENTLY, THE ONE-HOUR STANDARD IS VIOLATED 16 ONLY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND IN THE CITY OF CALEXICO IN 17 IMPERIAL COUNTY. IN ADDITION TO THE ONE-HOUR STANDARD, 18 THERE ARE TWO EIGHT-HOUR STANDARDS. AN EIGHT-HOUR 19 STANDARD OF 9.0 P.P.M. APPLIES IN ALL AREAS EXCEPT THE 20 LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN, WHERE WE HAVE A SPECIAL HIGH 21 ALTITUDE STANDARD OF SIX PARTS PER MILLION. 22 ON A STATEWIDE BASIS, AMBIENT C.O. 23 CONCENTRATIONS DECLINED BY ALMOST TWO-THIRDS FROM 1980 TO 24 1996. THIS DECLINE OCCURRED DESPITE SIGNIFICANT GROWTH IN 25 BOTH POPULATION AND THE NUMBER OF VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED. 0032 01 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING C.O. TRENDS REFLECT AN 02 EIGHT-HOUR C.O. CONCENTRATION, BECAUSE GENERALLY THE 03 EIGHT-HOUR STANDARD IS MORE DIFFICULT TO ATTAIN THAN THE 04 ONE-HOUR STANDARD. THIS TREND SHOWS THE PEAK EIGHT-HOUR 05 INDICATOR FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN. THE TREND LINE 06 SHOWS SOME VARIATION, WHICH YOU WILL SEE IN ALL THE 07 C.O. TRENDS. HOWEVER, WE SEE AN OVERALL DECLINE OF ABOUT 08 32 PERCENT. 09 THE NUMBER OF DAYS ABOVE THE STANDARD SHOWS 10 AN EVEN GREATER DECREASE WITH 98 DAYS IN 1980, COMPARED 11 WITH 23 DAYS IN 1996. THIS REPRESENTS A 77 PERCENT 12 REDUCTION. 13 THE TREND FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 14 SHOWS THE SAME VARIABLE DECLINE WE SAW IN THE SOUTH 15 COAST. IN THIS AREA, THE INDICATOR SHOWS A TOTAL DECREASE 16 OF MORE THAN 50 PERCENT. YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE PEAK 17 INDICATOR IS NOW BELOW THE LEVEL OF THE STATE STANDARD. 18 OVERALL, THE NUMBER OF DAYS ABOVE THE 19 STANDARD ALSO SHOWS A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE. HOWEVER, IT 20 ALSO SHOWS A LOT OF VARIABILITY CAUSED BY YEAR TO YEAR 21 CHANGES IN METEOROLOGY. THERE HAVE BEEN NO EXCEEDANCE 22 DAYS SINCE 1992, AND THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA NOW 23 ATTAINS THE STATE C.O. STANDARDS. 24 THE TREND FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY SHOWS 25 MORE OF AN UP-AND-DOWN TREND. WE SEE AN INCREASE UNTIL 0033 01 1988, AND THEN A GENERAL DOWNWARD TREND DURING THE LATER 02 YEARS. THE PEAK INDICATOR FOR 1996 SHOWS CLOSE TO A 03 50 PERCENT DECREASE FROM THE PEAK IN 1988. SIMILAR TO THE 04 PEAK INDICATOR, THE NUMBER OF DAYS ABOVE THE STANDARD HAS 05 ALSO DECLINED IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. THERE WERE 06 30 EXCEEDANCE DAYS IN 1980 AND NONE IN 1996. 07 IN THE SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN, THE PEAK 08 INDICATOR ALSO SHOWS AN OVERALL DECLINE, THIS TIME IN THE 09 RANGE OF ABOUT 34 PERCENT SINCE THE MID 1980'S. LIKE THE 10 PREVIOUS TWO AIR BASINS, CONCENTRATIONS NO LONGER EXCEED 11 THE STATE STANDARDS. THE NUMBER OF DAYS ABOVE THE 12 EIGHT-HOUR STANDARD GENERALLY SHOWS SEVERAL YEARS WITH 13 EXCEEDANCE DAYS BETWEEN 1984 AND 1990. HOWEVER, SINCE 14 THAT TIME, ALL MEASUREMENTS IN THE SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN 15 HAVE BEEN BELOW THE STATE STANDARDS. 16 THIS GRAPH COMPARES THE DESIGNATION VALUE FOR 17 EACH OF THE SIX AIR BASINS. AMONG THESE AREAS, WE STILL 18 HAVE A SIGNIFICANT C.O. PROBLEM ONLY IN THE SOUTH COAST, 19 WHERE THE DESIGNATION VALUE IS STILL NEARLY TWICE THE 20 LEVEL OF THE STATE STANDARD. HOWEVER, AS WE SAW IN THE 21 TREND GRAPH, C.O. CONCENTRATIONS IN THE SOUTH COAST HAVE 22 DECLINED. THE SOUTH COAST DISTRICT PROJECTS ATTAINMENT OF 23 THE FEDERAL STANDARD, WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE STATE 24 STANDARD, BY THE YEAR 2005. 25 THIS MAP SHOWS THE CHANGE IN STATE C.O. 0034 01 DESIGNATIONS. IN CONTRAST TO OZONE, WHICH TENDS TO BE A 02 REGIONAL POLLUTANT, C.O. IS A LOCAL POLLUTANT. THIS 03 CHARACTERISTIC IS REFLECTED IN THE SMALLER SIZE IN THE 04 NONATTAINMENT AREAS. IN GENERAL, THE C.O. NONATTAINMENT 05 AREAS COMPRISE ONLY THE URBANIZED REGIONS. 06 IN 1989, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF URBAN 07 NONATTAINMENT AREAS. MOST OF THESE HAVE BEEN REDESIGNATED 08 AS ATTAINMENT, PRIMARILY AS A RESULT OF EMISSION 09 REDUCTIONS FROM THE A.R.B.'S MOTOR VEHICLE AND CLEAN FUELS 10 PROGRAMS. 11 CURRENTLY WE HAVE ONE TRANSITIONAL AREA, THE 12 EL DORADO COUNTY PORTION OF THE LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN. WE 13 ALSO HAVE THREE NONATTAINMENT AREAS; THE FRESNO URBAN 14 AREA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AND CALEXICO. 15 I'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE PROJECTED 16 ATTAINMENT DATE FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY. IN THE FRESNO 17 AREA, WE HAVE HAD A CHARGE IN MONITORING SITE, AND THIS 18 CHANGE HAS IMPACTED THE AREA'S ELIGIBILITY FOR 19 ATTAINMENT. HOWEVER, IN THE NEAR FUTURE, WE EXPECT TO BE 20 ABLE TO REDESIGNATE THE ENTIRE AIR BASIN AS ATTAINMENT. 21 CALEXICO PRESENTS A UNIQUE PROBLEM. AS YOU 22 PROBABLY KNOW, THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF CALEXICO BORDERS ON 23 MEXICO. WE BEGAN C.O. MONITORING IN CALEXICO DURING 24 1994. SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAVE MEASURED A NUMBER OF 25 VIOLATIONS OF BOTH THE ONE-HOUR AND THE EIGHT-HOUR 0035 01 STANDARDS. THERE'S A HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT CROSS-BORDER 02 TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTES TO THIS C.O. PROBLEM IN THIS AREA. 03 AS A RESULT OF CALEXICO'S NONATTAINMENT 04 DESIGNATION, WE'VE RECOMMENDED THAT FURTHER STUDY BE 05 CONDUCTED IN THIS AREA. THESE STUDIES WILL HELP US TO 06 BETTER UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE 07 C.O. PROBLEM AND WHETHER A LOCAL CONTROL PROGRAM WOULD BE 08 EFFECTIVE. 09 FINALLY, WE COME TO PARTICULATE MATTER. NOW, 10 YOU ARE PROBABLY ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE RECENT INTEREST IN 11 FINE PARTICLES OR WHAT WE CALL P.M.2.5. THESE FINE 12 PARTICLES ARE A SUBSET OF P.M.10. I WILL BE FOCUSING ON 13 P.M.10 TODAY, BECAUSE THERE'S NO STATE STANDARD YET FOR 14 P.M.2.5. 15 P.M.10 COMPRISES ALL PARTICULATE MATTER OF 16 10 MICRONS DIAMETER OR LESS. TO GIVE YOU SOME BASIS FOR 17 COMPARISON, THE WIDTH OF A HUMAN HAIR IS ABOUT 50 TO 18 70 MICRONS. UNLIKE MOST OTHER POLLUTANTS, P.M.10 IS NOT A 19 SINGLE SUBSTANCE, BUT RATHER A COMPLEX MIXTURE OF A 20 VARIETY OF SUBSTANCES. SOME P.M.10 PARTICLES ARE DIRECTLY 21 EMITTED. OTHER PARTICLES RESULT FROM GASSES WHICH ARE 22 TRANSFORMED INTO PARTICLES THROUGH PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL 23 PROCESSES IN THE ATMOSPHERE. 24 THE MAJOR DIRECT P.M.10 SOURCES INCLUDE 25 FUGITIVE DUST FROM MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL, CONSTRUCTION 0036 01 ACTIVITIES AND STRONG WINDS. THE GASEOUS P.M. PRECURSOR 02 EMISSIONS INCLUDE N.O.X., R.O.G. AND S.O.X. A MAJOR 03 CONTRIBUTOR TO THESE PRECURSORS IS COMBUSTION FROM SOURCES 04 SUCH A MOTOR VEHICLES, WOOD BURNING AND STATIONARY 05 SOURCES. 06 THERE ARE TWO STATE STANDARDS FOR P.M.10 07 BASED ON HEALTH EFFECTS. THE 24-HOUR STANDARD IS 08 50 MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER. THE ANNUAL STANDARD IS 09 30 MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER, MEASURED AS AN ANNUAL 10 GEOMETRIC MEAN. BOTH THESE STANDARDS ARE VIOLATED IN A 11 NUMBER OF AREAS. 12 BEFORE I DESCRIBE THE TRENDS, I WOULD LIKE TO 13 POINT OUT JUST A COUPLE OF DIFFERENCES IN THE TRENDS FOR 14 P.M.10 AS OPPOSED TO THOSE I SHOWED YOU FOR OZONE AND C.O. 15 FIRST, BECAUSE THE STATE P.M.10 STANDARDS WERE ADOPTED 16 MORE RECENTLY, WE HAVEN'T BEEN COLLECTING DATA FOR AS LONG 17 A PERIOD OF TIME. THEREFORE, THE TREND GRAPHS START IN 18 THE LATE 1980'S, RATHER THAN THE EARLIER 1980'S. 19 YOU WILL ALSO NOTICE I AM NOT SHOWING A 20 STATEWIDE GRAPH FOR P.M.10. THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT 21 THE STATEWIDE GRAPH WOULD BE DOMINATED BY VALUES MEASURED 22 DURING DUST STORMS IN THE OWENS VALLEY AND OTHER DESERT 23 AREAS. TYPICALLY, THESE CONCENTRATIONS ARE FAR ABOVE ANY 24 VALUES MEASURED IN THE POPULATED AREAS. AS A RESULT, THEY 25 DON'T REALLY REFLECT THE CONCENTRATIONS TO WHICH THE 0037 01 MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE EXPOSED. 02 FINALLY, THE YEARLY INDICATOR VALUE PLOTTED 03 ON THE P.M.10 GRAPH REFLECTS THE HIGHEST VALUE FOR THE AIR 04 BASIN. THEREFORE, THE SITE MAY CHANGE FROM ONE YEAR TO 05 THE NEXT. THIS GRAPH FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN SHOWS 06 AN INCREASE IN THE PEAK INDICATOR FROM 1988 THROUGH 1990 07 WITH A GENERAL INCREASE DURING THE LATER YEARS. HOWEVER, 08 THE PEAK VALUE IN 1996 WAS ONLY ABOUT 10 PERCENT LESS THAN 09 THE 1988 VALUE. 10 IN ADDITION TO THE PEAK INDICATOR, WE HAVE 11 ALSO PLOTTED THE MAXIMUM MEASURED VALUES. THESE SHOW A 12 GREAT DEAL OF VARIABILITY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. SOME OF THIS 13 VARIABILITY CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE P.M.10 SAMPLING 14 FREQUENCY. P.M.10 IS GENERALLY SAMPLED ONLY ONCE EVERY 15 SIX DAYS. THIS GIVES US ONLY ABOUT 60 SAMPLES PER SITE 16 PER YEAR. THE LIMITED SAMPLING FREQUENCY, COUPLED WITH 17 METEOROLOGY, CONTRIBUTES TO A HIGH AMOUNT OF VARIABILITY 18 IN THE MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS. 19 THE ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN SHOWS LESS 20 VARIATION. IN ADDITION, THE CONCENTRATIONS ARE CLOSER TO 21 THE LEVEL OF THE STANDARD. THIS IS TYPICAL OF MANY 22 CALIFORNIA SITES, FOR THE ANNUAL P.M.10 STANDARD IS 23 USUALLY OBTAINED BEFORE THE 24-HOUR STANDARD. THIS TREND 24 LINE FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN SHOWS AN OVERALL 25 DECLINE OF NEARLY 30 PERCENT FROM BEGINNING TO END. 0038 01 THE PEAK INDICATOR FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY 02 AREA ALSO SHOWS AN OVERALL DECLINE ON THE ORDER OF ABOUT 03 30 PERCENT. THE HIGH VALUE IN 1992 LOOKS OUT OF PLACE. 04 HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED SAMPLING DATA, IT'S WITHIN 05 THE EXPECTED VARIATION OF THIS INDICATOR. 06 WE ALSO SEE A FAIRLY STEADY DECLINE IN THE 07 ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN FOR THE BAY AREA. THE TREND LINE 08 SHOWS A MORE THAN 30 PERCENT DECLINE OVER THE NINE-YEAR 09 PERIOD. ANNUAL CONCENTRATIONS IN THE BAY AREA HAVE NOT 10 EXCEEDED THE ANNUAL STANDARD FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS. 11 THIS GRAPH FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR 12 BASIN SHOWS MORE VARIATION THAN THE PREVIOUS TWO AREAS, 13 AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE IF THERE'S A TRUE 14 DOWNWARD TREND. PART OF THE VARIATION IN THIS TREND CAN 15 BE ATTRIBUTED TO METEOROLOGY. HIGH WINDS CONTRIBUTE TO 16 HIGH P.M.10 CONCENTRATIONS BY STIRRING UP DUST PARTICLES, 17 AND HIGH WIND CONDITIONS ARE NOT UNCOMMON IN THE 18 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. IF WE COMPARE THE TWO END POINTS, WE 19 SEE AN OVERALL DROP OF LESS THAN 15 PERCENT. 20 THIS GRAPH SHOWS THE ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN 21 FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. AGAIN, WE SEE MUCH 22 YEAR-TO-YEAR VARIATION. HOWEVER, THERE APPEARS TO BE A 23 GENERAL DOWNWARD TREND, AND THE 1996 VALUE IS ABOUT 24 25 PERCENT LOWER THAN THE 1988 VALUE. 25 UNLIKELY THE PREVIOUS TRENDS, THE LINE ON 0039 01 THIS GRAPH FOR THE SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN IS NOT CONTINUOUS. 02 THE FIRST LINE SHOWS AN OVERALL DECLINE FROM 1988 TO 03 1993. THE SHARP INCREASE WE SEE IN 1994 REFLECTS A NEW 04 MONITORING SITE THAT WAS OPENED IN OTAY MESA. 05 THIS SITE IS LOCATED CLOSER TO THE MEXICAN 06 BORDER, AND WE EXPECT THIS CONTRIBUTES TO THE HIGHER 07 CONCENTRATIONS. SINCE 1994, WE SEE THE SAME GENERAL 08 DECLINE WE SAW IN THE EARLIER YEARS, BUT AT A HIGHER 09 LEVEL. THE 1996 VALUE IS CLOSE TO THREE TIMES HIGHER THAN 10 THE STATE 24-HOUR STANDARD. 11 THE ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN FOR THE SAN DIEGO 12 AREA IS MORE VARIABLE THAN THE PEAK INDICATOR. AGAIN, WE 13 SEE THE HIGHEST VALUE IN 1994 WHEN SAMPLING STARTED AT 14 OTAY MESA. WHILE THE ANNUAL MEANS ARE CLOSER TO THE LEVEL 15 OF THE STATE STANDARD THAN THE PEAK VALUES, THE 1996 MEAN 16 STILL EXCEEDS THE STATE STANDARD. 17 THIS GRAPH SHOWS HOW THE SIX MOST POPULATED 18 AIR BASINS COMPARE WITH ONE ANOTHER. THE HIGHEST VALUES 19 OCCUR IN THE SOUTH COAST AND SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASINS 20 WHERE THE DESIGNATION VALUES RANGE FROM ALMOST TWO TO MORE 21 THAN FOUR TIMES HIGHER THAN THE LEVEL OF THE STATE 22 STANDARD. IT'S APPARENT FROM THESE DATA THAT ATTAINING 23 THE STATE P.M.10 STANDARDS WILL BE A TREMENDOUS 24 CHALLENGE. 25 THESE MAPS OF STATE P.M.10 DESIGNATIONS SHOW 0040 01 LITTLE CHANGE OVER THE YEARS. ONLY ONE AREA, LAKE COUNTY, 02 HAS EVER BEEN DESIGNATED AS ATTAINMENT. FROM THESE MAPS, 03 IT'S APPARENT THAT P.M.10 REMAINS A WIDESPREAD PROBLEM. 04 CURRENTLY, OVER 99 PERCENT OF CALIFORNIANS BREATHE AIR 05 THAT VIOLATES THE STATE P.M.10 STANDARDS DURING AT LEAST 06 PART OF THE YEAR. 07 AS A RESULT, P.M.10 IS COMMANDING GREATER 08 ATTENTION. WHAT MAKES THE P.M.10 PROBLEM SO DIFFICULT IS 09 THAT THE EMISSION SOURCES ARE VERY DIVERSE. BECAUSE OF 10 THE VARIETY OF SOURCES AND THE SIZE AND CHEMICAL MAKEUP OF 11 THE PARTICLES, THE NATURE OF THE P.M.10 PROBLEM CAN VARY 12 CONSIDERABLY FROM AREA TO AREA. 13 AS A RESULT, TWO AREAS WITH SIMILAR P.M.10 14 CONCENTRATIONS MAY HAVE VERY DIFFERENT P.M.10 PROBLEMS. 15 TO DEAL WITH THESE PROBLEMS EFFECTIVELY, WE WILL HAVE TO 16 DEVELOP AREA SPECIFIC CONTROL STRATEGIES. 17 IN ADDITION TO THE STATE P.M.10 STANDARDS, 18 THIS ARE ALSO NATIONAL STANDARDS. WHILE THE NATIONAL 19 STANDARDS ARE LESS STRINGENT THAN THE STATE STANDARDS, 20 THEY ARE STILL VIOLATED IN MANY AREAS. 21 RECOGNIZING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF FINE 22 PARTICLES, THE FEDERAL E.P.A. RECENTLY PROMULGATED A 23 P.M.2.5 STANDARD. WHILE SPECIFIC PLANNING REQUIREMENTS 24 HAVE NOT YET BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR P.M.2.5, THE ACTIONS WE 25 TAKE TO REDUCE P.M.10 SHOULD ALSO HELP IN REDUCING 0041 01 P.M.2.5. GIVEN THE NATURE AND SEVERITY OF OUR PARTICULATE 02 MATTER PROBLEM, IT'S APPARENT THAT WE WILL BE DEALING WITH 03 CONTROL ISSUES FOR MANY YEARS TO COME. 04 IN SUMMARY, I WOULD LIKE TO ASSURE YOU THAT 05 OVERALL, WE HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN IMPROVING 06 CALIFORNIA'S AIR QUALITY. IN DOING SO, WE HAVE LEARNED A 07 LOT, BUT WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO. HOWEVER, THE 08 PROGRESS WE HAVE MADE IN THE PAST GIVES US CONFIDENCE THAT 09 WE WILL SOMEDAY ACHIEVE CLEAN AIR. 10 AS WE WORK TO BETTER UNDERSTAND OUR POLLUTION 11 PROBLEMS, RELIABLE AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS DATA WILL BE 12 CRITICAL. AS LITTLE AS THREE YEARS AGO, THESE TYPES OF 13 DATA WERE AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY ONLY IN FILES AT THE 14 STATE COMPUTER CENTER. HOWEVER, RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN 15 COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY HAVE ALLOWED TO US DEVELOP PRODUCTS 16 THAT WILL MAKE OUR DATA MORE READILY AVAILABLE TO BOTH THE 17 STAFF AND THE PUBLIC. AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS DATA ARE 18 NOW AVAILABLE ON SEVERAL FORMATS, AND WE RELIED HEAVILY ON 19 THESE PRODUCTS IN PREPARING THIS PRESENTATION. 20 SO AT THIS POINT I WOULD LIKE TO TURN THINGS 21 OVER TO MR. BILL WELTY, WHO IS THE CHIEF OF THE TECHNICAL 22 SUPPORT DIVISION'S INFORMATION SYSTEMS BRANCH. MR. WELTY 23 WILL TELL YOU MORE ABOUT THE NEW PRODUCTS THAT WE'VE 24 DEVELOPED. 25 MR. WELTY: THANK YOU, MARCI. 0042 01 FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE BOARD FOR 02 THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY DEMONSTRATE THE PROGRESS STAFF 03 ARE MAKING TO APPROVE STAKEHOLDER ACCESS TO A.R.B.'S DATA 04 RESOURCES. SIMPLY PUT, WE ARE BUILDING ON-RAMPS TO THE 05 INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY. 06 THE A.R.B.'S PROBLEMATIC AND REGULATORY 07 AGENDA TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE AIR CALIFORNIANS 08 BREATHE IS BASED, IN PART, ON THE COMPLETENESS AND THE 09 INTEGRITY OF THE DATA IT COLLECTS AND MAINTAINS. 10 UNTIL RECENTLY, COMPLETE ACCESS TO THESE DATA 11 HAS BEEN LARGELY LIMITED TO TECHNICAL STAFF WITHIN THE 12 A.R.B. AND TO THOSE FEW STAKEHOLDERS WITH THE EXPERTISE IN 13 COMPUTER SYSTEMS CAPABLE OF PROCESSING AND ANALYZING LARGE 14 VOLUMES OF DATA. 15 TODAY WE WILL SHOW YOU NEW TECHNOLOGIES THAT 16 TAKE THE DATA OUT OF OUR BLACK BOXES AND PUT THEM INTO THE 17 HANDS OF STAKEHOLDERS. THE STRATEGIC DIRECTION IS TO 18 DISTRIBUTE A.R.B. DATA IN WAYS THAT WILL SIMPLIFY AND 19 FACILITATE THE ANALYSIS AND UNDERSTANDING OF AIR QUALITY 20 CONDITIONS AND TRENDS. 21 THIS 15-MINUTE PRESENTATION IS DIVIDED INTO 22 TWO PARTS; A DEMONSTRATION OF HOW WE ARE NOW USING THE 23 COMPACT DISK TECHNOLOGY TO DISTRIBUTE AIR QUALITY DATA, 24 AND A DEMONSTRATION OF HOW WE ARE USING THE WORLDWIDE WEB 25 TO MAKE AIR QUALITY AND EMISSION INVENTORY DATA ACCESSIBLE 0043 01 VIA THE INTERNET. 02 OUR RECENT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TOWARDS 03 DISTRIBUTING DATA FROM TWO MAJOR COMPUTER SYSTEMS. THE 04 FIRST SYSTEM IS THE A.R.B.'S AIR QUALITY DATA SYSTEM. IT 05 IS A LARGE SCALE, COMPREHENSIVE DATABASE USED TO CHRONICLE 06 THE HISTORY OF THE CALIFORNIA AIR QUALITY AND TO EVALUATE 07 THE PERFORMANCE OF A.R.B.'S VARIOUS POLLUTION MITIGATION 08 PROGRAMS. 09 THE SYSTEM PROVIDES A RECORD OF 30 YEARS OF 10 CALIFORNIA AIR QUALITY DATA, INCLUDING NEARLY 140 MILLION 11 OBSERVATIONS COLLECTED FROM OVER 1200 MONITORING SITES. 12 IN RECENT MONTHS, THE DATABASE WAS USED BY 13 HARVARD UNIVERSITY TO ANALYZE U.S. OZONE TRENDS, BY A 14 PROFESSOR IN NEW YORK FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF THE OZONE 15 PROBLEM IN NORTH AMERICA, A MASTER'S THESIS ON P.M.10 16 MEASUREMENTS, AND IN A P.M.10 HEALTH EFFECTS ANALYSIS BY A 17 PROFESSOR OF THE UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA, DAVIS. 18 THE SECOND SYSTEM WE WILL BE DISCUSSING IS 19 THE EMISSION INVENTORY DATA SYSTEM. IT IS ALSO A LARGE 20 SCALE DATABASE WHERE STATE AND DISTRICT EMISSION 21 INVENTORY DATA ARE MAINTAINED, USED LARGELY TO MANAGE 22 CALIFORNIA'S EMISSION INVENTORY AND FORECAST TRENDS IN 23 EMISSIONS. 24 THE A.R.B. HAS BEEN COLLECTING INFORMATION ON 25 EMISSIONS FROM AIR POLLUTION SOURCES SINCE 1969. THE 0044 01 EMISSION INVENTORY CONTAINS DATA ON OVER 17,000 INDIVIDUAL 02 FACILITIES, SUCH AS ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS AND REFINERIES. 03 IT ALSO INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 250 AREA SOURCE CATEGORIES, 04 LIKE CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND ARCHITECTURAL CODINGS, AND 05 PROVIDES DATA FROM ON-ROAD AND OFF-ROAD VEHICLES INCLUDING 06 TRAINS, SHIPS, AIRCRAFT AND FARM EQUIPMENT. 07 THIS INFORMATION IS PERIODICALLY COMPILED BY 08 STATE AND LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES TO CREATE 09 EMISSION INVENTORIES; THAT IS SUMMARIES OF THE AMOUNTS AND 10 TYPES OF POLLUTANTS EMITTED BY THESE SOURCES. OUR GOAL IS 11 TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ADVANCES IN INFORMATION 12 TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE THESE TWO DATA SYSTEMS MORE 13 ACCESSIBLE. 14 HERETOFORE, DATA FROM THESE SYSTEMS WERE 15 PRIMARILY AVAILABLE FROM THE BOARD'S TWO ANNUAL RECORDS 16 SHOWN HERE. THE BLUE SKY REPORT, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS LONG 17 BEEN THE HANDBOOK FOR ANALYSTS OF CALIFORNIA AMBIENT AIR 18 QUALITY DATA. LIKEWISE, THE ANNUAL CALIFORNIA EMISSION 19 INVENTORY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED FOR OVER 25 YEARS. 20 THE NEW INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, LIKE THIS 21 C.D. AND THE WORLDWIDE WEB, MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO SHARE 22 A.R.B.'S AIR QUALITY AND EMISSION DATA MORE BROADLY AND IN 23 FORMATS USEFUL TO OUR STAKEHOLDERS. 24 IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, OUR PRESENTATION HAS 25 BEEN LIMITED TO INCLUDE ONLY A FEW REPRESENTATIVE COMPUTER 0045 01 SCREENS, BUT WE INVITE YOU TO JOIN WITH US DURING THE 02 BREAK DURING LUNCH FOR LIVE DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE NEW 03 TECHNOLOGY AND NEW COMPUTING TOOLS THAT WE'RE INTRODUCING 04 TODAY. 05 LET'S FIRST TALK ABOUT THE CAPABILITIES OF A 06 COMPACT DISK IN DISTRIBUTING AIR QUALITY DATA. EACH ONE 07 OF THESE C.D.'S HOLDS ABOUT 17 YEARS OF BLUE SKY REPORTS, 08 PLUS DATA ON TOXICS AND P.M.2.5. THIS IS THE EQUIVALENT 09 OF A PILE OF BLUE SKY REPORTS ABOUT THREE FEET HIGH. 10 RUNNING ON A PERSONAL COMPUTER, THE C.D. GOES 11 WELL BEYOND THE BLUE SKY REPORTS BY PRESENTING THE DATA IN 12 THE FORM OF GRAPHS AND MAPS. THOUGH EASY TO READ, THE 13 C.D. WAS DESIGNED LARGELY FOR COMPUTER-LITERATE USERS AND 14 ANALYSTS FAMILIAR WITH AIR QUALITY DATA. THE NEXT SLIDES 15 WILL SHOW EXAMPLES OF WHAT'S ON THE C.D. 16 THIS IS A TYPICAL DISPLAY THAT CAN BE 17 PRODUCED WITH THE C.D. YOU WILL NOTICE A MAP ON THE LEFT 18 WITH COUNTY BOUNDARIES IN BLUE AND AIR BASIN BOUNDARIES IN 19 YELLOW. YOU WILL ALSO SEE VERTICAL BARS. IN THIS 20 EXAMPLE, EACH BAR REPRESENTS THE NUMBER OF EXCEEDANCES OF 21 THE STATE ONE-HOUR OZONE STANDARD IN EACH OF CALIFORNIA'S 22 AIR BASINS. 23 THE HEIGHT OF THE BARS REPRESENT THE RELATIVE 24 MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM FOR EACH AREA FOR ONE YEAR. THE 25 YEAR FOR THIS MAP IS 1980, AS INDICATED BY THE LEGEND AT 0046 01 THE BOTTOM. AND THE WINDOW ON THE RIGHT, A TREND LINE 02 SUMMARIZES 17 YEARS OF OZONE EXCEEDANCES SINCE 1980. THIS 03 SLIDE IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE MARCI DISCUSSED EARLIER IN HER 04 PRESENTATION. 05 NOW, IF YOU WERE INTERESTED IN SEEING A MAP 06 OF OZONE DATA FOR ANOTHER YEAR, LIKE 1996, WE COULD POINT 07 TO THE TREND LINE AND CLICK ON THE DATA POINT ABOVE WHERE 08 1996 IS MARKED ON THE HORIZONTAL LINE. THE RESULT OF THIS 09 ACTION IS THAT THE TREND LINE FOR STATEWIDE OZONE 10 EXCEEDANCES WOULD NOT CHANGE, BUT THE VERTICAL BARS ON THE 11 MAP TO THE LEFT WOULD SHOW OZONE EXCEEDANCES FROM 1996 12 INSTEAD OF 1980. 13 THE C.D. CAN ALSO DISPLAY A TREND LINE FOR 14 OZONE EXCEEDANCES FOR A PARTICULAR AIR BASIN, LIKE THE 15 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. IT IS EASY TO DISPLAY THIS DATA BY 16 POINTING TO THE VERTICAL BAR ON THE MAP REPRESENTING THE 17 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. THE TREND GRAPH ON THE RIGHT WILL 18 CHANGE TO DEPICT THE 17-YEAR HISTORY OF OZONE EXCEEDANCES 19 FOR THAT AIR BASIN. 20 THERE ARE OTHER FEATURES IN THIS C.D. FOR 21 EXAMPLE, YOU COULD LOOK AT SEVERAL POLLUTANTS AT THE SAME 22 TIME, OR YOU COULD LOOK AT DIFFERENT TREND INDICATORS FOR 23 THE SAME POLLUTANT. LET'S SUPPOSE YOU WANT TO LOOK AT HOW 24 WE ARE DOING WITH RESPECT TO THE EIGHT-HOUR NATIONAL OZONE 25 STANDARD VERSUS THE STATE ONE-HOUR OZONE STANDARD. 0047 01 THIS GRAPH SHOWS TWO TREND LINES FOR THE 02 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN. THE TOP LINE SHOWS EXCEEDANCES OF 03 THE STATE STANDARD, AND THE BOTTOM LINE SHOWS EXCEEDANCES 04 FOR THE NATIONAL STANDARDS. THE TWO LINES CLOSELY 05 PARALLEL EACH OTHER, INDICATING THAT OUR EFFORTS TO 06 CONTROL EMISSIONS HAVE MADE SOME WORK AND CONTRIBUTIONS IN 07 MEETING BOTH STANDARDS. 08 SO FAR I HAVE SHOWN YOU AIR BASIN AND 09 CALIFORNIA MAXIMUM DATA. WE CAN ALSO DISPLAY DATA BY 10 INDIVIDUAL MONITORING SITE. THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS WHERE 11 THE MONITORING SITES ARE GENERALLY LOCATED. HERE YOU SEE 12 A PROFUSION OF VERTICAL BARS REPRESENTING ABOUT 13 200 DIFFERENT MONITORING SITES, EACH DEPICTING THE 1996 14 OZONE VALUE FOR ITS LOCATION. 15 TO DIGEST A FULL SCREEN LIKE THIS, HOWEVER, 16 YOU CAN ZOOM IN FOR A CLOSER LOOK, AS SHOWN IN THE NEXT 17 SLIDE. THIS SHOWS THE MAP, THE PREVIOUS MAP, BUT ZOOMED 18 INTO THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN. IN FACT, YOU CAN ZOOM IN 19 AND OUT OF ANY AREA, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, YOU WISH. 20 BUT THERE ARE OTHER FEATURES OF THE C.D. THAT 21 I CAN'T GO INTO NOW IN THE INTEREST OF TIME. BUT WE HAVE 22 PROVIDED A TUTORIAL ON THE C.D. THAT SHOWS FIRST-TIME 23 USERS HOW TO USE THE RICH SET OF FEATURES OFFERED. WE 24 ALSO HAVE THE HELP DESK, AND THAT NUMBER IS ON THE C.D. AS 25 WELL. 0048 01 NOW, THIS ENDS THE DEMO OF THE C.D. WE'RE 02 MAKING THESE AVAILABLE TO OUR STAKEHOLDERS AND TO THE 03 GENERAL PUBLIC WITHOUT CHARGE. IN FACT, WE HAVE 04 DISTRIBUTED 500 C.D.'S SINCE THEY WERE INTRODUCED 05 TWO MONTHS AGO. WE HAVE SOME WITH US TODAY FOR ANYONE 06 WANTING A COPY. 07 NOW WE WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU HOW WE ARE 08 TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE TREMENDOUS OUTREACH POTENTIAL OF 09 THE WORLDWIDE WEB. WE ARE BUILDING ON-RAMPS TO THE 10 INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY TO GET AIR QUALITY AND EMISSION 11 DATA INTO THE HANDS OF A.R.B. STAKEHOLDERS WORLDWIDE BUT 12 AT NO COST TO THEM. 13 AS WITH THE C.D., WE PUT THIS WEB 14 PRESENTATION ON SLIDES, BUT WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT 15 OUR SYSTEM OFFERS AS IF WE WERE ACTUALLY LOGGED ON TO THE 16 WEB. LET'S LOOK AT WHAT AIR QUALITY DATA IS AVAILABLE. 17 IF YOU GO TO THE A.R.B.'S HOME PAGE ON THE 18 INTERNET LOCATED AT WWW.ARB.CA.GOV AND SEARCH FOR THE 19 TOPIC "AIR QUALITY DATA," YOU WILL FIND A LISTING OF 20 SOURCES FOR AIR QUALITY INFORMATION. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE 21 COMING -- THERE WE GO. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PAGES. FROM 22 HERE YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS. YOU CAN REVIEW A SUMMARY OF 23 THE TOP FOUR MEASUREMENTS AND DATA OF A STANDARD FOR A 24 GIVEN POLLUTANT OR SEE A LISTING FOR THE 24 HOURLY 25 MEASUREMENTS FOR A SITE AND DAY. 0049 01 LET'S SAY YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE TOP 02 FOUR MEASUREMENTS. AFTER INDICATING YOUR PREFERENCES FOR 03 A POLLUTANT, TIME PERIOD, AIR BASIN AND MONITORING SITE, 04 THE PROGRAM WOULD SEARCH OUT THE AIR QUALITY DATA BASE AT 05 THE T.O. DATA CENTER IN SACRAMENTO AND RETRIEVE THE DATA 06 AND THE DISPLAYS, AS YOU SEE HERE FOR OZONE. 07 IN THIS TABLE, YOU SEE THE FIRST, SECOND, 08 THIRD AND FOURTH HIGHS FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS, 1994 09 THROUGH 1996. IT ALSO GIVES YOU THE VALUES AND THE DATES 10 ON WHICH THEY OCCURRED. AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN, THE 11 NUMBER OF EXCEEDANCES IS SHOWN FOR THE SAME THREE YEARS. 12 WE HAVE BUILT IN THE CAPABILITY FOR YOU TO GO 13 FORWARDS AND BACKWARDS IN TIME FROM THIS SCREEN. FOR 14 EXAMPLE, IF YOU HIT THE BUTTON TO GO BACKWARDS, THE 15 PROGRAM WOULD SERVE THE DATABASE AND DISPLAY DATA FOR 16 1993, 1994, AND 1995 IN JUST A MATTER OF SECONDS, AS SHOWN 17 HERE. 18 ANOTHER FEATURE OF THIS PAGE WE WOULD LIKE TO 19 SHOW YOU IS A CHOICE OF POLLUTANTS LISTED ON THE FAR LEFT 20 SIDE. IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT P.M.10 INSTEAD OF OZONE, FOR 21 EXAMPLE, YOU COULD SELECT P.M.10, AND A TABLE WOULD 22 REBUILD ITSELF, BUT ONLY WITH DATA ON P.M.10., FOR THE 23 SAME SITE, SAME YEARS, JUST A DIFFERENT POLLUTANT. 24 FINALLY, THIS WEBSITE CAN ALSO DISPLAY 25 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY BY SITE ON AN HOURLY BASIS AS SHOWN 0050 01 HERE. YOU CAN ACCESS THIS INFORMATION FROM THE MAIN PAGE 02 FOR ANY YEAR POLLUTANT DATA IS AVAILABLE. 03 NOW, WE WOULD LIKE TO DEMONSTRATE OUR 04 INTERNET PAGES TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO EMISSION INVENTORY 05 DATA. AGAIN, YOU CAN START AT THE A.R.B.'S HOME PAGE AND 06 SEARCH FOR THE TOPIC "EMISSION DATA," AND YOU WILL BE 07 SHOWN A LIST OF WEB PAGES CONTAINING EMISSIONS INVENTORY. 08 THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PAGES ENTITLED 09 "CALIFORNIA EMISSION INVENTORY DATA." IF YOU SCROLL DOWN 10 THIS PAGE, YOU COME TO A DIRECTORY OF AVAILABLE DATA. 11 WE WON'T GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM NOW, BUT WE 12 WILL PICK TWO EXAMPLES TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF HOW IT 13 WORKS. FOR THE FIRST EXAMPLE, LET'S CHOOSE THE FIRST 14 DIRECTORY ITEM LISTED SHOWING THE STATEWIDE AND SELECT A 15 TABLE OF EMISSIONS DATA SUMMARIZED BY MAJOR SOURCE 16 CATEGORIES. 17 WE GET THIS DISPLAY, WHICH IS A SUMMARY OF 18 STATEWIDE EMISSIONS GROUPED BY MAJOR EMISSION CATEGORIES. 19 IF YOU SCROLL DOWN THIS LISTING IN REVIEW -- YOU CAN 20 SCROLL DOWN THIS LISTING AND REVIEW EMISSIONS INVENTORY 21 VALUES FOR EACH OF THE IDENTIFIED SOURCES. YOU CAN ALSO 22 PRINT THIS PAGE, IF YOU WISH. 23 NOW, LET'S GO BACK AND LOOK AT ANOTHER 24 EXAMPLE. AGAIN, YOU CAN USE THE DIRECTORY OF CHOICES, OR 25 YOU CAN CUSTOMIZE YOUR REQUEST FURTHER BY SELECTING A 0051 01 DIFFERENT YEAR, TYPE OF MAJOR SOURCE CATEGORY, OR 02 GEOGRAPHIC AREA. 03 THE LAST CAPABILITY WE WANT TO SHOW YOU THIS 04 MORNING IS HOW YOU HAVE A FLEXIBILITY TO SEARCH FOR 05 INFORMATION BY SPECIFIC SOURCE INDICATED BY THE LAST ITEM 06 OF FACILITY SEARCH. FROM THIS PAGE, YOU CAN SELECT 07 SPECIFIC INFORMATION, SUCH AS THE YEAR OF INTEREST, THE 08 AIR BASIN OR DISTRICT, AND THE FACILITY NAME, IF KNOWN. 09 FOR EXAMPLE, WE CAN SELECT SOUTH COAST AND 10 CHECK EMISSION DATA FOR ANY ONE OF THE SEVERAL FACILITIES 11 LISTED UNDER THE NAME, SAY, "CHEVRON," FOR 1993. THE 12 PROGRAM WOULD SEARCH THE DATABASE AND BRING UP THIS LIST 13 OF ALL THE FACILITIES IN THE SOUTH COAST WITH THE WORD 14 CHEVRON IN THEIR NAME. 15 IF WE PICKED CHEVRON U.S.A. IN EL SEGUNDO, 16 THE PROGRAM WOULD RETRIEVE THIS PAGE. THE NAME AND THE 17 ADDRESS OF THAT CHEVRON FACILITY IS SHOWN; AND BELOW, THE 18 ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF EACH POLLUTANT IS LISTED. 19 WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT HOW THE WORLDWIDE WEB 20 CAN PROVIDE STAKEHOLDERS WITH ACCESS TO OUR DATA 21 RESOURCES, AND WE'RE JUST BEGINNING TO SCRATCH THE SURFACE 22 OF WHAT'S POSSIBLE IN THIS NEW COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT. 23 THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION THIS 24 MORNING. I HOPE WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN CONVEYING THE 25 ADVANCES WE HAVE MADE TO DISTRIBUTE AIR QUALITY AND 0052 01 EMISSION INVENTORY DATA TO OUR STAKEHOLDERS -- I SHOULD 02 ADD, AT VIRTUALLY NO COST TO THEM. 03 THE GOAL IS SIMPLY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF 04 ADVANCING TECHNOLOGIES LIKE THE C.D. AND THE INFORMATION 05 SUPERHIGHWAY TO MAKE A.R.B.'S AVAILABLE DATA RESOURCES 06 ACCESSIBLE IN WAYS THAT ARE USEFUL AND MEANINGFUL TO 07 A.R.B. STAKEHOLDERS WORLDWIDE. 08 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 09 MR. DUNLAP: WELL DONE. 10 MR. KENNY, YOUR TEAM DID A FINE JOB WITH 11 THAT. 12 ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD? 13 MR. KENNY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 14 BUT I THINK WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO 15 DEMONSTRATE TO THE BOARD IS SIMPLY THE LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY 16 THAT WE'RE TRYING TO RELY UPON AND THE LEVEL OF ACCURACY 17 AND PRECISION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BRING TO THE THINGS WE 18 BRING BEFORE THIS BOARD. 19 THE OTHER THING I THINK THAT WE REALLY WANTED 20 TO HIGHLIGHT WAS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AIR QUALITY TRENDS 21 OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS, ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT REALLY 22 STANDS OUT IS THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE'S BEEN A 23 VEHICLE MILEAGE INCREASE AND DESPITE THE FACT THERE'S BEEN 24 A POPULATION INCREASE, THE TREND FOR POLLUTION HAS GONE 25 EXACTLY THE OTHER WAY. IT'S BEEN A FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL 0053 01 DECREASE. 02 AND WHAT WE THOUGHT WE COULD DO WITH THAT IS 03 PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT BACKGROUND; AND THEN AS WE MOVE 04 THROUGH THE NEXT TWO ITEMS, YOU WILL SEE WHY THAT IS 05 IMPORTANT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN 06 1998 AND, AT THE SAME TIME, PROVIDE YOU WITH A SENSE OF 07 WHAT WE'RE DOING ON A SUPERVISION THAT YOU ARE GOING TO 08 HEAR LATER ON TODAY. 09 ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? 10 MS. RIORDAN: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT, 11 MR. CHAIRMAN. 12 AND AS A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF THE SOUTH COAST 13 AIR BASIN, I REALLY WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE PROGRESS THAT'S 14 BEEN MADE; AND IT'S -- YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO ATTRIBUTE IT 15 TO A NUMBER OF CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE. 16 AND I GUESS WE START FIRST WITH THE STAFF 17 THAT HAS WORKED VERY HARD FROM THE A.R.B.; AND THEN I WAS 18 THINKING AS I WAS SITTING HERE, REALLY, IT IS ALSO THE 19 MANY STAFFS THROUGHOUT THE AIR DISTRICTS OF CALIFORNIA 20 THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED. 21 TO THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN THE AUDIENCE FROM 22 THE REGULATED COMMUNITY, YOU'VE PARTICIPATED IN A PART OF 23 THIS ADVANCEMENT AND YOU REALLY NEED TO TAKE A GREAT DEAL 24 OF SATISFACTION IN THE TRENDS THAT WE'RE SEEING HERE FOR 25 THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY. YOU REMAIN OUR CONSCIENCE 0054 01 AND YOU PUSH US TO, I THINK, CONTINUE THIS PROGRESS. 02 WHAT I AM INTERESTED IN IS THE TREMENDOUS 03 TRENDS THAT WE SEE; AND YET, I LOOK AT ONE OF THOSE FIRST 04 SLIDES THAT SHOWS MY COUNTY, SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE 05 COUNTY, AND WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAYS TO GO. AND SO 06 THERE'S THE GOOD NEWS AND THE BAD NEWS, IN A WAY. 07 BUT I DO WANT TO SAY TO THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE 08 PARTICIPATED IN THE IMPROVEMENTS, IT'S AMAZING; AND IT'S 09 PARTICULARLY AMAZING TO SOMEONE LIKE MYSELF WHO'S LIVED 10 HERE ALL OUR LIFE; AND I RECOGNIZE THE IMPROVEMENTS. 11 NOW, TODAY IS A SHINING EXAMPLE; AND I HOPE 12 WE ALL GO OUT AND LOOK AT THOSE MOUNTAINS, BECAUSE THEY 13 ARE SO MAGNIFICENT. BUT IN PART, THERE ARE STILL DAYS 14 WHEN WE CAN'T SEE THOSE MOUNTAINS, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO 15 SEE THEM EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR, THOUGH I KNOW FROM 16 HISTORY, WE DO HAVE THIS INVERSION LAYER. AND THERE ARE 17 GOING TO BE SOME DAYS -- I DON'T CARE WHAT WE DO -- WE 18 WILL NOT SEE THEM, PERHAPS IN THE SUMMER. BUT LET'S SEE 19 THEM THE REST OF THE TIME. 20 THANK YOU. 21 MR. DUNLAP: THANK YOU, BARBARA. I APPRECIATE 22 THAT. 23 MR. PARNELL? 24 MR. PARNELL: I ONLY WANT TO ADD MY COMPLIMENTS TO 25 THE STAFF AND THEIR DEDICATION TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND 0055 01 SOMETIMES UNDER ADVERSE CIRCUMSTANCES. 02 I THINK IT'S ALSO APPROPRIATE, MR. CHAIRMAN, 03 THAT WE COMPLIMENT THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE IT'S 04 THOSE PEOPLE THAT, WHILE A FEW OF THEM CAME KICKING AND 05 SCREAMING, THEY DID COME ALONG AND DEDICATE THEMSELVES TO 06 CLEANER AIR. AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE VERY QUICK TO 07 COMPLIMENT THE RESIDENTS OF THIS GREAT STATE. 08 BUT AS WE CELEBRATE CLEAN AIR, THE THOUGHT 09 STRIKES ME, TOO, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT IT'S A GREAT 10 OPPORTUNITY TO REDEDICATE OURSELVES. WE HAVE DONE THE 11 EASY THINGS OR THE EASIER THINGS TO HAVE GREAT SUCCESSES. 12 NOW, WE'RE DOWN TO DABBLING IN EVERYONE'S LIFE IN ORDER TO 13 GET THE MORE DIFFICULTY EMISSIONS, AND THE CHALLENGE IS 14 APPARENT. 15 IT'S GOING TO BE PROBABLY A CHALLENGE OF 16 COMMUNICATION, MORE THAN ANY OTHER ONE THING, THAT WE 17 COMMUNICATE WHAT IT IS WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AND GET 18 SOME BUY-IN. 19 SO I AM PLEASED AT THE PROGRESS THAT'S BEEN 20 MADE AND REALLY SUPPORT OUR VERY EXCELLENT STAFF IN 21 EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST AND JUST 22 ENCOURAGE THAT WE LOOK TOWARD THAT COMMUNICATION AND 23 DIALOGUE THAT'S GOING TO BE ABSOLUTELY SO NECESSARY. 24 IN MY TRAVELING UP AND DOWN THE STATE, I HAVE 25 NOT FOUND ONE PERSON WHO DIDN'T SUPPORT THE IDEA OF CLEAN 0056 01 AIR, BUT I FOUND MANY OF THEM THAT SUPPORTED IT ONLY TO 02 THE EXTENT THAT IT DIDN'T GORE THEIR OX. 03 SO WE DO HAVE CHALLENGES THAT LIE AHEAD AS WE 04 CELEBRATE REDEDICATION FOR MOVING INTO THE FUTURE WITH A 05 PASSION FOR THE JOB THAT WE HAVE TO DO. 06 THANK YOU. 07 MR. DUNLAP: THANK YOU, MR. PARNELL. 08 AND I KNOW THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS GOING TO 09 TALK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA FOR THE NEXT YEAR, 10 AND I KNOW MIKE'S ANXIOUS TO GET TO THAT. 11 ANY OTHER COMMENTS? 12 MS. RAKOW: JUST A VERY QUICK COMMENT. 13 ALSO, TOO, THEY MENTION ABOUT THE POWER PLANT 14 DATA THAT THE A.R.B. COLLECTS; AND I WAS VERY INVOLVED IN 15 THAT IN FIVE CITING CASES WHEN I WAS ON THE ENERGY 16 COMMISSION, SOME OF WHICH CITING CASES I WOULD HAVE RATHER 17 NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN. 18 HOWEVER, I WAS VERY INVOLVED IN THE C.E.Q.A. 19 PROCESS FOR EACH OF THESE DIFFERENT POWER PLANT CITING 20 CASES, AND I CAN SAY FIRSTHAND IN JUST SIX-AND-A-HALF 21 YEARS' TIME, THE ADVANCES THAT WERE MADE IN THE TYPE OF 22 TURBINES, IN THE STACK CONTROLS FOR THE EMISSIONS, IN THE 23 TYPE OF FUEL SOURCES THAT WERE USED, IS JUST TREMENDOUSLY 24 ADVANCED JUST FROM 1991 TO NOW, ALL OF WHICH IS ANOTHER 25 FACTOR IN THIS CLEANING THE AIR. 0057 01 MR. DUNLAP: AND REPRESENTS INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES. 02 MS. RAKOW: RIGHT. REPRESENTS WORK, YES, BECAUSE 03 THEY WERE ALL PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANIES THAT WORKED ON 04 THIS; AND THEY WERE MANDATED TO DO CERTAIN CONTROLS AND 05 WILLINGLY DID THEM. 06 MR. DUNLAP: THANK YOU. 07 SUPERVISOR DE SAULNIER. 08 MR. DE SAULNIER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I GOT 09 UP EARLIER THIS MORNING TRYING TO FIND A BARBER SHOP SO I 10 CAN GET A HAIRCUT BEFORE THIS MEETING, AND I FAILED TO DO 11 SO. BUT I DID NOTICE SOME PEOPLE OUT BY THE SIDE OF THE 12 ROADWAY TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE MOUNTAINS, SO YOU ARE TO 13 BE CONGRATULATED. BEING FROM THE BAY AREA, IT WAS A 14 LITTLE STARTLING. 15 I DO HAVE A COMMENT AND A QUESTION, AND SOME 16 OF THESE I'LL RESERVE UNTIL THE END, BUT THEY ARE IN 17 REGARDS TO THE RELATIONSHIPS IN TERMS OF THE TRANSPORT OF 18 OZONE EMISSIONS FROM THE BAY AREAS TO OUR NEIGHBORS IN THE 19 EAST. 20 AND PARTICULAR, WHAT WAS EXCITING ABOUT THE 21 COMPUTER MODELING IS MAYBE ADDING TO A MORE DETAILED 22 INFORMATION, VIS-A-VIS, THE MILEAGE TRAVELED. SO THAT IF 23 WE LOOKED AT -- FOR INSTANCE, IN THE BAY AREA, THE 24 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS HAS PROJECTIONS FOR 25 JOB DEVELOPMENT WHICH WE KNOW IS MOST LIKELY GOING TO TAKE 0058 01 PLACE, IRONICALLY, AROUND SAN JOSE AND THE SILICONE 02 VALLEY. 03 BUT THOSE FOLKS ARE TRAVELING TO HOMES OUT IN 04 TRACY AND MANTECA AND THROUGH MY COUNTY, CONTRA COSTA, AND 05 ALAMEDA COUNTY. SO IT SEEMS AS IF WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY 06 TO TAKE SOME OF THOSE PROJECTIONS AND MAYBE BE ABLE TO 07 BUILD THEM INTO OUR PROJECTIONS AND ADD TO THE DETAIL IN 08 TERMS OF THE MILEAGE ON THE ROAD AND THE PEAK USE OF THAT 09 MILEAGE, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH A LOT OF OUR RELATIONSHIP 10 BETWEEN US AND SAN JOAQUIN. 11 SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED I WENT OVER TO 12 SUPERVISOR PATRICK WHILE THIS WAS GOING TO ON TO FOREWARN 13 HER THAT I WAS GOING TO TRYING TO BE COLLEGIAL, BUT THESE 14 ARE ISSUES WE HAVE AND WE ARE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW. SO 15 A SIMPLE QUESTION JUST: IS THERE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SORT 16 OF ADD TO THE LOCAL PROJECTIONS BETWEEN THE COGS AND, IN 17 OUR CASE, THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS, JOB 18 DEVELOPMENT, AND SORT OF ADD TO THE DETAIL ON BOTH THE 19 TYPES OF VEHICLES THAT ARE ON THE ROAD, THE MILEAGE THAT 20 THEY ARE TRAVELING, AND IN PARTICULAR, BETWEEN JOBS AND 21 HOUSE AND BALANCE? 22 MR. DUNLAP: LYNN TERRY, I NOTICE, IS BACK THERE 23 AS WELL. 24 LYNN, MAYBE YOU THOUGHT YOU COULD NOT HAVE TO 25 SIT IN THE FRONT ROW OR SOMETHING TODAY, BUT MIKE REELED 0059 01 YOU IN ON THIS THING. 02 MR. KENNY: WELL, I THINK THE SIMPLE ANSWER, 03 SUPERVISOR, IS: THE ANSWER IS YES. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO 04 DO IS REALLY BUILD AS MUCH DATA AS WE CAN INTO THE 05 DATABASE AND MAKE IT AS EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO AS MANY 06 PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE, AND SO WE WILL WORK TOWARD THAT AND 07 PUT THAT KIND OF INFORMATION IN THERE. 08 IN FACT, THERE ARE PROBABLY PORTIONS OF THAT 09 INFORMATION THAT ARE ALREADY IN THERE THAT SIMPLY WEREN'T 10 DEMONSTRATED TODAY. 11 MR. DE SAULNIER: IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE 12 TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITIES. IT'S REALLY EXCITING. 13 MR. DUNLAP: AND I THINK THE SUPERVISOR'S COMMENT 14 THERE IS, YOU KNOW: BEFORE SOME THINGS CAN HAPPEN, IT 15 WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE THE DATA IN ORDER TO BE SURE ABOUT 16 MOVES THAT PEOPLE WOULD MAKE; I GUESS I WOULD READ INTO 17 THAT AS WELL, MARK. 18 MR. KENNY: AND I THINK WE SUPPORT THAT 19 100 PERCENT. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO REALLY IS BUILD A 20 DATABASE THAT'S SO ACCESSIBLE AND SO COMPREHENSIVE THAT, 21 IN FACT, AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO MAKE THE DECISIONS THAT ARE 22 SO COMPREHENSIVE IN THEMSELVES, WE ARE DOING SO WITH VERY 23 STRONG AND SUBSTANTIAL BACKGROUND BEHIND US. 24 MR. DUNLAP: I NOTICE MR. WELTY, WHEN HE WAS UP 25 THERE, HE HUNG UP THE C.D. 0060 01 ARE YOU GOING TO TEASE US WITH THOSE, BILL, 02 OR ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE US ONE? 03 ANY OTHER COMMENTS? 04 SUPERVISOR PATRICK, DID I MISS YOU? 05 MR. PATRICK: NO. 06 MR. DUNLAP: WHAT WE WILL DO, THEN, WE HAVE 07 TWO OTHER BRIEF PARTS OF THIS. 08 MR. SCHONING, I WANT TO GIVE YOU A MINUTE AS 09 OUR OMBUDSMAN TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT 10 OF SOME OF THE STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND THE LIKE; AND THEN 11 WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM MR. IRVIN, OUR COMMUNICATIONS 12 DIRECTOR, AS AN OUTREACH PIECE HE WANTS TO SHARE WITH US. 13 JIM? 14 MR. SCHONING: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 15 INDEED AS YOU INDICATED, AND OTHER MEMBERS, 16 YOUR COLLEAGUES, DID, RECOGNIZING THE SUCCESS AND THE 17 EFFECTIVENESS OF CALIFORNIA'S SYSTEM CONTINUES TO BE A KEY 18 AREA OF IMPORTANCE TO OUR STAKEHOLDERS, AS WE FOUND DURING 19 OUR 1996 SERIES OF STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS WHICH WERE 20 CONDUCTED THROUGHOUT THE STATE FROM APRIL UNTIL AUGUST. 21 PROUD MEMBERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY, 22 THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, AND PROUD AIR QUALITY 23 PROFESSIONALS, AS WELL, ALL TOLD US THAT CALIFORNIA HAS A 24 REMARKABLE AIR QUALITY STORY TO TELL. BUT THEY ALL TOLD 25 US WE COULD DO A LOT BETTER JOB AT TELLING THAT STORY, AS 0061 01 WELL. 02 AS A RESULT, WE HAVE WORKED WITH THEM, OUR 03 STAKEHOLDERS, TO DOUBLE AND INDEED REDOUBLE OUR EFFORTS TO 04 GET THE WORD OUT ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED, BECAUSE 05 WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAYS TO GO. 06 DURING THE LAST TEN WEEKS OF LAST YEAR, 1997, 07 IN PARTNERSHIP WITH MANY OF OUR STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING 08 OUR PARTNERS HERE IN SOUTH COAST, A.R.B.'S COMMUNICATIONS 09 OFFICE, FROM WHOM YOU WILL HEAR NEXT, CARRIED OUT AN 10 EIGHT-WEEK AIR QUALITY PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGN ENTITLED 11 "SUCCESSES OF THE AIR." 12 IT CHRONICLED MUCH OF THE AIR QUALITY 13 IMPROVEMENT YOU JUST SAW DOCUMENTED THAT'S OCCURRED OVER 14 THE PAST 20 YEARS. EQUALLY IMPORTANT, IT ALSO RECOGNIZED 15 THE MANY CHALLENGES THAT ARE AHEAD OF US AND YET TO BE 16 OVERCOME. THE PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT YOU ARE GOING 17 TO HEAR IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF THIS PUBLIC 18 INFORMATION EFFORT THAT WE THINK IS CRITICAL TO OUR 19 ULTIMATE SUCCESS. 20 AND AS YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, FOLLOWING 21 TODAY'S BOARD MEETING, WE WILL CONTINUE THAT DIALOGUE WITH 22 OUR STAKEHOLDERS ABOUT ISSUES, INCLUDING HOW BETTER TO 23 DELIVER THIS MESSAGE. 24 MOST IMPORTANTLY, IN VIEW OF THE DISTANCE WE 25 HAVE YET TO GO TO PROVIDE HEALTHFUL AIR TO CALIFORNIANS, 0062 01 IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMIND OURSELVES AND CELEBRATE OUR 02 VICTORIES ALONG THE WAY, BECAUSE THE MOST MEANINGFUL 03 EVIDENCE THAT THE SYSTEM CAN WORK IS THAT WHICH IS ALREADY 04 ACCOMPLISHED; AND WE DO HAVE A WAYS YET TO GO. 05 MR. DUNLAP: THANK YOU, JIM. 06 MR. IRVIN, THE BOARD'S COMMUNICATION 07 DIRECTOR, DO YOU WANT TO TELL US ABOUT THIS CAMPAIGN 08 YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON? 09 MR. IRVIN: SURE, YES. 10 IT'S JOE IRVIN, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, 11 AIR RESOURCES BOARD. 12 THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS FOR THE 13 OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE JUST A FEW MINUTES HERE TO SHARE WITH 14 YOU A NEW PRODUCT FROM A.R.B.'S OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS. 15 AS YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST BEEN MENTIONED THROUGH 16 THESE AIR QUALITY VISIONING FORUMS, WE HEARD FROM 17 STAKEHOLDERS THAT WE NEEDED TO DO MORE TO TELL 18 CALIFORNIANS ABOUT OUR AIR QUALITY PROGRAM'S SUCCESSES AND 19 CHALLENGES TO COME. 20 IN TAKING THAT TO HEART, THE CHAIRMAN'S 21 OFFICE HAS LOOKED FOR WAYS TO CARRY THIS OUT. LAST 22 SUMMER, MY STAFF BEGAN WORKING ON A VIDEO PUBLIC SERVICE 23 ANNOUNCEMENT THAT WOULD, IN 30 SECONDS, CAPTURE THE 24 ESSENCE OF OR MESSAGE: THE REMARKABLE SUCCESS IN CLEANING 25 THE AIR THAT WE HAVE HAD, AND THE NEED TO KEEP GOING TO 0063 01 MEET PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS. 02 TODAY, YOU WILL SEE THE RESULTS OF THAT 03 EFFORT, A P.S.A. THAT'S JUST BEEN SENT TO OVER 04 125 COMMERCIAL AND CABLE TELEVISION OUTLETS THROUGHOUT 05 CALIFORNIA. 06 MINDFUL OF THE DIVERSE CONDITIONS IN AIR 07 QUALITY THAT EXIST THROUGHOUT OUR STATE, EACH OF THESE 08 TAPES OFFERS THREE VERSIONS TO CHOOSE FROM AS IS 09 APPROPRIATE. ONE IS A 30-SECOND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 10 MESSAGE. ONE IS A 30-SECOND ALL CALIFORNIA MESSAGE. AND 11 THE LAST ONE IS A 60-SECOND ALL CALIFORNIA MESSAGE, AND 12 IT'S AN EXPANDED VERSION WHICH ALSO LENDS ITSELF WELL TO 13 SHOWING AT SUCH VENUES AS THE BIG SCREENS IN STADIUMS, 14 MOVIE THEATERS AND CONFERENCES. 15 THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE I WOULD LIKE TO 16 RECOGNIZE WHO REALLY MADE THIS HAPPEN. ONE IS ACTOR 17 ED BEGLEY, JUNIOR, WHO GRACIOUSLY AGREED TO HELP BY 18 NARRATING THE SCRIPT. THE OTHER IS A VERY TALENTED 19 INDIVIDUAL WE'RE FORTUNATE TO HAVE ON OUR STAFF, 20 PETER DALLAS, WHO WROTE, FILMED, EDITED AND PRODUCED THIS 21 VIDEO PIECE. 22 ONE LAST NOTE IS THAT THE P.S.A. OFFERS 23 VIEWERS A NUMBER TO CALL, 1-800 END-SMOG, TO FIND OUT MORE 24 ABOUT OUR AIR QUALITY PROGRAMS. THAT NUMBER RINGS IN OUR 25 EL MONTE OFFICE, SO WE CAN TRACK RESPONSES AND PROVIDE 0064 01 MORE INFORMATION TO INTERESTED CALLERS. 02 AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, THANK YOU 03 FOR YOUR TIME AND INTEREST. LET'S GET ON WITH THE SHOW. 04 (WHEREUPON THE PUBLIC SERVICE 05 ANNOUNCEMENTS WERE PLAYED.) 06 MR. DUNLAP: ANY COMMENTS? 07 ALL RIGHT. JOE, WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN DOING TO 08 DISTRIBUTE IT? 09 MR. IRWIN: AS I MENTIONED, WE'VE SENT THAT OUT TO 10 ALL OF THE 125-PLUS TELEVISION STATIONS THROUGHOUT 11 CALIFORNIA, AND IT'S A NICE PACKAGE. IT HAS THE 12 APPROPRIATE FORMAT FOR THE TECHNOLOGY NEEDED THERE AT THE 13 T.V. STATION, AS WELL AS A LETTER AND SOME OTHER 14 BACKGROUND INFORMATION. WE HAVE A FOLLOW-UP CARD THAT WAS 15 INCLUDED FOR THEM TO SEND US TO INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT 16 THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO SHOW IT. 17 NOW, WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT THIS WILL GET SOME 18 BETTER AIR TIME THAN 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING; 19 ALTHOUGH WE DO HAVE AN ANSWER MACHINE ON THAT 800 NUMBER, 20 SHOULD PEOPLE BE CALLING RIGHT AFTER SEEING IT. 21 SO FAR, THE RESPONSE HAS BEEN VERY GOOD. WE 22 WILL CONTINUE TO DO SOME FOLLOW UP. 23 MR. DUNLAP: VERY GOOD. 24 AND IF MY BOARD MEMBER COLLEAGUES ARE OPEN TO 25 THIS, THOSE THAT ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM CERTAIN AREAS, 0065 01 JOE, YOU MIGHT FOLLOW UP WITH THEM; AND MAYBE THEY CAN 02 GIVE YOU A LEAD ON THE SPECIAL CONTACT IN A RADIO OR 03 TELEVISION STATION YOU MIGHT FOLLOW UP WITH. 04 VERY WELL DONE. GIVE OUR THANKS TO 05 MR. BEGLEY, WOULD YOU? I AM CERTAIN THAT HIS COMPENSATION 06 WAS NIL OR CLOSE TO IT; BUT HE HAS BEEN A TERRIFIC 07 ADVOCATE FOR CLEAN AIR; AND WE APPRECIATE HIS WILLINGNESS 08 TO DO THIS, AND ALSO YOUR STAFF, JOE. 09 DO YOU WANT TO SAY A WORD ABOUT THE COST? DO 10 YOU HAVE A FEEL FOR WHAT THIS COST TO DO? 11 MR. IRVIN: OBVIOUSLY DONE IN-HOUSE. NO CHARGE 12 FROM ED, SO JUST EDITING COSTS FOR USING FACILITIES. 13 AGAIN, THIS GUY IS A PRO. HE DOESN'T MESS AROUND, TO PUT 14 TOGETHER SOMETHING OF THAT QUALITY. IF YOU WANT TO GET 15 THE ATTENTION IN CALIFORNIA'S COMPETITIVE MEDIA MARKET, 16 YOU NEED A GOOD PRODUCT, AND SO WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IT 17 RELATIVELY INEXPENSIVELY. 18 MR. DUNLAP: GREAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I 19 THINK THAT CONCLUDES THIS AGENDA ITEM. 20 MS. HUTCHENS, WAS THERE ANYONE THAT SIGNED UP 21 TO TESTIFY? 22 ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. WELL 23 DONE. 24 MR. KENNY, TO YOUR STAFF, APPRECIATE THAT. 25 JOE AND JIM, THANK YOU FOR THAT PERSPECTIVE. 0066 01 ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE INTO THE SECOND ITEM 02 TODAY, 98-2-2, PUBLIC MEETING TO CONSIDER A SUMMARY OF THE 03 1998 REGULATORY RULEMAKING CALENDAR. 04 THIS ITEM IS A PREVIEW OF THE BOARD'S DRAFT 05 REGULATORY CALENDAR FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR. ONE MESSAGE WE 06 CAN TAKE FROM THE FIRST BOARD ITEM TODAY IS THAT HARD WORK 07 DOES INDEED PAY OFF. WE'RE SEEING REAL IMPROVEMENTS IN 08 AIR QUALITY THROUGHOUT THE STATE AS A RESULT OF THE MANY 09 PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED AND UNDERTAKEN OVER THE 10 PAST 30 YEARS. 11 THE SECOND MESSAGE IS THAT MORE MUST BE DONE 12 TO ENSURE HEALTHFUL AIR QUALITY FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS NOW 13 AND IN THE FUTURE, ESPECIALLY AS THE STATE CONTINUES TO 14 GROW AND PROSPER. THE SECOND MESSAGE REALLY SETS THE 15 STAGE FOR THE RULEMAKING CALENDAR PRESENTED TODAY. 1998 16 PROMISES TO BE AN ACTIVE YEAR FOR THE BOARD AS WE CONTINUE 17 OUR EFFORTS TO IMPROVE AIR QUALITY. 18 WE WILL DO THIS IN LARGE PART BY FOLLOWING 19 THE COURSE WE HAVE CHARTED FOR OURSELVES IN THE STATE 20 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, AND THIS IS REFLECTED IN THE DRAFT 21 RULEMAKING CALENDAR. THIS SUMMARY IS BEING PROVIDED FOR 22 NOT JUST THE BOARD'S PLANNING PURPOSES, BUT STAKEHOLDERS, 23 SO THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING, HOW WE ARE 24 GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. 25 AND MR. KENNY, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO INTRODUCE 0067 01 THE ITEM. BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE FOR YOU TO TALK A BIT 02 ABOUT THE PROCESS WE GO THROUGH TO BUILD REGULATORY 03 AGENDA, YOU KNOW, WITH O.A.L. AND THE LIKE, SO THE BOARD 04 HAS A FLAVOR FOR THAT. 05 MR. KENNY: I'LL BE HAPPY TO. THANK YOU, 06 MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 07 WHAT I REALLY WANT TO DO IS SEGUE OFF THE 08 MESSAGE YOU JUST HEARD FROM ED BEGLEY, WHICH IS THAT WE 09 HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS BUT WE STILL HAVE A WAYS TO 10 GO. AND SO WHAT I WANT TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF TODAY IS 11 WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN 1998 AS OUR EFFORT TO TRY TO MEET 12 OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE S.I.P. THAT THIS BOARD ADOPTED 13 IN 1994 AND THEN UPDATED IN 1997, AT LEAST AS IT PERTAINS 14 TO THE SOUTH COAST. 15 EACH JANUARY, STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES SUCH 16 AS THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD MUST PREPARE A REGULATORY 17 CALENDAR OUTLINING THE RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES TO BE 18 UNDERTAKEN BY THE AGENCY DURING THE COMING YEAR. 19 THE 1998 RULEMAKING CALENDAR BEFORE YOU HAS 20 BEEN PREPARED BY STAFF TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. BY 21 STATUTE, THE RULEMAKING CALENDAR MUST IDENTIFY EACH 22 REGULATION TO BE ADOPTED OR AMENDED AND THE AUTHORITY 23 UNDER WHICH THE AGENCY ACTS, AS WELL AS DATES FOR ISSUING 24 THE PUBLIC NOTICE AND HOLDING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. 25 GOVERNOR WILSON'S REGULATORY REFORM 0068 01 INITIATIVE, SET OUT IN EXECUTIVE ORDER W144-97, DIRECTED 02 THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR EACH 03 RULEMAKING ITEM INCLUDED IN THE CALENDAR. FOR THE MOST 04 PART, THESE REQUIREMENTS ENSURE THAT INFORMATION IS 05 PROVIDED AS EARLY IN THE PROCESS AS POSSIBLE ABOUT THE 06 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS OF A REGULATORY 07 PROPOSAL. 08 THE RULEMAKING CALENDAR IS PUBLISHED BY THE 09 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND THE REGULATORY NOTICE 10 REGISTER EACH YEAR, USUALLY IN FEBRUARY. WHILE WE HAVE 11 SOME FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF MOVING ITEMS FORWARD OR 12 BACKWARDS ON THE CALENDAR, WE WILL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO 13 STAY ON THE SCHEDULE THAT IS PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY. 14 THE RULEMAKING CALENDAR IS THE PRODUCT OF 15 WORK BY THE PROGRAM DIVISIONS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 16 DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL REGULATORY ITEMS. THE 17 PROGRAM STAFF HAVE BEEN ASSISTED IN PREPARING ECONOMIC AND 18 FISCAL ANALYSES BY THE ECONOMIC STUDIES SECTION OF THE 19 RESEARCH DIVISION. 20 AMY WHITING OF THE OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS IS 21 THE BOARD'S REGULATIONS COORDINATOR, AND SHE'S TAKEN THE 22 LEAD IN COMPILING THE REGULATION CALENDAR AND WILL WALK US 23 THROUGH THE CALENDAR TODAY. COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT HAVE 24 BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU AND ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT 25 THE ENTRANCE TO THE HEARING ROOM, AND WE WILL PROVIDE A 0069 01 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE CALENDAR. 02 AFTER MS. WHITING HAS PROVIDED AN OVERVIEW OF 03 THE RULEMAKING SCHEDULE, I'VE ASKED TOM CACKETTE AND 04 MIKE SCHEIBLE TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT THE MOST 05 SIGNIFICANT ITEMS THAT WILL BE COMING TO YOU THIS YEAR. 06 BEFORE THEY DO THAT, THOUGH, I WANT TO MAKE A 07 FEW COMMENTS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE REGULATIONS 08 CALENDAR AND THE S.I.P., BECAUSE I REALLY THINK THAT'S THE 09 HEART OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. 10 AS THE CHAIRMAN NOTED, MUCH OF OUR REGULATION 11 AGENDA FOR THE NEXT YEAR IS SET BY THE STATE 12 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. AS YOU FLIP THROUGH THE REGULATIONS 13 CALENDAR, YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THE SCHEDULE FOR THIS YEAR 14 IS BOTH FAR-REACHING AND AGGRESSIVE. THE GOAL OF THIS 15 INTENSIVE EFFORT BY THE STAFF IS TO COMPLETE ALL OF OUR 16 A.R.B.'S SHORT-TERM S.I.P. COMMITMENTS BY THE END OF 17 1998. 18 ON THE CALENDAR YOU WILL SEE REGULATIONS THAT 19 ARE BEING PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING FOUR OF OUR S.I.P. 20 COMMITMENTS: A LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE SCRATCH PROGRAM FOR THE 21 SOUTH COAST, M-1; ADDITIONAL CONTROLS ON CARS AND TRUCKS, 22 M-2; TIRE STANDARDS FOR HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS, M-5; AND NEW 23 STANDARDS FOR GASOLINE POWERED, OFF-ROAD, INDUSTRIAL 24 EQUIPMENT, M-11. 25 IN THE S.I.P., WE IDENTIFY THE MEASURES 0070 01 NEEDED TO REACH OUR ATTAINMENT GOALS. HOWEVER, AS WE 02 UPDATE OUR EMISSIONS INVENTORIES, REFINE OUR CONTROL 03 STRATEGIES AND LEARN MORE ABOUT THE EMERGENT TECHNOLOGIES, 04 WE FIND THAT THE MEASURES WE IDENTIFIED IN 05 1994 DO NOT ALWAYS GET US ALL THE EMISSION REDUCTIONS WE 06 ANTICIPATED. WE ALSO FOUND ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF 07 EMISSIONS WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE, LIKE OFF-CYCLE EMISSIONS 08 FROM CARS AND TRUCKS. 09 AS WE CONTINUALLY RECEIVE NEW INFORMATION, WE 10 MUST ALSO CONTINUALLY LOOK FOR NEW STRATEGIES WHICH MAY 11 NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE S.I.P. TO ADDRESS THESE NEW 12 SOURCES, WE ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER WHAT OTHER OPTIONS MAY 13 BE AVAILABLE TO US. 14 FORTUNATELY, THE STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED 15 THREE NEW EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURES WHICH WE ARE 16 PLANNING TO BRING TO THE BOARD FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS 17 YEAR: CLEAN FUELS FOR LOCOMOTIVES, EMISSION STANDARDS FOR 18 MOTORCYCLES AND EMISSION STANDARDS FOR RECREATIONAL MARINE 19 ENGINES. 20 HOWEVER, BEFORE I INTRODUCE AMY WHITE, I 21 WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW MORE WORDS IN RESPONSE TO THE 22 CHAIRMAN'S REQUEST ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING IN ORDER TO MAKE 23 SURE THAT, IN FACT, AS WE PROCEED WITH THIS VERY 24 AGGRESSIVE REGULATORY AGENDA, THAT WE DO INTERACT WITH THE 25 EFFECTIVE PARTIES IN A WAY THAT MAKES SURE THAT THEY HAVE 0071 01 VERY SOLID COMMUNICATION, AS MR. PARNELL MENTIONED, WITH 02 US, AND THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A CONTINUOUS 03 DIALOGUE THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS. 04 THAT IS OUR INTENT ON EACH OF THESE ITEMS; 05 AND, IN FACT, THE GENERAL APPROACH THAT WE'RE TAKING BY 06 PUTTING THIS REGULATIONS CALENDAR OUT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT 07 THE PARTIES ARE INFORMED THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT EMISSION 08 REDUCTIONS IN THESE PARTICULAR SECTORS. 09 IN ADDITION TO THAT, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO 10 IS WORK WITH THE EFFECTIVE PARTIES VERY DIRECTLY SO THAT, 11 IN FACT, THEY KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHY WE'RE DOING, AND 12 THAT WE'RE ALSO ABLE TO MODIFY IT IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF 13 THE REQUESTS THAT THEY HAD MADE. 14 NOT ALWAYS DO WE MODIFY, BUT THERE ARE TIMES 15 WHEN, IN FACT, WE'RE PRESENTED WITH THE INFORMATION DURING 16 WORKSHOPS OR DURING PRIVATE DISCUSSIONS IN WHICH WE LEARN 17 THINGS THAT WE HADN'T ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED, AND THEN 18 MODIFICATIONS DO BECOME APPROPRIATE. 19 AND WE HAVE SEEN THAT ALREADY IN SOME OF THE 20 AREAS THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED TO BRING TO YOU THIS YEAR IN 21 WHICH WE DO THINK THAT SOME MODIFICATIONS OFF OF THE 22 ORIGINAL APPROACH THAT WE WERE PROPOSING NEEDED TO BE 23 TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. 24 THAT PROCESS WILL CONTINUE; AND, IN FACT, 25 WE'RE WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH THE OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE TO 0072 01 ENSURE THAT, IN FACT, WE CAN HAVE AS MUCH COMMUNICATION 02 THROUGHOUT 1998 AS WE CAN POSSIBLY ACHIEVE, BECAUSE WE DO, 03 AGAIN, THINK THIS IS AN AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE. BUT AT THE 04 SAME TIME, WE THINK THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PROGRESS WE 05 HAVE MADE, BUT ALSO RECOGNIZE THE DISTANCE WE STILL HAVE 06 TO GO, THAT IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE ACTUALLY PURSUE THIS 07 SCHEDULE IN 1998. 08 AND WITH THAT, I GUESS I'LL ASK AMY WHITING 09 TO GO THROUGH WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR THE YEAR. 10 AMY? 11 MR. DUNLAP: MIKE, BEFORE YOU DO THAT, 12 MR. CALHOUN -- 13 MR. CALHOUN: BEFORE WE GO INTO AMY'S PRESENTATION, 14 I'VE HEARD THE REMARK MADE ABOUT WE FOUND NEW SOURCES OF 15 EMISSIONS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN INVENTORY. 16 IS THAT CORRECT? 17 MR. KENNY: THAT IS CORRECT. 18 MR. CALHOUN: OKAY. SO WHAT DO WE DO AS FAR AS THE 19 INVENTORY; DO WE GO BACK AND REVISE THE INVENTORY? OR 20 WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT CASE? 21 MR. KENNY: IN 1998, ACTUALLY, WHAT WILL OCCUR IS 22 THAT THE EMISSIONS THAT WE ACHIEVE FROM THOSE 23 OFF-INVENTORY ITEMS WILL NOT REALLY GO INTO THE S.I.P. WE 24 STILL NEED TO GET THEM, BUT BECAUSE OF WHAT WE WILL BE 25 ABLE TO DO IN THE YEAR 2000, WE WILL BE DOING S.I.P. 0073 01 REVISIONS. AND SO IN THAT TIME FRAME, WE CAN THEN 02 ESSENTIALLY FACTOR IN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THESE 03 OFF-INVENTORY ITEMS THAT THEN GO INTO THE INVENTORY, AND 04 WE WILL THEN HAVE EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES TO SHOW 05 THAT WE ARE ACHIEVING THE EMISSION REDUCTIONS WE NEED. 06 THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THAT IS THE ITEM THAT 07 THIS BOARD ADOPTED LAST JULY. WE HAD THE OFF-CYCLE 08 EMISSIONS AND THE AIR CONDITIONING EMISSIONS. WHEN THE 09 BOARD ORIGINALLY ADOPTED THE S.I.P. IN 1994, THOSE 10 EMISSION REDUCTIONS -- AND THEY ARE SUBSTANTIAL. THERE 11 ARE OVER A HUNDRED TONS PER DAY -- WERE NOT ORIGINALLY 12 ANTICIPATED AS PART OF THE INVENTORY. AND SO WE ACHIEVE 13 THE EMISSION REDUCTIONS; THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE IN THE 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARE BREATHING EASIER AS A RESULT OF 15 THE EMISSION REDUCTIONS THAT WERE PART OF THAT 16 REGULATION. 17 BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNTING 18 WHICH IS ENCOMPASSED WITHIN THE S.I.P., THEY AREN'T 19 ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE WAY WE WOULD NORMALLY ACCOUNT FOR 20 THEM. WHEN WE GO FORWARD TO THE YEAR 2000 AND WE DO A 21 S.I.P. REVISION AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THEN THE ACCOUNTING 22 WILL BE MADE WHOLE BECAUSE WE WILL DO THE S.I.P. REVISION 23 FOR THE INVENTORY. WE WILL BRING THOSE OFF-CYCLE 24 EMISSIONS IN, AND WE WILL HAVE AN EMISSION REDUCTION 25 CONTROL STRATEGY IN PLACE AS A RESULT OF THIS BOARD'S 0074 01 ACTION. 02 MR. KENNY: MS. WHITING? 03 MS. WHITING: THANK YOU, MR. KENNY. 04 AND GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN DUNLAP AND MEMBERS 05 OF THE BOARD. 06 MY NAME IS AMY WHITING, AND I AM THE 07 REGULATIONS COORDINATOR WITH THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD'S 08 OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS. TODAY I WILL WALK YOU THROUGH 09 THE A.R.B.'S 1998 RULEMAKING CALENDAR. YOU SHOULD HAVE A 10 COPY OF THE DRAFT CALENDAR WHICH HAS BEEN PREPARED IN THE 11 FORMAT REQUESTED BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FOR 12 PUBLICATION IN THE CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER. 13 FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE, WE HAVE ALSO PREPARED A 14 DOCUMENT THAT LISTS EACH OF THE RULEMAKING ITEMS ON THE 15 CALENDAR TO GIVE YOU AN EASY REFERENCE FOR THE ENTIRE 16 CALENDAR YEAR. 17 ON THIS SLIDE, EACH STAR REPRESENTS ONE 18 REGULATORY ITEM ON THE CALENDAR FOR 1998. 19 THIS SLIDE IS MISSING. 20 MOVING ON TO THE RULEMAKING PROCEDURES, A 21 NUMBER OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND GOOD GOVERNMENT POLICIES 22 DICTATE THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED BY A.R.B. IN PROPOSING NEW 23 OR REVISED REGULATIONS. FIRST, THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE 24 PROCEDURE ACT, OR A.P.A., REQUIRES STAFF TO DESCRIBE THE 25 PROBLEM TO BE ADDRESSED BY REGULATORY PROPOSAL AND TO 0075 01 PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SOLUTION RECOMMENDED. THIS 02 INFORMATION IS FOUND PRIMARILY IN THE STAFF REPORT 03 PREPARED FOR EVERY REGULATORY ITEM PRESENTED TO THE 04 BOARD. 05 THE A.P.A. SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES AN 06 ASSESSMENT OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF A PROPOSED 07 REGULATION ON PRIVATE PERSONS AND BUSINESSES, INCLUDING 08 SMALL BUSINESSES. I'LL DISCUSS THESE REQUIREMENTS IN A 09 BIT MORE DETAIL IN JUST A MINUTE. 10 UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 11 ACT, OR C.E.Q.A., STAFF MUST DETERMINE WHAT, IF ANY, 12 SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COULD OCCUR AS A 13 RESULT OF THE PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION AND IDENTIFY 14 AVAILABLE, FEASIBLE MITIGATION PROCEDURES OR 15 ALTERNATIVES. 16 AS YOU KNOW, THE BOARD MUST CONSIDER THIS 17 INFORMATION AS PART OF ITS DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AND 18 MUST MAKE FINDINGS AS APPROPRIATE REGARDING THE IMPACTS 19 AND AVAILABLE MITIGATION MEASURES OR ALTERNATIVES. 20 IN ORDER TO PERFORM THESE TASKS WELL, STAFF 21 HAS A LONG ESTABLISHED PRACTICE OF "WORKSHOPPING" 22 REGULATORY PROPOSALS TO SOLICIT ROBUST STAKEHOLDER INPUT 23 AS EARLY IN THE REGULATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AS 24 POSSIBLE. CONTROVERSIAL OR TECHNICALLY COMPLEX 25 REGULATIONS MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF SEVERAL WORKSHOPS OR 0076 01 OTHER PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS. 02 THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS OF 03 THE A.P.A. AND RELATED STATE LAWS HAVE BEEN FURTHER 04 FLESHED OUT BY CAL/E.P.A. IN VARIOUS MANAGEMENT MEMOS 05 REGARDING ECONOMIC ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ADOPTION 06 OF ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS. 07 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTES AND THIS 08 POLICY, A.R.B. MUST EVALUATE THE COST IMPACT OF A PROPOSED 09 REGULATION, INCLUDING ITS COST-EFFECTIVENESS, ECONOMIC 10 IMPACTS -- SUCH AS EFFECTS ON JOBS AND THE COMPETITIVENESS 11 OF BUSINESSES IN THE STATE -- AS WELL AS IMPACTS ON STATE 12 AND LOCAL AGENCIES OR TO FEDERAL FUNDING. 13 SB-1082, ENACTED IN 1983, REQUIRES A 14 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF ANY PROPOSAL SUGGESTED AS 15 AN ALTERNATIVE THAT WILL ACHIEVE THE SAME PURPOSE AS A 16 PROPOSED MAJOR REGULATION. 17 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNOR'S REGULATION 18 REFORM INITIATIVE LAUNCHED LAST YEAR BY ISSUANCE OF 19 EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 14497, INFORMATION ABOUT THE 20 ECONOMIC AND PHYSICAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS ARE 21 TO BE MADE AVAILABLE AS PART OF THE ANNUAL RULEMAKING 22 CALENDAR. THE DRAFT RULEMAKING CALENDAR BEFORE YOU THIS 23 MORNING INCLUDES THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED UNDER 24 THE EXECUTIVE ORDER. 25 NOW, THIS IS THE SLIDE THAT WAS MISSING 0077 01 EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION; AND ON THIS SLIDE, EACH STAR 02 REPRESENTS ONE REGULATORY ITEM ON THE CALENDAR FOR 1998. 03 THIS SLIDE PROVIDES A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE 04 INTENSITY OF THE RULEMAKING ACTIVITY PLANNED FOR THE 05 REMAINDER OF THIS YEAR. 06 NEXT MONTH, THE BOARD WILL BE ASKED TO 07 CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR ON-ROAD, 08 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL ENGINES. STAFF WILL PRESENT A REPORT ON 09 INDUSTRY'S EFFORTS TO MEET THE 1999 SMALL OFF-ROAD 10 ENGINES, OR S.O.R.E., STANDARD AND WILL PROPOSE REGULATORY 11 AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING S.O.R.E. RULE AS NECESSARY, 12 BASED ON THAT INFORMATION. 13 IN APRIL 1998, STAFF WILL PROPOSE REGULATIONS 14 REGARDING MINOR VIOLATIONS OF AIR POLLUTION LAWS. 15 LEGISLATION ENACTED IN 1996, AB-2937, REQUIRES THE AIR 16 RESOURCES BOARD AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICTS TO 17 ADOPT REGULATIONS CLASSIFYING MINOR VIOLATIONS. MINOR 18 VIOLATIONS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO NOTICES TO COMPLY, 19 N.O.C.'S, RATHER THAN THE MORE SERIOUS NOTICES OF 20 VIOLATION, N.O.V.'S. 21 A.R.B. WILL PROPOSE A MINOR VIOLATION 22 REGULATION IN AREAS WHERE A.R.B. HAS DIRECT ENFORCEMENT 23 AUTHORITY AND WILL MONITOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AIR DISTRICT 24 MINOR VIOLATION PROGRAMS. 25 IN APRIL, THE BOARD WILL ALSO CONSIDER 0078 01 AMENDMENTS TO THE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR ON-ROAD, 02 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL ENGINES. THIS REGULATORY PROPOSAL IS A 03 COMPLEMENT TO THE RECENTLY ADOPTED FEDERAL RULE TO REDUCE 04 EMISSIONS FROM HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL ENGINES BEGINNING IN THE 05 YEAR 2004. 06 STAFF WILL PROPOSE REGULATIONS TO HARMONIZE 07 CALIFORNIA'S HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL ENGINE STANDARDS WITH THE 08 STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO THESE SOURCES NATIONWIDE. THIS 09 ACTION WILL BE PROPOSED TO FULFILL MEASURE M-5 OF THE 10 S.I.P. 11 THE THIRD ITEM ON THE DRAFT CALENDAR, 12 AMENDMENTS TO THE ALTERNATIVE CONTROL PLAN FOR 13 ANTIPERSPIRANTS AND DEODORANTS, IS BEING DROPPED BECAUSE, 14 BASED ON WORK WITH THE REGULATED INDUSTRY, WE HAVE 15 DETERMINED THAT NO CHANGES ARE NECESSARY. 16 AS WE MOVE TOWARD THE EARLY PART OF SUMMER, 17 IN MAY 1998, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO 18 TWO AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURES, OR A.T.C.M.'S. U.S. 19 E.P.A. HAS ADOPTED FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH TYPES OF 20 SOURCES. STAFF IS PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO UPDATE THE 21 STATE A.T.C.M.'S AND TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS THAT WILL ALLOW 22 THE STATE A.T.C.M.'S TO REPLACE THE COMPARABLE FEDERAL 23 REQUIREMENTS. 24 THE THIRD ITEM FOR MAY WILL BE A PROPOSAL TO 25 APPLY THE EXISTING GASOLINE VAPOR RECOVERY CERTIFICATION 0079 01 AND TEST PROCEDURES TO DISPENSING SYSTEMS, TERMINALS, 02 CARGO TANKS AND NOVEL FACILITIES. THE PROPOSAL WILL ALSO 03 INCLUDE REVISIONS TO EXISTING VAPOR RECOVERY CERTIFICATION 04 AND TEST PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING COMPATIBILITY WITH 05 VEHICULAR, ON-BOARD REFUELING VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS 06 MANDATED BY THE U.S. E.P.A. 07 AT THE JUNE 1998 BOARD MEETING, STAFF WILL 08 PRESENT THE RESULTS OF ITS ASSESSMENT OF THE FEASIBILITY 09 OF FUTURE EFFECTIVE V.O.C. LIMITS FOR CRAWLING BUG 10 INSECTICIDES AND PERSONAL FRAGRANCES AND WILL RECOMMEND 11 CHANGES IN THE COMPLIANCE DATES FOR THE NEW STANDARDS, IF 12 WARRANTED. 13 MOVING ON TO THE MIDDLE PORTION OF THE 14 SUMMER, IN JULY, THE STAFF WILL PRESENT AMENDMENTS TO THE 15 BOARD'S ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROCEDURES. THESE 16 AMENDMENTS WILL STRENGTHEN AND IMPROVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE 17 HEARING PROCEDURES AND BROADEN THEIR APPLICABILITY TO 18 COVER VIOLATIONS RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE FUELS. 19 THE SECOND ITEM IN JULY IS A PROPOSAL TO 20 ADOPT AFTERMARKET PARTS REGULATIONS FOR OFF-ROAD VEHICLES 21 AND EQUIPMENT. THESE REGULATIONS WILL PROVIDE A MECHANISM 22 FOR MANUFACTURERS TO CERTIFY AFTERMARKET PARTS FOR USE ON 23 CONTROLLED, OFF-ROAD, MOBILE SOURCES. 24 THE THIRD ITEM FOR JULY IS THE IDENTIFICATION 25 OF DIESEL EXHAUST AS A TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT UNDER THE 0080 01 BOARD'S AB-1807 TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT IDENTIFICATION 02 PROCESS. THIS ITEM WILL BE DISCUSSED IN MORE DETAIL A BIT 03 LATER BY MIKE SCHEIBLE. 04 IN AUGUST, THE BOARD WILL HEAR A STAFF 05 PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE CLEANER-BURNING GASOLINE REGULATIONS 06 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY WHILE MAINTAINING THE 07 EXISTING EMISSION REDUCTIONS, WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE 08 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. 09 ALSO IN AUGUST, STAFF WILL PRESENT AMENDMENTS 10 TO EXISTING STATIONARY SOURCE TEST METHODS. THE AMENDED 11 TEST METHODS WILL BE APPROVABLE BY U.S. E.P.A. AND CAN 12 THEN BE USED FOR COMPLIANCE TESTING TO MEET FEDERAL, STATE 13 AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS. 14 FINALLY, STAFF WILL PROPOSE AMENDMENTS IN THE 15 AGRICULTURAL BURNING AND SMOKE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES, 16 INCLUDING CHANGES TO THE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY AND APPROVE 17 THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY AGRICULTURAL BURN PLAN. 18 IN SEPTEMBER, THE BOARD WILL HEAR A STAFF 19 PROPOSAL TO ADOPT A REGULATION TO CONTROL COMBUSTION 20 CHAMBER DEPOSITS CAUSED BY MOTOR VEHICLE GASOLINE. 21 THE SECOND ITEM IN SEPTEMBER WILL INVOLVE 22 CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE THE USE OF CLEAN 23 DIESEL FUEL IN LOCOMOTIVES. MR. SCHEIBLE WILL ALSO GIVE A 24 DETAILED SUMMARY OF THESE TWO ITEMS LATER IN THE 25 PRESENTATION. 0081 01 IN OCTOBER, THE BOARD WILL BE ASKED TO 02 CONSIDER SEVERAL REGULATORY ITEMS. IN ADDITION TO THE 03 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR THE 1999 AEROSOL COATING 04 STANDARDS, CLEAN-UP AMENDMENTS FROM THE SUNSET REVIEW OF 05 SIX AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURES, THE ANNUAL AIR 06 TOXIC'S HOT SPOTS FEE REGULATION AND AMENDMENTS TO TEST 07 METHODS FOR DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE 08 CLEANER-BURNING GASOLINE REGULATIONS, TWO SIGNIFICANT 09 MOBILE SOURCE MEASURES WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD IN 10 OCTOBER. TOM CACKETTE WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILS 11 ABOUT BOTH OF THESE ITEMS WHICH WILL AFFECT ENGINES USED 12 IN INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT AND ON-ROAD MOTORCYCLES. 13 IN NOVEMBER THERE WILL BE TWO BOARD 14 MEETINGS. THE FIRST BOARD MEETING IN EARLY NOVEMBER WILL 15 FOCUS ON AMENDMENTS TO THE LOW-EMISSION VEHICLE STANDARDS 16 FOR LIGHT- AND MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLES. THE L.E.V. II ITEM, 17 AS THIS MEASURE IS BEING CALLED, WILL ALSO BE DISCUSSED BY 18 MR. CACKETTE. 19 THE SECOND NOVEMBER BOARD MEETING WILL COVER 20 THREE REGULATORY PROPOSALS AFFECTING THE BOARD'S CONSUMER 21 PRODUCTS REGULATIONS. IN THE FIRST ITEM, THE BOARD WILL 22 CONSIDER REGULATIONS TO ESTABLISH VOLUNTARY 23 REACTIVITY-BASED V.O.C. STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 24 AND AEROSOL COATINGS. 25 THE SECOND ITEM INVOLVES AMENDMENTS TO THE 0082 01 MID-TERM MEASURES REGULATION ADOPTED IN 1997 TO INCLUDE 02 STANDARDS FOR ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES SUCH AS HEALTH BENEFIT 03 AND SOAP PRODUCTS. 04 FOR THE FINAL CONSUMER PRODUCT ITEM, STAFF 05 WILL PROPOSE ADOPTION OF TEST METHODS FOR LOW VAPOR 06 PRESSURE V.O.C.'S. 07 THE FOURTH ITEM IN NOVEMBER WILL BE PROPOSED 08 REVISIONS TO THE ATTAINMENT/NONATTAINMENT AREA 09 DESIGNATIONS AND THE DESIGNATION CRITERIA FOR THE STATE 10 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN 11 AIR ACT. 12 IN DECEMBER, THE BOARD WILL BE ASKED TO LOOK 13 AT FOUR REGULATORY ITEMS TO CLOSE OUT 1998. THE FIRST 14 ITEM IS TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF STANDARDS AND TEST 15 PROCEDURES TO CONTROL EMISSIONS FROM RECREATIONAL MARINE 16 ENGINES. MR. CACKETTE WILL GIVE YOU MORE SPECIFICS ON 17 THIS MEASURE LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION. 18 THE SECOND ITEM IS TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF 19 REGULATIONS GOVERNING ACCELERATED VEHICLE RETIREMENT OR 20 SCRAPPAGE PROGRAMS. AB-208 REQUIRES THAT THE A.R.B. ADOPT 21 REGULATIONS GOVERNING VOLUNTARY ACCELERATED VEHICLE 22 RETIREMENT PROGRAMS BY DECEMBER 31ST, 1998. THE PROPOSED 23 REGULATIONS WILL OUTLINE PROGRAM LOGISTICS AND CALCULATION 24 OF EMISSION CREDITS. 25 THE THIRD ITEM IS A FOLLOW-UP TO THE BOARD'S 0083 01 ADOPTION OF THE STATEWIDE PORTABLE EQUIPMENT REGISTRATION 02 PROGRAM FROM 1997. AT THE MARCH 1997 HEARING, THE BOARD 03 DIRECTED STAFF TO EVALUATE AND, IF NECESSARY, RECOMMEND 04 AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATION WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE 05 EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PROGRAM. 06 FINALLY, THE BOARD WILL BE ASKED TO CONSIDER 07 AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE MOTOR 08 VEHICLE FUELS. THIS WILL ENDURE ADEQUATE SUPPLIES OF 09 LIQUIFIED PROPANE GAS, L.P.G., AND COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS, 10 C.N.G., OF A QUALITY TO PRESERVE EMISSION BENEFITS. 11 NOW, I WILL TURN THE PRESENTATION OVER TO 12 TOM CACKETTE, WHO WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAIL FOR THE 13 MAJOR MOBILE SOURCE ITEMS THAT WILL COME BEFORE YOU THIS 14 YEAR. 15 MR. CACKETTE: THERE WILL BE FIVE MAJOR MOTOR 16 VEHICLE RELATED REGULATORY PROPOSALS WE WILL PRESENT TO 17 THE BOARD THIS YEAR. 18 THE FIRST ONE WILL BE NEXT MONTH, WHICH DEALS 19 WITH THE SMALL ENGINES TYPICALLY USED IN LEAF BLOWERS AND 20 IN LAWN MOWERS; AND BECAUSE THAT PROPOSAL IS ALREADY ON 21 THE STREET AND IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, WE WON'T 22 ADDRESS THAT TODAY. 23 THE FOUR I WANT TO TALK ABOUT, I'LL PRESENT 24 IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. THE FIRST ONE IS EMISSION 25 STANDARDS FOR NEW GASOLINE AND L.P.G. INDUSTRIAL 0084 01 EQUIPMENT. AND WHAT "INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT" MEANS 02 PRINCIPALLY IS FORKLIFTS, WHICH THERE ARE VERY MANY IN THE 03 STATE, AND LOTS OF PUMPS AND COMPRESSORS AND OTHER 04 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT THAT DOESN'T RUN ON DIESEL FUEL. 05 AND WHAT I'VE DONE ON THESE SLIDES, YOU'LL 06 SEE A BAR GRAPH ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF EACH ONE, AND 07 NOTE THAT THE SCALE'S THE SAME EACH TIME. AND SO IT WILL 08 GIVE YOU A RELATIVE SENSE OF THE EMISSION REDUCTIONS THAT 09 WE EXPECT TO ACHIEVE IN THE YEAR 2010, WHICH IS THE 10 ATTAINMENT DEADLINE FOR THE SOUTH COAST. 11 THE L.P.G. AND GASOLINE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 12 PROPOSAL WILL ESSENTIALLY TAKE UNCONTROLLED ENGINES AND 13 REQUIRE THE ADDITION OF MODERN EMISSION CONTROLS LIKE 14 CATALYSTS THAT ARE USED ON CARS. 15 IT'S GOING TO BE A NATIONWIDE REGULATION. 16 AS YOU WILL REMEMBER, AS PART OF OUR S.I.P., WE HAD A 17 PARTNERSHIP WITH THE E.P.A. WHERE THEY TOOK ON SOME 18 ACTIVITY SUCH AS ESTABLISHING NATIONWIDE STANDARDS FOR NEW 19 TRUCKS, DIESEL TRUCKS, AND FOR INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT LIKE 20 GRADERS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT THAT RUNS ON DIESEL FUEL. 21 AND IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE AGREED TO TAKE THE 22 LEAD ON THE GASOLINE AND L.P.G. INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT. SO 23 IT WILL BE COMING TO YOUR BOARD IN OCTOBER; AND THEN THE 24 E.P.A. WILL FOLLOW UP WITH MATCHING RULE, HOPEFULLY 25 IDENTICAL RULE, ABOUT TWO YEARS LATER. 0085 01 I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS MEASURE WILL 02 IMPLEMENT, HOPEFULLY, M-11 AND M-12, WHICH ARE TWO OF THE 03 MOBILE MEASURES IN THE 1994 S.I.P. THE MAJOR ISSUES ON 04 THIS REGULATION WILL INVOLVE, FIRST OF ALL, THE 05 APPLICABILITY OF TECHNOLOGY OR THREE-WAY CATALYSTS TO 06 THESE FORKLIFTS. THERE WILL BE SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHAT 07 DEGREE OF STRINGENCY WE CAN ACHIEVE WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY. 08 ANOTHER THING IS THAT FORKLIFTS RIGHT NOW 09 ARE -- BASICALLY BUY UNCONTROLLED ENGINES OFF THE MARKET, 10 INSTALL IT IN THEIR EQUIPMENT. AND WE HAVE BEEN OUT 11 SEEKING ENGINE MANUFACTURERS WHO ARE WILLING TO TAKE ON 12 THE OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF PRODUCING AN EMISSION 13 CONTROLLED ENGINE, AND WE THINK SO FAR WE HAVE BEEN 14 SUCCESSFUL AT THAT AND WE WILL HAVE MANUFACTURERS THAT ARE 15 WILLING TO PRODUCE PRODUCTS THAT WILL JUST FIT INTO THESE 16 FORKLIFTS THAT WILL ALSO HAVE LOW EMISSIONS. 17 WITH ALL OF THE OFF-ROAD ITEMS, AS YOU'LL SEE 18 ALSO NEXT MONTH WITH THE SMALL-ENGINE ITEM, WE'RE GOING 19 THROUGH A REFINEMENT OF THE EMISSION INVENTORY COMPARED TO 20 WHAT WAS USED IN THE 1994 S.I.P. DEVELOPMENT. AND SO 21 THERE WILL BE A PRESENTATION AS PART OF THIS ITEM TO 22 REVISE THE INVENTORY AND SEEK YOUR APPROVAL ON THAT, AND 23 OUR FIRST WORKSHOP ON THIS WILL OCCUR IN APRIL. 24 THE NEXT ITEM DEALS WITH ON-ROAD 25 MOTORCYCLES. THE BOARD HAS EMISSION STANDARDS FOR ON-ROAD 0086 01 MOTORCYCLES AND HAS HAD THEM SINCE SOMETIME IN THE EARLY 02 1980'S. HOWEVER, THE ON-ROAD MOTORCYCLES, THE LARGE 03 CATEGORY OF THEM, THE ONES THAT YOU SEE TYPICALLY, THE 04 HONDA GOLD WINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, OR HARLEY-DAVIDSONS, HAVE A 05 RELATIVELY LAX STANDARD COMPARED TO THE TECHNOLOGY THAT'S 06 AVAILABLE TO APPLY TO THOSE FAIRLY MODERN ENGINES. 07 SO WE'RE GOING TO BE PROPOSING TO ADD A 08 STANDARD BASED ON THE USE OF CATALYTIC CONVERTERS FOR THE 09 LARGER MOTORCYCLES. WE WILL ALSO BE LOOKING AT EXTENDING 10 THE DURABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE, WHICH CURRENTLY IS 11 MUCH SHORTER THAN THEIR AVERAGE LIFE; AND WE EXPECT TO BE 12 ABLE TO ACHIEVE ROUGHLY AN 80 PERCENT REDUCTION IN 13 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS THROUGH THIS MEASURE. 14 THERE'S ALSO A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF SCOOTERS 15 WHICH ARE CURRENTLY -- HAVE SUCH SMALL ENGINES THAT THEY 16 ARE EXEMPT OR THEY WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE BOARD'S 17 REGULATIONS. AND WE ARE REVIEWING AS TO WHETHER THESE 18 SCOOTERS OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED. EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE A 19 SMALL NUMBER, THEY USE TWO-STROKE ENGINES, WHICH EMIT 20 MANY, MANY TIMES MORE EMISSIONS PER MILE THAN THE ENGINES 21 USE IN THE LARGER MOTORCYCLES. IT'S A MATTER OF EQUITY, 22 AND WE WILL SEE IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO SEEK EMISSION 23 REDUCTIONS FROM THAT CATEGORY. 24 AS FAR AS THE ISSUES, ONE WILL BE THE 25 APPROPRIATE STRINGENCY OF THE STANDARD. THE SECOND ONE IS 0087 01 KIND OF AN INTERESTING ONE, IN THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF 02 MODIFICATIONS THAT TYPICALLY GO ON TO MOTORCYCLES; AND AS 03 A RESULT, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO TAMPERING AND REMOVAL OF THE 04 CATALYSTS AND REPLACEMENT WITH UNCONTROLLED EXHAUST 05 SYSTEMS. 06 AND SINCE THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SMOG 07 CHECK PROGRAM RIGHT NOW, IT WILL RAISE THE ISSUE OF 08 WHETHER THE EQUIPMENT THAT THE BOARD WOULD POTENTIALLY 09 MANDATE BE INCLUDED ON THESE MOTORCYCLES WILL STAY ON THE 10 MOTORCYCLES FOR THEIR LIFE. 11 ALSO, THE PEOPLE THAT MAKE THE AFTERMARKET 12 EXHAUST HEADERS THAT GO ON SOME OF THESE MOTORCYCLES NOW, 13 MANY OF THEM ARE SMALL, CALIFORNIA BASED, SOUTHERN 14 CALIFORNIA BASED, COMPANIES; AND THEY WOULD BE AFFECTED 15 BECAUSE THEIR PRODUCTS WOULD NOW EITHER HAVE TO 16 ACCOMMODATE OR INCLUDE CATALYTIC CONVERTERS. 17 WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WORKSHOP ON THIS IN 18 JULY. WE'RE OUT MEETING INDIVIDUALLY WITH THE 19 MANUFACTURERS VIRTUALLY AS WE SPEAK. 20 THE NEXT PROPOSAL IS THE LOW-EMISSION 21 VEHICLE II PROPOSAL, WHICH WILL INVOLVE A FURTHER 22 TIGHTENING OF THE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER CARS, 23 LIGHT TRUCKS AND MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLES. 24 WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE PROPOSING IN THIS 25 REGULATORY ITEM IS TO LOWER THE EMISSION STANDARDS BELOW 0088 01 THE ALREADY L.E.V. AND U.L.E.V. LEVELS, AND IN PARTICULAR, 02 WE WILL BE FOCUSING ON N.O.X., WHERE WE BELIEVE THE 03 TECHNOLOGY IS AVAILABLE TO CUT THE N.O.X. STANDARD BY 04 PROBABLY AS MUCH AS ANOTHER 75 PERCENT. 05 WE WILL ALSO BE LOWERING THE EVAPORATIVE 06 EMISSION STANDARD. AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO 07 TRY TO DO IS TREAT THE LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY 08 VEHICLES, WHICH IS WHAT S.U.V. STANDS FOR, THE SAME AS 09 CARS. RIGHT NOW, THOSE LARGER, LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES ARE 10 SUBJECT TO AN EMISSIONS STANDARD THAT IS ANYWHERE FROM 11 30 TO 70 PERCENT HIGHER OR LESS STRINGENT THAN WHAT 12 APPLIES TO CARS. 13 BUT AS YOU KNOW, IN 1980 OR SO, LIGHT TRUCKS 14 WERE TRUCKS, AND THEY HAULED AROUND PLUMBER'S EQUIPMENT, 15 ET CETERA. AS YOU KNOW NOW, LIGHT TRUCKS AND SPORT 16 UTILITY VEHICLES ARE HALF OF NEW CAR SALES, AND THE VAST 17 MAJORITY OF THEM CARRY PEOPLE FROM HOME TO SCHOOL AND 18 WORK. SO WITH THIS, THEY SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY 19 THAN WE ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED 20 YEARS AGO. 20 WE WILL ALSO BE REVIEWING THE Z.E.V. CREDITS 21 TO ACCOMMODATE EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE COMING INTO 22 THE DEVELOPMENT AND MARKETPLACE. AND THIS ITEM HERE WILL 23 FULFILL MEASURE M-2 OF THE S.I.P. 24 ONE OF THE BIGGER ISSUES WILL BE THE 25 FEASIBILITY OF MEDIUM TRUCKS OR THE SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES 0089 01 AND LARGER PICKUPS IN MEETING THE CAR STANDARDS. WE THINK 02 THEY WILL BE ABLE TO; BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE WILL BE 03 HAVING MEETINGS WITH THE AUTO INDUSTRY. WE'RE ACTUALLY 04 DEVELOPING SOME ADVANCED EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND 05 APPLYING THEM TO VEHICLES THAT WE HAVE IN OUR FLEET IN 06 EL MONTE TO DEMONSTRATE WHAT THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD 07 SHOULD BE. 08 WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT EXTENDING THE 09 DURABILITY. RIGHT NOW, COMPLIANCE IS REQUIRED FOR 10 100,000 MILES, BUT THE AVERAGE CAR IN CALIFORNIA LASTS FOR 11 OVER 150,000 MILES, AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE 12 TO SEEK SOME REGULATORY PROVISION THAT ENCOURAGES 13 MANUFACTURERS TO MAKE THE EMISSION CONTROLS LAST AS LONG 14 AS THE CAR DOES. 15 WE WILL BE LOOKING AT EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS, 16 WHICH THE BOARD HAS CONSIDERED AND ADOPTED SEVERAL 17 DIFFERENT STANDARDS ON THOSE, BUT THE ISSUE HERE IS HOW 18 CLOSE TO ZERO CAN WE GET THEM. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A 19 TWO-GRAM STANDARD, AND WE BELIEVE THAT STANDARD CAN BE CUT 20 SUBSTANTIALLY AND REDUCE QUITE A BIT OF HYDROCARBON 21 EMISSIONS. 22 THE APPROPRIATE PARTIAL Z.E.V. CREDITS IS 23 ANOTHER ISSUE. WHEN WE ADOPTED THE Z.E.V. MANDATE, THERE 24 WAS REALLY JUST BATTERY-POWERED ELECTRIC VEHICLES ON THE 25 HORIZON. RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE HYDROELECTRIC VEHICLES IN 0090 01 ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT FORMATS. THERE ARE FUEL CELL 02 VEHICLES. THERE ARE, IN FACT, NATURAL GAS VEHICLES THAT 03 COME CLOSE TO BEING A Z.E.V., AND THERE ARE EVEN GASOLINE 04 VEHICLES UNDER DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY, IN FACT, APPROACH 05 Z.E.V. LEVELS, MEANING THEIR TAILPIPE EMISSIONS MAY BE NO 06 GREATER THAN THE POWER PLANT EMISSIONS THAT GO INTO 07 CHARGING A BATTERY-ELECTRIC VEHICLE. 08 AND SO WE BELIEVE THAT THE REGULATION NEEDS 09 TO BE MODERNIZED TO ACCOMMODATE THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS 10 THAT ARE COMING OUT OF THE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND WE 11 THINK, IN THE MIDPART OF THE NEXT DECADE, WILL ENTER INTO 12 THE MARKETPLACE. 13 WE ALREADY HAD ONE WORKSHOP ON THIS, AND WE 14 WILL BE HOLDING ANOTHER ONE IN MAY. 15 THE NEXT ITEM AND FINAL ITEM IS CALLED MARINE 16 PLEASURE CRAFT. IT INVOLVES ESTABLISHING EMISSION 17 STANDARDS FOR THINGS CALLED JET SKIS, JET BOATS, AND 18 OUTBOARD MOTORS; AND YOU ALL KNOW WHAT OUTBOARD MOTORS 19 ARE. BUT WHAT WE ARE SHOWING ON THAT GRAPH WAS WHAT A 20 PERSONAL WATERCRAFT IS; AND THIS IS A FAST GROWING 21 CATEGORY OF CRAFT WHICH INVOLVES THE JET SKIS, AS YOU SEE 22 THERE; BUT ALSO USING THE SAME ENGINE THAT'S IN THAT, THEY 23 ARE BEING APPLIED TO 14 TO 18 FOOT BOATS, AS YOU SEE ON 24 THE TOP. 25 THE EMISSION RATE FOR THE ENGINES THAT ARE 0091 01 USED IN THIS EQUIPMENT IS A TWO-STROKE ENGINE, AND THE 02 EMISSION RATE PER HOUR IS AT LEAST 500 TIMES HIGHER THAN A 03 NEW MOTOR VEHICLE. YOU DRIVE YOUR CAR FOR ONE HOUR, YOU 04 OPERATE ONE OF THESE FOR ONE HOUR, YOU PUT OUT 500 TIMES 05 AS MUCH POLLUTION IN THIS BOAT. 06 THE E.P.A. HAS ADOPTED STANDARDS AS A FIRST 07 STEP; AND THEY ARE A MODEST FIRST STEP, I SHOULD SAY. AND 08 THEY DO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENT IN OUR S.I.P. FOR M-16; 09 BUT YOUR STAFF BELIEVES WE CAN GO FAR BEYOND THAT, REDUCE 10 EMISSIONS BY ANOTHER 80-SOME TONS PER DAY STATEWIDE BY 11 BASING A STANDARD ON USE OF FOUR-STROKE ENGINES INSTEAD OF 12 TWO-STROKE ENGINES. 13 AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THEME THROUGHOUT THE 14 REGULATORY AGENDA, IS THAT ACHIEVING EITHER VERY GOOD 15 CONTROL OF TWO-STROKES OR MOVING TO FOUR-STROKES IN THESE 16 OFF-ROAD CATEGORIES IS ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS OF 17 REDUCING EMISSIONS. 18 THE ISSUES WILL BE THE STRINGENCY OF THE 19 STANDARD. IF WE SET A STANDARD THAT ALLOWS THE CONTINUED 20 USE OF TWO-STROKE ENGINES, THERE WILL BE THE ISSUE OF 21 WATER POLLUTION FROM THOSE, BECAUSE IN A TWO-STROKE 22 ENGINE, RIGHT NOW UNCONTROLLED, A THIRD OF THE FUEL AND 23 THE OIL THAT'S BEEN MIXED WITH THAT FUEL GOES DIRECTLY 24 OUT, UNBURNED, INTO THE WATER. 25 AND THAT'S RAISED ISSUES ABOUT M.T.P.E. 0092 01 CONTAMINATION, FOR EXAMPLE, AT LAKE TAHOE. LAKE TAHOE HAS 02 PROPOSED TO BAN THE USE OF TWO-STROKE ENGINES IN THE LAKE, 03 AND IT'S A GENERAL ISSUE, AND WE'RE WORKING CLOSELY WITH 04 THE WATER BOARD TO DETERMINE WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS ON WATER 05 POLLUTION AS WELL AS AIR POLLUTION FROM THESE TWO-STROKE 06 ENGINES. 07 IT WILL BE A QUESTION AND ISSUE OF 08 ENFORCEMENT. THESE THINGS DO NOT HAVE LICENSE TAGS, 09 ESPECIALLY FOR OUTBOARD MOTORS. THEY ARE A SEPARATE PIECE 10 OF EQUIPMENT THAT YOU PUT ON THE BOAT THAT YOU OWN, AND 11 THERE IS NOT AN IMMEDIATELY APPARENT GOOD WAY OF ENFORCING 12 REQUIREMENTS THAT CLEAN ENGINES BE USED AND SOLD AND USED, 13 AS THERE IS WITH MOTOR VEHICLES WHERE WE CAN DO IT THROUGH 14 THE REGISTRATION PROCESS. SO WE'RE WORKING ON THAT 15 PROPOSAL. 16 ALSO, THESE CRAFT ARE TYPICALLY FILLED OUT OF 17 A GAS CAN, AND THEY RESULT IN SPILLAGE BOTH INTO THE WATER 18 AND SPILLAGE WHICH EVAPORATES INTO THE AIR TO FORM AIR 19 POLLUTION. AND WE WILL BE WORKING ON -- NOT THIS YEAR, 20 BUT AS PART OF THIS PROPOSAL AND THE SMALL ENGINE, THE 21 LAWN MOWER/WEED WHIP PROPOSAL, A PROVISION THAT ATTEMPTS 22 TO REDUCE THE EMISSIONS THAT OCCUR DURING REFUELING OF 23 THOSE SMALL EQUIPMENT. 24 FOR THIS ITEM, WE WILL HAVE A WORKSHOP IN 25 JUNE, AND THE REGULATORY ITEM WILL COME TO YOU IN 0093 01 DECEMBER. 02 MIKE? 03 MR. SCHEIBLE: IF I CAN HAVE THE FIRST SLIDE, 04 PLEASE -- 05 I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT SEVERAL REGULATORY 06 ITEMS AND ONE ADDITIONAL ITEM THAT'S NON-REGULATORY BUT IS 07 ALSO IMPORTANT. 08 THE FIRST ITEM THAT WILL COME TO THE BOARD IS 09 THE PROPOSED IDENTIFICATION OF DIESEL EXHAUST AS A TOXIC 10 AIR CONTAMINANT. THAT WILL BE IN JULY OF 1998. 11 THE THIRD DRAFT OF THE REPORT, WHICH HAS BEEN 12 IN PROGRESS SINCE ABOUT 1994, WAS RELEASED THIS WEEK. 13 WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT WORKSHOP WITH THE 14 SCIENTIFIC REVIEW PANEL ON MARCH 11TH, WHERE THEY HAVE 15 INVITED A NUMBER OF EMINENT SCIENTISTS THAT ARE FAMILIAR 16 WITH THE RESEARCH WITH DIESEL, AND WILL HAVE A DIALOGUE 17 WITH THEM ABOUT THE REPORT AND WHETHER OR NOT -- HOW THEIR 18 DATA AND THEIR WORK HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. 19 FOLLOWING THAT, IN APRIL, THE SCIENTIFIC 20 REVIEW PANEL WILL CONSIDER THE REPORT AND DETERMINE 21 WHETHER OR NOT THEY BELIEVE IT IS ADEQUATE. IF THEY FIND 22 IT IS ADEQUATE, WE WILL BRING THE REPORT TO THE BOARD FOR 23 CONSIDERATION IN JULY. 24 IF THE BOARD IDENTIFIES DIESEL EXHAUST AS A 25 TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT, THEN WE WILL START THE RISK 0094 01 MANAGEMENT PHASE OR NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOLLOWING THAT 02 DECISION. 03 CAN I HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 04 THERE ARE MANY, MANY ISSUES. I WOULD SAY THE 05 TWO LARGEST ONES ARE: ONE, HOW TO USE THE HUMAN DATA ON 06 EXPOSURE TO DIESEL EXHAUST AND ITS CONSEQUENCES ON LUNG 07 CANCER TO DEVELOP A QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT. THE 08 SCIENCE IS NOT PERFECT, AND A LOT OF EFFORT AND WORK HAS 09 GONE INTO INTERPRETING THE WORK TO DATE, AND THAT WILL BE 10 A MAJOR ISSUE FOR US TO GET ADVICE FROM THE SCIENTIFIC 11 REVIEW PANEL AND FROM THE OTHER SCIENTISTS INVOLVED AND IS 12 LIKELY TO BE AN ISSUE OF CONTENTION, IS THE SCIENCE STRONG 13 ENOUGH AND IS QUANTIFICATION -- HOW FIRM IS IT AND HOW DO 14 WE TREAT UNCERTAINTY. 15 THE SECOND ISSUE, WHICH WILL NOT BE 16 IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE BOARD, WILL BE JUST THE CONCERNS 17 ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF LISTING DIESEL EXHAUST AS A 18 TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT. THERE ARE FEARS THAT THIS COULD 19 LEAD TO A BAN ON THE USE OF DIESEL FUEL, WHICH IS CLEARLY 20 NOT SOMETHING THAT THE STAFF ENVISIONS. 21 AND SO WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE -- THE BOARD WILL 22 HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION ON IDENTIFICATION WITH THE 23 CONTEXT -- IN THE CONTEXT THAT MANY PEOPLE ARE VERY 24 CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. 25 NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 0095 01 THE NEXT ISSUE, FUELS ISSUES THAT WILL COME 02 BEFORE THE BOARD, WILL BE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE PROVIDE 03 SOME ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY IN THE CLEANER-BURNING 04 GASOLINE PROGRAM. THAT WILL BE AUGUST OF 1998. THERE ARE 05 SOME GUIDELINES THAT WE HAVE LAID DOWN AND THE 06 PARTICIPANTS HAVE AGREED TO UP-FRONT, AND THE PRIMARY ONE 07 IS THERE'S NO LOSS IN EMISSION BENEFITS. 08 THE CLEANER-BURNING GASOLINE REGS ARE A 09 PRIMARY ELEMENT OF THE S.I.P. THEY ARE A PRIMARY REASON 10 WHY WE HAVE SEEN CLEANER AIR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. 11 AND WE NEED TO PRESERVE THEIR BENEFITS. 12 WE HOPE TO ADD FLEXIBILITY TO ENABLE REFINERS 13 TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE OXYGEN USAGE. WE ARE ALSO GOING TO 14 NEED SOME HELP FROM CONGRESS TO CHANGE THE FEDERAL LAW 15 THAT RIGHT NOW CONTAINS AN OXYGEN MANDATE IN THE FEDERAL 16 CLEAN AIR ACT THAT CALIFORNIA IS SUBJECT TO. 17 WE CLEARLY HAVE AS GOALS, WE WANT TO MAINTAIN 18 ENFORCEABILITY OF THE STANDARD, AND WE WOULD LIKE IT SEE 19 SOMETHING DONE THAT ENHANCES THE ABILITY OF THE PRODUCERS 20 IN CALIFORNIA AND OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA TO PRODUCE 21 GASOLINE THAT MEETS OUR SPECIFICATIONS. 22 THE MAJOR ISSUES THAT WE SEE -- IF I CAN HAVE 23 THE NEXT SLIDE -- ARE FIRST -- WELL, NOT FIRST. ONE IS TO 24 ENSURE THAT WE HAVE GOOD DRIVEABILITY CHARACTERISTICS. 25 THE FORMULAS FOR CLEANER-BURNING GASOLINE HAVE ENHANCED 0096 01 THE DRIVEABILITIES OF TODAY'S AUTOMOBILES. IT'S POSSIBLE 02 THAT IF WE EXTEND THE RANGE TOO FAR, THAT THAT COULD BE 03 COMPROMISED TO SOME EXTENT. THAT'S SOMETHING THE PUBLIC 04 WON'T LIKE AND THE AUTO MANUFACTURERS WON'T LIKE AND WE 05 NEED TO AVOID. 06 A SECOND ISSUE IS THE INCORPORATION OF THE 07 EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS COMPONENT INTO THE PREDICTIVE 08 MODEL. WE CURRENTLY DO NOT MIX EVAPORATIVE AND EXHAUST 09 EMISSIONS. THE REFINERS WOULD LIKE US TO, AND WE HAVE TO 10 DECIDE IF THERE'S A WAY OF DOING THIS IN A WAY THAT WE'RE 11 SURE WE'RE NOT COMPROMISING EMISSION BENEFITS OF THE 12 REGULATION. 13 THE ABILITIES PREDICTIVE MODEL AND THE RANGE 14 OVER WHAT IT CAN BE USED IS THE LAST ISSUE. AND 15 FUNDAMENTALLY AND UNSPOKEN HERE IS ENSURING THAT THE FIRST 16 TENET IN THE AGREEMENT TO GO AHEAD WITH THIS ENDEAVOR IS 17 THAT THERE'S NO LOSS IN EMISSION REDUCTIONS, IS PRESERVED. 18 AND THAT MAY BECOME A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE AS WE HAVE 19 DIFFERENT ANALYSES OF HOW EXACTLY -- WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE 20 EFFECTS OF ANY PROPOSED CHANGES. 21 CAN I HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 22 THE THIRD ITEM THAT WILL COME UP IN 23 SEPTEMBER OF 1998 IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD TO 24 CONSIDER REQUIRING THAT THE DIESEL FUEL USED IN 25 LOCOMOTIVES BE THE SAME AS OR SIMILAR TO THE DIESEL FUEL 0097 01 THAT WE REQUIRE BE USED IN OTHER VEHICULAR SOURCES. 02 RIGHT NOW, LOCOMOTIVES -- THE QUALITY OF THE 03 DIESEL FUEL USED IN LOCOMOTIVES ISN'T REGULATED EITHER BY 04 THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD OR THE U.S. E.P.A. EXPLICITLY FOR 05 EMISSION REDUCTIONS. WE BELIEVE THAT IF THE FUEL WERE TO 06 BE SIMILAR TO THAT USED BY OTHER VEHICULAR SOURCES, THAT 07 WE WOULD SEE SIGNIFICANT EMISSION REDUCTIONS. 08 AND SINCE LOCOMOTIVES STATEWIDE PRODUCE 09 SUBSTANTIAL EMISSIONS, THIS IS AN AREA WE BELIEVE THAT 10 FURTHER BENEFITS CAN BE GAINED. 11 THE ISSUES -- MAY I HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE, 12 PLEASE -- ONE IS THE CONFIRMATION OF THE EMISSION 13 BENEFITS. WE HAVE A GOOD IDEA OF WHAT THE EMISSION 14 BENEFITS OF THE CLEANER-BURNING DIESEL FUEL ARE IN ON-ROAD 15 MOBILE SOURCES. WE ASSUME WE WILL SEE SIMILAR BENEFITS IN 16 LOCOMOTIVES, BUT WE WANT TO DO SOME MORE TESTING TO DO 17 THAT. 18 SECOND, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FUEL IN 19 THE REQUIRED QUANTITIES IS AVAILABLE AND WE WON'T HAVE AN 20 ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE OVERALL DIESEL MARKET IN 21 CALIFORNIA. 22 AND THE LAST IS AN ISSUE THAT, WITH TRAINS, 23 SINCE THEY COULD BE REFUELED SEVERAL STATES AWAY AND 24 PROBABLY USE THAT FUEL THROUGHOUT THEIR TIME IN 25 CALIFORNIA, I THINK WE HAVE NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF 0098 01 DO WE, IN ADDITION TO REQUIRING THE FUEL TO BE USED ON 02 FUELING, REQUIRE THE LOCOMOTIVES TO ALSO USE THE FUEL 03 WHENEVER THEY ARE IN THE STATE, AND HOW DO WE TACKLE THAT 04 ISSUE. 05 THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 06 THE LAST FUEL-RELATED ITEM IS ONE DEALING 07 WITH COMBUSTION CHAMBER DEPOSITS. THIS WILL, AGAIN, COME 08 TO THE BOARD IN SEPTEMBER OF 1998. RECENT STUDIES HAVE 09 SHOWN THAT COMBUSTION CHAMBER DEPOSITS CONTRIBUTE TO 10 N.O.X. EMISSIONS AND HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON N.O.X. 11 EMISSIONS. 12 THE CLEANER-BURNING GASOLINE SEEMS TO HAVE A 13 POSITIVE EFFECT RELATIVE TO CONVENTIONAL GASOLINE, BUT WE 14 KNOW THAT ADDING SPECIFIC ADDITIVES CAN HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 15 POSITIVE EFFECT. WE NEED TO QUANTIFY THE N.O.X. EMISSION 16 BENEFITS FROM THIS AND EVALUATE TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE GET 17 FURTHER N.O.X. REDUCTIONS IN USE FROM THIS MEASURE. 18 CAN I HAVE THE ISSUES SLIDE, PLEASE. 19 THE ISSUES ARE, AGAIN: WE WANT TO CONFIRM 20 WHAT FUEL CHARACTERISTICS ARE RELATED TO EMISSIONS AND HOW 21 DO WE PUT THOSE INTO A REGULATION, REFINE THE N.O.X. 22 BENEFIT AND MAKE SURE IT PASSES THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS 23 TEST, AND DEVELOP A TEST PROCEDURE WHICH IS BOTH DOABLE 24 AND HAS A REASONABLE SUPPORT FROM THOSE INVOLVED. 25 CAN I HAVE THE SLIDE OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS. 0099 01 THIS SLIDE DEALS WITH SEVERAL DIFFERENT 02 ISSUES DEALING WITH CONSUMER PRODUCTS THAT WILL BE BEFORE 03 THE BOARD LATER THIS YEAR. FIRST, WHEN WE ADOPTED THE 04 MID-TERM MEASURES LAST SUMMER, WE DID NOT COVER ALL THE 05 CATEGORIES. STAFF IS GOING THROUGH ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES 06 AND WAS ASKED BY THE BOARD TO RETURN WITH ADDITIONAL 07 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MORE EMISSION REDUCTIONS WHERE THEY 08 SEEM FEASIBLE AND DOABLE. 09 SECOND, WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND IMPLEMENT A 10 REACTIVITY PORTION OF THE REGULATION THAT SHOWS THAT OZONE 11 REDUCTIONS CAN BE ACHIEVED, NOT ONLY THROUGH MASS 12 REDUCTIONS OF THE V.O.C. CONTENT, BUT ALSO THROUGH CHANGES 13 IN REACTIVITY. 14 WE SEE THIS STARTING OUT AS A VOLUNTARY 15 MEASURE THAT MAY, LATER ON, TURN IN TO THE BASIS FOR A 16 MORE EFFECTIVE CONTROL PROGRAM THAT WE USE TO OBTAIN THE 17 OVERALL S.I.P. GOAL FOR THE YEAR 2010, WHERE WE HOPE TO 18 GAIN AN 85 PERCENT REDUCTION IN OZONE FORMATION FROM -- 19 ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS. 20 LASTLY, WE HAVE FOUND A NUMBER OF PLACES 21 WHERE THE CONSUMER PRODUCTS EMISSION INVENTORY NEEDS 22 UPDATING, AND WE WANT TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. 23 THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 24 I THINK I'LL JUST SKIP THE ISSUES HERE AND GO 25 TO THE LAST ISSUE. THE LAST ISSUE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE 0100 01 REGULATORY CALENDAR BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUBJECT AT THIS TIME 02 TO REGULATORY ACTION BY THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD. IT'S THE 03 ISSUE OF ACHIEVING ADDITIONAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS 04 ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF ARCHITECTURAL CODINGS. 05 THIS IS AN AREA WHERE, IN CALIFORNIA, THE 06 35 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICTS HAVE DIRECT REGULATORY 07 AUTHORITY. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WORKING TOGETHER WITH THEM 08 TO TRY TO PUT TOGETHER A CONSENSUS APPROACH FOR LOOKING AT 09 THIS CATEGORY AND GAINING ADDITIONAL INSIGHT ON WHAT MIGHT 10 BE DONE. 11 ARCHITECTURAL CODING CONTRIBUTES 150 TONS 12 PER DAY OF THE STATEWIDE V.O.C. INVENTORY. WE'RE DOING A 13 STATEWIDE SURVEY. WE'RE WORKING WITH THE DISTRICTS TO 14 UPDATE THE 1989 CONTROL MEASURE. WE'RE WORKING WITH THE 15 MANUFACTURERS TO GET THEIR VIEWS ON HOW THIS AREA CAN BE 16 MOST EFFECTIVELY REGULATED. 17 WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE ISSUE OF REACTIVITY 18 AND SHOULD THIS PLAY A ROLE IN ARCHITECTURAL CODINGS, AS 19 WE THINK IT SHOULD WITH CONSUMER PRODUCTS. AND WE'RE ALSO 20 DEALING WITH THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TO DO A COMPREHENSIVE 21 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ANALYSIS TO FULLY 22 UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AIR QUALITY 23 AND OTHERS OF ANY CHANGES IN ARCHITECTURAL CODINGS 24 REGULATIONS. 25 AND THAT PRETTY WELL ADDRESSES THE 0101 01 FIVE MEASURES THAT ARE COMING FROM MY SIDE OF THE BOARD 02 OPERATION FOR THIS YEAR. 03 MR. KENNY: I THINK THE KEY THING WE ARE REALLY 04 TRYING TO PROVIDE TO THE BOARD TODAY IS A SENSE OF WHAT 05 WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE TO YOU IN 1998 IN ORDER TO FULFILL 06 THE COMMITMENT THAT WAS MADE BY THIS BOARD TO ACHIEVE THE 07 ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATIONS THAT WERE IN THE S.I.P. AND TO 08 ALSO COMPLETE THE COMMITMENT THAT WAS MADE BY THE 09 GOVERNOR, THAT HE WANTED US TO IDENTIFY IN AS MUCH DETAIL 10 AS POSSIBLE, EVERY EFFORT WE COULD MAKE TO FLUSH OUT THE 11 BLACK BOX WHICH IS IN THE 1994 S.I.P. RIGHT NOW. 12 AND SO WHAT YOU SAW BEFORE YOU REALLY WAS THE 13 EFFORT THAT WE'RE PURSUING TO ENSURE THAT, IN FACT, THE 14 S.I.P. THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY YOU IS A VIABLE DOCUMENT 15 AND IT WILL REMAIN VIABLE; AND, IN FACT, THE PLACES WHERE 16 WE HAD SOME LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY FOUR YEARS AGO, HAVE THAT 17 UNCERTAINTY REMOVED BY GOING WITH THE MEASURES THAT ARE 18 BEING PROPOSED. 19 MR. DUNLAP: ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. 20 MR. SCHONING, I KNOW THAT THIS YEAR IS GOING 21 TO PROVE TO BE VERY BUSY. YOUR ROLE IS GOING TO BE 22 INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT. WE HAVE HEARD MR. KENNY INDICATE 23 A FEW MINUTES AGO THAT COORDINATION WAS QUITE GOOD BETWEEN 24 THE REGULATORY STAFF AND YOUR OFFICE. 25 DO YOU WANT TO EMBELLISH ON THAT COMMENT OR 0102 01 GIVE US COMFORT, IF YOU CAN. 02 MR. KENNY: AND INDEED, AS IMPORTANT AS THE 03 TECHNICAL MERIT AND FEASIBILITY OF REGULATIONS YOUR BOARD 04 ADOPTS IS THE PROCESS BY WHICH THESE REGULATIONS ARE 05 CONSIDERED AND DEVELOPED AND BROUGHT TO YOU. 06 WE KNOW THAT JUST AS A TEST OF SOUND SCIENCE 07 IS THE METHODOLOGY OF THE SCIENTIST, THE MEASURE OF A 08 VIABLE REGULATION IS ULTIMATELY THE RESULT IT YIELDS. THE 09 AUTHORITY OF THAT REGULATORY PROCESS ITSELF IS A FUNCTION 10 OF HOW AND WITH WHOM RULES ARE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED. 11 A.R.B.'S REGULATORY DIVISIONS TRADITIONALLY 12 DO A SPLENDID JOB OF WORKING WITH STAKEHOLDERS. IN 13 ADDITION TO THE A.R.B., THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN 14 FOLLOWS EVERY REGULATORY ITEM THAT COMES BEFORE YOU, AND 15 WE TRACK A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL, NON-REGULATORY ITEMS AS 16 WELL IN ORDER TO ASSIST IN EFFECTIVE INVOLVEMENT BY 17 STAKEHOLDERS IN THE IDENTIFICATION, DEVELOPMENT AND 18 IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE RULES. 19 IN 1997, THIS OFFICE TRACKED AND SUBMITTED 20 COMMENTS ON TEN REGULATORY ITEMS WHICH CAME TO YOU, 21 INCLUDING REGULATIONS FOR PORTABLE EQUIPMENT, MARKETABLE 22 EMISSION CREDITS, CONSUMER PRODUCTS, AIR TOXICS AND 23 EMISSION CONTROL TEST PROCEDURES. OUR OFFICE, IN 24 ADDITION, ROUTINELY MANAGES OTHER OUTREACH ACTIVITIES 25 WHICH ASSIST IN THIS EFFORT OF KEEPING THE PUBLIC 0103 01 INVOLVED; OUR A.R.B. 1-800 PUBLIC INFORMATION HOTLINE, OUR 02 E-MAIL HELP LINE, IN ADDITION TO REGULAR INFORMATION 03 UPDATES ON OUR INTERNET WEBSITE. 04 SINCE JANUARY OF 1997, THE OFFICE HAS 05 RESPONDED TO HUNDREDS OF HELP-LINE CALLS AND E-MAIL 06 INQUIRIES AND ROUTINELY INVESTIGATES AND RESOLVES A WIDE 07 RANGE OF STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS, INCLUDING COMPLAINTS ABOUT 08 POOR AIR QUALITY, DISSATISFACTION WITH AIR QUALITY RULES 09 AND REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES. 10 OF THE APPROXIMATELY 40 REGULATORY ITEMS 11 YOU'VE JUST HEARD DESCRIBED THIS MORNING THAT ARE 12 SCHEDULED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN 1998, SOME ITEMS 13 OBVIOUSLY WILL REQUIRE CLOSER ATTENDANCE AND ATTENTION 14 THAN OTHERS. HOWEVER, WE DO TRY TO MAKE SURE EACH ITEM IS 15 TRACKED WITH DILIGENCE. WE WILL BE WORKING CLOSELY WITH 16 OUR REGULATORY TEAM, AS WELL AS WITH THE EFFECTED 17 STAKEHOLDERS. 18 THERE'S A HANDOUT, I BELIEVE, WHICH IS BEFORE 19 EACH MEMBER OF THE BOARD AND ON THE TABLE AT THE REAR OF 20 THE ROOM WHICH IDENTIFIES MOST OF THE MEASURES YOU'VE HAD 21 DESCRIBED AND INDICATES THE RELEVANT MEMBER OF THE 22 OMBUDSMAN STAFF WHO'S TRACKING EACH OF THOSE ITEMS. 23 THE MEMBERS OF OUR TEAM ARE BILL LOCKETT, 24 WHO'S OUR DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; 25 BRUCE OULREY, ASSISTANT OMBUDSMAN; KATHLEEN MEAD, SAME 0104 01 TITLE. I WANT TO HOLD UP FOR ESPECIALLY OUR 02 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA STAKEHOLDERS WHO MAY BE PRESENT TODAY, 03 OUR DEPUTY OMBUDSPERSON FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 04 NANCY STEELE, SEATED TO MY RIGHT. SHE, BEING HOUSED HERE 05 IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH OUR MOBILE SOURCES 06 REGULATORY DIVISIONS, HAS A HOT LIST HERSELF OF 07 ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE BALANCE OF THIS REGULATORY YEAR. 08 AND MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WOULD CONCLUDE MY 09 REMARKS. 10 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. VERY GOOD. 11 JIM, I APPRECIATE THIS TABLE, AND I WOULD 12 ENCOURAGE YOU TO GET THIS DISTRIBUTED SO SOME STAKEHOLDER 13 GROUPS MIGHT KNOW THAT YOU'RE ACTIVELY INVOLVED -- AGAIN, 14 YOU KNOW, NOT BY ANY MEANS TO HAVE AN OFF-RAMP FOR THEM TO 15 WORK WITH THE TECHNICAL STAFF, BECAUSE THERE'S A ROLE THAT 16 THAT STAFF HAS, A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE, TO DEVELOP THESE 17 RULES, BUT TO JUST TOUCH BASE WITH YOU TO LET YOU KNOW 18 YOU'RE THERE. THAT WOULD BE TERRIFIC, SO I WOULD 19 ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THAT. 20 ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? 21 I HAVE ONE SMALL ADMONISHMENT I WOULD LIKE TO 22 MAKE TO MR. KENNY AND HIS TEAM. IF ANYONE ELSE DOESN'T 23 HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY, I'LL MAKE IT THEN. 24 MIKE -- AND YOU AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS 25 PRIVATELY AND IN STAFF MEETINGS -- YOU HAVE A VERY 0105 01 AGGRESSIVE AGENDA, AND I KNOW YOU ARE EXTREMELY SENSITIVE 02 TO THAT AND THE WORKLOAD ON YOUR TEAM. BUT WE HAVE GROWN, 03 AS A BOARD, ACCUSTOMED TO VERY FINE STAFF WORK AND 04 COMPLETE STAFF WORK AND A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN 05 WORKED OUT BY YOUR STAFF VERY WELL. WE HAVE GOTTEN USED 06 TO THAT. 07 AND THAT TYPE OF APPROACH IS ONE THAT WE 08 LIKE, ONE THAT WE HAVE COMMENDED YOU FOR THAT IN PUBLIC; 09 AND WE JUST WANT YOU TO DOUBLE UP YOU EFFORTS, REDOUBLE 10 YOUR EFFORTS, TO ENSURE THAT WE DO NOT LOSE SOME OF THAT 11 MOMENTUM, SOME OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS, BECAUSE WE'RE 12 TRYING TO MOVE SPEEDILY ALONG. 13 I KNOW THAT'S A TOUGH THING TO DO, BUT I 14 WANTED TO SAY THAT ON THE RECORD AND LET THOSE 15 STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE HERE LOOKING AT THIS AGENDA KNOW 16 THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ON THE HOOK AS THE MANAGER OF THIS 17 TEAM TO DO THIS RIGHT. SO I WANT YOU TO EMPHASIZE THAT 18 WITH YOUR STAFF. 19 MR. KENNY: WE UNDERSTAND THAT. AND IN FACT, WE 20 WOULDN'T DO IT IF IT WASN'T RIGHT. I THINK THE KEY THING 21 THAT WE REALLY NEED TO EMPHASIZE THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS 22 IS THE COMMUNICATION WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS WHO WE WILL BE 23 WORKING WITH, SO THEY UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DOING THINGS, 24 WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, AND THAT WE ALSO HEAR FROM THEM 25 WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS ARE. 0106 01 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. VERY GOOD. 02 YES, MR. CALHOUN. 03 MR. CALHOUN: CONSISTENT WITH THE CHAIRMAN'S 04 REMARK, WHY IS IT SO NECESSARY THAT WE DO ALL OF THIS 05 WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME? 06 MR. KENNY: I THINK THE KEY REASON IS THAT WHAT 07 WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS CARRY OUT THE GOVERNOR'S DIRECTIVE. 08 THE GOVERNOR HAS ASKED US TO TAKE THE 1994 S.I.P. AND TO 09 ENSURE THAT, IN FACT, WE LOCK DOWN, AS MUCH AS WE CAN, THE 10 UNCERTAINTIES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT DOCUMENT. 11 THE KEY PLACE WHERE THE UNCERTAINTIES EXIST 12 REALLY ARE IN THE BLACK BOX. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BLACK 13 BOX, WE HAD A FAIRLY LARGE NUMBER OF TONNAGE ON A PER DAY 14 BASIS THAT WE SIMPLY HAD SAID WAS GOING TO BE ACHIEVED 15 THROUGH THE IDENTIFICATION OF FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES. 16 WE SAID THAT FOUR YEARS AGO, AND I THINK 17 WE'RE AT A POINT NOW WHERE THOSE TECHNOLOGIES, AT LEAST, 18 HAVE PROGRESSED TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN IDENTIFY THEM, WE 19 CAN ACHIEVE EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM THEM, AND WE CAN PUT 20 THEM IN PLACE IN 1998. 21 MR. DUNLAP: MR. KENNY, JOE'S ALSO VERY MUCH AWARE 22 OF THE GOVERNOR'S DIRECTIVE TO US, WHICH IS TO SPRINT TO 23 THE FINISH, AND WE HAVE A FOOTRACE AHEAD OF US. 24 BUT I THINK MR. CALHOUN IS EMPHASIZING A 25 POINT, MIKE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW: YOU GUYS HAVE TO BE ON 0107 01 YOUR GAME AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU DO ALL THE RIGHT THINGS 02 RELATIVE TO STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND PROCESS, AND I HAVE 03 SEEN YOU DO IT IN THE PAST. I AM CERTAIN YOU CAN DO IT. 04 WE JUST NEED TO MAKE THAT THE PRIORITY. 05 ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE ON? 06 WE WILL TRY TO GET INTO THIS NEXT ITEM. 07 WITH THAT, MS. HUTCHENS, DO WE HAVE ANYONE 08 THAT SIGNED UP TO TESTIFY? 09 ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. 10 STAFF, DID WE RECEIVE ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS ON 11 THIS AT ALL? MIKE OR TOM, DID ANYBODY WRITE TO US? 12 MR. KENNY: NO WRITTEN COMMENTS. 13 MR. DUNLAP: ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. I APPRECIATE 14 THE PREPARATION THAT WENT INTO THAT PRESENTATION. 15 TOM AND MIKE, THANK YOU FOR GOING INTO DETAIL 16 ABOUT THOSE SPECIFIC MEASURES. THERE'S SOME THAT ARE VERY 17 INTERESTING, AND I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING INTO 18 THOSE. AND THE SLIDES, I THINK, WERE QUITE GOOD. AND I 19 KNOW WE HAVE SOME COPIES AROUND; BUT IF WE CAN MAKE SURE 20 THAT EVERYONE HAS THEM, MIKE, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT, ON 21 THE BOARD. 22 OKAY. LET'S MOVE INTO THE NEXT ITEM, 98-2-3, 23 WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A 24 REVISION TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. 25 THIS ITEM IS CONSIDERATION OF A REVISION TO THAT S.I.P., 0108 01 TO OUR S.I.P., RELATED TO HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS. 02 THE 1994 OZONE S.I.P. CONSISTS OF MEASURES 03 DESIGNED TO REACH ATTAINMENT TO THE FEDERAL AIR QUALITY 04 STANDARD. SPECIFICALLY, THE 1994 S.I.P. DEMONSTRATED HOW 05 SIX AREAS IN CALIFORNIA WOULD SATISFY FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS 06 TO ATTAIN THE ONE-HOUR OZONE STANDARD BY THE APPLICABLE 07 DATE AND MAKE PROGRESS IN THE INTERIM YEARS. 08 THE MEASURES IN THE OZONE S.I.P. ARE ALSO 09 INCLUDED IN THE P.M.10 S.I.P. FOR THE SOUTH COAST AREA AND 10 WILL ENSURE PROGRESS TOWARDS ATTAINMENT OF NEW FEDERAL 11 STANDARDS POST-2010. 12 WE HAVE JUST HEARD STAFF'S TIME LINE FOR 13 BRINGING SEVERAL S.I.P. MEASURES TO THE BOARD IN 1998. 14 ONE S.I.P. MEASURE NOT ON THAT SCHEDULE IS M-7, THE 15 A.R.B.'S NEAR TERM COMMITMENT FOR TRUCK SCRAPPAGE IN THE 16 SOUTH COAST. TODAY'S STAFF WILL DISCUSS A PROPOSAL TO 17 REPLACE THAT MEASURE WITH A MORE FEASIBLE AND 18 COST-EFFECTIVE APPROACH FOR REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM THOSE 19 HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS. 20 U.S. E.P.A.'S APPROVAL OF THE '94 OZONE 21 S.I.P. CREATED A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO FORMALLY REVISE THE 22 S.I.P. WHEN WE CHOSE TO PURSUE ALTERNATE STRATEGIES. IT 23 IS TIME FOR US TO TAKE THAT STEP. 24 THIS KIND OF UPDATE IS AN EXPECTED AND 25 NECESSARY PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS. IN FACT, THE 1994 0109 01 BOARD RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE S.I.P. DIRECTED THE 02 EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO, QUOTE, "CONTINUE REVIEWING THE 03 COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY OF THE 04 PROPOSED CONTROL STRATEGIES AND TO PROPOSE ANY NECESSARY 05 AND APPROPRIATE MODIFICATIONS," END QUOTE. 06 I BELIEVE STAFF HAS TAKEN THIS OBLIGATION 07 SERIOUSLY AND WILL CONTINUE TO WORK TO ENSURE THAT THIS 08 S.I.P. CONTINUES TO REPRESENT THE MOST EFFECTIVE POSSIBLE 09 PATH TO CLEAN AIR. AT THIS POINT, MR. KENNY, WOULD YOU 10 INTRODUCE THIS ITEM. 11 MR. KENNY: YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND 12 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 13 I THINK THE KEY THING I WANT TO EMPHASIZE 14 HERE IS THAT YOU'VE HEARD THIS MORNING WHAT THE AIR 15 QUALITY TRENDS HAVE BEEN. YOU'VE ALSO JUST RECENTLY HEARD 16 WHAT WE ARE PLANNING TO DO IN 1998. AND THIS REALLY IS A 17 DEMONSTRATION OF THE FLEXIBILITY THAT'S INHERENT IN THE 18 PROCESS. 19 WHEN THE BOARD ADOPTED MEASURE M-7 IN 1994, 20 WE THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT COULD ACTUALLY BE 21 ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME WE HAVE IDENTIFIED. AS 22 TIME'S GONE ON, WE HAVE LEARNED THE CONTRARY IS TRUE WITH 23 REGARD TO THIS MEASURE. AND SO THE FLEXIBILITY THAT 24 REALLY IS IMPORTANT TO BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THIS 25 PROCESS AND INTO THE FUTURE IS WHAT WE'RE REALLY GOING TO 0110 01 BE TALKING ABOUT NOW. 02 SO WITH THAT, THIS ITEM ADDRESSES PROBLEMS 03 STAFF ENCOUNTERED IN DEVELOPING MEASURE M-7, AND IT 04 PROPOSES A S.I.P. UPDATE TO REFLECT THE CURRENT 05 SITUATION. STAFF WILL PRESENT A PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE 06 CALIFORNIA S.I.P. IN TWO WAYS: FIRST TO WITHDRAW A.R.B.'S 07 COMMITMENT FOR A TRUCK SCRAPPAGE PROGRAM BECAUSE IT IS NOT 08 FEASIBLE OR COST-EFFECTIVE ON THE SCALE ENVISIONED IN THE 09 S.I.P.; AND SECOND, TO ADOPT AND SUBMIT A NEW COMMITMENT 10 FOR EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES TO ENSURE 11 THAT CALIFORNIA S.I.P. CONTINUES TO FULFILL CLEAN AIR ACT 12 REQUIREMENTS. 13 THE PROPOSED NEW MEASURE FOCUSES ON 14 MAINTAINING LOW EMISSIONS FROM TRUCKS AND BUSES IN USE AS 15 THE PRIMARY STRATEGY, WITH ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES FOR 16 CLEANER ENGINES AS A SUPPLEMENT. WE BELIEVE THIS IS A 17 SOUND APPROACH THAT CAN BEGIN DELIVERING EMISSION 18 REDUCTIONS STATEWIDE IN 2005. 19 THIS IS THE FIRST FORMAL REVISION WE HAVE 20 PROPOSED FOR A.R.B.'S ELEMENT OF THE 1994 S.I.P. IT'S A 21 NARROWLY FOCUSED FIX TO THE STRATEGY FOR HEAVY-DUTY 22 VEHICLES. THE PROPOSAL WOULD SATISFY OUR OBLIGATIONS TO 23 KEEP THE SOUTH COAST ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION FOR OZONE 24 AND PARTICULATE MATTER WHOLE, AND WOULDN'T ADVERSELY 25 IMPACT THE INTERIM PROGRESS SHOWING. 0111 01 I'LL NOW ASK MR. MIKE FITZGIBBON OF THE 02 OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING TO BEGIN 03 THE PRESENTATION. 04 MIKE? 05 MR. FITZGIBBON: THANK YOU, MR. KENNY. 06 GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN DUNLAP AND MEMBERS OF 07 THE BOARD. 08 MY NAME IS MIKE FITZGIBBON, AND TODAY I'LL 09 PRESENT TO YOU THE FIRST PROPOSAL TO FORMALLY REVISE 10 A.R.B.'S ELEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION 11 PLAN FOR S.I.P. 12 SPECIFICALLY, WE ARE LOOKING AT A CHANGE TO 13 THE STRATEGY FOR REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM HEAVY-DUTY 14 VEHICLES. I WILL BEGIN WITH A BACKGROUND ON THE S.I.P., 15 FOLLOWED BY THE STAFF'S PROPOSAL AND THE ASSOCIATED 16 IMPACTS. FINALLY, I WILL DISCUSS SOME CLARIFICATIONS TO 17 THE PROPOSAL THAT WE RECOMMEND IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES AND 18 QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD. 19 TO UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSAL, IT IS USEFUL TO 20 STEP BACK AND LOOK AT THE FRAMEWORK OF THE S.I.P. 21 WHAT IS THE 1994 OZONE S.I.P.? 22 IT IS CALIFORNIA'S COMPREHENSIVE BLUEPRINT 23 FOR CLEAN AIR IN THE SIX AREAS OF THE STATE WITH THE MOST 24 SEVERE SMOG PROBLEMS. THE 1994 OZONE S.I.P. DEMONSTRATES 25 HOW THESE AREAS WILL ATTAIN THE FEDERAL ONE-HOUR OZONE 0112 01 STANDARD BY THE DATE REQUIRED. 02 FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN, THE ATTAINMENT 03 DATE IS THE YEAR 2010. THE 1994 OZONE S.I.P. ALSO SHOWS 04 HOW THESE AREAS WILL MEET INTERIM PROGRESS TARGETS. THE 05 S.I.P. RELIES ON EXISTING AIR QUALITY PROGRAMS, PLUS NEW 06 STATE, LOCAL AND FEDERAL MEASURES TO MEET THE CLEAN AIR 07 ACT REQUIREMENTS. 08 A.R.B. ADOPTED AND SUBMITTED CALIFORNIA'S 09 OZONE S.I.P. TO THE U.S. E.P.A. ON NOVEMBER 1994, AND 10 U.S. E.P.A. APPROVED IT ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1996. 11 WHAT DOES IT MEAN, THE U.S. E.P.A. APPROVED 12 THE 1994 S.I.P.? 13 FIRST OF ALL, IT MEANS THE MEASURES 14 CONTAINED IN THE S.I.P. BECOME FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE. 15 U.S. E.P.A. CAN IMPLEMENT THEM IF WE DO NOT. SECOND, IT 16 MEANS WE MUST CONTINUE WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND MEET THE 17 COMMITMENTS FOR NEW MEASURES DEFINED IN THE S.I.P. 18 FINALLY, S.I.P. MEASURES CAN BE REVISED OR REPLACED AS 19 LONG AS THE CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTAINMENT AND 20 PROGRESS CONTINUE TO BE MET. 21 WHAT S.I.P. MEASURES DID A.R.B. COMMIT TO 22 ADOPT? 23 A.R.B. S.I.P. MEASURES AFFECT VIRTUALLY ALL 24 SOURCES UNDER ITS CONTROL, BUT TODAY WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS 25 ONLY ON HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS AND BUSES. THE 1994 OZONE 0113 01 S.I.P. CONTAINS MULTIPLE MEASURES TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM 02 THESE VEHICLES. THEY ARE A LARGE SOURCE OF NITROGEN 03 OXIDE, OR N.O.X., EMISSIONS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO OZONE AND 04 PARTICULATE MATTER FORMATION. 05 ALTHOUGH TIGHTER STANDARDS ARE CUTTING 06 OVERALL EMISSIONS FROM TRUCKS AND BUSES, THE NUMBER OF 07 VEHICLES AND THE MILES THEY TRAVEL ARE PROJECTED TO 08 STEADILY INCREASE. 09 WHAT PROGRAMS AFFECT TRUCKS AND BUSES IN 10 CALIFORNIA? 11 FIRST OF ALL, THERE ARE STATE AND NATIONAL 12 EMISSION STANDARDS FOR CLEANER ENGINES. NEW TRUCK ENGINES 13 INTRODUCED FOR THE 1998 MODEL YEAR ARE CLEANER THAN 14 EARLIER MODELS. THE NEXT STEP FOR CLEANER ENGINES IS 15 SCHEDULED FOR 2004 WHEN NEW EMISSION STANDARDS TAKE 16 AFFECT. 17 THE S.I.P. ALSO INCLUDES INCENTIVES TO GET 18 SOME ENGINES MEETING THE 2004 EMISSION STANDARDS ON THE 19 ROAD IN CALIFORNIA SOONER. THESE APPROACHING ALL FOCUS ON 20 UPGRADING THE FLEET TO PROGRESSIVELY CLEANER ENGINES. BUT 21 KEEPING LOW-EMISSION ENGINES RUNNING CLEAN IS EQUALLY 22 IMPORTANT FOR AIR QUALITY. ALTHOUGH NEW ENGINES ARE 23 DESIGNED TO BE CLEAN, THEY SHOULD BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED 24 AND NOT TAMPERED WITH TO REALIZE LOW EMISSION OVER THE 25 LIFE OF THE VEHICLE. 0114 01 IN DECEMBER, YOU APPROVED REVISIONS TO THE 02 HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE INSPECTION AND PERIODIC SMOKE 03 INSPECTION PROGRAMS. THESE PROGRAMS ARE DESIGNED TO 04 IDENTIFY AND CORRECT EXCESSIVE SMOKE EMISSIONS AND ARE SET 05 TO BEGIN LATER THIS YEAR. 06 WE ALSO NOW REALIZE THAT EXCESSIVE EMISSIONS 07 MAY OCCUR DURING THE HIGH-SPEED AND HIGH-LOAD DRIVING 08 CONDITIONS TYPICAL OF INTERSTATE TRUCKS. THESE EXCESS 09 EMISSIONS ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE FEDERAL 10 CERTIFICATION TEST AND ARE REFERRED TO AS OFF-CYCLE 11 EMISSIONS. THESE OFF-CYCLE EMISSIONS SUBSTANTIALLY 12 INCREASE THE N.O.X. EMISSIONS FROM TRUCKS AND BUSES. 13 A.R.B. IS WORKING CLOSELY WITH U.S. E.P.A. TO ENSURE THAT 14 OFF-CYCLE EMISSIONS ARE ADDRESSED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 15 NEXT I WILL DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED S.I.P. 16 REVISIONS. 17 WE PROPOSE TO WITHDRAW MEASURE M-7, 18 ACCELERATED RETIREMENT ON HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES, FROM THE 19 1994 OZONE S.I.P. AT THE SAME TIME, WE PROPOSE TO SUBMIT 20 A NEW MEASURE, MEASURE M-17, ENTITLED "ADDITIONAL EMISSION 21 REDUCTIONS FROM HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES" TO INCLUDE IN THE 22 S.I.P. ADDITIONALLY, THE IMPACT OF THESE CHANGES ON 23 OTHER S.I.P. ELEMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED. 24 AS A QUICK REVIEW, WHAT IS MEASURE M-7? 25 THIS MEASURE ENTITLED "ACCELERATED 0115 01 RETIREMENT OF HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES," COMMITTED TO REDUCE 02 EMISSIONS OF OZONE PRECURSORS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN 03 BY 11 TONS PER DAY IN 2010, WITH LESSER REDUCTIONS 04 EXPECTED IN EARLIER YEARS. THIS MEASURE ENVISIONED THAT 05 THE REDUCTIONS WOULD BE ACHIEVED BY THE ANNUAL 06 RETIREMENT -- EITHER THROUGH SCRAPPAGE OR REMOVAL -- OF 07 ABOUT 1600 OF THE OLDEST, HIGH-EMITTING TRUCKS IN THE 08 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN, BEGINNING IN 1999. 09 SO WHY DO WE NOW BELIEVE THAT MEASURE M-7 IS 10 INFEASIBLE? 11 ALTHOUGH THIS APPROACH SEEMED WORKABLE AT 12 THE TIME THE S.I.P. WAS ADOPTED IN 1994, IT HAS BECOME 13 CLEAR, THROUGH WORKING WITH THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY AND 14 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES, THAT M-7 WOULDN'T DELIVER THE 15 NEEDED EMISSION REDUCTIONS. 16 THE EXPECTED OVERSEAS MARKET FOR THE BEST OF 17 THE RETIRED VEHICLES DID NOT MATERIALIZE. THOSE OF YOU 18 WHO WERE ON THE BOARD IN 1994 MAY RECALL MEETING A 19 DELEGATIONS IN CHINA WHEN WE WERE EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL 20 TO EXPORT SOME OF THESE TRUCKS. 21 ANOTHER MAJOR OBSTACLE TO THIS MEASURE WAS 22 THE DETERMINATION THAT SCRAP TRUCKS WOULD LIKELY BE 23 REPLACED WITH TRUCKS OF SIMILAR AGE, PROVIDING FEW, IF 24 ANY, EMISSION BENEFITS. 25 LATER WORK ALSO FOUND THAT THE ECONOMIC VALUE 0116 01 OF THESE OLDER VEHICLES WAS HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED. THIS 02 WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY INFLATE THE COST OF THE PROGRAM. THE 03 PROGRAM COULDN'T BE SELF-SUSTAINING; AND ADEQUATE FUNDING 04 WOULD BE UNLIKELY, GIVEN THE LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL AIR 05 QUALITY BENEFITS. GIVEN THAT, MEASURE M-7 NEEDS TO BE 06 WITHDRAWN. 07 HOW DO WE KEEP THE S.I.P. WHOLE? 08 THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS THAT WE NEED TO REPLACE 09 THE NEEDED EMISSION REDUCTIONS. WE BEGIN BY LOOKING TO 10 THE SAME SOURCE SECTOR, HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES, FOR THE 11 EMISSION REDUCTIONS. NEXT, WE IDENTIFY FEASIBLE 12 STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE THOSE REDUCTIONS. 13 ANY REPLACEMENT STRATEGY MUST SATISFY 14 TWO ADDITIONAL LEGAL CRITERIA: FIRST, PRESERVE THE 15 ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION; AND SECOND, MAINTAIN INTERIM 16 PROGRESS. 17 TO WITHDRAW MEASURE M-7 AND KEEP THE S.I.P. 18 WHOLE, A.R.B. MUST SUBMIT A NEW MEASURE THAT DELIVERS 19 EMISSION REDUCTIONS TO ENSURE THAT S.I.P. CONTINUES TO 20 MEET FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTAINMENT AND RATE OF 21 PROGRESS. 22 OKAY. WHAT WOULD THE BOARD COMMIT TO DO 23 UNDER THE PROPOSED MEASURE M-17? 24 A.R.B. WOULD COMMIT TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL 25 EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES BY 0117 01 PURSUING A COMBINATION OF STRATEGIES. 02 THE NEW MEASURE WOULD BE ADOPTED BY 03 JANUARY 2004 AND BEGIN IMPLEMENTATION IN 2005. THE 04 MEASURE WOULD REDUCE OZONE PRECURSORS IN THE SOUTH COAST 05 AIR BASIN BY 5 TONS PER DAY IN 2005, INCREASING TO 11 TONS 06 PER DAY IN 2010. 07 IF YOU WILL RECALL, THE SCRAPPAGE MEASURE WAS 08 SCHEDULED TO BEGIN DELIVERING EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN 09 1999. WHILE M-17 WILL NOT SUPPLY THESE EARLY REDUCTIONS, 10 PROGRESS REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET; AND BY 2006, THE FULL 11 REDUCTIONS WILL BE ACHIEVED. 12 SO WHAT -- 13 MR. DUNLAP: MIKE, ON THAT POINT, IF I COULD 14 INTERRUPT YOU, WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TIME FRAME IF M-7 15 WERE TO COME TO FRUITION, THE COMPLETE EMISSIONS 16 REDUCTIONS? 17 MR. KENNY: THE COMPLETE EMISSION REDUCTIONS ARE 18 BASICALLY TO BE ACHIEVED BY 2010. 19 MR. DUNLAP: IN BOTH CASES, MIKE, M-7 OR M-17? 20 MR. KENNY: YES. IN BOTH CASES, THE END RESULT IS 21 THE SAME. THE REAL DIFFERENCE IS IN THE SHORT-TERM 22 COMMITMENTS. M-7 REALLY HAS MORE EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN 23 THE 2000 TIME FRAME; WHEREAS, M-17 DOESN'T REALLY GET 24 THOSE EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR A FEW MORE YEARS AFTER THAT. 25 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. 0118 01 MR. FITZGIBBON: OKAY. SO WHAT ARE WE PROPOSING 02 IN M-17? 03 THE GOAL OF THE MEASURE IS TO REDUCE IN-USE 04 EMISSIONS FROM HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES THROUGH PROPER 05 MAINTENANCE AND DURABLE EMISSION CONTROLS AND TO 06 SUPPLEMENT THIS EFFORT WITH INCENTIVES TO SPEED THE 07 INTRODUCTION OF CLEANER ENGINES. WE BELIEVE THERE ARE 08 OPPORTUNITIES FOR SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN N.O.X. 09 EMISSIONS BY EXPANDING IN-USE PROGRAMS FOR HEAVY-DUTY 10 VEHICLES. 11 I'LL DESCRIBE EACH OF THESE ELEMENTS IN MORE 12 DETAIL. 13 OKAY. FIRST, THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 14 ELEMENT: A.R.B.'S HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE INSPECTION AND 15 PERIODIC SMOKE INSPECTION PROGRAMS ARE DESIGNED TO 16 IDENTIFY VEHICLES WITH TAMPERED OR POORLY MAINTAINED 17 ENGINES THAT HAVE EXCESSIVE SMOKE EMISSIONS. 18 CURRENTLY, THERE'S NO REGULATORY REQUIREMENT 19 TO EVALUATE OR REDUCE N.O.X. EMISSIONS IN THESE PROGRAMS. 20 HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE IT IS POSSIBLE TO REDUCE N.O.X. 21 EMISSIONS WHILE CONCURRENTLY REDUCING SMOKE. 22 THE FIRST ELEMENT IS THROUGH EDUCATION TO 23 ENSURE THAT WHEN HEAVY-DUTY ENGINES ARE REPAIRED, THEY ARE 24 SET TO MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. WE HAVE BEGUN WORKING 25 WITH THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY, ENGINE MANUFACTURERS AND 0119 01 OTHERS TO PROMOTE THE IMPORTANCE OF SETTING ENGINES TO 02 MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 03 THE SECOND ELEMENT IS TO ADD N.O.X. SCREENING 04 AND REPAIR TO THE SMOKE INSPECTION PROGRAMS. THE CURRENT 05 S.N.A.P. ACCELERATION TEST THAT THE BOARD ADOPTED LAST 06 DECEMBER WAS DESIGNED TO MEASURE SMOKE EMISSIONS. IT DOES 07 NOT ADDRESS N.O.X. 08 TO SCREEN FOR EXCESS N.O.X. EMISSIONS IN 09 INSPECTION PROGRAMS, WE MUST FIRST DEVELOP A NEW METHOD. 10 SUCH A METHOD MIGHT INVOLVE A PORTABLE N.O.X. METER THAT 11 COULD BE CLIPPED TO THE TAILPIPE WHILE THE VEHICLE 12 ACCELERATES A SHORT DISTANCE. 13 AN ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE ON-BOARD DIAGNOSIS 14 EQUIPMENT THAT MONITORS IN-USE N.O.X. EMISSIONS. REDUCED 15 N.O.X. AND SMOKE EMISSIONS WILL RESULT FROM THE REPAIR OF 16 TAMPERED OR POORLY MAINTAINED HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES. 17 OKAY. THE SECOND PART OF THE STRATEGY TO 18 REDUCE N.O.X. AND SMOKE FOCUSES ON THE DURABILITY OF 19 EMISSION CONTROLS. WE RECOGNIZE THAT EMISSION CONTROL 20 SYSTEMS WILL DETERIORATE OVER TIME. THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS 21 STRATEGY IS TO IDENTIFY AND CORRECT ENGINE FAMILIES THAT 22 HAVE EXCESS EMISSIONS DUE TO NONDURABLE OR POORLY DESIGNED 23 EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS. THIS PROGRAM WOULD REQUIRE THE 24 REPAIR OR MODIFICATION OF THE ENGINE BY ITS MANUFACTURER 25 TO ELIMINATE EXCESS EMISSIONS. 0120 01 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL ENGINES ARE CERTIFIED ON AN 02 ENGINE DYNAMOMETER. THE SAME ENGINE MODEL IS OFTEN USED 03 IN A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT VEHICLES. THE CHALLENGE IS 04 TRYING TO CORRELATE HOW AN ENGINE PERFORMS ON THE ENGINE 05 DYNAMOMETER WITH HOW IT PERFORMS ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF 06 VEHICLES. 07 UNTIL WE CAN RELATE CHASSIS BASED SCREENING 08 WHICH CAN BE DONE WITHOUT REMOVING THE ENGINE, IN-USE 09 COMPLIANCE TESTING WILL NOT BE PRACTICAL. A.R.B. IS 10 CURRENTLY FUNDING RESEARCH TO RELATE CHASSIS SCREENING 11 WITH ENGINE DYNAMOMETER TESTING. IF WE FIND THAT CHASSIS 12 BASED SCREENING IS POSSIBLE AND COST-EFFECTIVE, A TEST 13 CYCLE WILL BE DEVELOPED. 14 AN ALTERNATIVE TO CHASSIS BASED SCREENING 15 COULD BE THE INSPECTION OF ON-BOARD DIAGNOSIS SYSTEMS, 16 SHOULD THESE SYSTEMS BE UTILIZED ON HEAVY-DUTY ENGINES IN 17 THE FUTURE. 18 MEASURE M-17 CALLS FOR A.R.B. TO ENCOURAGE 19 THE INTRODUCTION OF CLEANER ENGINES WITH EMISSIONS WELL 20 BELOW THE 2004 MODEL YEAR STANDARDS. BY FOCUSING ON THESE 21 ENGINES, THE INCENTIVES IN M-17 WOULD COMPLEMENT BUT NOT 22 OVERLAP WITH THE OTHER TRUCK INCENTIVE MEASURES IN THE 23 S.I.P. THE EXISTING S.I.P. INCENTIVE MEASURES FOCUS ON 24 THE EARLY MEETING OF THE 2004 EMISSION STANDARDS. 25 NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE IMPACT OF 0121 01 THE PROPOSED REVISIONS. 02 WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS ON THE S.I.P. IF THE 03 BOARD ADOPTS THE PROPOSED REVISIONS? 04 OUR PROPOSAL AFFECTS ONLY THE SOUTH COAST AIR 05 BASIN BUT INVOLVES THREE SEPARATE AIR QUALITY PLANS THAT 06 HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AS S.I.P. REVISIONS: THE APPROVED 07 1994 OZONE S.I.P., PLUS THE SOUTH COAST 1997 AIR QUALITY 08 MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELEMENTS FOR OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER 09 SUBMITTED TO U.S. E.P.A. BUT NOT YET APPROVED. 10 I WILL ALSO DISCUSS THE IMPACT OF OUR 11 PROPOSAL ON THE ATTAINMENT AND PROGRESS DEMONSTRATIONS FOR 12 EACH OF THE THREE PLANS, AS WELL AS THE EMISSION BUDGETS 13 ESTABLISHED BY THOSE PLANS FOR TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY. 14 HOW WILL THE PROPOSAL AFFECT THE SOUTH COAST 15 1997 PLAN? 16 IF THE BOARD REVISES THE 1994 OZONE S.I.P. 17 STRATEGY, THE MEASURE M-7 COMPONENT OF THE 1997 SOUTH 18 COAST PLAN MUST ALSO BE UPDATED. 19 HOW WOULD THE PROPOSAL AFFECT THE ATTAINMENT 20 DEMONSTRATIONS FOR OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER? 21 THE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATIONS ARE PRESERVED 22 IN EACH PLAN BECAUSE M-17 WILL PROVIDE THE FULL EMISSION 23 REDUCTIONS CREDITED TO M-7 IN THE APPLICABLE ATTAINMENT 24 YEARS. 25 HOW WOULD THE PROPOSAL AFFECT THE RATE OF 0122 01 PROGRESS DEMONSTRATIONS? 02 THE INTERIM PROGRESS DEMONSTRATIONS FOR THE 03 TWO OZONE PLANS WILL REMAIN INTACT. THE RATE OF PROGRESS 04 DEMONSTRATION FOR P.M.10 WOULD NEED TO BE REVISED TO 05 REFLECT THE LONGER PHASING PERIOD FOR M-17. THIS CHANGE 06 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT. 07 HOW WOULD THE PROPOSAL AFFECT EMISSION 08 BUDGETS ESTABLISHED FOR TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY? 09 THE CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIRES TRANSPORTATION 10 PLANS TO CONFORM TO AIR QUALITY PLANS BY SHOWING THAT 11 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPECTED 12 INVENTORY OR EMISSION BUDGETS FOR ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES. 13 EACH OF THE AFFECTED PLANS INCLUDED THE BENEFITS OF 14 MEASURE M-7 IN THE EMISSION BUDGETS FOR N.O.X. AND 15 REACTIVE ORGANIC GASSES. 16 AS PART OF THE REVISION, THE BOARD MUST ALSO 17 AMEND THE N.O.X. BUDGETS TO REFLECT THE M-17 SCHEDULE FOR 18 FEWER EMISSION REDUCTIONS BETWEEN 1999 AND 2005. THIS 19 CHANGE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT. 20 TO CONCLUDE OUR ANALYSIS OF THE S.I.P. 21 IMPACTS, THE PROPOSED REVISIONS CAN MEET ALL OF THE S.I.P. 22 CRITERIA AND SATISFY CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS. 23 WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND 24 ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR MEASURE M-17? 25 THE 1994 OZONE S.I.P. IDENTIFIED THE 0123 01 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM NEW 02 STRATEGIES, INCLUDING M-7. COMPARED TO M-7, WE DID NOT 03 IDENTIFY ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM THE NEW 04 MEASURE M-17. 05 WE ALSO EXPECT THAT THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF 06 M-17 WOULD BE ON PAR WITH THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR 07 MEASURE M-7. OF COURSE, WE WILL DO A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF 08 THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS WHEN MEASURE M-17 09 IS IMPLEMENTED IN THE REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. 10 AS A RESULT OF COMMENTS RECEIVED, WE 11 RECOMMEND SOME CLARIFICATIONS TO THE LANGUAGE IN THE STAFF 12 REPORT, APPENDIX B, WHICH DESCRIBES MEASURE M-17. 13 YOU SHOULD HAVE BEFORE YOU TWO COPIES OF THE 14 CLARIFICATIONS. ONE VERSION SHOWS THE CHANGES FROM THE 15 STAFF REPORT, AND THE OTHER IS A CLEAN COPY OF THE FINAL 16 RECOMMENDED TEXT. THESE MODIFICATIONS CLARIFY THE ROLE OF 17 PROPER MAINTENANCE, DURABILITY OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS 18 AND INCENTIVES. NONE OF THESE CLARIFICATIONS INVOLVE 19 SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE APPROACH OF THE EMISSION 20 REDUCTION COMMITMENT FOR MEASURE M-17. 21 SO IN CONCLUSION, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD 22 APPROVE THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE S.I.P., INCLUDING 23 WITHDRAWAL OF MEASURE M-7 AND APPROVAL OF THE NEW MEASURE 24 M-17, AND DIRECT THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO SUBMIT THOSE 25 REVISIONS TO U.S. E.P.A. 0124 01 IN ADDITION, TO REFLECT THE IMPACT OF THESE 02 REVISIONS BETWEEN 1999 AND 2005, THE BOARD SHOULD ALSO 03 UPDATE THE RATE OF PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION FOR P.M.10 AND 04 THE MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION BUDGETS FOR N.O.X. THESE 05 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT 06 AND THE BOARD RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING IN THE 1994 OZONE 07 S.I.P. 08 THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. 09 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. DO ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE 10 QUESTIONS? 11 YES, MR. CALHOUN. 12 MR. CALHOUN: YOU MENTIONED THE FACT THAT 13 CURRENTLY, RESEARCH WORK IS GOING ON RELATING EMISSIONS 14 FROM ENGINES TESTED ON A CHASSIS WITH THOSE TESTED ON AN 15 ENGINE DYNAMOMETER. 16 WHO'S DOING THAT WORK? 17 MR. CACKETTE: WE'RE PREPARING A CONTRACT TO DO 18 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TEST METHODS THAT COULD RELATE 19 TO, FIRST OF ALL, ESTABLISHING A COMPLIANCE PROGRAM FOR 20 HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES, AND ALSO LOOK AT ADDING A N.O.X. 21 TEST, THE TECHNOLOGY TO A N.O.X. TEST, TO THE CURRENT 22 IN-USE PROGRAM. SO THERE'S THE TWO ELEMENTS. 23 AND I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T CATCH ALL OF YOUR -- 24 I WAS SCRAMBLING HERE. I DIDN'T CATCH ALL OF YOUR 25 QUESTION. I AM NOT SURE IF I ANSWERED IT COMPLETELY. 0125 01 WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE CONTACTS IN PLACE NOW. 02 WE DO NOT HAVE ALL OF THE EFFORT UNDERWAY YET. 03 MR. DUNLAP: WHO'S DOING THE WORK, TOM? 04 MR. CACKETTE: PART OF IT IS BEING DONE BY, I 05 THINK, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, WHICH HAS A PORTABLE 06 HEAVY-DUTY TRUCK DYNAMOMETER. WE'RE ALSO WORKING WITH 07 E.P.A. ON THIS TO USE SOME OF THEIR RESOURCES TO ESTABLISH 08 AN -- YOU KNOW, MORE OF AN IN-USE TEST. ALL OF IT IS AT 09 THE VERY -- YOU KNOW, JUST THE INITIAL STAGES AT THIS 10 POINT. 11 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. 12 YES. DR. FRIEDMAN. 13 DR. FRIEDMAN: HAS THERE BEEN ANY 14 SEMI-QUANTIFICATION OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE INCREASE IN 15 N.O.X. EMISSIONS FOR THOSE FIVE YEARS OR SIX YEARS, FROM 16 1999 TO 2005, THAT'S EXPECTED? 17 MR. CACKETTE: WELL, I DO NOT THINK WE HAVE A 18 QUANTIFICATION OF THAT RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, WHAT THE 19 ELEMENTS OF THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDE IS A -- THE FIRST STEP 20 IS TO DEVELOP THE TESTING METHODOLOGY OR THE EQUIPMENT 21 NECESSARY TO DO THE KINDS OF TESTS THAT WE'RE TALKING 22 ABOUT. AND UNTIL WE DO THAT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW 23 EXACTLY WHAT THE SITUATION IS IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF 24 EMISSION REDUCTION THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE IN THOSE INTERIM 25 YEARS. 0126 01 IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER WE EVEN HAVE THE 02 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPED. THAT'S WHY THE IMPLEMENTATION 03 DOESN'T REALLY START UNTIL 2004 FOR THE REVISED M-17. 04 MR. KENNY: I THINK ONE WAY OF LOOKING AT THIS, 05 THOUGH, IS WE CAN GIVE YOU A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE 06 ORIGINAL M-7 AND A CHART IN TERMS OF WHEN THE EMISSION 07 REDUCTIONS WERE GOING TO BE ACHIEVED AND WHAT WE GET UNDER 08 M-17. 09 AND SO MAYBE LYNN, TERRY, OR BOB CROSS CAN DO 10 THAT. 11 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. YOU PROBABLY NEED A FEW MINUTES 12 TO DO THAT, MIKE. 13 MS. TERRY: WE HAVE -- ACTUALLY, THESE NUMBERS ARE 14 IN THE STAFF REPORT ON PAGE 9 AND 10, FOR ANYBODY WHO 15 WANTS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE. 16 THE ORIGINAL M-7 MEASURE DID HAVE EARLY 17 N.O.X. REDUCTIONS OF, BEGINNING IN 1999, THREE TONS IN 18 1999, SIX TONS IN 2002 AND SEVEN TONS IN -- THIS IS 19 CUMULATIVE. SO BY 2005, THE CURRENT MEASURE WOULD HAVE 20 SEVEN TONS OF N.O.X. REDUCTIONS AND ONE TON OF R.O.G. 21 REDUCTIONS. 22 WITH THE NEW M-17 MEASURE, THE FIRST 23 REDUCTIONS BEGIN IN THE YEAR 2005, SO WE LOSE THOSE EARLY 24 YEAR REDUCTIONS. AND THE MAGNITUDE BY 2005 FOR THE NEW 25 MEASURE, WE WILL HAVE FOUR TONS OF N.O.X. AND ONE TON OF 0127 01 R.O.G. THEN BY THE YEAR 2006, WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY CAUGHT 02 UP. SO IN 2006, WE HAVE A TOTAL OF NINE TONS FROM THE 03 UNIT MEASURE. ACTUALLY, WE'RE AHEAD OF THE GAME. 04 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. YES, MS. RAKOW. 05 MS. RAKOW: ON A RELATED SUBJECT, FOLLOWING UP ON 06 THE SAME SUBJECT, JUST WORSE CASE SCENARIO -- YOU KNOW, 07 THE SKY HAS FALLEN IN TYPE SCENARIO -- SUPPOSING THAT 08 TECHNOLOGY IS NOT IN PLACE, IT HAS NOT DEVELOPED AS YOU 09 EXPECT, THEN WHAT HAPPENS IN THE YEAR 2004, 2005? 10 MR. KENNY: I THINK IN THAT SITUATION, WE WOULD BE 11 EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHERE WE ARE TODAY, WHICH IS THAT WE 12 DO NOT HAVE THE FUNDING AVAILABLE TO IMPLEMENT M-7. AND 13 SO IF, IN FACT, THE TECHNOLOGY DIDN'T DEVELOP, WE WOULD 14 HAVE TO IDENTIFY AN ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE THE 15 EMISSION REDUCTIONS WHICH WE HAVE IDENTIFIED. 16 BUT THE SITUATION BEFORE US TODAY IS THAT THE 17 S.I.P. COMPELS US TO ACHIEVE EMISSION REDUCTIONS THROUGH 18 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF M-7 BY 1997, AND THAT MEASURE WAS 19 DEPENDENT UPON FUNDS BEING AVAILABLE FOR HEAVY-DUTY 20 SCRAPPAGE. THE FUNDS ARE NOT AVAILABLE; AND THEREFORE, 21 WE'RE UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH M-7 AS IT'S CURRENTLY 22 STRUCTURED. 23 MR. DUNLAP: AND THERE IS SOME HISTORY THERE THAT I 24 THINK WILL COME OUT -- TOM, I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO TALK 25 ABOUT. 0128 01 I WASN'T HERE. SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS MAY 02 RECALL THAT S.I.P. HEARING IN 1994 WHERE IT CAME UP. I 03 BELIEVE C.T.A. ASKED THIS ITEM TO BE INCLUDED IN THE 04 S.I.P., AND THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT WERE TO HAVE 05 HAPPENED IN ORDER TO ENABLE THIS MEASURE TO BE 06 SUCCESSFULLY DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED. AND THOSE ARE 07 WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE. THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE'RE GOING 08 TO NEED TO HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES ON TO GET KIND OF THE 09 DIALOGUE GOING. 10 IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS TIME 11 FROM THE BOARD, I WOULD LIKE TO GET INTO THE WITNESSES, IF 12 THAT'S OKAY. 13 WE HAVE 13 WITNESSES. AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE 14 TO DO -- FIRST OF ALL, WE WANT TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE. 15 THERE'S NO RELUCTANCE TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE, BUT WE WOULD 16 LIKE THOSE WHO FOLLOW OTHER SPEAKERS AND HAVE SIMILAR 17 POINTS THEY WANT TO EMPHASIZE, IF YOU WOULD INDICATE 18 YOU'RE SUPPORTING SO AND SO WHO JUST SPOKE AND YOU HAVE 19 SOME THINGS YOU WANT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT FROM THAT 20 TESTIMONY, PLEASE CONSIDER DOING IT THAT WAY. WE DO NOT 21 NEED TO HEAR WRITTEN STATEMENTS THAT WE HAVE COPIES OF, 22 READ INTO THE RECORD. 23 SO WITH THAT, WHY DON'T WE GO INTO THE 24 WITNESSES. THERE ARE THREE WITNESSES WE WILL CALL FIRST. 25 I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONGREGATE TOWARDS THE FRONT BY THESE 0129 01 TWO MICROPHONES HERE: JED MANDEL FROM 02 ENGINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, WHO HAS WRITTEN 03 TESTIMONY; JANET HATHAWAY, FROM N.R.D.C.; AND 04 STEPHANIE WILLIAMS FROM C.T.A.; AND THEN MR. GARCIA FROM 05 C.T.A., THE LOS ANGELES/ORANGE COUNTY UNIT. 06 GOOD AFTERNOON, JED. GOOD TO SEE YOU. 07 MR. MANDEL: MR. CHAIRMAN, GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS 08 OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS JED MANDEL. I AM HERE TODAY ON 09 BEHALF OF THE ENGINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION. 10 E.M.A. AND ITS MEMBERS HAVE WORKED CLOSELY 11 WITH THE BOARD AND ITS STAFF ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 12 NUMBER OF THE S.I.P. MEASURES AFFECTING THE ON-HIGHWAY AND 13 NON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES POWERED BY THE ENGINES PRODUCED BY 14 E.M.A.'S MEMBERS. MOST RECENTLY, WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS 15 WITH THE STAFF CONCERNING PROPOSED MEASURE M-17, AND WE 16 LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE BOARD AND THE STAFF IN 17 EVALUATING THE MERITS OF VARIOUS PROGRAMS CONTEMPLATED BY 18 MEASURE M-17 AND OUTLINED IN PROPOSED APPENDIX B, AS 19 AMENDED. 20 AS WE HAVE STATED PREVIOUSLY, HEAVY-DUTY 21 ENGINES ARE USED COMMERCIALLY; THUS THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT 22 EXISTING MARKETPLACE INCENTIVES FOR MANUFACTURERS TO BUILD 23 RELIABLE, DURABLE AND WELL-PERFORMING PRODUCTS AND FOR 24 USERS TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN AND USE THEIR HEAVY-DUTY 25 VEHICLES AS A CAPITAL INVESTMENT. 0130 01 IT APPEARS THAT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE 02 EMISSION REDUCTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY MEASURE M-17 IS 03 INTENDED TO COME FROM REDUCING EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH 04 N.O.X. DETERIORATION. AS MORE FULLY EXPLAINED IN OUR 05 WRITTEN COMMENTS, N.O.X. EMISSIONS FROM HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL 06 ENGINES DO NOT DETERIORATE, AND HEAVY-DUTY GASOLINE 07 ENGINES HAVE A SIGNIFICANT BUILT-IN DESIGN MARGIN TO 08 ACCOUNT FOR THE EXPECTED EMISSIONS DETERIORATIONS. 09 TO THE EXTENT THAT MEASURE M-17 IS DESIGNED 10 TO ADDRESS DETERIORATION ASSOCIATED WITH FUTURE 11 TECHNOLOGIES, SUCH EMISSIONS ARE PURELY SPECULATIVE. 12 THESE ISSUES NEED TO BE MORE FULLY EVALUATED, AND WE LOOK 13 FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE STAFF IN DOING SO. 14 FURTHER, AS ALSO ADDRESSED IN OUR WRITTEN 15 COMMENTS, WE HAVE SUBSTANTIAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE ABILITY 16 TO OVERCOME OBSTACLES ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPING AND 17 IMPLEMENTING AN ACCURATE, PRACTICAL AND COST-EFFECTIVE 18 IN-USE N.O.X EMISSIONS TEST, AND DOING SO IN A WAY THAT 19 DOESN'T CREATE DISHARMONY WITH FEDERAL ON-HIGHWAY 20 PROGRAMS. WE WILL WORK WITH THE STAFF TO EVALUATE THE 21 IN-USE PROGRAMS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN MEASURE M-17. 22 FINALLY, WE BELIEVE THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF 23 MERIT IN EXPLORING PROGRAMS TO ACCELERATE FLEET TURNOVER. 24 THE FASTER THE FLEET IS TURNED OVER, THE FASTER THAT NEW, 25 LOWER-EMITTING TECHNOLOGIES WILL ENTER THE MARKETPLACE. 0131 01 THAT ESSENTIALLY WAS THE INTENT BEHIND MEASURE M-17. 02 WE ENCOURAGE THE BOARD AND THE STAFF TO 03 EXPLORE MEANS TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR USERS TO BUY NEW, 04 CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SOONER THAN THEY OTHERWISE WOULD. 05 WE APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY 06 SHARE OUR THOUGHTS WITH YOU. AS ALWAYS, I WOULD BE 07 PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. 08 MR. DUNLAP: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS? 09 OKAY. I APPRECIATE IT. I APPRECIATE YOUR 10 COMMENTS ABOUT THE WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH THE TEAM HERE 11 ON ONGOING ELEMENTS OF THIS PROGRAM AS IT'S MORE FULLY 12 FLESHED OUT OVER TIME. 13 MR. MANDEL: DURING YOUR AGENDA FOR THIS YEAR, WE 14 ALSO WILL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU. I ONLY 15 COUNTED TEN MEASURES THIS YEAR THAT EFFECT E.M.A. AND ITS 16 MEMBERS, SO WE WILL LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU THROUGHOUT 17 THE REST OF THE YEAR. 18 MR. DUNLAP: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, JED. I 19 APPRECIATE THAT. 20 MS. HATHAWAY, FOLLOWED BY STEPHANIE WILLIAMS, 21 AL GARCIA AND BILL SMERBER. 22 MS. HATHAWAY: CHAIRMAN DUNLAP AND MEMBERS OF THE 23 AIR RESOURCES BOARD, I AM HAPPY TO BE HERE BEFORE YOU 24 ABOUT THIS MEASURE. 25 OBVIOUSLY, THE MEASURE M-7, IF IT IS NOT 0132 01 GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE, DOES NEED TO BE REPLACED. BUT I 02 MUST TELL YOU THAT WE AT N.R.D.C. ARE VERY TROUBLED BY THE 03 LACK OF SPECIFICITY AS TO HOW THIS MEASURE WOULD, IN FACT, 04 ACHIEVE EMISSION REDUCTIONS. 05 AND WE FEEL THAT IT IS QUITE SPECULATIVE AT 06 THIS POINT TO ATTRIBUTE 11 TONS PER DAY TO THIS MEASURE. 07 WE ARE VERY TROUBLED BY THE INTERIM PROGRESS, OR THE LACK 08 OF INTERIM PROGRESS, THAT WOULD BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE 09 M-7 TIMETABLE. 10 AND FUNDAMENTALLY, IT JUST DOES SEEM THAT THE 11 DELAY TO GETTING SOME IN-USE EMISSION REDUCTIONS ARE JUST 12 WAY TOO LONG. IT'S JUST UNCONSCIONABLE NOT TO BE 13 IMPLEMENTING IT UNTIL 2004. SO FUNDAMENTALLY, WE HOPE 14 THAT THERE'S AN EFFORT TO FIND SOMETHING THAT CAN BE 15 INTRODUCED INTO THIS INTERIM PERIOD TO TAKE CARE OF THE 16 EMISSIONS THAT WE'RE LOSING FROM WHAT WE HAD PLANNED TO 17 GET EARLIER IN THE S.I.P. 18 AND PERHAPS SOME FOCUS ON WHAT CAN BE DONE TO 19 "INCENTIVIZE" PURCHASING NEW VEHICLES IN A GREATER NUMBER 20 SHOULD BE EXAMINED. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT N.R.D.C. 21 SUPPORTS, AND WE WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU. 22 I WANT TO DEFER TO MY COLLEAGUE, 23 TIM CARMICHAEL, FOR MORE DETAILED COMMENTS ON M-17. 24 MR. DUNLAP: AND WE WILL HEAR FROM TIM LATER, 25 JANET. 0133 01 ONE COMMENT -- PERHAPS GIVE YOU SOME 02 COMFORT -- THE ADMINISTRATION'S BEEN WORKING WITH SOME 03 MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE ON A COUPLE PIECES OF 04 LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE SOME DOLLARS FOR INCENTIVES AND TAX 05 CREDITS. JUST SO YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T KIND OF AN EITHER 06 OR THING, SO WE DIDN'T WANT YOU TO UNNECESSARILY FRET 07 ABOUT THE INCENTIVES ELEMENT OF IT. 08 MS. HATHAWAY: WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE BOTH OF THOSE 09 THINGS BEING DONE; BUT, YOU KNOW, HAVING SOME KIND OF 10 IN-USE PROGRAM THAT CAN REALLY GET TO THE TASK OF 11 REPAIRING THESE VEHICLES OR FINDING WAYS TO REBUILD THEM 12 SO THEY WILL EMIT LESS IS A HUGE CHALLENGE FOR YOU ALL. 13 MR. DUNLAP: THE STAFF ASSERTED THAT THIS CHANGE, 14 THIS TRADE-OUT, ESSENTIALLY, OF TWO APPROACHES IS 15 POSSIBLE, ALLOWABLE, CONSISTENT WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT. 16 DO YOU SEE IT THAT WAY AS WELL, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU HAVE A 17 LEGAL BACKGROUND. 18 MS. HATHAWAY: CERTAINLY, ONE CAN CHANGE MEASURES 19 SO LONG AS THE EMISSIONS DO, IN FACT, ACHIEVE AN 20 EQUIVALENT RESULT. THE TROUBLE REALLY IS HERE, THAT THE 21 RATE OF PROGRESS IS NOT THE SAME AS THE MEASURE THAT YOU 22 ARE REPLACING. SO FUNDAMENTALLY, WE'RE THINKING THAT THIS 23 WILL VIOLATE THE CLEAN AIR ACT UNLESS THERE IS A SIMILAR 24 RATE OF PROGRESS IN THE EMISSION REDUCTIONS. 25 MR. DUNLAP: I WOULD ASK KATHLEEN OR MIKE MAYBE TO 0134 01 COMMENT ON THAT. THAT'S A KEY QUESTION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 02 CONSISTENCY AND VULNERABILITY OF THE S.I.P. AND THE LIKE. 03 CAN YOU SAY A WORD OR TWO ON THAT, NOT SO 04 MUCH TO DEBATE WITH JANET, BUT TO MAYBE MORE FULLY FLESH 05 OUT YOUR LOGIC? 06 MR. KENNY: LET ME MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, AND 07 I'LL TURN IT OVER TO KATHLEEN. 08 BUT OUR LOGIC WITH REGARD TO M-17 IS THAT WE 09 HAVE M-7 ESSENTIALLY ON THE BOOKS. M-7 IS AT A POINT IN 10 TIME WHEN WE DO NOT SEE IT AS BEING VIABLE; AND IN FACT, 11 M-7 IS ONE OF THE MEASURES OVER WHICH THIS BOARD HAS BEEN 12 SUED. 13 IT'S OUR ASSESSMENT THAT, IN FACT, WE NEEDED 14 TO THEREFORE CHANGE THE M-7 BECAUSE IT IS AN UNSUCCESSFUL 15 STRATEGY THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PUT IN THE S.I.P. IN 1994 IN 16 RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FROM THE INDUSTRY. THE MONEY IS NOT 17 CURRENTLY AVAILABLE. 18 MR. DUNLAP: SO LET ME STOP YOU THERE, MIKE. 19 SO, JANET, BACK TO YOU, IF I MAY. 20 MIKE'S SAYING THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT 21 MEASURE, M-7, THAT'S IN THE S.I.P. THAT WAS ENCOURAGED TO 22 BE ADDED BY THE INDUSTRY IS NOT LIKELY TO BEAR FRUIT. AND 23 SO I THINK THE ARGUMENT OF THE STAFF IS THEY WANT TO 24 SHIFT -- AS PAINFUL AS IT MIGHT BE PROCESSWISE -- AND PUT 25 SOMETHING DOWN, GET SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS, THAT HAS A 0135 01 BETTER CHANCE OF BEING SUCCESSFUL. 02 FROM WHERE I SIT, THAT SEEMS TO BE 03 PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP. 04 MS. HATHAWAY: ABSOLUTELY. AND THAT IS NOT 05 SOMETHING WE'RE OBJECTING TO. 06 OUR CONCERN IS TO ENSURE THAT YOU GET 07 EQUIVALENT EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN THE SAME TIME FRAME. 08 AND THAT'S WHERE, I THINK, WE WERE PERHAPS SOMEWHAT AT A 09 DISADVANTAGE, BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL ISN'T YET FLESHED OUT; 10 AND SO WE CAN'T REALLY EVALUATE IT AS FULLY AS WE'D LIKE. 11 BUT THE INITIAL PROPOSAL DOES SOUND TO ME AS THOUGH WE'RE 12 NOT OPERATING ON THE SAME TIME FRAME AS THE PROPOSAL IN 13 THE PAST. 14 MR. KENNY: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THE TIME FRAMES ARE 15 THE SAME, I MEAN, IN THE SENSE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE 16 LEGAL OBLIGATION THAT WE HAVE, WE NEED TO ATTAIN BY THE 17 YEAR 2010, WHICH MEANS WE NEED TO OBTAIN THE EMISSION 18 REDUCTIONS BY 2010, WE ARE ACHIEVING THAT. 19 IF YOU LOOK AT THE RATE OF PROGRESS, THE 20 EMISSION REDUCTIONS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS MEASURE 21 WERE NOT COUNTED IN THE RATE OF PROGRESS. IF YOU LOOK AT 22 A STRAIGHT COMPARISON, PURSUANT TO THE QUESTION 23 DR. FRIEDMAN ASKED, THE TIMETABLES ARE DIFFERENT IN THE 24 SHORT-TERM; BUT WE'RE NOT UNDER A LEGAL OBLIGATION IN 25 THOSE SHORT-TERM TIME FRAMES. 0136 01 REAL QUICKLY, OUR ALTERNATIVE, ESSENTIALLY, 02 IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT M-7 WAS NOT A SUCCESSFUL 03 STRATEGY, WAS TO EITHER TRY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT 04 WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL OR TO SIMPLY TAKE THE EMISSION 05 REDUCTIONS WHICH WERE ASSOCIATED WITH M-7 AND SIMPLY PUT 06 THEM INTO THE BLACK BOX. 07 AND IT WAS OUR CHOICE TO NOT TO DO THAT, BUT 08 INSTEAD TO TRY TO IDENTIFY A VIABLE STRATEGY TO ACHIEVING 09 EMISSION REDUCTIONS. 10 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. BUT THE LOOSE ENDS 11 ARE WHAT TROUBLES YOU, JANET, RIGHT? 12 MS. HATHAWAY: EXACTLY THAT. 13 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. 14 I DIDN'T MEAN TO PRECLUDE MY BOARD MEMBERS 15 FROM ASKING MS. HATHAWAY ANY QUESTIONS. 16 OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YOU ARE FREE TO GO, BUT 17 NOT TOO FAR. 18 STEPHANIE WILLIAMS FROM C.T.A. 19 AND STEPHANIE, I KNOW YOU HAVE SOME LETTERS 20 AND THINGS HERE. THERE ARE A FEW QUESTIONS I WANTED TO 21 ASK YOU ABOUT HISTORY. SO AS PART OF YOUR REMARKS, FROM 22 MY PART, IF YOU WOULD TALK ABOUT -- STAFF ALLUDED TO IN 23 1994 -- I WASN'T CHAIR IN 1994, SO I DO NOT HAVE ANY 24 REFERENCE POINT -- BUT APPARENTLY YOU ALL CAME TO US AND 25 SAID, "ADD THIS MEASURE. THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE'RE 0137 01 GOING TO DO TO SHORE IT UP." 02 AND STAFF'S TELLING US THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN, SO 03 THIS MEASURE IS PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE. 04 MS. WILLIAMS: YES. 05 MR. DUNLAP: SO TELL US A BIT ABOUT THAT. 06 MS. WILLIAMS: ACTUALLY, WE'VE WORKED VERY CLOSELY 07 WITH YOUR STAFF THIS YEAR. IT'S BEEN QUITE A GOOD WORKING 08 RELATIONSHIP, AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT, BUT WE 09 DO HAVE BIG PROBLEMS WITH THIS MEASURE. 10 LET ME BACK UP A LITTLE BIT AND TELL YOU WHAT 11 HAPPENED IN '94 WHEN THEY WERE PUTTING TOGETHER THE STATE 12 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. 13 THE HEAVY-DUTY SCRAPPAGE CAME UP. IT WAS 14 PROPOSED TO US BY OTHER INDUSTRY GROUPS AND SOUNDED GOOD. 15 IT WAS ADOPTED. WE SUPPORTED IT, AS DID MOST OF THE 16 INDUSTRY GROUPS. 17 MR. DUNLAP: BUT IT WAS A LATE-IN-THE-PROCESS 18 ADOPTION? 19 MS. WILLIAMS: YES, IT WAS A LATE-IN-THE-PROCESS 20 ADOPTION. 21 AND LIGHT-DUTY SCRAPPAGE, YOU KNOW, WAS 22 THERE; AND IT LOOKED FEASIBLE; AND THE EMISSIONS SEEMED TO 23 BE THERE ON THE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS. BUT WHEN WE SAT DOWN 24 WITH THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD, ALL THE AIR DISTRICTS AND 25 THE ENERGY COMMISSION AND OUR MEMBERS, AND WENT THROUGH 0138 01 THE PROCESS, IT WAS -- WE DIVIDED INTO THREE GROUPS TO 02 IMPLEMENT THE S.I.P.: THE LOW-EMISSION VEHICLE GROUP, HOW 03 WE COULD GET EARLY INTRODUCTION OF LOW-EMISSION VEHICLES; 04 A RETROFIT GROUP; AND A SCRAPPAGE GROUP. 05 AND THE SCRAPPAGE GROUP AT THAT TIME WAS 06 HEADED BY OUR PRESIDENT, KIRK LINDSEY, AT THE TIME; AND 07 HE -- WE WORKED THROUGH IMPORT, EXPORT, ALL THE DIFFERENT 08 THINGS WE COULD DO. WE EVEN TRIED TO EXPORT TWO VEHICLES 09 TO CHINA, AND IT JUST IS NOT FEASIBLE. 10 THE VEHICLES ARE WORTH TOO MUCH. THE PEOPLE 11 THAT ARE DRIVING THE VEHICLES AREN'T WILLING TO GIVE THE 12 VEHICLE UP FOR ANYTHING LESS THAN THE SALARY THEY MAKE ON 13 THE VEHICLE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN'T GET INTO 14 ANOTHER VEHICLE BASED ON WHAT THEIR LOAD IS IN THAT AREA 15 BECAUSE OF RATES. 16 SO WE ENDED THAT COMMITTEE, AND WE MOVED ON 17 THE RETROFIT AND THE LOW-EMISSION VEHICLE SIDE, DIVIDED 18 THOSE TWO COMMITTEES; AND THAT'S HOW THE TRUCK WORKING 19 GROUP CAME TOGETHER. AND WE STARTED WORKING WITH THE 20 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY ON THESE INCENTIVES. 21 YOU LOOK AT THE OLD VEHICLES AND YOU SAY, 22 "THERE'S 10.67 GRAMS OF N.O.X. IN THOSE VEHICLES; AND WE 23 WANT TO GET THEM UP TO A LEVEL THAT IS ACCEPTABLE IN 24 CALIFORNIA, AND THAT WOULD BE THE 1987 MODEL OR NEWER." 25 AND THEN YOU LOOK AT THE NEW VEHICLES AND YOU 0139 01 SAY, "WELL, FOUR GRAMS IS WHERE WE'RE AT WITH DIESEL; BUT 02 WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE EARLY TO MEET THEIR QUALITY 03 GOALS IN 2010." SO WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING WITH ALL FUELS 04 OR, YOU KNOW, CLEAN DIESEL, BUT SOMETHING THAT GETS THE 05 2.5 GRAM STANDARDS IN EARLY. 06 SO WE RAN TWO BILLS. WE RAN AB-1675, WHICH 07 CAUSED A LOT OF CONTROVERSY BETWEEN SOME OF THE STAFF OF 08 A.R.B. AND C.T.A.; AND THAT BILL WOULD HAVE REQUIRED, IN 09 1987, FOR ALL HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES TO MEET A SIX GRAM 10 STANDARD OR NOT BE USED IN OUR STATE. 11 AND OUR MEMBERS SUPPORT THAT POLICY AND 12 SUPPORTED IT THEN, LOBBIED IT HARD; AND THE BILL DIED THE 13 LAST NIGHT OF SESSION AT ABOUT 11:30 BECAUSE THERE WERE 14 SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE ADMINISTRATION ON THAT PRACTICE. 15 MR. DUNLAP: AND YOU THINK THAT STANDARD, IF 16 APPROVED, WOULD HAVE CREATED THE MARKET FOR THESE VEHICLES 17 TO BE SCRAPPED; RIGHT? 18 MS. WILLIAMS: NO. WE THINK THAT YOU CAN'T SCRAP 19 THEM. WE'RE SAYING YOU CAN'T USE THEM IN THE STATE. 20 CALIFORNIA HAS A LOT OF POPULATION, AND THERE'S SOME AIR 21 QUALITY PROBLEMS HERE. AND THIS IS WHERE WE -- IF YOU 22 WANT TO BE IN THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY, YOU'VE GOT TO START 23 WITH SIX GRAMS. THAT'S THE ENTRY INTO THE TRUCKING 24 INDUSTRY. 25 YOU CAN'T BUY A 1960 TRUCK AND START HAULING 0140 01 FREIGHT IN CALIFORNIA. IF YOU DO, YOU HAVE TO UPGRADE 02 THAT -- AS JANET HATHAWAY WAS SAYING -- UPGRADE THAT TO A 03 SIX-GRAM STANDARD. AND IT'S NOT EXPENSIVE TO DO THAT AT 04 TIME OF REBUILT, SO IT'S NOT UNLIKE A REBUILD REQUIREMENT 05 FOR THE OLDER VEHICLES. 06 WHAT THAT DOES IS THAT TAKES A TEN-GRAM 07 ENGINE, PUTS IT UP TO SIX GRAMS AT A TIME WHEN YOU ARE 08 GOING TO BE REBUILDING IT ANYWAYS. 09 WE GAVE THE INDUSTRY EIGHT YEARS TO DO THIS. 10 SO IN 2004 -- THIS WAS IN WHAT, WE RAN IT IN '94 -- WE RAN 11 IT IN '95. IN 2005, THESE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE REBUILT THEIR 12 ENGINES AND THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN THEY HAVE TO ADD ON 13 EMISSION CONTROLS, AND WE STILL THINK THAT'S A FEASIBLE 14 STRATEGY. 15 WE'RE GOING ABOUT IT IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, 16 BUT IT'S THE SAME IDEA. SIX GRAMS IS ENTRY LEVEL INTO 17 CALIFORNIA. IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAUL FREIGHT AND DO 18 BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, YOU ARE GOING TO DO IT WITH A 19 TRUCK THAT EMITS NO MORE THAN SIX GRAMS OF N.O.X. 20 AND THAT HAS CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING IT, BUT 21 I THINK EVERYONE IS ON BOARD ON THE SPECIAL INTEREST 22 SIDE. THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY HAS NOT OPPOSED THAT 23 IDEA. I MEAN, THEY TALKED TO IT TODAY. THE OIL COMPANIES 24 HAVE NOT OPPOSED THAT IDEA, AND THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY 25 HASN'T OPPOSED THAT IDEA. 0141 01 THERE'S A PROBLEM FOR THE GOVERNMENT. AND IF 02 THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET CLEAN AIR. I 03 MEAN, YOU CAN'T LEAVE THE OLD TRUCKS ON THE ROAD WITH NO 04 STANDARD AND EXPECT PEOPLE TO BUY NEW TRUCKS AND COMPETE 05 IN THE MARKETS. 06 MR. DUNLAP: ALL RIGHT. IF I MIGHT JUMP AHEAD JUST 07 MAYBE TO FRAME THIS, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO TODAY, 08 NOTHING? JUST LEAVE THIS ALONE? 09 MS. WILLIAMS: OH, NO. WE ALWAYS HAVE A STRATEGY. 10 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. 11 MS. WILLIAMS: WELL, THERE ARE TWO THINGS. I WOULD 12 LIKE TO GO THROUGH THE COMMENTS, BECAUSE THESE HAVE BEEN 13 APPROVED BY OUR POLICY COMMITTEE. I DON'T REALLY VEER 14 THROUGH -- 15 MR. DUNLAP: THIS IS THE WRITTEN PACKAGE WE HAVE; 16 RIGHT? 17 MS. WILLIAMS: NO. ACTUALLY, THE WRITTEN PACKAGE 18 YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE MORE THAN 200 LETTERS; AND THERE ARE 19 MORE COMING. THAT CAME IN IN ONE DAY. THOSE ARE THE 20 LETTERS FROM OUR INDUSTRY OPPOSING M-17, AND WE'RE 21 OPPOSING IT BECAUSE WE DO NOT THINK IT HAS THE EMISSION 22 REDUCTIONS IT NEEDS. WE'RE OPPOSING IT BECAUSE YOU ARE 23 GOING TO N.O.X. TEST TO DEATH THE NEW TRUCKS AND WE ARE 24 OPPOSED TO THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN OTHER 25 STATES. 0142 01 YOU ARE GOING TO PUT US AT A COMPETITIVE 02 DISADVANTAGE, AND YOU ARE SENDING A MESSAGE TO THE 03 TRUCKING INDUSTRY IN CALIFORNIA THAT YOU CAN GET THE DIRTY 04 TRUCKS BECAUSE THOSE ARE KIND OF OFF OUR MINDS. AND 05 THAT'S NOT A GOOD MESSAGE, BECAUSE THOSE VEHICLES DO NOT 06 HAVE N.O.X. CONTROLS; SO WHEN THEY GO OUT WITH A N.O.X. 07 SCREENING TEST, WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE STANDARD? 08 YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE 09 A STANDARD THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE, WHICH IS WHAT 10 WE'RE DOING; BUT WE'RE DOING IT IN A WAY THAT PEOPLE CAN 11 PLAN. 12 MR. DUNLAP: BUT I THINK IF YOU'VE HAD SOME SUCCESS 13 WITH OUR TECHNICAL STAFF ON STANDARDS FOR SMOKE METERS AND 14 THE LIKE -- IT'S BEEN LONG, BUT IT'S WORKED OUT; RIGHT? 15 MS. WILLIAMS: IT HAS WORKED OUT; BUT ON N.O.X., 16 IT'S DIFFERENT. N.O.X. DOESN'T DETERIORATE. YOU CAN LOOK 17 OUTDOORS AND SEE A DIRTY SMOKY TRUCK. WE'D LIKE TO GET 18 THOSE VEHICLES OFF THE ROAD, TOO. THAT'S THE BLACK EYE 19 FOR OUR INDUSTRY. AND YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITH N.O.X. 20 N.O.X. DOESN'T DETERIORATE. 21 SO YOU HAVE TO ASSUME THAT OUR MEMBERS ARE 22 OUT THERE, AS COMPUTER HACKERS IN THESE NEW TRUCKS, MOVING 23 AROUND THE SOFTWARE. IT'S NOT FEASIBLE. THERE'S NOT 24 EMISSION REDUCTIONS IF IT DOESN'T DETERIORATE, SO YOU 25 CAN'T COUNT THEM. 0143 01 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE US 02 DO. 03 MS. WILLIAMS: ALL RIGHT. LET ME GET STARTED 04 HERE. 05 FIRST OF ALL, WE'D LIKE TO SEE THE SMALL 06 BUSINESS IMPACT ON THIS REGULATION FOR THE N.O.X. TESTING 07 AND THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS THAT GOES WITH THAT. WE THINK 08 THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY HURTFUL TO OUR INDUSTRY, AND WE 09 WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT COMES OUT FIRST. 10 THE CALIFORNIA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION IS 11 OPPOSED TO THE REVISIONS IN THE CALIFORNIA STATE 12 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. WE BELIEVE THIS ROBS THE STATE BY 13 REFUSING TO ADDRESS THE POLLUTION HOT SPOTS WITHIN THE 14 HEAVY-DUTY ON-ROAD SECTOR. BASED ON THE EFFORTS AND THE 15 PROCESS OF IDENTIFICATION OF DIESEL AS A TOXIC AIR 16 CONTAMINANT, WE FIND TODAY'S REVISION COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, 17 CONFUSING AND WITHOUT MERIT. WE ASK YOU TO WITHDRAW THE 18 PROPOSED REVISION AND DIRECT YOUR STAFF TO DEVISE A 19 STRATEGY TO ACCELERATE FLEET TURNOVER FROM HEAVY-DUTY 20 DIESEL ENGINES. 21 ON ONE HAND, YOU CLAIM THAT EVERY DAY, 22 AMBIENT EXPOSURE TO DIESEL EXHAUST WILL KILL UP TO 23 60,000 CALIFORNIANS OVER A 70-YEAR PERIOD. THEN YOU FIND 24 FLEET MODERNIZATION UNFEASIBLE AND REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE 25 HEAVY-DUTY HOT SPOTS, THE PRE '87 ENGINES. 0144 01 SCHOOL BUSES, LITERALLY, UNREGULATED FOR 02 DIESEL EXHAUST EMISSION BECAUSE OF THEIR AGE, CAN BILLOW 03 DIESEL SMOKE AS THEY CARRY OUR CHILDREN TO SCHOOL, AND THE 04 SOLUTION IS TO TEST NEW TRUCKS AT ROADSIDE IN 2005? 05 SCHOOL BUSES WILL BE JUST ONE HOT SPOT OF 06 EXPOSURE TO DIESEL EXHAUST, AND M-17 WILL NOT PROTECT THE 07 CHILDREN WHO HAVE THE WORSE CASE OF EXPOSURE TO AND FROM 08 SCHOOL. 09 FIRST AND FOREMOST, C.T.A. FINDS THE POLICY 10 PROPOSED IN M-17 COUNTERPRODUCTIVE IF, AS CLAIMED BY THE 11 STAFF OF OTAY, DIESEL EXHAUST IS A TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT. 12 IF YOU BELIEVE DIESEL EXPOSURE TO BE DEADLY, IGNORING THE 13 GROSS POLLUTERS WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE. 14 THE MESSAGE TO THE TRUCKING INDUSTRIES WILL 15 BE TO KEEP YOUR OLD TRUCKS, WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM CLEAN 16 AIR STANDARDS, IN ORDER TO KEEP YOUR REGULATORY COSTS 17 DOWN. AND THAT'S A MESSAGE WE DO NOT WANT CALIFORNIA 18 CARRIERS TO HEAR. 19 SECOND, THE REVISION IS CONFUSING. 20 CURRENTLY, THE TRUCKING SECTOR IS REQUIRED TO REDUCE 21 TEN TONS OF N.O.X. FROM ACCELERATED RETIREMENT OF 22 HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES. AND WARRANTED, SCRAPPAGE DOESN'T 23 WORK; WE WILL ADMIT THAT. BUT THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO 24 ACCELERATE FLEET TURNOVER. WE DO NOT HAVE TO DO 25 SCRAPPAGE. THAT WAS JUST THE IDEA THAT CAME UNDER THAT 0145 01 LABEL. 02 YOUR PROPOSED REVISIONS DO NOT ADDRESS 03 POLLUTION FROM A SOURCE. FOR EXAMPLE, IN A SECTION OF 04 OFF-CYCLE EMISSIONS, YOU ASSUME NEW TRUCKS WILL POLLUTE 05 MORE THAN THEY SHOULD AND PLACE UNFOUNDED REGULATORY 06 BURDEN ON CALIFORNIA CARRIERS FOR AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE 07 ENGINE MANUFACTURERS REALLY AREN'T GOING TO DO IT RIGHT. 08 OFF-CYCLE EMISSIONS ARE SCAPEGOAT FOR 09 CHANGING THE GOAL. FOR YEARS, ENGINE MANUFACTURERS HAVE 10 FOLLOWED GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS ON HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE 11 FEDERAL TEST CYCLES. CHANGING THE STANDARD TEST METHOD 12 AND ALLEGING CONSPIRACY AT THE ENGINE MANUFACTURERS IS 13 IRRESPONSIBLE, AND WE ASK THAT YOU TAKE THIS OUT OF OUR 14 CLEAN AIR PLAN. 15 THEY ARE DOING THE TEST THAT THE GOVERNMENT 16 REQUIRES. TO GO IN AND SAY, "OH, IF YOU DID A DIFFERENT 17 TEST, YOU'D HAVE A LOT MORE POLLUTION," WELL, YOU KNOW 18 WHAT, THE MODEL'S NOT BASED ON A DIFFERENT TEST. IT'S 19 BASED ON THE TEST THEY HAVE BEEN DOING FOR A LONG TIME. 20 SO WHY ARE WE CHANGING THE GOAL, AND WHY ARE 21 WE BLAMING THE ENGINE MANUFACTURERS? 22 TELL THE ENGINE MANUFACTURERS WHAT YOU WANT, 23 AND PUT IT IN WRITING. THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW GIVES US NO 24 GUIDANCE ABOUT WHAT EQUIPMENT WE SHOULD PURCHASE. IN 25 ADDITION, IN-USE COMPLIANCE DOESN'T REDUCE POLLUTION 0146 01 UNLESS THERE'S DETERIORATION. 02 TESTIMONY, LAWSUITS PURPORTED THAT N.O.X. 03 DOES NOT DETERIORATE AS ADJUSTMENTS FOR P.M. ARE MADE. 04 THE EMISSION TEXTBOOKS CLAIM N.O.X. DIDN'T DETERIORATE 05 OVER TIME, SO THE POLLUTION FROM N.O.X. IN-USE TESTING IS 06 AN EXERCISE IN GOVERNMENT CONTROL WITHOUT MERIT AND 07 ADAMANTLY OPPOSED FROM THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY. 08 THE GOVERNMENT ROLE IN TEACHING OR TRAINING 09 MECHANICS TO REPAIR VEHICLES IS NOT NEEDED FOR POLLUTION 10 REDUCTION. IN FACT, REPAIR FACILITIES HAVE THE MANUALS 11 THAT TELL THEM WHAT TO DO. WE QUESTION IF ANY EMISSION 12 REDUCTIONS WOULD COME FROM THE CONFUSING CONCEPTS OF M-17 13 AND OPPOSE IT IN ITS ENTIRETY. 14 TESTING TO DEATH THE NEW VEHICLES PLACES 15 CALIFORNIA'S TRUCKING INDUSTRY AT A COMPETITIVE 16 DISADVANTAGE WHILE CREATING ONLY PAPER AIR-QUALITY 17 REDUCTIONS. OUR MEMBER COMPANIES HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO 18 COMPLY WITH M-17 BECAUSE IT IS SO AMBIGUOUS. 19 AND FINALLY, TODAY'S PROPOSED REVISION IS 20 WITHOUT MERIT. ACCELERATED RETIREMENT OF HEAVY-DUTY 21 VEHICLES IS FEASIBLE. THE CALIFORNIA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION 22 HAS DEVELOPED A STRATEGY TO COMPLY WITH EARLIER REDUCTION 23 OF LOW-EMISSION VEHICLES AND FLEET MODERNIZATION. 24 IN THE PACKET DISTRIBUTED TO YOU CONTAINING 25 OVER 200 LETTERS OF OPPOSITION FROM TRUCKING COMPANIES, WE 0147 01 HAVE INCLUDED OUR S.I.P. PROPOSAL THAT WAS A LETTER 02 WRITTEN TO QUINTON COP. 03 THIS PROPOSAL IS IN LETTER FORM. AT THIS 04 TIME, WE ASK THAT YOU DIRECT YOUR STAFF TO REVITALIZE 05 THESE PROGRAMS AND SECURE THE LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT 06 NECESSARY TO CLEAN THE AIR. WE ASK THAT YOU AT LEAST TRY 07 TO FACILITATE A MODERNIZED FLEET IN CALIFORNIA. 08 THANK YOU. 09 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS 10 BREAK FOR LUNCH. 11 MS. WILLIAMS: JUST ONE MORE THING I WOULD LIKE TO 12 SAY, JUST REAL QUICK, ON THE DIESEL EXHAUST ISSUE. 13 THAT'S AN ISSUE -- 14 MR. DUNLAP: -- WHICH IS NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY. 15 MS. WILLIAMS: IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA, BUT YOU 16 BROUGHT IT UP, YOU KNOW. IT WAS KIND OF -- 17 MR. DUNLAP: THAT WAS AN UPDATE ON THE SCHEDULE. I 18 AM NOT GOING TO HAVE A DIESEL EXHAUST DEBATE AT THIS 19 POINT. THIS BOARD DOES NOT HAVE THAT ITEM BEFORE IT 20 TODAY. I AM NOT GOING TO EVEN TOUCH IT UNTIL WE GET TO 21 SEE WHAT COMES OUT OF THE S.R.P. SO I WILL BE HAPPY TO 22 FACILITATE THE RIGHT KIND OF CONVERSATION WITH YOU AND THE 23 RISK ASSESSMENT FOLKS, BUT I AM NOT GOING TO TOUCH THAT 24 ISSUE TODAY. 25 MS. WILLIAMS: I WAS JUST -- I WAS GOING TO TELL 0148 01 YOU ABOUT THE LAWSUITS THAT ARE GOING ON IN CALIFORNIA, I 02 MEAN, BECAUSE OF THAT DOCUMENT. 03 YOU NEED TO LOOK OUT FOR THE TRUCKING 04 INDUSTRY. WE'RE THE PEOPLE THAT HAUL YOUR FAMILY'S 05 FREIGHT, TOO; AND WE CAN'T BE SUED FOR USING THE 06 GOVERNMENT PRODUCTS. IT'S REALLY NOT FAIR, AND WE WOULD 07 LIKE TO SEE MORE INVOLVEMENT FROM THIS BOARD ON THIS. 08 MR. DUNLAP: YOU WILL SEE INVOLVEMENT ON THIS BOARD 09 ON THAT WHEN IT COMES TO US. 10 WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS HAVE YOU JOIN US 11 WHEN WE COME BACK FROM LUNCH. WE'LL TAKE ABOUT A 12 30-MINUTE BREAK, AND WE'LL HAVE YOU AS THE FIRST WITNESS 13 UP. YOU ALSO HAVE ABOUT TEN OR SO FOLKS FROM YOUR 14 INDUSTRY THAT HAVE SIGNED UP. 15 MS. WILLIAMS: YES. 16 MR. DUNLAP: I WOULD ASK YOU TO FACILITATE HOW 17 THEY COME TO US AND WHAT POINTS THEY ARE GOING TO 18 EMPHASIZE, SO I WILL GIVE YOU SOME CONTROL OVER THAT ORDER 19 OF THOSE FOLKS. SEE THE CLERK TO THE BOARD, AND WE'LL 20 FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT. 21 I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT HISTORY AND SOME 22 OF THESE THINGS, AND THE BOARD WILL. SO WE WILL WANT TO 23 TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT. 24 WE WILL TAKE ABOUT A 30 MINUTE BREAK FOR 25 LUNCH. WE WILL COME BACK AROUND 1:15, AND THEN WE WILL 0149 01 CONTINUE WITH THE WITNESSES. 02 (LUNCH RECESS) 03 MR. DUNLAP: WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD. 04 MS. WILLIAMS: THE FIRST WITNESS IS THE CHAIRMAN OF 05 C.T.A.'S ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY COMMITTEE, ALSO THE DIRECTOR 06 OF THE SAN DIEGO UNIT. HIS NAME IS BILL SMERBER WITH 07 C.T.A. EXPRESS. 08 MR. SMERBER: THANK YOU, STEPHANIE. 09 I'D LIKE TO THANK THE CHAIRMAN FOR CORRECTLY 10 PRONOUNCING MY LAST NAME THE FIRST TIME. THAT WAS REALLY 11 GOOD. 12 I AM VICE PRESIDENT OF C.P.S. EXPRESS. WE'RE 13 LOCATE IN MIRA LOMA, CALIFORNIA; AND WE EMPLOY ABOUT 14 76 EMPLOYEES, MOST OF WHICH ARE FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. 15 AND AS STEPHANIE MENTIONED, I AM THE CHAIRMAN FOR THE 16 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY COMMITTEE FOR THE CALIFORNIA TRUCKING 17 ASSOCIATION. 18 AS A CALIFORNIA BASED COMPANY OWNER AND A 19 MEMBER OF THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE 20 M-17 ISSUE. IN MY OPINION, THE PROPOSAL FOR THE REVISION 21 FOR M-17 IS BAD PUBLIC POLICY. THERE SHOULD BE A JOINT 22 EFFORT TO ELIMINATE PRELIMINARY 1987 DIESEL ENGINES BY 23 GIVING TRUCKING FLEET OWNERS INCENTIVES TO ACCELERATE 24 FLEET TURNOVER TO NEWER, CLEANER-BURNING TRUCKS AS THEY 25 BECOME AVAILABLE. 0150 01 CHANGING THE S.I.P. TO PENALIZE THE CLEANER 02 VEHICLES BY REQUIRING MORE INSPECTIONS WOULD, I FEEL, 03 RESULT IN MORE LOST TIME, MORE LOST PRODUCTIVITY AND 04 REVENUE; AND IT DOESN'T CLEAN THE AIR. 05 I FEEL WE NEED YOUR HELP TO DEVELOP A PROGRAM 06 TO ACCELERATE FLEET TURNOVER. I FEEL THE PRESENT PROGRAM 07 WILL CREATE MORE REGULATIONS ON OUR INDUSTRY WITHOUT 08 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT. 09 MR. DUNLAP: SIR, CAN I ASK YOU ONE QUESTION? 10 MR. SMERBER: YES. 11 MR. DUNLAP: AND SEE IF YOU FOLLOW THIS LOGIC LIKE 12 I THINK I DO. 13 1994, WE'RE IN THE FINAL THROES OF PUTTING 14 TOGETHER THE S.I.P. C.T.A. COMES IN AND SAYS, "WE'D LIKE 15 TO HAVE A HEAVY-DUTY SCRAP MEASURE INCLUDED." 16 IT GETS INCLUDED. THERE'S SOME THINGS -- 17 WE'RE GOING TO INVEST IN A PROCESS TOGETHER. WE'RE GOING 18 TO EXPLORE HOW WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO DO THIS THING. 19 YOU GUYS MAKE A COMMITMENT, C.T.A., ALONG WITH US, TO 20 SECURE DOLLARS, INCENTIVE DOLLARS, WHICH GETS WORKED ON 21 BUT NOT SUCCESSFULLY. 22 WE FAST-FORWARD FOUR YEARS. AND BY THE WAY, 23 THERE'S BEEN -- AND I DON'T WANT TO COMPLICATE THIS ISSUE, 24 BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN SOME ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY 25 CONCERN. MIKE SAID THIS WAS PART OF A LAWSUIT THAT HAD 0151 01 BEEN FILED, THAT WE'RE NOT DOING WHAT WE OUGHT TO BE DOING 02 WITH THIS MEASURE. 03 OUR STAFF IS TELLING US WHAT WE CURRENTLY 04 HAVE ON THE BOOKS WON'T WORK; THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING 05 THIS. WE DIDN'T JUST DECIDE TO DO THIS. THERE'S A 06 RATIONALE FOR IT. 07 YOUR OWN ADVOCATE STANDS UP HERE AND SAYS, 08 "WE DON'T THINK SCRAP WILL WORK." SO YOU ARE TELLING US 09 YOU WANT US TO KEEP M-7. HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD 10 WANT TO DO THAT. 11 MR. SMERBER: I AM NOT SAYING M-7 IS THE ANSWER. I 12 AM SAYING THAT IF WE HAD INCENTIVES TO ACCELERATE TURNOVER 13 AND PUT THE NEWER TRUCKS, THE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY IN THE 14 TRUCKS ON THE ROAD NOW, I FEEL WE'D SEE THE EMISSION 15 SITUATION IMPROVE MORE RAPIDLY. 16 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. WE WANT INCENTIVES, TOO. AND 17 WE'RE COMMITTED TO TRYING TO SECURE INCENTIVES THROUGH THE 18 LEGISLATIVE PROCESS THIS YEAR. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO 19 CONFOUND THAT ELEMENT OF THE DEBATE. WE WANT THEM, TOO. 20 MR. SMERBER: OKAY. 21 MR. DUNLAP: WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO WITH M-7? 22 YOUR OWN ADVOCATE SAYS IT WON'T WORK. WHAT DO YOU WANT ME 23 TO DO? 24 MR. SMERBER: WELL, WAIT A MINUTE. I SAID 25 SCRAPPAGE WON'T WORK. M-7 SAYS ACCELERATED RETIREMENT OF 0152 01 HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES. 02 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE 03 DIFFERENTIATION. 04 MR. SMERBER: ACCELERATED RETIREMENT OF HEAVY-DUTY 05 VEHICLES IS MOVING THEM OUT OF THE FLEET AS FAST AS YOU 06 CAN. YOU CAN DO THAT THROUGH SCRAPPAGE, A REBUILD 07 REQUIREMENT, A REGULATORY PROHIBITION. THERE'S LOTS OF 08 WAYS TO SAY SIX GRAMS IS ENTRY LEVEL INTO CALIFORNIA. YOU 09 CAN SAY IN THE YEAR 2005, WE DON'T ALLOW PEOPLE THAT COME 10 INTO THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY TO COME IN WITH A PRE '87 11 ENGINE. THERE'S ALL KINDS OF REGULATORY STRATEGIES. 12 WE'RE SAYING ACCELERATE FLEET TURNOVER. DON'T DO THESE 13 OTHER THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HURT US. 14 MR. DUNLAP: WHEN YOU SAID ACCELERATED FLEET 15 TURNOVER IN '94, YOU DIDN'T MEAN SCRAPPAGE? 16 MS. WILLIAMS: WE PROPOSED THAT IN 1994. WE CAME 17 TO THAT TOGETHER. YOU GUYS SAT IN THE BUILDING. I MEAN 18 THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY WAS THERE. EVERYBODY WAS 19 THERE; WE WORKED ON IT TOGETHER. 20 MR. DUNLAP: I AM JUST TRYING TO GET TO HEAR WHERE 21 YOU SAY WHAT YOU WANT US TO DO. I HEAR YOU SAYING, "WE 22 WANT YOU TO DO INCENTIVES." WE WANT THAT, TOO. THERE ARE 23 TWO BILLS IN THE LEGISLATURE THAT WE'RE WATCHING VERY 24 CAREFULLY. IT'S MY HOPE THAT WE'RE GOING TO SUPPORT IT, 25 SPRING LOOSE THE INCENTIVE THAT WE BOTH WANT. BUT WE 0153 01 STILL HAVE A MATTER RELATIVE TO OUR S.I.P., WHAT WE DO 02 WITH WHAT'S IN IT. 03 AND TO BE HONEST, STEPHANIE, WE HAVE KIND OF 04 BEEN BROUGHT TO THIS PLACE, IN LARGE PART, BECAUSE OF WHAT 05 SOME ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION DID AT THE TAIL END OF THE '94 06 S.I.P. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. 07 SO, YEAH, YOU HAVE SOME OWNERSHIP IN THIS. 08 MS. WILLIAMS: WE DO. ACCELERATED RETIREMENT, THAT 09 WILL CLEAN THE FLEET, GETTING THE OLD VEHICLES OUT OF OUR 10 STREETS IN CALIFORNIA; AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO THAT. HOW 11 WE DO IT, IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER. 12 YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE WANT? 13 WE WANT YOU TO GO TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, 14 DRAFT A BILL THAT DOES THIS, AND WE WILL SUPPORT IT AND 15 MAKE IT A CRITICAL MASS IN THE LEGISLATURE. SO WHEN 16 PEOPLE ARE VOTING FOR THIS BILL THAT PROVIDES INCENTIVES 17 FOR THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY, THEY WILL KNOW THAT IF THEY 18 DON'T, WE'RE GOING TO LOOSE FEDERAL FUNDS. WHEN YOU DO 19 SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THERE'S NO CRITICAL MASS TO PASS AN 20 "ALT" FUELS BILL OR SALES TAX PROVISIONS OR ON UPGRADES 21 BECAUSE -- 22 MR. DUNLAP: YOU THINK M-17 WOULD INHIBIT THE 23 ABILITY TO GET SUPPORT FOR THESE TWO PIECES OF LEGISLATION 24 THAT YOU JUST CITED? 25 MS. WILLIAMS: YES. IT INHIBITS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T 0154 01 CREATE THE CRITICAL MASS IN THE LEGISLATURE. 02 JUST LIKE SMOG CHECK II, IF YOU WENT IN LIKE 03 YOU DID WITH SMOG CHECK II AND SAID, "THE FEDS SAY WE HAVE 04 TO DO THIS. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. WE'VE GOT TO DO THIS OR 05 WE'RE GOING TO LOSE FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDS," THE 06 LEGISLATURE WOULD GET TOGETHER AND FIND A WAY TO DO IT. 07 BUT BY RESOLVING IT THROUGH PAPER EMISSIONS, 08 IT HURTS US. WE DON'T GET THE THINGS WE NEED IN 09 CALIFORNIA FOR CLEAN AIR. WE DON'T GET THOSE DIRTY, SMOKY 10 SCHOOL BUSES OUT OF THE FLEET, AND WE PRETEND THAT THIS 11 ISN'T A PROBLEM UNTIL THE NEXT PEOPLE COME ALONG. 12 AND I AM TELLING YOU FROM THE TRUCKING 13 INDUSTRY THAT WE'D LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. IT'S A 14 GOOD ISSUE TO ADDRESS. IT'S A CLEAN AIR ISSUE. YOU ARE 15 THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD. WE HAVE THOUGHT LONG 16 AND HARD ABOUT THIS. OUR MEMBERS HAVE THESE VEHICLES. WE 17 KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING TO OURSELVES. NOW WE HAVE MORE 18 SUPPORT THAN EVER FOR THIS BECAUSE OF THE -- 19 MR. DUNLAP: YOU HAVE SUPPORT -- 20 MS. WILLIAMS: -- FROM OUR ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP. 21 WITHIN AN ORGANIZATION AS BIG AS OURS, YOU 22 ARE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIKE SOME THINGS 23 SOMETIMES AND LIKE SOME THINGS -- YOU KNOW. AND WE HAVE 24 THAT, TOO; AND WITH A MEASURE LIKE THIS, PEOPLE ARE 25 SAYING, "NO, NO N.O.X." 0155 01 MR. DUNLAP: I THINK WE WANT THE SAME THING. 02 ALL RIGHT. 03 MS. WILLIAMS: I DO, TOO. 04 MR. DUNLAP: WHO'S NEXT? 05 MS. WILLIAMS: BILL GARNETT IS PRESIDENT OF THE 06 THINK FRESH TRANSPORTATION. 07 MR. GARNETT: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES 08 AND GENTLEMEN. 09 MY NAME, AS SHE SAID, IS BILL GARNETT. I AM 10 THE PRESIDENT OF THINK FRESH TRANSPORT, A COMPANY BASED 11 HERE IN LOS ANGELES. 12 IF WE HAD AN ANNUAL COMPANY PICNIC, IT WOULD 13 PUT THE RAINBOW COALITION TO SHAME BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE 14 FROM EVERY WALK OF LIFE AND EVERY -- WELL, I -- I WAS 15 REALLY TOO GENEROUS, BUT WE HAVE THAT COVERED, TOO. 16 WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE, I THINK FROM A 17 TRUCKING COMPANY MANAGEMENT POINT OF VIEW, IS THE NEED TO 18 ENFORCE WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU END UP WITH. AS A 19 LIFE-LONG RESIDENT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, I THINK THAT 20 THE EFFORTS CERTAINLY SHOULD BE APPLAUDED. I RECALL 21 COMING OVER THE PASS FROM VENTURA 30 YEARS AGO INTO A 22 GOD-AWFUL YELLOW HAZE AND THINKING, I ACTUALLY HAVE TO 23 BREATHE THAT STUFF. THIRTY YEARS LATER, IT'S THE 24 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NIGHT AND DAY. 25 THE EFFORT NEEDS TO BE CONTINUED. I THINK 0156 01 THE EFFORT NEEDS TO BE ENFORCED, AND I THINK WHATEVER 02 EFFORT IS MADE NEEDS TO BE DONE IN CONCERT WITH ALL OF THE 03 OTHER THINKS THAT ARE IMPACTING MY BUSINESS AND, AS A 04 RESULT, YOUR LIFESTYLE, BECAUSE AFTER ALL, THE CHANGE IN 05 YOUR POCKET GOT THERE BECAUSE IT WAS CARRIED BY A TRUCK. 06 THE C.H.P., THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY 07 ADMINISTRATION, ALL HAVE RULES AND REGULATIONS, ALL OF 08 WHICH THOSE OF US THAT PAY ATTENTION TO THE RULES LIVE BY. 09 WHAT WE'RE SEEING MORE AND MORE IS THIS SCOFF 10 LAWS WHO ARE FINDING WAYS AROUND THIS FROM A COMPETITIVE 11 STANDPOINT, WHERE THEY DON'T EITHER PAY THE FINES, PAY THE 12 FEES OR EVEN COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE 13 REGULATIONS. 14 I HAVE, AND I WILL LEAVE IT HERE FOR YOU 15 BECAUSE I DIDN'T COPY IT IN TIME, BUT I HAVE HERE A 16 CLIPPING FROM THE "JOURNAL OF COMMERCE," FROM YESTERDAY'S 17 ISSUE, IN WHICH IT DELINEATES HOW MEXICAN TRUCKS ARE 18 COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES AND USING THE SUBTERFUGE AND 19 BEING LEASED TO AN AMERICAN COMPANY. 20 AND I CAN ASSURE YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, 21 THEY ARE NOT COMING IN WITH C.A.R.B. FUEL IN THEIR TANKS, 22 AND THEY ARE NOT COMING IN WITH NECESSARILY APPROVED 23 DRIVERS IN THE SLEEPER. AND YET, WE HAVE TO COMPETE WITH 24 THESE PEOPLE. 25 SO WHATEVER IT IS, WHETHER IT'S M-7 OR M-17 0157 01 OR M1A1, TO GO BACK TO MY DAYS IN THE KOREAN WAR, WHATEVER 02 YOU CHOOSE TO FIRE OFF, MAKE SURE THAT YOU HIT EVERYBODY 03 WITH IT. 04 AND I WOULD LIKE TO USE JUST THIS AS AN 05 EXAMPLE OF A METAPHOR. I'D LIKE TO USE THE EXAMPLE OF THE 06 DAIRY FARMER WHO'S VERY, VERY LAZY, AND HE ONLY MILKED THE 07 COWS THAT CAME INTO THE BARN. AND AS THE DEMANDS FOR HIS 08 MILK -- OR THE DEMANDS FOR CLEANER AIR, TO COIN ANOTHER 09 FORK -- INCREASED, THE FARMER DIDN'T GO OUT AND ROUND UP 10 THE COWS THAT DIDN'T COME INTO THE BARN. HE JUST SAT 11 THERE AND MILKED THOSE THAT WERE STANDING THERE JUST THAT 12 MUCH HARDER. AND EVENTUALLY, HE KILLED ALL THE COWS THAT 13 WERE STANDING IN THE BARN; AND ALL THE REST OF THEM WERE 14 RUNNING AROUND OUTSIDE, YOU KNOW, JUST GETTING BIGGER AND 15 FATTER AND MORE RECALCITRANT TO ACTUALLY EVEN GO TO THE 16 BARN. 17 SO, YOU KNOW, BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING, I THINK 18 YOU NEED TO LOOK AT IT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF HOW IS THIS 19 GOING TO BE ENFORCED SO THAT IT DOESN'T CREATE AN UNEVEN 20 PLAYING FIELD. 21 THANK YOU. 22 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OF 23 ANY OF THESE WITNESSES, PLEASE JUST PIPE UP. 24 MR. GARNETT: WHO SHOULD I LEAVE THIS WITH? 25 MR. DUNLAP: THE CLERK. 0158 01 ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. 02 MR. GARNETT: THANK YOU. 03 MS. WILLIAMS: ALL RIGHT. NEXT IS 04 DENNIS FIRESTONE, WHO'S PAST PRESIDENT OF C.T.A. AND 05 MEMBER OF OUR OFFICERS COUNCIL AND STATE VICE PRESIDENT 06 FOR THE AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATION AND OWNER OF 07 K.K.W. TRUCKING. 08 MR. FIRESTONE: THANK YOU. 09 CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, OUR 10 OPERATION IS JUST UP THE STREET, K.K.W. TRUCKING. I AM 11 THE PRESIDENT. WE OPERATE ABOUT 120 TRACTORS, CLASS A 12 TRACTORS, THROUGHOUT THE WEST. 13 I'VE GOT A COUPLE HUNDRED EMPLOYEES. AT 14 LEAST 50 PERCENT OF THOSE ARE MINORITIES. AND THE PURPOSE 15 OF MY VISIT WITH YOU TODAY AND THE TIME WE'RE SPENDING 16 HERE IS TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS MEASURE, AND MOST OF 17 WHICH HAS BEEN ALREADY STATED -- AND BY THE ASSOCIATION 18 AND BY THE OTHER MEMBERS. 19 I JUST WANT TO TRY TO GET TO YOUR COMMENTS 20 AND TO TRY TO BRING ABOUT THE FACT THAT MYSELF, MY FAMILY, 21 MY EMPLOYEES, ALL WANT CLEAN AIR. WE REALLY ARE IN STEP 22 WITH ONE ANOTHER. WE WANT TO SURVIVE AS A BUSINESS; AS I 23 AM SURE THAT YOU, AS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIANS, WANT TO HAVE A 24 SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS COMMUNITY. WE NEED, AS BUSINESSMEN 25 AND BUSINESS PEOPLE, WE NEED CONSISTENT AND SPECIFIC 0159 01 DIRECTION. WE THOUGHT WE HAD THAT. 02 MY FLEET IS AN EXAMPLE. THE OLDEST TRUCK WE 03 NOW HAVE IS THREE YEARS OLD; AND THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT TO 04 GO; YOU WANT TO GO WITH NEW VEHICLES. YOU DON'T WANT TO 05 GO BACK. YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE THESE OLDER TRUCKS ON THE 06 HIGHWAY. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. 07 YOU DON'T WANT TO GO TO A INSPECTIONS AND THE 08 PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT 09 WITH S.N.A.P. IDLE. IT DOESN'T WORK. IT'S 10 UNENFORCEABLE. BUT I THINK REALLY TO SUMMARIZE, YOU WANT 11 TO PUT THE PRESSURE ON. YOU WANT TO STAY ON THE POINT 12 HERE THAT -- AND I THINK OUR STAFF SAID IT WELL. 13 YOU'VE GOT SOME CRITICAL MASS. DON'T PUT 14 THIS THING DOWN THE ROAD TEN YEARS. "OH, WELL, WE'LL GET 15 TO IT." AND, "IT WILL HAPPEN SOMEDAY." 16 LET'S TAKE THE MEASURE. LET'S FIND A WAY TO 17 GET THESE OLD TRUCKS OFF THE ROAD. LET'S MAKE SURE THAT 18 IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE IN TRUCKING IN CALIFORNIA, YOU ARE 19 DOING IT WITH NEW EQUIPMENT. YOU DON'T WANT TO TRY TO 20 WORK WITH THIS OLDER STUFF. YOU CAN'T MAKE A SILK PURSE 21 OUT OF A COW'S EAR. WE WANT THEM OFF THE HIGHWAY. 22 AND I THINK THAT, AS STEPHANIE SAID, THE BEST 23 THING YOU CAN DO IS GET BEHIND US 100 PERCENT. GIVE US 24 SOME INCENTIVES. DRIVE THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY WHERE IT 25 NEEDS TO GO. IT WILL HAPPEN. 0160 01 THANK YOU. 02 MR. DUNLAP: THANK YOU. 03 MS. WILLIAMS: NEXT IS IAN NIEVEZ, AND HE'S WITH 04 QWIKWAY TRUCKING. 05 MR. NIEVEZ: MR. CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS, LADIES 06 AND GENTLEMEN, MY NAME IS IAN NIEVEZ. I AM VICE PRESIDENT 07 OF QWIKWAY TRUCKING COMPANY. WE'RE A LOS ANGELES BASED 08 CARRIER. WE DELIVER A LOT OF RETAIL MERCHANDISE TO ODD 09 STORES IN THE MALLS. IF YOU ARE WEARING EDDIE BAUER, 10 NINE WEST TYPE WEARING APPAREL, MY TRUCKS TOOK IT TO THE 11 STORE WHERE YOU WALKED INTO AND BOUGHT IT. 12 I HAVE JUST ONE SIMPLE POINT TO MAKE; AND 13 THAT IS THAT I HAVE NEVER, EVER TAMPERED WITH A DIESEL 14 ENGINE. I HAVE NEVER ATTEMPTED ANY MODIFICATIONS. I 15 DON'T KNOW OF ANYBODY THAT HAS. 16 I AM A TECHNO-PEASANT; AND THESE TRUCKS, THEY 17 ARE ROLLING COMPUTERS. IF ANY OF YOU USED TO BE BACKYARD 18 MECHANICS, YOU'LL FIND THAT NOWADAYS, YOU BUY A CAR, ABOUT 19 THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO UNDERNEATH THE ENGINE 20 COMPARTMENT IS CHECK THE OIL LEVELS, WATER, CHECK FLUID 21 LEVELS, THAT KIND OF STUFF. 22 SO THAT'S MY SIMPLE POINT, AND THAT IS ALSO 23 TO PLEASE TO DROP THE PROPOSED M-17 MEASURE. AND ONE 24 OTHER ITEM, I GUESS, IS TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO OUR 25 CONCERN FOR THE LAWSUITS THAT ARE BEING FILED WITH 0161 01 CARRIERS AND PRIVATE CARRIERS REGARDING THE DIESEL FUEL 02 EXHAUST. 03 WE USE THE CLEANEST BURNING FUEL IN THE WHOLE 04 WORLD. WE'RE ON THE SAME INTEREST. OUR INTERESTS LIE 05 WITH CLEANING UP THIS AIR. 06 I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. 07 I GREW UP IN THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY. I'VE SEEN THE AIR GO 08 FROM GOOD TO BAD TO IMPROVED; AND I MAKE THIS PLACE NOT 09 ONLY MY HOME, BUT THE SOURCE OF MY EMPLOYMENT; AND I 10 PROVIDE JOBS FOR ABOUT 45 OTHER PEOPLE. 11 THANK YOU. 12 MR. DUNLAP: THANK YOU. 13 MS. WILLIAMS: CLEO EVANS IS THE PAST PRESIDENT OF 14 C.T.A. IN 1981 AND OWNS EVANS DEDICATED SYSTEMS. 15 MR. EVANS: MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, 16 MY NAME IS CLEO EVANS. I AM THE PRESIDENT AND C.E.O. OF 17 EVANS DEDICATED SYSTEMS, LOCATED IN LOS ANGELES. WE 18 EMPLOY 160 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIANS, OF WHICH 80 PERCENT OF 19 THEM ARE MINORITIES. 20 WE OPERATE 63 TRUCKS HERE IN THE 21 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, HAULING PETROLEUM PRODUCTS INTO 22 SERVICE STATIONS. MY FATHER STARTED THIS BUSINESS IN 23 1931. WE ARE PRESENTLY WORKING WITH A FOURTH GENERATION 24 MEMBER IN OUR FAMILY ORGANIZATION, AND I WOULD LIKE TO 25 CONTINUE THAT. WE'RE THE OLDEST TANK TRUCK CARRIER IN THE 0162 01 STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 02 I AM HERE TODAY TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO 03 REVISIONS IN THE 1994 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. C.T.A. 04 MEMBERS HAVE SPENT FIVE YEARS DEVELOPING MEASURES TO 05 IMPROVE OUR EMISSIONS STATEWIDE. WE WANT TO COMPLY WITH 06 FEDERAL CLEAN AIR GOALS, BUT YOU'RE FAILING TO TELL US 07 EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO. 08 THE MEMBERS OF C.T.A. HAVE SPENT COUNTLESS 09 HOURS DEVELOPING LEGISLATIVE STRATEGIES NEEDED TO MEET THE 10 S.I.P. REQUIREMENTS. I AM FRUSTRATED THAT YOU KEEP MOVING 11 THE TARGET AND IGNORING OUR VOLUNTEER WORK. 12 AS YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE POLLUTION OF 13 PRE 1987 ENGINES, YOUR STAFF IS PLANNING TO LABEL DIESEL 14 EXHAUST THE NUMBER ONE PUBLIC KILLER. 15 I READ AN ARTICLE IN THE "WALL STREET 16 JOURNAL" WHERE THE CHAIR OF THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW PANEL 17 SAID ONLY THE GOVERNMENT EXPERTS KNOW WHAT RISKS DIESEL 18 EXHAUST POSES. THE SO-CALLED STATE EXPERTS HAVE NEVER 19 COMPLETED RESEARCH ON DIESEL EXHAUST, YET THEY FEEL 20 COMPELLED TO MAKE UP NUMBERS TO SUPPORT THEIR SPIN OF THE 21 ORIGINAL SINUS OF REAL DIESEL EXHAUST RESEARCH. 22 HOW CAN DIESEL BURNED IN CALIFORNIA BE THE 23 ONLY DIESEL EXHAUST THAT CAUSES CANCER WHEN WE'RE USING 24 C.A.R.B. FUEL? 25 IF THE GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS DEVELOP A POOR 0163 01 FUEL QUALITY STANDARD THAT CAUSES CANCER, SHOULDN'T THEY 02 BE THE ENTITIES THAT GET SUED? 03 STRATEGIES TO MEET THE CLEAN AIR GOALS MUST 04 ADDRESS HIGH-POLLUTING VEHICLES. WITHOUT INCENTIVES TO 05 ACCELERATE FLEET TURNOVER, THE NEW, CLEANER VEHICLES WILL 06 NOT BE ADDED TO THE FLEET IN TIME TO MEET THE CLEAN AIR 07 GOALS OF THE S.I.P. 08 PLEASE OPPOSE THE REVISIONS OF THE S.I.P. AND 09 DIRECT C.A.R.B. STAFF TO DEVELOP A PROGRAM TO ACCELERATE 10 FLEET TURNOVER. IN ADDITION, PLEASE CALL THE ORIGINAL 11 RESEARCHERS PERSONALLY AND HEAR THE OPPOSITION TO THE 12 GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS WHO MISUSE THEIR REAL DIESEL 13 RESEARCH. 14 THANK YOU. 15 MR. DUNLAP: THANK YOU, MR. EVANS. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: I WENT OUT OF ORDER. I WAS BAD. 17 ART THOMPSON, OWNER OF THOMPSON TANK LINES. 18 MR. THOMPSON: CHAIRMAN DUNLAP, MEMBERS OF THE 19 BOARD, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO LET ME PRESENT 20 THIS TO YOU THIS AFTERNOON, MY VIEWS, THE VIEWS OF 21 CALIFORNIA TRUCK ASSOCIATION, ON THE SCRAPPAGE PROGRAM. 22 MY NAME IS ART THOMPSON. I AM THE OWNER OF 23 TOM-SAN TANK LINES IN COLTON, CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE 24 18 EMPLOYEES. FIFTY PERCENT ARE MINORITY. 25 CALIFORNIA TRUCK ASSOCIATION PROPOSAL HAS 0164 01 DEVELOPED A PROGRAM THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 02 S.I.P. THE AIR QUALITY MODEL SUGGESTED THAT THE 03 HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE FLEET MUST CONTAIN 70 PERCENT OF 1998 04 MODELS OR NEWER ENGINES AND 30 PERCENT OF THE 2004 MODEL 05 OR NEWER ENGINES BY 2010. THIS WILL BE DIFFICULT WITHOUT 06 INCENTIVES. 07 INTRODUCTION OF THE '98 ENGINE STANDARDS -- 08 IT'S FOUR GRAMS BRAKE HORSEPOWER PER HOUR. CURRENTLY, 09 CALIFORNIA LEVIES A SALE TAX ON NEW EQUIPMENT PURCHASES. 10 ORDERING STATES SUCH AS OREGON, NEVADA DON'T LEVY THIS 11 TAX. BY SUNSETTING THE SALES TAX ON THE 1998 MODEL YEAR 12 ENGINES FROM 1998 TO 2003, EQUIPMENT PURCHASE WILL BE 13 STIMULATED AND THE FLEET MAY MEET THE PROMISE OF THE 14 70 PERCENT OF THE FLEET OPERATING AT FOUR GRAMS PER BRAKE 15 HORSEPOWER PER HOUR. 16 STANDARDS N.O.X. EMISSIONS: THE TECHNOLOGY 17 IN THE 2004 STANDARDS HAVE NOT YET BEEN DETERMINED, AND 18 THEREFORE, NOT COMMERCIALIZED. THE PRECOMMERCIALIZED 19 NATURAL GAS ENGINES ARE AVAILABLE TO CARRIERS THAT CAN 20 FIND FUELING FOR LIQUID NATURAL GAS. IN THE FALL OF 1998 21 COMES ITS L-10 NATURAL GAS ENGINE TO BE COMMERCIALLY 22 AVAILABLE. 23 PARS SYSTEMS OFFERS A RETROFIT CATERPILLAR 24 ENGINE TO BE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE. THAT'S DUAL FUEL. 25 THAT'S L.N.G. AND DIESEL FUEL. THESE VEHICLES WILL BE 0165 01 CONSIDERABLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE DIESEL-POWERED 02 VEHICLES AND WILL REQUIRE ECONOMIC INCENTIVES TO COVER THE 03 $35,000 INCREMENTAL COST ABOVE AND BEYOND THE $65,000 THAT 04 A NEW DIESEL VEHICLE WOULD COST. 05 IN ADDITION, THERE ARE ONLY A FEW LIQUIFIED 06 NATURAL GAS FUELING FACILITIES AVAILABLE STATEWIDE. FOR 07 EARLY INTRODUCTION OF THESE VEHICLES TO OCCUR, THE STATE 08 MUST CREATE AN INCENTIVE TO PURCHASE THESE VEHICLES AND 09 PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE FUELING AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN 10 ADDITION. 11 DIESEL ENGINES MEETING THE 2004 STANDARD ARE 12 CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT AND SHOULD BE READY BY 2003. 13 A COMBINATION OF EARLY INTRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS AND 14 PRECOMMERCIAL DIESEL TECHNOLOGY SHOULD ENSURE THE 15 30 PERCENT TARGET OF TWO-AND-A-HALF GRAMS PER HOUR 16 TECHNOLOGY FOR 2010. 17 A COMBINATION OF MEASURES WILL BE REQUIRED TO 18 ACCELERATE PRECOMMERCIAL TECHNOLOGY INTO THE FLEET. THE 19 MEASURES WE PROPOSE ARE, ONE, SALES TAX SUNSET FROM 1998 20 TO 2009; TWO, INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS AT SIX-AND-A-HALF 21 PERCENT ON NEW VEHICLE PURCHASES; AND THREE, GRANTS FROM 22 THE ENERGY COMMISSION TO DEFER THE INCREMENTAL COSTS OF 23 LOWER EMISSION VEHICLES BEFORE THE TECHNOLOGY IS 24 MANDATORY. 25 TO UPGRADE THE 1998 ENGINES, CONTROLS OF 0166 01 OLDER VEHICLES IS NECESSARY TO MEET THE NEAR TERM 02 EMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS FROM THE HIGHEST POLLUTING 03 VEHICLES. 04 AT TIME OF REBUILD, IT'S COST-EFFECTIVE TO 05 UPGRADE EMISSION CONTROLS FOR MECHANICALLY CONTROLLED 06 ENGINES. THE INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE AN ENGINE RANGES 07 FROM 100 TO $1,500 PER VEHICLE; AND THE EMISSION 08 REDUCTIONS, AS ADDRESSED IN A 1982 MODEL ENGINE EMITTING 09 10.7 PERCENT OF N.O.X., CAN BE UPGRADED TO SIX GRAMS PER 10 HOUR N.O.X. ON MANY ENGINE MODELS AT THE TIME OF REBUILD. 11 GRANTS FROM THE ENERGY COMMISSION DEFER THE INCREMENTAL 12 COST. WE ASK THAT YOU WORK WITH US ON THESE PROGRAMS. 13 THANK YOU. 14 MR. DUNLAP: THANK YOU, MR. THOMPSON. 15 MS. WILLIAMS: ANDY ANDERSON WITH 16 CONDOR FREIGHT LINES IS A CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. 17 MR. DUNLAP: THERE'S ONE MORE AFTER THIS, 18 STEPHANIE? 19 OKAY. WE LOST MR. GARCIA? 20 MS. WILLIAMS: YES. 21 MR. ANDERSON: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD, 22 IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE. AS STATED, I AM 23 ANDY ANDERSON. I'M THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF 24 CONDOR FREIGHT LINES. WE OPERATE ABOUT A HUNDRED POWER 25 UNITS, EMPLOY ABOUT 250 PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF 0167 01 CALIFORNIA. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE VARIOUS PARTNERSHIPS 02 WHERE WE HANDLE FREIGHT FROM THE NORTHWEST OF THE 03 UNITED STATES, UTAH, ARIZONA, NEVADA. 04 LISTENING TO THE PRESENTATIONS OF THINGS 05 TODAY, THERE'S SOME CONCERNS THAT I HAVE WITH THE 06 PROPOSAL. I AM GOING TO ADDRESS IT FROM TWO ISSUES. 07 ONE, AS THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, I AM 08 DEALING WITH PURCHASING EQUIPMENT. WE'RE CURRENTLY 09 LOOKING AT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 20 AND 25 PERCENT TURNOVER IN 10 OUR EQUIPMENT A YEAR. PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE M-7 11 PROPOSAL. WE WANT THE CLEAN AIR EMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE 12 PRODUCTIVITY WE SEE OUT OF THE NEW EQUIPMENT. 13 WITH THE CAPITAL OUTLAY OF BETWEEN 60 AND 14 $70,000 FOR A CLASS A TRACTOR, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT 15 CAPITAL OUTLAY; AND WE'RE LOOKING AND WORKING WITH 16 MANUFACTURERS SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THIS PROPOSAL AND 17 MAXIMIZE OUR OPPORTUNITIES OVER THESE NEXT FEW YEARS. 18 THE CONCERN I HAVE OF WHAT I HAVE HEARD TODAY 19 IS, WHAT I AM HEARING IS, "JEEZ, WE HAVEN'T GOT IT, SO 20 LET'S DELAY IT FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS." 21 AS A MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF 22 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, I AM INTERESTED IN THE TAX 23 INCENTIVES THAT COME OUT, AND WATCH THOSE FOR OUR 24 INDUSTRIES. TO DATE, WHILE MY MEMORY IS LACKING AND 25 SOMETIMES I ACCUSE MYSELF OF HAVING A TEFLON BRAIN, I 0168 01 DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY PROPOSAL FROM ANY MEMBER OF THIS 02 BOARD OR THIS GROUP, AS A GROUP, OFFERING INCENTIVES FOR 03 TAXES. 04 THEREFORE, TO SAY THAT WE'RE WILLING TO FOCUS 05 ON A SCRAPPAGE STRATEGY IS MISLEADING, AND I WANT YOU TO 06 KNOW THAT I EXPECT TO SEE SOME THINGS HAPPEN IN THE 07 FUTURE. 08 WE WANT CLEAN AIR AS MUCH AS ANYBODY, BUT WE 09 ALSO THINK WE DESERVE SOME TAX INCENTIVES ON THAT. WITH 10 TAX INCENTIVES, WE THINK WE CAN ENCOURAGE THE OTHER 11 PEOPLE, THE OTHER TRUCK OWNER/OPERATORS, THOSE PEOPLE 12 COMING INTO THE STATE TO BUY AND UPGRADE THEIR FLEET. 13 THOSE TAX INCENTIVES COULD COME FROM SALES 14 TAX THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED AS WELL AS INCENTIVE TAX CREDIT, 15 AS WELL AS REDUCTION ON REBUILDS, TAX INVOLVED IN THE 16 PARTS, AND THINGS TO DO THOSE. 17 WE SUGGEST THAT, WHILE ALTERNATIVES ARE OUT 18 THERE, I DON'T THINK DELAYING THIS BY FIVE YEARS IS A GOOD 19 ALTERNATIVE. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE BOARD REVIEW 20 ALTERNATIVES. I AM SURE THE C.T.A. IS MORE THAN WILLING 21 TO WORK WITH THAT, COME UP WITH DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES TO 22 MAKE SURE THAT M-17, WHILE IT'S NOT AGREEABLE IN THE 23 CURRENT STAND, COULD BE MODIFIED OR M-7 COULD BE MODIFIED 24 TO MEET THE GOALS THAT YOU HAVE GOT, AS WELL AS MAKE THE 25 TURNOVER AND CLEAN UP THE AIR. 0169 01 THANK YOU. 02 MR. DUNLAP: JUST TO CLEAR UP ONE POINT, WE'RE NOT 03 THE STATE LEGISLATURE AS IT RELATES TO INCENTIVES OR TAX 04 CREDITS. 05 MR. ANDERSON: AGREED. 06 MR. DUNLAP: WE SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE 07 GOVERNOR, WHO IT IS IN HIS PURVIEW TO INITIATE LEGISLATIVE 08 PROPOSALS IF HE DESIRES. 09 MR. ANDERSON: TRUE. 10 MR. DUNLAP: SO WE OFFER OPINIONS AND SUPPORT. 11 SOMETIMES WE WILL EVEN OPPOSE LEGISLATION OR RECOMMEND 12 THAT IT IS OPPOSED. IT'S NOT OUR -- WE DON'T HAVE THE 13 ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO OFFER YOU A TAX CREDIT, FOR EXAMPLE. 14 MR. ANDERSON: UNDERSTAND. 15 MR. DUNLAP: BUT LET ME ASSURE YOU -- AND I DON'T 16 KNOW HOW CLOSELY YOU'VE WATCHED THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN 17 THIS ASSOCIATION -- WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED VERY HEAVILY FOR 18 THE LAST THREE YEARS WITH YOUR INDUSTRY AND IN THE 19 LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. 20 MR. ANDERSON: I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE BEEN. 21 HOWEVER, LIKE I SAID, IN THE THINGS COMING OUT FROM THE 22 SOCIETY OF C.P.A.'S, I HAVE NOT SEEN THE C.A.R.B. 23 RECOMMEND ANYTHING OR AUTHORSHIP OF ANYTHING OR SUPPORT 24 ANYTHING THROUGH THAT SIDE OF THE LEGISLATURE. 25 C.T.A., I UNDERSTAND. BUT THE C.P.A. 0170 01 SOCIETY, WHICH IS ANOTHER GROUP THAT WOULD VERY MUCH 02 SUPPORT IT, HAVEN'T SEEN THAT SIDE OF IT. THANK YOU. 03 MR. DUNLAP: IS THAT IT, MS. WILLIAMS? IS THAT THE 04 LAST ONE? 05 MS. WILLIAMS: NO. THIS IS THE LAST ONE. 06 WILLIAM APPLEBEE, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF 07 BEST OVERNIGHT EXPRESS, INC. 08 MR. APPLEBEE: THANK YOU. 09 BEST OVERNIGHT EXPRESS IS A LOCAL 10 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND CALIFORNIA L.T.L. TRUCKING 11 COMPANY. WE OFFER A GENERAL COMMODITY DELIVERY SERVICE 12 AND WE EMPLOY APPROXIMATELY 135 PEOPLE. MOST OF WHAT I 13 WROTE DOWN HERE HAS ALREADY BEEN TALKED ABOUT, AND I WILL 14 TRY TO MAKE IT AS BRIEF AS I CAN. 15 THERE IS REALLY TWO POINTS THAT STRUCK ME 16 TODAY. ONE OF THEM WAS THE FACT THAT DIESEL FUEL 17 EMISSIONS ARE POSSIBLY CAUSTIC OR CANCER CAUSING; AND THAT 18 APPALLS ME TO THINK THAT I WOULD OPERATE TRUCKS ANYWHERE, 19 CALIFORNIA OR ANYWHERE ELSE, THAT MIGHT DO THAT. AND I 20 WOULD SURE LIKE TO KNOW THAT THEY ARE OR AREN'T CANCER 21 CAUSING, THE DIESEL FUEL EMISSIONS. 22 AND SECONDLY, FROM A SELFISH STANDPOINT, COST 23 IS A BIG PART OF WHAT WE DO IN THE TRUCKING BUSINESS. 24 IT'S A VERY THIN INDUSTRY FROM A FINANCIAL STANDPOINT, AND 25 WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR WAYS TO SAVE MONEY. 0171 01 IF WE WERE TO GO OUT AND SPEND A MILLION 02 DOLLARS ON NEW TRUCKS, AS WE HAVE CONSIDERED FOR THE LAST 03 FEW MONTHS, WE'D SURE LIKE TO KNOW THAT FUTURE REGULATION 04 WILL ALLOW US TO DO THAT AND KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A 05 GOOD FINANCIAL INVESTMENT. 06 THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. 07 MR. DUNLAP: THANK YOU. 08 ALL RIGHT. MS. WILLIAMS, IN CONCLUSION, YOU 09 WOULD HAVE US RETAIN M-7, NOT GO WITH M-17, AND WORK AS WE 10 HAVE PLEDGED TO DO IN THE INCENTIVES AREA WITH THE 11 LEGISLATURE; IS THAT CORRECT? 12 MS. WILLIAMS: WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO PUT THOSE 13 INCENTIVES IN M-17, CALL IT -- LEAVE IT NAMED ACCELERATED 14 RETIREMENT OF HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES, AND JOIN THE 15 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY AND THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY AND THE 16 OIL COMPANIES NOW, AND GO TO THE LEGISLATURE, CREATE THE 17 CRITICAL MASS TO CLEAN THE AIR. THAT'S WHAT WE WANT, AND 18 THAT PROVIDES US CERTAINTY. IT PROVIDES THE 19 ENVIRONMENTALISTS CERTAINTY. IT PROVIDES THE OIL 20 COMPANIES CERTAINTY, THE ENGINE MANUFACTURERS CERTAINTY, 21 AND -- 22 MR. DUNLAP: I AM JUST LOOKING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR 23 ASSOCIATION. OKAY. NOW, LIKE ANY ASSOCIATION -- AND I 24 MEAN NO DISRESPECT TO YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION -- BUT YOU 25 REPRESENT A SEGMENT, A SIGNIFICANT SEGMENT, OF THE 0172 01 TRUCKING INDUSTRY. 02 HOW MUCH OF THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY DO YOU 03 REPRESENT? CAN YOU GIVE ME A FLAVOR? ARE YOU 60 PERCENT? 04 ARE YOU 10 PERCENT? WHAT ARE YOU? 05 MS. WILLIAMS: WE HAVE 2500 MEMBERS. IN THAT 06 2500 MEMBERS, WE HAVE CARRIERS THAT ARE IN STATE, OUT OF 07 STATE. WE HAVE -- 08 MR. DUNLAP: THE FULL COMPLEMENT. BUT DO YOU 09 REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF THE TRUCKING CONCERNS IN THIS 10 STATE? 11 MS. WILLIAMS: HAVE YOU SEEN ANYBODY ELSE COME UP 12 AND TALK TO YOU? 13 MR. DUNLAP: NOT TODAY. 14 MS. WILLIAMS: EXACTLY. 15 MR. DUNLAP: BUT THAT ISN'T THE QUESTION I ASKED. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: I BELIEVE WE REPRESENT THE BULK OF 17 THE INDUSTRY. I MEAN, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND ONE -- 18 COMPANIES HERE AND THERE THAT DON'T BELONG TO C.T.A., BUT 19 I THINK IF YOU WERE TO ASK THEM IF THEY'D RATHER HAVE A 20 STANDARD ON REBUILD OR A N.O.X. DYNAMOMETER TEST AT 21 ROADSIDE, I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT WE SAID. 22 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GOT IT. I KNOW 23 WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. 24 ANY QUESTIONS OF THIS WITNESS? 25 MS. RAKOW: I WONDER IF MS. WILLIAMS COULD BE A 0173 01 LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC, BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASK THE SAME, 02 THE SAME QUESTION; BUT IF YOU COULD GIVE IT -- DO YOU HAVE 03 ANY IDEA OF PERCENTAGES? 04 MS. WILLIAMS: COMPANIES OR VEHICLES? 05 MS. RAKOW: PERCENTAGES OF THE COMPANIES IN 06 CALIFORNIA THAT C.T.A. REPRESENTS, COMPARED TO THE 07 PERCENTAGE THAT ARE NOT REPRESENTED IN CALIFORNIA. 08 MS. WILLIAMS: I JUST DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA. 09 I THINK THERE'S -- ON OUR MARKETING SIDE, WE 10 REPRESENT 85 PERCENT OF THE TRUCKS. I'VE HEARD THAT, 11 85 PERCENT OF THE TRUCKS. 12 MS. RAKOW: OKAY. THAT GIVES ME A BALLPARK. 13 MS. WILLIAMS: BUT AS FAR AS OUR AVERAGE MEMBER HAS 14 FIVE TRUCKS, BETWEEN FIVE AND TEN TRUCKS AS A SMALL FAMILY 15 OWNED BUSINESS -- 16 MS. RAKOW: I JUST WONDERED, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY 17 PERHAPS VERY SMALL ENTITIES THERE ARE OUT THERE IN 18 CALIFORNIA. 19 MS. WILLIAMS: A LOT. THERE'S A LOT, AND A LOT OF 20 THEM ARE MEMBERS. AND A LOT OF THEM CALL AND YELL AT ME 21 WHEN I WRITE ARTICLES IN "CAL TRUCKS." I MEAN, BUT YOU 22 CAN NEVER PLEASE EVERYBODY, BUT GROUPS LIKE OURS COME 23 TOGETHER TO NEGOTIATE BEHIND THE SCENES SO WE DON'T HAVE 24 TO NEGOTIATE IN FRONT OF YOU AND FIGHT IN PUBLIC. 25 AND UNLESS YOU SEE A LOT OF TRUCKING 0174 01 COMPANIES COMING FORWARD SAYING, "I WANT N.O.X. TESTING," 02 I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS PROBABLY AN INDUSTRY-PUSHED 03 MEASURE, ALL INDUSTRY. UNTIL YOU SEE OPPOSITION -- 04 MR. DUNLAP: MRS. WILLIAMS, THE INTENT -- I CAN 05 ASSURE YOU THAT THE INTENT IS JUST TO GET A FLAVOR FOR 06 THOSE THAT ARE NOT REPRESENTED. 07 ONE THING THAT WE'RE EXPECTED TO DO IN THESE 08 ROLES IS TO REPRESENT PEOPLE, PERHAPS THAT AREN'T INVOLVED 09 IN THE PROCESS. WE JUST WANTED TO GET A FLAVOR FOR IT. 10 WE KNOW THAT YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS PEOPLE FROM ALL THOSE 11 DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF THE INDUSTRY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT. 12 WE JUST WANT TO GET A FEEL FOR WHO WAS NOT THERE, AND I 13 THINK YOU COVERED THAT. 14 MS. WILLIAMS: I THINK IF YOU LOOK IN THE LETTERS 15 OF SUPPORT, YOU WILL SEE MOST OF THOSE ARE SMALL 16 COMPANIES. 17 MR. DUNLAP: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. 18 AND I APPRECIATE THE INDUSTRY STICKING WITH 19 US, AND I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE PRODUCTIVE THINGS TO DO, AND 20 THEY DON'T ALWAYS HAVE THINGS IN EVERYDAY WORK THAT ALLOWS 21 THEM TO COME TO A GOVERNMENT DELIBERATIVE BODY FOR A WHOLE 22 DAY. SO I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND TELL YOU HOW 23 MUCH WE APPRECIATE HEARING FROM YOU. 24 ALL RIGHT. MR. KENNY, YOU AND TOM HAVE A FEW 25 QUESTIONS TO ANSWER, IT SEEMS TO ME; AND I WILL START WITH 0175 01 MR. PARNELL. 02 MR. PARNELL: WELL, IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT SINCE 03 M-17 IS A FRAMEWORK ONTO WHICH WE HAVE TO HANG A LOT OF 04 MEAT, A FRAME THAT WE HAVE TO REALLY CONTINUE TO WORK ON, 05 THAT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE COULD SUPPORT OR EMBRACE M-17, 06 AND AT THE SAME TIME, DIRECT STAFF TO GO BACK WITH THE 07 TRUCKING INDUSTRY AND TO TRY TO DISCERN WHETHER OR NOT 08 THERE ARE WAYS TO MAKE THAT A PART OF THIS INITIATIVE. IS 09 THAT -- 10 MR. KENNY: THAT'S NOT ENTIRELY INCORRECT. I 11 MEAN, THAT'S ACTUALLY VERY CLOSE. 12 WE ACTUALLY ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF MANY OF 13 THE THINGS YOU HEARD FROM THE TRUCKING REPRESENTATIVES 14 TODAY. AND I THINK ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT WE NEED TO 15 PROBABLY POINT OUT IS WHEN YOU LOOK THE S.I.P., THERE ARE 16 FOUR M MEASURES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH TRUCKING IN 17 GENERAL: M-4, M-5, M-6 AND M-7. M-4, M-5 AND M-6 ARE ALL 18 REALLY FOCUSED ON INCENTIVE PROCESSES BY WHICH WE CAN GET 19 ADDITIONAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM THE TRUCKING FLEETS. 20 SO WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING -- 21 MR. DUNLAP: FOR EXAMPLE, MIKE, WHAT ARE SOME OF 22 THOSE? FOUR, FIVE AND SIX, GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THEY 23 ARE INCENTIVE-ORIENTED. 24 MR. KENNY: WHAT THEY ARE IS THEY ARE BASICALLY -- 25 THEY ARE FOCUSED ON USING INCENTIVE APPROACHES TO GETTING 0176 01 ADDITIONAL N.O.X. EMISSION REDUCTIONS. THE SAME PROBLEMS 02 EXIST THERE, THOUGH, IN TERMS OF ACHIEVING THOSE 03 REDUCTIONS THAT EXIST WITH M-7, BUT TO A LESSER DEGREE. 04 M-4 AND M-5, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE FOCUSED ON THE 05 FACT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO USE MECHANISMS, MONEY, TO 06 ACHIEVE, YOU KNOW, REPOWERING, RETROFITS AND TURNOVERS OF 07 THE FLEETS. THE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED 08 WITH THOSE ARE SMALLER THAN ARE ASSOCIATED WITH M-7, AND 09 M-7 WAS MORE SPECIFICALLY SCRAPPAGE OF VEHICLES. M-7, IN 10 OUR CONCLUSION, AND ALSO IN THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY 11 CONCLUSION, DIDN'T WORK. 12 SO WE CONTINUE TO AGREE THAT INCENTIVES ARE 13 AN APPROACH THAT IS A VIABLE APPROACH, AND IT'S AN 14 APPROACH THAT WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS 15 WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY YET. 16 WHEN YOU GO TO M-7 SPECIFICALLY, IT'S A 17 LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN SIMPLY STRAIGHT INCENTIVES TO GET 18 ADDITIONAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS. M-7 SAID THAT WE WERE 19 GOING TO RETIRE VEHICLES AND USE THOSE RETIREMENTS TO GET 20 THE EMISSION REDUCTIONS. 21 WE NEEDED A FUNDING SOURCE FOR THAT, AND WE 22 DISCUSSED THAT BACK IN 1994 WHEN WE ORIGINALLY PUT M-7 23 INTO THE S.I.P. THAT FUNDING SOURCE HASN'T COME FORWARD. 24 WE'RE NOW UNDER THREAT OF A COURT ORDER IN THE SITUATION 25 OF M-7 BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO ACHIEVE ANY 0177 01 REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH M-7. 02 WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS REALLY SIMPLY 03 RECOGNIZE THAT WHAT YOU HEAR FROM THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY 04 WITH REGARD TO INCENTIVES IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THAT WE 05 WANT TO DO THAT. 06 AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALSO NEED TO RECOGNIZE 07 THAT THE SCRAPPAGE PROGRAM THAT'S IN M-7 DIDN'T HAPPEN, 08 AND IT ISN'T HAPPENING. AND SO THEREFORE, INSTEAD OF 09 LEAVING SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS THAT IS NOT GOING TO WORK, 10 WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WAS LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS THAT WERE 11 OUT THERE, THAT WOULD GIVE US A CHANCE FOR SUCCESS. 12 PART OF THOSE OTHER OPTIONS, THOUGH, CONTINUE 13 TO BE INCENTIVES. WE TALKED IN M-17 ABOUT THE FACT THAT 14 WE WANT TO PURSUE ADDITIONAL MARKET-BASED APPROACHES. SO 15 ALTHOUGH M-4, M-5 AND M-6 ALL HAVE INCENTIVES AS THEIR 16 HEART FOR ACHIEVING EMISSION REDUCTIONS, WE WERE ALSO 17 POINTING OUT IN M-17 THAT, IN FACT, A MARKET APPROACH IS 18 STILL A VIABLE APPROACH; AND IF WE CAN GET ADDITIONAL 19 EMISSION REDUCTIONS THROUGH M-17 BY THE USE OF MARKET 20 INCENTIVES, WE SHOULD DO SO. 21 BUT AGAIN, THE FUNDAMENTAL THING WE'RE 22 LACKING AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS MONEY. AND SO UNTIL WE 23 BASICALLY CAN COME UP WITH A WAY OF ENSURING THAT WE HAVE 24 THE MONEY, WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON IS THE EMISSION 25 REDUCTIONS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE TRY TO DO IN TERMS OF THE 0178 01 RESTRUCTURE OF M-17. 02 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. ON THAT, JACK, LET ME -- I 03 THINK THERE'S A POINT THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE. I DON'T WANT 04 TO PICK ON THE "LEG." STAFF, BUT I WILL ASK WHOEVER IS 05 MOST CONVERSANT WITH THE GENERAL INTENT OF THOSE 06 TWO LEGISLATIVE VEHICLES THAT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED -- 07 SHEILA, YOU OR KURT, COULD YOU COME FORWARD AND MAYBE JUST 08 SAY A WORD TO GIVE THE BOARD SOME BACKGROUND ABOUT WHAT 09 THE LEGISLATURE WILL BE CONSIDERING THIS YEAR. 10 MS. MARSEE: YES. CURRENTLY, THE LEGISLATURE HAS 11 TWO BILLS BEFORE IT THAT WOULD PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR 12 BASICALLY HEAVY-DUTY DIESELS. THERE IS AN EFFORT TO 13 PROVIDE SOME FUNDING MECHANISM, AS WELL AS OTHER 14 INCENTIVES TO GET THOSE VEHICLES OFF THE ROAD OR GET THEM 15 CLEANED UP. 16 MR. DUNLAP: AND THE TWO AUTHORS? 17 MS. MARSEE: THE TWO AUTHORS ARE VIA GERROSA 18 (PHONETIC) AND BRUELTY (PHONETIC). 19 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. SO THE SPEAKER AND -- THE NEW 20 SPEAKER AND SENATOR BRUELTY HAVE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF 21 THAT PROBLEM. I THINK BRUELTY WAS MORE TAX-ORIENTED, 22 WASN'T IT? 23 MS. MARSEE: YES, THAT'S CORRECT. AND 24 SENATOR BRUELTY CURRENTLY DOESN'T HAVE THE LANGUAGE IN HIS 25 BILL -- NEITHER DOES VIA GERROSA -- THAT IS THE CURRENT 0179 01 STEP. BUT WE DO THINK THOSE WILL PROBABLY BE DEVELOPED 02 WITHIN THE NEXT THREE TO FOUR WEEKS. 03 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. AND WE'RE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN 04 THAT PROCESS -- 05 MS. MARSEE: WE ARE. 06 MR. DUNLAP: -- TALKING TO THE STAFFS OF BOTH 07 MEMBERS AND WORKING WITH OUR AGENCY AND THE GOVERNOR'S 08 OFFICE ON IT; CORRECT? 09 MS. MARSEE: YES. 10 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. AND WE PLAN TO CONTINUE TO DO 11 THAT? 12 MS. MARSEE: YES. 13 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. SO STEPHANIE AND THE TRUCKING 14 INDUSTRY, WE'RE GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT LEGISLATIVE 15 PROCESS, SO I WILL ASK STAFF TO REACH OUT TO YOUR INDUSTRY 16 AND MAYBE COMPARE NOTES BEFORE WE GO IN TO FIGURE OUT 17 WHAT'S ESSENTIAL FOR US BOTH AND SEE IF WE CAN COORDINATE 18 A MESSAGE. 19 IS THAT SATISFACTORY? WILL THAT WORK FOR YOU 20 GUYS? 21 OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. 22 CONTINUE, MR. PARNELL. 23 MR. PARNELL: WELL, I WAS GOING TO RAISE THE ISSUE 24 OF THE LAWSUIT, AND I GUESS IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO PUT 25 ANYONE ON THE SPOT. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME, AS YOU STATED, 0180 01 THAT WE'RE VULNERABLE AS A RESULT OF A LAWSUIT THAT'S BEEN 02 FILED AGAINST US WITH RESPECT TO M-7. 03 IF WE TAKE ACTION ON M-17, IT WOULD RELIEVE 04 THAT TENSION. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, AND I DON'T WANT TO 05 BE ONE. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT MAKES SOME SENSE TO 06 ME IF THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY CAN AGREE THAT WITHIN THE 07 FRAMEWORK OF M-17 WE CAN PURSUE THOSE INITIATIVES THAT 08 THEY SET FOR US TODAY. UNLESS I AM WRONG, I AM PREPARED 09 TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE. 10 MR. KENNY: AND, MR. PARNELL, WE ACTUALLY HAVE, IN 11 M-17, A REFLECTION OF THE NEED FOR MARKET INCENTIVES. 12 IT'S ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE WRITEUP. THIS WRITEUP, 13 THOUGH, IS A PLAN. IT'S NOT THE ACTUAL REGULATORY 14 APPROACH. AND SO, IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THE 15 REGULATORY APPROACH, ADDITIONAL WORK WILL NEED TO BE DONE, 16 AND WE WILL NEED TO FIND THE MONEYS TO UTILIZE. 17 MR. DUNLAP: IF I MIGHT HOLD IT THERE, WE HAVE ONE 18 MORE WITNESS. 19 MR. CALHOUN, PROTECT ME FROM MYSELF. 20 THANK YOU, JOE. 21 TIM, YOU'VE BEEN PATIENT. WE'D LIKE TO HEAR 22 FROM YOU. 23 WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US KNOW? 24 MR. CARMICHAEL: FOR THE RECORD, TIM CARMICHAEL, 25 COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR. 0181 01 I AM IN AN AWKWARD POSITION BECAUSE I HAVE TO 02 SAY THAT I AGREE WITH ALMOST EVERY COMMENT THAT WAS MADE 03 BY THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES TODAY. WE 04 SIMILARLY DON'T SUPPORT M-17 AND THE PROPOSAL TO GO TO 05 M-17 FOR SOME OF THE SAME REASONS AND FOR SOME DISTINCT 06 REASONS. 07 WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PUTTING OFF ADOPTION 08 IMPLEMENTATION OF A HEAVY-DUTY CONTROL MEASURE FOR SIX OR 09 EIGHT YEARS IS A SOLUTION. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT GETTING 10 RID OF M-7, WHICH IS A SHORT OR MID-TERM MEASURE, AND 11 REPLACING IT WITH A LONG-TERM, POORLY DEFINED MEASURE, IS 12 A SOLUTION TO THE S.I.P. WOES OR TO LEGAL WOES. 13 IT IS NOT JUST OUR OPINION, BUT IN 14 CORRESPONDENCE THIS WEEK, E.P.A. MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT 15 THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT S.I.P. REVISIONS ARE SUPPOSED -- 16 WERE INTENDED TO TAKE SHORT-TERM MEASURES OFF THE BOOKS 17 AND REPLACE THEM WITH LONG-TERM, POORLY DEFINED MEASURES. 18 AND I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. 19 THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE LIKE IN THIS 20 PROGRAM THAT WAS PROPOSED, FOR EXAMPLE, THE INCREASED 21 EMPHASIS ON IN-USE TESTING. THOUGH THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY 22 MADE IT VERY CLEAR THEY DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA, WE 23 DO BELIEVE IT'S A GOOD IDEA AND WE DO BELIEVE THERE'S 24 VALUE IN TESTING VEHICLES THAT ARE ON THE ROAD AND MAKING 25 SURE THEY ARE WELL MAINTAINED. 0182 01 WE AGREE WITH THE INTENT OF THE AIR RESOURCES 02 BOARD TO REMOVE A MEASURE THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S 03 GOING TO WORK AND REPLACE IT WITH A MEASURE THAT WILL 04 WORK. BUT THE KEY POINT HERE IS THE REPLACEMENT MEASURE 05 NEEDS TO ACHIEVE THE SAME LEVEL EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN THE 06 SAME TIME FRAME. AN EIGHT-YEAR OR SIX-YEAR SLIDE, IN OUR 07 OPINION, IS UNACCEPTABLE. 08 WE HAVE ONLY HAD LIMITED CONTACT WITH THE 09 STAFF THIS WEEK IN TRYING TO ADDRESS SOME OF OUR 10 CONCERNS. ONE OF THE OUTSTANDING CONCERNS THAT REMAINS IS 11 BASED ON WHAT -- YOU KNOW, THE LIMITED DESCRIPTION THAT'S 12 BEEN PROVIDED OF M-17. WE REMAIN UNCONVINCED THAT IT 13 REALLY DOES HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO ACHIEVE THE EMISSION 14 REDUCTIONS THAT THE STAFF IS CLAIMING, AND THAT'S A MAJOR 15 CONCERN OF OURS. 16 FEEDING OFF A COUPLE OF THE POINTS THAT WERE 17 MADE BY C.T.A., WE STRONGLY SUPPORT INCENTIVE PROGRAMS AND 18 BELIEVE THAT THOSE CAN PLAY AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE 19 SOLUTION. BUT ON THEIR OWN, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO ACHIEVE 20 CLEAN AIR IN CALIFORNIA. WE NEED FIRM REGULATORY MEASURES 21 COMPLEMENTED BY INCENTIVE PROGRAMS THAT REALLY DO GIVE AN 22 OPPORTUNITY TO OPERATORS OF DIRTY EQUIPMENT AND TRUCKS TO 23 MOVE TO THE CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES. 24 IT IS EXPENSIVE, FOR SEVERAL REASONS, YOU 25 KNOW; PRODUCTION IN LIMITED QUANTITIES OF THESE NEW 0183 01 VEHICLES, THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT THAT WENT INTO 02 THESE CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES. SO CERTAINLY, IN THE NEAR 03 TERM, THESE TECHNOLOGIES ARE GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE, AND WE 04 SHOULD BE SUPPORTING THE TRANSITION AS MUCH AS WE CAN BY 05 SMALL AND LARGE OPERATORS ALIKE. 06 THE OTHER POINT THAT WAS MADE AND WAS 07 INTERESTING WAS THE REFLECTION ON ASSEMBLY BILL 1675 AND 08 THE PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE RETROFITS TO AN EMISSION STANDARD 09 OF SIX GRAMS. 10 I AM NOT SURE THAT SIX GRAMS IS THE RIGHT 11 NUMBER; BUT IN MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE IS NO RESTRICTION 12 ON THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD PREVENTING YOU FROM DOING THAT, 13 ESTABLISHING A REGULATORY REQUIREMENT THAT ON-ROAD, 14 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS BE RETROFITTED BY X DATE TO 15 X STANDARD, AND I THINK THERE WOULD BE -- ACTUALLY, 16 THERE'S DATA SUPPORT THAT THERE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AIR 17 QUALITY BENEFITS FROM SUCH AN APPROACH. CLEARLY DEFINED, 18 IT COULD BE DONE, IN OUR OPINION, IN A SHORTER TIME FRAME 19 THAN IS PROPOSED UNDER M-17. 20 MR. DUNLAP: ON THAT POINT, JUST SO SOME PEOPLE IN 21 THE AUDIENCE DON'T HAVE A FALSE IMPRESSION -- AND 22 MR. KENNY CAN HELP ME WITH THE LEGAL DEFINITION -- BUT 23 IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE TAKING 24 PEOPLE'S VEHICLES AWAY FROM THEM. AND THAT'S SOMETHING 25 THAT, FUNDAMENTALLY, OUR ADMINISTRATION HAS SOME CONCERN 0184 01 ABOUT. 02 AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HARD 03 DEADLINES, TO SAY AS OF SUCH-AND-SUCH A DATE, YOU WILL NO 04 LONGER BE ABLE TO OPERATE A VEHICLE THAT YOU OWN THAT YOU 05 HAVE PURCHASED, IT WILL BE WORTH NOTHING OR WILL NOT BE 06 ABLE TO BE USED, THAT'S A DIFFICULT ISSUE. 07 AND SO THAT GOES BACK TO THE VERY QUESTION 08 THAT MS. RAKOW ASKED THE TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, WHO DO YOU 09 REPRESENT, AND WHO'S NOT HERE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S 10 WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE AS FAR AS THAT SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE 11 VEHICLE. BUT I WANT TO YOU KNOW IT WASN'T THAT SIMPLE, 12 YOU KNOW, OF A MATTER, AND CERTAINLY YOU CAN UNDERSTAND 13 WHAT THAT COULD MEAN TO SOME BUSINESS CONCERNS. AS MUCH 14 AS WE'D LIKE THE TONS, TIM, WE GOT TO BE VERY CAREFUL 15 ABOUT DOING THAT TO INDIVIDUALS OR SMALL FIRMS. 16 MR. CARMICHAEL: I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE 17 AGENCY OR THE STATE ACT PRECIPITOUSLY. I AM NOT 18 SUGGESTING THAT VEHICLES GET TAKEN. I THINK IT CAN BE 19 ACHIEVED WITHOUT THAT. 20 A COMBINATION OF A FIRM REGULATORY PROGRAM 21 AND AN INCENTIVES PACKAGE THAT WOULD ENABLE THE VAST 22 MAJORITY OF OPERATORS -- AND CERTAINLY, IF IT IS PHASED IN 23 OVER SIX YEARS, OR EIGHT YEARS, EVEN, THE GOALS COULD BE 24 ACHIEVED WITHOUT THIS MASS TAKING OF TRUCKS. 25 MR. DUNLAP: RIGHT. OKAY. 0185 01 ANY QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESSES? 02 MR. CARMICHAEL: SORRY. THE FINAL COMMENT IS: WE 03 SUPPORT THE INTENT OF MOVING AWAY -- REVISING S.I.P. TO 04 REMOVE MEASURES THAT AREN'T GOING TO WORK. BUT WE NEED TO 05 REPLACE THEM WITH MEASURES THAT ARE TRULY VIABLE AND 06 ACHIEVE THE EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN THE SAME TIME FRAME. 07 MR. DUNLAP: RIGHT. WELL, I CAN REMEMBER AN 08 EXCHANGE THAT OUR BOARD HAD HAD WITH YOU A MONTH OR TWO 09 AGO WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT OUR COMMITMENT TO MAKE THAT 10 S.I.P. WHOLE AND TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO. AND THAT'S ONE 11 OF THE REASONS THIS AGENDA WAS SET UP THE WAY IT WAS 12 TODAY, TO TRY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT TO STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS 13 COMMUNITY. 14 OKAY. IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS FOR THIS 15 WITNESS, LET'S GO TO THE STAFF AND LET'S FIGURE OUT WHAT 16 THE RIGHT COURSE IS HERE. 17 MR. KENNY AND MR. CACKETTE, AFTER LISTENING 18 TO THE WITNESSES -- 19 AND MIKE, YOU WERE ON A ROLL AS FAR AS SOME 20 LOGIC BEHIND THE STAFF PROPOSAL, AND I THINK WE MAY HAVE 21 CUT YOU OFF. 22 MR. KENNY: WELL, IF I CAN, WE HAVE GOT 23 INCENTIVES. WE ARE GOING TO COORDINATE THEM, AND WE KNOW 24 THAT. WE'RE GOING TO BE A PARTNER WITH THE TRUCKERS AND 25 WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY RELATIVE TO SEEKING 0186 01 INCENTIVES IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. WE'RE NOT OPPOSED 02 TO THAT. WE'RE NOT IN ANY WAY GOING TO SIT ON OUR HANDS 03 THERE. 04 MR. CACKETTE: NO. AND, IN FACT, BESIDES THE 05 LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE 06 DISTRICTS WITH REGARD TO INCENTIVE PROGRAMS BECAUSE WE DO 07 SEE BENEFITS FROM INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. 08 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. AND THESE LEGISLATIVE VEHICLES 09 ARE THINGS THAT WE WILL GET A CHANCE TO WORK ON. 10 WHAT ABOUT THE ARGUMENT THAT BOTH 11 CONSTITUENCIES, THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS AS WELL AS THE 12 TRUCKERS, HAVE MADE ABOUT TAKING A MEDIUM TERM MEASURE AND 13 SHIFTING IT OUT FURTHER; WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT, 14 MAKING IT LONGER TERM? 15 MR. KENNY: I THINK IT'S ACCURATE. I MEAN, I THINK 16 THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT M-7 AND WE 17 HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE CANNOT IMPLEMENT M-7 18 IN TIME FRAMES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED WITH M-7. 19 WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO IS PROVIDE AN 20 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY TO M-7 IN M-17, AND WE TRY TO DO IT 21 IN A WAY THAT AT LEAST ADDRESSES PLACES WHERE WE CAN GET 22 ADDITIONAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS. 23 THE BOTTOM LINE REALLY IS THAT M-7 WAS TO BE 24 IMPLEMENTED BEGINNING IN 1997. THERE WAS NO MONEY. IT 25 WAS NOT IMPLEMENTED BEGINNING IN 1997, BUT THE ASSUMPTIONS 0187 01 WHERE THAT IT WOULD BE AND THAT WE WOULD CONSEQUENTLY GET 02 EMISSION REDUCTIONS ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. 03 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. NOW, THAT IS SOMETHING, 04 MS. WILLIAMS, THAT I AM ADAMANT THAT IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY 05 YOUR ASSOCIATION. 06 THERE WAS A COMMITMENT MADE BEFORE THIS BOARD 07 IN 1994 THAT YOU WOULD WORK WITH US TO SECURE THOSE 08 DOLLARS. SO THE VULNERABILITY OF THIS MEASURE, IN THAT IT 09 HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED, IS NOT SOLELY OURS. 10 MS. WILLIAMS: JOHN, YOU WEREN'T HERE THEN. LET 11 ME REVIEW WHAT HAPPENED. 12 WE PUSHED GOLDSMITH'S BILL, AND IT WAS 13 OPPOSED BY THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ON THE FLOOR. 14 MR. DUNLAP: FOR THE REASON I SIGHTED WITH 15 MR. CARMICHAEL, PRIMARILY. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: EXACTLY. BUT I THINK IT WAS 17 CONFUSED WITH SMOG CHECK II, AND IT DESERVES A SECOND LOOK 18 BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ASKING -- WE WOULDN'T ASK -- EVERY ONE 19 OF OUR MEMBERS HAS A TRUCK IN THAT AGE CATEGORY, EVERY ONE 20 OF THEM. AND WE'RE ASKING THAT WHEN YOU REBUILD THEM, 21 THAT YOU UPGRADE THEM WITH THE EMISSION CONTROLS. IT'S A 22 RETROFIT. 23 MR. DUNLAP: LET ME SAY THIS VERY PLAINLY -- AND I 24 DON'T WANT TO GET INTO AN ENDLESS DISCUSSION ABOUT IT -- 25 BUT IN 1994, AS I UNDERSTAND IT -- AND YOU ARE CORRECT, I 0188 01 WASN'T HERE THEN -- THE C.T.A. CAME TO US AND SAID, "ADD 02 THIS MEASURE TO THE PLAN," WHICH WE DID. AND THERE WAS 03 SOME COMMITMENTS MADE BY C.T.A. AND BY THIS BOARD TO WORK 04 TOGETHER TO SECURE THE INCENTIVES, THE THINGS NECESSARY TO 05 MAKE THAT SUCCESSFUL. 06 THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. THAT LEFT US 07 VULNERABLE, LEFT THE S.I.P. VULNERABLE; AND WE HAVE A 08 LEGAL MATTER THAT'S EMANATED -- NOT DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF 09 IT, BUT THAT'S BEEN INCLUDED IN THE MIX. 10 SO WHEN I HEAR THE INDUSTRIES SAY MAYBE WE 11 DON'T LIKE M-17 OR WE DON'T LIKE IT AT ALL; WE LIKE 12 M-7, CONCEPTUALLY, OUR JOB -- AND WHERE IT DIFFERS FROM 13 YOUR INDUSTRY -- IS THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP -- WE'VE BEEN 14 DIRECTED. WE HAVE A LEGAL DIRECTION TO KEEP THAT S.I.P. 15 WHOLE AND KEEP IT FROM BEING VULNERABLE. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE CAN GO 17 SUE, TOO. WE CAN GO AND BE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY 18 AND SAY THAT THIS DOESN'T TO ANYTHING FOR THE S.I.P. IT 19 WOULD BE A WEIRD THING, BUT WE'RE A WEIRD GROUP. WE COULD 20 GO AND DO THE VERY THE SAME THING THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS 21 HAVE DONE. I AM SORRY, BUT YOUR S.I.P. HAVE NO EMISSION 22 REDUCTIONS. THERE IS ZERO EMISSION REDUCTIONS TO ON-ROAD 23 TESTING FOR N.O.X. 24 WE CAN DO THAT, TOO. IT'S NOT PRODUCTIVE, 25 BUT IT'S THE TRUTH. AND WE CAME FORWARD TO YOU AND SAID: 0189 01 "YOU KNOW WHAT, WE THOUGHT THE 02 SCRAPPAGE IDEA WAS A GOOD IDEA, BUT 03 IT'S NOT. WE SCREWED UP. YOU KNOW, 04 WE WORKED WITH YOUR STAFF. WE WALKED 05 THROUGH. WE LOOKED AT IT, DOESN'T 06 WORK. WE DON'T WANT TO WASTE MONEY OR 07 TIME ON IT, LET'S DO SOMETHING ELSE." 08 WE DID THAT, AND WE CAME PUBLICLY ADMITTING 09 THAT SCRAPPAGE DOESN'T WORK. WE MADE IT EASIER FOR YOU. 10 WE DIDN'T FIGHT YOU ON IT. 11 MR. KENNY: I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO 12 TODAY, IS THAT WE DO BASICALLY BOTH AGREE THAT SCRAPPAGE 13 DOESN'T WORK. AND YET M-7 IS A COMMITMENT TO SCRAPPAGE, 14 AND SO WE DO NEED TO AT LEAST CHANGE M-7. 15 MR. DUNLAP: WITH THE, MIKE, THE SPECIFICS 16 SURROUNDING THE HANGING THE MEAT ON THE BONES, AS 17 MR. PARNELL INDICATED, SAY A WORD OR TWO ABOUT PROCESS. 18 WE HAVE COVERED IT A BIT, BUT -- 19 MR. KENNY: GENERALLY, WHEN WE'RE DOING THE 20 S.I.P.'S, WHAT WE TRY TO PROVIDE IS A PATHWAY TOWARD THE 21 EMISSION REDUCTIONS, BUT THE REALITY IS ALSO THAT THE 22 PATHWAY IS GOING TO BE FLESHED OUT AS WE GO FORWARD WITH 23 REGULATORY PROPOSALS. 24 WHEN WE ADOPTED THE S.I.P. IN 1994, WE HAD 25 THE PATHWAYS THAT WERE ESSENTIALLY ENCOMPASSED IN ALL THE 0190 01 DIFFERENT M MEASURES. AS WE HAVE GONE FORWARD -- AND YOU 02 WILL SEE THIS WITH REGARDS TO M-2 IN NOVEMBER WHEN WE DO 03 THE L.E.V. II PROGRAM -- YOU WILL SEE THE DETAILS OF 04 EXACTLY HOW WE'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE THE EMISSION REDUCTIONS 05 THAT WERE ENCOMPASSED IN THE PATHWAY OF M-2. 06 WITH REGARD TO M-17, WE'VE LAID OUT THE BASIC 07 SKELETON FOR HOW WE THINK WE CAN GET THE EMISSION 08 REDUCTIONS FOR M-17 ASSOCIATED WITH TRUCKS. AND THEN AS 09 WE GO FORWARD IN THE FUTURE, WE WILL PROVIDE SPECIFIC 10 REGULATORY PROGRAMS THAT GIVE YOU MUCH MORE OF THE DETAIL 11 AND MUCH MORE OF THE FLESH THAT WILL FLESH OUT THE ENTIRE 12 PICTURE. AND THAT HAS BEEN KIND OF THE PATH THAT WE HAVE 13 TAKEN WITH REGARD TO ALL THE M MEASURES. 14 JUST LIKE WITH REGARD TO M-11, THE FORKLIFTS 15 THAT TOM TALKED ABOUT EARLIER TODAY, M-11 IN THE S.I.P. 16 TALKS ABOUT GETTING EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM FORKLIFTS AT 17 A PARTICULAR LEVEL. AND WHEN WE COME TO THE BOARD IN THE 18 LATER PART OF THIS YEAR, WE WILL HAVE A SPECIFIC 19 REGULATORY PROGRAM PUT FORWARD TO YOU THAT TELLS YOU 20 EXACTLY HOW WE'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE THOSE EMISSION 21 REDUCTIONS. 22 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. AND YOU'RE COMMITTING TO THIS 23 BEING AN OPEN, COLLABORATIVE PROCESS? 24 MR. KENNY: YES, JUST LIKE WITH ALL OF THE 25 REGULATIONS. WE WILL HAVE WORKSHOPS. WE WILL DIALOGUE 0191 01 BOTH PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY WITH THE EFFECTED INDUSTRIES. 02 WE WILL CONTINUALLY WORK WITH PEOPLE UP TO AND INCLUDING 03 THE TIME OF THE BOARD MEETING. 04 MR. DUNLAP: AND I HEARD FROM THE INDUSTRY THAT 05 THERE WAS SOME FLEXIBILITY RELATIVE TO PHYSICALLY BEING 06 M-7 OR M-17, AS LONG AS IT INCLUDED THE RIGHT ELEMENTS AND 07 AS LONG AS WE DIDN'T GO DOWN A PATH THAT WAS PARTICULARLY 08 DAMAGING TO THEM NOR SENT MIXED SIGNALS NOR GOT IN THE WAY 09 OF THEM DOING LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL AND VEHICLE ACQUISITION 10 PLANNING. 11 MR. KENNY: SURE. I AM MEAN, EVEN IN THE CONTEXT 12 OF M-17 THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, WE PROVIDED COPIES OF 13 THE ACTUAL M-17 WRITEUP TO THE INDUSTRY SEVERAL WEEKS AGO 14 AND WE HAVE HAD MEETINGS WITH THE INDUSTRY; AND THE 15 COMMENTS WE HAVE MADE TO THE INDUSTRY BEING AS SIMPLE AS: 16 "IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE 17 WAY WE HAVE WRITTEN UP M-17, PLEASE 18 ANNOTATE IT, PLEASE MODIFY IT, PLEASE 19 GET BACK TO US WITH THOSE COMMENTS. 20 WE WILL BE HAPPY TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS 21 WITH YOU." 22 WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT FROM ALL OF THE 23 INDUSTRIES. 24 MR. DUNLAP: UNTIL TODAY OR YESTERDAY? 25 MR. KENNY: WELL, EVEN TODAY, WE HAVEN'T SEEN A 0192 01 MODIFICATION TO M-17 FROM ALL OF THE INDUSTRIES. WHAT WE 02 SAW TODAY, INSTEAD, WAS A NUMBER OF LETTERS. 03 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. AND THEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL 04 COMMUNITY IS CONCERNED ABOUT TOO MUCH BEING UNDEFINED AND 05 UP IN THE AIR AND THAT IT NEEDS TO BE TIED DOWN SOON SO 06 THEY CAN SEE WHAT THE CONTENT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE, 07 MEDIUM- AND LONG-TERM. 08 SO, ALL RIGHT. IT APPEARS WE HAVE SOME WORK 09 TO DO IN THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS. 10 OKAY. LEFT ME SHIFT GEARS FOR JUST A 11 SECOND. 12 WE HAVE SOME WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. WE HAVE 13 HAD A CHANCE TO HEAR FROM SOME THAT REPRESENT THOSE 14 COMMUNICATIONS, BUT IS THERE ANY GENERAL THEME, COMMENTS, 15 THAT NEED TO BE SUMMARIZED ON THESE LETTER PACKAGES THAT 16 WE HAVE? 17 MS. TERRY: MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE 18 PACKAGES, AND THERE ARE SOME VERY CLEAR AND CONSISTENT 19 THEMES, AND THEY HAVE ALL BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE TESTIMONY 20 TODAY, ESSENTIALLY CONCERNS ABOUT A MOVING TARGET AND 21 FOCUSING ON ACCELERATING FLEET TURNOVER, AS WE HAVE 22 DISCUSSED IN GREAT DETAIL; AND I THINK THAT WAS REALLY THE 23 GIST OF THE LETTERS, THE ENTIRE PACKAGE. 24 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. 25 MS. TERRY: WE DID ALSO RECEIVE ONE WRITTEN COMMENT 0193 01 FROM REGION 9, U.S. E.P.A., SUPPORTING THE APPROACH AND 02 INDICATING IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO ACHIEVE THE NECESSARY 03 EMISSION REDUCTIONS. 04 MR. DUNLAP: THAT SEEMS TO RUN COUNTER, THOUGH, 05 WITH WHAT MR. CARMICHAEL ALLUDED TO. 06 SO WE'RE IN SYNC WITH WHAT E.P.A. WOULD LIKE 07 TO SEE? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME? 08 MS. TERRY: YES. E.P.A. BASICALLY SAYS THEY THINK 09 THE APPROACH HAS THE POTENTIAL TO YIELD THE ASSIGNED 10 EMISSION REDUCTIONS, AND THEN THEY COMMEND US FOR THE WORK 11 WE ARE DOING OVERALL ON HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS AND CITE SOME 12 EXAMPLES AND THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP THE N.O.X. 13 MR. DUNLAP: WHICH KEEPS THE S.I.P. WHOLE. 14 ALL RIGHT. MR. KENNY, DO YOU HAVE ANY 15 FURTHER COMMENTS? 16 MR. KENNY: I THINK THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT THAT I 17 MIGHT WANT TO MAKE IS THAT WHEN I LISTEN TO THE TRUCKING 18 REPRESENTATIVES' TESTIMONY, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF 19 WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT THE LAWSUITS ASSOCIATED WITH 20 DIESEL EXHAUST. AND THOSE REALLY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT 21 THAN WHAT THIS BOARD IS DOING AND WHAT THIS BOARD WILL DO 22 IN JULY OF THIS YEAR WHEN IT HEARS THE DIESEL EXHAUST AS A 23 TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT ITEM. 24 THOSE LAWSUITS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE 25 PROP 65 PROCESS, AND THAT PROCESS ISN'T RELATED TO THIS 0194 01 PROCESS. BEYOND THAT, I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER 02 COMMENTS. 03 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SINCE ALL 04 TESTIMONY, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND STAFF COMMENTS FOR THIS 05 ITEM HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO THE RECORD AND THE BOARD HAS 06 NOT GRANTED AN EXTENSION OF THE COMMENT PERIOD, I AM 07 OFFICIALLY CLOSING THE RECORD ON THIS PORTION OF AGENDA 08 ITEM NUMBER 1998-2-3. WRITTEN OR ORAL COMMENTS RECEIVED 09 AFTER THE COMMENT PERIOD HAS BEEN CLOSED WILL NOT BE 10 ACCEPTED AS PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD ON THIS AGENDA 11 ITEM. 12 ALSO, A REMINDER ON EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, 13 WHILE WE MAY, AS BOARD MEMBERS, COMMUNICATE OFF THE RECORD 14 WITH OUTSIDE PERSONS REGARDING BOARD RULEMAKING, WE MUST 15 DISCLOSE THE NAMES OF OUR CONTACTS AND THE NATURE OF THE 16 CONTACTS ON THE RECORD. THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES 17 SPECIFICALLY TO COMMUNICATIONS WHICH TAKE PLACE AFTER 18 NOTICE OF THE BOARD HEARING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED. 19 ARE THERE ANY COMMUNICATIONS WHICH WE NEED TO 20 DISCLOSE? 21 OKAY. WE HAVE BEFORE US A RESOLUTION, 22 RESOLUTION 1998-11, WHICH CONTAINS THE STAFF 23 RECOMMENDATION. 24 I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND ORALLY, IF I MIGHT, A 25 FEW THINGS, OR EMPHASIZE SOME THINGS CONTAINED THEREIN. 0195 01 AND IF THE BOARD WILL ALLOW ME, I'LL ATTEMPT TO DO THAT. 02 I WOULD EMPHASIZE AND ASK THE STAFF TO MOVE 03 EXPEDITIOUSLY TO SET UP A PROCESS WHEREBY WE WOULD 04 IDENTIFY INCENTIVES WITHIN OUR ADMINISTRATIVE -- THE 05 BOARD'S ADMINISTRATIVE PURVIEW, ABSENT THE LEGISLATIVE 06 PROCESS THAT WE MIGHT OFFER TO THE INDUSTRY. 07 I WOULD ALSO ASK STAFF, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY 08 HEARD A COMMITMENT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE STAFF TO DO SO, TO 09 CONTINUE TO WORK CLOSELY WITH OUR ADMINISTRATION AND THE 10 LEGISLATURE TO BE LEADERS ON THE PROPER INCENTIVES THAT 11 WOULD HELP FULFILL OUR EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS OBLIGATIONS 12 UNDER M-17. 13 AND I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT A PROCESS, WHETHER 14 IT BE A TASK FORCE, MR. KENNY, OR A COMMITTEE, WHATEVER 15 STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND, BUT A UNIT, A BODY, BE ESTABLISHED 16 TO HELP US -- AND I AM GOING TO INCLUDE REPS FROM THE 17 INDUSTRY AS WELL AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY -- TO 18 DEFINE, IDENTIFY AND ACQUIRE THOSE EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN 19 THE SERIES OF M MEASURES, MIKE, THAT YOU WENT THROUGH, M-4 20 I THINK, THROUGH -- I THINK THERE WERE FOUR DIFFERENT M 21 MEASURES. 22 AND THAT THAT BE A -- YOU KNOW, A PROCESS, 23 WHERE WE WOULD BE COMMUNICATING, WHERE PEOPLE WOULD 24 CLEARLY UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE GOING, WE WOULD GO FORWARD 25 TOGETHER. 0196 01 AND WITH THOSE MODIFICATIONS AND ANY OTHERS 02 THAT THE BOARD WOULD SEE THAT WE WOULD NEED, I CERTAINLY 03 WOULD -- BASED UPON THE TESTIMONY, I CERTAINLY WOULD 04 ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO MOVE THE RESOLUTION BEFORE US. 05 MR. CALHOUN: SO MOVED, MR. CHAIRMAN. 06 MR. DUNLAP: SO MOVED BY MR. CALHOUN. 07 MR. PARNELL: SECONDED. 08 MR. DUNLAP: SECOND BY MR. PARNELL. 09 ANY DISCUSSION THAT WE NEED TO HAVE IN 10 ADDITION TO WHAT WE'VE ALREADY HAD? 11 MS. RIORDAN: MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU MIGHT, JUST TO 12 ADD TO YOUR THOUGHTS -- AND I THINK WHAT YOU'VE LAID OUT 13 IS A VERY GOOD WAY TO DRAW PEOPLE TOGETHER TO MAKE THESE 14 PROGRAMS WORKABLE AND SUCCESSFUL. BUT I THINK FROM THE 15 BOARD'S POINT OF VIEW, PERHAPS A PERIODIC UPDATE -- AND I 16 DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT BE QUARTERLY OR -- AND I THINK 17 QUARTERLY, IN THIS SENSE, BECAUSE THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS 18 IS BEFORE US AND BEGUN; AND I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY 19 HELPFUL. 20 I PERSONALLY RECOGNIZE THE DIFFICULTIES THE 21 INDUSTRY HAS IN BEING COMPETITIVE. PROFIT MARGINS IN SOME 22 CASES ARE NOT SUCH THAT YOU HAVE A LOT OF LATITUDE TO DO 23 CERTAIN THINGS. BUT WITH THE RIGHT INCENTIVES -- AND IF 24 WE KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE AND WE CAN COMMUNICATE THOSE TO THE 25 LEGISLATURE AND, INDEED, THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE -- IT WILL 0197 01 HELP US TO HELP YOU. 02 AND SO I THINK JUST AN UPDATE WOULD BE VERY, 03 VERY HELPFUL TO US TO KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING. AND IF WE, 04 IN SOME CASES, COULD PUT IN A GOOD WORD AT THE RIGHT TIME 05 AND THE RIGHT PLACE WITH SOME OF OUR LEGISLATORS, I, FOR 06 ONE, WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO DO SO. 07 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. THAT'S VERY ACCEPTABLE TO ME. 08 DOES THE BOARD FEEL GOOD ABOUT THAT? 09 MR. KENNY, WE WILL ASK YOU TO COME BACK TO 10 US, YOU KNOW, WITH SOME KIND OF A REPORTING PROCESS. 11 ONE THING THAT WAS ONE FINAL POINT THAT I WAS 12 HEARTENED TO HEAR WAS SOME THOUGHTFUL DELIBERATION BETWEEN 13 BOTH INDUSTRY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY ON WHERE THE 14 RIGHT PLACE FOR US TO BE WAS. AND I KNOW BY NO STRETCH IS 15 THIS A PERFECT PROPOSAL, BUT I APPRECIATED HOW WILLING 16 PEOPLE WERE TO THINK ABOUT IT AND WORK ON THIS. 17 ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 18 WE HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECORDED. 19 MS. WALSH? 20 MS. WALSH: RIGHT. I UNDERSTOOD THE MOTION TO BE 21 THE RESOLUTION AS PROPOSED BY STAFF WITH THE 22 THREE ADDITIONAL PIECES THAT YOU HAD SPOKEN INTO THE 23 RECORD, AND WE'LL MAKE THOSE CHANGES TO THE RESOLUTION. 24 MR. DUNLAP: PLUS SUPERVISOR RIORDAN'S COMMENT 25 ABOUT THE PROCESS COMING BACK, INFORMATIONAL BRIEFING OF 0198 01 THE BOARD. 02 MS. WALSH: YES. 03 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. ANY LAST DISCUSSION? 04 ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL PROCEED WITH A VOICE 05 VOTE. 06 ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RESOLUTION 1998-11 WITH 07 THOSE FOUR CHANGES, PLEASE SAY AYE. 08 (WHEREUPON ALL BOARD MEMBERS SAID "AYE") 09 MR. DUNLAP: ANY OPPOSED? 10 VERY GOOD. THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. 11 OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO THE AUDIENCE 12 THAT STUCK WITH US FOR THIS LONG. WE HAVE ONE -- ACTUALLY 13 TWO OTHER ITEMS. I AM GOING TO CARRYOVER THE FOURTH ITEM, 14 WHICH IS THE PUBLIC MEETING TO CONSIDER AN OVERVIEW OF THE 15 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS. WE 16 WILL DO THAT NEXT MONTH. SO WE WILL ASK MS. HUTCHENS AND 17 THE LEGAL TEAM TO GET THAT AGENDIZED. 18 AND WE WILL NOW MOVE INTO THE OPEN COMMENT 19 PERIOD. 20 THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS OPEN COMMENT 21 PERIOD. DURING THIS PERIOD, ALTHOUGH NO FORMAL BOARD 22 ACTION MAY BE TAKEN, WE WILL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR 23 MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE BOARD ON 24 ITEMS OF INTEREST THAT DON'T APPEAR ON TODAY'S AGENDA. 25 WE'RE ASKING THAT EACH WITNESS LIMIT HIS OR 0199 01 HER TESTIMONY TO TOPICS THAT ARE WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER 02 JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD. TO ENSURE THAT EVERYONE HAS A 03 CHANCE TO SPEAK, WE'RE ALSO ASKING EACH WITNESS LIMIT HIS 04 OR HER TESTIMONY TO NO MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES. 05 I WOULD NOW ENTERTAIN ANYONE COMING UP TO 06 ADDRESS THE BOARD. 07 MS. HUTCHENS, HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP? 08 MS. HUTCHENS: NO. 09 MR. DUNLAP: OKAY. VERY GOOD. 10 THEN WE WILL CLOSE ON THIS ITEM. 11 IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT 12 WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? 13 ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. WE WILL NOW ADJOURN 14 THE MEETING IN JUST A MOMENT, AND WE WOULD ASK THE FOLKS 15 THAT ARE HERE FOR THE STAKEHOLDER PANEL DISCUSSION, IT 16 WILL BE HELD FIVE MINUTES OR SO AFTER WE CONCLUDE IN 17 CC-6, WHICH IS THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY ROOM, WHERE WE WILL 18 HAVE A STAKEHOLDER FORUM, A FOLLOW-UP FORUM TO THE TEN WE 19 HAD LAST YEAR. I MENTIONED THAT AT THE OUTSET, AND WANT 20 TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO ATTEND IF YOUR SCHEDULE ALLOWS IT. 21 WITH THAT, WE WILL NOW ADJOURN THIS, THE 22 FEBRUARY MEETING OF THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD. 23 (BOARD MEETING CONCLUDED AT 2:35 P.M.) 24 25