BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD AIR RESOURCES BOARD AUDITORIUM 9530 TELSTAR AVENUE EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2007 8:42 A.M. KATHRYN S. SWANK, CSR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NO. 13061 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Mary D. Nichols, Chairperson Ms. Sandra Berg Ms. Judith Case Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Ms. Lydia Kennard Mr. Jerry Hill Mr. Ronald Loveridge Ms. Barbara Riordan Mr. Daniel Sperling STAFF Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. James Goldstene, Executive Officer Mr. Tom Jennings, Chief Counsel Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Quetin, Ombudswoman Ms. Lori Andreoni, Board Secretary Mr. Robert Fletcher, Chief, Stationary Source Division Mr. Michael Miguel, Manager, Project Support Section, Stationary Source Division Mr. Michael Terris, Senior Attorney Mr. Michael Tollstrup, Chief, Project Assessment Branch, Stationary Source Division PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Ms. Wafaa Aborashad, Healthy San Leandro Mr. Salvador Abrica Mr. Don Anair, Union of Concerned Scientist Ms. Athena Applena, West Oakland Environmental Industries Mr. Ralph Appy, port of LA Ms. Diane Bailey, NRDC Mr. Richard Bartolic, American Pacific Mr. Barry Broad, Teamsters Mr. David Bushey, Comp Pro Systems Ms. Colleen Callahan, American Long Association Mr. Darrell Clark, Sierra Club LA Chapter Mr. Charlie Cox, Ironman Mr. Brad Edgar, Cleaire Mr. Walter Flores, ITDA Ms. Elina Green, Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma Mr. Ron Guss Mr. Bill Haller, Sierra Club of California Ms. Mary Lou Hendricks, Cal West Express Mr. Lee Hobbs, Hobbs Trucking Mr. Henry Hogo, SCAQMD Ms. Cecilia Ibarra, HTFSF Ms. Helen Jackoski PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv APPEARANCES CONTINUED Mr. Robert Kanter, Port of Long Beach Mr. Joseph Kubsh, MECA Mr. Dagoberto Larios Mr. Marty Lassen, Johnson Matthey Catalyst Mr. Michael Lightman, Great Freight Inc. Mr. Angelo Logan, East Yard CEJ Mr. Ian MacMillan, LA Unified School Districts Ms. Rupal Patel, Communities for Clean Ports Mr. Miguel Pineda Mr. Charles Prinzer Mr. Alex Pugh, LA Chambers Mr. Joseph Rajkovacz, Independent Drivers Association Ms. Isella Ramirez, East Yard CEJ Mr. Carlos Salazar, WCVI Mr. Martin Schlageter, Coalition for Clean Air Mr. Matt Schrap, CTA Ms. Nicole Shahenian, Breathe California of LA County Mr. Jon Zerolnick, LANNE, CCSP PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Item 07-12-9 Chairperson Nichols 3 Executive Officer Goldstene 3 Item 07-12-7 Chairperson Nichols 5 Executive Officer Goldstene 5 Staff Presentation 7 Mr. Larios 41 Mr. Pineda 43 Mr. Abrica 46 Mr. Prinzer 52 Mr. Zerolnick 54 Mr. Appy 61 Mr. Kanter 57 Mr. Schlageter 63 Mr. Logan 65 Mr. Anair 67 Mr. Broad 69 Mr. Clark 72 Ms. Ramirez 73 Mr. Pugh 75 Mr. Kubsh 76 Mr. Edgar 78 Mr. Haller 82 Ms. Ibarra 84 Ms. Hendricks 84 Mr. Bartolic 86 Mr. Lightman 89 Mr. Guss 91 Mr. Hobbs 94 Mr. Schrap 95 Mr. Flores 98 Mr. Rajkovacz 100 Mr. Salazar 103 Mr. Bushey 105 Mr. Cox 106 Ms. Bailey 108 Mr. Lassen 110 Ms. Green 112 Ms. Applena 114 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vi INDEX CONTINUED PAGE Ms. Aborashad 116 Ms. Jackoski 118 Ms. Callahan 119 Ms. Patel 121 Ms. Shahenian 124 Mr. MacMillan 126 Mr. Hogo 127 Q&A 129 Motion 145 Vote 164 Public Comment Mr. Hogo 165 Adjournment 166 Reporter's Certificate 167 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I would like to call the 3 December 7th meeting to order. And we would like to get 4 started, as we normally do, with the Pledge of Allegiance, 5 if everyone would please stand. 6 (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.) 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. The clerk will 8 please call the roll. 9 BOARD SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 10 Supervisor Case? 11 MEMBER CASE: Here. 12 BOARD SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 13 MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 14 BOARD SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Hill? 15 MEMBER HILL: Here. 16 BOARD SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 17 MEMBER KENNARD: Here. 18 BOARD SECRETARY ANDREONI: Mayor Loveridge? 19 MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Here. 20 BOARD SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Riordan? 21 MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 22 BOARD SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts? 23 Professor Sperling? 24 MEMBER SPERLING: Here. 25 BOARD SECRETARY ANDREONI: Chairman Nichols? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Here. 2 BOARD SECRETARY ANDREONI: Chairman Nichols, we 3 have a quorum. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 5 I see we have a number of people in the audience 6 who aren't regular attendees at our meetings, which is 7 great. I just want to remind you that anyone who wants to 8 testify is welcome to do so. If you would indicate the 9 item you are here to testify on and fill out a card, the 10 clerk of the Board, she puts a list together and we'll 11 make sure that we call on everyone who wishes to be heard. 12 I do want to remind people that we impose a 13 three-minute limit on all speakers, and we have a time 14 keeper and there are lights up here by the podium. What I 15 will do is, I will call the list and I will try to give 16 you some indication if you're next in line or a couple 17 away so that you can be ready to get up and speak. That 18 way we can get through everybody while we're all still 19 able to focus and listen. 20 And we would appreciate it if you have written 21 testimony that you've prepared, if you not just read your 22 written testimony, because if you have submitted it, we 23 have it and we will read it, and we can read it much 24 quicker than you can speak it. So if you do have written 25 testimony, if you could just summarize your comments, that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 would be very helpful. Three minutes goes by probably a 2 lot faster than you realize when you are in the midst of 3 trying to say something. But if you put it in your own 4 words, it actually will usually make more of an 5 impression. I'm also supposed to remind you that we have 6 translation services available for those who need it. And 7 there are headsets in the back of the room. 8 Is the translator here? Right here. Would you 9 like to say something? 10 (Mr. Alex Varela, Spanish Interpreter, 11 addresses the audience in Spanish.) 12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. 13 And I'm also supposed to remind everybody for 14 safety reasons -- I forgot to do this yesterday, and 15 fortunately we didn't need it -- that there's emergency 16 exits. The exit is here, I believe -- the emergency exit. 17 So if there should be a fire, an emergency, an alarm 18 rings, this is the way to evacuate the building. And when 19 there's an all clear signal that means we would come back. 20 Hopefully that won't happen. 21 First item on the agenda this morning is the 22 nonattainment area recommendations for the revised federal 23 PM2.5 24-hour standard. 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Thank you, Chairman 25 Nichols. This is a short information item for the Board PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 regarding nonattainment designations for the new PM2.5 2 standard. 3 In December of last year, U.S. EPA lowered the 4 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 grams to 35. 5 ARB is required to submit recommendations and 6 appropriate boundaries of nonattainment areas to U.S. EPA 7 by December 18th, 2007. 8 Staff has reviewed the PM2.5 air quality 9 monitoring data from 2004 to 2006 as well as information 10 on the nature of the PM problem in each region. 11 It is recommending five new nonattainment areas in 12 addition to South Coast and Santa Joaquin, which are 13 already nonattainment. The five areas include the 14 Sacramento Air Quality Management District, the Bay Area 15 Air Quality Management District, the City of Chico, the 16 combined cities of the Yuba City and Marysville and the 17 City of Calexico. 18 U.S. EPA plans to finalize the designation 19 effective April 2009. State implementation plans for the 20 revised standard will then be due three years later, in 21 2012, with attainment required in the 2014 to 2019 time 22 frame. 23 Linda Murchison is here from -- she's the chief of 24 our Planning and Technical Support Division, if you have 25 any questions or would like more information. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Any questions? 2 Well, thanks for the information. Good to know 3 this is moving on. 4 Our next item this morning it is also a quick one. 5 I'm sorry. Do we have another ETAAC? We did that 6 yesterday. 7 I apologize for the little confusion here this 8 morning about where we were on the agenda. 9 The next item here, which is the big one, is 10 consideration of proposed regulations for drayage trucks 11 operating on California's ports and intermodal rail yards. 12 This rule is of great importance to the health of people 13 in communities who are exposed to diesel particulate 14 matter, and it will also reduce the impact of these trucks 15 on regional levels of particulate matter and ozone. So 16 this is a pair with the ones that we did yesterday on the 17 ship emissions when they are hoteling. Now we are 18 focusing on the trucks as they operate on the ports. 19 And Mr. Goldstene, would you please introduce this 20 item? 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Thank you, Chairman 22 Nichols. 23 Today we're preparing a regulation that will 24 significantly reduce emissions from drayage trucks that 25 operate within ports and intermodal rail yards. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 As you know, these facility yards are often 2 located next to densely populated areas, exposing 3 residents to unhealthy levels of pollutants. In 2007, 4 staff developed a health assessment of drayage trucks that 5 transport containers to and ports of the I-710 freeway. 6 This revealed that emissions from drayage trucks have a 7 significant impact on nearby communities and result in 8 elevated health risks including premature mortality and 9 other cancer. 10 In April of last year, we brought the Goods 11 Movement Emission Reduction Plan to you for consideration, 12 which you approved. 13 This plan identified numerous measures aimed at 14 reducing emissions associated with moving goods via the 15 state's highways, railways, and ports. Cleaning up 16 drayage trucks was a high priority measure. 17 The state's voters agree that cleaning up goods 18 movement emissions is a top priority, because last year 19 they approved a $1 billion bond to provide incentive funds 20 for cleaner equipment and technologies associated with 21 freight movement. 22 ARB's draft plan for allocating these funds 23 includes $400 million for drayage trucks. These funds, 24 which will be administered through local agencies, would 25 be used to retrofit or replace the oldest, dirtiest PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 drayage trucks. These bond funds will be used in concert 2 with our proposal today to offset fiscal impacts and 3 facilitate implementation. 4 As you will see in the staff's presentation, the 5 proposed regulation would greatly reduce the exposure to 6 diesel PM emission. In addition, the regulation would 7 improve regional air quality by reducing precursors to 8 ozone and particulate matter. 9 Finally, the regulation is a critical element in 10 the South Coast and Santa Joaquin Valley Air Basins State 11 Implementation Plan for PM2.5 attainment. 12 The regulation would achieve this by requiring 13 that older drayage trucks be retrofitted with verified 14 emission control devices or, alternatively, be reapplied 15 by newer vehicles. 16 I would like now to have Mr. Mike Miguel, of our 17 Stationary Source Division, to present the staff's 18 proposal. 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Mike? 21 MANAGER MIGUEL: Thank you, Mr. Goldstene. 22 Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the 23 Board. 24 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 25 presented as follows.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 MANAGER MIGUEL: It's my pleasure today to present 2 staff's proposed regulation for drayage trucks used at 3 California's ports and intermodal rail yards. 4 This slide presents the topics I will cover in 5 this presentation. 6 --o0o-- 7 MANAGER MIGUEL: I'd first like to start with some 8 background. 9 --o0o-- 10 MANAGER MIGUEL: For the purposes of this 11 regulation, a "port" is defined as one that is serviced by 12 oceangoing vessels that unloads or loads cargo which are 13 transported by drayage trucks. 14 "Drayage" is a term used to describe the 15 transporting of cargo to and from the ports and rail 16 yards. 17 --o0o-- 18 MANAGER MIGUEL: The regulation will affect 19 California's two class 1 railroads with intermodal rail 20 yards drayage truck activity. And "intermodal rail yard" 21 is one where cargo is transferred from truck to train or 22 vice versa. 23 The reason we included intermodal rail yards is 24 that they are typically located near densely populated 25 communities and, like ports, present a significant health PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 risk to nearby communities. 2 --o0o-- 3 MANAGER MIGUEL: Staff has identified 14 ports and 4 11 intermodal rail facilities definitely affected by the 5 proposed regulation. 6 However, other ports and rail yards could be 7 included if new drayage truck activity is identified in 8 the future. 9 --o0o-- 10 MANAGER MIGUEL: Currently, approximately 11 80 percent of goods transported into and out of the ports 12 are hauled by drayage trucks. Virtually all dry trucks 13 are older, class 8, diesel-fueled vehicles that are 14 recycled from the long haul fleets with significant 15 mileage. 16 They can haul loads to 80,000 pounds, which is the 17 maximum weight allowed for a tractor and fully loaded 18 container transported by roadway. 19 --o0o-- 20 MANAGER MIGUEL: This graph displays the 21 population of drayage trucks versus model year. As you 22 can see, trucks range in age from 1 to 40 years with an 23 average age of approximately 13 years. 24 --o0o-- 25 MANAGER MIGUEL: To obtain a better understanding PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 of the fleet, staff bisected this fleet into frequent 2 trucks -- those draying over 150 loads per year, and 3 nonfrequent trucks. Staff estimates that there are about 4 20,000 trucks that frequently visit the ports and rail 5 yards and about 90,000 that visit infrequently. These 6 latter trucks do port business only a few times per year. 7 We do not anticipate the population of frequent 8 users will remain the same once the regulation takes 9 effect. We expect that most nonfrequent truck owners will 10 choose not to install the equipment needed to comply with 11 this rule. Instead, we expect the drayage fleet to become 12 more of a dedicated fleet. Staff estimates the fleet 13 population will need to be approximately 30,000 trucks 14 statewide once the regulation is fully implemented. The 15 remaining trucks will be subject to the private fleet rule 16 to be considered next year. 17 --o0o-- 18 MANAGER MIGUEL: To estimate the full extent of 19 the drayage truck emissions, staff performed an extensive 20 analysis utilizing existing and new emission estimation 21 models. 22 Staff collected and analyzed all existing data 23 from a variety of sources which included reports, studies, 24 and surveys. 25 Since data were not available for the smaller PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 ports, staff utilized Port of Oakland emission inventory 2 and apportioned it based on annual revenue tonnage. 3 --o0o-- 4 MANAGER MIGUEL: Using this information, staff 5 were able to develop a 2007 baseline inventory for PM and 6 NOx emissions for drayage trucks. 7 As shown on this slide, 2007 baseline PM and NOx 8 emissions are approximately 850 and 17,600 tons per year, 9 respectively. 10 As expected the South Coast Air Basin is impacted 11 the greatest and accounts for more than two-thirds of the 12 drayage truck emissions. 13 --o0o-- 14 MANAGER MIGUEL: Because so many port drayage 15 trucks use the same roadways to access the port, 16 collectively, they produce enough diesel PM emission to 17 pose a significant risk to residents and communities near 18 a number of the state's freeways. 19 To identify the magnitude of this effect, staff 20 used current emission estimations through 2020 to estimate 21 the cancer risk to residents living along the 710 freeway 22 as a result of drayage trucking. 23 We chose the 710 freeway because it is a major 24 truck artery to the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach and for 25 its close proximity to densely populated communities. For PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 example, at a distance of 100 meters from the edge of the 2 freeway, the potential risk is 600 in a million. 3 --o0o-- 4 MANAGER MIGUEL: In addition, staff estimated the 5 cumulative effects of these emissions for a number of 6 other adverse health effects. Without the regulation, 7 these health impacts include an estimated 2100 premature 8 deaths, 60,000 cases of asthma and lower respiratory 9 symptoms, and 360,000 lost workdays. 10 As you can see, emission reductions are critical 11 to reducing these impacts. 12 --o0o-- 13 MANAGER MIGUEL: Now I would like to discuss the 14 proposed regulation. 15 --o0o-- 16 MANAGER MIGUEL: The proposed regulation was 17 developed to meet the multiple goals of the ARB's Diesel 18 Risk Reduction Plan, Goods Movement Emission Reduction 19 Plan, environmental justice commitments, and the SIP 20 commitments for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley. 21 --o0o-- 22 MANAGER MIGUEL: The proposed regulation will 23 apply to all drayage trucks accessing California ports and 24 intermodal rail yards that are located within 80 miles of 25 an affected port. An estimated 25 facilities would be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 affected. 2 --o0o-- 3 MANAGER MIGUEL: We have identified instances 4 where exemptions are warranted. The population of 5 exempted vehicles is less than 5 percent of the truck 6 population that service ports and rail yards. 7 Examples of exempted vehicles include emergency 8 vehicles and military tactical support vehicles. 9 The proposed regulation will also exempt uni-body 10 vehicles. Uni-body vehicles are those trucks where the 11 tractor cannot detach from the chassis. While exempted 12 under this rule, these vehicles will be regulated under 13 the private fleet rule due before the Board in the second 14 half of next year. 15 The next slide shows the proposed compliance 16 schedule. This proposed schedule has been revised 17 slightly based on public comments. 18 --o0o-- 19 MANAGER MIGUEL: The proposed regulation will be 20 implemented in two phases. The first phase results in 21 rapid PM reductions to drastically reduce near-source 22 adverse health effects impacts caused by emissions from 23 drayage trucks. 24 All pre 1994 model year drayage trucks would be 25 removed from port and rail yard service and, in effect, be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 replaced with new model year trucks. 2 Additionally, the first phase requires all 1994 3 through 2003 model year trucks to reduce PM emission by at 4 least 85 percent. 5 The Phase 1 requirements are to be met no later 6 than December 31st, 2009. 7 --o0o-- 8 MANAGER MIGUEL: The second phase reduces NOx 9 emissions that are necessary to meet SIP commitments and 10 improve regional air quality for PM2.5 and ozone. 11 Phase 2 requires all engines to meet or exceed the 12 2007 California and federal emission standards by 13 December 31st, 2013. This approach includes some changes 14 to our original Phase 2 requirements and will be presented 15 as a proposed 15-day change. 16 After 2013, all port and rail yard drayage trucks 17 will also be subject to any emission requirements 18 stipulated in the private fleet, and our goal is to have 19 that regulation govern all drayage trucks regardless of 20 the service they are in. 21 --o0o-- 22 MANAGER MIGUEL: The proposed regulation will 23 require all drayage trucks be registered in a drayage 24 truck registry, or DTR. The DTR will be administered by 25 the Air Resources Board. After demonstrating compliance, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 drayage trucks will be issued compliance labels to be 2 affixed to the side of the trucks. 3 Beginning January 1st, 2010, only certified 4 drayage trucks can legally operate on port or intermodal 5 rail yard property. DTR labels will need to be displayed 6 on these trucks. 7 Starting September 30th, 2009, all terminals and 8 rail yards will be required to collect and report specific 9 information about all drayage trucks entering their 10 facilities which are not properly DTR labeled. This 11 information will be used by ARB enforcement to remedy the 12 cases of noncompliance. 13 --o0o-- 14 MANAGER MIGUEL: Now I would like to talk about 15 specific responsibilities for the motor carriers, truck 16 owner operators, terminals, port and rail authorities, and 17 the ARB. 18 The motor carrier will play a pivotal role in this 19 effort. Under the current drayage system, all trucks are 20 dispatched by motor carriers. The proposal would require 21 all motor carriers to only dispatch compliant trucks. We 22 expect the DTR database will be used by motor carriers to 23 identify drayage trucks that are legal to access ports and 24 rail yards. 25 Additional motor carrier responsibilities include PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 providing copies of the regulation to truck owners, 2 ensuring the driver has the motor carrier contact 3 information, keeping dispatch records, and submitting to 4 audits by enforcement personnel. 5 --o0o-- 6 MANAGER MIGUEL: The truck owners doing business 7 at ports and rail yards will be required to ensure that 8 their trucks adhere to all regulatory emission 9 requirements. In addition, they would be required to 10 register with the DTR and maintain and keep maintenance 11 logs on emission control devices. Trucking firms that own 12 vehicles are responsible for ensuring that their drivers 13 are able to provide dispatching motor carrier contact 14 information, such as company name and phone number to 15 enforce personnel. 16 The regulation also requires truck operators to 17 provide motor carrier contact information and a 18 maintenance log upon request from enforcement personnel. 19 --o0o-- 20 MANAGER MIGUEL: Each truck that enters a port or 21 rail yard facility must go through a control gate. The 22 truck operator must demonstrate that they have proper 23 authorization to move loads to and from the facility. The 24 terminal will need to check the compliance status of the 25 truck relative to the ARB rule. Noncompliant trucks can PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 be refused entry or allowed in. If the truck is allowed 2 in, the proposed regulation would require terminals and 3 rail yards to collect certain information from 4 noncompliant truck drivers entering their facilities. 5 This information will then be given to port and 6 rail authorities which in turn will be reported to ARB 7 enforcement according to set schedules. 8 ARB will use this data to take corrective action. 9 --o0o-- 10 MANAGER MIGUEL: The prime enforcement entity will 11 be the Air Resources Board. ARB staff will use targeted 12 field inspections, noncompliant truck data from the 13 terminals and rail yards, audits, as well as information 14 from the drayage truck registry for enforcement. 15 --o0o-- 16 MANAGER MIGUEL: Truck owners can choose the 17 compliance method that best fits their business model. 18 Three potential methods are replacing older, dirtier 19 trucks with newer, cleaner models; installing emission 20 reductions technologies on existing engines; or repowering 21 dirty engines. 22 Staff envisions that Phase 1 reductions will 23 primarily be accomplished through the installation of 24 retrofit technologies, and Phase 2 emission reductions 25 will often need truck replacements. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 Phase 2 emission reductions will often need truck 2 replacements. However, future ARB verified NOx retrofits 3 that allow pre-2007 model year trucks to meet 2000 4 emission standards would also be acceptable. 5 After discussing the costs and benefits of 6 implementing the proposal, staff will also describe the 7 role that the ports, district, and Board need to play in 8 providing financial assistance to make the proposal work. 9 --o0o-- 10 MANAGER MIGUEL: In the next section, we will 11 review the projected emission reductions and health 12 benefits from the proposed regulation. 13 --o0o-- 14 MANAGER MIGUEL: Staff estimated statewide PM 15 reductions for drayage trucks in tons per year from 2010 16 through 2020. 17 The upper line represents baseline emissions 18 without a regulation in place, and trends down as new 2007 19 and newer model year trucks cycle through natural turnover 20 into the drayage fleet. 21 The lower line represents emissions with the 22 proposed regulation. The greatest decrease occurs in 2010 23 when all trucks reduce emissions by 85 percent to meet the 24 requirements of Phase 1, after which PM emissions trend 25 higher due to fleet growth. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 --o0o-- 2 MANAGER MIGUEL: The reductions in 2010 are very 3 significant. The proposed rule provides almost as much 4 reductions in 2010 as the Board's most effective diesel 5 retrofit measure adopted to date, the ship auxiliary 6 engine rule. 7 --o0o-- 8 MANAGER MIGUEL: Statewide NOx reductions for 9 drayage trucks are estimated to significantly improve over 10 baseline. 11 Like the previous PM slide, the upper line 12 represents the baseline emissions without a regulation in 13 place and again trends down as new 2007-plus model year 14 trucks cycle through natural turnover into the drayage 15 fleet. 16 The lower line again represents emissions with the 17 proposed regulation. The greatest decrease occurs in 2014 18 when all trucks are required to meet the requirements of 19 Phase 2, after which NOx emissions trend higher due to 20 fleet growth associated with the ever growing volume of 21 container freight. 22 --o0o-- 23 MANAGER MIGUEL: Because of the magnitude of the 24 diesel PM reductions and the high concentration of 25 emissions around the relatively small number of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 facilities, the proposal would reduce very large -- would 2 produce very large benefits in heavily impacted 3 communities. 4 The reductions from the regulation will reduce 5 near-source cancer risks as shown by this chart. 6 As you can see, we expect a significant reduction 7 in cancer risk, especially to those communities near major 8 freeways, ports, and rail facilities. 9 --o0o-- 10 MANAGER MIGUEL: In an update to the staff report, 11 staff estimated the health benefits from emissions reduced 12 from 2010 through 2020. Staff estimates premature deaths 13 to be reduced by 1,200. Staff estimates additional 14 benefits that include 37 fewer cases of asthma and 3100 15 fewer cases of bronchitis. 16 These health benefits are estimated to be valued 17 at $8.7 billion. 18 --o0o-- 19 MANAGER MIGUEL: We also expect there will be a 20 positive impact on global warming. We estimate CO2 21 emissions will decrease up to 90,000 tons per year in 22 Phase 1 as a result of retiring or replacing the older, 23 less fuel efficient pre-1994 engines. Because truck fuel 24 efficiency is not expected to change in Phase 2, we 25 estimate there will not be future cases in CO2 emissions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 --o0o-- 2 MANAGER MIGUEL: ARB staff performed an extensive 3 economic analysis of the proposed regulation utilizing 4 surveys, existing studies, personal interviews, and 5 stakeholder and peer reviews. 6 --o0o-- 7 MANAGER MIGUEL: Staff estimated the proposed 8 regulation will require an investment of $400 million -- 9 $480 million to comply with Phase 1. Truck owners could 10 incur costs in excess of $30,000 per truck for replacement 11 and retrofit. 12 The cost of Phase 2 are on the order of 13 $1 billion. Staff utilized only existing verified 14 solutions for our analysis. Currently, the only viable 15 option is truck replacement at over $30,000 per truck. 16 Altogether, the regulation could cost upward of 17 one and a half billion dollars to comply with both phases. 18 I want to emphasize that these costs are at the 19 upper end of what staff expect and do not reflect normal 20 truck replacement that might have occurred without the 21 regulation. 22 These costs were calculated using present value 23 2006 dollars to enable comparison with other retrofit 24 rules and consistent assessment of cost effectiveness. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 MANAGER MIGUEL: The regulation would achieve 2 significant emission reductions compared to the cost of 3 those reductions. 4 If the total cost of Phase 1 is attributed to 5 reducing diesel PM, the PM cost effectiveness would be 6 from $57 to $77 per pound reduced. 7 Similarly, if all Phase 2 costs were attributed to 8 NOx reductions, the cost per pound NOx reduced is 9 estimated to be between $6 and $8 per pound. 10 --o0o-- 11 MANAGER MIGUEL: As shown, the PM cost 12 effectiveness for the proposed regulation is consistent 13 with other recently ARB-adopted diesel retrofit measures. 14 --o0o-- 15 MANAGER MIGUEL: Throughout the regulatory 16 development process, a reoccurring concern centered on 17 affordability. 18 Staff understands the current drayage rate 19 structure will not adequately support the proposed 20 regulatory requirements and allow the pass through of 21 compliance costs. 22 Of particular concern is the ability of current 23 truck owners, either individual owner/operators or fleets, 24 to generate up-front capital needed to comply with 25 Phase 1. The immediate assistance in providing capital is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 needed along with eventual changes in the rate structure. 2 One likely source for some of the needed funding 3 is the Proposition 1B funds. The legislature directed the 4 ARB to develop guidelines for the distribution of funds to 5 support programs submitted by local entities such as air 6 districts and ports. 7 The billion dollars in Proposition 1B funds are to 8 be appropriated annually. In the 2007/2008 budget, the 9 legislature appropriated $250 million with priority given 10 to programs that could be quickly implemented. 11 --o0o-- 12 MANAGER MIGUEL: As directed by the legislature, 13 the ARB is currently developing funding guidelines for 14 drayage trucks. The results of this effort is due before 15 the Board for approval in 2008. A preliminary concept 16 includes a $5,000 truck retrofit funding option or a 20 to 17 $50,000 option to purchase new model year 2007 trucks. 18 Other potential funding sources for 19 owner/operators include port programs to raise money, 20 loans, container fees, and drayage rate structure changes. 21 --o0o-- 22 MANAGER MIGUEL: We have identified and worked 23 closely with other entities to mitigate drayage truck 24 emissions. This November, the Los Angeles and Long Beach 25 Board of Harbor Commissioners voted to ban the oldest, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 dirtiest trucks from operating at the ports as part of 2 their Clean Air Action Plan. Our proposed rule is 3 designed to complement and support other plans including 4 the Clean Air Action Plan. 5 --o0o-- 6 MANAGER MIGUEL: After receiving comments during 7 our 45-day comment period, we are now proposing a couple 8 of changes to the proposed regulation. 9 To clear confusion and create a more uniform 10 regulation, staff is proposing to add an Option C to 11 Phase 1, which states that trucks that are 1994 and newer 12 but have been modified to meet the 2007 emission standards 13 are acceptable in 2014 and beyond. 14 Staff is also proposing to change the requirements 15 of model year 2004 to 2006 engines. Currently, these 16 engines are not required to reduce emission under this 17 rule but would be regulated under the general truck rule. 18 Staff is proposing a change to require all 2004 to 2006 19 engine standards -- emission engines -- standards engines 20 to meet the 2007 emission standards by December 31st, 21 2013, to continue in port and rail yard service. 22 --o0o-- 23 MANAGER MIGUEL: Concerns were also raised 24 regarding the legal implications of requiring out-of-state 25 vehicles to place compliance labels on their trucks and to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 keep maintenance logs. 2 To provide flexibility for this segment of the 3 fleet, ARB staff is proposing to include that out-of-state 4 trucks have an alternative means of compliance as long as 5 their proposal meets the minimum requirements and is 6 approved by the executive officer. 7 Staff is also proposing to change the definitions 8 of "port" and "port property" to exclude areas with no 9 ocean-based goods movement drayage activities. Examples 10 of these types of areas include airports and parking lots. 11 Other proposed 15-day changes include modifying 12 the owner/operator responsibilities to include 13 requirements that govern the use of emission control 14 systems and changing the noncompliant truck data 15 collection and reporting dates to align with the DTR 16 registration deadline. 17 --o0o-- 18 MANAGER MIGUEL: There have been a few concerns 19 raised from public comments. The primary issue facing the 20 successful implementation of this regulation is the 21 ability of the truck owner to afford compliance. We 22 envision that successful implementation of the rule will 23 require funds from sources like Proposition 1B and 24 port-sponsored programs. 25 Another comment raised focused on why there was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 not an early PM reduction requirement for the 2004 to 2006 2 model year trucks in Phase 1. 3 Currently, there are no sufficient verified level 4 three technologies for this age group. Furthermore, very 5 few frequent port and rail yard visitors are in this age 6 group. And how to regulate this group of trucks will be a 7 major focus of next year's private truck fleet rule. 8 --o0o-- 9 MANAGER MIGUEL: Staff also received recent 10 comments regarding the inclusion of additional rail yards 11 that are outside the 80-mile radius of a port. Using the 12 land use guidance document, staff determined that 13 facilities with 100 or more truck trips per day result in 14 significant health impacts. One facility falls into this 15 category. 16 --o0o-- 17 MANAGER MIGUEL: In summary, the proposed drayage 18 truck regulation meets or exceeds the goals of the Diesel 19 Risk Reduction Plan and Goods Movement Emission Reduction 20 Plan. 21 Most importantly, the rule would greatly and 22 rapidly reduce the PM related health effects in nearby 23 communities in a cost-effective manner. 24 The second phase of the regulation is also vitally 25 important to meeting the state's overall SIP commitments PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 for PM2.5 and ozone. 2 --o0o-- 3 MANAGER MIGUEL: Staff recommends that the Board 4 adopt the proposed regulation with the 15-day changes as 5 presented. 6 This concludes my presentation, and I would be 7 happy to answer any questions you may have. 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Before we answer 9 questions, we just have a brief description from our 10 ombudsman of the public process that was used here. 11 OMBUDSWOMAN QUETIN: Thank you, Chairman Nichols 12 and members of the Board. 13 This proposed regulation has been developed with 14 input from the rail yards, ports, shipping organizations, 15 motor carriers, truck owners and manufacturers, Teamsters, 16 new and used truck dealerships, and emission control 17 device manufacturers and installers. 18 Staff began their efforts to develop this rule in 19 early 2006. They have held two public consultation 20 meetings, eight public workshops, two owner/operator town 21 hall meetings, and over 150 additional meetings, 22 presentations, and phone calls. 23 On average, fifty to a hundred stakeholders 24 attended the two public consultation meetings and nine 25 public workshops. These meetings include representation PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 from industry, community action groups, and environmental 2 groups. 3 The two truck owner/operator town hall meetings, 4 one in Southern California and one -- the other in 5 Oakland, had 250 and 50 attendees, respectively. 6 The staff report was released for public comment 7 on October 19th, 2007. It was noticed the same day the 8 list was served within the Board Hearing Notice. The 9 Board Hearing Notice also was translated into Spanish. 10 Spanish and English versions were mailed via U.S. 11 mail to 7,300 addresses of drayage truck owner/operators 12 throughout California, mainly Southern California and 13 Oakland. 14 Additionally, both English and Spanish versions of 15 the notice are available on the regulation activity Web 16 page. 17 And I would also like to note that personal 18 assistance is available through the ombudsman's office in 19 both Spanish and English. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 22 Board members, questions for the staff before we 23 hear from the public? 24 Yes? 25 MEMBER D'ADAMO: A couple of questions. First of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 all, on the intermodal rail yards, why the 80-mile radius 2 and, specifically, the concern that I have is there's 3 intermodal rail yards, I believe, in Fresno and 4 Bakersfield. 5 MANAGER MIGUEL: The reason we chose 80 miles is 6 that's within typically where the trucks travel to, from 7 the ports. We didn't want to shift one segment of the 8 trucks to another segment of the location going from 9 intermodal rail yards to warehouses. 10 So we looked at all the rail facilities and within 11 an 80-mile radius, the Class 1 rail yards, which are 12 typically the ones involved in drayage movement, covered 13 the majority of those. The one that was outside that we 14 found was Fresno, and it does have -- generates around a 15 hundred trips per day. And we -- that is one of the 16 comments I had mentioned and it is up to the Board if you 17 would like to include that particular facility into the 18 regulation. 19 20 MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. And then I know that there 21 are a couple of proposals out there, one in Crows Landing 22 I believe and one in Shafter that would facilitate goods 23 moving to the ports, and the focus there would be drayage 24 truck movement. So would this regulation encompass those 25 two sites? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 MANAGER MIGUEL: Currently, they are not included. 2 We've identified the facilities that have current drayage 3 truck activity, but in our definition it says "not limited 4 to." So if future drayage truck activity is identified at 5 another facility, they would -- we could include them. 6 MEMBER D'ADAMO: Without coming back to the Board? 7 CHIEF FLETCHER: Well, what I would say is that we 8 would probably have to make a modification that would 9 incorporate per truck -- per trip limit into the 10 regulation, because it is limited to this 80 miles within 11 the port. So if we wanted -- if the Board chose to 12 broaden the definition and bring in either existing or 13 future facilities, then we could establish a -- you know, 14 a 100-truck-per-day limit, for example, which is about 15 where the Fresno facility is, would I think something like 16 30,000 is. So we thought we had most of the intermodal, 17 but we did not really look at future growth or, you know, 18 kind of translate movement of trucks to different 19 facilities. 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Excuse me. I just need to 21 interject a minute. This is just a process issue. 22 Apparently, we have a new court reporter who can't 23 see all of our name tags and doesn't know who everybody 24 is. So at least the first time you speak, if you could 25 just identify yourself by name, that would be for both the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 Board and the staff. That would be helpful. 2 CHIEF FLETCHER: Sorry. I'm Bob Fletcher, chief 3 of Stationary Source Division. 4 MEMBER D'ADAMO: Dorene D'Adamo. 5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And this is 6 Mike Scheible. 7 To the extent that someone operates -- starts a 8 new facility and is handling trucks that are working at 9 the ports, those trucks would be clean trucks because they 10 will have to be clean trucks within the port side of the 11 access. 12 So we thought we covered most. But if someone 13 just handles domestic goods at a rail yard, then they are 14 not -- those trucks aren't covered, so that's why we think 15 we need to add something for Fresno. 16 MEMBER D'ADAMO: And then also the language on 17 future facilities, a hundred trips.... 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: That's 19 correct. We don't want to create a new facility and not 20 be covered by this rule and then lots of dirty trucks 21 would go there because they would be available. 22 MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. Sounds good. 23 And then moving over to slide 34 on estimated 24 costs, why such a range on Phase 2? Or first of all, are 25 you assuming replacement, or is there a range because PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 there may be, perhaps, another option that becomes 2 available? 3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: A major issue 4 is, we don't know the number of trucks that actually 5 decide to go into this service, so much of the range is 6 simply, how many is it -- 30,000 trucks or 35,000 trucks 7 or 25,000 trucks? I don't think the range is from the 8 per-truck cost. I think it's mostly with the number of 9 trucks that eventually are covered by the rule. 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, as I understand -- 11 excuse me. This is Mary Nichols. 12 Isn't there a movement, at least on the part of 13 some of the owners of these trucks, to try to limit the 14 size of the trucks that are used this way to something 15 that's appropriate for just this purpose, and not the 16 bigger trucks that can be used for other purposes? 17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: That could be 18 a compliance route. And if that occurred, there could be 19 some savings on this number. 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right. 21 MEMBER D'ADAMO: Same thing, on -- as I recall, 22 you said that you are not accounting for the normal 23 turnover? 24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: That's 25 correct. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. So it would be lower 2 if you were to account for that. 3 MANAGER MIGUEL: That's correct. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And did you include -- I see 5 that you made some changes recently -- or are proposing 6 some changes. Do you account for -- which it appears the 7 costs would go down. Do these estimated stated costs 8 reflect.... 9 MANAGER MIGUEL: No, they don't. They would 10 increase with the going from the 2004 to 2006 requirement 11 to be 2007 emission standard compliant -- would add an 12 additional 14 to 18 million dollars. 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. 14 And then on funding sources, slide 38, could you 15 go over the other potential funding sources again? 16 MANAGER MIGUEL: Well, one of the big things we 17 envision is, in addition to the Proposition 1B, 18 port-sponsored programs. The ports are also going to be 19 putting in funds to supplement these retrofits and truck 20 replacements as well as the local districts. 21 So we may -- for retrofit, we may be doing 22 50 percent. But in addition to the port as well as the 23 districts, an additional 20 to 30 percent may be included. 24 There's also -- we are also looking -- we work closely 25 with several entities on low interest loan programs. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 There are several companies out there that are pursuing 2 how to put a program in place for these trucks. And I 3 believe there's a couple individuals here who will testify 4 to that today as well. 5 MEMBER D'ADAMO: Great. Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Other questions? 7 Yes, Ms. Case? 8 MEMBER CASE: Just going back to the decision of 9 other sites for intermodal, could you talk a little bit 10 about the population base around it? Because I think 11 that's really one of the elements of focus, Fresno being a 12 big one. 13 The other piece would be, would they miss out on 14 the opportunity for incentive funding if they were not 15 caught in there? 16 And my third element of the question is, if we 17 were to consider adding intermodal sites, what has been 18 the outreach specific to those areas? I would not like to 19 catch people by surprise that if they were excluded from 20 regulation -- they don't attend our meetings and suddenly 21 they are captured. That wouldn't be a fair way to go in 22 terms of making sure we had all the public testimony. 23 MANAGER MIGUEL: We don't have the number of 24 people affected near the Fresno rail yard. We did do an 25 assessment looking at how close the individuals are to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 that particular rail yard to do an assessment of health 2 impacts. 3 When we looked at the land use guidance document, 4 we wanted to know what the cancer rate per million are for 5 those individuals a certain distance from this facility. 6 We did not look at the exact population, but the 7 population is fairly close to that facility. 8 MEMBER CASE: And my sense is, there's probably an 9 environmental justice issue because it is a very poor area 10 of the community. And I just don't know what the density 11 is. I know where the site is. I know the general lay of 12 the land. I don't know the density of individuals living 13 within that range. But it could be significant, and it 14 could be an environmental justice concern because of the 15 economic conditions around the rail yard. 16 MANAGER MIGUEL: We would need to look at that. I 17 don't know the exact layout of that community around that 18 particular facility. 19 CHIEF FLETCHER: Relative to your question about 20 whether or not we've done any outreach to the people that 21 are actually taking trucks to that Fresno facility, we 22 have not done any. This is a fairly recent piece of 23 information. 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Yes? 25 MEMBER BERG: I am confused a little bit on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 cost. And if we look at the regulation, on Phase 1, all 2 trucks that are older than 1994 are going to be replaced. 3 And looking at slide 8, rough estimate looks like about 4 50 percent of those trucks will be replaced. And then on 5 top of that, 1994 to 2003 models will -- they need to add 6 a VDECS. So I am confused as to why Phase 1 is actually 7 less than Phase 2 given the fact that 50 percent -- it 8 appears that 50 percent of the trucks are going to be 9 replaced plus the percentage of trucks that are from '94 10 to 2003 have to have VDECS added. 11 MANAGER MIGUEL: The Phase 1 costs of the pre-1994 12 trucks, actually the population size is about 28 percent 13 of the trucks would be affected. We are not proposing to 14 provide funding for those replacements. Maybe 15 "replacement" was not the correct word. It is -- we are 16 prohibiting those trucks from accessing ports. We are 17 requiring the trucks to be 1994 and newer. 18 So if someone has a pre-'94 truck, they would 19 either need to make a decision as to purchase a newer 20 truck or go to an '07 truck. If they purchase a new 21 truck, being a '94 to 2003, we would assist them with the 22 retrofitting of that truck. 23 CHIEF FLETCHER: And I think that the major 24 difference in those costs is, as Mike mentioned, is the 25 fact that you are only -- that the cost does include that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 $21,000 per truck, but they are only about 30 percent of 2 those trucks that are affected by that, whereas in 3 Phase 2, we are assuming that all of the trucks, 4 essentially, must upgrade to a 2007. So there are many 5 more trucks in that second phase than there are in the 6 first phase. 7 MEMBER BERG: But if trucks with the 28 percent 8 are included, the cost of that is included in the number 9 of Phase 1? 10 CHIEF FLETCHER: Yes, correct. 11 MEMBER BERG: Okay. Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Other questions? Yes? 13 MEMBER SPERLING: I have a question. The question 14 about the industry structure here. Just -- I've heard 15 some conflicting stories to understand, you know, it's 16 important to know what the effective is going to be and 17 who's going to bear the cost. My understanding is -- 18 please correct me, is that most of these drayage trucks 19 are owner operated but under contract to these larger 20 companies. 21 Is that right, first of all? 22 MANAGER MIGUEL: That's correct. 23 MEMBER SPERLING: Okay. 24 MANAGER MIGUEL: Over 90 percent of trucks are 25 owner operated, and they contract with what we call the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 license motor carriers to move freight. 2 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: But the 3 contract is often not a set contract; it's kind of a 4 working arrangement where you can call on these 5 independent owner/operates and they have operators that 6 they tend to call on. So it's a -- I don't know whether 7 "contract" is the best word, but in order to pull a load 8 to the port, a motor carrier has to dispatch the trucks. 9 They control who pulls what load. 10 MANAGER MIGUEL: These owner/operators can work 11 for multiple motor carriers. 12 MEMBER SPERLING: And most of these trips are 13 fairly short. They are between terminals in the region in 14 the metropolitan region; right? 15 MANAGER MIGUEL: The 20,000 trucks that we 16 identified as frequent flyers, or they frequently visit 17 the ports, do so within a local -- in the local area. 18 MEMBER SPERLING: So now as we look, you know -- 19 so the availability of this funding becomes very critical, 20 you know, when we're talking about the owner/operators. 21 I'm wondering, like the 1B money, is this going to 22 be administered -- I mean, this really is going to be a 23 question. Is it going to be administered in a way such 24 the trucking companies are the ones applying for it, 25 managing it, or are the owner/operators themselves the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 ones that are going to have to apply? Because it says 2 it's competitive, here. 3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: The way the 4 enacting legislation passed, ARB is to distribute the 5 money competitively, but the actual projects come through 6 a regional public agency. 7 In the cases of the trucks, we've been dealing 8 with the ports, and we expect the ports to make a proposal 9 to us in terms of, here's how we would operate a program, 10 here's how we would use locally generated money to match 11 the state's money and get the desired results. 12 And then they would go out and they might actually 13 engage contractors to do trucks, lease to own, or leased 14 trucks, or deal with owner/operators, and they would be 15 responsible for doing the interface. 16 MEMBER SPERLING: So number one, it's not under 17 our control, and, number two, we don't know how it's going 18 to be managed? 19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, it's 20 under our control in terms of, they have to make a 21 proposal that we think makes sense, meets the legal 22 requirements, and gets the money out in time. 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: The money goes through us. 24 I think we do have a considerable amount of input on how 25 it gets distributed. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: But we don't 2 do the local logistics in terms of exactly dealing with 3 the owner/operator. So this is going to be a major issue 4 that we're going to have to work closely with the ports, 5 probably with some of the rail companies, because I think 6 they are going to have to come in and assist also, and the 7 local air districts and with the industry to make it all 8 work. 9 MEMBER SPERLING: Let me just leave this issue 10 floating in the air for now. But it seems like this is 11 very critical that for us to approve this rule, without 12 having a feel for how this money might be distributed, 13 could be problematic. And seems like we should come back 14 to this before we -- 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We intend to 16 bring you the proposal for the money. 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: In January. 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: In January, 19 hopefully. 20 MEMBER SPERLING: So maybe we can say something 21 about it before we -- 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think we should have some 23 further discussion. I think we'll learn more from the 24 witnesses who are going to be talking this morning about 25 what they need to make this work. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 If there are no further questions, to begin with, 2 let's start with your witness list. 3 Our first two speakers will require translation 4 services. So if the translator will come up. And because 5 it takes a little longer to translate, we will be a little 6 less strict about the time limit. We hope people can be 7 brief. 8 Okay. Dagoberto Larios and Miguel Pineda followed 9 by Salvador Abrica. If the speakers would come forward to 10 the podium, please. 11 MR. LARIOS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 12 I have been a trucker at the port for over 20 13 years now. I've been to several of these meetings. And 14 what I would like to ask you is this: Are you aware as to 15 the working conditions we have in the port? The companies 16 have a rope around our necks with respect to prices. It 17 is barely enough for us to survive on it and to face the 18 old trucks we have. How can I purchase a new truck when 19 they keep strict track of the payments and the movements I 20 make? 21 In all the years I've been doing this, I've seen a 22 lot of strikes, work stoppages, proposals. And nothing 23 has ever been solved because the companies manage to have 24 things continue in the same way because it's convenient 25 for them. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 According to my experience, the companies would 2 have to purchase those trucks with the subsidies that they 3 could get from wherever and to name us as employees, 4 simply as employees. 5 Thank you very much. 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: A question? Yes? 7 MEMBER RIORDAN: Not so much a question but maybe 8 staff could respond. This is not the time to respond, but 9 at some point in time, for those who are the 10 owner/operator or truckers and the relationship with this 11 hierarchy that we see, I think we need to sort of set a 12 record to inform people about how we think this might 13 work. 14 I think it's following along Dr. Sperling -- and 15 by the way, I'm Barbara Riordan, for the court reporter. 16 To set the record pretty straight so that at least 17 those people who are here today can have a sense of how we 18 envision this funding to work, because I see this as very 19 critical to assist the trucker/owner. It's just an 20 unusual arrangement where you have this hierarchy that I 21 haven't quite figured out yet, but I'm sure by the time 22 this hearing's over, I will. 23 But I think it's very important that we explain 24 things today very clearly for those people so that they 25 can take that information back to the bigger community of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 owner/operator/truckers. 2 And I appreciate this gentleman's taking time to 3 come today. 4 Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. 6 Mr. Pineda followed by Salvador Abrica. 7 MR. PINEDA: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 8 My name is Miguel Pineda. I've been driving trucks for 9 nine years. And I am here in a way of support. I 10 congratulate you for the idea of clean air. 11 Thank you for thinking about us, our children, the 12 children of my coworkers, and the whole community at 13 large. Believe me, we needed this clean air system 14 because we were suffering a lot. 15 But everything has its opposite side. Now other 16 preoccupations exist. What happens is, how are we going 17 to be able to stay in the 16,000 truckers or 30,000, as 18 the gentleman said? I cannot purchase a new truck. I 19 cannot afford a new filter for retrofit. The truckers' 20 situation is deplorable. That concern goes through 16,000 21 minds of the truckers at the port. 22 I've been to many meetings where the commissioners 23 of the Long Beach and Los Angeles ports have been. And I 24 will say it again. I'm thankful for the clean air system. 25 But they don't mention a solution for the truck drivers' PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 problem. 2 The truck drivers are -- they are willing to drive 3 the new trucks because they support the clean air 4 system -- program. But we don't have the capacity or 5 ability to keep a truck or maintain a truck for the clean 6 air program because it's very expensive, and a new truck 7 can cost anywhere from 120 thousand to 240 or 250. 8 And under the system where we are qualified as 9 independent or classified as independent contractors, 10 which is a bad classification, we don't have access to 11 that money because we live by the company. 12 The value of the load is not -- the cost is not 13 available to us. So for us, it would be good for you to 14 propose the clean air program, which has already been 15 proposed, but also to look for a solution for all the 16 truck drivers. And that's wishing we would be to have the 17 companies carry the costs -- in other words, to make us 18 employees. 19 But besides all that, we support the clean air 20 program. 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 22 MR. PINEDA: Any question I can answer? 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think there is a question 24 from Mayor Loveridge. 25 MEMBER LOVERIDGE: It's really a question for Mike PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 Scheible. 2 We passed the regulation for us. What happens to 3 Miguel Pineda? In a hypothetical sense, what happens? 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, we then 5 work with the ports and allocate our funding and establish 6 a program that says, here's a route that we believe is 7 affordable to -- for those that want to stay in the 8 business to get them along. 9 The second issue he raised, which is the working 10 relationship between the drivers and the motor carriers 11 and the companies that actually pay for moving the cargo, 12 is beyond us. It is an issue the ports are addressing, 13 and there are representatives from the ports that can 14 address that issue later. 15 Our whole goal is to get the trucks cleaned up, 16 and we recognize that the reg, the regulation, will 17 require financial assistance either from the state, from 18 the bond money, or through some other mechanism that 19 generates revenues for the truck drivers. 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Did you have 21 something else to say? 22 MR. PINEDA: Yes. What this gentleman is saying 23 is that they can provide money as a loan? It's a 24 question. 25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I don't think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 that the mechanism is worked out. It would be a loan 2 program. It could be a program that makes new trucks 3 affordable. It could be a program that supports the 4 application of filters and covers, all or much of that 5 cost between a combination of state funding and port 6 funding. 7 So that, we have to work out and we -- if the 8 regulation is adopted, then that will be our next effort. 9 Making this work will actually be harder than designing 10 the rules. 11 MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Could I also ask what model 12 truck you drive? 13 MR. PINEDA: '88. 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. 15 MR. PINEDA: Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think the next speaker is 17 Salvador Abrica and then Charles Prinzer and Jon 18 Zerolnick. 19 MR. ABRICA: My name is Salvador Abrica. 20 First of all, I want to start out by saying good 21 morning to the Board members and staff, and hi to some old 22 friends that we have had meetings with and really try to 23 work the problem out and identify the speed bumps, road 24 bumps, obstacles that we have in front of us, not just as 25 drivers but as board members that have the control and the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 power to implement something that needs to be addressed 2 and changed, and I believe we're talking a good step. 3 I come here today. Like I said, my name is 4 Salvador Abrica. I'm a resident of Wilmington, and I live 5 less than a mile away from the ports. So to say that that 6 doesn't impact one individual, it impacts a lot of people. 7 You know, I used to drive over the road and coming 8 over the hill, either way, from the Six Flags direction, 9 El Cajon, whatever, you come into a cloud. That's no 10 place to live for anyone. And that's why I am here today 11 to show support for the cleaning of the air. And not only 12 that, I like to breathe the sea breeze, or else I would 13 have moved out a long time ago. 14 But every little chance I get, I enjoy. And we're 15 losing that opportunity and my children are not going to 16 be able to see that. So when you think about it -- like I 17 said, I live less than a mile from the port. I have been 18 a dispatcher; I've been an operations manager; I've been a 19 driver for the majority of this time, here, in the ports. 20 And to say that the contract or the arrangement 21 between the company and the individual driver, it's truly 22 the misclassification of us as owner/operators/independent 23 contractors, that has the blinds pulled over us, in a 24 sense, that we are the responsible party. 25 We're not the responsible party. The responsible PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 party is the one that manages the money, the one that 2 charges the money, the ones that have the operating 3 authority. We have no operating authority. That's why we 4 lease on to these companies, and they are the ones with 5 the arrangement with the ports, with the clients, with the 6 brokers, with everybody, to move their stuff around. 7 So when we talk about cleaning the air and 8 maintaining a system, I'm all for cleaning the air. I'm 9 all for making the responsible party be responsible for 10 whatever it is they are responsible. 11 As far as the overall track of this is that the 12 only one that can maintain a clean fleet and the only one 13 that we can really address and hold responsible are the 14 licensed motor carriers that were mentioned here. I mean 15 in my eyes, from all this experience is that there is no 16 difference between the licensed motor carrier -- you are 17 either a motor carrier or you're not. 18 So to be an independent contractor, you would have 19 to be a motor carrier in the first place to be able to 20 contract with these so-called brokers as they act. Well, 21 the problem is that we need to identify the structure. 22 And like I said, overall, I'm for the clear air, and I 23 just want to finish this before I get way out of line. 24 And I know I like to talk, so I'm just going to shorten it 25 up. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 So now that we have a plan to implement, we must 2 ensure that the responsible -- we must ensure that the 3 responsibility is put on the correct party, as you have 4 been advised that the port drivers are operating under a 5 misclassified employment status. 6 The truth of the matter is that the motor carrier 7 controls and directs each one of these port trucks. 8 Therefore, the only party that can be held accountable are 9 the motor carriers. This is the only way to ensure that 10 the air we manage to clean remains clean and that we 11 continue to increase the level of this clean air we all 12 should value so much. 13 And in closing, I just want to say that although 14 this is a strong and bold first step, we must continue to 15 search for not only the cleanest technology, but the 16 solution to this industrywide problem of passing the buck, 17 which I just kind of explained. 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Your time is up. 19 MR. ABRICA: I know. I just want to say thank you 20 for the opportunity to be here. And whatever questions 21 you may have, please address them because this is not 22 going to be the end of the problem if we don't decide -- 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Understood. Okay. We will 24 be talking further about implementation. 25 I just want to remind everybody in the audience, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 this was the third speaker out of a list of 36. And I 2 think you would all like to be out of here, if at all 3 possible, by lunchtime today. So let's just all try to 4 shorten our comments. 5 MR. ABRICA: Thank you. 6 MEMBER CASE: I have a couple questions of staff 7 again. 8 To better understand the system as we get more 9 testimony, in terms of the motor carriers, am I 10 understanding that the rates for truckers going into the 11 ports are set by a tariff, so it's a set rate? Or is that 12 still all a negotiation for how much people get 13 compensated for what they do? 14 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: There's no set 15 rate. It's kind of a market where the people who are 16 shipping the goods have the advantage over the truckers 17 and the motor carriers. 18 MEMBER CASE: So it's specifically set by the 19 person paying the bill for freight? I mean, I would like 20 to understand how the motor carriers contract and 21 anybody -- as it comes through testimony, if there's not a 22 set rate is that, then, the motor carrier does a contract 23 and the independents are kind of contracted and it all 24 kind of trickles down in terms of negotiation between 25 parties. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 I am looking for, is there any place in that 2 system that's a set amount that maybe if somebody has a 3 better opportunity than somebody else, and in response to 4 the independents, they are kind of at the bottom of the 5 pecking order in that regard, in terms of where they fit 6 in the pie, and I'm hearing -- 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: If I may, I'm going to ask 8 you to hold that question for the following reason: This 9 is an incredibly complicated industry, as you are 10 beginning to tell. And there's a lot of work going on to 11 address these issues about the truckers at the harbor, and 12 a lot that has been revealed, I think, to many people in 13 the public who had no idea how this system worked before. 14 Frankly, there are conflicting answers to your 15 question depending on who you talk to. And what we're 16 going to have to focus on here today is what we can do to 17 successfully implement this program when we're a piece and 18 not in control of the entire operation. 19 I really would like to ask my fellow Board members 20 to refrain from the desire, which is very understandable, 21 to try to get in and fix the goods movement system in this 22 state. I wish we had a better ability to put in this 23 context before today's hearing. It would have been 24 helpful. 25 And I don't mean to suggest that we shouldn't ask PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 questions or try to understand the people who come to 2 speak. But just bear in mind that there are multiple, 3 different, arrangements that shippers and truckers have. 4 There's a movement going on to try to organize, all of 5 which is healthy and good and which we want to be, you 6 know, supportive of. But at the same time, we only are -- 7 we have only one piece of this, which is the clean air 8 side of the trucks. 9 So if I could just ask you to indulge in that, I 10 think we'll begin to get a clearer picture as we go along 11 of what we can do. 12 Thank you. 13 Mr. Prinzer, Mr. Zerolnick, and Mr. Appy. 14 MR. PRINZER: Good morning. I'm 73 years old. I 15 grew up in the harbor. I worked in the harbor all of my 16 life. I remember when it smelled like ocean. Now it just 17 smells. I live in Wilmington. A lot of my old friends 18 are dead from respiratory problems, cancer problems, and 19 worked in the harbor as I did. I was retired for the same 20 reasons. 21 For 12 years, I've worked as a volunteer in 22 Banning High School in Wilmington. We have 3,500 23 children. I also am involved with the elementary schools 24 and the middle schools there in Wilmington and the 25 surrounding areas. We see the problems with asthma. We PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 see the problems with the illnesses that are caused by the 2 pollutions. 3 I appreciate the fact that we're talking about 4 clean air. I'm half Comanche, and my respect for mother 5 earth cannot be equaled. So I tell you, it has always 6 been a problem that is put on the backs of the working 7 person. And I'm saying, to all the people that own 8 companies, let's share this responsibility; don't just put 9 it on the working man. 10 Working in the harbor, I've been there from the 11 point that -- no benefits. We could work all the hours 12 that we wanted to at straight time, and we were worked 13 like dogs. And then I've worked on a collective 14 bargaining system to where I had benefits, to where I 15 could have a dream, to where I could live and support my 16 family in a decent way and a respectful way. 17 However this works out, I want clean air. That's 18 number one. I want all of our children; I want all of our 19 old folks; I want all of us to have the opportunity to 20 have what the father gave to us, to have clean air. But 21 at the same time, please, even though we don't want to 22 talk about it, let's look about the trucker. Let's look 23 about the person that's doing the hauling. Let's look at 24 the worker, the persons that are going to have to maybe 25 dig a lot deeper than other people. You know, they have a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 right to have a dream. 2 Thank you very much. 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you, sir. John 4 Zerolnick and then Ralph Appy followed by Robert Kanter. 5 MR. ZEROLNICK: Good morning, Board Members. My 6 name is John Zerolnick. I'm a research analyst at the 7 L.A. Alliance for a New Economy. We are a partner in the 8 Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports. 9 We strongly support CARB in its proposed 10 rulemaking today to clean up the dirty diesel trucks 11 servicing our ports and rail yards. CARB has correctly 12 identified drayage trucks as being a major source of 13 dangerous emissions. 14 As your ERP notes, trucks are responsible for over 15 60 percent of the health impacts related to goods 16 movements in the state. And drayage trucks are a 17 disproportionately large source of this impact. They are 18 well known to be the oldest and the dirtiest trucks on the 19 road. 20 As many experts and commentators have noted, the 21 drayage industry is where trucks go to die. It's 22 essential to understand why it is the drayage trucks are 23 such gross emitters. 24 The misclassification of drivers as independent 25 contractors, as you just heard, over the past 27 years, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 has resulted in a dysfunctional, unsustainable system. 2 All of the risk and the responsibility for the maintenance 3 and upkeep of the trucks is pushed downwards, onto the 4 backs of the drivers themselves who lack the proper 5 resources. 6 A same system would hold the motor carriers and 7 their customers -- the retailers, the shippers, the owners 8 of the cargo -- responsible for the trucks. The port 9 truck rule does go some distance towards holding the motor 10 carriers responsible for the trucks they dispatch. It's 11 therefore a great improvement over the current system. 12 The port truck rule, as you have heard, over just 13 its initial six-year life is projected to save hundreds of 14 lives, prevent hundreds more hospital admissions, prevent 15 many thousands of cases of asthma, bronchitis, other 16 cardiovascular problems, and to prevent hundreds of 17 thousands of work loss days, school absence days, and 18 restricted activity days. 19 You've heard how impacted community members around 20 the port and the rail yards are by the diesel emissions 21 from the trucks. Residents near the commerce rail yards 22 are 70 to 140 percent more likely to contract cancer than 23 people in the rest of Los Angeles. Asthma rates in places 24 like West Oakland and Long Beach are twice what they are 25 in the rest of the state. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 Drivers also are very heavily impacted by these 2 emissions. A study released just this week by the NRDC 3 along with the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports showed 4 that the extent of the impact levels of diesel particulate 5 matter inside the cabs of the trucks are up to 25 times 6 higher than background levels. 7 And drivers tend to live in communities impacted 8 as well as work there. So at the end of a very long day, 9 they get no respite from breathing these toxic emissions. 10 So this impact on the community and on drivers is why 11 industry must be held accountable for the pollution to 12 shift the costs from those currently suffering to those 13 currently benefitting. 14 Again, we strongly support CARB's rule. We also 15 support our allies and partners in the Coalition for Clean 16 and Safe Ports and their comments they have submitted 17 regarding ways that the rule can be strengthened, the 18 comments regarding the inclusion of the rail yards, also 19 Teamster comments regarding the ways to make these rules 20 workable. I just heard my buzzer, so I would just say 21 that it's important that the port truck rule be paired 22 with a strong implementation and enforcement mechanism 23 such as the proposed clean trucks program at the ports of 24 L.A. and Long Beach. 25 You guys, as Chairman Nichols has recently stated, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 set minimum standards. Local jurisdictions can set their 2 own tougher standards. So we hope that CARB will join us 3 in supporting the ports' clean trucks program. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. 5 Ralph Appy and then Robert Kanter and then Martin 6 Schlageter. 7 MR. KANTER: Hi. Actually I'm Bob Kanter from the 8 Port of Long Beach. 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. 10 MR. KANTER: We have complementary testimony from 11 the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach and so Ralph asked that I 12 would go first, if I may. 13 And good morning. Again, I'm Bob Kanter. I'm 14 managing director for Environmental Affairs and Planning 15 at the Port of Long Beach. And I am pleased -- and thank 16 you for the opportunity to present testimony today in 17 support of your proposed drayage rule. 18 As you know, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 19 Beach have been working on our own San Pedro Bay Ports 20 clean truck program proposal over the last several months, 21 and we've been working very closely with CARB staff. 22 And first of all, I want to thank CARB staff. 23 It's been a terrific collaborative working experience. 24 And I can't say enough good things. The staff has really 25 made an effort to get in there and understand operations PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 in order to craft, what I think, is an effective 2 regulation. And so we thank you very much. 3 Obviously, we support the proposed regulation and 4 urge the Board to adopt that measurement. 5 Its regulation will establish a consistent 6 statewide program and allow for significant reductions in 7 emissions from port drayage services to the ports 8 throughout California. 9 A month ago, our Board adopted our program as well 10 as the Port of Los Angeles Board, they -- this program of 11 ours is a progressive band. It very much parallels what 12 CARB has proposed. Our program, however, will require the 13 2007 emissions standards be met by 2012, which will 14 advance the program -- accelerate it by a couple of years. 15 And this has some significant benefits, obviously, to the 16 health but also to the costs of the program. 17 But because this program accelerates the -- 18 locally, in our ports, it also still remains consistent 19 with the proposed regulation with the state and that, we 20 think, is an excellent approach. Together, they provide a 21 comprehensive program that addresses this port drayage 22 problem throughout the state and keeps the playing field 23 level, which we think is very, very important. 24 We look forward to continuing to work with CARB on 25 this. The next step of the program is obviously some of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 the big ones in identifying funding to help those -- as 2 we've heard testimony today, those who are affected to get 3 in the clean trucks. We estimate that for the San Pedro 4 Bay ports alone, we have in excess of 16,800 trucks that 5 are involved in the regular drayage structure. 6 And because of the accelerated schedule, our 7 estimates are that our program is going to cost an excess 8 of $2 billion, which is a huge nut to crack. 9 The ports have committed $170 million of our funds 10 towards this program, and we will take to our boards on 11 the 17th and 20th, respectively, a proposal for a 12 containerized cargo fee to help raise additional monies 13 towards paying for this program. But again, this 14 accelerated time frame increases the costs, but we think 15 it's worth it because we want to get these health benefits 16 now; we don't want to wait and delay them any longer. 17 We have a disproportionate impact -- and I've got 18 about two more sentences. 19 Again, we must significantly increase that pot of 20 money. We ask you to help us by coming forward with 1B 21 funds we will have with our port contribution and the 22 tariff fee monies to help leverage that and get the work 23 done quickly. 24 So again, thank you very much. 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 MEMBER BERG: Madam Chair, could I ask a quick 2 question of Mr. Kanter? 3 This is an accelerated program that Long Beach and 4 Los Angeles will be looking at. Would you agree that if 5 the -- if you aren't able to come up with the funding, 6 then you are going to have to come up with a plan B? 7 MR. KANTER: Well, again, this funding will be 8 there to help assist those that are going to be impacted. 9 We, regardless, have this regulation, this tariff on the 10 books. 11 It will require that trucks that do not meet the 12 regulation will be turned away from our terminals. So we 13 will get the clean air impacts. But we believe that we 14 need to have some help for those who can't afford to get 15 into the cleaner trucks. 16 MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 17 MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Just a very quick question. 18 16,000 trucks, is that -- that's both ports in -- 19 MR. KANTER: That's the combined drayage fleets, 20 yes. 21 MEMBER LOVERIDGE: When you say "regular," what is 22 regular? You said there's 16,000 trucks, regular. 23 MR. KANTER: We have what your staff has 24 characterized as frequent and semifrequent haulers. So 25 that lists -- 16,800 is pretty much our frequent flyers, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 the guys that are there three times or more a week. 2 MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Okay. 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you very much. 4 MR. APPY: I appreciate Bob stepping up first 5 here. He actually got in the door before I did, so that's 6 a good thing. 7 Chairman Nichols and Board Members, my name is 8 Ralph Appy. I'm the director of environmental for the 9 Port of Los Angeles. 10 I actually intended to be here yesterday to speak 11 in support of the short power rule for oceangoing vessels, 12 and we've provided a letter in support of that. 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 14 MR. APPY: However, yesterday, after nearly five 15 hours of testimony, the Los Angeles Port of Harbor 16 Commissioners approved an important container terminal 17 modernization project. And this is the first such major 18 improvement in over six years due largely to environmental 19 concerns. 20 I mentioned this because included in the CEQA 21 mitigation measures were requirements to plug in a hundred 22 percent of the ships, and the requirement -- the port to 23 require a hundred percent of 2007 emission standards for 24 drayage trucks as part of that project. 25 The difficulty we are facing is that invitees or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 third-party businesses calling at the port could shop 2 around. In other words, it becomes a business deal for 3 them. And therefore, a backstopping by CARB of our clean 4 air action plan and the mitigation measures that we're 5 applying through out CEQA projects is critical to backstop 6 those measures to make sure that doesn't occur because 7 it's a significant business advantage to some of our 8 customers and to apply it on statewide basis is 9 significantly important. 10 Of course, if you apply it on a national basis, 11 that would be even better yet. 12 Anyway, I thank you for the opportunity to comment 13 today. We're in support of your control rule -- your 14 proposed rule here today. 15 As you are aware, both the Port of L.A. and Long 16 Beach are developing a clean truck program. Bob spoke to 17 that. 18 I want to also make sure that one of our concerns 19 is we don't want to just -- we don't necessarily want to 20 get a hundred percent of the Prop B funds, but maybe 21 80 percent would be good. And we want to also make sure 22 that -- in addition, that we qualify for those and make 23 sure there's no preemption of our programs. And so that's 24 very important to us. 25 And again, I thank you very much and look forward PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 to your approval. 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for coming and for 3 your support to both of these ports. Your leadership in 4 recent months has been really commendable. It's great to 5 see. 6 Okay. Martin Schlageter followed by Angelo Logan 7 and Don Anair. 8 MR. SCHLAGETER: Hello. Thank you. Glad to be 9 here. Martin Schlageter. I'm the campaign director for 10 the Coalition for Clean Air. 11 Very happy to be here speaking in support of this 12 incredibly important rule that you have in front of you. 13 One of the most important rules you have dealt 14 with in a long time paired with the crisis that you are 15 trying to address on the issues of freight transportation. 16 This rule, which we want you to pass today, your 17 staff has faced a complex monster here and has come 18 through gleaming, I think, in many ways. And from their 19 own estimation, this rule can save 1,200 lives over the 20 next 12 years. That is extremely significant action on 21 your shoulders today and speaks to the need to really not 22 delay this at all, but to act on it. We're talking about 23 a hundred people a year; that's two people a week, real 24 lives that you have a chance to save. 25 These are costs and lives that are the ones you've PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 heard today -- drivers and community members, and you will 2 hear many later, I know. 3 The staff has made some good changes in this 4 15-day notice and closed an important loophole, for 5 example. And I am hopeful that we can take up 6 Ms. D'Adamo's suggestion to include Fresno. My Fresno 7 office certainly wants me to report back today that that 8 occurred. 9 I know as well that there are other rail yards of 10 importance -- Mira Loma, for example. And a member of the 11 Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice who 12 operators in that Inland Valley area is not able to be 13 here today. A representative woke up without a voice. 14 But I am giving her some voice today and ask that Mira 15 Loma be included as well. They have spoken to the 16 operators of that rail yard and are assured that the 17 trucks are drayage trucks and doing service with the port. 18 Those communities certainly deserve equal 19 protection. And as you go forward on this very complex 20 matter, it is right to expect to have a full discussion of 21 funding, be it in January or throughout, as you figure out 22 what subsidies you are able to provide. And I think to 23 share some influence from this Board into the situation 24 that the drivers have called for, I think that's right. 25 The first place to start is this regulation, is to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 set the standards, and is to take action today. And we 2 will look forward to continuing to work with you on the 3 funding proposals. And we will be continuing to work at 4 the level of the ports. And your staff, I know, will be 5 involved at the level of the ports where they are on the 6 ground working to implement rules that will make 7 conditions better. 8 Thank you so much. I look forward to your passage 9 of this rule today. 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 11 Angelo Logan, Don Anair, and Barry Broad. 12 MR. LOGAN: Good morning, Madam Chair and Members 13 of the Board. My name is Angelo Logan. I'm with East 14 Yard Communities for Environmental Justice in the City of 15 Commerce, East L.A. area. 16 We're located at the intersection of the four 17 intermodal facilities in the 710 freeway. We have over 18 35,000 truck trips a day coming from the ports at various 19 locations that visit the intermodal facilities. As you 20 all know, ARB recently conducted a health risk assessment 21 which showed that 40 percent or more of that cancer risk 22 from those health risk assessments came from the drayage 23 trucks. 24 The statistics and the numbers that came from that 25 were staggering. The amount of people that were prone to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 cancer from the diesel emissions from the intermodal 2 facilities and, specifically, the diesel trucks is 3 extremely high and unacceptable. But when we look at 4 those numbers, you know, they are really just numbers. 5 I want you to think about the actual people, and 6 we work with those individuals every day. Every day I 7 come across a new member of our community that has been 8 diagnosed with asthma, bronchitis, or cancer. So this is 9 really about decreasing the risk and health impacts from 10 real people and real communities. And I want to just kind 11 of assert that. 12 I want to support including those intermodal 13 facilities that have a hundred truck visits and more a 14 day. But I think that we should make it really systematic 15 in a way that we can really implement it. 16 As it was stated earlier, you know, it is a little 17 bit vague, and how do we know when that kicks in? 18 An example of that is the belt intermodal 19 facility. There's potential proposal for an expansion of 20 that intermodal facility that will for sure bring in a 21 hundred truck trips a day, plus. How do we know when the 22 rule applies to that particular facility? 23 Also, without going into detail, there's a lot of 24 discussion about the potential gaps. One of those gaps is 25 putting the burden of supplying those emission reductions PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 on the drivers. We know that's a really difficult issue 2 and a burden that would be a real gap. And so I encourage 3 you all to look at building upon this good first step. 4 And again, this is the first good step. And I urge you to 5 adopt these rules that you have put in place. 6 Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. 8 Don Anair and then Barry Broad and Darrell Clark. 9 MR. ANAIR: Good morning. I'm Don Anair with the 10 Union of Concerned Scientists. 11 We offer our strong support for this regulation 12 today, to reduce emissions from the port trucks and rail 13 yard trucks. 14 I also want to applaud the ARB staff for proposing 15 a regulation today that achieves the reductions, as 16 outlined in the diesel risk reduction plan, for 75 percent 17 reduction in diesel particulate matter by 2010. This is 18 very significant as this deadline approaches to attempt to 19 meet this deadline that ARB has committed to in the past. 20 There's no doubt that this regulation is going to 21 be very difficult to implement. We've already heard a 22 number of concerns today. But it's our responsibility to 23 work together to make this happen, both for the 24 communities near the ports, the truck drivers, and 25 everyone else who breathes air near California ports, near PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 rail yards, and along freeways. 2 The first step to doing this will be in adopting 3 the regulation today, and we support your effort to do 4 that. 5 I think there's three other pieces to this that 6 need to happen to make this a successful regulation, and 7 it's going to be funding, outreach, and enforcement. 8 And the Union of Concerned Scientists supports 9 efforts to use Proposition 1B funding to implement this 10 regulation. I think grants and loans are going to be 11 required for this to work. And we continue to -- we will 12 continue to work with ARB staff as the proposals are 13 developed, to do this. 14 But I wanted to make sure that everyone 15 understands that we are strongly in support of funding, 16 funding to help implement this regulation. 17 In terms of outreach, this regulation is complex. 18 And it also had -- there's another regulation that's 19 coming down the pipeline that will also affect these 20 trucks, in addition to multiple funding programs that will 21 likely appear through Prop 1B funding, port funding. 22 So I think it's going to be a critical piece. The 23 outreach piece will be critical in making sure that 24 truckers understand what's required of them, what 25 opportunities are available so they don't go down a wrong PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 path, which is going to cost them more money in the 2 future, replacing their truck with a 2004 model year 3 truck, not realizing they are going to have to go back and 4 do something to that in 2013 and potentially doing 5 something again. So I think it's going to be critical 6 that ARB really put a lot of effort into the outreach 7 portion. 8 And enforcement -- 20,000 trucks potentially -- 9 need for additional staff. Also, cooperation with air 10 districts and the ports to ensure that enforcement of this 11 regulation occurs in a way that implements the emission 12 reductions that we all are hoping to get in this 13 regulation. So I urge you to support and adopt this 14 regulation today. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for your 17 thoughtful testimony. 18 Barry Broad and then Darrell Clark and Isella 19 Ramirez. 20 MR. BROAD: My name is Barry Broad. I am the 21 director of the California Teamsters, public affairs 22 counsel, and I'm also their lawyer and jack-of-all-trades, 23 I guess. 24 We are in support of this proposal. It has some 25 technical issues that we've submitted to Mr. Miguel. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 What's really critical here is that you match this 2 regulation to the regulatory system that governs the 3 trucking industry. And you've asked some questions, very 4 good questions, and I want to try to answer those very 5 briefly. 6 The owner/operator drivers here are not motor 7 carriers. They do not have operating authority. There's 8 no difference between them and an employee driver with 9 respect to the regulatory system. 10 The trucking companies that employ them make the 11 decision about what they are called -- owner/operator or 12 employee. They are not employees because it's a tax 13 avoidance scheme. It's now under investigation by the 14 Attorney General. It's the underground economy. You're 15 dealing with cash pay of largely impoverished drivers 16 earning about $8 an hour in realtime. Okay? 17 So you can't get struck on the notion that this 18 owner/operator system is itself sacrosanct, because it's 19 not, and it's coming apart at the seams because it's too 20 exploitive. 21 That being said, under the law now, the motor 22 carriers that dispatch these drivers, whatever you call 23 them, anybody they dispatch, whether they call them 24 employee or owner/operator, for the purpose of taxes and 25 not paying payroll taxes and not providing health PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 insurance and not paying workers' comp and trying to stick 2 the cost on a bunch of poor people -- whatever you call 3 it, they are legally responsible for the safety of 4 operations of that vehicle. 5 And you need to make sure, as your proposal does, 6 frankly -- it just needs a little tweaking here and there 7 to make it clear. They should be just as responsible for 8 the air quality standards of their fleet that they 9 dispatch as they are for the baldness of the tires, the 10 length of the day that the drivers drive so that they 11 don't violate the hours of service limits, and so forth. 12 And that's what's critical, and those are the comments 13 that we've submitted. 14 What you will get from the industry is lots of 15 suggestions about how to make this so it actually won't 16 work. Because when you operate in an underground economy 17 system, you can have all the laws you want in the world 18 and a lot of them exists now. And they are observed in 19 the breech. And you have to understand that. So it has 20 to work. 21 For example, in talking to Mr. Miguel, the 22 steam -- the terminal operators told him, you can't put a 23 sticker on the truck and just not let the truck enter if 24 it isn't a qualified truck, because there's no place to 25 turn the truck around. Baloney. Pure unadulterated PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 baloney. The trucks can turn around in one day -- and it 2 will probably be one rough day. They will be able to -- 3 you will enforce this whole rule. 4 Instead, they want some arcane thing that's 5 unenforceable. So the important thing is, make it 6 enforceable and make it real. 7 Thank you very much. 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Very helpful. 9 Darrell Clark, Isella Ramirez, and Alex Pugh. 10 MR. CLARK: Thank you. I'm Darrell Clark, Sierra 11 Club, Los Angeles chapter, executive committee member and 12 transportation co-chair. 13 Sierra Club, of course, has been a long-time 14 participant with our Harbor Vision Task Force in trying to 15 clean up the ports. 16 What really strikes me -- you look at an emissions 17 map of greater Los Angeles. There's a huge red blob over 18 the ports, far outweighs anything else in the city. A 19 little bit of one at LAX. It's this huge blob over the 20 ports. 21 We want to complement yesterday with getting ships 22 to plug in, today addressing the dirty trucks. You take 23 on the big stuff. Greenhouse gas emissions yesterday. I 24 mean, this is quite a finish for the year. 25 I want to compliment staff. This is a very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 difficult problem. The documentation they have done, the 2 process they've developed, and as you are continuing to 3 hear, to turn this into an actual rule that can work at 4 long last. 5 We support including ports beyond -- you know, 6 inland -- you know, quote, unquote, ports beyond the 7 80-mile radius. I mean, Fresno air quality problems, nah. 8 You know? Inland Empire -- the other thing, of course, we 9 need to get more containers onto rail. We put a huge 10 investment into the Alameda corridor. And I know that's 11 beyond this rulemaking. But anything we can do to get the 12 containers immediately onto rail, ideally electrify that 13 rail rather than having all of these short truck trips 14 clogging the freeways and dirtying our air. 15 But thank you very much. 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 17 Isella Ramirez, Alex Pugh, and Joseph Kubsh. 18 MS. RAMIREZ: Hi. My name is Isella Ramirez, and 19 I'm a community organizer with East Yard Communities for 20 Environmental Justice. But I am also a lifelong resident 21 of the city of Commerce, a city that is impacted and 22 surrounded by the goods movement. Just to give you an 23 example, and Angelo mentioned this. Within our city 24 limits, we have four major rail yards, three belonging to 25 BNSF and one belonging to Union Pacific. There are also PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 two major freeways -- the 5 and the 710, which, as you 2 know, are both clogged by truck traffic. 3 So during your presentation, the staff showed a 4 table that demonstrated how people living, I think it was, 5 100 meters away from the 710 freeway have 600 chances in a 6 million of attaining cancer. 7 You should know that a lot of my family members 8 live a lot closer than 100 meters and that goes, you know, 9 to be the same with other community residents in the city 10 of commerce, and, specifically, in our neighborhood of 11 Bandini area. 12 The Bandini Park, one of our, you know, green 13 spaces, one of our limited green spaces in the city of 14 commerce is direct -- is located directly under the 710 15 freeway, and neighbors of the Union Pacific rail yard. 16 So you can see that there really is no shock to us 17 to learn from your inquiries in 2007 that the community 18 members living in the Commerce and East L.A. areas have a 19 140 percent increased chance of attaining cancer than 20 anyone else living in the L.A. area. 21 Staff also showed you another table where those 22 100 chances -- 600 chances in a million were reduced to 23 90. So again, you can see that this regulation -- by 24 adopting this regulation, you are going to make, you know, 25 an impact in our community. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 So today, I urge you, the Board, to step up and to 2 use your post to make healthy differences in communities 3 that are heavily impacted by the goods movement and, more 4 specifically, communities that are impacted by the dirty 5 diesel trucks that are, you know, transporting the clothes 6 you are wearing, the food you are going to eat, and the 7 toys you are going to be buying this Christmas season. 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Alex Pugh. 10 MR. PUGH: Good morning. Thank you for allowing 11 me the opportunity to speak. 12 My name is Alex Pugh. I'm with Los Angeles 13 Chamber of Commerce. We are the oldest and largest 14 business advocacy organization in the Los Angeles region. 15 And before I start, I just want to say that we've 16 had the opportunity to work with Mike Miguel. We've had 17 the opportunity to work with CARB staff, and we've been 18 working with the Port of Los Angeles. 19 And in general, we're very supportive of this 20 measure. We think this is the right way to go to clean up 21 trucks, which is obviously a big impact to the goods 22 movement sector. We would say that we're a little 23 concerned about unintended consequences of this. 24 There's -- as many speakers have said, and many 25 will say after me, there's a chance that there won't be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 enough drivers to move the loads, and we just want to 2 encourage the ARB staff to continue working with industry 3 to study and identify any issues that may come up after 4 the implementation of this plan and, you know, have safety 5 valves, essentially, so that if there aren't enough 6 drivers, we can go back and look at this regulation. 7 Thank you very much. 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 9 Mr. Kubsh and then Brad Edgar and Bill Haller. 10 MR. KUBSH: Good morning, Madam Chair and members 11 of the Board. And Madam Chair, you get high marks for 12 pronunciation of my name. It is Joe Kubsh. I'm the 13 executive director of the Manufacturers Emission Controls 14 Association. 15 And I am pleased to add our industry's strong 16 support for this port truck measure that's before you 17 today. 18 MECA members, as you all know, are responsible for 19 verifying many of the level three PM retrofit technologies 20 that will be used for Phase 1 compliance of as a part of 21 this proposal. 22 And I want to assure the Board that our industry 23 will meet the demand for these retrofits as well as the 24 expected demand for retrofits created by other regulations 25 that have been adopted by the Board and will be considered PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 in the future. 2 Our members have also worked very hard with engine 3 manufacturers to engineer and supply diesel particulate 4 filters for new 2007 compliant trucks at Phase 1 and Phase 5 2 compliance options in this proposal. 6 MECA members are now working to verify additional 7 PM plus NOx retrofit solutions such as systems that 8 combine diesel particulate filters and selective catalytic 9 reduction for application on existing trucks that will 10 provide another compliance option for achieving 2007 or 11 even 2010 emission performance on older trucks. 12 And we appreciate the fact that the staff has 13 included a performance-based standard as a part of this 14 proposal that will allow end users to potentially choose 15 the use of PM plus NOx verified retrofit technologies once 16 they become available. 17 I would like to say that MECA believes that 18 appropriate verified PM retrofit should also be required 19 for the 2004 to 2006 model year drayage trucks. Two level 20 3 active filter technologies are already verified for this 21 model year situation of these kinds of trucks, and at 22 least one additional manufacturer is working to verify 23 another level 3 PM option for these newer trucks. MECA 24 believes that there's no reason to leave this PM loophole 25 in the final regulation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 Including these level 3 retrofits on 2004 through 2 2006 model year trucks will also encourage other 3 manufacturers to verify retrofit products for these 4 applications. 5 The Board could also provide additional Phase 1 6 compliance by flexibility to truck owners by pushing back 7 the scrap line to everyone older trucks, such as 1991 in 8 place of 1994, for example, again, provided that these 9 trucks were equipped with verified level 3 PM 10 technologies. And again, there are some options already 11 verified and there could be additional options made 12 available by manufacturers in the future. 13 And finally, MECA, once again, asks for your help 14 in making sure that ARB's retrofit verification function 15 has adequate staff and resources to continue its hard work 16 and making sure that more retrofit options are made 17 available to end users for not only this regulation but 18 the off-road regulation and the on-road truck regulation 19 you will consider next year. 20 The staff has done its usual fine job, and I urge 21 you to adopt this regulation. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 24 Brad Edgar followed by Bill Haller. 25 MR. EDGAR: Chairman Nichols and members of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 board, thank you for the opportunity to speak and present 2 information this morning on the proposed regulation. I 3 promise to keep my time brief. And I also want to let you 4 know that I've included a hard copy of the presentation; 5 it's just four slides, and it's a two-sided colored copy 6 for you. 7 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 8 presented as follows.) 9 MR. EDGAR: My name is Brad Edgar and I represent 10 Cleaire Advanced Emission Controls. Our company is 11 headquartered in the Bay Area, with manufacturing 12 operations in San Diego. 13 Also today, there are two distributors of Clear 14 products that are also California-based companies. So one 15 thing to keep in mind is what we do is not only about 16 cleaning up the air but creating jobs, and we consider 17 ourselves part of the green collar movement. 18 Cleaire has a proven track record of developing 19 level 3 diesel emission control systems, or VDECS, as they 20 are also referred. Today we have over 5,000 VDECS in the 21 service with colorful names like Longview, Horizon, and 22 Flash and Match. These devices operate in the state on 23 transit buses, refuse trucks, school buses, line haul 24 trucks, and utility trucks. 25 On a regular basis, we engage ARB staff with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 regard to technology development, rulemaking, and 2 incentive program activity. For this rule, we've 3 established and maintained close communication with truck 4 owners and operators who will certainly be impacted by the 5 rule. 6 As an experienced provider of emission control 7 technology, we offer two specific improvements to Phase 1 8 of this rule. 9 --o0o-- 10 MR. EDGAR: This slide here shows the same 1991 11 truck as shown in the previous slide but now retrofitted 12 with a level 3 particulate filter system. This system is 13 designed to work on all heavy-duty diesel engines produced 14 between 1988 and 2006. 15 This slide shows data from tests that were 16 performed in an area recognized chassis dynamometer. The 17 plot shows the particular emissions from a variety of 18 model year trucks equipped with VDECS compared to an 19 unretrofitted 2004 truck and compared to the MFAC emission 20 standard for the 2007 truck. We think this is a very 21 telling slide, because what this is, is that particulate 22 filters do not discriminate on age. A particulate filter 23 applied to any shape, any age truck will make it as clean 24 or cleaner than a 2007 truck. So you have a very useful 25 tool at your disposal for this rule. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 The first conclusion that we show, though, from 2 this data is that if left uncontrolled, the newer 2004 and 3 2006 trucks will emit approximately ten times the 4 particulate of either a retrofitted truck, including the 5 older 1991 truck I just showed, or even a brand-new 2007 6 truck. 7 We think this loophole should be closed because 8 the surest way to keep these trucks on the road and 9 polluting is to not require their cleanup. There will be 10 more of these to follow if this loophole is left open. 11 The second conclusion is that particulate 12 emissions from a truck retrofitted with level 3 VDECS are 13 very, very low. In fact, the data showed that regardless 14 of age, the particulate levels are below the 2007 impact 15 standard. 16 So to that end, we offer two recommended 17 improvements to the rule: First, require retrofits on the 18 newer 2004 to 2006 trucks; and secondly, allow retrofits 19 on the older 1988 to 1993 trucks as an option -- as a 20 lower cost option to replacement. 21 Retrofit technologies are available today, and 22 more will come if you encourage them with a standard 23 setting and technology forcing rule. 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I appreciate your testimony. 25 And I think that there are going to be questions from the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 staff about this issue. 2 But if I may ask -- it worked better yesterday 3 when we just went through the testimony and then asked our 4 questions at the end. 5 Thank you. 6 MR. EDGAR: I will stick around, thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Bill Haller and then Cecilia 8 Ibarra and Mary Lou Hendricks. 9 MR. HALLER: Madam Chair, Honorable Board Members, 10 my name is Bill Haller, and I am the co-chair of Sierra 11 Club California, Air Quality Committee. 12 I'm here representing 200,000 Sierra Club 13 California members throughout the state in support of the 14 drayage port truck regulations. On behalf of the state 15 club, many thanks to the ARB Board and staff for the 16 incredible amount of work done on this rule. 17 Just a couple of things from the earlier 18 testimony. There was talk of deplorable conditions at the 19 ports. Excellent. But my only question is, would those 20 conditions improve if these regulation -- or this 21 regulation was not passed? 22 Second question is, no doubt, the port economic 23 model has to change. But it's our firm belief that we can 24 leave that to the ports, the shippers, the truckers to 25 figure that out, because they created it; they can fix it. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 Plus, in L.A. they are planning on 300 percent growth 2 anyway, so nobody's going to be going out of business any 3 time soon. 4 Every economic area of California is affected by 5 air pollution, from a family of one to a corporate family 6 of thousands. And every economic area of California is 7 affected by regulations to clean our air, not just trucks. 8 Every Californian, whether they know it or not, pays the 9 price for dirty air, and, in turn, every Californian 10 citizen pays the price for cleaning the area. 11 Madam Chair, we know that heroes save lives. We 12 can never predict where heroes will come from, but we do 13 know that there are heroes on this board, on the ARB 14 staff. There are everyday heroes in the environmental 15 movement, and it is my firm belief that there will be 16 heroes in the drayage truck business, because they will 17 see the need to step up, follow these regulations, do the 18 right things, and do the right thing, and save more lives. 19 Because that's what heroes do. But you already 20 knew that. 21 Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks. 23 Cecilia Ibarra, Mary Lou Hendricks, and Richard 24 Bartolic. 25 I think we can get those three and then we'll give PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 our court reporter and ourselves a ten-minute break. 2 MS. IBARRA: Good morning, all. I would like to 3 congratulate Ms. Nichols for pointing out the fact that 4 this is an environmental issue and not a labor issue. And 5 that's what we're here to do, to try to clean up the 6 environment. And we'll let the labor issue be handled 7 where it needs to be handled. 8 Second of all, there's something very important 9 that -- I went to the meeting that Mr. Mike Miguel was at, 10 and I offered my services to help in the outreach to the 11 drivers in the Hispanic community that need assistance and 12 finding out what the problem is really about. So I once 13 again stand in front of you and offer my services in that 14 retrospect, and want to congratulate you and the program 15 that you are implementing. 16 I do see a few bugs that need to be worked out. 17 We need help with financing, of course, funding, but it's 18 the ultimate criteria. I am from the industry and the 19 industry is with you. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 22 Ms. Hendricks? 23 MS. HENDRICKS: Good morning. I am an owner of a 24 warehousing distribution company and trucking company. 25 I've had the same employees, drivers, customers for 20 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 years. 2 The impact of this is enormous. We are not in 3 opposition to the Clean Air Act at all; we are in favor of 4 it. What I am asking here today is for you to consider 5 the impact of a couple of issues. And perhaps we need to 6 analyze these issues. 7 90 percent of my business is from people outside 8 of California -- East Coast. I stand on some boards on 9 the East Coast and many of these people have already 10 diverted the freight to other ports and will continue to 11 do so, which has affected mine and many other people's 12 business already. The economic impact is incredible. 13 As far as the drivers, the problem that I see is, 14 we can't pass on any of these costs, and, really, the 15 people who control, you know, the rates, as you were 16 discussing, are the importers. It's the competition. 17 It's the importers, what they will bear. 18 As far as the drivers being not paid correctly, 19 I've had the same drivers twenty years. They are paid 20 very, very well, and every driver has a right to refuse a 21 load and there's no problem. 22 All I want to ask for is for you to analyze the 23 impact of what happens if there's not enough drayage 24 carriers once this goes through? Because many of us who 25 have small businesses will not be around. And it isn't PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 that we aren't responsible people, and we want to do what 2 is right. But the funding is a huge issue, a huge issue. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 5 Mr. Bartolic? 6 MR. BARTOLIC: Hello, Chairperson Nichols, Board, 7 and staff. My name is Richard Bartolic. I operate a 8 drayage company in Southern California primarily. 9 Our -- we have a mix of both employees and 10 independent contractors within our company. About 11 70 percent of our business operates within the ports and 12 the rail yards. 13 I have a couple concerns, and I -- certainly, you 14 know, there is a little silver lining in this. We're all 15 looking to move into more efficient equipment and 16 certainly greener equipment. But with the fuel prices at 17 3.50 a gallon now, we are seeing both our competition and 18 our independent contractors, alike, upgrading their 19 equipment. So some of that is happening due to the fuel 20 alone. But we know that that's not enough. 21 And my concern is in the Phase 1 of the plan that 22 we are able to attain the useful life, whether it's I buy 23 new trucks or whether our -- we get the proper funding for 24 our independent contractors. 25 It appears that with the funding that's being PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 offered, it's not a good deal for our independent 2 contractors or businesses, alike, that are running 3 equipment, that older equipment, to upgrade to a '94 to a 4 2003 piece of equipment. 5 Therefore, the concern is, if the good business 6 decision is to go to a 2004 or '05, at least initially, 7 given that 2007s may not be available due to the current 8 economy, or that, you know, they just may not be able to 9 afford that equipment, we create in that next tier an 10 artificial price hike. And so I think that's where we 11 need to look at this plan and say, you know, do we have a 12 safety net if this plan is not successful. 13 One solution would be to say, well, Mr. Bartolic, 14 you just buy all new trucks and put company employees in 15 them or buy 2004s. Well, a company my size, I don't think 16 that's feasible and I don't think it's probably a good 17 business deal for some of the larger carriers. 18 My costs are really the same whether I have an 19 independent contractor or whether I have an employee 20 driver. It doesn't make too much of a difference to me. 21 However, 80 percent of my independent contractors 22 have told me, they will not become an employee driver. So 23 what do they do? If they buy a newer truck, they are 24 going to run outside of the ports, because they are not 25 going to run enough miles in the ports to be able to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 sustain the useful life of those newer trucks, or they may 2 just get out of the business. We've already seen that 3 attrition with the fuel prices, and now we're seeing that 4 attrition with the new TWIC plan coming up. 5 My second concern is a lot of our business is 6 exports. And you say, well, gee what will this rule do to 7 the import-export? 8 Just quickly, in leaving the price of a VCR import 9 is going to be minimal, but the core business in 10 California of our exports is low cost products, and they 11 will be affected heavily by the pricing if we don't look 12 at successful safety nets to this program. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. 15 We will take a break and come back at 16 11:00 o'clock. Thank you, everybody. 17 (Thereupon a break was taken in 18 proceedings.) 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We're just moving right 20 along here. 21 And Board members are, I know, all taking notes 22 and collecting things they are going to want to ask 23 questions of, about the staff about later. I appreciate 24 everybody's patience as we listen to all the testimony and 25 the different viewpoints that are being presented here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 Michael Lightman is going to be our next speaker 2 followed by Ron Guss and Lee Hobbs. 3 MR. LIGHTMAN: Good morning. My name is Michael 4 Lightman, long-time listener, first-time speaker here at 5 the Board. 6 I represent Harbor Truckers for a Sustainability 7 Future; and Great Freight, a drayage company in the harbor 8 that I own. We have approximately 30 trucks that we 9 exclusively do drayage work for. 10 My daughters, my granddaughter, live -- obviously 11 my granddaughter doesn't work in the harbor area, but 12 lives there. Clean air is very important to us. 13 We're all for clean air, contrary to earlier 14 testimony. And contrary to most of the testimony, as 15 truckers, we really want this to work. We're not trying 16 to find a dodge. We're just trying to find a plan that's 17 complete. 18 On the speaker card today I put down neutral only 19 because it's not a complete plan. It's a rule. But it's 20 a rule without the ability to implement as yet. And as 21 soon as we have that, then I'd be fully willing to endorse 22 such a plan. 23 Funding availability's first. Then activate the 24 rules. This kind of reminds me of the way my wife goes 25 shopping with her strategy. Kind of brings it home and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 then here's the bill. It's very usual, but it's not very 2 fulfilling, frankly. 3 We have an expectation from a study that 4 Dr. Husing did of losing 22 percent of the drayage fleet 5 because of TWIC implementation. And the range is 20 to 6 40 percent. 7 You have another 30 percent in your first phase, 8 if I interpret it correctly, that may be lost. The 9 delivery from the harbors are going to be greatly 10 restricted. Container vessels will probably back up to 11 Newport Beach, maybe as far away as TJ. 12 We cannot expect the drayage pool to repopulate 13 the fleet without grants first. Relying on ports funds is 14 probably not a good strategy because the ports are looking 15 to funds for the 1B funds, the same funds you are looking 16 to use. The ports have no funding plan as yet. We are 17 looking forward to hearing what they have to present. 18 They also want to eliminate the independent 19 owner/operators, which should narrow down the fleet size 20 as well. 21 The port's plan may well be found to be illegal 22 and therefore no assistance to the other 50 percent of the 23 funding. 24 Funding right now is the Bermuda Triangle. We're 25 paying a price for this here in -- well, I'm from Long PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 Beach area, but in Southern California, northern 2 California. This is not a Southern California or 3 California problem. This is a federal problem. 4 These goods pass through our ports. Some portion, 5 obviously, stays here. The greater portion gets moved 6 across the United States. I'm curious why federal money 7 is not being solicited to solve this problem. They are 8 the beneficiaries, the United States of America. It 9 should be properly placed on everybody's back, not just 10 the local area. 11 And I thank you very much. 12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 13 Ron Guss followed by Lee Hobbs and Matt Schrap. 14 MR. GUSS: Thank you, Board Members. My name is 15 Ron Guss, and I am a president owner of Intermodal West 16 Incorporated, a drayage company, that has 75 17 owner/operators contracted to us that supply the ports and 18 the rail yards. 19 The California Trucking Association and myself 20 totally support the environmental aims of CARB to 21 effectively clean our air in our state. 22 But I am very scared of the new rules you are 23 about to adopt for a few reasons. One in seven jobs in 24 the state of California is related to goods movement. 25 Mark Pisano, the chairman of SCAG, has set its next PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 goldrush in California. 2 Dr. John Husing has touted that jobs created in 3 the logistics of the transportation industry are an 4 entryway into the middle class. Our drayage system from 5 the ports and railroads is ground zero for the California 6 economy. It is my sincere hope, with trucking standing by 7 your side and ready, that we work together for these new 8 rules to come to pass. 9 There's a distinct possibility that these new 10 timelines and drayage truck elimination that's been 11 mentioned could bring our economy to a griding hault. 12 There's said to be 16,800 drayage trucks coming on 13 the harbor with another 4,000 on the railroad, and you had 14 10,000 in the Bay Area, that's 30,000 trucks right there. 15 To replace those trucks with 2007 models, we need 16 $3 billion. 17 So right there is our first problem -- funding. 18 As owners, we don't have it. We're not making those 19 margins, and as we know the owner/operators don't have it. 20 Retrofit, you say. You're demanding us to put a 21 $20,000 retrofit device on a truck that's probably worth 22 about $20,000, and then have to scrap it within a few 23 years before we enjoy the useful life of that retrofit 24 device. That needs to be addressed. That's idiotic and 25 wasteful to spend. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 Our second problem is truck inventory. The dealer 2 CTS talked to some of our members -- are adamant there 3 will be -- there will not be enough trucks to fulfill 4 timeline objectives, whether it's 2007 models, spec-ed 5 properly for drayage, or later models for retrofitting. 6 The models that have an engine of 450 horsepower 7 or higher cannot be retrofitted with today's devices. And 8 there's a lot of those in the harbor. 9 So now you have the supply and demand conundrum 10 where you have the used trucks that will leave a huge 11 supply with no value, or new models will be in short 12 supply with a very high price. And will there be enough 13 devices for all the makes and models? 14 After reading CARB's staff overview, there is a 15 lot of debatable assumptions put forth that just won't fly 16 in real drayage life. I'm asking this Board to consider 17 some offramps or safety nets if our fears come to pass. 18 If we don't get bond funding, we can't complete 19 replacement or retrofitting. 20 If there aren't enough trucks or devices, we will 21 need some suspension of these timelines to affect the 22 changes. 23 The owner/operators will leave the industry, thus 24 crippling our economy. These trucks sustain our way of 25 life and economy. We will need a massive amount of help PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 to accomplish your goals. 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. 3 Lee Hobbs followed by Matt Schrap and Walter 4 Flores. 5 MS. HOBBS: Good morning. Lee Hobbs. Hobbs 6 Trucking, Anaheim. We're a fourth generation company that 7 has hauled goods in and out of the ports since my 8 grandfather first started in the '30s. 9 I've heard many comments here today as everybody 10 else has, about labor and a few other things. We are a 11 Teamster carrier, have been since 1950. I know that's not 12 the case for many of the carriers, but we already are. 13 Deregulation happened in the '80s and it changed the 14 industry dramatically. We quit hauling in the harbor 15 because the rate went to hell. There's no reason to haul 16 containers anymore. We continue to work in the harbor, 17 but it's bulk newsprint, paper, and other paper-rolled 18 stock. 19 I thought I was doing a good thing in 2004 when we 20 updated our fleet to the tune of about $2 million to find 21 out that those trucks, because they are C15 Caterpillars, 22 cannot be retrofitted properly with any technology that 23 will qualify us to go in the harbor after 2012. 24 So I ask, number one, you consider dates. We 25 bought state-of-the-art equipment thinking it would be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 good into the future, and it's not. So I ask you to 2 consider that. We're all for clean air. If I could 3 afford 2007s, I would wait till 2010 and buy those. It's 4 a five-year contract to pay for that equipment. 5 So what are you going to do with all these used 6 trucks? There's going to be a lot of them, as Mr. Guss 7 said. 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 9 Mr. Schrap and then Walter Flores and Joseph 10 Rajkovacz. 11 MR. SCHRAP: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. 12 My name is Matthew Scrap. I'm the manager of 13 Environmental Affairs with the California Trucking 14 Association. 15 First of all, I would like to thank you for the 16 opportunity to comment and say that the California 17 Trucking Association supports the efforts to reduce the 18 health impacts associated with goods movement. 19 CTA has been directly engaged with ARB staff 20 throughout the formulation of this recommendation, 21 submitting several comments including emission criteria 22 recommendations developed and supported by CTA. 23 We would like to commend staff for all their hard 24 work in taking this monumental effort to task in such a 25 short time frame -- the challenges that the Board faces in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 reducing emissions from heavy duty trucks. In light of 2 this, the CTA stands ready to assist in any capacity 3 necessary. 4 Although we have been supportive of this rule, the 5 CTA feels that the eyesore put forth by staff is lacking 6 in some key analysis. Our extensive comments on the 7 eyesore outline in detail our conditions. Because of 8 this, we have offered some recommendations that the Board 9 should direct staff to address and report back within a 10 time frame that the Board deems sufficient in order to 11 reassess the impacts of the reg. 12 Several major issues need to be addressed, 13 starting with the uncertainties surrounding the bond 14 funding. We agree with Dr. Sperling and suggest that once 15 the mechanism has been worked out, the rule should be 16 revisited and reevaluated in light of available bond 17 funding. There are several issues in play including the 18 actual replacement and retrofit of the oldest and dirtiest 19 trucks. There is no provision to replace the 28 percent 20 of the fleet that will be deemed noncompliant by the end 21 of 2009. 22 Additionally, the cost effective and affordability 23 of the regulation did not take into account demand factors 24 when dealing with the impact of the regulation on 2007 or 25 newer truck purchases, nor did it address the complete PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 devaluation of noncompliant trucks and how that will 2 affect the ability of equipment owners to get into cleaner 3 equipment. 4 Additionally, staff needs to account for the 5 inability of LMCs and owner/operators to simply pass on 6 costs through rate increases; and subsequently, if rates 7 were increased, what effect this regulation would have on 8 exports in California, specifically manufacturing and 9 agricultural as they are competing in the global 10 marketplace. 11 Finally, it's very important to recognize the 12 possibility of this regulation could decimate the 13 available capacity of trucks and drivers, leading to a 14 backup of cargo and compounding an already vulnerable 15 economy in California. This issue was never addressed by 16 staff. 17 Based on these important issues, CTA feels that 18 CARB staff should investigate these recommendations and 19 report back to the Board and should be in a time frame 20 determined appropriate. And if found that the regulation 21 exceeds cost effectiveness benchmarks or if other 22 anticipated issues arise, the Board should direct staff to 23 reconsider the timeline if necessary. 24 CTA thanks you for the opportunity to present here 25 today and looks forward to a continued dialogue with staff PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 and the Board in the future, especially during the 2 development of the private fleet rule. 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 4 Walter Flores. 5 MR. FLORES: Good morning, everyone. 6 My name is Walter Flores. I represent ITDA, 7 International Truck Drivers Association. 8 I would like to make a comment about the issue of 9 representation, which is very clear to me, here, that a 10 thousand truckers don't know anything about -- most of 11 them don't know anything about the plan, and we're the 12 only truckers organization that has been trying to do 13 that. 14 ITDA, in an individual compromise effort with the 15 owner/operators and all the social sectors that survive 16 and generate the labor and economic movements sent through 17 the productive activity of the owner/operators of the 18 south land of California, chose to integrate the popular 19 sector of the owner/operator that until now has been 20 excluded. 21 From any discussion of the execution of the clean 22 and safe plan, just want to clarify that, you know, we do 23 support the plan. We all are for clean air and we would 24 like to have that for the record. 25 For that reason, we declare the following. We PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 consider that the prematurely and arbitrarily imposing on 2 the technology of the plan supported by the CIAP is a 3 mistake; that it has shown gaps and incoherence in its 4 technological area; and furthermore, considering the 5 latter to be the start point for a real strategy that 6 includes, not exclude, all of the sectors involved, 7 because this is not a problem concerning only trucks but 8 rather concerns the whole industry. 9 More for than six months, we have been insistent 10 in the necessity of our inclusion and participation in the 11 CAAP work panel, something that so far has been denied to 12 us by the CAAP panel and port commissions or any other 13 organization in the CAAP panel. 14 And the reason is very obvious. There are no -- 15 there are not willing to recognize our worthiness and 16 contribution to the development of the transportation 17 industry and services in and around the ports. Nobody 18 knows better than the owner/operator that the plan should 19 be implemented in a transitory imposed manner such as to 20 permit accommodations for the big labor and economic 21 changes that the plan requires. 22 One more observation is about the retrofitting 23 that is required by the plan -- new regulations. Up until 24 this day, there is only one concrete thing about it, and 25 that is that its cost would be between 25 and 35 thousand PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 dollars. Therefore, create a sense of demoralization 2 amongst the owner/operator sector. 3 ITDA, by looking from a different perspective to 4 these solutions, has established a series of consulting 5 steps on an international level to know more about other 6 countries' experiences, coming to the conclusion that the 7 technology is very available. 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Excuse me. Your time is up. 9 MR. FLORES: Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 11 Joseph Rajkovacz, I'm guessing. Carlos Salazar, 12 David Bushey. 13 MR. RAJKOVACZ: Good morning. My name is Joe 14 Rajkovacz, regulatory affairs specialist and Board member 15 of the owner/operator Independent Drivers Association of 16 Kansas City. 17 Although IDA is a national trade association that 18 represents small business truckers, owner/operators, and 19 drivers concurrently, we have over 157,000 members 20 nationally that own and operate over a quarter million 21 trucks in this country. They are typically defined as the 22 long haul interstate operators. 23 The trucking industry is highly fragmented. You 24 have all seen the roadway yellow JB Hunt trucks going down 25 the road. A lot of people have the assumption that those PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 are the dominant players in the industry. Within the 2 trucking industry, nationally, nearly 96 percent of all 3 trucks are owned and operated by entities that control 20 4 or less trucks; at the 87 percentile it is, you know, at a 5 six or less. That's not our number. That citation comes 6 from ATRI, the American Transportation Research Institute. 7 With that said, truly, trucking is a mom-and-pop 8 operation, and our membership does strive to operate in 9 environments, legally, and aware of the different 10 regulations between different jurisdictions. 11 Our members are, what you would term, infrequent 12 visitors to California's ports and rail yards. What they 13 are hauling is stuff like meat products from the Midwest 14 or exports to the far east -- machineries. It is a large 15 component of that. Over dimensional, overweight loads 16 going into the ports or out of the ports, import or 17 export. 18 And we have been concerned about this regulation 19 from the standpoint that it is somewhat overly broad in 20 that if the intention is to chapter true drayage drivers, 21 the problem is, is the definition -- or drayage trucks, 22 the definition effectively captures the entire national 23 truck population that may or may not ever go into a port 24 or rail yard in California. 25 And, you know, there's a maximum in the federal PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 regulatory process that an industry needs to know if it's 2 under the microscope for regulation for an agency to 3 benefit from insight from that industry that's going to be 4 regulated. And for us, from our standpoint, we were 5 focused on the private fleet rule, the statewide rule, 6 because it never entered our mind that our folks would be 7 classified as drayage trucks, which is, effectively, what 8 has happened with this proposed regulation. 9 Our folks are not against cleaning the air. They 10 want to be compliant, do the right thing. But we also 11 want it done sensibly with a minimum burden on interstate 12 commerce as possible. 13 And as of this morning, we're aware that -- we 14 have met with CARB, and we are aware that there are some 15 language changes that, you know, offer up the possibility 16 that we may be able to work with the agency. Because 17 specifically, we have focused our objections on the 18 drayage truck registry as being a violation of federal law 19 that prohibits unique credentialing of trucks engaged in 20 interstate commerce. So with that said, we do look 21 forward to working with the agency. 22 Thank you. 23 MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 24 Mr. Salazar followed by Mr. Bushey and Charlie 25 Cox. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 MR. SALAZAR: Yes, hi, Honorable Board Members. 2 The opportunity I have here, I come up to speak 3 about. We are consider very concerned about all the 4 issues around the Latino community, and, really, that's 5 the concern we have right here that many -- the amount of 6 people working in the ports is Latinos, and we are facing 7 right now a huge problem with the car and also we wants to 8 ask to the Board and also all the institutions involved in 9 these plans to concern more and Board will create more 10 organizations to really engage the problem with the 11 community. The community, it really doesn't know exactly 12 what is going on. The community wants to do it something 13 different. I filled out that card to oppose it to the 14 plan, but it's no oppose it to the plan to clean air. 15 We facing -- we are involved also on the L.A. 16 River development plan. Why? Because we have a huge 17 community around the river. We wants to face the change 18 so that ecology we facing also to clean the air. But we 19 wants to consider it. Our community is very involved in 20 that. 21 Do you see, everything is happened and everything 22 is showing that against to truckers, that drivers, 23 operators. Everybody's doing the plan. Everybody's to 24 say, okay, who is the person on this staff is the trucker 25 operator. Who is to make the emission is the trucker PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 owner/operators. Who is the person we need to spend the 2 money is the owner/operators. That is the problem we 3 have, and really we need to consider that and maybe more 4 human, because, you know, they deserve for the 24 -- 25 5 years ago when the plan is -- the program to CARB -- you 6 know, the organization to them, they condemn, you know, to 7 organize all these people. 8 Right now, we need the instance to explore new 9 instance, new opportunities to the drivers. We need to 10 create -- be more creative about what we need and what we 11 can do. We are thinking on the international levels so we 12 know that experience. We need to face that situation. 13 Kyoto condemn, you know, the society or the United States 14 with a 27 percent of the warming, global warming, and the 15 pollution around the world. And we need to face this 16 stuff. And now, we see it, the next 20 years is going to 17 increase two times more the amounts of containers to these 18 ports. 19 How we can face that? How we can bring the level 20 down in the next five years if we increase more in the 21 next five years? That's the problem we have. 22 We need to consider also to engage with the 23 owner/operators and bring them because, you know, they 24 have the option. The Constitution of the United States 25 has that right to decide what they want, and that's the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 things we want to do it, to decide what we want and work 2 together like community and facing that new economy and 3 growing. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 5 Mr. Bushey -- I hope I'm saying it right. Charlie 6 Cox and Diane Bailey. 7 MR. BUSHEY: My name is Dave Bushey. I have a 8 company that is developed and is in the process of 9 verifying a product that allows us to use alternative 10 fuels. I've listened yesterday and today about the rule. 11 I'm really not in here in opposition as much as I am 12 bringing up the fact that in January of this year, the 13 governor has signed a directive for the use of low carbon 14 fuels. There's an executive order urging the Board to use 15 its rulemaking to encourage the use of biofuels including, 16 biodiesel and propane. 17 The Bush Administration has called for the 18 increase in the supply and the use of buy fuels. ARB has 19 the opportunity to encourage the development of advanced 20 technologies to allow the port through, I would assume, 21 the motor carriers, to supply these fuels to the trucks 22 and so the trucks are not as much of the issue as the fuel 23 that goes into them. 24 And I think the paper yesterday suggested they are 25 already switching from bunker fuel to low fuels and so PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 forth. So I encourage the inclusion of biofuels in the 2 alternative fuels in the rulemaking that allow this 3 opportunity to promote those. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks, Mr. Bushey. 5 Charlie Cox, Diane Bailey, Marty Lassen. 6 MR. COX: Thank you. Madam Chairman and 7 distinguished members of the Board, my name is Charlie 8 Cox, and I am an emissions and funding consultant with 9 Ironman. Ironman is the most experienced installer of 10 diesel retrofits in California, and, therefore, in North 11 America, with more than 5,000 retrofits under our belt, at 12 least 1200 of which are class A. They stopped counting at 13 about 1200. So we have a wide variety of experience in 14 diesel retrofits. 15 I want to make four points here today: The first 16 is that there's a two-year phased-in implementation for 17 retrofits over the next 24 months. In our experience with 18 the solid waste collection vehicle and the rule for public 19 and utility fleets, it's been our experience that most 20 fleets would choose to use what we call like a 21 just-in-time implementation of the regulations. If they 22 are allowed to do that there's going to be a -- there will 23 be, as you've heard today, a supply issue. That 24 production and installation demand, the labor demand, is 25 massive, as we're seeing this year, for example, with two PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 regulatory deadlines hitting us in 24 days. 2 So the second point is that drafting a regulation 3 that encourages fleets to implement either early or as a 4 phased implementation would make it much more likely that 5 fleets can comply in time. The demand spike that's being 6 created right now, for example, is forcing some fleets to 7 be installed late. They are ordering just-in-time, and 8 when everybody does that, nobody gets it on time. 9 So some form of incentive to fleet operators to 10 install early, whether in the form of additional grant 11 funds or delayed deadlines, as in other regulations that 12 you've already adopted, something along those lines would 13 greatly benefit the Board's ability to predict 14 implementation in a timely fashion. 15 Third, I wanted to point out that the cost of the 16 diesel retrofits that's been bandied about here today 17 seems to grow with every speaker who quotes it. But 18 most -- many if not most of the trucks that are in port 19 service right now can get through Phase 1 with an $8,000 20 to $10,000 retrofit. You know, there are devices that are 21 available today. There are some that are 16 and 20 and 30 22 thousand dollars, but most of the trucks in service can 23 get through somewhere around $10,000. 24 With the availability of Phase 1 -- I'm sorry, 25 Prop 1B funding to cover the first $5,000 of that, 3 to 5 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 thousand dollars to get through Phase 1 doesn't seem 2 terribly onerous. 3 The fourth point is that the device availability 4 has been called into question. And I think it dovetails 5 with the first point, and that is that MECA's membership 6 can handle thousands of devices a month. They can make 7 far more than that regulation calls for. Yes, there are 8 2007 regulations -- 2007 requirements for new diesels. 9 There are also in-use diesel regulations coming into play, 10 but with a phased implementation, the Board and fleet 11 operators can achieve their goals. 12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Appreciate that. 13 Diane Bailey, Marty Lassen, Elina Green. 14 MS. BAILEY: Good morning, Chairwoman Nichols, 15 members of the Board and staff. My name is Diane Bailey. 16 I'm a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense 17 Council. 18 And I'm here today in very strong support of this 19 rule. We appreciate all of the hard work of staff on this 20 rule. And I would go so far as to say this is really the 21 single most important rule that has been done under this 22 agency to relieve the staggering health toll impacting 23 communities and drivers from freight transport industry. 24 And I hope that you will move toward today to adopt that 25 rule. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 And I thank you very much for adopting the shore 2 power rule yesterday. I would say that's the second most 3 critical piece attacking this problem. 4 I have a short video to show you today. It's just 5 one minute. And I think it captures the issues that we 6 want to convey more than I can drone on here. 7 So I will let that play. 8 (A video was presented.) 9 MS. BAILEY: So that was Bill Abudi right there. 10 He owns a trucking company in West Oakland. And we worked 11 with his firm and some independent truck drivers this past 12 summer to measure what the truck drivers are exposed to 13 inside the cabs of their trucks during their daily shifts. 14 And we just released our study earlier this week. It 15 looks like this. It's available on our Web site. And I 16 would encourage you to leaf through. 17 Our findings were staggering, really. Really 18 disturbing. We found diesel soot levels consistently at 19 least ten times higher than background urban levels in 20 other parts of Oakland inside the cabs of these trucks. 21 Now, we only took a small sample. It was just seven 22 trucks that we were able to measure. And we would 23 encourage an agency such as yours to do a more in-depth 24 review. 25 But, you know, I can tell you, we were surprised PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 at the levels. And one of the trucks that we measured, it 2 was a 1981. It was the oldest that we measured. The 3 levels were up to 25 times higher than background. And 4 that's every day that this driver was working, he was 5 exposed to those levels. And what that translates to in 6 terms of cancer risk is a 2600 risk per million. That's 7 2600 times what public agencies consider acceptable. 8 And that's every day. And those impacts are in 9 addition to the risks that many of these drivers face in 10 their own communities. Many of these drivers who work in 11 the Port of Oakland also live in West Oakland. 12 So I just want to wrap up by saying we strongly 13 urge you to adopt this rule. We support some of the 14 comments made earlier about the -- more inclusion of all 15 intermodal rail yards and with a stricter trigger for that 16 inclusion. 17 Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Marty Lassen, Elina Green, 19 and Athena Applena. 20 MR. LASSEN: Good morning, Chairwoman Nichols and 21 members of the Board. My name is Mary Lassen, and I'm 22 here representing Johnson Matthey. Johnson Matthey is a 23 technology company that provides solutions for emissions 24 controls for global and stationary sources. 25 We were there in 1970 for the Clean Air Act; 1990 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 for the amendments; 2002 for the diesel risk production 2 plant; 2007 rule; 2010 rule; and the off-road rule. So we 3 have a lot of background here. We are generally in 4 support of the rule which suggests that you adopt it 5 today. 6 We would ask you to consider a couple of small 7 changes, one being the 2004 to 2006 engines without a 8 requirement for particulate filters. Yes, they're the 9 only active systems verified now. I will have a passive 10 system verified by the middle of 2008 for those engine 11 families. And you can reduce a significant amount of PM 12 from those engines. 13 Additionally, we'll have a combination NOx-PM 14 system verified by the end of 2008, hopefully, and that, I 15 was happy to say you're accounting for with some of your 16 revisions. 17 One other thing we could ask for is for you to 18 bolster the verification. Hardworking folks. Not enough 19 of them. And the success of the program is contingent 20 upon timely verified products. 21 During the development of the rule, staff has come 22 to me and said, "Are you really going to be able to supply 23 20 or 30 thousand filter systems in two years?" 24 Johnson Matthey has 12 plants around the world, 25 manufacturing plants. We're building another two. We PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 have the capability of putting out 16 million filter and 2 catalyst systems per year. Per year. Okay? Three plants 3 in the United States. We will be able to supply not only 4 a product for this rule but all of your other rules. 5 So once again, thanks for allowing me to comment, 6 and good luck. 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. I like the good 8 luck. I'm not quite sure of the tone of that. 9 Elina Green, Athena Applena and Wafaa Aborashad. 10 MS. GREEN: Good morning, Members of the Board. 11 My name is Elina Green and I'm the project manager for the 12 Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma. We're 13 serving children in Long Beach, Carson San Pedro, and 14 Wilmington. 15 I am pleased with the Board's decision to consider 16 cleaning up port trucking, and I am here to express my 17 strong support of today's regulation. 18 Port trucks are a chronic source of local 19 pollution in impacting our communities where it hurts the 20 worst -- on the surface streets where our children are 21 attending schools and within our neighborhoods. 22 Current estimates show that one in five children 23 suffer from asthma in our communities, and truck pollution 24 is a large source contributing to those rates. 25 I taught a fifth grade class yesterday on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 health impacts of air pollution. And as part of that 2 lesson, I had them draw pictures of their communities. 3 And you could see, in the pictures of their communities, 4 they actually drew pictures of trucks, rail yards, and 5 other pollution sources directly next to where their homes 6 and their schools are. So these are issues that are quite 7 near and dear to those children's hearts as well. 8 There is a silver lining to the stories, however. 9 Studies from USC show that there can be immediate benefits 10 to pollution reduction when you speak in terms of 11 children's lung development. And that lung function can 12 quickly return if you decrease the pollution exposure to 13 the child. 14 In the cases of the families that we serve, 15 however, they are unable to move away to cleaner 16 environments for their children's health and therefore 17 rely on protective regulations such as the one before you 18 to clean their communities. 19 I also want to share with you the greatest 20 appreciation for considering port trucks that service rail 21 yards as these facilities are inundating our communities 22 as well and are huge diesel magnets. 23 The ICTF facility in Long Beach, for example, is 24 within a vibrant Long Beach community where there are 25 eight schools within less than 1 mile of the facility. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 And trucks are regularly queuing on the Terminal Island 2 Freeway, which is directly adjacent within about a hundred 3 meters within two schools and day care facility. 4 Under the direction of University of Southern 5 California, we had a number of our community members, 6 mothers of children with asthma, trained in traffic 7 counting and particulate matter monitoring. And they 8 themselves know their communities best, so have determined 9 a number of areas as hot spots. So they went to this 10 Terminal Island Freeway area in a local park. And on two 11 afternoons, they counted trucks over the course of one 12 hour, and they counted both afternoons, in a one-hour 13 period, 500 trucks passing along that Terminal Island 14 Freeway. And those trucks are queued servicing the ICTF 15 facility. 16 And again, I want to mention that that Terminal 17 Island Freeway is about a hundred meters from two local 18 schools and a day care facility for homeless children. 19 So it's because of examples such as these that 20 it's so important that you pass this regulation to protect 21 the lungs of children. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. 24 Athena Applena and Wafaa Aborashad. 25 MS. APPLENA: Good morning, Board Members. I am PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 in support of the clean air rule. My name is Athena 2 Applena and I live in West Oakland. I've lived there for 3 26 years now. 4 I come from a pretty large family. At least 20 of 5 us have asthma. At least five of us use a pulmonary 6 machine that we have to plug in every day. In addition, 7 my mother has an oxygen tank that she has to use every day 8 as well. 9 A small statistic is that one in every five 10 children in West Oakland has asthma compared to the rest 11 of the children in Oakland. 12 West Oakland is surrounded by two major freeways, 13 the Port of Oakland, and a major street to the Port of 14 Oakland. 99 percent of all of the truckers use this main 15 street. 16 If the carbon rule is finalized with the proposed 17 emission reductions set as a regulatory state standard, my 18 family and I and many of the rest of the residents would 19 really appreciate all of the changes. The standards 20 should be set for all ports in the United States. 21 In addition, it will be a great idea if the Board 22 members can consider working with other state agencies or 23 boards to make the standards international. That way, 24 shipping companies cannot avoid using any one port in 25 particular more or less than the other. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 I believe my life is more valuable than goods 2 coming from ships, trucks, or rails. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 5 Ms. Aborashad and followed by Helen Jackoski and 6 Colleen Callahan. 7 MS. ABORASHAD: Good morning, Board members. My 8 name is Wafaa Aborashad, and I represent Healthy San 9 Leandro Environmental Collaborative. And I am a member of 10 the team Dirty Diesel. 11 Just to give you an idea of where I come from, our 12 community has 880 freeway to the east. We have Oakland 13 Airport to the west. We have the railroads and we share a 14 fence line with our community. So we have airplanes that 15 are flying above us; we've got the idling of trucks on 16 880; we have the airport corridor that takes all the cargo 17 trucks; and we also have a half a mile exit and entrance 18 to Doolittle, which is also a freeway -- a highway. 19 Just a few weeks ago, we counted 1500 trucks 20 within a half a mile that goes right next to our 21 neighborhoods. So this picture is really devastating for 22 us. We strongly support the proposed regulation to reduce 23 emissions from heavy duty diesel power trucks. And I 24 can't tell you how much that is impacting my communities. 25 Just in the past year I have had eight people die from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 respiratory issues in my neighborhood. This includes 2 elderly and children. 3 I can't tell you what the asthma rates are in my 4 neighborhood. We haven't done any studies yet. We 5 haven't done any studies that tells us what's going on 6 south of West Oakland, which is a hot spot. So the next 7 study that we're going to look at is how is the 808 8 corridor impacted by this goods movement. It's not good 9 for the communities and truck drivers. 10 Diesel exhaust is estimated to be responsible for 11 70 percent of the total cancer risk from air pollution. 12 Occupational exposure of truck drivers, railroad workers, 13 heavy-duty equipment operators, and other workers is 14 associated with the lung cancer risk 40 percent higher on 15 average than in the population at large. 16 Diesel pollution is particularly severe in the 880 17 corridor communities surrounding California freight 18 transport hubs such as ports, rails, and distribution 19 centers. Compared with the rest of the state, West 20 Oakland residents are exposed to six times more diesel 21 particulates per person and more than 90 percent -- more 22 than 90 percent of diesel pollution per square mile. 23 Healthy San Leandro is south of that. So think about all 24 this effect on our communities. 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 MS. ABORASHAD: We strongly want you to support 2 this. 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Appreciate your 4 testimony. 5 Helen Jackoski follow by Colleen Callahan and 6 Rupal Patel. 7 MS. JACKOSKI: Good morning. My name is Helen 8 Jackoski. I'm a resident of San Pedro Harbor area of Los 9 Angeles. I am not representing any group or business. I 10 am here as a citizen as a member of the public. I read in 11 the charter of the ports that they are chartered in the 12 public interest, so that's me. 13 I am here to support like everybody else. I think 14 it's interesting, I haven't heard a single person stand up 15 for dirty air this morning. I am here to support this 16 plan, and I am here to say that a lot of what I've heard 17 in -- nobody is objecting to clean air; everybody wants 18 clean air. The trick is, who's going to pay for it? 19 And in the questions about -- and the objections 20 to various problem or various issues in the plan, we have 21 heard that there could be terrible things, catastrophes, 22 that would happen to the economy, the state, will grind to 23 a halt if certain measures are undertaken. And I'm here 24 as a citizen, as a member of the public, to say that I 25 look to bodies like you to lead us forward on the basis of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 what is best, not on the basis of our fears of what might 2 happen down the road. 3 Look at this plan. When you look at it, look at 4 it as a whole and have the courage to move forward without 5 being afraid of consequences that cannot be ascertained 6 with any factual basis. 7 Have courage. Move this plan. 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 10 Rupal Patel and then Nicole Shahenian and Ian 11 MacMillan. 12 MS. CALLAHAN: Good morning. Thank you for the 13 opportunity to speak. My name Colleen Callahan. I am the 14 manager of the Air Quality Policy and Advocacy for the 15 American Lung Association of California and based in the 16 Los Angeles office. 17 And I would like to begin by thanking the staff 18 for your hard work put forth to develop and strengthen 19 this very important role. The American Lung Association 20 of California is in strong support of this critical public 21 health rule. We've been working on this issue in the 22 statewide and local levels. And it's clear by the 23 outpouring today that there is tremendous support for 24 cleaning up port trucks. 25 I would quickly emphasize four important elements PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 of this rule: public health, equal protection, funding and 2 enforcement. 3 First of all, I was pleased to see and would like 4 to thank staff for including -- quantifying the 5 substantial public health benefits of this rule, which my 6 colleague Angelo Logan said it's not just about numbers; 7 it's about the lives of real people. 8 Pollution from port trucks affects the health of 9 millions of Californians including the lives of port truck 10 drivers and their families, as Diane Bailey so clearly 11 described. 12 This rule will go far to help port communities 13 such as very impacted communities like Long Beach and 14 Wilmington. But it's important to note the extent of the 15 distance of port trade corridors which stretch past county 16 lines, along freeways and roads, crisscrossing the entire 17 state. 18 So to reiterate what has been said, all intermodal 19 diesel magnet facilities should be included in this rule, 20 including those in Mira Loma, Barstow, and Fresno. We 21 appreciate the staff's efforts to expand this rule but 22 want to see clearly that when the trigger starts, to know 23 exactly what additional sites will be included. Everyone 24 living and working near a rail yard receiving truck 25 traffic should have a right to equal protection from dirty PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 diesel pollution. 2 I also want to reiterate what my colleagues have 3 said in regards to funding options. Funding options are 4 available to reduce impact on port truck operators. The 5 American Lung Association will continue to support using 6 Prop B funding as well as local port tariffs. While this 7 truck rule will not address the root problem found in the 8 misclassification of port truck drivers, this rule is a 9 critical first step and will complement actions at the 10 ports including what will hopefully be a comprehensive San 11 Pedro Ports clean trucks program. 12 So finally, I want to emphasize that enforcement 13 and accountability is critical to ensuring the public 14 health benefits of this rule. 15 In conclusion, the American Lung Association 16 strongly urges you to take action today to adopt this very 17 important public health rule as a first step to help 18 Californians realize the right to clean, healthy air. 19 Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 21 Ms. Rupal Patel, Ian MacMillan, and Nicole 22 Shahenian, Henry Hogo. 23 MS. PATEL: Good morning. My name is Rupal Patel. 24 I represent Communities for Clean Ports. 25 We support the rule that's before you today and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 strongly thank the Board and staff for their leadership on 2 reducing port pollution these past two days. 3 In 2007, port trucks in the South Coast Air Basin 4 polluted over a staggering 12,000 tons of NOx and over 5 600 tons of toxic diesel PM into our air. 6 We know that this pollution contributes to 7 thousands of premature deaths, sky high cancer risk rates, 8 respiratory and cardiovascular illness, and billions of 9 dollars of health related expenses to the state each year. 10 We also know that diesel PM and NOx are potent 11 contributors to global warming. And this environmental 12 and public health crisis will only get worse as projected 13 tripling of cargo throughput from our ports translates to 14 increased truck trips throughout the state and in our 15 region. 16 So while we recognize that this port trucks rule 17 is a good start and will make important inroads in 18 reducing NOx and diesel PM from heavy-duty trucks, we urge 19 you to consider the following: The overwhelming 20 contribution of NOx and PM by heavy-duty port trucks makes 21 holding trucks to the cleanest available standards 22 imperative. 23 We support trucks being required to meet EPA 2010 24 standards, which was originally proposed in early drafts 25 of the regulation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 We would also like to see more nondiesel 2 technologies included in this rule as well. 3 We would also like you to consider funding streams 4 so that port drayage truckers are not saddled with paying 5 for the necessary but costly engine replacements and 6 retrofits. They would be unable to pay given the broken 7 trucking industry and drivers' very low wages. And we 8 will all pay for the dirty trucks that are still on the 9 roads. 10 We would also like you to consider that we are all 11 port communities. So heavy-duty trucks that originate at 12 the ports travel through the region and the state and 13 connect communities by way of port pollution. 14 While the rules recognize the travel of port 15 trucks as far as 80 miles away from the ports, we urge the 16 ARB to include rail yards from the Central Valley and the 17 Inland Empire which is connected to the mega distribution 18 centers and are also targets for massive development and 19 growth. 20 So we support the rule and hope that the rule will 21 go far enough to bring this region into federal attainment 22 and will also protect public health throughout the region 23 and the state. 24 Thank you for your leadership on this issue. 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Thanks for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 sticking with us. 2 Ms. Shahenian, then Mr. MacMillan. 3 MS. SHAHENIAN: Chairman Nichols and Members of 4 the Board. Nichole Shahenian. Thank you for allowing me 5 to speak today on behalf of Breathe California. 6 Breathe California is comprised of five statewide 7 affiliate organizations including offices in Sacramento, 8 San Francisco, the Silicon Valley, and the Central Coast, 9 and Los Angeles. Since 1904, Breathe California's five 10 local agencies has worked to reduce the impact of lung 11 disease, the prevention, education, advocacy, and patient 12 services. 13 Breathe California would like to state our strong 14 support of the proposed regulation to reduce emissions 15 from heavy-duty diesel-powered trucks at California ports 16 and intermodal rail yards. Trucks impose severe health 17 costs on freight transportation workers and communities 18 living near ports, rail yards, and major freight 19 corridors. 20 Diesel particulate matter is responsible for 21 70 percent of the total cancer risk from air pollution, as 22 estimated by CARB staff. 23 The NRDC estimates that truck drivers and other 24 workers associated with freight transportation suffer a 25 40 percent higher exposure rate, which likely results in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 proportionally greater health risks than the general 2 population. 3 Long-term exposure to diesel particulate matter 4 results in an increased risk for lung and cardiovascular 5 disease, increased emergency room visits for acute health 6 events such as asthma attacks, birth defects, low birth 7 weights, premature births, respiratory illness, and 8 increased rates of death. 9 According to the CARB GNERP, trucks are 10 responsible for more than half of the estimated 2400 11 premature deaths attributed to diesel exhaust from 12 California freight transportation in 2005. 13 Drivers and impacted residents near freight 14 transport facilities need relief from these daily doses of 15 toxic diesel soot. 16 We support the inclusion of some major rail yards 17 to the ports covered by this rule. However, certain major 18 rail yards in the San Joaquin Valley and Inland Empires 19 such as Fresno, Barstow, and Mira Loma are excluded from 20 this regulation because they are not defined as 21 intermodal. We encourage you to include these rail yards 22 in the regulation. 23 In addition, the rule should apply to all rail 24 yards receiving truck traffic to provide equal protection 25 to those who live near rail yards that would not fall PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 under the rule. The current version that rail yards be 2 80 miles from a port to be held to the clean truck 3 requirements, this is arbitrary because it excludes major 4 rail yards that are known to significantly contribute to 5 air pollution in California and the local communities. 6 We urge you to include all rail yards receiving 7 truck traffic in order to extend equal protection to those 8 living near and working at these facilities. 9 Thank you for your consideration of these 10 important public health outcomes. 11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 12 Mr. MacMillan. 13 MR. MacMILLAN: Yes, hello. I'm here speaking on 14 behalf of Angelo Belomo, director of the Office of 15 Environmental Health and Safety for Los Angeles Unified 16 School Districts. 17 I will keep my comments brief because everybody is 18 saying a lot of things that we support. 19 It's not a surprise that obviously diesel exhaust 20 has one of the most significant health effects that we 21 find at our schools, especially that from diesel trucks. 22 As such, we support this long-needed regulation for mobile 23 sources. And we understand that identifying feasible 24 mitigation measures or feasible methods to implement these 25 rules is very difficult. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 Even so, we really encourage an expedient adoption 2 of regulations, especially for mobile sources. We applaud 3 your recent efforts, both yesterday and today, and we're 4 really looking toward to future regulation that we are 5 discussing here that will continue to regulate these 6 mobile sources of pollution. 7 Thank you very much. 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Appreciate your support. 9 Final witness is Henry Hogo representing the South 10 Coast Air Quality Management District. 11 MR. HOGO: Good morning, Madam Chair -- it's still 12 good morning -- and members of the Board. 13 Again, I'm Henry Hogo. I'm the assistant deputy 14 executive officer for Mobile Source Division at the South 15 Coast AQMD. 16 Just want to offer our full support in the 17 proposed regulation presented today including the 15-day 18 proposal. I do want to point out a few activities that 19 our air district is working on in looking at funding the 20 trucks. 21 And just wanted to mention that earlier this year, 22 our governing board provides its support and concept of 23 the port's clean truck program, and there are various 24 elements of that program. 25 But the funding aspect is very important here. I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 just want to point out that we have been working with the 2 ports to fund cleaner trucks, and our governing board has 3 set aside $42 million already of funding towards those 4 trucks. In addition, our Board has a policy that 5 40 percent or more of funds should go toward goods 6 movement-related projects. And we're going to continue to 7 work with the ports on the Prop 1B proposals. 8 We believe that the way the ports have taken their 9 clean trucks program in terms of phase-in is appropriate. 10 They provide progressive band first. They are looking to 11 do a tariff fee to bring additional monies to clean up the 12 trucks. And that's going to come in the next couple 13 weeks. 14 And the third phase is to look at the system, 15 which is being discussed on your level, but very closely 16 discussed over the last year about some model that would 17 bring forward a more efficient, perhaps more efficient, 18 process to moving drayage, moving cargo. And that will 19 come at the beginning of next year based on our 20 understanding from the ports. 21 I just want to conclude that we believe that 22 adoption of this regulation actually will provide a focus 23 and certainty on the types of projects that the Prop 1E 24 money or any other future money would go towards, because 25 without that focus, we will see various types of clean air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 projects for trucks, and they may not fit in with the -- 2 what our needs are. So we do urge you to adopt the 3 regulation today. 4 And lastly, I just want to thank staff for 5 bringing us in very early in the process. And I'm working 6 on this. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I appreciate that. 9 And the South Coast obviously is a home to some of 10 the greatest concentration of emissions, so we understand 11 your needs for this support as well. 12 So okay. That's it as far as public witnesses are 13 concerned. 14 And now it's time to bring this back to the Board 15 for discussion. 16 I would like to ask the staff -- I know you heard 17 a bunch of comments. And this worked pretty well 18 yesterday, if you want to identify some of the critical 19 issues that you heard raised first, and then Board members 20 can chime in as we see fit. 21 CHIEF FLETCHER: Okay. I will take -- this is Bob 22 Fletcher again, for the court reporter. 23 I will take a first crack at it with some of the 24 issues. We heard a number of commenters suggest that we 25 include Fresno, Barstow, Mira Loma, and the Bell rail PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 yards. We talked about that a little bit in the beginning 2 of the hearing. Fresno is clearly an intermodal rail yard 3 that has a significant number of lifts and a significant 4 number of truck trips, so we are putting out there for 5 your consideration the fact that we think a hundred truck 6 trips per day is an important consideration. 7 That would not affect the Mira Loma or Barstow 8 yards. Barstow is basically a classification yard and has 9 very few truck trips coming into that facility at all. 10 Mira Loma, we have an exemption in our regulation 11 for car carriers. Mira Loma is essentially a 100 percent 12 car carrier facility out in the Inland Empire. We did not 13 include car carriers in our regulation because of the 14 expense of replacing those specialized vehicles in the 15 second phase of the regulation. 16 So our intent was to include those measures as 17 part of the private truck rule and take a harder look at 18 the economics associated with that. 19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And just to 20 mention, Mira Loma is one of the sites where we've done a 21 health risk assessment. Now we're in Phase 2 where we are 22 doing a risk reduction. That risk assessment shows that 23 the area focused on was not the trucks; it was the 24 locomotives. So that was different from most other 25 facilities. So we are -- we are addressing the risks PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 there and moving ahead with it. 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, and just in fairness, 3 this whole rulemaking is -- has been at least as I've 4 heard it protested by some in the trucking industry as 5 being somewhat arbitrary for just focusing on port trucks 6 versus other kinds of trucks. And a decision was made 7 early on to make that distinction because of the 8 differential health impact. And I think we need to keep 9 our focus on the worst first. 10 CHIEF FLETCHER: The fourth facility mentioned, 11 the Bell facility, we actually don't know too much about. 12 But as Angelo Logan mentioned, if, in fact, that is a 13 facility that is growing, then it's not only within 14 80 miles, it would also be covered by the hundred truck 15 trip per day requirements. So that facility would likely 16 be covered in either case. 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So are you saying the staff 18 is recommending, then, the inclusion of Fresno or you 19 would be open to having the Board suggest that to you? 20 CHIEF FLETCHER: Yes. 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. 22 CHIEF FLETCHER: Related to that, there was also a 23 question and comment about how would we ensure that the 24 hundred trips per day were exceeded. And that's something 25 we'll probably have to look into a little bit more in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 terms of how that actually happens. 2 It would be the responsibility of the facilities 3 to track that information and we would just have -- 4 there's a fairly limited number of facilities here, so I 5 think it's something that we can just make sure we monitor 6 and keep track of. 7 There were several comments related to the 8 incorporation of level 3 devices on the pre-'93 engines 9 and also on the '04 to '06 engines. We are not 10 recommending at this time the imposition of level 3 PM 11 devices on the '04 to '06 trucks. For one, it is 12 mentioned, there are no certified devices yet available 13 for these trucks. We expect to get them in, in the '08 14 time frame, but they are not yet available with the 15 exception of one device that is -- that has been certified 16 for these, but it is very expensive. An active system 17 that requires that you plug the device in to regenerate 18 it, and we think that that is not really applicable 19 technology for the port trucks. Just the infrastructure 20 is just not there to do it. So we are aligning ourselves 21 with what we expect the private truck rule to look at, 22 which we'll look at this '04 to '06. 23 The other consideration I think on the '04 to '06 24 is the payback. These trucks will still need to meet the 25 '07 standards, so you are looking at a lifetime use of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 these trucks for just several years in the '07 time frame. 2 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I would also 3 like to add that these are a very, very small part of the 4 pollution problem in the neighborhoods around the ports. 5 They are not the frequent trucks. They are much lower 6 emissions than the average truck now, and they are also -- 7 I think part of our philosophy was, they are probably a 8 good candidate for retrofit system that gets them up to 9 2007 NOx and PM levels. 10 So until we have that information before us, over 11 those options, which we will have when we do the private 12 fleet rule. It seems premature to say you got to put on a 13 PM filter when there may be a much better compliance route 14 for them. And there will be virtually no PM benefits lost 15 because they are not covered under the port truck rule. 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. I think it would be 17 helpful if you would sort of review the thinking about 18 applicability of this rule, because a lot of the testimony 19 that we heard is about this issue of how we're going to 20 enforce it, who we're going to force against, who's 21 actually going to bear the responsibility for compliance. 22 And we can talk about the funding issues separately, I 23 think. But the first step is just to understand how the 24 rule actually works in terms of the enforcement process. 25 MANAGER MIGUEL: We're actually going to use PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 several tools. Our primary enforcement tool will be the 2 motor carriers. Once all these trucks are registered in 3 the DTR, the motor carriers will have the responsibility 4 to ensure that the trucks that they dispatch to the ports 5 are -- have a DTR compliance sticker. 6 And if the trucks have a sticker and go into the 7 ports, they are deemed to meet our regulatory 8 requirements. 9 If they don't have a sticker, the port authorities 10 collect specific information which will get back to our 11 enforcement personnel, which will then take corrective 12 action. 13 The second enforcement tool we will have is our 14 enforcement group with on-road inspections. We'll be able 15 to tell which trucks primarily do port drayage business 16 and determine if they were compliant with the regulatory 17 requirements. 18 We will also be performing audits of the motor 19 carriers to ensure that the fleets that they employ and 20 that their recordkeeping is accurate. 21 Those are the three primary enforcement tools we 22 will use. 23 CHIEF FLETCHER: I think in support of that, we 24 would also be looking, as Ms. Ibarra said, at a 25 significant amount of outreach prior of the implementation PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 of the regulation to make sure that the folks who are 2 subject to the regulation know that they are subject to 3 the regulation. 4 MANAGER MIGUEL: If you noticed, in the 5 presentation I talked about requiring early -- the 6 registration in the DTR. We don't want to wait to the 7 last minute for these operators to be registered. Once 8 they are registered, we can then do some outreach with 9 these individuals to show them and point them in the right 10 direction of how to get retrofitted, where the funding 11 might be. 12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Anything else? 13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Just that we 14 chose this system because we are dealing with how trucks 15 are dispatched, and we thought we had to conform with 16 that, and it's really the motor carrier makes the decision 17 over which truck goes to pick up which load, and they are 18 responsible for the other, you know, requirements on the 19 truck not related to air quality. 20 And each truck goes through a gate, so there is a 21 control point. So we are able to have this system -- when 22 you see the private fleet rule, you will see a different 23 system because then we'll be regulating fleets and 24 universal regulations as opposed to a subset of fleets. 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. I think, before I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 close the record, is there anything more the staff wants 2 to say at this point? 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: No. I think that's 4 it. 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: If not, we will declare the 6 record to be closed at this point. And I will invite 7 discussion from the Board members and a motion. 8 I guess before we do that, though, we have to go 9 through the ex parte disclosures. 10 MEMBER HILL: I had a question of the staff, if I 11 could. And it wasn't answered on the VDECS. And the 12 issue -- you did answer the 2004 to 2006 on the level 3. 13 But what -- the other issue raised was the 14 pre-1994 issue and the ability to require or utilize those 15 VDECS rather than the replacement of the entire truck. 16 CHIEF TOLLSTRUP: Mike Tollstrup. Chief of the 17 Project Assessment Branch. 18 We looked at some of the older trucks. Remember, 19 these are the oldest of the trucks, many of them on their 20 last leg. In looking at the available technologies, 21 again, the only systems that are available for these 22 trucks will be active traps. These are the ones that you 23 have to plug in. And in many instances, these pieces of 24 equipment are more costly than what the truck is worth. 25 So it's a couple of times more expensive than what the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 actual value of the truck is worth. So that was one of 2 the issues. 3 The other is, we do get some NOx reduction by 4 going to the newer -- having to replace the new or used 5 trucks and the retrofits. And this where we get our CO2 6 reductions, by making them replace with a newer truck and 7 going from mechanical to electronics injection systems. 8 We can get our CO2 reductions here as well. 9 MEMBER HILL: Okay. Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: As usual, there's a little 11 bit of a tension between wanting to move to the best and 12 wanting to get some immediate, short-term reduction. I 13 think this is balanced pretty well in terms of getting a 14 big chunk of reductions early but also pushing us in the 15 direction of the better trucks that are coming along. 16 Okay. Starting with you, Ms. Berg, for the ex 17 partes. 18 MEMBER BERG: On November 27th, I met at Ellis 19 Paint with Candice Kim and Coalition for Clean Air. 20 On December 3rd, I met with the California 21 Trucking Association again at Ellis Paint Company. And 22 that included Julie Sauls; Ron Guss from Intermodal West; 23 Randy Clifford from Ventura Transfer Company; Richard 24 Bartolic from American Pacific Forwarders; and Loretta 25 Calderon from Yamko Truck Lines. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 On December 3rd, I had a phone call with Pacific 2 Merchant Shipping Association; with T.L. Garrett and his 3 staff. Thank you. 4 MEMBER D'ADAMO: On November 27th, I participated 5 in a telephone conference call with Diane Bailey and Devra 6 Wang, from NRDC, John Kaltenstein with Friends of the 7 Earth. 8 On November 28th, I participated in a conference 9 call with members of the California Trucking Association 10 and staff -- Julie Sauls, Eric Sauer, Matt Schrap, John 11 Rozsa, and Kelly Jenson, CTA staff and consultants -- and 12 then with Ron Guss, Intermodal West; Joseph Nievez, 13 Qwikway Trucking; Richard Coyle, Devine Intermodal; Bob 14 Ramorino, Roadstar Trucking; Tom Powell, Cal Valley 15 Insurance; and Alan Osofsky, Rogers Trucking Company. 16 The comments made in both conference calls were 17 consistent with the testimony presented today. 18 MEMBER HILL: On November 26th, I participated in 19 a conference call with Diane Bailey and Devra Wang of 20 NRDC; John Kaltenstein, Friends of the Earth; Irvin David 21 from the Sierra Club; Bonnie Holmes-Gen from American Lung 22 Association. 23 On December 3rd, a conference call with Pacific 24 Merchants Shipping Association, T.L. Garrett and Mike 25 Jacob as well as Shaudi Falamaki, Kahl-Pownall; and Chuck PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 Cole, Advocation Incorporated. 2 And the conversations were consistent with the 3 testimony today. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I had meetings with 5 environmental groups that have been identified by the 6 others on November 20th, and with the PMSA group on 7 December 4th. 8 I had a meeting with the California Trucking 9 Association which doesn't show up on my printed list, so I 10 am going to have to go back and check the date on that. 11 But I also met on Wednesday, December 5th, with a group 12 organized by Patty Senecal of the International Warehouse 13 Logistics Association; and included a long list of 14 individuals representing various aspects of goods movement 15 at the harbor and also included Alexander Pugh from the 16 L.A. Chamber of Commerce; and Fran Inman from Majestic 17 Realty Company; LaDonna DiCamillo from BNSF Railroad; and 18 Wally Baker of the Green Tech Foundation. And at that 19 meeting, in addition to the general concerns that have 20 been raised here, I was -- I was given a briefing by this 21 group, Sierra, Cascade -- sorry, Cascade Sierra Solutions, 22 sorry -- Sharon Banks -- which is a nonprofit organization 23 that has been created. Actually, they are out of Oregon, 24 and their mission is to provide service to the trucking -- 25 the port area truckers by basically filling the gap in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 terms of outreach, reliable information, bundling together 2 financing, and actually buying and leasing back new trucks 3 to try to move forward on clean air solutions for the 4 ports. 5 They are certainly one of the models for how 6 implementation of this program could occur. They were 7 obviously making a presentation to a number of 8 representatives of the industry, and I presume that they 9 are going to be looking to set up shop here in Southern 10 California. 11 So it was very interesting to hear that this 12 particular service exists. And while I don't think it's 13 something that we could mandate in any way, I certainly 14 welcome their arrival on the scene. So I do want to put 15 that onto the record. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: If I may say, with 17 regard to Chair Banks's program, we've been working with 18 her to try to help her find additional seed money for her 19 program. 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Great. Thank you. 21 MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chair, I met on November -- 22 I had a telephone conference call with California Trucking 23 Association. Julie Sauls and several of the staff members 24 along with one of the their consultants, Kelly Jensen, and 25 then their membership of Ron Guss; Joseph Neives; Richard PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 Coyle, Bob Ramorino, Tom Powell, and Alan Osofsky. If I 2 mispronounce that, pardon me. 3 On the 28th, I also had a telephone conference 4 call with Janice Kim from Coalition for Clean Air; John 5 Kaltenstein from Friends of the Earth; and Rupal Patel 6 from Communities for Clean Ports. 7 And a telephone call on December 5th with Cleaire 8 Air Vice President Bradley Edgar, who is the chief 9 technical officer. 10 All of the conversations mirrored very much some 11 of the testimony that we heard today by those 12 organizations or individuals. 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. 14 MEMBER CASE: I don't know if we're still 15 recognizing ourselves. 16 Judy Case. 17 On November 28th, I had a telephone conference 18 call with Bonnie Holmes-Gen with the American Lung 19 Association; Debra Wang, NRDC; John Kaltenstein, Friends 20 of the Environment, Rupal Patel, Communities for Clean 21 Ports, and that testimony was -- pretty much mirrored our 22 testimony today. 23 I briefly had a conversation with Sam. And I 24 apologize, I didn't get his last name. He was in the 25 front row, and identified himself as a motor carrier, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 he helped me to understand the tariff and pricing 2 mechanism that were within the trucking company and 3 trucking industry. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Great. 5 MEMBER SPERLING: I had two interactions. One was 6 a phone call with the same group of environmentalists from 7 the environmental organization, and it was a phone call, 8 so I'm not quite sure who -- I don't recall who was 9 actually on the call. It was Bonnie Holmes-Gen, Diane 10 Bailey, and others, and that was December 3rd. 11 And November 29th met with the California Trucking 12 Association with similar people -- Julie Sauls, Matt 13 Schrap, John Rozsa, a consultant -- and some members 14 Richard Coyle, Bob Ramorino, and Anthony Teresi. 15 And the discussions did mirror the testimony we've 16 heard here today. 17 MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Same basic report on the two 18 conversations -- the first, November 3rd hosted by the 19 Trucking Association, included Ron Guss from Intermodal, 20 Wayne Teese from Dispatch, and Hal Meriwether from Rush 21 Truck Center. 22 Also had a phone conference call with Candice Kim 23 and Martin Schlageter and Rupal Patel and same titles that 24 have been identified before. 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 MEMBER BERG: Madam Chair, I apologize. Sandy 2 Berg. I forgot one of my ex parte. 3 I had a cell phone going between meetings to 4 meetings. I let this one slip by. 5 I had a phone call with Brad Edgar of Clean Air, 6 who's the vice president and chief technical officer. And 7 our conversation mirrored his testimony today, and that 8 phone call was on December the 5th. 9 Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Great. 11 Well, I just -- to restate, what has been said by 12 all sides here, this is indeed one of the most significant 13 rules we have acted on at this meeting or any other 14 meeting in recent months. There's no question that 15 there's a lot at stake here in terms of public health. 16 I think the staff has proceeded very carefully to 17 try to craft something that will work in the context of 18 actions that are going on at the port level and 19 recognizing the critical importance of this industry, that 20 is the goods movement industry, to the health of the 21 economy of California as well as the complexity of the way 22 that it operates, which obviously we're only beginning to 23 really get to the surface of that. 24 But the rule as it's presented to us, I think, is 25 a tremendous step forward in terms of just laying the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 ground work for what needs to be done and making it clear 2 to all players that there is a -- that there's going to be 3 a mandatory level of control that's going to have to be 4 achieved by these -- by these very active and frequently 5 very polluting trucks. 6 The difficult step of course is ahead of us, is 7 actually making it work. And I think we've talked around 8 the bond issue and how we would -- how we would channel 9 that funding. I think you've gotten a sense from the 10 discussions here today that the staff has been in 11 communication with a lot of people and has a much deeper 12 sense of who the players are and who the individual groups 13 are that we are going to need to be reaching out to. 14 But I think it's really important that we be 15 prepared, when we come back in January, to talk about the 16 1B guidelines, that we hear a more detailed presentation 17 on outreach, on what we're actually doing to get the word 18 out about the new rule, and not only about our rule but 19 about how our rule interacts with the other things that 20 are going on at the ports, so that we aren't bombarding 21 people with messages that are confusing and hard for them 22 to follow. 23 I am very appreciative of the fact that the staff 24 is already thinking about how they are going to provide 25 assistance to the affected truckers. And I think that's a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 great thing. 2 But I also want to make sure that we're not 3 setting ourselves up to duplicate work that other groups 4 are already planning to do. And so I'm hoping that 5 between now and when the next Board meeting occurs that we 6 can have maybe some sense of what other actions are also 7 underway to provide assistance in this same area. 8 So with that, I would like to turn it over to 9 Board members and ask for a motion and any amendments. 10 MEMBER D'ADAMO: Madam Chair, I would be prepared 11 to make a motion that we adopt Resolution 07-58. 12 And I imagine there are other amendments, but one 13 that I would like to put out there is to include Fresno 14 rail yard and then also the language that Mr. Fletcher 15 mentioned -- other facilities, other rail yards, that 16 handle a hundred or more trucks per day. 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Great. Ms. Kennard? 18 MEMBER KENNARD: I will second the motion. 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Great. Thank you. 20 Are there any other amendments that board members 21 wish to put toward? 22 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I would like a 23 clarification. 24 Do you want Fresno included no matter what the 25 level is, or you want Fresno included if it reaches a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 certain level? 2 MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, my intention was to have 3 Fresno included regardless of the level because it sounds 4 like it's there anyway. But if staff thinks that it would 5 be best to incorporate it in the hundred trips per day, I 6 defer to how you want to handle that. 7 But it does bring to mind -- Supervisor Case 8 raised the concern that perhaps that area has not been 9 paid as close attention to the rule, thinking that they 10 were exempt. And so I would encourage staff, through the 11 15-day change period, to actively engage the stakeholders 12 at that facility. 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Do you want to respond to 14 that? How you want to handle that? 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, I -- it 16 seemed like Fresno, from what we know about it, is 17 probably close to the level anyways. So if we just say 18 it's included and regulated, that makes it absolutely 19 clear that trucks going there will be covered by the same 20 conditions as trucks going to other medium-sized 21 intermodal facilities. 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Then let's just do 23 that then. 24 But then leave it open that if other facilities 25 qualify, based on new information, they could also be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 added. 2 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: That's 3 correct. We don't want a new facility to pop up all of a 4 sudden and have the trucks that couldn't go to the covered 5 facilities to all -- 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All go there. Good thought. 7 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: My understanding is that 8 the proposed regulation makes the other facilities subject 9 only if they meet the hundred-truck trigger. The 10 hundred-truck trigger applies to every intermodal yard in 11 California. So there would be -- it would be an 12 appropriate thing to have the same trigger apply in 13 Fresno. 14 CHIEF FLETCHER: Well, the only tricky thing about 15 Fresno is that the lists have been going down about 16 15 percent a year. So at some point they may be below 100 17 trucks. So you know, that's the only thing that gets a 18 little difficult about setting a hundred truck level and, 19 you know, what -- we're going to have to think about this 20 a little bit in the 15-day process as to whether, once you 21 are in, are you always in, even if your threshold has 22 dropped below 100 trucks per day? 23 But right now, I think we do believe that it's 24 over 100 trucks a day; is that correct? 25 MANAGER MIGUEL: Yes, it is right at a hundred. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 But as Bob mentioned, it has dropped 15 percent every 2 year. So if the trend continues next year, it would be 3 below the 100 truck per limit and the rule hasn't really 4 gone into effect. It starts in 2009, is the deadline. 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Would you be comfortable 6 with a hundred truck limit being applicable as of 2009? 7 Or do you really want to see Fresno, no matter what? 8 MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I would like to see Fresno 9 in because I think it's important for the Valley to get 10 started on this process of regulating the trucks. And the 11 advantage I think in other areas of the state is that it 12 sends the message, it gets the community focused on these 13 regulations, and I'm hoping it will pave the way for the 14 on-road rule. 15 So I was hoping that Fresno could be utilized in 16 the rule so that it could engage the Valley more. I just 17 don't know enough about the rail yard. 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right. I presume from the 19 perspective of the goods movement industry that the 20 concern would be when you get down to the turf wars over 21 where the funds are going to go, that it's going to make a 22 difference whether you are in or out of this rule. Right? 23 I mean, that would be the main advantage of being in. 24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Probably in 25 the early years. But we see significant investments in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 cleaning up trucks that aren't in port or rail yard 2 service as also being necessary, and the Valley is a major 3 area where we're going to need to get those emission 4 reductions. So I don't think it's going to affect the 5 funding situation. If those are good candidates for 6 funding -- whether in the rule or not, they'll be good 7 candidates and there will probably be funds available. 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, I guess I feel more 9 comfortable, just from a legal perspective, in having a 10 rule that's applicable across the board, whatever it is. 11 So if it's a hundred truck trips as of the date that the 12 rule goes into effect or as of today, I think that should 13 be the rule, whatever it is. 14 MEMBER CASE: Madam Chairman, you know, as much as 15 I would like to see it in Fresno and because it is really 16 struggling with some of the poor air quality, I think 17 having it apply within our rule, and if they don't meet 18 the benchmark, they don't meet it, I would agree that 19 would be better doing a rule based as opposed to targeting 20 one, because that's going to move. 21 And one of the other things we're trying to 22 accomplish is if these rules apply to the ports and 23 facilities adjacent, we may actually see some of that 24 activity move into these other areas. 25 So will Fresno's trend of fewer trucks continue? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 Or if they are not -- if there's not any rule to look for 2 additional activity, then they actually start having more 3 and more trucks impacting those neighborhoods because 4 there's no restraints. 5 So you know, I'm comfortable with the hundred 6 trucks because I suspect it's probably there anyhow. I 7 still would like to see some outreach to make sure. I 8 understand the railroads know this rule is coming, but I 9 don't think the truckers that might be actually engaged in 10 the activities at the rail yard are totally aware of this 11 possibly coming. It should just be in the parameters of 12 the rule is where I would be more comfortable. It seems 13 more fair. 14 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And we'll do 15 the outreach while the changes are going through the 16 15-day notice process. 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Are you comfortable with 18 that, willing to -- 19 MEMBER HILL: A question of clarification. If you 20 meet the 100 truck rule today, and it's established and 21 next year you drop below the hundred, you stay in? I 22 don't think we've made that decision yet. 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right. 24 CHIEF FLETCHER: Yeah, I think our recommendation 25 is, once you're in, you're in. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 MEMBER HILL: That would be the -- 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right. 3 CHIEF FLETCHER: And we could set a date as to, 4 you know, what truck count by a certain date, whether 5 that's January 1st, 2008, or the effective date of the 6 rule. 7 MEMBER HILL: Good. There are options to set 8 that. 9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And just a 10 reminder. We spent a lot of effort bringing you this rule 11 a little earlier than the private fleet rule because we 12 were trying to get at the most risky situation. So 13 even -- these other facilities are going to have risk 14 reductions occurring, just at a slightly slower schedule 15 as we do the entire state. 16 MEMBER BERG: Madam Chair? 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. 18 MEMBER BERG: I just had a couple points of 19 clarification. 20 Is there anything in the rule that addresses 21 supply issues like if we have somebody who has a purchase 22 order and funding available but either there's not a 23 retrofit available or a supply issue or installation 24 problems, what's their situation? 25 MANAGER MIGUEL: If a particular truck -- a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 retrofit does not work, or -- essentially, it's limited to 2 that. If a truck is identified as noncompatible with -- 3 there is no retrofit available, we give them a one-year 4 exemption, and at that time if a retrofit is still not 5 available, they would be required to upgrade to the 6 '07 truck. 7 MEMBER BERG: Okay. And what about supply issues? 8 MANAGER MIGUEL: We don't address supply issues. 9 All of our conversations thus far with the manufacturers 10 have indicated there will be absolutely no issues with 11 supply. 12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Let me guess 13 that. That's not -- how we deal with that is not really 14 covered in the rule. What we intend to do besides 15 defining how bond funding will apply and working with the 16 ports and others, we're going to have a close coordination 17 and probably ongoing task force effort with the industry 18 to see what's working and what's not working. 19 And if we find out that there's timing problems 20 and things like that, once we identify the specific 21 problems, we'll be back here saying it's working; we're 22 getting 80 percent; we need a little bit more time, 23 whatever the situation is. So we're going to track it 24 very closely. I don't know how we put that in the rule. 25 MEMBER BERG: Okay. I just want to know we're PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 going to track it very closely. 2 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Oh, we are 3 going to track it very closely. 4 MEMBER BERG: And so the trucks entrance is really 5 based on the DTR registration. If you register and you 6 have the sticker, you are allowed into the port. 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: That's 8 correct. But you don't get the sticker until you 9 demonstrated that your truck is complying. But if it's a 10 situation where we needed to extend that for people who 11 are in the process but hadn't had it applied yet, we could 12 bring that to you as a slight modification to make it work 13 more smoothly. 14 MEMBER BERG: And what information do they send 15 you for compliance? Or are they going to someplace to 16 show that it's in compliance? 17 MANAGER MIGUEL: They will be going to specific 18 installation facilities and we will be -- there will be 19 paperwork associated with the installation of that device, 20 so we would either require some copies of that information 21 or information from the installers themselves. 22 MEMBER BERG: I would like just to throw out for 23 Board consideration that within the enforcement, we all 24 agreed that enforcement is crucial and that trucks would 25 be able to enter the port for the duration of the rule PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 regardless if they have the compliance sticker or not. 2 And it seems to me that after a period of time, 3 that they should be turned away. And so, this rule goes 4 into effect in 2009 and everybody is supposed to have a 5 sticker by December 31st, 2009. I would suggest in 2010 6 they can have a reporting mechanism, and in 2011 that the 7 trucks would be turned away. 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You want to phase it, in 9 other words, of the turning away, as opposed to having it 10 effective immediately? 11 MEMBER BERG: Correct. 12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, I don't 13 think we'll have a long noncompliance period because when 14 the motor carrier dispatches trucks that aren't qualified 15 and they are led into the port, then we're going to be 16 notified it's a violation, and we're going to go say 17 there's a penalty for doing that, and then the remedy is 18 how do you stop doing it in the future. 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I guess my sense of that 20 would be that it's an invitation to people coming into 21 compliance. It really isn't necessary. If it turns out 22 there are massive problems, I think it would probably be 23 dealt with better through some sort of enforcement 24 discretion than sort of signaling up front that we're 25 giving people, you know, a free period of time to not be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 in compliance. But I mean, if anybody else wants to speak 2 to that. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: If Ms. Berg, I had a 4 point, because I'm not sure -- 5 MEMBER BERG: I think my concern is, is that the 6 paperwork issue. That how many forms are we going to have 7 filled out. It's going to be mailed to somebody in our 8 office. We're going to have to notify some inspectors, 9 get down to a motor carrier's office, go through their 10 paperwork. And in the meantime, the people that have put 11 forth the good effort to become in compliance and are 12 doing the right thing, how do we keep the playing field 13 level? 14 And so if we're saying we have enough inspectors 15 to react on this fairly quickly and to be down there and 16 we're, in fact, going to come down hard on the motor 17 carriers, because I agree that it's fully their 18 responsibility, then I would be comfortable. 19 But somehow, this filling out forms, sending it 20 in, sending people down, feels a little bit wiggly to me. 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think the staff wants to 22 respond to that. 23 CHIEF TOLLSTRUP: I just want to clarify one 24 thing. 25 The way that the reg is structured right now, we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 don't require the terminals or the ports to turn anybody 2 away. What we are requiring them to do is if they come 3 through, if they are noncompliant, they report it to us, 4 and then we would check to see, have they filed an 5 application, have they gone through the process. And if 6 they did, there would be some leniency there. If they 7 hadn't, then we would take appropriate action. 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: People aren't sending forms 9 to Sacramento; are they? 10 MANAGER MIGUEL: We anticipate -- we are 11 developing this to be Web-based and then that -- in that 12 Web-based application, there will be a segment that they 13 will show what device they have installed or how they are 14 deemed compliant. And then we can verify that with the 15 installation industry. 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Mr. Loveridge, did you want 17 to comment on that? I'm sorry. You had your hand up 18 before. 19 MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Let me make just a statement. 20 I support the motion. But goods movement is really 21 defining Southern California. It's doing so in 22 transportation; it's doing so in jobs; it's doing so in 23 public health. When we talk about trying to put together 24 clean air and faster freight, there's no way to do it 25 unless we clean up trucks. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 I really oppose any way that might delay cleaning 2 up trucks coming out of the ports. 3 But I did have a couple of questions if I could 4 ask staff and then just a final statement. 5 But one more time, Mike, a number of people got up 6 and said Mira Loma. I mean, I drive by and see trucks 7 going to distribution centers all the time. But the 8 reason not to include Mira Loma is because the rail is 100 9 percent for cars and it has some kind of exemption. Help 10 me out here so I understand that. 11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Bob may 12 probably know more about Mira Loma. 13 CHIEF TOLLSTRUP: I guess what we know about Mira 14 Loma right now, we understand that most of the traffic 15 through there is the unibody -- the truck carriers that go 16 in and out of those. 17 In the reg right now, we exempt those types of 18 vehicles. It accounts for about 5 percent of our total 19 inventory that we're dealing with. So we got the majority 20 of them. 21 One of the problems that we have with that group 22 of trucks is the expensive replacement which is much 23 greater than the other trucks that we're dealing with in 24 the drayage, moving the containers. 25 And we figured that those trucks would be picked PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 up in the on-road fleet. 2 MEMBER LOVERIDGE: How sure are you of those 3 numbers? 4 CHIEF TOLLSTRUP: We need to look at some of those 5 in a little more detail. 6 MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Perhaps you could maybe by memo 7 let the Board know what, in fact, is happening on the 8 ground in Mira Loma. 9 CHIEF FLETCHER: Let me just clarify what the 10 question is. We're very sure about what the percentage of 11 trucks are Mira Loma. They are, you know, 100 percent car 12 carrier. Relative to the total number of trucks that 13 we're dealing with, we're pretty confident that they are a 14 fairly small percentage, but we would be happy to document 15 that in a memo to the Board. 16 MEMBER LOVERIDGE: That would be helpful. 17 Second, it was -- I think, Mike mentioned tracking 18 this. Does this come back -- I mean, it is important. 19 It's also complicated. There is obviously some 20 uncertainties. As the Board, are we going to look at this 21 in six months, a year? I mean, is there a reporting back 22 to the Board so we at least have some sense of how this is 23 going? 24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I think we 25 have to report back at least after a year and then after PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 18 months. 2 MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Maybe in the motion we can have 3 a report back in a year on how this is working and any 4 changes that.... 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Sure. 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And then if we 7 find earlier than that, that some part of the rule needs 8 to be modified to make it work, we'll come back earlier 9 because we -- you know, we don't get the emission 10 reduction by adopting the rule. We get the emission 11 reduction by going out and making sure that the mechanisms 12 that are needed are in place. 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: It's not what you are going 14 to hear about it. 15 MEMBER BERG: And fortunately, Long Beach and Los 16 Angeles really have signed up to be the pilot program. 17 And they are going to go into effect in 2008. And so we 18 will know, in October of 2009, as they are deadlined for 19 pre-1998 trucks as well as they have required retrofits. 20 And so we should be able to get a report back to 21 us the first part of 2009. Maybe we could get it from the 22 Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles because 23 they will have gone through the funding issue. They will 24 have gone through banning pre-1998 trucks, I believe. And 25 they will have gone through the retrofit. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 So maybe in the first quarter of 2009 we could get 2 a report back from them, which would be perfect timing as 3 our rule will have just started its progression, forward. 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And I heard 5 some groans from the audience, so I guess we want to 6 reassure both the communities and the industry that if 7 we're relooking at this -- this is not a relooking at the 8 goal or a relooking at the mission. This is ensuring we 9 make it work. 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Correct. Just telling us 11 how we're doing. 12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And we have to 13 get those emission reductions. I mean, that's our mission 14 here. And supplying them on the timeline is our goal. 15 Where a Port has adopted a plan and trying to get 16 it earlier, our goal is to figure out a way to merge our 17 program with theirs to meet their more ambitious goal. 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Consider it as a form of 19 oversight, not bringing it back for review. 20 MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Just one other quick, final 21 statement. Just we're the only major country in the world 22 which the national government doesn't participate in 23 trying to create corridors and making this sort of global 24 market place work. And it always -- Eisenhower had a 25 federal highway system in 1958. Since 1958, we really PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 haven't had a similar look by the federal government. 2 And I think the federal government has a major 3 role in this whole corridor goods movement and there 4 are -- I know there's going to be legislation coming 5 forward, and this agency should at least encourage that 6 legislation. 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 8 Ms. D'Adamo? 9 MEMBER D'ADAMO: I just wanted to support 10 Ms. Berg's suggestion that we consider one-year after 11 implementation that the trucks be turned away because I 12 just think that this would actually facilitate 13 enforcement. Word would get out mighty quick that you 14 would be turned away and it just seems that that's a great 15 penalty to be turned away as opposed to at some point 16 paperwork being reviewed and having a fine slapped on the 17 operator. 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think that's a good 19 suggestion. Frankly, when it was first proposed, I didn't 20 understand the thrust of the suggestion. And now that I 21 do, I would agree with you that adding that additional 22 clarification about the Board's intention is a good one. 23 Does the staff have any objection if we were to 24 include that in the resolution or the 15-day notice? 25 SENIOR ATTONEY TERRIS: My name is Mike Terris. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 I'm legal counsel for this regulation. 2 And the issue -- I understand that the ports in 3 their Clean Air Act are proposing to turn away folks if 4 they don't comply with the DTR registration. And if they 5 don't have a label, they are going to require remote 6 sensing, infrared sensing or some types of readers of 7 license plates to determine compliance. 8 But in terms of ARB's regulations, I'm somewhat 9 concerned because the authority of the ports is a little 10 broader because the market participant doctrine that 11 allows them exemption from -- potentially exemption from 12 interstate commerce and complications. 13 And my concern is with the ARB turning away the 14 ports through regulation, that we will be affecting the 15 flow of commerce and that could raise some real issues. 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We may not have the same 17 authority to turn the trucks turned away. 18 MEMBER RIORDAN: And I think in a friendly way, we 19 could ask the ports to do just exactly what Ms. Berg has 20 suggested. We could -- you know. 21 MEMBER HILL: Can we hold the ports responsible if 22 they allow -- 23 MEMBER RIORDAN: Well, I don't know if you could 24 hold them totally responsible. 25 MEMBER BERG: No. And I think the ports are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 really interested in enforcing the regulation. I 2 certainly do not want to put anything that would have one 3 caveat allow us to be opened up for a lawsuit. So that 4 would be a mistake. 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. Well, let's just 6 leave this as an expression of our desire and we'll see 7 what happens. 8 MEMBER BERG: And as a last expression of our 9 desire, I would really like to encourage early compliance. 10 And if there was a mechanism within the funding that there 11 was a little more funding, if you got on the bandwagon 12 right away and still funding all throughout the process, 13 but that we did put something that encouraged people to 14 act sooner than later. I would encourage that as well. 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: That's 16 actually in Prop 1B. 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Oh, good. 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: So part of the 19 condition for our funding is that they do it earlier than 20 otherwise required. 21 MEMBER RIORDAN: And we will hear that in January? 22 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Yes, you will. 23 Well, I have a note from staff that we're 24 struggling to get it to you in January. Hopefully we'll 25 bring it to you in January or we'll report on it. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: The latest would be 2 February? 3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Yes. We've 4 got to get the money out there. 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We're anxious. 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: My note back 7 to staff started with "ugh." 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I'm about to call the 9 question unless someone else has an additional statement 10 they would like to make. 11 MEMBER KENNARD: It's just a statement, not a 12 question. 13 I am so impressed by the number of truckers who 14 came here and actually asserted their support of this 15 measure, even though it may have some severe economic 16 impact on them and their families. And I just wanted to 17 say that I was very, very impressed by that. 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. I think you 19 speak for all of us in that regard. All right. 20 Without further ado, then all those in favor of 21 the motion as presented, signify by saying "aye." 22 (Ayes.) 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Any opposed? 24 Very good. 25 We're not quite done yet. We haven't had our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 public comment period. We have one person who has asked 2 to make public comment for today. And that's Henry Hogo 3 from South Coast. 4 And I think this follows on yesterday's public 5 comment on the soon check that program; is that right? 6 MR. HOGO: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. 7 Again, Henry Hogo with South Coast AQMD. I'm 8 going to be brief. 9 As you know, the SOON program is a critical 10 element of the 2007 South Coast Air Basin. And it's 11 imperative that we get or achieve the 12 tons per day by 12 2014. 13 To that end, our governing board has already 14 stated the process on the SOON program with a program 15 announcement that was released back in November. We 16 believe we needed to start early so that the affected 17 fleets can have ample time to submit their projects to us 18 for this first round. And we also have indicated in our 19 program announcement that we're seeking projects all the 20 way out to 2014. 21 So if we can identify the number of vehicles right 22 off the bat, we'll be able to move forward without having 23 to go ahead with additional rounds of solicitation and 24 submittal by various fleets. 25 I do want to point out that we already conducted PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 the CEQA analysis on the SOON program. And we're ready to 2 go to our board to ask them to consider opting in, in 3 February, to the program. And we do need your staff to 4 move ahead with the 15-day package so we can implement the 5 program. 6 But I do want to point out also, lastly, that we 7 are working closely with your staff and with the industry 8 and discussing ways to -- the best ways to implement the 9 program. But we want to make it amply clear that in no 10 way should the 12 tons be negotiable. We need those 11 12 tons. And whatever the process is at the end of the 12 day, we want those 12 tons. 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We hear you. Thank you. 14 With that, we are adjourned. 15 And to all my fellow Board members, since I won't 16 see you until February, have a very good holiday. 17 (The Air Resources Board meeting adjourned 18 at 12:48 p.m.) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, KATHRYN S. SWANK, a Certified Shorthand Reporter 3 of the State of California, do hereby certify: 4 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 5 foregoing California Air Resources Board Meeting was 6 reported in shorthand by me, Kathryn S. Swank, a Certified 7 Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and 8 thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 9 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 10 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any 11 way interested in the outcome of said meeting. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13 17th day of December, 2007. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 KATHRYN S. SWANK, CSR 23 Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 License No. 13061 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345