BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD JOE SERNA, JR. BUILDING CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CENTRAL VALLEY AUDITORIUM, SECOND FLOOR 1001 I STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2002 9:00 A.M. JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 10063 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Allan Lloyd, Chairperson Mr. Joseph Calhoun Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Professor Hugh Friedman Mr. Matthew McKinnon Supervisor Barbara Patrick Mrs. Barbara Riordan Supervisor Ron Roberts STAFF Mr. Mike Kenny, Executive Officer Mr. Tom Cackette, Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel Mr. Steve Albu, Chief, Engineering Studies Branch Mr. Robert Barham, Assistant Chief, Staitonary Source Division Mr. Richard D. Bode, Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment Branch Mr. Steve Brisby, Manager, Fuels Section PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF CONTINUED Mr. Carl Brown, Manager, Stationary Source Enforcement Section Ms. Sara Carter, Air Resources Engineer Ms. Cindy Castronovo, Air Pollution Specialist Ms. Barbara Cook, Air Pollution Specialist Mr. Bart Croes, P.E., Chief, Research Division Mr. Bob Cross, Chief, Mobile Source Control Division Mr. Joe Guerrero, Manager, Engineering Evaluation Section Mr. Paul Hughes, Manager, Low-Emission Vehicle Implementation Section Ms. Tracy Hysong Diane Johnston, Dr. Staff Counsel, Legal Affairs Dr. Norman Kado, Ph.D, Research Division Mr. Robert Leonard, Chief, Stationary Source Enforcement Branch Mr. George Lew, Chief, Engineering and Certification Branch Ms. Judy Lewis, Air Pollution Specialist Ms. Gloria Lindner, Staff, Stationary Source Division Mr. Aron Livingston, Staff Counsel Mr. Bill Loscutoff, Chief, Monitoring and Laboratory Division Ms. Laura McKinney, Manager, Vapor Recovery Certification Section Mr. Rob Oglesby Mr. James Ryden, Chief, Enforcement Division PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF CONTINUED Mr. Dean Simeroth, Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch Dr. Linda Smith, Manager, Health and Exocystems Assessment Section Mr. Michael Terris, Office of Legal Affairs Mr. Mike Tollstrup, Chief, Project Assessment Branch Mr. Peter Venturini, Chief, Stationary Source Division Mr. Barbara Weller, Manager, Pollution Studies Section Ms. Beverly Werner, Manager, Regulatory Assistance Section ALSO PRESENT Mr. Steven Arita, WSPA Ms. Diane Bailey, Natural Resources Defense Council Mr. Adam Cuevas, California Highway Patrol Ms. Sandra Duval, CIOMA Mr. Sean Edgar, California Refuse Removal Council Mr. Richard Hibbs, Golden Gate Transit Ms. Barbara Lee, North Sonoma APCD Mr. Jay McKeeman, CIOMA Mr. Dough Quetin Mr. Prentiss Searles, American Petroleum Intsitute Mr. Gene Walker, California Transit Association Dr. Barry Wallerstein, SCAQMD Mr. Paul Weubben, SCAQMD PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Roll Call 1 02-9-1 13 Chairperson Lloyd 13 Executive Officer Kenny 13 Staff Presentation 14 Q&A 19 02-9-5 21 Chairperson Lloyd 21 Staff Presentation 21 Q&A 25 Motion 39 Vote 40 02-9-2 41 Chairperson Lloyd 41 Executive Officer Kenny 42 Staff Presentation 43 Q&A 56 Paul Wuebben 57 Richard Hibbs 58 Sean Edgar 61 Gene Walker 64 Adam Cuevas 65 Diane Bailey 67 Q&A 70 Motion 80 Vote 80 02-9-3 81 Chairperson Lloyd 81 Executive Officer Kenny 83 Staff Presentation 84 Q&A 95 Jay McKeeman 113 Motion 121 Vote 121 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vi INDEX CONTINUED PAGE 02-9-4 122 Chairperson Lloyd 122 Executive Officer Kenny 122 Staff Presentation 123 Q&A 138 Motion 143 Vote 143 Afternoon Session 145 02-9-6 145 Chairperson Lloyd 145 Exective Officer Kenny 145 Staff Presentation 146 Doug Quetin 172 Barry Wallerstein 173 Barbara Lee 173 Sandra Duval 174 Steven Arita 178 Prentiss Searles 185 Motion 189 Vote 189 02-9-7 189 Chairperson Lloyd 189 Executive Officer Kenny 191 Staff Presentation 192 Q&A 198 Motion 207 Vote 207 Public Comment 207 Adjournment 207 Reporter's Certificate 208 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good morning. The December 3 12th, 2002 meeting of the Air Resources Board will now 4 come to order. 5 Supervisor DeSaulnier, would you please lead us 6 in the Pledge of Allegiance. 7 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 8 Recited in unison.) 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The Clerk of the Board, 10 please call the roll. 11 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Dr. Burke? 12 Mr. Calhoun? 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 14 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Ms. D'Adamo? 15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 16 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Supervisor DeSaulnier? 17 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Here. 18 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Professor Friedman? 19 Mr. McKinnon? 20 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Here. 21 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Supervisor Patrick? 22 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Here. 23 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Mrs. Riordan? 24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 25 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Supervisor Roberts? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 Chairman Lloyd? 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Here. 3 I think Professor Friedman is here also. He's 4 just in the back. 5 So you can confirm Professor Friedman is here. 6 Before we get started this morning I need to 7 announce one small change to the agenda today. 8 We're going to start with a health update as 9 shown, but then we're going to skip to number 5, the 10 proposal to fund the second phase of the FACES study 11 before we resume the number 3, the school bus item. 12 Again, I hope that doesn't inconvenience anybody. 13 But it does allow our research staff to come and then go 14 back to their normal work schedule. 15 Also please be forewarned, the Board will not be 16 taking a formal lunch break today since we have five 17 regulatory items to get through. 18 Instead I'll be calling a short 15 minute break 19 every two hours for the court reporter's benefit. And the 20 rest of us can stretch and move around. And then those 21 breaks it is anticipated to be around 11:00 o'clock and 22 around 1:00 o'clock, again for 15 minutes. 23 So if anybody wants to take a longer lunch break, 24 then you might want to work around that and make sure your 25 item is not included. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 Couple of other things I want to mention here on 2 some personal issues. 3 Later this month Larry Morris, who's been the 4 Head of Administrative Services for ARB for many years is 5 retiring. Many of us -- and unfortunately I've overlapped 6 a relatively short period with Larry. Many of the Board 7 members have worked with him. Larry does not want any 8 ceremony certainly in this forum. 9 But I think it's a tremendous loss to the Air 10 Board, to the Agency. I think Larry epitomizes both in a 11 personal and professional side the very best in a public 12 servant. 13 The good news is that Larry would anticipate, in 14 looking at him, many years of health and happiness just be 15 reserved. But he's going to be a tremendous loss for us, 16 and I think we're really going to miss him. 17 So I would hope that the Board, we can get an 18 appropriate way of recognizing Larry and his 19 contributions. I don't know if anybody on the Board who 20 knows him just wants to say anything? 21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I would 22 agree. And the years that I've served on this Board I 23 know he means a lot to the organization and the 24 administration of this organization. Many people are 25 involved in their specific fields and are experts in that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 field, but Larry had the overall picture of this Board. 2 And I think going into what I would assume is going to be 3 a difficult budget year, you're truly going to miss Larry 4 Morris, because he probably knows where every dollar is 5 that this Board has some responsibility for. And he's 6 going to be a great loss. And I wish him well. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, indeed. 8 Well, Thank you. 9 Another comment. And this is not a pleasant one. 10 But since we didn't have a Board meeting in November, I 11 just want to recognize that we actually lost one of our 12 employees who worked in the ledge office in early 13 November. And this was Chris Elms. And I had the -- I 14 attended the service that was held for Chris. And it's 15 one of these unfortunate things. The Mayor turned out, 16 several key legislators, city councilmen, to testify what 17 Chris had accomplished at the State, because he was in a 18 wheelchair disability. 19 And it's one of those things where you wish you'd 20 known all the things he'd accomplished. He did a great 21 job for us working with Rob Oglesby. 22 But I would like again as a tribute to Chris to 23 read something that the ledge office put together so that 24 we recognize what we lost. 25 "Our friend, Chris Elms, passed away last early PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 November. He left behind an office full of friends and 2 colleagues that cared a great deal about him. Chris 3 started ARB only a couple of years ago in the ledge 4 office. Those fortunate enough to have met him and heard 5 his amazing stories will not forget Chris. 6 "Chris was a self described political junkie who 7 actively followed politics in the business of running this 8 great state and country. As a teenager in the mid-sixties 9 he met Barbra Steisand at an L.A. fund raiser. Chris was 10 a proud Democrat. 11 "Chris followed his interests in public policy to 12 Stanford University and eventually to UC Davis and 13 McGeorge School of Law. While in school he served as a 14 legislative intern in the office of Berkeley Assemblyman 15 Tom Bates and then as an Assembly fellow for Assemblyman 16 Dennis Mountjoy. 17 "After graduating from law school he spent about 18 a decade in the governmental relations office of the 19 California Energy Commission and the University of 20 California Regents before coming to ARB. 21 "One of Chris' passions was baseball. He was a 22 living baseball encyclopedia for the sport. And not just 23 statistics, he really enjoyed the emotion, the drama 24 provided by America's pastime. 25 "Another pastime of Chris was genealogy. He PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 spent a great deal of time reconstructing his family tree. 2 He recently attended his grandma's 100th birthday in 3 Oklahoma where he was able to conduct additional research 4 from local records. 5 "Chris was also president and long-time member of 6 Californian's for Disability Rights. It is the oldest and 7 largest membership organization of persons with 8 disabilities in California. He was nationally known for 9 his advocacy on disability rights laws. 10 "Those of us who had the opportunity to work with 11 Chris and get to know him understood what a remarkable 12 person he was and that he lived an inspired and productive 13 life in spite of many obstacles in his path. 14 "He will be missed." 15 Thank you. 16 The last thing I wanted to raise before we start 17 today's business meeting is an ongoing -- two ongoing 18 issues actually, which are a growing concern to me 19 personally. 20 And one is the problem of excess emissions from 21 existing on-road motor vehicles. And I think this is 22 particularly apropos as we move into the next few months 23 looking at the front end -- that's new cars -- in 24 zero-emission cars. 25 And then, secondly, the issue of federal sources PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 and their controls in the State. 2 I think the more I look at our future emission 3 forecast for California, the more convinced I am that we 4 cannot possibly achieve our goals unless we do something 5 to cleanup or perhaps retrofit in-use motor vehicles. I 6 know we've made some start on that on the diesel side. 7 The recent revamping of the State's I&M or Smog 8 Checks Review Committee is a good start. The new 9 committee's first meeting under new chairmanship is 10 tomorrow. I understand Mr. Kenny is going to go to that 11 meeting. And we have high hopes that that'll be more 12 effective, and we certainly need all their efforts. And 13 we hope that the chronic issue of not capturing all the 14 excess emissions that biennial smog check inspection 15 repairs are supposed to catch will help there. And of 16 course expansion of smog check to areas of the State which 17 previously did not have enhanced programs would be 18 helpful. 19 Again, I cannot think of any problems actually 20 bigger than that. We have the cars on the road that meets 21 all the applicable requirements, and yet collectively 22 account for more emissions than one atmosphere can 23 sustain. And this problem is only going to get more acute 24 as we increase populations, we grapple with issues of 25 environmental justice, et cetera. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 So on that particular issue I'd like to ask staff 2 if they could look at the issue of existing on-road motor 3 vehicles and report back to the Board on what strategy we 4 might undertake to reduce those emissions at the earliest 5 possible date. 6 And, secondly, on that part of it, if as part of 7 that you could include those in some of the SIP measures 8 so we're not just talking about this, but in fact we look 9 at -- concur by the program that would give us some real 10 tons and we would be held accountable for. 11 The second one area is again federal sources. 12 We've seen quite a lot over the last month about maybe 13 some potential weakening of some of the regulations in 14 Washington. In turn I think we also have to recognize, 15 not only is that a great concern to us and letters are 16 being sent by Mr. Kenny and the Governor to the 17 Administration in DC, but also we shouldn't forget that we 18 are impacted by federal sources where we are preempted in 19 California. I think we -- we would like to remind us -- 20 I'd like to be reminded and the Board would like to be 21 reminded how much they could be doing and how much they 22 are doing to help us to get clean air for all the citizens 23 of California. 24 So the second one maybe, Mr. Kenny, you could 25 provide back to us what these federal sources, where we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 are preempted, what their contribution is, and how are 2 they going to go over the years. So maybe -- and how 3 effectively -- maybe how we can be more effective in 4 addressing some of those, working in cooperation with the 5 administration there. 6 And I'm hoping that maybe the next couple of 7 months you could bring that back to us. But I'd leave 8 that timeframe to you, given I know the burden of material 9 staff has to do. 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: A Couple of comments. 11 With regard to the on-road vehicles and specifically to 12 passenger cars, I mean I think the Board can take a lot of 13 pride in the fact that what's been accomplished over the 14 last number of years is that we will have the cleanest 15 possible passenger cars over the next number of years that 16 one can imagine. And I think you're absolutely right, Dr. 17 Lloyd, that the problem we're going to have is essentially 18 looking at the existing fleet that is out there and 19 recognizing that we need to figure out ways to get that 20 fleet to be cleaner and cleaner. 21 Smog check will help a lot. But beyond smog 22 check I think we also need to look at ways to retrofit 23 that existing fleet to bring it into kind of the greatest 24 state of cleanliness that we can actually achieve. 25 What we will do is we will follow up on your PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 direction and we will actually make a SIP measure out of 2 that and place it into kind of the SIP that will be 3 released for -- well, the SIP proposals that will be 4 released for public comment in the next week. We are 5 actually moving forward because of a number of conforming 6 problems that have occurred around the State, and working 7 with the South Coast to try to get the South Coast SIP 8 completed before the first half of next year. And as part 9 of that, we are looking at our mobile source measures to 10 do that. And so we'll put that in there to really kind of 11 try to drive that home. 12 With regard to the federal sources, I mean we 13 agree that the federal sources are a significant 14 contributor. In the 1994 SIP we actually made a number of 15 assignments to the federal government. Very impressively, 16 the federal government came through. And in fact on 17 almost all of the assignments that they were given, they 18 actually did deliver the tons that had been assigned to 19 them. They didn't do it a hundred percent, but their 20 effort and their success was actually impressive. 21 As we move into this next round of SIPs, we will 22 be doing exactly the same thing again, simply because of 23 the fact that the task is getting more difficult, the 24 opportunities are fewer and far between. And so we're 25 going to need every possible bit of assistance we can get PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 from, you know, all sources and all jurisdictions that 2 have control over those sources. 3 Specifically we'll be looking again at airports 4 and airplanes. We'll be looking at ships. We'll be 5 looking at the heavy-duty vehicle fleets. And, in 6 particular, that we have to look at them because of the 7 number of heavy-duty vehicles that are essentially coming 8 across our borders. 9 We'll be looking at farmer construction equipment 10 under 175 horsepower. And the federal government is right 11 now looking at ways to try to control the off-road 12 sources. And there's a fairly significant and substantial 13 debate occurring with them. So hopefully that will come 14 through for us. 15 But we will be looking at all of those things as 16 a way of trying to ensure that, in fact, we do get those 17 additional emission reductions. Because without them and 18 without the contributions from the federal government, it 19 simply means that we in California will have to look to 20 our own sources and get greater emission reductions as a 21 way of trying to subsidize those emission reductions from 22 the federal sources. And obviously we can't do that. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you for a timeframe on 24 coming back to us at all. I know you can move ahead 25 quickly on the SIP one. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I think basically in 2 terms of timeframes, we can probably report back to you 3 with regard to, you know, the federal sources in the next 4 three or four months. 5 And then I think with regard to the light-duty 6 measures and kind of retrofitting light-duty vehicles, 7 it's a little bit more difficult there. We actually did 8 have a pilot program underway trying to identify the 9 opportunities that would be associated with a retrofit 10 program. That the pilot program is not yet completed, it 11 probably won't be completed for some time during the next 12 year. But the idea of putting the measure into a sip will 13 probably provide more of a driving force, and that will 14 help both of us and probably the constituents out there, 15 kind of address that issue and talk about that issue and 16 see how we're going to move forward. 17 But, again, I think you're absolutely right. 18 Unless we identify mechanisms to get emission reductions 19 from the existing on-road fleets, it's going to be very 20 difficult to ever achieve attainment. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah, and I say on the 22 balance part I know that we've been criticized. And 23 people have pointed out to me personally that, you know, 24 you got all this emphasis on the getting cleaner and 25 cleaner cars, getting to zero; at the same time we need to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 look at the other side of it, given the number of cars and 2 vehicles out there. 3 So thanks very much. I appreciate that. 4 Move ahead to the first agenda item. I'd like to 5 remind anyone in the audience who wishes to testify on 6 today's agenda items to sign up with the clerk of the 7 Board. And if they have written comments to provide 30 8 copies to the Board clerk. 9 First item on the agenda today the 02-9-1. It's 10 the monthly public health report. 11 In June of this year the Board approved annual 12 standards for PM10 and PM2.5 that are designed to protect 13 sensitive subpopulations, such as the elderly and those 14 with existing cardiopulmonary disease, against the adverse 15 health effects of chronic PM exposure. 16 So today we have a topical presentation talking 17 about recent findings on the relationship between exposure 18 to fine and ultrafine particulate matter and the risk for 19 heart disease. This is some of the new information that 20 directly demonstrates the adverse health effects of 21 short-term exposure to these pollutants. 22 So with that I'd like to turn it over to Mr. 23 Kenny to begin staff presentation. 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thanks, Dr. Lloyd and 25 members of the Board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 The first standards reviewed under the Children's 2 Environmental Protection Act, SB 25, are those for 3 particulate matter, as you mentioned. In June of this 4 year, the Board adopted new annual average standards for 5 PM2.5 PM10. And staff is still reviewing material on 6 short-term standards for PM. 7 The Board continues to be interested in the 8 health effects of exposure, including a new study area of 9 ultrafine particles. And today staff will provide you 10 with you with an update on some of the more important 11 recent findings on PM health effects. These findings are 12 beginning to show a biological link between short-term 13 exposure to fine PM, including ultrafine particles and the 14 risk of heart disease. 15 Dr. Norman Kado from the Health and Exposure 16 Assessment Branch will make the staff presentation. 17 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 18 Presented as follows.) 19 DR. KADO: Thank you very much. 20 Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and members of the 21 board. 22 A number of investigators have reported that 23 daily variations in ambient air -- particulate air 24 pollution have been associated with cardiovascular disease 25 and deaths. The Air Resources Board has very recently PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 adopted annual PM10 and PM2.5 standards and continues to 2 review the latest information to protect the most 3 sensitive members of the public from chronic and acute 4 health effects, including those with cardiovascular 5 disease. 6 The presentation this morning is a discussion of 7 a preliminary study of subjects with coronary heart 8 disease who were monitored with a standard electronic 9 cardiac test. The test results were compared with 10 airborne concentrations of ultrafine and fine particulate 11 matter and other air pollutants. 12 --o0o-- 13 DR. KADO: To provide a background, in previous 14 research, investigators have demonstrated a daily exposure 15 to ambient fine particles, PM2.5, are associated with 16 cardiovascular disease and mortality. The biological 17 mechanisms of how PM2.5 may cause cardiovascular disease 18 and mortality are unknown. And the physical and chemical 19 properties of PM that are potentially responsible for its 20 toxicity are also unknown. 21 Investigators have reported that ultrafine 22 particles, those less than 0.1 micrometer diameter, have 23 been associated with respiratory health effects. However, 24 there is little information on the association between 25 exposure to ultrafine particles and cardiovascular health. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 The research discussed today is an initial study 2 on exposure to PM, including ultrafine PM, and their 3 association with any specific cardiovascular health 4 effects. 5 --o0o-- 6 DR. KADO: The research that we will be 7 discussing this morning is entitled "Particulate Air 8 Pollution and Risk of ST-Segment Depression Among Subjects 9 with Coronary Heart Disease," by Dr. Pekkanen and 10 colleagues from the Unit of Epidemiology, National Public 11 Health Institute, Finland. The study was recently 12 published in the Medical Journal's circulation. 13 The research involved evaluating cardiovascular 14 health effects of PM in patients with coronary heart 15 disease. There were 45 adult men and women studied. The 16 average age was 68 years. Exercise tests were conducted 17 every two weeks for six months. 18 The approach chosen by the investigators to 19 evaluate cardiovascular health effects was to examine 20 electrocardiogram, or ECG, patterns and relate the results 21 of any ECG changes with exposure to airborne particulate 22 matter and other air pollutants. 23 --o0o-- 24 DR. KADO: The next slide is an illustration of a 25 normal and abnormal ECG, and summarizes the results of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 study. 2 The electrocardiogram represents electric signals 3 emitted by the heart for essential normal function. A 4 normal ECG pattern representing a single heartbeat is 5 illustrated in the upper figure. 6 The specific abnormal ECG pattern observed for 7 the study discussed is called an ST-segment depression. 8 This abnormal pattern may be an indicator of an adverse 9 health effect taking place in the heart, namely a high 10 probability of myocardial ischemia, or lack of oxygen to 11 the heart muscle. The lack of oxygen in turn results in a 12 higher risk of heart damage and acute myocardial 13 infarction, or heart attack. 14 An abnormal ECG representing an ST-segment 15 depression is illustrated in the lower figure. Note that 16 the ST portion of the electrical signal shown in the 17 circle is lower than that seen in the normal signal. 18 The authors reported that there was an 19 association between fine PM as well as ultrafine PM 20 exposure and the risk of exercise-induced ST-segment 21 depression, and that the association was most significant 22 two days after exposure. The risk was significantly 23 elevated, approximately three times of that which was 24 normally expected. The association of ST-depression with 25 ultrafine PM was independent fine PM. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 Carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide also were 2 associated with the ST-segment depression. But these 3 associations were weaker. There was no consistent 4 association for coarse particles. 5 --o0o-- 6 DR. KADO: This pilot study supports the finding 7 that fine PM is associated with cardiovascular health 8 effects. It is one of the first studies regarding 9 ultrafine PM exposure and cardiovascular health effects. 10 Although this study is considered preliminary regarding 11 the mechanism of fine and ultrafine PM and their effects 12 on the cardiovascular system, it provides insight for 13 developing and testing future hypotheses; that is, fine 14 and ultrafine PM may cause a higher risk of cardiac 15 schemia, a serious health effect. 16 Further, verification of this type of study is 17 needed in larger populations, in a variety of cities, and 18 with different mixtures of air pollutants. 19 Finally, the paper summarized today may help in 20 the effort to focus future research and to review ambient 21 air quality standards, and implies that meeting clean air 22 quality standards can result in significant improvement in 23 cardiovascular health. 24 This concludes the health update. And we would 25 be happy to answer any questions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 Thank you very much. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 3 I think it's very interesting as we -- at least 4 I've been listening to some of the fascinating stories on 5 NPR and the 50th anniversary of the London smog to see how 6 far we've come in our knowledge. And yet this is focused 7 on the ultra fines, and in those days it was coal dust. I 8 guess in this terminology, it was more like rocks, but, 9 again, the huge number of deaths that were incurred at 10 that time. So I think this research and your highlighting 11 this is really very significant, very interesting. 12 Professor Friedman. 13 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Was this the result 14 of one of our health research grants or part of it? 15 DR. KADO: No. This pilot study was conducted in 16 Finland as part of an ultrafine risk assessment 17 collaborative effort in Europe. 18 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, because my 19 namesake, Dr. Bill Friedman, isn't here yet or perhaps may 20 not be able to join us, I feel some responsibility, though 21 not a medical person, to at least speak to this. 22 I hope we will see the continuation of this kind 23 of research because this is very preliminary and it is not 24 at all determinative yet. But if in the future there's 25 something that we could consider or our research panel PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 could consider or be presented with, I would hope that 2 we'd have a chance to play a role in continuing this kind 3 of research. I think more and more we're going to have to 4 concern ourselves with particulate issues, particularly 5 coming from overseas as well what we can control directly 6 or try to control directly here. 7 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 8 Professor Friedman, if I could -- can I just 9 inform you too, we are actually working on an ultrafine 10 study. And we're really in the preproposal stage right 11 now. But what it would do is it would actually -- you 12 know, with our -- southern California we have about a 12 13 station ultrafine network, monitoring network. So we're 14 hoping to build off that network and actually fund an 15 epidemiological study here actually in the very near 16 future. 17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: And I understand 18 there is now the technology to measure ultrafine? 19 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 20 There is. 21 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 22 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 23 So hopefully in a couple of months we can come 24 back to you. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Certainly these types of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 studies resonate with us on the Board, pretty sobering in 2 terms of what's going on. 3 Any other comments, questions from the Board. 4 Thank you very much indeed. And thank you; an 5 excellent update. 6 As I indicated, we're going to move ahead. The 7 next item is a research proposals, Agenda Item 02-9-5. 8 And I'll turn it over to Mr. Kenny to introduce 9 the item. 10 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Tracy Hysong, 11 who's the staff lead on the project, will make the 12 presentation. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That was Bart Croes, head of 14 research. 15 MS. HYSONG: Okay. Today we are bringing for 16 your consideration a proposal to continue funding of the 17 Fresno Asthmatic Children's Environment Study, or FACES. 18 FACES was originally designed as a 66-month 19 project. 20 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 21 Presented as follows.) 22 MS. HYSONG: In 1999, the Board funded the first 23 phase of the project, with funding for the second phase 24 contingent on satisfactory progress during the first 25 phase. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 The FACES project has made good progress over 2 approximately the first two years of the project, and the 3 investigators have provided ARB with an interim report 4 that states their progress to this point. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. HYSONG: Asthma is a serious problem in 7 California. There are over 2.2 million asthmatics in the 8 State. A number of agencies statewide are developing 9 asthma programs to address this concern. 10 FACES involves 250 asthmatic children in Fresno. 11 The study is designed to look at the effects of 12 environmental factors, including air pollution, on the 13 symptoms and long-term progression of asthma. 14 Fresno is selected because it has a very high 15 prevalence of asthma among children, an ethnically diverse 16 population, and frequent high levels of ambient air 17 pollution, especially ozone and particles. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. HYSONG: Measurements being made include lung 20 function testing, some of which is done by the children at 21 home using a portable spirometer, skin testing and 22 questionnaires and diaries to look at changes in symptoms 23 and the home environment. 24 Environmental factors and pollutants are measured 25 in the children's homes and community. The study focuses PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 on particulate matter, and measurements include 2 continuous sampling of different particulate matter size 3 fractions, as well as different chemical components of 4 particulate matter. 5 Other criteria pollutants measured include ozone 6 and oxides of nitrogen. Allergens such as pollen and 7 airborne mold spores are measured. Indoor pollution, 8 including environmental tobacco smoke, is also measured. 9 --o0o-- 10 MS. HYSONG: The Research Screening Committee 11 reviewed and recommended this proposal for funding in 12 early October. An update on the progress of FACES was 13 presented at the October Board meeting. At that time, the 14 Board requested that the FACES external advisory panel be 15 convened to discuss issues related to the decrease in 16 sample size and the implications this would have on the 17 success of the study. 18 The EAP, a panel of leading health and exposure 19 scientists, determined that despite the problems with 20 recruitment and the smaller number of children being 21 followed, the longitudinal component of the study is still 22 feasible and the investigators should have adequate power 23 to detect long-term health outcomes at a November 24 teleconference. 25 The EAP commented that the higher retention and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 increased data quality seen in the subjects recruited for 2 the study tends to offset the reduced sample size. 3 The EAP unanimously recommended full funding for 4 Phase 2 of the proposal and provided ARB with a written 5 statement of their conclusions. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. HYSONG: Based on the comments received 8 during the peer review process, staff recommends funding 9 of Phase 2 of the proposal for $2,396,389. 10 In addition, staff is recommending that the 11 following conditions be met: 12 First, annual meetings will be held of the FACES 13 external advisory panel, with the next meeting anticipated 14 in September of 2003. 15 Secondly, a workshop will be held by the summer 16 of 2003 between the coordinators of the supersites in both 17 L.A. and Fresno to exchange information. 18 Third, quarterly meetings held between the Fresno 19 supersite, ARB, and the FACES' aerometric data managers to 20 facilitate coordination and usage of aerometric data. The 21 first meeting was held December 10th, 2002. 22 Fourth, UCB will continue to enroll children to 23 accommodate additional enrollment from Kaiser, facilitated 24 by Board Member Matthew McKinnon. 25 Fifth, the FACES' investigators are strongly PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 encouraged to apply for NIH funding. 2 And, lastly, staff will report back to the Board 3 in February of 2004 on the progress of the study, 4 including the subject retention and compliance rates. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. HYSONG: Thank you. And I'd be glad to 7 answer any questions. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I just had one, and it's a 9 naive question. 10 On the study measurements, what specific skin 11 testing is done? 12 POPULATION STUDIES SECTION MANAGER WELLER: The 13 skin testing they were speaking of was skin testing for 14 allergens. This is a typical test that's done with 15 asthmatics for allergens. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon, do you want to 17 comment on -- 18 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yes. Just a couple of 19 comments. 20 Dr. Friedman and I have kind of talked back and 21 forth over the last week or so. And I've been in contact 22 with Kaiser about opening up enrollment to try to bring 23 the numbers up to the original target. 24 That discussion -- the pediatrician that was 25 initially involved is no longer involved. So we're sort PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 of starting from scratch with Kaiser, which means we may 2 want to consider time and some money for accomplishing 3 that. So I don't -- I've heard a figure of $40,000 tossed 4 around from some time back. My understanding, that's for 5 Kaiser to put staff on putting together a database of all 6 the children that would qualify for this study. And then 7 Kaiser doing the mailing to the parents of the children to 8 invite them into the study. And I don't have any way of 9 verifying if that's an accurate figure. 10 But we may want to consider extending the open 11 period for the Kaiser kids for a period of time. And we 12 may want to consider additional money. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 14 Mrs. Riordan and Mr. Calhoun. 15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, the staff 16 and I spoke recently about this study and their 17 recommendations. And I think critical to this is the 18 February Board update and our assessment as well as the 19 staff's assessment of retention. There are two factors, I 20 think, that are important: One is to expand hopefully 21 through Kaiser and any other medical resources that we 22 have in that general area of Fresno to bring children into 23 the study. 24 But on the other hand we have to retain what we 25 have. And the -- I gather the people who are very much PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 involved see a high retention rate right now much better 2 than they had hoped for. But we need to be sure that that 3 retention rate stays where it is or moves very little. I 4 suppose it's going to move a little bit. 5 But my emphasis would be that the report to us 6 gives us and staff the ability to be sure that our 7 retention rate is one that we can live with. Because more 8 often than not, children in farming communities move for a 9 variety of reasons. And I think we need to be very sure 10 that we have retained these subjects in the test. And so 11 with that I feel comfortable I think that the external 12 advisory panel meeting was a good one. And thank you, 13 staff, for getting that together as we asked of you to do 14 that. 15 But at the same time we need to be sure of the 16 retention. And I would recommend that we emphasize that 17 for that Board update. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. 19 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: At the last Board meeting 20 Dr. Friedman expressed some concerns about the study to 21 date. And I wonder -- one of the things as I recall that 22 he was concerned about is that there had been no -- 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Joe, is your mic on. Is the 24 green light on? 25 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I think it's on. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 One of the concerns as I recall that he expressed 2 was there'd been no collective discussion among the 3 various members of the panel about the impact of some of 4 the test results, that maybe there'd been individual 5 expressions of their views on the impact of the results, 6 but he didn't know and was concerned about their being a 7 collective discussion, if they'd gotten together and 8 they'd done a collective discussion of the results. 9 And I'm wondering as a follow up to that what has 10 transpired? 11 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: This is Bart 12 Croes. 13 Mr. Calhoun, we've had a few discussions with Dr. 14 Friedman where he expressed those same concerns. So at 15 the meeting of the external advisory panel, it included 16 all the members. They had a roundtable discussion. And 17 the report from the Committee that's included in your 18 package is endorsed by all the members. 19 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Does Dr. Friedman -- have 20 you reviewed it with him? 21 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Yes, he's 22 reviewed all the materials. 23 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: And he has bought into 24 what your reporting here today? 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, we do have a message PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 from him that he is supportive. 2 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 3 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I was just going to ask 4 a question about the cost of the facilitator. Is there 5 some kind of contractual relationship with Mr. McKinnon? 6 (Laughter.) 7 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I want to make sure 8 we're getting value for his services. 9 (Laughter.) 10 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Just a question -- a 11 comment and a question. 12 In Contra Costa County, I'd mentioned to the 13 Chairman, that we're just embarking our health department 14 on a similar study in the industrial belt of the East Bay, 15 and it's about the same dollar amount. So I hope that as 16 we go through these studies, we have some communication. 17 I just wonder about -- we come across these 18 various studies -- how we can use the information from 19 other studies that are going on to sort of support or 20 allow us for a sort of wider range of information. And 21 maybe it's just communication. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Actually I would 23 suggest that we actually have pretty good communication on 24 this, I mean to the extent that it's happening in Contra 25 Costa County and that we're doing it in Fresno. I mean PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 probably incredibly invaluable to essentially make sure 2 that we have a good link and that we're sharing all the 3 information that each of us is generating. 4 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: That would be good. As 5 long as Mr. McKinnon isn't the facilitator in Contra 6 Costa. 7 (Laughter.) 8 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Thank you, Mr. 9 Chairman. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think one of the things 11 that might be useful in the next year also is something I 12 know I did when I came on board, was to actually have a 13 meeting where we reviewed some of the health data, 14 compared that to what we're doing in the State. And I 15 think we could work with staff on something like that 16 also. 17 A couple of comments I'd like to make. One, 18 again, I think it's just to reiterate I think some 19 concerns may be expressed I think, you know -- personally 20 am fully supportive of the study because it -- we need to 21 look at the impact of asthma. I think the L.A. Times 22 article focusing on the valley focused very heavily on the 23 increasing concerns about health impacts. 24 My understanding from Jerry Martin is the Fresno 25 Bee is going to come out with a large article focusing on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 the valley as well. So I think we're in the right place 2 looking at that. 3 And if you look at the concerns of citizens -- 4 and I'm sure Barbara and Didi can also comment on that -- 5 there's increasing concern about the health impacts so 6 we're doing the right thing. 7 But on the other hand I think it's important that 8 we -- as we did, we sent a message to the investigators 9 that we're appropriating here a large chunk of dollars in 10 a time when the State is facing significant constraints. 11 So I'm very happy the way the staff has handled this, come 12 back with the investigators. I hope that we got the 13 investigators. 14 The intention was never to doubt the importance 15 of this study, but to question whether it was being done 16 in the best way and whether in fact the communication part 17 of it was -- and while I see staff's recommendation coming 18 out and my discussions with staff and with Dr. Prasad of 19 my staff, indicating that we actually accomplished a lot 20 by asking them to work together here. And I think the 21 external advisory panel was not meeting frequently, the 22 investigator was not making -- maybe making every effort. 23 So I think we've come a long way in that part of 24 it. And I think having Mr. McKinnon also look at the 25 aspect to see if we can broaden the base is very, very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 important. 2 And I think the question about the comments from 3 my colleagues on the Board are important. And I think 4 we -- I hope that as we move ahead the investigators 5 recommend that we're trying to improve the study, because 6 we have to answer -- as the Board, we have to answer to 7 this. 8 And before I turn over to Ms. D'Adamo, just one 9 question here. My understanding is that this $2.3, $2.4 10 million will also be not given as a lump sum; there will 11 be a -- sort of a progress report. And will that be 12 appropriated before the February meeting, or will we have 13 another chance before the final chunk is given to look at 14 that? 15 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: The plan is to 16 just appropriate about a million dollars this fiscal year. 17 And so there would be an opportunity next fiscal year to 18 review that. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So which would be about a 20 year's time? 21 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Right? 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So I would hope that the 23 Board, if -- prior to the February Board update, that 24 maybe you could also give us a short update to make sure 25 everything's on track, because, clearly, the question will PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 come up. You know, it would be nice to, say, before you 2 appropriate the final dollar, just give us some 3 reassurance that things are actually on track. 4 Ms. D'Adamo. 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a few questions 6 about staff's suggestions on how we could make some use of 7 this proposal in terms of getting the word out to 8 communities that may not be as keyed in as, say, the 9 Fresno community. 10 I had asked staff to provide some information to 11 me about San Joaquin Valley asthma rates. And I'd like to 12 later on just pass this around for the other Board members 13 to see. 14 It's quite interesting that the San Joaquin 15 Valley average just for children is 11.9 percent as 16 compared to the California average, 9.6. When you look at 17 Fresno in particular though, there's quite a huge jump -- 18 16.4 percent -- as compared to some of the other 19 regions -- Kern County, 10 percent; San Joaquin, 10 20 percent; Tulare, 10.5. 21 So a couple of questions. First of all, can 22 staff provide some information as to why Fresno is so much 23 higher? Is it that there is an increased awareness, 24 increased reporting? Or is there something in particular 25 that's going on in Fresno as compared to some of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 adjacent San Joaquin Valley communities? 2 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE? 3 Well, I think really the best way to answer it is 4 that's really the purpose of the study itself, is that we 5 don't know why there's a greater number of asthmatics in 6 Fresno. And definitely that was one reason that area was 7 chosen, is because it had such a high asthma prevalence 8 itself. 9 But part of the study -- the FACES study itself 10 is to find out, of the air pollution, what affect that has 11 on triggering asthma attacks, progression of asthma; and 12 then what part of the air pollution -- what part of the 13 mix? Is it, you know, finer particles, is it the ozones, 14 is it something else that's affecting it? 15 So that's really the outcome we're going to find. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: My own personal sense in 17 traveling around is that some of the public health 18 officials in Fresno seem to be keenly aware of this issue. 19 And I'm just wondering if there's anything that we can do 20 in the meantime, assuming that Fresno may not be too far 21 off from other surrounding communities, if parents are 22 more aware, if doctors are more aware, are these children 23 getting in earlier, what's the effect of an earlier 24 diagnosis, can it help them to kind of keep the symptoms 25 at bay a little bit longer in terms of the health of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 children in that area? 2 And if that is the case, can we provide some 3 preliminary findings to other communities' public health 4 officials with the hopes that doctors would be able to 5 diagnose asthma sooner? 6 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 7 Actually those are some good suggestions. We do 8 know there are asthma mitigation measures we can inform 9 the public about and families. And I think those things 10 are types of triggers to asthma that we know about 11 already, that I think is important to make the general 12 public know about. Hopefully most of the medical 13 community is aware. But I think that would be an 14 important step to take, is to inform them as well of some 15 of the triggers, either air pollution triggers or allergen 16 triggers as well that are very important to taking care of 17 kids and their health. 18 And getting back -- this is -- the final part of 19 the study is, we're hoping that there's a couple of 20 things. That does provide us with better information to 21 give to health care providers so they can transmit that 22 information on to their patients as well. 23 And of course for the Board, it helps us to 24 identify what we think are the important air pollution 25 measures that we can basically focus on to improve this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 vulnerable population's health. 2 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: One thing I'd 3 like to add is that there are a number of efforts, both 4 within the State of California and nationally, to try to 5 put together asthma mitigation plans to try to take 6 advantage of ongoing and future research and past research 7 on asthma triggers and develop plans to reduce exposure of 8 children and adults to those triggers. 9 So those are -- I believe there's a national plan 10 that's being circulated now for review. That should be 11 available by the end of the year or early next year. And 12 there's a California plan under development as well. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 14 Professor Friedman. 15 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Has the staff 16 considered Mr. McKinnon's suggestion? Is that included 17 here? Or do you intend to see what can be worked out, to 18 include and enlarge the database? 19 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 20 I think we'll talk a little closer to Kaiser and 21 find out exactly what they need. Our initial statements 22 were -- you know, what would really help the investigators 23 I think at this point would be a letter to their asthmatic 24 patients, and those of newly diagnosed kids. And of 25 course with a -- it's going to be a small population. But PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 if they could focus in, I think that's going to give it a 2 good boost to the recruitment for the FACES program. 3 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: And what about the 4 tracking issue that -- 5 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 6 That definitely -- that's already something we 7 conveyed to the investigators that we want to keep on top 8 of. And they provide us at routine intervals the -- you 9 know, how the recruitment's going, how the retention is 10 and their data quality. That is, that the kids not only 11 are in the study, but they're following through with their 12 panel studies, with their diaries they're filling out. 13 And so when we come back -- we'll have that on a routine 14 basis. But definitely when we come back in a year we'll 15 be able to update you as well. 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Just also want to -- oh, 18 Supervisor Patrick. 19 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 20 I just wanted to ask -- 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Is your mic on? 22 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: It is. So I will get very 23 close to it and he will turn up the volume very high. I'm 24 not noted for being a shrinking violet, so I'm not sure 25 what the problem is. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 Throughout the valley it's pretty widely known 2 that Fresno has the worst asthma rate of anyplace else. 3 Where are other places in California that have rates 4 similar to Fresno's? 5 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 6 Well, Imperial County in the southern part of the 7 state is I think one of the highest counties in the entire 8 state for asthma. There also are several areas within the 9 San Joaquin Valley that are also high. 10 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: In the Central region? 11 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 12 I think it was San Joaquin County and Kings 13 County were two of the highest areas. 14 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Highest if Fresno? 15 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 16 Fresno is actually highest. 17 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: And I -- I just think that 18 this discussion has actually been very, very useful. I 19 think that it's important that we do give guidance to the 20 investigators in terms of, you know, what can this Board 21 do perhaps to be more of a partner with folks? And I 22 think that that was -- as I recall the discussion that we 23 had in October, that was -- the gist of the conversation 24 was, you know, how -- 25 Oh, we got the volume right. Good for you. It's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 you guys. It's you in there, where the little green -- I 2 can see the green light, but I can't see anybody. 3 Anyway I've totally lost my train of thought. 4 Oh, they're flashing lights now. 5 You didn't know this meeting was going to be 6 quite this much fun, did you, in the audience? 7 I do think though that, you know, the tenor of 8 the discussion was more how can we assist in the effort 9 and so forth. So I think that the discussion that has 10 gone on, Mr. McKinnon's efforts and your efforts certainly 11 of bringing all the parties together -- I think it's 12 absolutely critical that we bring the best minds to this, 13 and that certainly is -- it sounds as though there's going 14 to be some continuity in that effort. And I think that's 15 very important. 16 And it is, as I say, very widely known that 17 Fresno has the highest numbers. And so we're glad that 18 you're there to help find out why. 19 And I would move on the Resolution 02-32. 20 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Second. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Moved and seconded. 22 Again, before we get the vote, I just want to 23 again reiterate Dr. Friedman's support for this -- 24 providing there are funds available, which there are -- 25 but also to thank him for his excellent efforts on leading PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 this. So we look to him as the expert in this. And we 2 miss him on that, but we appreciate the efforts that he's 3 put in on this. 4 And we also appreciate the efforts that Mr. 5 McKinnon has and will commit to try to get the Kaiser 6 participation, if possible. 7 So all in favor of the resolution say aye. 8 (Ayes.) 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: It's unanimous. 10 So with that, again thank you, staff, and thanks 11 very much. 12 I think this is coming up with the strongest 13 study. I think you've heard again the sentiments from the 14 Board. Anything that the Board can do, or maybe the two 15 resident board members down in the valley, we can provide 16 them with information that they could educate -- I was 17 meeting with some other groups yesterday, some of the 18 environmental groups who were getting increasingly active. 19 I think that as long as they know about this study, I 20 think it would be very helpful. So I'm looking forward to 21 continuing progress. 22 Thanks very much. 23 Leave a moment while we move on to the next 24 agenda item, which is on school bus idling. 25 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 Presented as follows.) 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I guess I should have also 3 stated that this is our first Board meeting after the 4 election. So it's good to be back. 5 (Laughter.) 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The next agenda item is 7 02-9-2, public hearing to consider an airborne toxic 8 control measure to limit vehicle emissions at schools. 9 As we have heard repeatedly from staff and 10 medical authorities, children are particularly susceptible 11 to the adverse health effects of air pollution. For that 12 reason we need to do everything we can to prevent or limit 13 their exposure to the harmful pollution. That's why I'm 14 so pleased to be considering this proposed school bus 15 idling measure today. 16 Again, I would like to express my appreciation to 17 the California Highway Patrol, the California Department 18 of Education, the California Parent-Teacher Association, 19 school districts, and school bus contractors for the 20 assistance they have provided to our staff in developing 21 the proposed regulations. 22 I think without their help and support we could 23 not have made the progress and we would not be able to 24 implement this Regulation as we would wish. So I again 25 thank them very much for that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 And at this time I'd like to turn it over to Mr. 2 Kenny to introduce the item. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman 4 and members of the Board. 5 Heavy-duty vehicle exhaust is a source of diesel 6 PM and other toxic air contaminants for which there are no 7 known safe exposure levels. 8 Excessive idling of school buses and other buses 9 and vehicles unnecessarily exposes children and others to 10 these toxic air contaminants. 11 In 2000 the Board approved a comprehensive risk 12 reduction plan for diesel PM. In 2001 the Office of 13 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment identified diesel 14 PM and several other toxic air contaminants associated 15 with the heavy-duty motor vehicle exhaust to be among the 16 top five toxic air contaminants with adverse health 17 effects for children. 18 What we are proposing today is an ATCM because it 19 is simple and it is a pollution-prevention measure that 20 can be easily implemented to reduce children's, parents', 21 teachers', and nearby residents' exposure to diesel PM and 22 the associated potential cancer risks and other adverse 23 health effects. 24 And with that I'd like to introduce Barbara Cook, 25 who will make the presentation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: Thank you, Mr. 2 Kenny. 3 Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and members of the 4 Board. 5 Today I will explain our reasons for proposing an 6 airborne toxic control measure to limit school bus idling 7 and idling at schools. In addition, I will present 8 information about the regulatory process requirements and 9 impacts associated with our proposal. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: Specifically, my 12 presentation will briefly discuss the Regulation's 13 purpose; development process; requirements, including 14 affected emission sources and exemptions; and 15 implementation and enforcement, including anticipated 16 benefits and impacts. 17 I'll conclude with a summary and the staff's 18 recommendation. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: The purpose of 21 the regulation is to reduce diesel PM and other toxic air 22 contaminant emissions, primarily by eliminating 23 unnecessary heavy-duty bus and commercial vehicle idling 24 at schools. 25 The proposed ATCM is one step in a comprehensive PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 strategy to reduce as much as possible the public's 2 exposure and health risk due to such substances. 3 We believe that the proposed ATCM is the right 4 step because it focuses health protection efforts on 5 children, who are especially susceptible to adverse health 6 effects caused by diesel PM and other toxic air 7 contaminants. It represents a simple, practical, and 8 easily implemented measure that makes sense in terms of 9 fuel conservation and vehicle wear as well as health 10 benefits. And it complements and enhances existing and 11 future air quality laws, policies, and programs that 12 affect motor vehicle and other emission sources. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: The California 15 Health and Safety Code both requires and sets forth a 16 process for the identification of toxic air contaminants 17 and for the development of air toxic control measures. 18 In 1998, the Air Resources Board identified 19 diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant. Diesel PM is 20 admitted by both stationary and mobile diesel-fueled 21 engines and is the most prominent motor vehicle toxic air 22 contaminant affecting children. 23 In 2000, the Board approved a risk reduction plan 24 for diesel PM. The plan included recommendations for 25 idling measures as part of an overall strategy to reduce PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 diesel PM emissions and exposure. 2 However, motor vehicle toxic air contaminant 3 emissions are not limited to diesel-fueled vehicles. All 4 except electric-powered motor vehicles emit toxic air 5 contaminants regardless of the fuel used. Other 6 identified toxic air contaminants are shown in the slide. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: In 2001, the 9 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment published 10 the prioritization of toxic air contaminants under the 11 Children's Environmental Health Protection Act. 12 This report identified diesel PM and three other 13 substances associated with heavy-duty motor vehicle 14 exhaust among the top five priority toxic air contaminants 15 for children. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: As part of the 18 development process the staff conducted telephone surveys 19 of states, air districts, school district transportation 20 officials, and school bus contractors to assess the status 21 of state and local anti-idling laws. 22 We found that California is one of 18 states with 23 an anti-idling law. California statute does not 24 specifically address children's exposure to school bus and 25 other heavy-duty commercial vehicle exhaust. Although the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 air districts have some limited idling authority under 2 nuisance rules and the California Environmental Quality 3 Act, or CEQA requirements, they do not have specific 4 anti-idling regulations. Also, there are no local 5 ordinances that specifically restrict idling. 6 However, we did learn that a few school districts 7 and school bus contractors have written anti-idling 8 policies, and that many have told us that they verbally 9 advise drivers to avoid excessive idling. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: To date, ARB's 12 lower emissions school bus program has assisted in funding 13 the retrofit of about 1,000 existing diesel school buses 14 with diesel particulate filters and the replacement of 15 nearly 400 buses with new alternative fuel or lower 16 emitting diesel school buses. 17 By the end of next year the program will fund 18 retrofits to an additional 1,500 diesel school buses. 19 Also, an additional $5 million of Proposition 40 funds 20 will be available for bus replacement. 21 According to the California Highway Patrol annual 22 safety inspection records, there are approximately 26,000 23 school buses in California today. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: In addition to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 conducting surveys to define current state and local 2 anti-idling laws, the staff consulted with representatives 3 of two state agencies that already have requirements for 4 school transportation bus and vehicle drivers. The 5 California Department of Education requires initial and 6 annual drivers training, and the California Highway Patrol 7 develops tests for and certifies drivers. 8 Meetings and conference calls were also held with 9 representatives of school districts and other 10 organizations as will be explained in the Ombudsman's 11 report following my presentation. 12 One public consultation meeting and two public 13 workshops on the proposed ATCM were held this year. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: Initially the 16 proposed ATCM was to apply only to school buses. However, 17 as a result of public comment, we expanded applicability 18 requirements to include other buses and commercial 19 vehicles. 20 We were specifically asked to include other types 21 of school transportation such as school pupil activity 22 buses, youth buses, and general public paratransit buses. 23 For the remainder of the presentation I will use 24 the term "school bus" to refer to all of the buses and 25 commercial vehicles involved in school transportation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 We were also specifically asked to include 2 paratransit buses and heavy-duty vehicles other than buses 3 that operate at or near schools. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: The proposed ATCM 6 would require drivers of school buses to turn off the bus 7 engine upon stopping at a school or within 100 feet of a 8 school. This would effectively mean no idling at or near 9 schools. At other locations school buses would be allowed 10 to idle up to five minutes. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: The proposed ATCM 13 would also require that transit buses and heavy-duty 14 vehicles other than buses not idle when on school grounds, 15 and idle no more than five minutes within 100 feet of a 16 school. The staff added this provision as a result of 17 public comments received. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: In addition, the 20 proposed ATCM requires drivers to be informed about the 21 requirements of the proposed ATCM. It also requires that 22 complaints and enforcement actions be tracked and that 23 records be kept on such activities. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: An electric PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 powered bus or commercial vehicle would not be subject to 2 the proposed ATCM; nor would any private passenger 3 vehicles. 4 We recognize that private passenger cars 5 contribute to toxic air contaminant emissions and to 6 traffic congestion at schools, and would recommend 7 discouraging passenger car idling as part of the education 8 measures staff would undertake to implement the proposed 9 ATCM. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: The regulation 12 exempts a number of idling activities that are necessary 13 due to safety or operational concerns. Examples of 14 exempting idling activities include idling a bus or 15 vehicle stopped at a stop sign or signal or otherwise 16 stopped in the midst of traffic, and idling necessary to 17 operate defrosters or to reach appropriate brake pressure. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: If the Board 20 adopts the proposed ATCM, it would become effective once 21 the regulatory process is complete and outreach efforts 22 have been made. These efforts are likely to be completed 23 by the fall 2003 school year. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: We expect the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 proposed ATCM to reduce exposure and the associated 2 adverse health impacts due to diesel PM and other toxic 3 air contaminants and air pollutants. For any given 4 community, the degree of health benefit would depend upon 5 the current number and extent of unnecessary idling of 6 affected buses and commercial vehicles that would be 7 curtailed by the proposed ATCM. 8 We also expect a proposed ATCM to benefit the 9 environment with modest reductions in particulate matter 10 and oxides of nitrogen. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: We estimate that 13 compliance costs would be minimal, about $2 or less per 14 driver per year, because the proposed ATCM would not 15 require any new or add-on control devices or equipment and 16 existing programs and procedures could be used to comply 17 with training, tracking and record keeping requirements. 18 For example, the California Department of Education and 19 California Highway Patrol already have well established 20 training and testing programs for school bus drivers. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: If the Board 23 adopts the proposed ATCM, we would work with the 24 California Department of Education and Highway Patrol to 25 incorporate the regulation's requirements into existing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 required training, testing and record keeping programs for 2 school bus drivers. Because of these programs, we 3 anticipate a high degree of compliance on the part of this 4 key segment of drivers. 5 We would develop educational materials for the 6 fleet owners or operators of affected transit buses and 7 heavy-duty vehicles other than buses. These owners and 8 operators are expected to incorporate these materials and 9 existing procedures to inform and keep records on drivers. 10 We would also develop special education materials for 11 school districts and the public. We believe that 12 teachers, school officials, and parents can provide 13 valuable assistance in identifying and reporting suspected 14 instances of noncompliance. 15 The ARB Enforcement Division would have primary 16 enforcement responsibility for the proposed ATCM. They 17 are planning to commit staff and resources to expand their 18 current complaint line for registering smoking vehicle 19 complaints to register complaints about excessive 20 heavy-duty commercial bus or vehicle idling at or near 21 schools. 22 They would also send a warning notice in response 23 to each complaint and investigate repeat complaints with 24 drivers and fleet owner-operators, and they would conduct 25 spot inspections to determine compliance rates. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 The California Highway Patrol, local peace 2 officers, and air districts could assist in enforcement of 3 the proposed ATCM if and when necessary. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: In summary, the 6 proposed ATCM would reduce children's and others' exposure 7 and associated potential cancer risk and other health -- 8 adverse health effects due to diesel PM and other toxic 9 air contaminants. 10 It would be implemented easily at minimal cost to 11 school districts, transit agencies, and other regulated 12 fleet owners or operators. And it would complement and 13 enhance our efforts to reduce exposure to diesel PM and 14 other toxic air contaminants. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: In response to 17 some comments that we've received this week, there are a 18 few minor changes that staff would like to make to the 19 proposed regulations to clarify certain provisions. 20 We propose to clarify that the regulation does 21 not affect private passenger vehicles of any kind. The 22 propose ATCM would be applicable to heavy-duty commercial 23 vehicles only. 24 We propose to modify the exemption for idling to 25 operate defrosters, heaters, air conditioners, or other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 equipment to clarify that such idling is to ensure the 2 safety or health of the driver or passengers, or as 3 otherwise required by federal motor carrier safety 4 regulations. 5 We propose to clarify that the California Highway 6 Patrol are a subset of peace officers, and to recognize 7 that there are designees of piece officers who are 8 authorized to enforce certain laws as peace officers. 9 Finally, as a result of a comment received late 10 yesterday, we propose to add refuse pickup as an example 11 of an exemption for idling necessary to accomplish work 12 for which the vehicle was designed. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST COOK: Therefore, we 15 recommend that the Board adopt the airborne toxic control 16 measure to limit school bus idling and idling at schools 17 with staff's proposed modifications. 18 This concludes my comments. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 20 Madam Ombudsman, would you share with us the 21 public participation process followed during the 22 development of this regulation, and share any comments or 23 concerns with us at this time. 24 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Thank you. 25 Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, staff has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 worked closely with the following entities in the 2 development of the proposed ATCM: California High Patrol, 3 California Department of Education, the Health Commission 4 of the California Parent-Teacher's Association, Consortium 5 of Northern California School Districts, Los Angeles 6 Unified School District, California Association of School 7 Transportation Officials, CAPCOA Engineering Managers, 8 CAPCOA Mobile Source and Fuels Committee, Environmental 9 Council of the States, Association of State and 10 Territorial Health Officials, Engine Manufacturing 11 Association, and the California Transit Association. 12 During May and June of 2002, staff conducted two 13 extensive telephone surveys. The first one was sent to 14 air quality regulators in all 50 states. In the second 15 survey staff contacted over 882 school district 16 transportation directors and 13 major school bus 17 contractors. Beginning in May 2002 staff made 18 presentations to various school district representatives 19 and the California Association of School Transportation 20 Officials Managers Forum. 21 In addition, staff presented at the CAPCOA 22 Engineering Managers meetings, CAPCOA Mobile Source and 23 Fuels Committee, PTA Health Commission, and the 24 Environmental Council of States and the Association of 25 State and Territorial Health Officials. Staff used these PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 meetings to receive input on how best to develop the 2 proposed ATCM. 3 One public consultation meeting was held in 4 Sacramento in July 2002 with an attendance of 5 approximately 40 individuals. 6 Also, two public workshops were held: One in 7 Diamond Bar on September 10th, 2002, and the other in 8 Sacramento on September 12th, 2002. Approximately 30 9 people attended these workshops, representing school 10 districts, private schools, school bus contractors, school 11 bus associations, transit organizations, environmental 12 groups, as well as other state agencies. 13 All workshops were noticed on the ARB's website 14 to a list-serve of approximately 5,000 individuals and 15 organizations and to about 12,000 via regular mail. 16 In addition to the above outreach, staff made 17 more than 150 individual phone calls and responded to 18 several E-mails from various interested individuals. 19 Staff has developed a website for this program area that 20 includes an overview, status, schedule, plus links to 21 personnel who can answer additional questions. 22 As mentioned in the staff presentation, staff 23 intends to continue outreach efforts if the Board approves 24 the proposed ATCM to ensure statewide awareness of this 25 regulation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 3 Board members, have any questions? 4 Mr. Calhoun. 5 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: This particular regulation 6 is directed at vehicles located in and around schools. 7 And I wonder if the staff has given consideration to 8 expanding it to other locations. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Mr. Calhoun, we 10 actually have. But what we wanted to do is actually kind 11 of address the issue of children in schools first because 12 we thought it was kind of a natural place for the Board to 13 go, particularly in light of the children's health 14 protective efforts that we have underway. 15 We wanted to see how this would actually work. 16 And then what we wanted to do was proceed to essentially 17 kind of all heavy-duty vehicles and really proceed 18 throughout the State. 19 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 21 Any other questions at this time? 22 With that, I'd like to ask the first three 23 witnesses who've signed up to testify today. 24 And Paul Wuebben, Richard Hibbs, and Sean Edgar. 25 MR. WUEBBEN: Good morning. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good morning, Paul. 2 MR. WUEBBEN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members 3 of the Board. I'm Paul Wuebben, the Clean Fuels Officer 4 with the South Coast Air Quality Management District. And 5 we certainly appreciate this opportunity to provide 6 comment on this. 7 The district shares the concern of your staff and 8 the Board that idling school bus emissions can represent 9 an adverse health effect and that that's certainly cause 10 for adopting this measure. We strongly support its 11 adoption. 12 I think that perhaps the most eloquent simple 13 testimony I might give on this would be just simply to 14 quote from several letters that have been written on this 15 subject by some local school children at Brentwood Magnet 16 School in Los Angeles on this general issue. They note -- 17 that is Michelle, age 7: "Thank you for voting clean 18 buses. I understand you. Was it a hard time to think." 19 (Laughter.) 20 MR. WUEBBEN: The next says: "Thank you for 21 saying clean buses, because some people like me have 22 asthma and can die." 23 And that was Cecilia, age 7. 24 And last from Justin, age 6, who writes a rather 25 long sentence and may be preparing for law school, says: PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 "If you buy clean buses, we will get sick and all the 2 people will stay home and no one will go to work and we 3 will not be able to breathe, and there will be no people 4 riding in the bus and neighborhood." 5 So with that, I share those sentiments and urge 6 your adoption. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks very much, Paul. 9 MR. HIBBS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My 10 name's Richard Hibbs. Members of the Board, I'm with 11 Golden Gate Transit. 12 Like many other public transit agencies, either 13 testifying today or throughout California, our service by 14 design has several stops adjacent to or in immediate 15 proximity to school grounds. 16 In some instances, by location of school or to 17 size or design of the school, we have more than one bus 18 stop that's immediately adjacent to or within 100 feet of 19 the campus. 20 In reading the recommendations, it's unclear as 21 to whether the five minutes in the aggregate applies to 22 the stop itself or to multiple buses that go through that 23 area. In the instance of multiple service to that area, 24 it would dramatically affect our scheduling of coaches to 25 that area based on customer demand. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 Also, to properly train and educate our 2 operators, we would need more clarification as to when 3 this rule would be in effect, if it would be in effect 4 only during school hours or when school's in session or, 5 as a school speed limit zone, when children are present. 6 Also in the matter of the record keeping 7 associated with this measure, we would be impacted by the 8 necessity of tracking and archiving these records for 9 three years in the need to devote current staff or hiring 10 staff to monitor compliance. But there's no clear 11 understanding as to if there would be any auditing done by 12 any agency to ensure compliance with this record keeping. 13 I appreciate the efforts of the Board in looking 14 at this measure. I just ask that you consider these 15 points prior to the adoption. 16 And I thank you for your time. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Maybe staff could 18 clarify -- seems that some of those are very straight 19 forward. 20 PROJECT ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF TOLLSTRUP: Mike 21 Tollstrup. 22 As to the first issue, the intent of staff is 23 that the transit buses would be allowed or any other 24 vehicle would be allowed five minutes each time they pull 25 up and stop. It wouldn't be an aggregate of buses coming PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 through there. One single bus, five minutes. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And that's when school 3 children are present? 4 PROJECT ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF TOLLSTRUP: Well, 5 actually the regs would apply 24-7. We're looking at 6 behavioral changes and what -- when they're within that 7 school zone, it just becomes automatic. It's just, you 8 know five minutes -- 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And the 100 feet, is that 100 10 feet of the bus or the tailpipe? 11 (Laughter.) 12 PROJECT ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF TOLLSTRUP: It's 13 100 feet within the boundaries of the school -- from the 14 boundaries of the school. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So it's the front of the bus, 16 or the back of bus, whichever it is. Okay. 17 PROJECT ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF TOLLSTRUP: How 18 about midpoint. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. 20 PROJECT ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF TOLLSTRUP: As 21 far as recordkeeping goes, we tried to design this to be 22 minimal in recordkeeping. What we would want, and one of 23 the reasons we want records kept, is so that if we ever 24 needed to see what went on, we'd be able to check the 25 records to see. We don't plan on doing it ongoing. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 But, again, recordkeeping is minimal. We expect 2 that they keep notice of training. And if there's any 3 violations, they keep record of that. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Thank you. 5 Sean Edgar, Gene Walker, Adam Cuevas. 6 MR. EDGAR: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and 7 Board members. Sean Edgar representing the California 8 Refuse Removal Council, more than 100 companies -- locally 9 owned companies providing solid waste and recycling 10 services throughout the State from San Diego through the 11 Central Valley to the Bay Area to the beautiful City of 12 Davis. 13 I appreciate the opportunity to address you this 14 morning. In our capacity as waste collectors and 15 recyclable material collectors, our member companies 16 provide a necessary public health function for schools and 17 the customers that are located near schools. Based on the 18 staff report, we support the modifications to provide an 19 exemption language for solid waste or refuse pickup. We 20 would ask that that language be slightly added or expanded 21 to address the provision of recyclable collection 22 services. 23 We appreciate your efforts to deal with our 24 industry. And as we always attempt to provide the best 25 service and improve our collection efficiencies, ours is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 the business of environmental protection going back, in 2 many cases, four or five generations into our family- 3 owned companies where horse-drawn carts were the original 4 method of collection. So we've come a long way since that 5 time. 6 And we appreciate your continuing efforts to 7 recognize that we serve multiple masters. First of all, 8 of course we serve our public health and safety 9 requirement to provide refuse collection for local 10 communities. 11 Secondly, we have a mission to keep waste out of 12 the landfills, which we're progressing: Forty-two percent 13 in the year 2000. Fifty percent was our goal. But we're 14 getting closer. 15 And, third, we have an obligation to provide 16 efficient service to local governments with the collection 17 efficiencies. 18 We do know, specific to schools, I will add, that 19 Senate Bill 373 by Senator Torlakson requires schools to 20 do a little bit more on recycling. So we can anticipate 21 that there will be more recycling effort at schools. Our 22 mission is to provide that collection service as 23 efficiently as possible. And we do so through a variety 24 of means, and appreciate your recognition of that by 25 providing the exemption language. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 Finally, we'd like to thank Mr. Kenny and the 2 staff for strategizing with our industry to achieve new 3 technology that is available and economically affordable 4 to our industry. And we have continuing discussions about 5 that. So we thank him and his staff for those efforts. 6 And I welcome any questions you may have this 7 morning. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. Sounds 9 as if staff has worked to address your concern. 10 I'd just point out also that you wouldn't have to 11 have an exemption because we allow zero emission trucks or 12 whatever. They're not subject to this. So there's 13 incentive for you to, you know, use that if you want. I 14 realize that may not be there today, but hopefully 15 tomorrow. 16 MR. EDGAR: Understood. And we're looking 17 forward to retooling our efforts as we have, going from 18 horse-drawn carts to automated collection. So we're 19 interested to continue to make sure when it's achievable, 20 we can roll it out on the streets. 21 Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 23 Gene Walker, Adam Cuevas, Diane Bailey. 24 MR. WALKER: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd, Board 25 members and staff. My name is Gene Walker. I'm the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 maintenance manager for Golden Gate Transit. But today 2 I'm here speaking as the Chairman of the Maintenance 3 Committee of the California Transit Association. 4 And on behalf of those individuals and agencies, 5 I would certainly like to thank you for your responses to 6 our questions that needed clarification and our concerns. 7 It's made this process much more understandable to us. 8 I would have one suggestion that possibly -- in 9 your ATCM when it is finalized. Some of the questions 10 that you clarified just yet this morning with the 11 aggregate rule, if it's a vehicle or a number of vehicles, 12 et cetera, be added in there just so that everyone is 13 clear on what the intent is. 14 Certainly anything to reduce emissions around our 15 school children or our young children anywhere is an 16 admirable effort. 17 The 100 foot issue -- or I should say within 100 18 feet of school grounds is certainly an issue that transit 19 had feared would be an aggregate of all coaches. And that 20 would include our hubs, et cetera, that are within that 21 100 feet. And that was a major concern. But clearly 22 staff has given this a lot of thought and put a lot of 23 effort in it and made this something that certainly is 24 workable for all involved. And we still reach the joint 25 goal that we want, and that's reduced emissions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 In the past we have certainly worked with the 2 Board and staff members in reducing emissions in transit 3 buses. We formed a partnership, worked together to make 4 these things work. Then we made sure that the 5 manufacturers of the engines and the devices, with all 6 their promises, that these devices actually did work and 7 reduced emissions and were reliable. 8 We would like to take this opportunity to again 9 offer our assistance to staff in the implementation of 10 this regulation. And any assistance that we can offer 11 your staff, we are always ready to help. 12 Thank you very much for your time. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks for coming, Gene. We 14 appreciate it. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We have Adam Cuevas and Diane 16 Bailey. 17 MR. CUEVAS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Board 18 members. My name's Adam Cuevas. I'm an Assistant Chief 19 with the California Highway Patrol. 20 We'd like to thank the Board for working with us 21 in addition to staff on such an important issue. 22 California Highway Patrol definitely supports anything 23 that improves safety in any manner. And of course we 24 defer to the Board on expertise on this issue, with the 25 exception of enforcement, which it definitely ties into us PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 in that respect. 2 I'd like to take a moment to just thank staff for 3 working with us throughout this process, and especially 4 recently because there were ongoing changes and 5 considering late input into this issue. We feel confident 6 that all the technical issues that we've provided input on 7 will be clarified, because that's simply what they are, 8 just clarifications. 9 I would like to point out one issue in the 10 overview, which was extremely informative. But when it 11 touched on the Highway Patrol, there's actually two 12 components that are affected within our department. We do 13 inspect all school buses in California. 14 But in addition to that, we have motor carrier 15 safety specialists, over 200 in the State, that are 16 charged with inspecting the motor carrier facilities. And 17 they do this often times at the school district -- on the 18 grounds of the school where many times the school district 19 is at. So because of that we have -- and ironically it 20 ends up falling into the realm that they drive a 21 commercial vehicle, their vans, that are basically their 22 office, and they are at the school facility. 23 So they might be enforcing a law that they 24 themselves are violating. So it's something that I would 25 like the Board and staff to consider in the exemptions PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 that -- I believe the way I read the language, because I 2 just got to see them today, is, you know, have some type 3 of exemption for CHP staff that's working there on the 4 grounds. 5 And with that, once again I'd like to thank you 6 for allowing us to provide any input. And I'd be happy to 7 answer any questions. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Again, thank you very much 9 for working with us. 10 On that latter point, I presume you couldn't 11 enforce the speed limit unless you violated it also. So 12 maybe staff in this sort of context would be looking at 13 something similar. 14 MR. CUEVAS: I'm sure we can work something out. 15 Thank you very much, sir. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 17 Last witness is Diane Bailey. 18 MS. BAILEY: Good morning, Chairman and members 19 of the Board. My name's Diane Bailey and I'm with the 20 Natural Resources Defense Council. 21 I'd like to give very brief comments in support 22 of this very important ATCM. And this ATCM is so very 23 important to the health of the school children and staff 24 throughout California. The ARB staff report makes a very 25 solid case justifying the need for this measure. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 Additionally, the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan 2 released several years ago includes estimates that idling 3 of school buses can create a potential excess cancer risk 4 of almost 101 million over a 70-year life span. The 5 cancer risks and the many other health risks, including 6 exacerbated asthma, from the diesel exhaust due to school 7 bus idling are clearly unnecessary and avoidable. 8 The strength and health protective value of this 9 rule are contained in several very important provisions. 10 Specifically, the 100 foot buffer zone around schools, 11 creating a comprehensive area where idling is restricted, 12 must not be lessened or relaxed in any way. 13 Additionally, including other heavy-duty diesel 14 vehicles is both appropriate and essential to improving 15 air quality at schools. And we support ARB's effort to 16 minimize the idling of these heavy-duty diesel vehicles in 17 addition to the school buses in these school zones. 18 Outside of the school zones we support the 19 general idling limit of five minutes as a reasonable 20 idling restriction which is already required in many 21 areas. 22 However, I want to bring up there are several 23 exemptions in the proposed measure that we feel should be 24 better defined as to avoid possible misunderstandings. 25 And we have detailed these concerns in our written PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 comments. With these minor suggestions aside, however, we 2 wholeheartedly support this measure and urge the Board to 3 adopt it. 4 We urge ARB to ensure rigorous enforcement of 5 this rule in order to protect children from the harmful 6 effects of diesel exhaust. We also encourage ARB staff to 7 actively survey schools to find out whether any idling 8 problems continue from both school buses and other 9 heavy-duty vehicles on school property and nearby. 10 ARB should be particularly aggressive in 11 enforcing this rule as well as other existing idling 12 restrictions at sites of high levels of heavy-duty diesel 13 vehicle activity that are close to schools. 14 Finally, I'd like to thank ARB staff for doing an 15 excellent job collecting input from the numerous 16 stakeholders, including many school officials, and 17 adjusting this ATCM based on that input. 18 We commend ARB for its effort to produce the very 19 strong school bus idling rule, and we urge the Board to 20 support and accept this rule. 21 Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 23 Questions? 24 Yes, Ms. D'Adamo. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you for your PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 comments. I've got your letter, and would just -- I don't 2 know necessarily that I agree, but I think we ought to 3 have at least a discussion on what you call the exemption 4 loopholes. If staff could respond to the language 5 regarding to prevent a safety or health emergency and the 6 suggestion regarding extreme climate conditions. 7 PROJECT ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF TOLLSTRUP: One 8 of the things that staff tried to do in developing the 9 proposal was to provide the necessary outs that would be, 10 you know, necessary to perform functions, work at schools 11 for different types of vehicles and also address the 12 issues of special needs children. We provide an exemption 13 for that. 14 And then the other one that we really struggled 15 with was the temperature extremes, defining when they 16 should turn on air conditioners, when they should turn on 17 heaters. 18 We looked at what other states did. They were 19 all over the place on some of the policies that they'd 20 approved. We weren't able to pin anything down 21 specifically. So what we did was basically leave it as 22 extremes. We figure we'll go through this first phase, 23 see how the program works, see if we have issues to 24 address, and then come back if we need to pin that down 25 somehow. But we were unable to put specific numbers in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 the reg. We think that, you know, for the most part if we 2 get people trained, they'll do the right thing and we 3 won't have the idling -- any excessive idling or 4 unnecessary idling. 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But what is your 6 suggestion in training? The comment that NRDC brought up 7 in its letter was some times that the drivers may be 8 unnecessarily idling when temperatures are at, say, 75 9 degrees. I don't really know what goes on out there. 10 Is that common? 11 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF VENTURINI: 12 Well, I think one of the issues we had, because 13 we did spend quite a bit of time looking at this 14 temperature thing, is the difficulty in trying to enforce 15 that type of temperature thing. 16 Also as another matter, we found out that any 17 time you try to do anything to a bus, there's a whole set 18 of regulations, and they're in governing, even putting a 19 little sticker on a bus. So we ran into that kind of an 20 obstacle. 21 I think where we're coming down on this is 22 that -- the bottom line is you shouldn't be idling the 23 bus. And I think our intent is to follow this closely, 24 particularly during the first year. 25 If we see abuses occurring, then we're going to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 have to relook at this and come back to you with 2 suggestions to tighten it down. We're optimistic based on 3 the discussions we've had and what we've heard from 4 people, even here today, that there seems to be broad 5 support for this. And through some education effort, 6 particularly training that will be done by the parties of 7 the drivers and so forth, that they will basically turn 8 the engine off unless there's really good cause to leave 9 it idling. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I guess I'm just still 11 kind of confused about what good cause would be. My 12 definition -- I live in the valley and I've got to get in 13 the car that's been baking in the sun all day long. I 14 don't mean to be unnecessarily harsh, but I don't know 15 what good cause would be, you know, for a school bus. 16 It's been a long time since I've been in one that's been 17 baking all day. 18 How are the operators to define what good cause 19 is? Your definition might be different from mine. Is 20 there anything we can do to kind of help direct them? 21 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF VENTURINI: What 22 we might be able to do is we're going to prepare some 23 guidance that will help people in doing that. We might be 24 able to provide some guidance as to what we think would be 25 appropriate. We can consult with people involved in this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 and try to put something around the outside of a 2 regulation that makes it very difficult -- because that'd 3 be very specific and so forth. 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Do we have a report-back 5 provision in the resolution? I haven't -- 6 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF VENTURINI: No, 7 we'd be very happy to report back to you to give you a 8 progress report. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think that'd be useful. 10 Although I do share Peter's concern about coming up with 11 specific numbers. Because then you couple it with: Is it 12 inside the bus, outside the bus, what's the humidity, how 13 do you translate Palm Desert to Big Bear or Lake Tahoe? 14 All those things get complicated. So I like staff's 15 approach of basically let's get a bit of experience, while 16 at the same time understanding, you know, the comments 17 from the previous person to do that. If we get too 18 prescriptive, I think maybe we'll be creating some 19 unnecessary problems there. 20 Supervisor Patrick. 21 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you. 22 You know, I think one of the places that we can 23 look is we can look to Kern County, because we had an 24 article in our paper probably a month ago about the major 25 districts in the Bakersfield area have already implemented PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 this. And we certainly do have temperature extremes. And 2 I don't know how they handle that. There was not a 3 mention of, you know, if it's over 95, if it's, you 4 know -- and of course we have the cool weather this time 5 of year. But certainly I think it's a good idea to 6 revisit this after we have had an opportunity to look at 7 how it's actually functioning out there. 8 But there are folks that are already doing this. 9 And so certainly folks in areas where we do have 10 temperature extremes that have already put this into 11 effect voluntarily would be a first place that we could 12 look. 13 But I agree with you. It could be a nightmare. 14 You know, if you're talking about, well, is it over 85, is 15 it over 90, you know, what's the cut point there? But we 16 do have folks that are already doing this, and saving an 17 enormous amount of money in fuel costs. And I think that 18 that's a very important thing too, to recognize how this 19 not only is helping public health of our children, but 20 also it's saving an enormous amount of money for the 21 school districts, who are becoming increasingly 22 financially strapped. 23 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 25 Professor Friedman and Supervisor DeSaulnier. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Yeah, I agree that 2 we -- the best approach at this time, it seems to me, 3 would be the flexible approach, to talk about reasonably 4 necessary for the health and comfort, and see how it works 5 out. I just don't see being that overly prescriptive to 6 specify temperature ranges and durations and that sort of 7 thing. 8 I assume in most cases buses are started, they're 9 cold or they're hot, and then they're brought to a 10 reasonable temperature at some point, hopefully before the 11 kids are picked up and that kind of thing. And then it's 12 a question of turning it off if you have to idle at school 13 sites and so forth. 14 And presumably the temperature's maintained, more 15 or less, for long enough to offload or unload, so forth. 16 Anyway, I think this is a very, as usual, a 17 wonderful product from staff. It's a, I think, very 18 carefully well thought out, put together program. And I 19 think to get it jump started the key would be obviously 20 education, as you recognize. And to institutionalize it, 21 I hope that not only the -- those who operate buses and 22 other vehicles affected by it. And law enforcement, who 23 will be used to help monitor or at least to enforce it. 24 But that somehow the school districts and the schools 25 will -- you know, the right people will be told about it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 and be watching for it and monitor it so that -- because 2 they're the front line of enforcement. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, 4 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 5 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Just briefly, Mr. 6 Chairman. I congratulate staff on the fine work. And I 7 see this as a first step -- and I think we all realize 8 that -- but look forward to the refinements. 9 But to Joe's comment, question earlier, the idea 10 of expanding this. Thinking about being at the Port of 11 Oakland recently during the labor management problems 12 where their were literally hundreds of trucks idling for 13 hours, and the public health consequence of that, plus the 14 shear stupidity of it. It would be really nice to come 15 back at the nearest opportunity to really look at that. 16 Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 18 Mr. Calhoun. 19 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: As I understood the 20 testimony from the Chief from CHP, that he's asking for an 21 exemption. And I didn't quite understand the basis for 22 the request. I thought I heard you say the CHP would be 23 enforcing the law, but is asking that they be exempted 24 from complying with the law. Is that my understanding? 25 MR. CUEVAS: Sir, the exemption that I'm talking PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 about is -- it deals with the motor carrier inspection 2 specialists that often time work -- their office is a van. 3 It's a Chevy or Ford van that they have all their 4 equipment inside the van. And they actually go in and 5 inspect these -- all the motor carriers, which many times 6 are these school districts, and they write their reports 7 right there on the spot. 8 They inspect some vehicles, and then go back, in 9 and out. So it does -- it touches on the issue of the 10 comfort issue. If you're up in Tahoe, they have to be 11 there all day. They don't have an office there at the 12 facility. So the exemption, once again, is the 13 reasonableness of, are you expecting them to sit in the 14 van for eight hours, whether it be like 120 degrees, and 15 do their work -- because they have to, that's what they're 16 required to do -- or turn on the van, drive 100 yards -- 17 or 100 feet from the school and then, you know, write some 18 reports and then come back? Then you have to consider the 19 issue of how much pollution did that cause. 20 So to answer your question simply, yes, we are 21 looking for an exemption because there is one in there for 22 all work-related issues, such as cranes -- and I think 23 that's what staff was looking at and the Board was looking 24 at. But with regards to our employees, it's actually 25 doing the inspections and writing reports there in their PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 vehicle, which is their office. 2 Does that make sense? 3 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I guess. 4 Staff, do you have any comments to make regarding 5 this? 6 PROJECT ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF TOLLSTRUP: The 7 proposal that we have before you now, what we're 8 proposing, is that there would be no exemptions on the 9 school campus. One of the things we're trying to get away 10 from is people doing things for comfort. We've provided 11 an out for extreme temperatures, and they would be able to 12 use that. But, you know, when you weigh comfort with 13 children's health, we just decided that it was probably 14 best that everybody shut their vehicles off unless there 15 was an extreme need to run the air conditioning or 16 heaters. 17 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I'm asking for something 18 that's a little more specific regarding the request that 19 the CHP made. 20 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF VENTURINI: I 21 think we're -- where our perspective is, there's 22 provisions in the regulation right now that allow the 23 idling when necessary for health and safety and so forth. 24 So the extremes that Mr. Cuevas is mentioning we believe 25 is already addressed in the regulation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 3 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Just on that point, 4 Mr. Calhoun. 5 I would think the rule of reason would suggest 6 that somebody needing for comfort sake, health sake to 7 idle for a substantial period of time in order to work in 8 the vehicle, such as highway patrol inspection, would be 9 willing to move 110 feet away to do that so as not to run 10 the risk of affecting children's health and other's health 11 there. 12 I mean just common sense would suggest -- now, I 13 realize that if they have to go in and out regularly, 14 frequently -- but then presumably they could turn it off 15 and turn it on again. And they close the door -- quickly 16 jump out, close the door, and it wouldn't let the cold air 17 or the hot air escape. I mean I think we need to see how 18 it works. 19 We don't want to -- I'm sure nobody here wants to 20 be an impediment to the legitimate and important function 21 of the Highway Patrol or anyone else in doing their job. 22 So hopefully it will work, but we ought to look 23 at it from experience. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mrs. Riordan. 25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: With those good remarks, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 let me offer to move the approval of Resolution Number 2 2-33 with the amendments proposed by staff. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon had a -- 4 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I'm fine. I'll second. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I just wanted to make 7 certain that we're going to include a report back. And 8 also could we maybe keep the pressure on us as far as 9 expanding this to include commercial vehicles and include 10 a provision in the resolution as to that as well? 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Oh, we'd be happy to 12 essentially look at the commercial vehicles generally and 13 include that in the resolution and then try to do that as 14 expeditiously as we can. 15 In terms of report back on this, we're also happy 16 to do that. We anticipate that this regulation would 17 actually be effective, as we mentioned, probably toward 18 the summer of 2003. And so it probably makes sense to 19 report back some time in 2004, if that's okay with the 20 Board. 21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I would include that in 22 the motion because I know you're going to start it with 23 the new school year -- a normal school year, because I 24 recognize we have it around schools. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, I can tell, you've got PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 Ms. D'Adamo's interest. We're going to have some personal 2 reflection on the implementation of this rule also. 3 So we have a proposal and we have a seconder. 4 All in favor say aye. 5 (Ayes.) 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's unanimous. 7 So thank you very much. Thank you, staff. We 8 look forward to the implementation of that. 9 Given that we're now very close to 11:00 o'clock 10 and we're going to change items, why don't we take a 11 15-minute break, till 10 after on that clock back there. 12 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'd like to continue with the 14 next agenda item, 02-9-3, staff update on the 15 implementation status of California's Phase 3 reformulated 16 gasoline program and proposed amendments to those 17 regulations. 18 Just a reminder, in 1999 ARB approved Phase 3 RFG 19 regulations in response to the Governor's Executive Order 20 D-5-99, directing ARB to phase out methyl tertiary butyl 21 ether, or MTBE, from California gasoline and to retain all 22 environmental benefits of the preceding Phase 2 RFG 23 regulations while doing the same. 24 On July 25th of this year, the Board amended its 25 RFG regulations in response to the new Executive Order, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 D-52-02, postponing the prohibition of MTBE for one year. 2 The Governor issued the second Executive Order in response 3 to the unavoidable delays some oil companies were 4 experiencing in transitioning to non-MTBE blends, and in 5 light of the significant risk of supply disruptions if 6 California continued with its phase-out schedule and the 7 fact that we continually didn't have the waiver from EPA. 8 The amended rule prohibits the use of MTBE or 9 other oxygenates other than ethanol after December 31st, 10 2003. The amended rule also postpones the imposition of 11 Phase 3 standards by one year. 12 Today the Board will consider additional 13 amendments that further clarify the prohibition against 14 the use of MTBE and other oxygenates in Phase 3 gasoline. 15 Today staff is also responding to a request the 16 Board made in December 1999. At that time we asked staff 17 to further evaluate the residual limits for MTBE and to 18 report back on whether those limits should be revised. 19 And I think that was in the face of some statements of how 20 did you find phasing out MTBE and what levels should be 21 allowed. This evaluation is necessary because MTBE can 22 find its way into California gasoline either as an 23 additive to imported fuel or as an unavoidable byproduct 24 of the production process. 25 Finally, as part of this agenda item, we will PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 hear an update on RFG implementation status. As we 2 recall, we directed staff to report back periodically when 3 we adopted Phase 3 regulations in 1999, which we have done 4 several times and again are doing so today to bring us 5 fully up to speed, I guess, about a year before the due 6 date. 7 So with that I'll turn it over to Mr. Kenny to 8 begin the staff presentation and to introduce the item. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman 10 and members of the Board. 11 Today's presentation will be given in two parts. 12 The Staff's presentation will include an update on the 13 implementation status of the Phase 3 reformulated gasoline 14 regulations. The update will include a report on the 15 status of refinery, terminal, and distribution system 16 modifications to produce Phase 3 gasoline by the new 17 mandatory deadline of December 31st, 2003. 18 It will also include a progress report regarding 19 the issues of permeation and the expected quality of Phase 20 3 reformulated gasoline. 21 Staff will begin the presentation with the 22 update. Since the first part of the presentation is only 23 a status report, no action is required on the part of the 24 Board. 25 In the second part of the presentation staff will PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 present the proposed amendments to the Phase 3 2 reformulated gasoline regulations. Staff's objective in 3 proposing these amendments is to provide an orderly 4 transition away from MTBE use and to prevent any major 5 disruptions to the production and supply of gasoline in 6 California. 7 And with that, I'd like to ask Ms. Gloria Lindner 8 to make the presentation. 9 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 10 Presented as follows.) 11 MS. LINDNER: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 12 Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 13 Board. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Is the microphone on? 15 MS. LINDNER: Today I will be presenting an 16 update on the progress towards the implementation of the 17 California Phase 3 reformulated gasoline program. 18 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Excuse me. I'm 19 sorry. But I for one can't hear you. Maybe we can get 20 the mic turned up a little bit. 21 Thank you. 22 MS. LINDNER: Okay. Let me try this again. 23 Today I will be presenting an update on the 24 progress towards the implementation of the California 25 Phase 3 reformulated gasoline program. Following this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 update I will discuss staff proposals for the Phase 3 2 regulations. 3 --o0o-- 4 MS. LINDNER: Now I will begin the update on the 5 implementation efforts for the Phase 3 gasoline program. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. LINDNER: As you know, pursuant to Governor 8 Davis' 1999 Executive Order, you approved the Phase 3 9 reformulated gasoline regulations in December 9th, 1999. 10 Among other things, the Phase 3 regulations 11 prohibited the addition of MTBE to California gasoline 12 beginning December 31st, 2002. However, at the hearing in 13 July of this year pursuant to Governor Davis' Executive 14 Order issued in March 2002, you amended the Phase 3 15 reformulated gasoline regulations to extend the MTBE 16 phase-out deadline by one year. 17 On November 8th, staff submitted the final 18 regulation package to the Office of Administrative Law, or 19 OAL, for review. The last date OAL may act on the 20 amendments in this rule making is December 26th, 2002, 30 21 working days after November 8th. 22 We expect the rule-making package to be approved. 23 In the meantime staff will post information on the ARB's 24 website regarding the status of the rule making and our 25 enforcement intent. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. LINDNER: Now, earlier this year four 3 refiners announced that they will eliminate the use of 4 MTBE in California reformulated gasoline early. Since 5 then Kern Oil has announced that they will follow suit. 6 These five refiners represent about 55 percent of the 7 State's gasoline production. 8 --o0o-- 9 MS. LINDNER: As can be seen on this slide, the 10 five refiners eliminating MTBE use early operate 8 of the 11 13 California refineries producing RFG. Four of these 12 refineries are in the South Coast, two are in the Bay 13 Area, and two are in the San Joaquin Valley. The 14 remaining refineries are expected to be fully compliant by 15 December 31st, 2003. 16 --o0o-- 17 MS. LINDNER: The delivery of ethanol into the 18 State is expected to occur by both train and marine 19 vessel. In southern California Shell has begun 20 construction on a unit train facility in Carson to expand 21 and improve the ability to receive ethanol. 22 In northern California, facilities in the Bay 23 Area and San Joaquin Valley have indicated that they are 24 ready to receive, store, and blend ethanol. 25 The remaining infrastructure for the transport of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 ethanol in gasoline within the State is also on track for 2 the December 2003 deadline. 3 Kinder Morgan, the State's largest common 4 carrier, has indicated that most of their facilities are 5 ready to receive, store, and blend ethanol into California 6 Phase 3 gasoline, and that the remaining terminals will be 7 ready by December 2003. 8 The other common carrier is presently ready. 9 --o0o-- 10 MS. LINDNER: In approving the Phase 3 11 reformulated gasoline regulation, you directed staff to 12 provide status reports in several follow-up items, 13 including the monitoring of sulfur levels and drivability 14 index of California gasoline and an evaluation of 15 permeation emissions. In July of this year you were 16 briefed on the results of staff's field study of their 17 commingling issue. 18 Board Resolution 99-39 also directed the staff to 19 further evaluate the practicality of allowable MTBE 20 residual limits for California Phase 3 gasoline and return 21 with recommendations. 22 Staff's recommendation from their evaluation will 23 be discussed later. 24 --o0o-- 25 MS. LINDNER: Staff met with refiners to collect PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 projected fuel quality data, which were then aggregated. 2 The actual fuel quality values will probably vary somewhat 3 when Phase 3 gasoline is produced. 4 As shown here, compared with Phase 2 gasoline 5 California Phase 3 gasoline will maintain fuel quality. 6 And sulfur's expected to be significantly reduced, to less 7 than 10 parts per million by weight. 8 --o0o-- 9 MS. LINDNER: As you directed, staff has been 10 monitoring potential changes to the drivability index, or 11 DI, associated with the implementation of California Phase 12 3 gasoline. Based on the projected fuel quality that are 13 provided by refineries, the Phase 3 regulations are 14 expected to maintain the current high quality DI of 15 California gasoline. The average DI of Phase 2 RFG and 16 the projected DI of Phase 3 RFG are below the ASTM 17 specification of 1250. And lower values of DI correspond 18 to better engine performance. 19 --o0o-- 20 MS. LINDNER: Regarding permeation, the ARB is 21 participating in a test program with the coordinating 22 research council to investigate the effect of ethanol in 23 gasoline on permeation emissions from motor vehicles. 24 Industry has started some work in this area. 25 Staff will continue their work on permeation and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 plan to report their findings in 2003. 2 And this completes our report to the Board on the 3 implementation of the Phase 3 gasoline regulations. 4 --o0o-- 5 MS. LINDNER: I will now present the staff's 6 proposal to further amend the Phase 3 California 7 reformulated gasoline regulations. 8 --o0o-- 9 MS. LINDNER: This slide provides an overview of 10 the proposed amendments to be discussed today. These 11 amendments are to address practical issues regarding the 12 production and distribution of California Phase 3 13 reformulated gasoline. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. LINDNER: Staff is proposing revisions to the 16 oxygenate prohibitions of the Phase 3 reformulated 17 gasoline regulations to clarify the requirements of the 18 regulation. The intent of the current prohibition is 19 twofold: To prohibit the intentional blending of MTBE or 20 other prohibited oxygenates into California gasoline; and 21 to control the amount of these prohibited oxygenates 22 present in California gasoline as contaminants. 23 --o0o-- 24 MS. LINDNER: Some contamination with the 25 prohibited oxygenates may be unavoidable because trace PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 amounts are formed as byproducts of the production 2 process. Trace amounts may also be acquired during 3 transport and storage. 4 One of the concerns of refiners is that the 5 current regulation could exclude blend stocks that contain 6 trace amounts of the prohibited oxygenates. 7 Staff is proposing to revise the specific 8 regulatory text of the prohibitions to gasoline produced 9 with the use of MTBE or other oxygenates other than 10 ethanol. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. LINDNER: The proposed amendment would 13 continue to prohibit the deliberate addition of MTBE or 14 other specified oxygenates to gasoline or blend stocks. 15 However, the proposed amendment will increase the 16 flexibility for refiners by allowing the refiner to use 17 blend stocks containing trace amounts of the prohibited 18 oxygenates. 19 The proposed amendments include enforceable 20 criteria that will limit the levels of these contaminants 21 and blend stocks. 22 --o0o-- 23 MS. LINDNER: Because of its widespread use we 24 expected it to have trace amounts of MTBE in the 25 distribution system even after it is no longer added to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 gasoline in California. 2 To address this issue, the Phase 3 reformulated 3 gasoline regulation establishes a schedule to reduce 4 residual levels of MTBE in California gasoline once the 5 MTBE ban goes into effect. As mentioned earlier, Board 6 resolution 99-39 directed staff to further evaluate the 7 practicality of the allowable MTBE residual limits for 8 Phase 3 gasoline and return with recommendations. 9 Today staff is proposing to adjust the schedule 10 to reduce residual MTBE levels in four steps instead of 11 three steps as currently required. Staff is also 12 proposing to extend the current implementation dates by 13 six months. 14 As required by the current regulations, these 15 restrictions on residual MTBE levels will be in force 16 within the distribution system on the finished gasoline. 17 This table summarizes the requirements of the 18 current schedule and the proposed revisions. Staff is 19 proposing to reduce allowable residual MTBE levels in four 20 steps instead of three, and allow 18 months instead of 12 21 months to reduce each interim allowable residual level. 22 This extension will provide staff with adequate time to 23 evaluate the practicality of the allowable limits at each 24 stage of the timetable and, if necessary, propose changes 25 to the Board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. LINDNER: Like MTBE, the other oxygenates 3 prohibited by the Phase 3 reformulated gasoline 4 regulations, such as ETBE can occur as trace contaminants 5 of blend stocks in finished gasoline. 6 Therefore, the rationale for establishing 7 allowable residual levels for MTBE also applies to these 8 other oxygenates. However, the current regulation does 9 not define allowable residual levels for these specified 10 oxygenates. 11 Today staff is proposing to define allowable 12 residual levels for prohibited oxygenates other than MTBE 13 to improve the enforceability of the regulation. As with 14 MTBE, the limits on residual levels for these specified 15 oxygenates will be enforced on finished gasoline once it 16 is in the distribution system. 17 --o0o-- 18 MS. LINDNER: This table summarizes staff's 19 proposal for reducing allowable residual levels of 20 specified oxygenates other than MTBE and ethanol in two 21 steps. These other oxygenates are generally not 22 intentionally added to gasoline. Therefore, staff does 23 not believe that the multi-step reduction similar to MTBE 24 is necessary. 25 Unlike MTBE, the proposed amendment will not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 specify residual levels for each oxygenate. Instead staff 2 is proposing allowable residual levels based on the 3 combined oxygen concentration in gasoline from the 4 prohibited oxygenates other than MTBE. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. LINDNER: The staff is proposing a new 7 provision that would require any person delivering 8 gasoline to a retail outlet to provide documentation that 9 states whether the gasoline does or does not contain 10 ethanol. The documentation must be provided to the outlet 11 operator or a responsible employee at the time of delivery 12 of the fuel, and may be an invoice, bill of lading, 13 shipping paper, or other documentation. 14 This proposal would provide retailers and 15 distributors with the information needed to help prevent 16 inadvertent mixing of gasoline containing ethanol with 17 gasoline not containing ethanol. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. LINDNER: Staff is also proposing an 20 amendment that would sunset the requirement for a 21 documentation of the presence of MTBE in deliveries to 22 retail outlets. 23 This documentation will no longer be necessary 24 after December 31st, 2003, the scheduled date for 25 prohibition of gasoline produced with MTBE or other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 oxygenates other than ethanol. 2 The other proposed amendment is intended to 3 clarify the oxygenate prohibition requirements for Phase 3 4 gasoline produced prior to the December 31st, 2003, 5 deadline when the Phase 3 standards become mandatory. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. LINDNER: I will now summarize the expected 8 impacts of today's proposal. 9 --o0o-- 10 MS. LINDNER: There will be no significant 11 negative environmental impacts. The proposed changes will 12 not significantly affect the formulation of California 13 gasoline. The basic prohibitions against adding MTBE and 14 other oxygenates that could affect water quality remain 15 unchanged. The proposal will improve the enforceability 16 of the prohibition of oxygenates other than MTBE and 17 ethanol. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. LINDNER: The proposed amendments are 20 generally designed to ensure effective enforcement of the 21 oxygenate provisions of the Phase 3 reformulated gasoline 22 regulations and facilitate the MTBE phase-out. 23 Proposed amendments do not fundamentally alter 24 regulations and should have no negative economic impacts. 25 In fact, they may provide an economic benefit to refiners PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 and consumers by removing ambiguities that could have 2 unnecessarily limited a refiner's access to imported blend 3 stocks. 4 In addition, the more practical schedule proposed 5 for reducing residual levels of prohibited oxygenates 6 could mean the prevention of interruptions in the supply 7 and availability of gasoline for California consumers. 8 --o0o-- 9 MS. LINDNER: The staff recommends that the Board 10 adopt the staff proposal to help assure the practical 11 implementation of the oxygenate prohibitions to the 12 California Phase 3 reformulated gasoline regulations. 13 And this concludes my presentation. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 15 I had a couple of questions. One, on your slide 16 20, where you talk about the allowable residual of other 17 oxygenates. I presume these are in some, so it could be 18 TAME or tertiary butyl or whatever. 19 What's the significance of making that .06 rather 20 than making it .05, the same as MTBE? Is there any magic 21 to that number, .06, whereas MTBE is .05? 22 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 23 CHIEF SIMEROTH: Mr. Chairman, this is Dean Simeroth with 24 the Stationary Source Division. 25 The oxygen concentration, the .1 percent, is a -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 that's based upon an oxygen -- that's the same oxygen that 2 would be contributed by the .6 percent MTBE. 3 So on a volume percent of the molecule basis, 4 they're the same. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So the .06 is the same as .05 6 for the future? 7 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 8 CHIEF SIMEROTH: Yes. We tried to make it -- it's a 9 percent oxygen adjustment to a prohibition against a 10 specific molecule. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So it's the equivalent. 12 Okay. 13 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 14 CHIEF SIMEROTH: It's equivalent. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. And then the other 16 part of it, the letter from AMI talking about the -- 17 again, the propagation of BTX plumes in ethanol, which 18 doesn't seem to -- has the same concern given the fact 19 also that the new specs could potentially increase 20 aromatics by one percent. So BTX may be more concerned 21 there. 22 What are we doing to monitor that? And the 23 question, basically the bottom line is that: Why aren't 24 we concerned about that migration in the plume as much as 25 we are with the MTBE? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 2 CHIEF SIMEROTH: Mr. Chairman, the Governor's 3 Environmental Policy Council asked the State Water 4 Resources Control Board to investigate that issue. They 5 consulted or hired Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 6 to investigate the issue and report back the results of 7 their investigation about a year ago last March at a 8 workshop. 9 They found while the phenomena did occur under 10 certain circumstances, it wasn't enough to significantly 11 increase the risk of contamination of water wells. And it 12 was basically -- it was there, it's real, but it didn't 13 change the basic situation. 14 The Water Board is continuing to monitor the 15 situation and will inform us if anything additional shows 16 up. But it's been investigated by the State agency. It 17 was responsible and found to be within reason. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah, I remember looking at 19 the data at that time and it did show that it's less of a 20 concern, but I guess it wasn't negligible. 21 But I'm reassured by the fact you're saying that 22 this is going to be monitored. So if there is a problem, 23 it will be addressed. 24 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 25 CHIEF SIMEROTH: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. They'll PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 continue to monitor the situation. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Thank you. 3 Maybe I'm kind of jumping ahead of myself again 4 here. Sorry. 5 Madam Ombudsman, would you please describe the 6 public participation process during this rule development 7 process, and express any concerns or comments to the Board 8 at this time. 9 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Mr. Chairman and members of 10 the Board. The proposed regulations were developed with 11 input from the California Energy Commission, Water 12 Resources Control Board, oil and automotive industries, 13 pipeline operators and other interested parties. 14 Since the summer of 2001, staff has held five 15 workshops on the California Phase 3 reformulated gasoline 16 regulations. The first workshop was held on August 29th, 17 2001, in Carson. The second March 5th, 2002, in 18 Sacramento. The third, April 24th, 2002, in El Monte. 19 The 4th, July 16th, 2002, in Sacramento. And the 5th, 20 October 8th, 2002, also in Sacramento. 21 The agenda for all five workshops included 22 discussions of the oxygenate prohibitions and the 23 allowable residual levels for MTBE and other prohibited 24 oxygenates. The agenda for the last two workshops also 25 included discussions of blending of gasoline and the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 proposed documentation requirement for gasoline 2 deliveries. 3 The attendance for each meeting ranged from 25 to 4 30 people. 5 In addition to the workshops, 13 meetings and 6 discussions were held with representatives from the 7 Western States Petroleum Association, WSPA; individual 8 refiners; environmental organizations; the ethanol 9 industry; representatives of other interests such as 10 pipeline operators, fuel suppliers, and marketing 11 associations such as the California Independent Oil 12 Marketers' Association, CIOMA. 13 And, finally, November 19th the staff posted the 14 report on ARB's website and used a list-serve to notify 15 more than 300 individuals and companies about the 16 availability of the document. 17 This concludes my comments. Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 19 Questions or comments from the Board? 20 Mr. Calhoun. 21 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I have a question of the 22 staff. 23 Is MTBE used in locations other than in 24 California? 25 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 CHIEF SIMEROTH: MTBE is used extensively across the 2 United States. It is progressively being prohibited in 3 other states, primarily in the midwest. 4 The other significant concentration of MTBE use 5 is in the northeastern states where it's the oxygenate of 6 choice in the federal RFG areas, centered from New York 7 and north and south, out of that area. 8 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: But there's no federal 9 prohibition against the use of MTBE; is that correct? 10 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 11 CHIEF SIMEROTH: Mr. Calhoun, there's no federal 12 prohibition. 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Is there concern about the 14 impact on vapor pressure of switching from MTBE to 15 ethanol? 16 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 17 CHIEF SIMEROTH: Board Member Calhoun, yes, we've had 18 considerable concern. The requirements will result in 19 refiners making adjustments in the vapor pressure control 20 to reject additional amounts of like components to further 21 lower the vapor pressure, the blend stocks to accept the 22 ethanol. 23 We've been concerned about the issue of 24 commingling, which is mixing a finished gasoline that 25 contains -- and does not contain ethanol in it. That was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 the results of the commingling study we mentioned earlier 2 that we presented last July. Our regulation required an 3 additional offset under RVP to adjust against increase in 4 emissions resulting from the commingling. 5 The permeation study is another expression of our 6 concern about it where we're looking at the potential for 7 ethanol to preferentially permeate through the engine fuel 8 system components. 9 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Supervisor DeSaulnier. 11 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I have a question, 12 Peter. It goes to my favorite subject about this. And I 13 should have asked it during the briefing. 14 Can you refresh my memory on the sulfur caps, 15 both the federal and ours, the caps and the averaging. 16 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 17 CHIEF SIMEROTH: Supervisor DeSaulnier, the federal sulfur 18 cap is 80 parts per million, to be implemented starting in 19 2004. And it takes them several years to finish their 20 implementation. The average for the federal is to be 30 21 parts per million, with a cap of 80. That's our current 22 Phase 2 sulfur cap and averaging standard. 23 The Phase 2 flat limit is 20 parts per million 24 and the averaging limit I believe is 15 parts per million. 25 We're stepping down the -- or Phase 3. Excuse me. Let me PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 make sure I say that correctly. We're stepping down the 2 Phase 3 sulfur caps at two steps. The first cap will be 3 60 parts per million and going down to 30 parts per 4 million two years after the implementation of Phase 3. 5 So we'll still be lower sulfur than the national 6 average. 7 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: But the report has it 8 projected at 9? 9 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 10 CHIEF SIMEROTH: Based upon information supplied by most 11 of the refiners in the State, their predicted model work 12 shows that they should meet 9 parts per million on average 13 in use. And that will obviously have a range of 14 concentrations between batches and between refineries. 15 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: That's good. That's 16 great. 17 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 18 CHIEF SIMEROTH: Oh, it's very good. 19 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: They asked us to allow 20 them that flexibility. So I have to congratulate WSPA and 21 its members for doing it. I guess the question would 22 be -- I don't know how that would affect the cap. But the 23 potential for bringing the cap even further down and what 24 that would do to the drivability index and whatever public 25 health benefit would get out of that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 2 CHIEF SIMEROTH: The sulfur content really does not affect 3 the drivability index. The great vapor pressure and the 4 50 and 90 percent distillation temperatures are the 5 drivers for the DI. 6 The concern on the sulfur is, quite frankly, 7 adequacy of supply of blend stocks from outside of 8 California. And that we have to wait and see how the 9 federal program goes and what they're actually producing 10 for the federal program. 11 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: So we'll keep an eye on 12 this and from time to time there'll be some kind of 13 reports back? 14 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 15 CHIEF SIMEROTH: Supervisor DeSaulnier, not only us, but 16 the California Energy Commission's also tracking that 17 issue. 18 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Okay. Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So are we saying then that in 20 about 2006 the sulfur content in diesel and gasoline will 21 be about the same? 22 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 23 CHIEF SIMEROTH: Mr. Chairman, in 2006 -- June of 2006 24 the sulfur content for diesel starts being phased in at 25 15. It takes multiple years for the phase-in. But they PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 start lining up at about the same number starting there 2 for fuels that are fully compliant with both our 3 requirements and the diesel -- our gasoline requirements 4 and the diesel requirements. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So was that a yes? 6 (Laughter.) 7 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 8 CHIEF SIMEROTH: It's a very qualified yes. 9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Let's say at 10 2007 they should be pretty close. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah. Well, it's interesting 12 for me to -- I'm quite surprised actually we're getting 13 both about the same. I thought that the gasoline may be a 14 bit lower. But diesel is down there, too. 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Yeah, the 16 other bit of good news on that chart is that the benzene 17 level was somewhat lower than what we had anticipated. So 18 down to .5. So two of the things that you really want to 19 reduce in gasoline are going down. And that I think, at 20 least in my mind, helps to offset the fact that the 21 aromatics went up slightly. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So where is that aromatics 23 going? Or what likely aromatic will that be? 24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I think it 25 was up one percent over our expectation. I don't know PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 what it is over current. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No, no. But -- no, if it's 3 not Benzene, it's something else. Is it toluene or 4 xylene? 5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: It's toluene 6 or xylene. And -- 7 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 8 CHIEF SIMEROTH: It's primarily those two compounds, Mr. 9 Chairman. 10 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I mean the 11 fact of the matter is when you take the pentanes out, 12 you've taken something out that is going to raise the 13 percentage of the other compounds. See, they are kind of 14 in a box for some of these things. It all has to add up 15 to 100. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Another question while I've 17 got the microphone. 18 One of the responses triggered a question that 19 probably Tom could answer. And, that is -- and I'm aware 20 that the Executive Officer is going to certify some new 21 PZEV vehicles. Are these being tested and verified on 22 Phase 3 with ethanol or are they with MTBE? Or are they 23 with endolene or something? 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: They're being certified 25 on MTBE fuel. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. So do we expect any 2 change? I guess we can't say because the permeation study 3 is still going on. 4 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 5 CHIEF SIMEROTH: Mr. Chairman, the federal government for 6 the evaporative tests that they require require that that 7 evaporative test be done with an ethanol-containing 8 gasoline. So between our requirements and the federal 9 requirements, we're requiring the evap test be done both 10 with and without ethanol for the new vehicles. 11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And I believe 12 that -- we have a high level of confidence that you can 13 build new vehicles with materials that stopped the 14 permeation of ethanol, MTBE, and virtually everything 15 else. The major permeation concern is the 20 million 16 vehicles that are out there on the road, many of which may 17 have materials that aren't nearly so good. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I understand. But then you 19 confused me now because I don't know whether I have full 20 confidence seeing that the certification of the vehicles 21 that are currently happening have been tested with MTBE, 22 but you're saying the feds require both and -- let me -- 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I think what Mr. 24 Simeroth was saying was essentially that the federal 25 government was requiring essentially a certification for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 federal vehicles with ethanol-laden fuel, and our 2 certification requirements are with MTBE fuel. And so 3 between the two, the federal and California systems, we 4 are essentially and effectively getting both fuels. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So they're being certified at 6 the federal level, but not as a PZEV; we are the only ones 7 that can do that? 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: That's correct. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But that federal ones don't 10 do zero evap? 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: That's correct. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And also then what we're 13 assuming is that the materials used for these current 14 generation of vehicles will not suffer a problem with 15 ethanol permeation? 16 My point was, supposing -- okay, the PZEV, you 17 have to certify that for zero evap what, 150,000 miles. 18 After 100,000 we suddenly find out that, gee, the 19 material is not so good with ethanol gasoline. What will 20 happen? 21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I'm 22 reasonably confident that the materials that they're using 23 for both zero and the near zero evap standard that applies 24 to all the rest of the cars are sort of permeation proof. 25 The reason is is that the standard is so low, that it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 would reveal itself from just normal gasoline permeation. 2 And they're aware of the ethanol issues. So I'm pretty 3 confident that it -- the new materials are impermeable, so 4 to speak. As Mike said, it's really the ones out there 5 that have a lot of rubber hoses and stuff like that that 6 are more of a problem. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But if we found I say after 8 100,000 miles, would they then be subject to recall? 9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. 11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Not from our 12 standpoint because it's based on the commercial fuel that 13 they were tested on, not a change in the commercial fuel 14 that would occur years later, which is the case with 15 ethanol. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So then if we found that they 17 were not zero evap at that time, what would happen? 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: With the 19 ethanol? 20 Well, I'm not sure we want to wait till that 21 time. We'll probably find out much earlier than that, 22 before 10 years, whether there are any ethanol by just 23 using ethanol fuels in testing. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But then we may have excess 25 emissions in the system not accounted for in the SIP. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I guess 2 that would be possible if the outcome that you are 3 describing did occur, yes. But we'll find out, I guess, 4 earlier than 10 years. But, you're right, it could 5 happen. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All right. I won't worry 7 about it till that time. 8 Any questions? 9 Professor Friedman. 10 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: This goes to the 11 status of our regulations. We amended the RFG in the 12 middle of last year. And am I correct, according to some 13 of this correspondence, that we have not yet gotten OAL 14 approval to make them final? 15 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Yes -- 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: But where does that 17 stand? Are we going to get it before the next 10 days or 18 -- 19 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: As Ms. Lindner 20 indicated, we submitted the package to OAL on November 21 8th. They have 30 working days to review it. We asked 22 that they expedite the review. But it appears that they 23 may not be able to complete it until their last day, which 24 is December 26th. 25 We fully expect that they're going to approve it. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 But we also plan to post on the website today a notice to 2 people that if in the very unexpected event that they were 3 to be disapproved, that in order to effectuate the Board's 4 intent and the reliance of the refiners, that we will not 5 be enforcing the MTBE ban in any event on December 31st, 6 2002, pending remedy of any deficiencies. But I want to 7 emphasize, we have no reason to believe that it's not 8 going to be approved. 9 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: And given that some 10 of -- that over half of the distribution is now meeting 11 the new standards to be further amended, what can we do to 12 expedite any further amendments that we would approve 13 today getting those final approvals as early as possible 14 next year? 15 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: I think we can do 16 a couple things. We can try to submit it to OAL as 17 quickly as possible. There are very few comments. So 18 there are not a lot of comments we're going to have to 19 respond to in the FSOR. We have today identified a 15-day 20 change that we feel we need to make. And that will also 21 include a response -- something incorporated in light of 22 the CIOMA comments that you're going to hear. 23 Our Compliance -- our Enforcement Division and 24 Stationary Source staff and the Legal Office have 25 determined that it would be appropriate to apply the rules PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 as being approved today for determining whether gasoline 2 has been produced with the use of MTBE or not. So we 3 intend to start applying that as of January 1st as a 4 matter of enforcement discretion. 5 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 7 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Well, I should 8 say actually earlier than January 4th. Assuming the Board 9 approves it now, we would be applying it as early as 10 today. 11 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I guess I have one other 12 question. I want to go back to this evap issue. Maybe I 13 shouldn't, but I'm going to raise the question anyway. 14 Most of the confirmatory tests for the 15 certification of vehicles are done -- the confirmatory 16 testing is done by EPA, correct? 17 You've done some of it in the past? 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No, we both 19 do it, roughly in equal amounts. 20 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Now, the evap testing 21 and -- I thought I heard someone say that the feds require 22 the evap test to be done with ethanol and California 23 requires MTBE. Does the -- 24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: We require -- 25 actually it's commercial fuel, which may or may not have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 MTBE in it. But it doesn't have ethanol in it, for our 2 testing. 3 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Okay. I'll stop there. 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Let me just 5 add one thig that Bob Cross whispered to me, was that all 6 the developers of the hosing and the materials in the 7 evaporative system and fuel system all use ethanol to 8 design and confirm the quality of their materials because 9 it is the hardest thing for the materials to hold back on. 10 So I think that perhaps makes it less likely that what we 11 were discussing, Dr. Lloyd, would occur. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I appreciate that 13 clarification. 14 And the other part, I agree. Compared to years 15 ago at least now we do the testing with the gasoline that 16 people would buy outside, which is a much better 17 representation. 18 Professor Friedman. 19 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I just had one more 20 quick question that was triggered by the amendment or at 21 least a 15-day notice proposed change in response to 22 CIOMA's concern regarding leaving documentation at the 23 outlet. 24 And I'm just wondering, is there any risk -- and 25 it makes sense, if there's nobody there, no person to whom PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 to deliver it if it's a night delivery or something, that 2 you should be able to leave the documentation in the 3 outlet. But just throwing it on the floor -- on the 4 macadam or whatever -- I'm wondering, is there any risk 5 that that's not secure, that there ought to be some slip 6 space under the door or a box or something where they can 7 leave -- if the documentation's important to have and for 8 the recipient outlet to have, it seems to me there ought 9 to be some way to leave it not at the outlet but in it. 10 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Perhaps the 11 language could be modified to say, rather than "left at 12 the outlet," change it to "left at a secure location at 13 the outlet." 14 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: So a secure or 15 reasonably secure location or something like that? 16 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Or reasonably 17 secure -- 18 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Yeah, as long as 19 you're going to put out a 15-day notice. Small point, 20 but -- 21 But I don't know much about olefins and -- 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: With that I see no more 23 questions. 24 I'd like to call the first and only witness to 25 the stand. This is Jay McKeeman from CIOMA. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 It's nice to see you back, Jay. 2 MR. McKEEMAN: It's nice to be back. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Not opposing. 4 I appreciate your comments in the written 5 testimony too. 6 MR. McKEEMAN: You bet. 7 My name is Jay McKeeman. I'm the Executive Vice 8 President for the California Independent Oil Marketers' 9 Association. We're an organization that represents small 10 businesses that are engaged in the fuel and petroleum 11 products delivery commerce in this state. We represent 12 approximately 220 independent fuel marketers, about 90 13 percent of the fuel marketers in the State. Our customers 14 include agriculture, construction, industry, local 15 government agencies, school districts, and independently 16 supplied fuel stations. 17 To cut to the amendment that was suggested, we're 18 fine with that. Typically, our members drop in a drop box 19 or through a mail slot. So that doesn't present any 20 problems for us. 21 On the larger issue, we are very concerned that 22 this transition is not going to go smoothly. And we know 23 from past history, in 1993 when California changed its 24 diesel fuel specifications, and in 1996 when the gasoline 25 specifications were changed, we saw significant problems PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 in the marketplace. And we anticipate that there are 2 going to be problems in the marketplace as we go through 3 this transition. 4 The primary problem is that for the first time in 5 recent history we'll have what's called an nonfungible 6 fuel supply. In other words, right now gasoline is pretty 7 interchangeable until it gets to the delivery rack. And 8 that provides a lot of flexibility in the distribution 9 system. 10 With the stair-step implementation of ethanol 11 fuels into this state, we're going to have two types of 12 fuels that cannot be mixed. And there's very significant 13 penalties for mixing the fuels during the summer RVP 14 season. 15 Another problem that that creates is that at 16 independently supplied service stations if there is a 17 shortage of unbranded fuel of one type or the other, it 18 creates the necessity of that fuel station literally to 19 run out of gas before new gasoline -- an opposing type of 20 gasoline can be brought in. And that's something that 21 concerns us greatly. 22 There are a lot of logistical issues in terms of 23 how our deliveries are made, the timing, and the ability 24 to make sure that people get gasoline when they need it, 25 are involved. The paperwork complexities are also PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 significant in terms of making sure that the load that 2 you're dumping into is not a non-conforming load. 3 In any case, we have been working closely with 4 the Air Resources Board and the Energy Commission on these 5 issues. We've received excellent support so far in terms 6 of developing contingency plans on how to deal with these 7 situations. 8 But I don't want to gloss over this. There is 9 still a significant amount of work that needs to be done. 10 And we know that the agencies are working carefully on 11 this. But it needs to be done fairly quickly because our 12 members need to be well prepared and they need to prepare 13 their customers adequately as we go into this transition. 14 One thing that caught my attention in the staff 15 analysis is -- and it's a bone that we've been picking 16 since 1999, is that there are no -- the analysis indicates 17 that there are no economic impacts to the adoption of 18 these regulations. That is not the case. Our members are 19 going to go through significant economic impacts and 20 significant increased liability as we move through this. 21 And I just ask that the Air Resources Board carefully look 22 at these economic situations. Small businesses are very 23 intolerant of relatively small economic impacts. And we 24 would just ask a more careful scrutiny of the potential 25 impacts to our members as we move forward with regulations PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 like this and others. 2 Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Jay. 4 And I think your comments are well taken. I think the 5 Board and the staff appreciate, you know, working with 6 small business. And your members are very important to 7 us. So I'm sure staff will continue to work with you as 8 this introduction evolves. 9 Any comments or questions from the Board? 10 Mr. McKinnon. 11 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Just a comment. And it's 12 sort of a response to something said earlier. And, that 13 is, I just -- we send signals when we talk. And I want to 14 send this signal and, that is, that in terms of reducing 15 the sulfur in gasoline, it seems to me that the industry 16 really met their end of the bargain. And that took 17 significant investment. And the signal I send is that I 18 have some respect for that, and that I'm not in a rush to 19 change the rules any time soon. We changed them. They 20 came a long way. And in fact an auto company remarked to 21 me the other day that it was a big deal to them in terms 22 of them meeting what they had to do. 23 So that's it. 24 Thanks. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think also to -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: We're just having fun 2 down here. Was it something I said in my comments? 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But I think it's also 4 important that -- I think it came back to one of the 5 discussions we had when I think Michael was involved. And 6 the fact is that Honda is marketing some of their, I 7 guess, ULEV or SULEV vehicles, they're not marketing to 8 all parts of the country, and they can only market them to 9 those parts of the country which have lower sulfur. 10 So I think it translates directly to the benefits 11 that the breathers in California have. In fact, so that 12 we're working together, the oil industry, fuel industry 13 working together with the -- and the auto industry's 14 responding to our regulations, which is leading to that 15 direct benefit. 16 So I thought there was a nice -- a really nice 17 linkage there to demonstrate what's going on and why in 18 fact we push for those cleaner fuel standards. And your 19 comments, both Supervisor DeSaulnier and Mr. McKinnon, I 20 think are very, very important in that. 21 Professor Friedman. 22 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, just picking 23 up on the comment that there are economic -- adverse 24 economic consequences here, I'm assuming that the staff 25 has carefully considered ameliorating them to the fullest PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 extent possible, that is, that there are no ways that have 2 been suggested or proposed by the industry or otherwise 3 that, given what our task is, what our requirement is, 4 that we could further reduce that impact. 5 I haven't heard any. But if there -- certainly 6 if those affected and subjected to these additional costs 7 have any additional suggestions, I think we have an 8 obligation to hear them and consider them very carefully. 9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And I think 10 there's -- there's actually two sets of regulations in 11 play here in terms of the reference to significant 12 economic impacts. The phaseout of MTBE and the fact we're 13 going to go through a transition this year with mixed 14 fuels, and there does have the potential to have very 15 significant economic impacts on users depending on which 16 fuel they choose and how the supply situation works out. 17 Our analysis of economic impacts in terms of the 18 Board's action today on the set of regulations is that the 19 changes you're making today to the regulations aren't 20 going to have much effect. But that's in the context of 21 this larger phaseout. And, yes, we did consider it and 22 we've tried to minimize them. But we are charged with a 23 big task, which is to get the MTBE out of the gasoline and 24 go to something else. And that task was made bigger by 25 the fact the federal government wouldn't allow us to go to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 the better option, which is the flexibility to use no 2 oxygen at all. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 4 And I guess I may have asked this before. What 5 sort of progress are we making on getting in-state ethanol 6 production? How is that going? 7 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION 8 CHIEF SIMEROTH: Mr. Chairman, we're not aware of any 9 significant increase of in-state production. There are a 10 number of projects under consideration. The California 11 Energy Commission is tracking those projects. But to my 12 knowledge at this time, there's none under actual 13 construction. There's mostly studies and seeking 14 financing. 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And it's 16 harder right now because most of these proposals need a 17 jump start of someone who's going to invest money, to say 18 we'll invest now and hope for a better future. And the 19 State's in a poorer position to invest its money right 20 now. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 22 Mr. Kenny, do you have any more comments? 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: No. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So I'll now close the record 25 on this agenda item. However, the record will be reopened PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 when the 15-day notice of public availability is issued. 2 Written or oral comments received after this hearing date 3 but before the 15-day notice is issued will not be 4 accepted as part of the official record on this agenda 5 item. 6 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment 7 period, the public may submit written comments on the 8 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded 9 to in the final statement of reasons for the regulation. 10 Are there any ex parte revelations from my 11 colleagues? 12 Seeing none, then maybe we ought to take a minute 13 to review the resolution as amended. 14 And I'll entertain a motion. 15 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'll make a motion 16 to approve Resolution 02-34. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'll second it. 18 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Second. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye. 20 (Ayes.) 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Anybody against? 22 So thank you. Thank you, staff, for the 23 presentation. 24 What we'd like to do now is to take the next 25 agenda item. Hopefully, based on staff's expectations PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 here, we can cover this. And then we will take just a 2 15-minute break where we can give the court reporter and 3 staff lunch. 4 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The next item on the agenda 6 today is 02-9-4, public hearing to adopt federal exhaust 7 emission standards for 2008 and later model years for 8 heavy-duty gasoline engines. 9 The proposed amendments align California's 10 heavy-duty otto-cycle exhaust emission standards with the 11 more stringent federal standards recently promulgated by 12 U.S. EPA. 13 That's a novel approach. 14 (Laughter.) 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: This item also includes minor 16 amendments to the low-emission vehicle regulation and to 17 the heavy-duty diesel engine test procedures. 18 At this point I would like to turn it over to Mr. 19 Kenny to introduce the item and begin staff presentation. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman 21 and members of the Board. 22 In January of 2001, the U.S. EPA adopted new 23 emission standards for heavy-duty otto-cycle engines that 24 reduce emissions by more than 50 percent compared to 25 current California standards. In this rulemaking staff PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 proposes that the Board align California's exhaust 2 emission standards for heavy-duty engines with the federal 3 program to ensure that Californians continue to receive 4 only the cleanest engines available. 5 Staff is also proposing minor administrative 6 amendments to facilitate implementation of the LEV II 7 program for light- and medium-duty vehicles. These 8 amendments include requirements that fuel-fire heaters 9 used in conventional vehicles meet the same standards as 10 those used in zero-emission vehicles, modifications to the 11 allowable maintenance schedule for test vehicles, and some 12 administrative revisions. 13 Finally, a number of minor amendments to the 14 heavy-duty diesel engine test procedure are being 15 proposed. These consist of a nonsubstantive 16 reorganization and update to the certification 17 requirements and test procedures. 18 And with that, I'd like to turn it over to 19 Sarah Carter, who will make the presentation. 20 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: Thank you, Mike. 21 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 22 Presented as follows.) 23 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: Good morning, 24 Chairman Lloyd and members of the Board. 25 Today I will be presenting staff's proposal to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 incorporate for California more stringent federal exhaust 2 emission standards for heavy-duty otto-cycle or gasoline 3 engines as well as minor amendments to the low-emission 4 vehicle program. 5 This proposal also contains a number of minor 6 modifications to California's on-board refueling vapor 7 recovery requirements and heavy-duty diesel engine test 8 procedures. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: I will first 11 discuss staff's proposal for heavy-duty otto-cycle 12 engines. These are typically gasoline engines used in 13 vehicles over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: In California 16 gasoline vehicles that weigh over 8,500 pounds gross 17 vehicle weight are divided into three categories. The 18 first of these is the complete medium-duty vehicle, or 19 MDV. A complete medium-duty vehicle is one that's between 20 8,500 and 14,000 pounds that a manufacturer sells, fully 21 assembled, directly to the customer, such as a Dodge Ram 22 2500 pickup truck with a V-10 gasoline engine. 23 Complete medium-duty vehicles are required to 24 meet chassis-based emission standards as set forth in the 25 low-emission vehicle program and, as such, are not a part PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 of today's rulemaking. 2 The second category of vehicle that uses a 3 heavy-duty gasoline engine is the incomplete medium-duty 4 vehicle. An incomplete medium-duty vehicle is also one 5 that weighs between 8,500 and 14,000 pounds gross vehicle 6 weight. However, with an incomplete medium-duty vehicle 7 the manufacturer does not sell directly to the customer. 8 Rather the engine manufacturer generally sells a bare 9 chassis and engine to a secondary manufacturer who puts a 10 body on the chassis, for example, a motor home. Then the 11 secondary manufacturer sells the vehicle to the customer. 12 In this situation the engine manufacturer is 13 responsible for certifying the engine to engine-based 14 emission standards. The new standards for heavy-duty 15 gasoline engines being proposed today will apply to 16 engines used in incomplete medium-duty vehicles. 17 The third category of vehicles that uses a 18 heavy-duty gasoline engine is the heavy-duty vehicle. The 19 heavy-duty vehicle is one that weighs over 14,000 pounds 20 gross vehicle weight. This proposal applies to all 21 engines used in heavy-duty gasoline vehicles. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: In early 2001, 24 the U.S. EPA adopted new regulations to reduce exhaust 25 emissions from heavy-duty gasoline engines used in 2008 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 and subsequent model year vehicles. These new standards 2 are more stringent than California's current standards for 3 these engines that are applicable during the same 4 timeframe. 5 Staff is, therefore, proposing to harmonize 6 California's regulations with the more stringent federal 7 standards. Staff is also proposing to allow manufacturers 8 to participate in the federal averaging, banking, and 9 trading, or ABT, program for heavy-duty gasoline engines. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: California 12 currently requires that heavy-duty gasoline engines 13 certify to a combined nonmethane hydrocarbon, or NMHC, 14 plus oxides of nitrogen or NOx standard of 1.0 15 grams-per-brake-horsepower-hour in 2005. The regulations 16 allow compliance with this standard to be delayed if a 17 manufacturer introduces cleaner engines earlier than 18 required. These two alternative compliance options will 19 not be discussed here. 20 These California requirements are identical to 21 the federal requirement within this same timeframe. 22 However, the U.S. EPA recently adopted new 23 regulations for 2008 and subsequent model year heavy-duty 24 gasoline engines. These reduce exhaust emissions of ozone 25 precursors by roughly 2/3 compared to the 2005 standards PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 to 0.14 grams-per-brake-horsepower-hour NMHC and 0.2 2 grams-per-brake-horsepower-hour NOx. 3 Federal regulations also require these engines to 4 meet new particulate matter standards. Since California 5 will benefit from these new standards, staff is proposing 6 to align California's standards with the federal 7 standards. The new standards would apply to heavy-duty 8 engines used both in incomplete medium-duty vehicles and 9 in heavy-duty vehicles. It is expected that adoption of 10 these standards will reduce emissions of NMHC plus NOx in 11 the South Coast Air Basin by 3.6 tons per day in 2020. 12 These engines would also be required to meet a 13 new formaldehyde standard that would align with the 2004 14 California urban bus standard. In addition, staff is 15 proposing new optional standards for medium-duty 16 supra-ultra low-mission vehicle engines. A manufacturer 17 that elects to certify to this standard may generate extra 18 credits that could provide more flexibility in its 19 implementation plan. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: Federal 22 regulations allow manufacturers to use emissions 23 averaging, banking and trading, or ABT, to demonstrate 24 compliance with heavy-duty gasoline engine requirements. 25 The federal ABT program allows manufacturers to certify PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 engine groups above and below the required standard as 2 long as their average emissions meet the required 3 standard. Thus, similar to the emissions averaging 4 program for light- and medium-duty vehicles the ABT 5 program provides compliance flexibility to the 6 manufacturer. 7 The emission standards can also be met by banking 8 credits earned or trading credits with other 9 manufacturers. 10 California engines are not currently included in 11 this program. This is because California has historically 12 maintained separate and more stringent emission standards, 13 phase-in requirements, and credit trading programs for 14 engines used in incomplete medium-duty vehicles. With the 15 adoption of this proposal, California's exhaust emission 16 standards for heavy-duty gasoline engines used both in 17 incomplete medium-duty vehicles and in heavy-duty vehicles 18 will be identical to federal standards beginning with the 19 2008 model year. Staff is therefore proposing that 20 manufacturers be allowed to participate in the federal ABT 21 program for heavy-duty gasoline engines. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: I will now 24 discuss light- and medium-duty vehicles. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: In 1990 the Air 2 Resources Board adopted the low-emission vehicle, or LEV 3 I, program, which significantly reduces exhaust emissions 4 from the light- and medium-duty vehicle fleet between 1994 5 and 2003. 6 The second phase of these regulations, LEV II, 7 adopted in November 1998, expands the scope of the LEV I 8 regulations beginning in 2004. 9 LEV II changes include increasing the stringency 10 of emission standards for both the light- and medium-duty 11 vehicles and requiring light-duty trucks, including sport 12 utility vehicles, to meet the same emission standards as 13 passenger cars. 14 Similar to the LEV I program, LEV II contains 15 tiers of exhaust emission standards for increasingly more 16 stringent categories of low-emission vehicles. Each 17 manufacturer may produce any mix of these vehicles in 18 these emission categories provided that it meets a 19 progressively cleaner fleet average nonmethane organic gas 20 requirement each year with the option of credit banking 21 and trading. 22 Subsequent changes to the LEV II regulations in 23 2001 and 2000 ensure that vehicles sold in California 24 remain the cleanest in the nation. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: These are the 2 emission standards for passenger cars under LEV II. They 3 include low-emission vehicle, or LEV, ultra-low-emission 4 vehicle, or ULEV, super-ultra-low emission vehicle, or 5 SULEV, and zero-emission vehicle, or ZEV. 6 The benefits of these new standards compared with 7 LEV I range from 75 percent reduction in NOx emissions 8 from passenger cars to 90 percent reduction in NOx 9 emissions from the largest sport utility vehicles and 10 trucks. 11 The nonmethane organic gas, or NMOG, standards 12 remain unchanged from the already stringent LEV I 13 standards. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: Today's proposal 16 contains minor changes to LEV II emission and testing 17 requirements and also a number of administrative 18 amendments to the regulations. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: New emission and 21 testing requirements being proposed today for LEV II 22 vehicles include requiring that fuel-fired heaters used in 23 conventional vehicles meet the same requirements as those 24 used in zero-emission vehicles and to change to the 25 allowable maintenance schedule for test vehicles. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: The LEV II 3 program currently requires that emissions from fuel-fired 4 heaters used in zero-emission vehicles meet the ULEV 5 passenger car exhaust emission standard. Furthermore, 6 these heaters are not permitted to operate above 40 7 degrees of ambient temperature. These requirements were 8 adopted to ensure that equipping vehicles with fuel-fired 9 heaters would not cause an increase in emissions during 10 times when ozone levels are high. 11 While there are no currently certified 12 conventional vehicles equipped with those auxiliary 13 fuel-fired heaters, one manufacturer has approached staff 14 and indicated its intent to equip its diesel trucks and 15 sport utility vehicles with the fuel-fired heaters. This 16 is because very efficient diesel engines may generate 17 little excess heat that can be used to warm the passenger 18 compartment at colder temperatures. 19 If a manufacturer installs an auxiliary 20 fuel-fired heater, the heater would not be subject to any 21 emission requirements under current regulations. Staff is 22 therefore proposing that fuel-fired heaters used in light- 23 and medium-duty vehicles be required to meet the same 24 requirements as heaters used in ZEVs. This is a 25 preventative measure to minimize the ozone impact due to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 used auxiliary fuel-fired heaters. 2 At this time I'd like to note that the 3 requirement that fuel-fired heaters used in conventional 4 vehicles not be allowed to operate in ambient temperatures 5 above 40 degrees F is being proposed as a 15-day change. 6 This 15-day change is needed because the originally 7 proposed regulatory language is not sufficiently clear 8 about this requirement. Additional regulatory language 9 has therefore been added to clearly say that these heaters 10 may not operate above 40 degrees F. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: The Code of 13 Federal Regulations, or CFR, specifies allowable 14 emission-related scheduled maintenance that a manufacturer 15 must follow in demonstrating durability during 16 certification testing. 17 Specifically, the CFR identifies vehicle and 18 engine components that can be cleaned, repaired, or 19 replaced at specified mileage intervals. These 20 maintenance schedules have also been incorporated into 21 California regulations. These minimum maintenance 22 intervals are long to ensure that vehicle emission control 23 systems are durable. This information is also provided to 24 a vehicle owner as part of the vehicle maintenance 25 instructions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 Currently manufacturers are allowed to replace a 2 number of emission control components, including the 3 catalytic converter, at 100,000 miles. This first 4 maintenance interval corresponds to the 100,000 mile 5 full-useful-life standards for passenger cars and 6 light-duty trucks under the LEV I program. 7 Under the LEV II program, however, these vehicles 8 must now meet 120,000 mile full-useful-life standards. 9 Staff is accordingly proposing that the first allowable 10 scheduled maintenance interval be aligned with the 120,000 11 mile full-useful-life requirements of the LEV II program. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: In addition to 14 the proposed revisions just discussed, today's proposal 15 contains a number of administrative amendments. The first 16 of these amendments is a revision to the California 17 vehicle specifications. Staff is proposing to eliminate 18 the requirement that a machine-readable vehicle emission 19 control information, or VECI, bar code label be placed on 20 vehicles. This label was originally intended to be used 21 as part of California's smog check program to 22 electronically register test results. However, the Bureau 23 of Automotive Repair has not developed a system to use 24 this information and has no plans to do so. 25 Staff is also proposing to harmonize California's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 tune-up label specifications with U.S. EPA requirements 2 that will provide a cost savings to vehicle manufacturers. 3 Finally, if California and federal label 4 requirements are identical, California would no longer 5 need a separate emission control label specification 6 document. Therefore, California's label requirements have 7 been moved from a separate label specification document to 8 the various test procedure documents. The test procedures 9 will now refer to and incorporate the appropriate federal 10 label requirement. 11 Staff is also proposing a number of wording 12 changes to the LEV II regulations to clarify some of the 13 regulatory language. These changes would not affect the 14 content of the regulations. 15 Finally, staff is proposing to modify the various 16 test procedure documents to change the references for 17 on-board diagnostic requirements. These changes reflect 18 recent on board diagnostics regulatory changes. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: In addition to 21 the 15-day change I've already discussed, adding 22 regulatory language to specifically say that the 23 fuel-fired heaters used in conventional vehicles may not 24 operate above 40 degrees F, one additional 15-day change 25 is being proposed. Staff is proposing to make consistent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 the in-use compliance testing interval for vehicles 2 certifying to 150,000 mile standards with other LEV II 3 vehicles. That is 75 percent of the vehicle's useful life 4 or 112,500 miles. This allows a comparable evaluation of 5 the in-use emission performance of these vehicles. These 6 proposed 15-day changes are available at the back table. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: Staff is also 9 proposing a couple of minor changes to California's 10 on-board refueling vapor recovery, or ORVR, requirements 11 and to the heavy-duty diesel engine test procedures. 12 The proposed changes to the ORVR requirements 13 would specify that only gasoline meeting the federal 14 specifications may be used in ORVR certification testing, 15 and vehicles fueled with natural gas or liquefied 16 petroleum gas would be subject to ORVR requirements 17 identical to those in the federal program. 18 These changes were requested by U.S. EPA when it 19 granted California a waiver for our ORVR regulations. 20 Finally, staff has updated and reorganized the 21 heavy-duty diesel engine test procedure documents to make 22 them easier to read. The new document applicable for 2004 23 and subsequent model year engines does not contain any 24 substantive modifications compared to the current 25 document. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER CARTER: To summarize, 3 staff's proposal is primarily intended to rely on 4 California's exhaust emission standards for heavy-duty 5 otto-cycle engines with federal requirements. These 6 regulatory amendments along with the other changes 7 mentioned today will help ensure California continues to 8 receive the cleanest vehicles and engines available. They 9 will also avoid potential emission increases in the future 10 and help eliminate unnecessary costs to vehicle 11 manufacturers. 12 For these reasons staff recommends the Board 13 adopt this proposal, including the proposed 15-day 14 changes. 15 And one additional issue is an E-mail 16 correspondence from Tom and D. Robert Shaw that you have 17 in your folders. This E-mail relates to battery-powered 18 vehicles and was inadvertently put in your folder. It 19 doesn't relate to our item. 20 And, finally, Mr. Steve Albu needs to comment on 21 a letter regarding fuel-fired heaters. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 24 ENGINEERING STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF ALBU: One 25 supplemental comment that we did receive was from Espar, a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 manufacturer of fuel-fired heaters, a German company. 2 They had concerns about our proposal, and that while it 3 may be adequate for 5 kilowatt heaters that will be used 4 in the upcoming Ford Excursion F-series trucks, larger 5 capacity heaters might have trouble meeting the standards. 6 And they wanted us to consider another approach to setting 7 the standards, though it might be geared towards the 8 capacity of the heater. 9 Unfortunately, we don't have enough data to 10 really evaluate their request. And we agreed to work with 11 them to get this kind of data for the near future, and 12 look at our proposal and look at our standard-setting 13 processes to see if there's a better way to do this. One 14 example might be that we might just want to add in the 15 emissions from the fuel-fired heater to the actual 16 tailpipe emissions of the vehicle being tested and see if 17 it complies with the standard. That might actually avoid 18 even having a restriction on the temperature which the 19 heater operates and so on. 20 They do point out that there are advantages to a 21 fuel-fired heater and that, for example, in the CHP 22 example we had early today, it might be better to run the 23 fuel-fired heater and leave the diesel engine shut off. 24 You might have lower emissions overall and yet still 25 provide cabin heat in lower temperatures. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 So there are some aspects of their request that 2 make sense. And we do want to work with them and are 3 committed to do so. And so that would be occurring in the 4 near future. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What about other 6 manufacturers of heaters? 7 ENGINEERING STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF ALBU: Babosta 8 is also another manufacturer that is linked. And in terms 9 of interests with Espar, they're actually very -- they 10 have a high market penetration in Europe particularly. 11 And they are also going to be working with us. 12 There's one other company that will probably 13 enjoin as well. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So you're saying all the 15 heater companies have some concerns? 16 ENGINEERING STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF ALBU: Well, 17 Babosto didn't submit a letter, but I would suspect that 18 they would also have the same concern. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. 20 ENGINEERING STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF ALBU: But we're 21 not -- we're quite willing to work with them and look at 22 the issues and evaluate them relative to our needs and 23 what makes sense. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All right. 25 One of the things that would be useful I know -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 and, Steve, you're fully engaged with the Pavley bill. 2 But when we talk about early-on the nonmethane 3 hydrocarbons -- it might be useful at least for 4 educational purposes -- then how much methane typically 5 would accompany that? 6 You know, I'm not asking you now to put down -- 7 ENGINEERING STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF ALBU: Yeah, I'm 8 just looking at that -- 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But it would just be 10 informational as we get sort of educated along the way, 11 and methane is something that we're going to have to look 12 at, it would be nice to say, well, we got the .14 13 grams-per-brake-horsepower hour nonmethane. Now, well, 14 what sort of methane numbers would we be expecting so we 15 can become educated and interested in that sort of stuff. 16 ENGINEERING STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF ALBU: Okay. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And I presume also in that 18 case you've got the nonmethane hydrocarbon there with a 19 separate formaldehyde standard and a couple of size -- you 20 got the nonmethanol organic gases, which I presume 21 includes oxygenates. Or am I wrong? 22 ENGINEERING STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF ALBU: Yes, it 23 does. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Are there questions or 25 comments? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 Mr. Calhoun. 2 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I don't see any comments 3 from the heavy-duty engine manufacturers. Are they happy 4 with your proposal or does it create a problem for them? 5 ENGINEERING STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF ALBU: Well, 6 we're aligning with the EPA in large part for the gasoline 7 side of the issue here. And when it comes to fuel-fired 8 heaters, the only manufacturers using these heaters will 9 be General Motors and Ford that we're of. And for the 10 size of heaters that they're interested in, they can meet 11 the standards that we're proposing. It's a 5 kilowatt 12 heater. 13 We're looking more at the gasoline side or the 14 fuel-fired heater issue? I wasn't sure. 15 Heavy duty? 16 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes, heavy duty. 17 ENGINEERING STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF ALBU: Yeah, 18 just heavy duty alone I think we're okay because we're 19 aligning again with EPA. 20 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Thank you. 21 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I just wanted to ask 22 about the word "happy." As in happy Christmas or -- 23 (Laughter.) 24 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: They're sanguine? 25 It's not a problem for them? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 ENGINEERING STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF ALBU: Not a 2 problem. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Coming back to Madam 4 Ombudsman. Would you please describe the public process 5 and participation that was incurred during the development 6 of this regulation and provide us with any comments or 7 concerns that you may have. 8 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Mr. Chairman and members of 9 the Board, because of the narrow focus of this item and in 10 response to the desire of the stakeholders, there were no 11 formal outreach activities such as workshops or meetings 12 held. Initially the staff conferred directly with the 13 automobile and equipment manufacturers via one-on-one 14 meetings. 15 Staff worked the Alliance of Automobile 16 Manufacturers during the development of this proposal and 17 E-mailed the staff report, title 13 regulatory changes, 18 and the proposed changes to the various test procedure 19 documents on September 23rd. 20 On September 27th the 45-day notice was posted to 21 the ARB's website. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 24 Board have any other questions? 25 Mr. Kenny, any further comments? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: No. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I will now close the record 3 on -- since we don't have anybody to testify, I will close 4 the record on the proposed amendments to Title 13, 5 California Code of Regulations Section 1961. 6 The record for these amendments will pertain to 7 low-emission vehicles. Section 1961 will be reopened when 8 the 15-day notice of public availability is issued. 9 Written or oral comments received after this hearing date 10 but before the 15-day notice is issued will not be 11 accepted as part of the official record for these 12 amendments. When the record is reopened for a 15-day 13 comment period, the public may submit written comments on 14 the proposed changes, which will be considered and 15 responded to in the final statement of reasons for the 16 regulation. 17 I'm also officially closing the record on the 18 remaining proposed amendments. These amendments, which 19 pertain to heavy-duty engine and vehicles and to emission 20 label specifications affect Title 13, California Code of 21 Regulations Sections 1956.1, 1956.8, 1965, 1978, and 22 documents incorporated by reference in those sections. 23 All testimony, written submissions, and staff 24 comments on the proposed amendments pertaining to 25 heavy-duty engines and vehicles and labor specifications PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 have been entered into the record. And the Board has not 2 granted extension of the comment period for these 3 amendments. Written or oral comments on these amendments 4 received after the comment period has been close will not 5 be accepted as part of the official record for those 6 amendments. 7 Any ex parte disclosures? 8 Seeing none. 9 Moment to review the resolution, and then I'll 10 entertain a motion on that. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to 12 move that we adopt Resolution 02-31. 13 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Second. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye. 15 (Ayes.) 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Anybody against? 17 No. 18 With that we will continue. 19 I was hoping that we could take lunch, but lunch 20 isn't here yet. So we will allow a moment. 21 The next agenda item is enhanced vapor recovery. 22 So I guess we changed that. And thank you very much, 23 staff. 24 Actually I think what we're going to do, given 25 the fact we've got a half hour presentation, maybe the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 easiest thing to do would be to take a break now just 2 because it's -- it looks as though we're in good shape in 3 terms of our overall time. And I think we could do with 4 that additional break. 5 So why don't we actually try to break for half an 6 hour or so. Maybe 5 after 1, is that reasonable, or 10 7 after 1? 8 Yeah, 10 after 1 would be good. 9 Thank you. And we'll come back then. 10 (Thereupon a lunch break was taken.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Next agenda item is 02-9-6, 3 proposed amendments to the enhanced vapor recovery 4 technology requirements for gasoline service stations. 5 In March 2000 the Board approved the enhanced 6 vapor recovery, or EVR, program which made major changes 7 to certification standards and specifications for vapor 8 recovery systems at service stations. At that time, the 9 Board requested the staff conduct a technology review of 10 future effective standards and specifications considered 11 to be technology forcing. The results of the EVR 12 technology review, as well as the proposed amendments to 13 the EVR program will be presented today. 14 At this point I would ask Mr. Kenny to introduce 15 the item and begin staff presentation. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman 17 and members of the Board. 18 The proposed amendments include necessary changes 19 as identified during the EVR technology review, 20 improvements to the certification process for vapor 21 recovery equipment used at service stations, and the 22 modifications of the EVR implementation schedule. 23 Five new test procedures are proposed for 24 standards and specifications which currently lack 25 procedures for determining compliance. Staff has also PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 taken this opportunity to make several modifications and 2 clarifications to the existing test procedures to improve 3 testing measurements. 4 And at this time I'd like to turn the 5 presentation over to Cindy Castronovo, who will actually 6 make the presentation. 7 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: Thank 8 you, Mr. Kenny. 9 Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd and members of the 10 Board. 11 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 12 Presented as follows.) 13 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: Today 14 I will present the results of the EVR technology review 15 and proposed revisions to the ARB vapor recovery 16 certification and test procedures. 17 --o0o-- 18 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: Our 19 presentation will begin with some background on the 20 enhanced vapor recovery program for vapor recovery systems 21 at gasoline dispensing facilities. Then we will review 22 the six EVR program modules and discuss our findings as to 23 the technological feasibility of the standards in each 24 module, and any proposed regulatory changes associated 25 with the module. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 We'll talk about how the EVR cost effectiveness 2 has changed based on information collected during the 3 technical review period. As we proceed we'll discuss 4 several issues relating to EVR program implementation and 5 staff's recommendations to address stakeholder concerns. 6 --o0o-- 7 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: The 8 EVR regulations affect two types of gasoline transfer 9 which take place at service stations, which are 10 characterized as Phase 1 and Phase 2. 11 As shown by this video, Phase 1 vapor recovery 12 returns vapors, shown in pink, from the service station 13 underground storage tank to the cargo tank truck, and 14 eventually to the terminal vapor control system. 15 Phase 2 vapor recovery routes the vapors 16 displaced from fueling vehicles back into the underground 17 storage tank. 18 Phase 1 and Phase 2 equipment must be certified 19 by ARB to meet emission standards. The ARB certification 20 is the standard for most other states and many countries 21 around the world. 22 --o0o-- 23 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: Vapor 24 recovery is an important program for control of reactive 25 organic gas emissions. This chart compares the emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 reduction in tons per day for the South Coast Air Basin 2 for three major emission control strategies. 3 As shown here, the emission reductions 4 attributable to vapor recovery, VR, are estimated at 108 5 tons per day, more than the reductions for low-emission 6 vehicles and cleaner burning gasoline. 7 --o0o-- 8 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: In 9 March of 2000 the Board approved the enhanced vapor 10 recovery, or EVR, regulations, which established new 11 standards for vapor recovery systems to reduce emissions 12 during storage and transfer of gasoline at gasoline 13 dispensing facilities. Because several of the EVR 14 standards were thought to be technology-forcing, the Board 15 directed staff to conduct a technology review for 16 standards with future effective dates. The results of the 17 technology review are presented in Appendix 4 of the staff 18 report. 19 Amendments to the vapor recovery regulations are 20 proposed based on the findings of the technology review 21 and also to address issues raised during certification of 22 equipment to EVR standards. 23 --o0o-- 24 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: The 25 EVR program is divided into six EVR modules. Each module PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 represents one or more standards for vapor recovery 2 systems. 3 The first module applies to Phase 1 vapor 4 recovery systems. Modules 2 through 6 are requirements 5 for Phase 2 vapor recovery systems. 6 In the next several slides we will review the EVR 7 technology review findings for each module and discuss 8 proposed regulation amendments relating to that module. 9 --o0o-- 10 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: As 11 mentioned earlier, Phase 1 equipment controls gasoline 12 vapor emissions during the transfer of gasoline from the 13 cargo tank truck to the service station underground 14 storage tank. The Phase 1 standards are not 15 technology-forcing and thus were not included in the 16 technology review except in the cost update. 17 Two EVR Phase 1 systems have already been 18 certified and are required to be used now for new vapor 19 recovery installations. No changes are proposed to the 20 Phase 1 standards. 21 The proposed amendments include modifications to 22 five test procedures associated with certification of 23 Phase 1 systems. These test procedures can also be used 24 to check compliance as part of a district enforcement 25 program. The changes would clarify the test methods to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 make sure the vapor recovery equipment is tested in the 2 field the same way it was certified. These modifications 3 do not change the results of the test method and thus 4 remain consistent with test procedures used to certify the 5 first two EVR Phase 1 systems. 6 --o0o-- 7 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: It is 8 helpful to quickly review criteria we use for assessing 9 the technological feasibility of Phase 2 vapor recovery, 10 modules 2 through 6. If a certified vapor recovery system 11 has met the EVR standard, then it is clear that the 12 standard is feasible. 13 Similarly if ARB or manufacturer data 14 demonstrates that standard is achievable, then we also 15 assigned a yes to that standard. 16 In some cases we did not have data collected 17 using our test procedures, but had other information or 18 data that suggested strongly that the standard is 19 achievable. Those standards are described as likely to be 20 technologically feasible. 21 If we have limited or no data regarding an EVR 22 standard, we classify the standard as a "maybe." The last 23 category is intended for any EVR standard which at the 24 completion of the technical review does not appear 25 achievable at this time. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 --o0o-- 2 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: 3 Module 2 includes many Phase 2 standards designed to 4 maximize collection of vapors during vehicle fueling and 5 contain the vapors in the facility underground storage 6 tank. All of the 18 standards and specifications were 7 found to be feasible or likely to be feasible. Thus no 8 changes are needed for these Module 2 standards. 9 --o0o-- 10 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: 11 Although no changes are proposed for Module 2 12 standards, we are proposing changes to test procedures 13 associated with Module 2. When EVR was originally 14 adopted, some standards lacked formal methods to determine 15 if the equipment was in compliance with the standard. 16 Three new test procedures are proposed to address this 17 deficiency: 18 TP 201.2G will measure the rigidity of 19 vapor-return piping. 20 TP 201.2J will determine pressure drops across 21 balance system components. 22 And TP 201.7 will specify requirements for 23 measuring underground storage tank pressures during 24 certification. 25 Changes are proposed to TP 201.2F to correct PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 biases and standardize the calculation of pressure related 2 fugitives during certification testing. Clarifications 3 are proposed to TP 201.2 and TP 201.2B to update equations 4 and refine method applicability. 5 --o0o-- 6 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: The 7 third EVR module requires compatibility of Phase 2 vapor 8 recovery systems with ORVR vehicles. On-board refueling 9 vapor recovery, or ORVR, provides for collection of the 10 refueling vapors in a carbon cannister on the vehicle. It 11 performs the same function as a Phase 2 vapor recovery 12 system for newer cars. Phase 2 systems certify as 13 compatible with ORVR vehicles have been available since 14 1998, and thus this standard is indeed feasible. No 15 changes are proposed for Module 3 requirements. 16 --o0o-- 17 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: 18 Module 4 controls emissions from a liquid 19 retention. Liquid retention emissions occur when gasoline 20 retained in nozzles and hoses evaporates between vehicle 21 fuelings. Field tests indicate that 82 percent of 22 existing nozzles meet the 100 mil for a thousand gallon 23 liquid retention standard now. 24 Module 4 also contains a nozzle spitting 25 standard, which addresses spitting that can occur if the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 nozzle latch is squeezed before activating the dispenser. 2 The one milliliter spitting standard is currently met by 3 balanced nozzles and data submitted for an EVR 4 certification application -- 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You are to place that nozzle 6 carefully, I can see that. 7 (Laughter.) 8 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: 9 -- indicates that the spitting standard can also 10 be met for assist nozzles. So this shouldn't happen. 11 Both requirements are considered feasible and no 12 changes are proposed. 13 --o0o-- 14 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: The 15 spillage standard limits the combined amount of spillage 16 from all use and operation of the Phase 2 system. The 17 adopted standard is designed to reduce emissions by 60 18 percent compared to current systems. 19 Field tests and data submitted by nozzle 20 manufacturers demonstrate that the standard can be met. 21 Thus we are proposing no changes to these requirements. 22 The Board adopted a separate requirement limiting 23 the drops that occur after the act of vehicle refueling. 24 Although the emissions from these drops is included in the 25 spillage standard just discussed, we believe it is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 important to provide a more stringent requirement that 2 reduces the chance of getting gasoline on clothes or 3 shoes. The Board adopted standard allows one drop. As a 4 result of the technology review, we proposed an amended 5 standard of three drops and a revised test procedure. 6 Since the staff proposal was issued we have 7 conducted additional testing of manufacturer prototype 8 nozzles. The testing has led to two new findings. First, 9 the revised test procedure contained in the staff proposal 10 is too lax in that it allows current nozzles that drip 11 excessively in actual operation to pass the test. Thus we 12 propose as a 15-day change to withdraw the proposed 13 revised test procedure and retain the one already in 14 regulation. 15 Second, we have recently tested a manufacturer's 16 prototype nozzle. And it has past the three-drop limit 17 using the original, more stringent test. Thus we consider 18 a three-drop standard feasible and propose to revise the 19 current one-drop limit to three. 20 --o0o-- 21 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: The 22 6th and last EVR module is in-station diagnostics. First 23 we will talk about how ISD works and then discuss ISD 24 feasibility. 25 In-station diagnostics provides continuous PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 monitoring of emission related parameters and alerts the 2 station operator when a failure mode is detected so that 3 repairs can be made. Currently inspections and field 4 tests are necessary to ensure installed systems are 5 operating correctly. 6 Even if a district requires annual testing, many 7 defects in the vapor recovery system do not interfere with 8 gasoline dispensing. And thus an emission related failure 9 may not be noted until the next test. Thus, without ISD, 10 excess emissions can occur for many months before 11 corrective action is taken. 12 ISD is similar in concept to the ARB on-board 13 diagnostics for motor vehicles. Also many service 14 stations already have a diagnostic system to detect liquid 15 leaks from underground storage tanks. We expect 16 integration of vapor recovery diagnostics with existing 17 liquid leak detection systems will be the first ISD 18 systems to be certified. 19 --o0o-- 20 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: The 21 main features of the ISD system are illustrated here. The 22 ISD system monitors system performance parameters, 23 including vapor flow and underground storage tank 24 pressure. The monitor informs the station operator when a 25 failure or degradation of the vapor recovery system PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 occurs. If the problem is not corrected, the ISD system 2 will shut down the field dispenser. The ISD monitor 3 maintains an electronic archive of system performance 4 which may be used to generate reports. 5 In the next few slides we will illustrate with 6 animation how the ISD monitors vapor collection during a 7 vehicle fueling. 8 --o0o-- 9 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: This 10 slide shows how ISD monitors the vapor return during a 11 typical fueling event. As the gas is dispensed into the 12 car, the vapor is drawn out of the tank and sent back to 13 the underground storage tank. 14 As the vapor flows to UST, it passes through a 15 displacement meter which sends an electronic signal to the 16 ISD system. The ISD system interprets the signal and 17 calculates the air-to-liquid ratio, or A over L, reading. 18 The hatched area on the A over L bar represents a 19 dispenser operating within the certified limits. 20 --o0o-- 21 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: The 22 ISD system has two warning modes: Degradation and gross 23 failure. 24 This slide illustrates the ISD system issuing a 25 degradation warning for pump number 1 after one week in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 which the vapor collection is 25 percent out of the 2 certified range. 3 If the system is operating from 25 to 75 percent 4 or 125 to 175 percent, the system will indicate a 5 degradation warning. 6 In this slide the system is operating just below 7 the 75 percent level. The one-week period allows 8 collection of sufficient data to ensure that the 9 degradation is real. 10 If the system continues to operate outside the 25 11 percent range for a second consecutive week, then the 12 dispenser is shut down by the ISD system. Thus for 13 degradation warnings there is ample opportunity to repair 14 the problem before dispensing is affected. 15 This slide shows the second type of ISD warning, 16 for a gross failure. The gross warning is at first 17 similar to the degradation warning, except that you'll 18 notice that the reading is far outside the acceptable 19 range. Since the vapor collection is severely reduced, 20 the ISD system goes into a warning mode after one day. 21 --o0o-- 22 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: If 23 the gross failure continues for a second day, the 24 dispenser is shut down by the ISD system. 25 One feature of the ISD system is that although PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 the system is required to be shut down, there will be a 2 reset button on the unit which will allow restarting of 3 the system if local district rules allow the reset 4 function to be used before repairs are made. Under most 5 circumstances maintenance would be performed prior to 6 pressing the recess button. An electronic record is 7 created each time the reset button is pressed. 8 --o0o-- 9 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: The 10 printout capabilities on-site will provide both station 11 managers and district personnel a means of immediately 12 assessing the current past performance of the vapor 13 recovery system. 14 --o0o-- 15 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: This 16 sample printout shows the typical information that is 17 included in a daily report. Note that the A over L value 18 for dispenser number 1 is recorded below the gross warning 19 level limit. 20 In this example, dispenser number 4 indicates 21 that the A over L of 0.82 is out of specification, which 22 is typically 0.9 to 1.1. However, it is above 0.75, which 23 is the trigger for the ISD warning system. Thus ISD 24 assigns a pass for dispenser 4. This information helps 25 identify problems early and could trigger maintenance PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 before ISD warnings occur. 2 ISD stores daily reports for the last 30 days and 3 monthly reports for the previous 12 months. Also a record 4 of reset is included on the print out. 5 --o0o-- 6 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: As 7 part of the EVR technology review you directed us to 8 conduct an ISD pilot program. An ISD work group was 9 formed, which included representatives from districts and 10 petroleum marketers, to develop the protocol to evaluate 11 the ISD systems. Five stations throughout California were 12 instrumented with ISD systems and subjected to hands-off 13 operation as well as challenge mode testing. 14 The ISD system tested in the pilot program 15 successfully provided warnings of system failures or 16 degradation and demonstrated the capability to shut down 17 fuel dispensing if the problem was not corrected. 18 The ISD systems were found to detect system 19 failures with at least 99 percent probability. With the 20 testing we conducted, no false alarms were found. 21 The ISD systems in the pilot study demonstrated 22 at operating service stations that 13 out of 14 ISD 23 requirements are feasible. The requirement for self 24 testing was not evaluated, but is considered likely to be 25 feasible, as UST leak detection systems have the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 capability to automatically check censors at prescribed 2 intervals. And this technology can also be used for ISD. 3 This completes our discussion of the EVR modules. 4 Next we will talk about proposed amendments to the 5 certification procedures. 6 --o0o-- 7 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: We 8 proposed several changes to certification procedure CP 201 9 to help improve certification of EVR systems. These 10 include clarification of what materials are required for 11 EVR applications, discussion on how we handle equipment 12 failures during the certification tests, and when failures 13 constitute test termination. 14 Since the purpose of in-station diagnostics is to 15 identify failures quickly to allow immediate repair, we 16 propose to allow limited equipment maintenance during the 17 operational test for systems equipped with ISD. 18 Allowing Phase 2 equipment to certify either on a 19 unihose or multihose dispenser will help make more test 20 sites available. 21 Gasoline marketers would like choices for 22 equipment components comprising a vapor recovery system. 23 Staff proposes changes to the certification procedure to 24 allow components to be certified on multiple systems, with 25 abbreviated testing after the equipment has first PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 successfully completed a full system certification. 2 --o0o-- 3 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: 4 Other proposed amendments to the certification 5 procedure include new language to avoid missuse of the 6 innovative system provision. We propose to remove 7 language relating to spill containers at Phase 1 delivery 8 points to avoid any conflicts with State Water Board 9 regulations. 10 As discussed in the EVR technology review, the 11 maximum hydrocarbon rate is proposed to be evaluated at 12 the exhaust rather than the inlet to the processor. 13 Finally, we suggest amendments to the information 14 required for in-station diagnostics reporting and will 15 clarify what information must be available to the station 16 operator and district inspector. 17 --o0o-- 18 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: That 19 completes our discussion of the regulatory changes 20 associated with the EVR program modules and the 21 certification process. 22 Next we will cover proposed amendments that 23 affect the implementation of the EVR program. 24 --o0o-- 25 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 Several concerns were raise during the technology 2 review workshops that were separate from whether the 3 standards were technologically feasible. This slide 4 summarizes the major issues raised by districts and 5 station operators. We'll discuss proposed amendments to 6 address these points in the next several slides. 7 --o0o-- 8 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: Phase 9 2 vapor recovery systems are not only used for ROG 10 emission control, but are a primary means of reducing 11 Benzene exposure as required by a state air toxics control 12 measure. 13 Thus even stations in federal and state ozone 14 attainment areas are required to have Phase 2 systems for 15 Benzene control. These attainment districts pointed out 16 that their stations should not have to pay to upgrade 17 stations if ROG and Benzene emissions were sufficiently 18 controlled by their existing equipment. 19 We agree with this assessment with two caveats. 20 Phase 2 systems that are not compatible with ORVR vehicles 21 will cause excess emissions which could increase Benzene 22 exposure. 23 Also, new gasoline facilities and facilities 24 undergoing major modifications should be required to 25 install EVR systems to keep districts in attainment PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 status. There are six districts in northern California 2 that are eligible for this exemption. 3 --o0o-- 4 5 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: The 6 impact of EVR was evaluated for five service station 7 categories with annual throughputs ranging from up to 8 300,000 gallons to above 2.4 million gallons. These five 9 levels are identified as GDF 1 through GDF 5. 10 This table provides the annual throughput range, 11 the percentage of total state gasoline throughput, and the 12 percentage of facilities for each GDF category. 13 Ninety-four percent of the total gasoline 14 throughput, which corresponds to 94 percent of the 15 emissions, is associated with the larger GDF 3, GDF 4, and 16 GDF 5 facilities. Six percent of emissions is 17 attributable to the stations in GDF 1 and GDF 2, which 18 comprise about 20 percent of existing service stations. 19 --o0o-- 20 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: In 21 March 2000 the Board exempted from ISD requirements 22 stations with a throughput of no greater than 160,000 23 gallons annually based on cost effectiveness. All other 24 EVR requirements apply to these stations. Since 160,000 25 represents the average throughput of GDF stations, we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 propose to raise the ISD exemption level to 300,000 2 gallons annually to reflect the Board's intent to exempt 3 all of the stations in the GDF 1 category. 4 Districts do not feel it appropriate to implement 5 ISD for GDF 2 facilities at this time due to the capital 6 cost impact on smaller GDF's, their potentially rural 7 locations, and limited overall emission reduction 8 potential. 9 We agree with the district's request that the 10 Board exempt GDF 2 facilities. We have also agreed to 11 evaluate the progress of ISD implementation within 18 12 months after certification of the first ISD system. We 13 will have better data at that time to decide whether to 14 continue, modify, or eliminate the proposed ISD exemption 15 for GDF 2. 16 Exempting GDF 2 will raise the ISD exemption 17 level to 600,000 gallons per year. The combination of 18 exempting both GDF 1 and GDF 2 would make about 20 percent 19 of the total service stations in California eligible for 20 the exemption. But represents about a 6 percent loss, or 21 0.5 tons per day in the total ISD emission reductions. 22 --o0o-- 23 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: 24 Before we review the EVR timeline, it is helpful to review 25 the definitions of the EVR implementation dates. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 example shown is for Phase 1, which is the system that 2 interfaces with the gasoline delivery truck. 3 State law provides that existing vapor recovery 4 equipment may be used for a period up to 4 years after the 5 effective date of a new standard. The effective date, or 6 start of the 4 year clock, is shown by the beginning of 7 the dotted bars. The start of each colored bar indicates 8 the operative date of the standard or when the standard is 9 applicable to new and modified facilities. 10 As we shall see, for some standards the effective 11 and operative dates are the same, so there will not be 12 dotted boxes for all the standards. 13 --o0o-- 14 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: The 15 end of each colored bar indicates when all existing 16 facilities must modify their vapor recovery systems to 17 comply with the standards, which is the end of the 4 year 18 clock. 19 --o0o-- 20 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: Here 21 is the existing EVR timeline, showing the EVR 22 implementation dates for Modules 1 through 6. The 23 operative dates are staggered to allow time to develop EVR 24 systems which could meet the technology-forcing standards. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: As 2 discussed in the staff report, we propose to align the 3 schedule for the 100 mil liquid retention, 1 milliliter 4 spitting, and spillage standards with the schedule for the 5 dripless nozzle to group all the nozzle standards 6 together. This proposed change will help simplify the EVR 7 requirements for service station owners and reduce 8 complications for district inspectors in enforcing 9 multiple nozzle standards. 10 --o0o-- 11 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: This 12 slide shows a new proposal for modifications to the EVR 13 implementation schedule, which was not proposed in the 14 staff report. We proposed to delay the effective dates 15 for the Phase 2 standards and specifications, the nozzle 16 standards and the ISD module by six months to allow time 17 to complete certification of EVR systems, this can take up 18 to nine months. We expect systems to begin certification 19 testings by January of 2003. 20 Note that the ORVR compatibility standard, 21 represented by the pink bar, is not changed. And systems 22 installed after April 2003 must be ORVR compatible. 23 As mentioned earlier, three vapor recovery 24 systems have already been certified as ORVR compatible. 25 And preliminary data from ARB field tests have recently PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 demonstrated that balance systems also meet the ORVR 2 compatibility standard. 3 --o0o-- 4 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: Since 5 our experience is that not all certification tests are 6 successful, we cannot guarantee that Phase 2 systems 7 meeting all the EVR requirements will be available by 8 October of 2003. Language is proposed to be added to the 9 certification procedure to allow the Executive Officer to 10 extend the operative date by up to six months, if 11 necessary. In the interim period only ORVR compatible 12 systems would be permitted to be installed. 13 --o0o-- 14 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: 15 Additional changes to the staff's proposal as 16 originally noticed are summarized on this slide. These 17 include the increase in the ISD exemption throughput and 18 changes to the EVR implementation schedule. 19 The modifications to the EVR implementation 20 schedule are proposed to be processed as an emergency 21 regulation in order to adopt the proposed amended 22 schedule, but for the original effective date of April 23 1st, 2003. 24 We also propose minor changes to the 25 certification procedure, adding definitions of technical PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 terms and corrections and clarifications to five of the 2 proposed test procedures. 3 --o0o-- 4 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: The 5 last section of our presentation reviews the cost 6 effectiveness of enhanced vapor recovery. 7 --o0o-- 8 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: As 9 discussed in the staff report, the EVR cost analysis 10 prepared in February 2000 was updated as part of the EVR 11 technology review. The equipment costs, particularly for 12 ISD, were discovered to have been underestimated in the 13 original analysis. The emission reductions were 14 recalculated based on information from in-use system 15 emissions that was not available in 2000. 16 Also, errors in the original analysis were noted 17 and corrected. The end result was an increase in the 18 overall cost effectiveness from $1.80 to $5.24 per pound 19 of ROG reduced. 20 --o0o-- 21 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: 22 This is a significant increase. But the EVR cost 23 effectiveness is still comparable to other recent ARB 24 regulations, as illustrated here. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: We 2 worked closely with the stakeholders identified here in 3 preparing the staff's proposal. A summary of the outreach 4 efforts will be presented by the Ombudsman following this 5 presentation. 6 --o0o-- 7 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: What 8 happens next for vapor recovery? We will be very busy 9 over the next few years certifying systems to meet the new 10 standards. We are working with CAPCOA to improve district 11 staff involvement on systems seeking certification. 12 We will be further evaluating the implementation 13 of ISD per CAPCOA's request and provide our findings 14 within 18 months of the first ISD certification. 15 --o0o-- 16 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST CASTRONOVO: In 17 conclusion I'd like to restate that this proposal was 18 developed with extensive outreach to affected parties, 19 with adjustments made to address concerns over the last 20 two years. Our economic analysis shows that the proposed 21 measures remain cost effective. The EVR standards are 22 necessary to fulfill the ozone SIP settlement agreement, 23 protect public health, and help districts meet their 24 attainment goals. 25 Finally, we recommend adoption of our amended PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 proposal, with the understanding that changes to the 2 original proposal will undergo a 15-day comment period. 3 This concludes my presentation. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 5 Madam Ombudsman, would you kindly provide 6 information on the public participation process followed 7 in developing this regulation, provide us any comments or 8 concerns you may have. 9 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Mr. Chairman and members of 10 the Board, this staff report was developed with input from 11 the California Air Pollution Control Districts, Water 12 Resources Control Board, vapor recovery equipment 13 manufacturers, testing contractors, gasoline marketers and 14 associations, and other interested parties. 15 In developing the EVR technology review the tech 16 review work group advised staff during the early drafts of 17 the report during three conference calls. Two public 18 workshops were also held before the draft report was 19 released in April. Two additional workshops were held to 20 solicit comments on the draft review -- the draft tech 21 review and also to discuss the proposed amendments to the 22 vapor recovery regulations. Approximately 60 people 23 attended each workshop. 24 Internet audio broadcasts were made available for 25 the third a fourth workshops. Staff also had over 20 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 individual meetings with stakeholders. In addition, they 2 participated in several CAPCOA committee meetings to keep 3 districts informed and to solicit input. Over 500 4 stakeholders on the vapor recovery list-serve received 5 E-mails when new information was posted on the vapor 6 recovery web page. 7 On October 25th staff mailed the notice of public 8 hearing and the availability of the staff report to 9 approximately 300 interested parties. These documents 10 were also posted on the ARB's website. 11 This concludes my comments. 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 14 Colleagues have any questions at this time? 15 All right. So with that I'd like to call up the 16 first three witnesses. 17 We have Dr. Wallerstein, Barbara, Doug Quetin. 18 DR. WALLERSTEIN: Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd, 19 members of the Board. 20 If it's okay with the Board, we'd like to have 21 Doug Quetin go first since he's the President of CAPCOA at 22 this time. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's fine. 24 MR. QUETIN: One of Barry's happier days was to 25 relinquish presidency, I think. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 172 1 Good afternoon. I'm, as Barry said, Doug Quetin. 2 I'm the APCO with the Monterey Air District and the 3 current president of CAPCOA. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Congratulations. 5 MR. QUETIN: Thank you. 6 Chairman Lloyd and members of the Air Resources 7 Board, we appreciate that you are conducting this 8 technology review as promised at your March 2000 meeting. 9 And you committed to developing enhanced vapor recovery 10 systems designed to address a host of problems with the 11 existing equipment. 12 The performance of these systems is crucial to 13 reducing ozone precursors and the toxic air contaminant 14 Benzene. Unlike most air pollution equipment, these 15 systems are used regularly by the public, and who are 16 directly exposed if they're malfunctioning. 17 Public use also results in exceptional wear and 18 tear to these air pollution systems. As local air 19 districts we pledge to work as full partners with your 20 staff to assure that enhanced vapor recovery systems and 21 the ISD systems operate at their most effective levels. 22 We do have concerns with the cost effectiveness 23 analysis, especially for ISD, as well as the reasons that 24 staff cited. And we're pleased to see that the threshold 25 recommendation for the requirement of ISD is raised to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 173 1 600,000 gallons a year. This should bring the cost 2 effectiveness numbers to more within acceptable ranges. 3 I'd like to thank for this opportunity to 4 comment. And on behalf of the 35 local air districts, we 5 do wish you happy holidays. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 7 Questions, comments from the Board? 8 Thank you, Doug. 9 MR. QUETIN: Thank you. 10 DR. WALLERSTEIN: I'll be very brief. 11 The South Coast Air Quality Management District 12 staff is in full support of the proposal that your staff 13 has provided to you this afternoon. I want to personally 14 thank the CARB staff for working well with the air 15 districts. This is an important step forward. It's a 16 good measure for ozone control and it's also a good 17 measure for air toxics. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Barry. 19 MS. LEE: Chairman Lloyd, members of the Board, 20 I'm Barbara Lee. I'm the Air Pollution Control Officer in 21 northern Sonoma County. I had the opportunity a couple of 22 years ago as CAPCOA president to serve on your vapor 23 recovery advisor group. I've worked with staff since then 24 representing rural district concerns about this program. 25 I want to commend staff for your efforts to work PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 174 1 with us on an ongoing basis, to interface with our 2 committees, and to try to respond to the issues that we 3 raised with you. 4 We're very pleased that you included the higher 5 threshold. This was a very important issue for the rural 6 districts. Northern Sonoma is here in full support of 7 your regulation, and I would like to express my personal 8 thanks to staff for their efforts in working with us. 9 Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 11 And, again, I'd like to thank the districts and 12 CAPCOA for really working with us very well. I know how 13 important this measure is to you as well. Thank you. 14 We have Sandra Duval, Steven Arita, and Prentiss 15 Searles. 16 MS. DUVAL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 17 members. My name is Sandra Duval. I'm with the 18 California Independent Oil Marketers Association. And our 19 members deliver gasoline to independent retail gasoline 20 stations. And many of them operate stations as well. 21 I'm here today to talk about the change in the 22 test procedure for Phase 2 systems that allows some -- I 23 think it was characterized today as maintenance of the 24 system with an ISD detected failure. 25 Our members' experience with currently certified PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 175 1 vapor recovery equipment has been poor. Much of the 2 equipment is of substandard quality and it needs frequent 3 repairs. We also frequently find ourselves in violation 4 of air pollution control standards, resulting in numerous 5 and expensive fines that have been paid by our members. 6 And this experience has led to our current 7 position, that new EVR equipment must demonstrate that it 8 can meet the CARB emission control standards and that it 9 is reliable enough to maintain those standards without 10 excessive repairs or maintenance. 11 And we think the only way to ensure that is with 12 the rigorous 180-day certification test. And that it is 13 not allowed to malfunction during that test period. 14 We understand that should the system have a 15 malfunction that is detected by the ISD system and it is 16 allowed to complete the test, that the system will be 17 certified only with an ISD system. And that alarms us 18 because we are afraid that what will happen is in the 19 worst case scenario the only equipment available will have 20 to be paired with an ISD system. 21 And the exemption that is being proposed to be 22 increased to the GDF 1 and GDF 2 will become meaningless 23 because there won't be any EVR Phase 2 systems that you 24 can use that don't have ISD. And that significantly 25 increase the cost for the GDF 1 and GDF 2 stations. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 176 1 SO we very much would implore you to hold the 2 line on your rigorous testing standard. We believe that 3 both our members, station owners, and the public deserve 4 to have to equipment that not only is rigorous enough to 5 be able to maintain itself without excessive repairs, but 6 also will meet the air pollution control standard. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 9 Any comments from staff at all? 10 MONITORING AND LABORATORY CHIEF LOSCUTOFF: I'll 11 respond to that. 12 My name is Bill Loscutoff, Chief of the 13 Monitoring and Laboratory Division. 14 I first of all want to thank Ms. Duval for her 15 comments and to reassure her that we at staff want to make 16 sure that the integrity of the EVR certification process 17 is not in any way compromised. 18 We do believe that the alternative certification 19 procedure that we're including is something that is sound 20 and will not compromise the overall process. 21 Just briefly, let me highlight a couple of key 22 features of the ISD maintenance-based certification 23 proposal. 24 First of all, in order to even qualify for an 25 ISD-based certification you must pass your first 90 days PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 177 1 without any failure whatsoever. So even to get to the 2 point of possibly qualifying, you've got 90 days that -- 3 the first the 90 days that you can't have anything fail at 4 all. 5 Secondly, in the second 90-day period no more 6 than 9 days of that 90 days can the system be out of 7 service. And that's including any kind of maintenance 8 that you must do that was identified by the ISD. 9 Third, the maintenance that is performed must be 10 identified in the system manufacturer's maintenance 11 provisions. That will be a formal part of their 12 maintenance manual. 13 And then I think lastly, maybe most important, we 14 retain discretion as to whether or not to allow a specific 15 failure to qualify for ISD maintenance base. So it really 16 is important, you know, what actually fails. 17 With those major provisions, we feel that the 18 certification process integrity is maintained. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 20 Thank you very much. 21 We have Steven Arita and Prentiss Searles. 22 MR. ARITA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members 23 of the Board. For the record, my name is Steven Arita 24 with the Western States Petroleum Association. 25 First of all I'd like to start by expressing our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 178 1 appreciation and thanks to Mr. Kenny and Mr. Loscutoff and 2 the staff for their willingness to work with our 3 association and members of our association. 4 Staff has been very supportive in considering our 5 concerns. And we certainly appreciate their willingness 6 to continues to work with our association and certainly 7 our members. 8 WSPA supports the EVR program and the goal of 9 ensuring that gasoline dispensing equipment will be 10 durable and meet the new EVR certification standards. 11 We also recognize the challenges and the 12 difficulties CARB has experienced implementing the EVR 13 program, and how these challenges are beginning to impact 14 the EVR timeline -- implementation timeline. In that 15 regard I reference back to staff's presentation. 16 WSPA supports staff's recommendation of adjusting 17 the Module 2 and 6 effective in final timeline dates; 18 certainly given the fact the ability to certify an EVR 19 system by April 1st, 2003, most likely would not be met. 20 As we have stated in the past and in discussions 21 with staff, it's certainly our members's primary goal to 22 have to install EVR certified equipment once and avoid the 23 need to retrofit several times over in order to meet all 24 of the EVR timeline requirements. 25 We have had several discussions with staff PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 179 1 regarding the upcoming deadline date as it relates to 2 ORVR. And in the course of those discussions we certainly 3 would support the reference to Resolution 2-35 where staff 4 is proposing that staff conduct an assessment of the 5 adequacy of the lead time to minimize having operators to 6 upgrade vapor recovery systems more than once in order to 7 comply with the EVR and ORVR timeline requirements. 8 To summarize, again we support staff's 9 recommendations on adjusting the timelines as well as the 10 proposed Board resolution. 11 It is our understanding that there are several 12 systems scheduled to soon begin testing -- EVR 13 certification testing. And we certainly look forward to 14 working with the CARB staff as these systems become EVR 15 certified and can be installed to meet upcoming EVR 16 deadlines in a timely manner. 17 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to 18 speak before you. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Steve. 20 Questions, comments, members? 21 Mr. Calhoun. 22 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I don't have a question 23 for him. 24 I want to go back to the previous speaker, who 25 suggested that -- I think she made a statement or someone PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 180 1 made the Statement that the Phase 1 systems that -- or the 2 Phase 2 we're talking about, were routinely breaking down, 3 causing problems. And she suggested 180 days for 4 certification. 5 Do we have any feedback on the frequency with 6 which these systems have failed? 7 MONITORING AND LABORATORY CHIEF LOSCUTOFF: I 8 think Ms. Duval was referring to the existing systems 9 under the old certification process. We are just now in 10 the process of implementing the EVR systems, and have very 11 little information yet as to any failure frequencies. 12 In terms of the older systems, there was a lot of 13 problems with them. And I can't give you a specific 14 frequency ratio because we'd have to break it down by 15 component and system type. But there are a lot of 16 problems with the existing systems that were certified 17 under the old process. And that's basically why we came 18 to you two years ago with the EVR process. It's very 19 substantial. 20 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Now, are there systems out 21 there now with in-station diagnostics? 22 MONITORING AND LABORATORY CHIEF LOSCUTOFF: Not 23 with the sort of level of in-station diagnostics that 24 we're proposing. There are some older systems that 25 certified roughly 10 years ago that had some basic PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 181 1 diagnostics; but nothing that's comparable to what we're 2 proposing. 3 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: What happens if there is a 4 failure and the reset button is pushed and -- at least 5 there's an indication made of this. But how are the 6 regulatory agencies to know that reset button has been 7 pressed? 8 MONITORING AND LABORATORY CHIEF LOSCUTOFF: We 9 have some specific requirements of, number one, 10 tamperproof data recording, similar to -- analogous to 11 what you would find on an automobile. We have 12 requirements for data retention, I believe it's 30 days 13 worth, within the electronics of the ISD. And plus we 14 have capabilities of printouts. And those could be 15 required by, for example, a district on a routine basis. 16 So if somebody did make -- do a reset, it should 17 be very well recorded and a record of that maintained. 18 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: She may not know about it 19 though. 20 MONITORING AND LABORATORY CHIEF LOSCUTOFF: The 21 District might not -- excuse me? 22 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes, the local districts, 23 who would be the enforcer of this, would not normally know 24 about it unless they went out and inspected the records. 25 MONITORING AND LABORATORY CHIEF LOSCUTOFF: PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 182 1 That's correct. 2 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Ms. Duval, do you have any 3 other comments to make? 4 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JOHNSTON: I'm Diane 5 Johnston. I'm the attorney on this item. 6 And, Mr. Calhoun, one of the things that could 7 happen at the district level in regard to resetting the 8 system is that in the district permits the district might 9 require that when a station is going to push the reset 10 button, that they notify the district. So that would come 11 up -- if districts chose to adopt that kind of provision, 12 they could do so. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman and Mr. 14 McKinnon. 15 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: While we're on the 16 subject, does the staff have any response to the request 17 for a timeline process, a review and check in 2004? 18 MONITORING AND LABORATORY CHIEF LOSCUTOFF: We 19 did include language that we worked out together with 20 WSPA, that is included in the resolution. And we believe 21 it's a reasonable request to do an evaluation after a EVR 22 system is certified to determine whether or not it is 23 certified soon enough to meet also the ORVR requirements, 24 availability and permitting and all that. 25 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Would that include a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 183 1 review of the diagnostic systems? 2 It would not? 3 MONITORING AND LABORATORY CHIEF LOSCUTOFF: No. 4 It would -- just the availability of -- 5 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: But you'd have 6 ongoing monitoring of whether they're working, breaking 7 down? 8 MONITORING AND LABORATORY CHIEF LOSCUTOFF: 9 Absolutely. 10 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Fault periods and so 11 forth. 12 I'm just addressing both speakers. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah, I don't feel like 15 I'm technically equipped to even go here. But -- 16 (Laughter.) 17 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: -- one of things that I 18 think is really important is to take the time to make sure 19 that we got it right. And it may be there's enough 20 changes here in how we're testing its -- did we used to 21 test components and now we're testing the system? That's 22 a big change. That's a big difference. 23 But my concern is that we get it to the point 24 where we have some that are right, we know they're right, 25 we know they work. I'm not qualified to talk about minor PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 184 1 failure and major failure. I imagine there's some minor 2 failures that may not have air impacts. 3 But do you feel comfortable that we have enough 4 time here built in to make sure the systems work before we 5 have people go in the business of installing them in gas 6 stations throughout the State? 7 Let -- I'm sorry. Along with time, I also think 8 rigor in testing is important. I mean there was sort of a 9 suggestion that, you know, maybe we didn't do enough. But 10 rigor of testing is also important. So in other words, 11 making sure they work. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I think the key answer 13 on that is that we actually were proposing additional time 14 for exactly that reason. I mean we share your concern 15 that in fact we have systems out there that are reliable 16 and that are effective. And so instead of basically 17 holding to an April 2003 date -- which the reality is we 18 could not make, we don't have systems that have met that 19 level of rigor at this point we are proposing a six month 20 extension. And then that gives us the opportunity to 21 essentially make sure that in fact we can get systems 22 proposed to us, and then run them through a rigorous 23 testing process that's been proposed, so that in fact they 24 will work. And then to provide a little bit of insurance 25 policy. Proposal also did provide essentially for the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 185 1 potential of an additional six month extension that I 2 could actually propose if in fact, you know, the 3 additional six months that we're proposing through the 4 Board wasn't sufficient. 5 So where we ultimately could go is we take the 6 April 2003 date, we add six months on to that, and so 7 we're in October of 2003, which is where we're proposing 8 the Board go. And then if in fact we still continue to 9 have problems, there's an additional six months, which 10 would run us into roughly April of 2004. And so with 11 those things there we think we're okay and we think we 12 have enough time to ensure that in fact what's required 13 will work. And if in fact it doesn't, we'll know that and 14 then we'll be back to you. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Sounds like a good approach. 16 Last witness is Prentiss Searles. 17 We have your written statement and we recognize 18 you're going to support. So maybe just highlight the key 19 aspects here. 20 MR. SEARLES: Yes. Mr. Chairman, thank you, 21 members of the Board. Good afternoon. My name is 22 Prentiss Searles. I'm the Senior Marketing Issues 23 Associate of the American Petroleum Institute. We 24 represent more 400 member companies involved in all 25 aspects of the oil and natural gas industry. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 186 1 Our members operate retail service stations 2 throughout the more than two dozen states that require 3 Stage 1 and Stage 2 vapor recovery systems as part of 4 their state implementation plans. And this is the reason 5 that I'm here today. 6 I appreciate the opportunity to testify before 7 the Board, as the decisions that you make do have 8 implications for many of the States outside California. 9 We want to thank you for conducting the technology review. 10 And we also appreciate the time that staff has taken to 11 spend with us to work out the concerns that we have on 12 this process -- or, no, I'm sorry, not with the process -- 13 but with some of the technical issues. 14 We do have in that light several technical issues 15 that we have shared with staff, and we look forward to an 16 agreeable solution. Just briefly I'll touch on a few of 17 those. 18 The first is in regards to a test procedure. And 19 we've identified several specific technical issues that I 20 won't try to describe to you. And we have -- CARB staff 21 has indicated that they will be working with us to address 22 those issues. 23 The second issue is that we're looking -- we 24 understand that there was some new data that shows that 25 there were excess emissions at the fill neck on vehicles PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 187 1 that are equipped with on-board refueling vapor recovery 2 systems. In our written comments we have asked that that 3 data be reviewed by CARB, and to look at it with the 4 impacts of that new data on the emissions calculations 5 through ORVR compatibility. 6 The third issue that we have is that we believe 7 that there is an incorrect fill factor for product drops, 8 which is where the product goes from the tank truck to the 9 underground storage tank. And we have -- we understand 10 that CARB is working on a project to clarify the emissions 11 from Phase 1, and we'll look forward to working with them 12 to better understand what the implications are and how 13 that should be changed. 14 Finally, I want to support WSPA's comment and the 15 discussions that was regarding the time schedule. 16 With that, I would like to thank you again for 17 the opportunity to participate in these hearings. And we 18 look forward to working with staff to resolve our concerns 19 that are detailed in writing. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, and 21 thanks for coming out from Washington. Also, I'd hope you 22 would reflect the comments made earlier by -- particularly 23 by Mr. McKinnon and Supervisor DeSaulnier on the positive 24 steps that the industry is taking -- I know API, you got 25 the same members as WSPA -- but the positive steps to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 188 1 actually meeting our goals on cleaner gasoline and RFG 3. 2 So We really appreciate the efforts there as 3 well. So please bring that back to your members. 4 MR. SEARLES: Will do. Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any questions? 6 Thank you very much. 7 Any further comments from staff? 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: No. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Then with that I guess 10 we'll close the record on this agenda item. 11 However, the record will be reopened when the 12 15-day notice of public availability is issued. Written 13 or oral comments received after this hearing date but 14 before the 15-day notice is issued will not be accepted as 15 part of the official record on this agenda item. When the 16 recorded is reopened for a 15-day comment period, the 17 public may submit written comments on the proposed 18 changes, which will be considered and responded to in the 19 final statement of reasons for the regulation. 20 Any ex parte communications on this issue? 21 So I'll entertain a motion. 22 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to 23 move Resolution 02-35. 24 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Second. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 189 1 (Ayes.) 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Anybody against? 3 No. 4 Thank you. And thank you, staff, for -- again 5 it's always great to hear the positive comments from the 6 industry and from CAPCOA. So thank you very much. 7 Our last official agenda item will give our legal 8 friends some opportunity to shine. 9 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 10 Presented as follows.) 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The final agenda item today 12 is 02-9-7, proposed amendments to ARB's administrative 13 hearing procedures. 14 Historically, most enforcement actions brought by 15 the Air Resources Board are resolved through negotiated 16 settlements. When a negotiated settlement cannot be 17 reached, the matter must be pursued in the courts. The 18 latter process, while clearly necessary, is costly and 19 burdensome. 20 However, there's an alternative, and that is 21 administrative penalties imposed through a process 22 overseen by administrative law judges. ARB currently uses 23 that process for fuel violations and for heavy-duty 24 vehicle roadside inspections. Until recently, those were 25 the only categories for which ARB had administrative PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 190 1 penalty authority. 2 In 2001, thanks to Senator Byron Sher authoring 3 legislation, SB 527, expanding ARB's authority to use 4 administrative penalties for more emission source 5 categories. Today staff is proposing the regulatory 6 changes that will enable ARB to use this statutory 7 authority. 8 As I indicated earlier, I think the two lawyers 9 on the Board here can now shine in their areas of 10 expertise and we can take a back seat. 11 But also before staff presentation I would also 12 like to recognize and congratulate Jim Ryden, the new head 13 of enforcement. I think he first appears before the 14 Board. 15 Congratulations, Jim. 16 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CHIEF RYDEN: Thank you very 17 much. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Before I turn it over to Mr. 19 Kenny to begin to introduce the item and begin staff 20 presentation. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman 22 and members of the Board. 23 The proposal before you today is in response to 24 Senate Bill 527, legislation enacted in 2001, that 25 specifically directs the ARB to use its existing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 191 1 regulations to implement an administrative civil penalty 2 program. With this proposal the administrative penalty 3 program will provide for the issuance of administrative 4 citations and complaints for all violations within the 5 purview of the ARB. 6 SB 527 sets limits on the dollar amounts that can 7 be assessed administratively an further specifies that in 8 no event can an administrative assessment exceed what 9 could be assessed under the Health and Safety Code for 10 that violation. These limits are reflected in the 11 proposal. 12 The most serious and complex violations will of 13 course continue to be referred to the courts for 14 enforcement. However, the administrative process allows 15 for less complex and less serious violations to be handled 16 through a less cumbersome process, while still allowing a 17 party a fair hearing on the merits of the case before an 18 administrative law judge appointed by the State Office of 19 Administrative Hearings. 20 I will now turn the presentation over to Ms. Judy 21 Lewis, who will make the staff presentation and provide 22 the staff recommendations. 23 MS. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 24 Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and member of the 25 Board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 192 1 Today I will present to you ARB's administrative 2 penalty program. 3 --o0o-- 4 MS. LEWIS: We have proposed modifications to 5 ARB's existing administrative hearing procedures in order 6 to comply with the relevant provisions of Senate Bill 527 7 which was enacted in 2001. 8 Senate Bill 527 provides that as an alternative 9 to seeking judicial civil penalties through the courts, 10 the ARB may impose administrative civil penalties for 11 violations of all ARB adopted rules and regulations 12 pertaining to mobile and stationary sources. 13 --o0o-- 14 MS. LEWIS: Historically, most enforcement 15 actions brought by the ARB are resolved through mutual 16 settlement negotiations. In rare cases where ARB is 17 unable to reach an acceptable settlement with a violator, 18 the case is pursued through the courts. The judicial 19 process, while necessary, is costly, burdensome, and very 20 time intensive. 21 --o0o-- 22 MS. LEWIS: In 1990 the Legislature authorized 23 the ARB to adopt an administrative hearing process to 24 adjudicate violations of the heavy-duty vehicle inspection 25 program. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 193 1 That authority was expanded in 1995 where under 2 the ARB was provided with the authority to establish 3 administrative procedures to assess and adjudicate civil 4 penalties for violations of ARB fuel-related regulations. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. LEWIS: Prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 7 527 all other provisions within the ARB's purview could 8 only be enforced judicially. 9 In Senate Bill 527 the Legislature enacted Health 10 and Safety Code Sections 42410 and 43023. These sections 11 expand ARB's authority to impose administrative civil 12 penalties. 13 --o0o-- 14 MS. LEWIS: SB 527 limits the amount the ARB may 15 assess to $10,000 per day per violation, with a maximum 16 not to exceed $100,000. Also, in any case the 17 administrative penalties for a violation may not exceed 18 the judicial civil penalty that could be assessed under 19 the Health and Safety Code. 20 In initially adopting the administrative hearing 21 procedures, the ARB established a three-tiered enforcement 22 process. The most serious and complex cases will continue 23 to be referred to judicial courts if mutual settlement is 24 unsuccessful. 25 But for other violations administrative penalties PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 194 1 could be pursued. 2 The administrative process provides that 3 complaints may be issued for the more serious and complex 4 of these remaining violations and citations issued for the 5 least serious clear-cut violations. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. LEWIS: Staff's proposal would broaden the 8 existing administrative process to allow for the issuance 9 of administrative citations and complaints for all 10 violations covered by Senate Bill 527. 11 Existing administrative penalty provisions for 12 the issuance of citations and fuel-related complaints 13 would remain unchanged. 14 The amendments would separately set forth the 15 ARB's authority to assess penalties for violations covered 16 by Senate Bill 527. 17 --o0o-- 18 MS. LEWIS: In response to other directives the 19 staff has proposed the following modifications: 20 Modifications to clarify that an administrative 21 civil penalty would be issued as an alternative to a 22 judicial civil penalty; 23 Make clear the ARB's administrative penalty 24 authority only extends to those categories of violations 25 for which it maintains authority to impose judicial civil PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 195 1 penalties; 2 Clarify that and administrative law judge 3 appointed by the State Office of Administrative Hearings 4 would conduct all hearings authorized by Senate Bill 527; 5 Amend both hearing procedure regulations to add 6 civil penalty limits in accordance with Senate Bill 527; 7 Amend to the existing criteria used for assessing 8 penalties for fuels violations to also apply to 9 assessments for violations covered under Health and Safety 10 Code Section 43023; 11 And add a new provision establishing penalty 12 assessment criteria for violations covered under Health 13 and Safety Code Section 42410. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. LEWIS: The regulation sets forth the new 16 criteria as follows: 17 The extent of harm caused by the violation, the 18 nature and persistence of the violation; the length of 19 time over which the violation occurs; the frequency of 20 past violations; the record of maintenance; the unproven 21 or innovative nature of the control equipment; 22 --o0o-- 23 MS. LEWIS: Any action taken by the respondent, 24 including the nature, extent, and time of response of the 25 cleanup and construction undertaken to mitigate the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 196 1 violation; the financial burden to the respondent; and the 2 penalties or range of penalties set forth in the 3 underlying rules or regulations. 4 --o0o-- 5 MS. LEWIS: Additionally, the staff is proposing 6 other minor modifications to the hearing procedures for 7 purposes of clarity and conformity. 8 --o0o-- 9 MS. LEWIS: A typical situation where these 10 administrative hearing procedures may be used would be in 11 the case of a disputed cargo tank violation. The citation 12 caries $1,000 penalty. In a case where the violation is 13 disputed and the citee has requested a hearing, ARB staff 14 would state their case on why they believe the citation 15 was the properly issued. 16 Then the citee is given the opportunity present 17 their case and tell their side of the story. 18 The process is streamlined, however, as no jury 19 is involved and the rules of evidence and discovery are 20 less stringent. It is also a less expensive process for 21 citees because attorneys are not required. 22 --o0o-- 23 MS. LEWIS: The proposed modifications would not 24 adversely impact the environment or raise any 25 environmental justice issues. The amendments also would PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 197 1 not adversely affect California businesses or have any 2 economic or fiscal impact on state and local governments. 3 --o0o-- 4 MS. LEWIS: ARB has found that administrative 5 assessments in the adjudication were less complex, and 6 serious violations affords a more efficient and 7 expeditious process for all parties and allows the ARB to 8 better utilize its enforcement resources. 9 It follows that improved enforcement will result 10 in greater compliance with air quality laws. These 11 hearings assure due process and a full and fair hearing to 12 all parties. 13 --o0o-- 14 MS. LEWIS: Staff has determined that no 15 alternative to this proposal would be more effective in 16 carrying out the purpose for which the regulations are 17 proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to 18 the affected persons than the proposed action. 19 The staff has received no suggested alternatives 20 to the proposed amendments from interested stakeholders. 21 --o0o-- 22 MS. LEWIS: During the 45-day comment period 23 staff has received no comments on the proposal. No issues 24 have been identified and no opposition has been raised. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 198 1 MS. LEWIS: Our report to the Legislature and the 2 Governor is due on January 1, 2005, summarizing the 3 administrative penalties imposed by the ARB under this new 4 program. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. LEWIS: The staff recommends that the Air 7 Resources Board approve the proposed amendments to ARB's 8 existing administrative hearing procedures. 9 This concludes our presentation. And we would be 10 happy to answer any questions any of you may have. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Just one clarification. This 12 money does not go to ARB? 13 MS. LEWIS: No, it goes into the General Fund. 14 It does not go into the Air Pollution Control Fund. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Do you know what the 17 impact would be to this agency then, to the Board, fiscal 18 impact? 19 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CHIEF RYDEN: Basically what 20 I envision using the administrative process for would be 21 for the smaller level violations. For example, if we had 22 one or two 49-state vehicles that were brought in 23 illegally, we would probably utilize the administrative 24 process since the penalty amounts would be $5,000 per 25 vehicle. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 199 1 So what we'd find is that to enforce law if we 2 ever took it to hearings, it would probably be an economic 3 benefit to the agency because we wouldn't have to expend 4 attorney resources. Meaning we'd have to hire the AG's 5 office to litigate a case for $10,000 penalty. 6 So in that sense I would see it as a benefit. 7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But how about in terms of 8 the penalties once they've been assessed, do they go into 9 the General Fund rather than to the Board? 10 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CHIEF RYDEN: We have the 11 discretion in terms of choosing which venue we're going to 12 litigate the case in. So I think probably if it was a 13 large penalty situation, we might choose to go on and 14 judicially enforce it. 15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Oh, and then in that 16 instance it remains unchanged. 17 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CHIEF RYDEN: That's true. 18 And at least in my view, unless the hearing is held and 19 the Office of Administrative hearing takes jurisdiction 20 in the settlement of those cases, we could can probably 21 direct where the funds go. 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: When staff briefed me on 23 this the other day I asked the question -- and no one on 24 the phone knew the answer, but I see Mr. Oglesby is here 25 today. What was the reason behind the bill being PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 200 1 introduced? Was this part of an overhaul on 2 administrative penalties with regard to the number of 3 agencies or -- 4 MR. OGLESBY: No, actually it was -- Rob Oglesby, 5 with the legislative -- Air Resources Board. 6 And first let me preface the comment by saying 7 that I was glad to hear Mr. Ryden's testimony because that 8 was the way we testified about fiscal impact in the 9 Legislature. So I'm always comforted when our regulatory 10 testimony matches our legislative testimony. 11 But this actually was a bill that was a 12 stand-alone bill carried over a couple of sessions the 13 Assembly negotiated, and had a lot of involvement in 14 direct scrutiny. And so it wasn't a matter of a larger 15 administrative procedures bill. It was a dedicated bill 16 for one subject. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Who was the sponsor, do 18 you recall? 19 MR. OGLESBY: Well, it was Assemblyman Sher was 20 the author and active on it, but it had the involvement of 21 lot of industry groups as well as us, as well as the Air 22 Resources Board. 23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Supervisor DeSaulnier. 25 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: No, just making a side PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 201 1 comment about it was trial court lawyers were 2 interested -- 3 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Will staff describe the 4 process involved in assessing a fine, starting from the 5 time that the person, the inspector, whatever it is, 6 observes a violation. 7 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CHIEF RYDEN: You want us to 8 go through the process for you? 9 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yeah, briefly. 10 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CHIEF RYDEN: Well, let's 11 take an example of a cargo tank, since that was our 12 example here. 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Example of what? 14 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CHIEF RYDEN: A cargo tank 15 inspection. We do run tests on the cargo tanks. And they 16 receive a citation because they failed the pressure tests. 17 Typically what they used to do is they'd come in for an 18 office conference. And they'd try to resolve it with 19 staff and staff would assess a penalty, which would be 20 anywhere between $500 and $1,000 is the statutory 21 requirement. Statutory requirement of $1,000 is the 22 maximum amount. 23 The cargo tank folks that we've met with 24 indicated they wanted an additional appeal, much like to a 25 neutral administrative law judge. So if in fact we can't PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 202 1 agree on the facts of the citation, meaning whether they 2 truly passed the test or not, whether the test was run 3 correctly, all types of other issues that can surround it, 4 if in fact we can't agree upon it, then we would set up a 5 hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearing, get on 6 their calendar, schedule in a judge to hear the case. And 7 the citee would be able to go in and essentially voice 8 their complaint. The burden of proof would be on the 9 staff because staff establish the elements of the 10 violation, which would be the test was properly conducted 11 and the proper circumstances, it wasn't in the sun, we 12 observed it correctly and, therefore, we think the test 13 results were valid. 14 And it would be -- then the venue -- or the form 15 would shift to the citee challenging it to argue why he 16 maybe didn't believe that was true, or he could put on 17 witnesses or present evidence indicating that maybe the 18 test wasn't run correctly or he ran another test almost 19 simultaneously with it and they passed. Things that would 20 challenge the allegations of the staff. 21 The administrative law judge then would take this 22 information under submission and render a decision either 23 upholding the citation or dismissing it. 24 And the actual decision they render would be a 25 proposed decision to the Air Resources Board for probably PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 203 1 an action by the executive officer if they disagreed with 2 it. And then if in fact you wanted to challenge it 3 further -- 4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Just hold it there 5 if you would. 6 What if the violator offers to pay $500? 7 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CHIEF RYDEN: Well, that 8 would be a negotiated settlement that we would -- 9 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: And then offers to 10 pay in cash? 11 (Laughter.) 12 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CHIEF RYDEN: Well, cash we 13 always take. We also do VISA and Master Card too. 14 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: We actually take 15 cash? 16 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CHIEF RYDEN: No, we don't. 17 We take checks. But we do take VISA and Master Card. 18 So I mean if in fact they were then dissatisfied 19 with that decision, you could appeal it into the Superior 20 Court under a Writ of Administrative Mandamus under Code 21 of Civil Procedure 1094.5. And then you can get review up 22 to the California Supreme Court or further. In fact you 23 can allege federal jurisdictional issues. 24 MR. TERRIS: My name is Mike Terris. I'm Legal 25 Office. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 204 1 In response to your question, there's actually 2 two parts to it. It basically says per day of violation 3 $10,000 -- up to $10,000 per day of violation. And which 4 means for the stationary source violations that you 5 would -- it could be accumulate per day of violation. For 6 Part 5, the mobile source violations, the way the statutes 7 read it's per vehicle. And so those wouldn't be 8 accumulating per day, it would be total penalty per 9 vehicle. 10 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Okay. I guess you guys 11 are jumping way down the process here. I'm starting with 12 the guy that's out in the field and he has observed a 13 violation. Does he issue a violation notice at that time? 14 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CHIEF RYDEN: Yes. 15 MR. TERRIS: He can, and either under the 16 citation -- under the citation program, it could be a 17 field ticket under -- or the larger types of violations 18 that would be held under complaints, that would probably 19 go back to the office where the complaint issued from the 20 office. 21 So there's two different types of programs that 22 are going. One can include field citations. The other 23 one would basically be complaints issued from the office. 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Mr. Calhoun, generally 25 what we're looking at here is essentially a ticket that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 205 1 would be issued in the field. And then if the person 2 disagrees with the ticket, they would have an 3 administrative process that they could appeal that ticket 4 through. 5 And in order to basically provide a perception of 6 impartiality as well as the fact of impartiality, we would 7 not actually do the review of that ticket. We would kick 8 it over to the Office of Administrative Hearings, a 9 separate agency. And an administrative law judge at that 10 agency would make a determination as to whether or not 11 that ticket was properly issued by us. If the 12 administrative law judge did make that determination, then 13 a penalty would be assessed. Otherwise the administrative 14 law judge could dismiss that ticket. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mrs. Riordan. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I think that 17 the key to this that makes me very supportive is that it 18 really is going to cut down the time that would normally 19 have to be given to some of these citations. And I'm 20 speaking both -- not only for us, but for the citee. And 21 those sometimes, I suspect, are smaller companies or 22 individuals, and that's going to be a real help to them. 23 So I think this is a great way to go. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: One other quick question. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 206 1 Percentage-wise, what percentage gets settled 2 under the current system versus that end up going to 3 refer -- 4 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CHIEF RYDEN: I would say we 5 settle about 99 percent of our cases, which is sort of in 6 line with general litigation. 7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: What are you expecting 8 under this new process? 9 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CHIEF RYDEN: I'd expect 10 that to continue. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any more comments from staff? 12 With that, since all the testimony, written 13 submissions, and staff comments for this item have been 14 entered into the record, and the Board has not granted an 15 extension on the comment period, I'm officially closing 16 the record on this portion of the agenda item, 02-9-7. 17 Written or oral comments received after the comment period 18 has been closed will not be accepted as part of the 19 official record on this agenda item. 20 Any ex parte communications? 21 Seeing none. 22 Move ahead, and entertain a motion on -- 23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to 24 move Resolution 02-36. 25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: And I'd like to second PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 207 1 that, Mr. Chairman. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye. 3 (Ayes.) 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Anybody against? 5 No. 6 Thank you very much, staff. We appreciate it. 7 Open comment period. 8 Any -- nothing on the open comment period? 9 Well, with that I'd like to wish my colleagues 10 and staff very happy holidays. And thank you all very 11 much. Look forward to -- 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We have a busy new year, I 14 see from agenda. So please rest up well. And I know some 15 of the staff can't rest well over the holidays. 16 With that I officially close this Board 17 meeting -- and thank you all very much -- December 12 18 Board meeting of the Air Resources Board. 19 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board 20 meeting adjounred at 2:30 p.m.) 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 208 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered 4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify: 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 6 foregoing California Air Resources Board meeting was 7 reported in shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a Certified 8 Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and 9 thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said meeting. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 2nd day of January, 2003. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 License No. 10063 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345