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, JANUARY 26, 2006 9:00 A.M. TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Robert Sawyer, Chairperson Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Ms. Lydia H. Kennard Ms. Patricia Salas Pineda Mrs. Barbara Riordan Supervisor Ron Roberts STAFF Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Tom Jennings, Acting General Counsel Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Ms. Lori Andreoni, Board Secretary Ms. Jim Aguila, Manager, Substance Evaluation Section, SSD Mr. Bob Barham, Assistant Chief, SSD Mr. Don Chernich, Manager, Heavy-Duty Diesel I/M Development Section, MSOD Mr. Larry Larsen, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, Air Quality Data Branch, PTSD Ms. Annmarie Mora, Air Pollution Specialist, RD PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Ms. Joan Denton, Director, OEHHA Dr. John Froines, SRP Chairman; Director, Center of Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, UCLA Dr. Stanton Glantz, Professer of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco Dr. Katherine Hammond, Professer of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, U.C. Berkeley Ms. Karen Khamou, Air Pollution Specialist, PTSD Mr. Paul Knepprath, American Lung Association of California Dr. Melanie Marty, OEHHA Dr. Mark Miller, OEHHA Ms. Melissa Perrella, NRDC Mr. John Rozsa, California Trucking Association PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Opening Remarks 2 Item 06-1-1 Chairperson Sawyer 5 Executive Officer Witherspoon 6 Staff Presentation 7 Motion 12 Vote 12 Item 06-1-4 Chairperson Sawyer 13 Executive Officer Witherspoon 14 Staff Presentation Ombudsman Tschogl 45 Q&A 47 Mr. Knepprath 56 Motion 60 Vote 62 Item 06-1-2 Chairperson Sawyer 62 Executive Officer Witherspoon 63 Staff Presentation 64 Ombudsman Tschogl 76 Mr. Rozsa 78 Ms. Perrella 84 Motion 88 Vote 88 Item 06-1-2 Chairperson Sawyer 89 Executive Officer Witherspoon 89 Staff Presentation 90 Q&A 101 Item 06-1-3 Chairperson Sawyer 107 Executive Officer Witherspoon 108 Q&A 122 Recessed 133 Reporter's Certificate 134 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Good morning. Would you 3 please take your seats so we can begin. The January 26th, 4 2006, public meeting of the Air Resources Board will now 5 come to order. 6 Would you please stand and join me in the Pledge 7 of Allegiance? 8 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 9 recited in unison.) 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 11 Would the Clerk of the Board please call the 12 roll? 13 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Mr. Berg? 14 Ms. D'Adamo? 15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 16 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor DeSaulnier? 17 Dr. Gong? 18 Ms. Kennard? 19 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Here. 20 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Mayor Loveridge? 21 Supervisor Patrick? 22 Ms. Pineda? 23 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Present. 24 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts? 25 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Riordan? 2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 3 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Dr. Sawyer? 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Here. 5 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I'm truly honored to have 7 been nominated by Governor Schwarzenegger to Chair the 8 California Air Resources Board. After 40 years as a 9 professor at the University of California at Berkeley, 10 much of that period spent in teaching and researching air 11 pollution on both the technology and the science and the 12 policy of air pollution, I find being asked to head the 13 world's premier air quality control agency both a 14 rewarding challenge and a rewarding opportunity. 15 I appreciate the confidence that CalEPA Secretary 16 Lloyd has shown in supporting my nomination, and I regret 17 his coming departure from State service. California has 18 been fortunate to have had his substantial contributions 19 to protecting our environment first as ARB Chair and 20 during the past year as CalEPA Secretary. 21 My approach to the job is simple and 22 straightforward. Our responsibility is to protect the 23 public health. And I believe that is accomplished by 24 reducing emissions. Good regulation is built upon and 25 requires good science. The public's business should be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 conducted in public. And transparency in all of our work 2 is essential. I know these principles have guided the 3 deliberations and actions of this Board, and I look 4 forward to working with you and your colleagues who are 5 not here this morning. 6 I especially want to thank former Acting 7 Chairperson Riordan for her repeated service to the Board 8 in that capacity over a period of more than one year. I 9 have been studying how to run a meeting by watching 10 webcasts of your recent meetings. Barbara Riordan is a 11 good teacher. I will strive to approach her firmness and 12 grace in chairing our meetings. Thank you, Barbara. 13 And I look forward to hearing from all of you in 14 the audience who are here because you care about the 15 quality of our air and about how we work together to 16 improve its quality. I look forward to working with every 17 one of you. 18 Before we get started, I'd like to announce that 19 the closed session which was scheduled for today will be 20 postponed to the February 23rd, 2006, Board meeting. 21 At this time, I would like to inform all the 22 witnesses signing up to speak today and tomorrow, please 23 be aware that the Board will be imposing a three-minute 24 time limit so that everybody gets a chance to speak. I 25 would also like to ask that each speaker put his or her PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 testimony into your own words. You don't have to read the 2 testimony to us. We have your written statement for the 3 record. It's much more effective and easier for the Board 4 to follow if you go straight to the main points that you 5 want to make. 6 I would like everybody in the room now to please 7 note the emergency exists to your right of the hearing 8 room as well as to the rear and through the main entrance. 9 As you may know, in my previous life as a professor, one 10 of my areas of expertise was fire safety. And, therefore, 11 I'm particularly conscious about dealing with safety in 12 public rooms. 13 If exiting through the rear of the hearing room, 14 please follow the exit signs to the left just past the 15 rest rooms. In the event of a fire alarm, we are required 16 to evacuate this room immediately. Evacuees will exit 17 down the stairways and possibly to a relocation site 18 across the street. When an all-clear signal is given, 19 we'll return to the hearing room and resume the hearing. 20 With that, let's move to the first agenda item, 21 06-1-1 Research Proposals. Again, I would like to remind 22 anyone in the audience who wishes to testify on today's 23 agenda items to please sign up with the Clerk of the 24 Board. Also, if you have a written statement, please 25 provide 30 copies to the Board Clerk when you sign up to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 testify. 2 The first agenda item this morning is 6-1-1 3 regarding research proposals. There are five proposals 4 for the Board's consideration. Each has been reviewed and 5 approved by the Board's Research Screening Committee. 6 I personally will recuse myself from the approval 7 of these proposals because of my previous involvement with 8 the various campuses of the University of California 9 system. Although this is not a legal requirement for me 10 to abstain from the vote, it is my preference to do so for 11 the first year of my term. I prefer to take this rather 12 conservative approach to avoid any appearance of conflict 13 of interest. 14 On the other hand, specifically Dr. Gong does 15 have a conflict of interest with respect to one of the 16 proposals and, therefore, he has submitted a letter to be 17 read into the record. We will now have the Clerk of the 18 Board read the letter. 19 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Thank you. First, he had a 20 little statement. 21 He says, "I want to congratulate Dr. Sawyer 22 for his appointment to the ARB and look forward 23 to working with him and my colleagues in this 24 year. 25 "I wish to advise the Board that I recuse PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 myself from the decision and consideration of and 2 the vote on Research Proposal Number 2601-250, 3 differences in inflammatory response to exposure 4 concentrated ambient particles in susceptible 5 volunteers. I do so because of my affiliation 6 with the Los Amigos Research and Education 7 Institute, which will be a subcontractor of this 8 project if the proposal is approved by the Board 9 in Resolution Number 06-4. 10 "Thank you. Sincerely, Henry Gong." 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 12 Ms. Witherspoon, would you please introduce this 13 item? 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, I will. 15 Thank you, Dr. Sawyer. And good morning, all the Board 16 members, happy new year. 17 The general objectives of these five research 18 projects are to: Investigate the health effects of 19 short-term particulate exposure; understand the impact of 20 chemical radial species along the coast of California; 21 improve emission estimates and the characterization of 22 dairies and motor vehicle fleets; and evaluate new test 23 methods for heavy-duty diesel engines. 24 Ms. Annmarie Mora will now make the staff 25 presentation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 2 presented as follows.) 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Thank you, 4 Ms. Witherspoon. Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and members of 5 the Board. 6 Today, we are presenting five research proposals 7 for your approval that will support the Board's regulatory 8 programs and policy. These proposals were part of the 9 2005-2006 research plan approved by the Board last July. 10 As mentioned, each of these proposals have been reviewed 11 by staff and approved by the Research Screening Committee. 12 I will briefly explain the problem each proposal will 13 attempt to address, its objectives, and the expected 14 results. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The first project 17 is entitled, "Differences in Inflammatory Responses to 18 Exposures of Concentrated Ambient Particles in Susceptible 19 Volunteers." This project is based on recent studies that 20 illustrate that short-term exposure to some types of PM 21 can lead to adverse health effects. Advances in the 22 immunotoxicology of PM provides strong support for the 23 concept that enhanced inflammation underlies observed 24 respiratory changes following PM exposure. 25 The objective of this project is to determine how PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 short-term exposure to ambient PM alters inflammation and 2 airway and cardiovascular function in healthy and 3 asthmatic humans. The results from this study will 4 indicate how sensitive individuals respond to short-term 5 exposures to levels of PM encountered in situations such 6 as high polluted days or in areas of very high traffic. 7 This project will be conducted by UCLA. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The second 10 project is On-Road Measurement of Light-Duty Gasoline and 11 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions. Motor vehicles are a 12 significant source of hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, 13 and fine particle emissions. The rate and relative 14 profiles of these emissions have likely been impacted by 15 recent changes in fuels and vehicle technologies. 16 The objective of this project is to characterize 17 fleet averaged rates of pollutant emissions from light and 18 heavy-duty vehicles as operated in the Caldecott Tunnel. 19 The fleet average emissions on both the heavy-duty and 20 light-duty fleets will be compared with similar 21 observations made in previous years. This will establish 22 the combined effects on real world emission rates 23 resulting from changes in fuel specifications, the vehicle 24 technology, emission control, and fleet characteristics. 25 This project will be conducted by U.C. Berkeley. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The next project 3 is Process-Based Farm Emission Model for Estimating VOC 4 Emissions From Dairies. Currently, estimates of dairy 5 emissions are based on factors per animal. Such estimates 6 fail to take into account the great variations in 7 emissions on actual farms due to variations in management 8 practices, for example, manure management and feeding 9 practices, nor do they account for emission changes due to 10 varied environmental conditions. 11 In 2003, the National Academy of Sciences found 12 that current methodology should be improved by using 13 site-specific process-based models instead of an emission 14 factored approach. This project will use experimental and 15 mathematical approaches to measure VOC emission rates from 16 feed silage, manure collection, and the storage facilities 17 under different conditions. 18 The resulting data will be used to populate a 19 computer model that can then estimate and predict the VOC 20 emission rates under a range of typical conditions. The 21 computer model will be a valuable tool for air quality 22 regulatory agencies, the scientific community, and the 23 dairy industry in assessing dairy emission problems and 24 designing strategies for reducing them. This work will be 25 performed by U.C. Davis, who is also working PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 collaboratively with other dairy research projects to 2 enhance and maximize the success of this project. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The fourth 5 project is Impact of Reactive Halogen Species on Air 6 Quality in California Coastal Areas. Recent observations 7 indicate that reactive halogen species from sea salt 8 aerosols may play an important role in ozone and PM 9 chemistry in urban and coastal environments. However, in 10 spite of their possible importance, no measurements of 11 these species have been made along the coast of 12 California. 13 The objective of this project is to conduct field 14 observations of reactive halogen species and their 15 reaction products along the coast in Southern California. 16 The results will improve our understanding of coastal 17 halogen chemistry that can be used by the Board to assess 18 the impact of reactive halogen species on coastal urban 19 air quality and help determine whether halogen chemistry 20 should be included in air shed models. This project will 21 be conducted by UCLA. We expect the coordinating Research 22 Council to contribute half of the total budget, and we are 23 currently negotiating the details of their contribution. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The last project PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 is an Evaluation of the European Methodology for 2 Determination of Particle Number Emissions. The world is 3 responding to the evidence of the potential health concern 4 of ultra-fine particles from motor vehicles. The European 5 Commission has taken a leadership role in developing new 6 measurement methods that will ensure not only very low 7 masses of PM, but also low numbers of particles of the 8 next generation of vehicles. 9 A promising compliment to filter-based PM 10 emission certification is a new solid particle number 11 standard proposed in Europe. The project before you 12 serves as a critical role in advancing the Board's ability 13 to engage the international research community and 14 participate in the global scientific debate about 15 ultra-fine particle emissions from motor vehicles, how to 16 measure and control them. Specifically, the project will 17 allow staff to determine the utility of the European 18 proposal and its potential use with the California fleet. 19 The contract for this is U.C. Riverside. 20 This concludes the presentation. We recommend 21 that you accept these proposals and approve funding these 22 projects. We'd be happy to any questions. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 24 Do any of the Board members have questions? 25 Let me just remind you our policy concerning ex PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 parte communications. While we may communicate off the 2 record with outside persons regarding Board rulemaking, we 3 must disclose the names of our contacts and the nature of 4 the contents on the record. This requirement applies 5 specifically to communications which take place after the 6 public agenda or the Board hearing has been published. 7 Are there any communications that you need to 8 disclose? D.D., we'll start with you. No. No. No. 9 Have all the members of the Board had the 10 opportunity to review the proposals? Are there any 11 additional concerns or comments? If not, do I have a 12 motion to adopt -- 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And second to the motion? 15 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Second. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The motion has been made and 17 seconded. Therefore, I will call the question, all in 18 favor please say aye. 19 (Ayes) 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 21 The motion therefore is carried. 22 Since this is not a regulatory item, it's not 23 necessary to officially close the record, and we'll move 24 on now to the next item. 25 The next agenda item is 6-1-4, the Proposed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic 2 Air Contaminant. 3 As a life-long educator, there's nothing more 4 important to me than keeping the public informed of risks 5 to their health. An informed citizenry is a powerful one, 6 and education is what makes that happen. 7 We've all known about the hazards of smoking for 8 years. The public is also starting to understand both 9 here and in the rest of the world that passive exposure to 10 someone else's tobacco smoke is harmful as well. What the 11 public doesn't know is that the continuing medical 12 research in this area keeps finding more and more adverse 13 health effects that we all need to be concerned about. I 14 believe it's our job to tell them and to take whatever 15 steps we can, as the state's leading air quality agency, 16 to give that message some real force. 17 So I'm very pleased to have this proposal before 18 us today, and I'm looking forward to the joint 19 presentation from our staff, the Office of Environmental 20 Health Hazard Assessment, and distinguished members of our 21 Scientific Review Panel. At this time, I'll ask our 22 Executive Officer Ms. Witherspoon to introduce the item 23 and direct staff to begin their presentation. 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 25 Sawyer. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 The evaluation of environmental tobacco smoke as 2 a toxic air contaminant involves staff of the Air 3 Resources Board, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 4 Assessment, and peer review by the Scientific Review Panel 5 on toxic air contaminants, otherwise known as the SRP. 6 Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge 7 members of the SRP who are here today to present their 8 conclusions on the ETS report. At the staff table, we 9 have Dr. John Froines, SRP Chairman and Director of the 10 Center of Occupational and Environmental Health at the 11 School of Public Health UCLA; Dr. Stanton Glantz, 12 Professer of Medicine, University of California San 13 Francisco; and Dr. Katherine Hammond, Professer of 14 Environmental Health Sciences at the School of Public 15 Health, U.C. Berkeley. These scientists are nationally 16 and internationally renowned, and we're very fortunate to 17 have them as participants in this process. 18 I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Joan Denton, 19 Director of OEHHA, and her staff who are here to present 20 their work on the health effects of environmental tobacco 21 smoke. 22 Finally, staff wants to thank two members of the 23 California Health Services local tobacco control sections 24 at Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. Ms. Nan Waltman and 25 Ms. Deanne Bagwell are committed health care professionals PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 and were very instrumental in providing funding to make 2 ARB's ambient air monitoring for nicotine possible. 3 There will be three separate presentations today. 4 We'll start with ARB staff, who will be followed by OEHHA. 5 And then the SRP will discuss the peer review process. 6 I'll now ask Mr. Jim Aguila, Manager of the 7 Substance Evaluation Section in the Stationary Source 8 Division, to begin the presentation. 9 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 10 presented as follows.) 11 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: 12 Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board. We 13 appreciate the opportunity to present our proposal to 14 identify environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS, as a toxic 15 air contaminant. Before I discuss the summary of the Air 16 Resources Board's Part A exposure assessment, I will cover 17 some background on the State's Toxic Air Contaminant 18 Program. 19 --o0o-- 20 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: 21 I'll pick up where I left off. Before I discuss the 22 summary of the Air Resources Board's Part A exposure 23 assessment, I will cover some background on the State's 24 Toxic Air Contaminants Program. I will also summarize the 25 events which have led us to this hearing before PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 introducing Dr. Melanie Marty of the Office of 2 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHHA, who will 3 present the Part B health effects evaluation. Upon 4 completion of the staff's presentation and our 5 recommendation to the Board, I will invite Dr. John 6 Froines, Chairman of the Scientific Review Panel on Toxic 7 Air Contaminants, to make his presentation. 8 --o0o-- 9 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: 10 This slide shows a definition of the toxic air contaminant 11 which was established by California law and which we use 12 as a basis for evaluating substances as a toxic air 13 contaminant. 14 --o0o-- 15 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: In 16 the early 1980s, the Air Resources Board established one 17 of the nation's first comprehensive state Air Toxics 18 Programs. The Toxic Air Contaminants Program has two 19 steps. The first step is identification, or risk 20 assessment. And the second step is risk management, or 21 risk reduction. 22 --o0o-- 23 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: The 24 Health and Safety Code specifies the manner in which 25 substances are to be evaluated as toxic air contaminants. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 In developing the Exposure Assessment Report by the Air 2 Resources Board, state law prescribes much of its 3 contents, including an evaluation of chemical and physical 4 characteristics, sources and emissions of measure or 5 estimate of ambient concentrations, indoor and total 6 exposure, and the substance's persistence in the 7 atmosphere. 8 The law likewise requires OEHHA to use all 9 available scientific data to evaluate health effects of 10 the substance and to determine if a threshold for health 11 effects exists for that substance. Furthermore, in 1999, 12 Senate Bill 25 established the Children's Environmental 13 Health Protection Act, which changed state law to require 14 the Air Resources Board to assess exposure patterns among 15 infants and children and requires OEHHA to assess special 16 susceptibility among infants and children. Both of these 17 requirements were met in the staff report for ETS. 18 Under SB 25, OEHHA also develops a list of toxic 19 air contaminants that may disproportionately impact 20 children. If ETS is identified by the Air Resources 21 Board, then OEHHA will add ETS to the list of toxic air 22 contaminants that may disproportionately impact children. 23 --o0o-- 24 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: 25 This slide shows the process outlined by state law for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 identification of potential toxic air contaminants. As 2 you can see from the flow chart, the process begins with 3 the selection of a substance of concern. The Air 4 Resources Board staff then works with OEHHA to prepare a 5 comprehensive two-part identification report. We develop 6 Part A of the identification report regarding the exposure 7 assessment, while OEHHA develops Part B on the health 8 effects of exposure. 9 The identification of toxic air contaminants 10 provides for public comment beginning with the release of 11 the draft identification report, an opportunity for public 12 comment. The public workshop is held during the comment 13 period to solicit additional comments. A revised version 14 of the report is then submitted to the Scientific Review 15 Panel. 16 The Scientific Review Panel is a technical peer 17 review group of health and exposure experts who rigorously 18 review the draft identification report to ensure that it 19 is based on sound scientific knowledge, methods, and 20 practices. Once the draft identification report is 21 approved by the SRP, then official findings are submitted 22 to the Air Resources Board to prompt a rulemaking action. 23 The final step in the identification process is a 24 rulemaking effort initiated by the public release of the 25 staff report containing the proposal to list the substance PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 as a toxic air contaminant. After the required 45-day 2 comment period on the staff report, the process culminates 3 with the hearings of Air Resources Board. This is the 4 step we are considering today. 5 --o0o-- 6 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: The 7 risk management phase occurs after a substance has been 8 identified as a toxic air contaminant. The law requires 9 the Air Resources Board first prepare a report which 10 assesses the need for risk reduction of a toxic air 11 contaminant. This is done in consultation with the local 12 air districts, affected industry, and the public. 13 In the risk reduction assessment report, 14 emissions sources are also categorized. Staff then 15 evaluates risk reduction options and investigates the 16 feasibility of developing control measures or other 17 relevant approaches for the Board's consideration. The 18 development of any proposed control measure would include 19 public participation with workshops and opportunities for 20 comment. After a duly noticed public hearing and release 21 of the staff report, the process ends with a hearing of 22 the Air Resources Board. 23 --o0o-- 24 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: 25 Since the start of the Air Toxics Program in 1983, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 California list of toxic air contaminants has grown to 2 over 200 compounds, 22 of these compounds have undergone 3 the comprehensive exposure and health effect evaluation 4 and formally identified by the Air Resources Board. 5 In 1992, California legislation added 189 other 6 toxic air contaminants that were previously identified by 7 the United States Environmental Protection Agency as 8 hazardous air pollutants. 9 You should have in your meeting materials the 10 current list of California toxic air contaminants, and 11 there's also additional copies just outside the 12 auditorium. ETS is a complex mixture of thousands of 13 chemicals. As you may notice from the list, the Board has 14 already identified some other complex mixtures, such as 15 particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines, as well 16 as dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzo furans. 17 --o0o-- 18 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: Now 19 I will move on to discuss Part A in the report prepared by 20 the staff of the Air Resources Board which evaluates the 21 emissions of and exposures to ETS. 22 --o0o-- 23 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: 24 This slide shows the chronology of events over the past 25 four and a half years. As you can see from the slide, we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 started the process in 2001. The draft ETS report was 2 released to the public in 2003, and a workshop was held in 3 2004. The Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air 4 Contaminants subsequently met four times to discuss 5 revisions to the draft ETA report. 6 On June 24th of 2005, the Scientific Review Panel 7 found the ETS report to be based on sound scientific 8 knowledge, methods, and practices, and thus approved the 9 scientific basis for today's proposal to the Board. 10 --o0o-- 11 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: 12 This slide shows the topics which I will present to 13 summarize the Part A Exposure Assessment Report. 14 --o0o-- 15 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: ETS 16 is a unique type of pollutant in that it is comprised of 17 direct emissions from the smoldering end of a tobacco 18 product and the smoke that is exhaled by a smoker. 19 Together, these components create a complex mixture of 20 thousands of gasses and fine particles containing many 21 other known toxic air contaminants. Once generated, ETS 22 undergoes a number of atmospheric transformations. 23 However, most ETS particles will range in size from .01 24 to 1 micrometer, which are sizes that can be readily 25 inhaled deeply into the lungs. In addition, many ETS PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 constituents are known to have both cancer and non-cancer 2 effects. In addition to its composition, many ETS 3 constituents have been shown to persist in the environment 4 for hours or even days. 5 --o0o-- 6 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: 7 Because the smoking public is the source of all ETS 8 emissions, staff evaluated data to understand how 9 prevalent smoking is in California. According to the 2002 10 California tobacco survey conducted by the California 11 Department of Health Services, about 16 percent of adult 12 Californians smokes. This compares with 23 for the rest 13 of the nation. Likewise, according to the 2001 California 14 students tobacco survey also conducted by the Department 15 of Health Services, about 16 percent of the California 16 adolescents in grades 9 through 12 smoke. This is 17 compared to 28 percent nationwide. 18 --o0o-- 19 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: 20 This slides shows staff's estimated total statewide 21 emissions for some of the pollutants commonly associated 22 with ETS. 23 --o0o-- 24 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: As 25 mentioned earlier, state law requires us to determine the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 ambient concentration of a potential toxic air 2 contaminant. So to obtain data on current levels, we 3 monitored nicotine concentrations as a surrogate for ETS 4 exposure. Monitoring was conducted at several outdoor 5 smoking areas in California including an airport, a 6 college, a public building, an office complex, and at an 7 amusement park. The study involved two 8-hour samples and 8 six 1-hour samples at each of the sites tested as well as 9 corresponding background measurements. Most 8-hour and 10 1-hour samples have substantially elevated nicotine 11 concentrations relative to measured background 12 concentration. The results suggest that concentrations of 13 nicotine correspond to the number of smokers in the 14 smoking areas, although other factors, such as the size of 15 the smoking area and wind dilution, also had an effect. 16 --o0o-- 17 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: Our 18 evaluation of outdoor ETS concentrations also include a 19 review of several studies, including our own near-source 20 nicotine monitoring. In addition, we estimate in an urban 21 background ETS derived fine particulate level for 22 comparison. Our near-source nicotine study background 23 measurements were also consistant with the reported 24 background levels from several other studies. The highest 25 1-hour nicotine measurements were comparable to average PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 concentrations found in smokers' homes. 2 --o0o-- 3 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: To 4 evaluate indoor ETS concentrations, we reviewed over 85 5 recent research studies that measured ETS concentrations. 6 Several studies have documented indoor levels of ETS. A 7 comparison of studies indicates that the average nicotine 8 concentrations in smokers' homes are 30 times higher than 9 the average nicotine concentration found in non-smokers' 10 homes. Even higher levels were found in vehicles where 11 average particulate concentrations were ten times higher 12 than average particulate concentrations found in the homes 13 of smokers. 14 --o0o-- 15 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: Now 16 I would like to talk about exposure to ETS. To conduct 17 the quantitative exposure assessment, we used the commonly 18 accepted mathematical modeling approach which estimates an 19 individual's potential daily exposure. These are also 20 referred to as exposure scenarios. Assumptions were 21 adjusted to estimate a range of potential exposures. The 22 exposure calculation considers time spent in the smoking 23 areas and uses the results from ARB's nicotine air 24 monitoring study, available indoor ETS concentrations 25 data, and realistic activity patterns to estimate average PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 nicotine exposures. 2 --o0o-- 3 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: An 4 individual's total daily exposure to ETS depends on the 5 proximity to smokers, so differing daily activities result 6 in a range of individual exposures. Daily exposures for 7 individuals living in non-smoking homes and having only 8 brief encounters with smokers are low and estimated to 9 have a daily average nicotine concentration of less than 10 .01 micrograms per cubic meter. 11 To fulfill SB 25 requirements, staff estimated 12 children's exposure when exposed to indoor smokers who 13 also smoke in their vehicles. For those who are exposed 14 to smokers around the home, average daily concentrations 15 are estimated to be 1.8 micrograms per cubic meter. For 16 those children who are exposed to ETS at home, in 17 vehicles, and in other locations, average daily nicotine 18 concentrations can be 7.4 micrograms per cubic meter or 19 much higher. This is several hundred times higher than 20 the non-smoking home. 21 --o0o-- 22 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: To 23 summarize our exposure assessment, ETS is a smoldering 24 tobacco product -- tobacco and exhale smoke. ETS is a 25 complex mixture of respirable gasses and particles, many PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 with adverse health effects. Indoor and outdoor studies 2 confirm that Californians are exposed to ETS. Smokers' 3 homes can have indoor nicotine levels 30 times higher than 4 non-smokers. Smokers' in-vehicle levels are about ten 5 times higher than some in some smokers' homes. Some 6 outdoor near-source levels of ETS are comparable to those 7 found in smokers' homes. 8 And now I would like to introduce Dr. Melanie 9 Marty of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 10 Assessment to discuss the health effects of ETS. 11 DR. MARTY: Good morning, Chairman Sawyer and 12 members of the Board. I'm Chief of the Air Toxicology and 13 Epidemiology Branch at OEHHA, and my group is responsible 14 for evaluating health effects of toxic air contaminants. 15 --o0o-- 16 DR. MARTY: In 1997, OEHHA had prepared a report 17 which underwent public and peer review on the health 18 effects of ETS. The '97 document described the health 19 effects of ETS based primarily on epidemiological studies. 20 When ARB entered ETS into their toxic air contaminant 21 process, this triggered an update of that '97 report. 22 --o0o-- 23 DR. MARTY: OEHHA conducted an exhaustive 24 literature search focusing on studies published since the 25 '97 report. We also focus on infants and children since PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 SB 25 requires us to consider special susceptibilities of 2 kids. We utilize a weight of evidence approach when 3 evaluating the total database, and we use that to develop 4 findings on the health effects of ETS. Information in the 5 '97 report as well as the update provide the basis of our 6 conclusions. 7 --o0o-- 8 DR. MARTY: There are a number of adverse health 9 effects in infants and children from both prenatal 10 exposure, that's exposure of the pregnant mother, and 11 postnatal exposure to ETS. These include risks of sudden 12 instant death syndrome. There's about a two-fold higher 13 risk on average if you look at all the studies of sudden 14 infant death syndrome in children born to mothers who are 15 non-smokers exposed to ETS. There's also elevated 16 instances of low birth weight in these mothers. And a new 17 conclusion that we arrived at with newer data in this 18 update is that ETS exposure prenatally is associated with 19 premature delivery, or what we termed pre-term delivery in 20 the slide. The significance of both low birth weight and 21 pre-term delivery is it puts the child at increased risk 22 of a number of adverse health outcomes, including infant 23 mortality. 24 --o0o-- 25 DR. MARTY: And this slide depicts results of a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 number of studies that evaluate the effect of the mother's 2 exposure to secondhand smoke on the risk of having a low 3 birth weight baby. 4 So generally when we're looking at studies like 5 that, we look at what's called an odds ratio. An odds 6 ratio of one means essentially there's no affect. That's 7 depicted by the horizontal line in the graph. You can see 8 most of the estimates of the effect, which are the little 9 diamonds, are above an odds ratio of one. If you look at 10 the total database, you can start to see a pattern 11 emerging of an association. If you have no affect, you 12 would expect those little diamonds to be randomly 13 scattered to either side of one. 14 --o0o-- 15 DR. MARTY: There are several new studies that 16 demonstrated an elevated risk of pre-term delivery when 17 the mothers were exposed to ETS. And, interestingly, the 18 evidence of dose response showed that with increasing 19 exposure, there was an increasing risk of premature 20 delivery, and the effect appeared to be worse in older 21 mothers. 22 --o0o-- 23 DR. MARTY: There are a large number of studies 24 looking at the respiratory health effects on the lungs in 25 infants and children from exposure to ETS. There are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 elevated risks of lower respiratory tract infections, 2 including things like bronchitis, pneumonia, middle ear 3 infections, the development of asthma, or what we term 4 asthma induction, and also the exacerbation of existing 5 asthma and chronic respiratory symptoms and children. So 6 those conclusions we came to in 1997, and they were 7 reaffirmed with additional studies in our update. 8 --o0o-- 9 DR. MARTY: OEHHA conducted what we call a 10 meta-analysis. This is just a statistical way of 11 combining data from multiple studies. Our meta-analysis 12 for induction of asthma in children indicates that 13 children exposed to ETS are on average about 1.3 fold more 14 likely to develop asthma than kids not exposed to ETS. 15 Preschool children appear to be more at risk, but older 16 children also were shown to be at elevated risk for new 17 onset asthma, particularly with longer-term exposure. So 18 the new data in our analysis strongly support our previous 19 conclusion that ETS exposure is causally associated with 20 new onset asthma among children. 21 --o0o-- 22 DR. MARTY: This next slide, now we flipped it, 23 the X and Y access just to keep you on your toes. The 24 odds ratio of one is represented by that vertical bar. 25 This is a number of studies that look at respiratory PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 illness in children when neither parent smoked or when 2 either parent smoked. And when you make that comparison, 3 you can clearly see that most of these studies -- in fact, 4 almost all of the studies show an elevation in risk and 5 many of these elevations are statistically significant. 6 --o0o-- 7 DR. MARTY: In our document, we provide estimates 8 of what we call attributable risk. This is simply the 9 number of cases of a specific health outcome that can be 10 attributed to an exposure. And in this case, it's 11 exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. There's about 12 1600 annual excess cases of babies born low birth rate in 13 California from exposure to ETS, about 4700 premature 14 deliveries attributable to exposure to ETS, 21 cases of 15 SIDS, and about 31,000 episodes of asthma in children in 16 California associated with ETS exposure. And of course 17 the numbers at the national level are higher. 18 --o0o-- 19 DR. MARTY: There are about 18- to 36,000 cases 20 of respiratory illness in California in children 21 associated with ETS annually. And about 50,000 doctor 22 visits for ear infections can also be attributed to ETS in 23 California annually. 24 --o0o-- 25 DR. MARTY: There are, of course, a number of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 health effects in adults that have been causally 2 associated with ETS. They include cardiovascular effects 3 including development of heart disease and death from 4 heart disease, heart disease mortality. These are not new 5 conclusions. We concluded that in '97. The updated 6 document provides information that reaffirms those 7 conclusions. 8 A number of studies show changes induced in our 9 vascular system that predispose us to heart attacks and 10 contribute to heart disease. The newer studies are 11 looking more at mechanistic issues, why does this happen? 12 We have a new conclusion of altered vascular properties 13 from both short-term and long-term exposure to ETS. 14 Another new conclusion for this update is that 15 asthma induction or the development of asthma and 16 exacerbation also occurs in adolescents and adults. And 17 finally, eye and nasal irritation in adults is associated 18 with ETS exposure. 19 --o0o-- 20 DR. MARTY: The current studies provide 21 conclusive evidence that ETS exposure can induce and 22 exacerbate asthma in adults. Eight of nine recent studies 23 looking at exposure as an adult showed significant 24 increased risk for adult onset asthma either in workplace 25 or at home, about 1.5 to two-fold on average with higher PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 risks with more exposure. And although there are fewer 2 studies than in children, the data consistently link ETS 3 exposure with poorer status among asthmatic adults. In 4 other words, adults with asthma exposed to ETS have more 5 exacerbations of their underlying disease. There's 6 evidence of dose response, and the data are consistent 7 with what we see in children. 8 --o0o-- 9 DR. MARTY: There are a number of carcinogens in 10 tobacco smoke which is well known. And ETS exposure is 11 associated with lung cancer, nasal sinus cancer. These 12 are conclusions that a number of people have come to, and 13 we've reaffirmed it with newer data. And a newer 14 conclusion we've made in our 2005 report is that ETS is 15 associated with breast cancer in younger primarily 16 premenopausal women. And no threshold can be identified 17 for these carcinogenic effects. 18 --o0o-- 19 DR. MARTY: Overall, the weight of the evidence 20 including the toxicology of tobacco smoke constituents, 21 human epidemiological data, and breast biology is 22 consistent with the causal association between ETS 23 exposure and breast cancer in younger primarily 24 premenopausal women, but we conclude that further research 25 is necessary to characterize ETS associated breast cancer PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 risk in post-menopausal women, and the evidence to date is 2 considered inconclusive. 3 --o0o-- 4 DR. MARTY: I think this is my second to last 5 slide. Flip back to X axis and the Y again. This study 6 depicts results of a number of studies, 14 actually, which 7 evaluated ETS exposure in breast cancer diagnosed in 8 younger premenopausal women. You can see that most of the 9 effected estimates are above one. Many of them are 10 statistically significant. Our meta-analysis combined 11 results of these 14 studies indicates about a 1.7 or 1.68 12 fold increase in risk from ETS exposure when we combine 13 just the studies that did a better job of assessing 14 exposure in childhood and in adulthood both in work and at 15 home. We actually have 2.2 fold increase in risk. 16 Finally, my last slide, there are about 3600 17 deaths from heart disease and 2400 deaths from lung cancer 18 in California due to exposure to ETS, and about 50,000 19 deaths nationwide can be attributed to exposure to ETS. 20 Take it back to Jim. 21 I'd like to also, before I stop, Jim, is thank 22 Mark Miller at my left. Mark worked hard on this 23 document. He's a physician epidemiological; Andy Salmon, 24 behind me; and he Bruce Winter in the audience, and a 25 number of other staff that produced this report. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: 2 With the conclusion of Dr. Marty's presentation, the Air 3 Resources Board staff now recommends that the Board adopt 4 the proposed Board resolution to identify environmental 5 tobacco smoke as a toxic air contaminant. If the Board 6 identifies ETS as a toxic air contaminant, then future 7 actions may be considered. 8 A number of legislative and regulatory actions 9 have already been taken. We anticipate that we will be 10 working closely with organizations responsible for 11 reducing public exposure to ETS. If the Board decides to 12 list ETS as a toxic air contaminant, we will develop a 13 risk reduction report on potential actions to reduce 14 exposures in California. The risk reduction report will 15 review state and local anti-smoking programs, public 16 education efforts regarding the effects of exposure, and 17 identify additional opportunities to reduce exposure. We 18 can also participate in obtaining additional data to 19 better characterize the public's exposure to ETS. These 20 ideas as well as other options will be evaluated in the 21 risk reduction report. This concludes staff's 22 presentation. 23 And at this time, I would like to invite Dr. John 24 Froines, who is the Chairman of the Scientific Review 25 Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants, the Director of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 Center of Occupational and Environmental Health at the 2 School of Public Health at the University of California 3 Los Angeles and the Director of the Southern California 4 National Particle Research Center. 5 DR. FROINES: They said I had to wait a second to 6 get the slides. 7 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 8 presented as follows.) 9 DR. FROINES: First from the standpoint of the 10 Scientific Review Panel, I'd like to welcome Dr. Sawyer. 11 And we look forward to a lot of interaction over time as 12 we proceed in this toxic air contaminant program. The 13 Scientific Review Panel has been in existence since 1983, 14 and it's always been a very positive interaction between 15 the Board and the Panel. And I'm assuming and hoping that 16 that we'll continue that process. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I'm certainly aware of the 18 contributions of the Scientific Review Panel. I want to 19 thank you all, and it's good to see so many of my now 20 former colleagues from the University of California 21 participating in this process. 22 DR. FROINES: Thank you very much. 23 I want to introduce two of the Panel members at 24 the outset. To my left is Dr. Stanton Glantz from the 25 University of California San Francisco. And I guess I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 would characterize Stan as the biostatistician. And to 2 his left is Dr. Katharine Hammond whose area of expertise 3 is exposure assessment and analytical environmental 4 chemistry. 5 Now I'm going to go through the slides in the 6 order that I prepared them. But I wanted to go off topic 7 one second and say something that I think is really quite 8 important. 9 I was impressed by the presentation by staff from 10 OEHHA and ARB in that they've gone through the various 11 health endpoints that they now have identified associated 12 with ETS. At the outset, I wanted to say one thing they 13 won't say about themselves. I think if Nobel Prizes were 14 given for scientific expertise and good work, I think 15 these two agencies should receive one, because I think 16 this is an extraordinary effort that they've gone through 17 over the last five years. And now it rivals the ten years 18 we took on diesel, but this has been an extraordinary 19 effort. 20 And I want to make one comment at the outset. I 21 think to understand all the scientific findings that have 22 been reported to you today, we needed context. And the 23 context we need is, how did they make the decisions to 24 talk about breast cancer and cardiovascular effects in 25 pre-term birth and low birth rates and asthma and what PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 have you? In other words, they gave you the conclusions 2 of their findings on the health effects. But what I want 3 to say is that the real issue is the question of, how do 4 you evaluate the literature? How do you evaluate the 5 evidence? And what are the criteria that you use to come 6 down and make decisions? Because really the depth of 7 evaluation is really quite important. 8 And I wanted to point out that when you get a 9 chance to read Chapter 1 of the health effects document, 10 Appendix 3, because in that document the two agencies work 11 laboriously to develop the criteria for establishing 12 causality. And I think that in that chapter is a better 13 statement of the criteria for causality than you can find 14 any place in the United States. And I think it represents 15 a contribution which perhaps is overdue. But the fact of 16 the matter is that we now have a way of describing to the 17 public how decisions are made within the context of the 18 toxic air contaminant program. 19 And I think it's really important for you to take 20 time to read Chapter 1, because I think it will clarify 21 for you how the two agencies got to the decisions that 22 they've told you about today. And I think it's an 23 extraordinary contribution that will have impact on every 24 chemical that comes before us in the future. And so I 25 urge you to take a look at that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 But going on to my slides, how do I push the 2 button? 3 --o0o-- 4 DR. FROINES: Now, I won't go back through the 5 history of the 1997 ETS report findings. The history is 6 really very interesting. But one of the points I think 7 that needs to be emphasized is the work that was done by 8 ARB and OEHHA was so outstanding that the National Cancer 9 Institute developed a document for national distribution 10 based on the 1997 report. 11 Basically, though, to get into what I'm supposed 12 to talk about, the Scientific Review Panel concluded that 13 the health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco 14 smoke we find the draft represents a complete and balanced 15 assessment of current scientific understanding. That is 16 our legislative mandate to make that finding, and we did 17 find that in the 1997 report. 18 And I want to emphasize this point. The 19 Scientific Review Panel always spends a good deal of time 20 reviewing the public comments that are received on the 21 report. We consider the review of the public comments to 22 be equally important to the documents from the agencies so 23 we get a perspective on different point of views that 24 different groups may have. 25 Based on the evidence, we concluded at that time PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 the ETS was a toxic air contaminant and that it has a 2 major public health impact. And, again, the SRP was very 3 impressed with the quality of the report and viewed it as 4 the most current and definitive statement of the science 5 at that time. 6 --o0o-- 7 DR. FROINES: And this is just a list of the 8 endpoints we've already gone through, so I won't take time 9 to go through them. But it was established that these 10 health endpoints had conclusively been demonstrated. And 11 so we had a real panoply of health endpoints that were 12 extremely important at that time. And, of course, what 13 we've seen now is confirmation and further understanding 14 of those issues. 15 --o0o-- 16 DR. FROINES: Just to review for you, the first 17 draft was released for public comment on December 17th, 18 2003, and that as Jim said, the Panel discussed the report 19 on four different occasions: November 2004, January 2005, 20 March 2005, and January 2005. And I want to emphasize 21 that these meetings were almost all-day meetings, and we 22 were going through the details of the reports in a very 23 detailed fashion. And we were discussing some of the 24 issues -- all the issues, but in particular issues like, 25 how do you make decisions? What is the evidence on breast PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 cancer? What are the mechanistic issues associated with 2 cardiovascular disease? So we actually in those four 3 meetings went through in great detail the report. 4 --o0o-- 5 DR. FROINES: And so we made the following 6 findings. Again, the report is based on sound scientific 7 knowledge, and I won't repeat that. But it does represent 8 a balanced assessment of our current scientific 9 understanding. Again, we have reviewed public comments. 10 We conclude ETS is a toxic air contaminant. We do 11 recommend -- the Panel recommends ARB take the necessary 12 steps to list ETS as a toxic air contaminant. 13 And finally and one of the important elements, I 14 should say parenthetically, we spent months and months and 15 months identifying the first five or six compounds as 16 meeting the criteria within SB 25 in terms of there being 17 greater risk to children than adults, greater 18 susceptibility -- associated with the greater 19 susceptibility of children in toxic chemicals. So the 20 Panel in this case further recommends to OEHHA that ETS 21 once listed be added to the list of toxic air contaminants 22 that may disproportionately impact children. I can say 23 quite equivocally that the SRP feels quite strongly about 24 this particular point, and we think that ETS should be put 25 into the process to list it under SB 25. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 --o0o-- 2 DR. FROINES: Now, I'm about to in a sense repeat 3 what I've already said earlier. In terms of establishing 4 causal association, there are three criteria sufficient, 5 suggestive, and inconclusive. And you can see the 6 definitions on the slide. Again, the point I'm trying to 7 make is that when we talk about the endpoints like that I 8 think I'll come to -- 9 --o0o-- 10 DR. FROINES: When we talk about the endpoints 11 that, for example, in this case let's look at some of the 12 newer ones. For example, under developmental effects, we 13 have pre-term delivery as a causally established endpoint. 14 Under respiratory effects, we have asthma induction and 15 exacerbation in adults. 16 --o0o-- 17 DR. FROINES: In cancer, we have breast cancer in 18 younger women. And in cardiovascular effects, we have 19 altered vascular properties. So you can see in this phase 20 of the process, we've identified a new set of health 21 endpoints for which we believe there has been a causal 22 relationship established. And, again, that takes me back 23 to this -- 24 --o0o-- 25 DR. FROINES: -- issue of my second point here on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 this slide, which is measures of association where we have 2 spent a lot of time again establishing the criteria for 3 causality. And I made a long list of the elements within 4 that point under measures of association. But I don't 5 think I'll go through them for the sake of time. If you 6 have questions, I can go through the details of that 7 aspect of it. 8 The other points I wanted to make from this slide 9 is that Jim talked at great length about the efforts that 10 the ARB undertook to look into the issue of exposure 11 assessment. And I want to say that this really -- that 12 work really represents a landmark effort, because that 13 level of evaluation and investigation of exposure 14 assessment really hasn't been done before. So Jim went 15 over that very quickly again for the sake of time. But I 16 wanted to point out that the Panel felt quite strongly 17 that the ARB exposure assessment was a really landmark 18 effort that gave us a much better sense of what are the 19 exposure parameters associated with exposure to ETS in the 20 environment. And that's an important issue. 21 We all know there's a lot of ETS in occupational 22 exposures, bars, restaurants, other places. Not so much 23 in California, but in a number of -- I've been in Colorado 24 recently and you can barely see through across the room 25 because of the smoke. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 And in any case, California obviously is way 2 ahead in that respect. But there's still significant 3 public exposure that's not simply limited to occupational. 4 And I think the third point I want to emphasize 5 is especially in terms of the breast cancer issue in 6 premenopausal women that the issue of how we measure ETS 7 exposure in epidemiological studies was an extremely 8 important and controversial issue. 9 And I have to give credit here to Kathy Hammond 10 sitting to my left, because Dr. Hammond really spent a 11 considerable amount of time developing ideas about 12 misclassification of exposure, that is misclassifying 13 exposure into incorrect categories. And that work was 14 extremely important in terms of understanding issues like 15 were people ever exposed or never exposed to ETS, and how 16 we incorporate those kinds of factors into the evaluation 17 of epidemiological studies. 18 So one of the areas that was particularly 19 creative within the context of these documents was the 20 addressing of misclassification and exposure assessment in 21 epidemiologic studies. 22 And finally, without going into all the detail, 23 there's some debate about the value of case control 24 studies versus cohort study designs. And, again, I think 25 that Dr. Hammond played an important role, because issues PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 of smoking misclassification play a role in looking at 2 case control versus cohort study designs. And so we were 3 able to understand that case control studies can be used 4 to establish causality, particularly in the breast cancer 5 case. And this was a very, very important finding because 6 there has been significant debate within this area. 7 The reason I take the time to go through these 8 four sort of methodologic issues is to just give you some 9 sense of the level of depth that the Panel and the 10 agencies go into in making these kinds of decisions. This 11 isn't a throw-away decision. These are serious in-depth 12 decisions in which we become very deeply involved in 13 methologic considerations. 14 So the final conclusion is clearly that the Panel 15 thinks that the efforts of the agencies was superb and 16 that ETS should be listed as a toxic air contaminant. And 17 so I'll stop with that. I think I have one more slide. 18 --o0o-- 19 DR. FROINES: I just wanted to point out to the 20 members of the Board that I think at this point -- this is 21 an aside, and I apologize for that. At this point, I 22 think it's worth your knowing who are the players that 23 serve on the Scientific Review Panel. And I think in the 24 time that I've been on this Committee, we have the best 25 group of scientists that we've ever had during the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 history. 2 So we have two members from U.C. San Francisco 3 Medical School. We have one person from U.C. Berkeley; 4 one from UCLA; two from Riverside; and one from USC. I 5 hesitate to mention USC given our football relationship 6 hasn't been so good lately. And one scientist, Gary 7 Friedman, from Stanford University. So we have Berkeley, 8 San Francisco, Riverside, UCLA, USC, and Stanford, and 9 it's -- and Davis. Pardon me. Charlie Plopper from 10 Davis. And it's an extraordinary group of people and I 11 think represent a wide range of scientific disciplines and 12 a wide range of geographic areas in California. 13 So thanks very much, and I'll answer questions. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, John. 15 Madam Ombudsman, would you please describe the 16 public participation process that occurred while this item 17 was being developed and share any concerns or comments you 18 may have with the Board at this time. 19 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Dr. Sawyer and members of the 20 Board, some of the presenters touched on some of the 21 outreach, but I will add a little bit to it and hopefully 22 not be too redundant. I was listening carefully. 23 The item before you has been developed with input 24 from RJ Reynolds, Lorillard, National Center for Tobacco 25 Free Kids, American Cancer Society, San Francisco and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 Los Angeles Physicians for Social Responsibility, National 2 Cancer Control Initiative, American Lung Association, City 3 and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health, 4 California Department of Justice, California Department of 5 Health Services, U.S. EPA, California Department of 6 Education, and several private individuals. 7 As earlier mentioned, staff began the development 8 of this item in June of 2001. From May 2002 to October 9 2005, they had over 25 individual meetings and conference 10 calls with the Scientific Review Panel members, tobacco 11 Control Section personnel from Ventura and Los Angeles 12 County, and the ETS monitoring site personnel. 13 To solicit public participation, staff held a 14 workshop on March 15th, 2004, in Sacramento with 20 15 stakeholders in attendance. There were four additional 16 public meetings led by the Scientific Review Panel. The 17 first was held November 30th in South San Francisco; the 18 second, January 6th in San Francisco; and the third was in 19 March 14th in South San Francisco; and the fourth was June 20 24th in Los Angeles. 21 The first draft report was released in December 22 2003 for 100-day public review. All comments were 23 summarized and responded to and put into Appendix 3 of the 24 ETS report. The entire ETS report was submitted to the 25 Scientific Review Panel, and staff received 252 pages of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 public comments. 2 The staff report and the Board hearing notice 3 were published December 9th, 2005. The information was 4 disseminated via a listserve, ARB and OEHHA mailing lists, 5 and posted on the ARB's website. There are approximately 6 350 stakeholders on the listserve and approximately 235 7 stakeholders on the mailing lists. 8 Thank you. That concludes my comments. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 10 Do any Board members have questions at this time? 11 Yes, Pat. 12 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: First of all, I'd like to 13 thank staff for the report on the proposed identification 14 of ETS as a toxic air contaminant. I'd also like to thank 15 Dr. Marty for her report on the health effects of ETS, and 16 Dr. Froines and his colleagues for the report on the 17 findings of the Scientific Review Panel. And in 18 particular, I'd like to thank Dr. Froines for underscoring 19 the depth of the work that has been done in this important 20 area. 21 I strongly support identification of ETS as a 22 toxic air contaminant, but I do have two small questions 23 which I think would be appropriately directed to Dr. 24 Marty. 25 You mentioned that there is some evidence that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 effect is worse in older pregnant mothers. And my 2 question is, how have you been able to distinguish between 3 the impact of the ETS and the implementations of simply 4 being an older mother? 5 DR. MARTY: The studies that looked at the 6 pregnancy outcomes tended to in some cases specifically 7 separate out mothers by age, because older mothers have 8 more complications of pregnancy. When the studies are 9 conducted, they specifically account for that elevated 10 raise in complications in older mothers. And yet when 11 they account for that, they still see an effect of the 12 exposure to ETS. 13 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Thank you. 14 The second question is that, unless I'm 15 misinterpreting the studies, I seek your clarification. 16 It seems to me that the studies focus on children as 17 children or focus on adults as adults. Have there been 18 studies that follow children through adulthood, and in 19 particular, adults who are not then exposed to ETS? Is 20 there a long-term impact for children who are only exposed 21 as children and not as adults? 22 DR. MARTY: That's an excellent question. There 23 have been a few studies that looked at specifically just 24 childhood exposure to ETS, trying to see if there's any 25 health outcomes as an adult. Not enough studied for us to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 make real conclusive statements about it, but some of 2 those studies did show effects specifically of only 3 childhood exposure on adult respiratory health including 4 lung function. One study at least had adult asthma onset 5 related to childhood exposure to ETS. There are some 6 studies which indicate that breast cancer risk, an 7 important part of exposure is childhood exposure, 8 prepubertally, right around puberty, and just before 9 pregnancy. But we don't have enough studies to really 10 make very strong definitive statements about that. 11 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Thank you. 12 DR. FROINES: Can I just make one comment? 13 I think the point you raised is one of the most 14 important scientific issues that we have before us. And 15 that is exposure to toxic agents either in utero or 16 postnatally and what is the impact of those exposures in 17 later life and adulthood. And that the science is slowly 18 by surely developing, and there's not enough of it, is 19 demonstrating I believe that we really need to worry about 20 adult responses to childhood and in-utero exposures. And 21 it's I think a central issue that needs further evaluation 22 over time. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Barbara. 24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. Thank you. Again, 25 to staff, both OEHHA and ARB, excellent report. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 I'm curious on the health effects and some of the 2 health endpoints. And we've talked a lot about different 3 diseases. But I'm wondering about emphysema and whether 4 or not we have any studies on emphysema, because there are 5 a number of people affected by emphysema. And I'm just 6 wondering what we have in the body of knowledge about 7 that. 8 DR. MARTY: I'm going to let Mark Miller answer 9 that question. 10 MR. MILLER: Since this was an update of the 1997 11 report, we didn't actually go into depth into the chronic 12 obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema issues. 13 But one thing I would say is that there is a 14 little bit of literature in that regard with ETS. And, in 15 fact, one recent study that I believe is now published 16 from UCSF and Berkeley in which childhood exposure is 17 linked with emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary 18 disease in adults. 19 So, yes, there is some literature on that. And 20 we did not review it as fully as some of the other areas 21 since it was not part of the update of the previous 22 volume. 23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: D.D. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 This is a question of Ms. Witherspoon. I really 2 appreciate the report and learned a lot today. But I have 3 to say that I've read about a lot of these findings for 4 quite some time, not the breast cancer one, but some of 5 the older findings for many years. And I have say I think 6 this is long overdue. And although I understand and 7 appreciate the need for thorough and detailed analyses, it 8 just seems to me this could have come before us some time 9 ago. 10 So my question of staff is since we had a 1997 11 report, respecting the process that we need to go through, 12 is there any way that this could have come before us 13 sooner? And I'm just wondering if we had classified ETS 14 as a toxic air contaminant a while ago, we could already 15 be undergoing the regulatory process as far as next steps. 16 And perhaps some of these newer findings could come before 17 us by way of our monthly health updates. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: One of the things 19 we evaluate in setting our priorities for when to list a 20 toxic air contaminant is the need to move into controls 21 and for the Air Resources Board and local air districts to 22 undertake them. And so our priorities were focused on 23 substances that were not getting attention, such as 24 chrome, dioxin, and nickle, 1,3 Butadiene, et cetera. And 25 as we have seen, there's been an astonishing amount of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 statutory action in local ordinances in California in 2 particular restricting smoking in public areas, in 3 restaurants and bars, and around parks, et cetera. And so 4 it was not obvious that, you know, but for listing 5 something might go unattended to. 6 But you're absolutely right. It's compelling 7 medical evidence. It could have been here sooner. And we 8 might have found a gap sooner. We still do that analysis 9 very carefully. I actually think our contribution at this 10 moment is to the citizens of the world. Anti-smoking 11 campaigns are going on in every county. And as people 12 travel around the world, you encounter where they have 13 taken root and where they have not. And the '97 document 14 was definitive, and this one will be even more so. 15 But we will do due diligence here in California 16 examining whether there are gaps between the various 17 ordinances, a role for the Air Resources Board to play. I 18 personally think our greatest role is going to be public 19 education about smoking in cars. I don't envision a 20 regulation prohibiting smoking in cars, but a very 21 concerted public education campaign, because that's a 22 staggering exposure. And we have done research and 23 outreach before about the effects of in-vehicle exposure 24 when you trail behind diesel vehicles, which is also not 25 as well publicized as it should be. So that for sure is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 on my mental tick list. And we may well identify other 2 things the Air Resources Board can do, and certainly look 3 forward to your guidance in that respect. 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Just as follow up then, 5 the '97 report, was there a need to go through a second 6 round following the process, or could we have moved the 7 '97 report to the next step? 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I think there 9 hadn't been an exposure assessment. The toxic listing is 10 a two-parter, but I'll ask staff to answer that question. 11 ASSISTANT CHIEF BARHAM: Ms. Witherspoon, that is 12 correct. And we also had to reflect SB 25 requirements 13 which required us to look at the effects on children which 14 was enacted after the '97 report. 15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 16 DR. FROINES: Can I make one comment? 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes, John. 18 DR. FROINES: I'm sorry for doing this. Remember 19 that in '97 when this process was underway, we were in the 20 middle of diesel, which came out in '98. So there were 21 these two major issues going on. That's no excuse. I 22 think your point is very well taken. 23 I just want to make one scientific comment. If 24 you take the health endpoints that you see in this 25 document and you take what we've now learned after five, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 six, seven years of research on particulate matter, the 2 health endpoints from air pollution particulate matter and 3 the health endpoints from ETS look pretty similar. You 4 have lung cancer, lung cancer; pre-term birth, pre-term 5 birth; low birth weight, low birth weight; asthma, 6 allergic airway disease, and so on, so forth, heart 7 disease especially, especially heart disease. 8 And I think one of the priorities we now have to 9 think about is what is the relationship between ETS 10 exposures on the one hand and exposure to particulate 11 matter in the context of air pollution on the other, 12 because there are going to be interactive effects. And we 13 need to sort out those two factors and not treat them as 14 separate kinds of issues I think. And there's a challenge 15 for the next stage in this process. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I have a question probably 17 directed to Jim about the exposure. 18 The metric you use is micrograms per cubic meter 19 of nicotine presumably because that's unique to tobacco. 20 Could you translate that into exposures in units of 21 micrograms total particulate that the Board perhaps is 22 more used to thinking about? 23 SUBSTANCE EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER AGUILA: 24 Actually, Dr. Sawyer, the metric that we used was derived 25 through our modeling exercise. And what the modeling PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 exercise does is it defines a way in which we can 2 calculate the time spent in certain micron environments 3 specific to nicotine concentrations throughout a 24-hour 4 period. And then as we add those up, we would divide by 5 the 24 hours to come up with I guess a time weighted 6 average. 7 The evaluation that we did was specifically 8 geared towards nicotine, because that's data that we had. 9 So we didn't have the complementary particulate matter 10 concentrations, or we could have done similar evaluation 11 for particulate matter. So they're not directly 12 comparable. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. But maybe the 14 follow-up or to Kathy -- why don't you answer, Kathy. 15 MS. HAMMOND: Yes. I agree with what has been 16 said so far. But I would say just as a rule of thumb, a 17 rough estimate which is what I think you're asking for, if 18 you take the nicotine numbers and just multiply them by 19 ten, you'll get an approximation of the particulate matter 20 exposure to tobacco smoke. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 22 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And that's 23 reinforced by the emissions we showed where the total 24 emissions of ETS were about ten times that of the nicotine 25 in our emissions estimates. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I would like now to call the 2 witnesses who have signed up. I have only one name. 3 Excuse me. Ron, you had a question. 4 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: No. I'm going to wait until 5 after. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: If there are additional 7 speakers who would like to address us, please sign un. 8 The speaker I have on the list is Paul Knepprath 9 from the American Lung Association of California. Paul. 10 MR. KNEPPRATH: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and 11 Board members, ARB, OEHHA staff, and the Scientific Review 12 Panel. My name is Paul Knepprath. I'm the Vice President 13 for Government Relations with the American Lung 14 Association of California. 15 We are an organization deeply concerned about 16 smoking, about public smoking, and exposure of individuals 17 to environmental tobacco smoke. Just want to acknowledge 18 the leadership of ARB, OEHHA, and the SRP and of course 19 the Board in its leadership in looking at this very 20 important public health issue today. 21 We were a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 25, so we are 22 pleased to hear all the references to this legislation and 23 the impact it has had in terms of looking at exposure of 24 environmental tobacco smoke on children and the impacts of 25 how that can help us in the future in terms of reducing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 public exposure and learning more about later life impacts 2 of early exposure to ETS. 3 We, of course, are here today to urge you to 4 adopt the recommendation to identify ETS as a toxic air 5 contaminant. We think the report prepared by ARB and 6 OEHHA and reviewed by SRP obviously provide you with all 7 the basis you need in science and medicine to make this 8 determination and to take this action today. 9 And, you know, it's been mentioned that this 10 report may well have its most important impact on public 11 education and helping Californians to understand a little 12 bit more about ETS. I think this report provides us and 13 provides policymakers in California with the encouragement 14 they need to go further in reducing public exposure of 15 ETS. It's no mystery that California has some of the most 16 comprehensive policies both at the state and local level 17 to reduce public exposure to ETS. There's still people 18 being exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in 19 California, and I think this report will help us to learn 20 more about where they are and to do more to reduce their 21 public exposure. 22 There are several policy areas that we think can 23 be addressed. It was mentioned about the exposures, 24 in-car exposures on children. This is a very important 25 issue, an issue that we supported in legislation a few PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 years ago. It didn't quite make it, but we think this 2 report may help encourage that process again. 3 Also, the whole issue of exposure to ETS on 4 people who live in rental housing in California is 5 becoming a huge issue, and one that we think deserves even 6 more attention. We know that both tenants and landlords 7 support further policies in reducing exposure of tenants 8 to ETS. We know that millions of Californians live in 9 rental property and experience these problems of being 10 exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. So we think this 11 report and its scientific findings will help us look at 12 that issue as well as other issues. And we encourage you 13 to take this action today and appreciate your leadership 14 on this issue. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much, 16 Mr. Knepprath. 17 If there are no other comments from the public 18 and if the Board has no additional questions -- Catherine, 19 do you have any comments? 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Nothing further 21 at this time. I'll wait for questions from the Board. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ron. 23 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Well, I don't have questions 24 so much, just observations. I guess having been here so 25 long, I think now there are probably only two of us who PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 were here when we took the steps to regulate the diesel 2 exhaust that was referred to in the early comments. And 3 it just struck me what a difference this hearing is from 4 that and the whole environment. 5 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: That's so true. 6 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Such a paucity of public 7 testimony on the issue to begin with. The particles we're 8 talking about are significantly smaller than those we were 9 talking about then. And the staff recommendation is 10 different with respect to this issue than it was when we 11 dealt with diesel exhaust some time ago. 12 But I'm very impressed with the thoroughness of 13 the work that's been done here to prepare for that, and I 14 think that the conclusion here is inescapable. 15 I think the other significant difference we're 16 dealing with something -- as opposed to diesel exhaust 17 where the regulatory effort usually is tied to a clear 18 path of enforcement. This one's not so clear to me when 19 we start talking about the major threats for people 20 smoking in their cars and in their homes and things like 21 that. But I think as it was stated, the public education 22 component here is incredibly important, not only in 23 California, but elsewhere. 24 So I would -- Mr. Chairman, what I think is 25 another very historic regulatory effort by this Board, I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 would like to move this staff recommendation. 2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Second. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I'd like to make one 4 comment, in addition. As most of you know, I served on 5 the Board before. And one of the distinctions our Board 6 had was to ban smoking at ARB Board meetings. If you can 7 believe there was a time in which the audience was allowed 8 to smoke. And not only that, it was to the great 9 discomfort of the then Chair of the Air Resources Board 10 that we banned smoking at his meetings. 11 I also want to emphasize the importance which 12 California plays in areas such as this. I've just 13 returned from the United Kingdom and especially working in 14 the Republic of Ireland which just banned smoking all at 15 public places, including Irish pubs. And it was very 16 helpful for me to be able to say to the people in the pubs 17 it really works. It's not going to be a problem. People 18 can deal with it, and it's been adopted there with no 19 problem whatsoever. So I think the model which California 20 has set in general with respect to exposing the public and 21 work force to tobacco smoke has been a major one. And I 22 think this is just another step, and I look forward to 23 moving on in this area. 24 Since all testimony and written submissions and 25 staff comments for this item have been entered into the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 record and the Board has not granted an extension of the 2 comment period, I'm officially closing the record on this 3 portion of the agenda. Written and oral comments received 4 after the comment period has closed will not be accepted 5 as part of the official record on the agenda item. 6 At what time do we take a vote? 7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Well, you're going to need 8 to take a vote at some time. I'm looking to see -- 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: After the ex parte. I'm 10 still taking lessons from my teacher. 11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: And I'm trying to read 12 over here to remember if there was ex parte, and it is 13 required for this item, I believe. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Are there any ex 15 parte reports to be made? I have none. No. Apparently, 16 we have not been lobbied on this issue. 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Now it's appropriate, 18 Mr. Chairman, if there's any discussion on the motion, it 19 can take place. And then a vote is appropriate. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Is there any 21 discussion on the motion to adopt? 22 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Mr. Chairman, I 23 think the motion would be to adopt Resolution Number 06-1 24 which is before the Board members. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: That was the intent of the 2 motion. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. Okay. Just to put 4 that on the record. We will now vote upon the motion to 5 adopt Resolution Number 06-1. I think we can take a voice 6 vote on that. All those in favor please say aye. 7 (Ayes) 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 9 None opposed. The Resolution is adopted. 10 Now, again, I want to thank all of those who were 11 part of preparing this and presenting it to the Board. It 12 was clear and it was powerful. I'm glad we were able to 13 adopt the Resolution. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Sawyer, if I 15 could ask the Board's indulgence, could we have five 16 minutes to change staff before the next item? 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Probably a good time. So 18 maybe ten minutes is the usual break for doing that. 19 Okay. 20 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: If you could be seated, 22 we'll resume. The next agenda item is 61-5, Proposed 23 Amendments to the Air Resources Board Heavy-Duty Vehicle 24 Inspection Program to Incorporate the Requirements of 25 Assembly Bill 1009 by Fran Pavely. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 Ms. Witherspoon, would you please introduce the 2 staff presentation? 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, I will. 4 Thank you, Dr. Sawyer. 5 More than 3,000 vehicles cross into California 6 from its southern border daily. Thousands more enter 7 California each day from other states and Canada. Most of 8 these vehicles -- I think I'm talking about trucks, not 9 all passenger cars -- meet national, California, or 10 Canadian standards that were in place at the time they 11 were manufactured, but some do not. 12 The whole point of this regulation is to ensure 13 that every truck operating on our state's roadways is at 14 least as clean as what U.S. EPA requires. We're modifying 15 an existing regulation to accomplish this objective, 16 namely ARB's heavy-duty inspection program, which was 17 adopted in the early 1990s. We've also developed specific 18 penalties and labeling requirements for this purpose. 19 The staff presentation will be made by Don 20 Chernich from ARB's Mobile Source Operations Division. 21 Don. 22 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 23 presented as follows.) 24 MANAGER CHERNICH: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. 25 Good morning, Dr. Sawyer, members of the Board. My name PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 is Don Chernich. I will be presenting the staff's 2 proposal for the implementation of Assembly Bill 1009 3 authored by Assemblywoman Fran Pavley. 4 This bill was passed by the Legislature and 5 subsequently signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on 6 September 29th, 2004, as urgency legislation. The 7 legislation is intended to address the adverse 8 environmental impact of heavy-duty commercial vehicles 9 operating within the state that were not designed to meet 10 the state or federal emission standards. 11 My presentation will begin with some background 12 information. I will then provide a -- 13 --o0o-- 14 MANAGER CHERNICH: -- brief summary of existing 15 emission standards, applicability to the heavy-duty 16 commercial vehicle, and how they relate to this proposal. 17 Following this discussion, I will present the proposed 18 regulatory requirements, including a discussion of the 19 emission impacts cost effectiveness of these regulations. 20 Finally, I will conclude with a brief summary and 21 recommendations. 22 --o0o-- 23 MANAGER CHERNICH: Diesel trucks are only 2 24 percent of all on-road vehicles, yet they emit more than a 25 third of on-road PM and NOx emission. In addition to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 directly emitted particles, NOx emissions can form 2 particulate nitrates. Together, diesel PM and NOx 3 emissions cause over 3,000 deaths per year in California 4 as well as respiratory disease and asthma attacks. Diesel 5 NOx and hydrocarbon emissions can also form ozone, 6 especially in warmer summer months. 7 Ozone is associated with respiratory disease. 8 Because of these health impacts, the Board designated 9 diesel particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant in 10 1998 and approved a diesel risk reduction plan in 2000 to 11 reduce the health impacts of diesel exhaust. 12 --o0o-- 13 MANAGER CHERNICH: AB 1009 requires every 14 heavy-duty commercial vehicle operated in California to be 15 equipped with an engine that is designed to meet emission 16 standards at least as stringent as applicable to U.S. 17 standards for the model year of that engine. Operators of 18 these vehicles are also required to carry evidence that 19 the engine in the vehicle meets the criteria. Engines 20 that do not meet the U.S. standards are prohibited from 21 operating in the state. 22 AB 1009 requirements apply to all heavy-duty 23 commercial vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings of 24 10,000 pounds. AB 1009 directs the Air Resources Board in 25 consultation with the California Highway Patrol to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 establish protocols to enforce the above requirements. 2 The regulations you are considering today fulfill the 3 objectives of the law. 4 --o0o-- 5 MANAGER CHERNICH: What does this mean in 6 practical terms? Emission standards for heavy-duty diesel 7 vehicles have been in place since 1974 for all new 8 vehicles sold within the U.S. For Canadian vehicles, 9 Canada has imported only U.S. certified trucks since 1974. 10 Therefore, all trucks from Canada operating in California 11 are expected to comply with the statute. However, the 12 same is not necessarily true for heavy-duty vehicles sold 13 into Mexico. For model years 1993 through 2003, Mexico's 14 heavy-duty vehicles emission standards were the same as 15 the U.S. standards. However, engines certified in Mexican 16 standards prior to 1993 and after 2003 are less stringent 17 than U.S. standards and would be prohibited from operating 18 in the state. 19 --o0o-- 20 MANAGER CHERNICH: This slide summarizes the 21 effect the AB 1009 requirements will have on the foreign 22 heavy-duty commercial vehicles entering California. 23 Vehicles equipped with engines prior to 1974 would be 24 allowed to operate in California because they pre-date the 25 existence of U.S. emission standards. For model years PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 1974 through 1992, engines produced to meet Mexican 2 requirements will be prohibited from operating in 3 California because they did not meet the U.S. standards. 4 Model years 1993 through 2003 Mexican certified engines 5 would be allowed to operate in California because Mexican 6 emission standards were in place and were the same 7 stringency as the U.S. standards. Finally, in 2004 and 8 later model year Mexican certified engines will be 9 prohibited for use in California because the U.S. 10 standards are now more stringent. 11 --o0o-- 12 MANAGER CHERNICH: In order to better understand 13 how many engines there are in California that do not meet 14 the U.S. standards, staff conducted a survey in Southern 15 California and at the Mexican border. ARB inspectors 16 examined vehicles at random for the presence of engine 17 labels to determine what standards the engines were 18 designed to meet. A total of 765 trucks were inspected. 19 There are two main findings. First, the survey 20 indicates that about 1 percent of the estimated 400,000 21 trucks operating in California are equipped with engines 22 that were not designed to meet the U.S. standards 23 applicable at the time of manufacture. Although the 24 current use of trucks that don't meet the U.S. standard is 25 limited, the percentage may increase with lifting of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 travel restrictions according to the North American Free 2 Trade Agreement, NAFTA. 3 Secondly, approximately 30 percent of the trucks 4 operating in California are no longer equipped with 5 legible engine labels. These labels serve as proof of 6 compliance with U.S. emissions standards as required by AB 7 1009. Replacement of these labels is necessary for an 8 inspector to determine that the engine meets U.S. 9 standards. 10 --o0o-- 11 MANAGER CHERNICH: The staff's proposal revises 12 the existing ARB smoke inspection program to include a 13 check of whether the engine meets the U.S. emission 14 standards. This would be accomplished through an 15 inspection of the engine label conducted by ARB staff. 16 All heavy-duty diesel engines are equipped with this label 17 at a time of manufacture. Dependent on the label is an 18 emission certification statement that establishes if an 19 engine meets the U.S. emission standards. If the label 20 does not confirm that the vehicle is equipped with an 21 engine that meets the U.S. standards, the vehicle will be 22 found to be non-compliant. 23 Although intended to be permanent, harsh 24 under-hood conditions and tampering can destroy the engine 25 label and cause it to fall off. Owners of vehicles with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 missing engine labels must have the missing label 2 replaced. The replacement labels can be obtained at 3 authorized repair facilities. 4 An in-tact engine label fulfills the statutory 5 requirements of AB 1009 by providing evidence that the 6 engine meets the U.S. standards. Therefore, its presence 7 on inspected vehicles is a key element to allow ARB to 8 efficiently implement the requirements of AB 1009. 9 --o0o-- 10 MANAGER CHERNICH: In order to ensure compliance 11 with AB 1009 requirements, civil penalties are proposed 12 for violations. When a diesel heavy-duty commercial 13 vehicle is found operating in California using an engine 14 that was not designed to meet the applicable U.S. 15 standard, the owner would be required to pay a $500 civil 16 penalty under the staff's suggested amendments of the 17 original proposal. This is the maximum penalty authorized 18 by the Health and Safety Code for this type of violation. 19 Owners found operating vehicles with missing 20 engine labels will also be cited. Because the engine 21 label is the primary means of demonstrating the engine 22 meets the U.S. standard, penalties are needed to encourage 23 replacement of the missing labels. The penalty for a 24 missing engine label is $300. However, during the first 25 year of the program's implementation, staff proposes that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 the penalty be waived if the vehicle owner provides 2 evidence that the engine label has been replaced within 45 3 days of the citation. This one-year grace period is 4 intended to ensure the vehicle owners have ample time to 5 become aware of the new requirements and to order any 6 necessary replacement labels. 7 After the one-year grace period, the staff 8 proposes through a 15-day change provision for a fine to 9 be waived in cases where the owner provides other official 10 documentation at the time of inspection to demonstrate 11 that the engine is in compliance with the emissions 12 standard requirement. In such cases, the label must be 13 replaced within 45 days. 14 This modification would allow owners to avoid 15 paying penalties in cases where the label was recently 16 lost or damaged, if they carry with them back-up 17 documentation showing that the engine is in compliance. 18 Otherwise, staff believes a $300 penalty is needed after 19 the first of the year to ensure reasonable compliance with 20 the labeling requirements which again provide the basis 21 for determining the engine meets the U.S. standards. 22 --o0o-- 23 MANAGER CHERNICH: Two types of compliance costs 24 could be incurred by owners of heavy-duty commercial 25 vehicles that operate in California. The first is for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 trucks equipped with engines that do not meet the U.S. 2 emission standards for the year of manufacture. 3 Truck owners have few options to comply. One 4 possible option is not to operate the truck in California. 5 This may be relatively simple for larger fleets with a 6 significant portion of their operation outside of 7 California. 8 Truck owners could also consider replacing 9 non-compliant engines with a U.S. certified engine. That 10 option would likely be too expensive and may only be 11 chosen if the engine is already in dire need of 12 replacement. 13 Lastly, a truck owner could comply by replacing 14 the vehicle with a U.S. certified truck of the same model 15 year. Staff believes this is the most viable approach and 16 has based its cost estimates on this option. On average, 17 the cost differential for a pre-1993 heavy-duty commercial 18 vehicle is estimated to be $1500 per vehicle on average, 19 and an average cost differential for 2004 and newer 20 heavy-duty commercial vehicles is estimated to be $4500 21 per vehicle. 22 Regarding the second cost, approximately 30 23 percent of the operating costs in California are for 24 missing engine labels. Based on discussions with engine 25 manufacturers and their authorized repair facilities, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 replacement labels are available and can be re-installed 2 at an estimated average cost of $100 per label. 3 I should note that based on the staff's surveys, 4 approximately 70 percent of the heavy-duty commercial 5 vehicles operating in California are already in full 6 compliance with the requirements. The owners will not 7 have to take any action necessary to comply with the 8 proposal. Overall, the total cost of compliance for the 9 regulated industry is estimated to be $20 million. 10 --o0o-- 11 MANAGER CHERNICH: Staff has estimated the NOx 12 and PM emissions that will be reduced due to the fact that 13 dirtier non-U.S. compliant engines will not be allowed to 14 operate in California. Based on the staff's estimate that 15 approximately 1 percent of the California fleet is made up 16 of trucks equipped with non-compliant engines, this 17 proposal will result in statewide NOx and PM emission 18 reductions of 2.9 and .12 tons per day respectively in 19 2006. For the South Coast air basin, the expected NOx and 20 PM emission reductions are 1.1 and .04 tons per day 21 respectively. 22 It is important to note the emission reductions 23 are based on the estimate that 1 percent of the vehicles 24 are equipped with non-compliant engines. This percentage 25 could significantly increase following the lifting of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 travel restrictions through further implementation of 2 NAFTA. The emission reductions of the regulation would 3 result to such scenarios that can be determined by scaling 4 these numbers to reflect the assumed increase percentage. 5 For example, should the population of non-compliant 6 engines increase by 5 percent, the emission benefits of 7 the regulation can be calculated by multiplying the above 8 numbers by five. 9 --o0o-- 10 MANAGER CHERNICH: Staff evaluated the cost 11 effectiveness of its proposal. Based on the cost 12 presented in the previous slide, two time frames are 13 involved in the calculation; one for older engines 14 manufactured between 1974 and 1992, and the second for 15 2004 and newer engines. 16 These are the two time frames during which Mexico 17 emissions standards are less stringent than the 18 corresponding U.S. standards. By considering the 19 difference in emission rates, the vehicle's useful life, 20 the average vehicle miles traveled, and the differential 21 replacements cost, the cost effectiveness was determined. 22 For older trucks, the cost effectiveness of the proposal 23 is estimated to be $10.62 per pound per NOx and PM 24 reduced. And for newer trucks, 2004 and newer model 25 years, the cost effectiveness is estimated to be $1.09 per PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 pound for NOx and PM reduced. 2 As can be seen, the cost effectiveness is better 3 overall for newer trucks. This is because of the large 4 difference in NOx emission standards for 2004 through 5 2006, a longer assumed remaining life of the vehicle, and 6 the fact that newer trucks generally travel more miles 7 each year. Overall, the cost effectiveness of the staff's 8 proposal is within the range of other recently adopted 9 emission reduction measures. 10 --o0o-- 11 MANAGER CHERNICH: Having presented the staff's 12 proposal, I would like to explain how we will implement 13 the new requirements. As you are aware, ARB has operated 14 a heavy-duty vehicle smoke inspection program since the 15 early 1990s. Because ARB already performs inspections on 16 heavy-duty commercial vehicles, it makes sense to 17 incorporate these new requirements into the smoke 18 inspection protocol. 19 We currently have eleven inspection teams 20 performing some 17,000 inspections annually. These 21 inspections are conducted at CHP inspection facilities, 22 border crossings, random roadside locations, and at fleet 23 facilities. 24 Throughout the development of this proposal, 25 staff has outreached to the regulated industry. For PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 example, for the past nine months, informational flyers 2 both in Engine and Spanish have been distributed to smoke 3 inspection sites, at workshops, and at meetings with fleet 4 owners and have been available at ARB's website. Staff 5 will continue to provide outreach and compliance assistant 6 prior to and following the implementation of these 7 regulations. 8 --o0o-- 9 MANAGER CHERNICH: In summary, the AB 1009 10 requires that all commercial vehicles entering the state 11 be equipped with engines that at the time of manufacture 12 meet at least the U.S. EPA emission standards. The 13 staff's proposal meets this objective and requirements of 14 AB 1009 in a cost effective and efficient manner and will 15 result in emission reductions by requiring all heavy-duty 16 vehicles operating in California to use U.S. compliant 17 engines. Therefore, the staff recommends the Board adopt 18 the proposed regulations before you. 19 This concludes my presentation, and I'll be happy 20 to answer any questions at this time. Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 22 Are there questions? 23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, not a 24 question, but a comment. When the staff briefed me, and I 25 appreciate that opportunity, it became very clear to me to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 implement this we just have to continue to do the outreach 2 that they have already begun. And I think it's so 3 important that we do that so that we educate people about 4 what is acceptable and what is not acceptable so that they 5 don't make any mistakes in purchasing later or whenever 6 it's necessary. I want those truck owners to understand 7 they've got to have complying trucks. And the only we can 8 be sure of that is when we do this outreach. So I want to 9 thank the staff for including that effort and emphasizing 10 the effort. Because I think it's going to make the 11 program really work well for all of us in California. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 13 Madam Ombudsman, would you please describe the 14 public participation process that occurred while this item 15 was being developed and share any concerns or comments you 16 may have with the Board at this time? 17 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer and 18 members of the Board. 19 This item before you has been developed with 20 input from the California Trucking Association, the Engine 21 Manufacturers Association, individual engine manufacturers 22 and distributors. In addition to working closely with 23 government and industry representatives from Mexico, staff 24 also worked with six state agencies, five federal 25 agencies, and four county and local governments: The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 Arizona Border Task Force, the Native American 2 Environmental Protection Agency, Western States Project, 3 CAPCOA, and California Senator Denise Ducheny's staff also 4 contributed to the development of this item. 5 They began their effort to develop this rule in 6 November 2004. Since that time, they held two public 7 workshops, both in San Diego. One workshop was on May 8 16th, 2005, where approximately 20 stakeholders attended. 9 And the other was June 17th, 2005, where nearly 50 10 stakeholders attended. Staff had many individual meetings 11 with industry representatives. They also had e-mail and 12 teleconference calls with interested parties, including 13 with U.S. Senator Diane Feinsteins' staff. 14 Staff released the initial Statement of Reasons 15 to the public on December 8th, 2005. The document was 16 posted on the web and mailed that same day. Additionally, 17 a notice was issued via the listserve to approximately 275 18 stakeholders and interested parties. 19 This concludes my comments. Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 21 Are there any questions for Kathleen? 22 We will now accept public testimony. If there's 23 anybody who hasn't signed up yet, please do so. 24 The first speaker is John Rozsa of the California 25 Trucking Association. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 MR. ROZSA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 2 members, for the opportunity to address the Board on this 3 matter. My name is John Rozsa, and I'm here representing 4 the California Trucking Association. 5 At the outset, I have to say that we can't 6 support the proposed amendments in their current form, and 7 the reason is very straightforward. The proposed 8 regulations allow a fix-it citation to avoid a fine for a 9 missing, damaged, or obscured emission control label only 10 during the first year. After the first year, violations 11 receive an automatic $300 fine. We find this latter 12 provision unnecessarily punitive. ECLs can be easily 13 damaged in the course of truck maintenance by standard 14 action such as pressure washing the engine. ARB's own 15 fleet survey found over 30 percent of vehicles inspected 16 needed ECLs replaced. However, that same survey found 17 only slightly over 1 percent of the engines didn't meet 18 U.S. standards. That damaged or missing label is not 19 equivalent to an engine that is out of emissions 20 compliance. 21 We supported AB 1009 and its intent that engines 22 and trucks operating in California meet appropriate 23 federal emission standards. However, the proposed 24 regulations allow ARB inspectors to levy penalties for 25 first-time citations on truck owners whose trucks do not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 damage air quality. Ironically, the proposed regulation 2 gives owners of out-of-emission compliant engines a fix-it 3 provision that does not sunset. We would support changes 4 to the proposed regulations that allow the fix-it 5 provision for ECLs that also doesn't sunset. 6 Thank you for your consideration. I'd be happy 7 to respond to any questions. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there questions from the 9 Board? 10 Would staff care to comment? 11 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, 12 this whole issue of the label really gets to the fact of 13 whether or not we can enforce the regulation. As I think 14 you all know, a regulation without enforceability is not 15 much of a regulation. We feel we have to have a label or 16 something that we can efficiently look at. That label is 17 required under current state law and current regulations 18 to be on the vehicle. It's essentially tampering if it's 19 not on the vehicle. 20 But recognizing the comment Mr. Rozsa has made, 21 we did provide a 15-day change that perhaps gives some 22 weight towards his concerns. And that is if there's 23 another piece of evidence, which could be the bill sheet 24 from the truck originally, an official document that says 25 this engine serial number so and so meets California or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 U.S. emissions standards, and that's carried in the 2 vehicle -- those are pretty easy to get -- then we would 3 waive the penalty as long as they did replace the label, 4 even after the first year. So that gives them two 5 options. Either get it fixed in the first year and the 6 label on there. Or if you're not going to get it fixed or 7 it falls off and we find that out, you can have this other 8 option which turns it into a fix-it ticket as long as you 9 have that extra piece of paper with you. 10 And the whole idea is that if we have to get in 11 and crawl around and look at serial numbers and make phone 12 calls and computer records to try to figure out what a 13 vehicle really complies with, that's not very efficient. 14 And this is a deterrent effect program. We're not going 15 to inspect every vehicle. We don't have the staff. So we 16 have to have the ability to do it efficiently at the 17 roadside without interrupting the business purposes of the 18 trucker, and the only way to do that is the label. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Tom, the roadside inspection 20 program, is that targeted at smoking trucks or is it 21 randomly? 22 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right 23 now it is targeted in that if we see a smoking vehicle 24 coming in, that vehicle is a natural target for the 25 inspection. But that's not always the case. You don't PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 always see them, especially on diesels and things like 2 that coming into the weigh station. And some of it's 3 random and some of it's pre-selected. 4 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Mr. Chair, I do have a 5 question. 6 I had the benefit of a very detailed staff 7 briefing. So thank you. I did want to confirm one thing, 8 that the inspection process was not going to be so 9 encumbering from a time standpoint this would be a burden 10 on the industry. And if you could just reconfirm that. 11 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I don't 12 think it will. With the label there, it certainly will 13 take less time than the smoke inspections, which take a 14 reasonable amount of time to do. You have to put an 15 instrument up there and things like that. That seems to 16 have been an acceptable price for reducing smoke 17 emissions, and this shouldn't be much longer on most 18 vehicles. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Rozsa, you didn't use up 20 all your time. Thank you for being so efficient. Maybe 21 you'd like to use the remainder of your time. 22 MR. ROZSA: Thank you. If I may, Mr. Chairman, 23 certainly the regulation provides a procedure by which 24 people who are notified their labels are damaged can get a 25 replacement label with the appropriate documentation from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 the manufacturer as to the serial number of the engine and 2 correctness of the labeling. And that is what is done 3 normally in the first year. 4 But if owners are not aware necessarily that the 5 label is illegible or missing because of maintenance, then 6 they should have the right to fix that at any time during 7 the course of their ownership, and that right shouldn't be 8 limited to the first year when people can now get a fix-it 9 ticket for their out-of-compliance engines and replace 10 them without any sunset. That's all we're asking. We 11 agree with the purpose of the labels. We supported this 12 particular piece of legislation. All we want is the 13 continuing ability to replace labels and avoid the $300 14 fine. There doesn't seem to be any real reason to limit 15 that period within which you can do that to the first 16 year. All we're asking is that be extended. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Do you want to respond, Tom? 18 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I 19 do from one standpoint is that we've had in a number of 20 our inspection-type programs this concept of fix-it 21 tickets comes up. I think universally the staff, except 22 for in these phase-ins and when programs are new, does not 23 think that fix-it tickets are a good way to go. Because 24 what happens is if you're going to have to spend some 25 money, $100, to replace the label, no one is going to do PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 it until they're caught if the penalty of being caught is 2 having to get the label replaced. Essentially, we only 3 inspect a few percent of the vehicles, and we don't think 4 people will bother to do this until they're caught. Then 5 they'll go get it done. And that just makes us the cops 6 and the enforcement mechanism, rather than having the 7 industry give it a reasonable amount of time to fix the 8 problem with these missing labels. So it's a matter of 9 philosophy and I think being able to make our enforcement 10 program efficient and effective. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And what action do you take 12 to inform the regulated community this rule is in place? 13 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I 14 think we're going to do the very excellent job that the 15 enforcement division did when they implemented the smoke 16 inspection program. We had everything from, you know, 17 going out and having fairs and attending anywhere that 18 truckers happen to be gathering. We sent notices to like 19 every trucking firm in the United States. And we did a 20 huge amount of efforts. Same concept for a year before 21 the penalties actually went into affect. And from what we 22 could tell, you know, that was effective at getting the 23 word out. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. And thank you, 25 Mr. Rozsa. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 Our second speaker is Melissa Perrella of the 2 NRDC. 3 MS. PERRELLA: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and 4 members of the Board. My name is Melissa Lin Perrella, 5 and I'm with the Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC 6 supports the proposed rules. And I just have a few quick 7 comments and requests this morning. 8 First, in listening to staff's proposal, I wanted 9 to thank them for revising their original proposal to 10 require higher non-compliance fines. As you know, the 11 intent of AB 1009 was to actually preclude the operation 12 of heavy-duty trucks that operate in California that do 13 not meet U.S. emission standards. Given that the proposed 14 rules don't actually preclude those trucks from entering 15 and operating in this state, we need to ensure that we 16 have the highest fines imposed on non-compliant vehicles 17 to ensure there is a deterrent effect. 18 In fact, I think it's actually worth noting that 19 the higher $500 penalty is actually lower than the fines 20 imposed for other violations of the heavy-duty inspection 21 program. For example, while first-time violation of a 22 smoke opacity test results in only a $300 fine, the 23 failure to correct that violation within 45 days results 24 in an $800 fine. And another violation within 12 months 25 would result in an $1800 fine. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 In addition to these fines, if those fines aren't 2 paid, ARB has the authority to direct CHP to take a 3 vehicle out of service. These types of higher graduated 4 fines aren't within the proposed rules, which actually 5 leads me to my second point. And that is to the extent 6 that staff believes that enforcement of AB 1009 could be 7 strengthened through further legislative grants of 8 authority such as the authority to impose higher fines or 9 to take non-compliant vehicles out of service, we would 10 request that the Board direct staff to work with 11 legislators to obtain the necessary authority. 12 And my third point is while we're very 13 appreciative of these proposed rules and support them, we 14 believe that based on the location and number of trucks 15 surveyed, the number of trucks that have been estimated in 16 the staff report to be non-compliant may actually be 17 underestimated. As you may know, obtaining accurate 18 estimates on the number of non-compliant trucks is 19 critical to understanding the air quality impacts of 20 cross-border trucking, the benefits of the proposed rules, 21 and to ensuring that ARB has adequate resources to enforce 22 the rules. So we would request that the Board direct 23 staff to continue its survey of cross-border trucking 24 fleets and to update its calculations. 25 In particular, we would like to ensure that staff PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 chooses good locations to make sure that accurate data is 2 obtained. Also to develop a serial number database to 3 verify the accuracy of emission control labels. And this 4 was something that I think it was mentioned in the staff 5 report that staff was looking into and considering doing. 6 And I would also ask that periodic reports on the results 7 of staff surveys and the inspection program be posted on 8 ARB's website. Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 10 Are there staff comments? 11 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: One 12 thing is that for every regulation, including this one, we 13 go back and see how effective it is once it's implemented, 14 and we will be reporting on what we're finding. Regarding 15 whether it's 1 percent of the trucks or 2 percent of the 16 trucks I think that are now non-U.S.-compliant, I think 17 the more important point is when NAFTA is fully 18 implemented, it probably would have been a lot more trucks 19 and a lot of those might have been non-U.S.-compliant. So 20 what this regulation does is have a deterrent effect and 21 preventative effect that ensures those vehicles are not 22 operating in the state. So it will still be as cost 23 effective even if the number was 2 percent or 3 percent as 24 it was at 1 percent. 25 One other comment on whether we need more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 legislation. I don't think we do. The idea of pulling 2 over a truck and putting it out of service was explicit to 3 the regulation or the law that was passed on the smoke 4 inspection program. It was not explicit in this bill 5 we're implementing today. But if someone does get 6 multiple tickets and doesn't pay them, that is -- may not 7 use the right word -- that is a violation of state law, 8 and we can sequester that vehicle. And our experience on 9 the smoke program is that if we do pull a vehicle over and 10 say you're not going anywhere, they come up with fines 11 real fast. So I think we'll have a mechanism to deal with 12 those that choose to repeatedly ignore the law. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any questions from 14 the Board? 15 Catherine, anything else? 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Nothing further. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I will now close the record 18 on this agenda item. However, the record will be reopened 19 when the 15-day notice of public availability is issued. 20 Written or oral comments received after this hearing date 21 but before the 15-day notice is issued will not be 22 accepted as part of the official record on this agenda 23 item. 24 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment 25 period, the public may submit written comments on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 proposed changes which will be considered and responded to 2 in the final Statement of Reasons for the regulation. 3 I will now accept the ex parte statements from 4 the Board members. Are there any? And I have none. 5 We will now take a moment to read the Resolution. 6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to 7 move the approval of the Resolution and staff 8 recommendation. 9 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Second. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I have a motion and a second 11 to approve the Resolution. Are we ready to take a vote? 12 All those in favor say aye. 13 (Ayes) 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 15 I hear none. This Resolution is adopted. 16 And we are doing remarkably well. Am I correct, 17 Catherine, we've dealt with all of the Resolutions which 18 require a quorum? 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That is correct. 20 And it would be my recommendation to just press through 21 with the next two items which are State of the State on 22 Air Quality and Action Plan for '06. And we'll be ready 23 to adjourn around the lunch hour for the day. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. We'll see what 25 happens. Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 The next agenda item is 6-1-2, the State of the 2 State on Air Quality. I understand this is an annual 3 review and I think is a fitting way to begin the new year. 4 It's important not only the new year of the Board, but my 5 new year as Board Chairman, it's important to assess our 6 progress in protecting public health and to carefully 7 consider the challenges that still lie ahead. Would you 8 please introduce this item. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 10 Mr. Sawyer. 11 The message in today's presentation is that we're 12 continuing to make progress, but there's still a long way 13 to go. Staff believes the steady improvement we're seeing 14 speaks to the ongoing success of California's multiple 15 pollutant technology forcing air quality strategies. But 16 we need to do even more, especially in our efforts to 17 control particle pollution. The staff presentation this 18 morning will be made by Karen Khamou. 19 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 20 presented as follows.) 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: Thank you, 22 Ms. Witherspoon. Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and members of 23 the Board. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: Today, I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 going to talk about what the air monitoring data we 2 collected in 2005 tell us about how last year compares 3 with our long-term ozone and particulate matter pollution 4 trends. I will be reporting on our progress in meeting 5 the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards with respect to both 6 federal and state standards. 7 Historically, we have measured our ozone progress 8 against state and federal standards that use a 1-hour 9 averaging time. Last year, U.S. EPA triggered a 10 transition to an 8-hour ozone by revoking its 1-hour 11 standard. California has retained its 1-hour standard 12 along with the 8-hour standard adopted by the Board in 13 2005. 14 In this presentation, I will focus on our 15 progress as measured against the federal and state 8-hour 16 standards. Also, I will provide an update on the proposed 17 new federal PM standards. Finally, I'll provide 18 highlights of the health effect findings from studies 19 published in 2005. These new studies strengthen the link 20 between ozone and premature death and expand our 21 understanding of the health effects of particulate matter. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: The 2005 air 24 quality data show continued improvements in the state's 25 air quality with some exceptions. Compared to 2004, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 state had 38 fewer days of exceedance over the federal 2 8-hour standard in 2005. This improvement was not solely 3 driven by favorable meteorology. The state experienced 4 typical summer weather patterns in 2005 with few 5 exceptions. 6 Areas with the worst air quality including the 7 San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast continue to 8 improve. The Sacramento metropolitan area was an 9 exception. It experienced ten additional days over the 10 standard compared to 2004. We believe the weather 11 influenced the increase seen in Sacramento. Regional 12 weather conditions in 2005 were similar to the hot 13 stagnant weather conditions the Sacramento area 14 experienced in 2002 and 2003. In today's presentation, I 15 will focus on the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast's 16 progress towards meeting the federal 8-hour ozone standard 17 since they are the two areas of significant concern. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: As you see in 20 the table, the San Joaquin Valley experienced a dramatic 21 drop in the number of days over the federal 8-hour 22 standard. In 2005, the federal 8-hour ozone standard was 23 exceeded in some parts of the San Joaquin Valley on 72 24 days, compared to 109 days in 2004. This is a 34 percent 25 reduction in days over the standard. This is also a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 record low for the San Joaquin Valley. The valley had a 2 normal summer with cooler weather in the beginning of 3 summer and warmer weather as the summer progressed. Our 4 air quality and weather data analysis suggest that weather 5 only accounts for part of the air quality improvement. 6 Ozone levels did not exceed the federal standard 7 on about 10 to 15 warm weather days that in past years 8 would have resulted in levels over the 8-hour ozone 9 standards. Our analysis demonstrates real air quality 10 progress in the San Joaquin Valley. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: The South Coast 13 also continued on a downward trend on the number of days 14 over the federal 8-hour ozone standard. In 2005, the 15 South Coast experienced 84 exceedance days compared to 88 16 in 2004. This is also a record low for the South Coast. 17 Some of you may recall the state experienced a 18 very hot summer in 2003 with corresponding high ozone 19 levels. The South Coast air basin was especially effected 20 by the high temperatures in 2003, temperatures that led to 21 the first Stage 1 smog alert recorded in five years. 22 However, normal weather patterns returned in 2004 and 23 continued through 2005. Monitoring data indicate the 24 return to normal summer weather patterns was accompanied 25 by better air quality. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 I'd like to thank the South Coast staff for 2 providing us with meteorology and air quality data for our 3 South Coast analysis. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: This chart 6 shows us the state's 20-year trend with respect to ozone. 7 The tan bars on the chart reflect the number of days over 8 the state 8-hour standard, while the burgundy bars reflect 9 the number of days over the federal standard. As you can 10 see, there's a downward trend in exceedance days on a 11 statewide basis. However, we see less progress towards 12 the state standard, because the state standard is lower 13 and more health protective. 14 This chart indicates a flat trend in ozone 15 exceedances at the end of the 1990s and beginning of the 16 century. This coincides with the period in which summer 17 temperatures were hotter than usual, potentially masking 18 ozone air quality progress. With the return of more 19 normal summer weather patterns, the 2005 data indicate our 20 20-year trend of declining ozone concentrations and 21 exceedances is continuing. This ozone improvement shown 22 on this slide is taking place against the backdrop of a 42 23 percent increase in California's population and a 69 24 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled over the last 25 20 years. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: Although the 3 previous slide shows a continuing downward trend in ozone 4 exceedances, Californians' exposure to ozone levels above 5 the state standard is substantial. We analyzed the 6 population exposure in California and found that about 20 7 million people are exposed to ozone levels above the state 8 standard for at least 30 days of the year. Of those, 9 about 2.4 million people are exposed to ozone levels above 10 the state standard for at least 180 days of the year. So 11 although we have made significant progress in cleaning up 12 air quality over the last 20 years, we have a lot of work 13 ahead of us. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: Now let's turn 16 to particulate matter. Only two regions in California 17 violate U.S. EPA's current PM2.5 standard which was 18 finalized in 1997. Those areas are the San Joaquin Valley 19 and the South Coast. The good news is that the San 20 Joaquin Valley has been experiencing the dramatic 21 declining trend in violations of the 24-hour PM2.5 22 standard over the last five years. The South Coast 23 exceedances of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard are also 24 declining. However, the federal PM2.5 standard is set at 25 a level that is far less protective than the state 24-hour PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 PM2.5 standard. In fact, U.S. EPA recently proposed a 2 more stringent standard. Annual average PM2.5 3 concentrations are also declining. However, they remain 4 the biggest challenge for both districts. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: This slide 7 shows the progress both districts are making toward 8 attainment of the federal annual PM2.5 standard. We are 9 encouraged that the controls enacted to reduce volatile 10 organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, which are ozone 11 precursors, are also helping to reduce secondary formation 12 of PM2.5. However, it is evident that we will need 13 additional reductions in order to attain the federal 14 standard. With many sources already controlled, the 15 remaining reductions will be more difficult to achieve. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: We also analyze 18 population exposure to PM2.5 concentrations above the 19 state annual standard. We found that about 80 percent of 20 Californians are exposed to PM2.5 levels above the state 21 standard. Unfortunately, of those, about half are exposed 22 to PM2.5 levels that are 50 percent higher than the state 23 standard. Much more needs to be done to protect 24 Californians from high PM2.5 levels and the associated 25 health effects. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: U.S. EPA has 3 recently proposed changes to the federal PM standard. The 4 24-hour PM2.5 standard would be tightened from the current 5 standard, 65 micrograms per cubic meter, to 35 micrograms 6 per cubic meter. It is likely that several additional 7 areas will be required to prepare a federal attainment 8 plan, or SIP, under the proposed standard. These areas 9 include the Bay Area, Sacramento, San Diego, and Ventura. 10 EPA does not propose to change the annual average 11 standard. 12 EPA is also proposing to replace the current PM10 13 standard with a core standard that addresses particles 14 between 10 and 2.5 microns in size. For the purposes of 15 this new standard, EPA's proposing to include only 16 particles that are considered to be of urban origin. 17 Staff are in the process of reviewing the implications of 18 this proposal and will be providing comments to EPA on the 19 adequacy of the standard for public health protection as 20 well as implementation issues. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: Now let's turn 23 to health research. In April 2005, the Board adopted the 24 nation's most health protective 8-hour ozone standard. 25 The adoption was based primarily on the results of human PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 chamber studies which associated a number of adverse 2 health effects, including the reduced lung function, 3 airway inflammation, and respiratory symptoms such as 4 cough and chest tightness, with long-term low-level ozone 5 exposure. Epidemiological studies have also shown the 6 association between ozone exposure and increased hospital 7 and emergency room visits and school absenteeism. 8 Also emerging from the staff's standard review 9 was the relationship of ozone and premature death. During 10 the standard review, staff completed a health impacts 11 analysis which indicated that 630 premature deaths occur 12 every year from exposure to ozone over the level of the 13 new 8-hour standard. 14 Emerging this past year were three new multi-city 15 meta analyses that further support the association between 16 ozone and premature death. Together, these studies add 17 substantially to the growing body of evidence that the 18 public health benefits of reducing ozone pollution. And 19 they provide further support for the state 8-hour ozone 20 standard approved by this Board last year. 21 Over 37 million people make California their 22 home. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: Exposure to air 25 pollution is a source of significant health effects. ARB PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 staff estimates that exposure to current ozone levels as 2 compared to levels below the state standard result in 3 significant numbers of premature death, hospitalizations, 4 and other impacts as shown as this chart. The number of 5 cases on the chart represent a median in a range of 6 estimated cases for each health effect. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: Particulate air 9 pollution is also a significant source of adverse health 10 effects. Exposure to PM have been associated with many 11 measures of illness, including hospital admissions and 12 emergency room visits for cardiac and respiratory 13 diseases, bronchitis, asthma exacerbation, and reduced 14 lung function. Substantial scientific evidence supports 15 the link of PM exposure to premature death, especially 16 from cardiopulmonary causes. Staff estimates that 8200 17 premature deaths per year are related to PM exposures 18 above the state annual standard. New health studies are 19 emerging that further support the link between PM and 20 health impacts, including premature death. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: In 2005, we saw 23 the publication of many new studies on particulate air 24 pollution and health. Two studies we are highlighting 25 today are important because of their reported findings on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 PM and cardiovascular disease and also because they study 2 populations in the Los Angeles air basin. 3 A study in Los Angeles on PM2.5 and 4 arthrosclerosis presents the first association between air 5 pollution and this disease. Arthrosclerosis, more 6 familiar to most of us as hardening of the arteries, is 7 the primary cause of cardiovascular disease. The results 8 of this study also provide important insights on 9 mechanisms of PM action through chronic progressive 10 effects of the disease. 11 The second study found significant associations 12 between PM10, coarse PM, and PM2.5, and an increased risk 13 of fatal coronary heart disease in females, but not males. 14 This is the first study to find a gender-specific affect 15 between coronary heart disease deaths and PM. It also 16 provides evidence for the chronic heath effects of coarse 17 PM. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: The health 20 impacts of PM2.5 are considerable. ARB staff estimates 21 that exposure to current PM2.5 levels as compared to 22 levels below the state standard results in significant 23 numbers of premature deaths, asthma attacks and other 24 health impacts as shown on this chart. Once again, the 25 number of cases on the chart represent the median in a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 range of estimated cases for each health effect. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KHAMOU: So in summary, 4 the state's air quality improved in 2005 under normal 5 weather conditions. We saw fewer exceedances of the 6 federal 8-hour ozone standard and improving trends in 7 PM2.5 exceedances. 8 Our 20-year trend of improvement in California 9 tells us that our approach to emissions reductions is 10 working. However, many challenges remain before we 11 approach healthful air quality, especially in the San 12 Joaquin Valley and the South Coast. Both the San Joaquin 13 Valley and the South Coast remain in violation of the 14 federal and state ozone and PM2.5 standards. The San 15 Joaquin Valley exceeded the federal 8-hour ozone standard 16 on 72 days, while the South Coast exceeded the standard on 17 84 days. Annual PM2.5 concentrations also continue to 18 remain above the federal standard in both districts. 19 We have made progress. But most Californians 20 still live in areas with pollution levels above state 21 standards. 22 Thank you. This concludes staff's presentation. 23 We will be happy to answer any questions that you may 24 have. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Karen. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 Are there any questions from the Board? 2 Yes. 3 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Perhaps I will be 4 disclosing my ignorance on some of this. We talked about 5 the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast remaining in 6 non-attainment. Can you share with us your thinking going 7 forward, do we have any particular initiatives in mind to 8 further address these areas? 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The next 10 presentation is our action plan for 2006, but then of 11 course there are federal planning requirements that 12 require us to periodically update our comprehensive 13 attainment strategy for every region that's not in 14 attainment. 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: If I could add a 16 brief comment. We didn't highlight the downwind areas of 17 South Coast of San Diego and Mojave Desert. And a couple 18 of our Board members I'm sure are interested that we saw 19 very similar progress in those areas as well. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 21 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a question 22 regarding the new proposed federal standards on 23 particulates. And, Ms. Terry, I was going to ask you 24 about this today anyway. I've read so many articles and 25 am a bit confused by them. It seems EPA maybe didn't go PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 as far as it could, although some media accounts made it 2 sound like it's a little bit of a rollback. Could you 3 explain what's going on? 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: We'll have a lot 5 more to say about this subject. We're in the midst of 6 really trying to interpret what the implications are. But 7 the bottom line from my perspective is EPA is proposing to 8 roll back the existing PM10 standards and replace it with 9 a coarse standard. And they have tried to distinguish 10 between particles that are urban in origin and more rural 11 in origin. That is a very tricky thing to do based on the 12 health science. We think fundamentally a more health 13 protective approach to maintain the current PM10 standard 14 as new studies can more focus on these specific components 15 of the coarse fraction and begin to perhaps make those 16 distinctions in the future. But we certainly, as staff, 17 don't think it's appropriate to assume there are no health 18 consequences of the more rural fractions. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The other thing I 20 would add is that with regard to the PM2.5 standard, they 21 have not gone as far as they could or should or this Board 22 has contemplated going. And that's another source of 23 criticism of the federal proposal. 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Just as follow-up, and 25 again I've been reading media accounts. And there have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 been several quotes from stakeholders in the Imperial 2 area, but I'm surprised not to have seen anything from San 3 Joaquin. Is there a distinction made, or does San Joaquin 4 stand out with additional protections based on some other 5 provision? 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: That's exactly 7 right. Because the San Joaquin has adopted and approved a 8 PM10 plan for the existing standard and the district has 9 adopted the rules, the ag community has implemented their 10 CMP for fugitive dust programs, we have those programs in 11 place. Now the Imperial area lagged in terms of getting 12 those SIPs done. And the good news, however, is they did 13 adopt the rules in November of 2005. And in staff's view, 14 all of those rules need to remain in place under state law 15 at a minimum under SB 656, the item we took last year to 16 the Board that laid that out. 17 So one of the issues will be in terms of 18 implications for California, we are actually ahead of 19 perhaps some of the other western states in dealing with 20 fugitive dust. So it becomes more of an issue about the 21 standard itself in many cases. 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. I have a question for 24 the staff. The long-term trend data for air quality 25 depends upon monitoring stations that are in fixed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 locations over a period of years. With the changing 2 patterns of population and development in the state, how 3 do we assure ourselves that the peak areas of air 4 pollution are not shifting about perhaps to areas where we 5 don't have stations? 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: No one wants to 7 jump in. I'll give them a minute to think about it. 8 We spend a lot of time looking at monitoring data 9 visive modeling data. And we update our SIPs frequently 10 in California. And so as we do our modeling analysis and 11 we start to see where the peaks lie in the modeling, we're 12 actually required in the SIP process to look at that very 13 issue to see are the peaks where we think they are because 14 we put the monitors where we think the peaks will be. So 15 there's a feedback loop in terms of that issue. 16 We also have a lot more extensive monitoring 17 system in California than is required nationwide. We have 18 a Central California Air Quality Study with a lot more 19 monitoring data during field study years, sort of 20 saturation monitoring. So that has helped us understand 21 that phenomenon. And certainly where we have seen the 22 continued peaks moving eastward in the South Coast air 23 basin and in the Santa Clarita area we do have monitors 24 there that have caught that phenomenon. So we feel pretty 25 good about our ability to follow the changing location of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 the problematic areas. But, of course, we continue that 2 on on an ongoing basis. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Another somewhat technical 4 question. The trends are based upon peak levels or days 5 over standards rather than average levels. Do the average 6 levels also show the same downward trend? 7 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LARSEN: The 8 average levels of a pollutant by ozone are very curious to 9 think about, because you may be aware that overnight, 10 especially in urbanized areas, the emissions from 11 combustion processes actually destroy ozone down at the 12 surface level. So in an urbanized area like Los Angeles, 13 the ozone levels will go down to near zero overnight. So 14 when you average everything together, instead of just peak 15 kinds of levels, they are not nearly as responsive. So 16 when we want to track changes in air quality that have the 17 most direct relevance to health impacts, that's why we 18 tend to focus on the days that do exceed the standards. 19 And there you see the greatest response. 20 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I think with 21 the exception of ozone when you look at PM and look at 22 annual average PM, if you look at CO levels where you can 23 do annual average or NO2, we have seen decreases in those 24 metrics that measure basically all of the hours of the 25 day. Ozone is a particular problem because of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 scavenging affect. Urban areas actually have far lower -- 2 in some cases far lower than the worldwide background of 3 ozone because of the NO sources. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's also true 5 the decline is less sharp for annual averages. It's 6 downward, but nowhere near as dramatic as the peak 7 exposure. And we've done separate analyses of the size of 8 the ozone cloud and how it shrinks as well, which is 9 another way of gauging public exposure to the most harmful 10 constituents. There's a lot of different ways to look at 11 it. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. I 13 wanted to thank the staff for their presentation. It's 14 good to have good news coming to us occasionally. 15 There are no requests to speak on this issue. 16 And if there are no further comments from the staff, since 17 this is not a regulatory item, it's not necessary to close 18 the record. And we'll go to the next item, which is Item 19 6-1-3. And this will be the last item for today. And I 20 think that perhaps Ms. Witherspoon's prediction that we 21 will finish before lunch is going to turn out to be 22 correct. 23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: You're doing a good job, 24 Mr. Chairman. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: You know, the standard which PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 you set in the short presentations and the fact we haven't 2 had a lot of presentations today helped. 3 I understand the last item is the Action Plan for 4 2006. I understand that this is an annual report from our 5 Executive Office. As a new Chair, I particularly 6 appreciate the timing of this forecast of the year ahead, 7 since I'm just coming up to speed with all the activities 8 underway at the Air Resources Board. In fact, I've been 9 living from day to day and week to week. It would be good 10 to look ahead on a time scale of a full year. 11 Not to steal any of Catherine's thunder, I can 12 already see some of the biggest issues on the horizon for 13 my next weeks on the job, including -- and I've already 14 been involved in this pretty heavily -- goods movements 15 mitigation and infrastructure development, which was the 16 centerpiece of the Governor's State of the State Address; 17 the Climate Change Action Plan, which includes significant 18 new workload for the Air Resources Board; dealing with 19 emissions from dairies; and the ongoing Air Resources 20 Board Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. 21 There are also some traditional Air Resources 22 Board events that I'm looking forward to, such as the 23 Haagen-Smit Symposium in April. The topic this year is 24 the future of transportation fuels, economic and 25 environmental aspects, which I expect to be quite PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 interesting. 2 Finally, I asked staff to put a few new items on 3 the calendar, including Board to Board retreats with local 4 air districts. We'll work our way through those during 5 the year as soon as all the necessary logistics have been 6 arranged. 7 With that, I'll turn it over to Ms. Witherspoon 8 for her report. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 10 Sawyer. I will, of course, talk about Board items coming 11 before you in 2006. But I'd like to start with some of 12 the broader initiatives going on in California and the 13 Governor's initiatives that affect us. 14 --o0o-- 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There are five 16 that I'll touch on: The Governor's budget proposal for 17 the coming fiscal year; the Strategic Growth Plan, which 18 has to do with the bonds that have been proposed; goods 19 movement, which is included in the bond discussion but 20 also a subject in its own right; climate change; and the 21 hydrogen highway. 22 --o0o-- 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The Governor's 24 proposed budget is very good to us. After a few years of 25 contraction, we're growing again. As it did last year, it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 includes 6.5 million for the hydrogen highway expansion. 2 5.2 million in just under 15 positions to implement 3 climate change strategies. Four million, just under 20 4 people for expanded enforcement and the testing that goes 5 along with enforcement in our vehicle programs. Two 6 million, the innovative Clean Air Technologies Program 7 that our Research Division does to bring promising 8 technologies out of the lab and into commerce. 1.7 9 million in just under eight people for the regulations and 10 strategies we're undertaking to clean up goods movement 11 emissions. And then 1.1 million for in-use diesel 12 testing. That's half for our Stockton lab and half for 13 these innovative devices that are on diesel vehicles 14 themselves as they move about California roadways. 15 --o0o-- 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The Strategic 17 Growth Plan is a $220 billion effort of both existing and 18 new funds. Of that, there's roughly $28 billion in 19 general obligation bonds and revenue bonds proposed. And 20 of that 28 billion, there's 1 billion specifically for air 21 pollution mitigation of goods movement facilities and the 22 aspiration to have an equal match so we have $2 billion to 23 apply. This is just an astonishing and wonderful 24 proposal. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The Goods 2 Movement Action Plan has been underway for the last year. 3 The Phase I report describing the nature of the problem, 4 both the congestion jams, missing infrastructure, and the 5 environmental impact of the system we have. And as it is 6 changing and growing, the Phase II report puts forward the 7 strategies and priorities for addressing that. The target 8 date for completion is July of this year. ARB has a 9 stand-alone document, the Comprehensive Emission Reduction 10 Plan, which is appended to the CalEPA BTNH goods movement 11 plan which the Board will be reviewing in April. And the 12 whole thing is tied back into the bond proposal. 13 --o0o-- 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Last June, the 15 Governor set targets for the state of California in 16 reducing greenhouse gasses by 2010, 2020, and 50 years 17 from now. The strategies to achieve those targets are 18 being defined. CalEPA is lead for the statewide effort, 19 and this is one of Secretary Lloyd's highest priorities to 20 complete before his departure from state service. 21 So the report is due to the Governor in 22 mid-February. And then we will bring a report to you on 23 its conclusions in March. But just as a preview, some of 24 the strategies in the box here that have been assigned to 25 us and each have greenhouse gas million metric ton PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 estimates associated with them are in the areas of fuel, 2 idling, electrification, refrigerants, manure management 3 is a new and interesting one, semiconductors, and oil and 4 gas systems. 5 --o0o-- 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We are currently 7 in the RFP process for the three premier prototype 8 stations we were given funding for last year to be placed 9 around California. And the Governor's budget going 10 forward includes the same amount of money this time with 11 less money per station and the balance reserved for five 12 hydrogen buses. 13 --o0o-- 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: On to our 15 rulemaking calendar -- and I haven't provided the specific 16 months, because they can change. But I'll try to give you 17 a rough assessment of when these standards are coming 18 in -- rulemakings. And I've grouped them in broad 19 categories. Our ongoing Diesel Risk Reduction Program 20 which you launched in 1999. School bus guidelines for 21 spending the 25 million we were given this fiscal year to 22 clean up school buses. General NOx and VOC controls, air 23 Toxics and the new ambient air quality standard coming 24 before you. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Under the diesel 2 risk reduction category, two massive rules are working 3 their way towards you, on-road public and utility truck 4 fleets, at very late this year, beginning of next. 5 The other one is on the next slide is the 6 off-road construction equipment and other types of 7 off-road equipment is coming to you in December. 8 We also have manufacture in-use testing of trucks 9 and buses. 10 We'll be revisiting the transit rule once again 11 in, what, April-May looking at the zero emission bus 12 mandate. That's a 15 percent purchase requirement 13 starting in '08. The technology is not quite as advanced 14 as we'd like. 15 Our diesel control verification procedures will 16 be in front of you in March. This has to do with the 17 requirements for NO2 formation while they're cleaning up 18 particulate. You just adopted the border truck proposal. 19 --o0o-- 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There's the 21 off-road diesel equipment measure I was alluding to in 22 December. We did stationary diesel engines last year, and 23 now the Board needs to go back and do stationary 24 agricultural engines. That will be before you later this 25 year. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 Portable equipment is an issue we've been 2 struggling through with air districts, and I'm happy to 3 report peace has been achieved, and a consensus proposal 4 will be before you shortly. 5 We're going back and doing commercial harbor 6 craft. You already required that those vessels be fueled 7 on California diesel. Now we're going to look at retrofit 8 and accelerated retirement possibilities. 9 Also, last year you adopted an incineration rule 10 for commercial cruise ships, and we're going back in to do 11 cargo ships. 12 --o0o-- 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I mentioned the 14 school bus guidelines, we have 25 million. The guidelines 15 that you've adopted previously need to be updated. We've 16 been instructed this time around to replace the oldest 17 buses first in descending order, wherever they happen to 18 be in California. However, a portion of the money is for 19 retrofit, and that is distributed consistant with prior 20 formulas based on population. 21 --o0o-- 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: With respect to 23 conventional smog controls for passenger vehicles, we're 24 looking at catalyst replacement specifications, exhaust 25 testing procedures. We'll be reviewing our on-board PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 diagnostics requirements. And we've just initiated the 2 review of the low-emission vehicle, zero-emission vehicle 3 expert panel. You won't see them this year, but you will 4 hear from them in early '07. It is a high-profile 5 activity. Very distinguished people have been brought on 6 board and will be conducting their own independent review 7 of the technology of how our standard is progressing. 8 --o0o-- 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Some other 10 categories: Forklifts is coming in this year in April-May 11 -- April. 12 Above-ground gasoline storage tanks, we have many 13 rules for below-ground. Above-ground need attention. We 14 need to look at the issue of ethinyl and gasoline, both 15 E85 issues and the permeation caused by E-ton or blends 16 lower than that. 17 And consumer products is something we continue to 18 work away at. We're up to 50 percent VOC control. We're 19 trying to press on to the upper limits, 60, 70, 80, which 20 is what we need for attainment. 21 --o0o-- 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: For air toxics, 23 you already completed the first item on this chart, the 24 identification of environmental tobacco smoke as a toxic 25 air contaminant. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 We've done research on and community studies 2 having to do with chrome platers and whether or not the 3 control measures you adopted previously are sufficient. 4 We're finding they are not, so we'll be bringing back to 5 you tighter chrome rules. That's an air toxic control 6 measure. 7 Likewise, we'll be bringing in tighter 8 perchloroethylene rules for drycleaning. 9 We have a brand-new measure on formaldehyde 10 controls. You've listed formaldehyde years ago as a toxic 11 air contaminant, and this will be the first measure for 12 composite wood products that we bring before you. 13 And then Hot Spots Program was implemented years 14 ago for stationary sources, all but stationary diesel 15 engines, because we were in the middle of other 16 rulemakings, and we'll be going back and adding diesel 17 engines into that reporting program. 18 --o0o-- 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: You revisit our 20 ambient air quality standards approximately every five 21 years, and the one up this year is nitrogen dioxide. Just 22 as a preview, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 23 Assessment is evaluating the medical evidence right now 24 and whether or not a tighter standard is needed to protect 25 asthmatics. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 --o0o-- 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Some of the other 3 major activities going on this year that aren't specific 4 regulatory proposals are listed on this slide, and I'll 5 just go through a couple more. 6 --o0o-- 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I already 8 mentioned our ARB comprehensive emission reduction plan 9 for all goods movement sources, that is ocean-going 10 vessels, harbor craft, trains, drayage trucks, and cargo 11 handling equipment. And you have regs for some. We need 12 regs for more, plus other kinds of strategies. 13 We're already engaged in briefings for the 14 Legislature on the $1 billion bond, and there will be 15 dialogue throughout the summer on what kinds of amendments 16 the Legislature would like to see and direction on how 17 those funds are spent. We're past due on a shore power 18 feasibility study and hope to have that out soon. 19 And we're also doing a port truck modernization 20 report which will feed into the bond, because we think 21 that one of the most promising strategies is to get rid of 22 the 15- to 20-year-old trucks that are short-haul service. 23 Get rid of them, retrofit them, just make them cleaner. 24 --o0o-- 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Also in ports and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 goods movement is the locomotive maintenance pilot 2 project. I don't know what that is, but Tom does. We're 3 in the remote sensing study for locomotives. We just 4 initiated that. 5 Marpol Annex 6 is an international agreement that 6 is the next round of oceangoing vessel standards. And it 7 also contains a provision where those countries which have 8 ratified may apply to the international body for a sulfur 9 emission control area designation to say that we have 10 uniquely vulnerable parts of our state that need this 11 protection. And that requires international vessels to 12 use lower sulfur fuels while visiting SECA designated 13 areas. And the Annex 6 ratification is imminent. And 14 it's been imminent for a few months now. I don't know 15 what imminent means anymore. 16 And SECA is something that would take a few years 17 after ratification to accomplish. But U.S. EPA is working 18 closely with us and asked California to lead the technical 19 analysis effort for the entire west coast and up to 20 British Columbia and down to Mexico if they wish to be 21 part of these deliberations for where the designations 22 should apply. And they will do the work for the Texas 23 coast and the Atlantic coast. 24 --o0o-- 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: In environmental PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 justice, we have selected specific communities in Southern 2 California to do special pilot projects and will be doing 3 field work this year. 4 We are in the first complete year starting the 5 second of the $700,000 research study on disproportionate 6 impacts which the Board approved in one of your hearings 7 last year. 8 We are doing outreach on the land use guidance 9 document that you also approved last year. 10 The goods movement process has many, many 11 community-related meetings. 12 And something that's emerged towards the end of 13 last year is that in Oakland in particular, those 14 environmental justice activists are hugely concerned about 15 whether we'll be able to enforce our five-minute idling 16 rule. And so we're going to be giving special attention 17 to that issue in coordination with the local air 18 districts. 19 --o0o-- 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We've just 21 started the next round of State Implementation Plans, 22 which will be due to U.S. EPA in '07 and '08. But that's 23 really a lot of work being done this year. 24 We've got major studies going on in the central 25 valley working with each district for plans that are due PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 and beginning to bring the public on board. 2 --o0o-- 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The South Coast 4 SIP we launched this month. They're shooting for an 5 adoption date of December '06, and goods movement 6 strategies are going to be at the heart of that plan, the 7 number one issue. 8 --o0o-- 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: As Dr. Sawyer 10 indicated, staff is working on the scheduling of 11 Board-to-Board retreats. We've proposed the date of March 12 24 for South Coast, the day after the Thursday Board 13 meeting in March. And we haven't heard back yet if that 14 works for them. And then we'll move on to San Joaquin 15 Valley, the Bay Area, and other districts. 16 --o0o-- 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The ARB 18 management is also going to sit down and have an in-depth 19 retreat with CAPCOA Air Pollution Control Officers. We 20 have had more disagreements than ever before about the way 21 in which we're attempting to clean up diesels. It is the 22 number one public health concern statewide. But it's 23 complicated, and it's too incredibly important to get 24 wrong. As we go through massive phase-out programs, 25 massive retrofit programs, we need waivers in many PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 instances. Districts are concerned in particular about 2 hot spots and whether or not there's a way for them to 3 adopt regulations that dovetail with ours. And that's 4 what the purpose of this retreat is, and it's scheduled 5 for the end of February, just ahead of the retreat your 6 own Board will be having also in San Diego the beginning 7 of March. So we'll see you down there and tell you how it 8 went. 9 --o0o-- 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Sawyer also 11 mentioned the Haagen-Smit Symposium, and we have 12 co-sponsorship from the Bay Area and South Coast we're 13 very greatful for. And that's in the second week of May. 14 --o0o-- 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And then these 16 don't come before the Board. They do come before the 17 Chairman as he signs correspondence. Staff puts together 18 comments on these federal rulemakings and pursues 19 California's interest vigorously. 20 The first one is not a regulatory item. It's a 21 National Research Council study that was conducted over 22 the last year-and-a-half on whether or not California has 23 been using its mobile source authority appropriately and 24 whether other states should also continue to have the 25 authority to opt into our standards. And although it's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 sequestered, the early indication is that we're in for a 2 lot of praise and other states are in for a little bit of 3 trouble procedurally about what hoops they might have to 4 go through, or at least as recommended by the National 5 Research Council before they opt in to our standards. 6 Crucial, crucial rulemaking on locomotives and 7 marine that will define the future. Those need to be 8 after-treatment-based traps and NOx control, and we are 9 spending a great deal of time on those with U.S. EPA. 10 And then the others, pretty straightforward. EPA 11 is following us on forklifts. They're following us on 12 recreational boats. And then we're engaging them on the 13 question of their PM10 standards and 2.5. 14 --o0o-- 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: So that's not all 16 of it. The second bullet is things we need to react to. 17 I didn't even talk about what legislation might be pending 18 across the street this year, and things always happen. 19 But it's going to be a very busy and exciting year, quite 20 challenging for you all. And we'd be happy to answer any 21 other questions you might have. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Catherine. 23 Questions? 24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if I might. 25 Ms. Witherspoon, I failed to hear -- and maybe PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 you said, and I apologize. The LEV and ZEV expert review 2 group, when will they report and how long is that review 3 to take place? 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I'm going to ask 5 Tom Cackette to address that questions. 6 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: We have 7 unofficially engaged the Chairman of that. We have still 8 to elect the other members of the panel. They will be 9 doing their work through most of the year, so we'll expect 10 that we may hear some preliminary results towards the end 11 of the year. But we're expecting I think a February 12 presentation to the Board of what the staff thinks should 13 change. And as a prequel to that, it will be the panel's 14 report to you as to where they see the technology today 15 and where it might be going in the future. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: So in general maybe about 17 a year? 18 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes. 19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Because those are very 20 helpful. Mr. Chairman, in the past, we did this with 21 batteries, did we not, Mr. Cackette? And I think it sort 22 of is a nice way to sort of review some of the work that 23 we do and have some sort of outside peer review. And I'm 24 very supportive of that. Thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you very much. 2 This is an extremely ambitious plan. And I think 3 that's wonderful. You set your goals high. 4 I had just a quick question about the 5 billion-dollar infrastructure for goods movement. You 6 refer to a match. What's the source of that matching 7 funds? 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That is to be 9 defined. The air quality bond is actually carried within 10 the transportation infrastructure bond. And there are two 11 issues proposed in '06 and in 08. In the transportation 12 portion of the bond, there's one billion in the first 13 issue for goods movement related transportation 14 infrastructure and two billion in the second. And those 15 have a four-to-one match stipulated. 16 And one thought is that both of the matches will 17 come from a common source if there are to be container 18 fees, if there are to be new toll roads, if there are to 19 be other user-type charges. And part of that is to avoid 20 getting in each other's way and tapping the same funding 21 source twice. 22 However, there is also a conventional method of 23 soliciting match, which is to put out an RFP. The one 24 billion for air mitigation is envisioned ultimately as a 25 direct appropriation to the Air Resources Board, whatever PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 criteria and stipulations there will be about how we spend 2 it and under what conditions. And we can put out RFPs 3 that solicit one-to-one match. It's a very challenging 4 target, I think. In the case of trying to replace 5 locomotive switchers, we might find takers in the 6 railroads, because they'd like to replace those as well. 7 And it costs about a million a piece. 8 In the case of drayage trucks, which are in the 9 hands of lowly paid and immigrant workers, primarily 10 they're third generation. They've come out of line haul 11 service. They're not worth much. They won't be able to 12 come up with any capital. So the match needs to come from 13 another player in the goods movement system. And whether 14 or not the railroads step up on that one, because drayage 15 trucks are a crucial issue to the development of the 16 near-dock rail facilities or the Port of L.A. or Ports of 17 Long Beach step up because their tenants would like to see 18 that problem addressed, that's one of the things we have 19 to sort through. 20 And I'm hoping we get some clarity on whether or 21 not we're able to spend the billion -- assuming the voters 22 vote for any of this -- that we're able to spend the 23 billion we have even if we fall short of 100 percent 24 match. But at the moment, it's expressed as a fixed 25 condition, and the source of the match is not defined. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have several questions, 3 and I'll try to just go through them as quickly as 4 possible. 5 Diesel risk reduction, off-road diesel equipment, 6 do you expect to bring that category to us as an entire 7 group, or will you be splitting off the various 8 construction, ag, et cetera? 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We're splitting 10 it into three major categories at the moment: 11 Construction, ground service equipment -- and what's the 12 third? Industrial -- mining. There's three major 13 categories. 14 And so there are differences in the sectors. But 15 even if we subdivided the rulemaking, we expect to bring 16 it all into the same hearing. And the target date is 17 December. 18 Ag is not included in that category. We're 19 holding ag until later, because one of the problems with 20 the off-road sector in general is the multiple number of 21 engine types and applications and duty cycles. So our 22 options are going to be more limited about the 23 transferability of on-road control technology to those 24 operations if they don't meet the temperature regimes we 25 need for burn-off or the mass loading is so great they PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 overwhelm the trap. They're not eligible for rebuild 2 because they're unique configurations, and no one will 3 make a rebuild bit, because there's not enough money in 4 it. Those kinds of issues. 5 So we're trying to within the vast category of 6 off-road engines pick enough of the like sources, group 7 them together, come up with coherent regs, and work on the 8 outliers in later regulations. And we consider ag 9 off-road engines to be an outlier at this time. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: On ZEV, I've received some 11 correspondence, and I think other Board members have on 12 plug-ins. What are the other big issues we should be 13 looking for on ZEVs? 14 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: The 15 panel is going to be asked to look at fuel cells, of 16 course, because we have a primary compliance path right 17 now of fuel cells. They're going to be asked to look at 18 pure battery vehicles so we get an update on what the 19 potential market is there for various types. 20 We're going to look at plug hybrid vehicles. 21 We're going to look at hydrogen combustion vehicles, 22 because some evidence suggests that there are many, many 23 zeros before the first number representing their emissions 24 now. So they're getting very close to zero themselves, 25 and look at that technology. So those are the primary PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 categories. 2 We're also going to review whether the original 3 premise that emphasizing the Prius type hybrid electric 4 vehicles has a spin-off benefit for ZEV vehicles, mainly 5 the technologies involved would grow in number and in 6 technological maturity and that would help fuel cells, 7 battery electrics, et cetera. We're going to look whether 8 that premise is true. That's what the panel will look at 9 and report on. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And then on goods 11 movements, I'm just trying to put this into better 12 perspective, because I know so much is going on with the 13 administration and all the different stakeholders and 14 including outside of EPA. On slide 17, you have here the 15 bond, shore power, port truck modernization, et cetera. 16 Are those the items that are expected to be in the report 17 that's coming out? And this would be our area to act on. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's correct. 19 ARB already has a draft -- your staff has a draft emission 20 reduction plan we were asked to produce on an expedited 21 basis before CalEPA and Business and Transportation and 22 Housing move forward on the Phase I goods movement report, 23 which contained comparable specificity for the types of 24 projects the state wants to build to relieve congestion. 25 So the environmental participants and community PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 participants in that process said, where is the 2 complimentary emission control plan? And so we put 3 together in less than a month's time, I think it was, both 4 a health assessment of the risk posed by goods movement 5 emissions today and as they're growing over time if no 6 action is taken to turn them around. And our preliminary 7 assessment of what the approximate control target needed 8 to be category by category. And, for example, we proposed 9 a 90 percent reduction in locomotive emissions by 2020, 10 and then in general the strategies we would employ to 11 achieve those targets. 12 We are bringing a revised version of that plan 13 before the Board at your April meeting which Dr. Sawyer 14 has asked us to convene in Long Beach. And I expect it to 15 take all day for you to go through the health part, the 16 strategy part, and the bond part, plus other kinds of 17 innovative strategies, what we're already doing with Carl 18 Moyer money, never mind the bond, the emissions trading 19 proposals. Some people are talking about elaborate 20 trading schemes. That's where we expect the Board to give 21 us guidance on your priorities, your objectives, what you 22 think are the right control targets, what you think are 23 the right approaches. And ultimately we will roll the 24 emission reduction plan into the SIPs for each of the 25 areas that have these source categories into our diesel PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 control plan, our EJ plan, wherever it belongs. Right now 2 we've pulled it into one place so you can see it. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Speaking of SIPs, the 4 South Coast, you have here goods movement strategies are 5 at the heart of their plan. Are we expecting that they 6 will be adopting measures as free standing or that they 7 will be expecting us to adopt measures statewide? 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That is a very 9 interesting question. 10 What has happened in all prior SIPs is that goods 11 movement sources have been assigned to the federal 12 government. These are yours. They're not ours. The tons 13 are enormous. We need you to act. And we need you to 14 help us. And under federal law, you cannot assign tons 15 obligations to U.S. EPA. The state itself has to come up 16 with a comprehensive Attainment Plan, even if we are no 17 regulatory power over, let's say, the main engines of 18 ocean-going vessels. So what has happened in the South 19 Coast is they ended up in the black box. 20 Things are different today, this year. They've 21 become the dominant source of the non-attainment problem 22 for particulate and ozone in Southern California. It's 23 inescapable. And everyone is considering innovative 24 policy, legal, financial instruments to attack the 25 problem. So we had last year Mayor Hahn has done an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 increased task force. 2 We have this year to be announced, I think early 3 next month, Dave Freeman, who's at the Part of L.A., his 4 clean port plan will be coming out. 5 The South Coast has several interesting ideas 6 about how to tackle the problem, and they've surfaced some 7 of those already. They're scheduling an international 8 marine conference this year. And they've begun floating 9 ideas about using federal conformity statutes to obligate 10 the ports and the rail and the rest of it to live within 11 certain emission budgets. So we're going to be exploring 12 those ideas in the SIP. But it's as complicated as it 13 ever was. But I think especially the introduction of 14 major financing possibilities is going to change 15 everything going forward. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Last question on federal 17 rulemakings. It looks like the locomotives and marine 18 engines, that's really the focus because we're talking 19 about big changes. And then the rest of them, you may 20 have said this. I only picked up on forklifts and 21 recreational boats they're following. What about on lawn 22 and garden and heavy-duty in-use testing? 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Lawn and garden 24 was an outgrowth of the Senator bond fight trying to take 25 away our lawn mower rule. And what happened instead is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 that EPA got directed to adopt one for the rest of the 2 nation. So that was a happy outcome. 3 They're still trying to get that rule through. 4 They finished their safety evaluations, their fire 5 testing, and they're ready to go. They have some great 6 ideas about evaporative emissions. As you know, we had 7 both exhaust and evaporative emissions. They think they 8 can do us one better on evap, and if so, we'll come back 9 to you with modifications to us. 10 But this is the greatest collaboration ever when 11 we and EPA pass the football back and forth running down 12 the field. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The additional positions for 15 climate change and enforcement testing, what will they be 16 directed to? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Under climate 18 change, the draft action plan for the Governor's 19 consideration has several strategies -- it's already in 20 the public domain -- has several strategies assigned to 21 the Air Resources Board and other State departments. 22 There was a consolidated budget change proposal 23 given to the Governor for all state agencies working on 24 climate change that said in order to achieve the 25 strategies you've set out for us, we need people to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 implement these new measures. We don't have them under 2 our existing resources. 3 So ARB counted up the number of people it needed 4 to implement each one of the measures assigned to the Air 5 Resources Board, and we were given them in the Governor's 6 proposed budget. We have to see if the Legislature agrees 7 and also will give us that many people and we'll go hire 8 them. 9 And then on enforcement, it's a combination of 10 things. I think it is a tripling of our roadside 11 inspection teams -- at least a doubling. It is a major 12 expansion in our vehicle certification effort, which is 13 crucial. We have a backlog. It's on-board diagnostics 14 testing and enforcement and the recall activities. We're 15 redoing our recall regulations, because we found out in 16 our DaimlerChrysler case even when the catalyst emptied 17 itself out of the catalytic material, that didn't violate 18 the rules we had on the books. It certainly violated 19 their spirit. So we're going to fix those rules so we 20 have effective recall authority. 21 So it's a number of things. Again, this was a 22 consolidated budget change proposal for all of CalEPA. 23 And ARB was a big winner in a package that went forward 24 and was approved for the entire department. The Governor 25 believes in enforcement. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 2 Are there any other questions or comments from 3 the staff? If not, it looks like we finished the day's 4 business, and I would like to adjourn. Do I have a motion 5 for adjournment? 6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll 7 move that we continue our meeting. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We don't have a quorum. 9 Maybe we can't do that. 10 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNINGS: I think as 11 Mr. Riordan was stating, we should simply continue until 12 8:30 tomorrow morning. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. So we'll meet again 14 tomorrow morning. Thank you. 15 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board 16 recessed at 12:22 p.m.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, TIFFANY C. KRAFT, 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 hearing was reported in shorthand by me, 7 Tiffany C. Kraft, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 8 State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 9 typewriting. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 8th day of February, 2006. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 License No. 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345