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, MAY 22, 2003 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. Alan Lloyd, Chairperson Mr. Joseph Calhoun Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Professor Hugh Friedman Mr. Matthew McKinnon Supervisor Barbara Patricks Mrs. Barbara Riordan BOARD MEMBERS EXCUSED Dr. William Burke Dr. William Friedman Supervisor Ron Roberts STAFF Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel Ms. Merrin Bueto, Air Pollution Specialist Mr. Corey, Chief, Research & Economics Studies Branch Mr. Bart E. Croes, Chief, Research Division PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF Mr. Bob Fletcher, Chief, PTSD Ms. Leslie Krinsk, Senior Staff Counsel Ms. Annmare Mora, Research Division Ms. Sylvia Oey, Manager, Liaison Section, Planning and Technical Support Division Ms. Emma Plasencia, Research Division Mr. Shankar Prasad, Community Health Advisor Mr. Dale Shimp, Manager, PTSD Mr. Hien Tran, Research Division Mr. Richard Vincent, Research Division Ms. Barbara Weller, Research Division ALSO PRESENT Mr. Tom Addison, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Mr. Dave Amlin, Bureau of Automotive Repair Mr. Larry Armstrong, Quality Tune Up Shops Mr. Larry Greene, Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District Mr. Richard Seid, AAC Test-only Smog Station Ms. Brigette Tollstrup, Sacramento Air Quality Management District Ms. Cindy Tuck, CCEEB Mr. Doug Quetin, CAPCOA PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Roll Call 1 Item 03-4-1 Chairperson Lloyd 7 Executive Officer Witherspoon 8 Staff Presentation 8 Q&A 17 Item 03-4-2 Chairperson Lloyd 22 Executive Officer Witherspoon 24 Staff Presentation 24 Motion 25 Vote 25 Item 03-4-3 Chairperson Lloyd 26 Staff Presentation 26 Q&A 28 Motion 29 Vote 29 Item 03-4-4 Chairperson Lloyd 29 Executive Officer Witherspoon 29 Staff Presentation 30 Q&A 35 Motion 39 Vote 40 Item 03-4-5 Chairperson Lloyd 40 Executive Officer Witherspoon 41 Staff Presentation 43 Q&A 54 Ombudsman Tshogl 73 Mr. Doug Quetin 74 Mr. Tom Addison 80 Mr. Larry Greene 84 Ms. Brigette Tollstrup 93 Ms. Cindy Tuck 100 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX CONTINUED 03-04-07 Chairperson Lloyd 106 Executive Officer Witherspoon 107 Staff Presentation 108 Q&A 113 Mr. Larry Armstrong 120 Mr. Richard Seid 127 Item 03-4-6 Chairperson Lloyd 145 Dr. Shankar Prasad 145 Executive Officer Witherspoon 147 Staff Presentation 147 Q&A 156 Adjournment 164 Reporter's Certificate 165 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good morning. The May 22nd, 3 2003, public meeting of the Air Resources Board will now 4 come to order. 5 Mr. Calhoun, would you lead us in the pledge, 6 please. 7 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Would you please stand and 8 join me in the pledge. 9 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 10 recited in unison.) 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 12 Would the Clerk of the Board please call the 13 roll. 14 SECRETARY DORAIS: Dr. Burke? 15 Mr. Calhoun? 16 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 17 SECRETARY DORAIS: Ms. D'Adamo? 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 19 SECRETARY DORAIS: Supervisor DeSaulnier? 20 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Here. 21 SECRETARY DORAIS: Professor Friedman? 22 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Here. 23 SECRETARY DORAIS: Dr. Friedman? 24 SECRETARY DORAIS: Mr. McKinnon? 25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 SECRETARY DORAIS: Supervisor Patrick? 2 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Here. 3 SECRETARY DORAIS: Ms. Riordan? 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 5 SECRETARY DORAIS: Supervisor Roberts? 6 Chairman Lloyd? 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Here. 8 While Dr. Friedman is not here, we understand he 9 may be monitoring us. So if you're there, Bill, we miss 10 you. Hopefully when we perform -- I guess we look forward 11 to some sort of grading after the meeting. 12 Also happy birthday to Cornetta. She may be 13 listening. I won't go any further. 14 We have two procedural items today, but in view 15 of what Rob mentioned, Catherine, should I go ahead with 16 that? Do you think it might happen? 17 We were expecting two things that may happen. 18 Senator Florez would come today and also our Executive 19 Officer may be pulled over to the capital for the budget 20 hearings. Rob informed us that they've got a very hectic 21 day over there, that Senator Florez would not likely be 22 over here. He was going to come and address us on his 23 work and his bills on addressing about air quality. So 24 that is not likely to happen until after this Board 25 meeting's over. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 Also I would like to maybe start out today by 2 indicating that we had a very successful event last week. 3 And as you recollect at the last Board meeting, we put a 4 lot of emphasis in terms of the California fuel cell 5 partnership and in terms of fuel cells. And last week 6 there was an event called Rally Through the Valley, which 7 started out in Sacramento, ended up in L.A. And I 8 participated in that from Sacramento down to Bakersfield. 9 And Barbara met us in Bakersfield. But I think it was an 10 outstanding event. We had six vehicles. 11 I thought for the Board it would be good to start 12 off -- and Jim Fischer and Peter Dallas have kindly agreed 13 to put together about a five-minute video to give a flavor 14 of what went on. I think it's truly outstanding. We had 15 wonderful reception at all the stops in the valley. I 16 think it's very important that people understood this new 17 technology. As I say, it was really thrilling for me to 18 be part of that. I felt it was very important as Chair of 19 the partnership this year and also because of our emphasis 20 that I participate as much as possible. The weather was 21 not too hot and it was great. And after that maybe I'll 22 ask Barbara -- Supervisor Patrick to say a few words. Are 23 we ready to go? Okay. 24 (Thereupon a video presentation was given) 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 Supervisor Patrick, I did not see this ahead of time, 2 otherwise I would have made sure that you were there 3 rather than the mayor of Bakersfield because Supervisor 4 Patrick also welcomed us there with a proclamation. But 5 it was -- staff did a great job, ARB staff, and Jim went 6 all the way. So it was really an outstanding event, very, 7 very impressive. And learning. We learned a lot about 8 fuel. It wasn't without hitches. Some technologies had 9 some hitches, but they typically either got them fixed or 10 they were fixing them later. 11 So Supervisor Patrick, again, I want to thank you 12 for your kind welcome and participation and drive in 13 Bakersfield. 14 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Thank you very much, 15 Mr. Chairman. 16 If I could, I'd just like to thank all the 17 appropriate people. It's great -- wake up back there. 18 Now it's on. I told him to wake up and he did. 19 It was great. And there may have been a few 20 hitches along the way. But one would never have known it 21 from -- you know, from the -- it looked like a logistics 22 masterpiece from our point of view from those of us who 23 were greeting folks in the community. 24 I did have an opportunity to drive the Honda. It 25 was great. The gentleman from Honda whose baby it was was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 in the back seat with me, and I was terrified I was going 2 to do something wrong. And this was definitely his baby. 3 And it was so -- it was lots of fun to do it. I'm very 4 grateful to have had the opportunity. And on behalf of 5 the folks in the San Joaquin Valley, I'd like to say thank 6 you. Because sometimes we are not as aware as other parts 7 of the state of some of the technologies that are ongoing, 8 and we do appreciate the fact that folks came through the 9 San Joaquin Valley. It was a beautiful day when you were 10 in Bakersfield, and I believe it was beautiful throughout 11 the entire trip. 12 I would have loved to have been in Griffith Park 13 with you because I'm sure you had a whole lot of folks 14 there. But it was a great opportunity to showcase fuel 15 cell technology, and it was especially meaningful since we 16 had the decision we did last month that we were able to 17 show folks that even though this is the technology of the 18 future that we have -- the situation is well in hand. And 19 we have a lot of folks who are working very hard to bring 20 that technology to each and every Californian as quickly 21 as possible. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. And again, I 23 think it was very impressive to see the teamwork amongst 24 all the team who were actual competitors but who worked 25 together, and also a number of children and students who PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 came out along the way. It started off as Scientists Day 2 at the Capital. So it was great. 3 I'd also like to mention that -- give some 4 highlights of the Third Annual Haagen-Smit symposium. 5 This is the third annual symposium held May 6th through 6 9th at the UCLA conference facility in Lake Arrowhead. We 7 initiated this symposia series in 2000 in memory of the 8 late Dr. Arnie J. Haagen-Smit, our first chairman and a 9 pioneer in air pollution, science, and regulation. 10 And it's to provide an opportunity, great 11 opportunity, for top scientists and policy-makers to 12 discuss the implications of emerging science and allow us 13 to make more science-orientated policy decisions in the 14 future. 15 And the focus this year was on the public health 16 and also particulate pollution. And Dr. Friedman attended 17 for part of the time. I think we had an outstanding cast 18 of speakers there, international speakers addressing the 19 issue. In fact, we organized around five key questions. 20 What are the health effects associated with the current 21 levels of particulate? Are there particle components or 22 sources that are more or less toxic where control efforts 23 can be emphasized or de-emphasized? What do we understand 24 about particle sources, formation, and exposure that can 25 be used in setting policy? What are the linkages between PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 particles and global climate change? And what emission 2 control technologies are available. 3 We had about 100 people there from all over the 4 world. We also continued the tradition of honoring people 5 for the clean air awards. And this year they were 6 presented to Professor John Seinfeld, Cal Tech, and John 7 White at the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 8 Technologies for their outstanding contributions to air 9 pollution and environmental policy, respectively. A 10 special award was also presented to Michael Walsh for his 11 global efforts towards mobile source emission controls. 12 I would like to thank the outstanding work done 13 by Bart and his staff and Research and also Dr. Prasad and 14 his staff and the Chair's office. They did a wonderful 15 job of organizing that, and it was unanimous thanks from 16 people worldwide. There was a number of cosponsors for 17 the event. Again, next year we have the schedule 18 symposium in 2004 and the focus is on greenhouse gasses. 19 So we look forward to that continuing in a timely way. 20 With that, I'd like to move ahead to the first 21 agenda item, reminding anybody who is interested in 22 speaking to sign up with the Clerk of the Board. And the 23 first item today is on our continuing series on health 24 updates. 25 And with that, I would like to turn it over to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 Ms. Witherspoon to introduce the item. 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 3 Lloyd. Hello. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Lloyd. Good 4 morning, members of the Board. As Dr. Lloyd noted this 5 month's health updated highlights -- 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We can't hear you. 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The light's on 8 but -- test. There it is. It's a delay. 9 This month's health updated highlights recent 10 research findings about the effect of air quality 11 improvements on public health, specifically on hospital 12 admissions and mortality related to heart and lung 13 disease. The studies are global in scope coming from 14 Europe, Asia, and the United States. 15 Mr. Hien Tran from the Research Division will now 16 update the Board on the findings from these recent 17 studies. 18 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 19 presented as follows.) 20 MR. TRAN: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. Good 21 morning, Dr. Lloyd and members of the Board. This 22 morning's presentation focuses on results from several 23 recent studies that will provide for the health benefits 24 of air pollution control. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 MR. TRAN: One of our roles at ARB is to evaluate 2 the scientific literature regarding air pollution's 3 effects on human health. Clear examples of how elevated 4 levels of particulate matter, ozone, and other pollutants 5 adversely effect the health of the public have been 6 presented to the Board in several recent health updates. 7 Today the focus is on this inverse, that 8 improving air quality has a positive effect on health. 9 This issue is at the heart of the current interest in 10 accountability is which is defined of the process of 11 measuring the health benefits of environmental regulation. 12 In this case, air pollution controls. 13 To this end I will summarize five studies that 14 show evidence for health benefits due to reducing air 15 pollution. 16 --o0o-- 17 MR. TRAN: The five studies come from Europe and 18 Asia as well as the United States. One study examined 19 death rates resulting from PM reductions due to a ban of 20 coal cells in Dublin, Ireland. The second study performed 21 in the Utah valley examined the effects of the temporary 22 closure of a steel mill, which was the main source of 23 particulate pollution in the region. 24 The summer Olympic games of 1996 presented a good 25 opportunity to study the health effects of ozone PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 reductions from changed traffic pattern in Atlanta, 2 Georgia. 3 In Hong Kong, the health effects of reducing the 4 sulfur content of fuel were assessed. 5 I will conclude my presentation with an update 6 for relevant findings from ARB children's health study 7 conducted in Southern California. 8 --o0o-- 9 MR. TRAN: I begin with the study in Dublin, 10 Ireland. On September 1st, 1990, the Irish government 11 banned the marketing, sales, and distribution of soft coal 12 within the city of Dublin. CAR examined the effect of 13 this intervention on the association between ambient air 14 quality and death rates. The investigators analyzed data 15 from six years prior and six years after the ban. 16 --o0o-- 17 MR. TRAN: In this study black smoke and sulfur 18 dioxide were measured at six stations. The researchers 19 found that the ban of coal cells resulted in a substantial 20 reduction of black smoke, which is a measure of fine 21 particles. Overall, the average black smoke levels fell 22 by about two-thirds after the ban. 23 Similarly, sulfur dioxide levels decreased by 24 about one-third after the ban. The pollutant levels shown 25 in this slide represent an average across all months. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 However, these pollutants typically will peak during the 2 winter season. And in this study the largest declines had 3 occurred in the winter. 4 --o0o-- 5 MR. TRAN: After adjusting for factors known to 6 influence mortality, which include temperature, relative 7 humidity, respiratory epidemics, age, and changes in 8 personal habits such as smoking the investigators found 9 statistically-significant decreases in death rates. They 10 found a 6 percent decrease in non-trauma deaths. This 11 decrease was primarily driven by an estimated 10 percent 12 and 16 percent increase in the rates of death from heart 13 and lung diseases respectively. This finding is 14 consistent with our understanding of air pollution effects 15 on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. 16 Moreover, the reduction in death rates was two to 17 three times greater than had been predicted for previous 18 PM mortality studies. Note that deaths from all other 19 non-trauma cases were estimated to increase slightly, 20 however, in this case was not statistically significant. 21 --o0o-- 22 MR. TRAN: To summarize the results of this 23 study, the ban of coal cells in Dublin led to a 24 substantial improvement in air quality. The investigators 25 found significant reduction in death rates, especially for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 cardiovascular and respiratory causes. Compared to 2 previous studies, this research shows greater health 3 benefits of reducing early exposures to PM. These 4 findings suggest that control of particulate air pollution 5 can lead to immediate and significant reductions in death 6 rates. 7 --o0o-- 8 MR. TRAN: Let me move on to the second study 9 which was conducted by Dr. Arden Pope in Utah Valley, 10 located in central Utah. During the period of August 1986 11 to September 1987 a steel mill, which was the primary 12 source of particulate pollution in Utah Valley, was closed 13 due to a worker strike. Dr. Pope studied the effects of 14 the closure and subsequent reopening of this mill on air 15 quality and hospital emissions for respiratory diseases 16 among children. The study period covered twelve months 17 before and twelve months after the closure period. 18 --o0o-- 19 MR. TRAN: This study focused on the results from 20 the winter seasons, since PM 10 levels are typically 21 highest during the winter. Dr. Pope found that 22 particulate levels were lower during the closure period. 23 For example, the two winter seasons before closure and 24 after reopening experienced 13 and 10 exceedances 25 respectively on the federal 24-hour PM 10 standard. In PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 contrast, during the closure the standard was not 2 exceeded. 3 --o0o-- 4 MR. TRAN: When hospital admissions were analyzed 5 for the same time periods, striking differences were 6 observed. This graph shows the number of children less 7 than 18 years of age admitted to the regional hospitals 8 for respiratory causes during the winter months between 9 1985 and 1988. During the 1986/87 winter season when the 10 mill was closed, hospital admissions for children were 11 approximately three times lower than when it was open, as 12 indicated by the dark red bars. 13 Statistical analysis showed this decrease was 14 associated with a decrease in PM 10 levels. Not shown in 15 this slide are results for the mortality study Dr. Pope 16 also conducted in the Utah valley. It is noteworthy that 17 Dr. Pope's estimates of death reductions among adults and 18 children from decreased PM in the study are very similar 19 to those of the Dublin study. 20 --o0o-- 21 MR. TRAN: The third study I'll summarize today 22 took advantage of the decreased motor vehicle traffic in 23 Atlanta during the 1996 summer Olympic games. During the 24 17 days of the game, traffic pattern changed due to the 25 alternative traffic strategy that was implemented to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 relief traffic congestion. For this study the researchers 2 analyzed the effects of these changes on air quality and 3 acute asthma events among children by examining air 4 quality and hospital records four weeks before and four 5 weeks after the games. 6 --o0o-- 7 MR. TRAN: As shown in this slide, the ambient 8 ozone levels calculated from three monitoring sites 9 decreased about 13 percent during the games, which is 10 indicated by the dark red bars. Correspondingly, there 11 was fewer children admitted to the hospitals for acute 12 asthma. An average of two and a half cases per day during 13 the games compared to 4.2 cases per day during the 14 baseline period before and after the games. The study 15 determined that there were no significant changes in 16 weather conditions or emissions from stationary sources. 17 Also hospital admissions for other causes among children 18 did not change during this period. 19 --o0o-- 20 MR. TRAN: The next study took us to Hong Kong 21 where authorities regulated the sulfur content of fuel oil 22 to be not greater than half a percent by weight starting 23 in 1990. Researchers at the University of Hong Kong 24 studied the impacts of this regulatory action on ambient 25 air quality and several health end points in the years PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 following the change. 2 This regulation produced large reductions in 3 concentrations of several pollutants directly derived from 4 fuel combustion. Sulfur dioxide measured at multiple 5 sites fell an average of 53 percent over the following 6 year, compared to the baseline levels measured two years 7 prior. However, it should be noted that ozone levels rose 8 in the five years following if regulation and no major 9 changes in levels of PM 10 or nitrogen dioxide were 10 observed. 11 --o0o-- 12 MR. TRAN: The researchers estimated impact of 13 the regulation of mortality by examining death rates among 14 two age groups for the period 1985 through 1995, which 15 includes a five-year period before and five-year period 16 after the restriction of the sulfur content. 17 As shown in this slide, the annual average 18 mortality rates for heart causes, cardiovascular, and 19 respiratory diseases declined after the regulation. It is 20 noteworthy that no significant change was observed for 21 other causes. 22 23 --o0o-- 24 MR. TRAN: Now I would like to point out 25 California has its own study which relates to this health PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 benefits issue. Within this children's health study 2 investigators study the health effects of relocating to 3 areas of differing levels of air pollution. They followed 4 110 children from the larger children health study who 5 moved to six western states at least one year before 6 follow-up and two areas of either higher or lower 7 pollution. 8 They found that children moving to areas with 9 lower PM 10 levels experienced an increase in lung 10 function growth rates. Conversely, moving to areas of 11 higher PM 10 resulted in a decrease in lung function 12 growth rates. 13 --o0o-- 14 MR. TRAN: Finally, I'd like to mention that ARB 15 is currently funding a pilot study to determine whether we 16 can quantify the health benefits resulting from 17 incremental improvements in air quality in the South Coast 18 basin. This study is being conducted by UC Berkeley and 19 the technical work is being peer reviewed by an advisory 20 committee consisting of six experts in the fields of 21 epidemiology, statistics, public health, and exposure 22 modeling. Results are expected in 2005. We also are 23 coordinating with the health effects institute which has 24 its own proposal to assess the effectiveness of regulatory 25 interventions directed toward improving air quality for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 public health. 2 --o0o-- 3 MR. TRAN: In conclusion, there is a growing and 4 substantial body of evidence that suggests immediate 5 health benefits from air pollution controls. These 6 improvements include reductions in both illness and death 7 in children as well as in adults. 8 All of the studies discussed today were in 9 populated metropolitan areas, one indication of the 10 relevance to our situation in California. In addition, 11 while some of the pollution sources are not common to 12 California, the pollutants studies are those of great 13 concern to the ARB. 14 This concludes my presentation. I will be happy 15 to answer any of your questions. Thank you for your 16 attention. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 18 Any comments or questions? Mr. Calhoun, 19 Ms. Riordan. 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Just a quick comment. 21 Mr. Chairman. 22 And I think the Utah study is so interesting. I 23 mean, that is really significant. I mean, Atlanta is 24 fine, but that's such a short duration. And you know, I'm 25 not sure all the particulars. But I think the Utah study PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 is phenomenal. That really is incredible the difference 2 in admissions for children. So are they going to follow 3 up? Is that particular facility, steel mill, is it open 4 still now, I wonder? 5 MR. TRAN: It's my understanding that it's still 6 open now. 7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: It's still open. It would 8 be fun to track it, if it closed ever again to see what 9 might be the study, what it would show. Thank you. 10 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I'd like to ask a question 11 about the Utah study. Did the steel mill have any kind of 12 controls on the furnaces there at all, do you know? 13 MR. TRAN: I wasn't stated in the papers I looked 14 at, Mr. Calhoun. I can follow up and answer your 15 question. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Mr. Calhoun, that 17 portion of the state is attainment for the federal 18 standard and it would not be required other than an 19 initiative of the state to put additional controls on. 20 But I think those results for the steel mill would hold 21 for coal, fire, and power plants as well. This is a 22 debate going on across the nation about the appropriate 23 level of control and the timing and whether we should keep 24 grandfathering these Heavy fossil fuel users or come to a 25 more modern level. And happily, we don't have many of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 them in our state. But we still do have some higher 2 emitting power plants and other kinds of facilities that 3 will need our attention as we move forward on PM control. 4 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: What about steel mills? I 5 know they used to have a lot of them in Los Angeles 6 County. What is the status of the steel mill industry in 7 California now? Are they -- 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There are no 9 steel mills left in California. 10 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: There is a little one. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Is that the one 12 in Fontana? 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Is it Tampco? 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I'd have to 15 check. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: It's a very small 17 facility. It's immediately adjacent to what the old 18 Kaiser facility -- where it was. But there still is that 19 one little steel mill, and I think they're the only ones 20 in the state of California still running. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 22 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: One other question I 23 wanted to ask about the pilot study at UC Berkeley where 24 we're trying to determine the health benefit of improved 25 air quality. When was that study initiated? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 2 Actually, that study was funded last year. The 3 investigators are just now beginning to work on it 4 actually in this calendar year. So the investigators are 5 meeting. We've got the external advisory committee that 6 has provided us with comments prior to a conference call 7 now. We've also met and are providing comments to the 8 investigators. So we're just beginning. 9 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Have you received any 10 progress reports at all? 11 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 12 Not yet. Oh, actually, we have received actually 13 minutes from the investigators' meetings and from the 14 advisory committee meetings. They're basically right now 15 gathering information on both health status and air 16 quality. 17 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Okay. Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Would you like to get an 19 update? 20 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes, I would. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 22 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: On steel mills, there's 23 one in Fontana that is an operation that takes scrap metal 24 from junkyards and operations. This is the place where 25 the radioactive materials from X-ray machines ended up PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 being melted into rebar and distributed all over the 2 state. I spent a lot of time there as a health and safety 3 person many years ago. 4 There is also a steel operation in the Richmond 5 area that -- I don't know if you classify it as a mill, 6 but sort of the same idea. 7 I do have sort of a question and sort of -- in 8 looking at the Utah example, one of the things I always 9 sort of think through, and in environmental justice one of 10 the things we have to often look at, I think, or should 11 always have sort of an eye out for is availability of 12 health care when we're looking at something like this. 13 And when you assume that probably only half the people 14 have health care, and then if you look at a large plan 15 that may be the largest employer in an area -- I don't 16 know whether or not this is the case in Utah, steel. But 17 what a striking workforce means to me is a large workforce 18 that had health benefits, doesn't have health benefits. 19 So when you evaluate whether or not people sought 20 health care in a situation where people -- half the people 21 don't have it in an area to start with, then a large 22 workforce that does have health care study doesn't. I'm 23 sort of wondering if the investigators in that case sort 24 of evaluated who maybe didn't avail themselves of health 25 care because they didn't have it. And see, I think you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 can end up with a jump in numbers if you don't look at 2 that kind of thing. 3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: That's a good point to 4 explore. I'm not sure what the answer is but -- 5 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: And I don't know that the 6 study had that answer. I'm not expecting it. But it's 7 something when we look at EJ issues, we have to sort of 8 stop ourselves for a moment and say, is there something 9 that's going to tilt sort of the figures if we're looking 10 at sort of hospital emissions or doctors' visits or some 11 other criteria like that. 12 MS. WELLER: This is Barbara Weller. Actually, 13 that was an issue the investigators did look into. They 14 figured that only 2 percent of the population were 15 affected by this closure. And they looked at admissions 16 for other causes and they didn't see the decrease. So 17 they felt that that was not a factor in people delaying 18 their health care with the closure of the mill. 19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. Thank 21 you. 22 Next item on the agenda today is 03-4-2, public 23 meeting to consider an appointment to the Research 24 Screening Committee. 25 Before we get into that, I was alerted by the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 Executive Officer that they will be holding budget 2 hearings so she may be disappearing before lunch over to 3 the capital, but Chief Deputy, Mr. Cackette, will take 4 over at that time. So if you see her disappearing, she's 5 not offended by anything, it's just she's going over to 6 the capital. 7 As I mentioned, the statute creating the Board 8 also authorized the Board to appoint a Research Screening 9 Committee to advise the Board on its extramural research 10 activities, such as the ones we discussed earlier. 11 The Committee has nine members, as well ex 12 officio members, each representing a scientific or 13 technical discipline that's relevant to review and advise 14 on our air quality research program. And the Board 15 members can see that in the forward. Their input has been 16 invaluable to the Board over the years. 17 Dr. Amy Walton, an expert in economics theory and 18 a current member of the Committee has elected to serve as 19 an ex officio member. The nomination for a replacement 20 and the information on the current members are before us 21 today in the folder. 22 Dr. Rachel Morello-Frosch has been identified as 23 an excellent candidate in the area of comparative risk 24 assessment and environmental justice and put forward for 25 the Board's consideration as a member of the Research PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 Screening Committee. And you will see a resume there. 2 You will see she's a graduate of Berkeley. So Ms. 3 Witherspoon, I'd like you and your staff to provide the 4 name and general affiliation and area of expertise. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Emma Plasencia 6 will read into the record the qualification of Dr. Rachel 7 Morello-Frosch. 8 MS. PLASENCIA: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. Good 9 morning, Chairman Lloyd and members of the Board. 10 We are very pleased that Dr. Rachel 11 Morello-Frosch is willing to serve on the Research 12 Screening Committee. Dr. Morello-Frosch is an assistant 13 professor at the Center for Environmental Studies at the 14 Department of Community Health, School of Medicine at 15 Brown University. She completed her Ph.D. in 16 environmental health sciences at UC Berkeley. 17 Dr. Morello-Frosch's research examines race and 18 class determinants of the distribution of health risks 19 associated with air pollution among diverse communities in 20 the United States. Her current work focuses on 21 comparative risk assessment and environmental justice, 22 developing models for community-based environmental health 23 research, science and environmental health policy-making, 24 children's environmental health, and the intersection 25 between economic restructuring and environmental health. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 She is currently working on a community academic 2 research partnership with Communities for a Better 3 Environment in Los Angeles on air pollution, toxics, and 4 environmental justice. She is also collaborating with 5 scientists at US EPA on research on children's health and 6 air toxics. 7 Dr. Morello-Frosch has published a bunch of her 8 work in public health, planning, and policy journals. She 9 Chairs the Board of Trustees of the Environmental 10 Leadership Program, a national nonprofit center for 11 leadership and professional development within the 12 environmental field and sits on the Scientific Advisory 13 Board of Breast Cancer Action in San Francisco. 14 That summarizes the qualifications of the 15 candidate. Further details are available in your 16 information packages. 17 We recommend that you approve the appointment of 18 Dr. Rachel Morello-Frosch to the Research Screening 19 Committee. This concludes my presentation. We will be 20 happy to answer any questions you may have. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. No questions. 22 Can I get a motion and second? 23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Motion. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye. 25 (Ayes) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Unanimous approval. 2 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. -- 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Sorry. Mr. McKinnon. 4 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I just want to let staff 5 know how happy I am that we're institutionalizing 6 environmental justice sort of throughout the functions of 7 the agency and the Board's work. And it's great and let's 8 keep it up. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Obviously, I'd like to also 10 thank you, Mr. McKinnon, for your excellent leadership in 11 this area, the commitment and time you've put into this 12 working with staff. We hope that will continue. Thank 13 you. 14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: You bet. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So with that, we move on to 16 the item on the research proposal, and that's agenda item 17 03-4-3. And Mr. Croes, would you like to introduce the 18 item. Anything you have to add? 19 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CHIEF CROES: Annmare 20 Mora will read a brief statement into the report. 21 MS. MORA: Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd, and 22 members of the Board. 23 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 24 presented as follows.) 25 MS. MORA: Today we are presenting to you one PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 research proposal. This proposal will augment our current 2 project entitled "Environmental Health Conditions in 3 Portable Classrooms" which was mandated by the State 4 Legislature in 2000. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. MORA: The objective of the main project is 7 to examine environmental conditions, especially those 8 related to indoor air quality and health risks in 9 kindergarten through 12th grade classrooms across the 10 state. The investigators have recently completed the 11 initial data analysis for this project and produced a 12 large database. This augmentation will allow the 13 investigators to statistically analyze the energy-related 14 data, such as ventilation and lighting for the California 15 Energy Commission. They will also further explore the 16 relationships between indoor environmental quality 17 variables and key building characteristics. 18 The funding total for this augmentation is 19 $100,000 and is being provided by the CDC. This 20 augmentation will bring the total contract cost to 21 approximately $900,000. An in-depth presentation of the 22 portable classroom study and its result is scheduled for 23 the July Board meeting. 24 This augmentation has been reviewed and approved 25 by ARB staff and the Research Screening Committee. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 Therefore, we request that the Board approve this 2 augmentation. This concludes the presentation. I'd be 3 happy to answer any questions. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 5 I'd just like to draw the attention of my 6 colleagues to the fact that we have an excellent working 7 relationship with CDC who are providing some funding to 8 help us on these programs at a time when it's difficult 9 with resources and important to work together. So we've 10 really got a very good working relationship with CDC. 11 Are there any questions? I presume there's no 12 augmentation. But what's the track record of RTI in terms 13 of budget and the deliverables? 14 MS. MORA: So far the study has been successful. 15 We haven't had any problems with RTI. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And previously? 17 MS. MORA: No. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. 19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Do we need a motion? 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We've got Supervisor Patrick. 21 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Just a comment. 22 This is so critical, you know, as we have more 23 and more kids in California in these portable classrooms. 24 And I think this is definitely a move we want to go to. 25 And I look forward to the meeting in July where you give PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 us more information about this. 2 And with that, I'll make the motion, 3 Mr. Chairman. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Second? 5 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Second. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All this favor say aye. 7 (Ayes) 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Unanimous approval. Thank 9 you very much. 10 The next item is 03-4-4, proposed grants for 11 developing the new air monitoring instruments. 12 The innovative clear air technologies grant 13 program normally supports demonstrations of new emission 14 controls. However, we decided to do something different 15 this year and concentrate on proposals for developing new 16 air monitoring instruments, particularly the kind that 17 might ultimately be used in local communities to expand 18 our understanding of community exposures. 19 Ms. Witherspoon, will you please begin staff's 20 presentation. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 22 Dr. Lloyd. 23 The ICAT program co-funds projects that move 24 promising technology from the research and development 25 stage into practical applications. This year we are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 directing our limited funds to developing and 2 demonstrating air monitoring technology. Part of the 3 funds are being offered by the California Energy 4 Commission which, like ARB, needs more tools available for 5 measuring air quality in neighborhoods due to the 6 environmental justice concerns they have encountered in 7 their power plant citing process. 8 We ran a special solicitation for proposals on 9 instruments that can be economically and technically 10 practical for a wide range of users. We are recommending 11 two projects to develop instruments that would best 12 support the goals of ARB and the CDC. Their request is 13 for a total of 435,000 in grants of which the Energy 14 Commission would provide half. 15 Mr. Richard Vincent of the Research Division will 16 provide more detail. 17 MR. VINCENT: Thank you. I'm not live, I guess. 18 There, okay. Thank you. 19 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 20 presented as follows.) 21 MR. VINCENT: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and 22 Board members. 23 In this presentation I'll review the historical 24 ICAT program, describe the special focus of the current 25 program, and explain our recommendations for two new PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 grants. 2 --o0o-- 3 MR. VINCENT: Since its inception in 1994, ICAT 4 has supported field demonstrations of technical 5 innovations that will control air pollution or can improve 6 the cost-effectiveness of control programs. 15 projects 7 have been completed to date, and 11 are going on right 8 now. 9 --o0o-- 10 MR. VINCENT: ICAT supports up to half of a 11 project's budget. A grantee bills ICAT for half of its 12 incurred expenses and predetermined points that have been 13 selected as markers of substantial progress for the 14 project's goals. 15 --o0o-- 16 MR. VINCENT: This year we solicited proposals 17 for new air monitoring technology. Specifically, we 18 requested proposals to demonstrate instruments that are 19 practical to employ much more widely than our fixed-site 20 air monitors. We would like to enable people and 21 organizations other than ARB to be able to assess air 22 quality quickly and cheaply in their own locals. The 23 means to measure pollutants on a fine spacial scale would 24 help in estimating local exposures. However, instruments 25 suitable for this purpose are not generally now available. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 --o0o-- 2 MR. VINCENT: The Energy Commission has similar 3 goals and has agreed to pay for half of the ICAT 4 disbursements for new grants this year. This will be done 5 via contract between ARB and the Energy Commission. 6 --o0o-- 7 MR. VINCENT: Our solicitation of proposals 8 presented the ideal attributes on this slide for new air 9 monitoring instruments. We want devices that will be 10 substantially cheaper than ordinary instruments and that 11 will produce measurements in the field without laboratory 12 analysis. 13 We don't intend the measurements to be 14 alternative to the federal reference methods for assessing 15 compliance with the air quality standards. Rather, they 16 would be tools to quantify pollutant exposures locally, as 17 in neighborhoods. 18 --o0o-- 19 MR. VINCENT: We reviewed 68 pre-proposals from 20 respondents to our public solicitation. We invited full 21 proposals from 19 of the applicants, of whom 13 responded. 22 All in all, these proposals have more R&D character than 23 what ICAT normally entertains. Many of them are from 24 academic research groups and some involve what you can 25 characterize as cutting edge technologies. All their PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 proposals were reviewed by staff at the ARB, the Energy 2 Commission, EPA, and by our contracted reviewers. Members 3 of the Research Screening Committee then reviewed a subset 4 that we deemed the most worthy. 5 --o0o-- 6 MR. VINCENT: The result of our process is a 7 recommendation for two grants for PM emission and 8 technologies, totally $435,000 in ICAT funding. Both 9 proposals are from academic research and development labs. 10 The overall budgets for two projects total $910,000. 11 --o0o-- 12 MR. VINCENT: One project by USC would reduce the 13 cost of the beta attenuation monitor, or BAM, which is an 14 existing PM measurement technology. The BAM is already 15 used in research work. However, the standard model is 16 expensive, around $17,000. A more recent model costs only 17 7500, but it has not been thoroughly qualified yet. 18 In a proposed project, the costs would be further 19 reduced to $4,000 or less and the device would be 20 rigorously tested in comparison to other PM measurement 21 technologies in the Southern California super site 22 program. This is a rather straightforward project working 23 with a proven technology, so success appears likely. An 24 approved instrument should become available for measuring 25 ambient PM in neighborhoods as a result of this project. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 In particular the Energy Commission is interested in 2 deploying it in places where power plants may be 3 constructed. 4 --o0o-- 5 MR. VINCENT: The other recommended project would 6 be conducted at UC Berkeley and at the Lawrence Berkeley 7 National Lab who would make major advances in 8 miniaturizing PM electric resonator technology for 9 measuring PM mass and in coupling the mass measurement 10 with optical measurement of the combusted generation 11 fraction of the PM. 12 This project has the potential to produce a 13 sensitive, highly portable, and fairly inexpensive 14 instrument. However, considerable R&D must be 15 accomplished in the project proceeding the demonstration 16 phase. Therefore, we can't be sure that a 17 commercial-ready project will exist at the end of the 18 project. However, we are recommending this project 19 because of its potential for a major step toward the ideal 20 air monitoring instrument that I outlined in a previous 21 slide. 22 --o0o-- 23 MR. VINCENT: In summary then, we are proposing 24 two grants to promote the practical ability to measure 25 fine PM without high capital expenditures and without the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 need for laboratory analyses. The total commitment by 2 ICAT would be $435,000, of which half would come from the 3 Energy Commission. 4 That concludes the presentation. Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 6 Professor Friedman, Mr. McKinnon. 7 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I have a couple 8 questions, if I may. 9 What is our track record on these grants in terms 10 of its success, success rate, commercialization? 11 RESEARCH AND ECONOMICS STUDIES CHIEF COREY: We 12 have -- of all those businesses that are applicants that 13 received grants under ICAT, 15 have graduated from the 14 program. There's still some that are still in the 15 process. 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'm having a little 17 trouble hearing you. 18 RESEARCH AND ECONOMICS STUDIES CHIEF COREY: Of 19 the 15 graduates that have graduated from the program, 20 two-thirds of those have commercialized their product and 21 are, therefore, selling. 22 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: So about two-thirds 23 success rate. Who gets the patent or intellectual 24 property rights? 25 RESEARCH AND ECONOMICS STUDIES CHIEF COREY: PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 Generally, it's the applicant, ICAT, holds their 2 patents is generally the case. 3 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: If successfully 4 commercialized, is there any arrangement for the repayment 5 in the fund? 6 RESEARCH AND ECONOMICS STUDIES CHIEF COREY: No. 7 That has not been the case for any repayment. 8 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Is there any reason 9 that hasn't been considered? I mean, you know, if a 10 grantee is successful and it's commercialized and there -- 11 by that I mean saleable, and if it generates revenues at 12 some point, I'm wondering why we shouldn't be able to 13 replenish our fund. We enabled it. To the extent we did. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: If I could comment on that. 15 When I was down at South Coast running a similar program, 16 that question came up a number of times before the Board 17 because there are programs where you get reimbursement. 18 The conclusion after looking at it two or three times was 19 that this is a cost share program. This difficulty of 20 understanding when, in fact, these companies turn a profit 21 and the paperwork required to do that and the incentives 22 you need to get the technology, the conclusion we had at 23 South Coast was it was not worth the effort to do that and 24 it could be a deterrent. But it's a very valid question. 25 And I say I was on the receiving end similar to address PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 that issue. 2 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I assume South 3 Coast's decisions are not binding or precedent on our 4 Board. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Not today. 6 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I realize it is a 7 cost sharing, and I realize you need to incentivize. And 8 I realize except for writing a check and helping validate 9 the potential for success, the grantee is the one that's 10 carrying the laboring. It's their idea. And if it's 11 successful, they should get the lion's share. I'm not 12 talking about sharing in profit even. I'm just talking 13 about where it's appropriate, may be getting some funds -- 14 some of the money back so that we have it available to 15 incentivize future grants. I realize that's not a staff 16 responsibility, but I just raise it -- 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: It's a good question. 18 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: In these days of 19 budgetary constraints, I would like to see if any of my 20 colleagues share my thought that maybe we should look into 21 this. I'm not saying I wouldn't come out at the same 22 place South Coast did. I'd like the hear more. And this 23 isn't the time or place. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'm perfectly happy -- 25 Ms. Witherspoon. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Just very 2 briefly. 3 There is the overlay of the state budgetary 4 process so we could not receive the funds. They would go 5 back into the Air Pollution Control Fund or something of 6 that nature and then be appropriated to us through the 7 normal budgetary process. 8 That being said, we are looking at more cost 9 recovery through the fees that ARB applies to different 10 programs, creating fees where there are none. And we'll 11 certainly add this to the list of cost recovery items as 12 we go forward. 13 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 15 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. I just have a very 16 similar kind of comment that I did a minute ago. And that 17 is that, again, I want to compliment staff for 18 institutionalizing what I view are tools that will help 19 environmental justice. Affordable instruments that can 20 make it into the hands of various folks that are involved 21 in community programs is a noble task. 22 There's a whole other sort of policy end of that 23 we need to talk about and think through and what the use 24 of instruments mean, and I'm clear that that needs to 25 happen. But it really does matter that we take tangible PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 steps to get somewhere. And I view this as one of those 2 tangible steps. And I compliment you for getting there. 3 And frankly, it can be a commercially-viable 4 product that can be used in fire stations and, you know, 5 industrial plants. And I mean, there's a whole array of 6 commercial uses where you're on to something here. But 7 bottom line is, I view it as a tangible step for 8 environmental justice and I compliment you on that. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any comments? If everything 10 went perfectly and realizing -- when will these 11 instruments be ready to be put into use? 12 RESEARCH AND ECONOMICS STUDIES CHIEF COREY: The 13 grant periods for both projects run over two years. But 14 particularly for the VAM, USC instrument, we would expect 15 a modified instrument available at the end of the grant 16 period. For the Berkeley, I expect it would be a longer 17 time frame to refine and further develop that piece of 18 equipment. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. And with the 20 comments from Professor Friedman to explore getting some 21 enumeration on the expenditure there, if could entertain a 22 motion. 23 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'll favor it. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Second it? 25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'll second. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye. 2 (Ayes) 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: It's unanimous. Thank you 4 very much. 5 Next item on the agenda today is 03-4-5, public 6 meeting to consider amendments to ARB's ozone transport 7 mitigation regulations. 8 The California Clear Air Act gives ARB the 9 responsibility to assess transport between air districts 10 and establish mitigation requirements commensurate with 11 the relative contribution of emissions from up-wind 12 districts. The purpose of today's meeting is to revisit 13 the mitigation requirements that were first adopted in 14 1990. Staff is proposing amendments to this regulation in 15 response to the Board's direction to look for ways to 16 strength mitigation by up-wind districts. 17 This issue is timely in terms of air quality 18 planning requirements for both state and federal 19 standards. A number of districts are now preparing 20 federal ozone plans and triennial updates to state ozone 21 plans are due in December of this year. I see this 22 regulation as an important supporting element of these 23 plans. 24 Addressing transport continues to be challenging 25 both technically and from a public policy perspective. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 From a technical standpoint, we view our transport 2 assessments every three years and are working with 3 districts to more thoroughly consider transport and air 4 quality plans. From a policy standpoint, we need to 5 consider the impacts of our regulation on both upwind and 6 downwind districts. 7 While the issue of air pollution transport can be 8 divisive, I'm confident this Board will keep its focus on 9 the public health aspects of this issue. I know three of 10 our Board members -- Ms. D'Adamo, Supervisor Patrick, and 11 Supervisor DeSaulnier -- are stepping up to try to foster 12 interregional cooperation on issues like this. Again, I 13 greatly appreciate their efforts on a real tough issue. 14 And lastly, it's important to note that transport 15 mitigation is a statewide issue. Most urban areas in 16 California have been found to be both receptors and 17 sources of air pollutants. 18 And with that, I'd like to turn it over to 19 Ms. Witherspoon to introduce the item and begin staff 20 presentation. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 22 Chairman Lloyd. 23 The transport mitigation regulation is a 24 long-standing requirement and a fundamental aspect of the 25 California Clean Air Act. State law recognizes that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 actions to mitigate transport should be part of 2 California's efforts to meet air quality standards. The 3 primary compliance mechanism is through this Board's 4 regulation and the Board's review of district air quality 5 plans. 6 ARB overseas districts' plans to ensure 7 compliance with state and federal requirements, including 8 the transport mitigation regulation. Over the years we 9 have worked with districts to streamline and coordinate 10 the planning process to address both state and federal 11 requirements. As a practical matter, areas that are 12 nonattainment for state and federal ozone standards are 13 adopting local strategies to serve both purposes. The 14 more stringent state ozone standard comes into play as a 15 stand-alone requirement once areas attain the federal 16 standards. The same process would apply when federal 17 plans are required for the eight-hour ozone standard, 18 which is coming up after one hour. 19 Staff presentation will discuss the linkage 20 between this regulation and both the state and federal air 21 quality plans. With the large regional air quality 22 modeling studies now available, there is an opportunity 23 for upwind and downwind districts to coordinate more 24 closely on their attainment plans. Addressing transport 25 will be part of that process, and ARB staff is doing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 everything we can to support districts' efforts in this 2 regard. 3 Ms. Merrin Bueto of the Planning and Technical 4 Support Division will give the staff presentation. 5 MS. BUETO: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. Good 6 morning, Chairman Lloyd, and members of the Board. 7 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 8 presented as follows.) 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: The purpose of 10 this meeting is to present our proposed amendments to the 11 ozone transport mitigation regulations for the Board's 12 approval. As directed by the Board, we evaluated several 13 strategies aimed to strengthening the mitigation 14 requirements. Subsequently, through an extensive public 15 process, we have developed two of the strategies evaluated 16 into regulatory proposals. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: Before 19 discussing the proposed amendments, I would first like to 20 provide some background information about the role of 21 ozone transport and previous transport findings. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: The goal of the 24 California Clean Air Act is attainment of health-based air 25 quality standards. Ozone is one of our most persistent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 and serious air quality problems. The act specifically 2 recognizes that transport mitigations has a role in our 3 efforts to achieve the state ozone standard. Districts 4 have the responsibility to mitigate the impact of the 5 pollutants that they generate and transport to other 6 areas. 7 Under state law, the Board is required to 8 identify transport couples, assess the relative 9 contribution of upwind emissions on downwind ozone 10 concentrations and establish mitigation requirements for 11 districts. The Board first adopted transport mitigation 12 regulations in 1990 which were based on an analysis of 13 transport relationships between air districts. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: In 1990 the 16 Board identified transport couples consisting of an upwind 17 area which is the source of transported emissions and a 18 corresponding downwind area for the receptor. It is 19 important to note that air basins or subregions can be 20 both receptors and sources of transported emissions. 21 Stated law directs the board use three labels to 22 characterize the degree of transport. These labels are 23 overwhelming, significant, and inconsequential. 24 Overwhelming transport means that the upwind 25 area's emissions cause an ozone violation in the downwind PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 area. 2 Significant transport means that shared emissions 3 from the upwind and downwind areas cause the ozone 4 violation. 5 Inconsequential transport means that there is 6 little or no transport and the local emissions cause the 7 ozone violation. 8 The degree of transport is day specific. This 9 means that an area can have more than one label because 10 the impact can vary from one day to another, depending on 11 weather conditions. Because of this variation, the 1990 12 regulations established mitigation requirements for upwind 13 areas bound to have overwhelming impacts, significant 14 impacts or both. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: Now I will 17 discuss the two key provisions of the current mitigation 18 regulation. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: The first 21 provision is the overarching requirement for upwind 22 districts to include sufficient measures in their ozone 23 attainment plan to mitigate their impact on downwind 24 areas. This requirement anticipated modeled attainment 25 demonstrates for the state standard. However, in lieu of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 attainment demonstrations, districts are following the 2 all-feasible measures path established in the California 3 Clean Air Act. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: The second 6 provision is the application of best available retrofit 7 control technology to stationary sources in the upwind 8 district. The initial mitigation regulations were 9 designed to accelerate the application of BARCT to major 10 sources. Major sources were those that represented 75 11 percent of the 1987 actual reactive hydrocarbon and oxides 12 of nitrogen emissions inventory for permitted stationary 13 sources by January 1st, 1994. All upwind districts have 14 complied with the 75 percent requirement. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: The mitigation 17 regulations provide a mechanism for the exceptions to the 18 BARCT mitigation requirement. The current regulation 19 allows an upwind district to demonstrate that either there 20 is no need for the measure in the downwind area or that an 21 alternate approach is equally effective. This 22 demonstration must be included in the upwind district's 23 air quality plan and approved by this Board. This 24 provision acknowledges the need to take into account the 25 latest scientific information as it becomes available in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 the future. This provision has not been used by any 2 district to date. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: I will now 5 discuss our proposed amendments to the mitigation 6 regulations, including changes to our proposal since the 7 release of the staff report and the expected benefits of 8 our amendments to the existing regulations. 9 There are two primary changes that we are 10 proposing. These are to add a requirement that upwind 11 districts adopt all-feasible measures as expeditiously as 12 possible and to align new source review offset thresholds. 13 In addition, we are proposing to delete the BARCT deadline 14 already complied with and to add a mechanism to the 15 exception procedure to consider updated transport 16 assessments. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: I will first 19 begin with all-feasible measures. All-feasible measures 20 is now a core element of district clean air plans. Under 21 the act, an air district that is nonattainment for the 22 state ozone standard must develop and implement an 23 attainment plan that achieves 5 percent per year 24 reductions in emission of ozone and ozone precursors. 25 If a district is unable to achieve a 5 percent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 annual emission reduction, they can elect instead to adopt 2 all-feasible measures. 3 Since districts have not been able to achieve the 4 5 percent annual emission reduction target, they have been 5 including all-feasible measures as their primary 6 compliance path in their clean air act plans. The plans 7 are reviewed and updated every three years and sent to 8 this Board for approval. The next triennial updates are 9 due by the end of this year. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: Our proposal is 12 to formalize the review of all-feasible measures from a 13 transport perspective. Upwind districts in consultation 14 with downwind districts would determine whether or not 15 their attainment plan continues to include all-feasible 16 measures. This determination would be summarized in a 17 finding that would be subject to public review and 18 incorporated into the triennial plan review process. 19 The staff proposal is expected to enhance 20 district collaboration and to provide a mechanism for the 21 expeditious adoption of new technologies. We are also 22 proposing to extend the current exception procedure in the 23 regulation that limits BARCT to cover the all-feasible 24 measures mitigation requirement. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: Now I will 2 discuss our proposal for aligning new source review offset 3 thresholds. New source review is a program designed to 4 minimize and mitigate emissions of nonattainment 5 pollutants and their precursors from newly-constructed or 6 modified stationary sources. 7 The primary objective of the state new source 8 review program is to maintain air quality progress while 9 accommodating economic growth and expansion. New source 10 review has two requirements. The application of 11 state-of-the art emission controls, called best available 12 control technology, and to mitigate the remaining emission 13 so that there is a no-net increase in emissions. 14 Mitigation is typically accomplished by supplying emission 15 reduction credits or offsets. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: There are 18 currently several upwind areas that have less stringent 19 offset thresholds than their downwind neighbors. The 20 differences exist because under the Act offset thresholds 21 levels are established by an area's state ozone 22 classification. 23 As a side note, areas were classified as 24 moderate, serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment 25 areas based on established criteria in state law. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 In recognition of a shared responsibility among 2 transports couples, upwind districts need to take 3 comparable action to the extent that is reasonable. 4 Therefore, we propose that upwind districts had the same 5 offset thresholds as the downwind district, regardless of 6 an upwind district's ozone classification. 7 Our proposal would require the Bay Area Air 8 Quality Management District and the districts located in 9 the broader Sacramento area to lower their offset 10 thresholds. The districts would go from a 15 tons per 11 year offset threshold to a 10 tons per year offset 12 threshold by December 31st, 2004. 13 We are not proposing that districts upwind of the 14 South Coast be included in this provision because of South 15 Coast's classification of extreme under state law. There 16 is no offset threshold for an extreme area due to the 17 severity of its air quality problem. The unique status of 18 this downwind area make the applicability of this concept 19 inappropriate in this case. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: As mentioned 22 earlier, the current mitigation regulations contains a 23 requirement for the application of BARCT on major 24 permitted stationary sources by January 1st, 1994. Since 25 this requirement has been fully complied with, we propose PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 to delete this language from the regulations. However, no 2 changes are proposed to the existing overall requirement 3 for BARCT on remaining stationary sources. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: In addition, we 6 are also proposing to add an additional provision that 7 would allow a district to demonstrate its transport impact 8 is inconsequential. In this case, the upwind district 9 would be relieved of the requirement for BARCT and 10 all-feasible measures. This demonstration would have to 11 be included in this district's ozone attainment plan and 12 approved by this Board. This provision would not affect 13 any requirements that the district is subject to under 14 state or federal law. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: Now I would like 17 to briefly discuss the use of advanced modeling tools that 18 will improve our understanding of transport relationships 19 during selected ozone episodes. 20 The state implementation plans, or SIPS, now 21 under development are using ozone episodes that have a 22 transport component. These transport episodes will be 23 part of the attainment demonstrations being developed for 24 the SIPS. The large size of the modeling area as compared 25 to previous efforts is expected to allow us to better PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 evaluate the impact of overall control strategies in both 2 upwind and downwind areas. 3 The results from the Central California ozone 4 study and the Southern California ozone study modeling 5 results will also be used in our future transport 6 assessment efforts. Although the attainment 7 demonstrations are focused on the federal ozone standard, 8 it will improve our overall understanding of transport 9 relationships between districts. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: Since the 12 release of the staff report on April 4th, 2003, staff has 13 made several changes to the original proposal. The first 14 three changes are meant to further clarify our intent of 15 our original proposal. 16 The first change is to clarify that 17 cost-effectiveness is part of the economic factors that 18 upwind districts would consider when implementing the 19 all-feasible measures requirement. Cost-effectiveness of 20 potential measures is considered by air districts as part 21 of their ongoing implementation of the California Clean 22 Air Act and is specifically required by state law. 23 The second change is to clarify our intent that 24 districts apply all-feasible measures to all source 25 categories, not necessarily all sources within a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 particular category. 2 Finally, we have clarified the intent that the 3 exception procedure allows alternative analyses in that 4 these analyses include the best available scientific 5 information including air quality modeling. This was 6 implied in the exception procedure, but we want to 7 explicitly state it to acknowledge the use of advanced 8 modeling tools. 9 Due to district and industry concerns about the 10 annual review requirements that we initially proposed, we 11 have removed the annual review requirements. We are now 12 proposing to align the implementation of all-feasible 13 measures within triennial plans. This is expected to 14 conserve the districts and the Air Resources Board's 15 resources while accomplishing the same objective. 16 The review of all-feasible measures from a 17 transport perspective will now be incorporated into the 18 triennial review of district attainment plans. We have 19 also added several provisions to Section 70601(b) to 20 clarify that mitigation must be considered regardless of a 21 district's attainment status and to also clarify that 22 sufficient measures are commensurate with the level of 23 contribution as required by state law. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST BUETO: The Act PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 specifically requires that upwind districts' attainment 2 plans include at a minimum all mitigation requirements 3 established by the Board. Therefore, even as upwind 4 districts approach or attain the state ozone standard, 5 they would still need to comply with the transport 6 mitigation planning requirements. 7 The benefits of our proposal, including the 8 changes I mentioned, include timely adoption of new 9 emission reduction strategies to be reflected in state and 10 federal air quality plans, shared responsibility among 11 transport couples for mitigating transport emissions, 12 regardless of a district's attainment status, and improved 13 district collaboration. 14 In conclusion, our recommendation is for the 15 Board to approve the proposed amendments to the ozone 16 transport mitigation regulations, including changes 17 proposed today, and to direct the Executive Officer to 18 adopt them after considering further public comment. 19 That concludes today's presentation. Thank you, 20 Chairman Lloyd, and members of the Board. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 22 Questions or comments from my colleagues? 23 Ms. D'Adamo. 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I just would like to 25 really thank staff, in particular Lynn Terry, for all the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 work that they've done on this regulation. I know it's 2 been -- initially, anyway, it was pretty challenging. But 3 in the end I think that they put together a good solid 4 regulation, and I look forward to seeing the outcome. 5 Also want to thank my colleagues, Supervisor 6 Patrick and Supervisor DeSaulnier for working with us in 7 the valley on this. 8 I do have a question after what -- I'd like to 9 hear from the witnesses. But I'm curious if staff would 10 be comfortable with maybe strengthening the resolution as 11 far as future review. I understand that the next 12 triennial review is December of this year. Perhaps that 13 would be a little too soon to revisit additional changes, 14 but perhaps the review after that and subsequent ones to 15 actually require that staff as part of the review consider 16 changes -- in other words, mandating that deadline every 17 three years as opposed to what the resolution says, which 18 is as appropriate. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I had a concern why there was 20 a slippage from one year to three years on the annual 21 review. I understand staff's explanation, resources and 22 three years' as good as one. I don't quite buy that. But 23 I wonder is there any -- I presume this was changed 24 because of some push back from the local districts. 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It just gets to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 how much work you really do need to do to look over what 2 gaps there are in regulations. That information doesn't 3 change very fast. You do a thorough scouring to see if 4 there's a rule they're missing or if a district has higher 5 exception levels than another district and should consider 6 tightening up that rule. And if you've done your analysis 7 right, you've identified the targets, and then you can get 8 to the main job of actually changing the rules and making 9 them better. And you don't need to do an assessment the 10 very next year. You need to keep going on the rule-making 11 calendar. 12 It would be unusual for something totally new to 13 drop in, but that could happen. If someone came up with a 14 proposal, there's no reason they couldn't bring it to our 15 attention or to an upwind district's attention and ask 16 that it be considered sooner. But the sort of deep dive, 17 the scouring, the checking every single rule book 18 everywhere we would do every third year. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I presume the original staff 20 proposal had a basis why it did it annually and -- 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Not a strong 22 basis. As a desire to stay on top of it, we'll monitor -- 23 but we'll do that without going through the dive-type 24 process. We'll just keep track of what's happening. But 25 mostly the rule-making activity is what matters once you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 go where the gaps are. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But you will monitor that 3 very carefully? 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, we will. 5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Just as a side 6 note, districts under state law are required to provide to 7 us their annual rule-making calendars. So we do pay close 8 attention and try to use CAPCOA and various committees to 9 monitor new ideas for rule making. And CAPCOA has 10 committed, I think, to help work through identifying new 11 measures as a group. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Can I ask one more question? 13 When you talk about slide 19, what do you mean -- 14 can you give me an example when you "clarifying intent 15 that alternative analyses used best available scientific 16 information, including air quality modeling," can you give 17 me an example what you mean by that and why that change 18 was made? 19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Dr. Lloyd, that 20 concept has been in the reg for some time. And as we 21 know, the districts have not had the technical tools to 22 really pursue that possible approach. 23 But the bottom line is as we have better tools 24 and we can do a better job at looking at the impacts of 25 the combined strategies for both upwind and downwind PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 areas -- for example, there might be an appropriate 2 approach that focuses on one precursor as opposed to 3 another in some geographic parts of the broader domain 4 more or less NOx versus VOC control and various parts of 5 the domain and exercising the model to see what the 6 relative benefits of these different control strategies 7 are. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Which model? 9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Oh, the sea 10 coast model and the Southern California case model as 11 well. 12 But sea coast is truly the new tool and with a 13 broader domain this time around. This is really the first 14 time we see an opportunity for the possibility of really a 15 more refined analysis of the both upwind and downwind 16 strategies in combination. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So it's the best available 18 scientific information putting into the models. So we're 19 not playing sort of shopping around for the model that 20 gives you the most favorable results? 21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: That's right. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You actually fix a model and 23 then look at more data with that. 24 Sorry, I ignored Ms. D'Adamo. 25 Were you finished, Professor Friedman? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I just had a 2 question. This just deals with ozone. 3 But do we have anything on the drawing board that 4 would address similarly the transport problems with PM? 5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Yes. In fact, 6 in the Board's resolution we do make a recommendation 7 about continuing to work to improve our tools on ozone and 8 to incorporate particulate pollution in that technical 9 work as well. There's not a specific requirement in state 10 law for the Board to establish mitigation requirements. 11 But we don't feel that should hold us back from doing the 12 technical work and pursuing those strategies. 13 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Would we have the 14 authority without further legislative action to do 15 something about it if -- when the time comes? 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We could 17 certainly recommend mitigation strategies to enforce them. 18 We would need more authority. There are particulate 19 matter bills in the legislature this year. There will be 20 probably every year for the next ten. I could imagine 21 this being an innovation that someone wishes to purview in 22 the pretty near future. But it will depend entirely on 23 technical tools that allow us to assess what that 24 transport is and they are in their infancy. We're much 25 farther behind than we are on ozone. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Will ours get the 2 same cabal as colleagues -- 3 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: You're looking this way. 4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: -- be involved so 5 excellently on our behalf and in that further inquiry? 6 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: We'll be happy to do it. 7 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'm just asking. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Maybe I should just share 9 when some of the other Board members about a week ago we 10 had a meeting with staff and Supervisor Patrick, 11 Supervisor DeSaulnier about maybe improving communication 12 between the -- specifically the Bay Area, Sacramento, and 13 San Joaquin. And we're going to be proposing that we meet 14 with some of the various air districts in an effort to 15 improve communication and maybe come up with some 16 additional strategies. So I think that suggestion -- it 17 would be appropriate for us to discuss that in one of the 18 meetings. 19 The other thing that I perhaps should suggest is, 20 Dr. Lloyd, if you're concerned about the triennial versus 21 annual review, maybe we could specifically include that in 22 the list of issues that staff could review and report back 23 as to how that process has worked. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Supervisor DeSaulnier. 25 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I'm trying to think of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 the word for member of a cabal. What would that be? 2 Cabali? 3 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Cabalist. 4 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: This is the left-wing 5 cabal down here so we're reaching out to our right-wing 6 colleague on the far side. But it's a question of 7 perspective. From the audience we're the left wing. I 8 can definitely -- at the last Board meeting we were 9 considered the left. 10 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: It's not a 11 pejorative, you know. 12 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: The tieareny of the 13 majority we're suffering under down here. 14 But I do appreciate -- the meeting was I think a 15 good first step. Although we've made a couple of steps at 16 least trying to get the discussion going. I think 17 communication probably is the most important thing for the 18 northern end of the valley and the Bay Area specifically. 19 So it was very exciting to be in D.D.'s office. 20 They didn't charge for potato chips in D.D.'s 21 office. 22 I wanted to ask staff a question about -- 23 speaking of something that's difficult. But I think it's 24 important and will be important about our future 25 discussions. I realize our hesitancy to get involved in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 this field, but I think it's inevitable. I wonder about 2 the perspective, and it goes to some comments that Norm 3 Covell has in his letter, and I want to speak first -- 4 this is about transportation, land use mitigation. 5 On page 65 of our total report, it's page 19 of 6 the proposed amendments, you talk about transportation, 7 land use mitigation. And I know from a transportation 8 standpoint, transportation planners are also extremely 9 reluctant to get involved in land uses. But at the end of 10 the two paragraphs, we talk about "ARB does not have 11 direct authority over local transportation and land use 12 planning agencies and is not proper agency to direct such 13 activities." And then you end the comments, "Therefore, 14 it's not appropriate to include -- what state agency would 15 it be? Is it HCD? I've always been anxious to ask 16 somebody in Sacramento, who's in charge of land use in 17 this state? 18 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL KRINSK: The Governor's 19 Office of Planning and Research. The Governor's Office of 20 Planning and Research works with local counties and cities 21 to help them develop their general plans and their zoning 22 ordinances and include components that are necessary to 23 comply. 24 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I'm aware of that, and 25 I'm being a little a little bit flippant here. We can PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 have this discussion further. And, Catherine, we talked 2 about this at our meeting. 3 But in order for these discussions to be 4 successful -- and I appreciate the fact CAPCOA has 5 mentioned this and Norm has. And maybe this definitely 6 isn't the appropriate place. I'm not trying to put it 7 here. But when we -- in terms of direction I think it's 8 important for us not to occupy the field, but from a 9 public health standpoint at some point there is an 10 appropriate, more -- aggressive is not the right word -- 11 but more involved area for air districts and for ARB would 12 be the logical place, maybe to work the Governor's Office, 13 HCD, and other -- CalTrans transportation people. 14 Because, for instance, in terms of the public 15 health issues between us and the valley, just for the 16 Altamont Pass, there are 50,000 peak commute interregional 17 commute trips coming into the Bay Area from the valley. 18 Now, in the Bay Area the argument is, "You shouldn't be 19 building houses out there. You should be either providing 20 for more jobs or those people should live in here." The 21 valley's response is, "You're forcing us to provide for 22 your affordable housing," which both perspectives are 23 true. 24 But from a public health standpoint at the air 25 district, we've just done sort of a back of the envelope PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 modeling of those trips. And we think it contributes up 2 to two tons a day just for Alameda County. We haven't 3 gotten to the rest of the Bay Area, because most of the 4 trips are going to Silicon Valley and another large 5 portion's going into the financial district in 6 San Francisco. 7 In terms of our struggles with all the arguments 8 we do about improved technology, Mr. Chairman, and all the 9 great work this agency has done at least in the Bay Area 10 and the northern part of the valley in Sacramento trying 11 to keep up with VMT is very difficult to do. 12 So while I'm understanding of not wanting for us 13 to get too involved, I think we're being a little bit 14 tepid about at least being the voice of public health when 15 it comes to air quality and not being in denial about the 16 fact that there is a connection. And we should I think 17 both in terms of our mandate but also morally and 18 ethically step up and say we should start trying to 19 convene at least discussions about going beyond, you know, 20 what an air district responds to in terms of their 21 response in an EIR for local planning decisions. 22 But most planning agencies other than providing 23 fodder for potential lawsuits, at least in my 24 perspective -- and, granted, this is a cynical local 25 politician's perspective -- the Planning Department sort PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 of goes through the motions in responding to those things. 2 So I just see this as an opportunity. I don't 3 think we're going to be able to solve our problems on 4 transport between the Bay Area and our downwind neighbors 5 just in terms of smog check and stationary source equity. 6 I think at some point we have to talk about BMP and 7 regional trips. 8 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL KRINSK: I can address that 9 legally more. In 1990 this Board adopted this guidance 10 for implementing the California Clean Air Act. That's 11 guidance and the development of indirect source control 12 programs and the authority set forth in the Health and 13 Safety Code is rather voluminous allowing the districts to 14 regulate indirect sources. In fact, there are sections 15 which discuss the development of the nonattainment plans 16 for the districts, moderate district, serious districts, 17 and extreme districts are supposed to have included in 18 their 1991 plans measures to develop and adopt indirect 19 source and area control strategies. And this Board wanted 20 them to be fully implemented by 1994. 21 I think there was some confusion about the 22 overlap of authority with local land use agencies because 23 the Health and Safety Code also provides that the 24 authority given to the districts is not -- does not 25 constitute an infringement on the authority of local land PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 use agencies to plan and control land use. 2 But case law makes it clear that the role of land 3 use agencies is to determine through zoning and general 4 planning where certain types of development and facilities 5 may be constructed. But it's the authority within the 6 authority of the regulatory agencies to impose conditions 7 and requirements on those facilities to ensure that they 8 comply with all regulatory requirements. So state law not 9 only provides the districts with the authority, but it 10 also requires that they focus special attention on 11 transportation area wide and indirect sources. 12 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I guess -- and I 13 appreciate that information. In terms of follow-up on 14 that guideline, has the Board done that for looking over 15 the districts to see -- 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Didn't we take ten years to 17 find out -- 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I'd like to give 19 a broader -- 20 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: The second part of the 21 question is specific to the districts. But then what I'm 22 talking about is interregional consequences where you've 23 got different districts doing different things. 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: In the late '80s 25 and 1990s the Air Resources Board adopted a whole suite of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 guidance documents addressing this issue of area. We 2 talked about transportation and pedestrian oriented 3 development. We talked increasing the use of transit. We 4 put out research on the effect of pricing strategies on 5 bridges and elsewhere that might affect driving pattern. 6 We had ride sharing rules. We had indirect source rules 7 which Ms. Krinsk was just referring to. We talked about 8 model air quality elements and general plans. 9 And there was a time, a hay day, if you will, 10 where transportation agencies swept behind us and said 11 "This is the way to get what we want done. Air law is 12 more powerful than transportation law or policies. We're 13 going to ride your horse to solve our congestion 14 problems." So we all went down that road together, and we 15 encountered formidable resistance, I would say, and a 16 backlash and a recession that came along in the early '90s 17 too. 18 And what began to happen is the Legislature 19 peeled some of these authorities away. They tried to 20 strip them entirely from the South Coast Air Quality 21 Management District which was out front on indirect source 22 review. They peeled back ride sharing quite a bit. And 23 people began to pursue other pathways. 24 It's -- at any point we can resurrect these 25 policies, these guidance documents. All the research is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 still valid. The arena where a lot of the activity is 2 going on right now is in Washington in the reauthorization 3 of the transportation bill -- was it ISTEA 21 -- and how 4 dollars flow and the extent to which they're set aside 5 for congestion mitigation and air quality projects. SEMAC 6 is losing ground as compared to your standard highway 7 construction projects. And so that will be a big battle. 8 And conformity is loosening which is also a driver that 9 causes transportation and land use agencies to be more 10 responsive. Because if they don't, everything freezes, 11 and we can't move forward and achieve our goals. 12 So it's a challenge, but we do have the technical 13 information. We have the legal authority to pursue them. 14 But we also have societal and economic constraints around 15 us in terms of people's taste for some of the strategies, 16 especially the behavioral change orientation we had in the 17 early 90's about moving people out of personal occupant 18 vehicles and -- single occupant vehicles into some other 19 modes of transportation. 20 I think the work you've been doing on smart 21 corridors and intelligent planning and multi-modal 22 activities might be our next hurrah, a place where we can 23 seize public imagination again, have cooperation from 24 transportation agencies again, and join shoulder to 25 shoulder and maybe hold on to the flow of SEMAC dollars PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 which animates all of this. So that's the big picture on 2 what I think the nature of the problem is. 3 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I appreciate that. And I 4 will let go of this for a moment. 5 But I do think just to someone who's been in 6 local government for 14 years and just sitting here trying 7 to think of how many residential units I've been a party 8 to approving, it doesn't work. It's nobody's fault here. 9 And I'm just -- in terms of this issue and transport 10 specifically to the Bay Area and our downwind neighbors, 11 it's a big part of the problem. So we're never going to 12 solve the transport problem without some kind of 13 discussion. And where the appropriate place for us to be 14 both politically and legally and from a public health 15 standpoint, I don't know. But I think it deserves some 16 further discussion as we look at a triennial review. 17 Somewhere in there -- and maybe it will come out of our 18 discussions. 19 But I don't know what the answer is, but I do 20 know that it's not working and that I would -- as somebody 21 who's very proud of being on this Board, I would be 22 disappointed if we were way behind the curve in not sort 23 of setting our moral tone that there is a public health 24 issue here and that's not a bureaucratic paper exercise 25 which I think is what a lot of local land use planners see PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 it as. It's something seriously of much greater 2 importance. I'm not interested in doing Soviet style 3 planning from above on how communities should be built 4 because that didn't work either. 5 But -- sorry to be so long-winded, but I've put a 6 lot of time into this thing. And the specific thing I 7 just end with those 50,000 trips through the Altamont are 8 projected to increase to 150,000 trips in the next 9 20 years. And the public health issue is not going to go 10 away. 11 So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Were you implying, by the 13 way, that the Supervisor's district is the only one that 14 has intelligent planning in the state or -- 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The most 16 intelligent planning. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon and -- 18 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: You apparently haven't 19 driven through my district. 20 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. Another comment 21 from the audience's left cabal, here. 22 In working through the EJ agenda, sort of the 23 place we keep coming to is land use planning. And 24 clearly, there are some areas of land use planning that 25 just plain should be no-brainers, like locating a school PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 facility next to a freeway or you know there's some 2 really, really no-brainer kinds of things that somehow 3 don't get addressed. 4 So I sort of -- I want to kind of ditto that we 5 need to think through the land use question. And I'm 6 clear there's other state agencies that need to think 7 through it, probably the state legislature. You know, 8 every once in a while there's a proposal for 9 regionalization and different ideas. But even if it's 10 difficult, we have to figure out sort of what our tools 11 are to push and what our tools are to pull. And we used 12 to have sort of the pull tool which was to ask local 13 elected officials to come up and meet with us and get, you 14 know, educated on some of the issues and you know maybe we 15 need to do some of that, and maybe we need some push 16 tools. 17 And I'm not as comfortable that we simply have 18 the legal authority because I've watched lots of CEQA 19 processes do all sorts of interesting things. So what I'm 20 wondering is if maybe we could have sort of some time set 21 aside at one of our meetings to just have sort of a 22 discussion about what this Board does with respect to land 23 use planning. 24 Lucky you, staff, so -- 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I will certainly second that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Let's have that on the 2 schedule in either Fresno or Modesto. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Fresno's next month. Ms. 4 D'Adamo. 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I appreciate your 6 comments, Matt, because that's what I was going to 7 suggest, something along the lines of we all know just 8 what feels right and what doesn't feel right. And the 9 existing system as you drive up and down the valley and 10 throughout the state just doesn't feel right. 11 But then getting to the next step of what can we 12 do about it? I'd like to know beyond the legal 13 authority -- maybe if we could get a presentation from 14 staff about the guidance documents and taking us into more 15 recent history because I know there's a lot of talk in the 16 valley about this very issue which is something that you 17 wouldn't have heard years ago. 18 So I know the local district there is looking at 19 some of the tools, if you will, and perhaps looking at 20 what South Coast is considering as far as their tools 21 would be helpful. I think that we can use that group that 22 we are in the process of forming to provide the 23 information to some of the districts that we're meeting 24 with and maybe give that a dry run and see if we can get 25 some traction. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I agree. And I also wonder 2 if OPR is responsible if we could invite -- 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Can we have our 4 meeting alone first and then bring in the outside parties. 5 I think we'll do a better job of walking you through the 6 air quality assessment of land use strategies and 7 transportation choices. And then we can integrate to how 8 do we take this new information. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I was looking for to 10 tattletale what we're doing. 11 Comments from anybody? 12 I jumped over the Ombudsman. I'm sorry. So with 13 that I'd like to ask our Ombudsman would you please 14 describe the public participation process that occurred 15 while this item was being developed and share any concerns 16 or other comments you may have with the Board at this time 17 before I call the first witness. 18 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 19 members of the Board. 20 At its July 26th, 2001, meeting, the Board, as 21 you know, directed staff to develop amendments to the 22 transport mitigation regulations. Since that time, staff 23 has worked very closely with the California Air Pollution 24 Control Officers Association and individual air pollution 25 control districts in developing the proposed regulation in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 front of you today for your consideration. 2 Staff has continued to meet monthly with these 3 organizations in an ongoing effort to receive district 4 input. They held three workshops in Sacramento with over 5 100 total participants. Approximately 1250 people 6 including the air pollution control districts and 7 interested stakeholders received the workshop notices. In 8 addition, staff has developed an e-mail list serve and 9 transportation home page. There are currently 85 10 subscribers to the list serve. 11 Thank you. That concludes my remarks. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. In 13 calling up the first witness -- first three witnesses, 14 Doug Quetin from CAPCOA, Tom Addison, Larry Green. Again, 15 staff must be doing something well. I noticed here that 16 both CCEEB and CAPCOA are in favor, so I congratulate 17 staff here. 18 MR. QUETIN: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd, and 19 members of the Board and staff. 20 Your staff has done very well on this regulation. 21 CAPCOA has adopted a position of support with some 22 qualifications. Essentially, we'd like the regulation and 23 the effort to go further. Specifically, we believe that 24 ARB should undertake efforts to define the transport 25 relationships for particulate matter as well as ozone. We PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 think that a statewide working group should be convened of 2 all of the members of districts that are affected by 3 transport, and this group would be advisory to the ARB. 4 We think that ARB should undertake research that 5 will identify tools needed to quantify transport of both 6 ozone and particulate matter. 7 And lastly on this regulation, we think that ARB 8 should make every effort to set transport mitigation 9 requirements for upwind districts in the form of tons per 10 day. 11 In establishing those targets, ARB should 12 recognize that mitigation is a shared responsibility among 13 local, state, and federally-controlled sources, and 14 emission reductions must be equitable obtained among 15 responsible air agencies, sort of getting to the idea of 16 it's not just achieved through regulation but a more 17 holistic way. 18 If I may just take a moment and inform the Board 19 of a highly related but not specifically germane effort 20 the CAPCOA is undertaking. And it's to -- sort of 21 reflects the worry that air pollution control officers 22 have that the fallout among air districts related to 23 transport is fracturing the -- and can fracture the air 24 pollution control program. We're very worried about 25 spending large of amounts of resources and effort for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 perhaps not much return. And if we turn to the courts or 2 the legislature for the answer, it's a very uncertain 3 result at best. 4 So in December CAPCOA set a goal to do what we 5 could to achieve consensus among air districts as to what 6 should be done with relation to air pollution transport. 7 We've been working to do that earnestly. We've hired 8 contractors, and we've had about three meetings now. And 9 I think we can achieve a fair amount. We have next week 10 probably sort of a -- we're going to be looking at a mock 11 up regulatory proposal. 12 So we're just at a point now where we're getting 13 into the difficult things. We've said all the nice things 14 to each other, which is a not a small matter as many of 15 you know. But now we're getting into the heart of it. 16 And the design we foresee, although it can take several 17 paths, but the air pollution control officers would by 18 consensus agree to pursue certain paths, agree to certain 19 commitments. We would, as air district officials, also 20 have our Boards agree to whatever that product might be. 21 Could be an MOU, could be just a total consensus document. 22 And then we would work with the Air Resources Board, who 23 has the authority and the responsibility to deal with this 24 in achieving those goals. 25 So that's what we're about, in addition to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 working with Catherine and her staff on what they're 2 doing. So we hope for the best. And so far, so good. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Does staff have any comment 5 on the latter? Do you have any reaction to the latter 6 point that Doug was talking about, the consensus? 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I think it's 8 fantastic. I was wondering if Doug had any comment on the 9 dialogue we were having on the transportation and land 10 use. 11 MR. QUETIN: We've talked about that a good deal. 12 It's covered in our comments on sort of sharing the 13 responsibility equitably. As to how that's recognized, I 14 also come from the history you spoke of where we had our 15 hands very severely slapped in that area. So it makes me 16 a little nervous to talk about land use. We need to, 17 certainly. I know there are two districts here that also 18 want to discuss that issue as well. So we're very 19 concerned. The devil is in the details, though. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I notice you're not bashful 21 in identifying where the ARB should be spending some 22 resource and money. Are you willing to share some of that 23 burden with us, particularly as we look at some of the 24 suggestions on research? 25 MR. QUETIN: Certainly. We're doing that now. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 We've hired two contractors, Mel Zelden and Peter 2 Greenwald, to help us out in this area. We're spending 3 certainly huge resources among the air districts to solve 4 this, primarily because we're extremely concerned about 5 the whole problem. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I was talking about the 7 research tools, given the fact we have limited dollars 8 there. Do you have any dollars that you could help out in 9 some of the areas? 10 MR. QUETIN: Not earmarked, but I'd be anxious to 11 talk to your staff about what that would mean. I think we 12 can get there. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks. 14 Ms. Riordan. 15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'm very pleased that 16 CAPCOA has taken this on because I think in the -- 17 sometimes certain districts and relationships between 18 certain districts upwind, downwind become somewhat 19 contentious at times. But with CAPCOA as an overall 20 arching discussion group, maybe sensibilities can, you 21 know, rise to the top and prevail. And I'm really pleased 22 with what you're doing. 23 And I very much like to be kept abreast of your 24 efforts and what you're doing, not only, you know -- I'm 25 sure you're communicating with our staff. But I'd like to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 be sure that we all know how this is going along. And it 2 would parallel, I think, probably what the Bay Area and 3 the San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento are doing, but 4 certainly those of us who are in Southern California would 5 be very interested in helping -- or understanding what it 6 is that is coming out of your efforts. And I see this as 7 a real positive. And I thank you for doing that. Because 8 it's not easy to do, I know. 9 MR. QUETIN: As Supervisor DeSaulnier mentioned, 10 communication is very key. And in interviewing various 11 air districts, especially in Northern California, we 12 certainly learned that. And we, oddly enough, are 13 learning a lot. I thought we knew the air pollution of 14 the world fairly well. But in looking at data and in 15 comparing air pollution trends, trends of reductions of 16 air pollutants and so forth, we're learning a lot. And 17 there's some myths that are being dispelled and so forth. 18 It -- so it's been useful. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo and Supervisor 20 Patrick. 21 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Ms. Riordan said exactly 22 what I was planning on saying. I just want to compliment 23 you and look forward to hearing about the progress. Thank 24 you. 25 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 I just wanted to indicate as well as your efforts 2 are going to dovetail nicely with the efforts that we're 3 having in talking to the policy makers, the Board members, 4 and so forth. And you're doing this at the staff level, 5 and we really appreciate it. I think the best thing that 6 you said is that our best hope is to work on this 7 together, rather than having the courts or the legislature 8 decide for us how this is going to come down. So it 9 sounds as though everybody is realizing that we need to 10 cooperate and work together on this for our own mutual 11 benefits. So we're grateful that you are taking this on. 12 MR. QUETIN: Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Thank you very 14 much, Doug. Appreciate it. Look forward to being kept 15 informed of the progress. Tom Addison, Larry Green, 16 Brigette Tollstrup, Cindy Tuck. 17 MR. ADDISON: Good morning, Chair and members. 18 My name is Tom Addison. I'm with the Bay Area 19 Air Quality Management District. And I'm happy to be here 20 today to speak in support of the staff proposal, both, you 21 know, the released version as well as the changes that you 22 heard about earlier this morning. 23 I'd like to say this, the Bay Area Air District, 24 both our Board and staff recognize that we've got a 25 responsibility to mitigate transported emissions from the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 Bay Area. We think this is a sound proposal before you 2 today. 3 That being said, there are a couple of additional 4 remarks, some of them not so dissimilar to what you heard 5 from Doug speaking on behalf of CAPCOA. I guess maybe the 6 most important thing that we see in this staff proposal is 7 the reliance on science to figure out what's actually 8 happening with transport. We see that as a very positive 9 thing because I think for some time to some extent, not on 10 the part of people who are necessarily very involved in 11 it, but often I think externally the -- there are some 12 myths and political rhetoric that are not always being 13 corroborated by the science. We like that about the 14 proposal. We think the use of good scientific tools to 15 figure out transport is the right way to go, the right 16 thing to do. This proposal does that. 17 On the issue of PM, that's been talked about at 18 length. I'm actually coming here this morning from a 19 legislative hearing at the capital on the big PM bill this 20 year. My agency entity, CAPCOA, support adding through 21 that bill PM into the transport provisions of the 22 California Clean Air Act. We think that makes sense. We 23 think that makes sense from strictly a public health 24 perspective. We encourage the support of ARB on that 25 effort. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 If you think that legislatively today you don't 2 have the authority to look at PM and transport, there is 3 literally efforts under way to add PM into the transport 4 provisions. We think that makes a lot of sense. We 5 encourage you to think about that, consider that, and work 6 together with us on that. 7 Another thought is that there are a lot of 8 sources that contribute to our emissions statewide, and 9 those emissions are, of course, what are being transported 10 back and forth. Certainly at the local district level we 11 want to do what we can to mitigate transport of stationary 12 sources, the part of the inventory that we've got control 13 over. 14 We are looking forward to working together to 15 reduce emissions from the part of the inventory that's 16 controlled on ARB. That certainly is important not just 17 for the big picture of reducing emissions. It's also 18 important for transport. And there is to some extent a 19 limit to what we can do based on our share of the 20 inventory and what sources we've got under our control. 21 You know, our perspective on the land use stuff 22 is certainly tainted by the problematic experiences that 23 we all faced in the cut of 91/92 as my memory in the 24 legislature, to put it delicately, was troubled by a 25 number of the plans that local district were working on. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 But there's absolutely no way for us to deal with 2 transport emissions unless we start looking at land use. 3 You know, I think Supervisor DeSaulnier has got that right 4 on. It's something we all need to think about, both at 5 the local district level and at the ARB level as well. 6 So that concludes my remarks. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Tom. Do 8 you have any comments or questions? 9 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 10 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Thank you for those 11 comments. We'll look at your wage status being raised 12 when you compliment a Board member like that. 13 (Laughter) 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks very much. Larry 15 Green. 16 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Tom has a new nickname 17 after his last hearing up here. Rambo, we call him. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think it's very 19 appropriate, the comments that we're hearing on 20 particulates, given the increasing evidence on health 21 effects. But it's also a tough issues because you've 22 obviously got the fugitive as well as the anthropogenic 23 issues. So it's a tough issue. 24 The other part of that, I think as the Board will 25 recollect, in the last year sometime we had presentation PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 in terms of long-range transport. So we're dealing with a 2 case where in some cases the background of pollutants, 3 ozones, and is going up, which makes the job even tougher 4 but yet equally as important. 5 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 6 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Since you offered the 7 opportunity, I think what Tom said from our perspective is 8 the science -- and we'll talk about this a little bit 9 later. But the science goes for PM too. We're not trying 10 to be political about it. We want to study the effects 11 and we want good science. So I don't want my colleagues 12 and people downwind to think we're going to bring up PM as 13 a tit for tat on this stuff. That's not the issue. The 14 issue is let's use good science and work on both of them 15 for public health. And I think staff's got a really good 16 model here that we can build on for PM. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I will say on the modeling I 18 had the pleasure of two briefings on different aspects of 19 modeling. And I must say I was really proud to see the 20 presentation of the staff and the great work they're doing 21 on some really cutting edge modeling tools that I think 22 will be a big help. So they're doing great work, 23 challenging the grade. 24 Larry, sorry. 25 MR. GREENE: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 members of the Board and staff. I'm Larry Green. I'm the 2 Air Pollution Control Officer at the Yolo Solano Air 3 Quality Management District, President-elect of CAPCOA. 4 And I come in support of this regulation. I think this 5 has been a good effort. 6 Two of my three comments have already been taken 7 care of by the staff in their small changes that they made 8 to the regulation this morning. 9 The third comment I was going to make falls 10 directly in line with what Supervisor DeSaulnier brought 11 up. Sort of amazing. I think he saw my notes here 12 because that is the area my Board members are talking to 13 me about. It's not an area people are afraid to talk 14 about. My Board members and elected officials in Solano 15 County are asking me why we aren't being more aggressive 16 in looking at these areas. They're asking me that at my 17 meetings. 18 The reason for that, we sit between Sacramento 19 and the Bay Area. We're the last -- largely rural. The 20 development has been kept in the cities. And they see a 21 tremendous pressure from both areas for those rural areas 22 to be developed, and they'd like to see changes in our two 23 counties be done in a logical rational manner which leads 24 us to land use planning, good transportation management. 25 They want us to be engaged. They're engaged. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 They sit on my Board. They sit on the SICOG Board. They 2 sit on other areas. So we have this cross leveling of 3 members in our Air District Board, which is very good. 4 And they're taking what they're learning in the air 5 districts and applying that in other areas. So we have a 6 cross leveling of our Board members. And it's been very 7 helpful in SACOG as we worked on the SECAT and CEQA when 8 we make strong comments, reports come back to them. They 9 say, yeah, we agree with that. So that helps us a lot 10 from the air district point of view. 11 By default we are the agency that people come and 12 ask about this. I mean, who doesn't -- well, I don't know 13 about you guys, particularly. We're the ones that get 14 asked the questions when there's a dairy coming in or a 15 new facility or they want us to talk about a multimodel 16 facility, they want the air district there. They want our 17 comments. And our comments are important to the agencies 18 that are doing this development. 19 So I make -- I have four suggestions that we can 20 use here in not just this -- I think this regulation could 21 say a little more about that or a little more directive of 22 air districts to do, things other than stationary sources. 23 That's a comment we made throughout this process. It's 24 not a huge issue, but I make that in the context of the 25 larger thing. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 We should be looking at better evaluation tools. 2 We need those tools at the local level for both us and the 3 land use planners and the developers to use to find out 4 what the impacts of these facilities are. In that regard, 5 Chairman Lloyd mentioned, are you going help us? URBEMIS 6 is one area that we did. We put $60,000 of -- ten 7 districts got together because the model was not -- ARB 8 developed that model years ago. It needed to be updated 9 to be useful. We got together. We got a contractor. Ten 10 districts put money into the process. And we have got now 11 an updated URBEMIS model that's useful. We coordinated 12 with your staff, but we paid the bill for that. And we're 13 meeting to do -- to develop a process long-range so that 14 that will now be kept as an updated over time. We're 15 going to fund that particular effort. That's an area, the 16 kind of thing we're doing to support the bigger picture. 17 The other three things are to exchange and 18 disseminate best practices. There's a lot of great ideas 19 across the state that are going on, a lot of effort to 20 cross level information. I think that's something that 21 the Air Resources Board could be doing with the district 22 with CAPCOA. We could work corroboratively to foster that 23 process. We may be already be doing at the local levels 24 and not know it. But that's something that comes to mind. 25 The next thing is to improve and clarify the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 authority that air districts have and that the ARB has to 2 get into the land use area. You've already spoken to that 3 in your request to staff to come back and talk about that. 4 And the fourth thing is the Clean Air Plan. 5 We've made comments asking for specific elements of the 6 Clean Air Plan that we have developed and are developing 7 that address land use planning, tools, and other things. 8 I realize it's expensive, and there's not a huge of amount 9 of staff that can be used in that area. But there's 10 things that can be done that are supportive of that 11 effort. 12 And that's everything I have. I commend staff 13 for their work today, but I particularly commend the Board 14 for their comments in this area because I, as an Air 15 Pollution Control Officer, think very strongly that's 16 where we really have to be better. When we build a 17 community, it's there for a 100 years. If we do it badly, 18 the bad planning is there, the extra air pollution is 19 there for all this time too. We need to do that better. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Larry. And thanks 21 for the help on URBEMIS. That's great. Good information. 22 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 23 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Larry, I just have to 24 avail myself to this opportunity since you're here. I 25 appreciate all your comments and the work you've done. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 What would be really helpful, I think if -- I'd 2 like your response to this as much as you feel comfortable 3 giving it. As we have this period where we're going to 4 have these discussions between the Bay Area and you and 5 the other two districts, what troubles us and makes it 6 more difficult is this -- this is in the area of 7 communication and honesty and trust that we have to 8 develop -- I sort of have gone along with and said we 9 should do smog check too, our stationary source control 10 should be as stringent or more, I believe, in the 11 responsibilities of upwind neighbors. 12 But it's undermined -- and it goes to the 13 discussion about science versus politics. I hear rumors 14 all the time. For instance, I'm hearing a rumor now that 15 you and another downwind district has got a lobbyist in DC 16 approaching members of your Congressional delegation to 17 put pressure on EPA to -- either on the transport issue at 18 Region 9 to as we try to get redesignated hopefully we 19 have a fourth clean summer in the Bay Area, and that 20 causes problems, obviously, for myself and my colleagues. 21 To be honest, it causes problems more for me because they 22 look at me and say, "Well, you told us it would be all 23 right to trust these people." 24 And then the other rumor we hear is the idea of 25 changing the boundaries of the district, either a super PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 district that the Bay Area would be -- or you would be 2 absorbed into the Bay Area or for planning purposes. And 3 it just doesn't help. And maybe if we just had a time out 4 on those types of things for six months or a year as we 5 have these discussions because it would be really helpful. 6 And I wonder if you can just respond to that. These may 7 be just rumors, by the way. 8 MR. GREENE: Certainly, if I can remember these 9 things. I agree with you communication is important. For 10 example, there was a letter that came from our area that 11 wasn't coordinated very well that spoke to some of these 12 things. It caused a lot of problems. And I think the 13 CAPCOA process and Doug's efforts to look at that issue 14 came out of that. 15 I think there was some significant work done 16 between the last Board meeting and this Board meeting, but 17 the two before that, I think it was some significant work 18 done to help that communication and get commitment from 19 people to be supportive. 20 The issue of the 8-hour standard is a difficult 21 area. I think people have made public comments in that 22 direction. 23 The super district ideas, that was misconstrued 24 in that process. Nobody ever had an interest in doing 25 that, obviously. My personal feeling is, coming from a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 small district, as you get larger you get less efficient. 2 And the comment of -- I think we need to consider 3 transport. We need to consider those things. We need to 4 work together, which is what we're doing here in this 5 regulation. But bigger is not necessarily better. 6 Regarding the lobbyist in Washington, we have a 7 capital to capital trip that goes back ever year from the 8 Sacramento area, 250-plus elected officials and other 9 folks. It was not an official position, I don't think, to 10 go back and make any comments in that regard. However, 11 when we have 100 elected officials along, people make 12 meetings and do other things. 13 I heard from Tom this morning there was a 14 discussion with one of the representatives back there 15 and -- along those lines. Very well may have been. I 16 wasn't aware of that, and I will tell you that I certainly 17 can't control 100, you know, elected officials that go 18 back and set up meetings like. 19 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Allen just tries to do a 20 few. 21 MR. GREENE: What we can do as air pollution 22 people is bring to their attention the impact of those 23 kinds of situations and how it plays out and how it 24 impacts our ability to do our jobs, and that we as an 25 organization are trying to work cooperatively together up PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 front and speak directly to each other. And everybody has 2 to support that effort or we -- it impacts our ability to 3 get to where everybody needs to be. I'll be happy to take 4 that message back, as I've tried to do. I'll continue to 5 push that message within our area, that we need to be up 6 front, we need to talk about things and completely support 7 that idea. 8 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I appreciate that, Larry. 9 I appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman. 10 Certainly you've been terrific to work with, and 11 I -- your comments about 100 elected officials, I 12 sometimes have a reoccurring nightmare that in a future 13 life I'll come back as a public administrator and have to 14 deal with nitwits like myself. 15 But I just -- I bring these comments up only 16 because we've made such good progress. All of you have 17 done so well in the last month. I mean, Catherine, two 18 months ago you were dreading this hearing, and it's a real 19 comment on CAPCOA and on our staff that things have come 20 so well. 21 So given that we're making so much progress, it's 22 just all that much -- creates that much more anxiety on my 23 behalf these kinds of things could derail us right at the 24 point where it looks like we really could do something 25 historic. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 MR. GREENE: Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks. 3 Brigette Tollstrup and then Cindy Tuck. 4 MS. TOLLSTRUP: Good morning. Brigette 5 Tollstrup, Division Manager of the Sacramento Metropolitan 6 Air Quality Management District. 7 Chairman Lloyd, members of the Board, thank you 8 for the opportunity to testify on this important matter. 9 I want to start by acknowledging the work of Bob 10 Fletcher, Bob Effa, and his staff in tackling the complex 11 issue. 12 My voice doesn't carry well, huh. 13 We appreciate that the proposed regulation 14 requires mitigation of both ozone precursors, reactive 15 organic gasses and nitrogen oxide. The Sacramento area is 16 aggressively pursuing every available strategy to attain 17 the federal ozone standards by 2005 and make progress 18 towards attaining the state standards. 19 We reiterate our prior request that the 20 regulation include additional measures including the 21 following four measures that I'll articulate. All those 22 measures are being proposed or implemented in the 23 Sacramento area. 24 Establish contracting policies that give 25 preference to vendors who use low-emission vehicles and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 equipment and require that construction work performed by 2 state equipment or under state contracts meet specific 3 fleet average emission standards. 4 Establish land use guidelines for state agencies 5 and local jurisdictions that include the list of land use 6 mitigation strategies that we provided. 7 Require that stationary source permitting and 8 emission control requirements be established for specified 9 list of combustion equipment, and establish VOC content 10 limits and other requirements to reduce emissions from 11 contact adhesives cleanup solvents used in architectural 12 coating operations. 13 Small emission benefits will be achieved from the 14 new source review requirements as part of this proposal. 15 The staff report indicates that new emission reductions 16 will be achieved with the all-feasible measurement 17 requirement, yet no new requirements are being proposed by 18 the regulation. 19 We support and participate in the ongoing efforts 20 to improve interdistrict coordination and consensus and 21 appreciate staff -- ARB's staff attempt to tap into 22 districts' expertise in establishing the all-feasible 23 measure requirements. Nevertheless, we believe that the 24 statute requires that ARB take a proactive role in 25 establishing mitigation requirements, and we appreciate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 that ARB staff acknowledge that upwind areas impact 2 downwind areas like Sacramento's ability to attain the 3 federal ozone standard. 4 Unfortunately, the proposed regulation does not 5 require additional new mitigation measures that will 6 provide substantive emission benefits towards meeting 7 those federal standards. 8 We look forward to continued further work in 9 developing all-feasible measures, and thank you for the 10 opportunity to comment on this regulation. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 12 Ms. D'Adamo. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I just have a question. 14 What would you propose specifically? It's my 15 understanding that all-feasible measures would be 16 implemented on a case-by-case basis. Are you proposing 17 that there would be a specific regulation that could 18 further strengthen the proposal? 19 MS. TOLLSTRUP: Yeah. We did an analysis of the 20 differences between the regulations that are on the books 21 in the Bay Area, as well with the regulations that are on 22 the books in the Sacramento area. In the area of 23 combustion equipment, we identified that the Bay Area 24 exemption levels are lower than those existing in the 25 Sacramento area and request that those exemption levels be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 dropped and emission standards be set for that equipment. 2 In the area contracting policies for state 3 contracts, we request that there be preferences given to 4 vendors who use low-emission equipment so that the 5 emission reductions from contracting policies can be 6 incentivized essentially. 7 And finally, that land use -- the ARB take a 8 greater use in land use efforts, and I think that's been 9 discussed this morning. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Aside from land use, the 11 other two have to do with mobile source reductions. 12 MS. TOLLSTRUP: The contracting policies would 13 target both on- and off-mobile road source reductions. 14 Yes. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: With respect to 16 the three suggestions on the comparison of Bay Area rules 17 to other downwind districts, the stationary source 18 division is currently reviewing that analysis, and we'll 19 be using it in our review of whether upwind districts have 20 all-feasible measures or not. 21 On the issue of contracting, we have not done a 22 draft exec order, but we have approached CalTrans and 23 asked what they might be able to do in the way of 24 contracts they issue. There's been some success in the 25 past having various Governors adopt executive orders, but PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 there's usually a clause there that says "to the extent 2 resources allow." And it just undoes it because you're 3 not going to get the appropriation now of all years if 4 there's an incremental cost. 5 But CalTrans is concerned about the environmental 6 impacts of its activities. It's part of the whole 7 analysis they do, and we think they have the incentive to 8 seek cleaner products where they can. So we're hopeful 9 that will be a successful effort, and we already talked 10 about land use in detail. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Maybe if we could just 12 keep this on the list when staff comes back in three years 13 or three and a half years. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I agree. I think message is 15 a good one because I think certainly Jeff Morales at 16 CalTrans is interested in cleaning the fleet. He's 17 demonstrated that. I think anything we can do to increase 18 that awareness. I think Secretary Adams was also behind 19 that, and we had a multi-agency task force at one time. I 20 think it's a good message. We want to keep that ahead. 21 On the land use you heard us today. And I think 22 there's a commitment to go ahead. I'm still concerned 23 about three years. A lot of us may have forgotten what 24 was going on, but I take the assurance from the Executive 25 Officer we'll be -- these things as they emerge, things PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 will be incorporated, and we'll be aware of that. 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Staff can update 3 you annually. The only thing that is delayed for the 4 three-year period is the deep analysis. So we're happy to 5 come and tell you regularly how it's going. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'd be comfortable with 8 that. I just want to make sure in the resolution there is 9 a requirement that we continue to look at ways to improve 10 on this at least every three years. But maybe if staff 11 could come back in about a year to give us a status 12 report. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think if we could put in 14 the resolution something to the fact to explore how we 15 could be working more effectively with the state to 16 encourage the clean fleet type things. I realize it's a 17 tough time to do that. I realize what you're saying. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I'm sort of comfortable 20 with sort of the broad stroke. You just said that. I 21 think state contracting is fairly complex, and I certainly 22 wouldn't want to do something without a lot of thought to 23 that process or encourage something to that process 24 without really looking at it. So sort of the broad 25 strokes, I think it's a great idea. It's just making sure PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 we don't create unintended consequences with what we're 2 doing. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: On the point of our 5 compliance with the transport and assessment coupling 6 analysis, is it true that, as stated here, that this was 7 done in '96, that is for the Sacramento, the Bay Area -- 8 broader Sacramento coupling. And it was due in '99 then 9 triennially and that was not done? I mean, are we out of 10 whack on this? 11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: I think we might 12 be off one year. So we are planning to -- 13 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: That's 25 percent. 14 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: I think we might 15 have gone four years at one point, but we're back on the 16 three-year track. We last looked at this in 2001 from an 17 assessment standpoint, and we're committed to come back 18 next year in 2004 with updated assessment. 19 What we have done in the past each time is to 20 look at each of the previous decisions that have been made 21 in terms of whether transport is significant or 22 overwhelming or inconsequential. We haven't brought a lot 23 of changes back because there hasn't been a lot of new 24 information. So that may be misinterpreted to think we 25 haven't looked at the issue. But certainly over the six PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 to nine months the huge effort that's going into the new 2 SIPS in this broad transport region is going to be the 3 bulk of the transport work we do, and we expect that to be 4 reflected in our assessment report to you next year. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 6 Cindy Tuck. 7 MS. TUCK: Morning, Chairman Lloyd and members of 8 the Board. Cindy Tuck with the California Counsel for 9 Environmental and Economic Balance or CCEEB, and I'm 10 pleased to be here today to support the proposed 11 regulation with staff's proposed changes. 12 And just really quickly, the changes that were 13 made, were made to make the proposal consistant with the 14 California Clean Air Act and -- which we supported years 15 ago with working with Catherine Witherspoon at the 16 legislature. So we really appreciate Ms. D'Adamo's time 17 in working with us and staff's time to make sure that the 18 regulation is consistent with the California Clean Air 19 Act. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 21 Any questions for Cindy? Thank you, Cindy. 22 Thank you for your support. 23 With that I guess we -- 24 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Could I just ask -- 25 put a benediction. I used the word cabal. I didn't mean PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 it pejoratively at all. 2 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: We take it as a 3 compliment. 4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Maybe there's no 5 legitimate use for that word. So I withdraw it officially 6 from the record. 7 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: We're disappointed. 8 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: It's like unringing 9 the bell. Once you've heard it, you can't -- but I did 10 want to add that what I meant to say was that I think we 11 all are grateful, owe a debt of gratitude to our 12 colleagues here who are right on point on this issue 13 because of their -- it affects them and the impact on them 14 and their district. And so I thank you. I mean, in 15 San Diego we get some transport, but I leave that to 16 Supervisor Roberts. 17 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: That's a different cabal. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You also recognize we have 19 someone on the left, Barbara is -- 20 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Apparently, I'm the right 21 wing part of it. I get a little nervous when we talk 22 about land use planning so perhaps that's an appropriate 23 indication of how I feel. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I guess we duly note you've 25 withdrawn that, but we'll never forget it. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 Any discussion on this item before we move to 2 our -- Supervisor. 3 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I didn't mean to start 4 off with any kind of tone that was negative or thought 5 that this was shortcoming. I think you've done a really 6 heroic effort, and we did anticipate that this would be 7 difficult. And I'm being redundant, but I think it's 8 worth being redundant. You're all to be congratulated. I 9 think the best part about this is it's a beginning of 10 really a change in terms of how we dialogue with one 11 another. And I think our staff and this Board is taking 12 the appropriate role in coordinating that and trying to 13 incentivize it, and I just think you've done a great job. 14 In terms of the PM, I hope we will have further 15 discussion and recommendations. I hope staff will take 16 that to heart, and we can talk about that and good 17 science. 18 On the land use, I brought it up for multiple 19 reasons. I don't think we can sit here and -- there are 20 plenty of agencies and certainly the Legislature and the 21 Smart Growth Caucus. There's tons of work being done 22 here. I just wonder if there's an appropriate role from a 23 public health standpoint. I think Larry's made some good 24 discussions about modeling and best practices and we've 25 got so much modeling. In the transportation and land use PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 world we've done so much modeling. SANDAQ's done this. 2 South Coast is doing more of it. We're doing it. 3 Whereas, if we look at different land use alternatives, we 4 start to point out the benefits or the disbenefits for 5 certain patterns when it comes to projections on air 6 quality. I think that would be terrific. 7 And maybe our discussions -- I definitely don't 8 think it's appropriate to do and get into the things that 9 we've attempted to do before our time. It was really cute 10 seeing all of you react to that. But on the other hand I 11 think timing is everything. And as Larry said, I think a 12 lot of local government people are in a completely 13 different place than we were a decade ago. They realize 14 there needs to be changes. And I think our role -- and I 15 don't know what this is, but maybe we can have some 16 discussions. There is a role for us to play a different 17 way without being timid about what happened 10 or 12 years 18 ago. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I completely support your 20 comments there. Because I think it's -- land use has been 21 a prickly area that everybody tries to avoid. And when I 22 go out and talk to people they say, "Well, you're 23 responsible for public health. Why aren't you getting 24 that information out?" 25 Well, there's also, as I say, yesterday I got a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 briefing on what we're doing on the microscale and 2 regional modeling, how they're meshing, with Lynn and Bob 3 and John. And I was really excited about the tools that 4 we are developing which can allow us to answer the 5 question. Because to date we have not had the tools to 6 look at the near-term impact of sources. And the way 7 they're working at that and looking at the regional as 8 well as near term. And we can then look at questions of 9 how this is impacting some of the local communities, how 10 we can actually look at some of the transportation pattern 11 and use and provide that as some occasional tool. So I'm 12 excited. 13 I would hope as part of maybe a briefing we get 14 on what we can and cannot do, how we could look at 15 interfacing with land use if maybe some of that could be 16 maybe woven -- maybe not into the detail I had yesterday. 17 But I think the Board would be proud at what we're doing, 18 and I think it's going to serve the state extremely well. 19 I was delighted to see that. 20 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I'd like to move 21 resolution 03-9. 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman, I just 23 wanted to make sure that with the changes with regard to 24 the report back in one year and then revisitation of the 25 amendments and the effectiveness as part of the triennial PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 process. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's fine. Can I just do 3 some paperwork I didn't do before, before we get there. 4 We'll now close the record on this agenda item. 5 However, the record will be reopened when the 15 day 6 notice of public availability is issued. Written or oral 7 comments received after this hearing date but before the 8 15 day notice issued will not be accepted as part of the 9 official record on this agenda item. When the record is 10 reopened for a 15 day comment period, the public may 11 submit written comments on the proposed changes which will 12 be considered and responded to in the final statement of 13 reasons for the regulation. 14 And I assume there's been no ex parte 15 communications on this issue. Seeing none -- 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: No, there has. I just 17 have two. On May 6th I had a meeting in Modesto with 18 Cindy Tuck representing CCEEB, and on the phone Kathy 19 Rehise representing WSPA. 20 And then on May 9 a meeting in Modesto with 21 Supervisor Mike Nelson from Merced Counsel who's also on 22 the air district -- San Joaquin Air District and 23 Supervisor Tom Mayfield of Stanislaus County who's also on 24 the San Joaquin Air District, and two representatives from 25 the County of Stanislaus, Reagan Wilson and Mike Lynch. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Anyone else? 2 Seeing none, then we can -- I understand we have 3 a motion and a second. So all in favor say aye. 4 (Ayes) 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's unanimous. Thank you 6 very much. Thank you, staff. And we're going to take -- 7 we may take more than -- we might actually take lunch at 8 this time because we're so close to lunch. So why don't 9 we take a break -- half-hour break until 12:15. More than 10 a half hour. Let's meet back at 12:15. 11 (Thereupon a lunch recess was taken.) 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The next item on the agenda 13 is 03-4-7 public meeting to consider finding on AB 2637, 14 the exemption from the basic smog check program. 15 This item is a follow-up from last month's smog 16 check item during which we determined to provide an 17 exemption for five- and six-year old cars in enhanced 18 areas would prohibit California from meeting emission 19 reduction commitments in the state implementation plan. 20 As a result of that finding, the exemption will not apply 21 to enhanced smog check program areas. 22 During the last month's hearing, Supervisor 23 Patrick and Ms. D'Adamo asked staff to further evaluate 24 whether providing an exemption to cars in basic smog check 25 areas that are contained within serious or severe PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 nonattainment areas might also keep us from meeting our 2 SIP commitments. And I believe staff is now ready to 3 report on the results of that evaluation. 4 At this point I would like to turn it over to 5 Ms. Witherspoon to introduce the item and begin staff's 6 presentation. And the staff is now rapidly appearing down 7 the aisle. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 9 Chairman Lloyd. 10 We are indeed following up on the Board's request 11 from last month. Before we begin, I'd like to clarify the 12 impact of any action you'll be taking on the item we're 13 presenting today. The action you took last month with 14 respect to enhanced smog check areas was complete in and 15 of itself. That action will not be affected by today's 16 hearing. 17 The determination you will be making this month 18 is limited to certain basic smog check areas that are 19 immediately adjacent to enhanced areas and also part of 20 the same federal nonattainment planning region. 21 Upon looking at this issue further, we concluded 22 that they, too, should remain with the status quo rather 23 than having a new exemption for five- and six-year-old 24 cars and thereby endangering the state's attainment plans 25 for those areas. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 Ms. Sylvia Oey, Manager of the Liaison Section 2 and the Planning and Technical Support Division, will give 3 the staff presentation. 4 Sylvia. 5 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION MANAGER 6 OEY: Thank you, Catherine. Good afternoon, Chairman, and 7 members of the Board. I hope you enjoyed your brief 8 lunch. 9 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 10 presented as follows.) 11 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION MANAGER 12 OEY: And I'd like to begin with a brief recap of AB 2637 13 and the action you took last month. AB 2637 had a number 14 of provisions. One of them was to extend the smog check 15 exception for new cars from four to six years when this 16 Board deems that action is appropriate. This longer 17 exemption is to take effect throughout the state, except 18 in areas where the longer exemption would interfere with 19 our ability to meet our obligations and commitments under 20 the Federal Clean Air Act. This Board's role is to 21 identify those areas where it is necessary to retain the 22 four-year exemption in order to meet the commitments 23 California has made in the state implementation plan, or 24 SIP. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION MANAGER 2 OEY: At last month's meeting you made the finding that 3 increasing the smog check exemption for new cars in 4 enhanced smog check areas would prevent the state from 5 meeting its federal obligations. However, you also noted 6 that in several air basins where the pollution is bad 7 enough to warrant the enhanced program. There are rural 8 areas that may be subject only to the basic smog check 9 program. By law, air quality in any area that has an 10 enhanced program is bad enough to warrant a serious, 11 severe or extreme classification for ozone under the 12 Federal Clean Air Act. You asked us to evaluate the 13 impact that the six-year exemption would have on our 14 commitments relative to these basic areas. 15 --o0o-- 16 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION MANAGER 17 OEY: Before I present those findings though, I'd like to 18 bring back this one slide from the last presentation for 19 those members of the audience that might not have been 20 here last month. This slide summarizes why we might be 21 concerned about five- and six-year-old cars. It shows 22 increases in emission system malfunctions as cars get 23 older. As you can see, the rate start to increase 24 significantly after three years. By age six, the 25 malfunction rate is five times higher than it was at age PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 three to the point where about one out of ten cars can be 2 expected to fail smog check. Most of those cars will keep 3 operating in this unrepaired state until their next 4 biennial inspection. 5 --o0o-- 6 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION MANAGER 7 OEY: So in response to the concerns that you raised last 8 month, we evaluated the impact of exempting these five- 9 and six-year-old cars in basic smog check areas where the 10 air quality is bad enough to warrant the imposition of an 11 enhanced smog check program. 12 --o0o-- 13 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION MANAGER 14 OEY: These areas are listed in this slide. We looked at 15 each of these areas to determine whether proceeding with 16 the exemption would interfere with our SIP obligations 17 which is the criteria established AB 2637. 18 You may recall that we are still short of meeting 19 our smog check emission reduction commitments statewide. 20 ARB and BAR have committed to implement additional smog 21 check improvements to remedy the shortfall. And many of 22 these are already in place or are being implemented. 23 Nonetheless, we found we have not yet met our smog check 24 obligation in these five areas. These areas are still 25 nonattainment under the Federal Clean Air Act. And smog PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 check emission reductions are a part of their strategy for 2 meeting their ozone attainment deadlines. 3 Providing a six-year exemption to basic program 4 cars within these areas would prevent us from meeting 5 emission reduction commitments that we made in the 1994 6 ozone SIP. 7 --o0o-- 8 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION MANAGER 9 OEY: We have a different situation in the San Francisco 10 Bay Area. Because AB 2637 requires BAR to implement an 11 enhanced smog check program in the Bay Area for the first 12 time, we will not have a smog check deficit relative to 13 our commitment there. San Diego County has attained the 14 federal one-hour ozone standard and submitted an ozone 15 maintenance plan that we have provide forwarded on to US 16 EPA. If US EPA approves this plan, and we anticipate that 17 they'll do so this summer, that maintenance plan will 18 replace the 1949 ozone SIP for San Diego County. 19 As a result, providing the six-year exemption in 20 the semi-rural parts of San Diego County that are still 21 subject to the basic smog check program will not prohibit 22 us from meeting our SIP commitments. 23 --o0o-- 24 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION MANAGER 25 OEY: The staff recommends that the Board determine that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 extending the six-year exemption to basic smog check areas 2 within the South Coast, Sacramento region, the San Joaquin 3 Valley and the Ventura federal ozone nonattainment areas, 4 and the Mojave Desert portion of the southeast desert AQMA 5 nonattainment area would prohibit the state from meeting 6 its SIP commitments. 7 --o0o-- 8 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION MANAGER 9 OEY: With respect to basic smog check areas within the 10 San Diego and San Francisco Bay Area federal nonattainment 11 areas, staff further recommends that the Board not make a 12 determination that extending the exemption would prohibit 13 the state from meeting its SIP commitments. AB 2637 14 specifies that absent Board action, the increased 15 exemption for five- and six-year-old vehicles will occur 16 in these areas. The staff further recommends that the 17 Board direct the Executive Officer to convey these 18 findings to the Bureau of Automotive Repair. 19 Thank you. That concludes my presentation. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 21 Questions or comments from the Board? 22 Thank you for getting back to us regarding the 23 concerns that were raised at the last meeting. Seeing no 24 questions or comments from the Board -- 25 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I have one, Mr. Chairman. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. Mr. Calhoun. 2 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I want to go to one of the 3 slides where you showed the failure rate by eight and look 4 out between -- almost between the first and the third 5 year. At the end of the third year starts increasing. Is 6 that because of a lack of maintenance on that area, or are 7 you -- are we getting a good feel why that is? 8 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I 9 don't -- I don't think that we know exactly why it is, but 10 the one speculation is that the typical bumper-to-bumper 11 warranty and the emission warranty for lower cost parts 12 ends at about three years on most cars. So there's less 13 of an incentive to take your car in and get it repaired 14 since it would be free under warranty and not after some 15 time in that three- to four-year period. 16 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: But the warranty is still 17 in effect through the fifth year? 18 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No. 19 The emission warranty is 350 and less except for things 20 like catalysts and computers where it's longer. And the 21 manufacturing warranties are most typically a 336, 350, 22 something like that. 23 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: So it appears as though 24 it's more of a lack of maintenance, I guess. 25 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 there's not much maintenance on these vehicles if 2 maintenance is what you're referring traditionally to 3 preventative-type things. I think these mostly represent 4 parts that break. And as the car gets older, the higher 5 probability of the part failing in some way that causes 6 high emissions and a lower incentive for the owner to take 7 care of it. I mean, these are based on the check engine 8 lights being on. So the owner knew there was something 9 wrong with the car, but they hadn't fixed it. And what we 10 don't know, of course, is whether the light came on 11 yesterday or one and a half years ago. But on average it 12 would have been on for a while. 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: But they're not false 14 failures? 15 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No. 16 They're not false failures. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: How would the shape of the 18 curve change with P ZEVS? 19 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I 20 think that ultimately we won't know until we have some 21 data to answer that quantitatively. The first P ZEVS are 22 just being sold this year. But it would be our belief at 23 least that since the P ZEVS have a 15-year warranty on 24 them instead of a 3-year warranty that people would have 25 incentives to get the car fixed in reasonable time after PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 the check engine light comes on since it would be free. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: For 150,000 miles? 3 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: For 4 150,000 miles. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What's the average annual 6 driving distance for cars? 7 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: It 8 starts out 15,000 something a year. And by the time 9 they're 15-years old, it's 5-, 6,000 a year? 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So we'd see this being pushed 11 out quite a bit before you get good turnout? 12 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: The 13 warranty would last for most people beyond ten years. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Great. 15 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: In those cases where the 16 check engine light was on, did you get a corresponding 17 emission level to go with it, or were there cases where 18 emission levels were -- 19 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Low. 20 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: -- inconsistent with what 21 you'd expect from a check engine light? 22 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Within 23 the check engine light coming on there are cars that have 24 extremely high emissions and there are some that have 25 relatively low emissions because the check engine light PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 monitors any component that relates to low emissions or 2 the diagnostic system working itself. And some of them 3 can have small impacts on emissions and some of them can 4 have large impacts on emissions. 5 The reason we focus on even the ones that have 6 small impacts is that it usually leads to a failure later 7 on downstream and increase in emissions or it results in 8 diagnostic system itself not working, in which case you 9 wouldn't detect some other failure that might occur that 10 would have a big emission impact. 11 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Don't we have case -- I 12 thought I read a paper or something just recently where 13 there were -- where you did a study looking at the false 14 failures where the check engine light came on and the 15 vehicle still passed the emission test. 16 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, 17 it depends on what the definition of a false failure is. 18 What I was trying to indicate is there are cars that have 19 check engine lights come on. It's on because something 20 was broken on the car, but that item that broke did not 21 cause a large emission impact. So the car could still be 22 close to the emission standard. 23 In our view, that needs to be fixed either way 24 because ultimately that will contribute to another failure 25 or it contributes to the diagnostic system not working PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 itself, in which case it could miss a big thing like the 2 catalyst not working or a misfire. So those do occur, but 3 they're not false failures. 4 There is some studies out there saying that 5 on-board diagnostics doesn't find the same failures on 6 newer cars that the emission test does. But the data 7 shows that with the few exceptions where the OBD system is 8 not working right -- and we've affected recalls on those 9 cars -- it does work. And it has a very low failure -- 10 incorrect failure rate. So our metric is if the light's 11 on, is there a part broken? That's a correct failure. 12 And we find there is a part broken in almost all those 13 cases. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Do the lights come on, or can 15 there be programs where they come on scheduled maintenance 16 intervals? 17 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, 18 there essentially is no maintenance on the cars anymore. 19 You change the oil and change the spark plugs and change 20 the coolant once. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: There's usually a recommended 22 time to change the oil in the manual. 23 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Can the lights be programmed 25 so, in fact, they come on -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, 2 some cars actually have a system where they monitor your 3 driving and, you know, the maintenance interval -- if it's 4 supposed to be shorter, it actually warns you of that. 5 But most cars I don't think have a reminder. You're 6 supposed to just know that you have to do it every 10,000 7 miles, 7500 miles, whatever's recommended. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I've noticed in the one I 9 have it seems the light comes on at that time. 10 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: It 11 warns you that -- yeah. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There's two. 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Let me ask one more. The 14 reason why I raised the question, I had to go to this smog 15 check just recently. 16 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: This is 17 why everybody is so interested smog check. It affects us 18 all. 19 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: My car passed. It passed. 20 And this kind of raises the concern that's always been 21 there, and that is whether or not you have false failures 22 where the vehicle may pass the emission test as performed 23 or whatever it is and the check engine light may be on, 24 but -- and it's conceivable -- but I would gather then if 25 a vehicle has a check engine light on and even though it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 passes the visual inspection that they perform shows that 2 the check engine light is on, so somebody has to find out 3 why. 4 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: The car 5 would fail. Under smog check if it passed the visual 6 test -- 7 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Because of the visual 8 check. 9 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right. 10 And the reason is it could be indicating something wrong 11 with the cold started, which of course you don't get 12 measured in smog check. You're all warmed up. It 13 monitors the evaporative system and in smog check we check 14 the gas cap. We don't have a good way of checking the 15 rest of the evaporative system. That's a third of the 16 emissions from the car. A third of the hydrocarbon 17 emissions. 18 It does a lot of other things that smog check is 19 not designed to be able to capture. And so we required to 20 pass both, both the light check and the tailpipe check and 21 the gas cap check. 22 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I'll get back to you with 23 some of this. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I find this very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 interesting. I was never aware of the visual check. 2 Could you venture to guess what the average cost would be 3 in light of the fact it could be so many different things 4 that aren't picked up by the actual inspection? 5 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I 6 believe from the study we did here that the costs of 7 repairs were not out of line with the tailpipe check. If 8 you just looked at the cars that failed tailpipe only 9 versus OBD per car, it would be roughly the same. I think 10 more cars failed, though, the OBD. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: So if you fail the visual 12 inspection, it's not necessarily going to be sky high 13 costs looking for a needle in the haystack? 14 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: It 15 could be a low-cost sensor, a vacuum leak, things like 16 that. Or it could be something big, like a new catalytic 17 converter. When you say visual check, I just want to 18 clarify it's not really a visual check. The car is 19 plugged into the computerized exhaust analyzer, and it 20 runs an OBD check on the computer. It's not a 21 discretionary thing. It passes or fails automatically. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 23 I'd call up the first two witnesses, Larry 24 Armstrong, Richard Seide. 25 MR. ARMSTRONG: My name is Larry Armstrong. I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 operate some automotive tune up shop and smog stations, 2 most of them in the Bay Area. As I sat here today, I got 3 a little bit more concerned than I was. I thought I had 4 reasonable cause to come up here, but now I wonder if I 5 might have more. 6 I called Mr. Amlin the other day from the Bureau 7 of Automotive Repair, and he assured me that his 8 understanding was that by definition the San Francisco Bay 9 Area that just got locked into buying some pretty 10 expensive equipment was now considered enhanced area. And 11 I kind of wondered from that demonstration that you had 12 whether the Bay Area is now an enhanced area that would 13 include those five- and six-year cars or whether they've 14 been danced around and out of there on a technicality. So 15 I'd like to ask that question before I really get going 16 here. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, don't get going too 18 much because we have limited time here. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The Bay Area 20 absolutely is an enhanced area in most of the region and 21 they will not have the exemption for five- and 22 six-year-old cars. There are very tiny portions of the 23 Bay Area that are still basic, representing less than 24 2 percent of the entire vehicle population, and those 25 areas would enjoy the five- and six-year exemption. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 MR. ARMSTRONG: So are these -- the areas that 2 you're talking about exempting are portions of the Bay 3 Area and not all of the Bay Area? 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Very small. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Tiny portions. 6 MR. ARMSTRONG: In that vain then I'll get my 7 comments back to where I intended to have them when I came 8 up here today. And you folks all seem to be interested in 9 the environment, and somehow I fail to find the logic of 10 having some vehicles okay to not be good just because they 11 happen to go outside of an area. None of those cars would 12 affect my business, but it absolutely does not make sense 13 to me to take cars out of the program just on the basis of 14 the air might be a little bit cleaner in that area than it 15 is in some other area. I guess the only presumption that 16 I can make at that point is that we'll just wait until 17 that area gets dirty and then maybe we can go back and 18 check those cars. It makes absolutely no sense to me to 19 exempt those cars. 20 As you can see from the slide that they put up 21 there, the failure rate is right at about 10 percent on 22 the six-year cars and -- which is about half of the rate 23 that used to be the fail rate in all of California. So 24 there are some broken cars out there that ought to get 25 attended to. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 The other thing is that depending on which 2 portion of the new car warranty that you're going after, 3 the more expensive parts are covered for a longer period 4 of time. And you may very well be shifting the 5 responsibility for repairs from the new car manufacturer 6 over to the owner of that vehicle just by virtue of the 7 fact that you are intending to exempt those cars from 8 getting a first round smog check at 15,000 miles a year. 9 The average six-year-old car is going to have about 90,000 10 miles on it and is going to trip right through most of the 11 warranty period. So I think you've got some moral 12 obligation here, some ethical obligation. 13 Whether Legislature intended to provide this 14 loophole, I don't know. But it makes absolutely no sense 15 to me. So I think you people ought to take some 16 responsibility and step up there and just keep those cars 17 in there. Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 19 If staff could respond. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Please. I would 21 just like to clarify for the record. What's happening 22 here is the Legislature did, in fact, exempt all the cars 23 statewide in their fifth and sixth year from smog check. 24 And last month this Board voted or made a determination 25 that had the effect of putting all the cars in enhanced PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 areas back into the program. And today the Board is 2 contemplating bringing in most of the basic areas back to 3 the program the way it was before AB 2637 passed. And so 4 the limit -- the exemption for five- and six-year-old cars 5 will be very, very limited if, in fact, the Board votes on 6 staff's recommendation today. 7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I would just like to for 10 the record state I actually agree with Mr. Armstrong's 11 statement. I think as a matter of policy we shouldn't 12 have this exemption at all. But it appears that our hands 13 are tied, and the only way to get around it would be to 14 have the legislative change. 15 So I would just suggest if your concerns continue 16 that you contact your representatives and see if you can 17 get a bill through so we can go back to where we were. My 18 feeling is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And it didn't 19 seem that it was broke. So I would agree that we 20 shouldn't have to be here, but we are because of the 21 legislation. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 23 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Yeah. I was just 24 going to clarify too I think your argument makes sense. 25 The problem is that the Legislature, as I understand it, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 in AB 2637 exempted all cars up to six years from four to 2 six. But they have provided that if we found that the 3 increased exemption the Legislature passed would prohibit 4 the state from achieving or meeting its SIP in certain 5 areas, then we can make that finding. 6 And scientifically you've heard the presentation. 7 We have found that in certain enhanced areas where that is 8 an aggravated pollution, in my terms, that that would 9 prevent us from meeting -- but in certain other basic 10 areas, minor areas, it wouldn't. 11 And this is purely based on what are now the 12 conditions. These conditions could well change. These 13 little pieces that are now pretty clean in the Bay Area 14 could get dirtier. Partly maybe as a result of these 15 older cars not having to be addressed and treated. 16 But that's what the legislation called for. And 17 we're responding to it, and we are not -- we didn't create 18 this smog check program. And we have very little to do 19 with it. That's my understanding in sort of lay terms. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Next we have 21 Richard Seid. 22 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I have a question -- 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. 24 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: -- of member 25 Calhoun. Did you have test-only or -- did you have to go PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 to test-only? 2 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Not in this case. This is 3 my 1992 model. So I had to go take it to -- well, 4 test-only station. 5 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, they're hard 6 to find. That's a real problem. It was for me, anyway. 7 I mean, you can't just go to any old smog check station. 8 You've got to find one, and usually it's 35 miles away 9 from you. And you go there and there's a big line up -- 10 well, anyway that's another story. Sorry. 11 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Those 12 are good stories, but I need to correct the record, too. 13 There's over 1,000 of these test-only stations, and you 14 can find one pretty much in your neighborhood. So 15 hopefully that's just a story. 16 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: When you get your notice 17 they tell you if you call the number they'll give you the 18 location. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 20 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I'm in. And the one in 21 any neighborhood, Tom, is never going to touch my car 22 again. 23 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I didn't mean to 24 open up -- 25 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Well, the interesting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 thing about it, when I went to the station, I wanted to go 2 over and see what the guy was doing. But, no, you 3 can't -- 4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Wait over there. 5 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Wait over there. But it 6 was kind of humorous to me. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Sorry. 8 MR. SEID: My name is Richard Seid, and I come up 9 here from Alameda City, and County of Alameda, AAC 10 Test-only Smog Station. 11 I just wanted to say that the -- I think that the 12 six-year exemption if that goes into place with just 13 basic -- in the basic area -- I've seen a lot of cars. I 14 used to be a test and repair station for three years, and 15 I've changed to a test-only just in the beginning of May. 16 I've seen a lot of cars go through my shop. And 17 those cars -- you know, people are driving, you know, from 18 here to San Francisco to work. And there's a lot of 19 mileage on those cars and -- you know, because of the 20 cars -- I'm a little nervous because this is the first 21 time I'm up here. 22 But those cars have a lot of mileage and wear and 23 tear. And those cars will, you know, have those check 24 engine lights on. And the consumer never understands 25 that. And they say, "Hey, you know, my car's running PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 great. How can I fail the smog check, you know?" And we 2 have to explain to them that those are emission OBD II 3 failures and we need to scan the car, you know, charge 4 them a diagnostic fee, and people are not very happy, you 5 know. 6 But, you know, taking those cars out of the 7 program is just going to be more pollutants into the air. 8 More NOx emissions, more CO, more hydrocarbons. That's 9 what's going to happen. Even though -- I don't think it's 10 a good idea to exempt those cars. 11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. -- excuse me. Sorry. 12 MR. SEID: I wanted to talk a little bit about, 13 you know -- I was over at the Emeryville meeting with IMRC 14 Committee and, you know, the Bureau Chief had went to the 15 podium to say that there wasn't enough test-only stations 16 in the San Francisco basin area. That's true. That's 17 definitely true because of the high rents in San Francisco 18 and the surrounding areas. And he was saying that the 19 possibility of having a pilot program for the CAP stations 20 or GPC stations to do test-only smogs. 21 And I'm definitely against that because I feel 22 that in doing this, you know, would throw away the checks 23 and balances of the program. You know, it would 24 definitely undermine the integrity of the program if that 25 happens. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 Right now, you know, I'm only doing about six 2 smogs a day. And probably about one or two is test-only, 3 and the rest of them are just regular smogs. And I don't 4 see the 15 percent or the 36 percent of those vehicles 5 being directed to a test-only site. I do not see it. 6 That's all I have to say. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Ms. Riordan. 8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Well, I was just going 9 to -- excuse me. I was just going to ask the staff for 10 his area if things changed in that area where his 11 businesses are located. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No. They have 13 not. I just asked staff to pull out the Bay Area map, and 14 all of the east bay is enhanced. So they would not have 15 the five- and six-year exemption. The basic areas are 16 closer to the coast and south. So I asked them to show 17 Mr. Seid that map. 18 And with respect to the other concerns, the 19 enhanced program hasn't begun yet in the Bay Area. 20 They're in the process of getting ready. The 21 implementation date is supposed to be July 1, but they 22 will pull the trigger on the test-only requirement based 23 on the availability of the test-only stations per ZIP code 24 because they don't want to seriously inconvenience 25 motorists if they send too many at once before the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 stations are there. So they're phasing it with the actual 2 opening of each test-only station. 3 And on the last point about whether or not there 4 will be any alternative, that's really a legislative 5 issue. The way the law is written right now, enhanced 6 program is to be implemented the way it is everywhere 7 else, dialogues going on about possible changes that might 8 intervene. But for the moment, the program's ruling out 9 the normal way and not to a gold station version instead. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Effective what date? 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: July 1st is the 12 planned start. But like I said, each ZIP code will be 13 brought in as test-only stations are available for that 14 ZIP code or close proximity. 15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Could you speak to the 16 issue of San Francisco proper with regard to the points 17 that the witness made with rents being high. Are you 18 seeing that there aren't as many stations in San Francisco 19 as opposed to the entire district? 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I'm going to ask 21 Mr. Dave Amlin of the Bureau of Automotive Repair who's 22 joining us here today. I'm sorry for not introducing him 23 sooner. Perhaps he could address that point. 24 MR. AMLIN: I don't have any specific numbers 25 with me for all the different regions in the Bay Area. I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 think in general we recognize there are higher rents. But 2 in terms of -- it's pretty much supply and demand. Where 3 there's demand, we have to supply stations. There are a 4 lot of stations in the Bay Area currently. I don't think 5 there's any huge disproportionate lack of coverage for 6 San Francisco City itself compared to other areas. 7 There's still a lot of areas available for getting smog 8 checks. 9 I think people get smogs at two locations. They 10 either get it where they work or where they live. If 11 there's not one convenient at one location, you can get it 12 at another. Or you could get it while you're shopping or 13 some other kind of business. There are a lot of stations 14 in the Bay Area. I think there's about 1700, 1800 15 stations currently in the Bay Area, the areas we're 16 talking about that will go enhanced. That will be started 17 on July 1st is when they have to buy the bar 97 platform 18 which is just the analyzer itself and then they'll go 19 ahead and start with the dynamometers on October 1st. The 20 first cars that we'll be directing will be the ones that 21 will be getting their notices in July. They'll actually 22 have the due date of October 1st. 23 MR. REID: Can I also say something else too? 24 I've talked to other owners in San Francisco and 25 in Alameda about test-only. And, you know, the problem is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 that, you know, you're asking them to give up their 2 businesses, you know, to become a test-only station. And 3 it has to be feasible. Like right now I'm only doing six 4 smogs a day. And I'm not making it. I'm not making -- 5 definitely not making it. And if by the end of the year 6 it continues like that, I'm going to have to change it 7 back to a test and repair. Right. I mean, it's just 8 not -- the numbers are not doing it. And if other people, 9 you know, see this 15 or 36 the percent going to test-only 10 station, they'll be more inclined to make the change over 11 to test-only. But it has to be feasible economically. 12 Right? 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. I'm going to weigh 15 in on this. I spent the last nine years at least 16 partially representing something like 15,000 mechanics, 17 and I don't do that anymore. But I've got to tell you 18 that what he's representing is the case that there are 19 mechanics -- full journeyman mechanics that really know 20 what they're doing, not like the guy at the test station 21 in any neighborhood who I don't think was trained. I 22 mean, God's honest truth, what he did to my car, he was 23 not a journeyman mechanic. 24 That being said, journeyman mechanics in, not 25 just San Francisco but the peninsula down to the Silicon PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 Valley can -- it varies, but I think it's probably been 2 pretty stable for a while here -- can make almost the same 3 money in the Stockton, Lodi, you know, in the valley. And 4 so if you're making the same money and you're trying to 5 get a quality of life, your tenency is going to be to move 6 to the valley which is growing, where housing is more 7 affordable, and that kind of thing. And it's a real 8 phenomenon with mechanics. There is a lot of difficulty 9 finding journeyman mechanics in particularly the San Jose 10 area, more than even San Francisco. The wage rates in San 11 Francisco are higher so it helps retain people. 12 It's real stuff. If you change your business 13 depending on -- and you honestly want to have that skill 14 at your test-only station, it would be a difficult thing 15 to do on five or six. I think we need to listen to him 16 so -- 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. Riordan. 18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. 19 I was just agreeing. I think when you begin to regulate 20 this -- because we do want to do these tests, obviously. 21 We do have to think of those who have to carry them out 22 and be sure there is enough business for them to survive 23 in the process. 24 And I'm delighted that the gentleman is here from 25 our sister agency that is going to have some input perhaps PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 as to how to get this done so there is enough business. I 2 don't believe this is the first gentleman who's testified 3 to that problem. And I think I remember another person 4 that's been able to come. And know that there are 5 probably many more out there that simply could not make 6 the trip -- 7 MR. SEID: That's true. 8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: -- to Sacramento. It's 9 such a small business they'd have to close the doors in 10 order to come, and they can't afford to do that. 11 So I'm just going to assume from some logic that 12 there are many more that are having this problem. And I 13 hope we're sympathetic as a government to them to be able 14 to see that they survive. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo and Supervisor 16 DeSaulnier. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I am sympathetic, but I 18 suspect come July 1 it's going change. You're going to 19 see there is a demand out there because the standards are 20 going to change in the Bay Area, and there is beginning to 21 be a certain percentage of individuals that are going to 22 have to take their cars to test-only. And that's going to 23 translate to increased business for you I suspect, right? 24 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes. 25 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I guess the question PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 is -- given the comments, I think we're all sympathetic. 2 And intuitively it makes sense, all the comments that you 3 are -- it's a dangerous area. In addition to the other 4 comments -- as I think we discussed last time, 5 particularly in those wealthy communities that Matt 6 referenced in San Francisco and the peninsula, the fleet's 7 newer. So you've got the problem of whether there's 8 enough market there, but there is a market. 9 So I guess my question is, what's the remedy? If 10 we go along and, as you've mentioned, D.D., it doesn't 11 turn out that way, how does it get fixed? Because we were 12 not able to fix it prospectively, we've got to take that 13 chance. So if it gets to that point, what do we do? What 14 do we do if we get to the point that I don't think anyone 15 wants that we don't have enough businesses that can make 16 the financial commitment to do these, but you still have 17 people in those communities who need to get their cars 18 tested? 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's very hard to 20 imagine that we're not going to have enough demand in the 21 second largest population center in California, no matter 22 how wealthy the neighborhoods are, that the business will 23 come in. If 15 percent initially are directed to 24 test-only and then that's ramped to 36 percent, the only 25 thing that could upset the apple cart is if the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 Legislature intervenes and changes the roll out of the 2 enhanced smog check program in the Bay Area and says, 3 "We're not going to do the test-only model. We're going 4 to do a pilot or use our gold stations or something else." 5 But the way the roll out's going right now, there will be 6 insufficient business to sustain a network of test-only 7 stations. 8 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: It seems as if you're 9 being extremely sensitive, both agencies, to helping these 10 small agencies anticipate those problems. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And the motorists 12 too. It's a balancing act. 13 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: One of 14 the things that 2637 did is it asked BAR to roll out the 15 ramp up of test-only stations the same way it did in other 16 areas like the valley and here and Los Angeles where that 17 happened before. And what they found in these other areas 18 when they rolled it out in a gradual way, that business 19 adjusted. New test-only stations came into the place to 20 meet the demand of the numbers of vehicles that are being 21 directed to those stations. So I think what BAR's trying 22 to do is they're watching it. If there, in fact, in an 23 area aren't any people offering test-only stations, 24 they're going to ramp down the number of cars that are 25 sent to test-only in that area until it adjusts. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 But what we've seen, we went from I think it was 2 a few hundred test-only stations in the state to over 3 1,000. So the business has adjusted. And it's usually -- 4 I don't believe there's any problem in the other areas of 5 shortage. There may be a problem of too many people 6 offering test-only services, but it's not the other way. 7 They're not hard to find. You don't wait in lines. 8 There's enough of them around to serve the demand the 9 state is putting out there. 10 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: So Professor Friedman is 11 unusual in that case, having to drive all over the place 12 looking for a station? 13 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I 14 don't know when he did it so it could have been. 15 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, I ought to 16 explain that further. I didn't note the little thing that 17 said you could call a number and get ahold -- 18 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: You're too intelligent 19 for this program. 20 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I went to the only 21 one I knew about where I had gone previously. And I was 22 there at 6:00 in the morning, and three or four people 23 were ahead of me and wouldn't let me horn in. And I had a 24 busy schedule. So then -- but that was some distance. 25 Anyway, I'm glad -- I agree. I think small business PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 that opens in good faith and to meet a demand I think we 2 ought to do what we can to manage that. But the free 3 market being what it is, there are going to be some that 4 do better than others, I suppose, depending on location. 5 And I don't think we're drying up or shrinking by 6 our exemptions -- by the Legislature's exemption where we 7 are keeping them in the pool. That's the point. And what 8 we're doing here is saying to not keep them in smog check 9 would prevent us from meeting our air quality goals, the 10 federal goals. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think Mr. Amlin wants to 12 make a point. 13 MR. AMLIN: Thank you. I just want to kind of 14 respond to a couple of comments that were made. One is it 15 look likes over time the number of test-only stations 16 compared to the test value with the supply -- I guess the 17 supply has pretty much always ramped up right with the 18 demand. And we've gone through a number of 19 implementations, I think, during the last year and part of 20 this year in expanding the enhanced program to different 21 areas. And I think those implementations have gone very 22 well. 23 I think some of the antidotal comments go back to 24 1998 when we had fewer than 300 stations to go ahead and 25 service the whole state. And at that time they weren't on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 every corner. Now with about 1,000 stations, I think on a 2 test facility to vehicle basis, California probably has 3 one of the highest ratios of stations to vehicles than 4 most any other program in the country. So we do have a 5 lot of stations available. 6 And when we look at -- we do a lot of work with 7 GIS and mapping and look to see what the radius is, how 8 far it is to the nearest station. And right now you don't 9 have to go far now to find a test-only. 10 I think there was another comment. It was about 11 that text were different in terms of the requirements 12 between test-only and test and repair. A couple things. 13 One is a lot of the technicians -- even a lot of 14 facilities that are test-only used to be test and repair. 15 And so I think that they have similar backgrounds and 16 experience. In addition, in terms of the state smog 17 check, we require the exact same requirements in terms of 18 number of years of education and experience and exams and 19 training they have to pass. It's identical so -- 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So how do you account for Mr. 21 McKinnon's experience? 22 MR. AMLIN: I think we do have over 10,000 23 technicians, and we have over 8,000 stations in the state, 24 and you get good experiences and you get some bad 25 experiences. And I think overall, I hope from everything PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 else we get from the program that's not representative of 2 the experience that most people see. But as with any 3 program that has over 10,000 technicians, there may be 4 good days, bad days. Some people are having a bad day at 5 work and you happen to run into them. That's the only 6 time you see them, right? You do a smog check every 7 two years, and if your experience is bad, you think that's 8 how the rest of the world is. But in terms of overall 9 evaluations and things that we've gotten back from 10 stations is good feedback. And most people have a 11 positive experience. And we have a very high acceptance 12 rating overall for smog check. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Any questions or 14 comments? Thank you. Again, since this is not a 15 regulatory item, it is not necessarily to officially close 16 the record. However, we do have a resolution before the 17 Board. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'll make a motion. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye. 20 (Ayes) 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any against? No. Did you 22 want to say something? 23 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, if I may. My name again is 24 Larry Armstrong. Just couple of quick comments here, and 25 I appreciate you letting me go a second time here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 One of the things that's going to come into play 2 here pretty soon is I believe the regulators are going to 3 come and ask that these -- whatever they call them -- 4 P ZEV cars with the 15,000 mile, 15 year guarantee, they 5 be let out of the smog check program. And as that 6 proposition comes to you, I would suggest that you 7 remember the graph that was put up a little while ago 8 where those cars did not fail for the three years. 9 What commonly happens from our experience is that 10 if a consumer takes a car into a car dealer and the 11 light's on, it's good likelihood they're going to get told 12 if it's running okay, don't worry about it, okay, at the 13 point where they start being subjected to smog checks and 14 they start to fail. So if you apply that theory and if 15 you believe in that theory at all, you're going to have 16 vehicles with 15 year warranties running around not doing 17 what you think they're doing because they're not getting 18 checked. 19 The other thing -- I really appreciated the 20 concern of this Board for the people that are in the -- 21 electing to go into the test-only business. But I would 22 just like to point out to you that in order to move one 23 customer to test-only, you've got to take it away from an 24 existing business that has been providing -- like in our 25 case, we've been providing smog check service in the Bay PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 Area since 1984. So what you're doing is basically you're 2 destroying the test and repair business in favor of this 3 other guy. And you may, in fact, be also -- I think Mr. 4 McKinnon hit on it a little bit, but you may be, in fact, 5 destroying that person's business also in terms of any 6 repair capability because in order to be in the test-only 7 business, you have to give up whatever repair experience 8 you have. 9 So when Mr. McKinnon's journeyman mechanic 10 becomes a test-only guy, his repair expertise is lost to 11 the public at that moment in time and all you got is a 12 test. So what we've done is we've created a system almost 13 all over the state that doesn't work for the public. It 14 doesn't work for the businesses that have provided 15 service, and it doesn't work for the public either. And 16 we seem to just keep rolling ahead with this. We're now 17 going to expand it into the Bay Area instead of what we 18 should have done is stopped it all together as far as 19 splitting up the business. What you've got is divide and 20 conquer. 21 I had lunch with this gentleman today who is now 22 my mortal enemy. We're both in the same business of 23 trying to protect the air and protect the consumer, but 24 we're now business enemies. And it really doesn't make 25 sense. As our business is concerned, of the vehicles that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 are directed for a biennial test, just so you got an idea 2 of what's going on here, now that you've elected to leave 3 the five- and six-year-old cars in, we will lose 4 65 percent of the vehicles that are presently directed to 5 have a test. 65 percent of those vehicles will go away 6 from us. Some of them will be excused under AB 2637. And 7 as soon as this thing ramps up to where this 36 percent 8 that we talk about -- which is not 36 percent. It's one 9 half of all of the directed vehicles go to test-only. So 10 I'm looking at losing 65 percent of my customer base that 11 I've been serving since 1984 so that we can have this 12 little program that doesn't work. 13 So I just -- I appreciate your sympathy for that 14 little small business guy, but every time you lay some 15 sympathy on to that theoretical small business person, 16 you're destroying somebody else at the same time. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: It would be helpful if you 18 come back in a year's time to see if your prediction comes 19 true and give us some feeling of whether -- 20 MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, sir, I don't have to bother 21 to come back in a year. I do business in Fresno. I gave 22 away a shop to get away from the losses that I was 23 incurring at that one shop. And, quite frankly, I'm 24 trying to figure out how to get away from the other one 25 from the losses I'm incurring there. So I can demonstrate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 for you any time you want. And those are businesses that 2 I had since 1976. So basically what you're doing is 3 you're blowing up the test and repair industry. Those are 4 the people that are the only people that have qualified 5 themselves to repair the cars. And so we're backwards 6 city here. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think as Professor Friedman 8 said, this is -- the Legislature would -- the attention 9 should be directed -- 10 MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, the problem is that the 11 people in your arena are the ones that convinced the 12 Legislature that they should to do this. So it's kind of 13 a round robin deal. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 15 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Sir, so we're really 16 clear about this, I don't like test-only. I've been real 17 clear with that over and over again. The decision before 18 us today was whether or not to put the five- and six-year 19 cars back in. And that's what we just voted on. I think 20 I've been pretty clear I don't like test-only. I think it 21 de-skills the profession. I think that -- I'm familiar 22 with how mechanics are paid. They're paid to fix things. 23 There's flat rates, and the pay rates to do a test-only 24 are not very good. And it may be the same training. It 25 may be the same testing. But the cream of the crop is not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 going to go to test-only. The cream of the crop is going 2 to go to places where they fix things because that's how 3 they make their money. 4 So -- but none of that was the decision we were 5 making today. The decision we're making today is whether 6 to include the five- and six-year cars back in. And I 7 think we have to do that. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Thank you very 9 much staff. We voted on that. 10 Let's move on. Thank you. 11 We'll move to the last item today on 12 environmental justice update. The next item on today's 13 agenda 03-4-6, a report back on the Board on environmental 14 justice related data needs. 15 In January Board Member Matt McKinnon requested 16 briefing on the information needs related to ARB's 17 environmental justice policies and action. This issue has 18 also been raised by community groups who have requested 19 our assistance in improving public access to information 20 on air pollution. Our commitment to work with air 21 districts to achieve that goal is an important aspect of 22 the Board's environmental justice policies. 23 Before beginning the staff presentation, I would 24 like to take a moment to introduce a new addition to the 25 Chair's Office, and that is a Hewlett Environmental PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 Foundation Executive Fellow, Ms. Teresa Villegas. I would 2 like to turn it over to Dr. Shankar Prasad to introduce 3 our new addition at this time. 4 DR. PRASAD: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 5 members of the Board. It is a pleasure to introduce Ms. 6 Teresa Villegas to the Board. Teresa is a Hewlett 7 Executive Fellow who will be spending the next year 8 working in the Chair's office. She will be working with 9 us to help implement the Board's environmental justice 10 policies. Since graduating from Cal Poly Pomona in 1996, 11 she has worked with a number of community groups and 12 organizations in Southern California. Until recently she 13 worked with the Trust for Public Land that works to turn 14 land in low income and neighborhoods into public parks. 15 Her experience with working with community groups will be 16 a great asset as we work with these groups to address and 17 implement their environmental justice policies adopted by 18 this Board. 19 Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 21 Did you want to say something, Ms. Villegas? 22 MS. VILLEGAS: Hi. Good afternoon. I just want 23 to say thank you to Chairman Lloyd and also thank you to 24 the Hewlett Foundation for giving me this opportunity to 25 be able to work with the Air Resources Board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 I've been mainly on the advocacy side of doing 2 environmental work mainly in the conservation field. And 3 my interest to come to the regulatory side is to grasp 4 more of an understanding on permitting, on regulatory 5 aspects. I'm very, very enthused to be here, and thank 6 you for the opportunity. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. So I'll 8 turn it over to Ms. Witherspoon for beginning the staff 9 presentation. 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Our final item of 11 the day. Thank you, Chairman Lloyd, and members of the 12 Board. 13 At the January Board hearing we presented a 14 status report on the implementation of ARB environmental 15 justice policy. Representatives of environmental groups 16 provided favorable comments on the progress that has been 17 made, but also identified additional information needs. 18 Two key items are improved toxic air pollutant emission 19 data and better methods to assess noncancer health effect. 20 Today's presentation will focus on the work 21 underway to address these issues. Staff is working 22 closely with air districts and our EJ stakeholders group 23 in these efforts. Later this year we will bring to you a 24 full report on the technical work to develop tools for 25 assessing cumulative impacts. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 With that introduction, I'll ask Dale Shimp, the 2 Manager of the Environmental Justice Section, to present 3 the staff report on the work that is underway. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: 5 Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. Good morning, Chairman Lloyd 6 and members of the Board. 7 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 8 presented as follows.) 9 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: 10 The purpose of the presentation is to highlight some of 11 the technical information needs of ARB's environmental 12 justice program, followed by a short description of the 13 work underway to address these issues. 14 In discussions with our stakeholders, community 15 groups expressed concerns about the availability of 16 community-specific information to assess the cumulative 17 impacts of air pollution. These include up-to-date toxics 18 emissions data, community air monitoring, methods for the 19 assessment of cumulative air pollution impacts, and a more 20 complete assessment of non-cancer health effects. 21 Let's begin with how emissions are assessed. 22 --o0o-- 23 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: 24 The ARB working with local air quality districts has 25 developed statewide emission inventories for both toxic PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 and criteria air pollutants. The air districts collect 2 emission data for stationary sources, and ARB provides 3 emissions data from mobile sources and consumer products. 4 Criteria pollutant data has been collected since 5 early 1970s and toxic pollutant inventories began to be 6 developed in the mid 1980s. 7 --o0o-- 8 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: 9 Emission data for toxic air pollutants is a high priority 10 for communities because of concerns about the potential 11 health effect. Most of our toxic data is collected by the 12 Toxics Hot Spots Program. Local districts collect 13 emissions data from industrial and commercial facilities. 14 Facilities that exceed health-based thresholds are 15 required to update their emissions data every four years. 16 Other facilities are required to update their toxic 17 emission data if there is an increase that would trigger 18 the reporting thresholds for the Hot Spots Program. 19 The toxic emissions from motor vehicles and 20 consumer products are estimated by the ARB. These 21 estimates are generally regional in nature reflecting 22 traffic and population. 23 Now let's look at what additional emissions 24 information is needed for cumulative impact assessments. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: In 2 order to assess cumulative air pollution impacts, updated 3 information for individual facilities is needed. Even for 4 sources where emissions data is available, additional 5 information such as the location of the release points is 6 often needed to better model cumulative impacts. 7 In terms of motor vehicles, emissions data is 8 currently based on traffic models that only contain major 9 roads and freeways. Local traffic data is needed so that 10 we can more accurately assign traffic emissions to 11 specific streets and roads. Local information is also 12 needed for off-road emission sources, such as ships, 13 trains, and construction equipment. In addition, hourly 14 maximum emission data is needed for assessing acute air 15 pollution impacts. 16 --o0o-- 17 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: 18 Staff is currently working to solve some of the emission 19 inventory issues that were discussed. Some of the 20 projects we are working on include working with CAPCOA to 21 improve toxics emissions data, developing community health 22 air pollution information system to improve access to 23 emission information, conducting neighborhood assessment 24 studies to better understand toxic emissions sources, and 25 conducting surveys of sources of toxic pollutants. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 --o0o-- 2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: 3 While emissions data tells us about how much air pollution 4 has gone into the air, the state's air quality monitoring 5 network measures air pollutant levels in outdoor air. The 6 statewide air monitoring network is primarily designed to 7 measure regional exposure to air pollutants and consists 8 of more than 250 monitoring sites. 9 Toxic air pollutants monitoring network consists 10 of 20 permanent sites. These sites are supplemented by 11 special monitoring studies conducted by ARB and air 12 districts. These sites measure upward of 60 toxic air 13 pollutants. Diesel particulate matter, which is a major 14 driver of urban toxic risk, is not monitored directly. 15 Of the other pollutants we are monitoring, 10 of 16 the 60 toxic pollutants, not including diesel, accounts 17 for most of the remaining air pollution cancer risk in 18 California urban areas. 19 --o0o-- 20 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: 21 Recently additional monitoring has been done to look at 22 air quality at the community level. Our community 23 monitoring was conducted in six communities located 24 throughout the state. Most of the sites were low income 25 minority communities located near major sources of air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 pollution, such as refineries or freeways. The monitoring 2 took place for a year or more in each community and 3 included measurements of criteria and toxic pollutants. 4 Let's look at what the preliminary results from the study 5 are showing us about air pollution in communities. 6 --o0o-- 7 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: The 8 preliminary results of our community monitoring are 9 providing us with insight into air pollution at the 10 community level. Urban background levels are a major 11 contributor to the overall risk from toxic air pollutant 12 in urban area. This urban background tends to mask the 13 differences between communities. When we did measure 14 localized air pollution levels, they were usually 15 associated with local ground level sources of toxic 16 pollutants. The most common source of this type was busy 17 streets and freeways. The impact that these ground level 18 sources had on local air quality decreased rapidly as you 19 move away from the source. 20 Pollutant levels usually return to the urban 21 background level within a few hundred meters of the 22 source. These results indicate that tools to assess 23 cumulative impacts must be able to account for both 24 localized near-source impacts as well as regional 25 background air pollution. The tools that we are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 developing for this purpose are air quality models. 2 --o0o-- 3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: 4 While air monitoring can directly measure cumulative 5 exposure to air pollution, it is limited because you 6 cannot monitor at all locations. To address this, air 7 quality modeling provides us the capability to estimate 8 exposure when air monitoring is not feasible. Air quality 9 modeling can be refined to assess local exposure, identify 10 locations of potential hot spots, and identify the 11 relative contributions of emission sources to exposure at 12 specific locations. 13 --o0o-- 14 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: 15 Regional air quality models are used to evaluate air 16 quality for large areas. There are also models that can 17 be used to assess near-source impacts, but they have very 18 exacting data requirements. These near-source models 19 estimate the impact of local sources but do not routinely 20 include the contribution from regional background air 21 pollution. 22 To estimate cumulative air pollution exposure, we 23 need a near-modeling approach that combines the strengths 24 of neighborhood scale and regional models. In addition, 25 models need further development to address cumulative PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 exposure at the community level. Improved methods are 2 needed to assess near-source impacts under light and 3 variable wind conditions because these are among the 4 conditions when high local concentrations are likely to 5 include. A method for modeling long-term exposure to air 6 pollutants near freeways and other high-traffic areas is 7 also needed. 8 --o0o-- 9 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: A 10 number of efforts are under way to address the modeling 11 needs I just described. In our neighborhood assessment 12 studies of Barrio, Logan, and Wilmington, we're refining 13 our community level modeling methodologies. We're also 14 performing toxic modeling through regional toxic modeling 15 to better understand regional exposure to background air 16 pollution. 17 In a parallel effort, we are also developing an 18 overall modeling protocol for assessing cumulative 19 impacts. The protocol will cover trace of models, 20 procedures for running the models, and methods for 21 estimating health risks. The protocol will be subject to 22 an extensive peer review process prior to release. 23 --o0o-- 24 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: On 25 a statewide basis, ARB's long-term toxic air contaminant PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 program identifies and reduces public exposure to air 2 toxics. The focus of the program to date has been on 3 reducing cancer risk because monitoring results show urban 4 cancer risk levels are too high. We have also looked for 5 potential non-cancer risk based on health reference levels 6 provided by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 7 Assessment. 8 On a regional basis, pollutants measured in our 9 toxic monitoring network are generally below the OEHHA 10 non-cancer reference exposure levels. As part of our 11 community health and environmental justice programs, we 12 are taking another look to see if there may be localized 13 exposures of concerns from the standpoint of non-cancer 14 health effects. This could include chronic or acute 15 health effects if our assessment work shows elevated 16 exposures on a localized basis. We'll work with OEHHA to 17 assess the health impacts. 18 --o0o-- 19 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: ARB 20 is currently implementing the vulnerable populations 21 research programs which is designed to assess air 22 pollution's impacts on health. To help guide our efforts, 23 we have a Vulnerable Populations External Advisory 24 Committee composed of 12 nationally-known scientists, 25 including Dr. William Friedman of our Board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 Traditionally, vulnerability has been generally 2 defined in terms of age, disease status, and genetics. 3 We're expanding our concept of vulnerability to consider 4 additional factors such as socioeconomic status and unique 5 exposures that may result from higher level of air 6 pollutants in some communities. This effort will build up 7 ongoing research that will continue to provide insights 8 into vulnerability, such as the Children's Health Study, 9 the Fresno Asthmatic Children Environment Study, or FACES. 10 --o0o-- 11 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION MANAGER SHIMP: 12 Addressing the issue of cumulative impacts, exposures, and 13 health risks is a challenging task. In an effort to meet 14 these challenges, staff is working with CAPCOA and OEHHA 15 to improve toxic air pollutant data and tools. ARB is 16 also working with the environmental justice stakeholders 17 group as we improve our assessment methods. 18 Thank you, and we'd be happy to answer any 19 questions that you may have. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 21 Again, I'd like to take the opportunity to 22 reiterate what I said this morning, and that's excellent 23 work in leading the -- representing the Board and the 24 efforts with staff and the stakeholders on the very 25 important issue. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 So, Mr. McKinnon, do you have any -- 2 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I just -- I have a 3 question. Are we -- how this request came about was sort 4 of when the Research Committee was testifying and we were 5 asking about EJ research. And what I gather from this is 6 this is short of internal development that is headed for 7 the research community? Where are we -- what's going on 8 here? 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: When the 10 environmental groups first started talking to us about 11 data needs, they used to work research, and they talked 12 about a set aside of funds. Because they were concerned 13 if we didn't partition our dollars, we would never answer 14 their questions. And the more we talked to them and honed 15 in on what the questions were and what the data needs 16 were, we realized we weren't talking about research, you 17 know, proper at all. We really were talking about 18 microscale modeling, air toxic data, ability to measure 19 what people were breathing in neighborhoods, and the tools 20 that will enable us to move to the next policy step. 21 So in reporting back to you, we've tried to 22 explain what it is we've got in the pipeline that will 23 move the whole policy deliberation forward. And they have 24 stopped talking to us about research set asides. I think 25 it's going well that we're understanding each other better PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 and that they're very pleased with the progress we're 2 making on different technical tools and eager to have the 3 policy debate about what the tools mean when we actually 4 apply them. 5 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. I do recall the 6 set aside funding issue. And actually Dr. Friedman 7 communicated with me some pretty careful thoughts about 8 that, and I'm not at all interested in set aside funding. 9 It would be foolish to do. 10 But I guess the -- very directly the area that I 11 still wonder if there isn't sort of a research 12 component -- and BARCT and I spent a lot of time talking, 13 the place I still wonder is in the cumulative effects sort 14 of modeling area. Is there -- I guess we do lots of 15 modeling internally. So we're pretty comfortable that 16 we're doing that, and it's going to be peer review. 17 That's what I gather. Okay. 18 So I'm still a little uncomfortable because I 19 think the cumulative effect is such a huge step. And by 20 no means do I have the background to even understand it 21 completely and talk about it. But it seems to me that if 22 we get into discussions like land use planning and even if 23 it's advisory, if our scientific tools aren't sort of 24 vetted with the world, we're sort of asking for it. 25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: If I could PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 comment on that. We tried to do the broad brush today on 2 this issue. We would like to brief our stakeholders in 3 more detail. We briefed the Chairman earlier this week. 4 And we're making a lot of progress. We are fortunate to 5 have in-house, I think, leading-edge modeling experts on 6 localized modeling and how you overlay regional toxic 7 modeling and then try and take into account the local 8 exposures. And not double count, but get a more accurate 9 portrayal of exposures in local communities. So we're 10 making really good progress. 11 We've got a broad group reviewing it that is 12 community folks, EJ stakeholders. And we also have a 13 separate scientific peer review process so at the end of 14 the year we would bring back to the Board the package of 15 technical tools. That is on a parallel track with the 16 land use guidance we're also working on. 17 And I think you raise a good point about our 18 outreach on the tools to perhaps a broader group including 19 the land use folks because, you know, we hope they're 20 going to be a critical link in getting in tools used in 21 the land use process. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I would suggest that maybe 23 since Mr. McKinnon is really leading this effort for the 24 Board, give him the briefing that you gave me. And I 25 think it would be very valuable because there are issues PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 that, again, I was concerned about, and cumulative impact 2 clearly is a tool. Although, there are issues there and 3 we need to get some more intense resources in order for us 4 to be able to learn the models in the shorter time period. 5 But I think you would benefit from that. I think it would 6 be ideal. I'd be happy to sit in again to hear that as we 7 move ahead because I think it's a key issue. 8 Please write into the land use decision that we 9 heard this morning cumulative impact. You mentioned the 10 land use guidance, that I was refreshing myself. We 11 handed these out. The score card here is staff is making 12 complaint resolution protocol, public participation 13 handbook, land use guidance, and permitting guidance 14 methods to assess cumulative impacts. 15 When you talk about land use guidance, does that 16 include permitting? 17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: The document 18 that we're working on this year is a land use piece. On a 19 parallel track, the issue of permitting is being dealt 20 with. And in fact our first meeting the first week of 21 June will be our first sort of foray into that discussion. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. The other one, again, 23 I don't want to leave the wrong impression with the people 24 who are not familiar with the conclusions ARB, CAPCOA, and 25 OEHHA are working to improve toxic air pollutant data and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 tools. And then talking about assessment tools gives the 2 impression that we are studying. But what efforts are we 3 doing to look at existing problems and how we might 4 mitigate the issues there? 5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Actually, that's 6 a really good question. Who do we expect to use the 7 tools? And we spent a lot of time thinking about that as 8 staff. And the first cut is that we would expect ARB 9 staff to use the tools. And as part of our commitment to 10 bring back to the Board, the tools would be also the 11 results of use of those models for our statewide 12 assessment at the current risk level. 13 So you may recall we have some risk maps that we 14 showed the Board earlier that were a little cruder. We 15 want to bring more sophisticated results of this modeling 16 early next year once the tools are approved and have gone 17 through the process to map out on a statewide basis, at 18 least for the major urban areas. 19 Our current understanding of risk with the 20 approved data which includes new toxic emission data that 21 we've been working with CAPCOA on improving so we can put 22 into these models by the end of the year and then make 23 this information available to the public through our wage 24 pages, for example. 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: One the other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 things we're doing to address existing problems is we're 2 revisiting our air toxics control measures to see if they 3 were stringent enough in the first case. So we will be 4 bringing back to the Board chrome and perk and other 5 metals of concern and looking at both permitting elements 6 on a prospective basis and more stringent retrofit 7 controls where warranted to address the kinds of problems 8 we're discovering through our neighborhood evaluations. 9 And we just have to start one thing at a time. 10 There isn't sort of a SWAT approach where we can go into a 11 whole community and regulate every source at once. At 12 least we haven't thought of one yet. But as we identify 13 the problems, we're going to go after them systematically 14 through rule-making. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: When will ACTM's come back to 16 us? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I think chrome is 18 this year. Perk is next year. And the chrome measure 19 will contain other metals. No? Metal melting I think is 20 next year that has multiple metals in it. Chrome is by 21 itself. I'm being corrected by staff. Wrong again. But 22 we don't have a date for that hearing. Maybe next year, 23 maybe later. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I just want to be really PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 clear that I'm really encouraged by everything that has 2 moved through the stakeholders process this last year. 3 And staff has moved -- and you know, whether it is the 4 investigation that went on at Bario Logan or moving public 5 participation, we've been down a long road in a pretty 6 short period of time, and it's a lot to be proud of. I 7 think we're starting to go into the area that is the heavy 8 lifting. It's really -- and scientific sort of 9 verification of how we're doing it probably will matter a 10 lot. So that we're -- you know, so it's a fair system and 11 so that it -- that we don't damage things but that we do 12 protect people's health. 13 So anyway, folks you have a lot to be proud of. 14 There were two other items up today that, you know, 15 mattered to this, and really appreciate everything you've 16 done. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And I agree. And I think 18 it's in that context to take -- avail yourself of Mr. 19 McKinnon here because I think that he really needs to be 20 kept informed of all the actions, and there's a lot going 21 on. Again, I realize you can only accomplish so much in 22 this briefing here. There's a lot of stuff that he can 23 interact with as well. Thank you very much. 24 Any other comments from the staff? I mean from 25 the Board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: That's the nicest thing 2 you've ever said about us. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. And 4 thank you, staff. 5 And seeing no other items on the open comment 6 period, with that, we'll officially bring the May 22nd, 7 2003, Board meeting of the Air Resources Board to a close. 8 And we look forward to seeing you down in Fresno next in 9 June. So thank you very much. 10 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board 11 adjourned at 1:42 p.m.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 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 3rd day of May, 2003. 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