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, JULY 21, 2005 9:04 A.M. TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cindy Tuck, Chairperson Ms. Sandra Berg Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Mr. Henry Gong, Jr., M.D. Mr. Ronald O. Loveridge Supervisor Barbara Patrick Ms. Patricia Salas Pineda Mrs. Barbara Riordan Supervisor Ron Roberts STAFF Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Tom Jennings, Acting General Counsel Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Ms. Lori Andreoni, Board Secretary Mr. Steve Albu, Assistant Division Chief, MSCD Mr. Bart Croes, Chief, Research Division PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF Ms. Kate MacGregor, M.P.H., Populations Studies Section, Research Division Mr. Mike McCarthy, Manager, Advanced Engineering Section, MSCD Ms. AnnMarie Mora, Air Pollution Specialist ALSO PRESENT Mr. Mike Bar, Pillsbury Law Firm Ms. Sylvia Betancourt, East/Yard Communities for Environmental Justice Mr. Todd Campbell, Coalition for Clean Air Professor Hal Cota, Research Screening Committee Mr. Dave Ferris, General Motors Ms. Barbara Finlayson-Pitts, Research Screening Committee Mr. Frank Gallego Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association Mr. Bob Jorgensen, Cummins, Inc. Ms. Barbara Lee, CAPCAO Ms. Lela Leon, Commission/East Yard Ms. Melissa Lin Perrella, NRDC Ms. Marie Liu, Senator Dean Florez' Office Dr. Alan Lloyd, CalEPA Secretary Mr. Angelo Logan, EYCEJ PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Ms. Rachel Lopez, CCAE/H.O.M.E. Mr. Jed Mandel, EMA Mr. Kirk Marckwald, Association of Americal Railroads Mr. Leonard Mendoza, East Yard/United Family of Burrow Ms. Rachel Morello-Frosch, Research Screening Committee Ms. Kathryn Phillips, Environmental Defense Mr. Eric Swenson, Truck Manufacturers Association Ms. Tracy Thatcher, Research Screening Committee Mr. Barry Wallerstein, SCAQMD Mr. Forman Williams, Research Screening Committee PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Item 05-7-1 Chairperson Tuck 9 Executive Officer Witherspoon 9 Staff Presentation 9 Q&A 15 Item 05-7-4 Chairperson Tuck 16 Executive Officer Witherspoon 17 Staff Presentation 18 Ombudsman Tschogl 42 Q&A 43 Mr. Mandel 59 Mr. Swenson 70 Mr. Jorgensen 74 Mr. Campbell 80 Ms. Holmes-Gen 83 Ms. Phillips 87 Motion 93 Vote 93 Item 05-7-5 Chairperson Tuck 94 Q&A 101 Ms. Lee 109 Dr. Wallerstein 112 Mr. Campbell 121 Mr. Logan 125 Ms. Betancourt 128 Ms. Lopez 129 Mr. Gallego 130 Ms. Leon 133 Mr. Mendoza 135 Ms. Perrella 137 Mr. Marckwald 139 Mr. Bar 142 Q&A 144 Item 05-7-2 Chairperson Tuck 154 Executive Officer Witherspoon 155 Professor Cota 156 Ms. Finlayson-Pitts 156 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vi INDEX CONTINUED PAGE Ms. Morello-Frosch 157 Ms. Thatcher 157 Professor Cota 158 Staff Presentation 160 Q&A 175 Ms. Lu 181 Ms. Holmes-Gen 184 Motion 186 Vote 186 Item 05-7-3 Chairperson Tuck 187 Executive Officer Witherspoon 187 Staff Presentation 187 Motion 189 Vote 189 Adjournment 189 Reporter's Certificate 190 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Good morning. If everyone 3 would take your seats. The July 21, 2005, public meeting 4 of the Air Resources Board will now come to order. 5 Ms. Riordan, would you please lead us in the 6 Pledge. 7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: If everybody would rise, 8 please. 9 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 10 recited in unison.) 11 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Secretary Lloyd, I would be 12 honored if you would join us at the dias. 13 SECRETARY LLOYD: Well, it gives me great 14 pleasure, Cindy, to swear you in for the office of 15 Chairman of the Air Resources Board. So if you would take 16 the oath, swear on the Bible. 17 (Thereupon Chairperson Tuck was sworn.) 18 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you very much. 19 (Applause) 20 SECRETARY LLOYD: I'm sure Cindy will do a great 21 job, and she's in great hands with this Board. And I look 22 forward to monitoring from above. 23 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: All right. Will the Secretary 24 please call the roll. I should say the Clerk of the 25 Board. Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 2 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Here. 3 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 5 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor DeSaulnier? 6 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Here. 7 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Dr. Gong? 8 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Here. 9 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 10 Mayor Loveridge? 11 Supervisor Patrick? 12 Ms. Pineda? 13 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Here. 14 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts? 15 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Here. 16 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Riordan? 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 18 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Tuck? 19 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Here. 20 All right. Good morning. Before we proceed with 21 the agenda today, I want to acknowledge and thank Ms. 22 Riordan for her service as the interim Chairman for the 23 Board for the last seven months. As my colleagues on this 24 Board know, Barbara is an extraordinarily gracious Chair, 25 who manages to let everyone be heard, but still run an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 efficient meeting. And I've been told by my colleagues 2 and staff that that would be a great thing for me to do. 3 And I also want to say she's been very helpful as I 4 transition into this position. So thank you, Barbara. 5 (Applause) 6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you very much. We 7 are delighted you're here. 8 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you. 9 Staff has also enjoyed Ms. Riordan's tenure as 10 Chairman, and staff has prepared a Resolution honoring 11 Barbara. And I'd like to ask Supervisor Roberts to read 12 the Resolution. 13 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. 14 I'm pleased to be able to do this without any 15 mental reservation. I can tell you that. Every 16 successful baseball team needs somebody who, when a key 17 player is down, they can step in and keep things in order, 18 keep everybody going. And this certainly has been the 19 case with Barbara Riordan now on two separate occasions. 20 But let me read this Resolution of the Air Resources 21 Board. It begins, 22 "Whereas, Barbara Riordan as the Air 23 Resources Board's most experienced member, 24 appointed to serve by both Governor Pete Wilson 25 and Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1991 and 2004, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 respectively." 2 It goes on to say, 3 "Barbara holds a general secondary in 4 lifetime teaching credential and brings to the 5 Board such teacherly skills as patience, humor, 6 equanimity, knowledge, sincerity, balance, and 7 the skill of active listening. Her experience as 8 the former Chairwoman of the San Bernardino 9 County Board of Supervisors served the Board well 10 during her tenure as Acting Chair from November 11 of 1998 to February of 1999 and from January of 12 2005 to July of 2005. Barbara's ability to 13 assemble great quantities of information quickly, 14 to cut to the chase, and ask all the right 15 questions, to give the impression of relaxation 16 while acting with great efficiency, to make each 17 speaker feel his or her remarks are valuable, to 18 respect and weigh diverse points of view" -- you 19 mean nobody heard that? 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: You don't have to repeat 21 it. 22 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: For those of you in the back 23 row, I'm sorry. 24 "And to carry herself with unhurried 25 graciousness while balancing numerous tasks that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 brought out the best of fellow Board members, 2 staff, and the citizens who appear before the 3 Board. 4 "Whereas, Ms. Riordan's voluntary service as 5 Chairwoman is completed, and she will remain on 6 the Board as the district member representing the 7 Mohave District. 8 "Now, therefore be it resolved, that the 9 Board applauds Barbara for her exemplary work as 10 Madam Chairman and appreciates her nurturing and 11 capable leadership during the times we were 12 orphaned. 13 "Be it further resolved, that Barbara's 14 colleagues on the Board look forward to 15 continuing to work with her in the future to 16 address California's air quality and affirm our 17 good fortunate in having her as a member. 18 "Executed at Sacramento, California, this 19 21st day of July, 2005." 20 (Applause) 21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. Thank you very 22 much. And it was a real pleasure to have stepped in for 23 this short time. And, again, I thank the staff for their 24 help and my colleagues. And, again, I say to you, Madam 25 Chair, we're just delighted you're here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you so much. And thank 2 you, Supervisor Roberts. 3 I want to move quickly to the agenda, but I would 4 like to make a few opening remarks. 5 First, I'm honored and excited to have been 6 appointed by the Governor as the Chair of this 7 distinguished Board. The Air Resources Board is 8 internationally renowned for its work in improving air 9 quality and protecting public health. 10 I want to thank the Board for your warm words of 11 welcome during the last five days, four or five days. And 12 I want to thank the staff for your warm welcome and all 13 your very hard work to get me prepared for this meeting in 14 short order. Thank you very much. 15 Coming into this position, I already had a very 16 high regard for this Board and the work it does. This 17 Board excels in effective program development, in sound 18 science, and in technological innovation. It has earned 19 its world-class reputation. During my tenure, I will do 20 everything in my power to ensure that ARB's reputation is 21 protected and enhanced. 22 As you all know, our core programs at ARB are 23 aimed at achieving the criteria pollutant standards and 24 reducing exposure to, and the health risk posed by, toxic 25 air contaminants. And I look forward to working in those PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 areas with the Board and with staff and with all the 2 interested parties and the public. 3 I'm committed personally to ensuring that ARB 4 treats all people fairly in the development, adoption, 5 implementation, and enforcement of our programs. 6 Environmental justice work, in coordination with CalEPA, 7 will be a high priority for me personally. 8 I'm very excited about the opportunity to work 9 closely with Secretary Lloyd and Terry Tamminen, our 10 Cabinet Secretary, in coordination with the Legislature, 11 on two vital programs. And those are programs that are 12 taking us into a whole new world. And what, of course, 13 I'm speaking about are the climate change programs, the 14 Governor's initiatives, and the Legislature's initiative, 15 and also the hydrogen highway. California has made a good 16 start on these programs. And, obviously, there's a lot 17 more work to do. And I'm eager to provide or add my 18 personal contribution. 19 As an aside, my understanding is that the Public 20 Policy Institute of California just came out with a public 21 pole showing that 69 percent of Californians support the 22 Governor's greenhouse gas emission targets, and 77 percent 23 support the Fran Pavley legislation on the reduction of 24 greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. So we have 25 very strong public support for this work. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 In all the work I outlined, to me, having good 2 outreach, meaningful public processes, and respectful 3 communication with the Legislature, the Air Districts, and 4 interested parties such as local governments, and probably 5 most important the public are very important to me. 6 So, again, I'm honored to be serving the public 7 of California in this position. I look forward to working 8 with my colleagues on this Board. And I want to do the 9 very best that we can to improve air quality for 10 Californians and public health for the citizens of 11 California. 12 So let's get started. I would like to propose 13 one change in the agenda order. I think Mayor Loveridge 14 is running late because of a flight change. So what we'd 15 like to do -- let me explain this. In the July 11th 16 version of our agenda, staff had added an agenda item, 17 which is 05-7-5, which concerns a proposed Resolution 18 providing for Board ratifications of Memorandum of 19 Understanding entered into by the Executive Officer. If 20 it's agreeable to all of you, I'd like to take that 21 Resolution up after the on-board diagnostic item, so it 22 would become the third item. 23 All right. So hearing no objection, we can get 24 down to business. And the first item today would be 25 Agenda Item 05-7-1, and is our monthly health update. And PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 today we'll hear an overview of the research underway at 2 the Southern California Particle Center and Supersite 3 located at the University of California Los Angeles and 4 partially funded by the Air Resources Board. I look 5 forward to hearing today's presentation. 6 Ms. Witherspoon, would you please introduce this 7 item. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. Thank you, 9 Madam Chair. And good morning, Members of the Board. 10 Today's health update describes important 11 research being conducted at a Center whose contributions 12 continue to make headlines and provide essential 13 information we need to protect public health and the 14 environment in California. The Supersite's efforts have 15 resulted in dozens of peer reviewed publications and led 16 to major advances in our understanding of mobile source 17 related particulate matter, exposure assessment, dosimetry 18 and modeling, toxicology, and epidemiology. Today, 19 Ms. Kate MacGregor from the Research Division will update 20 the Board on the Supersite and highlight several of their 21 studies. 22 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 23 presented as follows.) 24 MS. MAC GREGOR: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. 25 Good morning, Chair Tuck and members of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 Board. 2 In this morning's health update, I will review 3 the Research Program areas and highlight the experimental 4 findings of studies being conducted at one of the nation's 5 premier air pollution research centers, the Southern 6 California Particle Center and Supersite. 7 --o0o-- 8 MS. MAC GREGOR: In the year 2000, the Air 9 Resources Board initiated funding for an exposure facility 10 at UCLA to study the inhalation affects of ambient 11 aerosols. The Center's finding was augmented by U.S. EPA 12 when it was named as one of five regional particle Centers 13 and one of seven Supersites in the nation. This is the 14 only Center in the nation to be funded by EPA as both a 15 particulate center and a Supersite. 16 Although the Center is located at the University 17 of California Los Angeles, research programs are conducted 18 with participating investigators from the University of 19 Southern California, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC Davis, 20 and Rancho Los Amigos, among many others. 21 The main objective of the Center is to conduct 22 high-quality multi-disciplinary research on airborne 23 particulate matter to ensure public health. Research is 24 linked to key policy related scientific uncertainties 25 based on the National Research Council's ten research PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 priorities for airborne particulate matter. 2 --o0o-- 3 MS. MAC GREGOR: The Center has been successful 4 in completing a large number of studies and contributing 5 to a great many others by maintaining a multi-disciplinary 6 approach, integrating information obtained from 7 toxicology, PM characterization, exposure assessment, and 8 human panel studies. To date, the Center's publications 9 and peer review journals have exceeded the 100 mark. 10 A particular emphasis for research at the Center 11 is placed on the role of oxidative stress and the ability 12 of PM to induce pro-inflammatory responses thought to be 13 responsible for the health effects observed in 14 epidemiologic studies of asthma and cardiovascular 15 disease. Studies conducted at the Center help justify 16 a new state law that affects communities impacted by 17 traffic pollution, which are often economically 18 disadvantaged. This law restricts the citing of new 19 schools within 500 feet of a freeway or heavily traveled 20 roadway. 21 The Center's research on exposure assessment and 22 toxicology depends on the use of sophisticated 23 instrumentation methodology. The Center has made enormous 24 contributions in this area, as well as with development in 25 evaluation of a concentrator, the versatile aerosol PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 concentration enrichment system, or VACES. 2 --o0o-- 3 MS. MAC GREGOR: VACES makes it possible to 4 expose laboratory animals or human volunteers to 5 concentrated ambient particles, or CAPS, in field 6 conditions or chambers. CAPS can also be utilized for 7 cellular bioassays to quantitatively understand the 8 chemical and toxicological properties of PM. An example 9 of an animal study using this approach was conducted by 10 Kleinman and Colleagues who were able to show that mice 11 exposed to CAPS collected 15 meters downwind of a roadway 12 had greater allergic responses and had greater indications 13 of inflammation than did mice exposed to CAPS 150 meters 14 downwind of the roadway. 15 The human panel studies undertaken at the Center 16 have all shown cardiovascular effects for coarse, fine, 17 and ultra fine particles, particularly changes in heart 18 rate variability. In one example of a human panel study 19 conducted at the Center, researchers examined the 20 respiratory responses of elderly subjects with and without 21 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. In this 22 study, volunteers were exposed to particulates and 23 nitrogen dioxide in a single-person exposure chamber shown 24 here. In this study, volunteers were exposed -- the 25 results found small but statistically significant PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 decrements in respiratory responses associated with CAPS 2 that were greater in healthy volunteers, indicating that 3 respiratory effects may be related to efficient 4 penetration in deposition of inhaled toxic particles in 5 small airways. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. MAC GREGOR: Exposure assessment studies at 8 the Center focus on the physical and chemical 9 characterization of PM near sources, freeways with heavy- 10 and light-duty vehicle traffic. Research in this category 11 has shown that ultra fine PM, a co-pollutant, decrease 12 exponentially as distance increases from the roadway. 13 Size distributions, chemical characteristics, and 14 volatility have also been shown to be impacted as distance 15 increases from the roadway. 16 Center researchers also seek to understand how PM 17 toxicity varies between source and receptor sites and how 18 PM composition may have been modified by atmospheric 19 chemistry. Concentrators and inhalation exposure systems 20 housed in a trailer are important for conducting these 21 studies. A recently published study by the Center on the 22 differences between indoor and outdoor ultra fine 23 particulate matter volatility found that outdoor particles 24 are more volatile than indoor particles. These changes 25 are likely to affect the pollutant's toxicity. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. MAC GREGOR: The PM Center funding has been 3 recently extended by the EPA, and the UCLA PM Center plans 4 to continue its focus on the understanding of PM toxicity 5 with emphasis on gasoline versus diesel emissions in 6 comparison of fine versus ultra fine PM. One such study 7 involves a Center researcher as the principle investigator 8 and as a joint effort with ARB and the South Coast Air 9 Quality Management District. This investigation will 10 compare PM emissions from gasoline and diesel engines with 11 varying levels of emissions control technology. Bioassays 12 will evaluate the health effects of the CAPS from these 13 sources. 14 The studies highlighted today and future studies 15 conducted at the Center will guide ARB in targeting the 16 appropriate PM sources and constituents for regulations 17 and control. 18 Thank you for your attention, and I'd be happy to 19 take questions. 20 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you. 21 This health update points out the continuing need 22 to understand the impacts of exposure on public health and 23 also the importance of including our most vulnerable 24 populations in our efforts to protect public health. 25 At this point, I'd like to ask my colleagues if PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 you have any questions about the health update. 2 Dr. Gong. 3 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I have some comments, as 4 usual, on the health updates. And I just wanted to 5 compliment the speaker about the summary of the PM Center 6 in Southern California. I'm proud to be a member of that 7 Center and its research activities. And I think probably 8 one of the most important things we've found in terms of 9 human health effects are not that there are some mild 10 inflammatory effects in the lungs, but also systemically 11 in the body. And that, indeed, there's much evidence now 12 pointing towards cardiovascular affects of inhaled 13 particulate matter. And this could be actually from 14 coarse to fine to ultra fine sizes. And I think this has 15 been a major impetus for a new line of research, 16 particularly NIH, which is looking at mechanisms of 17 cardiovascular injury. And I think this PM Center in 18 particular probably was in the forefront of that 19 particular movement. 20 I would also like to add that California is now 21 fortunate -- and I guess it's public knowledge -- that we 22 do have a second PM Center that's been funded by the U.S. 23 EPA, and that will be at UC Davis. So this is something 24 brand-new and I think very exciting for the health 25 scientists in the state and the country and also for our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 citizens to learn that we have science at the forefront of 2 this particular area. Thank you. 3 MS. MAC GREGOR: Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Are there any other comments 5 or questions? 6 All right. I'd like to ask the Clerk if there 7 are any witnesses to speak on this item? 8 SECRETARY ANDREONI: There are no witnesses. 9 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: And Ms. Witherspoon, do you 10 have any further comments? 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No, nothing 12 further. 13 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: This is not a regulatory item, 14 so we don't need to close the record. There's no 15 Resolution and no need to have a vote on this item. 16 We're moving right along. Our next item is a 17 major item. And we'll allow for the change in staff here 18 as we prepare. 19 The next item is Item 05-7-4, and this is 20 concerning the on-board diagnostics, or OBD, for 21 heavy-duty engines. The emission standards for heavy-duty 22 engines will become much more stringent between 2007 and 23 2010. To meet those standards, there will be more 24 sophisticated engine management and also the use of new 25 emission control devices. It's important to everyone that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 the transition to clean diesel technology goes smoothly 2 and that the full promise of the advanced emission control 3 technology be met both on the assembly line and in the 4 field. 5 The whole point, as many of you know, of 6 diagnostic systems is to monitor the effectiveness of the 7 control systems in use. These are the emission control 8 systems. And we've had great success with these systems 9 on passenger vehicles. Our challenge now today is to 10 apply those lessons to heavy-duty vehicles. 11 Ms. Witherspoon, would you please provide us with 12 an introduction of this item? 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Madam 14 Chair. 15 Upcoming, more stringent heavy-duty emission 16 standards for 2010 require the adoption of accompanying 17 diagnostic requirements to ensure that low emissions are 18 maintained throughout the life of heavy-duty engines. As 19 the Board will recall, in 2004 you adopted diagnostic 20 system requirements for 2007 and subsequent model year 21 heavy-duty engines. However, we understood the 22 significant resources the heavy-duty engine manufacturers 23 had to expend to meet the '07 standard, so we designed 24 these initial requirements to be much less comprehensive 25 than what we ultimately need. During that rulemaking, we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 expressed our intent to come back to the Board this year 2 to adopt more complete requirements for future heavy-duty 3 engines. Therefore, staff has developed proposed 4 heavy-duty OBD requirements for 2010 and later model year 5 engines. 6 The proposed requirements will encourage 7 manufacturers to improve the durability of their 8 emission-control components. They will also ensure that 9 malfunctions are detected and repaired and emissions are 10 maintained at low levels. The proposal will ensure that 11 emission benefits required by the heavy-duty new engine 12 emission standards are actually achieved. I will now turn 13 the presentation over to Mr. Mike McCarthy of the Mobile 14 Source Control Division, who will provide you with a 15 summary of the proposal and present staff's 16 recommendations. 17 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 18 presented as follows.) 19 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 20 Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. Good morning, Madam Chair and 21 members of the Board. I'm here today to present a 22 proposal for a new regulation for heavy-duty on-board 23 diagnostics. 24 --o0o-- 25 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 Today's presentation will include background for the 2 proposal, elements of the proposal itself, costs and 3 emission impacts, and conclusions and recommendations. 4 --o0o-- 5 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 6 What is on-board diagnostics, or OBD for short? OBD is a 7 system in the engine's on-board computer that monitors the 8 performance of emission-related components for 9 malfunctions. The system uses information from sensors on 10 the vehicle to measure the performance of the emission 11 controls and make decisions. The system is mostly 12 software in the computer that runs diagnostics in the 13 background whenever the engine is running. 14 --o0o-- 15 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 16 Should a malfunction be detected, a warning light will 17 appear on the vehicle's instrument panel to alert the 18 driver. In OBD, the warning light is known as the 19 malfunction indicator light, or MIL, and displays an amber 20 picture of the engine when illuminated. 21 --o0o-- 22 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 23 In addition to turning on the MIL, when a malfunction is 24 detected, information about the malfunctioning component 25 is stored in the computer. Technicians can access this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 information by plugging a device known as a scan tool into 2 the vehicle. The information is communicated from the 3 vehicle computer to the scan tool using standardized 4 messages and format such that one tool will work with all 5 vehicles. 6 --o0o-- 7 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 8 There are a couple of key points to understanding how an 9 OBD system works. 10 First, the OBD system uses sensors on the vehicle 11 to judge the performance of the emission controls. When 12 we talk about adding an OBD system to an engine, it is 13 important to remember that the vast majority of these 14 censors are already on the engine and used for engine 15 control. In a limited number of cases, an additional 16 sensor has to be included on the engine to meet the 17 monitoring requirements. The proposed requirements we 18 will be discussing today will typically result in the 19 addition of one to two sensors to the 10 to 15 existing 20 censors on an engine. 21 The second point to remember about these sensors 22 is that they do not directly measure emissions coming out 23 of the engine. The sensors typically measure a physical 24 property, such as temperature, pressure, or mass flow to 25 quantify the current performance level of emission control PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 and infer what emission level corresponds to that 2 performance level. 3 --o0o-- 4 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 5 An example that might help illustrate this is fuel system 6 pressure. Advanced diesel engines typically have precise 7 control of the pressure in the fuel system. Too high or 8 too low of a pressure can cause increases in NOx or PM 9 emissions. The OBD system would use the fuel pressure 10 sensor to measure how well the fuel system is controlling 11 to the desired fuel pressure. Using the pressure sensor, 12 manufacturers would develop a correlation between the 13 magnitude of the pressure controlled error and the 14 associated emission increase corresponding to that error. 15 This correlation is done by the manufacturer during 16 development and calibration in an emission test cell. 17 The OBD system would indicate when there is a 18 problem with fuel pressure by turning on the check engine 19 light if the pressure was outside the boundaries 20 established in the lab. 21 --o0o-- 22 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 23 An OBD system can yield several benefits. 24 First, an OBD requirement provides strong 25 motivation to manufacturers to design durable emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 control systems. 2 Second, OBD provides important diagnosis and 3 repair assistance to technicians, especially as vehicles 4 become increasingly complex and add sophisticated 5 electronic controls. 6 Last, OBD plays a key role in keeping emissions 7 as low as possible by identifying emission controls in 8 need of repair. And unlike other regulations such as 9 emission standards that prescribe maximum emission levels 10 for the initial portion of a vehicle's life, OBD systems 11 continue to work for the entire life of the vehicle. 12 --o0o-- 13 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 14 To date, OBD requirements have been implemented primarily 15 on passenger cars, sport utilities, and pickup trucks, 16 making up the light- and medium-weight categories. OBD 17 II, a second generation OBD system, started nationwide in 18 1996 for gasoline and in 1997 for diesel vehicles. This 19 represents over 120 million vehicles that are currently 20 operating in the United States with OBD II systems. 21 --o0o-- 22 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 23 Several factors were considered in deciding whether OBD is 24 appropriate for heavy-duty vehicles. Some of these 25 factors include basics, such as the substantial source of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, the presence of 2 computer controls on the engine, and a significant number 3 of complex emission controls. 4 Another important factor is the life expectancy 5 of heavy-duty engines. As I mentioned earlier, OBD 6 continues to work throughout the life of the vehicle and 7 helps keep that vehicle operating at the emission level it 8 was designed to meet. This is especially important for 9 heavy-duty engines which often last for a million miles. 10 --o0o-- 11 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 12 Working through these factors, emissions from heavy-duty 13 diesel engines are substantial. ARB maintains an 14 inventory of emissions from on-road, off-road, and 15 stationary sources that is used in steering our regulatory 16 efforts. Shown in this slide are breakdowns by source for 17 NOx and diesel PM emissions. The pie chart shows 18 statewide breakdowns projected for the 2010 year. From 19 the charts, on-road diesel engines account for 22 percent 20 of California's NOx emissions. 21 A pollutant unique to diesel engines, of course, 22 is diesel particulate matter. The pie chart on the right 23 shows that mobile sources are responsible for the vast 24 majority of diesel PM emissions with on-road sources 25 accounting for nearly 20 percent of the total. You can PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 also see the off-road needs more attention, and staff has 2 separately focused resources on this category. 3 --o0o-- 4 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 5 The second and third factors I mentioned were the presence 6 of computer control and a significant number of emission 7 controls. This graph shows the progression of emission 8 standards for heavy-duty diesel engines. To meet these 9 tighter standards, manufacturers have already moved to 10 computer-based emission controls and will add in 2007 for 11 PM and 2010 for NOx particulate filters and catalytic 12 devices respectively. 13 --o0o-- 14 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 15 Regarding the expected lifetime of heavy-duty engines, 16 this chart shows that heavy-duty diesel engines remain in 17 operation for a significant time. The green line on the 18 graph shows the typical mileage accumulation of a 19 heavy-duty vehicle. And you can see even after a truck is 20 15 or 20 years old, it continues to accumulate a 21 significant number of miles. 22 --o0o-- 23 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 24 Adding to the previous chart, the pink line on the graph 25 shows the vehicle attrition rate, which is the percentage PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 of vehicles that are still on the road. From this graph 2 you can see that approximately 50 percent of the vehicles 3 are still in operation, even when they were 20 years old. 4 Maintaining emissions as low as possible is necessary, 5 because heavy-duty vehicles remain in operation for many 6 years. 7 --o0o-- 8 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 9 You may be wondering why we haven't pursued OBD for 10 heavy-duty vehicles before now. As the previous slides 11 indicated, a number of factors have finally been 12 converging to support the need for an OBD system. 13 Traditionally, heavy-duty engines have lagged the rest of 14 the automotive industry in the use of electronic engine 15 controls and advanced emission controls. However, the 16 more stringent emission standards phasing in during the 17 2007 and 2010 years is changing that. A significant 18 amount of new or improved emission controls are being 19 added to meet these standards. 20 --o0o-- 21 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 22 This picture shows an example of some of the emission 23 controls manufacturers are expected to use to meet the 24 2010 standards. Noteworthy on this picture is an exhaust 25 gas recirculation, or EGR, system, and the presence of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 several after-treatment devices in the exhaust, including 2 a pre-catalyst, a PM filter, and a selective catalytic 3 reduction, or SCR, system. These systems are new to 4 diesel engines and introduced numerous additional areas 5 where problems which increase emissions can occur. 6 When working properly, components like the PM 7 filter and the SCR catalyst reduce emissions by more than 8 90 percent. However, when problems do occur, emission 9 increases can be large, so it is important to be able to 10 monitor the performance of these systems and alert the 11 vehicle operator when there are problems. 12 --o0o-- 13 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 14 It is also worth noting that today is not the first time 15 we have been before the Board to talk about OBD for 16 heavy-duty vehicles. The Board took the first step in 17 2005 by adopting a diagnostic system requirement for 2007 18 model year engines. That system, known as Engine 19 Manufacturer Diagnostics, or EMD, ensures a very basic 20 functional check that is not tied to emissions and was an 21 interim step towards OBD. At the Board hearing where EMD 22 was adopted, staff was directed to come back in 2005 with 23 the comprehensive OBD proposal. Today's proposal is that 24 comprehensive system and includes monitoring of nearly all 25 the emission controls and the rest of the elements of a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 full program. 2 --o0o-- 3 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 4 With that, I would like to move on to details of the OBD 5 system monitoring requirements that are being proposed 6 today. 7 --o0o-- 8 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 9 Today's proposal would require OBD systems for on-road 10 heavy-duty engines. On-road engines are used in 11 applications such as delivery trucks, trash trucks, buses, 12 and line haul trucks and include both diesel and gasoline 13 engines. The proposal would phase in OBD starting in 2010 14 with full implementation by 2016. Phase in is designed to 15 allow manufacturers to balance workload between meeting 16 the 2010 emission standards and introducing OBD systems. 17 --o0o-- 18 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 19 As you would expect from a comprehensive program, the 20 proposed requirements target monitoring of nearly all 21 emission control components. However, the requirements 22 are structured to prioritize the monitoring requirements 23 and stringency based on the emission impact of a specific 24 component. 25 Components that have a large impact would be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 subject to threshold monitoring and need to be designed to 2 turn on the warning light when emissions increase to a 3 specific emission level. A typical engine would have 4 eight to ten threshold monitors. 5 Components that have a smaller impact would be 6 subject to simpler non-threshold monitoring that checks 7 for basic function, rationality, and electrical circuit 8 faults. A typical engine would have 75 to 100 9 non-threshold monitors. 10 The proposed requirements also include testing 11 and validation to verify the OBD system is operating 12 correctly. The testing is divided between pre-production 13 and post-production testing and would be conducted by the 14 engine manufacturer. 15 --o0o-- 16 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 17 In terms of threshold monitors, the most important systems 18 are required to be monitored to a specific emission level. 19 Examples of the components that would be subject to 20 threshold monitoring include the PM filter, exhaust gas 21 recirculation system, NOx catalyst, and the fuel system. 22 For these monitors, manufacturers are required to 23 detect a malfunction and turn on the warning light when 24 the component had deteriorated to the point that emissions 25 exceed a multiple of the emission standard. For example, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 for the initial years of OBD, manufacturers would have to 2 detect a PM filter malfunction when emissions exceed five 3 times the standard. As manufacturers gain experience, 4 that level is tightened up and reduced to three times the 5 standards in later years. For the rest of the systems 6 like NOx catalysts or other major monitors, the initial 7 level is typically two-and-a-half times the standards, and 8 that is dropped to two times the standards in later years. 9 --o0o-- 10 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 11 Regarding the phase-in of OBD, the proposal includes a 12 gradual six-year phase-in to address manufacturers' 13 workload and fit within their test facility limits. 14 Specifically, the phase-in requires a full OBD system to 15 be introduced on one engine rating of one engine family in 16 2010. In 2013, that is expanded to include all of the 17 ratings within the one engine family, and then one to two 18 more ratings that are representative of manufacturers' 19 entire product line. In 2016, the manufacturer is 20 required to implement full OBD on all engines and ratings. 21 The following two slides help illustrate this phase-in. 22 --o0o-- 23 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 24 As illustrated on this chart, a typical heavy-duty 25 manufacturer might have a product line-up that includes PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 four base engine sizes, representatives A through D on 2 this chart. Within each engine, the manufacturer 3 typically has two different engine families. And within 4 each engine family, a manufacturer often has five 5 different engine ratings representing different horsepower 6 and torque characteristics. 7 For 2010 through 2012, a manufacturer is required 8 to implement a fully compliant OBD system on only one 9 engine rating, shown in red on the diagram. 10 The other engine ratings within that same engine 11 family, represented in blue on the diagram, are also 12 required to have an OBD system, but they are not required 13 to be calibrated to the thresholds, and they have very 14 limited liability for recall or other corrective actions 15 should they work improperly. 16 Lastly, the gray circles on the diagram represent 17 the rest of the manufacturer's product line where the 18 Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic requirement would still 19 apply. 20 --o0o-- 21 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 22 For 2013 through 2015, the manufacturer would be required 23 to spread the OBD system across the entire product line. 24 Again, however, only a few ratings, shown in red, would be 25 calibrated to meet all of the OBD requirements. This PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 would include the carry-over engines from 2010 shown as 2 the cluster of red circles under engine C, as well as two 3 more rating representatives of all other engines. All 4 others, shown in blue, would not be required to be 5 calibrated to the thresholds, and they would have limited 6 liability for enforcement action if they work improperly. 7 For 2016, all engines would be required to meet the full 8 OBD requirements. 9 --o0o-- 10 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 11 The proposal also contains other requirements consistant 12 with a comprehensive OBD system. An important part of OBD 13 is standardization. And wherever possible, the proposal 14 requires adherence to standards across the industry to 15 help truck builders, repair technicians, inspectors, 16 drivers, and scan tool manufacturers. Standardization 17 covers items such as a common symbol for the OBD warning 18 lamp and a common language and message format for 19 communicating information from the engine computer to the 20 scan tool. The standardization elements of this proposal 21 help simplify diagnosis and lower the cost of equipment 22 such as scan tools. 23 One last thing to note about the standardization 24 requirements is related to the phase-in. As I mentioned 25 earlier, OBD would be phased in on a small number of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 engines in 2010 through 2012 model year. And to minimize 2 the burden on truck manufacturers who would be building 3 some trucks with OBD engines and some trucks without OBD 4 engines, the requirements for standardization do not take 5 effect until 2013 when all engines have to have some form 6 of the OBD system installed. 7 --o0o-- 8 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 9 The proposal also includes two important pieces that 10 greatly reduce the manufacturer's liability for in-use 11 compliance and provide relief from recall or other 12 enforcement actions in the early years. 13 First, as I discussed briefly on the phase-in 14 bubble charts, in 2010 through 2015, a majority of the 15 engines are not required to have fully compliant OBD 16 systems. These extrapolated systems, while derived from 17 the fully compliant ones, are not calibrated to the 18 emission thresholds. And as such, there is no penalty if 19 the thresholds are exceeded without a detection of a 20 malfunction. 21 Secondly, for the engines that do have fully 22 compliant OBD systems and are calibrated to the emission 23 thresholds, the proposal provides relief from in-use 24 enforcement actions until emissions exceed double the 25 required threshold. For example, in the early years, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 threshold for NOx catalyst is two-and-a-half times the 2 standards. Accordingly, a manufacturer would not be 3 liable for a violation unless emissions exceeded five 4 times the standards without a malfunction being detected. 5 This allowance extends out to the 2018 model year to 6 provide manufacturers a comfort margin and time to gather 7 experience in the initial years. 8 --o0o-- 9 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 10 Up to this point, the presentation has focused on the 11 requirements for diesel engines primarily, because they 12 make up the majority of the engines in the heavy-duty 13 category. However, there is a fairly large amount of 14 gasoline engines in the lighter weight classes of the 15 heavy-duty category. Most of these heavy-duty gasoline 16 engines are identical to the engines used in medium-duty 17 trucks. Since these engines utilize similar technologies 18 as light- and medium-duty vehicles, the proposed 19 requirement for gasoline engines are very similar to the 20 current OBD II requirements. As a result, the monitoring 21 methods and technologies that are expected to be used are 22 also similar and well established on light- and 23 medium-duty vehicles since 1996. 24 The one notable difference between the 25 requirements for diesel and gas engines is that evaporate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 system monitoring is required only on gasoline engines, 2 and the requirement has been adjusted to account for 3 larger and different gasoline tanks used on heavy-duty 4 vehicles. 5 --o0o-- 6 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 7 For OBD testing and validation, four separate requirements 8 are included in the proposal to test four separate aspects 9 of the OBD system. First, emission testing of engines 10 would be used to validate the threshold calibrations. 11 Next, testing of a truck would be used to verify that 12 communication to a scan tool works properly, that all of 13 the non-threshold monitors work properly, and to verify 14 that monitors run frequently during real world in-use 15 driving. 16 --o0o-- 17 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 18 All four different elements of this validation testing are 19 necessary. OBD problems have been found and continue to 20 be found after production in passenger vehicles. Many of 21 these problems have led to recalls, penalties, or other 22 enforcement actions. The goal is to avoid these problems 23 with heavy-duty OBD, and the validation testing has been 24 structured to try to accomplish this. The volume of the 25 testing is kept small and relies on spot checks to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 identify problems. 2 --o0o-- 3 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 4 In the past, vehicles have been identified with threshold 5 monitors that are calibrated incorrectly and do not detect 6 a malfunction at the right emission level. 7 DaimlerChrysler and Honda are examples of manufacturers 8 that had such situation that were not discovered until the 9 vehicles had been introduced into commerce. To minimize 10 the chance of such problems in the future, manufacturers 11 will be required to emission test engines to verify the 12 threshold monitors are calibrated correctly. The 13 manufacturers will be required to test one to three 14 engines per year, depending on the size of the 15 manufacturer. 16 --o0o-- 17 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 18 Earlier, I mentioned standardization and the importance of 19 it in a comprehensive OBD system. One of the most common 20 problems we had in the past is that vehicles were built 21 that did not comply with these standardization 22 requirements. Nearly every manufacturer has had this 23 problem with a portion of their vehicles, and as a result, 24 some vehicles do not talk properly with scan stools. And 25 scan tool manufacturers, technicians, and smog check PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 inspectors are left struggling to get information out of 2 the vehicle. 3 To fix this problem, the proposal requires 4 manufacturers to use a special test device to confirm that 5 the vehicle complies with the specifications. Initially, 6 the manufacturers would be required to test ten different 7 vehicles per engine family. And for those that 8 demonstrate a good track record of passing the test, the 9 number of tested vehicles would be reduced in future 10 years. 11 --o0o-- 12 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 13 Another problem that has occurred quite frequently is that 14 some of the non-threshold monitors don't work. Again, 15 nearly every manufacturer has had situations like this, 16 including GM, Ford, Mitsubishi, and Cummins. 17 To fix this problem, the proposal includes a 18 requirement for manufacturers to spot check a few 19 production vehicles each year and verify each diagnostic 20 works correctly. Unlike the threshold monitor testing I 21 mentioned earlier, this one does not require any emission 22 testing. For each diagnostic, the manufacturer is 23 required to implant a malfunction, exercise the 24 diagnostic, and make sure it works correctly. This 25 testing is required on one to three vehicles per year. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 --o0o-- 2 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 3 The last of the four testing requirements addresses a 4 problem we have had with monitors that rarely run during 5 normal operation of the vehicle. Staff has been involved 6 in enforcement cases with such manufacturers as Toyota and 7 Ford regarding infrequent monitors and appropriate 8 remedial actions that are necessary. 9 To fix this problem, the proposal includes a 10 requirement for the OBD system to track and monitor 11 frequency and for engine manufacturers to collect and 12 report the data from a limited number of in-use vehicles. 13 For this requirement, manufacturers are required to group 14 similar engines and trucks together and collect data from 15 15 vehicles per group. 16 --o0o-- 17 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 18 The proposed OBD regulation is over 100 pages long and 19 provides very detailed performance requirements for 20 virtually every emission control component and aspect of 21 the OBD system. And for the most part, staff has worked 22 with the engine manufacturers to reach consensus on the 23 monitoring requirements. 24 However, while the staff has outlined the 25 technical path to meet all of the proposed requirements PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 and has tried to provide substantial lead time for 2 manufacturers to develop and implement OBD systems, the 3 engine manufacturers have raised questions about the 4 technical feasibility of some of the proposed monitoring 5 requirements. I will address the most important ones that 6 have been raised by the engine manufacturers. And if any 7 others come up during subsequent testimony or discussion, 8 staff will be glad to address them at that time. 9 --o0o-- 10 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 11 First, the manufacturers have raised concerns regarding 12 the technical feasibility of monitoring for all failures 13 of the PM filter and for monitoring to the proposed 14 thresholds for NOx catalysts. 15 Along with the concerns regarding technical 16 feasibility is the manufacturers' concern regarding 17 resources and workload. Accordingly, manufacturers have 18 expressed concern that the OBD testing validation 19 requirements are too burdensome. Regarding testing and 20 validation, staff has continued to work with the engine 21 manufacturers to find approaches to provide sufficient 22 assurance that the systems are built correctly, while 23 balancing their workload and resources. And we believe 24 that we have resolved most of these concerns at this time. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 2 Regarding PM filter feasibility, the engine manufacturers 3 have raised the concern that monitoring for all possible 4 failures of the PM filter is not feasible and that staff's 5 proposed methods are insufficient. 6 The PM filter is the most important PM emission 7 control on the engine. And staff has identified a 8 monitoring method that could be used to meet the 9 requirements. The approach requires the comparison of 10 back pressure at various exhaust flows to modeled engine 11 out PM levels to identify malfunctioning PM filters. 12 Staff has met with manufacturers and engineering 13 consultants routinely engaged by industry for engineering 14 development who are pursuing various aspects of this 15 approach. This methodology is just now being developed as 16 manufacturers prepare to launch wide-scale implementation 17 of PM filters in 2007. 18 Other technologies, such as a direct PM sensor, 19 are also being aggressively pursued by automotive 20 suppliers and may provide an alternative method to meet 21 the compliance. While we are confident that manufacturers 22 can successfully develop solutions, should they fall 23 short, the regulation includes provisions to revise the 24 scope of failure modes that manufacturers will be 25 responsible for detecting. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 --o0o-- 2 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 3 Engine manufacturers have also raised the concern that the 4 thresholds proposed for NOx catalyst monitoring are too 5 stringent and not feasible. The NOx catalyst is one 6 option manufacturers are pursuing to meet the 2010 7 standard, but the technology has not fully matured. The 8 system is complex and requires several additional 9 components, including an auxiliary reductant tank that 10 needs to be replenished by the vehicle operator. In 11 addition to the technical challenges facing this approach, 12 manufacturers also need to address many logistics, such as 13 an infrastructure to supply the reductant and ensure it's 14 being used by vehicle operators. 15 Acceptability of the NOx catalyst system also 16 relies on assurance that the proper reductant is being 17 used. And in the end, a robust NOx sensor is needed to 18 achieve this. Considerable work is taking place to 19 develop a NOx sensor to satisfy this goal, and suppliers 20 are aggressively pursuing improvements. With such a 21 sensor, successful monitoring of the NOx catalyst would 22 follow. Even without further development in the sensor 23 resolution, successful monitoring of the catalyst could be 24 achieved by positioning the sensor further upstream in the 25 catalyst to accommodate the best available sensor PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 resolution. 2 --o0o-- 3 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 4 The last two sides I will be presenting today discuss the 5 costs and emission impacts for the proposal and a summary. 6 --o0o-- 7 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 8 As is required with every regulation proposed by ARB, we 9 have calculated the emission benefits expected from this 10 proposal, as well as the cost and cost effectiveness. To 11 implement the OBD system itself, staff calculated the 12 increases in engine costs along with the cost to the 13 manufacturer to develop and calibrate all of the 14 diagnostics in the OBD system. These costs came to an 15 increase in the retail price of a heavy-duty engine of 16 approximately $132, which is less than 2 percent of the 17 price of an engine. An important item to remember is that 18 OBD primarily takes advantage of existing sensors on the 19 engine, and that is reflected in these cost estimates. 20 Regarding cost effectiveness, the proposed 21 regulation compares favorably with other recently adopted 22 regulations, with cost effective numbers of approximately 23 five cents per pound of NOx plus non-methane hydrocarbon 24 emissions and $13.08 per pound of PM emissions. 25 The emission benefit for this calculation is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 derived from the repair of emission-related malfunctions 2 that are detected by the OBD system, while the costs 3 include both the added engine cost and the cost to repair 4 the detected malfunctions. 5 --o0o-- 6 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 7 In summary, California's heavy-duty vehicle fleet is 8 moving to more stringent emission standards and needs to 9 be maintained at low emission levels over its entire life 10 to meet California air quality goals. An effective OBD 11 program is crucial to maintain the fleet at low emissions, 12 and is as important as the emission standards themselves. 13 The proposed technical requirements are feasible and 14 necessary to maintain emissions at acceptable levels as 15 vehicles age. And, lastly, the proposal is cost 16 effective. 17 This concludes the staff's presentation. 18 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you, Mr. McCarthy. 19 And I definitely should note this is a very -- as 20 everyone can see, this is a very detailed and technical 21 proposal. And I appreciate your presentation being 22 thorough and clear. Thank you. 23 Madam Ombudsman, would you please describe the 24 public participation process that occurred for this item 25 as it was being developed and any concerns you might have. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Madam Chair and members of 2 the Board, the regulation before you has been developed 3 with input from the heavy-duty on-road engine 4 manufacturers, transmission manufacturers, and heavy-duty 5 vehicle, coach or chassis manufacturers, also the Engine 6 Manufacturers Association, EMA, Truck Manufacturers 7 Association, TMA, and the American Trucking Association, 8 ATA, provided input in the development of this rule. 9 Staff of the Advanced Engineering Section started 10 work on the heavy-duty on-board diagnostic system 11 regulation in late 2002. They prepared and made public a 12 draft staff report and regulatory language in January 13 2005. Afterward, they held a workshop in February where 14 approximately 40 people attended. 15 Staff also had numerous meetings, both 16 teleconference and face-to-face meetings, with engine, 17 transmission, and major vehicle manufacturers and coach 18 builders. Additionally, they had individual meetings with 19 EMA, TMA, and ATA. All meetings were held in El Monte, 20 except one which was held in Chicago. The notice for the 21 public hearing was posted on the official heavy-duty OBD 22 regulatory website as well as mailed out to interested 23 parties on June 3rd, 2005. Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: All right. Thank you very 25 much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 Do any of the Board members have questions at 2 this time? 3 Ms. Berg. 4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 5 On the proposed requirements for monitoring, the 6 current OBD and the passenger cars, what are the 7 monitoring requirements of those? 8 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: For 9 cars since 1996 and for the diesel light-duty vehicles 10 from 1997, the requirements are very similar, except 11 reflecting the fact they're gasoline engines. Most of the 12 cars are gasoline engines, and these are diesels. 13 Every critical sensor is monitored. Every system 14 is monitored. And the general threshold is 1.5 times the 15 standard for most of the pollutants. It's a little bit 16 more stringent, but we've had quite a bit more experience 17 with cars than we've had with heavy-duty engines. And 18 that's one of the reasons for the somewhat laxer threshold 19 monitors. But in the end, they will be very similar in 20 function, in efficacy as to what's on the cars now. 21 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And the number of times 22 they'll need to monitor are about similar? 23 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah. 24 The way the monitors work, some of them monitor all the 25 time. So, for example, if there's going to be a short or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 an open circuit in some sensor, that's continuously 2 monitored. Some of the other monitors run all the time. 3 Other ones have to run only under certain conditions, 4 maybe at idle, maybe at a certain speed, an evaporative 5 system only when the temperature is a certain range, et 6 cetera. So some of them don't run continuously. But one 7 of the provisions is to make sure they do run frequently 8 enough they do detect problems when they occur and not 9 months and months later. 10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Is it fair to say the cost of 11 the monitoring on the passenger cars is something then we 12 can also assume that would be the cost for the heavy-duty 13 engines? 14 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah. 15 It's somewhat lower in our estimation. But, again, we're 16 talking in the 50 to $150 range. 17 And the reason for that is the biggest impact is 18 software. And if you printed it out, there's feet worth 19 of software that runs the OBD system. There are very few 20 actual pieces of extra hardware that go on for the 21 monitoring. Everything looks at signals from existing 22 sensors and uses that to figure out if there's a problem 23 or not. That's why the cost is pretty low. It's not to 24 diminish the development time. There are, you know, rooms 25 of software programers back in Detroit and other places PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 who are doing this calibration work and lots of testing 2 that goes on prior to production. But once the vehicles 3 are being made, the cost per vehicle is relatively low 4 after you've amortized the intellectual effort that goes 5 into developing the system. 6 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Dr. Gong. 8 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Quick question. Probably 9 showing a little bit of my ignorance. But as I understand 10 it, the OBD testing will be done by the engine 11 manufacturers before they go out into the real world. 12 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes. 13 BOARD MEMBER GONG: And then bring them back. 14 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: And 15 after they go out into the real world, like in the first 16 year. 17 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Bring them back from the real 18 world to check out the OBD systems. How long does it take 19 to actually test an engine, timewise, I guess? 20 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, 21 I'm going to let Mike address this. But we had four 22 different validation or auditing requirements the 23 manufacturers have to do. One of them requires running an 24 engine in an engine test cell, and that takes longer per 25 engine. Other ones could be as short as 20 minutes per PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 truck or sometimes even a matter of minutes per truck. So 2 he can answer that specifically for each of the four 3 different requirements. 4 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 5 The first requirement that Tom mentioned was the one that 6 involves engine emission testing, and that one is done 7 before the engines are introduced out in the marketplace. 8 And that emission testing does take two to three weeks per 9 engine. That's the one where they have to test one to 10 three engines a year. And depending how big a 11 manufacturer they are, could be two weeks of testing, 12 could be nine weeks of testing a year. 13 The other three segments of testing are all based 14 on after the engines are introduced in the market. So 15 some of the testing is done -- probably work with the 16 truck manufacturers and grab trucks after they come off 17 the assembly line after they're shipped off into the 18 marketplace. The testing that talks to a scan tool is you 19 plug in a test device and simulate you're talking to a 20 scan tool. That testing takes about 20 minutes. 21 The testing to verify all the non-threshold 22 monitors work takes longer. That's the one to three 23 trucks a year. And that would take about two to three 24 weeks per truck. So that would be a truck they take, and 25 before it's introduced to the marketplace and sold to a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 customer, they would implant each fault and test it. 2 And the last one that verifies the monitors are 3 working and running frequently out in the real world, 4 that's information they can download with a scan tool. So 5 six to twelve months after the trucks have been out there 6 on the road, they would have technicians -- usually when 7 vehicles come in for warranty repairs or oil changes or 8 something like that, they'll have some portion of their 9 technician downloading that information so they can send 10 it back to the manufacturer. So that's plugging in a scan 11 tool and collecting the information is minutes to collect 12 that data and download it. But you wait until the trucks 13 have been out there and operating on the road and then try 14 to grab data back from there. 15 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Why does it take weeks? 16 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 17 The testing of the non-threshold monitors -- as mentioned, 18 there's about 75 to 100 non-threshold monitors on the 19 engines. And a lot of these can be open circuit or 20 electrical diagnostics, but we make the manufacturer go 21 through each and every one of those diagnostics. So they 22 implant the first fault, make sure it turns the light on. 23 Fix that one. Implant the second fault. Make sure it 24 works, the light is on. It's a process you have to step 25 by step through each diagnostic. And many diagnostics you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 can step through quickly. Other diagnostics might only 2 run during cold temperatures or cold starts. You might 3 have to run it once in the morning and once the next 4 morning. 5 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So this is pretty 6 standardized protocols they run through. And the staff 7 agrees with that, in other words? 8 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 9 Yes. It's been pretty powerful and pretty successful in 10 the light-duty program. 11 BOARD MEMBER GONG: The other quick question is 12 really about the number of engines to be tested before 13 2013 or whatever. It seems like they're testing 14 relatively few numbers, one to three. I mean, are we 15 going to say these one to three engines are really 16 representative of all the thousands out there? I mean, 17 I'm just -- 18 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think 19 in developing this, we probably would have liked them to 20 check every one of them in some way. But that became, you 21 know, a totally burdensome requirement. And so we changed 22 our philosophy to be based on what we learned in the 23 light-duty area, which is you can get some good 24 information from spot checks. So we'll miss lots of 25 stuff. But for each time they are doing testing, we think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 there's a probability we'll find a problem, and that can 2 be reflected in future vehicles. It's a balance trying to 3 not be completely blind by not doing any testing and 4 thinking that everything is just working fine. You know 5 that won't be the case. Versus 100 percent insurance 6 policy, which engine manufacturers cannot afford to do. 7 So it was a judgment call as to where that balance point 8 is. 9 BOARD MEMBER GONG: It does increase 10 progressively, the number of engines to be tested as time 11 goes on; am I right? 12 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I 13 wasn't sure if you were referring to the auditing testing 14 or the actual engines that are -- 15 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Both. 16 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, 17 what I responded to was the auditing testing. 18 In the development of the system, prior to 19 production, the design part of it, we have a curve that 20 looks like this. In other words, there's only one engine, 21 one rating in the first year. Only a few more three years 22 later. And then all of them three years later. And that 23 really came about because what we wanted to do was 24 maintain the principle that they do the job right the 25 first time. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 But looking at the number of bubbles on that 2 chart, you can see that that would take a huge amount of 3 testing. Because you have to go in and look at a sensor 4 that's supposed to put out a voltage of one. And you have 5 to make it put out 1.1 and measure the emissions. And the 6 emissions in this case take a long time to do, like many 7 hours. Then you put in 1.2, and you measure them again. 8 When you finally hit the threshold, you say, that's what I 9 need to monitor for. To do that for all the different 10 monitors, all the different variations, they don't have 11 enough test cells, is the bottom line. 12 So it starts off -- and at the same time, they're 13 trying to develop the new emission control systems for 14 2010. So we just had a physical plant problem, number of 15 engineers problem. And so we had to make it easy in the 16 first part, but keep the principle they do a good job on 17 one engine, then ramp it up after they've done the 18 emission control development part. That was the logic 19 that got us to this very soft start on the number of 20 engines that have to be calibrated for thresholds. 21 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Are there any other comments? 23 Supervisor Roberts. 24 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Thank you. Just a question. 25 You showed us a chart that shows where we are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 today with the NOx and the diesel PM. And then you showed 2 us another chart that shows where we're going to be in 3 2010 when this program really gets started. And it looks 4 like in 2010 there's been a significant improvement 5 between now and then. And I'm kind of wondering what we 6 achieve between 2010 and 2016 by putting this in place. 7 You shared some cost information, but it isn't clear. You 8 showed us a chart that looks like your PM10 is down to 9 almost nothing and the NOx is down significantly. I guess 10 I'm wondering what do we get for this in terms of -- you 11 didn't project ahead. 12 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I 13 think the way we presented the information in the bar 14 chart, the red and green bar chart, I think you're 15 referring to that shows that both NOx and PM will be cut 16 another 90 percent compared to where they are today. 17 Those are the standards. And, therefore, that assumes 18 that the engines in use will meet those standards. 19 Our concern for doing OBD is that we don't think 20 the engines will meet the standards throughout their 21 million-mile life. And so what we have projected is that 22 filters will crack, and the PM will go through, rather 23 than get caught. NOx catalysts will either deteriorate or 24 the sensors that provide the control might wear out. 25 And what OBD does is find those. And they're not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 going to universally wear out, but individual ones might. 2 It finds those. The owner will get those fixed. We'll 3 spot them at the road site, including the trucks from out 4 of state that come in. That way there's an incentive to 5 watch for the light. Fix it. Get the light turned out. 6 And we'll achieve the low emissions. Without it, we think 7 the emissions will be much higher than in the red and 8 green bars. 9 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Are you saying this chart 10 that you showed us really is predicated on having these 11 systems in, that we won't get to what it looks like your 12 projection -- 13 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: That 14 chart was the standards and, therefore, by definition 15 assumes the engines will meet those standards. We don't 16 think that's realistic without OBD. I don't think we 17 think it's realistic they will meet the standards for 18 their whole life. 19 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: But since the OBD isn't in 20 place until then, I guess I'm wondering what -- this 21 really doesn't occur in 2010. You don't have OBD. You're 22 going to initiate it in 2010. 23 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: That's 24 absolutely right. We have the EMD, the one you adopted 25 last year. But it will not find all the faults. So PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 you're right that for those -- during that phase-in, there 2 will be probably higher emissions from those engines than 3 there will be by the time we hit 2016. 4 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: As you know, we 5 need to certify engines before they can be marketed. And 6 manufacturers have to go through certification testing and 7 demonstrate compliance with the standards for the useful 8 life before the certification can be issued. 9 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Can you put this chart 10 that's called emission standards becoming more stringent 11 on the -- 12 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Let me 13 add -- while she's doing that, let me add one more thing. 14 There's a distinction here is that we do think we have 15 compliance mechanisms to make sure that what the engine 16 manufacturers design in general is durable and meets the 17 standards. So it's not they're going to design something 18 that's faulty and is way higher. But what we are 19 concerned about is the individual trucks, just like your 20 cars, you know, can break. Individual components can 21 break. And nobody knows about it. 22 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Tom, just help me to 23 understand. When you put this up, I assumed this is what 24 the picture is going to look like, irrespective, in 2010. 25 And I'm not sure what I'm hearing from you is -- is this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 contingent upon the adoption of something now? Or is that 2 where we're going to be just given -- if we didn't do 3 anything, is that what it's going to look like? 4 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No. 5 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: If the program doesn't go 6 into place -- you won't have any benefits by 2010. 7 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No. I 8 think if this was not emission standards, which is what 9 the title says, but would be average emissions for 10 vehicles in that model year, without OBD, these bars under 11 2010 would be higher. Instead of getting like a 12 90 percent reduction compared to -- 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Supervisor 14 Roberts, these are the standards for vehicles rolling off 15 the assembly line. They have been adopted by U.S. EPA. 16 They have been adopted by the Air Resources Board. So we 17 have the expectation the manufacturers will come up with 18 the systems that meet these standards in their testing 19 laboratories. But the reason for on-board diagnostics is 20 to ensure once they get out there in the real world, we're 21 monitoring the performance of them driving around and 22 catching failures in the real world. 23 So we have a lot of faith they're going to figure 24 out technologically what it takes to meet these standards. 25 In '07, the green bar goes down so far, because that's the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 addition of a PM filter. And then in 2010, the NOx 2 standard comes down with the augmentation of selective 3 catalytic reduction or NOx absorbers or something else. 4 And then the OBD system monitors, do those work when 5 they're out in the field. 6 But the expectation is for the most case they 7 will work. We'll miss a slug of vehicles that are being 8 introduced -- let's call them our prototypes -- running 9 around on the road. They won't have OBD on them. By 10 2016, everything will have OBD, and it will refer back to 11 these systems, these standards that they were produced 12 under. 13 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I guess what I'm having 14 trouble, because I thought this was a projection of where 15 you thought we were going to be. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's where the 17 new vehicles will be rolling off the assembly lines. It's 18 the emission standards. 19 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: In 2010? 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: In 2010 and 2007. 21 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 22 With or without OBD, the vehicles should start there at 23 the standards. 24 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: That's what they should look 25 like. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 2 They should be there. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: OBD is to prevent 4 them from deteriorating past normal deterioration rates. 5 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 6 Without OBD, we won't know when components break. When a 7 component breaks and it's no longer at those emission 8 levels -- 9 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: So it's performance over 10 time? 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Right. 12 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: But if you extended this out 13 to 2016? 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: You'd see fleet 15 averages coming down as the newer trucks were introduced 16 into the -- what we have out there right now are ten gram 17 trucks, six gram trucks, two gram trucks, and then go to 18 .2 for NOx and .01 for PM. And the more new ones that get 19 sold and the more old ones get retired, the whole fleet 20 average comes down. 21 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 22 But the standards from 2010 on, there are not more 23 stringent standards already adopted for past 2010. The 24 2010 standards are as stringent as we have currently 25 adopted. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: So 2016 should look just 2 like this? 3 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 4 Correct. And OBD is going to help catch any individual 5 vehicle that has a malfunction on it and no longer meets 6 those standards. OBD helps identify that vehicle so we 7 can repair it and get it back to where it's supposed to 8 be. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Ideally, OBD 10 would have come with these standards, but there's not 11 enough development time to get it done at once. 12 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Maybe this is just a 13 reflection of the standards and not a projection -- 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Right. 15 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Not a projection of, as I 16 understand it, where you think we'll actually be. 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Right. 18 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: You're basically saying, 19 yeah, those are the standards. But given the existing 20 regulations, we won't maintain anything like this. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We need added 22 enforcement mechanisms to ensure we do maintain them. And 23 that's what OBD is, an added enforcement mechanism. 24 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I'm sorry this is so 25 confusing for me. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We should have 2 shown more charts about fleet averages. 3 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you. 4 Are there any other questions or comments from 5 the Board? 6 All right. Now it's time to move to the public 7 testimony for this item. And we have five witnesses 8 signed up. We'll be allowing four minutes for testimony 9 on these items. The first witness is Jed Mandel. And so 10 the second witness can gear up, that will be Eric Swenson 11 with the Truck Manufacturers Association. 12 Mr. Mandel, welcome. 13 MR. MANDEL: Thank you. And welcome, Madam 14 Chair. Board members, nice to see you all. 15 I am Jed Mandel. I'm speaking today on behalf of 16 the Engine Manufacturers Association. EMA's members 17 produce the heavy-duty truck and bus engines that are the 18 subject of today's OBD rule. Engine manufacturers are 19 investing enormous sums, literally in excess of a billion 20 dollars, to meet the historic federal and California 21 engine emission standards set to begin in 2007 and fully 22 implemented by 2010. The 2007/2010 heavy-duty emission 23 standards will result in diesel technology, long known for 24 being the most durable and energy efficient, to also 25 rightfully be called clean. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 The financial capital and human resources that 2 will be invested over the next five years, indeed, the 3 shear workload burden that will be required for compliance 4 is staggering. But the goal of clean diesel is worth it. 5 Meanwhile, manufacturers during this time period 6 also must address the additional challenges of the 7 manufacturer-run heavy-duty in-use test program and the 8 EMD requirements that become effective in 2007 and 9 comprehensive heavy-duty OBD requirements proposed today. 10 The proposed heavy-duty OBD rule, like the engine 11 emissions standards it supports, will require an 12 additional huge investment of manufacturer resources to 13 develop the modeling systems and the software those 14 systems require and will require the use of precious 15 resources: Time, test cells, and engineering expertise. 16 The workload that manufacturers will need to 17 undertake, the invention of technology that will be 18 required, and the cost that will have to be invested must 19 be implemented and engineered on significantly more engine 20 models and ratings and recouped on far, far fewer units of 21 sale than ever has been required in any other OBD program. 22 In undertaking heavy-duty OBD requirements, the 23 Board must keep its eye on the prize: Compliance with the 24 2007/2010 standards. Successful implementation of those 25 rules will provide enormous emission reduction benefits. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 We recognize that OBD II will provide benefits, but 2 heavy-duty OBD must be implemented in such a way as not to 3 interfere with engine manufacturers' ability to achieve 4 the underlying emission standards. 5 Engine manufacturers have worked diligently with 6 staff to help them better understand the real world 7 aspects of these highly complex issues. The staff 8 recognizes that we need time to get the work done, and we 9 need requirements that are feasible. The staff, in turn, 10 has made it clear to us that they and you intend to adopt 11 rules that will force the development of technology not 12 yet available. We acknowledge and accept the challenge of 13 technology-forcing standards. Nevertheless, the Board 14 must avoid crossing the line from technology forcing to 15 infeasible standards, or those imposing an unreasonable 16 burdensome cost and workload, especially when balanced 17 against the still ongoing investment needed to meet the 18 technology-forcing 2007/2010 emission standards. 19 Manufacturers do not know how they will, as a 20 matter of feasibility and as a practical matter, meet many 21 of the requirements proposed today. We have significant 22 concerns about the feasibility of PM filter and NOx 23 after-treatment monitoring, including the proposed 24 thresholds. We also have concerns with the feasibility of 25 certain other monitors and their impact on vehicles and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 vehicle manufacturers and with a number of implementation 2 issues. 3 We have been working with staff on all of those 4 issues, and we wish to continue to do so on certain key 5 issues through 15-day notice changes. These key issues 6 include: The PM filtering thresholds and the timing and 7 liability for detecting failure modes; the NOx 8 after-treatment emission thresholds and timing; and the 9 certification demonstration test burden and aging 10 requirements. We hope that you will direct the staff to 11 work with us on those issues. 12 Complicating all of this is the fact that 13 heavy-duty engines are produced in relatively low volumes 14 and are used in intestate commerce. Trucks licensed 15 outside of California regularly operate in the state. As 16 such, it is important to have a uniform nationwide 17 heavy-duty OBD program. EPA has been involved in this 18 rulemaking and is developing a heavy-duty OBD rule. ARB's 19 and EPA's cooperation in efforts to align their rules to 20 the degree possible have been significant. But achieving 21 the goal is easier said than done, especially given the 22 different procedural constraints on ARB and EPA. Unlike 23 ARB, EPA cannot easily adopt requirements which, if 24 ultimately not implementable, can be periodically reviewed 25 and revised, if necessary. ARB's process is different. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Mr. Mandel, would you please 2 wrap up? 3 MR. MANDEL: I'm going to wrap up. I am also 4 speaking for all of the engine manufacturers, and they 5 have given -- not doing their time, I've got -- 6 MR. FERRIS: I'm Dave Ferris from General Motors. 7 I'd like to give my time to Jed, please. 8 MR. MANDEL: I've only got a page, and I'm trying 9 not to rush through it. 10 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: You're doing great. Thank 11 you. 12 MR. MANDEL: We ask that the Board recognize and 13 consider those differences when approving the final 14 heavy-duty OBD program in California, the differences 15 between California and the federal processes. Let the 16 rules be technology-forcing, but don't adopt rules which 17 can't reasonably be projected to be implemented with the 18 false sense of security they can be reviewed and modified 19 later. That won't work for EPA. And, frankly, it is not 20 the most rational way to enforce investment in new 21 technology. 22 We've come a long way since the OBD rule was 23 first begun. We appreciate the efforts of staff in 24 working with us in getting the rule to this point. For an 25 OBD to be successful, one that will unduly compromise the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 underlying 2007/2010 emission standards, we need to go 2 further. The issues outlined by staff to be addressed in 3 the 15-day notice process mark substantial progress. In 4 addition, we urge the staff to work with us on the 5 additional issues we've underscored today. More is needed 6 to achieve a reasonable heavy-duty OBD rule in California 7 that does not jeopardize engine manufacturers' ability to 8 provide reliable, durable, cost effective, and clean 9 diesel engines, both in California and nationwide. 10 Finally, given the complexities of the issues, we 11 ask that the 15-day notice issues be addressed in a 45-day 12 notice time period. 13 Thank you for your time and attention. And I'd 14 be pleased to answer any questions that Board members 15 might have. 16 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: I want to thank you and EMA 17 for working so hard with staff. I know you've been 18 working on this for a long time, a lot of hours put into 19 this. And we appreciate your willingness to work out a 20 lot of these issues. 21 Questions for Mr. Mandel? 22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chair, not 23 necessarily a question for the speaker at this moment, but 24 maybe staff could respond to the request he made for the 25 time frame of -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The 45-day 2 notice, we think it's fine. They are very complicated 3 issues, and we're just as inclined to get it right. 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: So that's a good thing. 5 MR. MANDEL: Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Ms. Berg. 7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Maybe staff could comment on 8 the EPA development of their rule and how we see that 9 progressing between the current ARB rule. 10 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I 11 would like to reiterate what Mr. Mandel said is we've had 12 EPA involved in this fully all the way. They are 13 developing a parallel rule. The objective is to have the 14 same rule as we have. The only concern was if we make 15 changes, which this Board can often do in a matter of 16 months, their process takes them longer. 17 And we do agree this is technology forcing. That 18 means there is some probability in the future for a need 19 for change. We demonstrated that's necessary for light 20 duty to kind of keep up with technology and the 21 development pace. And EPA will have to figure out some 22 way to be able to accommodate these changes. There are -- 23 without getting into detail, I think there are ways to do 24 it. But they've obviously got to make the sort of 25 regulatory and political decision about how they're going PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 to accommodate this. 2 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Ms. Berg. 3 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I just have one other 4 question. 5 Mr. Mandel -- and maybe Mr. Ferris can comment 6 since he's given over his time. Is it reasonable to 7 assume that some of the software programming and some of 8 the things we've learned from the passenger cars and SUVs 9 are applicable to the heavy-duty trucks? I mean, are we 10 really reinventing the wheel here, or do we have any 11 scales of economy? 12 MR. MANDEL: Well, I think to a large degree we 13 are reinventing the wheel, because of the different 14 technologies and different control technologies that are 15 used between gasoline and diesel. I also note that with 16 relatively minor exceptions that manufacturers who are in 17 the light-duty passenger car arena are not those 18 manufacturers that are in the heavy-duty arena. So to the 19 degree there's knowledge base in a General Motors or a 20 Ford, those are not the principle manufacturers of 21 heavy-duty engines used in trucks. 22 So we have other companies who have no learning 23 curve. As a matter of fact, we've noted in our 24 discussions with ARB and EPA we have sort of three groups 25 of EMA members of manufacturers represented. Those who PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 have light-duty experience, a couple. Those who have 2 medium-duty vehicle experience, like Cummins and 3 International, who have a little bit of learning curve to 4 build on. And those who have zero experience in OBD. 5 So from a company perspective, there's not a 6 carry-over. And given the technologies and the base 7 differential in vehicles, it is going to be difficult. 8 Heavy-duty, as I think most of you know from some of your 9 work previously, is also with really kind of modest 10 exceptions, a non-vertically integrated industry. So that 11 as you think about these vehicle controls in a passenger 12 car, it's just completely different when you have an 13 engine manufacturer who has a customer who is distinctly 14 different from it and separate. 15 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So the software -- there 16 aren't software manufacturers. These are all proprietary 17 systems that have to be developed by each individual 18 person. Am I understanding that correctly? 19 MR. MANDEL: That's correct. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Ms. Berg, staff 21 agrees a significant amount of learning is necessary, 22 which is why we proposed the full implementation date of 23 2016. If it was immediately transferable, you would have 24 seen a much shorter rulemaking schedule. 25 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Supervisor DeSaulnier. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Just a question. It's 2 interesting that you're neutral, so I want to try to cross 3 the line and find out how neutral you are. 4 MR. MANDEL: I'm always neutral until we put it 5 in gear. 6 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Well, there's a question 7 about what gear we've been in sometimes and whether that's 8 reflected by diagnostics. Sometimes we thought we were 9 going forward, and you were actually going in reverse. So 10 we'll end with the metaphors. 11 The question I think -- and your point is well 12 taken about keeping your eye on the prize of compliance, 13 but the clean diesel is worth the staggering investment. 14 There is a commitment, is what I'm taking from what you're 15 saying, an honest up-front commitment from the industry to 16 make a good faith, aggressive attempt to make what we're 17 trying to do in 2010 in particular. 18 MR. MANDEL: Absolutely. We have a huge 19 commitment. The eye on the prize is for 2007, which is, 20 from manufacturers' speak, here and now. We're right in 21 front of us. We're having diesels ready to go into the 22 marketplace, ready to be proved out, with particulate 23 traps, after-treatment control that will have 99 percent 24 reduction from unregulated levels. That's the goal for 25 NOx in 2010, and it is still a stretch. There is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 development that needs to be done, and it goes back to 2 that discussion that Supervisor Roberts had. 3 The 90 percent additional reduction yet to come, 4 we have an investment to make, and we think we all, 5 correctively, the staff, the Board, the people in 6 California want to make sure that we get that 90 percent 7 reduction. We understand the importance of OBD, as staff 8 has represented it, to assure that every single vehicle 9 will meet those standards. Not because it's not built 10 correctly. People put the wrong fuel in it. People don't 11 maintain it properly. Parts break. Those things happen 12 in the due course. And OBD is going to correct that. 13 But if we're not able to achieve compliance with 14 the underlying emission reductions, that 90 percent 15 additional reduction focusing on NOx for the moment will 16 not be achieved. And that's the eye on the prize. And I 17 think staff has recognized it. 18 In part of my neutrality here, I don't want to be 19 so neutral to give the appropriate credit to staff. I 20 thought Mike's presentation was extraordinarily well done. 21 Captured the spirit of what this proposal is. We 22 appreciate the flexibility the staff has shown in phasing 23 this in. It's an extraordinary, extraordinary workload, 24 and we think there are still feasibility issues on the NOx 25 thresholds and the PM thresholds and how you measure for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 PM that we hope the staff would suggest -- the Board would 2 suggest to staff they continue to work with us on. We 3 want to get this right. 4 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I'm glad to hear that. 5 As one who believes in redemption in more than a 6 theological sense, I think this is a wonderful opportunity 7 for your industry, in my view, to make up for some 8 mistakes in the past. I'm not given to quoting President 9 Reagan, but I do think in this case it's trust, but 10 verify. That's why this is so important. 11 MR. MANDEL: You won't be hearing objection to 12 our doing OBD systems. 13 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I won't be here in 2010. 14 You probably will be, given your youth. But I hope this 15 comes to fruition as you've outlined. 16 MR. MANDEL: Appreciate that. Thank you. 17 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Thank you, Madam 18 Chairwoman. 19 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Very well said. 20 Any other questions for this witness? 21 Okay. Then we can move to our second witness. 22 Thank you very much. 23 MR. MANDEL: Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Eric Swenson with the Truck 25 Manufacturers Association, welcome. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 MR. SWENSON: Thank you. I'd like to introduce 2 myself. I'm Eric Swenson with International Truck and 3 Engine Corporation speaking on behalf of the Truck 4 Manufacturers' Association and our Chairman, Mr. Robert 5 Clark. 6 Madam Chair Tuck and members of the Board, thank 7 you for the opportunity to present the views of the North 8 American Manufacturing community on this very important 9 issue. The Truck Manufacturers' Association represents 10 the major North American manufacturers of medium- and 11 heavy-duty trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings with 12 greater than 8,845 kilograms. Or for those of you who are 13 still on the English system, 19,500 pounds. TMA member 14 companies include Ford Motor Company; Freightliner, LLC; 15 General Motors Corporation; International Truck and Engine 16 Corporation; Isuza Commercial Truck of North America; Mack 17 Trucks, Incorporated; PACCAR Incorporated; and Volvo 18 Trucks North America, Incorporated. 19 Over the past three years, TMA and its member 20 companies have worked directly with ARB staff on the 21 development of diagnostic standards for engine emissions, 22 resulting in the EMD rule, and now today's proposal. We 23 appreciate the opportunity we've been given to work with 24 staff and wish to reference again the materials we 25 provided the Board on May 20th, 2004. In those materials, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 we highlighted the importance of flexible requirements to 2 suit the wide variety of heavy-duty vocations that provide 3 essential services to the public and in commerce, 4 including vocations such as buses, snowplows, concrete 5 mixers, package delivery vehicles, and what is commonly 6 referred to as over-the-road trucks. 7 TMA and its member companies support 8 engine-focused rule making for emissions-related 9 diagnostics. We purchased engines with emission 10 certification labels affixed and install them to suit the 11 needs of businesses, states, and municipalities who are 12 our customers. 13 We support both recommended practices 1939 and 14 the ISO standards, to communicate diagnostic data to scan 15 tools. Many heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers desire 1939 16 methods for scan tool communications, because they use 17 1939 in their vehicles today. And the 1939 Subcommittee 18 is our interface control working group for transmission 19 automation, anti-lock brakes, crash control, operator 20 instrumentation, and other advanced vehicle concepts that 21 make our vehicles work. 22 The automotive standards, specifically ISO 23 15765-4 and ISO 15031-4, are preferred when Class III 24 products are extended in higher weight categories. This 25 prevents them from being redeveloped with different PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 diagnostic communication methods. 2 And, finally, we ask that ARB conduct biennial 3 reviews for today's proposal after its adoption. We 4 understand that ARB imposes technology-forcing 5 requirements in the rules it adopts. We believe that 6 ongoing industry experience will be needed to assess what 7 has been achieved and how that can be leveraged in the 8 future. 9 Thank you, Madam Chair Tuck and members of the 10 Board. 11 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you. 12 Questions for this witness? 13 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Just the fact that we could 14 have the staff respond specifically to the biennial review 15 and maybe to the ISO testing methods of communication. 16 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: With regards to 17 the biennial review, you will find that the Resolution 18 that is being presented directs the staff to come back for 19 biennial reviews on it. 20 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF ALBU: Similar to 21 light-duty, we intend to review progress in the coming 22 years to make sure we have a rule that can be implemented 23 successfully. Because we basically feel at the staff 24 level if engine manufacturers don't succeed, we don't 25 either. We want to make sure that these systems are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 rolled out with reliability and customer satisfaction as a 2 part of the system. In terms of standardization, I think 3 we accommodate both the ISO and 1939 protocols. So I'm 4 not sure if additional request is being made. 5 MR. SWENSON: No. We're not making an additional 6 request. We're recognizing both have been accommodated 7 and thank the Board and staff for that accommodation. 8 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much. 9 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Just for clarity purposes, in 10 the last Resolution, the last paragraph, it has staff 11 reporting back to the Board in approximately two years 12 from the effective date of the regulation. And that's 13 very appropriate. 14 Any other questions for this witness? 15 Our next witness is Bob Jorgensen with Cummins. 16 MR. JORGENSEN: Madam Chairman, welcome. 17 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Welcome. Thank you. 18 MR. JORGENSEN: And good morning. And the rest 19 of the members of the Board, good morning. My name is Bob 20 Jorgensen. I lead the Product Environmental Management 21 Group at Cummins. Cummins is a manufacturer of the 22 heavy-duty engines used in on-highway products or 23 applications, the subject of today's rule. Cummins is a 24 member of EMA and supports the comments already made by 25 Jed Mandel. I will not repeat those, of course. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 In the last several months, Cummins has had the 2 opportunity to meet with staff on many occasions, both as 3 a member of EMA and individually. And we appreciate the 4 time staff has taken to do that, meet with us. Those 5 meetings were, first of all, to understand the provisions. 6 And I think the staff has done a super job of 7 communicating and interpreting the regulations for us. 8 And then once we knew about them, you know, then we went 9 back and tried to understand them, estimate the resource 10 requirements of them, and come back to try to both meet 11 the goals of the regulation, which the staff again shared 12 with us, but do that in a way that is feasible. 13 And of the many different aspects of the rule 14 that we've talked about, there's one I'd like to bring up 15 this morning. And it was not included in EMA's oral 16 comments, but is in EMA's written comments that were 17 submitted just in the last couple days. But of the eight 18 to ten threshold monitors that Mr. McCarthy mentioned in 19 the opening remarks and the 75 to 100 non-threshold 20 monitors, there are three particular monitors that have an 21 issue as proposed by the staff. There's the cooling 22 system monitor, the misfire monitor, and the cold start 23 aids. 24 And in the years 2010 to 2012, that early part of 25 the phase-in period, simultaneously in the marketplace PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 there will be engines that will have to have the OBD 2 requirements, but there will be engines that have the EMD 3 plus requirements. And during that time, the OBD engines 4 will need to have the cooling system misfire and cold 5 start aids, monitors, but the EMD plus engines will not. 6 And engine manufacturers, Cummins, recognizes 7 that there will be a cost difference, that $132. But I 8 think that's manageable. What we're struggling with is 9 these particular monitors, as best we can see right now, 10 are going to have an impact on vehicle design. And, for 11 example, the cooling system monitor requires that the 12 cooling system or the vehicle come up to operating 13 temperatures in a certain amount of time. And, of course, 14 that's very important. It's an enabler for some of these 15 other monitors. So we recognize the importance of that. 16 But I think that it's going to be the case that 17 coming up to speed in a certain time frame, coming up as 18 far as the temperature in a certain amount of time frame 19 will drive some changes in the design of the vehicles. 20 And if only the OBD engines need to do that and the EMD 21 plus engines, because they don't have that monitor in this 22 time frame, it will put OBD engines at a disadvantage. 23 And so we believe that it would be prudent to delay the 24 applicability of those three monitors, again, quite a long 25 list for three years and have the applicability date for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 those three monitors be 2013. 2 In that time frame, I think a better 3 understanding about the industry norms and how we design 4 our trucks and design the cooling systems and for the 5 misfire monitor some of the power train attributes will be 6 important. 7 I'm fearful without that, this change, the 8 unintended consequence, is that the OBD equipped engines 9 might be not purchased in the same volumes that are 10 expected by us and expected by the staff. 11 So in Mr. Mandel's remarks, on behalf of EMA, he 12 recommended that the Board ask the staff to include three 13 items in the 15-day, maybe now 45-day, notice. I'd 14 recommend that these three monitors be also included in 15 that 15-day or 45-day notice. 16 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Staff, could you respond to 17 his comment? 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, the general 19 response is that what Mr. Jorgensen is describing is a 20 problem staff did intentionally, which is to say that in 21 the first phase-in there must be a vehicle, an engine, one 22 prototype, that has it all, that is the design standard 23 that then leads the path into 2016 and full compliance. 24 And he's asking that we break it in pieces and say in 2010 25 through 12 we have all but three, and in 2013 we add PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 three, and in 2016 we go with it all. That's the 2 difference before you. Staff would prefer to stay with 3 its version of one integral system trying to make the 4 whole system work together. 5 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF ALBU: I think I might 6 add that these issues came up with our discussions with 7 Cummins. But in terms of thermostat or cooling system 8 monitoring, we've actually had some initial discussions 9 with them about raising the enable temperature of the 10 monitoring so it would occur in a 58, 55 degree Fahrenheit 11 range where the engine was more likely to warm up quickly 12 and the need for accessory heating might be reduced. So 13 we think by raising the enable temperature and possibly by 14 other approaches, such as reducing the temperature at 15 which diagnostics are disabled, by incorporating those two 16 kinds of measures, we think we can actually come up with a 17 system that would be implementable on OBD compliant 18 engines in 2010 without a lot of special rework by the 19 vehicle manufacturer itself. So we think that with 20 further discussion we can probably address a lot of that. 21 When it comes to the misfire, when we were in 22 more recent discussions with Cummins on this matter, we 23 think there is an approach that is still very viable. It 24 involves governed engine speed and being able to add fuel 25 to see if a cylinder is misfiring or not. And we think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 it's possible even with a multitude of accessories and so 2 on to have a stable idle period in which we can actually 3 add fuel to determine if the engine actually has a misfire 4 event in place. So with additional discussions and so 5 forth, I think we can get there on that one item, too. 6 So I think again we can discuss this in the 7 review, and if we're wrong, we can make adjustments at 8 that point. But there's too much potential yet for me at 9 this point personally to want to do something different at 10 this point in time. 11 On the cold start, I guess that's an important 12 issue. Because if the heating system is not working 13 properly in a mild day, the engine will actually produce a 14 lot of white smoke, a lot of raw hydrocarbon which is a 15 problem. You know, it's raw emissions coming out, which 16 would be taken care of by the after-treatment system. But 17 it still unloads the system more and makes the engine 18 potentially run rougher than it should. 19 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 20 Like other emission controls, the cold start aids that 21 Mr. Jorgensen referred to are ones that are designed and 22 built and installed by the manufacturer on the engine. 23 They are part of his specifications. And like other 24 aspects of engines and emission controls, he does have to 25 place some restrictions on the truck builder to make sure PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 that they don't alter the configuration to put the engine 2 in a non-compliant mode when they put it in a truck. 3 There are certain restrictions to make sure they keep the 4 engine in an emission compliant form when they install it 5 on a truck. 6 I think what we're talking about is these same 7 type of restrictions have to be placed on cold start aids 8 to make sure they understand what the truck builders are 9 doing with the engine and make sure they don't 10 inappropriately design the system to disable those cold 11 start aids or make them function less effectively. 12 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Let me make sure I understand. 13 Is staff suggesting that the 45-day comment period include 14 discussions on the cooling system and misfire, but not on 15 cold start? 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No. We're 17 suggesting that more conversations between us and the 18 industry might resolve some of their concerns, that we do 19 have a method for having all three of those monitors in 20 the 2010 fully integrated system, that we would not repose 21 taking those out and doing them in 2013. And the biennial 22 review would look at everything. 23 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you for clarifying that. 24 Other comments, questions for this witness? 25 Thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 MR. JORGENSEN: You're welcome. Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Our next witness is Todd 3 Campbell from Coalition for Clean Air. And following 4 Mr. Campbell, Bonnie Holmes-Gen with American Lung 5 Association. 6 MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning, Chairwoman Tuck and 7 members of the Board. Todd Campbell, Policy and Science 8 Director for the Coalition for Clean Air. Just had a 9 couple of points. 10 I wanted to first say our organization strongly 11 supports on-board diagnostics in terms of an application 12 for heavy-duty engines, and because it has such an 13 important impact in ensuring the benefits we're trying to 14 achieve for the 2007/2010 heavy-duty standards actually 15 occur, particularly in the communities that are impacted 16 by heavy-duty trucks more than others. 17 As you may recall, California has suffered from a 18 defeat device that was installed by engine manufacturers. 19 And that's another reason why we think this is important 20 to move forward. And we also applaud that the Air 21 Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency in 22 2001 set tougher standards in 2007, but also gave leniency 23 and grace period to 2010 for the engine manufacturers to 24 fully implement these tough standards. We think that, 25 therefore, the additional time that has been allowed has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 given them adequate time to meet those standards. And, 2 therefore, also should allow for them to even embellish on 3 those standards by providing on-board diagnostics in the 4 2010/2013 time frame. 5 We'd also like to say how important it will be 6 for us to ensure that these new applications, pre- and 7 after-treatment, actually work in use. A lot of people, 8 particularly decisionmakers for CEQA, rely on looking at 9 engine emission factors and making sure they're in 10 compliance and the rate of deterioration in the models are 11 actually consistent. 12 So I'd ask you today to please avoid any 13 temptation to weaken this rule, because we need to get 14 this right at the outset. And we need a proposal that 15 challenges the engine manufacturers enough to do the job 16 well. 17 On the issue of proprietary technology or 18 software, I'd have to say this is a very technological 19 world. I have an IPOD. I have a Palm Pilot. I have a 20 cell phone. And it's amazing when you start looking at 21 these devices how much they try to copy each other. The 22 Motorola now has a photo shoot in here, and I can take 23 videos and I can record all of you. This one was the 24 beginning, but it's a Palm Pilot, but it's not made by 25 Palm. And I can store all my photos on here. And I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 pretty sure next year you can get one that can take 2 pictures and do your Outlook and everything else on this 3 as well. So I just want to say that in all fairness when 4 we're looking at eleven years, I really don't think 5 proprietary issues really apply. 6 I'd also like to say that we should support a 7 2010 threshold that does not exceed the standards by 8 two-and-a-half times and a 2013 threshold at two times. 9 Because we need a system in place that alerts truck 10 drivers and inspectors that a truck is out of compliance, 11 rather than have a compromised system or no system at all 12 that allows for preventable excess emissions from trucks 13 on our California roads. 14 And with that, I thank you for your time. 15 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Mr. Campbell, yesterday, I was 16 reading the group letter from five environmental 17 organizations, including Coalition for Clean Air, and I 18 appreciated that all the groups supported the staff's 19 proposal as it was. That was very helpful. They've done 20 a very good job on this proposal. 21 MR. CAMPBELL: We feel the same way. We think 22 the staff has done their research. They worked hard with 23 the engine manufacturers, and the public process supports 24 this rule. Thank you very much. 25 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Any comments or questions for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 Mr. Campbell? Okay. 2 And the next witness is Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen. 3 Welcome, Bonnie. 4 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Thank you. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, 5 American Lung Association. And we're also here as we 6 signed on to the group letter in support of this 7 regulation. We think the staff has worked very hard, and 8 we really appreciate it, because diesel pollution control 9 is one of the top priorities of the American Lung 10 Association in our air quality policy realm. 11 We think this rule is especially important 12 because of the new emission control technologies that are 13 going to be in place on diesel vehicles from 2007 to 2010 14 because of the huge amount of emission reductions that can 15 be achieved and the major public health benefits that are 16 linked to reduction of diesel pollution. And we know that 17 you are all very concerned about achieving the maximum 18 possible reductions of diesel pollution. 19 We're especially concerned about the role of 20 diesel pollution in triggering asthma attacks, elevating 21 cancer risk, increasing hospitalizations and emergency 22 room visits, increasing premature deaths, and slowing lung 23 function growth in children. And we're concerned about 24 all of those health outcomes. 25 We believe that the staff has been more than PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 reasonable in providing a phase-in period for the 2 manufacturers to perform the necessary testing to ensure 3 the full compliance across all engine families for the OBD 4 requirements. 5 And we still would like to get a little better 6 clarification about the 2013 versus the 2016. Our 7 understanding was that the OBD requirements would be 8 required across all engine families in 2013, so I wanted 9 to understand if that's correct. And I know the Board is 10 trying to find a balance. It's a difficult balance to get 11 the systems right, get them all installed, and get the 12 necessary adjustments and refinements that are needed 13 before the full compliance goes into effect. But, you 14 know, we obviously would like to see the shortest time 15 frame possible. We'd like to see these requirements go 16 into effect as soon as possible so we can get the health 17 benefits. We generally would prefer that the OBD 18 requirement phase in sooner, but we appreciate the staff's 19 hard work to try to figure out a balance that would be 20 technically feasible and also move these requirements 21 along. 22 We do think this regulation provides extremely 23 cost effective emission reductions, and we're very pleased 24 that by 2020 we should get over 100 tons per day of 25 nitrogen oxide emission reductions from these regulations. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 The bottom line is that we believe the emission 2 thresholds and the requirements are technically feasible 3 and reasonably achievable. And, moreover, we believe that 4 the Board does need to adopt technology-forcing standards 5 such as these to keep the manufacturers on task to develop 6 the new technologies that will assure that our engine 7 standards are achieved through the life of the vehicle and 8 will ensure that the public gets the expected health 9 benefits from the smog and PM reductions from these 10 emission control requirements. So we urge you to move 11 ahead and adopt this important regulation. And, again, 12 we'd like to see these requirements in place as quickly as 13 possible. 14 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you. 15 Staff, could you address her question? 16 MS. HOLMES-GEN: I just want clarification on 17 2013 versus 2016. 18 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF ALBU: In 2013, all 19 engines will have OBD. The difference is in 2016 -- in 20 2013, there will be several parent ratings that get full 21 calibration of the system. The remainder will be 22 so-called extrapolated, but they will be full OBD systems. 23 In 2016, all engines will have to be calibrated 24 specifically to the standards. So it will be sure to 25 comply in full, all in 2013, though. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 2 It really is the sort of the rigorousness of the system. 3 In 2013, a select few will be emissions tested and verify 4 they turn the light on at the right level. And for the 5 rest of them, manufacturers will use engineering judgment 6 and analysis to spread that system out onto the other 7 engines without double checking and doing emission testing 8 to verify it's at the right level. Come 2016, they have 9 to apply the same rigor to all engines and make sure they 10 all work at the right emission levels. 11 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Thank you for the clarification. 12 Appreciate it. 13 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you for coming this 14 morning. 15 Our last witness on this item is Kathryn Phillips 16 with Environmental Defense. 17 MS. PHILLIPS: Thank you. Just to ditto what my 18 colleagues have said, and also I just wanted 19 clarification. I was having sort of post-traumatic stress 20 disorder sitting there thinking about chip reflash as some 21 of this stuff was being discussed. Had there been 22 on-board diagnostics, would something like that have been 23 avoidable? 24 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: That's a good question. 25 Staff? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER MC CARTHY: 2 If manufacturers wanted to design a system that did that, 3 I don't think an OBD system would have prevented that from 4 happening or prevented them from designing it in that 5 manner. 6 MS. PHILLIPS: That's a concern. 7 Is there a way to make this OBD requirement more 8 stringent to ensure that there won't be an opportunity to 9 do something similar? 10 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think 11 there's another program that we're in the process of 12 developing. It's agreed upon with the engine 13 manufacturers, and it's sort of an outfall of the original 14 problem we had. And that is that they now have to put 15 devices that actually measure emissions on trucks, on a 16 sample of trucks, and go out on the road and collect 17 information as to what the real emissions are. So if 18 there was something that caused under certain modes or 19 conditions higher emissions than our emission standards by 20 design, not by a failed part, but by design, that would 21 tend to get picked up. 22 And that's going to be brought -- I think it's 23 brought in front of our Board here soon. And it's going 24 to go national as well. And we're starting it here a 25 couple years before the rest of the country. But it's a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 cooperative program, but they're working with us on it. I 2 think it would address this problem. 3 MOBILE SOURCE DIVISION CONTROL CHIEF CROSS: And 4 there were a lot of additional certification testing 5 requirements that were added after the first round of 6 problems. 7 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: When we 8 had the standards and this problem existed, they had one 9 cycle that representing driving a truck in the city. And 10 now there are requirements that cover almost all possible 11 combinations of driving conditions for which there is an 12 emissions standard, and they have to have that. So it's 13 greatly expanded the sphere of operation which comes under 14 the specific control of the emission standards. 15 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Ms. D'Adamo. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Ms. Phillips, I appreciate 17 you raising that point. In fact, I was going to be asking 18 a similar question. And that is, could the OBD system 19 itself be designed in such a way that it could employ a 20 defeat device? 21 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Do you 22 mean -- 23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: In other words, do we have 24 a verification system in place that would enable us to 25 pick up on a situation where a defeat device were PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 implemented into the OBD system itself? 2 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think 3 the one part of the four testing elements that we have 4 that they're responsible for doing, and three of them are 5 post-production, the one that actually goes and looks at 6 whether the monitors have been running during typical 7 truck operation will do that for urban trucks, for line 8 haul trucks, for special operation trucks. And that one 9 would probably pick it up. I don't know that if there was 10 a software thing that says, if you see a fault, don't turn 11 the light on, you know, something like that, I don't know 12 if we're going to catch that or not. But I don't think 13 engine manufacturers are going to be trying to do that. 14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Let's hope not. 15 This other system to which you refer that would 16 test actual emissions, would that pick up on it if somehow 17 we miss it? 18 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah, 19 because that one will pick up second-by-second emissions 20 as a typical truck is driven through its daily work. So 21 if there was something where we look at that data you're 22 seeing, you know, one gram, one gram, one gram, ten grams, 23 that would be a red flag saying, why is that happening? 24 Because that's not supposed to happen except under 25 extremely limited conditions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 MS. PHILLIPS: I just wanted to applaud staff for 2 this very strong and excellent approach to the OBD. 3 But I'd also note that we've talked a bit about 4 flexibility. CARB has the flexibility to change it later. 5 I'm hoping the industry doesn't take that as a signal that 6 there will be a change, that they shouldn't press on and 7 invest as much as they need to invest to develop the kinds 8 of systems that will protect air quality as well as 9 protect consumers and helping ensure consumers they're 10 going to be getting what they get. 11 And I hope as the Board takes a vote on this, you 12 will also send a message, a signal to industry that you're 13 not entering it with the idea it will be changed in the 14 next few years if industry comes back and says, "We 15 haven't had time to invest enough to develop the systems." 16 Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you very much. 18 That concludes our witness list and the public 19 testimony. 20 Ms. Witherspoon, any additional comments? 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Nothing specific. 22 We'll just answer any remaining questions Board members 23 have. 24 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Okay. Before we get to the 25 Board discussion, there's a few procedural matters I need PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 to go through. The first is closing the record. And so I 2 will now close the record on this agenda item -- Ms. 3 Pineda. 4 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Thank you, Madam Chair. 5 I just wanted to state for the record that in an 6 abundance of caution, I am going to recuse myself on this 7 matter due to my association with Toyota. 8 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you. 9 So we'll now close the record on this agenda 10 item. However, the record will be reopened when the now 11 45-day notice of public availability is issued. Written 12 or oral comments received after this hearing date but 13 before the 45-day notice will not be accepted as part of 14 the official record on this agenda item. When the record 15 is reopened for the 45-day comment period, the public may 16 submit written comments on the proposed changes, which 17 will be considered and responded to in the final Statement 18 of Reasons for the regulation. 19 The next procedural item is ex parte. And just a 20 reminder for our Board members that we have a policy 21 concerning ex parte communications. And while we 22 certainly may communicate off the record with outside 23 persons regarding the Board rule makings, we must disclose 24 the name of the contacts and the nature of those contents 25 of the discussion on the record. This requirement applies PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 specifically to communications which take place after the 2 notice of the Board hearing has been published. 3 And so at this time, I'd ask are there any 4 communications that Board members need to disclose? 5 Thank you. And certainly, ex parte 6 communications are legal, but it's really great when the 7 interested parties have been able to work things out with 8 staff on such a technical rule. And I just applaud that 9 work going into this item. 10 All right. At this point we'll pause to read the 11 Resolution. I believe all the Board members have that in 12 front of you. It's Resolution Number 05-38 containing 13 staff recommendations. Before we go to any further 14 discussion, I'd like to ask if there's a motion on this 15 item? 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chairman, I'd like 17 to move the action contained in Resolution 05-38 and note 18 the change of the 15 day to 45 day. 19 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Second. 20 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: We have a motion and a second. 21 Is there any discussion on this item? 22 Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those 23 in favor say aye. 24 (Ayes) 25 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Any opposed? No. No no's. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 So the ayes carry, and this item -- the 2 Resolution is approved. 3 Congratulations to staff. Thank you very much. 4 At this time we'll allow a break for the court 5 reporter. So we'll be taking a ten-minute break and come 6 back at 11:17. 7 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 8 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: If everyone will please take 9 your seats, we'll get started. 10 Before we start Item 05-7-5, which pertains to 11 future MOUs, I want to provide some information regarding 12 actions that ARB will be taking in response to the initial 13 comments that we've been hearing from the public relative 14 to the recent railroad MOU, or Memorandum of 15 Understanding. And this is the MOU that the Executive 16 Officer entered into in June. 17 I came into this position last Friday, and there 18 was already several letters on my desk. Some of them were 19 addressed to Ms. Riordan as the Acting Chair. And more 20 recently, some of the letters were addressed to me 21 personally and to the full Board. 22 I want to start by saying that MOUs are an 23 effective and important tool for getting additional 24 emission reductions, particularly from federal sources 25 that are subject to federal preemption. In this case, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 there are important benefits from the MOU, and some of the 2 benefits, for example, are reductions in public exposure 3 and health risk near the railroads, something I think 4 we're all working for, and also enhancement of our ability 5 to gain much larger, longer-term benefits from the 6 introduction of cleaner locomotives. So there's good 7 benefits from the MOU. The goal of the MOU is to do good 8 things for clean air. 9 With that said, we are hearing some concerns from 10 the public about the MOU and very strong concerns about 11 the public process which was used, or maybe not so much of 12 a public process that was used, to develop the MOU. 13 So with that, I want to talk about some of the 14 actions that ARB will be taking to respond to those 15 initial comments that we've heard. 16 First, there will be two public consultation 17 meetings in August that will give the public and 18 interested parties an opportunity to provide their input, 19 their thinking on the MOU. And they will also give our 20 staff a chance to provide background information about the 21 development of the MOU and explain the benefits of the 22 MOU. So I think these will be very good discussions, very 23 important discussions. One of these public consultation 24 meetings will be held on August 10th in Northern 25 California, and the second public consultation meeting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 will be held on August 31st in Southern California. So 2 those are public consultation meetings. 3 Another action that we'll be taking is the Board 4 will be holding a special Board meeting in September, 5 because we already have a very full agenda for our regular 6 September Board meeting. And I've heard from the South 7 Coast Board meeting that some in the public thought it 8 would be good to have a separate meeting so the Board 9 could give it its full attention. So we'll be having a 10 special meeting on September 22nd. At that meeting, our 11 Board will be hearing comment from the public and decide 12 what appropriate action the Board wants to take relative 13 to the railroad MOU. 14 And based on environmental justice experience, we 15 are scheduling that meeting to take place in the afternoon 16 and evening. Our vote will be in the evening so that 17 community representatives have an easier time of being 18 able to participate in the evening meeting. 19 And for the folks who are in the audience today, 20 if you have questions about the meetings that I've just 21 discussed, you can talk to Bob Fletcher who's the new 22 Chief of our Stationary Source Division. Bob is standing 23 up. And congratulations on your new promotion. And for 24 those who are listening on the web, we will be providing 25 all the details very quickly on to ARB's website at PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 arb.ca.gov. 2 So I wanted just to provide that information 3 about the railroad MOU. We're going to be taking some 4 good steps in public process over the next weeks. But the 5 item that we're transitioning to this morning has to do 6 with the development of future MOUs. So at this point 7 we'll start Item 05-7-5. 8 And this item, as I mentioned, deals with 9 requiring Board ratification of future Memorandum of 10 Understanding before they become effective. So this item 11 again would effect future MOUs. And because this item 12 affects the Executive Officer's authority, we thought it 13 would be appropriate for me to present the background 14 information on the item, and I'll also be asking for 15 assistance from our Chief Counsel, Mr. Jennings. 16 And just a couple general comments on this. I 17 think that the Memorandum of Understanding generally are 18 an important tool for this Board to have, and we can use 19 them to achieve additional needed benefits, particularly 20 from the federal sources again that are preempted -- 21 regulations preempted under -- state regulations preempted 22 under federal law. So they're a valuable tool for getting 23 additional emission reductions. But they have gone 24 forward without Board approval. So we need to look at 25 that today. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 I have also learned in the few days I've been 2 here there are four of these. It's not like staff has 3 been adopting these every month or something. There's 4 been four in the whole history of the Board. The four 5 are: First, the most recent railroad MOU; second, a prior 6 railroad MOU which was signed in 1998 for the South Coast 7 District's jurisdiction. The third was an agreement with 8 airports in Southern California governing the cleanup of 9 ground service equipment. And the fourth MOU that's in 10 effect is for marine vessel speed reduction off the coast 11 of Southern California. In all four cases, these MOUs 12 were negotiated directly by the Executive Officer or his 13 or her staff, and that's based on provisions of state law 14 which I'm going to ask Mr. Jennings to explain for the 15 Board. 16 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: Thank you. 17 Since the inception of the Air Resources Board 18 over 35 years ago, the California air pollution control 19 laws have provided a broad delegation of authority to the 20 ARB's Executive Officer. As you know, the Executive 21 Officer sits at the pleasure of the Board. Health and 22 Safety Code Section 39515 essentially provides that any 23 power that the Board may delegate to the Executive Officer 24 any power that it chooses to do so. Health and Safety 25 Code Section 39516 then provides that any power or duty PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 which the Board may delegate to the Executive Officer is 2 conclusively presumed to have been delegated, unless the 3 Board specifically reserves the power of duty to itself by 4 affirmative vote. 5 In February 1978, the Board adopted what has 6 become known as the Reservation of Powers Resolution, 7 Resolution 78-10, and it continues in effect until this 8 day. It itemizes nine categories of functions which the 9 Board has reserved unto itself, such as adopting or 10 amending ambient air quality standards, adopting or 11 amending motor vehicle control requirements, or approving 12 formal reports required by the Legislature. Executing 13 MOUs with air pollution sources to reduce emissions when 14 direct regulations are problematic is not one of the items 15 that's reserved under the Board's own power. 16 The fact that a particular power is delegated to 17 the Executive Officer does not mean that the Board can no 18 longer exercise the power itself. It's always been our 19 position that, in effect, in that situation there's 20 concurrent power of the Board for the Executive Officer. 21 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you very much. 22 So under the current system, the Board does not 23 approve or disapprove the MOUs that are negotiated and 24 executed by the Executive Officer. And today we're 25 considering a change to that current system. And in the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 Resolution that we'll be looking at, the Board would hold 2 a public hearing on any MOUs negotiated in the future and 3 make a decision as to whether the MOU would go into effect 4 or not. 5 And I want to be very clear that this is not a 6 reflection on the Executive Officer's performance or on 7 the railroad MOU that was just executed recently. 8 This proposed Resolution is based on the need 9 going forward to have an opportunity for public input into 10 the MOU process and have Board oversight, since these are 11 I think generally large sources of emissions. 12 I appreciate our Executive Officer's personal 13 initiative in noticing this item, and she did that in 14 response to concerns she heard at the South Coast Air 15 Quality Management District's governing Board meeting very 16 recently. So by noticing it, it gives our Board an 17 opportunity to talk about how we want to deal with MOUs in 18 the future. 19 Again, my thinking is that the MOU tool can have 20 great value in getting additional emission reductions. I 21 also believe it's appropriate for staff to negotiate the 22 details of these MOUs. As a Board, at least speaking for 23 myself, I know we don't have time to be in the detail 24 negotiations that go on for months and months and even 25 longer. But I think it is appropriate to have Board PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 oversight over the decision as to whether they go into 2 affect. 3 Given these factors, I'm also recommending via 4 our Resolution that we'll be considering today that we 5 reserve to the Board the power to ratify all future 6 Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the Executive 7 Office and to indicate that no MOU would go into affect 8 unless the Board ratified it. In addition to that aspect, 9 there's another proposal in the Resolution which would be 10 included to provide greater transparency for the process 11 for all parties. And what this would do is recommend that 12 the -- or have the Executive Officer take the following 13 two actions. 14 First, it would have the Executive Officer 15 notifying both the Board and the public as the Executive 16 Officer initiated any substantive negotiations on MOUs. 17 So the Board would know and the public would know that a 18 process was starting. 19 And the second component of that would be that 20 the staff -- the Executive Officer would solicit public 21 comments on the subject of the specific MOU or specific 22 agreement so that the staff would have public input going 23 into that negotiation process. 24 Finally, and consistent with the legal 25 requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 39516, I recommend that we memorialize these actions in 2 the written Resolution of this Board. 3 So at this point, I'd like to ask for Board 4 member comments, and I'd be glad to answer questions of 5 the Board members, of course. 6 Ms. D'Adamo. 7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I just have a question 8 regarding timelines. The previous MOUs that have been 9 negotiated and entered into, did any of them involve the 10 need for expediency, you know, moving things along because 11 of any time factors or anything of that nature? 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I would say 13 generally not. The initial railroad MOU was negotiated 14 over a period of four years. The airport MOU took about a 15 year. I'm not familiar with the details of the marine 16 vessel speed reduction, but I'm presuming it took several 17 months. And the railroad MOU we just worked on took a 18 little over a year, with six months being very focused 19 negotiations. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And not that I would favor 21 this, because I agree with the approach that we're looking 22 at here. But just want to consider perhaps any future 23 items that may come before us and whether or not requiring 24 it to go before the Board would impede staff in its 25 attempt to maybe put together an agreement in an amount of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 time without having to abide by the strict requirements of 2 public notice. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, that's an 4 interesting question whether or not there's 30- or 45-day 5 notice required. I think there's only ten-day notice, 6 because it's not regulatory. 7 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: That's correct. 8 It would be ten days' notice, unless the Board wants to 9 give more than that. 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: With respect to 11 what would impede the negotiations, I would say the single 12 most important thing you do is the Board reserve its role 13 to ratifying. If the parties in the negotiations believe 14 there will be a second negotiation before the Board, staff 15 will be unable to complete or reach conclusion on any item 16 because there's no guarantee it's up or down on the 17 agreement reached with staff. 18 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Other comments? 19 Ms. Berg. 20 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Am I correct on a negotiation 21 with the MOU that the other party has the ability to walk 22 away at any time? 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's not 24 correct. The MOUs are structured in such a way the 25 release clauses are contingent on certain things PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 occurring. The Air Resources Board may quit MOUs, because 2 generally they don't obligate us to do much except monitor 3 the performance of the people with whom we've entered 4 MOUs. 5 But in the case of all the four Ms. Tuck 6 referenced, the parties who signed them are not allowed to 7 quit them unless something changes in the regulatory world 8 that affects their ability to comply. There's meet and 9 confer clauses. There are enforcement fines if they fail 10 to comply. It's a contract, essentially, and you can't 11 leave a contract without both parties agreeing on the 12 conditions on which the contract is -- 13 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I apologize I didn't ask the 14 question correctly. But I appreciate that answer, because 15 I didn't understand that either. 16 In the process before everybody signs the 17 contract or agrees upon the final MOU, up until that 18 point, can either party just say this isn't working and 19 walk away from the table -- 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. 21 BOARD MEMBER BERG: -- prior to the MOU being 22 reached? 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, they may. 24 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So the MOU, in fact, allows 25 us to get ahead of the curve in regulating or having an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 agreement that we need to reduce emissions? 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's correct. 3 That's exactly why we've used MOUs, especially for 4 federally preempted sources. 5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Mayor Loveridge. 7 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I want to thank the 8 Chair for the context of her remarks and setting the dates 9 in August for public comment and for the hearing on 10 September 22nd. 11 I have a longer statement I will make at the end 12 of public testimony. But let me see if I understand what 13 is before us. 14 The Board's role is an up or down role. If we 15 saw 90 percent which we said was A-plus stuff, but there 16 was 10 percent that was F stuff, we have no choice but to 17 except all or nothing? Can we remand it back to the 18 Executive Director and say, good effort, but we want just 19 some things changed? I need to, I guess, understand what 20 can take place in terms of the public hearing on the 22nd. 21 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: And I'd like to ask Mr. 22 Jennings to address that question. 23 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: Okay. First, 24 I'd like to distinguish the Resolution before you compared 25 to what's going to be before you on September 22nd. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 Resolution before you only pertains to future MOUs. It 2 doesn't effect how you'll approach the current railroad 3 MOU that you're going to consider on September 22nd. 4 And basically on September 22nd, you will have 5 the full range of options, from deciding that you find the 6 MOU acceptable and taking no further action, to deciding 7 to rescind the MOU, which would have the effect of ending 8 it and ending the obligations of the railroads as well as 9 the Board. And there would be an option of sending the 10 Executive Officer back to negotiate some other terms. 11 As Ms. Witherspoon indicated, in negotiations, 12 there's sort of a fine line that if there are too many 13 bites at the apple, the negotiations are going to break 14 down. And it's been suggested that maybe two bites at the 15 apple would be acceptable. But certainly by the second 16 time it comes back to you, you'd need to decide yea or nay 17 or otherwise. The negotiations would become very 18 difficult. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Mayor Loveridge, 20 what I would imagine happening is if you choose not to 21 ratify a future MOU, there would be very specific reasons 22 why you had not. And the parties of the MOU would be in 23 the room. They would hear them. We would certainly talk 24 to them about the reservations. There just would be no 25 guarantee that we could do any better than the initial MOU PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 we brought to you. So we would report back later if we'd 2 been able to move them one more bit or the negotiations 3 ended where they ended and it's still an up or down 4 decision with what's before you. That's what I would 5 expect to have happen. 6 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I'm not sure I 7 understand what you said, the difference between the 22nd 8 and its rules and the rules of the Resolution. 9 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: The Resolution 10 that's before you only addresses the authority of the 11 Executive Officer on future MOUs. It does not address the 12 authority of the Executive Officer on this one, but you 13 are going to review her action at the September 22nd 14 hearing. And at that hearing you will have the full 15 panoply of options. 16 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: And if the Resolution 17 passes, we would still have the full panoply of options? 18 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: That's correct. 19 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: That's correct. 20 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: That's what I need to 21 understand. 22 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you. 23 Other questions, comments from Board members at 24 this time? We'll have more opportunity for discussion, of 25 course, after the public comment on the Resolution. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chair, just from a 2 historic perspective and a request for something from the 3 staff, not necessarily for today but certainly before the 4 hearing in September, very specifically, I would like to 5 have the 1998 MOU and then perhaps maybe a historic 6 narrative of the process that we used at that point in 7 time, and if there was public response or if this did not 8 have public response but generally was accepted throughout 9 the state. I should remember with specificity, but I 10 don't. So I need that as a historic model. And I think 11 that's the closest one that I can see of the other three 12 to process that we just went through. And I'd really 13 appreciate that. Thank you. 14 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: Okay. We'll do 15 that. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: And I think, Mr. Jennings, 17 I'm looking at you because you can probably provide that 18 best. 19 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: Definitely. 20 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Any other comments at this 21 point? I don't see any. 22 So at this point, we'll move to the public 23 comment session on this item. And I see that we have 24 eleven witnesses signed up to testify. So we'll be 25 imposing a time limit of three minutes each so that we can PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 accommodate everyone. The Board will be having a lunch 2 today with the Research Screening Committee before other 3 items this afternoon. So we want to afford opportunity 4 for public comment, of course. But we do need to get 5 through the items before we lose Board members later 6 today. 7 So as I call your name, please come forward. And 8 we request that you direct your comments to this item 9 which pertains to future MOUs. We understand that there 10 are people here who want to testify relative to the 11 railroad MOU, and you're welcome to provide comments on 12 that during the general comment section later in the 13 agenda. And, of course, please note that we are having 14 the two public consultation meetings in August and then 15 the Board meeting in September specifically on the 16 railroad MOU. 17 So at this time, we will receive public comment 18 regarding Agenda Item 05-7-5 which proposes Board 19 consideration of future MOUs before they're adopted. Our 20 first witness is Barbara Lee with CAPCOA. And following 21 Barbara will be Dr. Barry Wallerstein from the South Coast 22 Air Quality Management District. 23 Welcome, Barbara. 24 MS. LEE: Good morning, Madam Chairman. And 25 members of the Board, hello. I would like to begin with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 congratulations and to wish you a warm welcome on behalf 2 of CAPCOA. We have enjoyed a long history of very 3 positive working relationship with you, and we look 4 forward to continuing that in your new position. 5 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you. 6 MS. LEE: Today, as you have requested, I will 7 speak only in broad and general terms about Memorandum of 8 Understanding and the means by which they are created by 9 this body. CAPCOA will submit more detailed written 10 comments on the railroad MOU on a later date. 11 First and most importantly, we thank the staff 12 and this Board for recognizing the concern this issue has 13 generated and putting the matter on the agenda today. We 14 also congratulate Ms. Witherspoon and the Board for acting 15 quickly to provide additional opportunities for the public 16 to review this item and to ask questions about the MOU and 17 express their concerns over the agreement. We do ask that 18 you commit to address the concerns that you hear as the 19 public process moves forward. 20 For CAPCOA, it's surprising and troubling to find 21 ourselves in this situation making comments on the 22 importance of public process to this agency. Over the 23 last five years, CAPCOA has worked side by side with ARB 24 to achieve environmental justice in California, and the 25 ARB has shown wisdom and leadership throughout that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 effort. It has earned rightly the respect of many for its 2 environmental justice program. 3 Early ongoing robust and meaningful public 4 participation is the most fundamental building block of 5 environmental justice and, indeed, of good government. As 6 we learned through ARB's EJ stakeholder process and with 7 the CalEPA Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, Madam 8 Chair, environmental justice means involving all 9 stakeholders in policy and program decisions, not only in 10 the ones that are popular and not only when it is 11 convenient. 12 I'm absolutely convinced that, while negotiating 13 the MOUs, staff believed truly that it was working in the 14 public's best interest and taking a positive step for air 15 quality. However, the primary issue before you today we 16 believe is the question of how the agency develops and 17 promulgates its key policy positions, and CAPCOA firmly 18 believes these decisions must rest on a solid foundation 19 of public process. Specifically, the proposed Resolution 20 05-40 provides notice of intent and establishes a hearing 21 in front of this Board prior to an MOU becoming effective, 22 and CAPCOA strongly supports the staff recommendation to 23 do this. 24 The proposed Resolution also asserts the 25 appropriateness of MOUs and preserves all MOUs already PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 established. Our organization believes that the 2 appropriateness of MOUs in general and the recently signed 3 MOU with the railroad in particular depends on the process 4 by which the MOU was developed. Given the substantial 5 concern generated by this most recent MOU, we strongly 6 urge staff and the Board to provide robust public process 7 before concluding this MOU is appropriate and before 8 ratifying future MOUs or changes to existing MOUs. 9 Finally, the Resolution asserts that the 10 ratification by the Board ensures an open public process. 11 We believe strongly that the Board hearing is critical, 12 but meaningful public process involves more than Board 13 hearing. Meaningful public process has to ensure early 14 dialogue with all stakeholders, clear and advanced notice 15 of meetings and decision making, availability of proposals 16 and other written materials, including plain wording 17 explanations and translation where needed. 18 There has to be an opportunity to submit written 19 and verbal testimony on the proposal and an ultimate 20 decision by the Board that attempts to address the 21 concerns raised about the proposal in a meaningful way. 22 ARB has a long history of successful open 23 process. CAPCOA believes the staff is committed to it and 24 to environmental justice. We support the staff and Board 25 in your efforts to ensure full and meaningful public PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 process in all of your policy and program decision making. 2 And with that, I'd like to thank you for your 3 attention. 4 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you, Barbara. 5 Questions for Barbara? All right. Thank you 6 very much. 7 Our next witness is Dr. Barry Wallerstein. 8 DR. WALLERSTEIN: Good morning, Madam Chair and 9 members of the Board. And I, too, would like on behalf of 10 our agency to offer our congratulations to the new Chair. 11 We, too, look very much forward to working with you and 12 the rest of the Board in the many months ahead as our 13 agencies strive together to achieve clean air. 14 I want to thank Catherine and the Board this 15 morning for reacting so quickly to the public comment and 16 scheduling this item to talk about process and then the 17 follow-on item regarding the actual content of the new 18 railroad MOU. And I think it's very beneficial that you 19 have acted in this manner. 20 I do want to clarify that these MOUs, in essence, 21 are an outgrowth of emission reduction requirements 22 necessary for our air quality management plans and for the 23 State implementation plan. So in that sense, they're very 24 analogous to rules and regulations in terms of what the 25 objectives are and, therefore, the need for a public PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 hearing and a public process. So it's very important and 2 should be thought of in the similar context of rules and 3 regulations and the type of process we go through to 4 develop those major policies. 5 Specifically on the draft Resolution before you, 6 a few suggestions and requests. The first I think is 7 probably a clarification. The Resolution on page 2 8 references new MOUs. We would ask that it be new MOUs as 9 well as amendments to existing MOUs. And we would imagine 10 that if there was a major change to one of the existing 11 MOUs, that the Board would want to have an opportunity to 12 have purview and ratification of a significant amendment 13 to one of those existing major policy documents. 14 Secondly, the document before you in the next to 15 last paragraph talks about soliciting public input prior 16 to initiating the MOU process. We think it's important 17 for the staff as they negotiate an MOU to periodically 18 touch base with the stakeholders to gather input that 19 would be useful in their negotiations, much like they 20 would do in any standard rule making. And I think the 21 rule making that you just completed was an example of 22 where the staff sat down, negotiated with the industry, 23 but also was able to solicit input from other interested 24 stakeholders that resulted in an agreement that everyone 25 could support. And we think the same should take place PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 here. 2 The third item is actually the last paragraph. 3 And I understand why the Board would want to be clear 4 today when you have four existing MOUs, the three previous 5 ones and the new railroad MOU, that whatever action you 6 take, that it be clear as to what implication it might 7 have for those initial three MOUs that were previously 8 approved by the Executive Director. 9 But our governing Board and a significant number 10 of stakeholders, including our environmental and 11 environmental justice groups, local government, many 12 elected officials have asked this Board to hold this new 13 MOU in abeyance until you have time to consider it. And 14 since you have scheduled a hearing in September, which is 15 not all that far off to hear the pros and cons of the MOU 16 and to take action as the Board sees fit, we would ask you 17 to modify the last paragraph of this Resolution to 18 indicate -- or add a new paragraph that would indicate 19 that the new MOU would be held in abeyance until the 20 September 22nd hearing when this Board will make a 21 decision one way or another on that MOU. 22 And with that, that concludes my comments, and 23 I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. 24 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: All right. Questions for Dr. 25 Wallerstein? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 Mayor Loveridge. 2 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I wondered if staff 3 could respond to the two requests that Barry put on the 4 table. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: With respect to 6 new and existing MOUs, we discovered when we sat down to 7 negotiate the latest railroad MOU that opening existing 8 MOUs is very problematic and unsettles issues that both 9 parties wish to let lie. And so that's why the current 10 railroad MOU was a stand-alone and not an amendment to the 11 prior, so that everything would be held harmless. So I 12 honestly can't tell you how often we would bring -- when 13 we would have an amendment to an existing MOU. But I have 14 no objection to the notion if there were to be one the 15 Board would ratify it. I just think it's unlikely given 16 the amount of effort that goes into the core MOUs that we 17 tend to go with a new agreement that is supplemental to, 18 not an amendment to. 19 With respect to public comment, you know, this 20 gets into the sensitivity of negotiations -- 21 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: The other one was the -- 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The abeyance, I 23 will get to that. There were three recommendations. Do 24 you want me to speak to the second one on public comment? 25 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: It was more or less the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 first and third. 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: On abeyance, we 3 looked at that at length, Mr. Jennings and I, and also 4 advised the Chair. There is no mechanism to put an MOU 5 that has been signed and entered into the parties in 6 suspension. The railroads would have to agree that 7 somehow the MOU had a different effective date, and 8 they're not willing to agree to a change in the effective 9 date, which is June 30, 2005. And so that leaves the 10 Board with the stark choice of whether to say at this 11 juncture we wish to quit the MOU. And you may say that, 12 because as Mr. Jennings indicated earlier, we share the 13 same power to enter into MOUs. And you, in this 14 Resolution, are taking some of that power back -- 15 proposing to take some of it back. 16 But you could vote to say to the railroads 17 thanks, but no thanks. We did not notice that action, 18 though, for today. That action is going to be noticed -- 19 that possibility is going to be noticed for September 20 22nd. 21 And our advise is because to take unilateral 22 action on an MOU is, in essence, to breach the MOU and 23 authorizes the railroads to abandon the commitment they've 24 made to me, the Executive Officer, and that is bad for the 25 breathers in the intervening period, that we would leave PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 the MOU, let it stand, and you can decide on September 2 22nd whether you wish to quit the MOU at that time, that 3 it's premature to take that action today before you've 4 heard all the testimony on the railroad MOU and had a 5 chance to evaluate the merits of it yourself. That's our 6 advice to you. 7 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Mr. Jennings, could you inform 8 the Board about the advice that you gave to the Executive 9 Officer on the abeyance issue? 10 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: Certainly. And 11 I'll start out by saying I concur with everything 12 Ms. Witherspoon said. 13 First, we thought it would be advantageous to 14 have it held in abeyance, and we thought that the cleanest 15 way to do that would be to ask that the effective date be 16 postponed until after the hearing that was being 17 anticipated. We asked that of the railroads. And, 18 frankly, they refused to do that. So we were left with 19 the choice of whether to advise them that it was being 20 held in abeyance or recommend that you make that 21 determination or to just leave it as it is and move on to 22 the September 22nd hearing. And, frankly, we felt that 23 because holding it in abeyance could be considered a 24 breach and would give the railroads the opportunity to 25 walk away if they choose to, that taking the action on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 abeyance would actually give you fewer options in 2 September possibly than the options that you will have. 3 And that's why we're not recommending that. 4 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Ms. Witherspoon, would you 5 speak to the second issue that Dr. Wallerstein raised, 6 which was as the Executive Officer is negotiating the 7 detail of MOUs, touching basis with stakeholders during 8 that process. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yeah. I think 10 that gets to sort of the sensitivity of negotiations 11 themselves. And so much of the process is coming to 12 understand the parties on the other side of the table and 13 what's a significant issue, what's a minor issue, and what 14 the grounds of compromise might be. And to publicize at 15 intervening periods exactly where you are could have a 16 destabilizing effect. 17 But I understand the intent of the recommendation 18 and the desire implicit in the Board's Resolution that the 19 process be as transparent as possible. So what I would 20 recommend is that we give great thought as to how to 21 accomplish that, especially in a negotiation that 22 continues for several months and as long as a year, so 23 that we don't disappear and that the comments we initially 24 received are no longer germane to where we ended up. 25 So what I would say is that if you would give me PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 this discretion to determine at what juncture it makes 2 sense to solicit comments and on what aspect of the MOU, 3 as opposed to showing everyone's hand and jeopardizing the 4 delicacy of the negotiations. 5 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: All right. Supervisor 6 DeSaulnier. 7 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Mr. hey you. 8 Tom, I just want to be clear so nothing is going 9 to change when we come in September. We can't hold it in 10 abeyance by action today, but we will be able to void it 11 in September if we choose, which seems contradictory to 12 me. 13 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: Theoretically, 14 you can hold it in abeyance if you choose to do so. But 15 the consequence of that is that the railroads could walk 16 away from the agreement. 17 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Understood. 18 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: Our thinking 19 was it is more appropriate to leave it in effect and have 20 you have your hearing on September 22nd. And after full 21 consideration of all the factors, at that point you can 22 decide whatever you want to do. 23 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: We have complete 24 discretion in either case. It's just you're advising it's 25 better to wait until September. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: Yes, because 2 you will have given it full consideration at that point. 3 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Understand. 4 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: And I'm hoping -- first of 5 all, personally, I'm going to attend the two workshops in 6 Northern California and Southern California. And I 7 encourage other Board members to attend at least one of 8 those public consultation meetings if you can. So we will 9 be listening during those meetings. But I think it's very 10 important that we not only hear -- we haven't had a full 11 presentation on this by the staff as to the benefits of 12 the MOU. We also need to hear the comments from the 13 public so we'll be able to put all that together in 14 September and make an informed decision at that time. 15 But Dr. Wallerstein, I appreciate how you've 16 placed your comments in a very constructive tone, and I 17 think we need to digest them as we listen to other 18 commenters this morning. 19 DR. WALLERSTEIN: Thank you, Madam Chair. 20 Can I make one quick comment in response to the 21 staff's advice to the Board? 22 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Please. 23 DR. WALLERSTEIN: If after hearing public comment 24 today you feel on advice of staff that you shouldn't hold 25 this new MOU in abeyance, I would suggest that you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 consider making a request from the Board to the railroads 2 that the railroads agree to hold it in abeyance until your 3 September hearing. Sometimes when a request comes from a 4 policy Board as opposed to the staff, the response is 5 different from the other party. 6 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Okay. Thank you. 7 The next witness is Todd Campbell with Coalition 8 for Clean Air and the City of Burbank. And following 9 Mr. Campbell will be Angelo Logan. Welcome, again. 10 MR. CAMPBELL: Good afternoon. Thank you for 11 hearing me on this very important issue. I'm coming to 12 you today as both a member of the environmental community 13 and as an elected official, because it does impact not 14 only the hard work that the environmental community has 15 been doing in terms of the goods movement system, but also 16 in Burbank because we are impacted by our railroad. 17 I'd just like to start out by saying that the 18 reason why this particular issue was frustrating for the 19 environmental community is because the goods movement 20 system is extremely important to us. We've been working 21 very, very hard in various venues to increase task force, 22 the State's efforts with CalEPA and the Business Housing 23 Transportation Agency, numerous forums, the Legislature. 24 And so this kind of caught us by complete surprise. And 25 as you know, we felt shut out. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 But we're very, very pleased at least today to 2 hear that the agency is willing to hold two public 3 hearings in August and also a formal Board meeting or 4 emergency Board meeting in September to consider the issue 5 further. That's definitely positive progress, and I thank 6 staff and the Board for that consideration. 7 That said, as an elected official, this is one of 8 the times where I think the community has completely come 9 together. You have a letter from the Burbank Chamber of 10 Commerce who is very concerned about small businesses 11 being further squeezed for emissions and looking at a 12 source that is known to be very impacting in terms of 13 communities. We all know from our own ARB study on 14 Roseville there is a significant impact on neighboring 15 communities. And we want to make sure that we have some 16 level of input in the process. 17 And that's why I think that this Resolution going 18 forward today to open the process up for future MOUs -- 19 but I hope we make a slight modification that if we modify 20 or supplement existing MOUs, that that also come under 21 public process. Because we do believe that we can add, 22 contribute legal mitigation and other expertise that will 23 be productive and also advantageous, not just for Burbank, 24 but many communities that are being impacted. 25 Just coming back from China, I can tell you 9 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 percent growth is real in China. The amount of 2 construction cranes just in even the small cities -- I 3 think the lowest number I counted were 42 construction 4 cranes, those big ones with the big arms and whatnot. 5 They are serious about their growth. And if we are 6 serious of even contemplating expanding our goods movement 7 system, we need to make sure that we have the adequate 8 protections in place before we move forward. 9 So with that, I would just like to conclude, I 10 think that in order for us as an agency to maintain our 11 environmental justice principles, we need to make sure 12 that public input is maintained. I also believe that 13 there should be some level of conversation, not just 14 between city officials or the public, but specifically for 15 the communities that are being directly impacted by 16 sources like railroads. 17 And I just think that we have personally spent a 18 number of -- well, it seems like a thousand hours combined 19 with various task forces and committees to research and 20 try to give supporting evidence that we do have the legal 21 ability to enforce even tougher regulations. So I hope 22 you consider -- not only pass today's Resolution, but also 23 consider changing the Resolution to include if you modify 24 the existing MOUs for that purpose. 25 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Any comments or questions? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 Thank you very much. 2 MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Our next witness is Angelo 4 Logan, who will be followed by Sylvia Betancourt. 5 Welcome, Angelo. 6 MR. LOGAN: Thank you, Madam Chair and Board 7 members. My name is Angelo Logan. I'm with East Yard 8 Communities for Environmental Justice. We're also a 9 member organization of the Modesto Agula (phonetic) 10 Coalition, which is a coalition of community members and 11 groups throughout the Southern California region. We work 12 on environmental justice issues as they relate to 13 disproportional impacts from toxic exposure and emissions. 14 And we also work on meaningful public participation, 15 especially for those people directly impacted by those 16 specific issues. 17 We believe that all policy rules and agreements 18 must be developed with a complete and open public process 19 for them to comply with environmental justice policies. 20 If ARB is serious about addressing environmental justice, 21 you must develop a policy related to MOUs that include 22 complete and totally open public processes, including the 23 negotiating process. 24 In regard to the proposed Resolution at hand, 25 giving the authority to -- the authority of negotiating PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 the MOU to the Executive Officer is not meaningful public 2 participation. We would like to urge the Board to alter 3 the Resolution by addressing this area, making the MOU 4 policies truly democratic, respecting all stakeholders, 5 and especially directly impacted communities. 6 I apologize, but I know that you asked not to 7 talk about the MOU between the railroad and ARB, but 8 they're overlapping. They effect each other. So I just 9 wanted to mention in regard to the last paragraph on this 10 proposed Resolution as it relates to the upcoming hearing 11 on the MOU related with the railroad MOU, we would like to 12 make sure that the Board not only holds a hearing in 13 regard to this new MOU, but it's real meaningful and that 14 it's actually going to have an avenue in which to 15 implement the concerns of the communities that are 16 directly impacted by this MOU. Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: At that hearing, the Board 18 will be listening to concerns from all stakeholders, all 19 positions, and then determining after discussion what an 20 appropriate action is. But we'll definitely be listening 21 to everyone very carefully. 22 MR. LOGAN: I think that, you know, in regard to 23 environmental justice and environmental justice 24 principles, you know, meaningful participation goes beyond 25 public comment, that we would like to participate in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 negotiating strategies, rules, policies, or agreements. 2 For us to come and comment over a three-minute period is 3 not really proactive. It's not participatory. It is very 4 minimal, and we want to have the opportunity to 5 participate as other stakeholders have been given the 6 opportunity. 7 At the hearing, I'm sure, you know, it's not 8 going to be a sit down, roll up your sleeves type of 9 hearing where everyone can participate and come up with 10 strategies. That's the opportunity the impacted 11 communities would like to be given the opportunity to do 12 that. And we feel we can be really proactive and add a 13 lot to cleaning the air and protecting the health for 14 everyone in California and Southern California. 15 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you. 16 Are there questions or comments from Board 17 members? 18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: The only thing is -- and, 19 Madam Chair, I've forgotten how you characterized the two 20 meetings, one in the north and one in the south, prior to 21 the September 22nd. That's where you can roll up your 22 sleeves and sit down and talk in a very informal way and 23 have a lot of interaction. So that's the meeting 24 definitely you need to be at. 25 MR. LOGAN: Okay. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: And I apologize that I 2 can't tell you where that meeting is yet, but we will have 3 that, I'm sure, very soon, and we'll send you the notice. 4 But that's the opportunity I think to have a little more 5 informal discussion that I think you're trying to 6 characterize. 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Ms. Riordan, I do 8 know where that meeting will be. It will be at the 9 Commerce City Hall on August 31st. We haven't set the 10 start time yet. It will be in the afternoon and into the 11 evening. We will have translation services available as 12 well. 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. Very good. 14 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you very much. 15 The next witness is Sylvia Betancourt. And 16 following Ms. Betancourt will be Rachel Lopez. 17 MS. BETANCOURT: Good afternoon, Board members. 18 My name is Sylvia Betancourt. I was raised in the city of 19 Commence between two large intermodal facilities. We are 20 a community that is very seriously impacted by railroad 21 emissions. And I come to you today all the way down from 22 Southern California because I take exception with this 23 process of MOU. I take exception with a public agency 24 negotiating an MOU with a private industry without public 25 input. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 Now with respect to this Resolution that's before 2 us today, I think that it is a good first step. But I 3 think that it falls very short, because it still doesn't 4 include public input. It still doesn't include input from 5 the beginning. What I'm looking for is to be at the 6 table. What I'm looking for is to be able to express what 7 it is that is our experience with living near railroads 8 and rail yards and especially intermodel facilities. 9 And as far as the community forums that will be 10 held in the next month, I do strongly encourage that you 11 have translation in the language that is appropriate for 12 the communities that are directly impacted. And as you 13 saw at the hearing, there are a lot of communities. So 14 very likely you'll need more than one type of language. 15 And I thank you, and I strongly encourage you to 16 consider our community with respect to this Resolution. 17 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you very much. 18 Ms. Witherspoon, will we be able to have 19 translation at the public consultation meetings and the 20 Board meeting? 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, we will. 22 And if Sylvia has some other advice for us about the other 23 languages other than Spanish, that would be very helpful. 24 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Why don't we talk after the 25 meeting about how to do that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 All right. The next witness is Rachel Lopez. 2 Welcome. 3 MS. LOPEZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman. 4 My name is Rachel Lopez, and I live in Miraloma 5 in unincorporated community in Riverside County, which 6 along with San Bernardino is ranked by the World Health 7 Organization as having the fourth worst PM pollution in 8 the world only after Jakarta; Indonesia; Calcutta, India; 9 and Bangkok, Thailand. 10 When you take into consideration this Resolution, 11 please take into consideration the community, our 12 families, our children who live, work, and play in these 13 communities. We know that nearly 1,500 people die from 14 air pollution in the South Coast basin each year. We know 15 that more people die from air pollution each year in 16 California than die from murders, car accidents, and AIDS 17 combined. We know that 3 million Californians have 18 asthma; 700,000 of them are our children. We know our 19 children are in harm's way. 20 What I'm asking you today is to please think of 21 our children when you make decisions, when you allow 22 deadly pollution into our valley. You allow this type of 23 diesel to come into our community and affect our children 24 and our families. I think this Resolution is a good step 25 forward, and I want to request -- and I am supporting all PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 the requests made by Mr. Wallerstein today. Please take 2 them into deep consideration and think of our children 3 also. Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Well said. Thank you. 5 The next witness is Frank Gallego. And following 6 Mr. Gallego is Lela Leon. And I apologize if I'm 7 mispronouncing any of the names. 8 Welcome. 9 MR. GALLEGO: I could say good afternoon. 10 I have nothing but admiration for the goals that 11 you are trying to accomplish. However, the Memorandum 12 that was recently accepted by you people is actually not 13 in accord with the benefits that the people deserve. I 14 realize that you people have an awesome responsibility, 15 and I also know that you are taking all the flak. And 16 it's not fair, because most of you are very, very 17 conscientious people. 18 However, there's always a but. I happen to be 19 one of the few surviving people in the -- there isn't 20 anyone older than me in the City of Commerce. I'm one of 21 the sole survivors that is compelled to breathe these 22 toxic fumes that are being expelled by the railroad. 23 Allow me to interject some personal data. I live 24 in the City of Commerce on 6440 East Ferguson Drive. To 25 be very honest with you, when I first moved in there 56 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 years ago, it was bail field. And there was landing of 2 planes and what have you. And with the beautiful area to 3 build a house, I built my own house. The house that Jack 4 built, I built, too. 5 All right. Now here's the thing. Now in the 6 last two years, the traffic -- the train traffic has 7 increased exponentially. And, consequently, the emissions 8 of all these toxic fumes have also increased to the point 9 that it's almost unbearable for people to exist in their 10 own personal habitats. It is almost disgraceful to allow 11 these locomotive engines to be parked in residential 12 areas. 13 My main point and bone of contention is this: 14 That residential areas should not be allowed to have their 15 trains stationed there, not 15 minutes like your 16 Memorandum indicates, not 30 minutes just in specific 17 cases. But they are in gross violation of your Act. And 18 this is what is not acceptable. The Union Pacific people 19 are stationing their locomotives and to remain idling, not 20 20 minutes, not 30 minutes, but all day and all night. 21 And we are the recipients of these toxic fumes. 22 Allow me to say this before I quit, last year I 23 lost my wife to cancer. The City of Commerce has one of 24 the highest rates of cancer cases in the nation. And this 25 is a very disgraceful thing. And you people and this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 Board have the power to abate this condition. And it is 2 almost impossible for people to expect compliance. This 3 Memorandum has actually tied your hands. You are not able 4 to possibly enforce compliance. I realize with all due 5 respect to your power and to your ability to do the right 6 thing for the people of California, especially the people 7 of Commerce, because I live there -- I want to be totally 8 honest. I'm biased. I want the Commerce air to be clean. 9 Two months ago, I attended a forum in the City of 10 Commerce that was sponsored by Senator Martha Escutia, who 11 happens to be my Senator. I'm very proud of this young 12 lady. She gave us a ray of hope. She told us that she 13 had authored the Clean Air Act. This Memorandum of 14 Understanding wipes out all the power that is invested 15 through the efforts of this young lady and your respective 16 Board. 17 Let me tell you this. People are dying on the 18 vine. Right now is not a time to be lenient to big 19 business. 20 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Mr. Leon -- 21 MR. GALLEGO: We have to press the button -- 22 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: If you please wrap up. 23 MR. GALLEGO: Thank you. I would like to thank 24 each one of you for allowing me to express my concern, my 25 sentiments, and my rage. Thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you very much. 2 The next witness is Lela Leon, and followed by 3 Leonard Mendoza. 4 MS. LEON: Yes. Good afternoon. As a former 5 elected official and a current Commissioner in the City of 6 Commerce, I respect the democratic process where a 7 governing body takes into consideration public input when 8 making policy that will affect the very air that not only 9 I breathe, but my community. And I take offense when 10 someone negotiates on my behalf without direct input. 11 I'm confident in this Board that you will ensure 12 that all future and existing MOUs will have public input, 13 and ensure that when reviewing the MOU, take into 14 consideration how it will affect each individual city -- 15 because it's not just the City of Commerce, there are 16 many -- when negotiating the MOU. 17 As a 50-year-plus resident of the City of 18 Commerce, I have seen many changes in my community, 19 specifically those that have affected the quality of life 20 through the diesel exhaust pollution coming from the 21 locomotives. Recent studies show that diesel emissions 22 are responsible for 70 percent of cancer risks from air 23 pollution. 24 Recently, the ones that we know of, there are at 25 least three community residents that have been diagnosed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 with cancer. One of these three died two months ago. 2 When reviewing what they had in common, it was not where 3 they worked. It wasn't their ethnicity. It was where 4 they lived, near a railroad. 5 The exhaust pollution coming from locomotives not 6 only effect our adults, it's effecting our children. 7 There is a rising number of asthma and other related 8 ailments in our children. And these ailments translate 9 into learning disabilities and absence from school, and 10 over the years, maybe cancer. 11 So, please, I urge you to look into enforcing 12 stricter regulations to ensure a reduction of diesel 13 pollution from locomotives and rail yards and their 14 operations. I also request that the recent MOU be open to 15 public comment to have all concerns of many communities 16 heard. And not only heard, but please, to put some of 17 those concerns into -- and to implement them in the MOU. 18 I thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you. 20 The next witness is Leonard Mendoza, followed by 21 Melissa Lin Perrella. 22 MR. MENDOZA: Good afternoon, Chair and Board 23 members. My name is Leonard Mendoza. I'm also from the 24 City of Commerce. Angelo and Sylvia are from an area 25 called the Bandini Park in the City of Commerce. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 gentleman that spoke earlier, he's from Ferguson, 2 different area of Commerce. Lela Leon, she's from the 3 Roseville Park area of Commerce. And I'm from Bristol 4 Park. So this is four different areas now in our city 5 from one side to the other. 6 I'm the President of the community-based 7 organization by the name of United Families of Bristol 8 Park. We're heavily involved in issues that affect our 9 community in the Bristol Park area. 10 The reason why I'm here today is because we're 11 surprised to know that the California Air Resources Board 12 went into an MOU contract with the railroads without 13 taking our input. And we're surprised, especially when 14 the meeting says future MOUs. If I'm not mistaken, you 15 have the meeting first and decide what you're going to 16 negotiate, not negotiate and then have the meetings to see 17 what you negotiated. I've been involved in a couple MOUs. 18 And when it comes to our salary increase, I know we bring 19 up all our concerns first and then negotiate. 20 I feel the process is working backwards. We're 21 looking at an MOU that is possibly negotiated already, and 22 we're going to try to look at how to fix it. 23 Just like them, I have several neighbors that 24 live right next to the railroads. As a matter of fact, 25 before coming up here, I went up there and did a couple of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 interviews with people in the area. And these are the 2 people directly on the other side of the wall. 3 The first one I spoke to was a lady that has a 4 son and a daughter that both have asthma. Next door to 5 them, there was a woman that was crying because her 6 husband passed away seven years ago. They lived in the 7 area for 35 years. 8 And it just happens to be as I'm going door by 9 door, there's three locomotives or three engines. I took 10 down the numbers of the three engines. And they started 11 idling their engines around seven o'clock in the evening, 12 and I noticed they stopped around 8:00, because at that 13 time I was still talking to the neighbors. 14 The neighbors are concerned because there's a lot 15 of kids living within that area. And we're asking the Air 16 Resources Board, even the railroads, have consideration 17 for the kids. That was the number one thing I heard, the 18 kids. I spoke to another older lady. She was about 80 19 years old. And when she opened the door, she started 20 telling me, "My allergies, my allergies. I've got to 21 close the door." And I said, "I'll let them at the 22 Resource Board know it's effecting your health." 23 Those meetings that you guys are going to have, I 24 thank you for having those meetings. But once again, I 25 feel like we're working backwards. You're going to inform PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 us on what you already did, when we could have gave you 2 some input on coming up with an effective MOU. 3 Like the other speakers, I'm confident the Board 4 is going to make a good decision. I see your titles, and 5 you guys are very intelligent. And I know you guys are 6 going to work for us. Thank you very much. 7 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you. 8 The next witness is Melissa Lin Perrella. 9 MS. PERRELLA: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, 10 members of the Board. My name is Melissa Lin Perrella. 11 I'm an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense 12 Counsel. 13 NRDC supports the proposed Resolution, as 14 indicated in our written comments, which were also signed 15 by 13 other environmental and public health organizations. 16 We believe this Resolution will help ensure that all 17 stakeholders will have the opportunity to comment on 18 crucial agreements before they are entered. Public 19 participation will only help legitimize and strengthen any 20 future action that is taken by this agency. 21 We also reiterate the request of Mr. Campbell and 22 Dr. Wallerstein that the Board go one step further and 23 require that the process outlined in the proposed 24 Resolution apply to substantive amendments to existing 25 MOUs. For example, an amendment that extends the life of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 an existing MOU or adds a new program element should be 2 subject to ratification by the Board at a public hearing. 3 In fact, we believe that the Administrative Procedures Act 4 may actually require ARB to involve the public before 5 entering into any future MOU or amending an existing MOU. 6 Our research also indicates that agreements of this type 7 may constitute projects under CEQA, requiring an 8 environmental review and a public process. Therefore, for 9 reasons based upon fairness, sound public policy, and the 10 law, we strongly support the Resolution. 11 And, lastly, I would just like to say thank you 12 to the Board for scheduling the meetings in August and 13 September. And I once again want to reiterate Dr. 14 Wallerstein's request the Board do whatever it can to 15 place the current MOU in abeyance until those meetings are 16 concluded. Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you for your testimony. 18 Any questions? Comments? 19 The last witness today is Kirk Marckwald 20 representing the Association of American Railroads. 21 MR. MARCKWALD: Thank you, Madam Chair. And 22 congratulations on your appointment, other Board members. 23 My name is Kirk Marckwald, and I'm representing 24 the Association of American Railroads made up in the 25 California members of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 Railroad, otherwise known as BNSF, and the Union Pacific 2 Railroad. 3 With respect to the item before you today, the 4 railroads believe that it is basically an internal matter 5 for your Board to assess and resolve and consider 6 carefully what role you want to have in future MOUs, the 7 ratification of future MOUs. 8 Secondly, the railroads look forward to 9 participating both in the public workshops as well as in 10 the Board hearing in September to talk where we'll be able 11 to get into the substance of the MOU, and you'll be able 12 to have the full information before you. 13 Thirdly, I do want to say a few things about some 14 of the suggested changes to the Resolution that you have 15 before you today. 16 With respect to the first suggestion as to 17 amendments to existing MOUs, the four existing MOUs that 18 are in effect, the Association is neutral on that. I 19 think that's basically a private matter for you all to 20 decide. 21 With respect to the second issue, I think it's 22 very important that you support your Executive Officer in 23 his or her judgment of how best to involve the public, 24 what process, when that begins at the beginning, how he or 25 she continues in the course of the process. I think that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 you have confidence in him or her to do that. If they 2 don't do what you think they should have done, you should 3 try to talk about it. But to somehow try to legislate 4 that or direct that in a Resolution, I personally believe, 5 and on behalf of the Association, we think that would be 6 wrong. 7 Finally, with respect to the final item that was 8 made of somehow holding the currently in-effect railroad 9 MOU in abeyance, we oppose that suggestion. And I have 10 Mike Bar of the Pillsbury Law Firm here to talk a little 11 bit about that or other questions that I may feel that are 12 better to direct to him. 13 But just let me say a few words on that issue. 14 We believe when we signed the MOU and continue to believe 15 today that there had been a duly authorized meeting of the 16 minds that we could achieve substantial emission 17 reductions that no one in the state of California, no 18 agency, no legislative action could have gotten those 19 actions. They are going to be enjoyed and will have 20 direct benefits statewide. We believe that is in effect. 21 It is clearly in effect. 22 And we believe the right time to then ask whether 23 or not this Board wants to do anything about that is when 24 you've had a chance to hear a full briefing on the 25 substance of the MOU as well as to be able to hear the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 public comment both in the consultative process as well as 2 in your hearing. At that point, all manner of approaches 3 and choices are in front of you. And you'll do whatever 4 you want to do. But the MOU is in effect today, and we 5 believe that is the right way to proceed. 6 And those are my comments this morning. Thank 7 you very much. 8 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you. 9 Mr. Bar. 10 MR. BAR: Thank you, Madam Chair, and 11 congratulations. And welcome to the NFL. I mean, the 12 ARB. Feels like the NFL today. 13 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: No one up here is on 14 steroids, I don't think. 15 MR. BAR: Concerning abeyance of a particular 16 MOU -- of course, that's outside the scope of today's 17 hearing, as the Chair pointed out. But just on the 18 subject generally, we did rely, as many others have relied 19 in the past, on the California law that Mr. Jennings 20 quoted about the delegation not only to this Executive 21 Officer, but to all prior Executive Officers for 27 years 22 without any change whatsoever. 23 That's been a very valuable provision for the 24 Executive Office and for the Air Resources Board and for 25 the public and for companies being able to rely on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 authority of the Executive Officer, which really goes far 2 beyond the authority of other Executive Officers for 3 districts or even other agencies. And I think it's part 4 of the success of this agency that companies and the 5 regulated community and the public have been able to rely 6 on that. 7 And I think it's been that authority that has 8 been delegated with great trust, and it's been executed in 9 this case and in the case of the prior railroad MOU with a 10 great deal of care, a lot of consultation with all 11 affected parties, and a great deal of effectiveness. 12 The '98 MOU is still in effect. It hasn't been 13 amended once. Unlike many regulations and statutes, it's 14 still in effect. It's taking effect right now. Now by 15 2010, what it means is we'll have an entirely new clean 16 fleet of locomotives in the South Coast, specifically to 17 benefit the South Coast. 18 But for the 2005 MOU, it is in effect. We have 19 been working on it for a while, as Catherine indicated. 20 The railroads have geared up to perform it. It is 21 important that the managers and the staff and the 22 railroads be allowed to continue to carry it out. They 23 are performing it. It is important that they be 24 performing it. It is having the benefits to the 25 communities that are represented here today that were PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 promised, and it will continue to have those benefits. 2 And for that reason, we didn't recommend and we 3 aren't authorized to recommend that that particular MOU be 4 held in abeyance for even a minute. It's being performed. 5 Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you, Mr. Bar. 7 Any questions? 8 I believe that concludes the witness list for 9 today. 10 And before we go to discussion and consideration 11 of the Resolution and potential amendments, I'd like to 12 just again reference ex parte for this item. And just a 13 reminder to our Board members of our policy concerning ex 14 parte, that while we may continue to communicate off the 15 record with outside persons, we have to disclose the names 16 of those contacts and the content of the discussions. 17 This requirement applies specifically to communications 18 which take place after the notice of the Board hearing. 19 And so at this time I'll ask if there's any ex parte 20 communications that need to be disclosed? No. Okay. 21 Thank you. 22 This is not a regulatory item today. We're 23 considering a Resolution, and it's not necessary to 24 officially close the record. So at this time why don't we 25 go to discussion on the Resolution. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chair, could you 2 just remind us your recommended additions to the 3 Resolution? 4 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: The Resolution that's before 5 us ratifying include those additions. What it does is it 6 has the Board ratifying any MOU before it goes into 7 effect. It has the Executive Officer notifying the Board 8 and the public before -- as you're starting negotiations 9 and providing or soliciting public comment on the subject 10 of the MOU as that process starts. So those are the three 11 steps. 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'm sorry, because I 13 didn't realize that those were included. That will be 14 fine. 15 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: And then we have the 16 suggestion for the Resolution to be amended to cover not 17 only future MOUs but future amendments to existing MOUs. 18 And another suggestion from Dr. Wallerstein was 19 to have communication with stakeholders during the 20 process. And our Executive Officer has requested that 21 we -- you said she would be comfortable with it, as long 22 as she had some discretion so it didn't harm the 23 negotiations. Sort of a balance here. We want to have 24 good public input, but in these situations, the regulated 25 source is coming voluntarily to the table. We want to get PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 those emission reductions. So it's finding that right 2 balance there. 3 Ms. Pineda. 4 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: I appreciate the difficulty 5 of public participation during the negotiation. And I'm 6 very, very comfortable providing the discretion to the 7 Executive Director on whether or not to include 8 participation at key points during the negotiations. 9 Where I'm a little troubled or need clarification 10 is, looking at the process, when the MOU is brought to the 11 Board for ratification, at that time there would be a 12 public hearing. 13 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Yes. 14 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: What I don't understand is 15 although the railroads, let's say, come to CARB and want 16 to enter into an MOU discussion, what would the reasoning 17 be not to have public participation at that time so that 18 as the Executive Director goes into negotiations, she has 19 the full benefit of the concerns of the community? 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Actually, we do 21 have that in the Resolution, that as negotiations are 22 initiated, that the public and the Board is notified that 23 we are considering entering into an MOU, the subject of 24 the MOU will be risk reduction at rail yards. And then we 25 are soliciting comment on what the appropriate content of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 such an MOU should be. 2 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Can you direct me to that 3 provision? 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's in the 5 "therefore be it resolved." 6 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: The next to the last "be it 7 further resolved." 8 Ms. D'Adamo. 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm comfortable with that 10 provision in the Resolution. And I think for us to bog it 11 down in further detail may result in some unintended 12 consequences. 13 And I also think our Ombudsman does a very good 14 job on reporting to the Board the public process. So I 15 would assume -- we could even put that in the Resolution, 16 that we receive a report from the Ombudsman so we could 17 make that judgment call as a Board as to whether or not 18 the public process was adequate. 19 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Other comments? Questions? 20 Ms. Berg and then Supervisor DeSaulnier. 21 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I would just like to make 22 sure that we keep the goal in mind. And the goal of an 23 MOU is to bring parties together that are not under 24 regulation. This is a fully voluntary process. Up to the 25 point of agreement, parties can walk away and just remain PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 doing what they're doing. 2 We do not have the authority in this Board to 3 regulate people we're not allowed to regulate. And so 4 what we're doing is allowing a process for people to 5 voluntarily come together. In a voluntary negotiation, 6 people aren't going to get everything they want. And 7 we're not going to be able to satisfy all the community 8 needs and keep the voluntary participant at the table. 9 And so through this process, I absolutely agree we need 10 transparency. We need some public participation. We need 11 to make sure people are heard. 12 But I think it's critical to remember, what's the 13 goal? Would we just as soon if we can't regulate people 14 and force them to the table, we'd just as soon they stay 15 home and continue to do what they want? Or do we want a 16 mechanism that allows people to come to the table? 17 Obviously, we're not going to get everything we want. But 18 we're getting more than what we had without the MOU. So I 19 would just like to reflect, what's the goal? 20 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Very well said. 21 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 22 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Question and then a 23 comment. 24 Although you reference the four MOUs the 25 Executive Officer has done -- and I appreciate Barbara's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 request from a historical context, because I certainly 2 don't remember. Ron had asked me what the circumstances 3 were for the '98, and I do remember it wasn't 4 controversial. So I appreciate the historical context. 5 But the question I have is there have been other 6 MOUs that have been negotiated through the public and 7 private process, for instance, the ZEV MOU, correct, that 8 the Board actually had some input on other MOUs? 9 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: I think that 10 may be the only other MOU. And, again, the reason that 11 was entered into was that the auto manufacturers were 12 willing to accept that as a side agreement, but they were 13 not willing to accept it as a regulation that could be 14 applied to the northeast states. And, quite frankly, that 15 was controversial, and there were subsequent lawsuits 16 where we were not a defendant, but it did get litigated. 17 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I guess the only reason I 18 bring it up is there was some level by the Executive 19 Officer at that time, both because you were going through 20 a regulatory process partially -- 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We did have the 22 regulatory power and choose not to exercise it so the regs 23 wouldn't travel to the northeast states. 24 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: But I couldn't imagine 25 that MOU would have been -- my point is just there's a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 significance level, and however you measure that is what 2 we're after. 3 So let me just say briefly -- and I know we need 4 to get to lunch. This is troubling I think for a lot of 5 us. I have a great deal of respect for the Executive 6 Officer and staff. But I also have a great deal of 7 respect for those of us who are in retail politics and 8 local politics of the process, and I believe the process 9 is as important as the product. And the good will of this 10 organization obviously has an enormous amount of credit to 11 our ability to actually effectuate change. And what we 12 just did earlier today, a lot of the pressure on the 13 engine manufacturers will be the bully pulpit that this 14 organization has. 15 Any time any of us, whether deliberately or by 16 any -- I'm choosing my words here. When we affect that, I 17 think it's something of great concern. And I appreciate 18 both the Chair and the Executive Officer's willingness to 19 correct this. 20 I agree with the comments of Ms. D'Adamo about 21 the language being in here. I would support an additional 22 amendment that directed us to also include any significant 23 amendment changes to come back to us. 24 And then lastly, to Mike and Kirk, I would just 25 ask personally, if you want to avoid WWF as opposed to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 NFL in September, I think you would ask your clients to at 2 least come back with some kind of language that I think 3 Dr. Wallerstein is after, is that you're willing to, if 4 not hold it in abeyance, that you're open-minded about and 5 open to going through a public process where basically you 6 state what I think you believe personally is this is a 7 good agreement for the public. So somewhere in there I 8 think you would be well served to indicate that you're 9 open to a public process. Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Mayor Loveridge. 11 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I agree with the 12 Supervisor's comments and the addition that he 13 recommended. I support the Resolution that we will 14 shortly vote on before lunch. 15 Let me just say, in the few meetings I've been 16 here, I've developed an enormous respect for the agenda 17 and the expertise and the skill of the Air Resources staff 18 and Board. I think one of the things which has 19 characterized the strength of the ARB is its openness, its 20 public participation, its careful listening, its 21 exhaustive kind of reaching out to stakeholders. That's 22 been, seems to me, the signature of this agency. It's 23 helped give it the standing and status. 24 So let me just say I personally felt -- it was my 25 own comment -- disappointed and dismayed and some anguish PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 with what, in effect, all I knew was what I read in the 2 press release, a kind of Will Roger's comment. All I knew 3 was what I read in the paper, you know. 4 And I saw the letter that Catherine wrote to the 5 members of the South Coast Board. You probably had a copy 6 of that. But it begins, "On June 24th, 2005, the Air 7 Resources Board signed a new memorandum." The Board 8 signed a memorandum. My colleagues asked me, "What were 9 you doing? What were you signing?" 10 And, again, for those in local government who 11 have chief administrative officers or city managers, you 12 understand they do work, but there's also informal comment 13 that somehow one did not feel a part of it. But I look 14 forward to the discussion at the '98 lessons and what we 15 learned from that. 16 I should say -- and maybe would ask Barry to at 17 least offer this. I watched the some three hours, the 18 discussion, before the South Coast District. There was an 19 extraordinary testimony about this from all kinds of 20 people. There was like 101 people spoke. Catherine spoke 21 in favor. Everyone else spoke against, or nearly everyone 22 else spoke against. 23 And I appreciate the good intentions from the 24 railroad. Although one wonders how this effects things, 25 like the no net increase, which I think is a significant PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 policy initiative coming out of the goods movement. You 2 wonder how this effects what's going on here in Sacramento 3 in terms of legislation and the different members of the 4 Legislature, and the South Coast has supported. 5 I must say, just personally, if you ask, I think 6 both the city officials and city leadership across 7 Southern California about the openness and responsiveness 8 and the respect of railroads, at least as a professor, you 9 would not receive particularly high marks. And the poison 10 pill I think becomes troublesome, but we can talk about 11 that in September. 12 I guess the final point is really the one that, 13 again, was made by many, is that the strength I think of 14 the efforts here is really happiness together, 15 stakeholders, partners. We should not be divided. We 16 should be together in advancing the objectives of clean 17 air. So I'm delighted to support the Resolution that's 18 before us. 19 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: All right. I will move the 20 Resolution. This is Resolution 05-40 with the amendment 21 to have it apply to amendments to existing MOUs and also 22 to have reports back from the Executive Officer about the 23 public process. 24 Is there a second? 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Second. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Second. 2 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Clarification. Was that 3 significant amendments to the existing MOUs? I mean, if 4 there's any little change -- 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There would only 6 be significant. You don't open an MOU for something not 7 significant. 8 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: I'll call the vote. All those 9 in favor say aye. 10 (Ayes) 11 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Any opposed? 12 The ayes have it, and the Resolution is approved. 13 Thank you very much. 14 At this point we'll break for lunch. The Board 15 will be meeting with the Research Screening Committee for 16 lunch. 17 And, Ms. Witherspoon, what time do you expect 18 we'll be coming back? 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Probably between 20 2:15 and 2:30, because we have to walk three blocks over 21 to the Sheraton and walk back. 22 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thanks, everyone. 23 (Thereupon a lunch recess was taken.) 24 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Welcome back. The next item 25 on the agenda is 05-7-2. This is the Board's air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 pollution research plan for fiscal year 2005-2006. I want 2 to take this opportunity to welcome the members of the 3 Research Screening Committee. And we'll have an 4 opportunity to introduce you in just a few minutes. 5 I think most of the people in the room know the 6 Board's Research Program has a long history, and I hope to 7 learn a lot more about that history. ARB's research 8 efforts have made significant contributions to air 9 pollution in the air pollution community. So as I 10 understand it, a lot of our success in that area is due to 11 the contribution of the members of the Research Screening 12 Committee, and we're very appreciative of your work. 13 From reviewing the bios, they are very 14 impressive. The credentials are very good and cover a lot 15 of different disciplines. I'd like to, in particular, 16 call attention to Dr. Harold Cota, who I had the privilege 17 of sitting next to at lunch. We found we have a friend in 18 common. And he is the Chairman of the Research Screening 19 Committee. This year marks his 20th year as a member of 20 the Committee, and he is a chemical engineer and a 21 professor at CalPoly San Luis Obispo. His experience is 22 in atmospheric measurements related to air pollution 23 control, and he's also the director of CalPoly U.S. EPA 24 Areawide Training Center. 25 So I'd like to thank you for your leadership with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 the Committee and your contribution to our Research 2 Program. 3 I look forward to working with all the members of 4 the Committee in the future, and thank you very much for 5 your work on our research plan. It's very important that 6 the plan reflect the Board's priorities. And after 7 looking at it, it was my sense that it does. 8 So at this point, I would like to ask 9 Ms. Witherspoon to introduce the item and begin the 10 staff's presentation. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Madam 12 Chair. 13 Today, we'll present for your consideration the 14 Board's proposed research for the fiscal year. The 15 Research Screening Committee has guided the success of our 16 Research Program, and we're very appreciative of the 17 assistance they provide. 18 At this time, I'd like to introduce Professor Hal 19 Cota, Chairman of the Research Screening Committee, who 20 will introduce the members to us and comment on this 21 year's research highlights. 22 Professor Cota. 23 PROFESSOR COTA: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. 24 And, again, I'd like to begin by welcoming you to the 25 Board, Madam Chairman, and we're looking forward to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 working with you in the future. 2 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you. 3 PROFESSOR COTA: Madam Chairman and members of 4 the Board, it's definitely a pleasure to meet with you 5 again this year. And I'd like to begin by letting the 6 people that are here from the Research Screening Committee 7 spend a minute introducing themselves and telling you a 8 little bit about the work they do. 9 MR. WILLIAMS: My name is Forman Williams. I'm 10 Professor of Engineering Science and Physics at the 11 University of California in San Diego. I'm Director of 12 the Center for Energy Research there and a member of the 13 Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. My 14 specialty is combustion, and so I try to contribute 15 however I can on the Screening Committee to problems that 16 have important aspects of combustion. 17 MS. FINLAYSON-PITTS: My name is Barbara 18 Finlayson-Pitts. I'm in the Department of Chemistry at 19 the University of California Irvine. I'm Director of our 20 new Environmental Molecular Sciences Institute that was 21 funded by the National Science Foundation last fall. It 22 involves six folks at UCI, about a dozen folks at the 23 national lab scientists, and 300 international 24 collaborators in the Checz Republic and in New Zealand. 25 My area of expertise is atmospheric chemistry. And so I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 happy to be here and contribute as I can. 2 MS. MORELLO-FROSCH: My name is Rachel Morello, 3 and I'm a Professor at Brown Medical School and in the 4 Center for Environmental Studies. My area of research is 5 looking at air pollution impacts on environmental justice 6 communities. I do a lot of community-based participatory 7 research. Currently working on a collaborative with an 8 organization called Silent Spring Institute in 9 Massachusetts doing an exposure assessment study of 10 endocrine disrupting chemicals in homes in Cape Code, 11 Massachusetts and in Richmond, California. 12 MS. THATCHER: Hi. My name is Tracy Thatcher. 13 I'm currently a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkely 14 National Lab in the Indoor Environment Department, and I 15 specialize in looking at indoor air pollutants, transport 16 of outdoor pollutants into the indoors, and transport of 17 pollutants within the indoor environment, with particular 18 interest in particles. 19 PROFESSOR COTA: Thank you. I'd like to spend a 20 little bit more time talking about some of the members who 21 aren't here today. 22 John Balmes, M.D. is a professor of medicine at 23 University of California San Francisco and Chief of the 24 Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at 25 San Francisco General Hospital. Dr. Balmes is a world PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 renowned asthma specialist and clinical researcher. 2 Robert Devlin is Chief of the Clinical Research 3 U.S. EPA National Health and Environmental Effects 4 Research Lab. There, he leads a group of scientists 5 responsible for assessing the effects of environmental 6 pollutants in humans' exposure and looks at 7 epidemiological approaches. 8 Steven Japar is a retired Supervisor of General 9 Environmental Impacts in the Research Laboratory at Ford 10 Motor Company. Dr. Japar's expert area is in atmospheric 11 chemistry and motor vehicle emission testing. 12 Dr. Chung Liu is Deputy Executive Officer and 13 Chief Scientist in the Science and Technology Division of 14 the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Dr. 15 Liu's areas of expertise are in air quality modeling, 16 technology advancement, and air quality planning. 17 Michael Lipsett, M.D., J.D., is an ex officio 18 member of the Committee, and he's with the Department of 19 Health Services Environmental Health Investigation Branch 20 and is Chief of Exposure Assessment, and his area of 21 expertise is public health. 22 And one more, Michael Prather is a Chair 23 Professor in the Earth Science Department at the 24 University of California Irvine. His research interests 25 include the simulation of the physical, chemical, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 biological processes that determine atmospheric 2 composition. This includes modeling of photochemistry and 3 atmospheric radiation, global climate transport involving 4 ozone and trace gasses. 5 And I think as you said, Madam Chair, you can see 6 that we have a well-rounded group of experts that are 7 looking at the diverse problems of air pollution. 8 Actually, the Committee is charged with the development 9 and scientific peer review of the research plan, the 10 proposals that implement the plan, and all final research 11 projects. The Research Division under the leadership of 12 Bart Croes is a very talented staff, and they continue to 13 do an outstanding job in identifying critical knowledge 14 gaps and research needed for Board decisions. They are a 15 great help to the Committee. And I want to thank Bart and 16 all his staff. 17 In a moment, AnnMarie Mora will highlight this 18 year's research plan. But I'd like to point out first 19 that the plan really includes health studies that are the 20 basis of regulatory programs, like setting ambient air 21 quality standards. They deal with indoor air pollution, 22 exposure studies, and projects to address ARB's 23 environmental justice program, motor vehicle controls, and 24 the Governor's Executive Order on greenhouse gas targets. 25 The best researchers in California and across the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 nation are sought to participate in doing this work. The 2 ARB Research Program is not only high quality, but I 3 believe very important to the state of California. 4 Providing the Board with the best possible science in the 5 long run protects the health of Californians and the 6 economy. 7 I'd like to thank each member of the Committee 8 for the great amount of time they spend critically 9 reviewing all the research work in the past and helping to 10 shape the plan for this current year. 11 And in conclusion, I want to thank the Board for 12 your continued support. And now I'd like to turn the 13 meeting back over to AnnMarie. 14 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 15 presented as follows.) 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Good afternoon, 17 Madam Chair and members of the Board. 18 Today's presentation will include an overview of 19 the Research Program structure, as well as a brief 20 description of our strategic plan, which establishes our 21 program's long-term vision. The final section will be a 22 presentation of our annual research plan where I'll 23 present the projects we're proposing to initiate this 24 fiscal year. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The Legislature 2 created the Board's Research Program in 1971 and 3 identified it as an integral part of an effective air 4 pollution control program. With the mandate as its 5 foundation, the program encompasses all aspects of air 6 pollution. The program has and continues to sponsor 7 relevant research of the highest scientific quality that 8 accordingly serves as the foundation for effective 9 regulatory decisions. 10 Based on the complex nature of California's air 11 pollution problem and solutions, and in order to make 12 effective decisions, research requires a comprehensive 13 look at the interrelationships among air pollution issues. 14 To assist the Board in managing a technically sound 15 Research Program, the Legislature created the Research 16 Screening Committee. Projects are managed by ARB's 17 technical staff who serve as contract managers and closely 18 monitor and oversee the work performed by outside 19 contractors. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The 22 Board-appointed Research Screening Committee oversees the 23 ARB's extramural research program. It assists the staff 24 in the evaluation of research concepts and in identifying 25 knowledge gaps. It provides technical guidances on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 development of research plans, reviews all research 2 proposals, and makes funding recommendations to the Board. 3 The Committee also reviews and comments on all research 4 reports before they are released to the public. 5 The Committee meets approximately six times a 6 year, usually for one day, to fulfill its obligations with 7 respect to reviewing research projects and final reports. 8 The Committee also meets annually with the Board, as they 9 are today, to discuss the Board's policies with respect to 10 research and to receive overall guidance. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Next, I'll 13 briefly discuss our strategic plan for research. We 14 updated the plan in 2003 and plan to update it again in 15 the near future. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The plan is our 18 vision for scientific endeavors and was designed to 19 anticipate and prioritize the Board's research needs for 20 supporting upcoming regulatory efforts. In addition, the 21 plan provides stakeholders and research funding 22 organizations with targets for possible collaboration with 23 the ARB and inform university researchers and provide 24 consultants about our research needs. 25 We surveyed a long list of established research PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 plans as we developed our plans. The Research Screening 2 Committee, experts within the ARB, and other regulatory 3 research organizations provided thorough reviews and 4 insightful comments. As a result, we believe that we have 5 developed a comprehensive plan that focuses on the most 6 important aspects of air pollution in California. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Based on our 9 analysis of the research needs of the Board's regulatory 10 programs over the next decade, the plan has three primary 11 objectives: To reduce the emissions and exposure to PM; 12 to characterize and reduce community exposure to air 13 pollutants; and to promote continued advancement and 14 acceptance of zero and near zero emission technologies. 15 These themes are found throughout the plan and serve as 16 the underlying basis for each research area. 17 Because the nature of the environmental 18 protection is complex and involves many disciplines, we 19 realize that the plan must be flexible enough to adapt the 20 changes in regulatory priorities, advances in scientific 21 information, and new and environmental and energy 22 concerns. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: This slide shows 25 the five programs that are the key policy drivers for the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 strategic plan: The ambient air quality standards, the 2 environmental justice program, the state implementation 3 plans, the diesel risk reduction plans, and climate change 4 mitigation. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: This next slide 7 lists the research categories of the plan. These 8 categories were chosen because they defined the natural 9 sequence of research. They identify the impacts of air 10 pollution under health and welfare effects, characterize 11 exposure in the exposure assessment area, and facilitating 12 the application of effective exposure reduction strategies 13 under technology advancement and pollution prevention. 14 Finally, we designated global air pollution as an 15 area of high interest. It not only encompasses all three 16 of the above categories, but also contains elements that 17 extend well beyond their individual components. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: I will now 20 present the planned air pollution research for fiscal year 21 2005-2006. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: We view this plan 24 as the annual implementation of our strategic plan. The 25 fundamentals of the strategic plan are reflected in the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 planned air pollution research. If approved, detailed 2 proposals will be considered by the RSC and brought before 3 you for consideration during the next few months. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The process for 6 developing the annual plan starts with the general 7 solicitation, inviting and encouraging the public to 8 contribute ideas for project consideration. Members of 9 the public, the academic communities, and ARB staff submit 10 research ideas. To aid in the evaluation, the Board's 11 Executive Officer established internal committees to 12 review research ideas. Proposed projects are examined for 13 relevance to regulatory questions facing the Board and 14 modified as necessary. 15 RSC members review projects and provide technical 16 comments for the Executive Research Review Committee, 17 whose members are the Executive Officer, her three 18 deputies, and Chief of the Research Division. The EO 19 reviews all the proposed projects and establishes project 20 priorities. The RSC reviews the selected projects and 21 recommends the plan to the Board, as they are today. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: There are 27 24 recommended projects in this year's plan. They have been 25 categorized in the same areas as the strategic plan with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 the addition of an environmental justice category. There 2 are also five projects that are recommended if funding 3 becomes available. I'll show you the breakout of funding 4 for each category and highlight one individual project 5 from each section. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Although the 8 research budget has been cut substantially in the last 9 decade, we are able to leverage our funds by seeking out 10 co-funding opportunities. The total budget we're 11 expecting this year is $6.8 million. This figure includes 12 our baseline research budget, plus co-funding. We expect 13 to be able to fund all 27 recommended projects and perhaps 14 additional projects as well. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: There are five 17 categories, and I'll briefly describe the projects under 18 each of them. I'll highlight and describe one project 19 from each category and conclude by recommending that the 20 Board accept and approve the proposed plan. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: In the 23 environmental justice section there are three projects. 24 In summary, the projects will look at ways to improve our 25 understanding and determine actual air pollution exposure PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 levels in disadvantaged communities. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Although all 4 three EJ projects are related, the one I'd like to 5 highlight is entitled, "Saturation Monitoring of Selected 6 Pollutants in Wilmington, California." In this project, 7 we'll collect extensive spacial and temporal data to 8 identify hot spots of selected pollutants in a specific EJ 9 community. 10 Air quality data are essential to characterize a 11 community's exposure to air pollutants. However, air 12 quality data collected in an EJ community are very 13 limited. Monitoring is typically done at relatively few 14 locations due to the cost of traditional techniques. 15 Thus, there is a concern that air quality monitoring 16 location may not reveal exposure to hot spots. The 17 spacial resolution of most air quality data is relatively 18 coarse compared to the spacial resolution of socioeconomic 19 status data. 20 To capture real exposure in the community, air 21 quality of finer spacial resolution that are compatible 22 with socioeconomic data are needed for EJ analysis. This 23 project will expand current monitoring efforts, collect 24 sufficient temporal and spacial data of selected 25 pollutants to allow comparison with existing fine scale PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 emission inventory and modeling results; identify hot 2 spots, and demonstrate the usefulness of low cost 3 monitoring techniques. The results of this project are 4 expected to improve our understanding of actual exposure 5 levels in an EJ community, and the methodology developed 6 from this project is expected to be applicable to other EJ 7 communities. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Next in the 10 health and welfare section there are four projects. These 11 projects will investigate the specific health effects of 12 exposure to PM from indoor sources, the effects from ultra 13 fine PM, and the effects from short-term and chronic PM 14 exposures. The last project is a continuation of our work 15 on how air pollution effects asthmatic children in the 16 Fresno area. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The project I'll 19 highlight from this section is entitled "Assessment of the 20 Health Impacts of Particulate Matter from Indoor Sources." 21 Ambient PM levels in California have been estimated to 22 result in thousands of excess premature deaths and serious 23 adverse health impacts. Indoor sources of particles such 24 as smoking, wood burning, cooking, burning candles and 25 incense and dust resuspension are only indirectly PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 accounted for in an ambient PM epidemiology study. 2 PM from indoor sources such as combustion 3 compliance and products are comprised of a variety of 4 components known to be very toxic and can result in 5 elevated indoor PM mass concentrations. Consequently, PM 6 of indoor origin may cause additional impacts not 7 quantified in studies of outdoor PM. 8 The objective of this project is to identify and 9 quantify the impacts of PM of indoor origin on human 10 health. The results may identify whether new epidemiology 11 studies are needed and enable risk reduction approaches to 12 focus on the sources most responsible for PM impacts. 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Also in the 14 health and welfare section, we have four cost analysis 15 projects. These projects evaluate the economic side of 16 air pollution control. They focus on providing monetary 17 evaluation of improving air quality. Results from these 18 projects provide decision makers with estimates of the 19 value of direct and indirect benefits of improving air 20 quality. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The next section 23 is exposure assessment. In this section, projects are 24 focused on understanding the atmospheric processes that 25 impact the behavior of pollutants in characterizing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 personal exposure to pollutants from indoor and outdoor 2 sources. There are eight recommended projects in this 3 section. These two projects are related to atmospheric 4 processes and will measure and characterize how air 5 pollutants behave in the atmosphere. 6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The four exposure 7 projects on this slide will focus on improving the current 8 inventory. Two are related to agriculture. One will look 9 at diesel combustion in ships, and the other at on-road 10 measurements from light- and heavy-duty vehicles. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The last two 13 projects under exposure assessment will quantify and 14 characterize indoor exposure to ultra fine particles and 15 obtain data on the extent of use of ozone generating air 16 cleaners in California. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The project I'll 19 highlight from this section is entitled, "Process-based 20 Farm Emission Model to Estimate Air Emissions from 21 California Dairies." Accurate estimation of the emission 22 rates of various pollutants from dairies, which are one of 23 the major sources for air pollutants in this state, is 24 important for both regulatory agencies and dairy farmers. 25 The Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium has sponsored PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 172 1 the development of a model for processed based pneumonia 2 emissions from livestock farms. 3 Investigators at U.C. Davis and U.C. Berkeley 4 have developed state-of-the-art research facilities for 5 measuring gaseous emissions from dairy facilities. This 6 project will further this work and develop a comprehensive 7 process-based dairy farm emission model that will include 8 hydrogen sulfite and volatile organic compounds. 9 Additionally, controlled experiments will be conducted to 10 collect data on emission rates from different sources on 11 dairies. 12 Results from this project will provide air 13 quality regulatory agencies, the scientific community, and 14 the dairy industry with capabilities to estimate the 15 emission rates of primary pollutants and develop effective 16 emission mitigation strategies for air quality 17 improvement. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The next section 20 is technology advancement and pollution prevention. This 21 section supports projects that address the further 22 advancement of emission monitoring, emission 23 characterization, and emission control technology. 24 Through these projects, staff work closely with industry 25 to take steps to enhance emission monitoring and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 173 1 measurement methods. There are a total of four projects 2 in this area. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: One project I'd 5 like to highlight is entitled, "Evaluation of the New 6 European Methodology for Determination of Particle Number 7 Emissions and Its Potential in California for In-Use PM 8 Compliance Testing." 9 The need for a robust on-vehicle PM sampling 10 methodology or surrogate for determining real world 11 emissions is undisputed. Under the osmosis of United 12 Nations, a multi-country particle measurement program, 13 PMP, has been underway for a few years in Europe and 14 Japan. Recognizing the limitations of the gravimetric 15 method for PM emission determination, the PMP is focused 16 on the identification of new and/or improved methods. 17 Validation of the proposed method is underway in Europe 18 and Japan. 19 The objective of this project is to conduct a 20 critical evaluation of the proposed PMP method for 21 determination of particle emission and its potential in 22 California for in-use PM compliance testing. The ARB 23 currently has the required instrumentation dictated in the 24 PMP method, thus some of the work will be done in-house. 25 This project will leverage all PMP lessons in integrated PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 174 1 effort with clear California benefit. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Our last section, 4 global air pollution, has four recommended projects. 5 These projects focus on greenhouse gas emissions 6 estimation and mitigation. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: We have a project 9 entitled, "Clearinghouse of Technological Options for 10 Reducing Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 11 From All Sectors," emissions from a broad spectrum of 12 sources, including residential, industrial, commercial, 13 electricity generation, and transportation of contributing 14 to climate change. 15 To date, much of the effort to characterize 16 emissions as well as identify opportunities for emission 17 reductions have focused on carbon dioxide. However, while 18 CO2 has been recognized as a dominate greenhouse gas, an 19 integrated effort for global climate protection is 20 underway that considers anthropogenic non-CO2 greenhouse 21 gas emissions an important sector when considering the 22 global warming potential of greenhouse gasses. 23 The objective is develop an international 24 clearinghouse of technological options that have been 25 employed for reducing anthropogenic non-CO2 greenhouse gas PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 175 1 emissions from sectors which are relevant to California. 2 As such, there is an opportunity for leveraging this work 3 with that of the California Energy Commission. This 4 information is needed to advance the debate about 5 California's efforts in global climate protection. The 6 work would contribute towards efforts to better 7 characterize cost effective opportunities for reduction in 8 non-CO2 emissions from both motor vehicles and stationary 9 sources. 10 The research that is sponsored by the Board is 11 crucial to the Board's mission. We think the projects 12 outlined in this plan strongly support ARB's mission and 13 therefore recommend that you approve the planned air 14 pollution research for 2005-2006. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: That concludes 17 the presentation. Thank you for your attention. We'll be 18 happy to answer any questions. 19 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: For the record, that was an 20 excellent presentation. Very clear. Thank you. 21 Do Board members have any questions or comments? 22 Dr. Gong. Ms. D'Adamo. 23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'll ask it. I asked Dr. 24 Gong a question about the halogen gasses, the research 25 proposal. I don't remember what category that was in. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 176 1 Are you talking about halogen lights on this one, or is 2 there some other form of gas that the average consumer may 3 not have any involvement in? 4 MS. FINLAYSON-PITTS: I'm not directly involved 5 in this proposal, but it happens to be something I've 6 spent about 20 years working on. And the genesis of it is 7 the following. 8 You have sea salt particles are generated along 9 the coastal regions, which of course includes all the 10 major cities in California, Los Angeles, San Diego, 11 San Francisco. There is great reason to believe that 12 there are chemical reactions that are not well understood 13 that take the halogen, the halite ions, table salt 14 basically, and puts that into a gaseous form that can 15 impact ozone formation. 16 And, unfortunately, the chemistry is not well 17 understood enough to be able to take it and plug it into a 18 model and ask is it important or not? Very rough stab 19 that was done suggested it could be quite significant, and 20 there's only been one specific measurement ever done 21 anywhere in the world of halogens from sea salt simply 22 because the techniques have not been there to do it. 23 So this proposal involves doing measurements in 24 California to find out how much is there. Once you do 25 that, then you can put in the models and ask the question, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 177 1 are there interactions between anthropogenic emissions and 2 sea salt that would change where ozone would peak and what 3 the peak level would be in California. So it's something 4 that isn't in the model, simply because we don't have the 5 data. And so it's extremely important to go out and make 6 the measurements. 7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Are there any other questions? 9 Dr. Gong. 10 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Comment. This is a very 11 exciting array of multi-disciplinary types of projects. I 12 was wondering, perhaps Professor Chairman Cota or Bart 13 could comment on in your own overall impression of this 14 year's research plan, how does it differ from last year's? 15 Is there in any way that you can think of? The Board's 16 going to see these types of projects come up every year. 17 Is there anything special about this group? I realize 18 each of these projects has great merit. I'm just asking, 19 can you give me a highlight as to what makes this year any 20 different from last year? 21 PROFESSOR COTA: Well, I think each year has its 22 own special projects. And as we were saying at lunch, 23 these questions never seem to -- research tends to 24 actually lead to new questions. 25 But specifically in answer to your question, I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 178 1 going to pass the ball to Bart. 2 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Actually, in the 3 five years I've been Research Division Chief, this is a 4 set of projects I'm most excited about because of the 5 range of projects, but most importantly the collaborations 6 with my staff. We have quite a few new staff that are 7 interested in in-house research projects. We have some 8 world-class facilities in Sacramento and Los Angeles, and 9 at least half a dozen of these projects are joint with ARB 10 staff. And I think we're just going to learn a lot from 11 working together on these projects. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: What strikes me 13 as different this year is an emphasis on ag that is a 14 little larger than in preceding years. Although we did 15 some research several years ago, maybe a decade ago first 16 about ozone damage on different agricultural products, but 17 now we're assessing quantitative emissions from 18 agricultural sources. Climate change is a growing 19 category for us. Environmental justice is a growing 20 category for us. Last year's was bigger, but it's a 21 three-year project monetarily bigger. And this moved into 22 some interesting directions within in-community 23 monitoring. 24 And then what's stable is every time we have 25 health-type work, every time we have emission inventory PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 179 1 work, every time we have control measure work, those are 2 three new subject areas for us. 3 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Very good. It's nice 4 diversity, rich diversity. 5 Third comment, co-funding. Will we have CEC 6 co-funding this year, do we know, at this time I guess? 7 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: CEC has indicated 8 interest in funding -- providing co-funding of 1.7 million 9 for the research plan. But, obviously, it still needs to 10 go through the Energy Commissioners before it can be 11 finalized. The South Coast Air Quality Management 12 District has committed tentatively close to a million 13 dollars, but it needs to go to their governing board. 14 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Any other questions? 16 Comments? 17 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Madam Chair, I have a 18 comment and question. 19 First, great presentation on the farm model. You 20 did that in such a way that Lynn Terry didn't start 21 snickering too much. I'm sure that picture -- I've seen 22 those three cows before. I've printed on here they're 23 Modesto cows. 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Like the sea salt cows 25 from the Bay Area. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 180 1 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: They're looking west and 2 complaining about the transport from the German cars from 3 the Bay Area. 4 Seriously, I did want to ask a question, my 5 county being home to four oil refineries. On the global 6 air pollution, as you look at the petroleum sector -- and 7 maybe this is a Mike Schiavo question. Just looking at 8 the petroleum process, in particular methane, and how we 9 may start capturing some of what they contribute to 10 climate control, and that may be beyond what we're 11 studying here, but is it something that without getting 12 into litigation with anybody who may be listening from 13 WSPA -- 14 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I think we're 15 going to have to investigate that and get back to you on 16 what the methane emissions are and whether or not -- I 17 would hope that almost all the gaseous emissions out of 18 the refinery would be caught as part of the VOC control 19 program and they wouldn't really have methane sources that 20 are exempt because they're methane. It might be a bigger 21 problem with natural gas distribution. 22 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: It comes to mind, because 23 in the Bay Area yesterday over the flare rule we had big 24 discussions with WSPA about whether we're including 25 methane or not. And it seems to me that's a big source PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 181 1 that potentially might be able to be captured in sort of 2 the normal as we go through our other regulatory -- 3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: One would be 4 hopeful if refineries have methane in them that they're 5 using that for their process fuel and other things. But 6 I'll get staff to look at it and figure out -- 7 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Perhaps now that they're 8 not using the flares as often as they used to. Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Ms. Witherspoon, do you have 10 any other comments? 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Nothing further. 12 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: We do have some public 13 testimony on this item. There's two witnesses. The first 14 is Marie Liu from Senator Dean Florez's office. And the 15 second witness is Bonnie Holmes-Gen from the American Lung 16 Association. 17 MS. LIU: Good afternoon. I'm Marie Liu from 18 Senator Florez's office. 19 I just want to start off that the Senator is very 20 supportive of the whole research plan. And he realizes 21 that the Board is not looking at individual projects 22 today, but he wanted to express his support particularly 23 for the FACES study. He believes the FACES study is -- 24 there's several aspects of the study that he finds very 25 unique, primarily that it's focused on the Central Valley. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 182 1 And he really wants to see more research being done 2 specifically on the Central Valley. 3 Currently, the plan has the FACES study to 4 receive 350,000 out of 750,000 of proposed bridge funding. 5 And he would support the Board looking into seeing if that 6 amount can be increased as it looks at the entire package. 7 He also wants the Board to know his understanding that 8 there was a surplus of approximately like 500 million in 9 the motor vehicle account and maybe some other locations, 10 that if the Board is interested in trying to look to 11 redirect those surpluses to research projects including 12 FACES, he would be very much interested in helping in that 13 effort. Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you. 15 Staff, is there any response to that comment 16 or -- 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, the 18 Research Screening Committee met earlier and did recommend 19 continuation of bridge funding. We're still in 20 conversations with the principle researchers about exactly 21 how much they need. But the figure has come down. It's 22 not in the 700,000 range any more. It's more in the 23 400,000 to $500,000 range. So when we bring the actual 24 contract before you for approval, we'll talk about that 25 more. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 183 1 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Potential of possibly extra. 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Right. 3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chair, just let me 4 express -- and I know you and the next speaker both have, 5 you know, supported this project. And this is a project 6 that I think would generate some very good information for 7 us. 8 But I'm going to be very honest with you. This 9 project also has to perform for us. And it is a project 10 that I think needs to get in information to our staff, and 11 perhaps they're a little tardy in some of that. And I 12 would -- because I think in fairness -- and I suspect that 13 somebody has probably come to lobby your office a bit. 14 But at the same time, you need to know very candidly they 15 need to perform. 16 MS. LIU: I appreciate that, and I will 17 definitely pass it on to Senator Florez. But the offer to 18 look for other funding sources may be in some surplus 19 funds for this and other studies, he would be very 20 interested. 21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Certainly. Because it is 22 to bring a lot of good information for us. But also you 23 need to know the contractor needs to perform, too. You 24 can't just provide money and not have a product. And I 25 want to encourage you to know we need to get a product. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 184 1 MS. LIU: That sounds good. Senator Florez is 2 all about efficiency, so I will talk to him about that, 3 definitely. 4 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you very much. 5 Our next witness is Bonnie Holmes-Gen from the 6 American Lung Association of California. 7 MS. HOLMES-GEN: I know it's late in the day. 8 Let me say welcome, since I failed to say it earlier, to 9 Ms. Tuck in your new post. 10 I just want to reflect on the Lung Association's 11 strong support for the tremendous research program that 12 has been funded over the years. And this program is 13 really groundbreaking and fundamental to all the work the 14 Board is doing. And we're highly appreciative of all the 15 work. 16 And the breadth of the program this year is to be 17 commended. I mean, the children's health study is really 18 a shining example of the importance of the Board's 19 research programs. When newspapers across the state had 20 the headline, "Air Pollution Permanently Damages Lung 21 Health in Children," there was a change in the 22 consciousness in the public about air pollution as a 23 public health issue and increase of concern. So I want to 24 express our appreciation for the staff's continued work to 25 develop a strong research program and for the many PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 185 1 accomplishments that have been made. 2 And I did want to call attention that we had 3 submitted a letter about one research project, the FACES 4 project. And I appreciate Ms. Riordan's comments and 5 agree. Because we think there are many very highly worthy 6 projects in here that we would strongly support and say 7 are high priority. But because we are the Lung 8 Association, we are particularly concerned about research 9 on asthma and the development of asthma in children living 10 in polluted areas like the Central Valley and the 11 progression of asthma and the affects of air pollution on 12 that progression. 13 So we just wanted to express our support for this 14 type of research and our support for getting additional 15 funding if it's needed to make sure that the researchers 16 have the resources that they need to continue and complete 17 that project. 18 And I think I was very pleased. I just heard of 19 this offer today from Senator Florez's office about 20 helping to dig up some additional money. And I think I 21 would encourage the Chair and the Board to take advantage 22 of that offer. Maybe look into if there is additional 23 funding that could go to some of the -- especially the 24 public health and vulnerable populations research. Thank 25 you for the opportunity to comment. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 186 1 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you for your support. 2 Okay. That concludes the public testimony. This 3 is an informational item, so we don't need to close the 4 record. 5 On ex parte, are there any communications that 6 members need to disclose? 7 Dr. Gong. 8 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Yes. Bonnie Holmes-Gen spoke 9 to me about the research plan in general and also about 10 the FACES project on July 19. And our discussion was 11 consistent with her letter of July 14. 12 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Perfect. 13 Any others? No. Okay. 14 All right. Is the Board prepared to vote on the 15 plan? I think we are. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I move the annual plan 17 that's before us. 18 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Second. 19 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Okay. We have a motion and a 20 second. So call the ayes. 21 (Ayes) 22 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Any no's? No no's. So we 23 have approved Resolution for the research plan. 24 Thanks very much to staff for a job well done. 25 And, again, thanks to the Research Screening Committee for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 187 1 all your work. 2 Okay. Moving right along. The next item is 3 Agenda Item 05-7-3, which is a research proposal. And 4 this project focuses on quantifying the health benefits of 5 air pollution control. Staff will now give us more 6 details on the project. 7 Ms. Witherspoon, would you introduce the item, 8 please? 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Madam 10 Chair. 11 I typically don't speak to the specific research 12 proposals, even though I have text here. I'm going to 13 just turn it over to the Research staff to present. 14 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Perfect. 15 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 16 presented as follows.) 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: There was one 18 research proposal from the annual plan before the Board 19 today. It's an augmentation to existing plan entitled, 20 "Health Benefits of Improvements in Air Quality." 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The original 23 project was a pilot study to develop techniques to 24 investigate trends in the occurrence of some major 25 respiratory and cardiovascular health end points in the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 188 1 South Coast air basin. The investigator successfully 2 developed an analysis technique that accounts for changes 3 in a large number of socioeconomic behavioral and medical 4 factors associated with cardiovascular and respiratory 5 health. 6 This augmentation is necessary to refine the 7 technique to quantify the health benefits associated with 8 air quality improvements and application of additional 9 pollutants and health end points. The contractor will 10 employ statistical analyses in parallel with the new 11 technique and compare differences between the two 12 approaches. The analyses from this project will provide 13 the local population-based estimates of health benefits 14 associated with long-term reduction of PM and ozone. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: We believe this 17 research proposal augmentation is necessary to continue 18 the contractor's work and will provide very useful 19 confirmation of the benefits of air pollution control. 20 We, therefore, recommend the Board approve this 21 proposal in the amount of $175,000. That concludes this 22 presentation. 23 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Thank you. I don't believe we 24 have any witnesses on this item. 25 Are there any ex parte reports for this item? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 189 1 Okay. That makes it easy. 2 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Move approval. 3 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Second. 4 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: We have a second. And all in 5 favor of adopting the proposal please say aye. 6 (Ayes) 7 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Any no's? None. The motion 8 is approved. 9 Do we need to move into the public comment 10 session? 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Typically, you 12 do. But I don't think anyone has signed up to speak 13 today. 14 CHAIRPERSON TUCK: Is there anyone here that 15 needs to speak to the Board at this time? Seeing none, 16 everybody looks wiped out, I will adjourn the meeting. 17 Thanks, everyone, very much, particularly staff. 18 Great job. 19 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board 20 adjourned at 3:14 p.m.) 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 190 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 1st day of August, 2005. 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