1 MEETING 2 BEFORE THE 3 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 4 5 6 7 8 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BUILDING 9 BOARD ROOM, SEVENTH FLOOR 10 939 ELLIS STREET 11 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 12 13 14 15 16 17 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1997 18 9:30 A.M. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Vicki L. Medeiros, C.S.R. License No. 7871 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii 1 MEMBERS PRESENT 2 John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman 3 Joseph C. Calhoun Mark DeSaulnier 4 Dr. Friedman Lynne T. Edgerton 5 Barbara Patrick Jack C. Parnell 6 Sally Rakow Barbara Riordan 7 Ron Roberts James W. Silva 8 Staff: 9 Michael Kenny, Executive Director 10 Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer 11 Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel Jim Schoning, Ombudsman 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii 1 I N D E X 2 --o0o-- 3 Page 4 Proceedings 1 5 Call to Order 1 6 Pledge of Allegiance 7 Roll Call 1 8 Opening remarks by Chairman Dunlap 1 9 AGENDA ITEMS: 10 97-10-1 Continuation of Public Meeting to 11 Consider the Approval and Verification of California's 1995 Emission 12 Inventory Update 13 Introductory remarks by Chairman Dunlap 5 14 Staff Presentation: 15 Mike Kenny 6 Mr. Agid 7 16 Public Comment: 17 Casey Bishop 11 18 Jack Legarius 14 19 97-10-2 Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Regulatory Amendments 20 to the California Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection Program and Periodic Smoke 21 Inspection Program 22 Introductory remarks by Chairman Dunlap 20 23 Staff Presentation: 24 Mike Kenny 20 Mr. Schoning 22 25 Ms. Miller 27 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv 1 I N D E X (Continued) 2 Page 3 Mr. Jacobs 45 Mr. Chernich 46 4 Mr. Jacobs 49 Ms. Miller 54 5 Public: 6 Mr. Block 55 7 Ms. Crowder 66 Ms. Williams 71 8 Mr. Skaggs 76 Mr. Becker 83 9 Mr. Hendrickson 84 Mr. Soriano 90 10 Mr. Colburn 94 11 Adjournment 114 12 Certificate of Reporter 115 13 --o0o-- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 --o0o-- 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Will this, the December meeting 4 of the California Air Resources Board, please come to order. 5 We have asked Supervisor DeSaulnier to lead us in 6 the Pledge of Allegiance. I would ask the ladies and 7 gentlemen of the Board to please rise, and we'll ask Mark to 8 lead us in the pledge. 9 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was led by 10 Board Member DeSaulnier.) 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mark. 12 Will the Clerk call the roll. 13 BOARD CLERK HUTCHENS: Calhoun. 14 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 15 BOARD CLERK HUTCHENS: DeSaulnier. 16 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Here. 17 BOARD CLERK HUTCHENS: Edgerton. 18 Friedman. 19 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Here. 20 BOARD CLERK HUTCHENS: Parnell. 21 BOARD MEMBER PARNELL: Here. 22 BOARD CLERK HUTCHENS: Patrick. 23 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Here. 24 BOARD CLERK HUTCHENS: Rakow. 25 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: Here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 BOARD CLERK HUTCHENS: Riordan. 2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 3 BOARD CLERK HUTCHENS: Roberts. 4 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Here. 5 BOARD CLERK HUTCHENS: Silva. 6 BOARD MEMBER SILVA: Here. 7 BOARD CLERK HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Here. 9 Thank you. I would like to begin the meeting by 10 thanking Supervisor DeSaulnier for hosting this meeting in 11 his district. We are very appreciative of your hospitality, 12 Mark, and that of your staff. 13 It is always nice to hold our Board meeting at a 14 Board Member's home base, and it is especially nice to come 15 here. This is a fine city, and there is a lot to do, and 16 it's always pleasant to visit. 17 It has been some time, as a matter of fact, since 18 we've met here. I can't recall the last time. Was it 1990? 19 We have not been to Southern California in a long 20 time either. About a year ago we went to San Diego. 21 BOARD CLERK HUTCHENS: We will get there. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, we will. 23 Anyhow, I wanted to thank you, Mark, for hosting 24 us, and is there anything that you would like to say or 25 mention? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Welcome, my fellow Board 2 Members. This is a typical air day for all of us that live 3 in California. 4 It is usually this clear. It is not because of the 5 weather but the fine work of our district staff. 6 I was late because I was out speaking with our 7 AFCO, Ellen Garvey. I don't see Ellen in the audience. 8 Oh, there she is. So, on behalf of the staff, we 9 welcome you, and we are pleased to have you here today. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mark. 11 Just a couple of announcements. For those of you 12 who may not have heard, I am saddened to announce that Dr. 13 Carl Moyer, of Accurex Corporation, passed away during the 14 Thanksgiving weekend. 15 Dr. Moyer was a reknown expert in the motor vehicle 16 pollution control field and will be deeply missed. 17 His contribution to our clean air efforts were 18 numerous, and his contributions certainly will live on. 19 A memorial service will be held this afternoon to 20 remember Dr. Moyer, and I can't recall the location, I 21 believe it's in the San Jose area. 22 Do you remember, Tom? 23 OMBUDSMAN SCHONING: Woodside. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Woodside. I'm sorry. 25 Dr. Moyer most recently had been engaged in some PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 work regarding the heavy-duty vehicle area that was very 2 important to us, and it has been touted in the Legislative 3 arena in Sacramento as important as well. 4 At this time I would like to recognize several 5 employees who recently or will soon retire from our Board. 6 The Board is fortunate to have a large number of long-term 7 employees who have spent a majority of their State career 8 with the Board. 9 I would like to just run through a few names, and 10 some of my colleagues on the Board will remember some of 11 these folks. 12 Arlene Bingaman, of the Technical Support Division, 13 will be retiring shortly. She has been with the State for 14 just under 23 years and the Air Resources Board for eight 15 years. 16 Arlene Ciccarelli, of the Research Division, 17 recently retired. She was with the State for 23 years and 18 our Board for 14. 19 Bill Hinch, of the Technical Support Division, will 20 be retiring also in a few weeks. He has been with the State 21 for 23 years and the Board for 17. 22 Donna Lott, personally known to me of the Office of 23 Air Quality and Transportation Planning, will be retiring 24 shortly. She spent her entire career with our Board, some 18 25 years. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 Elaine Mercier, of the Chairman's Office, recently 2 retired. She was with the State for 20 years and our Board 3 for 13. 4 Edward Huntley, of the Mobile Source Operations 5 Division, recently retired. He spent his entire 23-year 6 career with our Board. 7 I bring this to your attention because we have a 8 fine work force. These people have served us very well. 9 All right. Let's move into our Agenda. 10 The first Item is 97-10-1. I would like to remind 11 the audience who would like to present testimony today to 12 please sign up with the Clerk of the Board to our left. 13 If you have written comments, we would like you to 14 provide her with 20 copies so the entire Board may have a 15 copy as well as our Executive staff team. 16 This first item is a continuation of a public 17 meeting to consider the approval and verification of the 18 State's 1995 Emissions Inventory Update. 19 This Item is a continuation of a public meeting 20 that was introduced at our November 13 meeting last month. 21 It is for the Board to consider the approval and 22 verification of California's Emissions Inventory pursuant to 23 SB 2174 of 1996. 24 Approval must occur no later than January 1 of 25 1998, and when we continued this Item today, we agreed to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 limit our discussion to only the verification requirements of 2 SB 2174. 3 At this point, I would like to ask Mr. Kenny to 4 please introduce the Item. Good morning, Mike. 5 MR. KENNY: Good morning, and thank you Mr. 6 Chairman and Members of the Board. 7 At the November Board meeting the Board continued 8 this Item because of concerns raised by Mr. Bob Lucas, 9 representing the California Council for Environmental and 10 Economic Balance. 11 In part, he requested additional time to review the 12 verification portion of the staff report. 13 Can you hear me better now? 14 On November 25, and on several subsequent dates 15 since then, the staff has met with Mr. Lucas and other 16 representatives of CCEEB, and we believe that we have reached 17 an agreement on the amendments to the staff report which you 18 will hear about in a few moments. 19 The staff recommends that the Board approve the 20 1995 Emission Inventory as presented at the November 21 meeting. 22 As you will recall, there were no adverse comments 23 about the inventory at the November meeting. Staff also 24 recommends that the Board accept the staff's verification of 25 the inventory as described in the staff report. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 To recognize the concerns raised by CCEEB, we 2 proposed a number of clarifying text changes to better convey 3 the limits of our verification reports. 4 We believe that with these changes, CCEEB is 5 comfortable. However, I believe that they are here and can 6 speak for themselves. 7 With the Board's approval of the report, staff is 8 committed to continuing its efforts to improve the 9 verification of the inventory, and we will be refining the 10 three current methods we have presented and seeking the 11 development of additional methods. 12 As usual, we will do this in a public setting, and 13 we urge the public to share with us their ideas in this 14 arena. 15 Mr. Gary Agid will now present the proposed 16 amendments to the staff report. 17 MR. AGID: Good morning. I guess this mike is 18 working. 19 Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 20 Board. As Mr. Kenny indicated, since the last Board meeting 21 we have had several meetings with representatives of CCEEB 22 and had a number of follow-up phone calls. 23 As a result, we believe that CCEEB has a better 24 understanding of what we did and what we plan to do in the 25 future, and we have a better understanding of what some of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 their concerns were. 2 As a result, we are proposing several amendments to 3 the staff report that clarify our verification findings, 4 specifically on one of the three methodologies that we had 5 presented. 6 We also have clarifying language of our intent for 7 future inventory and verification efforts. You should have 8 two handouts. One is a short document that looks like this, 9 and it's the proposed amendments in strike-out and underlined 10 format, and it is just the pages that we propose amendments 11 to, and we also provided a copy of the full staff report for 12 context. 13 In the handouts, the first two pages of change are 14 page two and three, and they are the Executive Summary. 15 Page two changes would clarify that we use the 16 three methodologies presented because no additional 17 techniques were available for use in the time frame 18 available. 19 Page three, the amendments more clearly commit to 20 staff to pursue improving the emission inventory with 21 particular emphasis on organic gases. 22 The third page of change is page 50, which is the 23 introduction to the verification chapter. The proposed 24 amendment clarifies our findings on the one verification 25 methodology that I mentioned. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 The last three pages, page 56, 57 and 58 are the 2 conclusions to that same methodology, and what we did on 3 those three pages at CCEEB's request is that we added a third 4 scenario to the two that we had. 5 That scenario was already presented in an 6 attachment and by moving it to the body of the staff report 7 it better brackets our findings. 8 Late yesterday afternoon, a letter was received 9 from CCEEB that presents a number of technical arguments to 10 support these amendments, although we don't agree with some 11 of the technical arguments, we do agree with the need for 12 these clarifying amendments, and we recommend that they be 13 approved. 14 If the Board approves these amendments, our 15 intentions are to republish the staff report with these 16 changes incorporated. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. 18 Mike, do you have anything else that you would like 19 to add to that? 20 MR. KENNY: No. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any of the Board Members have 22 questions at all? 23 Mr. Calhoun, anything that you wanted to add? 24 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Mr. Chairman, the emission 25 inventory is obviously something of major concern to this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 Board. It serves as the driving force for most of the 2 Board's programs. 3 After the last meeting, I met with our Executive 4 Officer, Mr. Kenny, and talked to him about it. Since that 5 time, I also talked to Bill Washketah, who is the head of our 6 Laboratory Division, and a couple of members of his staff in 7 an effort to find out from him some of the ongoing effort to 8 reconcile the air quality with the actual measurements. 9 I think with the appropriate qualifiers that are in 10 the staff report, I think the -- I am prepared to recommend 11 approval of the staff's recommendation. 12 Also, I want to say that I was sufficiently 13 concerned about the emission inventory that I called upon one 14 of our former Board Members, Jack Legarias, and had a long 15 discussion with him about it. 16 As a matter of fact, we had two discussions about 17 it, and Jack is in the room, but I talked to a lot of people 18 about the emission inventory, not just the ARB staff, and I 19 understand from Mr. Kenny that there is a staff group 20 appointed whose primary responsibility it is to try and 21 reconcile the emissions inventory, what we actually see in 22 the atmosphere, and I see that as a continuing effort and 23 pleased that he is inviting other members of the public to 24 contribute to that call. 25 I am satisfied with where we are. I just want to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 make sure that any communication with the outside agents has 2 had the appropriate qualifier. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. 4 We have one witness here, Casey Bishop, from 5 CCEEB. Casey, if I could get you to come forward, we will 6 run through your commentary and invite Mr. Legarius, I know 7 Jack is not given to testifying before his former Board, but 8 Jack, if you would like to, I would invite you to do so if 9 you think you can add to helping us focus this discussion. 10 Mr. Bishop. 11 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 12 First, Bob, in particular asked me to thank you and 13 your Board for giving us the opportunity to work with your 14 staff. 15 We think it has been a very productive, I guess it 16 has been three weeks, and I think that we got a lot out of it 17 on both sides. 18 It's kind of interesting. When I first started 19 doing air pollution stuff about 15 years ago, Milt Feldstein 20 told me, I was very naive, I said this is what the inventory 21 says, and he said, don't be foolish. We've looked in the 22 air, and when you look in the air to try to verify what we 23 calculate, we don't see the same amount of hydrocarbons. 24 So, you know, this is not a new issue, this 25 verification phase, but I think one of the real pioneers in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 air pollution control thought this was a very important issue 2 and ultimately is how you are going to achieve the goals that 3 we have all set out. 4 The staff report, I think, nicely summed up what 5 we, what I think we all basically agreed on. The 6 verification shows that there has been significant 7 improvements in the inventory since the 1987 inventory. 8 We don't think that there is yet general agreement 9 between what you calculate ought to be in the air and what 10 you actually find in the air. 11 Because of that there are some discrepancies, and 12 as the staff report points out, the largest discrepancy seems 13 to be in the area of hydrocarbons. 14 The three key things that we would have liked to 15 have seen done better, if you will, or more of, really were 16 limited more by time and money just because of the need to 17 get this done, and it is the kind of thing that we ought to 18 be doing as we move forward to work on the 1999 inventory. 19 Those three things, and we have discussed all of 20 these with the staff, and they know what we are talking 21 about, the first is speciation, where you actually look at 22 the chemicals in the air, see how those agree and not just 23 the absolute mass of material. 24 The second is we use a more gridded inventories, 25 that is narrower areas of emissions for a particular time so PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 you know more exactly what you are comparing things to. 2 Then, finally, that you use more monitors, and the 3 reason for that is obvious. California is a very diverse 4 State. The two sites in Los Angeles may not be 5 representative of what we know about the State's inventory. 6 I think that all of the staff would like to have 7 done that and with time and money they can and hopefully we 8 will as we move forward using some of the data from last year 9 in the SCOE Study. 10 In summary, CCEEB would like you to see you approve 11 the verification phase of 2174. We would like to 12 particularly thank Gary Agid and his staff. They have been 13 very helpful and, in some ways, very patient explaining to 14 us, you know, what they had done and some of the things that 15 weren't actually in the staff report, and we appreciate 16 that. 17 Because the implication is so great, CCEEB, as well 18 as many other people and organizations, would like to work 19 with the ARB in working to actually put together that 1999 20 inventory that Mr. Dunlap said that we will all be doing for 21 the year 2000 and finding those improvements after looking at 22 what we learned from the verification phase are the kind of 23 things that are going to allow us to devise control 24 strategies that will even be better in the future. 25 We really thank you and urge you to support it. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 2 Any questions of Mr. Bishop? 3 All right. Very good. 4 Thank you, Casey. I appreciate that. 5 I also appreciate the work that the CCEEB group 6 went into to make this a priority to work with our team. 7 That was important. 8 Mr. Legarius, welcome. 9 Good to see you. You look well. 10 MR. LEGARIUS: Thank you. You do, too. 11 My name is Jack Legarius. I did serve on your 12 Board for ten years. 13 Prior to that I served on Ellen's Technical Council 14 here for another dozen years. For your interest, the 15 original emission inventory that was put out by the Federal 16 Government over 25 years ago, it is now known as AB 42, and 17 it has about eight or nine volumes. 18 My company supplied some of the very first data 19 that was in the original data, the original report, and I 20 know how good and terribly bad some of that emission 21 inventory data are. 22 I have been impressed in reading the staff report 23 on the fact that several different verification methods have 24 been used to try to determine emission inventory. 25 While it is true that the air quality data does not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 consistently agree with the emission inventory, that just 2 means that it is a continuing challenge to upgrade it. 3 I think that the data you have, the report that you 4 have, represents the current state of knowledge regarding the 5 emission inventory. 6 I recall that 11 years ago, or 10 years ago when 7 the Bakersfield meeting was trying to determine air quality 8 for the San Joaquin Valley, the air quality, the hydrocarbon 9 to NOx ratio did not agree with emission inventory, and the 10 question was whether you should use a one day or a three day 11 model to try to determine what the relationships are. 12 I just wanted to tell you on the basis of what I 13 have seen, I think that the report you have represents a fair 14 assessment of emission inventory in its relation to air 15 quality as we know it today. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you, Jack. 17 Any tough questions for our witness before he gets 18 away from us? 19 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: I just want to make a 20 comment. 21 Mr. Legarius, this is a personal comment. 22 Although we don't have the pleasure of having you 23 on our Board currently, I want you to know that in as far as 24 I am involved you are still present. 25 Occasionally something will come up, and I hear PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 echoing in my mind the questions that you have asked, and 2 they cause me to straighten up and do a little bit better 3 job. 4 So, you are still here keeping me honest in some 5 respects with some of those tough questions. I wanted to let 6 you know that even though you are not physically here, you 7 are still a very important force here. 8 MR. LEGARIUS: Thank you. Trying to keep a lawyer 9 honest is a real challenge. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well said. That is wise counsel, 11 and we try to apply it to Mike Kenny as well. 12 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: In a letter to us from 13 Robert Lucas of December 10, the letter closes with a 14 suggestion that a scientific panel be created, perhaps this 15 spring, to seek ways to enhance this issue of accuracy with 16 respect to hydrocarbons. 17 It sounds like a very reasonable suggestion, and I 18 just wonder if we should respond in a more formal way 19 verbally now to what our plans are. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: How do you feel about that, 21 Mike? 22 MR. KENNY: I think that what we would like to do 23 is actually, we have a reconciliation project going on right 24 now, and what we are trying to do is from an internal 25 standpoint look at the monitor data and compare that with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 inventory data and see how we can best reconcile those two 2 pieces of information. 3 We want to complete that particular project, and 4 then we want to share that project with the public. I think 5 at that point in time it would probably be more appropriate 6 to determine whether or not we want to pursue that kind of a 7 path, Dr. Friedman, or whether there is something in the 8 reconciliation information that actually may be very 9 comfortable for all that are involved. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: When would that reconciliation 11 process conclude, your best guess? 12 MR. KENNY: My best guess is the next several 13 months. It should not take a long time. 14 It has been going on for about five months. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. If Dr. Friedman's 16 comfortable with this, then, Mike, when that is done, why 17 don't you, and we will probably have to put a brief item on 18 the Board, give us a quick update and then at that time 19 address the committee idea. 20 Either you want it or you don't, but let's get a 21 recommendation back to us, okay, and then we'll take it up 22 then. 23 MR. KENNY: Fine. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: One thing that I should mention, 25 just to the industry reps, we get asked repeatedly to have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 advisory committees and focus groups, and we are willing to 2 do that. 3 I am less personally inclined to formalize those 4 things. I can share with you a personal experience. When I 5 was first appointed, I had asked our Executive Officer to 6 give me a list of all of the advisory committees that we 7 have, and there were many, and many of them had not met for a 8 long time and hadn't done a lot, and so what we look to do is 9 to try to cull those, shrink them and focus them and use the 10 staff, and one of the things that Mr. Schoning, and Mike and 11 his team have certainly done, particularly of late, have 12 really been reaching out to people that have strong opinions 13 about our work in advance and loop them in, but we haven't 14 done it in a formal committee way. 15 So, my inclination is not to formalize that 16 generally, but we are certainly open to doing it where it 17 makes sense. 18 So, just for those of you in the audience to think 19 that we have a lot of committees, there is a lot of 20 nonproductive elements to that, particularly when they are 21 standing committees and have been around for a long time and 22 sometimes have outlived their usefulness. 23 Mike, why don't you, in the March, April time 24 period, come back to us? 25 MR. KENNY: That will be fine. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 2 Dr. Friedman, is that all right? 3 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Sure. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 5 Any other questions or comments before we move on 6 this Item? 7 Okay. I'll ask staff, Gary or Terry, would you 8 like to say a word about any communications, letters that we 9 have received on this Item since last month? 10 MR. AGID: Just the one that I mentioned that was 11 received from CCEEB yesterday. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. 13 Mike, any last comments before we move it? 14 MR. KENNY: No additional comments. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. The Chair would entertain 16 a motion and a second to approve the Emissions Inventory and 17 accept the staff's verification of the inventory as amended. 18 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: So moved. 19 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Second. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: There is a motion by Supervisor 21 Roberts and a second by Dr. Friedman. 22 Any discussion? 23 All right. Very good. 24 We will proceed with a voice vote. 25 All those in favor, say aye. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 Any opposed? 2 Very good. Thank you. 3 All right. We will move on to the second Item 4 today, 97-10-2, a public hearing to consider adoption of 5 regulatory amendments to the California Heavy-Duty Vehicle 6 Inspection Program and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. 7 This Item pertains to the ARB's two heavy-duty 8 vehicle smoke inspection efforts, Assembly Bill 584, signed 9 in 1993, which modified section 44011.6 of the California 10 Health and Safety Code and placed some additional 11 requirements on the Board's Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection 12 Programs. 13 The regulation governing these efforts are found in 14 Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 2180 15 through 2188 and Sections 2190 through 2194. 16 So, with that legal introduction, Mr. Kenny, would 17 you decipher what this is all about for us? 18 MR. KENNY: I will be happy to. The emissions of 19 particulate matter, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, 20 found in the exhaust of heavy-duty diesel vehicles contribute 21 greatly to the State's inability to meet its ambient air 22 quality standards. 23 While each generation of new diesel engines meets 24 increasingly stricter standards, inadequate maintenance 25 practices or tampering with the emission control systems can PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 produce heavy black smoke that pours from the stacks of some 2 heavy-duty vehicles. 3 In fact, the Air Resources Board receives hundreds 4 of public complaints regarding smoky diesel vehicles on a 5 yearly basis. 6 In 1990, the Air Resources Board adopted its first 7 program to regulate the amount of smoke emitted from in-use 8 heavy-duty vehicles. 9 This program, which consisted of a roadside 10 inspection and smoke test was in force from 1991 to 1993. 11 While quite successful, the program met with 12 controversy regarding its testing procedure, a companion 13 fleet inspection and smoke test program was adopted by this 14 Board in 1992. 15 Given the concerns surrounding the test procedure 16 that program was never enforced, although the staff has 17 worked extensively with fleet owners to implement the program 18 on a voluntary basis. 19 In 1993, both programs were temporarily suspended 20 and the staff was redirected to work on reformulated fuels 21 issues. 22 At the same time the Society of Automotive 23 Engineers were to develop a new test procedure that was 24 adopted by their Board in 1996. 25 This procedure, known as the J1667 procedure, has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 been recommended for use in our programs under the provisions 2 of AB 584 of 1983. 3 This morning we will present to you a set of 4 proposed amendments to the existing regulations that govern 5 the roadside and fleet programs. 6 These amendments meet the requirements of the law 7 established in 1993 by Assembly Bill 584, including the 8 adoption of the Society of Automotive Engineers J1667 smoke 9 testing procedure. 10 Upon adoption of the proposed amendments, staff 11 intends to reinstate the two smoke inspection programs, both 12 the Heavy-Duty Roadside Program and the Fleet Inspection 13 Program. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Very good. 15 Mr. Schoning, would you talk to the Board a bit 16 about the process prior to today by which this Item came to 17 the Board? 18 OMBUDSMAN SCHONING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I 19 will. 20 As Mr. Kenny indicated, this Item has an extensive 21 history with the staff before this Board prior to the time 22 that it comes before you, and there has been an equally 23 extensive record of outreach. 24 I think that it is best divided into a total of 25 three categories. First, staff participation in developing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 the work with the Society of Automotive Engineers. 2 Second, participation in the development of the 3 actual language before you. 4 Finally, participation and outreach to interested 5 stakeholders, fleets, truck operators and so forth involved 6 with the heavy-duty vehicle inspection program. 7 First, with regard to the Society of Automotive 8 Engineers and their J1667 procedure, a Test Method 9 Development Committee of the SAE met a total of 16 times from 10 August of 1992 to April of 1996. 11 It consisted of representatives from several State 12 agencies, including California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah and 13 several members of the northeastern states for a coordinated 14 air use management, often known as NESCAM. 15 U.S. EPA was likewise involved as were the American 16 and the California trucking associations and their member 17 companies. 18 In addition, the Engine Manufacturers Association 19 and their member companies, smoke meter manufacturers, 20 engineering consulting firms and a number of academic 21 representatives. 22 The second level dimension of effort was to prepare 23 the proposed amendments before you. Staff conducted two 24 studies from November of 1996 until April of this year, 1997, 25 first, the random truck capacity survey and also the truck PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 repair study, an Oversight Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, 2 required by the enabling statute, was convened three times in 3 person and another three times by telephone during 4 development and the conduct of these studies. 5 Committee members represent the California Trucking 6 Association and again, the Engine Manufacturers Association 7 and California Highway Patrol, the South Coast Air Quality 8 Management District, the Bureau of Automotive Repair, 9 Chevron, California Energy Commission, California Busing 10 Association, Caterpillar, Inc. and a number of others as 11 well. 12 In order to keep affected stakeholders apprised of 13 the progress of these two studies and to obtain feedback on 14 the development of the proposed amendments before you, staff 15 conducted a total of eight monthly conference calls from 16 December of last year until August of the current year. 17 These conference participants included 18 representatives from the Engine Manufacturers Association, 19 California Trucking Association, Cummins Engine Company, 20 Navistar, and Detroit Diesel, Caterpillar and Mack Trucks. 21 On the eleventh of September of this year, staff 22 conducted a public workshop attended by 55 stakeholders, 23 including the aforementioned representatives, the United 24 Highway Carriers, fleet facilities, such as Lone Star, Pepsi, 25 Federal Express and UPS, Governmental and municipal fleets PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 and the environmental community, including the Sierra Club. 2 The workshop notice accompanied by a technical 3 support document was sent to approximately 2,500 interested 4 parties on heavy-duty mailing list and published on ARB's 5 Webpage. 6 In October staff mailed to the same stakeholders 7 and published on our Webpage today's public hearing notice, 8 the staff report, including a postage paid request form for 9 the final technical support document and the draft proposed 10 regulatory changes. 11 In the third area of stakeholder participation, 12 staff conducted extensive outreach to fleet and vehicle 13 owners and operators on the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection 14 Program itself. ARB field representatives performed at no 15 charge to the operator a penalty free smoke inspection and 16 testing at fleet facilities at California Highway Patrol 17 weigh stations and random roadside locations. 18 This program was initiated in 1990 during the 19 start-up of the inspection program, and staff continued to 20 offer the service for the fleet facilities that performed 21 penalty free testing of the fleet vehicles. 22 In between August of 1996 and April of 1997, staff 23 joined up with the California Trucking Association to conduct 24 a total of three educational seminars in Sacramento, Fresno 25 and the Los Angeles areas on the test procedure and on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 inspection program. 2 Between 50 and 75 members of the CT A participated 3 in each of these educational events. 4 Finally, in preparation for today's Board review 5 and potential approval of the proposed amendments, on October 6 15 of this year, staff announced a project outreach in which 7 staff, to take advantage of the no-cost, penalty-free vehicle 8 inspection and test procedure demonstration, in order to 9 prepare for the implementation of the inspection program 10 during the second quarter of 1998. 11 A notice of the availability of these services is 12 mailed to all parties on the heavy-duty mailing list and was 13 also published on our Webpage and included as an appendix in 14 the staff report. 15 So, again, as you can see, as I indicated, there 16 has been an extensive history to this Item, and it appears to 17 our office that there has been at least an equally extensive 18 effort of inclusion and public outreach of all interested 19 stakeholders. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Jim. I am caught -- 21 postage-paid? 22 Mike, is there some new outreach program? 23 You are telling me about comments with a return 24 address or something, what was that, was there just a mailing 25 that went out that allowed them to -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 OMBUDSMAN SCHONING: I think it was interested in 2 receiving further information on how to participate. We 3 didn't want any obstacles to inclusion there. 4 I hope that meets the auditor's approval. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah. Well, we certainly have a 6 sense that this is an important issue, Mike. It appears that 7 you all have done a lot to reach out to people. 8 Jim, I appreciate the overview and the way that you 9 presented it on the technical work with SAE and the like, 10 because that is important. I know it has been important to 11 the industry group. 12 Any questions or comments on any of Mr. Schoning's 13 overview remarks? 14 All right. Mike, do you want to go ahead and 15 introduce your team? 16 MR. KENNY: Yeah. I think with that what I would 17 like to do is introduce Ms. Elizabeth Miller and ask her to 18 make the staff presentation. 19 MS. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Good morning 20 Chairman Dunlap and Members of the Board. 21 My name is Elizabeth Miller, and I'm an Associate 22 Air Pollution Specialist with the Air Resources Board's 23 Mobile Source Operations Division, Heavy-Duty Diesel Branch. 24 Today I will present the staff's proposed 25 amendments to the regulations governing the Air Resources PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 Board's Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection Program and the 2 Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. 3 As anyone who has driven behind an excessively 4 smoking heavy-duty vehicle can attest, it is an unpleasant 5 experience. 6 In fact, excessively smoking vehicles are the Air 7 Resources Board's staff most frequent air quality related 8 public complaint. 9 The issue that we face is that while new heavy-duty 10 diesel engines are certified to emit very low levels of 11 smoke, poor engine maintenance and tampering on emission 12 control equipment result in excessive smoke emissions from 13 in-use engines. 14 This smoke contains unhealthful levels of criteria 15 pollutants and some toxic compounds that have a negative 16 impact on the health of California's population and 17 environment. 18 It is also important to note that while heavy-duty 19 diesel vehicles comprise two percent of the on-road fleet, 20 they disproportionately contribute 30 percent of the oxides 21 of nitrogen, or NOx, and 65 percent of the particulate matter 22 in the state's emission inventory. 23 To combat the problem of smoking heavy-duty 24 vehicles, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1997 25 in 1988 directing the ARB in cooperation with the California PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 Highway Patrol to establish a Roadside Smoke Enforcement 2 Program. 3 The ARB's regulations governing this program, known 4 as the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection Program, were adopted in 5 1990, and the Program was operative from November 1991 until 6 October 1993. 7 In contrast to the Smog Check Program for passenger 8 cars, which is tied to the vehicle's registration cycle, the 9 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection Program is performed at 10 roadside locations and targets all heavy-duty vehicles 11 traveling on California's roadways, including Interstate and 12 International vehicles. 13 As directed by Senate Bill 2330 of 1990, the Air 14 Resources Board also administers a companion Annual Fleet 15 Smoke Inspection Program for the California based fleets. 16 Under the roadside program, the vehicle's engine 17 and emission control equipment are inspected and a test of 18 the vehicle's smoke output is performed. 19 The test makes use of a smoke meter that 20 electronically measures the opacity of the smoke flume. 21 If the smoke exceeds the prescribed opacity 22 standard for the engine's model year, the driver is issued a 23 citation and is required to repair the engine and demonstrate 24 compliance with the manufacturer's specifications. 25 For a first level citation, the vehicle must be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 corrected within 45 days and pay a penalty of $300. If the 2 repairs are not made within the 45-day period, an additional 3 $500 penalty is imposed. 4 If more than one citation is made within a one-year 5 period, a second level citation is issued and must be cleared 6 within 45 days and an $1800 penalty is imposed. 7 The penalty schedule resets after one year from the 8 time of issuance of the citation. The California Highway 9 Patrol may remove a vehicle from service if the vehicle has 10 uncleared citations at the time of an inspection. 11 Under the fleet program, called the Periodic Smoke 12 Inspection Program, California based truck and bus fleet 13 owners with two or more vehicles are required to conduct 14 annual self-inspections of their fleets to verify compliance 15 with the smoke opacity standards and to correct any tampering 16 that may have been done. 17 The ARB staff is required to audit these fleets and 18 to ensure that these inspections have taken place and to test 19 a sample of the fleet vehicles. 20 Initially, the Periodic Smoke Inspection Program 21 was adopted by the Board in 1992. To date it has been 22 implemented on a voluntary basis. When the Program comes 23 under enforcement, it will be phased in over a period of 15 24 months. 25 While the Roadside Inspection Program was effective PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 in reducing emissions and the number of vehicles with 2 excessive smoke, the test used to determine the opacity of 3 the smoke, called the Snap Idle Test, was the subject of much 4 controversy. 5 The trucking industry has asserted that the test 6 falsely fails vehicles. As a result, the program has been 7 challenged in four lawsuits. 8 In all cases the test has been upheld by the 9 California courts, including two decisions from the Third 10 District Court of Appeals that were left standing by the 11 California Supreme Court. 12 To address these concerns and to establish a test 13 procedure that would serve as a standard for any state that 14 promulgated a smoke inspection program, the Society of 15 Automotive Engineers, or SAE, formed a committee in 1992 to 16 develop a recommended practice. 17 This committee included representatives from the 18 ARB, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 19 Engine Manufacturers, the California Trucking Association and 20 the American Trucking Association, smoke meter manufacturers, 21 representatives from other states and members of the academic 22 community. 23 Following three and a half years of development, 24 the recommended procedure, called SAE J1667, was unanimously 25 adopted in February 1996. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 During this period the Air Resources Board 2 redirected the duties of the heavy-duty diesel staff to work 3 on reformulated diesel and gasoline issues and smoke program 4 outreach. 5 Enforcement of the Roadside Program was temporarily 6 suspended. An initial enforcement of the Fleets 7 Self-inspection Program was postponed. 8 In 1993 the California Legislature enacted Assembly 9 Bill 584 that required the smoke test procedure used by the 10 Air Resources Board to yield consistent and repeatable test 11 results and not result in false failures. 12 If any false failures do occur, they must be 13 remedied by the ARB without cost to the owner. The 14 Legislation stated that the requirements for consistent and 15 repeatable test results would be satisfied by the adoption of 16 SAE J1667 procedure. 17 After the adoption of SAE J1667, the ARB staff, in 18 consultation with the regulated industries and other 19 interested parties, conducted two studies to provide the 20 technical basis for the selection of opacity standards and 21 other mechanisms that fulfill the requirements of AB 584. 22 The first study was the Random Truck Opacity 23 Survey, which examined in-use heavy-duty trucks and buses to 24 develop a profile of heavy-duty engine smoke opacities. 25 This study, which used the SAE J1667 procedure, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 sampled 1,002 heavy-duty vehicles with engines from modeled 2 year groups of interest. 3 The second study, the Truck Repair Study, was 4 conducted after the completion of the Random Truck Opacity 5 Survey. 6 The goal of this study was to determine appropriate 7 opacity standards for engines set to manufacturer's 8 specifications. 9 In determining the opacity standards, the study 10 attempted to prove the hypothesis that, one, if a truck 11 exhibited excessive smoke, then its engine had one or more 12 malperformances, and two, if an engine was free of 13 malperformances and adjusted to the manufacturer's 14 specifications, then the vehicle would test below the 15 applicable opacity standard. 16 For the Truck Repair Study, trucks with excessive 17 smoke emissions were identified and sent for repair. All the 18 repairs were performed by dealerships and by factory 19 authorized personnel. 20 The most common repairs included adjustments to 21 fuel pumps, replacement or adjustments to fuel injectors and 22 replacement of air filters. In total, 71 vehicles were 23 repaired. 24 The vehicles in the Truck Repair Study were 25 considered in two groups, the pre-1991 model year engines and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 the 1991 and newer engines. 2 Before any repairs were completed, the average 3 opacity value of the pre-1991 engines was 62 percent and 35 4 percent opacity for the 1991 and newer group. 5 The average postrepair opacity for the pre-1991 6 engines was 20 percent, and the average for 1991 and newer 7 was 21 percent. 8 The maximum postrepair opacity for pre-1991 engines 9 was 47 percent. Similarly, the maximum postrepair opacity 10 for the 1991 and newer group was 31 percent. 11 The average repair cost for all 71 engines was 12 $652. 13 To further guarantee no false failures per AB 584, 14 an allowance for variability was calculated and applied. 15 Tests are examined, variability between different models of 16 SAE J1667 certified smoke meters and the variability between 17 successive smoke tests using the same meter were performed 18 and total variation was conservatively estimated as eight 19 percent. 20 When added to the highest postrepair opacity 21 standards of 55 percent for pre-1991 engines and 40 percent 22 for 1991 and newer engines resulted. These proposed 23 standards fulfill and comply with the zero false failure 24 mandates of 584. 25 During the public workshop of September 1997, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 California Trucking Association expressed concern that the 55 2 percent standard for older trucks might not meet the 3 Legislative intent of AB 584 and that it could result in 4 false failures. 5 The staff believe that the results of the Truck 6 Repair Studies sufficiently demonstrated that the 55 percent 7 opacity standard fulfills the requirements of AB 584. 8 However, to address the CTA's concerns, the staff 9 is proposing to include provisions for a notice of 10 violation. Under these provisions, if the tested opacity of 11 a pre-1991 engine is greater than 55 percent and less than 70 12 percent, a notice of violation, or fix-it ticket, would be 13 issued without monetary penalty. 14 The owners of such a vehicle would be required to 15 demonstrate within 45 days that the violation had been 16 cleared and that the engine meets the smoke standard of 55 17 percent or lower. 18 Only one notice of violation per vehicle may be 19 issued within a 12-month period. Failure to clear the 20 violation within the 45 days, or repeated exceedences of the 21 smoke standard within a year, would result in a citation and 22 penalty. 23 The staff proposes that the notice of violation 24 mechanism for older engines be reviewed after it has been in 25 place for one year. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 The staff would report to the Board no later than 2 December 1999 of the results of enforcing this procedure and 3 recommend whether the regulation should be amended to require 4 that citations be issued to all vehicles with pre-1991 5 engines whose test opacity exceeds 55 percent. 6 The Periodic Smoke Inspection Program, or Fleet 7 Program, uses the same opacity standard as the Roadside 8 Inspection Program. As noted earlier, the Fleet Program was 9 adopted in 1992, but today it has operated on a voluntary 10 basis. 11 In anticipation of this process, a number of fleet 12 operators purchased smoke meters prior to the adoption of 13 SAE J1667 that were certified to the older SAE J1243 14 standard. 15 To minimize the economic impact of purchasing new 16 smoke meters, the staff's proposed regulations include a 17 provision to allow these fleet operators to continue using 18 the older meters until July 1, 1999. 19 At this point, the older meters would normally have 20 been replaced due to wear and tear. In response to concerns 21 voiced by the American Trucking Association and the Federal 22 Express Corporation, the staff's proposed Fleet Program 23 regulations included a four-year rolling exemption for new 24 engines. 25 Based on the Random Truck Opacity Survey, it is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 estimated that 26 percent of the heavy-duty diesel engines 2 and regulated fleets will at any time be no more than four 3 years old. 4 Further data collected in the Random Truck Opacity 5 Survey demonstrates that newer engines are expected to fail 6 at a rate of less than one percent of the time. 7 This exemption is expected to reduce fleet 8 administrative cost by an average of 26 percent. There is a 9 limited number of diesel engine families that have test 10 opacities exceeding the appropriate standard even when the 11 engines are set to manufacturer's specifications and the 12 engines comply with emission standards. 13 The regulations currently in place allow the 14 manufacturers of these engines to petition the ARB to be 15 exempted to a technologically appropriate less stringent 16 standard. 17 The proposed regulations retain this provision and 18 will recognize the exceptions that have been identified under 19 the current program. 20 As in the existing regulations, and as a safeguard 21 against possible false failures, owners of cited vehicles 22 will continue to have administrative appeal rights under the 23 proposed regulation. 24 Under the current process, the owner of a cited 25 vehicle may contest a citation within 45 days of receiving it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 before a State appointed Administrative Law Judge. 2 During this period the vehicle owner is not 3 required to pay civil penalties nor are they required to take 4 corrective actions. 5 After the judge has rendered a decision, the citee 6 may request that the decision be reconsidered by the ARB's 7 Executive Officer and may ultimately seek independent 8 judicial review by filing a petition for Writ of 9 Administrative Mandamus in Superior Court. 10 The staff of the ARB is planning a separate 11 rulemaking to update the administrative hearing regulations. 12 I will now present the staff's findings regarding 13 the costs, benefits and cost effectiveness of the proposed 14 programs. 15 The cost to businesses associated with both the 16 Fleet and Roadside Programs can be considered under two 17 headings, namely, administrative cost to fleets under the 18 annual inspection regulation, and cost to vehicle owners 19 accrued under the Roadside Inspection Program. 20 Administrative costs consist of labor, capital cost 21 for smoke meters and contractual costs for inspections by an 22 outside vendor. 23 Costs to owners consist of annual repair costs, 24 increased maintenance costs and lost opportunity time when 25 the vehicles are being inspected and tested. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 As noted in the table, total net annual costs for 2 both Programs are estimated to be approximately $19 million 3 in 1999, and $17 million in the year 2010. 4 Included in these net costs estimates are annual 5 fuel cost savings of approximately $22 million in 1999 and 6 approximately $25 million in 2010. 7 The benefits of the Program are reported as 8 emissions reductions of reactive organic, oxides of nitrogen 9 and PM10. 10 As you can see in the table, these statewide 11 reductions are estimated to be 6.37 tons per day of ROG, 12 12.24 tons per day of NOx and 5.24 tons per day of PM10 in 13 1999. 14 In 2010, emission reductions are estimated at 5.3 15 tons per day of ROG, 14.03 tons per day of NOx and 3.19 tons 16 per day of particulates. 17 The cost effectiveness of these programs calculated 18 as total program cost divided by total emission reductions of 19 ROGs, NOx and PM10 are as follows: $1.12 per pound in 1999 20 and $1.05 per pound in 2010. 21 At this time, I would like to thank Mr. Schoning, 22 the ARB's Ombudsman, for his earlier summation of our staff's 23 outreach efforts. The Heavy-duty Diesel Branch has a strong 24 commitment to encouraging voluntary compliance with these 25 proposed regulations. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 The staff has made a concerted effort to provide 2 penalty-free, pre-enforcement testing to as many members of 3 the regulated community as possible. 4 Additionally, since its inception in 1992, the 5 staff has participated in the California Council on Diesel 6 Education and Technology, an educational partnership with 7 California community colleges, Government and industry. 8 The goal of this Program is to provide low cost 9 training of smoke test protocol and smoke related engine 10 repairs. 11 One of our most valuable educational resources has 12 been the " On The Road To Clean Air" video. It was jointly 13 produced by the Engine Manufacturers Association, the 14 American Trucking Association and the California Trucking 15 Association, with their companion state trucking 16 associations. 17 This video advocates smoke testing and encourages 18 heavy-duty diesel operators to keep their vehicles well 19 maintained and tamper free. 20 Before I discuss the specific regulatory 21 amendments, let's take a few minutes to view this fine 22 production. 23 (Thereupon a videotape was shown.) 24 MS. MILLER: I will now summarize the specific 25 proposed amendments to the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 Program followed by the amendments to the Periodic Smoke 2 Inspection Program regulations. 3 Two general changes that pertain to both the 4 Roadside and Fleet Programs have been made. In smoke 5 testing, the term "snap idle" has been replaced by the more 6 accurate phrase "smoke acceleration." 7 Secondly, except for otherwise noted, the formerly 8 used SAE J1243 test procedure has been replaced by the new 9 SAE J1667 procedure. 10 The proposed amendments to the Roadside Program are 11 as follows: Section 2182A is concerned with the opacity 12 standards for the Roadside Program; the standards of 40 13 percent opacity for 1991 in newer engines and 55 percent for 14 pre-1991 engines remain. 15 However, these standards are now tied strictly to 16 the model year of the engine, not to the certification level, 17 or model year of the vehicle. 18 All references to opacity standards have been 19 modified to reflect this change. 20 Under section 2182(b)3, Engine Manufacturers may 21 apply to the ARB for an exemption from the applicable opacity 22 standards if they can demonstrate that the engine family in 23 question exceeds the standard when it is in good operating 24 condition and is adjusted to the manufacturer's 25 specifications. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 Under these exemptions, a technologically 2 appropriate standard will be set for this family of engines, 3 and all engines within this family must comply with the 4 amended standard. 5 The exceptions that had previously been issued 6 would remain in effect. 7 Section 2182(c), has spelled out specific 8 requirements for the display of emission control labels and 9 the replacement of missing emission control labels. 10 Specifically, if a missing label is not replaced, 11 it will be assumed during subsequent tests that the engine is 12 subject to a 40 percent opacity standard. 13 Section 2182(d), defines the term "excessive smoke" 14 as follows: A heavy-duty vehicle has excessive smoke if it 15 fails to comply with the smoke opacity standard applicable 16 under this Section 2182. 17 Section 2182(E) specifies the SAE J1667 test 18 procedure as the official procedure for smoke testing in the 19 ARB's Roadside Program. 20 As noted earlier in the presentation, staff is 21 proposing to include a notice of violation mechanism for 22 pre-1991 vehicles whose opacity levels exceed 55 percent or 23 less than 70 percent. 24 Under this mechanism, a fix-it ticket is issued and 25 must be cleared within 45 days. Failure to clear the notice PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 of violation would result in that notice of violation being 2 converted into a citation with a normal schedule of 3 penalties. 4 Only one notice of violation is allowed within a 5 12-month period. Additional violations result in a 6 citation. 7 These provisions are contained in section 2185(b). 8 Section 2186, lists the requirements for a 9 demonstration of correction. These requirements detail the 10 information to be included on the repair received or work 11 order. 12 Under the previous program, the vehicle owner must 13 demonstrate that the post-repair opacity is below the 14 applicable opacity standard. 15 This guarantees that the significant repairs are 16 made to the engine. The ARB may require a post-repair test 17 if a noncomplying repair receipt, or falsified receipt is 18 suspected, or if a vehicle fails an opacity test more than 19 one time in a year. 20 This concludes the proposed amendments to the 21 Roadside Program regulations. I will now proceed with the 22 proposed amendments to the Fleet Program. 23 As stated earlier, all California fleets of two or 24 more heavy-duty vehicles are subject to requirements to 25 conduct annual smoke inspections and complete repairs as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 necessary. 2 In the Roadside Program, the SAE J1667 test 3 procedure will also be used in the Fleet Program. Staff is 4 proposing a four-year rolling exemption for new engines under 5 the Fleet Program. 6 This means any engine whose model is four years of 7 the current calendar year is exempt from the fleet test. Of 8 course, model year 1998, 1997, 1996 and 1995 would be 9 exempt. 10 This is a new provision found in Section 2093(d) to 11 reduce the hardship of using older SAE 1243 smoke meters. 12 These smoke meters can be used until July 1, 1999. 13 This provision is found in Section 2193(e) and has 14 been added to the existing regulations. 15 This slide summarizes the significant points of the 16 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection Program and the Periodic Smoke 17 Inspection Program proposed regulations. 18 Adopt SAE J1667 test procedure for both the 19 Roadside and Fleet Programs. Retain cut points of 55 percent 20 and 40 percent opacity for pre-1991 and 1991 and newer 21 engines respectively. 22 Provide a notice of violation mechanism for 23 pre-1991 vehicles whose smoke opacity levels are greater than 24 55 percent but less than 70 percent. Retain the civil 25 penalty schedule. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 Define excessive smoke as a heavy-duty vehicle has 2 excessive smoke if it fails to comply with the smoke opacity 3 standard applicable under this Section 2182. 4 Retain exception provisions and grandfather in 5 those engine families with current exemptions. Allow fleets 6 to continue using previously purchased SAE 1243 smoke meters 7 until July 1, 1999. 8 Allow fleets a four-year rolling exemption for new 9 engines. 10 It is the staff's intent upon the Board's approval 11 of these amendments and completion of the regulatory process 12 to begin roadside enforcement testing in the spring of 1998. 13 The Fleet Program would commence in the spring or summer of 14 1998. 15 At this point, Mr. Paul Jacobs, Chief of the 16 Heavy-Duty Diesel Branch, will summarize the public comments 17 received during the 45-day period. 18 MR. JACOBS: Thank you, Ms. Miller. 19 Good morning, Chairman Dunlap and Members of the 20 Board. 21 During the 45-day comment period leading up to this 22 regulatory item, we received 39 letters regarding this item. 23 Each of the letters supports staff's proposed 24 regulatory amendments and most seek an expeditious resumption 25 of both inspection programs. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 I will now summarize these letters for the record. 2 The first letter is a letter of support from the Bay Area Air 3 Quality Management District, signed by Air Pollution Control 4 Officer, Ellen Garvey. 5 The next letter comes from the American Trucking 6 Association, Vice President of Environmental Affairs, Allen 7 Schaeffer. This letter generally supports staff's proposed 8 amendments. 9 The only deviation from that, they do have 10 reservations about the Fleet Program, and they would much 11 rather see the resources put into the Roadside Program. 12 The next letter we received is from Chairman Bill 13 Staiger, of the SAE J1667 Committee. Mr. Staiger was not 14 able to make it out to the hearing today but asked if we 15 would summarize his letter for the record. 16 I will ask Don Chernich of my staff, who served as 17 the ARB's representative on the SAE Committee, to now 18 summarize Mr. Staiger's comments on behalf of SAE. 19 MR. CHERNICH: Thank you, Paul. 20 Mr. Staiger sent us a letter on December 9, of this 21 year. Mr. Bill Staiger was the SAE J1667 Committee 22 Chairman. 23 Summarizing Mr. Staiger's letter, he writes on 24 behalf of the Chairman of the SAE Committee, which formulated 25 the J1667 test procedure, entitled "Snap Acceleration Smoke PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 Test Procedure for Heavy-Duty Diesel Powered Vehicles," in 2 his letter he comments that he would like to make these 3 recommendations regarding several issues for the upcoming 4 restart of the inspection program in California. 5 Some of his points that he points out is that the 6 purpose of the Committee was to create a scientifically valid 7 test procedure and to eliminate any potential for false 8 failures in the field and to ensure that the method of smoke 9 measurement was established that would normalize all 10 measuring devices as best as possible using common 11 mathematical algorithms for evaluation. 12 Both of these objectives have been reached with the 13 completion of the J1667 document. Another critical element 14 of the Committee's consideration was that the adoption of the 15 Bessel filter algorithm, which normalizes different smoke 16 meters so that regardless of the brand of smoke meter all 17 these devices will see smoke similar and give consistent 18 results, furthermore, result in fewer false failures by doing 19 this. 20 Mr. Staiger goes on to state that he agrees with 21 most of the program's guidelines but would like to point out 22 a few of the following items which should be approached with 23 caution. 24 He points out that it is imperative that for 25 end-of-the-line smoke meters that they follow the guidelines PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 outlined in Appendix D of SAE J1667, basically pertaining to 2 placement of the smoke meter on the exhaust stack. 3 He believes that this can be fulfilled through the 4 adoption of the J1667 procedure and through proper training 5 of test personnel. 6 Mr. Staiger also comments on variability. He 7 points out that smoke meters for the most part read correctly 8 and read what they see. 9 Variability, he points out, comes from the smoke 10 plume itself and from changes in ambient conditions. 11 If meters A and B read differently, most likely the 12 cause is due to the smoke plume and not necessarily the smoke 13 meter itself. 14 The ARB proposal, implementation of this program 15 have addressed these as best as possible and should be 16 sufficient to safeguard against these type of variabilities. 17 To close, he comments that the Committee worked 18 hard over three years to establish this procedure. It was 19 not an easy task, but at the end the opposing groups came 20 together to formulate this recommended practice, which can be 21 applied across the country at a relatively low cost. 22 In general, he states, I believe that the program 23 that CARB proposes will do what it claims, remove the gross 24 offenders from the road and reduce emissions of these 25 offenders. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 He also points out to please contact him directly 2 if he can be of further assistance. 3 MR. JACOBS: Thank you, Mr. Chernich. 4 Scott felt that it was important that the Board 5 hear the comments from the SAE Committee Chairman. 6 I will now quickly move through the balance of the 7 37 remaining letters. A letter of a support from Mr. Kurt 8 Wipp, a Development Manager for Methanex Corporation. 9 A letter of support from Ray Righetti Enterprises, 10 who is an authorized Cummins and Caterpillar repair facility 11 in Stockton, California. 12 A letter of support from Mr. Pius Eberle, of Bell 13 Turbo, based in Stockton, California. 14 Support from Sunlight Transit Agency, which serves 15 the greater Palm Springs region, from Mr. Robert Cromwell, 16 General Manager. 17 Support from Scott Crawford, Antelope Valley Bus 18 Lines, serving the Antelope Valley region in Southern 19 California. 20 Support from Mr. Kris Wolfenstein, General Manager 21 of Diesel Power Systems, in Bakersfield, California, an 22 association of diesel specialists authorized facility. 23 Support from James Soares Trucking, in Sacramento, 24 California. 25 A letter of support from two major oil companies, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 Chevron USA and from Mr. Lou Blackwell, General Manager of 2 Fuel Regulations and Emissions Technology. 3 Mr. Dave Smith, from Atlantic Richfield 4 Corporation, who's Director of Legislative and Regulatory 5 Affairs. 6 We also have a letter from Federal Express 7 Corporation that generally supports staff's proposals. They 8 request that we exempt out from the Fleet Program the newer 9 vehicles that are five years old and newer. 10 We have done that as indicative in staff's 11 presentation. 12 We will move on now to letters received from 13 governmental entities. We have a letter of support from 14 Martin Keller, Chief of the Bureau of Automotive Repair, Ms. 15 Coralie Cooper, with the Northeastern States for Coordinated 16 Air Use Management, Mr. Norm Covell, Air Pollution Control 17 Officer, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 18 District, Ms. Jananne Sharpless, Commissioner with the 19 California Energy Commission, Mr. Rich Summerville, Air 20 Pollution Control Officer for the San Diego Air Pollution 21 Control District, Dr. Barry Wallerstein, with the South Coast 22 Air Quality Management District, Acting Air Pollution Control 23 Officer, Air Pollution Control Officer Richard Baldwin, with 24 the Ventura Air Pollution Control District, Dr. William 25 Vance, Deputy Director for Scientific Affairs, with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2 We will now move into the academic community. 3 Professor Walter Loscutoff, Department of Mechanical and 4 Industrial Engineering, California State Fresno, Mr. Michael 5 Robertson, Chairman, Diesel Technology Program, College of 6 Alameda, which is here in the Bay Area, Mr. Thomas Hogue, 7 Professor of Diesel Technology, Santa Ana College, Dr. Joseph 8 Norbeck, CE-CERT, University of California, Riverside. 9 We will now move on to the medical community. We 10 have Dr. Francis Felix, Medical Doctor, in support, and also 11 Dr. Ben Abate, from the American Lung Association. 12 We will move on to general public letters 13 received. Letters of support from Ms. Elizabeth Pforr, from 14 San Ramon, California, Dr. Dorriah Page, from DL Page 15 Associates, who is a consultant in the heavy-duty diesel 16 arena, a support letter from World Savings and Loan 17 Corporation, from their Chief Executive Officers, Herbert 18 Sandler and Ms. Marion Sandler, and obviously that is a 19 California corporation based here in the Bay Area, Mr. Dick 20 Aaron, from Aaron Consulting, who also served on the SAE 21 J1667 Committee, and the International Standards Organization 22 for Diesel Testing. 23 We will move on to smoke meter manufacturers. We 24 have a letter of support from Robert Cammarato, from Telonic 25 Berkeley, Incorporated, Robert Wager, III, Chief Executive PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 Officer of Wager Corporation, Mr. William Staiger, from 2 Robert Bosch Corporation. 3 I will conclude with letters received from the 4 environmental community. We have comments from Ms. Judith 5 Lamare and Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, from the Sierra Club, Jason 6 Mark, Transportation Analyst, with the Union of Concerned 7 Scientists, Mr. Tim Carmichael, Coalition for Clean Air, Ms. 8 Linda Urata, Project Clean Air, Executive Director, David 9 Roe, Senior Attorney, Environmental Defense Fund. 10 That concludes the letters. 11 Staff would now like to show one last short video. 12 It's about three to four minutes long. That covers some 13 testimonials from folks that could not attend today, but 14 these are important testimonials. 15 These are repair entities that demonstrate their 16 support for the program and proper compliance with the 17 programs. 18 We would like to show that, if it is okay. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 20 (Thereupon a videotape was shown.) 21 MR. JACOBS: That concludes the testimonials and 22 comment letters. 23 I would like to now have our Staff Counsel, Tom 24 Jennings, cover the 15-day change issue. 25 MR. JENNINGS: Yes. After the 45-day notice was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 issued, we became aware of the fact that as drafted the 2 regulation would cover that the fleet requirements would 3 cover private persons who had two heavy-duty diesel vehicles, 4 even though they were only used for personal use. 5 So, that was certainly not the intent of the staff 6 proposal, and we are proposing a minor 15-day change that 7 would exclude from the Fleet Program only those heavy-duty 8 vehicles that are used for personal use exclusively, and the 9 proposed language is on the back table and attached to the 10 proposed Resolution. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Personal use. Take a minute on 12 that, would you, Tom. 13 I mean, you are talking about people, like a ranch 14 would have to transport cattle or something? 15 MR. JENNINGS: Well, we are talking about, say a 16 family owns a Suburban and a Winnebago, and both of those are 17 heavy-duty diesels. 18 The intent is that, not cover vehicles that are 19 only used for personal use. If it's used for both ranch 20 business and personal business, that would be covered. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. 22 MR. JENNINGS: Elizabeth Miller would like to just 23 summarize staff's presentation. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 25 MS. MILLER: Just very quickly. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 The staff recommends that the Board adopt the 2 staff's proposal. We are confident that the issues 3 previously encountered have been resolved, and we look 4 forward to reinstating these effective and cost effective 5 programs. 6 If you have any questions, we will be happy to 7 address them now. 8 MR. JACOBS: Excuse me, Chairman Dunlap. I have 9 just been informed that there were three additional letters 10 that were received. 11 I did not read those into the record. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Go ahead. 13 MR. JACOBS: I do not have those. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We can come back to them. Just 15 get a handle on them, and we will make quick work of them. 16 We have eight or so witnesses. What I would like 17 to do, if the Board will support me on it, we will go to the 18 witnesses and then come back to the questions. 19 If you have something burning that you want to ask 20 now, we can do that, but I think that I would like to get to 21 the witnesses. 22 All right. No one is disagreeing with me, so we 23 will go ahead. 24 Michael Block, Stephanie Williams, Richard Skaggs. 25 I will just read the names, and if you would cue up, I know PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 the seating does not provide that to happen easily, but 2 please cue up, and then Mark Becker, Ken Hendrickson, Steve 3 Soriano, Betsy Crowder and Michael Colburn. 4 So, Michael Block, if you would come forward, we 5 will be happy to start it off. Now, if I might, we are very 6 willing to listen to every salient point from every witness, 7 but if what you are going to say, and being that you are 8 first it is much easier for you, but others, if you wouldn't 9 cover the same ground over and over, I would be grateful. 10 I guess that we will take it from there. Good 11 morning. 12 MR. BLOCK: Hi. How are you? 13 Thanks for having me here. I'm Michael Block. I'm 14 the Technical Director of the Engine Manufacturers 15 Association, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Engine 16 Manufacturers Association. 17 I think that my comments are reasonably brief. 18 EMA's members are the major manufacturers of on-highway 19 engines, and they power the trucks that are covered on the 20 proposed program that is being considered today. 21 EMA members have consistently supported the 22 adoption of State Smoke IM programs, especially for areas not 23 in compliance with national ambient air quality standards. 24 Such programs can help ensure that the emission 25 control technologies designed and produced by the engine PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 manufacturers are operated as intended. 2 Properly structured, Smoke IM programs can identify 3 vehicles that smoke excessively due to tampering and improper 4 maintenance. 5 EMA has been instrumental in developing smoke 6 testing programs, first with the United States Public Health 7 Service and later on with the Environmental Protection 8 Agency. 9 On the national level, EMA has been a driving force 10 developing Federal guidelines for IM test procedures and 11 opacity cut-points. 12 As you have heard, in California EMA has worked 13 closely with ARB and others in developing the program that is 14 being considered today. 15 The proposed California Roadside Smoke IM Program 16 will be the most comprehensive program in the country and as 17 such ought to be the model for other states and for other 18 proposed Federal guidance. 19 IM programs should contain provisions that make 20 them as effective as possible in reducing incidences of 21 excessively smoking vehicles without incurring false failures 22 or undue burdens to vehicle owners and operators. 23 EMA believes that the proposed program fulfills 24 that goal by specifying a reasonable test procedure, 25 effective opacity cut-points, provisions for older technology PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 engines and administrative process. 2 ARB's proposed program specifies the use of J1667 3 as a test procedure for evaluating the smoke. 4 You have heard that, so I will skip that portion of 5 it and just indicate that that program, as you know, was 6 developed by a number of people over a number of years, and 7 we think it represents a significant improvement over prior 8 smoke measuring techniques. 9 It is easy to implement, and it's less prone to 10 areas of commission due to variability. Its adoption by ARB 11 is supported by EMA as one limit of an effective program. 12 Another element for an effective Smoke IM program 13 is, of course, opacity cut-points. To provide field support 14 data to aid in opacity cut-point determination, ARB initiated 15 the study that was also referenced during the Truck Repair 16 Study, and I think that many of you know EMA participated 17 significantly in that study providing both technical and 18 monetary assistance. 19 They tested a total of 71 vehicles measuring smoke 20 opacities before and after corrective repairs. From that 21 study, ARB selected opacity cut-points of 40 percent with 22 vehicles with 1991 and newer model engines and 55 percent for 23 pre-1991 engines. 24 Those values were determined in a reasonable manner 25 with the input of key stakeholders and with considerable PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 review and scrutiny. 2 EMA supports those opacity cut-point 3 recommendations provided there is protection from false 4 failures. 5 As with any IM program, the possibility of false 6 failures, a condition where an engine may not meet the 7 required opacity standard even after it has been repaired, 8 always exists. 9 ARB has responded to this concern in part by 10 incorporating a mechanism to allow for different standards 11 for specific engine families based upon data submitted by 12 manufacturers. 13 EMA endorses that approach, and EMA's members have 14 committed to providing this family specific data where 15 appropriate. 16 EMA members were the manufacturers who designed, 17 developed and supply engines to truck manufacturers are 18 directly impacted by test procedures, opacity cut-points and 19 provisions for older technology engines. 20 There are, however, a number of other elements that 21 do not directly affect engine manufacturers, yet are key to 22 the success of a Smoke IM program. 23 For example, ARB's program incorporates the 24 Periodic Smoke Inspection Program, an after-repair smoke test 25 and certain administrative processes that are critical issues PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 for the trucking industry. 2 Proper administrative process is a key to ensuring 3 no false failures. As for the PSIP Program and after-repair 4 smoke test, they appear to provide limited, if any, benefit, 5 yet impose potentially significant cost. 6 EMA encourages ARB to address these concerns of 7 those organizations most immediately impacted by those 8 programs. 9 Earlier referenced EMA's participation in a 10 national effort to develop Federal guidance for IM test 11 procedures and opacity cut-points, under EPA's auspices, a 12 cooperative effort has been established between State 13 industry, environmental groups and other interested parties 14 seeking to develop guidelines for a nationwide program that 15 all states can reference. 16 The objective of this approach is to encourage 17 states to develop a uniform program and avoid the possibility 18 of states developing a multitude of different programs. 19 Without uniformity, the trucking industry would be 20 unreasonably burdened by different standards and tests in 21 different states. 22 As a first step in that process, EPA has published 23 a national guidance document adopting SAE J1667 as the 24 recommended test procedure for IM Smoke programs. 25 This ARB program is consistent with that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 recommendation. The second step in that process will be the 2 selection of recommended opacity cut-points. 3 ARB has provided much needed guidance and 4 leadership in the selection of opacity cut-points by 5 selecting cut-points based upon comprehensive datas and 6 collection and analysis. 7 Additionally, ARB's program extends beyond test 8 procedure and opacity cut-point selection are providing 9 exceptions for specific lower technology engines as well as 10 an administrative review process. 11 ARB appears to have crafted a program that will 12 significantly reduce excessive smoking vehicles in California 13 without creating undue burdens on owners and/or operators. 14 The California program provides a model that other 15 states should follow in developing their own IM programs and 16 that EPA should adopt for their Federal guidance. 17 EMA remains committed to a common Roadside Testing 18 Program based upon SAE J1667, realistic cut-points and 19 encourages EPA, other states and other North American 20 countries to adopt roadside Smoke IM programs consistent with 21 that adopted by California. 22 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I will 23 take any questions. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Dr. Friedman. 25 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I need to know a little bit PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 more about some of the arithmetic used on these cut-points. 2 I gather that, and I am not speaking about family 3 specific data, but there is allowance of eight percent, true 4 eight percent points to the opacity index. 5 That means that at the low end the error recognized 6 by this could be 40 or 50 percent. At top end, of course, it 7 can't exceed eight percent. 8 There is a variability in the admitted error of the 9 estimate throughout the spectrum of possible opacity 10 readings. 11 Now, I can appreciate industry being terribly 12 concerned for false positives. I can see all of my friends 13 who just drive around and breathe air being very concerned 14 about false negatives. 15 Those two things ought to both lend themselves to 16 some constancy of error, reproducibility experiments, what 17 have you. 18 I am just puzzled, where did the eight points come 19 from? 20 Is it a way to reassure industry that there is 21 this -- that people understand how damaging it could be for 22 an overestimate, but you have overestimates, you also have 23 underestimates and that is what the citizens are concerned 24 about. 25 I'm confused about the arithmetic that is used. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I don't know if our colleague 2 from EMA would like to take this. 3 You know, one thing, to piggyback from what Dr. 4 Friedman said, and also looking at some of the testimonials, 5 I kind of got the feeling that this might have been a little 6 bit easy to meet, maybe. 7 I know that is difficult thing to respond to. 8 But what about it? 9 What about the whole issue about the failure rate 10 giving a little bit to the environmental consideration, have 11 we done enough there? 12 MR. BLOCK: Well, I think that we have. I am not 13 an expert on J1667, in fact, I have got some colleagues here 14 who are, if they want to talk as part of the process. 15 From an environmental perspective, I think that the 16 opacity cut-points were determined, as I said in my comments, 17 in a pretty thorough manner taking into account the 18 variabilities. 19 I am going to reserve that portion, if perhaps my 20 colleague, Ed Sinickey wants to comment, he was part of the 21 SAE J1667 team that was involved with the cut-points, 22 involved with the variability. 23 The cut-points that were determined were determined 24 based on the Truck Repair Study. That study from determining 25 the number of vehicles came up with cut-points that were PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 realistic based on the vehicles that were out there both 2 before and afterward. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Bill, let's get to the -- yeah, 4 we'll ask your colleague to come forward. Mike, why don't 5 you set this up. 6 MR. KENNY: If I could, I think that we are very 7 sensitive to Dr. Friedman's comments that the limitation that 8 we were forced to operate under, though, is AB 584 as passed 9 by the Legislature. 10 AB 584 very specifically said that could not be 11 false positives. 12 So, what we were trying to do is essentially craft 13 a program that addressed the health needs of the citizens of 14 the State of California, while at the same time operating 15 under a circumstance in which we could not have false 16 positives, and so that was kind of a general parameter upon 17 which we tried to operate. 18 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: So, there was a generous 19 allowance, essentially. 20 It had nothing to do with reproducibility of test 21 results. 22 It was just a bonafied allowance to make darned 23 sure that there were no false positives. 24 MR. KENNY: It is more than that. 25 I think that Paul Jacobs can probably address it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 more specifically than I can, but when you look at the test 2 results, there is some variability in there, but at the same 3 time, we were constrained by the Legislative language that 4 didn't allow for us to go ahead and one provides restrictions 5 opposed to another. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: One thing, Dr. Friedman, in the 7 State, in the Legislature, people are concerned about the 8 competitiveness and the viability of the trucking industry 9 and that they are not hung up improperly and that we are not 10 putting our transportation community through a lot of hoops 11 that don't warrant it. 12 So, that is why I think that the Legislative 13 interest, I don't think that the motive was bad or anything 14 like that, but Mike is saying is that it provided that, it 15 shrunk the parameters and focused where emphasis needed to 16 be. 17 I think some people might argue, it is perhaps 18 skewed a bit toward the industry view. 19 Paul, do you want to add a word on two on that? 20 MR. JACOBS: Yes. I think some of the key points 21 to note here is that associated with any of these types of 22 roadside tests, this is not laboratory grade testing, you 23 have, of course, engine to engine variability on any given 24 day with back to back tests. 25 Also, some test to test variability and some PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 ambient condition variability. The SAE procedure has 2 resolved the issue of the ambient condition variability 3 through the adoption of an ambient corrections model. 4 It has also resolved the issue of meter to meter 5 variability. There really is no way we can ever totally 6 resolve the issue of engine to engine variability. 7 One of the things that staff proposes to do is when 8 we come back and report on the effectiveness of our notice of 9 violation provision to you in December of 1999, we can also 10 report on the effectiveness of these cut-points that 11 adequately identify realistic dirty trucks and make 12 recommendations as to whether or not to ratchet down on the 13 cut-points. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. I think that will 15 suffice for now. 16 We will ask you to hold your colleague until 17 later. We will pop back with some of the witnesses on this 18 issue as well. 19 Thank you. We have an unusual circumstance. 20 Stephanie Williams has yielded to a colleague, Betsy 21 Crowder. 22 Betsy, I know that you have some time constraints, 23 and we are appreciative of you letting us know that. Please 24 come forward. 25 Not that it's out of character for the Trucking PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 Association to yield. It's just that most witnesses don't do 2 that generally. 3 MS. CROWDER: I really appreciate the courtesy of 4 my neighbor to let me do this. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Good morning. 6 MS. CROWDER: My name is Betsy Crowder. I was 7 going to say that I am a citizen, but actually I think I am 8 one of your stakeholders, because I have a stake in the air 9 just as much as the rest of you. 10 I have lived in the Bay Area since 1960, and of 11 course, like other people, I have long been bothered by 12 vehicle emissions. 13 I certainly approve of your smog control program, 14 and I'm happy to have my car tested every two years. 15 In fact, I once owned two diesel cars which were 16 not tested, and they did emit unpleasant smoke, so I no 17 longer have them. 18 Since 1960, despite the enormous increase in the 19 number of cars, I have observed from my house in the hills 20 that the smog level has decreased, although I am not a 21 technical expert, I know that the technical experts have 22 measured it and so that happened. 23 I brought copies of what I am saying for Members of 24 the Board. I brought 11 of them, because I thought that 25 there were 11 Board Members, which I think is true, and I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 have some for the staff. 2 I don't have 20. I didn't realize it was 20. 3 I am very glad to see that the Board is finally 4 going to resume inspection of emission controls of so-called 5 heavy-duty vehicles. 6 I would like to make some points on the proposed 7 program that I read about in this blue report, which I 8 received from the ARB. 9 I have long been outraged, as have many citizens, 10 at the sight of both trucks and buses emitting not only 11 clouds of black smoke, but choking fumes to be absorbed by 12 nearby people. 13 I have always wondered why cars are so carefully 14 and successfully inspected, but trucks and buses of all sizes 15 continue to pollute. 16 I see from your report that you did have 17 regulations from 1991 to '93, which then were suspended 18 temporarily, and it talks about that on page two. 19 Four years seems a long time for a temporary 20 suspension, even though it says that a voluntary compliance 21 was substituted. 22 We know how voluntary compliances work with the 23 pocket book. 24 Actually, as an agency which has been set up to 25 reduce air pollution from, among other things, moving sources PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 in California, it is my opinion you have only done half your 2 job. 3 I see no excuse for a so-called temporary 4 suspension of your program. I urge you to move forward with 5 all speed to control the heavy-duty emissions that are 6 proposed to be controlled by your report today. 7 I have a few suggestions of modifications. I 8 think, I don't know how many inspectors you have now, 9 probably not very many. I have never seen a Roadside 10 Inspector, but I think you should increase the number of 11 Roadside Inspectors to at least 100 throughout the State. 12 I just drew that number out of a hat, but it is a 13 pretty big State, and there are an awful lot of roads, and I 14 think that is a very minimum number. 15 I don't know what you have know. 16 Does anyone know what you have? 17 MR. JACOBS: We have eighteen Inspectors and two 18 Inspecting Supervisors. 19 MS. CROWDER: Well, maybe 200. Try 200. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: A comment on that, there are 21 other resources that we, of course, would work to coordinate 22 within the State. 23 There are weigh stations and Ag enter points. 24 MS. CROWDER: But you need a person who is 25 qualified in those weigh stations. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right, but as far as the 2 roadways, just to give you my humble opinion, there are a few 3 central areas where we catch most of them coming through, and 4 we would be looking to be as efficient as possible. 5 We appreciate a citizen asking us perhaps to add 6 staff, that is almost unprecedented. 7 MS. CROWDER: I am willing to pay taxes for it. 8 None of us pays enough taxes. 9 I don't think you should provide exceptions to 10 allow technologically less stringent standards for some 11 engine families such as is proposed. 12 I see no reason to have exemptions. I don't see 13 what you should exempt any vehicles no matter what model year 14 they are. 15 If modern vehicles are pollution free, then they 16 will pass with flying colors. 17 Why not test everybody? 18 You never know who is going to tamper with it. I 19 wish you would speed up the phase-in schedule starting in the 20 early spring instead of on July 1, and then compliance within 21 six months. 22 Why are you giving everyone so long? 23 They knew this was coming. They have known since 24 1991 this was coming, and in spite all of the kicking and 25 screaming, you are finally doing it, I think. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 Why delay at all? 2 1999 is a long way off to have this implemented. 3 We have got a whole year in between where we can all choke. 4 I see no reason to exempt personal use of diesel 5 vehicles. I think it should apply to all trucks and buses, 6 not only to those in fleets of two or more. 7 I mean, the point is to control pollution. If it's 8 a problem for somebody, they can get their vehicle fixed. 9 I think we should make sure we have clean air. 10 That is your business. 11 Your staff has a number of really good technical 12 experts, and I'm sure, I know you have worked very hard to 13 produce this document, and I really appreciate that work that 14 you have done through the years, I just want you to hurry. 15 In addition, I have one other matter, which is not 16 exactly on the Agenda, but I am bringing it up because it 17 concerns the ARB. 18 I read this article in the San Jose Mercury 19 yesterday. The State wants heavy-duty vehicles to get 20 cleaner. 21 It goes on to say they want to have sports utility 22 vehicles, full size pick-ups and vans also included in 23 pollution controls. 24 I think that is very crucial. I have watched the 25 sports utility vehicles multiply because it is a fad. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 People don't need them, they just think that it's a 2 big fad, and they all want them. Probably half the people in 3 this room probably have them, but they do not have the strict 4 standards that my passenger car has, and I see no reason that 5 they shouldn't. 6 I made a copy of this that you may not have had in 7 your materials. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. We have seen that 9 clip and that will be an issue that will come up in the 10 future. 11 MS. CROWDER: That was the last thing that I wanted 12 to say was that I would really like this to be extended to 13 smaller than heavy-duty vehicles. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. I also appreciate reading 15 your letter, and we will work on making sure our responses to 16 letters are more on point to you as well, and I appreciate 17 your candor. 18 MS. CROWDER: Thank you for letting me come in 19 ahead, it is an hour and a half drive for me. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 21 Any questions of the witness? 22 Ms. Williams from the California Trucking 23 Association. 24 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you for letting her go first. 25 An hour and a half is a long way to drive. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 First of all, I would like to congratulate Paul 2 Jacobs on his movie debut, that was wonderful, Paul. 3 My name is Stephanie Williams and I am the Director 4 of Environmental Affairs for the California Trucking 5 Association. 6 CTA is a nonprofit association representing nearly 7 2,500 trucking companies that are private, for hire and 8 suppliers operating into and out of California. 9 We represent members from interstate and intrastate 10 motor operations from the one truck owner/operator to the 11 large international company. 12 CTA is here today to respond to seven amendments 13 proposed by staff of the California Air Resources Board 14 regarding implementation of AB 584. 15 First, I would like to say that CTA supports the 16 designation of SAE J1667. 17 Why you are you looking so surprised? 18 We support the designation and at this time we 19 believe that the SAE improved procedure is the best available 20 technology as long as the staff continues to recognize the 21 procedure does have inherent variability. 22 We believe the SAE procedure to be adequate for 23 detecting gross emitters form malmaintained vehicles, so long 24 as the cut-point is appropriate. 25 However, the test is not a diagnostic tool and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 should not be referred to as diagnostic in nature. 2 I also would like to respond Dr. Friedman's comment 3 on the eight points. This test, and a lot of the history 4 behind this test procedure, the four years we have been 5 working was really just for five percent of the vehicles. 6 The vehicles that fell within a transitional, maybe 7 dirty, maybe not so dirty. Most of the vehicles that were 8 fined are above 90 percent opacity and black smokes spews out 9 of them. 10 It's the vehicles that are in between the range 11 that we worried about and when you have 960,000 heavy-duty 12 vehicles operating in the State, five percent could be a 13 lot. 14 So, that has a lot to do with your comments. False 15 failures, when you, just like in a car, when you go and you 16 take your car in and it's in good operating condition and you 17 don't pass the test, you feel bad and you wonder why and 18 that's what happened with our members in this test. 19 We feel real comfortable with the test moving 20 forward today, the J1667 procedure. 21 Now, some of the howevers. CTA does not believe 22 that the 55 percent cut-point is sufficient to protect the 23 pre-1991 model engines from false failures. 24 In addition, we disagree with the comparison to the 25 J1243 test procedure, which measures a peak reading, which at PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 times is higher than the new test and at other times not 2 higher. 3 These tests are a little bit different and you 4 can't really compare them, they are apples and oranges. 5 As long as a mechanism for transitional opacities 6 is included to protect the older vehicles that fall between 7 55 percent and 70 percent opacity we are neutral on the 8 cut-point issue. 9 CTA supports the mechanism of a notice of violation 10 with repair required in 45 days, but would like to see a fair 11 mechanism that dismisses the notice should no repair be 12 needed. 13 The method outlined penalizes the dirtiest vehicles 14 and is consistent with the value of the test procedure 15 identifying gross emitters. 16 This is another area where we would like to see a 17 real laid out mechanism, so if a vehicle is taken in, a 1969 18 truck is taken into a shop and they say, well this is the 19 best we can do with this vehicle, but it is going to fall at 20 65, that there is a mechanism to handle that so the fleet 21 operator is not penalized. 22 Fourth, CARB proposes to retain exemptions. The 23 SAE J1677 states the test procedure does not correlate or 24 relate to the Federal test procedure. 25 Based on this fact, we believe exemptions interfere PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 with setting proper cut-points and violate the implementation 2 of AB 584. 3 The exemption process is only necessary when the 4 cut-points are not set appropriately. 5 Fifth, CTA does not see the need in a post-repair 6 test. If the vehicles is repaired to manufacturers standards 7 the vehicle is legal. 8 This extra test is onerous and expensive. Simply 9 providing the repair records should be proof of correction. 10 We oppose the inclusion of the post-repair test and 11 ask that this be voluntary because we can see that the ARB 12 might want data on this and some of the carriers will do it 13 anyway, but to require it could be onerous for some of the 14 fleets. 15 Sixth, CTA opposes the periodic inspection and 16 maintenance test in its entirety. The California Trucking 17 Industry is economically disadvantaged by rules that apply 18 only to California trucks. 19 Our Board this year has taken the position of 20 California first. The trucking companies that live and 21 operate in California should be able to compete in 22 California. 23 By beefing up the roadside teams all trucking 24 companies will be subject to the same rules and the dirty 25 vehicles will be fined. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 Requiring California fleets to comply with two 2 different programs reduces our ability to compete in our own 3 State and does nothing for air quality. 4 This is especially true for vehicles that are post 5 1991 and electronically controlled. These new vehicles don't 6 smoke and companies that are operating them should be 7 rewarded for accelerating fleet turnover, not penalized with 8 administrative responsibilities. 9 Finally, CTA supports the proposal to allow fleets 10 to use J1667 and fleet testing, although we believe the test 11 is more paper chase than emissions reductions strategy. 12 The members of the California Trucking Association 13 support your attempts to get the smoky vehicles off the 14 road. 15 We look forward to working together to ensure that 16 the trucking industry can comply with a consistent and 17 repeatable smoke test. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 20 Any questions of the witness? 21 All right. Very good. 22 Thank you, Stephanie. Richard Skaggs, then Mark 23 Becker, Ken Hendrickson, Steve Soriano and Michael Colburn. 24 MR. SKAGGS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Board 25 Members. I'm here on behalf of the California Bus PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 Association, also I served on the SAE Committee from the 2 United Bus Owners of America for almost four years. 3 The California Bus Association supports the efforts 4 of this Board, and we do back the California Trucking 5 Association on their testimony. 6 We have some concerns also. Some of the concerns 7 are the cut-points, we feel that we have cut-points in 8 New York at 20 percent, we have cut-points in Canada at five 9 and 10 percent, we have cut-points of 70 in Utah, we have 10 cut-points all over the country that are different. 11 I think that if we can set one standard for 12 cut-points and start here in California, and I think that the 13 proposal that the Board has made with the eight percent 14 there, is one way to go. 15 I think that we should convince the rest of the 16 states because what is happening here, in New Jersey, for 17 example, we have bus owners that take people to the casino 18 and their cut-points are 40 and 55, they go across the 19 bridge, the cut-point is 20, they get a citation even though 20 they are cleaning up their buses. 21 Let me give you a little background. The 22 California Bus Association started doing their opacity test 23 in 1987. 24 We then started giving out what we call the Clean 25 Air Award in 1991. We lowered our average opacity in 1991 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 for buses to around 70 percent. 2 Today you won't find a California Bus Association 3 member with opacity more than 20 percent. We have cleaned up 4 our industry and we are glad that finally we are heading in 5 the right direction. 6 We have to make sure that we are fairly treating 7 the bus and truck industry. The other thing is on a J1243, 8 the only state put the grandfather clause in was California. 9 The reason we were against it was that in 1991 we 10 asked all the manufacturers of smoke meters to recall, or 11 give our money back for anybody that sold analog meters 12 knowing that the law was going to change. 13 Only one company refunded the money or let you 14 trade in on the new digital meters. The other companies said 15 no and continued to sell these meters. 16 Now what we are afraid of, and a lot of the bus 17 owners that are three buses and four buses, when someone 18 comes in and tries to sell a meter for half the price of the 19 J1667 meter they are going to buy that meter because it does 20 meet the specifications for next two years and they will take 21 advantage of this. 22 It is something for us to look at, I think maybe we 23 should come up with a way that we can ask these people to let 24 them trade the old equipment in on full value of what they 25 paid for that equipment instead of allowing a two year PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 grandfather clause because it is going to be a problem. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 3 On that point, Mike, can we do anything there? 4 That seems to be a reasonable issue. 5 MR. KENNY: The difficulty for us is that people 6 have bought the J1243 meters and those meters are out there 7 in the marketplace as a result of the original adoption by 8 this Board of the PSI program. 9 To simply mandate that they simply walk away from 10 the J1243 meters and go to a J1667 type meter seemed 11 unreasonable. 12 It seemed that they should be able to use the 13 meters for a period of time before the replacement is 14 necessary, so that is why we provided for that provision. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: It seems to me though that we 16 might make some contact and see what they would be willing to 17 do conduct to do voluntarily, you know, as far as a trade-in 18 or anything like that. 19 MR. KENNY: I think we can do that, but simply 20 trying to mandate though and provide some kind of required 21 price trade in is going to be very difficult. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. If my colleagues are 23 comfortable with that, we will ask you, Mike, to have your 24 team to make some contact with these folks and ask if 25 voluntarily they would be willing to try some kind of a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 trade-in. 2 MR. SKAGGS: May I make a suggestion? 3 They could not purchase any of the old equipment, 4 so it would protect the mom and pop operation in the sense 5 that they can't purchase a J1243 meter. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Richard, I'm sensitive to that, 7 but there are some issues. 8 I would like the staff to work on that, and I will 9 take your input and I know they will. 10 You bring up the right point. I think that we are 11 going to attack it a little differently than maybe you 12 would. 13 I know I interrupted you. 14 Ms. Edgerton, would you like to further interrupt 15 our witness with me? 16 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Yes. Thank you. 17 I think the leadership of the company that did 18 refund should be noted for the record. 19 MR. SKAGGS: I wear several hats. I was involved 20 in this company who designed the meters in California, it is 21 a California corporation who built the meters, and went out 22 and asked the industry what they wanted in 1989. 23 It was Caltech Instruments. They recalled all the 24 analog meters in 1991 and gave either money back, or they 25 were able to trade them in on the newer meters, and they PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 asked the other companies to do the same and they refused. 2 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Where is Caltech's 3 headquarters? 4 MR. SKAGGS: It's in Wilmington, California. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Paul, you can -- 6 Mike, you and your team can get back to us and let us know 7 how this goes. 8 All right. In conclusion, you were saying, Mr. 9 Skaggs. 10 MR. SKAGGS: I have two other comments. They are 11 very important by the way. 12 I served on the SAE Committee since it started, and 13 we did have a Chairman that was an engineer that represented 14 Detroit Diesel. 15 We then had that particular Chairman resign from 16 our Committee. He did a very good job. 17 The next day we had someone appointed as Chairman, 18 the reason that I am bringing this up is very important, who 19 was a salesman, not an engineer, for a German manufacturer of 20 smoke meters. 21 This same person sent a letter in signing as 22 Chairman of the SAE and another letter as Bosch Corporation, 23 I mention the name now, but what happened here is that they 24 sent video tapes to every state agency quoting the Air 25 Resources Board stating that the American manufactures smoke PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 meters were off as much as 40 percent and they weren't 2 designed for this snap idle test. 3 It was just the other way around. When we brought 4 this to the attention of the Air Resources Board they said, 5 that is just the way that the German's do business. 6 Well, in California that is not the way that we do 7 business. You don't send video tapes out misleading, not 8 only the people the California, but this Board. 9 What happened is a lot of our members bought these 10 pieces of equipment for $15,000 when they could have bought 11 it for $5,000 based on a video tape that the Air Resources 12 Board had in their possession. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right, well, on that point, 14 I'll ask staff to look into it and if some shenanigans have 15 gone on where people have been misusing their position, we 16 rely on this SAE organization, Mike, strong letter maybe goes 17 and we follow-up with whoever runs SAE overall if that's 18 going on. 19 MR. SKAGGS: I have one last final point. The 20 other way, I think the law is going to be corrected, I know 21 that there is a Senate bill that is going to be introduced 22 this year, it is SB 1275 by Senator Ray Haines. 23 He has done a two year study of this whole thing, 24 and he's put a lot of good things in there that we can look 25 at to help us correct a lot of these problems. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 I want to thank all of you, and if you have any 2 questions I would be more than happy to answer them. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Richard, I just would ask 4 whatever, or whoever is sponsoring this legislation if they 5 would do us the courtesy to get us a copy of what he might be 6 thinking about. 7 MR. SKAGGS: I have a copy now, Mr. Chairman, that 8 I will give to Pat. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any other questions of the 10 witness? 11 All right. Thank you. 12 Mr. Becker from Mark Becker Diesel Fuel Injection, 13 Ken Hendrickson, H.G. Makelim Co., Robert Bosch. 14 MR. BECKER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and ladies 15 and gentlemen. My name is Mark Becker. 16 We are an authorized repair facility for one of the 17 world's largest producers of diesel fuel injection systems. 18 We specialize in the light-duty, medium-duty 19 trucks. I'm proud to say that we deal with about 200 20 dealerships, truck dealers, GM, Ford, in about 10 states. We 21 do this through mail, Fed Ex, UPS, overnight delivery. 22 One might feel that my support for the vehicle 23 inspections program is because of financial gain that I stand 24 to get as a result. 25 You are probably right. However, in addition to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 the mailorder business that we do, we also have a drive-up 2 service, whereby we check out vehicles for smoke problems. 3 In all honesty, probably we deal a hundred cars a 4 month, and trucks, and a majority of them, a simple 5 adjustment, air filter, probably 20, 30 minutes, and they are 6 out. 7 It's not really a major expense. I would just like 8 to again vouch for the support of the program. 9 Number one, we want to keep California's air 10 beautiful, clean and also we like to get the gross offenders 11 off the road so that they don't give our industry a bad 12 name. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Thank you. 15 You don't have to apologize for earning a living, 16 or making a profit, particularly if it helps this body 17 achieve its goals, which is to protect public health. 18 So, good luck to you. Thank you. 19 All right. Mr. Hendrickson and then Steve Soriano 20 and then our final witness, Michael Colburn. 21 Good morning. 22 MR. HENDRICKSON: Good morning. My name is Ken 23 Hendrickson. 24 I represent the H.G. Hakelim Company from South San 25 Francisco. We are the distributor of diesel fuel injection PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 components, heavy duty electrical, colar engine and colar 2 power systems throughout the State of California. 3 We employ roughly 60 people. We represent the 4 Robert Bosch Corporation for smoke meters. 5 I wanted to read a letter that Mr. Staiger directed 6 to me, but I would like to make one comment in regards to 7 Mr. Skagg's comments. 8 Due to the nature of the technology of smoke 9 meters, some of the meters have to be traded in when the 10 technology changes. 11 With the Bosch meter all you do is put a prong in 12 and you can go from the 1243 to the 1667 at no cost to people 13 that purchased this equipment previously. 14 So, for the record, Bosch has done this as a 15 service to their customers at no cost. The fact that our 16 competitors say that they are the only ones in California 17 that do this is erroneous. 18 Bosch would like to comment and make recommendation 19 on several issues regarding the upcoming restart of the 20 diesel inspection program in the State of California. 21 Please ensure that all interested parties within 22 the California Air Resources Board are advised of our 23 position if possible. 24 The Robert Bosch Corporation is a gold company 25 which employs over 18,000 associates in the United States and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 over 170,000 associates worldwide. 2 We are a leading supplier of automotive and diesel 3 fuel systems, engine management systems, braking systems, 4 vehicle control systems, power tools, household appliances 5 and test equipment. 6 Bosch Products helps support over 100 small 7 businesses in the State of California, whose primary function 8 is the repair of vehicle engine management systems. 9 Our second largest North American warehouse is 10 located in Ontario, California. Our customers range from 11 General Motors to Mercedes Benz to Mercury Marine. 12 We have been involved with emissions and engine 13 management systems since the buying of the company back in 14 1886. 15 Bosch is the only equipment manufacturer involved 16 in the development of SAE J1667, which most actively consider 17 not only the test procedure, but the potential equipment 18 specifications, but must also consider the effects of engines 19 in the field. 20 Bosch is world market leader in diesel fuel systems 21 and engine management technology and as such has a vested 22 interest in the needs of our customers such as Cummins, Mac, 23 Navistar, Detroit Diesel and others. 24 We therefore joined with SAE 1667 Committee back in 25 1993 to ensure that both of our objectives would be met to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 ensure a fair, scientifically valid test that would eliminate 2 false failures in the field and thus prevent our customers 3 and fuel systems from unnecessary repairs and to ensure that 4 a method of smoke measurement was established that would 5 normalize all measuring devices as best possible using a 6 common mathematical algorithm for evaluation. 7 We feel that both of these objectives have been 8 reached with the compliance of the SAE document, J1667, Snap 9 Acceleration Smoke Test Procedure for Heavy-Duty Diesel 10 Powered Vehicles. 11 The critical element, which all major Committee 12 Members agreed upon, was the use of a Bessel filter 13 algorithm, which normalizes the different smoke meters so 14 that regardless of brand or type all these devices will see 15 similar smoke values after processing the raw data using the 16 Bessel filter. 17 This filter allowed many states, including 18 California, to maintain a 40 to 55 percent cut-point since 19 the filter prevents false failures in the field. 20 The filter obviously also provides a means of 21 standardizing equipment regardless of the vast design 22 differences between different manufacturers. 23 This filter principle was introduced to the 24 Committee by Bosch. Bosch does not agree -- Bosch does agree 25 with most of the program guidelines but would like to point PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 out the following two issues which are considered to be 2 effective. 3 It is a procedure in Appendix D, SAE and Golden 4 West was performed under ideal, no wind or place factors. 5 The potential for low readings by self-testing 6 fleets is high, and is as such could cause it to think it is 7 compliant when not. 8 The phase-in period for periodic, for 9 self-inspection portion of the program could cause users in 10 the field between non conforming and fleeters that meet the 11 SAE 1667, most J type meters meet higher and the prudent 12 thing is to allow only the newer style 1667 type meters, and 13 this is more costly, but everyone should be measuring from 14 the snap acceleration test per SAE 1667. 15 We are grateful to the staff. Bosch equipment is 16 found to comply with the requirements but want to introduce 17 safety aspects to the test. We hope they consider the 18 factors when the implementation begins. 19 We applaud the staff for unifying the fuel system 20 manufacturers, equipment manufacturers and test procedures 21 that benefit air quality and remain cost effective. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. I appreciate your 24 views. 25 One thing I would comment on, in light of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 Mr. Skaggs' comment, it is important that in the 2 representation of the Bosch Products that the folks making 3 the meters and helping us deal with the problem work together 4 to any extent they can. 5 If there is misinformation, it is not a big thing 6 to make a phone call, but we need you to make good products 7 and work together. 8 So, I tell you that not to lecture or to get along 9 with the people that you compete against, but that goes for 10 Mr. Skaggs as well. 11 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: I wanted to ask -- I 12 apologize, I left the room and came back, if I understood you 13 correctly, you said that you thought that more progressive, 14 that the newer smoke meters, the one's that should be 15 required and there should not be a phase-in ideally. 16 MR. BECKER: Correct. 17 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: Is your company 18 considering, or prepared to replace the existing meters that 19 have recently been sold in the last few years at no cost? 20 MR. BECKER: Yes. 21 With the type of technology that our equipment 22 employees, it is strictly and E prong that needs to be 23 replaced. 24 All the meters that had used the J1243 technology 25 have already been upgraded to the SAE technology by the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 replacement of the prong. 2 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: If I understand you 3 correctly, you have already contacted all of the people that 4 you have sold to and replaced them so that they are complying 5 with the new standard. 6 MR. BECKER: With the J1667. 7 BOARD MEMBER EDGERTON: I compliment you on that. 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. We have two witnesses 10 remaining. 11 Steve Soriano, a citizen who indicates that he 12 supports this program and is a resident of Santa Clara 13 County. 14 Good morning. 15 MR. SORIANO: Good morning, Chairman and Board 16 Members. My name is Steve Soriano and I live Milpitas and 17 before I read you a letter as well, I thought that I would 18 let you know that I took public transit today and I relied on 19 diesel and a bus that got me from the bus stop near my home 20 to lightrail, which was electric, to the heavyrail, which was 21 diesel, and here we are, talking about diesel. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Did you see any smoke on any part 23 of your tour? 24 MR. SORIANO: A little bit. 25 The new technology buses were pretty clean. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 old buses were rather visible. 2 I do support the program. I would like to read the 3 letter that I introduced for the record. 4 I'm speaking today in support of resuming the 5 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection Program. Since 1958, I have 6 live in the Santa Clara valley. 7 I recall the smoggy days when the hills on either 8 side of the valley were not visible from the valley floor. 9 With programs like the HDVIP in place, future 10 generations will not have to experience poor air quality 11 again. 12 I've been an automotive truck equipment technician 13 for over 20 years. I notice the gasoline vehicle emissions 14 have been reduced dramatically and emission control 15 components have become extremely reliable. 16 However, the diesel fuel vehicles and equipment 17 emission control strategies have paled compared to today's, 18 gasoline fueled vehicles. 19 Now is the time to require diesel engine operators 20 to do their to part maintain good air quality. Diesel fleets 21 that maintain their equipment should have no cause for 22 concern while participating in the HDVIP. 23 As a technician, I have been exposed to high 24 concentrations of diesel exhaust that have caused me 25 irritation in the eyes, nose and throat. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 I am also subject to sinus infections that are 2 triggered when I am exposed to high concentrations of diesel 3 exhaust. 4 I live along the schoolbus route and can smell the 5 diesel exhaust in my house after a bus passes by. 6 Diesel is a very dirty toxic fuel that will be used 7 for many years to come until the alternative fuels market is 8 established. 9 I encourage that random roadside tests be located 10 along side roads adjacent to fleets that operate old 11 equipment. 12 That is where you will find your gross polluters. 13 Thank you for considering my comments on the health 14 effects diesel exhaust has on all peoples who live and visit 15 our golden State. 16 In support of HDVIP, I believe that the program 17 should be instituted as soon as possible, that there be a 18 public education component of the program, say for example, I 19 am a trucker and I get pulled over at a weigh station, and I 20 have heard something about it and maybe I am savvy and maybe 21 I am not, is the staff approaches need to do the test, some 22 basic literature that outlines what am I expected to do as an 23 operator. 24 I think that is very important, key issues like 25 that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I can ask staff, are we going to 2 have a brochure, or a publication that we can hand out? 3 Is that going to be handed out in the fields. 4 MR. JACOBS: Yes. 5 That has always been our process of operation in 6 the field environment. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 8 That has had some input from folks like this 9 gentlemen? 10 MR. JACOBS: Yes. 11 MR. SORIANO: Thank you. In fleet 98, or 99, I 12 think the cut-points should be revisited and reevaluated. 13 Right now I think that they are at a comfortable 14 point. 15 So, in closing, we all use diesel, I'm not an 16 anti-diesel person. In the future, I support the use of 17 alternative fuels and encourage the Board to incorporate 18 alternative fuel vehicles into your fleet for your staff of 19 administration, whether on the Air Board or any of the big 20 players out there. 21 I support the program and good luck with your 22 decision today. 23 Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 25 Any questions for the witness? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 Very good. We have one remaining witness, 2 Mr. Colburn. 3 As is my custom, I want you to know you are the 4 last person standing between us and taking up this Item. 5 MR. COLBURN: Story of my life. Mr. Chairman, 6 Board, thank you for having me up here. 7 I'm here to talk about aftermarket technologies and 8 I applaud what you are trying to do. I think it is really 9 good. 10 I think the Board has made, quite frankly, been 11 very responsible for a lot of the clean air cleanup, but 12 there is area that the California Air Resources Board deals 13 with that is going on ignored and that is aftermarket 14 technologies. 15 Specifically yield CARB numbered products, you have 16 products in your catalog of numbers that reduce emissions, 17 but the only thing that an EO number from this Board gets 18 you, it says that you don't negatively effect the emissions 19 coming out of the vehicle. 20 Now, I am here to tell you as one of the owners of 21 one of these products, like the other guys, I have something 22 to gain here, that there is real science products. 23 I have seen four that regarding diesel that 24 actually make significant differences in emissions and they 25 work synchronous, I don't own all four, I just have one, but PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 I work with the other companies and these are not expensive 2 products. 3 We are talking about cleaning the air here. That 4 is what you guys are all about, and ladies. The diesel, I 5 see four that work. 6 We are acting like we can't make older vehicles 7 burn cleaner. We can, backed by real science. 8 You have the ability right now to lead the world, 9 not if you are not already, but even further in cleaning up 10 the air with these aftermarket technologies that quite 11 frankly, when I found out about this what an EO number meant, 12 because we have one, I said well, if I am reducing emissions 13 they said, well that would be tantamount to endorsement. 14 Well, if it cleans the air, so be endorse it. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Let me stop you there, and maybe 16 come to Tom for a minute. You have aftermarket technologies 17 that you would like to be able to say the for purposes 18 marketing and helping us with our job that these products 19 help us meet our goals and improve air quality and use that 20 to market your product. 21 MR. COLBURN: Backed by real science. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We have a technology 23 certification program that is a new twist on an old idea. 24 MR. COLBURN: We are not talking about ICAT, are 25 we? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: No. 2 We have a technology office that Cal EPA has seen 3 fit to have it housed at the California Air Resources Board 4 where you can go in, have your technology assessed, it can be 5 done in harmony with the existing work that our Mobile Source 6 Group does where you can be given a stamp of not just 7 approval, but you can be certified as having a very positive 8 impact on air quality and therefore can use that to market 9 your product. 10 What I will do, you know, I don't want to cut you 11 off, we are going to provide you that information and we are 12 going to hook you into the process. 13 The gentleman that runs that program is Don Owen 14 and he's housed in Tom's shop. So, I'll have you hook up 15 with him and we will see if there is a way that we can help 16 you be more proactive. 17 The stuff you are talking about has to work and you 18 need to demonstrate it to these folks. 19 MR. COLBURN: I certainly would like to open the 20 door for more than just my product. It is not just mine, I'm 21 not going to save the world. 22 There are several products out there that deal with 23 directly. One thing that is just being researched, and I 24 brought this for a reason, by the CRC, which I am sure you 25 are familiar with, in Atlanta where they have talked about PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 CCD. 2 One of the products here deals directly with CCD 3 where they have not figured out what causes CCD. We have a 4 whole bunch of California inventors, quite frankly, one of 5 them figured out what causes CCD. 6 One of the biggest reasons CCD is caused, and it is 7 one of the biggest polluters, and if you get rid of it the 8 engines burn much more cleaner, you could actually exceed the 9 numbers you are looking for by a long range. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. You want to cover your 11 acronym there. 12 MR. COLBURN: Combustion chamber deposits. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Here is what I would 14 like you to do is I would like you to leave your card with 15 Mr. Cackette, he will arrange your meeting with Don. 16 You can come in and talk about a way for you to get 17 into the system and also if you have colleagues that you 18 would like to have included, we can arrange that as well. 19 MR. COLBURN: I will do that. Thank you. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 21 Okay. We have a new witness that just signed up. 22 You might not be that popular you know, you signed 23 up at the last minute. Todd Campbell, Natural Resources 24 Defense Counsel. 25 MR. CAMPBELL: I just want to take a few seconds. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 My name is Todd Campbell. 2 I am a National Resources Defense Council. I am in 3 support of the program, and we would like to extend support 4 of the program. 5 We have been following the diesel exhaust dialog as 6 well, in addition to this program, and we are very concerned 7 about the health problems that could subject the citizens of 8 California through diesel exhaust exposure. 9 Any effort to ensure that diesel engines running on 10 our roads are well maintained and tamper free we support. 11 We also support the staff for working so hard on 12 this program and we believe that it will be very successful 13 in helping us reduce our ambient air levels of diesel 14 exhaust. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Are you a colleague of Janet 17 Hathaway's? Is she in your office? 18 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. 19 She couldn't be here. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Send her our 21 regards. 22 Any other witnesses? 23 We will conclude the public testimony component. 24 We have gone through the letters, you have three more. 25 Mr. Jacobs, briefly, what are the three? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 MR. JACOBS: Actually, Chairman Dunlap, all those 2 folks have testified and also provided a letter, so that is 3 covered. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. So, that is covered. 5 Mr. Kenny, any final comments before we officially 6 close the record? 7 MR. KENNY: The staff would simply recommend 8 approval of the program and the reimplementation of those 9 programs. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. I will now close the 11 record on this Item. However, the record will be reopened 12 when the 15-day notice of public availability is issued and 13 written or oral comments received after this hearing date, 14 but before the 15 notice is issued will not be accepted as 15 part of the official record on this Agenda Item. 16 When the record is reopened for a 15 day comment 17 period the public may submit written comments on the proposed 18 changes, which will considered and responded to in the final 19 statement of reasons for the regulation. 20 Again, just as remainder to the Board on our policy 21 concerning ex parte communication, while we may communicate 22 off the record with outside persons regarding Board 23 rulemaking, we must disclose the names of our contacts and 24 the nature of the contents on the record. 25 Is there any ex parte communication that needs to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 be disclosed? 2 BOARD MEMBER SILVA: I did speak with candidates at 3 our Orange county OCTA facility and went over the report with 4 them. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. You serve on that 6 Board. 7 Were they supportive? 8 BOARD MEMBER SILVA: Very supportive. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Nice to know. I would like to 10 compliment staff on that testimonial video. 11 I am not going to ask any detail. I don't care 12 except that it was unique, and it was a new way to 13 communicate to us, and whoever located those folks and their 14 geographic distribution, I was impressed. You hit several 15 Board Members in their local area. 16 I think Jim might even have known one of the guys 17 on there. I would like to recognize, a couple of closing 18 comments and I will be brief, I would like to take the 19 opportunity to recognize several fleets who have 20 distinguished themselves through their outstanding voluntary 21 compliance efforts and we heard a bit about these voluntary 22 efforts in the testimony and in the staff presentation. 23 The first company is RMC Lonestar, a concrete 24 ready-mix company with fleets throughout California. They 25 have not only embraced the principal of a smoke inspection PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 program, but have voluntarily included off-road diesel 2 equipment in their inspections, off-road diesel equipment. 3 The second company, Raley's Superstores has an 4 excellent compliance record and has integrated liquid natural 5 gas trucks into their fleet. 6 The Atlantic Richmond Company known to us all as 7 the Richfield Company, known as ARCO company, set up a fleet, 8 a self-inspection program before the Board's regulation was 9 in place. 10 They have an outstanding compliance regard. There 11 have been others, PG & E, UPS, Federal Express, those are 12 Antelope Valley Bus Lines and others, those are fine examples 13 of dedication to achieving healthful air quality. 14 I know I speak for my colleagues on the Board in 15 recognizing them and giving them thanks for being leaders in 16 doing that. 17 Also, a word relative to California Trucking 18 Association, I know that Ms. Williams and her membership feel 19 strongly about the need to secure clean air. 20 It is difficult to represent a broad group of 21 membership, some of which are not in this business to clean 22 the air. 23 Their job is to move product and to make a living 24 and we recognize that. I have appreciated your role in 25 trying to find common ground. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 I know it is nearly impossible to do. I want 2 people to know that it is a difficult task. 3 We have before us a resolution and we have had it 4 for a while. I will allow the Board a few moments to review 5 it, and bring up any last issues if you have any, and I will 6 certainly entertain a motion to move the resolution. 7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if I might, it 8 does not speak to the resolution, but I think this Board has 9 come to expect and appreciate the fine staff work that has 10 been done and the outreach, and I just want to comment that 11 the demonstration today was very helpful and for those of you 12 in the audience that did not know, we had the opportunity to 13 see this demonstrated, they brought in a large truck, and I 14 think that helped some of us who are not necessarily 15 mechanically inclined to really understand what is happening 16 and I do appreciate that extra effort. 17 It is not easy probably to move all of those people 18 and the apparatus, but we appreciate that. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 20 BOARD MEMBER SILVA: I would like to follow-up on 21 that. We had one of our speakers today, I believe it was Ms. 22 Crowder, mentioned that she is a stakeholder simply because 23 she is a citizen. 24 Well, I couldn't agree with that more. We also 25 have other stakeholders and those are the employers and the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 employees that make their living from the diesel engine. 2 I think that the State of California owes a lot to 3 our ARB Board Chairman, John Dunlap, and our Executive 4 Director, Mr. Michael Kenny, because of the product that they 5 are putting forward today I think that it is going to result 6 in cleaner air for all of California. 7 The responsibility of the diesel engine maintenance 8 is placed where it should be, with the diesel engine owners, 9 and I think a properly maintained diesel engine will not only 10 perform better environmentally, but also in the profit 11 margin. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 13 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I have a question. Counsel 14 stated at the beginning of this particular Item the rationale 15 for exempting the Winnebago or some of the other privately 16 owned vehicles; will you go back over that? 17 MR. JENNINGS: First, I want to emphasize that we 18 were proposing an exemption only for the fleet periodic 19 inspection part. 20 There would be no exception either for new trucks, 21 or personal use trucks in terms of the roadside inspection. 22 They would still be subject to that. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, if they are going through an 24 inspection point they would be inspected like anyone else? 25 MR. CACKETTE: That's correct. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 Let me just add that the key issue here is that for 2 the Periodic Inspection Program that you need to either go 3 out and get it at a diesel repair place and get an 4 inspection, or you have to buy your own equipment. 5 So, it is a considerably larger investment for one 6 person owning one vehicle. I think the idea of putting 7 diesel passenger cars and lighter trucks into the smog check 8 program is under active consideration and I think that's more 9 likely where these one size small vehicles will go. 10 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: One other comment that I 11 would like to make. I think that the staff has done an 12 outstanding job in trying to address some of the most 13 difficult issues that this Board has been faced with. 14 The comments made by Ms. Williams representing the 15 California's Truckers Association regarding the pre-1991 and 16 earlier model vehicles, I think that the staff has done a 17 good job in addressing that particular issue and I am 18 prepared to move the adoption of the resolution. 19 BOARD MEMBER SILVA: Second. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We have a motion by Mr. Calhoun 21 and a second by Supervisor Silva to move Resolution 97-44, 22 which contains the staff recommendation. 23 Any other comments on this item? 24 All right. Very good. 25 We will move forward on a voice vote. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 All those in favor of Resolution 97-44, say aye. 2 Any opposed? 3 Very good. Thank you. 4 One final point before I lose some of the 5 stakeholders. 1998 is going to be a big year for the whole 6 diesel discussion. 7 The diesel toxicity issue is going to be coming 8 before the Board this year and there is going to be some 9 legislation, as you know, a couple of bills out there 10 relative to incentives and this program is going to be 11 unfolding. 12 I wanted to appeal to everybody in this audience to 13 work with us and keep the communication channels open make 14 sure that we understand peoples points of view and don't be 15 dismissive of them, but we need to kind of harness the good 16 feeling that we have here today about this program and try to 17 duplicate that for the other issues as they emerge. 18 I pledge my support and I know my colleagues on the 19 Board will as well. Let's just make sure that we communicate 20 in the weeks and months ahead, closely. 21 Thank you. Well done. 22 Before I have staff moving around, we have one or 23 two items we want to take up. 24 Is Jim Pitts here? 25 I know he may have stepped out for a moment. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 That's not a good place for you, Jim. 2 Come on forward. I would like to take one other 3 brief item up. 4 Is Jack Legarius here too? 5 Did we lose Jack? 6 Jack is also in the back row. Come up here, Jack. 7 We are asking Jack Legarius to accompany Jim Pitts 8 forward to the podium and it's good to see both of you and I 9 have a few remarks and my colleagues are going to chime in 10 here. 11 I'm certain that those in the room that follow our 12 issues over the course of the last couple of years, or even 13 beyond that will recognize these two gentlemen. 14 We are going to be bidding fair well to a friend to 15 air quality, Dr. Pitts, who has for many years has been the 16 recipient of understanding and having insight into the whole 17 air quality issue in the State as an educator and as a 18 scientist, and certainly as a leader, somebody who is very 19 strong in this area and it has been my pleasure to become 20 acquainted with him. 21 For many years he has been involved as an excellent 22 and enthusiastic teacher of atmospheric chemistry, a field in 23 which Dr. Pitts is a recognized worldwide expert. 24 He and wife have authored a definitive text on the 25 subject as a matter of fact and they are also wrapping up I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 am told a thousand page reference book on atmospheric 2 chemistry. 3 Dr. Pitts was for many years the Director of the 4 Statewide Air Pollution Research Center for the nine campus 5 University of California system. 6 Since 1984, he has served this Board and our State 7 on the Scientific Review Panel for toxic air contaminants. 8 During his tenure as an original member of the 9 panel and subsequently as Chairman for some six years, the 10 panel has reviewed and recommended to the Board more than 22 11 substances for identification as toxic air contaminant. 12 California leads the world in this achievement and 13 the reports produced by the ARB and OEHHA staff reviewed by 14 Dr. Pitts panel and approved by our Board are used worldwide 15 as the basis for protecting people from the involuntary risk 16 of exposure to such chemicals. 17 Today, we wanted to take a moment and recognize you 18 Dr. Pitts for your outstanding work on the Scientific Review 19 Panel and acknowledge that you have contributed much. 20 There is a lot more that I could say about your 21 publications, your work with lawmakers, your work with us 22 individually, but I know you would much rather talk about fly 23 fishing probably and other such things. 24 So, what I would like to do is take thank you 25 officially and ask supervise Riordan to read you a letter PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 from our Governor, Pete Wilson, addressed to you, which we 2 will provide you, and I would also like to ask Mike Kenny to 3 read a letter that he and I also would like to present to 4 you. 5 Supervisor Riordan. 6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you, Chairman Dunlap. 7 I am delighted to be able to read this into the record on 8 behalf of Dr. Pitts and tell you that it is difficult to 9 maneuver up here so immediately after the meeting I will give 10 you the copy of this letter. 11 It is from our Governor and it reads as follows: 12 To Dr. James N. Pitts, Jr., on behalf of the State of 13 California, it gives me great pleasure to extend my sincere 14 congratulations to you as you retire following many years of 15 outstanding service as Chair of the Scientific Review Panel 16 for Toxic Air Contaminants. 17 Throughout your long and distinguished career you 18 have established an exemplary reputation for quality 19 management and effective leadership. 20 You have indeed earned the respect and the 21 admiration of all of those who have had the pleasure of 22 working with you. 23 Your expertise as well as your friendship will 24 sorely be missed by your colleagues at the SRP. As you take 25 the time to reflect upon the significant accomplishments that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 have marked your career in State service, you can take great 2 pride in knowing that your efforts have made a profound 3 difference in the lives of all Californian's. 4 Please accept my best wishes for a future that 5 continues to bring you great reward and fulfillment. 6 Sincerely, Pete Wilson. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mike, we have a brief letter we 8 wanted to read to you. 9 MR. KENNY: We would like to add the Board's and 10 the staff's comments with regard to this. Let me read the 11 letter that is signed by John and myself. 12 Dear Dr. Pitts, we would like to take this 13 opportunity to express our sincere gratitude for your many 14 years of service as Member and Chair of the State Scientific 15 Review Panel for Toxic Air Contaminants. 16 You provided the Air Resources Board with exemplary 17 scientific review and quality management with the utmost 18 integrity during your tenure as the Chair. 19 You have indeed earned the admiration and respect 20 of your fellow colleagues of the SRP, the Air Resources Board 21 and the scientific community. 22 In your capacity as Chair, we would like to 23 acknowledge the difficult and very important work you have 24 contributed as part of the identification of many toxic air 25 contaminants. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 The issues that you dealt with were very complex. 2 You worked tirelessly to assure that the best risk and 3 exposure assessment methods and approaches were used based on 4 sound science. 5 Your leadership by example and dealing with the 6 issues of each air toxic you reviewed has' effectively made 7 the SRP a highly represent entity both in California, and in 8 the nation. 9 Your expertise as a premier atmospheric scientist 10 as well as your tireless energy and dynamic personality as 11 Chair of the SRP will be sorely missed. 12 We wish you well in the future. 13 Sincerely, Michael P. Kenny and John P. Dunlap, 14 III. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Would you like to say to few 16 words? 17 DR. PITTS: I will say a word or two. I can't very 18 effectively tell you how much I appreciate the letters, the 19 comments, the sentiments. 20 They mean more to me than I can express effectively 21 here. Thank you, very much. 22 I would also like at this time though to make a key 23 point. Well, it is a key point, I tell students that as you 24 get older you get like myself. 25 The one thing to know is when you have been lucky. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 Personally and professionally. 2 Lucky professionally in that I have been able to 3 work with an organization such as the Air Resources Board of 4 the State of California, for which I have enormous 5 professional respect and have had from the onset had such 6 enormous respect from a professional point of view for not 7 only the efforts, it the one thing to have efforts, but the 8 achievements. 9 The people that I see here today that I have known 10 so well across the spectrum from the scientist and engineers, 11 to the administrators, to the staff, it has been remarkable. 12 I think that this -- I have been lucky to be 13 involved with this. Much of what you are saying is really 14 only because I am have been in a position where I can work 15 with people that have done so much to educate me in a nice 16 way and in so many areas and that become personal friends. 17 I would like to thank the Members of the SRP, it 18 has been a great experience working with them. It never has 19 been dull, as some of you Board Members might recognize 20 through the years. 21 They are an interesting bunch and I appreciate very 22 much the interaction that we have on the variety of 23 subjects. 24 I should go on to thank by the way while I am at it 25 the interaction with ARB, with the SRP, and the person who PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 has been in the interface, Bill Lockette, between these 2 interesting groups has done a splendid job and Peter Mathews, 3 you have put a good bunch together and I appreciate that. 4 Finally, I want to say that the SRP is really kind 5 of an interesting group for those of you who aren't familiar, 6 we have a bunch of tenured professors sitting on there. 7 When you are dealing with a bunch of tenured 8 professors from a variety of disciplines -- we have been 9 there, done that. 10 Well, I might add, you have to hear the latest, big 11 thing now is been there, done that, guys get around in a bar, 12 and they talk about business, you know, I have been there, 13 done that, do you know what the medieval version of that was, 14 you know, the past is prologue, as Shakespeare said, the 15 medieval version, the knights come in, you know, it's been 16 hard out there and they put their swords down and have their 17 stuff and what their version is, I've been there, slain 18 that. 19 That might apply to some air pollution issues, 20 too. I want to express one last thing, my appreciation for 21 what the Air Resources Board, the Board here, the past 22 Boards, you have a splendid history, not just in the toxics 23 that I worked with, but your splendid approach to the control 24 VOC and NOx, which has now been proven, it was a 20 year 25 struggle. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 You have done this, you are on the firing line, you 2 are the risk manager of the health protective and cost 3 protective, you have to worry about both aspects of this and 4 that is critical and tough. 5 You are appreciated. I have wandering professors, 6 you get a free trip here and there for one reason or another, 7 including some fishing, I have lectured in Japan, in Denmark 8 and in Mexico. 9 In every case it gave me great pride to say that I 10 was from California and that much of the atmosphere chemistry 11 control that I would be talking in terms of control 12 strategies came from this Board and these people across your 13 spectrum of the ARB, of the administration, the scientists, 14 the staff, the whole crew, what you have done in research, 15 and I an assure you that they listen. 16 The Japanese, the Danes, so, I think this is 17 something that you can be very proud of and I am pleased and 18 I want to thank you again for the letters and for the good 19 thoughts, they mean a great deal to me. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 21 One final personal note on this as we get to our 22 last item is that my very first air pollution job, five 23 minutes showing up to my job, my boss the planning director 24 throws a film strip at me and told me to go to the library 25 and put this filmstrip in and I did and watched it and it was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 Dr. Pitts lecturing some students on the videotape and it is 2 rock, socks and knocks, is that right, and it is still out 3 there and it is still relevant, but that my very first day on 4 the job, I watched this film. 5 We have open comment period. There is going to be 6 no formal Board action. 7 We will provide an opportunity for members of the 8 public to directly address the Board on items of interest 9 that do not appear on today's agenda. 10 We are asking that each witness limit their 11 testimony to a couple minutes. I have a sign-up sheet and 12 there is no one that is signed up, so what we will do, I will 13 ask anyone in the audience if they would like to speak, if 14 not then what we will do is thank you for considering this. 15 We would like to move on and close the meeting. 16 Is there anything else that needs to come up from 17 my colleagues on the Board? 18 All right. With that, we will adjourn this the 19 December 1997 meeting of the California Air Resources Board. 20 (Thereupon the meeting of the Air Resources 21 Board was adjourned at 12:17 p.m.) 22 --o0o-- 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 2 3 4 I, VICKI L. MEDEIROS, a Certified Shorthand 5 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify: 6 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 7 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, Vicki L. 8 Medeiros, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of 9 California, and thereafter transcribed into 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 twentieth day of December, 1997. 15 16 17 18 VICKI L. MEDEIROS 19 Certified Shorthand Reporter 20 License No. 7871 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345