BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD JOE SERNA, JR. BUILDING CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CENTRAL VALLEY AUDITORIUM, SECOND FLOOR 1001 I STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2004 9:00 A.M. TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Alan Lloyd, Chairperson Dr. William Burke Mr. Joseph Calhoun Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Professor Hugh Friedman Supervisor Barbara Patrick Mr. Matthew McKinnon Mrs. Barbara Riordan BOARD MEMBERS EXCUSED Dr. William Friedman Supervisor Ron Roberts STAFF Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Diane Johnston, General Counsel Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Mr. Bart Croes, P.E., Chief, Research Division Ms. Stacie Dorais, Board Secretary PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF Mr. Allen Lyons, Mobile Source Operations Division Ms. AnnMarie Mora, Research Division Ms. Marcella Nystrom, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, Air Quality Analysis Section, Planning and Technical Support Division Ms. Rajinder Sahota, Air Pollution Specialist, Community Assessment and Statistical Analysis Section, Planning and Technical Support Division Mr. Michael Terris, Staff Counsel Dr. Tony Vancuren, Atmospheric Processes Research Section, Research Division ALSO PRESENT Mr. Larry Allen, San Luis Obispo Mr. John Cabaniss, AIAM Mr. David Ferris, General Motors Mr. John Kurbal, Blue Streak Mr. Frank Krich, Daimler Chrysler Ms. Barbara Lee, NSCAPCD Mr. Aaron Lowe, AAIA Mr. David Raney, Honda Ms. Lisa Stegink, EMA Mr. John Trajnowski, Ford Motor Company PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Roll Call 1 Item 04-1-1 Chairperson Lloyd 6 Executive Officer Witherspoon 8 Staff Presentation 8 Q&A 31 Item 04-1-2 Chairperson Lloyd 44 Executive Officer Witherspoon 45 Staff Presentation 46 Q&A 54 Item 04-1-3 Chairperson Lloyd 63 Staff Presentation 63 Q&A 68 Vote 69 Item 04-1-4 Chairperson Lloyd 69 Executive Officer Witherspoon 70 Staff Presentation 71 Ombudsman Tschogl 84 Mr. Lowe 86 Ms. Stegink 108 Mr. Cabaniss 124 Mr. Trajnowski 127 Mr. Krich 132 Mr. Raney 134 Mr. Ferris 148 Q&A 149 Motion 156 Vote 159 Motion 160 Vote 160 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX PAGE Item 04-1-5 Chairperson Lloyd 161 Executive Officer Witherspoon 162 Staff Presentation 162 Mr. Allen 174 Ms. Lee 178 Motion 181 Vote 181 Adjournment 183 Reporter's Certificate 184 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good morning. The first 3 meeting in 2004 of the Air Resources Board, January the 4 22nd, public meeting of the Air Resources Board will now 5 come to order. 6 Professor Friedman, will you please lead us in 7 the pledge. 8 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Join me. 9 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 10 recited in unison.) 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 12 Will the Clerk of the Board please call the roll. 13 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Dr. Burke? 14 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Here. 15 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Mr. Calhoun? 16 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 17 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Ms. D'Adamo? 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 19 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Supervisor DeSaulnier? 20 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Here. 21 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Professor Friedman? 22 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Here. 23 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Dr. Friedman? 24 Mr. McKinnon? 25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Supervisor Patrick? 2 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Here. 3 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Ms. Riordan? 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 5 BOARD CLERK DORAIS: Supervisor Roberts? 6 Chairman Lloyd? 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Here. 8 Welcome, everybody, for the first meeting of 9 2004, a leap year, whatever that connotes. I'd like to 10 start off -- I'd like to make a few comments. The first 11 is with great sadness I'm passing on the information one 12 of our former research screening members, Dr. Jim Ortner, 13 died in an auto accident on the 26th of December. Dr. 14 Ortner was a transportation planning expert who was 15 manager of Government Relations and Air Quality Programs 16 at the Orange County Transportation Authority. Jim also 17 taught Urban and Regional Planning as an adjunct professor 18 at USC. 19 Dr. Ortner spent over 25 years in public and 20 private sector work analyzing problems, developing 21 solutions, and managing projects. He was an excellent 22 communicator, a sterling academic, an active participant 23 in all of the important Southern California transportation 24 and air quality issues and, in fact, was a first rate 25 person. He will, in fact, be sorely missed. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 I'd just like to ask us all to just have a moment 2 of silence. 3 Thank you very much. 4 I'd like to report to my colleagues on the Board 5 that last week we had a very successful meeting here. As 6 you will recollect, last October when the Board adopted 7 the South Coast Air Quality Plan in 2003, the Board 8 directed staff to initiate some meetings with stakeholders 9 so they could gather information as we propose to move 10 forward and to identify how we can meet our air quality 11 goals. 12 I'm happy to report, in fact, the staff took the 13 direction very seriously and aggressively. On the 13th 14 and 14th of this month, we convened a two-day summit on 15 the state implementation plan and the state as the whole, 16 while obviously focused on South Coast, San Joaquin 17 Valley, Sacramento were also key areas that were looked 18 at. I think that the focus was indeed finding a plan to 19 clean air. 20 We're fortunate Secretary Tamminen kicked off the 21 summit with some rousing remarks and challenges and 22 reminded everyone how important air quality is to this 23 Governor. We had a full house of attendees for two days. 24 The second day dropped off a little. And then we had 25 another 750 people all together watching by the Internet PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 broadcast. And we had questions coming in on the 2 Internet, including some from our ex-colleague on the 3 Board, Lyn Egiton. Again the reviews I've heard from the 4 folks in business and the environmental community having 5 sat though that were extremely positive. I think it was a 6 great start to the new year. And I'd like to offer 7 sincere thanks to Catherine for her leadership in chairing 8 that, and all from Lynn, Tom, from Mike and Diane and 9 their staff. And I know there are many more, Bob 10 Fletcher, many people involved. I would say a lot of the 11 agency. 12 So as I said in my memo there, at a time of tight 13 fiscal constraints and the workload ever increasing, I 14 really appreciate the work staff did in this arena. I 15 thought it reflected tremendously. And this is just a 16 start. We, in fact, will take that information very 17 seriously. Terry has asked for a briefing on that, on the 18 ideas staff came up with and from the outside. And we 19 move forward. And I say, I was very, very pleased with 20 the quality of input and the spirit in which that was 21 conducted. 22 Second, you have before you, I think, a copy of 23 an article in the L.A. Times, a print, a lengthy story 24 about the Governor's hydrogen highway network initiative. 25 And the Governor also referred to this initiative in his PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 State of the State address on January the 6th. And in the 2 next month or two, there will be more direction coming 3 from the Governor's office on this subject. We're 4 expecting an Executive Order. And we will expect that 5 both CalEPA and ARB will be tapped for major roles, 6 together as well as other agencies within the state, 7 particularly the Energy Commission. Again, as soon as 8 more details are available, we will share this with the 9 Board. 10 The other thing I think before we get into the 11 meeting is the issue of the status of the Executive Order 12 S-2-03, regulatory record review. I think that's of 13 interest to everybody, all the stakeholders. As we all 14 are aware, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order 15 S-2-03 on November 17th calling for the review of all 16 regulations adopted since 1999 and a review of all rule 17 makings in process. We have received approval from the 18 Department of Finance to proceed with our normal rule 19 making schedule for the coming year. 20 Accordingly, we have one regulatory item up for 21 hearing and vote today. And next month, we will be 22 bringing back for Board consideration three of the four 23 open rule makings this Board has already heard and took 24 testimony at on prior meetings. And recollect we took 25 testimony, we didn't close the record. So people may come PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 back next month and provide additional testimony from what 2 we had before. 3 Just a reminder, those three rules are stationary 4 diesel engine air toxic control measure, the diesel 5 retrofit verification procedures, and the air toxic 6 control measure for transportation refrigeration units, or 7 TRUs. The fourth and final open rule making regarding 8 chip reflash for heavy-duty vehicles will be back on 9 calendar for our March meeting. As you will recollect, 10 the Board gave strong direction to staff and to EMA and 11 the manufacturers that this is an opportunity to try to 12 resolve things in more of a voluntary fashion. So, in 13 fact, staff is taking more time to do that and to complete 14 their discussions with the manufacturers in terms of 15 looking at alternate ways of compliance in that case. 16 That's a summary of where we stand on those 17 issues. Any questions from my colleagues? If not, we'll 18 proceed with Item 04-1-1, public meeting to consider the 19 state of the air quality update. 20 Just a reminder to people here wishing to testify 21 on any of today's agenda items, sign up with the Clerk of 22 the Board. And if you have a written statement, please 23 give 30 copies to the Clerk at that time. 24 I think it's appropriate as we start off that we 25 look at the state of air quality in California. This item PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 is very timely because it follows what I believe was a 2 highly successful summit, as I mentioned, earlier on the 3 state of implementation plan which shows you the progress 4 and, I think, the challenges ahead. As we discussed the 5 summit, we clearly need creative and innovative approaches 6 to meet air quality standards and Governor 7 Schwarzenegger's goal of reducing air pollution by 8 50 percent by 2010, a major challenge that will need all 9 of us to work together. 10 With this item we will highlight not only 11 progress we have made in air quality improvements, but the 12 challenges that lie ahead. As we look back over the last 13 decade, we have made impressive strides, particularly in 14 moving the state much closer to attaining the Federal 15 1-hour ozone standard. 16 I'm especially pleased with the number of areas 17 that have attained the standard within the last decade. 18 This progress reflects the effectiveness of the emission 19 control program adopted by this Board and our federal and 20 local district partners and that demonstrates in real 21 world terms the importance of continuing to push for new 22 emission reductions needed to meet our air quality and 23 public health goals. 24 Again, I think the challenges we see ahead and 25 the reminder that we saw last year about some of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 upturn in violations and the air quality standards at 2 South Coast reminds us we made significant progress, but a 3 lot to do. Also reminds us that because of the continuing 4 emissions from on-road vehicle fleets, I think the goal of 5 driving everything to zero is more important that ever. 6 With that, I'd like to turn it over to 7 Ms. Witherspoon to introduce this item and begin staff 8 presentation. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Good morning, 10 Chairman Lloyd and members of the Board. 11 Today staff will provide a snapshot of the 12 state's air quality from both the statewide and regional 13 perspectives. We'll focus first on the 1-hour ozone 14 standard because that's been the primary focus of our 15 planning effort. And then we'll talk about other federal 16 and state standards. 17 There's been dramatic success in improving air 18 quality with many areas having attained the Federal 1-hour 19 standard. We've also seen real progress in areas like 20 Southern California that don't yet meet the standard. 21 There's much more to be done, of course. But California's 22 commitment to clean air is making a difference. 23 From a more technical standpoint, staff will also 24 discuss how we assess progress and the role that weather 25 can play year to year. This is particularly important as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 we look back and try to understand the nature of the high 2 ozone episodes in Southern California last summer. Staff 3 have put substantial effort into looking at that issue 4 together with the South Coast District staff. 5 Lastly, beyond the existing federal standards, we 6 face considerable challenge in meeting California's own 7 standards and the upcoming Federal 8-hour ozone standard 8 and the 2.5 particulate standard. There are challenges in 9 terms of the magnitude of emission reductions needed and 10 the scope of the nonattainment problem. The good news is 11 that our actions to date are paying off and serve as a 12 strong foundation for future progress. 13 I'll now turn the presentation over to 14 Ms. Rajinder Sahota, and I hope I didn't mangle that name 15 too terribly. 16 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 17 presented as follows.) 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: Thank you, Ms. 19 Witherspoon. 20 Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and members of the 21 Board. 22 During the presentation today, I will discuss the 23 state's current air quality. I will highlight the 24 progress we have made -- 25 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Would you be willing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 to speak up a little more? Perhaps put the microphone 2 closer to you. 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: I will 4 highlight the progress we have made over the last decade 5 and describe the challenges that still lie ahead. The 6 presentation will cover both federal and state air quality 7 standards, as well as progress in reducing statewide 8 exposure to air toxics. 9 Throughout the presentation, we will work through 10 a progression of standards that require increasingly 11 cleaner air and provide greater public health protection. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: First, I will 14 provide some background information on emissions and 15 population trends. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: I'd like to 18 begin by emphasizing that the progress we have made over 19 the years reflects our long history of successful emission 20 control programs. 21 For today's presentation, we will look back to 22 1990 and compare where we were then to today. During that 23 time, we've been able to achieve air quality progress 24 while our population and economy have continued to grow. 25 This slide compares estimated population and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 travel growth with emission trends. It also shows the 2 predicted emission reductions as growth continues through 3 2010. As you can see from the top two lines, California's 4 population and the number of vehicle miles traveled 5 increased by 20 percent between 1990 and 2000. However, 6 during the same time period, emissions declined between 20 7 and 40 percent. This slide shows that even with continued 8 growth through 2010, emissions will continue to decline. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: This slide 11 shows emission trends for the two regions in California 12 with the most severe air quality problems. In contrast to 13 the previous slide, we have combined trends for reactive 14 organic gases and oxides of nitrogen, both precursors to 15 ozone and particulate matter, so we can more easily see 16 the trends. 17 While there are some differences between the two 18 regions, it is important to note that the emission trends 19 are similar to statewide trends. These trends are a 20 result of our statewide emission control program combined 21 with each region's local attainment strategies. As we 22 examine air quality trends, you will be able to see how 23 these emission reductions have resulted in improved air 24 quality. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: I will now 2 discuss federal air quality standards beginning first with 3 ozone. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: Both the 6 United States Environmental Protection Agency and the ARB 7 have adopted air quality standards for ozone. As you can 8 see, there are currently two federal standards. The 9 current state implementation plan is focused on the 1-hour 10 standard as I will discuss in a moment. New requirements 11 are on the way for the 8-hour standard. 12 This slide also shows the state standard which is 13 more stringent than either of the federal standards. The 14 air quality standards identify the target for clean air. 15 California has air quality plans that address both state 16 and federal standards. Now let's look at how well we are 17 doing in meeting the state and federal standards. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: There are a 20 number of indicators that we use to measure progress. 21 These indicators or air quality measurements are 22 statistics. The first is the peak concentration. This is 23 the maximum concentration that occurred each year within a 24 region. 25 The second indicator is the number of days over PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 the standard. The number of days over the standard at 2 different monitoring sites can be mapped to show how 3 widespread violations are within a region. 4 Finally, the third is the design value. This is 5 the high value that indicates how far you are away from 6 the standard. This value is based on air quality data. 7 The design value can be lower than the peak. For example, 8 on average, one federal ozone exceedances per year is 9 allowed. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: We will begin 12 our discussion on progress by looking at the Federal 13 1-hour ozone standard. Over the last decade, attainment 14 of the Federal 1-hour ozone standard has been the focus of 15 our planning efforts. Since 1990, we have six new areas 16 that now qualify for attainment. Approximately 15 million 17 people now live in areas that attain the standard. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: The South 20 Coast, San Joaquin Valley, and the Sacramento region are 21 the three major remaining nonattainment areas. I'll 22 discuss each of these regions and how they have made 23 progress toward attainment of the 1-hour Federal standard. 24 The other nonattainment area includes Imperial County. 25 However, Imperial County was never designated by EPA as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 nonattainment. 2 Of these areas, the most dramatic progress has 3 occurred in the South Coast Air Basin. As we discuss the 4 San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento regions, you will 5 see these two inland valleys have made less progress 6 overall than the South Coast. First, I'll begin with the 7 South Coast, applying two of the air quality indicators, 8 peak concentrations and days over the standard. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: This slide 11 summarizes the progress that has been made in the South 12 Coast. Since 1990, the South Coast Air Basin has seen a 13 significant reduction in peak ozone levels. The number of 14 days in which the standard is exceeded has also declined. 15 The coastal areas of the basin are now close to 16 attainment. The number of days over the standard in peak 17 levels has also declined in in-land portions of the basin. 18 However, some areas that still have relatively high peaks, 19 specifically Santa Clara, just north of San Bernardino 20 Valley and the eastern portion of the basin still remain. 21 The next two slides are maps that illustrate how 22 the average number of days that the standard was exceeded 23 in 1990 compares with 2003 throughout the basin. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: This is a map PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 of the South Coast. It depicts the average number of days 2 that exceeded the standard in 1990 at different monitoring 3 sites. The red areas are regions where there were 100 or 4 greater days above the standard. The gold areas had 50 or 5 more days above the standard. At this time there were no 6 regions with two or fewer days above the standard per 7 year. 8 The next slide you will see is for the 2003 9 period. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: Now the areas 12 of red and gold have disappeared and you see the outline 13 of the lighter green area along the coast. These areas 14 essentially meet the 1-hour standard. 15 We will now discuss what led to this progress. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: Air quality 18 progress of the last twelve years is a result of the 19 comprehensive emission control programs. However, as you 20 will see in the next series of slides, year to year 21 variations in weather can also influence ozone levels. As 22 you watch the slides, note the complete disappearance of 23 the red and gold areas that represent areas with 50 or 100 24 days above the standard and the appearance of the cleaner 25 light green areas. These slides take us from 1989 through PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 2003. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: Here you see 4 the early years in 1989. As the slides progress, you see 5 red and gold disappears and the cleaner light green area 6 appears and continues to grow. Notice that the lighter 7 green area is the largest around 2001 and then shrinks in 8 subsequent years. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: From the maps, 11 the shrinking of the light green area in the more recent 12 years implies an apparent reversal of progress towards 13 cleaner air. In 2003, there were more days above the 14 Federal 1-hour standard than any of the previous five 15 years. Also 2003 had the first stage one alert since 16 1998. A stage one alert is called when ozone levels reach 17 .2 parts per million or greater. But 2003 also had 18 uncommonly severe weather. By severe weather, we mean the 19 weather conditions that have the greatest potential to 20 produce ozone. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: These severe 23 weather conditions are shown in this slide. A large 24 number of days with this type of weather played a major 25 role in causing the upturn in days above the standard and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 in peak ozone levels that occurred in 2003. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: Our analysis 4 indicates that there were more days in 2003 with the 5 potential to produce high ozone than there were for any of 6 the last 24 years. The added opportunities contributed 7 greatly to the increase in the number of days with ozone 8 above the Federal 1-hour standard. We also examined the 9 2003 stage one episode and compared it to an episode with 10 similar severe weather conditions that occurred in 1998. 11 Our comparison showed that the peak levels and the number 12 of monitoring sites that reached stage one levels were 13 both lower in the 2003 episode than in the 1998 episode. 14 In fact, 1998 had five more stage one alerts than 2003 15 under milder weather conditions. Today, severe weather 16 days must exist to generate exceedance days, and 2003 had 17 a record number of those days with those conditions. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: This slide 20 summarizes the air quality indicators for the South Coast 21 Air Basin as a whole. These peak ozone levels have 22 declined by 50 percent over the last twelve years. But as 23 seen by the design value of .17 parts per million, they 24 still have a substantial way to go to reach the .12 level 25 of the standard. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 Now we will shift our focus to the inland valleys 2 starting first with the San Joaquin Valley. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: San Joaquin 5 Valley has seen a 44 percent decrease in days above the 6 standard in the last decade. However, this region remains 7 a challenge. High peak areas still remain, especially in 8 the major urban areas of Fresno and Bakersfield. The 9 geography and climate pose a significant challenge to air 10 quality progress. High temperatures in the summer and 11 trapped area in the valley contribute to high ozone 12 levels. Recently, the district requested a newer 13 classification from severe to extreme, thus extending 14 their attainment deadline reflecting the need for 15 additional time to attain the standard. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: Progress in San 18 Joaquin Valley has not been as dramatic as the progress in 19 South Coast. The good news is the number of days above 20 the standard has declined from 58 to 35. However, the 21 peak values have not declined as much. The current design 22 value of .15 parts per million is still substantially over 23 the standard. 24 The third nonattainment area is the Sacramento 25 region. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: The number of 3 days above the standard has decreased by 60 percent in the 4 last decade. Although exceedances occur in metropolitan 5 areas, the highest values are most commonly found down 6 wind of the metropolitan area. As this region gets close 7 to attainment, weather can play a larger role. As the 8 next slide shows, Sacramento had a relatively small number 9 of days over the standard, which may make weather a 10 critical factor in terms of 2005 attainment. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: The Sacramento 13 region now has an average of six total exceedance days, 14 down from 19. The design value of .14 parts per million 15 is closer to the federal standard of .12 parts per million 16 as compared to San Joaquin Valley. This concludes my 17 discussion of how we are doing towards attainment of the 18 Federal 1-hour ozone standard. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: As we work 21 towards attainment of the 1-hour standard throughout the 22 state, our planning focus will move towards meeting the 23 more health protective 8-hour standard. 24 Now I will turn to a discussion of where we stand 25 with regards to the Federal 8-hour standard. I would like PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 to briefly compare the Federal 1-hour and 8-hour 2 standards. The 8-hour standard is more health protective 3 than the 1-hour standard and will therefore require more 4 emission reductions and time to achieve. 5 U.S. EPA will designate 8-hour ozone 6 nonattainment areas in April of this year and state 7 implementation plans will be due in 2007. To show you how 8 the 8-hour standard compares to the 1-hour standard, we 9 will look at two maps. Both will show the number of days 10 above each of these standards for the same, most recent 11 time period in South Coast. 12 First, we will look at the Federal 1-hour 13 standard. This is the Federal 1-hour standard of .12 14 parts per million. It compares the days above the 15 standard for the South Coast Air Basin. Please note there 16 are no red or gold areas showing 50 or more days above the 17 standard. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: In contrast, 20 the map of the Federal 8-hour standard of .08 parts per 21 million shows exceedances of greater than 50 days as shown 22 with the gold area. Since the 8-hour standard is more 23 stringent than the Federal 1-hour, more areas will be in 24 nonattainment for the 8-hour standard. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: In addition to 2 South Coast, San Joaquin, and the Sacramento region, the 3 urban areas of the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, and 4 Ventura, which currently attain the 1-hour standard, will 5 also be nonattainment areas. Also some mountain county 6 areas which attain the Federal 1-hour standard are also 7 expected to be nonattainment for the 8-hour standard. The 8 areas underlined on the slide are areas that are new to 9 the federal ozone planning process. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: In summarizing 12 our progress towards the federal ozone standards, we see 13 we have made significant progress toward meeting the 14 standard in the last decade. Six new areas now meet the 15 Federal 1-hour standard. Three major areas remain 16 nonattainment, and the more health protective 8-hour 17 standard will require more emission reductions. However, 18 all of the emission control programs implemented for the 19 1-hour standard have contributed to progress on the 8-hour 20 standard. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: Now I'd like to 23 turn our attention to the federal particulate matter 24 standard. We have multiple standards for addressing the 25 complexity of particulate matter pollution. Similar to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 ozone, there are both federal and state standards, as well 2 as two different averaging times, a 24-hour standard and 3 an annual standard. However, unlike ozone, we also have 4 the added complexity of standards for different size 5 fractions of particulate matter, including particles 6 smaller than 10 microns in size for PM10 and particles 7 smaller than 2.5 microns in size for PM2.5. It is 8 important to note that PM2.5 is a component or subset of 9 PM10. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: We will begin 12 by looking at the progress on the Federal PM10 standard. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: As shown on the 15 map, since 1990, four new areas now meet the PM10 16 standard. These areas include Sacramento County, areas in 17 Searles Valley, portions of San Bernardino, and Mammoth 18 Lakes. To orient you regarding a couple of these areas, 19 the Searles Valley includes the high desert areas of Ridge 20 Crest and China Lake. The San Bernardino attainment area 21 extends from Victorville and Barstow eastward. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: The remaining 24 nonattainment areas can be broken into three groups 25 depending on the nature of their particulate matter PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 problem. The first group includes areas where fugitive 2 dust is the dominant contributor. These areas, including 3 Owens Lake, Coso Junction, Mono Basin, and the Coachella 4 Valley are actively implementing a variety of dust control 5 measures to address the problem. 6 The Imperial Valley represents a unique situation 7 due to both fugitive dust and transport across the border 8 from Mexico. We'll also be watching salt and seawater 9 diversion issues due to the potential for greater fugitive 10 dust impacts. 11 Finally, the last group comprised of the South 12 Coast and the San Joaquin Valley represents the most 13 complex problem with contributions from a wide variety of 14 sources. Both of these areas updated their state 15 implementation plans in 2003. The additional control 16 measures in these plans will build upon the progress that 17 has already been achieved in these areas. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: The first slide 20 illustrates progress towards the federal 24-hour standard 21 in the South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley. The bars 22 represent the average number of days per year above the 23 24-hour standard during the periods 1991 through 1997 and 24 1997 through 2002. There has been a 70 percent decrease 25 in the number of days above the standard in the South PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 Coast and a decrease of 40 percent in the San Joaquin 2 Valley. 3 The South Coast effectively attains the federal 4 24-hour PM10 standard with a remaining few exceedances in 5 recent years due to natural windblown dust events. In 6 contrast, the San Joaquin Valley has a more complex and 7 sever 24 hour PM10 problem. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: The next slide 10 shows the progress in the annual Federal PM10 standard. 11 Similar to ozone, year to year variability in annual 12 average concentrations can be influenced by weather 13 patterns. Despite this variability, annual average 14 concentrations in both the South Coast and the San Joaquin 15 Valley have shown a decrease of 25 percent since 1990. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: I will now move 18 on to the Federal PM2.5 standards. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: Although the 21 federal PM2.5 standards are new and state implementation 22 plans have not been developed, progress has already 23 occurred in reducing statewide exposure to PM2.5. Since 24 1988, PM2.5 concentrations have shown a 20 to 30 percent 25 decrease. This decrease can be contributed to ongoing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 control programs that have reduced directly emitted PM2.5 2 and the precursor emissions that form secondary 3 particulate. The precursor emissions are primarily 4 combustion related. 5 In 1999, a more extensive network of PM2.5 6 monitoring was implemented that will be used to assess 7 compliance with the new Federal PM2.5 Standards. This 8 network will also help us better understand the nature of 9 the PM2.5 problem and provide information to more 10 effectively target control strategies. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: Based on the 13 expanded monitoring program, there are now areas that are 14 expected to be nonattainment for the Federal PM2.5 15 standard. These areas include the large urban areas of 16 the South Coast, the San Joaquin Valley and San Diego as 17 well as a small areas that encompass the city of Calexico. 18 Calexico is influenced by transport from the neighboring 19 city of Mexicali. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: The severity of 22 the PM2.5 problem, however, differs in these four areas. 23 Both the South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley are far 24 above the Federal PM2.5 Standards, and as with PM10, 25 represent the largest challenge. In contrast, both PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 San Diego and Calexico attained the Federal 24-hour 2 standard and are only slightly above the annual standard. 3 The planning horizon for PM2.5 will occur over the next 4 ten years. The U.S. EPA is expected to issue final 5 designations by December 2004. This will require a state 6 implementation plan to be submitted by 2007. Attainment 7 deadlines are expected to extend from 2009 through 2014, 8 depending upon the severity of the problem in each area. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: In summary, we 11 have made progress toward attaining the Federal PM10 12 standard in several areas, especially in areas with 13 fugitive dust problems. PM10 concentrations in the South 14 Coast and the San Joaquin Valley are declining and both 15 areas are on track towards their respective Federal PM10 16 attainment deadlines of 2006 and 2010. In addition, since 17 1988, we have seen statewide reductions in PM2.5 18 concentrations between 20 and 30 percent, in large part 19 due to precursor emission reductions from our ozone 20 control programs. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: That concludes 23 our discussion on the federal standards. Now I will 24 briefly talk about the state standards. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: Generally, our 2 state standards are more health protective than the 3 federal standard. This is especially true with respect to 4 ozone and particulate matter. We periodically review the 5 standards. Recently, the Board revised the PM10 state 6 standard and adopted new PM2.5 annual standards. In 7 conjunction with the Office of Environmental Health, 8 Hazard, and Assessment, we are reviewing the state ozone 9 and NO2 standards. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: Most of 12 California's urban areas exceed the state ozone standard, 13 and virtually all areas exceed the PM10 standards. The 14 state CO standard is attained statewide with two 15 exceptions, the localized area of the South Coast and 16 Calexico. Standards for several other pollutants, 17 including nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead are 18 also attained statewide. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: These maps show 21 the current ozone and PM10 nonattainment areas. As you 22 can see, we still have a long way to go before the more 23 health protective PM10 standards are attained statewide. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: Even though we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 are far from attainment of the state ozone and particulate 2 matter standards, we have made progress. Since 1990, 3 three new areas have attained the state ozone standard. 4 Statewide, days over the state ozone standard along with 5 peak levels have declined, most notably in the South 6 Coast. Less progress has occurred in the inland valleys. 7 We have also reduced PM10 exceedances. In the last 8 decade, South Coast attained the NO2 standard which 9 brought the entire state into attainment. To close our 10 discussion of the state standards, I would like to briefly 11 discuss date planning time frames. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: Unlike federal 14 standards, there are no attainment deadlines for state 15 standards. Instead, state law requires they be attained 16 as expeditiously as possible. Air quality plans include 17 all feasible measures to ensure steady progress towards 18 attainment. Districts are required to update plans 19 triennially and are reviewed by ARB. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: For air toxics, 22 we have seen improvements as well. However, the 23 cumulative impacts of toxics are still too high in our 24 communities. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: On a statewide 2 basis, the potential cancer risk is driven by exposure to 3 diesel particulate matter, benzene and 1, 3 Butadiene. 4 These air toxics are almost exclusively due to motor 5 vehicle emissions. Diesel particulates specifically 6 account for 70 percent of the known cancer risk from air 7 toxics in our urban areas. In addition to the regional 8 nature of these toxics, we need to consider localized 9 impacts from these and other air toxics, such as 10 perchloroethylene and hexavalent chromium. These air 11 toxics may have significant impacts to residents living 12 near the source of the emissions. In looking at both air 13 quality data and the results of our emission control 14 programs, we find that there has also been significant 15 progress in reducing the public's exposure to air toxics, 16 both on a statewide and localized basis. 17 Since 1990 we have seen large decreases in air 18 toxics. We estimate that diesel particulate have been 19 reduced by over 50 percent. We have seen ambient levels 20 of benzene and 1, 3 Butadiene reduced by over 75 percent 21 and 50 percent respectively. These gains are due to our 22 control programs for motor vehicles and fuels. 23 For other air toxics that are not mobile source 24 related, we have seen similar reductions. For example, 25 ambient levels of perchloroethylene have dropped by 70 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 percent. For a number of other potent air toxics that 2 have big near source impact such as hexavilent chromium, 3 we have adopted airborne toxic control measures that have 4 achieved greater than 95 percent reduction in emissions 5 from individual sources. 6 In the future, we expect continued improvements 7 in air toxics as the diesel risk reduction program, the 8 motor vehicle control program, and our source specific air 9 toxic control measures are implemented. These collective 10 programs will clearly reduce the near source and 11 cumulative impacts of air toxics. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: In summary, 14 statewide air quality has improved in the last decade. 15 Exposures to ozone, particulate matter, and toxics have 16 declined. New areas have come into attainment for several 17 standards. Overall, progress has been slower in the 18 inland valleys for state ozone and particulate matter. 19 And lastly, this progress has occurred despite growth in 20 population and vehicle travel. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHOTA: As we look 23 ahead, our primary focus will be on reducing air pollution 24 by 50 percent, attaining the state and federal standards, 25 and reducing air toxics. Our emission reduction programs PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 are essential to meeting these goals. We will continue to 2 partner with local air districts and U.S. EPA in these 3 efforts because we each have an important role to play. 4 Thank you. This concludes staff's presentation. 5 We would be happy to answer any questions that you might 6 have. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 8 Questions from my colleagues? 9 Ms. Riordan. 10 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, thinking 11 back to the fires that occurred, you know, this fall in 12 the South Coast area, I'm just wondering if there is any 13 consideration given to the measurement of the PM. Because 14 now we have all of this ash that's easily blowing from one 15 area to another. Or does it cause any difficulty in the 16 measurements of PM? I mean, do they factor it in, factor 17 it out? What do they do? 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Fire-caused 19 violations are generally excluded from the count of 20 violations when you're determining nonattainment areas and 21 nonattainment strategies because they're considered 22 exceptional events. But we have done an analysis of the 23 fires. That's posted on our website. We're adding to it 24 over time as we learn more. Because everyone wanted to 25 know as it was occurring and have wanted to know since, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 what peak levels did we reach? What was the composition 2 of the particulate? And as you say, what residual 3 problems remain that we might experience? 4 And, for example, the federal government wanted 5 us to examine whether asbestos made its way into these 6 fires as structures went up in smoke. A lot of those 7 analyses were done by us in concert with local districts 8 and with the U.S. EPA. And we've been posting the answers 9 as we've gone along. 10 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Because I'm thinking the 11 weather, of course, is very dry now in Southern 12 California. So you have really no rain or moisture to 13 begin to hold this ash down. It's really going to be a 14 serious consideration. But if they treat it as an unusual 15 occurrence, I think that's, from my point of view, 16 realistic. Because it's just a most unusual situation. 17 But it could be a big factor in people's health 18 ultimately. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I think you're 20 right. We're keeping our eye on that. 21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Questions? Any questions? 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I just wanted to 24 emphasize one point, that 2007 is going to be a banner 25 year. I don't know if you noticed, but the ozone plans PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 are due that year. The PM2.5 is due that year. And 2 though it wasn't covered in the slides, that's also the 3 time at which we have to define all of the black box 4 measures for the South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley. 5 So it's going to be a wonderful and busy attainment 6 planning year. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, I had a couple of 8 comments. On the last slide, I think we should, rather 9 than leaving the wrong opinion here, focus on rather than 10 reducing air pollution 50 percent, eliminating air 11 pollution. Clearly, I think the target is 50 percent 12 by -- we're talking about 2010. But the target is 13 actually to basically eliminate our job so, in fact, we 14 cured the problem. That will take a while. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I think that was 16 a reference to the Governor's environmental action plan 17 where he called for a 50 percent reduction in pollution. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: By 2010. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The actual 20 reduction we need depends on each area's nonattainment 21 problem. We need more than that to meet state standards. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The other question I had was 23 on 54 when you've indicated there that the areas 24 expecting -- what are the expected PM2.5 federal 25 nonattainment areas? Sacramento wasn't in there. So they PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 will attain? Sacramento will attain? 2 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Yes. That's 3 right. They have been in attainment of the Federal PM10 4 standard for some time. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And the 2.5 you don't think 6 is a problem? 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: That's right, 8 based on the current monitoring data. I don't believe 9 they're terribly close. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good. 11 Dr. Burke. 12 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Can I invite the young lady 13 down to the South Coast Board meeting to give this 14 presentation to South Coast Board at our next Board 15 meeting? And South Coast will be glad to pick it up. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I will be greatly delighted. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: The last line of questions 18 reminded me of something that I thought about as we were 19 going through the slides. If an area is currently 20 designated as nonattainment and the standards change, I 21 assume it's just as simple as -- well, if you call it 22 simple -- going through the process to update the plan in 23 order to reflect the new standards. What if an area is 24 designated attainment? And now with new standards coming 25 into place, what is the process in that situation? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Well, basically 2 with a new standard, it's a whole new planning process 3 that is initiated. So whether or not an area was 4 attainment for previous standard or nonattainment, 5 basically the Clean Air Act says three years after U.S. 6 EPA's designation, plans are due. So everybody is 7 starting from that standpoint, regardless of the previous 8 classification. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Supervisor DeSaulnier. 10 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Just for Catherine, since 11 you brought it up in the second to the last slide, do you 12 see the Board becoming a little more aggressive on VMT by 13 2007? Maybe a lot more aggressive? It just seems like in 14 order to meet these kinds of goals, we're going to have to 15 do something about vehicle miles traveled. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We provided 17 analyses at the SIP summit last week of what kind of 18 progress we would have made had VMT been held constant. I 19 think that answer was 20 percent more progress -- wasn't 20 that it, Lynn -- that had we not experienced the growth in 21 VMT -- and if you're asking are we going to go back to 22 ride sharing strategies and direct source control, et 23 cetera, those are all district programs. They all exist 24 and they're still defined as all feasible measures. We 25 haven't retracted -- this Board hasn't retracted that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 declaration that those are on the list of measures people 2 can consider and pursue. So each district has that before 3 it. 4 And the cogs in each region are continuing to 5 look at VMT reductions because congestion is driving them 6 even more than air quality. So whether we'll issue 7 updated guidance or not, we haven't thought through. We 8 were encouraged at the SIP summit to get more serious 9 about smart growth, to engage more forcefully in land use 10 planning. And we asked back, how would you suggest we do 11 that? How can the Air Board be the most influential and 12 what sectors? And maybe you have some advice for us in 13 that regard too. 14 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: You already know how I 15 feel. I think we should be more aggressive. I think 16 there's a general sense, at least speaking for the Bay 17 Area and the little bit I get to see from other areas, is 18 a sense of denial and maybe not full responsibility from 19 the MPOs in particular. And I'll admit MTC feels that 20 way. So at some point I guess the question is, can we 21 make these goals realistically, just hoping on technology 22 improvements, or are we going to have do to something 23 about VMT to meet the goals that are ahead for us? 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The answer we 25 provided last week is the VMT measures become increasingly PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 less useful as the fleet gets cleaner. So we're chasing 2 our tails to some extent. That's not the case with truck 3 traffic, I suppose, where we haven't cleaned the trucks to 4 the same degree we've cleaned the cars. But it's a 5 diminishing return strategy. And I see it more of a 6 quality of life issue, having us not be on terribly 7 congested freeways and losing all our precious time. But 8 how much we can use air quality to move that is the issue. 9 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Sounds like you want our 10 mission to be expanded. Thank you. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I know that you 12 do. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Are you referring to this 14 Board or your Bay Area Board, Mark? 15 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Sorry. I just came back 16 from a long flight. No. It's important, I think. And 17 how we do it -- I know there's jurisdictional problems in 18 terms of whose responsibility is which. But at least 19 continued incentives and reminders, I think, is the very 20 least we're going to have to do. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Just to go on to 22 the truck issue a little more. We were asked to look at a 23 comprehensive way of goods movement and so that our 24 strategies for ships, rail, and trucks were mutually 25 reinforcing, and that also did lead us to greater PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 efficiency and fewer emissions from that entire category 2 of activity. That's something we certainly want to 3 pursue. 4 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 6 Mr. Calhoun. 7 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I think it's fairly 8 obvious for anyone driving in from the eastern end of the 9 basin, Palm Desert and Palm Springs, that when you arrive 10 at a certain spot driving in the western direction, it's 11 almost like a blanket being pulled down over your head. 12 And is that because of transport? Do we attribute most of 13 that to transport? What is the primary cause? 14 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: The phenomena of 15 the area basin is really what you're describing, which is 16 at the outer reaches of the air basin. It's trapped to 17 some degree, although there is an outlet and there is 18 transport, and that accounts for violations in the Mohave 19 Desert Air District, for example. We take that into 20 account in the planning process. 21 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Have we seen any changes 22 in the trend over the years? Our precursors have 23 obviously been reduced. But what about the particulates 24 themselves? Do we see a change in the trend line there? 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, the peak PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 has moved further east by a result of the emissions being 2 reduced in the inland basin. We've certainly seen that. 3 And those maps showing the green and red and gold areas, 4 you could see that eastward movement of the cleaner areas. 5 Both the peaks and the number of days have shifted to the 6 east. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dr. Burke. 8 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: That curtain that 9 Mr. Calhoun was talking about is kind of a double-edged 10 sword. Out of the Port of Long Beach and Los Angeles, 11 there are a hundred thousand truck trips a day. And they 12 built the Alameda Corridor to try and mitigate some of the 13 truck traffic off the freeways and cut down on the idling 14 time, therefore cut down on the emissions. Alameda 15 Corridor has not worked. It is not servicing the number 16 of truck traffic that they thought it would. So it's 17 still on the freeway. 18 On the other side of the sword is that the people 19 in Riverside are saying that the dispersion, the 20 redistribution of the trucks once they get to the end of 21 the Alameda Corridor is causing more problems than it's 22 worth. So here we have this billion dollar project which 23 was supposed to help, but I'm not sure it really has, to 24 any great degree. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'm a little bit surprised PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 having driven down there but not that frequently because I 2 remember in the '70s, Mr. Calhoun, when, in fact, that was 3 really a very sharp blanket you could see coming in there 4 every afternoon. And at that time, of course, it was 5 indicated it was all transport from the west and then 6 recognize that wasn't the case. It was home grown as well 7 as transport. 8 I would guess -- the other thing that is 9 difficult sometimes when you correlate visibility and 10 ozone -- I remember there was a period of time when 11 visibility was bad because ozone was high. But of course, 12 that's the particulate side. But again, as I think staff 13 indicated, it's a complex problem. But I didn't think -- 14 because the people I talked to, people in the Inland 15 Empire typically say that the visibility has improved a 16 lot except for some selected days. 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: That is true, 18 Mr. Chairman. It's very true. And the curtain is just 19 sort of right over my house. And the passes, the Banning 20 Pass, where we used to measure our particulate -- well, we 21 measured everything there. And then the Cajun Pass, those 22 are the big passes that either hold it in or let it out, 23 depending on the weather. You know, but there has been 24 tremendous improvement. And some people who have only 25 lived in the area a short time don't see that. Those of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 us who have lived there a long time clearly know what the 2 improvement has been. And I'm delighted to see some of 3 the graphs here because they substantiate what many of us 4 just see visually. 5 And so, you know, we're making progress. While 6 some things like the Alameda Corridor may not have 7 contributed to the progress, we certainly are making 8 substantial progress in the South Coast Basin, I believe. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 10 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. Just sort of a 11 more positive observation. It seems to me that we have 12 some older ill-maintained cars on the road that we might 13 not have had, and it seems like we sort of hung in there. 14 As I look to the future as we have cleaner and cleaner 15 cars that are being designed to stay clean for longer 16 periods of time, I think that bodes well for our progress. 17 Any comment from staff on that? 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We agree 19 completely. We need to figure out how to get the old cars 20 off the road or clean them up. One of the two. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What is the status of sort of 22 reporting high emitting smelly vehicles? I know -- I 23 guess, is there a state number you can call? I know South 24 Coast had a program. Is that still there? 25 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: 1-800-GET-SMOG. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Do we have a statewide one? 2 And what about the Bay Area? 3 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Yep. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And how have the number of -- 5 just smoking or smelly? 6 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I don't 7 know which ones people actually report most frequently. 8 But I think most of them is when they see a really smoky 9 vehicle. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Then they still follow up 11 with a warning or something or a suggestion? 12 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right. 13 And there's a cell phone number that attempts to -- I 14 forget what the number is. But it attempts to link you to 15 the area that you saw the problem, rather than where your 16 cell phone is from. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But I've had lots of 18 discussion on remote sensing, which is a critical one. 19 But my experience in driving around, you can either see or 20 your nose is a very good detector for high emitters. And 21 you can smell it for miles. And if people are just more 22 proactive in calling those numbers in, we could probably 23 do quite a bit, as long as there's some follow up. 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There's a gross 25 emitter in my neighborhood with a license plate that says, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 "Dr. CEQA." I think, how ironic. I hope he's listening. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So you're saying he's still 3 running. How many times have you reported him? 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Just once. 5 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: California license plate, 6 we can all report him. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 8 I guess since nobody signed up and this is not a 9 regulatory item, we don't have to officially close the 10 record. Again, I thank staff for an excellent 11 presentation. And I appreciate Dr. Burke's request. And 12 I think any other district who would like such a 13 presentation, I think staff would be happy to provide 14 that. 15 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Mr. Chairman, I certainly 16 think that would be helpful for the San Joaquin Valley as 17 well, although we don't have those neat pictures that you 18 all have of the South Coast that shows the progress that's 19 being made. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We weren't able 21 to do the computer generation because the monitoring 22 network isn't as dense in San Joaquin Valley. But we hope 23 to be able to do that in the future. 24 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chairman, we'd love 25 to have the presentation in the Bay Area, and we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 appreciate Dr. Burke offering to pick up the tab for it. 2 (Laughter) 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thinking of the Bay Area, I'd 4 just like to say, by the way, Supervisor Roberts was on 5 his way to this meeting. But I think his flight was 6 diverted to Oakland probably because of weather. So he 7 may not be here. So I just wanted to say to my colleagues 8 here, that's a note I got a while ago. 9 So with that, let's move on to the next agenda 10 item. We'll have a minute for staff to change. 11 Item 04-1-2, public meeting to consider a health 12 update. Today's update will discuss recent research on 13 the effects of pollutant transport from Asia on background 14 PM concentrations in California and on air quality and 15 public health in California. I'm happy to see the growing 16 recognition that air pollution is, in fact, a global 17 phenomenon. The better we understand the source of 18 pollutants measured in California, the better we can craft 19 plans to achieve our health-based air quality standards. 20 Just want to say in this presentation, while it 21 highlights the air quality, this is just one example of 22 the global nature of transport of air pollution. So as 23 California emissions also impact outlining areas -- and I 24 know that myself, as you look at the Grand Canyon's 25 visibility and California's impact on that. So I say PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 we're not picking on this particular segment. It's a 2 global phenomena. When I was growing up in the UK, 3 Britain was sending SO2 to Sweden and there was acid 4 deposition there. 5 But I think as we get a better understanding of 6 what's going on, I think it's important that we craft 7 strategies. So with that, it's very clear everybody needs 8 to do their share. And the other important piece of this 9 is the need to get advanced technology out as much as 10 possible. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to 11 Ms. Witherspoon to introduce the item and begin staff 12 presentation. 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 14 Chairman Lloyd. 15 Most of us are familiar with the Asian dust cloud 16 due to forest -- excuse me -- deforestation in that 17 country but less familiar with how it affects other places 18 around the globe. And Tony Vancuren has been studying 19 this phenomena for the last three years and attempting to 20 quantify the impacts on clean monitoring sites in 21 California where that contribution can be discerned apart 22 from other homegrown pollution sources. That is the 23 thrust of his presentation this morning, and I'd turn it 24 over to Tony at this point. 25 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 presented as follows.) 2 DR. VANCUREN: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon, 3 Chairman Lloyd, members of the Board. 4 This presentation is about global scale 5 pollution. It appears today as a health update because we 6 want to highlight the connections between what is 7 occurring globally and here in California. 8 In recent years, ARB has made a significant 9 effort to share technical expertise with our Pacific Basin 10 neighbors and to promote adoption of advanced pollution 11 control methods worldwide. The research I'm reporting to 12 you today makes that effort even more urgent. 13 When we started studying air pollution in the 14 middle of last century, it was universally seen as a local 15 problem of industrial and urban areas. Today, we're on 16 the brink of an enormous global economic transformation in 17 which hundreds of millions of people will move from 18 traditional livelihood to modern energy intensive 19 lifestyles. 20 The environmental consequences of this change are 21 only dimly foreseen, but one thing is becoming clear. In 22 the future, we will all live downwind of one another, and 23 we will need to adjust our thinking accordingly. 24 In the next new minutes, I'll summarize my recent 25 research into measuring how much Asian particulate area PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 pollution impacts California. 2 --o0o-- 3 DR. VANCUREN: Satellites provide a global 4 coverage and give us a unique view of global pollution. 5 This animation shows satellite measurements of carbon 6 monoxide over the Pacific Ocean from March through 7 December of 2000. Carbon monoxide comes from biomass 8 burning and the use of fossil fuel and is a general tracer 9 for anthropogenic pollution. The underlying map shows the 10 ocean as deep blue and the convents as light blue. The CO 11 concentrations are shown increasing from pale green to 12 deep read. The animation shows the movement of gaseous 13 carbon monoxide, but particles follow much the same path. 14 As this animation runs, I want to point out two 15 major features. First, there's much more carbon monoxide 16 in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, an 17 obvious effect of the human population in the northern 18 hemisphere. 19 Second, we see obvious hot spots associated with 20 major pollution centers, such as China or eastern North 21 America and areas of intensive biomass burning, such as 22 Indonesia and equatorial South America. The flow of 23 pollutants across the north Pacific from Asia to 24 California is obvious in this animation, but it has been 25 elusive to measure on the ground. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 --o0o-- 2 DR. VANCUREN: In April of 1998, there were two 3 enormous dust storms generated over the Baklava and Gobi 4 Deserts of Northern China. These dust clouds were readily 5 visible in weather satellite images, widely noted in the 6 press, and written up in scientific journals. These dust 7 events were generally regarded as freak occurrences. 8 However, when I looked at the weather data for these 9 events, it became clear that although the dust was 10 unusual, the overall wind patterns were not. So I decided 11 to search historical PM sampling records for previous 12 episodes of Asian dust. 13 --o0o-- 14 DR. VANCUREN: The top graph shows the modeled 15 dust load over California for the last two weeks in April 16 of 1998. And you can see the two peaks from these two 17 overlapping dust storms. 18 The box diagram shows how that same curve appears 19 in the records from twice the weekly sampling at 36 20 monitoring sites at national parks and wilderness areas in 21 the western U.S. The data are arranged from west to east, 22 and you can see the two-hump pattern repeated at the east 23 site as the dust clouds moved across the continent. 24 Analyzing these 1998 events, I found a 25 distinctive chemical profile for the Asian dust and used PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 that profile to search the entire decade of improved data. 2 To my surprise, I found that small amounts of Asian dust 3 on the order of half a microgram per cubic meter were calm 4 at improved sites across the west and occasionally 5 detectable even on the east coast. 6 The bottom right plot shows monthly Asian dust 7 frequency from Mount Lassen for the decade 1989 to 1999. 8 Clearly, the pattern of nearly continuous transports 9 suggested by the carbon monoxide data on the previous 10 slide is mimicked by the dust. Our paper in the Journal 11 of Geophysical research in December of 2002 was the first 12 to use ground observations to show the persistence of 13 trans-pacific transport. 14 --o0o-- 15 DR. VANCUREN: The dust was easy to find in the 16 improved records due to its unique chemistry, but it only 17 accounted for a small fraction of total PM in the samples. 18 Using the dust as a marker for the presence of Asian air 19 masses, I was subsequently able to identify what other 20 material accompanied the dust. The Asian material was 21 easiest to recognize at Crater Lake, Oregon, and Mount 22 Lassen, California, which have the least exposure to North 23 American pollutants of any improved sites. 24 Using statistical methods, I was able to identify 25 groups of pollutants that vary together and classify them PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 into categories such as local road dust, fires, and the 2 dusty Asian plume. Averaged over the months March through 3 October for the decade 1989 to 1999, PM from Asia 4 constitutes about two-thirds of the total PM10 at Crater 5 Lake and Mount Lassen and more than four-fifths of the 6 fine material. 7 The Asian PM plume is roughly half carbonatious 8 and about a quarter each dust and sulfate. Although it is 9 difficult to accurately define how much dust is natural, 10 the fact that it comes almost daily means that windblown 11 dust is only a small portion of the total dust load. The 12 rest is due to human activity in Asia, such as farms, dirt 13 roads, and other sources. At about five micrograms per 14 cubic meter PM10, about three micrograms per cubic meter 15 PM2.5, the Asian material alone constitutes about a 16 quarter of the California annual average PM10 and PM2.5 17 standards. These findings were published last October in 18 the Journal of Geophysical Research. 19 --o0o-- 20 DR. VANCUREN: The analysis of the improved data 21 showed that Asian PM is a major component of the 22 background over California. However, the intermittent 23 sampling in the improvement work left some questions 24 unresolved. 25 In spring of 2002, an international consortium of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 researchers conducted the 2000 inter-continental transport 2 and chemical transformation study. Dr. Steven Cliff of UC 3 Davis collected continuous aerosol samples for six weeks 4 at Trinidad Head and two elevated inland sites, Trinity 5 Alps and Mount Lassen. When Dr. Cliff and I looked at 6 these data, we saw abundant oceanic PM at Trinidad Head, 7 but it was insignificant at the mountain sites. 8 Conversely, we saw virtually continuous Asian influence at 9 the mountain sites. 10 The top two plots show that during this 11 experiment, the Asian component explained virtually all of 12 the PM at Trinity and Mount Lassen. Moreover, as can be 13 seen in the bottom plot, the mountain sites tracked one 14 another very closely over the sampling period, emphasizing 15 that we were seeing a broad regional pattern, not local 16 PM. These data show that small amounts of Asian -- the 17 improved data show that small amounts of Asian dust are 18 ubiquitous at mountain sites in the west, and these data 19 show that Asian transport is nearly continuous. 20 --o0o-- 21 DR. VANCUREN: The fact that Asian transport is 22 strongest at mountain sites shows the importance of 23 layering in the atmosphere over the Eastern Pacific and 24 coastal North America. And the result is that the impact 25 is smaller at low altitude sites than in the mountains. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 The upper plots show monthly Asian Point Reyes on the left 2 and Mount Lassen on the right. The dust is relatively 3 rare at Point Reyes, but common at Mount Lassen. 4 The bottom diagram illustrates the inversion 5 layer created by cool stable air over cold ocean waters 6 prevents Asian impact along the coast. Air coming across 7 the Pacific above the marine layer is prevented from 8 reaching sea level and the coastal sites record very 9 little Asian effect. Because surface inversions prevent 10 mixing with overlying air, we believe that Asian material 11 is generally precluded from mixing with trapped pollutants 12 during high pollution episodes in populated areas such as 13 the San Francisco Bay, South Coast, or San Joaquin Valley. 14 Thanks to this effect, Asian transport is not likely to 15 exacerbate our problems on high pollution days. But it 16 will have a small effect on annual average PM 17 concentrations. 18 --o0o-- 19 DR. VANCUREN: The findings of this research are 20 these: That transport of Asian dust is a frequent and 21 natural process. However, today, the dust is accompanied 22 by anthropogenic emissions. The average Asian aerosol 23 load at elevated sites is small, about a quarter of 24 California's stringent PM10 and PM2.5 standards, about a 25 fifth of the Federal PM10 standard. In rural areas in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 California that are relatively pollution-free, especially 2 the mountain sites, Asian aerosols are a major component 3 of PM. In the populated low land areas where most 4 Californians live, Asian pollutant impacts are limited and 5 do not appear to contribute to high concentration events. 6 --o0o-- 7 DR. VANCUREN: The implications of this work for 8 California's air programs are these. The average Asian 9 aerosol load at elevated sites is small relative to the 10 health based air quality standards, does not appear to be 11 a major health concern. Because Asian PM dominates 12 background PM at some sites, it needs to be explicitly 13 considered in our regional haze analysis. High 14 concentration, such as the 1998 dust storms, may cause or 15 contribute to violating health based air quality 16 standards. But such events are very rare, perhaps once a 17 decade. However, we need to be aware of them and deal 18 with them as exceptional events. 19 In the past, we have offered our expertise to our 20 Pacific Rim neighbors as a gesture of good will to 21 neighbors and trading partners. We now see the technology 22 transfer also serves our own air quality goals as well. 23 For the time being, the Asian PM impact is a 24 minor problem for California. We hope that Asian 25 pollution controls will evolve rapidly, compensating for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 the expected growth. Just to be sure, we will continue to 2 monitor this problem. 3 Thank you for your attention. I'd be happy to 4 answer any questions. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Dr. 6 Vancuren. I think there's fascinating results there. 7 Again, reminded we heard early in the 8 presentations on the status of air quality concerns about 9 transport from Mexico. And now we see that, in fact, we 10 are to be alert for transport from all over, and obviously 11 that's a global issue. 12 The other point you, I think, talked about, the 13 desire we've had as a Board to make sure and to enter into 14 agreements with some of our partners in the emergent 15 areas. And I think that, again, reinforces our need to 16 defuse our knowledge in those areas, particularly as we 17 look at the rapid expansion in Asia, I think there's an 18 opportunity. 19 And the other part of that is, of course, you say 20 it's now an enormous opportunity for California in terms 21 of the technologies and the job creation and whatnot to 22 help these technologies be applied in the areas. And of 23 course, some of those as we've seen in the fuel economy 24 standards, some we have to recognize are moving ahead of 25 us. But I think there are enormous opportunities. And as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 you said so rightly, really, it's in our own interest both 2 economically and from public health to work together to 3 look at these problems. 4 So it's not only as we look at global climate 5 change, but also I'm reminded when you look at CO. Of 6 course, CO eventually goes to CO2, one of the greenhouse 7 gases we're controlling as well. It's fascinating. It 8 was very great. 9 Questions? 10 Professor Friedman. 11 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: To what extent can 12 we expect that the evolving increase in use of internal 13 combustion engines in Asia, particularly China and other 14 places where the vehicle is rapidly replacing the bicycle 15 or whatever was being used previously -- to what extent is 16 that going to exacerbate the transport to our part of the 17 world? 18 DR. VANCUREN: Well, there's actually sort of two 19 extremes in the answer to that question. One is the 20 projections done by the international energy analysis 21 groups who simply draw straight lines of energy 22 consumption versus economic growth. And they predict 23 ten-fold increase over the next 50 years of NOx emissions 24 and things like that in Asia. So it would be reasonable 25 based on that scenario to say there's a very large impact. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 The alternative scenario argues that -- 2 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: That's NOx, but what 3 about PM? 4 DR. VANCUREN: They predict things like NOx and 5 PM and such. But based on their scenarios, they would run 6 more or less along that same path. The alternative 7 scenario, and one that's supported by James Hanson at NASA 8 and others, is that local area pollution will become so 9 severe, and already is so severe, in the Asia mega-cities, 10 that local control efforts will kick in. So we'll see a 11 considerable flattening of that growth curve. 12 What we'll see rather than growth in emissions on 13 a point basis, we'll see rather a larger geographic area 14 where there is heavy urbanization and more vehicle 15 traffic. So that suggests a much lower growth rate. The 16 difference in ranges between projections of about 10 17 percent a year growth down to about 1 percent a year 18 growth. I'm not really sufficiently skilled in economic 19 modeling, especially on the global scale, to pick between 20 those extremes. But the answer is it's either very large 21 or nothing, depending on whose scenarios you look at. I 22 think realistically we will see a substantial growth over 23 the next 20 years. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Supervisor DeSaulnier. 25 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I won't bore you with my PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 slide presentation on my trip to Asia last week, but both 2 in Beijing and Tokyo, talking to the auto manufactures and 3 their desire to get into the Chinese market in particular, 4 it seems like there's a tremendous opportunity to make 5 sure that the product that is produced in the next couple 6 of decades in China is the most environmentally stringent 7 as possible. But there's that other pressure that even 8 though the economy is growing so quickly in China in 9 particular, the desire to have a car, as I think Professor 10 Friedman mentioned, and still the perspective relative to 11 our economy, the low wages, there's going to be pressure 12 economically maybe to have a fleet that isn't going to be 13 as clean as ours. 14 So any way that I think we can participate in 15 that discussion would be helpful in multiple ways to 16 encourage the auto manufacturers, particularly as they 17 locate to new plants to make sure what they're 18 prospectively going to produce is the best we can get. 19 DR. VANCUREN: I think there's one little 20 antidote that emphasizes your point very well, which is 21 that in Shanghai in 1990, 70 percent of trips to work were 22 done by bicycle. In 2003, it's down to 15 percent. 23 That's certainly the kind of trend that suggests very, 24 very large growth in motor vehicle traffic. If they do 25 not find a way to implement appropriately clean PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 technologies, the consequences both in Asia and worldwide 2 are definitely going to be serious. 3 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: One anecdotal story, I 4 was wandering around the first day in Beijing and I had a 5 25-year-old young man come up and talk to me and we ended 6 up talking to each other for two or three hours. One of 7 his first questions was if I had any children. I said, 8 "Yes, I have an 18-year-old and a 20-year-old." He said, 9 "When did they get their first car?" I said, "When they 10 were 16." 11 So it's just that desire that you can clearly -- 12 not just by reading, but when you're there, in particular, 13 to emulate the western economic successes. But 14 particularly cars, which is both sort of inspiring but 15 also provides a lot of risk, I think, for them and for us. 16 But that was a great presentation. 17 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: To take it out of a 18 historical perspective, in 1972 I was in Beijing. And I 19 was the second delegation to China since the second World 20 War. Nixon was in the first. And the second was a 21 delegation of Congresswomen who were invited by the 22 Chinese government. So I got up at 5:00 o'clock that 23 morning and went out. And you know how massive those 24 streets are in Beijing. There was not a car in the 25 street. But it was wall to wall bicycles. There was not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 one car in the street. And I mean, you could see bicycles 2 for miles. And it's just not like that anymore. 3 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Probably the encouraging 4 thing, given the way they drive, is probably going to 5 inhibit some of the purchases. I was almost eliminated 6 the first hour I was there. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Also, Supervisor, given the 8 fact we have a webcast here, I'm sure you get the request 9 from your constituents to spend two to three hours with 10 anybody that comes up to you on the street and wants to 11 talk on the issue. 12 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: It was much more 13 enjoyable talking to a non-constituent in Beijing than 14 constituents in Contra Costa County. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: It appears from what 17 we're looking at the graphics here, that the northern part 18 of the western edge of the United States is getting much 19 of this transport. It's getting first impact. And I'm 20 just wondering whether that's likely to continue. And to 21 what extent do we have any hope or do we have a reason to 22 be hopeful that as more and more pollution occurs, that it 23 will be addressed and that they will be using cleaner 24 technology than we used 20, 30, 40 years ago when we 25 really industrialized. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 DR. VANCUREN: I think it's inevitable that they 2 will use cleaner technologies because they will find, as 3 we have found, that the clean technologies pay dividends 4 in the immediate area. I think the analogy that I draw 5 with this is the experience in Western Europe versus 6 Eastern Europe. In Eastern Europe, pollution control was 7 viewed something of Bordeaux luxury. What they found was 8 that worker productivity and other things suffer very 9 severely due to not controlling pollution, and shorter 10 work lives, greater absenteeism, that sort of thing. 11 The Chinese have recently reported similar 12 observations, and Chinese economists have pushed very 13 strongly for pollution controls as a precursor for 14 economic growth. So I think there's every reason to 15 believe they will be very aggressive. The source of this 16 material, of course, is not just China but throughout 17 Asia. But I think they recognize it everywhere. We're 18 seeing a fairly rapid adoption of unleaded gasoline and 19 catalysts on motor vehicles in Asia. I think that's a 20 trend that we can look to with some hope. 21 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Because the United States is 22 a member of the world community, have you got the 23 animation of what goes from us to Europe? 24 DR. VANCUREN: Yes. On the NASA website, this 25 animation is also available to see the entire planet. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Is it a lot or a little? 2 DR. VANCUREN: Interestingly enough -- I don't 3 want to go into it in much detail. We can certainly carry 4 this on for hours. And it's certainly something I've been 5 fascinated about for a long time. 6 It turns out in the Eastern U.S., because it is a 7 humid climate, there is more moisture in the air and more 8 vertical mixing and more wash out of pollutants. So the 9 total flux from the Eastern U.S. into the Northern 10 Atlantic and to Europe is somewhat less per ton emitted 11 than from the rather dry regions of Northern China where 12 stuff gets emitted into what is relatively dryer air and 13 therefore has a longer life time in the atmosphere. 14 That being said, that doesn't mean that it's a 15 slam dunk in either case. There is an ongoing program. 16 As a matter of fact, there's a successor to the ITCT 17 program we ran on the West Coast that is going to be 18 operating this spring and summer in Nova Scotia to attempt 19 to measure how much material is coming out of the Eastern 20 North America heading to Europe. And they have been 21 monitoring in Ireland and elsewhere for a long time to try 22 to keep an eye on this. 23 It's something that is -- you know, we are not, 24 you know, completely innocent of participating in this 25 process. But what we do have is the potential to export PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 technologies that can result in very rapid improvements in 2 Asia. I think that's where we look for it on the global 3 scale is to try to get everybody up to some global 4 equivalent of maximum achievable control technology. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think the other thing it 6 reminds us that as we talked in times past about the one 7 atmosphere approach, it's very clear here that you can't 8 unscramble these pollutants. And also it applies when you 9 look at the global climate change gases. They all 10 intermingle. They all play a role, and obviously 11 impacting public health. 12 The other part of it is, I think, from 13 discussions with Dr. Vancuren, you know, our ability also 14 to get down to measure some of these very small amounts. 15 But the other concern is as we've seen with diesel 16 particulate, what may get carried with these particulates 17 and other things, we clearly don't see any alarming thing 18 there, but we don't know and that needs to be looked at as 19 well. But I think it's fascinating. I think it provides 20 us a confirmation we're doing the right thing to look at 21 these things as one atmosphere approach is very important. 22 It's great. 23 So again, I presume if any of our air districts 24 are interested in this sort of presentation, it'd be 25 similarly offered. Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 Seeing, I guess, no witnesses signed up and it's 2 not a regulatory item, it's not necessary to officially 3 close the record. So thank you very much indeed, and we 4 will move on to the next item. Thank you. 5 The next item is Item 04-1-3. We have six 6 research proposals on the agenda today. And I'd like to 7 ask Mr. Croes to introduce the item and see if the 8 research staff wants to make any comments on the 9 individual proposals. 10 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Dr. Lloyd, we 11 have a brief presentation from Annmarie Mora. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 13 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 14 presented as follows.) 15 MS. MORA: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and 16 members of the Board. Today we are presenting to you four 17 research proposals that have been reviewed and approved by 18 ARB staff and the Research Screening Committee. Each 19 proposal supports the Board's research mission to provide 20 timely scientific and technical information to develop and 21 support the public policy decisions required for an 22 effective air pollution control program. 23 --o0o-- 24 MS. MORA: The first project is air pollution and 25 cardiovascular disease in the California Teachers Cohort PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 Study. Little is known about the health effects of 2 long-term exposure of ambient air pollution, particularly 3 on the development of cardiac or respiratory diseases and 4 mortality. This study has the unique opportunity to use 5 an existing data set, the California Teachers Cohort, 6 established by the Northern California Cancer Center and 7 the California Department of Health Services, which 8 includes approximately 134,000 current and former female 9 public school teachers and administrators recruited in 10 1995. 11 Investigators have followed this Cohort of 12 incidents of decease and mortality. The information 13 gathered from the Cohort will allow the investigators to 14 study whether long-term exposure to PM air pollution or to 15 any of several gaseous pollutants is associated with 16 cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary disease instance or 17 mortality. Investigators will also determine whether 18 these effects are related to exposure to traffic emissions 19 which will be measured by residential proximity to busy 20 roads. Results will be used in the next reviews of the 21 ambient standards for PM10 and PM2.5. 22 --o0o-- 23 MS. MORA: The second project is determination of 24 reactive oxygen species activity in PM and enhanced 25 exposure assessment which supports the NIH, NIEH study PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 entitled, "Ultra Fine Particulate Matter and 2 Cardiorespiratory Health." The elderly, especially those 3 with cardiovascular disease, have been identified as 4 especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. 5 Investigators in numerous epidemiological studies 6 have found that PM or some component of PM may cause 7 changes in blood, in cardiac function, and may be 8 associated with mortality in people with cardiovascular 9 disease. 10 A major study is about to begin in Southern 11 California to study the impacts of air pollution on this 12 group. The three-year study is funded by the National 13 Institute of Health and the National Institute of 14 Environmental Health Sciences at a cost of $3.3 million. 15 This proposal will provide funds to augment plan 16 monitoring and allow for consideration of comprehensive 17 time resolved air monitoring data for use in 18 epidemiological analyses. 19 The South Coast AQMD will also provide funding 20 for the monitoring and health related work. The results 21 of this study will have direct application in our 22 evaluation of air quality standards and increase our 23 understanding of air pollution exposures experienced by 24 the elderly. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 MS. MORA: The next project is survey of 2 ventilation practices and housing characteristics in new 3 California homes, and it will be funded by the California 4 Energy Commission. The Energy Commission sets efficiency 5 standards for new California homes in order to conserve 6 energy and assumes that indoor air quality is maintained 7 through occupant use of windows, doors, and ventilation 8 appliances. However, because some materials used in new 9 homes emit formaldehyde and other toxic air contaminants, 10 concerns have been raised regarding whether these occupant 11 activities are sufficient to remove indoor contaminants. 12 The investigators will conduct a mail survey of 13 new homeowners, analyze the relationships among 14 ventilation practices, indoor air quality indicators, and 15 household characteristics, and identify barriers to the 16 use of natural ventilation, such as windows and doors and 17 mechanical ventilation. This study will provide 18 information needed by the Commission to assess the impact 19 of current energy efficiency standards on indoor air 20 quality and help determine the need for mechanical 21 ventilators in new homes. This study and a planned 22 follow-on field study will provide information needed by 23 the ARB for assessing Californians' indoor exposure to air 24 pollutants. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 MS. MORA: The fourth project is hourly in-situ 2 quantification of organic aerosol marker compound. 3 Regulatory efforts to achieve PM2.5 standards require 4 improvements in our knowledge of the factors controlling 5 the concentration, size, and chemical composition of 6 PM2.5. Organic matter is a major constituent of airborne 7 particles comprising 20 to 40 percent of the PM2.5 mass in 8 many regions. Quantitative knowledge of the composition 9 of PM2.5 organic matter is key to tracing its sources, 10 understanding its formation, and transformation processes. 11 This project is one component of a larger project aimed at 12 refining and testing the ability of an online aerosol 13 instrument. 14 The Department of Energy is currently sponsoring 15 a field evaluation study at a cost of $500,000. The 16 objective of this proposal is to demonstrate the 17 capability of a new technique that can identify the 18 composition of PM2.5 organic matter within a region in 19 California that is currently out of compliance with the PM 20 air quality standards. This research will provide useful 21 new data of immediate value for air quality attainment 22 strategies for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and the 23 development of this state implementation plan. 24 --o0o-- 25 MS. MORA: We request that you approve these PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 projects for funding. This completes the presentation, 2 and we'll be happy to answer any questions. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. Did 4 Dr. Friedman have any comments on the proposals? 5 MS. MORA: He did have some concerns about the 6 questionnaires that you see Berkeley was developing, the 7 cost. So we've looked at that, and we have responded to 8 his concerns. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Otherwise he's fine? 10 MS. MORA: Otherwise he was fine. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any questions from my 12 colleagues on the Board? 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, our 14 contribution to the studies, Berkeley, on the ventilation 15 practices, is this the number that's our contribution or 16 is that the -- 17 MS. MORA: It's completely funded by the 18 California Energy Commission. There will be no ARB funds 19 involved. 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: You're just asking us 21 to -- 22 MS. MORA: We're managing the project. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think our expertise -- 24 again, it's nice to see the cooperation with CEC, South 25 Coast, DUE. I think it's good. I congratulate staff on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 sharing resources. And again, it's very impressive to 2 see. The research proposal studies form the very basis of 3 the things we do so we can develop sound science, sound 4 policies on that. So it's great to see these move ahead. 5 The results can't come quick enough. Thank you. 6 So we have a resolution before us. 7 All in favor to approve these proposals say aye. 8 (Ayes) 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Anybody against? 10 Unanimous agreement there. 11 Thank you very much. Why don't we take a 12 five-minute break before we move to the next item. So 13 let's get together at 20 of by that clock, 10:40. 14 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The next agenda item is 16 04-1-4, proposed amendments to the regulations for the 17 availability of motor vehicle service information in 18 California. 19 In 2001, this Board approved a regulation that 20 requires light- and medium-duty motor vehicle 21 manufacturers to make emission-related service information 22 available on the Internet to independent service 23 facilities and aftermarket part manufacturers. Those 24 regulations are currently in effect. 25 In 2001, the Board also asked the staff to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 monitor vehicle manufacturers' progress in meeting the 2 regulations and to work with stakeholders towards 3 resolving specific information access issues raised at 4 that time. Today, staff is providing an update to the 5 Board on these topics and is proposing some new amendments 6 to the regulation to address issues and concerns that have 7 been identified since our original hearing. 8 With that, I'd like to turn it over to 9 Ms. Witherspoon to introduce the item and begin staff 10 presentation. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 12 Lloyd. We had an excellent start to the implementation of 13 California's service information rule. Motor vehicle 14 manufacturers' efforts to meet these comprehensive 15 requirements have been largely successful so far. 16 At the same time, a few issues need to be 17 addressed. Over the past two years, the staff has worked 18 closely with vehicle manufacturers and aftermarket 19 industry stakeholders to resolve a difficult information 20 access issue identified in 2001. The staff will detail 21 the results of this effort in its presentation. 22 The staff will also present a proposal for the 23 inclusion of heavy-duty vehicles into the service 24 information rule along with other minor amendments 25 intended to fine tune the regulation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 At this point, I'll turn the presentation over to 2 Mr. Dean Hermano of the Mobile Source Operations 3 Division -- excuse me. Allen Lyons is going to make the 4 presentation this morning. We've had a last minute 5 substitution. Thank you. 6 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 7 presented as follows.) 8 MR. LYONS: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. And good 9 morning to you, Chairman Lloyd and members of the Board. 10 As part of this rule making, I will give a short 11 presentation on the implementation status of California's 12 motor vehicle service information regulation and the 13 amendments to the requirements that the staff is proposing 14 today. 15 --o0o-- 16 MR. LYONS: To begin, I'll provide some 17 background on how the service information regulation 18 originated. California service information requirements 19 are mandated by Senate Bill 1146, enacted in September of 20 2000. The bill was designed to ensure that independent 21 service providers and manufacturers of aftermarket parts 22 have access to dealership quality service information and 23 diagnostic tools necessary for emission-related repairs. 24 The Legislature found that independent service 25 providers have not always had access to the information PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 and tools necessary to conduct this type of work. And 2 that with the advent of onboard diagnostic systems, this 3 problem has only been compounded. 4 As a result, some emission related repair work 5 has been difficult or impossible for an independent 6 service provider to perform. The Legislature's stated 7 purpose in adopting the bill was to stimulate competition 8 in the automotive service industry and to give consumers 9 more choices when it comes time to have emission-related 10 repair work performed. 11 --o0o-- 12 MR. LYONS: The Board adopted California's 13 service information regulations in December of 2001. The 14 requirements currently apply to 1994 and later passenger 15 cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles 16 certified with onboard Diagnostic II systems. A key 17 provision in the regulation, which was mandated by the 18 legislation, requires manufacturers to make their service 19 information available for purchase on the Internet. This 20 provides service technicians and other covered persons 21 with nearly instant access to information for most vehicle 22 makes and models. 23 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Dean, would you be 24 good enough to put that mic a little closer to your chin? 25 Your sentences are dropping off, for me at least. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 MR. LYONS: Okay. Sorry, Professor Friedman. 2 --o0o-- 3 MR. LYONS: The regulation contains comprehensive 4 requirements for the availability of service information 5 and tools. Information that must be made available under 6 the regulation includes a content of factory service 7 manuals, technical service bulletins, wiring diagrams, 8 information on the design and operation of onboard 9 diagnostic systems, and information necessary to 10 reinitialize vehicles with immobilizer passive anti-theft 11 systems. Manufacturers must also offer for sale 12 diagnostic and reprogramming equipment that is available 13 to dealerships. Further information about these tools 14 must be made available to aftermarket diagnostic tool 15 makers to facilitate the availability of lower cost 16 generic tools and equipment. 17 The United States Environmental Protection Agency 18 first adopted regulations for service information in 1995. 19 Significant amendments to the regulation were finalized 20 last year. The ARB staff has worked closely with the U.S. 21 EPA over the past few years to ensure that California's 22 requirements are harmonized with the federal regulation 23 wherever possible. 24 --o0o-- 25 MR. LYONS: The deadline for manufacturers to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 launch their service information websites was March 30th 2 of last year. The staff has found that manufacturers were 3 generally successful in launching compliant websites by 4 the deadline. Although the staff has become aware of some 5 content, format, and pricing issues, very few formal 6 complaints have been forwarded to the ARB. Those that 7 have been received have been quickly resolved. 8 Manufacturers so far have been responsive in making 9 corrections based on informal feedback from covered 10 persons or ARB staff. 11 The first round of annual reports required by the 12 regulation are currently due to ARB staff. Manufacturers 13 are required to summarize in these reports the performance 14 of their service information websites in relation to ARB's 15 requirements. The staff will use these reports to further 16 ensure that implementation issues are identified and 17 addressed in a timely manner. 18 --o0o-- 19 MR. LYONS: I'll now turn to the regulatory 20 amendments the staff is proposing today. First, I'll 21 provide an update and status proposal regarding an 22 outstanding issue remaining from the December 2001 23 hearing. At that hearing, the Board directed staff to 24 continue working with motor vehicle manufacturers and the 25 aftermarket industry regarding information availability PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 for immobilizer anti-theft systems. 2 After addressing this issue, I will present the 3 status proposal to expand the service information 4 requirements to include heavy-duty vehicles. And lastly, 5 I'll briefly describe some minor proposed amendments to 6 existing requirements. 7 --o0o-- 8 MR. LYONS: Before getting into the regulatory 9 issues regarding immobilizers, let me quickly review what 10 an immobilizer is and how it works. An immobilizer is an 11 onboard theft deterrent system that will prevent a vehicle 12 from operating unless it electronically recognizes the key 13 being used in the ignition lock. The key for the vehicle 14 contains a transponder chip that sends a unique code to an 15 antenna near the lock. This code must be validated by the 16 onboard computer before the computer will allow the 17 vehicle's ignition or fuel injection systems to function. 18 The vehicle manufacturers have indicated this type of 19 passive security system has proven to be very effective in 20 deterring auto theft. 21 --o0o-- 22 MR. LYONS: A segment of the aftermarket industry 23 remanufactures onboard computers and re-sells them as 24 replacement parts. Computers are tested by the 25 remanufacturers before they are released to ensure that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 the units are in proper operating condition. The 2 incorporation of immobilizer logic significantly 3 complicates this testing process. Without the keys that 4 match the computer and the other necessary vehicle 5 hardware, the computer cannot be fully tested at the 6 factory because its fuel injection or ignition control 7 functions remain locked by the immobilizer. 8 Whether or not remanufacturers are entitled under 9 SB 1146 to special information for use in bypassing the 10 immobilizer for testing purposes was a subject of 11 considerable discussion at the 2001 Board hearing. At the 12 conclusion of the hearing, the Board adopted the staff's 13 proposed regulations, which did not include special 14 information access requirements for computer 15 remanufacturers. However, as stated, the Board directed 16 the staff to work with vehicle manufacturers and 17 aftermarket stakeholders towards finding a solution that 18 would facilitate bench testing of remanufactured computers 19 without jeopardizing immobilizer system security. 20 --o0o-- 21 MR. LYONS: The ARB has worked closely with 22 stakeholders since the 2001 Board hearing to accomplish 23 the Board's goal. Through this process, a number of ideas 24 have been identified and discussed. Remanufacturers have 25 suggested the idea of requiring vehicle manufacturers to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 provide black box devices which disable the immobilizer 2 when connected to the computer. Other ideas supported by 3 remanufacturers include the development of test 4 calibration software that would be temporarily loaded into 5 remanufacturers' computers for testing purposes or a 6 requirement for manufacturers to develop and incorporate 7 self-test routines in the future onboard computer designs. 8 Vehicle manufacturers support a different 9 concept. This concept is based on designing test benches 10 in a way that will allow remanufacturing technicians to 11 use the same initialization procedures and tools the 12 service industry uses when replacing a vehicle's onboard 13 computer. Once a computer is reinitialized, all functions 14 will be enabled for testing. Some manufacturers have 15 already provided diagrams and instructions on how these 16 test setups can be created. Unfortunately, none of the 17 identified solutions fully address all concerns regarding 18 costs, time, and security that have been expressed by one 19 side or the other on this issue. 20 --o0o-- 21 MR. LYONS: In the absence of a consensus on how 22 to resolve the problem related to immobilizer information, 23 the staff has worked to develop a recommendation based on 24 its assessment of the best available solution. 25 The staff believes that the idea of adapting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 immobilizer-related service procedures is the best overall 2 solution identified today. Recent amendments to the U.S. 3 EPA service information rule requires vehicle 4 manufacturers to provide reinitialization service 5 procedures that rely on commonly available and relatively 6 inexpensive diagnostic tool platforms and hardware. 7 The staff believes these procedures can be 8 utilized by onboard computer remanufacturers for bench 9 testing purposes. The staff is thus proposing to include 10 a similar requirement in California's regulation. This 11 solution to testing remanufactured computers can be 12 applied to existing and future computer designs, and it 13 doesn't require vehicle manufacturers to develop new 14 information or equipment which can be costly and subject 15 to misuse. 16 This solution should enable remanufacturers to 17 bench test immobilizer-equipped onboard computers in a 18 reasonably cost effective and efficient manner without 19 affecting the security of immobilizer systems. The 20 amendment would also ensure that low cost initialization 21 equipment is available for service technicians. 22 --o0o-- 23 MR. LYONS: I'll turn next to the staff's 24 proposals for heavy-duty vehicles. SB 1146 states that 25 California's service information requirements should apply PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 to all 1994 and later model year vehicles equipped with 2 OBD systems. OBD systems are currently required only for 3 passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty 4 vehicles. However, the ARB staff is in the process of 5 preparing a proposal requiring the application of OBD 6 systems on heavy-duty vehicles, that is on vehicles 7 heavier than 14,000 pounds. 8 In addition to being OBD equipped, future 9 heavy-duty vehicles will rely on sophisticated emission 10 control systems in order to meet stringent standards which 11 take effect in 2007. These emission controls may include 12 technologies such as exhaust gas recirculation and 13 aftertreatment systems like NOx catalysts and diesel 14 particulate filters. 15 Proper operation of these emission controls 16 throughout the actual life of the vehicles will be 17 critical to fully realize the emission benefits of the new 18 standards. Therefore, similar to the situation for light- 19 and medium-duty vehicles, the availability of 20 comprehensive and high-quality service information and 21 tools will be necessary to ensure that all segments of the 22 heavy-duty service industry have the capability to 23 effectively diagnose and repair emission-related 24 malfunctions that are detected by the OBD systems. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 MR. LYONS: In order to ensure that service 2 information availability requirements are in place 3 sufficiently in advance of the introduction of 4 OBD-equipped heavy-duty vehicles, the staff is proposing 5 to expand the applicability of this service information 6 regulation to cover these vehicles during this update to 7 the Board. During development of the staff's proposals, 8 heavy-duty engine and transmission manufacturers commented 9 that the construction and servicing of heavy-duty vehicles 10 can differ significantly from light-duty vehicles. 11 The staff's proposed amendments contain 12 provisions to address these differences where necessary. 13 For example, some heavy-duty diagnostic tools and 14 re-programming equipment offer users many options to 15 properly configure an engine or transmission for use in a 16 particular vehicle application. Improper use of these 17 options can negatively affect vehicle performance, 18 possibly creating safety or vehicle damage issues. In 19 such cases, the staff's proposed regulations would permit 20 manufacturers to require users of these tools to obtain 21 adequate training on their use as a condition for sale. 22 In addition, the heavy-duty service industry has 23 developed industry standard for diagnostic tools, 24 re-programming equipment, and service literature that are 25 different from corresponding light-duty standards. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 staff's proposal would allow heavy-duty manufacturers to 2 use their existing standards to comply with California's 3 requirements. 4 --o0o-- 5 MR. LYONS: By making heavy-duty service 6 information available to covered persons, low emission 7 levels will be better maintained as service technicians 8 statewide will be able to quickly and accurately find 9 emission-related problems and repair them. As envisioned 10 by SB 1146, widespread information availability is 11 expected to increase competition for repair work, 12 resulting in the lower repair costs for consumers. 13 By contributing to the proper maintenance of the 14 heavy-duty vehicle fleet, the service information 15 regulations will help to maximize the emission benefits 16 achieved from ARB's heavy-duty vehicle emission reduction 17 programs. This is important, considering that on-road 18 heavy-duty vehicles accounted for 29 percent of the oxides 19 of nitrogen and 14 percent of particulate matter emitted 20 from all mobile sources statewide in 2002. 21 --o0o-- 22 MR. LYONS: The staff estimates that the initial 23 manufacturer costs to comply with the regulations will 24 range between 250,000 and $750,000. The costs of annual 25 maintenance for the websites is expected to vary between PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 125,000 and $325,000. 2 Manufacturers may set reasonable and 3 non-discriminatory prices for information and tools in 4 order to recover some or all of these costs. Franchise 5 dealers and authorized service networks are not expected 6 to incur additional costs under the staff's proposals 7 because they already routinely purchase information and 8 tools that must be made available under the regulation. 9 It is possible that these service providers may 10 lose some business to the extent that servicing shifts to 11 independent repair shops. However, since the main 12 objective of SB 1146 was to encourage such competition, 13 this possible impact was fully anticipated by the 14 Legislature. Independent repair shops and aftermarket 15 part manufacturers will only incur costs as it becomes 16 necessary for them to purchase service information. 17 However, these costs will be justified by the likelihood 18 of the parties making a profit from their use of the 19 information. 20 --o0o-- 21 MR. LYONS: Moving on from the major issues being 22 addressed today, I'll now describe a few additional minor 23 amendments to the regulation. The Society of Automotive 24 Engineers recommended practice J 2534 is being updated to 25 address minor implementation issues concerning vehicle PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 re-programming. The staff is proposing to update the 2 regulation's reference to reflect this new version of the 3 document. 4 Secondly, the staff is proposing that all vehicle 5 manufacturers be required to make existing OBD drive cycle 6 information available to independent service providers and 7 parts manufacturers. This information would help 8 technicians to verify the effectiveness of repair work for 9 malfunctions that have caused the check engine light to 10 illuminate. 11 Another proposed amendment would require all 12 manufacturers to notify ARB staff when a service 13 information website is off line for other than routine 14 maintenance. This will allow the ARB to better monitor 15 the operating status of websites and to field questions 16 from website users. 17 And lastly, the proposed amendments would require 18 all vehicle manufacturers to define non-standard terms and 19 acronyms used in their service literature. 20 --o0o-- 21 MR. LYONS: To summarize, the proposed service 22 information amendments are needed to allow increased 23 competition and consumer choice in the repair of 24 heavy-duty vehicles that are fully authorized under 25 statutory requirements. The amendments also work to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 resolve the immobilizer issues stemming from the staff's 2 original proposal in 2001. And they improve minor aspects 3 of the regulations' requirements. Therefore, the staff 4 recommends that the Board adopt the proposed service 5 information regulation amendments. 6 Thank you. This concludes my presentation. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Madam Ombudsman, 8 would you please describe the public participation process 9 that's occurred while this rule is being developed and 10 share with us any concerns or observations you'd like to 11 make. 12 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Mr. Chairman and members of 13 the Board, the amendments to the California motor vehicle 14 service information regulation have been developed with 15 input from vehicle engine, transmission manufacturers and 16 associations, aftermarket companies and associations, and 17 tool companies. The Bureau of Automotive Repair also 18 provided input. 19 In January 2002, staff began work on the rule 20 making process for this item. As you might recall in 21 December 2001, when the Board adopted the service 22 information requirements, it directed the staff to monitor 23 manufacturers' progress toward meeting the requirements 24 and report back to the Board with an update in 25 approximately two-years' time. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 The Board also directed the staff to work with 2 stakeholders over this period in an attempt to address an 3 unresolved issue regarding the availability of service 4 information for passive anti-theft systems called 5 immobilizers. 6 Consequently, staff held a workshop on August 7 13th, 2003, in El Monte to solicit input from the 8 stakeholders. Approximately 44 people from various 9 industries attended. More than 1100 people were informed 10 of the workshop by hard copy mail and an additional 826 by 11 electronic mail. 12 Furthermore, staff contacted the Engine 13 Manufacturers Association in November of 2003 to determine 14 if it would be able to provide the ARB with addresses of 15 facilities within its heavy-duty members authorized 16 service network in California. These facilities are 17 stakeholders in the rule making process but are not 18 normally listed within the ARB's mailing lists. Three 19 individual heavy-duty manufacturers were also contacted 20 for the same information. Staff received several 21 addresses from the manufacturers and subsequently mailed 22 the notice to them. One company provided staff with a 23 list of nearly 200 authorized service network facilities 24 in California. Staff also sent a copy of the hearing 25 notice to them as well. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 On December 5th, the staff report was released 2 for public comment. The public notice for this Board 3 hearing was also published on December 5th, 2003. Both 4 items were posted to ARB's website on that day. 5 Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Questions, 7 comments from the Board? 8 Seeing none at this time, we'll move ahead to our 9 witness list. And first one is Aaron Lowe, then Lisa 10 Stegink, and John Cabaniss. 11 MR. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm also 12 accompanied by John Kurbal from Blue Streak Automotive. 13 On behalf of the Automotive Aftermarket Industry 14 Association, the Automotive Parts Rebuilders Association, 15 the Automotive Engine Rebuilders Association, the 16 Automotive Warehouse Distributors Association, and the 17 Heavy Vehicle Maintenance Group has submitted the 18 following comments regarding the amendments. 19 We are a national trade association representing 20 the aftermarket manufacturers, remanufacturers, 21 distributors, sellers, installers of automotive parts in 22 the vehicle aftermarket. HVMG is a coalition of ten trade 23 associations involved in the heavy-duty service and 24 distribution aftermarket. The aftermarket is a $2.5 25 billion industry that includes everything that happens to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 a car once it leaves the dealership. 2 In general, the aftermarket groups represented on 3 the testimony are in support of the changes proposed by 4 CARB in this rule making. We believe that the Board staff 5 has done a commendable job in implementing 1146, and these 6 changes will help make it a more effective regulation. 7 However, there are three areas of concern that we 8 would like to discuss during this hearing. These issues 9 revolve around the inadequacy of the staff's immobilizer 10 system proposal to address rebuilders' concerns. The cost 11 of access to the websites and amendments to the rule are 12 regarding heavy-duty vehicles. 13 As staff said in the report, we were -- the Board 14 at the last -- in 2001 asked us to get together with the 15 manufacturers in an attempt to resolve issues and come up 16 with a way to remanufacture immobilizers that would not 17 jeopardize the security of the vehicles. In fact, the 18 Board staff has made substantial effort in an attempt to 19 mediate a solution to this problem. 20 Unfortunately, these discussions have been mostly 21 one way. With the aftermarket tendering several 22 proposals, only to be rejected each time by the car 23 company by what we think are unsupportable assertions, 24 that the solution would pose a threat to the effectiveness 25 of the security system or they would cost too much to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 implement. 2 Making matters worse, the manufacturers have 3 failed to suggest a workable solution other than the 4 workbench idea, which we think is not going to solve our 5 problem for the independent and aftermarket rebuilders. 6 We find it difficult for the staff to say we found an 7 acceptable solution when there really hasn't been a debate 8 or an adequate way of finding that solution or discussion 9 between the manufacturers and the aftermarket. 10 During the workshop in August of 2003, the 11 aftermarket once again offered a proposal that we believe 12 not only would preserve the security of the vehicle, but 13 also would be inexpensive for the car companies to 14 implement. However, this solution was rejected by the 15 vehicle manufacturers. Significantly under our proposal 16 if the vehicle manufacturers were to develop a specific 17 calibration for ECU rebuilders that would allow them to 18 test the ECU at an RPM that would be too high for the 19 vehicle to be started, the proposal would apply to future 20 vehicle only, and not to past vehicle, and thus would be 21 accomplished as part of the normal calibration development 22 process by the vehicle manufacturers. 23 The manufacturers have alleged that developing a 24 special calibration would somehow make the job easier to a 25 thief desiring to steal a vehicle. These concerns we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 think are unfounded. The effort that would be required 2 for a thief to figure out a specific calibration would be 3 the same effort that would be required to get around the 4 immobilizer systems in general. 5 In other words, if a thief wanted to input the 6 parameters into a system to fool a starter into thinking 7 the RPMs requirements were met, the thief also could use 8 the same technique to fool the starter or other parts into 9 thinking that the security parameters had been met to 10 defeat the immobilizer system on the car, with or without 11 the designated rebuilder calibration. Specifically, in 12 order to take advantage of the calibration, a thief would 13 need to have access to the manufacturers' communication 14 protocol information, learn and understand each of the 15 manufacturers' communication protocol, possess significant 16 hardware, software experience, and design and build 17 interface to plug into the vehicle data link connector the 18 right software to send the necessary commands that would 19 simulate the necessary conditions. Basically, if they 20 could do all those things, they could probably get around 21 the immobilizer system in general and wouldn't need to 22 have to worry about the rebuilder calibration that's built 23 into the system. 24 As far as the cost discussions go, we think these 25 calibrations can be done as part of the manufacturer, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 calibrations they have to do in any case for every new 2 model year. And thus we're unsure of what -- the added 3 cost would be significant. 4 Finally, the manufacturers have contended that 5 we're forcing them to redesign their vehicles, which we 6 don't understand since we're only adding it as part of the 7 initial design of the vehicle in the first place. Staff's 8 statement of reasons pointed to the EPA regulations that 9 would provide a standardized interface for accomplishing 10 reinitialization. 11 They further propose to include the EPA language 12 in the air regulations. We support this change, mostly 13 for the service industry, since this would greatly reduce 14 their tooling cost. While this proposal also would 15 somehow reduce rebuilders' costs because the cost to the 16 rebuilder of purchasing those tools would be reduced, the 17 rebuilders will still have to purchase multiple tools and 18 test benches in order to accomplish this. 19 The reason for this is that the car companies 20 have built into their immobilizer systems 10 minute to 30 21 minute delays in starting their cars. So, therefore, in a 22 manufacturing process -- as this is a very high tech 23 manufacturing process -- that requires a very significant 24 throughput to be competitive with the vehicle 25 manufacturers. It's likely that it would reduce their PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 production by 25 to 35 percent in order to do this. And 2 that doesn't include -- we didn't include the cost to 3 purchase all of the additional test benches. So we don't 4 think that this would really solve our problem, although 5 it would definitely be of assistance. 6 It's also unclear from this proposal whether the 7 car companies are actually going to use one system or 8 various generic methods for doing the initialization since 9 the regulation allows them to use an aftermarket tool, a 10 pass-through device, or inexpensive OEM specific cable. 11 While the requirement of the generic tool eases the pain, 12 producing rebuilt ECUs may not be cost effective. 13 In conclusion, we urge Board and staff not to be 14 fooled by the manufacturers' assertions that there are 15 serious security concerns or high costs associated with 16 our proposal for a special calibration. Rather, based on 17 their absurd response, it is more a case that they are 18 using this proposal to help provide them more control over 19 the rebuild ECUs, both the car companies and for the 20 independent aftermarket. 21 We think there's the environmental issue, mainly 22 because car owners can still drive a vehicle with an ECU 23 that's not working properly. Therefore, if the cost is to 24 increase -- and it would significantly, since the cost 25 difference for car companies to rebuild ECUs is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 significant -- therefore, we believe that car owners will 2 choose not to bring the car in when the light comes on 3 based on the fact that the cost is too high. We urge that 4 our proposal be adopted by the Board as a requirement. 5 Regarding price of service information, as we 6 stated at the outset, we strongly support the work the 7 Board has done in the promulgation of these rules. We 8 further believe, for the most part, the websites that have 9 been released are well done and will be of great 10 assistance to the independent service industry. We are 11 still in the process of reviewing all the websites to 12 determine if all emission-related information is on them 13 and that they are easily navigated by our industry. 14 However, we would like to raise our initial concern from 15 independent shops. 16 Based on the attached matrix of websites 17 developed by the car companies -- it's in the staff 18 report -- it appears that the costs of access vary widely 19 among the websites, especially for long-term access. For 20 example, Toyota charges only $350 for yearly access while 21 Ford charges $2499. Both are widely sold vehicles and 22 therefore we are unsure as to why the charges vary as much 23 as they do. We strongly urge the staff to closely monitor 24 the situation to ensure the websites are not too expensive 25 for the small and medium shops affected by that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 Remember, both independent shops work on various makes and 2 models, of course, and therefore will be greatly affected 3 by each website's cost. 4 As far as heavy duty service, the aftermarket 5 associations strongly support expansion of the scope of 6 the service information requirements to include heavy-duty 7 vehicles. And we are in general agreement with the 8 changes proposed by the rule in the staff proposal. The 9 aftermarket groups further support the changes that are 10 submitted today by staff and feel they address many of our 11 concerns that were stated in the heavy-duty vehicle group 12 statement that was submitted to the Board. 13 We continue to be opposed to any training 14 prerequisite for the purchase of diagnostic tools and are 15 very concerned about the imposition of this mandate for 16 reprogramming tools. While the prerequisite only applies 17 to tools with the capability of changing transmission or 18 engine configuration, we are unclear as to why diagnostic 19 tools are included in this regulation, are extremely 20 concerned that engine manufacturers could use this 21 provision to raise unnecessary impediments to purchase 22 these tools. Since access to effective diagnostic and 23 reprogramming tools is critical to the competitiveness of 24 and independent service facility, any attempt by engine or 25 transmission companies to stymie access would have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 devastating results for our industry and heavy-duty 2 vehicle owners. 3 The aftermarket groups strongly urge if these 4 amendments are adopted, staff closely monitor the 5 implementation to ensure that the engine manufacturers do 6 not attempt to abuse the training requirement in order to 7 unfairly restrict access to these tools. 8 That concludes my testimony. Thank you very much 9 for the opportunity the provide these comments, and I'm 10 available to answer any questions from the Board. Thank 11 you. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 13 Mr. McKinnon. 14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Just to make it tangible 15 for me, can you give me an idea of the price range of a 16 replacement of a new computer versus a remanufactured one? 17 MR. LOWE: The price of a new versus an 18 aftermarket? An aftermarket can usually -- one can 19 usually be bought for about 3- or $400. And the new ones 20 can range up above $1,000. Now most cars, once they leave 21 the dealership, will have rebuilt ECUs put on them, even 22 at the dealership. Very few will obtain new. It does 23 happen. But really, once the car is out on the road, it's 24 so expensive to build them new either by the car company 25 designated rebuild or by one of our aftermarket PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 rebuilders. 2 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: My next question is the 3 tendency -- I've notice with a lot of computers they 4 either fail when you first start using them or they fail 5 after a long period of time. Is that sort of the trend? 6 MR. LOWE: I'm going to defer to the ECU expert 7 on that. 8 MR. KURBAL: It actually depends on the 9 manufacturers and where it's placed on the vehicle. 10 Generally, if it doesn't fail right off the bat, it may 11 fail because of the environmental factors or corrosion, 12 water getting into them, and things of that nature. And 13 it pretty much varies depending on environmental factors, 14 where it is in the country and things of that nature. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Can you identify 16 yourself for the record. 17 MR. KURBAL: John Kurbal. There isn't a trend in 18 terms of -- I understand there would be some -- 19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: There isn't a trend. The 20 first month or two years or something like that. 21 MR. KURBAL: It's a little with consumer 22 electronics, which is generally the case. 23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Great. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. Next person. 25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I had a couple more. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Oh, carry on. 2 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Currently, I assume 3 remanufacturers buy test benches; is that correct? 4 MR. KURBAL: We build all of our test benches 5 in-house. Everything is designed and built by us. 6 There's nothing on the market that you can purchase to 7 test these things. 8 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: And do you test multiple 9 remanufactured computers at a single time? 10 MR. KURBAL: We test all manufacturers, and we 11 definitely do -- we have multiple test benches up in order 12 to be more efficient. And that's why the 10-minute delay 13 reduces our throughput substantially. 14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. 16 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Mr. Lowe, if I can recall, 17 you made the statement that after the last Board meeting 18 your organization got together with the vehicle 19 manufacturers and the staff and proposed a solution to 20 some of the problems that had been identified at the 21 hearing; is that correct? 22 MR. LOWE: Yes. We had several proposals and 23 some of the proposals -- with all due respect, when we 24 talked to the manufacturers, they wouldn't work. As we 25 went through, we came up with a proposal that we thought PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 did meet some of the objections they had raised. 2 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Why did they reject it or 3 oppose it? 4 MR. LOWE: The last one? 5 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes. 6 MR. LOWE: Well, as I said, they thought it would 7 still allow theft of the vehicle. And they also thought 8 the cost would be too high to implement for the 9 manufacturer. 10 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I think one of the issues 11 that was identified during the hearing was the concern 12 about security, and certainly many vehicles are stolen. 13 I've had three stolen. And I certainly wouldn't want to 14 do anything to make it easier for anyone. 15 MR. LOWE: We agree with that, by the way. We've 16 gone pretty far, I think, to make sure that this proposal 17 would not allow that. 18 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: The other problem that you 19 identified here was the proposal that some of the 20 manufacturers came up with, or the staff -- I'm not sure 21 who -- would require built-in delay of so many minutes 22 before you could start the vehicle. 23 MR. LOWE: Well, that delay is actually put in by 24 the vehicle manufacturers in their system right now. They 25 put in a delay to make sure if you did actually get by the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 system, it would be 10 minutes before you could really 2 start the car. 3 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: And you identified that as 4 a problem in the manufacturers' process? 5 MR. LOWE: In the remanufacturing process. 6 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Can't you get around that? 7 Isn't there a way of working? 8 MR. LOWE: That's what we're trying to do. 9 That's the whole purpose of our proposal, is to get around 10 the 10-minute delay. I mean, the only way we could get 11 around it actually is that we'd have to do the same thing 12 a thief would do, and that is to try to get into the 13 system and do something that we really didn't want to have 14 to do. So, yeah, I mean, that would be the only way that 15 we know of, I guess. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Did you find your three cars? 17 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Well, believe it or not, I 18 found two of them. When I found them, there were no 19 tires. And the only thing I found in them was a 20 screwdriver that had been left in the car. And believe it 21 or not, I recovered the screwdriver and had a chance to 22 use it a couple of days ago. 23 MR. LOWE: So it would be safe to say the 24 immobilizer didn't work? 25 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: There was no immobilizer PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 at that time. It would certainly make a difference today. 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'd like to follow up on 3 Mr. McKinnon, the cost of the new versus aftermarket. 4 Mr. Lowe, you say new would be about $1,000; aftermarket, 5 3- to 400. What if this staff proposal goes through? I'm 6 assuming you're talking about computers because right now 7 you're not able to rebuild the computers for certain model 8 years; correct? So you're talking about the category that 9 you currently are able to rebuild. If this proposal goes 10 through and you have a 10-minute delay or 20-minute delay, 11 whatever it is, what do you think the cost differential 12 would be? 13 MR. LOWE: We believe it would increase the cost 14 about 25 percent, at least. I mean, it's hard to know for 15 sure. But we're trying to work through the numbers. But 16 20 to 30 percent increase in cost to consumers. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Can you -- I'm hearing 18 10-minute delay, but I'm also hearing 20 to 30 minutes. 19 MR. LOWE: It depends on which car manufacturer. 20 They all -- some of them are 10 minute. Some are 21 30-minute delays. Each manufacturer has a different 22 system. Every vehicle manufacturer has a different 23 immobilizer system. They're not all the same. So you 24 couldn't make a generalization about that. And it reduces 25 the throughput in the factory or when they have to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 compensate by purchasing multiple test benches to try to 2 compensate for the loss in productivity. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Because you have one test 4 bench tied up for the 30 minutes. And 25 to 30 percent, 5 are you accounting for the need to purchase additional 6 test benches? 7 MR. LOWE: That would be an additional to that. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: It seems to me that we 9 just kind of have a balancing act here because the 10 legislation speaks pretty clearly about increased 11 competition. But the engine manufacturers do raise a 12 concern that I would agree with, and Mr. Calhoun, I'm 13 sure, about the security issues. I'm just wondering if 14 maybe we go forward on this proposal but ask staff to 15 maybe take a little more aggressive role in bringing the 16 sides together and maybe come back with some suggestion. 17 It would be difficult for us today to review some of the 18 alternate proposals that, Mr. Lowe, you raise on changes 19 of the test calibration. We're talking about technical 20 issues that we don't have the time or the expertise to 21 deal with today. Staff. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's what we 23 spent the last two years doing. Staff came down with what 24 we believe is the appropriate balance. Yes, it will add 25 to the cost of aftermarket repairs. However, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 difference between dealerships and aftermarket, there's 2 profit to be made and savings to be had. So we're in that 3 margin. And so I don't think that the reason -- that's 4 cause enough to set aside the staff proposal as unworkable 5 or inappropriate. We think we found the balance point 6 between all of the possibilities on the table. 7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm suggesting we move 8 forward with what we have. Obviously, we have more 9 testimony, but I think that maybe we're meeting the letter 10 of the law but perhaps not the spirit if there's 11 additional things that could be done in the future to 12 maybe bring that cost down so that it really and truly is 13 more competitive. 14 I don't know if consumers are driving around with 15 their lights on and they're not going in to get their 16 computers fixed because of costs or because they don't 17 really know what it means. By I think it's worth a try to 18 see if we can bring that cost down further. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The spirit of the 20 legislation was not locked out of doing repair. It wasn't 21 so much about the cost of the repairs. As I said a moment 22 ago, there's still a huge -- and aftermarket, it's always 23 going to be -- probably going to be cheaper. This is what 24 the competition is about, to go to the aftermarket 25 industry. And so we haven't taken that competition away PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 in this proposal. 2 And I appreciate your saying go with the staff 3 proposal today. And what I'm trying to avoid is yet one 4 more rule making on the same subject, because I don't 5 think staff thinks there's a whole lot more room to move 6 where the balance point is. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 8 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Still on the same 9 point of the cost, the increasing costs, is that almost 10 entirely based on the time factor, the delay? 11 MR. LOWE: This one -- 12 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Are you assuming 13 then that one or more employees are standing around 14 waiting and being paid for doing? 15 MR. KURBAL: Pretty much, yes. 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Wouldn't you have 17 multiple benches and wouldn't you be -- while you're 18 waiting for one, you'd be doing another? And I'm not sure 19 you get to a third or so, increase in cost. 20 MR. LOWE: We currently do that. I mean, we have 21 some modified test stations that have eight test units 22 inside, and one guy mans them all. But if I'm -- these 23 calculations were based on that. I mean, you're going to 24 have that 10-minute initial one, and then that one will 25 feed the testing, and then it kind of becomes, you know, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 like a pushing through the production system. However, 2 there's still the time and, you know, set up and enabling 3 the system. 4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Is it a third? 5 MR. LOWE: Ten minutes because our average test 6 time is approximately five, ten minutes. We've calculated 7 that it's approximately 20 to 35 percent that it's going 8 to decrease our throughput. 9 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Is the entire cost a 10 service cost as opposed to material? 11 MR. LOWE: That's service aspect, not to mention 12 the tools that we still have to purchase. 13 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: What would you 14 estimate the cost of the tools to be? 15 MR. LOWE: The general J 2534 they're proposing, 16 essentially the prices I believe will be around the range 17 of 500 to $1,000. The manufacturers may correct me if 18 they have a different price. But -- 19 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Amortized? Those 20 are reusable? These are tools that are amortized over how 21 many tests? 22 MR. LOWE: Limitless tests. 23 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Five hundred or a 24 $1,000 capital investment for -- 25 MR. LOWE: You're right. It's a one-time fee. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'm not doubting 2 there are increased costs. Obviously, there would be. 3 I'm just trying to understand why they would be viewed as 4 terribly high. And presumably you will then pass them on. 5 I mean, anyone who's rendering service or -- 6 MR. LOWE: Well, that's part of the problem. 7 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: But there's still 8 this huge differential. 9 MR. LOWE: But that differential is getting 10 smaller. I mean, the -- 11 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Instead of 400 or 12 500 to 1,000, it becomes -- 13 MR. LOWE: That's -- in some cases -- I mean, 14 some of the manufacturers are becoming very aggressive in 15 the aftermarket. And they're lowering a lot of their 16 margins themselves for remanufactured goods. We still 17 have to be able to compete with them. If the price is the 18 same between us and the manufacturer, the tendency would 19 be to go to the manufacturers, and that would be 20 detrimental to the aftermarket. 21 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: One other question 22 on a related but different subject. Your concern of 23 training as a prerequisite to getting the opportunity to 24 acquire the tools. 25 MR. LOWE: That's training for the heavy-duty PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 market. And our concern is that -- we're not objecting to 2 the training requirement, per se. But we're concerned 3 that it be monitored because how that training requirement 4 is going to be used to -- you know what prerequisites the 5 in-service guy will have to do to get the training, 6 whether there will be any mandates on them. There's a lot 7 of things we're concerned about. We're not saying it's a 8 bad thing at this point. We're going to watch it 9 carefully. 10 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I understand your 11 concerns or apprehension. It had to be flushed out. And 12 I think -- trust that will be worked out. But it was that 13 the training had to occur before you could even get the 14 tools? 15 MR. LOWE: Yeah. 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: What is the problem 17 with that? Before you get the tools in your hand, why 18 shouldn't they be certified or have the training, whatever 19 it is, and however it works? 20 MR. LOWE: Well, like I said, our objection to 21 the training was only to the fact that at this point that 22 it would be abused by the manufacturers. We weren't 23 opposed to the training to do the changes to the system. 24 So we're not opposed to the training to use the tools 25 right now. We're not opposing it. We're just concerned PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 that it will be abused by the manufacturers. We just want 2 it watched closely by the Board and ourselves. So -- 3 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Whether it was 4 before or after you get the tools is really not, after 5 all, the sticking point? 6 MR. LOWE: Uh-huh. 7 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Okay. 8 MR. LOWE: Our members do a lot of training 9 anyway to work on these products. It's a very high-tech 10 industry. 11 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Supervisor DeSaulnier and Mr. 13 McKinnon. 14 SUPERVISOR DE SAULNIER: Mr. Lowe, how big is 15 your company? How many employees? 16 MR. LOWE: Our division has approximately 120 17 employees standard as a whole. I think it has about 1,000 18 employees, and they're located in New York City. 19 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Mr. Lowe, is that sort of 20 typical for this segment of your membership, generally 21 small-, medium-size business? 22 MR. LOWE: They're most medium-size businesses. 23 It's a very capital-intensive product to be manufactured. 24 You can't be really small and do it unless you're doing a 25 niche market. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: And how many of these 2 companies do you represent? 3 MR. LOWE: A lot have gone away. They're at 4 about three right now. But they supply -- you know, it's 5 a fairly sizable number of products that go out. 6 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: That's by tendency 7 they've been going out of business? 8 MR. LOWE: It's been hard to stay in this 9 business. 10 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Are they located in the 11 United States? 12 MR. LOWE: Well, John's company, the division he 13 works for, are in Canada actually. But most of them are 14 in the United States. 15 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Any in California? 16 MR. LOWE: No. There's distribution, but no 17 manufacturer. 18 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Okay. Thank you. 19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I wanted to go back to 20 your example, the new -- the example I asked earlier, the 21 new versus the remanufactured, I think you said 3- or 400 22 to 1,000. What do you pay for the core? In other words, 23 when do you pay a core fee to get a failed computer? 24 MR. LOWE: Generally, 100, $125 core charge is 25 added on to that to ensure the return of the old unit. So PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 the recycling process keeps going. 2 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Thanks. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. I 4 noticed we've got people signed up. There's only one 5 person opposed to the regulation. All the others are in 6 favor or neutral. That sets you up very nice, Lisa. 7 MS. STEGINK: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd. Well, I'm 8 going to shift gears a little bit too, if you'll pardon 9 the pun. 10 My name is Lisa Stegink. I'm here today on 11 behalf of the Engine Manufacturers Association. We've 12 been working closely with the staff regarding proposed 13 amendments as it would apply to heavy duty. I'm focusing 14 only on heavy-duty today. 15 There is a direct linkage between the need to 16 provide service information and the ODB requirements. 17 Heavy-duty OBD rules are not yet in place, but are 18 currently under development. And its members are actively 19 working with EPA and ARB to develop a workable OBD program 20 for 2007 that won't adversely impact the successful 21 implementation and marketplace acceptance of the 2007 22 emission standards. 23 In fact, extending the service information 24 requirements to heavy-duty engines in the proposed rule is 25 all about 2007. The Board already has adopted these new PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 heavy-duty emission standards for 2007, standards which 2 provide significant emission reductions and air quality 3 benefits to California. On top of that, we're facing a 4 significant hurdle -- additional hurdle of OBD 5 requirements in 2007 and beyond. Now, added to that is 6 the proposed service information rule for heavy-duty, 7 which ARB is considering before the OBD requirements are 8 known. 9 Until we know the scope of the OBD requirements 10 and how they will be implemented, we can't fully address 11 key aspects of the service information proposal for 12 heavy-duty. We've have discussed this with the staff, and 13 they've agreed to a process that would allow us to 14 continue to work with them to craft a service information 15 rule that works for heavy-duty. 16 In the meantime, we have turned our attention to 17 the proposal. What we are realizing is that we don't even 18 know what we don't know when it comes to providing 19 otherwise secure and proprietary service information and 20 tools to the aftermarket heavy-duty service industry. 21 Rightly or wrongly, engine manufactures have been 22 proceeding under the assumption that the new rule would 23 not represent a complete departure from how the heavy-duty 24 service industry currently operates, which it shouldn't. 25 After all, representatives from the aftermarket service PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 industry have themselves assured ARB that the current 2 system was working. And while we are familiar with the 3 experiences of the light- and heavy- and medium-duty 4 industry in dealing with meeting these service information 5 requirements, we have discovered that those service 6 markets operate quite a bit differently than heavy-duty. 7 There are significant differences in the manner in which 8 heavy-duty service information and tools work, as well as 9 the way in which information is provided to service 10 personnel. 11 Having said that, and setting aside some 12 questions we have with regard to authority, EMA and its 13 members understand that ARB wants to adopt service 14 information requirements for the heavy-duty industry, and 15 we want to work with staff and the Board to assure that 16 the ultimate heavy-duty service information requirements 17 are workable and reasonably implemented. I'd just like to 18 give you a brief idea of the concerns and challenges that 19 we've been discussing with staff in getting to a workable 20 rule. 21 The first, as I briefly mentioned, is the unique 22 nature of the heavy-duty service industry. The light-duty 23 service industry operates on a much wider scale in 24 California, with hundreds of service facilities to meet 25 the needs of millions of vehicles. The heavy-duty PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 industry -- in contrast, service industry operates on a 2 much smaller and more individualized scale with far fewer 3 service facilities, and although a more limited number of 4 products, actually an enormous number of variations on how 5 products are configured and calibrated. 6 The next challenge is the infrastructure that 7 will need to be developed in the heavy-duty service 8 industry. And I'm talking about an infrastructure that 9 will be needed to assure that proprietary code is secure 10 and can't be obtained by unauthorized parties or somehow 11 misused. Engine manufacturers will need to completely 12 re-engineer major portions of the system and do 13 appropriate testing to assure that information can be 14 safely provided to third parties. 15 I'll just give you an example. We have 16 significant concerns with respect to the data stream and 17 bidirectional control information requirements and the 18 generic -- some of the generic scan tool requirements. 19 We also have some liability concerns. As 20 aftermarket providers are given the tools to service and 21 reconfigure engines, there is a possibility that 22 inadvertent or deliberate misconfiguring may occur. 23 Training may address this issue in part, and we support 24 that aspect of the rule. But we don't think it goes far 25 enough. We think that the proposed rule specifically PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 needs to include languages that removes engine 2 manufacturers from liability for third-party actions. 3 Finally, we do have concerns on the costs. Staff 4 has cost estimates for developing websites and maintaining 5 those, but what's not been considered are the costs that 6 will be required to completely re-engineer major portions 7 of the system. And we think, in fact, that the costs 8 almost surely won't be recoverable, at least not to any 9 large extent. 10 For all these reasons, we are asking the Board to 11 keep open the opportunity for us to provide further input 12 on the service information rule as it applies to 13 heavy-duty. As I said earlier, we have worked with staff, 14 and believe we have a solution to assure that our concerns 15 are met. We recommend that you direct the staff to work 16 with engine manufacturers on the underlying issues that we 17 have submitted in separate comments and to do that through 18 the 15-day notice process. In addition, we think that the 19 Board should support the staff's commitment to allow 20 heavy-duty engine manufacturers to address service 21 information issues at the OBD hearing and at a minimum to 22 provide an additional 15-day notice on the service 23 information rule after the OBD hearing. 24 Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Just a reminder PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 from staff to address the comment of why do we need to 2 move on this now before we get to the OBD regulation 3 itself. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The OBD 5 regulation is in April. So we're just being efficient and 6 putting the architecture of the service information rule 7 together now. But the 15-day change process is in direct 8 parallel. It's just a way of saving staff resources, and 9 we have made a commitment to refine this piece of the 10 service information rule if need be following the 11 conclusion of your April hearing. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So EMA has a pretty good idea 13 of the approach being taken on OBD? 14 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes. 15 We've detailed regulations out for industry proposal. 16 There are still issues to be resolved, but it's not like 17 it's a black screen. They don't understand. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The comment then in terms of, 19 well, this will require for the service significant 20 re-engineering and what? No? I don't quite understand. 21 Is that true, or is it -- 22 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: It's 23 not completely true, so I don't want to pick the other 24 option. But I think you have to look that these are 25 hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs and maybe more, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 if what Ms. Stegink is saying is correct. But this is 2 also Dow Jones companies. In the bigger scheme of things, 3 these costs are fairly small in comparison to what the 4 objective is and the objective that has been successfully 5 implemented on light-duty side, which is fulfill a need by 6 the non-dealer repair industry to be able to fix these 7 vehicles that remain competitive with the dealership 8 networks. So I think in that context these kinds of costs 9 are -- whether they can be passed on or not or whether 10 they have to be absorbed are not going to break the bottom 11 line. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'm sorry I gave you that 13 choice because it also unfairly represented the industry. 14 There are clearly cost issues there. I didn't want to 15 imply there was nothing there. I'm sure you'll respond 16 there are costs, but maybe not as significant as they're 17 saying. But I'll allow you to respond to that. 18 MS. STEGINK: I don't necessarily want to get us 19 side tracked on costs because I think -- I mean, engine 20 manufacturers -- we're not trying to restrict access, and 21 we're not trying to focus so much on costs as we are to 22 make sure that the staff and the Board have an 23 understanding of how the heavy-duty service industry 24 differs and how -- with respect to a lot of this service 25 information and tools, there's proprietary code and things PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 that are very proprietary the way these things are built. 2 And the fact that, different from light-duty -- 3 again, there are so many different variations on how 4 heavy-duty engines are configured and calibrated that in 5 order to meet these requirements, that's the 6 infrastructure that I was talking about, that will have to 7 change. And it's a matter of cost and it's a matter of 8 typing in terms of making sure that engine manufacturers 9 get their tools reworked, re-engineered, get them worked 10 out with their authorized service with their own service 11 networks, they know how they work, and then be able to get 12 them into the aftermarket. And so again, I don't want to 13 focus so much on cost as I do sort of the level of work 14 that's going to be necessary to get to the same place. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman, Mr. 16 McKinnon. 17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I wanted to ask on 18 two points. One, the question of why now for the service 19 information regulation before we've adopted a rule 20 imposing onboard diagnostic for heavy-duty engines. But 21 that's coming up in April. I gather -- am I correct what 22 the staff is proposing is the cart before the horse, but 23 the horse is coming up in April and then we'll have a 24 cart? And at least it's the same cart with the same basic 25 template, if you will, that we have for what now has OBD PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 applications for the light duty and -- 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: OBD would have 3 been here sooner, but that process has been slowed down by 4 the very difficult issues we've been sorting through with 5 EMA. This was more straightforward. 6 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: And I further 7 understand because of the way we work and the 60-day 8 notice and so forth, there will be a full opportunity to 9 rework the cart specifically with respect to heavy-duty 10 applications in April and beyond after we have finally -- 11 if we do finalize a heavy-duty engine rule -- 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's correct. 13 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: -- for onboard 14 diagnostic. So this is just sort of efficient. I mean, 15 it's just that the train got on the track. I think I 16 understand. I would think that would be sufficient 17 comfort. In other words, we're adopting something, but 18 it's not becoming final. It doesn't kick in -- it doesn't 19 become effective at least with respect to the heavy-duty 20 engine applications until much later and until there's a 21 full opportunity for all of us, staff and we, to get a 22 proposal. And part of that proposal, we would assume, 23 would include needed changes or revisions to what we're 24 doing today. And nothing becomes operative until there -- 25 and with respect to heavy-duty. I think that's what I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 hearing. 2 The other point is what about limiting liability, 3 the manufacturers' liability for damages or claims based 4 on service provided by the aftermarket rebuilders? Has 5 that been considered, Ms. Johntson or Mike. 6 GENERAL COUNSEL JOHNSTON: I'm going to call on 7 Mike Terris, our staff counsel, to answer that. 8 STAFF COUNSEL TERRIS: In reading through this 9 the first time, it's actually been raised to us -- 10 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Can you talk a 11 little louder. I want to be sure I hear you. 12 STAFF COUNSEL TERRIS: Any comments that were 13 submitted today is the first time the issue has been 14 raised to us. We haven't really considered it in this 15 context. But in general, the warranty provisions that 16 aftermarket parts apply are applicable to the 17 manufacturers that the OEMs -- 18 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'm not sure I 19 understand. They are subject to liability even though for 20 whatever -- 21 STAFF COUNSEL TERRIS: Generally under the 22 warranty provisions for light-duty and heavy-duty 23 programs. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So the aftermarket parts 25 going on are -- the original manufacturer is responsible PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 for that? 2 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Is that what your 3 concern is? 4 MS. STEGINK: Yes. Our concern is there's a lot 5 that can happen that engine manufacturers don't have 6 control over, any use of the aftermarket tool and use of 7 the aftermarket parts. And we don't want to be liable for 8 that. And we'd like specific language in that rule that 9 removes engine manufacturers from liability. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: This is a theme running 11 through all the stuff we're addressing with the EMA now 12 so -- 13 MS. STEGINK: At least we're consistent. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's correct. 15 And some of what's going on, it's a different kind of 16 market. It's not as integrated as the light-duty market. 17 I was saying how liability is handled on the light-duty 18 side with aftermarket if it -- 19 MR. LYONS: It doesn't really, per se, address 20 the issue of liability. But typically these diagnostic 21 tools, the manufacturer designs them so that they -- you 22 know, carefully so that the power that we have in terms of 23 bidirectional controls is limited to the extent that it 24 won't result in some type of a safety or vehicle damage 25 issue. In other words, that the tools are only so PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 powerful to make the vehicle operate in a way that could 2 raise a liability issue. 3 But the second point, as we made in the 4 presentation, the tools for the heavy-duty industry are 5 more powerful. And that's why we have the training 6 provision in the staff proposal. But at the August 7 workshop, there was a representative from Snap On, which 8 is a maker of aftermarket diagnostic tools, and they 9 explained to us that they, in fact, are currently already 10 in the business of incorporating these powerful features 11 into a diagnostic tool that's available to the 12 aftermarket, and the safety catch there is the training. 13 So our proposal, as we see it, doesn't expand 14 this liability issue at all. It's a liability issue that 15 already exists because a company that -- or a service 16 organization that repairs heavy-duty vehicles that goes 17 out and buys the Snap On tool, for example, and takes the 18 training. We think what we're doing with our proposal is 19 just to expand the availability of these tools to all 20 covered persons and ensure that they're available and it 21 isn't discriminatory. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think we've highlighted an 23 issue there which we need to maybe look at a little bit 24 more. 25 Ms. Johnston, any further comment? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 GENERAL COUNSEL JOHNSTON: Our understanding on 2 most of the liability issues is that the liability does 3 not go to all consequential damages, but just approximate 4 damages. But we are most willing to look at this issue 5 and provide some further consideration and work with the 6 industry on the issue. 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Just one more 8 contextual comment. When we look at liability and 9 warranty issues, we're concerned that the warranties 10 remain intact, that the mandate be provided on emission 11 control systems and such. 12 But there's going to be a shake-out in this 13 industry as they have the aftermarket parts and 14 aftertreatment devices. And the industry is still sorting 15 out amongst itself how these financial arrangements are 16 going to be. And they're going to appeal to you over the 17 next several months and years as we work in this sector, 18 for you to make the call where those costs lie. And 19 sometimes you'll want to and sometimes you won't, with 20 drawing those lines because they are financial 21 arrangements. 22 And the line we're trying to take through the 23 whole set of issues is what protects the end consumers, 24 what guarantees that the emission controls system keeps 25 its integrity and the pollution reductions are assured. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 And there's a lot of other economic issues that we try to 2 stay out of. But we'll talk about it a lot in the months 3 ahead. 4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, I'm glad to 5 hear the staff will take another look at it. My own take 6 on it -- and this is just sort of hip pocket for you -- is 7 that it might be very difficult for an original 8 manufacturer to be held liable for consequential damage to 9 the vehicle or parts of it that were attributable to 10 servicing or repairs or replacements that were not 11 performed by the original manufacturers and were not 12 themselves provided by the original manufacturer. And you 13 know, somebody else is responsible for having laid on 14 hands. They are intervening. They're supervening, if you 15 will. And there's really no sufficient causal connection. 16 So, I mean, that kind of thing gets sorted out 17 ultimately, either by agreement, as you said, by 18 contractual arrangements, or by the law, or by judicial 19 precedent. But I want to be sure that we're not 20 unwittingly exposing anybody to additional liability. 21 We've been asked to rule to release people from liability. 22 I'm not sure that's what we should be doing here. But 23 maybe we can get some comfort as we go forward. 24 MS. STEGINK: We do appreciate the staff being 25 willing to work with us to look at these issues and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 liability. We're talking about things like warranty, and 2 we'll be happy to work with staff on that. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 4 Mr. McKinnon. 5 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: After the reflash issue, 6 my sympathy for the industry is a little bit challenged 7 right now. But I'm sympathetic that we are -- 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Jay is not here today. 9 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: They did a switch here. 10 MS. STEGINK: He didn't want to stay over. 11 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: But I'm sympathetic that 12 we are moving a lot towards 2007. We're moving a lot of 13 items towards the industry. And I guess when there's sort 14 of a discussion about how the infrastructure is set up and 15 to me sort of a discussion of time to set up the 16 infrastructure, I'm sort of curious if we're talking about 17 2007 vehicles, you know, how many of them are on warranty, 18 how many of them come back to your -- to the original 19 manufacturers' dealership network. I mean, how much do we 20 really gain by forcing the information exchange the same 21 year as we require OBD? In other words, is there some 22 time that the vehicles are going to end up going to the 23 manufacturers network anyway? 24 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, 25 one thing that's different in the trucks and the cars is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 that the warranty is a much shorter part of their 2 lifetime. So it's only 100,000 miles, similar to what a 3 car is. But some of these heavy trucks burn that up in 4 the first year. So at least the logic is they could go to 5 the aftermarket for both repair and service and parts 6 because the vehicle is out of emission warranty. I don't 7 know what the statistics are on when they do that. We 8 know for cars, they stick with the dealership. The 9 warranty goes away, and then they go elsewhere. I don't 10 know if it's the same with trucks, but I don't know if 11 Lisa knows. 12 MS. STEGINK: Well, we actually had some 13 discussion on that point too. And I guess what we would 14 like to do is have the chance to explore that as well 15 because we do think initially and maybe for the first 16 couple of years with heavy-duty trucks that's where they 17 go. They go back to the manufacturer. If that is the 18 case now, I can't say that with certainty, 100 percent. 19 So it's worth -- definitely from our perspective, 20 something we want to look at and take into consideration 21 as well. 22 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: So it sort of sounds like 23 something roughly like a year extra. We don't really lose 24 anything, but you gain the year to work on infrastructure. 25 It sounds sort of like that, but maybe it needs to be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 looked at more carefully. 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It sounds like 3 that, based on what we know at this moment. But we'll 4 look at it. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 6 MS. STEGINK: May I make one additional -- the 7 reason we had to give you the purple card was just for 8 what Mr. Friedman said, which was the cart before the 9 horse issue. We had to make sure everything was in line. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think it was a good 11 exchange. Appreciate your comments. 12 MS. STEGINK: Thank you. We do appreciate your 13 support and the staff's support as well. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: John Cabaniss, John 15 Trajnowski, and Frank Krich. 16 MR. CABANISS: Good afternoon. My name is John 17 Cabaniss. I'm Director of Environment and Energy for the 18 Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. 19 Today I'm also speaking on behalf of the Alliance of 20 Automobile Manufacturers. Together AIAM and the Alliance 21 represent nearly all manufacturers selling passenger cars 22 and light trucks in California. 23 AIAM and the Alliance support the proposed 24 amendments affecting light-duty trucks and trucks in 25 2003-06 with a few minor exceptions, which we have already PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 discussed with ARB staff and which have already been 2 addressed in staff modifications that are under 3 consideration. A major portion of the proposed amendments 4 related to heavy-duty vehicles has already been discussed 5 today, and AIAM and the Alliance take no position on those 6 provisions. 7 We appreciate the opportunity provided by the ARB 8 staff to discuss our concerns and the special efforts made 9 by the staff to facilitate discussions between the various 10 stakeholders over the past year or two. AIAM and the 11 Alliance generally support the proposed amendments which 12 further harmonize the ARB service information regulations 13 with the EPA service information regulations which were 14 promulgated last year. However, some member companies may 15 have some individual comments about some of these proposed 16 changes. Harmonization of the ARB and EPA regulations is 17 very important to AIAM and Alliance member companies. 18 Harmonization was a goal of ARB and EPA for all of the 19 major requirements as they developed their earlier 20 regulations. The amendments proposed today address 21 further important details, such as reporting deadlines, 22 updating references, and adding other clarifying 23 information. 24 AIAM and the Alliance also fully support the 25 proposed amendments regarding testing remanufactured PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 onboard computers equipped with immobilizers. As stated 2 throughout the adoption process of the original 3 regulations as well as these amendments, vehicle 4 manufacturers take very seriously the issue of auto theft, 5 which immobilizer systems are designed to address. 6 Therefore, vehicle manufacturers must be extremely 7 cautious in releasing information that would jeopardize 8 the integrity of these systems. However, automakers also 9 recognize the legitimate need for service technicians and 10 others to have access to sufficient information to enable 11 routine repairs. Automakers are willing to work with the 12 electronic control and have done so to assist them in 13 developing methods to bench test rebuilt computers. 14 We agree with ARB staff's assessment in Mail Out 15 2003-06 that the solution centers on the use of generic or 16 OEM scan tools which can be used by a rebuilder to bench 17 test its products using the same procedures provided to 18 the repair industry for re-initialization after repairs. 19 Automakers representing about 80 percent of the 20 new vehicle market have already provided detailed 21 information to rebuilders on how their products can be 22 bench tested using available service information and 23 tools. In some cases, auto manufacturers may be able to 24 assist rebuilders and streamline the service procedures to 25 make them even more useful. Auto manufacturers are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 willing to continue to have one-on-one discussions with 2 computer rebuilders on this possibility. Because of the 3 wide variations and the design of products, it is 4 impossible to identify a single procedure that would work 5 for all vehicles. Therefore, as noted previously, we 6 fully support the ARB staff's assessment and proposal in 7 this regard. 8 Thank you for the opportunity to provide 9 comments, and I would be pleased to try to answer any 10 questions. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks very much, John. 12 Questions? 13 Thanks again. Thanks for your willingness to 14 work with staff and the auto industry. Appreciate it. 15 Thank you. 16 John Trajnowski, Frank Krich, David Raney. 17 MR. TRAJNOWSKI: Good afternoon. My name is John 18 Trajnowski. And I'm a Senior Engineer with Ford Motor 19 Company's Vehicle Environmental Engineering staff. I'm 20 here today to present Ford's position on ARB's proposed 21 changes to the service information regulation. 22 I should point out that Ford supports the 23 comments presented earlier by the Alliance of Automobile 24 Manufacturers and the Engine Manufacturers Association, as 25 Ford participated in the development of these comments. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 For the sake of time, I do not plan to readdress those 2 issues in my testimony today. I will keep them brief. I 3 only plan to address a few of the issues raised by the 4 computer rebuilders. 5 The rebuilders have raised concerns that 6 anti-theft systems make it more difficult for them to 7 repair used vehicle computers. That may be the case. 8 However, Ford's Passive Anti-Theft system, which we call 9 Securilock, has proven to be extremely successful in 10 reducing the frequency of vehicle theft. Data on our 11 Mustang GT showed a 71 percent reduction in the rate of 12 car thefts between 1995, before Securilock, and 1996, when 13 Securilock was introduced on that vehicle. These systems 14 are successful in deterring theft but do create more work 15 for the rebuilders. That is an unintended consequence to 16 increased security. 17 The good news is these issues can be easily be 18 overcome using existing re-initialization service 19 procedures and tools available to repair facilities today. 20 This is ARB staff's recommendation, which we fully 21 support. The computer rebuilders' test bench can easily 22 be modified with the anti-theft system hardware and wiring 23 harness to replicate the set up on the vehicle. They can 24 perform re-initialization on the workbench every time they 25 work on a computer. In fact, Ford has been assisting the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 rebuilders in providing them the information they need in 2 answering their questions on an ongoing basis. 3 Further, these procedures can be followed without 4 the need for rebuilders to purchase Ford-specific tools. 5 Ford provides the ability to re-initialize computers on 6 Ford vehicles using generic pass-through tools, which are 7 manufactured by the aftermarket and can be used on all 8 manufacturers' vehicles. This solution is provided by 9 Ford at a very reasonable price and can be cost effective 10 for the rebuilders. 11 However, the rebuilders still desire other 12 solutions they perceive will be less work for them. Over 13 the past few years, we have responded to ARB staff on 14 rebuilders' proposals for vehicle manufacturers to 15 implement a special test mode or another for a weak spot 16 in the calibration that would temporarily disable the 17 anti-theft system. 18 We are against these approaches because they 19 would add cost and workload burden to manufacturers and 20 provide no benefit other than for the rebuilders. You 21 know, for example, manufacturers would have to design, 22 develop, and implement a test that would meet the needs of 23 the rebuilders without jeopardizing the security of the 24 vehicle, as well as the other functions of the vehicle. 25 Once designed, this test would require significant PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 validation on our part to ensure it functioned properly, 2 did not interfere or damage other vehicle systems or 3 components or provide the opportunity for someone to do 4 damage. 5 It must also be validated to ensure it cannot be 6 tricked into defeating the anti-theft system. These types 7 of special tests and calibration actually provide a crack 8 in the vehicle's security. Now here's an analogy. Think 9 of a car with its window rolled up. Now that's pretty 10 hard to break into, except for perhaps the most desperate 11 car thief. But if a window was left cracked open, 12 suddenly it's a lot easier to break into. Special test 13 modes and calibrations provide cracks in a vehicle's 14 security system. They need to be fully validated to 15 ensure that the vehicle's security was not jeopardized. 16 In addition to development and validation, the 17 special test modes would need to be approved by NHTSA. 18 NHTSA allows manufacturers to forgo requirements for 19 marking the vehicle identification number on specific 20 vehicle parts if the manufacturer has implemented an 21 anti-theft system on their vehicles. This is an option 22 that Ford has been using for some time now. All this 23 responsibility would fall on vehicle manufacturers and 24 would be a significant workload and cost burden. This 25 simply would not be reasonable, especially considering PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 that a solution is already available. 2 Finally, I'd like to just iterate the point that 3 the California legislation was not intended to facilitate 4 onboard computer rebuilding. I participated in the 5 discussions during the development of SB 1146 and can 6 attest to that fact. In fact, specific language that 7 addressed the rebuilding of vehicle computers was actually 8 contained in an early version in the bill but subsequently 9 removed from the bill when it was adopted. 10 So in summary, Ford supports ARB staff's 11 recommendation regarding vehicle computer rebuilders, and 12 we will continue to work with the rebuilders so they can 13 re-initialize computers on the test bench. I'll also at 14 this time be happy to answer any questions. 15 I just want to make one other point from some of 16 the earlier discussion regarding the cost of the computers 17 and just remind everyone that the computer on the vehicle 18 is covered -- required by the Clean Air Act to be covered 19 under warranty for eight years, 80,000 miles and for 20 PZEVs. I believe that's 11500 or 15150. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 15150. Thank 22 you. 23 Quick question just on the -- just for 24 clarification related back to the earlier conversation. 25 What is the delay time after initialization in your PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 systems? 2 MR. TRAJNOWSKI: In our system it's a 10-minute 3 time delay. You have to wait 10 minutes before it will 4 initialize. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Questions? Thank you very 6 much. 7 Next we have Frank Krich, David Raney, and David 8 Ferris. 9 MR. KRICH: Good afternoon. My name is Frank 10 Krich, and I am a Senior Planning Specialist from Daimler 11 Chrysler. Daimler Chrysler Corporation appreciated the 12 opportunity to provide comments on ARB's proposed 13 amendments to its service information regulation. We 14 fully support and agree with the comments of the Alliance 15 of Automobile Manufacturers and Engine Manufacturers 16 Associations. And that being the case, I will 17 specifically only address the computer remanufacturers 18 anti-theft and immobilizer issues regarding 19 remanufacturers. 20 We believe the information and tools are 21 available today to provide the ongoing computer 22 remanufacturing to industry onboard computers. The 23 operation can be performed if remanufacturers develop a 24 test bench and utilize Daimler Chrysler's diagnostic and 25 reprogramming tool, which we call the DRB III, or an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 aftermarket diagnostic tool that includes the vehicle 2 feature. Daimler Chrysler makes information available on 3 this feature as well as other features at no charge to the 4 Equipment and Tool Institute for use by its members. 5 Furthermore, Daimler Chrysler has participated in 6 meetings with ARB staff and representatives from the 7 onboard computer manufacturing industry. As a result of 8 those meetings, we were contacted by one remanufacturer 9 and had discussions with them regarding their issues with 10 rebuilding onboard computers for vehicles equipped with 11 anti-theft systems. There's further understanding that 12 several other remanufacturers have contacted our 13 competitors to discuss their respective issues. 14 Based on our discussions, we firmly believe that 15 the remanufacturers have the ability to rebuild their 16 onboard computers. The remanufacturers have also proposed 17 alternatives that they believe will lessen the burden to 18 rebuild computers. Unfortunately, these alternatives add 19 workload complexity and additional cost to vehicle 20 manufacturers to develop, validate, and implement and 21 could jeopardize the effectiveness of the anti-theft 22 systems. These resources simply are not available in 23 light of their already challenging and complex regulations 24 that we are currently obligated to implement. 25 In closing, Daimler Chrysler strongly supports PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 ARB's position regarding remanufacturers, and we firmly 2 believe that the rebuilding industry already has the tools 3 necessary to rebuild their computers. Thank you very much 4 for allowing Daimler Chrysler this opportunity to provide 5 comments on this important issue. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Again, you've got 7 written down here neutral. Same as John previously from 8 Ford. What is the difference? And then you've got the 9 Association in favor. Is this a real concern or is it a 10 concern that you don't want to start off the New Year by 11 supporting an ARB regulation? 12 MR. KRICH: I'm in somewhat of a pickle because 13 my company is a member of the Alliance as well as the 14 Engine Manufacturers. So I felt -- well, first of all, I 15 don't believe I ever favor a regulation. So I'll never go 16 to the favor side. So at a minimum I'll go neutral. But 17 since my company is also a representative of -- Engine 18 Manufacturers also represents us -- and as Lisa was 19 explaining her reason for opposing, I felt I was in the 20 middle so I felt I'll go neutral. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. But again, 22 appreciate the constructive comments also. 23 No questions so we have David Raney. 24 MR. RANEY: We love regulations. We were joking 25 earlier that maybe you should have one "would be in favor, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 but." 2 Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Lloyd and 3 ladies and gentlemen of the Board. It's nice to see you 4 again. My name is David Raney. I'm the Senior Manager of 5 Environmental Energy Affairs for Honda, United States. 6 I'm here representing and American Honda Motor Company 7 based in Torrance, California. That's our sales and 8 marketing branch. 9 Honda does support the proposed amendments for 10 light-duty vehicles and trucks, with one important 11 exception, and that's what I'm here to talk to you about 12 today. We continue to be concerned with the anti-theft 13 initialization requirements and the implications that 14 being too liberal with the release of information under 15 these requirements could have on an increase in vehicle 16 theft in California and particularly globally. 17 Honda has a lot of experience, as we reported to 18 you in 2001. One might think it is enviable to produce a 19 product that people want to steal, but the honor is 20 actually in producing a product but not at a loss of 21 consumer satisfaction due to the loss and personal 22 violation associated with vehicle theft. 23 Honda and the rest of our industry has to try to 24 fix the problem and reduce theft, and we've made 25 significant progress in the past many years to develop PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 improved, robust, and more effective anti-theft systems. 2 They do work. Equally important, we implemented rigid 3 corporate security measures to protect information related 4 to the structure of these systems and how our dealer gets 5 this information and how the systems are programmed. 6 Due to the necessity to tie theft production to 7 the prevention of the ability to start the car by a thief, 8 theft-prevention systems were integrated with the fuel 9 control systems and ECMs on the vehicles. Replacing an 10 ECM as part of an emissions-related repair requires that 11 the EMC be matched with the key set and mobilizer device, 12 as you've heard before, that was originally installed on 13 the car. A security code is required by the servicing 14 technician to complete this match, and this is typically 15 called the reinitialization process. 16 When the ARB staff proposed the original service 17 information regulation back in 2001, Honda was very 18 concerned, as our testimony at your last Board meeting 19 reflected, because the regulation proposed at that hearing 20 did not allow any alternatives but required manufacturers 21 to release OEM-specific initiation tools and information 22 associated with those. At the hearing in December of 23 2001, the Board excepted Honda's proposal of alternative, 24 and the 15-day notice finally allowed alternatives methods 25 of compliance until the 2007 model year vehicle started PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 appearing. And we greatly appreciated the understanding 2 and consideration both by staff and the Board given us at 3 that time. You heard our concerns. 4 As a result, the ARB's final regulation allowed 5 the time for manufacturers to redesign the onboard 6 hardware and anti-theft hardware to be more secure. Also, 7 manufacturers were given a chance to redesign off-board 8 initialization tools and supporting infrastructure because 9 the ARB's regulation didn't prohibit reliance on specific 10 OEM initialization tools. Either method chosen requires 11 redesign and specific modification of vehicles and tools 12 and support infrastructure. Because of the significant 13 change needed for electrical components and the fact that 14 this degree of change is usually implemented only at the 15 time of a full model changeover -- and we're talking about 16 a complete remodification or change over the architecture 17 in the car -- Honda requested the ability to rely on 18 alternatives indefinitely at the hearing in 2001. 19 Now, one of the main purposes of the regulatory 20 proposal before you today is to harmonize with EPA's final 21 rule and service information. Honda's concerned by this 22 because the EPA service information final rule published 23 in June of last year prohibits complying with the rule 24 only by use of an OEM initialization tool after the 2007 25 model year. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 Now, because of that, we felt it necessary to 2 inform you and the ARB staff today we will be formally 3 asking the EPA for some additional lead time beyond 2008 4 for compliance with anti-theft initialization provisions 5 of the rule. We have begun informal discussions with EPA 6 staff very recently to inform them of our concerns and 7 will continue these discussions in the next few weeks. 8 Specifically, we are discussing with EPA the possibility 9 to extend the allowance of alternatives, such as leasing 10 OEM tools for two years or to give us a typical phase-in 11 flexibility of implementation. 12 Now most of Honda's largest selling models, 13 including the Civic and Accord, will be in full compliance 14 with what you're proposing today by 2008, but we just need 15 some more time to completely change over our electrical 16 architecture on the cars for some of the smaller models 17 that we produce. 18 In terms of ARB, since this amendment is now 19 proposed after only two years from the original 20 regulation, we believe that extending the allowance for 21 alternative seems reasonable. We've only had two years to 22 consider this, and it's a massive change. We do ask that 23 the Board and ARB accordingly amend the latest proposal to 24 grant us this additional lead time; or when and if EPA 25 does modify, which we hope they will, that ARB follow in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 kind at that time. 2 Now with that said, I want to make it clear that 3 it is our goal to address and hopefully remove the 4 concerns of ECM rebuilders who, we believe, may have the 5 most concern with what we're requesting today. We believe 6 truly that we can find a win-win solution for both us and 7 them outside of regulation without increasing theft. 8 So with that, I thank you for the opportunity to 9 bring this to you today, and I'm pleased to answer any 10 questions. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 12 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Staff comments. 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We like Option B, 14 and we would follow suit. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Because of the concerns from 16 the -- 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Because of the 18 desire to harmonize. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But why not give two years? 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Because part of 21 this rule making is to line up with EPA, and EPA has not 22 given two years. And so our rule would be out of sync 23 with theirs. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. But the concern -- 25 irrespective of EPA, what is the concern for giving a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 two-year flexibility? 2 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I 3 think the concern that EPA has expressed is that they're 4 not -- they haven't seen enough information yet from Honda 5 as to what the need is and the justification for the 6 two-years' delay. I don't know if we have as well. But 7 it just seemed more convenient here that since the EPA 8 rule will constrain what they can do nationally, that we 9 end up being aligned and just decide at a later point in 10 time. We sort of prejudge if we jump in and give them 11 two years now. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's the overriding concern 13 is more harmonization nationwide, and that if Honda is 14 successful with EPA, then we'll follow suit. But I 15 understand your issue. If we're trying to do at the 16 request of the industry, trying to do more in 17 harmonization and here we would actually be sending a 18 different signal to EPA. 19 STAFF COUNSEL TERRIS: The delay will mean that 20 the tool to reinitialize a Honda vehicle will be a lot 21 higher for that additional however many years than for the 22 other vehicle manufacturers. And that's really the reason 23 why the EPA is looking for more justification, and they 24 are as well. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All the biggest selling PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 models will be in compliance? 2 MR. RANEY: That's correct. 3 STAFF COUNSEL TERRIS: That's the kind of detail 4 we haven't been able to look at yet. 5 MR. RANEY: Chairman Lloyd, I appreciate your 6 questioning, and I apologize. We had hit Tom with this 7 two days ago as well, and the meeting we had with the EPA 8 to let them know happened three weeks ago. So we've got a 9 -- very much interested in sitting down with staff and 10 walking through the details. And if there's some way that 11 we can pull this off and get two years in -- but it would 12 be nice to keep it on the table, but I understand their 13 concerns. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Mr. McKinnon. 15 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: That is really a question 16 for staff. If we were to get into an exception like that, 17 is that something that would give Honda advantage over 18 other manufacturers that are already headed in the right 19 direction? Is there -- 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, I think it 21 gives the repair industry that fixes Honda cars a 22 disadvantage as compared to those who fix other vehicles. 23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Okay. 24 MR. RANEY: Just to interject a comment, we would 25 like to try to avoid that. That's what I mean if we can PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 find a win-win solution, even in the interim, we're 2 willing to look for that. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Sounds like that can be taken 4 with up EPA and us on that. 5 Ms. D'Adamo. 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: This gets back to my 7 discussion earlier, that is go forward with the rule but 8 see if we can have some productive discussion in the mean 9 time. Maybe staff could report back on this issue and 10 Honda's suggestion about the aftermarket and staff's 11 suggestion maybe of some other creative solutions could be 12 put forth that could address Honda's concerns as well as 13 the other concerns raised by aftermarket. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We do have 15-day 15 changes on this rule. And so depending on how rapidly 16 Honda and U.S. EPA come to a decision, we might be able to 17 address it in that process. And failing that, we'll be 18 having possibly a 15-day change again, a second one, after 19 the OBD hearing. And we do move back then, so there's 20 opportunity before this rule closes out to address this 21 particular issue. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Just to clarify also the 24 issue raised by the aftermarket industry. 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's the one PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 where absent specific direction from you, the staff feels 2 that it's already found the balance on the immobilizer 3 issue and that spending more time on it without a 4 direction, go here and not there, is not profitable. 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, that's not -- and 6 I'll indicate the discussion during ex parte disclosure. 7 But that's not where the aftermarket industry seemed to 8 think the discussions were headed. They have indicated 9 that staff attempted to mediate but didn't take maybe a 10 strong role. So I'm requesting during that 15-day period 11 that if -- and perhaps staff has a different perspective. 12 But in the event as these discussions move forward on 13 Honda's concerns, maybe they're unrelated, but I thought 14 that Honda had indicated that they felt there was a way to 15 work out the aftermarket's concerns as well. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, they are 17 different. But on the issue of did we just do what the 18 automakers told us to do, no, we absolutely did not. 19 Staff exercised independent judgment about what the 20 balance point was and what concerns were real and what was 21 a red herring. So we've brought to you what, in our best 22 judgment, is the balance point today on the immobilizer 23 issue. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: On that particular issue, I 25 see our legislative director. Have you heard anything, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 Rob, that you would disagree? If you want to say 2 something or feel compelled. 3 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: My question was answered. 4 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman, 6 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 7 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I just want to make 8 sure I understand. We're being counseled that legislation 9 is not aimed at improving the business or facilitating the 10 aftermarket rebuilding of these, so much as to make 11 sure -- other than to make sure that there is information 12 available. 13 STAFF COUNSEL TERRIS: The legislation basically 14 provides that the auto manufacturers are responsible for 15 providing the information that presently gives -- that it 16 has as to the vehicles that are -- it's not directing the 17 vehicle manufacturers to add or redesign their vehicles to 18 accommodate a specific part of the aftermarket industry. 19 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I understand. I'm 20 pretty comfortable. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Supervisor DeSaulnier. 22 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: With all those 23 suggestions I guess more positively, I'm going to 24 associate myself with D.D. And I had a conversation with 25 the aftermarket folks as well. Maybe it doesn't seem -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 in spite of the fact you've spent two years, it seems as 2 if the auto manufacturers are saying they believe this can 3 work out somehow in here. I'd like a comfort level 4 understanding what the statute says. But the spirit -- 5 we're not trying to do something detrimental to a 6 significant part of the market. 7 And I understand your perspective is you've been 8 even all the way through. So perhaps when we get to the 9 point of a motion, there's something we can put in there 10 just in terms of due diligence to make sure that we don't 11 do anything that upsets the apple cart too much. 12 And if you're confident, Catherine, that you have 13 done that, it should demonstrate itself over the course of 14 the implementation of the rule. It sounds as if what 15 you're saying is the concerns by the aftermarket folks 16 aren't realistic that they will be able to -- auto 17 manufacturers seem to feel the same way, that they will be 18 able to continue to be profitable and be able to put their 19 product in operation and the security issues will be 20 resolved under what you're suggesting. I'm concerned that 21 happens, and I think D.D.'s concerned with that as well. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The aftermarket 23 product industry is right, their profit margin will 24 shrink. But the remedy they're seeking goes beyond the 25 statutory mandate that the automakers design their car -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 they're not going to change the design of their cars to 2 facilitate the survival of that industry. And Honda is 3 saying that if it is to obtain a delay in complying with 4 the letter of this rule or EPA's rule, that it believes -- 5 Honda believes they can find a non-regulatory solution 6 that prevents that delay from hurting the aftermarket 7 repair industry that repairs their cars. But I don't 8 think we heard any testimony today if we handle the 9 immobilizer that any of the auto industry is happy with 10 that or thinks that we should move to a non-regulatory 11 solution. 12 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: We also follow the letter 13 of the statute. I know that I'm being somewhat facetious. 14 But over the course of the implementation, we want to make 15 sure it works and without spending a lot of time with 16 staff. 17 My experience with this Board and staff if we 18 want to make it work -- and maybe we're not here to make 19 sure the aftermarket people get a competitive advantage. 20 All I'm interested in is they stay in business and are 21 able to succeed and continue to be profitable. And I 22 don't hear anybody than maybe the aftermarket people -- 23 some of them aren't saying that either. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think that's a reasonable 25 request. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The statute 2 requires an annual report to the Legislature on how this 3 is going. And we're happy to bring that before you. 4 We're in the midst of preparing one right now, and we'll 5 have one a year from now. And every year after we can 6 schedule that for the Board's consideration as well. 7 Typically they just go through the -- 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We'll be happy with the 9 annual. 10 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I'm sorry. I missed -- 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think that at least where I 12 was coming from, I support this. Just to make sure 13 everything is going okay. You're coming back in April. 14 You have an opportunity there to see if have we made any 15 progress. It seems to me that is a natural point to see 16 how things are going and again share with us these issues, 17 and we will hear from the industry then. Maybe things 18 would have changed in that short time. But hopefully 19 there will be some additional comments on how that may 20 work. So that's what I was looking for, but I'm not 21 trying to add significant extra work but some feeling back 22 to the Board. 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's a status 24 report in April on the regular as opposed to bringing 25 OBD -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I understand. But the point 2 is it's related. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, it is. And 4 we'll discuss the status. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Yes, David, is there 6 any -- 7 MR. RANEY: Those are fair comments. Appreciate 8 it. 9 MR. FERRIS: I'm Dave Ferris from General Motors. 10 I support and agree with AIAM, Daimler Chrysler and Ford. 11 The first point on ECU rebuilers are benefits of allowing 12 the ECU rebuilder to avoid a few thousand dollars in 13 investment expense and extra test benches is not worth the 14 risk of a back door to get around our anti-theft system, 15 point number one. 16 Point number two addresses the comment on the 17 heavy-duty side of the potential red herring in terms of 18 the cost of redesigning. They really do need to change 19 the software on the ECM service tool and supporting 20 infrastructure. 21 On the light-duty side, when we had bidirectional 22 diagnostics information available, we had to change our 23 ECU to put safeguards into the ECM software in order to 24 make that data stream available to a broad range of tool 25 makers. That is a real need of something that needs to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 change. 2 And then on the reprogramming system side on the 3 light-duty side, we have very little, if any, 4 customization. In other words, our reprogramming systems 5 are mistake proof. If you will -- if you correctly type 6 in the VIN number, the CD Rom will feed the correct 7 calibration into the vehicle. There's very little room 8 for error. 9 Now on the heavy-duty side, these trucks -- even 10 for -- I'm familiar with Ellis Transmissions. They have 11 thousands of unique calibrations for relatively few 12 transmissions. And so their tools really do have a 13 tremendous capability for customization in the 14 reprogramming process, and they're going to need to change 15 the tools and reprogramming system in order to safeguard, 16 to limit errors, and limit the opportunities for 17 tampering, and to protect the proprietary information 18 that's currently built into those tools. That's all. 19 Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. Mr. 21 Calhoun. 22 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I'd like to make a general 23 comment. And Dave Ferris, you can add to this if you'd 24 like. 25 The idea of providing service -- servicing old -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 this issue with the automotive industry and the 2 aftermarket people is nothing new. And one of the major 3 complaints of the aftermarket is that they were not 4 getting information in a sufficient time such they could 5 go ahead and not be disadvantaged. Also complained that 6 the dealer service people got the information ahead of 7 time. And I think that's really what led to the 8 legislation because this is something they've been 9 fighting for years. So that, I think, is the primary 10 basis for the regulation. 11 The cost issue is something that is there. 12 There's a difference in the cost. That's something that 13 anyone who's in business can accept if they want to stay 14 in that particular business. 15 David, did you want to add anything to that? 16 MR. FERRIS: No. I think that's right. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 18 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I just wanted to, 19 for what it's worth, say I, too, do not want to see the 20 aftermarket industry penalized by this and any 21 significant -- I don't want to chase them out of business. 22 I mean, I think it's a very valuable and necessary 23 function. 24 MR. FERRIS: We agree. 25 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: And on the other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 hand, I think this is a rational and a reasonable approach 2 that's been presented. And so I'm pretty comfortable with 3 what I've heard and what's been presented. And I know 4 we're going to look at the liability questions for the 5 original -- for the manufacturers. And we're going to 6 keep the door open for the heavy duty. And of course, 7 we'll have an opportunity if there are any kinks in the 8 applications to the existing vehicles that have the -- 9 where this would apply more quickly, we'll learn from it. 10 I mean, will this become effective with respect to light 11 duty? 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's what our 13 side bar was about down here, was the effective date of 14 the regulations for light-duty. It would be by the Office 15 of Administrative Law, which has to occur no later than 16 December 5th of this year, twelve months from this date. 17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: We don't have any 18 real experience or learning curve under this? 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's something 20 else we were talking about. One of the things we're 21 responsible for is predatory pricing going on. And so in 22 addition to what the actual requirements are, how they're 23 being charged is something we're responsible to monitor 24 and to seek corrections to, if it's the prices themselves, 25 not the requirements, are having the effect of driving PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 independent repair folks out. So that we would have some 2 degree of information on -- and there might have been 3 movement on Honda in the interim. But the general impact 4 on the industry probably, no, we wouldn't know that yet. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 6 Thank you, David. I don't think there's any 7 questions here. Thank you very much. 8 I'd like to now close the record on this agenda 9 item. However, the record will be reopened when the 10 15-day notice of public availability is issued. Written 11 or oral comment received after this hearing date but 12 before the 15-day notice is issued will not be accepted as 13 part of the official record on this agenda item. When the 14 record is reopened for a 15-day comment period, the public 15 may submit written comments on the proposed changes which 16 are in the final statement of reasons for the regulation. 17 STAFF COUNSEL TERRIS: Mr. Chairman, I haven't 18 discussed this with anybody, but that the Board direct the 19 staff to reopen the record at the time that the heavy-duty 20 notice, OBD notice is issued, and that it remain open 21 until the end of that hearing and that it be reopened at 22 the time of the 15-day change. And also to direct the 23 staff to incorporate by reference the transcript from the 24 heavy-duty OBD hearing into this rule making so that we 25 can fully consider everything said at the Board hearing. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. 2 GENERAL COUNSEL JOHNSTON: That seems to be 3 appropriate. We can certainly do that if the Board 4 desires to do that. It would be a mechanism that could be 5 used -- 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. And I'm just looking 7 at the other stakeholders. Is that a positive or negative 8 with you? Positive or negative? Positive. Okay. 9 STAFF COUNSEL TERRIS: It would be limited just 10 to the heavy-duty issue. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Thank you. So read 12 that into the record in light of -- in lieu of my 13 statement there. 14 Again, before we start to vote, I'd like to ask 15 my colleagues, any ex parte statements here? 16 Ms. D'Adamo. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes. On the 20th of 18 January, I participated in a conference call with Aaron 19 Lowe and George Miller representing the Automotive 20 Aftermarket Industry Association. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And you discussed -- 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm sorry. Yes, and the 23 contents of the discussion mirrored the testimony 24 presented today by the industry. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I 2 met with Aaron Lowe and John Kurbal and George Miller. We 3 discussed things consistent with their testimony today, 4 and apparently they should have talked to more Board 5 members. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: They started late. 7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Well, and they're limited 8 too, don't forget that. 9 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I should point out we met 10 at a very popular restaurant in Concord, California. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, with that, I think -- 12 any further discussion from the Board? We do have a 13 resolution before us and we do have a couple of 14 suggestions in terms of how we might move ahead with 15 staff's suggestion. 16 Mr. McKinnon. 17 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. I just want to say 18 that I really think staff did a really good job of 19 balancing here. I'm sort of uncomfortable with dinging it 20 up with additional stuff other than the heavy-duty 21 question, sort of the implication. Just sort of my 22 opinion is that I don't want us to get into the liability 23 business. And frankly, I think balancing the car security 24 versus how often you need a new computer, it isn't very 25 often. I've never had it done, and I believe in driving PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 cars you know, 2-, 3-, 400,000 miles. 2 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Who wants to see an 3 Austin Healy. 4 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: But I've never had to 5 have the computer repaired. And so for a few of them to 6 sort of give additional risk to the public to have their 7 cars stolen for a very few -- and when what we're talking 8 about is additional test benches, I have a tough time 9 gumming this up, if you will. I think it's well done. 10 The only sort of concern I have is how much we're moving 11 in the heavy duty area in the next few years. And if 12 that's something that's sort of a no brainer that makes it 13 easier, I'm cool with that. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: If I interpret you correctly, 15 Mr. McKinnon, at least I would hope that when you say "not 16 gumming it up," if we approve the resolution and give some 17 direction to staff to look, for example, at the liability 18 issue and then also look at how this is working out 19 between the two, that's not really part of it. I guess in 20 addition to that you had gumming it up -- 21 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I think that's gumming it 22 up. I would argue against it. 23 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I think from my 24 perspective, as you always do a good job when you're 25 giving this kind of direction, I think against competing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 interest, I'd just like you to continue to work on, if 2 possible, bringing the two sides between the aftermarket 3 and the auto manufacturers even closer together. So 4 hopefully the direction that the Chairman is suggesting 5 gives you that opportunity. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I wasn't intending to gum it 7 up, because I agree. And all I was asking was that we 8 come back with some reassurance in the near term and you 9 have an opportunity to make sure things are moving ahead. 10 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I don't think that's 11 gumming it up. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And the issue of reporting it 13 back on liability. 14 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I haven't read the 15 statute, but I doubt if gumming it up is in there. 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Only in the sense we 17 are asking you to chew a little bit more on it. But we're 18 still going to act -- 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'm going to terminate this 20 discussion. 21 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I move -- is it 22 appropriate for a motion? 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The motion included two 24 items. 25 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, the motion is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 to adopt this, but with the understanding that the staff 2 is going to continue to massage it with the parties, 3 monitor it. 4 And the only reason I brought up the liability 5 question is they apparently had not been brought up 6 previously and they have not addressed it. And I think as 7 in my comments earlier, I don't see that we have a clear 8 role here. But I mean, there are warranties, but I 9 thought maybe legal ought to take a look at it and see 10 whether there are any implications here. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I was limited to the heavy 12 duty. 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, does that 14 include the language that counsel had proposed all that? 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Our record here 17 would continue to be part of the record in the future. 18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Because that is important, 19 I think. 20 GENERAL COUNSEL JOHNSTON: If I can clarify this 21 so we are following Roberts Rules of Order. There is a 22 motion now before the Board that the staff, in addition to 23 what else is in the resolution, consider the heavy-duty 24 liability aspects that were raised and the additional 25 concerns with heavy-duty, and that the staff also be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 directed to look at the immobilizer issue. Or am I 2 mischaracterizing what you would like to look at? 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: How the 4 regulation is being implemented and the effect on the 5 aftermarket industry, and also the Honda issue about 6 postponement of their effective date. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Plus, it will give us an 8 updated in April, which seems like it will give us a 9 reasonable -- because it's not exactly the same. But it 10 gives us an opportunity. And then there was the report to 11 the Legislature. But I feel this would be trying to not 12 put a burden on the staff, but give us some assurance -- 13 GENERAL COUNSEL JOHNSTON: The motion before the 14 Board is to consider those three aspects and for staff to 15 come back in April to address those be added to the 16 resolution. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. Supporting that -- 18 GENERAL COUNSEL JOHNSTON: So do you want to take 19 a vote on that now? 20 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Mr. Chairman, if I can get a 21 clarification. What exactly is the direction in terms of 22 the immobilizers? 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, the mover I think on 24 that -- I'll look to Mr. DeSaulnier, correct me. But what 25 I thought is to make sure that as we move ahead that we've PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 heard some issues, for example, that Honda has discussed. 2 We've heard some from the manufacturer, some of the -- 3 that maybe we need to do a little bit more and maybe staff 4 could make sure that we do as much as we can. But as we 5 adopt the resolution, there's some concern that we have 6 sufficient proactive -- staff says we have. I think we're 7 just asking for some assurance. 8 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: So that could consist of a 9 meeting with the affected parties and reporting back to us 10 that staff has done what they can do and that there is 11 nothing further that they can do without affecting the 12 security of our automobiles. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's exactly one of the 14 possible outcomes. 15 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: I'd support that. 16 GENERAL COUNSEL JOHNSTON: Mr. Terris has also 17 reminded me that he suggested, and the Board seemed to 18 concur, that any comments that were made in April on these 19 issues would be part of this rule making as well. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: For heavy duty. 21 GENERAL COUNSEL JOHNSTON: So that complex motion 22 is before you, I guess. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So with that, we have that 24 motion. So we have a proposer. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Second. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye. 2 (Ayes) 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Against? 4 Abstain? 5 It's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, staff. 6 GENERAL COUNSEL JOHNSTON: And now the vote on 7 the general resolution. That was to amend the resolution 8 to include those aspects. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. 10 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Move the general 11 resolution. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I assume everybody is in the 13 same. All in favor say aye. 14 (Ayes) 15 GENERAL COUNSEL JOHNSTON: Thank you very much. 16 Sorry to be so picky. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's consistent. 18 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: That's why you went to 19 law school. 20 (Laughter) 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. Thank 22 you staff. 23 And thank you for all the people coming to 24 testify. I think it was a very good dialogue. 25 With that, let's take a five-minute, until five PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 after, just a pit stop and give the court reporter a 2 chance to take a break. Take ten minutes. Ten after. 3 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The next item for the Board's 5 consideration is 04-1-5, update to ARB's attainment 6 designation for the state air quality standards and 7 amendments to the criteria used in the designation 8 process. As we heard earlier today, two air districts 9 have recently achieved an important clean air milestone, 10 attainment of the state ozone standard. This is a public 11 health accomplishment we can all take pride in. 12 I'm also pleased to see representatives of both 13 of the districts here today so we can convey our 14 congratulations. Great job. After staff's presentation, 15 I believe you will hear from both Air Control Officers, 16 Larry Allen of San Luis Obispo and Barbara Lee of Northern 17 Sonoma District. 18 The other element is the first set of 19 designations for the new state standard for fine 20 particulate matter. Based on the statewide monitoring 21 data, staff is proposing to formally identify the regions 22 in California which do not meet the state PM2.5 standard. 23 This initial step should help focus attention on the PM2.5 24 problem and trigger additional action to reduce fine 25 particulate pollution in California. Meeting particulate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 matter standards would provide a tremendous public health 2 benefit for California. As we discussed at last week's 3 SIP summit, integrating our ozone and particulate matter 4 strategies is a key principle underlying ARB's SIP 5 commitment and public health goals, and, of course, NOx is 6 part of the ozone. 7 So Ms. Witherspoon, would you please introduce 8 this item and begin staff's presentation. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. Thank you, 10 Dr. Lloyd. My remarks actually are a repeat of everything 11 that you just said. So I'm going to dispense with them 12 and introduce Marcie Nystrom to give the staff 13 presentation. 14 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 15 presented as follows.) 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: Thank you, 17 Ms. Witherspoon. 18 Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd and members of the 19 Board. Today I'll be talking about our proposed 20 amendments to both the designation criteria and the area 21 designations for state standards. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: I'd like to 24 start with a quick overview of this year's proposed 25 action. First, we're proposing two new attainment areas PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 for the state ozone standard, San Luis Obispo County and 2 the portion of Sonoma County which makes up the Northern 3 Sonoma Air Pollution Control District. The remainder of 4 Sonoma County is in the Bay Area District, which, as a 5 whole, is nonattainment. 6 We're also proposing one new attainment area for 7 sulfates. The Searles Valley planning area is located in 8 Northwest San Bernardino County in the vicinity of China 9 Lake and Ridgecrest. During previous years, a remote part 10 of this area was source impacted, but now the entire area 11 qualifies as attainment. 12 Lastly, this year marks the first time we're 13 proposing area designations for the new state PM2.5 14 standard. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: My 17 presentation focuses on two main areas: Our proposed 18 changes to the state designation criteria and our proposed 19 changes to the state area designations. The designation 20 criteria established the requirements for making area 21 designations while the area designation regulations 22 specifies the actual designations for each pollutant with 23 a state standard. 24 On a related topic, I'll describe the current 25 U.S. EPA activities relevant to the national PM2.5 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 standards. U.S. EPA is in the process of gathering the 2 information needed to make national designations. I'll 3 conclude the presentation with a summary of the staff 4 recommendations. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: I'd like to 7 start with the designation criteria. As I mentioned 8 earlier, these criteria establish the requirements for 9 making the state area designations. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: First, the 12 designation criteria define the specific designation 13 categories, such as attainment and nonattainment. Second, 14 they list the pollutants subject to the area designation 15 process. Third, they establish the types of data that are 16 required. And finally, the criteria distinguish between 17 the regional and more localized pollutants in terms of the 18 size of the designated area. I'll talk about these in a 19 little more detail in the next several slides. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: The criteria 22 define four designation categories as is listed on this 23 slide. A nonattainment designation indicates that air 24 quality violates the state standard. The next category, 25 nonattainment-transitional, is a sub-category of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 nonattainment. This designation is given to areas that 2 still have a few exceedances but are close to attaining 3 standard. 4 In contrast to the first two categories, 5 attainment indicates that air quality does not violate the 6 state standard. Finally, unclassified indicates 7 inadequate data on which to base a more specific 8 designation. In terms of the PM2.5 designations, we'll be 9 proposing a number of unclassified areas. It's possible 10 that some of these areas may be designated as 11 nonattainment when additional monitoring data become 12 available. However, in general, unclassified areas have 13 relatively few emission sources and are not likely to 14 exceed the standards. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: After the 17 Board adopts the state standard, state law requires the 18 Board to designate areas for each standard. The 19 designations do not reflect the severity of an area's air 20 pollution problem, but instead they indicate whether or 21 not the health-based standard is met throughout the 22 region. 23 Under state law, the Board is required to make 24 designations for the ten pollutants listed here. This is 25 the first time we're proposing designations for the new PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 state PM2.5 standards. Of the ten pollutants listed on 2 this slide, our focus is on three: Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. 3 Virtually all of the state attains the standards for the 4 other pollutants, except visibility-reducing particles, 5 which are addressed through the PM standards. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: The data we 8 use for making area designations must meet certain overall 9 representativeness in this criteria. Generally, these are 10 data collected by the ARB or local districts. However, we 11 also use data from other sources as long as they meet the 12 same requirements. The time period we look at is the most 13 recent three calendar years with complete and validated 14 data. This year's review is based on data from the years 15 2000, 2001, and 2002. However, a review of preliminary 16 2003 data indicate no change from what we're proposing. 17 In addition to the three-year requirement, the 18 data must also reflect the averaging time of the standard 19 and the season during which high concentrations occur. 20 For example, ozone concentrations must reflect a 1-hour 21 average in time and provide complete coverage during the 22 high ozone season, which is usually during the summer. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: The size of 25 the area designated for each pollutant is based on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 characteristics of that pollutant. For pollutants with a 2 regional impact, we use an air basin as a starting point. 3 For the other pollutants, which tend to have a more 4 localized impact, we use a county. In both cases, the 5 Board may designate a smaller area if air quality 6 emissions and other relevant data indicate a smaller area 7 is justified. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: This year 10 we're proposing several changes to the designation 11 criteria. The primary change is to add PM2.5 to the list 12 of regional pollutants that are designated by air basin. 13 Because PM2.5 can have a regional impact similar to ozone 14 and PM10, an air basin is the most appropriate starting 15 point. However, like the other pollutants, the Board can 16 designate a smaller area if appropriate. And in fact, 17 today we're proposing several smaller areas for PM2.5, 18 which I'll talk about later. 19 The other proposed amendments to the criteria are 20 minor and are intended to provide clarification. First, 21 we propose to expand and simplify the discussions 22 describing the procedures we used for evaluating 23 representative and complete data. These changes should 24 make the procedures easier to understand. 25 We're also proposing several other minor changes. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 And in general, these changes would clarify and make 2 consistent various references within the current 3 designation criteria. I'd like to emphasize that none of 4 the proposed criteria changes effect our overall approach 5 or the way in area designations. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: Now I'd like 8 to move on to our proposed amendments to the area 9 designation for state standards. As I mentioned earlier, 10 this year's changes are based on our review of data 11 collected during 2000 through 2002. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: Based on data 14 for these three years, we're proposing several changes. 15 This includes the new designations for PM2.5 and changes 16 to the current designation for ozone, carbon monoxide and 17 sulfates. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: The Board 20 adopted a PM2.5 standard in June of 2002. The standard 21 became effective in July of 2003. As part of this action, 22 the Board also revised the annual PM10 standard and 23 approved an expanded list of PM monitors, including for 24 the first time continuous monitors. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: This map shows 2 our proposed area designations for the state PM2.5 3 standard. Lake County is currently the only area that 4 qualifies as attainment. We're proposing a number of 5 nonattainment areas, including all of the state's major 6 urban areas. 7 Most of the nonattainment areas coincide with air 8 basin or county boundaries. However, three areas 9 represent smaller unique areas. Staff believes these 10 smaller areas are appropriate based on population, 11 emissions, and topography. The boundary for the Portola 12 Valley in Plumas County is defined by hydrological or 13 drainage area boundaries. The city of Calexico in 14 Imperial County is defined by U.S. Census Bureau 15 boundaries. And finally, the boundary for the central 16 portion of San Bernardino County is aligned with the 17 federal ozone planning area. Because these areas are not 18 identified on conventional maps, we're proposing to 19 include their descriptions within the area designation 20 regulations. 21 Finally, the map shows a number of unclassified 22 areas due to limited data. As I mentioned earlier, it's 23 possible that additional nonattainment areas may be 24 identified as we continue to collect additional PM2.5 25 data. However, for the most part, we don't expect there PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 will be many new nonattainment areas. 2 Before going on, I'd just like to mention that in 3 addition to PM2.5, we did review the PM10 designations in 4 light of the revised annual standard. However, air 5 quality data did not indicate a need for any changes to 6 the existing PM10 designations. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: In reviewing 9 the data for the other pollutants, we noted several 10 changes for ozone, CO, and sulfates. As I mentioned 11 earlier, two new areas now qualify as attainment for the 12 state ozone standard. These are San Luis Obispo County 13 and the northern portion of Sonoma County. Both of these 14 areas are currently designated as 15 nonattainment-transitional. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: The remaining 18 three areas for ozone are either going from nonattainment 19 to nonattainment-transitional, or from 20 nonattainment-transitional back to nonattainment. Ozone 21 nonattainment-transitional is a little different from the 22 other designation categories because the requirements are 23 specified in state law rather than in the designation 24 criteria. Furthermore, these designations occur by 25 operation of law without any action by the Board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: The last two 3 redesignations reflect progress towards attainment. The 4 first one is for carbon monoxide. The Los Angeles County 5 portion of the South Coast air basin is currently 6 nonattainment for CO. During the most recent year with 7 complete data, there were no violations of the state 8 standard. And this area now meets the requirements for 9 nonattainment transitional. Therefore, we're proposing 10 the area be redesignated as nonattainment transitional for 11 the state CO standard. 12 The last proposed change is for sulfates. The 13 Searles Valley planning area in Northwest San Bernardino 14 County is currently the only nonattainment area for 15 sulfates. Based on our review of relevant data, this area 16 now qualifies as attainment. And with this change, all 17 areas of California will be attainment for the state 18 sulfate standard. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: This concludes 21 my summary of our proposed changes to the state 22 designation criteria and state area designations. 23 However, before I summarize the staff recommendations, I'd 24 like to briefly share with you some information about the 25 expected designations for the national PM2.5 standards. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 172 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: We've been 3 working with the districts to provide the necessary data 4 to U.S. EPA for making national PM2.5 designations. Under 5 the current schedule, EPA expects to issue final 6 designations by the end of this year. If the schedule 7 holds, SIPS will be due three years later with attainment 8 deadlines ranging from 2009 through 2014. We expect there 9 will be four nonattainment areas. They are the San 10 Joaquin Valley, South Coast Air Basin, the city of 11 Calexico, and San Diego County. 12 As shown in the table, PM2.5 concentrations in 13 all four areas exceed the national annual standard. 14 Concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley and the South 15 Coast also exceed the 24-hour standard. Although these 16 are the expected designations, based on data from 2000 17 through 2002, EPA will base the final designations on data 18 from 2001 through 2003. As a result, the designation for 19 Calexico could change since the concentrations there are 20 so close to the standard. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST NYSTROM: And now in 23 summary, the staff recommends you adopt the proposed 24 changes to both the designation criteria and the area 25 designations for state standards. The proposed criteria PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 173 1 changes add PM2.5 to the list of pollutants designated by 2 air basin. We also propose making various other changes 3 for clarity and consistency. 4 The proposed area designation changes include 5 first time PM2.5 designations and several changes to the 6 existing area designations for ozone, CO, and sulfates. 7 This concludes my presentation. And I will be 8 happy to answer any questions you might have. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. At this 10 time I'd like to ask Madam Ombudsman to please describe 11 the public participation process that was followed while 12 this item was being developed and share any observations 13 or concerns you have with us all at this time. 14 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Thank you. 15 Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, I'm 16 pleased to discuss the outreach efforts for this item. 17 Although staff did not work directly one-on-one with any 18 specific industry group, the following were represented at 19 public workshop, a hearth products manufacturer, a 20 monitoring equipment manufacturer, a truck and engine 21 manufacturer, and the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers. 22 Also attending was a representative from the 23 Merced/Mariposa County Asthma Coalition. 24 In August 2003, staff initiated their efforts to 25 develop this proposal. They held a public workshop on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 174 1 October 15th, 2003, in Sacramento at the monitoring and 2 laboratory division. On the next day, staff posted the 3 presentation and all materials from the workshop on ARB's 4 website. 5 Staff also sent a notification notice to all 6 those on the listserve. In addition, they contacted each 7 air pollution control air quality management district to 8 discuss their proposed PM designation and any other 9 changes pertaining to their district. The public hearing 10 notice and staff report were published and posted to the 11 website on December 5th, 2003. The notice was also sent 12 by mail and e-mail to several hundred individuals and 13 companies. Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 15 Any questions from the Board? Or we've got two 16 people signed up to testify, the two winners, Larry Allen 17 from San Luis Obispo County and Barbara Lee from northern 18 Sonoma County. 19 MR. ALLEN: Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd, 20 members of the Board. I'm proud and pleased to be here 21 today to accept this acknowledgement of this significant 22 milestone for our district and for our citizens. I wish 23 that our former director, Bob Car, was able to be here 24 today to share in this. Not many of you know him. And he 25 retired two years ago after 28 years as our director. And PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 175 1 it was definitely his desire to see us reach attainment 2 before he retired. He missed it by just a few years. 3 But it was really -- you know, I have to give Bob 4 a lot of credit. Through his leadership, our district 5 fostered excellent relationships with our industry and our 6 local community, which was really instrumental in 7 developing and implementing our clean air plan 8 successfully. And our plan had a lot of wide support 9 throughout our community and with our industry. 10 Even with that support, I don't think this 11 achievement would have been possible without the very 12 strong mandates that were present in the California Clean 13 Air Act, which really provided the impetus for change in 14 our region. And it was that impetus that allowed us to 15 work very closely with our industry to effectively 16 implement all feasible control measures pretty much across 17 the spectrum of all of our stationary sources and 18 ultimately with the cautious support of our industry in 19 implementing those measures. 20 We also relied heavily on those mandates to adopt 21 and implement a wide variety of transportation control 22 measures and land use planning recommendations, and 23 particularly relied on that to try to convince our local 24 planning and transportation agencies to work with us in 25 implementing the transit improvements, the bike and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 176 1 pedestrian infrastructure improvements, adopting local 2 land use planning strategies, smart growth measures into 3 their general plans and working with our employers in 4 dealing with voluntary trip reduction measures. 5 Over the past eight years, we've also provided 6 over $8 million in grants for emission reduction projects 7 at the local level, mostly on-road and off-road heavy 8 duty, that provide a significant reduction to NOx 9 throughout our region and brought money back into the 10 community through the use of DMV fees, the Moyer funding 11 program and also several large mitigation grant programs 12 that we had going locally in our district. And finally, 13 ARB's progressive and stringent Mobile Source Control 14 Program has been an essential component of our ability to 15 attain the standard. 16 All those efforts resulted in over 30 percent 17 reduction in NOx emissions and over 25 percent reduction 18 in ROG emissions county wide in our district and as well 19 as the elimination of over 45,000 vehicle trips per day 20 and 150,000 vehicle miles traveled throughout our region. 21 That achievement has come with a substantial cost 22 to our industry and to our community and the dedication of 23 significant resources by our district and by our partner 24 agencies. And I don't think that work is over. We would 25 be only a bad weather year away from slipping back into PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 177 1 nonattainment. And there's also a danger that our local 2 businesses and our citizens could become complacent now 3 that we've reached this milestone. So we do need 4 continued support at the state level to ensure that that 5 doesn't happen. 6 State mandates need to remain strong in all 7 realms to provide the leverage we need to move our 8 regulatory programs forward in an effort to maintain 9 attainment of the ozone standard. That's particularly 10 important in ongoing efforts to reduce vehicle use through 11 smart growth measures and improved transportation 12 alternatives. We need strong state leadership in that 13 realm to help the districts and the local planning 14 agencies promote those programs on a regional level. 15 I found that to be one of the elements that was 16 lacking from the strategies present at the SIP summit last 17 week, and I said so at that summit. I'm saying so again. 18 I would urge your Board to take a stronger step in that 19 direction. I would -- 20 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Sorry, Larry. You 21 weren't here earlier. We had this discussion. So I fully 22 agree with you. Catherine, I hope you're listening, Board 23 members. 24 MR. ALLEN: Well, I believe it's going to be an 25 essential element, not only in maintaining attainment, but PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 178 1 as we start to struggle with the immense challenge of 2 global warming, I believe that we are going to become 3 immersed at the regulatory level in the near future. And 4 I think we have to be proactive now. And you are a 5 progressive Board with a very talented and dedicated 6 staff. And you're looked to nationwide to set the example 7 for others to follow. And I really believe you need to 8 set an example in this realm. Thanks. 9 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: We're counting on local 10 government showing us the way. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Larry. And I 12 thank you for your testimony. Mark couldn't have paid you 13 enough for that. 14 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Catherine, see, 40,000 15 vehicle miles traveled a day. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 17 Barbara Lee. 18 MS. LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 19 the Board. I will be brief. I can't claim nearly the 20 record that San Luis Obispo can claim in long-term 21 progress in terms of a standard. Our time as an 22 nonattainment area was brief and, as you may be aware, was 23 heavily influenced by transported pollutants from the Bay 24 Area. I would like to give the Bay Area credit for -- 25 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: What's going on here? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 179 1 I'll take it where I can find it. 2 (Laughter) 3 MS. LEE: I know a lot of bashing has happened 4 against the Bay Area for transport of pollutants against 5 the state for perhaps perceptions of not being strong 6 enough in that area, and more recently in regards to the 7 mobile source component of the SIP. 8 I think what I can see looking at my monitoring 9 data is that for many years we had a creeping up ozone 10 trend. And for the last four years, we have had a steady 11 decrease in our ozone. And I don't believe that this is a 12 transitory thing. I think it's a trend. I think it's a 13 testament to progress that has been made in the Bay Area 14 and progress that has been made throughout the state. And 15 the pollutants that overwhelmed the air quality in 16 Northern Sonoma. 17 So I want to thank you all for that. And I want 18 to continue to support you and say that in spite of the 19 fact that we have very clean air in Northern Sonoma now, 20 we're still going to be here with local government trying 21 to help lead the way. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Congratulations to both of 23 you. And hopefully your bosses give you an extra bonus 24 for getting there. 25 MS. LEE: We got it at Christmas, but I enjoy PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 180 1 having time off. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 3 Also I'd like to thank one of our colleagues, 4 Ms. Riordan, for the fact that you notice on sulfate 5 Searles Valley planning area is now proposed attainment. 6 So I thank Ms. Riordan. 7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Well, it doesn't compare 8 to ozone, I don't believe. And I think we had a special 9 little corner there with special problems that have been 10 eliminated. So thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So any more discussion on 12 this item? 13 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Are there any other 14 public speakers, Mr. Chairman? 15 (Laughter) 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I could say perhaps the 17 Bay Area contributed to our help there in cleaning up 18 sulfur. I'm sure that would have worked. 19 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: We found out earlier it 20 wasn't the Bay Area's fault after all. It was China's 21 fault and Asia's fault. 22 But seriously, I want to congratulate you both, 23 and I do think my colleagues on our Board have changed 24 dramatically in the last few years. And it's part of also 25 the VMT thing as well. There's a tendency in politics, as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 181 1 we all know, for political transferences to blame it on 2 somebody else. And I think we all have to accept 3 responsibility, whether it's an up-wind district or 4 whether our role, when we deal with COGs and MPOs, is to 5 point out the public health benefit in multiple things, 6 like VMT reductions. 7 Are you sure there's no one else out there in the 8 audience? 9 (Laughter) 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Let the record reflect 11 100 percent of the witnesses agreed with the Supervisor 12 and commended him on the work -- 13 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I would now like to 14 submit my resignation. 15 (Laughter) 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I guess with that, we have no 17 more discussion. I guess do we have any ex parte 18 communications? 19 We have a resolution before so -- 20 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: So moved. 21 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Second. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye. 23 (Ayes) 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Anybody against? No. 25 Unanimous. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 182 1 Thank you all very much. I don't see any other 2 items, so thank you, staff. And we'll just alert the 3 Board that next month we have two days of -- well, we may 4 have two days, I guess. But since we have the record 5 open, it could be a longer time, I guess. We'll have to 6 see how that works out. 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: At the moment it 8 looks like it's one very long day. If you're prepared to 9 stay late on Thursday, we shouldn't have to reconvene 10 Friday morning. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But that's subject to change 12 as we get closer. 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We left the 14 record open, and it's possible that you could have an 15 entire rehearing of the open regs. We're hoping people 16 are expeditious if they wish to testify again and get 17 straight to the point. 18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, maybe staff 19 could help by -- you obviously know who will be here 20 probably and who will not be here, encouraging them that 21 if they are to raise any issues, that they must be new. 22 They can't rehash an entire amount of testimony. I think 23 that would just be a burden. And after a while you really 24 do yourself a disservice during that -- 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I presume maybe we can have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 183 1 staff give a quick recount so we can check it off. 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We'll do that, 3 and we'll write your script to include the remarks at the 4 outset. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I would like to draw your 6 attention to the CAPCOA conference on diesel next week at 7 South Coast. I think it's Tuesday and Wednesday. Looks 8 like a very fine conference we'll be participating in. 9 With that, I'd like to bring the January 22nd 10 meeting of the Air Resources Board to a close and see you 11 next month. Thank you very much. One three six. 12 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board 13 adjourned at 1:36 p.m.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 184 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, TIFFANY C. KRAFT, a Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered 4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify: 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 6 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, 7 Tiffany C. Kraft, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 8 State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 9 typewriting. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 4th day of February, 2004. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 License No. 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345