Enclosure 4

Enclosure 4 Public Hearing Notice evidence and transcripts of the April 28, 2011 ARB Board Hearing to consider approval of the Progress Report and Proposed SIP Revisions.Enclosure 4

Attachment A Public Hearing Notice

Notice of Public Hearing to Consider t he Appro val o f a Progress Report and Proposed State Implementa t ion Plan Revisions f or P M 2. 5Enclosure 4

Attachment B Email Notification Date: March 29, 2011 Subject: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider t he Approval of a Progress Report a nd Proposed State Implementation Pla n Revisions f or P M 2.5Enclosure 4

Attachment C Board Meeting AgendaMEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

JOE SERNA, JR. BUILDING CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BYRON SHER AUDITORIUM, SECOND FLOOR

1001 I STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2011

9:00 A.M.

TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 12277

CALIFORNIA REPORTING, LLC (415) 457-4417 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25APPEARANCES

BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Mary Nichols, Chairperson Ms. Sandra Berg Ms. Lydia Kennard Mr. Ronald O. Loveridge Mrs. Barbara Riordan Mr. Ron Roberts Dr. Daniel Sperling Mr. Ken Yeager

STAFF Mr. James Goldstene, Executive Officer Ms. La Ronda Bowen, Ombudsman Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Bob Fletcher, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Ellen Peter, Chief Counsel Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Office Mr. Sam Gregor, Air Pollution Specialist, Planning and Regulatory Development Section, Mobile Source Contr ol Division Mr. Jeff Lindberg, Air Pollution Specialist, Air Qu ality and Transportation Planning Branch, PTSD Mr. David Mehl, Manager, Energy Section, SSD Ms. Mary Alice Morency, Board Clerk

CALIFORNIA REPORTING, LLC 52 LONGWOOD DRIVE SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 (415) 457-4417 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25APPEARANCES CONTINUED

ALSO PRESENT Mr. Damian Breen, Bay Area AQMD Mr. Skip Brown, Delta Construction Company Mr. Hank de Carbonel, CA Concrete Pumpers Alliance Ms. Elaine Chang, South Coast AQMD Mr. Randal Friedman, U.S. Navy Region Southwest Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association Mr. Scott Holmquist, HME Fire Apparatus Mr. Mark Loutzenhiser, SMAQMD Mr. Fred Minassian, South Coast AQMD Mr. Brent Newell, Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment Ms. Betty Plowman, CDTOA

CALIFORNIA REPORTING, LLC 52 LONGWOOD DRIVE SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 (415) 457-4417 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25INDEX

Page

Item 11-2-1 Chairperson Nichols 6 Executive Officer Goldstene 6 Staff Presentation 7 Q&A 12 Mr. Friedman 15 Item 11-2-3 Chairperson Nichols 20 Executive Officer Goldstene 21 Staff Presentation 23 Board Member Berg 45 Q&A 49 Mr. Minassian 58 Mr. Holmquist 59 Mr. Loutzenhiser 62 Mr. Breen 65 Ms. Holmes-Gen 66 Motion 72 Vote 73 Item 11-2-4 Chairperson Nichols 73 Executive Officer Goldstene 73 Staff Presentation 74 Q&A 88 Mr. de Carbonel 90 Ms. Chang 93 Mr. Newell 93 Mr. Brown 95 Ms. Plowman 97 Adjournment 105 Reporter's Certificate 106

CALIFORNIA REPORTING, LLC 52 LONGWOOD DRIVE SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 (415) 457-4417 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Moved and seconded. All in

favor, please say aye.

(Ayes) CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Opposed? Great. Thanks. We have one additional item for consideration. That is approval of a progress report of proposed S IP revisions for PM2.5.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Thank you, Chairman Nichols. Since the adoption of the PM2.5 SIP in 2007 and '08, we've been adopting the measures outlined in t he SIPS and have made tremendous strides in achieving emiss ions reductions needed to meet the federal standard for PM2.5 in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley.

Although we've been implementing the SIPS for sometime now, U.S. EPA is now just wrapping up its review and approval process. The EPA's review is an extre mely technical process that includes looking in detail a t the emissions accounting and modeling that are underpin ning the SIP.EPA has already proposed to approve the emissions inventory for both the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley. They've also proposed to approve the modeling for S outh Coast. They requested, and staff has provided, add itional extensive documentation on San Joaquin Valley model ing 73

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25that will allow them to approve the modeling for th e

valley as well.

The final piece that U.S. EPA has asked for is a technical revision to the SIP to account for the em issions impacts of ARB regulations adopted since 2007, espe cially the Board's rules for diesel trucks and off-road equipment. Staff has worked closely with EPA staff to include all the information in the accounting that EPA needs to approve the SIPS.

I'll now ask Jeff Lindberg from the Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch to present the r eport and describe the SIP revision. Jeff.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. (Thereupon an overhead presentation was presented as follows.) AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Goldstene.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board. In this presentation, I'll be describing California's progress implementing the PM2.5 SIPS i n the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins and presenting a proposed SIP revision to account for r ecent Board actions. --o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: Today, we are 74

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25asking the Board to approve submittal of revisions to the

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plans, or SIPS, to EPA. These revis ions apply to the reasonable further progress calculatio ns and transportation conformity budgets to the two region s. We are also asking the Board to approve submittal to E PA of ARB's updated PM2.5 SIP rulemaking calendar. The S outh Coast Air Quality Management District also adopted SIP revisions to their local plan element. Staff is pr oposing the Board approve submittal of that revision to EPA as well. --o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: I'll start with some background on the SIP process. --o0o-- AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: The process begins when EPA establishes an ambient air quality standard to ensure the protection of public health. With the standard in place, EPA designates areas that ex ceed the standard.

Based on the Clean Air Act provisions, EPA also establishes the deadline by which states must take the necessary actions to meet the national standard.

For each non-attainment area identified, states must adopt a SIP that shows how the standard will b e met 75

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25by the attainment date. In California, these plans are

developed through a joint effort of local air distr icts and ARB, with local adoption of the SIP as the firs t step. Under state law, ARB then reviews each regional SIP to ensure it meets Federal Clean Air Act requirements.

SIP implementation begins once the plan is adopted by the Board. In the case of the PM2.5 SIP , implementation began in 2007.

The Clean Air Act requires federal review and approval of the SIPS submitted by states.

Finally, I will note that the SIP development is an ongoing process. Every five years, EPA is requi red to review the established standards in light of recent health effects information to ensure that the standard con tinues to protect public health.

When EPA revises an air quality standard, a new SIP process is triggered with another set of SIPS a nd deadlines. This iterative process ensures that the national standards reflect new health studies, but also result in multiple SIPS for pollutants such as PM2. 5 and

ozone. --o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: With that overarching process in mind, I will briefly focus o n key SIP elements. 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25The heart of the SIP is the scientific foundation

that is used to demonstrate attainment. Working to gether, ARB and the districts inventory current emissions d ata, conduct air quality modeling, evaluate ambient air quality data, and determine emissions targets needed for attainment.

Once the emission targets are established, ARB and the local districts develop control strategies to reach the emission target by the attainment date. The Clean Air Act also establishes SIP requirements to ensure that states are making reasonable further progress toward attainment, that transformation related emissions a re consistent with the SIPS attainment strategy, and t hat anticipated rule actions support the State's commit ment to implement the SIP strategy. --o0o-- AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: In order to establish the emission targets, ARB and the distric t use state of the science air quality models. The model s reference air quality and emissions in a base year. The South Coast Air District chose 2002 for its base ye ar. Since the San Joaquin Valley adopted their PM2.5 pl an a year after the South Coast, in 2008, instead of 200 7, they used a more recent base year of 2005.

The base year is the year used to calibrate 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25measured air quality to emissions using a computer model.

That relationship tells us how much emissions need to be reduced to reach the standard. Because we used a b ased year before the recession, that fundamental relatio nship did not change with the recession reduced emissions . What did change, of course, was 2014 emissions and how m any reductions from regulations are needed.

With the 2014 emission targets established, each region develops a PM2.5 control strategy using a combination of adopted regulations and enforceable commitments to reduce emissions that contribute to levels above the standard. --o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: PM2.5 is a complex mix of many different chemical components, so the control strategy must focus on several precursors. These components include PM2.5, which is directly emitted such as diesel exhaust or wood smoke, as well as compone nts formed from gaseous precursors such as oxides of ni trogen, known as NOx, or oxides of sulfur, known as SOX. T he make up of PM2.5 varies throughout the state. In the So uth Coast region, the key precursors are directly emitt ed PM2.5 as well as NOx, SOX, and reactive organic gas es, or ROG. In the San Joaquin Valley, the key precursors are 78

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25PM2.5, NOx, and SOX. Extensive air quality researc h

conducted in the valley indicates that ROG is not a significant contributor to PM2.5 levels in the vall ey. --o0o-- AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: With the key precursors identified, the air quality model is use d to evaluate the relative effectiveness of reducing eac h precursor. For example, we use the model to assess the relative benefits of controlling one ton of directl y emitted PM2.5 versus controlling one ton of NOx in terms of reducing PM2.5 concentrations. These relative effectiveness ratios are essential in guiding the development of the overall control strategy.

These ratios can also be used to normalize the benefits of multiple precursors so they can be refl ected in terms of a single equivalent precursor. This me thod provides a uniform metric for tracking progress rel ative to the attainment emissions targets. --o0o-- AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: Now that we have described the process for developing the SIP, I would like to provide some background on the PM2.5 SIPS a dopted nearly four years ago.

In 2007, ARB adopted its strategy for PM2.5 attainment, focusing on the accelerated turnover of 79

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25existing diesel powered vehicles and equipment. At the same time in 2007, the Board approved the South Coast component of the PM2.5 SIP. A year lat er, in 2008, the Board approved the San Joaquin Valley por tion of the plan. --o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: In November of last year, EPA proposed its rulemaking action on these 2007 and 2008 SIPS. They found of some of the comp onents approveable, while others they proposed to disappro ve. EPA proposed approval of the ARB and local control strategies and related elements. However, EPA also proposed to disapprove the SIP, other portions of t he SIP, arguing that ARB relied too heavily on enforceable commitments. EPA would like a greater portion of t he needed reductions to come from adopted rules rather than enforceable commitments.

Despite the use of enforceable commitments, since the SIPS were first adopted in 2007 and 2008, ARB a nd the local districts have made good on these commitments to implement the strategies in the SIP and are now wel l on the way to meeting the emission targets in 2014. E PA has requested a revision to the SIPS in order to re-pro pose action in May. --o0o-- 80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: Although EPA

hasn't yet approved the PM2.5 SIPS, both ARB and th e districts began implementation as soon as we adopte d the plans. --o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: The Board has now taken action on all of the significant NOx, PM2 .5, and SOX sources identified in the PM2.5 SIPS.

With a focus on reducing emissions from diesel fleets, the Board adopted rules that accelerate the cleanup of commercial trucks, off-road construction equipment, and goods movement equipment used at por ts and rail yards.

The Board also adopted controls on consumer products. To ensure that passenger vehicles remain as clean as possible, California strengthened the Smog Check Program by including diesel vehicles, tightening cu t points, and inspecting evaporative emission control systems. Locally, both the South Coast and San Joa quin Valley districts are meeting their commitments to r educe emissions from sources under their jurisdictions. --o0o-- AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: The Board's action to reduce emissions from diesel fleets is ti mely. When EPA proposed to partially disapprove Californi a's 81

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25PM2.5 SIPS late last year, a key issue it had was

California's need to rely on commitments to achieve additional reductions. The Board acted to fulfill its commitment in December by taking action on the dies el rules. The Board structured the rules to meet the PM2.5 SIP emission targets in 2014, recognizing the impac ts of the recession. --o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: The proposed PM2.5 SIP revisions reflect the same forecasts used when the Board adopted the diesel rules last year.

The base year inventory used for SIP modeling precedes the recession, so the recession had no eff ect on the modeled emission targets. Other inventory improvements did change the base year inventory som ewhat, but these changes were quite small. In the South C oast, the change was about 2 percent, while in the San Jo aquin Valley, it amounted to about 4 percent. These smal l changes are well within the band of modeling uncert ainty and so have no impact on the modeled emission targe ts.

In the 2014 attainment year, the impact of the recession and the improvements to the inventory for ecasts are much more significant. So to understand how mu ch progress we have made toward meeting these targets, we need to look at the impacts of both the recession a nd the 82

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25adopted rules. The next two slides will visually illustrate the emission reductions we now expect by 2014. --o0o-- AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: This graph shows how the South Coast air basin is meeting its 2014 emission targets by counting for both the recession and adopted State and local emission controls.

This chart illustrates the remaining emissions in NOx-equivalent terms, which is consistent with the South Coast district's focus on reducing NOx emissions.

The bar on the left is the NOx equivalent level in the 2002 base year. The bar on the right is our current estimate of attainment year emissions and a ccounts for adopted rules and recession impacts. This show s that we are 94 percent of the way toward meeting the 201 4 emission target. --o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: This slide illustrates similar information for the San Joaquin Valley. With the current emission forecast and regulations, ARB and district have taken the action s necessary to reach the 2014 SIP emission target. --o0o-- AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: I'll now turn 83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25my focus to the proposed SIP revisions. --o0o-- AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: The proposed SIP revisions are needed for several reasons. It i s important for us to account for the benefits of the Board's actions on diesel rules and to account for the impacts of the recession. EPA expects to re-propos e final action on California's PM2.5 SIPS in May 2011, next month, and has requested this revision of ARB. The propos ed revisions will provide U.S. EPA with the informatio n it needs to fully approve the PM2.5 SIPS.

The South Coast AQMD has also adopted a SIP revision that staff is proposing to submit to EPA. It'll describe that submittal momentarily. --o0o-- AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: There are three parts to ARB's proposed SIP revisions. The f irst is the reasonable further progress, or RFP, calculatio n. Our current estimate now indicates that we are achievin g even greater near-term emission reductions than was envi sioned when the SIPS were initially adopted.

The second revision affects the transportation conformity budgets. The transformation conformity budgets ensure that emissions from motor vehicles remain wi thin the limits established in the SIPS. The budgets pr oposed 84

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25today reflect the Board's December action on the di esel

rules. Finally, staff is proposing to update the rulemaking calendar for the remaining actions that we expect to bring to the Board for consideration by 2 013. --o0o-- AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: The South Coast Air District also responded to EPA's request for a SIP revision. The district re-calibrated the estim ated reductions, its surplus off-road opt-in for NOx, or SOON Program, will achieve in order to reflect ARB's cur rent off-road equipment emission forecasts. The revisio n does not alter the district's commitment to pursue addit ional reductions through the SOON Program.

The South Coast Air District also updated their SIP, by committing an additional ton of NOx reducti ons in 2014 if EPA is unable to reduce emissions from sour ces under federal authority.

Staff reviewed the district's updates and proposes that the Board approve the revisions for submittal to U.S. EPA as a SIP revision. --o0o-- AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: The next two slides focus on the current PM2.5 air quality in th e South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins. As you wi ll see, 85

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25measured air quality is within range of the attainm ent of

the PM2.5 standard. --o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: This slide illustrates PM2.5 levels in the South Coast air bas in in 2010. The air quality data show that the South Coa st air basin is very near attaining the annual standard. Monitors in the coastal and central areas met the s tandard last year. Only one inland monitor, in the Riversi de area, slightly exceeded the standard in 2010. --o0o-- AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: The San Joaquin Valley has also seen air quality improvemen t, particularly in the northern and central regions. In the southern part of the valley last year, one monitor, located in the Bakersfield area, recorded levels ab ove the federal standard. --o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: SIP planning is an ongoing process. So I'll now brief you on ou r activities to implement the federal standards. --o0o-- AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: With respect to the federal PM2.5 standards, our focus is three- fold.

First, the implementation of the adopted PM2.5 86

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25SIPS and the adopted regulations continues to be a

priority. We are also in the initial stages of dev eloping a proposed SIP to address the 24-hour PM2.5 standar d. Those SIPS are due to EPA in December of next year.

Finally, staff monitors EPA's periodic standard review process in order to understand the impact on California. --o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: For the federal ozone standard, EPA is currently in the pro cess of re-evaluating the 8-hour ozone standard it adopted in 2008. Staff will brief the Board next month on tha t process.We also continue to focus on implementing the adopted ozone SIPS. While today's proposal address es the current PM2.5 SIPS, the recent Board action on the diesel rules and the economic recession also impact the te chnical elements of the ozone SIPS adopted in 2007. Staff will be proposing similar SIP revisions for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley ozone SIPS in June.

Finally, as with other federal air quality standards, we continue to track EPA's current revie w of the ozone standard. --o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: I will end my 87

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25presentation by summarizing the Board action staff is

recommending today.

Staff recommends that the Board approve the submittal of the proposed SIP revisions to EPA. Do ing so will provide EPA with the information it needs to f ully approve California's PM2.5 SIPS.

Staff also recommends the Board approve the progress report provided today as an informational item.

Thank you. That concludes my presentation. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. Any further questions or comments before we go to publi c comment? All right. We have -- go ahead.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: So have you actually run past the revisions -- run the revisions past the EP A to get a sense of whether they would approve them?

AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH CHIEF KARPEROS: Staff has had ongoing discussions since November with EPA for us first to understand the sp ecifics of the comments and then also to map out for them t he SIP revisions that we laid out.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Have you got any feedback? AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH CHIEF KARPEROS: We are optimistic based on the discussions that they would approve with these revi sions.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That's not any kind of an 88

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25official or formal communication. But there's alwa ys

ongoing informal communication with the staff. Tha t's about all we can do.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: I guess I have one other question. I'm actually kind of surprised at how we ll the South Coast Air Quality Management District is doin g with regard to PM2.5. I'm certainly pleased. But we al ways hear about how big the public health problem is in the South Coast related to PM2.5. And resources are di rected towards the South Coast in part because of the larg e population and the vulnerable nature of some of the population. But you know, if they're this close to attainment, it casts a little bit different picture on some of the testimony that we hear from South Coast

.

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: I guess I'm just going to add though, as you know, the standard is b eing reviewed and the range is definitely lower than the current standard, the 15 micrograms per cubic meter

.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: But in terms of SIP-related enforcement of a potential new standard, that's not going to come for a few years. We're still dealing with the current standard.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. We have the following witnesses Hank de Carbonel, Elaine Chang, Brent Newell, and Skip Brown. We'll start with Hank de 89

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Carbonel, who took advantage of the online sign-up

provision. Congratulation, you may be the first us er of this new process.

MR. DE CARBONEL: I was afraid I was going to be the only one. Good morning.

Just to take a second to speak a little bit off subject with regard to the emergency vehicles and f ire trucks. It might be of some interest to notice tha t two of our concrete pumps are in Japan right now helpin g to stabilize the nuclear reactor over there. They too k a million-and-a-half dollar air freight bill per truc k to get them there. They'll be there pouring cooling w ater on and later probably sealing it in the sarcophagus Th e concrete. They're uniquely qualified because they can be operated remotely. So they're not putting the oper ators in danger of radioactivity.

So here's my comments. CARB continues to use reports, studies, and science from select and quest ionable sources, even when problems and shortcomings with t he data are revealed. The conclusions that are acceptable to the Board come from a pool of reliable sources. The re liable sources would appear to have vested interest due to funding and grants received from the Board. Fundin g goes to pay for studies, et cetera. And studies conclud e the desired results of the Board. Thus, once revered 90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25institutions become sullied. Even the selection of the subjects and studies and who will do them is conflicted. The panels and experts are not appointed as per the policies and procedures governing the operation of the Air Resou rces Board. The stagnation that comes from long-held po sitions may lead to poor practices and skewed awards.

Croniesm replaces clarity and transparency. Refusal to respond to violations of the spirit as w ell as the intent of AB 32 leads us to a body without publ ic trust and without respect in the scientific communi ty.

The California Air Resources Board lives in a closed atmosphere and suffers from a lack of fresh air and clear thinking. It is a closed loop of self-inspec tion and self-reflection. That is not good governance n or good science.A Board that is supposed to be driven by science must show a basic understanding of the foundation o f science. Arithmetic would be a start of the founda tion. The Board has repeatedly shown an inability to perf orm accurately simple percentages, subtraction, as well as addition. The data and studies used in the March 2 9th, 2011, report are dated, flawed, and are not site-sp ecific for California. Much of the information and justif ication comes from data acquired in '93 to '95. We have be en 91

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25promised -- we have been promised a current and

site-specific report for over a year. The Board is not delivered this report, despite repeated requests an d requested commitments from the Board to release thi s Board. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Go ahead and finish up. We took a little of your time earlier.

MR. DE CARBONEL: In the last few days, we have gotten science subjecting that CARB has failed to accommodate their mandate regarding clean air. If the science from the EPA and the American Lung Associat ion is to be believed, then the Board must admit the curre nt and accurate report to the EPA. They may be suggesting poor methods or management of the California Air Resourc es Board. The EPA and American Lung Association seeme d to doubt the science of the Board. Suppressed contrar y studies and reports impugned the credibility of the se critical reports. For these reasons, the Board sho uld reject this report.

Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. I think your comments are quite a bit broader than the issu e that's before us today, but I expect they will be responded to at some --

MR. DE CARBONEL: Well, I didn't know that you 92

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25were going to be talking about modeling or I'd have been

more specific to that. Of course, we don't see the staff's report until we get here in the morning. I 'd be glad to submit a number of studies on the fall abil ity of modeling.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Great. Next, Elaine Chang. MS. CHANG: Good morning, Chairman Nichols and members of the Board. My name is Elaine Chang, Dep uty Executive Officer with the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

I'm here simply to urge your approval of the staff proposal before you. And I'm also here avail able to answer any questions you may have regarding the Sou th Coast portion of the amendment.

Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Brent Newell. MR. NEWELL: Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board.

Before I start, I'd like to address Dr. Balmes' question about the South Coast air basin. I think if the staff showed graphs of the daily 24-hour PM2.5 stan dard, you'd see a different picture. In the San Joaquin Valley, the air basin where my clients are located, over th e last 93

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25five years, the number of days of violation startin g in

2005 were 45 days. They dropped to 38 days. In 20 07, they went up to 65 days. 2008 was 66 days. And la st year was 50 day -- 2009 was 50 days. So it's not all th at rosy, unfortunately.

With respect to the revision that's in front of the Board now, I have serious concerns because the 2007 State Strategy has commitments to achieve specific reductions in NOx, SOX, and PM2.5. And the staff r eport shows in Tables 2 and Table 3 that those commitment s aren't being met by 2014.

In the South Coast, the NOx reduction is only 89 percent of the commitment estimated for 2014. And Table 3 for the San Joaquin Valley, it shows that the PM2.5 commitment is only at 90 percent of where it should be. Even though these aren't showing enough progress to wards those commitments, the progress that has occurred i s occurring in part due to reductions from decreased activity because of the recession. I have serious concerns about the Board relying on recession-relat ed reductions because those reductions are not enforce able. They're not permanent. As soon as we have recovery , the diesel fleet activity is going to increase and you will see increased emissions.

With this revision, ARB needs to demonstrate that 94

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25it will attain the standards by the 2014 deadline. And

that's the holding in a recent 9th circuit case in which I was one of the lawyers: Associated of Irritated Re sidents versus EPA.

Now, your staff report talks about this case but just dismisses it. But the bottom line is that you have to, with this revision, show that you're going to m eet the standards. The staff report says you're not meetin g the commitments. You're relying on recession-related unenforceable reductions, and that's just not appro priate. Claiming somehow NOx equivalency in the South Coast air basin or PM2.5 equivalency in the San Joaquin Valle y doesn't get you past the commitment that you made i n 2007, which was to reduce a lot of emissions by the 2014 deadline.

So I ask you to seriously consider what you're doing before you approve this revision. You need t o strengthen the PM2.5 plan, not rely on recession-re lated reductions.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Skip Brown and then Betty Plowman. MR. BROWN: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I do not have kind th ings to say. You're still not produced a Tran report that was 95

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25debunked back in '08 and '09, even though you promi sed to

do so. But we did have the Science Symposium, and the science is now settled as some fellow once said, "T here is no death from particulate matter in California, yet we continue to chase the bogeyman" We're still using the same debunked study for California. This one right here it shows no effect of particulate matter for death in California. Why we do this, I don't know. We stil l use selective studies, but we ignore the ones that don' t fit the model of the direction we're trying to go in.

What you have is scientific pretense. These are BS studies that are rammed down the throats of busi nessman and taking us down.

There is no premature death from particulate matter in California. It's a phantom menace. Thus , there is no health savings of some $65 billion, but there 's tens of billions of dollars of capital extracted in orde r to meet these requirements.

Asthma continues to increase. I have a number of friends with asthma. I severe empathy for them. F or some reason or another, as the air gets cleaner in Calif ornia, asthma continues to go up. Again, we're chasing an other phantom menace.

Regulations extract capital. This capital is needed to handle -- to provide for employment. The re is a 96

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25direct relationship between unemployment, poverty, and

health. There is no BS here. This is proven. If the Board had any ethics at all, you would resign your positions.

If not, you should completely reassess the need for a SIP in California, regardless of some suppose d mandate by the Feds. I suggest strap on some Cojon es and tell them to pound some sand. California and its p eople are broke. We don't have the money.

The people speaking to you today and have spoken to you ad infinitum item for the last umpteen years of which I have been one, we're the canaries in the go ld mine of California. We're not surviving this. These regulations are taking us out of business. You des troyed our net worth. You destroyed our capital assets fo r a phantom menace. You could ignore the canaries at y our peril. (Inaudible).

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Ms. Plowman. MS. PLOWMAN: Good morning, as usual, I get up here and completely forget what I was going to talk about because I make notes and then the subject changes.

I, too, also give my kudos to Sandra Berg for always, always going the extra mile. Thank you.

I'm going to kind of skip around because I've never done multi-tasking well. 97

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25But I would like to first raise the question on

that you did commission the Jerret report to provid e closure to our controversies on the diesel health e ffects. That report was due in 2009. There was no mention of this in the 2010 Science Symposium, and this report has not seen the light of day.

I personally attended the Scientific Review Panel meeting in January, which I must say I was quite su rprised to see the Chairman Froines somewhat like a monarch y in England once again Chairing that panel.

But we're asking once again for the Jerret report. I don't know how many years these are give n. Food for thought. I'm going to move on.

I read yesterday it made all of our local papers the American Lung Association's report. My own cou nty, Solano, was given an F, as were many others. Ironi cally, I've been paying a lot of attention to a Healthy Co unties Report from the University of Wisconsin where they based health effects on many numerous criteria. And it w as amazing to me as I read the American Lung Associati on's report that some of these counties that were given an A for air quality are the unhealthiest counties in th e state of California, with numerous premature deaths.

Lake County, for instance. Lake County, out of 56 reporting counties is the 53rd unhealthiest coun ty in 98

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25the state of California. Yet, it's given an A yest erday

by the American Lung Association.

We've got some big, big issues here. And I've got to tell you, with all due respect -- and I've a lways tried to be respectful up here, when the subject is lawn mowers, we're out of touch. I deal every day with people who cannot buy food, who cannot get medical care. And we're talking lawn mowers.

Somewhere, we've lost the connection to what's really happening in the state of California. And t he state of California is broke. Our employers are le aving. And yet, we continue with these archaic rules that continue to put our businesses out. I live with th ese folks. That's why I'm passionate. I receive calls every day. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Are there any other witnesses who wanted to speak on this item?

I do want to remind us that the item that's before us is revisions to a plan, which need to be acted on as well as a status report.

Obviously, we've heard a number of comments and criticisms related to the underlying science about diesel particulate and its health effects. And we underst and that there's a group of people these witnesses repr esent who will continue to be unhappy and dissatisfied wi th the 99

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25state of the science in this regard. The Board does two things here. First of all, we try to comply with the Clean Air Act, which we're l egally required to do. And that's what we're working on a t the moment. We also try to reflect and act on and update the science that we work on in general to be not only consistent, but hopefully at the head of government al agencies that work in the area of environmental hea lth science. And overall, I think we continue to maint ain that role and to feel that we are on track.

I just want to say that we don't agree with the comments that were made earlier, and I know you don 't agree with us. We don't agree with you. You can challenge our ethics. You can challenge our mortal ity, our parentage or whatever else you choose. But we have a very large body of information that we're working o n here, and we have to do what we can with the actual evide nce that's in front of us.

But in any event, that's not why we're here now. We are here to actually talk about the plan and to make some proposed -- consider some proposed changes. N ow, the only person who's actually given us an argument aga inst those changes is Mr. Newell. And his concern is th at essentially our revised plan is building upon or ta king 100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25advantage, if you will, of the fact that emissions have

been reduced. The fact they've been reduced as a r esult of economic conditions as opposed to regulatory commitments or actions he believes is not a legitim ate basis for changes in the plan. And I do think that was addressed, but maybe we should just have some addit ional comment on that from the staff, if you would, Ms. T erry, or whoever you designate.

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Sure. On this point, we didn't go into all the details of the SIPS. But one of the requirements of the Fe deral Clean Air Act is to have contingency measures. So while 2014 is the date for attainment, we must meet the emissions target and we project we will be there, w e will continue to see emissions go down each year and sub sequent years. So that is a contingency plan that is inclu ded here. So that even if for some reason we're short of reductions in 2014, the economy comes back more qui ckly, then everyone is projecting we have a contingency o f additional emission reductions each year following that. And that is an important requirement of the Act, to demonstrate that you will continue to see emission reductions that go beyond what you think you will n eed for attainment.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You're saying the 101

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25contingency is the adopted regulations? DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Right. The additional benefit from fleet turnover --

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That were to add to benefits.

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Right. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, Dr. Balmes. BOARD MEMBER BALMES: So if I understand Mr. Newell correctly, another point he was making was a bout NOx. And I realize we're talking about PM2.5 here. But I'm a firm believer in considering multiple polluta nts that are interrelated and NOx and PM2.5 are obvious ly interrelated.

So if I understood him correctly, he was suggesting that we're not on target to meet NOx SIP attainments. Was that a point that he was making? I was trying to understand how that fit in with our PM2.5 SIP discussion today.

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Well, we try not to get too technical on the equivalency discussion. But the bottom line is we talk about the different prec ursors for PM2.5 and what they are in each region. And in our SIP, we essentially say we will achieve the mix of emission reductions needed, but we allow ourself th e flexibility in terms of which rules we take to the Board 102

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25and how many reductions we achieve from them. So, for example, in the case of the diesel rules, the relative proportion of direct PM emissions comp ared to NOx emissions from those rules slightly shifted fro m what we described in the 2007 SIP, which said we expect to get this amount of NOx reduction and this amount of dir ect PM reduction from these rules.

So the NOx equivalency calculation is really just to normalize that relationship and to reflect the f act we got relatively more diesel PM reductions than NOx reductions. But in the end, based upon the modelin g relationships, we get to the emission reduction tar get but with a slightly different mix of NOx and direct PM reductions.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: It is little bit -- I'm not sure if frustrating even begins to describe it. Th e process that we are engaged in here because of the way the Clean Air Act and its guidelines work forces you to go through a process which may or may not reflect the real world, as you have said. At the same time, to fail to do that would be to simply set ourselves up for being in violation of the law. And so we try to find a way to fit square pegs into round holes here and hope that tha t will also continue to actually make air better. I mean, that's not just a hope. That's our goal to do with the 103

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25regulations. So I think the issue really would be if we're to not approve the proposed revisions, we would be lef t in a situation where EPA I guess would say we needed to go back and come up with some additional documentation. I' m not sure where that would get us.

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Well, if they were to disapprove the SIP, it puts mandatory sanct ions clocks in place and there are consequences that fol low from there.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right. That's true. And they will go through a process of deciding whether to approve it or not. But in the mean time, this seem s like additional information that we need to provide them

.

BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Move approval. BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Second. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye.

(Ayes) CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Any opposed. All right. Motion carries.

That concludes all of the items that we have noticed. We do have time at the end of the meeting before we break for an executive session for general publi c comment on any matters within the Board's jurisdict ion 104

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25