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 the Approval of a Progress Report and Proposed 

State Implementation Plan Revisions for PM2.5




Enclosure 4

Attachment B

Email Notification

Date: March 29, 2011

Subject: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider the Approval of a Progress Report and 

Proposed State Implementation Plan Revisions for PM2.5

Enclosure 4

Attachment C

Board Meeting Agenda




MEETING

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

25
APPEARANCES

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 Control 

Division

Mr. Jeff Lindberg, Air Pollution Specialist, Air Quality 

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

25
APPEARANCES 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

25
INDEX

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

25
CHAIRPERSON 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 SIP 

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 the SIPS 

and have made tremendous strides in achieving emissions 

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 extremely 

technical process that includes looking in detail at the 

emissions accounting and modeling that are underpinning 

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 South 

Coast. They requested, and staff has provided, additional 

extensive documentation on San Joaquin Valley modeling 

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

25
that will allow them to approve the modeling for the 

valley as well. 

The final piece that U.S. EPA has asked for is a 

technical revision to the SIP to account for the emissions 

impacts of ARB regulations adopted since 2007, especially 

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 report 

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 in the 

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins and 

presenting a proposed SIP revision to account for recent 

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

25
asking 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 revisions 

apply to the reasonable further progress calculations and 

transportation conformity budgets to the two regions. We 

are also asking the Board to approve submittal to EPA of 

ARB's updated PM2.5 SIP rulemaking calendar. The South 

Coast Air Quality Management District also adopted SIP 

revisions to their local plan element. Staff is proposing 

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 exceed 

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 be 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

25
by the attainment date. In California, these plans are 

developed through a joint effort of local air districts 

and ARB, with local adoption of the SIP as the first 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 required to 

review the established standards in light of recent health 

effects information to ensure that the standard continues 

to protect public health. 

When EPA revises an air quality standard, a new 

SIP process is triggered with another set of SIPS and 

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 on 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

25
The heart of the SIP is the scientific foundation 

that is used to demonstrate attainment. Working together, 

ARB and the districts inventory current emissions data, 

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 are 

consistent with the SIPS attainment strategy, and that 

anticipated rule actions support the State's commitment to 

implement the SIP strategy.

--o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: In order to 

establish the emission targets, ARB and the district use 

state of the science air quality models. The models 

reference air quality and emissions in a base year. The 

South Coast Air District chose 2002 for its base year. 

Since the San Joaquin Valley adopted their PM2.5 plan a 

year after the South Coast, in 2008, instead of 2007, 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

25
measured 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 based 

year before the recession, that fundamental relationship 

did not change with the recession reduced emissions. What 

did change, of course, was 2014 emissions and how many 

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 components 

formed from gaseous precursors such as oxides of nitrogen, 

known as NOx, or oxides of sulfur, known as SOX. The make 

up of PM2.5 varies throughout the state. In the South 

Coast region, the key precursors are directly emitted 

PM2.5 as well as NOx, SOX, and reactive organic gases, 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

25
PM2.5, NOx, and SOX. Extensive air quality research 

conducted in the valley indicates that ROG is not a

significant contributor to PM2.5 levels in the valley.

--o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: With the key 

precursors identified, the air quality model is used to 

evaluate the relative effectiveness of reducing each 

precursor. For example, we use the model to assess the 

relative benefits of controlling one ton of directly 

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 reflected 

in terms of a single equivalent precursor. This method 

provides a uniform metric for tracking progress relative 

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 adopted 

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

25
existing 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 later, in 

2008, the Board approved the San Joaquin Valley portion 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 components 

approveable, while others they proposed to disapprove. 

EPA proposed approval of the ARB and local control 

strategies and related elements. However, EPA also

proposed to disapprove the SIP, other portions of the SIP, 

arguing that ARB relied too heavily on enforceable 

commitments. EPA would like a greater portion of the 

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 and the 

local districts have made good on these commitments to 

implement the strategies in the SIP and are now well on 

the way to meeting the emission targets in 2014. EPA has 

requested a revision to the SIPS in order to re-propose 

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

25
AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: Although EPA 

hasn't yet approved the PM2.5 SIPS, both ARB and the 

districts began implementation as soon as we adopted 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 ports 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 cut 

points, and inspecting evaporative emission control

systems. Locally, both the South Coast and San Joaquin 

Valley districts are meeting their commitments to reduce 

emissions from sources under their jurisdictions.

--o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: The Board's 

action to reduce emissions from diesel fleets is timely. 

When EPA proposed to partially disapprove California'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

25
PM2.5 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 diesel 

rules. The Board structured the rules to meet the PM2.5 

SIP emission targets in 2014, recognizing the impacts 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 effect on 

the modeled emission targets. Other inventory 

improvements did change the base year inventory somewhat, 

but these changes were quite small. In the South Coast, 

the change was about 2 percent, while in the San Joaquin 

Valley, it amounted to about 4 percent. These small 

changes are well within the band of modeling uncertainty 

and so have no impact on the modeled emission targets. 

In the 2014 attainment year, the impact of the 

recession and the improvements to the inventory forecasts 

are much more significant. So to understand how much 

progress we have made toward meeting these targets, we 

need to look at the impacts of both the recession and 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

25
adopted 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 accounts 

for adopted rules and recession impacts. This shows that 

we are 94 percent of the way toward meeting the 2014 

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 actions 

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

25
my focus to the proposed SIP revisions.

--o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: The proposed 

SIP revisions are needed for several reasons. It is 

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-propose final 

action on California's PM2.5 SIPS in May 2011, next month, 

and has requested this revision of ARB. The proposed 

revisions will provide U.S. EPA with the information 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 first is 

the reasonable further progress, or RFP, calculation. Our 

current estimate now indicates that we are achieving even 

greater near-term emission reductions than was envisioned 

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 within 

the limits established in the SIPS. The budgets proposed 

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

25
today reflect the Board's December action on the diesel 

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 2013.

--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 estimated 

reductions, its surplus off-road opt-in for NOx, or SOON 

Program, will achieve in order to reflect ARB's current 

off-road equipment emission forecasts. The revision does 

not alter the district's commitment to pursue additional 

reductions through the SOON Program. 

The South Coast Air District also updated their 

SIP, by committing an additional ton of NOx reductions in 

2014 if EPA is unable to reduce emissions from sources 

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 the South 

Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins. As you will 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

25
measured air quality is within range of the attainment of 

the PM2.5 standard.

--o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: This slide 

illustrates PM2.5 levels in the South Coast air basin in 

2010. The air quality data show that the South Coast air 

basin is very near attaining the annual standard. 

Monitors in the coastal and central areas met the standard 

last year. Only one inland monitor, in the Riverside 

area, slightly exceeded the standard in 2010.

--o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: The San 

Joaquin Valley has also seen air quality improvement, 

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 above the 

federal standard.

--o0o--

AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST LINDBERG: SIP planning 

is an ongoing process. So I'll now brief you on our 

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

25
SIPS and the adopted regulations continues to be a 

priority. We are also in the initial stages of developing 

a proposed SIP to address the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 

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 process of 

re-evaluating the 8-hour ozone standard it adopted in 

2008. Staff will brief the Board next month on that 

process. 

We also continue to focus on implementing the 

adopted ozone SIPS. While today's proposal addresses the 

current PM2.5 SIPS, the recent Board action on the diesel 

rules and the economic recession also impact the technical 

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 review 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

25
presentation by summarizing the Board action staff is 

recommending today. 

Staff recommends that the Board approve the 

submittal of the proposed SIP revisions to EPA. Doing so 

will provide EPA with the information it needs to fully 

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 public 

comment? All right. We have -- go ahead. 

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: So have you actually run 

past the revisions -- run the revisions past the EPA 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 specifics 

of the comments and then also to map out for them the 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 revisions. 

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

25
official or formal communication. But there's always 

ongoing informal communication with the staff. That's 

about all we can do. 

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: I guess I have one other 

question. I'm actually kind of surprised at how well the 

South Coast Air Quality Management District is doing with 

regard to PM2.5. I'm certainly pleased. But we always 

hear about how big the public health problem is in the 

South Coast related to PM2.5. And resources are directed 

towards the South Coast in part because of the large 

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 being 

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

25
Carbonel, who took advantage of the online sign-up 

provision. Congratulation, you may be the first user 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 fire 

trucks. It might be of some interest to notice that two 

of our concrete pumps are in Japan right now helping to 

stabilize the nuclear reactor over there. They took a 

million-and-a-half dollar air freight bill per truck to 

get them there. They'll be there pouring cooling water on 

and later probably sealing it in the sarcophagus The 

concrete. They're uniquely qualified because they can be 

operated remotely. So they're not putting the operators 

in danger of radioactivity. 

So here's my comments. CARB continues to use 

reports, studies, and science from select and questionable 

sources, even when problems and shortcomings with the data 

are revealed. The conclusions that are acceptable to the 

Board come from a pool of reliable sources. The reliable 

sources would appear to have vested interest due to

funding and grants received from the Board. Funding goes 

to pay for studies, et cetera. And studies conclude 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

25
institutions 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 Resources 

Board. The stagnation that comes from long-held positions 

may lead to poor practices and skewed awards. 

Croniesm replaces clarity and transparency. 

Refusal to respond to violations of the spirit as well as 

the intent of AB 32 leads us to a body without public 

trust and without respect in the scientific community. 

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-inspection 

and self-reflection. That is not good governance nor good 

science. 

A Board that is supposed to be driven by science 

must show a basic understanding of the foundation of 

science. Arithmetic would be a start of the foundation. 

The Board has repeatedly shown an inability to perform 

accurately simple percentages, subtraction, as well as 

addition. The data and studies used in the March 29th, 

2011, report are dated, flawed, and are not site-specific 

for California. Much of the information and justification 

comes from data acquired in '93 to '95. We have been 

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

25
promised -- we have been promised a current and 

site-specific report for over a year. The Board is not 

delivered this report, despite repeated requests and 

requested commitments from the Board to release this 

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 Association is 

to be believed, then the Board must admit the current and 

accurate report to the EPA. They may be suggesting poor 

methods or management of the California Air Resources 

Board. The EPA and American Lung Association seemed to 

doubt the science of the Board. Suppressed contrary 

studies and reports impugned the credibility of these 

critical reports. For these reasons, the Board should 

reject this report. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. I think 

your comments are quite a bit broader than the issue 

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

25
were 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 ability 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, Deputy 

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 available to 

answer any questions you may have regarding the South 

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 standard, 

you'd see a different picture. In the San Joaquin Valley, 

the air basin where my clients are located, over the 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

25
five years, the number of days of violation starting in 

2005 were 45 days. They dropped to 38 days. In 2007, 

they went up to 65 days. 2008 was 66 days. And last year 

was 50 day -- 2009 was 50 days. So it's not all that 

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 report 

shows in Tables 2 and Table 3 that those commitments 

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 towards 

those commitments, the progress that has occurred is 

occurring in part due to reductions from decreased 

activity because of the recession. I have serious 

concerns about the Board relying on recession-related 

reductions because those reductions are not enforceable. 

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

25
it 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 Residents 

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 meet the 

standards. The staff report says you're not meeting the 

commitments. You're relying on recession-related 

unenforceable reductions, and that's just not appropriate. 

Claiming somehow NOx equivalency in the South Coast air 

basin or PM2.5 equivalency in the San Joaquin Valley 

doesn't get you past the commitment that you made in 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 to 

strengthen the PM2.5 plan, not rely on recession-related 

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 things 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

25
debunked back in '08 and '09, even though you promised to 

do so. But we did have the Science Symposium, and the 

science is now settled as some fellow once said, "There 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 still 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 businessman 

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 order to 

meet these requirements. 

Asthma continues to increase. I have a number of 

friends with asthma. I severe empathy for them. For some 

reason or another, as the air gets cleaner in California, 

asthma continues to go up. Again, we're chasing another 

phantom menace. 

Regulations extract capital. This capital is 

needed to handle -- to provide for employment. There 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

25
direct 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 supposed 

mandate by the Feds. I suggest strap on some Cojones and 

tell them to pound some sand. California and its people 

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 gold mine 

of California. We're not surviving this. These 

regulations are taking us out of business. You destroyed 

our net worth. You destroyed our capital assets for a 

phantom menace. You could ignore the canaries at your 

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

25
But I would like to first raise the question on 

that you did commission the Jerret report to provide 

closure to our controversies on the diesel health effects. 

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 surprised 

to see the Chairman Froines somewhat like a monarchy 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 given. 

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 county, 

Solano, was given an F, as were many others. Ironically, 

I've been paying a lot of attention to a Healthy Counties 

Report from the University of Wisconsin where they based 

health effects on many numerous criteria. And it was 

amazing to me as I read the American Lung Association's 

report that some of these counties that were given an A 

for air quality are the unhealthiest counties in the state 

of California, with numerous premature deaths. 

Lake County, for instance. Lake County, out of 

56 reporting counties is the 53rd unhealthiest county 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

25
the state of California. Yet, it's given an A yesterday 

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 always 

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 the 

state of California is broke. Our employers are leaving. 

And yet, we continue with these archaic rules that 

continue to put our businesses out. I live with these 

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 understand 

that there's a group of people these witnesses represent 

who will continue to be unhappy and dissatisfied with 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

25
state 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 legally 

required to do. And that's what we're working on at 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 governmental 

agencies that work in the area of environmental health 

science. And overall, I think we continue to maintain 

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 mortality, 

our parentage or whatever else you choose. But we have a 

very large body of information that we're working on here, 

and we have to do what we can with the actual evidence 

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. Now, the 

only person who's actually given us an argument against 

those changes is Mr. Newell. And his concern is that 

essentially our revised plan is building upon or taking 

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

25
advantage, if you will, of the fact that emissions have 

been reduced. The fact they've been reduced as a result 

of economic conditions as opposed to regulatory 

commitments or actions he believes is not a legitimate 

basis for changes in the plan. And I do think that was 

addressed, but maybe we should just have some additional 

comment on that from the staff, if you would, Ms. Terry, 

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 Federal 

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, we will 

continue to see emissions go down each year and subsequent 

years. So that is a contingency plan that is included 

here. So that even if for some reason we're short of 

reductions in 2014, the economy comes back more quickly, 

then everyone is projecting we have a contingency of 

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 need 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

25
contingency 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 about 

NOx. And I realize we're talking about PM2.5 here. But 

I'm a firm believer in considering multiple pollutants 

that are interrelated and NOx and PM2.5 are obviously 

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 precursors 

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 the 

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

25
and how many reductions we achieve from them. 

So, for example, in the case of the diesel rules, 

the relative proportion of direct PM emissions compared to 

NOx emissions from those rules slightly shifted from what 

we described in the 2007 SIP, which said we expect to get 

this amount of NOx reduction and this amount of direct PM 

reduction from these rules. 

So the NOx equivalency calculation is really just 

to normalize that relationship and to reflect the fact we 

got relatively more diesel PM reductions than NOx 

reductions. But in the end, based upon the modeling 

relationships, we get to the emission reduction target 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. The 

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 that 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

25
regulations. 

So I think the issue really would be if we're to 

not approve the proposed revisions, we would be left 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 sanctions 

clocks in place and there are consequences that follow 

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 seems 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 public 

comment on any matters within the Board's jurisdiction 

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