BOARD MEETING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT OFFICE

AUDITORIUM

21865 COPLEY DRIVE

DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2007

9:00 A.M.

TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

LICENSE NUMBER 12277

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

ii

APPEARANCESBOARD MEMBERS

Ms. Mary D. Nichols, Chairperson

Ms. Sandra Berg

Ms. Judith G. Case

Ms. Dorene D'Adamo

Mr. Jerry Hill

Mr. Ronald Loveridge

Mrs. Barbara Riordan

Supervisor Ron Roberts

STAFF

Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer

Mr. Tom Jennings, Chief Counsel

Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer

Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer

Ms. Kathleen Quetin, Ombudsman

Ms. Lori Andreoni, Board Secretary

Mr. Bart Croes, Chief, Research Division

Mr. Chris Jakober, Research Division, Indoor Exposure

Assessment Section

Mr. Kurt Karperos, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation

Planning Branch, PTSD

Mr. Phil Loder, Deputy Ombudsman

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

iii

APPEARANCES CONTINUED

STAFFMs. Annmarie Mora, Manager, Research Division

Ms. Linda Smith, Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment

Branch, RD

ALSO PRESENT

Mr. Oscar Abarca, SCAQMD

Mr. Larry Allen, CAPCOA

Mr. Joseph Amendola, Golden Pacific Real Estate

Ms. Sally Andreatta

Ms. Mona Arteaga, SCAQMD

Mr. J. David Barnes, Green Era Marketing

Mr. Bob Brickman

Mr. Luis Cabrales, Coaltion for Clean Air

Ms. Sonia Campos, Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez

Mr. Tim Carmichael, Coalition for Clean Air

Mr. Ronald Chaves

Mr. Johnny Cherabie

Mr. Manuel Cunha, Niesei Farmers League

Ms. Danielle Coats, WRCOG

Ms. Nicole Davis, ISSRC

Ms. Glory Dolphin, IAACM

Mr. Sean Edgar, Clean Fleets Coalition

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

iv

APPEARANCES CONTINUED

ALSO PRESENT

Mr. Michael Eaves, CA Natural Gas Vehicle CoalitionMr. Gary Feder, Hunter Fan Company

Ms. Virginia Field, Clean Air Now

Ms. Chris Fuehrer

Ms. Sharon Gold, Consumer

Mr. Paul Goslin, Chief Deputy Director, Department of

Pesticide Regulation

Mr. Peter Green, UC Davis University

Mr. Mark Grijalva

Mr. Hector Gutierrez, OTILIO Farms, LP

Mr. Jeff Hawkins

Mr. Juan Hernandez, Mandalay Berry Farms

Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association

Mr. Chris Hudgins, AHAM

Mr. Roger Isom, CA Cotton Growers Assoc.

Ms. Otana Jakpor

Mr. Allen Johnston, EcoQuest Intl.

Ms. Susan Johnson, Ventura County

Ms. Felita Jones, Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America

Mr. Igor Kagan, ALA of California

Ms. Melissa Kelly-Ortega, Moms Clean Air Network

Mr. Michael Kleinman

Mr. Douglas Korthof

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

v

APPEARANCES CONTINUED

ALSO PRESENT

Mr. Bill La Marr, CA Small Business AllianceMr. Dan Legard, CA Strawberry Commission

Mr. Allan Lind, CCEEB

Ms. Carmel Lozano

Mr. Tom Lozano

Mr. Ian MacMillan, LA Unified School District

Ms. Adrian Martinez, Natural Resources Defense Council

Mr. Cecil Martinez, Sunrise Growers

Mr. Rick McVaigh, SJVAPCD

Mr. Clayton Miller, Construction Industry Air Quality

Coalition

Dr. John G. Miller

Mr. Grey Montoya, CA Consumer for Freedom of Choice

Mr. Wayne Morris, AHAM

Mr. Mark Murai, CA Strawberry Commission

Mr. Robert Naylor, EcoQuest

Mr. Brent Newell, Ventura Coast Keeper Foundation

Mr. Martin Olsen

Ms. Jean Ospital, SCAQMD

Mr. Jason Paukovits, Fresno COG/San Joaquin Valley MPOs

Mr. David Pegos, CDFA

Ms. Laarni Perez, Consumer

Mr. Shermiw Perez

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

vi

APPEARANCES CONTINUED

ALSO PRESENT

Ms. Debra Perkins, Better Living Enterprises Consumer

Mr. Robert Perkins, ConsumerMr. Charlie Peters, Clean Air Performance Professionals

Mr. Mark Pisano, SCAG

Mr. James Provenzano, Clean Air Now

Mr. Gary Pruitt

Mayor Miguel Pulido

Ms. Colleen Quintana

Mr. Terry Roberts, American Lung Association of Ca.

Mr. Robert Roy, Ventura County Agricultural Association

Mr. Seyed Sadredin, SJVAPCD

Mr. Manuel Saucedo, Assemblymember Soto

Ms. Sarah Sharpe, Coalition for Clean Air

Mr. Ron Schlenker, Industry Environment Coalition of

Orange County

Ms. Carolina Simuovic, CA for Pesticide Reform

Mr. Kent Sorrells, EcoQuest

Mr. Sean Stevens, Well-Pict, Inc.

Mr. Jim Stewart, Sierra Club

Mr. Kirk Sullivan, IAACM

Mr. James Sweet, SJVAPCD

Mr. Leonard Sy

Mr. Edgar Terry, Terry's Farms

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

vii

APPEARANCES CONTINUED

ALSO PRESENT

Ms. Rayne Thompson, CA Farm Bureau Federation

Mr. Rick Tomlinson, CA Strawberry Commission

Mr. Andrew Trotter, CA Urban Forests CouncilMr. Eric Walls, Department of Pesticide Regulation

Mr. Lee Webb

Mr. Levi White

Mr. Roy Wilson, South Coast Air Quality Management

District; Supervisor, Riverside County

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

viii

INDEX

PAGE

Pledge of Allegiance 1

Item 7-9-1

Chairperson Nichols 3

Acting Executive Officer Cackette 4

Staff Presentation 5

Item 7-9-2

Chairperson Nichols 11

Staff Presentation 11

Q&A 18

Mr. Korthof 21

Motion 24

Vote 24

Item 7-8-4

Chairperson Nichols 24

Staff Presentation 24

Motion 27

Vote 27

Item 7-9-3

Chairperson Nichols 27

Chief Deputy Executive Officer Cackette 28

Staff Presentation 29

Q&A 46

Deputy Ombudsman Loder 57

Mr. Kleinman 60

Ms. Ospital 62

Ms. Jakpor 64

Mr. Johnston 67

Mr. Wilson 72

Mr. Naylor 74

Mr. Sorrells 77Ms. Campos 79

Supervisor Wilson 80

Dr. Miller 83

Ms. Perkins 86

Ms. Lozano 88

Mr. Lozano 90

Mr. Webb 91

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

ix

INDEX CONTINUED

PAGE

Mr. White 92

Mr. Perkins 94

Mr. Pruitt 96

Mr. Feder 98

Ms. Andreatta 102

Ms. Quintana 104

Ms. Perez 106

Mr. Sy 107

Mr. Perez 108

Mr. Amendola 109

Mr. Barnes 111

Mr. Grijalva 112

Mr. Cherabie 114

Mr. Olsen 116

Ms. Holmes-Gen 118

Ms. Fuehrer 122

Mr. Montoya 124

Mr. Brickman 127

Ms. Gold 130

Mr. Hawkins 132

Mr. Hudgins 135

Mr. Morris 136

Mr. Sullivan 141

Ms. Dolphin 142

Mr. Korthof 145

Mr. Rothman 147

Mr. Chaves 150

Mr. Carmichael 152

Chief Deputy Executive Officer Cackette 155

Q&A 160

Ex Partes 179

Motion 180

Vote 180

Item 7-7-7, 7-9-4

Chairperson Nichols 181

Acting Executive Officer Cackette 184

Staff Presentation 185

Mr. Pisano 218Mr. Saucedo 220

Ms. Arteaga 221

Mr. Abarca 222

Mr. MacMillan 224

Ms. Holmes-Gen 225

Mr. McVaigh 227

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

x

INDEX CONTINUED

PAGE

Mr. Jordan 230

Mr. Sweet 232

Mr. Sadredin 236

Mr. Paukovitz 242

Mr. Allen 244

Mayor Pulido 246

Ms. Martinez 247

Mr. Edgar 248

Ms. Davis 251

Ms. Sharpe 251

Ms. Simunovic 254

Ms. Jones 261

Mr. Roberts 262

Mr. Provenzano 264

Mr. Schlenker 265

Ms. Field 265

Mr. Stewart 266

Mr. Wallace 266

Mr. Kagan 267

Mr. Eaves 268

Ms. Coats 268

Mr. Trotter 268

Mr. Carlson 269

Mr. Newell 270

Mr. Miller 274

Mr. Korthof 275

Ms. Kelly-Ortega 278

Mr. Peters 281

Mr. La Marr 282

Mr. Lind 284

Mr. Thompson 287

Mr. Cunha 288

Mr. Isom 291

Mr. Campbell 293

Mr. Carmichael 295

Ex Parte 300

Motion 307

Vote 307

Item 7-9-5

Chairperson Nichols 308Acting Executive Officer Cackette 308

Staff Presentation 309

Mr. Green 316

Ms. Thompson 316

Ms. Johnson 317

Mr. Newell 321

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

xi

INDEX CONTINUED

PAGE

Mr. Carmichael 327

Mr. Cabrales 329

Ms. Simunovic 331

Ms. Sharpe 332

Mr. Murai 333

Mr. Martinez 335

Mr. Gutierrez 338

Mr. Legard 339

Mr. Stevens 342

Mr. Hernandez 344

Mr. Terry 346

Mr. Roy 348

Mr. Tomlinson 352

Q&A 356

Mr. Pegos 365

Ms. Martinez 371

Ms. Kelly-Ortega 372

Ex Partes 373

Motion 374

Vote 378

Public Comment

Mr. Korthof 379

Adjournment 380

Reporter's Certificate 381

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

1

1 PROCEEDINGS

2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good morning, everyone.

3 For those of you who would prefer to watch us on screen,4 we are on camera here as well as live in person here at

5 the hearing room of the Air Quality Management District.

6 And we want to express our thanks to the South

7 Coast Air Quality Management District for letting us use

8 their wonderful room and their great sound system. And

9 we're looking forward to a lively and full day here.

10 This is the September 27th, 2007, meeting of the

11 Air Resources Board. And we will come to order. I'm not

12 going to use the gavel, because we're a very orderly group

13 as it is.

14 I think we need to first do a Pledge of

15 Allegiance and then a roll call. So we will start with

16 the pledge.

17 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was

18 recited in unison.)

19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

20 The Clerk of the Board will call the roll.

21 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Berg?

22 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Here.

23 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Case?

24 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Here.

25 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo?

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

2

1 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here.

2 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Hill?

3 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Here.4 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard?

5 Mayor Loveridge?

6 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Here.

7 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Riordan?

8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here.

9 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts?

10 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Here

11 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Professor Sperling?

12 Chairman Nichols?

13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Here.

14 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Madam Chair, we have a

15 quorum.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

17 I think the only opening remarks I really need to

18 make here at the moment are to mention that there is a

19 closed session item that always appears on the Board. But

20 as I understand it, we do actually have a closed session

21 scheduled today; is that correct?

22 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: No.

23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: No. So we do not need to

24 break into closed session.

25 In that case, we will just mention, as I'm sure

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

3

1 most of you are well aware, the Board does impose a normal

2 three minute rule on all speakers. We ask everyone who

3 wishes to speak to sign up with the staff. There are

4 tables outside the boardroom, and I saw there were quite a5 few people signing up.

6 We will be limiting testimony today, because we

7 have a very full agenda. And I think a number of the

8 items are going to receive quite a bit of public

9 testimony.

10 And we hope that for all of you we can remind you

11 that it's much more effective not to read a prepared

12 statement. If you have a prepared statement that you

13 brought with you, it will be entered into the record. If

14 there are copies, it will actually be read by everybody.

15 We can read a lot faster than you speak. And it's much

16 more helpful if we can hear your own words what you want

17 to say to us.

18 So with that, I think we will move directly into

19 our first item on the agenda. We normally have a

20 presentation of recent health effect studies, some area of

21 research that's relevant to the Board's work. But this

22 morning, it's a less than happy occasion, because we want

23 to use this opportunity to recognize the life and

24 achievements of one of the State's most important health

25 effects researchers who was also a very active and

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

4

1 influential member of this Board. And that was Dr. Henry

2 Gong, who I think as most people now know died recently.

3 And this is an opportunity for us to recognize his work

4 and the tie that it made also to the reason why we're5 here, which is the problem of air pollution and its effect

6 on human health.

7 So I'll turn it over to the staff for the

8 presentation.

9 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Good

10 morning, members of the Board, Chairwoman Nichols.

11 Governor Schwarzenegger appointed Dr. Gong to the

12 Air Resources Board in August of 2004 as the medical

13 member. And as such, his role was to advise the Board on

14 the public health aspects of the Board's activities to

15 ensure adequate health protection of the public. He

16 fulfilled his role with enthusiasm. He was thorough and

17 rigorous in his evaluation of scientific information, yet

18 always encouraging to the staff.

19 More importantly, he was able to focus the

20 Board's attention on health impacts of air pollution and

21 the need to control it.

22 Today, Dr. Linda Smith, Chief of our Health and

23 Exposure Assessment Branch and Research Division, will

24 make a brief presentation on the life and contributions of

25 Dr. Gong to public health and the improvements in air

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

5

1 quality.

2 Linda.

3 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

4 presented as follows.)

5 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF6 SMITH: Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Nichols and

7 members of the Board.

8 --o0o--

9 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF

10 SMITH: This morning, instead of the usual health update,

11 we will remember the life and career of Board member Dr.

12 Henry Gong who recently passed away.

13 --o0o--

14 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF

15 SMITH: Dr. Gong was born on May 23rd, 1947, and died on

16 August 17th, 2007, following a heart attack. He filled a

17 number of roles throughout his life, including physician,

18 researcher, and advocate for clean air.

19 --o0o--

20 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF

21 SMITH: Dr. Gong was born in Tulare and grew up in the

22 central valley of California, the forth child of immigrant

23 parents.

24 He received his Bachelor's Degree in biology from

25 the University of the Pacific and his medical degree at

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

6

1 U.C. Davis.

2 He subsequently completed his residency at Boston

3 University Hospital and a fellowship in pulmonary medicine

4 at UCLA. He was Board certified in internal medicine with

5 a specialty in pulmonary medicine.6 He was also a diplomat of the National Board of

7 Medical Examiners.

8 Dr. Gong was a professor in the medical schools

9 at UCLA and later at USC. He actively practiced medicine

10 and performed research that was published in over 250

11 scientific papers, book chapters, and reviews. He was

12 also a peer reviewer for 20 scholarly journals.

13 --o0o--

14 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF

15 SMITH: Dr. Gong began his clinical academic and research

16 career at UCLA where he practiced and taught pulmonary

17 medicine. He learned to perform controlled human air

18 pollution exposure studies at the Institute of

19 Environmental Stress at UC Santa Barbara and subsequently

20 constructed a human exposure chamber facility at UCLA

21 where he performed his early air pollution research.

22 His initial studies at UCLA focused on how ozone

23 affected the race performance of international level

24 cyclists. He found that when simulated races were

25 performed in an atmosphere containing ozone, these elite

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

7

1 athletes were not able to perform at as high a level as in

2 clean air. The race times became slower. Their lung

3 functions decreased, and they developed symptoms of lung

4 irritation such as cough, pain on deep breath, and

5 inability to take a deep breath.

6 He also tested the hypothesis that ozone induced7 adverse health effects would be prevented by

8 bronchodilators, a type of drug that's used by asthmatics.

9 But he found that bronchodilator treatment did not alter

10 ozone induced responses, Showing that ozone effects are

11 not made through the same pathways as asthma.

12 --o0o--

13 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF

14 SMITH: In 1992, Dr. Gong moved to Rancho Los Amigos

15 National Rehabilitation Center where he became the

16 director of the Environmental Exposure Laboratory and also

17 joined the facility of the USC Tec School of Medicine.

18 Dr. Gong's research at Rancho Los Amigos included air

19 pollution health effects investigations primarily on

20 ozone, but also more recently on concentrated ambient

21 particles. He was the first to report that responses to

22 ozone attenuate, that is become smaller, in asthmatics who

23 are regularly exposed to elevated levels of ozone and

24 return to base line once regular exposures end.

25 In an ARB funded study, he was the first to

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

8

1 expose cardiac patients to ozone in the chamber. The

2 results of this work suggest that ozone exposure can make

3 the heart muscle work harder and impair oxygen delivery to

4 the heart muscle in people who have preexisting heart

5 disease.

6 Another ARB funded study investigated the7 responses of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary

8 disease to ozone. The COPD patients had similar decreases

9 in lung function as those of healthy people, but they can

10 be at increased risk due to their disease related

11 compromised lung function. This is one of the few studies

12 in the literature on COPD patients.

13 --o0o--

14 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF

15 SMITH: Several of Dr. Gong's line of research produced

16 unexpected results and showed us what we think to be true

17 isn't always true.

18 For example, Dr. Gong's third ARB funded study

19 addressed the concern that people who have larger lung

20 function decreases with ozone exposure might be at

21 increased risk of rapid lung function decline if they are

22 clinically exposed to ozone. Dr. Gong found that this

23 relationship is untrue.

24 His most recent work includes a series of papers

25 on the responses of healthy adults and patients with

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

9

1 asthma or COPD who are exposed for two hours to

2 concentrated particulate matter from ambient air.

3 Surprisingly, these short-term exposures had few and

4 inconsistent effects on the subjects in all three groups

5 of people, which suggests that longer term exposures may

6 be required to induce adverse health effects, a result of

7 which is supported by the epidemiological literature.8 --o0o--

9 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF

10 SMITH: Dr. Gong was a well known advocate for clean air.

11 He was a member of U.S. EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory

12 Committee for PM and ozone which advises the EPA

13 administrator on national air quality standards. He

14 received awards for his contributions to clean air from

15 the U.S. EPA, the Coalition for Clean Air, and the South

16 Coast Air Quality Management District, and also from the

17 American Lung Association.

18 --o0o--

19 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF

20 SMITH: Also in 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger appointed

21 Dr. Gong to the Air Resources Board as the medical member.

22 In that capacity, he contributed with the perspective of

23 physician, a scientist, and researcher to the

24 deliberations of the Board. He was also an active advisor

25 to the annual health research plan.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

10

1 Dr. Gong will be remembered for his kindness,

2 grace, gentle humor, and encouragement to staff in

3 addition to his contribution of focusing the Board's

4 attention on the health impacts of air pollution and on

5 the need to control it.

6 This concludes my presentation. I'd like to

7 thank you for the opportunity to highlight Dr. Gong's8 career and scientific contributions to the field of air

9 pollution health effects research.

10 --o0o--

11 (Applause)

12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much for

13 that presentation.

14 I want to share a comment that Dr. Gong's wife

15 made to me after his memorial service. She told me that

16 when he was hospitalized after the heart attack that

17 ultimately took his life they were talking about the

18 future and his plans to cut back on his activities and

19 retire from much of what he was doing. And she mentioned

20 he was hoping that he could continue to serve on the Air

21 Resources Board since it was only a day or two a month and

22 he'd be able to fly to the meetings, and that being a

23 member of this Board was the most significant activity in

24 his life other than his family at that point.

25 And I wanted to pass this on to the rest of you

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

11

1 since you all served with him and had an opportunity to

2 know him as a colleague, that he cared so much about this

3 work and about all of you, that his thoughts were indeed

4 with us as well.

5 With that, I think perhaps a reminder of why it

6 is we're here, we should move next to the research

7 proposals that are in front of us this morning.

8 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was9 presented as follows.)

10 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: Good morning,

11 Chairman Nichols and member of the Board. We have seven

12 research proposals for you to consider this morning.

13 --o0o--

14 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: These projects

15 were part of the 2007-08 Research Plan and have been

16 reviewed and approved by the Board's Research Screening

17 Committee. I will briefly describe the objective and

18 expected results for each project.

19 --o0o--

20 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: The first three

21 projects will address personal exposure and the related

22 health effects.

23 --o0o--

24 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: The first

25 project will address exposure from residential wood smoke.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

12

1 In some areas of the state, wood is burned for

2 heat and is a significant contributor to winter PM2.5

3 levels which often exceed the state and federal standard

4 and expose people to significant health risk.

5 The objectives of this proposal are to determine

6 the spatial variability of wood smoke within a wood

7 burning community, assess how local sources of wood smoke

8 impact individuals' exposures, and estimate the9 contribution of nearby outdoor sources to indoor wood

10 smoke levels.

11 The investigators will perform air monitoring and

12 modeling studies of wood smoke in a small community with

13 substantial wood burning. Information from this study

14 will be useful to local air district planners and to

15 others who develop control plans to reduce smoke levels

16 and to protect the health and welfare of community

17 residents. The result will help and provide information

18 to ARB regarding the importance of wood smoke exposure

19 relative to other PM sources and the possible need for new

20 control measures.

21 --o0o--

22 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: The next project

23 will investigate the health --

24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Excuse me. Before you go

25 on, I should have said this at the beginning. I'm hoping

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

13

1 we can have a motion and vote on these all together. But

2 if anyone has a question as a particular item is being

3 presented, please feel free to ask it at that time.

4 Thanks.

5 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: This study will

6 address the question of whether adverse effects are due to

7 specific classes of reactive organic compounds on the

8 particles. Ultra fine particles will be concentrated and

9 heated to remove the semi-volatile organic compounds that10 may be responsible for the adverse health effects.

11 Mice, more susceptible to coronary artery

12 disease, will be exposed to particles at a site near a

13 roadway with or without semi-volatile organics. If

14 successful, this project could improve the understanding

15 of the mechanism of toxic action of freshly emitted

16 combustion particles and identify fractions of ultra fine

17 particles causally related to health effects.

18 --o0o--

19 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: The next project

20 will examine the asthma disparity among a range of

21 Californians. According to the 2003 California health

22 interview survey, 4.5 million Californians suffer from

23 asthma and an additional 3.4 million suffer from

24 asthma-like breathing problems. The elderly, children,

25 minorities, women, and low-income Californians suffer

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

14

1 disproportionately from asthma or asthma like symptoms.

2 The objectives of this study are to characterize

3 exposures at locations of the survey respondent

4 residences. The study will determine whether the

5 disproportionate burden of asthma or asthma-like symptoms

6 among low socioeconomic status individuals is associated

7 with greater pollutant exposures, greater susceptibility

8 due to risk factors such as poor access to health care or

9 both.10 The proposed research will provide crucial

11 information on whether current, federal, or State air

12 quality standard sufficiently protect vulnerable

13 sub-populations.

14 --o0o--

15 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: The next couple

16 of projects will research strategies related to greenhouse

17 gas mitigations. The South Coast AQMD is considering

18 co-sponsoring both of these efforts.

19 --o0o--

20 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: This project is

21 an effort focused on assessing life cycle emissions of

22 retail products sold in California. Estimates are that up

23 to 80 percent of the annual greenhouse gas footprint of

24 the average U.S. consumer is attributable to the purchase,

25 use, and disposal of retail products. The emissions

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

15

1 associated with their manufacture, use, and disposal may

2 represent an untapped source of potential greenhouse gas

3 emission reductions.

4 The proposed contractor has developed a

5 methodology that may lead to the creation of total life

6 cycle greenhouse gas emission levels and standards for

7 retail products which could provide manufacturers with

8 significant incentives for minimizing life cycle

9 greenhouse gas emissions from retail products sold in

10 California.11 The proposed research will provide ARB with a

12 comprehensive emission input/output life cycle analysis

13 model that characterizes the imbedded greenhouse gas

14 emissions of all retail products sold in California, an

15 estimate of life cycle emissions reductions attainable for

16 20 to 30 retail products, and an analysis of the emissions

17 impact rating would have on these products. The results

18 of the work will provide ARB with the analytical framework

19 to assess the potential impact of labeling and product

20 standards on greenhouse gas emission reductions in

21 California.

22 --o0o--

23 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: The next project

24 is also aimed at assisting ARB in attaining the goals set

25 forth in AB 32. This aggressive goal will require

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

16

1 emission reductions in all sectors, including the

2 industrial sector. The objective of this research is to

3 identify the characteristics of successful industrial

4 sector greenhouse gas emission reduction and energy

5 efficiency programs in other countries in order to provide

6 a summary of lessons learned and make recommendations for

7 specific industrial sector program designs that could be

8 implemented in California.

9 Information from the project will assist the ARB

10 in designing programs and policies to achieve energy and11 carbon dioxide savings from top emitting California

12 industries. Increase in industrial energy efficiency and

13 reduced greenhouse gas emissions can lead to cost savings,

14 improved competitiveness, and reduced emissions of

15 criteria pollutants.

16 --o0o--

17 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: The next two

18 projects will address emission measurement and pollutant

19 transport.

20 --o0o--

21 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: This project

22 uses a remote sensing device to provide unavailable data

23 regarding on-road emissions of pneumonia, hydrogen

24 dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. All three are important

25 particle precursors, and nitrogen dioxide is a direct and

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

17

1 immediate ozone-forming compound.

2 This project will obtain on-road emissions data

3 for carbon monoxide, a volatile compound, and nitric

4 oxide. Measurements will be made from approximately

5 60,000 vehicles at three locations in California: The

6 South Coast air basin, the San Joaquin Valley and the

7 San Francisco Bay Area. The results of the study are

8 expected to provide useful information on current local

9 source emissions of pneumonia, hydrogen dioxide, and

10 sulfur dioxide and assess how these emissions vary among

11 three major regions in California.12 --o0o--

13 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: The last project

14 will investigate the global scale transport of airborne

15 pollutants and the fact that it increases the local

16 background pollutant burden in California, reducing the

17 amount of local emissions that can be permitted and still

18 attain air quality standards.

19 Asian dust and combustion products are known to

20 be regularly transported to California. High altitude

21 monitoring data shows that Asian particles dominate the

22 average composition of the lower free troposphere over

23 California, while sparse data from a few coastal sites

24 show much smaller sea level impacts.

25 The burden of Asian pollutants at low altitude

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

18

1 inland sites is expected to be greater than the coast, but

2 there are no published data on this impact. These data

3 are needed to assess current and future Asian background

4 impacts. This has been used in the past to track sources

5 of lead pollution on local and regional scales.

6 This project will exploit source-linked lead and

7 strontium isotropic fingerprints measured in aerosol

8 samples from Asia and rural California to assess Asian

9 contributions of both fugitive dust and combustion

10 products in low altitude urban and agriculture regions of

11 California.12 --o0o--

13 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: This concludes

14 the presentation. We recommend you approve these research

15 proposals. Would be happy to answer any questions.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

17 Are there any questions? Yes.

18 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Good morning. I think in

19 honor of my seat mate, Dr. Gong, I'm sure if he were here

20 that he would commend staff for the report and for the

21 type of research projects and the breadth of the research

22 projects that are proposed.

23 I do have a question on the life cycle emissions

24 and energy efficiency label for retail products. When we

25 talk about life cycle for a product, could you help me in

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

19

1 defining exactly what we're looking at there?

2 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: This is Bart

3 Croes, Chief of the Research Division.

4 Life cycle we would look at the emissions not

5 just of the use of the products, but also the manufacture

6 of it.

7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you.

8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, Ms. D'Adamo.

9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: In follow up, what about

10 the transportation of the goods?

11 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: That would also

12 be included. That's a good point.13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Could you give several

14 examples of types of products just to give us a sense of

15 the range of products that the researchers will be looking

16 at?

17 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: They haven't

18 decided, but they brought up tomato sauce cans, other

19 kinds of canned foods look that. I'm not sure exactly

20 what products. That was one of the examples is look at

21 the entire life cycle.

22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you.

23 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Madam Chair.

24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes.

25 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Also I was really interested

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

20

1 in the proposed study for the disparity in asthma among

2 those who are of a lower socioeconomic status. In the San

3 Joaquin Valley Air Quality District, we approved $256,000

4 to take a look at those suffering asthma and how much

5 proportionality of that was from air pollution. And as

6 part of that presentation, we heard that asthma is twice

7 as prevalent in the San Joaquin Valley as it is in the Los

8 Angeles basin.

9 So if those two areas share the same levels of

10 ozone, I'm hopeful we see some studies come forward to

11 really try to differentiate what's causing that disparity

12 because of this huge asthma problem we're having in the13 central valley. And hopefully these two research projects

14 won't duplicate some of those efforts, but actually

15 enhance trying to figure out what it is that's causing the

16 health crisis. Because I think that's going to be really

17 important. And it may be more than just our ozone.

18 Certainly that's part of it. But really we need to dig

19 deep on that one.

20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Do you have a comment,

21 staff, on that? I know there have been studies that have

22 associated asthma incidents with levels in the past.

23 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF

24 SMITH: But those studies are just beginning. And

25 actually we're hoping this one is going to look at a

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

21

1 number of different parameters. But we would be very

2 interested to at least touch base and coordinate with San

3 Joaquin on their study and make sure there are no

4 overlaps.

5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, Ms. Riordan.

6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chair, I think it is

7 important for staff to make those connections with other

8 air districts and to see that we're not duplicating,

9 because we have scarce dollars as it is when we really

10 look at our money that's available. And we certainly

11 could profit perhaps by extending our money if we just

12 coordinate our efforts. So hopefully we'll do that, Madam

13 Chair.14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I would agree with that.

15 And I think to the extent staff knows of other studies

16 that are similar that are going on sponsored by other

17 agencies, it would be helpful if you could present that

18 information to us in the future when you bring forward

19 recommendations for research projects.

20 Before we vote on this item, we have one request

21 to comment from Douglas Korthof.

22 MR. KORTHOF: Hi. Doug Korthof.

23 I drove up here today from Seal Beach in my RAV4

24 EV, which is basically a serial plug-in hybrid without the

25 range extender.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

22

1 And I wanted to say these studies are fine. We

2 have to do studies. But you mustn't mistake doing a study

3 for actually doing anything. The study is only an

4 ancillary process which starts the ball rolling.

5 Now, you really do have a shortage of money, but

6 it isn't as short as you imagine. The agency spends over

7 $300 million a year. Some of that money should be spent

8 on studies, no doubt. But some of it needs to be spent

9 actually doing something.

10 And one of the things you can actually do is

11 confront auto and refinery pollution. One of the big

12 problems we have is that auto pollution is mobile source,

13 and that's handled by the CARB, whereas stationary source14 handles refineries. So we don't actually consider the

15 unifying effects of automobiles and refineries. We can't

16 really run automobiles using gasoline without refineries,

17 but the two are not looked at in conjunction. So the

18 effect of the zero emission vehicle mandate, for instance,

19 would be to decrease pollution.

20 One thing I'd like to correct here was stated

21 that nitrous oxide, NO2, and sulfurous oxide, SO2, can

22 form ozone. Actually, those are termed anhydrous nitrous

23 acid and anhydrous sulfurous acid. In the presence of

24 ozone in sunlight, those turn into nitric acid and

25 sulfuric acid. That's why the study that was presented to

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

23

1 you this spring detected permanent lung damage more

2 prevalent in children that live a third of a mile from a

3 freeway than in children that live a mile away from the

4 freeway.

5 It isn't the freeways. It's the exhaust from the

6 cars, and it's the nitrous acid and the sulfurous acid

7 which form nitric acid and sulfuric acid. And those hit

8 kids' lungs or anybody's lungs, they eat away at lung

9 tissue. The areoles are destroyed permanently, permanent

10 lung damage. And we need to consider things that this is

11 in fact what's actually happening and we need to decrease

12 this, because there's really no way to move away from cars

13 in Los Angeles. Everybody is going to be living in

14 proximity to cars. They're all over the place. And it15 doesn't mean if you're a mile away you're immune from this

16 lung damage. It means it's less than if you live a third

17 of a mile from the freeway.

18 What happens the next morning? They bring these

19 kids into the emergency room. It's $1,000. All they get

20 is an inhaler. They're back out the next day in school.

21 And the next night, the refineries spew more stuff into

22 the air. They get the same thing all over again.

23 The only way we're going to deal with this is to

24 get rid of the cars and refineries that are necessary for

25 gasoline to run. And the only way to do that is zero

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

24

1 emission cars, such as I have and everybody should be able

2 to get, and solar power on their roof, which powers my car

3 and should power everybody's car.

4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Good reminder

5 of the need to think holistically.

6 Do I have a motion to approve the research

7 proposals?

8 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So moved.

9 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Second.

10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All in favor say aye.

11 (Ayes)

12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Very good. Thank you.

13 Our next item is proposal to add members to our

14 Research Screening Committee.15 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

16 presented as follows.)

17 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: Today we have

18 two nominations for the Research Screening Committee. The

19 RSC is a Board-appointed Committee that oversees the ARB's

20 external research program. The Committee performs several

21 important functions for the Board. It assists the staff

22 in identifying knowledge gaps and ensures the results of

23 sponsored research that will provide the necessary

24 knowledge in a form that is relevant to the Board's

25 regulatory programs and policies. It reviews all research

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

25

1 proposals and makes appropriate funding recommendations to

2 the Board. The Committee also reviews and comments on all

3 research reports before they are released to the public.

4 --o0o--

5 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: The Committee

6 consists of up to nine persons in specified scientific and

7 technical disciplines. It includes: Physicians,

8 scientists, biologists, chemists, engineers,

9 meteorologists and others who are knowledgeable,

10 technically qualified, and expert in various air pollution

11 areas for which research projects are reviewed.

12 The Committee's members currently have expertise

13 in asthma clinical research, atmospheric measurement

14 related to air pollution control, transport of outdoor

15 pollution into the indoor environment, environmental16 justice communities, combustion, motor vehicle emission

17 testing, air quality modeling, technology advancement, and

18 human exposure, and epidemiological approaches. We have

19 one RSC adjunct advisor who provides expertise on climate

20 change science.

21 As mentioned earlier, we are recommending two

22 individuals today: One permanent member and the other

23 will be an adjunct advisor to the Committee. Both are

24 economists who focus on climate change regulations and

25 therefore will be extremely helpful as we work towards the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

26

1 goals set forth in the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act.

2 --o0o--

3 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: The first person

4 is Professor Charles E. Kolstad, a former President of the

5 Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. He

6 is a leading environmental economist specializing in

7 uncertainty and learning in environmental regulation

8 particularly as it's applied to climate change. He's a

9 lead author for the inter-governmental panel on climate

10 change, a member of the National Academy of Sciences

11 Committee evaluating the U.S. climate change research

12 program, and the author of numerous scholarly articles and

13 books. His most recent book, edited with professor from

14 Harvard Law School, is "Moving to Markets; an

15 Environmental Regulation." He is a professor of16 environmental economics at U.C. Santa Barbara, appointed

17 in both the Bren School of Environmental Science and

18 Management and the Department of economics. He is also a

19 university Fellow of Resources for the future.

20 We are recommending Dr. Kolstad be approved as an

21 official member to the RSC.

22 --o0o--

23 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: We are

24 recommending Professor Matthew Kahn as an adjunct advisor

25 to the RSC. He's an associate professor of international

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

27

1 economics at the Fletcher School of Law of Diplomacy at

2 Tufts University. He joined the Fletcher faculty in the

3 fall of 2000.

4 His research focus is environmental and urban

5 economics. He has published a number of papers concerning

6 the costs and benefits of environmental regulation. His

7 research on international environmental issues has focused

8 on the cost of urbanization in Santiago, Chile, and the

9 relationship between international trade and the

10 environmental quality. He is currently visiting professor

11 at UCLA.

12 --o0o--

13 RESEARCH DIVISION MANAGER MORA: We recommend

14 that you approve Charles Kolstad and Matthew Kahn to the

15 RSC and would be happy to answer any questions.

16 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Motion.17 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Second.

18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We have a motion and a

19 second.

20 All in favor please say aye.

21 (Ayes)

22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. All right.

23 Our next item is the proposed regulation to limit

24 ozone emissions from indoor air cleaning devices. I know

25 this is one that has attracted a substantial amount of

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

28

1 public interest and comment. So I think we should move

2 straight to the staff presentation on this one.

3 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Staff

4 has attempted to address high ozone-emitting indoor air

5 cleaning devices for nearly 20 years now beyond regulatory

6 methods with very little success. AB 2276 not only

7 provides the ARB the authority to deal with these sources

8 of pollution, but requires the Board to develop and adopt

9 regulations to protect public health from ozone emitted by

10 both medical and non-medical indoor air cleaning device

11 and to do so by December 31st, 2008.

12 Today, staff will present the proposed regulation

13 for consideration. In developing the proposed regulation,

14 staff actively sought public and stakeholder input. We

15 benefited from comments received from a broad base of

16 stakeholders, research experts, manufacturers, trade17 organizations, and testing laboratories that engaged staff

18 and provided valuable suggestions and expertise.

19 All suggestions were considered carefully and the

20 information used to arrive at what we believe is an

21 effective regulation that fulfills the requirements of AB

22 2276 and will protect public health.

23 We are asking the Board for your approval of the

24 proposed regulation more than one year before the required

25 adoption date so we can move quickly to prevent sales of

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

29

1 high ozone-emitting air cleaners in California and protect

2 our citizens.

3 Chris Jakober from the Research Division will

4 make the staff presentation. Chris.

5 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

6 presented as follows.)

7 MR. JAKOBER: Thank you, Mr. Cackette. And good

8 morning, Chairman and Nichols and distinguished members of

9 the Board.

10 Today's presentation will describe our proposed

11 regulation to limit the ozone emissions from indoor air

12 cleaning devices.

13 --o0o--

14 MR. JAKOBER: Briefly, I will present background

15 information describing the needs for the proposed

16 regulation, review the requirements of Assembly Bill 2276,

17 describe the steps taken during regulation development,18 follow with an overview of the proposed regulation and its

19 anticipated economic exposure and health impacts, discuss

20 some proposed revisions, and finally provide the Board

21 with staff's recommendation.

22 --o0o--

23 MR. JAKOBER: Ozone is an air pollutant with

24 documented harmful health effects and the primary

25 component of photochemical smog. As a highly reactive

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

30

1 molecule, it can damage the airway tissues. Inflammation

2 and irritation of respiratory tissues are common following

3 exposure, and chronic exposure can even cause permanent

4 lung damage.

5 Research has shown ozone can exacerbate asthma,

6 and chronic exposure may increase the risk of death in

7 susceptible populations. To prevent these serious health

8 impacts, our state ambient air quality standard has been

9 set at .070 parts per million for an 8-hour averaging time

10 and .09 parts per million for an 1-hour averaging time.

11 --o0o--

12 MR. JAKOBER: Some manufacturers claim that the

13 introduction of ozone into indoor environments can be

14 beneficial. However, research has shown ozone is

15 ineffective at removing or reducing other indoor

16 pollutants. Ozone has been found to effectively reduce

17 and inhibit microbial activity on surfaces. But the18 concentrations required are very high, typically above 5

19 parts per million, and lead to substantial health effects

20 if used in spaces occupied by humans.

21 Ozone participates in chemical reactions indoors

22 that lead to substantial increases in both formaldehyde

23 and ultra fine particulate matter concentrations indoors

24 even at levels below .050 parts per million. Although

25 often used to reduce odor, ozone can also impair one's

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

31

1 sense of smell which inhibits the ability to detect its

2 presence following continuous exposure.

3 --o0o--

4 MR. JAKOBER: Currently, several different types

5 of indoor air cleaning devices are available to consumers.

6 First, mechanical filtration devices utilize a filtering

7 media to remove indoor pollutants. Mechanical filtration

8 devices produce little or no ozone.

9 Ionizers and electrostatic precipitators,

10 referred to as ESPs, are a second type of indoor air

11 cleaning device. These electronic devices may emit ozone

12 as a byproduct of their operation due primarily to

13 electrical discharge which is part of their design. While

14 these devices may emit ozone, it is typically at low

15 levels.

16 Mechanical filtration, ionizer, and electrostatic

17 precipitator air cleaners can be effective at removing

18 particles and improving indoor air quality when sized and19 used correctly and when maintained as instructed by the

20 manufacturers.

21 However, one type of indoor air cleaning device,

22 ozone generators, intentionally emit ozone typically at

23 very high levels. Manufacturers with these devices

24 sometimes advertise them as indoor air cleaners or air

25 purifiers, but they are ineffective at removing indoor

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

32

1 pollutants. And ozone levels produced by some of these

2 devices pose a substantial health risk.

3 --o0o--

4 MR. JAKOBER: A recent survey conducted by the

5 University of California Berkeley and funded by ARB

6 revealed important information about indoor air clearer

7 usage in California. Fourteen percent of California

8 households own at least one indoor air cleaner purchased

9 within the last five years. Fifty percent of air cleaner

10 owners reported purchasing their air cleaner to improve

11 allergies or asthma of a household member. Additional

12 reasons for purchase included improving indoor air

13 quality, reducing dust and pet dander. Seventy percent of

14 the purchased models are still being used typically

15 24 hours a day, year round. Over 70 percent of the air

16 cleaner owners believed their indoor air quality had

17 improved.

18 --o0o--19 MR. JAKOBER: The survey revealed intentional

20 ozone generators account for 15 percent of the air

21 cleaners sold in California in the past five years and

22 roughly 2 percent of the households in California own an

23 ozone generator. Those homes include over 500,000

24 Californians likely exposed to elevated indoor ozone

25 levels from these devices. Additionally, 45 percent of

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

33

1 those households include children who may be at greater

2 risk to the health effects of ozone. These households are

3 of special concern because ozone generators produce levels

4 well above the California ambient air quality standard

5 levels.

6 --o0o--

7 MR. JAKOBER: The next slide shows the high ozone

8 levels produced by some ozone generator models. ARB

9 evaluated four current ozone generator models in a 20

10 cubic meter room outfitted with typical office furniture.

11 The room ozone levels observed from these four models

12 significantly exceeded the 8-hour California ambient air

13 quality standard of .070 parts per million.

14 One device, the Prozone Whole House model,

15 produced levels over twice the Stage 1 smog alert level

16 and several times the California ambient air quality

17 standard.

18 Room ozone levels from all four ozone generators

19 were two to eight times the current Food and Drug20 Administration standard of .05 parts per million for

21 medical devices, which includes air cleaners for which

22 health claims are made. The high levels observed in these

23 measurements confirm the necessity of the proposed

24 regulation.

25 --o0o--

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

34

1 MR. JAKOBER: Assembly Bill 2276 requires the

2 Board to adopt a regulation that includes the following:

3 An ozone emission concentration standard for

4 indoor air cleaning devices that is equivalent to the

5 federal Food and Drug Administration limit for medical

6 devices of .05 parts per million;

7 Both medical and non-medical indoor air cleaning

8 devices used in occupied spaces;

9 Test procedures for determining the ozone

10 emission concentrations are to be specified after

11 considering existing test methods such as those of the

12 American National Standards Institute, also known as ANSI,

13 and Underwriters Laboratories, Incorporated, also known as

14 UL;

15 Certification procedures and package labeling

16 requirements.

17 Finally, Assembly Bill 2276 requires regulation

18 be adopted by December 31st, 2008.

19 --o0o--20 MR. JAKOBER: Assembly Bill 2276 further

21 indicates the regulation may include the following:

22 A ban on sale of indoor air cleaning devices that

23 exceed the ozone emissions standard;

24 An exemption for air cleaners that emit de

25 minimis levels of ozone;

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

35

1 And finally, any other element the Board deems

2 necessary to protect public health.

3 --o0o--

4 MR. JAKOBER: During the development of the

5 proposed regulation, ARB staff activity sought the input

6 and opinion of all affected and interested individuals and

7 organizations.

8 Three public workshops were held in Sacramento

9 each with a comment period.

10 Manufacturers were surveyed in efforts to obtain

11 accurate sales, distribution, pricing, and employment

12 information, as well as anticipated regulation compliance

13 costs.

14 Additionally, staff met with interested

15 stakeholder groups through numerous conference calls and

16 meetings. Their input has significantly helped shape the

17 proposed regulation.

18 Staff also pursued an outreach program

19 supplementary to the regulation development.

20 --o0o--21 MR. JAKOBER: I would now like to provide a brief

22 overview of the proposed regulation before proceeding with

23 a more detailed discussion.

24 The proposed regulation would establish an ozone

25 emission concentrations standard of .050 parts per million

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

36

1 for indoor air cleaning devices for sale in California.

2 Additionally, each device would be required to comply with

3 the ANSI/UL electrical safety testing.

4 The proposed regulation outlines the process for

5 obtaining ARB certification and includes specific labeling

6 requirements for indoor air cleaning devices and their

7 product packaging and sales materials. I will now explain

8 the proposed regulation in greater detail.

9 --o0o--

10 MR. JAKOBER: The regulation would establish a

11 .050 parts per million ozone emissions standard for indoor

12 air cleaning devices to be used in occupied spaces and

13 offered for sale in California. .050 parts per million

14 emission concentration is consistent with the current

15 United States Food and Drug Administration standard for

16 medical devices. The ozone levels must be tested using

17 the ANSI/UL standard 867 with 2007 ANSI section 37

18 revision which I will discuss later.

19 --o0o--

20 MR. JAKOBER: The standard would apply to both21 medical and non-medical air cleaning devices. Air

22 cleaners designed for use in a single room, whole floor,

23 whole house, or vehicle and those designed to be worn on

24 the person are all subject to the regulation requirements.

25 Any device that is advertised, offered for sale, or sold

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

37

1 in California must meet the ozone standard and regulation

2 requirements unless specifically exempted, including

3 devices that are marketed via internet and shipped to

4 California addresses.

5 --o0o--

6 MR. JAKOBER: The proposed regulation includes an

7 exemption for meeting the ozone emission standard for

8 indoor air cleaning devices that are for industrial use or

9 are considered an in-duct device.

10 Industrial used must be:

11 Manufactured, advertised, and marketed for

12 industrial use only;

13 Obtained solely through industrial suppliers and;

14 Labeled, "Solely for industrial use. Potential

15 health hazard: emits ozone."

16 The second exemption provided is for in-duct

17 indoor air cleaning devices which must be an integrated

18 component of a central air system. ARB may reevaluate

19 these exemptions if future research indicates the

20 potential for high ozone exposure to users of these

21 devices.22 --o0o--

23 MR. JAKOBER: Industrial uses are exempted. For

24 the purpose of this regulation, industrial use means the

25 use of ozone for the applications shown on this slide.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

38

1 Note that devices for odor and smoke control in hotels,

2 mold remediation, and fire and smoke damage remediation

3 satisfy the industrial use definition only when the area

4 in which the device is used is unoccupied.

5 --o0o--

6 MR. JAKOBER: All non-exempt indoor air cleaning

7 devices must obtain ARB certification prior to sale in

8 California. Certification applications may be submitted

9 by the manufacturer or by a representative of a

10 professional or certification organization. Each

11 application must include manufacture and model

12 information, test results for both ozone and electrical

13 safety, and signatures of manufacturer and testing

14 laboratory representatives.

15 Applications will be reviewed by ARB for

16 completeness and the manufacturer notified within 30 days

17 of receipt whether the application is complete or

18 deficient.

19 Once accepted, the application will be evaluated

20 for certification within 60 days of receipt. If approved,

21 ARB will issue the certification to the manufacturer and22 will add the device to a list of certified models on the

23 ARB website.

24 --o0o--

25 MR. JAKOBER: After evaluating several existing

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

39

1 test methods and considering development of a new test

2 method, staff selected Section 37 of ANSI/UL standard 867,

3 which is currently under revision for the ozone test

4 method. This 24-hour chamber test is currently used by

5 industry and its selection for this regulation reduces the

6 time and resource requirements to develop a new test

7 method. The ANSI revision process for Section 37 is

8 expected to be completed in November.

9 Ozone emission testing will only be accepted from

10 nationally realized testing laboratories commonly referred

11 to as NRTLs or from independent laboratories meeting the

12 Occupational Safety and Health Administration's NRTL

13 Program 2 requirements. To minimize the impact on

14 manufacturers, the proposed regulation requires testing

15 only one model within a model group where a model group is

16 comprised of devices that share the same design,

17 operational features, device output, and performance

18 characteristics and are manufactured by the same

19 manufacturer. Mechanical filtration only devices are

20 exempted from ozone emissions testing due to de minimis

21 ozone emissions.

22 --o0o--23 MR. JAKOBER: Additionally, the proposed

24 regulation requires indoor air cleaning devices to

25 successfully complete testing for electrical safety.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

40

1 Inclusion of the electrical safety testing ensures that

2 any modifications to comply with the ozone limit do not

3 compromise the electrical safety of the device. Most

4 indoor air cleaning devices will be evaluated under

5 ANSI/UL standard 867, the electrical safety standard for

6 electrostatic air cleaners. Air cleaners that use only

7 mechanical filtration will be tested following the ANSI/UL

8 standard 507 which is the current electrical safety

9 standard for such appliances.

10 Upon completing the electrical safety testing,

11 the device is required to display the relevant

12 certification mark where required. Shown here are

13 examples of the certification mark from two of the likely

14 certification organizations, Underwriters Laboratory,

15 Incorporated, and Intertek.

16 --o0o--

17 MR. JAKOBER: As required, the proposed

18 regulation contains the specific labeling requirements.

19 Medical devices must be labeled in accordance with federal

20 law and also include a label stating "ARB certified" on

21 the product packaging. Non-medical devices must display

22 the label stating, "This air cleaner complies with the23 federal ozone emissions limit. ARB certified" on product

24 packaging.

25 Any non-industrial air cleaning devices sold over

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

41

1 the Internet or via mail order or catalog that have not

2 obtained ARB certification must display the specified

3 warning label stating, "Does not meet California

4 requirements. Cannot be shipped to California." on all

5 relevant catalog and Internet pages.

6 --o0o--

7 MR. JAKOBER: In addition to the certification

8 testing and labeling requirements, there are a few other

9 requirements.

10 Manufacturers would be required to notify their

11 California distributors, retailers, and sellers within 12

12 months of the regulation effective date, provide them

13 copies of the final approved regulation order, and submit

14 verification of completing the notification of

15 requirements to ARB.

16 Manufacturers would further be required to

17 provide the contact information for all their California

18 distributors, retailers, and sellers to ARB.

19 Manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and testing

20 laboratories would be required to maintain their related

21 production, sales, and testing information for three

22 years.

23 --o0o--24 MR. JAKOBER: Failure to comply with the proposed

25 regulation components may result in penalties.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

42

1 Certification applications may be denied or an existing

2 certification may be revoked or suspended. If a device is

3 found to be noncompliant with a requirement of the

4 proposed regulation, ARB may order the product recalled

5 and replaced with compliant products. Additionally, all

6 other penalties authorized by law such as fines apply as

7 well.

8 --o0o--

9 MR. JAKOBER: Staff assessed the potential

10 economic impacts of the proposed regulation. We estimate

11 that 61 manufacturers, with six located in California, and

12 their distributors may be affected by this regulation with

13 about 200 models requiring certification.

14 The primary cost of compliance with the proposed

15 regulation arises from testing and package labeling,

16 although some manufacturers, primarily ozone generator

17 manufacturers, may incur redesign costs. The estimated

18 annual cost per manufacturers ranges from 13,600 to

19 $86,800. Staff estimate a typical decrease in

20 manufacturer profitability of less than one percent.

21 However, small ozone generator manufacturers

22 which comprise 15 percent of manufacturers could

23 experience a decrease in profitability of up to ten24 percent. Or if manufacturers pass on these increased

25 costs to consumers, the cost to consumers may increase up

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

43

1 to 11 to $16 per unit for air cleaners that currently

2 range in cost from 100 to $700.

3 Staff conclude that no significant impact will

4 result in most manufacturers, distributors, retailers, or

5 consumers from the proposed regulation.

6 --o0o--

7 MR. JAKOBER: The proposed regulation would:

8 Prevent exposure of more than 500,000

9 Californians to indoor ozone levels above the 8-hour

10 California ambient air quality standard of .070 parts per

11 million, including devices capable of producing Stage 1

12 smog alert levels indoors;

13 Achieve significant health benefits from

14 reductions in indoor ozone exposures;

15 And reduce the health risks from ozone reaction

16 byproducts such as formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and

17 ultra fine particles.

18 --o0o--

19 MR. JAKOBER: ARB has received comments that the

20 manufacturer effective date of 12 months is inadequate to

21 allow the completion of laboratory testing and ARB

22 certification for all models of air cleaning devices.

23 There are a large number of air cleaners that need to have

24 ozone tests performed, and the time needed for testing25 laboratories to adapt their test chambers and protocols to

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

44

1 the ANSI/UL standard 867 revisions and test all the air

2 cleaners that require testing for certification is

3 insufficient.

4 Staff agree with this comment. And based on

5 discussions with the testing laboratories and the number

6 of models to be tested proposed to extend the manufacturer

7 effective date from 12 months to 24 months. In addition,

8 staff proposed to present a status report to the Board in

9 September 2008.

10 --o0o--

11 MR. JAKOBER: ARB has received requests for

12 selection of alternate test method to determine ozone

13 emissions. These selected method a UL standard 867,

14 specifically Section 37, which is under formal ANSI

15 revisions, is already used by industry. And most

16 manufacturers endorse its selection. Additionally, it is

17 appropriate for all of the air cleaners to be tested.

18 ARB has also received requests to allow

19 additional warning labels and owner instruction for usage

20 of air cleaners that produce more than .050 parts per

21 million ozone. A similar request was submitted to allow

22 devices to have an occupied and unoccupied operational

23 setting referred to as dual use.

24 Staff does not agree with these approaches for25 several reasons. Additional warning labels are

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

45

1 essentially a continuation of status quo. And based on

2 scientific research, they are likely to be ineffective,

3 thus failing to eliminate exposure to high levels of ozone

4 indoors. Dual use devices do not ensure that operational

5 modes intended for unoccupied spaces are utilized solely

6 in unoccupied settings.

7 Finally, Assembly Bill 2267 requires the

8 regulation be consistent with the federal Food and Drug

9 Administration level of .05 parts per million. To be

10 fully protective, no device should exceed this level under

11 any setting.

12 --o0o--

13 MR. JAKOBER: Staff anticipate several changes to

14 the current proposed regulation that will require an

15 additional 15-day comment period. Staff have already

16 circulated a correction to language in Section 94802

17 regarding the effective dates of the proposed regulation.

18 Most importantly, staff now recommend extending

19 the manufacture effective date from 12 months to 24 months

20 after the regulation effective date. The language would

21 retain the nine month sell-through period.

22 Additionally, anticipated changes to the test

23 method that result from the ANSI revision process would

24 need to be included.

25 For example, the emissions test will likely bePETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

46

1 reduced to eight hours instead of 24 hours if a steady

2 state concentration is already reached. The time for

3 preconditioning the device, referred to as a run-in

4 period, will be reduced from 72 hours to 48 hours.

5 Finally, the number of exhaust phase pre-test

6 measurements will be reduced. There may also be other

7 minor revisions in the final approved standard.

8 --o0o--

9 MR. JAKOBER: Staff have concluded the proposed

10 regulation:

11 Is necessary and beneficial for the protection of

12 public health from elevated indoor ozone exposure.

13 It is both technologically and commercially

14 feasible because most air cleaners currently offered to

15 consumers would meet the proposed ozone emission standard.

16 Utilizes an industry test method;

17 Does not produce significant economic impacts;

18 And meets the requirements of Assembly Bill 2276.

19 Therefore, staff recommend the approval of the

20 proposed regulation with the proposed changes noted on the

21 previous slide. We are bringing this proposal more than

22 one year ahead of schedule in order to quickly address a

23 serious problem.

24 That concludes my presentation. Thank you for

25 your attention. And we would now be happy to answer anyPETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

47

1 questions you may have.

2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Are there questions from

3 Board members before we go to the public comment? Yes.

4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you, Madam ChairMAN.

5 Thank you very much for that report. I'm pleased

6 that we have brought this regulation ahead of schedule.

7 And I congratulate you for that.

8 I would like to ask about if there has been an

9 indoor study on the effects of air pollution, of ozone

10 specifically.

11 INDOOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER

12 JENKINS: Peggy Jenkins.

13 There have not been such studies looking at -- I

14 think if you're talking about indoor and real world

15 exposures, what's done is -- what has been done, and we

16 did discuss this in our report, there have been quite a

17 few human exposure studies conducted in chambers where

18 individuals have been exposed to varying levels of ozone

19 over a number of hours varying from I think two to eight

20 or ten hours and health effects noted there.

21 For longer-term studies, one does need to do

22 epidemiological studies. Those have been done of course

23 for the outdoor exposures. But even in those exposures

24 typically there's an adjustment for the estimated or the

25 measured indoor exposures as well. But I think yourPETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

48

1 questions about the direct indoor and those have not been

2 done. There hadn't been I think the need identified, the

3 strength of the human exposure chamber studies, and the

4 ambient studies is very strong.

5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So when we look at the

6 standard of .05 parts per billion, how was that standard

7 determined in light of no studies?

8 INDOOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER

9 JENKINS: Well, actually there's two reasons for that

10 level. The first is that AB 2276 requires us to be

11 consistent with the federal limit of .05. That was

12 developed back in the 1970s for medical devices. The

13 concept there being roughly an 8-hour exposure workday

14 exposure.

15 In terms of health, from our human chamber

16 exposure studies relevant animal studies and our outdoor

17 EPI studies, we know that exposures to ozone -- for

18 example of 1-hour, we've set a standard at .09 to protect

19 people against 1-hour exposures. Our 8-hour average

20 standard of .07 protects people against exposures for an

21 8-hour time frame. If one is indoors and exposed to

22 ozone, for example, from an air cleaner, one's exposure is

23 typically much longer than eight hours. Therefore, you do

24 we need to have a lower concentration, a lower level of

25 exposure in order to achieve equal protection. So the .05

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234549

1 we feel is appropriate in terms of protecting against

2 those longer exposures.

3 Ideally, we actually would have liked to have

4 gone lower. We felt that something lower was necessary.

5 But the .05 is adequate and it is consistent with the

6 federal limit.

7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And to encourage

8 manufacturers to continue to limit the ozone from the .05,

9 there was some discussion about if the testing was

10 consistent on a model at .03, it might limit some further

11 testing. Could you speak to that and if that actually

12 became part of your suggested regulation?

13 MR. JAKOBER: That was actually a component of

14 the standard revision process and efforts to reduce the

15 time required to test these devices. It was concluded

16 that if the emissions of a device were determined to be

17 less than .030 parts per million, there was we need to

18 verify those emissions by testing a second device.

19 However, if the emissions measured from the first device

20 were in excess of .030, but still less than .050, we would

21 test a second device to then verify that the device is in

22 compliance with the stated standard.

23 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. Then on the

24 industrial use exemption, do you feel the labeling of

25 solely for industry use and then the potential health

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234550

1 hazard emits ozone is a sufficient warning to individuals

2 that they should not be present while that machine is

3 running?

4 MR. JAKOBER: Ideally, we would like to have a

5 much more lengthy label. However, to minimize the impact

6 to manufacturers and still get our point across that these

7 should not be used in a residential setting, we felt that

8 the solely for industrial use establishes that the

9 non-industrial application or the non-residential

10 application and the potential health hazard alerts them to

11 the fact they are putting themselves at risk by using this

12 device in a non-industrial manner.

13 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Isn't the reality though that

14 some of these are, in fact, used in circumstances where

15 people do feel that they are very effective as in odors

16 and smoke damage and mold? That it would be important at

17 least to state that this is not designed to run with

18 occupants in the room? It's just a consideration. Would

19 you like to comment? I'm sorry.

20 MR. JAKOBER: That would be something we would

21 definitely consider, and stating the unoccupied

22 specification is definitely a good avenue to pursue.

23 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And then also on under the

24 additional requirements where retailers would be notified

25 within 12 months of regulation effective date, what is the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-234551

1 status of the current on-hand stock of air purifiers that

2 a retailer would have in stock? Is it grandfathered in,

3 they could continue to sell out?

4 MR. JAKOBER: We do allow a sell-through period

5 for existing stock and do specify that stockpiling of

6 devices that are potentially non-compliant with the

7 standard is prohibited.

8 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Does this regulation follow a

9 fine schedule? How does that work?

10 MR. JAKOBER: We currently have to wait for the

11 formal revision of the test method in order to then submit

12 the 15 day comments in order to finalize our proposed

13 regulation. So essentially once the regulation is

14 approved, that will start the time clock of 24 months for

15 manufacturing date, then followed by an additional

16 nine months of sell through.

17 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And then if once the

18 penalties -- let's say we're into the regulation. When

19 you have looking at the penalties and there could be fines

20 associated with noncompliance, do these type of

21 regulations follow a prescriptive fine schedule, or do

22 they have specific fines within the regulation?

23 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL OLIVER: This is Kirk

24 Oliver, ARB legal.

25 The fines that would pertain to violations of

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

521 these regulations are the same ones that are in the

2 stationary source provisions of the Health and Safety

3 Code, which the entry level fine would be up to $1,000 a

4 day for a strict liability fine. Then they go up from

5 there according to the mental state of the person doing

6 the violation.

7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Finally, on compliance

8 issues, do we feel that we have the authority to be able

9 to compel manufacturers on internet sales and catalog

10 sales to in fact label that a particular product would not

11 meet California standard?

12 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL OLIVER: Yes, we have some

13 experience in this area enforcing the solar regulations

14 and in consumer product areas. And we've had some

15 success, although not complete success in requiring

16 manufacturers to do that. And penalizing ones that sell

17 their product in here without the required warning labels.

18 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I do think it would be

19 important to support those manufacturers that are in fact

20 complying with our regulation and do everything that we

21 can to make sure that they are not competing with those

22 units that continue to be out of compliance.

23 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL OLIVER: We're in complete

24 agreement with that, Ms. Berg. And a great deal of what

25 we looked at is the competitive advantage that some of

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

531 these violators get visave people who comply with the

2 regulation and are California companies.

3 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair.

4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Others? Yes.

5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have some questions

6 regarding industrial use exemptions. These seem to be

7 warranted. But the concern I have is worker safety issues

8 and not knowing enough about the various applications.

9 Have you thought through worker safety issues, and are

10 there any precautions that can be taken through Cal OSHA

11 or a variety of other needs?

12 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL OLIVER: Ms. D'Adamo, the

13 exact language that we have in the exemptions there would

14 allow the use only when people are not physically present

15 at all. So we would be protecting workers that way. We

16 wouldn't want these devices being operated in the presence

17 of people at all, although they would be legal and these

18 limited industrial uses that we were informed of in the

19 regulatory process.

20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: The list on slide 16

21 though refers to several different uses in unoccupied

22 areas, but there are some that don't include that

23 language, on the slide anyway.

24 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL OLIVER: That's true. The

25 particular ones that we were concerned about here for this

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

54

1 issue were the odor and smoke control from the hotel2 industry, mold remediation, and fire and smoke remediation

3 generally. Those were the ones that we applied the

4 provision to that no people can be physically present when

5 those uses occur. We were of -- I believe we had

6 information in the other applications that occasionally

7 people had to pass in and out of these areas when these

8 applications occurred. But there is an OSHA standard for

9 exposure to ozone that would apply in these cases.

10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you

11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Professor Hill.

12 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Thank you, Madam Chair. A

13 question related to the testing procedures. It's my

14 understanding this would be done in a sealed room and the

15 product would be producing ozone and that would be

16 measured on an ongoing basis. If for a lack of organic

17 material in that room, is there the potential for a

18 natural build up of ozone over a period of time that could

19 exceed that suggested limit without initially being at

20 that limit?

21 MR. JAKOBER: So the revised standard that is

22 scheduled for approval in November actually incorporates

23 the performance of the test chamber to account for the two

24 real world removal processes of dilution and deposition

25 for the loss of the ozone. Those conditions then were

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

55

1 specified to simulate real world values in order to2 determine what the performance criteria are of the test

3 chamber in order to replicate those real world conditions,

4 but yet still provide comparability between different

5 laboratories, which is essential to establish a standard

6 for devices that may be tested on separate facilities.

7 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Thank you.

8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Others?

9 BOARD MEMBER CASE: I met with a couple members

10 of the industry, and one of their concerns was the

11 distance at which we're measuring ozone emissions from the

12 actual device as compared to the whole room's size

13 potential and concerns that we're measuring ozone very

14 close to the device and maybe that's not an appropriate

15 place. Could you just comment on that for me, please?

16 MR. JAKOBER: The location of the measurement is

17 offset by the fact that the revised standard specifies

18 that the chamber maintain an ASTM criteria for a well

19 mixed environment. So there should be no localized build

20 up. And essentially the chamber concentration should be

21 uniform very quickly.

22 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Do you then go back and

23 measure in multiple locations, or do you still just take

24 the measurement a short distance from the device?

25 MR. JAKOBER: The measurement is taken a short

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

56

1 distance from the device. But it is pre-determined where

2 exactly in relation to the device's face that measurement3 is taken by a series of pre-test measurements evaluating

4 the ozone emission concentrations in the stream of exhaust

5 from the device dictates the exact location. But the

6 distance is defined and is offset then by the well mixed

7 criteria.

8 INDOOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SECTION MANAGER

9 JENKINS: I would like to add to that. This is Peggy

10 Jenkins.

11 There are some of the personal devices that

12 people wear around their necks or in their lapel pocket in

13 which the instructions from the manufacturers do say if

14 you're feeling poorly or have bad allergies that day

15 to hold it up very close to your face and to your nose.

16 So there are some instructions like that for the personal

17 device.

18 But I think the other rational that actually

19 existed in the original underwriters laboratory test

20 procedure, this two-inch distance is not new. It's not

21 ours. It's been in the test procedure for many years now.

22 The idea there is that some people do put these devices on

23 their nightstand very near their head. And so to be

24 protective and to be sure they're not going to get

25 elevated exposure, one, test near the device.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

57

1 But Chris is right. I think with the mixing in

2 the chamber, typically there's always some dilution. But3 the mixing is there to make sure it's not just high right

4 at the face, but further out.

5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Ms. Riordan.

6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. I want to be

7 sure that I understood the response to Supervisor Hill's

8 question. The testing chamber replicates the real world

9 as best we can. Is that what I heard you say?

10 MR. JAKOBER: It attains a set of conditions that

11 replicate the real world by simulating the two removal

12 processes associated with ozone in an indoor environment.

13 But it does so in a somewhat sterile environment so you

14 can attain repeatability of that measurement between

15 testing laboratories to ensure that everyone's device is

16 tested the same.

17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you for the

18 explanation.

19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Others?

20 Before we go to public comment, I wanted to ask

21 the Ombudsman to describe the public participation

22 process. It was noted there were several workshops and

23 meetings, but I'd like to hear any comments or concerns

24 that you may have about the process.

25 DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN LODER: For the record, my name

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

58

1 is Phil Loder, and I am the Deputy Ombudsman.

2 Chairman Nichols and members of Board, this

3 proposed regulation has been developed with input from the4 International Ozone Association, the Association of Home

5 Appliance Manufacturers, which represents about 30 air

6 cleaner manufacturers, Sharper Image, EcoQuest, and

7 various other individual air cleaner companies.

8 Underwriters Laboratories and Intertek Testing Services

9 also aided in the development of improved ozone test

10 protocol.

11 Staff began their efforts to develop this rule in

12 December 2006. They held three workshops in Sacramento on

13 December 2006, March 2007, and July 2007, with an average

14 of 10 to 25 people attending each. All three workshops

15 were Internet telecast and included a teleconference for

16 participation.

17 To gather additional information and comments,

18 staff held numerous individual meetings and

19 teleconferences with testing laboratory representatives,

20 manufacturers, and other industry representatives: The

21 America Lung Association, Federal OSHA, and Health Canada

22 representatives, and scientific research experts.

23 The staff report was released for public comment

24 on August 10th, 2007, and was noticed on the ARB website.

25 An Internet message was sent to over 18,000 people who

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

59

1 subscribe to the nine list serves for this item.

2 Thirty-eight paper notices were also sent to ozone

3 generator companies when e-mails addresses could not be4 found. Thank you.

5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Just as a

6 reminder before we hear from the public, we have had about

7 42 people sign up to testify. If your comments have been

8 made by somebody who proceeded you, we'd appreciate it if

9 you could shorten your own comments, because this is a lot

10 of comment. But we intend to hear any substantive remarks

11 that anyone has to share with us.

12 Just a reminder we're here because of legislation

13 that required us to take action to deal with a situation

14 where potentially and we now know in reality some of our

15 residents of our state are being exposed to levels of

16 ozone indoors that would exceed what they would be allowed

17 to be exposed to if they were out in the ambient air.

18 This is obviously an anomalous situation and something

19 that needs to be dealt with.

20 So we have before us a proposal that has been

21 developed over a substantial amount of time and with a lot

22 of input. But it's always possible there could be errors

23 or things that we need to consider and we would look to

24 hear about those at this time.

25 We'll begin with Michael Kleinman followed by

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

60

1 Jean Ospital and Otana Jakpor.

2 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

3 presented as follows.)

4 MR. KLEINMAN: Chairman Nichols and distinguished5 Board, my name is Michael Kleinman. I'm a professor of

6 Community and Environmental Medicine at U.C. Irvine.

7 --o0o--

8 MR. KLEINMAN: I'm an inhalation toxicologist,

9 and I study the health effects of ozone and other air

10 pollutants for about 30 years.

11 Next slide.

12 --o0o--

13 MR. KLEINMAN: I want to present testimony to

14 establish that ozone has significant adverse effects on

15 health, even at low levels, that the effects are

16 clinically significant. And I'm going to present some

17 information from human studies done in chambers, animal

18 studies done in chambers, as well as some other data from

19 epidemiological studies.

20 Next slide.

21 --o0o--

22 MR. KLEINMAN: In looking at some of the written

23 responses to the regulation, a representative for ozone

24 put this quote up. "Pure ozone in and of itself is a

25 non-toxic irritant. Even at high levels of pure ozone

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

61

1 that can possibly be produced by a household rated machine

2 have biological symptoms that reverse within 24 hours of

3 exposure."

4 These are not true statements.5 --o0o--

6 MR. KLEINMAN: Ozone effects are not fully

7 reversible. Near life-long exposures to ozone in rodents

8 produce progressive stiffening of the lung. Long-term

9 exposure in non-human primates produces lung damage

10 consistent with fibrosis. And when infant monkeys are

11 exposed to levels of ozone for five months, their lung

12 development is abnormal. These changes are permanent,

13 non-reversible.

14 Next slide.

15 --o0o--

16 MR. KLEINMAN: Human clinical studies show

17 adverse effects of ozone even down to levels of below the

18 .07 regulation. At levels as low as .04 PPM, a small

19 number of human subjects showed clinically significant

20 changes in pulmonary function.

21 --o0o--

22 MR. KLEINMAN: While some of the effects of ozone

23 might be reversible, that does not mean they're not

24 harmful. With asthmatics when an asthmatic has an attack,

25 this can be a life threatening event. And ozone can cause

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

62

1 such attacks.

2 Next slide.

3 --o0o--

4 MR. KLEINMAN: Daily mortality is attributable to

5 increases of ozone of .02 PPM above the average ambient6 level.

7 --o0o--

8 MR. KLEINMAN: When you reduce ozone in the

9 environment, the health levels and hospital admissions go

10 down.

11 --o0o--

12 MR. KLEINMAN: So to conclude, I'm speaking in

13 favor of the proposed regulation. I believe that ozone is

14 a toxic chemical and does cause significant health

15 effects.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. And thank you

17 for summarizing your remarks. There was a lot to them

18 that was obviously not in your oral testimony. We

19 appreciate all of the work that you did to summarize all

20 those studies.

21 Okay. Jean Ospital followed by Otana Jakpor and

22 Allen Johnston.

23 MS. OSPITAL: Good morning, Madam Chair and

24 members of the Board. My name is Jean Ospital, and I

25 serve as the Health Effects Officer here at the South

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

63

1 Coast AQMD. I'm here to speak in support of your proposed

2 regulation.

3 The Board of course is well versed in the serious

4 adverse health effects of ozone. It was adequately

5 demonstrated I think in the previous presentations by Dr.6 Kleinman, by the staff presentation, as well as the

7 acknowledgement of Dr. Gong's contributions in this area.

8 I would like to note, however, that the U.S. EPA

9 is currently evaluating the national ozone standard. And

10 it's Clean Air Advisory Committee after reviewing all the

11 health literature concluded that there is no known

12 threshold for adverse ozone effects. They also recommend

13 that an 8-hour standard as low as 0.060 parts per million

14 with a high end of their recommendation at 0.070 parts for

15 per million.

16 If you'd indulge me, I'd like to just give a

17 personal note on some ozone health effects. Several years

18 back when I was a research project manager at Southern

19 California Edison, I participated as a volunteer in an

20 ozone exposure study at Rancho Los Amigos facility. It

21 was a study to determine the short-term effects of

22 exposure to photochemical smog. So I was in there in the

23 chamber and didn't really know -- had no clue when ozone

24 was present or not. There was no noticeable odor or any

25 tell-tale signs. However, when I went over the results

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

64

1 with the researchers, it was obvious which days the ozone

2 were present. My respiratory symptoms score was up

3 dramatically, and my lung function score was substantially

4 reduced.

5 So I'd like to conclude that use of ozone

6 generating devices in enclosed spaces can increase7 exposure to ozone and is clearly detrimental to public

8 health.

9 Thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor

10 of this proposal.

11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

12 Our next witness was Otana Jakpor followed by

13 Allen Johnston and Richard Wilson.

14 If you can move up at the beginning so that

15 you're right in position, that will save everybody time

16 also. Thanks.

17 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

18 presented as follows.)

19 MS. JAKPOR: Hello. My name is Otana Jakpor.

20 And I'm a high school student from Riverside, California,

21 and I did my science project research on the pulmonary

22 effects of ozone-generating air purifiers to determine

23 whether they are helpful or harmful for breathing. This

24 is important to find out because there have been no

25 published studies on the direct effects of

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

65

1 ozone-generating air purifiers on pulmonary function.

2 --o0o--

3 --o0o--

4 MS. JAKPOR: I tested the effects of a two-hour

5 exposure to an ozone-generating room air purifier on the

6 pulmonary function of 24 test subjects and found it had no7 statistically significant effect on the whole study

8 population. However, among the asthmatics, there was a

9 drop of eleven percent in the FEV1 over FEC ratio.

10 Next slide.

11 --o0o--

12 MS. JAKPOR: I also tested the effects of a

13 personal air purifier on the pulmonary function of ten

14 test subjects before and after hanging the personal air

15 purifier around the neck for three hours. I found that a

16 three hour exposure to a personal air purifier caused a

17 concerning statistically significant drop in the FEV1 over

18 FEC ratio among both asthmatics and the whole study

19 population by 23 percent and 10 percent respectively. One

20 individual with severe asthma experienced a 29 percent

21 drop in an acute asthma attack.

22 Next slide.

23 --o0o--

24 MS. JAKPOR: The ozone generating air purifiers

25 tested clearly showed no beneficial effects on the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

66

1 respiratory parameters that were mentioned. The personal

2 air purifier which hangs around the neck had an even

3 greater negative effect on breathing than the room air

4 purifiers that were tested, probably because there was a

5 higher exposure to ozone in the breathing zone of the

6 subject's personal air purifier.

7 I found also that the ozone concentrations8 dropped off quickly with distance from the air purifiers.

9 Most people do not stand with their faces six inches away

10 from the room purifiers, so perhaps personal air purifiers

11 pose an even greater pulmonary risk. Perhaps the Air

12 Resources Board should consider setting two different

13 ozone emissions standards. The .050 parts per million for

14 room air purifiers and even lower for personal air

15 purifiers.

16 Next slide.

17 --o0o--

18 MS. JAKPOR: I strongly support the efforts of

19 the Air Resources Board to regulate the ozone emissions of

20 air purifiers to protect the public health. Thank you.

21 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Madam Chair, home Town

22 point. Before you leave, could you come back? Could you

23 tell the Board where you go to school?

24 MS. JAKPOR: I go to school at Wood Crest

25 Christina High School in Riverside, California.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

67

1 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: What grade are you in?

2 MS. JAKPOR: I'm in tenth grade.

3 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: This is a study you did?

4 MS. JAKPOR: I did it in ninth grade.

5 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Just wanted to call

6 attention to --

7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That is very impressive.8 (Applause)

9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: If this were done by an

10 undergraduate student in college, it might be eligible to

11 be published in one of the journals. I know the U.C.s do.

12 But for undergraduate research, I don't know of any

13 publications that features work by high school students.

14 But there should be one. Thank you very much.

15 Allen Johnston.

16 MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you so much. I'm the Chief

17 Technology Officer for EcoQuest International, a

18 manufacturer of indoor air cleaning devices.

19 I'd like to thank the Air Resource Board for the

20 opportunity to address this assembly and to comment on

21 this from a manufacturer's point of view.

22 EcoQuest has been a leading developer and

23 manufacturer of retail products being discussed here

24 today. Our products incorporate several technologies,

25 including ozone which when properly used is both safe and

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

68

1 effective.

2 EcoQuest supports the efforts of the Air

3 Resources Board and the State of California to protect

4 their citizens and exposure to dangerous levels of ozone.

5 EcoQuest supports a limit of 0.05 parts per

6 million for occupied spaces. University peer reviewed and

7 published testing has shown that those levels of ozone are

8 both safe and effective and widely accepted by health and9 safety organizations.

10 My reason for addressing you today is to identify

11 two areas though in the proposed regulation, which, if

12 passed as written, would effectively deny the use of any

13 level of ozone, levels well below that federal standard.

14 The first area of concern is with the test

15 protocol selected by staff for testing ozone levels

16 produced by these high ACDs. UL 867 has been chosen and

17 is inadequate and not the best protocol under any

18 revision. By way of background, UL 867 is designed for

19 testing ESPs, electronic precipitators, which can produce

20 excessive incidental ozone if improperly designed. UL 867

21 was never intended to be the single standard for testing

22 air purification devices, and it was never intended for

23 air purifiers to intentionally produce ozone. I strongly

24 disagree with staff's response that manufacturers endorse

25 this particular selection. No manufacturer who produces

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

69

1 devices which intensely produce ozone in their air

2 purifiers agree with that statement.

3 The chamber specified is small and sterile with

4 minimal organic material even after the revision and will

5 ensure that ozone devices can never be used, even at safe

6 low levels as specified in Assembly Bill 2276.

7 The other issue is in regards to the sale of the

8 device for an unoccupied space. Consumers within9 California have a right to a device like that as much as a

10 hotel owner does. With proper labeling, proper

11 requirements for instruction to the end user, there are a

12 lot of options that we have. And I look forward to

13 rolling up my sleeves along with other manufacturers,

14 working with staff to create a program that is workable

15 for the consumers of the state of California. Thank you.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

17 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Madam Chair, I have a quick

18 question.

19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Before we go, there's a

20 question.

21 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I just would like to follow

22 up with staff addressing the industrial use. Is my

23 understanding correct that these pieces of equipment can

24 be sold at industrial supply houses?

25 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL OLIVER: Yes, Ms. Berg.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

70

1 That's one provision of the industrial exception.

2 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And those industrial supply

3 houses are not restricted to their customers?

4 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL OLIVER: In our experience

5 trying to enforce other regulations, we find that some of

6 them are legitimate and some of them aren't. Some of them

7 allow members of the public to purchase products there and

8 some don't. We hope we don't have that experience in this

9 particulaR situation. But it will require some10 enforcement efforts on our part to make sure that operates

11 properly.

12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Do we feel that the citizens

13 of California aren't capable of understanding how to run

14 an industrial unit if they choose to? Just like they can

15 buy pesticide bombs, you know, to take flees out of their

16 homes. There is no product there that it is safe for the

17 occupants to remain in the house while that material is

18 spread throughout the house. So I'm a little concerned

19 about us determining that to take it out of the consumer's

20 hand 100 percent.

21 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL OLIVER: Actually, Ms. Berg,

22 we believe people are able to make those kinds of

23 decisions. And that's why we put that exception for use

24 in the regulation that's before you today.

25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Yet, a consumer can't make

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

71

1 that decision. They'll have to hire a service.

2 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL OLIVER: This is so. But I

3 think staff can testify to the experience they have with

4 people who have actually had problems in this area,

5 because they receive complaints about health effects that

6 people have and they answer questions continually about

7 this kind of usage. So that's the basis upon which they

8 crafted this proposal in the regulations.

9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: But wasn't the proposal10 crafted on the basis that they thought they had an air

11 purifier, not something that was taking care of an odor

12 problem or a wood smoke problem?

13 Do we have a fundamental disagreement that we

14 don't think that ozone is the right material for them to

15 use and so we're just restricting this because we just

16 don't feel that it's the right thing for them to do? Or

17 do we just really feel that consumers aren't capable of

18 determining on an industrial use that they'll stay out of

19 their house, that they'll allow themselves the correct

20 protection, and therefore they can only use a

21 professional? I'm confused about that.

22 MR. JAKOBER: We have several concerns. The

23 first being that if the device is in the residence,

24 potentially not all of the occupants are familiar with its

25 proper operation. And that an unoccupied use setting may

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

72

1 in fact be used by the area is occupied.

2 The second is that in addition to ozone, by

3 limiting the access to these high level industrial

4 devices, we're potentially limiting the exposure to the

5 reaction byproducts too, which are definitely present.

6 Formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and ultra fine particles

7 which also have significant health impacts. And it's been

8 our experience and research has shown that not all owners

9 follow manufacturer instructions completely. And you

10 know, not everyone who purchases the device will read11 those instructions. So our preference is to put those

12 devices that have the high risk in the hands of people who

13 are educated and formally trained to use them

14 appropriately.

15 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks.

17 We're going to hear from Richard Wilson followed

18 by Robert Naylor and Kent Sorrells.

19 MR. WILSON: I'm going to speak in opposition and

20 my own personal experience with the air purifier.

21 Five years ago, my children bought me a little

22 dachshund puppy for company. The very next day, I

23 realized my daughter-in-law would no longer be able to

24 come and see me and my two granddaughters, because they

25 have allergies so bad if they're exposed to an animal,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

73

1 within 15 minutes, her throat will close up to the point

2 where she can no longer breathe. We have to take her to

3 emergency and give her a shot.

4 Well, I went out and bought the purifier.

5 They've been over a number of times over the last five

6 years without any ill effects at all. I've noticed in my

7 own use I don't wake up two or three times during the

8 night to drink water because my nasal passages have

9 stopped up and I'm breathing through my mouth. That no

10 longer happens.11 And I hear some of the evidence here from some

12 well educated people. I'm not a scientist. But I know

13 this. A couple of aspirins a day is wonderful for a

14 headache; but a bottle of it will kill you. If it's used

15 properly, I can't see that that unit is doing anything for

16 me other than positive.

17 Please don't take away my freedom in my own home

18 to have my grandchildren in. Thank you very much.

19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

20 I should have made an announcement at the

21 beginning. We ask members of the public if at all

22 possible not to either cheer or boo. You can express your

23 feelings by smiling or frowning if you'd like, but it's

24 more helpful to us if you can refrain from exuberant

25 applause. Thanks.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

74

1 Mr. Naylor.

2 MR. NAYLOR: Madam Chair, I'm Robert Naylor, and

3 members of the Board. I'm with the Nielsen, Merksamer Law

4 Firm in Sacramento. I'm here representing EcoQuest to

5 raise a couple of legal issues.

6 This regulation effectively bans air cleaners --

7 a lot of air cleaners in both occupied and unoccupied

8 spaces. Yet, the legislation is clear that it's intended

9 only to ban air cleaners over the limit in occupied

10 spaces.

11 The definition adopted by the staff obliterates12 the distinction between occupied and unoccupied. They use

13 this: An enclosed space intended to be occupied by people

14 for extended periods of time. This definition is not the

15 dictionary definition. It is not the way the Legislature

16 has treated the word occupied in other context. It's not

17 the way the California Supreme Court uses the word

18 occupied. And it's not the way our occupational safety

19 laws are structured.

20 The dictionary -- this is Merriam-Webster uses

21 the example the chair is occupied. That means someone is

22 in the chair. The Penal Code Section 246 draws a

23 distinction between inhabited space and occupied space

24 defining inhabited as currently used for dwelling purposes

25 whether occupied or not. The Supreme Court in

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

75

1 interpreting another statute said there's always one

2 person in an occupied vehicle. And the occupational

3 safety rules apply when employees are present and are

4 exposed to things, not when they're not present. So we do

5 not think the statute authorizes this definition or this

6 use of the regulation.

7 The second issue is that the test protocol

8 effectively creates a conflict with federal law which is

9 barred by the statute. The federal law creates a .05

10 standard for houses, apartments, hospitals, and offices.

11 But as you have heard, the test protocol is performed in a12 sterile space, despite the revisions, totally unlike a

13 space to be occupied by people. And that test will fail

14 air cleaners that would pass in a house, office, or

15 hospital. It is close to a zero ozone standard which is

16 not consistent with federal law.

17 We urge the Board to defer action on this

18 regulation to address some of these issues. I'm convinced

19 there is a compromise involving much enhanced warnings,

20 oral warnings, warning lights, that sort of thing that

21 have not been responded to here by the staff that would

22 allow the beneficial use that is recognized in an

23 industrial setting but not realized in the home setting.

24 Thank you.

25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam chair, maybe staff

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

76

1 would like to respond. I assume legal staff would like to

2 respond.

3 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL OLIVER: Yes, Ms. Riordan.

4 Thank you for your opportunity to do so.

5 The definition of occupied space that's included

6 in the proposed regulation is the one that's found in the

7 Code of Federal Regulations at 21 CFR Section 801.415.

8 That's the one that the statute directs us to use in

9 proposing the regulation and the language was taken

10 directly out of there.

11 If I could read it to you it says in 21 CFR

12 Section 801.415, "Enclosed space intended to be used by13 people for extended periods of time, e.g., houses,

14 apartments, hospitals, and offices."

15 And that was the exact language that we put in

16 the regulation that's proposed there for you.

17 MR. NAYLOR: May I respond?

18 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL OLIVER: The statute also at

19 Section 41986, sub B, sub 2 talks about the test

20 procedures. But at 41985.5(a) uses similar language,

21 "Enclosed space intended to be occupied by people for

22 extended periods of time."

23 So we've had the Legislature and the Code of

24 Federal Regulations guiding us in the way that that

25 provision was drafted.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

77

1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

2 I think as a matter of common sense, anybody

3 who's ever gotten onto an airplane and has tried to sit in

4 a seat that had a book on it and has been told that seat

5 is occupied knows perfectly well that occupied is used to

6 mean something that has been and is about to be occupied

7 but isn't necessarily being sat in at that particular

8 moment by a human being. So I'm sorry, but I find that

9 particular point not terribly helpful. But your point is

10 obviously the correct legal one. So appreciate it.

11 So I think we'll move on to the next witness

12 then, Mr. Sorrells.13 MR. SORRELLS: Madam Chairman and distinguished

14 Board members, my name is Kent Sorrells, and I currently

15 reside in Springville, California in the central valley.

16 I'm a very active retired microbiologist. And I

17 represent EcoQuest in this matter. And we are very in

18 favor of and I'm in favor of protecting public health at

19 all times. But I think in doing this when we're looking

20 at chemicals and the type of protection we're doing with

21 public health, we want to have it based on very good

22 scientific information and a good scientific base.

23 And a couple of things I'd just like to point

24 out, we have heard several times in our conversation today

25 and on the Board that the word formaldehyde has been

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

78

1 brought up and it's a very toxic and carcinogenic

2 compound. If we look at ozone, I think we all agree ozone

3 is a very reactive type of molecule. For example, if we

4 have formaldehyde in the room and other organic compounds,

5 ozone doesn't know if it's formaldehyde or whatever it is.

6 It's going to react to formaldehyde. And for example, a

7 better example is it's like a fire cracker. It attaches

8 to the molecule and blows up and formaldehyde is gone. So

9 as long as we have ozone in the air, it's going to react

10 with the majority of organic chemicals there, including

11 formaldehyde.

12 Secondly, since the government, the FDA, in 2001

13 allowed the use of ozone for direct food contact and food14 contact surfaces, it's allowed for a lot more usage of

15 ozone particularly in the housing environment. And we

16 hate to keep dwelling or bringing this up. But in the

17 newspaper we see California's involved with problems of

18 contaminated fruits and vegetables. New ozone technology

19 that's coming out now allows the homemaker with the proper

20 device in the kitchen to minimize any risk of pathogens in

21 her food products such as vegetables and produce.

22 And last but not least, we all want to do no

23 harm. If we look at -- I think this is brought up several

24 times and is a very good point. If we look at testing

25 protocol, we don't live in a stainless steel chamber of

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

79

1 the house. You mention steady state. We never reach

2 steady state in a living environment. So we need to be

3 very careful of the testing protocol we use so we do not

4 include any new and former technology that can be used

5 with ozone and the use of it for protecting public health.

6 Thank you very much.

7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. It's 11:00, and

8 our court reporter I believe is entitled to a break at

9 this point, but I want to ask -- we have a couple of

10 people who are here who are actually here on our SIP item

11 that's coming up later in the day, but as I understand it

12 are unable to stay for that. And if that's true, I was

13 wondering if we could very briefly entertain their comment14 out of order.

15 I know Supervisor Wilson I just saw come into the

16 room and I believe there were a couple of other people

17 with you.

18 MS. CAMPOS: Good morning, Chairman Nichols and

19 Board members. Sonia Campos here on behalf of Speaker of

20 the Assembly Fabian Nunez.

21 I would like to congratulate you for your most

22 recent appointment to the ARB. The Speaker recognizes

23 that just in a matter of two months your leadership has

24 had a significant impact on the ARB and other departments.

25 Excellent communication and collaboration amongst

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

80

1 departments that are to protect the environment is a

2 necessity. And your leadership has facilitated this

3 required dialogue.

4 Again, congratulations. And Speaker Fabian Nunez

5 looks forward to working with you and the ARB to help

6 improve communities we reside in. Thank you.

7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. I

8 wasn't expecting that, but I appreciate it very much.

9 Please convey my thanks to the speaker.

10 SUPERVISOR WILSON: Chairman Nichols, members of

11 the Board, thank you very much for this unusual approach

12 of taking this out of order. I appreciate it very much.

13 The person who will follow me also appreciates it.

14 I'm Roy Wilson. I'm Vice Chair of the South15 Coast Air Quality Management District. In my spare time,

16 I serve as Supervisor for Riverside County.

17 On behalf of the South Coast Air District, I want

18 to commend your full Board for your active leadership in

19 helping to reach a multi-agency commitment that puts

20 southern California back on track to achieving clean air

21 standards for all of our residents. And I am addressing

22 of course the SIP that you will be taking up and

23 considering later on today.

24 Three months ago, we came before your Board

25 believing that the urgent health needs of our region

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

81

1 needed stronger and more rapid response. We expressed our

2 feelings that time is of the essence if we in the South

3 Coast are to make a critical progress in mobile source

4 emissions within the next five years. And that time is

5 also of the essence if we are to address the compelling

6 and extraordinary impacts of non-attainment on our

7 16-and-a-half million residents and our continued economic

8 sustainability.

9 Today, I'm very, very happy and privileged to

10 come before you and to tell you that your plan is an

11 outstanding effort to bring positive results to the South

12 Coast basin. The strategy that you are proposing or your

13 staff is proposing to you today will bring the South Coast

14 basin into attainment for the federal PM2.5 standards by15 2015, and thus prevent thousands of premature deaths.

16 Moreover, the consensus strategy includes

17 measures that reduce emissions from a broad variety of

18 sources so that we level the playing field and more fairly

19 share the cleanup challenge among mobile and stationary

20 sources and multiple levels of government.

21 I salute our respective staffs for the productive

22 lines of communication that have now been developed and

23 have been further strengthened for the benefit of all of

24 us and the benefit of clean air.

25 We have collectively turned a new page. These

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

82

1 high standards of collaboration can continue to energize

2 our efforts in the months ahead as we work together to

3 secure additional funding and encourage the development of

4 advanced technologies.

5 Now our efforts must begin anew. As we move to

6 the next stage of implementation, we have an immensely

7 important opportunity for our consensus efforts to serve

8 as a model for good government throughout the area and

9 good government for public health. On behalf of the South

10 Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board and

11 all of the people who suffer from air pollution in

12 southern California, we thank you very, very much for

13 achieving this landmark agreement. And we offer every bit

14 of assistance we can offer to work with you to achieve our

15 goals collectively. Thank you very much.16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

17 Thanks for being here, and thank you for your strong

18 support and assistance in this process. You have a lot of

19 work to do, but I feel very encouraged we'll be able to

20 get there.

21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Supervisor Wilson, thank

22 you for your words. And we look forward to working with

23 people like you. You're a real leader. And I'm very

24 fortunate to be able to sit in your chair here. I thank

25 you for that.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

83

1 SUPERVISOR WILSON: Take good care of it.

2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Just so the Board members

3 know, Supervisor Wilson also sits with me on another Board

4 for the Mojave Air Pollution Control District. And he is

5 a real leader and represents the very urban areas as well

6 as the most rural of areas. So he really has a broad

7 understanding and we appreciate your comments.

8 Thank you, Supervisor Wilson.

9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

10 Mayor Loveridge.

11 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Let me join Barbara

12 Riordan in acknowledging Roy's long time leadership and

13 commitment to clean air.

14 I just wanted to underscore the premise of the

15 testimony which identifies collaboration and partnership16 together for clean air between the South Coast and the Air

17 Resources Board. I think this is a very important

18 statement, very important extension of the hand. And

19 thank you for bringing that statement today.

20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

21 Dr. Miller.

22 DR. MILLER: Good morning, Supervisor and

23 Chairman Nichols. I'm Dr. John G. Miller, a practicing

24 emergency room physician. I have practiced emergency

25 medicine in the South Coast air basin for over 30 years.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

84

1 I'm here to speak in favor of approval of the

2 proposed state strategy and the proposed 2007 Air Quality

3 Management Plan.

4 I want to thank Chairman Nichols for your

5 leadership in getting these two agencies working together

6 and moving forward.

7 Also need to thank Governor Schwarzenegger for

8 having the leadership and real world pragmatism to

9 acknowledge that the sky is a toxic brown here, that

10 people are dying because of this, and having the

11 determination to do meaningful things to fix this. These

12 two measures will help with this problem.

13 My point here is that we are not just talking

14 about numbers. Real people are sick and dying.

15 Physicians are seeing increasing numbers of cases of the

16 various problems where the only risk factor seems to be17 living in what we have come to know as the diesel death

18 zone.

19 Eighteen months ago, the 48-year-old wife of one

20 of my colleagues developed a nagging cough. Debbie was a

21 fit, non-smoking, no risk factor person. Her only risk

22 factor was a lifetime of having lived in this air basin.

23 Her work-up revealed lung cancer. As 90 to 95 percent of

24 lung cancer victims do, she died after a lot of suffering.

25 It was my sad duty to provide morphine tablets

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

85

1 when she ran out in her last week of life. Her funeral

2 was attended by hundreds of mourners. I was one of them.

3 She left behind a devastated family including one

4 12-year-old child with special needs who still really

5 needs his mother.

6 Air pollution was the most likely cause of her

7 death. I came here to speak for people like Debbie who

8 can't speak because they have died. And you are moving

9 forward to take measures to prevent deaths like this and I

10 salute you for this. And I know that I speak for many

11 people in San Pedro and Wilmington who appreciate your

12 efforts on this, especially since we live in heavily

13 polluted port related areas. Thank you.

14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for your

15 testimony, for taking the time to come today.

16 We are going to take a break at this time. This17 item isn't actually before us at the moment. We did open

18 it briefly because of the importance of the topic and of

19 the people who are here. And we very much appreciate it.

20 But we're going to now close this item. We're going to

21 take a break until 20 past 11:00 and then resume the

22 hearing on the measure to limit ozone emissions from

23 indoor air cleaning devices. Thank you very much.

24 (Thereupon a recess was taken.)

25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We're going to resume the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

86

1 hearing. I'm going to call for Debra Perkins followed by

2 Carmel Lozano followed by Tom Lozano.

3 Board members who are not seating in their seats,

4 in case you're not familiar with the set up, in our Board

5 staff room they have the proceedings piped into them. So

6 the fact a person is not sitting in their chair does not

7 mean they are not listening to your testimony in case

8 you're concerned. Thank you very much.

9 Go ahead.

10 MS. PERKINS: My name is Debra Perkins. I'm a

11 registered nurse. I came into EcoQuest air purification

12 not to come here to boast them as an employee or such.

13 My mother and I are very chemical sensitive. It

14 nearly killed my mother. When we would smell pollution

15 from a barbeque next door, it caused her to have heart

16 arrhythmias. It lead to a major stroke. When she was in

17 her nursing home, she begged please don't let them take my18 air purifier away.

19 You don't know what this technology is. You need

20 to go back and look and don't take a sterile chamber -- as

21 a surgical nurse, I know what a sterile chamber is. If

22 you're throwing something in there without a real actual

23 situation, you're just violating and taking away the

24 rights of the people who need this product.

25 I have a special needs child who sneezed the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

87

1 moment he was born after he was resuscitated. This child

2 needs the air purification. I've had to have his tonsils

3 out. I've taken his adenoids out. I had to have tubes

4 put in his ears from surgery because of all these

5 infections he's got from sinus problems.

6 This unit works. God gave it to mankind. He

7 knows what he created 03 out there that he needed to use

8 it to clean up whatever was out there that was toxic to

9 us.

10 Too much oxygen will blind a child. Too much

11 ozone will hurt anyone.

12 I used to work pregnant in an environment to

13 create surgical sterile equipment that said this can cause

14 birth defects. I didn't know I was going to cause a child

15 to have birth defects. If they had this technology in my

16 work environment where I was exposed more than eight hours

17 a day, twelve hours a day, 16 hours a day, perhaps my18 child wouldn't have ingested into his system through my

19 bloodstream what I was putting in my lungs that went

20 through my bloodstream to create a handicapped child.

21 You must research this. Do not take away my

22 right and the right of other people who have children and

23 family.

24 My mother begged me, don't let them take my air

25 purifier away. I went to the director. I showed her what

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

88

1 we had. Put it in her room. By god, she bought eight

2 purifiers and put them in every nursing station at the

3 Corona Life Care Center. When she moved and went to

4 Hawaii, she called me and said, "Debra, I don't know where

5 you can get me some air purifiers. I need them here in

6 Hawaii. I have a horrible problem with mold and mildew

7 and need to get it out. I want to puke. It smells like

8 vomit. It smells like all these alzheimer's patients who

9 have just peed and defecated where they were in the

10 carpets. I have to rip everything out." I said, "I will

11 find you something. I will send you something." And by

12 God, it saved her so much money by not having to rip up

13 all the carpet and no infections in her staff.

14 A friend of me put it in her school room. She's

15 a school teacher. She had perfect attendance for the

16 year. Awarded by the unified school district. Thank you.

17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

18 Ms. Lozano.19 MS. LOZANO: Hi. I'm a mom also. And 12 years

20 ago, I had a young daughter who had a mystery illness.

21 The doctors couldn't figure out what was wrong with this

22 child. She would have horrible stomach pains, and I'd be

23 up with her all night probably every two or three nights

24 when she vomited. She was weak. And they couldn't locate

25 what the problem was.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

89

1 Somebody -- this was unconnected to this

2 situation, but a friend had offered me the free trial of

3 one of these air purifiers. And I took it because it was

4 free and not really expecting much. And certainly I

5 didn't expect anything for my daughter. I just took it.

6 And low and behold, she had an immediate

7 elimination of all of those symptoms. I did not know that

8 she was experiencing unusual allergic reactions to our

9 environment. I later found out -- I took her to a clinic

10 in Dallas, Texas where they did extensive testing. And

11 she was very allergic to mold, extremely allergic to dust

12 and also formaldehyde and other chemicals. And the unit

13 in our home eliminated those symptoms in her which were

14 keeping her from attending school at the time. So that is

15 one of the enormous benefits of having this unit. She was

16 chemically sensitive also.

17 And another use, when we had the fires in San

18 Diego a few years ago, you couldn't go outside without19 wearing a mask over your face, a kerchief around your

20 neck. The smoke was so thick outside. And it also

21 permeated into our homes. And in our neighborhood, the

22 homes were filled with smoke. And people were having a

23 hard time breathing.

24 My daughter's friends came over to our home and

25 they said, "I can breathe in here." And we had a unit

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

90

1 upstairs and downstairs and we turned them up. We didn't

2 turn it all the way up. But we weren't choking like

3 everybody else.

4 So it's extremely beneficial for a number of

5 uses. So please don't take away our ability to have those

6 units. And I think we are all smart enough to figure out

7 what's a safe level. I do. I think the consumer is a

8 smart person. Thank you.

9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

10 Tom Lozano followed by Lee Webb and Levi White.

11 MR. LOZANO: Hello. My name is Tom Lozano. I'm

12 Carmel's husband.

13 She brought this product home. I had a bad

14 attitude. I used to walk around with a kleenex box

15 because of my allergies. My wife used to recommend I

16 carry around a trash bag. There were piles of kleenex

17 everywhere. She also said don't tell that story.

18 But so she brought this machine home. I had a

19 bad attitude. I said, "What is that? How much does it20 cost? Don't take it out of the box." She didn't obey me.

21 She took it out of the box. She plugged it in. But I was

22 shocked to start seeing my symptoms go away. At first I

23 thought it was a change of weather in San Diego. It

24 turned out to be the longest change of weather San Diego

25 has ever had, because I've been using this technology,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

91

1 using ozone for almost 12 years. My kids, as my wife

2 mentioned, have spent most of their lives with the

3 technology. And we love it.

4 Just a couple of other stories and then I'll let

5 you get on with business. But I've actually seen this

6 technology save a dog's life. I'm serious. There was a

7 family that had a dog. The dog was always moping around

8 and smelled so bad they were going to put the dog to

9 sleep. It was horrible. They would give the dog a bath.

10 Nothing happened. They tried one of these units. It

11 turned out the dog had allergies, started acting a lot

12 better. The smell went away completely. It saved the

13 dog's life.

14 I can tell you story after story. But I'll just

15 say I love this technology. And I just ask for you to let

16 us keep it. Thank you very much.

17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Thanks for

18 being brief.

19 Lee Webb, Levi White, Robert Perkins.20 MR. WEBB: Good morning. Thanks for giving us

21 the opportunity to speak to you today.

22 In 1996, two gentlemen visited my home in

23 Oceanside, California, and they wanted to show me some new

24 technology, which will clean the indoor air. At that

25 time, I didn't even know that my air in my home need to be

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

92

1 cleaned or it was contaminated.

2 They stated briefly they was not there to sell me

3 the technology, but just for me to try for a week and let

4 me know what I thought after a week period from trial.

5 And after using the air purifier for a week and they told

6 me to turn it off a day. And I turned it off for a day,

7 and immediately I noticed a difference in the air

8 freshness in my home.

9 And my wife -- just to be brief, my wife, she

10 used to have headaches, sinus problems, all the time.

11 Couldn't sleep at night. Since we have that air purifier,

12 the headaches, sinus problems, they're going away.

13 I'm 55 years old. I served 30 years in the

14 military, United States Marine Corps. And I take a

15 physical every year since my retirement in 2000. And the

16 doctor told me that I'm in good health. And I've been

17 using this air purifier in my home for eleven years.

18 There are no side effects or harmful side effects for me

19 and my family.

20 So thank you. And please ask you do not take21 this technology away from us.

22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

23 Levi White, Robert Perkins, Gary Pruitt.

24 MR. WHITE: My name is Levi White. I served 26

25 years in the Marine Corps. And upon retiring from the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

93

1 Marine Corps in '99, I went into the construction business

2 as an electrician. And while in the military, I'd been --

3 contracted some allergies and which actually caused me to

4 have a lot of very painful sinus infections and whatnot.

5 I visited doctors quite a bit while I was in the

6 military. And like I said, upon retiring, going into the

7 construction field, it made my allergies even worse. Made

8 my sinus conditions even worse. And I had to go to the

9 doctor. I took a lot of medication, whatnot. Had a lot

10 of headaches.

11 And about five years ago, a friend of mine

12 introduced me to one of the Living Air purifiers. I had

13 him bring it over. I told him I'll try it for a couple of

14 days and consider purchasing it if it actually worked. In

15 one night, I knew it was a great unit because I didn't

16 wake up in the middle of night. I didn't get all stuffy

17 and whatnot. Furthermore, my headaches actually went

18 away. I didn't have the sinus headaches.

19 And I stopped taking the medication I was taking,

20 and I haven't taken it since then. And it's been five21 years. And I've not been back to the doctors for any

22 sinus infection or anything of that nature.

23 I know that the air purifier -- the Living Air

24 Purifier works. I've seen a lot of them on the market.

25 But this one in particular, it definitely works in my

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

94

1 home. Like I said, I don't have to meet with doctors

2 visits anymore. And it saves me a lot of money. I don't

3 have to make doctor visits and a lot of medication.

4 I appreciate your time and ask -- I have one

5 question. If you eliminate this product out of this

6 state, this great state of California, what am I going to

7 do? I'm going to have to leave the state. That's

8 probably what I'll have to do. I'll have to leave the

9 state so I can have an air purifier. Thank you very much.

10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Robert Perkins followed by

11 Gary Pruitt and Gary Feder.

12 MR. PERKINS: I'm Robert Perkins. Yes, Debra

13 Perkins is my wife.

14 Okay. I was skeptical when she brought one of

15 these things home. I went on-line. Did a lot of

16 research. Read a lot of stuff about the ozone. And I'm

17 asthmatic. Acute asthma. As far as I'm concerned,

18 there's nothing cute about it. Okay.

19 I'm allergic to so many things, including just

20 about everything that grows or things that grow that I got

21 used to living a life where I didn't breathe very well.22 The only time in my life I ever was breathing well enough

23 that I enjoyed physical exercise like running was after

24 two weeks of solid 24 hours a day fogs in Fort Ord,

25 California. I actually enjoyed running. I also found out

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

95

1 how my lungs were supposed to work.

2 But life is a series of trade offs. If I have a

3 choice between my allergies kicking off my asthma and

4 sending me to the emergency room with tunnel vision, which

5 has happened to me twice, but not in the last five years

6 since I ran into one of these air purifiers, I'll take the

7 slight chance that the asthma may cause me to have

8 something happen sometime in the future.

9 It's kind of like if you've got arthritis, which

10 I also do, there's a medicine that will kick it right out.

11 You'll act like you never had it. Doctor won't give it to

12 you. Ten or 15 years down the road you'll have cancer.

13 The vet will give it to your dog, because they're not

14 going to live long enough to get the cancer. So in my

15 trade off, I'll take the something maybe in the future

16 from the ozone over the I can't breathe right now.

17 And I figure I'm smart enough to read the

18 instructions and know how to turn the thing up, how to

19 turn it down, and how to not stay in the house when it's

20 going on. Just like if I see my friend's house covered

21 with a tent for termites, I'm not going to go in.22 And my personal experience is that very often

23 regulations and things like this get much too specific.

24 For instance, you can tell somebody clean up the air

25 coming out of your factory or you can tell them exactly

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

96

1 what to do. And they may know something else that will

2 clean up twice as much.

3 So just keep your minds open and give people a

4 chance to do things for themselves. You don't need to be

5 part of the nanny state.

6 MR. PRUITT: My name is Gary Pruitt. Thank you,

7 sir. I have been a resident of California most of my

8 life. Grew up in the L.A. basin. I know what smog is. I

9 saw it in the '50s.

10 I will tell you that in 13 years of being a

11 customer with air purification systems in my home,

12 downstairs, upstairs, every room in my house for my

13 children -- my kids who are now 16 and 15 years old have

14 grown up in a home with advanced oxidizing air

15 purification that precipitates particulate out of the air

16 as well as removes smoke and odors.

17 My son is an athlete. My daughter is an athlete.

18 I'm an asthmatic. I inherited it from my father. My kids

19 inherited it from me. It's hereditary. And dad came back

20 from the war on a stretcher because he had anaphylactic

21 shock. The first seven years of my life, I made trip

22 after trip to the hospital because of my allergies. And I23 was on injections until I was well into my 40s.

24 1994 I was introduced to an air purification

25 technology that was unlike anything I had heard about. It

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

97

1 wasn't a filter. It was technology that actually changed

2 the indoor environment and eliminated a lot of the things

3 that triggered my problems.

4 I cannot -- I'm not a scientist, and I cannot

5 argue on these scientific issues. But I can tell you the

6 results. I can tell you that not only for myself but for

7 my family, we would not live in any environment -- I've

8 lived all over the country. I've moved with my business

9 all over the United States and lived in humid environments

10 and dry environments. Wherever I live, I take my air

11 purification system with me. I've donated them to

12 schools, day care centers, to people who have issues like

13 my own, because I want them to enjoy what I have, which

14 was the freedom to be able to address my issues with

15 technology that alleviated my symptoms. Didn't cure my

16 allergies. But it alleviated my symptoms. And it has now

17 for 13 years.

18 I have seen no negative effects whatsoever. And

19 I, too, can remember the California fires. I can remember

20 not being able to see my car in my driveway from my front

21 porch. And I can remember having the ability to turn

22 these products up in my indoor environment and eliminate a23 caustic acrid odor that made our eyes water and kept us

24 from sleeping at night.

25 There is obviously something wrong if the results

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

98

1 that we have empirically is being contested by other

2 results that's being presented empirically. That means

3 that more research needs to be done. More things need to

4 be considered. And although I don't believe anyone here

5 is going to try to take away anyone's right to choose or

6 our technology, please do more research. Entertain

7 everything that is up to date scientific and empirical and

8 then make your decisions. Thank you.

9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Gary Feder followed by

10 Sally Andreatta.

11 MR. FEDER: Thank you. Good morning. My name is

12 Gary Feder. I'm the Vice President of Marketing and

13 Product Development for the Hunter Fan Company. Hunter

14 does make air purifiers, and we are a member of AHAM.

15 Hunter Fans supports the Board's efforts in this

16 area and we support the resolution. I'm here to talk

17 about one aspect of it with respect to the proposed

18 implementation of the regulation that could potentially

19 have an impact on consumers' access to certified devices.

20 We ask that you give consideration to extending

21 the retail sell-through period from nine months to 12

22 months. Air cleaner retail sales have a seasonal pattern.

23 And there are two key selling seasons to air cleaners at24 retail: Fall and spring.

25 In addition, air cleaners are a discretionary

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

99

1 purchase item and as such have a much longer retail

2 selling cycle than consumable products. Thus, depending

3 on when a particular item gets certified, it's possible

4 that that item could miss one of the key selling seasons

5 and therefore create some potential disruption of retail

6 access to that device or a certified device that meets the

7 proposal.

8 We don't want to cause any disruption in the

9 availability of conforming certified devices to consumers.

10 And we believe the 12 month period represents a more

11 appropriate time frame to ensure that the consumer has

12 access at retail to those types of devices. Thank you for

13 your time, for your consideration, and we do support the

14 proposal.

15 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Madam Chair.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Excuse me. Thank you.

17 Could staff comment on that specific proposal?

18 MR. JAKOBER: The reason that we did not consider

19 extending the sell-through is staff feels that extension

20 of the manufacturer implementation date by 12 full months

21 essentially allowed for more time to liquidate current

22 produced devices that would not be certified after the

23 manufacture date. And the notification of distributors,24 retailers, and sellers one year after the effective date

25 of the regulation essentially gives those individuals a

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

100

1 one-year notice to when devices have to be manufactured

2 that are certified.

3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We'll take note of the

4 comment.

5 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Were you asking for one

6 year or a three month difference?

7 MR. FEDER: For nine months to 12 months. Three

8 month difference.

9 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Maybe it sounds like staff

10 was giving an answer that was different.

11 MR. JAKOBER: If I may clarify. We didn't extend

12 the sell-through period, because we considered that by

13 extending the manufacturing date by a full year that

14 essentially that provided additional time in which the

15 devices that may not be certified for sale in the future

16 could be liquidated in that one-year time period while

17 other devices are being certified for sale after the

18 sale's effective date. Instead of having 21 months from

19 the initial regulation effective date, manufacturers will

20 now have 33 months.

21 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Madam Chair, I think what's

22 confusing is if we extend the manufacturing date, then

23 there's more of the product that then has to meet the

24 standard. Was consideration given to leaving the25 manufacturing period open the same and extending the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

101

1 sell-through period instead?

2 MR. JAKOBER: No. We did not consider that

3 option.

4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We believe

5 that we need to have more time so that devices can be

6 properly certified. And the sell-through says in a

7 situation where the reg has been put into effect, you have

8 devices that have not been certified but were manufactured

9 before the regulation took effect. So when we extend the

10 amount of time to get certification, the inventory of the

11 uncertified devices will shrink tremendously. And we

12 believe that nine months was enough time for those to go

13 through -- for the vast majority of those to go through

14 the sales cycle.

15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So you did think through

16 the relationship between these two things, because

17 obviously the burden on the sell-through is on the

18 retailer, not on the manufacturer?

19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: It's all the

20 way through the supply chain. Our hope would be with

21 additional time to certify that upon certification people

22 will start delivering the certified devices early and they

23 will naturally liquidate the existing stock without a

24 problem with the rule. And it really doesn't cause 1225 months- the amount of time for the vast majority of the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

102

1 units to get through the chain or is nine months

2 sufficient.

3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Understood. I okay. I

4 think we understand the issue. Thank you very much.

5 Sally Andreatta and then Colleen Quintana and

6 Diana Shinn.

7 MS. ANDREATTA: Thank you, Chairman Nichols and

8 the Board. My name is Sally Andreatta.

9 My professional line of work is I'm a certified

10 mold inspector. I'm also a member of NORMI, which is

11 National Organization of Redemdiators and Mold Inspectors.

12 I really have grave concerns about what 2286 is

13 going to do to my work. As a NORMI member, we are

14 concerned with indoor air quality. When I go out for a

15 home inspection, I usually inspect the whole home and then

16 make a recommendation to the homeowner or the business

17 owner. I do both residential and commercial whether they

18 should remediate or sanitize. Eighty percent of all mold

19 can be sanitized. I was surprised when I talked to the

20 Board of Realtors how many people didn't know that. I

21 think there is a definite need for standardization for the

22 mold industry also.

23 My point here is our WORK at NORMI has provided

24 many home and business owners an option to costly

25 remediation. I've been in this business for just a shortPETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

103

1 time now, about three years, and I've worked with both

2 residential and commercial ozone generators. I understand

3 the need for caution since I work with high levels when

4 working with ozone. But I have to tell you I've installed

5 many of these ozone generator products over the last year

6 with great success when it comes to mold and especially

7 odor control.

8 I have a client at a Boys' Home in La Verne.

9 They had something die in their duct work. The odor was

10 so bad they couldn't work in the administration building.

11 I went through and put up a residential machine on a low

12 setting during the day and a high setting while they were

13 away. I was able to get the odor gone in three days. If

14 a company had come in and done that, they could have shut

15 down the whole business for three days. But I was able to

16 do that with a residential machine.

17 If you pass this legislation allowing only

18 industrial people to have access to this, what am I going

19 to give my clients to use?

20 On a final note, I use this personally in my

21 home. My son has asthma. My brother has asthma. My

22 nephew has asthma. And they all have had great success

23 with this.

24 I'm asking you please reconsider. Please know

25 that I've never had problems with clients using this orPETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

104

1 reading instructions. And I hope that you'll make this

2 available so we can provide good solutions for mold here

3 in California. Thank you.

4 MS. QUINTANA: Hi. I'm Colleen Quintana, and I'm

5 from Carlsbad, California. I have two children, two young

6 children. They're now six and nine. But when I first

7 bought an air purifier, that was five years ago. My

8 children were both getting sick quite often. And we were

9 given the air purifier to try when we got a dog. Not only

10 did it take care of all the pet odor and dander, but for

11 the last five years, I can't remember the last time my

12 children have been sick. So they're as healthy as any

13 child could be. Our entire family has been healthy for

14 five years.

15 We put them in the children's classrooms because

16 we feel so strongly about how they kill all the bacteria

17 and viruses, not only in the air, but when they touch the

18 doorknobs and countertops. So every year that we -- for

19 five years, their purifiers have been in the classroom,

20 ever teacher raves and thanks. And they have higher

21 attendance than the other classrooms. All the parents

22 love to see us come in, because they know they're going to

23 have a well child that year with clean fresh air.

24 My brother's son has asthma and he wanted to

25 come, but he was out of town. Severe asthma. And afterPETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

105

1 we had our machine, he also tried one for his son, who was

2 staying up all night at seven years old having breathing

3 problems. He missed 40 days of school in one year due to

4 asthma. They're a big sports family, but his son couldn't

5 even run to first base and he would say, "Why can't I be

6 like other kids? What's wrong with me?" Let me tell you,

7 after five years of having that machine for them, he

8 hasn't had any breathing or any asthma medication. He's

9 been an all-star baseball player every year and football

10 player. So for them, their life has been life changing

11 from them being literally afraid, a seven-year-old boy

12 thinking he was going to die because he couldn't breath to

13 him being a champion athlete.

14 One of my neighbors came over. And when we moved

15 into their house, I knew a neighbor who was only doing

16 sign language. And that's how I met her, doing sign

17 language. One day, her husband -- I was asking what was

18 wrong. And he said the doctors had no idea what was

19 wrong. And the husband asked if they could try the air

20 purifier that we had in our home, because she could

21 breathe better at our home. I said I'm going out of town

22 for ten days. We're all going to Florida. Take the

23 purifier while we're gone. In three days, the woman

24 spoke. And she has bought one for herself. And she also

25 couldn't even sleep laying down in her bed and had to

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345106

1 sleep outside half the night. She's been sleeping in her

2 bed every night. And she speaks. So there was nothing

3 wrong with her physical body. She had indoor air

4 pollution.

5 And the last thing I want to say. I thank you so

6 much -- I can't read your last name -- Sandra, for saying

7 are Californians smart enough to be able to tell? In five

8 years, not one person has come into my house and adjusted

9 my air purifier. And it's to me like having car keys in

10 the home. Well, maybe someone hasn't been instructed on

11 how to use the car. And definitely don't have an enclosed

12 garage, because they may turn it on with the garage shut.

13 Thank you.

14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Diana Shinn,

15 Leonardo Sy, Laarni Perez, please come on down if you're

16 testifying. Shinn, Sy, Perez, and another Perez. Let's

17 go.

18 MS. PEREZ: I'm Laarni Perez. Thank you for

19 giving us a chance to do this testimony.

20 I'm a mother of three beautiful kids. And I want

21 to protect them and give them better life and health

22 living.

23 Ever since I have this machine almost three years

24 ago, my kids has never get colds and coughs for very long

25 time like they used to be. Coughs and cold would run in

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345107

1 my house for seven to ten days. But this time it would

2 only last for a day or two. All I have to do is put my

3 machine in a high mode when the kids is out. I try to

4 bring the kids out when somebody is sick for two hours and

5 then sanitize my house. And then everything has been

6 taken care of it.

7 I know. How do I know? Because I am with them

8 24 hours, seven days a week for eight years now. I do

9 know because I am their mother. And I know that this

10 machine is helping my kids. I still want to keep my spot

11 as their mother, and I'm begging you to please give me the

12 option to protect my kids. Thank you.

13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

14 MR. SY: Thank you for letting me speak to the

15 Board. I'm part of the public that you are trying to

16 protect.

17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Sorry. Your name?

18 MR. SY: I'm Leo from San Diego. I'm retired

19 from the Navy 22 years.

20 I've been experiencing bad allergies for many

21 years. The military has worsened my health.

22 Two years ago, my wife purchased the Fresh Air

23 Purifier from EcoQuest, and I don't that have problem

24 anymore. I used to wake up in the morning with a bad

25 headache and fill up the trash can with a lot of tissue

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345108

1 paper. And now I am feeling good.

2 It's a more voice from a lot of public that has

3 this machine, but I hope that you can consider letting the

4 public use this product that is very good. I mean, I

5 brought my two daughters right now. And you can ask them

6 what was the last time they had cold. And they probably

7 forget when. In fact every time I take them to a hotel

8 room, my little one is so susceptible to dust, and the

9 first thing she'll tell me is, "Dad, break out the Fresh

10 Air machine."

11 And since we are all protecting each other, and I

12 know the Board would like to protect the public, I really

13 appreciate it if we can make a better decision on this and

14 at least test it for what it can do to the public.

15 Because that's what you want, is to protect me. And if

16 you'd like to protect the public, you would let them

17 decide more and be able to feel healthy and have clean air

18 in your home. Thank you.

19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Sherwin followed by

20 Joseph followed by J. David Barnes.

21 MR. PEREZ: Good morning. Good afternoon, Madam

22 Chairperson and distinguished members of the Board. I'm

23 Sherwin Perez, and I'm Laarni's fiance 15 years ago.

24 I worked in the local casino back in San Diego.

25 As you know, working in the kind of environment I'm kind

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

1091 of pretty exposed the secondhand smoke. And we all know

2 that what is the consequences of being a secondhand

3 smoker. But unfortunately, I don't have a choice. I have

4 a family to support.

5 I've been looking for something I can protect

6 myself in this kind of environment. Since my

7 sister-in-law introduced this wonderful technology they

8 call unsafe, I no longer experience headache, cough, nor

9 sore throat. I know how to live with this -- without this

10 technology on my side that you call unsafe. Thank you

11 very much.

12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

13 MR. AMENDOLA: My name is Joe Amendola, and I

14 live in Carlsbad, California. And I am a California

15 consumer. And I can't help but ask myself why does

16 anybody want to dictate what I can use to purify the air

17 in my home?

18 My family was introduced to the Fresh Air unit

19 two years ago when I allowed my kids to talk me into

20 buying a golden retriever when we already had a cat. And

21 everything was great for a while until the golden

22 developed its full coat. And my daughter began to suffer

23 greatly from allergies due to this. And the alternatives

24 that were available, they weren't very attractive to us.

25 One was getting rid of the dog, and that wasn't going to

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

1101 happen. They were going to get rid of me first. The

2 other thing was we can do injections, prescriptions, or

3 over-the-counter medications. But with an eleven-year-old

4 daughter, none of those options appealed to me.

5 Instead, we found a wonderful alternative, the

6 Fresh Air Purifier by EcoQuest, that works with perfectly

7 safe levels of ozone. And they have settings on there

8 because that's what they are. Settings. I know what they

9 are. I know how to use them. I think most people do.

10 Well, my daughter, like so many, improved

11 100 percent. And now instead of being miserable in our

12 home, she was very happy and has been for the past couple

13 years. And it's all due to this purifier and the

14 technology that's in there. And we run it 24 hours a day.

15 And I assure you we're all very healthy if you can look at

16 the wear marks on my carpet from the kids running in and

17 out of the house, you'll know they're moving quite well.

18 I have another question. If you make it

19 impossible for my family to use this safe product, what

20 are you going to offer my daughter as an alternative? Is

21 it going to be prescription medications or more

22 over-the-counter medications?

23 What I've seen from your staff is not very

24 impressive to me. I don't live in a chamber. I live in a

25 2600 square foot house. I have a happy healthy family due

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

111

1 to the air purifier. I still have my dog. And I just2 don't understand what your staff is trying to do and where

3 they're headed with this. I'm sorry. I have to be

4 honest. It makes me question their motives. I have to.

5 Finally, the promotion of inaccurate information

6 as it regards ozone for air purification is one of the

7 biggest disservices that is being done to the California

8 consumer today, bar none. And once again, I just pose the

9 question, if we can't use this technology in our home to

10 help our own families and if the Board doesn't consider

11 the California consumer intelligent enough to know what a

12 student setting is, what will we regulate next? Thank

13 you.

14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: David Barnes followed by

15 Mark Grijalva and Johnny Cherabie.

16 MR. BARNES: Good morning, Madam Chairman,

17 members of the Board. I'm here to say that we have

18 benefited in our family and our household from the use of

19 this machine. We have only had one about two months now.

20 I've been married -- we have been married for 38

21 years -- more than 38 years. And for most of that time,

22 we've lived within a mile of a freeway. And my wife for

23 years has -- for most of these years has suffered with

24 allergies to the extent that she was affected severely

25 with headaches and had to take allergy medication

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

112

1 regularly.2 Only a few days after installing one of the

3 machines in our household she noticed a drastic change, a

4 significant change. And within just about ten days, she

5 was completely off of her medication.

6 Our concern is that these testing protocols may

7 somehow eliminate the ability to use this machine. So we

8 would really strongly recommend that you consider that

9 these protocols may do just that. And we hope not,

10 because we want to continue use of this machine from now

11 on. Thank you.

12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Go ahead.

13 MR. GRIJALVA: Hi. My name is Mark Grijalva.

14 I'm from Riverside. And I purchased an air purifier seven

15 years ago. My teen-age son's asthmatic, has been an

16 asthmatic all his life. And slept with six pillows

17 because he would choke at night and wake up coughing. And

18 I could hear him in the other room, because he's a big

19 boy. I can hear him snoring, struggling for air. I

20 purchased the unit and it made difference in his breathing

21 pattern. He was able to sleep soundly.

22 A year later, I remarried. And it so happens my

23 wife had three cats. And I also have a daughter that's

24 very allergic to cats. And here we had a dilemma. Love a

25 woman that loves cats, and I have a very allergic child to

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

113

1 the same animals she loves.

2 I took my child to the doctor to get some shots3 because I heard that would take care of it and tested her.

4 And doctor said her allergies are so severe it won't help.

5 I said I bought this air purifier and it does this and it

6 does that. He said no air purifier in the world will

7 help. What I can find the cats -- I'm trying to solve the

8 problem any way I can and keep harmony.

9 What if I keep the cats in one room. And he said

10 that might help for a couple of months. But because of

11 the air flow and air returns and everything else, it will

12 permeate throughout the whole house, and you will have a

13 problem. He said, "Let me caution you. You expose her

14 long term to cat dander and she will be one of these days

15 comatose." That scared the heck out of me.

16 So I went to my wife to be and I said, "Honey, I

17 know you love your cats, but my child comes first, you

18 agree?" She goes, "Yes." We're going to move into a

19 brand-new home. We'll put in cats in there. I'll put the

20 air purifier. But the first sign of her having an adverse

21 reaction, we're going to have to get rid of these little

22 guys. And she did it.

23 We've been married for six years. The darn cats

24 are still there. I don't like them, but it's harmony of

25 the family. My daughter lives in the house still. She's

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

114

1 19 years old now. And it does not bother her. And I can

2 tell you that is real life situation. No test chamber can3 give you that. When my daughter can live in harmony with

4 cats, it's unbelievable. Thank you.

5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.

6 MR. CHERABIE: Good morning, Madam Chairman,

7 members of the Board. My name is Johnny Cherabie. I'm

8 here from San Diego, California. Been a resident in

9 California for the last ten years.

10 It seems to me after hearing all this testimony

11 that we need to turn our focus more on the problem of

12 indoor air pollution and do a little more research on this

13 rather than focus so much on the ozone. The ozone seems

14 to be, from the testimony I've heard today and from

15 countless other testimony I've heard from people over the

16 last seven years since I've been exposed to this

17 technology, all have been positive. I have not heard any

18 negative whatsoever.

19 In my case, my wife and I have been married for

20 15 years. We have six beautiful children. Since the year

21 2000 when we were exposed to this technology, we've had

22 from 2000 to 2004 we had the purifier in our home. We

23 raised three of our kids on it.

24 Then in 2004, we moved overseas for a sabbatical.

25 We had to get rid of the purifier. We gave it to some

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

115

1 friends of ours who have had it ever since and have been

2 very pleased with it. They have seven children.

3 We also when we moved we had a child overseas.4 It was born with asthma. He was diagnosed from the first

5 couple weeks. And he suffered tremendously with a really

6 bad cough for most of the first 22 months of his life.

7 When we subsequently moved back here, one of the first

8 things I will was purchase a new purifier. It was

9 outdated technology. We put it in our home. We were

10 anxious to see what the results would be. And thankfully

11 after last six months of use our child no longer suffers

12 from asthma. And it's very clear to me that the

13 technology is working and working very effectively.

14 We also turn the purifier up when we're out of

15 the home very simply. It's very easy on the instructions.

16 You can do it from two 8-hour settings. This purifier is,

17 by the way, the Fresh Air by EcoQuest that we've had over

18 the past several years.

19 Also I want to speak on the personal purifier

20 which I just had an opportunity to try on my last trip

21 overseas which I just returned from yesterday. I was on a

22 16 hour flight and I noticed very clearly inside the

23 airplane there was a lot of dust and dander floating

24 around. I could see it through the sunlight coming in

25 through the window on the way into Paris. People were

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

116

1 sneezing left and right. I noticed just about everyone

2 sneezing except for yours truly. Did not sneeze once the

3 whole trip. And I would say that more than likely that4 personal purifier had something to do with it. Thank you

5 very much.

6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. We're going to

7 hear from Martin Olsen, Bonnie Holmes-Gen, Chris Fuehrer.

8 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Madam Chairman, as our

9 speakers come up, we've heard a lot of testimony about

10 people that are using one particular purifier. If any of

11 the speakers have experience using two different

12 technologies, that would be really helpful to understand

13 your experiences with that. So just as a request if

14 you've used more than one technology and you've had

15 different experiences, that would be helpful.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good question. Thank you.

17 Go ahead.

18 MR. OLSEN: Hi. Name is Mark Olsen, and I'm been

19 using the low level ozone purifier, for a little over

20 ten years. Before I purchased this product, there rarely

21 if ever slept without waking up because of my sinuses and

22 woke up with a headache on a regular basis. The only time

23 this happens now is if I sleep somewhere other than my

24 home. But I've solved that by having a unit I take with

25 me wherever I go.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

117

1 My children have been raised with this product

2 for the last ten years and have never had a negative side

3 effect. Over the years I have let others try my product

4 that have breathing or odor issues. One that stands out5 the most is an older gentleman that I knew who lived on

6 oxygen tanks. And he had tubes that went in his nose and

7 he lived like that every day. Two days after I put the

8 product in his home to try it, he no longer had to live

9 with his oxygen tank.

10 Other people I know who had suffered from

11 allergies and asthma, they want to buy pets for the

12 children and they couldn't because of the allergy

13 reaction. So I put a unit in their home, let them try it

14 out. They didn't have any more allergic reactions after

15 they had the pet in their home.

16 Without going into a lot of amazing stories and

17 testimony about people that I know have tried the product,

18 I do know people that have slept better and they breathe

19 better and they feel better. I encourage each and every

20 one of you here today to evaluate one of these products in

21 your own home so you can make a decision based on your own

22 experience rather than based on unrealistic testing and

23 flawed reports.

24 Don't let us and millions of others suffer by

25 being lied to by people who represent organizations that

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

118

1 are greedy and corrupt. I know these words seem strong,

2 but in my eyes somebody is going to benefit if this bill

3 is passed. And in my eyes, it's not the people of

4 California. Please don't let this bill be passed. Thank5 you.

6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

7 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Good morning, Chairwoman Nichols

8 and members of the Board. Bonnie Holmes-Gen with the

9 American Lung Association of California. And I'm here

10 today to express our strong support for the proposed

11 regulation that's before you today to protect the public

12 from ozone emissions from air cleaning device. We were

13 pleased to be a sponsor of AB 2276 Pavley and the

14 legislation that is guiding the development of these

15 important regulations.

16 And the American Lung Association's extremely

17 concerned about the serious public health impacts

18 resulting from the sale of devices that generate ozone

19 indoors, both those that generate ozone purposely or as a

20 byproduct.

21 We are going to urge you today to consider

22 speeding up the implementation of this regulation. I'll

23 talk about that in a moment.

24 I also want to indicate that I understand that

25 there have been over 300 letters -- over 350 letters sent

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

119

1 via e-mail to your Board expressing support for this

2 regulation and the importance to protect public health.

3 And I also want to remind you, which you already

4 know, there have been many previous efforts to warn the

5 public about the harmful effects of these types of air6 cleaning devices. And they have not been successful.

7 That's why it's so important for you to step forward today

8 and adopt this regulation. There have been warnings

9 issued from your Board, the State Department of Health

10 Services. Your staff has contacted manufacturers of these

11 devices asking them to stop producing them. There has

12 been fact sheets and information on the internet, but

13 nothing has stopped the sale of these harmful devices. So

14 this regulation is critically important to protect public

15 health.

16 You've stated over and over ozone is not

17 effective in cleaning the air. It's stated by scientists.

18 It's in your staff report. The tests show it. It is not

19 effective at cleaning the air at levels that are safe for

20 human beings. And these devices are not needed because

21 there are many other options for cleaning the air as your

22 materials have pointed out. There are many types of air

23 cleaning devices and only 2 percent of those sold in

24 California currently are ozone generating devices.

25 So this is not about limiting consumer choice or

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

120

1 limiting consumers' ability to purchase air cleaning

2 devices. There are many products on the market. The

3 challenge today that you're setting before the

4 manufacturers is to develop devices that are not emitting

5 harmful emissions of ozone. That is your job, because6 you're here to protect public health.

7 I would like to comment that we support -- as I

8 said, we support the regulations, but would ask you to

9 please try to speed it up. Two years is a very long time

10 for the effective date of a regulation to take place. And

11 even after the two years, you're recommending an

12 additional nine months of the sell-through date. And that

13 greatly concerns us. I know there's some practical issues

14 involved in developing the laboratory testing procedures

15 and the capacity test of these products. But if you

16 have -- since you've extended the effective date to a

17 two years after the adoption of the regulation, why not

18 just remove the sell-through date? Two years is plenty of

19 notice for manufacturers to get these products off their

20 shelves and to make sure that they're not selling harmful

21 devices.

22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

23 On that issue about the sell through, I

24 understand that there are basically two different types of

25 models for selling these devices. Some of them -- by

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

121

1 these devices, I'll say air purifiers, not these devices.

2 I understand most of the people who have testified here

3 today have testified in support of one particular type of

4 air purifier, which is basically sold in a kind of a door

5 to door sort of a model as opposed to devices that are

6 sold through a traditional retail store type of operation.7 Can you comment on that issue? Because I do see

8 a distinction there. Clearly, many of the people who have

9 spoken here today have indicated that they are not only

10 consumers and users but also in fact are involved in

11 marketing the devices as well.

12 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Well, that greatly concerns us.

13 If the Board is moving forward today to adopt this

14 regulation and require those devices -- that the effective

15 date of the regulation is two years from the adoption,

16 then we don't believe these devices should be sold on a

17 door-to-door basis after that effective date, period. We

18 don't see the need for a sell-through date for a period of

19 time after the effective date, especially in the case of

20 individuals who are selling those products door to door or

21 selling them over the Internet.

22 We need to get these devices off the market.

23 They're harmful to public health, and we need the

24 regulation to be implemented as quickly as possible.

25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

122

1 We'll hear next from Chris Fuehrer followed by

2 Bob Brickman and Grey Montoya. And then I think we're

3 going to take a break.

4 MS. FUEHRER: Hi. I'm Chris Fuehrer. I'm a

5 court reporter. And that's the smartest person in the

6 room right there.7 Anyway, I worked in a courtroom, and I bought a

8 purifier a year ago, and it killed the mold and mildew in

9 my home. And my judge --

10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Which device?

11 MS. FUEHRER: It's the Fresh Air by EcoQuest.

12 And my judge had a problem with his allergies.

13 And I told him about it and I got some studies because it

14 was so -- I thought it was really fun to study the

15 studies. So he looked at it and compared the studies.

16 And it worked so well for him when we got new carpeting in

17 the courthouse and the smell was giving everybody a

18 headache -- I actually had one in there because the sick

19 building syndrome is so prevalent. I don't know if

20 asbestos or what is in those. It's horrible.

21 It cleaned the building up really well. And

22 everyone was getting headaches. He said, "Can you bring

23 that in here?" I said sure. So I bring it in. They call

24 it the germinator because I've told them it kills germs

25 and mold and mildew and viruses. So I'm very excited

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

123

1 about it. I brought it in and everybody -- it was

2 literally a few hours and everybody went out and bought

3 one because -- about five people did.

4 And then I have three doctor friends that of

5 course I was excited about when I went to see them and

6 gave them the technology and the studies and the peer

7 reviewed published studies. And that to them is like a8 Bible. They looked at that and they bought them. They

9 said, "Why isn't this in every emergency room?" And I

10 said, "I don't know. You're the doctor."

11 And my mother is in assisted living. And they

12 have all the way from convalescent to assisted living and

13 they're very compromised health wise. I did speak to the

14 doctor about my mother's living there and the flu season

15 is coming. And I was very concerned they get the best

16 environment they can, because they're already compromised.

17 He's so impressed with the studies I gave him. I can't

18 understand the studies, but it proves peer reviewed

19 published they kill viruses on countertops. This has

20 never been done before. It's exciting. He was so excited

21 that he's going to meet with the administrator there

22 because he makes the rounds there. He makes the rounds,

23 Dr. Shams in Orange County Quaker Gardens. And he is

24 going to work toward getting that in there as flu season

25 arrives.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

124

1 I think that taking this off the market is

2 horrible. And if you're going to be looking out for the

3 well being and the health of the elderly, one flu can kill

4 them or can compromise them and they would suffer. If you

5 can take this and you can use that and doctors that I know

6 are using it and endorsing it, I think it would be a crime

7 to take it off the market. And I just thank you for8 letting me speak. Thank you.

9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

10 Bob Brickman followed by Grey Montoya, and then

11 we're going to take for a half an hour for lunch.

12 MR. MONTOYA: My name is Gregg Montoya. Thank

13 you, Mary and Board, for allowing me to speak. I'm the

14 Chairman of the California Consumers for Freedom of Choice

15 group representing thousands of satisfied air purifier

16 owners. In the case of my family, we have used an air

17 purifier for approximately twelve years that uses low

18 levels of ozone without one side effect. In contrary,

19 we've experienced incredible health benefits.

20 My daughter was a severe asthma sufferer as a

21 child and nearly died on many occasions and was in and out

22 of the emergency room at least once a month prior to

23 installing the purifier in her bedroom two years ago. She

24 has not had one asthma attack since while in the home with

25 the purifier. My wife was also a severe allergy sufferer.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

125

1 And since installing the purifier has been able to break

2 her addiction to prescription drugs that only treated her

3 symptoms instead of the dangerous indoor air that caused

4 her Allergies.

5 I have approximately 30,000 similar stories here

6 submitted by satisfied consumers of different manufacturer

7 products. Many of them depend on these types of purifiers

8 just to breath. Stories that would bring tears to your9 eyes just as they have mine. And these consumers support

10 responsible honest regulation. We do not support

11 one-sided reckless and rushed regulations that creates a

12 monopoly for vested interest groups at the expense of

13 consumers' health.

14 We're ashamed of biased sponsors of this proposed

15 rulemaking that have not even had the decency to at least

16 include one testimonial in their reports -- their

17 questionable reports I might way -- of approximately 15

18 million U.S. air purifier users that have benefited from

19 these types of technologies for over 20 years. General

20 consumers are not stupid and neither are the many high

21 profile figures that we are in touch with and who will

22 come out of the woodworks if their purifier is banned.

23 Common sense would say that this many people cannot be

24 wrong.

25 Supporters have shown complete disregard to

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

126

1 consumers' opinions. They have used taxpayers' dollars to

2 instill unnecessary fear in the minds of consumers by

3 developing and manipulating campaigns using unproven

4 science means based on high outdoor ozone levels rather

5 than low levels indoors. Isolating ozone is the only

6 culprit in the air that causes the purported thousand

7 emergency room visits each year.

8 They ignore the latest peer reviewed science that9 proves many health benefits of ozone at low levels and

10 only shows the downside of potential misuse. It is

11 apparent they've strategically ganged up with their allies

12 to implement unrealistic testing protocols that will

13 guarantee any competing purifier to fail other than

14 products interestingly manufactured by their corporate

15 sponsors.

16 I urge the Board to table this vote until each

17 member can go through the materials submitted by the

18 consumers and manufacturers. I encourage staff to work

19 with our group, the California Consumers for Freedom of

20 Choice, and manufacturers to develop a win-win testing

21 protocol that satisfies AB 7226 without banning viable

22 options for protecting consumers' health against EPA's

23 number one environmental health concern, indoor air

24 pollution. Failure to do so will lift the lid off of

25 pandora's box and expose the state to many ongoing

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

127

1 liabilities not considered when the bill passed. Thank

2 you for letting me speak and God bless you all.

3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for that. Okay.

4 Mr. Brickman.

5 MR. BRICKMAN: I'm Bob Brickman, CCFC counsel.

6 Our comments and testimony has demonstrated that staff's

7 proposal is seriously flawed. There are other ways to

8 regulate more responsibly without treating products that

9 help clean indoor air as much more dangerous than guns,10 EGS tobacco products, pesticides, chlorine, alcohol that

11 can all be purchased by consumers pursuant to labeling and

12 warning regulations. Bottom line, consumers are not the

13 winners even if you approve staff's proposal.

14 Now we can spend time figuring out how we got

15 here, who did what, what was said, and was anything

16 improper, unethical or even illegal. Or we can push that

17 all aside and go forward and agree in the fundamentals of

18 a reasonable air cleaning regulation relating to the

19 emission of ozone that benefits consumer purchasers and

20 users today and in the future. We believe in the latter.

21 There is an undeniable need for safe, viable

22 technologies, including responsible amounts of ozone to

23 address indoor air and surface cleaning problems. Let's

24 be responsible here and not preclude current consumer

25 applications or inhibit new ones.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

128

1 No one knows when the next drug resistance staph

2 string will appear, when serious SARS or bird flu pandemic

3 will hit California by visitors traveling by air or sea,

4 when the next lettuce or spinach crop contaminated with E.

5 coli will hit grocery stores. Let's test the federal

6 standard of .05 using a more responsible testing protocol

7 tested on the intentional emission of ozone and not my

8 electric shaver here that produces incidental inadvertent

9 emission of ozone that has nothing to do with the way my10 electric shaver works or any other appliance that has an

11 electrical motor.

12 And there's no need to delegate a common sense

13 test rather than how ozone reacts in real indoor

14 environments. Don't give a monopoly to industrial

15 commercial cleanup businesses either. Let's find a way

16 for consumers to use greater than .05 ozone in responsible

17 ways when they're not physically present in the room or

18 area being treated. We cannot regulate a zero tolerant

19 policy. It's impractical public policy making. And why

20 use a double standard. With your guidance, we can come up

21 with an alternative here.

22 You've got a difficult responsibility to

23 discharge here on behalf of millions and millions of

24 California consumers. Don't do anything that would be

25 irreversible and lead to actual consumers harm. We

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

129

1 believe based on all the circumstances, the record here,

2 written comments showing the potential impact of hundreds

3 of thousands of consumers now but probably millions down

4 the road there's a reason proposed for regulating ozone

5 emission that's mandatory here, not the staff proposal.

6 Don't use staff's proposal as an open invitation to indoor

7 air quality Armageddon.

8 By the way, the reason I wear my mini-made

9 personal purifier was I diagnosed as having attention

10 deficit syndrome as a teenager. Turns out I am multiple11 chemical sensitive. And the receptionist in our comments,

12 we make reference to Diana Wright who contracted a staph

13 infection in a hospital after being denied the right to

14 use her purifier under any setting in a hospital room even

15 without the ozone on. And she died ten days later. She

16 was my receptionist. Thank you.

17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. Thank you very

18 much.

19 We still have a few more witnesses to hear, but

20 we're going to take a half hour break. And we will resume

21 at 1:00. And anyone who wishes to simply submit your

22 written testimony, feel free to do so. Thank you.

23 (Thereupon a lunch recess was taken.)

24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We're looking for Sharon

25 Gold, Jeff Hawkins. Ladies and gentlemen, we are back on

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

130

1 the air. So we're going to hear next from Sharon Gold,

2 followed by Jeff Hawkins and Chris Hudgins.

3 MS. GOLD: Good afternoon. Thank you very much.

4 I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Madam

5 Chairman and Board members, my name is Sharon Gold, and

6 I'm the past President of the National Federation of the

7 Blind of California.

8 I believe I am a responsible citizen. And when I

9 was 55 years old, I was introduced to an air purifier --

10 at least an air purifier that worked. Now, prior to that11 time, I had bought everything that purported to do

12 anything to air, and I've thrown every one of them away.

13 But besides that, from age 21 through 55, I had had all

14 kinds of allergies, had been under the care of one

15 allergist and another. I had taken two to six allergy

16 shots a week. At the time I was introduced to the air

17 purifier, I was carrying around a bottle of nose spray and

18 had all kind of prescription and non prescriptions.

19 Well, anyway, my lung capacity at that time had

20 been from the time I was 21 through 55, 80 percent. When

21 I got my air purifier, it was just a couple of days until

22 I began to feel a relief in my lungs and I began to cough

23 up some things. I had a dry hacky cough, and I began to

24 cough up mucous and things out of my lungs. And pretty

25 soon, I went to my allergist for my annual checkup, and I

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

131

1 had a lung capacity of 100 percent.

2 Now, I've been -- that was 12 years ago. So if

3 you can add, I'm 67 years old. And since that time, I

4 have been under the care of a number of doctors. I've had

5 a number of x-rays. I've had a number of checkups, and I

6 have perfect lungs. So I guess that that kind of says

7 something about an air purifier and with minimal amounts

8 of ozone.

9 And you know, as I said, I had taken two to six

10 allergy shots a week from the time from when I was 21

11 through 55. I no longer take any shots, no longer have12 any allergies. I certainly am not sick or anything.

13 What I want to say today is that if the

14 California Air Resources Board wants to take away my air

15 purifier, then what are you going to give me to replace

16 it? What are you going to give me and other people to

17 replace this air purifier that has done so much for my

18 health? My health has improved tremendously since that

19 time.

20 And I would submit respectfully there is

21 something wrong with the testing this Board is doing. And

22 I would very like to say, please, look at your testing.

23 Look at what you're doing. Look at the consumers that are

24 here. There are all kinds of them here. The California

25 Lung Association lady said 350 letters. Another man has

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

132

1 30,000 from consumers. There's something wrong.

2 Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity

3 to testify.

4 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Madam Chair, if I might ask

5 Ms. Gold, did I understand you to say that you had used

6 other types of air purifiers until 12 years ago when you

7 got a new brand? Can you explain about your experience

8 with that?

9 MS. GOLD: Yes, ma'am, I can. I had bought every

10 kind of air purifier that was on the market at that time.

11 And I had tried every one of them, and they didn't work.12 I didn't get any relief whatsoever. Is that an adequate

13 answer?

14 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Thank you. I appreciate

15 understanding that.

16 I don't know if there's a staff -- or any comment

17 that could be made on that. Again, I'm real interested,

18 because I know there are a couple of different

19 technologies available for air purification and the

20 concern is ozone exposure to folks. So --

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think it would be best at

22 the conclusion of the testimony if we can ask the staff to

23 wrap that up in response, because I think it's a good

24 question. Thank you, ma'am.

25 Jeff Hawkins, Chris Hudgins.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

133

1 MR. HAWKINS: Hi. Good afternoon. My name is

2 Jeff Hawkins. I got into the air purifier business after

3 seeing what it did for my father. The doctor said it

4 added three and a half years to his life. He had

5 emphysema. He had the tubes and the oxygen tank. He has

6 since passed away. And to this day, I still have that air

7 purifier, which I lend to people in their home. It's

8 still kicking.

9 Now I'm coming to you as a manufacturer. I have

10 built many of these things. I'm a master machinist for

11 their testing laboratories which are very insufficient.

12 They cannot produce real world results through a13 controlled lab environment. It's contradictive. It

14 cannot be done. I challenge anybody to come on down to my

15 house, take your same readings in the real world. Then

16 you'll have an idea of an individual's home what we're

17 living in. Not a controlled environment. The key word

18 controlled. You cannot do it. If you say it can -- if

19 brains were gas, you couldn't fill a piss ant's go-cart

20 around a Cherrio. It cannot be done.

21 I know, because I've laughed at some of this

22 stuff I've had to build going, how do they expect to get

23 anything from it?

24 Now I will continue to sell purification for

25 people. Ninety-five percent of my customers have

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

134

1 allergies and asthma. Everybody I've listened to here in

2 a recap has had these purifiers with severe lung problems.

3 But yet the Lung Association, I've seen nothing from them

4 except talk. They have no proof. They're just an

5 organization. I don't put any stock into them. They

6 should just shut down business.

7 The proof is this. If you want actual testing,

8 not bid by for anything like that, you need to go

9 individually to a lot more than just 300 letters or 10,000

10 letters or whatever like that. Go and talk to everybody.

11 Get an opinion. Tally it up. There's your results.

12 Plain and simple.13 Your test and what you're basing their opposition

14 to cancel these machines on is invalid.

15 One-hundred percent invalid. You don't tell your

16 16-year-old boy push that peddle on the right, here's the

17 keys to my Corvette and that's all the information you

18 give them. Okay.

19 Each machine inside their owner's manual tell if

20 you use an away mode, leave. Run around 500 square feet,

21 that's equal to .05 parts per million. It's proof. Pete

22 Bullock, Ed McCall, leading authorities in this nation on

23 ozone disagree with everything they said. These are the

24 people who write the books. These are the people the

25 United States government recognizes, register how come

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

135

1 they're not on board with these people?

2 Thank you for your time.

3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.

4 We'll hear from Wayne Morris and then Kirk

5 Sullivan and then Glory Dolphin. Sorry Chris.

6 MR. HUDGINS: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

7 Chris Hudgins with the Association of Home Appliance

8 Manufacturers. I'm going to be quick and then my

9 colleague Wayne Morris is going to make some comments.

10 Just wanted to say that we support most of the

11 measures in here. We've worked very hard with

12 Assemblywoman Pavley, the ARB staff, and the American Lung

13 Association putting this bill together. And we want to14 thank ARB staff for the work they've done putting this

15 together.

16 We're thankful for them extending the

17 certification timeline an extra year. As my colleague

18 Wayne will explain, that is much needed. The fact of the

19 matter is right now there aren't any labs in existence

20 that do these type of ozone tests. And there's a number

21 of things that need to happen before that can start. But

22 we're confident with the timeline that we've worked out

23 and worked out with staff that this will be appropriate.

24 So I'll let Wayne do most of the talking here and

25 thank you guys for your support.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

136

1 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

2 presented as follows.)

3 MR. MORRIS: Thank you, Chair Nichols and members

4 of the Board.

5 --o0o--

6 MR. MORRIS: I think it's extremely fitting that

7 we do this on a day when we honored Dr. Gong, who spent

8 his career advocating for ozone action.

9 I want to thank the Board and the staff

10 particularly for working with us. And I've worked with a

11 number of regulatory agencies over my years, and I've

12 never worked with one as determined to be as fact based

13 and as open and as willing to work with us and listen to14 all sides. I think it's a tremendous achievement for the

15 staff to work for two years on this effort.

16 --o0o--

17 MR. MORRIS: We represent the manufacturers of

18 air cleaners in the United States, about 39 manufacturers

19 including 19 manufacturers of portable air cleaners, a

20 significant share of the air cleaner manufacturers in the

21 United States.

22 --o0o--

23 MR. MORRIS: We have worked very closely on this

24 bill, and we are supportive of most of the elements in

25 here. We are concerned with really only one small element

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

137

1 to the latest directive that the staff has put forward

2 today.

3 --o0o--

4 MR. MORRIS: The proposed regulation will

5 restrict the sale of violative devices in California. It

6 would have severe repercussions on manufacturers of

7 legitimate air cleaners. But we do believe this

8 regulation is necessary and appropriate.

9 --o0o--

10 MR. MORRIS: Current proposal before the Board

11 would require all companies to have this by 12 months

12 after. However, the staff has now extended that date

13 which we do believe is very, very important.

14 --o0o--15 MR. MORRIS: The problems with the effective date

16 that came up is that the test procedure is not yet

17 finished. There are currently no testing laboratories.

18 Although we believe that that test procedure will be

19 finished this fall, and we believe that the laboratories

20 will be available to start testing by next spring. We

21 believe that there are probably approximately 200 models

22 that need to go through this testing.

23 --o0o--

24 MR. MORRIS: The testing takes between five and

25 nine days each per each model. So we've run several

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

138

1 calculations of how long this is going to take to get the

2 existing models through this slug of testing.

3 --o0o--

4 MR. MORRIS: And the timeline basically calls for

5 approximately 25, 27 months to get all of the units

6 through. These will be units that we believe largely

7 already meet the requirements, but they need to get

8 through the testing cue. That's why we're asking for the

9 two years time frame that is necessary.

10 --o0o--

11 MR. MORRIS: We believe that out of these over

12 100 models represent our manufacturers' products and they

13 utilize technology and construction that's known to meet

14 the 50 parts per billion limit. We are prepared to meet15 these requirements. We believe that it's important --

16 --o0o--

17 MR. MORRIS: -- to allow for sufficient time for

18 this. Our slides explain this time line --

19 --o0o--

20 MR. MORRIS: -- and why the time period is taken

21 on this.

22 The last thing I would just mention is the one

23 issue we're concerned about this, and this is retail

24 sell-through period we already talked about. If you are

25 last in the cue to get through, you will not be finished

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

139

1 with your testing until two years from this spring. Those

2 manufacturers who are the last in the line still need to

3 have full time to get the product all the way through the

4 retail channel and to allow that product to be moved out

5 so that legitimate customers and customers in the

6 United States have the ability here in California to

7 obtain products which meet the requirements.

8 So we are very much in favor of this regulation.

9 But we need that extra time for the sell through. We

10 think a full 36 months is necessary for this.

11 Glad to answer any questions that you might have.

12 Thank you.

13 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Madam Chairman, I do have a

14 quick question.

15 Your membership, are they comfortable with the16 testing protocol that is being suggested?

17 MR. MORRIS: Yes. We worked very closely with

18 the collaborative consensus process of the underwriters

19 laboratory standard procedure which includes

20 representatives from industry and government and private

21 citizens and others who have collectively worked on this.

22 A number of research scientists have worked on this

23 situation.

24 This is based -- the 50 parts per billion limit

25 that you brought up is based on a number of studies that

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

140

1 have been done. A recent study that was requested and

2 contracted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

3 that was done by Dr. Richard Shawnacy and Dr. Richard

4 Corsy of the University of Tulsa and Texas both found

5 after reviewing all of the research studies that are out

6 there that the 50 parts per billion limit is appropriate.

7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Does your association

8 represent more than one type of technology in the air

9 purification equipment?

10 MR. MORRIS: Actually, we are technology neutral.

11 Our manufacturers have many different types of technology.

12 We run a certification program for performance of air

13 cleaners that we post on the web the performance of those

14 products in actually reducing particulate emissions. And

15 that information is available and it's available16 irregardless of the technology.

17 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Just so I understand, you do

18 represent both manufacturers that would be these low ozone

19 emitting type technology?

20 MR. MORRIS: Both the types that Chris referred

21 to both what is called the mechanical filtration types,

22 which use just a filter and fan to move the air through a

23 filter, and the ozone byproduct types, which include types

24 such as ionizers, electrostatic precipitators,

25 precipitator units, and other technologies that are

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

141

1 available as well.

2 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much for your

3 information. And thank you, Madam Chair.

4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Okay.

5 Mr. Sullivan.

6 MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. My name is Kirk Sullivan,

7 and I am the Media Relations Director for the

8 International Association of Air Cleaner Manufacturers.

9 And I'm the Public Relations Director for IQ Air North

10 America, a manufacturer of medical grade air purifier HEPA

11 systems.

12 There are a lot of things I would like to say

13 today. But to be honest with you, I could spend the next

14 two years refuting and debating a lot of the testimony

15 that I have seen presented for you today.

16 Everything that I say really is my belief. I'm17 not a scientist. I'm not a doctor. But I do work

18 intimately in the air purifier field. And I get out of

19 bed every morning to make consumers aware of the problems

20 that I believe are associated with ozone producing air

21 purifiers. And I've heard a number of people say today

22 they have not had any problems or heard of any problems in

23 years. I'm wondering if their telephones are turned off,

24 because I invite them to sit in my desk.

25 I'm here to support AB 2276. But I want to say I

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

142

1 do not believe it is a strong enough position. I do not

2 believe there is any safe level of ozone. And it has

3 already been shown that ozone in very small amounts can

4 interact with trephines in the environment and produce

5 significant negative health consequences.

6 I'm very concerned with this bill for one reason:

7 The marketing standpoint. I believe that this can very

8 cynically be used by ozone producing air purifier

9 manufacturers in order to actually help them to promote

10 their products. I don't think 50 parts per billion is

11 safe. And putting a stamp on a product that says it is

12 approved and meets a federal limit that says it's safe

13 does not make sense to me.

14 I guess the biggest thing I would have to say

15 about this, too, is I've heard many people say they are

16 adults and they have the ability to monitor settings.17 I've talked to a number of parents who have put ozone

18 producing devices in the nursery with their baby and had

19 that baby go into anaphylaxis. You can debate whether or

20 not it was the ozone in the environment that caused it,

21 but the thing I will state is a baby cannot tell you to

22 turn down the setting. Thank you.

23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Glory Dolphin.

24 MS. DOLPHIN: Yes. Hi. My name is Glory

25 Dolphin. I'm actually the CEO of IQ Air North America,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

143

1 also the Executive Director of the International

2 Association of Air Cleaner Manufacturers. We represent

3 four manufacturers in the United States. These are

4 manufacturers that are not actually represented by the

5 America Household -- not by AM basically.

6 We are very specific about the types of air

7 cleaners that we manufacture. We do not manufacture air

8 cleaners that are harmful. We make a pledge as a part of

9 the Manufacturers Association that we only manufacture air

10 purifiers that are actually safe.

11 With respect to that, I've been in the air

12 cleaning industry for over 12 years. Twenty to 25 percent

13 of my time is spent educating consumers about the dangers

14 of ozone-producing air purifiers. It is real. It is not

15 something -- I know that Ms. Berg asked the questions are

16 consumers able to tell the difference. Absolutely not.

17 Absolutely not. With 800,000 air cleaners that are sold18 in California alone that are ozone-producing air cleaners,

19 consumers are not able to tell the difference.

20 This ties into what I call -- and what we call at

21 the Manufacturers Association the D factor. The D stands

22 for deception, deceit, and denial. It is absolutely clear

23 through factual scientific studies, peer reviewed studies

24 that ozone has nothing to do with improving the air

25 quality indoors. Absolutely proven. There is no debate

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

144

1 about that.

2 But we have a manufacturer -- or many

3 manufacturers that sell and distribute their products via

4 multi level marketing. These are individuals that go out

5 and that go around door to door, and they have a vested

6 interest in selling these air purifying devices.

7 A lot of the testimony you may have heard today I

8 would love to ask the question after some of these people

9 got up on this microphone on this pedestal and said what

10 they said, are they a registered salesperson of those

11 organizations. These are very, very serious issues.

12 Because you have unsuspecting consumers that have no idea

13 about the health implications of using an ozone producing

14 air purifier. This is real. This bill which we wholly

15 support, AB 2276, should have been passed ten years ago.

16 It is a much needed bill. This is what Californians need

17 right now to protect themselves against these kinds of18 harmful products. Thank you very much.

19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

20 I just -- every time I press my button, it seems

21 to go off rather than on. Maybe I need a remedial lesson

22 in how to do this. I'm sorry.

23 Okay. We've got Doug Korthof, Gary Rothman,

24 Ronald Chaves, and Tim Carmichael. And that's it as far

25 as I know on the end of the list. Korthof, Rothman,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

145

1 Chaves and Carmichael.

2 MR. KORTHOF: Hi. Douglas Korthof. And I try to

3 represent the general public when I come here. But I

4 guess a lot of the general public already came. Just like

5 when I go to the Coastal Commission, I try to represent

6 the habitat and the creatures that can't talk.

7 I think the general public is generally going to

8 be neutral on this bill. We know that you're going to

9 have to do something. It seems like it's a lot of

10 study -- money that went for a study that, you know, in

11 the regulations that aren't going to do much.

12 The reason that people put in these air cleaners

13 is because they feel they have to do something. They're

14 getting smog or, you know, particulate matter in their

15 house, so they go out and get an air cleaner. Now, that

16 should be a red flag. Okay? It isn't that the people are

17 stupid. They know there's a problem. And the problem is

18 that the air Resources Board and the South Coast Air19 Quality Management District and the other districts

20 haven't been doing their jobs. You know, the pollution is

21 coming into people's houses. It's coming in, you know,

22 not out of the mists of time. It's coming out of cars and

23 out of refineries.

24 Now, the people are trying to do something about

25 it. What can they do? They can't get the Board to do

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

146

1 anything. I'm here maybe talking for the general public

2 who pays for all this nonsense. You know, we pay for

3 this. And most of the people can't come here. And they'd

4 like you to do something. And what are we doing? Well,

5 we're passing regulations against ozone. Well, why not

6 start with the regulations against oil refineries and

7 against car pollution?

8 Now, the thing with refineries is all this stuff

9 comes up -- and I realize that you don't do refineries

10 because you do mobile source. But all this stuff comes

11 up. And we have to have refineries because we have cars.

12 It comes down. It comes down into kids' lungs. At

13 nighttime, 2:00 in the morning, this stuff comes into the

14 rooms. All night long they're hacking and coughing.

15 Now, people try to do something. They try to get

16 an ozone machine, right? That's what they're trying to

17 do. What they really want is you guys to do your job, put

18 the clamps on the refineries.19 You know, I was here when the refineries bussed

20 in hundreds of people. They weren't refinery people.

21 They were Korean haberdashers, clothing manufacturer --

22 cleaners, and Mexican chrome platers, who pleaded for

23 their families and their jobs. But it was the refineries

24 behind the scenes. Western States Petroleum was behind

25 the door, Nita Mangellan. I saw her, I said, "Hi." But

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

147

1 it was them who were arguing.

2 The refineries and the auto pollution is what we

3 need to deal with.

4 Now, when that stuff comes into the room and gets

5 into kids' lungs, you know, that's the real enemy. If you

6 didn't have that pollution, people wouldn't be putting in

7 these ozone filters.

8 And I'm neutral on this issue, like I say,

9 because we'd really rather not have you spend so much

10 money on this kind of a study. We'd really rather have

11 you attack the refineries and of course the ZEV mandate.

12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Gary Rothman.

13 MR. ROTHMAN: Yes, ma'am.

14 Honorable members of the Air Quality Management

15 Board.

16 I'm here as a concerned parent and citizen. I,

17 like you, am concerned about the quality of my indoor

18 environment. I and my family -- I live by the beach. And

19 about four years ago I had mold growing on my window sills20 in my home.

21 And my son used to use this machine right here.

22 This is called a nebulizer. And he used to need this

23 about every month, month and a half, he'd need it for

24 about a week or two, since he was a year and a half old.

25 In the last four years -- since we've had an air purifier,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

148

1 a low emitting ozone unit, in my house, in the last four

2 years he's needed this machine one time. When I walk into

3 his bedroom at night now I can hear the difference in his

4 breathing.

5 You know, I had allergy symptoms. That's one of

6 the reasons we got the machine. I was waking up with

7 itchy eyes every morning. My wife would wake up with

8 headaches two to three days a week. We just thought when

9 you get over 40 years old, you wake up with a headache

10 once in a while, that's life. But since she's had the

11 machine now, instead of waking up a couple times a week,

12 it's a few times a year.

13 You know, I'm deviating from my notes here just

14 because it's interesting, a lot of people, whether it's

15 the manufacturers' association -- the woman that just

16 spoke talked about a vested interest. Almost every one of

17 those companies have a filtration system, and filters are

18 definitely needed. And I support your efforts in limiting

19 ozone machines because there's a lot of machines out there20 that produce way too much ozone that are not safe. But I

21 don't want you to throw the baby out with the bath water

22 with a broad brush saying that all units are the same.

23 And if we look at technology, when I had -- I had

24 the best HEPA filters in my house for years. It didn't

25 help my son breathing. I had electrostatic on my HVAC

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

149

1 system. It didn't help. Because that answer is you're

2 going to bring the solution to the -- the pollution to the

3 machine, to the solution to the filter. When I had mold

4 spores on my window sill, by the time it got through my

5 HVAC system everyone in my house was breathing it in.

6 The technology that uses -- and, Madam Chairman,

7 you talked about -- you mentioned different technologies.

8 The technology machine that I use is a fresh air. But it

9 uses low level of ozone; and combined with another

10 technology, RCI technology, that helps the ozone at low,

11 low levels be very effective. So there's a difference of

12 someone just putting out a lot of ozone, which can be

13 harmful at high levels, than someone using one to two

14 parts per billion with combined technologies and it has a

15 synergistic effect of being very effective and scientific

16 peer-reviewed studies. And I have yet to see anybody,

17 besides the doctors -- the first presenter where they had

18 eight times the level of ozone with monkeys in a room than

19 what machines can even produce the -- I have yet to see

20 anybody where people are hurt, people are injured. I'd21 like to see some peer-reviewed studies that say that.

22 There are currently peer-reviewed studies from this last

23 year that talk about the efficacy and safety of low levels

24 with RCI combination technology.

25 Thank you very much.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

150

1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

2 Ron Chaves and Tim Carmichael.

3 MR. CHAVES: I'm Ron Chaves. I'm from San Diego,

4 California. When I got here, I came here as a consumer to

5 voice what I have found to be in the air purification

6 business.

7 For 26 years my wife and I, we have a photography

8 business. And within the photography business you're in

9 darkrooms a lot. And there are certain chemicals that are

10 in there. We used heppa filters, we used all sorts of

11 different filters. And it wasn't until we had something

12 that produced a low level of ozone and ionization that we

13 could even stand really being in the darkroom for longer

14 periods of time.

15 Now, I'm here primarily because my wife said, "If

16 they take this thing away from us, they're doing an

17 illegal action, or I'm keeping something which is illegal

18 in my home so that I can use it." I sleep better at night

19 because of it. The reason I sleep better is because my

20 wife sleeps better. My wife sleeps better, I sleep21 better, my day is a lot better.

22 Aside from that, there's certain things -- and

23 I'm going to raise my hand right now, take the scout oath

24 and I'm going to say I'm going to come out of the closet,

25 because I saw one of these units, my brother-in-law gave

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

151

1 it to me and he was a Kirby salesman and he said, "Here,

2 try it. You'll like it." And knowing my brother-in-law,

3 I thought -- I shook my head, it's only dollar signs.

4 We started using that machine, and it was eleven

5 years ago that we started using it. We absolutely love

6 it. We have a 3500 -- a 3,500 square foot home. And part

7 of it's built in 1940, part of it's newer. We have three

8 units in that home. We would not do without them. My

9 wife, who previously couldn't be around cats, we now have

10 two cats in the house and two in the office.

11 The fact that you can't tell about odors, that's

12 a bad news in one instance. About three years ago I ended

13 up going down in the basement of our house. We had about

14 two feet below the flooring and the dirt and then a

15 walkway through the basement. As I was walking through

16 there I thought, "Man, what is this raunchy smell?" We

17 had old cast iron sewers. It split along the top. Gases

18 were coming out. But you know what? I could not tell it

19 on the inside. I'm very thankful for that.

20 The other thing is two weeks ago, about -- no,

21 not two weeks -- about two months ago my niece came over22 to our house, normally goes swimming with the kids, had to

23 leave. She said she couldn't stand it because of the

24 cats. We've never had that problem before. When I came

25 home and my wife told me that, I said, "Hey, hon, you know

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

152

1 what. We just sent these units back to be serviced, all

2 three of them." We didn't have units running in the

3 house.

4 The other part in regards to, do we, the

5 consumer -- can we take care and make our own decisions?

6 If we cannot, then I suggest to you that we should take

7 caution tape and put it around Home Depot, for certainly

8 there's more people that can be hurt by usage of the

9 tools, by the chemicals, the acetones, the lacquers, the

10 spray. How many of those people do you really think read

11 those labels?

12 And this, people that are turning around, putting

13 them in their homes, are explaining and putting them up

14 high. We have ours eight feet high. I know to push the

15 "away" button. Whenever I leave home I have it on full

16 blast.

17 Thank you. If I seem passionate, it's because I

18 am.

19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Is Tim Carmichael

20 here to testify?

21 There he is. Okay.22 You are our last witness. No pressure.

23 MR. CARMICHAEL: Good to see you.

24 Members of the Board, Tim Carmichael with the

25 Coalition for Clean Air. I just want to address a few

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

153

1 points that I think are good to keep in mind as you

2 deliberate on this.

3 Number one, it was mentioned at the outset but

4 not since. You're required by law to do this. Your

5 agency is required by law to take this issue on.

6 Number two, you know, for all the times that

7 we've been up here, you know, criticizing your staff for

8 various proposals, I can't tell you the last time that we

9 disagreed with them on the science or said that their

10 science was poor or wrong. They have spent years working

11 on this. And the science shows there is a serious problem

12 with this.

13 Given this agency's mission is to protect public

14 health, and we're spending not only millions of hours but

15 billions of dollars to reduce pollution outdoors, even the

16 idea that we're allowing people, in most cases

17 unwittingly, to pump ozone into their bedrooms or other

18 rooms that we know from medical science is harmful to

19 their health, it's outrageous. And the fact that we have

20 the information supported by science before you, you know,

21 and the opportunity now to protect those people is -- I

22 don't know how you could reach a different conclusion than23 this is a must do.

24 The next point is: Very few people today have

25 noted that there are many air filter products -- air

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

154

1 purification products on the market that don't produce any

2 ozone or produce very, very little ozone. That is less

3 than the performance standard that's being proposed by

4 your staff. That has been almost missing in the debate

5 today. There are many of those products available and

6 there will be more of them available going forward.

7 The last point I want to touch on is the

8 certification process being extended from one year to

9 two years. That seems to make sense to us for many of the

10 reasons that were cited today. But what doesn't make

11 sense as a matter of policy is to on top of that add a

12 sell-through period of nine months. If you take a step

13 back from this, your staff has identified this as a very

14 serious issue. They've given all the medical and

15 scientific data. There's been testimony about how serious

16 this is. And then the proposal before you is to allow X

17 number of months for people to continue to sell and buy

18 these, quote-unquote, harmful machines. That's just --

19 that's not common sense. And so from our perspective it's

20 bad policy to allow sell-through of a product that you

21 know can be harmful to public health.

22 So our first request would be no sell-through23 period. But our second request would be at least run it

24 concurrently with the extended certification period. So

25 that you've got two years and then you could only buy in

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

155

1 California a safe product in this area.

2 Thank you very much.

3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you, Mr. Carmichael.

4 At this point, I think it might make sense to ask

5 the staff to do kind of a summary closure here before we

6 then open it up for discussion among the Board.

7 So, Mr. Cackette.

8 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes, we

9 would like to do that and I think address some of the

10 issues that came up in the testimony. So if you'd give us

11 just a few minutes, Bart or Mike, you can -- Bart's going

12 to do that, I believe.

13 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Hello. Bart

14 Croes, Chief of the Research Division. And thank you for

15 the opportunity to make some closing points.

16 First on the issue of the purported benefits of

17 ozone generators. On one hand, we have hundreds of

18 peer-reviewed papers that your Air Quality Advisory

19 Committee reviewed when you established an ozone standard

20 in 2005 that had been reviewed by EPA's Advisory

21 Committee, the World Health Organization. And there's not

22 one of these papers that shows a benefit from exposure to

23 ozone.24 The basis for California's ambient air quality

25 standards is primarily human exposure studies, where we

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

156

1 put -- we generate ozone -- scientists generate ozone in

2 an enclosed room. And for ethical reasons they only can

3 expose athletes, other healthy individuals, and mild

4 asthmatics. And we see health effects in these people.

5 These scientists are not able to test the

6 elderly, the people with strong asthmatic cases, or

7 preexisting disease or children.

8 So we think the health effects are actually much

9 worse for exposure to indoor ozone which we see with the

10 outdoor epidemiological studies.

11 The group, EcoQuest, and the California Consumers

12 for Freedom of Choice have given us only one paper that

13 they -- published peer-review paper that they say support

14 a benefit from ozone. But when we exam that paper, this

15 is actually a dual technology device that includes a

16 particle removing feature. And a lot of the testimony you

17 heard today was an EcoQuest's Fresh Air, which both

18 generates ozone and has a technology that reduces

19 particles.

20 In Canada, which does not allow ozone generating

21 devices to be sold, EcoQuest markets a device that only

22 includes as particle removal. So we think that even this

23 company is producing devices that can meet our ozone24 standard.

25 Regarding the test method, ozone -- you see ozone

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

157

1 loss at all surfaces including stainless steel. And the

2 purpose of this one-year process that we participated in

3 with the testing laboratories, leading scientists, public

4 agencies, some of the manufacturers, is to come up with a

5 reproducible test that replicates real-world conditions.

6 So the test is designed to replicate what would actually

7 happen in an enclosed room that included carpets,

8 furniture. And the way it replicates that is by

9 increasing the ventilation over what would be normal

10 conditions.

11 So we feel that we've come up with a very useful

12 test, that's a consensus product of these committees, that

13 is currently going through a public review process, that

14 is reproducible, and mimics real-world conditions in a

15 household.

16 The issue has been brought up about making

17 devices that would remediate molds and odors in

18 households, making those available to the general public.

19 It's important to note that these devices generate very

20 high, even dangerous levels of ozone, on the order of 25

21 times the stage 1 smog alert. And people will not notice

22 that they're exposed to these levels because this high

23 ozone would deaden your sense of smell. It would only be

24 until you experience respiratory effects that you would25 know that you were exposed to dangerous levels.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

158

1 There's been some analogies drawn to the

2 availability of other dangerous devices in our society.

3 But even things like pesticides and pharmaceuticals, the

4 most dangerous ones are only allowed to be handled by

5 experts or prescribed by a doctor. And we feel that these

6 very high ozone generating devices just should not be

7 available to the general public.

8 And then the last issue I wanted to address was

9 the sell-through period. So the timeline for this

10 regulation is that after the 15-day process and the normal

11 administrative process, it will not be until probably next

12 spring that the regulation would be in place. And then

13 the manufacturers will have two years to go through the

14 testing and certification process.

15 We expect that most devices will be certified

16 through this process. And the regulation allows them to

17 attach an adhesive label to any devices that are in stock,

18 plus the nine month sell-through. So we think that's an

19 appropriate time to sell off any devices.

20 Thank you.

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.

22 I think there's actually a question that was

23 raised by Mr. Carmichael about whether even the nine month

24 additional sell-through period is appropriate for devices25 that don't meet the certification requirements, given that

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

159

1 it's going to be two years until these rules take effect.

2 Do you have a response on that?

3 MR. JAKOBER: Well, we have, you know, proposed

4 the sell-through period now through several workshops and

5 are kind of hesitant to have agreed to something with the

6 majority of the manufacturers and then take it off the

7 table. You know, we told them they would have the

8 nine-month sell-through. And, you know, ideally it's not

9 our preference. But, you know, it was agreed upon

10 previously and we left that in place.

11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I understand the staff's

12 position. But I don't think that precludes the Board from

13 acting if we are convinced that that's justifiable and

14 appropriate.

15 MR. JAKOBER: That is certainly the case.

16 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No, it

17 doesn't. I think the point we'd like to make is that

18 we're extending the certification time because there just

19 wasn't enough volume of test sells. And so somebody's

20 product is not going to get tested until very near the end

21 of that 24-month period. And at that point -- since

22 they're going to want to keep selling products along the

23 way, at that point there's going to be a stock of products

24 in the stores. And some need to sell through those

25 noncomplying products. So that's sort of the argument IPETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

160

1 think for why some sell-through period is needed.

2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Maybe there's a way to tag

3 that then to the time of certification and make it a

4 rolling period rather than just a nine months tacked on to

5 the end of the two years. Just a thought.

6 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah.

7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, Supervisor.

8 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: When you're done.

9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: No, go ahead.

10 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Well, I -- this has been

11 very interesting testimony.

12 And let me just share with you. In all the years

13 that I've been on this Board, which is a substantial

14 amount -- this is my 13th year -- I don't ever remember at

15 any time anybody purporting that ozone was all of a sudden

16 good for you, especially in some of these megadoses that

17 we're talking about.

18 The testimony would make me feel that maybe we're

19 missing something. But I'm reminded of another health

20 issue that we had to deal with not too long ago, not on

21 this Board. But it had to do with diet pills. And the

22 testimony was so strikingly similar to what we're hearing

23 today, that it's almost frightening. We heard that

24 Ephedra was absolutely good for you. And in fact there

25 were claims that it made you more comfortable if you hadPETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

161

1 cancer in addition to, you know, have diet loss and

2 everything. And there was a steady stream of people who

3 were testifying to this.

4 I think the science is -- you know, the reason

5 why we've been successful over the years is because we

6 keep going back to "what is the science?" And a lot of

7 the testimony would have you deny -- it isn't about

8 running out and collecting everybody's opinion. This

9 isn't about opinions. It's about the tests, and are the

10 tests legitimate, are they scientific? And it just seems

11 to me that it is overwhelming and compelling.

12 So I feel uncomfortable now, as I understand what

13 the staff has done, with extending the periods. And I

14 feel that, if anything, this probably doesn't go far

15 enough based on what we know that the -- I feel like for

16 sure we should shorten whatever sell-through period there

17 is.

18 The manufacturers have all sorts of models. And

19 perhaps the ones that are not going to be in violation,

20 you know, they can keep selling those to the extent that,

21 you know, they don't have to worry about them in the

22 testing period. But those pieces of equipment that they

23 know are violating the standards, they probably shouldn't

24 make those all the way up to the deadline in anticipation

25 that somehow they're going to be passing a test. Or theyPETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

162

1 should give priority to getting those tested early.

2 So it seems to me that there's some flexibility

3 in the system. But I think we should shorten down the

4 sell-through period.

5 And I'm very concerned about where we're setting

6 this limit. And I think we're really setting it, the 50

7 parts per billion, on probably the best information that

8 we have today. But I would hope that perhaps in these

9 research studies that some claim we're wasting money on

10 that we would perhaps spend some attention to this over

11 the next year or two so we can get some additional

12 information. Because it concerns me even at those levels.

13 There's a lot of reasons why we know at least

14 that the interior is a very unpredictable environment.

15 And the dust and the internal pollution, if you will, is a

16 different kind of a factor.

17 But there is no evidence anywhere that I've seen

18 that adding ozone to it is a healthy alternative at any

19 level.

20 So, Madam Chairwoman, I would -- and I'm not sure

21 what the number is -- but I'd like to suggest that we

22 squeeze a little more on the pass-through period that's

23 been recommended by staff. I think what the staff has

24 done on the other end is fine. I'm not proposing to

25 change that. But I think the sell-through period --

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345163

1 excuse me, not the pass-through period -- should be

2 shortened, if there needs to be one at all. I don't know

3 what the original recommendation that staff had.

4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think maybe I should just

5 listen to the comments of the Board members kind of in

6 order and then we can take it back to the staff and see

7 what you want to suggest after you've heard where the

8 Board wants to go.

9 Mayor Loveridge.

10 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: You know, very quickly,

11 I'm persuaded by staff, I'm persuaded by the science. It

12 seems to me there needs to be choices for consumers, and

13 there clearly are choices.

14 The one question that's not clear to me, and it's

15 not really the question before us but it is a puzzle, is

16 not what harm different devices have but what value

17 different devices have. And may there's some research on

18 that that's been done. And I'd be kind of curious about

19 the advocacy for this as opposed to the harm for this.

20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Supervisor Case.

21 BOARD MEMBER CASE: You know, the first and

22 probably the most compelling testimony to me was the young

23 woman earlier, the first speaker. I don't think we've

24 seen anything other than scientific studies that have said

25 exposure to ozone. And we keep reducing that number to a

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345164

1 smaller and smaller number and keep coming back and

2 saying, "It still impacts the lungs with permanent damage

3 over time." So I'm having a difficult time thinking

4 anything other than any ozone is not a good thing when it

5 comes anywhere near a human lung.

6 That being said, I also understand there's an

7 issue with the manufacturer. It takes a lot of systems to

8 be put in place to be able to produce the manufactured

9 product. And what is a fairness? We don't want anybody

10 selling products that are harmful. We also need to go

11 through a true process on certifying those products. And

12 there may be some that are certifiable but it takes a

13 little bit longer to get there.

14 I liked your proposal to make that sell-through

15 time with an end date that's absolute, so we don't keep

16 doing this forever. But that the sell-through period

17 actually starts with the actual certification of a

18 particular product, then it goes for so many months beyond

19 that when the testing is over. And that does give a fair

20 process for the manufacturers to go through the

21 opportunity to be certified, but also kind of accepts

22 that, you know, they're still in the process of

23 manufacturing; they don't just stop everything; when they

24 go into certification, they still have an organization

25 that's creating things. That seems to me to be a very

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345165

1 reasonable solution between that conflict.

2 But I'm very supportive of this rule, because I

3 just have not seen anything that's convinced me that any

4 exposure to ozone is a good exposure. And the other piece

5 is it's just amazing sometimes, we really like to have all

6 the things we want in our environment, including things

7 that are harmful to us. And sometimes that's our

8 beautiful pets. And I'm a pet owner and a pet lover.

9 But, you know, I think we still have to do what this

10 agency is responsible for, and that's protect public

11 health. And there's no compromise on that piece.

12 So I'm very supportive of the rule. I think it's

13 a necessary rule.

14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

15 Ms. Riordan.

16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. Madam Chairman, I

17 certainly support the rule and believe there is plenty of

18 product that will meet the certification program that we

19 will devise. And so people can indeed find product to

20 purchase for their particular needs.

21 I am concerned with the length of the

22 certification versus -- if a manufacturer legitimately

23 believes that their product would be certified and then

24 finds that it is not, there may be a case for I think a

25 rolling selling product that is reasonable. And I'm

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

1661 wondering if staff feels that they can do kind of a

2 rolling system and monitor it. I know that it is far more

3 difficult. It's much easier to just say on March 1st, you

4 know, certain things will not be sold. But maybe there's

5 a bit of fairness that might be attached to a rolling

6 sellout period based on, you know, legitimate people

7 believing their product would make it and didn't.

8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yeah, I mean my own

9 suggestion on that would be 60 days. You know, I think

10 that would be more than enough time to clear out stocks.

11 Sixty days would be just a -- offer that as a suggestion.

12 Turning to this side.

13 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Thank you, Madam Chair.

14 And I would agree with the 60 days to eliminate

15 the sell-through. I think the arguments have been

16 compelling. The law is definitely there. I mean we have

17 to go forward with what we're doing today. I think this

18 is a vital public health issue that needs to be addressed.

19 I was concerned about the sell-through period.

20 And if we allowed that longer period, that nine-month

21 period, there's a possibility that a manufacturer knowing

22 that he will not certify could game the system by bringing

23 it in late and then getting an additional nine months

24 after that, which concerns me.

25 So I think a 60-day sell-through would be I think

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

1671 an appropriate number and I would support that, Madam

2 Chair.

3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I actually don't

4 favor a sell-through at all. I think these manufacturers

5 know who they are. They're marketing their product as

6 being beneficial because of ozone. So I'm uncomfortable

7 with the sell-through. But if the best we can do is a

8 rolling period with 60 days, I would be willing to support

9 that.

10 I'd also like to associate myself with some of

11 the comments that Supervisor Roberts made earlier

12 regarding continuing concerns about what we are allowing.

13 And would just like to ask staff what an appropriate

14 period of time would be for them to come back to us with a

15 review on the standard that we have and whether or not it

16 would be wise to consider additional changes at some

17 future time.

18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good suggestion.

19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Well, I've been really

20 struggling over some of the testimony and the fact that I

21 am very strongly in support of a regulation. And I really

22 appreciate staff's conclusions that they just gave us,

23 because it's really helped me be able to put things in

24 perspective.

25 As a manufacturer, I can tell you that a 60-day

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

168

1 sell-through period is like having no sell-through period,2 because it doesn't account for any seasonality and the

3 fact that this isn't a product like a consumable that is

4 used everyday. And so a 60-day sell-through period would

5 be equivalent to a no sell-through period.

6 So I would like to -- I would feel remiss as a

7 business person if I didn't bring that observation to the

8 table.

9 But with staff's reviewing of the protocol with

10 the additional ventilation, I'm comfortable to support

11 this regulation.

12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, okay. We have a

13 couple of questions then that we have to kind of reach

14 closure on, I think.

15 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Could I add one to the --

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Go ahead.

17 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: -- and maybe I'm confused

18 about.

19 The sell-through is for equipment that doesn't

20 meet the standard.

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Correct.

22 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: How do you have a rolling

23 test? I mean you may have a whole different model and you

24 may have inventory that doesn't meet the standard.

25 There's not a relationship necessarily between them. And

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

169

1 maybe staff can -- I mean I'm kind of confused as to how2 this would work in the way it's shaping up here.

3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Maybe I should explain what

4 my concept was or maybe --

5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, there

6 isn't any rolling period for the sell-through.

7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: No, my comment had been if

8 somebody tried to certify a device and it didn't make it,

9 then you'd give them a short window of time to get rid of

10 that product so they didn't just have to destroy them.

11 That was -- you know, or send them to China or whatever.

12 That was what I was thinking about.

13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: But they

14 would be certifying existing devices. And under the

15 current scheme, as of a certain date they could no longer

16 ship that device to California if it hadn't been

17 certified.

18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: But if it was sitting in a

19 warehouse somewhere or in somebody's store shelf --

20 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: -- yes, then

21 it continues to be -- right.

22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So that doesn't require a

23 sell -- you're saying that's not what you envisioned in

24 the sell-through.

25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: No, no,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

170

1 the -- the purpose for the sell-through was to not have to

2 go into the post-manufacturer process and retrieve the3 devices and get them shipped back and to have a set date

4 that said, "As of this date don't ship any noncertified

5 devices to California. You can't make any device after

6 this that's in your inventory and ship it to California."

7 So it's all how much trouble do you want in

8 terms -- how much effort do you want to have happen with

9 devices that were -- at the time they were manufactured

10 were legal got into the distribution system but we don't

11 want them sold anymore.

12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right.

13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: So a short

14 period puts pressure on that, but it adds protection to

15 the California consumers.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right.

17 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Madam Chair?

18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So we want that as short as

19 possible.

20 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: If I could though --

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes.

22 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: -- I think there's an

23 error in your assuming that there might be a test. There

24 might not be a test for a piece of equipment that is way

25 over the standard. So what the staff has done is

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

171

1 basically said, "Doesn't make any difference whether

2 it's" -- "and if you don't have it tested, this is going3 to be the cutoff." But, see, what they might be bringing

4 on line is some whole new model, and that's what that's

5 going to be tested. But I don't think anybody is going to

6 test something that's obviously over the standard. So it

7 doesn't -- you know, you're speaking of starting, you

8 know, the sell-through --

9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I understand what you're

10 saying.

11 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Okay?

12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I understand, yeah.

13 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: So I think what -- I think

14 the staff's got a handle on that. And I think we've -- at

15 least some of us I think have misinterpreted the way this

16 works from a practical standpoint.

17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Speaking for myself, that

18 was the case.

19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And when we

20 went through at the basic equity decision, I think the

21 Board has to decide is -- we have 80 or 85 percent of the

22 devices we believe will pass the tests and be certified or

23 will be modified to some extent. We don't want those

24 devices to be kept out of the hands of Californians

25 because we didn't allow enough time. On the other hand,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

172

1 while those devices are getting certified, devices that

2 are creating too much ozone and would never get certified

3 are still coming into the system. So the public is not4 protected from those. And you have to figure out where

5 the equity lies in protecting the public in the best

6 possible time frame versus allowing manufactures of

7 devices that will be certified a fair chance of moving

8 through the system.

9 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: If you could go back to

10 the original question I asked, is that -- I'm not sure

11 what the staff's original recommendation might have been

12 before you, in a compromising spirit, got to the

13 nine months. Because I hear any colleague from the other

14 end saying, well, 60 days may not be anything in the

15 manufacturing process. And yet we want this stuff -- we

16 want to cut off the sales at an early date. I'm still not

17 convinced that we need to have a period. I'm not sure

18 if we have --

19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And, Supervisor Roberts, I

20 think that would have been my conclusion, the fact that 60

21 days really is the same as making it effective the day, as

22 far as I'm concerned.

23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And just don't have the

24 nine months at all, nor any other period of time. That

25 would be the suggestion.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

173

1 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: After a certain point

2 you're either certified or you're not selling it.

3 BOARD MEMBER BERG: The problem that we would be4 put -- the people we would be putting in jeopardy though

5 would be the retailer. Because unless they're getting

6 good information from their supplier, they could have at

7 the time that -- the day the rule was effective they could

8 have inventory in their stores or in the supply chain that

9 in fact was out of compliance, and there's nothing they

10 could do with it. My guess is that they would be the ones

11 that would suffer the economic loss on that.

12 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: But that can happen even

13 if you had a sell-through period, as you know. I mean

14 some retailer could still get --

15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Whatever it is. There's

16 going to be stores out there that have old uncertified

17 product around and they're going to find a way to get rid

18 of it somehow, presumably at a fire sale, or take the

19 chance that an inspector is going to come around and catch

20 them with illegal product.

21 BOARD MEMBER HILL: I would actually change my

22 support for the sell-through period to no sell-through

23 period. I think that that's appropriate. The two years

24 is enough. People will know, manufacturers will know.

25 Most of the marketing that's done is not through a retail

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

174

1 outlet or store. I think it's, you know, sell and order

2 and deliver. And I think that's probably an appropriate

3 way of doing it. So I would --

4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, maybe we need to put5 a resolution forward.

6 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Madam Chair, maybe one other

7 piece that -- and I can hear the argument for not having

8 these items. However, I have heard a lot of testimony

9 from people who really believe it's been helpful who may

10 go out and buy a second unit because, in their experience,

11 they really believe that wholeheartedly, and I don't want

12 to deny their experience. And there are other markets

13 other than California if somebody so chooses to use them.

14 What my question would be is -- if we go down

15 that path, it's really the concern for the end retailer,

16 who might end up with an inventory that's not involved in

17 testing, that has nothing to do with manufacturing. But

18 they've been selling a product so they bring in inventory.

19 They pay for it. And what will be our process and how

20 many of those folks will there be if we go through this

21 process to make sure retailers know, if they purchase

22 something and it's not certified, they end up on the hook?

23 And that's where you have a period of time in which you

24 could have somebody paying for something without having

25 any knowledge there's going to be a problem.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

175

1 And the retailer's in a little different seat

2 than your end user, because your end user, we're not going

3 to go into their home and take their purifier away. We're

4 just going to not certify it. But for the guy or gal5 that's the retailer, they could have a substantial cost.

6 So if we're going to go that route, how do we do

7 outreach to the potential retailers so they're not the

8 ones caught in the interim?

9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That's a good question

10 about how we're going to get the word out about this. I

11 was thinking with respect to the businesses that sell this

12 equipment, assuming that they're on the shelf somewhere,

13 you know, Costco or whatever. I would imagine that the

14 manufacturers of devices that are going to be certified or

15 are likely to be certified are going to do a very good job

16 of getting the word out as to the new rules and the need

17 to stock products that are certified. But I can't speak

18 for the ones that aren't going to make it and what's going

19 to happen with them.

20 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And our past

21 experience has been getting word out to tens of thousands

22 of retail outlets is a very difficult operation. So most

23 of the rules that we've done have tried to accomplish this

24 by having a sell-through period where things that have

25 passed to the retail, having that be long enough so the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

176

1 vast majority of the merchandise is sold in that time

2 frame normally.

3 So I can't -- if we go this way, we will have to

4 work with the manufacturers, which I think will be

5 incented to certify early, and that will be a good thing,6 and get certified products out well before it's required.

7 And the downside will be we'll be dealing with retailers

8 and others that have little knowledge of the situation

9 they're facing and have some enforcement cases we'd rather

10 not have.

11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Or deal with it through

12 some sort of an enforcement policy, which is always

13 possible.

14 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: That's

15 correct. And it might be a situation where there wasn't a

16 large fine in the first few months, but they will have to

17 stop selling their inventory and return it, which could be

18 a pretty significant economic impact on some.

19 BOARD MEMBER CASE: And the other question that's

20 out there is how would that be enforced. Because your

21 comment was it allowed a period of time for inventory to

22 move through the system. If it's a date certain, what's

23 the enforcement piece that goes on and how many people do

24 we have to go out to how many -- it all depends on the

25 distribution model. If it's a lot of distributors or

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

177

1 retailers, then it's an overwhelming task. So what would

2 be the responsibility on the part of the Air Resources

3 Board to go out and collect these pieces of equipment? Or

4 do we put people in a position where unknowingly they're

5 going to sell it anyhow because they don't know the6 difference?

7 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well,

8 in the latter point of course is to try to get the

9 information out to various retailers as well as the

10 manufacturers about what the rules are. And we do try to

11 do that with mailings and Internet. And I'm not saying

12 that there won't be somebody who is, you know, blind to

13 what was going on. But we do try to do that.

14 And then once the rules are in place and the sale

15 date plus whatever pass-through period there is, if any,

16 at that point we just go out and go shopping. And we do

17 that on a random basis. We don't go everywhere. But we

18 do it with a deterrent effect, because when somebody does

19 get caught with product that should have not been being

20 offered for sale, they end up paying a penalty. And we've

21 done this with consumer products in the past where there

22 has been a sell-through period. But at the end of the

23 sell-through period we -- if you find it on the shelf and

24 it's past that date, then they're in violation and they

25 pay a fine. So that's kind of the way it's worked in the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

178

1 past and would work similar here.

2 But largely, you know, we're not going to have a

3 sweep or anything like that. It's going to be a spot and

4 deterrent type of an approach.

5 MR. JAKOBER: I'd like to add to that, if I

6 could.7 There is a stipulation in the regulation

8 currently -- of the proposed regulation that says that the

9 manufacturers are required to notify their distribution

10 chain within one year of the effective date of the

11 regulation and provide them a copy of the approved

12 regulation. So if we were to approve the two-month

13 manufacture date, their distribution chain would have

14 effectively one year's notice of that date of action.

15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay.

16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Madam Chair?

17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Excuse me.

18 Ms. D'Adamo.

19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Would you be prepared to

20 entertain a motion?

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I am definitely prepared at

22 this time.

23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: At almost 2:30 here on

24 this one.

25 Okay. I would --

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

179

1 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: If I could interject for

2 a moment.

3 I think before the motion is made it would be

4 appropriate to take ex parte disclosures.

5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Oh, we always do that at

6 some point, right?7 Okay. We can do it before.

8 Well, let's just go down the line starting with

9 Ms. Berg then.

10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Yes, I had a meeting at the

11 CARB El Monte facility with EcoQuest. That included Bob

12 Naylor, Allen Johnston -- they were present at the

13 meeting -- and Dr. James Mardston on the phone.

14 Thank you.

15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: On September 20th I

16 participated in a conference call with Bob Brickman and

17 Greg Montoya representing California Consumers for Freedom

18 of Choice.

19 BOARD MEMBER HILL: On September 18th a meeting

20 with EcoQuest in Redwood City. Bob Naylor and Allen

21 Johnston in person and Dr. James Mardston on the

22 conference call.

23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: On September 24th I had two

24 conference calls: One of them with Greg Montoya and Bob

25 Brickman of Consumers for Freedom of Choice; and one with

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

180

1 Bob Naylor, Jim Mardston, and Allen Johnston of EcoQuest.

2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I had a conference call on

3 September 17th with Bob Naylor, Allen Johnston, and Dr.

4 James Mardston.

5 BOARD MEMBER CASE: On September 24th I had a

6 conference call with Bob Brickman and Greg Montoya

7 representing California Consumers for Freedom of Choice.8 And the testimony was pretty much what we heard today.

9 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Same people, different

10 time, September 14th.

11 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I have no ex parte.

12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Well, then let's go

13 to the resolution.

14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes, Madam Chair, I move

15 approval of Resolution 07-40 with the following changes:

16 First of all, striking the sell-through provision; and

17 then secondly requiring that the staff report back to the

18 Board. My suggestion would be one year after the

19 conclusion of the certification period.

20 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I'll second that motion.

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. Any further

22 discussion?

23 Are we prepared to do this on a voice vote?

24 All right. All in favor say aye.

25 (Ayes.)

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

181

1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Any opposed?

2 Very good. Thank you very much.

3 All right. We'll give ourselves about two

4 minutes to stretch and change the teams and then we're

5 going to move on immediately to the SIP issues.

6 (Thereupon a recess was taken.)

7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right, ladies and8 gentlemen. The next two items on the agenda are Nos.

9 07-7-7 and 07-9-4.

10 The first is consideration of the proposed state

11 strategy for the California State Implementation Plan,

12 otherwise known as the SIP, for the federal 8-hour ozone

13 and fine particle standards, PM2.5. This item is

14 continued from the June 22nd, 2007, Board meeting.

15 The second is consideration of the 2007 Air

16 Quality Management Plan for attaining the federal 8-hour

17 ozone and PM2.5 standards in the South Coast air basin and

18 the Coachella Valley.

19 Because the South Coast plan is so dependent on

20 the statewide strategy, staff will present these items

21 together.

22 Last week, Supervisor Roy Wilson, representing

23 the South Coast Air District, and I held a press

24 conference to make the point that clean air in this region

25 requires the coordinated efforts of our two agencies.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

182

1 On my return to the Board in July, I directed

2 staff to roll up their sleeves and together with air

3 district's staff map out a path that would meet the goals

4 of the district's adopted Air Quality Management Plan. I

5 am pleased with the results of that process.

6 I need to correct my statement there actually.

7 Supervisor Wilson was not available when we did the press.

8 We met together. But in the end it was Executive Officer9 Barry Wallerstein and I who talked to the press.

10 In a parallel effort staff, has revisited the

11 June proposal and worked hard to identify ways to

12 strengthen the state strategy as it applies to the San

13 Joaquin Valley. As part of the Board's approval of the

14 San Joaquin Valley ozone SIP at the June hearing in

15 Fresno, staff was directed to convene a public process in

16 response to the very well expressed and well heard public

17 concern about the rate of clean air progress in the San

18 Joaquin Valley. And I'm pleased to hear that the revised

19 staff proposal for the statewide SIP strategy is going to

20 provide some substantial new benefits to the valley.

21 Since the state strategy portion of this item is

22 a continuation of the Board's June hearing, copies of the

23 June Board presentation have been provided for the public

24 and Board members, including myself since I wasn't there.

25 So today's presentation is going to focus on what's new in

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

183

1 this proposal since that hearing.

2 I'm now going to ask Mr. Cackette, our Acting

3 Executive Officer, to introduce these items.

4 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Just

5 very quickly, the --

6 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Madam Chairwoman, could I

7 interrupt you for one moment?

8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, you could.9 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Because I along with

10 perhaps you and I don't know who else were -- I was not at

11 that June meeting. And I just wanted to set the record

12 straight that in late August I was given a transcript of

13 that meeting and I have read every dreadful page.

14 (Laughter.)

15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. I was going to say

16 the same thing at some point. So I was trying not to

17 remind myself about it.

18 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: So I am eligible to

19 participate.

20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

21 Anybody else want to disclose their reading

22 habits here?

23 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I also have read the

24 transcript.

25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And the rest of you I think

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

184

1 were there. So, yes, you had the experience.

2 All right. Mr. Cackette.

3 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: All

4 right. So the proposed 2007 SIP is the first plan

5 designed to show how California will meet the new federal

6 8-hour ozone standard. And the proposed strategy also

7 provides the emission reductions needed for the PM2.5

8 attainment in the South Coast and is expected to be

9 necessary also for the San Joaquin Valley.10 It tackles our biggest mobile source challenge;

11 and that's the legacy fleet of diesel vehicles and

12 equipment. The strengthening measures staff will propose

13 today build upon your historic adoption of the off-road

14 equipment rule in July with its targeted incentive

15 overlay, which we called SOON, to increase reductions in

16 the South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley. The

17 strengthened measures will be even tougher to develop and

18 implement. It will take the combined efforts of the

19 local, state, and federal governments in concert with

20 California businesses to meet these extremely ambitious

21 goals.

22 With that, I'll ask Kurt Karperos, Chief of the

23 Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch, to make

24 the staff's presentation.

25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

185

1 And I trust you're going to look to make it as

2 succinct as possible.

3 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

4 presented as follows.)

5 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

6 CHIEF KARPEROS: Yes, we will.

7 Thank you, Mr. Cackette; good afternoon, Chairman

8 Nichols and members of the Board. It's my pleasure today

9 to present for your consideration the revised proposal for10 the state strategy for the 2007 California SIP, along with

11 staff's review of the South Coast Air District's local SIP

12 element.

13 The proposed state strategy is the key emission

14 reduction ingredient needed for California to meet federal

15 air quality standards.

16 --o0o--

17 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

18 CHIEF KARPEROS: At two Board meetings in June of this

19 year, the air quality challenges of meeting the federal

20 PM2.5 standard in the South Coast and the federal 8-hour

21 ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley and the South

22 Coast were discussed at length. At both meetings the

23 Board determined that there was still more work to be done

24 to sufficiently meet these challenges and directed staff

25 to collaborate with the respective air districts and other

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

186

1 stakeholders to reach higher to achieve our air quality

2 goals. The result of our collaborative efforts since June

3 are to strengthen staff's proposal that identifies

4 additional NOx reductions to meet the South Coast Air

5 District's PM2.5 target and new emission reductions to

6 help the San Joaquin Valley accelerate ozone air quality

7 progress.

8 --o0o--

9 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

10 CHIEF KARPEROS: The strengthened SIP proposal builds on11 the measures and actions contained in staff's April

12 proposal that we presented to you in June.

13 The staff presentation from June is in your

14 folders, as you referred to. And copies of the -- are

15 available for the public from the Board secretary.

16 My presentation today focuses on the

17 strengthening elements.

18 The proposed enhancements to the SIP are the

19 outcome of a team effort of ARB, the South Coast Air

20 District, the Southern California Association of

21 Governments, and the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Task

22 Force and our other clean air stakeholders. The proposed

23 new actions are a blend of regulations and incentives

24 working hand in hand to maximize emission reductions to

25 meet our air quality goals.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

187

1 --o0o--

2 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

3 CHIEF KARPEROS: I'll now summarize the measures and

4 actions proposed to achieve the additional reductions

5 needed to meet the South Coast District's PM2.5 target.

6 --o0o--

7 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

8 CHIEF KARPEROS: But first I'd like to show you a slide

9 from the June Board meeting that illustrates the progress

10 we've made already towards meeting the annual average11 PM2.5 standard. The dotted red line is the standard at 15

12 micrograms per cubic meter. In 2001, the annual average

13 was 30.1, double the standard. Over the last five years,

14 PM2.5 levels have dropped steadily, almost two-thirds of

15 the way to the standard, and population exposure is down

16 by two-thirds. Much lower NOx emissions due to ARB's

17 existing control program are the main reason for the

18 progress. And the existing control program will serve as

19 the foundation of our efforts going forward.

20 --o0o--

21 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

22 CHIEF KARPEROS: At the June 22nd Board meeting, staff

23 described the PM2.5 challenge in the South Coast air

24 basin, the need to achieve an additional 74 tons per day

25 of NOx emission reductions beyond what the June proposal

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

188

1 would deliver to reach the 2014 target established by the

2 South Coast Air District.

3 --o0o--

4 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

5 CHIEF KARPEROS: Since June, ARB and district staffs have

6 worked closely delving into proposed measures and

7 exploring new actions to achieve the additional emission

8 reductions targeted for 2014 and collaborating on a staff

9 level recommendation.

10 On September 14, a Board level team of district,

11 ARB, and Southern California Association of Governments12 reached consensus on a package of actions that would

13 achieve the district's 74 ton per day NOx reduction

14 target.

15 --o0o--

16 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

17 CHIEF KARPEROS: This table shows the proposed additional

18 actions to meet that target. It was very clear from the

19 presentations, discussion, and testimony at the June 22nd

20 Board meeting that reducing the additional emissions

21 necessary to meet the PM2.5 target would be a difficult

22 challenge. This new proposal will require ARB and the

23 district to exercise the full extent of their regulatory

24 authority and will necessitate the effective use of all

25 available air quality funds and acquisition of

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

189

1 supplementary funds. And federal and local governments

2 have a role as well.

3 In the upcoming slides, I will briefly describe

4 each of the proposed additional actions.

5 --o0o--

6 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

7 CHIEF KARPEROS: ARB's additional emission reductions will

8 come mainly from enhancing its heavy-duty truck measure

9 with large reductions from both private truck fleets and

10 port trucks. The emissions impact of the enhanced measure

11 would be the equivalent to having all model year 2006 and12 older trucks meet model year 2007 emission levels by 2014.

13 This would reduce an additional 27 tons per day of NOx in

14 the South Coast in 2014 beyond the reductions from the

15 diesel trucks envisioned in ARB staff's April 2007 and

16 proposed state strategy. The specific approach for

17 achieving the reductions would be developed during the

18 rulemaking process.

19 We recognize that additional air quality

20 incentive funds will be needed to enhance truck measure --

21 make the enhanced truck measure work. We are expecting

22 the Proposition 1B funds, directed at reducing goods

23 movement emissions, will help further clean up of port

24 trucks. But additional resources will also be needed to

25 more quickly clean up diesel truck fleets.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

190

1 ARB staff's proposal also includes reductions

2 from the co-benefits of ARB's early action measures plus

3 other actions within the state to mitigate climate change

4 emissions from mobile and stationary sources in

5 California. When engines and equipment are made more

6 efficient to reduce greenhouse gases, some criteria

7 pollutant emissions are reduced as well. Staff estimates

8 that greenhouse gas reduction measures would reduce about

9 three tons per day of NOx in the South Coast by 2014.

10 --o0o--

11 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

12 CHIEF KARPEROS: The South Coast District is committing to13 achieve additional emission reductions through a

14 combination of rulemaking and targeted use of incentive

15 funds. The district has already adopted a commitment to

16 develop a rule to reduce direct PM emissions from

17 residential wood burning and commercial cooking. Targeted

18 use of incentive funds would enhance ARB rulemaking

19 covering construction equipment through the surplus

20 off-road opt-in for NOx, or SOON, program. The district

21 is indicating it will use $120 million of its Carl Moyer

22 program to fund this program.

23 Retrofitting the Metrolink fleet with selective

24 catalytic reduction technology would achieve 85 percent

25 control of NOx emissions. The district estimates it would

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

191

1 take about 15 million to retrofit 50 trains.

2 Additional reductions from port-related sources

3 and other sources would be achieved through incentive

4 funding that would enhance ARB regulations.

5 ARB staff is committed to working with the

6 district to help secure funding to achieve the six ton per

7 day reduction from the port-related and other sources and

8 from the Metrolink trains. Staff also proposes that ARB

9 commit to back-stop the six ton per day reduction from

10 these two district actions, meaning that we would achieve

11 the reductions if the measures fell short.

12 Credit for an additional three tons per day of13 NOx reductions can also be taken for Carl Moyer program

14 projects already funded by the district but not previously

15 included in ARB or the district's SIP accounting. These

16 measures together would reduce the equivalent of 32 tons

17 per day of NOx in 2014.

18 --o0o--

19 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

20 CHIEF KARPEROS: Since 1990, a four dollar per vehicle

21 surcharge had been levied on annual registration fees to

22 fund the implementation of programs to reduce air

23 pollution from motor vehicles. Under this program, 40

24 cents of every dollar collected by the Department of Motor

25 Vehicles flows to cities and counties located in the South

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

192

1 Coast District to reduce motor vehicle air pollution.

2 Currently, cities and counties receive

3 approximately $19 million per year and have expended those

4 funds on a wide range of projects. About half of the

5 funds have been spent on regulatory compliance, the rest

6 on programs whose emission reductions are not directly SIP

7 quantifiable. In recognizing the health crisis this

8 region is facing, this faction proposes that local

9 government maximize the emissions reductions associated

10 with the implementation of mobile source emission

11 reduction programs by selecting the most cost-effective

12 SIP-quantifiable projects first. A four ton per day

13 target for this action represents about 40 percent of the14 funds under city and county control used for projects

15 achieving cost effectiveness similar to the Carl Moyer

16 program.

17 The South Coast Mobile Source Air Pollution

18 Reduction Review Committee also receives a portion of the

19 region's motor vehicle registration fees. SIP credit

20 could be taken for projects funded through this program

21 that achieve surplus emission reductions.

22 The state's ability to reduce emissions from

23 locomotives is impacted by jurisdictional issues and the

24 availability of clean engines to meet the lowest emission

25 standards. U.S. EPA, by virtue of its authority to

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

193

1 establish locomotive engine emission standards, holds the

2 key to the introduction of the cleanest engines needed to

3 meet federal air quality standards in California. ARB and

4 the district cannot make up the reductions where

5 California is preempted by federal law. And the PM2.5

6 targets in the attainment deadline make it necessary to

7 further mitigate locomotive emissions in 2014.

8 The ten tons per bay target for this action is

9 equivalent to the emission reductions that would have been

10 achieved had U.S. EPA adopted its Tier 4 NOx locomotive

11 standard in time for the state to convert all locomotives

12 operating in the basin to Tier 4 by 2014.

13 The combination of these actions would reduce NOx14 emissions in the South Coast by 17 tons per day in 2014.

15 All actions together with ARB, the district,

16 local cities and counties and the federal government all

17 doing their part would produce 76 tons per day of NOx

18 emissions in 2014 and meet the district's PM2.5 emission

19 reduction target.

20 --o0o--

21 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

22 CHIEF KARPEROS: In total, the state strategy of adopted

23 state and local measures, proposed new measures, and the

24 additional actions proposed today would reduce emissions

25 at an unprecedented rate, over 500 tons of NOx reduced in

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

194

1 just eight years, a 55 percent reduction. That's more

2 than double the rate of any ten year period before.

3 --o0o--

4 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

5 CHIEF KARPEROS: As was talked about in June, even with

6 the tremendous progress from now until 2023, additional

7 emission reductions from new technologies are needed to

8 meet the ozone target. ARB, the Southern California

9 Association of Governments, and the district are committed

10 to working together to develop a white paper mapping out a

11 process for exploring potential strategies for fulfilling

12 the long-term measures commitment and for meeting future

13 ambient air quality standards. The paper would discuss

14 new or transformative strategies such as state of15 technology zero and near-zero transportation systems,

16 other mechanisms such as fee-based incentives, and

17 availability of public funding.

18 --o0o--

19 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

20 CHIEF KARPEROS: Let me shift now to the San Joaquin

21 Valley.

22 At the June 14th Board meeting in Fresno you

23 directed staff to redouble its efforts to identify what

24 additional actions could be taken to speed up ozone

25 improvement in the valley. You directed staff to review

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

195

1 emission reduction concepts in the report issued by the

2 International Sustainable Systems Research Center, or

3 ISSRC, to hold town hall meetings and to set up a task

4 force to look into emission reduction opportunities and to

5 improve communication within the valley.

6 --o0o--

7 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

8 CHIEF KARPEROS: To date we've held two town hall

9 meetings, in Parlier and Arvin, where we listened and

10 responded to the concerns and questions of valley

11 residents. We have a third town hall meeting scheduled in

12 Merced on the evening of November 7th.

13 The task force has met three times so far,

14 focusing first primarily on mobile source strategies.15 Additional meetings are schedule for October 29 and

16 November 7th. Board Members D'Adamo and Case have hosted

17 each of the town hall and task force meetings.

18 --o0o--

19 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

20 CHIEF KARPEROS: Our efforts so far have led to today's

21 enhanced proposal for mobile source measures. Staff will

22 continue to evaluate opportunities for the Valley Air

23 District to secure additional reductions from sources

24 under its regulatory authority. We are reviewing the

25 concepts included in the ISSRC report as well as

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

196

1 independently reviewing the valleys stationary source

2 emissions inventory, the current level of control, and

3 potential emission control technology. In November, we

4 will report to you our conclusions.

5 If you approve the proposed statewide strategy

6 today, that would complete the mobile source element of

7 the valley SIP. Although you approved the local valley

8 SIP elements at the June 14 meeting, staff proposes not to

9 submit the stationary source element to U.S. EPA until

10 after our report back to you in November. In the interim,

11 we would forward the completed mobile element of the SIP

12 so that U.S. EPA can begin processing the transportation

13 conformity budgets. This will allow U.S. EPA to complete

14 its assessment of the budgets in time for them to quickly

15 find the budgets adequate early next year once the16 reminder of the SIP is submitted.

17 --o0o--

18 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

19 CHIEF KARPEROS: Today's enhanced proposal includes three

20 main actions to reduce mobile sources emissions in the

21 valley:

22 First, the valley could achieve additional

23 emission reductions by choosing to opt into the SOON

24 program included in the construction equipment rule. ARB

25 staff is working with the Valley Air District to find

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

197

1 incentive funds to support the enhanced program.

2 Second, today's proposal includes the

3 strengthened measure for on-road trucks, which would

4 achieve 17 tons per day additional NOx emission reductions

5 in the valley in 2017.

6 Finally, staff has quantified an emission

7 reduction target for mobile agricultural equipment. A

8 mobile agricultural equipment measure was part of staff's

9 prior proposal. However, we had not yet quantified the

10 expected reductions.

11 The goal of this measure is to accelerate fleet

12 turnover to equipment with engines meeting cleaner

13 new-engine NOx standards as quickly as possible.

14 Unfortunately, the cleanest engines, called Tier 4

15 engines, in the most critical sizes are not required under16 U.S. EPA's off-road regulation until 2015. We recognizing

17 that significant reductions can be achieved sooner by

18 upgrading the dirtiest old equipment to equipment with

19 Tier 3 engines. So that end we are supporting efforts to

20 secure federal funds and other mechanisms to achieve

21 near-term reductions that can be credited to the SIP.

22 --o0o--

23 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

24 CHIEF KARPEROS: This slide summarizes the emission

25 reductions in the valley from the enhancements proposed

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

198

1 today. An additional 26 to 31 tons per day of NOx

2 reductions in 2017 beyond what was included in the valley

3 SIP approved in June. The proposed enhancements target

4 2017 emission reductions to support accelerated ozone

5 improvement.

6 Again, the final task force meetings we have

7 scheduled will address local actions that can be taken to

8 enhance the valley's ozone SIP. And we will report back

9 to you in November on the outcome of that effort.

10 Together, the measures already in the proposed

11 state strategy plus the strengthened measures proposed

12 today will improve valley air quality by 90 percent by

13 2018 measured against the federal ozone standard.

14 --o0o--

15 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

16 CHIEF KARPEROS: Now let's turn to the second SIP item17 before you today, the 2007 ozone and PM2.5 plans for the

18 South Coast.

19 The South Coast air basin covers over 6800 square

20 miles and is home to over 16 million Californians. It is

21 also home to the state's highest ozone and PM2.5 levels,

22 despite aggressive state and local control programs.

23 --o0o--

24 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

25 CHIEF KARPEROS: The region's ozone design value -- it's

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

199

1 called design value because it's the ozone level the plan

2 is designed to bring down to the standard -- is 0.129

3 parts per million, about 50 percent above the standard.

4 The standard is exceeded somewhere in the basin an average

5 of 85 days per year. The monitor measuring the most ozone

6 in the basin is located in Crestline. Ozone levels at

7 Crestline have exceeded the federal standard an average of

8 65 days in the past three years.

9 U.S. EPA classified the South Coast as a severe

10 17 ozone non-attainment area. This classification has a

11 2021 deadline for attaining the standard. The district

12 has requested a reclassification to "extreme." This would

13 extend the attainment deadline to 2024 and allows us to

14 count on advances in technology to provide some of the

15 reductions needed for attainment.

16 The South Coast was first classified as extreme17 in 1990 for the one-hour standard. And the district

18 permit rules already reflect the "extreme" classification.

19 The South Coast air basin is also one of two

20 areas in the state that violates the federal PM2.5

21 standard. The current basin annual average exceeds the 15

22 micrograms per cubic meter standard by almost 40 percent.

23 The Clean Air Act allows one five-year extension

24 of the 2010 PM2.5 deadline. Staff recommends that you

25 concur with district's request for this extension.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

200

1 Because attainment is measured by calendar year and the

2 statutory deadline falls midyear, the controls needed for

3 attainment must be in effect in 2014.

4 As you know, the bulk of PM2.5 forming emissions

5 in the South Coast come from sources primarily under state

6 and federal control. The strengthening of the statewide

7 strategy we've discussed earlier will result in the

8 reductions needed to meet the emission reduction target

9 the district established for the PM2.5 standard.

10 --o0o--

11 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

12 CHIEF KARPEROS: First let me review the SIP development

13 rules the state law assigns to the district, ARB, and the

14 Southern California Association of Governments.

15 The district conducted the air quality modeling

16 used in this plan. State law specifically directs the

17 South Coast District to establish the emission reduction18 targets for its region. SCAG provides the transportation

19 activity and overall regional growth projections used in

20 the plan. Although the law directs the district to

21 establish the emission targets, it specifies that each

22 agency is to determine the controls it will use to reduce

23 emissions.

24 And, finally, ARB has the responsibility to

25 review the plan adopted by the district and determine

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

201

1 whether it should be submitted to the U.S. EPA for

2 inclusion in California's SIP.

3 --o0o--

4 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

5 CHIEF KARPEROS: Here are the attainment targets that the

6 district established for meeting if 8-hour ozone standard.

7 The graph compares current emission levels to the levels

8 the district has determined must be met to attain the

9 standard. As you can see, we have a long ways to go. We

10 will need to reduce NOx emissions by about 90 percent from

11 current levels and emissions of reactive organic gases by

12 almost 45 percent. We will need to do so despite growth

13 in population, vehicle use, and a projected doubling or

14 tripling in goods coming through the ports and the

15 associated trucks and trains. It will take aggressive

16 actions now plus new emission reduction technologies in

17 the future to reach the ozone targets.18 --o0o--

19 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

20 CHIEF KARPEROS: The controls that ARB and the district

21 have already adopted will provide over half of the NOx

22 emission reductions needed between now and 2023. The

23 state strategy and the local plan you are considering

24 today will provide another 18 percent, over one-third of

25 the remaining reductions. That leaves 27 percent of the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

202

1 reductions to be achieved by advanced technologies which

2 have to be developed before 2023.

3 While most of the needed reductions are already

4 in place or identified, the three-agency white paper for

5 an advanced technology identification process that I spoke

6 about earlier is absolutely critical.

7 --o0o--

8 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

9 CHIEF KARPEROS: The district's PM2.5 targets are equally

10 challenging, if only because we have less than seven years

11 to meet them. To get the 55 percent reduction in NOx, the

12 proposed state strategy includes aggressive measures to

13 reduce emissions from trucks, off-road equipment, and

14 ships. Local stationary source measures plus state

15 measures to reduce evaporative emissions and emissions

16 from consumer products will get the 35 percent ROG

17 reductions.

18 In 2014 ships will account for over two-thirds of19 the SOX emissions in the air basin. The state strategy

20 proposes significant ship measures to cut emissions from

21 main and auxiliary engines.

22 Direct PM2.5 emission reductions will come from

23 ARB truck and ship measures. And the plan approved by the

24 district board also includes a measure to reduce emissions

25 from fireplaces that the district has strengthened

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

203

1 significantly.

2 Appendix B of our staff report on the South Coast

3 plan provides ARB staff's detailed analysis of PM2.5 air

4 quality and emission trends in the South Coast air basin

5 and what those trends imply for PM2.5 levels in the

6 future. Our analysis is a bit more optimistic than the

7 district's modeling and indicates the area we'll be able

8 to attain before we reach the emission reduction targets

9 set by the district. Nevertheless, today's proposal meets

10 the district's targets.

11 --o0o--

12 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

13 CHIEF KARPEROS: This pie chart shows the PM2.5 air

14 quality improvement that each level of government will be

15 contributing under today's proposal. It incorporates each

16 precursor's relative contribution to the district's

17 attainment demonstration. According to the pollutant

18 waiting factors, one ton of NOx reductions eliminate three19 times the amount of PM2.5 as one ton ROG reductions and so

20 forth.

21 With your approval of the proposed state strategy

22 and the local plan, the state and the air district will be

23 providing the bulk of the solution.

24 --o0o--

25 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

204

1 CHIEF KARPEROS: The South Coast District plan also

2 includes forward-looking measures to contribute to both

3 PM2.5 and ozone attainment. The district wanted to take a

4 comprehensive program to bring older stationary source

5 equipment up to date just we will be focusing on the

6 legacy fleet of mobile sources.

7 The district will also be looking at ways to

8 locally enhance the impact of state control programs such

9 as consumer product resolutions. The district is looking

10 to the San Joaquin Valley's mitigation program for new

11 residential development as a model for new emission

12 reduction opportunities. And as we mentioned earlier, the

13 district is developing relations to reduce emissions from

14 residential fireplaces.

15 The district's plan also includes long-term

16 measures for which emission reductions have yet been

17 quantified.

18 --o0o--

19 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH20 CHIEF KARPEROS: The locally adopted plan includes a

21 back-stop measure for port-related emission reductions.

22 The back-stop measure references emission targets that

23 would serve as a trigger for the measure. Staff's

24 understanding is that the district did not intend the

25 specific targets in the AQMP to be enforceable SIP

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

205

1 commitments. For that reason our September 21 staff

2 report recommends that the targets and measure not be

3 submitted to the SIP. We have since clarified with

4 district staff that while the targets would not be

5 submitted as enforceable commitments, the district does

6 expect that the commitment to adopt a back-stop measure

7 would be submitted.

8 Specifically, the commitment that would be

9 submitted is for a measure for criteria pollutants and

10 does not include an emission reduction commitment. This

11 clarification has been provided for public review and

12 Board members. As with ARB measure concepts, the details

13 will be developed during the rulemaking -- the rule

14 development process. This includes a reevaluation of the

15 current emission targets in the AQMP.

16 --o0o--

17 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

18 CHIEF KARPEROS: The South Coast Air Quality Management

19 District has jurisdictional authority over the Coachella20 Valley, which is outside of the South Coast air basin.

21 And the district plan covers that area. Technically, the

22 Coachella Valley is the Riverside County portion of the

23 Salton Sea air basin, or simply it's the Palm

24 Springs/Indio area and the surrounding desert.

25 The short story is that the Coachella Valley's

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

206

1 impacted by emissions carried out of the South Coast air

2 basin, and Coachella Valley attainment is tied to emission

3 reductions in the South Coast.

4 U.S. EPA classified the valley as a serious

5 non-attainment area with a 2010 attainment deadline. The

6 district's modeling indicates that more time is needed,

7 and the district has requested a bump up to the next

8 highest classification, "Severe 15." This would result in

9 a 2019 attainment date for the Coachella Valley.

10 --o0o--

11 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

12 CHIEF KARPEROS: Beyond ozone and PM2.5 attainment, the

13 locally adopted plan addresses other SIP requirements such

14 as demonstrating reasonable further progress, identifying

15 contingency measures, and reasonable available control

16 technology, or RACT, requirements. Staff has reviewed

17 these plan elements and has determined they meet federal

18 requirements. The district has also met its public

19 process requirements.

20 There is one outstanding element. Today's21 strengthened proposal necessitates changes to the adopted

22 conformity budgets that will call for a new 30-day public

23 comment period. District staff is now developing new

24 budgets, which they will notice for public review. We

25 expect to bring these budgets to you for inclusion in the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

207

1 SIP at your November meeting.

2 --o0o--

3 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

4 CHIEF KARPEROS: This completes staff's review of the

5 local SIP elements.

6 --o0o--

7 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

8 CHIEF KARPEROS: If you approve the state strategy today,

9 your action is, first and foremost, a commitment to reduce

10 the emissions necessary to meet federal air quality

11 standards. The specifics of that commitment are

12 enforceable in federal court.

13 The proposed strategy contains three specific

14 commitments:

15 First, an enforceable commitment to achieve

16 aggregate emission reductions from all measures or other

17 actions by specific dates. The proposed commitment allows

18 the reductions from an individual measure, once adopted,

19 to differ from the reductions estimated in the plan. But

20 the commitment to achieve the total from all measures in21 each year remains. In the South Coast and San Joaquin

22 Valley, the dates are 2014, 2020, and 2023.

23 Today's enhanced proposal also recommends

24 additional commitments in the South Coast for 2014 to meet

25 the district's PM2.5 target. And it includes specific

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

208

1 commitments based on the enhanced measures in the San

2 Joaquin Valley in 2017 to help advance ozone air quality

3 progress.

4 Since staff released the proposed strengthened

5 measures last week, we have quantified the reductions from

6 all the measures in the state strategy for 2017 in the San

7 Joaquin Valley and included that in their proposed

8 commitment for 2017 as well.

9 The second commitment is a commitment that staff

10 will develop the measures in the strategy, and if they are

11 feasible, bring them to you for your consideration by

12 specific dates. I'll show you the proposed rulemaking

13 calendar at the end of my presentation.

14 Under the commitment, the state is not bound to

15 adopt every measure in the strategy. However, if a

16 measure is not adopted or does not get the estimated

17 reductions, offsetting reductions would have to come from

18 elsewhere.

19 And third, the final commitment, is when to

20 achieve the reductions needed for new technology for the

21 state's two extreme areas, the San Joaquin Valley and the22 South Coast.

23 --o0o--

24 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

25 CHIEF KARPEROS: I'll now go through staff's

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

209

1 recommendations for Board action.

2 --o0o--

3 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

4 CHIEF KARPEROS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the

5 proposed state strategy for California's 2007 SIP,

6 including the proposed enhanced commitments for South

7 Coast in 2014 and the San Joaquin Valley in 2017.

8 There are also two SIP administrative documents

9 recommended for adoption. California is required to

10 submit what is called an infrastructure SIP. It

11 demonstrates California's ability to implement, maintain,

12 and enforce federal air quality standards. This submittal

13 simply updates the comprehensive infrastructure SIP we did

14 in response to the Clean Air Act of 1970 and responds to

15 any required new elements.

16 California must also submit an intestate

17 transport SIP. It describes the potential for pollution

18 transported to other states and shows that California has

19 the needed programs in place to mitigate transport.

20 Both of these documents are just a few pages

21 long. They're Appendix B and Appendix C of the state22 strategy.

23 We recommend that you approve the South Coast

24 2007 PM2.5 and ozone plan. We recommend that you concur

25 with the reclassification request for the South Coast air

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

210

1 basin in Coachella Valley and the request for an extension

2 of the PM2.5 attainment date.

3 Finally, we recommend that you direct staff to

4 submit the plan with the revised state strategy to U.S.

5 EPA as a revision to the California State Implementation

6 Plan.

7 --o0o--

8 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

9 CHIEF KARPEROS: Finally the last few slides. Adoption of

10 the state strategy will establish a rulemaking calendar

11 for SIP measures over the next few years. This rulemaking

12 calendar is part of the proposed SIP commitment and

13 comprises ARB's actions to implement the state strategy.

14 --o0o--

15 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

16 CHIEF KARPEROS: Starting with the actions that happened

17 this year: Cleaner in-use off-road equipment,

18 modifications to reformulated gasoline, enhanced vapor

19 recovery for above-ground storage tanks. You've already

20 adopted these rules.

21 Later this year: Cleaner main ship fuel, ship

22 speed reduction, shore power for ships, and clean up of23 existing harbor craft.

24 --o0o--

25 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

211

1 CHIEF KARPEROS: In 2008: Cleaner in-use heavy-duty

2 trucks, port truck modernization, cleaner ship auxiliary

3 engines, cleaner line haul locomotives and consumer

4 products.

5 --o0o--

6 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

7 CHIEF KARPEROS: In 2009: Cleaner in-use agricultural

8 equipment, new emission standards for recreational boats,

9 expanded off-road recreational vehicle emission standards,

10 additional evaporative emission standards.

11 And, lastly, between 2010 and 2012: Consumer

12 products again.

13 That concludes my presentation. Thank you for

14 your patience.

15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for that

16 presentation.

17 Obviously staff is proposing an ambitious

18 schedule and an ambitious program. I'm delighted that

19 we're in this position that we've laid out so many

20 productive areas for the Board to work on in conjunction

21 with the local districts and that we are in a position to

22 be able to say that we and the districts are truly working23 on these issues together.

24 Since the announcement of the broad agreement

25 between ARB staff and South Coast staff, I've received

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

212

1 dozens of e-mails of support for the general concepts

2 here. I don't really consider those to be ex parte

3 communications because I don't think they are -- I don't

4 think what we're doing right now is rulemaking. But I did

5 want to mention that there has been a great deal of

6 enthusiasm from people from many different sectors of the

7 community for the signal that's being sent here that we

8 are pushing ahead with some serious technology-forcing

9 programs and recommitting ourselves to the standards and

10 to pushing attainment forward as rapidly as we possibly

11 can.

12 I also particularly wanted to thank our two Board

13 members who've been heading up the San Joaquin Valley Task

14 Force and ask them if they'd like to make any comments at

15 the beginning here about how that process is going.

16 Dee Dee.

17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, thank you. And I

18 would really like to congratulate you, Madam Chair,

19 because I think with your leadership it's really helped to

20 sort of coalesce what I think was possible for many

21 months. And I share your enthusiasm. Because I think

22 that it's kicking off this process would be impossible if

23 we had a long list of people that were going to come up24 here in opposition. This is just the beginning.

25 And as far as the San Joaquin Valley is

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

213

1 concerned, I see many individuals that have been

2 participating in the community meetings and the task force

3 meetings, and really the improvement that we've seen in

4 communication and in additional reductions for the state

5 plan and hopefully some changes that will be coming our

6 way with the district as well. You can just thank

7 yourselves, because those meetings I think have been very

8 fruitful. And I hope that this is just the beginning of

9 your attendance at these meetings, because I've asked many

10 of the local stakeholders to show up at our hearings and

11 support the measures, that rulemaking calendar is very

12 aggressive and we're going to need your help.

13 So thank you.

14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Great.

15 Supervisor Case.

16 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Certainly. I think it's been

17 really helpful having a task force set up through the Air

18 Resources Board going out into the communities. It's been

19 a lot of work, and I appreciate staff is always ready with

20 a very nice presentation to inform our citizens and then

21 start working through the issues.

22 I had some conversation yesterday with Pete

23 Weber, one of the members of the task force. And I've24 also talked with Seyed Sadredin, who's the Executive

25 Director of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

214

1 District. And, you know, it's a different way of doing

2 things. When we sit up at the dais there's this great big

3 space between us and the speakers. But our task force is

4 everybody sitting at the same table in a roundtable sort

5 of fashion. I think we're coming up with some exciting

6 areas that we've identified that's going to get us there

7 sooner. But I can't express strongly enough, it takes a

8 very strong working cooperation between federal, state,

9 and local, and it will take mitigation funds also -- not

10 mitigation but incentive funds -- that's probably the

11 better term. It's going to take some incentive funds.

12 These are going to be really tough rules to meet. But I

13 think working together in this type of fashion is a whole

14 new way of moving this forward.

15 And we certainly know these criteria pollutants

16 have been very harmful to health, and sooner is better

17 than later. And Seyed's been carrying around a 2023 with

18 a big circle and an X across it, saying we're not going to

19 wait that long. And we're not waiting that long. Our

20 district passed four new rules last week, and is working

21 on track to keep that up.

22 So I think it's been a really good process. I

23 appreciate the participation. And this agency, staff's

24 been incredible. I'm so impressed, as the new member of25 this Board. Actually I used to say the newest, but you've

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

215

1 taken over that duty in a very wonderful way. So we just

2 need to keep moving forward.

3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Well, thanks.

4 I particularly wanted to also mention the role

5 that the Southern California Association of Governments

6 has played. And they're represented of course in the

7 process that we had for dispute resolution by our Board

8 Member, Mayor Ron Loveridge. I think it's really

9 noteworthy that cities have been receiving funds for many

10 years for air quality mitigation purposes, but there's

11 never really been a strong tracking process to make sure

12 that those monies were being spent on those measures that

13 were the most cost effective in terms of actually getting

14 air pollution reductions. And the addition of that

15 measure into the plan, even though it's not a huge number

16 of tons, is very significant because we know it's going to

17 be difficult to do.

18 And, Mayor Loveridge, if you'd like to add any

19 additional remarks at this point, I welcome them.

20 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Well, just several very

21 quick observations. One, it is clearly different today

22 than it was when we read the different testimonies at a

23 previous time here and in Diamond Bar. I think it's also

24 clear historically we've come a long way, yet we have a25 long way left to go.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

216

1 And what strikes me -- I've seen a lot of air

2 quality management plans over time. But it seems to me

3 this plan is something more than simply a paper plan.

4 It's a policy plan. The choices obviously are not easy,

5 that there is technology forcing. But if you -- one of

6 the things which was not here before and it's one of the

7 contributions that the Southern California Association of

8 Governments and particularly its Executive Director have

9 brought to the table was the idea of transformative

10 change. Rather than simply business as usual, is that we

11 have to look for things that are -- and particularly in

12 transportation choices and technologies that are different

13 than in the past.

14 And I think, as you point out, by requiring the

15 AB 2722 money to be part of this mix, it's going to bring

16 the cities much more closer I think involved in the Air

17 Quality Management Plan.

18 The other just final comment is I do feel kind of

19 optimism today. I mean part of it's the coming together

20 of the South Coast District and the ARB in agreement.

21 It's also having SCAG here and joining. You add that with

22 a governor who's the greenest governor we've had who just

23 spoke in the United Nations about a variety of ways that

24 the state is moving forward. You look at AB 32 and what

25 its requirements will be, actions the ports are talkingPETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

217

1 about, legislation that's been passed or being considered.

2 If in fact we stay at the table, work hard, I'm optimistic

3 that these kind of destinations, which I think often were

4 kind of paper destinations, in fact will be real

5 destinations.

6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Madam Chair?

8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes.

9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I apologize, but I

10 neglected to thank staff. I think they have almost become

11 residents of the San Joaquin Valley, they've been there so

12 much. So thank you, Lynn and your entire staff. The

13 document that we have hits "The Devil's in the details"

14 and, well, they've been the Devil, I guess, working

15 through the details.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Hear! Hear!

17 All right. Without further ado then, I think we

18 should turn to the witness list. And it's very long. And

19 I'm really grateful that so many people have turned out to

20 support the plan. At the same time I'm also mindful of

21 the hour and the traffic.

22 And so I'm going to request people, if at all

23 possible, if you're in support of the plan, even though

24 we'd love to hear from you, to actually cut your remarks

25 to just telling us that you support it. Maybe you can addPETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

218

1 a second or two worth, but, you know, your name and

2 affiliation would be great.

3 And then for those who are in opposition to any

4 element, if you can spare us the introductory remarks and

5 just focus in on any specific concerns that you have, we'd

6 appreciate that as well.

7 I'm just going to go down the list then in the

8 order that I have them, beginning with Mark Pisano, then

9 Manuel Saucedo and Jacob Haik.

10 MR. PISANO: Thank you, Madam Chairperson and

11 members of the Air Resources Board. I'm Mark Pisano,

12 Executive Director of the Southern California Association

13 of Governments.

14 And let me just note on behalf of our President,

15 Gary Ovitt, on the members who participated in the

16 three-agency meeting, namely Mayor Loveridge and also

17 Mayor Tom Sykes from the City of Walnut, we support your

18 inclusion of the enhanced measures in the State

19 Implementation Plan and we also encourage you to move

20 forward and develop the white paper that will define the

21 black box. Both are equally as important. In that

22 process, we will commit to educate and help the district

23 and the Air Resources Board obtain the 2766 targeted

24 reductions. We also will join forces with you to obtain

25 the federal commitment and funding needed to implement thePETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

219

1 railroad measure.

2 Very briefly, over the next four months, we will

3 be developing and adopting a regional transportation plan,

4 a regional growth and comprehensive plan. In that

5 planning process we will both explore new technologies,

6 pricing and financial mechanisms, and other public

7 resources needed to achieve the longer-term reductions.

8 That's what we will be focusing on.

9 We also will be exploring how we use growth and

10 transportation -- improving transportation measures to

11 obtain BMT reductions that will be needed in the long-term

12 strategy and also in the CO2 strategies.

13 Let me just note, we commit to participate in the

14 process to develop a white paper. The success of that

15 white paper may very well determine the success of this

16 region to truly implement the health standards that are

17 needed.

18 In conclusion, we thank you for your personal

19 leadership, your staff for their cooperation. It

20 establishes the kind of working relationship that we're

21 going to need to address the health crisis in our region.

22 Your adoption today of our measures renews the commitment

23 of this region to protect the public health of every

24 person in this region.

25 Thank you.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345220

1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

2 Mr. Saucedo.

3 MR. SAUCEDO: Thank you.

4 Good afternoon, Chairwoman Nichols and members of

5 the California Air Resources Board. My name is Manuel

6 Saucedo. I'm the District Director for Assemblymember

7 Soto.

8 On behalf of Assemblywoman Soto and her

9 constituents, I want to thank the Air Resources Board, the

10 Southern California Association of Governments, and AQMD

11 staff for their diligent work on this matter.

12 As you know, Assemblywoman Soto represents a

13 district with one of the worst particulate matter

14 pollution problems in the nation, resulting in some of the

15 highest chronic bronchitis and asthma rates in the

16 country. In fact, Pomona and western San Bernardino

17 County have among the highest annual averages of

18 nitrodioxide in the South Coast air basin.

19 Under today's resolution, 76 additional tons of

20 NOx and building block of particulate matter pollution

21 will be removed from the atmosphere, improving the quality

22 of our constituents and the more than 16 million residents

23 of the South Coast Air Quality Basin. Sure, much more

24 needs to be done. But today's actions represent a huge

25 step in the right direction.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345221

1 Again, Chairwoman Nichols, the Air Resources

2 Board and staff, and of course Assemblywoman Soto's former

3 colleagues, the board and staff of the South Coast Air

4 Quality Management District, thank you for your diligent

5 work and commitment to the people of the South Coast Air

6 Quality Basin.

7 Thank you.

8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

9 Mayor Cacciotti and Susan Reyes.

10 Neither one is here.

11 Peter Yao -- Mayor Yao. That's one of the people

12 who sent me a very nice note.

13 Tina Baca De Rio.

14 Bob Foster -- Mayor Foster.

15 We've got a lot of elected officials that had to

16 go.

17 Bill Mabie spoke to me during the break. I think

18 he had to leave, representing Senator Padilla.

19 Mona Arteaga from AQMD, and Oscar Abarca.

20 MS. ARTEAGA: Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Thank

21 you for your time. My name is Mona Arteaga. I'm a

22 community relations manager here with the South Coast

23 District.

24 I'm actually speaking on half of community member

25 in softball coach J. R. Borea. He was here earlier and

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345222

1 unfortunately had to leave. And he asked me to present to

2 you this champion T-shirt as a token of appreciation for

3 your leadership in supporting air quality in the region.

4 And it reads, "To Mary Nichols. Santiago Softball

5 Championships. We support clean air." And in the back

6 it's noteworthy to note -- see what it says -- "When you

7 win one, they call you champion. When you win four, they

8 call you a dynasty. When you win seven, they call you

9 Santiago Softball."

10 He also sent with him -- he asked me to convey to

11 you head varsity softball coach, John Perez, sent a letter

12 of support and thank you as well.

13 And he wanted me to emphasize that he appreciates

14 your continued leadership so that his softball team can

15 continue winning championships.

16 Thank you.

17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. It

18 will be a treasured part of my collection.

19 All right. Oscar Abarca, followed by Ian

20 MacMillan.

21 MR. ABARCA: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and

22 Board members. My name is Oscar Abarca. I'm the Deputy

23 Executive Officer for Public Affairs at the South Coast

24 Air Quality Management District.

25 This morning we delivered your ombudsperson three

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

2231 binders containing over a thousand letters from residents

2 of the South Coast air basin expressing their appreciation

3 to you, Madam Chairperson, for your leadership, and to the

4 CARB Board for having reached consensus with the South

5 Coast Air Quality Management District and the Southern

6 California Association of Governments on a plan that will

7 help us clean the air.

8 In addition to that, there were approximately 50

9 individuals representing different stakeholder groups that

10 had come this morning to provide you with testimony

11 expressing their deep appreciation to the Board for

12 embarking on this new course.

13 One of those individuals asked that I read his

14 testimony into the record. This is by Mr. Enrique Robles,

15 Varsity Basketball Coach and teacher at Garfield High

16 School.

17 "Our school is like a lot of inner-city high

18 schools across the country. Garfield High has been here

19 since 1925. It serves a community of about 100,000, with

20 a student body of almost 5,000, mostly lower income

21 minority students. Nothing comes easy in our community.

22 We work hard for what we have and have accomplished.

23 "When we put our minds to it, we can accomplish

24 great things. When the time comes, we can stand and

25 deliver. From pure determination and sweat, our school

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

2241 gained an international reputation by building an advanced

2 mathematics program from the streets up; and put those who

3 said that it could not be done in their place. We showed

4 the world what we can do when we do the right thing.

5 "This is why we're here today, because we have to

6 breathe the worst air pollution in the country. We're

7 surrounded by industry, three freeways, and a network of

8 railroad lines that dump tons of pollution into our lives

9 everyday. The asthma, the illness, the death, we are all

10 too familiar with.

11 "But today what we see is hope. Today we

12 recognize a kindred spirit who has stood up and delivered

13 a clean air plan that will break this curse of having to

14 breathe this poison in our air.

15 "Madam Chair, thank you for having the courage

16 and vision to take these steps. We trust that you will

17 remember us when the decisions get tough because

18 ultimately your decisions impact our lives on a very

19 personal level.

20 "Thank you."

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for that.

22 Ian MacMillan from the L.A. Unified School

23 District and then Bonnie Holmes-Gen from American Lung

24 Association.

25 MR. MacMILLAN: Hi there. I'm speaking here on

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

225

1 behalf of Angelo Bellomo, Director of Office of the2 Environmental Health and Safety at the Los Angeles Unified

3 School District. I'll keep my comments brief.

4 Within our organization it's really our duty to

5 ensure the health and safety of hundreds of thousands of

6 student as well as all of our teachers, administrators,

7 and other staff. We recognize that we really can't do

8 this alone, and we really look to regulatory bodies like

9 yourselves as well as AQMD to help us in this task.

10 That's why we're really encouraged by the spirit of

11 cooperation that is really burgeoning right now. And

12 we're really looking forward to this continued atmosphere,

13 and we hope to work with you all in the future on this.

14 And we support all of your efforts.

15 Thank you very much.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

17 Bonnie.

18 And then we have a presentation from the San

19 Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. There are

20 four different individuals. So I think they'll all come

21 together.

22 MS. HOLMES GEN: Thank you. Bonnie Holmes Gen

23 with the American Lung Association. Good afternoon.

24 And we want to first congratulate you for this

25 agreement. And we applaud the hard work and the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

226

1 collaboration between the Air Resources Board and the2 South Coast Air District and the San Joaquin Valley that

3 have resulted in this improved revised SIP. And we

4 support the SIP strategy and the recent commitment to

5 reducing the additional tons. We believe these emission

6 reductions will have a real impact on improving the health

7 of Californians, and that's why we are here in support.

8 Two quick things, because I know you asked us to

9 be brief.

10 We do urge you to continue to identify measures

11 to shrink the black box in the South Coast air basin and

12 the San Joaquin Valley. And we are supportive of your

13 continuing efforts to work with the local air districts to

14 identify and adopt measures to shrink that black box.

15 We also believe that the contingency plans in the

16 measures can be strengthened -- contingency plans can be

17 strengthened. And we urge the Board to incorporate a more

18 complete contingency plan to ensure that the air quality

19 standards are met.

20 The American Lung Association of California

21 stands with you during this next phase of implementation.

22 We thank you for the work to date, and we look forward to

23 working closely with you.

24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

25 I see there were four names down from San

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

227

1 Joaquin. How do you want to do this?

2 MR. McVAIGH: Yes, that' correct. If I may, I'd3 like to go ahead and start.

4 I'm Rick McVaigh. I'm Deputy Air Pollution

5 Control Officer with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution

6 Control District.

7 With me today, I also have Tom Jordan, our Senior

8 Projects Advisor; James Sweet, an atmospheric scientist

9 with the District; and Seyed Sadredin, the Executive

10 Director of the District.

11 If you could go to slide three real quickly.

12 --o0o--

13 MR. McVAIGH: I wanted to talk very quickly about

14 our past progress in the San Joaquin Valley. We've had

15 significant emission reductions since 1990.

16 Emissions from mobile sources, smog-forming

17 compounds, are down by 23 percent. And that's with a huge

18 increase in population and BMT that we've experienced in

19 the valley.

20 In stationary sources it's even more. It's a 60

21 percent reduction since 1990 and 80 percent since back in

22 1980.

23 Those reductions have resulted in real

24 improvements in air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. We

25 now have 84 percent fewer days over the 1-hour standard

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

228

1 than we did back in the 1980s and 45 percent fewer days

2 over the 8-hour standard.3 For PM10 the news is even better. We were a

4 non-attainment -- a severe non-attainment area for PM10.

5 And now we're in attainment. So we know it can be done

6 and these standards can be achieved.

7 Next slide, please.

8 --o0o--

9 MR. McVAIGH: Just real quickly. This graph

10 shows our progress in reducing smog in the San Joaquin

11 Valley. It actually shows the number of days over the

12 national ambient air quality standard both to the 1-hour

13 standard and the 8-hour standard. You can see there's

14 some year-to-year variation due to whether and other

15 things. But the trend in both cases is clearly downward.

16 So the investment in improving air quality is paying off.

17 Next slide, please.

18 --o0o--

19 MR. McVAIGH: But even with this progress, we

20 still face real big challenges in the San Joaquin Valley,

21 as you well know. We're extreme non-attainment area for

22 the 8-hour ozone standard and also a non-attainment area

23 for the PM2.5 standard.

24 Back in April our governing board adopted the

25 2007 ozone plan, our SIP, and we believe it contains the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

229

1 most stringent regulations anywhere to go ahead and

2 address this problem.

3 In addition to having the most stringent4 regulations anywhere, it also has great benefits. This

5 plan will bring 90 percent of the valley population into

6 ozone attainment by the year 2020. And it's also expected

7 to provide PM2.5 attainment by 2015.

8 Next slide, please.

9 --o0o--

10 MR. McVAIGH: This table shows the NOx attainment

11 gap, the amount of reductions that still need to occur for

12 us to get into attainment with the federal ozone standard.

13 The first line shows that we needed about 464 tons a day

14 of reductions from 2017. Our original strategy adopted

15 previously got us 337 tons a day of those reductions.

16 We're very grateful for the additional reductions that

17 have been identified by the staff of the State Air

18 Resources Board. That will provide an additional 26 to 31

19 tons a day. And that still leaves us with about 100 tons

20 a day to go ahead and reduce.

21 Next slide, please.

22 --o0o--

23 MR. McVAIGH: Even though we believe our plan

24 includes everything we could legally commit to, of course

25 we're still not satisfied. Our governing board directed

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

230

1 us to go ahead and adopt additional measures that could be

2 included to expedite attainment. These are some of the

3 measures we've been working on. These are measures that4 weren't ready to be included in a SIP. They may not have

5 been legally creditable yet.

6 But there are things that may help a lot in the

7 future. We're looking at green contracting episodic and

8 regional controls, enhancing our Spare The Air program

9 green fleet, truck replacement, short-sea shipping to

10 potentially move cargo by ship and get some of the traffic

11 off the highways in the San Joaquin Valley, and some other

12 things like inland ports.

13 The purpose of these measures would be to go

14 ahead and bridge the attainment gap, bring all the valley

15 into attainment before 2024, which is everyone's goal. In

16 addition to this, we also have some stationary source

17 measures that Seyed Sadredin will be talking about, some

18 stationary source reductions.

19 Thank you.

20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay.

21 MR. JORDAN: Tom Jordan, Senior Policy Advisor.

22 First we'd like to thank you for your work on the

23 statewide strategy. In the San Joaquin Valley, mobile

24 sources that are addressed by the statewide strategy

25 account for 80 percent of the NOx emissions, when you look

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

231

1 at heavy-duty trucks, construction equipment, all the

2 things that move around. The single largest categories,

3 the heavy-duty truck category which is about 40 percent of

4 the NOx -- and I know your staff is currently working on5 their proposed rule which will be very important for the

6 valley. The enhancement to that rule will definitely help

7 the valley come into attainment, which will require even

8 more cleaner vehicles earlier.

9 But even with that, with the length of life of

10 diesel engines, off-road equipment, all that, we need more

11 reductions still well beyond that. Because of that, the

12 district is proposing a rather aggressive incentive

13 program in our plan. We're proposing a $200 million per

14 year effort for incentive funds. Of that effort, the

15 district is proposing 40 million in local funds, 60

16 million in state funds, and 100 million in funds from the

17 federal government.

18 As you're well aware, the Proposition 1B funds

19 for goods movement are currently being discussed. We

20 think that's a good place to start as far as the incentive

21 funds to deal with on-road truck fleet in the San Joaquin

22 Valley.

23 --o0o--

24 MR. JORDAN: With those funds, we're looking to

25 retrofit or replace over 20,000 heavy-duty trucks;

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

232

1 retrofit or replace 7,000 off-road pieces of ag equipment,

2 tractors; replace or electrify over 4500 ag engines for

3 irrigation pumps and other efforts; retrofit or repower

4 portable equipment; deal with the locomotive issues in the5 San Joaquin Valley; fulfill the promise of the SOON

6 program that your Board implemented with the incentive

7 piece; control emissions from forklifts, school boilers,

8 et cetera; and scrap over 35,000 gross polluting cars.

9 --o0o--

10 MR. JORDAN: The incentive program will get us

11 most of the way there. Even with that technology leaves a

12 gap for us to achieve attainment. But we think it's

13 important to note that attainment isn't the only goal.

14 The goal is to bring clean air to as many people as soon

15 as possible.

16 With incentive funds, we can increase the number

17 of valley residents that live in attainment areas from 35

18 percent to 50 percent in 2015. That's over 600,000

19 additional people living in attainment areas; and by 2020

20 go from 65 percent to 90 percent, or an additional 1.1

21 million people living in attainment areas.

22 So thank you again for your efforts on the state

23 strategy. And we intend to keep working with you all.

24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Great. Thanks.

25 MR. SWEET: Thank you. My name is James Sweet.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

233

1 I've designed and coordinated research projects and

2 evaluated research results for the San Joaquin Valley

3 District ever since it was formed.

4 --o0o--

5 MR. SWEET: The modeling for our 8-hour ozone6 plan performed for us by the Air Resources Board used a

7 main-wide reductions. And that approach inherently

8 assumes that everybody around us is going to do the same

9 reductions we are. We need to evaluate that incoming

10 emissions from surrounding areas to know how much that

11 matters to our plan and how much reductions in surrounding

12 areas will help us get to attainment earlier. We do

13 acknowledge that our local emissions are predominant in

14 forming our ozone in our area. But we must assess the

15 contributions from other areas.

16 The 1-hour ozone transport findings established

17 by the Air Resources Board have not been reassessed for

18 relevance to the 8-hour standard. And that's something

19 that yet needs to be done. And we have learned that there

20 are additional pathways bringing in emissions that have

21 not been assessed as transport couples. With the severity

22 of our attainment status we need to explore every

23 contributing source, and that includes the sources that

24 are coming into us from other areas.

25 Next slide.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

234

1 --o0o--

2 MR. SWEET: This is a slide showing our modeling

3 domains. We have never connected the modeling domains

4 between the Central Valley area and South Coast. We need

5 to do that so we can assess the movement of pollutants and6 transport of our precursors and pollutants between those

7 two air basins. This is to be able to evaluate how much

8 our actions might be helping each other.

9 We also have evidence that there are new

10 corridors to assess in transport, and that the regional

11 photochemical modeling has shown us that the pollutants

12 move further than have been established by the triennial

13 review process.

14 Next slide, please

15 --o0o--

16 MR. SWEET: We have learned from smoke trails

17 from large fires that there are many extensive pathways

18 that have not been assessed for transport of ozone

19 precursors that are bringing us particulates and ozone

20 precursors into our valley. These events have affected us

21 on the valley surface as well as aloft. And we don't know

22 the impact of these for the 8-hour standard. Continuing

23 effort is needed to further assess, evaluate, and mitigate

24 transport to address the 8-hour ozone standard and to be

25 able to account for it and our ozone transport plans.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

235

1 Now some pretty pictures for you. Next slide.

2 --o0o--

3 MR. SWEET: This shows you smoke coming into our

4 valley from the south and circling around all the way in

5 through central California, affecting two-thirds of our

6 valley.7 Next slide.

8 --o0o--

9 MR. SWEET: Coming in from the south and

10 affecting the eastern half of our valley.

11 Next slide.

12 --o0o--

13 MR. SWEET: Coming in from the north, coming much

14 further south than had been further believed in earlier

15 evaluations. So we see that this event affected the Bay

16 Area as well as the San Joaquin Valley.

17 --o0o--

18 MR. SWEET: And our last pretty picture. A smoke

19 event. It happened north of California, went out to sea,

20 came back and hit Bay Area and the San Joaquin valley two

21 days later. We don't assess transport normally this

22 distance. New technical work for us to do.

23 Thank you.

24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Always more research.

25 BOARD MEMBER CASE: And if I might add to that, I

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

236

1 think it was so compelling with one of those fires, the

2 one that was in the far northern corner of the state, it

3 was so strong in the San Joaquin Valley, including coming

4 in my windows because I sleep with them open, that my

5 husband got up in the middle of the night and went outside

6 to see if our house was on fire. And that was from smoke7 happening all the way up in the furthest northeastern

8 corner of the State of California. And there were a

9 hundred calls to the local fire departments with people

10 thinking their houses were on fire. That's significant.

11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Mr. Director.

12 MR. SADREDIN: Madam Chairman, members of the

13 Board. Seyed Sadredin. I'm the Executive Director and

14 the Air Pollution Control Officer for the Valley Air

15 District.

16 I'm here, first of all, to follow your orders

17 quickly. Thank you, Board Member D'Adamo, Board Member

18 Case for the task force, and staff for all the work that

19 has been done in the valley and the enhancements that

20 we've gained towards meeting our goal.

21 As I've told you the last time I was before you

22 with the construction rule, it is not acceptable to us in

23 the valley to wait until 2024 to come into attainment. We

24 want to do everything possible to beat that deadline. We

25 do understand the limitations that the SIP world imposes,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

237

1 the fact that we don't have some of the SIP tools yet.

2 But that does not stop us from doing everything possible

3 to get there.

4 Towards that end, we put together a dual-path

5 strategy to augment the SIP. We put together our own fast

6 track task force, the local task force, in addition to the

7 state task force that was put together recently. And8 there are basically three components in this dual-path

9 strategy:

10 First, we want to keep your feet to the fire --

11 EPA's feet to the fire to make sure you do everything

12 possible with the mobile sources that are beyond our reach

13 and make up 80 percent of our smog and particulate cause

14 and problem, that we get effective regulations.

15 So we will be here to support you. You have a

16 very aggressive proposal today before you. We will be

17 with you to fight that fight.

18 I would just caution you that whatever you saw a

19 few weeks ago, a couple months ago with the construction

20 rule, that's just the mini-version of what you will

21 expect -- we should expect with the truck rule. And

22 that's why more funding is really essential. To be able

23 to come up with a win-win situation to get more reductions

24 sooner, funding will be necessary. And as I speak, we are

25 working on a SOON-type program for the truck -- rule to

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

238

1 bring before you.

2 Also, we have those short-term, medium-term, and

3 long-term measures that Rick mentioned to you. And there

4 are fast-track measures.

5 --o0o--

6 MR. SADREDIN: I'm here today also to bring to

7 you some good news on the stationary source side of the8 equation. And we are grateful for the reductions that ARB

9 has come up with. But at the district level we have also

10 come up with some additional reductions preliminary.

11 Hopefully ARB, as they do their review over the course of

12 the next couple of months, they agree with us that there

13 is additional potential for reductions from the stationary

14 sources that were previously not identified.

15 First, as Supervisor Case mentioned, last week

16 our board adopted four new very tough regulations, and

17 those regulations gave us some additional tons. We have

18 also been examining the ISSRC's latest report. It's a

19 much improved report. It was put together more

20 collaboratively and it has added a great deal of value to

21 our work here.

22 And essentially from the direction that they

23 pointed us to, we have come up with another 31 to 41 tons

24 per day of NOx from better quantification of measures that

25 are already in our plan.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

239

1 And I'll finish very quickly.

2 Next.

3 --o0o--

4 MR. SADREDIN: That basically shows you where the

5 gap goes -- the attainment gap goes once we include the

6 enhanced reductions from ARB and the reductions that we

7 think we can show from the stationary sources. And this

8 is good news. We are moving in the right direction. The9 gap -- the attainment gap could well be only 50 tons as

10 opposed to 100 tons when we started this process.

11 Next overhead.

12 --o0o--

13 MR. SADREDIN: This is task force members

14 locally. And I have some recommendations from them to

15 present to you.

16 Next overhead.

17 --o0o--

18 MR. SADREDIN: Our recommendation is to adopt the

19 enhanced state strategy subject to the following

20 conditions:

21 We'd like you to add or revise language to remove

22 impediments to early reductions. And I believe there has

23 already been some language proposed that goes in a major

24 way in that direction. I ask that you direct your staff

25 to work with us to clarify that better. It's not only an

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

240

1 issue with the ag engines where we might be impeding

2 earlier reductions with incentive funds. It may also be

3 the case with the truck fleet.

4 We ask you to support technology because we still

5 do have a black box and we want you to not only look at

6 new technology, but also look at retrofits and also the

7 verification process at the state level, see if we can

8 expedite that.9 We do want the commitment from you to ensure that

10 the valley receives its fair share of Prop 1B funding. We

11 worked very hard with the Legislature to give you sole

12 authority over that essentially to direct the money on a

13 need basis to where it's needed. And we think no other

14 region can make a better case than the valley and the

15 South Coast.

16 And we also want you to support us in our efforts

17 to secure additional funding.

18 One last overhead.

19 --o0o--

20 MR. SADREDIN: The transport issue that was

21 mentioned to you. We believe in leaving no stone

22 unturned. And if we do not effectively deal with the

23 transport from these other regions, that could well be the

24 difference in the valley residents breathing clean air or

25 not in a timely fashion. So we ask that you partner with

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

241

1 our district and others to make sure we quantify the

2 transport impact. And we want you to also ensure that all

3 districts in the domain are subject to the same level of

4 regulations that we have. We don't believe that all

5 feasible control measures are adequate any longer. They

6 have left many areas in our domain with less restrictive

7 regulations that the businesses in the valley are subject

8 to.

9 Sorry for taking a little bit more time and10 running through this very quickly. But thank you for the

11 time.

12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.

13 Did you want to comment on that?

14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I would just like to say,

15 on the transport issue, several years ago this was a

16 rather contentious issue between the San Joaquin Valley

17 and the Bay Area. And we had a group, I believe it was

18 called the Northern California Coordinating Committee. Is

19 that right, Lynn? Supervisor Desaulnier and I served on

20 it along with participation from the Sacramento, San

21 Joaquin, and Bay Area Air Districts. And if Supervisor

22 Hill would be willing to -- I'd be willing to rev that up

23 again and utilize it as a forum where we could talk

24 through some of these issues, perhaps get an update.

25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, certainly we know

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

242

1 that pollution, especially particulate pollution, travels

2 literally around the globe. We have plenty of evidence

3 around that. Of course, the pictures of forest fires

4 raise questions about what we're going to do about

5 preventing forest fires and what we could do about

6 preventing forest fires. But when it comes to taking a

7 look at statewide measures and whether we're applying

8 things in ways that really look at where the transport

9 takes them and making sure that we're getting as much10 reduction as we need, I'm totally in support of the idea

11 of working this through. So perhaps we should get with

12 the staff and figure out what the agenda for this should

13 be. But definitely I think the tools you have for

14 collaborating on it would be very helpful.

15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And that Committee, I felt

16 that it was useful and that for many years the issue was

17 overblown. No pun intended. But the Committee really

18 helped to get a better handle on the issue and what could

19 be done.

20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: No, I remember those days

21 as well. So I appreciate all that you did to get that

22 resolved.

23 Okay. Thank you very much.

24 Next is Jason Paukovits from the Council of

25 Governments and then Larry Allen from CAPCOA.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

243

1 MR. PAUKOVITS: Good afternoon. Again, I am

2 Jason Paukovits from the Fresno Council of Governments.

3 I'm also the Air Quality Coordinator for eight San Joaquin

4 Valley metropolitan planning organizations. I'm here

5 today to speak on behalf of the eight executive directors

6 of those agencies.

7 I have two comments I'd like to make today. One

8 is to support the approval of the state strategy and

9 submit all necessary components of the 8-hour ozone SIP

10 for the San Joaquin Valley to EPA.11 And the second comment, you have a letter from

12 the executive directors as well, and I just want to touch

13 briefly on that letter, because I've had a number of

14 conversations today as well as in the past few weeks on

15 the issue of the motor vehicle emission budgets and the

16 timeliness and the need for those in San Joaquin Valley.

17 There's been some confusion from I believe EPA

18 staff, ARB staff, as well as interest groups on what the

19 need is for those budgets. The MPO position is we need

20 those to be found adequate by EPA in early 2008,

21 specifically by January. We're starting the development

22 of our four-year transportation improvement program, which

23 is our four-year funding of projects. Without adequacy on

24 those budgets, we cannot take action at the local level

25 and get those approved by federal highways and included.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

244

1 So it does put at risk hundreds of millions of dollars of

2 transportation projects. We will be releasing draft

3 documents in March 2008 and we hope to have everything in

4 place at that time.

5 And, again, I just want to urge you to take

6 action today and approve the state strategy. And thank

7 you very much for the opportunity to comment.

8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

9 MR. ALLEN: Good afternoon, Chairman Nichols and

10 members of the Board. My name is Larry Allen. I'm the11 President of the California Air Pollution Control

12 Officers' Association, which represents the executive

13 officers of the 35 local air districts in California.

14 And air districts have the primary responsibility

15 for implementing local pollution control strategies. But

16 we all know that achieving clean air results in -- or

17 requires shared responsibilities by federal, state, and

18 local agencies. And CAPCOA has in the past on occasion

19 expressed concerns when we felt that there were missed

20 opportunities for achieving feasible and needed reductions

21 from sources under state and federal jurisdiction.

22 That is clearly not the case today. I'm very

23 pleased to be here speaking in support of the state

24 commitments for the 2007 SIP, and in particular for the

25 enhanced strategies that have been added over the past

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

245

1 three months. The strong leadership that has been shown

2 by both your Board and staff to add these new strategies

3 that will achieve significant additional reductions in

4 both the South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley air basins

5 represents a very solid commitment by the state to ensure

6 that clean air goals in both regions are met and that real

7 public health improvements are realized. And I believe

8 it's also going to provide real air quality benefits to

9 other areas throughout the state.

10 And so on behalf of the local air districts that

11 do rely on your support to achieve health-based air12 quality standards, CAPCOA extends to your Board our

13 appreciation and our commitment to continue working hard

14 with your staff to extend this progress to the next level

15 so that we can bring the economic benefits of truly

16 healthful air to every air district in California.

17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

18 Appreciate all the people who have come and

19 stayed, as well as those who had to leave because of the

20 lateness of the hour.

21 We have been joined by Mayor Miguel Pulido. And

22 he will be followed Adriano Martinez at NRDC.

23 MR. PULIDO: Thank you, Chair Nichols and members

24 of the Board. I just want to come before you as a member

25 of the Air Quality Management District and thank you and

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

246

1 your staff for your leadership.

2 Some of you may remember, I was part of the group

3 when you had your previous meeting in Los Angeles. And I

4 think things have changed a lot since that meeting. And I

5 would be remiss if I didn't take time to come and thank

6 you, because it's been through your leadership and your

7 staff that we've been able to close that gap. Yeah, the

8 current plan, you know, has more things out of the black

9 box and into reality. It has more elements where the

10 staffs, you know, concur. And that's very important,

11 because, you know, as government, you know, we need to12 work together in order to address these issues.

13 When it comes to air quality, people don't

14 understand if it's a mobile source or a stationary source

15 or what's going on. They just understand that the air is

16 dirty and that they can't breathe and play and do the

17 things they want. And so it's only by working together

18 that we're able to address that.

19 And I know it's tough. I know in San Joaquin you

20 have different issues. And I'm not here to speak about

21 that. I'm just here to talk about South Coast. But I

22 know it's also tough as we go into the future, because

23 every time we address one issue, you know, there's yet

24 another standard and another plan that we have to address,

25 you know, that's looming on the horizon. We just want

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

247

1 that horizon to be a clean one, a beautiful one, a blue

2 one with nice sunrises and nice sunsets. And I'm here to

3 thank you very, very much for your work.

4 Thanks again.

5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you so much for

6 joining us.

7 MR. MARTINEZ: My name is Adrian Martinez, and

8 I'm here on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense

9 Council.

10 At the outset I just want to thank CARB and

11 SCAQMD, SCAG and other entities for the hard work that has

12 happened between the June hearing and now. I think it's13 pretty remarkable that the SIP has been improved in the

14 way that it has.

15 With that said, we remain very concerned about

16 the reliance on the black box to meet the 8-hour ozone

17 standard. It continues to be our position that relying on

18 the black box provides an unfavorable trade-off for

19 residents, while it provides additional time to achieve

20 the standards. It allows for additional years of

21 Californians breathing unhealthy air. We have submitted a

22 detailed letter why ways we think that the plan can be

23 improved. And that has been submitted to the record.

24 Another somewhat tangential issue but that

25 remains at the heart of air quality all over the state is

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

248

1 the interaction between transportation and air quality.

2 Business, Transportation and Housing recently sent a

3 letter detailing that it wants to speed up the process

4 related to the two billion subsidy for infrastructure and

5 trade corridors that was provided through Proposition 1B.

6 And we think it's incumbent upon CARB, SCAQMD, SCAG and

7 other governmental entities to make sure that there's an

8 environmental lens put on those funds that are spent. It

9 would a very detrimental to be put -- to erase a lot of

10 the progress that will be made and that has been made due

11 to poorly designed and ill-conceived transportation

12 projects for our trade corridors being funded.13 And then the final issue I want to address is

14 it's really important that the SIP make truly enforceable

15 commitments. We remain concerned that commitments such as

16 the ag equipment commitment is too vague. And we think by

17 shoring up the commitment, detailed emissions and

18 reduction goals and timelines, it will help improve the

19 enforceability and it will allow for a more expedited

20 approval from EPA.

21 With that, I thank you all for your time today.

22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.

23 Angelo Logan, Sean Edgar, followed by Nicole

24 Davis.

25 MR. EDGAR: Good day, Madam Chair and Board

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

249

1 members. I've submitted written comments. And I'm Sean

2 Edgar on behalf of the Clean Fleets Coalition.

3 I appreciate the Chair's comments about brevity.

4 And besides the bad traffic, I'm sure you would like to

5 slip your Santiago Softball uniform and try that on. I'd

6 be a seven-time champion -- I'll just say this is my

7 seventh year. Whether a champion or not, I'm not sure.

8 But this from the privilege of having a seventh year in

9 front of your Board.

10 And I'll make my comments brief, concerning the

11 on-road components of the plan before you.

12 Before I do that I'd be remiss if I didn't

13 mention Dr. Gong and his tremendous contributions. I14 didn't have the privilege of knowing him until the

15 swearing in ceremony in the Governor's office in 2004.

16 And he was a true gentleman. He read all of the

17 information that industry supplied to him. He had

18 poignant analysis, very pointed questions. And really a

19 gentleman and he will be missed.

20 A few brief comments on process. I took from Mr.

21 Karperos' assessment that the SIP is the key to

22 attainment. If I were to take that analogy a little bit

23 further, I'm hopeful from our coalition members that the

24 key doesn't get snapped off in the lock relative to our

25 ability to utilize incentive funds early. And by that I

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

250

1 mean that staff is out workshopping your private fleet

2 rule and trying to work through the timeline and a variety

3 of issues. And what I've found over the years, especially

4 with our trash truck rule that I've had the last seven

5 years working on with your Board, is that as soon as we

6 navigate through the SIP credit issues, what we find is

7 that a lot of the early actions get sealed off and

8 industry players by operation of Moyer law are prohibited

9 from obtaining Moyer funds early. And so that's okay if

10 we're going to take what is being workshopped as a tenure

11 turnover plan and do a South Coast overlay or a San

12 Joaquin overlay, compress it down to a seven-year turnover

13 plan with an option to go to a four-year turnover plan14 that's somewhere out in 2014, that's okay. It just has

15 economic consequences to it. None of the fleet operators

16 that I work for have a rainy-day fund or a preauthorized

17 rate adjustment that allows them to turn their trucks over

18 with that kind of frequency. So it's okay to do that it.

19 It's just I'm encouraged by your staff's conclusion that

20 the -- it's not going to be easy and it's not going to be

21 cheap, and just as long as we recognize that.

22 And my final call would be for trying to

23 supersize the bond fund allocation target, especially for

24 early actions. And I look forward to not breaking the key

25 off in the lock. And I will sit down and look forward to

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

251

1 working progressively with your Board and staff as we get

2 through private fleet rule development.

3 Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks for coming.

5 Nicole Davis.

6 MS. DAVIS: Hi. I'm Nicole Davis from ISSRC.

7 And I just wanted to make a brief comment.

8 And I think that the Board did with this task

9 force has been really useful. And we have enjoyed working

10 with the ARB staff and it's been very productive.

11 And I also wanted to make a comment, that the

12 main difference between ISSRC recommendations and the

13 recommendations that you see before you today are the

14 value of retrofit technology. And I might suggest that15 the ARB look at that in the future and see how retrofits

16 can play a role in further reducing the mobile source

17 emissions.

18 That's all.

19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

20 Richard Carlson and Sara Sharpe.

21 Are either of them here?

22 Richard Carlson, Sarah Sharpe.

23 Carolina Simunovic.

24 MS. SHARPE: Good afternoon.

25 I believe Dick Carlson is on his way. He called

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

252

1 me to let me know he's on -- I don't know if he'll have a

2 chance to speak again. He should be in route.

3 Good afternoon, Chairwoman Nichols and Board

4 members. My name is Sarah Sharpe. I'm with the Coalition

5 for Clean Air, and I work in the San Joaquin Valley. I'm

6 a fourth generation resident of the valley, and I'm on my

7 way to bringing the fifth generation, hopefully, if

8 everything works out well.

9 I'm also a member of the San Joaquin Valley Air

10 Pollution Control District's Fast Track Task Force that

11 Seyed mentioned earlier.

12 And I wanted to thank you for hearing us at the

13 hearing that you had on June 14th. You know, it was a

14 hearing and you really did hear us and we see results from15 that and we appreciate it.

16 However, we do -- while we feel that we have made

17 a lot of progress in this most recent draft of your state

18 strategy, we still believe there's room for improvement.

19 Number one, the first thing that we believe that

20 could be improved, as Nicole just mentioned, we believe

21 retrofits really need to be much more integral to the

22 plan. And not necessarily retrofits by replacing engines,

23 but tailpipe controls and SCR technology that Dick Carlson

24 will be speaking to later. And we believe that because

25 retrofits are available today and they are advancing

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

253

1 rapidly.

2 And there's also a problem, I think you've heard

3 before, about the verification process at ARB, that it

4 might be taking too long. And we've heard from MECA and

5 from people who produce these technologies that it takes

6 quite a while to get it verified. And we would like to

7 see maybe more staff and funding put into that department

8 at ARB so that we could have a more expedient process.

9 Secondly, the off-road ag equipment measure. Of

10 course we are very happy to see it in the plan this time,

11 as it wasn't in the previous drafts. We've only had a few

12 hours to review the latest drafts. And so we have a

13 couple concerns, one being that the timeline for

14 implementation is not really clear. It leaves it quite

15 open. And we understand that that's because there's not16 quite enough information out there yet. And so we really

17 request that your Board commit to updating the reduction

18 commitment in three years or sooner as information comes

19 in. Because the five to ten tons that you're saying

20 now -- you can get now we believe might be underestimating

21 how much you can get.

22 And, finally, we look forward to hearing CARB

23 staff's recommendations for further concrete measures that

24 we can take with stationary sources, as was mentioned in

25 the staff proposal, that will be happening and will be --

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

254

1 the measures will be brought back to your Board in

2 November. And we would ask that the Board commit to

3 amending the San Joaquin AQMP and the state SIP by the end

4 of November based on recommendations from the ISSRC study,

5 and any opportunities identified by the ARB staff to be

6 reviewed and through the task force process.

7 And then, finally, we are very hopeful that this

8 process will result in even further advances and specific

9 actions toward early attainment so that my child, who will

10 be born in 2008, will see clean air before his lungs are

11 fully developed and hopefully much sooner.

12 Thank you.

13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks.

14 MS. SIMUNOVIC: Thank you. Good afternoon. My

15 name is Carolina Simunovic with Fresno Metro Ministry.16 Thank you for your focus on securing additional

17 reductions in the San Joaquin Valley. Thank you also to

18 Member D'Adamo's facilitation of the task force process

19 and to Supervisor Case's participation in that. I was

20 very encouraged to learn of new commitments to reduce 26

21 to 31 tons of NOx in the valley. Thank you for the staff

22 that helped make it possible. And I also appreciate the

23 timing of these reductions to fall within 2017. I think

24 that's an important goal to keep highlighting.

25 And one more thank you for modifying the table in

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

255

1 Attachment B to reflect all of the reductions that you

2 have achieved thus far for the valley.

3 However, I do have some concerns in regards to

4 Attachment B, The first one being the inadequate time for

5 the public to review not only the first draft but the new

6 revisions that were available just this morning. There

7 were some changes to the ag equipment rule that I wanted

8 to ask questions about, and the first one being, and

9 underlined here, where it talks about ARB staff proposes

10 to begin full implementation of the fleet cleanup measure

11 in 2014, taking into account early upgrades for Tier 3

12 equipment.

13 I am not sure what it means to be taking into

14 account early upgrades for Tier 3 equipment, and I hope

15 that maybe someone can address that, please.

16 I also notice that there was a change from17 meeting the cleanest new engine NOx standards to cleaner

18 new engine NOx standards. And to please have some

19 clarification on that. And, you know, I as an advocate

20 would like to see it back to "cleanest." But I don't

21 fully understand what that means.

22 There are also concerns that I have and had been

23 raised in that letter in terms of enforceability of

24 certain commitments, especially those that have flexible

25 implementation dates and in terms of the ag engine rule

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

256

1 again, those that -- this one in particular which is the

2 only one that has a range of tons committed. So that

3 leaves the question -- I believe it's only five tons that

4 might be the enforceable number. Just questions about

5 that.

6 I wouldn't want any of this language to

7 preclude -- maximizing emission reductions to preclude the

8 use of using existing tailpipe retrofits to achieve BACT

9 from these sources. But I do also recognize that there

10 weren't commitments from this source before. So thank you

11 for that change. I just want to make sure that it's done

12 right. I want to have faith that when this goes off and

13 like -- we're thankful for the ozone filters that we had a

14 little extra time to read through; but, frankly, not

15 enough.

16 Again, glad that these measures are shrinking the17 black box. Would -- this is my soft support, but you will

18 have my emphatic strong -- you know, I will sing cumbiyas

19 and whatever when that official date is changed to 2017

20 for attainment for the San Joaquin Valley. And I hope

21 that we can see some more great work from staff in now

22 looking at the stationary source reductions for the San

23 Joaquin Valley. I'm very eager to look at those.

24 And I just heard today that Japan is looking at

25 reducing ag -- the same that we're looking here, ag

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

257

1 equipment pollution for NOx and PM by 90 percent for 2014.

2 So we're right on track for the rest of the world. You

3 know, let's get the right thing done here.

4 For us, the bottom line is the air in the San

5 Joaquin Valley. It's too dangerous to breathe and too

6 expensive to ignore.

7 So thank you for your work. I hope that some of

8 these issues can be cleared up to our satisfaction.

9 Thank you.

10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks for your comments,

11 and particularly thanks -- I know it's very difficult

12 sometimes to say what would make you be enthusiastic. And

13 it always helps us to know when people are enthusiastic --

14 MS. SIMUNOVIC: You got it. You know, I'll do a

15 dance, I'll make up a special song, whatever you want.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We just want you to be

17 happy, that's all, and to clean up the air.18 MS. SIMUNOVIC: And I'll get to breathe clean

19 air, yes.

20 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Madam Chair, it's really

21 important to recognize both Carolina Simunovic and also

22 Sarah Sharpe. They've been at every single one of those

23 task force meetings, continually asking questions and

24 looking at what else, what else, what else. And I

25 certainly appreciate their willingness to work through

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

258

1 this. It's been a real change in relationships and trying

2 to work together to grow in the same direction to get the

3 same benefit we all need.

4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: While we're here, is the

5 staff prepared to respond to the questions about the

6 changes in language on ag equipment?

7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Sure. We did

8 talk about this at the task force meeting, and it is --

9 I'll start with the clarifications in the text.

10 We did have some discussion about the way that

11 the concept is drafted at this point and is -- to frame

12 the discussion. We reminded folks that all of these

13 concept measures, ag equipment is like all the rest. What

14 they represent is staff's thinking at this time about

15 approach that could work to get the tons. But certainly

16 as we go through rule development, those approaches will

17 be refined. The tonnages will be updated. And so this18 measure is no different in construct than the construction

19 rule, the truck fleet rule.

20 The recognition of the timing of Tier 4 -- and we

21 wanted to acknowledge in the write up that in an ideal

22 world we would have the cleanest engines, all Tier 4 for

23 ag equipment to support ozone attainment in the valley.

24 But we also recognize, given the lateness of the

25 standards, that if you wait you forgo early emission

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

259

1 reductions. And that's we think an important public

2 health issue that needs to be considered during the rule

3 development process. So we did not want to close the door

4 on that technical analysis or that debate about what

5 really is the optimal public health approach to that

6 particular rule given the realities of the timing of the

7 Tier 4 engines.

8 So that addition to the measure was intended to

9 keep the door up and not to preclude any option going

10 forward.

11 And in terms of the enforceability, again, this

12 measure is designed, as are all the others, as a target, a

13 goal, in the rulemaking process. But the actual

14 enforceable commitment the Board would make is to the

15 aggregate tons per each region in the year. And so the

16 five to ten tons is an estimate of what we think might be

17 possible given the current inventory.

18 Now, this measure has a range because it's19 farther out in rule development. Over the next year we

20 plan to put substantial new resources into the ag

21 inventory work. While our rulemaking staff are focusing a

22 little more on trucks from a rulemaking standpoint, we

23 have some technical foundational work to do on the

24 inventory and then really go full force into rulemaking in

25 2009 for ag equipment.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

260

1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And other than following

2 any particular rulemaking, which is obviously something

3 the public can do if they care to, you know, check up on

4 our website all the time or get on our list serves, how do

5 people really follow as we tighten up on estimates like

6 that? I mean, do we publish regular updates on our latest

7 thinking about how the SIP is going to evolve?

8 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: I think we've

9 entered sort of a new process in the valley in particular.

10 And while we had some very targeted assignments from the

11 Board in terms of the task force we'll be completing in

12 November, our view is that we're starting to establish

13 some new working relationships with the district, with the

14 stakeholders in the valley. And ARB has such a big role,

15 we are holding multiple workshops in the valley that we

16 haven't done before, to be quite honest. So every one of

17 our major diesel rulemakings we have workshops in the

18 valley. We're having workshops on the bond discussion in19 the valley every time we update an inventory category.

20 So we are trying to do as much outreach as we can

21 in all the aspects of our program in the Central Valley,

22 recognizing their significance.

23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I appreciate that there's a

24 much greater commitment of time and a lot of tons of

25 carbon actually being put into the air by ARB people

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

261

1 traveling back and forth to the San Joaquin Valley. But

2 that's okay. We need to do it.

3 But I would kind of encourage the task force and

4 the staff to become pioneers in thinking. Just the level

5 of participation and interest on the part of these

6 community groups just reminds me that, you know,

7 oftentimes the technical agencies talk to each other and

8 are used to communicating with each other informally. But

9 it's not always easy for everybody else to really follow

10 what's going on. So maybe you can help think through in

11 addition to the meetings whether there are other kinds of

12 communications devices or tools that we should be using

13 that would make it easier for people to follow, track how

14 we're doing.

15 Okay. Our next witnesses -- we're up to Felita

16 Jones -- I hope I've pronounced the first name

17 correctly -- Terry Roberts, and then Pat Etem. I'm just

18 going to give you these in advance so you could be ready.

19 I'll try to move faster here. And James Provenzano.20 MS. JONES: Thank you. So I'll make my comments

21 short.

22 I'm Felita Jones, Project Manager of the

23 Pediatric Asthma Breath Mobile Program with the Asthma and

24 Allergy Foundation of America.

25 We thank the Board for your leadership in

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

262

1 addressing this issue, and we stand in full support of

2 this measure. And we encourage the Board to act

3 expeditiously in its approval.

4 Thank you.

5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks. Good work.

6 MS. ROBERTS: Good afternoon. My name is Terry

7 Roberts and I am the Social Director of Programs for the

8 America Lung Association of California out of the San

9 Bernardino office.

10 First I would like to start by thanking Chairman

11 Nichols for your leadership to help resolve the

12 differences to strengthen the mobile source emissions

13 reduction. I believe very strongly your leadership has

14 made a huge difference.

15 Additionally, I would like to take the time to

16 thank the staff at the California Air Resources BOARD, the

17 Air Quality Management District, and the Southern

18 California Association of Governments for their dedicated

19 efforts to produce a plan that will help move us toward20 achieving clean air.

21 A couple of months ago I was at the June meeting

22 and I wouldn't have believed that this much progress would

23 have been made in the short amount of time. While there

24 still is a tremendous amount of work to be done, I think

25 this plan goes a long way to improve the quality of life

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

263

1 for over 16 million people that live in the South Coast

2 basin, particularly people suffering from respiratory

3 illnesses such as emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and

4 asthma.

5 I not only work in the Inland Entire but actually

6 live there also. And I have really noticed there is such

7 an increased amount of truck traffic and train traffic

8 moving goods into our area and beyond into other parts of

9 the United States, which impacts us a great deal. The air

10 pollution from those mobile sources, the ships, trains,

11 diesel trucks, really needs to be reduced. So reduction

12 can only be achieved through tougher standards adopted by

13 both state and local air quality agencies.

14 I would like to recognize the cooperation and

15 work between the local and state air quality agencies to

16 develop an air quality management plan that will

17 actually -- will lead to improved air quality. Continued

18 collaboration among these agencies is needed.

19 Again, I'm here as representing the American Lung

20 Association but also as a resident that lives in the21 Inland Empire. I live in Crestline with the terrible

22 ozone levels. But I want to thank you for your work. And

23 hopefully you'll approve the 2007 air quality management

24 plan. But also to encourage you to adopt tougher

25 standards so that clean air can be achieved sooner rather

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

264

1 than later.

2 Thank you.

3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. At the rate

4 that we're going we're going to be here until very late

5 tonight. And, again, I don't want to discourage anybody

6 especially when they're coming up and saying nice things

7 about us and our staff. But if it's at all possible for

8 those of you who are here in support to -- and in fact I

9 think I'm just going to try this as an exercise:

10 How many people here to express their support for

11 the plan?

12 Could I ask you to all come down and just say

13 your name and say, yes, unless there's something else that

14 you absolutely have to convey. And we will be very

15 grateful to you. Very, grateful very grateful. So

16 grateful we might add an extra ton.

17 MR. PROVENZANO: I almost made it.

18 Madam Chair and Mr. Mayor and the rest of the

19 Board. I'm James Provenzano with Clean Air Now. And we

20 do ask that you approve the enhancements to the SIP and to21 the AQMP as considered today. And it looks like we're

22 entering the Nichols' era of CARB, and that's wonderful.

23 Thank you so much.

24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

25 MR. PROVENZANO: And I've heard you on NPR, and I

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

265

1 appreciate the fact of you addressing the issue on

2 economic development. And I want to -- there's no choice

3 between economic development and environmental

4 friendliness. They go hand in hand. We are the sixth

5 largest economy in the world and we have the cleanest

6 regulations in the world. And thank you for that.

7 And the black box -- I want to put in a black

8 box. In the black box is renewable energy with

9 electricity and hydrogen as the energy carriers.

10 Thank you.

11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay, great.

12 Say yes and --

13 MR. SCHLENKER: Yes. Chairman Nichols, I am Ron

14 Schlenker. I am President of the Industrial Environmental

15 Coalition of Orange County, also principal consultant for

16 RCS and Associates. I'd like to thank you and the Board

17 and AQMD in being able to come together and work together

18 to basically take some of the burden off of the local

19 business here in the South Coast, particularly through the

20 mobile sources and all of that. And, again, I thank you.

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.22 MS. FIELD: Yes, I'm Virginia Field with Clean

23 Air Now, and I'm saying yes. And I just want to add one

24 thing.

25 I have opportunity to work with Mayor Loveridge

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

266

1 as his board assistant here at the Air Quality Management

2 District, and I'm looking forward to working on the 1

3 percent on local projects that the Mayor's given me the

4 opportunity to help with.

5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

6 Jim Stewart, Sierra Club.

7 MR. STEWART: Yes. I had the chance to actually

8 give Mary a hug last night and it was so great. And I'd

9 actually like to have all of us give Mary and the Board

10 and the whole staff a great round of applause --

11 (Applause.)

12 -- because this is a great, great, great event

13 and we are really very pleased with the breakthroughs that

14 have been made.

15 But, of course, the Sierra Club is still

16 concerned about these long extending attainment dates.

17 And you've got to move that up. And we're going to

18 support you on the rigorous rules that are needed in order

19 to get those attainment dates a lot, lot quicker.

20 Thank you very much.

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.22 MR. WALLACE: Lee Wallace with Southern

23 California Gas and San Diego Gas and Electric. And yes.

24 And the only other item I'd request is to invite

25 your support for our climate action initiative which we

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

267

1 filed with the Public Utility Commission requesting a $75

2 million program to allow us to build more natural gas

3 vehicle infrastructure; electric vehicle support; small

4 scale LNG demonstration plants; hythane, which is a

5 mixture of hydrogen and natural gas, demonstrations; and

6 CNG hybrid demonstrations. We believe and particularly

7 the fleets around the ports and at inland trucking hubs

8 offer a unique opportunity. We feel we can partner with

9 you in this and we invite your support at the PUC.

10 Thank you.

11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. We'll Look at

12 that. Okay.

13 MR. KAGAN: Igor Kagan, Lung Association. And I

14 just have two really quick comments.

15 One, yes. But with a concern about the

16 Compliance Flexibility Measure oh two. We feel that it's

17 not in the best interests of public health to allow

18 refiners to avoid reducing their own emissions by

19 purchasing credits.

20 And save you a little time on the back end for

21 the next agenda item, the SIP revisions for Ventura

22 County, we request that you reject these revisions, and23 instead on our commitment to cut pesticides VOC emissions

24 by 20 percent from the 1990 base line.

25 Thank you.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

268

1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. We heard

2 you. That goes over to the issue about pesticides. Okay.

3 MR. EAVES: I'm Mike Eaves from the California

4 Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition. I would like to say, yes,

5 we support the new enhanced provisions of the SIP.

6 We've worked for years and everything with CARB

7 on many of the rulemakings, and we look forward to maybe

8 even more productive association on rulemaking in the

9 future and given the new climate here at the Air Resources

10 Board. And we really appreciate the efforts of the staff

11 and South Coast, San Joaquin Valley, SCAG, everybody to

12 get it together to come to agreement. And it sets a new

13 precedent for the future.

14 Thank you.

15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

16 MS. COATS: Thank you. I'm Danielle Coats with

17 the Western Riverside Council of Governments and Director

18 of Governmental Affairs. I'm here to say, yes, and just

19 to reiterate our support for the 2007 AQMP.

20 Thank you.

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Excellent. We appreciate

22 that.23 MR. TROTTER: Good afternoon. Andy Trotter with

24 the California Urban Forests Council and United Voices for

25 Healthier Communities.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

269

1 Yes, we support you. Our organizations include

2 California Relief and the Western Chapter of the

3 International Society of Horticulture. And we encourage

4 you to also remember to include natural systems to help

5 improve air quality as we plant over 7,000 trees October

6 27th, and our efforts will continue beyond that. Energy

7 started right here.

8 And thank you for the leadership of the Board,

9 the state, as well as the AQMD for helping us there.

10 Thank you.

11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for your reminder

12 about the role of trees in what we're trying to do. I

13 appreciate that.

14 MR. CARLSON: Hi. I'm Richard Carlson. I'm

15 Chief Executive Officer of Extengine Transport. I have

16 some slides, but in everybody's interest I'll refrain from

17 showing them. I'd just like to make a couple of comments.

18 We are an aftermarket technology supplier for

19 diesel engine emission control. And aftermarket -- not

20 aftermarket -- but aftertreatment is a pathway towards

21 compliance, along with fleet turnover, replacement, and

22 repower. And the regulations for some of the fleet rules

23 are recognizing that. And we'd like to encourage the24 Board and the staff to continue to move towards

25 accelerated implementation, which can I think best be met

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

270

1 by retrofit applications.

2 Thank you.

3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Appreciate that. Thank

4 you.

5 Okay. We've gotten through all of the one-minute

6 yeses. Now we're going to just ask people to take one

7 minute if at all possible. And I'll just keep calling

8 names.

9 Matt Keener.

10 Okay. Reverend Lilly.

11 Lisa Rabenstein.

12 Brent Newell, followed by Clayton Miller.

13 MR. NEWELL: Good afternoon. My name is Brent

14 Newell. I'm an attorney at the Center on Race, Poverty,

15 and the Environment. And I'm here today on behalf of the

16 Association of Irritated residents.

17 On Friday afternoon ARB staff briefed us on the

18 proposed modifications to the diesel truck rule and the

19 Mobile Ag Equipment Rule. And at that point I was very

20 optimistic and actually very appreciative of staff's

21 efforts to work with us and come up with some extra

22 reductions.

23 However, once I got home Friday night and24 actually saw the text of the language, read the fine

25 print, I was extremely disappointed, extremely

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

271

1 disappointed. I'm feeling very frustrated. And what I

2 want to ask the Board to do is to reject adoption of the

3 statewide strategy today and revise the control measures

4 to make them enforceable.

5 The Federal Clean Air Act requires control

6 measures in a state implementation plan to be enforceable.

7 On the monitor right now under the heading "Staff-Proposed

8 SIP Commitment," if you read the last sentence it says,

9 The measures as proposed" -- blah, blah, blah -- "may

10 provide more less than the amount shown." So there's no

11 commitment to achieve specific reductions in that measure.

12 Next one, please.

13 --o0o--

14 The Mobile Ag Equipment Rule is even worse

15 because there's no commitment to implement the reductions

16 by a specific date. It says, "We'll get around to

17 implementing it by 2017 if we feel like it. And we'll

18 decide that during the rule development process."

19 Then it also has the same sentence as the

20 Heavy-Duty Truck Rule where it says, "It may have more or

21 less than the reduction shown." I mean it's problematic

22 already because there's a range of tonnage for the rule

23 five to ten tons. Now they're saying, "Well, it may be

24 less than five tons if we feel like it."25 Now, the Federal Clean Air Act says that these

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

272

1 things have to be enforceable. Citizens and EPA can't

2 enforce these promises that you're making in this plan if

3 you retain discretion on when you implement them and what

4 amount of reductions are going to come from these things.

5 You can't send in discretionary measures.

6 Now, staff seems to think that they're okay

7 because they have a global commitment to achieve

8 reductions in each air basin by specific years and

9 specific tonnages in the aggregate. That runs smack-dab

10 into a case called Bayview Hunters Point Community

11 Advocates versus Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

12 It's a Ninth Circuit case, so it's controlling. And it

13 says that citizens can't enforce the goals of a state

14 implementation plan. We can only enforce the strategies.

15 So if that case holds true, then the only things

16 that we are allowed to enforce are your unenforceable

17 commitments that I've shown on the screen. This plan

18 doesn't amount to a hill of beans because those

19 mealy-mouthed weaselly statements about less reductions

20 are pervasive through the commitments in the plan.

21 So what I'm saying now is that these commitments

22 are not commitments.

23 I am sure that staff will try to discredit me or

24 say something bad or try to say something else. And, you25 know, I hope that you give me an opportunity to respond.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

273

1 So I really am frustrated. And I was ready to be

2 up here slappin' you on the back and saying thanks but,

3 you know, I can't.

4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Well, sorry to hear

5 that, of course.

6 I think we could perhaps have a legal comment at

7 this point or we can wait until the end.

8 Are you prepared to comment at this point?

9 ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL JENNE: Sure, I can

10 comment right now. It's Bob Jenne from the ARB Legal

11 Office.

12 Brent and I have had numerous discussions over

13 the past year and a half about the Bayview case. And we

14 keep -- we're very familiar with it and we believe that

15 basically he's misinterpreting it. And essentially the

16 bottom line is that our aggregate -- to get emission

17 reductions by a date certain is an enforceable commitment.

18 It's being submitted as an enforceable commitment. And

19 nothing in the Bayview case would prevent that from being

20 enforceable in the sense that if we did not get the

21 commitments by a certain date, Brent or anyone else could

22 file a citizen suit and get a court to order us to get

23 those commitments.

24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That was my understanding

25 as well.PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

274

1 Okay. Let's move on. Clayton Miller, followed

2 by Doug Korthof.

3 MR. MILLER: Good afternoon. I'm Clayton Miller.

4 I'm with the Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition.

5 And I am here just to express some concern about some

6 measures that are found in the South Coast AQMP today.

7 As you are well aware, this industry has been

8 under a lot of regulation, recently and not so recently,

9 with regulations controlling portable equipment in the

10 PERP and also in the Air Toxic Control Measure. The

11 in-use regulation was adopted here just back in July. And

12 that includes also a SOON program.

13 And also on the horizon for our industry is the

14 on-road heavy-duty truck regulation, because there's quite

15 a few trucks that service the industry with material

16 hauling, transferring equipment from job site to job site

17 and so forth. These are going to have big impacts on the

18 industry.

19 And why I'm here is I just -- you're now being --

20 now are considering approving the South Coast AQMP. And

21 there's two measures in there that I wanted to bring up

22 right now. The first is Contingency Measure oh three.

23 And that contingency measure seeks to ban the operation of

24 pre-Tier 3 engines under certain conditions in the event

25 that the district doesn't meet or attain the 2.5 standardPETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

275

1 in 2015. Now, this seems to be clearly inconsistent with

2 the intent of the off-road regulation to address the needs

3 of small fleet owners that must be complying in the same

4 year. So, you know, these are operators with one, maybe

5 two, three pieces of equipment. And our question is: How

6 could anybody make a living if they might need to -- or

7 are prohibited from using any of their equipment for an

8 unspecified period of time?

9 The second item I wanted to just touch upon is

10 Long-Term Control Measure 2. And that's even further out.

11 But that one would require all diesel off-road equipment

12 to meet Tier 4 standards by 2023.

13 Again, these are measures that are out there.

14 But they're so much more severe than what we just went

15 through, that I at least had to make note of that and come

16 here today.

17 And so that's what I wanted to share with this

18 Board today.

19 Thank you.

20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

21 Doug Korthof.

22 MR. KORTHOF: Douglas Korthof here from Seal

23 Beach. I'm speaking in opposition with a caveat that many

24 of the measures are a step in the right direction; they

25 just don't go far enough.PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

276

1 First let me acquaint you with the idea of EVPV,

2 or sometimes called PVEV, is the idea of electric vehicles

3 charging at nighttime -- slow charging at nighttime paid

4 for by daytime production of solar electric on your roof.

5 This meets -- the daytime peak is lowered by the solar

6 power and the nighttime low is raised by charging electric

7 cars, so it's a win-win for the grid. The grid does much

8 better.

9 We have the solar component. In fact, there's

10 going to be a tour of the solar homes on October 6th.

11 You're all invited. It's a national tour to visit local

12 solar homes. Socalsolartour.com or Nationalsolartour.com.

13 The thing I'm going to suggest to you is that,

14 whereas the staff proposals for the next steps require

15 lots and lots of money, you can do something that doesn't

16 require any money. And it's also a public/private

17 partnership involving people's daily form of life and

18 which is fun for them to do. It involves the people

19 putting up most of the money and the state putting up the

20 rest -- you know, the electric companies putting up the

21 rest in terms of rebates. But mostly it's the people

22 doing it.

23 It's regulatory only from the state's standpoint.

24 We have solar power, but we don't have electric cars. And

25 if there were electric cars available, that would fund the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345277

1 solar power on your roof, because every kilowatt-hour you

2 produce from your own solar if used to run your electric

3 car is worth about a dollar. The payoff period -- it's 33

4 percent return on investment if you use your solar

5 electric to run your car. So basically my solar system

6 was paid for three years ago. And not only that. I'm

7 helping the grid meet daytime peak and also avoid blowing

8 out transformers.

9 Now, the concern I have is that this was

10 proposed, the idea that, you know, we could just force the

11 manufacturers to produce electric cars through the

12 zero-emission vehicle mandate or other means. And all it

13 would do would be -- it would be a regulatory issue, would

14 be forcing them to make electric cars and the rest of it

15 falls in place. You know, people could buy an electric

16 car at freeway speeds, it would go 100 miles an hour, and

17 that would pay for their solar system.

18 And I want to point out that, you know,

19 refineries are getting away with murder. Now, it's true

20 that they can -- they buy these credits. But I think we

21 need to look at all of these polluters with a sense -- you

22 know, three things: An origination charge, a logistical

23 charge, and a sunset charge. The refineries need to pay.

24 You lock at the same thing in everything. Sweatshops

25 would have to pay the origination charge. Refineries

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345278

1 would have to pay the logistical charge because they're

2 killing our lungs.

3 And we -- you know, any bit of this business

4 about cleaning up Beverly Hills by taking gross polluters

5 off the road to pollute Wilmington doesn't fly with me.

6 You know, all of this air is the same. You know, we need

7 to start charging the refineries and the auto companies to

8 meet their responsibility. We've nurtured them all these

9 decades. And they've made the money and the taxpayer has

10 paid the bill. Now we need to start charging them.

11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Jeff Hawkins, are

12 you still here for this one?

13 Charlie Peters and Melissa Kelly-Ortega.

14 I see Melissa is here.

15 MS. KELLY-ORTEGA: Hello. Good afternoon. My

16 name is Melissa Kelly-Ortega and I'm from Merced in the

17 San Joaquin Valley. I'm the program associate for

18 Merced-Mariposa County Asthma Coalition as well as a

19 concerned parent and a member of the Mom's Clean Air

20 Network.

21 I've had the pleasure of working with a couple of

22 you on the task force and I have spoken with a couple of

23 you on the phone -- over the phone regarding ISSRC report

24 and the continuing possibility of attaining clean air by

25 2017.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345279

1 I commend the work that's been done since June.

2 But my job and the reason I drove down here was to help

3 you and to hold your feet to the fire. And I need to let

4 you know that I will not and cannot give up on the earlier

5 attainment date of 2017, because it is doable and

6 economically feasible. I won't give up for my children or

7 the families in Arvin.

8 I support a plan that sets the highest standards

9 and highest expectations for clean air. I support a plan

10 that includes the highest amount of reductions with zero

11 loopholes. I support a plan that targets specific

12 polluting sources, again that are enforceable without

13 loopholes.

14 I also support a plan that the community has been

15 given adequate time to understand before its adoption.

16 The Attachment B portion of this plan came out on Friday.

17 New information was added to today. Even as a member of

18 the task force who is immersing -- I'm immersing myself in

19 the information, I have to say adequate time has not been

20 given to really understand everything that's been added.

21 I would request that you delay adoption of this plan until

22 November when the community has been given enough time to

23 review it.

24 I appreciate the work time and effort ARB staff

25 has put into this plan. These are definitely steps in the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

2801 right direction. But let's set our expectations and

2 standards even higher in order to get the reductions we

3 need by 2017.

4 At the last task force meeting it was said that

5 everyone is targeted when it comes to reducing emissions.

6 That's a good things. But there's more room to be even

7 more courageous. Let's enhance the smog check program to

8 include heavy-duty trucks. Let's do that by next year or

9 the year -- maybe two years if you need it. Let's include

10 the tailpipe retrofits. Let's seriously consider clean

11 air days for emergencies. If there were red flag days or

12 emergency events where the air quality index is extremely

13 high and unhealthy for everyone, clean air days should be

14 considered for that.

15 So I would just like to thank you again for what

16 you've done. But let's wait until November to see what

17 more we can do before we adopt this plan, because my

18 children and the children in Arvin are counting on you to

19 set the highest standards and expectations.

20 Thank you very much.

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. I think we all would

22 like to be in a position to be able to specify things like

23 putting heavy duties into the inspection program. The

24 Legislature needs to help us with that one.

25 All right. Let's hear from -- Where are we here?

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

2811 We have -- we're over on the next page -- Frank

2 Caponi. And I understand that Charlie Peters is now back,

3 so he'll be talking to us about smog check, I'm sure.

4 Okay. Let's go. Is Frank Caponi here? No.

5 Okay. Charlie, followed by Bill La Marr.

6 MR. PETERS: Thank you, Mary Nichols and Air

7 Resources Board.

8 This is an interesting day. Mary Nichols has

9 been a key part of California's air quality efforts for

10 probably a lot longer than she'd like to remember and has

11 been right there in the core of all the major actions that

12 have happened over time. And we think that provides a

13 very significant opportunity to make tomorrow even better

14 than the progress made today.

15 I hate to disappoint you but in this particular

16 case I'm not going to talk about smog check. I'm going to

17 talk about fuel. And I am very confused with the

18 information that I see on the CARB website that has been

19 there for a long time indicating that corn ethanol may not

20 be the best approach for the State of California.

21 We are hearing an awful lot of information

22 indicating that growing a whole lot more corn in

23 California is going to have -- has potentially a very

24 significant impact on our water supply, on our surface

25 water. It can affect bays. It can affect the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

282

1 San Francisco Bay Area, the fish. All of these things2 seem to be pretty pertinent issues at this time.

3 In my view, the way the system is designed, and

4 the fed is involved as well as the state, is that all of

5 the policies affecting and supporting what in reality is

6 corn whiskey in our gasoline all increased the use of oil

7 and increased the profit of the oil companies. And I

8 don't think that matches very well with the goals that we

9 claim that we want for the State of California in reducing

10 global warming gases. I don't think more oil gets us

11 there.

12 So I would petition you, Mary Nichols and Board,

13 to give this some more thorough looking at. We've given

14 excuses that the federal government is going in the wrong

15 direction and all kinds of excuses. But I think we matter

16 and I think you in your experience, Mary Nichols, can

17 provide an opportunity for us to do more responsible

18 things that work for all of us and save the motorists a

19 bunch of money and clean up the air significantly quickly.

20 Thank you.

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

22 Bill La Marr.

23 MR. LA MARR: Good afternoon, Chairman Nichols

24 and members of the Board. My name is Bill La Marr, and

25 I'm the Executive Director of the California Small

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

283

1 Business Alliance.2 Alliance members are major trade associations

3 like the construction industry that spoke just before I

4 did. Some 20,000 companies belong to our trade

5 association members, and more than half of them are

6 located in the South Coast region. Nearly half of them --

7 or nearly all of these small businesses are manufacturers.

8 Moreover, their operations these companies are subject to

9 the regulations which are promulgated by local, state, and

10 federal agencies.

11 For more than a year Alliance members have been

12 an integral part of the discussions in the design of the

13 latest revision to the district's AQMP and the state SIP.

14 But because we're major stakeholders with a vested

15 interest in what the AQMP and the SIP will portend for our

16 businesses, their ability to compete in the global

17 marketplace, and to provide good jobs for many of the 16

18 1/2 million people who reside in this region, today you're

19 hearing a lot of enthusiastic speakers, all of whom are

20 applauding the dawn of a new day in cooperation between

21 state and local air quality agencies. Yet while our small

22 business members are pleased at the sign of this new

23 civility between the agencies, we and you should not lose

24 site of any impediments that these new control measures

25 might inadvertently or intentionally impose on small

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

284

1 business owners and the jobs and benefits that they're

2 able to provide.3 Historically, your agencies have relied heavily

4 on stationary sources, particularly small businesses, for

5 a large part of the emissions reductions. And every time

6 the small businesses that haven't moved their operations

7 elsewhere or shut down permanently have responded.

8 We're encouraged to see that most of the control

9 measures are focused at sources other than small

10 businesses. And for that we're most appreciative.

11 Madam Chair, everyone of our trade association

12 members congratulate you on your new appointment and we

13 wish you well as you carry out the responsibilities of

14 your office. Our members have also instructed me to tell

15 you that we stand ready to work with you, as we have

16 always done, to achieve realistic clean air goals without

17 compromising the economic goals of our region and state.

18 Thank you for allowing me to comment.

19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. And I

20 do note that your organization has been around and has

21 been an active part of many of the successes here.

22 So thank you.

23 Allan Lind from CCEEB, followed by Marilyn

24 Kamimura

25 MR. LIND: Madam Chair and members, I appreciate

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

285

1 the opportunity to speak to you. The time has allowed

2 some of my members to peel off some of our issues in the3 interim. So it's going to be briefer than I expected.

4 Of course CCEEB is here to support the staff

5 recommendation on adoption of the state strategy as well

6 as the AQMD's AQMP/SIP provisions. And we're especially

7 grateful for the efforts of the Chairwoman and the members

8 of the Board as well as the South Coast Air District staff

9 and its board members for working out -- and SCAG as

10 well -- and San Joaquin, let's throw them in there -- for

11 bringing this all together.

12 We do have a couple of concerns that I wanted to

13 bring to your attention. I'm sure there are things that

14 we can address in the coming months, and they deal

15 somewhat with fiscal affairs in all of this.

16 Much of the plan is predicated on some financial

17 incentives in a variety of ways. We need a clearer road

18 map, I think, of what financial incentives that are

19 already out there before we can talk about future

20 financial incentives. I know that there's really truly a

21 huge need for additional financial incentives. And I just

22 wanted to be sure you understand that CCEEB is here and

23 committing to do whatever it can to assist you in sorting

24 through the financial incentive universe that we have to

25 work with. But I think that we need to be especially in

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

286

1 this SIP and in all future measures -- really focus on the

2 responsibility and the accountability of the fiscal

3 measures that we have, especially when we're talking about4 funds that are going to be used to achieve SIP credible

5 improvements. We haven't always had a crystal-clear image

6 or picture of how the funds are being spent and what the

7 results are or will be or intended to be and whether or

8 not we actually get the funding -- the emission reductions

9 that the dollars have been targeted at.

10 We'd like to be on record as agreeing with the

11 importance of these fiscal incentives. One of the things

12 that I think that the SIP does not touch on well enough is

13 the importance of financial incentives for some of the

14 stationary sources. It talks an awful lot about mobile

15 sources. But I think we would be remiss in not addressing

16 the need for financial incentives for stationary sources.

17 I'll tell you that the charboiler industry, which is not a

18 member of CCEEB, I have a feeling is going to be extremely

19 hard-pressed to achieve any of the reductions that you're

20 speaking of without some form of financial incentive.

21 That's not a solicitation for the charbroiler industry to

22 join CCEEB but we would welcome them if they did.

23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: A modest incremental cost

24 on hamburgers.

25 MR. LIND: Careful there. That's one of my basic

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

287

1 food groups.

2 (Laughter.)

3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Mine too.4 MR. LIND: Finally, CCEEB wants to emphasize,

5 while these fiscal provisions -- the Carl Moyer program

6 guidelines are under development right now. And If I

7 could just put in a pitch.

8 In the past you have established a

9 Board-member-led task force stakeholder group to address

10 the best way to expand, improve, and enhance the Carl

11 Moyer program. We have made that suggestion over the last

12 eight or ten months, and we're still waiting for that task

13 force to be formed. And I hope that that will get some

14 attention in the very near future.

15 Thank you very much.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

17 Marilyn Kamimura, Rayne Thompson, Manuel Cunha

18 will be next.

19 MS. THOMPSON: Hello. My name is Rayne Thompson

20 with the California Farm Bureau Federation. And I'm just

21 going to make it really, really brief.

22 We do support the current plan and, most

23 importantly, we support the incentives programs that are

24 included in the plan. We think that this is the most

25 effective way of getting our growers to transition some of

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

288

1 their older equipment into newer equipment. We recognize

2 that without this incentive program, this plan will have a

3 great impact on smaller growers having to make that

4 transition.5 So really look forward to working with the Board

6 and finding creative ways on how to implement that plan as

7 well as obtaining those federal dollars, which we have

8 been working with Environmental Defense and California

9 Farm Bureau on getting those dollars from the farm bill.

10 So thank you very much.

11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Thanks for your

12 efforts on that.

13 Mr. Cunha.

14 MR. CUNHA: Yes, Madam Chair, welcome.

15 Board members, I'd like to acknowledge Lynn Terry

16 and the staff as well as two others, Madam Chair, that we

17 always forget because of the direction in which both your

18 state and the South Coast and San Joaquin and the Bay Area

19 and Sacramento, the most integral part is the research

20 team you have on board at ARB. Karen Magliano with the

21 PM10 work that's been going on, which helped guide our

22 valley SIP, and plus even others, as well as John DeMoffit

23 on the ozone. Research work that your staff has done is

24 beyond anybody's imagination, that the work they have is a

25 real model for how we directly write regulations rather

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

289

1 than on hysteria or people that jump up and down without

2 an effect, don't care about the economic damage to

3 business.

4 And maybe that's okay, Madam Chair. That maybe5 if we just shut all of our businesses down for a month and

6 send everybody home with no pay, then maybe they would

7 recognize the importance that business plays and that they

8 work with them closer rather than making hysterical -- or

9 comments about even agriculture. I'm greatly concerned.

10 As for what the staff has done on this proposal,

11 they worked very hard to meet the issues. And on the ag

12 side -- a very new area. Many farmers are not able just

13 to replace a farm tractor tomorrow. And the way that you

14 develop regulations of this type, farmers can never pass

15 the cost on to the consumers when they are predicated on

16 what the buyer is going to pay for their product. And if

17 the farmer doesn't want to sell it for what they want to

18 pay, they will buy it from a third-world country.

19 Agriculture is a very integral part.

20 And also I think it's a food safety issue, great

21 concern on both sides. California with this Governor

22 totally supports California grow and California buy,

23 because of the most safest food that is grown in the world

24 is here. And we must not destroy this industry because we

25 think that we need to do a retrofit rule by throwing on

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

290

1 some consultant's device on an engine, when you can't even

2 do that with a farm tractor. They are different vehicles.

3 They don't operate 325 days a year -- or 360 days a year,

4 24 hours a day.

5 The farmers want to be a part of cleaning up the6 air and they have been. The most aggressive group has

7 occurred in the San Joaquin Valley with the stationary

8 engines with the Ag Ice program that your staff worked

9 very hard with. But we do look forward -- without

10 incentive funding from the equip program under the farm

11 bill, it is very important. And I want to acknowledge

12 Congressman Dennis Cardoza in his efforts with 150

13 million, the first time that is appearing in the farm bill

14 to allow equip funding to be used for steel and iron.

15 It's always been used for conservation, for water and all

16 that. Now we're going to be able to use it for farm

17 equipment. And that is a great success story that all of

18 us worked hard to do.

19 Again, we move forward. We would work with the

20 staff on continuing in the ag. But you just don't go

21 throw farmers into a rule and say, "Go buy your tractors

22 tomorrow," because then maybe tomorrow some people may be

23 thinner than what they looked at today when they buy their

24 food from China or from another country that may not have

25 the safest.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

291

1 Thank you very much, and look forward to working

2 with all of you. Thank you.

3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

4 Roger Isom, Sal Ramirez, Tom Politico.

5 MR. ISOM: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman,6 members of the Board. My name Roger Isom. I'm with

7 California Cotton Growers Association. My comments are

8 going to be specific to the ag section.

9 We support the proposed revisions. But you do

10 understand that while there has been a placeholder for the

11 ag equipment section, none of us knew what those

12 reductions were until last week. We still question them.

13 To be honest, we think they might be underestimated as

14 well. There may be additional reductions out there.

15 But I am quite surprised by the concern over the

16 section. We think the actual -- the proposed revisions

17 are towards clean air. And that's the point that I want

18 to make today. And that's the way that the rule was

19 written before -- or the section was written before. It

20 required tractors in 2014 to go to Tier 4.

21 Tier 4 engines aren't available until 2014. So

22 what that means is that you're encouraging -- or

23 discouraging growers from buying a new tractor today over

24 the next six years. Because all that's available right

25 now is Tier 3. And actually Tier 3 just became available

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

292

1 this year.

2 So when you look in terms of incentives, as has

3 been mentioned before, ag can't pass along the class. We

4 need that incentive help. There's been a huge lobbying

5 effort to get $150 million in the farm bill. That farm

6 bill, assuming it's a pass this year, would be good7 between 2008 and 2013 or 14. We couldn't use a dollar of

8 it. No farmer's going to go buy a Tier 3 that he has to

9 turn right back around and replace and destroy. It

10 doesn't make any sense.

11 The way that Carl Moyer's written requires you

12 three years in advance of any rulemaking to spend that

13 money. Well, in 2011 we won't have Tier 4 engines. If

14 they're required in 2014, we're not going to buy them.

15 Again, it doesn't make any sense.

16 These proposed revisions encourage farmers to

17 upgrade their equipment, encourages us to take advantage

18 of the incentive programs. And I think that's why they're

19 necessary and we'll support that included in the plan.

20 Thank you.

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Appreciate your comments.

22 Sal Ramirez, are you here?

23 Tom Politico?

24 Fernando Mendoza?

25 Jan Misquez?

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

293

1 Paul Choe?

2 Francine Lifson?

3 Terry Roberts?

4 Barbara Spoonhour?

5 Dropping like flies here.

6 Enrique Chiock?7 Elina Green?

8 Enrique Robles?

9 Rosemarie Yu?

10 Dr. Afif-El-Nasan?

11 Sylvia Bentancort?

12 Martha Arguello? I don't see her.

13 Diana Donta?

14 I bet that's Diana Bonta actually from Kaiser

15 Permanente.

16 Not here.

17 Pamela Bates?

18 Stephanie Hansen?

19 Pat Kennedy?

20 Todd Campbell?

21 Todd was here. Yes, there he is. Excellent.

22 I was beginning to wonder if we'd been completely

23 abandoned here.

24 MR. CAMPBELL: Now I'm feeling a lot of pressure.

25 I just feel like I have to say something great after all

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

294

1 those answer.

2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You do, you do.

3 MR. CAMPBELL: Just wanted to say real quickly

4 this could be a start of a very beautiful relationship, or

5 friendship as it would go. It's great to be here. It's

6 great to see the coordination truly restored through the

7 leadership of the members of this Board and Madam Chair.8 My name is Todd Campbell. I'm the Policy

9 Director for Clean Energy. I want to say Coalition for

10 Clean Air. It's been a long time. It feels like I should

11 be saying that in some ways.

12 But I just wanted to say that it's really truly

13 important. This is a huge achievement that you're making

14 today. I think in the spirit of Dr. Henry Gong, he would

15 have been very proud to be a part of this day. And it's a

16 very huge tribute to him that this agency and the South

17 Coast Air Quality Management District have moved so far in

18 such short periods of time to achieve such significant

19 emissions reductions for the State of California for the

20 South Coast and for the San Joaquin Valley. It's not

21 perfect, but I'll take it.

22 I'd also like to say that there were some

23 specific things -- specific measures that we're very

24 encouraged about. Obviously from Clean Energy's

25 perspective, we're very eager to help the state reduce

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

295

1 emissions, not only just criteria air pollutants but also

2 greenhouse gases from truck sources.

3 And I second and third and fourth the idea of the

4 Air Resources BOARD looking at new technologies, not just

5 to get us to where we need to be, but to get us into the

6 future. And I think certainly we're more than willing to

7 help in the critical areas like the ports with liquefied8 natural gas trucks, which we believe are going to be a

9 bridge to even cleaner futures, using biomethane and also

10 hydrogen.

11 So with that, I'm going to say thank you so much

12 for your hard work, and conclude.

13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks for sticking with

14 us.

15 Last, Tim Carmichael. He must put himself at the

16 end of the list every time. That's the only way I could

17 figure this out.

18 MR. CARMICHAEL: I think the staff was hoping I

19 would leave.

20 Tim Carmichael with the Coalition for Clean Air.

21 I'll try and keep it as brief as possible. But I didn't

22 take advantage of your one-minute sale there for a reason.

23 There are a couple of points that I want to make that

24 haven't been made.

25 First of all, thank you, Chairman Nichols, for

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

296

1 your leadership. And I also want to remind everybody and

2 thank the Board that voted two months ago to hold this

3 item over so the staff could work to strengthen the plan.

4 And, you know, I want to remind people that we appreciate

5 that decision. And it bore fruit. And we support the

6 additional commitments that are being proposed before you

7 and we hope that you will adopt them.

8 That said, there's still lots to be done, and9 some of you have already commented on that. But I want to

10 point out a few things.

11 One, the Clean Air Act originally envisioned that

12 SIPs would be comprised only of adopted measures. We're

13 obviously not operating in that world right now,

14 unfortunately so. But that's where we need to go with

15 this. You know, the fact is you cannot pick up this plan

16 today even after you act, assuming you're going to act and

17 add stuff, and do everything in it and know that you're

18 going to get to clean air by any year, because almost half

19 of it is still undefined. And that is a big problem. And

20 I'm going to come back to that point.

21 But I want to just touch on a couple other things

22 that haven't been mentioned. Some of these were in our

23 letter, other issues that we continue to be concerned

24 about.

25 The lack of contingency measures in the plan.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

297

1 There's no way that anybody who's planning on anything

2 believes that the original plan or the current plan is

3 going to work just as they envisioned. We don't have

4 enough contingency measures in the plan, period, and they

5 should be in there.

6 There isn't -- there's an assumption by the South

7 Coast in the South Coast plan of 100 percent compliance

8 with their regulations. That's not real world. And we9 don't have, you know, a backup mechanism there.

10 I've mentioned this several times before. The

11 lack of synergies between the SIP and other things that

12 the Air Resources Board is doing. I'm very appreciative

13 that AB 32, you know, windfall reductions, if you will,

14 are now included. And that's one of the examples I've

15 given before. But we've still got AB 1007, the alt fuel

16 plan for the state, which I think many of us thought would

17 be done by now. But the synergy between that and

18 maximizing the benefits of alt fuels is part of this plan.

19 Same with the ZEV mandate. And are we making the

20 most of that program to support the SIP?

21 The pesticide issue has already been touched on.

22 We'll have an opportunity to touch on that again.

23 The lack of -- you know, concerns about

24 enforceability and approvability of even the strengthened

25 plan.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

298

1 I want to return briefly to the black box issue,

2 and just point out that beyond near-term pollution

3 reductions that are actually achieved, I think the next

4 measure that this Board will be measured against is how

5 quickly we define, that is, eliminate the black box. And

6 just a closing sentence on that. That that has really got

7 to be paramount. Because until we define the rest of this

8 plan, it's not real. It's not real for the breathers of

9 California and the environmental health advocates, health10 advocates that are here. But it's also not providing the

11 certainty that industry needs, both industry that's going

12 to have to comply with regulations and industry that's

13 going to have to develop the technologies to help

14 industries comply with the regulations and help us as

15 individuals comply.

16 On that point, my request to the Board is that

17 you -- and I think this is to a point that Chairman

18 Nichols made earlier. There is today no really good

19 reporting mechanism on the SIP short of three-year, you

20 know, potential revisions to the SIP. And I would

21 encourage you to ask your staff to report at a minimum on

22 an annual basis how have we progressed versus this plan

23 and how have we progressed in reducing the black box each

24 year going forward.

25 Thank you very much.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

299

1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. I think that's

2 an excellent suggestion. It makes the plan more like a

3 real plan and less like just something that you adopt and

4 send off somewhere else. I think I see a lot of head

5 nodding here on that suggestion.

6 We have come to the conclusion of the public

7 testimony as far as I can tell. And it's time now to move

8 towards action. Action! Action! Action! I've always

9 wanted to say that.10 So, anyway, we have two resolutions to vote on

11 here. But before we do that, we have to disclose any ex

12 parte communications.

13 ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL JENNE: Chairman Nichols,

14 before you go ahead and vote on the resolutions, the staff

15 would like to make two technical corrections.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right.

17 ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL JENNE: The first

18 correction is in Attachment B to Resolution 07-28 on page

19 8. That's the resolution on the state strategy. There's

20 a proposed new SIP measure for cleaner main ship engines

21 and fuel. The correction is that we expect the clean

22 fuels portion of this measure to be brought to the Board

23 in 2008 instead of 2007 as shown in Attachment B.

24 And the second correction is on page 8 of

25 Resolution '07-41. That's the resolution for approval of

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

300

1 the South Coast plan. And the second paragraph from the

2 top describes the portions of the plan that will not be

3 submitted as SIP revisions.

4 That paragraph states, "We will not be submitting

5 the South Coast District's backstop measures for ports and

6 port-related facilities." But as described in our

7 presentation at the beginning of the hearing, it is our

8 intent to submit the district's commitment to adopt the

9 backstop rule -- commitment to adopt the backstop rule and

10 that the specific numerical targets referenced in the11 measure are not being submitted as enforceful SIP

12 commitments. We mention that because that's very

13 important to the district and we wanted to clarify that

14 point.

15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, I understand.

16 Okay. Thank you.

17 All right. With that, let's do the ex parte

18 communication. And we'll start on this end.

19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you.

20 On September 18th, I had a phone call with Nadia

21 Bautista, Coalition for Clean Air. And on that call was

22 Daniella Simuovic, Melissa Kelly-Ortega, Nicole Davis,

23 Favio Law, and David Lighthouse. And our conversation was

24 consistent with the testimony we heard today.

25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: On September 26th and then

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

301

1 again today, the 27th, I had a conversation with Roger

2 Isom, California Association of -- Cotton Ginners

3 Association. And he raised his concerns regarding

4 interrelationship between incentive dollars in the

5 proposed ag rule.

6 BOARD MEMBER HILL: On September 24th there was a

7 conference call with Nadia Bautista, Coalition for Clean

8 Air; Kim Thompson for Fresno/Madera Medical Society; and

9 Nicole Davis, International Sustainable Systems Research

10 Center. And the testimony today was consistent with the11 conference call.

12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I participated in a

13 conference call on September 13th with a number of

14 representatives of environmental organizations. I don't

15 think they're all listed here actually. I know NRDC and

16 the Coalition for Clean Air were on the call, but I

17 believe there were several others involved as well. I'm

18 just going to mention the names of Adrian Martinez, David

19 Pettit, and Tom Plennis. And assume that since their

20 comments were exactly consistent with what they said here

21 today, that that will cover the point.

22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I have nothing to report,

23 Madam Chair.

24 BOARD MEMBER CASE: I'm not really sure how to

25 deal with this on an ex parte basis. I've been at so many

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

302

1 task force with all of the people in the audience to have

2 discussed these things so many times, the basic

3 conversations have been very similar to this. And it's

4 been from those in the ag industry, the Coalition for

5 Clean Air, all those on all of the various task force.

6 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I participated in the

7 discussion that took place between SCAG, the district, and

8 CARB and talked extensively with each member who

9 participated, both electeds and staff. But it's

10 consistent with what was talked about today.

11 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I have no disclosures.12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. Then let's move

13 on to the conclusion.

14 Does the staff have any final comments that you

15 wanted to make?

16 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No.

17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: No. Okay, you've done it.

18 Good.

19 Actually it's all out there. Your work speaks

20 for itself, that's for sure.

21 All right. Well, then I think we should vote on

22 the two resolutions separately. So --

23 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Madam Chair?

24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes.

25 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Could I ask a question before

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

303

1 we go on?

2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, of course.

3 BOARD MEMBER CASE: We had a couple of

4 recommendations that were presented by the staff of the

5 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

6 Was there anything necessary to be added to our

7 resolution to make sure those items get included? And now

8 of course I can't find them in all the papers.

9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Transport study. What

10 else?

11 BOARD MEMBER CASE: There was an add and revise12 language to remove impediments to early reductions;

13 statement of support for new technology development

14 including fuel efficiency; cafe standards, locomotives,

15 retrofits; commitments from CARB to ensure Valley's fair

16 share and commitment to support it; looking for additional

17 incentive money. But particularly the add or revise

18 language to remove impediments to early reduction. I

19 believe Mr. Isom signed for that.

20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yeah, that's the only one

21 that I thought might need some language if it's a problem.

22 Does the staff -- do you know what this issue is?

23 And do you have a suggestion?

24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Well, in terms

25 of the ag measure, I thought we resolved it and had

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

304

1 consensus on that. I think there's a broader issue that

2 has been raised relative to the Moyer guidelines.

3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. Well, that's an

4 overarching concern, which I think we do need to talk

5 about along with this issue of how we're tracking our

6 progress on the SIP. And there may be others that

7 individual Board members want to raise as well. But those

8 two were weighing on my mind certainly.

9 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:

10 Although, you know, we do have guideline

11 revisions of Carl Moyer coming up including a task force.

12 And so some of those issues I think will come up there and13 would be resolved in the next three or four months.

14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Has that task force come

15 into existence?

16 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No, it

17 hasn't. No, I'm still working on that.

18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. So we need to do it.

19 BOARD MEMBER CASE: It might just be a statement

20 of support from this Board to take a look at those

21 elements to make sure that we're incentivizing industry to

22 take earlier action. We don't want to have them waiting

23 until 2014 to get a Tier 4 engine if in fact they've got

24 the resources now to get something that will bring us

25 closer to attainment sooner.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

305

1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yeah, I think probably we

2 could get unanimous consent on guidance in general to be

3 working as we move forward on that, yes.

4 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Well, as we approve the

5 resolutions, I want to come back to the point that I think

6 we all nodded our head with, is the idea of some kind of

7 annual review, and ask whether that's true for both

8 districts and CARB, the request, or only for CARB?

9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I would imagine it was

10 intended for both. But we can't really enforce it on the

11 districts.

12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: In our earlier13 discussions about working together with staff we had --

14 Barry had an idea about joint reports to the Board. So we

15 might want to think about a joint report.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Joint report would be even

17 better. If we could request that, that would be

18 excellent.

19 BOARD MEMBER CASE: As another member of another

20 agency, I think that's really good.

21 And just to be mindful, there were a lot of

22 comments that we heard today. And every plan that goes

23 forward is not absolutely the ideal to any individual

24 person that -- there were those when we moved forward on

25 the ozone plan for the valley that kind of poo-poo'd this

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

306

1 whole idea of trying to find earlier attainment and

2 working on task force. And I would just like to say that

3 task force process has brought tremendous strides in going

4 forward. And everybody at those meetings have been very

5 committed. And I don't think it stops just when we sign

6 off on a plan. I really believe that that's a good

7 working relationship that will continue, because we all

8 want to be breathing cleaner air.

9 So, you know, just to be mindful, a lot of work

10 has happened and it wasn't just to get to this point to

11 sign off to say, "Well, now that that one goes on the

12 shelf. Let's start with the next one." This is part of a

13 process that we're all very much engaged in. And I do14 believe we've got better working relationships, and that's

15 the important piece we continue to work forward with.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think that's an excellent

17 point. It was said a couple of times, but maybe not

18 emphasized strongly enough, that the target date that we

19 are all working on at the moment is 2017. And that's six

20 years actually of acceleration, obviously not legally

21 enforceable at this point because that isn't a deadline

22 that's realized. But it's a reality that that's where

23 we're headed. So I think that's pretty amazing when you

24 think about where we started.

25 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Madam Chair, if I could just

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

307

1 suggest, on the review, the annual review, perhaps the

2 task force should look at that at least from San Joaquin

3 to see what items and what issues may need to be reviewed

4 on an annual basis as we go forward.

5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: For the content of the --

6 BOARD MEMBER HILL: For the content of it, yeah.

7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yeah, I would agree with

8 that. That's a good thing for them to take a look at.

9 But I think from this Board the direction would

10 be to ask the staff to work with both districts to make

11 sure that we're getting annual reviews and that they are

12 joint reviews.

13 All right. Subject to that concern -- or that14 issue, do I have a motion to approve --

15 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: So moved.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: -- the strategy?

17 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Second.

18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. All in favor

19 say aye.

20 (Ayes.)

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And how about the South

22 Coast air basin SIP, do I have a motion?

23 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: So move.

24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Second?

25 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Second.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

308

1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. Very good.

2 Those guys are fast on the draw here. That's what being

3 an elected official does for you, I guess.

4 Okay. All in favor say Aye.

5 (Ayes.)

6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Excellent.

7 We're done. Thank you so much, everybody.

8 Thanks to all of you who stayed with us to the end.

9 We have one more item that we have to deal with

10 before the end of the day. But let's take a five minute

11 break.

12 (Thereupon a recess was taken.)

13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We're back in session for

14 the final action of this Board meeting. This is also15 continued from June 22nd. And this is a public meeting to

16 consider approval of a modification to the current SIP

17 commitment for pesticide emissions reductions in the

18 Ventura County nonattainment area.

19 I believe staff has a report.

20 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Thank

21 you.

22 Staff briefed you at the June 22nd meeting on a

23 proposed modification to the Department of Pesticide

24 Regulations existing SIP commitment to achieve ROG

25 emission reductions from pesticide use in Ventura County

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

309

1 towards the 1-hour ozone attainment issue.

2 In response to the comments received at that

3 hearing, staff has revised its proposal. Today we will

4 present our revised proposal to substitute surplus ROG

5 emission reductions from California's ongoing Mobile

6 Source Emission Control Program for a portion of the

7 commitment in the 1994 ozone SIP for pesticide emission

8 reductions in Ventura County.

9 In addition, staff is proposing that the

10 substitution be temporary and be phased out over time with

11 a sunset date of 2012. Whereas our previous proposal was

12 to have it be permanent.

13 At this time I'd like to ask Kurt Karperos again

14 to make the staff presentation.15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay.

16 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

17 CHIEF KARPEROS: Thank you, Mr. Cackette.

18 Today I'm going to talk about a modification to

19 the current SIP commitment for pesticide emission

20 reductions in the Ventura County nonattainment area.

21 You'll also be hearing from the Department of Pesticide

22 Regulations about their 2008 pesticide plan.

23 --o0o--

24 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

25 CHIEF KARPEROS: Under the 1-hour ozone SIP, DPR committed

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

310

1 to reduce ROG emissions from pesticides for five

2 non-attainment areas. Although this commitment was not

3 achieved in Ventura County, Ventura still attained the

4 one-hour ozone standard in 2005. Nevertheless, there

5 remains the obligation, and DPR is under court order to

6 make good on the commitment by 2008.

7 --o0o--

8 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

9 CHIEF KARPEROS: To comply, DPR is proposing a near-term

10 fumigation emission reduction measure in its 2008

11 pesticide plan. The proposed control measure would

12 achieve reductions from current pesticide emissions by

13 requiring best available control technology, or BACT, and

14 through the use of pesticide emission caps.

15 For all 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas, except16 Ventura, application of BACT would achieve the ROG

17 reductions from pesticides that are required by the 1994

18 ozone SIP.

19 --o0o--

20 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

21 CHIEF KARPEROS: Reaching the target in Ventura is

22 difficult. From 1990 Ventura has experienced a very large

23 increase in acreage under cultivation with crops requiring

24 fumigation. Because the emission cap would be the

25 limiting control, many of these acres would be presumably

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

311

1 removed from production.

2 On May 7th, ARB staff published a proposal to

3 permanently substitute one ton per day of surplus ROG

4 emission reductions from California's ongoing Mobile

5 Source Emission Control Program for one ton per day

6 pesticide emission reductions in Ventura. This

7 substitution would assist DPR in meeting their 2008 target

8 emission reductions without removing acreage from

9 production.

10 --o0o--

11 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

12 CHIEF KARPEROS: Based on public comment heard at the

13 Board hearing on June 22nd, we now understand that in

14 Ventura, the BACT element in the proposed 2008 fumigation

15 regulation would be 1.3 tons per day short of the needed16 ROG reductions.

17 We are now proposing to revise the 1994 ozone SIP

18 to substitute 1.3 tons per day of surplus ROG emission

19 reductions from California's ongoing Mobile Source

20 Emission Control Program to cover the needed pesticide

21 reductions in Ventura.

22 However, we are also now proposing that this

23 substitution be phased out over time. The amount of

24 surplus Mobile Source ROG emission reductions would be

25 reduced by approximately one-third ton per year -- per day

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

312

1 each year after 2008. And the surplus substitution would

2 be completely phased out by 2012.

3 The phaseout of the substitution would ensure

4 that there is no weakening of the SIP relative to the

5 already achieved 1-hour ozone standard or for reduction

6 needs under the 8-hour standard. We will report back to

7 the Board in 2010 on the implementation of the

8 substitution and phaseout if you were to approve the SIP

9 amendment.

10 --o0o--

11 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

12 CHIEF KARPEROS: We recommend that the Board adopt a

13 modification to the existing pesticide SIP commitment for

14 Ventura County. Today's proposal will ensure that all

15 pesticide reductions required under the 1994 SIP

16 commitment would be achieved from pesticides by 2012.17 Thank you. That completes ARB staff's

18 presentation.

19 Now Paul Goslin, Chief Deputy Director of the

20 Department of Pesticide Regulation, will describe their

21 regulation in more detail.

22 DPR CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR GOSLIN: Thank you.

23 It's still a little dark.

24 Paul Goslin, Chief Deputy Director with the

25 Department of Pesticide Regulation. Madam Chair and

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

313

1 Board, I want to extend our appreciation and Director

2 Marianne Warmerdam's commitment for us to continue to

3 stand shoulder to shoulder to meet California's air

4 quality challenges, especially as it relates to

5 pesticides.

6 I think as you read through the -- for those who

7 weren't here -- the testimony and presentation of the

8 continuation of the June 22nd meeting, this change is

9 significant in that this is going to allow all the time

10 commitments to be delivered especially from pesticides.

11 And we're going to do that by 2012.

12 One of the things that we are still hearing is

13 concern about how much impact the pesticide cap and

14 reduction is actually going to have, as well as I think

15 some concerns from folks about whether we're going to

16 deliver the goods on our regulatory approach. And I think17 the commitment we wanted to make is to come back before

18 the Board and be very transparent about what we've done

19 and what the impact and how we're actually implementing

20 this in two years. And we feel that's in fairness to --

21 all the stakeholders are going to voice some concern on

22 this.

23 So at this point I'm going to turn it over to

24 Eric Walls from DPR staff, who's going to go through some

25 of the details of the proposed.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

314

1 Thank you.

2 --o0o--

3 MR. WALLS: Thank you. I'll try not to repeat

4 what Mr. Karperos already said.

5 Pesticides are a major source of VOCs in Ventura.

6 Next slide.

7 --o0o--

8 MR. WALLS: And that's mostly fumigants.

9 Next slide.

10 --o0o--

11 MR. WALLS: Okay. Mr. Karperos mentioned our

12 commitment. We will be implementing regulations next year

13 to meet that commitment. And as he said, there are

14 difficulties in Ventura because of the shift to high

15 fumigation crops, high value crops that require annual

16 fumigation. A 20-percent reduction from 1991 levels is

17 equivalent to a 46-percent reduction from 2004 levels.18 Next slide.

19 --o0o--

20 MR. WALLS: So we will notice some revisions to

21 our regulatory proposal in October. And one of those we

22 intend to notice is a schedule for getting the reductions

23 consistent with Appendix H.

24 The likely result of requiring the extra 1.3 tons

25 per day, all in 2008, is that there'll be substantial

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

315

1 pressure put on historically agricultural land, a risk of

2 economic dislocation that it's not -- there's not a

3 justifying countervailing interest to take that risk.

4 Next slide.

5 --o0o--

6 MR. WALLS: All the reductions will be achieved

7 by 2012. You see a graphic of the difference between an

8 emissions cap with a force reduction of 2008 and 2012.

9 Another thing I'd like to address is concerns

10 about risks of toxic exposure. DPR has implemented

11 already very strict controls through their risk assessment

12 and management programs to protect the public from

13 exposure to methyl bromide and 1-3-D, for example, which

14 are probably the major fumigants used in Ventura. These

15 controls include, you know, not just acute -- exposure but

16 controls on ambient levels.

17 Next slide, please.18 --o0o--

19 MR. WALLS: These controls include caps on use in

20 a 36-square-mile area, restrictions on method and

21 equipment that can be used, buffer zones that have to be

22 left around application sites, limits on rates of

23 application, and limits on acres that can be fumigated

24 within a 24-hour period. These controls work despite the

25 growth and emissions that I alluded to earlier. There has

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

316

1 been some monitoring during peak use and the results are

2 in the slide. And it shows that the ambient air

3 concentrations during peak use are below levels of concern

4 established by DPR and OEHHA.

5 Thank you.

6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thanks.

7 Given the time, I think I'm going to ask those

8 who are testifying in support to just indicate support,

9 unless you have some specific change or addition or

10 something that you're seeking in this proposal, and sort

11 of note it. And I'd ask you not to testify.

12 I will ask people who have opposition, only if

13 they have a specific change other than just saying, "No

14 don't do it" -- I mean, "yes" and "no' we get. But if

15 there are specific changes that you're seeking or actions

16 that you want the Board to take other than to adopt or not

17 adopt the changes, I would really like to hear from you.

18 And I'd like to focus the testimony on those comments if I19 could. I think it's going to be more helpful in focusing

20 our attention at this point.

21 So with that in mind, Peter Green, do you want

22 to --

23 MR. GREEN: Support.

24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Support. Okay, excellent.

25 Rayne Thompson?

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

317

1 MS. THOMPSON: Support.

2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Susan Johnson?

3 MS. JOHNSTON: Support. I have a couple things I

4 want to say.

5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Come on down then.

6 That's okay. If you want to add, you're welcome to. Not

7 trying to prevent people from having input.

8 MS. JOHNSON: And I'll attempt to be quick.

9 I am the Chief Deputy Agricultural Commissioner

10 from Ventura County. And I just want to frame the

11 discussion a little bit about why it is difficult for

12 growers in Ventura County to switch away from fumigated

13 crops. I have often referred to Ventura County as the

14 county where you cannot farm and you cannot stop farming.

15 All of the county land in Ventura and all of the land in

16 the cities is protected under one low-growth ordinance or

17 another.

18 If a farmer wishes to stop farming in Ventura19 County, he has to have a 50-percent vote of the voting

20 constituency in that district. So this is literally a

21 place where you can't farm and you can't sell. We have

22 only -- over 90 schools within a half a mile of

23 conventional agriculture.

24 The best use for some of this land may in fact be

25 urban conversion since many of our parcels particularly in

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

318

1 the city are entirely surrounded by incompatible

2 activities. This is mostly as a result of soil which is

3 supposed to protect agriculture and which actually mostly

4 protects...

5 I have a grower who has, for example, three

6 churches with day-care centers, one public school, a

7 residential area, and a stand-alone church within a

8 quarter of a mile of his farm. Applications of manure,

9 organic pesticides, conventional pesticides, nutrients and

10 fertilizers all result in an uproar from the adjoining

11 property. There is no time of the day and no day of the

12 week when this guy can do his cultural practice.

13 The largest contributor to poor air quality in

14 Ventura County is vehicle traffic. While agriculture

15 certainly contributes, and we're not arguing with that,

16 agriculture also produces things that are good for air

17 quality. There appears to be no comparable upside to

18 vehicle traffic or development. Agriculture in Ventura is

19 a $1.5 billion industry. Top ten crops in Ventura County,20 six of those are fumigated. All of the crops coming up,

21 more berries, more berries, and more nurseries, are also

22 fumigated.

23 So, oddly enough, the trade-off for air quality

24 in Ventura County is to accept the air we have and do the

25 best that we can, which I think is what the proposal here

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

319

1 is to improve it, while retaining the conventional

2 agriculture or to literally run the farmers out of

3 business and force the public to allow the land to be

4 converted to an urban use. We estimate that for every

5 acre of agriculture we lose, we will get three times the

6 emissions from population increases and vehicle traffic.

7 You may hear comments from people that organic or

8 some other cropping method is the answer. I'd just like

9 to say that very few people wish to live next to ag.

10 People in Ventura County want agriculture to stay not

11 because it feeds them and is the backbone of their

12 economy, but because it sits on the thing they really wish

13 to preserve, which is their open space, their view, their

14 value of their property and their quality of life. And if

15 we do not do something like adopt Appendix H, we will

16 simply increase development, pave the place over, and get

17 worse air.

18 Thank you.

19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.20 BOARD MEMBER CASE: If I could ask the speaker:

21 If it's required that it goes to a vote if a farmer quits

22 farming, how do you stop -- if a farmer says it's not

23 economic -- and I think this is part of this issue that

24 they're looking for higher value crops -- what's the

25 enforcement for the farmer?

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

320

1 MS. JOHNSON: There is no enforcement for the

2 farmer. I mean the farmer simply eats it in Ventura

3 County. The farmer always loses in Ventura County

4 regardless.

5 BOARD MEMBER CASE: The land sits idle then is

6 what you're saying?

7 MS. JOHNSON: Well, not yet, not much. We just

8 keep going to higher and higher value crops. But if you

9 remove the tools that people use to produce strawberries,

10 raspberries, colored bell peppers, tomatoes, cut flowers,

11 and nursery stock, the margin for the farmers simply gets

12 smaller, the land will lay fallow, and no low growth. I

13 mean people in Ventura County honestly believe that there

14 is some low growth ordinance that will force the farmer to

15 stay in business when he's losing money. And I'm here to

16 tell you there is no ordinance like that. If farming goes

17 out of Ventura County, it will be paved over. People who

18 moved up from the San Fernando to get out of the San

19 Fernando Valley will then be in the San Fernando Valley.

20 We will be L.A. County.21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. You know, I just

22 have to comment here. I hear the frustration in your

23 voice and I'm sorry you feel so frustrated by what you're

24 trying to do there. And you may be right about some of

25 the people who live in Ventura County. But I think that

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

321

1 the attitude that you're portraying is one which is so

2 hostile that it's probably not conducive to farmers

3 actually working constructively with any of their

4 neighbors to try to get them to cooperate in doing things

5 that would allow them to stay in business as farmers.

6 So I apologize if that's offensive to you, but --

7 MS. JOHNSON: You'd be amazed what we manage to

8 get accomplished in Ventura County. We've had a consensus

9 building group going for seven years, which is a model

10 across the State of California for consensus building

11 between agriculture and our other stakeholders. We have a

12 very good relationship actually with our environmental

13 stakeholders and our labor stakeholders. We're a model

14 county for the promotion of farm worker housing. We have

15 a model method for dealing with farming near schools. It

16 is in fact very frustrating, but people do farm. All I'm

17 trying to tell you is that they farm on the edge. They

18 farm barely. And if you push harder, they'll go under.

19 Thank you.

20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. We'll now hear21 from -- we have seven environmental groups who signed up.

22 I'm not sure that they're all still here. But they're all

23 in opposition. So maybe we could get you to articulate

24 what other than doing nothing you would have us do, or if

25 anybody wants to comment on that.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

322

1 MR. NEWELL: Good evening. My name is Brent

2 Newell. I'm an attorney at the Center on Race, Poverty,

3 and the Environment. I'm here on behalf of the Ventura

4 Coast Keeper, the Wishtoyo Foundation, Children and

5 Community Advocates against Pesticide Poisoning, El Comite

6 Para El Bien Estarte Earlimart, and Association of

7 Irritated Residents.

8 I want the record to reflect that I have

9 submitted a memorandum dated yesterday with supporting

10 evidence to support my CEQA arguments. I want to note

11 that the clients that I represent object to the proposed

12 SIP revision on California Environmental Quality Act

13 grounds and on Clean Air Act grounds.

14 One thing I want to point out since I didn't get

15 to rebut Mr. Jennings earlier -- he pointed out that I

16 didn't understand the relevant legal principles of SIP

17 enforcement. And I want the Board to understand that I'm

18 the lawyer on the winning side of El Comite Para El Bien

19 Estarte Earlimart versus Helliker, which resulted in a

20 court order. You are all defendants, you're all subject

21 to this court order, including Secretary Adams for the22 CalEPA and the Director of the DPR, Marianne Warmerdam.

23 And that order requires that you adopt regulations that

24 achieve 20 percent reductions from the 1991 baseline by

25 the end of this year, by January 1, 2008. They have to be

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

323

1 adopted, implemented, and submitted to EPA.

2 What you're doing now, what staff is proposing

3 now is that you change your promise that was made more

4 than a decade ago to give Ventura County growers more time

5 to comply.

6 That's wrong. We're going to enforce that order.

7 And we're going to do everything possible to enforce that

8 order if you change the game now.

9 Now, I want to go to CEQA. The environmental

10 analysis does not identify itself --

11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Could you please stop

12 moving the microphone around. It makes a really awful

13 sound.

14 MR. NEWELL: Sure.

15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks.

16 MR. NEWELL: This environmental analysis does not

17 identify itself as a functional equivalent to a negative

18 declaration or a functional equivalent to an EIR. Our

19 comments address both.

20 I want to point out that the toxic impacts have

21 not been analyzed. The revision allows more pesticide use22 than what is legally allowed. The environmental analysis

23 relies on existing and proposed regulations by another

24 agency to conclude that there is a negligible impact. ARB

25 cannot rely on existing regulatory measures in lieu of an

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

324

1 impact analysis to comply with CEQA. We submit evidence

2 tonight and earlier in comments and in June that show that

3 even with these regulations, there are toxic impacts to

4 the people of Ventura County.

5 Furthermore, there are cumulative impacts because

6 methyl bromide is a global warming pollutant. The case,

7 Kings County Farm Bureau Federation versus City of

8 Hanford, holds that even a thimbleful of additional

9 pollutants in an already polluted air basin requires a

10 cumulative impact analysis. The same principle holds true

11 with global warming. We are in a state of crisis, as AB

12 32 recognizes. And a thimbleful of additional pollutants

13 into our global warming crisis demands a cumulative impact

14 analysis.

15 My third CEQA point is that in order to approve

16 this revision you have to adopt a statement of overriding

17 considerations.

18 The financial impact to growers to comply with

19 the court order as written has been exhaustively

20 documented by DPR. What is obvious in that documentation

21 is that for the last decade those growers have had a free

22 ride to increase their pollution. You can see on the23 graph here where it started in 1991, that circle there.

24 The points that move up and to the right are how emissions

25 increased in the Ventura air basin. It's wrong to

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

325

1 conclude that there would be a statement of overriding

2 considerations without considering the economic benefit

3 that growers have experienced during a decade-long free

4 ride from pesticide controls that should have been adopted

5 in 1997.

6 The Clean Air Act --

7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You're way over your time.

8 MR. NEWELL: That's fine, that's fine.

9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, it may be fine with

10 you. But I have to ask the fellow Board members if they

11 want to extend your time.

12 MR. NEWELL: No, I think it would be important

13 for the Board to hear this even though it's longer than

14 three minutes and even though the evening is late.

15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: No, I think --

16 MR. NEWELL: The point is is that there is a

17 significant impact in Ventura County. Staff wants to

18 weasel out of a court order. Under the Clean Air Act,

19 Section 110(l) prohibits states from revising their state

20 implementation plans if those revisions are going to

21 interfere with attainment or any other requirement of the

22 Clean Air Act. Ventura is looking at reclassifying to a23 later designation, a serious or severe designation. They

24 need these reduction to meet the ozone standard. This

25 violates Section 110(l).

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

326

1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay.

2 MR. NEWELL: Now, does anyone have any questions?

3 You're defendants in a lawsuit, you're subject to a court

4 order. And, you know, I never get to talk to you unless

5 one of your counsel is present. I had the pleasure of

6 talking to Mayor Loveridge on the phone with Mr. Jennings

7 present. And if you have any questions about this

8 process, I'd be happy to answer them.

9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I'd like to remind you that

10 you canceled a phone call with me because your schedule

11 didn't work. So I just want that for the record.

12 MR. NEWELL: I don't think we had an attorney

13 available to be on that call. That was my --

14 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I didn't need an attorney. I

15 just want you to know you canceled --

16 MR. NEWELL: I have to have an attorney. I can't

17 speak with you without one of your lawyers --

18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That's not true.

19 BOARD MEMBER HILL: And just for clarification --

20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That is actually not a true

21 fact. A government official is entitled to communicate

22 with a litigant without their lawyer present.

23 MR. NEWELL: You're a defendant in your official24 capacity in a lawsuit. I'd rather say --

25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yeah, that's exactly why.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

327

1 MR. NEWELL: I disagree.

2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That's the point, we're

3 official.

4 BOARD MEMBER HILL: I made it clear to my staff

5 that I would be happy to talk with you without an attorney

6 present, and you were never on the call.

7 MR. NEWELL: I'm not -- I can't do that. I'm not

8 going to cross that ethical line.

9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You have neither an ethical

10 nor a legal requirement not to speak to us. So it's your

11 loss if you chose not to do so.

12 Next we have --

13 MR. CARMICHAEL: -- Tim Carmichael, Coalition --

14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: -- Carmichael. Okay.

15 MR. CARMICHAEL: I'm just going -- three quick

16 points on this. Tim Carmichael, Coalition for Clean Air.

17 Number one, the staff's proposing to get the

18 reductions in 2012 that were supposed to be achieved in

19 2005. We don't accept that.

20 Second point is, it's not the same to get a ton

21 of VOC reductions or 1.3 tons of VOC reductions from

22 mobile sources around the state as it is to get the VOC

23 reductions in Ventura County. And I think everyone on the24 Board recognizes that it's not the same.

25 And the final point is we don't accept the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

328

1 premise that you can't grow profitable crops without

2 fumigants. And that seems to be a premise of DPR and

3 people from Ventura County -- or some representatives from

4 Ventura County. And I think that is a fundamental

5 difference in perspective on what is achievable, what ARB

6 could be doing and DPR, for that matter, could be doing.

7 The reductions can be achieved next year.

8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Tim, I'd like to have a

9 conversation with you since, as far as I know, we can have

10 this conversation freely. And, that is, what evidence do

11 you have to contradict the testimony that we have had and

12 all of the written testimony that we've had from people in

13 the agricultural sector that says that they can't? You

14 know, we are not the agricultural experts for the state of

15 California. We weigh evidence. As we've been

16 complimented for doing in other situations, we try to get

17 to the facts. That's what we're trying to do here, I

18 think, is to respond in a factual manner. Nobody ever

19 likes to see a loss of any control that you could

20 otherwise get.

21 But the argument is, aside from whether or not

22 we're allowed to do this, you know, either under the SIP

23 or under the court order, is that as a policy matter we're

24 going to see conversions from strawberries primarily to25 either less desirable or subdivisions ultimately in this

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

329

1 area. And what's the answer to that?

2 MR. CARMICHAEL: Well, first of all we don't

3 accept that premise. That was --

4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I know you don't accept it.

5 But that's the evidence?

6 MR. CARMICHAEL: Let me finish the thought.

7 The statement made by the Assistant or Associate

8 Agricultural Commissioner for Ventura County was that if

9 they can't use fumigants on the crops that they're

10 growing, the alternative is development -- or developing

11 that property once they get council approval.

12 There are other alternatives. There are

13 businesses and family farmers and large businesses across

14 the state that are growing crops, making a lot money, and

15 not using a pound of fumigant. And that is our point.

16 Whether it's strawberries or some other crop, there are

17 thousands of examples across this country of people

18 growing crops successfully without using either volatile

19 organic fumigants or toxic fumigants. And that's the

20 evidence that we all have.

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thanks.

22 I take it we don't have Luis Cabrales.

23 We do. Hi.

24 MR. CABRALES: Thank you, Madam Chair.25 I would like to answer the question you presented

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

330

1 to Mr. Carmichael regarding analysis. And one of the

2 requests that we made in writing on September 17 and that

3 we have addressed time and time again is that staff needs

4 to include a year-over-year comparison of crop price

5 elasticity and crop change in Ventura, which is not

6 included in this proposal.

7 Also, prior to the June meeting we had provided

8 staff with comments regarding our questions on the data

9 they received from DPR. We didn't receive an official

10 response regarding those concerns. And I guess we could

11 take the time and go back to those questions regarding the

12 data that they -- DPR had presented to ARB.

13 Having said that, I would just like to present

14 this premise. I think we could come back month after

15 month, year after year with these same arguments, us

16 presenting -- raising concerns about this proposal, staff

17 and Board members trying to answer those concerns. But I

18 think that's beyond the point. One of the things that Mr.

19 Newell was trying to raise was that growers in Ventura

20 specifically have had more than ten years free ride.

21 If you look at the SIP that you discussed today,

22 you can see that other businesses throughout the state

23 have paid their share to reduce pollution. In fact, just

24 to put it on this perspective, last year this Board told

25 dry cleaners throughout the state that they need to stopPETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

331

1 using perchlorethylin and change their technology. Those

2 are small pop and mom businesses that give those business

3 owners even smaller revenue margins. We could talk --

4 whereas in comparison, we can look at these large growers

5 in Ventura that have larger margins. They need to start

6 paying their fair share and reduce those emissions,

7 because those emissions are coming from toxics. We're

8 talking about lethal toxics that can also risk -- have a

9 direct impact on health among workers and among neighbors.

10 Thank you very much.

11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

12 Igor Kagan.

13 Is Igor Kagan here?

14 Carolina Simunovic again.

15 MS. SIMUNOVIC: Good evening.

16 I'm not going to touch it again.

17 Good evening. I speak now on behalf of

18 Californians for Pesticide Reform, of which I'm a member

19 of its steering committee, and on behalf of our members in

20 Ventura County in opposition to this measure.

21 One, there is a concern that in the cost analysis

22 there wasn't an analysis of safe alternatives or safer

23 practices rather than the intense use of fumigants.

24 The reason that I joined originally Californians

25 for Pesticide Reform was because of the concern I had forPETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

332

1 when some of my friends in the San Joaquin Valley had been

2 poisoned by fumigants in Earlimart and Arvin and others.

3 So I think in the San Joaquin Valley we're acutely aware

4 of why it's so important to control these dangerous

5 chemicals when especially you live right nearby.

6 Now, I realize you're handling this not as a

7 toxics issue but as a VOC issue. And because of that I'm

8 very eager and looking forward to see the new regulations

9 that DPR is putting forward that I believe will be

10 released this week. Mr. Goslin had mentioned those to me.

11 But, still, the basis that these reductions were to be

12 achieved many years back and were not, that right now we

13 are maybe substituting reductions achieved elsewhere for

14 those that were not achieved here is just fundamentally

15 flawed and the residents that are members of CPR are

16 opposed to this.

17 Thank you.

18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

19 Sarah Sharpe, are you still here?

20 MS. SHARPE: Good evening. I'll keep it short.

21 I just wanted to support what my colleagues have

22 just presented. We obviously are from the San Joaquin

23 Valley, but that's why we know so much about the pesticide

24 issue. And the way that they contribute to VOCs, wouldn't

25 want to see that being shifted to any part -- actually thePETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

333

1 reductions that we could get from VOC reductions by

2 regulating pesticides, we don't want to see that shifted

3 to any other part of the state from where it would

4 initially be affecting the residents and including Ventura

5 County.

6 Thank you.

7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

8 Mark Murai from the California Strawberry

9 Commission, followed by Cecil Martinez of Sunrise Growers,

10 if you're here.

11 MR. MURAI: Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman

12 Nichols and distinguished Board members. My name is Mark

13 Murai, and I'm the President of the California Strawberry

14 Commission. And I'm also a third generation strawberry

15 grower. I'm from the Orange County area. And I know very

16 well how when farming moves out, development moves in, and

17 it never goes back.

18 So I just wanted to open with that and just say

19 maybe a little intro to what the California Strawberry

20 Commission is. It's a state-authorized body that

21 represents over 600 strawberry growers in the state.

22 These growers produce 88 percent of the nation's

23 strawberries.

24 Just one quick thing about fumigation, why

25 fumigation? Well, we compete in a global economy now.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345334

1 There's invasive species coming in. We get pathogens that

2 infect our soil. Even organic strawberries start out with

3 a fumigated soil that the plant is grown in and then

4 transferred down to fumigated soil. Our investment is so

5 huge in an acre of strawberries, and that's why -- you've

6 heard earlier why the high dollar land in Ventura County

7 has been converted to crops that potentially could see

8 some return on.

9 My family has also grown tomatoes, celery,

10 lettuce, the lower value crops. And we've had to in

11 Orange County convert to strawberries because we just

12 couldn't make it. We couldn't even pay the rent with

13 those crops. They're a short-term crop, they're a 30-day

14 crop. Strawberries is a nine-month crop. We have

15 potential to harvest for nine months. So hopefully in

16 there we're going to hit some kind of market.

17 But thank you for taking our comments today. We

18 want to express support for Appendix H. And I know you're

19 considering that. But even Appendix H is going to be hard

20 for us. We invested over $10 million -- the strawberry

21 growers themselves have invested over $10 million in

22 trying to come up with innovation. And we were

23 successful. We've had actually the U.S. EPA award the

24 California strawberry industry with the Ozone Protection

25 award.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345335

1 The strawberry industry has not stuck their head

2 in the sand on this one. We've converted what we call

3 enclosed drip fumigation into many of our acres, and it is

4 the best available control technology now. But you know

5 what? We've pushed it and we're -- like Ms. Johnson said,

6 we're on that edge. And so it's important to recognize

7 that these growers are really trying.

8 And we're not these big, large growers that some

9 people are saying here. We are third generation, fourth

10 generation. It's family farms that are trying to stay in

11 business. And, you know, I even hear about some of the

12 tractors that we talked about today. And that's even

13 hard, you know, for a strawberry grower. We can't even

14 afford to buy tractors, it seems like.

15 But, anyways, I want to thank you for your

16 consideration. And we are in support of Appendix H.

17 Thank you.

18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

19 Mr. Martinez.

20 MR. MARTINEZ: Chairman Nichols and Board.

21 In Ventura County we are fond of the neighborhood

22 institution, that is, the Ronald Reagan Library. And

23 after reading numerous articles entitled "Farm Air

24 Pollution Targeted" dealing with the latest California

25 proposals, one familiar Reagan line comes to mind: "Here

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345336

1 we go again."

2 I want the Board to know that Ventura County

3 farmers are passionate at what we do as well as the best

4 stewards of the land in the world. We also have to adhere

5 to the most stringent rules and regulations in California

6 and the world. As a strawberry grower in Ventura County,

7 I support my family based on what I can grow from the

8 soil. To make that process we use fumigants that are safe

9 and easy to apply.

10 In 1998 I began working with the USDA ARS,

11 University of California at Davis researchers, and the

12 California Strawberry Commission to explore the use of new

13 fumigants on my farm. Since then we have found that these

14 new drip-applied systems have reduced the amount of

15 fumigant material I use. Adopting the BACT practices has

16 showed that we have been able to use the drip technology

17 to reduce emissions from the 1994 data from 74 percent to

18 22 percent. In other words, compared to the standard

19 technology used in 1992, the new drip technology is at

20 least 80 percent cleaner today.

21 At this point, I became very excited about where

22 we were going with this new technology. And since then

23 there's been an increase in Ventura County strawberries

24 grown and yet we have been reducing the emissions of all

25 the materials being used through drip irrigation and sound

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

3371 BACT practices.

2 Over the last ten years to date I have come even

3 further with the use of drip technology. I've implemented

4 different cultural practice to help lower the emissions of

5 everything I use from pesticides and fungicides --

6 fumigants. I have implemented overhead irrigation to

7 reduce soil temperatures of the water seals on soil not

8 covered by plastic, furrow compaction to prevent gassing,

9 and covering all drip lines with plastic to ensure reduced

10 emissions. It goes on and on to make darn certain that

11 safety and air quality is our number one priority.

12 Ventura County has attained the EPA Clean Air Act

13 standard for the last four years, and I am proud that I've

14 been a part of that progress. That has to say something

15 for Ventura County agriculture.

16 In my opinion, we have the most knowledgeable

17 agriculture commission in the state that enforces the

18 rules and regulations that we farmers must do.

19 Do I wish I could add a few dashes of rainbow

20 sprinkles on my crops instead of pesticides or fumigants?

21 Of course I do. But in the real world we don't have that

22 choice. Remember, I'm a farmer who lives there. And I'm

23 eager and passionate about preserving our land to grow and

24 maintain the best air quality possible.

25 We are frustrated by all these new rules and

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

3381 regulations that are forthcoming. I need your help to

2 keep us from moving off our land and moving to another

3 country or become dependent on foreign agriculture. Or

4 must we sell our farmland to developers?

5 My frustration is beginning to get to me. And

6 they say frustration leads to anger. So please stop

7 placing unnecessary barriers on farmers. Let us alone

8 these Draconian measures and let us deliver safe food

9 quality to your dinner tables in reliable supplies and

10 affordable prices.

11 So in good response I say to you, like former

12 President Ronald Reagan once said, "Tear down these

13 walls." And I respectfully request that the ARB adopt and

14 approve Appendix H and 1.9 TPDs for motor vehicles

15 agriculture permanently and not apply the phaseout period.

16 Thank you.

17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.

18 Now, Hector Gutierrez, followed by Dan Legard.

19 MR. GUTIERREZ: Madam Chair Nichols, members of

20 the Board. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before

21 you this evening.

22 My family has been involved in California

23 agriculture for more than 50 years. In order to survive

24 in our business or any other business you need to have the

25 ability to adapt to change. We have done that in

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

339

1 California agriculture.2 With the adoption of the 1994 SIP, we made a

3 conscious decision to test best available control

4 technologies. Because we learned so much, we shared our

5 experience with the farming community. Subsequently,

6 we've adopted all those methods. Since 2003, we used the

7 new drip technology methods exclusively. The new

8 technology has reduced the emissions, the total fumigant

9 required, it's cost effective and, most importantly, it's

10 safe to workers.

11 We see this as a win-win situation, but our

12 efforts do not stop here, and we continue to look forward

13 to the future.

14 Our family farms 120 acres. Included in that is

15 a small portion of organic. So we continue to look for

16 better ways to do things. But we still need the tools

17 available to do a good job and to survive in Ventura

18 County.

19 We support Appendix H but feel it does not go far

20 enough and ask for the transfer of 1.9 tons per day from

21 the motor vehicles to pesticides and not to employ the

22 phaseout.

23 Thank you for your time.

24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

25 Mr. Legard, followed by Sean Stevens.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

340

1 MR. LEGARD: Hello. Dan Legard. I'm the2 Research Director for the California Strawberry

3 Commission. And I wanted to thank you for the opportunity

4 to speak to you today.

5 I would like to speak on the behalf of all the

6 growers in Ventura County that we represent and discuss

7 the leading role that these growers and the Commission has

8 played in adapting the best agricultural practices to

9 minimize VOC emissions associated with fumigants from

10 pre-plant soil fumigation.

11 I would also like to ask the Air Resources Board

12 to support Appendix H and revise the SIP to allow an

13 additional not 1.3 but 1.9 tons per day of emissions,

14 since the Ventura air basin is in attainment for the

15 1-hour standard.

16 And enforcement of the current SIP will cause

17 significant damage to the agricultural businesses in the

18 County.

19 The California Strawberry Commission and the

20 strawberry growers in Ventura County have been leaders in

21 developing and adapting good agricultural practices to

22 minimize emissions of VOCs. The research program at the

23 Commission has invested millions of dollars and played a

24 leading role in developing drip fumigation and additional

25 measures to reduce emissions.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

341

1 The growers in Ventura county have been leading

2 adaptors of those methods.3 Pre-plant soil fumigation is a critical part of

4 the annual production system of strawberries here in

5 California. They control pests, diseases, and ensure

6 their crops are able to a crop -- the growers are able to

7 produce a crop every year. Not using fumigants is

8 currently not an option for a majority of strawberry

9 growers in California.

10 The market for organic strawberries is very

11 limited. We also represent organic growers of

12 strawberries. And the costs from transitional

13 conventional ground to organic are also a major hurdle to

14 shifting production away from fumigants.

15 The California Strawberry Commission will be

16 launching a Farming Without Fumigants initiative in 2008,

17 with a goal of reducing and eliminating the need for

18 fumigants in the production of strawberries.

19 Once again, this group, the strawberry growers in

20 California, have shown to me that they're extremely

21 progressive in their approach to facing regulatory hurdles

22 using pesticides.

23 In response to these regulatory concerns with

24 VOCs, and adapting these best agricultural practices over

25 the last decade, the application methods currently used by

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

342

1 our growers have reduced emissions by three to sixfold

2 compared to the methods that were used in 1991. This is3 reported in the VOC report from the DPR.

4 So the California -- to sum it up, the California

5 Strawberry Commission continues to develop methods to

6 further reduce emissions and from fumigants. And the

7 results of this research, being conducted in partnership

8 with the USDA, the University of California, and with Cal

9 DPR, should allow us to further reduce emissions in

10 Ventura County in the future. This research is recognized

11 as world class and has received awards from the U.S. EPA.

12 The current SIP is a definition of a bad

13 regulation as it relates to strawberry growers in Ventura

14 County. It is not necessary since the county already

15 meets the 1-hour standard. And it would cause significant

16 harm to the agricultural community in Ventura. Therefore

17 I ask the Air Resources Board to adopt and support

18 Appendix H and revise the SIP with a revision that would

19 increase it to 1.9 tons per day and not enforce the

20 phase-down.

21 Thank you.

22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

23 Sean Stevens, followed by Juan Hernandez.

24 MR. STEVENS: Good evening, Madam Chairman and

25 the Board. Thank you for letting me speak here this

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

343

1 evening.

2 Okay. No more noise.

3 My name is Sean Stevens and I'm with Well-Pict4 Berries in Oxnard, California. To give you a brief

5 description about our company and our affiliated

6 companies, we form a little over 2,000 acres of

7 conventional and organic berries in Ventura County. Our

8 program is about 99 percent conventional and about 1

9 percent organic.

10 As a group, we make up 16 percent of the

11 strawberry acreage in Ventura County. As a group, we

12 employee 100 people year-round and over 4,000 people ten

13 months out of the year, mostly strawberry pickers.

14 To give you an idea of our fumigant use, we

15 fumigate 100 percent of our conventional acreage.

16 In 2002, we started experimenting with drip

17 fumigation. In the last five years, we have aggressively

18 moved towards this new application. And for the 2007

19 series -- 2007 season, we are 100 percent drip fumigated.

20 Being both organic and conventional growers, we have seen

21 firsthand what non-fumigated fields yield. It's not a

22 50-percent reduction. It's a 66 to 70-percent reduction

23 we've had.

24 This reduction increases dramatically if we don't

25 do a yearly crop rotation on that field of something

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

344

1 besides strawberries, such as celery, cabbage, spinach,

2 bok choy. Also, we employee 50 percent less people per

3 acre on those fields because we're harvesting such a small4 amount of crop. However, our growing costs are just a

5 thousand dollars less than our conventional vehicles all

6 fields.

7 With the proposed regulations by DPR, 5800 to

8 7500 acres would forgo fumigation. We feel within our

9 group we would not have 500 acres going fumigated in 2008.

10 This means we would have a dramatic reduction in our labor

11 force of a thousand people and a potential monetary loss

12 of $15 million, all to help accomplish a 2-percent

13 reduction in total VOC emissions in Ventura County for an

14 air district that has already achieved the federal 1-hour

15 ozone standard.

16 We support staff's comments about Appendix H.

17 But we feel 1.9 tons per day be transferred permanently.

18 Thank you once again for letting me speak here

19 this evening.

20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

21 Mr. Hernandez, followed by Edgar Terry.

22 MR. HERNANDEZ: My name is Juan Hernandez. And

23 thanks for letting me speak. I work for Mandalay Berry

24 Farms.

25 I would like to express my concerns about losing

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

345

1 8 to 12,000 jobs in Ventura. And not only jobs of

2 harvesting crews, but truck drives, forklift drivers --

3 employees, sales, et cetera.

4 I have lived in Ventura for 29 years working in5 agriculture. I have my family to support. I have a wife

6 and two sons. One is attending to college. The other one

7 is going to high school. I'm proud of living in Ventura

8 where I work. A lot of my co-workers have worked in

9 agriculture all of our lives. And we love the farm and

10 everything we grow to feed America.

11 We are concerned about losing our jobs. We will

12 not have any money for our house payment, which may lead

13 to lose our house. It may possibly lead that we will have

14 to lock for jobs outside Ventura.

15 The impact of losing 5800 to 7500 acres,

16 eliminate 8 to 12,000 jobs, with economic losses of 50 to

17 174 million, all to accomplish 2 percent reduction in

18 total VOC emissions in Ventura for an air district that

19 has already achieved the federal 1-hour ozone standard.

20 Ventura has clean air standard using the most

21 economical and safe way of farming, which is using better

22 methods of fumigation, better plastic. And we use the

23 sprinklers to minimize the risk of causing gas emissions

24 through the air.

25 So we support staff comments about Appendix H.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

346

1 But we feel 1.9 total pounds per day to be transferred

2 permanently.

3 And thank you for giving me the opportunity to

4 speak.5 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Hernandez.

6 Mr. Terry.

7 MR. TERRY: Distinguished Board, my name is Edgar

8 Terry and I'm a fourth generation farmer in Ventura

9 County. My family started farming in Ventura in 1890.

10 And we have seen all the iterations of different crops

11 that have been grown over the last century or so.

12 In Ventura County the transition to value

13 added -- higher value added crops is about the only reason

14 that many of us have been able to stay in business. If

15 Appendix H is not implemented, I think the resulting

16 destruction in land values and the economic impact to

17 landowners and growers will be tremendous.

18 Your staff report on Appendix H, page 2,

19 demonstrates this very accurately, with a graph showing

20 the conversion to higher value added crops in our county.

21 Your own estimate of 5800 to 7500 acre reduction in

22 strawberries is a case in point.

23 The land value of 6,000 acres of strawberries

24 being removed from production on the current market would

25 be 350 to 450 million dollars. Think about how $350

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

347

1 million of lost value, looking for a new crop to grow,

2 would impact the livelihood of so many owner-operators.

3 Besides being a grower, I'm a board member of an

4 agricultural lending association. Obviously the concern

5 of a crop being removed from production due to a6 regulation would have an economic impact from beyond the

7 agricultural industry itself. How many loans would have

8 been made to individuals that have collateral tied to the

9 ability to grow crops like strawberries, really the only

10 crop able to support land values approaching $75,000 an

11 acre?

12 I do not think that it's an overstatement that

13 the lending staffs, the farm lenders in our county, are

14 looking at the outcome of your vote on this issue and its

15 effects on mortgage portfolios of their banks. Credit

16 tied to cash flow from farming operations are how our

17 loans are made.

18 That $350 million of land value I just mentioned

19 that would look for a new crop to support, that current

20 valuation that isn't going to decrease and the underlying

21 credit lent again that property, I don't think there is a

22 next crop out there. I think Deputy Susan Johnson was

23 correct. There is no next crop for Ventura County.

24 I think personally the only crop left to grow in

25 Ventura County after strawberries are gone are condos and

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

348

1 houses. And I think most of us and most of you in this

2 room don't want an unintended consequence like that to

3 happen by not implementing Appendix H.

4 I am in support of your staff's recommendation of

5 Appendix H. However, I respectfully ask that you not6 implement the phase-down portion of Appendix H and that

7 you increase the tons per day to the full 1.9.

8 Thank you very much.

9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Terry.

10 Mr. Robert Roy. And you'll be followed by Rick

11 Tomlinson. And that will conclude the number of speakers

12 today.

13 MR. ROY: Good afternoon, Board members. Robert

14 Roy. I'm President and General Counsel of Ventura County

15 Agricultural Association. I've served in that capacity

16 for the last 30 years. We represent virtually all of the

17 strawberry growers in Ventura County.

18 I'd just like to direct the attention of the

19 Board back to why we're here today. Because if you listen

20 to my friends in the environmental side, it's all about

21 pesticides, which is something that should be resolved by

22 the Department of Pesticide Regulation. I think they ably

23 are going to be handling that.

24 Why we're here today is to decide whether we're

25 going to make a technical amendment to the 1994 SIP

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

349

1 because of changed circumstances. Meaning the 50 percent

2 increase, from 5,000 to 12,000 acres, of strawberry

3 acreage in the county that wasn't considered as part of

4 this particular lawsuit.

5 Also, as this lawsuit relates to Ventura County,

6 in my opinion Ventura County never should have been7 involved in this lawsuit in the first instance. I think

8 it was sort of a backdoor way of trying to rid the county

9 of pesticides under the guise of going after air quality.

10 And the reason why I say that is that Ventura County since

11 2002 has been in compliance with the 1-hour EPA rule.

12 That's a significant fact here that was not brought out in

13 the court proceedings. We should never have been involved

14 in this lawsuit in the first place, because that lawsuit

15 was all about compliance with the 1-hour EPA rule.

16 Secondly, as it relates now to the 8-hour rule,

17 our county has been in compliance with all but 16 days in

18 2006 with the 8-hour EPA rule. And that has occurred only

19 in two distinct areas of our county: East Valley/Simi

20 Valley, which has box canyons that go up into the L.A.

21 basin where all the smog comes in; and the upper Ojai

22 Valley area which is up in the mountains. Neither of

23 these areas utilize the fumigants at issue in this

24 particular case.

25 Another thing to consider is that 50 percent of

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

350

1 the fumigants that are used in the Ventura County

2 agricultural industry are composed of methyl bromide.

3 Well, even though methyl bromide may be a VOC, it's not an

4 ROG for purposes of promoting ground level ozone. And I

5 think that's a factor that has to be considered here.

6 Another thing that I think that we're looking at is, as7 many of the speakers have indicated, we have really a

8 model for the agricultural industry. We have implemented

9 significant BACTs over the year.

10 I'm asking for your support here today to help

11 these growers out. This has been a tremendous year that

12 started out with a $3 billion wage winter freeze. Didn't

13 get better with failed immigration reform. We are being

14 confronted with water quality objectives, and now we're

15 having to deal with VOC emission regulation.

16 I think my friends on the environmental side are

17 being a little shortsighted here. Because if this land is

18 really converted to houses and the growers have to convert

19 this land, we're going to start relying upon foreign

20 sources of food that are going to be done with

21 questionable phytosanitary quality. They're going to be

22 transshipped to the United States. They're going to

23 create more global warming than reducing the amount of the

24 contribution of ag to this ROG situation.

25 In this county we represent 2 percent of the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

351

1 problem. Do we hope to reduce that by 1 percent? I think

2 that -- and the reality is is that these growers will

3 convert their land when confronted with that, realities

4 I've indicated in those articles that I provided to you.

5 There's two articles in front of you. And one of

6 the articles, I'd just like to point out, is the fact that

7 whatever we do here in the United States, we can have all8 the best intentions in the world, but there are other

9 things going on in the world, other environmental

10 situations, other geopolitical things that are going on

11 that can completely destroy and undermine --

12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Please wind up. You're

13 over your time.

14 MR. ROY: I'm done. I am done. Thank you very

15 much.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

17 Rick Tomlinson.

18 MR. TOMLINSON: Good evening. And thank you for

19 staying so late to hear this very important issue. My

20 name is Rick Tomlinson. I work for the California

21 Strawberry Commission.

22 I just want to try and answer a couple of final

23 questions that I would imagine would be going through your

24 mind. They went through our mind when we first locked at

25 this.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

352

1 Some folks we often hear, "Why can't the farmers

2 just convert to organic production?" And you heard some

3 of that from testimony, but let me give you a comparison.

4 Statewide in California, you heard that we produce 88

5 percent of the strawberries for the entire nation. We

6 have 34,000 acres statewide. Organic strawberry acreage

7 statewide is 1,317 acres. There's no way you can convert8 5,800 to 7500 acres to organic. Even converting a small

9 fraction of that would crash that organic market.

10 Some other questions. What's the environmental

11 impact if you approve Appendix H? The U.S. EPA and

12 scientific community have documented that nearly half the

13 VOC emissions from pesticides in Ventura, approximately

14 two tons per day, it's in your staff report, are not

15 reactive. Independent research funded by the ARB and

16 conducted by Dr. Bill Carter from the University of

17 California Riverside and Dr. Peter Green from the

18 University of California Davis have proven that VOC

19 emissions from pesticides are overstated by double and

20 that the remaining half have a much lower impact than

21 originally thought in 1994.

22 That number that was posted up in one of the

23 presentations by DPR, I believe it said 7.2 percent is

24 pesticides contribution. That's overestimated. It's 3.8

25 percent. The 1.3 tons per day is about one percent. So

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

353

1 the numbers here are exaggerated by double.

2 So now what's the environmental impact if you

3 don't approve Appendix H? Well, it's this map and the

4 chart that is handed out and it's in front of you here.

5 And you've heard testimony about the economic impact,

6 about the acreage that's at risk.

7 The SORE -- I just want to try and explain that a

8 little bit -- that is a local no-growth ordinance that9 requires a vote of the population to convert land in

10 Ventura County and the City of Ventura. All of the other

11 cities can convert any land that they want within their

12 city boundaries.

13 This table shows that nearly 3,000 acres of ag

14 land are within the city boundaries. If Appendix H is not

15 approved, we're looking at 3,000 acres quickly converting.

16 For the remaining folks, if there's more pressure to

17 convert even more land to urban use, we're looking at a

18 taking. We have one local ordinance that says you can't

19 develop and now something that says you can't farm.

20 So, again, we would ask -- we think that the

21 science is there. The full 1.9 tons per day that's

22 available as surplus emissions, that that be transferred.

23 And something else that you might consider is --

24 if you might consider adding language about whether or not

25 this would be technologically and economically feasible.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

354

1 As you heard earlier, we're committed to emission

2 reduction and the next phase of technology. But as

3 Appendix H is without, if you do the phaseout, we're still

4 going to have this urban impact.

5 Thank you.

6 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Could I ask a question?

7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes.

8 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Mr. Tomlinson, a couple9 things I'm having trouble understanding, and you may be

10 the person to help.

11 Well, first of all, the staff recommendation's

12 1.3 tons and you're speaking of 1.9 tons?

13 MR. TOMLINSON: The staff analysis indicated that

14 there was 1.9 tons per day of surplus emissions under the

15 old 1-hour ozone standard. And --

16 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Okay. So you're not

17 agreeing with their recommendation then on the 1.3 tons?

18 MR. TOMLINSON: We support the concept. The

19 problem is that it was based -- the 1.3 is based on 2004

20 numbers. And when we adjust it for the change in acreage

21 between 2004 and 2007, we get to 1.9.

22 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: For the moment that's

23 academic.

24 Help me to understand this. In the year -- as

25 near as I can tell, in the year 2009 the staff is saying,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

355

1 "Well, now we're going to start reducing by a third of a

2 ton per day per year," which would be 2009, 2010; and then

3 2011 you'd have to do two-thirds of a ton, because you

4 said 2012 and after we're all done. So in that third year

5 you've got to do half of what we're talking about,

6 assuming 1.3. How do you do that? How do you -- how are

7 we going to do that? Since we're going to start just a

8 year and a half from now, how are we going to accomplish

9 that? Which we don't seem to be able to accomplish today,10 how are we going to accomplish that starting a year and a

11 half from now?

12 MR. TOMLINSON: The strawberry industry has

13 invested more money in emissions control than any other

14 commodity in the world. We are currently working on the

15 next generation of BACT. So we believe that over -- if

16 you give us time. If you don't give us time, 6,000 acres

17 is gone next year. If you give us the time, we feel that

18 we can implement that research.

19 What we also feel is that -- we know what's in

20 the pipeline. And that four-year phaseout is so fast that

21 we know that we won't be able to implement the newest

22 technology that fast. There's not even enough of that

23 around. So that's why we would ask for either a no

24 phaseout or extended phaseout or some language about

25 technically and economically feasible, something that

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

356

1 would address the very question you raise.

2 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Okay. And let me -- for

3 staff. Your recommendation really is a three-year

4 phaseout, if I read this correctly.

5 ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL JENNE: The phaseout

6 would be accomplished by 2012, which would be four years.

7 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah, your presentation

8 said no substitution in 2012 and beyond. So that means

9 you've got the years 2009, 2010, and 2011.10 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

11 CHIEF KARPEROS: Supervisor Roberts, there is a table in

12 Appendix H that shows that in 2008 the substitution would

13 be 1.3 tons, the next year, '09, the substitution would be

14 1.0, .6, .3, and then finally in 2012 down to zero.

15 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Okay. So you're going to

16 do one-third in 2000 -- starting in 2008?

17 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH

18 CHIEF KARPEROS: Starting from one-third -- essentially

19 three-tenths or about a third of the ton each year.

20 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Okay. I had assumed that

21 one-third ton per each year after 2008. I'm sorry. The

22 language is kind of difficult for me.

23 But there's no real plan on how you do this, is

24 that what I understand? We have a research project to

25 figure out how to do this?

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

357

1 DPR CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR GOSLIN: If I can

2 answer that. Paul Goslin.

3 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Let me deal with our staff

4 here. Okay? I didn't mean to open this up to the world

5 here.

6 DPR CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR GOSLIN: Actually I'm

7 not the world. I'm actually your agent actually carrying

8 the regulations out.

9 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I didn't recognize you as

10 our --11 DPR CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR GOSLIN: Paul Goslin,

12 Department of Pesticide Regulation.

13 The commitment we made to you was to use our

14 authority under pesticide control to bring these tons

15 down. And the regulations that we're going to have in

16 place January 1st structured under this is going to have a

17 combination of acquiring the best available control

18 technology for the remainder of the growers in Ventura

19 County, the remaining 15 to 20 percent, that is going to

20 bring close to one ton reduction in 2008 beyond -- just

21 under our regulations.

22 And then beyond that, each year we're going to be

23 setting up emission caps that are going to be managed

24 through the permit system. And if they can't find -- what

25 this is going to do under the schedule -- and I did hand

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

358

1 out a fact sheet. The tons are going to be delivered by

2 2012 with or without H. It's a matter of how quickly

3 we're going to get there. And we're going to have a

4 permit program that's going to limit and cap emissions by

5 growers through the permit system. All this does is give

6 the industry and researchers time to find their way to

7 alternative practices and technologies. If they can't get

8 there, what it is going to mean is land is going to go out

9 of agriculture, because we're going to get --

10 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: That's the point I was11 trying to get at.

12 DPR CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR GOSLIN: Right. We are

13 going to get these tons --

14 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: If it doesn't work, what

15 they're concerned about today is going to happen.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, other questions?

17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'm sorry. Just a quick

18 question.

19 We heard some discussion of this drip system.

20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.

21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: What in terms of lowering

22 the emissions does the drip system do? And I assume the

23 other is a spray system.

24 MR. TOMLINSON: Fumigants are never sprayed.

25 They're actually applied under the ground. Traditionally,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

359

1 in the -- in 1994 you would have a tractor with a shank

2 that would have a pipe that basically blows the fumigant

3 into the soil, underneath the soil, with a piece of

4 plastic coming back over the top of it.

5 Since 1994, the plastics have gotten much better.

6 And now through the little drip irrigation tape it's

7 applied in much lower quantities. And so it's underneath

8 the plastic, underneath the soil. And it's 80 percent

9 lower emissions than what the '94 technology was.

10 The stuff we have under research right now looks

11 like we might be able to reduce it another maybe up to12 50 percent if we throw everything at it. And that's what

13 we're currently researching right now. But when we do all

14 the calculations, we still don't get to -- we don't get to

15 the 1.3. And part of that is because the real number is

16 1.9 because it's 2007 versus 2004.

17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: So It's about 50 percent

18 less emissions with the drip, is that what you're saying?

19 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.

20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: So you have -- in looking

21 for the best available technology, you've got to go beyond

22 the drip system?

23 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we have to modify that

24 system. And as Dr. Legard indicated, we are now starting

25 farming without fumigants initiative. We had two years of

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

360

1 research proposals requesting research from the university

2 researchers on farming without fumigants.

3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you.

4 MS. JOHNSON: It's actually 90 percent reduction.

5 I mean the drip is about an 80 percent reduction from the

6 shank. He's talking about reducing by 50 percent the

7 other 20 percent, which would give you a 90 percent

8 reduction from the 1994 levels -- 1991 levels. So you

9 actually got a lot more reduction.

10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

11 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Could I ask a very quick12 question to staff?

13 So I understand, the report to the Board in 2010,

14 what is this report? Is this a report of analysis of

15 where we are, and could it be recommendation to do

16 something different or do something else?

17 ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL JENNE: It would be a

18 report on what's happening with the phase -- assuming the

19 Board approves the phaseout, it would be a report on what

20 happens with the phaseout.

21 This is the second to the last clause in your

22 resolution. So we would -- staff here would work with DPR

23 and CDFA and Ventura County and we'd come up with

24 basically what's happening with the phaseout. Is new

25 technology developing? Is acreage being taken out of

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

361

1 production? Is there assurance that all the emission

2 reductions had been received? That's the content that

3 would be in the report.

4 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: So if we approve the

5 resolution, it will include this kind of report back to

6 the Board in 2010.

7 ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL JENNE: Yes, it would

8 include direction to the staff to make such a report.

9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Supervisor Hill.

10 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Thank you, Madam Chair.

11 Yes, the questions I have is -- since 1994 during

12 that period of time when the -- in the summary of the13 Board item, the -- you know, obviously the reductions

14 didn't come about. Who was required to enforce that at

15 the time?

16 ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL JENNE: Well, the

17 original SIP commitment provided that DPR was supposed to

18 get a reduction from 20 percent from the baseline by 2005

19 in Ventura and various other areas. So when '97 rolled

20 around, they were supposed to make a decision about

21 whether the reductions were -- the voluntary procedures

22 which they tried initially were working or whether they

23 would have to adopt mandatory regulations. And they made

24 a decision in '97 that it looked like the voluntary

25 regulations were working -- voluntary measures were

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

362

1 working. But what then happened was that there was

2 subsequent revisions to the inventory and other data, and

3 they realized around about 2000 or 2001 that the emission

4 reductions would not be achieved. And then they started

5 on this process of developing the fumigant, a regulation

6 that's going to be adopted in just -- before the end of

7 this year.

8 BOARD MEMBER HILL: So it took that many years.

9 And the estimate of acreage going out of

10 production, 5,800 to 7500, where did that estimate come --

11 did that come from DPR as well?

12 ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL JENNE: It came from DPR.13 And I believe -- I'm not sure where they got the data to

14 base that on. But they could probably address that.

15 BOARD MEMBER HILL: So we haven't done our own

16 analysis.

17 I guess my concern is is that they're talking

18 about their enforcement of the penalties in the next few

19 years, but I don't have a lot of confidence in what I saw

20 from '94.

21 DPR CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR GOSLIN: Yes. And

22 that's one of the reasons why I think it's important for

23 us to come back in two years and demonstrate what we've

24 actually done and fulfilled that commitment.

25 But the 5 to 7,000 acres, what that reflects is

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

363

1 what our staff looked at as to what had been fumigated

2 that would no longer be allowed to be fumigated under our

3 rules. There's been economic impact analysis from the ARB

4 Econ Unit as part of our regulations, as well as the

5 Department of Food and Agriculture that had agricultural

6 economists from the University of California that looked

7 into far more depth on the economic impact of the rules.

8 BOARD MEMBER HILL: So your conclusion is that if

9 they're not using this fumigant, it will go out of

10 production? There were no other alternatives that you've

11 thought of or suggested in this analysis?

12 DPR CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR GOSLIN: Actually our

13 rules are going to -- because we are going to bring the14 reductions in. I really don't know what -- you know,

15 we've seen in other areas that land has been taken out of

16 agriculture when we have put caps in and prevented things

17 from moving forward. We don't have an economic balance in

18 our regulations. It's driven by meeting the reductions,

19 as long as we go to the most sufficient means of getting

20 there.

21 So, you know, what the causes and what's going to

22 happen with those 7,000 acres -- 5 to 7,000 acres that

23 can't be fumigated, you know, is something that others

24 have spoken to. But that's what our program's going to

25 do.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

364

1 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Okay. Thank you.

2 You know, I guess I'm probably one of the

3 strongest supporters of agriculture and the farming from

4 someone who grew up in a city and lives in a city that I

5 know of. But, you know, I think -- you know, a deal was a

6 deal in 1994. That's what I'm struggling with. We made a

7 deal or -- I mean a commitment was made. And it just

8 didn't happen. Somebody dropped the ball and didn't

9 follow through on it. And that's the concern.

10 And then I'm not committed -- or convinced that

11 that number 5,000 to 7,000 is actually an accurate number

12 that reflects production lose if they can't use that

13 particular fumigant. Or are there other alternatives and14 other possibilities? So that's what I'm struggling with.

15 You know, I look at the 20 percent that was

16 required then and because of the changes in agriculture

17 and going to different crops, certainly more productive,

18 has made the difference. But that certainly doesn't -- I

19 don't think is justification when you look at that versus

20 the air quality and the citizens of Ventura County who are

21 affected by that based on the commitment that was made in

22 1994. So I'm really having a hard time going forward with

23 the measure because of that.

24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We have a couple of

25 additional witnesses to hear from before we get to make a

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

365

1 final decision. We better hear from them.

2 So we have David Pegos I didn't call, CDFA, our

3 sister agency. And I apologize for that. I was confused.

4 And we also have Adrian Martinez and Melissa Kelly-Ortega

5 before we're done.

6 MR. PEGOS: Hello, Madam Chair and Board. My

7 name is David Pegos from the Department of Food and

8 Agriculture. We defer to you. If you'd like to hear our

9 testimony or not, we're prepared to testify. But in

10 consideration of your time --

11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, you've heard the

12 questions that the Board is raising and what we're

13 struggling with here. We're not happy about our choices.

14 So maybe you can give us something that will make us feel15 better.

16 MR. PEGOS: Well, a couple things we'd like for

17 you guys to consider is that currently the Ventura growers

18 already use the lowest emission and fumigation methods

19 available and that Ventura County presently is in

20 compliance with the 1-hour ozone standard and that the

21 Appendix H Environmental Analysis states that a revised

22 proposal would phase out the substitution rapidly over

23 four years. So it's a structure to ensure that the

24 substitution will not interfere with Ventura's ability to

25 obtain the 8-hour ozone standard expected in 2013.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

366

1 In addition, the Appendix H Environmental

2 Analysis expects the SIP substitution to only slightly

3 slow down the ongoing improvement of Ventura's air quality

4 and will not affect -- or have a significant adverse

5 impact on the ozone layer.

6 And so the bottom line is that we'd like you to

7 consider once the -- that over the short four-year

8 phase -- the phase-down of the SIP substitution the

9 chances of additional air quality degradation are very

10 small, and with almost no variation of potential outcomes.

11 The spectrum of potential economic damages on the other

12 hand are very large, with considerable potential losses at

13 the upper end of the range.

14 If the SIP substitution is approved as15 recommended by staff, air quality in the county that has

16 now currently -- excuse me -- now attains the present

17 ozone standard will almost totally be unaffected, while

18 the economic disruption to both producers and consumers

19 will at least be postponed, if not voided. And so the SIP

20 substitution will give growers a breather, allowing them

21 to learn how to farm under DPR's more stringent regulation

22 protocol in ways that are much less reliant on existing

23 fumigants.

24 In a nutshell, no pun intended, that the air

25 quality should remain about the same but the economic

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

367

1 impacts should be considered.

2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. That's helpful

3 somewhat.

4 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Madam Chair, if I might ask

5 this speaker -- and hopefully you can answer the question.

6 I'm a bit confused because it seems like there's a certain

7 element of this decision that really puts us in the

8 position of DPR making pesticide decisions, because I hear

9 that the air quality meets the standard. So as an Air

10 Board member, I'm interested in air quality.

11 Am I totally understanding that in terms of the

12 amount of fumigant that's going on this land is actually

13 lessened because all the growers have moved to best

14 available control technology?

15 MR. PEGOS: They are using the best current16 technology currently, and that the air quality under our

17 analysis won't be impacted. But the economic

18 considerations are --

19 BOARD MEMBER CASE: But per acre is there less

20 fumigant going on an acre today than there was in terms of

21 cultural practices --

22 MR. PEGOS: There's actually more --

23 BOARD MEMBER CASE: -- than there was before?

24 MR. PEGOS: Yeah, there's one thing I failed to

25 point out. That from the 1999 to 2003 there's been a

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

368

1 significant additional strawberry acreage planted, up 50

2 percent, so there's more strawberries.

3 BOARD MEMBER CASE: I realized all of that piece.

4 I'm trying to understand each -- the cultural practices

5 piece. And, again, I'm a little confused. And if

6 somebody can explain to me whether we're part of the

7 Department of Pesticide Regulation or if we're trying to

8 meet the standards for air quality, which I'm being told

9 we've met. And I do understand there's additional acreage

10 in Ventura County that's gone to strawberries.

11 You know, if we were to look at that and say we

12 have too much NOx statewide and NOx is all coming from

13 cars, we have not yet said you can't have any more cars in

14 the State of California.

15 So I'm trying to reconcile if in fact -- is this16 the only place where a rule has been put in place, not

17 just the actual density per se of a particular substance

18 is being used but we're applying an overall cap? You

19 know, to put a corollary, that would be any other industry

20 saying, "You can't make more of those because we don't

21 like the fact that you're there." Or is our goal to get

22 to zero -- and I did understand when the rule came through

23 there was zero methyl bromide for a number of other

24 reasons.

25 But this is really confusing. It's crossing a

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

369

1 lot of boundaries and it's covering territory not covered

2 before. I joined the Air Board; I didn't join the

3 Department of Pesticide Regulation. So I need help.

4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Supervisor Case,

5 maybe I could clarify just on the air quality piece. This

6 commitment was made by our sister agency, Department of

7 Pesticide Regulation, in the 1994 SIP for the 1-hour

8 standard. That standard has been attained for several

9 years. That said, Ventura does not attain the 1-hour

10 standard. That SIP is still -- excuse me, the 8-hour

11 standard. It's been a long day. That SIP is still in

12 development.

13 So certainly from staff's perspective, we tried

14 to balance this issue of it makes technical sense to close

15 out the 1-hour SIP, but we would certainly want the Board

16 to understand we would be losing about a ton of reactive17 VOC reductions, about another ton of methyl bromide, which

18 is not reactive. But because the nature of the '94

19 commitment was pure tonnage and it is -- you've really

20 identified the heart of the matter. This is a cap. And

21 ARB does not generally construct regulations with caps.

22 DPR made that choice in 1994 that they were not going to

23 adopt a technology-based regulation. They thought they

24 could get the reductions with a voluntary cap, in essence.

25 And that's why we have control technology going into

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

370

1 place. But with growth and acreage, the cap becomes the

2 overriding issue.

3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yeah. And it's not the

4 first time there's ever been a cap on emissions from a

5 particular sector. This has been done in other areas.

6 But it is true that this is a -- it's a very difficult

7 position for us to be in because we're being looked to to

8 solve other people's problems. This is not really our --

9 this wasn't our issue to begin with in general. Only the

10 VOC part of it was really our issue.

11 But I think staff has done a good job of trying

12 to balance those considerations to keep everybody in place

13 and not see increases and allow the SIP to be developed.

14 And that's about -- you know, that's the best of a bad

15 lot.

16 I'm going to call on Adrian. I'm going to let17 Melissa speak if she still wants to speaks. And I'm going

18 to close this off and we're going to make a decision.

19 BOARD MEMBER CASE: And if we can, when we go

20 back to focus on I guess it's really on the cap issue, we

21 haven't had an allocation constraint in any of the

22 rulemaking that I'm aware of. Of course I'm new to this

23 Board. But I'm interested in that dialog and debate,

24 because I want to know more about this allocation piece.

25 I don't know of other industries we've said if we reach

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

371

1 this, we're just going to allocate it out. Because we

2 could look at a lot of different products that could be --

3 that could be the method. But I don't know that the

4 society is going to be there.

5 MR. MARTINEZ: I'll just be very brief. I have a

6 couple comments.

7 My name's Adrian Martinez and I'm from the

8 Natural Resources Defense Council. And we are urging the

9 Board to reject staff's proposal. Specifically, we think

10 it sets a very bad precedent. Earlier today the Board

11 voted on significant commitments in the SIP. And as

12 Supervisor Hill and others have acknowledged, this was a

13 commitment in a previous SIP that's being changed. And so

14 we think these commitments need to be honored and these

15 promises need to occur.

16 The second thing is, the Board may or may not be

17 aware of a recent court case called SCAQMD versus U.S.18 EPA. And it's a DC circuit case dealing with the

19 transition between the 1-hour ozone and the 8-hour ozone

20 standard. And I think that's a really relevant case to

21 keep into consideration as you're making a decision,

22 because basically the Court said the commitments need to

23 remain.

24 And that's just my comments. I think my other

25 colleagues have expressed my interests pretty well.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

372

1 Thank you.

2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

3 Melissa Kelly.

4 MS. KELLY-ORTEGA: Thank you very much. I'll be

5 very quick. Melissa Kelly-Ortega, and I'm representing

6 Mom's Clean Air Network.

7 I haven't been as involved in pesticide

8 regulations as I would like to be. But knowing what we

9 know about pesticides and the illnesses that pesticides

10 are linked to, we would strongly urge that you strengthen

11 the pesticide strategy to lessen the toxic impacts for all

12 people, especially the children in Ventura County. Making

13 the standards tighter and more stringent will protect the

14 health of children in Ventura County, and that makes

15 sense.

16 And as you are learning, I'm just learning this

17 as well, this was a 1994 SIP commitment. That's a long18 time. And I believe that we need to keep the promise that

19 was made and make sure that we do what it takes to protect

20 and -- protect the public's health.

21 And I know another gentleman was talking about

22 safe pesticides. And I know when my grandfather was

23 farming in Nebraska, he used to think that DDT was safe.

24 And we know how unsafe that is now and how harmful that

25 is.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

373

1 And I believe that there was some -- there was a

2 memo that was just put into comments there that you might

3 be interested in looking at.

4 So we would just strongly urge that you reject

5 staff's proposal in the SIP to change the 1994 ozone

6 strategy, and commit to adopt a long-term pesticide VOC

7 reduction strategy.

8 Thank you very much.

9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. That concludes

10 the testimony on this particular item. Before we go to

11 any resolutions, we should have our ex parte

12 communications.

13 I'm going to start down on the Supervisor

14 Roberts' end on this one.

15 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Nothing to report.

16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

17 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Phone call on September

18 24th with Luis Cabrales and Brent Newell over the phone.19 Good conversation.

20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Nothing to report? Okay.

21 Nothing to report?

22 I had a note here of a conference call with the

23 California Farm Bureau Federation, Rich Mateus, Rayne

24 Thompson, and Cynthia Corey. And although it's not on my

25 printed list, I know I had a phone conversation at one

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

374

1 point with several of the environmental groups, which

2 reiterated the same points that they made here also. Tim,

3 Luis, and others.

4 BOARD MEMBER HILL: Madam Chair, on September

5 18th I had a meeting in my office in Redwood City with

6 Rayne Thompson from the California Farm Bureau Federation

7 and Jack Olson from the same organization; David Lee, a

8 Brussels sprout grower; and Joe Musey, Brussels sprout

9 grower. And the conversation was related to today.

10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: On September 20th I had a

11 telephone conversation with George Soreys representing the

12 California Strawberry Growers Association. And he

13 expressed his support of Appendix H.

14 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Nothing to report.

15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay.

16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chair?

17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes.

18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: So we can maybe move19 forward, I would like to move approval of

20 Resolution 07-42, which is the staff recommendation.

21 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Second.

22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. Now it's open

23 for discussion.

24 Hearing none, I'm going to call the question.

25 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Maybe back to my earlier

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

375

1 concern in terms of -- and staff can bring this back or

2 send me information. I'm going to support the staff's

3 recommendation because I think they tried really hard to

4 work it out. I'm a little troubled when an industry in

5 fact reduces their emissions tremendously, the basin meets

6 attainment. That is our mission, is meeting attainment.

7 Our mission is not being the pesticide

8 regulators. And I don't feel prepared to be the pesticide

9 regulator at this point in time. I don't have a lot of

10 the details.

11 So, you know, I am concerned about that premise

12 that you put caps. And maybe what it is is methyl

13 bromide, as I understand it, according to legislation, was

14 to eliminate methyl bromide. And I understand that too.

15 But I'm troubled by kind of where we're going with that,

16 and I need to state that publicly because it's -- we're

17 not here to cap an industry. We're here to have each

18 piece contributing start getting those numbers down so

19 we're not having the emissions out there. And that's a20 whole different concept.

21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Mayor Loveridge.

22 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Well, I'm prepared to

23 vote. I think the -- you made the point that staff has

24 looked at different choices and come up with a balance.

25 And it seems to me the staff proposal is the best before

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

376

1 us. So I will support it.

2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Any other comments?

3 Ms. D'Adamo?

4 Supervisor Hill?

5 BOARD MEMBER HILL: I just want to say I -- thank

6 you, Madam Chair.

7 You know, the struggle I had, you know, I guess

8 the concern is really the loss of any of the agriculture

9 that we're talking about. And I think that's probably the

10 key. We're going to get to where we want to get to

11 assuming that the enforcement is there and the actions

12 that we're looking at are taken into account and come to

13 fruition. So I'll support the resolution.

14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I just wanted to say

15 that, for those who are uncomfortable on either side, that

16 maybe it would be good to make Appendix H permanent or

17 that, as Supervisor Hill indicated, a deal is a deal.

18 But I would just hold up this map and just say if

19 it weren't for some vision by the county to preserve ag20 land, these two communities would be one. And really the

21 policy, sort of conundrum that is upon us is that we're

22 seeing a very unique situation here where there has been a

23 transition into a crop in order for growers to maintain

24 their livelihood. And normally we would not see this.

25 Normally what we would see is those acres -- in the area

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

377

1 where I live they would already be unfortunately out of

2 production.

3 And so I think we're left with a choice of how to

4 somehow preserve a livelihood for at least a little bit

5 longer. And the one silver lining here is that I think

6 that in forcing the growers to come up with a solution

7 under a very short period of time, I'm hopeful that the

8 research will produce some positive results that can be

9 utilized throughout the state, because we have these

10 challenges elsewhere that we're not really seeing because

11 the cap's not a problem because overall acres are going

12 out of production.

13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Supervisor Roberts.

14 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Thank you.

15 With some discomfort I'm going to support this.

16 But I -- and part of that discomfort is coming because it

17 seems like we're somehow accepting the 1-hour standard as

18 a major achievement and acknowledging that the 8-hour

19 standard's still a long ways off. Where I think the

20 8-hour standard, it's a long ways off, but that's not good21 news and it means that we're not where we should be here.

22 So the fact that we are at the 1-hour standard is

23 not -- that's not a good reason for doing this. But I

24 think the sort of the neutrality in this, at least the

25 immediate; and we are going to get the reduction starting

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

378

1 in the year 2008 if I read this correctly, and one-third

2 of a ton per year in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 will all be

3 done in the report that will come back in 2010, which will

4 be a status report.

5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yeah. Well, I think I'm

6 pretty much in the same position as my colleagues. The

7 only thing I would add here is that it is distressing

8 given the high value that Ventura County places on this

9 agricultural land and all the efforts that they've gone to

10 to try to retain it, and the very strong feelings of the

11 environmental community about reducing use of pesticides,

12 which I share. I think we probably all are, you know

13 farmers market shoppers and people who believe in organic

14 produce and all the rest of it. Why we don't have better

15 data at our disposal to really make these judgments from I

16 guess -- it troubles me, you know. We've got anecdotes,

17 and I appreciate the sincerity of everybody who's come

18 before us today. But I just -- I find it somewhat

19 startling actually, given the importance of the issue

20 here, that we don't have a better base of real good21 economic information to work from.

22 Having said that, I will call the question.

23 All in favor of the resolution say aye.

24 (Ayes.)

25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Those opposed?

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

379

1 All right. It carries unanimously.

2 That is the end of our regular agenda. We are

3 required to take public comment on matters not in front of

4 the Board.

5 Anybody who really feels that they have to give

6 us their views on something that wasn't on the agenda

7 today is entitled to come forward at this time.

8 And seeing none -- oh, he's back.

9 Just say --

10 MR. KORTHOF: I must say that the Board does have

11 a completely different attitude and congratulate the

12 Board.

13 I just wanted to say the hard reductions are what

14 you're dealing with here, you know, squeezing out the last

15 few things, pesticides and off-road and all this. The

16 easy reductions are automobiles.

17 Just wanted to mention that in three years our

18 RAV 4 EVs have gone 170,000 miles. That saves 8,000

19 gallons of gas or 160,000 pounds of carbon dioxide that

20 didn't get into the air. So driving an electric car

21 really does make a big difference. And if you had more22 electric cars, you'd make a big difference.

23 So, anyway, thank you for bearing with us all

24 this time. And congratulations on your service.

25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good night. Over and out.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

380

1 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board

2 adjourned at 6:54 p.m.)

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

25

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

381

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 11th day of October, 2007.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR

24 Certified Shorthand Reporter

25 License No. 12277

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345