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 

 APPEARANCES 
 BOARD 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 

 STAFF 
 Ms. 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 Coalition 
 Mr. 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 Alliance 
 Mr. 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, Consumer 
 Mr. 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 Council 
 Mr. 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 77 
 Ms. 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 218 
 Mr. 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 308 
 Acting 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 a 
 5 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're 
 5 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 CHIEF 
 6 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 induced 
 7 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 the 
 7 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's 
 8 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 was 
 9 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 the 
 9 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 that 
10 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 and 
11 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 the 
13 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 source 
14 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 it 
15 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, environmental 
16 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 of 
16 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, trade 
17 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 the 
18 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 and 
19 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 Drug 
20 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 both 
21 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 and 
22 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 the 
23 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 ten 
24 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 testing 
25 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 for 
25 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 be 
 PETERS 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 any 
 PETERS 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 your 
 PETERS 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) 362-2345 
 49 

 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) 362-2345 
 50 

 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) 362-2345 
 51 

 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 

 52 
 1 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 

 53 
 1 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 hotel 
 2 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 to 
 2 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 measurement 
 3 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. But 
 3 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 the 
 4 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 be 
 4 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 distinguished 
 5 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 ambient 
 6 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 increase 
 7 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 no 
 7 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 concentrations 
 8 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 and 
 9 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 within 
 9 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 some 
10 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 proposal 
10 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 read 
11 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 obliterates 
12 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 a 
12 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 by 
13 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 food 
14 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 comment 
14 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 South 
15 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 by 
15 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 partnership 
16 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 be 
17 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. This 
17 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 my 
18 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 my 
18 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 without 
19 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 it 
20 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 take 
21 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 five 
21 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 I 
23 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 a 
23 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 at 
24 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 the 
25 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 12 
25 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 short 
 PETERS 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 or 
 PETERS 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 after 
 PETERS 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) 362-2345 
 106 

 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) 362-2345 
 107 

 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) 362-2345 
 108 

 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 

 109 
 1 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 

 110 
 1 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 just 
 2 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 shots 
 3 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 can 
 3 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 that 
 4 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 out 
 5 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. Thank 
 5 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 air 
 6 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, because 
 6 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 a 
 8 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 for 
 8 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 your 
 9 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 that 
 9 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 my 
10 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 multiple 
11 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 that 
11 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 have 
12 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 a 
13 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 to 
14 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 to 
14 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 meet 
15 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 the 
16 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 available 
16 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'm 
17 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 sold 
18 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 of 
18 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 Air 
19 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 sills 
20 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 there 
20 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'd 
21 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 sleep 
21 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 over 
22 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 than 
23 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-through 
23 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 ozone 
24 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 would 
25 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 devices 
25 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 I 
 PETERS 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 had 
 PETERS 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 they 
 PETERS 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) 362-2345 
 163 

 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) 362-2345 
 164 

 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) 362-2345 
 165 

 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 

 166 
 1 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 

 167 
 1 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 how 
 2 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 the 
 3 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 going 
 3 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 not 
 4 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 be 
 4 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 put 
 5 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 gal 
 5 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 the 
 6 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 and 
 8 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 Officer 
 9 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 for 
10 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 on 
11 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 average 
11 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 Governments 
12 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 and 
12 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 to 
13 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 of 
13 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 the 
14 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 NOx 
14 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 of 
15 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 the 
16 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 under 
16 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 item 
17 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 extreme 
17 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 reduction 
18 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 of 
19 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 three 
19 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 BRANCH 
20 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 Coachella 
20 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's 
21 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 in 
21 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 the 
22 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 state 
22 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 of 
23 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 working 
23 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 up 
24 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've 
24 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 of 
25 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 a 
25 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 talking 
 PETERS 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 add 
 PETERS 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 the 
 PETERS 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) 362-2345 
 220 

 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) 362-2345 
 221 

 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) 362-2345 
 222 

 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 

 223 
 1 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 

 224 
 1 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 the 
 2 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 the 
 2 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'd 
 3 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 stringent 
 4 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 that 
 4 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 on 
 5 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 the 
 5 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 ozone 
 6 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 and 
 6 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 smoke 
 7 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. And 
 8 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 the 
 8 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. The 
 9 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 and 
10 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 much 
10 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 the 
11 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 air 
12 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 to 
12 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's 
13 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. I 
14 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 plan 
14 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 that 
15 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 from 
15 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 not 
16 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 from 
17 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 the 
17 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 this 
18 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's 
19 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 in 
19 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 toward 
20 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 the 
21 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 to 
21 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, and 
23 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 the 
24 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 and 
24 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, you 
25 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 standard 
 PETERS 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) 362-2345 
 277 

 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) 362-2345 
 278 

 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) 362-2345 
 279 

 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 

 280 
 1 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 

 281 
 1 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 things 
 2 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 the 
 3 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 about 
 4 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 maybe 
 5 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 the 
 6 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 good 
 7 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 liquefied 
 8 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, and 
 9 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 we 
 9 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, health 
10 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 the 
11 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 the 
11 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 revise 
12 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 and 
13 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 earlier 
13 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 do 
14 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 that 
14 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 also 
15 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, except 
16 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 needed 
16 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 think 
17 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 I 
19 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 Ventura 
19 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 hear 
21 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 the 
22 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 use 
22 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 the 
23 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 a 
23 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 official 
24 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 the 
24 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 to 
25 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 stop 
 PETERS 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 for 
 PETERS 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 the 
 PETERS 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) 362-2345 
 334 

 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) 362-2345 
 335 

 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) 362-2345 
 336 

 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 

 337 
 1 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 

 338 
 1 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 the 
 2 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 is 
 3 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-Pict 
 4 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 small 
 4 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 in 
 5 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 a 
 6 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 not 
 6 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 been 
 7 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, as 
 7 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 all 
 8 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 convert 
 8 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 that 
 9 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 couple 
 9 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 was 
11 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 to 
12 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 quick 
12 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 the 
13 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 the 
14 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 and 
14 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 feel 
15 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 as 
15 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 current 
16 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 this 
16 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 reactive 
17 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 let 
17 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 long 
18 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 move 
19 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 a 
20 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 ag 
20 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 good 
21 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 good 
21 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 more 
22 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 

21 
22 

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 

22 
23 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR 

24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 

25 License No. 12277 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345