http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt

BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

JOE SERNA, JR. BUILDING CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CENTRAL VALLEY AUDITORIUM, SECOND FLOOR 1001 I STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2007 8:30 A.M.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (1 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:56 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt

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 Ms. Lydia Kennard Mr. Jerry Hill Mr. Ronald O. Loveridge Dr. Daniel Sperling
STAFF Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Tom Jennings, Chief Counsel Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (2 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Quetin, Ombudsman Ms. Lori Andreoni, Board Secretary Mr. Bob Cross, Chief, Mobile Source Control Division Ms. Monique Davis, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, Stationary Source Division Mr. Dan Donohoue, Chief, Emissions Assessment Branch Mr. Bob Fletcher, Chief, Stationary Source Division Mr. Todd Sterling, Air Pollution Specialist, Control Strategies Section, SSD Mr. Floyd Vergara, Senior Staff Counsel

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

iii
APPEARANCES CONTINUED

ALSO PRESENT Mr. James Baker, Roof Coatings Manufacturers Association Ms. Diane Bailey, NRDC Mr. Howard Berman, Zinsser Mr. Greg Bombard, Catalina Express Mr. Jeff Browning, Sause Brothers Mr. Tim Carmichael, Coalition for Clean Air

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (3 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt Mr. David Darling, National Paint & Coatings Association Mr. Kyle Frakes, Tnemec Company, Inc. Ms. Madelyn Harding, Sherwin-Williams Mr. Henry Hogo, South Coast AQMD Ms. Carolyn Horgan, Blue & Gold Fleet Mr. Andrew Jaques, American Chemistry Council Mr. John Kaltenstein, Friends of the Earth Mr. Dave Laucella, ACC Solutions Industry Group Mr. Martin Robbins, Vallejo Baylink Mr. Richard Smith, Westar Marine Services Mr. Jim Swindler, Golden Gate Ferry Mr. Joe Wyman, Hornblower Cruises & Events

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

iv
INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Item 7-10-8 2 Item 7-10-6 Chairperson Nichols 6 Chief Deputy Executive Officer Cackette 6 Staff Presentation 9 Ombudsman Quentin 29

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (4 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt Q&A 30 Mr. Swindler 49 Mr. Browning 50 Mr. Smith 58 Mr. Kaltenstein 64 Ms. Horgan 66 Mr. Robbins 68 Mr. Wyman 71 Mr. Alard 74 Mr. Bombard 78 Mr. Bailey 82 Mr. Carmichael 85 Mr. Hogo 95 Item 07-10-5 Chairperson Nichols 99 Chief Deputy Executive Officer Cackette 100 Staff Presentation 100 Mr. Carmichael 107 Ms. Davis 108 Ms. Harding 110 Mr. Frakes 111 Mr. Laucella 113 Mr. Jaques 116 Mr. Baker 118 Mr. Berman 120 Motion 123 Vote 123
Adjournment 124 Reporter's Certificate 125

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good morning. We're going

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (5 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 3 the open the meeting and then go into our closed session 4 and resume after we're ready to come back out and announce 5 the results of the closed session. And the rest of the 6 meeting will continue from that point on. 7 So without further ado, I declare this meeting 8 open. 9 And I think we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance and 10 call the roll. 11 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 12 recited in unison.) 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Let's call the roll. 14 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 15 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Here. 16 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Case? 17 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Here. 18 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 20 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Hill? 21 SUPERVISOR HILL: Here. 22 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 23 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Here. 24 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Mayor Loveridge?

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (6 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 25 Mrs. Riordan?

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

2 1 Supervisor Roberts? 2 Professor Sperling? 3 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Here. 4 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Chairman Nichols? 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Here. 6 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Madam Chair, we have a 7 quorum. 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: As indicated in the notice 9 of this meeting, we are holding a closed session today. 10 Health and Safety Code Section 39515(a) directs the Board 11 to appoint an Executive Officer who shall serve at the 12 Board's pleasure. The purpose of this closed session will 13 to be to consider the appointment of a new Executive 14 Officer. This is a personnel matter that may be 15 considered in a closed session pursuant to Government Code 16 Section 11126(a). 17 At the conclusion of the closed session, we'll

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (7 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 18 resume in open session and announce any results of the 19 decision of our discussion. 20 So thank you to those who are not going to be in 21 the closed session. The Board is going to retire to a 22 back room, and we'll come out as soon as we're done. 23 Thanks, everybody. 24 (Thereupon the Board recessed into closed 25 session.)

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

3 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: The Board has concluded its 2 closed session meeting pursuant to Government Code Section 3 11126(a) to discuss the appointment of a new Executive 4 Officer. And the Board has unanimously voted. And I'm 5 very pleased to announce that our new Executive Officer is 6 James Goldstein. 7 James, where are you? There he is. 8 And so he's already been notified of the decision 9 and is expected to take office immediately. And we have 10 such confidence in him that actually we've asked him to 11 represent us at a meeting that's going to be taking place

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (8 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 12 in the next few minutes out at Mathur for the executive 13 team dealing with the fire emergencies. The Governor had 14 asked us to send a representative, and obviously we have a 15 Board meeting going on. But they need somebody there to 16 help them with the planning for the aftermath of the 17 fires. 18 I just want to take one minute to say how pleased 19 I am that we've been able to choose a person with the kind 20 of depth of experience in state government and 21 environmental issues that James brings to us. It's a 22 terrific signal I think for the people who work at the Air 23 Resources Board and for all of the community that we found 24 somebody with his kind of talent and commitment in our own 25 midst. And we're very much looking forward to his

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

4 1 leadership. 2 I'm personally looking forward to having a 3 partner to work with as we move forward on our mission to 4 clean up the air and save the global environment.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (9 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 5 And I think I speak for all of us in saying this 6 is a great moment. And I would like to give my colleagues 7 an opportunity if they want to add anything. 8 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you. 9 Congratulations to James. We look forward to great 10 leadership from you. 11 But I also wanted to thank Tom Cackette and the 12 entire management team for stepping in and assisting us 13 over these months. And it's been extraordinary. We look 14 forward to continuing great work with you. 15 (Applause) 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So James, before you have 17 to run off, would you like to say a couple of words? 18 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thank you. I'm honored and 19 excited to have the opportunity to be part of the 20 leadership of this organization as we move forward you 21 know through very exciting and tremendous time. 22 We have our work cut out for us on what we've 23 been doing for 40 years on criteria pollutants and with AB 24 23 and the Global Warming Solutions Act we have even more 25 opportunities to do great things. And I'm excited to be

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (10 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

5 1 here to work with the management team and the Board. So 2 thank you for your support. It's greatly appreciated. 3 I'm looking forward to getting started in five minutes. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. And godspeed. 5 And thanks to Tom Cackette for once again 6 stepping in and leading the organization and for 7 continuing through this meeting to serve in his acting 8 capacity. We really appreciate that, Tom. 9 Before we get on with the rest of our meeting, 10 wanted to say two things. 11 First of all, Mayor Loveridge has had to leave us 12 because of the fires to go back to the Riverside area 13 where they are experiencing total outage of electricity 14 and some pretty serious consequences of that. So we're 15 very sorry to lose him, but understand where he has to be. 16 I also need to ask our counsel Tom Jennings to 17 clarify something from yesterday's meeting. There appears 18 to have been some confusion about the effect of the 19 aftermarket catalyst resolution 07-48. So, Tom, could you

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (11 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 20 clear that up, please? 21 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Thank you. As you heard 22 the staff presentation yesterday, the staff recommended 23 that the Board adopt the proposal as originally proposed. 24 There wasn't any 15-day language that was distributed. 25 Through an oversight, the resolution that you had before

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

6 1 you, however, the 15-day language where we would put out 2 additional modifications for comment. And I just wanted 3 to clarify our understanding that the Board voted to adopt 4 the regulations as proposed. 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I believe that's correct, 6 yes. Thank you. 7 Okay. So our first item for this morning's 8 agenda is a regulation respecting commercial harbor craft. 9 This regulatory measure has an important effect because it 10 will deal with the exposure levels in neighborhoods around 11 ports which experience extremely high exposures to diesel 12 particulate matter. This will help alleviate some of the 13 concerns of those communities, and it will also have major

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (12 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 14 impacts on the port related emissions at the regional 15 level for both particulate matter and ozone. 16 So I'm going to ask you, Mr. Cackette, to 17 introduce the item. 18 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Thank 19 you. If I can take just a segue back to the last 20 discussion, I really wanted to point out that Lynn and 21 Mike and Tom Jennings also shared the responsibility of 22 acting EO many, many times during summer, letting me still 23 take my vacation. We all chipped in to that. And I think 24 on all of our part, it was a pleasure to do so. We're 25 looking forward to having an EO, I can assure you.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

7 1 So to the subject here today, we're proposing for 2 your consideration a regulation that will significantly 3 reduce emissions from commercial harbor craft that operate 4 within the port's inland waterways and within 24 nautical 5 miles of the coast lines. As you know, these ports and 6 waterways are often located in densely populated areas

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (13 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 7 exposing residents to unhealthy levels of pollutants. 8 In 2004, staff completed an exposure assessment 9 study of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. And 10 that study revealed that the emissions from port 11 operations which includes commercial harbor craft can 12 affect a very large area and result in elevated potential 13 cancer risks, premature mortality, and other non-cancer 14 health threats to the residents. 15 Diesel PM emissions from commercial harbor craft 16 represent a significant portion of the overall emissions 17 and cancer risk. In fact, at the ports of Los Angeles and 18 Long Beach, it's the only sources that expose more persons 19 to a cancer risk of greater than ten in a million are the 20 transiting and hoteling emissions from oceangoing vessels. 21 In April of last year, we brought the Goods 22 Movement Emission Reduction Plan to you for consideration, 23 which you approved. And in that plan, we identified a 24 variety of measures aimed at reducing emissions associated 25 with moving goods via the state's highways, rails and

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

8

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (14 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 1 ports. Cleaning up the engines of commercial harbor craft 2 was one of the measures to be investigated. 3 The state's voters agreed that cleaning up goods 4 movement emissions is a top priority. Last year, they 5 approved a one billion dollar bond to provide incentive 6 funds for cleaner equipment and technologies associated 7 with rate movement. ARB's draft plan for allocating these 8 funds include $60 million for commercial harbor craft. 9 These funds which will be administered through local 10 agencies would be introduced to replace the oldest, 11 dirtiest, and highest used engines on tug and supply 12 boats. 13 Those bonds funds will be used in concert with 14 our proposal today in order to supplement the reduction 15 obtained by this regulation. As you will see in the 16 staff's presentation, the regulation would reduce the 17 public's exposure to diesel PM emissions and result in 18 cancer and non-cancer health effects. In addition, the 19 regulation will continue to improve regional air quality 20 by reducing important precursors to ozone and particulate 21 matter.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (15 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 22 The regulation will achieve this by accelerating 23 the turnover of engines for those vessel types that 24 generate a large portion of the emissions and work closest 25 to shore. The regulation provides an even faster turnover

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

9 1 schedule for the South Coast in order to provide 2 additional NOx and PM benefits to help meet the 2014 3 deadline for PM2.5 attainment in the South Coast air 4 basin. 5 I'd now like to have Todd Sterling of our 6 Stationary Source Division present the staff's proposal. 7 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 8 presented as follows.) 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Thank you, 10 Mr. Cackette. Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of 11 the Board. 12 Today, I will be presenting staff's proposed 13 regulation for commercial harbor craft. We have been 14 working on developing this proposal since early 2004. As 15 the Ombudsman will report, we have held many workshops and

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (16 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 16 community meetings in an effort to involve stakeholders. 17 We have also visited and worked with several vessel owners 18 from various harbor craft including ferries, tug boats, 19 pilot boats, and commercial fishing vessels. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: This slide 22 presents the topics I'll be discussing today. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: First the 25 background.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

10 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Commercial 3 harbor craft are generally U.S. flagged vessels. They 4 vary in size from small dive boats to large ferries, but 5 are smaller than oceangoing vessels. 6 Commercial harbor craft include ferries, tug 7 boats, commercial fishing vessels, and other vessel types 8 as shown on this slide.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (17 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Staff 11 estimates that there are 4,200 harbor craft operating in 12 California and about twice as many diesel engines. While 13 commercial and charter fishing vessels make up about 75 14 percent of the total harbor craft population, they tend to 15 have smaller engines than other vessel types and often 16 have a single propulsion engine. 17 Ferries excursion vessels, tug boats, and tow 18 boats have larger engines and often have two propulsion 19 engines. As we will show in the following slides, 20 ferries, excursion vessels, tug boats, and tow boats are 21 responsible for the largest share of emissions from harbor 22 craft. Consequently, the regulation that we are proposing 23 focuses on reducing emissions from ferries, excursion 24 vessels, tug boats, and tow boats. 25 --o0o--

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

11 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Almost 70 2 percent of the ferries, excursion vessels, tug boats, and

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (18 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 3 tow boats are located in South Coast and the bay area. 4 The remainder is split between San Diego and other parts 5 of the state. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Up until 8 2000, there were no state or federal emission standards 9 for marine engines used in harbor craft. Beginning in 10 2000, marine engines began meeting U.S. EPA Tier 1 11 emission standards. Engines meeting Tier 2 standards 12 began entering the market in 2004. 13 In April of this year, U.S. EPA proposed Tier 3 14 and 4 emission standards for marine engines. According to 15 the U.S. EPA's proposed rulemaking, engines meeting Tier 3 16 standards would become available starting in 2013 to 2014 17 for most harbor craft engines. 18 Engines meeting Tier 4 standards would become 19 available in 2016 to 2017. Tier 4 standards are expected 20 to require aftertreatment technology. 21 U.S. EPA has proposed Tier 4 standards for all 22 engines except those under 800 horsepower. Nationwide, 23 800 horsepower and larger engines are a significant

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (19 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 24 portion of the engine population. However, in California, 25 80 percent of the commercial harbor craft fleet are

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

12 1 smaller than 800 horsepower and will not be subject to 2 these Tier 4 standards. 3 ARB has commented to the U.S. EPA that this is 4 important to California that Tier 4 standards apply to 5 these smaller engines in order to obtain needed 6 reductions. U.S. EPA expects to finalize these standards 7 by the end of the year. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Commercial 10 harbor craft are a large source of diesel PM and NOx 11 emissions. The emissions from these vessels are estimated 12 at 3.3 tons per day of PM and 73 tons per day of NOx. 13 Many of the engines currently in service are unregulated 14 engines, some of which have been in service for many 15 decades as these engines have useful lives of 20 to 35 16 years. 17 --o0o--

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (20 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: As previously 19 mentioned and shown in this slide, fishing vessels make up 20 the largest share of commercial harbor craft population. 21 Ferries, excursion vessels, tug, and tows make up about 15 22 percent of the vessel population. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: However, as 25 you can see from this slide, this 15 percent of the vessel

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

13 1 population, the three pie slices on the right-hand side of 2 the chart, contribute about 50 percent of the engine 3 emissions. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Also, 6 ferries, excursion vessels, tug boats, and tow boats 7 generally work within the harbor, close to shore, 8 producing greater health impacts. This chart shows how 9 close to shore the various vessel types operate. 10 The blue bar shows the amount of PM emissions

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (21 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 11 generated by vessel types while operating in harbor. 12 The maroon bar shows emissions generated from 3 13 to 24 miles. 14 And the yellow bar shows emissions generated more 15 than 24 miles from shore. 16 At the left side of the chart, as you can see, 17 the most emissions from ferries, excursion vessels, tug, 18 and tow boats occur in harbor and very little occur more 19 than 24 miles from shore. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: In 1998, the 22 Board identified diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant with 23 no Board-specified threshold exposure level. The purpose 24 of the proposed regulatory action is to reduce emissions 25 from diesel PM and NOx in order to reduce the potential

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

14 1 cancer risk and other adverse effects from PM exposure. 2 Staff has evaluated the health impacts of the PM 3 and NOx emissions from commercial harbor craft and found 4 that these emissions contribute to elevated cancer and

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (22 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 5 non-cancer risk. Statewide, approximately 90 premature 6 deaths per year are associated with emissions from 7 commercial harbor craft. Other non-cancer health impacts 8 are also listed on the slide. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: I will now 11 discuss the proposed commercial harbor craft regulation. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The proposed 14 regulation will focus on reducing emissions from ferries, 15 excursion vessels, tug boats, and tow boats by requiring 16 engines to be replaced with new certified engines meeting 17 the most stringent U.S. EPA marine engine standards. We 18 are not modifying these standards, just requiring that 19 engines meeting them be used in certain situation. 20 All new harbor craft, including commercial 21 fishing, will need to install new certified engines. 22 Engines being replaced in all existing harbor craft will 23 also need to be new certified engines meeting new 24 standards. All vessels will be subject to monitoring, 25 recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (23 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

15 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: First, we 3 will review the proposed requirements that apply only to 4 ferries, excursion vessels, tug boats, and tow boats. 5 Later, we will discuss requirements that apply to all 6 commercial harbor craft. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The proposed 9 regulation will require vessel owners of ferries, 10 excursion vessels, tug boats, and tow boats to replace 11 unregulated or Tier 0 and Tier 1 engines with engines 12 meeting Tier 2 or Tier 3 emissions standard, whatever is 13 current by the time the engine is replaced. 14 The schedule by which the engines are to be 15 replaced is based on the engine model year and yearly 16 hours of operation. 17 The schedule specifies replacement dates for 18 ranges of model years starting with the oldest highest 19 used engines first. There are two compliance schedules, a

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (24 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 20 statewide schedule and an accelerated schedule for the 21 south coast. 22 Tier 0 engines will be replaced with engines 23 meeting the Tier 2 standards or Tier 3 when these engines 24 become available. 25 Tier 1 engines will be replaced with engines

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

16 1 meeting the Tier 3 standards. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: As you can 4 see, replacing Tier 0 and Tier 1 engines with Tier 2 and 3 5 engines achieves significant emission reductions per 6 engine, ranging from 60 to 80 percent. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The proposed 9 regulation will require vessel owners to start replacing 10 their engines in 2009. 11 For engines subject to the statewide schedule, 12 all Tier 0 engines will be replaced by 2016 and all Tier 1

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (25 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 13 engines by 2022. We have proposed an accelerated schedule 14 for vessels in the South Coast which will remove Tier 0 15 and 1 engines two to three years earlier replacing Tier 0 16 engines prior to 2014. This will provide early reductions 17 to help meet the federally mandated PM2.5 air quality 18 standards. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: As mentioned 21 earlier, the compliance schedule is based on the engine 22 model year. There are two situations where alternative 23 model year may be used. The first situation is if a 24 vessel engine has been rebuilt to a cleaner standard 25 through Carl Moyer type programs or owner initiative. In

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

17 1 this case, the rebuild date can be used as the model year. 2 The second situation is included in order to 3 encourage the development and demonstration of emission 4 control strategies for harbor craft. If an emission 5 control strategy which achieves a decrease in PM or NOx of 6 at least 25 percent is implemented with an engine, then an

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (26 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 7 owner or operator can add five years to the engine model 8 year, extending the compliance date one to five years. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The proposal 11 also offers two alternatives for complying with the in 12 use-requirements. There are used to demonstrate that the 13 existing engine is already meeting the current standard or 14 that the engine is operating less than 300 hours annually. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: This slide 17 lists four situations where the ARB Executive Officer may 18 allow a compliance date extension of either six months to 19 one year depending on the situation. For example, a 20 one-year compliance date extension is allowed if no 21 suitable engine replacement is available. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Another 24 compliance option for vessel owners would be to 25 participate in an alternative control of emission plans.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (27 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 18 1 We would allow the alternative control of emissions option 2 provided that equal or greater emission reductions would 3 be achieved. This could include engine modifications, 4 exhaust after treatment control, engine re-power, and 5 using alternative fuels. 6 The regulation establishes an application process 7 that requires ARB Executive Officer approval and includes 8 public review and comment. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Previously, I 11 have discussed regulation requirements applies to ferries, 12 excursion vessels, tug boats, and tow boats. I will now 13 discuss requirement for all commercial harbor craft 14 vessels, including fishing boats, crew and supply, and 15 other commercial harbor craft. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: We'll start 18 with the requirements for all new harbor craft vessels, 19 including fishing, crew and supply, and work boats, as 20 well as ferries, tugs, and others. 21 Starting in 2009, the regulation will require the

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (28 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 22 most current U.S. EPA marine engine, either Tier 2, 3, or 23 4, to be installed on new vessels. 24 The propulsion engine on new ferries will have an 25 additional requirement. In addition to installing an

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

19 1 engine meeting the most current standard, the best 2 available control technology, or BACT, must be applied. 3 The determination of what is BACT for each new ferry will 4 be made on a case by case basis. ARB will make BACT 5 determinations in consultation with the local air 6 district. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: When 9 re-powering an in-use vessel, the most current U.S. EPA. 10 marine engine standards must be installed. Engines 11 meeting the Tier 4 standard would be required only in 12 those cases where the engine being replaced was a Tier 4 13 engine. 14 --o0o--

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (29 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: All harbor 16 craft will be required, if not already installed, to 17 install a non-resettable hour meter to each engine to 18 monitor engine activity and also keep records for engine 19 operation. All harbor craft will be required to submit a 20 report providing engine and operation information. 21 For harbor craft other than ferries, excursion 22 vessels, tugs and tows, this is a one-time report. 23 However, ferries, excursion vessels, tugs, and tows are 24 required to report how they plan to comply with engine 25 replacement requirements and also how they have complied

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

20 1 once compliance is complete. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The 4 regulation applies to vessels that operate within all 5 California waters, including internal waters and within 24 6 nautical miles of the coast line. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Listed in

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (30 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 9 this slide are the different vessel types that are exempt 10 from the entire regulation such as temporary emergency 11 rescue and recovery vessels, oceangoing vessels, and U.S. 12 Coast Guard vessels. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Additionally, 15 there are some ferries, excursion vessels, tug boats, and 16 tow boats that are exempt from the engine replacement 17 requirements. These include temporary replacement 18 vessels, registered historic vessels, and near retirement 19 vessels. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: This next 22 section will provide a review of the projected emission 23 reductions from the proposed regulations. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

21 1 regulation's accelerated replacement schedule for the

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (31 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 2 South Coast provides early reductions of about .2 tons per 3 day PM and 3.6 tons per day of NOx by 2013 helping them 4 meet the 2015 federal PM2.5 air quality deadline. This 5 represents a 30 percent reduction of PM and 25 percent 6 reduction in NOx. 7 The statewide schedule provides a .7 tons per day 8 reduction of PM and 10 tons per day reduction of NOx in 9 2020, representing a 40 percent and 25 percent reduction 10 of PM and NOx respectively. 11 With the implementation of this regulation, the 12 2015 and 2020 goods movement emission reduction goals for 13 harbor craft will be achieved. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Here are the 16 anticipated statewide PM reductions for the entire harbor 17 craft inventory in tons per day. 18 The pink upper line is the base line emissions, 19 and the orange lower line is the projected statewide 20 emission reductions from the proposed harbor craft 21 regulation. 22 The declining base line is attributed to mainly 23 normal engine turnover and a decline in the commercial

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (32 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 24 fishing fleet. Historical data shows about a six percent 25 decline per year in commercial fishing vessels.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

22 1 Although uncontrolled PM emissions are projected 2 to drop through 2025, the proposed regulation would 3 accelerated these emission reductions. In fact, over the 4 life of the regulation from 2009 through 2022, there will 5 be reductions of about five million pounds of diesel PM 6 emissions due directly to this regulation. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The NOx chart 9 shows a similar trend as the previous PM chart with 10 increased emission reductions due to the required engine 11 replacements. 12 Again, note the many years of early reductions. 13 Over the life of the regulation from 2009 through 2022, 14 there will be a reduction of 39,000 tons of NOx emissions 15 due directly to this regulation. 16 As I stated earlier, the South Coast will be

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (33 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 17 subject to an accelerated schedule. This graph shows the 18 emission reductions in the South Coast. 19 The pink upper line is the base line emissions. 20 The green middle line are the emissions of the 21 South Coast vessels if on the statewide schedule. 22 And the orange lower line shows the drop in 23 emission due to accelerated schedule as shown by the 24 arrow. 25 In 2013, the accelerated schedule provides

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

23 1 significant reductions for the South Coast. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The 4 reductions resulting from the regulation will reduce near 5 source cancer risk from harbor craft by about 65 percent 6 in the Los Angeles and Long Beach areas. 7 It will also provide numerous non-cancer health 8 benefits as shown in this slide. These non-cancer health 9 benefits are estimated to result in a cost savings of 1.3 10 to $2 billion.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (34 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt
11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Staff has 13 evaluated the impact the proposed regulation would have on 14 global warming. The accelerated phase-in of cleaner 15 engines with less polluting technologies along with the 16 reduction of black carbon, which is a likely contributor 17 to global warming, would result in a reduction of 18 greenhouse gas emissions. 19 However, to the extent that the exhaust 20 aftertreatment technologies are used to comply with this 21 regulation, there may be an increase in carbon dioxide 22 emissions due to the increased vessel power usage. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: ARB estimates 25 that this regulation will cost industry about $460

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

24 1 million. However, because the vast majority of the 2 engines that the regulation will require to be replaced 3 are past their useful life, only about a third of this

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (35 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 4 amount is attributed to the cost of complying with the 5 regulation. 6 This third, approximately $140 million, is the 7 cost of replacing engines before they reach the end of 8 their useful life. The impact of the return on owners' 9 equity ranges from 0.5 to 3.5 percent decline. 10 Overall, most businesses will be able to absorb 11 the cost of the proposed regulation by increasing the 12 costs of service. And the regulation should not have a 13 significant adverse impact on their profitability. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: The 16 regulation would achieve very large emission reductions 17 compared to the cost of those reductions. If the total 18 cost of the regulation is attributed to reducing diesel PM 19 alone, the diesel PM cost effectiveness is $29 per pound 20 it is estimated. If the cost is split between reducing PM 21 and NOx, the cost effectiveness is approximately $15 per 22 pound of diesel PM reduced and about $1800 per ton of NOx 23 reduced. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: As shown, the

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (36 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

25 1 cost effectiveness for the proposed harbor craft 2 regulation is consistent with recently passed regulations. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: There are 5 some potential funding sources for harbor craft engine 6 replacements. For example, Carl Moyer funding and the new 7 Proposition B Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program 8 bond funds. Additional funds may be distributed by the 9 port of Los Angeles mitigation funding and the Federal 10 Transit Authority grants. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: As currently 13 proposed, $60 million will be available for harbor craft 14 engine replacements through the goods movement bond fund. 15 To qualify for these funds, the replacement 16 engine would need to be installed two years prior to any 17 applicable regulation compliance date. This funding is 18 available in only certain vessel types, including tug and

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (37 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 19 tow boats, crew and supply vessels, and commercial 20 fishing. It is estimated that these funds could purchase 21 over 500 propulsion engines. 22 To qualify for Carl Moyer funds, there would need 23 to be a three-year lead time for the engine replacement 24 prior to the regulatory compliance date for regulated 25 vessels. There are no timing restrictions related to

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

26 1 compliance dates for unregulated vessels. The 2 availability of these funds varies by local air district. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: We're 5 proposing two changes to the regulatory language proposed 6 with the notice. If approved by the Board, these will be 7 subject to a 15-day public comment period. The proposed 8 regulation requires that ferry, excursion, tug and tow 9 boat vessel owners to report how they would comply with 10 the engine replacement requirement in 2009 at the time of 11 the initial reporting. 12 The proposed 15-day change would require vessel

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (38 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 13 owners to report how the vessel would comply by February 14 28th of the year of compliance. Requiring this report 15 within a year of compliance allows the vessel owners to 16 develop a plan based on current technology available and 17 their current economic status. 18 The second change would be to restrict the engine 19 model year determination method based on installing an 20 emission control device to vessels located outside the 21 South Coast area. This change is to prevent any delay in 22 engine replacement emission reductions in the South Coast. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: This slide 25 lists four issues that have been raised either in comments

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

27 1 received or during the regulation development process. 2 The first issue regards extending the South Coast 3 accelerated compliance schedule to the rest of the state. 4 Staff evaluated the capacity of engine 5 replacement facilities within the state and calculated

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (39 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 6 that the current engine replacement schedule is about the 7 maximum that these facilities can handle. 8 Also, an accelerated schedule for the entire 9 state would increase the cost to the regulated community 10 and reduce the time window for Carl Moyer and bond funding 11 opportunities. 12 Additionally, since more Tier 2 engines would be 13 installed as replacement engines instead of Tier 3 14 engines, long term emission benefits would be reduced. 15 The second issue regards a suggestion that we 16 require in-use crew and supply vessels to replace their 17 engines. For this proposal, we are focusing on the 18 largest emitters of near-source risk. We will be 19 evaluating other vessel types for possible controls in the 20 future. In the meanwhile, both Carl Moyer and bond 21 funding is available to help clean up the crew and supply 22 boat fleet. 23 The third issue involves a request that ARB 24 completely remove the option to extend compliance by one 25 to five years for engines which employ emission control

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (40 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt
28 1 strategy to reduce PM or NOx by 25 percent. 2 As mentioned in the previous slide, this option 3 would only apply to vessels located outside the South 4 Coast. By keeping this option in the regulation, we hope 5 to encourage the development of emission control 6 strategies for harbor craft that could be used for other 7 unregulated vessel types such as commercial fishing. 8 Currently, there are no verified controls for harbor craft 9 engines. 10 Finally, it has been suggested that we require 11 vessel owners to replace their engines with Tier 4 engines 12 when they become available, unless they prove that the 13 engine is not suitable for their vessel. 14 Since Tier 4 engines will be aftertreatment based 15 designs, we believe that requiring these installations on 16 in-use vessels would be difficult due to the increased 17 weight and size as compared to earlier tiered engines they 18 would be replacing. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: In summary,

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (41 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 21 the proposed commercial harbor craft regulation meets the 22 goods movement goals 2015 and 2020. It achieves the early 23 reductions in the South Coast air basin and is cost 24 effective. 25 It addresses in-use emission reductions for the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

29 1 segment of the fleet, it addresses a segment that poses 2 the greatest health risk. Additionally, there will be 3 opportunities in the future. 4 Therefore, staff recommends that the Board adopt 5 the proposed regulation. This concludes my presentation. 6 At this time, we would be happy to answer any questions. 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you, Mr. Sterling. 8 Before we open it up and I have a couple 9 questions myself, I believe we need to hear the statement 10 from the Ombudsman about the public participation process. 11 OMBUDSMAN QUETIN: Chairman Nichols and members 12 of the Board, this proposed regulation has been developed 13 with considerable input from environmental organizations, 14 engine and diesel emission control associations, and other

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (42 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 15 interested parties. 16 Staff began their efforts to develop this rule in 17 December 2004. Since March 2004, staff has held 12 public 18 workshops in Sacramento and Los Angeles with approximately 19 10 to 40 people in attendance. They also held three 20 community outreach meetings in Moss Landing, Los Angeles, 21 and Bodega Bay. 22 In addition, ARB staff participated in numerous 23 industry and government agency meetings presenting 24 information on the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, the Goods 25 Movement Emission Reduction Plan, and the proposed

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

30 1 regulatory approach for commercial harbor craft. 2 The staff report was released for public comment 3 on September 4th, 2007. Was noticed on the ARB website 4 with hard copies available in the Cal/EPA library. An 5 internet message was sent to 1,089 people on the 6 commercial harbor craft list serve and hard copies were 7 mailed out when requested.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (43 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 10 To kick off the questions, I have a question 11 first about the exclusion of all Coast Guard and military 12 harbor craft. Do you have any idea what proportion of the 13 inventory those represent within the category of harbor 14 craft? I would imagine it's quite significant. 15 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Is 16 it listed in the other category or not? 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: No. 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, the reason I'm 19 raising the issue is, you know, it's always very difficult 20 obviously to get a handle on anything that's owned by 21 federal government and especially when it's military. So 22 I understand there's a matter of prudence why you wouldn't 23 start there. 24 But historically California has been able to get 25 a handle, occasionally at least, on federal operations.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

31 1 And if it's a big piece of what's causing the problems

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (44 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 2 that are effecting people's health on shore, it would I 3 think be worth making an effort to try to see if there's 4 not a way that we could move in that area, difficult 5 though it may be politically. 6 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This 7 is Dan Donohoue. 8 What we can do on that at least as part of what 9 we're doing overall on the emissions inventory development 10 that we were getting additional data for is that we could 11 in fact initiate at the same time and effort to look at 12 both the military and the Coast Guard area on that as part 13 of the overall development when we're going to look at 14 what can we do in additional areas. 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: It's one thing to talk 16 about naval oceangoing vessels. But when craft are 17 operating primarily inside the harbor area, it seems to me 18 there should be some ability to work with them. 19 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: To 20 the extent that they are military tug or tow boats in 21 there, they would be subject. We don't have any 22 restrictions for them in the regulations. So to the

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (45 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 23 extent they are those vessels, they would not -- 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: They're not exempt. 25 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: They

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

32 1 are not exempt. 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That's good to know. 3 My second question, I just didn't understand the 4 third bullet that you presented under the issues, the 5 point that you were trying to make. If you could just go 6 back to that momentarily, the issue of removing an 7 emissions control strategy model year. I'm sorry. If you 8 could just explain that. 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: One of the 10 options to extend the compliance year would be to install 11 a diesel emission control strategy on their vessel. So 12 that would by doing that -- so say put a DPF on a vessel. 13 That could extend your compliance year one to five years. 14 So it's a 2000 engine. It would add five years to the 15 model year that would add onto the compliance five years. 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That was the recommendation

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (46 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 17 you got from some commenters. 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Right. Some 19 commenters want to leave it in. Some wanted to take it 20 out. 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. And then the last 22 point that I think is actually more significant than the 23 other two is on the slide on page 18 of the paper that we 24 have, I just want to clarify the issue here, overall 25 effect on global warming. Because given the world that we

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

33 1 are now living in, I don't think the Board wants to be 2 adopting any regulations where there's a net negative 3 impact on greenhouse gas emissions. I think I understand 4 what you're trying to say here, but could I please have 5 some assurance that overall we're not going backwards with 6 this regulation? 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, we 8 believe we're going forward so in general the new engines 9 will have better efficiencies than the engines that are

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (47 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 10 replaced. And the vast majority of compliance with the 11 regulation will be through replacement of older less 12 efficient engines with more efficient engines. 13 However, since there is the option to apply 14 control devices -- or in the case of ferries we may 15 actually, say, take a better engines and apply an 16 additional control device, that will have some adverse 17 energy consequence. So we will lose some of the benefit. 18 And then in addition, there's an uncounted 19 benefit that doesn't come into greenhouse gases from the 20 diesel PM reductions. So we are reducing the emissions of 21 a substance that is forming and harmful. And we don't 22 have the calculation worked out to make the benefits. 23 So when you look at it, we have two things that 24 should produce significant benefits in one aspect of the 25 regulation that may have an energy cost. We think that's

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

34 1 necessary for criteria pollutant reduction. 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, I think I wouldn't 3 hold up this obviously important rulemaking proceeding on

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (48 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 4 this grounds. But I would really like to see going 5 forward on any rules that we're looking at some attempt at 6 a calculation, even if it's within a range, you know, as 7 opposed to a hard number on what we think the impact is 8 likely to be on our goals under AB 32. If there's any way 9 the staff can develop to do that. I think Mr. -- 10 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We can always 11 give you a range as long as you're willing to except some 12 are not precise. 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: There's uncertainty in all 14 of it. I think we can except that. But I think for the 15 Board not to at least show it's tracking the issue would 16 appear to be indifferent to kind of an overarching mandate 17 we now have. 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And we can 19 incorporate that into our Final Statement of Reasons 20 that's now on the table as a comment. We can address it 21 there. 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That would be good, too. 23 That's enough from me. 24 Other Board members have comments?

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (49 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 25 Ms. D'Adamo.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

35 1 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a question 2 regarding the accelerated time schedule. And this goes to 3 other areas of the state. 4 I see here on slide 43 that one of the issues 5 apparently raised by the commenters and some of the 6 witnesses today will be proposing that the accelerated 7 engine replacement schedule extend to the entire state. 8 In particulate, I'm concerned about the near risk exposure 9 of passengers on ferries and excursions. If the engines 10 are available, why not have the Bay Area, San Diego, and 11 the rest of the state benefit from these cleaner engines 12 sooner? 13 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This 14 is Dan Donohoue. 15 Basically what we're trying to do here is to put 16 in new engines in existing vessels. Certainly if it's a 17 new ferry, we have additional standards with respect to 18 those.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (50 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 19 What we've had to do here in this regulation is 20 balance the useful life of these engines versus an 21 accelerated schedule. Right now for the rest of the state 22 the engine life has been -- we have reduced the useful 23 service life of those engines by about seven years. We're 24 providing for the most part 15 year service for the newer 25 fleet.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

36 1 To reduce it an additional number of years does 2 result in a fairly significant additional increase in 3 expenses. But the biggest issue is the installation 4 capacity that exists for shops to be able to install new 5 engines within those. So basically in balancing the 6 economics, the available installers, and the engines that 7 can be replaced in there, the overall schedule is what we 8 feel is technically doable and economically feasible. 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I would think there's not 10 much of a difference in terms of ages of the fleet in 11 South Coast as compared to other areas, unless, say, Bay

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (51 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 12 Area, for example, has newer engines. 13 And then as far as installers, I would assume 14 they're regionally based. They're not traveling around 15 the state, are they? 16 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: No, 17 they are not traveling around the state. What we looked 18 at is what is the capacity to install those engines. And 19 we think if we move the entire state to an accelerated 20 schedule, there is insufficient capacity to be able to 21 make those engine replacements. 22 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: There is also 23 an emissions trade off that with the accelerated schedule 24 you get more emissions reductions by 2014 which the South 25 Coast desperately needs as part of its attainment plan.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

37 1 But you actually have a little bit less in the subsequent 2 years because some of the replacements have to be done 3 with Tier 2 engines rather than Tier 3 engines. So 4 there's kind of economics at work. There's the ability to 5 make all of the transitions with the capacity to take the

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (52 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 6 boats out of service and put them in dry dock. And 7 there's that emission trade off that you have to make. 8 We thought the case was very clear in the South 9 Coast. We have this overriding consideration we have to 10 do everything we have committed to and can to get down to 11 the overall level of NOx reductions needed for PM by 2014. 12 And the rest of the state we felt the other balancing act 13 argued for the schedule we proposed. 14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: What in minor adjustments 15 were made with the rest of the state, not fully 16 accelerated schedule as proposed, but shaving off a year, 17 for example? 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: It's a 19 balancing act. So obviously those are all possible 20 options. 21 I don't know what the emission consequences are. 22 Is there's something definitive about the 2017 year and 23 the availability of the better engines? 24 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 25 There would be some trade off with respect to the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (53 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt

38 1 availability of the Tier 3 engines. So as you move that 2 up, you will end up replacing existing Tier 0 engines with 3 Tier 2, rather than Tier 3, which the Tier 3 is going to 4 get you, you know, significantly additional reductions. 5 The staff recommendation would be if we are going 6 to move it forward, then from an enforceability and a 7 consistency standpoint, it would be best to do it for the 8 entire state, not do it differently in various areas. 9 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: This 10 is Bob Fletcher. I wanted to clarify one of the points on 11 the rebuilds. We are looking at capacity within 12 California. So just because the tug is located in the 13 South Coast doesn't mean it will be replaced -- the engine 14 replaced in the South Coast. We did look at all of 15 California capacity when evaluating the ability of the 16 people to reinstall the engine. 17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Ferrying of 18 the tug to the Bay Area is not a large amount of time 19 compared to the engine rebuild and the dry dock. 20 SUPERVISOR HILL: If I could follow up on Dee

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (54 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 21 Dee's comments. There was one question related to the 22 alternative emission control strategies that are 23 available. I think it's my understanding that there are 24 no control strategies that can be added to these current 25 engines that will reduce NOx and PM. Is that true?

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

39 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Currently, 2 there are no verified emission control technologies for 3 marine. 4 SUPERVISOR HILL: So we're assuming if they do 5 create those and put them into operation, there would be 6 some exemption or alternative benefits from that that we 7 would be able to give them an extension of time to work? 8 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: They would 9 have significant emissions reductions earlier than 10 required by the rule. And in light of those, they would 11 be able to delay the most expensive thing which is the 12 replacement of the entire engine. 13 SUPERVISOR HILL: That's the one-year exemption

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (55 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 14 issue. How is that related? That's on slide 22 we're 15 talking about. If an engine is not available, it would be 16 a one-year extension, is that -- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: There might 18 be some cases where a one-off vessel, which most of these 19 are, if an engine would not be available. We give them a 20 year extension to provide them some extra time to get an 21 vessel engine to match up with that vessel. 22 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This 23 is Dan Donohoue. 24 What we've seen in a number of the regulations is 25 when the new engines are scheduled to come out, depending

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

40 1 on what category the manufacturers really are marketing 2 those engines for, they may not -- the engines for certain 3 categories may not come up be available until later on. 4 So as long as the individual has put in the purchase order 5 in time and through no fault of their own the engine is 6 simply not available, it has not been delivered, they can 7 petition that the EO on a case by case basis look at that

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (56 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 8 information and make a determination that a delay is 9 appropriate. 10 SUPERVISOR HILL: So there are two issues we're 11 looking at. One is the availability of engines, and the 12 second is the availability of locations and mechanic shops 13 that can do the work. 14 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Both 15 delay there and the delay in the actual ability to the 16 extent it has to be dry dock, dry dock space that's 17 available. To the extent it's an equipment installer that 18 can install the particular type of engine, CAT engine or 19 whatever, those are things that we've seen in some of the 20 other diesel regulations where those type of issues come 21 up. And we're trying to address those with very limited 22 exemptions for those appropriate situations. 23 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Ms. Berg. 25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you, Chairman.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

41

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (57 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 1 On slide 5, what percentage of the Tier 0 engines 2 make up the total inventory out of the 4200 vessels and 3 the 8300 diesel engines, what percentage are Tear 0s? 4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Eighty 5 percent of the engines. 6 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So 80 percent of the engines 7 then actually are going to be replaced by 2016. 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Of the 9 ferries, tugs, and tows, excursion vessels, right. 10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And the inventory is 11 available to accomplish that, the replacement engines? We 12 really haven't talked about availability of inventory or 13 how long it takes to get these vessels out of the water 14 and how long they're in dry dock. It isn't the same as 15 trucks that make an appointment and drive over and it 16 takes a few weeks. 17 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Two 18 comments there. 19 Number one, as far as the availability of 20 engines, Tier 0, Tier 3 engines, the Engine Manufacturers 21 Association, you know, has indicated that they believe 22 that those engines will be available on the timing.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (58 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 23 Tier 2 engines are available right now. So they 24 anticipate that there is not an issue with respect to 25 that.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

42 1 Tier 3 engines are actually part of the new EPA 2 proposed regulation. So the availability of that is still 3 a bit in question. But right now they believe those will 4 be offered. 5 The issue about the installation capacity dry 6 dock time and all that is the issue that we talked about 7 before as to why we felt that we do feel there is 8 sufficient capacity to handle an accelerated schedule for 9 the South Coast, that we have the installers there. But 10 we do have questions about that being able to handle that 11 for the rest of the state. 12 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: Just 13 one clarification that while 80 percent of these engines 14 are Tear 0, we are not addressing 8300 diesel engines in 15 this regulation. We're only addressing 15 percent of

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (59 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 16 the -- we're only dealing with ferries, tugs, and tows. 17 So 80 percent of them would be replaced in the categories 18 we're covering in this regulation. 19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much for 20 clarifying that. 21 And also in clarification, I think I missed how 22 an individual company determines their turnover schedule. 23 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 24 Could you bring up that extra slide on the schedule? 25 --o0o--

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

43 1 BOARD MEMBER BERG: For example, on the off-road, 2 we had the eight or ten percentage of horsepower, and so I 3 was confused on how that was determined. 4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: This is Todd 5 Sterling. 6 This slide here shows the statewide schedule. So 7 a vessel owner owning a vessel from -- owns a ferry that's 8 a 1990 ferry. He would look at the engine model year, 9 determine how many hours of annual -- hours of operation

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (60 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 10 he had last year, and would either fall into the 2013 or 11 2014 time range for compliance. 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: That explains why we need 13 that recordkeeping, so now I understand that. 14 And then also is there a registration process so 15 that the local districts are aware of the inventory? And 16 then if an inventory piece is being added or replaced, is 17 there a permitting process that then would drive the BACT 18 decision on which vessel they could purchase? 19 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: The 20 implementation and enforcement of this regulation is with 21 the Air Resources Board. The initial phase of the 22 regulation requires that all vessels, all harbor craft 23 provide information with respect to the vessel, location, 24 age of the engine and all that. So there is an initial 25 registration of all harbor craft beyond these.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

44 1 The actual implementation of the engine 2 replacement schedules would be under ARB's enforcement

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (61 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 3 division would be carrying out that. 4 The decisions with respect to BACT determinations 5 for new ferries, again that would be Air Resources Board 6 staff making that decision in consultation with the local 7 air district and with the EO approval of that 8 recommendation. 9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So for a company to purchase 10 a new vessel, then they would submit the vessel that they 11 wish to purchase and get approval of that? How are they 12 going to know what is the current BACT standard? 13 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: For 14 all vessels other than ferries, what they would have to 15 ensure is that they install the current model year U.S. 16 EPA certified marine engine. That is very straight 17 forward. 18 With respect to a new ferry, what the 19 owner/operator would need to do is to submit a review of a 20 BACT determination to the Air Resources Board. And we 21 would work with them in that process of identifying what 22 for that particular ferry application they believe that 23 would be best available control technology. We would 24 review that in consultation with the district and make a

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (62 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 25 determination as to whether it constitutes best available

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

45 1 control technology. 2 One of the issues here is that all ferries aren't 3 the same. I mean, we have slow speed ferries. We have 4 high speed ferries. We have different size associated 5 with those and different types of systems. So we were 6 unable to make a broad determination of what's technically 7 feasible, cost effective for ferry applications in 8 general. So we elected in this case to go on a case by 9 case basis. We're talking probably about three or four 10 ferries a year at most. So I mean, it's not going to be a 11 tremendous amount of workload. 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much. 13 SUPERVISOR HILL: One follow up. 14 You mentioned that if engines are not available 15 then there would be an exemption or one-year extension 16 until that engine is available for that model. Could that 17 work if we were to go statewide with the accelerated

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (63 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 18 schedule? And if an engine were not available, then would 19 you get an extension but you have a purchase order in 20 place to show you're in good faith working towards that 21 goal. Couldn't you do the same thing with a facility or 22 be in the cue for the dry dock facility or replacement 23 facility usage and then be in that cue and have the 24 registration and signed up and whatever purchase orders 25 are a contract is necessary with that facility then shows

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

46 1 a good faith? And if it can't be met because there aren't 2 facilities available or the previous job is delayed it, if 3 that could keep it moving in an accelerated fashion rather 4 than delaying it. Is that something that -- 5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I guess we 6 could have a system like that. But our assessment is that 7 rather than the infrequent lack of availability of a new 8 engine that meets the right tier for the vessel, that that 9 would become commonplace. So the real risk is knowing 10 what we know about the capacity is that we would overload 11 the system. And then we would have competition with who

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (64 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 12 do we make go first and how do we make sure that the ones 13 that go first are in the area that we've targeted for the 14 earliest emission reductions. 15 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: I 16 think one more comment. When we looked at this overall 17 process, we were able to look at what we felt was the -- 18 we called everybody that we could figure out was 19 potentially involved in the marine installation 20 application. 21 What we are not able to evaluate is what 22 additional installations are going to need to be done 23 under the bond program, what additional installations that 24 the districts may elect to do under Carl Moyer, what 25 additional early reductions within the marine vessel fleet

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

47 1 might come about by specific port action. 2 In addition, just the ongoing repair and 3 maintenance of a fleet of 8,300 engines overall. And so 4 those were hard to do.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (65 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 5 Right now, when we looked at most of those, they 6 were clearly three months out of being able to have a 7 space to do anything. So that and with the additional 8 emphasis that we believe is coming on getting additional 9 things that are not covered by this regulation marine 10 harbor craft into the program, we think there is going to 11 be even additional constraints on the capacity to do these 12 installations and to do them right. 13 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Any other questions? Yes. 15 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: One small question. That 16 is a technical one in terms of these emissions numbers 17 that we see on slide 17 and onward. How much confidence 18 do we have in these numbers? You know, I know how it 19 works with cars and trucks in terms of test procedures and 20 test cycles and sampling and so on. And, you know, part 21 of it is the deterioration issue. 22 First of all, are these numbers for new 23 engines -- for when the engines are new? Do these take 24 into account deterioration? And how much confidence are 25 there in these numbers?

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (66 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

48 1 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH: 2 These numbers are for in-use engines. It was based -- 3 since most of these engines are developed from off-road 4 engines, the model was based on the off-road. And then 5 there is deterioration that's included, and it's been 6 adjusted for marine application. 7 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: The 8 test cycle on these is basically a steady cycle with 9 weightings of various modes anywhere from mainly five 10 mode, you know. So there are those factors associated 11 with it. We have had some additional testing data done on 12 this. So at this point in time, these are the best that 13 we have available. 14 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Do you use the same 16 information that EPA is using in their proposed rules? 17 Are we taking advantage of whatever is there? 18 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 19 Basically, this overall proposal is the base engine is

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (67 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 20 based on the U.S. EPA emission standard, the test method 21 and all that. I think we do have a slightly different 22 possible way on deterioration in here I think. But 23 overall, the numbers are consistent with EPA approach and 24 reflect the EPA base engine type of information. 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

49 1 All right. I think at this point we're ready to 2 hear from the public. So we have eleven witnesses who 3 have signed up. The first three are Jim Swindler, Jeff 4 Browning, and Richard Smith. And we will be imposing a 5 three-minute time limit on testimony in addition to your 6 written comments, of course. 7 MR. SWINDLER: Good morning. My name is Jim 8 Swindler. I'm with the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and 9 Transportation District. And I'm the Deputy General 10 Manager of the Ferry Division. 11 By way of background, we operate five passenger 12 ferries Larkspur to San Francisco and Sausalito to 13 San Francisco.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (68 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 14 I first would like to compliment your staff on 15 all the work they've done on this regulation. While we 16 still believe there is some improvements to be made, I 17 want to note that they worked with us over the past 18 several months. They've heard us. They visited a couple 19 ferry operations and seen firsthand some of the issues 20 here. 21 There's been a lot this morning talked about the 22 best available control technology. And I'd just like to 23 add that we would like to see the word "proven" involved 24 in this. Because the technology that we tried in the past 25 that one of my other colleagues will speak about just

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

50 1 didn't work. There was some problems with it. We'd like 2 to see the word "proven" in there as well. 3 So with that and in the interest of time, thank 4 you for the opportunity to speak. 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 6 Mr. Browning, Mr. Smith, and then John

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (69 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 7 Kaltenstein. 8 MR. BROWNING: Good morning, Madam Chairman and 9 members of the Board. I'm Jeff Browning from Sause 10 Brothers. I also represent AWO, an international trade 11 organization for tug boats and ferries and the barge 12 industry. 13 And I was also hoping to get five minutes. I 14 have a lot here. Hopefully I won't get the red light. 15 The areas that we work in the member companies 16 work in and protection of the environmental is important 17 to us. We have many members who have already started in 18 the 90s, late 90s and the 2000s, to bring the boats up to 19 Tier 1 compliance. 20 We're the most efficient way to transport things. 21 Our tug boats, the inland barges can carry 60 truckloads 22 with a similar type fuel burn. Oceangoing barges, 750 23 with similar fuel burn. 24 I'm skipping around here, because I've got less 25 time.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

51

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (70 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 1 Unfortunately, AWO's concerns with the previous 2 draft of harbor craft regulation have in large part gone 3 unaddressed. We now are presented a draft regulation that 4 will have enormously negative economic impact on the tug 5 and barge industry. AWO has no choice but to strongly 6 oppose the California Air Resources Board regulation 7 harbor craft vessel for the following reasons. 8 It doesn't accurately address the economic impact 9 of us and unfairly requires ocean tugs to comply. 10 It does not explicitly accept existing engine 11 hours meters. 12 It sets unrealistic compliance dates. 13 Contains a burdensome application process. 14 And we believe some sections are unconstitutional 15 based on interstate trade. 16 First part I have is oceangoing tug boats. 17 Notwithstanding the provisions of this Title Section 13 to 18 Section 229, the section shall not apply to any oceangoing 19 tug boats and tow boats that shall supercede the 20 requirements of 13 CCR 22991 and 17 CCR 93118 in their 21 entirety for oceangoing tug boats and tow boats. The

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (71 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 22 purpose of this paragraph oceangoing tug boats and tow 23 boats shall mean tug boats and tow boats with a registry 24 foreign trade and endorsement on the United States Coast 25 Guard documentation.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

52 1 AWO strongly recommends that oceangoing tug boats 2 be removed from the harbor craft regulation and placed in 3 oceangoing regulation. 4 Oceangoing tugs operate in a similar fashion to 5 ships. They do not work close to neighborhoods or close 6 to shore. They make calls to California ports, but home 7 ports are outside of the California waters. These vessels 8 are involved in interstate commerce and not utilized in 9 ship assist work or duties generally assigned to harbor 10 craft. The growing demand on the national transportation 11 system means oceangoing tugs will be a major component on 12 the future of commodity transportation. Including them in 13 the harbor craft regulation will only limit the numbers of 14 vessels it will serve in the California ports. 15 Economic impact. We don't believe the

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (72 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 16 ramifications of this regulation have been adequately 17 addressed by CARB staff in the true economic impact. For 18 example, imposing a short life cycle on marine engines 19 will be so costly it will push smaller vessel operators 20 out of business. 21 Typically, main engines on tugs will last many 22 rebuild cycles. Sause Brothers' core fleet all are 23 averaged at 1975 and have been rebuilt many times. 24 Most of the engines have pre-1980 original build 25 dates. To repower those engines can cost and

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

53 1 two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half million dollars per 2 tug, sometimes exceeding the total value of the tug. The 3 current compliance schedules will decimate oceangoing tugs 4 and ship assist business in the California waters. 5 My part three engine hour meters I want you to 6 refer to my comments. 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: If you could sum up, I 8 would appreciate it. I'm letting you use up some of the

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (73 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 9 unexpired time of the previous speaker. 10 MR. BROWNING: I heard the staff talk quite a bit 11 about engine replacements. I've consulted our 12 manufacturers. And right now lead time of one year is for 13 EMD engines, and that's our core engine. And we have nine 14 boats look that to repower. 15 You've completely blown my thing with the time 16 limit. 17 AWO requests automatic compliance for the 18 extension dates on replacement engines due to the 19 manufacturers, not a one year, six month. We need 20 automatic compliance or automatic extension for 21 compliance. 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think we understand your 23 concerns. 24 MR. BROWNING: That would be in line with when we 25 can get the engines.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

54 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And you've explained it in 2 the letter. We appreciate that. Sorry for the time

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (74 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 3 pressure. 4 MR. BROWNING: The one thing I didn't hit, if I 5 could have one more minute, is the oceangoing tug 6 incorporation in this regulation. They do not belong in 7 it. They don't operate as harbor craft. They operate as 8 ships. And this fleet was recently added to the 9 regulation this year, and we haven't had time to even 10 address or look at any of this. 11 If there's 25 to 30 of these tugs running up and 12 down the coast, all of which have to be repowered. And 13 they don't even operate in harbors. They come in and do 14 ports calls and leave and should not be included in the 15 regulation. 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. We understand 17 your point. 18 Do you have a comment? 19 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I have a question for the 20 city attorney. In Mr. Browning's letter, there was an 21 assertion that this proposed regulation violates the 22 Submerged Lands Act and is in fact unconstitutional. I'd 23 like a clarification.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (75 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 24 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL VERGARA: This is Floyd 25 Vergara, the attorney on this case.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

55 1 With regard to the Submerged Lands Act, we don't 2 believe this violates the Submerged Lands Act. That act 3 was specifically designed to address the rights between 4 the states and the federal government with regard to the 5 subsoil and mineral rights. And it had nothing to do with 6 control of air pollution or other forms of air pollution. 7 So we don't believe that this would violate that statute. 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks. 9 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Madam Chair, one other 10 question of staff. 11 The comment about oceangoing tugs they shouldn't 12 be in this regulation, and I don't know what potential 13 connection is with this. But one of the proposals within 14 the San Joaquin Valley is to look at short sea shipping. 15 And that is moving truck good movements out of the central 16 part of California and hopefully going along the coast 17 line as a more efficient way to move goods and get them

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (76 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 18 off the roads and get their pollution out of the valley. 19 How is that connected or is it connected? Can somebody 20 give a little bit of some background there? 21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, the 22 proposals I've seen for that are use fairly large vessels 23 where the trailer would roll on and roll off of the 24 vessel. So that vessel size might be large enough so it 25 didn't apply to our harbor craft rule.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

56 1 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Is there any element in terms 2 of the oceangoing tug boat that they're actually moving 3 goods and actually not in the harbor environment to impact 4 adjacent populations? 5 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 6 Todd, would you respond to why we included -- 7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: Sure. We've 8 worked with Jason Lewis and Jeff Browning, who just spoke, 9 with AWO for a while. And they did a survey for us of 10 oceangoing vessels of oceangoing tug boats. They visit

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (77 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 11 California about 500 times a year, move up along the 12 coast. We think that they belong in this regulation, not 13 in oceangoing vessel regulation. They're the same type 14 and size as regular harbor tugs. So we think they fit 15 better in this regulation. 16 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Is the majority of their 17 travel time out in the open water, or is it actually they 18 spend a fair amount of time in the harbors contributing to 19 that pollution? 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST STERLING: They spend 21 most their time traversing along California's -- whether 22 outside or inside 24 miles along the coast of California, 23 say going from Oregon down to Oakland or down to the South 24 Coast area. They move all along California's waters. 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: But it sounds like your

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

57 1 reason for including them has more to do with the nature 2 of the engine and the vessel than it does with the duty 3 cycle; is that right? 4 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Just

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (78 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 5 a couple things. One, they are similar to oceangoing 6 vessels in that they traverse, come in, drop off their 7 cargo and leave. They generally do not -- you know, most 8 of them -- now there are some are in dual service. But 9 most of them come in and do that. 10 To the extent their certain loads they will 11 traverse within the 24 mile. If they're pushing a barge 12 that has fuel, it will be outside 24 miles. But in 13 looking at the thing, you know, we are dealing with -- we 14 looked at the number. These vessels are coming into the 15 ports 500 times a year here. 16 The other issue associated with them is that the 17 vast majority of these are older engines. Those are 1975 18 engines on a majority of these vessels. Under the 19 oceangoing vessel regulation, what they would be required 20 to do is burn distillate fuel which they are required to 21 do as is and there will be no additional opportunity for 22 emission reductions from those if they're under that -- 23 counted as an oceangoing vessels. 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We believe

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (79 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

58 1 the emission reductions when they are in port are 2 significant, and they're in port and close to shore fairly 3 often. And they're quite different from a vessel that 4 comes and is in a California port one percent of the time 5 while it's doing its normal around-the-world journeys. 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Okay. 7 Richard Smith followed by John Kaltenstein and 8 Carolyn Horgan. 9 MR. SMITH: Good morning. My name is Richard 10 Smith. I'm General Manager for Westar Marine Services in 11 San Francisco. I'm also a Board member of the American 12 Waterways Operators as part of my company's membership 13 within that organizations. 14 Westar is a woman-owned family business that 15 operates 18 tug boats, 9 crew boats, and 20 barges in 16 San Francisco Bay Area. And we employ about 100 17 employees. And the proposed regulations will have a 18 significant effect on our operations and our ability to 19 stay in business.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (80 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 20 Westar certainly supports efforts to reduce air 21 emissions and has in fact utilized the Carl Moyer program 22 since 1996 to re-engine almost our entire fleet. We've 23 replaced more harbor craft engines in the San Francisco 24 Bay Area than any other company. However, legitimate 25 concerns of the tug boat industry presented during

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

59 1 development of the regulations have mostly not been 2 addressed. Of particulate note are the unrealistic 3 compliance dates and the gross underestimation of total 4 costs involved. Many vessels are going to have to be 5 re-engined. 6 And there's going to be disruptions in commerce 7 when tug boats are unavailable due to time out of service, 8 engine delivery delays, and limited shipyard resources. 9 This is going to cost the California consumer much more 10 than is estimated in this proposed rulemaking. 11 And many smaller tug boats companies with limited 12 financial resources will sell their boats outside of

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (81 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 13 California and just go out of business in our estimation. 14 We have two specific issues we'd like to 15 highlight and request changes in the proposed regulation. 16 First in regards to the December 31st, 2007, date for 17 voluntary compliance retrofitting engines from Tier 0 to 1 18 with resulting change in engine model year, we request a 19 year and a half extension on that date to July 1st, 2009. 20 That will enable us to meet the requirements of the entire 21 rulemaking. 22 Secondly, we also request the extension for same 23 fleet vessels that share compliance dates be broadened. 24 Due to our extensive re-engining under the Carl Moyer 25 Program, Westar has seven vessels that will have a

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

60 1 compliance date of 2015 and seven vessels with a date of 2 2017. We would have to re-engine 14 vessels over a four 3 year period if we took advantage of the one-year extension 4 that's available. 5 And based on our experience -- we've done quite a 6 few of these now. About 36 engines all together. We

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (82 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 7 don't believe that we can manage that many re-engines 8 within that time period. And the single one-year time 9 extension is just not adequate. We request that this 10 extension be limited to one use. 11 I heard some questions in regards to engine 12 availability. Let me give you a real life example. We 13 ordered two Tier 2 engines under the Carl Moyer grant and 14 the delivery time was one and a half years. We just 15 received these engines. So I'm not really sure why the 16 Engine Manufacturers Association is telling you there's no 17 problem with them being available right now. 18 Finally, I'd like to say we strongly support the 19 comments and changes submitted by the American Waterways 20 Operators regarding these proposing regulations. And we 21 hope that the Air Resources Board will take industry's 22 concerns and comments seriously. Thank you very much. 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 24 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Madam Chair, I do have a 25 question of staff.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (83 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 61 1 I appreciate you reminding me that I was going to 2 ask about the issue of small company versus large company. 3 And I notice in this rule there is no distinction or 4 categories for company size. Could you comment on that? 5 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: As 6 we went through the process of looking at this particular 7 category, we were not able to differentiate the economics 8 associated with the large or the small companies. And so 9 there wasn't any clear way that we saw different economics 10 to address this. 11 There's fairly limited cost data available on 12 company size. We felt that from a consistency standpoint 13 it was best to have all of these engines replaced on the 14 same schedule, and we're not able to differentiate out 15 anything additional. 16 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I don't know if I'm very 17 comfortable with the fact that 14 vessels in a year seems 18 to be a significant impact to me. 19 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: I 20 mean, there is -- under the current proposal, there is a 21 provision that allows for a one-year extension if you have

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (84 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 22 engines in the same model year. It would be possible to 23 amend that to allow for a one-year extension for each of 24 those that would extend that time line greater. 25 But right now if you add seven engines in '14 and

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

62 1 seven engines in '15, it's correct, you could have four 2 years, if that provision could be re-worked somewhat to 3 allow for a greater time on that. 4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: What is the turn around time 5 for the craft being out -- the vessel being out of the 6 water? How long does this take? Is this a three-week 7 process, a month process? 8 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH: I 9 think it's more on the order of -- we looked at three to 10 six weeks I think for per engine I believe is what 11 information we have. 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I just need to state that I'm 13 not very comfortable with this. Thank you. 14 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (85 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 15 Could I comment on -- 16 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Please do. 17 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH: If 18 there is $60 million in bond funding as currently proposed 19 for commercial harbor craft and specifically for tugs, 20 tows, and fishing, now to qualify for that, they have to 21 re-engine two years earlier. 22 Now, yes, they have -- their compliance dates are 23 all in one year. But if they were looking for incentive 24 funds, they would have to do that earlier. And would it 25 make sense that they would spread that out over time.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

63 1 They do have -- it's in 2015. That is they have, you 2 know, from like seven years until they need to do that. 3 So yes -- 4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: But they need to start in 5 2009. I mean, am I -- I don't think we have two years. 6 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH: 7 For the very oldest high use vessels for the pre '75s, 8 they don't have the two years. The first year they would

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (86 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 9 miss out on the bond funding. 10 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: In 11 South Coast, but not in the rest of the state. 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: We're talking 80 percent of 13 the engines are going to be under this rule from 2009 to 14 2016. They're not going to be available for the bond 15 money. 16 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH: 17 Everything, but the ones that need to comply in the first 18 year. The others will be. The bond funding will be 19 available to them. 20 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Mr. Kaltenstein, Carolyn 22 Horgan, and Martin Robbins are next. 23 MR. KALTENSTEIN: Chairman Nichols, Board 24 members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today, 25 staff members. I want to commend you first of all, you do

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

64 1 an excellent job in this process. I realize it's been a

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (87 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 2 few years and we are going to move forward. 3 My colleague, Terry Shore, could not make it. 4 She's in Austrailia. I'm here in her stead. 5 I'd like to address four points and hopefully be 6 fairly quick on this. 7 We'd like to see division of the rule into two 8 parts addressing PM and NOx. And this will facilitate the 9 adoption by other states in the country of this method so 10 that they can push forward with their progressive option. 11 And that's under federal court precedent we'd like to see 12 that accomplished. 13 This allows for a lot of flexibility for other 14 states to consider the adoption of this rule depending on 15 their particular air quality situation. So we ask that 16 you do that. And we realize it's more work on your part, 17 but we would appreciate that. 18 Secondly, the accelerated compliance schedule, 19 there's been some debate over the issue and I think it's a 20 good one. I think the consensus by the environmental 21 coalition is that we can -- we would like to see the South 22 Coast compliance schedule replicated on a statewide basis. 23 We understand capacity is an issue. We'd like to see any

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (88 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 24 means used at our disposal, Carl Moyer, ratcheting up 25 that, perhaps looking at other capacity options on the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

65 1 west coast, bond funding to move that forward. We think 2 it could be potentially significant. And it is only 3 two years, but a lot of that work will change, you know, 4 transfer dirty engines to clean engines quicker and help 5 facilitate and advance the air quality in these port 6 communities that right now is having significant issues. 7 The third issue we'd like to address -- with 8 regard to that second one, in the technical report there 9 is some discussion about a table in fact dealing with the 10 replacement of propulsion engine. And it appears in 2011 11 and 2012 and 2014 there's some space to shift around these 12 numbers. I know the capacity number that was references 13 is 150. And if possible, we can use any means at our 14 disposal to move that around so that we can go forward on 15 the statewide replication of that at the South Coast 16 level. So I don't know if I'm reading that wrong or I

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (89 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 17 could be just misunderstanding that. So perhaps some 18 clarification from the staff to that issue. 19 Lastly, we feel that oceangoing tug boats should 20 be included under the regulations for the reasons given 21 and also the reasons included in our letter. 22 And, lastly, this is an issue solely on behalf of 23 Friends of the Earth. We'd like to see the Board advance 24 a more progressive position with regard to ferries beyond 25 the Tier 2 BACT to either 85 percent of Tier 2 or Tier 4

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

66 1 if feasible. And I appreciate your time. Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Did you want to 3 respond to the question or the comment? 4 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: With 5 respect to the first question, the first comment, on 6 splitting the regulation, staff is a little confused on 7 that. This regulation basically requires the installation 8 of federally approved certified engines. And the 9 standards for both PM and NOx go together at one time. 10 So it's different than number of the other regs

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (90 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 11 we've done that have maybe a retrofit system available for 12 PM, so therefore -- so in this case, it would seem to me 13 that a different state could adopt the regulation and say 14 we're adopting it for the NOx and get the PM at the same 15 time or could adopt it for the PM and get the NOx at the 16 same time. So we were a bit confused -- 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Maybe you can talk off 18 line. 19 Carolyn Horgan, followed by Martin Robbins, and 20 Joe Wyman. 21 MS. HORGAN: Good morning. My name is Carolyn 22 Horgan, and I'm the Vice President of Operations for the 23 Blue and Gold fleet. We operate ferries and excursion 24 vessels in the Bay Area. 25 And I'd like to commend the California Air

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

67 1 Resources Board and your staff for listening to the 2 concerns of the California ferry operators. Your decision 3 to have California regulations for diesel engines on

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (91 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 4 vessels built after January 1st, 2009, comply with EPA 5 standards, ensure that vessel operators in California will 6 not have to have one set of regulations while operators in 7 the rest of the country have a different set of 8 regulations. 9 Blue and Gold is a privately held company who 10 cares about the environment. In fact, in 2005, Blue and 11 Gold won the Governor's award for our sustainability 12 practices. We have acted proactively by replacing all of 13 our two stroke engines with cleaner burning Tier 1 14 four-stroke engines. The eight main engines and eight 15 auxiliary engines have been replaced over the past seven 16 years at a cost of almost $2 million. 17 The Carl Moyer program financed a portion of the 18 cost of these engines. We feel that we acted in good 19 faith by replacing our polluting engines. In the case of 20 our three Oski class vessels, the reduction of PM meets 21 the Tier 2 engine requirements and the NOx have been 22 reduced by 180 tons over the last seven years. 23 We believe there are a few ways CARB may 24 accommodate operators like us. Possible remedies would 25 either be to ask CARB to allow 20 full years of operation

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (92 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

68 1 for any engine and any vessels installed under the Carl 2 Moyer Program before the engine would be required to be 3 replaced. Or a Tier 1 engine installed since 2001, 4 particularly one that was funded from the Carl Moyer 5 Program, could have a phase out of 15 years from the 6 effective date of the regulation. 7 Thank you for giving me this opportunity to 8 comment. 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 10 Martin Robbins, followed by Joe Wyman, and 11 Richard Alard. 12 MR. ROBBINS: Good morning. Thanks for the 13 opportunity to speak. My name is Martin Robbins, the 14 Marine Services Manager for the city of Vallejo's Baylink 15 Ferry Service. We operate four high speed passenger 16 ferries in San Francisco Bay. 17 I've brought some written comments and I've 18 attached them to any speaker card. I hope those make it

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (93 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 19 to you. I'm not going to spend time going over all those 20 points. 21 But I want to take a moment to tell that you the 22 California ferry operators do care about the environment 23 and want cleaner air and healthy air for everyone to 24 breathe. 25 We do want to thank the CARB Board for taking our

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

69 1 input over the past several months. And your re-writing 2 of the legislation as now proposed certainly reflects they 3 listened to us and took what we had to say in earnest and 4 we want to thank the staff for that. 5 I do want to touch on a couple key points that 6 will reflect the dialogue we've heard here already this 7 morning. 8 One regards I wanted to commend you for removing 9 the requirement for existing vessels to meet Tier 4 10 requirements. We felt that that was a very onerous 11 potential regulation. We don't think that that -- we 12 think that would have led to a lot of very fine vessels

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (94 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 13 being sent to the wrecking yard. Tier 4 is going to 14 involve aftertreatment and involve extensive impact to 15 vessels. Putting Tier 3 engines on those vessels will 16 certainly make them cleaner, and we want to commend that 17 effort. 18 With regard to the current regulation where it 19 calls for best available control technology, I'd like o 20 relay a little bit of a personal story -- but our 21 particular story. In 2004, the city of Vallejo 22 voluntarily purchased a vessel with aftertreatment control 23 technology. At that time, we purchased the best available 24 control technology. That technology has failed, and your 25 staff has been given those reports and has seen the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

70 1 pictures and the data. 2 In this case, it would have been better to do 3 nothing than do something. And I think until we can 4 include the phrase "proven" along with best available 5 control technology, we risk the same risk. And case and

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (95 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 6 in point, the vessel Solano today produces more pollutants 7 than our sister vessels do simply for the fact she's 8 carrying a system that no longer works. I think 9 reliability and durability are going to be key objective 10 measures that should somehow be written into this 11 regulation to quantify in some way what's best in a proven 12 technology for vessels. So I'd like to sum that up. 13 I'd also like to comment briefly on engine 14 availability and second what you're hearing that it takes 15 a year or so to get the engines. 16 And finally talk about retrofit. We're going to 17 schedule six months for our ferries to be re-powered. And 18 we're going to have to take it to a shipyard in 19 Washington. I know every vessel is a little bit 20 different. But replacing an engine is not a simple task. 21 And if somebody can do it in three or four weeks, I'd like 22 to see it. Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. 24 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Could I ask the speaker what 25 is your experience on how much time it does take?

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (96 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt
71 1 MR. ROBBINS: We're scheduling six months. It's 2 really not a matter of simply unbolting the engine, 3 unhooking some pipes and wires and lifting an engine out 4 and putting an engine back in. Because these more 5 efficient, more environmentally friendly engines are going 6 to be a lot heavier than they are in existing vessels, we 7 are actually having to modify the hull of the vessel in 8 order to accommodate the added weight of the new engine. 9 And that's going to involve significant shipyard time. 10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: How many projects a year are 11 you expecting your company will have to do under this 12 regulation? 13 MR. ROBBINS: We have two ferries that will 14 require re-powering in 2012. That's the type of impact 15 we're looking at. 16 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a question. How 18 many passengers a day on average? 19 MR. ROBBINS: We're carrying about 2500 to 3,000 20 passengers a day in San Francisco from north bay.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (97 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Martin Robbins, Joe 22 Wyman, Richard all and Greg Bombard. 23 MR. WYMAN: Good morning. My name is Joe Wyman. 24 I'm the Manager of Planning and Development for Hornblower 25 Cruises and Events. We are a 27-year-old California-based

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

72 1 company that owns about 40 vessels in the state of 2 California. 3 The questions that you've asked this morning 4 about number of vessels in any one year of the program is 5 valid. We have about 14 vessels that would need to have 6 their engines replaced within the first two years of this 7 legislation. And looking at the economic impact on our 8 company, we don't believe that the staff has done an 9 adequate analysis to determine the ROE on our company. In 10 fact, we think it could jeopardize our viability as a 11 company to serve the public of California. 12 We think that the -- well, I've given you some 13 written comments, and I hope you'll take a look at that. 14 The one example I've shown in my analysis is involving

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (98 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 15 historic vessels. 16 The regs that are in front of you say that if an 17 owner can go get his boat on the National Register, then 18 he could be exempted from an engine replacement. We don't 19 know the viability of that. We don't know how many 20 vessels can actually be placed on the National Register. 21 If you look at the National Register, the types of vessels 22 that you have there are masted ships, historic vessels of 23 limited operations. Our vessels, you know, run on a 24 weekly basis and are not of the same caliber and quality 25 those vessels are.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

73 1 We would encourage the staff and the Board to 2 look at maybe defining what would be called a classic 3 vessel, something short of being on a National Register 4 and comparable to a classic car under DMV regs where more 5 flexibility could be given to the boat. 6 The one boat that I point out -- we also have six 7 of these -- is the Wild Goose, which was owned by John

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (99 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 8 Wayne in Newport Beach. It was originally designed as a 9 wooden hull mine sweeper. And the engines themselves are 10 large enough that it acts as its balance. When you take 11 this boat into dry dock, you'd have to basically destroy 12 two or two-thirds of its interior hull to get a new engine 13 in it. It jeopardize its design. It jeopardizes its 14 stability certificate with the Coast Guard. And it adds, 15 you know, innumerable amount of time in dry dock. We have 16 about eight vessels that would qualify for what we 17 consider a classic vessel. 18 The other thing I wanted to point out is the 19 modification in terms of duty cycle and in terms of 20 operations. We don't understand or want an understanding 21 of where the 300-hour rule of justification comes from. 22 Excursion vessels are quite different than ferry 23 vessels. Ferry vessels operate a huge number of hours. 24 They burn a lot of fuel. Whereas excursion vessels 25 operate a limited number of hours in a given week and go

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

74 1 at very slow paces. They have a different kind of duty

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (100 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 2 cycle where they will drift around in the inner harbor for 3 three to four hours burning smaller amounts of fuel. 4 We think that to be lumped into larger duty cycle 5 vessels, such as commuter ferries and tug boats, is an 6 onerous implication for an excursion vessel operator. 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Your time is up. But I 8 understand you have someone else we've with you. 9 MR. WYMAN: Richard Alard is here, who's the 10 Director of Marine Operations. 11 MR. ALARD: First, I'd like to thank you for 12 giving us the opportunity to speak. 13 My name is Richard Alard. I'm the Bay Area 14 Marine Director of Operations. 15 There's just one point I wanted to clarify as far 16 as the duty cycles of a dinner cruise boat. Historically, 17 that has not allowed us to get Carl Moyer funding. In 18 fact, on the occasions we've applied, we did not get it. 19 From the criteria I hear today from this future bond 20 funding, I don't think we'll get it either. 21 We are confused or actually concerned that a 22 dinner charter vessel that has a very low duty cycle would

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (101 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 23 be included in other excursion crafts and probably more 24 concerned that we're included with ferries and tug boats 25 that produce a much more larger quantity and are available

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

75 1 to this other subsidy. Thank you. 2 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Madam Chair, I do have a 3 question of the speaker. You know, one of the concerns is 4 the fact that because you carry so many passengers and 5 what emissions that the passengers might be exposed to. 6 We understand that it is a light-duty vessel. But you 7 have so many more passengers on board. And could you 8 address the exposure to the emissions while eating dinner? 9 MR. ALARD: In Hornblower, we have a wide variety 10 of vessels. In fact, we have a small 50-foot carry craft 11 that will have just a few people on who wouldn't fall 12 under this regulation because they're under 50 horsepower. 13 On the other extreme, we have converted casino 14 vessels with 2200 passengers of which wouldn't fall under 15 this regulation because they're international tonnage and 16 registry.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (102 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt
17 What we're concerned about are those boats that 18 go around at three knots for the comfort and enjoyment of 19 our passengers. And I can tell you we're extremely 20 concerned about their comfort as far as emissions and so 21 forth. We turn our engines off at the dock so as not to 22 disturb our customers as they come on the boat. We are 23 stewards of the environment. And it's that class of 24 vessels that I'm speaking today. 25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Well, I've had pleasure of

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

76 1 being on one of your boats. So it is a lot of fun. But 2 staff could you -- 3 MR. ALARD: Pleasure to serve you. 4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Could you address this 5 concern? 6 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: In 7 the regulation development process, when we started out 8 lumping all ferries together, we then tried to identity 9 whether there was some lower type of emissions standard

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (103 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 10 that could apply to certain types of vessels based on more 11 limited service. 12 What we ended up coming up with was the fact that 13 while these vessels may operate under a lower load, they 14 spend a tremendous amount of time in and around the 15 harbor. They operate a lot of hours overall. We did up 16 come up with a 300-hour lower limit exemption that we felt 17 at this point in time was a reasonable low use limit in 18 those situations. But we were unable to craft a way to 19 allow for these cells that do operate a tremendous amount 20 of time in and around the port area to come up and treat 21 them under a different schedule or different standard than 22 any of the other ferry tugs and tow boats. 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 24 Mr. Bombard, followed by Diane Bailey, Tim 25 Carmichael, and then Henry Hogo is going to be our last

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

77 1 speaker. 2 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Madam Chair, one more follow 3 up on the issue with dinner boats.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (104 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 4 It seems appropriate that they're included in the 5 regulation because of the exposure issue. But what's the 6 issue with them not able to take advantage of what other 7 regulated industries or regulated boats would be able to 8 with either the bond money or the Carl Moyer money? It 9 seems like we should be allowing them the same 10 opportunity. 11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: They have the 12 opportunity, but they have to pass -- in the case of Carl 13 Moyer -- a cost effectiveness test, which depending on 14 their amount of emission and emission reduction 15 opportunity they may not be able to pass. 16 In the case of the goods movement bonds, the way 17 the bond is structured it says goods movement. And 18 therefore we have said we cannot see how something that is 19 basically moving passengers are providing -- a meal 20 opportunity qualifies under that bond. 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think you've put your 22 finger on the dilemma is that they're too small a source 23 to qualify as being very cost effective to use public 24 money on, but they do still cause exposure. So it's a

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (105 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 25 problem.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

78 1 BOARD MEMBER CASE: And 2200 people on a boat I 2 would think that somehow we should pursue a quantification 3 of the exposure. It may not have the cost effective based 4 on the engine and how many miles it's traveling. But 5 based on the exposure element, it does seem to have a good 6 argument that they should have that opportunity. 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Mr. Bombard. 8 MR. BOMBARD: Good morning. I'd like to talk a 9 little bit here about Catalina Express. My name is Greg 10 Bombard. I'm President of Catalina Channel Express. We 11 operate under the authority of the California Public 12 Utilities Commission. We operate eight high-speed vessels 13 between four mainland ports, southern California and 14 Catalina Island, which is about 22 miles off the coast of 15 Los Angeles. 16 Our vessels range in size from 149 passengers to 17 450 passengers. Of the fleet of eight vessels, seven of 18 them have been repowered between the years of 2001 and

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (106 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 19 2005 to meet the minimum Tier 1. And some of them are 20 absolutely better than Tier 1. 21 We currently have the eighth vessel in transit to 22 a shipyard in Washington where four Tier 2 Caterpillar 23 engines, the first four I know of, are going into this 24 vessel. 25 With the finalization of this eighth vessel, the

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

79 1 total cost for repowering of all eight vessels is 2 approximately $11 million. 5.5 million of that is 3 contributed by Catalina Express. The other five is 4 provided by agencies interested in emissions funding. 5 I just want to say on top of that we've never 6 seen funding available that will do the complete job. 7 When you replace this engine, you don't just replace the 8 engine. You do a lot of what Marty talked about. You 9 redo the engine beds. You have to replace transmissions. 10 You have to replace drive lines. And you may end up 11 replacing water jets and everything else. They just don't

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (107 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 12 come out the same. They either run at a different RPM 13 that changes torque levels. 14 There's much more to this exchange of engines 15 than I think what I've heard talked about today. There's 16 no way you can complete this task within a three week 17 period. It's been a minimum of three months per vessel. 18 The total emissions reductions, we had Ocean Air 19 Environmentalists help us with this. Our NOx reduction 20 has been eight tons per year. Thirty tons per year of PM. 21 Greenhouse gas reductions of 10,000 per year, 10,000 tons. 22 And these reductions our understanding is equivalent to 23 10,000 vehicles being taken off the road. 24 For those of us who were pre-active in installing 25 Tier 1 or better, we believe that the regulation cuts our

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

80 1 life cycle in those engines and that dollars that were 2 expended by at least 25 percent, we believe all of these 3 engines went in with the thought in mind of at least 4 lasting 20 years. That's the normal turn over period of a 5 good engine. It should go through at least three major

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (108 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 6 overhauls. And I don't mean top end overhauls. I mean 7 major overhauls. 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Mr. Bombard, your time is 9 up. 10 MR. BOMBARD: I'd like to press one more piece. 11 And that is when it comes to Tier 4, we'd like to 12 acknowledge the fact that the staff has taken a look at 13 that. I think they see the viability of that system. And 14 we need to actually add into that equation where it talks 15 about best available control technology, the word "proven" 16 needs to go in there. I know you've heard that. 17 Again, I'd like to thank the staff for allowing 18 us to work with them over the last few months. I think 19 they've done a good job of taking a look at what we have 20 to do and what's in front of us here? 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Question. 22 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I have a question for 23 staff. This is the second speaker who said they've 24 invested recently in Tier 1 and now are concerned about 25 the time horizon replacing those. Can you speak to that,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (109 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt

81 1 please? 2 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 3 Basically under the regulation, you know, what we're doing 4 is moving all 0s and 1s out of the equation and having 5 those replaced with 2 or 3. 6 They are correct that basically a Tier 1 engine 7 will have to be replaced with a Tier 2 engine in 15 years 8 from its original model year. And that is an accelerated 9 schedule. In the cost analysis that we've prepared here, 10 we've identified what portion of the cost associated with 11 the regulation has to do with removing useful years off of 12 the life of those engines. And that's exactly what the 13 proposal does. 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Diane Bailey. 15 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: The 16 only other thing I mention when we talk about Tier 1 17 standards is that the Tier 1 standards really were only 18 NOx standards. They did not address PM. So that's an 19 issue when we're looking at one of the primary reasons why 20 we are moving also for further reduction of Tier 1

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (110 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 21 engines. 22 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Madam Chair, can I ask a 23 follow-up question? Had they not done these re-powers at 24 this time but had waited, how much useful life would they 25 have gotten out of their Tier 0 or -- they would have gone

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

82 1 to Tier 2; is that correct? 2 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 3 That's right. Beginning in essentially 2004, Tier 2 4 engines would be available. And so if they went to a Tier 5 2, then the regulation does not require another step after 6 Tier 2. 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: But in addition to the 8 regulation, you could make a decision to re-power because 9 you wanted to get a more efficient engine or just because 10 your old engine was in need of being replaced. So I mean, 11 yes, this is a regulation. And it is forcing action. But 12 it's doing it at a pretty moderate pace. Fifteen years 13 versus 20.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (111 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 14 Ms. Bailey. 15 MS. BAILEY: Good morning, Chairman Nichols, 16 members of the Board and staff. My name is Diane Bailey, 17 and I'm a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense 18 Council. 19 Thank you so much for this opportunity to speak 20 here today. I'm here in strong support of this 21 regulation. We've been working with staff for the past 22 three years on this rule. 23 I do want to note that we are disappointed that 24 there's a long list of concerns that we've voiced 25 throughout the process, I think none of which have been

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

83 1 addressed. And my colleague, John Kaltenstein with 2 Friends of the Earth, has raised some of these. 3 I don't want to dwell on these issues. I think 4 this is a really important rule with major public health 5 benefits. And I urge you to move forward and adopt this 6 rule today. 7 However, I do think that there are some very

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (112 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 8 small modifications that you can adopt today to 9 significantly improve the public health benefits. 10 As you know, the harbor craft impacts some 11 shore-side communities in California that are already so 12 heavily impacted. These environmental justice communities 13 really need this relief in the form of pollution 14 reductions from these vessels. And unfortunately, 15 representatives from these communities could not be here 16 today. But they are concerned with this pollution source. 17 And they are looking forward to the adoption of this rule. 18 I'll speak somewhat on their behalf today that their 19 staggering health concerns need to be addressed. So we 20 appreciate this effort. 21 We sent some detailed comments, so I want to 22 highlight one of the best modifications that you could 23 make today to improve this rule would be to synchronize 24 the compliance time frames for the South Coast with the 25 rest of the state.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

84

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (113 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 1 I believe the compliance time frame for the South 2 Coast is eleven years. And that's a really long time. 3 And for the rest of the state, there's even more time 4 through 2022. And I think there is a lot of room to speed 5 up that compliance and offer the earlier public health 6 benefits to these impacted communities. 7 I also want to note that there are significant 8 safeguards already in place in the existing regulatory 9 language that's proposed here to make sure that we don't 10 run up against the problems of capacity in terms of 11 getting enough vessels replaced or repowered in a year. 12 And that if that did happen, compliance extensions would 13 be possible. So I don't think that that's a significant 14 issue. 15 Another issue I want to raise is shore side 16 power. This is something that was not considered within 17 this rule, because shore side power for tug boats or 18 harbor craft was supposed to be part of the greater shore 19 side power regulation. It's not currently contained in 20 that proposal. 21 So I would urge you to direct staff to include 22 shore side power for harbor craft directly in this shore

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (114 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 23 side power regulation. 24 And I want to note that if it were included in 25 the harbor craft regulation today, that the greenhouse gas

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

85 1 impacts would be very positive. And it's worth 2 considering that impact. 3 I also want to note there's a significant 4 opportunity with this rule to get similar emission 5 reductions in other states. And I hope that the attorneys 6 can pay close attention to the final regulatory language 7 to ensure that or facilitate the adoption of this rule by 8 other states. I don't have direct suggestions on how to 9 do that, but I hope that the attorneys can give it a close 10 look and try to do that. 11 I want to thank staff for their very hard work on 12 this rule. 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Thank for 14 keeping to three minutes. 15 Tim Carmichael and then Henry Hogo.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (115 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 16 MR. CARMICHAEL: Good morning, Chairman Nichols, 17 members of the Board. Tim Carmichael, Coalition for Clean 18 Air. 19 I echo the comments of Diane Bailey from NRDC and 20 John Kaltenstein from Friends of the Earth. 21 I want to focus on just one piece, which I think 22 is the piece that we're asking for the Board to change 23 from the staff proposal, which we have said in our written 24 comments is a good proposal overall. And we are pleased 25 by the work the agency has done today.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

86 1 But I want to highlight the strongest argument 2 that the staff has for not requiring an accelerated 3 turnover for the rest of the state on the same time line 4 as the South Coast is they're concerned about the capacity 5 of the industry to be able the change over the engines on 6 time. That's the primary argument against it. 7 From our perspective, to Chairman Nichols' point, 8 this is a long time line. Even the accelerated South 9 Coast version is a long time line. If you're in this

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (116 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 10 business or in a related business, you're not looking at a 11 one-year or two-year window of opportunity to cash in if 12 you will on this business opportunity. You're looking at 13 a ten-year window of opportunity to either increase staff 14 or expand a facility to enable additional engine turnover 15 or replacement. 16 From our perspective, with the language that's in 17 the regulation already allowing the Executive Officer to 18 give a delay if there is a problem identified in the 19 future, and extension that is, the Board should feel 20 empowered to require the whole state to go with the South 21 Coast time line. 22 I want to emphasize something I don't think 23 anybody has mentioned today. There's a huge emissions 24 benefit associated with that. Six million pounds of 25 diesel PM would be reduced statewide and almost 20 percent

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

87 1 additional reduction in NOx emissions. Those are 2 significant emission reductions. And I think they justify

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (117 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 3 the Board going with the South Coast time line that's a 4 two or three year acceleration to the overall program with 5 the understanding that if problems are identified in the 6 future and they're real, the Executive Officer will have 7 the ability to give an extension. Thank you very much. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes. 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Question. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: It was a question of 11 staff. On the issue of -- well, Tim, you raised capacity. 12 But I think that Mr. Scheible raised another issue. And 13 that is loss of benefits of transferring over to I guess 14 it would be Tier 2 instead of being able to take advantage 15 of Tier 3. 16 The question I have of staff is could we 17 accelerate the time frame perhaps not as much as South 18 Coast so that we could take advantage of those Tier 3 19 engines? And I don't know enough about the time frame in 20 which they'd be available and how much we could shave off 21 on the ultimate implementation in order to achieve that, 22 achieve the benefits without any loss. 23 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: The 24 schedule for the Tier 3 engines come on line for this

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (118 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 25 category are 2013 and 2014. If I recall, I think under

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

88 1 the statewide schedule about 20 percent of the Tier 0s 2 would be replaced with Tier 3's under that schedule. The 3 additional emission reductions associated with those 4 engines is about 20 percent additional PM and 10 to 15 5 percent additional NOx associated with those. 6 So if you're accelerating the schedule one or 7 two years, you know, you will lose about half of that or 8 whatever. 9 The broader issue still is that when you look at 10 this, you are removing useful life from the engine of an 11 additional two years. So we're going from an engine 12 useful life in the range of 20 years down to 13 years and 13 that, you know, some of the other testimony that you've 14 heard with respect to the economics associated with that 15 and the fact that you are removing those engines from 16 service early is going to be a real issue. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: That would apply in South

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (119 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 18 Coast as well. That's an across the board issue. 19 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 20 That's true. It does apply in the South Coast. But the 21 fleet you're looking at here, the ferry fleet, is not 22 predominant in the South Coast. The ferry fleet is 23 predominant in the Bay Area and outside of the South 24 Coast. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But the concern I have on

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

89 1 the ferry fleet is we're talking about exposure. We're 2 talking about workers who have chosen to utilize to get 3 their cars off the road, go on a ferry. And if they're on 4 that ferry every day, I don't feel as compelled on 5 excursions. You know, you take one of those boats once a 6 year. But if you're on that boat every day, I'm just very 7 concerned about the exposure to individuals. 8 So if we could go back to -- I guess I'm looking 9 at slide 18. I want to make sure I have a better 10 understanding here. 11 Statewide begin replacing by '09 replace Tier 0,

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (120 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 12 you're saying Tier 3 would be available in the 2013-2014 13 time frame. If we were to shave off some time on Tier 0 14 to -- giving enough time for the tier -- is it Tier 3 15 engines that would be available by 2013, 2014? So 16 arguable we could shave off two years? Instead of 2016, 17 say 2014. I just want to make certain we wouldn't have 18 any loss with that time frame. 19 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH: 20 Are you compressing all the earlier years? Because as you 21 do that, then what you're doing is moving some of those 22 engines into Tier 2 rather than Tier 3s. And is that what 23 you're proposing? 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I don't know what I'm 25 proposing. I'm looking for --

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

90 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We need some help. 2 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH: 3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We're 4 shrinking the target. I mean, the policy we'd like is to

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (121 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 5 say as soon as these better engines are available, as soon 6 as possible, we'd like to get them in service. And the 7 window is relatively small as it is because there's no 8 guarantee. 9 The way the federal rules work is any engine 10 produced after a certain date has to meet the standard. 11 They can sell engines out of inventory. They don't have 12 to produce it on that date. So there is a delay in the 13 availability of the engines. 14 So there's probably some period of time that can 15 be there. But I think if we make the assumption that we 16 can move them all up and get them done in a year, you're 17 going to find out the new Executive Officer, who hopefully 18 will still be there, will be very busy with this program. 19 This deputy will not be doing it. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm just maybe suggesting 21 in between now and the time that we end up debating and 22 voting on this, if staff -- I wouldn't want to be the one 23 to make the proposal. But from a policy point of view, it 24 seems we can shave some time off. 25 But it sounds like the Executive Officer has the

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (122 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

91 1 discretion on the capacity issue. I just wouldn't want in 2 an effort to shave time off losing associated emission 3 benefits with the Tier 2 versus the Tier 3 engines. 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So we understand that 5 you're trying to balance some complicated issues and 6 you're not deliberately going slow. But I think we're 7 pushing you to go back and see if you can sharpen your 8 pencils and shave any amount of time off in a way that 9 would benefit people and the rest of the state and not 10 hurt the South Coast. Because that's where I'm from. 11 So -- 12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Madam Chair, one other 13 point as well. And my focus is more so the ferries. And 14 I don't know how complicated this change would be if we 15 included all types, tugs and tows, excursions as opposed 16 to just ferries. 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: It might be easier to just 18 focuses in on the ferries. That's another possibility, 19 obviously.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (123 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 20 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We can 21 clearly explore these. I think we understand what the 22 Board would like to do. It's okay if the rule gets a 23 little lit more costly, but let's design it in a way we 24 can do it earlier. But let's do it in a way that we 25 doesn't lose emission benefits.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

92 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. But I think it's been 2 stated very eloquently by several people on these vessels 3 that many people are using over significant periods of 4 time. So it's not just -- we're not just concerned about 5 the on-shore communities being exposed. We are concerned 6 about the vessels that have a lot of ridership, you know, 7 on a daily basis. 8 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I guess in 9 going through the process with 15-day changes, if the 10 Board would give us leeway to investigate that and figure 11 out a mechanism that accelerates it and has a safety valve 12 in case we find out that it can't be done. 13 I think some of the testimony we heard, ferries

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (124 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 14 are among the more difficult vessels to retrofit. So 15 there will not only need to be engine availability, there 16 will need to be enough time so that the fleet gets turned 17 over. On the ferries, we'll have the additional BACT 18 determination. 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: But it's exactly that kind 20 of thinking that always ends up having public 21 transportation having the worst emissions. We can't 22 except that as an okay thing. We have to try to find a 23 way to deal with it if we can. 24 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Madam Chair, let me add 25 another wrinkle of concern in this. Although I fully

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

93 1 support accelerating this, I don't want us to be in a 2 position of penalizing people that have made a recent 3 investment in Tier 1. 4 So to the extent you can create that balance and 5 not penalize those -- I don't know if that's possible. I 6 don't know how many near-term Tier 1 investments have been

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (125 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 7 made. But that's a concern of mine that we are shortening 8 the useful life of those who just made an investment. 9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Can staff 10 tell me under the rule if someone, for example, installed 11 an engine in 2004 it's Tier 1, when is the compliance date 12 for replacing that with a Tier 3? 13 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 14 2019. 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: The people 16 who have used to Carl Moyer money and done investments 17 fairly recently under the proposal have the full 15 years 18 of life that we think is reasonable, not 20 years. And 19 they wouldn't be affected by a provision that tinkered 20 with the 2017 date. 21 SUPERVISOR HILL: I think, Madam Chair, if I 22 could. You're also looking at the fact that Carl Moyer 23 funds are public funds that we used to expedite the 24 emissions reductions, but also not paid for by the 25 corporation, the company, and the ferry firm themselves.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

94

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (126 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 1 So I think it's an important consideration when we look to 2 the future. And the amortization of that cost over 10 3 years, 12 years, or 15 years or 20 years. 4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Also Madam Chair. 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We have many considerations 6 here. 7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Well, I think I have a large 8 concern over how many vessels a company has to deal with 9 in an annual period of time. And I'm in agreement with my 10 colleagues on the full time frame. 11 But I am concerned about if your fleet is such 12 that you have to turnover all of your fleet in a 13 three-year period and not be able to take advantage of the 14 time frame, because of the number of hours -- or I'm not 15 quite sure I understand the scheduling. 16 I am concerned about the companies that have 14 17 vessels to turn over in one year. I physically do not 18 understand how that's possible. So I would like to have 19 my colleagues consider that we have this time frame, even 20 if we shorten it from 2009 to whatever time frame we have 21 at the end, but that there is a limit to annually how much

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (127 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 22 you have to do. 23 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: I 24 appreciate these discussions, because these are the ones 25 we've had.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

95 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: This is going to be painful 2 if we have to try to engineer a bunch of amendments right 3 on the spot. But I think it would be best if we not do 4 that but allow room for a little bit of tinkering, if 5 that's doable based on the considerations that we've made 6 here. 7 We still have to hear from Henry Hogo. Sorry, 8 Henry. Maybe you have some additional wisdom to add to 9 this discussion, and then we're going to have to bite the 10 bullet here. 11 MR. HOGO: Good morning, Madam Chair and members 12 of the Board. I'm Henry Hogo with the South Coast Air 13 Quality Management District. 14 The South Coast AQMD staff is in full support of 15 the proposed regulation as presented today. And we urge

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (128 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 16 your Board to adopt the regulation. 17 I did want to make a couple comments relative to 18 BACT and on the ferries in particular. We have firsthand 19 experience in visiting some of the ferry lines in the 20 Baltic Sea. And they've been using SCR technology as well 21 as other water emulsification and water injection 22 technologies for many years now. 23 And to me, at least, it's a proven technology. 24 It was just unfortunate that the tests on the one ferry 25 that's out here was using a particular technology and we

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

96 1 hadn't had a chance to look at it very closely. But we 2 have given to your staff several reports relative to some 3 of the experiences with the technology. So we think when 4 staff evaluates BACT it will be proven technology. 5 The other point I wanted to make on the Catalina 6 ferry, couple of those vessels actually came in under our 7 emission credits program. So they came in. They received 8 funding to clean up their engines and the emission

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (129 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 9 reductions were sold as credits. Some of it in the 10 reclaim market. 11 So I think there were early adopters who saw an 12 advantage to having cleaner vessels and also to make up 13 for the costs. So some of these comments, you have to 14 hear the full story about. 15 So with that, I would urge your Board to adopt 16 the regulation as proposed by staff. And I would want to 17 acknowledge the cooperative efforts that we have had with 18 your staff. Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 20 I'm going to make a proposal fellow Board 21 members. This is an important rule, and I don't want to 22 delay it. But I think that it might be smart to continue 23 this item for a month. I think we could actually close 24 the hearing portion, if I'm not mistaken, and simply ask 25 staff to address the principle policy concerns that Board

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

97 1 members have raised here which have to do with the 2 possibilities for accelerated turnover, the issue of

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (130 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 3 equity or of acknowledgement of early investment and 4 whether that's being treated fairly and the issue of fleet 5 size and impact of the program on operators' ability to 6 actually to manage their businesses. I think those were 7 the three principle concerns that were raised. And 8 they're all important concerns. 9 I think you guys have answers to all the 10 questions. But the fact is we still want to push further 11 on those questions. And given that we have a relatively 12 less onerous schedule coming up next month, we could just 13 bring it back at that point with any recommended changes 14 by staff and have a vote next month. 15 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: We 16 could essentially do that, and it would give us a chance 17 to put some numbers and simple tables and make the issues 18 that you've raised a little more analytically clear. 19 SUPERVISOR HILL: The emphasis on ferries. 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I'm sorry. With that 21 addition, the focus was on the ferries. 22 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Madam Chair, can I add one 23 more thing? I think Henry talked about this. If you can

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (131 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 24 confirm the proven technologies issue and whether or 25 not --

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

98 1 BOARD MEMBER CASE: If we could ask staff to come 2 back on the potential -- if we're going to regulate a 3 group, it doesn't seem in the sense of fairness they 4 should be excluded from the opportunity to use Carl Moyer 5 moneys if we're regulating them and they're willing to do 6 it on an accelerated basis. 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Applicability of Moyer and 8 whether that would make an amendment to program rules or 9 whether we can interpret the rules. 10 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Exposes a significant number 11 of people directly. 12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Any more? Any other 13 considerations while we're kicking this back to the staff 14 for more work? 15 If not, I want to thank everybody who 16 participated. Clearly, the Board was paying attention and 17 reflecting your concerns. I have no doubt we're going to

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (132 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 18 move forward and adopt the rule at our next meeting, but 19 we may be making some modest changes to improve it 20 overall. 21 I think there's a widespread recognition that the 22 staff has done an extraordinary amount of work to get us 23 to this point. And we're very grateful to you. So please 24 don't take this as a sign of weakness, but a sign of 25 strength that we're anxious to get this as good as we can

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

99 1 before it goes out. Thank you very much. 2 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: 3 Chairman Nichols, can I ask for one clarification? We are 4 going to focus on ferries, but not excursion vessels; is 5 that correct? 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That was the request. If 7 we have to narrow the focus in order to avoid the 8 disbenefits, the priority would be on the vessels that 9 have the most people for most of the time. 10 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: Thank

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (133 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt 11 you. 12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Any other 13 questions or clarifications? If not we need to take a 14 break, and then we've got one more item to deal with. 15 Take a ten-minute break, please. 16 (Thereupon a recess was taken.)

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt102607.txt (134 of 134) [3/1/2010 10:53:57 AM]