MEETING 

 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

 AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

 

 

 

 

 JOE SERNA, JR. BUILDING 

 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 BYRON SHER AUDITORIUM, SECOND FLOOR 

 1001 I STREET 

 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

 

 

 

 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2010 

 8:30 A.M. 

 

 

 

 

 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR 

 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER 

 LICENSE NUMBER 12277 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 APPEARANCES 

 

 

 

 BOARD MEMBERS 

 Ms. Mary Nichols, Chairperson 

 Dr. John R. Balmes 

 Ms. Sandra Berg 

 Ms. Doreene D'Adamo 

 Ms. Lydia Kennard 

 Mrs. Barbara Riordan 

 Mr. Ron Roberts 

 Dr. Daniel Sperling 

 Dr. John G. Telles 

 Mr. Ken Yeager 

 

 STAFF 

 Mr. James Goldstene, Executive Officer 

 Ms. La Ronda Bowen, Ombudsman 

 Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Office 

 Ms. Ellen Peter, Chief Counsel 

 Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer 

 Ms. Mary Alice Morency, Board Clerk 

 

 Mr. Tony Brasil, Chief, Heavy-Duty Diesel Implementation 

 Branch, MSCD 

 

 Mr. Jack Kitowski, Chief, Emission Reduction Incentives 

 Branch, MSCD 

 

 

 
 

 APPEARANCES CONTINUED 

 

 

 STAFF 

 

 Mr. Scott Rowland, Chief, On-Road Control Regulations 

 Branch, MSCD 

 

 Mr. Todd Sax, Chief, Mobile Source Analysis Branch 

 

 Ms. Beth White, Manager, On-Road Compliance Assistance 

 Section, Mobile Source Control Division 

 

 Mr. Eric White, Assistant Chief, MSCD 

 

 Ms. Elizabeth Yura, Staff, Off-Road Implementation 

 Section, MSCD 

 

 

 

 ALSO PRESENT 

 

 Elizabeth Adams, U.S. EPA 

 

 Tomas Aire 

 

 Don Anair, Union of Concerned Scientists 

 

 Cecilia Ayala 

 

 Kami Baker, Earth Team 

 

 Diane Bailey, NRDC 

 

 Segun Balogun 

 

 Shirley Batchman, California Citrus Mutual 

 

 Nidia Bautista, Coalition for Clean Air 

 

 James Blevins, Mountain Valley Express 

 

 Peter Bransfield, Rypos 

 

 Steven Brink, California Forestry Association 

 

 Kevin Brown, Clean Diesel Technologies 

 

 

 
 

 APPEARANCES CONTINUED 

 

 ALSO PRESENT 

 

 Skip Brown, Delta Construction 

 

 Chris Cannon, Port of L.A. 

 

 Eric Carleson, Associated California Loggers 

 

 Tim Carmichael, California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition 

 

 David Chidester, Central Cal Transportation 

 

 Jon Cloud, J. Cloud, Inc. 

 

 Cynthia Corey, 

 

 Richard Coyle, Devine Intermodal 

 

 William Davis, Southern California Contractors Association 

 

 Frank de Carbonel, California Concrete Pumpers 

 

 Carl Dolk, Devine Intermodal 

 

 Gordon Downs, Downs Equipment Rentals, Inc. 

 

 Ed Duffek 

 

 Brad Edgar, Cleaire 

 

 Sean Edgar, Clean Fleets Coalition 

 

 Eric Eisenhammer, Coalition of Energy Users 

 

 Allen Faris, Allen Faris Trucking 

 

 Julian Fisher 

 

 Kathy Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald Truck Sales 

 

 Anabel Flores 

 

 Anthony Fourniee, Bay Area AQMD 

 

 Randal Friedman, Navy Region Southwest 

 

 Laura Fultz Stout 

 
 

 APPEARANCES CONTINUED 

 

 ALSO PRESENT 

 

 

 Michelle Garcia, Fresno-Madera Medical Society 

 

 Catherine Garoupa, Central Valley Air Quality Coalition 

 

 Jill Gayaldo, Elk Grove Unified School District 

 

 Michael Grabowski, American Rental Association 

 

 Neli Gutierrez, YCA 

 

 Seth Hammond, Specialty Crane and Rigging 

 

 Adam Harper, CalCIMA 

 

 Robert Hassebrock, Weatherford 

 

 Henry Hogo, South Coast AQMD 

 

 Sheila Hong 

 

 Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association 

 

 Kirk Hunter, Southwest Transportation Agency 

 

 Julian Imes, Donaldson Filtration Solutions 

 

 Roger Isom, Western Agricultural Processors 

 

 Jim Jacobs, Operating Engineers 

 

 Elizabeth Jonasson, Coaltion for Clean Air 

 

 Susan Jones, D&S Trucking 

 

 Andy Katz, Breathe California 

 

 Michael Kennedy, Associated General Contractors of America 

 

 Brandon Kitigawa, Region Asthma Management and Prevention 

 Project 

 

 Ralph Knight, Napa Unified School District 

 

 Camille Kustin, Better World Group 

 
 

 APPEARANCES CONTINUED 

 

 ALSO PRESENT 

 

 Joe Kubsh, MECA 

 

 Senator Doug LaMalfa 

 

 Martin Lassen, Johnson Matthey 

 

 Barbara Lee, Northern Sonoma County APCD 

 

 Michael Lewis, Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition 

 

 Tony Luiz, T&L Trucking 

 

 Bill Magavern, Sierra Club 

 

 Daniel Massolo, Massolo Brothers, Inc. 

 

 Salvador Matteo, SLWBP 

 

 Regional McAfee 

 

 Christina McGhee 

 

 Paul McClellan, American Rental Association 

 

 Jay McKeeman, California Independent Oil Marketers 

 Association 

 

 Dan Mezger, Mezger Trucking 

 

 Rod Michaelson, Bay Cities Paving and Grading, Inc. 

 

 Clayton Miller, Construction Industry Air Quality 

 Coalition 

 

 Paul Moore, CalPortland 

 

 Brent Newell, Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment 

 

 Paul Nguon, New Voices Are Rising 

 

 Dave Norris, Lakeport Unified School District 

 

 Tracey Norberg, Rubber Manufacturers Association 

 

 Jessica Orozco 

 
 

 APPEARANCES CONTINUED 

 

 ALSO PRESENT 

 

 Craig Parker, CalEnergy Operating Corp. 

 

 Nick Pfeifer, Granite Construction 

 

 John Pitta, John Pitta Trucking 

 

 Betty Plowman, CDTOA 

 

 Senator Richard Polanco 

 

 Isella Ramirez, East Yard Communities for Environmental 

 Justice 

 

 Victoria Ramirez 

 

 Bob Ramorino, Roadstar Trucking 

 

 Jill Ratner, Rose Foundation for Communities and the 

 Environment 

 

 Charles Rea, CalCima 

 

 Michael Rea, CA Association of School Transportation 

 Officials 

 

 Kyle Reams, Kelseyville Unified School District 

 

 Betsy Reifsnider, Catholic Charities 

 

 Stephen Rhoads, Strategic Education Services 

 

 Marisol Rogue 

 

 Seyed Sadredin, San Joaquin APCD 

 

 Matt Schrap, California Trucking Association 

 

 Susan Seivright, Valley Power Systems 

 

 Chris Shrader, Cemex 

 

 John Spangler, U.S. Marine Corps, MCI West 

 

 Jason Thomas, Nabors Well Services Company 

 

 
 

 APPEARANCES CONTINUED 

 

 ALSO PRESENT 

 

 Mike Tunnell, American Trucking Association 

 

 Kathy Turner, Enterprise Rent-A-Car 

 

 Doug Van Allen, BJ Services 

 

 Jocelyn Vivar, East Yard Communities for Environmental 

 Justice 

 

 Ed Walker, Robinson Enterprises, Inc. 

 

 Corey Wardlaw, Wardlaw Trucking 

 

 Don Watson 

 

 Steve Weitekamp, California Moving and Storage Association 

 

 Chuck White, Waste Management 

 

 Bruce Wick, California Professional Association of 

 Specialty Contractors 

 

 Joy Williams, Environmental Health Coalition 

 

 John Yandell, Yandell Truckaway, Inc. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 INDEX 

 

 

 Page 

 

 Item 10-11-3 

 Chairperson Nichols 4 

 Executive Officer Goldstene 7 

 Staff Presentation 10 

 Mr. Coyle 40 

 Mr. Rea 42 

 Mr. Wardlaw 43 

 Mr. Dolk 46 

 Mr. Isom 48 

 Senator LaMalfa 52 

 Mr. Jacobs 58 

 Mr. Parker 58 

 Mr. Moore 60 

 Mr. Lassen 61 

 Mr. Duffek 63 

 Mr. Hassebrock 64 

 Mr. Van Allen 67 

 Mr. Brown 70 

 Mr. Kubsh 72 

 Mr. Thomas 75 

 Mr. Brink 77 

 Mr. Tunnell 80 

 Mr. Shrader 81 

 Ms. Reifsnider 82 

 Mr. Fourniee 83 

 Mr. Spangler 86 

 Ms. Jones 87 

 Mr. Fortier 88 

 Ms. Kustin 91 

 Mr. Pitta 94 

 Mr. Edgar 95 

 Mr. Luiz 98 

 Mr. Bransfield 103 

 Mr. Rhoads 105 

 Mr. Hunter 110 

 Mr. Walker 114 

 Ms. Holmes-Gen 116 

 Mr. Sadredin 118 

 Mr. Hogo 122 

 Mr. McClellan 124 

 Mr. White 125 

 Mr. Friedman 128 

 Mr. Cannon 129 

 Mr. Blevins 131 

 
 

 INDEX CONTINUED 

 

 

 Page 

 Item 10-11-3 (cont'd) 

 Ms. Norberg 134 

 Senator Polanco 136 

 Mr. Harper 137 

 Mr. Norris 140 

 Mr. Reams 141 

 Mr. Chidester 142 

 Mr. Anair 145 

 Mr. Cancilla 148 

 Mr. Carleson 149 

 Ms. Garoupa 152 

 Ms. Garcis 153 

 Mr. Kitigawa 154 

 Mr. Rea 156 

 Mr. McAfee 156 

 Ms. Seivright 158 

 Ms. McGhee 161 

 Mr. Nguon 163 

 Mr. Matteo 164 

 Mr. Balogun 166 

 Ms. Orozco 167 

 Ms. Gutierez 169 

 Ms. Ramirez 170 

 Ms. Rogue 170 

 Ms. Baker 171 

 Mr. Magavern 174 

 Mr. Imes 179 

 Mr. Ramorino 181 

 Ms. Bailey 183 

 Mr. Michaelson 192 

 Ms. Fultz Stout 194 

 Mr. Weitekamp 195 

 Mr. Brown 197 

 Mr. McKeeman 200 

 Ms. Turner 201 

 Mr. Schrap 203 

 Mr. Cloud 205 

 Ms. Fitzgerald 206 

 Ms. Jonasson 208 

 Ms. Batchman 209 

 Mr. Wick 210 

 Mr. Newell 212 

 Mr. Watson 215 

 Ms. Lee 215 

 Mr. de Carbonel 217 

 
 

 INDEX CONTINUED 

 

 

 Page 

 Item 10-11-3 (cont'd) 

 

 Mr. Eisenhammer 218 

 Mr. Pfeifer 219 

 Mr. Downs 220 

 Ms. Williams 222 

 Ms. Bautista 224 

 Mr. Katz 226 

 Ms. Vivar 228 

 Ms. Ramirez 229 

 Mr. Carmichael 231 

 Mr. Yandell 233 

 Mr. Edgar 234 

 Mr. Massolo 236 

 Mr. Faris 237 

 Ms. Gayaldo 238 

 Mr. Hammond 241 

 Ms. Plowman 242 

 Mr. Miller 244 

 Mr. Willaims 245 

 Mr. Lewis 247 

 Mr. Kennedy 249 

 Ms. Corey 255 

 Mr. Grabowski 258 

 

 Motion on Resolution 10-48 261 

 Vote on Resolution 10-48 261 

 

 Board Discussion 262 

 

 Motion on Resolutions 10-44, 10-45, 10-46 292 

 and 10-47 

 

 Vote on Resolutions 10-44, 10-45, 10-46 292 

 and 10-47 

 

 

 

 Adjournment 292 

 Reporter's Certificate 293 

 

 

 

 

 
 1 

 1 PROCEEDINGS 

 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good morning, ladies and 

 3 gentlemen. I'd like to welcome everybody to the December 

 4 17th, 2010, public meeting of the Air Resources Board and 

 5 ask the Board to come to order. 

 6 And before we begin our business meeting, we 

 7 start with the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. So 

 8 please rise. 

 9 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 

 10 recited in unison.) 

 11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 12 Yesterday, we had a surprise visit from the 

 13 Governor who came over to testify on behalf of the cap and 

 14 trade rule. So I don't know what's going to top that 

 15 today. Maybe Santa Clause will show up in the middle of 

 16 the meeting. Who knows. But we do have some very 

 17 important work to do today. 

 18 So first let's start with the roll call. 

 19 BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Dr. Balmes? 

 20 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Here. 

 21 BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Ms. Berg? 

 22 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Here. 

 23 BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Ms. D'Adamo? 

 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 

 25 BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Ms. Kennard? 
 2 

 1 Mayor Loveridge? 

 2 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Here. 

 3 BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Mrs. Riordan? 

 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 

 5 BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Supervisor Roberts? 

 6 Professor Sperling? 

 7 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Here. 

 8 BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Dr. Telles? 

 9 BOARD MEMBER TELLES: Present. 

 10 BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Supervisor Yeager? 

 11 BOARD MEMBER YEAGER: Here. 

 12 BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Chairman Nichols? 

 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Here. 

 14 BOARD CLERK MORENCY: Madam Chairman, we have a 

 15 quorum. 

 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 17 A few announcements before we get started this 

 18 morning. First of all, we have interpretation services 

 19 available in Spanish for anyone who wishes. The headsets 

 20 are outside the hearing room at the attendance sign-up 

 21 table. 

 22 (Whereupon the announcement was translated 

 23 into Spanish.) 

 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Anyone who wishes to 

 25 testify should sign up with the staff in the lobby outside 
 3 

 1 the auditorium before the item actually is heard, if at 

 2 all possible. And at some point, maybe like around 10:00 

 3 or so, I'm actually going to shut off the list of speakers 

 4 just because otherwise it's too hard for the staff to sort 

 5 this out. We could still accept comments in writing. But 

 6 if you think you may want to testify, we would really 

 7 appreciate it if you would get your card in early. 

 8 We will be imposing a three-minute time limit on 

 9 speakers. And if it gets too out of hand or we get too 

 10 much repetitive testimony, it may go shorter than that. 

 11 But I think particularly for those who have written 

 12 testimony, it should be pretty easy for you to just 

 13 summarize your main points. You don't have to read the 

 14 testimony because it will be in the record. 

 15 We do have an overflow room next door, the 

 16 Coastal Hearing Room, which is available. And there's 

 17 audio and visual connection over there. So if for some 

 18 reason you can't find a seat or you don't like the one 

 19 that's available, you can sit over there and just come 

 20 back when it's time for you to come and testify. 

 21 I'm also required to tell you that there are 

 22 emergency exits at the back of the room and on the side 

 23 here. That one goes to the outside. And if we have a 

 24 fire drill or an alarm sounds, we're required to evacuate 

 25 the room and the building, go downstairs and across the 
 4 

 1 street until we get the all-clear signal. 

 2 So this morning we have before us the adoption of 

 3 proposed amendments to the regulation to reduce emissions 

 4 of diesel particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen and other 

 5 criteria pollutants from in-use on-road vehicles as well 

 6 as the heavy-duty vehicle greenhouse gas reduction 

 7 measure, the regulation to control emissions from in-use 

 8 on-road diesel fuel, heavy-duty drayage trucks at ports 

 9 and intermodal rail yard facilitates, and proposed 

 10 amendments to the regulations for in-use off-road diesel 

 11 fuel fleets, and off-road large spark ignition engine 

 12 fleets. So this is a combined hearing on a multitude of 

 13 different rules and regulations, but they're all related 

 14 to each other. 

 15 The proposed changes that we're going to be 

 16 hearing about today are the result of direction that this 

 17 Board gave to our staff last April to evaluate the impact 

 18 of the down economy on emissions from on-road and off-road 

 19 vehicles and to make recommendations for how to adjust the 

 20 rules based on what they found. 

 21 Overall, the staff found that reduced economic 

 22 activity has led to reduced pollution, not too surprising. 

 23 But in terms of evaluating what that means, this did take 

 24 some time. 

 25 But what it means is that the Board has both a 
 5 

 1 responsibility and an opportunity to adjust the rules in a 

 2 way that reflects the changes in the economy, while still 

 3 meeting our overall obligations to achieve federal air 

 4 quality standards. 

 5 Staff is going to be presenting proposed 

 6 amendments to five in-use on-road and off-road vehicle 

 7 rules. These include the truck and bus regulation, 

 8 drayage truck regulation, tractor-trailer greenhouse 

 9 regulation, the off-road regulation, and lastly the large 

 10 spark ignition engine fleet regulation, as I said before. 

 11 Together, these five regulations, which were 

 12 approved by the Board between 2006 and 2008, were designed 

 13 to significantly reduce the public's exposure to diesel 

 14 particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen emissions as 

 15 well as to reduce ozone-forming and greenhouse gas 

 16 emissions. The tractor-trailer regulation is one of the 

 17 measures identified in the Air Resources Board's Scoping 

 18 Plan under AB 32 that's designed to reduce greenhouse gas 

 19 emissions from current levels to 1990 levels by 2020. 

 20 Last month, the Board was updated on the 

 21 significant improvements that have been made to both the 

 22 inventories for on- and off-road diesel vehicles. These 

 23 improved inventories are the basis for the rules that 

 24 we're considering here today. 

 25 In that briefing, we learned that current 
 6 

 1 emissions are down mostly due to the impact of the 

 2 recession and reduced economic activity, but off-road 

 3 emissions are also down substantially because staff has 

 4 been able to use new information about fleet operations 

 5 that has resulted in a lower estimate of emissions, lower 

 6 projections of what the numbers would be. 

 7 Despite the reduced emissions as a result of 

 8 improved inventories, California continues to face many 

 9 air quality challenges, including the legal requirement to 

 10 meet federal air quality standards as well as our state 

 11 law requirements to reduce premature mortality, address 

 12 localized risks in communities that are particularly 

 13 impacted by air pollution, and of course reducing 

 14 greenhouse gas emissions under our state law. 

 15 In directing staff to propose appropriate relief, 

 16 we also directed the staff to ensure that the changes 

 17 preserve the important health benefits these regulations 

 18 provide, while assuring that all applicable targets are 

 19 met. 

 20 So at this point, I think we're ready to talk 

 21 about the details, and I will turn it over to staff to do 

 22 it. 

 23 But I would just like to say that we are very 

 24 grateful for the input that we've had over the last month 

 25 from all sectors of the public that are affected by this 
 7 

 1 rule, including the industry, as well as representatives 

 2 of public health organizations and environmental groups, 

 3 local governments. It's been a complicated and difficult 

 4 process, because there are so many rules involved and 

 5 frankly because the industry is so complex. And I know 

 6 it's been a tough process for many who have been involved, 

 7 and we really appreciate the fact that so many of you are 

 8 here today and have continued to participate. And we 

 9 thank you for that. 

 10 Okay. I'll now turn the agenda over to Mr. 

 11 Goldstene. 

 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Thank you, Chairman 

 13 Nichols. 

 14 In December 2008, the Board approved the truck 

 15 and bus regulation. As part of its approval, the Board 

 16 directed staff to monitor the economy and report back on 

 17 the impact of the recession on emissions and affected 

 18 fleets. 

 19 At the December 2009 Board hearing, staff 

 20 presented the results of an analysis that showed that 

 21 vehicle activity and emissions were below the levels 

 22 estimated when the truck and bus regulation was developed. 

 23 This meant that 2014 emission goals would be met with 

 24 fewer emission reductions from the regulation. 

 25 During the same time, many fleets subject to the 
 8 

 1 off-road diesel vehicle regulation, which was approved in 

 2 2007, raised similar concerns about the impact of the 

 3 recession on emissions and the ability of fleets to comply 

 4 with the regulation. 

 5 To more fully understand the situation, in March 

 6 2010, I held an Executive Officer hearing to hear from 

 7 stakeholders firsthand regarding whether additional relief 

 8 from the off-road regulation was possible. 

 9 In April 2010, the Board directed staff to update 

 10 the emissions inventories for both heavy-duty on-road 

 11 trucks and buses and off-road diesel vehicles to reflect 

 12 the impact of the recession. The Board further directed 

 13 staff to develop amendments to both regulations 

 14 concurrently that would reduce the cost for both on-road 

 15 and off-road fleets while continuing to meet the Board's 

 16 air quality goals and obligations. 

 17 In May through October 2010, staff held 20 

 18 workshops throughout the state to discuss recent health 

 19 studies of particular pollution's impact on mortality, 

 20 revisions to the emissions inventory, and proposed 

 21 regulatory amendments that would reduce the cost of 

 22 compliance. 

 23 Staff's proposed amendments for consideration 

 24 today were developed directly from comments received 

 25 during these workshops and through other input that we 
 9 

 1 received from interested stakeholders. 

 2 The proposed amendments will provide substantial 

 3 economic relief and streamline and improve the 

 4 regulations, while ensuring we continue to meet our clean 

 5 air and health obligations. 

 6 First, for the truck and bus regulation, staff is 

 7 proposing to exempt smaller vehicles from the filter 

 8 requirements and postpone all replacement requirements 

 9 until 2015. These changes will lower costs for most 

 10 fleets by 60 to 70 percent and lower costs even more 

 11 dramatically in the first five years. 

 12 Staff is also proposing to better align the 

 13 drayage truck regulation of the truck and bus regulation 

 14 and to add provisions to prevent trucks from circumventing 

 15 the regulation by cargo transfers outside port boundaries. 

 16 For the tractor-trailer greenhouse gas 

 17 regulation, staff is proposing additional flexibility for 

 18 phasing in trailer retrofits, an extension of the deadline 

 19 for using low rolling resistance tires and other changes 

 20 that provide more flexibility. 

 21 In the off-road regulation, staff is proposing to 

 22 postpone implementation by four years, lower annual 

 23 requirements, remove all mandatory retrofitting, simplify 

 24 its weight average requirements, and to expand the number 

 25 of low-use vehicles exempted from the rule. 
 10 

 1 Staff's proposed changes will cut cost for the 

 2 first five years by 97 percent and over the life of the 

 3 regulation by more than 70 percent. 

 4 I'm very pleased a key industry group, the 

 5 Associated General Contractors of America, worked closely 

 6 with staff on the proposed amendments and supports the 

 7 changes as we proposed. 

 8 Finally, staff's proposed changes to the LSI 

 9 engine fleet regulation provide up to a four-year 

 10 compliance extension and will align the low-use yearly 

 11 hour limit with the off-road regulation. 

 12 So with that, I'll now ask Ms. Elizabeth Yura and 

 13 Beth White to give the staff presentation. Thank you. 

 14 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 

 15 presented as follows.) 

 16 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 17 WHITE: Thank you, Chairman Nichols, James Goldstene and 

 18 good morning, members of the Board. 

 19 Today, staff is presenting for your consideration 

 20 amendments to five ARB regulations effecting in-use 

 21 vehicles and equipment. The proposed amendments will 

 22 ensure continued progress towards reducing emissions from 

 23 vehicles and equipment subject to these regulations, 

 24 provide important local and regional health benefits, and 

 25 significantly reduce compliance costs for affected fleets. 
 11 

 1 These amendments are being proposed in 

 2 recognition that the economy has significantly reduced 

 3 activity and emissions more than anticipated when the 

 4 rules were originally adopted. 

 5 --o0o-- 

 6 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 7 WHITE: I will first begin with a summary of why staff is 

 8 proposing changes to these five rules that apply to trucks 

 9 and off-road vehicles and will describe at how staff 

 10 arrived at our recommendation. 

 11 I will then summarize the proposed amendments for 

 12 the three truck regulations, including and truck and bus 

 13 regulation, the drayage truck regulation, and the 

 14 tractor-trailer GHG regulation. 

 15 Elizabeth Yura will than describe proposed 

 16 amendments to the two off-road regulations, the in-use 

 17 off-road diesel regulation, and the large spark ignition 

 18 regulation. 

 19 Lastly, she'll summarize the environmental 

 20 impacts of all of the amended regulations and will close 

 21 with staff recommendations. I will begin by describing 

 22 why changes are being proposed. 

 23 --o0o-- 

 24 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 25 WHITE: The off-road and on-road regulations were approved 
 12 

 1 by the Board in 2007 and 2008 respectively. At that time, 

 2 the economy was at its peak and the current economic 

 3 recession had not been foreseen. 

 4 Because of the recession, truck and off-road 

 5 diesel vehicle activity and emissions are lower than they 

 6 were anticipated when the rules were adopted, and the 

 7 recession has reduced the ability of fleets to make 

 8 investments in cleaner equipment. 

 9 After hearing updates about the effects of the 

 10 economy on emissions in 2009 and 2010, the Board 

 11 recognized the opportunity to reduce the regulatory 

 12 requirements on affected fleets because of the recession 

 13 and directed staff to make amendments to the regulations. 

 14 At that time, the Board approved a set of 

 15 principles to meet in considering amendments that included 

 16 providing economic relief, while meeting air quality goals 

 17 and protecting public health. Staff believes the combined 

 18 amendments to the truck rules and the off-road rules being 

 19 presented here today achieve these goals. 

 20 I will now summarize how the amended rules 

 21 continue to meet the air quality goals approved by the 

 22 Board. 

 23 --o0o-- 

 24 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 25 WHITE: This chart shows on a statewide basis how 
 13 

 1 emissions are expected to change and how our goals are 

 2 met. 

 3 The top line reflects business as usual. 

 4 Essentially, new engine standards and cleaner fuels that 

 5 provide emissions reductions as fleets turn over their 

 6 vehicles naturally. 

 7 The bottom line shows what statewide emissions 

 8 would look like with the proposed amendments. 

 9 At the emissions level that California achieves 

 10 in 2014, PM2.5 SIP targets in the South Coast and San 

 11 Joaquin Valley will be met. By 2020, the goals of the 

 12 Diesel Risk Reduction Program, which was adopted ten years 

 13 ago, will largely be achieved. Overall, the proposed 

 14 amendments ensure that emissions are reduced down to 

 15 levels expected when the regulations were originally 

 16 approved. 

 17 The shaded area represents the emission 

 18 reductions that will be achieved by these rules in each 

 19 year and over the life of the program. These emission 

 20 reductions will prevent 3900 premature deaths over the 

 21 12-year life of the rules. Through our successful 

 22 implementation of this critical ARB program, California is 

 23 already beginning to see the real world benefits of our 

 24 efforts. 

 25 --o0o-- 
 14 

 1 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 2 WHITE: A recent study examined temporal and spacial 

 3 trends in ambient concentrations of black carbon in 

 4 California. The study showed that the concentrations of 

 5 black carbon had decreased by 50 percent. Black carbon is 

 6 a key component of diesel soot, and this study concluded 

 7 that corresponding decreases in diesel emission reductions 

 8 between 1990 and 2008 resulted in the observed black 

 9 carbon reductions. The rate of decline in black carbon 

 10 has resulted in a reduced warming effect. 

 11 While Californians are seeing the actual benefits 

 12 of these programs, reductions are still needed from 

 13 on-road and off-road vehicles in order to ensure our 

 14 long-term goals and commitments are met. 

 15 Now I'd like to summarize how staff came to our 

 16 recommendations. 

 17 --o0o-- 

 18 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 19 WHITE: Since January 2010, staff held 20 public workshops 

 20 and numerous meetings with various companies, association 

 21 representatives, and individual fleets. Information 

 22 gathered from this outreach was used to update our 

 23 evaluations of the economic impact of the recession on 

 24 individual fleets and helped staff to develop this 

 25 proposal. 
 15 

 1 Staff also updated the PM mortality estimates 

 2 using U.S. EPA's new risk assessment methodology and the 

 3 most important recent air quality data available and 

 4 re-affirmed the adverse health impacts of exposure to 

 5 PM2.5. 

 6 Emissions inventory for trucks and off-road 

 7 vehicles was also updated to reflect the impact of the 

 8 recession and new information on activity. 

 9 I will now discuss how reduced emissions have 

 10 resulted in an emission margin in meeting the state 

 11 implementation plans that allows for economic relief. 

 12 --o0o-- 

 13 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 14 WHITE: As you heard last month, on- and off-road diesel 

 15 emissions will be lower in 2014 than was anticipated, 

 16 which is important, because 2014 is when reductions must 

 17 be achieved for compliance with the PM2.5 federal air 

 18 quality standard. 

 19 The lower emissions, due to the recession, and 

 20 improvements to the inventory, means that we can achieve 

 21 less reduction from these regulations and reduce the costs 

 22 while still meeting our SIP obligation. This is 

 23 particularly true in the near term. 

 24 I will now discuss the proposed amendments to all 

 25 five rules. 
 16 

 1 --o0o-- 

 2 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 3 WHITE: As you'll hear today, the amendments give fleets 

 4 more time to comply and address special situations. The 

 5 cost of the regulations would be reduced by more than 60 

 6 percent, and a majority of the cost savings occur in the 

 7 next five years. 

 8 The proposed changes to the regulations were made 

 9 while ensuring that near-term and long-term SIP goals 

 10 continue to be met and localized health risk is reduced. 

 11 I will now describe the proposed amendments to 

 12 the truck and bus regulation. 

 13 --o0o-- 

 14 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 15 WHITE: The regulation has been substantially revised to 

 16 give fleets more time to upgrade to newer engines while 

 17 achieving early PM reductions from larger trucks through 

 18 the use of PM filters. 

 19 --o0o-- 

 20 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 21 WHITE: The first change staff is proposing addresses 

 22 lighter trucks, which in general emit less than their 

 23 heavier counterparts and are low expensive to replace. 

 24 These types of trucks are circled in the photo and are 

 25 commonly owned by small businesses, including local 
 17 

 1 contractors, moving companies, towing companies and local 

 2 delivery businesses. 

 3 I'd also like to point out that on the slide in 

 4 the upper-right corner is -- whatever regulation we're 

 5 discussing, that's what will be in the upper right corner. 

 6 So that way we know what the amendments are. 

 7 Staff is proposing to delay the initial 

 8 requirements by four years until 2015 and to no longer 

 9 require PM retrofits. Under this strategy, emission 

 10 reductions would be achieved by replacing the oldest 

 11 trucks with newer trucks that have the cleanest engines 

 12 and are originally equipped with PM filters. 

 13 By 2023, these trucks would need to have 2010 

 14 model year or newer engines or equivalent emissions. 

 15 --o0o-- 

 16 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 17 WHITE: While staff's proposal changes the way in which 

 18 emission reductions are achieved from lighter trucks, 

 19 heavier trucks are more costly to replace and the use of 

 20 PM retrofits are a more feasible way in which to achieve 

 21 near-term PM reduction. This is because heavier trucks 

 22 have bigger engines, typically travel higher miles than 

 23 lighter trucks, and represent a majority of the emissions. 

 24 PM retrofits are the lowest cost option to 

 25 control PM exhaust emissions and also substantially reduce 
 18 

 1 diesel PM exposure risk along the freeways and at 

 2 distribution centers where many of these trucks travel. 

 3 The amended regulation would require newer, heavier trucks 

 4 to be equipped with PM filters starting one year later 

 5 than the existing regulation and would delay replacements 

 6 for another two years until 2015. 

 7 The oldest trucks, which are not as economical to 

 8 retrofit, would instead be replaced when 20 years old and 

 9 would no longer be required to be retrofit. However, by 

 10 2023, all trucks would need to have 2010 model year or 

 11 newer engines or equivalent emissions. 

 12 --o0o-- 

 13 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 14 WHITE: Other amendments are also being proposed to 

 15 provide more flexibility and to encourage early actions. 

 16 Staff is proposing a phase-in schedule to give more 

 17 flexibility and would allow fleets to spread out required 

 18 actions and costs over time. 

 19 Fleets effected by the recession that have fewer 

 20 trucks than in the past would also have their compliance 

 21 requirements further extended. For example, if the fleet 

 22 is 50 percent smaller than it was in 2006, the fleet would 

 23 have several more years to clean up their remaining 

 24 trucks. 

 25 Greater credits are being proposed to encourage 
 19 

 1 early PM reductions and to reward fleets that have already 

 2 retrofitted vehicles with PM filters. These credits would 

 3 also support the retrofit market. 

 4 The small fleet provision, which begins January 

 5 1, 2014, was changed to remove early replacement 

 6 requirements and to require no more than one retrofit per 

 7 year. 

 8 Agricultural fleets would be given another 

 9 opportunity to apply for the agricultural vehicle 

 10 exemption, and a provision for log trucks has been added 

 11 with annual phase-in replacements that ensure steady 

 12 cleanup of fleets. 

 13 Next I'll discuss what the proposed changes mean 

 14 for fleets. 

 15 --o0o-- 

 16 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 17 WHITE: As shown in the table, the initial PM filter 

 18 requirements are proposed to be delayed by one year. 

 19 There is also a significant reduction in the number of 

 20 trucks that are required to be retrofit. These vehicles 

 21 are now subject to replacement only. As a direct result, 

 22 the number of businesses affected by the retrofit 

 23 requirements is greatly reduced as well. Additional truck 

 24 replacements are proposed to begin two years later, and 

 25 trucks would be eight years old or more when replacement 
 20 

 1 is required. 

 2 Next I will describe the costs of the amended 

 3 truck and bus regulation. 

 4 --o0o-- 

 5 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 6 WHITE: The proposed amendments provide significant cost 

 7 savings for all fleets compared to the current regulation. 

 8 Overall, the estimated cost of the amended truck and bus 

 9 regulation in the next five years and for the life of the 

 10 regulation would be reduced by about 60 percent, and the 

 11 total cost of the regulation would be reduced by $3.3 

 12 million dollars. 

 13 Next I will show what individual fleets would 

 14 have to do to comply with the existing rule compared to 

 15 the proposed rule. 

 16 --o0o-- 

 17 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 18 WHITE: This graph shows the number of early truck 

 19 replacements and PM retrofits required to comply with the 

 20 existing rule and the amended rule for an actual moving 

 21 company. The company has a total of 14 trucks, seven are 

 22 lighter trucks and seven are heavier trucks. As shown on 

 23 the chart over the life of the regulation, the existing 

 24 regulation requires eight early replacements and six PM 

 25 retrofits. With the amended rule, the fleet would need to 
 21 

 1 replace only two trucks early and install two PM filters. 

 2 At trucks would have 2010 model year engines by 2023. 

 3 This fleet benefits from the additional economic 

 4 relief provided to fleets that have downsized since 2006, 

 5 since it has reduced its fleet size by 30 percent. This 

 6 fleet's revenues have also been reduced by about 30 

 7 percent. The proposed amendments would lower the cost to 

 8 comply with the regulation by 55 percent. 

 9 On a percentage basis, the relief provided by the 

 10 amendments exceeds the impact of the recession on this 

 11 fleet. Staff made a similar comparison for an actual 

 12 concrete company. 

 13 --o0o-- 

 14 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 15 WHITE: The concrete company has 18 trucks, all of which 

 16 are heaver trucks. Seven other trucks have PM filters due 

 17 to normal replacements, and the other eight trucks have 

 18 more because of credits for having reduced the fleet size 

 19 since 2006. 

 20 As shown on the chart, over the life of the 

 21 regulation, the existing regulation requires the fleet to 

 22 replace 12 trucks early and install eight PM retrofits at 

 23 a cost about $440,000 above normal replacement costs. 

 24 With the amended rule, the fleet would be 

 25 expected to install seven retrofit PM filters and to 
 22 

 1 replace nine trucks early. All trucks would have 2010 

 2 model year engines by 2023. 

 3 This fleet benefits from the additional economic 

 4 relief provided to fleets that have downsized since 2006 

 5 since it has reduced its fleet size by over 30 percent. 

 6 This fleet's revenues have also been reduced by almost 40 

 7 percent. The proposed amendments would lower the cost to 

 8 comply with the regulation by about 50 percent. 

 9 Similar to the moving company example, on a 

 10 percentage basis, the relief provided by the amendments 

 11 exceeds the impact of the recession on this fleet. 

 12 More importantly, the amended regulation would 

 13 impose no cost for this fleet until the 2014 compliance 

 14 date. 

 15 Next, I'll summarize how school buses receive 

 16 similar economic relief, while continuing to minimize 

 17 exposure to children. 

 18 --o0o-- 

 19 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 20 WHITE: Staff is proposing similar relief to school buses 

 21 as trucks. However, you may recall there is one big 

 22 difference between the requirement for school buses and 

 23 other on-road vehicles. While we need to clean up school 

 24 buses, replacement is not required. 

 25 Keeping that in mind, staff is proposing the 
 23 

 1 following changes to provide relief, while still 

 2 protecting the children in our state. Staff proposes to 

 3 exempt the smaller school buses from the regulatory 

 4 provision since these buses are newer and make up a small 

 5 portion of the school bus population. Staff proposes a 

 6 one-year delay in the start of the implementation of 

 7 retrofit for the larger school buses, while maintaining 

 8 the existing 2014 final compliance date for PM filters. 

 9 Lastly, staff proposes to add a 15-day change for 

 10 school buses that will defer PM filters to 2014 for the 

 11 most challenging buses, model years 1988 to 1993, while 

 12 still achieving the same emission reductions. This change 

 13 will provide additional time for the further development 

 14 of technology that may provide additional compliance 

 15 choices for the school bus operators. 

 16 --o0o-- 

 17 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 18 WHITE: One option for school districts to meet these 

 19 requirements is to install a diesel PM filter, the use of 

 20 which will substantially reduce school children's exposure 

 21 to toxic diesel PM. Thousands of retrofits have been 

 22 installed on school buses throughout the state and have 

 23 proven to be successful. 

 24 Recent data logging also shows that passive 

 25 filters can now be installed on as many as 95 percent of 
 24 

 1 the remaining school buses. Retrofits are the least 

 2 expensive compliance option. $140,000 from the Lower 

 3 Emission School Bus Program can be used for the initial 

 4 purchase of retrofits for seven buses or to purchase one 

 5 replacement bus. Even when the lifetime costs of 

 6 retrofits are compared to the lifetime cost of a new bus, 

 7 retrofits are still three to five times cheaper. 

 8 --o0o-- 

 9 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 10 WHITE: Regarding funding, unlike the other vehicles 

 11 covered by this regulation, funding has been dedicated to 

 12 help school districts comply. In fact, once all pre-1977s 

 13 were replaced, funding could have been prioritized for PM 

 14 filters and nearly all of the 13,000 school buses eligible 

 15 for public incentive funds would be clean. The decision 

 16 to fund retrofits or replacement using lower emission 

 17 school bus funds rests with local districts. 

 18 Throughout the implementation of Lower Emission 

 19 School Bus Program, staff strongly encouraged the funding 

 20 of retrofits, even though local school districts preferred 

 21 replacements. In the end, many local agencies did not 

 22 maximize the use of available funds for retrofit, and 

 23 these decisions will result in 3300 non-compliant buses 

 24 remaining, even after additional federal and local funds 

 25 were also directed to fund school buses. 
 25 

 1 The cost of bringing those remaining buses into 

 2 compliance is approximately $60 million. For many school 

 3 districts, state, local, and federal funds are available 

 4 to help. 

 5 And now, to conclude our discussion regarding the 

 6 proposed truck and bus amendments, I'd like to talk about 

 7 the proposed 15-day changes that are designed to address 

 8 some of the remaining issues that have surfaced since 

 9 staff's initial proposals were released in October. 

 10 --o0o-- 

 11 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 12 WHITE: Staff's proposed 15-day changes are shown in 

 13 strike out and underline in your Board packets and also 

 14 available on the table outside of the hearing room and 

 15 will be posted on the website for the regulation. 

 16 In summary, staff is proposing to add credit for 

 17 fleets that have purchased more new trucks than normal and 

 18 for fleets that equip all of their vehicles with PM 

 19 filters prior to 2014. 

 20 Staff is also proposing to delay by one year the 

 21 compliance requirements for 2000 model year engines so 

 22 that these vehicles remain eligible for incentive funding. 

 23 For vehicles operating exclusively within NOx 

 24 exempt areas, staff is proposing a provision that will 

 25 delay the compliance requirements for two years and would 
 26 

 1 exempt the vehicles from any replacement requirements once 

 2 the vehicle is equipped with a PM filter. 

 3 Staff is also proposing a two-year deferral for 

 4 construction trucks that operate less than 15,000 miles 

 5 per year. To assure emission benefits are preserved, 

 6 staff is proposing to require that 1996 and 1997 model 

 7 year engines meet PM BACT starting in 2012. 

 8 Now I'd like to describe amendments being 

 9 proposed to the drayage truck regulations. 

 10 --o0o-- 

 11 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 12 WHITE: The drayage trucking industry regulation reduces 

 13 local exposure to communities near ports and rail yards. 

 14 However, some motor carriers have begun using a practice 

 15 known as dray-off, which involves a cleaner complying 

 16 truck picking up a cargo container out of the port and 

 17 hauling it outside the port property to a nearby street or 

 18 staging area where a non-complying truck picks up the 

 19 container intact for transport to its destination, thereby 

 20 reducing the community health benefits expected from the 

 21 drayage truck regulation. 

 22 The changes to the drayage truck regulation would 

 23 eliminate the paths some drayage fleets began using early 

 24 this year to circumvent the public health benefit of the 

 25 rule and disadvantage their competitors who did invest in 
 27 

 1 cleaner trucks. Therefore, staff proposes to require PM 

 2 filters for all heavy tractors and all trucks handling 

 3 drayage cargo outside of ports and rail yards. 

 4 Staff's proposal will provide economic relief by 

 5 delaying modernization to newer engines from 2014 to 2020, 

 6 when all older drayage trucks will need to be phased out 

 7 with 2010 model year engine replacements like other 

 8 trucks. 

 9 Lastly, the proposed amendments to the drayage 

 10 truck regulation would keep the 2014 PM emission control 

 11 requirements, including Class 7 trucks. 

 12 Now I will summarize the changes we are proposing 

 13 for the tractor-trailer GHG regulation that applies to 

 14 tractor-trailer combinations or 53-foot or longer box-type 

 15 trailers. 

 16 --o0o-- 

 17 ON-ROAD COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE SECTION MANAGER 

 18 WHITE: The proposed amendments to the tractor-trailer GHG 

 19 regulation would provide additional flexibility for fleets 

 20 to meet the requirements of the regulation with minimal 

 21 impact on the GHG benefits initially approved consistent 

 22 with the requirements of AB 32. 

 23 The amendments would provide a second opportunity 

 24 for large fleets to apply for the optional compliance 

 25 schedule, while also maintaining a level playing field for 
 28 

 1 those large fleets that already registered. 

 2 Staff is proposing to extend the deadline for the 

 3 use of the fuel efficient tires by one to four years on 

 4 2010 and older model year tractors and trailers to allow 

 5 fleets time to use existing retreaded tires and allow the 

 6 U.S. EPA SmartWay Program time to develop standards for 

 7 the SmartWay retreads. 

 8 Other changes would delay compliance dates and 

 9 provide more flexibility in meeting the requirements. 

 10 This concludes the amendments regarding trucks. 

 11 Now Elizabeth will discuss the changes being 

 12 proposed for the off-road regulations. 

 13 MS. YURA: Thank you, Beth. 

 14 While the economic downturn has had a serious 

 15 impact on the trucking industry, its impact on the 

 16 construction industry has been greater. Construction 

 17 activity has decreased by more than 50 percent since 2005. 

 18 This lowered activity, coupled with a revised emissions 

 19 inventory, together shows much lower emissions from 

 20 off-road vehicles than originally estimated. Therefore, 

 21 staff is proposing regulatory amendments that balance 

 22 economic relief, especially in the near term, while still 

 23 obtaining emission reductions critical to the health of 

 24 all within the state. 

 25 The following slides describe staff's proposal to 
 29 

 1 amend the off-road and LSI regulations. I'll begin with 

 2 the proposed amendments to the off-road regulation. 

 3 --o0o-- 

 4 MS. YURA: First, staff is proposing to delay the 

 5 regulation start date for all fleets by four years, which 

 6 would result in significant near-term economic relief for 

 7 off-road fleets. With this proposed delay, large fleets 

 8 would have more time, until 2014, before compliance 

 9 actions would be required. As with the current 

 10 regulation, medium and small fleets are given even more 

 11 time until the initial start date. 

 12 --o0o-- 

 13 MS. YURA: Staff is also proposing to simplify 

 14 and reduce the annual requirements of the off-road 

 15 regulation so that each compliance year a fleet would only 

 16 have to meet a single emissions target. The annual BACT 

 17 requirements would be reduced from a 28 percent turnover 

 18 and retrofitting requirement to a combined 4.8 to ten 

 19 percent turnover or retrofitting requirement. This means 

 20 that a fleet would have both lowered BACT requirements and 

 21 more flexibility to choose between turnover and 

 22 retrofitting to meet compliance. 

 23 Additionally, staff is proposing to raise the 

 24 low-use threshold from the 100 hours to 200 hours per 

 25 year. This will exempt an additional ten to 12 percent of 
 30 

 1 the least used vehicles, resulting in overall lower 

 2 compliance costs. 

 3 --o0o-- 

 4 MS. YURA: To further simplify the regulation, 

 5 staff is also proposing an optional simplified compliance 

 6 path for the smallest fleets in the state. For an 

 7 owner-operator or owner with only a handful of vehicles, 

 8 there are requirements to calculate emissions averages, 

 9 targets, and BACT percentages to determine compliance 

 10 options can be complicated. 

 11 Therefore, staff is proposing an optional 

 12 compliance path which provides a schedule to phase out the 

 13 oldest vehicle from these smallest fleets. This provides 

 14 a very clear and simple path for the fleet to follow and 

 15 also does not require any mandatory retrofitting. 

 16 --o0o-- 

 17 MS. YURA: Because of the proposed delays and 

 18 reductions in compliance requirements, staff wanted to 

 19 make sure that progress towards cleaner vehicles is made 

 20 during this interim period. Therefore, staff is proposing 

 21 to extend double credit for the early installation of PM 

 22 filters, which had expired for some fleets, up to the year 

 23 before compliance is required for each fleet size. 

 24 Additionally, for fleets that are still 

 25 downsizing due to the economy, staff is proposing to offer 
 31 

 1 credits for these fleets that reduce their total fleet 

 2 horsepower from 2010 to 2011. The new credit would be in 

 3 addition to the reduced horsepower credits a fleet may 

 4 have previously received for reducing their fleet between 

 5 2006 and 2010. 

 6 Also staff would like to recognize those 

 7 proactive fleets who met at the first large fleet 

 8 compliance requirements by March 1st, 2010, and is 

 9 proposing to exempt these large fleets from their first 

 10 compliance date of 2014. 

 11 --o0o-- 

 12 MS. YURA: In summary, staff's proposed changes 

 13 would delay the regulation start date, make retrofits 

 14 optional, limit the numbers of actions needed for 

 15 compliance both overall and in the next five years, and 

 16 also strengthen the long-term requirement to use the 

 17 cleanest Tier 4 engines. 

 18 And now I'd like to discuss how these amendments 

 19 have reduced the economic impacts of the off-road 

 20 regulation. 

 21 --o0o-- 

 22 MS. YURA: As you can see from the slide, the 

 23 proposed amendments provide significant cost savings 

 24 compared to the current regulation. The estimated cost of 

 25 the amended off-road regulation in the next five years 
 32 

 1 would be about 97 percent lower, and peak year costs which 

 2 would now occur in 2019 would be reduced by more than 70 

 3 percent. Overall, costs for the proposed amended 

 4 regulation over the next 20 years would be reduced by $1.5 

 5 billion, which is 70 percent reduction. 

 6 --o0o-- 

 7 MS. YURA: In addition to the amendments already 

 8 discussed, staff is also proposing a few 15-day changes 

 9 for off-road vehicles. 

 10 First, staff is proposing to pull in both engines 

 11 from all two-engine vehicles, except for two engines 

 12 on-road sweepers into the off-road regulation. Several 

 13 types of two-engine vehicles have already been 

 14 incorporated into the off-road regulation. So for 

 15 consistency, staff is now proposing to bring in the 

 16 remaining two engine vehicles. 

 17 Second, staff is proposing a modified version of 

 18 what has been referred to as the bubble concept. 

 19 Throughout the development of the truck and bus and 

 20 off-road regulations, many fleets have had concerns about 

 21 having vehicles in several of ARB regulations and have 

 22 supported an idea to allow the trading of credits between 

 23 these regulations. 

 24 Staff's proposal will incorporate into the 

 25 off-road and truck and bus regulation a compliance path 
 33 

 1 that would allow on-road and off-road vehicles that have 

 2 been retrofitted to count towards the compliance 

 3 requirements of either regulation for a specified period 

 4 of time, so long as the actions taken under this option do 

 5 not result in a loss of emission benefits in any given 

 6 year. 

 7 --o0o-- 

 8 MS. YURA: Although the discussion thus far has 

 9 focused on reductions from diesel vehicles, I'd like to 

 10 conclude our discussion of the regulations being amended 

 11 here today by briefly touching on the proposed amendments 

 12 to the large spark ignition, or LSI, fleet requirements 

 13 regulation. 

 14 The LSI fleet regulation was adopted in 2006 and 

 15 applies to large spark ignition engine forklifts, tow 

 16 tractors, sweepers, scrubbers, and airport ground support 

 17 equipment throughout the state. Because many operators 

 18 have fully implemented the fleet average emission level 

 19 requirements, staff is proposing only a limited number of 

 20 provisions as shown here, which broaden or extend the 

 21 existing relief provisions for forklift and other LSI 

 22 fleet owners. 

 23 --o0o-- 

 24 MS. YURA: Now that I've discussed staff's 

 25 proposal, I'd like to turn to the environmental impacts of 
 34 

 1 the proposed regulations. 

 2 --o0o-- 

 3 MS. YURA: Overall, staff estimates that 3900 

 4 premature deaths would be avoided by the implementation of 

 5 the amended regulations as well as substantial reductions 

 6 in localized risk. In addition to achieving significant 

 7 health benefits, the proposed amended regulations would 

 8 also continue to provide significant emission reductions 

 9 that are necessary to meet California's SIP obligation and 

 10 the goals of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. 

 11 --o0o-- 

 12 MS. YURA: The red line shows the emissions 

 13 estimated without the recession, which represents what the 

 14 Board expected when the regulations were adopted. 

 15 The blue line represents the emissions that we 

 16 expect to see now with the recession and the proposed 

 17 amendments. 

 18 The yellow shaded area shows the emission 

 19 reductions resulting from the recession. 

 20 The blue shaded area shows the result of the 

 21 amendments, to provide flexibility to the on- and off-road 

 22 regulation. 

 23 As you can see, the blue area is equivalent to 

 24 the yellow area. The cumulative emissions of the proposed 

 25 regulations with the recession are the same as were 
 35 

 1 expected for the regulation as initially approved. The 

 2 economic relief provided to fleets result in a $3.3 

 3 billion savings over the life of the regulation. 

 4 Next, I will summarize how the amended 

 5 regulations meet the SIP targets. 

 6 --o0o-- 

 7 MS. YURA: In the 2007 SIPS, ARB committed to 

 8 achieve a defined level of emissions into the air by 2014 

 9 across all of the sources for which ARB has regulatory 

 10 responsibility. To meet this commitment, the Board has 

 11 adopted new rules covering oceangoing vessels, harbor 

 12 craft, transportation refrigeration units, and consumer 

 13 products and more. These new rules, together with the 

 14 ongoing benefits of the existing controls, are designed to 

 15 meet the SIP emissions targets. Trucks and off-road 

 16 vehicles are the remaining two most important rules in 

 17 that SIP strategy. 

 18 Because truck, bus, and off-road emissions are 

 19 lowered than forecast in the SIP, there is an emissions 

 20 margin for economic relief in 2014. In the South Coast, 

 21 that margin is estimated to be 62 tons and in the San 

 22 Joaquin Valley it is 40 tons. Both are in terms of NOx. 

 23 The proposed amendments would meet the SIP 

 24 targets for both South Coast and San Joaquin. In the 

 25 South Coast, the proposal brings down the margin to five 
 36 

 1 tons. In the San Joaquin Valley, the proposal just meets 

 2 the SIP targets and the remaining margin is zero. 

 3 As a result, staff believes that the adoption of 

 4 these amendments for the remaining most critical SIP 

 5 measures will enable the U.S. EPA to make a positive 

 6 finding on our SIPS. 

 7 --o0o-- 

 8 MS. YURA: With these amended regulations, 

 9 California continues to remain on track in our efforts to 

 10 clean up diesel engines. When the Board approved the most 

 11 recent SIP and the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, significant 

 12 emission reductions from existing diesel engines were 

 13 important elements. To date, staff has implemented both 

 14 reformulated ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel standards and 

 15 the cleanest new heavy-duty diesel engine standards in the 

 16 world. 

 17 We continue to also implement many in-use diesel 

 18 fleet rules targeting buses, trash trucks, cargo handling 

 19 equipment, and more. 

 20 The on-road and off-road regulations represent 

 21 two of the largest remaining pieces in this program and 

 22 continue the progress towards meeting the Board's air 

 23 quality goals. California continues to provide one of the 

 24 largest diesel incentive programs in the country, and 

 25 utilizes enforcement to ensure a level playing field. 
 37 

 1 Next, I will discuss funding opportunities. 

 2 --o0o-- 

 3 MS. YURA: Overall, while not sufficient to cover 

 4 all of the costs associated with the regulations, 

 5 significant incentive funding remains available to fleets 

 6 to take early actions to reduce emissions and more funding 

 7 is anticipated in the future. 

 8 This table shows funding amounts that have 

 9 already been allocated to on-road and off-road projects in 

 10 the past two years and funding levels that are expected 

 11 for new projects over the next two years. The specific 

 12 future funding amounts will depend on bond sales and other 

 13 state revenues. For example, the six air districts 

 14 administering truck grants under the Prop. 1B Goods 

 15 Movement Program will be launching a coordinated 

 16 solicitation for $112 million in existing funding in early 

 17 2011, with up to $300 million in supplemental truck 

 18 funding possible through new bond sales over the next 

 19 two years. 

 20 Finally, local and federal funds also continue to 

 21 be available. For example, local air districts receive 

 22 approximately $70 million annually from motor vehicle 

 23 registration fees that can be used for emission reduction 

 24 projects. 

 25 The proposed amendments to both the on-road and 
 38 

 1 off-road regulations will expand eligibility in ARB's 

 2 portfolio incentive programs for many fleets. Changes to 

 3 these funding programs are scheduled for early next year 

 4 to conform to revised regulatory deadlines and expand 

 5 funding opportunities. 

 6 Next I will discuss recent studies that have 

 7 confirmed the localized emissions benefits of California's 

 8 diesel program. 

 9 --o0o-- 

 10 MS. YURA: A recent ARB study focused on the port 

 11 truck cleanup in Los Angeles and Long Beach, comparing 

 12 emissions between July of 2007 and July of 2010. This 

 13 study evaluated the change in emissions and found that 

 14 localized exposures were reduced by a factor of two. 

 15 Another recent independent study in West Oakland 

 16 measured port truck emissions from November 2009 to June 

 17 2010 and found that diesel PM emissions were down about 

 18 50 percent and NOx emissions were down about 40 percent. 

 19 It is also notable that this port truck cleanup 

 20 has occurred rapidly, in less than two years. In fact, 

 21 similar reductions for heavy-duty trucks at other Bay Area 

 22 locations took nine years to achieve. 

 23 While these near-term successes are important, 

 24 California must continue its progress towards reducing 

 25 emissions from diesel engines so that we can meet our 
 39 

 1 long-term emission reductions goals. 

 2 And now I will provide staff's closing remarks 

 3 and recommendation to the Board. 

 4 --o0o-- 

 5 MS. YURA: In conclusion, the proposed 

 6 regulations will provide economic relief and cost savings, 

 7 while providing important emission reductions and public 

 8 health benefits, thereby achieving the Board's goals. 

 9 Staff recommends that the Board approve the 

 10 proposed amendments to all five regulations along with the 

 11 corresponding 15-day changes. 

 12 This concludes our presentation. Thank you. 

 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 14 Any concluding remarks? No. 

 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: I want to make it 

 16 clear we have five different rules here. We're ready to 

 17 take any questions that the Board has. 

 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Are there any 

 19 questions before we hear from witnesses? All right. 

 20 Then we'll begin with our list. I'm sure there 

 21 are many. I just have the first batch here. We'll get 

 22 started. So we'll call you a few at a time and hopefully 

 23 you'll be ready to come forward. 

 24 Richard Coyle, Michael Rea, Corey Wardlaw. 

 25 Mr. COYLE: Thank you. Good morning. I'm here 
 40 

 1 to speak specifically to the drayage truck -- the proposed 

 2 drayage truck regulation changes. 

 3 My name is Richard Coyle. I'm President of 

 4 Devine Intermodal, which is a drayage trucking company 

 5 here in the Central Valley specializing in serving 

 6 California's ports. 

 7 While we support closing the loopholes in the 

 8 current reg, which address the dray-offs and the Class 7 

 9 trucks, we strong oppose any loosening or softening of the 

 10 port drayage truck retirement timetable. Relaxing the 

 11 regs now well into implementation would be more than 

 12 unfair to companies like ours. It would be downright 

 13 punitive. Close the loopholes, yes, but please don't mess 

 14 with the drayage truck retirement timetables. 

 15 For years, our industry debated with CARB the 

 16 implementation of truck retirement schedules. And once 

 17 those regs were finally set, our company accepted them and 

 18 embarked on an investment strategy for retiring our 

 19 dirtiest trucks. We analyzed our fleet and we worked 

 20 through decisions of whether or not to retrofit or to buy 

 21 new. And the most prudent long-term strategy was to 

 22 replace, not retrofit much of our fleet. 

 23 Accomplishing this in a softening economy with 

 24 tight credit became a Herculean effort for ourselves. It 

 25 has been enormously expensive and more draining of our 
 41 

 1 resources than we imagined. Yet, we stuck by the strategy 

 2 knowing it would prove to be the most prudent and 

 3 profitable decision. 

 4 Now, CARB staff is suggesting softening these 

 5 regs. I believe that they believe they're doing our 

 6 industry a favor by loosening these rules. But they're 

 7 not. This change would punish our company and companies 

 8 like ours who invested in new and clean trucks with the 

 9 anticipation we would finally get a return in 2014. This 

 10 chart shows more dramatically what we are looking at. 

 11 2014 is the date that we anticipated trucks -- the great 

 12 majority of trucks being retired. So we chose to purchase 

 13 new, knowing that our new trucks would get us out to 2020. 

 14 It's very dramatic now the relief that's being 

 15 offered to some of our competitors and going to be 

 16 extremely detrimental to our company. 

 17 So I'd like you to take that into consideration. 

 18 Thank you very much. 

 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Did you say where your 

 20 business is located? 

 21 MR. COYLE: We're headquarters here in Sacramento 

 22 with terminals in Stockton and Fresno. 

 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. 

 24 Michael Rea. 

 25 MR. REA: Thank you very much. 
 42 

 1 My name is Michael Ray. I'm the Governmental 

 2 Relations Chairperson for the California Association of 

 3 School Transportation Officials. 

 4 We've always valued our relationship with the Air 

 5 Board, and we care deeply about children's health and 

 6 safety, just as you do. We appreciate our cooperative 

 7 efforts over the years to fund bus replacements and 

 8 exhaust retrofits. As you know, school transportation has 

 9 been an active, aggressive, and involved partner in this 

 10 effort over the years. 

 11 We also appreciate the considerable efforts that 

 12 the staff has made to meet with us over the past few 

 13 months and to understand our issues. 

 14 Although these amendments do delay the rules for 

 15 school transportation, they're still overly burdensome on 

 16 school transportation. As you know, school transportation 

 17 has been poorly funded. Before the economic downturn, 

 18 school transportation received only about 45 percent of 

 19 what it took to operate school buses in California. The 

 20 remaining amount the State required us to take out of our 

 21 school district general funds, more impacting the 

 22 classroom. 

 23 In last couple of years, the State has further 

 24 reduced our funding by 20 percent. So now the State 

 25 funding only covers about 35 percent of what it takes to 
 43 

 1 operate school transportation in California. All over the 

 2 state of California, the impact of that is that school 

 3 districts are making decisions to severely reduce, 

 4 restrict, or eliminate school transportation. 

 5 Because of that, students are not riding on 

 6 school buses. They're being left out on the streets. And 

 7 more than likely, it's the most socioeconomic or 

 8 disadvantaged students that are affected by this. 

 9 We really request -- respectfully request that 

 10 the Board delay the implementation of these rules all 

 11 together for school transportation until funding is 

 12 available for us to be able to afford bus replacements -- 

 13 fully funded bus replacements and trap replacements. 

 14 Thank you very much for your time. 

 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 16 Corey Wardlaw, and then Carl Dolk, Roger Isom, 

 17 and Jim Jacobs. 

 18 MR. WARDLAW: Good morning. 

 19 From what I'm gathering from the agenda, we are 

 20 here today because the economy is in the tank. And 

 21 emissions are lower than thought. 

 22 I'm thankful that the Air Resources Board is 

 23 recognizing these conditions, and I encourage the members 

 24 to approve proposed amendments. But I would also like 

 25 some more consideration for owner-operators like myself. 
 44 

 1 I have one truck. I'm due to replace it by -- particulate 

 2 filter by 2014. And in these economic times, I don't have 

 3 the money. And I don't foresee the money being available 

 4 within a couple of years to what I would do would be buy a 

 5 new truck. That way, I would meet all the proposals to 

 6 the rule. 

 7 But I have money for a down payment. I work in 

 8 the construction industry as a transfer dump truck. My 

 9 business is way off. I wouldn't have money for -- until 

 10 the economy picks back up to 2004/2005 levels, I don't 

 11 foresee having the money for a monthly truck payment. 

 12 The additional costs of particulate filter 

 13 maintenance, the SCR, units or having extra money to pay 

 14 for higher fuel costs because smog engines get less fuel 

 15 economy than mine does now. 

 16 So with that, with those things in mind, I would 

 17 like additional time or additional flexibility within the 

 18 rules. 

 19 Thank you. 

 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. Do you have a 

 21 question? 

 22 BOARD MEMBER BERG: One truck, just for 

 23 clarification. What's the date for one single vehicle to 

 24 the first date that they have to do something with that? 

 25 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IMPLEMENTATION BRANCH CHIEF 
 45 

 1 BRASIL: It's January 1, 2014, would be the first 

 2 compliance date for a fleet with three or four trucks. 

 3 MR. WARDLAW: About a year ago, you asked me when 

 4 could I afford to do this. And I said half jokingly then 

 5 see me in a couple years. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I remember that. 

 7 MR. WARDLAW: Now my answer would be two years. 

 8 But that's when the economy gets back to 2004/2005 levels 

 9 when I can save up the money for a down payment when I 

 10 think I can make monthly payments and, you know, the 

 11 higher costs of running a new truck. 

 12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right. 

 13 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 14 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: Let me add in our Carl 

 15 Moyer Program, there is funding available for -- not fully 

 16 funded, but there is money available for retrofits as 

 17 well. So there are opportunities through that program to 

 18 help offset some of the retrofit costs associated with 

 19 that compliance date. 

 20 MR. WARDLAW: The way I understand it, I have a 

 21 2000 model year engine in my 1993, so I would have to put 

 22 this another engine plus a -- no? 

 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I don't think so. 

 24 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IMPLEMENTATION BRANCH CHIEF 

 25 BRASIL: The PM filter on any truck would be compliant 
 46 

 1 until 2020 at least 

 2 MR. WARDLAW: Is that a new change? 

 3 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IMPLEMENTATION BRANCH CHIEF 

 4 BRASIL: That is a fundamental change of the proposal. 

 5 MR. WARDLAW: Okay. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Maybe it's a little better 

 7 than you thought. 

 8 MR. WARDLAW: That's half the cost. But still 

 9 money and being able to afford it, you know, to run it 

 10 afterward. 

 11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Would be a good idea though 

 12 probably if we could make sure that people get that 

 13 information, because it sounds like it's not quite as 

 14 clear as it should be to people who are going to have to 

 15 comply. 

 16 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 17 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: We have some staff on 

 18 that program who will touch base with them in just a 

 19 moment. 

 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for coming. 

 21 Appreciate it. 

 22 Carl Dolk. 

 23 MR. DOLK: Good morning. 

 24 My name is Carl Dolk, and I'm the Controller for 

 25 Devine Intermodal. Devine is a trucking company based in 
 47 

 1 West Sacramento. We move freight to and from the port of 

 2 Oakland to shippers throughout California and Northern 

 3 Nevada. 

 4 We support the proposed changes to the drayage 

 5 truck regulation, with the exception of the amendment to 

 6 eliminate the 2014 Phase 2 requirement. The 2014 Phase 2 

 7 requirement mandates that drayage trucks use 2007 or newer 

 8 standard engines by 2014. The staff proposed elimination 

 9 of the 2014 Phase 2 requirement would permit a 1994 to 

 10 2000 model year diesel engine to operate for an additional 

 11 six years, up to the year 2020. 

 12 Three years ago, this Board set a priority. The 

 13 priority was for drayage trucks to comply with the new 

 14 regulation to reduce emissions at California ports and 

 15 intermodal facilitates. This information was needed 

 16 because your data showed that communities that surround 

 17 ports and intermodal facilitates are more heavily impacted 

 18 from emissions which contribute to asthma, cancer, and 

 19 premature deaths. This was a good rule three years ago 

 20 and it's a good rule now. 

 21 Maintaining the 2014 Phase 2 requirement is 

 22 critical to meeting two of the major goals identified by 

 23 the ARB which are: Providing safer, cleaner air to all 

 24 Californians, and protecting the public from concentrated 

 25 exposure to air contaminants. 
 48 

 1 The staff seems to want to reverse course. Why? 

 2 One objective stated by them is, as you have heard, to 

 3 provide flexibility to ease the burden of compliance and 

 4 consideration of the current economic climate. 

 5 There is no dispute that the current rules are 

 6 more burdensome. But it is a burden that can't be 

 7 managed. For those residents who live near ports and rail 

 8 facilitates, the burden of exposure to toxic air is more 

 9 serious than the burden on industry. We don't dispute the 

 10 impact the recession has had on vehicle activity and 

 11 emissions from heavy-duty diesel trucks. But it is wrong 

 12 to infer that today's economy will be the economy that 

 13 will exist in 2014 and beyond. The staff's crystal ball 

 14 is no better than yours or mine. 

 15 The voters of California want clean air. The 

 16 defeat of Proposition 23 made this clear. For the benefit 

 17 of all Californians, we respectfully appeal to the Board 

 18 to keep the 2014 Phase 2 requirements. Thank you. 

 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 20 Roger Isom and then Jim Jacobs and Craig Parker. 

 21 MR. ISOM: Good morning, members of the Board. 

 22 My name is Roger Isom with California Cotton 

 23 Ginners and Growers Association and Western Agricultural 

 24 Processors Association. 

 25 Just one point of clarification up there on your 
 49 

 1 screen. Might want to add a little something that says in 

 2 favor. My members saw me up in here favor of this rule, I 

 3 wouldn't have a job tomorrow. I'm in favor of the changes 

 4 and want to make sure that point is very clear. 

 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We thought you'd changed 

 6 sides. 

 7 MR. ISOM: Not yet. 

 8 But in all seriousness, the staff has worked with 

 9 us very well to try to address our concerns. We are in 

 10 support of these changes, the clarifications they made to 

 11 the agricultural provision, the changes they made to 

 12 address the trucks that aren't subject to the ag 

 13 provisions, and the majority of trucks used in our 

 14 industry are not subject to the ag provision. That only 

 15 addresses a small percentage. So these delays, these 

 16 extra time allows us to address that. And so we support 

 17 that. 

 18 And I'll just finish with one comment that I made 

 19 two years ago when the Board adopted this rule, and that's 

 20 the key is incentives. And we need your help, whether 

 21 it's helping try to get these bonds done or actual help in 

 22 lobbying back in D.C. like the effort we have currently 

 23 underway with DERA trying to get that thing fully funded 

 24 once and for all. Trying to get additional funds in the 

 25 next round of the farm bill. 
 50 

 1 And I think that's just a perfect example of how 

 2 incentive programs can work. As I reported two years ago 

 3 here, we started with farm bill funding on the tractor 

 4 rule, which you guys haven't developed yet, but will be 

 5 next month you'll start on that. And I reported then that 

 6 we already got two tons of reductions on a program that 

 7 you guys asked five to ten tons. I am happy to report 

 8 today we are closer to six tons already. And with the 

 9 funding that we have coming this next year, we're going to 

 10 have on target eleven tons of reductions before you guys 

 11 ever adopt the rule. 

 12 Incentives work. Incentives help us. And that's 

 13 where we really need to spent a lot of effort. And I 

 14 encourage you guys to adopt these changes today, but also 

 15 make the extra effort to help us get more incentives. 

 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. 

 17 Might just comment, by the way, I think these 

 18 columns are pretty arbitrary. Often times, you wonder why 

 19 an X got put where it did. Maybe it helps show there is 

 20 some balance anyway. 

 21 Yes, DeeDee. 

 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Roger, don't go too far. 

 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: There was a question for 

 24 you. Could you come back? 

 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm glad you brought up 
 51 

 1 the issue of incentives. And I had some questions anyway 

 2 on the SIP targets on slide 35. And I know that a lot has 

 3 been done, and I'll sign up for continued work on federal 

 4 funds and farm bill and all that. 

 5 But just wondering if staff could put some 

 6 perspective on this issue of the margin in the San Joaquin 

 7 Valley. I know that there are going to be a number of 

 8 witnesses today that will be talking about that. 

 9 So Roger, since you've been so involved in the 

 10 incentive issue, I thought this might be a good 

 11 opportunity to hear a little bit more about those programs 

 12 and whether or not they were accounted for in the 

 13 evaluation of the margin. 

 14 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: I'll step in on 

 15 that one. 

 16 In terms of the margin, the planning staff worked 

 17 with the rules staff to look at the effect of the combined 

 18 categories of the on- and off-road. So it does not 

 19 include the agricultural equipment category. So these 

 20 tons that Roger referenced are surplus to the SIP and 

 21 would be additional tons that are being achieved early and 

 22 are not accounted for in this margin. 

 23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, that's terrific. So 

 24 the margin would then just compare to where we were with 

 25 these rules before as compared to what's proposed, not any 
 52 

 1 additional programs that are out there. 

 2 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Right. When we 

 3 constructed the SIP, it's a commitment in aggregate for 

 4 emission reductions. But for this analysis, we looked 

 5 narrowly at what we expected to get from these two 

 6 combined categories, and this proposal just hits the mark 

 7 in the valley. 

 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. 

 9 Before we take our next witness, I'm going to ask 

 10 the indulgence of the audience. We do normally make an 

 11 exception to our rule that we call people in the order 

 12 they signed up if we have elected officials, particularly 

 13 members of the Legislature, who take the time and trouble 

 14 to come and speak to us. So this morning we're pleased to 

 15 welcome Senator Doug LaMalfa. 

 16 Mr. LaMalfa, are you here? 

 17 SENATOR LA MALFA: Good morning. Thank you, 

 18 Madam Chairman and members of the Commission. 

 19 I appreciate your allowing me to work in here on 

 20 a very busy day. I know you've had much to do here. And 

 21 the task isn't easy and often very controversial, as we've 

 22 noticed. 

 23 So I'll rather just keep it brief here. I know 

 24 you're trying to work out solutions here. 

 25 Where I come from, I'm a farmer in my real life 
 53 

 1 up in northern California here in addition to the world I 

 2 work in now here in Sacramento once again. And so my 

 3 constituents, of course, have very grave concerns with how 

 4 this will affect their livelihoods. So the voters of 

 5 California are interested in clean air. They are also 

 6 interested in having jobs in an economy. And the 

 7 direction this Board I hope can go will be able to pause 

 8 and take into account what the best solutions really are 

 9 in a practical way, especially for rural California where 

 10 the air attainment zones are doing better. I know the 

 11 issues down in the valley are more acute. But we are 

 12 doing pretty good up in the north and much of rural 

 13 California. 

 14 So when we look at the plan -- and I know you're 

 15 working on amendments right now. As we move forward, that 

 16 we can take into account some areas are doing better than 

 17 others and some areas don't need nearly the focus. And so 

 18 as dollars are allocated, whether that's through Carl 

 19 Moyer or other methods, let's put these efforts where it's 

 20 really needed. But let the folks that are doing well have 

 21 a little more of a time line. 

 22 So one of the things I'm talking about is that 

 23 people with fleets that need updating, let's let the 

 24 process work through normal attrition. My own farm, for 

 25 example, we've purchased newer trucks for us in the last 
 54 

 1 couple years that have brought us quite a bit into the 

 2 direction you would like to see us go. We're running 

 3 cleaner trucks than the 70s models we've had in the past. 

 4 So we are achieving right there just with normal attrition 

 5 90 percent increases in efficiency in those trucks for the 

 6 low mileage that we use in agriculture. Applying that 

 7 model to all across the industry, the long haul people 

 8 that use them up fairly quickly, trade them off, the 

 9 medium line people and the mom and pops as these move down 

 10 the steps, we're achieving air quality improvements 

 11 dramatically just through that transition. 

 12 And this is then affordable. I can afford to 

 13 upgrade my trucks one generation from a 70s model to a 90s 

 14 model. So can the mom and pops and the medium ones, but 

 15 they can't all just jump from 1970 to 2012. 

 16 And I appreciate that you've worked that way with 

 17 the ag exemption, but more folks out there need this kind 

 18 of relief. And so as you consider these amendments and 

 19 other policies as you push forward, please really take a 

 20 look at what that means. Because I have to be truthful 

 21 with you. Folks out here in the field they feel like 

 22 maybe they've been heard a little bit, but not listened 

 23 to. They're very frustrated and wondering how they're 

 24 going to make this work for them. A guy hauling hay from 

 25 the valley up in the far north part of the state, he can't 
 55 

 1 go out and buy a 2012 truck or 2009 truck. It doesn't add 

 2 up for them. 

 3 All manner of truckers, especially in the mom and 

 4 pops, they can't afford to put on technology that does not 

 5 work for them. We are even seeing it with the newer rigs. 

 6 Brand-new ones, they're having to get many times major 

 7 repairs because the retrofit equipment or the new 

 8 equipment they're putting on is not working for them. In 

 9 that same situation, you're seeing an additional three to 

 10 four to even eleven percent lower fuel mileage. So we're 

 11 talking about reducing the particular. Now we're 

 12 increasing the CO2 for technology that is not here yet. 

 13 We have major engine manufacturers that are dropping out 

 14 of the California market. We need to allow them time to 

 15 catch up. 

 16 I go back to the mandate CARB had I think in 1990 

 17 or so to have the certain amount of cars sold in 

 18 California be zero emission vehicles. And so the big 

 19 three at the time had to spend much effort trying to make 

 20 battery powered cars work at the time battery technology 

 21 was nowhere near accommodating a real life automobile that 

 22 people would drive. So that mandate finally after about a 

 23 decade had to be relieved, because there was no such thing 

 24 as a zero emission car that was a practical thing somebody 

 25 would buy. 
 56 

 1 So it isn't always because of mandates that are 

 2 made by governments that is going to drive technology to 

 3 come out of thin air. We still don't have battery 

 4 technology that truly works for the average driver. It's 

 5 okay for commuters or in town, but if we apply the same 

 6 logic thinking, it's forcing a mandate upon an industry to 

 7 develop technology that doesn't meet the goal, we're not 

 8 necessarily going to see that. We're seeing major engine 

 9 manufacturers not wanting to be in California applying the 

 10 needs. 

 11 So let's take a little longer term look at this 

 12 and find practical solutions that -- I know the people 

 13 involved here. They want to help. They want to come 

 14 forward. They want to be part of a solution here. But 

 15 when they feel it's so hopeless they can't afford it 

 16 that -- please help me to help you to get them that hope. 

 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I appreciate very much your 

 18 taking the time to come over and to join us. I would like 

 19 to also make the offer. I think I could speak on behalf 

 20 of all these people down in front here that if you ever 

 21 see an opportunity for my staff to sit down with some of 

 22 your constituents, the ones who would like more 

 23 information or feel like they need to have more direct 

 24 input, we would like to make our technical folks available 

 25 as well. 
 57 

 1 We have a pretty good track record. The electric 

 2 vehicles are back in full force now. The program might 

 3 not have come on in time that we originally hoped it 

 4 would, but we're going to have a wonderful success with 

 5 zero emission vehicles. 

 6 SENATOR LA MALFA: I bring that example up is 

 7 that at the time it wasn't ready. And so the big three 

 8 were kind of forced to go down this rabbit trail for a 

 9 while when they knew it wasn't going to happen. They 

 10 could have been spending effort towards ultra low or other 

 11 types of zero emissions. Maybe we would have been three 

 12 years further along in the ultra low technology. When we 

 13 do things in Sacramento, it doesn't always happen in a 

 14 vacuum. 

 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That is for sure. Anyway, 

 16 we appreciate -- 

 17 SENATOR LA MALFA: I appreciate the chance to 

 18 host forums like this up in our area and just have that 

 19 real dialogue that I think people feel like they're being 

 20 heard and have that real input. 

 21 I see some positives happening here today that 

 22 folks feel like they're getting amendments that are going 

 23 to happen. So I think it really helps the reputation of 

 24 all of us here in Sacramento. I venture to say in some 

 25 quarters maybe only folks with lower approval ratings than 
 58 

 1 the Legislature and I might be -- I'm just saying. 

 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I don't know how to compete 

 3 with you. 

 4 SENATOR LA MALFA: Nobody wants to compete with 

 5 us. Thank you very much. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. All right. 

 7 Jim Jacobs. 

 8 MR. JACOBS: Good morning, Madam Chair and Board 

 9 members. 

 10 I'm here today to use a minute of your time. I 

 11 know you had a really long day yesterday -- to let you 

 12 know as far as the off-road rule goes, we support staff. 

 13 I want to thank them for their work on it. 

 14 That being said, we do have one issue with 

 15 satisfy. We certainly don't want a rule designed to 

 16 prevent premature deaths and clean up our air to cause 

 17 more. When the time comes, we'll take that up with OSHA. 

 18 But in the mean time, thank you for your work. 

 19 And everybody have a safe holiday. It's bad weather 

 20 today. 

 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 22 Craig Parker and then Martin Lassen and Paul 

 23 Moore. 

 24 MR. PARKER: Good morning, Chairman Nichols and 

 25 Board members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to 
 59 

 1 you. 

 2 My name is Craig Parker. I'm Director of 

 3 Environmental Services with Cal Energy Operating 

 4 Corporation. Cal Energy is an independent power producer 

 5 currently operating about 349 megawatts of geothermal 

 6 energy in California's Imperial Valley. We have a planned 

 7 addition of 150 megawatts undergoing certification by the 

 8 California Energy Commission. 

 9 Cal Energy supports the staff proposal for the 

 10 truck and bus rule, for the off-road rule, the large spark 

 11 ignition rule. In this last month, we received our first 

 12 new truck. We also are retrofitting engine and 

 13 particulate matter filter. 

 14 It's interesting, our local ARB has asked us 

 15 about the effectiveness. It sounds like there may have 

 16 been some potential issues there. But we'll look forward 

 17 to working through that. 

 18 We appreciate the additional time to use this 

 19 equipment and see how it impacts. And we want to thank 

 20 the staff for their workshops coming down to El Centro. I 

 21 know that's been a long travel. You're welcome any time. 

 22 We'd like to show you our facilitates, hold stakeholder 

 23 meetings, and the responsiveness of the staff and the 

 24 Board to changes. So thank you very much. Appreciate 

 25 your support. 
 60 

 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 2 Mr. Lassen and Paul Moore and Ed Duffek. 

 3 MR. MOORE: Good morning. My name is Paul Moore 

 4 with CalPortland. CalPortland is a manufacturer of 

 5 construction materials, and we operate -- we own about 300 

 6 ready-mix trucks in the California area, but only operate 

 7 about half of those due to the downturn in the economy. 

 8 Although the downturn in the general economy of California 

 9 has been very bad, construction industry specifically has 

 10 been extremely hit hard. 

 11 I've installed or had installed 24 retrofits on 

 12 ready-mix trucks at initial cost of $497,000. That's a 

 13 lot of money in this economy right now when we are doing 

 14 all we can just to keep the doors open. I say initial 

 15 cost, because the ongoing cost of limited operating hours 

 16 of those trucks is going to be continuous. The trucks 

 17 that used to be able to operate 14, 15 hours a day can now 

 18 only operate about 11 hours a day because the diesel 

 19 particulate filters have to be regenerated and therefore 

 20 have to park that truck and bring out another truck out of 

 21 the fleet to continue our business. 

 22 I just believe that more time is needed not only 

 23 for the economy to improve, but the technology of the 

 24 diesel particulate filters to improve as well. 

 25 I'd like to thank the staff of CARB for working 
 61 

 1 with our industry as well as all the other industries. A 

 2 lot of time and effort that was put into coming up with 

 3 the amendments. And I just want to say I believe the 

 4 amendments will be good for all Californians in the long 

 5 run because we'll have better technology and hopefully 

 6 better economy to work with. 

 7 Thank you. 

 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Ed Duffek, Robert 

 9 Hassebrock, Doug Van Allen. 

 10 MR. LASSEN: Good morning, Chairman Nichols and 

 11 members of the Board. 

 12 My name is Martin Lassen, and I'm representing 

 13 Johnson Matthey today. 

 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I'm sorry. Yes, you are 

 15 Martin Lassen. I apologize if we took you out of order. 

 16 Go ahead. 

 17 MR. LASSEN: Johnson Matthey is a technology 

 18 company for emission control, and we've been supplying 

 19 technology for over 30 years. We've got a major market 

 20 share for 2007 on-road from EPA with particulate filters 

 21 in 2010 which includes filters plus SCR. 

 22 We are also heavily involved in the retrofit 

 23 market here in California. In 2000, ARB essentially 

 24 invited Johnson Matthey and our industry to come here to 

 25 California and essentially develop, verify, and 
 62 

 1 commercialize technology for the Diesel Risk Reduction 

 2 Plan. We came to California. We've spent millions of 

 3 dollars developing technology and verifying, some cases 

 4 re-verifying, and commercializing technology. That was 

 5 based on our business plan, which essentially came off of 

 6 a market that, in essence, was proposed and promised based 

 7 on your rules. 

 8 Today, there are more than 21 verified systems 

 9 out there, some of them mine. We are also in process 

 10 verifying combined NOx PM systems, which can take 

 11 advantage of your rule by meeting 2007 emission standards 

 12 and allowing engines or vehicles to be operated until 

 13 2023. 

 14 Now due to the reduced activity because of the 

 15 economy, we do agree that relief is necessary. In fact, 

 16 Johnson Matthey, our business has been effected. And 

 17 quite honestly, just the specter of the changes in the 

 18 rule has already started to really slow down the number of 

 19 retrofits being done here in California. 

 20 You guys had recommended the staff to look at 

 21 economic relief for industry. I guess regulated industry 

 22 was what people had in mind. But our industry has also 

 23 felt the impact of the recession and such. And we would 

 24 ask that the Board consider directing staff who we've had 

 25 conversations with already to look at some measures for 
 63 

 1 economic relief for our industry as well. 

 2 Our VDEX products are sold here in California 

 3 through distribution, through California companies. We 

 4 market. We sell. We install. And we essentially 

 5 maintain these systems through California green jobs. The 

 6 changes to the rules really will impact the number of jobs 

 7 that can be foreign. 

 8 So with that, I will say thank you. 

 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. We 

 10 appreciate all you have contributed to the success of the 

 11 retrofit programs over the years. 

 12 Ed Duffek. 

 13 MR. DUFFEK: Thank you, ARB members, for allowing 

 14 me to speak. 

 15 My name is Ed Duffek. My wife and I now retired 

 16 live in a small foothills town. I have a Ph.D. in 

 17 physical chemistry. 

 18 Recently, I attended a CARB talk given where we 

 19 were told we are living in a pollution hot spot. And I 

 20 quote, we are living in a "pollution hot spot, one of the 

 21 worst in the U.S." We got a real guilt trip on that one 

 22 laid on us. 

 23 I'm not alone in my concern about this 

 24 intimidation. I belong to a group of like-minded experts 

 25 and scientists in the Nor Cal Tea Party where our purpose 
 64 

 1 is to explore untruthful statements. 

 2 I'm afraid that the gross costly air committed by 

 3 the MTBE, well water contamination that went on for years 

 4 and years, and the fraudulent PM2.5 report resulting in 

 5 millions of dollars of fines will be repeated today. 

 6 Because of this, businesses will close. By the 

 7 way, these fines that were imposed on these eleven 

 8 companies back in March have not been returned, over 

 9 millions of dollars. 

 10 As a California resident, the senior resident by 

 11 the way, forever 50 years, I have seen the lifestyle 

 12 enjoyment disappear completely. 

 13 Please consider the decisions you make today 

 14 carefully. I don't want to become leakage. 

 15 Thank you. 

 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 17 Mr. Hassebrock and then Doug Van Allen and Kevin 

 18 Brown. 

 19 MR. HASSEBROCK: Hello, Madam Chair, members of 

 20 the Board, staff. 

 21 I want to start off with thanking staff. They 

 22 pounded the miles out and a lot of work has gone into the 

 23 changes. And while I don't support the rule, I agree with 

 24 the gentleman in regards to the question of whether or not 

 25 we are doing greater harm to people's lives and choices 
 65 

 1 due to the economic impact, hardships, choices they make 

 2 in life whether it's diet, seeking medical care, et 

 3 cetera, and increasing morality, et cetera. I think the 

 4 rule is poorly considered, but the amendments are well 

 5 done. I have a couple exceptions I'd like to suggest. 

 6 One of the major things first off on the early 

 7 replacement credit, we asked for and still haven't seen 

 8 yet where just a straight without any letters VDEX or if I 

 9 were to buy this truck now and asked for a credit versus 

 10 waiting until the deadline, can I get a credit for that. 

 11 That's not the rule. And we would perhaps, our company, 

 12 makes some decisions to make some choices to just buy new 

 13 trucks and start those into the rule. As I read the rule 

 14 I don't see that's in there. I can put a retrofit on. I 

 15 can buy a new engine. I don't want to put a new engine in 

 16 an old truck. I want to buy a new truck. And if I'm 

 17 wrong, you can correct me on that. 

 18 Secondly, on the body built trucks, where we have 

 19 a truck that is upwards of ten times the amount of the 

 20 cost, 1.3, $1.4 million when we have to put these in the 

 21 cycle for change, the cost structure you have for 

 22 justification just doesn't work on these units, these body 

 23 built units. 

 24 And I would like to suggest that -- I'm not 

 25 suggesting we exempt these units. I am saying perhaps a 
 66 

 1 25-year rule versus 20 for anything with the body built 

 2 that we've taken. And you can't put a retrofit on it. 

 3 There is no place. You can't have any weight. So it's a 

 4 replacement anyway. 

 5 So if we could maybe slide those 25 year versus a 

 6 20-year replacement cycle and no retrofit requirement, 

 7 we'll let that go. 

 8 We'd also like to suggest that this retrofit 

 9 thing -- I would like to ask we just go to a 20-year slide 

 10 on everything and no retrofit in there at all. Let's just 

 11 have a 20-year slide and buy new trucks and get them on 

 12 the roads. 

 13 I do want to offer my support for the 

 14 amendments -- proposed amendments and changes. In 

 15 particular, I'd like to thank the staff for the ideas on 

 16 the light duty exclusion, no retrofit on the light duties, 

 17 and the expansion of the low use vehicles. 

 18 So that's it for me. Thanks. 

 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Would the staff 

 20 comment on the question? 

 21 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IMPLEMENTATION BRANCH CHIEF 

 22 BRASIL: With respect to the credit for buying the newer 

 23 engine, we have introduced that as part of the 15-day 

 24 changes. Fleet has newer vehicles than it otherwise did 

 25 in the past, they would be able to treat another vehicle 
 67 

 1 as it's 2017 like the early retrofit credit. 

 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: He doesn't have to put a 

 3 new engine in the old truck. He could get credit for a 

 4 new truck. 

 5 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IMPLEMENTATION BRANCH CHIEF 

 6 BRASIL: Anything 2007 and newer. 

 7 With respect to the body load trucks and the 

 8 regulation, we do specify that any truck with the filter 

 9 would comply until at least 2020, regardless of model year 

 10 and would not be subject to replacement. 

 11 And if it's a '96 model year newer, the filter 

 12 will not work. They can wait until 2018 until replacement 

 13 of the engine would be required. There's some time built 

 14 into the way the rule is structured. 

 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 16 Doug Van Allen, Kevin Brown, Joe Kubsh. 

 17 MR. VAN ALLEN: Good morning, Madam Chair, Board, 

 18 staff. 

 19 My name is Doug Van Allen. I've been 

 20 representing BJ Services for over 15 years working on 

 21 different CARB regulations. 

 22 This year, I come to you representing Baker 

 23 Hughes. We were purchased by Baker Hughes this year. So 

 24 we're now a division of Baker Hughes. 

 25 Like to thank the staff for changes on these 
 68 

 1 rules. I support the changes that we have. Still not 

 2 sure about the science that we did them. But I do support 

 3 the changes that we have on there. 

 4 BJ Services would like to ask for one additional 

 5 change in there as far as the body load trucks where we 

 6 have the 20-year span for life span for a truck. On the 

 7 body load trucks, a lot of times just switching the body 

 8 and putting the stuff on the back of the truck costs about 

 9 ten times the cost of the initial truck. So we'd like to 

 10 see that we could get another five year running time out 

 11 of the body load, instead of 20 years, so we can have a 

 12 chance to recoup our investment costs on that. Normally, 

 13 in the past, we've run about 30 years. So five is cutting 

 14 back some already. Ten year cut back makes it really 

 15 tough when you're looking at trucks that run about a 

 16 million, million-four to replace. 

 17 One other thing I would like to see changed is on 

 18 the off-road reg where they've asked for us to add a label 

 19 on there. In the reg, it says it's only ten bucks to put 

 20 one on the left side, but that's not considering the cost 

 21 that you have to go track the equipment down, clean it up, 

 22 put the label on, pay somebody to go out there, and do all 

 23 of that, it's going to be more than $10. The label we put 

 24 on in 2009 that were red with white lettering are already 

 25 pink with white lettering because of the sun in San 
 69 

 1 Joaquin Valley. In three to four years, they're going to 

 2 be white on white. 

 3 What we'd like to know is can't the regulator 

 4 just walk around and look on the other side instead of 

 5 having one on each side? What's next? We have to put one 

 6 on the front, back, and one on the roof, too? So that 

 7 looked like excessive extra expense there for a company. 

 8 And I did have to ask one question to the Board 

 9 that my Board of Directors at Baker Hughes has asked me to 

 10 ask. That's on the portable equipment Tier 0 engines that 

 11 were extended last year for one year, are they dead 

 12 December 31st this year, or are they going to be allowed 

 13 to keep going? 

 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Sorry. There is a question 

 15 for the staff, and I was asking a question of my fellow 

 16 Board member. 

 17 MR. VAN ALLEN: That was a question for the 

 18 Board. The question is our company officers were wanting 

 19 to know the extension that we did for the PERP rule last 

 20 year for one year, are we going to continue to allow the 

 21 Tier 0s to run in 2011, or are they dead? 

 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: This is a question for 

 23 staff. 

 24 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 25 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: Short answer is that that 
 70 

 1 one-year extension does expire this year, and there are no 

 2 plans for further extensions at this time. 

 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So no more extensions. 

 4 MR. ALBERT: Okay. Thank you. Merry Christmas 

 5 everyone. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Same to you. 

 7 Thanks for coming. 

 8 Kevin Brown, Joe Kubsh, James Thomas. 

 9 MR. BROWN: Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank 

 10 you. Good morning to members of the Board. 

 11 My name is Kevin Brown. I'm here representing 

 12 Clean Diesel Technologies, which is headquartered in 

 13 Ventura, California, and operates its catalytic solutions 

 14 division in Oxnard, California and its engine controls 

 15 systems group which has facilitates in Reno, Nevada and 

 16 Ontario. 

 17 We've for the last ten years strategically 

 18 invested behind ARB's clean air objectives. And we had to 

 19 make these investments, not just over time, but also had 

 20 to make green investments in the products to maintain 

 21 compliance. And despite the fact that we've made these 

 22 numerous investments, we remain today one of the -- I 

 23 think the only stakeholder before you which still faces 

 24 the full impact of the bad economic times, but 

 25 additionally the pull back of these regulation. 
 71 

 1 So in collaboration with the rest of the industry 

 2 through our industry association MECA, we did provide a 

 3 list of proposed relief measures to staff. And based upon 

 4 initial discussions I've been part of, I'm concerned that 

 5 I believe a significant period of time can still transpire 

 6 before we see any of those matters bring any significant 

 7 relief. 

 8 So today one of the things I would ask the Board 

 9 is to reiterate its support for the industry and direct 

 10 senior ARB staff to lead the pursuit of immediate relief 

 11 measures for the retrofit device manufactures so that we 

 12 have some stability in the next year as we ramp up towards 

 13 complying with the demands in 2012 and 2014. 

 14 Additionally, we have had reports from our 

 15 distributors already that when the proposals came out for 

 16 these rule changes that fleets immediately stopped making 

 17 purchases. And that's further destabilizing the 

 18 marketplace that we have to operate in. And we again saw 

 19 further destabilization in the Lower Emission School Bus 

 20 Program. Our distributors were recording money that was 

 21 set to flow, that should have flowed a year and a half ago 

 22 is now delayed because of the removal of the 26,000 pounds 

 23 in school buses. There was already money lined up for the 

 24 school buses, and now it's leading to another delay where 

 25 all the money is being shuffled to other school buses. 
 72 

 1 This is a very critical time to say we need you 

 2 today to pass these rule changes so that, at a minimum, we 

 3 have finality and we have stability. 

 4 And the last thing I wanted to raise with you is 

 5 that despite passage of these rules and they're final, 

 6 some of them are not enforceable until we have that waiver 

 7 from EPA. And there is, I would say, no transparency in 

 8 that process. Rules such as the LSI rule which were 

 9 approved four years ago still don't have an EPA waiver. 

 10 We don't know where it lies in the system, and we're 

 11 unable to make appropriate investments. 

 12 Thank you. 

 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 14 James Thomas, Steven Brink, and Mike Tunnell are 

 15 next, so please be ready. 

 16 MR. KUBSH: Good morning, Madam Chair and members 

 17 of the Board. I'm Joe Kubsh, Executive Director of the 

 18 Manufacturers of Emissions Control Association. Pleased 

 19 to be here to provide you some comments this morning. 

 20 Our members include many of the retrofit 

 21 technology suppliers at a verified level three and below 

 22 retrofit technologies here in California for both on-road 

 23 and off-road applications. 

 24 Surveys of our members have indicated in the past 

 25 ten years more than 20,000 retrofit filters have been 
 73 

 1 installed here in California on both on-road and off-road 

 2 equipment, and an additional 35,000 retrofit filters have 

 3 been installed across the rest of the United States. 

 4 These companies have made significant investments in 

 5 technology for supporting both clean diesel initiatives on 

 6 new trucks and in the retrofit market. Our own surveys 

 7 indicate investments in excess of two billion dollars. 

 8 These same companies have created or saved 

 9 thousands of jobs here in California through the retrofit 

 10 industry and the amendments that are before you today are 

 11 going to create additional retrofit opportunities that are 

 12 going to create thousands more jobs for California and the 

 13 rest of the United States. 

 14 As Mr. Brown indicated, our number one request 

 15 today is that you finalize the requirements for trucks 

 16 processing off-road equipment that are before you today to 

 17 provide some certainty in the marketplace and get end 

 18 users off the sidelines and into the pathway for 

 19 compliance. 

 20 We appreciate very much the inclusion of credits 

 21 and incentives in the package before you for retrofits. 

 22 These are very important to help jump start the demands 

 23 for retrofit technology here in California, and we're 

 24 appreciative that there are additional credits that have 

 25 been included in the 15-day changes that were mentioned in 
 74 

 1 the presentation this morning. 

 2 We also suggested some additional opportunities 

 3 for generating additional reductions of PM through the 

 4 application of retrofits on segments not covered by the 

 5 proposal, including older trucks like '94 to '97. But I 

 6 am glad to hear that there is a conclusion on the '96 to 

 7 '97 trucks in the 15-day changes. 

 8 We also suggested keeping requirements in place 

 9 for school buses of all sizes and requiring filters on 

 10 high use off-road equipment. 

 11 Lastly, I'd like to conclude by echoing the 

 12 comments of Mr. Lassen and Mr. Brown that we are working 

 13 with staff on economic relief for our industry as well. 

 14 We think obviously with the changes in the demand for 

 15 retrofit technology that have been -- that have occurred 

 16 because of the changes that are before you, some relief is 

 17 needed. And we think there are pathways for improving the 

 18 verification end use testing program that can provide that 

 19 relief. And we would ask the Board to direct Mr. 

 20 Goldstene and Mr. White to work with us on making those 

 21 changes happen. 

 22 And again, I'd also like to thank staff for their 

 23 many months of hard work on bringing these amendments 

 24 before you today. And again would ask you to please adopt 

 25 the amendments that are before you. Thank you very much. 
 75 

 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. I don't believe 

 2 I have seen the letter that he's referring to, the MECA 

 3 proposals. If it's here, the Board members have not seen 

 4 it. So I don't know if you submitted it today or -- 

 5 MR. KUBSH: It is referred to in our written 

 6 testimonial, though the actual details of the items that 

 7 we've been talking to staff aren't included in that 

 8 testimony. But we have provided staff with a list of 

 9 items for their consideration with respect to verification 

 10 and in-use testing requirements. 

 11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I see. Okay. Thank you. 

 12 James Thomas and then Steven Brink and Mike 

 13 Tunnell. 

 14 MR. THOMAS: I'm James Thomas with Nabors Well 

 15 Service. 

 16 Nabors would like to compliment staff on reducing 

 17 the compliance cost in both the off-road and on-road reg. 

 18 Nabors has taken a leadership role in investing millions 

 19 of dollars in the reduction and complying with the 

 20 original requirements of the off-road reg. 

 21 CARB should develop a recognition for these 

 22 fleets that have achieved this. We discussed this several 

 23 times in the workshops and CARB agreed with it. Staff 

 24 agreed with it. What we recommend is that the Board 

 25 direct staff to make this happen within the next 30 days. 
 76 

 1 Recognizing these fleets through posting their names on 

 2 the website and indicating that they did comply. We do 

 3 have detailed comments in our letter about this. 

 4 Staff is allowing for credit transfer between a 

 5 fleet and the off-road and on-road reg, and we think 

 6 that's great. But what they talked about in the concept 

 7 was retrofit credit. But they did not mention anything 

 8 about fleet reduction credits or early engine replacement 

 9 credits, and we believe that those two should also be 

 10 included in that credit transfer. 

 11 Staff should clarify that yard goats can be 

 12 operated in both the off- and on-road reg. And staff's 

 13 cost for work over rigs in Table F1-2 is understated by 

 14 half of the actual cost of those units. Staff did not 

 15 include the cost of a Cad 4 inspection, a major 

 16 refurbishment which is required every 20 years to extend 

 17 the useful life of a rig, and that cost is 700,000. 

 18 Here again, I would like to thank staff for their 

 19 efforts and I hope you take these under consideration. 

 20 And thank you. 

 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 22 Steve Brink. 

 23 MR. BRINK: Good morning, Chair Nichols and Board 

 24 members. I'm Steve Brink, California Forestry 

 25 Association. 
 77 

 1 You have written comments from me, so I'll be 

 2 brief. I want to make four quick points. 

 3 One, I'm glad James is back in the room because I 

 4 want to make sure he hears this from me. We believe the 

 5 staff, particularly the on-road staff, has been extremely 

 6 diligent at looking for proposed modifications that would 

 7 move these rules in the right direction, more cost 

 8 efficient, while achieving long-term emission reductions 

 9 and more implementable. So we believe they should be 

 10 commended for that. 

 11 Did you hear that, James? 

 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: I did. 

 13 MR. BRINK: Second, that being said, we think and 

 14 would ask the Board to consider directing staff as we move 

 15 forward to consider continuing that diligence to look for 

 16 with specific emphasis on integration and consistency 

 17 between the rules, keep looking for more changes that 

 18 would do that and make them even more cost efficient and 

 19 effective. 

 20 And I'll give you one example, and it was 

 21 mentioned earlier. We are proposing today to move the 

 22 compliance schedule, the off-road rule, back four years. 

 23 Nothing is being done about the portable rule. 

 24 What you did last year to extend the life of Tier 

 25 0 engines for one year expires in two weeks. We would 
 78 

 1 encourage that for consistency and integration the 

 2 portable rule compliance schedule also be pushed back four 

 3 years. That's just one example. There's many other 

 4 opportunities in our opinion. 

 5 Third, as you've heard already -- and I won't 

 6 belabor the point. Financial burden is still beyond the 

 7 ability of many in-state fleet owners to comply even with 

 8 these modifications. You'll hear more about that. So I 

 9 won't say any more. 

 10 We obviously need more money in the Carl Moyer 

 11 and other related programs. And I was extremely gratified 

 12 there was 200 million in the omnibus bill for federal 

 13 emission reductions. Unfortunately, Senator Reed pulled 

 14 the omnibus bill yesterday, which was bad news. And 

 15 obviously 200 million, California could suck that up in a 

 16 heartbeat. That was the national number. 

 17 Fourth and last, I want to mention what would the 

 18 Board and staff think about an additional 20 percent 

 19 reduction in diesel emission reductions in the state? I 

 20 would think we could all rally around that. And the way 

 21 to accomplish that is to increase the gross vehicle weight 

 22 from 80,000 to 105,000 pounds in California. We had that 

 23 opportunity as an option until 1991 through the federal 

 24 highway bills. We didn't do it. We're now surrounded 

 25 with states with 105,000 pound gross vehicle weight. And 
 79 

 1 the studies are in, you get a 20 percent reduction in fuel 

 2 consumption with the increased gross vehicle weight. 

 3 Thank you 

 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 5 I'm going to call a halt for just a second here 

 6 and explain to folks that we have 105 or possibly more, 

 7 109 speakers. It's a Friday. Perhaps the Board members 

 8 are a little slower than usual because we had a long day 

 9 yesterday. 

 10 But I think given all the time that's gone into 

 11 the preparation for this hearing that we could get away 

 12 with lowering the time period from three to two minutes. 

 13 I feel like people could summarize their remarks and we 

 14 could all pick up the pace a little bit and still be fair 

 15 to the public and those of you who have taken the time to 

 16 come here today. We really have reviewed the written 

 17 testimony that came in early as well as all the staff 

 18 materials. 

 19 So I think unless I hear a strong objection from 

 20 the Board -- and I don't see any -- I'm going to ask the 

 21 time keeper to switch to a two-minute instead of 

 22 three-minute limit. 

 23 Sorry that you're the first one to get caught in 

 24 this, Mr. Tunnel. But I know you can do it. 

 25 MR. TUNNELL: Good morning, Chairman Nichols and 
 80 

 1 members of the Board. 

 2 My name is Mike Tunnell. I'm here on behalf of 

 3 the American Trucking Associations. And I will try to be 

 4 very brief. 

 5 ATA broadly supports the proposed amendments to 

 6 the on-road regulations. The economic relief -- the 

 7 amendments will provide some economic relief for trucking 

 8 companies operating in California, while still attaining 

 9 the state's stringent air quality mandates. 

 10 In addition to the proposed amendments, we ask 

 11 that you consider three additional revisions. 

 12 First, we would like to ensure that fleets do not 

 13 have to prematurely change out tractor tires in order to 

 14 comply with the greenhouse gas regulation. Due to the 

 15 fact that SmartWay verified fuel efficient retreads are 

 16 not currently available and SmartWay verified open 

 17 shoulder tires have limited availability, fleets are not 

 18 able to purchase the compliant technologies they need. 

 19 Ideally, the situation changes sometime next 

 20 year, but this will still leave fleets with slightly more 

 21 than a year to wear out non-compliant tires. This is not 

 22 enough time, so we ask that you extend the deadline to 

 23 2014 for pre-2011 tractors and for those needing open 

 24 shoulder tires. At the very least, we ask that you 

 25 monitor the status of these technologies and ensure 
 81 

 1 they're available well ahead of the tire deadlines. 

 2 Second, we believe the current local haul 

 3 exemption inadequately addresses lower speed operation at 

 4 an average speed of 40 miles per hour to fuel consumption 

 5 benefits of aerodynamics shrink by 70 percent. We ask you 

 6 to expand the local haul exemption to a 150-mile radius to 

 7 help reduce those instances where installation of 

 8 aerodynamic technologies is not cost effective. 

 9 And lastly, we ask that the use of PM filters be 

 10 treated equally, whether it's through retrofits or new 

 11 truck purchase. Sounds like you've done that through the 

 12 15-day amendment but we'd like your consideration of the 

 13 other two changes. 

 14 Thank you very much. 

 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 16 Chris Shrader and Betsy Reifsnider and Jack 

 17 Broadbent. 

 18 MR. SHRADER: Good morning. Thank you for 

 19 letting me speak this morning. 

 20 I represent Cemex, Cemex concrete, Cemex cement. 

 21 We operate about 500 ready-mix trucks in the state of 

 22 California. And we operated a fleet of 18 tankers in 

 23 Southern California. 

 24 If the deadline -- if staff passes the new 

 25 regulation, it will save my company a million and a half 
 82 

 1 dollars on January 1st, 2012. My trucks become 

 2 non-compliant on that date. And it's a very critical 

 3 important move if the staff passed the amendment today 

 4 giving us until 2014 to replace our equipment. 

 5 Thank you very much. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 7 Betsy and then Jack Broadbent and Tim Fortier. 

 8 MS. REIFSNIDER: Good morning. 

 9 First of all, I'd like to thank the Board and the 

 10 staff for your commitment and tenacity in dealing with 

 11 what is a very difficult and complex issue. So thank you. 

 12 Catholic Charities signed the letter from the 

 13 coalition from environmental and health groups that you 

 14 received, so they will be talking more about that. So I'd 

 15 like to make one point. 

 16 Regarding the SIP, the current proposal leaves 

 17 the San Joaquin Valley little or no margin for error to 

 18 reach the federally mandated standards before 2015. We're 

 19 keenly aware of the economic crisis in the Central Valley. 

 20 Hundreds of families come to Catholic Charities every 

 21 single week, and the number is growing. But bad air 

 22 quality is also costly, financially and health wise. 

 23 There were two headlines in this morning's paper 

 24 that illustrate this point. The first, "Asthma Hits 

 25 State's Poorest the Hardest. Asthma is on the rise in 
 83 

 1 California, and low-income tend to bear the greatest 

 2 burdens from the condition." And that is from the UCLA 

 3 Center for Health Policy. 

 4 Then in the L.A. Times this morning, "Proximity 

 5 to Freeways increases autism risks, study finds." 

 6 On top of this, as you know, people are 

 7 struggling to pay health insurance. Every day at Catholic 

 8 Charities, we have many children and their families who 

 9 come in to sign up for the Children's Health Initiative 

 10 and Healthy Families. They are struggling. The last 

 11 headline from today's Sacramento Bee, "Study finds 6.8 

 12 million Californians without health insurance. As the 

 13 recession continues to grip the state, the number of 

 14 Californians without health insurance, especially coverage 

 15 provided by employers, has continued to decline." 

 16 Diesel pollution is costly. So I'd ask that you 

 17 please pass a strong diesel rule with a greater SIP 

 18 margin. And I thank you. 

 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 20 Hi. You are not Jack, but you could be Anthony 

 21 Fourniee. 

 22 MR. FOURNIEE: That's me. Jack had to step out. 

 23 I'll be providing comments today for the Bay Area 

 24 Air Quality Management District. My name is Anthony 

 25 Fourniee. I'm a Air Quality Program Manager for the 
 84 

 1 district. 

 2 I'd like the commend ARB on its willingness to 

 3 re-visit the requirements these regulations based on the 

 4 updated inventory numbers and the effects of the recent 

 5 economic downturn. 

 6 Based on the inventory numbers and our analysis 

 7 of the data of the Bay Area emissions, we see there will 

 8 be a significant reduction in off-road emissions. But we 

 9 also see there will be an increase from increase in 

 10 emission from the on-road sources and particularly their 

 11 contribution to overall diesel particulate matter 

 12 emissions in the Bay Area. 

 13 The air district has concerns about the proposed 

 14 regulatory amendments based on the fact the primary driver 

 15 of the health risk in Bay Area communities is from diesel 

 16 particulate matter to on-road trucks. 

 17 This fact is shown by studies of a joint health 

 18 risk assessment performed in West Oakland in December 

 19 2008. The assessment identified West Oakland as having 

 20 cancer and health risk three times greater than any other 

 21 location in the Bay Area, and one of the highest in the 

 22 state of California. 

 23 The assessment also identified on-road truck 

 24 diesel particulate matter emissions as being the cause of 

 25 70 percent of that health risk. 
 85 

 1 With Bay Area residents already subject to 20 

 2 percent of the total toxic diesel particulate matter from 

 3 goods movement in the state and the region being home to 

 4 20 percent of the state's population, it's important we 

 5 not lose any ground in reducing these emissions. 

 6 With that, grant programs provide an opportunity 

 7 to achieve near-term surplus reductions that will help 

 8 make up for the reductions that will be delayed due to 

 9 proposed rule extensions. 

 10 We have five recommendations for the grant 

 11 program changes: 

 12 ARB should work to implement grant programs, 

 13 streamline recommendations from Advisory Committee ARB 

 14 Board Member Sandra Berg. We believe ARB should support 

 15 air district's efforts to streamline the legislation and 

 16 extension of State Grant Programs. We believe fleets have 

 17 one -- can I finish? I have two more. 

 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Quickly. 

 19 MR. FOURNIEE: I believe fleets with one in 20 

 20 vehicles should participate in all state grant programs. 

 21 And finally, we recommend additional funding be 

 22 provided for these programs and largely percentages for 

 23 loan guarantee programs to allow more truckers to 

 24 participate in these programs. 

 25 Thank you. 
 86 

 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 2 John Spangles and then Susan Jones and Camille 

 3 Kustin. 

 4 MR. SPANGLER: Good morning, Madam Chair, members 

 5 of the Board. 

 6 John Spangles here for Marine Corps Installation 

 7 West, Major General Anthony Jackson. 

 8 We appreciate all the hard work of staff that 

 9 went into these amendments. In particular, the 

 10 recognition of some unique military federal challenges we 

 11 have. We have a complex system of laws and regulations 

 12 that govern our military funding process. It's different. 

 13 And our procurement processes are also a challenge. And 

 14 that was recognized. We appreciate that. 

 15 We also appreciate the recognition of our dynamic 

 16 and unpredictable mission. We don't always know what 

 17 we'll be called upon to do. 

 18 We are committed to complying with the proposed 

 19 regulations, and we thank you for the opportunity to 

 20 participate in this process. 

 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for coming back. 

 22 Susan Jones. Not here. 

 23 MS. JONES: Good morning. My name is Susan 

 24 Jones. I'm an owner-operator of a small dump truck 

 25 company. And -- 
 87 

 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I'm sorry. I missed Tim 

 2 Fortier. That's my problem. He was supposed to -- but 

 3 he's going to yield to you. Thank you. 

 4 MS. JONES: I'm also the Chapter Chairperson and 

 5 the Northern California First Vice President for the 

 6 California Dump Truck Owners Association. 

 7 I'm the perfect example of the mom and pop 

 8 operation that the Senator was speaking about. My husband 

 9 and I have two trucks. We both drive. One is an '88 with 

 10 extreme low mileage. It's probably one-fourth its life. 

 11 The other one is a '91. Neither one can be retrofitted, 

 12 repowered. It's impossible. 

 13 In December of 2008, I found out I had qualified 

 14 for a $50,000 grant for a new truck. And I was quite 

 15 excited about that. But then the Prop. 1B money 

 16 disappeared. And that was really a blessing in disguise 

 17 because. Had I bought that truck, I would have lost the 

 18 truck like so many others have that tried to comply and 

 19 went out and did that. And I probably would have lost my 

 20 home and my business. I'm glad that money dried up. 

 21 And contrary to belief, I'm not available for 

 22 Moyer funds. The dump truckers do not go enough miles, so 

 23 we can't even ask for that. 

 24 My business is now down 45 percent, and I have 

 25 worked more than most. 
 88 

 1 And also up here in the north, as you know, we 

 2 don't work 12 months out of the year due to the rain. 

 3 This makes it even harder for us to make up for lost time. 

 4 I really, really believe that you guys have got to give us 

 5 mom and pop operations, the low mileage guys, we've got to 

 6 have more time. 

 7 We want to comply. We want to do what we can. 

 8 We can't make it with what we've got with the equipment 

 9 we're trying to run now. We are in horrible shape with 

 10 this recession, depression, whatever it is. It's 

 11 terrible. Just to make our house payments. 

 12 Please give us some time. Thank you. 

 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Okay. 

 14 Mr. Fortier, thank you for your patience. I 

 15 called you and then forgot about you. 

 16 MR. FORTIER: I was hoping that you wouldn't do 

 17 that so I appreciate that, considering our history. 

 18 Why I'm here today is primarily on a little bit 

 19 different issues, but it's somewhat follows the Senator's 

 20 reaction or testimony before you is that this diesel 

 21 pollution technology has a profound history of mechanical 

 22 failure from the beginning. The tow truck association 

 23 last year said they were towing more new vehicles to shops 

 24 than old ones. This is counter to the historical norm. 

 25 These problems have resulted from the dispute 
 89 

 1 between the diesel manufacturing engine manufacturers and 

 2 2002 and the EPA. As a result of a compromise on that 

 3 settlement, the technology has been rushed to market. And 

 4 from the engines from '04 through '06 and '07, '08, and 

 5 '09 have been a disaster. 

 6 So the staff continue to advocate a continuance 

 7 of the policies where it's promulgating the stay on course 

 8 of action is a disservice. It's bad public policy. 

 9 There's thousands and thousands and thousands of trucks 

 10 that had to be towed in because technology breaks down. 

 11 This is equivalent to like your new automobile or an 

 12 automobile that has 50,000 miles on it. Then all of a 

 13 sudden, you've got a $2,000 repair bill. You go another 

 14 50,000, you get another $2,000 repair bill. 

 15 If these same standards were applied to what's 

 16 been applied to the diesel users in this state and this 

 17 country to the airline industry, to pharmaceutical, it 

 18 would be a disaster. 

 19 So that's the point I wish to make. We need 

 20 correction on what is being offered to the public and have 

 21 real durable reliability and warranties on what they are 

 22 manufacturing. 

 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. 

 24 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Could staff respond? 

 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, I suppose if this 
 90 

 1 wants to characterize any history that you have or aware 

 2 of or complaints or problems or repair issues. 

 3 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, 

 4 you know, we get warrantee records from engine 

 5 manufacturers. And there is not a widespread pattern of 

 6 failures or high warrantee claims for these vehicles that 

 7 have been referred to. There are peaks on some vehicles, 

 8 not so much related to filters, but to EGR systems. But 

 9 most of those I believe have been covered under warrantee 

 10 and the design changes have been made. 

 11 But while I will not disagree that there are 

 12 people being towed and trucks breaking down, that's not 

 13 any evidence we've seen that it's increased 

 14 disproportionately because of these new technologies. 

 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, obviously this is 

 16 anecdotal. This gentleman is claiming to have the 

 17 information. Maybe we could at least take a look at the 

 18 specifics and follow up on that. 

 19 MR. FORTIER: It's beyond anecdotal. 

 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, you have to provide 

 21 your information, and we'll take a look at it. 

 22 MR. FORTIER: I asked for it. It's beyond 

 23 anecdotal. I don't know what your statistics background, 

 24 but any manufacturer or any trucking outfit in here will 

 25 gladly stand up and say if they've had problems. 
 91 

 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That is anecdotal, sir. 

 2 That's what I'm talking about. Thank you. 

 3 Camille Kustin and then Elizabeth Adams and John 

 4 Pitta. 

 5 MS. KUSTIN: Good morning. My name is Camille 

 6 Kustin. I'm with the Better World Group. 

 7 And I'd just like to thank staff, especially Eric 

 8 White, Tony Brasil, Todd Sax for spending many hours with 

 9 us, meeting with us, crunching the numbers, and all that. 

 10 It's greatly appreciated. It's been years. 

 11 So I'm here to present this letter on behalf of 

 12 the undersigned 23 environmental, public health, and 

 13 community groups, these groups representing all parts of 

 14 the state and hundreds of thousands of members support the 

 15 diesel cleanup but have serious concerns -- health 

 16 concerns regarding the proposed amendments to the on- and 

 17 off-road rules. 

 18 There will be other people after me to speak on 

 19 the specifics. I just want to present the letter. Thank 

 20 you. 

 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 22 Elizabeth Adams, hi. 

 23 MS. ADAMS: Good morning, Chairman Nichols and 

 24 members of the Board. 

 25 My name is Elizabeth Adams, and I'm the Deputy 
 92 

 1 Director of U.S. EPA Region 9's Air Division. 

 2 EPA appreciates the opportunity to come before 

 3 the Board to support the adoption of the in-use truck and 

 4 bus rule and the in-use off-road diesel rule. We commend 

 5 ARB's efforts to reduce emissions from these in-use diesel 

 6 fleets and believe that the implementation of these rules 

 7 is a critical step towards achieving clean air and 

 8 improving public health. 

 9 As you know, California has submitted several 

 10 State Implementation Plans, or SIPS, to EPA that rely 

 11 heavily on reductions from these rules in order to reach 

 12 attainment of the federal PM2.5 and ozone standards. 

 13 We are currently discussing with ARB staff the 

 14 scope of the SIP provisions that will be necessary for the 

 15 South Coast and San Joaquin Valley SIPS due to the new 

 16 emission estimates that form the basis for many of the 

 17 changes to the rules being considered today. 

 18 We plan to work with your staff on these SIPS in 

 19 the next few months as we intend to finalize our action on 

 20 the PM2.5 SIPS by September 2011 and the ozone SIPS by 

 21 December 30th, 2011, to meet our consent decree deadlines. 

 22 If the rules are adopted today, we request that you 

 23 expedite their submittal to EPA so that we may have 

 24 sufficient time to take action on them. 

 25 Finally, we acknowledge that emission inventories 
 93 

 1 are always a work in progress, and we understand that the 

 2 inventory and emission reductions estimates being proposed 

 3 today are based on the best available information. 

 4 In light of this, we encourage the tracking of 

 5 future emissions to ensure that the emission rates in 

 6 today's proposal continue as expected since these 

 7 reductions are an important component in the attainment of 

 8 the PM2.5 and ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley and 

 9 South Coast. 

 10 Thank you again for this opportunity to support 

 11 the adoption these important rules. We share ARB's goal 

 12 to protect public health and recognize ARB's national 

 13 leadership in reducing emissions from mobiles sources. 

 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Thanks for 

 15 coming. 

 16 I would like to send a message back with you, 

 17 even though I know this is not your area of 

 18 responsibility. 

 19 But there is a real world disconnect between the 

 20 requirements EPA imposes in terms of SIPS that are legally 

 21 enforceable and for which we all end up getting sued if we 

 22 don't meet deadlines versus the lack of any apparent 

 23 accountability in terms of processing waiver requests on 

 24 the underlying rules that are needed to achieve those SIP 

 25 requirements. 
 94 

 1 You heard a complaint from the emissions control 

 2 device manufacturers on this. But I would like to join in 

 3 those comments. We have a big backlog of rules sitting at 

 4 EPA with no time line for getting them acted on. And it 

 5 prevents us from enforcing those rules and getting the 

 6 real world reductions that we're trying to achieve here. 

 7 I know that EPA wants us to achieve. 

 8 So perhaps you could use your visit here today to 

 9 also make sure that that message gets back to the folks at 

 10 headquarters, because it's really a real disconnect in the 

 11 messages that we get from EPA. 

 12 Thanks for coming and thanks for your support for 

 13 what we're trying to do here. 

 14 MS. KUSTIN: Thank you. We are happy to work 

 15 with you in finding out the status of those waiver rules. 

 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good. Great. Thanks. 

 17 Mr. Pitta and then Ralph Knight and Brad Edgar. 

 18 MR. PITTA: Good morning. I'm John Pitta, John 

 19 Pitta Trucking, Salinas, California. I'm also a member of 

 20 CPTOA and an officer in the Executive Board. 

 21 I'm a two-truck operator, twice as big as the 

 22 other fellow. 2010 revenue versus 2008 revenue's down 44 

 23 percent. I have one employee. He's the sole source of 

 24 income for his family. I no longer can provide him with 

 25 health insurance, paid holidays, sick leave. He's moved 
 95 

 1 with his family to a house with another family because of 

 2 these conditions. 

 3 I cannot afford a new truck, replacement truck, 

 4 or to put a device on it. 

 5 I do not qualify for any of the programs for a 

 6 number of reasons. We need more time. We are hurting. 

 7 And I'm doing better than most. 

 8 Thank you. 

 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you, sir. 

 10 Ralph Knight, Brad Edgar, and Tony Luiz. 

 11 MR. EDGAR: Chair Nichols and members of the 

 12 Board, my name is Brad Edgar. I'm President and Chief 

 13 Technology Officer for Cleaire Advanced Emission Controls. 

 14 We develop and manufacture retrofit systems here in 

 15 California. 

 16 I urge you today to adopt the on- and off-road 

 17 diesel regulation before you. As a California company in 

 18 support of the regulations, I'd like to offer some 

 19 information for your consideration. 

 20 To start, retrofit filters are proven robust and 

 21 cost effective. Cleaire alone has delivered more than 

 22 11,000 systems, including some that have been in service 

 23 for more than eight years. 

 24 Our company has sold more than 4,000 plug-in 

 25 active filter systems, with more than 1200 installed in 
 96 

 1 school buses. And I'm here to tell you that school bus 

 2 retrofits work, but it gets better. Recently, Cleaire 

 3 received verification for a passive filter called a long 

 4 mile. The most exciting feature of this product is it 

 5 works on very cold duty cycles without the need to plug 

 6 in. Analysis and field experience shows that the 

 7 passively regenerated long mile will work on the vast 

 8 majority of school buses and other light duty 

 9 applications. We have shared this information with staff, 

 10 and I believe it was included in today's presentation. 

 11 In short, you should have confidence that retrofits for 

 12 school buses, trucks, and off-road equipment will work. 

 13 We offer two specific recommendations for your 

 14 consideration. First, require all school buses with less 

 15 than and greater than 26,000 pounds to be retrofit. The 

 16 children's exposure to emissions is the same regardless of 

 17 the size of the bus. 

 18 Second, for the off-road regulation, we suggest 

 19 that you expand the retrofit for life option to allow a 

 20 greater percentage of the off-road fleet to be voluntarily 

 21 retrofitted early in exchange for being allowed to operate 

 22 longer. If you focus the extent of life provisions on the 

 23 cleaner Tier 2 and 3 engines, the long-term NOx impact 

 24 will be minimal. Remember, this is a voluntary measure, 

 25 not a requirement, that offers the potential for cleaner 
 97 

 1 air now while lowering long-term costs to the off-road 

 2 fleet owners. There is a win-win opportunity here. 

 3 In closing, all the stakeholders impacted by 

 4 these regulations need certainty to move forward along the 

 5 path of clean air. And you can provide the certainty by 

 6 passing the regulations today. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I'm sorry I didn't 

 8 recognize you, Mr. Edgar. And congratulations on your new 

 9 device. 

 10 We have a question. 

 11 BOARD MEMBER TELLES: What's the failure rate of 

 12 your retrofit device? 

 13 MR. EDGAR: Our failure rate is well under four 

 14 percent. If there is a failure rate, it's in the one 

 15 percent or less range. We don't have failure rates other 

 16 than some component issues that have been resolved under 

 17 warrantee. 

 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. 

 19 BOARD MEMBER YEAGER: If I could ask a staff 

 20 question. 

 21 I know in the presentation you get a lot more 

 22 cleanup with the retrofit rather than the purchasing of 

 23 new buses. Is there a way to require the money just to go 

 24 to retrofit rather than purchase new buses just to be able 

 25 to have more of an impact? 
 98 

 1 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 2 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: Not quite sure I 

 3 understand. Is it more what is the incremental cost for 

 4 these lowers buses? 

 5 BOARD MEMBER YEAGER: I know in the past many of 

 6 the districts ended up buying new buses rather than doing 

 7 the retrofit. Is there something we can do to encourage 

 8 the retrofitting rather than the purchase of new buses? 

 9 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 10 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: There's no way to compel 

 11 them. The statute for the program that we talked about 

 12 where there is a school bus program, we specifically leave 

 13 that discretion to the local districts on how they want to 

 14 allocate replacement versus retrofit. 

 15 We have worked and certainly encouraged the local 

 16 air districts and the school districts that that funding 

 17 could be spent towards retrofit. But the decision does 

 18 ultimately lie at the local level. 

 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thanks. 

 20 Tony Luiz and then Peter Bransfield and Stephen 

 21 Rhoads. 

 22 MR. LUIZ: Good morning. I'll try to make this 

 23 quick. 

 24 I have to agree with the Senator that spoke up 

 25 here and also John and Susan. I can't believe I have two 
 99 

 1 minutes after 27 years in business. 

 2 I also have the same type of businesses as John 

 3 and Susan does. I'm down 72 percent. Barely hanging on 

 4 with the business. I've already lost employees due to the 

 5 economic downturn and also legislation that this Board is 

 6 trying to pass, some haulers, and I don't know how much 

 7 longer that we can stay in business. 

 8 I don't support any of these amendments or 

 9 propositions or proposals that you're proposing. 

 10 The thing that I do support is what the Senator 

 11 was saying is through attrition. 

 12 And again, I take offense to myself and other 

 13 people that are up here that have had numerous years of 

 14 being in business, and this Board has given them two 

 15 minutes to plead their case. That's just outrageous for 

 16 the State of California to do that the businesses in this 

 17 state. And other businesses coming up here and asking for 

 18 this type of amendments to where it supports their cause, 

 19 so we're going to piecemeal this whole thing together 

 20 depending on who has the most power in the state is to 

 21 businesses that spend the most money on retrofits and 

 22 everything else. To me, this is a travesty. 

 23 Thank you. 

 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, you actually didn't 

 25 use your full time. So take another minute if you think 
 100 

 1 that would help. I'm not trying to keep people from 

 2 speaking. 

 3 I just think, you know, in the interest of the 

 4 audience, there's over 100 people, and many of them are 

 5 people like yourself who have taken the trouble to come 

 6 and they want to be heard. And we appreciate that. But 

 7 your point is you're going to stand up and say we oppose 

 8 it. And we're going to listen to you and pay attention to 

 9 you. 

 10 MR. LUIZ: Mary, the thing is, I'm a small 

 11 business person. I attended many stakeholder meetings. 

 12 Meeting after meeting, we had people come up to the 

 13 microphone and state that this is going to ruin their 

 14 businesses. 

 15 The proposition, the proposal that you guys came 

 16 up with originally didn't take into account any of the 

 17 comments that were done at any of these stakeholders 

 18 meetings. So I'm spending my time and you guys aren't 

 19 considering that. 

 20 You guys come into this Board meeting already 

 21 with an idea of what you're going to pass. Doesn't matter 

 22 what we come up here and say, you guys already have an 

 23 agenda that you want to complete. 

 24 The first of all, if I had to do it, to tell you 

 25 the honest truth, I would bring criminal charges and I'd 
 101 

 1 have this Board and this staff -- I would have them check 

 2 out -- the last time I was up here in 2008, okay, there 

 3 was staff members and Board members that knew that that 

 4 researcher you had didn't have any certificates like he 

 5 said he did. And you guys held it back from the rest of 

 6 your Board members. Okay. And you did not let them know. 

 7 In my opinion -- in my opinion, that's 

 8 corruption, because you, as Board members, are supposed to 

 9 take care of the people of the state of California to do 

 10 the best for the state of California for the population of 

 11 the state of California. Not to do your own agendas. 

 12 And this Board has costs millions -- actually 

 13 billions of dollars of companies that have already 

 14 retrofitted, updated for garbage information that you guys 

 15 took into consideration knowing when you have professors 

 16 from UCLA and other universities saying that the 

 17 information you guys have are incorrect. And you guys do 

 18 not look at that, to me, that's corruption. 

 19 Thank you. 

 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 21 Okay. So I'm just going to take a moment and 

 22 say, first of all, we made a mistake, and we admitted that 

 23 we made a mistake. And we also corrected it. 

 24 And I want to say on behalf of myself, since I'm 

 25 a party to it as well as the others, that we really are 
 102 

 1 here doing the best we can to balance some objectives that 

 2 we have. One of those objectives is to follow the law 

 3 that tells us that we are required to take necessary 

 4 actions to clean up the air. And we take that mission 

 5 seriously. And admittedly, that's our primary objective. 

 6 But secondary to do that is to do it in the best 

 7 way we can to meet the objective in a way that does as 

 8 little economic damage as possible. And we've seen every 

 9 time we change a rule, it has impacts that are different 

 10 on different competitive elements of the industry. 

 11 So we're listening. We are balancing those 

 12 things. 

 13 I completely disagree with you that we didn't 

 14 respond to the comments that we heard. I think, you know, 

 15 you may not have gotten everything you wanted. But 

 16 believe me, you got a lot more than you would have gotten 

 17 if you hadn't been aware of and heard the impacts that the 

 18 proposals would have had on different pieces of the 

 19 industry. 

 20 And you've done a lot to educate our staff. But 

 21 our staff has also done a lot to pay attention to what 

 22 they hear. 

 23 I'm sorry you're not satisfied with the result. 

 24 Of course, it's always better if you have more people 

 25 supporting what you're trying to do. But I will not 
 103 

 1 accept the criticism that we haven't paid attention. 

 2 So anybody who feels their two minutes doesn't 

 3 give them time to say what they want to say, you just go 

 4 ahead and keep on speaking after the bell, and we'll see 

 5 where that gets us. But I'm asking people to try to limit 

 6 their remarks to two minutes so we can get through this 

 7 long list of speakers. 

 8 And we will next hear from Peter Bransfield from 

 9 Rypos and then Stephen Rhoads and Kirk Hunter. 

 10 MR. BRANSFIELD: Thank you, Chairman Nichols. 

 11 I'm Peter Bransfield, the CEO of Rypos, Inc. 

 12 We're a manufacturer and designer of 

 13 electrically-regenerated diesel particulate filters. 

 14 We've been developing these products over the last 

 15 ten years at significant cost to us as individuals and 

 16 founders as well as our investors. 

 17 We made that investment based on supporting the 

 18 market created by the clean air regulations here in 

 19 California. These systems take years to design and 

 20 develop and to verify, and we've reached the point where 

 21 the mandatory retrofit regulation would finally start to 

 22 produce fruit to support this industry over time. 

 23 I believe the proposed changes will impact not 

 24 just our company but the long term health of the industry. 

 25 It will lead to fewer green jobs in California. In our 
 104 

 1 particular case, we've had no choice but to push off our 

 2 implementation of a 40-person assembly shop in the San 

 3 Joaquin Valley that was going to be specifically building 

 4 off-road retrofit devices. 

 5 That sends a strong message mine to invest hard 

 6 to come by private capital in other places and other 

 7 things. 

 8 The proposed changes I think set the stage for 

 9 requests for additional relief from other industries, and 

 10 I think this is a slippery slope that could ultimately 

 11 defer or delay the recovery of the economy of California 

 12 that many believe will be on the backs of clean tech jobs. 

 13 In our particular case, we're a member of MECA. 

 14 We support what MECA has proposed as relief for the 

 15 industry. We ask specifically that you reconsider the 

 16 100 percent removal of mandatory retrofits. Thanks for 

 17 your time. 

 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 19 BOARD MEMBER TELLES: Sir, what's the failure 

 20 rate of your devices? 

 21 MR. BRANSFIELD: Probably in the three percent 

 22 range. 

 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. 

 24 MR. RHOADS: I'm Stephen Rhoads. I represent the 

 25 School Transportation Coalition. 
 105 

 1 And the failure rate is something your staff 

 2 should know. And they should be out there in the field. 

 3 And they should be looking at how they're working in the 

 4 school districts. 

 5 I'm going to address Supervisor Yeager's question 

 6 first. First of all, I want to make it very, very clear 

 7 when the Legislature passed -- the voters voted for the 

 8 bond measure and the Legislature did the implementation 

 9 legislation, they specifically gave the direction to the 

 10 local air quality district. The local air quality 

 11 district could spend that money either on getting rid of 

 12 the pre '87 buses. They were built before you had any 

 13 particulate standards. Very, very dirty buses as far as 

 14 PM or they can have retrofits for the most polluting 

 15 buses. The control for the Prop. 1B money is in the hands 

 16 of the local air quality districts. To do otherwise and 

 17 to try to change that from ARB is going against the 

 18 Legislature. 

 19 As far as the seven-to-one ratio, we have always 

 20 taken problems with that. Because you take those pre '87 

 21 buses, they're very, very heavy polluting bus. The ratio 

 22 cannot be seven to one. And we've been working with staff 

 23 to try to get some cost effectiveness to study what is the 

 24 cost per ton for getting rid of a pre '87 bus versus 

 25 putting retrofits. And I think we have concluded that it 
 106 

 1 is actually cheaper per ton to get rid of a pre '87 bus 

 2 than it is to put a retrofit on 1995 or earlier bus. 

 3 I also think that some of staff's assumptions 

 4 were wrong. Take, for example, we're going to put a 

 5 retrofit and analyze a retrofit on a 1994 bus. And we're 

 6 going to assume that that bus -- if you don't mind -- 

 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Go ahead. 

 8 MR. RHOADS: We're going to assume that that bus 

 9 is going to be in existence for 30 years to do that cost 

 10 analysis. That means you're going to assume that bus is 

 11 going to be for 46 years. A little bit overkill. Not 

 12 something I would put in a journal article. That type of 

 13 analysis can be refined, and it will support the data that 

 14 we have even more. 

 15 Also, staff did not take into account the 

 16 increased fuel mileage that you get with the new pumps. 

 17 So be careful about the seven-to-one ratio. 

 18 Your emission inventory. I think your emission 

 19 inventory is wrong. I'll be very blunt. The savings 

 20 you're getting are not due to your regulations. They're 

 21 due to Prop. 1B. They're due to the $197 million that 

 22 you're putting out there that the air quality districts 

 23 are spending to get rid of old buses and install 

 24 retrofits. Your baseline shows no change. Your baseline 

 25 should show the change of that 193 million, not the 
 107 

 1 changes that you say are there because of regulation. 

 2 ARB staff -- I disagree with them. But ARB staff 

 3 today said that their regulations cost $60 million. And 

 4 ARB staff says there is $84 million available. Well, 

 5 geez, that means $84 million available from the Prop. 1B 

 6 money. So that means Prop. 1B is going to be paying for 

 7 everything. So I think you got to change your emission 

 8 regulations. I just think they're wrong. 

 9 We also have a difference with staff on the 

 10 costing of the school bus. When a bus is old -- 

 11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You know, I said you could 

 12 have more than two minutes. I didn't say you could 

 13 filibuster. Please. 

 14 MR. RHOADS: We have a difference. It's in my 

 15 writings. The difference is rather important. When we 

 16 look at the cost of a school bus, we look at the cost of a 

 17 school bus. When the staff looks at the cost of a school 

 18 bus, they take a look at the salvage value for the bus. 

 19 If it's over 30 years, they don't put any cost to it. 

 20 Two points if I can -- 

 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Quickly, please. 

 22 MR. RHOADS: The first point is that school 

 23 districts got to make a lot of cuts. They're going to cut 

 24 school transportation. They're going to cut school 

 25 transportation especially if it costs money. And 
 108 

 1 retrofits do cost more to service. They're going to make 

 2 kids walk longer, and I've given lots of examples. 

 3 They're going to cut out routes. And they're not going to 

 4 allow them for extracurricular activities. And in some 

 5 cases, they're going to get rid of them, the whole 

 6 transportation system. And you can -- San Joaquin is an 

 7 example. I've given three or four examples. 

 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We've heard this before, 

 9 sir. We can now get into a debate whether the kids are 

 10 better off walking than riding on some of these pollution 

 11 traps they're being driven around in, too. So come on. 

 12 Let's just stick to the facts, please. 

 13 MR. RHOADS: I will stick to the facts. Your own 

 14 staff says, if you don't mind, that when you force down 

 15 school transportation system, then it's going to be a 

 16 higher risk of children's deaths -- 

 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right. 

 18 MR. RHOADS: -- than what they would get from -- 

 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: If you and the air 

 20 districts had instead of putting all the money into new 

 21 buses had put filters on, we would be savings lives and we 

 22 would be making this -- we would have been able to spend 

 23 the money that was out there today. And we wouldn't be 

 24 back here today dealing with all these old buses. 

 25 Thank you, sir. You've made your point. 
 109 

 1 MR. RHOADS: I would like to talk about the 

 2 difference recommendations, if I could. 

 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: About what? 

 4 MR. RHOADS: We have -- I have an alternative 

 5 recommendation that's not on the paper. I was going to 

 6 talk about environmental justice, but I guess I'll skip 

 7 that. 

 8 There is one recommendation that you have that we 

 9 actually kind of agree with. And that is the one that 

 10 says in 2018 if a bus does not have a trap, then it has to 

 11 be replaced. 

 12 Now, we don't agree with the part about the trap. 

 13 But we do agree that in 2018 buses like pre '87s should be 

 14 replaced. In fact, we would actually -- and the reason 

 15 you have it there is because it's 30 years. And we would 

 16 actually urge you to continue that type of regulation to 

 17 say that maybe all buses, as time goes when we reach the 

 18 age of 30, they should be replaced. In fact, we would ask 

 19 you to move it down to 25 over time. 

 20 CDE says buses should be replaced when they're 

 21 15. If you can get those old buses off the road, you'll 

 22 do more to children's health than anything. 

 23 Thank you. 

 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Is this Kirk Hunter? 

 25 MR. HUNTER: It is. 
 110 

 1 I will just say thank you for yielding Mr. 

 2 Rhoads' a little more time. 

 3 Kirk Hunter, Southwest Transportation Agency 

 4 Public Joints Power Authority in Fresno County. 

 5 We operate 100 school buses, transport 7,000 

 6 students one way a day, 53 natural gas buses and the 

 7 additional balance are diesel. And we are the proud 

 8 owners of 33 Cleaire traps. And if the staff were to do 

 9 air quality report, they would say I've improved air 

 10 quality by 50 percent, because half the time the buses 

 11 don't run. They're parked up against a fence, and my 

 12 ongoing costs are unbelievable. Traps are boondoggles. 

 13 They do not work. I've said this over and over again. 

 14 Get the tapes. You can look at that. 

 15 I want to go one other place. If we're concerned 

 16 about children's safety, two weeks ago three vans, 

 17 seven-passenger vans from Enterprise Rental Car going down 

 18 152 with a varsity basketball team coach falls asleep at 

 19 the while, drives it off the road. Hits a pole. Kids 

 20 transported by air to a hospital because the kids couldn't 

 21 afford to be in a school bus. 

 22 This is the kind of stuff there's going to put 

 23 more non-compliant vehicles on the road. If a school bus 

 24 is 172 times safer than any other form of surface 

 25 transportation, why in God's name are we putting them out 
 111 

 1 of school buses? 

 2 For the life of me, after 35 years in this 

 3 business, two years and four months left of retirement, I 

 4 don't get it. And if I seem passionate, I truly, truly am 

 5 because I do care about kids in a big, big way. 

 6 Thank you very much. And I think I'll be the 

 7 first speaker to wish you all a very Merry Christmas. 

 8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Just so the last speaker 

 9 knows and others in the audience, our staff has been very 

 10 good. People are having problems with retrofits or 

 11 installations. They, given some notice obviously, can 

 12 come out and try to learn as much as they can about what 

 13 is happening. 

 14 So I would encourage you -- and I'm sure somebody 

 15 will contact you -- to have the staff in to see what is 

 16 happening. Because I've done this not for your industry, 

 17 but for another industry, and it's paying some dividends. 

 18 Everybody is learning from it. And I think we can be 

 19 better effective to have an analysis. So don't hesitate 

 20 to contact staff. 

 21 MR. HUNTER: Board Member Riordan, thank you very 

 22 much. 

 23 After two of my many times at the podium, I've 

 24 been contacted by staff saying they're coming out to see 

 25 me. And the light's still on. The coffee is still hot. 
 112 

 1 The door is still open. We're open from 5:30 to 5:30. I 

 2 can be had any time if you give me a ring in advance. But 

 3 I'd love to. 

 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: We'll be there. 

 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks. 

 6 We're going to take a ten-minute break at this 

 7 time, and we'll be back in ten minutes. 

 8 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 

 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We are going to do a little 

 10 reconfiguring of the agenda, if I can get staff back in 

 11 place. 

 12 During this morning's presentation, two of our 

 13 Board members became aware that they have a potential of a 

 14 conflict of interest on one of the regulations that's 

 15 before us. It's not one that we've heard anything about 

 16 so far. It's the LSI. We heard about it in the staff 

 17 presentation, but not any testimony. 

 18 What we've decided to do is to ask that that item 

 19 be voted on last so that those Board members can excuse 

 20 themselves and not participate in the discussion or the 

 21 vote on that last LSI item. And we would also appreciate 

 22 it, therefore, if we could ask anybody who's here to speak 

 23 on that item to identify themselves and, if possible, 

 24 we're going to group them all together at the very end. 

 25 So if you are here and you're planning to speak 
 113 

 1 on forklifts, then please identify that and wait until the 

 2 end to take your turn to talk. And then we can group that 

 3 all together, because I think that will get us through all 

 4 this more efficiently. 

 5 Okay. And we will be taking a lunch break today 

 6 also just so people can plan on it. I'm hoping we can 

 7 keep it short. We don't have any executive session today. 

 8 So we should be able to take a half an hour lunch break. 

 9 But I think that we'll keep everybody more cheerful if we 

 10 can do that. So we'll try to break for lunch at 12:30. 

 11 CHIEF COUNSEL PETER: Madam Chair, I'd like to 

 12 have the Board members that do have the conflict to 

 13 specifically identify themselves. 

 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Go ahead. 

 15 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Madam Chair, I own nine 

 16 forklifts. So I do have a conflict and will excuse myself 

 17 from the large engine spark vote. 

 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: My husband's a farming 

 19 company owned during when the regulation originally came 

 20 before us, we did an evaluation and definitely had a 

 21 conflict at that time. And I did conflict off originally. 

 22 I don't know the current status. I don't know how many he 

 23 owns at this point, if he's decided to lease or come in 

 24 compliance in some way. So just out of an abundance of 

 25 caution, I'm going to conflict off. 
 114 

 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank to both of you. 

 2 I do not own any forklifts. Kind of wish I did. 

 3 I've always wanted to drive one. Okay. 

 4 We will get back to the witnesses then. And I 

 5 think the next was Ed Walker, followed by Bonnie 

 6 Holmes-Gen and Seyed Sadredin. 

 7 MR. WALKER: Good morning. I'm Ed Walker with 

 8 Robinson Enterprises, a logging construction company with 

 9 petroleum stations. 

 10 Want to thank the staff for meeting with us, 

 11 Eric, Tony, Beth. They've really been great. We don't 

 12 like maybe the outcome. But they're polite about it 

 13 anyway. 

 14 Well, you heard about the economy. Our situation 

 15 is no different than anybody else's. Quite frankly, even 

 16 with the adjustments, we're not going to be able to afford 

 17 the rule. 

 18 Some solutions that we've come up with is time 

 19 credit. We haven't had a chance to understand what was 

 20 presented here this morning, but our written comments will 

 21 talk about that later on after we understand them. 

 22 One other item -- I mentioned this before we've 

 23 been before the Board. We are continuing to have a lot of 

 24 down time with our new trucks. So we're not anxious to 

 25 jump into more trucks. 
 115 

 1 We would suggest as government funding becomes 

 2 available that the rule become implemented over time. We 

 3 need to stretch out compliance period for a longer period 

 4 of time. 

 5 One thing that we are current, some of the other 

 6 people that have spoken, we're a seasonal operation. 

 7 We're five-and-a-half months. A good year for us is seven 

 8 months. We're trying to get compliance to buy new trucks 

 9 with that money. It's just not possible. 

 10 One solution we've come up with -- I hope our 

 11 employees aren't watching -- is cancel our health 

 12 insurance. If we cancel our health insurance, we could 

 13 afford to buy five trucks a year. That is not on the 

 14 table yet, but that is the only place I can see in our 

 15 operations that we can find any extra money to comply with 

 16 the rules. 

 17 So that's about it. Everything else has been 

 18 said by others. There's no point in repeating it. Thank 

 19 you. 

 20 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: I missed what industry you 

 21 said? 

 22 MR. WALKER: Logging. Construction. 

 23 And thank you for the off-road rule 

 24 consideration. That is very helpful. 

 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Bonnie. 
 116 

 1 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Bonnie Holmes-Gen with the 

 2 American Lung Association of California. And the American 

 3 Lung Association and other health organizations have 

 4 strongly supported the diesel on-road and off-road 

 5 regulations because they are life saving regulations and 

 6 they reduce asthma attacks, reduce respiratory and cardiac 

 7 illnesses, and hospitalizations, and are very important 

 8 from our public health perspective. 

 9 We understand that the ARB needs to provide some 

 10 additional flexibility in those regulations due to the 

 11 economy and inventory changes. And we are asking that we 

 12 do everything possible to maximize the public health 

 13 protections and maintain the strongest possible 

 14 regulations. 

 15 And we have recommended some strengthening 

 16 amendments to the staff proposal to increase the retrofits 

 17 and upgrades in the early years and to increase the SIP 

 18 margin, especially in the San Joaquin Valley. 

 19 I just want to focus on one ask that's very 

 20 important to us. We ask that you preserve the school bus 

 21 cleanup provisions for all sizes of school buses. We know 

 22 that children are particularly vulnerable. The soot 

 23 pollution effects the growth and development of their 

 24 lungs, and we know there's funding out there. We need to 

 25 work together and get additional funding, but we do 
 117 

 1 believe there should be equal protection for all children 

 2 riding on school buses. 

 3 A couple of other key comments. The American 

 4 Lung Association is, of course, particularly concerned 

 5 about the most vulnerable and disadvantaged communities 

 6 and urge you to pay special attention to pollution 

 7 reduction in impacted areas and to consider measures to 

 8 strengthen requirements in areas near warehouses, truck 

 9 distribution centers, rail yards, ports, heavy traffic 

 10 corridors. 

 11 And finally, just a couple points. We believe 

 12 it's extremely important to continue to monitor emission 

 13 levels that are consistent with production we are looking 

 14 at today to make sure we are reaching the emissions levels 

 15 that we're expecting and achieving all benefits we're 

 16 expecting today and to also monitor the pace of the 

 17 economy. And we can all agree in closing that it will be 

 18 important to do everything possible to use incentive funds 

 19 to get early reductions in health impacted communities so 

 20 we can all work together on that as we move forward. 

 21 Thank you. 

 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. We have our two big 

 23 air districts here. You submitted a joint letter. Thank 

 24 you for that. 

 25 MR. SADREDIN: Good morning, Madam Chair, members 
 118 

 1 of the Board. 

 2 You do have the joint letter from South Coast and 

 3 San Joaquin before you. I should say, given some of the 

 4 healthy competition we've had in recent episodes before 

 5 your Board for resources, this is a momentous occasion and 

 6 I'm hoping this is first of many that we can work together 

 7 with South Coast, given our areas that we have shared 

 8 interests and challenges, that we could work together and 

 9 bring more balanced recommendations to your Board. 

 10 I'll try to be concise in the two minutes, hit a 

 11 few points. And I have three requests regarding your 

 12 resolution that I'd like you to consider. 

 13 First, we are extremely concerned with the fact 

 14 that there is zero margin for compliance in San Joaquin 

 15 Valley and very little margin of compliance in South 

 16 Coast. What gives us some comfort to move forward today 

 17 is the fact that we've looked at the work that your staff 

 18 has done on the inventory, we scrutinize it with EPA, with 

 19 South Coast, and our district, and we're comfortable that 

 20 today's inventory before you and the projected emissions 

 21 reflect a major improvement in inventory and the 

 22 assumptions methodology is reasonable. 

 23 But as you know, inventories are always a living 

 24 document, a work in progress that will improve over time 

 25 and. If there is the shortfall, our concern is that given 
 119 

 1 that more than 80 percent of air pollution in San Joaquin 

 2 Valley and South Coast come from mobile sources and our 

 3 stationary sources are already well regulated, it is 

 4 impossible for us to make any shortfall, should there be 

 5 any. So we want you to reaffirm your commitment that your 

 6 Board will be responsible for that shortfall and we want 

 7 regular and ongoing monitoring and tracking. 

 8 So just quickly get into the three 

 9 recommendations that I have for you. One -- if I could 

 10 just take -- 

 11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Please go ahead. 

 12 MR. SADREDIN: In your resolution, there is a 

 13 statement about coming back to your Board in 2012. We 

 14 asked for a specific time line. We don't have to have a 

 15 specific month or date in there, but 2012 is really 

 16 something that we feel nervous about. December of 2012, 

 17 for instance, in our view, will be very late to come to 

 18 your Board. And if there are changes needed, it will take 

 19 time to implement any regulations and time for the 

 20 businesses to make those changes. 

 21 So if it's okay with you, respectfully, we ask 

 22 you to commit to a date to get a report to your Board and 

 23 leave some time to hopefully do something where we can get 

 24 reductions in 2014. 

 25 The other comment that is regarding the grants 
 120 

 1 that we've had great leadership from Board Member Berg and 

 2 the Committee or the work group that has been in place. 

 3 We are very close with your staff with some 

 4 recommendations to fix some of the impediments that 

 5 currently exist in the program. Your staff mentioned in 

 6 January we will have $12 million to go out with grants. 

 7 As we begin that process, we're going to be offsetting the 

 8 current grant guidelines and the changes in your rule do 

 9 not match. And there are some obstacles, some 

 10 inconsistencies that it would be good for your Board to 

 11 weigh in on that in this resolution. 

 12 So as we begin that process, we can count on your 

 13 Board to support with the specific recommendations that I 

 14 believe your staff is going to bring to you later on 

 15 anyway, but we can begin that process. And have as we 

 16 applications, to be able to count on those things as being 

 17 things that your Board supports. 

 18 And finally, regarding this bubble concept that 

 19 was introduced today, we like -- to the extent that we 

 20 want to use these grant moneys to actually create a margin 

 21 of safety, I think your resolution should make it clear 

 22 that any early reductions, cross-source category that one 

 23 wants to take credit for towards compliance could not come 

 24 from any retrofits that are paid for by public funds. 

 25 I believe that is probably the intent of your 
 121 

 1 staff to maintain those reductions that are paid by grants 

 2 to be surplus, but I think it would be good to clarify 

 3 that so there are no false expectations. That would be a 

 4 question I have. Was that the intent that if the public 

 5 pays for those reductions, you cannot use those towards 

 6 compliance in getting credit from one source category to 

 7 another. That is our request. And if that is the case, 

 8 to make that clear in the resolution. 

 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I don't think that's even 

 10 an issue. Maybe Cynthia, do you want to speak to this? 

 11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: I assume that 

 12 relates to the earlier discussion about the SIP margin. 

 13 And because the 2014 SIPS did not include any reductions 

 14 from the agricultural equipment category, any early 

 15 reductions would be surplus in 2014. But going forward 

 16 past 2014, that's a different question. And to the extent 

 17 those were included in ozone SIPS and then next year as a 

 18 2.5 24-hour SIP is developed, we would expect those 

 19 reductions to be part of that plan. 

 20 So I think the point was in the year 2014 when 

 21 there was a question of a margin, there are some early 

 22 reductions that from an air quality perspective would 

 23 provide a margin for the breathers that are not required 

 24 in the current SIP. 

 25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Madam Chair, I think the 
 122 

 1 question had to do with retrofits that are being paid for 

 2 through the incentive program and specifically can 

 3 accompany that, has retrofits paid by for incentive money 

 4 be used for early credits. And my understanding is no, 

 5 they cannot. And I see all these heads nodding. 

 6 MR. SADREDIN: The bubble concept is something 

 7 that your staff is introducing today in the resolution to 

 8 make the change in the 15-day time line. 

 9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: To clarify that -- 

 10 MR. SADREDIN: If you do something that's on-road 

 11 or off-road that was paid by incentives, you cannot take 

 12 those credits and do less than this other towards 

 13 compliance with it paid for. 

 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 15 Henry. 

 16 MR. HOGO: Good morning, Madam Chair, members of 

 17 the Board. 

 18 Henry Hogo, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer at 

 19 South Coast AQMD. 

 20 As Seyed mentioned, we probably set a precedent 

 21 having a co-signed letter between our Executive Officers 

 22 asking for consideration of re-assurance that if there are 

 23 any deficits or shortfalls with the proposed amendments 

 24 relative to the SIP that they be made up. And we urge you 

 25 to take our language and put some dates certain in there 
 123 

 1 relative to time line. Because that time frame from 2012, 

 2 2014 is very short. We thought that similar to what you 

 3 have done with the -- like the railroad commitment letter 

 4 concept that we set a date certain they come back with 

 5 some actions that could achieve further reductions in 

 6 2014. So we urge you to consider some of the 

 7 recommendations in our resolution language as you move 

 8 forward. 

 9 We do appreciate the language that you have 

 10 provided. And we appreciate all the hard work staff has 

 11 put in on the emissions inventory updates and look forward 

 12 to continuing to work with staff and enhance the 

 13 inventories. 

 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We're up to number 37, 

 15 DePaul Nguon and Michael Graboski and Chuck White. 

 16 MS. RATNER: Excuse me, Chairman Nichols and 

 17 members of the Board. My name is Jill Ratner, and there 

 18 is a group of students here. DePaul is the first of them. 

 19 And we were hoping that we might be able to go together. 

 20 We got a little bit scattered, but the bulk of the group 

 21 is after the next two speakers. 

 22 I'm wondering if maybe we could defer until after 

 23 lunch so we could go together and clump everyone together. 

 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Sure. Just tell us which 

 25 numbers. Tell the clerk and we'll group them all 
 124 

 1 together. Sorry you got separated. 

 2 Michael Graboski and Chuck White. 

 3 MR. MC CLELLAN: Madam Chairman, I'm John 

 4 McClellan. I'm Vice President for Government Affairs at 

 5 the American Rental Association. 

 6 Dr. Graboski is my colleague and is going to 

 7 speak on our LSI comments, so I will take his slot here if 

 8 you don't mind and then he's already talked with the clerk 

 9 about what time he'll speak. 

 10 So thank you so much for holding this hearing 

 11 today. I'm John McClellan, Vice President for Government 

 12 Affairs at the American Rental Association. We represent 

 13 the equipment rental industry here in California, our 

 14 affiliate, the area of California represents our members 

 15 in this state. 

 16 ARA wants to support the proposed modifications 

 17 in the off-road and on-road rules. And I want to just 

 18 quickly mention that we are also working with staff on 

 19 some outstanding issues in the LSI rule that we hope to 

 20 resolve here. Dr. Graboski will speak about that in just 

 21 a few minutes. 

 22 We certainly were happy to see the modifications 

 23 in the rule because the construction industry, which is 

 24 where a lot of our equipment goes has been badly hit by 

 25 the economy. So the modifications that are being made in 
 125 

 1 the rule are going to allow my members to use the 

 2 averaging provisions which we advocated very strongly for 

 3 at the beginning of this process almost six years ago as 

 4 they continue to rebuild their fleets and bring new and 

 5 clean equipment. 

 6 And I think I'd like to add that the rental fleet 

 7 is probably the cleanest fleet in California. So this is 

 8 something that is very good for my members. 

 9 With respect to the trucks, moving and basically 

 10 exempting for sometime the trucks that are 126,000 pounds 

 11 in gross vehicle weight rating is probably going to exempt 

 12 about 90 percent of the trucks in our industry from 

 13 compliance in the near future. And we think that that 

 14 leeway is going to allow our folks to focus on upgrading 

 15 their heavy-duty trucks. So we think that that's going to 

 16 be a very workable rule. 

 17 Thank you very much for your time. We appreciate 

 18 it. 

 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 20 Chuck White. Welcome back. 

 21 MR. WHITE: It's always a pleasure to spend two 

 22 days with you. I'm with Waste Management. I really 

 23 appreciate the opportunity to briefly comment on the 

 24 on-road and off-road rules. 

 25 Waste Management continues to support the Air 
 126 

 1 Resource Board emission reduction goals and ongoing effort 

 2 to balance economic and environmental concerns. We're 

 3 basically 99.99 percent happy with the two rules that you 

 4 adjusted here. 

 5 With respect to the off-road regulation, you may 

 6 recall Waste Management -- was one of the fleets that 

 7 wasn't prepared to be in full compliance back in March and 

 8 then got delayed. We do appreciate you giving us the 

 9 additional one-year extension for compliance past 2014 

 10 because of our early compliance with these rules. 

 11 The one major area that we have concerns about is 

 12 the availability of a reliable robust on-line compliance 

 13 tool that really is going to help us understand our 

 14 compliance of our large off-road fleet going forward as 

 15 well as any potential opportunities to get funding from 

 16 air districts through Carl Moyer and other kinds of 

 17 programs. So we relatively request there be effort put 

 18 into develop a robust on-line reporting tool by April at 

 19 the latest so we can make sure that your fully 

 20 understanding the exact details of our compliance and 

 21 opportunities for additional funding. 

 22 Secondly, with respect to the on-road 

 23 regulations, we basically appreciate the changes you've 

 24 made to delay compliance. Our refuse fleet has basically 

 25 been in compliance with the previous rule. 
 127 

 1 We were a little concerned about the fact you 

 2 eliminated the compliance credits for alternative-fueled 

 3 vehicles, but we think the delay might provide additional 

 4 opportunities for us to get the funding through Carl Moyer 

 5 and other types of programs. 

 6 We are aware that you're in the process of also 

 7 revising Carl Moyer programs, so we urge you to encourage 

 8 staff to make sure we can secure maximum funding and 

 9 surplus emission credit opportunities through that 

 10 program. 

 11 One final minor point is that we noted that the 

 12 current version of the on-road regulation seems to 

 13 eliminate compliance credits for alternative fuels and 

 14 HTPI vehicles after January 1. We've been told this is a 

 15 typographical error and this is going to be fixed in the 

 16 15-day notice change. 

 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. I'm seeing nodding 

 18 from the staff. 

 19 MR. WHITE: We hope that's the case, and we look 

 20 forward to seeing those changes and reviewing those 

 21 changes to make sure we are in accordance with them. 

 22 Thank you very much. 

 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Great. Thank you. 

 24 Okay. Randal Friedman. 

 25 MR. FRIEDMAN: Good morning, Madam Chair, Board 
 128 

 1 members. Randal Friedman on behalf of Navy Region 

 2 Southwest. 

 3 We're in support of the proposed changes. My 

 4 staff is appreciative of all the work they put into this. 

 5 We still do differ on for the off-road rule 

 6 whether or not we should be considered as one large fleet 

 7 statewide. We think the additional time though resolves 

 8 those issues by dealing with the complexities of trying to 

 9 consolidate all of our operations within the state and 

 10 within an individual base all the tenants and all the 

 11 various activities that go on a major Navy base. 

 12 This does represent a major investment. For the 

 13 Navy alone, it's going to be over $100 million to comply 

 14 with all these rules. So there are going to be challenges 

 15 ahead in terms of Congressional funding and making sure 

 16 that all of that gets line up. It is something we're 

 17 committed to work on. But again, I hope you understand 

 18 that we are subject to that federal procurement process. 

 19 I would point out just as an interesting aside 

 20 that when we looked at the total cost of the program with 

 21 the amendments, it actually only goes down about three 

 22 percent. The big difference for us is all that money is 

 23 now going to buy new vehicles instead of the prior one, 

 24 which is retrofits, new vehicles after the retrofits. So 

 25 I think in the end, we're certainly getting a much better 
 129 

 1 fleet out of this because we're going to get a fleet 

 2 that's clean in California, that's new vehicles. And we 

 3 certainly appreciate all the work that you and the staff 

 4 have put into this. Thank you. 

 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 6 Chris Cannon is next, Dan Souza and Tracey 

 7 Norberg. 

 8 MR. CANNON: Good morning, Chairman Nichols and 

 9 members of the Board. 

 10 My name is Chris Cannon. I'm the Director of the 

 11 Environmental Management Division of the Port of Los 

 12 Angeles. I'm here to offer support or express our support 

 13 for two of the changes that you're going to make. 

 14 The first is the expansion of the regulation of 

 15 drayage trucks to cover not just the truck that picks up 

 16 or delivers a container, but the rest of the trucks that 

 17 handle it in its journey. We believe this will help with 

 18 dray-offs. And we actually -- our Board yesterday 

 19 approved a measure very similar to this based on -- it was 

 20 modeled after yours. We worked with your staff closely as 

 21 often as we can. 

 22 The problem though for us is our jurisdiction 

 23 ends at the edge of our property. And so we actually like 

 24 being able to work with you and are glad that you're doing 

 25 this, because this allows this issue to be handled 
 130 

 1 extending beyond our property and it's very important. 

 2 And our Board actually asked me to bring you 

 3 something today. We received testimony yesterday at our 

 4 Board, a flier that is being passed out in the port of Los 

 5 Angeles and Long Beach area and has a thinly veiled 

 6 reference to dray-offs. It says, "Clean trucks." I'll 

 7 leave it here. And in parentheses (casual work for dirty 

 8 trucks.) Amazing they would actually put that on a flier. 

 9 It has a phone number and you can be sure we'll be calling 

 10 it. 

 11 The second thing we're interested in is Class 7 

 12 regulation that you're doing. Very glad you're doing 

 13 that. It's been an explosion of Class 7 operations in the 

 14 port of Los Angeles. At this time last year, it was only 

 15 28 trucks registered in our drayage truck registry. Now 

 16 it's approaching 600. And the difference is these are 

 17 unregulated vehicles. So now if you add them to the 

 18 drayage truck rule and we have now yesterday added them to 

 19 our clean truck program, they immediately -- well within 

 20 six -- 

 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Finish up. 

 22 MR. CANNON: Within six months, July 1, 2011, 

 23 they'll be subject to our progressive bans. That's the 

 24 one thing we'd like to hear differently from you. 

 25 Your change to regulate Class 7s would not make 
 131 

 1 these vehicles subject to any kind of progressive bans for 

 2 three years. So what happened -- and uncontrolled until 

 3 2014. What would happen is we've got an opportunity for a 

 4 Class 7 dray-off. You've got a port compliant truck 

 5 coming out of our gates and immediately leaving a chassis 

 6 or something for completely uncontrolled Class 7 truck. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So that would be a 

 8 loophole. 

 9 MR. CANNON: Yes. And perhaps if you can 

 10 regulate them within a year, some sort of transition 

 11 period. I leave that to you to decide. We certainly 

 12 would appreciate your help there. 

 13 Other than that, we are very pleased with the 

 14 things you're doing and appreciate working with your 

 15 staff. 

 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much for 

 17 coming and for the good work you're doing. 

 18 Dan Souza, and then Tracey Norberg and Richard 

 19 Polanco. 

 20 MR. BLEVINS: Actually, Madam Chair, it's James 

 21 Blevins with Mountain Valley Express. Dan Souza is also 

 22 with our company. I'm speaking in his place, if that's 

 23 okay. 

 24 President and owner of Mountain Valley Express 

 25 California-based LTL carrier providing 435 jobs in the 
 132 

 1 state of California, mainly Arizona and Nevada. We've 

 2 been intimately involved in this regulation obvious 

 3 because it does adversely affect our operation and the 

 4 financial aspects of that with alternate retrofits, 

 5 purchasing of new equipment, so on. 

 6 I want to first and foremost touch on the 

 7 workshops that have been provided for information sharing. 

 8 That is invaluable information that your staff has 

 9 provided to the industry as a whole. But I think -- and 

 10 we can stand up here and preach all day about the good 

 11 things that have gone on in regards to implementation -- 

 12 final implementation of the regulation. 

 13 But I need to speak more in regards to the 

 14 adverse effects of the regulation to industry, business, 

 15 jobs here in California. And that is the number one 

 16 political agenda right now is job creation. In part, this 

 17 regulation definitely will eliminate a fair amount of jobs 

 18 here in California I think as we all recognize by what's 

 19 been said today. 

 20 Secondly is the durability and the independent 

 21 ability of the technology. We went out and did the same 

 22 thing, early compliance. We want to be compliant. We 

 23 want to be compliant. We have to be compliant to operate 

 24 in California, the most highly regulated state in our 

 25 nation, by the way. We went out and bought 07-08 
 133 

 1 technology trucks. They are the most frequently towed 

 2 vehicle in our fleet. My 1998, they run all day long. 

 3 They run all day long without all the emission standards 

 4 that are required of the new technology. 

 5 There's a lot of issues on durability and 

 6 dependability with retrofit devices, new OEM equipment. 

 7 We are pursuing a lemon law through the State Legislature 

 8 to apply to heavy-duty diesels, OEM to put some burden 

 9 back on the manufacturer for dependability of the 

 10 technology. You folks need to recognize that and 

 11 hopefully address that as well. 

 12 Last, but not least, if I may, Madam Chair, is 

 13 the BACT schedule. Eric, whether or not you gave into 

 14 consideration to moving the 05-06 model year out to 16 to 

 15 give us a couple more years of relief on the ultimate -- 

 16 because our ultimate date has thought changed in 14. We 

 17 still have to be 100 percent at least PM trapped. And we 

 18 thank you for that consideration -- not NOx, the way I 

 19 understand it -- but PM. And there is a different big 

 20 cost in investment that has to occur between '12 to '14. 

 21 Those two years is still a major hit for us. I would just 

 22 ask if there is any consideration that's been given to 

 23 moving that BACT to 16 on that 05-06. 

 24 Thank you very much. 

 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 
 134 

 1 Tracey Norberg and then Mr. Polanco and Adam 

 2 Harper. 

 3 MS. NORBERG: Thank you, Madam Chair and members 

 4 of the Board. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with 

 5 you this morning. 

 6 My name is Tracey Norberg, and I represent the 

 7 Rubber Manufacturers Association. We represent the major 

 8 manufacturers of tires in the United States. We have 

 9 eight member companies who supply tires to the fleets here 

 10 in California. 

 11 First of all, I wanted to take a minute to thank 

 12 the staff for its willingness to work with us, the tire 

 13 industry looking at the regulation and adopting or 

 14 recommending some changes to the regulation for the 

 15 tractor-trailer greenhouse gas regs, particularly with 

 16 regard to retreaded tires. 

 17 Retreaded tires are a major components of the 

 18 tires that are on the fleets in California today. And 

 19 retreads by their nature are environmentally friendly. 

 20 They help reduce the generation of scrap tire in the state 

 21 and reduce use of raw materials in the manufacture of 

 22 tires. 

 23 The regulation currently specifies that SmartWay 

 24 tires must be used on vehicles on fleets, and currently 

 25 there is no retread components of the SmartWay program. 
 135 

 1 The amended changes would recognize this and allow 

 2 additional time for EPA to develop a SmartWay component 

 3 for retreaded tires. 

 4 The tire industry is committed to working with 

 5 EPA and other stakeholders and including ARB staff to 

 6 develop a retreaded tire component to the SmartWay 

 7 Program. And we believe this additional time will allow 

 8 that program to proceed. 

 9 I'd like to just make one note though. The 

 10 program is -- within SmartWay, the retread program is 

 11 still under development. And so we would just ask that 

 12 staff continue to be involved and in touch as this 

 13 proceeds. Because as with my multi-stakeholder program, 

 14 it's sort of we are all optimist it can be completed 

 15 quickly. One never knows, so it's important to stay in 

 16 touch as this proceeds. Thank you. 

 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I'm sure they will. Thank 

 18 you. 

 19 Senator Polanco and then Adam Harper and Dave 

 20 Norris. 

 21 SENATOR POLANCO: Good morning, Madam Chair and 

 22 members of the Board. 

 23 I'm here today to read into the record on behalf 

 24 of the Chair of the Latino Caucus Assembly member Tony 

 25 Mendoza. So Madam Chair, if I may, let me begin. 
 136 

 1 "As Chairman of the Latino Legislative Caucus, 

 2 I'm requesting that CARB not adopt the proposed change 

 3 pertaining to the in-use off-road vehicle PM regulation. 

 4 Many of our 23 members represent Assembly and Senate 

 5 districts where the issue of air pollution is 

 6 disproportionately impacted. 

 7 In 1998, California identified diesel exhaust 

 8 particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant. Diesel is 

 9 also a leading contributor of particular PM pollution. 

 10 The proposed rule change will allow approximately 250 

 11 diesel equipment with a life span of 30 years to pollute 

 12 our air and will go unregulated until 2017 or longer. I'm 

 13 particularly concerned about this because although I 

 14 understand the economic recession has negatively impacted 

 15 some of the industry, completely allowing this equipment 

 16 to go unregulated for seven years is unreasonable amount 

 17 of time. 

 18 I also want to acknowledge the ARB Board for its 

 19 foresight and environmental leadership for so many years 

 20 and for adopting regulations that clean the air and create 

 21 new jobs. However, the proposed change goes in the wrong 

 22 direction. I strongly believe that we should advocate to 

 23 protect people from the harmful diesel pollution. We 

 24 should protect and create green jobs and advocate for a 

 25 fair clean air policy that benefits the greater good and 
 137 

 1 not just one industry at the expense of another. 

 2 As Chairman of the Latino Legislative Caucus, I 

 3 am requesting that you not move forward with the proposed 

 4 rule change to the proposed regulation and that a 

 5 legislative hearing be held on this issue. I join 

 6 Assembly member Warren Furutani, Chairman of the Asian 

 7 Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, and other legislators 

 8 opposing the proposed change." 

 9 I wish to submit that and just acknowledge Warren 

 10 Furutani did send his letter in. There is opposition also 

 11 from Senator, Assembly member Mike Eng, along with others, 

 12 for the record. 

 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. We do have 

 14 those it is. Thanks for coming. 

 15 Adam Harper. 

 16 MR. HARPER: Madam Chair, members, Adam Harper 

 17 with the California Construction and Industrial Materials 

 18 Association. 

 19 I'm here today in support of the modification to 

 20 the off-road rule. I realize we have two minutes. 

 21 I want to thank staff. We've worked long and 

 22 hard with them since about 2004 on this rule. It's seen a 

 23 lot of changes. There's been a lot of disagreements. I'm 

 24 very personally grateful that they were able to take the 

 25 information that was gained out of the 2007 adoption and 
 138 

 1 really improve the inventory. I know some people have 

 2 kind of spun that as a change in health benefits. 

 3 I wanted to point out that in the modified 

 4 inventory with the changes that the real total emissions 

 5 targets have been achieved for significant compliance 

 6 dates, both PM and 2015 lower on the total PM emissions. 

 7 NOx is already below where it was going to be I believe it 

 8 was 2023 or 2025. We submitted these in our comments. We 

 9 think that is a very important indication of the extreme 

 10 changes that occurred in the off-road inventory that 

 11 absolutely justify these type of changes that are 

 12 occurring. 

 13 In terms of some specific comments, we were and 

 14 look forward to reviewing the bubble concept that was 

 15 announced this morning. We know that's important, 

 16 particularly for some of the larger more complex fleets 

 17 that are looking at the potential to trade some 

 18 advancements they made in the off-road over the on-road. 

 19 We thank you for including that concept, and we'll review 

 20 it. 

 21 One potential weakness we notes is in the 

 22 retirement credits it reduced fleet horsepower. As we are 

 23 reading those sections, one, it seems to categorize 

 24 modifications that large fleets would have made in the 

 25 compliance period between March 1st of 2009 and the 2010 
 139 

 1 compliance date and modify those backwards to the half 

 2 credit versus recognizing those were potential surplus. 

 3 And then also there seems to be a window between 

 4 I believe it's February of 2012 where if someone was just 

 5 reducing their fleet horsepower, they wouldn't be reducing 

 6 credits. And they would essentially end up in that 

 7 window, hold on to the equipment until you're in 

 8 compliance to retire it and get credit for turnover. 

 9 There's almost the scenario that led to AB 28x in some 

 10 ways and we think there should be a way to recognize pure 

 11 fleet horsepower reductions for credit. 

 12 Thank you. 

 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Thank you. 

 14 Staff, you want to comment on that? Eric. 

 15 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 16 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: Yeah. As we originally 

 17 set out in looking at a amendments to the off-road 

 18 regulation, we were looking at it across the board 

 19 two-year delay. As we went through the process and worked 

 20 with the industry and ended up settling on a four-year 

 21 delay, one of the things we did to make sure we remain 

 22 whole on the SIP and we got all the reductions we needed 

 23 in 2014. One way we did that was to ensure that that 

 24 large amount of credit that had been amassed from all the 

 25 vehicles retirements we had seen didn't suddenly get 
 140 

 1 cashed in that first year. So one way to deal with 

 2 that was to discount them and then delay their initial 

 3 use. We wanted to continue to provide fleets credit for 

 4 further actions they were taking. And so that's why we 

 5 are still keeping the full credit for future retirements 

 6 that they do. And we think on balance then that's going 

 7 to make sure we meet our SIP obligations and continue to 

 8 provide relief but get some reduction in 2014 when we need 

 9 them. 

 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. 

 11 Dave Norris. 

 12 MR. NORRIS: Yes, I'm with Lakeport Unified 

 13 School District. We are a full attainment air district. 

 14 I recently received our grant to retrofit our 

 15 school buses and will be underway at the beginning of 

 16 January doing that. However, it is the wish of all of the 

 17 schools in Lake County that we were able to take -- if we 

 18 could take our 1.9 million that came into Lake County Air 

 19 District and apply it to replacing pre-87 school buses. 

 20 We all feel it would be most advantageous for all of us. 

 21 The main thing is that all of those buses, the minute they 

 22 hit the yards, will be underway with children in those 

 23 buses and will longevity wise will last us a long time. 

 24 And also in regards to maintenance, the newer 

 25 buses that come with the devices have been far more 
 141 

 1 successful than applying retrofits. Many of my school 

 2 buses to be retrofitted are 20 years old. And to put a 

 3 $15,000 retrofit on a 20-year-old bus, like some of the 

 4 other guys were saying, is extending the buses out beyond 

 5 their useful years. I'd like to see if some changes could 

 6 be made specifically for full attainment air districts to 

 7 allows us to replace pre-87 buses that the regulation 

 8 initially wanted to address. So if you could take some 

 9 consideration, we'd appreciate it. Thank you. 

 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thanks. 

 11 Kyle Reams and then David Chidester. 

 12 I'm going to make an announcement now. I 

 13 apparently didn't give a time earlier, but at 1:30 we will 

 14 cut off any further sign-ups for oral testimony. Okay. 

 15 MR. REAMS: Good morning. Thank you for letting 

 16 me speak. 

 17 I would just like to talk about one factor today. 

 18 I would like to talk about the retrofit exhaust filters. 

 19 We've heard a little bit about the problems about the 

 20 exhaust retrofits, and I would like to tell you about some 

 21 firsthand experiences that I have experienced at my 

 22 transportation yard. 

 23 When I have buses that go out on trips or I have 

 24 buses that come into my school district that have the 

 25 exhaust retrofits on them, there are times when those 
 142 

 1 buses are in limp mode or de-power zone basically where 

 2 they are unable to drive safely with students on board. 

 3 That requires either to find a facility that has an 

 4 exhaust retrofit kit where they can recharge or burn off 

 5 their filter or, by any chance, if that is not available, 

 6 they have to drive in a limp mode sometimes at low 

 7 excessive speeds with students on board to a safe spot 

 8 where we can get a mechanic out there to replace a filter 

 9 so they can get back safely. I would like you to please 

 10 look at this and just think about very carefully what 

 11 you're doing for the safety of our students. 

 12 Thank you so much. 

 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 14 Is this David Chidester? 

 15 MR. CHIDESTER: Good afternoon. My name is Dave 

 16 Chidester. I'm President of Central Cal Transportation. 

 17 We're a drayage company. 

 18 Unlike a lot of the others here, we have no 

 19 options. We had to comply by 2010. After complying with 

 20 January of 2010 and all through 2009 when we bought or 

 21 leased 66 brand-new trucks, everybody got an extension. 

 22 So I had to compete head to head that with people that had 

 23 done nothing for four months. Then there's another 

 24 extension. Now we are finally getting around to plugging 

 25 some of the gaps that Chris Cannon exposed from L.A. I've 
 143 

 1 been fighting for these forever. That's the dirty little 

 2 secret in drayage, that we're competing head to head with 

 3 people that will run up and down the state with 

 4 non-compliant trucks and pay somebody else to put it in. 

 5 You still have one unaddressed dirty little 

 6 secret out there, and that's exempt trucks operating in 

 7 the ports. The exemption status was supposed to be for 

 8 people that had PTOs that ran in bottom dumps and tanker 

 9 units. If you're hooked onto an ocean container or rail 

 10 container, you have options. There's no reason that you 

 11 ought to be exempt. If you're pulling an ocean container, 

 12 you ought to comply. 

 13 I'd really like somehow to be made whole through 

 14 this. We supported you and complied with all the 

 15 regulations. I notice one little sentence in the agenda 

 16 that says, "and we'll give credit to fleets that have 

 17 already taken action to comply with the regulations." I'm 

 18 hoping there is something that can be done to us. 

 19 Sometimes I feel like Charlie Brown laying on the 

 20 ground looking up at Lucy. I'm just looking for somebody 

 21 to stop jerking the ball away. I can't keep adapting -- 

 22 yes, last night, in the middle of the night, Congress 

 23 passed their budget for the extension of the Bush taxes 

 24 cuts. I'm just looking for consistency. 

 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 
 144 

 1 Question for you. 

 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: A question for staff. 

 3 What can be done to provide credit? I don't know if there 

 4 are any in this position that have completely complied 

 5 where providing credit would even do any good. 

 6 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: This is really 

 7 limited to the drayage truck rule at this point. And for 

 8 those folks who made the investment in model year '07 and 

 9 greater trucks, as Mr. Chidester and his firm did, the 

 10 benefits are the availability of funds -- public funds 

 11 that were available. Unfortunately, his company could not 

 12 largely take advantage of that. We figured out a way that 

 13 he can moving into the future. 

 14 There is a difficulty in trying to provide credit 

 15 for that in the same way that the truck and bus rule will 

 16 since the entire drayage industry needs to have PM control 

 17 by 2014. So there's just not a lot of opportunity to 

 18 create a new averaging or credit program for the PM 

 19 control. The extension ability that we have on drayage is 

 20 for the second phase, the upgrades that get the additional 

 21 NOx reductions. We don't see an opportunity to do what 

 22 he's suggesting. 

 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: The best thing you could do 

 24 is make their competitors have to do the same thing, 

 25 right? 
 145 

 1 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Yes. And 

 2 that's what the current rule requires. 

 3 MR. CHIDESTER: The NOx suspension is what made 

 4 my decision in retrospect horrible. When I looked at a 

 5 $25,000 PM filter and then in '12 a 30 to $40,000 NOx 

 6 filter put on the $10,000 truck, the new trucks were the 

 7 way to go. But now that the NOx is out of the mix and we 

 8 can keep running to 2020 in retrospect, I wish I would 

 9 have had a clear crystal ball. 

 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. 

 11 Don Anair and then Ron Cancilla and Eric 

 12 Carleson. 

 13 MR. ANAIR: Good afternoon. I'm Don Anair, 

 14 Senior Engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

 15 I'm testifying today in strong support of 

 16 continuing ARB programs to reduce emissions from 

 17 diesel-powered engines. 

 18 We acknowledge the need to adjust the rules, but 

 19 we also acknowledge that reductions in diesel emissions, 

 20 especially direct diesel PM emissions, localized air toxic 

 21 will be slower as a result of these changes. 

 22 I would like to focus on one particular 

 23 recommendation I believe will reduce local toxic risks 

 24 from off-road equipment without increasing near-term cost 

 25 of fleets. 
 146 

 1 As proposed, the low-use exemption would allow 

 2 any equipment operating less than 200 hours per year to be 

 3 permanently exempt from any cleanup requirements. 

 4 Two-hundred hours, according to the inventory attached to 

 5 the rule, is equal to about 40 percent of normal annual 

 6 operating hours of off-road equipment, meaning a piece of 

 7 equipment operated for nearly half the year is considered 

 8 low use under the proposal. This creates a significant 

 9 loophole as it may cost much less to designated older high 

 10 polluting pieces of equipment in use rather than cleaning 

 11 it up. 

 12 A piece of equipment manufactured as late as 1996 

 13 operating 200 hours per year emits more than 20 times the 

 14 filter equipped model operating in a full year. Under the 

 15 proposal, the equipment could be turn-over credit being 

 16 designated low use but continue to operate indefinitely. 

 17 The following recommendations would retain the 

 18 intent of the low-use exemption, prevent the accumulation 

 19 of high-polluting equipment in fleets, and reduce risks to 

 20 communities with toxic PM emissions. The three 

 21 recommendations are to allow ten percent of fleets to be 

 22 low use. This would prevent unlimited numbers of 

 23 equipment. Current reporting to seven percent of the 

 24 equipment is designated as low use. This would increase 

 25 the current levels; sunsetting the exemption for the older 
 147 

 1 equipment, and communities deserve the protection from 

 2 this. By 2023, this equipment will be at least 20 years 

 3 old. There is no reason for this equipment to be 

 4 operating. 

 5 And finally, eliminate the turnover credits 

 6 because of low-use piece of equipment is still actually 

 7 polluting. There shouldn't be turnover credits for that 

 8 equipment. 

 9 Thank you. 

 10 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Could I ask staff to 

 11 respond to this? 

 12 ON-ROAD CONTROL REGULATIONS BRANCH CHIEF 

 13 KITOWSKI: I think there's two issues intertwined here. 

 14 One is the emission benefits associated with the 

 15 low use, and the other is whether there is a loophole here 

 16 that maybe staff didn't anticipate. 

 17 I have to say that to quickly address the first 

 18 part, the emission benefits and the loss of emission 

 19 benefits is something we considered when we carefully 

 20 crafted the pros and cons of different options and we 

 21 thought that was worthwhile. The loophole wasn't 

 22 something that we considered as we are developing this. 

 23 I would guess there is a greater risk when you do 

 24 increase the hours. At this point, we didn't think it was 

 25 insurmountable. We would certainly -- we have the data to 
 148 

 1 monitor it very closely. We would certainly actively 

 2 monitor that. And if it were a serious concern, we would 

 3 recommend coming back to the Board. But whether or not 

 4 that is a risk that was beyond what we anticipated, it's 

 5 difficult to put our own crystal ball into that. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. 

 7 Ron Cancilla and than Eric Carleson and Katherine 

 8 Garoupa. 

 9 MR. CANCILLA: Good afternoon. I'm Ron Cancilla 

 10 with Impact Transportation from the Port of Oakland. 

 11 I had a few things written up here that I would 

 12 was going to address, but then I continued to see this 

 13 slide pop up of one individual's truck who I know very 

 14 well. So if you can pull up the slide with the pictures 

 15 of the trucks, please. 

 16 The reason I ask for that is this individual just 

 17 happened to come up to me yesterday afternoon and showed 

 18 some great gratitude and thanks for our help in helping 

 19 him finance the retrofits that were installed upon the red 

 20 truck with the Maersk. That truck belongs to a gentleman 

 21 by the name of Edwin Alfaro. The Alfaro family is a 

 22 typical example of the port draymen. The port draymen 

 23 are -- a vast majority of port drayman are independent 

 24 contractors. These guys have adhered to these rules that 

 25 either retrofitted or replaced a vast majority from 
 149 

 1 understanding of retrofits especially within our company. 

 2 So today we're here to support the amendments to 

 3 the drayage truck rule. I don't think I can go back to 

 4 the Port of Oakland and share any better news during the 

 5 holiday season than to tell my guys that, you know, they 

 6 don't have to worry about this for a few more years. It's 

 7 bad enough these guys are under attack right now by the 

 8 ports and by the laborers trying to make these independent 

 9 contractors extinct and get rid of them from the drayage 

 10 industry. 

 11 So, you know, I strongly urge you to go through 

 12 with these amendments to the drayage truck registry. Give 

 13 us some time so we can make proper decisions on where to 

 14 invest our moneys going forward. 

 15 Thank you. 

 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 17 Eric Carleson. 

 18 MR. CARLESON: I'm here. Eric Carleson, 

 19 Associated California Loggers. I'm here to speak 

 20 exclusively to the diesel truck amendments that our 

 21 industry retains a strong interest in all our rules. And 

 22 earlier speakers have spoken about maybe taking the 

 23 portable rule, which remains important to our members, and 

 24 giving some of those Tier 0s expiring in a short time. 

 25 I'm here to speak to two general topics and one 
 150 

 1 specific one. 

 2 General topic number one: Associated California 

 3 Loggers thanks the Chair, the Board members, and 

 4 particularly the staff for meetings we've been able to 

 5 hold with you over a two-year plus period on the diesel 

 6 truck rule. We also thank the staff for coming into the 

 7 woods to examine for closely the specific nature of how 

 8 and where our industry and our logging subset of the 

 9 industry works. 

 10 The amendments before you today give us more 

 11 time, somewhat more options, and more flexibility in 

 12 dealing with the rule. We're particularly supportive of 

 13 the log truck provision within the amendments and urge you 

 14 to adopt that provision. 

 15 General topic number two: While all of us worked 

 16 hard to meet various deadlines imposed by the federal 

 17 government and the state on reducing emissions 

 18 inventories, what do you know? The national economy, the 

 19 state economy, and of course our timber economy have 

 20 refused to meet any deadlines in terms of coming back to 

 21 the extent where we can deal with these rules, as at least 

 22 one of our members spoke to you about today, one of our 

 23 company members. 

 24 So whatever amendments pass today and we 

 25 appreciate them, no one's work is over yet. Not yours, 
 151 

 1 and not ours. 

 2 Hitting the main points in our comment letter 

 3 just skimming them, we suggest we all need to address the 

 4 following concerns. Educate business in 2011 and 2012 as 

 5 to exactly how these rules work. There be will a number 

 6 of workshops I know for industry in the coming year. Been 

 7 trying to tell our folks exactly what they need to do and 

 8 when has been an ongoing issue, and we know we want to 

 9 spend the next couple years refining it. 

 10 Acknowledge the devastated economy and adjust the 

 11 rule accordingly. I can hear the beeper going. I'm going 

 12 to go a little longer to get to the specific toping. 

 13 Given the limited time at the microphone, our 

 14 group split up issues today among the Forestry Task Force 

 15 members. I'm tasked the review specifically solvable 

 16 problems having to do with the NOx attainment district 

 17 boundaries and making them more uniformed and practical 

 18 for the trucks that drive within them. We submitted 

 19 boundaries ideas and stand ready to work with staff on 

 20 them. We don't see this as the end of the process. 2011 

 21 is only beginning, new Governor, new Legislature, new 

 22 Congress. And we look forward to working with you to make 

 23 these rules work within the economy. Thank you. 

 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. 

 25 Catherine Garoupa. 
 152 

 1 MS. GAROUPA: Good afternoon. 

 2 I'm here this afternoon representing the Watch 

 3 Dog Committee of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition. 

 4 CVAQC is a coalition of over 70 diverse organizations that 

 5 are unified in our commitment to work for clean air in the 

 6 San Joaquin Valley. 

 7 As you all know, we have a public health crisis 

 8 in the San Joaquin Valley due to our chronic air pollution 

 9 problem, which includes more than $6 million in public 

 10 health costs and 2400 premature deaths in our region alone 

 11 due to air pollution. 

 12 We're particularly concerned about the delays for 

 13 the on-road rule. Many of our environmental justice 

 14 communities are living near roadways. These communities 

 15 are already impacted by pollution, and a delay means more 

 16 continued pollution in those areas and more health 

 17 impacts. 

 18 As was already mentioned, there is a zero margin 

 19 of error for the San Joaquin Valley for our State 

 20 Implementation Plans, and I wonder whether in those 

 21 calculations there was consideration for the fact that 

 22 when this rule was originally passed, there was a special 

 23 exception given to short haul ag trucks, which are going 

 24 to be disproportionately in our region well. Again, 

 25 minimizing the margin of error we have has already been 
 153 

 1 zero. Delays ultimately mean prolonging public health 

 2 impacts, and there are so many variables attached to this 

 3 rule, including the economy and the inventory. 

 4 The bottom line for us in the San Joaquin Valley 

 5 is we need all of the reductions that we can get from 

 6 wherever we can get them. The original rule saves more 

 7 lives and money than it's ultimately going to cost 

 8 industry. Research from U.S. EPA shows for a dollar in 

 9 pollution cleanup targeted at diesel pollution, there's 

 10 $13 in health savings. 

 11 So today I'm here to urge you to stay the course 

 12 on the on-road rule. Thank you. 

 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 14 Michelle Garcia. 

 15 MS. GARCIA: Good afternoon. 

 16 Michelle Garcia with the Fresno-Madera Medical 

 17 Society. 

 18 I'm here representing the Air Quality 

 19 Subcommittee of the Fresno-Madera Medical Society, and we 

 20 would just like to express our appreciation for how you 

 21 have helped to make the rule a little bit more feasible 

 22 for truckers. We know that's not an easy task, especially 

 23 in light of these hard economic times. 

 24 We feel the rule is very important, especially as 

 25 it relates to the San Joaquin Valley. We have an 
 154 

 1 incredible health burden as you very well know. And we 

 2 are especially concerned with the zero margin that the San 

 3 Joaquin Valley will face. 

 4 So we just ask that you continue to look at that 

 5 and maybe revisit it or talk about it a little bit more 

 6 and figure out if there is some way to ensure that there 

 7 will be some safeguards for us. 

 8 Thank you. 

 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 10 Was Victoria Ramirez with the student group? I 

 11 think so. Okay. 

 12 Susan Seivright from Valley Power Systems, John 

 13 McClelland, Brandon Kitagawa. 

 14 MR. KITAGAWA: Good afternoon, Chairman and 

 15 Board. 

 16 My name is Brandon Kitagawa. I'm with Regional 

 17 Asthma Management and Prevention and also here on behalf 

 18 of the statewide network of asthma coalitions called 

 19 Community Action to Fight Asthma. 

 20 First, we want to thank you for making the 

 21 difficult decision a couple years ago to adopt these rules 

 22 knowing the economic uncertainty ahead. So we want to 

 23 thank you for adopting these rules, but also for showing 

 24 reasonable flexibility to modify the rules given on their 

 25 changing on-the-ground conditions. 
 155 

 1 But second, we want to remind people that what 

 2 was true when these rules was adopted is still true today. 

 3 Many of our asthma coalitions still deal with the effects 

 4 of diesel pollution every day. They see kids forced 

 5 indoors for recess, kids missing school, and parents 

 6 missing work because of asthma attacks. And we see 

 7 families spending money on preventable health care costs. 

 8 These rules still represent the best opportunity 

 9 for California to improve some of the dirtiest air in the 

 10 country. We know diesel trucks and buses are the single 

 11 largest source of diesel pollution in the state and 

 12 account for some 40 percent of the diesel soot. Curbing 

 13 these emissions is vital to meeting federal air quality 

 14 standards and removing the health and economic burdens to 

 15 many families. 

 16 So RAMP and the COFA coalitions urge you to 

 17 continue to protect the people's health by making key 

 18 changes to the proposed amendments. They were outlined in 

 19 the letter submitted by Camille Kustin from public health, 

 20 environmental, and communities groups. Those changes 

 21 would provide near-term relief to impacted communities, 

 22 eliminate loopholes, and create a margin of error for the 

 23 SIP. 

 24 Thank you. 

 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 
 156 

 1 Charles Rea, followed by Reginal McAfee and Bill 

 2 Magavern, and that will be the last before we take our 

 3 lunch break. 

 4 MR. REA: Hi. Charlie Rea with the California 

 5 Construction Industrial Materials Association here 

 6 speaking about the on-road rule. 

 7 Our primary vehicles affected by this rule 

 8 already-mixed concrete trucks and construction and service 

 9 trucks like water trucks and lube trucks, so on. Mainly 

 10 just want to encourage the adoption of the amendments 

 11 today. We think these will be a big step forward in 

 12 helping with the difficulties of complying. Particularly 

 13 appreciative of the 15-day amendments to address specific 

 14 issues with construction trucks, early replacement of 

 15 trucks, and the bubble concept. Want to thank everyone 

 16 very much. 

 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you, sir. 

 18 Reginal McAfee. 

 19 MR. MC AFEE: I'm Reginal McAfee. I don't 

 20 represent anybody other than myself. I'm a member of the 

 21 CDTOA Dump Truck Owners Association. 

 22 The only reason I'm here is I've been paying 

 23 attention to this stuff for about five years now. And 

 24 every time something comes up, they say call this number 

 25 and we'll help you get a truck. And I call and they tell 
 157 

 1 me I don't quality. Have a '90 Peterbult three axel. 

 2 I've heard all this talk. Not heard anybody 

 3 address the dump truck industry. So I think that either 

 4 you guys don't know about us or don't care about us. I 

 5 know you know about us because you talk to the people with 

 6 the CDTOA that I send my check to and they make the 

 7 decisions. But how do we get funded? How do we get 

 8 money? How do we get attention of somebody? It's a 

 9 question. Anybody can answer it. It's a question. 

 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I understand that not 

 11 everybody who could use assistance qualifies, but can 

 12 staff address the question specifically? 

 13 ON-ROAD CONTROL REGULATIONS BRANCH CHIEF ROWLAND: 

 14 Scott Rowland. 

 15 The various incentive programs have different 

 16 requirements. And without knowing the gentleman's 

 17 particular circumstances, I can't really comment as to 

 18 exactly why he was told that he did not qualify. However, 

 19 I can assure you that my staff will follow up with him and 

 20 try to figure out if indeed he does qualify. And if not, 

 21 at least explain exactly what the requirements are and 

 22 why. 

 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. I think that's about 

 24 the best we can do right now, at least get you an answer. 

 25 MR. MC AFEE: That's better than what I got 
 158 

 1 before he answered it. 

 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. I'm 

 3 sorry that you haven't been able to get an answer up until 

 4 now. 

 5 I apparently called a person who was here but was 

 6 in the other room, that was Susan Seivright, South Coast 

 7 AQMD. If you want to testify now, that's fine. 

 8 MS. SEIVRIGHT: Thank you. Good morning. 

 9 My name is Susan Seivright. I'm Manager of 

 10 Regulatory Affairs and Compliance. Our company 

 11 distributes heavy-duty engines, after treatment, other 

 12 SmartWay-approved technologies for multiple applications 

 13 that relate to all of the rules you are talking about 

 14 today. And we paid close attention to California SIP 

 15 requirements, and we've been identifying the technologies 

 16 of our products we sell, which ones do we need to evolve 

 17 just to correlate with your regulations. And we work very 

 18 closely with our manufacturers to verify we have products 

 19 available to be sold in California. 

 20 The current state of our economy seems to 

 21 represent a type of crisis points between two paradigms in 

 22 the United States. As a result, our company has had to 

 23 change the way we do business completely, which has been 

 24 expensive and incredibly stressful on various levels, and 

 25 the end users we serve have also had to change the way we 
 159 

 1 do business. 

 2 Chair Nichols, your team has done an incredible 

 3 job by modifying these regulations and re-evaluation of 

 4 the data and outreaching and listening to the effected 

 5 industry. I'd like to request that your staff continue 

 6 their endeavors to implement outreach as diligently as 

 7 they have done for the modifications. 

 8 Regarding compliance schedules, credits, and 

 9 grant funding opportunities, that primarily focus on end 

 10 users on how they can crack the code and make this system 

 11 as retained or developed work for them. 

 12 Taking advantage of credits and funding 

 13 opportunities is expensive typically the first year. 

 14 However, it's cost effective in the long run and will get 

 15 reductions ahead of schedule. 

 16 Additionally, I'd like to request that your staff 

 17 dedicate ample time to re-evaluate the effectiveness of 

 18 the Cal Cap Program, which provides a tremendous amount of 

 19 relief to fleets that are affected by these rules as well 

 20 that may have already missed their window to qualify for 

 21 grant programs. 

 22 So, finally, I'd like to Encourage the CARB 

 23 Governing Board to adopt amendments that are before you 

 24 today. And thank you for all of the time. 

 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 
 160 

 1 Is Bill Magavern here? No, he's not. But Tim 

 2 Carmichael is here. 

 3 MR. CARMICHAEL: Bill may have had his math 

 4 wrong. He thought he'd be called right after lunch. So 

 5 he went back to his office. He still wants to speak. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Then we will be on 

 7 break until about five passed 1:00. 

 8 (Thereupon a lunch recess was taken.) 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 
 161 

 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 

 2 

 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Do we have the students 

 4 group ready? Why don't we bring you forward and hear from 

 5 you now. The rest of the Board members are making their 

 6 way to the front, but they can hear us as well. 

 7 MS. RATNER: I wanted to thank everybody for 

 8 bearing with us and letting us all come up together. If 

 9 it's all right, we're going to have the whole group. 

 10 There are 15 students in all, but not all are speaking. 

 11 So I just wanted everyone to be able to come up and stand 

 12 with their friends while they speak. 

 13 The students who are speaking today are from 

 14 Oakland and Richmond, and they can speak better for 

 15 themselves than I can. So I'll just let them. 

 16 MS. MC GHEE: Good morning, Chairman Nichols and 

 17 members of the Board. 

 18 My name is Christina McGhee. I'm now a student 

 19 at Laney College in Oakland, California. I'm hoping to 

 20 transfer to U.C. Santa Cruz in the fall to major in 

 21 environmental studies and biology. 

 22 I spoke to many of you in 2007 when this Board 

 23 adopted the off-road vehicle rule. I was a junior in high 

 24 school and part of the group of students from Oakland who, 

 25 like the students here today, were concerned about air 
 162 

 1 pollution in their communities. 

 2 I'm proud of the decision that the Board made 

 3 that day and honored to have participated in the process. 

 4 I understand the concern about jobs and I sympathize with 

 5 those who struggling in this economy. What I was growing 

 6 up, my father often did not have a job and there were even 

 7 times when we were homeless, so I do understand the issues 

 8 of economic depression and struggling families. 

 9 But if you change the off-road rule to protect 

 10 jobs, please make sure that you maintain the health 

 11 protections that you can be proud of having adopted in 

 12 July of 2007. In particular, please do not increase the 

 13 low-use exemption threshold to 200 hours per year. Since 

 14 most equipment is used 400 hours per year, this increase 

 15 could allow two pieces of old dirty equipment to be used 

 16 instead of retrofitting or replacing one piece of 

 17 equipment. 

 18 In addition, please make sure that the exemption 

 19 ends at some point -- the sooner, the better -- so that 

 20 all equipment is eventually retrofitted or replaced to 

 21 protect public health. 

 22 Speaking to you in 2007 was not easy for any of 

 23 the students who came here to Sacramento to speak to you, 

 24 the Board, about diesel in our communities. But the 

 25 careful attention that you paid to our concerns played a 
 163 

 1 big role in my decision to pursue environmental studies 

 2 and biology. I hope your willingness to listen and your 

 3 concern for public health has the same effect on the high 

 4 school students we have to speak here today. 

 5 In closing, I'd like to submit to the members of 

 6 the Board these 54 index card statements from students 

 7 from my high school, Oakland High, who are concerned about 

 8 this rule. 

 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. 

 10 MR. NGUON: Good afternoon, Board members. 

 11 My name is DePaul Nguon. I attend McClymonds 

 12 High School in the small tight-knit community. My high 

 13 school is surrounded by truck routes. There is a major 

 14 truck route two blocks down from the school. There are 

 15 two more truck routes close by, one five blocks to the 

 16 west and one five blocks to the east. 

 17 So along with being located close to the port of 

 18 Oakland, my high school is smack dab in the middle of a 

 19 rectangle defined by diesel trucks and the particulate 

 20 matter they emit. 

 21 Diesel pollution has real consequences for us at 

 22 McClymonds High School. My jaw dropped when I find out 

 23 that every single one of my classmates in my legal studies 

 24 class either had asthma or has someone in their family 

 25 with asthma. Nearly a quarter in that class either 
 164 

 1 carries an inhaler or uses one at home. 

 2 Sometimes I wonder where my friends are when they 

 3 aren't showing up at school for a couple days, only to 

 4 find out they had to miss out on school from the harmful 

 5 effects of asthma. 

 6 Because I live in West Oakland, I'm particularly 

 7 concerned about trucks around the port. So I'm very happy 

 8 the staff is recommending an end of dray-off loophole and 

 9 recommending including more trucks in the program. But we 

 10 still need to get the older dirtier trucks off the road 

 11 with a second phase for port trucks. And we can't wait 

 12 until 2023 to finally get the goal of reducing diesel 

 13 particulate by 75 percent from on-road trucks. 

 14 I recognize how important jobs are. I have 

 15 friends whose parents work at the Port of Oakland. But at 

 16 the same time, I really hope that the Board does not back 

 17 down on protecting our health. Thank you. 

 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 19 MR. MATTEO: Good afternoon, Chairman Nichols, 

 20 members of the Board. 

 21 My name is Salvador Matteo. I am a senior at 

 22 Mandela High School Law and Public Service Academy. 

 23 As you can see from the map in front of you, 

 24 truck routes run right along one side of my school just 

 25 outside the fence around our football field. 
 165 

 1 My house is also close to the truck route, four 

 2 blocks to the nearest one. 

 3 But I'm really more concerned about an impact of 

 4 diesel pollution might have on my little sister than I am 

 5 more about the impact it's having on me. My little sister 

 6 is 14-years-old. So her lungs are still growing. 

 7 I know you understand that children who are 

 8 exposed to diesel exhaust are more likely to have asthma, 

 9 and they also have reduced lung function. I also know 

 10 that you care about these things, because you have been 

 11 working on this problem for a long time. 

 12 When the Board adopted the California's Diesel 

 13 Risk Reduction Plan in 2000, my little sister was 

 14 four-years-old. The plan set a goal of reducing diesel 

 15 pollution by 75 percent by 2010. Of course, we haven't 

 16 yet reached that goal. Then in 2007 and 2008, the Board 

 17 adopted some important rules for trucks and buses and 

 18 construction equipment. Those rules were going to reduce 

 19 diesel particulate pollution by 75 percent by 2014 and 

 20 then the recession hit. 

 21 I agree there have been some changes to help 

 22 truckers and construction workers in these hard times, but 

 23 the proposal in front of you won't get us to 75 percent 

 24 reduction on diesel pollution until 2023. By that time, 

 25 my little sister will be 25-years-old. Her lungs will 
 166 

 1 have stopped growing. She will have lost any chance to 

 2 grow up with clean air. 

 3 I'm here to say respectfully, please don't wait 

 4 that long. You need to fix the proposal so that old 

 5 trucks, old or new, have diesel filters by 2017. And old 

 6 equipment needs to be retired faster. All the loopholes 

 7 need to be closed. 

 8 Thank you for your time and for paying attention 

 9 to our concerns. We are counting on you. My little 

 10 sister is counting on you. 

 11 MR. BALOGUN: Good afternoon, ladies and 

 12 gentlemen and Chairman. 

 13 My name is Segun Balogun. I live in Oakland, and 

 14 I attend Mandela High School. I'm here because there are 

 15 truck routes close to my school and my community and, of 

 16 course, my house. 

 17 Diesel trucks and tractors are coming in my 

 18 community and they effect people. For example, the asthma 

 19 hospitalization rate in my community is high. The asthma 

 20 hospitalization rate for children in the ZIP code where I 

 21 live is much higher than the rest for children in 

 22 California in general. 

 23 People in my community are effected by trucks 

 24 diesel pollution, but they are not getting much of the 

 25 economy benefit from the freight of those trucks coming 
 167 

 1 through the neighborhoods. The people who make the most 

 2 money from the trucks live someplace else. If the 

 3 companies that make a lot of money from shipping and 

 4 selling the products that come into the port of Oakland 

 5 could pay a little bit of money for every container that 

 6 comes to Port of Oakland, then that could help my 

 7 community and they could clean up the diesel trucks. 

 8 I know this is an idea that Board has heard 

 9 before. I think this should recommended as an idea to the 

 10 Governor and the Legislature. 

 11 Also, I think it should be on the ballot for 

 12 election of 2012. Suppose that every container that come 

 13 through Port of Oakland the shipping company paid 

 14 something like $30, that the money would be used to clean 

 15 up the trucks. And this would really help my community 

 16 because less pollution and less asthma in my community. 

 17 Thank you. 

 18 MS. OROZCO: Good afternoon. My name is Jessica 

 19 Orozco. I'm currently attending Richmond High School. 

 20 And I'm a junior in the Health Academy. 

 21 First of all, I would like to show you the map of 

 22 where our school is. Like, all the highlighted parts are 

 23 the truck routes. And as you can see, there's, like, a 

 24 lot of them around our school. 

 25 The reason I'm here today is because I wanted to 
 168 

 1 talk to you about diesel exhaust and how it is affecting 

 2 everyone around us. As you know, diesel exhaust is a 

 3 problem because it contains more than 40 toxic air 

 4 contaminants. Diesel is widely used throughout our 

 5 society. It is used to power bus, agricultural equipment, 

 6 back-up generators and, of course, trucks. 

 7 Imagine trucks passing by your house every day 

 8 leaving particles and gases in the air that are just 

 9 waiting for the moment so you with breathe them in. At 

 10 that moment, they may not affect you, but sooner or later 

 11 they make you sick when you least expect it. Every time 

 12 we breath the toxic gases, they are drawing into our 

 13 lungs. 

 14 One truck route runs through 23rd Street, runs 

 15 right in front of my school. Around my school there are 

 16 two more trucks routes. And around Richmond, there are 

 17 many more. Wouldn't you be worried if you and your 

 18 family were breathing toxins that could be killing you 

 19 slowly? 

 20 I would like to ask you to not wait any longer to 

 21 make the changes that we have known for so long that we 

 22 need to make. It is the difficult to start, but it's not 

 23 impossible. Nothing should stop us from pursuing just 

 24 this. 

 25 Thank you. 
 169 

 1 MS. GUTIERREZ: Good afternoon, everyone. 

 2 My name is Neli Gutierrez, and I'm a junior at 

 3 Richmond High School. I'm also a member in the Health 

 4 Academy. I live in the Richmond community two blocks from 

 5 one truck route and two blocks from another truck route. 

 6 I stand here today because I'm concerned in how 

 7 diesel exhaust is becoming a harm to the children's 

 8 health. The children who are exposed to diesel exhaust 

 9 have a higher risk of having asthma because their defenses 

 10 are not fully developed. 

 11 As you all probably know that Richmond's asthma 

 12 hospitalization rate is three times the state average. 

 13 I, myself, suffered of asthma as a child. I once 

 14 had to go to the emergency room because I was having 

 15 trouble breathing. 

 16 My seven-year-old sister has asthma now. She 

 17 sometimes has to use a machine that helps her take the 

 18 medicine she needs. This medicine helping here by opening 

 19 the pores to her lungs. 

 20 I have two cousins who also live in Richmond and 

 21 also suffer of asthma. 

 22 In your mission, you mention that you want to 

 23 promote and protect the public health. And all of us who 

 24 are suffering this diesel impact want to see you do as you 

 25 say. Thank you for your time. 
 170 

 1 MS. RAMIREZ: Good morning -- good afternoon. My 

 2 name is Victoria Ramirez. I'm currently enrolled as a 

 3 student in the Health Academy at Richmond High School. 

 4 I've been living in Richmond since birth. I'm 

 5 here to talk you about the diesel problem in our 

 6 community. One of the diesel problem in our community is 

 7 the trucks that pass close by us. There are more than 

 8 four routes that pass near our school, especially the one 

 9 that passed right in front of my school. There are two 

 10 routes around my house. 

 11 This problem is actually affecting us, the 

 12 citizens. It is affecting our health. The percentage of 

 13 kids from Richmond that are hospitalized for asthma is 

 14 three times the percentage of kids in California. 

 15 I understand that we have to be concerned about 

 16 the jobs that are going to be effected by this rule. But 

 17 on the other hand, the percentage of kids hospitalized is 

 18 going to decrease by a lot. 

 19 I know it's not easy finding a job now since the 

 20 economy has gone bad. But the delay that are being 

 21 proposed means more kids are going to be affected and get 

 22 sicker. Thank you. 

 23 MS. ROGUE: Hello. My name is Marisol Rogue. 

 24 I'm a senior in Mandela High. 

 25 I'm here, because I really want to tell you guys 
 171 

 1 that I'm glad that you guys -- this amendment, because I 

 2 have four little brothers, and they are little. I don't 

 3 want them to get asthma. I want them to grow healthy. 

 4 And also because right next where I play soccer 

 5 where they play football, right there is a diesel truck 

 6 route. And it's not fair how we have to live under 

 7 environmental racism and how other people -- often rich 

 8 people don't have to. 

 9 And I think that if you had -- I know that it's 

 10 hard right now to look for jobs. And I understand all the 

 11 people that are they don't support this amendment, but I 

 12 think it has to be stop being selfish and also care about 

 13 the people that live under this environmental racism. 

 14 Like, the world is not all about money. It's also about 

 15 the health of other people and especially the people 

 16 that -- especially little kids, which they are the future 

 17 for this country. And that's all I have to say. 

 18 MS. BAKER: Hi. My name is Kami Baker. I grew 

 19 in various locations in California's Bay Area. I have 

 20 been raised in low-income environments and middle-class 

 21 neighborhoods. Unfortunately, I have acquired chronic 

 22 bronchitis because of the air quality of my environments. 

 23 For the majority of my childhood, I lived in the 

 24 Bay View Hunters Point neighborhood of San Francisco. 

 25 The area is now home to an extinct shipyard that the major 
 172 

 1 cause of poor air quality is diesel truck traffic. Diesel 

 2 fueled trucks and buses would drive past my house 

 3 constantly. Almost every child in my school either had 

 4 asthma or bronchitis. 

 5 Afterwards, my family relocated to the Silicon 

 6 Valley where the air quality was much better. When I was 

 7 at School, I did not see children with inhalers or 

 8 stopping breathing efficiently. The sight of buses and 

 9 bucks were no longer daily life. I never saw one drive 

 10 down my block. 

 11 Even so, one day, I started coughing 

 12 uncontrollably. I could not breathe well, and the cough 

 13 contained a lot of mucus. I went to the doctor. They 

 14 diagnosed me with chronic bronchitis. 

 15 Due to financial circumstances, we moved to 

 16 Richmond to a congested area full of trucks, buses and 

 17 trains. Like Bay View Hunter's Point, there is an extinct 

 18 shipyard and many truck routes run throughout the city. 

 19 Because of the large amount of exhaust and pollutants in 

 20 the air, my bronchitis bouts have increased from yearly to 

 21 bimonthly. 

 22 Low-income families cannot afford to live on 

 23 hills where trucks cannot drive or pay the high property 

 24 taxes to live in the Silicon Valley. Because of their 

 25 income, they must live wherever is cheaper. Since areas 
 173 

 1 with multiple truck routes tend to be cheaper, families 

 2 reside there, exposing young children to pollution with 

 3 life-long effects. More children are being diagnosed with 

 4 asthma and bronchial diseases. Policies should be made 

 5 that benefit all people, and I believe that re-routing of 

 6 trucks will help lower the asthma-related hospital visits 

 7 and low-incomes families that reside in those areas. 

 8 The diesel filters should be mandatory on all 

 9 trucks. I believe my community will benefit greatly from 

 10 the diesel filter. There should be an earmark to the 

 11 amendment that, like tax breaks or people who comply with 

 12 the filter, they should be guaranteed grants, like mom and 

 13 pop truck companies. And there should be just an earmark 

 14 that helps the economy as well. 

 15 Thank you. 

 16 MS. RATNER: Thank you very much for hearing the 

 17 students. Could the other student just state their names? 

 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, of course. Everybody 

 19 who's part of the group, if you didn't speak, come and 

 20 state your name. 

 21 MR. AIRE: My name is Tomas Aire. I go to 

 22 Fremont High School. 

 23 MR. FISHER: Hi. Name is Julian Fisher. I 

 24 attend Mandela High School. 

 25 MS. AYALA: My name is Cecilia Ayala. I attend 
 174 

 1 Mandela High School. 

 2 MS. FLORES: My name is Anabel Flores. I attend 

 3 Mandela High School. 

 4 MS. HONG: Hi. My name is Sheila, and I attend 

 5 Fremont. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, thank you. Thanks 

 7 very much. And Merry Christmas and Happy New Years to all 

 8 of you. I hope this is a project that you get credit for 

 9 in school. But if not, you get credit with us anyway. We 

 10 really appreciate that you come and that you are willing 

 11 to focus some of your time and attention on our issues. 

 12 Okay. Right before lunch we had called for Bill 

 13 Magavern and here he is. 

 14 MR. MAGAVERN: I want to thank you for taking my 

 15 testimony now. 

 16 I'm Bill Magavern, Director of Sierra Club 

 17 California. 

 18 Also want to thank the students for being here 

 19 and hope that you'll continue to speak out. 

 20 My own children are also in high school and also 

 21 growing up virtually in the Shadow of two freeways 

 22 actually. 

 23 I know these rules have been very difficult for a 

 24 lot of people here and that we all sympathize both with 

 25 people who are hurt by the recession and also people who 
 175 

 1 are hurt by illnesses caused by air pollution. And I know 

 2 that you as Board members are trying to strike a balance 

 3 here, and it's not an easy thing to do. 

 4 I think it's also essential that you operate with 

 5 the best possible data that is up to date with taking into 

 6 account the effects of the recession and also correcting 

 7 the errors that have been made in the inventory. So 

 8 clearly there does need to be a course correction. In 

 9 doing that, we think it's important to also remember that 

 10 diesel soot is not distributed evenly, as you've heard 

 11 from the students. And the health impacts are also not 

 12 distributed evenly. 

 13 So we suggest some amendments that we think would 

 14 particularly help to reduce some of the localized impacts 

 15 as you've heard. So I won't go into great detail. 

 16 With the off-road regulation, we think it should 

 17 sunset the low-use threshold and return it to 100 hours 

 18 per year where it was before, require all equipment to 

 19 employ a PM filter by the final compliance date. And for 

 20 the on-road rule, require the '94 to 2000 vehicles to 

 21 install PM filters in the next two years, replace all the 

 22 vehicles more than 20 years old beginning in 2012 and 

 23 require all the trucks under 26,000 pounds also retrofit, 

 24 retire, or upgrade to a newer vehicle when they hit 15 

 25 years of age. And we also especially want you to preserve 
 176 

 1 the school bus cleanup provisions, since that's where our 

 2 kids are very frequently exposed. 

 3 Thank you. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 5 During the lunch break, we had a chance to sort 

 6 of talk a little bit with some of the staff about a couple 

 7 issues that came up during the morning. And one of which 

 8 was the whole question about the filters and the extreme 

 9 disparity of views I guess you would say in terms of how 

 10 effective they are and how troublesome they may be for 

 11 some people who obviously feel very strongly that they 

 12 don't like retrofit solutions. 

 13 And, Eric, you indicated that there was somebody 

 14 who would like to at least take a couple of minutes to 

 15 address that issue or how you might resolve the issue, the 

 16 question. 

 17 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 18 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: I think there is a couple 

 19 Board members that asked about failure rates and 

 20 observations with their individual products. And 

 21 certainly as we look at retrofits, our program already has 

 22 an ability where we get annual warrantee reports and we 

 23 look at those and we evaluate what is failing, if there 

 24 are problems and how can we correct those and take 

 25 corrective actions. But Brad Edgar with Cleaire had 
 177 

 1 offered to may be take a moment or two and talk about some 

 2 of their experiences with it, especially as it relates to 

 3 school buses, which has certainly been a hot topic today 

 4 about how filters work on in those applications. 

 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I recall personally going 

 6 to an event in San Diego with Supervisor Roberts where we 

 7 were looking at an installation of a filter that was paid 

 8 for with some bond money, or at least a portion of it was, 

 9 and it was a big deal for the school district. It was a 

 10 big deal for the community and so forth. So I guess we'd 

 11 like to know a little bit more directly what you can add 

 12 to this discussion. 

 13 MR. EDGAR: Thank you, Chair Nichols, for asking 

 14 me back. I actually cut a little bit of the testimony out 

 15 to try to meet the two-minute time frames. And one of the 

 16 points I was going to make if there were issues about 

 17 school buses that in the rare cases there are issues, they 

 18 have always been related to the condition of the engine. 

 19 When an engine is out of tune or consuming excessive 

 20 amounts of oil, there's extra material coming out of the 

 21 tailpipe end of the filter. 

 22 One of the remarkable things about the 

 23 particulate filters is they filter out 99-plus percent of 

 24 the particulate matter coming into them. However, some of 

 25 that particulate matter is inorganic. It's ash from the 
 178 

 1 lubricating oil, and inorganic material can't be burned. 

 2 So if there's excessive oil consumption, the filter 

 3 catches all that, but you can't regenerate it or burn it 

 4 over. And over time the filter loads up and back pressure 

 5 goes up. 

 6 And that's the cause at least of frequent 

 7 regenerations and concern about not getting the acceptable 

 8 range. So our experience is we've have had -- to your 

 9 question, Dr. Telles. We've had almost zero failures, but 

 10 we have had issues ultimately route cause back to the 

 11 condition of the engine. 

 12 Our dealer network is very skilled in dealing 

 13 with engines and now able to diagnose these on the front 

 14 end and take corrective action. There are a number of 

 15 things you can do to make sure they are in tune. 

 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So you have to take some 

 17 extra steps to make sure that the bus is suitable for the 

 18 filter, not just stick it on no matter what. 

 19 MR. EDGAR: Correct. And the buses that aren't 

 20 suitable for retrofit frankly aren't gross emitters. 

 21 They're emitting at multiple times the levels when they 

 22 were certified by CARB or EPA. So they're well out of 

 23 speck. In some sense, we are doing a benefit by 

 24 identifying gross emitters and correcting them on the 

 25 front end so they can be compatible with the retrofits. 
 179 

 1 And one other point to make is there was a 

 2 comment made about a limp mode. To our knowledge, the 

 3 pre-2007 engines, there are no defeat devices. There is 

 4 no way for the engine to sense that there is a filter 

 5 issue that would cause it to de-rate and lose power. So I 

 6 think that's a misstatement about how the engines work. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: It's an issue on the 2010s 

 8 or just -- 

 9 MR. EDGAR: The 2007 and 2010 engines may have 

 10 censors in their exhaust systems that notify the engine 

 11 and the driver of their back pressure issues, but there 

 12 was nothing in the world of retrofit like that. 

 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Well, I thought that 

 14 might be helpful at least to give people some background. 

 15 Thank you. Appreciate it. 

 16 Julian Imes, Bob Ramorino, Diane Bailey. 

 17 MR. IMES: Good afternoon. 

 18 My name is Julian Imes. I'm Director of Advanced 

 19 Technology for Donaldson Company. 

 20 Donaldson is headquartered in Minneapolis, 

 21 Minnesota. We have ARB and EPA verified technologies and 

 22 we are a leading supplier for both diesel reduction 

 23 programs. 

 24 We also continue significant effort to gain 

 25 additional verifications, both for PM control and NOx 
 180 

 1 control. 

 2 We do wish to offer a few comments on ARB's 

 3 proposed amendments and the impacts on Donaldson. We do 

 4 understand the need for industry economic relief, 

 5 certainly. We also fully support the MECA recommended 

 6 changes. We are a MECA member to the proposal. These 

 7 seek to identify additional emission reduction 

 8 opportunities and also to identify the need for economic 

 9 relief consideration for retrofit manufacturers. 

 10 I want to emphasize that in support of ARB's 

 11 diesel programs, we also have an ongoing business 

 12 assessment to be done and business investments to do. So 

 13 we need to continue to address that. 

 14 We do wish to add comments specifically to that 

 15 end that emphasize process improvement potentials on 

 16 verification and end use compliance procedures. We 

 17 request Board support of near-term reviews with ARB staff, 

 18 those have started, and ARB interim policy guidance 

 19 approaches that would: One, provide economic relief; and 

 20 two, ensure that verified technologies are available and 

 21 needed. 

 22 We believe that more can be done to increase ARB 

 23 cooperative effort to: One, harmonize the verification 

 24 process with EPA; and two, to better achieve true 

 25 reciprocity between EPA and ARB. That exists somewhat 
 181 

 1 today, but quite frankly I think there's improvements that 

 2 could be had. 

 3 We also believe that a more streamlined cost 

 4 effective ARB verification procedure and end use testing 

 5 procedures are desired and possible. 

 6 And in summary, we urge the Board to consider the 

 7 changes that have identified and request these near-term 

 8 policy guidance adjustments. And that concludes my 

 9 presentation. And my time is up. Thank you for your 

 10 attention. 

 11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 12 Mr. Ramorino. 

 13 MR. RAMORINO: Good morning, Madam Chair, Board 

 14 members, and staff. I'm Bob Ramorini, President of a 

 15 third-generation trucking company based in Hayward. Our 

 16 company submitted full financials for I believe four years 

 17 to the staff. I hope they were revealing and either 

 18 interesting or boring to you. 

 19 But just want to talk about the economics and the 

 20 marketing. 

 21 I'm on board with the clean air thing. 

 22 We have done nothing -- we've been hanging by a 

 23 thread for the last year-and-a-half, two years. We do 

 24 nothing but try to pay wages, fuel, and repairs. Our 

 25 capital expenditures are near zero. In normal times over 
 182 

 1 the last three years, we would purchased nine brand-new 

 2 trucks to replace older equipment. We have one that we 

 3 purchased in the last few years. So our fleet has gotten 

 4 older. 

 5 For the first time in our history, we borrowed 

 6 against a credit line. And thank God we were still able 

 7 to qualify for one. But our time is running out on how 

 8 long we can continue to draw on that. All of our 45 or so 

 9 employees have taken pay cuts, including that of the 

 10 president. We've reduced expenses everywhere we can. 

 11 In short, the turnaround has not come for our 

 12 company yet, as I suspect, many truckers and some of them 

 13 have spoken here. It's not just limited to the one- and 

 14 two-truck operators. In my circumstances, it's 30 or 40. 

 15 But I have the same issues they do. 

 16 Maybe I'm just weary about it, but I complement 

 17 the good work of the staff. I support the amendments. 

 18 Whatever you do, vote on it and then don't change it, 

 19 because one of the hardest things we've had to do is deal 

 20 with the constant back and forth. 

 21 Now, the proposed amendments, I have a couple 

 22 wins. My 05-06 equipment I get to run another year or so. 

 23 However, my 2000 equipment, which I have 15, has to be 

 24 dealt with in the next 12 months. 

 25 Probably one of the largest things I'm going to 
 183 

 1 have to do is maybe reduce my fleet size by 25 vehicles if 

 2 I can't find a way to finance it. And I will tell you 

 3 it's just a question of being able to finance the 

 4 equipment. 

 5 So again, I support the goals. Move ahead. I 

 6 think a lot of us have just tired of the back and forth. 

 7 I think the staff has done just about the best job they 

 8 could in trying to find some fairness and give us a little 

 9 breathing room. It's not going to be enough. 

 10 So I'll take my lumps and see what we can do. 

 11 Hopefully, we can protect jobs before we get into a growth 

 12 mode again. 

 13 And I thank you for your time. 

 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you, sir. 

 15 Diane Bailey and Rob Michaelson and Laura Fultz 

 16 Stout. 

 17 MS. BAILEY: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols, 

 18 members of the Board, and staff. Thank you for the 

 19 opportunity to comment. 

 20 My name is Diane Bailey. I'm a Senior Scientist 

 21 at the Natural Resources Defense Council. I'm here today 

 22 in very strong support of the diesel regulations that this 

 23 agency has passed. We are deeply appreciative of all the 

 24 efforts this agency has made to reduce toxic diesel 

 25 emission over the years. And no doubt, tens of thousands 
 184 

 1 of lives have been saved. 

 2 We are concerned, however, with the latest 

 3 proposal that sort of weakens the health protections of 

 4 these diesel regs. 

 5 Before I comment further, I just want to thank 

 6 staff for all of their hard work on these regs. I know 

 7 it's been a tough slug. We're very appreciative in 

 8 particular for the effort in working with communities to 

 9 address the dray-off problems that were undermining the 

 10 port drayage truck regulation. So thank you for those 

 11 fixes. 

 12 While we understand that there is a strong need 

 13 for economic relief and nearly everyone has been impacted 

 14 by this recession, including my own family, at the same 

 15 time, so many communities continue to suffer from truck 

 16 pollution. And it really remains high, despite reduced 

 17 activity of the recession. The current proposal will 

 18 significantly delay diesel cleanup over the next few 

 19 years. 

 20 We took a look at what the difference in health 

 21 benefits would be considering the existing regulations as 

 22 they are on the books versus the new proposal under 

 23 consideration today. We use the latest U.S. EPA and CARB 

 24 methods, and we accounted for the recession and the 

 25 emissions inventory updates. And we found that there is 
 185 

 1 actually a significant loss in health benefits, about 

 2 50 percent for the year 2014. So in the near term, we're 

 3 looking at some pretty big differences, pretty large gap 

 4 in health benefits. 

 5 And on off-road, we see even bigger differences, 

 6 a 90 percent loss of health benefits in 2014. And still, 

 7 in 2017, we have a gap in health benefits. We're very 

 8 concerned about these near-term losses in health 

 9 protections. 

 10 So we decided to take a look at who is most 

 11 impacted. And the answer is obvious. I think you're all 

 12 aware that families living near high-traffic roadways are 

 13 the most impacted by diesel pollution. And we've heard a 

 14 lot of very compelling testimony today. 

 15 I thought the stories from the students were very 

 16 compelling. And these maps that we put together just put 

 17 the demographic data together to show what the disparities 

 18 look like. They show a very striking disparity that 

 19 supports the fact that the poorest, the lowest income 

 20 communities, and those that are more likely to be minority 

 21 are also the most like fully to live in the highest 

 22 traffic areas. And that's true on average throughout the 

 23 state. That's true even more so in southern California, 

 24 and that's true in these three areas where we did some 

 25 mapping. 
 186 

 1 That was Commerce. This is Richmond, California, 

 2 where a lot of the students came from. You can see a very 

 3 striking disparity when it comes to who's living closest 

 4 to the freeways. They are more likely to be minority and 

 5 low income. 

 6 And of those living near freeways, we found that 

 7 there are a lot of children; 50,000 in southeast Los 

 8 Angeles; 10,000 in this area right here, Richmond area. 

 9 And in Fresno, the disparity persists as well. 

 10 So we wanted to bring these disparities to your attention, 

 11 and we're asking you to consider some amendments that 

 12 would offer some relief to these impacted communities and 

 13 move up some of the cleanup for the very oldest trucks 

 14 that tend to operate in these communities the most. 

 15 I thank you for your consideration. I thank 

 16 staff for their hard work. 

 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Could staff have an 

 18 opportunity to put some of what Diane talked about in 

 19 context quickly? I think there's some different ways to 

 20 look at the numbers, and we'd like just a moment to 

 21 respond. 

 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. 

 23 MOBILE SOURCE ANALYSIS BRANCH CHIEF SAX: This is 

 24 Todd Sax. I'm at the kids' table. 

 25 So I guess the first thing, what Diane I think is 
 187 

 1 saying, is that under the currently adopted rule, with the 

 2 recession in place, what she's saying is we would, in 

 3 theory, achieve additional benefits. I think that's 

 4 relative to what our proposal is today. And I think 

 5 that's true if you believe that people could comply with 

 6 the regulation. But I think the reality of why we're here 

 7 is that when you look at what the currently adopted rule 

 8 requires us, requires the industry to do is something that 

 9 we don't believe everyone can comply with. So at the end 

 10 of the day, what we've tried to do is develop a proposal 

 11 that people can comply, and in the process, generate the 

 12 emission reductions that we need to achieve. 

 13 And when you're looking at the risk of nearby 

 14 roadways, for example, that is an important area in how 

 15 people are exposed. But there is a big difference between 

 16 what emissions are going to be like in 2014 without the 

 17 rule and what emissions are going to be like under the 

 18 proposed amendments. And we think that the proposal will 

 19 provide substantial benefits because what we've done is 

 20 targeted the rule to focus on ensuring early PM reductions 

 21 in vehicles that travel the most miles. 

 22 So when you're looking at freeways, we're 

 23 maximizing the amount of miles traveled by filtered 

 24 vehicles on freeways. That doesn't help necessarily 

 25 everywhere evenly, but it provides the maximum amount of 
 188 

 1 benefits we can while still ensuring we provide the 

 2 economic relief necessary given the recession. 

 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So what you're saying is 

 4 you tried to configure the rule so that the trucks that 

 5 are the ones that are on the roads closest to the people 

 6 who are the most impacted are the ones that are most 

 7 likely to get cleaned up? 

 8 MOBILE SOURCE ANALYSIS BRANCH CHIEF SAX: That's 

 9 correct. 

 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And the other thing is I 

 11 guess, you know, forgive me if I'm being simplistic about 

 12 this, but by definition, the people that live the closest 

 13 to the roads are going to be most impacted by whatever 

 14 amount of pollution there is coming from trucks. So 

 15 anything that we do that cleans up trucks is 

 16 disproportionately going to effect in a positive way 

 17 people who live near the places where the trucks are. So 

 18 the poorer you are and therefore the more likely you are 

 19 to be a minority person, the more likely you are to be 

 20 having adverse effects from the pollution that's out there 

 21 now, and the more likely you are to be getting a benefit 

 22 from whenever we can do to clean it up. 

 23 So by doing less, if we are doing less than we 

 24 could have done at any given point, we are automatically 

 25 sacrificing some of the benefit that we could have gotten 
 189 

 1 from the rule if we had been able to achieve the ultimate 

 2 amount that we could have imagined. But if that wasn't 

 3 going to happen, we're still getting very substantial 

 4 benefits, and they are targeted automatically at the 

 5 people who need it the most. 

 6 What you're saying is you've gone further in 

 7 trying to push to get those benefits in the places where 

 8 they're the most needed. 

 9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Chairman 

 10 Nichols, in terms of the numbers, I did ask our health 

 11 staff to calculate in addition to the 3900 avoided 

 12 premature deaths as a result of the rule, there is an 

 13 additional 3,000 premature deaths avoided because of the 

 14 reduced emissions as a result of a recession. So those 

 15 numbers provided added context for the incremental 

 16 differences that have been discussed today. They're 

 17 substantially fewer emissions in the area, which has a 

 18 quantifiable public health benefit. 

 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: If we were to ask our 

 20 friends at the Health Department about the health impacts 

 21 of the recession overall, even assuming that they agree -- 

 22 and I assume they do -- with these avoided deaths due to 

 23 air pollution, they would be quick to point out other 

 24 health impacts that are negative that are also occurring 

 25 because of the recession. 
 190 

 1 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: But just to be fair, there 

 2 are deaths that will occur because we're pulling back on 

 3 the regulation. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That might not have 

 5 occurred. 

 6 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: So just like we talked 

 7 about trade-offs between carbon and other factors -- 

 8 environmental factors yesterday, just to be clear, the 

 9 decision we're making is between health and economic 

 10 costs. 

 11 BOARD MEMBER BERG: But to put it into further 

 12 context, if we were writing the regulation today for the 

 13 first time, you would not be writing a regulation like it 

 14 was two or three years ago. We always have to balance the 

 15 health effects and the economics. And we are dictated to 

 16 by statue. So if we were to keep the existing rule on 

 17 today's economics figures, we would be way over the cost 

 18 effectiveness set by statute. Isn't that true? 

 19 MOBILE SOURCE ANALYSIS BRANCH CHIEF SAX: 

 20 Certainly, cost effectiveness would be a lot higher. Cost 

 21 effectiveness would be worse because vehicles are driven a 

 22 lot less during the recession. 

 23 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And also the cost of the rule 

 24 versus the amount of tons that are being saved today 

 25 versus where it was. I remember on both the off-road rule 
 191 

 1 and the truck rule, we were very close to that ten percent 

 2 cutoff. So if we were to leave in place what we have had 

 3 today, it would have to well be into double digit numbers. 

 4 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 5 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: Ms. Berg, I think you're 

 6 correct in that if we were writing the rule for the first 

 7 time today, it would look a little bit different. It's 

 8 not necessarily the cost effectiveness because the 

 9 benefits and the costs may not change a whole lot from 

 10 what we thought we were going to get two years ago. It's 

 11 the economic ability of fleets to comply and meet that 

 12 obligation, which is what would be significantly different 

 13 today. 

 14 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you for helping me 

 15 explain that. 

 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So it's an issue both of 

 17 cost per ton or whatever pollutant and also of 

 18 feasibility, which is an economic related issue, but it 

 19 also has an element in it of is there going to be a 

 20 company around or a truck around to put the filter on in 

 21 the first place or to buy the new truck. Those are sort 

 22 of two related but not identical concepts. 

 23 So thank you, Dr. Balmes, for reminding us. We 

 24 would not be here and doing this at all but for the fact 

 25 that we are facing very severe changes in the economy, and 
 192 

 1 that's true. And it's not something we're doing because 

 2 we are happy about it. 

 3 So if anybody thinks that we are here because we 

 4 take pleasure in relaxing or delaying a rule, I would be 

 5 sadly mistaken. And we're doing our best to do it in a 

 6 way that is as tailored and as careful as possible, but 

 7 still also in light of all the testimony we've heard that 

 8 doesn't keep jerking people around every year depending on 

 9 some slight changes. Set some certainty for a period of 

 10 time so people can plan and go about their business. 

 11 Thank you for that. 

 12 Next we will hear from Rod Michaelson. 

 13 MR. MICHAELSON: Good afternoon. 

 14 I'm Rod Michaelson. I've been working with 

 15 several of you for the last four years, and I'm glad to 

 16 see that a simple look or simplicity did come with the 

 17 off-road rule. And thank you for that. 

 18 On the way in from the Bay Area, I heard a talk 

 19 show host saying after yesterday's meeting, if you have a 

 20 business in California, leave now. When I listen to the 

 21 kids from Oakland talk about the trucks going down the 

 22 road and reading that in northern Mexico China is helping 

 23 building the largest intermodal facility so they can go 

 24 around California, there will be less trucks on the road. 

 25 There will be less jobs. So we will get -- the air is 
 193 

 1 going to be cleaner, and you will all probably get kudos 

 2 for doing that. I think it just happens. 

 3 So our California economy Margaret Thatcher 

 4 talked about running out of people's money. But we're 

 5 there. We don't have money. 

 6 I listened to quite a few people come up and they 

 7 don't say we'd like more tax money, but they use 

 8 euphemisms for that. We don't have more to give them. 

 9 Let the free market system work and get out of the way. 

 10 The air will clean up. At this point, you've done a good 

 11 job up to this point. 

 12 I grew up in Riverside where you couldn't see 

 13 down the street. I went down there last summer. It's 

 14 much better. So Mr. Loveridge, your city is much cleaner 

 15 than when I left it in 1969. So that's good. 

 16 So try to keep the businesses that are in the 

 17 California in California. The large, big, national 

 18 corporations that run construction companies that would 

 19 love to do our roads and our bridges don't need to be in 

 20 California. They don't mind seeing California businesses 

 21 go out because they can just come in when they need to. 

 22 There's my red light. Good night. 

 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good bye and good night. 

 24 Laura Fultz Stout and Steve Weitekamp. 

 25 MS. FULTZ: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and 
 194 

 1 Board members. 

 2 My name is Laura Fultz Stout, and I'm a member of 

 3 the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, although I've 

 4 recently moved to the East Bay. I've from San Leandro. 

 5 I'm speaking today on behalf of myself, family, 

 6 and friends in the San Joaquin Valley and those living 

 7 near the transportation corridor areas, which I'm between 

 8 580 and 880 and 238 in the East Bay. 

 9 First, thank you, Board and staff, for all your 

 10 work, your endless hours on the diesel rules through this 

 11 decade. I want to recognize the clean tech retrofit and 

 12 clean engine companies for assisting the diesel vehicle 

 13 industry on adoption of those technologies. And most 

 14 importantly, for those early adopters, the truck companies 

 15 who have retrofitted their trucks and began turning over 

 16 their fleets. 

 17 If you've been behind a dirty diesel truck or 

 18 bus, you know breathing one dirty diesel vehicle fume is 

 19 too much. 

 20 My concern on the rule proposed today is that it 

 21 does not safeguard with enough margin of certainty for 

 22 those most affected by PM and NOx pollution, especially 

 23 those in the San Joaquin Valley and in the corridors of 

 24 highway 101, I-5, 99, 880. 

 25 I'm here today to urge the Board to include an 
 195 

 1 early 2012 emission review to see if the tons of pollution 

 2 reduced are on target and build in the 20 percent 2014 SIP 

 3 margin on the emission reductions. 

 4 Although I've moved to the East Bay where 

 5 supposedly it's cleaner, my lungs of 30 years living in 

 6 Fresno are damaged. But for my five nephews, it's not too 

 7 late. They're relying on you and the staff to get it 

 8 right. So we know you can do that. You'll get us to blue 

 9 skies sooner rather than later. 

 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 11 Mr. Weitekamp. 

 12 MR. WEITEKAMP: Good afternoon. Steve Weitekamp, 

 13 California Moving and Storage Association. 

 14 As members of the vocational trucking industry, 

 15 we continue to have deep concerns with the implementation 

 16 and impact of the truck and bus regulation. The 

 17 amendments to the regulation proposed this morning provide 

 18 insufficient relief for the moving industry who continue 

 19 to be negatively impacted by the dramatic economic slides 

 20 of home sales and construction. 

 21 While CSMA is appreciative of the willingness of 

 22 ARB staff to listen to our proposal for additional relief 

 23 for fleets with vocational trucks, their proposed 

 24 modifications fall short. 

 25 My time is brief, so as I've mentioned in 
 196 

 1 previous hearings and workshops, members of our industry 

 2 rarely qualify for any grants or money and have no source 

 3 of relief. 

 4 Is there any help for our industry? 

 5 My three asks are: I ask the Board to direct 

 6 staff to amend the 15-day changes to broaden the two-year 

 7 deferral of lower use trucks to include CPUC permitted 

 8 carriers and movers, and on the greenhouse gas regulation 

 9 to exempt trailers belly boxes. Sean Edgar for will speak 

 10 more to this. And also to amend the opportunity for 

 11 grants or other forms of aid to allow low mileage industry 

 12 to participate in relief. 

 13 I want to thank you for including a slide about 

 14 moving companies. Unfortunately, you know, even though 

 15 there's been some relief here, all these costs are front 

 16 loaded. And our industry can't really bare it. If you 

 17 say the economy is down 30 percent for the moving and 

 18 storage industry, I can tell you I get calls on a regular 

 19 basis from small and medium-size operators that with a 30 

 20 percent reduction they're unable to take salaries for 

 21 themselves. They've taken out loans on their homes to 

 22 finance their business. 

 23 Thank you very much. 

 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 25 We're making notes, and I'm sure somebody is 
 197 

 1 going to ask your question at the end when we get into the 

 2 discussion. 

 3 Chris Torres, Skip Brown, Jay McKeeman. 

 4 Skip Brown. 

 5 MR. BROWN: Before I start my time, if I'd like 

 6 to clear up a misconception that's been bantered about 

 7 here. Off-road equipment usage averages 400 hours a year; 

 8 that is not correct at all. In northern California, it 

 9 averages 12 to 1500 hours where we have about an 

 10 eight-month season. In southern California, it runs 1500 

 11 to 2,000 hours a year. So a 200-hour low use is 

 12 equivalent to just a few weeks of that year is reasonable. 

 13 So my comments here: Who paid for this building? 

 14 I did. What I mean is the business people and employees 

 15 in businesses who pay the taxes of the state of California 

 16 paid for this building and salaries of every person in 

 17 here. But I won't be paying any more income taxes because 

 18 my salary has been nonexistent for the last two-and-a-half 

 19 years. My employees I have left have taken a 40 percent 

 20 decrease in pay to keep their jobs, which at this point 

 21 are precarious, while at the same time, Chair Nichols, 

 22 your salary has increased 127 percent. You are benefiting 

 23 while the private employers are going broke. That will 

 24 not continue. 

 25 Private building has ceased. The cities and 
 198 

 1 counties and the State of California are essentially 

 2 bankrupt. 

 3 I stood in this building in August of 2007 and 

 4 explained to us this Board we are going into a recession, 

 5 that now is not the time for increased regulation. Now 

 6 California has to borrow $40 million a day to pay for 

 7 unemployment benefits. Unemployment, caused in large part 

 8 by this very Board all for unproven -- and I mean unproven 

 9 supposed lethal effects. By the way, where is that pesky 

 10 Tran report that was supposed to be done on California 

 11 specific environment, not national? 

 12 So I cut three paragraphs out in order to try to 

 13 make the two minutes. 

 14 My employees are not only losing their jobs but 

 15 their health insurance, which will probably be followed by 

 16 their houses and eventually the very health you are 

 17 purporting to protect. Lack of income has a proven direct 

 18 effect on health. With that go their taxes which are 

 19 necessary to support the government and the very agency 

 20 that you direct. 

 21 The jobs in this building will cease to exist, 

 22 because there will not be tax money coming in from the 

 23 private industries you regulate to pay for them. 

 24 So you have a Hobson's choice: Should you grant 

 25 relief? Only if you want to keep yours and your staff as 
 199 

 1 jobs. Not only to the construction and trucking industry, 

 2 but all industries you are currently regulating out of 

 3 business, including the portables. If not, just plow 

 4 ahead. In due course, I will sell your empty building 

 5 along with mine. Maybe the Chinese will buy it. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Just while your friends are 

 7 applauding out there and just for the sake of the record, 

 8 I need to tell you I took a pay cut to take this job. And 

 9 that I have a 15 percent furlough like every other State 

 10 worker does. The pay cut was because the Governor asked 

 11 for it. The 15 percent was the furlough that every State 

 12 employee had to take. 

 13 I'm not feeling sorry for myself. I still do 

 14 very well, and I'm grateful for that. 

 15 Should also say this building wasn't built by the 

 16 State. It was built by a private developer and the State 

 17 rents. They pay rent for it. But actually they didn't 

 18 build it. 

 19 MR. BROWN: The private industry -- 

 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: It's a beautiful 

 21 building -- 

 22 MR. BROWN: You're taking your 15 percent. I 

 23 thank you for that. But you still have 85 percent of 

 24 yours. I have zero. 

 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I said I'm grateful for 
 200 

 1 that. Thank you. 

 2 Jay McKeeman and Kathy Turner and Matt Schrap. 

 3 MR. MC KEEMAN: Madam Chairman, Board members, 

 4 I'm Jay McKeeman with the California Independent Oil 

 5 Marketers Association. 

 6 We remain opposed to the mutually expensive 

 7 emission control requirements. While staff has made 

 8 significant adjustments to the regulatory package, there 

 9 will remain a very significant burden on California-based 

 10 trucking operations. Out-of-state and interstate trucking 

 11 operations are able to manipulate their fleets so that 

 12 newer trucks will be based for California deliveries, 

 13 while older trucks will remain in active duty at least to 

 14 the other 48 states. In-state operators do not have that 

 15 luxury. 

 16 We believe this will put a competitive 

 17 disadvantage to our members and likely increase the demise 

 18 of independent small businesses in the state. With that 

 19 demise, California public will experience higher costs and 

 20 less convenience in the product delivery options. CARB 

 21 need only examine the in-state gasoline regulations to 

 22 understand the cost impacts of this. 

 23 California gasoline is typically 25 to 50 cents a 

 24 gallon higher than other states, and that's largely due to 

 25 the loss of small independent refiners in the state. 
 201 

 1 We question the regulation necessity. There is 

 2 ample evidence in the record for you, as Board members, to 

 3 question the public health benefit of this program. And 

 4 that's been entered several times over the last 

 5 year-and-a-half. 

 6 There was a question of whether there is a 

 7 correlation between fine particulates and adverse health 

 8 benefits when you use California-only data. 

 9 There is also a problem in terms of emission 

 10 calculations that your staff has had. 

 11 We believe that, with all this new information, 

 12 the right thing to do is to step back from the regulation 

 13 and make sure you have the best information available. We 

 14 urge you to take that step. 

 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Kathy Turner and 

 16 than Matt Schrap and John Cloud. 

 17 MS. TURNER: Hi. My name is Kathy Turner with 

 18 Enterprise Holdings. In addition to operating our three 

 19 rental brands, Enterprise, Alamo, and National, we have a 

 20 car sharing and ride sharing business, a commercial truck 

 21 rental, as well as selling our cars in a fleet management. 

 22 We have 10,000 commercial trucks in the United States, 

 23 3,000 in California. 

 24 Five years ago, our company decided to really 

 25 focus our commitment on the environment. And in doing so, 
 202 

 1 we're embarking on things like retrofitting our 

 2 facilitates, reducing our energy by 20 percent. Our 

 3 airport have biodiesel fuel. Most importantly, we are 

 4 introducing alternative fuel vehicles to the public as 

 5 part of our rental fleet. We are going to be taking 500 

 6 Nissan Leaf electric vehicles shortly. 

 7 We introduce these alternative fuel vehicles to 

 8 the consumers, and we promote fleet modernization by 

 9 purchasing a very large number of vehicles and reselling 

 10 the discarded vehicles. But these are still newer 

 11 vehicles. 

 12 We see the commercial truck rental business as a 

 13 growing market, and we will be purchasing thousands of 

 14 these diesel trucks each year and in turn, reselling the 

 15 older one to five-year vehicles into the secondary market. 

 16 We believe it's critical that the regulatory 

 17 standards be fixed and predictable so our purchasing and 

 18 re-selling decisions can be made with some degree of 

 19 certainty. 

 20 We support the proposed revisions, and we commit 

 21 to working with you in any manner possible to fully 

 22 integrate our company's practices with your clean air and 

 23 the greenhouse gas reduction rules. 

 24 Thank you very much. 

 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 
 203 

 1 Matt Schrap, John Cloud, Kathy Fitzgerald. 

 2 MR. SCHRAP: Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman 

 3 Nichols and Board members, for allowing the opportunity to 

 4 testify before you today. We're very pleased to see the 

 5 credit for the new purchases of 2007 vehicles. The 

 6 amendments are welcome relief. And, in fact, for many in 

 7 our segment of the industry, the light at the end of the 

 8 tunnel is no longer a train headed right for us. And it's 

 9 positive also that with potential expansion of funding 

 10 criteria for Cal Cap and for 1B many fleets all over the 

 11 state, we afforded the opportunity to purchase compliance 

 12 equipment with public assistance. 

 13 However, these rules are not without their 

 14 challenges. Specifically, the proposed amendments to the 

 15 greenhouse gas regulation or the tractor-trailer 

 16 regulation do not go far enough. Although we are wholly 

 17 supportive of the provisions which expand the large fleet 

 18 phrase-in requirements as well as the storage trailer 

 19 definitions and the extended time line for tire 

 20 installation on trailers, the short haul average air 

 21 radius mile standards are still too restrictive. 

 22 We respectfully request that you direct staff to 

 23 investigate an extended air radius mile exemption up to 

 24 150 air radius miles. The reasons for this are simple. 

 25 Staff assumptions about saving percentages are not based 
 204 

 1 on any rational facts that California fleets have been 

 2 dealing with. Nowhere has staff given an indication that 

 3 California-based fleets were approached to survey average 

 4 speeds, of which in California, I might remind everyone, 

 5 is a posted 55. Further, most California-based fleets 

 6 govern their tractors at 58 miles an hour or less. 

 7 Now, they did call fleets in Canada, which is 

 8 helpful to find out how a California regulation would pan 

 9 out. But, in fact, when you're in a controlled 

 10 environment, there is serious payback on the aerodynamic 

 11 equipment, as indicated by the standards at which these 

 12 assumptions are based upon, which the testing was done for 

 13 these aerodynamic devices at 62-and-a-half miles per hour. 

 14 For us, it's not penciling out. 

 15 If I could just add a couple more points. 

 16 For anyone that's traveling in the greater L.A. 

 17 area, you know this sustained operation at 62 miles an 

 18 hour or 55 is something that would be very welcomed. I 

 19 think that it's not necessary to ask the patrol man to 

 20 come up here and talk about speed enforcement policy in 

 21 California. If it says 55, that's the speed limit. 

 22 We really need to take a second look at how this 

 23 air radius miles is being applied. And we respectfully 

 24 request that you ask the staff to re-investigate that to 

 25 something up to 150-mile air radius miles. 
 205 

 1 We ask that you adopt these limits for the 

 2 on-road rule and drayage rule, and we look forward to 

 3 having this finalized and remain an active partner with 

 4 you in order to ensure a level playing field for 

 5 California-based carriers. 

 6 Thank you. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 8 John Cloud. 

 9 MR. CLOUD: Madam Chair, Board members, I had to 

 10 modify my comments because you switched it to two minutes, 

 11 and I also promised my father I would be civil today. 

 12 In March of 1869, the following words were 

 13 pinned: "Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect 

 14 and proportion as we know they are made." 

 15 I want to read that again. 

 16 "Laws, like sausage, cease to inspire respect and 

 17 proportion as we know they are made," John Godfrey Saxe, 

 18 American poet, 1869. He would be floored if he were here 

 19 today. 

 20 This proposal and my disapproval for it are well 

 21 documented as is my near total utter disdain for your 

 22 staff. However, that notwithstanding, I'm here today to 

 23 support these proposed changes. They are far better than 

 24 what we have been dealing with, even just four months ago, 

 25 let alone a year ago. 
 206 

 1 It's been touched upon earlier -- and I think 

 2 it's worth touching on again -- that the amendment to this 

 3 rule is really not backsliding on any of the health 

 4 benefits. The reason being for those on the environmental 

 5 side, is the health benefits that were discussed 

 6 six months ago, let alone two years ago, were pure 

 7 fantasy. They weren't based off any real actual numbers. 

 8 Today, we have a far better baseline to deal with. And 

 9 the proposed health benefits are going forward from that 

 10 baseline. And that's what this is needed all alone. 

 11 And thinking of being civil, the only other think 

 12 I want to state, Ms. Nichols, I believe next month your 

 13 staff has a workshop scheduled on false statements. When 

 14 you have that workshop, I would just like to add when it 

 15 comes to false statements, I think it should be reciprocal 

 16 and it should be retroactive, and your staff should be 

 17 prepared to be the first ones in the state to write checks 

 18 for fines and penalties. Thank you. 

 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 20 Kathy Fitzgerald and then Elizabeth Jonasson and 

 21 Shirley Batchman. 

 22 MS. FITZGERALD: I'm Kathy Fitzgerald. 

 23 Hello, Madam Chair, Board, and staff. I'm the 

 24 dealer principle of Fitzgerald Truck Sales in Oakland, 

 25 California. I've been selling trucks in that area for 
 207 

 1 more than 25 years, and I'm based out of the Port of 

 2 Oakland. 

 3 I support your amendments. First, I support the 

 4 change in the drayage rule to give the useful life to the 

 5 trucks longer after they retrofit. And I would 

 6 respectfully ask that the engines that are 2004, 2005, 

 7 2006, that you give more time -- one more year for them to 

 8 get the retrofits. These guys are already paying $30,000 

 9 for the trucks. To add another $20,000 retrofit on top is 

 10 just astronomical. I ask that you make that change, 

 11 consider that. 

 12 Secondly, I support the truck and bus rule 

 13 eliminating the under 26,000 pounds from the PM. That was 

 14 a great, great move. 

 15 The last things I want to say is let's get the 

 16 money into the hands of these people. We've been talking 

 17 about all these grants that are available. We rarely have 

 18 seen the people actually get the money. So whatever you 

 19 can do to facilitate getting the money out on the street, 

 20 my customers are going to appreciate. I'm going to 

 21 appreciate it. The industry is going to appreciate it. 

 22 Let's get the money out. 

 23 And finally, make a decision. We've been going 

 24 for a long time with this. What are they going to do? 

 25 What are they going to do? What are they going to do? 
 208 

 1 Very hard to do business when we don't have a decision. 

 2 That's the last thing I want to say is make good 

 3 decisions. And thank you. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 5 Elizabeth Jonasson. 

 6 MS. JONASSON: I'm Elizabeth Jonasson, the 

 7 Coalition for Clean Air in the San Joaquin Valley. 

 8 Thank you very much for your time this afternoon 

 9 and for the opportunity to speak and for your continued 

 10 SIP commitment. 

 11 We are particularly concerned about how these 

 12 amendments to both diesel rules will affect our home in 

 13 the short and long term, as these sources represent a 

 14 considerable amount of PM and NOx emissions. Even though 

 15 we are, of course, sensitive to the economic situation and 

 16 the current times that we are living in, of course, the 

 17 localized impacts will continue. These especially effect 

 18 low-income communities of color a lot, which are located 

 19 in the San Joaquin Valley. These people will have little 

 20 or no access to health care. And they will not be getting 

 21 relief in their health or their health care bill. 

 22 People don't feel the difference in the changes 

 23 in modeling or inventory. They feel the changes in how 

 24 they breathe and how well they can breathe. 

 25 These rules play a significant role also in our 
 209 

 1 SIP attainment. The economy, of course, is a very 

 2 difficult thing to predict, and I know staff has spent 

 3 tireless hours working on that. However, in terms of 

 4 health, a slightly faster economic recovery would put us 

 5 out of SIP compliance. And since we have no margin of 

 6 error, as other people have mentioned, this is a serious 

 7 concern. 

 8 Some specific steps are mentioned in a comment 

 9 letter that we signed onto, but in sum, we respectfully 

 10 ask some changes be made to these amendments to minimize 

 11 the localized impacts and give us at least a 20 percent 

 12 SIP margin. 

 13 Thank you very much for your time. 

 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Shirley Batchman, Bruce 

 15 Wick and Brent Newell. 

 16 MS. BATCHMAN: Madam Chair and members of the 

 17 Board, I'm Shirley Batchman with California Citrus Mutual. 

 18 And you know, this has been a really long and 

 19 challenging time for agriculture. And I think staff would 

 20 agree when they have had negotiations with us. But I want 

 21 to tell you, I'm pleased today to tell you that we do 

 22 support the amendments that have been put forth for the 

 23 agricultural component of the rule. 

 24 But I do want that little caveat that Roger had 

 25 at the very beginning of today. My industry, if they 
 210 

 1 thought I was supporting the whole rule wholeheartedly, I 

 2 would be with Roger on the unemployment line. Just need 

 3 that caveat in there. 

 4 But secondly, the citrus industry, a high 

 5 percentage of our trucks do not qualify for the ag 

 6 component of the rule, because we are an industry that 

 7 pretty much operates ten months a year. So with the 

 8 amendments that have been put forward in the main part of 

 9 the rule today, they will have benefit for a great 

 10 percentage of the citrus industry. So I do thank you for 

 11 taking a look at the economy, because the profit margins 

 12 that you've heard many times today are very, very thin. 

 13 My last comment is -- and I hear this frequently 

 14 from the people that are affected by this rule and my 

 15 industry -- they are looking for certainty. They make a 

 16 plan. The rule changes. They make another plan. We 

 17 really appreciate what you've done for the economy. But 

 18 at some point, they've got to know so they can plan going 

 19 forward. 

 20 So with that, thank you. 

 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 22 Bruce Wick. 

 23 MR. WICK: Good afternoon. 

 24 Bruce Wick. I'm Director of Risk Management for 

 25 CalPAS Specialty Contractor Association, 300 members in 
 211 

 1 California. 

 2 I do want to first thank staff for the work 

 3 they've done with the Cal/OSHA Standards Board. And, 

 4 hopefully, in February, we're going to have an effective 

 5 regulation regarding the safe installation of retrofits. 

 6 That's been an important thing for us, and I appreciate 

 7 the efforts and work. 

 8 Also like to thank the Board for directing staff 

 9 on the on-road and off-road diesel regs to contemplate the 

 10 economy. And I thank staff for the enormous amount of 

 11 work, to take that information and come up with the 

 12 amendments that are proposed today. Support the 

 13 amendments. Again, don't support the regulation, but do 

 14 support the amendments as they are. 

 15 For construction, two really important concepts 

 16 are the bubble concept, because dual regs are hurting 

 17 construction a lot. And the low mileage on-road regs for 

 18 construction, because we do have a lot of equipment that 

 19 does have very little mileage, but does go over the 

 20 thousand miles a year. 

 21 I do want to reiterate Skip Brown's comment about 

 22 480 hours average equipment usage. That is 

 23 misinformation. It's much, much higher than that. 

 24 And a point I would just like to make is 

 25 construction is not in recovery yet. We get estimates 
 212 

 1 that will start in 2012 or maybe 2017 or somewhere in 

 2 between. But the experts do say when recovery begins, it 

 3 will be very gradual. So I think emissions from 

 4 construction equipment is going to be very low, 

 5 unfortunately, for quite a while. 

 6 Thank you. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 8 Brent Newell and Don Watson and Al Nunes. 

 9 MR. NEWELL: Good afternoon, members of the 

 10 Board. My name is Brent Newell, Center on Race, Poverty, 

 11 and the Environment. 

 12 Today, I want to make two points. First, I want 

 13 to talk about honoring past resolutions. And second, I 

 14 want to talk about environmental justice. 

 15 In 2008, this Board adopted this version of the 

 16 rule that you are proposing to amend. When you adopted 

 17 it, your resolution called for a risk assessment to be 

 18 done within a year of the adoption in order to calculate 

 19 the cancer risk and other health effects that would have 

 20 happened as a result of the agricultural exemption that 

 21 was inserted in that rule. You recall that ag trucks 

 22 received special treatment under this current rule. That 

 23 risk assessment has never been done. Staff confirmed to 

 24 me last month that the risk assessment was not done. 

 25 In 2003, this Board adopted a resolution that 
 213 

 1 committed itself to adopting significant mobile source 

 2 reductions, including diesel reductions, in order to meet 

 3 the one-hour ozone standard. The deadline for which was 

 4 just over a month ago, November 15th of 2010. The South 

 5 Coast air basin and the San Joaquin Valley have failed 

 6 miserably to meet that one-hour ozone standard. The 

 7 primary reason they failed to meet that one-hour ozone 

 8 standard is because this Board, this agency, did not 

 9 deliver on the reductions that it adopted and committed to 

 10 do in that 2003 resolution. 

 11 The failure to meet that one-hour standard 

 12 triggers Section 185 of the Clean Air Act, which imposes a 

 13 fee -- $10,000 per ton fee on stationary sources. The 

 14 Clean Air Act says it goes to stationary sources. So 

 15 stationary sources are paying a penalty in the South Coast 

 16 air basin and in the San Joaquin Valley because primarily 

 17 as a result this Board did not adopt those mobile source 

 18 reductions that it promised to do in 2003. 

 19 Ironically, in the valley, the San Joaquin Valley 

 20 Air District, want to, instead of charging the fee to the 

 21 stationary sources, they want to charge it to passenger 

 22 vehicle owners through their DMV registrations, as if they 

 23 had anything to do with the not adopted rules. 

 24 So my point is don't adopt these amendments. The 

 25 San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast need these 
 214 

 1 reductions, these extra reductions that you're going to 

 2 backslide on to meet the one-hour standard. You still 

 3 have to meet the one-hour standard. We've been talking 

 4 about the PM2.5 standard and the eight-hour ozone 

 5 standard. You still need to meet the one-hour standard. 

 6 Very quickly, civil rights and environmental 

 7 justice. NRDC introduced those maps. The environmental 

 8 justice screen method that's been pioneered at USC 

 9 demonstrate the adverse and disparate impacts that will 

 10 occur as a result of these amendments. 

 11 There is some talking back and forth about 

 12 whether there was an effect or was not. The bottom line 

 13 is that the current rule requires a significant amount of 

 14 reductions to occur earlier. This amendment reduces the 

 15 reductions and pushes them off. Near-highway communities 

 16 that are predominantly low income and communities of color 

 17 will bare an adverse and disparate impact. Title 6 of the 

 18 Civil Rights Act says a federally funded agency like yours 

 19 may not discriminate on the basis of race. Therefore, 

 20 there will be a Title 6 complaint in your future. 

 21 Thank you. 

 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. 

 23 Mr. Watson and then Al Nunes and Barbara Lee. 

 24 MR. WATSON: Chairman Nichols, Board, and staff, 

 25 thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 
 215 

 1 I'm an owner-operator of one ten-wheel dump 

 2 truck. Let me explain briefly how I get my work. I call 

 3 brokers, many of which are here today. And when their 

 4 trucks are out, they give me a call back and tell me I 

 5 have some work. When their trucks don't get out and 

 6 they're not, then I don't have any work. 

 7 So this recession, like everybody else, has hit 

 8 me very, very hard. I'm down over 50 percent in what I'm 

 9 taking in a year. 

 10 I have a 1990 Kenworth. And I talked to Peter 

 11 earlier this morning, and he said that there might be some 

 12 relief on the way as far as a particulate matter filter or 

 13 something I might be able to do for my truck. Without 

 14 some kind of relief like that, with this recession, you're 

 15 going to find another 60-year-old man in the unemployment 

 16 line, because I just won't be able to purchase any truck. 

 17 It's just not in the cards. 

 18 Again, thank you for this opportunity to speak. 

 19 And whatever you can do for us, I would really appreciate. 

 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 21 Mr. Nunes? 

 22 Ms. Lee. 

 23 MS. LEE: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members 

 24 of the Board. 

 25 I'm Barbara Lee, the Air Pollution Control 
 216 

 1 Officer in Northern Sonoma. 

 2 I want to start by congratulating this Board and 

 3 staff on your leadership in protecting air quality and 

 4 public health and especially the tremendous job you've 

 5 done steering your program to some great successes through 

 6 some really difficult economic times. 

 7 Second, I would like to add my support to the 

 8 comments that were submitted by the California Air 

 9 Pollution Control Officer's Association recognizing the 

 10 needs of the areas in California that have dirtier air 

 11 than Northern Sonoma does, and especially urging ARB to 

 12 align your guidelines for your grant programs with the 

 13 changes you're making to these rules as quickly as 

 14 possible so the programs work well together. 

 15 My main purpose in appearing today is fairly 

 16 specific. I would like to ask your consideration for 

 17 adding the Northern Sonoma Air District area to the NOx 

 18 exempt area list in Section 2449(c)(6) and 2449.1(a) of 

 19 your rules. 

 20 As you know, last March, ARB classified Northern 

 21 Sonoma as attainment for all federal and state ambient air 

 22 quality standards. Only one other area in the state has 

 23 achieved this status. And in northern Sonoma, we will 

 24 maintain, regardless of the level at which the EPA sets 

 25 its new ozone standard. 
 217 

 1 Our highest ozone level in 2010 was .036 PPM, 

 2 which is I think below background for most of the state. 

 3 I'm giving you that information by way of 

 4 underscoring that allowing NOx-exempt status in northern 

 5 Sonoma would have no adverse impact on our air quality, 

 6 but it would provide some really important relief and 

 7 compliance alternatives for the regulated community there. 

 8 I appreciate the opportunity to speak. 

 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks. 

 10 Hank de Carbonel, Eric Eisenhammer and Nick 

 11 Pfeifer. 

 12 MR. DE CARBONEL: Good afternoon. 

 13 I'm with the Concrete Pumpers of California. 

 14 Little perspective. In our industry, five, six 

 15 years ago, over 1,000 new concrete pump boom trucks were 

 16 sold in the United States of America. One year ago, for 

 17 which the accurate records exist, there were less than 35 

 18 for the United States. And in California, that's probably 

 19 down to about two or three trucks as far as I could find 

 20 out. So, yeah, we've had a little bit of a downturn in 

 21 our economy. 

 22 The California Legislative Analysts Office says 

 23 the overall California economy won't recover start to 

 24 recover until 2013. And as some of the previous people 

 25 have mentioned, construction in homes won't probably go 
 218 

 1 for another -- until another five or six years. So our 

 2 guys are going to stay busy doing nothing. 

 3 Your amended rules to give us 15,000 miles of 

 4 travel does nothing for us should business come back. And 

 5 I base that on taking 12,000 miles or 15,000 divided by 

 6 each month. Divide each month by 20 working days, and you 

 7 get a working radius of about 30 miles. Or that means we 

 8 could travel maybe from Oakland to San Francisco should 

 9 there be a job. The numbers just don't work out for us. 

 10 The last thing I'll mention, we talked about 

 11 saving lives here and the dangers of particulate matter 

 12 and now it's gone to particulate matter is even worse than 

 13 vapor the ether. I want to point out to you that 

 14 according to the National Safety Council each year, 371 

 15 people die getting in and out of their bathtub in the 

 16 United States. If you take the current numbers and you 

 17 relate to what the responsibility of diesel is for the 

 18 supposed maybe could be deaths from particulate matter, 

 19 it's less than that. If we spend $14 billion to save 

 20 people from falling in and out of their bathtub every 

 21 year, people would think we're insane. Thank you. 

 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 23 Eric Eisenhammer. No. 

 24 Nick Pfeifer. 

 25 MR. PFEIFER: Good afternoon. I'm Nick Pfeifer 
 219 

 1 with Granite Construction. 

 2 Granite currently owns a fleet of approximately 

 3 800 pieces of off-road diesel equipment and 800 diesel 

 4 trucks in California. 

 5 Since 2006, Granite's business is off more than 

 6 50 percent in the state of California. And we actually 

 7 did the math, and our emissions are off more than 75 

 8 percent. That reduction in emissions is obviously for two 

 9 reasons. The economy is one driver, but we also took a 

 10 number of proactive steps to comply primarily with the 

 11 off-road rule, and there are reductions to show for that. 

 12 So I'm here for the most part in support of the 

 13 amendments and do appreciate staff working with us. The 

 14 light truck relief provision is particularly helpful. But 

 15 I would like to stress the importance of one of the 15-day 

 16 changes that was mentioned, and that's the bubble or 

 17 credit exchange concept. For proactive fleets, this 

 18 concept, especially to be able to move credit from the 

 19 off-road rule to the on-road rule, is very helpful. It 

 20 allows us to "cash in" some of our actions that we took 

 21 early. And it really does give us some breathing room on 

 22 the on-road rules for things that we did to comply with 

 23 the off-road rule early. So again I appreciate staff 

 24 including that. 

 25 And would also just like to ask that a look be 
 220 

 1 given at giving full retirement credit in the off-road 

 2 rule from the original baseline date of March 1st, 2009. 

 3 With that, I thank you for the opportunity and 

 4 look forward to working with staff for the 15-day changes. 

 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. And 

 6 thanks for all that your company has already done. 

 7 Gordon Downs, are you here, Mr. Downs? Yes. 

 8 Followed by Joy Williams and Nidia Bautista. 

 9 MR. DOWNS: Good afternoon, Board members. Good 

 10 afternoon, staff. 

 11 My name is Gordon Downs. I own Downs Equipment 

 12 Rentals in Bakersfield. 

 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I'd like to say you're one 

 14 of the more memorable characters that we've had. Good to 

 15 see you again. 

 16 MR. DOWNS: Thank you. Good to see you. 

 17 We have about 250 diesel heavy earth-moving 

 18 equipment -- pieces of earth-moving equipment in our 

 19 company. So we're looked at very closely by the 

 20 California Air Resources Board. To let you know, we are 

 21 in support of the proposed amendments. I'd like to make a 

 22 couple of points. 

 23 First of all, staff estimates that the cost 

 24 reduction is about 60 percent with the amendments. And 

 25 also included in that I suppose is the delay until 2014. 
 221 

 1 The first point I'd like to make is that all of 

 2 the costs of complying with this rule, for a business -- 

 3 they're not -- these costs are not made to improve a 

 4 business. They're just -- it's just wasted money. You 

 5 just may as well take the money that it costs to meet 

 6 compliance and throw it down the drain. That's point 

 7 number one. As far as strictly business. 

 8 Am I already -- do I already have a warning here? 

 9 Point number two, I'll try to hurry up. 

 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I took some of your time. 

 11 MR. DOWNS: We have 30 employees now. We had 50 

 12 several years ago. But these 30 employees have gone three 

 13 years now without a pay raise. Now, most of these people 

 14 are raising children. Their costs have gone up. The 

 15 point is, their standard of living over the last three 

 16 years have gone down within our company. They have gone 

 17 done. 

 18 By 2014 now, we are going to be facing the costs 

 19 of this regulation as it starts to go into effect. And 

 20 that will be like putting our company into another 

 21 recession. If you think about it, since we had to spend 

 22 money for no good reason and it just takes money away from 

 23 our employees, this is very harmful to employees. So in a 

 24 sense, if you would think about it, we're sort of 

 25 exchanging one health problem for another. Because we've 
 222 

 1 all agree that if your income goes down, you can't 

 2 maintain as healthy a lifestyle. 

 3 That's the point I would like to make. Thank 

 4 you. 

 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 6 Joy Williams and then Nidia Bautista and Andy 

 7 Katz. 

 8 MS. WILLIAMS: Hi. I'm Joy Williams. I'm here 

 9 from the Environmental Health Coalition in San Diego. 

 10 Environmental Health Coalition did sign onto the 

 11 Environmental Coalition letter, and we're in agreement 

 12 with those recommendations. 

 13 So I'll give you two minutes of perspective on 

 14 what's going on in San Diego and why we're especially 

 15 concerned about the on-road rule deadline roll-backs in 

 16 our region. 

 17 For one thing, it's not that clear to me that our 

 18 communities have gotten any reprieve in particulate 

 19 pollution due to the recession. Looking at levels of 

 20 PM2.5 at the air monitor that's located in one of our 

 21 environmental justice communities, Barrio Logan, we have 

 22 not seen any consistent decreases between 2006 and 2009 in 

 23 the annual average levels. So questioning whether that 

 24 highly-impacted community is really getting a break from 

 25 pollution during the last three years. 
 223 

 1 That community has also been working hard to 

 2 finalize a new land use community plan which would allow 

 3 water-front industries and residential communities to 

 4 exist side-by-side in order to keep those jobs and make 

 5 sure that air quality has improved for those residents. 

 6 We need to make sure that every truck going through that 

 7 truck or traveling through or visiting the port is as 

 8 clean as possible in its emissions. 

 9 Looking further south, the cargo terminal in 

 10 National City receives mostly car cargos, so the trucks 

 11 visiting that terminal are car carriers, which are exempt 

 12 from the drayage truck rule. The only relief that 

 13 community will see from truck particulate matter is from 

 14 the on-road rule. So again, we're looking to that rule to 

 15 help air quality in that community. 

 16 And then looking way down at the border area, the 

 17 area of our region with the most consistently high 

 18 particulate levels is the Otay Mesa area where the 

 19 Mexico/U.S. border crossings are. And although those are 

 20 ports of entry, they're not subject to the emission -- 

 21 drayage truck rules. So we need the on-road rule to help 

 22 that community. 

 23 Finally, I want to remind you, you've gotten a 

 24 letter from the Port of San Diego expressing level playing 

 25 field concerns between the drayage truck rule and the 
 224 

 1 on-road rule. 

 2 Thank you. 

 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Nidia and then Andy Katz. 

 4 MS. BAUTISTA: Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair 

 5 and members of the Board. 

 6 I'm Nidia Bautista, Policy Director at the 

 7 Coalition for Clean Air. We're a statewide air quality 

 8 advocacy organization with offices in Los Angeles, Fresno, 

 9 and Sacramento. And we're committed to ensuring clean air 

 10 for all Californians. 

 11 I want to acknowledge the efforts of CARB staff 

 12 and Board for over the last few years continuing to engage 

 13 with us in dialogue and really spending time with us going 

 14 over the inventory. I know it's a tough task before you 

 15 in terms of getting things as best as we can with the 

 16 latest data. So we do appreciate your efforts there. 

 17 I also want to acknowledge the work of the TRAC 

 18 and the outreach that ARB has committed itself to do on 

 19 diesel rules. I think these efforts want to continue to 

 20 support those and ensure they continue. 

 21 Certainly in terms of the regulation, we 

 22 appreciate the efforts to address the dray-off issue. 

 23 That said, I think we have some major concerns 

 24 with the proposal before us today. While we acknowledge 

 25 certainly a need for and have consistently acknowledged 
 225 

 1 with the downturn of the economy there would be a need for 

 2 some modification to these rules, we are concerned by the 

 3 level of the modifications both in terms of the fact that 

 4 we are unfortunately trading off some of the near-term 

 5 benefits that we would otherwise have experienced, 

 6 particularly in localized communities, as well as our 

 7 level of comfort with the SIP margin is just not at a 

 8 place where we'd like to be. 

 9 So as the joint coalition letter shared, we would 

 10 really appreciate having a 20 percent margin there, 

 11 particularly considering the South Coast emissions 

 12 inventory analysis showed the potential for 20 to 30 

 13 percent of the emissions being off. So we don't want to 

 14 get to a place where we're at 2014 and actually short. 

 15 And though I know that the staff is committed to 

 16 reviewing this rule, if the economy changes down the line, 

 17 I'm concerned that's going to be too late to really make 

 18 any fundamental changes we might need to do to shore up 

 19 that SIP. 

 20 That said, in our letter, we did include some -- 

 21 those are the umbrella requests. We included some 

 22 specific suggestions where staff can explore making these 

 23 changes, and we really encourage the Board to ask staff 

 24 directly about some of those changes, but also to ensure 

 25 to see if they can explore any others that might be able 
 226 

 1 to meet the request we're making today. 

 2 Thank you. 

 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 4 Andy Katz and then Jocelyn Vivar, and Isella 

 5 Ramirez. 

 6 MR. KATZ: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and 

 7 Board members. 

 8 Andy Katz from Breathe California. Want to thank 

 9 the Board for advancing clean air and public health 

 10 through cleaning up diesel equipment. I understand that 

 11 taking reasonable efforts to relax the rule due to fewer 

 12 emissions and slower economy is what the Board is prepared 

 13 to do. 

 14 But due to the absence of updated air quality 

 15 monitoring and modeling and specific reasons for 

 16 uncertainty, these proposed amendments risk missing the 

 17 mark and falling short on SIP requirements and public 

 18 health goals to prevent cancer, asthma, and other health 

 19 effects due to diesel pollution. 

 20 That SIP requirements and public health goals 

 21 to -- some of the reasons for uncertainty, some of the 

 22 specific reasons for uncertainty are, number one, the 

 23 credit provisions for early PM retrofits. I think that 

 24 those are good provisions that can help encourage early 

 25 compliance and early health reductions. But there's some 
 227 

 1 uncertainly in how they're going to progress. The trend 

 2 in the economy indicating that truck miles could outpace 

 3 expectations in the economy, that's an uncertainty. And 

 4 the methodology changes to off-road equipment. While this 

 5 adjustment to the inventory is reasonable, this does not 

 6 mean there's a linear relationship with SIP requirements. 

 7 This is because the 2007 SIP commitment were projected 

 8 assuming 15 percent more tons of emissions than were 

 9 actually occurring. 

 10 So there is a lot of uncertainty in the modeling, 

 11 and I do hope that ARB will follow through and make sure 

 12 when the SIP occurs in April 2011 that there will be an 

 13 adequate margin or contingency measures. I encourage the 

 14 Board to have a 20 percent margin to make sure that there 

 15 will not be falling short of the SIP commitments and there 

 16 will be a compliance with the Clean Air Act. 

 17 Thank you. 

 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 19 Jocelyn and then Isella Ramirez and Tim 

 20 Carmichael. 

 21 MS. VIVAR: Hi. Good afternoon, members of the 

 22 Board. 

 23 My name is Jocelyn Vivar. I'm with East Yard 

 24 Communities for Environmental Justice. We are an 

 25 environmental health and justice organization in the city 
 228 

 1 of Commerce where our communities are heavily impacted by 

 2 activity from the goods movement industry. 

 3 There is a real impact in our communities because 

 4 of the place that where they live and work is a diesel hot 

 5 spot. With two major freeways, one of which is the I-710 

 6 super highway, a major arterial road, and four rail yards. 

 7 They are suffering from asthma, cancer and other 

 8 respiratory illnesses due to the cumulative impacts from 

 9 all of these sources, which some are mobile smoke stacks 

 10 just driving by constantly through our community. 

 11 It is really unfortunate that instead of children 

 12 carrying backpacks full of toys, they are carrying 

 13 backpacks with respiratory machines. And there's children 

 14 that their backyard is rail yards or their backyard is the 

 15 freeway or other highways where their quality of air is 

 16 heavily impacted. 

 17 And we do appreciate the fact that the staff and 

 18 the Board are working towards improving the quality of 

 19 air, but we do recognize that the economy is not ideal 

 20 right now. Not for some of the industry and not for our 

 21 community. And these rules as they are important because 

 22 they will cut down on costs, medications, and also health 

 23 risk for the families that are heavily impacted. The 

 24 human cost is heavy, and the proposed changes go beyond 

 25 what is necessary. And the near-term health risks in 2014 
 229 

 1 and 2017 would be cut short. 

 2 Our impacted communities need near-term relief 

 3 now. We ask that staff provide near-term benefits through 

 4 upgrades on the oldest dirtiest trucks beginning in 2014. 

 5 If I could just add a few more seconds. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We are really losing ground 

 7 here. So just wrap up. 

 8 MS. VIVAR: So we would ask that the staff 

 9 provide near-term benefits starting in 2012 from the 

 10 dirtiest trucks, including a higher SIP margin and also a 

 11 monitor program. 

 12 And thank you for the drayage rules that you are 

 13 working on. 

 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 15 Isella Ramirez, Tim Carmichael, John Yandell. 

 16 MS. RAMIREZ: Good afternoon. My name is Isella 

 17 Ramirez. I'm also with East Yard Communities for 

 18 Environmental Justice. 

 19 And today, I come here to recommend that as we -- 

 20 or you consider offering some economic relief to the small 

 21 and large businesses that you don't forget about the 

 22 communities that are also having to content with an 

 23 economic crisis, while having to contend with the negative 

 24 impacts on their health caused by toxic diesel pollution 

 25 as Senator Polanco detailed earlier. 
 230 

 1 In particulate, East Yard EJ recommends that you 

 2 require all 1994 to 2000 year heavy-duty vehicles to 

 3 install these much needed filters by 2012. Waiting until 

 4 2017, as staff proposes, is inconceivable, given our 

 5 communities are already overburdened with diesel 

 6 pollution. 

 7 We also request that you replace all heavy-duty 

 8 vehicles that are more than 20 years old beginning in 

 9 2012. We cannot allow for these uncontrolled pre-1994 

 10 model year trucks to continue to park near our schools, 

 11 drive past our parks, and exhaust in our lungs. 

 12 I work in the city of Commerce where I grew up 

 13 and where all my family still lives. This may -- my need 

 14 niece and three-year-old -- I promised myself I wouldn't 

 15 cry -- was diagnosed with a very aggressive type of 

 16 cancer. And she's been a warrior and been battling. And 

 17 even though I've gone through a lot of challenges in my 

 18 own life, seeing her fight for every breath at the ICU 

 19 this last month has really been the hardest thing I've 

 20 ever had to experience. 

 21 And so today I ask that you consider the children 

 22 and the communities that are most negatively impacted both 

 23 by the economic crisis but also from these dirty 

 24 businesses. 

 25 Thank you for your time. 
 231 

 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Of course. 

 2 MR. CARMICHAEL: Good afternoon, Chairman 

 3 Nichols, members of the Board. 

 4 Tim Carmichael with the California Natural Gas 

 5 Vehicle Coalition. Very much share the concerns that have 

 6 been raised about health impacts and about the inventory 

 7 and the lack of a margin for error. But I want to use my 

 8 time to discuss something that I don't think has been 

 9 discussed today. 

 10 A few weeks from now, in early January, the L.A. 

 11 County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is going to 

 12 retire its last diesel bus. It's going to retire its last 

 13 diesel bus. That's an effort I was involved with back in 

 14 the 1992. It's taken them 18 years, but they're going to 

 15 retire their last diesel bus. 

 16 I raise this, because it highlights what these 

 17 heavy-duty rules don't accomplish. They don't reduce our 

 18 dependence on petroleum. And they don't really do much 

 19 for reducing greenhouse gases. 

 20 In 2006 and 2007, the Air Board worked with the 

 21 CEC to develop an AB 1007 alternative fuels plan for the 

 22 state. This Board adopted that plan. That plan -- the 

 23 moderate growth scenario in that plan calls for 26 percent 

 24 alternative fuels by 2022; 26 percent alternative fuels 

 25 for the transportation sector in California by 2022. 
 232 

 1 I have two specific requests for the Board. I 

 2 raised this one before back in 2009. As I recall, several 

 3 of you from the dias agreed and thought it was a good 

 4 idea. Starting now with every regulation that this staff 

 5 brings to you, including amendments to regulations that 

 6 you've already adopted, not only should they report on the 

 7 economic impacts, not only should they report on the 

 8 health/SIP/criteria pollutant impacts, but also be 

 9 reporting to you on what are the greenhouse gas impacts of 

 10 these changes or this new reg, as well as how does this 

 11 play into our petroleum reduction goals that we've adopted 

 12 as a state? That was not part of the presentation today, 

 13 and it should be part of every presentation that staff 

 14 makes to you with any regulation or an amendment to a 

 15 regulation. 

 16 Quickly, the second request is looking even 

 17 beyond 2022, we've done so much work as a state in 

 18 clarifying and developing our strategy for the light-duty 

 19 vehicle sector. Where do we need to be by 2050 and how 

 20 are we going to get there? We have not done the work with 

 21 the heavy-duty sector. 

 22 My request is that the Board direct staff to 

 23 accomplish this in 201. Work with interested parties and 

 24 develop that equivalent plan for the heavy-duty sector in 

 25 California. Where do we need to be and how are we going 
 233 

 1 to get there? Today, I submit even those that work on 

 2 this reg can't lay that out for you. And they should be 

 3 able to. 

 4 Thank you very much. 

 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 6 John Yandell, Sean Edgar, Daniel Massolo. 

 7 MR. YANDALL: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Board 

 8 and staff. 

 9 My name is John Yandell. My family has been in 

 10 the trucking warehousing business doing business solely in 

 11 the state of California of 65 years and would like to 

 12 continue to do so. 

 13 At this time, as we've heard, there are a lot of 

 14 different groups here today, a lot of different 

 15 regulations we and others in the room have to deal with 

 16 and get compliance concurrently, we do, with three 

 17 different regulations. Number one is the on-road rule. 

 18 Number two is the greenhouse gas regulation because when 

 19 we are out in business, we are having to replace all of 

 20 our forklifts. A challenge in these economic times. 

 21 I here to speak on today and again I'll try to 

 22 stay within my two minutes that the American Trucking 

 23 Association and California Trucking Association has asked 

 24 the Board to direct staff on their greenhouse gas 

 25 regulations to change the short haul exemption from 100 
 234 

 1 miles to 150 miles. I'd like you to support that. 

 2 Certainly in our environment and others, in short haul 

 3 transportation, we have not just one trailer and one 

 4 truck. Actually, our situation is we have three trailers 

 5 per one power unit. Sometimes these are not turning over 

 6 more than three to five just in time deliveries. The 

 7 return on investment for us to invest at this time in 

 8 aerodynamics with two rules at this time is just not 

 9 economically feasible. And I would ask that the Board 

 10 would again ask staff to please support that change in the 

 11 short haul exemption. 

 12 Thank you. 

 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 14 Sean Edgar and then Daniel Massolo. 

 15 MR. EDGAR: Chair Nichols and Board members, good 

 16 afternoon. 

 17 I'm Sean Edgar, Executive Director for the Clean 

 18 Fleets Coalition. In my ten years of appearing in front 

 19 of your Board, I know 120 seconds goes very quickly. So I 

 20 will be referencing two documents that on the Clean Fleets 

 21 Coalition letterhead I'll be buzzing through to ask for 

 22 your consideration of some critical technical amendments. 

 23 Primarily, the first item that you've heard from 

 24 Trucking Association as well as others that the 2007 to 

 25 2009 engine credit is something that is very important to 
 235 

 1 them. The Board allows that for VDEX or aftermarket 

 2 installation. So we'd like to give equal consideration to 

 3 folks that actually put down -- give money to buy new 

 4 equipment, because recognizing you also get a NOx benefit 

 5 with that decision. I know folks have been gearing up to 

 6 be prepared for the rule. That's first item we'd like to 

 7 ask, equity with regard to early action. 

 8 Secondly, there is early action -- there is 

 9 currently a pre-payment requirement -- I use that 

 10 terminology, because Board staff has a requirement that 

 11 filters with need to be paid for prior to completion of 

 12 the work. And that's something that we have concern about 

 13 and should be the same language as the items that 

 14 correspond to the VDEX manufacturer delay in terms of 

 15 having deposit or contractual obligation. 

 16 Lastly, I'll skip over engine family, because we 

 17 can't supply data that's not available on the engine. You 

 18 should allow gasoline hybrid electric vehicles. I have an 

 19 explicit statement request for switching compliance paths 

 20 if fleets goes from one path to another. We ask for a 

 21 explicit statement as long as the fleet is in compliance 

 22 in one schedule, to be compliant on the other schedule and 

 23 that's not intuitive but not explicit. 

 24 Lastly, I'll reference very quickly an item on 

 25 belly boxes. I have a one-page handout that contains a 
 236 

 1 belly box amendment that I can speak to. 

 2 And lastly, I provided a picture set of the 

 3 lettuce truck harvesting set that Mr. Dan Massolo is going 

 4 to speak about. 

 5 Thank you for your time. Happy to the answer 

 6 questions you may have. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 8 Daniel Massolo, Allen Faris, Jill Gayaldo. 

 9 MR. MASSOLO: Daniel Massolo with Massolo 

 10 Brothers, Inc. 

 11 And we have a vehicle that we are requesting that 

 12 you would place in the specialty agriculture category. 

 13 Our vehicle is a vehicle that can't be bought. They're 

 14 not made anymore. They're a short wheel base for sharp 

 15 turning in the field. They have 80-inch track. They're 

 16 wider than a regular truck so that the tire doesn't fit in 

 17 the lettuce furrow. And they also have a self-loading bed 

 18 on them that they pack up to the harvesting machine, the 

 19 load is transferred off the harvesting machine onto our 

 20 truck and taken to a processing plant. 

 21 So we're a family business. We can't find a 

 22 truck to replace this in a short amount of time that 

 23 you're giving us. If you can get into the specialty ag 

 24 category, they will give us the time to start either 

 25 manufacturing our own trucks or finding a manufacturer 
 237 

 1 that would do it for us. Thank you very much for your 

 2 time. 

 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 4 MR. FARIS: Good afternoon. My name is Allen 

 5 Faris. I've been hauling rock, sand, and gravel in 

 6 Sacramento for over 45 years. 

 7 My position on this hasn't changed one bit. 

 8 Everybody wants the cleanest air possible. They want the 

 9 latest technology and everything else, and there is nobody 

 10 in their right mind that wouldn't like to own a brand-new 

 11 state-of-the-art truck or any company. I'm down to the 

 12 small fleet, three truck operator right now because of 

 13 taking advantage of the complying element with your 

 14 original rules. 

 15 Due to the economics, our business is down 

 16 probably like 90 percent today. It depends on how you 

 17 look at the figures. Fortunately, almost all of our 

 18 equipment is paid for. And I would hate to think if I had 

 19 a couple thousand dollar a month payment on a new truck, 

 20 even though a large percentage of it was granted money 

 21 from one place or another, we could not meet that 

 22 liability. We would not be able to meet the terms and 

 23 conditions of that. I am quite sure there are a lot of 

 24 people that have already lost the Carl Moyer trucks, all 

 25 the stuff. 
 238 

 1 I really want you to take a good look at how down 

 2 the economy is right now. And when it comes back, it's 

 3 going to be hard to borrow money to meet the new 

 4 technology in the state-of-art vehicles. Even if you have 

 5 some grants because you won't be able to borrow any money 

 6 if you can't state some income, have some jobs. There's 

 7 just no work in the construction industry in Sacramento, 

 8 northern California right now to speak of. 

 9 And our entity is probably in good times we put 

 10 45,000 miles on our truck because it's all pretty local. 

 11 We're not in that category where we're gross emitter. And 

 12 there's a lot more people. There's thousands of people 

 13 with one, two, three truck, swimming pool diggers or 

 14 whatever that due to the economy, one thing, cannot afford 

 15 any more cash outlays. Please be sensitive to where our 

 16 economy is right now and where it's going to be for the 

 17 next ten years. 

 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 19 Is Jill Gayaldo here? 

 20 MS. GAYALDO: Everybody still awake? 

 21 My name is Jill Gayaldo. I'm the Director of 

 22 Transportation for the Elk Grove Unified School District 

 23 here in Sacramento County. We are third in Sacramento 

 24 County. Cover 320 square miles. Of our 64,000 kids, less 

 25 than 10,000 now qualify for a rid every day due to the 
 239 

 1 cuts in transportation. 

 2 We traveled 2.5 million miles last year. I know 

 3 your desensitized to the message that everything the world 

 4 is going to fall apart and businesses are going to close. 

 5 But the reality are we have districts that are going under 

 6 State control now in our county. We have massive cuts to 

 7 education, and we are absolutely a target when it comes to 

 8 that. 

 9 We have been the leader in clean fuel for this 

 10 county. I'm very proud of that. I have 25 compressed 

 11 natural gas buses, and I put traps on 58 of my buses long 

 12 before you ever asked for them. We were the guinea pigs, 

 13 and we tried to work out the bugs for our neighboring 

 14 districts. Please know there are bugs. We were able to 

 15 accommodate that with our regular ed students on big buses 

 16 due to the size of our fleet. I could handle the 

 17 breakdowns. That cannot be the case for special needs 

 18 buses. The smaller buses are for medically fragile 

 19 students. They cannot sit by the side of the road in heat 

 20 and cold while we have wait to get another driver to them. 

 21 They're emotionally disturbed and they get too shook. So 

 22 I do encourage you to look at those special ed buses and 

 23 follow through with what you're recommending. 

 24 Last year, there was a proposal to eliminate all 

 25 seven through 12th grade bussing through our district. It 
 240 

 1 came down to -- our employees were great. They took 

 2 furlough days, and we cut five school days out of our 

 3 school year to save that service. 

 4 As you all heard from our incoming Governor this 

 5 week, he told us to fasten our seatbelts. It's back on 

 6 the table as of yesterday. 

 7 And I need to tell Ms. Nichols, I need to clarify 

 8 what you mentioned earlier what that really means. And 

 9 I'm going to use Pleasant Grove High School as an example. 

 10 I transport 1100 students every day on 18 buses. It's 

 11 incredibly efficient clean equipment. Putting those kids 

 12 on the roads means 1100 cars. We are the public bus. 

 13 There is no public bus coming down Jackson highway, and 

 14 it's 16 miles to school. I don't think anyone expects 

 15 them to walk. 

 16 I have 25 buses that are 25 years and older. I 

 17 want them to be clean and I want them replaced. Help us 

 18 get there. I can't put a trap on a 25-year-old bus that's 

 19 going to be reliable. Please, let's not spend 15,000 to 

 20 put on a bus that's worth five. Let's be good stewards of 

 21 this money and replace the equipment. It's the reasonable 

 22 way to do it. We want to do it with you. 

 23 Last, but not least, the voters voted three years 

 24 ago, and we had Prop. 1B and we were going to replace old 

 25 school buses. We get safer buses that were clean. It's 
 241 

 1 been three years. I haven't seen a dime. That's a 

 2 failure to our kids and a failure to our community. 

 3 Thank you. 

 4 MR. HAMMOND: Good afternoon, members of the 

 5 Board, Chairman, and members of staff. 

 6 I actually feel special. Nobody is up here today 

 7 except for me representing the endangered species, the 

 8 mobile crane. I've spoken to you in the past about the 

 9 mobile crane, and you've actually given us some help. And 

 10 we appreciate staff's effort and the things that you have 

 11 done for us. 

 12 There is a couple of things, however, that need 

 13 to be addressed, and the on-road rule is one of them. 

 14 These endangered species that I speak about, the mobile 

 15 crane, which is very imperative to keep our society moving 

 16 because we need it not only for building new buildings but 

 17 we need it for maintaining and for emergency services when 

 18 we have things like the tanker truck that exploded on the 

 19 Oakland Bridge. 

 20 These mobile cranes require trucks to haul 

 21 auxiliary equipment, counterweights, boom sections and 

 22 jigs. So it's very imperative that we be able to carry 

 23 that stuff. And these trucks get very low use. 

 24 We have submitted a letter to the workshop down 

 25 in El Monte. I think it was in May of last year. I think 
 242 

 1 I talked to Tony about it. And we would like to ask your 

 2 consideration for including low use equipment of these 

 3 trucks that haul these counterweights into a low use 

 4 equipment. 

 5 Currently, the letter that I submitted asked for 

 6 a 20,000 mile use for low equipment. There's other pieces 

 7 of low use equipment that should be considered in that 

 8 request. But for our main source of work is the equipment 

 9 that hauls these auxiliary parts for our cranes. 

 10 So if you could help us with that, we think that 

 11 would be a big help. And we actually also would like the 

 12 idea -- I'll end my comments. Thank you. 

 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 14 Seth Hammond, Betty Plowman, Clayton Miller. 

 15 Betty Plowman. 

 16 MS. PLOWMAN: Thank you, Chairman Nichols. Good 

 17 afternoon, Board. 

 18 I have something that might surprise all of you 

 19 and this comes from after listening to the children. 

 20 I'm also from Richmond, California. Escaped in 

 21 1977. Grew up next to Interstate 80. I have one child 

 22 with asthma, which he developed while we moved to our 

 23 farmland in Vacaville and he was allergic to the walnut 

 24 trees. 

 25 Thanks for some of your considerations. I know 
 243 

 1 that this is all about the economy. Unfortunately, the 

 2 amendments for the 15,000 mile won't do much for our 

 3 members. That is because we are dedicated dump trucks. 

 4 And that's our only business. And this may help some of 

 5 the contractors who use trucks that are incidental to 

 6 their contracting business. But for people who use these 

 7 full time, 15,000 is just a little short, even to help a 

 8 group of our single trucks, our ten wheelers. And perhaps 

 9 after talking with Peter outside on the Moyer thing, 

 10 perhaps we should have moved these trucks at some point 

 11 into the off-road rule, because these are not the trucks 

 12 that are on the highway moving material. These are 

 13 on-site trucks, which means when construction is down, 

 14 these trucks aren't moving either. Maybe too late for 

 15 that. Just a thought. 

 16 And the reason that our folks can't -- and I know 

 17 you've heard it today from some of the others. But here's 

 18 the problem. We have no income for very little income. 

 19 We have no credit or very little credit. And then if you 

 20 do get the funding and the Peterbilt and Kenworth right 

 21 here in down have several -- quite a few of the units 

 22 actually when incentive funding was given and the trucks 

 23 were repossessed. 

 24 So we're in dyer straights. 20,000 miles would 

 25 help some of us. Actually, if those guys could be put in 
 244 

 1 those trucks again, maybe perhaps into the off-road rule 

 2 if you could at all. Our guys are going to need 35,000 

 3 miles to even be able to stay in business, our larger 

 4 trucks. 

 5 Thank you very much. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 7 Clayton Miller. 

 8 MR. MILLER: Good afternoon, Chairman Nichols, 

 9 members of the Board. 

 10 My name is Clayton Miller. I represent the 

 11 Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition. And CIAQC 

 12 supports the efforts that your staff has made to 

 13 re-evaluate the impacts of the economic downturn on the 

 14 emissions from the off-road equipment and the on-road 

 15 truck. It's the trucks that support the construction 

 16 industry. Certainly the changes before you today will 

 17 provide a measure of relief at a time when it is sorely 

 18 needed. 

 19 I think it's also important to recognize that the 

 20 construction industry has equipment and on-road vehicles 

 21 or trucks that fall under various regulations. There's 

 22 two here today. And with that, the construction industry 

 23 has developed a proposal that it sent to your staff for 

 24 consideration, which is a 15,000 mile lower use exemption 

 25 for construction trucks or the trucks that are used to 
 245 

 1 support the construction industry. We certainly hope that 

 2 this is something your staff can consider during the 

 3 15-day changes. We think there might be two ways to look 

 4 at developing how it would apply. One could be to come up 

 5 with a prescriptive list of trucks limiting who could 

 6 participate. The other would be maybe to take a look at 

 7 an overall number of trucks and allow the industry to 

 8 through reporting participate in that. 

 9 So I would just hope or I ask that you could 

 10 direct your staff to take a look at those two options 

 11 today and move forward through the process. And hopefully 

 12 we can come up with something that's workable and helps 

 13 everybody on both sides. 

 14 Thank you. 

 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 16 MR. DAVIS: You can hear the crescendo building. 

 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: The excitement is building. 

 18 MR. DAVIS: We certainly hope so. 

 19 Good afternoon, Chairman Nichols and members of 

 20 the Board and your staff. 

 21 We want to wish all of you and your families a 

 22 very happy holiday. It's a wonderful time for reflection 

 23 and joy, and we all need a little of that these days. 

 24 We'll start our comments today with a paraphrase 

 25 from our old friend, William Shakespeare, for which I hope 
 246 

 1 you will forgive me if we meet in that great pub in the 

 2 sky. I come not today not to bury your staff, but to 

 3 praise them. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Ominous. 

 5 MR. DAVIS: They have followed your direction and 

 6 suggestions for industry in the off-road rule and we 

 7 appreciate those changes. 

 8 Regarding the on-road rule, as my beloved Roberta 

 9 would say, we would be a little bit happier. We have 

 10 provided staff with a simple one-page proposal providing a 

 11 small bit of additional relief through increasing low use 

 12 exemption for construction trucks. Just in case you 

 13 didn't hear, Clayton. We believe this exemption will 

 14 actually not affect your emissions on any significant way. 

 15 Today, we and your staff find ourselves in 

 16 substantial agreement of the size of the construction 

 17 fleet. We, however, have differing estimates of potential 

 18 low-use activity. We propose we use the two-year relief 

 19 in the amendments through registration and reporting, 

 20 substitute real data for estimates, models, and 

 21 inventories. At that point, we'll all know if additional 

 22 relief from our low-use proposal will add to your 

 23 environmental emissions envelope, subtract from it, or as 

 24 we believe, be emissions neutral. 

 25 Please direct staff to implement this request. 
 247 

 1 As always, we stand ready to assist in this process in any 

 2 way. Then I, like the Harold in Shakespeare's Henry the 

 3 5th will say, "Farewell, gracious king. Though shall 

 4 Harold no more." 

 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well done. Well done. 

 6 MR. LEWIS: Notice he didn't hear him say we are 

 7 not going to hear Bill anymore. 

 8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good point. 

 9 MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman and members 

 10 of the Board. 

 11 Mike Lewis from the Construction Industry Air 

 12 Quality Coalition. 

 13 First and foremost, I want to talk about the 

 14 emissions inventory and the cushion. We believe that you 

 15 have a much bigger cushion built into your assumptions 

 16 than you probably do, in part because we think your 

 17 assumption of fuel consumption is still hi. Two 

 18 independent studies looked at that model both had 50 to 70 

 19 million gallons less or lower in fuel consumption. We 

 20 think that the low use equipment is indicative of two 

 21 things. One, it's going to be low use if it as used at 

 22 all. And number two, it's probably on its way out of the 

 23 fleet. You're going to see further shrinkage in the 

 24 fleet, which gives you more cushion I think than you 

 25 planned on. 
 248 

 1 I'm here today to support the proposed 

 2 amendments, including to the bubble, and to call a couple 

 3 of items to your attention. 

 4 First, we think or hope two-thirds of the 

 5 contractors have complied with this rule so far by 

 6 shrinking their fleets. And those are good-paying jobs 

 7 that probably aren't coming back. What we're trying to do 

 8 is stop the shrinkage and hope we don't have to do that 

 9 anymore. And we think these amendments will get us there. 

 10 But a couple of clean up matters. First one is 

 11 the addition of the additional sticker to the equipment. 

 12 That's a multi-million dollar cost to this industry. If 

 13 it was important enough to have it done, it would have 

 14 been nice if you asked us to do it when we first the first 

 15 sticker on. This I think is just ripe for problems with 

 16 people sticking the wrong number on the other side of the 

 17 equipment so it has two different numbers. There's the 

 18 cost of going out to do it. It's probably going to be an 

 19 opportunity for violation notices. And I would suggest to 

 20 fix that you could require the addition of a second 

 21 sticker at the time they add a new piece of equipment to 

 22 fleet. 

 23 Secondly, we'd like to suggest that the engines 

 24 less than 50 horsepower be exempted from the rule. This 

 25 would be consistent with the portable rule. These engines 
 249 

 1 are less than five percent of the horsepower. They're 

 2 just not worth the trouble, frankly. It takes as much 

 3 energy and effort to track those thousand horsepower ones. 

 4 And we think you get a bigger bang for the buck focusing 

 5 on those and not the smaller ones. 

 6 Thank you. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. 

 8 Cynthia Corey, Michael Kennedy. I apologize. 

 9 MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Madam Chair. 

 10 Mike Kennedy, General Counsel for the Associated 

 11 General Contractors of America. 

 12 I spent the last several weeks trying to think 

 13 about what I would say today. And when I found out I had 

 14 two minutes, I realized can't clear my throat in that 

 15 amount of time. But if I use too much of it, so be it. 

 16 I'm going to begin by doing what has repeatedly 

 17 come back to my mind, and that is to thank. Above all, I 

 18 think need to thank you, Supervisor Roberts and Ms. Berg, 

 19 Dr. Telles and Dr. Balmes, Chairman Nichols, Ms. D'Adamo, 

 20 Dr. Sperling, Mrs. Riordan, Supervisor Yeager, and Mayor 

 21 Loveridge. 

 22 I want to thank each of you personally for doing 

 23 something that I don't have to do. And that is make 

 24 decisions. It's easy to be an advocate. It's easy to get 

 25 out there on one side and push as hard as you can. It's 
 250 

 1 much harder to decide where to draw the line. 

 2 I hope that we've been respectful of the line 

 3 that you drew back in 2007. From the beginning, we've 

 4 tried to make it clear that we were not trying to second 

 5 guess your judgment as to the level of emissions that were 

 6 acceptable within the state. We've not tried to second 

 7 guess your judgment on the medical science, about the 

 8 dangers surrounding particulate matter, and other 

 9 pollutants. 

 10 We simply have been trying to demonstrate that 

 11 within those constraints and given the policy judgment 

 12 that you made, we hope we can find some room to give 

 13 relief to the construction industry. 

 14 I also want to thank the CARB staff. It's hard 

 15 to take a position. It's much harder to change it in 

 16 public. That begins with you, Mr. Goldstene, and the 

 17 hearing that you held. Tom Cackette, with whom I've had 

 18 interesting conversations. Michael Terris has been there. 

 19 Eric, Eric White has been integral to this process, as has 

 20 Kim Heroy-Rogalski -- I pronounced that, I hope. Todd 

 21 Sax, thank you, sir. You've set a fine examples for the 

 22 country. And Nicole Dolney who was much involved in this 

 23 process. 

 24 It has been a good process. And I commend this 

 25 organization. It's very difficult to let the data drive 
 251 

 1 the decision. We all come to all of this with many 

 2 preconceptions about where it's going to come out. Where 

 3 it should come out. When we find that the realities are 

 4 not lining up with our preconceptions, it can be hard to 

 5 acknowledge that and even harder to change the course. 

 6 It took a great deal of fortitude for the staff 

 7 to re-examine your emissions inventory. At the end of the 

 8 day, I don't believe that my organization agrees with 

 9 everything that you've developed. But I'm here to tell 

 10 you and everyone else it was a serious good faith effort 

 11 and certainly within the realm of the reasonable. 

 12 I think it sets a good example for the rest of 

 13 the country. Too much today, we see ourselves with lots 

 14 of divisions. I think the search for hard data, for 

 15 objective science, for transparency is the only way we're 

 16 going to resolve the kinds of differences we see. I think 

 17 there is a lot of integrity that's been added to this 

 18 process. A lot of transparency. I thank you for setting 

 19 a good example of what good government looks like. I do 

 20 appreciate that. 

 21 I think the process needs to continue. I would 

 22 love nothing more than to see a great reservoir of trust 

 23 built up between this organization and all of the 

 24 industries that you regulate. I think it would be to 

 25 industries' benefit and to your own and to the benefit of 
 252 

 1 California. 

 2 Turning to the outcome, the specific proposals 

 3 that are here on the table, I'm a lawyer. I want to 

 4 debate everything I've heard today. I'm sure, if nothing 

 5 else, you're ready to let me let that go. 

 6 I just point out a few things. First, there's 

 7 been much concern from the environmental community. I 

 8 hear you. We hear you. We understand your concerns. 

 9 AGC's construction contractors have wives, children, 

 10 husbands. They have families here in California. And 

 11 they share the concern about California's air quality and 

 12 the environment. 

 13 We would note that there's been much discussion 

 14 of a January 1, 2014, start date. Actually, the start 

 15 date is January 1, 2013. January 1, 2014 is the deadline 

 16 by which we have committed to make changes. Compliance 

 17 efforts will start one year earlier. Compliance targets 

 18 that are in this rule are actually lower than the NOx 

 19 targets that are in the rule that it replaces. Those 

 20 targets have been set over a ten-year schedule, not an 

 21 eleven-year schedule. There's actually a compression in 

 22 the rate, a compression in the timetable, and an increase 

 23 in the rate of decline that will take place particularly 

 24 in the later years. 

 25 We hear your concern about action in early years. 
 253 

 1 Our concern is that the economy won't recover. And we, in 

 2 supporting this rule and coming out and saying that the 

 3 industry will stand beside you, we are taking the risk it 

 4 will not. 

 5 But having said that, we also believe that if the 

 6 economy does not recover, the emissions will remain low 

 7 and year 2014 goals will be met. If it increases, if it 

 8 picks up faster than expected, I do think the contractors 

 9 will reasonably look at their opportunities for early 

 10 credits. You have early credits for repowers and 

 11 rebuilds. You have early credits for replacement of Tier 

 12 0 and Tier 1 equipment. You have double credits for early 

 13 retrofits. Looking over the life span of this rule 

 14 running out to 2023 and knowing they can accumulate 

 15 credits and carry credits forward, contractors will act in 

 16 the early years if the economy permits them to do so. 

 17 There are also early restrictions on adding new 

 18 vehicles. The ban on the addition of Tier 0 equipment 

 19 takes effect the day this rule is approved by the U.S. 

 20 Environmental Protection Agency. The restrictions on the 

 21 addition of Tier 1 equipment. It becomes an absolute ban 

 22 in 2013. And there is a ban on Tier 2. Actually, the 

 23 deadline for banning Tier 2 equipment moved up in the 

 24 final rule. It is closer than it was before. It will now 

 25 move up to 2018. 
 254 

 1 There was a discussion earlier today about low 

 2 use equipment. Low use equipment is not exempt from the 

 3 ban on the addition of Tier 0 and Tier 1 equipment. It 

 4 will also be banned whether it's low use or not. 

 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Mr. Kennedy, I know you 

 6 weren't going to debate the entire rule, but you're making 

 7 your way through it. And I'd appreciate if you could wrap 

 8 it up. 

 9 MR. KENNEDY: I'm done. Well, I just want to say 

 10 that the construction industry is still suffering. And I 

 11 thank you for understanding that nationwide we've lost 2.1 

 12 million jobs. 450,000 of those jobs have been in 

 13 California. Nationwide, the unemployment rate remains 

 14 18.8 percent. It's still far higher out here. 

 15 California's construction industry lost 45,000 jobs in the 

 16 last year. 

 17 I've overstayed my welcome. But I thank you for 

 18 having me, and I wish you the best of luck. 

 19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. We appreciate 

 20 the fact that you have come out from D.C. and also that 

 21 you've worked with us to try to turn the issue around, to 

 22 make it one that was -- that we could address, as you've 

 23 said, in the way that was focused on the data and the 

 24 facts. And overall to make the rhetoric constructive and 

 25 to be into a more trusting relationship between the 
 255 

 1 industry and the Air Resources Board. 

 2 I came in 2007 here when we were just on the 

 3 verge of adopting these rules. So I'm very appreciative 

 4 of the fact that the tone of the discussion has changed 

 5 and improved a lot since we started. I do think the rules 

 6 are also -- not just because they we've adapted to the 

 7 economic conditions, but because we did improve the 

 8 inventory and learned more about the uses of the equipment 

 9 and the nature of the very complicated industries that 

 10 we're dealing with. I think they are simpler and better 

 11 in a number of respects than they were when we started. 

 12 So it has been in many respects a very positive journey. 

 13 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I believe we have the LSI 

 14 people, and we'll have to excuse ourselves. 

 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I'm sorry. I have not seen 

 16 that extra list. 

 17 BOARD MEMBE BERG: I don't think there's very 

 18 many people. 

 19 CHIEF COUNSEL PETER: We need to close the 

 20 hearing, except for 1048 which will be held after. 

 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Are you are here on LSI? 

 22 MS. COREY: I'm on the truck rule. 

 23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. So we'll finish up 

 24 and then close the record. 

 25 MS. COREY: Chairman Nichols and Board, I'm 
 256 

 1 sorry. I didn't mean to be the last person on the truck 

 2 rule. I just wanted to make sure we heard from all sides. 

 3 While I was sitting here, I heard the "E" word a 

 4 couple times, and that also always makes my hair stand on 

 5 end, which is exempt. As you know, I know the Chairwoman 

 6 knows, and I know the Board knows and I know the staff 

 7 knows that ag is not exempt from the truck rule. And 

 8 we've been complying for the last year. We're going to 

 9 continue to comply. 

 10 But we just wanted to make sure that you knew we 

 11 appreciated that. And we also appreciate the changes that 

 12 you've made for the folks that could not take advantage of 

 13 the mileage provisions for the agriculture community. 

 14 Because there's many folks in the agriculture communities 

 15 that harvest several times a year and can't stay under the 

 16 low mileage provisions, and these new changes will be 

 17 helpful to them. I appreciate the staff already helping 

 18 us get the word out and doing the workshopping. 

 19 I just wanted to make sure that you heard from 

 20 all sides on that and you appreciate the staff and the 

 21 Board and happy holiday. 

 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. 

 23 So are you here on the truck and bus rule? 

 24 MR. GRABOWSKI: I'm here on the LSI rule. 

 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Hang on. I'm going to 
 257 

 1 close the other record. 

 2 We have now closed the record on the first four 

 3 rules. 

 4 CHIEF COUNSEL PETER: Madam Chair, if you do it 

 5 by resolution number, that might be easier. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: It would be nice if I had 

 7 the resolution in front of me. 

 8 CHIEF COUNSEL PETER: The Resolutions that we 

 9 just heard testimony on are: Resolution 10-44, which is 

 10 truck and bus; 10-45 drayage truck; 10-46 truck and 

 11 trailer, greenhouse gas; and Resolution 10-47, off-road. 

 12 Those are what we just -- 

 13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: These are the ones that we 

 14 closed. 

 15 We are now going to open testimony on 10-48, 

 16 which is the large spark ignition. And two of our Board 

 17 members will excuse themselves for that portion of the 

 18 discussion. 

 19 (Whereupon Ms. Berg and Ms. D'Adamo exited the 

 20 proceedings.) 

 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Ms. Berg and Ms. D'Adamo 

 22 are exiting the room. Okay. 

 23 Now who else besides you is here to testify on 

 24 the LSI rule? Do we have a list? You're it. Great. You 

 25 can have an hour. 
 258 

 1 MR. GRABOWSKI: I don't want an hour. I've got 

 2 to get to the airport. 

 3 My name is Mike Grabowski. I'm here representing 

 4 American Rental Association. We've been working with the 

 5 LSI staff in order to address an issue that's related to 

 6 rental businesses. 

 7 The principle issue is that under the proposal 

 8 and under the current regulation, it turns out that our 

 9 members could be subject to the operator definition, even 

 10 though they are rental fleets. The rule was originally 

 11 carved out so that rental fleets weren't operative; they 

 12 rented equipment to companies who were then classified as 

 13 operators. But because we use some forklifts and a 

 14 moderate amount of forklift times in our yards, it would 

 15 mean that equipment that's principally rented or equipment 

 16 that's dedicated rented in the rental industry could 

 17 basically become operator equipment if that equipment is 

 18 used load, pumps, or tools or whatever within the yard. 

 19 When we look at the total number of pieces of 

 20 equipment we're talking about, it's less than 500. And in 

 21 comparison, we rent industry-wide thousands of forklifts a 

 22 year. And a maximum number of hours we're talking about 

 23 from a survey we just conducted and provided staff is 

 24 about 170 hours a year of use per yard in doing service 

 25 work. Now, that's less than the 200 hours that's going to 
 259 

 1 be allowed as a low threshold. But the problem is that 

 2 declaring our units as, let's say, low use units is not a 

 3 universe tool solution because the business in the yard 

 4 can't be limited based on satisfying a regulatory 

 5 threshold. 

 6 So we provided staff with a number of possible 

 7 solutions, but I would want to stay -- if I can have 

 8 another minute, since I've been waiting a long time -- 

 9 that the real issue is that our guys will do whatever they 

 10 need to do to comply with the rules. And what they don't 

 11 want to do is be classified as operators, because for 500 

 12 forklifts total, that means they're going to have to 

 13 comply with another reg, and they're going to have to be 

 14 associated with the costs and the training involved. 

 15 And so what happens then is that some of our guys 

 16 already and others in the future have indicated that if 

 17 they can't get some relief under the LPG LSI forklift 

 18 rule, they're going to want to use diesel forklifts in the 

 19 yard, which we don't want them to do because that goes 

 20 against the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. 

 21 So all we're asking for is in the 15-day period 

 22 that we be able to work out some kind of an equitable 

 23 arrangement with staff. Like I said, we provide some 

 24 ideas to them. And if we can do that and protect the 

 25 environment and reduce the regulatory burden for 500 
 260 

 1 units, that's what we'd like to do. So we'd like you to 

 2 direct staff to just work with us and trying to get it 

 3 resolved. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Staff want to 

 5 comment on this at this point or -- 

 6 ON-ROAD CONTROL REGULATIONS BRANCH CHIEF 

 7 KITOWSKI: Yes. We actually agree with comments that he's 

 8 made that the operator definition that we have in the 

 9 staff report really didn't work completely. So we 

 10 appreciate him bringing this comment up. 

 11 The proposals came in on Wednesday. We think 

 12 there needs to be a little back and forth, but we're in 

 13 the ballpark. So we look forward to resolving in the 

 14 15-day process 

 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Directing you to resolve 

 16 this would not be a problem then. So your day was not 

 17 wasted. 

 18 MR. GRABOWSKI: My day is never wasted here. I'm 

 19 an engineer, so I have a low standard. But this is 

 20 sometimes the most entertaining times I have. 

 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We live to serve. Okay. 

 22 We will close the record now then on Resolution 

 23 10-48, and now we can bring this back to the Board for 

 24 discussion. But I think we should -- we can just resolve 

 25 this one while the two are out of the room. Why not. 
 261 

 1 Okay. Any other questions or comments from -- 

 2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I would make a motion to 

 3 adopt staff recommendation with the direction to continue 

 4 to work on this issue that the last speaker brought up. 

 5 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Second. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Any further discussion? 

 7 If not, all in favor say aye. 

 8 (Ayes) 

 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Any opposed? 

 10 All right. It carries. 

 11 Now we can ask our two missing Board members to 

 12 come back, please. 

 13 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Maybe you can use the 

 14 same procedure that you did last night. 

 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. We will ask people to 

 16 file their ex parte communications in writing on this one 

 17 also before we proceed to discussion. 

 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: The ex parte filing 

 19 would apply to the LSI as well. 

 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. That one was easy. 

 21 You should have picked something else to recuse yourself 

 22 on. You should have bought cement mixers instead of 

 23 forklifts. 

 24 All joking aside, we're back to the truck and 

 25 bus, drayage, tractor-trailer, and off-road rules now. 
 262 

 1 And maybe we should just discuss them in order in terms of 

 2 changes or modifications that any Board members want to 

 3 see discussed or any questions that you may have. 

 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I do have a couple of 

 5 questions, Madam Chair. 

 6 Before I do that, let me just congratulate the 

 7 staff and those of you who participated in much of the 

 8 effort that is culminating today. 

 9 And also let me just share with you I think our 

 10 outreach -- I noticed it today more than ever. And I want 

 11 to thank the staff, particularly because as people 

 12 commented and particularly those single owner-owned truck 

 13 owners, you know, it's very helpful for guidance. They 

 14 don't have staff. They don't have the capability to 

 15 understand sometimes some very technical issues that we 

 16 have placed before them. So I notice that. I appreciate 

 17 that. And I believe that we need to do more and more. 

 18 And I know I have a commitment from staff that they will 

 19 once we get this behind us. 

 20 I was a little concerned Mr. Massolo left. You 

 21 couldn't even capture him for a moment. But I wanted to 

 22 ask about his lettuce vehicle truck. And I do know those 

 23 are very specific. Can we do some work on that so that we 

 24 could understand a little bit better what it is? I mean, 

 25 I've seen those trucks in the field. I don't know. I 
 263 

 1 can't believe they're going that far to the processing 

 2 facility. But maybe they are. I just don't know. I 

 3 think it's worth exploring with him. And I'm sorry he 

 4 took off. 

 5 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IMPLEMENTATION BRANCH CHIEF 

 6 BRASIL: I can say we are familiar with that type of 

 7 truck, and it is a unique design. I believe we can 

 8 accommodate it within the construct of the rule and simply 

 9 include it. 

 10 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: And then my second 

 11 question would be going to I think the testimony of the 

 12 last few speakers, the low use construction trucks. Is 

 13 there an opportunity to work with them on something there 

 14 that might make sense not to cause us to raise emission 

 15 levels, but to work with them, especially if they're low 

 16 usage? 

 17 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 18 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: Yeah. As it relates to 

 19 the vocational trucks, we have tried to focus in on those 

 20 on-road trucks that are used in the construction industry. 

 21 As I think was noted, there is two ways to 

 22 approach it. Could specify the vehicles are very 

 23 prescriptive or cap the number of vehicles, which is what 

 24 we've done with the specialty off-road ag vehicles so that 

 25 you assure that you don't exceed the number of vehicles 
 264 

 1 that are going to go over the emissions budget you've 

 2 established for that. So we can certainly look at either 

 3 way and have further discussions with them about what 

 4 would make the most sense, recognizing that we have other 

 5 changes we made to ensure that we would still stay within 

 6 our margin. And whatever we do needs to -- all the 

 7 additional relief we've provided as the 15-day changes 

 8 falls within that emission margin. Additional emission 

 9 margin we tried to free up for that. 

 10 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: With that, Madam Chair, 

 11 I'm very comfortable with the staff recommendations. And 

 12 thank you for all your work. 

 13 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Is that the less than 

 14 15,000 miles a year? 

 15 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 16 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: Yes. 

 17 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: That would cut across all 

 18 the categories? 

 19 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 20 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: We are specifically 

 21 focusing on multiple vehicle types that are used in the 

 22 construction industry, but limited to the construction 

 23 industry. 

 24 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: You put a cap on number of 

 25 those -- 
 265 

 1 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 2 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: That would be one way, 

 3 yes. We heard suggestions from industry that that would 

 4 be the preferred way to do that. We'll look at that. 

 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. I'm going to go next 

 6 to Dr. Telles. 

 7 BOARD MEMBER TELLES: Thank you. 

 8 There was mention of the cross-over issue between 

 9 the construction and trucking. I believe that was -- 

 10 recommendation was probably not initially in the rule and 

 11 it was taken up by some of the workshops. I remember that 

 12 being an issue in the Fresno workshop when I went there, 

 13 and it seemed like that issue was -- staff listened to the 

 14 request to have the cross-over as part of where a truck in 

 15 the construction industry and trucking industry could 

 16 maybe cross over. And I was just wondering, is there a 

 17 reason -- sounds like it applies to just new trucks. And 

 18 is there a reason why it's not for retrofits as well as 

 19 fleet reduction also? Was that an oversight or is there 

 20 a -- 

 21 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 22 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: May need a little bit 

 23 more clarification could help us get you an answer to 

 24 that. 

 25 BOARD MEMBER TELLES: I wasn't clear myself, 
 266 

 1 because it was in testimony today that one of the 

 2 commentators mentioned that there is a relief -- a 

 3 cross-over relief for purchase of new trucks, but not a 

 4 relief for purchase of retrofits or fleet reduction. 

 5 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IMPLEMENTATION BRANCH CHIEF 

 6 BRASIL: If I understand the issue, I think it was the 

 7 opposite. In the staff proposal, we said if you install a 

 8 retrofit device before July of next year that you could 

 9 treat another vehicle as exempt until 2017. But we did 

 10 not have an analogous or comparable advantage if you 

 11 purchased 2007 or newer engines, since you wouldn't get 

 12 this extra credit for having upgraded the whole truck. 

 13 We've introduced that in the 15-day change to provide 

 14 credit for that. 

 15 BOARD MEMBER TELLES: Probably my biggest issue 

 16 in this is coming from the San Joaquin is that the margins 

 17 can be very, very close. And I think that the request of 

 18 the two air districts, the San Joaquin and South Coast, 

 19 it's probably a reasonable request to put their languages 

 20 into the resolution. I think everybody has probably read 

 21 that. And I would hope that we include that language in 

 22 there, which briefly, CARB accepts responsibility for 

 23 mitigation should we not get our SIP, closer monitoring, 

 24 and have a date somewhere around 2012 and partner together 

 25 with the three agencies to improve the local and regional 
 267 

 1 inventories and to help expedite the moving out of 

 2 incentives. 

 3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: There was also a monitoring 

 4 request -- 

 5 BOARD MEMBER TELLES: Yeah. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: -- on a specified schedule. 

 7 I would have no objection to that if we can just 

 8 incorporate that into the resolution. 

 9 BOARD MEMBER TELLES: And one other issue is the 

 10 greenhouse gas smart truck issue. Moving it out to 150 

 11 miles seems reasonable to me, especially given that the 

 12 trucks which are -- health benefits for that rule is 

 13 really minimal or nonexistent. And the trucks that are 

 14 involved in that rule are often it's their third or fourth 

 15 regulation -- trucking regulation that they might be 

 16 participating in. It seems like a Reasonable thing to do. 

 17 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL SECTION MANAGER 

 18 LEMIEUX: There is a few good reasons why -- Stephan 

 19 Lemieux with the On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Section. I'm 

 20 responsible for developing the heavy-duty greenhouse gas 

 21 requirements for the tractor-trailer greenhouse gas 

 22 regulation. 

 23 There are a few good reasons why the 150 mile 

 24 doesn't really work in this instance. For one, we did 

 25 workshop a lot with the industry on establishing what is a 
 268 

 1 local haul and long haul. And the US DOT has a definition 

 2 for commercial driver's license that they require that if 

 3 you operate less than 100 miles, you're not -- you don't 

 4 need to have the hours of service. It's kind of a mark 

 5 point for the industry breaking out between what a local 

 6 haul is and what a long haul begin is about 100-mile 

 7 radius of operation. And so also the insurance companies 

 8 when they determine whether you're long haul or local haul 

 9 and insurance rate changes is based on 100 mile radius. 

 10 So we had some precedence in place to establish that. We 

 11 had to make a cut point. 

 12 The other issue is -- I have a slide you might 

 13 want to go to. But basically when you look at 150 mile 

 14 radius, you can get from the bordering states into the Los 

 15 Angeles or Oakland area. So it would add a mechanism 

 16 where fleets would be able to register a local haul, but 

 17 we would have a difficult time enforcing it because it can 

 18 get out of the state where it's not enforceable and back 

 19 into the state. 

 20 As you can see here, I took Victorville as an 

 21 example and probably a lot of other cities that would fall 

 22 in this situation. 150-mile radius -- you're thinking 

 23 about it's 300 miles from one end of the radius to the 

 24 other. And in order to even operate in this region, 

 25 you're spending quite a bit of time on the highways as 
 269 

 1 well on 15 or the 99 or the 5. And so if we allow for 

 2 this, you can see that you're going -- you're able to 

 3 spend quite a bit of time on the highways. So you would 

 4 benefit from the technologies and at the same time you 

 5 have a big opportunity to circumvent our requirement and 

 6 request the local haul exemption and get away with being 

 7 able to come in and out of the state without ever being 

 8 caught. 

 9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Could you just follow up on 

 10 that though about the mileage and the fact that the smart 

 11 trucks benefit at 62 miles an hour and the law requires 

 12 them to go 55 miles an hour? 

 13 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL SECTION MANAGER 

 14 LEMIEUX: When we did our estimates, we based it on the 

 15 highway speeds. We actually provided no benefits for 

 16 aerodynamics at lower speeds. But in reality, when you 

 17 look at the physics and what happens with aerodynamics, 

 18 you actually get some benefits at lower speeds. And it's 

 19 a function of the speed. So speed does have a big impact 

 20 on the forces on the vehicle, but less so at lower speeds. 

 21 And so operators are getting benefits even at 40 

 22 miles per hour. That was thrown out as an average speed. 

 23 The only thing I would let the Board know is average speed 

 24 is not as good a metric because trucks often spend a lot 

 25 of time at very low speeds and idling, and then they spend 
 270 

 1 most of their time -- a good portion of their time for 

 2 long hauling at a highway cruise speed. So you can't 

 3 really use the average speeds in this case. 

 4 And so at 55 miles per hour, you are getting a 

 5 majority of the benefits. Less than the SmartWay 

 6 identified benefits, which are usually done at 62 miles 

 7 per hour. But you're not talking about -- you're talking 

 8 about probably anywhere -- you're going to range anywhere 

 9 from three to five percent, in that range. 

 10 A lot of the technologies that are coming onto 

 11 the marketplace now are actually verified even in the 

 12 seven percent range. So what that means is that even at 

 13 lower speeds, you're getting substantial benefits down. 

 14 You're running at 50 miles per hour, you're getting 

 15 significant benefit with those technologies. 

 16 And also if you've driven on the freeways, even 

 17 though you do have the 55 mile per hour speed limit, it's 

 18 not 100 percent the case out there unfortunately. They 

 19 all have governed speeds, it would be great. But they're 

 20 oftentimes at 65, 70. I spend quite a lot of time going 

 21 to Arizona. It's my hobby. And you'll see them out there 

 22 cruising quite fast. 

 23 BOARD MEMBER TELLES: I think you answered the 

 24 question. Thank you. Very well. 

 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Is that it? 
 271 

 1 BOARD MEMBER TELLES: Yeah. 

 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Ms. D'Adamo. 

 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a question on the 

 4 bus rule. I don't know that I'm totally comfortable on 

 5 the school bus provision. Concerned about exposure to 

 6 children. So maybe if staff could walk through their 

 7 thinking on that. 

 8 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 9 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: Well, as we looked at the 

 10 school bus provision in the existing regulation, I think 

 11 what we found is what we heard today is not only are 

 12 private companies struggling with this current financial 

 13 time, so are school districts. And as we've surveyed 

 14 school districts, while many of them have indicated that 

 15 they are, in fact, cutting transportation services, most 

 16 of that is not happening because of our regulation; it's 

 17 just because it's a reality of the budget times. 

 18 So we looked to see where we could maximize the 

 19 benefit we were getting while still trying to provide some 

 20 relief. So consistent with how we were looking at trucks, 

 21 that cut point really was the segregation of about 88 

 22 percent of the buses fell into the larger size and about 

 23 12 percent or them fell into the smaller size. We found 

 24 they're newer than the larger buses and replaced more 

 25 often and typically driven fewer miles. 
 272 

 1 So as we look at opportunities to try to provide 

 2 some relief to the school districts, in our opinion, that 

 3 made the most sense in terms of how to try to structure 

 4 that. Keeping in mind, we did want to keep the existing 

 5 date for larger buses consistent with what we have right 

 6 now in 2014. That was our rational as we were walking 

 7 through how best to address school businesses to provide 

 8 some relief. 

 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I understand the need. 

 10 I'm one wondering about the vulnerable population. Do you 

 11 have any information on how many kids are in those buses? 

 12 Are they typically full? How long the trips are? Pretty 

 13 much similar to the regular school bus, or are they used 

 14 in a different way. 

 15 ON-ROAD CONTROL REGULATIONS BRANCH CHIEF ROWLAND: 

 16 Well, out of approximately 1500 school buses below the 

 17 26,000 gross vehicle weight level, only about 400 are 

 18 actually non-compliant at this point. 

 19 I don't think that we have good estimates for the 

 20 actual number of students that are carried. But obviously 

 21 the smaller buses carry fewer students. 

 22 I think as you heard today, they do tend to be 

 23 the special needs children. So obviously they're not 

 24 going to be packed with 60 children like the larger buses 

 25 are. 
 273 

 1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Dr. Balmes wanted to 

 2 comment on this particular issue, and I do, too. 

 3 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: One of the commentators 

 4 from one of the school districts -- think it was Elk 

 5 Grove -- made the point that these are disabled kids 

 6 often. And she didn't want to see them sitting in an 

 7 idling situation because the vehicle broke down because of 

 8 the filter. 

 9 But I guess I would turn that around. These are 

 10 disabled kids already. And I don't know why disabled kids 

 11 should be breathing more diesel emissions than 

 12 non-disabled kids. 

 13 And, you know, I -- in favor of what we are doing 

 14 in general today about relaxing the diesel regulations 

 15 because of the economic need and because we can do that 

 16 with the fact there is decreased emission from the 

 17 recession, but my role on the Board is to be concerned 

 18 about public health. And again, while I'm supporting in 

 19 general what we are doing today, I think on the school bus 

 20 issue that's where I would draw a line a little bit 

 21 myself. I know it's hard on the school districts 

 22 currently with the fiscal situation. But I think that, 

 23 again, protecting the most vulnerable kids in the smaller 

 24 buses is something we should do. 

 25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, I agree with you on 
 274 

 1 that point, but I would also add unlike other things that 

 2 are in that category, 100 percent of the money that is 

 3 being spent on fixing these things or replacing them is 

 4 public money. It's either coming from the federal 

 5 government or the state government. And we are in the 

 6 process of changing them over. And we put a lot of money 

 7 out to the districts. The districts chose for, you know, 

 8 reasonable basis to try to get everybody new buses because 

 9 there are advantages to that. 

 10 But the reality is that it is the kids who are 

 11 riding the buses today who are breathing that pollution. 

 12 And if they had chosen to do differently, there would have 

 13 been enough money to give every single bus a filter. They 

 14 didn't do that. But there's still enough money now to put 

 15 filters on the ones that aren't controlled. So I just 

 16 think we do have an obligation to see that that gets done 

 17 sooner rather than later. So if I don't see any 

 18 objection, I'd like to propose that we make that change 

 19 and in the truck and bus rule to bring the smaller school 

 20 buses back. 

 21 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Madam Chairman? 

 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes. 

 23 BOARD MEMBER BERG: That would be me, Sandy. 

 24 I also concur, but I also would really appreciate 

 25 if staff would take on a project for the school districts 
 275 

 1 to try to resolve this issue about retrofits and not 

 2 working. We hear this time after time, and we hear one 

 3 thing from the retrofit manufacturers and one thing from 

 4 the school districts. I really would like to challenge 

 5 the retrofit manufacturers to get with staff, let's get 

 6 together with the school bus district in a room, lock the 

 7 doors, and not let anybody out until we figure out what's 

 8 going on. 

 9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, and fix it whatever 

 10 it is. 

 11 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Yes. 

 12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Because a lot of them do 

 13 have filters. And if they're not working properly, they 

 14 need to work. 

 15 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Let's find out, and let's be 

 16 the people that resolve that. 

 17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good amendment. 

 18 Other comments, questions, additions on the truck 

 19 and bus rule? Let's move onto the drayage -- 

 20 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I do have some. We want to 

 21 clarify that retrofits that are purchased with incentive 

 22 funding will be surplus and not go toward the early 

 23 credit. Also, there was a question on the 15-day change 

 24 on the alternative vehicle credit. That was something 

 25 that was inadvertently left out. That was proposed by 
 276 

 1 waste management. 

 2 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IMPLEMENTATION BRANCH CHIEF 

 3 BRASIL: We had two conflicting dates of the changes. I 

 4 think we already addressed it in the 15-day change. 

 5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And also we had a request 

 6 from Northern Sonoma County to be added to the attainment 

 7 list and therefore NOx exempt. Are we comfortable with 

 8 that? 

 9 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 10 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: It would certainly be our 

 11 preference to keep the existing list on a whole county 

 12 basis, but I think we can entertain that change. And it 

 13 would include both not just the truck and bus rule, but 

 14 the off-road rule as well, which has a similar list of 

 15 counties. 

 16 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much. 

 17 Thank you, Madam Chairman 

 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. I think we're 

 19 probably going to be able to take up all of these at once. 

 20 I'm just working through the different resolutions. 

 21 What about drayage trucks? I had concerns. 

 22 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Perhaps this is same 

 23 concern, but I was persuaded by some of the testimony 

 24 about trying to do something for the early compliers. It 

 25 seems to be appropriate for people that spent a lot of 
 277 

 1 money and invested a lot of money with a certain 

 2 expectation about what our rules were. Now we've changed 

 3 the playing field. Again, I think appropriately. But it 

 4 seems like we should be trying to do something for those 

 5 folks. And I don't know if staff has any ideas. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think they do. 

 7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I really would like to jump 

 8 in on this as well, because I do think this is a fairness 

 9 issue. We are looking at something that has already been 

 10 implemented and we are trying to accommodate between two 

 11 separate groups. But the fact is that the group that 

 12 still has to comply, I think we have some opportunity for 

 13 some incentive funding and to assist them. And I would 

 14 like to suggest that we would leave the drayage truck rule 

 15 as is with the 2007 and newer buy the 2014. And if that 

 16 isn't acceptable, that we would look at something that was 

 17 not out to 2020, maybe 2016 if we felt like giving the 

 18 other individuals with the retrofits an additional 

 19 two years. But my first choice would be to leave the rule 

 20 as it is. 

 21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: It was changed, I take it, 

 22 just to make it parallel to other rules. There was no 

 23 other particular reason for that. 

 24 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The staff's 

 25 proposal to defer the Phase 2 requirement, which was 
 278 

 1 essentially the upgrade to '07 trucks, was based on parody 

 2 or consistency with the changes being made to the 

 3 statewide truck and bus rule. But if it's the Board's 

 4 interest to keep this rule consistent so the direction 

 5 sent to businesses who already made compliance choices, we 

 6 would recommend you leave that deadline at 2014. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: The thing is for L.A./Long 

 8 Beach where the ports themselves imposed a ban on trucks 

 9 coming in that didn't meet the standard, there is no 

 10 impact at all. So I think that that covers a substantial 

 11 portion right there of drayage trucks in the state. But 

 12 for others, there is a real potential -- I don't know how 

 13 large it is. There is some real potential for some health 

 14 benefit that we would keep some health benefits that might 

 15 otherwise be lost. 

 16 Yes? 

 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: You make a good point 

 18 about L.A./Long Beach. So could staff provide some 

 19 information what are the numbers and where are those 

 20 trucks located? Do you have a sense? Because a couple of 

 21 the companies that came in, we know where they're located. 

 22 But, you know, not everyone was here to provide us with 

 23 information as far as compliance. And those that are not 

 24 in compliance, are they concentrated in a certain area? 

 25 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: More than half 
 279 

 1 of the drayage trucks are already compliant with the Phase 

 2 II requirement. They're already 2007, '08, '09, '10 

 3 trucks. That's is largely as a result of the action by 

 4 the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach and the gate fees they 

 5 impose on older trucks. Incredible economic driver. 

 6 The issues we're talking about are fundamentally 

 7 trucks that serve the Port of Oakland. And, really, it's 

 8 roughly 1700 trucks that serve the Port of Oakland that 

 9 put on retrofits to comply with the rule and roughly 500 

 10 trucks in Southern California that retrofit in order to 

 11 serve the rail yards exclusively down there. 

 12 So the population of trucks we are talking about 

 13 is 2200 trucks. We estimate that the NOx benefits of 

 14 going to that second phase, that upgrade, are roughly 

 15 seven tons per day statewide, with the bulk of those being 

 16 on the table in Northern California and a smaller 

 17 proportion in Southern California. So if the Board opted 

 18 to simply stay with the existing requirement, those are 

 19 NOx reductions that would be achieved by 2014. 

 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Do you have information on 

 21 what it would do to the margin in the valley? Because I 

 22 know there's some transport that occurs, and I guess some 

 23 of those trips are between the two districts. 

 24 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Certainly, it 

 25 would help with the margin in the San Joaquin Valley. We 
 280 

 1 know that much of the drayage traffic -- I don't have a 

 2 statistic, but my sense is probably half of the trucks 

 3 that are serving the Port of Oakland are making trips back 

 4 and forth between the port and the San Joaquin Valley. 

 5 The biggest activity at the Port of Oakland is 

 6 exports from San Joaquin Valley, ag exports. And those 

 7 are the ones that we read in the paper are going up 

 8 tremendously and really are a bright spot in the economy. 

 9 So we expect that to continue. So clearly there would be 

 10 San Joaquin Valley NOx benefits from retaining this 

 11 requirement. 

 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Cynthia, could you give the 

 13 number of trucks that are, in fact, compliant with the 

 14 Phase 2 in the Oakland area? Isn't that around 1,400 

 15 trucks? 

 16 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Yes, ma'am. 

 17 Exactly. 

 18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chair, may I just 

 19 ask a question about the owner of one truck? If we 

 20 retained the rule as is, how does that effect that single 

 21 owner? 

 22 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: In the drayage 

 23 rule, unlike the truck and bus rule, all owners and fleets 

 24 are treated the same. Doesn't matter if you have one or 

 25 20. The compliance deadlines are the same. However, in 
 281 

 1 our outreach on the grant programs, we and particularly 

 2 the Bay Area District really made an extensive effort to 

 3 provide all the assistance that we could, especially to 

 4 smaller fleets. And we would maintain the commitment to 

 5 do that to the trucks that would need to make the second 

 6 upgrade. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That was based on the fact 

 8 that the observation, a very large proportion of the 

 9 drayage trucks are these independent owner-operator. 

 10 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I remember the testimony 

 11 of the gentleman. They're having a hard time getting the 

 12 loads. 

 13 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The encouraging 

 14 news more recently is when you look at activity in the 

 15 last few months compared to the last year, it's definitely 

 16 picked up in the port business. And certainly ag exports 

 17 from the valley are higher than they've been since 

 18 pre-2005. 

 19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: That's good news. 

 20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: The ports have been putting 

 21 out press releases on this that are quite encouraging 

 22 actually, quite positive. 

 23 This doesn't mean that we don't need this rule 

 24 amendment though to fix the other issues. 

 25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Yeah, with the dray-off. We 
 282 

 1 need the rule for the dray-off. And also there was 

 2 another testimony by the Port of Los Angeles to close the 

 3 loophole on the Class 7 trucks. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right. 

 5 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: We would 

 6 certainty recommend that the Board consider the addition 

 7 of the Class 7 trucks with an additional provision that 

 8 trucks operating in the South Coast air basin, Class 7 

 9 trucks, be subject to the regulation and PM controls as of 

 10 January 1st of 2012, which would be the soonest that we 

 11 can do it. Would respond to the port of L.A's concerns. 

 12 And fundamentally, it would mean that Class 7 trucks that 

 13 came into drayage less than a year ago would simply leave 

 14 the drayage business. Not all business. They simply 

 15 would defer their loads back to the -- 

 16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Would you like to see 

 17 changes? 

 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I just have one more 

 19 question. I'm 99 percent comfortable with where we're 

 20 headed. 

 21 But with respect to availability of ag trucks 

 22 because I've heard anecdotally -- and maybe Dr. Telles can 

 23 chime in here -- that there has been some challenges, if 

 24 you will, shippers locating trucks. And I just as assumed 

 25 what we were doing was headed in the right direction so I 
 283 

 1 didn't look into it any further. 

 2 But in light of what we're just about to do here 

 3 on drayage, I'm wondering if staff has any input or maybe, 

 4 John, if you have some knowledge of that. 

 5 BOARD MEMBER TELLES: I think the information to 

 6 me is anecdotal, too, in the sense that many of the grower 

 7 organizations in our area are concerned about perhaps the 

 8 lack of availability of trucks or the increased costs of 

 9 moving the product to the port. 

 10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Is the issue that they're 

 11 looking for a low cost trucks versus -- 

 12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Compliance. 

 13 BOARD MEMBER BERG: -- trucks that aren't in 

 14 compliance? 

 15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I think we're headed in 

 16 right direction anyway. 

 17 BOARD MEMBER TELLES: What happened about a 

 18 year-and-a-half ago, the concern was that because of the 

 19 economic downturn that no trucks would being able to 

 20 comply because of the lack of the economics of it. And 

 21 when that was happening, it became apparent that maybe 

 22 wasn't going to be enough trucks for this purpose. 

 23 Things have changed slightly, perhaps because 

 24 there has been some delay of this. And I get the feeling 

 25 that there's probably trucks available, and that fear is 
 284 

 1 probably not as justified as it was a year-and-a-half ago. 

 2 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Certainly, this 

 3 was the certain we heard extensively at the end of last 

 4 year. The Port of Oakland at that time estimated roughly 

 5 2,000 trucks making frequent visits would be sufficient to 

 6 handle their cargo. So even if there are increases, 

 7 there's currently an over 5800 trucks serving the Port of 

 8 Oakland that currently comply with the rule. So we 

 9 absolutely would not expect a supply problem. 

 10 I would also note the Class 7 trucks, part of the 

 11 reason that we suggest that the acceleration on those 

 12 trucks happen in the South Coast air basin is that there 

 13 are a number of trucks that just fall into this category 

 14 that have been in operation serving the ag industry and 

 15 smaller ports throughout the valley, like the Port of 

 16 Stockton. So those would be able to continue operating. 

 17 We still need to put on filters, but by 2014. 

 18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So we're proposing three 

 19 changes then to the rule that was in front of us or to the 

 20 resolution. One is to deal with the Class 7 trucks at the 

 21 Port of L.A./Long Beach. The drayage is in already. So 

 22 the other change is just to eliminate the time extension. 

 23 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The actual 

 24 changes to the existing rule would be to incorporate the 

 25 secondary trucks that eliminate dray-off, to include the 
 285 

 1 Class 7 trucks with the special provision that those 

 2 operating in the South Coast would be subject to PM 

 3 requirements in 2012. Those operating elsewhere in the 

 4 state would be subject to those PM requirement. 

 5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Sorry. I was looking at it 

 6 from the point of view of the resolution in front of us 

 7 and what we had to do to it to fix it. Okay. I think we 

 8 understand what needs to be done. 

 9 Yes, Mr. Loveridge. 

 10 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Where's the 2007 versus 

 11 2008? What happened to that discussion? 

 12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: 2007? 

 13 BOARD MEMBER BERG: We didn't hear you because 

 14 you weren't on the microphone, Mayor Loveridge. 

 15 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I said you raised the 

 16 question of 2007, staying with the current or changed it 

 17 2008. What happened to that discussion I just wanted to 

 18 know? 

 19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: We're staying with the Phase 

 20 2 2007 trucks in place by 2014. 

 21 BOARD MEMBER TELLES: I think one reason why this 

 22 drayage truck thing works is because of Cynthia. If I 

 23 recall, last Christmas, she spent her Christmas holidays 

 24 in the Port of Oakland and New Years and probably Easter. 

 25 I would like to personally thank her for making this work. 
 286 

 1 I think it's going to be helpful for our area. 

 2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Second that. 

 3 This time we'll send you a bottle of champaign to 

 4 whatever port you're at. 

 5 Tractor-trailer, greenhouse gas rule, we are okay 

 6 with that? 

 7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: The only thing I wanted to 

 8 add to the greenhouse gas was to ask staff about the drop 

 9 frame trailer, the belly box trailer that they were 

 10 talking about. 

 11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right here. 

 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: It seems to have a skirt 

 13 built in. So should that be on the exempt list? 

 14 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL SECTION MANAGER 

 15 LEMIEUX: This is Stephan Lemieux. 

 16 The reason why we exempted the drop frame 

 17 trailers is there was no technology available at the time, 

 18 and there's actually still remains no technology available 

 19 either on the rear of the trailers or on the skirting of 

 20 the trailer. 

 21 However, for a standard van that has a box on the 

 22 bottom, you can put a tail device that complies. There is 

 23 ways of complying with the regulation. 

 24 And we've also added a new provision where we 

 25 allow Executive Officer for approval for modified SmartWay 
 287 

 1 technology. So if they test like in a wind tunnel with 

 2 the skirting that's been modified to be cut around the 

 3 boxes, they can comply that way if they test and show that 

 4 it's equivalent. So we do have a few options for them to 

 5 be able to comply under the proposed amendments. 

 6 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. And now we come 

 8 to the off-road rule. 

 9 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Madam Chair, 

 10 before we go on to that, if I might on the advice of our 

 11 attorney. 

 12 On the discussion of drayage trucks, I just want 

 13 to be clear that with these changes that the Board was 

 14 just discussing, the net effect would be Class 7 trucks in 

 15 the South Coast would have to put on filters by 2012. By 

 16 2014, those Class 7 trucks would have to comply with the 

 17 Phase 2 requirement. So it's both PM control and NOx 

 18 control, like every other drayage truck. 

 19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: There isn't a provision that 

 20 allows them a period of time? I mean, two years useful 

 21 life on a retrofit seems a tad short. 

 22 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Certainly, the 

 23 trucks in Southern California -- as I said, the Class 7 

 24 trucks were not doing drayage in Southern California until 

 25 a year ago. It's unlikely that someone would choose to 
 288 

 1 invest in a filter and keep sending the Class 7 truck into 

 2 these facilitates. Instead, they will go back to the 

 3 traditional Class 8 to serve the ports. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. 

 5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I'm okay with that. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That makes sense. All 

 7 right. So just moving last now to the off-road rule, I 

 8 frankly think we've done as much with that one as we can 

 9 do. 

 10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Could we just address the 

 11 additional sticker though on the -- 

 12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: The sticker. 

 13 BOARD MEMBER BERG: We're down to the sticker. 

 14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: What about that sticker? 

 15 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 16 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: The sticker, as we've 

 17 gone around -- and I'm sure everyone has started to notice 

 18 the red labels on the side of the equipment. And it is a 

 19 very valuable tool for us to know whether or not the 

 20 vehicle is in there. 

 21 What we have found -- it was suggested all we 

 22 have to do is get out and walk around. A lot of times 

 23 we're driving by. And what we really have found is that 

 24 it would be greatly beneficial I think to everybody to be 

 25 able to look at either side of a vehicle and know whether 
 289 

 1 or not fairly quickly it's been reported or not. 

 2 The time frame in which we plan to do this is to 

 3 provide two years to get the other label on. And it's at 

 4 the time in which we expected that initial label to 

 5 probably have warn. I think we heard many of them are 

 6 turning pink where they're going to have to replace one 

 7 anyway. At that time they just put one on both sides of a 

 8 vehicle. 

 9 It seems a reasonable way to get better labeling 

 10 on these vehicles. If you look at the trucks, we do 

 11 require labels on both sides of the trucks for the ag 

 12 exemptions and some of the other things. So it seemed to 

 13 us to be a very good idea and relatively inexpensive 

 14 relative to everything else we've been talking about. 

 15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think we should change in 

 16 the requirement that the label should be pink to begin 

 17 with. Soften it up. never mind. Okay. 

 18 BOARD MEMBER BERG: There could be no big fines 

 19 on that, I would hope. 

 20 The last thing I really would like to talk about 

 21 before we really lose all sense of sensibility here is on 

 22 the retrofit request. I would like if the Board was 

 23 agreeable to ask staff to, in fact, meet with the retrofit 

 24 companies and review our verification processes, our 

 25 costs, and to see what type of relief that we can provide 
 290 

 1 maintaining the quality of our verification process. But 

 2 it is very expensive. It's very time consuming. And it 

 3 does take a long time. And I think wherever we can assist 

 4 in reducing those costs, I'd really be a huge advocate of 

 5 that. 

 6 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 

 7 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF WHITE: Let me take that even a 

 8 step further. 

 9 We already have plans with the Board to make 

 10 amendments to the program in the fall of next year and 

 11 have already begun discussions with them about the 

 12 comments they have raised. And we'll work with them to 

 13 find some changes we can implement administratively in the 

 14 near term and bring some long-term changes to that. 

 15 Because we do recognize -- I think we've talked a lot 

 16 about the need for relief for effected industry. We do 

 17 need to recognize it is a substantial investment these 

 18 companies have made in California and look for ways in 

 19 which we can reduce costs for them, while not Sacrificing 

 20 the protections and the demonstrations of durability that 

 21 we currently have in there. 

 22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: This is line on the 

 23 off-road, but it obviously has a life of its own as well. 

 24 Fair enough. 

 25 There was one additional point that was raised 
 291 

 1 here today I also wanted to pick up on, and that was the 

 2 request to staff to do a more comprehensive look at 

 3 greenhouse gas emissions from the freight transport sector 

 4 as a whole. 

 5 I'm going to make it bigger than just the trucks 

 6 and to suggest that the point that Tim Carmichael brought 

 7 to us obviously representing the natural gas industry, but 

 8 there's other reasons why as we move forward with our 

 9 implementation of AB 32. While we congratulate ourselves 

 10 on the great work the Board has done in implementing the 

 11 Scoping Plan, the fact is there still are a lot of 

 12 emissions out there in the state that we are not capturing 

 13 in any other way and the need to think in a more holistic 

 14 manner to 2020 and beyond 2020 about what we're going to 

 15 do to address the overriding issues of transforming to a 

 16 lower carbon economy and the jobs that we all hope will 

 17 come along with that. 

 18 So I think it would be helpful if Mr. Goldstene 

 19 would get you and the staff to agree that this is 

 20 something that we would add to our thinking about the 

 21 agenda for next year. 

 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: We're happy to do 

 23 that. 

 24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. Any other final 

 25 parting words by anybody? 
 292 

 1 If not, I think it's probably time to bring this 

 2 to a vote. So I'm going to suggest that we vote on 10-44, 

 3 45, 46 and 47 as a group and entertain a motion. 

 4 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: So moved. 

 5 BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Second. 

 6 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Second. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All those in favor, please 

 8 signify by saying aye. 

 9 (Ayes) 

 10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Any opposed? 

 11 Very good. They pass unanimously. 

 12 Do we have anybody who signed up for public 

 13 comment? Good. 

 14 (Thereupon the California Air Resources 

 15 Board meeting adjourned at 4:24 p.m.) 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 
 293 

 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 

 2 I, TIFFANY C. KRAFT, a Certified Shorthand 

 3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered 

 4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify: 

 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 

 6 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, 

 7 Tiffany C. Kraft, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 

 8 State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 

 9 typewriting. 

 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 

 11 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any 

 12 way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 

 14 this 31st day of December, 2010. 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR 

 23 Certified Shorthand Reporter 

 24 License No. 12277 

 25