Source: http://cal-span.org/unipage/?site=cal-span&owner=CARB&date=2018-02-08&mode=large
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:19:04+00:00

Document:
Thursday, February 8, 2018 @ 9:00 a.m.
August 30, 2017, marked the 50th anniversary of Governor Ronald Reagan approving the Mulford-Carrell Act that created the State Air Resources Board.February 8, 2018, will mark the 50th Anniversary of the first California Air Resources Board meeting and will serve as a celebration of a half century of clearing Californiaï¿½s skies and improving public health.
The following items on the consent calendar will be presented to the Board immediately after the start of the public meeting, unless removed from the consent calendar either upon a Board memberï¿½s request or if someone in the audience wishes to speak on them.
The Board will consider proposed amendments to the regulations designating areas of California as attainment, nonattainment, nonattainment-transitional, or unclassified for pollutants with State ambient air quality standards. Based on 2014 to 2016 air quality data, a total of seven changes to area designations are proposed for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10.
February 8, 2018, marks the 50th Anniversary of the first California Air Resources Board hearing. The Board will hear a retrospective presentation reviewing five decades of achievement in improving air quality, public health, economic benefits, and environmental justice.
The awards will be presented to the recipients of the Haagen-Smit Legacy Awards. This is a special year for the Awards Program as it is the 50th Anniversary of the legislation that created the Board. To commemorate five decades of progress towards clean air, CARB is highlighting the accomplishments of a select group of remarkable individuals who have had a significant impact on air quality and climate goals in California and beyond.
The Board will consider approving the proposed California Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Standards and proposed amendments to the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation. The proposed California Phase 2 GHG emission standards harmonize with federal Phase 2 standards that were adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the United States Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on October 25, 2016. The Phase 2 proposal also includes minor California differences from the federal Phase 2 program that are necessary to ease enforcement, align with existing California programs, and provide incentives to bring advanced technologies to market. Finally, the Phase 2 proposal includes restrictions on the production of high-emitting glider vehicles that the U.S. EPA has recently proposed to repeal, but which CARB staff thinks are crucial for protecting public health and preventing the circumvention of emission standards.
Executive Officer Richard Corey will provide the Board with an overview of California Air Resources Board priorities for 2018.
American Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers, et al. v. Jane Oï¿½Keeffe, et al., U.S. District Court (D. Ore. Portland), Case No. 3:15-CV-00467; Plaintiffsï¿½ appeal, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 15-35834.
California et al. v. U.S. Department of Transportation et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 4:17-CV-05439.
Friends of Oceano Dunes, Inc. v. California Coastal Commission, et al., Superior Court of California, San Luis Obispo County, Case No. 17CV-0576.
In re La Paloma Generating Company, LLC, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 16-bk-12700.
Mexichem Fluor Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al., U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case Nos. 15-1328 and 15-1329.
POET, LLC, et al. v. California Air Resources Board, et al., Superior Court of California (Fresno County), Case No. 09CECG04659; plaintiffsï¿½ appeal, California Court of Appeal, Fifth District, Case No. F064045; California Supreme Court, Case No. S213394 [remanded to trial court]; plaintiffï¿½s appeal of trial court order discharging peremptory writ of mandate, Court of Appeal, Fifth District, Case No. F073340.
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, et al. v. Corey, U.S. District Court (E.D. Cal. Fresno), Case No. 1:09-CV-02234-LJO-DLB; ARB interlocutory appeal, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-15131 [remanded to trial court].
American Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers, et al. v. Corey, et al., U.S. District Court (E.D. Cal. Fresno), Case No. 1:10-CV-00163-AWI-GSA; ARBï¿½s interlocutory appeal, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 10-CV-00163 [remanded to trial court].
States of New York, California, Vermont, and Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case Nos. 17-2780(L) and 17-2806.
Alliance for California Business v. California Air Resources Board, et al., Glenn County Superior Court, Case No. 13CV01232; plaintiffsï¿½ appeal, Court of Appeal, Third District, Case No. C082828.
Jack Cody dba Cody Transport v. California Air Resources Board, et al., Sacramento Superior Court, Case No. 34-2015-80002116; plaintiffï¿½s appeal, Court of Appeal, Third District, Case No. C083083.
John R. Lawson Rock & Oil, Inc. et al. v. California Air Resources Board et al., Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 14-CECG01494; ARBï¿½s appeal, Court of Appeal, Fifth District, Case No. F074003.
Although no formal Board action may be taken, the Board is allowing an opportunity to interested members of the public to address the Board on items of interest that are within the Boardï¿½s jurisdiction, but that do not specifically appear on the agenda. Each person will be allowed a maximum of three minutes to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.