MEETING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
2020 L STREET
BOARD ROOM
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2000
8:30 A.M.
JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
LICENSE NUMBER 10063
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
ii
APPEARANCES
BOARD MEMBERS
Dr. Allan Lloyd, Chairperson
Mrs. Barbara Riordan
Dr. William Burke
Mr. Joseph Calhoun
Supervisor DeSaulnier
Ms. Dorene D'Adamo
Professor Hugh Friedman
Mr. Matthew McKinnon
Supervisor Mark Roberts
STAFF
Mr. Mike Kenny, Executive Officer
Mr. Tom Cackette, Deputy Executive Officer
Mr. Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer
Ms. Lynn Shenk, Deputy Executive Officer
Michael Carter, Chief, Emission Research & Regulatory
Development Branch, Mobile Source Control Division
Mr. Bob Cross, Chief, Mobile Source Control Division
Ms. Peggy Jenkins, Manager, Indoor Exposure Assessment
Section
Ms. Diane Johnston, Senior Staff Counsel, Office of Legal
Affairs
Ms. Annmarie Mora, Air Pollution Specialist
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iii
APPEARANCES CONTIUNED
STAFF
Ms. Susuan O'Connor, Manager, On-Road Heavy Duty Diesel
Section, Mobile Source Control Division
Mr. Gregory Ushijima, Air Resources Engineer, Mobile
Source Control Division
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iv
INDEX
PAGE
Opening remarks by Chairperson Lloyd 1
Roll Call 1
Remarks by Board Member Burke 1
Item 00-12-4
Chairperson Lloyd 2
Executive Officer Kenny 2
Air Pollution Specialist Mora 2
Discussion 8
Vote 21
Item 00-12-5
Chairperson Lloyd 22
Executive Officer Kenny 23
Air Resources Engineer Ushijima 25
Discussion 41
Mr. Carl Johnson 52
Mr. William Becker 57
Ms. Stephanie Williams 64
Mr. Jeff Marsee 72
Ms. Jennifer Taggart 83
Mr. Richard Schyu 89
Ms. Lisa Stegink 98
Vote 102
Adjournment 102
Reporter's Certificate 103
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
1
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good morning. The December
3 8th, 2000 public meeting of the Air Resources Board will
4 now come to order.
5 Will the clerk of the Board please call the roll.
6 SECRETARY KAVAN: Dr. Burke?
7 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Present.
8 SECRETARY KAVAN: Calhoun?
9 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here.
10 SECRETARY KAVAN: D'Adamo?
11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here.
12 SECRETARY KAVAN: Supervisor DeSaulnier?
13 Professor Friedman?
14 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Here.
15 SECRETARY KAVAN: Dr. Friedman?
16 McKinnon?
17 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Here.
18 SECRETARY KAVAN: Supervisor Patrick?
19 Riordan?
20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here.
21 Supervisor Roberts?
22 Chairman Lloyd?
23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Here.
24 Thank you very much. I'd like to turn now to Dr.
25 Burke who's got an announcement.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
2
1 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
2 announce this morning, I have the displeasure of
3 announcing this morning that the California Air has lost
4 one of its very good friends in Congress this morning with
5 the passing of Congressman Julian Dixon. And I'd like to
6 ask the Board to have a moment of silence in his memory.
7 (Thereupon a moment of silence was held.)
8 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Thank you very much.
9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Dr.
10 Burke. Very sad.
11 I guess with that, we will go on to agenda item
12 00-12-4, the research proposals. I guess we've got seven
13 research proposals before us today. So I'd like to turn
14 it over to Mr. Kenny to introduce the staff and the item.
15 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: And I think I'll just
16 turn it over to Mr. Bart Croes.
17 Bart.
18 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: And I'll turn it
19 over to Annmarie Mora.
20 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
21 presented as follows.)
22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Good morning,
23 Chairman Lloyd and members of the Board. Today we are
24 presenting to you seven research proposals for a
25 cumulative total of approximately $2.5 million. The
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
3
1 proposals have been reviewed and approved by ARB staff and
2 the research screening committee and are now being
3 recommended to you for approval.
4 Projects may sound familiar because they were
5 part of the research plan you approved in July. These
6 proposals cover a broad range of air pollution
7 disciplines. Each proposal supports the Board's research
8 mission to provide timely scientific and technical
9 information to develop and support the public policy
10 decisions required for an effective air pollution control
11 program.
12 Four of these proposals were solicited through
13 public Request For Proposals. The remaining three are
14 noncompetitive agreements with universities. Two of the
15 seven proposals focus on indoor air. Three are related to
16 heavy-duty engines, one pertains to the emissions
17 inventory, and one is focused ecological effects. I will
18 proceed to discuss each briefly in order of cost.
19 --o0o--
20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The first project
21 is entitled, Environmental Health Conditions in Portable
22 Classrooms and maybe conducted by the Research Triangle
23 Institute. This study was required by the Legislature and
24 will be jointly directed by ARB and the Department of
25 Health Services.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
4
1 This study will obtain data on portable
2 classrooms in California including air pollutant levels,
3 the presence of mold of other unhealthful conditions,
4 ventilation system condition and use and classroom
5 cleaning and maintenance practices.
6 Pollutant measurements will include indoor
7 volatile Organic Compounds, such as formaldehyde,
8 particles, biological pollutants and carbon monoxide.
9 Study results will be used to assess the
10 potential for adverse health impacts from environmental
11 conditions and toxic pollutants that may be present in
12 portable classrooms and identify effective actions that
13 can be taken to remedy or prevent any unhealthful
14 conditions.
15 Results of this study will form the basis of a
16 report due to the Legislature in June 2002. This slide
17 shows one type of a portable classroom that will be
18 examined.
19 --o0o--
20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The second
21 project is titled Detailed Characterization of Indoor and
22 Personal Particulate Matter Concentrations and will be
23 conducted by Harvard University. The primary objective of
24 this study is to characterize in detail the contribution
25 of outdoor particles to both indoor and personal exposures
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
5
1 to PM 2.5. The investigators will determine the influence
2 of specific sources and activities on personal and indoor
3 levels and exposures in the Los Angeles area.
4 --o0o--
5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: ARB will use the
6 study results to improve estimates of indoor and personal
7 exposures to PM from both indoor and outdoor sources and
8 to develop effective strategies for reducing PM exposures.
9 This slide shows the small lightweight PM sampler that
10 subjects will wear during the study.
11 --o0o--
12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The third project
13 is titled Collection of Evaporative Emissions Data from
14 Off-Road Equipment, and will be conducted by Automotive
15 Testing Laboratories. The objective of this study is to
16 collect evaporative emissions data from gasoline powered
17 off-road equipment for inclusion into off road, ARB's
18 emission inventory model.
19 The effective fuel level, refueling, fuel
20 weathering, fuel type and the use of emission control
21 technology will be investigated for the types of equipment
22 more prevalent in the State's inventory.
23 --o0o--
24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The fourth
25 project, Development of a Test Method to Measure
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
6
1 Stationary and Portable Engine Emissions will be conducted
2 by West Virginia University. The objective of this
3 project is to develop a cost effective in-the-field test
4 method for stationary and portable engines.
5 --o0o--
6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Once approved
7 this method will be used as a screening tool to determine
8 compliance with State and federal emission standards for
9 newly manufactured off-road engines and to a lesser extent
10 emission limits established by the Statewide Portable
11 Equipment Registration Program.
12 This slide shows the type of portable engine that
13 will be evaluated with this new method.
14 --o0o--
15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The fifth project
16 is titled Improvements for Emissions Inventory for
17 Industrial Coatings and Thinning and Cleanup Solvents, and
18 will be conducted by Pacific Environmental Services.
19 The objective of this project is to produce a new
20 emissions inventory for industrial coatings and the
21 solvents used for the thinning and cleanup of both
22 industrial and architectural coatings. Emissions will be
23 adjusted according to the time of day and day of the week.
24 In addition, two methodologies will be developed.
25 One will update the inventory and the other will resolve
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
7
1 emissions spacially to a two kilometer grid.
2 --o0o--
3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: The sixth project
4 is titled Oxygenated Organics in Gas and Fine Particle
5 Diesel Emissions for Source Apportionment and will be
6 conducted by the University of California, Davis. The
7 project will develop and test a sampling method to measure
8 oxygenated compounds in both the gas phase and PM 2.5.
9 The results will provide insights into the gas and fine
10 particulate matter distribution of these compounds in the
11 real world emissions.
12 --o0o--
13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: They will also
14 define whether oxygenated organic compounds serve as
15 tracers for source apportionment of diesel exhaust.
16 Samples will be collected in the Caldicot Tunnel located
17 in the Bay Area using equipment similar to that shown in
18 this slide. Samples will also be collected during
19 dynamometer studies at the MTA facility.
20 --o0o--
21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: And lastly the
22 project titled Demonstration of Ozone Impacts on Crop
23 Species in the San Joaquin Valley at the Kerney
24 Agricultural Center will be conducted by the University of
25 California, Riverside.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
8
1 The objective of this demonstration project is to
2 establish an eight unit crop plant and air pollution
3 exposure exhibit at the Kerney Agricultural Center in the
4 San Joaquin Valley.
5 --o0o--
6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: This project
7 would serve to increase the public's awareness of the
8 effect air pollution has on plants. This slide shows the
9 type of chamber that will be used at the center.
10 As you can see, each of these projects is needed
11 to meet specific information needs and requirements of our
12 programs. Therefore, we request that these projects be
13 approved for funding.
14 This concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to
15 answer any questions.
16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Does the Board have any
17 questions.
18 Mr. McKinnon.
19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. This kind of comes
20 out of our meeting yesterday. I'm looking at the source
21 apportionment of diesel and gasoline emissions. What kind
22 of difficulty would we have adding looking at CNG to the
23 mix there or is that something maybe we should take up
24 some day later?
25 ATMOSPHERE PROCESSES SECTION MANAGER McCAULLY:
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
9
1 It might be possible but that would require adding
2 additional --
3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Could you please identify
4 yourself for the court reporter?
5 ATMOSPHERE PROCESSES SECTION MANAGER McCAULLY:
6 I'm Eileen McCaully the Manager of the Atmosphere
7 Processes Section in the Research Division. It might be
8 possible to add testing of natural gas vehicles. This
9 would require, however, adding substantially an amount of
10 test of these types of vehicles into the project. And
11 this would be something that we would have to work out
12 with the MTA facility and the investigator, but it is a
13 possibility if the Board so directs.
14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think it is important from
15 yesterday's discussions and continuing discussions,
16 vis-a-vis the relative merits of natural gas vis-a-vis
17 diesel in terms of the particulates, not only the fine but
18 the ultra fines.
19 I realize that any time you go to a researcher,
20 they're going to say well, yeah, it's going to cost more
21 money now. But that's an issue that I know that Mr. Kenny
22 and Mr. Croes will have to address, but I think it's -- I
23 agree completely with you, Mr. McKinnon, that this should
24 be looked at and maybe looked at in a wholistic way,
25 because I think there's several. I'd also have some
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
10
1 comments there we're looking at the West Virginia work.
2 We're looking at UC Davis work. And then there was one
3 other one, we're looking at the Harvard work. Each of
4 these in some way or another will be looking at the
5 measurements of particulates.
6 One of my concerns is to make sure that we have
7 the same measurement methods, because they're, obviously,
8 consistent with what we're doing with the super sites at
9 Fresno and at Los Angeles at UCLA.
10 And I'm sure that they're going to be consistent.
11 It also fits in a little bit with the comments we had
12 yesterday from Owens Valley about our monitoring methods
13 now for particulates here as well.
14 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: In the studies
15 you mentioned they try to collect the particles in
16 RealTime, but the only federally approved method for final
17 particles is a 24-hour average. But groups like Harvard
18 and others compare 24-hours of RealTime measurements to
19 the official EPA methods. So there is that cross check.
20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But there is a constancy
21 Bart, so that when Howard is Sampling in LA somewhere or
22 other there will be maybe a side-by-side with the UCLA
23 people so that we're comparing apples and apples.
24 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Yeah. Harvard, I
25 know, has done those comparisons and there are other
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
11
1 studies back east and that would certainly be a component
2 of the work out here.
3 The work at West Virginia is being -- there's
4 actually a national inter-comparison program for all the
5 laboratories doing emissions work in the country. So our
6 staff is very involved and is actually planning that work
7 which starts next month.
8 So our MTA facility will be compared against the
9 West Virginia facility and others around the country.
10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And do we get to the ultra
11 fines, can we do that?
12 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: There's one main
13 method that is used for ultra fine, so the cross
14 comparison isn't as big an issue. But not too many of the
15 facilities are measuring ultra fines. I believe West
16 Virginia is and we're planning to do that at the MTA
17 facility.
18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo.
19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I had a question regarding
20 the UC Riverside project and whether or not we currently
21 have any proposals or studies that focus on the benefits
22 of plants and their ability to aid in reducing ozone
23 levels?
24 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: There has been
25 work that the Air Resources Board sponsored as part of the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
12
1 San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Study back in the early
2 1990s on the deposition or removal rates of ozone on
3 different vegetation types. And that work was done in the
4 San Joaquin Valley.
5 I believe there are some plans to do some
6 follow-up work next year on that.
7 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: The one thing I would
8 add is that we also had some material, I think, from about
9 a year go, in which we had identified, essentially, the
10 top ten trees that were essentially most productive in
11 terms of reducing ozone. And we were trying to put that
12 to you, at least, as an information piece.
13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Will we be looking at the CO2
14 uptake of this vegetation?
15 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Yeah, that's a
16 standard measurement is CO2 uptake.
17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Have there been any
18 discussions regarding the utilization of that information
19 by planning commissions as they prepare to approve
20 projects that would convert agricultural lands?
21 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: I'm not aware of
22 anyone that uses that information. It's certainly in the
23 models that are used for determining the planning
24 requirements, that process of removal is included in those
25 models.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
13
1 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: In what models?
2 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: The standard air
3 quality models that are used in the State Implementation
4 Planning Process.
5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm not familiar with
6 that, could you describe that?
7 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Maybe Lynn could
8 address it.
9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Actually, I was
10 going to provide a comment on the Parks initiative that
11 did pass. A lot of money -- and we were consulted in
12 terms of what kind of trees would be good to plant in that
13 process. And so we can provide that information and we're
14 doing our best to get that out in all venues, but that was
15 a very positive one, because quite a bit of money will be
16 spent on trees.
17 I'm sorry, your other question related to the
18 modeling. And I think what Bart was alluding to it, as we
19 do SIPs, for example, we do the modeling exercise. That
20 information in terms of the deposition of air pollution on
21 the plants is used in the modeling. And there has been a
22 lot of work done in the San Joaquin valley study to really
23 map the kinds of crops throughout the valley so we have a
24 lot better information on crops where they're located,
25 deposition rates and all of that will be used as we do the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
14
1 SIP plan next year for the San Joaquin Valley.
2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But the modeling would
3 only take into account the impact to plants and not --
4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: It would take
5 into accounts the benefits of cleansing effect, in
6 essence, of crops from a pollutant standpoint.
7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dr. Burke.
8 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Lynn, have we been working
9 with the Tree People?
10 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: We haven't been
11 directly. We've been kind of the technical consultant on
12 which trees are good trees --
13 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: No, I meant the organization
14 Tree People.
15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: No, we haven't
16 been.
17 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I don't know if the Board is
18 familiar with this, but there's an organization called The
19 Tree People who have just grown exponentially. But in
20 southern California they have so far raised $80 million to
21 plant trees. They figure that to be effective with
22 regenerated -- because they found out like we found out
23 there are some trees that are bad for air pollution not
24 good. So you have to plant them in combination. It's
25 going to take about a billion dollars.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
15
1 And it sounds like an impossible number to get
2 to, but in going over some of the planting processes with
3 these people, when you go to the flood control districts
4 and all the other agencies which benefit from the planting
5 of trees, including even the school boards, schools are
6 now islands of asphalt.
7 If you tear some of that asphalt up and putting
8 in greenery and trees, you know, they provide a
9 substantial portion of money. In fact, in Los Angeles I
10 think they got like $30 million out of this last bond
11 issue just to go back and tear up asphalt and put in
12 greenery and trees around schools.
13 The problem with the Tree People's program, as I
14 see it is, that the maintenance portion of their program
15 is significantly high, but I'm enthralled by a
16 naturalistic approach to curing smog in southern
17 California. I wish I had a billion dollars, I'd give it
18 to them and try it out.
19 But what I really wanted to speak about was Mr.
20 McKinnon's going at this study thing. I think that we
21 really need an ARB study. One which is controlled by our
22 staff and puts in all the things that we need to make
23 appropriate considerations as it relates to CNG, propane
24 and Green Diesel and all the other things that we've been
25 talking about, because just bits and pieces from people
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
16
1 all over the country, even though, you know, as a Harvard
2 graduate I respect the name Harvard, but I know what goes
3 on there, because I was there.
4 So I don't know if I would trust a study I would
5 do or not, you know. So I would really like some of our
6 experts here in California like UCLA and Riverside and
7 some of those people to get involved and maybe we could
8 find some money to do our own studies.
9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, I think that is part of
10 the program that we're hoping to do. And I know also that
11 the work they're doing at UC Riverside, they've actually
12 built a whole mobile lab with a pollution terminal, which
13 you can actually put on a tractor and take the emissions.
14 So I think we're going to learn a lot in the next couple
15 of years, and it's badly needed and we need that
16 consistency.
17 And the other point, I think there should be
18 plenty of money available for tree planting, because as
19 we've seen from the discussions on CO2 people are willing
20 to pay money to plant trees so that they don't have to
21 curtail their emissions elsewhere. So I think there
22 should be plenty of that. But just reflects that we've
23 also come a long way from the days of the killer trees and
24 now we're looking at the different ways.
25 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I would be glad to, if you
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
17
1 tell me who it's appropriate, to put Andy Lipkus and the
2 Tree People. You need to hear what this guy has got to
3 say. They've spent a fortune in research and they've got
4 some very interesting material.
5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The other thing Commissioner
6 Rosenfelt, I know pioneered some work with his people at
7 Livermore to look at less reflective surfaces -- more
8 reflective surfaces together with tree planting cannot
9 only reduce power demands but also reduces temperature,
10 which can reduce zone formation. So this all fits in very
11 nicely in terms of that process.
12 Yes, Ms. D'Adamo.
13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm just wondering if
14 there's -- if, perhaps, staff could come back to us taking
15 a look at this issue in a more comprehensive fashion, what
16 steps could be taken to get the information out, not just
17 to air districts, but school districts, planning
18 commissions and perhaps any funding mechanisms that --
19 obviously, there's the parks bond, but are there any grant
20 proposals or programs that we have that could assist in
21 that issue.
22 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: We're happy to do
23 that. I think we actually began that process a year go.
24 I'm sorry, I can't tell you right now where we are in that
25 process, but we will go, look at it and make sure that, in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
18
1 fact, it's fully being implemented and then report to the
2 Board.
3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: How much cost share is there
4 in proposals here? Are there any other members involved
5 putting some money into the pot?
6 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: The only cost
7 share is a Harvard proposal. EPA is funding that for
8 $300,000. We did approach the Coordinating Research
9 Council, the South Coast AQMD on possibly -- and the
10 Energy Commission on working together on some of these
11 other projects, but there was no interest in co-funding.
12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: South Coast AQMD was not
13 interested?
14 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Well, I think
15 they were interested, but it was just a lack of money.
16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Lack of money?
17 (Laughter.)
18 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: What's so funny about that?
19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I don't think it rose to Dr.
20 Burke's level, but it would be good.
21 (Laughter.)
22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: You have so much more
23 money than we do.
24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well you've got your Sugar
25 Daddy in David Friedman.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
19
1 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I hear him violating right
2 now.
3 (Laughter.)
4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, Mr. McKinnon.
5 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: To follow up on the UC
6 Davis source apportionment of diesel and gasoline
7 emissions question, what -- I'm trying to understand where
8 we go from here. Is it best to take a pass and set
9 something up in the future to include CNG or do you need
10 more money to include CNG or what's the best course from
11 here?
12 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: I think what we'd
13 like to do is talk to the investigator and see if there's
14 some trade off we can do. I know that we plan to do some
15 testing of CNG buses at the MTA facility. So if we could
16 trade off some diesel testing in the program for some
17 additional CNG testing and fit it within the existing
18 budget, we'll see if that's doable. If it's not, then we
19 would come back, you know, with an add-on to the program.
20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, as you know, I'm an
21 extremely strong supporter of the research program. And I
22 I'm delighted to see moving ahead and I just hope that we
23 can continue to look for more money and get more money for
24 you to do the work.
25 Because as I've seen in the time I've been here
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
20
1 how important it is to have the technical base that you're
2 providing all the way from children's health to the
3 control side to looking at the particular sources of
4 emissions as well, and the modeling side and the field
5 program that you're doing.
6 So I'm delighted to approve this and to go ahead
7 and continue the great work I think that the Research
8 Division is doing there.
9 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Mr. Chairman. There's
10 just one question I'd like to ask about the research
11 proposal from the South Coast Research Development to the
12 development of the testing methods for stationary sources
13 is this one that we solicited or is it an unsolicited
14 proposal.
15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Is that the West
16 Virginia proposal?
17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah. There's not one from
18 South West.
19 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: How's that?
20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Southwest isn't here.
21 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: West Virginia.
22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MORA: Yeah, that was
23 solicited through an RFP.
24 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I think maybe it's long
25 overdue that we come up with some type of short test
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
21
1 method for determining compliance with the stationary
2 engines in the field. I know they go through a
3 certification process and the local districts periodically
4 will go through and test them. But will the requirements
5 that they meet the low emission standards, I'm not sure
6 how effective our current test methods are, it may be we
7 will learn something from this particular work that we are
8 asking West Virginia to do. I think it's -- I think we
9 need support.
10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Do we have a motion?
11 Did you have a comment, Mr. McKinnon.
12 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. This is a bit of a
13 side track from what -- I'm supportive of a motion on the
14 research grants. But one other thing that kind of
15 occurred in the process of the school bus debate is we're
16 going to have buses using low sulfur fuel. There's buses
17 that are currently using high sulfur fuel or higher sulfur
18 fuel, and it occurs to me as we kind of progress through
19 changes in diesel, we're going to have to figure out a way
20 to test whether or not systems are working, whether or not
21 people are really using low sulfur fuel when they're
22 supposed to and whether or not the particulate traps are
23 working and that kind of thing.
24 And I think something we ought to be thinking
25 about in an area where research is grappling with that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
22
1 problem. So that said, I'm all for this motion.
2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So I guess we have a --
3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Do you need a motion? I
4 would move the staff recommendation for the items of
5 research that are before us.
6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Second?
7 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Second.
8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye?
9 (Ayes.)
10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Unanimous.
11 Thank you very much.
12 At the end of the year thank the Research
13 Screening Committee for their continuing good work,
14 please.
15 Take a moment before we get to the last item.
16 The next item on this agenda is 00-12-5,
17 amendments to the regulations and test procedures for
18 heavy-duty diesel engines regarding not-to-exceed
19 standards. Those of us in the air quality were surprised
20 and alarmed to learn in the mid to late 1990s that certain
21 heavy-duty vehicles were equipped with defeat devices that
22 turned off their emission control systems during strenuous
23 operating conditions. I certainly know that I was at that
24 time.
25 Since then, litigation was brought and regulatory
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
23
1 steps have been taken to address this problem. However,
2 there's still a gap of time where this unacceptable
3 practice could occur, again, controlling heavy-duty diesel
4 emissions is vital to ARB's air quality objectives. And
5 we clearly had extensive discussions on that yesterday
6 related to the school bus issue.
7 Statewide, heavy-duty diesel vehicles account for
8 30 percent of the on-road mobile source NOx emissions.
9 That contribution is projected to increase to 38 percent
10 in 2010 as other mobile sources get cleaned up.
11 It goes without saying that this Board and the
12 public it serves has the right to expect that adopted
13 standards will be complied with during the entire cycle of
14 heavy duty-deal diesel operations, not just certain modes.
15 The proposal before us today is intended to
16 ensure that. So, Mr. Kenny, if you would please introduce
17 the item a begin staff presentation.
18 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: Thank you, Mr.
19 Chairman and members of the Board, seven major diesel
20 engine manufacturers employed defeat devices that turned
21 off emission controls under certain operating conditions
22 on over one million engines between 1988 and 1998.
23 This caused approximately 1.3 million tons of
24 excess NOx emissions nationwide in 1998 alone. To address
25 the violation, the US Department of Justice, the US
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
24
1 Environmental Protection Agency, and the ARB negotiated
2 settlements with the manufacturers, which include the
3 payment of monetary fines and environmental projects aimed
4 at offsetting the excess emissions.
5 Additionally, six of these consent decree
6 manufacturers agreed to conduct supplemental not-to-exceed
7 tests and Euro three tests as part of a certification to
8 ensure emissions compliance throughout the engine's
9 operating range.
10 The settlement specified that the supplemental
11 test would be employed for a period beginning in 2002 and
12 ending in 2004, at which time the parties fully
13 anticipated EPA would require such testing for
14 certification.
15 In effect, US EPA was supposed to adopt the same
16 requirements that were negotiated pursuant to the consent
17 degrees.
18 Due to extended negotiations with the engine
19 manufacturers and federal timing constraints the
20 supplemental test procedures will not be required in 2004
21 as originally anticipated and will not be in effect until
22 2007. The combination of the actions results in a two
23 year gap in test requirements that will result in excess
24 NOx emissions of over 22 tons per day in California.
25 The proposal before the Board today contains
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
25
1 amendments to the existing test procedures, that if
2 adopted would implement the not-to-exceed requirements in
3 2004 as originally anticipated and will prevent any
4 emissions increase.
5 I would now like to turn the presentation over to
6 Mr. Greg Ushijima who will provide you with an overview of
7 the staff's findings and present the staff's
8 recommendation.
9 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
10 presented as follows.)
11 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: Thank you, Mr.
12 Kenny, Chairman Lloyd and members of the Board. My name
13 is Greg Ushijima. It's my pleasure to be here today to
14 present the staff proposal for supplemental emission test
15 procedures for 2005 and subsequent model year heavy-duty
16 diesel engines.
17 --o0o--
18 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: Today's
19 presentation will include the following, the background to
20 the proposal, the staff proposal, comparison of the staff
21 proposal to the federal consent decrees and the federal
22 rule, the effects on California emissions, costs of the
23 staff proposal, remaining issues of concern and
24 conclusions and recommendations.
25 To begin, I will discuss the background to the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
26
1 proposal.
2 --o0o--
3 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: Between 1988
4 and 1998, seven major diesel truck engine manufacturers
5 employed defeat devices that frequently turned off
6 emission controls on over one million engines.
7 Mission controls were typically turned off during
8 cruising conditions for fuel economy purposes, which
9 violates certification regulations.
10 This costs approximately 1.3 tons of excess NOx
11 emissions nationwide in 1998 alone. And emissions as high
12 a 15 grams per break horse power, three times the
13 applicable emission standard.
14 --o0o--
15 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: To address
16 these violations, the US Department of Justice, the US
17 Environmental Protection Agency and ARB signed consent
18 decrees with engine manufacturers.
19 These consent decrease require that engine
20 manufacturers must pay fines totaling $83.4 million to the
21 federal government and $20.4 million of that to
22 California. That all engines must meet a nonmethane
23 hydrocarbon, oxides of nitrogen emission standard of 2.5
24 grams per break horsepower hour in 2002, which is 15
25 months earlier than the other manufacturers.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
27
1 That engines must comply with new supplemental
2 emission tests that assure emissions are controlled under
3 most operating modes and conditions and that engine
4 manufacturers must partially offset the excess emissions
5 through early implementation of reduced emission standards
6 mentioned above and through funding of other emission
7 reducing projects.
8 --o0o--
9 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: Heavy-duty
10 diesel vehicles contribute substantially to California's
11 emission inventory. Although, heavy-duty diesel vehicles
12 account for a very small percentage of the total vehicle
13 and equipment population, approximately one percent shown
14 in red on the left pie chart, they account for a larger
15 portion of the projected mobile source NOx emissions in
16 2010, 23 percent again shown in red on the right pie
17 chart.
18 Note the chart underestimates NOx emissions
19 because it does not reflect all of the higher emissions
20 that occur when defeat devices on 1988 through 1998 trucks
21 are operating.
22 --o0o--
23 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: This chart will
24 show the difference between the emission standard, which
25 is representative of urban stop and go operation and off
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
28
1 cycle or cruise emissions.
2 The first pair of bars shows the difference from
3 1988 through 1998 when defeat devices were used. The
4 cruising emissions are shown in yellow and the
5 certification emission standards are shown in red. As you
6 can see, the cruise emissions were triple the emission's
7 standard.
8 The next pair of bars shows that without these
9 defeat devices from 1998 through 2001, cruise emissions
10 decreased to six grams per brake horsepower or 50 percent
11 above the standard.
12 The next set of bars shows that in 2002 consent
13 decree requirements reduce the emissions standard for the
14 seven settling manufacturers and apply equal to urban stop
15 and go and cruise emissions. This is accomplished by
16 requiring engine manufacturers to demonstrate compliance
17 on a new set of supplemental tests covering most modes of
18 operation.
19 Under the consent decrees, the requirements to
20 demonstrate compliance with these supplemental tests will
21 expire in 2004.
22 Consequently, for the 2005 and 2006 model years,
23 there will be no requirements for engine manufacturers to
24 maintain low cruise emissions. As shown in the 2005 and
25 2006 bars, it is expected that cruise emissions will
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
29
1 increase. This will result because the settling
2 manufacturers are expected to recalibrate their engines to
3 compete in terms of fuel economy with other nonconsent
4 decree manufacturers who are not subject to the
5 supplemental tests. This would result in more than a
6 hundred percent increase in NOx cruise emissions during
7 in-use driving.
8 The US EPA has a regulation requiring compliance
9 with the supplemental tests, but it does not begin until
10 2007. At that time, cruising emissions would return to
11 the lower emission levels as in 2002 through 2004 under
12 the consent decrees.
13 Therefore, today we are proposing regulations
14 that would prevent any excess emissions from occurring in
15 California from 2005 and 2006 model year trucks.
16 Additionally, through other states adopting similar
17 requirements, we expect that clean truck engines will be
18 sold nationwide.
19 --o0o--
20 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: With that
21 background in mind, I will discuss the staff proposal for
22 the adoption of the supplemental test procedures.
23 --o0o--
24 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: The staff's
25 proposal applies to both medium-heavy and heavy-heavy duty
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
30
1 diesel engines for 2005 and subsequent model years.
2 Medium heavy-duty engines are used in vehicles with a
3 gross vehicle weight weighing 14,001 pounds and greater up
4 to 33,000 pounds.
5 These vehicles are used in a variety of
6 applications such as inter-city delivery, tow trucks and
7 freight.
8 Heavy heavy-duty engines are use in vehicles with
9 a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 33,000 pounds.
10 These vehicles are typically used in long hall and freight
11 applications.
12 --o0o--
13 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: Staff is
14 proposing the adoption of the supplemental test procedures
15 identical to those in the consent decrees. These test
16 procedures will be used when certifying applicable
17 heavy-duty vehicle engines in addition to the current
18 certification federal test procedure or FTP.
19 These test procedures include the not-to-exceed
20 or NTE test, the European Stationary Cycle or EFC test,
21 and the maximum allowable emission limits, or MAL. The
22 following slides will discuss the components of the
23 proposal in greater detail.
24 --o0o--
25 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: The NTE tests
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
31
1 cover a much wider range of operating conditions compared
2 to the existing FTP test. The test includes an emissions
3 cap of 1.25 times the applicable FTP emission standards.
4 This cap limits the maximum emissions which can occur in
5 all operating modes covered.
6 The test also includes a deficiency provision for
7 2005 through 2007 model years. This allows manufacturers
8 limited relief for engine families which have great
9 difficulty in satisfying all NTE requirements.
10 --o0o--
11 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: The FTE and the
12 proposed NTE test cover transient engine operation very
13 well. However, based upon defeat devices used by some
14 manufacturers, is also necessary to prevent emission
15 increases during sustained freeway driving.
16 The EFC test includes testing at 13 specific
17 modes of steady state engine operation. Each mode has a
18 different speed and power and simulates constant speed
19 higher driving and idle.
20 Results at each mode of this test are averaged
21 and compared to the transient FTP emissions standard so
22 that cruise emissions are well controlled.
23 There is also concern that manufacturers could
24 meet the EFC test using computer programs which recognize
25 when the engine is being tested at one of the test points
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
32
1 and then calibrate for better fuel economy, and thus
2 higher emissions between the test points.
3 The proposed maximum allowable emission limit
4 criteria prevent this from happening. Each test mode
5 cannot exceed the NTE cap with a ten percent allowance to
6 account for variability between the test modes. The MAL
7 is an emission cap covering operation at all operating
8 conditions between the 12 non-idle ESC test modes.
9 --o0o--
10 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: Currently,
11 engine dynamometer testing is required for certification
12 of engines and for in-use compliance testing. This test
13 involved testing of individual engines in a laboratory
14 setting. Verifying that engines meet the emissions
15 standards when the engines are in use requires removal of
16 the engines from vehicles.
17 This is time consuming, costly and in many cases
18 impractical. This proposal enables in-use compliance
19 testing through the use of various limits it contains.
20 Compliance with these limits can be verified using chassis
21 testing through either a chassis dynamometer or an
22 on-board measurement device.
23 These methods cost less and take less time
24 compared to an engine dynamometer test, since the engine
25 does not need to be removed from the vehicle.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
33
1 --o0o--
2 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: There are two
3 exemptions included in the proposed supplemental test
4 procedures. One exemption is for ultra small volume
5 manufacturers. These manufacturers have California sales
6 no greater than 300 engines and vehicles per year, based
7 on the average of the previous three consecutive model
8 years.
9 Additionally, this exemption applies to 2007 and
10 2006 model years only. This exemption provides additional
11 lead time for these small manufacturers to comply with the
12 prosed requirements. The other exemption is for urban
13 buses.
14 As defined in the proposed Section 1956.2 of
15 Title 13 in the California Code of Regulations, the Urban
16 transit bus fleet rule already includes unique and
17 stringent requirements, from 2002 002 through 2007. This
18 exemption will provide relief from any additional
19 requirements for the 2005 and 2006 model years only.
20 --o0o--
21 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: Consent decrees
22 settling manufacturers are required to comply with
23 identical requirements nationwide by October 2002 and any
24 compliance difficulties will be revealed before 2002.
25 Therefore, our proposal includes provisions for 2003
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
34
1 technology review so that needed modifications to the
2 proposal can be considered before implementation.
3 --o0o--
4 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: I'll now
5 discuss the differences and similarities between today's
6 proposal and the consent decrees and the adopted federal
7 rule for 2007.
8 --o0o--
9 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: The staff
10 proposal is based on the consent decrees to ensure
11 continuity with the 2002 through 2004 consent decree
12 engines. Therefore, many of the provisions proposed today
13 are identical to the consent decrees to ensure lower
14 emission engines will continue to be produced in 2005 and
15 2006.
16 These provisions include the NTE test, the Euro
17 III ESC test, the MAL test procedure, the enabling of
18 in-use compliance testing and the definition of defeat
19 device.
20 These first three items are also identical to the
21 federal rule for 2007 model engines. However, the in-use
22 compliance requirements and defeat device definition are
23 slightly different than the federal rule in order to
24 maintain consistency with the consent decrees. Other
25 minor differences compared to the consent decrees and the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
35
1 federal rule allow additional flexibility for compliance
2 with the proposed requirements.
3 --o0o--
4 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: I shall now
5 discuss the emission impacts of the proposal.
6 --o0o--
7 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: This chart was
8 shown previously to illustrate the potential emissions
9 increases during cruising conditions in 2005 and 2006.
10 This is from the end of the consent decree requirements in
11 2004 and the beginning of new federal requirements in
12 2007. As shown in the chart, the excess NOx emissions in
13 2005 and 2006 would be eliminated by the staff's proposal.
14 --o0o--
15 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: For California
16 to reduce excess NOx emissions from California registered
17 vehicles would be about eight tons per day, 17 tons per
18 day and 14 tons per day for 2005, 2006 and 2010
19 respectively. These are excess emissions which are not
20 included in the State Implementation Plans inventory.
21 These reductions are necessary to ensure we accomplish the
22 air quality goals for the State Implementation Plan.
23 Should other states also decide to adopt our
24 proposal, manufacturers will be forced to comply on a
25 national basis rather than state by state. The reduced
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
36
1 excess NOx emissions in California would be even greater
2 as shown in by the red bars.
3 --o0o--
4 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: As you can see
5 in this chart, the reduced excess emissions will have a
6 significant impact in air basins which have upcoming
7 deadlines to meet federal air quality standards.
8 --o0o--
9 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: Now, I'll
10 discuss costs associated with the proposed supplemental
11 test procedures.
12 --o0o--
13 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: We based our
14 costs on US EPA estimates, which include compliance with
15 similar supplemental test procedures as well as reducing
16 the FTP emission standard from four to two grams per brake
17 horsepower hour. Therefore these are worst case costs for
18 this analysis since the proposal includes only the
19 supplemental test procedures.
20 The average cost of compliance presented in this
21 chart is just under $800. The costs are about $100 lower
22 for smaller trucks and a $100 higher for larger trucks.
23 Even with these overstated costs, the cost effectiveness
24 is still only pennies per pound.
25 This compare very favorably to the cost
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
37
1 effectiveness of other recently adopted emission reduction
2 measures, which can often cost $5 per pound of pollutant
3 reduced or more.
4 --o0o--
5 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: Next, I'll
6 discuss issues which concern engine manufacturers,
7 particularly feasibility and implementation concerns.
8 --o0o--
9 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: One issue of
10 concern is the claim that NTE requirements have not been
11 demonstrated to be technically feasible. Some engine
12 manufacturers claim that insufficient information is a
13 available and insufficient engineering analysis has been
14 completed to determine feasibility.
15 From February to June of 2000, staff participated
16 in a series of meetings with engine manufacturers and the
17 US EPA regarding the supplemental tests. The only
18 concerns raised by engine manufacturers were extreme
19 operating conditions, such as high altitude and high
20 torque conditions.
21 These conditions represent a small but
22 challenging portion of the control zone. Control
23 strategies compliant under these operating conditions are
24 expected in the consent decree engines by October 2002.
25 Thus, we expect that feasibility in 2005 will not be a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
38
1 problem.
2 However, if there are concerns, efficiency
3 provisions may be used to allow additional lead time.
4 --o0o--
5 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMAl Another issue
6 of concern is the implementation of the proposed
7 supplemental test procedures beginning in the 2005 model
8 year. Manufacturers contend that the lead time and
9 stability requirements for the adoption of the standards
10 specified in the Clean Air Act are not being honored.
11 These Clean Air Act requirements are that the
12 implementation date must be for the model year no earlier
13 than four years after the adoption of the emissions
14 standard, and that the standard must be stable for at
15 least three model years.
16 California has always taken the position that
17 these federal requirements do not apply to California,
18 because of its unique air quality problems and authority.
19 Further, these requirements would not apply to
20 this rule making since there are no proposed changes to
21 emission standards.
22 --o0o--
23 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: The final issue
24 of concern is that there are ongoing consent decree
25 negotiations between the settling manufacturers, the US
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
39
1 EPA and the ARB. Since nonconsent decree manufacturers
2 are not involved in these negotiations, these
3 manufacturers will have no influence to the end result.
4 If the NTE requirements change as a result of the consent
5 decree negotiations, these changes can be accommodated by
6 the staff's proposal using the NTE Deficiency allowance.
7 To involve nonconsent decree manufacturers, staff
8 should perhaps to meet with them on a periodic and regular
9 basis to discuss the need for potential changes to these
10 requirements.
11 --o0o--
12 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: Finally, our
13 conclusions and recommendations.
14 --o0o--
15 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER USHIJIMA: It is very
16 important that California extend the consent decree
17 requirements. The path to clean air we have undertaken
18 cannot accommodate an increase in emissions, which will
19 occur if these regulations are not adopted.
20 The proposal is identical to the consent decrees
21 with minor differences to add flexibility. This means
22 that for most engine manufacturers no changes to their
23 engines in 2005 will be required.
24 Additionally, the proposal is cost effective.
25 Further, 14 other states have voiced support for our
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
40
1 action and will proceed to seek adoption of our procedures
2 upon approval by the Board, thus helping to assure only an
3 engine, a clean one, is sold nationwide.
4 For those reason, staff recommends board approval
5 of the proposal.
6 Thank you. This concludes my presentation.
7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. That
8 was a very clear discussion of the issues, much
9 appreciated. Madam Ombudsman, would you please describe
10 the public participation process that occurred while this
11 item was being developed and share any concerns or other
12 comments you may have with the Board at this time.
13 OMBUDSMAN TSHOGL: Mr. Chairman and members of
14 the Board, the proposed test procedures before you now
15 were developed with input from all affected parties. ARB
16 staff received input from stakeholders in two ways,
17 through a mailout in September of this year and through
18 comments provided at numerous meetings with engine
19 manufacturers during the US EPA's rule-making process.
20 These meetings were held approximately three
21 times per month between February and June of this year.
22 Staff then met with various engine manufacturers on
23 October 5th, November 9th and November 28th to discuss
24 issue surrounding this proposal.
25 Throughout the development of this proposal,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
41
1 staff continually responded to public input. Finally, on
2 October 20th of this year, staff distributed the public
3 hearing notice and supporting documents to nearly 1,300
4 people. The materials were also posted to our web site
5 and sent via E-mail to approximately 600 people.
6 As you've just heard, staff's outreach efforts
7 were substantial.
8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. And I
9 would like to compliment the work of Mr. Kenny and Mr.
10 Cackette on this particular item to bring it before us. I
11 think it's excellent leadership here. I know we'll hear
12 from some of the witnesses who are big supporters as well.
13 Any comments or questions from the Board?
14 Professor Friedman.
15 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: In reviewing some of
16 the material in file I notice that among the objections
17 raised by the manufacturers is the complaint that there's
18 been very little time or at least insufficient time
19 between the mail out of the proposed amendments and this
20 hearing and a before year-end action.
21 I'm always concerned when subjects of regulation,
22 proposed regulation, feel they've not been given adequate
23 time to analyze and respond. Do you have a comment on
24 that?
25 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: Yes, I do. We
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
42
1 actually did comply fully with OAL, Office of
2 Administrative Law, hearing requirements process. The
3 notice has been out for the required 45 days. And so we
4 technically complied with all those requirements.
5 More importantly, though, we began the
6 discussions with engine manufacturers with regard to this
7 issue back in 1998. And in 1998 and 1999 when the consent
8 decrees were signed by the manufacturers, it was fully
9 anticipated that the US EPA would adopt exactly these
10 kinds of standards for 2005 and 2006.
11 We continue to have negotiations throughout the
12 process with the engine manufacturers with US EPA with the
13 US Department of Justice. And in the early summer of this
14 year, we had additional discussions with those parties and
15 we let them know that, in fact, it continued to be
16 imperative that we had 2005 and 2006 covered.
17 In discussions in mid-summer with the engine
18 manufacturers, they were informed that we were looking at
19 a process to bring this before you, so that, in fact, we
20 could ensure that 2005 and 2006 would not be years that we
21 lost.
22 So I think, as you look at the entire picture
23 here, whether it was from 1998 when the discussions began
24 and there was anticipation of EPA taking action to the
25 discussions that were held earlier this year, to our
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
43
1 statements that, in fact, we would go forward and then to
2 full and 45-day notice period that's been available to
3 them, I think they've had eminent and adequate time.
4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Just one additional
5 related question. There is the argument raised that we
6 don't have the authority here to do this. I'd appreciate
7 if we could get clarification on our legal position.
8 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: California has long had
9 the authority to have its own motor vehicle program. We
10 have often been far ahead and have typically been at least
11 somewhat ahead of EPA and the nation. Congress recognized
12 the need to allow California to do that, both to meet our
13 particular air quality needs and also to serve an
14 important purpose for the rest of the nation. That is
15 that we basically test out new standards and new
16 technologies here in California, which typically find
17 themselves implemented in the rest of the nation after we
18 have tested them out fully here.
19 Although, the federal Clean Air Act does preempt
20 states from establishing standards for new motor vehicles,
21 California has had its authority to do that. We have
22 exercised that long. We are required to meet a number of
23 conditions. And one of those is that we provide adequate
24 lead time for the standards that we set.
25 In this case, there are a number of -- I'm not
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
44
1 going to say arguments, but a number of responses to the
2 legal issues that have been raised by the engine
3 manufacturers. The first being that we're not
4 establishing standards here. The standards have long been
5 in effect. The manufacturers, the settling manufacturers
6 had come up with some ways to get around those standards
7 for significant parts of the operation of these vehicles.
8 We are talking about supplemental test procedures that
9 will ensure that they meet those standards through all
10 operating conditions.
11 So the lead time provision for standards doesn't
12 apply here. We're not adopting new standards. Moreover,
13 given that California was given the responsibility and
14 ability to set our own standards, the fact that Congress
15 directed EPA in setting standards for heavy-duty engines
16 to provide a four-year lead time and three-year stability
17 period, we do not believe applies to California. That is
18 inconsistent with the direction to allow California to
19 establish its own motor vehicle program.
20 The four-year lead time and three-year stability
21 provision have a much different application in a national
22 context than in California. And California is going to be
23 acting as a laboratory for new technologies.
24 Obviously, lead time and stability provisions are
25 going to play out much different here in California. We
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
45
1 certainly agree that we need to provide sufficient lead
2 time. And as indicated in the staff presentation, we
3 believe that that is more than addressed in this case.
4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you.
5 Mr. Calhoun.
6 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I'd like to ask staff to
7 refresh my memory isn't the test procedures that's used
8 for heavy duty in California the same as the EPA; is that
9 correct?
10 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: Yes.
11 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Now, you mentioned, Mr.
12 Kenny, that EPA as a part of the consent decree had an
13 opportunity to develop these supplemental tests and why
14 didn't they follow through on that?
15 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: Well, they actually
16 were trying to adopt it. And what ended up occurring with
17 them is that they are bound by the four-year lead time a
18 three-year stability rule that Ms. Walsh just talked
19 about. And they also proposed the 2007 standards.
20 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Why is that four-year lead
21 time in there?
22 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: Why is that there?
23 Congress established that for regulatory action by US EPA.
24 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Why? What was the
25 rationale for them to establish this?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
46
1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: The rationale was to
2 provide sufficient time for the engine manufacturers to go
3 forward as they essentially develop engines for compliance
4 with the requirements and to give them enough time to
5 develop the technology, develop the commercial access,
6 develop the market, input those things out there.
7 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I guess, did I ask why EPA
8 didn't follow through?
9 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: What I was saying
10 there was that EPA was trying to follow through, and EPA
11 needed to essentially adopt their regulation by the early
12 part of this year if they were going to essentially put it
13 on the books. Otherwise, the problem EPA had was that
14 they were also trying to put on the books .2 standard in
15 2007.
16 And so if they didn't have this standard on the
17 books by 2004, then that three-year stability rule would
18 prevent them from putting the .2 standard on the books by
19 2007. EPA did not make it by 2004 in terms of the
20 four-year lead time requirement. And so consequently if
21 they were to adopt it now, they would then have to delay
22 the .2 standard that they have proposed for 2007 to 2008.
23 And they do not want to delay their .2 standard, which is
24 why they are effectively precluded at this point in time
25 from adopting these requirements.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
47
1 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: At least staff expressed
2 the possibility that the industry would go back to using
3 defeat devices during this period. Does that seem logical
4 that they would want to do something like that, especially
5 after having to comply with the rules in earlier years.
6 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: The answer is yes and
7 the reason is because of market competition. What ends up
8 happening is that there are consent decree manufacturers
9 who do have an obligation to essentially meet the consent
10 decrees with the supplemental test procedures associated
11 with them for 2002 through 2004. However, there are
12 manufacturers who are not obligated to do that. And so
13 those manufacturers are at a competitive advantage between
14 the periods of 2002 to 2004. The manufacturers who are
15 obligated to meet the consent decree in 2005 and 2006 will
16 want to regain any competitive disadvantage that has
17 occurred during the 2002 to 2004, period. So we do fully
18 anticipate is that what they would do is essentially go
19 backwards so that they could remain competitive or regain
20 competitive stature with their other non-consent decree
21 signers. So we think it is very likely.
22 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I guess my last question,
23 at least maybe my last question, anyway, is do we know at
24 this point if there is a technical reason why the industry
25 can't comply with these tests at this time?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
48
1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: Before Mr. Cackette
2 answers, let me add one thing. I mean yesterday during
3 the school bus hearing, one of the things that you heard
4 was essentially the Cummins engine company essentially
5 asking that you delay the use of the diesel money for a
6 period of two so that, in fact, they could then bring
7 their consent decree complying engine into the
8 marketplace.
9 So we think, in fact, that they can comply. And
10 we think basically the testimony you heard yesterday
11 substantiates that.
12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I don't have
13 a lot to add to that. I mean I think as one of the slides
14 pointed out, the only issues have been whether they could
15 comply with these procedures at some very limited on the
16 narrow edges of operation. For example, at the highest
17 temperatures, at the highest altitudes, there might be the
18 need for some adjustment.
19 But that's all going to be worked out before they
20 make the engines that are due in 2002. And the reason we
21 have that technology review in there is whatever tweaks or
22 adjustments happen to the standards, we'll just adopt
23 those at a later date.
24 But for the fundamental standpoint of can these
25 engines meet the standards, we think they clearly can. We
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
49
1 know that the engine manufacturers are working very hard
2 to comply by October 2002. And all this does is say once
3 you've succeeded and met the standards and procedures,
4 then why don't you just leave it alone until 2007 instead
5 of moving backwards.
6 And one thing to add about why they might move
7 backwards, the competitive disadvantage that Mr. Kenny
8 talked about is the fuel economy versus emissions. And we
9 know that various small improvements in fuel economy cause
10 fleet operators to buy that product versus somebody else's
11 product. And so there will be a strong pressure not to
12 add defeat devices back on that, that's illegal, but to
13 make other adjustments to the engines that are legal that
14 will end up increasing NOx and improving fuel economy so
15 they can compete with the people that aren't subject to
16 these requirements under the consent decree.
17 So I think it's a given that it's going to
18 happen, and that's why we wanted to move in, make sure it
19 won't happen and put everybody on a level playing field so
20 the non-consent decree manufacturers and the consent
21 decree manufacturers will all have the same targets to
22 meet and this competitive issue will be removed.
23 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I hear you're saying that
24 if there are difficulties, you still have time during the
25 ensuing years to make adjustments if necessary?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
50
1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah. And
2 then whatever those are, that will occur before these
3 regulations ever go into effect. So all we'll have to do
4 is go back and make an adjustment if that does occur and
5 just to keep it consistent so that whatever engines are
6 made in 2002 for the consent decree manufacturers, they'll
7 just keep making those engines until 2007. The
8 non-consent decree manufacturers will have to make
9 adjustments to their engines to match up with the consent
10 decree manufacturers by 2005.
11 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Thank you.
12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Seems to me one of the things
13 we could do is encourage the use of some more of the APUs.
14 We've seen some of those coming into the marketplace,
15 Auxiliary Power Units. My understanding is that when
16 these trucks are idling and whatnot, by using the APU you
17 could save about ten percent of the fuel. So I think
18 anything we can do to encourage that technology that would
19 be helpful.
20 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: Actually, the biggest
21 thing that we did recently is in the Carl Moyer guidelines
22 we included that technology and so we do expect, in fact,
23 to see a lot of that technology coming in.
24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: My understanding that maybe
25 the cost effectiveness guidelines in the Moyer stuff may
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
51
1 not be as -- so much of a catalyst as we'd hoped, but I
2 hope that that is the case.
3 With that, I think we'd like to call up -- we
4 have six witnesses lined up here. I'd like to call up the
5 first three, Carl Johnson, William Becker and Stephanie
6 Williams.
7 The other one I had is do we have support of EPA
8 for action?
9 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: Yes. Let me caveat
10 that a little bit. I mean, essentially what happened was
11 this was a proposal that was made to the Department of
12 Justice and to US EPA in the summertime. And at that time
13 they were fully supportive of us and as you're going to
14 hear from Mr. Johnson, the state is essentially going
15 forward.
16 Before Mr. Johnson does speak, though, I do want
17 to essentially sort of indicate that when we proposed
18 this, we were looking for a lot of support from other
19 states around the country. And the one thing you should
20 know is that the State of New York was the first State to
21 step up. And they were extremely, extremely helpful.
22 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Follow-up on that
23 question. What about EPA, though, are they -- do we have
24 any written --
25 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: Yes, Mr. Calhoun. We
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
52
1 do have a written document and they are in support.
2 However, the support is not in writing quite as, I guess,
3 maybe, positive as we might like it. And there are
4 reasons for that. And I think probably the key reason
5 that the Board should be aware of is that the US EPA at
6 least currently would prefer that states follow the US EPA
7 and that they not follow California.
8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'm delighted to hear the
9 leadership role of New York in supporting us. Excellent.
10 MR. JOHNSON: We are pleased to be right behind
11 you. Good morning, Members of the Board. My name is Carl
12 Johnson. I'm the Deputy Commissioner for Air and Waste
13 Management at the New York State Department of
14 Environmental Conservation.
15 I appreciate the opportunity to testify this
16 morning in support of California's proposed adoption of
17 the not-to-exceed requirements for diesel engines.
18 Governor Pataki has directed the Department to utilize the
19 Authority under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, to also
20 adopt NTE requirements in regulation in New York State.
21 Staff and the Division of Air Resources has begun
22 the process of developing those regulations and we expect
23 to finalize that by the end of calendar year 2001. And as
24 was mentioned earlier, New York joined with 11 other
25 states in Washington on November 20th to stand up and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
53
1 support California's decision to adopt the NTE
2 requirements. And we appreciate very much California's
3 leadership. You're the State that we need to do this.
4 EPA isn't able to get us where we need to be. We
5 can't do it on our own, so we're happy to be partners with
6 you.
7 We share your concern and your belief that the
8 engines built in model years 2005 and 6 will not meet the
9 requirements imposed in the consent decree between Diesel
10 engine manufacturers and the US EPA. As a result of the
11 delays in implementing new federal requirements for diesel
12 engines and the fact that the consent decree expires in
13 2004, engines to be built in model years 2005 and 6 will
14 not adequately control emissions of nitrogen oxides.
15 Furthermore, without these regulations, heavy
16 duty engine manufacturers not subject to the decree will
17 have an unfair economic and an unacceptable environmental
18 advantage over the manufacturers identified in the consent
19 decree.
20 The potential for public health impacts is
21 significant. Diesel engines in both trucks and buses can
22 emit large quantities of nitrogen oxides. There's no
23 question that the use of the defeat devices, which brought
24 about the need for the consent decrees, put trucks on the
25 road that were emitting three times the amount of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
54
1 pollutants they were allowed to emit. And even the
2 allowed levels were already too high.
3 Our current estimates assume an increase in
4 nitrogen oxide omissions over the two years of
5 approximately 14 tons per day in New York state, an excess
6 of 4,000 tons per year. And like you, we're looking at
7 every ton that we can get.
8 New York is unwilling to accept the impact of
9 these increase in emissions for both public health and
10 environment reasons. And we're strongly supportive of
11 California's actions to prevent this from occurring. The
12 delay in implementing new federal standards for these
13 engines is objectionable. And to allow what is, in
14 effect, a rollback of the inadequate current standards
15 would be unconscionable.
16 I'm also pleased to announce as a result of the
17 Governor's direction, New York is in the process of
18 constructing a state-of-the-art auto emissions research
19 and testing facility that will house extensive testing
20 capacity for diesel engines.
21 Emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates and
22 toxics are particularly important to our urban areas. And
23 reducing these emissions is critical to protecting public
24 health in those communities. This facility will give us,
25 as well, in-use testing capability, which will help to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
55
1 ensure the engines are meeting standards and that those
2 standards are truly controlling the pollutants that
3 threaten the environment and the public.
4 Over the past several years we've undertaken
5 studies on diesel emissions in the New York metro area.
6 And the current time, we're engaged in a substantial study
7 of various heavy-duty engine technologies that are or will
8 soon be in use in the metropolitan bus fleet in New York
9 city.
10 And, again, we're working very closely with the
11 staff of the Board in sharing the information on that and
12 it's been a tremendous relationship for both of us. We've
13 been pleased to share this information.
14 I also want to thank California again for your
15 overall leadership on air quality issues. The Authority
16 and Section 177 of the Act has allowed New York to adopt
17 the Low-Emitting Vehicle Program for light-duty vehicles
18 and we have benefited tremendously from that ability.
19 Year leadership on diesel issues is to be
20 commended, and we look forward to continuing our good
21 relationship with the State of California.
22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you.
23 Congratulations on that facility. That's just
24 the type of data we're going to need from those facilities
25 to share with us as well.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
56
1 So thank you very much.
2 MR. JOHNSON: We can't wait. Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman.
4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: In connection with
5 your new facility that you're developing for testing, do
6 you plan to do any Green Diesel in-use testing in the near
7 future?
8 MR. JOHNSON: We're currently developing the
9 scope of the facility. We're really at the pre-design
10 stage where we're trying to determine what we need to do,
11 what we're going to need to do for the future, what sorts
12 of mechanics are going to be involved, what level of
13 analytical capability are we looking at doing. We've
14 taken a look at your facilities and the other facilities
15 that we use around the country.
16 Right now we're doing a bus testing program up in
17 Ottawa. And we'll be working very closely with your staff
18 to really design where we need to be, because this is
19 truly a facility for the future. We want a facility that
20 in 15 to 20 years is still reflective of the needs. So
21 we'll certainly be taking those sorts of concerns into
22 account as we do the design stage.
23 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Because we, I think,
24 are for sure going to want to get more data on in-use for
25 the new technology.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
57
1 MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the key
2 is to figure out what's actually going on when the trucks
3 are on the road rather than relying on the federal test
4 procedures.
5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much.
6 Next, Bill Becker Stephanie Williams then Jeff
7 Marsee. And, again, I appreciate, Carl, you coming our
8 from New York and appreciate Bill you coming from
9 Washington, all the leadership, personal work that you've
10 put into this item, working with us in Washington D.C., so
11 it's been -- you've done a tremendous amount this year.
12 MR. BECKER: Well, thank you, Chairman Lloyd.
13 Thank you members of the Board. My name is Bill Becker.
14 I'm the Executive Director of STAPPA and LAPCO which are
15 two national associations representing 53 of the 54 states
16 and territorial air pollution control agencies, and over
17 220 local air pollution control agencies around the
18 country, and I'm pleased to have this opportunity to
19 testify on your NTE and Euro 3 rulemaking.
20 Before I begin, however, I also want to take this
21 opportunity to express how grateful we are to California
22 to you, Dr. Lloyd, to the Board, to the excellent staff
23 lead my Mike Kenny in your leadership in controlling air
24 pollution. The rest of the states and the nation is
25 watching you, is learning from you and is eager to take
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
58
1 advantage of the opportunities that the Clean Air Act
2 presents for states to opt into programs that you have
3 shown success in implementing on your own.
4 And the case-in-point is a low-emitting vehicle
5 program. We're pleased to report that Vermont this week
6 became the third state to opt into the LEV II program with
7 the ZEV mandate and there will be others following.
8 But I'm here to talk about heavy-duty trucks.
9 And my message today on behalf of our national
10 associations is a simple one. We strongly urge you to
11 adopt today the NTE and Euro 3 rule making for the 2005
12 and subsequent model year heavy-duty engines. I'd briefly
13 like to tell you why we urge you to do this.
14 As has been mentioned by the excellent
15 presentation earlier this morning, the Environmental
16 Protection Agency reaffirms federal standards to control
17 air pollution from heavy-duty diesel trucks effective in
18 2004. And hopefully in the next couple of weeks, they are
19 going to be proposing even more stringent standards,
20 including some rigorous fuel standards that will take
21 effect by the model year 2007 standard.
22 But even with these programs in place, as has
23 been mentioned, a gap will exist in the applicability of
24 certain important emission control requirements
25 particularly the NTE and Euro oh 3 procedures, and these
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
59
1 are in model years 2005 and 2006. And strangely if this
2 gap in 2005 and 2006 is left unfilled, engine
3 manufacturers will be allowed to build big diesel trucks
4 that are actually dirtier than was allowed in 2003 and
5 2004. And this was the result of a settlement agreement
6 that they voluntarily signed for those years.
7 In other words, they'll be allowed to meet more
8 stringent standards, they'll be required to meet more
9 stringent standards, and then for two years be allowed to
10 back off. And keep in mind, we have to live with the
11 emissions increases from this, not only from model years
12 2005 and 2006, but for the 15 or 20 years that those
13 trucks are sold in California stay on the road.
14 Clearly, from a policy perspective this is
15 unacceptable. But it should also be rejected because of
16 the significant air pollution impacts it could have in
17 every area of the country. Fortunately, there is a
18 remedy, and that's where you come in.
19 As you all know, we are precluded from adopting
20 car and truck standards that are more stringent that the
21 federal government's, unless, however, you do. In which
22 case other states are authorized Under Section 177 of the
23 Clean Air Act, to follow suit. An by your adopting the
24 NTE and Euro 3 test procedures today, we will be free to
25 follow your lead immediately.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
60
1 In fact, just two weeks ago, as Mr. Johnson
2 mentioned, our associations launched a multi-state diesel
3 initiative to do just that. We had 13 dates, including
4 the eight northeastern states, a well's North Carolina,
5 Georgia, Delaware, Texas and Nevada announced their
6 intention to adopt your NTE and Euro 3 requirements for
7 heavy-duty trucks, assuming you take action.
8 That same day with the help of your excellent
9 staff, we conducted a workshop for these states to provide
10 them some technical assistance showing them how they could
11 opt in. And we are preparing a model state roll to
12 accelerate this process so they can do so in a timely
13 fashion.
14 You may be interested in knowing that since our
15 announcement we've heard from many other states who want
16 to join this initiative. The Ozone Transport Commission,
17 which includes from Maine through northern Virginia will
18 be having a meeting Monday at which time they are going to
19 be offering a Memorandum Of Understanding for all the
20 states in the OTC, and most are expected to sign it.
21 In addition, we have received some serious
22 inquires from at least six other states outside of the
23 ones that I've mentioned, including, surprisingly to us,
24 one State Department of Transportation, not an
25 environmental, but a Department of Transportation. I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
61
1 asked them why they were interested in this. They said
2 they thought it was good public policy and we agreed.
3 Our goal is to gather enough states that we will
4 form a critical mass so that engine manufacturers will end
5 up developing only one engine, a cleaner engine. In and
6 of itself, the actions by California and these other
7 states on NTE is a tremendous significance. It will mark
8 the first time ever that states outside of the northeast
9 have banded together to regulate cars and trucks, in this
10 case trucks. And if that occurs, we have you to thank.
11 But it's even more significant when you think of
12 the air quality improvements that will occur not just in
13 California but throughout the rest of the country. If
14 California adopts these test procedures today, you will
15 not only prevent these dirtier trucks from being sold in
16 California in 2005 and 2006, you will also minimize and
17 hopefully eliminate the likelihood of dirtier trucks sold
18 in other states driving on your roads, which I understand
19 is as much as 25 percent of your problem.
20 And on a national level, your action could help
21 prevent tens of thousands of tons of excess air pollution
22 each year or the equivalent in 2005 of taking
23 approximately 30 million passenger cars off the road.
24 So in closing, I hope it's very clear how
25 important your action is today, not only for the citizens
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
62
1 of California but for the rest of the country. And,
2 again, I want to thank you for all the leadership you have
3 been demonstrating and I'd be happy to answer any of your
4 questions.
5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much Bill.
6 Questions from the Board.
7 Do you have a feeling what the number of states
8 may end up being, Bill, in addition to the 13, roughly?
9 MR. BECKER: I think we will have at least 20 and
10 maybe more. And I'll tell you the only thing that's
11 preventing states from opting in -- I didn't think we'd
12 have that many three weeks ago. The only thing that's
13 preventing states from opting in is the law. The law says
14 you have to be -- either you have to be or have been a
15 nonattainment area. And there are some areas that were
16 never nonattainment. And they are hoping the other states
17 provide those cleaner trucks, but they're unable to opt in
18 on their own.
19 But we are hearing -- I can't report yet who they
20 are, but we're hearing from some very conservative states
21 who want to go along for the ride and are very interested
22 in this and their bosses are saying why didn't we
23 participate in this initiative. And the answer is it's
24 not too late.
25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Since you touched on it,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
63
1 taking advantage of you coming from Washington giving us
2 the latest, what's the prognosis on the heavy-duty
3 standards and the low sulfur diesel?
4 MR. BECKER: Well, the Administration has
5 committed to getting a rule out this year before they
6 leave office, and we hear this year. It's under some
7 attack by a number of people, including some in the room,
8 but also by some in the administration because of their
9 concerns about dual fuels.
10 And I think that this is an area where the
11 California Air Resources Board, I know you have commented
12 in the past, but you may want to continue commenting on
13 the need to have the 15 part per million sulfur diesel
14 capped on a national level in time for the mid 2006, so
15 that it can available for the other -- for the rest of the
16 program.
17 But this is very important and we're -- there's a
18 strange alliance that has been crafted, including some
19 truck associations and some petroleum marketers and states
20 and environmental groups and health groups and auto
21 alliance who are trying to push for a 15 part per million
22 cap. And whatever you can do to help would be great.
23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So we should take that
24 seriously.
25 MR. BECKER: You should take it very seriously.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
64
1 That is the key and it's under attack as we speak.
2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, certainly the action we
3 took yesterday on school buses requiring obviously low
4 sulfur diesel for that program, and we see more and more
5 of that happening.
6 Thank you very much indeed. And of course
7 speaking of support from stranger, I was going to say bed
8 fellow, but I won't use that term Stephanie Williams up
9 from the California Trucking Association.
10 MS. WILLIAMS: You guys are ruining my
11 reputation.
12 (Laughter.)
13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And you're on camera.
14 (Laughter.)
15 MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, great.
16 (Laughter.)
17 MS. WILLIAMS: We were in the Bee yesterday, too,
18 and I had nothing to do with it.
19 My name is Stephanie Williams and I'm the
20 Director of Environmental Affairs for the California
21 Trucking Association.
22 And, again, this year we have broken off from our
23 national association and pretty much the rest of the world
24 on this one and we support the standards that are being
25 promulgated here today. We feel, and this was, you know,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
65
1 heartfelt by or board, I think we went through three
2 different board meetings, one in which Mike Kenny was
3 verbally attacked, to come to our decision. But it is
4 important for us as truckers in California to stay in
5 business. And this has been a very difficult year.
6 And since '93 we've been really competitively
7 disadvantaged and unsuccessful at unraveling some of the
8 environmental things that have moved forward in
9 California.
10 Now, one in 12 citizens in this state are in
11 trucking, but they've got to feed their families before
12 they can worry about air quality. But we've come around
13 to a different approach at doing this after numerous
14 failures with two governors now at trying to take away
15 CARB standards for clean fuel. We decided that a level
16 playing field is what we want and getting a level playing
17 field doesn't mean we have to unravel clean air standards.
18 And this is very progressive coming from the trucking
19 industry.
20 We're also working with agriculture and
21 construction trying to help them understand that we can be
22 more competitive than the out-of-state construction firms,
23 the out-of-state farm people if we embrace and export
24 clean air standards. But we have to figure out a way to
25 formulate this so that we don't get even more hurt by
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
66
1 economic unfair competition coming from out of state. And
2 it's not just trucking, it's also construction and
3 farming.
4 So we have kind of come together to a decision
5 that we're going to have to run legislation to make things
6 better here. You can't help us regulatorily, and we're
7 going to have to work with our new friends, both of
8 them -- half of our lobbying team is here MECCA -- stand
9 up please, I forget your name.
10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Bruce Bertelsen.
11 MS. WILLIAMS: And then Bill from STAPPA LAPCO.
12 The other half is the American Lung Association, the Clean
13 Air Trust and a few -- actually International Truck
14 Corporation and a couple others.
15 And we actually are trying to organize, because
16 we're up against API and they hire these big PR firms and
17 spend all this money. And you're looking at, you know,
18 small donors here. So we're trying to organize and beat
19 off the attack now on DOE. And what's happening now on
20 the fuel standards is oil the companies and large truck
21 purchasers have gone to Secretary Richards in an effort to
22 use the new Republican card to roll this back in the name
23 of supply.
24 They're going away from price now. They're going
25 into supply, and this would give President Bush a reason
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
67
1 to say we don't want to have blackouts, like the
2 electricity blackouts in fuel, so we're going to roll this
3 back. So we can't let that happen and we're going to have
4 to aggressively lobby nationally, so try not to do
5 anything to us next year.
6 (Laughter.)
7 MS. WILLIAMS: As far as the 2002/2004 testing,
8 whatever you come up. NTE is too difficult for us to
9 understand, and we've tried. I've had ARB saying one
10 thing, the engine manufacturers are telling me that we're
11 not going to get the trucks to go up hills, the're going
12 to roll back down. Truck manufacturers are telling us
13 that the engines aren't going to fit in the chassis.
14 Obviously, we don't want any of these things to
15 happen. And fuel economy is not a bad thing. Keep in
16 mind, that fuel economy next to our drivers that is our
17 biggest expense. So let's not look at fuel economy as the
18 enemy here, because we really need you to maximize fuel
19 economy. We think the potential for maximizing fuel
20 economy with these standards will bring us to 10-mile per
21 gallon diesel engine. That's one of the reasons we're
22 support these standards.
23 And we've seen this with catalytic converters in
24 cars. There's absolutely no reason this shouldn't happen
25 with heavy-duty truck engines and chassis.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
68
1 Now, with that said, the NTE issue with the
2 altitude and the torque, we need to get up Donner Summit,
3 up and over and the Grapevine. And those are not real big
4 nonattainment areas. So we're hoping that the Air
5 Resources Board and engine manufacturers can sit down, you
6 know, maybe today, whether you exempt those areas of
7 problematic torque and altitude.
8 We saw these same issues on stamp idle, where
9 when you went up to the top of Donner Summit, you would
10 have a much higher smoke reading than you would have at
11 sea level. And we spent years litigating and fighting in
12 the Legislature. And we came down to something we agreed
13 to, which was an altitude correction and a different way
14 to read the smoke. And I would hope that the engine
15 manufacturers and the Air Resources Board can do it
16 without going to court, because it took as about six years
17 to get it to where we needed to be and that was really
18 unnecessary.
19 I want to say a few things about the precedence
20 of some of the things that are happening. And from our
21 perspective, now that we have an embrace-an-export policy,
22 we need federal standards and we will help you federally.
23 Mike Kenny and the staff has demonstrated the strength of
24 California to take our issue nationwide. And with help of
25 our, I'll call it, our standards team MECCA, the people
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
69
1 who are making the after-treatment controls that we're
2 going to need and STAPCO/LAPCO, the, I'll say the lobbying
3 group, I don't what you guys call yourselves, but the
4 group that takes all the State and local air pollution
5 control officers and brings them together so they can have
6 consistent federal policies, we have an opportunity to
7 take California first and make a national policy.
8 And we can do this without offending EPA. EPA
9 had two choices and I'm going to stick up for them here.
10 EPA had two choices as far as this issue went, they could
11 have rolled the 2006 fuel standard back a year, which they
12 would have not been treated very nicely by us to go to
13 2007 on the national fuel standard. To us, 2006 was -- we
14 wanted it in 2004. We wanted an even playing field in
15 2004.
16 So when the engine manufacturers and the EPA, and
17 the CARB sat down and tried to figure out what they were
18 going to do on the soft cycle emissions, it took longer
19 than they thought and they passed the lead time. They
20 could have pushed off the 2006 standards for fuel to 2007
21 and the standards to 2008 and they chose not to.
22 And they look at this as an insurance policy,
23 because really how many engine manufacturers are going to
24 stand up and produce it, oh, here's our dirtier engine for
25 2005 and 6. I mean the public image of doing that in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
70
1 their opinion just wasn't there. So they look at what
2 we're doing here as an insurance policy, so we can support
3 what they did bringing a national fuel standard, federally
4 sooner.
5 And what you're doing is making this insurance
6 policy available. So it was a win-win for everybody, and
7 we really support what EPA has done. And we feel that
8 they've gone out of their way to help us on in this
9 crucial fuel issue.
10 Where the dangerous precedence came in is on the
11 off-cycle emissions. I don't know how many of you know
12 this but we weren't included in these off-cycle emission
13 agreements, but we own these vehicles that are illegal.
14 And so we should have been at the table when they were
15 cutting their deals, because you know what we would have
16 said, every single engine manufacturer should not cut
17 their own deal. We need level standards.
18 If you look at what came out of these, we call
19 them, secret talks, one company has this emissions
20 standards and this test procedure, another company has
21 this one. How do you get clean air when everybody has
22 negotiated an emissions standard and a test cycle and how
23 do we, as the trucking industry, figure out which trucks
24 are clean. You saw Mike Applegate yesterday, who's tried
25 everything from magnets to, you know, liquid sulfur fuel
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
71
1 who knows.
2 But he searches for clean technology. That put
3 us on a field where we have no idea which engines are
4 clean or dirty. You've got to set a standard and let
5 these guys compete against each other and not lobby you
6 for who can have a better market deal. They do that to us
7 when they're selling. You need to just set a number and
8 say you get there. If you don't get there, too bad,
9 because there's five other people who can.
10 And that way we're going to have clean air, and
11 .01 is our number. We were a little more than upset about
12 natural gas being able to emit .03. They can put a on
13 too. These traps aren't that expensive when you put them
14 on at time of manufacture. I mean EPA estimated the traps
15 at less than a thousand --
16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Let's not go to that debate.
17 We did that yesterday.
18 MS. WILLIAMS: I know you did. For us, it's not
19 level. It's not level. It's cutting deals for people
20 instead of setting standards. And when we're pushing
21 these federal standards nationwide, how can we explain to
22 other states, okay, well cut this one here. No, you give
23 us some numbers and we can take them to the other states.
24 So we'd like to see numbers for emissions as your
25 policy moving forward. In 2007 .01 is it. And we should
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
72
1 be looking at .01 from this point forward.
2 Federal standards is really what we want to see,
3 and we look forward to working with you, with the Board.
4 With other industries, we're going to have to pull in
5 farming and construction to be successful. And this is
6 going to be an exciting year.
7 Thank you.
8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And thank you for your
9 support and the association, Stephanie. We appreciate it.
10 Questions or comments from the Board?
11 Thank you very much.
12 Jeff Marsee, Jennifer Taggart, Lisa Stegink.
13 MR. MARSEE: Just one moment, we've got two
14 slides that we'd like to present.
15 Good morning, my name is Jeff Marsee. I'm with
16 Isuzu Motors of America. And I'm manager of vehicle
17 compliance. Isuzu Motors of America is headquartered in
18 the US and has major facilities in Ceritos, California,
19 about 500 employees in those two facilities. I will
20 confine my remarks to the not-to-exceed requirements and
21 provide the perspective of a company that was not part of
22 consent decree process.
23 Isuzu Motors is the second largest diesel engine
24 manufacturer in the world. Isuzu produces diesel engines
25 for a wide variety of products, including our most popular
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
73
1 cab-forward vehicle that is used for local deliveries.
2 And the picture that was shown by the CARB staff in their
3 presentation was one of ours. And so that was one of our
4 diagrams that we wanted to show.
5 This truck is primarily used by mom and pop
6 companies and smaller companies that need one or two
7 delivery vehicles. Our newest production facility was
8 just opened in Marine, Ohio and produces engines that
9 would be subject to the proposed NTE regulations.
10 Again, as Isuzu, we do not participate in the
11 class 8 truck market used for long-distance high-volume
12 shipping across the country. Isuzu diesels are used in a
13 variety of GM and Isuzu vehicles. Today, therefore, I'm
14 speaking on the behalf of General Motors And Isuzu, both
15 of whom are members of EMA, and we do support the EMA
16 comments.
17 Neither Isuzu nor GM were a consent decree
18 company. GM and Isuzu both sell products that are subject
19 to heavy-duty engine emission requirements. Again, we
20 were not involved in the consent decree drafting and/or
21 negotiation process. The consent decree requirements,
22 including the supplemental testing requirements, are
23 specifically NTE requirements who were the product of
24 private negotiations between the affected engine
25 manufacturers and the regulatory agencies.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
74
1 GM and Isuzu did not have input into the final
2 consent decree requirements. And those requirements do
3 not reflect that relate to the engine designs that GM and
4 Isuzu manufactured and market. Private settlement
5 negotiations are rarely the best method for developing
6 regulations for general applicability.
7 Unfortunately, the NTE requirements, being
8 proposed by the ARB staff, are almost entirely based on
9 the consent decree requirements as shown in the staff
10 initial statement of reasons on page 21, table 3.
11 Again, the NTE requirements are identical to the
12 consent decrees. Manufacturers such as GM and Isuzu are
13 at considerable disadvantage, because, number one, the NTE
14 regulatory requirement has been developed to address other
15 manufacturers concerns.
16 Number two, the requirements are also subject to
17 potential changes and indeed we understand that the
18 consent decree companies are still in discussion with the
19 regulatory agencies concerning potential alterations to
20 the NTE requirements defined in the consent decrees.
21 Three, GM And Isuzu have no experience in meeting
22 the NTE requirements with our engines and therefore likely
23 to encounter unexpected technical hurdles. For GM And
24 Isuzu, this proposal is not a question of continued
25 compliance or an issue of preventing backsliding for our
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
75
1 companies. This is an entirely new regulation that will
2 take effect in model year 2005 or Calendar 2004, two years
3 earlier than similar EPA requirements.
4 In analyzing the NTE requirement, GM and Isuzu
5 have three major technical concerns. The three concerns
6 are, number one, the potential compliance jeopardy that
7 NTE places on a manufacturer which is under one view could
8 be virtually unlimited. Number two, the efficiency and
9 arbitrary numerical Limit placed on the engine emissions
10 under any operating conditions within the NTE zone.
11 Three, the subjective nature and imprecision that will
12 accompany the compliance measurements under the NTE
13 requirements.
14 Over the last two weeks, GM And Isuzu have worked
15 with ARB staff in describing our concerns with the NTE
16 requirements. We appreciate their efforts as we worked
17 with them to address our concerns. While we do not know
18 whether we can meet the NTE requirements under all
19 conditions as currently drafted, we will certainly be
20 making our effort and investing significant resources to
21 modify our engines a make the attempt.
22 However, it's unlikely that the problems
23 identified during the process, these problems may result
24 from either our particular engine designs or from detailed
25 working in the NTE requirements, but we believe that staff
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
76
1 has offered an acceptable methods for dealing with our
2 concerns.
3 First, we have been advised by the staff and
4 shown today about the deficiency provisions. In order to
5 qualify for the deficiency, a manufacturer may need to
6 show a genuine technical need for some relaxation. It is
7 our understanding that the deficiency provision is a
8 viable option for the nonconsent decree manufacturers, and
9 that the staff intends to grant the deficiencies when they
10 are warranted.
11 Second, the staff intends to hold technical
12 reviews on NTE requirements in 2003. We have been assured
13 that this review is a priority with the staff and that the
14 staff fully intends to make revisions to the NTE
15 requirements based on our experience gained over the next
16 two years.
17 Unfortunately, the experience will largely be
18 developed as part of the consent decree process. Any
19 engine manufacturers subject to the consent decree must
20 produce NTE complying engines starting in 2002. Again,
21 however, GM And Isuzu will not be a party to those
22 negotiations that will occur as part of the consent decree
23 implementation.
24 Further, learning in 2003 of significant changes
25 that may arise too late for heavy-duty engine
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
77
1 manufacturers that are not party to the consent decrees.
2 Finally, GM And Isuzu will not have an opportunity to
3 comment on and contribute to and then developing any NTE
4 revisions until 2003.
5 To address this Isuzu and General Motors request
6 the Board to direct the staff to conduct regular workshops
7 and other meetings with manufacturers during 2001 and 2.
8 The purpose of these meetings is to inform all
9 manufacturers of the potential developments related to the
10 NTE requirements and to provide all manufacturers with the
11 opportunity to comment and work with the staff.
12 This will place the nonconsent decree companies
13 on a more equal footing, will result in a better robust
14 regulation and consistent with good rulemaking practice
15 and provide manufacturers with additional lead time.
16 Thank you. This concludes my comments.
17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. With
18 respect to the call for some workshops and meetings in
19 2001 and 2002, I think I see where they're coming from.
20 Is that a problem in that, am I missing something?
21 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: No.
22 We have already committed that we would do that with Isuzu
23 and in a broader sense with the whole, sort of, nonconsent
24 decree group.
25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. You make a good point.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
78
1 Questions?
2 Oh, yes, Professor Friedman.
3 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, it may be
4 somewhat duplicative or repetitive, but I'd appreciate a
5 crisp response from the staff on the three concerns
6 regarding, the technical concerns that were expressed
7 here, the potential jeopardy the engine places on them
8 virtually unlimited, the inefficient and arbitrary
9 numerical limit placed on the emissions under any
10 condition.
11 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: I
12 think that the witness -- how can I say it, overstates the
13 potential jeopardy by a very large margin. And what I
14 mean by that is that the way that engines are built and
15 calibrated, an engine map is what you use to design an
16 engine. And, in other words, it has all of the speeds and
17 loads that the engine can achieve on it. And using that
18 quote "engine map" they design the compromise between fuel
19 economy and emissions at all of the operating points.
20 What happened with the FTP was that the operating
21 zone of the map which it covered was very, very small
22 compared to the total map. And that allowed manufacturers
23 to calibrate a points that were outside of the map with
24 quote "defeat devices" that caused a problem.
25 What the staff is proposing right now is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
79
1 essentially caps that cover the bulk of the map. And I
2 think that what It does is it forces the manufacturers to
3 take into account emissions rather than fuel economy
4 making those calibration choices.
5 The only areas which are of concern have already
6 been discussed today, I think, and staff needs to mention
7 it and I think the staff presentation mentioned it earlier
8 and it's altitude and temperature. And those issues are,
9 in our view, ones which will be worked out in a
10 technically reasonable way. In other words, the technical
11 reasons why altitude and temperature are a problem are
12 known to everybody.
13 And really what's happening in the industry is
14 sorted of a pull between power and performance versus
15 emissions at these operating points, because the operating
16 points are at the highest power point of the map. So what
17 they're sort of struggling is to induce the regulatory
18 agencies to give them the maximum power and we're trying
19 to cap the emissions.
20 I think we'll end up with a reasonable compromise
21 and I don't think that that compromise is one which will
22 unfairly disadvantage the nonconsent decree manufacturers.
23 So the two answers are, one, I think that the
24 requirements that they're going to have to meet over the
25 bulk of the map are known to everybody and they're
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
80
1 consistent, they've been in the consent decrees and
2 they're standardized tests and they're standardized
3 methods of measuring whether or not they comply.
4 So that brings you just to those perimeter
5 points. And I think in that area, everybody knows what
6 the issues are and we're all working to end up with a
7 reasonable compromise.
8 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: So you're saying
9 that a manufacturer can be reasonably confident, that is
10 sure, that its engines will meet these test procedures,
11 will satisfy them?
12 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Oh,
13 yeah, because the map is standard, the requirements that
14 staff is proposing relate to the map, and therefore the
15 manufacturer knows already, with your action and with the
16 existence of the consent decrees, what it has to deal
17 with.
18 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: What about what they
19 claim to be an inefficient and arbitrary numerical limit
20 on the ratio.
21 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:
22 Well, it is part of the consent decree. So if we changed
23 it, we would be being more arbitrary than the consent
24 decree.
25 I think it, again, comes to that trade off
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
81
1 between emissions and fuel economy. And, obviously, the
2 industry is going to be pushing one and I think we're
3 trying to push the other.
4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun.
5 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I thought I heard you say,
6 Bob, you described the map and they optimize the system to
7 comply with that. But you also, at least I thought I
8 heard you say, that this proposal forces them to consider
9 emissions as opposed to fuel economy when they normally
10 try to optimize and get both; is that correct?
11 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Yes,
12 but it also has some margin on it. In other words, that's
13 why it's the 1.25 times the FTP standard rather than the
14 flat FTP standard. It gives and it does allow some
15 trading around, I think, some trading around that's being
16 discussed in the federal negotiations. But the idea is
17 to, yeah, is to cap emissions far more than they were
18 previously, because, you know, the consent decree was
19 caused by manufacturers calibrating uniquely for things
20 like cruise and sacrificing emissions for fuel economy.
21 So the whole goal is to fix that.
22 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: But you are going to be
23 working with them and try to resolve any difficulties that
24 they may have in complying with that.
25 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Oh,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
82
1 yeah. We know where the disputed points are and I think
2 it's one of -- it's going to be a tuff process of reaching
3 consensus, but I think that we'll get there.
4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Also, we certainly don't want
5 to end up in a situation whereby the people who weren't
6 part of the consent decree weren't using the defeat device
7 are put at a disadvantage for those who were. So I think
8 that's --
9 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:
10 Well, that's why we kind of wanted to work with them in
11 terms of carrying those forward with what's going on.
12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good.
13 Mr. McKinnon.
14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: How far are we from the
15 point where software can deal with things like the
16 altitude problem?
17 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:
18 Theoretically it can now. In fact, it can period. The
19 issue is that the result when you apply it with software
20 is a D rated engine. So what happens -- in other words,
21 to deal with the altitude problem, what they do is make
22 less horsepower, and that's something that they don't want
23 to do when they're, as Stephanie said, running over the
24 hill. So it's a delicate compromise.
25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
83
1 Next Jennifer Taggart and Lisa Stegink. That's
2 the last witness.
3 MS. TAGGART: Good morning, Dr. Lloyd and Members
4 of the board. My name is Jennifer Taggart. A represent
5 Daimler Chrysler's AG's Powertrain Business unit,
6 manufacturer of Mercedes Benz heavy-duty diesel engines.
7 I have submitted for the record written comments
8 of Daimler Chrysler AG and will own summarize the most
9 critical issues. And for the record, we were not part of
10 the consent decree process.
11 Daimler Chrysler AG has serious concerns
12 regarding the proposed amendments. First, the company
13 believes that the proposed amendments are inconsistent
14 with the statutorily mandated Clean Air Act lead time
15 requirement and stability provisions, which are equally
16 applicable to California regulations.
17 Second, the company is concerned that an agency
18 that has prided itself on its engineering analysis would
19 propose a regulation that is not technologically feasible
20 addressing each of these points in turn.
21 CARB's proposed supplemental test procedures are
22 effectively new standards applicable to heavy-duty diesel
23 engines. EPA itself has recognized that the imposition of
24 new tests such as the not-to-exceed and supplemental
25 steady state provisions of the CARB proposal are
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
84
1 substantive standards.
2 Since CARB's proposed requirements are
3 substantive standards, they must comply with the Clean Air
4 Act's lead time requirements for enactment of new
5 standards.
6 The proposed requirements are intended to be in
7 effect at the beginning of the 2005 model year.
8 Accordingly, the proposed standards are in direct conflict
9 with the Clean Air Act's lead time requirements
10 specifically by reference to Section 202(a) of the Clean
11 Air Act.
12 Section 209 requires that when enacting new
13 standards CARB must provide at least four years lead time
14 after the model year in which those standards are
15 promulgated.
16 Manufacturers are currently in the 2001 model
17 year. CARB's proposed amendments would subject heavy-duty
18 diesel engine manufacturers to new requirements in model
19 year 2005, which occurs only three years later than the
20 model year after the current model year. Simply put, the
21 proposed amendments fail to meet the four-year lead time
22 requirement.
23 The Clean Air Act also requires that any new
24 standard maintain at least three years of stability prior
25 to any change. Both EPA and California have adopted new
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
85
1 heavy-duty diesel engine emission standards for model year
2 2004 and later new vehicles. CARB's proposal to impost
3 yet another set of standards in model year 2005 violates
4 this three-year stability provision.
5 CARB must recognize that the Clean Air Act's lead
6 time and stability provision and withdraw an attempt to
7 impose new supplemental standards until model year 2007,
8 three years after the implementation of the 2004 standards
9 and more than four years after the next model year.
10 In addition to the lead time issues, CARB has
11 failed to meet the federal and State requirements for
12 feasibility. EPA has admitted that technological
13 feasibility is a significant issue for these standards and
14 procedures. Indeed, in the preamble to the final rule
15 establishing model year 2004 and later standards for
16 heavy-duty engines, EPA conceded that major changes to the
17 not-to-exceed requirements were necessary in order to take
18 into account technological feasibility.
19 Even though EPA was confident that most engines
20 could meet modified NTE standards by model year 2007, it's
21 recognized that technological feasibility was an issue and
22 that relief was required.
23 Despite this recognized feasibility problem, CARB
24 has not presented any data on emission standards or test
25 procedures to demonstrate that its proposal is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
86
1 technologically feasible. Instead CARB merely relies upon
2 the general descriptions of unproven emission control
3 technology and prior EPA determinations made as part of
4 the 2004 final rule published earlier this year.
5 Determinations which have, in fact, been superceded by
6 EPAs recognition of greater technological hurdles than
7 previously believed.
8 The only real justification offered by CARB for
9 this proposed rule making is the concern that the consent
10 decrees may sunset in October of 2004. This reasoning is
11 not sufficient to justify or even excuse disregarding
12 technological feasibility issues in direct contradiction
13 of both the Clean Air Act and the California Health and
14 Safety Code.
15 Daimler Chrysler AG believes that CARB should
16 therefore withdraw its proposal and work with EPA on
17 developing the federal 2007 standards and resolving the
18 dispute concerning the consent decree implementation.
19 For all the foregoing Reason and, in addition,
20 the reason set forth in our detailed written comments,
21 Daimler Chrysler AG believes that CARB should decline to
22 adopt the proposed amendments, withdraw its proposal and
23 defer to the federal rulemaking process already underway.
24 Daimler Chrysler appreciates the opportunity to
25 provide these comments and looks forward to working with
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
87
1 CARB.
2 Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you.
4 Any questions?
5 So the fact you weren't part of the consent
6 decree that means that you weren't using the defeat
7 device?
8 MS. TAGGART: That's correct.
9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So part of what you're saying
10 here you don't -- part of what we're trying to do is to
11 make sure that you don't, you know, companies don't have
12 the license to pollute higher than what they say. What
13 makes Daimler Chrysler different that you would -- that we
14 wouldn't have to be concerned about that in your case?
15 MS. TAGGART: Well, I think someone mentioned
16 with staff that imposing a defeat device now would be
17 illegal, but Daimler Chrysler hasn't done it --
18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I thought it was illegal in
19 the first place.
20 MS. TAGGART: That may be true, but Daimler
21 Chrysler -- it's unfair to now subject a company who was
22 not part of the consent decree to the process when they
23 weren't -- there was a reason they weren't part of the
24 consent decree in the first place. You're penalizing a
25 group that never engaged in activity and encouraging them
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
88
1 to participate -- actually, mandating them to participate
2 in the process, but they weren't part of it in the
3 beginning.
4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I thought what we were doing
5 is trying to protect the public from excess NOx emissions.
6 I don't think we're trying to penalize anybody, unless I'm
7 missing something.
8 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I mean, as a
9 nonconsent decree manufacturer, we expect that Mercedes,
10 Daimler Chrysler is going to be at the high part of that
11 yellow bar, because they have no requirement to be lower.
12 The way we made our presentation it was the consent decree
13 manufacturers have an incentive to get up as high as
14 Mercedes, Isuzu and another nonconsent decree
15 manufacturers already are. Yeah, they're not going to
16 backslide, they're already up there or they will be up
17 there at that time.
18 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:
19 Which is a competitive advantage, which they would
20 maintain in those years.
21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah, I don't understand then
22 the concern.
23 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'm not sure that I
24 understand either why Isuzu or Daimler Chrysler feel that
25 they can't -- it's not technologically feasible for them
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
89
1 to satisfy these procedures or to be subjected to them.
2 MR. SHYU: Chairman Lloyd and the rest of the
3 Board, my name is Richard Shyu. I'm a Mercedes Benz
4 engine certification representative in the US and that's
5 including certification with California Air Resources
6 Board.
7 Mercedes Benz engine was found by EPA during the
8 Section 208 investigation that Mercedes Benz engine do not
9 have defeat device, therefore we are not part of a consent
10 decree settlement manufacturer.
11 Furthermore, in the last two years of
12 certification with both EPA and California Air Resources
13 Board, we went through very vigorous ACT provision review.
14 EPA made sure we do not have any defeat device in our
15 engine. So the argument presented by the staff that they
16 want to prevent the defeat device to be integrated into
17 2005 and 2006 engine, we do not think applies to all our
18 engine, because we do not have defeat device.
19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes.
20 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: We don't think that
21 they will actually employ defeat devices in 2005 and 2006.
22 And, in fact, Mercedes Benz has not been in the past,
23 employing defeat devices. What we were simply trying to
24 recognize is that when we have a standard that the
25 existing test procedures allows that standard to result in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
90
1 higher in-use emissions through, in effect, off-cycle
2 emissions.
3 And what we are proposing to the Board is that we
4 limit those off-cycle emissions by having a test procedure
5 which is more stringent so that the certification
6 emissions levels more accurately reflect what the in-use
7 emissions levels will be. And we were trying to set a
8 level playing field for all the manufacturers. The two
9 issues that I heard raised were essentially those of
10 whether or not what we are proposing is technically
11 feasible.
12 We think it is technically feasible and we think
13 basically that has been demonstrated over the last couple
14 of years as we have continued to work with engine
15 manufacturers who were actually consent decree signers
16 because what has happen there is that a technology has
17 moved forward and as you heard yesterday, we will have
18 engines essentially in the marketplace within the next
19 eighteen months to two years, that actually do meet the
20 kinds of requirements that we're proposing for three years
21 later for 2005.
22 Secondly, the other issue I heard hear was the
23 issue of whether or not we are providing sufficient lead
24 time and sufficient stability. And as Ms. Walsh discussed
25 earlier, we do not believe that the four year lead time,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
91
1 three year stability provisions of the federal act apply
2 to California in this particular instance. And we do
3 recognize that the engine manufacturers and Daimler
4 Chrysler believe other wise, but we disagree with them on
5 that point.
6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I wanted to
7 make one point using this graph. On the left-hand bar
8 there, the yellow versus, because the red, you can see the
9 three times increase in emissions. That's a defeat
10 device. That's illegal under the rules. This is why
11 there are consent decrees with major manufacturers because
12 they did use programming that constituted aa defeat
13 device. If you go over to the 4th set of bars over the
14 one that's got 2005 and 2006, the yellow bar, which has
15 higher emissions than the standard, that is not a defeat
16 device, that is a flexibility that a manufacturer has to
17 optimize other parameters than emissions when it's
18 operating outside of the compliance test procedure.
19 And is that is what we expect will happen peck
20 will happen, you'll have the four and a half, not the two
21 because manufacturers are not subject to the emission
22 requirements when they get outside of this fairly narrowly
23 defined federal test procedure. And so all we're doing
24 today is saying that they need to control the emissions
25 everywhere that they operate, or virtually everywhere they
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
92
1 operate. And that will result in that yellow bar dropping
2 back down to two. For Mercedes, that's a new engineering
3 challenge because they were not subject to the consent
4 decree but for the other major manufactures for Cummins,
5 and the caterpillars and the detroit diesels, the
6 feasibility of this, the proof of the pooding, will happen
7 in 2002 and but it will not affect Mercedes till 2005.
8 So any uncertainty about technical feasibility
9 here will be revealed in the marketplace, will see whether
10 the engines can make it, appropriate adjustments will be
11 made to the Cummins and the Caterpillars of the world way
12 before Mercedes or Isuzu has to build a complying engine.
13 So this issue of technological feasibility, to me, is
14 really not very germane to the issue for the nonconsent
15 decree manufacturers.
16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But you've got -- we've
17 agreed now there will be a meeting in 2001 2002, you've
18 got the technology review 2003. So there's all these
19 safeguards in there. And what you're saying this also
20 applies to all the manufacturers no matter what.
21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right. And
22 even in the area where these issues of feasibility with
23 the consent decree manufacturers have come up, you know,
24 it deals with probably a couple of percent of the
25 emissions is all. I mean if we have to give relieve, it's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
93
1 going to be crafted in a way that only is relief under
2 certain operating conditions that only occur --
3 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Those would be the
4 extreme conditions?
5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Those are the
6 extremes, right. And so, you know, either way that goes
7 whether relief has to be given or not, it does not affect
8 the issue that the engines need to be designed in those
9 nonextreme areas, but outside the current federal test
10 procedure to be clean, so that they're clean whether
11 they're cruising, whether they're driving in urban
12 traffic, whether they're accelerating up a hill, you know,
13 they're going to be clean.
14 And only in this, you know, on a high temperature
15 day, at a high altitude at full power do we have to --
16 which is you know very little part of the time, do we have
17 to deal with some kind of potential technical relief.
18 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I guess what I'm hearing
19 though is Chrysler saying well, by doing this you're
20 creating a new standard for them.
21 MR. SHYU: That's our argument. Basically, the
22 portion of NTE and Euro 3, basically increase -- make the
23 standard more stringent. That's the reason we need new
24 technology, new hardware, like staff proposed, something
25 from $700 to $900 more per engine.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
94
1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I can't believe company with
2 a company that prides itself on its engineering can't do
3 this.
4 MR. CROSS: Two years after everybody else has
5 to. The other point is is that if you don't act, and you
6 leave it as it is now, Chrysler and Isuzu have a fuel
7 economy advantage over everybody else which will pull them
8 up to four and a half.
9 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I guess I'd like to ask
10 the Chrysler people, do you know at this point whether or
11 not Chrysler does, in fact, have a problem with this?
12 MR. SHYU: We do think that they are serious
13 technology and feasibility problems. And that's a reason
14 we want the nation to inform members that there are
15 ongoing negotiations between EPA and engine and industry,
16 regarding the flexibility, not to stick to the consent
17 decree provision but a flexible version of the NTE limit
18 and compliance.
19 We would like the staff to recognize the fact
20 that there is some progress going.
21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Unfortunately, flexibility
22 often means higher emissions. To us that's not very
23 acceptable.
24 MR. SHYU: No. Actually, if you are looking a
25 staff proposal that says 1.25 times FTP, basically it's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
95
1 higher emissions already. And the defeat device
2 definition is so long as it will represent substantially
3 the in-use operation, it is not a defeat device.
4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman.
5 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, but if I heard
6 the staff correctly, this is anticipatory. And to the
7 extent that there are any adjustments made that are
8 appropriate and required by technological concerns or
9 issues, that will occur in due course. And these
10 procedures will be adjusted accordingly, but we want to
11 put them in place now, give plenty of lead time. There's
12 because no suggestion here that Mercedes Daimler Chrysler,
13 Isuzu or any of the compliant and nonconsent decree
14 manufacturers are -- presumably this is designed to
15 encourage them to continue what they've been doing.
16 They are not the villains in this piece. And
17 there's no desire to in any way penalize them. On the
18 other hand, it is intended to level the playing field so
19 that if and when that period comes, then they can't take
20 advantage by increasing emissions for fuel economy --
21 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I guess there's one thing
22 that --
23 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: -- and which
24 presumably you want do, but that's the responsibility of
25 regulators.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
96
1 MR. SHYU: If you allow me to make two minor
2 points. Number one, I don't know what the staff bases in
3 project, NOAs emission at 2005 and 2006 to be more than
4 two times the standard of FTP. We don't know what the
5 staff bases that data to project that. We do not think
6 our engine, even at today's stage of the technology will
7 not exceed those kind of more than 2. NTE limit.
8 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: In other words, you
9 would be a two even then and then you don't have to worry.
10 MR. SHYU: But no, but they are southern region
11 of the operation within the NTE zone for exempt low
12 torque, low speed and low torque high speed. We will not
13 be able to comply, not mentioning about altitude, extreme
14 temperature, no mention of that. Southern region of the
15 normal ambient condition, we will exceed the 1.25. EPA
16 recognized that fact.
17 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:
18 Well, that's an issue that isuzu raised in our meeting
19 with them and yes, we're aware of it, but it's not -- I
20 don't think it's a big deal. They basically said that
21 there's work going on on it and there will be a decision
22 made on whether or not to make some adjustments in the
23 those areas.
24 But I think that the point is is that it's --
25 this is an evolving thing where we will end up with a good
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
97
1 procedure, I think, when all is said and done. And I
2 think you have the advantage of being able to watch and
3 see what everybody else does.
4 MR. SHYU: No, not really.
5 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:
6 Which is like a present for you guys.
7 MR. SHYU: That's the information in negotiation
8 are confidential.
9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I don't think we're getting
10 where here. I'm comfortable that we have the checks and
11 balances in place. We're talking about 2005, 2006. We
12 have the ongoing meetings, the technology review, and I
13 think that I have got a lot of confidence that you and the
14 staff can works things out.
15 MR. SHYU: Well, we would appreciate if the Board
16 will provide an optional compliance for a known consent
17 decree.
18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think this will be part of
19 the process that staff will work with you on that.
20 MR. SHYU: Optional program. Then we will be
21 glad to look into how good we could comply.
22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I don't think we can
23 negotiate with individual manufacturers at this time.
24 MR. SHYU: Okay, thank you very much.
25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Next and last we have Lisa
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
98
1 Stegink, how do you pronounce that?
2 MS. STEGINK: Stegink. Roller rink, I rhyme it
3 with Roller Rink.
4 Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and members of the
5 Board. I am Lisa Stegink speaking on behalf of the Engine
6 Manufacturers Association. EMA's members make the engines
7 covered by today's a proposal. EMA met with ARB staff on
8 October 5 at which time we explained the significant legal
9 and technical concerns we have with the staff's proposal.
10 In addition, on December 1, EMA submitted
11 extensive and detailed written comments on today's
12 proposal. I believe a copy of our comments has been
13 provided to each of you.
14 In summary, the proposal before you today would
15 impose stringent new emission standards and procedures
16 without providing the four model years' lead time and
17 three model years of stability required by law and all
18 that without demonstrating the technological feasibility
19 of the proposed new requirements.
20 EMA and its members have worked with you and the
21 staff on many innovative programs to reduce emissions from
22 diesel fueled heavy-duty engines. As a result, emissions
23 from diesel fueled engines have been reduced dramatically
24 and fuel quality has been substantially improved.
25 We believe that diesel fueled engines can and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
99
1 will be as clean, if not cleaner, than other available
2 power options. In fact, we worked cooperatively with ARB
3 and EPA to implement the statement of principles that led
4 to the very stringent nationally harmonized emission
5 standards set to go into effect on January 1, 2004 in both
6 California and the rest of the nation.
7 We also are working with ARB and EPA the in
8 nationwide implementation of the 15 PPM cap ultra low
9 sulfur fuel standard that we'll enable the technologies to
10 achieve even lower emission levels by 2007. One of the
11 principals agreed to by ARB and the EPA in the SOP, and
12 one of the cornerstone principals of the Clean Air Act is
13 that heavy duty on highway emission regulations require no
14 less than four fuel model years of lead time and no less
15 than three full model years of stability.
16 Lead time and stability are extremely important
17 to engine manufacturers and to the their customers. Lead
18 time is needed to ensure that engines meeting the
19 requirements of each new round of emission standards will
20 be available, and that the new engine and truck designs
21 are fully proven to meet the needs of the customer. And a
22 sufficient period of stability is needed to allow engine
23 manufacturers, truck manufacturers and end users
24 sufficient time to recover the huge investments needed to
25 meet each new level of emission regulation.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
100
1 The new set of stringent emission standards and
2 procedures proposed to go into effect in California on
3 January 1, 2005 provides neither four model years of lead
4 time nor three model years of stability. Those new
5 requirements do, however, impose new stringent standards
6 of compliance which will result in engine design changes
7 and increased costs.
8 ARB has not assessed the technological
9 feasibility of the new standards and procedures and it is
10 insufficient to assume that feasibility need not be
11 demonstrated simply because some manufacturers
12 representing perhaps only 60 percent of heavy-duty engine
13 sales have signed consent decrees with provisions similar
14 to those proposed by ARB. Both State and federal law
15 require more.
16 We urge the Board to review carefully the
17 detailed comments submitted by EMA. Having done so, we
18 are certain that the Board will agree that the proposed
19 pull ahead of the new standards and procedures should not
20 and cannot be adopted.
21 If you have any questions, I would be pleased to
22 respond.
23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much.
24 Any questions from the Board?
25 I think you've covered some of the issues that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
101
1 previous people had testified to.
2 Thank you very much indeed.
3 Tell Jed we missed him.
4 MS. STEGINK: I will. He sends his regards.
5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I view this as a cost-cutting
6 measure by EMA to save some of their high price.
7 (Laughter.)
8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Kenny, do you have any
9 further comments?
10 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KENNY: I think my only
11 comment is that what we are trying to do is ensure and
12 preserve the emission benefits that we anticipate
13 receiving in 2002, and so I would urge the Board to adopt
14 this.
15 And actually that is the one other comment I
16 would make is that what we are proposing to the Board is
17 an adoption today of this particular matter, so that, in
18 fact, we can provide as much time as possible to the
19 manufacturers.
20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Since all the testimony,
21 written submissions, staff comments for the item for the
22 record and the Board has not granted an extension of the
23 comment period, I'm officially closing the record on this
24 portion of Agenda Item 00-53.
25 Written or oral comments received after the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
102
1 comment period has been closed will not be accepted as
2 part of the official record on this item.
3 Any ex parte communications from the staff or the
4 Board?
5 Seeing none, I guess now we can entertain a --
6 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Move.
7 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Second.
8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All in favor say aye?
9 (Ayes.)
10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much.
11 With that, since we have no comment period, I'm
12 officially closing the December 8th, 2000 meeting of the
13 California Air Resources Board.
14 Again, wish you all happy holidays and see you
15 again.
16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: And on behalf of the
17 staff happy holidays to the Board, enjoy your time.
18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you And have a great
19 time in Paris. Well deserved. You should be aware that
20 the Executive Officer is celebrating his 20th wedding
21 anniversary with his wife in Paris and a very well
22 deserved rest.
23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Check out the air quality.
24 (Thereupon the Air Resources Board meeting
25 adjourned at 11:30 a.m.)
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
103
1
2 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
3 I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand
4 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered
5 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify:
6 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the
7 foregoing Air Resources Board meeiting was reported in
8 shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a Certified Shorthand
9 Reporter of the State of California, and thereafter
10 transcribed into typewriting.
11 I further certify that I am not of counsel or
12 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any
13 way interested in the outcome of said meeting.
14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
15 this 2nd day of January, 2001.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR
24 Certified Shorthand Reporter
25 License No. 10063
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345