17 Nowhere did I get from the staff report that the 18 staff intended to eliminate the ZEV requirement. I think 19 most of the people in this room are supportive of moving 20 in the direction of zero emissions. Certainly, I am. And 21 that's what this whole business has been about for the 22 last 30 years.

23 However, in the process of trying to get there, I 24 think we have to be somewhat reasonable. And if I were to 25 criticize something that has happened in the past, I think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 95 1 in some instances we've not been reasonable. And 2 certainly we have to take into consideration the status of 3 technology and the cost.

4 Nowhere in the process here in the last couple of 5 days have I heard much discussion about the cost of all 6 these different proposals. When new technology comes out,

7 the auto manufacturers will put forth practically 8 everything that's necessary in order to try and meet what 9 the requirement is because they're running a business and 10 they don't want to stop selling cars.

11 However, you have to take into consideration the 12 cost involved, especially in the early years. You have to 13 take into consideration the cost that's involved. Now,

14 there's no questions in my mind, because I know this 15 happens, once they have met certain requirements, they're 16 going to do everything they can to take the cost out.

17 So it's important to take that into 18 consideration. And that's why I'm concerned about, in the 19 early years, having a fairly low requirement. And 20 certainly I wouldn't want to see any number higher than 21 what the staff has proposed there, 250. I'd like to see 22 it a little less than that.

23 And in the out years, yes, increase the numbers,

24 but I think that at that time the manufacturers will have 25 taken most of the  I won't say most of the cost out PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 96 1 there. They will never take most of it out, but they will 2 certainly improve on the cost. And I'd like to see that 3 factor taken into consideration.

4 If I would recommend anything to my colleagues,

5 it would be that we reduce the number of vehicles that we 6 require starting in 2009, I guess, reduce that number 7 some.

8 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Reduce it from what,

9 Joe?

10 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Well, it's at 2,500 now.

11 And this is in the early stages now.

12 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: We haven't picked.

13 We haven't voted on any number.

14 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: No, I understand that. I 15 understand that. You have some numbers up there, that 16 you're going to vote on.

17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: But you're 18 suggesting that they should be lowered, is that what you 19 mean?

20 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Two thousand, 1,500. And 21 I'm certainly supportive of keeping the pressure on. And 22 that, in effect, is about all I have to say.

23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We're going to quick

24 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: One other thing that I 25 want to emphasize. Nowhere in any of these proposals up PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 97 1 here did I hear anything about cost effectiveness. And I 2 think that's a factor also.

3 Thank you.

4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Alan, just on 5 that one point.

6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Chairman.

7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Just on the point 8 of cost effectiveness. Dr. Lloyd, excuse me.

9 Just on the point of cost effectiveness, whatever 10 proposals the Board adopts today, the staff will analyze 11 in great detail the cost impacts of what you've chosen to 12 establish as targets, in addition to the environmental 13 impacts, depending on assumptions about the fuel cell 14 deployment, where the hydrogen will come from, that sort 15 of thing. We have to do that as part of our legal 16 responsibilities. It would be in the 15 day package and 17 in the final statement of reasons.

18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We're going to take a few 19 minute break, but before that, before we vote a request of 20 one of the Board members. Just a short break.

21 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I failed to mention 22 again, I said during the hearings that I personally am 23 interested in the staff exploring further and reporting 24 back on giving credit for stationary fuel cell technology 25 and installations that are functionally equivalent with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 98 1 mobile uses in this state on some kind of a basis.

2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah, I think staff is going 3 to do that, because I would

4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: That was a 6 month 5 thing or three months  within three months.

6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah, I would certainly echo 7 that. The same thing with the infrastructure I think 8 we're doing. One of the things I would say on the numbers 9 now, and I'll come to this time at the numbers. I feel 10 very strongly having worked with part of the fuel cell 11 partnership here on the early year number, the 250. I 12 realize how much this is costing companies. I know what 13 is involved there, and part of the process.

14 And also I feel very strongly that I hope that 15 the process and the partnership will continue. And so 16 having talked to a number of the number of companies 17 involved, while I say this that the number to some of you 18 may look pretty meager, the dollars are not meager. And 19 also as we look at this technology to go ahead,

20 infrastructure is a big piece of that.

21 However, I do feel that in the 2009 and 2011 time 22 period I would say the staff's number is probably very 23 reasonable, because having sat beside Dr. Burns' at the 24 congressional testimony a few weeks ago, the target for 25 General Motors and others, but I will say I can say PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 99 1 firsthand there, would mean that the 2,500 in that time 2 period should be easily obtainable.

3 And, again, I was impressed by the technology 4 trip that General Motors took out to Sacramento and 5 showing their range of technologies.

6 And so that's just one company. And I know the 7 goals of the Japanese manufacturers and the progress that 8 they're making in Japan and the numbers in Japan. I 9 certainly could not condone  I certainly could not 10 support any number less than that. And, in fact, I have 11 to bite hard not to go significantly higher.

12 But as I say, the one thing I have learned since 13 2 years ago just the point that Joe and that Mr. Calhoun 14 and Supervisor Roberts made that just because you put 15 numbers out there it's not necessarily so. But the one 16 thing I've learned on the fuel cell partnership  and the 17 fuel cell partnership I indicated before that this is a 18 true partnership.

19 And I'm looking to my colleagues in the back of 20 the room there, and I'm looking forward to continuing this 21 in an honest and sincere  and I know you were sincere in 22 pushing this technology and also down here.

23 But I also realize that you know that the nearer 24 you get in those are significant numbers. And we also 25 recognize that we get out later. We have this technical PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 100 1 advisory panel as well as the fuel cell group to tell us 2 whether those numbers are reasonable. My expectation is 3 that they will be very reasonable.

4 MS. D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman.

5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Legal counsel advises me that 6 we may be able to take a one minute break but we're going 7 to lose people, lose our quorum. So maybe  can we just 8 hold one minute here.

9 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I'm not leaving.

10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, we're going to be 11 starting the ex parte, and we're going to be finishing

12 apparently we're going to be losing a quorum in 15 13 minutes.

14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I'll be able to hear.

15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. No, we're not going to 16 be able to take a break. Because we do in fact before we 17 start to vote  the other issue I'd strongly support is 18 the issue of doing everything we can to see how we can 19 retain these vehicles. And I think that's to me the 20 amount of testimony I've heard on that part of it, it is 21 actually disheartening to see you've got operating 22 vehicles out there than those to be crushed.

23 Now, I don't know how we'd do that, but on the 24 other hand I think everything should be done to try to do 25 that.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 101 1 The other issues I think get so complex that I 2 think we're asking staff obviously to look at that and 3 report back here.

4 Those, I think, were the key points that I  the 5 other point I think that to reinforce what John White said 6 this morning what this Regulation has accomplished and the 7 fact is that when we're looking at the PZEVs and the AT 8 PZEVs increases. That does a tremendous amount for air 9 quality using the existing infrastructure. And that's not 10 to be under estimated.

11 The other point I think was I've particularly 12 noted what he said of quoting, I think it was the Chairman 13 of General Motors saying that there is actually not only a 14 fuel economy but an emissions benefit to the AT PZEVs.

15 And, you know, maybe get that confirmed for me what I 16 always understood was the issue.

17 But anyway, with that, Ms. D'Adamo.

18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes I just had  I'm just 19 wanting to understand your position a little bit more on 20 the early years 2005 to 2008. Because if we were looking 21 just at fuel cells, I can understand perhaps lower 22 numbers. But if we now are considering putting batteries 23 into the mix, plus we've got this travel issue, and then 24 also the re release, I'm thinking perhaps a higher number 25 with maybe a minimum on fuel cells. And I'd even favor PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 102 1 some sort of limitation on travel. I'm real nervous about 2 these vehicles getting placed elsewhere.

3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: This is what I was assuming,

4 Ms. D'Adamo, that the staff would come back with this 5 analyzing those different scenarios. My concern was to 6 ramp up the cost of this expensive technology. But I 7 think I hear you and I would support the general thrust of 8 that. But I think I'd like to see that analysis from 9 staff.

10 All I was saying is that knowing the significance 11 of the 250 in terms of the fuel cell being of what that 12 costs, we've got to be careful what we do with that. But 13 I also hear the other part, and I'm completely with you 14 about getting those existing vehicles back in there. I 15 think that staff would understand those would be the 16 things that you would do analyzing.

17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Actually, there 18 is a policy issue that we need the Board's direction on on 19 this issue of 250 versus 500. And what I understood Ms.

20 D'Adamo to be asking is should the Board go to 500 with 21 the understanding that the additional 250 or, you know,

22 the BEV equivalent to be multiples, would be made up with 23 batteries and would not push fuel cell manufacturing up 24 necessarily.

25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Or in that time period, but PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 103 1 with a deep swallow I said plug in hybrids for a short 2 time.

3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I'll come back to 4 plug in hybrids. The policy issue is whether you either 5 want to compel manufacturers to do both things, if, in 6 fact, 250 represents the upper limit of their fuel cell 7 production ability and then they must at the same time, if 8 they're on the alternative compliance path, either build 9 or purchase BEV credits from another manufacturer, is that 10 appropriate, is that fair, is it reasonable? That's one 11 policy question.

12 The other question is if they really do not wish 13 to be engaged in two markets at the same time, does it 14 make any sense to have 500 fuel cell vehicles? Let's say 15 they just put their heads down and say we don't want to do 16 BEVs at all. We'll go ahead and make the full 500 fuel 17 cell vehicles, but these are very immature fuel cells at 18 an R& D stage. Is any benefit gained by having an 19 additional 250 of them at potentially a million dollars a 20 piece.

21 And so it is a tough question, it's a policy 22 question, and we do need your guidance before you vote on 23 whether you want 250 or 500 as the target in the first 24 three year window of time.

25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'm just saying I could not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 104 1 support putting additional burden on those companies 2 there. Particularly those who've gone ahead in good 3 faith.

4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Then if

5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Then the other thing what you 6 were just saying.

7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Would you like me 8 to piece through the issues one at a time that Ms. D'Adamo 9 was talking about the travel, the plug in hybrids, the 10 re release, I will.

11 On the matter of travel, we think Professor 12 Friedman is right, it will probably play out that most of 13 the cars come to California because of our weather, they 14 do have temperature management difficulties; because of 15 the California fuel cell partnership; and because of the 16 South Coast hydrogen infrastructure, which is already in 17 place and they are building upon.

18 We have a very strong draw in California. We're 19 not expecting a lot of leakage of these vehicles to the 20 eastern states. We do have some more subtle travel 21 issues. Mr. Cackette talked about New York and 22 Massachusetts impacts with how credits multiply in their 23 states and what they do to their silver obligations et 24 cetera.

25 Also, as you substitute in BEVs, what in any of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 105 1 these three year windows, whether or not you wish us to 2 include that in the travel provision we've structured such 3 that they don't multiply. We think that's probably a 4 minor issue at these numbers. It's a also a good thing to 5 have BEV volumes.

6 So we'd be inclined as a preliminary 7 recommendation to say keep the travel provision we've 8 written for fuel cells only and let it float for the other 9 categories of ZEVs. And we would recommend sunsetting the 10 travel clause in 2012  well at the end of 2011, because 11 if these targets prove correct, we'll be approaching 12 commercialization. And the multiplier effect is just not 13 that important later on. So that's how we would address 14 travel.

15 On re release we'll look at it. Mr. Cackette 16 indicated it's a gaming issue. And we will try to carry 17 the credits we establish previously forward and have them 18 be appropriate. Of course, any time you do give credit 19 for putting an old vehicle back on, your diminishing the 20 pressure to bring new ones. But we'll find the best 21 balance point and put that in the 15 day change proposal.

22 On plug ins, we talked a bit about the credit 23 level. We had lavish credits in the silver category. If 24 we move them to gold, we need to re ratio what those 25 credits are. Many board members have proposed the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 106 1 possibility of a sunset. Staff would suggested to you it 2 won't be much incentive if you give the credit and take it 3 away. So if we're going to do this, we would recommend 4 doing it for the long term.

5 However, balancing that consideration, we were 6 liberal about the definition of plug in hybrids in the 7 silver category. You need only a 10 mile all electric 8 range. We would suggest to you that if you want to put 9 this in the gold category, that perhaps we should be 10 requiring a 20 mile minimum range instead. That that 11 would be truly more ZEV like and a greater possibility of 12 true ZEV miles.

13 MR. McKINNON: Mr. Chairman.

14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon.

15 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah, I absolutely agree 16 with changing it to 20 miles or even 30. The notion is 17 that it's a commuter vehicle that's used on electric day 18 after day, and exceptionally  or as an exception is used 19 with gasoline.

20 Mr. Chairman, I have another comment and it's 21 about the numbers. I sort of started off the discussion 22 by proposing the Modisette numbers. If I was going to 23 lean in a direction other than the Modisette numbers, it's 24 towards the Union of Concerned Scientists.

25 And I'm concerned that we've picked numbers that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 107 1 are based entirely on fuel cells. What if fuel cells 2 don't work?

3 I would like to see us look at a program that 4 doesn't prescribe fuel cells, doesn't prescribe battery 5 electric, but leaves the choice there. And frankly the 6 difference between 500 and 250  if I was developing fuel 7 cells, I might only want to make three the first time.

8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The battery option is in 9 there. It's been in there for awhile. But I hear you.

10 I have a little bit of a concern on the staff's 11 recommendation of putting in plug ins forever. Because to 12 me then basically we do not have a zero emission vehicle 13 requirement.

14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I have a 15 proposal of a way to solve that problem. Let's put a 16 sunset that is reviewed by the technology review panel.

17 And I think we've changed the name of that. I don't think 18 we talked about it.

19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's right.

20 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: But we're sort of 21 talking. You know, we keep calling it something 22 different. And I like technology review panel actually.

23 But maybe we do a sunset that they sort of make 24 recommendations as to whether or not we extend it in,

25 what, 2010 or 2008. I mean I don't know.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 108 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I would go 2008 for that time 2 period, and then review it. I'm comfortable with that.

3 But I understand Mr. Cackette's argument there,

4 but I'm not persuaded.

5 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I certainly 6 mentally thought with the inclusion of the plug in HEV, a 7 minimum of 30 miles. I think when you think about the 8 traveling public and I'm trying to visualize more than 9 just southern California, but I have to visualize southern 10 California, 30 miles has just got to be the minimum. It's 11 got to be. And maybe it should be more, but 30. Now, is 12 that a problem? Do you technically see that as a problem 13 for that?

14 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think it 15 plays out as an issue of cost, these plug in hybrids.

16 That's what you're referring to I believe, have to have 17 the gasoline engine in it, whether they're essentially 18 five miles or 50 miles. And to get each mile of all 19 electric range you're adding more battery to provide the 20 energy to make it go that far. So, you know, 20 miles I 21 think it covers half the VMT a person would normally  I 22 think at 20 miles it's something like half of the VMT 23 would be covered by the ZEV part. The other half would 24 have to be on gasoline, depending on the recharging 25 availability.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 109 1 But all I'm saying is if you go to 30, then it's 2 starting to look more and more like a full BEV with an 3 engine added on. At 20, it's starting to look more like a 4 city car with an engine added on I guess.

5 So each time you're just adding that much more 6 battery, 50 percent more battery if you go that extra 10 7 miles, which means you're adding two, three, four thousand 8 dollars to the cost of the vehicle to get that 10 miles 9 and you get some additional fraction of the travel.

10 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I know that it's 11 difficult, because I don't design cars. But I do know 12 what people drive. And if our theory is that we want them 13 to use electric all the way, to and from wherever they're 14 going, it seems maybe

15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think the 16 critical is that when it's below 20, you're going to start 17 wondering whether people will bother to plug in, because 18 the engine comes on every time.

19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: That's my problem, right.

20 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: At 20 it will 21 get most people to work and maybe back, maybe not. But 22 what I was trying to emphasize that it adds significant 23 cost each 10 miles that you add on the vehicle gets bigger 24 and heavier and so it's a tradeoff. And I can't think 25 where the right number is. Either that's on the value, I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 110 1 guess on places on the amount of ZEV miles versus the 2 extra costs and complexity.

3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Given what I

4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: And you're saving on 5 gasoline, Mr. Cackette.

6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Going on, it seems to me that 7 the most we can do is get staff to take the direction 8 we've got. I'm not sure whether we can vote on anything 9 besides giving the general direction that we want to 10 strengthen significantly the proposal.

11 What's your guidance here?

12 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: If the Board were to take 13 action in terms of consensus for example on the issues 14 that have been outlined both in your discussion and by Ms.

15 Witherspoon, that there is sufficient discretion and 16 authority delegated to the Executive Officer to carry out 17 that direction, to put together a version of the 18 regulation with the changes necessary to reflect your 19 direction, put that out for a 15 day comment period and 20 then adopt the regulations at the end of that period after 21 considering all of the comments that come in, with the 22 additional direction that should there be issues that 23 warrant the issues our regulations will be brought back to 24 the Board to be finalized.

25 But our standard practice would be to allow the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 111 1 executive officer to do that unless there are issues of 2 significance that come up and would warrant additional 3 input from the Board prior to finalizing the regulations.

4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That might be putting a lot 5 of onus on the executive officer, given what I see going 6 on. I'm not sure what my colleagues think. I think I'd 7 be more comfortable coming back, because as I said, I 8 think it puts an undue burden I think.

9 Ms. D'Adamo.

10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Just a quick question,

11 what would that do to the timing of this becoming 12 effective. Are you talking about coming back at the next 13 hearing?

14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Can we come back in a month?

15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: You're putting me 16 in a difficult spot here, being well aware that the 17 Chairman does not favor adding plug in hybrids to gold,

18 but to come back means delaying the regulation, because 19 it's

20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: One month.

21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: However long.

22 I'm struggling to know what we would do in a month. The 23 policy issue is pretty clear, whether they should be in 24 gold at all. They are not fully zero emitting vehicles.

25 And what we have suggested is if you take the choice of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 112 1 putting them into gold what kinds of cautions need to be 2 added to that.

3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What I thought I said was put 4 them in there. Sunset 2008. Be reviewed as part of the 5 panel.

6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The only in 7 betweener I heard was the issue of a sunset. And you can 8 certainly add it and have the panel look at it, and the 9 staff revisit it as we get closer to ' 08.

10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And then the issue of what 11 the range is going to be on that.

12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Right. And 13 that's where we had left off. You may not need to decide 14 exactly. You can express the goal that we capture as much 15 of people's normal daily trips. Mr. Cackette was 16 explaining, staff believes, 20 is a whole lot better than 17 10. That 30 gets a lot more expensive and may work 18 against the desire to have plug in hybrids come in. But 19 we can analyze that more fully and we will propose what we 20 think is the best balance point on that in the 15 day 21 changes.

22 Would that satisfy you?

23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But again on the issue of you 24 know the sentiment the Board to try to keep battery 25 electrics open, there are various options there and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 113 1 implications that we thought that you would need to take a 2 look at and then come back to us.

3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We definitely in 4 the 15 day package have to address the appropriate ratios.

5 Whether you want it back in front of the Board means 6 another public hearing on the amendments we proposed. As 7 opposed to us taking your general direction, turning it 8 into a specific proposal, doing 15 day changes and then 9 you delegating to me, the executive officer, the 10 responsibility for completing the final package, in light 11 of your general policy direction and the comments 12 received.

13 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman.

14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, Mr. McKinnon.

15 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I would like to, if I 16 could, make a motion to adopt the inclusion of the Cal ETC 17 numbers including the BEV ratios that are spelled out in 18 it. And the numbers don't include the addition on the 19 graph that was made. What I'm talking about is the 20 numbers that were laid out in Cal ETC's comments.

21 I think that gives us sort of the three time 22 periods, big overall goal numbers and it gives us the 23 ratios for inclusion of other vehicles.

24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I would concur with that 25 except for the 250 instead of 500. The others are the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 114 1 same.

2 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman, that wasn't 3 my motion. My motion was for 500. I don't have a second 4 yet.

5 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I'll second the motion if 6 you'll accept this.

7 No, it was a secret second. Matt, if you would 8 consider adding, as a friendly amendment, that the review 9 period instead of being 2008 be three years from now 10 instead of 5 years from now and then have a 2 year review 11 period at 2006 and 2008.

12 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I'll accept that as a 13 friend amendment.

14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: A crucial 15 clarifying question whether BEV substitution is to be 16 mandatory or permissible.

17 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Permissible in this 18 motion, permissible.

19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So if they didn't want to 20 make BEVs, they would have to make fuel cells.

21 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: And there's no percentage 22 involved. If the first shot at making fuel cells says 23 that it's smart to make three, and they want to fill it in 24 with BEVs, that's fine. If they want to make all fuel 25 cells, that's fine.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 115 1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: And just to 2 be clear and all BEVs, that's fine? No floor on fuel 3 cells is what you're saying?

4 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: That's right.

5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So you're saying, the path 6 they can go on now is they can use the BEV path now. The 7 alternate path you're basically giving a forced BEV as 8 well if they can't handle that number of fuel cells.

9 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: That's correct. And they 10 determine the mix.

11 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: What about the suggestion 12 that Alan made of the number being 250 instead of 500.

13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: If it's 250, I would agree.

14 I can't agree to jumping that number up if they decide to 15 go with fuel cells. I think that's very dangerous. But I 16 will agree with the subsequent numbers jumping that up 17 given that option.

18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman, but if we 19 allow for the flexibility that some of us are pushing for 20 on BEVs, in particular on the re lease of sale with 21 generous credits, wouldn't that erode your attempts on 22 fuel cells, or couldn't it possibly

23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'm just concerned about 24 getting back to some of the comments Supervisor Roberts 25 and Mr. Calhoun said that some of the companies have,

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 116 1 whether we like it or not, feel that they've gone through 2 the experiment and they've now made significant 3 investments on hybrids, and they're making significant 4 investment on fuel cells.

5 And now if we're going to be forcing them to 6 spend significant dollars on something which they feel 7 there's no subsequent market for in this time period,

8 that's where my concern is, again having worked with them 9 very closely knowing what they're putting into that, those 10 numbers. But if you want to, I say in those early years,

11 reduce that and then go back to the higher numbers, I 12 think

13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm just  I'm looking 14 for other options on BEVs. I think the fuel cell numbers 15 if it were just fuel cells, but I wouldn't be supporting 16 that anyway because of the BEV situation. And I'd like to 17 encourage automakers that are finished, maybe they can 18 contract out to purchase credits from someone else so that 19 it's not

20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Then I would feel I would 21 want to hear staff come back to us, investigate the 22 implications of this and report back to the Board, because 23 there are ripple effects here and I don't know what they 24 are.

25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I have a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 117 1 motion that's before the Board, but I am  if the outcome 2 of the motion is that it passes, I have absolutely no 3 problem with having staff come back and say, you know, how 4 it all fits together. I mean we're sitting here making 5 policy that's fairly complex from up here and it doesn't 6 always work very well.

7 So I have no problem with that. But the 500 8 number at the start is not disrespecting your judgment 9 about fuel cell, and I think 250 fuel cells is a lot of 10 money, but we don't know that that's what will happen.

11 And we're struggling to get zero emission vehicles. And I 12 really worry that there's even merit to make 250 fuel 13 cells at the first deal.

14 I mean I've followed development of all sorts of 15 things, primarily aircraft, and you know  I don't think 16 we have enough with 250 and so that's

17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Just a question.

18 I'm not clear what you gain with doubling the number, even 19 though it's optional whether it's BEV or fuel cell.

20 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I think it's the 21 overall  what we gain is the overall look at zero 22 emission vehicles. We may get battery electrics. We may 23 get plug in hybrids. We may get some mix, but we get a 24 number that it's sufficiently close to what we were trying 25 to get done before this process was interrupted.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 118 1 And I think that's important. I think 2 Californians want us to work on zero emission vehicles.

3 And if it works out that there's fuel cells and there's 4 less of them, but they work, great. But I have my doubts 5 at the first.

6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Supervisor DeSaulnier.

7 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I just have a process 8 question having been through this several times. I want 9 to make sure we get this as right as possible. And I may 10 not be as bright as some of my colleagues. Actually, I'm 11 sure I'm not.

12 But for me there's a comfort level in what you 13 just said Matt about coming back next month. It may be a 14 question of semantics, but clearly we're close to having 15 something really important. And I would like to fully 16 understand sort of the secondary consequences of what 17 we're talking about.

18 And I don't want to, with all due respect,

19 entrust that to staff. I'd like to know what we're voting 20 on. I look back on what we voted on in 2001, and I regret 21 not having a better understanding on the NEV credits.

22 So from my perspective, I'm fine with the 23 direction we're going in, but I would like to have more 24 information in terms of the possible implications.

25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And, again, I would second PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 119 1 that, because I'm fine with what my colleagues want to do 2 there, I just want to know what extent and the ripple 3 effects given my comments on the fuel cell numbers, too.

4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I share that. I 5 think the staff has at least got a symmetrical proposal.

6 I understood it. And the rationale for the 250, which I 7 understood the automakers who are  the subjects are 8 victims of this, felt that this was achievable. To double 9 it without knowing really the basis and what the 10 consequences would be, conceding that the goal is 11 laudable, the purpose of it is laudable.

12 I'm content with the 10 time multiple. I'm a 13 little less comfortable with CalETC because I don't know 14 the rationale for those numbers. And the addition is, I 15 think, I get 25 thousand 7 something. But as

16 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: That addition wasn't in 17 the proposal. That was an addition error that was done in 18 the staff graph.

19 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: No, I accept it. So 20 I mean actually it's a little less than what the staff ten 21 times would end up. But I'm not crystal clear on what the 22 multiples are, what the reasons are.

23 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chairman, in terms 24 of my desire to get a little more information, I don't 25 want people to think that I want it to go down. I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 120 1 actually still think, with all due respect to the 2 Chairman, I would be more inclined to go up to Jason's 3 numbers. So having said that, but I'm not fearful that 4 the extra 30 days is going to weaken that position. We're 5 all going to  we've indicated where we're coming from,

6 we just need more information.

7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No, I think the message is 8 here we're actually talking about  we're actually 9 discussing, and if you like maybe we have slight 10 disagreements. We're not disagreeing over the goal.

11 We're talking about zeros here. We're all talking about 12 that. We all talk about increasing the number of PZEV and 13 AT PZEVs. We're just looking at how do we best get to the 14 zero, and what's the appropriate number particularly in 15 these early years.

16 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I would be 17 willing to change my motion to be a motion that just gave 18 a sense of the Board so that we could proceed forward to 19 other issues that are involved here. There's a number of 20 other issues, but this motion would be just sort of to get 21 a sense of the Board.

22 And if that isn't appropriate, I'm willing to 23 even withdraw it, if we're going to come back and look at 24 this in 30 days with numbers. And I need my second's kind 25 of concurrence on how you want to proceed on that.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 121 1 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: That's fine. I'm fine.

2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, you can 3 simply continue. I'm trying to think of the correct 4 parliamentary procedural

5 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Are you talking about 6 continuing

7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: There's a motion before us 8 with a second. And you can have that continued to a date 9 certain, which would be the next hearing. Allow staff to 10 come back with the, you know, further analysis that might 11 be needed for us then to take a final action on that 12 motion. Would that be acceptable?

13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And given the direction that 14 you're saying, Mr. McKinnon, that we're asking staff to 15 look at providing this dual path, if you like, in terms of 16 the batteries and the fuel cells, and what's the right 17 proportion there. How do we treat existing vehicles,

18 existing BEVs there.

19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: It's a little more than 20 that, Mr. Chair. It's also sort of the big number 21 discussion. And I think so  but I have no problem 22 continuing it. And by the time we hear the staff's 23 report, you know we may just defeat the motion and find a 24 clearer way to do it 30 days from now.

25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Let me see if I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 122 1 can help here. I'm sensing a far greater amount of 2 agreement than disagreement. I do think the key issue is 3 the first interval 250 versus 500. I think a shadow issue 4 behind the next 2 intervals is the amount of credit for 5 BEV substitution and Supervisor DeSaulnier and Mr.

6 McKinnon both got at that.

7 Mr. McKinnon proposed that we use Cal ETC's 8 ratios exactly as they are. Staff had recommended 9 previously that any ratios we would use be roughly based 10 on cost of the relative technologies, you know, at the end 11 of the year of each of those intervals. And we don't know 12 what the Cal ETC ratios are based on. But if you are 13 willing to have staff proceed with Matt's logic, we can 14 tell you what we think the ratios ought to be for plug in 15 hybrid substitution, BEV substitution in each of those 16 intervals.

17 And then at the end point, the numbers are very 18 much the same. I'm not sure there's an argument here at 19 all. The question we didn't get to yet in this dialogue 20 between the Board members is post 2014, would you have the 21 staff proposal return to the red line immediately or 22 smooth the ramp out between 2014 and 2018 and reach the 23 red line at that point.

24 But I don't see a huge difference. Well, at the 25 bottom of your slide it indicates what happens with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 123 1 red line. It's essentially 25,000 per year. And in the 2 three year interval it's 73,000. So, you know, if you've 3 stopped at about 25,000, 30,000, over a three year period 4 the next year if you didn't smooth it out, that would 5 become an annual production number versus a triennial one.

6 And you may want to smooth it.

7 But I would love to have the Board find a 8 consensus today. You're so close. And to go on another 9 month is to invite another round  I mean, you can close 10 the record. But in point of fact, there will be another 11 round of debate and dialogue with the staff from all 12 parties. And we think we could perhaps get to a policy 13 consensus amongst you all today.

14 But I'll leave that back again to the Board to 15 see if you agree you're as close as I think you are.

16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Now, any comments?

17 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Can we close the record 18 and not take anymore testimony?

19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We have done that. We have 20 closed the record.

21 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: So even if we came back,

22 we could still make a decision without

23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, right.

24 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Excuse me, Dr. Lloyd.

25 The final step of completing the record would be board PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 124 1 members disclosing any ex parte communications that they 2 have.

3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, correct. We haven't got 4 to that yet.

5 Well, maybe we should do that. I'm just trying 6 to think  I guess we should do that now even if we 7 come  we're going to come to some motion here.

8 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman, we have a 9 motion.

10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah. But yes then in fact 11 we should declare our ex parte communications.

12 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, before we lose 13 the proposal or the suggestion from our Executive Officer 14 and before I lose it, it seemed to me that it should be 15 put in perspective. And it seems to me that I'm sensing 16 that is what we are talking about. I don't know that I'm 17 prepared to vote other than to ask on a 15 day notice ask 18 that they come back with those changes and 19 recommendations.

20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I heard Ms. Witherspoon to 21 say in order to do that, staff does need some additional 22 direction, in particular 250 versus 500 or somewhere in 23 between.

24 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, then maybe we 25 ought to vote on that if we need to.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 125 1 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Were there other issues 2 that you needed direction?

3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Mr. Cackette is 4 reminding me, I'll list them again 250 versus 500 in the 5 first interval; whether there's fuel cell vehicle floor or 6 not, staff had recommended at least the 50 percent floor 7 for fuel cell vehicles; whether you agree with staff's 8 proposal for rationing the credits between the 9 technologies, we proposed a cost based approach looking at 10 the end year of each interval, you know what's the 11 relative cost of the fuel cell versus a CityCar versus a 12 plug in hybrid et cetera. And that's how we would round 13 it off and we would attempt to make the electric vehicle 14 choices slightly more attractive knowing that there is 15 resistance to getting those into the market.

16 We also need your guidance on post 2014, how 17 quickly you would like us to return to the red line,

18 whether immediately in 2015 on an annualized basis or to 19 smooth the ramp between 2014 and 2018.

20 And plug in hybrids, a sunset in ' 08 or not. I 21 think we came to a consensus on a range that we would push 22 it as high as it was feasible to capture as much VMT and 23 not undo our efforts on the cost side and that would be 24 part of the 15 day proposal.

25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. Witherspoon, I think that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 126 1 one of the issues here, and I can understand very, very 2 much your desire to kill this thing today

3 ( Laughter.)

4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD:  and mine also. I have no 5 desire to do this. But on the other hand, I am still  I 6 think you've heard we all want to point in the right 7 direction. We all want to make sure that the message gets 8 out. That mandate is here. We're all committed to 9 cleaning up the air faster. We're all committed to zero 10 emission vehicles.

11 But there are ways in which we get there. And 12 they have implications. The travel issue, looking at some 13 of the other issues that we've discussed. I'm just 14 concerned that at least  I'm probably closest of any of 15 the Board members here to some of the issues. And I'm not 16 sure how we put something together that we would all know 17 what we're doing, the unintended consequences.

18 So I'm really maybe looking forward to taking an 19 extra month, so they come back to us where we don't have 20 to take anymore public testimony. But we have some 21 clarity in terms of what we're voting on, the specifics.

22 But there's no doubt to the rest of the world what we're 23 saying. We're strongly committed to our program and the 24 zero emission vehicle requirements, and also increasing 25 the PZEVs and the hybrids.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 127 1 But I think there are issues that we need to 2 study carefully. And, again, you can hear me, the trend 3 I'm sensing with my colleagues. I'm supportive of that,

4 but I want to know how we get there.

5 Supervisor DeSaulnier.

6 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chairman, what I'm 7 sensing from staff is I don't think the Board wants to 8 reopen everything, and if I'm being redundant from what 9 Alan just  I'm sorry, the Chairman just said, I'm sorry.

10 But you know basically I think we could have a motion that 11 approves the resolution in front of us, includes that the 12 Board wants a number higher than the staff recommendation 13 with a minimum of the first column, which is not where I 14 will be in a month, and then directs you to further 15 investigate those issues that you've talked about, the 16 travel issue, the re release issue, because I think all of 17 us are interested in that, the implications, and the 18 tarnished gold versus the gold issue.

19 And if there's something I'm missing, I think we 20 have to frame it around that. That's not a lot to finish 21 with, but it does at least give me a comfort level that 22 we're not going to reopen everything, but we are going to 23 have some answers to the implications of the direction 24 we're going in.

25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Which essentially is the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 128 1 motion before us. Well, it is an analysis before we vote 2 that then we can be an informed voter.

3 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Well, as long as 4 everyone is clear with that. Maybe it's a question of 5 semantics. I wasn't clear that that's what the motion 6 was. If that's clear to everyone

7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: No. You're right, that 8 isn't the motion, per se. But it is to the motion that's 9 on the table before us.

10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Our motion is getting as 11 complex as the regulation.

12 ( Laughter.)

13 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: You know what they say 14 about sausage, Mr. Chairman.

15 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: If I may, it sounds like 16 what the Board is looking for is perhaps an embedded 17 motion that would provide a sense of the Board in terms of 18 a direction to come back with a specific proposal that 19 would then be the subject of Mr. McKinnon's motion that 20 the Board could then take action on next month. That's 21 what I'm hearing.

22 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Question. Would 23 that be different than an action on this resolution with 24 the indicated changes?

25 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Yes. That

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 129 1 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: This would not be a 2 15 day notice.

3 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: That embedded motion 4 would be different from an action on the resolution. It 5 would be

6 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Which is what I 7 think Mark was referring to.

8 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Basically providing some 9 additional direction to staff in terms of coming back with 10 what would essentially be the 15 day proposal to you next 11 month.

12 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I for one would like 13 it restated, if you're willing.

14 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman, one way I 15 could approach this is I could withdraw my motion, and I 16 could take the motion that I made and break it in pieces 17 so that we've got a sense of the Board. And then that 18 would give staff sort of the big broad strokes to deal 19 with and then work at the numbers and make sure we haven't 20 set up a way to be gamed or some of the other 21 possibilities.

22 And so I'm willing to do that and my second has 23 said he's amenable to that.

24 So I withdraw the motion and I would like to make 25 a motion to determine the sense of the Board on the model PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 130 1 year 2005 through 2008 fuel cell number. And I'll stop 2 there. And I would move a number of 500 fuel cells or a 3 proportional set of other Battery Electric Vehicles or 4 plug in hybrid electric vehicles that are proportioned 5 credit wise relative to cost.

6 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I always get in trouble 7 trying to put words in your mouth. I just want to 8 understand the motion myself now. Because is really what 9 you're saying is you're really saying 500 cars of the mix 10 of which you described? Because when you said it before,

11 you said well they could do three fuel cells, right?

12 Can you clarify that.

13 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: What I'm saying is 500 14 fuel cells or a proportional number in that period of 15 different types of battery electrics. There's different 16 credits. So in the proposal Cal ETC made, it would take 17 approximately 10; is that correct? This is at 50 percent.

18 In the first year it would take 10 Type 2 EVs to 19 replace one of the fuel cells. Or it might take 20, am I 20 doing the math wrong because it's 50 percent of  it's 21 20, 40.

22 So type 2' s the proportional number of type 2 EVs 23 would be 20 EV's. Type 1 EVs it would take 40 of them.

24 So the corresponding pattern is it's either in that period 25 of time 500 fuel cells. And what I'm suggesting and that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 131 1 this is the sense of the Board, that the ratios be talked 2 about in terms of what the cost is.

3 So that is giving you a lot more room than 4 even  considering the Cal ETC report, it's saying look 5 at costs of fuel cells and then what are the proportional 6 equal equivalent costs of the others.

7 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Can we hear what staff has 8 to say about that.

9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Actually, we need 10 to hear what you have to say about that.

11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I cannot go with 500 fuel 12 cells. But I thought where we were heading was for staff 13 to look at the implications of various scenarios, and then 14 come back to us, which would include that, Mr. McKinnon.

15 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I had a 16 motion that I withdrew. And I withdrew that motion with 17 the understanding that we were going to go through the 18 numbers to get the sense of the Board so that we gave 19 staff  and I took the very first piece of that motion 20 and tried to put it into words and tried to give the 21 flexibility to staff to use costs to determine it.

22 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Does that allow staff to 23 come back and say well 500 is too big, we need 350 or does 24 that say on the other vehicles we can modify their value 25 in this system?

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 132 1 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: The latter.

2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And this would impact 3 different companies potentially?

4 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yes.

5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Staff has already 6 said we believe that 250 is the right number for this 7 interval of time. And once you express the will of the 8 Board on you want to go higher beyond staff's 9 recommendation, we would assess what that might mean.

10 If you just double it in fuel cells, it means 11 $ 500 million rather than $ 250 million worth of investment 12 at a million dollars a car. Because we're doing a cost 13 equivalent BEV substitution, it would be the same 14 investment in BEVs, and then always figure out exactly how 15 many vehicles that is of each type.

16 But you're doubling the investment dollars 17 essentially by going from 250 to 500. And you're 18 potentially making even more fuel cell vehicles than are 19 needed to demonstrate the technology.

20 On the plus side, you're potentially drawing BEVs 21 back into the market, but you might be asking 22 manufacturers to involved themselves in BEVs when you 23 don't wish to any longer, and that's why they're going to 24 the alternative compliance path instead of the base 25 regulation in order to stay with BEVs.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 133 1 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I 2 didn't get a second. And it doesn't seem to be that we're 3 actually doing this to get a sense of the Board to give to 4 staff. We're having a debate over it. I didn't get a 5 second so I don't have a motion, and maybe there's another 6 way.

7 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Let's go with the staff 8 proposal. I'm receptive to going with the staff proposal 9 to get this over with.

10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So what you're saying is 11 include the staff proposal and come back to us.

12 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: No, I'm saying the staff 13 proposal that they have before us today.

14 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: But the staff proposal 15 doesn't have numbers in the 2009 to 2014 years.

16 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: I guess for clarification 17 it would be helpful, Mr. Calhoun, to know whether

18 there's a column there labeled staff proposal and then the 19 10 times, which was the modified numbers.

20 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Modified staff.

21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman.

22 Mr. Calhoun, did you make a motion?

23 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes, I move it, Mr.

24 Chairman.

25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That would include  if PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 134 1 people wanted to put in some batteries, that would include 2 that?

3 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: But I'm confused on what 4 would be the numbers for 2009 through 2015?

5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Are you talking about the

6 I thought you were talking about the 10X proposal?

7 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes.

8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The second column.

9 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Oh, I'm sorry. I 10 misunderstood.

11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But with the same comment on 12 the bottom on BEVs.

13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's up to you,

14 but yes, that would be what staff would recommend that you 15 take that approach.

16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman.

17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes.

18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I actually favor where Mr.

19 McKinnon was headed, but I don't have enough confidence to 20 be so pushy as to say 500 is definitely where it's at.

21 I understand where you're coming on the fuel 22 cells. And I think we need a little more time to actually 23 look at, for example, where Mr. McKinnon just left off on 24 the range of you could do 3 fuel cells, the rest BEVs and 25 then, Ms. Witherspoon, you said it would depend on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 135 1 investment.

2 Well, then I thought well what about the 2001 3 proposal and where would we compare on what's being 4 expected of automakers with an investment.

5 So I think there are just so many questions that 6 are unanswered, I would be uncomfortable with going with 7 the 10 times proposal, because I'm just really concerned 8 of the unintended consequences.

9 I have been pushing for quite some time to get 10 BEVs into the mix. What if we get gamed with BEVs being 11 in the mix and you end up, or not you personally, but I 12 know you're pushing for fuel cells, you end up with a much 13 smaller number than 250. So I'm uncomfortable with 14 directing staff on the 10 times proposal.

15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Don't get me wrong, I'm not 16 pushing for full cells at the expense of that. I like the 17 zero emissions. I have heard some of the auto 18 manufacturers seeing what they see as a path to zero. But 19 also, as I indicated before, I also hate the testimony 20 from people who are losing their vehicles.

21 And that's where I felt that if we, you know

22 obviously, going forward I prefer the 10X with the 23 potential for batteries. But whether that should be 24 compulsory or whether it should be optional, those are the 25 sort of things I was thinking maybe staff could analyze.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 136 1 And analyze what the consequences would be for the very 2 reason that you're talking about how that would impact 3 different companies.

4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I was just expecting that 5 once we look at the numbers that there would be a way to 6 game the system if we start off with 250. So we're going 7 back and forth on 250 versus 500. I'm willing to

8 initially, I wanted to support Mr. McKinnon. I'm willing 9 to just kind of back off, wait a month. But I would not 10 be interested in getting locked in on 250 today either.

11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: And I think that's why we 12 need to have further analysis. I really do. I mean I 13 think our dilemma is  it reminds me of huge budgets and 14 you get down to very minute little programs. And you 15 argue over these funny minute programs and the whole of 16 the budget is so much bigger, and we're really arguing 250 17 cars, which, you know, we're all comfortable with the 18 bigger numbers on the years out.

19 And I think staff has got to be sensitive to us 20 that we just don't know where to be in that early period 21 of time of 2005 to 2008. And it ought to be real simple 22 to do a quick analysis for us that gives us, okay, what 23 are 250 and what are 500 going to mean to the industry, to 24 the public, to whomever the stakeholders are. And I think 25 that would help us tremendously. I just don't think we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 137 1 should be arguing over these small little numbers right 2 now.

3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And if you put the plug in 4 hybrids into gold, what does that mean, because I think I 5 heard Mr. Cackette say that has ramifications as well.

6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Right. And that along

7 I mean there are some other things that need to go along 8 with it. But we're basically really arguing over 250 9 vehicles. That it shouldn't take us too long with good 10 analysis to know where we should agree or disagree amongst 11 ourselves.

12 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Mr. Chairman, back to Mr.

13 McKinnon's proposal. If he says 500, and in that  if 14 you move some of these other vehicles into this, they 15 would apply for 500, right. So I don't know what makes 16 his proposal so outrageous, if you put a floor in there of 17 250 fuel cell cars.

18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dr. Burke, I don't know how 19 that's going to ripple through what's already out there.

20 What people have already got credits. How that impacts 21 those. And that's what I want to know. I want to know,

22 for example, does that have a disproportionate impact on 23 you, or Ms. Riordan or Joe or me.

24 I just don't know from that, because we don't 25 have it. And I don't want to see the people out there.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 138 1 What we do know is it's going to have a 2 beneficial impact on what people are breathing, because 3 we're not talking about differences  these are all 4 zeros.

5 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: But your basic proposal from 6 staff initially was only 250 fuel cell cars, so you get 7 that. Okay, take that.

8 The add on is either fuel cell or other cars that 9 you have in the gold standard. So you're not losing 10 anything. You're gaining something no matter what 11 happens.

12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Let me use an example. I 13 guess I don't want to use an example here. But let's just 14 use  you used Honda. They are on the fuel cell path.

15 They have decided that they didn't see a viable market for 16 battery electrics. And I suppose I know they're not 17 making a plug in hybrids. So I don't know about the other 18 option there. What would be their requirement there that 19 they would have to then buy credits from someone.

20 Does another company maybe have credits right 21 through 2008. And so it has no impact on that. That's 22 what I was indicating, Dr. Burke. I just don't know. And 23 these  also I have to understand why they in fact have 24 an impact on one company and maybe not on another.

25 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Well, I don't think we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 139 1 ought to lose site of the fact that we are mandating the 2 silver and the bronze in greater volume, and that's going 3 to give us a big bang for the buck. These are production 4 cars. They're available by some of the manufacturers.

5 And those who don't have them can make them or buy credits 6 or do something else. I really  but this is a mix, and 7 it is a complicated equation.

8 And I'm concerned about distorting, what was said 9 earlier, unintended consequences. That's my only concern.

10 I don't know what the effect would be. We've not had a 11 full opportunity to vet it.

12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The one thing 13 staff can say unequivocally is that if you increase the 14 target from 250 to any higher number, you are increasing 15 the burden on the manufacturers in the near term. We 16 chose 250 based on the stretch goals of the manufacturers 17 as they have been discussed and evaluated in the 18 California fuel cell partnership. And in our private 19 conversations with them, you are pushing them on fuel 20 cell, and we're quite confident that it is a stretch for 21 them. And to double it for a company like Honda that 22 wishes to do fuel cells and fuel cells only is to push 23 them way over the mark on what they think is the right 24 number of fuel cells for the interim period.

25 And so as the Chairman indicated, Honda would PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 140 1 have no choice either to make cars they don't think they 2 need for demo purposes or to propose BEV credits, which is 3 a new and greater obligation than they would have under 4 the proposal we brought to you, so that that is definitely 5 the effect of this debate is to make the alternative path 6 more stringent than staff proposed, recognizing as you 7 just did we balanced our stretch goal on fuel cells with 8 higher obligations on silver vehicles to make up that 9 difference. And then this would back out a little of the 10 silver but be a very high burden we think on the BEV and 11 fuel cell side.

12 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I wonder if we could 13 just ask the staff to see if there's any additional ways 14 we could incentivize battery electric production in these 15 interim years, as a device.

16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon.

17 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: You know, what would be 18 helpful to me is to be able to look at these numbers in 19 context of the number of cars sold by each of the 20 manufactures in the state of California.

21 Because I'd be interested in the difference 22 between 250 and 500, if it isn't more than something like 23 a dollar per car sold in California.

24 Anyway, when it comes back, I don't have a 25 motion.

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 141 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So am I getting a sense  we 2 don't have a motion now.

3 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Well, you do have a 4 motion but you don't have a second.

5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Do we have a motion here to 6 come back  have staff come back to us?

7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: And I'll second that and 8 allow for their analysis of the item before us.

9 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: So if I understand 10 it, we've got a motion and a second before us on the 11 resolution 03 4 with the

12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: No, this would not be a 13 motion on the resolution.

14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: This would be a motion just 15 to have staff to come back to us.

16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Okay.

17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman.

18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes.

19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I do have a question of 20 Ms. Walsh. In the interim period since we've closed the 21 record, would we be foreclosed from having further ex 22 parte communications with stakeholders, and also what 23 about staff during that interim period?

24 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: You would not be 25 foreclosed from having further contacts. You would need PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 142 1 to disclose those when we come back next month. That 2 would have to be made a part of the record, yes.

3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So we would just  so 4 building on that suggestion would be we'd hold on to our 5 ex parte list today, add on to that and then use that next 6 time before we have to come to a vote.

7 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yes.

8 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: You could do that.

9 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: So we don't have to 10 reveal these today?

11 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Under this proposal, you 12 can  yeah, you would be able to come back next month.

13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: It will be expected we'd hear 14 from all stakeholders again. So I'm comfortable with that 15 suggestion. Yes, we have the motion.

16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Can I hear it again.

17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yeah, it's to continue the 18 item that's before us with

19 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: To the next meeting.

20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. And ask for staff 21 analysis.

22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Close the record, ask for 23 additional staff analysis. They will report back to us 24 and then we will vote at the next board meeting.

25 All in favor say aye?

PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 143 1 ( Ayes.)

2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Anybody against?

3 Unanimous. And sorry but we have to come back 4 again.

5 Thank you all for very much. I know it's going 6 to be tough again, but at least I'm comfortable  much 7 more comfortable here. And, again, I think we've come 8 along way in this hearing.

9 Thank you.

10 ( Thereupon the California Air Resources Board 11 meeting adjourned at 12: 30 p. m.)

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 144 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered 4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify:

5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 6 foregoing California Air Resources Board meeting was 7 reported in shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a Certified 8 Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and 9 thereafter transcribed into typewriting.

10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said meeting.

13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 14th day of April, 2003.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR 23 Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 License No. 10063 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345


[Federal Register: February 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6644-6645]
[DOCID:fr10fe09-88]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Vaccines and Related Biological Products
Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on February 18, 2009, from
8:30 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m. and on February 19, 2009, from
8:30 a.m. to approximately 4 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC/Silver Spring, 8727 Colesville Rd.,
Silver Spring, MD 20910.
    Contact Person: Christine Walsh or Denise Royster, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-71), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-
0572 in the Washington, DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice
in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On February 18, 2009, in the morning, the committee will
discuss and make recommendations on the selection of strains to be
included in the influenza virus vaccine for the 2009--2010 influenza
season and in the afternoon will discuss the utility of adding a second
B strain to current seasonal influenza vaccines. On February 19, 2009,
the committee will discuss the conducting of clinical studies of
pandemic influenza vaccine in the pediatric population in the absence
of an influenza pandemic.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm, click on
the year 2009 and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
February 12, 2009. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1:15 p.m. and 1:45 p.m. on February 18, 2009, and
between approximately 1:30 p.m. and 2 p.m. on February 19, 2009. Those
desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify the contact
person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the
evidence or

arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before February 9, 2009. Time allotted
for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by February 10, 2009.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Christine Walsh or
Denise Royster at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/
default.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee
meetings.
    FDA regrets that it was unable to publish this notice 15 days prior
to the February 18 and 19, 2009, Vaccines and Related Biological
Products Advisory Committee meeting. Because the agency believes there
is some urgency to bring these issues to public discussion and
qualified members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products
Advisory Committee were available at this time, the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs concluded that it was in the public interest to hold
this meeting even if there was not sufficient time for the customary
15-day public notice.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: January 30, 2009.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-2726 Filed 2-5-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 102 (Wednesday, May 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31850-31851]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11338]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2020-0033]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on April 17, 2020, BNSF
Railway Company (BNSF) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 215, Railroad
Freight Car Safety Standards, and part 232, Brake System Safety
Standards For Freight And Other Non-Passenger Trains And Equipment;
End-Of-Train Devices. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2020-
0033.
    Specifically, BNSF requests relief from 49 CFR 215.13, Pre-
departure inspection, which requires an inspection when combining two
separate consists including one or more cars and one or more
locomotives that have been properly inspected and tested in compliance
with all applicable regulations, meaning that both consists have had a
Class I brake test (Sec.  232.205), Class IA brake test (Sec.
232.207), or have been designated as extended haul trains and are
compliant with all requirements of Sec.  232.213. BNSF states that the
requested relief will allow combining two existing and operating trains
without additional inspections, besides a Class III brake test. It
further states that the relief will allow subsequent separation of two
trains without additional inspections, besides a Class III brake test,
provided that a record of the original consist remains intact.
    In support of its petition, BNSF states that trains to be combined
will include both trains operating with head-end locomotives and trains
operating with locomotives equipped with LOCOTROL or Radio Controlled
Distributed Power Technology (DP), which was developed by GE
Transportation Systems. DP technology allows locomotives to be placed
strategically in a train and controlled remotely by a leading
locomotive at the head of the train. Once trains are combined, BNSF
will operate the combined train as a DP train (if it is longer than
10,000 feet) until the train is separated or reaches its destination.
The combined train will be allowed one pick-up and/or set-out with the
inclusion of the separating event, and the air slips for both trains
that were combined will be maintained from the point of combining
through the duration of the trip.
    BNSF explains that an additional inspection when combining trains
is redundant because each train to be combined has had a brake test and
inspection and a Sec.  215.13 pre-departure inspection. Further, BNSF
states that the combined train will continue to receive designated
inspection(s) as required or pre-designated prior to the combining
event and that no cars will exceed the

brake test mileage for which they were originally inspected.
    BNSF states that the requested relief will reduce exposure to
potential hazards faced by train crews or mechanical inspectors when
walking both sides of a pre-tested train being combined. It also
contends that the relief will encourage greater utilization of trains
under DP configuration across its network, which may improve engineers'
ability to control in train forces and improves overall braking
characteristics by having multiple locations within a train with cut-in
brake valves. This allows brake pipe reductions to occur simultaneously
at multiple points within a train promoting smoother brake applications
and keeping in train forces at a minimum. These benefits are also
gained with an emergency brake application which propagates more
rapidly when occurring simultaneously from multiple points within the
train.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by June 26, 2020 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-11338 Filed 5-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: February 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 6550-6551]
[DOCID:fr12fe07-63]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-81-031]

Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission; Notice of Filing

February 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on January 31, 2007, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas
Transmission (KMIGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1-A, Seventh Revised Sheet No. 4G.01
and Eighth Revised Sheet No. 4L, to be effective February 1, 2007.
    KMIGT states that the filing is being made to reflect an amendment
to a previously approved negotiated rate contract.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of

Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the
parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-2277 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 53477]
[DOCID:fr16se08-104]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee--Open Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
Open Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a
meeting of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
(COMSTAC). The meeting will take place on Thursday, October 30, 2008,
starting at 8 a.m. at the Federal Aviation Administration Headquarters
Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, in the Bessie
Coleman Conference Center, located on the 2nd Floor. This will be the
forty-eighth meeting of the COMSTAC.
    The proposed agenda for the meeting will include discussions of the
latest international commercial launch developments and their impact on
the U.S. industry and ways that the FAA can help the industry
internationally; a report on program activities of the FAA Office of
Commercial Space Transportation; and COMSTAC working group reports.
    An agenda will be posted on the FAA Web site at http://ast.faa.gov.
Meetings of the COMSTAC Working Groups (Technology and Innovation,
Reusable Launch Vehicle, Risk Management, and Space Transportation
Operations) will be held on Wednesday, October 29, 2008. For specific
information concerning the times and locations of the working group
meetings, contact the Contact Person listed below.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should
inform the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Brenda Parker (AST-100), Office of
Commercial Space Transportation, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Room
331, Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC, September 5, 2008.
George C. Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. E8-21521 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 57776-57778]
[DOCID:fr22se10-67]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9203-2]

Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Notice for the Public Review of
the Draft Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Draft TMDL and request for public
review and comment on the Draft TMDL.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Draft
Chesapeake Bay (Bay) TMDL for nutrients and sediment for public review
and comment and announces the information regarding public meetings on
the Draft TMDL being held within the watershed. EPA is establishing the
Draft TMDL for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediment for
each of the 92 segments in the tidal portion of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed pursuant to Sections 117(g) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). As such this Draft TMDL will contain at minimum 92 segment
specific point (wasteload) and non-point (load) allocations for
nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment that will assure the attainment and
maintenance of all applicable water quality standards for each of the
92 segments. The Bay TMDL is a key part of the clean water commitment
in the Federal Strategy developed as part of Executive Order 13508 on
Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration. EPA intends to work with
federal partners, the six watershed states, the District of Columbia,
local governments and other parties to put in place a comprehensive,
transparent and accountable set of commitments and actions that
together ensure that pollution controls needed to restore Bay water
quality are implemented by no later than 2025 (Executive Order, 13508).
    To provide information to the public regarding the process,
approach and implications of the Draft Bay TMDL, EPA will hold a series
of informal public meetings on the dates and locations identified
below. The goal of these meetings is to assist the public in their
understanding of the Draft Bay TMDL and provide an overview of the TMDL
process, especially the stakeholder review and comment process. EPA
will verbally respond to as many questions as time permits at these
public meetings. Formal comments that any stakeholder wishes to make
must be written and submitted as described below and will be entered
into the public record. By this notice, EPA is soliciting input from
the public on the Draft Bay TMDL. EPA will review all written comments
submitted during the public comment period and will consider them, as
appropriate, in establishing the Final TMDL. Persons wishing to comment
on the information contained in the TMDL are invited to do so in
writing from September 24, 2010 to November 8, 2010. All comments must
be postmarked no later than November 8, 2010. All comments must be
written, include the name, address and telephone number of the
commenter, and should be as concise and as specific as possible in
order for EPA to develop a meaningful response. Electronic submission
of comments as described below is encouraged. Additional information on
the Draft Bay TMDL and on the public meetings can be found at http://
www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl.

DATES: Comments on the Draft TMDL must be submitted in writing to EPA
on or before November 8, 2010.
    Viewing: The Draft TMDL can be viewed at http://www.epa.gov/
chesapeakebaytmdl, EPA's Docket Center (instructions below), in person
at EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 with proper
arrangements made in advance with the Region 3 library<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office at
410 Severn Avenue Suite 112, Annapolis, MD 21403 (Contact Debbie
Embleton<PHONE_NUMBER> or Embleton.debbie@epa.gov).

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OW-2010-0736, by one of the following methods:
    (1) http://www.regulations.gov: After entering the docket for this
action, click on the Draft Bay TMDL to make a comment. Click the
``Submit a Comment'' button at the top right of the Web page, then
follow the online instructions.
    (2) Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    (3) Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room, EPA
Headquarters West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information by
contacting the Docket Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OW-
2010-0736. This Notice is not open for public

comment, but, beginning September 24, 2010 the Draft Bay TMDL is
available for comment on http://www.regulations.gov. Additional
information about the docket is contained below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the Draft Bay TMDL,
please contact Jennifer Sincock, USEPA, Region 3, Water Protection
Division (3WP30), 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail: R3_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Public Meeting Dates and Locations

     Wednesday, September 29, 2010: DC Watershed meeting and
webinar from 1 to 3 p.m. at the Washington National Zoo Visitor Center
Auditorium, 3001 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
     Monday, October 4, 2010: VA Watershed meeting from 6 to 8
p.m. at the Grafton Theatre, James Madison University, 281 Warren
Service Drive, Harrisonburg, VA.
     Tuesday, October 5, 2010: VA Watershed meeting from 6 to 8
p.m. at Northern Virginia Community College, Annandale Campus, Ernst
Community Cultural Center, 8333 Little River Turnpike, Annandale VA.
     Wednesday, October 6, 2010: VA Watershed meeting from 6 to
8 p.m. at the Robins Pavilion Jepson Alumni Center, University of
Richmond, 28 Westhampton Way, Richmond, VA.
     Thursday, October 7, 2010: VA Watershed webinar from 1 to
3 p.m.
     Thursday, October 7, 2010: VA Watershed meeting from 6 to
8 p.m. at the Crowne Plaza Hampton Marina Hotel, 700 Settlers Landing
Road, Hampton, VA.
     Monday, October 11, 2010: DE Watershed meeting and webinar
from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Delaware Tech Owens Campus, Arts and Science
Center Theatre, Route 18, Georgetown, DE.
     Tuesday, October 12, 2010: MD Watershed meeting from 2 to
4 p.m. at The Easton Club 28449 Clubhouse Drive, Easton, MD.
     Wednesday, October 13, 2010: MD Watershed meeting from 2
to 4 p.m. at the Sheraton Annapolis, 173 Jennifer Road, Annapolis, MD.
     Thursday, October 14, 2010: MD Watershed meeting and
webinar from 2 to 4 p.m. Hagerstown Hotel and Convention Center, 1901
Dual Highway, Hagerstown, MD.
     Monday, October 18, 2010: PA Watershed meeting from 2 to 4
p.m. at the Best Western Eden Resort, 222 Eden Road, Lancaster, PA.
     Tuesday. October 19, 2010: PA Watershed meeting from 2 to
4 p.m. at the Knights of Columbus, 850 Stratford Drive, State College,
PA.
     Wednesday, October 20, 2010: PA Watershed meeting and
webinar from 2 to 4 p.m. at Lycoming College, The Academic Center
Wendle Hall, 700 College Place, Williamsport, PA.
     Thursday, October 21, 2010: PA Watershed meeting from 2 to
4 p.m. at Bentley's, 2300 Route 309, Ashley, PA.
     Tuesday, October 26, 2010: NY Watershed meeting from 6 to
8 p.m. at the Riverview Holiday Inn, 760 East Water Street, Elmira, NY.
     Wednesday, October 27, 2010: NY Watershed meeting and
webinar from 2 to 4 p.m. at the Binghamton Regency Hotel, 225 Water
Street, Binghamton, NY.
     Wednesday, November 3, 2010: WV Watershed meeting from 6
to 8 p.m. at the Comfort Inn, 1872 Edwin Miller Blvd, Martinsburg, WV.
     Thursday, November 4, 2010: WV Watershed meeting and
webinar from 6 to 8 p.m. at the South Branch Inn, Route 50 East,
Romney, WV.
     Please check the Web site http://www.epa.gov/
chesapeakebaytmdl to confirm the meeting or webinar date and time.
Alternately, you may also contact Jennifer Sincock by telephone at
(215) 814-5766 or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     To register for the webinars, please go to the following
link and follow the webinar registration instructions, http://
www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl. Webinars are open to all interested
stakeholders not just residents within the jurisdiction that the
webinar is held. Registration is only required to attend the meetings
via webinar. Attending the public meetings in person does not require
registration.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that each
state identify those waters within its boundaries for which existing
technology-based and other pollution controls required by the CWA are
not stringent enough to attain or maintain state water quality
standards. A TMDL must be established for each of those ``impaired''
waters. TMDLs are pollution budgets designed to identify necessary
reductions of pollutant loads to the impaired waters so that the
appropriate water quality standards are met, including designated uses
like fishing or swimming and water quality criteria for parameters such
as dissolved oxygen and water clarity.
    Why is a TMDL being developed for the Chesapeake Bay? The
Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure constituting the largest estuary
in the United States and one of the largest and most biologically
productive estuaries in the world. Despite significant efforts by
federal, state, and local governments and other interested parties,
water pollution in the Chesapeake Bay prevents the attainment of
existing state water quality standards. The pollutants that are largely
responsible for impairment of the Chesapeake Bay are nutrients, in the
form of nitrogen and phosphorus, and sediment. EPA, in coordination
with the Bay watershed jurisdictions of Delaware, the District of
Columbia, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West
Virginia, is establishing a nutrient and sediment pollution budget for
the Bay consistent with CWA requirements to guide and assist Chesapeake
Bay restoration efforts.
    When will the Bay TMDL be completed? The TMDL schedule calls for
the completion of the Bay TMDL by December 31, 2010. EPA intends to
collect public comments on the Draft TMDL between September 24 and
November 8, 2010. EPA will establish the Final TMDL by December 31,
2010.
    Who is developing the Bay TMDL? EPA Region III Water Protection
Division has assumed primary responsibility for the establishment of
the Bay TMDL, at the request of the Bay jurisdictions. The Chesapeake
Bay Program Office in EPA Region III has modeling and water quality
expertise that is critical to the TMDL development process. EPA Region
II also is providing guidance and technical support to Region III and
will cosign the final TMDL as New York State is included in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, and sources in New York State (like the other
jurisdictions) contribute nutrients and sediment to the Bay. EPA used
the Chesapeake Bay Program committee structure to engage the watershed
jurisdictions in the development of the TMDL, including the Chesapeake
Bay Water Quality Goal Implementation Team (formerly the Water Quality
Steering Committee and Nutrient Subcommittee), which is composed of the
seven Bay watershed jurisdictions, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin, and EPA Regions II and III. Major policy input has
been provided by the Chesapeake Bay Program Principals' Staff Committee
(Secretaries from each Bay jurisdiction, the Chesapeake Bay Commission
Executive Director, and the EPA Region III Regional Administrator) and
Executive Council (Bay watershed State Governors, Mayor of District of

Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission Chair, and the EPA
Administrator).
    What is the scope of the Bay TMDL? The Bay TMDL addresses all
segments of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. The Bay TMDL
consists of 92 TMDLs, addressing nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment, for
each of the 92 segments in the Bay and tidal tributaries. EPA intends
that the Bay TMDL will be established at a level necessary to ensure
attainment of water quality standards in each of these segments. In
addition, the Bay TMDL assigns individual and (as appropriate)
aggregate maximum daily allowable point source and nonpoint source
loadings, called wasteload allocations (WLAs) and load allocations
(LAs), respectively, across all jurisdictions within the Bay watershed.
When completed, the Bay TMDL will be the largest, most complex TMDL in
the country, covering a 64,000 square mile area in six states and the
District of Columbia.
    How will the TMDL promote nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment
reductions? Under the CWA, the TMDL will establish the watershed
pollution budget for nutrients and sediment necessary to meet water
quality standards in the Bay. Other provisions of the CWA, as well as
the jurisdictions' Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs), are intended
to implement the TMDL. During TMDL development, EPA worked with its
partners, the Bay jurisdictions, to assist them in developing
individual jurisdiction-specific WIPs, which collectively serve as part
of the overall TMDL implementation framework. Those WIPs are not part
of the Bay TMDL itself but are part of the TMDL record and help provide
reasonable assurance that the necessary nutrient and sediment
reductions identified in the TMDL will be achieved. The WIPs identify
specific nutrient and sediment reduction targets by geographic location
and sector to achieve allowable loadings, as well as a description and
schedule of actions that the jurisdictions will take to achieve these
reductions.
    In accordance with EO 13508, EPA and the jurisdictions also will
provide the next set of two-year milestone commitments specifying what
source controls will be taken to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediment during that period. EPA has invited each jurisdiction to
present information on its WIP at the meeting(s) and/or webinar(s)
within its jurisdiction. At these meetings EPA will be available to
answer questions on the TMDL and how the WIPs will inform the TMDL. Any
questions or comments regarding the substance of the individual WIPs,
or the WIPs themselves should be addressed to the individual
jurisdiction. Links to the WIPs are available at http://www.epa.gov/
chesapeakebaytmdl.
    For information on the jurisdictions' Draft WIPs and procedures for
submitting comments, please contact the jurisdiction representatives
below.

Jurisdiction WIP Contacts

    Delaware: Jennifer Volk (Jennifer.Volk@state.de.us).
    District of Columbia: Monir Chowdhury (monir.chowdhury@dc.gov).
    Maryland: TMDL Coordinator (tmdlcoordinator@mde.state.md.us).
    New York: Peter Freehafer (pbfreeha@gw.dec.state.ny.us).
    Pennsylvania: Patricia Buckley (ep-
chesapeakebayprogram@state.pa.us).
    Virginia: VA Bay TMDL (vabaytmdl@dcr.virginia.gov).
    West Virginia: Jennifer Pauer (Jennifer.pauer@wv.gov).
    Paperwork Reduction Act: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has previously approved the information collection requirements for
developing TMDLs pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2040-0071. The OMB control numbers for
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments? Docket: EPA has
established a public docket for this Notice under Docket ID No. EPA-
R03-OW-2010-0736. The Draft Bay TMDL is available in the docket at
http://www.regulations.gov. Assistance and tips for accessing the
docket can be found at http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl.
    Comments via e-mail are not being accepted. Instead, comments will
be accepted through http://www.regulations.gov and by mail. All
comments received, including any personal information provided, will be
included in the public docket without change and will be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information, the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do
not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through http://www.regulations.gov. It is recommended that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If your comment cannot
be read due to technical difficulties and we are unable to contact you
for clarification, we will not consider your comment. Electronic files
should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and
be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Publicly available docket materials
are available electronically either at http://www.regulations.gov as
well as at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for this
docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Certain
material, such as copyrighted materials, will be publicly available
only in hard copy at the Docket Center.

    Dated: September 15, 2010.
Jon M. Capacasa,
Water Protection Division, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2010-23678 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P