15  course about light- and heavy-duty emission levels and

16  impacts on public health.  And we have believed for some

17  time that light-duty diesel vehicles should comply with

18  the same CARB tailpipe standards and OBD requirements that

19  are applied to gasoline vehicles.  So we were concerned

20  when we saw the proposal come out about any changes that

21  might place weaker standards, and concerned that there

22  might be some backsliding on emissions -- vehicle

23  emissions.

24           And of course, you know, our concern comes from a

25  public health perspective, that we don't want to see any

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            251

 1  backsliding that would impact the public health impacts of

 2  air pollution, the lung illnesses and deaths that we

 3  already have from our extremely high smog levels.

 4           We are very appreciative of staff work on this

 5  proposal and very appreciative of the new provision that

 6  would require manufacturers to remedy any increased

 7  emissions from light-duty diesel vehicles that are

 8  demonstrating through the in-use testing.  And that is an

 9  important component of this proposal which does help to

10  ensure that we're going to capture and mitigate any excess

11  light-duty diesel emissions or any excess emissions that

12  are demonstrated through the in-use testing on those

13  vehicles.

14           And while of course the in-use testing -- well,

15  we still think that in-use testing requirements could be

16  strengthened further.  As has been stated by Mr. Anair and

17  Mr. Tonachel, we do agree that -- we do agree with them

18  that we should put in an additional testing point and that

19  a testing point should be at the 60 to 70,000 mile

20  interval.  So we do think there should be at least those

21  three testing points to do sufficient testing to look for

22  those design defects and systematic failures.

23           And has been stated, we absolutely have to have a

24  Smog Check program for these light-duty diesel vehicles.

25  I mean we can look for those design defects and systematic

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            252

 1  failures, but we need to be able to have a system to look

 2  at individual vehicles and find those individual vehicles

 3  in need of repair.

 4           And I just wanted to comment that I appreciate

 5  you have this in the resolution.  This is going to be I

 6  think a sustained campaign to get these vehicles into a

 7  Smog Check program.  I appreciate that you're poised to

 8  send a letter.  But we need to kind of gear up for a

 9  sustained program -- sustained campaign to work with the

10  administration, to work with BAR, to work with public

11  health and environmental groups to really make this

12  happen.  And we think you should set a goal to make this

13  happen within the next two to three years at the most,

14  because we need to get this going.

15           So those are our basic comments.  We appreciate

16  the staff work.  We absolutely have to make sure that

17  we're not backsliding in any way on our air quality

18  commitments as we look at the prospect of introducing

19  light-duty diesel vehicles into California.

20           Thanks for time to comment.

21           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you.

22           Does staff have a comment on the proposal to add

23  a 60,000 mile test for in-use?

24           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  Yeah,

25  we don't really think that it's necessary.  There is

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            253

 1  another program that's run out of the sort of

 2  certification effort.  It's a uniform program with EPA and

 3  ourselves, where there's some limited testing done at

 4  various mileage points.  And there happens to be a 50,000

 5  mile limited test requirement on the engine -- on the

 6  vehicle manufacturers.  I think it's four to five cars

 7  instead of ten.  And so we think, you know, you put that

 8  one in between the two groups of ten cars tested at 30 and

 9  90,000, that that gives you another check, at least a

10  crude check that there's not something really bad going

11  on.  We think that's probably sufficient.

12           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  I will now close the record

13  on this agenda item.  However, the record will be opened

14  when the 15-day notice of public availability is issued.

15           Written or oral comments received after this

16  hearing date but before the 15-day notice is issued will

17  not be accepted as part of the official record on this

18  agenda item.  When the record is reopened for a 15-day

19  comment period, the public may submit written comments on

20  the proposed changes which will be considered and

21  responded to in the final statement of reasons for the

22  regulation.

23           I will now take our ex parte statements -- no?

24           No.

25           If we've had a chance to review the resolution,

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            254

 1  do I have a motion to accept?

 2           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:  So moved.

 3           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  And a second?

 4           BOARD MEMBER BERG:  Second.

 5           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Is there any further

 6  discussion at this time?

 7           BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:  I wondered if the Chair

 8  would make any comments on it?

 9           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Well, as you know, I've been

10  a supporter in moving ahead to open up light-duty diesels

11  in California.  That's because I'm convinced that they can

12  be as clean as gasoline engines and must be as clean as

13  gasoline engines.  The technology is there.

14           The OBD development does indeed lag a bit.  But I

15  think the staff has come up with a plan to bring it about

16  over the next several years.  And I'm confident that the

17  industry will be successful in providing fully compliant

18  vehicles over this period of time.  And if not, the

19  consequences are pretty clear.  Then they will not be

20  selling diesels in California.

21           All those in favor signify by saying aye.

22           (Ayes.)

23           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Opposed?

24           Motion is adopted.

25           The next item on the agenda is 6-8-5, a proposal

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            255

 1  to adopt California's Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance

 2  Regulation.

 3           (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

 4           Presented as follows.)

 5           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Health and Safety Code

 6  Section 43104 directs the Air Resources Board to adopt

 7  test procedures to ensure compliance with emission

 8  standards for engines used in new heavy-duty motor

 9  vehicles.

10           Existing procedures require these engines to be

11  removed from the vehicle and then installed on an engine

12  dynamometer.  This is a very time consuming and costly

13  procedure, making in-use compliance testing of heavy-duty

14  engines impractical.

15           Since 2001, Air Resources Board staff has worked

16  collaboratively with the U.S. EPA and the engine

17  manufacturers to develop a practical in-use testing and

18  compliance program based upon performing what is referred

19  to as a "not to exceed" test procedure using portable

20  emission measurement systems.

21           In May 2003, the general structure of such a

22  program was developed and agreed upon by all parties.

23  Based on this collaborative work, in June 2005 the U.S.

24  EPA adopted a manufacturer-run in-use compliance program

25  that all heavy-duty engine manufacturers must comply with

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            256

 1  federally.

 2           Staff's proposal would establish California

 3  requirements that are consistent with the federal

 4  requirements.  The proposed compliance program would start

 5  in 2007 for gaseous emissions and 2008 for particulate

 6  matter emissions.

 7           Ms. Witherspoon, would you introduce this item.

 8           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:  Thank you, Dr.

 9  Sawyer.  I think you did a great job introducing it

10  yourself, so I'm going to go straight to the staff

11  presentation, which will be given by Dipak Bishnu of the

12  Mobile Source Control Division.

13           (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

14           Presented as follows.)

15           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  Thank you, Ms.

16  Witherspoon.

17           Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and members of the

18  Board.

19           Today's presentation will summarize staff's

20  proposal for California's heavy-duty diesel in-use

21  compliance regulation.

22                            --o0o--

23           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  Today's

24  presentation will first provide background information on

25  heavy-duty diesel engines and the emission requirements

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            257

 1  for those engines.  This will be followed by a discussion

 2  on staff's proposed in-use compliance regulation, the

 3  impact this regulation will have on the manufacturers of

 4  diesel engines, the benefits associated with the proposed

 5  regulation, and the remaining issues.  I'll conclude with

 6  a summary and staff recommendation.

 7                            --o0o--

 8           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  Heavy-duty diesel

 9  engines play an important economic role, both in

10  California and nationally.  They play a vital role in the

11  transportation of goods and material throughout the United

12  States.  It is well known, especially in heavy-duty truck

13  applications, that diesel engines perform better, are more

14  fuel efficient, and are more durable than their gasoline

15  counterparts.  Unfortunately, diesel engines are also

16  significant contributors of NOx and toxic particulate

17  matter emissions.  In 2010, on-road heavy-duty diesel

18  engines will contribute 30 percent of statewide mobile

19  source NOx emissions and 20 percent of statewide diesel PM

20  emissions.

21           In order to reduce heavy-duty diesel emissions,

22  stringent new emission standards were adopted in

23  California and nationally for 2007 and newer engines.

24  Specifically, compared to the existing 2004 emission

25  standards, PM and NOx will be reduced by 90 percent in

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            258

 1  2007 and 2010, respectively.

 2           In order to meet these lower emission standards,

 3  it will require improvements in engine design and the use

 4  of exhaust after-treatment system for both NOx and PM

 5  emissions control.

 6                            --o0o--

 7           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  Since exhaust

 8  after-treatment technologies will be needed to meet the

 9  2007 emission standards, it is important to make sure that

10  both the engine and the after-treatment systems are

11  working properly to achieve the emission reduction goals.

12  The development of an effective heavy-duty diesel in-use

13  compliance program is vital to ensure that the emission

14  standards are met in use for the useful life of the

15  engine, as well as provide the incentive for the

16  manufacturers to properly design their engines and

17  emission control systems.

18                            --o0o--

19           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  The importance of

20  an effective in-use compliance program is demonstrated by

21  ARB's past experience with our in-use compliance program

22  for light-duty vehicles, which began in the early 1980s.

23           As you can see, the early years of the compliance

24  program uncovered high engine family failure or defect

25  rates.  After about ten years of routine compliance

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            259

 1  testing, the failure rate decreased to less than 10

 2  percent of the total engine families tested.  In fact, in

 3  the last three years none of the engine families tested

 4  has failed in-use compliance testing.

 5           In 2001, vehicle manufacturers began to routinely

 6  test some of their in-use vehicles under a federal and

 7  California adopted program called the In-Use Verification

 8  Program as part of the CAP 2000 program.  The testing is

 9  in addition to in-use testing that ARB or U.S. EPA would

10  conduct.  The CAP 2000 in-use compliance program for

11  light-duty vehicles is similar in concept to staff's

12  proposal before you today.

13                            --o0o--

14           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  The Health and

15  Safety Code directs ARB to adopt test procedures to ensure

16  compliance with emission standards for new motor vehicles

17  and engines.  The test procedures developed were intended

18  to determine compliance of all motor vehicles and engines.

19  But in reality, they are more applicable for testing cars

20  and light-duty trucks.  According to these procedures,

21  compliance determination requires a minimum of ten

22  vehicles or engines to be tested in the same configuration

23  as they were certified.

24                            --o0o--

25           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  The compliance

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            260

 1  testing procedures are problematic for testing heavy-duty

 2  diesel engines because heavy-duty diesel engines are

 3  certified on an engine dynamometer.  Currently, to conduct

 4  in-use compliance testing of heavy-duty diesel engines,

 5  ten trucks would need to be removed from the revenue

 6  service, the engines would be removed from the trucks and

 7  installed on an engine dynamometer, and then each engine

 8  would be tested.  The engines would then be reinstalled in

 9  the trucks and given back to the owner.

10           This is a very time consuming and costly

11  procedure.  Current estimates indicate that the cost to

12  conduct such testing for one engine family is $250,000.

13           Therefore, a more practical and efficient way of

14  testing heavy-duty diesel vehicles is needed.  This is now

15  possible with the adoption of the "not to exceed" or NTE

16  requirements and the development of portable emission

17  measurement systems, or PEMS, which I will discuss in more

18  detail in the next few slides.

19                            --o0o--

20           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  In the 1990s

21  seven of the largest engine manufacturers were alleged to

22  have violated state and federal emission laws by disabling

23  emission control devices on heavy-duty diesel engines

24  during in-use, on-highway driving, resulting in high NOx

25  emissions when operating outside of the standard emission

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            261

 1  test cycle called the Federal Test Procedure or FTP.

 2           To ensure that exhaust emissions were controlled

 3  under virtually all driving conditions, settlement

 4  agreements were made with most of the settling

 5  manufacturers establishing "not to exceed" limits.  The

 6  NTE requirements have been in effect beginning with the

 7  1998 model year.

 8           The NTE requirements are not based on a

 9  prescribed test cycle, but rather on a region of engine

10  operation.  In general, NTE compliance is based on meeting

11  emission limits over several 30-second-or-more periods of

12  operation in the NTE area.

13           NTE requirements allow for a broad range of test

14  conditions allowing for testing under real-world

15  conditions.  This concept is explained further in the next

16  few slides.

17                            --o0o--

18           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  Shown on this

19  slide is a typical range of engine operation that is

20  covered by the NTE requirements.  The NTE requirements

21  were designed to help ensure that heavy-duty diesel engine

22  emissions are properly controlled over a wide range of

23  speed and load combinations and typical environmental

24  conditions commonly experienced during everyday use of the

25  vehicle.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            262

 1           NTE establishes an area under the engine's torque

 2  versus speed curve where emissions must not exceed a

 3  specified value for any of the regulated pollutants.  It

 4  also broadens the applicable ambient conditions in which

 5  the emission limits must be met including a temperature

 6  range of 55 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit and an altitude range

 7  up to 5500 feet above sea level.

 8           As previously mentioned, the test itself does not

 9  involve a prescribed driving cycle of any given distance

10  or time.  Rather it involves any drive cycle that could

11  occur within the bounds of the NTE control area.

12                            --o0o--

13           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  Shown on this

14  slide is the entire engine operating area of a typical

15  heavy-duty diesel engine, with the NTE area shaded gray.

16  For comparison, we plotted in red engine operation that is

17  typically observed under the existing federal test

18  procedure or FTP.

19           As shown, the FTP covers a large portion of

20  engine operation.  The FTP test cycle currently used for

21  heavy-duty diesel engine certification was developed with

22  real world test data collected on heavy-duty trucks and

23  buses, representing real world driving conditions in an

24  urban environment simulating stop-and-go traffic, idling,

25  and limited freeway driving.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            263

 1           But it does not cover much of the mid speed, high

 2  load operation experienced by most heavy-duty trucks

 3  during normal highway driving, as shown within the green

 4  circle of the slide.  Operation of heavy-duty diesel

 5  trucks in this region can be tracked very well with NTE

 6  testing.  Thus, with both FTP and NTE testing protocols,

 7  virtually all operations of heavy-duty diesel engines will

 8  be covered at low, mid and high speed and loads.

 9           The NTE procedure allows testing on an Engine

10  dynamometer, a chassis dynamometer, or with on-board PEMS

11  during over-the-road operation.  A more detailed

12  description of PEMS is provided in the following slides.

13                            --o0o--

14           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  The emission

15  standards for heavy-duty diesel engines are expressed as

16  mass of pollutant per unit amount of work per unit time.

17  Therefore, at a minimum, the PEMS must be capable of

18  measuring exhaust concentrations of oxides of nitrogen,

19  Carbon monoxide, non-methane hydrocarbon and particulate

20  matter, exhaust flow rate, engine work output, and ambient

21  conditions such as temperature, humidity and altitude.

22           The PEMS is a self-contained unit, about 70 to

23  100 pounds in weight, measures exhaust flow and other

24  information such as vehicle location and altitude from a

25  global positioning system, and atmospheric temperature and

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            264

 1  pressure.  Engine information from the vehicle's on-board

 2  computer, such as engine operating conditions and work

 3  output, is provided to the PEMS computer, along with

 4  emissions data, to calculate the NTE emission results on a

 5  second-by-second basis.  Shown in this slide, in the upper

 6  right, is a typical installation of a PEMS unit.

 7                            --o0o--

 8           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  The proposed

 9  program would require engine manufacturers to use PEMS to

10  conduct in-use testing of heavy-duty diesel vehicles over

11  the road.  The use of PEMS for over-the-road realtime

12  emission measurement has been under development for the

13  past decade.  Testing conducted in the past few years has

14  shown that PEMS technologies have performed well and

15  accurately in measuring gaseous emissions from heavy-duty

16  diesel vehicles under different driving conditions.  PEMS

17  emission analyzers used for measuring gaseous pollutants

18  use the same technologies used in larger laboratory

19  instruments for the same measurements.

20           One of the advantages of using PEMS is that the

21  system can be mounted and taken down off a truck very

22  easily without interrupting vehicle operation.  Once a

23  PEMS is mounted on a vehicle properly, it can collect and

24  analyze data for many hours on its own without requiring

25  any human intervention.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            265

 1           The most important advantage of PEMS is the

 2  ability to perform in-use compliance testing without the

 3  need to remove the engine from the vehicle.

 4                            --o0o--

 5           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  The proposed

 6  program is a cooperative effort between ARB, U.S. EPA, and

 7  the engine manufacturers that began in 2001.  The program

 8  is similar to the previously mentioned light-duty CAP 2000

 9  program in that the manufacturers will be performing

10  routine testing of their engine families annually.  In

11  June 2005, the U.S. EPA adopted its heavy-duty in-use

12  testing program.  Staff's proposed program is essentially

13  identical to the U.S. EPA's program.

14                            --o0o--

15           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  The proposed

16  regulation would require manufacturers to implement an

17  in-use compliance program for heavy-duty diesel engines

18  based on an agreement among ARB, U.S. EPA, and the engine

19  manufacturers in May 2003.  In the proposed program, the

20  engine manufacturers would be responsible for procuring

21  and testing heavy-duty diesel vehicles for compliance

22  determination.  As mentioned, portable emission

23  measurement systems would be utilized to conduct the

24  over-the-road testing to assess NTE compliance of 2007 and

25  newer heavy-duty diesel engines in use.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            266

 1                            --o0o--

 2           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  The proposed

 3  program is unique in that it would be the first of its

 4  kind to require compliance with emission requirements

 5  outside of a test laboratory environment.  Because it is

 6  unique, the ARB, U.S. EPA, and the engine manufacturers

 7  have launched a non-enforceable pilot program in calendar

 8  years 2005 and 2006 to gain experience with in-use testing

 9  utilizing PEMS.  The pilot program will measure gaseous

10  emissions, namely, non-methane hydrocarbon, carbon

11  monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen, and will prepare the

12  manufacturers as well as U.S. EPA and ARB for the fully

13  enforceable program starting in 2007.  Similarly, a pilot

14  program for PM emissions will take place in 2006 and 2007,

15  preceding a fully enforceable program for PM starting in

16  2008.

17           The success of the proposed program depends on

18  ensuring that the PEMS can correctly measure the exhaust

19  emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles in the field

20  rather than in a controlled laboratory environment.

21  Because of this, ARB, U.S. EPA, and the engine

22  manufacturers have agreed to determine a measurement

23  accuracy margin for each pollutant to account for any

24  potential difference in measurement accuracy.  The

25  accuracy margins are currently being determined by an

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            267

 1  independent contractor, Southwest Research Institute.

 2           In addition, the proposed program helps fulfill

 3  one of the measures in the 2003 State Implementation Plan.

 4                            --o0o--

 5           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  Each year, ARB

 6  and U.S. EPA would designate for testing up to 25 percent

 7  of a manufacturer's total number of heavy-duty diesel

 8  engine families.  Testing would be conducted under

 9  real-world driving conditions within the engine's useful

10  life.

11           Emissions that would be measured for NTE

12  compliance are oxides of nitrogen, non-methane

13  hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter.

14  Measuring carbon dioxide and oxygen would also be required

15  as a means of verifying fuel consumption and work output

16  of the engine.

17           These data will be compared to the NTE threshold

18  limit for each pollutant.

19           The proposed compliance program would be

20  conducted in two phases.

21                            --o0o--

22           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  The first phase

23  of testing, Phase 1, is intended to screen a designated

24  engine family for conformity with the applicable NTE

25  emission limits.  The vehicle will be tested in its normal

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            268

 1  daily operation on its scheduled route with the regular

 2  driver operating the vehicle.

 3           Under Phase 1, the manufacturer would test a

 4  minimum of five and a maximum of ten vehicles per engine

 5  family during normal over-the-road vehicle operation.

 6  Test results of the vehicles will be evaluated against

 7  vehicle pass criteria.  If a specified number of vehicles

 8  failed the vehicle pass criteria, the manufacturers may be

 9  asked to initiate Phase 2 testing.

10                            --o0o--

11           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  The primary

12  purpose of Phase 2 testing is to gain further information

13  regarding the extent to which, and under what conditions,

14  the vehicles from the designated engine family failed to

15  pass the vehicle pass criteria during Phase 1 testing.

16  ARB could specify certain driving routes or other driving

17  conditions, namely, temperatures, altitude, geographic

18  location, or time of the year, if it is suspected that

19  these conditions are associated with non-compliance.

20           If the manufacturer is required to conduct Phase

21  2 testing, ten additional vehicles would be selected from

22  that engine family.  ARB could require a subclass of

23  engines within the engine family, if the data generated

24  under Phase 1 or other test data indicate possible

25  non-compliance with the emission standards from that

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            269

 1  subclass of engines.

 2           Data from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be used

 3  to determine engine family compliance, and possible

 4  remedial action, along with other test data or information

 5  provided by the manufacturer or obtained by ARB or U.S.

 6  EPA testing.

 7                            --o0o--

 8           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  The proposed

 9  regulation would affect about 13 medium- and heavy-duty

10  engine manufacturers who certify their engines for sale in

11  California.  None of the engine manufacturers is located

12  in California and none is considered to be a small

13  business.  The total cost to conduct the proposed program

14  nationwide is estimated to range from 1.6 to $2.1 million

15  per year for the 13 manufacturers combined.  These costs

16  consist of fixed and variable cost components and may vary

17  from manufacturer to manufacturer.  The actual cost to a

18  specific manufacturer will vary depending on how many

19  engine families are certified each year, how many vehicles

20  are tested in Phase 1 for a given engine family, and

21  whether Phase 2 testing occurs for a given engine family.

22           The proposed regulation poses no additional costs

23  to engine manufacturers since the manufacturers are

24  already subjected to an identical rule adopted by U.S. EPA

25  in June, 2005.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            270

 1                            --o0o--

 2           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  By enforcing

 3  emission requirements adopted for 2007 and newer

 4  heavy-duty diesel engines, the proposed regulation would

 5  ensure that the original emission benefits claimed through

 6  the adoption of the lower emission standards are obtained.

 7  The proposed regulation would ensure that violations of

 8  the emission requirements within the regulatory useful

 9  life of the engine would be detected and fixed.  The

10  proposed program would potentially cover all engine models

11  within a four year period.

12                            --o0o--

13           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  The proposed

14  program would encourage manufacturers to design more

15  robust and durable engines and emission control systems in

16  order to avoid failing in-use compliance testing and

17  conducting potentially costly recalls or extending

18  emission parts warranties.  The large amount of in-use

19  test data that would be generated by the proposed program

20  may help the manufacturers to develop better deterioration

21  factors for their engines in the future.

22           Also, ARB will likely use these data in the

23  future to develop better emission factors that can be used

24  for both emissions inventory development and air quality

25  modeling work.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            271

 1                            --o0o--

 2           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  There are

 3  fundamental differences when the exhaust emission

 4  measurements are made with stationary analyzers in a

 5  controlled laboratory environment compared to emission

 6  measurements done with the portable emission analyzers in

 7  an uncontrolled open environment, subjected to variable

 8  temperatures and humidity, road vibration and other

 9  conditions.

10           To account for these factors, as previously

11  mentioned, in May 2005, ARB, U.S. EPA, and the engine

12  manufacturers agreed to jointly fund and develop a

13  research, development, and demonstration project to

14  determine emission measurement accuracy margin for gaseous

15  and PM emissions.  Currently the development of the

16  gaseous emission measurement accuracy margin determination

17  is underway.  The final report is expected to be completed

18  by January 2007.  The gaseous enforcement program is

19  expected to begin in December of 2007.  The development of

20  the particulate matter measurement accuracy margin is

21  expected to start in late 2006, with a final report

22  expected to be completed by early 2008.  The particulate

23  matter enforcement program is expected to begin in

24  December 2008.

25                            --o0o--

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            272

 1           AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU:  In summary,

 2  staff's proposed compliance program would require the use

 3  of commercially available PEMS, significantly reducing

 4  testing time and cost of testing heavy-duty diesel

 5  engines.

 6           The proposed requirements would result in a cost

 7  savings to the engine manufacturers by aligning California

 8  and the federal compliance programs, resulting in testing

 9  fewer engines than would otherwise be required if two

10  separate compliance programs were in place.

11           The proposed testing program would generate a

12  vast amount of in-use test data that could be used

13  effectively by both the manufacturers and ARB.  The

14  manufacturers would be able to evaluate the performance of

15  their engines and emission control systems under

16  real-world operating conditions and use.  The test data

17  could be used to create cleaner and more durable engine

18  designs.

19           ARB also would be able to use the in-use test

20  data to develop emission factors for emissions inventory

21  and air quality modeling.

22           Staff therefore that the Board adopt the proposed

23  manufacturer-run in-use compliance regulation.

24           Thank you.  This concludes my presentation.

25           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            273

 1           EMISSION RESEARCH AND REGULATION DEVELOPMENT

 2  BRANCH CHIEF CARTER:  And if I could, Dr. Sawyer, one

 3  comment.

 4           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Yes.

 5           EMISSION RESEARCH AND REGULATION DEVELOPMENT

 6  BRANCH CHIEF CARTER:  Tom Jennings would like to make a

 7  brief statement about a recent 15-day -- Michael Carter --

 8  sorry -- about a 15-day change we have.

 9           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Mr. Jennings.

10           ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS:  Yes.  A very

11  minor and tangential element of this rule making as

12  described in the staff report gives flexibility to

13  manufacturers in designing their emission labels with

14  executive officer approval.  This tracks -- under

15  heavy-duty auto cycle test procedures, this tracks

16  language the EPA adopted.  Staff had intended but

17  neglected to include that in the heavy-duty diesel cycle

18  test procedures.  So the 15-day modification would simply

19  do that.  And we'd ask that the resolution be treated as

20  modified to reflect this modification.

21           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you.

22           Ms. Ferreira, would you provide the Ombudsman's

23  statement please.

24           ACTING OMBUDSMAN FERREIRA:  Yes.  Dr. Sawyer and

25  members of the Board.  ARB staff, U.S. EPA, and the Engine

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            274

 1  Manufacturers Association began a collaborative effort

 2  more than five years ago to develop this rule.  Since that

 3  time staff has had more than 100 meetings.  While they did

 4  not conduct any workshops, U.S. EPA held a workshop in

 5  2004, where they adopted a similar regulation in 2005.

 6           The staff report was released for public comment

 7  on August 11, 2006.  It was noticed by hard copy to nearly

 8  500 stakeholders and through the website to more than 1800

 9  stakeholders.

10           This concludes my comments.

11           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you very much.

12           Do any of the Board members have comments?

13           I do.

14           I'm delighted to see the progress that's been

15  made in this area.  The bringing together of real in-use

16  emissions with regulation and compliance is exactly what

17  we need to ensure that the emissions which we think we're

18  getting from our regulations are really occurring in the

19  vehicles over their lifetimes.

20           And it's because the people at the EPA and at the

21  Air Resources Board have worked hard with the industry to

22  get this technology available.  And the fact that it's

23  ready for prime time use now brings joy to the heart of an

24  engineer.

25           (Laughter.)

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            275

 1           Couldn't resist saying that.

 2           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  We have two witnesses who

 3  would like to make statements:  Chung Liu and Lisa

 4  Stregink.

 5           Dr. Liu.

 6           DR. LIU:  Professor Sawyer, members of the Board.

 7  My name is Chung Liu.  I'm with the South Coast Air

 8  Quality Management District.  We share the same feeling

 9  about this is an essential piece.

10           As many of you know, that the South Coast

11  District doesn't feel that the past practice of using

12  certification -- engine certification tests is adequate to

13  really ensure the emission reduction is actually there.

14  As a matter of fact, the reason the few studies conducted

15  by Coordinated Research Council, co-sponsored by ARB and

16  South Coast District, actually indicate there are some

17  problems just relying only on emission certification

18  tests.  The in-use emission data is really important to

19  ensure that actual emission benefits will be realized.

20           Say all those and realize this is a joint efforts

21  among EPA, ARB, and EMA.  And what kind of bother us a bit

22  is this program also has a terms manufacturer run in-use

23  emission compliance test program.

24           The track record of this industry on emission

25  compliance is questionable, especially looking at the

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            276

 1  situation for engine between '94 and '98.  They really

 2  have cheated.

 3           But we think this program is going to really

 4  help.  We're coming here to support this program, but we

 5  want to provide some suggestions.

 6           First, the engine family will be joint selected

 7  by EPA and ARB.  But exact trucks going to be

 8  selected -- to be used for this testing will be selected

 9  by engine manufacturers.  So we just want to really

10  encourage ARB using your authority oversight to make sure

11  representative sample of trucks will be used for testing.

12           Second point.  The South Coast have a very

13  positive -- towards using remote sensing technology to

14  really detect high meters.  That's the reason the EPA

15  study in Nogales, Arizona, detecting trucks crossing the

16  borders and showed very good correlation between the

17  remote sensing devices and also the PEMS using these

18  programs.  So I want to encourage the ARB to consider that

19  on the long run that remote sensing technology been

20  improving and use in compliance and test.

21           Lastly, that we really want to recommend to ARB

22  to test vehicles that incorporate some of the engines that

23  we know have some defect, that we know some

24  software/hardware problems; that in your "not to exceed"

25  zone, that you really have things of experiences that you

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            277

 1  can really identify if there's major defect in functions,

 2  so we can further avoid anything like the change in

 3  software that happened last decades.  I'm pretty sure ARB

 4  staff, and which I share also, OBD devices really helped

 5  greatly eliminate the possibility for that repeat again.

 6  But I just want to say that when you're doing testing,

 7  maybe you should really run some of the tests on some

 8  defunct engines and gain some experiences so we can easily

 9  identify any defects in the future.

10           Thanks.

11           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you very much.

12           Does staff have any comments?

13           EMISSION RESEARCH AND REGULATION DEVELOPMENT

14  BRANCH CHIEF CARTER:  I'll comment on the first point

15  about -- Dr. Liu was concerned about the vehicles that the

16  manufacturers get in and he's concerned that the engine

17  manufacturers may choose and pick or cherry-pick which

18  engines or which trucks to test.

19           Perhaps Dr. Liu is concerned because in the staff

20  report it talks about how the manufacturers will screen

21  and procure a test.  Well, the screening part may be a

22  little misleading, because they can't just cherry-pick the

23  vehicles.  There's a very specific guidance document that

24  EPA and we and the engine manufacturers agree to that

25  clearly specifies and spells out exactly how the vehicles

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            278

 1  can be selected, how they can be screened, how they can or

 2  cannot reject vehicles from the program.  And so there's a

 3  lot of checks in place to make sure nothing funny happens.

 4           On top of that, if we do suspect there are some

 5  funny things happening, the ARB has the right to do our

 6  own confirmatory testing and make sure everything is going

 7  as it should go.

 8           Plus we can even go out to where the

 9  manufacturers are doing the testing and inspect it as

10  well.

11           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Do we have a program of

12  doing similar work on older heavy-duty vehicles -- PEMS

13  testing?

14           ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL SECTION MANAGER

15  LEMIEUX:  This program is designed for 2007 and newer

16  engines.

17           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Yes.

18           ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL SECTION MANAGER

19  LEMIEUX:  And a big part of the problem with that is the

20  range of the analyzers and things with the technology that

21  if you put it on older vehicles, it may foul up the

22  technology and -- however, we could use other instruments

23  similar to that to look at overall compliance.  But for

24  the older technologies we would have to revert back to the

25  current procedures, which is what Dipak was mentioning

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            279

 1  earlier, was to rip an engine out of a vehicle and put it

 2  on an engine dynamometer and test it, and which is pretty

 3  costly and expensive.  So we pretty much have to be sure

 4  that if the older engine family is failing, for us to go

 5  and spend that kind of money and do that type of testing.

 6           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  We have

 7  done -- I'm not sure if we've done a PEMS emission

 8  measurement on a truck.  But we have been collecting data

 9  on truck usage using on-truck instrumentation.  So, you

10  know, when this gets proven out, if it works well enough

11  and -- which I think it will -- and the measurement

12  capability fits the higher emitting older trucks, we could

13  do that kind of testing.

14           MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:  I

15  guess we all had a nickel here.

16           I guess I would add that I share Chung's concerns

17  about making sure that all of this is done properly and

18  that we make sure that the heavy-duty manufacturers are in

19  fact complying.  And I think that one of the neat things

20  about the PEMS is it does give us the power to do our own

21  double checking without having to pull engines out.  So

22  there's a way that we can on our own make sure that all

23  this is going all right, and we plan on doing it.

24           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you.

25           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  On the

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            280

 1  defects that he was suggesting we put in there, I think if

 2  we do that it will be in conjunction with the heavy-duty

 3  OBD program, because we're doing that on light-duty

 4  vehicles now.  We put defects in there and we see whether

 5  the lights come on.  So there will be some of that kind of

 6  testing going on with heavy duty, although probably more

 7  limited because of the higher cost of, you know, trying to

 8  procure heavy-duty trucks.

 9           And on RSD, just his other point, that may be

10  possible, but the NTE requirement is a 30-second time

11  average.  And so it would be a little hard to have a

12  traditional RSD that's beside the road that would be able

13  to measure emissions for a truck for 30 seconds.  The

14  truck would be long gone, I think, by that time.

15           And as we've seen for compliance purposes at

16  least, we have -- there's a lot of issues, like the

17  accuracy measurements, that we'd end up spending over a

18  million dollars just to determine how accurate they are.

19           So if new technology comes along, that's great.

20  But I think It'd have to show a substantial advantage over

21  the ones that we're pursuing right now.

22           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you.

23           Lisa Stegink please.

24           MS. STEGINK:  Good afternoon again.  I'm Lisa

25  Stegink here on behalf of the Engine Manufacturers

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            281

 1  Association.

 2           Due to the significant and unprecedented

 3  challenges that engine manufacturers will face in

 4  implementing the proposed in-use program, it is vital that

 5  the program be administered on a uniform and nationwide

 6  basis without any unique or special provisions for

 7  particular jurisdictions, including California.

 8           To that end, the engine manufacturers, EPA, and

 9  ARB jointly developed the blueprint for implementing a

10  manufacturer-run in-use test program and a formal

11  agreement which, together, specifically include a

12  commitment by the parties to a single coordinated program.

13  ARB has honored the letter and spirit of the agreements in

14  submitting the proposed heavy-duty in-use testing rule for

15  Board approval.

16           Because the ARB's proposed rule is essentially

17  identical to the EPA rule, EMA and its members support the

18  adoption of the proposed rule.  Adopting the rule will

19  complete the implementation of the agreements and will

20  establish a viable, groundbreaking, manufacturer-run

21  in-use NTE testing program that will ensure the real-world

22  emission benefits of advanced diesel engines and exhaust

23  after-treatment systems.  All of this in turn will

24  continue to facilitate the deployment, validation and

25  expansion of clean diesel technologies.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            282

 1           EMA appreciates the opportunity to present

 2  testimony on the proposed rule.  The in-use NTE testing

 3  program represents a fundamental and groundbreaking

 4  paradigm shift in the regulation and control of emissions

 5  from heavy-duty vehicles and engines.  Accordingly,

 6  continuing cooperation among ARB, EPA, and engine

 7  manufacturers will be necessary to accomplish that change

 8  in paradigm.

 9           For its part, and recognizing that many

10  significant challenges still lie ahead, EMA looks forward

11  to an ongoing collaborative effort with ARB and EPA to

12  ensure that the negotiated in-use NTE testing program is

13  implemented in a feasible, cost effective, and highly

14  successful manner.

15           Thank you.

16           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you.

17           Will the manufacturers constrain the fuels that

18  are used in the vehicles as part of the test?

19           MS. STEGINK:  Maybe Mike should answer that.

20           EMISSION RESEARCH AND REGULATION DEVELOPMENT

21  BRANCH CHIEF CARTER:  Yeah, I'll get that one.

22           That also was discussed at great length in our

23  negotiations over the past several years.

24           The manufacturers do have the option.  They can

25  actually drain the tank and refill it, but only with

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            283

 1  commercially available diesel fuel.  They can't put

 2  additives in if the manufacturer didn't from the beginning

 3  authorize those additives.  Basically whatever's

 4  commercially available they can use.

 5           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Okay.  Thank you.

 6           Do any of the Board members have questions on

 7  this topic?

 8           BOARD MEMBER BERG:  Congratulations.

 9           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:  You want to continue it

10  for a month?

11           (Laughter.)

12           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  I will now close the record

13  on this agenda item.  However, the record will be reopened

14  when the 15-day notice of public availability is issued.

15  Written or oral comments received after this hearing date

16  but before the 15-day notice is issued will not be

17  accepted as part of the official record on this agenda

18  item.  When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment

19  period, the public may submit written comments on the

20  proposed changes, which will be considered and responded

21  to in the final statement of reasons for the regulation.

22           Our ex parte statements.

23           Mark?

24           No.

25           No.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            284

 1           No.

 2           We feel neglected, I think.

 3           (Laughter.)

 4           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:  Not really.

 5           (Laughter.)

 6           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:  Mr. Chairman, I just might

 7  say that staff had briefed me, and I'm just so pleased

 8  with the report.  Unlike you, the engineer, I'm just

 9  excited that we've harmonized with EPA.  Because I think

10  it makes it so much easier for those who have to comply

11  with these standards, so that the same tests are

12  applicable for the different jurisdictions.  And I just

13  think that's an incredible achievement.

14           And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to move

15  the staff recommendations and acknowledge the amendment

16  that was made.

17           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  A second?

18           BOARD MEMBER BERG:  Second.

19           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  All in favor, aye.

20           (Ayes.)

21           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Opposed?

22           The motion is carried.

23           We now move to another item on our agenda which

24  we don't always have and, that is, comments from Board

25  members and from the public.  And we're going to have both

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            285

 1  of those today.

 2           Before we do that, I would like to acknowledge a

 3  very special person, that is, Holly Edwards.  She is -- I

 4  don't -- when I first arrived here I wasn't quite certain

 5  why things worked so smoothly.  But then I realized that

 6  she's a combination of stage manager and master sergeant

 7  when it comes to running this operation.

 8           And we're going to be losing her for two years.

 9  And the good news is that it's only two years.  But we

10  will certainly miss you during that period of time.  Her

11  national guard unit has been called up, and she will be

12  serving her country.  And we're proud of you.  And we look

13  forward to seeing you back.

14           (Applause.)

15           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:  Mr. Chairman, if I might.

16  As an interim chairman for almost a year, I can tell you

17  she is superb at organizing and keeping us all kind of

18  focused in the same direction, trying to keep us on time,

19  which is very difficult sometimes with this group.  And I

20  just have to say that the U.S. Government's very fortunate

21  to have you.  And hopefully you can keep them all

22  organized over there and come back and teach us all about

23  what you learned in two years.  We'll miss you.

24           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  All right.  We will now take

25  a comment from Board Member Mayor Loveridge.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            286

 1           I would remind you that this is an opportunity

 2  for a Board member to bring items of interest to the

 3  Board.  We will not be taking action on these items at

 4  this time.

 5           Mayor Loveridge.

 6           BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE:  Thank you.

 7           This is an item I'd like to raise for, as the

 8  language of the agenda says, for notice for future

 9  consideration at a Board meeting.  And this is really a

10  concept of a plug-in California initiative.

11           And let me, if I can, read the context.  But it

12  really comes out of at least a year or more sort of

13  reading articles, talking to different experts, and

14  thinking it is time that this particular technology bridge

15  receive state attention.

16           Plug-in hybrid electrical vehicles are an

17  exciting emerging technology because they offer the

18  potential for zero emission miles, reduced greenhouse gas

19  emissions and improved energy diversity.

20           There has been a tremendous support for plug-in

21  hybrids recently:

22           The three major auto manufacturers, GM, Toyota,

23  DaimlerChrysler are actively pursuing the

24  commercialization of plug-in hybrid technology.

25           President Bush has directed specific activities

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            287

 1  to speed up plug-in hybrid research.

 2           The City of Austin has what they call Plug-In

 3  Partners, a national campaign which has investor utilities

 4  and municipal utilities signed up across the country.

 5           The State of New York has announced a $10 million

 6  program to convert all state vehicles to plug-ins.

 7           And the South Coast District has hosted two

 8  meetings to examine the plug-in technology.

 9           All of these activities have drawn the interest

10  and attention of the media.  It's clear there is popular

11  interest in these vehicles.  But to drive this technology,

12  battery improvements that are required, we need to give a

13  concerted effort rather than what I think has been sort of

14  small pockets of activity.  And I would suggest this

15  effort be at the state level so we can put the weight of

16  all state agencies behind it.

17           Let me give at least examples of direction, is

18  request that the CARB staff work with appropriate

19  stakeholders, including the Governor's office, State

20  Legislature, auto manufacturers, battery technology

21  entities, state agencies such as the CPUC, CEC and DGS,

22  Plug-In Partners, electric utilities, environmental

23  groups, and the CAPCOA members to establish a Plug-In

24  California initiative that may do the following:

25           1.  Establish a state commitment to purchase

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            288

 1  plug-in hybrid electrical vehicles when they are

 2  commercially available for all the state agency fleets.

 3           2.  Establish reduced electric rates to charge

 4  these vehicles.

 5           3.  Establish incentive mechanisms for the auto

 6  manufacturers by providing either additional ZEV credits

 7  or reduced greenhouse gas credits for the number of

 8  plug-in hybrids they produce.

 9           4.  Provide customer incentives to buy-down the

10  vehicle's initial higher cost as well as giving HOV lane

11  access to high fuel economy and higher electric range

12  plug-ins.

13           5.  Establish a favorable environment for plug-in

14  hybrid associated businesses here in California.  And

15           6.  Dedicate at least $5 million of the 25

16  million CARB received through the AB 1811 toward the

17  research, development and demonstration of plug-in

18  hybrids, and leverage these funds to the extent possible

19  with other activities being conducted by the U.S.

20  Department of Energy, auto manufacturers, battery

21  technology firms, Plug-In Partners, and the South Coast

22  Air Quality Management District.

23           I would offer this as an idea for future Board

24  consideration.

25           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:  Mr. Chairman, I'd like

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            289

 1  to --

 2           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Yes, Mrs. Riordan.

 3           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:  -- just respond, because I

 4  had the good fortune to attend the ZEV technology

 5  symposium, as our Chairman did.  And first let me

 6  compliment the staff, some of whom are probably here now

 7  and hopefully some who -- you'll convey my appreciation.

 8  This room, Mayor Loveridge, was almost filled for three

 9  days.

10           And a lot of the discussion -- there were

11  sessions and there was a plug-in session.  And I think

12  staff is going to bring back to us a report on that

13  symposium.  And so maybe this could follow along after the

14  Board has heard about what we discovered.  We basically

15  were listening to private enterprise speaking at the

16  symposium.  And it's pretty incredible what I was able to

17  discern about the technology and the advancements and the

18  real interest in making this a part of a bigger program

19  towards zero emission vehicles.  And so I think this could

20  fold in to that discussion.

21           And I just wish, Mayor Loveridge, you'd been

22  there, because you would have been very excited and would

23  understand that a lot of great things are happening,

24  thanks to the private sector, supported of course by all

25  of us who are concerned about air pollution in California.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            290

 1  But the private sector is really moving forward.  I don't

 2  know, Mr. Chairman, if you'd like to comment.  You

 3  attended probably more than I did of the sessions.  But I

 4  was very impressed.  And I was particularly impressed with

 5  the plug-in effort, because I did sit through that.

 6           Thank you.

 7           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Ms. D'Adamo.

 8           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:  Well, I'd like to

 9  compliment Mayor Loveridge in putting this together and

10  say that we could have used you a few years ago, because

11  we were really pushing for when ZEV review was before us

12  last.  Which is almost a bad word, ZEV review, to even

13  have to think about that.  But many of us were pushing for

14  some additional incentives for plug-in hybrids.  I think

15  that we've got them in there.  But I think that more can

16  be done, and I look forward to working with you on this,

17  and just really want to compliment you for putting this

18  together.

19           Thank you.

20           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  I would add that it's pretty

21  clear from the ZEV symposium that the battery technology

22  is advancing -- has advanced and it is advancing and makes

23  all of these technologies, pure battery electrics, the

24  plug-in hybrids, the ordinary hybrids, all much closer to

25  reality in a big way.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            291

 1           BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER:  Mr. Chairman, I'd just

 2  like to congratulate Ron too.  And for those who make

 3  documentary films, maybe it's -- as Mark Twain said about

 4  his death -- supposed death, maybe the death of the

 5  electric car is vastly exaggerated.

 6           (Laughter.)

 7           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Okay.  Our next item are --

 8  there's a comment period --

 9           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:  Dr. Sawyer, I

10  just wanted to thank Mayor Loveridge as well.  We think

11  it's an exciting technology.  And to bring to the Board's

12  attention several events going on that will bring the

13  issue of plug-in hybrids back before you.

14           As Ms. Riordan indicated, we will report to you

15  on the outcome of the symposium in short order.  We also

16  will have a report from our independent technical review

17  panel early next year on their conclusions about how all

18  the technologies are developing, which will frame the

19  policy discussion on what, if anything, should change in

20  the LEV/ZEV reg.  And we expect you to give us directions

21  at that time about whether to work on real changes or not.

22           Next month we will be before you with the $25

23  million that was given to us in this year's budget to

24  facilitate the development of alternative fuels.  And we

25  have tentatively proposed that at least 5 million of that

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            292

 1  go to plug-in hybrids.  We have to work with the Energy

 2  Commission and have their buy-off on the general spending

 3  proposal.  And the climate action team has expressed

 4  interest also in reviewing what it is we're talking about.

 5  But plug-ins I expect to survive.

 6           And then, lastly, the ARB and the Energy

 7  Commission are working on a major report about alternative

 8  fuels, within which we include electricity.  And that

 9  report will be done by next June and cover the waterfront

10  on all the possibilities for, you know, moving away from

11  near complete reliance on petroleum.  So that will be back

12  before, you know, late summer -- early summer, I mean,

13  next year.

14           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:  Just would like to see if

15  staff can -- there are some good suggestions in here.  And

16  it sounds like with these various opportunities, the

17  suggestions might fit in here and there, although not in

18  all of the opportunities that are coming before us.  So if

19  staff could get back to us as to -- there might be

20  something in here that doesn't quite pigeonhole just right

21  but still might be a good suggestion.

22           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:  Sure.

23           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Okay.  We will now move to

24  the open comment period from the public.

25           I would comment that it's a bit unusual for us to

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            293

 1  have so many public comments at one time.  I thank you for

 2  your patience, waiting until the end of the day to bring

 3  to us your concerns.

 4           I have met with at least one of the individuals

 5  who will be talking today.  Basically the problem has to

 6  do with auxiliary engines on concrete pumpers, a rather

 7  specialized issue but one which is very important to the

 8  people who have come to talk to us.

 9           I have 13 people who would like to talk.  I think

10  that we will just continue our usual policy of a

11  three-minute presentation.  And for those of you who have

12  brought written testimony as well, I thank you for that.

13           So we will start with William Davis, Amber

14  Parsons, and Hank de Carbonel.

15           Would William Davis please begin.

16           MR. DAVIS:  A long walk from back there.

17           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Why don't you all move up.

18  This is the last item of the day.  You might as well come

19  up front.  It's my school teacher background which tells

20  me that sitting in the front row is a good idea.

21           MR. DAVIS:  Well, we're all either sinners or

22  contractors back there, or maybe both.

23           Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board, Ms.

24  Witherspoon and all the staff people.  My name's Bill

25  Davis.  I work with a pretty wide variety of construction

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            294

 1  industry organizations:  The Southern California

 2  Contractors Association, the Engineering and Utility

 3  Contractors Association, the Mobile Crane Operators Group,

 4  the Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, and the

 5  American Concrete Pumping Association.

 6           And I have two items actually.  And I don't want

 7  to take up any time unnecessarily, but I also have a

 8  letter from the folks at the Construction Industry Air

 9  Quality Coalition addressed to you.  I can read it if you

10  want it entered in the record, or simply hand it up.

11           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  We'll put it in the record

12  in written form.

13           MR. DAVIS:  All right.  Great.

14           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you.

15           MR. DAVIS:  The reason that I think almost

16  everyone is here -- oh, and I wanted to acknowledge -- I

17  see my friend, J.T., is here from Nabor in Bakersfield.

18  And J.T. is a company -- his company has done a superior

19  job, a vastly superior job to almost the entire

20  construction industry in complying with the requirements

21  of the Portable Engine Registration Program.  And his

22  company's to be commended for that and used as an example

23  for the rest of us.

24           It is our position that the Air Resources Board

25  should and must open to all owners of existing

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            295

 1  construction -- or existing portable equipment the

 2  opportunity to register that equipment, not as an amnesty

 3  but as a regular and permanent part of the program for the

 4  following reasons:

 5           First, ARB has failed in its duty to properly

 6  notify the affected industry.  The Air Resource Board

 7  staff has by its own admission attempted to reach less

 8  than 10 percent of the California construction industry in

 9  its effort on the PERP.  This is no mere claim, but it is

10  backed up by the following facts:

11           Every five years the U.S. Census Bureau conducts

12  an economic census of the construction industry.  In the

13  last such count, taken in 2002, the Bureau found 69,023

14  California establishments with employees.  They employed

15  870,334 people.  And, in addition, there were 167,000

16  non-employer establishments in construction:  Mom and

17  pops, owner/operators, small businesses.  Call them what

18  you want.  They're a part of our business.

19           That means there were at least 237,788

20  construction companies operating in California in 2002.

21           ARB staff has said that they mailed 25,000

22  contractors from a list obtained by the Contractors State

23  License Board.  The CSLB mailing list are notoriously

24  inaccurate.  Large numbers, perhaps thousands of those

25  mailings were returned due to address issues.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            296

 1           In addition to the mailers staff held a bunch of

 2  meetings, sent out e-mail notices via your list serve, and

 3  had some stuff on your website.  The Construction Industry

 4  Air Quality Coalition contributed 1200 names to your

 5  database and 3,000 people expressed interest in receiving

 6  information on the program directly from ARB, perhaps,

 7  hopefully, as a result of the mailer.

 8           In addition to contractors there are many

 9  construction service companies who are not required to

10  possess a contractors license and, thus, would never be

11  contacted by ARB in their mailed outreach.  This group

12  includes people like Amber Parsons, who you'll hear from

13  soon, as well as thousands of other small companies.  You

14  guys do the math:  237,788 construction companies, 1916

15  companies in the PERP as of January 27th of this year.

16           How would you characterize the outreach effort?

17           Second reason:  ARB fails to follow the

18  legislative intent of the PERP program.  Closing the door

19  to registration on existing portable equipment is not in

20  line with the intent of the Legislature, as clearly stated

21  in the preamble to the PERP statute from the Health and

22  Safety Code.  Specifically, Item C, as follows:  A uniform

23  voluntary system of statewide registration and regulation

24  of portable equipment consistent with current state and

25  federal air quality law is necessary to ensure consistent

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            297

 1  and reasonable regulation of that equipment without undue

 2  burden on their owners, operators and manufacturers.

 3           Third, ARB failed to seek or receive a waiver --

 4  has failed to receive a waiver from the Environmental

 5  Protection Agency to regulate most of the engines in this

 6  category.

 7           We can find no evidence that ARB has received a

 8  waiver from the EPA to replace any regulatory controls on

 9  most of the engines that power this equipment.  It's a

10  violation of the federal preemption on these engine

11  classes.  Until ARB receives a waiver to regulate these

12  engines, we believe that the agency must reopen the

13  registration and hold in abeyance any enforcement action

14  other than to warning equipment owners of the registration

15  requirements.

16           And, finally -- and aren't those your favorite

17  words -- finally, ARB failed to certify any low cost

18  alternative for this equipment in an attempt, we believe,

19  to subvert the economic impact requirements of the Tanner

20  Act.  Once a regulation was originally adopted our

21  industry was promised that there would be an ample supply

22  of low cost alternatives to meet the requirements,

23  verified diesel emission control systems, VDECS, which

24  would substantially reduce the financial burden of

25  replacing otherwise serviceable equipment to meet the

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            298

 1  standards set forth in the regulation.  The reality

 2  clearly expressed by ARB staff at the Board's meeting on

 3  June 22nd is that there are no such devices and that the

 4  only alternative is engine repower or equipment

 5  replacement.

 6           In most cases involving portable equipment,

 7  repowers are impossible, which leaves equipment

 8  replacement as the only alternative.

 9           This also means that most small businesses will

10  be forced to severely limit their operations or go out of

11  business altogether.  It's an incredible expense that was

12  not included in the economic impact report on any version

13  of this regulation.

14           We believe ARB did nothing to encourage the

15  development of VDECS, that this always was a program

16  designed to force equipment turnover regardless of cost to

17  the industry, and thus ARB is engaged in willful

18  misstatement of the economic impact.

19           We are seeing the same approach being used in the

20  off-road diesel rule, and believe that this willful

21  disregard of the economic impact to the affected industry

22  is a standard and practice of the Air Resources Board.

23           Be happy to answer any questions.

24           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Do Board members have

25  questions?

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            299

 1           I suggest that, since it's a little bit unusual

 2  and we have so many people, that we listen.  And then we

 3  will ask the Board to respond to us later as -- can we do

 4  that? -- in writing addressing the issues which are

 5  raised.

 6           MR. DAVIS:  Thank you very much.  And our

 7  condolences on being saddled with the greenhouse gas bill.

 8  I can suggest one immediate improvement in reducing CO2.

 9  Keep these meetings shorter.

10           (Laughter.)

11           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Okay.  Amber Parsons.

12           MS. PARSONS:  Hi there.  I'm a bit nervous.

13           In 2004 my husband and I sold our house and

14  poured all of our equity into a small business.  We did

15  not want to half do any anything with this business.  We

16  incorporated, got liability insurance, commercial auto

17  insurance, workmen's comp insurance, and various licenses

18  and permits from the CHP and DMV.

19           We decided that we would only purchase new pumps,

20  as they were less likely to break down, were cleaner

21  machines and had the latest technology.

22           We purchased our first pump, a Transcrete, in

23  2004 and went on to purchase a Putzmeister in 2005 and

24  another new puts Putzmeister in 2006.

25           After being in business for almost two years we

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            300

 1  first heard about pollution districts on May 25th, 2006,

 2  when we were given a notice of violation for not having a

 3  permit to operate our portable equipment.

 4           After spending more than a week wading through

 5  the information, I discovered that it was more economical

 6  to register with the state.  I sent my application off

 7  less than two weeks later.

 8           Much to my dismay I learned in August of this

 9  year from the ARB that two of our brand new pumps could

10  not be registered.  Both the 2004 and 2005 pumps contained

11  2003 Tier 1 engines.  As such, they were not eligible for

12  registration in the Portable Equipment Registration

13  Program.

14           Some claim that the solution to my problem is to

15  enter into a stipulated agreement with the individual

16  pollution districts.  However, this would require me to

17  pay $600 per pump per county.  We pump regularly in three

18  counties and periodically in six.  Registration would cost

19  me $3600 per pump.  Furthermore, if I enter into the

20  stipulated agreement, I promise to bring my engines into

21  compliance by 2009.  If registration is not reopened,

22  bringing it into compliance will mean replacing the

23  engine.  A $20,000 loan, which would cover the cost of two

24  engines in two of our pumps, will cost my company $465

25  dollars per month for five years.  Just when we were

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            301

 1  expecting our business to be loan free and become

 2  profitable, we will be forced further into debt.

 3           On the other hand, if registration at the ARB is

 4  reopened, we will be able to pay one-tenth of that cost

 5  for registration and not be forced to make a decision

 6  about replacing the engine for many years.

 7           On multiple occasions I have heard the term

 8  "scoff laws" being thrown around in relation to people

 9  like me in my situation.  I am greatly offended at the

10  thought that some think that I have intentionally avoided

11  complying with the law.  If it were my company's position

12  to regularly disobey the laws of this state, we would not

13  pay almost $20,000 a year in various insurance, permits

14  and license fees.

15           Furthermore, I take great offense at the idea

16  that I am a scoff law for one simple fact:  Both the Air

17  Resources Board and the pollution districts have failed

18  miserably in their efforts to notify my industry about the

19  permit requirements.  I feel that the pollution districts

20  have openly scoffed at their responsibility to inform the

21  people who will be most affected by this legislation.

22           Why would manufacturers of the equipment not be

23  notified?  Why would dealers selling the equipment,

24  especially used equipment with older tier engines, not be

25  notified?  What responsibility does the Board hold for not

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            302

 1  getting the word out to the most logical group, the people

 2  who make and sell the machines?  And if we agree that

 3  communication broke down along the line somewhere, are

 4  small business owners like myself going to be the ones to

 5  pay the price?  Or will the ARB and pollution districts

 6  realize their error and, no matter whose fault it is,

 7  allow registration to be reopened?

 8           I can understand why some cutthroat competitors

 9  would like for registration to be permanently closed to

10  older tier engines.  I understand the selfish reasons they

11  possess and the huge competitive advantage it gives their

12  companies.  However, I don't understand why the ARB is

13  allowing themselves to be dictated to by these few

14  companies.  If the true intention of the ARB is to

15  encourage compliance, then what benefit is derived from

16  closing the registration?  The equipment will still be

17  required to meet all averaging laws in 2013.  It will

18  still be subject to any later requirements for engine

19  replacements and emissions testing.

20           All I am asking is that the Board be reasonable

21  in its decisions.  Is it reasonable to outlaw machines

22  with less than one year of use on them?  Is it reasonable

23  to refuse registration to business owners moving to this

24  state from another state with one or two year old

25  machines?  Is it reasonable to expect that start-up

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            303

 1  businesses --

 2           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  I need to ask you to

 3  conclude please.

 4           MS. PARSONS:  Okay.  Does the ARB want to send a

 5  message that only the richest can afford to be contractors

 6  in this state?  Or is the message much closer to the

 7  legislative intent for which the ARB was created, to

 8  reduce costs and make the registration requirements

 9  reasonable for California contractors?

10           Thank you.

11           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you very much.

12           Hank de Carbonel.  Then we'll have Chris

13  McDonald, Christi Collins, and Mike Cusach.

14           MR. de CARBONEL:  Yeah, my name is Hank de

15  Carbonel.  I've been selling construction equipment in

16  California for over 30 years:  Cranes, drag lines,

17  excavators, but primarily concrete pumps.

18           It seems to me if the purpose of this

19  registration program is to clean the environment, then

20  there should be no reason to not keep registration open at

21  all times.  Because if we're trying to track down engines

22  that may not be documented in compliance with the current

23  rules, we need to know where they are.

24           If you sent out a letter to 25,000 people based

25  on the contractors list -- and, as Bill said, you've got

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            304

 1  2,000 companies approximately enrolled in this program

 2  now, representing 28,000 pieces of equipment -- I'm not a

 3  real bright guy, but two into -- that seems to me each

 4  contractor that is in compliance has a number of pieces.

 5  Now, you take the number -- you take that number times

 6  over 200,000 contractors, I think we have a pretty bleak

 7  record of outreach to the industry for the requirements

 8  that you're looking for.

 9           Lead times for these engines, by the way, are six

10  months to a number of years.  And there's no guaranty that

11  the replacement engines will fit inside the engine

12  enclosures or footprints of the existing equipment.

13           So you have reduced -- by this current idea, you

14  have reduced the value of everybody's piece of equipment

15  by at least 15 or 20 percent because it can only now be

16  sold outside the State of California.  And many

17  contractors in other parts of the country are very much

18  aware of this fire sale of equipment that's being forced

19  upon industry in California.

20           In addition to which you have a number of

21  contractors -- CalTrans, cities and counties are having a

22  difficult time getting a number of bids on their projects

23  that they want to move forward with.  And when they do get

24  the bids, the prices are considerably higher.  And that is

25  to cover the cost of these regulations as they come in

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            305

 1  place.  And as the pieces are not registered and can no

 2  longer be documented, those pieces are set aside.  And so

 3  now we have people that would -- operating engineers,

 4  people that would run that equipment are now deprived of a

 5  livelihood because an engine didn't happen to get

 6  documented because people weren't informed in a proper

 7  manner.

 8           So I think that when you have a record of

 9  compliance of less than 8 percent of the equipment -- it's

10  rather a bleak record -- and I don't see why in the world

11  you wouldn't keep the thing open all the time.  You're

12  talking about a minimum of $270 per unit for registration

13  as it is currently.  By anybody's standards, $270 times

14  200,000 starts to be real money.  So it's funded.  If the

15  goal is clean air, then let's go get some clean air.

16  Let's go after the process.  But this is not a process.

17  This is a penalty.  This is just going out bounty hunting.

18  I think it's completely unfair and I think that this rule

19  is nothing but a penalty for the economic health of the

20  State of California and the taxpayers who, after all, are

21  going to have to pay for the increased costs of hospitals,

22  churches, schools, freeways and every other structure

23  because this law has not been thoroughly researched, nor

24  has there been a proper outreach to the industry that it

25  purports to want to regulate.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            306

 1           Thank you.

 2           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you very much.

 3           Chris McDonald.

 4           MR. McDONALD:  Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and the

 5  members of the Board.  I just want to thank you for

 6  letting me speak today.

 7           I own a small pump company in the Bay Area.  And

 8  we had a lady named Heidi Kroll come to our yard maybe a

 9  year ago or a couple of years ago.  And she's a member of

10  the ARB Resources Board, California Environmental

11  Protection Agency.  And she came to our yard, pointed out

12  what we need to do to comply to the ARB.  So we did what

13  she pointed out to comply.

14           But she failed to tell us about our portable

15  engines and anything to do there to register or comply.

16  And when we asked her about it, she says it's not her

17  department.

18           Most of us here aren't here to say that we are

19  disobeying what you guys are doing, we don't want to do

20  what you guys want to say.  I mean we want to do it and

21  we're trying to do it.  Most of us are trying to do what

22  we need to do to get these emissions into compliance.

23           And for them to say we're not doing it, whatever,

24  is not right.  And how do we -- we just want to open up

25  the registration to get them so we can be in compliance.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            307

 1           And that's all.

 2           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you very much.

 3           Christi Collins.

 4           MS. COLLINS:  Good afternoon.  My name is Christi

 5  Collins and I'm the Executive Director of the American

 6  Concrete Pumping Association.  Our association consists of

 7  concrete pumping companies, manufacturers, distributors,

 8  and affiliates of the industry.

 9           Approximately one-third of our total membership

10  are companies located in the State of California.  They

11  own and operate over 15 percent of the total number of

12  concrete pumps in the United States, Canada and Mexico.

13           Through data supplied by our concrete pumping

14  manufacturers we estimate that there are over 1,000

15  companies which own a total of 5,000 trailer pumps and

16  skid-mounted pumps currently operating in the state of

17  everyday.  These companies are typically small

18  family-owned businesses an employ approximately 7,500

19  people.

20           As you just heard a few minutes ago, Amber

21  Parsons, she would be our poster child for the concrete

22  pumping industry.  This is typical of what type of

23  businesses we're talking about.

24           One week ago the ACPA along with several concrete

25  pump manufacturers and distributors sent out a notice to

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            308

 1  every known owner of a trailer or skid-mounted concrete

 2  pump informing them of the Board's portable engine

 3  registration program and requesting information regarding

 4  their pump's engine registration.

 5           To date -- and this is only from a week -- less

 6  than 1 percent of the 100-plus companies responding knew

 7  of your registration program and had registered their

 8  pumps.  And I have all their information.  They are still

 9  coming in.  I'm still getting e-mails.  And on some of the

10  replies that are coming in, most people are saying, "We

11  just didn't know.  Thank you for informing us.  We had no

12  idea."  And they're also saying, "Now what?  What are we

13  going to do?"

14           I have no answers at this time.

15           The following facts are an eventuality under the

16  current circumstances.  The ARB's current registration

17  stance sets up an unnecessary game of hide and seek with

18  these companies, who under this misguided policy have no

19  incentive to come forward.  Many of them supplied

20  information and asked that their names not be released for

21  fear of being turned in by a competitor or by someone from

22  the ARB.

23           As things stand now, they cannot legally operate

24  their pumps.  If they can't work, they can't pay their

25  employees, which would create a substantial loss of jobs

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            309

 1  in the state.  They can't make their payments on the

 2  equipment and will default on their loans, causing

 3  millions of dollars in loss to their bankers and other;

 4  lenders.

 5           They will not be able to sell their concrete

 6  pumps in the State of California.  In most, if not all,

 7  cases they cannot upgrade the engines in their pumps.  But

 8  if they can upgrade, they will have substantial costs in

 9  doing so, and ultimately they will lose their business.

10           We would respectfully submit that the portable

11  engine registration program must be reopened to prevent

12  the loss of over 1,000 California businesses.  By doing so

13  on a permanent and regular basis, ARB would meet the

14  intent of Legislature in establishing the registration

15  program.

16           When in the course of time this equipment is

17  replaced under the other requirements of the portable

18  engine regulation, the Air Resources Board would be able

19  to know that the air quality of the state is being

20  improved.

21           ACPA stands ready to assist the ARB in getting

22  the news about the permanently open registration program

23  to all our members and as many other companies in the

24  industry as we can as part of a cooperative effort to

25  improve California's air.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            310

 1           Thank you.

 2           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you very much.

 3           Mike Cusach.  And then we'll have Jim Nolan,

 4  David Rudin and Jim Bury.

 5           MR. CUSACH:  Thank you very much for the

 6  opportunity to talk to you today.  My name is Mike Cusach.

 7  I'm Vice President of Operations for Conco Pumping,

 8  located in Concord, California.  We have pumps all over

 9  the State of California.  We're probably the largest pump

10  company in California.  And I'm here today to ask you to

11  reopen the Air Resources portable engine registration.

12           I was fortunate that I was alerted by the Air

13  Resources Board in San Francisco, the Bay Area Resources

14  Board, in December of this year -- of last year, and

15  worked diligently on the 29th and 30th to get the portable

16  equipment that I had registered.  I stayed at work until 7

17  o'clock every night, and virtually mailed the check in on

18  the last day of registration.  And I was not able to

19  contact my colleagues and the concrete pumping industry.

20  Many of them, my competitors, if I would have had the

21  chance, I would have contacted them and let them know this

22  was coming about.  We just didn't know.

23           I'm a former President of the ACPA.  I read a lot

24  of articles.  I think I stay up on what's going on in the

25  industries, and I knew nothing about it.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            311

 1           If the idea is to register the vehicles, closing

 2  registration is not the way to do it.  If you drive a

 3  vehicle, a car down the road, and you didn't register your

 4  vehicle, you get a fine and a ticket, but you're allowed

 5  to register the vehicle.  You don't lose the right to use

 6  it forever.  And that's what's happening if you have a

 7  Tier 1 engine or below.  It's just not fair.

 8           These people, the 700 companies that we're

 9  talking about, or more, they didn't want to break the law.

10  They're not scoffing at the law.  They just didn't know.

11  And they pay their -- they pay DMV taxes every year, they

12  pay personal property taxes every year on their pumps,

13  they pay income tax, employment tax.  Why wouldn't they

14  pay one more tax just to stay in business?  They would do

15  that.

16           I implore you to reopen it and leave it open.

17  And, you know, like I said, these people are not

18  criminals.  They're people that work very hard everyday,

19  very hard.  They drag hoses that weigh 3, 400 pounds up

20  and down hills and just work till they cannot stand up

21  anymore, then take the truck home and work on it at night.

22  So these people work very, very hard.  And to put them out

23  of business is just a shame.

24           Thank you.

25           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            312

 1           Jim Nolan.

 2           MR. NOLAN:  Thank you for letting us speak.  I'm

 3  President of Interstate Concrete Pumping.

 4           I purchased a company down in Merced about four

 5  years ago, and took all the portable trailer pumps down to

 6  have them all registered at DMV.  When I went down there,

 7  nobody ever advised us to -- that the ARB is -- the

 8  regulations is coming up the first of '06.

 9           And I got caught over in San Francisco and had to

10  fill out a lot of paperwork and I registered everything

11  and sent it into ARB and with a check.  They sent the

12  check back.  And I went to the districts -- the districts

13  over in San Francisco and they says, "We can't do anything

14  until you get the blessings of the state."  And the state

15  says, well -- I'm kind of a little in limbo.  So right now

16  I've got seven machines just parked against a fence.  It

17  looks like Richey Brothers Auction.

18           So I just want to see if you guys would

19  reconsider and open the registration up for people.

20           Thank you.

21           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you very much.

22           David Rudin.

23           MR. BURY:  I'm sorry.  Due to lateness, David

24  Rudin had to leave.  I'm Jim Bury.

25           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Oh, okay.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            313

 1           MR. BURY:  Do you want his statement read for the

 2  record?  Or he already turned in a hard copy.

 3           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Yeah, if you could hand it

 4  in, then it will become part of our record.

 5           MR. BURY:  I believe you already have a copy of

 6  it for Dave Rudin.  We'll leave it at that.

 7           Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the Board.

 8  My name is Jim bury.  I'm the engineering manager of

 9  Putzmeister America.  We are one of the manufacturers of

10  concrete pump trucks and trailer units.  I am the only

11  manufacturer here at this point because of the hour that

12  we're running.

13           Well, I'd like to briefly address four points on

14  this issue, if I may.

15           First of all, Putzmeister, along with a lot of

16  the people you've heard here, was not aware of any attempt

17  by the ARB or to staff to contact us with regards to

18  spreading of the word among our customers in California

19  that they need to register any equipment over 50

20  horsepower.

21           Once we became aware of this need, within the

22  last few weeks, we've done so by sending out approximately

23  600 letters to known customers that we serve.  Of those,

24  we are only aware of a couple of them that are aware of

25  the registration requirements and were able to do so

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            314

 1  before the deadline.

 2           Number 2, I would like to emphasize the comments

 3  of the others appearing here before you today, that

 4  Putzmeister's unaware of any means for compliance to the

 5  regulations now required for registration that would not

 6  involve complete overhaul or total replacement of the

 7  machine.  The engines are just too big.  They will not fit

 8  in the equipment.  The equipment is purposely designed

 9  around the engine.  And if you change it, you need to

10  change everything else.  You're talking about a complete

11  unit.

12           Number 3, Putzmeister supports the assertion that

13  the refusal of the ARB staff to open up the registration

14  program to all machine owners will cause great financial

15  hardship to our customers, as you've heard, which for some

16  may mean the end of their business, which helps -- and

17  their businesses help build your houses, they build your

18  infrastructure.  It's needed.

19           Finally, I would like to clarify our opposal on

20  behalf of Putzmeister and our customers.  Putzmeister's

21  definitely not opposed to the ARB's exhaustive efforts to

22  improve the environment and the air we breathe.  We salute

23  your efforts.  However, we feel the intent and spirit of

24  the efforts are being hampered at this point in time by

25  the restriction of admission to the registration program

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            315

 1  to only those machines that contain certified BACT

 2  engines.  It is this restriction that we are opposed to

 3  today, and ask that the Board direct staff to lift the

 4  registration program barriers currently in place so that

 5  those who are fully willing to register but did not know

 6  of the registration be able to do so.

 7           Thank you.

 8           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you.

 9           Next we will have Mark Rubick, Bryan McLelland,

10  and Jolynn Hoxie.

11           MR. RUBICK:  Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,

12  members of the Board and staff.  My name is Mark Rubick

13  and I'm a sales representative for a local concrete

14  ready-mix company and line pumping service company.

15  Currently we only do have one pump in our fleet.  But we

16  work closely with many of these other fellow pumpers

17  around here.  We're kind of a close-knit group, yet we're

18  competitors.  Kind of a unique arrangement, if you will.

19           What I wanted to -- also I wanted to endorse the

20  comments of those before me and also extend a little bit

21  of insight into the possible ramifications of things that

22  you may not have considered of the people working in this

23  industry.

24           With our pump we employ two people who go out to

25  the job sites and work their tails off, as many do here

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            316

 1  when they go out to the sites.

 2           By not allowing the registration process to be

 3  opened, those people cannot put food on their table for

 4  their families.  They simply cannot act in compliance with

 5  the law which the way it is.

 6           So I respectfully submit to you to reopen the

 7  registration process and allow these employees to continue

 8  their livelihood, to provide for their families, and so

 9  ultimately you're not driving the businesses out of state.

10  If they can't work here, then they're going to have to, if

11  they're going to remain in their industry, go to another

12  state.

13           Thank you.

14           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you.

15           Bryan McLelland.

16           MR. McLelland:  Hi.  Good afternoon.  I

17  appreciate your time.

18           I'm one of those small business owners.  I don't

19  have six pumps.  I don't have six employees.  I don't -- I

20  have me.  I have my pump.  I've been in business for about

21  a year and a half.  Never received any information on

22  anything here.  More than happy to comply.

23           We go to great lengths every day not to pollute.

24  We put down tarps, sandbags.  Shopvac-up cementitious

25  materials so it doesn't go down the drain.  I mean you

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            317

 1  would be -- you'd be in awe if you saw how far we go not

 2  to pollute.  And in no way, shape or form was anybody here

 3  trying to, you know, subvert that and try and get around

 4  it.

 5           I'd be happy to write a check today, I mean

 6  whatever it would take.  You know, I pay all my

 7  insurances, I pay all my -- I go to great lengths to

 8  do -- to run my business properly.  And I just want the

 9  chance to be able to register my pump and make sure I can

10  keep putting food on my table.  Because if I have to redo

11  my pump, I won't be able to fix it.  I'll have to -- it

12  will be a total loss.  There's no way I could sell it in

13  California.  I have to park it, try and sell it out of

14  state come up with another hundred thousand -- come up

15  with hundred thousand dollars, you know, or right about

16  there, which will put me out of business.  I mean the

17  final loan would put me out of business.  I mean I'm just

18  me.  It's not -- you know, I don't have a big giant

19  bankroll or, you know, anything like that.

20           So I just -- we just want to do it right.  And

21  I'd appreciate it if we got the chance to do that.  So

22  that's really all I have to say.

23           I appreciate your time.  Thank you.

24           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you very much for

25  coming.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            318

 1           Jolynn Hoxie.

 2           MS. HOXIE:  Hi.  Thank you for hearing us.  I'm

 3  sure I don't look like a criminal to you guys.  But I feel

 4  like one.

 5           I have a small business.  We've been in business

 6  now for four years.  We bought a brand new pump because we

 7  wanted to make sure that we were doing everything right

 8  when we started our business; and now we find out that I

 9  cannot run everyday or I'm breaking the law.  We have had

10  no notice.  And that is so hurtful.

11           I have a mortgage.  I have a business loan.  I

12  have four children.  What do I do?  Do I go to work

13  tomorrow?  Do I send my husband, who -- we don't have any

14  employees.  Do I send him to work and have a $10,000 fine?

15  I don't know.  We didn't give our real names, some of us.

16  We're afraid.  I don't think it's fair.

17           Thank you.

18           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you very much for

19  coming.

20           James Thomas.

21           MR. THOMAS:  Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and

22  Board members.  I appreciate you letting me come in and

23  speak this afternoon.

24           I'm James Thomas with Nabors Well Services out of

25  Bakersfield, California.  My company operates throughout

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            319

 1  all of California.  We use portable equipment.  We use

 2  off-road engines as well.  And we operate throughout the

 3  state.

 4           I would like to go on record to say that I

 5  participated in the development of the Statewide Portable

 6  Equipment Program for the past 14 years.  This is not a

 7  surprise.  It didn't happen last week.  It happened over

 8  14 years.

 9           So we're going to talk about amnesty.  We

10  discussed amnesty 90 days ago.  I'd like to make a point

11  that the last amnesty period was nine months ago.  That's

12  when it ended.

13           So I'd like to ask the Board members the same

14  question that I've asked the staff members -- they're here

15  and they understand exactly what I'll ask -- is:  If you

16  do grant another amnesty period, what will you do with the

17  companies that do not participate in the amnesty period?

18  There is people that's out there working today.  There

19  will be another industry come after your next amnesty

20  period.  So will you have Amnesty 4, Amnesty 5, Amnesty 6.

21           People made statements that they did not know

22  about the regulations.  I have mentioned this in my past

23  testimonies and I'll mention it again.  You had to have a

24  PERP -- you had to have a registration or a permit in

25  South Coast 25 years ago to operate.  In Ventura you had

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            320

 1  to have one 14 years ago.  San Joaquin Unified Air

 2  District you had to have 12.  And the Statewide Portable

 3  Equipment Program has been in effect for 10 years.  People

 4  have had the opportunity to read the regs.  They are

 5  there.

 6           So only -- I know a lot of Board members may ask

 7  the question, Well, what's the benefits for a company to

 8  go into the amnesty program?  Well, I'll tell you this.  A

 9  small company or any company that has a portable engine

10  that did not permit, they saved themselves $1500 a year --

11  per engine per year.  On what?  Registration, inspections,

12  record keeping, installing hour clocks, replacing hour

13  clocks, replacing registrations and stickers, and filing

14  annual reports.

15           If you have a small operator who has only five

16  engines, he saved $75,000.  And by saving $75,000, he

17  can -- he has a reduction in operating costs.  So

18  therefore he can bid the program -- or the project at a

19  lower cost, and he can get it.  And this has happened to

20  my company and to a lot of other companies.

21           Number 2 -- I want to make a point.  Why don't

22  you leave the amnesty period open forever?  Okay, I call

23  the dollars that you just heard from me as the small

24  dollar savings that a person would have.  There is a

25  provision in the Statewide Portable Equipment Program that

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            321

 1  states that if a engine goes down after July the 1st of

 2  2001, the engine has to be replaced with the most

 3  stringent standards.  That mean if you have an engine that

 4  goes down, you have to replace it.  If you have a 12V71

 5  and it goes down, you cannot put another 12V71 on.  You

 6  have to go to a certified engine.  So my company has done

 7  that.

 8           If you have a 450 horsepower engine to replace

 9  one of them, it costs you 45,000; it costs you 11,000 to

10  install it.  If you're lucky, the transmission that you

11  currently have in the unit will work.  If not, you spend

12  another 42,000 for a transmission; 4,000 to install it.

13  That's a range from 55,000 to 102.

14           Just want to tell you that my company, and not

15  just my company, but all of the people that have taken

16  part in the PERP program are pouring out dollars every

17  single day and spending money.

18           I would just like to say, you ask:  What will a

19  company get if you extend an amnesty period?  They will be

20  able to work in the State of California for 1,190 days.

21  Why do you say that?  Because in 2010 --

22           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  I'm sorry, but I must ask

23  you to conclude, Mr. Thomas.

24           MR. THOMAS:  Okay.  So it's going to expire.  So

25  all I've got to ask you, in the year 2010, January the

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            322

 1  1st, 2010, when every engine has to be a certified engine,

 2  what will you do then?  Will you have an amnesty period

 3  there?

 4           I will ask one last question.  What are you going

 5  to do for the companies that have paid hard dollars to

 6  comply with the regulations?  What can you do for us?

 7  Because we've spent millions.

 8           Thank you.

 9           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Thank you very much for

10  coming.

11           That concludes the public comment period.

12           I would say that Kathleen Quetin, our ombudsman,

13  is ill today.  I'm sure that she regrets that she couldn't

14  be here, because I know she's met with a number of you

15  earlier in the month.

16           As I indicated, we will receive a written report

17  back from the staff, which I'm sure they'll be glad to

18  share with you and explain --

19           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:  Yes.  And we very

20  much appreciate that opportunity because, as you could

21  tell, there's a lengthy regulatory history here and an

22  interplay between state registration and district permit

23  requirements that we would want you to be aware of as you

24  weigh the testimony that you heard today.

25           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Right.  I realize that some

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            323

 1  of the Board members have lived through this from its

 2  beginning or near its beginning, and others of us are

 3  quite new to it.

 4           I thank you very much.

 5           Yes.

 6           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:  Well, I wouldn't want to

 7  take a position one way or the other because we haven't

 8  heard from staff yet, but do appreciate you all taking the

 9  time out to be here.  And I just think that since they're

10  looking for answers, it might be helpful if we just gave

11  them a timeline on when you expect to have a written

12  report and next steps, since, you know, they're all here

13  right now anyway.

14           EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON:  Certainly by your

15  next Board meeting.  And we've already talked to many of

16  the people you've heard today about possible next steps

17  and what course of action they have.  We've been working

18  with air districts.  Because although you can't register,

19  you can obtain a permit.  And that doesn't satisfy many of

20  the people because it's more expensive, the conditions for

21  a permit, or having new equipment.  But districts are

22  trying to work with industry so that they have sufficient

23  time to sell the equipment they have, purchase new

24  equipment, obtain financing, et cetera, and still allow

25  them to operate.

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            324

 1           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Fine.

 2           I would like to a adjourn.  Do I have a motion

 3  for adjournment?

 4           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:  So moved, Mr. Chairman.

 5           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Second?

 6           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:  Second.

 7           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  All in favor of adjourning,

 8  aye?

 9           (Ayes.)

10           CHAIRPERSON SAWYER:  Opposed?

11           Okay.  We stand adjourned.

12           (Thereupon the Air Resources Board meeting

13           adjourned at 5:05 p.m.)

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

    PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                            325

 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 Item

 7  06-8-3 was reported in shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a

 8  Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of California,

 9  and 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 6th day of September, 2006.

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<PHONE_NUMBER>