[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 4623]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01636]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0525; FRL-9941-78-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area
Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Chemical
Manufacturing Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV)'' (EPA ICR
No. 2323.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0621) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of
the ICR, which is currently approved through January 31, 2016. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR
32116) on June 5, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 26,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0525, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: These standards apply to the area source NESHAP for
chemical manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV). There are nine
area source categories in the chemical manufacturing sector:
Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides Manufacturing, Cyclic Crude and
Intermediate Production, Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing,
Industrial Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Inorganic Pigments
Manufacturing, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Plastic
Materials and Resins Manufacturing, Pharmaceutical Production, and
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing. The requirements apply to process
vents, storage tanks, equipment leaks, wastewater systems, transfer
operations, and heat exchange systems at affected sources in each area
source category and are combined in one subpart. The standards are
based on EPA's determination of generally available control technology
(GACT) or management practices for each area source category.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Chemical manufacturing area source
facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVVVVV).
    Estimated number of respondents: 498 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 9,590 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,220,000 (per year), includes $1,250,000
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the
respondent burden and number of responses from the most recently
approved ICR. The decrease occurred because the rule has been in effect
for three years, and the burden associated with initial compliance
(e.g. initial performance tests and notification reports) differ from
the burden for ongoing compliance (e.g. submittal of semiannual
reports). However, there is an adjustment increase in the total capital
and O&M cost. This is primarily due to two reasons: (1) The previous
ICR presented capital costs as annualized costs over 15 years, rather
than one-time costs; and (2) the total number of sources with O&M cost
(i.e. maintain systems and monitors) has increased now that the rule is
fully implemented.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-01636 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


22  issue of trade secret when you make your ruling.

23           The fundamental point of trade secret if a

24  company invests its time and resources into developing a

25  product, a formula, or some type of computation of

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           332

 1  information for use in its business -- and that was left

 2  out of the criteria -- that product or information should

 3  not be freely given to competitors.  When they create

 4  something for their business, yes, the law gives it

 5  protection when it's provided to the government in the

 6  absence of some overriding public purpose.  But it's

 7  important to note it's the information that is protected,

 8  not the resulting government decision or accounting.

 9           In our case, auto makers are required to reveal

10  automotive sales data to CARB.  It is the sales data that

11  CARB would be required to maintain in confidence if that

12  information were not publicly available.  So we think

13  staff's analysis confuses those two issues and comes up

14  with the wrong decision.

15           I would like to go on.  This is an important and

16  complicated issue, but --

17           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  It is an important and

18  complicated issue which we are dealing with.  What are

19  your additional points, just legal points or --

20           MS. FUGERE:  They're -- the point that -- the

21  information is not -- turning over ZEV credit is not

22  equivalent to providing competitors with knowledge of

23  upcoming product plans.  Nissan itself said that hundreds

24  if not thousands of factors goes into product planning.

25  It's not just ZEV.  It's CAFE, air quality.  It's customer

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           333

 1  information.  It's engineering information.  It's not just

 2  ZEV credit.  You don't know what another company is going

 3  to do just because you know the ZEV credits.

 4           Another argument that's frequently made is ZEV

 5  credits have value and that the auto makers should be able

 6  to trade in secret.  But this flies in the face of the

 7  purported benefit of a market-based trading system in

 8  which a free and open market allocates resources

 9  efficiently.  When you hide information, it's not

10  efficient any more.

11           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Okay.  I think if you want

12  to submit -- if you have a written testimony, that would

13  be fine.  We may talk further.  But I think the point that

14  several people have raised now confuse a number of

15  different issues.

16           I'm just -- I want to say for the record right

17  here that there's nothing about what we are doing here

18  that is relevant to whether or not there can be or should

19  be a cap and trade system put into effect or allocations

20  are assigned to people.  It's a totally different kind of

21  process than what we're talking about under the ZEV

22  program.

23           Just let me finish okay.

24           Because what we're talking about is compliance

25  data which is under AB 32.  It's treated in a completely

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           334

 1  separate way as an alternative compliance mechanism.

 2  That's the kind of mechanism we're talking about here if

 3  we were to go down the path of continuing to treat it as

 4  confidential data.

 5           The entire trading idea is very different and so

 6  is the way in which these credits are given.  So I'm just

 7  not buying your argument.  That's all I'm telling you.

 8           MS. FUGERE:  And I would just say that the

 9  industry will use this as a precedent, and they will say,

10  well, if the trading information in ZEV was secret, our

11  trading information should be secret as well.

12           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Well, they can try.  Okay.

13  I understand.

14           Ms. Holmes-Gen, Daniel Emmett, Tim Carmichael.

15           MS. HOLMES-GEN:  Chairwoman Nichols and members,

16  Bonnie Holmes-Gen of the American Lung Association of

17  California.

18           First, I'd like to thank you for calendaring this

19  item for public discussion.  I really greatly appreciate

20  that.  As you know, we submitted a joint request for this

21  disclosure of this information a year ago.  And we have

22  been anxiously waiting for a very long time for this

23  disclosure.

24           And we consider this request to really be a

25  fairly simple and modest request.  We don't believe that

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           335

 1  this information falls in the definition a trade secret.

 2  In concert with my colleagues, I really do not believe

 3  this information is actually secret.  I believe that it

 4  can be obtained if an individual or company has the

 5  financial resources and has the technical consultant and

 6  can do the number crutching to get this information.

 7           And so in this sense, this information is not

 8  known only to certain individuals within a commercial

 9  concern.  It can be obtained in the public arena, as has

10  been stated, for a price and with a lot of hassle that

11  most people in the general public certainly couldn't

12  afford or go through.  So in that sense, it's an injustice

13  that this information is available potentially to some who

14  could afford to obtain the information, but not to others

15  in the public who would not have the resources or the

16  ability to get that information.

17           Again, this is information that's based on the

18  certification standard of the vehicle and based on the

19  types of vehicles that were produced.  This is not

20  information that was created by a car company.  The

21  companies didn't create these credits.  They were given to

22  them.  It was a gift from a public entity in a sense.  And

23  we believe that information should be available to the

24  public for all the reasons that have been discussed.  So

25  that we can hold the car companies accountable for their

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           336

 1  obligations under the ZEV program.

 2           And as has been stated, it is extremely difficult

 3  to assess the car makers' progress, not only to assess

 4  their progress in meeting their obligations under the ZEV

 5  regulation, but to provide thoughtful and specific input

 6  on the potential changes that have been put before us

 7  without an understanding of how these ZEV credits are

 8  going to impact the obligations of the car companies and

 9  their potential plans and investments under the ZEV

10  program.

11           We need you today to determine that this

12  information is not a trade secret, and we need you to

13  grant our simple modest request and to make this

14  information -- give this information to the public.  There

15  have been some estimates that have been made of the credit

16  amounts that may have been accumulated by the car

17  companies.  And these estimates show that the car

18  companies collectively have over 100,000 gold credits.

19  For example, if that's the correct estimate, I don't know

20  for sure.  We don't have the information.  But this would

21  be an aggregate more than enough to fulfill the

22  obligations of the car companies under the ZEV program for

23  the Phase 2 time frame 2009 to 2011.  So clearly we have

24  significant concerns.  Clearly, we can't make a thoughtful

25  analysis of any changes to the ZEV program without this

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           337

 1  information.

 2           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Thank you.  Appreciate your

 3  comments.

 4           Daniel Emmett and Tim Carmichael.  That concludes

 5  our public testimony.

 6           MR. EMMETT:  Good evening, Chair Nichols and

 7  members of the Board.  Thanks for the opportunity to speak

 8  to you this evening.  My name is Daniel Emmett.  I'm

 9  Executive Director of Energy Independence Now and a member

10  of the ZEV Alliance.

11           I'm just going to very briefly echo many of the

12  comments that have been made today by my colleagues in the

13  ZEV Alliance that we really do need this information in

14  order to participate in the process and comment on staff's

15  recommendations to changes to the ZEV regulation.

16           I think all of our organization work to be

17  thoughtful and think about the programs and the details.

18  We want to be able to do that.  And we feel like we don't

19  have the information that we need to be able to do that.

20  And we feel in particular that this is not trade secret,

21  nor should it be considered as such.

22           With regard to the rational for compilation of

23  information, this is not a compilation of information

24  owned by the OEMs.  Rather, it's owed to ARB and the

25  public.  These compilations are information that are

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           338

 1  compiled about credits which are construct of the State

 2  and a construct of the ZEV program.  So we don't feel like

 3  this is trade secret.  And others have indicated that as

 4  well.

 5           We just want to close by saying we really need

 6  this information.  Thank you.

 7           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Thank you.

 8           Tim Carmichael.

 9           MR. CARMICHAEL:  Good evening.  I think my father

10  would say after Tom Jennings' presentation, thank you for

11  all the hard work.  It's clear as mud.  No offense

12  intended.

13           But there's a lot here.  And as every slide

14  showed, there's two sides to this issue.  Our basic

15  premise is the public has a right to know how -- has a

16  right to know if and how companies are complying with the

17  pollution laws of this state.  And that is a fundamental

18  right for this agency and for the public, because we're

19  talking about companies that are polluting.  We're talking

20  about sources that are polluting.

21           And Chairman Nichols, you know, I respectfully

22  disagree with your premise that this is so different than

23  AB 32 or what's going to come in that program.  I actually

24  think there's more similarity than difference in the

25  handling of credits and various polluters' intention to

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           339

 1  maintain -- to keep information secret that should be

 2  public to ensure so that we can all ensure that pollution

 3  reductions are being achieved so that we can evaluate the

 4  effectiveness of this or future programs.

 5           I want to also say that I'm not sure that the tax

 6  reporting analogy really works.  We're talking about

 7  public corporations that, in fact, have to release all

 8  sorts have financial data, including their tax returns on

 9  an annual if not quarterly basis.  And so I think how

10  individuals handle their finances is not the same as how a

11  corporation has to handle public information.

12           The point was made by the attorney from Pillsbury

13  that it would be unjust to disclose this information.  And

14  I might believe that, if I believed that there could be a

15  competitive disadvantage or harm to any one of these

16  companies by releasing this data.  But as my colleagues

17  have mentioned, that is a very hard sell.

18           We are talking about a small fraction of the two

19  million vehicles sold in the state every year.  We're

20  talking about public companies that, once they have made

21  the sales, that information is -- they have to make the

22  sales to generate the credits.  And once those sales have

23  been made, that is public information.

24           The last point I want to make is that this is the

25  Air Resources Board.  This is not the Ninth Circuit or the

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           340

 1  local district court.  And that's a good thing.  I think

 2  part of the reason your counsel punted to you is because

 3  this is more a public policy decision I believe than it is

 4  a legal decision.  The law, as was pointed out, can be

 5  interpreted a couple of different ways.  But as a matter

 6  of public policy, the California Public Records Act is

 7  very strongly in favor of public disclosure.  And there

 8  are court cases that, you know, make that finding over and

 9  over.

10           So we urge you to decide on the side of the

11  public interest and disclose this information.  Thank you

12  very much.

13           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Thank you.  Your last point

14  I think is a good one.  And let me just clarify what I was

15  attempting to say before.  I'm sorry if it was too short

16  circuited.

17           I agree with you that what we're dealing with is

18  a decision.  And all I was trying to say about the issue

19  of comparing this to other kinds of market or credit or

20  trading programs is that, from my point of view, the issue

21  that we need to be dealing with here is not the legal

22  interpretation of the law.  I think our counsel has told

23  that we can way the interests here.

24           My concern is that this is a program which was

25  set up in a certain manner.  And we need to find out how

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           341

 1  the program was set up and what were the legitimate

 2  expectations of people who participated in it as part of

 3  making the decision.  To me, that's very different how I

 4  would set up this program today.  If you we were beginning

 5  fresh to start a ZEV program and I were asked to come up

 6  with some mechanism for enforcing the program and for

 7  allowing people to get credits for different categories

 8  and trade those categories, speaking for myself and I

 9  suspect for the rest of this Board, I would never allow

10  there to be confidential information in that kind of an

11  arena.

12           But what we've heard and now need to get more

13  information about is think from our staff is, you know,

14  what actually was communicated to the companies.  What is

15  the basis and fact or mortality, if you will, for them to

16  be able to claim trade secret.  Not the legal issue, but

17  the more practical and also philosophical question that we

18  do have to grapple with here.

19           MR. CARMICHAEL:  Just one quick point on that.

20  Even if the staff did tell every auto maker that the

21  information would be preserved as a trade secret, to make

22  a decision later as we're talking about today not to honor

23  that or not to keep it trade secret, I think it's very

24  important to consider would there be harm, would there be

25  a competitive disadvantage for anybody?  If that is not

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           342

 1  the case, I think it's less significant to change the

 2  policy over time.

 3           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  It's different, but there

 4  is a higher burden.  That's all I'm trying to say.

 5           Having said that, now staff, I've read this

 6  document that we send out to the companies, and it's just

 7  a regurgitation of the law.  It doesn't actually say we've

 8  accepted anything as a trade secret that was filed, even

 9  if they filed saying it's a trade secret.  There needs to

10  be some further action taken when somebody requests the

11  information before it actually gets stamped that way.

12           So can you illuminate this a little bit more in

13  terms of what you think the expectations of the companies

14  and the staff have been in this regard?

15           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  Well, I

16  think that we have followed the procedure that was listed

17  there.  The manufacturers submitted the data.  They

18  claimed trade secrets on it.  And it was being treated

19  that way until someone said I want to see that

20  information.  And at that point, the information -- we

21  have to notify them that someone wants to see the

22  information.  And then they provide the much more

23  elaborated rational for why it is trade secret or not.

24  And our attorney has concluded that he believes it is

25  trade secret.  So from that, that's the normal process if

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           343

 1  I've got that right, Tom.

 2           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  So the whole history of how

 3  we got here today is that for the first time last spring

 4  you got a request for the compilation of the credits and

 5  then ruled on it?

 6           SENIOR ATTORNEY JOHNSTON:  It was submitted last

 7  December and we received -- I'm Diane Johnston, and I was

 8  the attorney who was assigned to actually respond to the

 9  initial request from the ZEV Alliance.

10           And they made their request in December of 2006.

11  And the information we gathered -- and we followed the

12  procedure in ARB's regulations for determining whether

13  disclosure is appropriate or not.  And part of that is

14  sending the information that we've collected to the people

15  who submitted it, in this case the auto manufacturers, and

16  have them indicate whether they believe that the

17  information that they had previously submitted and

18  indicated was confidential is, in fact, confidential and

19  to provide us with a rational for its confidentiality.  So

20  all of that information came into the ARB back in January,

21  February, and March of this year.

22           And then subsequent to that, we made an initial

23  determination that the manufacturers had carried their

24  burden for, you know, having us treat it as confidential

25  trade information.  And we advised the ZEV Alliance, the

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           344

 1  requesters, of that fact.

 2           And then they asked for a meeting with the legal

 3  office.  And we had a conference call.  And things kind of

 4  developed from there to the point where in May when the

 5  Board heard the ZEV technology review, the ZEV Alliance

 6  once again renewed their request for the information.  And

 7  in response to that, the Board directed the staff to try

 8  to make this process of looking at this information as

 9  transparent as possible.

10           So we once again renewed our request to both the

11  manufacturers and the ZEV Alliance to provide this

12  additional analysis.  And that was done.  And at the end

13  of August, we had received all the information from the

14  various parties.  And we began our analysis at that point

15  looking at the law and reviewing the issues.  So here we

16  are today.

17           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  That's helpful in terms of

18  the history.  It also I think casts a somewhat different

19  light both on the claim by the attorney for the auto

20  companies that they haven't had time to think -- I guess

21  they haven't had time to think about your new legal view.

22           SENIOR ATTORNEY JOHNSTON:  Right.

23           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  But in terms of the facts

24  for the justification for why they think this information

25  should be kept secret, they've been well aware of the

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           345

 1  request and the information for quite some time.

 2           SENIOR ATTORNEY JOHNSTON:  But our analysis was

 3  just posted on Monday.

 4           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Thank you.  That's helpful.

 5  Now I've been doing --

 6           MS. FLANAGAN:  I know this is out of order.  I

 7  could have brought six of my colleagues so I could rack up

 8  20 minutes.  But I --

 9           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  If you're going to speak --

10           MS. FLANAGAN:  May I address the one reference to

11  the letter?  Because I think you're missing my point.

12           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  All right.  If I

13  misunderstood you, you can explain.

14           MS. FLANAGAN:  The significance of the advisory

15  that went to the manufacturers is that under

16  confidentiality, the section it references is 6254.7.

17  That is the absolute protection for trade secrets.  It's

18  not the balancing test.  That's a separate section, which

19  is not mentioned at all in the confidentiality discussion.

20  Only the absolute privilege.

21           What we're now hearing is that they're saying

22  none of the data being submitted in this program could

23  possibly qualify for the absolute privilege.  Okay.  So

24  then why did you rely on the absolute privilege when you

25  were discussing with us how our documents would be

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           346

 1  treated?  That's my point.

 2           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Okay.  Understood.  Thank

 3  you.

 4           Well, does anybody have a suggestion?

 5           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:  Madam Chair, I don't have

 6  a suggestion, but I have a question, which is I

 7  understand -- I see this as two particular issues.  One is

 8  what do we do with what we've done in the past, and what

 9  might we do going forward?  And I don't know to -- our

10  attorneys, is there a difference, or is it just my

11  unsophisticated mind working here?

12           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  To put it a little

13  differently, the a Board could establish a policy for what

14  we wanted to go going forward that would be different from

15  what we decide to do about the specific request that's

16  before us right now.

17           CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS:  I think there's a

18  definite policy that the Board could adopt a regulation

19  that says these data are going to be public.  I'm not sure

20  whether there would be a concern with the fact that we

21  would be declaring the stuff they claim to be trade secret

22  public, but it would certainly change things going

23  forward.

24           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Well, the alternative is to

25  try to do what you've been trying to do for a year now

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           347

 1  which is work it out in a way that would give more

 2  information to the groups that want it and still not

 3  disrupt the relationships or the expectations that the

 4  auto companies have.  And that doesn't seem to be making

 5  anybody happy.  I'm not sure it could.

 6           I guess maybe there is something short of a

 7  company by company release of the documents that they file

 8  that could give them the same level of information they

 9  really we need to participate in the upcoming discussions

10  about the ZEV program.  Frankly, I don't know that they

11  really need to have the level of company by company data

12  that we used to make decisions about enforcement as part

13  of participating in a rulemaking.  But I understand

14  clearly why anyone would want it.  I mean, without a

15  doubt, it would be helpful to them.

16           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  If I

17  could add one thing.  The relevance of a lot of this

18  information, assuming that you trust the data that we have

19  is accurate.  Forget the validation part of it.  Is that

20  we're trying to make projections for the future for 2009

21  for 2012 as to what would happen.  Of course, the credit

22  is only part of the information.

23           A manufacture can choose to produce a bunch of

24  new cars and generate new credit and not use its banked

25  credits.  They could produce very few vehicles and use

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           348

 1  lots of banked credits.  And that's of course what people

 2  would like to know.

 3           But it is a projection.  And even as we present

 4  the information, we're not able to predict what

 5  manufacturers will do with these credits, nor can the --

 6           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Nor can anybody else.

 7           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  That's

 8  one aspect of it.

 9           What we have tried to do is to recap from before

10  is we've -- for example, in phase 2, we know a number of

11  companies have credits, what we've tried to do is say if

12  the requirement is 2500 vehicles, which is what the

13  current requirement for '09 through '11 is cumulative,

14  then we don't -- based on what we know about the bank

15  situation and assuming that people don't produce more than

16  they have to, then we might get -- I don't remember the

17  exact numbers -- only 1200 vehicles.  The rest would be

18  made up by banked credits because people go on the base

19  path.  So we've been able to do that.

20           I don't think we have yet, but we can probably do

21  things like say and we think that at least two unnamed

22  manufacturers will be on the base path.  And we think

23  three will not.  And it tells you that the three that are

24  not have to produce new product of a certain amount.  And

25  on the other ones, they can use banked credits.  So it's

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           349

 1  some sense.  But if you go too much further than that,

 2  then it becomes -- I think there's probably an argument

 3  people can figure it out, because we're only talking about

 4  six manufacturers.  You can get to some point where we're

 5  essentially releasing it.  Where that line is, I don't

 6  know.  And I don't know if that little bit more of

 7  information that we can perhaps provide would be useful to

 8  the Alliance or not.

 9           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  What I'm finding

10  interesting about this whole discussion is what's really

11  of value is the kind of judgment based on a more intimate

12  knowledge of what the plans of the companies are that ARB

13  staff has, which is based on both conversations and

14  probably on some documents that you obtained in the course

15  of your meetings with the companies that you do on a whole

16  bunch of different things, which is not the subject of

17  this disclosure request.

18           The only thing that is actually being requested

19  is what do they got in the bank at any given time.  And to

20  me, what makes it so difficult to take the position that's

21  a trade secret is it looks so much like any other kind of

22  routine data that we would request for reporting purposes

23  that we would use for enforcement.  And so the only threat

24  from having that data released from my perspective is that

25  people would misuse it or would treat it as being kind of

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           350

 1  the only issue in whether the ZEV program could go forward

 2  in a certain way or not as opposed to actually doing any

 3  real harm.

 4           You've had your hand up for a while there.

 5           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:  Well, I would just like to

 6  maybe give a little bit of historical perspective on this.

 7  Because when I first came on the Board in 1999, this was

 8  the hot issue.  And I think we had a hearing in 2001 where

 9  we made some adjustments.  Then we had another hearing in

10  2003.  There may have been another review in between.

11           But in my opinion, what this gets down to is that

12  the credits are an issue because certain manufacturers may

13  be choosing to go from the base path to the alt path.

14  This is their choice.  This was a choice that we gave them

15  because of the concerns that they had relative to the 2001

16  regulation.

17           And I would like to say that every step of the

18  way we have been gamed.  And I think it's absolutely

19  crucial for us to get as much information as possible, not

20  just from the auto makers, but from the general public.

21  Because we may be missing what the impact is of the

22  regulation and the impact of the proposal that we're

23  looking at.

24           I suppose the alternative is to just say you

25  don't want -- the auto makers feel so strongly about

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           351

 1  disclosure that we should not disclose that to the public.

 2  In that event, let the old regulation stand.

 3           But they are asking once again for us to make a

 4  change.  And so I think that that very issue goes to our

 5  need to balance.  If it is in their interest that the

 6  regulation be changed, then I think that the only way that

 7  we can properly evaluate whether or not making changes is

 8  appropriate would be if we have a full and public

 9  discourse of that information.  And

10           I would agree with you.  I would like -- I

11  appreciate the legal analysis, but I just can't get past

12  my gut feeling that this is like a reporting requirement

13  and really nothing more than that.

14           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Supervisor Hill.

15           SUPERVISOR HILL:  Thank you, Madam Chair.

16           I really agree with you and you really focused in

17  on the issue.  The issue is the credit.  We're talking

18  about credits.  We're not talking about plans or the

19  confidential information they may bring to you on an

20  ongoing basis.

21           To me, they will continue to bring that

22  confidential information if it serves their interests.  If

23  it doesn't serve their interests, they won't bring it to

24  you.  And that's how I see this as going forward.  It's

25  clearly the public's interest -- in the public's interest.

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           352

 1  And the disclosure is I think crucial as we move forward

 2  with the program so that everyone will be on the same

 3  page.

 4           And I think, Tom, you made it clear.  I think if

 5  there is full disclosure, then everyone -- it's a level

 6  playing field and it's not going to effect anyone

 7  adversely.  And I would support that and move for that

 8  today.

 9           DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:  We agree with you.  We're

10  trying to revise the program in ways where the credit

11  system becomes less important.  And so I think the staff

12  has been struggling with exactly the kinds of concerns

13  that both you and the ZEV Alliance have in terms of both

14  gaming and a lot other things, like some of the vehicles

15  which contribute to the credit system aren't sold.  I

16  mean, they're lent to people.  And there's all kinds of

17  stuff that the manufacturers do that even sort of through

18  disclosure without a lot of explanation isn't going to be

19  transparent.

20           So I think the thing that we need to do is to use

21  up the credits and move to a transparent system.  I think

22  the staff is trying to work on a proposal that will do it.

23  So what I'm saying is that the disclosure issue is a short

24  term issue if we get to where we want.

25           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  One way or the other.

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           353

 1  Okay.

 2           DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:  For this regulation.

 3           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Supervisor Case and then

 4  Supervisor Roberts.

 5           BOARD MEMBER CASE:  I'm going to weigh in in a

 6  similar way.  I don't have the history and I read through

 7  documents.  Today we're looking at a policy decision.  I

 8  have an anecdotal history that back in '99 I was trying to

 9  get a hold of one of these vehicles, something to drive.

10  And I couldn't find them.  I couldn't find information

11  them and couldn't get one.  It took me almost two years.

12           So, you know, I think there is a public interest

13  that we're trying to weight here.  And I live in the world

14  of HIPAA and health care.  And I understand

15  confidentiality.  And I also come from a business family

16  and I understand trade secrets.

17           But I think as we go forward in looking at this

18  rule, it has to be done on full disclosure.  And that

19  combined with some dissatisfaction -- I think I've heard

20  other people state on the program and I'm in that camp

21  that I don't feel that things happened as I would have

22  liked to have seen, a stronger direction.

23           I think I don't hear anything.  I keep thinking,

24  okay, what about a business.  Would this be so harmful to

25  their operation?  And I can't come up with that answer.

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           354

 1           So I'm going to weigh in I think there's a

 2  good -- from a policy perspective, there's a good argument

 3  for full public disclosure.  So that as we move forward

 4  with a new rule, it really comes with a full public

 5  vetting and we all understand where we are and a sense

 6  that in the past this may have been something that didn't

 7  allow us to really get a grasp on why or why not we had

 8  great degrees of succeed there.

 9           I'm going to second the motion.

10           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Okay.  Supervisor Roberts.

11           BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS:  Thank you, Madam Chair.

12           SUPERVISOR HILL:  I did make a motion.  You're

13  right.

14           BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS:  Listening do this, it

15  seems to me that I found compelling the argument that the

16  data is available if somebody were to take the time to go

17  out there and do that.

18           The thing that concerns me is that this really is

19  a change in the expectation that somebody that in effect

20  entered into an agreement with us has been reliant on.

21           And while this has been going on for a year, if I

22  understand correctly, the attorney's position here is all

23  about three days' old.  I would feel very remiss to make a

24  decision of this kind giving somebody three days' notice

25  that, in effect, has been proceeding in good faith.  I

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           355

 1  don't feel like I'm a victim in this or that I've been

 2  manipulated if I had done it with my own eyes open and

 3  I'll take responsibility for that.

 4           And I find the arguments that we should do this

 5  compelling.  But the manner in which we're doing this and

 6  the length of time that we've permitted for somebody to --

 7  the other side to respond in a thoughtful way I think is

 8  inexcusable and I'm not going to support this motion.

 9  I've would recommend -- my recommendation would be to, you

10  know, allow -- I don't know why this has to be done

11  tonight.  I don't know what's driving this.  But to make a

12  decision of this sort, you know.  And I appreciate the

13  fact that Tom is retiring.

14           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  You know, he's going to be

15  back.  As I said earlier, he's going to work for us on the

16  low carbon fuel standards.  So he's not really escaping.

17           BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS:  I would rather we take the

18  month or so to our next meeting and allow for arguments to

19  be prepared so we can --

20           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  We have a motion and a

21  second on the floor, but I understand your point.  And I

22  actually I have a good bit of sympathy for, because I do

23  think that we're doing something that's important that is

24  going to have implications for the future, whether it has

25  them for the entire world of all trading programs, it

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           356

 1  certainly has them with respect to our dealings with the

 2  auto companies.

 3           BOARD MEMBER BERG:  I would like to move that

 4  table this discussion and move as Supervisor Roberts

 5  suggested that we give additional 30 days for the review

 6  of the staff's legal position and gives also this Board

 7  the opportunity to get the additional information.

 8           I think we're looking at two things, Madam Chair.

 9  That is the past and how we want to move forward.  Good

10  public policy moving forward, I don't think you'd have too

11  much of an argument around this table.  But doing the

12  right thing for both our credibility so when we take the

13  vote that we know that we have all the information.  So I

14  would vote to table.

15           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Is there a second?

16           BOARD MEMBER CASE:  I'll second.

17           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Before we act on that,

18  which takes precedence over the other motions, I would

19  like to get a little more information from the staff about

20  if process by which we get these reports from the

21  manufacturers.

22           This is an annual reporting requirement, is it

23  not?  And so when would we be normally getting the reports

24  that would give us the status of their credit situations?

25           MANAGER BEVAN:  If I recall correctly, we

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           357

 1  received -- this is Analisa Bevan, the Mobile Source

 2  Control Division.

 3           We receive the data in May following the model

 4  year.  And we take some time to verify that information

 5  with the manufacturer, and then we issue a statement --

 6  credit statement back to them indicating that their

 7  credits have been deposited.  They can report credit

 8  trades throughout the year, and those transactions take

 9  place with a confirmation as well.

10           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  So this is making my life a

11  little more complicated.  You're actually issuing to them

12  a credit statement?

13           MANAGER BEVAN:  Correct.

14           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  It's not a credit statement

15  they sent us.  This is a document we prepared.

16           MANAGER BEVAN:  They send us a deposit, the data

17  indicating the number of vehicles, which vehicles, and the

18  calculation of the credit.  We deposit that into the bank

19  and then feed back to them now what their total balance

20  is.

21           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  It sounds like a public

22  record to me.

23           SUPERVISOR HILL:  If I could add one thing.  I'm

24  just going to say to the issue that this is -- people just

25  got this a couple of days ago and there hasn't been enough

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           358

 1  time to vet it and to discuss it.  This has been going on

 2  for years.  And the auto industry, as the manufacturers,

 3  have been able to certainly present their arguments

 4  throughout this whole process in the past year.  So I

 5  think there's nothing new here we're talking about tonight

 6  that the needs to be further analyzed or discussed.

 7  They've already made their point.

 8           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  I'm going to let Tom

 9  Jennings address the earlier point and then Dan Sperling

10  has a --

11           CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS:  Although we do issue

12  credits, the credits are based entirely on the data that

13  the companies submit to us.

14           But also comment a little bit on Supervisor

15  Hill's statement.  Ordinarily, when we got a Public

16  Records Act request and make a determination, it's not

17  brought to the Board.  You've never had one of these come

18  to you before.  So ordinarily based on the information

19  that we receive, we would have just issued our decision

20  without any additional public comment.

21           What's particularly important in my view is that

22  this is the first time that you've really considered the

23  issues of the public interest both for and again

24  disclosure.  And to the extent the people want to give you

25  comment on that, they have only had the three days notice.

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           359

 1           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Well, and I'm very

 2  appreciative of the fact when you took a look at this, you

 3  did determine there was a policy issue here.  Because if

 4  you had just gone on your previous decision that this was

 5  trade secret and no way to release it, we would have been

 6  in a position of being sued by the public interest groups,

 7  the ZEV Alliance and others that want the data.  And I

 8  prefer not to be in that position if I could avoid it.

 9           Dan Sperling had his hand up first and then --

10           BOARD MEMBER SPERLING:  So I just want to observe

11  two lessons learned here and then a suggestion.

12           I think the two lessons learned are let's not

13  make it so complicated in the future.  And as Bob Cross

14  and Analisa just said, that is the intent.  So hopefully

15  we'll learn the lesson not just for the ZEV program but

16  for a lot of other programs as well.

17           And that is the second lesson -- and so the

18  second lesson is also that we are more careful in how we

19  communicate to companies about data that they're providing

20  to us and be clear on what exactly is confidential and

21  what is not.  Because I'm not convinced here in this case

22  there's anything really confidential.  I mean, they're

23  just providing sales data.  And because of all of our

24  complicated rules that no one can figure out -- you know,

25  I'm probably the most involved in this on the Board here,

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           360

 1  and I can't figure out a lot of these things that are

 2  going on.  You know, you get into the travel provision and

 3  so on, you know, how to convert that into credit numbers,

 4  you know, becomes very difficult.

 5           So what I'd like to suggest is that I believe

 6  that the staff has not talked to the car companies about

 7  how to move forward on this issue, what might be a

 8  compromise in terms of what could be disclosed and suggest

 9  that that discussion take place with the intent that we do

10  want to become more transparent.  And maybe this is just

11  releasing the -- kind of where Tom Cackette was going a

12  little earlier releasing some kind of information about

13  how many -- what is the credit balance, you know, per

14  company and not get into exactly which models that came

15  from and how that's calculated and not make, of course,

16  any projections to the future.  And that seems to be

17  something that like that is may be -- something like that

18  can be done here without having to make any great

19  precedent setting decisions.

20           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  How quickly are you

21  intending to come back with a proposal for changing the

22  bank or eliminating the bank or closing the bank or

23  whatever?

24           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  We're

25  scheduled right now to come to you with revisions to the

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           361

 1  ZEV program in the February Board meeting.  That means

 2  that Analisa has to have her work done in another week and

 3  a half in order to put it into the 45 day process.  So

 4  that was the schedule for doing that.

 5           One aspect of that proposal -- and of course the

 6  proposal was that the way by maintaining the second phase

 7  '09 through '11, the way it is now it would force the

 8  draw-down of the bank.  That's where the previous comments

 9  came.  Not many people would have any credits that are old

10  left by the end of the second phase.

11           And in the third phase, we were only going to

12  allow averaging and carry forward or carry back type

13  things over a two or three year period, which would keep

14  everything fresh.  It would mean what you see is what you

15  get when you pick a number for the various phases, so

16  forth, so on.

17           That was why the comment before this was it's not

18  to diminish from the policy issue or the legal issue, but

19  it is kind of a three-year thing and it goes away.

20           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  A practical issue.

21           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  We

22  chose that because of what Professor Sperling says is this

23  thing is too messy and we wanted to get rid of this.  I

24  think the case that it needs to be more transparent has

25  been very clearly made.

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           362

 1           It started -- bit of history was because of what

 2  was called the blackout, and there was a fear by many of

 3  the ZEV Alliance that because of credits, someone rich in

 4  credits, they could go three years and never produce a

 5  ZEV.  And therefore somehow that would stymie the

 6  development of these new technologies.  And I think we've

 7  believed that's possible with the current credit bank,

 8  which is why we want to draw it down and get it over with

 9  in '09 through '11.  But we also don't think that's going

10  to happen.

11           But it is clear to us different manufacturers are

12  in very different positions.  Some will not make the

13  numbers that our regulation would suggest to you they will

14  make by the credits.  And other ones will have to make

15  every last one of them or pretty close to that.  That's

16  the situation with the reg.

17           And since the purpose of this presumably you're

18  saying this is important that the public understand this,

19  if that's where you go, then, you know, I think one month

20  delay just means we have to delay the ZEV item by one

21  month.  Because otherwise we'd have the proposal in front

22  of you and the public would not know what it was based on.

23           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  In a sense tabling this is

24  not a helpful way to go then in terms of helping you move

25  forward to actually change the situation.

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           363

 1           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  Well,

 2  two things.  Yes, it delays it.  But there is not a hard

 3  deadline that I'm aware of.  No one is screaming that

 4  we're in trouble here and they have to make product

 5  decisions.  I guess that's not true.  There actually is at

 6  least one company that told us that in late January they

 7  have to make product decisions.  This is somebody who

 8  doesn't have a lot of credits on exactly what they're

 9  going to produce.  And they were looking to see our

10  proposal if not your final decision at that time.  So you

11  know, I guess for some companies it may causes problems

12  with them.  But not everyone is clamoring this has to get

13  done.

14           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Ms. D'Adamo.

15           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:  That was my point.  I

16  think if we do end up with a delay, what I wouldn't want

17  to see is we are backed into a corner because of some

18  artificial deadline that is out there because of decisions

19  the auto makers need to make.  If it's that crucial they

20  need to make the decisions, you know, on their product

21  line, then perhaps what Professor Sperling indicated that

22  it would bring them to the table to try to come up with a

23  way to provide the information.

24           If not, what I don't want to see happen is that

25  we move forward at the next stage of beyond the concept

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           364

 1  paper and once a proposal is out on the street, it will be

 2  too difficult for us to provide much meaningful input,

 3  especially if we don't have information from the public

 4  about the impact of those credits.  If we delay, I think

 5  the whole thing needs to be delayed.

 6           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  In the

 7  case, the one manufacturer I'm aware that says they have a

 8  timing issue is one that doesn't care about the public

 9  disclosure.  They're fine disclosing it.  That won't

10  provide a leverage unfortunately.  And the other ones who

11  are more concerned don't seem to be as concerned about the

12  timing.

13           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  So where we are right now

14  procedurally, we have a motion to table.  And the effect

15  of that would be that this item would simply be carried

16  over to the next Board meeting, as I understand it.  And

17  otherwise nothing would happen.

18           BOARD MEMBER CASE:  If I could just clarify

19  understanding that if given the first motion would have

20  moved forward to allow disclosure because of the public

21  interest that the companies, would be contacted and there

22  would be some dialogue prior to any disclosure.  So that

23  wouldn't happen just immediately?

24           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Well, it's 21 days from the

25  time they receive the notice.

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           365

 1           CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS:  We would absolutely have

 2  to give them 21 days notice before we would released any

 3  data.  Whether you wanted to discussions to occur during

 4  that period of time, which throw might even end in some

 5  other kind of resolution, that would be up to you.  But we

 6  couldn't release the data for 21 days.

 7           BOARD MEMBER CASE:  And the other option is to

 8  table it for one month and have a discussion with them.

 9  Well, this is December.  So if it's tabled to January, it

10  would be our very next meeting.  If there were dialogue

11  during that period that the Board was giving consideration

12  for this, it might resolve some of those issues.  Because

13  as I understand, the revision to the policy will coming

14  back to us currently scheduled in February.  And that

15  could potentially give information to the public I would

16  hope by 30 days prior to the second hearing.  But does

17  that happen if we table it and hold off, then do we have

18  the 21 day noticing and we bump up again February

19  regulatory hearing?

20           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  If you

21  table it, what the sense I'm getting is you could like us

22  to go sit down with the two parties.  And given where at

23  least I'm hearing the Board is coming, I think they can

24  see when the leaning is at least.  So sitting down and

25  trying to figure out is there some compromise where, you

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           366

 1  know, the NGO side can get the information they want and

 2  the car companies can have some possible protection of

 3  really valuable information and see if we can find a

 4  compromise that the parties would like.

 5           That's a compromise approach.  You may be

 6  focusing on the simple policy issue which is a black and

 7  white issue here.

 8           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Well, I guess another

 9  alternative, while we're just tossing alternatives for

10  what could happen around, is the Board could tonight

11  decide we want to move in the direction of disclosure, but

12  we want to do it by regulation.  So that going forward we

13  declare that this stuff isn't trade secret and that it

14  never would be trade secret.

15           SUPERVISOR HILL:  How would that effect the

16  credits currently out there for the decision making that

17  we'll have the February where the public should have a

18  right to know that information?

19           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  If you

20  wanted the regulation to be retroactive to the credits, I

21  think there's probably a legal issue that needs to be

22  looked at, if I'm correct, Tom.

23           And then of course that would -- if it was a

24  regulation to do this, that would set I think the ZEV

25  program back six to nine months.  Because that's how long

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           367

 1  it would take to do any kind of regulation, regardless of

 2  how simple it was.

 3           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  What I was really trying to

 4  accomplish with that suggestion was make it clear I really

 5  want these changes and the banking system to be part of

 6  whatever comes forward with your proposal.  I understand

 7  the regulation process could make much longer.

 8           Yes.

 9           BOARD MEMBER KENNARD:  Let me weight in quickly.

10  This is so complicated.  And I'm a lawyer, but I must be

11  totally recovered because I just can't even totally really

12  can't understand all of it and have not had the benefit of

13  reading the Pillsbury document, et cetera.

14           So I think that we're inviting litigation on

15  either side unless we go back and try to work it out.  So

16  I'm very much in support of giving us all a little bit of

17  breathing room to, one, understand what's really on the

18  table and, two, to maybe work out a compromise between the

19  two parties.

20           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Okay.  Ms. D'Adamo.

21           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:  I just want to make sure I

22  understand schedule.  So if we give staff some additional

23  time, it comes back in January.  Then we assuming that a

24  compromise is not reached in January, we would have an

25  opportunity at that point to re-visit the issue as to

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           368

 1  whether or not we should disclose.  And if this Board did

 2  take a position at that time to disclose, there would be

 3  21-day period before the disclosure would occur.

 4           In light of that, what would be the time frame

 5  for release of the proposal?  And when would the hearing

 6  be?  Assuming that we would have an opportunity for

 7  adequate public discussion prior to the hearing?

 8           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  Well,

 9  release of the proposal right now for February is 11th of

10  January.  So I guess if we delayed it one month, it would

11  be something like approximately 11th of February, which

12  would be after your discussion at the January Board

13  meeting.  So we would be able to possibly reflect any

14  direction we have in the regulations.  So it could be a

15  one month maybe a two month delay.  But this would be all

16  that would be required.

17           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:  So March or April.

18           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  Of

19  course, the flip of it is if you release it, I'm assuming

20  a vote for release and we go through the 21 and possible

21  litigation, I presume we're going to go ahead with

22  litigation at that point and not wait for litigation to be

23  resolved.

24           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:  And --

25           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  We wouldn't be releasing

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           369

 1  the data if the car companies prevailed.  They would --

 2  presumably they would get a temporary injunction, because

 3  otherwise the whole thing would be --

 4           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  If they

 5  got a -- well, still your point applies to the

 6  information.  You'd have to make the call as to whether

 7  our regulatory process should stop while this is resolved

 8  which, of course, could be years, I suppose.

 9           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  I prefer not to do that.

10           CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE:  Or we

11  go ahead with the reg changes based on the information --

12  you directing it to be released but not be able to be

13  released because of the legal thing, and we go ahead which

14  is kind of where we were going before this issue came up.

15           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  We still have to do it

16  anyway.  Okay.  All right.

17           Then I think I will call the question on the

18  motion to table and let's do a roll call vote on this one

19  please.

20           BOARD MEMBER SPERLING:  Could you elaborate what

21  that means?  Say that again.

22           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  The motions that is that we

23  table this discussion on the motion to release the data,

24  which was made earlier by Supervisor Hill and seconded by

25  Supervisor Case.

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           370

 1           The earlier motion to that we determine that it

 2  was in the public interest to release the data, that

 3  motion would come back before us at the January meeting.

 4  And we would not make a decision on it.  And that would be

 5  the end of the discussion for tonight.

 6           BOARD MEMBER SPERLING:  What are we assuming is

 7  going to happen in the next month?

 8           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  The assumption underlying

 9  that is that staff would attempt to bring the parties

10  together and to see if there is a way to resolve this

11  issue short of litigation, which is otherwise inevitable

12  by one side or the other.  I think it's clear people have

13  worked themselves up to that point.

14           Okay.  So on the motion to table, Madam Clerk.

15           SECRETARY ANDREONI:  Ms. Berg?

16           BOARD MEMBER BERG:  Aye.

17           SECRETARY ANDREONI:  Supervisor Case?

18           BOARD MEMBER CASE:  Aye.

19           SECRETARY ANDREONI:  Ms. D'Adamo?

20           BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:  Aye.

21           SECRETARY ANDREONI:  Supervisor Hill?

22           SUPERVISOR HILL:  Aye.

23           SECRETARY ANDREONI:  Ms. Kennard?

24           BOARD MEMBER KENNARD:  Yes.

25           SECRETARY ANDREONI:  Ms. Riordan?

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           371

 1           BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN:  Aye.

 2           SECRETARY ANDREONI:  Supervisor Roberts?

 3           BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS:  Aye.

 4           SECRETARY ANDREONI:  Professor Sperling?

 5           BOARD MEMBER SPERLING:  Aye.

 6           SECRETARY ANDREONI:  And Chairman Nichols?

 7           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  I think I'll vote aye.

 8           SECRETARY ANDREONI:  Motion passes.

 9           EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE:  We will work to

10  bring the parties together.

11           CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:  Thank you very much

12           This has been a really good discussion.  And that

13  it for tonight, and we'll see you all tomorrow morning.

14           (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board

15           recessed at 6:49 p.m.)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                           372

 1                    CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

 2           I, TIFFANY C. KRAFT, a Certified Shorthand

 3  Reporter of the State of California, and Registered

 4  Professional Reporter, do hereby certify:

 5           That I am a disinterested person herein; that the

 6  foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me,

 7  Tiffany C. Kraft, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the

 8  State of California, and thereafter transcribed into

 9  typewriting.

10           I further certify that I am not of counsel or

11  attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any

12  way interested in the outcome of said hearing.

13           IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

14  this 17th day of December, 2007.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23                             TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR

24                             Certified Shorthand Reporter

25                             License No. 12277

   PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36312-36313]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13181]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1284]

Determination That APRESOLINE (Hydralazine Hydrochloride)
Injectable and Other Drug Products Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for
Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has
determined that the drug products listed in this document were not
withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This
determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw
approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to
these drug products, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs
that refer to the products as long as they meet relevant legal and
regulatory requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Kane, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 6236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA
applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which
they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the
same strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a
version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do
not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary
to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.

355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs.
FDA publishes this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With
Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is generally known as the
``Orange Book.'' Under FDA regulations, a drug is removed from the list
if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA
for reasons of safety or effectiveness, or if FDA determines that the
listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
    Under Sec.  314.161(a) (21 CFR 314.161(a)), the Agency must
determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of
safety or effectiveness: (1) Before an ANDA that refers to that listed
drug may be approved, (2) whenever a listed drug is voluntarily
withdrawn from sale and ANDAs that refer to the listed drug have been
approved, and (3) when a person petitions for such a determination
under 21 CFR 10.25(a) and 10.30. Section 314.161(d) provides that if
FDA determines that a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for safety or
effectiveness reasons, the Agency will initiate proceedings that could
result in the withdrawal of approval of the ANDAs that refer to the
listed drug.
    FDA has become aware that the drug products listed in the following
table are no longer being marketed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Active                         Dosage form/
   Application No.           Drug name         ingredient(s)     Strength(s)         route          Applicant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 008303...........  APRESOLINE...........  Hydralazine      20 milligrams    Injectable;      Novartis
                                               Hydrochloride;.  (mg)/            Injection        Pharmaceutical
                                                                milliliter 10    Tablet; Oral.    s Corp.
                                                                mg; 25 mg; 50
                                                                mg; 100 mg.
NDA 017853...........  PROVENTIL............  Albuterol        Equivalent to    Tablet; Oral...  Schering-Plough
                                               Sulfate.         (EQ) 2 mg                         Corp.
                                                                base; EQ 4 mg
                                                                base.
NDA 019439...........  K-Dur................  Potassium        10               Extended-        Merck Sharp &
                                               Chloride.        milliequivalen   Release          Dohme, Corp.
                                                                ts (meq); 20     Tablet; Oral.
                                                                meq.
ANDA 060572..........  MYCOLOG-II...........  Nystatin;        100,000 units/   Ointment;        Delcor Asset
                                               Triamcinolone    gram; 0.1%.      Topical.         Corp.
                                               Acetonide.
ANDA 084343..........  KENALOG..............  Triamcinolone    0.025%; 0.1%...  Lotion; Topical  Delcor Asset
                                               Acetonide.                                         Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA has reviewed its records and, under Sec.  314.161, has
determined that the drug products listed in this document were not
withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list the drug products listed
in this document in the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of
the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' identifies,
among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from
marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.
    Approved ANDAs that refer to the NDAs and ANDAs listed in this
document are unaffected by the discontinued marketing of the products
subject to those NDAs and ANDAs. Additional ANDAs that refer to these
products may also be approved by the Agency if they comply with
relevant legal and regulatory requirements. If FDA determines that
labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current
standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such
labeling.

    Dated: May 31, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-13181 Filed 6-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: April 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 16914]
[DOCID:fr13ap09-138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee--Open Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a
meeting of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
(COMSTAC). The meeting will take place on Thursday, May 21, 2009,
starting at 8 a.m. at the Federal Aviation Administration Headquarters
Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, in the Bessie
Coleman Conference Center, located on the 2nd Floor. This will be the
forty-ninth meeting of the COMSTAC.
    The proposed agenda for this meeting will focus on discussions
concerning several critical issues, including:

--The impact of the current economy on the U.S. commercial space
transportation industry;
--Space situational awareness, space traffic management, and FAA's role
in these areas;
--Identifying the critical issues impacting operations at U.S. federal
and non-federal launch sites that the COMSTAC should be considering.

    There will also be briefings on the 2009 Commercial Space
Transportation Market Forecasts and discussions and activity reports by
the chairpersons of the COMSTAC working groups. Subject to approval, a
portion of the May 21st meeting will be closed to the public (starting
at 3:45 p.m.).
    Interested members of the public may submit relevant written
statements for the COMSTAC members to consider under the advisory
process. Statements may be concerning the issues and agenda items
mentioned above and/or additional issues that may be relevant for the
U.S. commercial space transportation industry. Interested parties
wishing to submit written statements should contact Brenda Parker, DFO,
(the Contact Person listed below) in writing (mail or e-mail) by May 1,
2009, so that the information can be made available to COMSTAC members
for their review and consideration prior to the May 21st meeting.
Written statements should be supplied in the following formats: one
hard copy with original signature and/or one electronic copy via e-
mail.
    An agenda will be posted on the FAA Web site at http://ast.faa.gov.
For specific information concerning the times and locations of the
COMSTAC working group meetings, contact the Contact Person listed
below.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should
inform the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Parker (AST-100), Office of
Commercial Space Transportation (AST), 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Room 331, Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Complete information regarding COMSTAC is
available on the FAA Web site at: http: //www.faa.gov/about/office_
org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/.

    Issued in Washington, DC, April 6, 2009.
George C. Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
 [FR Doc. E9-8367 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8055-8056]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3519]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0059; FRL-9115-4; EPA ICR No. 1803.06, OMB Control No.
2040-0185]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 25,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2002-0059 to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard E. Rubin, Mail Code 4606M,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-3757; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On Monday, October 26, 2009 (74 FR 54996), EPA sought comments
on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0059, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1803.06, OMB Control No. 2040-0185.
    ICR Status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on February
28, 2010. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996
(Public Law 104-182) authorized the creation of the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF; the Fund) program in each State and Puerto
Rico to assist public water systems to finance the costs of
infrastructure needed to achieve or maintain compliance with SDWA
requirements and to protect public health. Section 1452 authorizes the
Administrator of the EPA to award capitalization grants to the States
and Puerto Rico which, in turn, provide low-cost loans and other types
of assistance to eligible drinking water systems. States can also
reserve a portion of their grants to conduct various set-aside
activities. The information collection activities will occur primarily
at the program level through the (1) Capitalization Grant Application
and Agreement/State Intended Use Plan; (2) Biennial Report; (3) Annual
Audit; and (4) Assistance Application Review. Information collected is
needed for input into the DWSRF National Information Management System
and the Project & Benefits Reporting System.
    (1) Capitalization Grant Application and Agreement/State Intended
Use Plan: The State must prepare a Capitalization Grant Application
that includes an Intended Use Plan (IUP) outlining in detail how it
will use all the funds covered by the capitalization grant. The State
may, as an alternative, develop the IUP in a two part process with one
part identifying the distribution and uses of the funds among the
various set-asides in the DWSRF program and the other part dealing with
project assistance from the Fund.
    (2) Biennial Report: The State must agree to complete and submit a
Biennial Report on the uses of the capitalization grant. The scope of
the report must cover assistance provided by the Fund and all other
set-aside activities included under the Capital Grant Agreement. States
which jointly administer DWSRF and Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) programs, in accordance with section 1452(g)(1), may submit
reports (according to the schedule specified for each program) that
cover both programs.
    (3) Annual Audit: A State must comply with the provisions of the
Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996. Best management practices suggest
and EPA recommends that a State conduct an annual independent audit of
its DWSRF program. The scope of the report must cover the DWSRF Fund
and all other set-aside activities included in the Capitalization Grant
Agreement. States which jointly administer DWSRF and CWSRF programs, in
accordance with section 1452(g)(1), may submit audits that cover both
programs but which report financial information for each program
separately.
    (4) Assistance Application Review: Local applicants seeking
financial

assistance must prepare and submit DWSRF loan applications. States then
review completed loan applications and verify that proposed projects
will comply with applicable Federal and State requirements.
    As a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed by
the President on February 17, 2009, the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund received an additional $2 billion in funding for assistance
agreements for projects to be under contract or construction by
February 17, 2010. EPA expects an estimated two-fold increase of
respondents (in some years) due to this additional funding.
    Burden Statement: The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is estimated to average 2,410 hours per
State and 80 hours per local respondent (including Indian Tribes and
Alaska Native Villages) annually. Burden means the total time, effort,
or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.
This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimate total number of potential respondents: 1,887 per year.
    Frequency of response: Annual (for Capitalization Grants and
Audits), On Occasion (for Biennial reports and Loan Applications).
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
One.
    Estimated total annual burden hours per response: 134.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 269,797.
    Estimated total annual costs: $10,639,932, which includes $0
capital/operation & maintenance cost.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 72,927 hours in
the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This reflects EPA's calculation of the burden
hours resulting from a possible two-fold increase in local respondents
and ongoing programmatic implementation needs due to additional funds
from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009.

    Dated: February 16, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-3519 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P